HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 06-02-20211
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
Approved Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 2, 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 June 2, 2021.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners Michael Boo, Julie
Pointner, Justin Markell, Donovan Saba, David Witte, and Bryan Oakley.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
STA FF PRESENT: Community Development Director Steve Juetten, Senior Planners Shawn
Drill and Lori Sommers, Graduate Engineer Griffin Dempsey, and City Engineer Chris LaBounty.
OTHERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Ned Carroll and Jim Davis and City Attorney Soren
Mattick
Chair Anderson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Plymouth Forum
Approval of Agenda
Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Saba to approve
the agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried.
Consent Agenda
(4.1) Planning Commission minutes from meeting held on May 19, 2021.
Motion was made by Commissioner Witte and seconded by Commissioner Oakley to approve
the Consent Agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried.
Public Hearings
(5.1) Request for reguiding, rezoning, preliminary plat, and subdivision code variance for
a single-family residential development at the former Hollydale Golf Course site, for
property located at 4600, 4640, and 4710 Holly Lane (Hollydale GC Development, Inc. --
2021028)
Senior Planner Drill provided a review of the staff report.
2
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
Commissioner Oakley commented that this request seems similar to the request that came
forward last year. He asked if there is a list that compares this request to the one that was
considered previously.
Senior Planner Drill responded that he does not have a list but could summarize the differences.
He displayed the previous plan and highlighted the differences noting that the park was moved to
be more contiguous with Schmidt Woodlands Park to create a more usable neighborhood park
and the southern portion would have nine platted outlots with conservation easements and could
be deeded at no charge to the lots to the south. He noted that the number of units remains
unchanged.
Commissioner Witte stated that under normal circumstances when an application is denied an
applicant must wait six months to bring forward another application and commented that he
believes this is before that time.
Senior Planner Drill responded that the way the ordinance is worded the Planning Commission
cannot review an application until six months has passed, however a developer can resubmit
prior six month time, therefore this follows the procedure.
Commissioner Witte noted that the presentation stated that the wetlands would be preserved but
asked if wetlands are protected by law from being developed.
Senior Planner Drill responded that wetlands are protected under law and in addition the
developer would provide the city required buffering to improve that protection.
Commissioner Witte stated that one way to accomplish that would be to place the wetlands in an
outlot and deed that area to the city but instead it appears that the applicant is including that
wetland and buffer area within the lots which in turn increases the lot size.
Senior Planner Drill responded that the wetland areas were excluded from the lot sizes and
therefore the average lot size of over 19,500 square feet does not include wetland areas. He
stated that while wetlands have been placed in outlots in the past, they can then go into tax
forfeiture therefore the city prefers that the wetlands be included in the lots to avoid that issue.
Commissioner Witte asked how park dedication is calculated.
Senior Planner Drill responded that there is a plan for a neighborhood park in this area within the
comprehensive plan and the parks department has stated that they would like land to create a
larger park in this area. He stated that although 7.25 acres is proposed for park land, the
developer only receives credit for about 5.4 acres because some of the land included for the park
is within the conservation easement. He noted that the remainder of park dedication would be
proposed to be cash in lieu following the city formula. Based on this policy the cash dedication
would be approximately 1.157 million dollars.
Commissioner Witte asked if there has been any discussion to accept more land in lieu of the
cash dedication which would reduce the total number of homes.
3
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
Senior Planner Drill responded that there has not been such discussion as the parks department
feels that this proposed area combined with Schmidt Woodlands would be ten acres and is quite
large for a neighborhood park.
Commissioner Witte asked the difference between RSF-1 and RSF-3, as the developer is
requesting RSF-3 zoning.
Senior Planner Drill responded that if the site were zoned RSF-1 or RSF-2, the site would not
meet the minimum density requirement for LA-1, our lowest density which specifies two to three
units per acre, therefore the developer has requested RSF-3 to provide additional flexibility. He
stated that allows the developer to match the lot sizes on the different boundaries of the site with
adjacent existing development. He noted that many of the proposed lots could qualify as RSF-1
or RSF-2, however it is easier to have one zoning district for the entire site.
Commissioner Pointner asked for details on the drainage proposed for the site. She stated the
area in green would flow the pond in that area. She asked where the area in blue would drain
and where the area in red would flow.
Senior Planner Drill provided details on the drainage patterns that different portions of the site
would take. He noted the blue area would flow to the center of the site and then to the large
wetland. He noted that the area marked in red would continue to follow the existing pattern but
would not increase over the existing rates.
Commissioner Pointner asked if it is anticipated that the trees along the border would stay.
Senior Planner Drill responded yes, that is the case.
Commissioner Boo asked if the minimum density requirement would still land around this
proposed number of lots, even if zoned RSF-1.
Senior Planner Drill responded that could be a possibility. He noted that most likely that type of
plan would be below two units per acre. He noted that the lots could be resized to meet that
requirement, but the lots on the outer boundary would then become smaller as they are currently
quite large.
Commissioner Boo asked if the LA-1 designation requires a minimum number of units, two to
three per acre and how that is distributed is based on the property conditions. He asked what the
city would do if a developer proposed one unit per acre.
Senior Planner Drill responded that the city would not allow that as it would not meet the
requirements of the City’s comprehensive plan or Metropolitan Council.
Commissioner Markell asked for additional details on what the city would be concerned about if
a developer came forward with a unique development request for this property with larger lots.
Senior Planner Drill responded that from an efficiency standpoint it would not be an efficient use
of resources to maintain streets, utilities and other infrastructure that goes with a development for
4
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
a subdivision under two units per acre. He stated that the city relies on the Metropolitan Council
for sewer service and the Metropolitan Council wants the city to be efficient with that resource.
Commissioner Markell asked if the Met Council looks that granular at every 160 acre parcel. He
stated that there are examples in the metro area that have large lot conservation-oriented
developments.
Senior Planner Drill responded that they do, and they look at every plat on an annual basis
through the plat monitoring program.
Commissioner Markell asked if the intent is to have a passive park, with a trail meandering
through the seven-acre parcel without additional amenities.
Senior Planner Drill responded that the park has not yet been designed. He stated that a
neighborhood park typically contains different park features and amenities. He stated if and
when the land would be acquired, the park department would plan for that amenity. He noted
that part of the park would be passive with parking adjacent to the standard neighborhood park.
Commissioner Markell asked if that would be similar to the park off Dunkirk and Garland.
Senior Planner Drill responded that is correct.
Commissioner Witte stated that the commission was provided a packet of emails that staff
received related to this request. He noted that 27 of the 30 were opposed while only three were
in favor. He noted that he received an additional 24 emails related to this request, with only two
of those in favor. He stated that he was also sent a petition and asked staff to summarize the
details of that petition.
Chair Anderson responded that he forwarded the emails he received to staff for distribution to the
commission and to be a part of the public record, therefore the emails within the packet are most
likely a duplication of those received by the commission members individually. He referenced
the petition and noted that someone will be bringing that forward during the public hearing.
Commissioner Oakley stated that quite a few years ago Holly Lane was looked at as a central
connection to Schmidt Lake Road and asked if that is no longer possible and whether that was
considered as a point of connection.
Senior Planner Drill responded that when the city amended the comprehensive plan a few years
back, the classification of Holly Lane was changed from a collector road to a local street. He
stated that staff realized that an at-grade railroad crossing would not be obtained and therefore it
would not make sense to extend Holly Lane. He noted that homes have also been built in that
area and extending Holly Lane northerly has been removed as an option.
Chair Anderson introduced Jake Walesch, 10850 Old County Road 15, Hollydale GC
Development, Inc., developer, who stated that he is present to address any questions the
commission may have. He reviewed the changes to the plan from the last request including a
different park location, placement of a conservation easement over an area of trees to be
preserved near the park, outlots created that would be dedicated to the neighboring properties to
5
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
the south in order to preserve those trees, two lots were removed from the center to increase the
size of the amenity lot, the lots on the boundaries were changed in width to match adjacent
existing development, and the villas would be association maintained. He stated that within the
LA-1 guiding there is a number of zoning districts allowed. He noted that per the zoning
ordinance, RSF-1 is not meant for new development and RSF-2 is the lowest density for new
development. He stated that lot size from RSF-2 was used in their planning for this
development. He stated that they attempted to match larger lots to the existing larger lot homes
and the smaller lots proposed are not proposed to match up with existing development, with the
exception of a small area that will abut new development.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Chair Anderson introduced Don Hoffert, 16809 49th Place N., who commented on the velocity of
traffic coming from Wayzata High School is amazing and even at the peak times now and
encouraged the city to pilot their improvements prior to letting this move forward. He stated that
nothing has changed since the comprehensive plan was approved in July 2019 and therefore this
is testing the values of the plan. He stated that many of the existing members voted against
development of this property during the last review and asked that they do the same. He stated
that this area is a bubble, and this plan would place seven to eight years of construction, which
would not be fair to the residents in that area. He stated that the values of the city are being
tested and encouraged the commission to review this against adhering to the values of a long-
term strategic comprehensive plan. He commented that open space is highly valued and needed.
He stated over 2000 Plymouth residents are on record as being against the request. He stated that
the residents support the city in adhering to its values even with a lawsuit pending. He stated
values over cash and values over data. He asked the commission to make a values-based
decision.
Chair Anderson clarified that this is the planning commission, and this group will make a
recommendation to the city council, which will consider the item later this month.
Chair Anderson introduced Andrew Van Benschoten, 4681 Inland Court N., who stated that on
the theme of trying to avoid rehashing old concepts, the plan represented tonight rehashes what
has been presented in the past. He noted that there are no substantial changes to the plan, as the
number of homes remains the same and this is the exact same plan that was denied. He stated
that the plan has the same 229 lots, the location of the park shifted slightly and some lots were
moved around. He stated that the pressure of a lawsuit is the only reason this seems to be
reconsidered. He stated that it seemed the decision in the 2040 comprehensive plan was to leave
the zoning of this parcel as is. He stated that the closest school is Kimberly Lane Elementary,
which is already overflowing at capacity. He noted that this development would lead to another
school rezoning and would impact the existing residents. He asked that the commission decline
this application.
Chair Anderson introduced Kent Johnson, 16717 49th Place N., who stated that he would guess
that members of the commission feel unheard by the council as it has closed off all meaningful
discussion as to the handling of the Hollydale property. Last Fall this commission voted 4-3 not
to change the comp plan. He recalled a statement previously made by a commission member
stating that the Hollydale property is so unique and challenging that it would require more public
discussion and input in order for the planning process to be perceived as reasonable. He stated
6
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
that the situation then seemed promising as the city council also denied the previous application
4-3. He stated that there is no vision in this technique of laying out a process in favor of a
developer and owner of the property. He stated that the developer and property owner sued the
city, which lead to closed meetings by the city council and staff. He stated that the planning
commission and community were kept out of those meetings and discussions. He stated that it
would seem that the staff were able to persuade the council that the lawsuit would not be
defendable, and the development would be a preferred action. He stated this can’t be the best
way to serve the community. He spoke about the increase in traffic, which he felt would cause
safety concerns for Comstock Lane and Schmidt Lake Road. He stated that no one looked at
Holly Lane. He stated that several residents have expressed concern with having thousands of
additional vehicles go through the intersection on a daily basis. He stated that the intersection is
safe as it is now and has confirmed this will the 37 owners of the units in Courts of Nanterre, but
would be extremely dangerous if additional traffic were added. He stated that the statement has
been made by the Mayor and Mr. Juetten that this is an existing problem, and the developer
should not be on the hook for that, but he does not believe that to be appropriate.
Chair Anderson again reminded the public of the roll of the planning commission and the tasks
that would fall to the city council.
Chair Anderson introduced Timothy Schneeweis, 16907 49th Place N., who stated that many
residents feel dejected, frustrated and angry with a loss of faith in local government. He stated
that the Mayor accepted campaign funds from the developer and the city council met in closed
session with the developer which leads to a biased process that left out public input. He stated a
construction frenzy is going on in northwest Plymouth and who is listing to the residents. He
stated that initially the city council required an EIS and after arm twisting by the mayor after 5.5
hours of a meeting, a second vote was taken with the council accepted the EAW rather than an
EIS. He stated that if any project requires more rigorous investigation, it would be this project.
He stated that mercury pollution exceeds pollution levels on three of the four locations testing
and the report mentioned possible pollution elsewhere due to runoff and therefore additional
testing should be done. He stated that the traffic testing was biased as those consultants have
relationships with the developer and/or city. He stated that he consulted three firms who all
declined to provide input as they did not want to go against a developer or city. He stated that he
does not think you can trust the traffic studies. He stated that rusty patch bumble bee habitat was
mentioned but described as slightly too small to enable protection. He stated that we need an
impartial and unbiased professional to investigate. He stated that residents in the northeast
corner of the property provide input on their extensive drainage problems on multiple occasions.
He mentioned that Councilmember Willis stated that it could be perched water. He noted that
the EAW did not address this issue. He stated and an independent analysis should be completed.
He stated that the commission is in the unique position to judge the use of the land and how that
would meet the needs of the residents. He stated that approximately 2,300 residents have
petitioned the city and do not believe that an additional 229 million dollar homes are needed. No
one has studied the environmental and social impact on the seven or eight neighborhoods
surrounding this property. He referenced the impacts that six years of construction would have.
He mentioned noise and dirt , property values, ripping apart the Courts of Nanterre, school
overcrowding and boundary changes and the loss of our last 18 hole golf course. He asked that
the commission uphold its previous decision to deny this project as it is the same flawed
application.
7
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
Chair Anderson introduced Alison Barrick, 4525 Merrimac Lane N., who stated that she is
present to provide an update on the savehollydalechange.org petition. She reviewed the purpose
of the petition to deny the development request and maintain the land. She stated that to date the
petition has garnered 8,970 signatures, 1,807 of those signatures come from the four zip codes
within Plymouth, and 2,149 come from Plymouth and the immediate surrounding communities
that would be impacted by this development. She stated that 92 comments were also left on the
petition from Plymouth residents in favor of support to keep the property as green space or a golf
course. She formally submitted the petition to the commission to become a part of the public
record.
Chair Anderson commented that it is his understanding that the petition has been submitted to the
city.
Community Development Director Juetten confirmed that staff received an email tonight with
the petition which was forwarded to the commission members and will go on to the city council.
Ms. Barrick commented that she is not aware of any other development or request that has
received this much public input or opposition. She asked if there have been any other projects
that have garnered this level of interest and/or opposition. She stated that the residents wonder
whether their voices matter in the long run. She commented that there are clearly many citizens
opposed to the development and it is important that the commission, staff, and city act on behalf
of its citizens. She referenced the developments that are currently ongoing within ward one. She
stated that city staff has shared the vantage point of the developer and did not provide a balanced
presentation. She asked how the city is thinking about the cumulative impact of development in
such a concentrated space. She stated that the commission provides a key input into the decision
that will stand to impact Plymouth residents and residents of adjacent communities.
Chair Anderson introduced Gery Haag, 17832 73rd Avenue, Maple Grove, who read a statement
from Robert Burk, 4962 Comstock Lane N., whom has a medical condition and was unable to
speak at the meeting. The statement stated that there has been no change in the development
request with the exception of a lawsuit. He stated that the number of units stayed the same,
twelve units were reduced in size, five lots were moved closer to our homes and they have
delineated new outlots on the southern boundary of the property. He stated that the current
application does not address any of the concerns of the residents or those that voted against the
development last year or the City Council who voted against the development. He noted that the
lawsuit is a surprise to no one as it was threatened during the initial review. He stated that the
comprehensive plans take precedent over zoning and therefore there is no reason the commission
should change its original decision to deny the request and amend the comprehensive plan.
Gery Haag, 17832 73rd Avenue, Maple Grove, stated that he hopes that those that voted against
this request would have the backbone to vote against the request again. He stated that this is
embarrassing to be reviewing the same presentation and providing the same comments. He
hoped that the vote would remain the same again as well. He stated that it is convenient for the
developer to come in and say that if the plan is approved, they will drop the lawsuit. He stated
that he does not believe the council considered how the planning commission voted.
Chair Anderson introduced Terri Hyduke, 16917 49th Place N., who stated that everyone is
repeating the same comments from the last request, which is difficult for everyone. She stated
8
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
that she submitted an email to the commission and wanted to clarify her position for the new
members of the commission. She stated that this issue is about land use and preservation of
green space. She stated that the city is attempting to fill all its green space with taxable property.
She asked where the city values are to preserve green space. She stated that while park land is
great, there should be thought to conservation, open space and green space. She stated that the
city could have the land as is with little maintenance outside of mowing. She stated that while
the presentation from staff was fabulous, she has the sense that issues are being whitewashed
including the safety concerns related to traffic, and drainage concerns. She recently had a sewer
back up because the system is old, and she has heard from owners in Wyndemere Farms about
having up to ten sump pumps. She stated that the largest issue is that she was under the
assumption that the city would involve the citizens with the use for this property. She stated that
there has never been a meeting asking for input and suggestions on how this property could be
used. She stated that all the meetings related to this request have been closed door meetings
keeping the public out. She discussed her time at the legislature as a staff member. She stated
that it has been discouraging to know that this is how her city government is operating. She
stated that the residents are exhausted because this is a long process that feels redundant, and the
residents feel they are not being heard. She asked the commission to vote with where the value
system should lie in keeping public open space.
Chair Anderson introduced Adam Huhta, 4745 Yuma Lane N., who stated that on the drainage
map, his home and the others on Yuma Lane are the homes marked in red on the map. He stated
that the developer and staff mentioned that there would be no changes to the drainage, and it
would continue to flow from the course to their properties. He stated that he and his neighbors
have had over $1,000,000 in damage and remediation because of the drainage from the area
shown in red on the drainage map from the course. He commented that there is a conservation
easement proposed on the east boundary and asked if that would prevent efforts to remediate the
water that flows from the east onto their properties. He stated that while he appreciates the trees
that will be saved, the easement could make it impossible to remediate the drainage problems
which have been serious and costly. He stated that each property has multiple sump pumps and
generators to ensure power is not lost. He stated that he had $40,000 in damage to his basement
the year he moved in because the power went out and his sump pump stopped operating. He
stated that students cannot walk across the street to the school or bike because of the safety
concerns with the road. He stated that this property is landlocked, guided P-I, and fed by only
one dead end road. He stated that the problem with the property is that in accommodating the
use as a golf course, the property owner requested the City make decisions making the property
not suited for residential development. He stated that the property would be accommodating for
a P-I use. He stated it could be used for stables, public parks and open space and other public
recreational facilities. He stated that the developer used the example of other properties that
were changed in zoning from FRD but noted that is not an appropriate comparison because
Hollydale is not like those properties. He stated that Begin Oaks had a major highway to the
east, Hampton Hills had very little around it and Elm Creek only had development on one side.
He stated that Hollydale sits in the middle of hundreds of homes that have existed for more than
20 years and placing anything on the property would be like putting a square peg into a round
hole. He stated that the owners of Hollydale sold their adjacent property for development which
eliminated their access at the east. He stated that the Hollydale owners also asked Schmidt Lake
Road to avoid their property, therefore the applicant has created this situation. He provided a
case in Eagan stating that the court ruled that it was not a taking because the property never had
9
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
those rights. He stated that this would simply be preventing the property owner from the most
profitable use of the property, not for any use of the property.
Chair Anderson introduced Melanie Huhta, 4745 Yuma Lane N., who stated that she thanks the
commission for its previous vote to deny the rezoning and for taking the time to receive input
again tonight. She stated that she shares the concern with the lack of an independent assessment
of the Rusty Patch Bumblebee and its habitat. She stated that she is also deeply concerned about
the mercury pollution and lack of testing that has been completed throughout the property. She
stated that the commission had wonderful ideas and statements to the council that this could be
so much more, let’s dream bigger, let’s think outside the box and that has not been done.
Chair Anderson introduced Mark Kraemer, 4715 Yuma Lane N., who stated that he opposes any
change to the comprehensive plan that would rezone the Hollydale property to full residential.
He asked the commission to reaffirm its previous vote in opposition of the request. He stated
that he has concern with the drainage flowing onto his property. He stated that if the
development moves through and causes additional damage to his property from drainage, he
would join with his neighbors to file suit against the developer and city. He stated that the
comprehensive plan is important for those making decisions on where they want to live. He
stated that rezoning this property would be different than the reguiding of others because of the
zoning of the property and sheer size in land. He noted that the property owner sold portions of
their property for residential development and marketed those as golf course neighborhoods. He
stated that concessions were made to the property owner at that time in return for the
development and statements that the golf course would remain. He noted that this would be the
last golf course in Plymouth and golf course activity has increased for people of all ages and
ethnicity. He stated that the public discussion regarding this property has been completely only
virtually because of the pandemic. He stated that the city council continued to hold closed
session meetings related to this topic, cutting out the public and instead chose to invest millions
into the community center. He commented that the statements from the Mayor make it seem that
he has a vested interest in this development. He stated that during the discussion last year it was
discussed about an interactive discussion with the city, developer and residents of Plymouth.
This has not occurred, and that the public has continued to be shut out while the city has spent
tremendous resources working with the developer. He asked how the proposal could at
minimum be modified. He noted that the northwest corner of Plymouth contributes to the largest
portion of the tax base but has fewer neighborhood trails and amenities. He stated that perhaps
there is a trail and open space put around the development. Seems this is an all or none thing
being voted on. He stated that there is no good solution for a Hollydale development to access
Schmidt Lake Road safely. He provided some alternate options, such as leaving the property as a
golf course on the exterior of the property with homes allowed on the interior providing good
access to seniors and youth. He asked who the Mayor and city council work for.
Chair Anderson introduced Nicholas Hyduke, 16300 Old Rockford Road, who asked how the
lots were being changed in size on the southwest corner adjacent to the wetlands. He asked for
more information on how wetlands could be included in the lot size calculations. He stated that
he owns the property south of Hollydale and half of his property is the wetland. He asked who
owns the wetlands. He stated that he agrees with the comments made thus far.
Chair Anderson introduced Marshall Walzer, 4950 Comstock Lane N., who stated that he moved
into his home in September and his home directly faces Comstock. He stated that he is in
10
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
alignment with the concerns that have been raised tonight. He stated that he is concerned as his
home would be the first home that all this traffic would go past. He stated that he would like to
have his grandchildren at his home and be able to feel safe. He stated that he walks down
Schmidt Lake Road every morning for close to an hour and the traffic is fast moving and has
many school buses, but not out of proportion now. He stated that he could not imagine how that
would be impacted by this size development and construction traffic. He stated that it feels that
some people are feeling bullied by the lawsuit. He stated that this project appears to be a
nonstarter that is looking for a life raft. He does not feel it would be fair to allow this project to
happen. He asked why future meetings could not be held in person for this case as other
restrictions continue to be lifted. He stated that this appears to be a mess that could have been
resolved and a lot of residents are weary and have been drawn through this for a long period of
time.
Chair Anderson introduced Paul Hillen, 16130 48th Ave N., who stated that he leads the Preserve
Hollydale Committee which has been active for the past 21 months and represents eight
neighborhoods with over 1,000 residents. He asked for a few additional minutes as he represents
comments from many residents. He stated that he is asking that this application not be approved
because over 1,800 Plymouth residents do not want this development. He asked why the city
would continue to pursue something that the residents do not want. He stated that since this has
come forward there have only been two people speaking in support of this project, representing
the applicants while over 150 residents have spoken in opposition. One of the speakers in favor
was a consultant supporting the developer and the other was a daughter of the seller. He stated
that just because something “can” be developed does not mean it should. He stated that four
straight comprehensive plans have designated this land as P-I and as a golf course and nothing
has changed from the time the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2019. He stated that three
years was spent developing that plan which was unanimously approved by the commission and
council. He stated that the parties that want this change are the seller and potential buyer. Over
1,800 Plymouth residents don’t. He stated that one of the objections has been stated that no one
wants to purchase and/or operate this property as a golf course. He stated that there has been a
recent offical offer to the property owner to purchase the property and maintain it as a golf
course, which the property owner declined. He stated that the identical proposal has come back
before the city with the threat of a lawsuit. He stated this is an identical proposal. He stated that
people in neighboring developments spent over $1,200,000 in managing water and mitigating
risk and adding over 50 percent impervious coverage to that property will not help that issue. He
stated that the existing residents are prepared to bring litigation if that drainage issue is increased.
He stated that the city would receive $1,200,000 to the park land that should have been dedicated
with this development. He stated that because of that, the landowner/developer would gain
$2,600,000 in additional profit. He stated that the developer has stated that only $450,000 would
be put towards an intersection and the taxpaying residents would have to fund the remainder for
an intersection that the residents do not want to support a development they do not want. He
asked the commission to hold true to their previous votes against this request as nothing has
changed. He asked that the new commissioners consider the statements made tonight as once
Hollydale is gone, it is gone forever, and this recreational green space cannot be returned. This is
a legacy you have in front of you.
Chair Anderson introduced Beverly Berg, 4510 Holly Lane, who stated that she appreciates those
that would like the property to remain as green space. She stated that most of her concerns are
related to traffic and the increase in vehicles that would result from this development. She
11
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
commented on the increase in construction traffic that has occurred since 2019 with the Timbers
Edge that have come forward since that time. She stated that she has seen an increase in
construction and contractor traffic. She stated that it was mentioned that Hollydale would cause
six to eight years of construction and was concerned with the impact that would have to the
existing residents. She stated that there is a lot of traffic already on the road without
construction. She asked for additional information on the rusty patch bumble bee habitat in the
southwest portion of the site.
Chair Anderson closed the public hearing.
Chair Anderson briefly recessed the meeting.
Chair Anderson reconvened the meeting.
Community Development Director Juetten stated that many of the speakers only provided
comments and not questions.
Chair Anderson stated that he gathered a question related to the speed of traffic on Schmidt Lake
Road.
City Engineer LaBounty responded that the city is aware that the average speed of drivers is
higher than the posted 40 mph speed limit which was part of the traffic study and intersection
analysis. He stated that the speaker made a comment about a pilot project for the traffic and
noted that the city knows there is an existing problem at this intersection and is working with a
consultant for the intersection in attempt to mitigate those concerns.
Chair Anderson asked if that means there is a study ongoing or did the conclusion of the traffic
study answer those concerns.
City Engineer LaBounty that it is included in the traffic studies in the packet.
Community Development Director Juetten responded to the comments related to the closed
session meetings held by the city council and noted that it a common practice for a city to hold
closed session meetings related to litigation. He stated that Mr. Johnson mentioned that
Comstock and Schmidt is a safe intersection now and all his neighbors concur. He stated that
the first speaker mentioned concerns now with the traffic. He stated that he would agree that it
would get worse if development occurred, however the engineering department is continuing to
look at ways to mitigate the concern. He referenced the statements made related to the mercury
levels on the site and stated that it would make sense to allow the applicant to provide details on
that process and the remediation that would be proposed. He stated that Ms. Barrick provided an
overview of the petition and she asked if there was a cumulative analysis of drainage and traffic
with all the development that has occurred in this general area.
City Engineer LaBounty responded that the city looks cumulatively at drainage and traffic, as do
other entities such as the county, watershed districts, and Metropolitan Council. He stated that
there is drainage from the existing Hollydale site that drains east to the adjacent developments
but is not significant. He stated that the area marked in red on the presentation would not be
proposed to be changed as there would not be grading improvements within the conservation
12
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
easement. He noted that there are areas that currently drain into that area that would be rerouted
and therefore there could be a small decrease in drainage but there would not be an increase in
drainage from the site to those properties.
Community Development Director Juetten stated that Mr. Huhta asked if the conservation
easement could be altered. Mr. Juetten stated that there are a number of trees to be preserved in
the conservation easement. He stated that the developer would be open to additional
conversation to determine if drain tile or another measure could be added to assist with drainage
but that should be balanced with tree preservation.
Senior Planner Drill stated that on the existing golf course site there was an area identified as a
potential Rusty Patch Bumble Bee habitat. He noted that the bees were not identified in that
area, it was simply identified as potential habitat. He stated that the developer has created a plan
to recreate a potential habitat by planting pollinator friendly plantings that would be larger than
the 8,700 square feet that would be removed and would be replaced by 15,000 square feet north
of the wetland.
Community Development Director Juetten provided additional details on the conservation
easement and noted that drainage changes could be reviewed. He stated that they do not want
people going into the easement year-after-year to make changes. He stated that if there are
changes desired for drainage that could be looked at with the development rather than
continually looking to make changes. He welcomed additional conversation with the residents if
desired.
Senior Planner Drill referenced the issue of wetland ownership and explained for the Hollydale
site the wetlands are currently owned by the property owner within the boundaries of the site.
He stated that through platting the lots would extend into the wetland area to make that a part of
the properties. He stated that the city does not want the wetland to be platted as an outlot as
those tend to go the route of tax forfeiture in the future, and therefore the city would prefer for
the wetland area to be part of active parcels.
Community Development Director Juetten stated that the city received an application that the
commission must review and then will go to the council. He stated that there is also an active
lawsuit and therefore there is no opportunity to review or modify the plan and to allow for the
general public discussion about the property as previously discussed. He stated that is a response
to the questions asked about meeting to discuss alternative designs. He noted that the
commission will begin meeting in-person again in July and the council is open for public
meetings with a limited amount of seating within the council chambers, therefore there are
opportunities for in-person participation. He stated that residents can continue to participate via
Zoom as well.
Chair Anderson asked if there have been other projects with the amount of objection that this
project has seen.
Community Development Director Juetten responded that he is not aware of such an objection
and petition outside of this case.
13
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
Chair Anderson stated that there was a question to the environmental impacts from cumulative
development.
Community Development Director Juetten stated that individual projects are reviewed for
drainage and traffic. He noted that an EAW was completed for this property and the Dundee
property, along with traffic analysis that was completed for Timbers Edge. He noted that
although there has not been a comprehensive review, each development has its own
environmental review process.
Chair Anderson stated that there is an approved EAW for this project and therefore there is not a
way to go back on that decision. He stated that if the project proceeds, some of the issues
addressed within that report would be included within the conditions of a project.
Community Development Director Juetten responded that the city council made a negative
declaration on the need for an EIS and the environmental issues within the EAW would continue
to be addressed through a project if that moves forward.
Chair Anderson introduced Jake Walesch, 10850 Old County Road 15, Hollydale GC
Development, Inc., developer, who stated that there has been additional testing related to the
mercury. He explained that it is legal and acceptable to the MPCA and Department of
Agriculture to leave the mercury on the site. He stated that they are not proposing to do that and
would instead propose to take the soil contaminated with mercury and put that in a landfill that is
designated to accept that type of material. He stated that the mercury is a result of fungicide
applied to the greens and they sampled several tee boxes and fairways and there were no
concentrations of mercury in those areas, it only lies within the greens. He stated that they have
entered into a voluntary program with the Department of Agriculture clean-up program and have
had representatives onsite. He noted that additional testing was completed, and no additional
elevated mercury locations were identified. He stated that they have applied to the program and
created a corrective action plan and received comments in response which have been addressed.
He provided additional details on the process that would be followed. He referenced the
comments related to drainage on the east side of the site. He noted that a small portion of the
water that currently drains to the east would be redirected to the southwest. He stated that he met
with a neighboring property owner that identified where the water came from the north to the
south and went down the shared property line. He stated that they do have a plan to install drain
tile to capture as much of that water as possible. He commented that the purpose of the
conservation easement is to keep the trees that are there and preserve newly planted trees. He
stated that in addition to the trees that would be planted on the lots, they would also plant trees in
the conservation easement. He stated that they could remove some of the nonsignificant trees if
desired. He believed that they would be able to do a good job of capturing the water and
reducing the water going to the east. He stated that although it is a small area, the issue is that
the water comes down in one location along the property line. He stated that they will do their
best to help remediate that problem.
Chair Anderson stated that it appears there would be some improvements planned and reduction
to the amount of water running to the east.
Community Development Director Juetten responded that the developer is willing to do more
work to help address the drainage, but the property owners to the east need to work with him in
14
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
order to develop that plan. He noted thus far most of the property owners to the east have not
been willing to discuss this and help to finalize a plan.
Commissioner Witte asked the source of the water that is causing the problems and whether it is
stormwater runoff, irrigation systems from the golf course, or subsurface water. He asked if those
improvements could be made before the easement is recorded on the property.
Mr. Walesch responded that they have looked at the area to delineate it. He stated that they met
with one property owner in that area that identified where the issue comes from and how it
impacts their property. He noted that there is a berm that keeps the water on the Hollydale
course but then goes away and then the water is routed to the east along that property line. He
stated that they would keep the berm and redirect the water into a drain tile system. He stated
that from the grading of the property it would appear 90 percent of the water problems are their
existing problems as there is very little drainage that travels onto those properties. He
commented that the golf course could be a contributing element to the problems those properties
experience, but it is not the source of the problem. He stated that depending on the plan that
could be developed he would believe that 50 to 90 percent of the drainage could be solved from
the golf course property. He noted that he would estimate that the golf course only accounts for
one to ten percent of the drainage problems those properties experience.
Chair Anderson commented that it appears the questions and comments have been addressed.
Community Development Director Juetten stated that there are some questions that staff can
follow up with to individual residents.
Chair Anderson referenced the comment asking if there has been an overall study on
development in the area and replied that there has not been. He explained that development
cases are reviewed individually but account for the impacting factors from previous development
in things such as traffic studies.
Chair Anderson stated that the commission is reviewing the application six months after denial of
the past application, which is acceptable. He stated that the city council has asked for additional
input related to the comprehensive plan, rezoning, plat, and variance. He stated that during the
last review the commission felt that without a comprehensive plan amendment the other issues
are irrelevant. He stated that the council has asked that input be provided on the other elements
as well. He stated that perhaps each member could provide their input and any concerns they
have related to the preliminary plat and rezoning. He stated that he sees very little difference in
this application and is more akin to the changes that would occur between preliminary and final
plat. He stated that the changes that have been made are an improvement from the previous plan
but overall, very little has changed and therefore his position opposing the comprehensive plan
amendment has not changed, and therefore he cannot support the rezoning or preliminary plat.
He referenced Schmidt Lake Road and stated that the road was not designed to handle more
traffic from Comstock Lane. He stated that the traffic report stated that there are alternatives that
would be figured out later on, which means that would not include public input and therefore he
finds that unacceptable. He stated that he also finds the three-lane option unacceptable. He
stated that the developer has stated they would put a cap on their contribution towards
improvements and believes that the developer should fully fund any necessary improvements as
that would follow the previous precedent. He stated that in regard to schools, the school districts
15
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
use the comprehensive plan in order to plan for the future. He noted that two new schools have
been built in the northwest area of the school district to support the development that has
occurred. He stated that this proposed development is not within the comprehensive plan and
therefore would be unplanned density for the school district. He stated that this development
would cause an upset when parents realize their children will have to switch schools because
students were added in an unplanned area and district boundaries had to be redrawn. He
reviewed the process that is followed for variances and conditional use permits, which require a
hearing if there is objection from neighbors. He stated that this would be a comprehensive plan
amendment and there have been numerous calls, emails, statements from residents and a petition
in opposition to the development. He stated that he has never been involved in an application
with this kind of response and opposition from the public. He stated that with the exception of
those representing the applicant, all comments have been in opposition of this request. He stated
that the planning commission is a reactive board that reacts to an application. He stated that
during a sketch plan review the commission provides nonbinding input, most of which was
ignored. He stated that it is not the job of the commission to figure out what the use could be but
to determine whether this request would be appropriate. He stated that if the commission denies
this request, the property is still guided to be used as a golf course and it has been stated that
there is an offer to purchase the property for such use. He stated that the owner has the right to
retire, stop the operation of a business and sell the property, but those actions do not change the
land use, only the City Council can do that. He believed that the guiding of P-I is appropriate for
this property and should not be changed. He stated that it is reasonable to keep the property
guided P-I.
Commissioner Markell stated that there has been a lot of discussion as to how not much has
changed since the last application and noted that is accurate. He stated that perhaps the only
material change is his position on the application, noting that he will no longer be supporting the
request. He echoed the comments of Chair Anderson. He stated that denying the rezoning
would not preclude the landowner from selling the property but would only preclude the property
owner from selling the property at the most profitable use. He stated that he will be voting to
deny the request.
Commissioner Oakley stated that he echoes the comments of Chair Anderson and his well-
thought-out points. He stated that fundamentally it would be a good proposal for a property
already zoned for residential development, but this property is not guided as such. He stated that
he will not support the comprehensive plan amendment. He commented that the developer
should be commended for the effort they put into creating something that would fit as well as it
could into the area. He stated that he got the idea that the city is the primary regulatory authority
that the developer has to deal with but noted that is not the only entity the developer has to deal
with. An application is reviewed by other regulatory agencies including the State, Army Corp of
Engineers, Fish and Wildlife, and MPCA, along with others. He stated that when expert reports
are called into question, he takes offense to that as they are prepared by professionals that do a
good credible job. He stated that the review of the mercury and Rusty Patch Bumble bee are
good. He stated that if this were proposed in an area with roadways that could handle the traffic,
he would believe it to be a good development. He stated he has no problems with the variance
for the street length. He stated that they did not get into the details of the development in the
previous review and believes that the previous comments remain true that this is not the right
piece of land for this development and therefore will be voting to deny the request.
16
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
Commissioner Witte stated that he agrees with what has been stated by the commission members
thus far. He stated that he and his wife built their home in Golf View in 1991 and there were
cornfields around there at the time. He stated that his development has roughly 60 lots on 80
acres, which includes the streets and stormwater ponds. He stated that density, if translated to
the 120 acres of buildable area of this property would equate to 90 lots. He stated that he does
not expect a project today to be 90 lots, but the 229 lots proposed is incomprehensible. He stated
that overwhelming the message is that this is too much for this site and the residents have not had
an opportunity to participate in shaping a solution they could support. He commented that there
needs to be some level of support to amend the comprehensive plan and that does not exist in this
case. He noted that there are issues with traffic, number of homes, access, drainage, among
others. He stated there would be cut through traffic through his neighborhood. He stated that he
sees a pattern where the city has compounded bad decisions in this area, and it needs to stop and
re-evaluate this with community input. He stated that the city council should be listening to the
members of the community in shaping that solution and noted that he will not support this
request.
Commissioner Boo stated that this has been a difficult process for everyone involved. He stated
that he is struck with the lack of direction from the city council at this stage in the game, beyond
they too rejected this proposal as well a few months ago but then made the decision to allow the
applicant to proceed to re-apply. He stated that the commission continues to offer policy
guidance to the council as it is tasked. He stated that he remains convinced that the highest and
best use of the parcel will likely be housing when the dust clears. He stated that there was a
comment made that someone offered to purchase the property as a golf course, and although the
community would support that, that should be paused. He stated that the city has stated that they
do not want to purchase the land and do not even want park land equal to the amount of park
dedication. He stated that the commission is left with little guidance as to what the council wants
in this area. He noted that he is struck by the traffic problems in this area and the implications
the density of this development could have on that situation. He stated that he is unsure how he
will vote but noted that the commission lacks clarity from the city in how the commission should
be providing input. He stated that he will not support moving this ahead as he does not have
enough information to make a good decision to help the council come to its own conclusions.
Chair Anderson stated that the city has stated that it does not want to own a golf course or be in
the business of operating a golf course, which has been an ongoing discussion. He stated that
while some cities operate a golf course, Plymouth has continued to say it does not want to be in
that business. He stated that the city never mentioned that it did not want the property to be a
golf course.
Commissioner Pointner stated that she echoes the comments of Commissioner Boo. She stated
that she was not a part of the previous discussions as a member of the commission but did follow
it as a resident. She comes to this with fresh eyes. She stated that she spoke with some of the
property owners that border the golf course property. She stated that the school district would
have time to plan appropriately because it would take time to construct the homes. She stated
that she is concerned with the traffic problems but has been impressed with the ability of
everyone to talk about it. She stated that if people continue to talk about it, a solution can come
about. She stated that she has a hard time saying that the commission has the power to say the
property will not be rezoned for what the property owner wants but for what someone else may
want. She stated that she has listened to the comments everyone has made, had read the emails,
17
Approved Minutes June 2, 2021
and spoken with residents. She stated that there is so much conversation happening, and the
rezoning should be separated. She stated that if P-I is left as the guiding, the potential uses could
create more traffic than a residential use.
Commissioner Saba stated that he voted to deny the request in the last review and tried to keep
an open mind in this review. He stated that he read every email submitted and has a problem
with the roads and density. He stated that he could support the suggestion of Commissioner
Witte to place the density of an adjacent development on the property. He stated that this
application seems too dense for the property as it is situated and with the roads available. He
noted that 2.2 percent of the Plymouth population signed the petition in opposition, which is still
a small percentage of the population and did not believe that a referendum would pass to support
purchasing the property to turn it into open space or park. He stated that he believes that the
property will ultimately be developed with homes, but it cannot be this dense and there has to be
a better way to make it work. He stated that he is proud to be a member of the commission and
the clarity of vision everyone has had throughout this process. He stated that again he will be
voting against the application.
Commissioner Pointner stated that her ward has said things that take issue with the comments of
the city purchasing the land. She commented that she has listened to Ward 4 and hears the
comments that there is feeling of inequity with the density that there is in Ward 4 versus the
density of other wards.
Chair Anderson stated that the commission has been asked to make a recommendation to the
council.
Motion was made by Commissioner Markell, and seconded by Commissioner Witte, to
recommend denial of the request for a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, preliminary
plat, and subdivision code variance for a single-family residential development at the former
Hollydale Golf Course site, for property located at 4600, 4640, and 4710 Holly Lane (Hollydale
GC Development, Inc. – 1021028).
Commissioner Boo stated that it is unusual to combine these actions but believed that any
solution would involve these things comprehensively and therefore agrees that the actions could
be considered together tonight.
Chair Anderson stated that he spoke with staff prior to the meeting and staff confirmed that the
actions could be combined in one motion.
Community Development Director concurred with Chair Anderson on combining the motion.
With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried.
Chair Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:41 p.m.