Loading...
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