Loading...
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.