I just didn’t know how to. I will now call the meeting to order. Welcome to the June 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission. We will now rise and say the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag. United States of America and to the nation which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Again, if you wish to, uh, uh, have a presentation or otherwise speak to the Planning Commission tonight on any item on the agenda or for the, um, open order. Uh, please fill out one of these cards and bring it to one of the staff members, and I’ll make sure we call on you when the item comes up. Uh, this includes applicants as well. The planning. Welcome to the planning Commission meeting. The planning commissioners or citizen volunteers who serve the pleasure of the mayor and city council. The map here shows where we live and what districts of the city. We represent. Any actions we take tonight will be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council. And the City Council makes final decisions on all matters that come before the commission. I’d like to introduce the staff with us tonight. We have Chris McKenzie from the engineering department. We have Lori Summers next to me. Senior planner Jeff Solomon, an associate planner. Sophie Kucera, associate planner. And we have Sean Drill, senior planner. First item on the agenda is the public forum. This is an opportunity to speak on a matter that is not otherwise on the agenda. This evening we will set aside 15 minutes for people who wish to speak on a matter not otherwise on the agenda. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on a matter that’s not on the agenda this evening, seeing no one coming forward, we will move on. The next item on the agenda is approval of tonight’s agenda. Does anyone have any additions or subtractions from tonight’s agenda? If not, I’ll take a motion to approve. Motion to approve? We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? All in favor, say aye. I say no, no. That’s not a no for me. Next item of the agenda is the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a commissioner, citizen or petition. Or otherwise, to another place on the agenda. And if so, we will move it to another place and take that matter up when it comes up. Does any commissioner wish to remove an item from the consent agenda Is? there anyone in the public who wishes to remove an item from the consent agenda? Hearing no decisions to remove, I’d like a motion to approve. Chairman, I motion to approve the consent agenda. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say no. The motion carries tonight. We have three two items on the for public hearing and one for new business for those meeting for those items, we will follow the following process. We will have staff give a presentation on the item as it comes before us. And commissioners have an opportunity to ask staff questions about that. That item following presentation by staff and discussion by commissioners, we will then ask the applicants to step forward and the applicant may make a presentation if he or she chooses, but otherwise stand for questions that we may have. Once the applicant has had a chance to answer questions, we will then open the public hearing. Or in the case of the new business, give the audience the opportunity to comment on the item before them. Everybody will be given three minutes to comment, but if additional time is needed, please indicate and we’ll decide whether to provide additional time. We will not answer any questions posed during the public forum, but we will take notes in following the public forum, we will attempt to respond to those questions as best we can, or move those questions along if we need others to participate in that. In those answers, once we close the public forum, we will not have any further comments from the audience. The commissioners will then have an opportunity to ask further questions of the staff or of the applicant, and make a decision on how to move this item along. And again, any items that come before us or any decisions we make tonight are in the form of a recommendation to the City Council. With that process in mind, the first item for public hearings is a conditional use permit to allow an oversized detached garage for property located at 5655 Vagabond Lane North, and it looks like SoFi will provide us with the staff report. Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Members of the Commission. Um, as you have said, this is a conditional use permit request for residential property at 5655 Vagabond Lane North to allow a oversized detached garage. Um, a conditional use permit is required to allow a detached garage addition that exceeds 1000ft. Excuse me, exceeds 700ft in the future, restricted Development district. And under this proposal, a 1200 square foot detached garage, about 30 by 40ft would be constructed for personal equipment, storage and storage of personal vehicles. Um, some context of the site here. This is in the vagabond land area. The site is zoned FRD future Restricted Development. It’s a approximately 5.5 acre site, pretty large. Um and the existing home on site was built in 1989. You can see on the right hand side here the proposed site plan, um, the garage edition would be 30 by 40ft with a setback of at least 50ft from the side yard lot line and well over 150ft from the front yard lot line. Um, really staying about in line with the existing house that’s on that property. Uh, the garage would allow for indoor storage of vehicles and personal equipment necessary to maintain that lawn on that property. And with that, staff finds that the request would meet all standards and findings for conditional use permits, that the request is in harmony with the FRD zoning district and consistent with LA one guiding that it would not be detrimental to public welfare, nor be injurious to other land or improvements, that it would not impair light and air, nor increased traffic risk of fire, nor endanger public safety or diminished property values in the neighborhood. The request would not impede normal development. It would have no significant impact on ingress, egress, or any of the parking needs of the subject and surrounding residential properties, and the request would conform to the regulations of the FRD zoning district, where accessory structures over 700ft are a conditional use. And with that said, staff recommend approval of the requested conditional use permit at 5655 Vagabond Lane to allow a detached garage over 700 square foot in the FRD zoning district, and I will stand for any questions. Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Here? Yes. Do we have a height? I see the width by length. Do we have a height for the structure? There is not a height for the structure that was proposed because they were waiting for the to know if the conditional use permit was approved before going into the formal design process. However, in the FRD zoning district, a little unique to any of our other residential districts, accessory buildings only have a maximum height of. The existing primary structure, or less than that. If I may follow. Commissioner Jansen, I believe this is kind of lower into the into the property. It actually dips down a little bit in that area. So yes, the elevation is lower than the house. It’s based on the elevation of the actual structure of the home to the the the new structure garage. Correct. Not like where they end up in the right. The measurement of the house from grade to roof would be that measurement. And that would start at grade for the garage as well. Very good. Thank you. No further questions. Any other questions? Uh, no further questions from the commissioners for staff. I will ask, uh, John, the applicant, to step forward. So it’s a weird one. Yeah. Uh, please state your name and, uh, your address for the record. All right. Yeah. John Sesso, owner at 5655. Vagabond Lane North in Plymouth, along with my wife Katie, who is home with our one and our two year old. So I’m sure she’s having fun right now. Um, I don’t have a ton to add. Thank you so much, Sophia, for outlining that. I just say, you know, we’re this is we’re planning for this to be our home for a long time. So, um, I know it’s maybe a bigger garage than normal, but we do have a large property to maintain, and we used to have a camper, so, uh, we eventually, once our kids are older, would like to have a camper again, have a place to get that stored inside and keep it outside of the elements. And the sightlines from the neighbors. So just trying to think ahead and be, you know, proactive in nature and try to think of what we might need, not just for today, but for five, ten, 15 years from now when the kids are 16 and have their own cars, which is. Great. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? I hear no questions for you at this time, but please stand by in case we have additional questions later on. Sure. Thank you. Thank you everyone. I will now open the public meeting. Is there anybody who wishes to speak on this matter? Seeing nobody coming forward, I will close the public hearing. Okay. Uh, any further questions for staff or the applicant? Any, uh, actions people would like to move at this point? Commissioner Fuller. Um, I will make a motion, uh, recommending the approval of a resolution approving the conditional use permit for property located at 5000 655 Vagabond Lane, North. We have a motion to approve to recommend approval. Do we have a second? I second. We have a motion. Second. Any further discussion? If not, we’ll take a roll call. Vote. Sure. Hansen. I Fowler I Olson. Marc-Andre I and chair. Boo. I this matter is approved recommending this to the city council. Then we make final decisions and this is likely to be heard by the city Council. On what date? On June 9th. June 9th. Stay in touch with staff in case that date moves. But good luck with your application for the city. Thank you. Next item for public hearing is the rezoning site plan. Conditional use permit and variance for a new childcare center to be located at the southwest corner of Old Rockford Road and Peony Lane. Staff report will be provided by Shandra. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the Commission. Yes. This is a request by Structure Builders for, um, a new daycare center. The request involves a rezoning site plan, conditional use permit, and variances. The property is located at the southwest corner of Old Rockford Road and Peony Lane. Um, it’s currently two parcels and, um, uh, the two parcels would be consolidated into one, and the total of the two properties is about 1.5 acres. Um, let’s see, to the north, there are single family homes. Um, this area here is wetland. And then there’s a memory care going in here. Um, a large single family, another daycare here. Primrose. And then to the south, there’s the Peony Promenade. That includes a Culver’s, uh, gas station. Um, a new horizon childcare center. So that’s kind of the context of what the area looks like. Um, here’s an aerial map, and you can see the two property, the two parcels. That would be, um, consolidated. There was, um, 2 or 3 commercial buildings. I think they were auto related gas. And I think auto repair on the property that have been removed and gone for about 20 years. So the request again includes rezoning, site plan, conditional use permit and variances. So what I’m going to do is go through each one kind of in order. So it’s easy to follow along. First off, that southeast parcel of the site is zoned C-3 and the request is to rezone that to C-2. Here you can see the parcel as the existing zoning, and the southeast parcel is C-3. With the proposed zoning. This part, that parcel would be rezoned to C-2, so it matches in with the the larger parcel of the property. Um, just a little background. C-2, um, district was designed to accommodate neighborhood oriented type uses such as bike shops, convenience liquor stores, uh clinics, variety stores, and so on. The C-3 zoning district was designed to accommodate highway oriented uses such as fast food and other types of uses like that. Um. Daycares, however, are allowed in both C-2 and C-3 with a conditional use permit, which is also being applied for in review. Um staff made the findings that the rezoning from C-3 to C-2 would be appropriate in this case. Um, C-2 zoning is compatible with the, um, commercial guiding of the site. C-2 zoning would also be more suitable than C-3, given the site location, the context, and the access limitations. The rezoning, together with combining the parcels, would create one C-2 parcel for the new daycare and, um, adequate infrastructure is available in place to support the C-2 zoning and the proposed development. Um, moving on to the site plan, um, this would be for a ten zero zero zero square foot slab on grade single story structure, which shows up in yellow on here. Um, let me just kind of walk around the site. Access would be here off of Old Rockford Road, as far away from the signalized intersection at Peony Lane as possible. There is no access allowed to Peony Lane because that is an arterial roadway. Um, storm management would be in an underground vault in this portion of the parking lot. You can see the parking along the front of the building, down the side there’s wetland along this side and the south edge of the building, along with the wetland buffering, which you see here. And then an outdoor play area would be right. I lost my cursor right in this portion of the site. Um, the site plan would comply with all of our zoning regulations for things like that area. Structural coverage, building setbacks, number of parking spaces, building height, landscaping, lighting, uh, stormwater management, and so on. The only exception is that variance, which we’ll talk about in a few minutes for a parking setback. Um, here’s looking southeast from Old Rockford Road. At the site. You can see the building here would have fiber siting of varying colors, glass, and then a stone accent base along the foundation. And then this view is looking west at the building from Peony Lane. Um, the conclusion staff finds that except for that requested variance for parking setback, um, the proposal would meet or exceed all city standards. And moving on to the conditional use permit element um, for daycare use, daycares are required for, uh, use or to operate in a commercial district. Um, a conditional use permits required. Um, the city with a conditional use permit. The city may impose any kind of reasonable conditions. Um, and that review is based on standards that are provided in the ordinance, which I’ll talk about in a minute. Um, the conditional use permit would be for Casa de Corazon, which is a Spanish immersion focused child care center. Hours would be from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on weekdays, excluding holidays. It would be licensed for up to 136 children, and then parents would have to go into the building to drop off and pick up their children. Um, based on our review of those standards, the proposed use would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. It would promote the the general public welfare of the community. It would comply with the applicable performance standards. It would not endanger the public health or safety, would not have negative impacts. Um, it would not be detrimental to the city or to the use or enjoyment. Um, and it would not impede the orderly development of the district or nearby properties. And then lastly, moving on to the variance. This is for the setback between the north edge of the parking here and the lot line. It would be 15ft instead of what’s otherwise specified as a 20 foot setback. Um, the reason for the variance is because with the wetland down here and the wetland buffering, it’s forcing the building a little bit farther north on the site than you’d probably otherwise put it, which is making this area a little bit narrower. And because of the access restrictions, they couldn’t do angle parking and come out this way. Um, they would be providing a buffer of landscaping. Um, they’re showing 40 shrubs and five trees up in this area. Um, staff finding on the variance is that the variance would be in harmony with the purposes intent of the regulations, and it would allow the property to be used in a reasonable manner. The variance or the reduced setback would be based, would not be based solely on economic considerations, but rather on a on the practical difficulties of the site. It would not alter the character of the area, nor would it be detrimental to the public or other properties in the area, and it would not impair an adequate supply of light and air would not substantially increase traffic congestion, and would not increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety. So with that, uh staff is recommending approval of all four items. The rezoning site plan, conditional use permit, and variance. And with that, I can stand for any questions you have of city staff. Thank you. Sean, do we have questions for staff at this time? Um. I can’t. Thank Shawn. Just a couple of questions as I run near this area quite a bit. So I’m very familiar with the development and the area as it relates to the fact that there won’t be an entryway off of if you could go to. Yes. Perfect. Thank you. Off of Peony Lane, there’s not going to be an entryway. So you’re going to reroute traffic. So it enters off of Old Rockford Road, correct? Correct. Okay. So and maybe this is something Chris you can chime in on as well. We don’t anticipate the rerouting only being via Rockford Road, primarily for those that are going to be coming off of 55 to cause any type of major congestion or back up into potentially the 55 peony. Chair and members of the Commission, we do not anticipate any negative traffic impacts. Okay. The second question that I have is coming on Old Rockford Road. Do we? And because this is a proposed daycare, since the the people primarily are going to be children that are going to be outside during that point in time. And I understand it looks like there’s pretty solid fencing. We don’t anticipate any issues in terms of public safety. Um, as it relates to the fencing and things of that nature, especially since Old Rockford Road is considering to become even more busy each and every day. Chair members of Commission. We do not anticipate any negative impacts with the roadways to the daycare. And last question do we have any type of a referential traffic study for this area, or when was the last one done? Uh, chair, members of the commission. A traffic study was not done as part of this application. Uh, this is consistent with the comprehensive plan that did consider traffic in the area. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners at this time? Commissioner Hanson. Thank you. And thank you for the presentation. Um, I noticed the the wetlands being reserved as well as the buffer. Is there any area of the wetlands that’s being disturbed or being reconditioned as a part of this build? Um, Mister chair, commissioners? Uh, yes, there is. Well, it’s I’m not sure if it’s de minimis or, um, a man made wetland, but their, um, part of their application that does not come to the Planning Commission, only to the city council is for some wetland impacts up in this portion of the site. But again, it’s something that is being supported because of the nature of that. Um, how that wetland was created. Thank you. That’s all. Okay. Thank you. Sean. Um, I’ll ask the applicant to step forward at this time, and you’re free to give a presentation, but please stand for questions. In any event, please state your name and your address. Sure. Good evening. My name is Jeff Schuler. I’m the architect and contractor for, uh, the ownership of the property. Um, my address is 3953 Regent Avenue North in Robbinsdale. Um, I don’t have a whole lot to add to Sean’s presentation. Um, just that, uh, this is a new daycare filling. Um, a little bit of a gap in the area with the Spanish immersion program. Um, I would think that, um, adding to the, uh, childcare kind of, uh, area of the city, um, and the in the growing population is going to be an overall a big addition to the city of Plymouth. Um, I did want to address a little bit of the wetland comments. Um, the as Sean stated, the reason for the setback variance on the north side of the property is because of the wetland. Um, and all the required buffers at the state and local levels. Um, and then also being restricted in only being able to come off of old Rockford Road really hampers the flexibility of parking and circulation on the site. So, um, just based on the size of the site and how it’s hemmed in by wetlands, there’s there’s very little space to to really adjust this site. Um, and as far as the wetland being disturbed, more on the north side. Um, I know we we submitted a, um, some documents. Um, but the, the incidental wetland that is being, um, filled. We, we toured that with the state. Um, state officials. And it’s really a depression left when they demolished, um, existing buildings on the site. Um, and it wasn’t properly graded. They left. They left a large mound in one spot and a hole in one spot. That was never a part of the original wetland. So, um, as far as impacts were not impacting any of the wetland on the south side of the site, that’s a natural wetland. Um, we’re just filling in a hole left by the previous user. Thank you. Questions for the applicant. I don’t hear any questions for you at this time. Uh, please stand by, though, in case we do have questions later on. Thank you. I will now open the public hearing. The public hearing is open. We have two people who have provided cards that wish to speak. The first is Natalie Standridge. She’s only going to speak. If there were questions. Okay. And Allie Atala. Okay. Uh, anybody else who wishes to speak on this item? If not, I’ll close the public hearing. Okay. Uh, commissioners, uh, any further questions for staff? Applicants? Um, and or any actions you’d like to take on this matter? I should say that it is a welcome addition to, in my view, at least to the community. Um, to have this kind of additional resource for the community. In addition, it’s a difficult corner, and it has been a difficult corner for people to develop. Um, and so it is good. We’ve found a development that makes sense. Uh, a good use. And I think, uh, at least in my view, uh, adequately addresses issues that the land presents and develops the most compatible, um, approach that I think is possible. So. Is there anybody who wishes to make a motion if no further discussion? I’ll make a motion. There are two items here that we need to approve. The first is a resolution approving the, um, rezoning from C3 to C2, at least for part of the property. And the second resolution is then to deal with the additional items, as Sean has described. Um, would you like to make your resolution to cover both those items? I’d like to make a resolution to cover both of those. Okay. So we have a resolution that moves the, um, change to the zoning and deals with the other issues presented by staff report. Is there a second? Second, we have a motion. And second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Uh, I will take a roll call. Vote. Hansen.. I Fowler. I. Olson I Marc-Andre and chair. Boo. I so this matter is a recommendation that we are moving on to the city council for approval. Uh, that matter will be heard by the city council. On what date? I’m June 23rd. June 23rd. And as noted previously, that could change. So stay in touch with staff. Uh, in case there’s a calendar change. But good luck with your project. Okay. The next item on the agenda is the new business. It is a variance requested to a lot area and lot width to lot area and lot with for a lot line adjustment at 710 Kingsway Lane. Um, and we will, as noted, provide for public comments on this item. But first we will start with a um staff report by Jeff Samson. Thank you, Mister Chair. And members of the commission. Um, as he said, this is a variance request, a lot area and lot with, uh, for the property at 710 Kings View Lane. Um, as you can see on there, um, that’s an aerial of the site there. Um, the whole neighborhood there is RSS one. It was platted in 1956. Um, and the applicant intends to do a lot line adjustment, um, to move the lot line up so that the driveway, which is on 606 Kingsway Lane to the south there, has the driveway located on one property. Um, so part of the variance request here, um, is you can see over in the blue there is currently how the lot stand today. Right now to the north is 710 King’s View Lane. Uh, it is zoned Rs1. Uh, currently has 18,772ft and a 110 foot lot width on the property to the south is 616 Kingsway Lane, also zoned Rs1. Um currently has 19,319ft and 110 foot lot width. Um, as part of the request here, um, showing what the would be proposed to um, in the image there attract a is the portion of land that would be the lot line adjustment moved and afterwards 710 Kingsway Lane would go from seven heavy lot area of 17,622ft, where 18,500ft is required in the F1 zoning district, and it would have 103.25ft lot width 110 foot is required, uh, to the south, 616 Kingsley Lane would increase to 20,469ft and have a lot width of 116.75. Um, it should be noted that with the proposed lot line adjustment there to the north, um, the 15 foot side yard setback, which is required in the one zoning district would still be met. Um, some details about the variance request here. In the applicant’s narrative, they indicated that it was moving 710 King’s View Lane back to its original form and configuration due to a portion of property through tax forfeiture. Um, when we checked with Hennepin County Property ID and planning, they did not have a record of a lot line adjustments. So we’re not sure about that. Initially, the current lot dimensions do match the original Parkdale subdivision from 1956. Um, however, Hennepin County did indicate to us that a private driveway access easement for both properties was completed in 2026. This was something that we had suggested with the applicant that would cover having the driveway on the other property. And when staff’s review of the variance findings there, um, would it be in harmony with general purposes? Staff finds that a private driveway access easement would address the concerns of both the neighbors would without having to go through this process. Um, in talking about practical difficulty, difficulties on the lot. Um, the variance, if granted, we find, would create a nonconforming lot in lot with an area while the surrounding neighborhood all meets the SF one zoning requirements as they were all platted in a similar time in 1956. Again, um, when resulting be detrimental to public airfare would be injurious to other land improvements. Um similarly, would create a nonconforming lot in lot with an area while the surrounding neighborhood meets the SF one zoning requirements. And going over is the variance request the the minimum action required to alleviate or the practical difficulties. Um, the approval of the variance, if it were to be approved, would require an additional process of a lot line adjustment with Hennepin County. So another step further than this variance right now. Um, so with that being that this would create a nonconforming lot, and we find that the private driveway access easement would address the concerns of the driveway without creating a nonconforming lot. Um, staff finds that it would not comply with all the variance standards and conditions. And we are recommending denial. And so with that, I will stand for any questions. Thank you. Any questions for staff at this. Time? Has there been any indication, Jeff, that the current easement is a problem for either of the landowners? It has not been indicated to me that it was an issue. Okay. Uh, any further questions at this time? If not, I will ask the applicant to step forward as the applicant here. Applicant is not here. Um, so we will now take public comments. I have one card from Shirley Augustine. I think most of the just answered has been answered. Okay. Uh, any anyone else would like to comment on this issue? Okay. Um. Okay. So. Uh, this is always difficult because we are dealing with. two kind of competing issues. One is conformity to, um, the, uh, standards set forth for lot size. Uh, width, etc.. Um, which really is a protection both for current and future land owners and land development. Uh, as we look forward, not just what are the immediate concerns presented by the applicant and the neighbors? Uh, on the other hand, it seems one could say de minimis in terms of what they’re asking. Um, but without at least in my mind, without a specific concern being raised under the current arrangement that is no longer workable for reasons that have not I cannot conceive of, but nobody else is presenting anything on that either. I don’t quite see what the problem is that we need to go through this process, but that’s just my thoughts. Any other comments people want to make before we move along? I would agree with that. Okay. Um. Any other comments? There was your father. Uh, my my only second thought to that is I know, um, I know those access agreements can cause issues in the future. There isn’t a current issue between the neighbors, but if or that we know of, I guess maybe there is for based on the fact that they’re put in this application. But, um, uh, you know, when the property’s sold and, you know, it can cause issues in the, in the future, it seems to be a pretty small chunk of land. So you would hope that it isn’t going to cause issues. Um, but I don’t I don’t think that quite raises to the level of needing to approve the variance, but especially without knowing without being able to speak to the applicant and knowing what the issue is. So I just raising that issue. Um, but I think I would probably tend to agree against, uh, denial or a for denial. Any other comments? Chair. Commissioner McCann. Unless I’m missing something, I’m not seeing the glaring impetus for change. And that’s not to say that it’s not there, but it’s not glaringly evident to me. And I think if the applicant were here today, maybe that could have been answered. But I would say based off of what we know right now and what we are reading. That is my question mark, is what is the driving impetus for change? Anything further? Otherwise, I will make a motion to, um, adopt the recommendation of staff to deny this variance. Um. With the. Uh. As described in the materials presented to us. Is there a second. Second? Is there any further discussion? If not, we will have a roll call. Vote. Hansen. Uh, deny. Fowler. I we’re voting I. Ii to say I didn’t I? Right. Okay. Do it. Just making sure I to deny. I deny. Very good. Um. Well, uh. Olson. , Mark. Honda. To deny. And chair. Boo I to deny. Okay, we have a, uh. The motion is to deny the variance that has been approved. That’s a recommendation to the city council. And the city Council will hear this matter. When? On June 23rd. Okay. Very good. That is it for items on the agenda. Are there is there any new business or any any first of all, any new business that any commissioners would like to bring. forward? If not, any updates from staff or any new business that you have? Uh, no real updates. Um, the last variance you heard did get heard at the last city council was approved as well. Um, and we will have a meeting on. Was it June 17th? We will have. A meeting. We will. Okay. Anything further? If not, the meeting is