Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 04-19-20171 of 25ProposedMinutes Meeting of April 19, 2017 Approved Minutes Planning Commissi on Meeti ng April 1 9, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners Jim Kovach, Julie Witt, Bryan Oakley, David Witte and Kira Vanderlan MEMBERS ABSENT: Donovan Saba STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barb Thomson, Senior Planner Marie Darling, Planner Kip Berglund and Community Development Director Steve Juetten 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 Vanderlan, to approve the April 19, 2017 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 5, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Kovach, to approve the consent agenda. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. KEN HEYDA DESIGN LLC (2017010) (Continued /ram the April 5, 2017 meeting.) Chair Anderson introduced the request by Ken Heyda Designs LLC for a preliminary plat and variance for "Garland Meadows" to allow the subdivision of a 0.83 acre parcel located at 1415 Garland Lane North. Planner Berglund gave an overview of the staff report. 5A 2 of 25ProposedMinutes Meeting of April 19, 2017 Chair Anderson stated that it seems the new lot being created is in a hole and asked if there are any elevation issues with the nearby wetland. Planner Berglund stated that there is indication and evidence of a wetland, which has been delineated. He said that there are times throughout the year where there is standing water on a portion of the property. He noted that staff has included conditions in the attached resolution that would require additional information related to the drainage concerns prior to the issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Witte referenced a privacy fence and asked if that issue has created any title issues or whether an easement was created. Planner Berglund replied that the neighboring property owners have worked with the property owner and are aware of the condition that the existing privacy fence needs to be removed as a result of the project and before the issuance of a building permit. Chair Anderson introduced the applicant, Ken Beyda, 200 Niagara Lane, who stated that he is requesting to split the lot in order to build two single family homes. He stated that his intent is to leave the foundation of the existing home and build up from that. Chair Anderson continued the public hearing. Chair Anderson introduced Diane Krump, 1410 Garland Lane, who stated that the neighbors know the previous owner of the existing home and noted that the existing foundation has damage. She stated that the existing home is on the highest point of the lot and therefore if there is damage there, the neighbors are concerned there would be water issues for any home constructed. She noted that the proposed homes would be twice the size of the existing homes, which were built in the 1950s and did not feel the new modem homes would fit into the neighborhood. She stated that the intent of the zoning district is to maintain the larger lots and as neighbors, they do not feel that the request and variance request meet the intent of the zoning district. She stated that as neighbors they want to live in the neighborhood and the larger more expensive homes would change the nature of the neighborhood. She referenced sections of the city code which she felt did not match with the intent of the request and noted that the proposed lots would not meet the minimum requirements. She provided historical information on a lot split that was done in 1981 across the street from the subject property. She noted that property had sufficient land to split the lot equally to meet the minimum requirements but for some reason one lot was 39 square feet short of the minimum requirements. She noted that lot split was for family members and the new home that was constructed still fits within the character of the other homes in the neighborhood. She stated in that case the family members built a home that they still live in whereas this request is simply for the applicant to build two new large homes that would be sold for profit. She said she did not feel that the applicant has met the criteria necessary to obtain a variance. She said she was submitting a petition from over 30 people in the neighborhood requesting that the City not approve the variance. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. 3 of 25ProposedMinutes Meeting of April 19, 2017 Planner Berglund provided details on the conditions that would be included with the resolution requiring the applicant to provide additional information on drainage. He noted that the applicant would need to prove that the existing home and the newly proposed lot would not cause additional drainage problems for the existing neighborhood. He noted that the existing foundation would be reviewed as part of the building pennit process. Planning Manager Thomson reviewed the comments about whether or not the new homes would fit in with the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood. She stated that the term reasonable use of the property" does not have a precise definition and provided further clarification on how that term is reviewed by city staff. She stated that the conclusion of staff is that the request would be reasonable but acknowledged that reasonable people can disagree. She stated that the lots would not meet the minimum standards and that is why the variance was requested. She noted that there would be conditions in place that would ensure all elements of concern are addressed and safeguarded before a building permit would be issued. Chair Anderson noted that a final plat would also be required, and the required details would need to be met before that approval would be granted. Commissioner Witte referenced the lot split that occurred with the property across the street and asked if that is being used as a basis for considering the variance for this lot or whether there are smaller lots in the neighborhood already in existence. Planner Berglund stated that the lots in this area were created in 1949 and reviewed the minimum criteria in place at that time. He stated that the majority of the lots meet or exceed those requirements. He also stated that he found the resolution from 1981 which approved the lot split for the property across the street, noting that lot split did not have a variance request. He further noted that both of those lots met the minimum width requirements but would not meet the half acre requirement. He noted that there are no other examples in the immediate area that would not meet the minimum requirements. Commissioner Witte stated that an issue was raised regarding the character of the new homes and whether they would architecturally fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Beyda stated that the designs proposed are what people want, which are cottage type styles, and provided an example sketch. He stated that as a builder you need to build what people want. He stated that people do not want to buy a 1950's rambler style home right now in this market. He stated that people want a bigger home with a three-car garage. He stated that he is attempting to bring the roof lines down to one and a half stories rather than full blown two story homes. He stated that by splitting the lot he is able to build two smaller homes rather than just one large home, which would be more affordable and in tune with the neighborhood. Commissioner Witt asked the price range of the proposed homes and the homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Beyda estimated the home values to be between $600,000 and $800,000. He noted that the existing home he purchased sold for $245,000. 4 of 25ProposedMinutes Meeting of April 19, 2017 Ms. Krump stated has a close friend who is arealtor in Plymouth and noted that there is more of a demand for the smaller-sized homes right now as the market is full for the larger homes. She stated that there are plenty of neighborhoods in Plymouth where those large homes could be built and would fit. She stated that the family that recently moved into the neighborhood has a one- car garage. Commissioner Oakley said he appreciated the comments from Ms. Krump. He stated that some of the concerns she raised also caused him pause. He noted that it is common to see new homes replacing old homes, and drainage concerns can be alleviated with proper design. He stated there is not a method in which the lot can be split in order to meet the minimum requirements, and therefore the variance criteria would need to be met in order to obtain a variance. He noted that the owner of the property was aware of the lot size when he purchased the property. He stated that the variance is based solely on economic considerations and therefore said he felt that he could not support the request. He stated if there was additional land and the lot could be split into lots that would meet the minimum requirements, he would be able to support the request. Commissioner Witte stated that he agreed with the comments of Commissioner Oakley. MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Witte, to deny the request by Ken Beyda Designs LLC for a preliminary plat and variance for "Garland Meadows" to allow the subdivision of a 0.83 acre parcel located at 1415 Garland Lane North. Commissioner Witt stated that we don't have homes in Plymouth that can be new homes for new home buyers. She noted that kids who grew up here cannot afford to buy here and raise their families here. She acknowledged that new housing is market driven, but that homes cannot always be in the upper brackets. She said she worried that we don't have homes in the $300,000 range. She said the city lacks diversity in housing. She recommended that we don't pass this variance and asked the builder to continue to look at this lot and to be one of those few builders that can be able to bring young families to the community. Commissioner Vanderlan stated that she appreciated Ms. <rump's concerns. She said now that the northwest part of the city is built out, we are seeing that older areas are subject to teardowns and rebuilds. She reminded everyone that Plymouth has a robust housing and redevelopment program that is focused on affordable housing. She stated that she agrees with all the concerns raised, including the pricing of the homes. She said it would be ideal if Mr. Beyda could work with the City's housing and redevelopment program to build more affordable homes. Vote. 5 Ayes, 1 Nay (Anderson voting Nay). MOTION approved. B. PLYMOUTH HOTEL GROUP, LLC (2017019) Chair Anderson introduced the request by Plymouth Hotel Group, LLC for a preliminary plat, site plan, conditional use permit and variances for a Home2 Suites by Hilton on property located at 3000 Harbor Lane. Planner Berglund gave an overview of the staff report. 5 of 25ProposedMinutes Meeting of April 19, 2017 Commissioner Oakley stated that the entrance on the proposed site plan looks different from what is shown on the existing conditions survey. He said he did not find anything in the attached resolution requiring the entrance to remain in its current location. Planner Berglund replied that there is no condition in the proposed resolution that would require that the entrance remain in its current location and noted that the applicant could speak to that matter. Commissioner Witte asked where the main entrance to the hotel would be. He asked for additional information on the proposed building height and drive aisle widths. Planner Berglund identified the area on the west side of the building that would be viewed as a main entrance for check-ins and identified another entrance area on the north side that could also be used for access to nearby restaurants. He noted that the applicant could provide additional details on the height. He stated that the fire lane requirement is less than the requirement of the city code for a drive aisle and therefore the proposed width would meet the requirement for fire safety. Chair Anderson asked if there would be rooftop equipment. Planner Berglund noted there is a condition in the proposed resolution requiring any rooftop equipment to be screened. Chair Anderson asked if the applicant is the owner of the Comfort Inn and Lucky 13 restaurant. Planner Berglund replied that he believes the applicant is the owner of both the other facilities. Chair Anderson stated that he visited the site and noticed a semi-tractor trailer in the parking lot and therefore assumed that clients of the Comfort Inn are over-the-road truckers. He stated that his concern would be that the semi-tractor trailer requires nine stalls, which could impact the required parking supply. Planner Berglund stated that he spoke with the applicant, and based on the zoning ordinance requirements there is not a lot of excess parking to allow large vehicle parking and still have sufficient parking. He noted that the applicant can provide additional details and could self- regulate whether that activity is allowed or not, based on the demand at the hotel. Chair Anderson asked about the plans for the head of the cul-de-sac and whether it would be a requirement to be built or would remain as-is. Planner Berglund stated that the cul-de-sac would be completed if and when the property to the north develops. Commissioner Witte referenced the two options for site access and asked how that would be resolved and what would occur with the orientation of the building should the second option be chosen. 6 of 25ProposedMinutes Meeting of April 19, 2017 Planner Berglund stated that staff is recommending that the access remain as shown with a second entrance along Empire Lane. He provided additional details on how the second scenario could occur should a neighboring parcel redevelop in the future. He confirmed that the proposed resolution would support the access as shown. Chair Anderson introduced Jesse Messner, Cities Edge Architects, representing the applicant, who stated that the entrance is very close to the same location on the south side of Harbor Lane with the difference that the curb is extended slightly to the west. He stated that the main entrance to the hotel would be on the west side, while the entrance to the north would be used by guests to access the patio area. He stated that there would be rooftop equipment, as the roof is flat, and stated that the rooftop equipment would be behind the parapet and therefore additional screening would not be necessary. He stated that they would work with city staff if additional screening is desired. Chair Anderson introduced Alex Timm, representing the applicant, who stated that they have thought about the semi parking that occurs currently at the Comfort Inn and as a result they have added stalls to increase the total stall count. He stated that a lot of the corporate users of the proposed hotel would have shared vehicles. He noted that a majority of the parking lot remains vacant, even at almost full capacity because people share vehicles when traveling. He noted that they would also have discretion whether or not to allow semi parking if the demand for parking is high. Commissioner Oaldey stated that the access is currently aligned and noted that he would be concerned that offsetting the entrance might increase problems with the movement of traffic. He asked the thoughts of keeping the entrance in the same location. Mr. Messner stated that the entrance is proposed to be slightly shifted to align and protect vehicles in the porte-cochere. Chair Anderson asked the height of the parapet compared to the flat portion of the roof. Mr. Messner replied that the height varies and identified the lowest portion of the parapet on a sketch. He identified the location of the rooftop equipment and noted that a six-foot person standing on the property line would not have sight lines to the rooftop equipment. Chair Anderson asked if the clientele of the proposed hotel would be similar to the Comfort Inn. Mr. Timm replied that the proposed hotel would be geared more toward corporate users, which would tend to result in more users arriving in shared vehicles. Chair Anderson asked the ratio of over-the-road trnckers that frequent the Comfort Inn. Mr. Timm stated that he was unsure of the ratio but noted that the trailers are often not brought onto the property and truckers shuttle together to the property and therefore do not all have their trucks with them. He provided additional information on the relocation of the sign for the restaurant that would occur as a part of this project. 7 of 25ProposedMinutes Meeting of April 19, 2017 Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Chair Anderson introduced Bev Kottas, 2995 Harbor Lane, who stated that she owns the Goodyear across the street from the proposed hotel. She stated that the Comfort Inn has been a wonderful neighbor throughout the years and has provided them with many customers. She stated she does not object to the use of the site. She stated that her primary concern would be that the traffic study left off the intersection of Fernbrook Lane and Harbor Lane. She stated that her primary concern is between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. when traffic backs up significantly. She stated that adding density would increase the concern. She provided additional comments on the entrance as proposed. She stated that a five-story hotel would change the character of the area as they prefer the two-story level of the Comfort Inn. She reiterated that the traffic concern would be increased with the additional density. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Planning Manager Thomson noted that engineering staff can further review the proposed plans before the item moves forward to the City Council. Planner Berglund stated that the Pembrook Lane and Harbor Lane intersection was part of the traffic study. He said that the study found the intersection functions at an acceptable level today, and that this development would not impede the function. Chair Anderson referenced the traffic study and noted that a B rating was shown. He further noted that with such a short street, it could affect stacking but acknowledged that it would move fairly quickly. Commissioner Oakley stated that it appeared that the stacking issue was more of a concern for vehicles trying to access the street. Chair Anderson acknowledged that the layout of the roads can be a bit confusing coming from Emola Motorsports onto Harbor Lane and noted that perhaps a stop sign or additional signage could be installed. Planning Manager Thomson noted that engineering staff could review the plans to determine if changes would be necessary prior to this application going to the City Council. Chair Anderson noted that this is a very creative plan, as he would not have identified this site as a location for a five-story hotel. He stated that the location does appear to work and therefore this seems to be a good application. MOTION by Commissioner Witte, seconded by Commissioner Witt, to approve the request by Plymouth Hotel Group, LLC for a preliminary plat, site plan, conditional use permit and variances for a Home2 Suites by Hilton on property located at 3000 Harbor Lane. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. C. SKY ZONE (2017028) 8 of 25ProposedMinutes Meeting of April 19, 2017 Chair Anderson introduced the request by Sky Zone for a conditional use pennit to allow an indoor commercial recreation use within an existing industrial building located at 1005 Berkshire Lane. Planner Berglund gave an overview of the staff report. Chair Anderson introduced David Hustrulid, the applicant, who stated that they decided to move from their current location and found a new location. He stated that because they had to go through this conditional use permit process, he did not sign the lease and there is now another person interested in the space and therefore the request may be moot. Chair Anderson stated that he hoped the business would be able to stay in Plymouth. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing and closed the public hearing as there was no one present who requested to speak on this item. MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Kovach, to approve the request by Sky Zone for a conditional use permit to allow an indoor commercial recreation use within an existing industrial building located at 1005 Berkshire Lane. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. MATTHEW DUNN (2017022) Chair Anderson: We have a variance application here and this is from Matthew Dunn. A variance to allow a second accessory building of over 120 square feet in area and 28 feet in height on the property located at 4130 Juneau Lane. Marie Darling will be presenting. Marie? Senior Planner Darling: Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. The subject property is located at 4130 Juneau Lane, which is just north of Rockford Road. The adjacent properties are all developed with single family homes. The applicant constructed the building, this building, in the back yard of his property after calling the City of Plymouth to ask if treehouses require permits. The City was notified of the construction by complaint. The accessory building is 28 feet in height and about 400 square feet in area. The building platform is about 11 feet above grade and is bracketed to some of the trees and also built on posts. This is the applicant's second accessory building over 120 square feet. The other accessory building is a roughly 400 square foot detached garage. Section 21120 of the Zoning Ordinance allows only one accessory building over 120 square feet and Section 21355 limits the height of buildings over 120 square feet to 15 feet. Approval of the variance request allows the applicant the ability to keep the structure on the property and denial would require them to remove it. 9 of 25ProposedMinutes Meeting of April 19, 2017 Staff has reviewed the application based on the standards in the Zoning Ordinance and has found that while some of the conditions have been met, other conditions have not. I'd like to discuss a few of those standards. First off, staff has found that the property is 3.5 acres and at that size, it may be reasonable to allow the construction of a second accessory building over 120 square feet. However, staff finds that the applicant has not demonstrated any circumstances unique to the property, specifically that there is nothing, there are no circumstances that would require a 28 foot tall accessory building. The height variance, we further find, could be reduced or eliminated by placing the building on the ground and altering the roof loft area. Staff also finds, because the accessory building is taller than typical accessory buildings found in suburban neighborhoods, it could alter the essential character of the locality and be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood due to the uncharacteristic height. In conclusion, staff finds that the applicant has not established there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance and recommends denial of the application. Staff has received two letters of support for approving the variance from adjacent neighbors. Those letters are in front of you this evening, one attached to your staff report and one that was received later and are now part of the public record. I thank you for your attention this evening and would stand for any questions you may have. Chair Anderson: Questions for Marie? Okay, at this point we would like to have the applicant come up for his comments. Mr. Dunn? Planning Manager Thomson: Mr. Dunn, if you have anything you'd like to put on the overhead, you may want to speak from the other. Matthew Dunn: I don't at this time, thank you Barb. Good evening Plymouth Commissioners, Mr. Chair Anderson. Thank you for your time tonight, for your commitment to the City. I love the City very much and have been here my whole life. My name is Matt Dunn. I live at 4130 Juneau Lane North in Plymouth. I thank you for your time this evening to help, hopefully, clear up a misunderstanding that I've been working with solving with the kind people at the Planning Commission, or Division, excuse me. I moved into this home three years ago, in August of this year, and since then I've done multiple projects to the home. Each time, I've followed the same procedure. I've gone onto the Plymouth City's, City of Plymouth's website to look at Zoning Codes for anything I was working on. Then ifl found something, or even ifl didn't find something, I called the City and asked to speak with the right department and followed up to see if those questions, ifl was doing things appropriately. Proposed Minutes 10 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 This past summer, in about June, I decided it would be fun, because I'm a bit of an adult child, to build a treehouse. I looked, again, followed the same procedure, looked on-line, didn't see anything about treehouses. I have a friend who's knowledgeable in this area look as well, and then I proceeded to call and I was connected with a nice gentleman, Dan Wallin. The conversation was as such, I asked if there was permits required for a treehouse and he said, 'no.' I, just to kind of confirm, I said, 'so, no permits needed for a treehouse.' And, he said, 'that's correct.' The I asked if he could think of anything else that I might need to know for constructing a treehouse and he mentioned things such as don't build it on a neighbor's property line, make sure it's not going to be up and peeping into a neighbor's window, something of that nature. I thought those were good points. So, I thanked him for his time and I concluded the, ended the call. I then went to Google and typed in treehouses and I think, I don't know if Barb, or pardon me, if Marie, did you distribute any of those? Or, is that just one? Okay, there are some images that you'll see if you Google, that's basically what all of the images look like when you go to Google for treehouses. That's kind of what's being built across America. So, I looked at some of those pictures for ideas and then referenced a popular television show. If any of you have heard of Treehouse Masters, it's been on the air for six years. In fact, when people come over to my house now they go, 'hey, did the Treehouse Masters guys do that?' So, that was what, in my mind, was the popular idea of what was a treehouse when I was calling the City. At the end of the 5-month construction and then kind of as the snow flew, tapered off. It's probably 98% done. I have one side to paint yet. Then I got a knock on the door. I believe it was in January, I'm not positive, from someone frqm the Planning Department of Housing Authority indicating that a neighbor had called and complained about an eight-inch tall ice rink that I was putting in the front part of the property to do broomball and also had complained about the treehouse. I, obviously, expressed at that time some confusion saying that I had called up and asked. The conversation was polite, didn't last too long. As soon as that was done, I went into my files and I found the name of the gentleman I spoke with, Dan Wallin. I had written that down and I called up Dan and repeated, I asked if he remembered me and he said, 'yes.' I asked if, I repeated the conversation that I thought we had had and he said, 'yes, I don't, that's the conversation we have, or did have, but what you constructed is not a treehouse.' Then we began the fun conversation, that Barb and I have had before, of what is a treehouse. It is my recollection that Dan couldn't quite answer that at that time and I think he may have consulted with some staff. And, it was brought to my attention that when something is not in the Code book, that the Code book says to go to Webster Dictionary to look for the definition. Then the definition was presented to me, 'a small house built among the branches of a tree.' I was told that I did not meet that definition because I was, the treehouse is next to a tree and not up in the branches 11 of 25ProposedMinutes Meeting of April 19, 2017 and that I was using multiple trees for support. And, as Marie mentioned, it is resting on five trees and I'll talk more about that. The City, at that time, seemed very adamant about, 'hey, this is our definition. If you met that definition, everything would be, you know, maybe a-okay. But, unfortunately you don't meet that definition.' I, being a creative person, said, 'is there anything that, you know, is there any way we can look at this to make it meet that definition. For example, the railings around the treehouse are made of the branches of a tree.' And I said, 'therefore, wouldn't this be a small house built among the branches of a tree.' That was rejected. I asked ifl could maybe staple some branches of a tree to the house to see if that would solve the problem. That was rejected. I asked if removing the legs, the additional support legs, and kind of attaching those to trees would solve the problem. That wasn't going to work. Then I simply posed the question of again, 'this is something you say you do allow. There are no permits. Is there something we can do to solve ourselves time, the Committee's time, taxpayer dollars time?' At that time, as I recall, the city said, 'I think it would be best if we have the City Attorney answer this question.' I did propose that to him and he responded by saying, 'the City is requesting you get a variance and a building permit.' And, I politely said, 'Well, that wasn't my question. My question was, in the realm of creativity, is there something we can do to make everybody happy. Could we paint it, could we add more branches, could we remove the legs, anything of that nature?' And, his response was, 'you can tear it down.' Which, again, added to my confusion of if something is allowed, how, how can that be that we can't figure out a way to solve this. My attorney is a nice gentleman. He is the city attorney for Golden Valley. He started digging through the Code book to see if he could find some information. He found information in the Code book that said this is indeed not an accessory structure and that, therefore, it would be a treehouse. We presented the City Attorney of Plymouth with that infonnation and he responded and didn't address the points we had found out of Code book. He just simply just said, 'do what we want you to do.' I'll paraphrase, 'do what we want you to do or you can remove the structure.' Basically, at this point, it was just very confusing for me. I know there was that definition. Ifyou think about that, a small house built among the branches of a tree. It simply is lacking an exorbitant amount of infonnation. It really doesn't even provide, almost provides no information, in fact, because it, especially when you're dealing with something with children, and/or adult children, it doesn't give any safety parameters, building plans, I mean, just nothing. It would be like saying a deck is an elevated platform next to a house. You can see how that could be confusing. In the realm of, hey this is, I mean somewhat humorous, is the Planning Department was saying this is not a treehouse because it's not up in the branches, it's not high enough, but I'm here today requesting a variance because it's too tall. 12 of 25ProposedMinutes Meeting of April 19, 2017 At one point, also, just maybe out of a little frustration, in some meetings I would say, 'well is a permit required for a treehouse, even though we've answered that question.' But then I would get someone that would say, 'well, sometimes a permit is needed.' So it started off with there isn't one, maybe there is, it just was very confusing to me. Safety-wise, I do have a structural engineer that has already signed off on the structure. He's reviewed it and he's ready to present a heavy packet of information to the City Council when I go there that says this is structurally sound, it was very well built, and he's ready to absorb any liability that would be associated with such. The property itself used to have horses, if you recall that, so it is fenced-in in the back yard so I don't think it would attract a lot of people wandering in. Also, from the lot, you may notice, of course, it's a very private lot, very heavily wooded. Structurally, to get back to the safety of the treehouse, as Marie mentioned it is anchored actually to five trees and we purchased the anchorage from treehouse.com, surprising. And, what it is, is arms that come out of the treehouse, or pardon me, a tree. You screw them in. It was quite difficult to do. And then the treehouse rests on those arms so that, therefore, if the house, or the trees were to move, the house doesn't. It stays very stationary. It's a very clever design. So, we have five of those. Those are rated at 10,000 pounds each. So, 50,000 pounds, which would be the equivalent of 16 cars parked on top of the deck of the treehouse. And, that does not count the additional 14 posts that I added on there just for additional safety. In comparison, my deck, which I would say is quite large, has 7 posts. The structure does, but I think it may say in Marie's report, that it didn't, maybe there might have been some feeling it didn't blend in well with the area. I took a great deal of time to make sure I made it almost disappear by using the colors of a tree and pulling those out of the tree with color swatches. And, I painted it a three- color treatment to actually try to camouflage it. There's three colors going on there. The pitch of the roof matches my house. The shingles match the color of my house, and the color is very close and it will be pretty darn close this summer when I repaint the house. I would just simply ask today that the Committee, I realize that this is an odd subject, it doesn't maybe meet some of the variance points, but I would request that you grant this request today that I'm making. It's been nothing but just an unfortunate, I think, misunderstanding. It's something that doesn't have a strong definition. There is no permit required for this. I was told it was okay to build this. It is away from neighbors. It's a very unique property. It's in the middle of the yard. I have been blown away by the kindness and sweetness of many of my adjacent neighbors who have said, two submitted letters, one is here tonight, two are here tonight, excuse me. And, I know at least one is here tonight saying, 'hey, we're okay with it. It looks fine.' The other two neighbors behind me, that would 13 of 25ProposedMinutes Meeting of April 19, 2017 be to the east that are a little farther away, in two little white houses, I knocked on their door and they said, 'hey, we think it's great. It's cute. You know, can the grandkids come see it?' It's going to be used for play and relaxation purposes. That's exactly what it was made for. I like my privacy, which is why Imoved into that house. I like having that privacy. In conclusion, I did intend for this to be a treehouse. That's what I wanted. I could see ifl had built a garage and it was two-feet off the ground and next to a tree and I had eight collector cars in there and I said, 'no, no, it's a treehouse.' You'd say, 'yeah, right.' This, I think, passes the sniff test. It looks like a treehouse, it smells like a treehouse, you know, it matches the pictures that you see on-line. Also, I'm a little familiar with the ask for forgiveness model and it's not one I believe in. I don't like to see that and I think that this would prove, as well, from what I built that it just doesn't, that wouldn't have been a logical thing to do. Ifyou put a shed on your property and it's 10 feet over the square footage, you go, well, I wouldn't do this, but if you say, 'hey, you know, no one's going to measure it. How would anybody know.' Obviously, building this structure in my backyard, all the neighbors saw it go up for over the course of five months. No one was hiding this. It would be at extreme cost to take it down and remove it. To be honest with you, I'm a little embarrassed to be here tonight because I have two businesses that I run and my name is associated with each of them. I don't like the idea that I did something wrong, or Matt Dunn is trying to sneak around the system and didn't want to get the proper permits. Because one of my businesses, I mean, that's what my reputation is. My good name. I was horrified that the letters went out to my neighbors saying I wanted special permission for something. Again, I just feel like this has been an unfortunate misunderstanding. I thank you very much for your time, for listening, your understanding, and your willingness to try to make this work. Chair Anderson: Thank you Mr. Dunn. Questions from the Commission for Mr. Dunn? Commissioner Oakley: I have a question. It was interesting that you quoted Treehouses.com. I did some research on Treeehouses.com and they define a treehouse as being supported primarily by trees. As I look at the photos, it looks like there's a lot of posts there. Do you have a feel for what percentage of the load is supported by the trees compared to the posts? Mr. Dunn: Sure. I don't know what that is. I have a retired friend of mine that helped construct this with me. And, as he would say, he'll love watching this video, is, 'oh, Mr. Dunn, no, no, no. We, there's something in this City called snow load and we want to be extra certain that this thing is not coming down and we've got to put some legs on this for extra safety purposes.' I think when we had chatted a few weeks ago, somewhere I recall him saying, 'the nubs in the tree will do it but let's be safe 14 of 25ProposedMinutes Meeting of April 19, 2017 and let's put these legs on.' That was one of my suggestions to the City as well, I'm saying, 'could I remove the legs?' I think I was saying, 'if you want them off the ground and want me to move them in at a 45 and use one of these tree brackets again to anchor them to the tree so it's not touching the ground, I'd be happy to do that in a creative sense.' Chair Anderson: I have a question. You talked about. a definition in Webster about a treehouse being in the branches of a tree and here you are more on the trunk of the tree. If you were to put this structure in the branches of these same trees, how much higher would it have to be? Mr. Dunn: I think, is, Marie, is that one pie, that individual picture I had that took up the whole page. Do you have that one? I mean, it's a pretty ridiculous photo. Right, so that would be an example of meeting the definition. And, I've said, I've showed that to a couple people, I showed that to somebody who's on the City Council who'll, I won't say who, but I said, 'do you, would you have any interest in·going up into that.' And without blinking, 'no.' And, neither would I and I kind of like heights. So that would be more the definition of what currently exists, which obviously is not something I would want myself or a child playing in. Chair Anderson: So the trees are quite tall and to put it up in the branches of the tree, it would be much, much higher than it currently is and, well, we don't have a number. Mr. Dunn: Yes. Ah, high. Commissioner Kovach: I was curious, during your conversations with the City, in my mind, I didn't go on treehouse.com or watch the program, but I consider a treehouse, if you asked me, it would be something for a little kid to play in with a rope hanging down, or whatever. Something to that effect. My concern, and I'm lost in some of the reading here, that during your conversations with the City, was your size ever discussed with the City? How big it was going to be? Mr. Dunn: Thank you. That questions was not brought up because I think it would be similar to the builder that was here this evening who said, 'I don't know what it's going to look like because the, I don't know what the client wants.' I didn't know at that time what I wanted and that's why I went to Google to then kind of researched images and see what would be conducive to the area. In hindsight, I look back and say, 'boy, I should have gone down and showed pictures and dimensions.' And I should have done that. Commissioner Kovach: That leads to my second question. Because you have your sketches of how the square footage and so on and so forth, which is extremely larger and through your investigation with the City Codes, over 120 square feet, this is way over 120 square feet. So, I would have imagined you thought, 'oh, oh, this is bigger than 120 square feet. I probably need to go talk to the City before I construct this thing.' Proposed Minutes 15 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Mr. Dunn: If l may. I was more on the search for what's needed for a treehouse because it's going to be, tree anchorage, I didn't think to, I was thinking treehouse. What do you need for a treehouse. And, I would think that as a layperson on Codes and such, when I was calling to inquire with Mr. Wallin that that would be precisely the infonnation he would say. 'Well a treehouse, let's say, is an accessory structure. Make sure it doesn't go too high because obviously a treehouse, we're putting it up in a tree. Don't put it too high. Square footage-wise, don't go over this. If you have more than one accessory structure, you can't have more than one.' That was precisely the information that I was calling about. Commissioner Kovach: Okay, then I think it's a lesson learned from both sides that we need to be more diligent on both sides of asking questions. 'Well, how big are you thinking of going?' Or, if you have any sketches, maybe you do need something. But, as far as how big it is, as a civil engineer myself, you know, I would have considered, okay, this is going to be pretty huge. More considered, I would have actually have tried to choose, typically, this is what we need to do. This is, now to me, is a house. A house in a tree, yes, but it's an elevated house if you ask me. Mr. Dunn: Ifl may, as well, to address that. In my mind, I was thinking, hey, we've got a television show that's been on the air for six years. We have a couple famous treehouses here in Minnesota as well. I though, when I'm asking for treehouse, that's what was in my mind. I thought that's kind of the latest. If you Google treehouses, it's pretty wild. That's what I was asking for and looking for more information. Commissioner Kovach: And, again, I think it's a lesson learned from both sides to be, what is your definition of a treehouse versus not a treehouse. I mean, I don't think, in my personal opinion from reading, I don't think that was really there. The communication wasn't there. What is actually a treehouse, what is not a treehouse. And, again, if I'm going to build a treehouse, if I was the City Engineer, what's a treehouse, I'm thinking of, I see somebody by (unintelligible) Church, there's a little treehouse there. They've got like a 25 square foot place. But I would not imagine this. I mean, again, I might be out of sync in what treehouses are and I don't watch that much TV about this type of stuff, but, you know, that's just me. Mr. Dunn: Thank you. Chair Anderson: Okay, any more questions for Mr. Dunn? Commissioner Witt: Yeah, just one more question. You're obviously a bright businessman that runs businesses. I would really challenge you that when you called the City, that you would think whoever answered on the other phone, that they would think when you said, 'do I need a pennit to build a treehouse?' I think if you did a survey amongst all the people in this room, we would all think of a child's treehouse. Right or wrong. And yes, I've seen that treehouse. And, there was this great big treehouse off of, very close to Calhoun, down there, and they had to take it down. Planning Manager Thomson: (inaudible) Boulevard. Proposed Minutes 16 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Commissioner Witt: Yes, exactly. And, that was a really big deal and they had to take that down. Mr. Dunn: I believe it fell down. Commissioner Witt: No, they had to take it down. Mr. Dunn: The one in St. Louis Park? Commissioner Witt: Yeah, it was there for years though. This is really cool but I think this is what our challenge is. Is that you set a precedence. This is the size of a small lake cabin. This is not a treehouse. This is not a screen porch. You have a loft. Cool, like really cool. But I just don't think it fits into the plan of the City. I mean, you know, we're here saying you probably shouldn't park an RV in the driveway or have sheds here or whatever. And I think if we were to say, 'this is really neat and you get to do it,' my fear is what have we opened ourselves up to. And so for that reason, I think I'm going to have to say, 'no, I don't support it.' But I really would, when you leave tonight, question yourself. Did you really not think that whoever you were talking to, and I would agree with my fellow Commissioner, when you think of a treehouse you think of a treehouse. This is like a little home, which is great but, so I don't think I'm going to be able to support it. Sorry. Chair Anderson: I'm a little concerned that we are moving into discussion when we haven't heard all the testimony on this matter. This is the section where we just ask questions of the applicant. So, if we have questions of Mr. Dunn, then let's do that and I have a couple of blue cards here that I'd like to get to before we move into any discussion on this. Any questions more of Mr. Dunn? Commissioner Vanderlan: Thank you, yes. Mr. Dunn, I have a question about the electrical in this. Who did the electrical? A skilled electrician? My concern is the fire safety being in the middle of the forest, you know, and dried leaves there. Can you tell me about that? Mr. Dunn: Sure. I did it myself. I have, it's not finished. It's currently run off of a carnival SO cord so it's just plugged into the exterior of the house. It was, more or less at the time, to get some light in there to kind of finish construction. I do have the little lanterns on there. Eventually I would have pulled a permit to have gotten that done properly. Commissioner Vanderlan: Do you have training, background in the electrical? Mr. Dunn: I don't. Commissioner Vanderlan: Okay, thank you. Chair Anderson: Okay, other questions? All right, thank you Mr. Dunn. Proposed Minutes 17 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Mr. Dunn: Thank you. Commissioner Witte: I've got a question for you Mr. Dunn. This issue came up as two accessory structures over 400 square feet. Mr. Dunn: Yes sir. Commissioner Witte: And, so you have a garage that's detached. Maybe you should attach that, take the top floor off this, come back, and maybe we could consider it if it was, as an accessory structure within the framework of the ordinance. Mr. Dunn: To connect my garage to the house? Is that what you're saying? Commissioner Witte: That's one way to have just one accessory structure. Ifthis is your priority. Mr. Dunn: Sure. That idea was presented to me. I do like that idea if, if before, I don't know if you're able, before you vote, if you're able to. Commissioner Witte: No, you'd have to deal with this independently. But, I'm just saying you'd have to change the finqydible/ facts?? @ 2:13' into meeting. But, that might be something. You've got a height issue. You've got a square footage issue. Chair Anderson: Again, we're moving into discussion. Okay, any other questions? Thank you. Mr. Dunn: Thank you. Chair Anderson: It does raise one question though, your comment there Commissioner, for staff. Which is, the application is for a second accessory building. If he was to follow that suggestion and attach the garage to the house, I understand they're pretty close, and then suddenly this becomes the first accessory structure. What does that do to what we're talking about here? Senior Planner Darling: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, the property owner does have an attached three-car garage so we would have to look very closely at the size of the two together if you wanted to attach them together. I, because it is detached from the garage, to lift it up and attach that garage over, I think it would be a bit of a challenge. I mean, that would take some, that would also take some work too. Chair Anderson: Just so I understand Marie, you're talking about the existing detached garage that there would be, you would have to jack it up to? Senior Planner Darling: It is not connected to the existing house. Chair Anderson: Could you connect it with an enclosed hallway? A Code approved? I did go out because I wanted to see this. Proposed Minutes 18 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Senior Planner Darling: There are several issues that would come into play. First, detached accessory buildings are required to have footings. A main house would be so if you connect the two of them, that could be a challenge there in how that would work by Code because now you'd have a slab connected to a main house. Then you're also supposed to have your home constructed on a continuous perimeter foundation so that would also be a challenge as far as the Zoning Code. Chair Anderson: Those are technical details that Mr. Dunn would have to solve if he wants to go in that direction. I'm just trying to understand that. Is this variance application because it is a second structure? A second accessory structure? And if it became the first accessory structure, does that change what we're talking about here? Senior Planner Darling: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, that absolutely would change what we're talking about. He would only need one variance and that would be towards height. If somehow he removed the garage from the property or attached it to the house assuming the two of them together would be under 1,000 square feet. Planning Manager Thomson: And, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, and Marie correct me ifl'm wrong, but he would also have to demonstrate that with that number of garages that they would still be secondary to the main part of the home. Is that correct? Under the Code? Senior Planner Darling: Yes. Chair Anderson: I have two blue cards on this matter. I have one from Rich Walsko. Is he, are you here? You can approach either microphone and do state your name and address at the mic so we have that for the recording. Rich Walsko: Sure, my name is Rich Walsko. My wife and I live at 4210 Juneau Lane, on the north side of Matt's property. We have lived there, this year will be 32 years. Our property size is about the same size, I believe almost exactly, as the size of Matt's property. I've known Matt for three years now. Matt is, has made a lot of improvements, very nice improvements, in the way of landscaping, on the front portion of that property. He's put in a stone gate at the front of the property and it's an electric gate. He's done a lot of plantings in the way of bushes and shrubs. He's built a small deck over the pond that is on the property. All of these things look very nice and good. However, I do have to object to this. And I'm sure Matt probably figured out who questioned the structure. Okay, I see it more than anybody else, other than Matt. It's fine and good as far as the color and everything else and attaching branches as railing; however, it is still an illegal structure no matter what and no pennit was ever pulled for it. From what I see of it, it is sitting on posts, on 8-10-foot high posts, and then two stories above that. I don't know if the City has verified the exact height of it. I know the variance asks for 24 feet but I heard it mentioned that it's 28 feet tall. I don't know who built the Proposed Minutes 19 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 structure. I don't know, it obviously wasn't a contractor. A contractor, I assume, would know to come to the City and get a permit or at least show them the plans. So, obviously, you know, it's a nice structure, but we're looking at the narrow side of it also, the thinnest side, which is, I assume the front. That's not the side that I see. I think the structure is out of place. I don't know how many of you have treehouses in your house, or on your property, but it's not a typical treehouse. To me it's a small cabin as was said earlier. I mean, that's how I see it. And, it's a freestanding structure. Even though it is bolted to trees, or attached to trees, it is still a freestanding structure. I know it's kind of a play on words when you say treehouse but I think, to me, when someone says, 'I want to build a treehouse,' I think of what was mentioned earlier. A treehouse, that's about a 4 by 4 or 8 by 8 treehouse for kids. This, to me, is not a typical treehouse and I don't know how many structures similar to this, or were like shown on the screen, are there in Plymouth. Those are not typical treehouses, in my opinion. This variance, to me, seems rather excessive. It was mentioned that the second structure should be 15 feet. I thought I saw it in the ordinance as 10 feet and here we're asking for a 24-foot variance plus it says it is 28 feet. Matt said it is 28 feet tall. So, to me this variance seems excessive in terms of height and also the square footage. I was not aware the square footage. I've never been in it. I've never been up close to it. I think it was mentioned. I mentioned earlier about verifying the height of this. What got me really concerned, with a lot of the improvements made on the property, this structure is also advertised on Matt's Airbnb website because he rents four rooms also of his home. To me, mentioning this treehouse, which it is mentioned if you go on Airbnb website as of a week ago, it was on there mentioning the treehouse, that the renters would have access to this treehouse. My concern with that is, who is liable if this is approved? If a child falls off of it? Besides the homeowner being liable, is the City liable? Pretty easy for someone to get injured. I don't know if the railings, if it follows Code at all. Matt said that, you know, an experienced individual built it. I don't know if he's licensed, a licensed carpenter, or what. I think he did a pretty nice job on it but still it's not a legal structure and it doesn't follow the ordinance for the City of Plymouth. As Matt even said, I don't know, maybe it's easier to pay a fine and keep the structure but it seems like it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission, as was said earlier. So, I just find it hard to believe that a businessman, or a typical homeowner like most of us are, that you're not aware of needing permits and needing licenses or at least communicating with the City with any type of construction, electrical work, plumbing, or whatever. The City also always needs to know. I had a roof done and some windows put in and I know permits had to be pulled for that. Proposed Minutes 20 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 I regret brining this up and I'm sure, like I said, Matt probably figured out who called the City and questioned some of this. Matt's been a good neighbor. We haven't had any problems; however, I do object to this structure being here. I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it was needed, other than being an accessory to help rent rooms, 4 rooms. It seems to me the property is turning into a commercial business where rooms are being rented and this is an accessory structure that kids can play on or go in. I just don't think it belongs. I appreciate your time. If you have any questions. Chair Anderson: Thank you Mr. Walsko. Any questions? Okay, I have a blue card from Robert Tucker. You can approach either microphone and state your name and address for the record. Robert Tucker: Yes, please have a map up there. I just want to show where I live so I can say a couple things. My name is Robert Tucker. I reside at 14550 41st Avenue North in Plymouth. I live in the property right here. There's my house, his lot goes the entire length of my property. His back yard starts about here and we have a 225-foot common line between us. That goes along his whole back yard there to the end of the woods. I've lived there for 28 years and put up with some things with the prior owner and Matt has improved that property immensely. I have seen him take care of the front yard, remove older fencing that was falling down, cleaned up the pond. Just last week he was out there with a big crew cleaning up the woods for the first time in 20 years. All the downed trees and branches and some hanging trees that were dangerously hanging above the yard. I'm very pleased with what he's done with the property. He did tell me about his questions and discussions with the City and advised me quite a while ago that he found out that you don't have to have any special pennit for a treehouse but they couldn't give him any specific requirements. I should add that I think this is a beautiful structure. I actually think I'm in clearer view of it than the other neighbor. I look right into the back yard. What I had to put up with for the past 20 years with the previous owner was two horses that were stabled right adjacent to my back yard. I'm not quite sure about what the Codes were on that or what the requirements were or what that was about but I had to sniff horse poop when I'm up there at our fire pit. This brings up another point. My wife and I love being out in the woods. We sit up, we have a fire pit and we set some benches up just adjacent to Matt's property. I've got less than an acre. Matt's got 4 acres. My personal feeling is do we treat 4 acres the same way we treat a half-acre lot or a 1-acre lot? He's got, what, 250 feet of woods in the back of his house. If he can't do anything in that whole area that would help him enjoy the forest, it doesn't seem right to me. We sit up three, four nights a week. Just sit up there and watch the stars and watch the rabbits and the foxes and the deer come by. I know Matt loves the outdoors. Proposed Minutes 21 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 He loves entertaining kids. He's done two fundraisers where he's shared his property with the public. He did one for National Night Out and hauled in national comedians and magicians. He did a Halloween party, both of which were to raise funds for Meals on Wheels. He's not doing this just to be fun. He's doing things for the community. I really respect him for that. As far as the structure's concerned, I think it's a great looking structure. It should be in Home Beautiful. We should be proud of something like that. I've also watched the Treehouse Masters and that's what you see. Yeah, the old definition of four boards at the top of a crick in an old oak tree, that's not there anymore. First of all, everybody realizes that's not safe. So now you've got some of these larger structures. I'm familiar with the one in St. Louis Park. I think that started falling apart and that's why they tore that down, I believe. I think that was mentioned earlier. From what I can see, this is very well designed and we love having it there. I have no problems whatsoever and I, you know from our yard, we have the only view of his back yard on 41st Avenue. It's just us and then there's two houses behind on Glacier that can see it. Other than that, nobody can see this structure except the neighbor to the north, obviously. I personally think, who is this harming? What is the harm? It's a beautiful structure. It looks very well built. If he needs to tweak a thing or two here to make it, you know, get people satisfied, that's fine. My wife and I enjoy seeing it. It's very comforting. It looks great in the woods. Bottom line, he's got four acres there. Let's, you know, let's try and let him enjoy his acreage, which he is paying taxes on. It is a rare situation to have this kind of acreage in Plymouth and to be able to have that wooded acreage. It's a lot of work. It's very costly for those of us that have the trees. I'm sure that, you know, the neighbor and Matt agree with that, because it, we, spend a lot of money taking trees out and making sure it's safe for everybody. I haven't seen any kids on that thing yet. I haven't seen, I really haven't seen anybody on the treehouse yet. But, it looks neat and I personally think and my wife thinks he should be allowed to keep it. I think the City should probably define the rules a little bit better and define what a treehouse actually is. This is something new, I understand that, and probably something that has not really come up in the past. He based his actions, based on what he heard from the City, it smmds like, and I support him and I know my other neighbors who have seen it support the structure as well. I think that is all I've got to say. Appreciate your listening to me. Chair Anderson: Thank you Mr. Tucker. Any questions of Mr. Tucker? I have no other blue cards on this matter. Does anyone wish to address the Commission on it? Mr. Dunn: Mr. Anderson, may I speak again? Chair Anderson: Yes, you may. Proposed Minutes 22 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Mr. Dunn: Thank you. Chair Anderson: Mr. Dunn, state your name again when you get to the mic. Mr. Dunn: Matthew Dunn, 4130 Jtmeau Lane. Thank you Mr. Tucker and thank you, Rich, as well. I think you and Carolyn are lovely and I'm still delighted to be next door to you folks. You've got a nice property over there and are very, very nice people. I just wanted to address some of these points. I do periodically have Airbnb guests and I invite them to go into the garage and play pool and watch TV and if they want to go up in the treehouse, they are welcome to. If that was a concern, they don't have to. It was built for my personal enjoyment. Liability-wise, that's why I have the structural engineer. He's reviewed it. He signed off on it. And, he's saying, I think it's very, very close to Building Code. Some of the railings need to come up a little bit higher but we'll address that as well. I appreciate the points that were made about, maybe I should be smarter. That, that could be. I think what makes sense here is that it would not have made sense to have built something of this cost and size only to have the thought that it would come down. I have a history, as Mr. Tucker pointed out, I put the pillars in the front, I've done events in the front, I've done a lot of things with the property and each time I follow the same procedure. I look at the Code book and try to understand it the best as I can and then proceed to call, hopefully, an expert at the City to give me any additional information. That's precisely how I ended my conversation with Mr. Wallin was, 'anything else you can think of that I might need to know?' I feel like that would have been the time to say things about, 'do you have another accessory structure? How tall is it going to be?' These are the questions, I would think, that an expert would say we need to know that before you proceed. Or, at the very least, you know, this has been going on for about five months. I'm a little surprised that the City of Plymouth, I realize to rewrite the Code book is probably not easy, but I would have thought it would be something simple to put on the website. You know, it's springtime, people are building things. If you're building a treehouse, please stop down with a drawing and some measurements and, so we can review this. That hasn't been done yet. It seems like the same setup, or, I don't know just, 'uncovered manhole on the street for the next person to drop through.' And, there really is still no definition. No one has been able to come back to me and say, 'you know, this is what a treehouse is. You missed it or you weren't listening.' I realize, just in conclusion, again, my name is extremely important to me. It's all I care about. I'm very paranoid about it. I would not have wanted somebody to say, 'oh, he wanted to just ask for forgiveness. This was just a backdoor way of getting. Oh, he should have known that this was big.' I was going off of what my generation has been watching of treehouses and that's what I based this off of. I Proposed Minutes 23 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 would appreciate your vote in a positive manner on this. And, if there is anything I can do to still continue to satisfy folks, that is what I'd like to do. Thank you. Chair Anderson: Thank you. All right, we've had comments from all the blue cards. Barb, was there questions and things that came up in the process here that we should address? Planning Manager Thomson: Mr. Chair, there haven't really been any questions. I think, not really any questions that I have captured. Chair Anderson: All right, we are now to the discussion. We've heard some already. Commissioner Oakley: I'll jump in, Mr. Chair, ifl may. Chair Anderson: Proceed. Commissioner Oakley: There's a lot of gray area here. You know, what's the definition of a treehouse? When do you need a permit? Looking at the requirements for securing a variance, the key one here, I think, is the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner. And, our conclusion in the staff report, is that this hasn't been demonstrated. I don't agree with that. I think the circumstance unique to the property is that Mr. Dunn called and asked a very specific question and got a very specific answer. Now, we could go on and say, 'well, he should have described a larger strncture.' Or, we could say, 'it's actually 51% percent supported by the ground.' I'm not sure what it is. But, the point being, I think hejumped through the hoops that he was supposed to jump through. And, I had a treehouse when I was a kid and it was a platform up in the branches in the trees that was pretty easy to fall off of. My brother fell off and broke his arm. But, if you aren't aware that treehouses look like this now, then you haven't been paying attention and I think that goes for City staff as well as Planning Commissioners and anybody else who's out there. This is not a, it's a unique strncture in Plymouth, perhaps, but it is not a unique structure in society now. I think the City probably needs to address this because this won't be the last one that we see coming up. In everything I've said to this point probably makes it sound like I'm going to vote in favor of it. However, the overriding issue here, I think, is still the neighbor's concern. And, if you had all of your neighbors on board with this, I would support it without hesitation. I have some hesitation here because I feel like the gentleman who spoke has rights for his property as well. And, sometimes trying to balance those things out, it can be challenging for the City. We dropped the ball in some of the instruction that was provided but in the end, I'm really hoping that there can be something that can be worked out to make this save-able. I'm hoping that whatever we decide to do tonight does not say you have to go out tomorrow with a crowbar, or after the City Council meeting I should say. Proposed Minutes 24 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Chair Anderson: We're not making that decision. That's for the City Council. I'll jump in here. I am concerned about a misunderstanding, first of all, to have a citizen call the City, ask questions, and proceed accordingly, and now we're at this point. I'm concerned about that. I think what we've discovered is a gray area and the gray area is called, 'treehouse.' We need a definition of a treehouse in our ordinance. Jumping over to Webster doesn't quite do it for me. To say okay, this would be legal if you put it 40 feet up in the air but now that it's down starting at 12 feet, you know, that doesn't really work for me. So, clearly, the lesson here is that we need some regulation on this and something that talks about the square footage of the structure. I look at this going as variance, is even the right question that we should be addressing here at all. A 10-foot hallway between the existing house and the 3-car garage, suddenly this is the first accessory structure. Now we're looking at a different question. To me, this is a question of a building permit. I am concerned about, are the rails right? Is some kid going to fall off there or something like that? Those are building pennit questions. All the wiring, those are building permit questions. To me the solution is get a building permit on it. You know, to say yes is to say I even agree with the fact that we need a variance here and I'm not sure, you know to me, that has not been fully demonstrated. So, I think we found a lot of gray here and I'm really concerned about having discovered this. Other comments? Planning Manager Thomson: Mr. Chair, I'd just say before you vote, this would be a voice vote. Chair Anderson: Okay. Other questions? Comments? Commissioner Witte: I would just like to thank the neighbors. This is always a difficult situation whether you like it or you don't like it and you continue to be neighbors. Whatever we decide, please look past it and realize that this could be an attractive, playful adventure for you, it might be a nuisance for someone else. And, however this, it takes a lot of courage to stand up and voice concerns in a very diplomatic and civil way, and also in support. So, I would encourage you all to continue to be good neighbors. So, thank you. Chair Anderson. Okay, I think it's time to vote on a motion, which we don't have yet. Commissioner Witte: Mr. Chainnan? Chair Anderson: Yes? Proposed Minutes 25 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Commissioner Witte: I'm going to move that we deny the request for the variance to allow a second accessory structure to remain on the property at 4130 Juneau Lane North, based on the findings in the attached resolution by staff. Commissioner Vanderlan: I'll second. Chair Anderson: Okay, we have a motion and a second for denial of the variance. Any discussion? Planning Manager Thomson: Mr. Chair, just guessing that there might be some divisions here, would you like me to just call the roll instead? Chair Anderson: Yes, let's just call the roll. Planning Manager Thomson: Okay. This is a motion to deny. At thispoint, Planning Manager Thomson called each Commissioner's name: Commissioner Vanderlan: Aye. Commissioner Witte: Aye. Commissioner Kovach: Aye. Commissioner Witt: Aye. Commissioner Oakley: No. Chair Anderson: No. Okay, we have a recommendation on a split vote but more yeses for denial than nos. Itwas a 4-2 so this matter goes to the City Council on May 9th. But again, stay in touch with staff because the schedules do vary. Thank you all for coming.