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.