Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 10-21-20201 Approved Minutes October 21, 2020 Approved Minutes Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2020 Chair Anderson called a Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on October 21, 2020. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners David Witte, Michael Boo, Bryan Oakley, Donovan Saba, Justin Markell, and Julie Jones COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Steve Juetten, Senior Planner Shawn Drill, City Engineer Chris LaBounty, Senior Planner Lori Sommers, Senior Planner Kip Berglund and Community Development Coordinator Matt Lupini OTHERS PRESENT: Councilmember Ned Carroll, Matt Pacyna, SRF, Jake Walesch, Hollydale GC Development, Dave Gonyea, Hollydale GC Development, Lori Clark, Hollydale GC Development, Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman, and Mark Keefer, Braun Intertec Chair Anderson led the Pledge of Allegiance. Plymouth Forum Approval of Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Boo, to approve the agenda. With All Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Consent Agenda (4.1) Planning Commission minutes from meeting held on September 16, 2020. Motion was made by Commissioner Boo and seconded by Commissioner Witte, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Public Hearings (5.1) Request for reguiding, rezoning, preliminary plat, and subdivision code variance for residential development at the former Hollydale Golf Course site (Hollydale GC Development, Inc. -- 2020-056) Senior Planner Drill presented the staff report. 2 Approved Minutes October 21, 2020 Chair Anderson stated that this was the most comprehensive staff report that he has seen and commends staff for the work preparing the document. Commissioner Oakley referenced the City Council decision in July of 2020 not to purchase the site and asked if that decision was supported by any studies the city commissioned, such as purchasing the site and operating it as a municipal golf course. Community Development Director Juetten replied that Ehlers, the City’s public financial advisor, completed a high-level overview of costs, including the purchase of the property and the operational costs. He confirmed that was a part of the Council discussion. Commissioner Oakley commented that most residents have suggested that this parcel be a municipal golf course or green space and asked if there were any detailed studies on those functions and costs. Community Development Director Juetten stated that the review by Ehlers included a lower quality golf course, a medium quality golf course and a higher quality course. The cost of these options were 5, 10 and 15 million dollars of additional costs. He noted that open space was discussed but there was not analysis completed on that alternative. Commissioner Oakley commented that there was a development discussion a few years prior where a landowner requested a use different than the allowed use and the city placed a moratorium on that property in order to consider potential usage (the Four Seasons Mall). Community Development Director Juetten replied that that was not discussed. Chair Anderson commented that the city has considered a municipal golf course multiple times over the past 30 years, but the answer has always been no. Community Development Director Juetten provided background information on a previous discussion in the early 2000’s and it was decided not to pursue any course acquisition. He further stated that no discussion occurred as other courses closed. Commissioner Witte stated that the city declared a state of emergency and has not held in-person meetings during this pandemic. He asked if the council has considered placing a moratorium on amendments to the comprehensive plan during the ongoing pandemic. Commissioner Witte stated the comp plan includes a public process and a visionary process to development our entire community. He stated that the public process is severely curtailed by doing this via Zoom. Community Development Director Juetten replied that the council has not considered such action. Commissioner Witte asked when the first comprehensive plan was developed. Senior Planner Drill commented that the city has had comprehensive plans since the 1970s, when the Metropolitan Council was created. 3 Approved Minutes October 21, 2020 Commissioner Witte commented that it appears the land has been classified as PI for the past several updates to the plan and has not been changed for at least 30 years. The reason we have a comp plan is to have a deliberate process that involves the stakeholders and to deviate from that it should be the exception on the rule. Even the City Council has to approve an amendment by a 2/3rds vote, not a simple majority. Community Development Director Juetten stated that to amend the comprehensive plan the Mayor and City Council will need a super majority, a 5/7 vote. Mr. Juetten further explained that a process exists to request changes to the comprehensive plan. He stated that just because a property has been guided a certain way for several years, does not mean it could not be changed. He explained that the request should be reviewed based on the circumstances of today to determine if that would be an appropriate change. He stated that the Commission should look at if PI or LA-1 is the appropriate guiding. Commissioner Witte agreed that the comp plan is a flexible document but people use the information in the comprehensive plan to make decisions, such as whether to move to Plymouth. He stated that the 2040 plan was recently adopted and therefore most people would not assume a change would immediately occur. He commented that even though there have been 27 amendments to the comprehensive plan in the past, he did not believe that those instances were property zoned PI in the center of residential properties. He stated that an amendment to the comprehensive plan should be thoughtful and done when appropriate. He stated he has not reached a conclusion yet. Community Development Director Juetten replied that each amendment request is unique and must be considered on its own merits and cannot be compared to other requests. Commissioner Witte commented that he does not object to the cul-de-sac variance. He stated that the length of the cul-de-sac in his neighborhood appears to be less than 750 feet not more than 750 feet. Commissioner Boo asked whether the city has a plan or an identified need for additional green space, a new facility or relocation of an existing facility, or whether the school district has identified a need for additional space that could be accommodated by this area. Senior Planner Drill replied that the only additional park land needed in this area would be an expansion to the existing Schmidt Woodland Park when this property is developed. He stated that in regard to public facilities, there is not a need for land for those uses. He stated that staff has not spoken to the school district about this parcel but was aware the district was looking for land in Corcoran and Medina for a school. Commissioner Witte asked whether the traffic study was done onsite or whether it was completed with modeling. City Engineer LaBounty stated that the update to the traffic study utilized street light data, which uses 365 days worth of cell phone data to track driver activity. He stated that the actual EAW was done based on physical counts in the field in September of 2019. 4 Approved Minutes October 21, 2020 Commissioner Saba referenced the council discussion in July 2020, noting that the council discussed different land that was acquired and the cost at which that land was purchased, noting that those lands were used for parks and fields. He stated that in this case the property owner wants to sell the land and has successfully done that to a residential developer. He asked if there is a difference in price for land sold for residential use and government/public uses and also asked the market for those public uses and whether there would be clients interested in purchasing the land for that use. Senior Planner Drill stated that he is unsure if that aspect was discussed. He recognized the challenge in that the site is guided PI but the market is currently driven by residential. He commented that he did not think the land value would change based on the guiding. Chair Anderson stated that the job of the commission tonight is to determine whether the comprehensive plan amendment as submitted would be appropriate and whether the rezoning request would then be appropriate. He stated that it is not the job of the commission to review alternative uses and should focus on the plan presented. Senior Planner Drill concurred with Chair Anderson’s statement. Commissioner Markell asked the cost allocation for road improvements. City Engineer LaBounty replied that there is not a defined cost split presented between the developer and city. He stated that staff is reviewing three cost split options and will present one to the council. Commissioner Markell asked if the cost allocation could be a condition of the request. City Engineer LaBounty confirmed that the cost participation for those improvements would be part of the preliminary plat. Commissioner Witte asked if there is a record as to why Comstock was located in a spot with poor visibility if it was anticipated to be a major intersection in the future. City Engineer LaBounty stated that a safety issue was identified related to Comstock and the bridge as part of the EAW traffic study. Those safety concerns are primarily based on the actual speeds of vehicles traveling being over the posted speed. He stated that he cannot speak as to how Comstock was located in relation to the bridge. Commissioner Jones stated that she visited the area and noticed firsthand what a horrendous intersection Comstock is because of the bridge. She stated that the traffic study simply speaks to vehicles and not pedestrians. She stated she is wondering what the City’s long range plan is to connect to the Northwest Greenway. She stated that it is dangerous to cross at Comstock in a vehicle and commented that she could not imagine a pedestrian or cyclist wanting to cross in that area with the speed on the roadway. She referenced the two intersections pedestrians can currently use in that area to reach the Northwest Greenway and asked how that problem would be solved. She stated this will be a heavily used connection to the Northwest Greenway. She stated that for someone to cross Schmidt Lake Road they would need to go to either Vicksburg 5 Approved Minutes October 21, 2020 Lane or Peony Lane. She acknowledged that is already a problem and is not a problem of this development. City Engineer LaBounty agreed that currently the two safest locations to cross would be at Vicksburg and Schmidt Lake Road and Peony and Schmidt Lake Road. He stated that the city is reviewing potential intersection improvements and will be reviewing pedestrian safety as well. Commissioner Witte commented that the preliminary plat is a vast improvement from the proposed plat submitted with the EAW. He commented that the conservation easement is a creative idea but asked who would be responsible for ongoing maintenance and enforcement. Senior Planner Drill replied that there are developments with similar conservation easements. He noted that typically they fall in favor of the city with the HOA covenants or separate agreement would be crafted addressing ongoing maintenance and enforcement. Commissioner Witte asked how the conservation easement would impact the drainage mitigation to the east. Senior Planner Drill replied that there would be a pond in the northeast corner of the site which would require some grading but otherwise the conservation easement would not be graded as the trees are being preserved. Commissioner Witte stated that he was pleased to see the rusty patched bumble bee habitat addressed and included. He stated that the rusty patched bumble bee is our state bee. Commissioner Markell asked if there are other single-family home developments that have conservation easements similar to this request. Senior Planner Drill provided a few examples, noting one other development that was also previously a golf course. Chair Anderson introduced Jake Walesch, Hollydale GC Development, Inc, 10850 Old County Road 15, Plymouth. Mr. Walesch provided additional information on GC Development, Inc. proposal and the feedback they have received throughout the process thus far. He commented that the most significant thing they could do to reduce the traffic impact was to reduce the number of homes, noting that this proposal included 90 units less than the EAW studied. He provided details on proposed lot sizes and widths, proposed site layout, and conservation easement including its purpose and restrictions. He reviewed proposed buffering and pedestrian and road connections. He recognized that the existing homes were there first and therefore they have attempted to minimize the lots that back up to those lots and in those instances, they have increased lot size and placed the home further from the back property line in order to create additional space between the homes. He provided details related to site cleanup activity that they would complete as part of the project. He noted that while the EAW discussed the potential for rusty patched bumble bees, this project would actually create that habitat. He heard the comments of frustration from some that this would include an amendment to the comprehensive plan. He stated that as a developer he has seen cities update their comprehensive plan frequently outside of the typical update process. He stated that since 2000, Plymouth has updated its comprehensive plan 27 times outside of the typical update process and 10 of those occurrences 6 Approved Minutes October 21, 2020 were within two years of the last update being completed. He stated that this comprehensive plan amendment may be the most scrutinized amendment to date. He stated that Plymouth spent $100,000 on traffic studies for the entire comprehensive plan update it completed whereas this plan has already spent $50,000 on traffic studies. He reviewed the different criteria that should be considered when reviewing a comprehensive plan amendment. He stated that the golf course has been closed as the owners retired and the property is now requested to be developed as single-family homes which matches the surrounding properties. He commented that they believe that a low-density single-family home development would be the most appropriate use of the property now that the golf course has closed. He noted that in speaking with neighboring property owners, they do not believe the other allowed uses in PI would be appropriate uses of the site as they would be more intensive uses. Chair Anderson reviewed the meeting procedure that would be followed going forward for the remainder of the meeting. Commissioner Witte asked who owns Hollydale Land LLC and who owns the land. Mr. Walesch stated that the LLC is owned by a number of Deziel family members. He stated that his company owns the existing farmhouse, and the family owns the balance of the property. Commissioner Witte asked how the average lot size would be impacted if the conservation easement and wetlands were not included. Mr. Walesch replied that with the conservation easement and wetlands, the average lot size would be .58 acres. He was unsure why the conservation easement would be deducted as it is a part of the lot owned by that homeowner. He noted that the easement would simply place restriction as to what could be done in that area. He stated that under Plymouth code, the wetlands are not deducted from the lot size. Commissioner Witte commented that this appears to be a very dense proposal. He asked if the side yard setback would be eight feet. Mr. Walesch confirmed that to be true, noting that the code only requires six feet and eight feet, whereas this would be provide eight feet and eight feet. He stated that in terms of density, this proposal barely meets the minimum density range for LA-1. He stated that in order to get to 2.09 units per acre by deducting the wetlands, conservation easement and road right-of-way. He stated that some of the lots exceed one acre and these are some of the largest lots they have proposed for Plymouth. Commissioner Witte stated that the members of the commission and council continue to receive numerous emails from residents related to concerns about this proposal. He referenced a Parade of Homes advertisement from Hanson Builders which states “Hollydale coming soon” and commented that seemed a bit presumptuous. Mr. Walesch agreed. He noted that Hanson Builders is a good client of theirs who purchases lots in a number of his developments. He stated that he spoke with Hanson Builders about his dislike of that as it brings unnecessary distraction. He stated that Hanson Builders wrote and delivered a letter to the City Administrator explaining how the error occurred, noting that their marketing 7 Approved Minutes October 21, 2020 team did not clear the advertisement. He explained that the advertising did not make sense from multiple standpoints as the project is not approved and Hanson Builders has homes available for purchase now in other developments in Plymouth. He stated that Hanson Builders issued an apology for that action. Chair Anderson briefly recessed the meeting for a short break. Chair Anderson reconvened the meeting. Chair Anderson explained the public hearing process and how the public can participate. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Community Development Coordinator Lupini read into the record and email from Todd Potas, 4575 Kimberly Court. The email read as follows: There originally was a park proposed in the NW corner of the property preserving the trees there. Why has that changed to houses close to rail road tracks and the large open notch between Holly Lane and Comstock? Chair Anderson introduced Jora Deziel Bart, 2195 Xene Lane, stated that she is present to ask the commission to rezone the property and approve the developer’s plan. She provided background information on how Hollydale Golf Course was created by her grandfather and his brother. She stated that her parents then took over the golf course in 2005. She commented on the large amount of work that is required to operate and maintain a golf course. She stated that after 55 years of working on this business, her parents have retired as of last year and are now 68 years old. She stated that the golf course is their 401K, their retirement fund, their investment and their hard work and her parents have earned the right to move on. She stated that her parents spent a substantial amount of time selecting a developer that would also take good care of the land. She stated that the developer is known for their thoughtful approach to development and have been able to meet the requirements of the city and address the concerns of residents. She commented that in the past seven years, two other golf courses in Plymouth have been rezoned and sold, with a third completing that process in 2008. She stated that those golf courses were sold and rezoned with no problem and did not go through the scrutiny that her parents have gone through this past year. She commented that her parents sent a letter in 2006 stating that the land would not always remain as a golf course and the city expressed no interest in purchasing the land earlier this summer. She asked that the commission approve this request and allow her parents to sell their property. Chair Anderson introduced Dr. Sohoni, 16640 39th Place, he stated that this issue has caused civil discord in the community. He stated that the 2040 comprehensive plan, approved in July 2019, guides the majority of the site as PI and zoned as future restricted development. He stated that the comprehensive plan amendment should have been considered first as that would be required to even consider the remainder of the requests. He stated that if the council does not approve the amendment, the extensive review of the request will have been a waste of time. He wondered why the development sign was placed at the site before the application was reviewed. He stated many residents have written to the council on the detrimental effects on traffic, pollution, schools, etc. Doesn’t know if the EAW included an assessment of the cumulative effects of pollution. He stated that goes against the desire to reduce the carbon footprint. He stated that it was a mistake that the council voted against participating in the Green Steps program. He commented that the overall wellbeing of the community should be considered when making 8 Approved Minutes October 21, 2020 decisions and not whether something would generate funds. He urged the commission not to approve the comprehensive plan at this time. He stated that the incremental tax that would be generated from this development seems minimal given the wealth of Plymouth, especially when considering the environmental impacts to the site and neighboring properties. He stated that this development would violate the desire for greenspace. He stated that perhaps a compromise could be worked out with the developer if this must go forward to ensure a judicious mixture of homes, trails, parks, and schools. He stated the council voted against a referendum to purchase the property. He stated that he has lived in Plymouth for 25 years and opposes any changes to the 2040 comprehensive plan, especially related to the Hollydale site. Chair Anderson introduced Diane Slayton, 4630 Xene Lane, provided an update on the savehollydalechange.org petition which currently has 8,400 signatures, 30 percent of those from Plymouth area residents, along with 131 comments from Plymouth residents all in favor of preserving the property as a golf course or greenspace and opposed to residential development. She read the petition wording to the commission. She stated that despite the pandemic and the stay at home orders the support of the petition has only grown. She reviewed the different formats that residents have used to voice their opposition to the Hollydale project including different commission and council meetings and rally. She stated that it is clear that the residents are opposed to the development; this is not a development the residents of the city need or want. She recognized that the family has a right to sell their property but stated that it should be at a fair price that may not be at residential development values. She asked the commission and council to maintain the greenspace. Chair Anderson introduced Paul Hillen, 16130 48th Avenue, asked that the commission recommend to the City Council not to change the comprehensive plan just approved in July of 2019. He asked that the commission focus on the impact to the people of Plymouth and not just the process. He stated that too often, officials have placed an importance on process rather than the impact of those decisions on its people. He commented that Plymouth has only nine percent of land dedicated to park and recreation activity when most other communities have at least 15 percent. He commented on the significant water issues that residents have had in three different residential developments in that area. He stated that in this proposal the developer states that in this request all the water issues would be solved. He noted that the previous developers stated that same thing, but the problems still came. He stated that as Plymouth continues to experience problems with water, development continues to be approved. He stated in 2001 the city implemented a surface water tax to manage runoff. He stated that high quality wetlands are replaced with retention ponds through this development process and only contribute to the surface water problems in Plymouth. He stated that developers come in, build homes, leave and leave residents holding the bill. He stated that residents will foot the bill of improving County Road 47. He asked the commission to not recommend approval and instead listen to the thousands of residents that do not want this project. Chair Anderson introduced Mark Kraemer, 4715 Yuma Lane, expressed firm opposition to any change in the comprehensive plan that would allow rezoning of the Hollydale property to residential development. He stated that his family’s choice to move to Plymouth decades ago was related to the comprehensive plan and the four golf courses found in the community. He stated that the area in which he moved to has become the most crowded residential development area in the community and the Hollydale course is the last remaining golf course. He read aloud a section from the comprehensive plan related to golf courses. He stated that is important the 9 Approved Minutes October 21, 2020 work to preserve open space and public golf. He stated that the city has spent tremendous time and resources working with the developer while the residents have remained in the dark about the potential development. He stated that trust in the city is low with the number of closed meetings and lack of ease in attending a meeting because of the pandemic. He stated that it is the desire of the residents for the golf course to remain with investment in that as a recreation opportunity. He stated that there are local economic benefits to having a golf course and Plymouth would be the largest city in the Midwest without a golf course. He stated that he would argue that the city would benefit in the long run from having more open space and a public golf course. He stated that golf can be enjoyed by multiple generations at the same time. He stated that while the trend in golf decreased in the past, it has exploded in recent years. He stated that he heard that residents of Plymouth have multiple options to golf at surrounding courses. He stated that given the desire to reduce travel time and fuel consumption, removing a course in Plymouth does not make sense. He concluded by stating that if the city allows Hollydale to develop future generations will look back and wonder who made the decision. Chair Anderson introduced Adam Huhta, 4745 Yuma Lane, voiced his opposition to the proposed development and asked the commission not to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment. He stated that this change would take away from the quality of life in this area. He stated Public Institutional is the appropriate guiding of the property. He stated that there are a number of appropriate uses for the property. He stated that he reviewed the comprehensive plan before purchasing his home and relied on those plans when making the purchase near the golf course. He stated that adding 229 homes would burden the Wayzata School District even further, forcing another boundary change and forcing the need for an additional elementary school. He stated that traffic is already an issue in this area and adding additional traffic to Schmidt Lake Road and Old Rockford Road would be unsafe. He stated that Kimberly Lane Elementary school does not have a bike rack because it is unsafe to ride a bicycle to that school. He stated that extending Comstock would change the quality of life for those residents and destroy their property values. He stated changing Schmidt Lake Road to three lanes will exasperate the problem of traffic to and from the high school. He stated that his family chose the property because of the open space and wildlife but if the comprehensive plan is changed and that the property is rezoned it will remove that habitat and lower that quality of life. He stated that the shortage of buildable lots is only bad for the developer. He stated a lower number of buildable lots will benefit the property values of current residents. He asked the Planning commission to take a long look at what they want this area to be and that golf and green space is a benefit to current residents. The current comprehensive plan is what the residents want for Hollydale. Chair Anderson introduced Tim Schneeweis, 16907 49th Place, reviewed the four pillars of good governance: economy, efficiency, effectiveness and equity. He stated that equity is the fair and just distribution of public resources. He commented that in the past ten years 318 acres of green space were sold to developers to create high end homes, noting that included three golf course properties. He stated that allowing this property to be sold for high end homes would take additional greenspace property and the only remaining golf course in the city. He stated that this project would benefit three property owners and wealthy land developers. He commented that taking public land and turning it into homes that only benefit the wealthy is not fair and equitable. He asked the commission to unanimously vote to leave Hollydale as a non-residential greenspace and deny this request. He asked the Planning Commission vote to deny the application to reguide Hollydale. 10 Approved Minutes October 21, 2020 Chair Anderson introduced Kent Johnson, 16717 49th Place, stated that he spoke before the commission in February of this year with a focus on the lack of access to the development. He referenced the proposed access from Comstock, which is a huge issue for the development and should not be taken lightly in the review process. He stated that there is a website from residents, savehollydale.org and invited the commission to play the short two-minute video, which will give a sense of the vehicle speeds and troubling sightlines at that location. He stated that this would add a busy road and traffic that would go right through the center of his existing townhome community, noting that the cul-de-sac/easement has been vacant for over 20 years. He provided details on the issues that they already have coming out of his neighborhood, which would only be expanded, and safety decreased for the residents. He asked that the commission think of the residents and not cave to the requests of a developer and one family. Chair Anderson introduced Gery Haag, 4960 Comstock Lane, discussed practical safety issues at the Comstock and Schmidt Lake Road intersection. He commented on the pedestrian activity in that area and believed that putting additional vehicles in that area will be a safety problem. He did not think the speed issue could be controlled because of the bridge. He stated that this is a safety concern in this area and a problem for those with children and provided an example. He asked that the commission not approve the comprehensive plan amendment or zoning change. Chair Anderson introduced Ann Marie Catapano, 4405 Jewel Court, asked the commission not to change the 2040 comprehensive plan, to not change the Hollydale zoning, and to not approve the residential development request. She asked that the commission instead consider the input of thousands of residents that have spoken or made their voice heard in opposition of the request. She asked why the comprehensive plan would be changed one year after adoption simply at the request of a builder that does not even live in Plymouth. She asked why Hollydale greenspace would be destroying in order to add more homes and vehicles in a landlocked area. She stated that the school districts are already overcrowded, and boundaries have changed three times within the past seven years. She stated that Plymouth is at nine percent for its dedication of park and recreation land while the national average is 15 percent. She commented that she has walked down Holly Lane for the past 20 years and could not imagine this level of increase to traffic. She asked the commission to think of the trust that the residents place in commission and council members and support their request to deny these requests. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Senior Planner Drill identified the location of Schmidt Woodlands and the seven acres of parkland that would be dedicated to the city through the plat. He stated that the idea would then be to have a trail come down Holly Lane to connect through. Commissioner Markell discussed the trail connections from Holly Lane through the proposed development. Chair Anderson asked that the Commission first discuss the comprehensive plan amendment and then, after a decision is made on that, the commission should discuss the rezoning and preliminary plat. Commissioner Witte commented that he appreciates all the hard work that has gone into this process and the input from the residents. He stated that from his perspective nothing has 11 Approved Minutes October 21, 2020 changed from the time the comprehensive plan was adopted. He stated that he does not begrudge the family their ability to retire and sell the property as it is currently zoned. He stated that no one has the ability to say how their individual property should be zoned in order to get more money from the sale. He stated that he would recommend denial of the comprehensive plan amendment. Commissioner Boo stated that he agrees that the commission does not have the responsibility to maximize the value of the property for the seller or the development capability for the developer. He commented that real concerns related to safety have been expressed. He stated that the change in circumstance is that there is not a golf course in operation on the property today. The council has chosen to not pursue purchasing the property for that purpose and has also concluded that it would not be prudent to pursue park acquisition in this location. He stated that the commission is left with the question as to whether there is sufficient change in circumstance to approve the amendment and whether there are alternatives that should be considered given the change in circumstance. He stated that given the position of the city in not wanting to pursue the property, he believes that low density residential housing would be the least impactful development of this property. Commissioner Oakley stated that he agrees with the statements of Commissioner Witte in relation to changing the comprehensive plan and also agrees with Commissioner Boo that the highest and best use of the property may be housing, if there is not another use. He stated that he has not seen a report or study of alternatives. He recognized that it is not the duty of the commission to find an alternate use, but if there is not a public use interested in the parcel, he believes that housing would be the best option. He stated that he would like to see a study completed similar to the Four Seasons site as to the use of this site. He stated that for a site of this size and potential, he would want to ensure that the city gets this right and therefore would not support the request to amend the comprehensive plan. He commented that he does like the development proposal and would support it if it were proposed for a site zoned residential. He stated he is leaning towards approving this application at this time. Commissioner Markell asked the type of assessment or analysis that would be prudent and help guide the decision of Commissioner Oakley. Commissioner Oakley replied that the city completed a market analysis for the Four Seasons site and believed a similar analysis could be completed that contemplates different uses. He stated that the purpose of the analysis is to evaluate which ideas would have potential. He stated that it would not reject the idea of residential housing but would need to show justification for that change to the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Jones stated that this is a tough topic and she has struggled with the city’s statement within the parks and recreation section of the comprehensive plan which states that the city would strive for public ownership of private golf courses. She stated that this is the last private golf course in Plymouth. She stated that it seemed clear that the community was split between whether residents live on the east or west side of the city. She stated that when she moved to Plymouth 30 years ago, she had a beautiful natural area behind her home which has since become a four-lane road, which is part of development and progress. She stated that it is unfortunate to lose greenspace, but it happens. She stated that there is a lot of park land distributed throughout the city, especially in the northwest quadrant, and believed that the 12 Approved Minutes October 21, 2020 commission should take that into consideration. She stated that of the potential public institutional uses she did not believe that any of the allowed uses would be interested in purchasing a 160-acre piece of land. She stated that if this is not approved, she believes that this will sit vacant for a long time and could become a problem. She believed that single family residential would be the best fit for this location. She stated that she will support the amendment because she believes it would be the best fit for the neighborhood. She recognized that people have spoken against the request but does not believe that those people are aware of the potential things that could be developed on that property. She noted that this request includes elements that go above the requirements including the conservation easement, additional tree planting, parkland, and increased storm water management. She believed that additional thought should occur related to Comstock, as she believes that issue should be fixed in order for the development to be a success. She is favoring amending the comprehensive plan for this development. Commissioner Saba stated that there are a lot of great neighborhoods and families around the golf course that would be impacted. He commented that it was disheartening to hear the comments that if the commission does not vote a certain way, it would mean certain things. He stated that the job of the commission is to reflect the population that live amongst and therefore there is some flexibility when reviewing development requests. He stated that he supports the comments of Commissioner Oakley, in that this would be running to the solution without considering other things. He noted that perhaps a portion of the property is purchased by the city for use as park/open space and the remainder developed as residential. It may not be a golf course but he thought it should go to a vote of the public at a referendum. Commissioner Markell stated that he will be recommending approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, noting that the times have changed. He stated that this property is not a golf course anymore and therefore the next best option must be considered, and he believes that to be residential. He stated that anyone that goes onto the property now would be trespassing. He stated that the people that have spoken tonight and rallied support are those that live adjacent to the golf course. He stated that if there is a desire for something else, those people should rally another group to purchase the property or they could purchase the property. He stated that a list of alternatives that could be developed under this zoning was reviewed and did not believe that any of those uses would be supported or appropriate for this parcel. He stated that the developer came before the city in February for feedback, took in that input and made changes to their proposal in order to address concerns that were expressed. He stated that he will support the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning change. Chair Anderson stated that he has been through the comprehensive plan amendment process several times, both as a commissioner and as a developer. He stated that the process seemed backwards as the sketch plan and EAW were introduced prior to the request for a comprehensive plan amendment. He noted that the comment has been made that all the other golf courses have closed and been redeveloped by residential homes. He stated that the difference in this instance is that this parcel is surrounded by existing and established residential neighborhoods whereas the others were adjacent to undeveloped land. He stated that there have been many emails and comments from the public in opposition of the project, and only one comment in support from the owner’s daughter. He stated that he visited the property, and the developer has done an amazing job to minimize the impact that this development would have on adjacent properties. He stated that some of the people that have objected to the project through email in the last 24 13 Approved Minutes October 21, 2020 hours are the same properties that would have drainage problems solved, extra land and conservation easements buffering their property. He stated that it is not the job of the commission to determine the best use, only to determine whether this is a good plan that would be good for the city and residents. He stated that the residents have spoken against the project. He commented that perhaps some residential would be appropriate but not this number of homes, noting the problems with the Comstock intersection and potential changes to Schmidt Lake Road. He stated that the comments regarding bike racks at the school and walking to the school are correct. Any future studying of options would require denial of the proposed comp plan amendment. He is hearing the residents saying no at this time. Commissioner Saba commented that it is important to note that the residents of Plymouth have spoken and stated that a lot of people have also reached out to him stating that they do not believe the city should operate a golf course or purchase greenspace at a city cost and support the project. Motion was made by Commission Oakley, and seconded by Commissioner Witte, to recommend approval of a resolution denying the request to reguide roughly 156.8 acres from PI to LA-1 for the former Hollydale Golf Course site (Hollydale GC Development, Inc. – 1020-056). With Commissioners Anderson, Witte, Oakley and Saba voting for, and Commissioners Jones, Markell and Boo voting against the motion. Motion passed on a vote of 4 in favor and 3 against. Commissioner Oakley stated that the intention of the denial is to kick it back to the city to develop better information than what has been presented including market information. Commissioner Oakley commented that what he does not want to do is deny the plat so that it cannot be brought back in the future. Community Development Director stated that at this point the application for rezoning and preliminary plat is premature and that an application could come back after a six month delay. Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, and seconded by Commissioner Witte, to recommend denial to the request for rezoning, preliminary plat and subdivision code variance for residential development at the former Hollydale Golf Course site (Hollydale GC Development, Inc. – 1020-056). Commissioner Boos stated that he is reluctant to make a motion to the City Council that implies that the Planning Commission fully considered all of the elements of the plat. Commissioner Boo further stated that they are not considering it because they think it is premature. Commissioner Oakley amended his original motion. Commissioner Witte seconded the amendment. Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, and seconded by Commissioner Witte, to recommend denial to the request for rezoning, preliminary plat and subdivision code variance for residential development at the former Hollydale Golf Course site (Hollydale GC Development, Inc. – 1020-056) because the rezoning, preliminary plat and subdivision code variance is premature with the current guiding. 14 Approved Minutes October 21, 2020 With Commissioners Anderson, Witte, Oakley, Boo and Saba voting for, and Commissioners Jones and Markell voting against the motion. Motion passed on a vote of 5 in favor and 2 against. New Business Chair Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:46 p.m.