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.