HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 05-19-20211
Approved Minutes May 19, 2021
Approved Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
May 19, 2021
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 May 19, 2021.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners Michael Boo, Julie
Pointner, Justin Markell, Donovan Saba, David Witte, and Bryan Oakley.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Steve Juetten, Senior Planners Shawn
Drill, Kip Berglund and Lori Sommers, and Graduate Engineer Griffin Dempsey.
OTHERS PRESENT: Councilmember Ned Carroll
Chair Anderson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Plymouth Forum
Approval of Agenda
Motion was made by Commissioner Saba and seconded by Commissioner Witte to approve the
agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried.
Consent Agenda
(4.1) May 5, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
(4.2) Variance to allow construction of a detached garage in the front yard for property
located at 12311 Sunset Trail (Thomas and Eunice Goodrich) - 2021029
(4.3) Variance to allow a new support building that would be set back 50 feet from the
Ranier Lane right-of-way for property located at 4035/4045 County Road 101 (Len Busch
Roses) – 2021031.
Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Pointner to
approve the Consent Agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried.
2
Approved Minutes May 19, 2021
Public Hearings
(5.1) Request for PUD (planned unit development) amendment to allow outdoor display of
seasonal/convenience items at Plymouth Station Holiday Stationstore, 16825 County Road
24 (Plymouth Station Holiday) - 2021026
Senior Planner Drill provided a review of the staff report.
Commissioner Saba asked if a special short-term permit is required for the outdoor cooking of
food.
Senior Planner Drill responded that the business could obtain a temporary permit for short-term
events which can include a number of options. He stated that the business is requesting that the
outdoor display areas be permanent.
Commissioner Boo stated that he noticed bags of salt located in the area described for this
amendment and asked if that current use of space is allowed.
Senior Planner Drill responded that once an application is submitted it suspends enforcement
action of the city pending the decision. He stated that if the city denies the amendment, those
items would need to be removed. He stated that if approved, the location could be maintained.
Commissioner Oakley asked if there have been complaints over the years or whether this is a
new complaint.
Senior Planner Drill responded that this is a new complaint. He noted that in the spring there
was a large amount of firewood which spurred the complaint. Following discussion with staff,
the business decided to submit this application.
Commissioner Oakley asked if the storage of firewood would be allowed under the amendment.
Senior Planner Drill responded it would be allowed within the specified areas.
Commissioner Oakley asked if the approval would dictate areas but not what could be stored in
those areas. He asked if the firewood that caused the complaint was stored in what would be an
allowed area if the application is approved.
Senior Planner Drill responded that the firewood display area was beyond what would be
allowed, as it was across the front of the building. He commented that under the amendment the
outdoor storage would be limited to the six areas specified on the site plan.
Chair Anderson asked for details on the 2004 amendment allowing temporary sales events.
Senior Planner Drill provided additional details on the location and stated that the 2004
amendment allowed only temporary sales, whereas the current request would be for permanent
outdoor display.
3
Approved Minutes May 19, 2021
Commissioner Witte asked if compliance with the original conditions of a PUD is something the
commission should consider in its review.
Senior Planner Drill responded that while that is a consideration, sometimes things change. He
stated that the PUD was written very strictly in 1997 in response to a number of neighborhood
concerns. He stated that the commission should review this request to determine if there would
be an impact to surrounding properties.
Commissioner Witte stated that this is a well-run station that is isolated because of the berm. He
asked who would bear the responsibility for policing the conditions of the PUD. He stated
clearly there was an intent to create a more upscale service station within the PUD and the
business knew the terms of the PUD when it agreed to lease the site. He asked if there is a
method these items could be sold in a more upscale fashion in compliance with the PUD.
Senior Planner Drill responded that compliance is typically reviewed as a result of complaints or
if city staff were to notice violations when they are in the community. He noted that when staff
is made aware of a violation, the property is notified, and a number of days are provided to
comply or rectify the action. He stated that he was unsure of the layout of the interior building
and available storage. He stated that if this request is denied, those items would need to be
maintained within the building.
Commissioner Oakley stated that this would be a PUD amendment and asked if there would be
an opportunity in the future, if approved, to revoke the provision if complaints arise.
Senior Planner Drill responded that there is a process that would be followed, noting that the
PUD could be amended back to make outdoor display a prohibited use again.
Chair Anderson stated that he has noticed a seasonal vegetable stand on the premises at times and
asked if that has been done through a special permit.
Senior Planner Drill responded that the business is able to obtain a seasonal license which allows
the vegetable stand for up to 90 days throughout the year.
Commissioner Witte asked how the Redbox rental box is viewed by the city.
Senior Planner Drill responded that something of that nature would not be covered under the
PUD and would not be viewed differently than a vending machine.
Chair Anderson introduced Liz Nalezny, Holidaystation Store, the applicant, who stated that she
has been a part of the community for the entirety of her life. She commented that Plymouth is an
excellent community to work and live. She stated that in the 1980’s this property was guided
commercial, and her family purchased the first two acres in 1982 and an additional 19 acres in
1986. She stated that as a child she visited the land and picked soybeans talking about their
family business that would someday be there. She stated that the business was built in 2000,
following all city guidelines and they take pride in being one of the best run Holiday stores in the
nation. She stated that their BBQ fundraisers have raised tens of thousands of dollars for
different community organizations. She confirmed that they obtain the temporary licenses for
the outdoor food events. She stated that their customers are amazing and have been loyal to the
4
Approved Minutes May 19, 2021
business for decades. She stated that they respond to requests for items from customers, one of
which has been to have softener salt available at the pumps which would allow for easy loading
into vehicles rather than carrying the salt from inside the store. She stated that if customers are
not able to easily load the salt into their vehicles at the pumps, they will go elsewhere for that.
She stated that they also receive requests for washer fluid and firewood to be outdoors as it is
easier for the customer to grab what they need outside the store. She stated that they are not
requesting storage, but simply 100 square feet that would allow customers to easily access the
items they want. She stated that they already sell these items and therefore it would not cause
additional traffic or noise. She stated that the adjacent residential on the south cannot see the
building. She stated that when she heard of the complaint she immediately reached out to the
city and spoke with city staff. She provided background information on the firewood complaint.
She stated that during the beginning of COVID they were out of many items because of shortage
and transportation issues. She stated that they had been out of firewood for weeks and had the
opportunity to make a large purchase, which they would otherwise not typically order in that
amount. She stated that they have no intention of violating city guidelines, which is why they
are present to request the PUD amendment in order to continue to serve the customers in the
manner they request and to have the same opportunities other businesses have. She stated that
communities change, as do the needs of customers. She stated that they would like to adapt to
the needs of their customers while continuing to be a great neighbor and business.
Chair Anderson opened the Public Hearing.
Chair Anderson closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Boo stated that he understands the frustration of the neighbor with the
everchanging condition of the development over time but that does not fall on the business. He
stated that he is inclined to see this as a reasonable expansion of the PUD to allow for this
additional business and maintain it in a way that provides the expected quality.
Commissioner Witte stated that he agrees that it would be in the interest of everyone that the
quality standards of the PUD remain high and has confidence that the business owner would
continue to do so.
Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Witte to
recommend approval of PUD (planned unit development) amendment to allow outdoor
display of seasonal/convenience items at Plymouth Station Holiday Stationstore, 16825
County Road 24, subject to the findings and conditions outlined in the attached ordinance
and resolutions (Plymouth Station Holiday).
Chair Anderson stated that it is always a disappointment when a letter is received stating that
violations are occurring. He stated that when he looks at the berming that was done with the
original construction and how hidden the business activity is from the residential areas, this
seems a reasonable request.
Commissioner Pointner stated that she appreciates the attention the business has had in obtaining
the appropriate licenses and permits for the other activities on the site and has confidence in the
business.
5
Approved Minutes May 19, 2021
With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried.
(5.2) PUD (planned unit development) amendment to allow for a monument sign to be
constructed closer to the property line than allowed for the property located at 1605
County Road 101 (ASI Signage Innovations) - 2021018
Senior Planner Sommers provided a review of the staff report.
Commissioner Boo asked why the sign could not be located without an amendment to the PUD,
specifically why it needs to move closer to the street.
Senior Planner Sommers responded that if the sign is not moved, the sign would be located
within the parking areas and the applicant has concern that the sign could be damaged from
vehicles, would be too far from the roadway, and could cause traffic problems on County Road
101 from vehicles attempting to see the sign.
Commissioner Witte asked where the ten-foot mark would be if the sign were setback into the
parking lot.
Senior Planner Sommers identified the property line and proposed sign location. She stated that
if moved ten feet the sign would be located halfway into a parking stall.
Commissioner Witte stated that this type of monument sign is a bit different than a post sign. He
asked if the monument would require footings and whether that would interfere with utilities.
Senior Planner Sommers responded that staff reviewed this request and felt that there would be
no impacts to utilities in that proposed sign area.
Commissioner Pointner asked if the sign would be lit and have electricity.
Senior Planner Sommers responded that the sign would have electricity.
Chair Anderson asked if there are requirements related to the duration of messaging and whether
messaging can be flashing.
Senior Planner Sommers responded that there are regulations related to that type of activity. She
stated that scrolled or flashed messages would not be allowed, and multiple different colors
cannot be used. She stated that those regulations are found within the sign ordinance.
Chair Anderson introduced Shane Boskovich, ASI Signage Innovations, the applicant, who stated
that originally, they applied for a sign permit last year and were going to proceed under the ten-
foot setback but realized that the sign would be halfway on the grass and halfway into the
parking lot. He stated that they are concerned with aesthetics of the area along with visibility
from the road. He stated that there is a slight berm on the grassy area and as the sign gets further
away the elevation decreases with the parking lot lower than County Road 101. He noted that
they would not want to cause traffic issues from people attempting to read the sign from their
vehicles.
6
Approved Minutes May 19, 2021
Chair Anderson introduced Kerry Pioske, Interfaith Outreach, representing the property owner,
who stated that the sign is being funded by donors and would allow the organization to spread
their message to the community. She stated that she has vaccine opportunities available but has a
hard time marketing that to the public. She stated that the sign would allow them to
communicate with the community in a safe and effective manner.
Commissioner Witte asked how frequently the messaging on the sign would be changed.
Ms. Pioske replied that a new message could be displayed every 15 minutes, but the intent would
be to keep one message visible to the community that they are focused on.
Chair Anderson opened the Public Hearing.
Chair Anderson closed the Public Hearing.
Chair Anderson stated that he was surprised at how much right-of-way there is and how much
lawn is included in the right-of-way before the property line is reached. He stated that this seems
to be a reasonable request as the sign would still be pretty far back from the road surface.
Commissioner Witte stated that it would be good to have a sign between the two entrances. He
stated that the organization is an asset to the community and this sign would allow the
organization to promote or advertise for their events and/or donations. He stated that it is a nice-
looking sign that would support the organization and community well.
Motion was made by Commissioner Markell and seconded by Commissioner Oakley to
recommend approval of a PUD (planned unit development) amendment for a monument
sign to be constructed closer to the property line than allowed for the property located at
1605 County Road 101, subject to the findings and conditions outlined in the attached
ordinance and resolutions (ASI Signage Innovations) - 2021018.
Commissioner Boo stated he is opposed to the amendment as he believes that the purpose of the
setback is to create a common aesthetic. He stated that the reasoning to not take a parking stall
and to be visible to the community does not sway him as he believes this would add to the issue
of clutter. He stated that other signs in the area meet the setback requirement and therefore he
believes that this should as well.
Commissioner Pointner asked if there is a height requirement for signs.
Senior Planner Sommers responded that for this district the maximum allowed size is 100 square
feet, and the maximum height would be 36 feet tall.
Commissioner Pointner commented that if the sign were moved into the parking lot, the height
would increase.
Commissioner Saba stated that he agrees with Commissioner Boo that this request would create
a slippery slope. He commented that this is a great organization, but County Road 101 has a lot
7
Approved Minutes May 19, 2021
of opportunities for other businesses to bring forward similar requests. He stated that he believes
the desired outcome could still be reached without this approval.
With Commissioners Anderson, Markell, Oakley, Witte, and Pointner voting in favor and
Commissioners Boo and Saba voting against, the motion carried.
(5.3) PUD (planned unit development) amendment to allow medical clinics/medical offices
within the Northwest Business Campus 5th Addition PUD (Eagle Ridge Partners) - 2021027
Senior Planner Berglund provided a review of the staff report.
Chair Anderson introduced Max Minea, Eagle Ridge Partners, the applicant, who stated
displayed an image of the northwest business campus and adjacent uses. He stated that the
campus is completely leased with the exception of this one last space and therefore did not
anticipate any other requests. He noted that this tenant would be located next to the other two
medical tenants. He shared a letter from the prospective tenant explaining what the tenant is
looking for along with the intended use and anticipated parking. He stated that there are only
two physicians and six employees, averaging about ten patients per day. He believed that the
available parking on the campus would support this use.
Chair Anderson introduced Dr. Jason Reed, Specialists in Internal Medicine, prospective tenant,
who stated that his current office space is on the Abott Northwestern Campus in Minneapolis and
they are beyond excited to relocate to this location, if approved. He stated that he has a small
operation with two doctors and six total employees, typically ten patients per day. He stated that
typically there would be no more than four patients in the office at any time during transition
between appointment.
Chair Anderson introduced Kristin Myhre, Eagle Ridge Partners, the applicant, who stated that
they previously presented a request to have only medical uses in the campus, but they have had
good tenant retention so that transition has not happened. She stated that they do have a long-
term vision for the campus. She commented that because of the small scale of this tenant, it
would seem to be more like an office use than typical medical use.
Chair Anderson stated that it sounds like there are sound tenants for the space and this
amendment would allow Dr. Reed to move his business into the vacant space. He asked if this
amendment would apply to the entire PUD.
Ms. Myhre stated that this request would only accommodate this particular use, which is under
5,000 square feet. She stated that the campus is allowed a certain percentage of medical and
believed that this would fall under that threshold. She stated that she is not requesting a change
in zoning, but simply stating she has the parking, allowed use and tenant for the space.
Chair Anderson asked for clarification from staff on the requested action.
8
Approved Minutes May 19, 2021
Senior Planner Berglund responded that the PUD would need to be amended as presented in
order to support this use. He stated that the amendment would allow this use, and in the event
parking needs could be met, additional medical tenants could be added in the limited basis of
which the PUD request is written.
Chair Anderson asked if the applicant understands the PUD amendment and that it would
provide additional medical opportunity in the future if parking needs could be met.
Ms. Myhre confirmed that she did understand that and explained that they would be unable to
add additional medical tenants above this request under these regulations without making
significant investments in parking.
Chair Anderson opened the Public Hearing.
Chair Anderson closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Oakley stated that he will be supporting this request. He noted that a number of
revisions have come forward in a similar fashion in the industrial zoning districts and this request
fits with the demand for services. He believed that this would be a good location and no issue
with parking.
Commissioner Boo stated that he agrees that this would be a compatible use for the area and
consistent with past practices.
Commissioner Pointner stated that she would also support the request and is thankful that this
business is coming to Plymouth.
Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Boo to
recommend approval of a PUD (planned unit development) amendment to allow medical
clinics/medical offices within the Northwest Business Campus 5th Addition PUD subject to
the findings and conditions outlined in the attached ordinance and resolutions (Eagle Ridge
Partners) – 2021027. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried.
Chair Anderson Adjourned the meeting at 8:27 pm