Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 07-21-20211 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 Approved Minutes Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 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 July 21, 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, Lori Sommers, and Kip Berglund and Engineering Services Manager Chris McKenzie. OTHERS PRESENT: Chair Anderson led the Pledge of Allegiance. Plymouth Forum Approval of Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Witte approve the agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Consent Agenda (4.1) Planning Commission minutes from meeting held on June 2, 2021. (4.2) Site plan amendment for emergency back-up generator for the cell tower site located at Hamel VFW, 19020 Hamel Road (Crown Castle USA, Inc. -- 2021037) (4.3) Variance for parking and drive aisle setback to a proposed building addition at Medtronic, 4600 Nathan Lane (BWBR Architects -- 2021041) Motion was made by Commissioner Witte and seconded by Commissioner Pointner to approve the Consent Agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. 2 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 Public Hearings (5.1) Request for reguiding, rezoning, planned unit development general plan, and preliminary plat for a mixed used development, for property located at 16800 Highway 55 and 3755 Dunkirk Lane (Commercial Investment Properties/Parkera LLC – 2021032) Senior Planner Sommers provided an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Witte asked for clarification on the calculation for parking spots. Senior Planner Sommers responded that staff used the smaller size stalls proposed by the applicant to calculate the number of stalls within the parking garage. Commissioner Witte asked how many fewer stalls there would be at the larger stall size. Senior Planner Sommers responded that she is unsure. She noted that the smaller size was proposed because of the precast panels proposed for the parking garage. Commissioner Witte asked who would own outlot A and what the current and future potential uses could be. Senior Planner Sommers responded that staff discussed this at length with the applicant. She stated that if the land becomes tax forfeiture, lot three (the apartment building) is responsible. The resolution addresses this matter. She stated that the lot is wetland and therefore there is no buildable capability for the outlot. Chair Anderson asked for more information related to traffic. He stated that public comments have been received with concerns related to traffic and therefore wanted to ensure that an adequate traffic study was completed along with the suggested recommendations from the study. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that a traffic study was completed as part of the EAW and analyzed the proposal along with other developments that have been approved/proposed for this area. He stated that the applicants have done a good job implementing the improvements recommended within the traffic study. He highlighted the recommended improvements from the traffic study that the applicant incorporated into their proposal. Commissioner Pointner stated that the traffic study mentioned two left turn lanes at Rockford and Highway 55 that may be decided in the future. She asked if that decision had been made. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie explained that the benefit would be marginal at best and therefore the funds needed to make that improvement would not be worth it. He noted that currently there is a flashing yellow arrow at that intersection that would go away if there were two left turn lanes. Commissioner Oakley asked if the traffic study determined if there was a problem with traffic backing up at Rockford Road. 3 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that the traffic study did look at that movement and determined there would not be an issue based on the proposed design. Chair Anderson introduced Mark Jepson, 3800 American Blvd W, Suite 1120, Bloomington, MN, CIP/Parkera, the developer, who reviewed some of his recent development experience with residential apartments in the metro. He stated that Parkera will work to be a certified public benefit corporation, noting that their goal is to build sustainable long, lived apartment communities and this will be the first project under that concept. He noted that each of their projects would have a park area, noting that in this project it would be the wooded buffer area that would have public access for the site. He stated that they are pursuing a living building certification which has ten core requirements and highlighted the sustainable, green elements they would be incorporating into the development. He stated that they have spent two years developing this concept design. He noted that the change in use can often be controversial but commented that they have had good interaction with the neighbors. He stated that this proposal would actually decrease the amount of impervious surface on the site. Chair Anderson introduced Laura Eder, 500 S. Washington, Suite 1080, Minneapolis, MN, ESG Architects, representing CIP/Parkera, who stated that she has been working in sustainable design for 12 years and has never built a building this sustainable. She stated that the overall site plan is about 24 acres which includes the existing church. She displayed sketches of the building elevations and building elements. She stated that they attempted to work with elements that bring the outside in and also worked to incorporate that relationship between inside and out in the landscaping. She recognizes that they are proposing lofty goals in terms of sustainability and highlighted those different elements. Chair Anderson introduced Aaron Johnson, 9355 Pierson Lake Drive, Chaska, MN, representing Twin Cities Orthopedics, who stated that they have been in the community for over 80 years and is one of the largest independent orthopedic clinics. He stated that they would propose a 70,000 square foot facility on this site that would be a full-service facility and reviewed the different services that would be provided within. He estimated that 150 to 200 jobs would be created with this facility. He recognized the concern expressed with noise, such as an ambulance, noting that this facility would not frequently have ambulances on site and compared it to the likelihood of an ambulance responding to a call at a grocery store. He stated that another comment asked why this facility would be needed when there is another TCO site within seven miles. He explained that they would vacate their Minnetonka and West Health locations in order to consolidate into this new location to provide a full suite of services. He stated that TCO has evolved over the last five years to become a community asset, treating injuries, and also working with injury prevention. Ms. Eder stated that Pastor Jeff was unable to attend tonight but sent a letter of support for the project noting that he is excited to work with TCO and Parkera to create a full rounded PUD. She noted that the church would also be willing to share their parking with TCO during the daytime hours when the church parking lot is underutilized. Commissioner Boo asked what consideration was given to affordable housing on the site. 4 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 Mr. Jepson responded that in lieu of units set aside they would contribute two percent of rents to the city of Plymouth to support affordable housing, which would equate to approximately $11 7,000 per year to the HRA to provide affordable housing. Commissioner Boo asked if that has been included in the discussion and whether the city has accepted that. Senior Planner Sommers responded that staff has discussed that, but it has not yet been finalized from the city standpoint. Commissioner Boo asked what the city’s standpoint was on affordable housing for the site. Senior Planner Sommers responded that affordable housing was discussed about two years ago and the applicant has proposed the two percent option. Mr. Jepson stated that the two percent does fit within the mission of Parkera. He noted that this is the first project, but he would anticipate that they would continue that in other communities. He stated that because of the costs associated with the sustainable elements of the development, setting aside ten percent would equate to about $217,000 in revenue per year. He stated that they attempted to find a balance and proposed the two percent contribution. Commissioner Markell asked if that would be recorded through a development agreement. Mr. Jepson stated that could be recorded in the development agreement or other agreement with the city. Commissioner Markell asked if the two percent would be contributed throughout the life of the project. Mr. Jepson stated that he is unsure of the duration of the contribution as they are still working out those details with staff. Commissioner Markell asked how the allocation of spaces would be provided for the park and ride. Mr. Jepson responded that they provided exhibits to the city that designated certain areas that could be used for park and ride. He stated that stalls on the upper decks of the garage would be available for park and ride users during the daytime hours. Commissioner Markell asked if the applicant would be amenable to an express allocation for the park and ride users. Mr. Jepson confirmed that those stalls would be available during those hours. Commissioner Witte asked for details on the fire lane and how the fire department would access the buildings if needed. 5 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 Senior Planner Sommers responded that the fire department and inspector have been in close contact with city planning staff and the developer in order to ensure their needs would be met. She identified different areas where access could be gained to reach all aspects of the buildings. She noted that the buildings would be sprinkled as well. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Chair Anderson introduced Scott Poellinger, 16415 38th Avenue N, Plymouth, who stated that his concern is related to traffic. He commented on the short distance from Rockford and Dunkirk and was concerned that traffic would be backed up in that location. He stated that he would prefer to see an objective study done related to traffic as there will be increased pressure in that area from not only this development but adjacent areas as well. He wanted to ensure that traffic is thoroughly addressed. Chair Anderson introduced Milind Sohoni, 16640 39th Place N, Plymouth, who asked for clarification on the percentage of revenue that would be contributed for affordable housing goals. It was confirmed as two percent of revenues. He stated that two percent sounds very small and seems a bribe to get this through. He referenced Dunkirk Lane between Rockford and Dunkirk Court, noting that traffic will increase over 200 percent in that area. He stated that the development of this site has been a source of civil discord for many years. He stated that he does not see how this project protects open space or the environment. He urged the commission to not amend the comprehensive plan to allow this rezoning. He stated that the incremental tax revenues seem marginal compared to the reduction in green space. He stated that he has nothing against development but believes that it should make sense and not be at the cost of green space. He stated that there should be a compromise if this site must be developed in order to mix homes, green space, parks, and trails. He stated that he has lived in Plymouth for 26 years and opposes any changes to the comprehensive plan. He asked the commission to recommend that the city council not amend the comprehensive plan and instead focus on what is best for the residents and future residents of Plymouth. Chair Anderson introduced Jim Zook, 16145 39th Avenue N, Plymouth, who stated that he shares the concern related to traffic. He asked that the city consider notifying all the residents along Dunkirk. He noted that only one of his neighbors was notified of the proposal tonight. He asked the commission to not approve this development and reevaluate the traffic study. He believed there were inaccuracies in the data within the report. He stated that the traffic study estimated 175 during the peak morning hours and 213 during the evening peak time, noting that is prior to phase two which will add more traffic. He argued that the numbers are understated by about 100 percent. He noted that the apartments are likely to have rush hour traffic of about 375, in addition to 150 from the clinic, along with the park and ride users. He stated that he is also concerned that added turn lanes would not mitigate the traffic backup that would occur during peak hours. He believed that the traffic study is flawed and does not provide an accurate representation of the traffic that would be generated. Chair Anderson introduced Paul Schraber, 16625 39th Avenue N, Plymouth, who asked when the traffic study was completed. He noted that SRF Consulting was asked to complete a traffic study for the use in 2019. He stated that according to the ratings provided, a grade of D would be acceptable. He noted that 55 and Rockford Road is already at an E, and this would add 23 percent more traffic which would make it unacceptable. He stated that according to the report, 6 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 significant changes would be needed. He stated that the report took into effect Timber’s Edge and Hollydale but did not take into account multiple other developments in that area that push traffic to this area. He stated that all of the roads push traffic into Highway 55, which is already inadequate and therefore anything constructed on this site will cause additional problems. He stated that the city is not ready for this type of additional traffic. He asked the commission to take a hard look, not just on this development but all proposals. He proposed a moratorium on housing and building until the issue of traffic can be addressed. Chair Anderson introduced Steve Hayes, 3615 Zanzibar Lane N, Plymouth, who stated that his development is composed of seniors and there is no sidewalk on the north side of the street. He stated that currently there is not a single crosswalk painted in the area of his development for seniors to cross and access the sidewalk on the other side. He commented that he is very concerned with pedestrian safety. He asked that the commission not forget about pedestrian safety. He noted that it could easily be fixed with signage and a crosswalk. He believed that this would be a positive project for Plymouth and would be a good fit for the site. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Chair Anderson stated that this is a project with an approved EAW, and the traffic report was part of that EAW. He asked what the commission would be allowed to do with a traffic report that has already been reviewed and approved. Community Development Director Juetten stated that the EAW was reviewed and a negative declaration for an EIS made by the City Council but there were legitimate questions brought up by the public tonight that staff is prepared to address them. He did not believe it would be appropriate to require a new traffic study as the EAW was already reviewed and included that element. Chair Anderson stated that the statement was made that the traffic study was funded by the developer and therefore there may be some bias but noted that the developer funded the study, but the city solicited the consultant to complete the study. Community Development Director Juetten confirmed that staff solicits the consultant and reviews the details, although funded by the applicant. He reviewed the traffic questions and concerns raised by residents. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that the study reveals that the roads are adequate and do have capacity for this development. Chair Anderson recognized that a new development would add traffic. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that the study analyzes the existing and proposed conditions and determined that this is a viable project for this location. Chair Anderson stated that the statement was made that the study was completed in 2019. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that the study was dated March 4, 2021 with data collected in February 2020, before traffic patterns changed due to COVID. He noted 7 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 that in 2019 there was a different traffic study, and this study was able to use that data to project traffic from nearby developments. Chair Anderson asked if there would be major structural changes proposed. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that the recommendations as made by the traffic study are implemented in the design of the applicant and reviewed some of those elements. He stated that there were two major developments sited in the traffic study as potential future and advised that growth factors were also included that would account for other developments in Plymouth and other communities. Community Development Director Juetten stated that the last speaker referenced crosswalks and pedestrian safety. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that there currently is not sidewalk or trail on the north side and there is not a trail planned on that side. He stated that there are crosswalks at intersections although they are not marked. He noted that people often drive through marked crosswalks and therefore they can create a false sense of security for pedestrians as drivers sometimes do not stop. He stated that staff continually evaluates safety throughout the community looking for opportunities to make pedestrian improvements. Community Development Director Juetten commented that the developer is proposing two percent of revenues on an annual basis. Chair Anderson commented that would seem to be more of a decision point for the council rather than the planning commission. Community Development Director Juetten agreed with that statement. Commissioner Oakley stated that one of the speakers mentioned data inconsistencies related to the traffic study and report. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that the report was signed by a professional engineer that does traffic studies for a living. He stated that he is not aware of any inconsistencies but could look into that and report back. Chair Anderson stated that it can be reviewed between tonight and the City Council meeting. Commissioner Boo stated that there is a mixed bag of issues, similar to any development of this size and significance. He stated that he is in favor of the development as proposed. He believed that the issue raised related to green space is not one for this site as the city has identified areas it would like to preserve green space. He noted that the developer also proposes some green space for the site. He recognized the change from commercial to allow a mixed use of housing and commercial. He stated that he does not see a problem with that change in zoning. He stated that this would be an appropriate use of land for the purpose of the city. He stated that traffic is an issue throughout the city, but one development is not going to solve for that problem. He commented that the issue of affordable housing is important to him and while he would have preferred that be addressed in a different way, the developer has proposed an offer that will be 8 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 considered by the council. He recognized that there are pedestrian safety issues in this area and believed the city needs to do more when traffic is increased on roads. He stated that this will push more vehicles and therefore pedestrian safety should be increased. He noted that he would not hold this development up to solve for that issue and would be inclined to approve this request. Commissioner Oakley stated that he agrees with the comments of Commissioner Boo. He stated that questions were raised about open space and this development would increase open space in this area. He stated that he also likes having different types of housing. He wished that there was a possibility of having affordable housing in the building, but two percent of revenue is significant in terms of contribution towards affordable housing. He stated that he would find it hard to believe that a substantial affordable housing project could have worked in this location and therefore the option proposed by the developer seems to be a good solution. He stated that he is excited to see what the building will end up looking like. He commented that he is an environmental engineer and appreciates sustainable development. He stated that he has been on the commission for ten years and has never seen this amount of attention to water reuse and reduction of carbon footprint. He commented that this will be the type of project that Plymouth can be proud of and therefore supports the project. Commissioner Pointner stated that she appreciates the comments made and agrees that this project will be beneficial to the community and offer the opportunity to have others come to Plymouth and use the medical facilities and do other things in the community. Commissioner Saba stated that as he looks at this opportunity, the commercial aspect of the development could actually go forward with the commercial use and could go forward with townhomes under the current zoning/guiding. He stated that there are uses that could have come forward that would create even more traffic. He stated that the sustainable residential component and green space make it easier to support. He stated that a townhome community would generate similar amounts of traffic while additional commercial and retail would tend to generate even more traffic. He stated that he also shares the concern for pedestrian safety for the senior townhome area. He stated that he believed the traffic study was well done and answered the necessary questions. He stated that he will be supporting the request as it accomplished many of the initiatives the city is looking for. Commissioner Markell stated that he also supports the applicant and is impressed with the approach to design. Motion was made by Commissioner Markell, and seconded by Commissioner Boo, recommend approval of the request for reguiding, rezoning, planned unit development general plan, and preliminary plat for a mixed used development, for property located at 16800 Highway 55 and 3755 Dunkirk Lane, subject to the supporting resolutions (Commercial Investment Properties/Parkera LLC – 2021032). Chair Anderson stated that this site is guided commercial, and this request is market driven to match the changing market. He stated that there may not be another office building built in quite a while as more people are working from home. He stated that a medical office building and residential development make sense. He stated that he is excited about this sustainability factor as it is something they have not yet seen. He stated that in terms of pedestrian safety, none of the 9 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 neighborhoods he has lived in had sidewalks because sidewalks were not required in the past. He stated that he would love to see sidewalks on both sides of the street, but the city only requires sidewalk on one side at this time. He stated that many years ago he can remember that Highway 55 should be avoided because of the signals. He noted that MnDOT then adjusted the signals to make traffic flow better. He stated that the rating for crossing Highway 55 will remain low but there is a benefit once you are traveling on 55. Commissioner Witte stated that he agrees with the comments of the Commissioners thus far. He commented that he will miss the nursery but there is a lot to like about the proposal. He stated that the addition of the sustainable building is exciting as is the contribution that TCO will bring to the community. He provided an example of a recent experience he had at an orthopedic clinic and the range of ages served by that provider. He stated that his biggest concern is the access on Dunkirk Lane and the proximity to CR 9. He stated that he will rely on the experts and the wisdom of staff. He stated that he is concerned with the left turn traffic and overall volume of traffic on Dunkirk. He stated that if pedestrian and trail traffic is going to be encouraged there will need to be a safe crossing of Highway 55, whether that is done with pedestrian underpass or overpass. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. (5.2) Request for site plan amendment, conditional use permit and variance for a drive- through and related site improvements at 1400 County Road 101, (Wilkus Architects, P.A. – 2021034) Senior Planner Berglund provided and overview of the staff report. Commissioner Pointner asked how close the townhomes/residential properties are to the drive through. Senior Planner Berglund identified the general location for the ordering station and pick up window. He stated that that angled parking would be converted to parallel parking and the drive thru aisle would be located on the eastern side of the building. Commissioner Saba asked if there is exterior garbage bins or dumpsters. Senior Planner Berglund identified the trash enclosure area and noted that he would let the applicant speak to what would be done with the existing bins and how collection would occur if approved. Commissioner Witte stated that the noise study mentions in several places what was studied and not studied like louder vehicles for example. He stated that a 300-foot distance is a means of buffering those additional sounds compared to 100 feet. He asked if there has been feedback from neighbors. Senior Planner Berglund responded that staff received calls with definite questions about the proximity of the drive thru and opposition to that proximity. 10 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 Commissioner Witte asked if the waiver of the bypass lane is no longer required as that lane is now shown on the plans. Senior Planner Berglund responded that once a vehicle makes the final turn there would be no pass through at that point and therefore would be waived from the pass-through lane option. Commissioner Witte asked why a variance is not required for that issue. Senior Planner Berglund responded that a pass-through lane is shown for the majority of the drive thru lane. Commissioner Witte stated that typically a variance applies to an owner-occupied structure but in this case, it is a situation with a tenant and asked how that would be different. Community Development Director Juetten stated that because there is a tenant, the owner has to sign the application and it part of the process. Commissioner Witte stated that the owner has a choice in tenant and this tenant wants a drive thru which creates the necessity for a variance. Commissioner Boo stated that he viewed a chain link fence behind the building on at least the north half, with a solid fence on the southern strip. He believed that the fence is not on the applicant’s property and asked if determination could be made as to whether the fence would be under the control of the applicant. He noted that the fence is partially below the berm and therefore does not provide six feet of screening. He stated that in his view the fence does not appear to be under the control of the property owner. Senior Planner Berglund responded that the property owner further south has a six-foot solid fence. He stated that the screening includes landscaping and trees, and a recommendation could be made to install a six-foot fence at the location which would achieve the most screening, such as the top of the berm. Chair Anderson introduced Paul Guidera, 3011 Walnut Grove Lane, Plymouth, representing Caribou, who stated that they have worked with the property owner to request the addition of the drive thru. He noted that they have been a tenant for 15 years. He stated that Caribou is a Minneapolis based company and their strategy has evolved over the years, noting that this location was one of the first 50 locations opened. He noted that the current strategy includes a drive thru, while the first model did not include that option. He stated that much has changed in their business over the past five years, including the fact that drive thru service has become an important part of their business. He stated that they have also added iced beverage options and order ahead options. He noted that COVID has also changed traffic patterns. He stated that this location is above average for the stores without drive thru’s but below average overall because of the additional customers a drive thru is able to service. He explained that in 2019 they opened their drive thru only option, which they call cabins, and have been able to reduce the wait time for those customers and the stacking of vehicles. He stated that the addition of order ahead represents about 30 percent of the drive thru business, which does not require the use of the speaker box. He stated that a store of this type would average about 150 transactions per day through the drive thru. He noted that the introduction of iced beverages also spreads out the 11 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 business throughout the day rather than primarily during the morning hours. He stated that the noise studies they have completed show a decibel of 40 at 30 feet away from the speaker box. Commissioner Witte asked if there have been complaints from the neighbors related to the vehicles that park in the back area currently. Mr. Guidera responded that his primary responsibility is related to real estate and therefore his interaction at the store is only as a customer. Commissioner Pointner asked if the applicant would be open to placing more bushes/landscaping in that location. Mr. Guidera responded that he cannot speak for the landlord and whether he would want to spend funds in that way. Chair Anderson introduced Marc Snover, 3980 Princeton Avenue, Minneapolis, the property owner, stated that he is cognizant of the issues that could arise with a project of this type. He stated that they do not want to be bad neighbors. He stated that they completed the sound study to ensure they would not be a bad neighbor. He stated that if the results of the study would have been borderline or negative, he would not have chosen to move forward with the request. He stated that in reality there will not be much more noise in that location than what exists currently from traffic and deliveries. He believed that this would be a great addition to the building and the area. He stated that there is a lot of car traffic in the back currently with parking, deliveries for the 12 units/tenants in the building and trash collection. He stated that he has owned the building since January and has not received any noise complaints from neighboring properties. Chair Anderson asked if the berm and/or fence are located on the subject property. Mr. Snover responded that the chain link fence is the fence of a neighbor. He stated that if placing a wooden fence atop the berm would be the desire, he would be willing to do so. He noted that he would also be willing to plant bushes/additional landscaping if desired. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Chair Anderson introduced David Meuwissen, 17300 14th Avenue N, Plymouth, who stated that his property is directly adjacent, and he owns the six-foot wooden fence. He stated that he installed the fence for privacy as the area behind the commercial building is primarily employee parking, deliveries, and trash collection. He noted that those activities occur during certain times of the day and believed that a drive thru would add too much traffic at all times of the day. He noted that the apartment building would be more significantly impacted as it is closer to the speaker box. He stated that there are several trees on the site that are poorly maintained. He stated that he is opposed to this project. Chair Anderson introduced Larry Schnack, 17210 14th Avenue N, Plymouth, who stated that he is speaking against the project because of concerns for noise. He stated that he currently abuts the church property and experiences noise from traffic. He stated that the audio from the drive thru would be aimed at the residential properties. He noted that the current setback was established for a reason and to decrease that would have a negative impact to the residential properties. He 12 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 commented that this is not an open area and the noise from the vehicles would bounce off the brick building and towards the residential properties. He stated that he does not drink coffee and therefore does not frequent the business. He believed that the order ahead option would meet the needs of a customer that does not want to go inside to order. He did not believe a drive thru would be appropriate in this location. He asked if the sound study took into account ten vehicles stacked and waiting in the line. Chair Anderson introduced John Parod, 17320 14th Avenue N, Plymouth , who stated that his home backs up to the shopping mall and coffee establishment. He stated that the alleyway is within his eyesight. He stated that the garbage and deliveries occur early in the morning, and it is an obvious sound for the residential properties. He noted that the intersection of 101 and CR 6 is also very noisy and loud. He stated that this drive lane would add noise to the residential properties that already experience issues with noise. He stated that the bypass lane seems to be a bottleneck as you could get through until the final two spots. He stated that he does feel for the business, but Caribou could move across the street to a location that would have minimal impacts on the community. Chair Anderson introduced Mitch Drexler, 17310 14th Avenue N, Plymouth , who stated that his property has the four-foot chain fence. He noted that as the berm has eroded, he can literally step over. He stated that he understands that perhaps a fence could be added to help screen. He noted that currently there is not a lot of traffic in the back as it is used for employee parking and therefore there is not constant turnover of people like a drive thru would cause. He stated that there are workers from one of the tenants that listen to loud music in their vehicles. He stated that the 300-foot setback should remain in place and should not be reduced to 100 feet. He hoped that the commission is hearing these comments and makes the right decision. Chair Anderson introduced Dan Meuwissen, 17300 14th Avenue N, Plymouth, who stated that he and his brother own the wooden fence which has been referred to. He stated that most residents in that neighborhood are long-term and there is not much turnover. He stated that they enjoy spending time in their yards and are used to the noise that exists because of the intersection and retail center. He commented that adding something like this would add impact to their properties from the speaker box and the vehicles in the drive thru. He stated that he is not against someone trying to improve their business but does not believe it should impact a neighborhood. He believed that the statements that the noise will not impact the neighbors is disingenuous. He believed there are other opportunities for businesses. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Chair Anderson asked if the sound study looked at the possibility of ten vehicles in line. Senior Planner Berglund responded that it appears as if some information from the site itself was included in the study. He stated that activity was noted such as work on the roof, delivery trucks coming and going, and vehicle parking. Chair Anderson stated that it appears the study was based upon a Caribou in Apple Valley where measurements and readings were taken that included the speaker box and vehicles stacking. 13 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 Senior Planner Berglund responded that the study did take into account the Apple Valley measurements and projected that based on the distances in this situation. He stated that in this study the proposed drive thru would meet the requirements of the noise ordinance. He provided additional details on the bypass lane proposed. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie stated that the drive aisle is sized for a fire truck to pass by with vehicles in the drive thru. Commissioner Oakley stated that one of the comments made was that there is a rule that says 300 feet and therefore asked why 100 feet would be allowed. He noted that he is struggling to find a reason to allow that reduction as it appears it was created for a reason. He stated that comments focused on noise, but nothing was said about headlights that could shine from the drive thru into the residential properties. He did think there are sometimes good reasons for variances but there are a number of criteria that have to be evaluated and did not believe the applicant demonstrated compliance with those criteria. He stated that if this were to be approved, there would need to be more robust grading, landscaping plan, and a solid fence to offer better protection. He stated that he cannot support the plan as proposed. Commissioner Saba stated that he respects the comments of Commissioner Oakley. He stated that there have been changes to the intersection of 101 and 6 and the businesses available to residents in that area. He noted that it is becoming a destination that is void and if a coffee business is not there, it would be a bummer for the area. He stated that if Caribou leaves there could be another restaurant that perhaps starts and fails as others have in that location. He stated that he has wondered if this request would come to the commission for quite some time. He recognized the concerns of the homeowners but noted that perhaps a fence is constructed to screen the lighting and noise. Commissioner Boo stated that he is against this request. He noted that this is the Caribou he frequents, along with the other businesses in the strip mall and appreciates the services it provides to the community. He believed that the variance is asking for too much. He appreciated the residents that spoke tonight and in representation of the residents of the apartment building that are not present. He believed that the separation was required in order to protect those residential properties. He did not believe that the trade-off for a drive thru service to improve the business would outweigh the impact it would have on the residential properties. Commissioner Pointner stated that she wishes there was a more robust plan for landscaping and other screening that would deflect the light and noise. She stated that she is undecided but wishes there was a better plan for buffering between the uses. Commissioner Witte stated that he shares the thoughts expressed. He noted that it is a reasonable application and if the variance was ten feet it would be an easier decision. He stated that the 300-foot buffer is there for a reason and typically a drive thru is not located directly adjacent to residential properties. He noted examples which he did not believe met the criteria for a conditional use permit or variance. Chair Anderson stated that he has watched the adjustments in the coffee industry over time, changing the model to incorporate a drive thru. He stated that he is not surprised that the business would like that amenity and while he would like to find a way to do something at this 14 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 location, it would clearly require a fence and landscaping in order to gain more support. He stated that perhaps the applicant adds those elements before moving to the city council. Motion was made by Commissioner Boo, and seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to recommend denial of the request for site plan amendment, conditional use permit and variance for a drive- through at 1400 County Road 101 (Wilkus Architects, P.A. – 2021034). With Commissioners Markell, Boo, Oakley, Pointner and Witte voting in favor of the motion and Commissioners Saba and Anderson voting against the motion, the motion carried 5 in favor and 2 against. (5.3) Request for site plan, conditional use permits and variances for a bank and a restaurant with drive-through at 3005 Harbor Lane (Chick-fil-A, Inc. -- 2021013) Senior Planner Sommers provided an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Oakley asked for information on what currently surrounds the site. Senior Planner Sommers reviewed the existing uses adjacent to the site. Commissioner Oakley asked and received confirmation that the site is surrounded by commercial uses. He referenced the acquisition of additional right-of-way for Fernbrook Lane and asked if the applicant agrees. Senior Planer Sommers responded that staff has worked with the applicant and that would be part of this application. Commissioner Pointner asked how the drive-through would look. Senior Planner Sommers identified the access to the site and the path vehicles would travel for the drive-through. She stated that during peak times workers go out to collect orders and the canopies would provide protection to those employees from the weather. Commissioner Pointner asked where the right turn only would be from Fernbrook. Senior Planner Sommers identified that existing right turn only access at the very north of the property. Commissioner Pointner stated that her experience with Chick Fil-A is that the lines are long and asked where the pinch point would occur. Senior Planner Sommers responded that the drive aisle would have the capacity to support long lines and signage would be posted to not block the drive aisle for the development to the west. She stated that the traffic study indicated that there would not be a backup to Harbor Lane. Commissioner Markell asked if the right only access provides access out to Fernbrook. 15 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 Senior Planner Sommers responded that as proposed the access would only provide access into the site through a right turn motion and would not provide access onto Fernbrook. She stated that staff would propose not to allow that access. Commissioner Markell commented that there would then only be one entrance to the property. Senior Planner Sommers responded that staff worked with police and fire and because there is another access that could be used by police and fire, that was found to be acceptable. Commissioner Markell asked what measures could be taken if the stacking goes into the roadway. Senior Planner Sommers responded that staff could sign the area and road stripe. She stated that the applicant could also have staff to help police that area and direct vehicles. She noted that the neighboring property does have another access that could be used. Commissioner Markell asked where the trash receptacles would be located if the applicant were not granted a variance. Senior Planner Sommers responded that they have been working on this for some time and have reviewed a number of site plans. She stated that there would be a possibility of placing them on the north side, but parking would be lost and that could impact the drive aisle and traffic circulation. Commissioner Markell asked the four rectangles shown on the sketch near the trash. Senior Planner Somers responded that is the concrete to provide additional support for the trucks. Commissioner Boo stated that the applicant is requesting the right in only and staff recommends not including that. He asked if there is still an ATM planned for that corner. Senior Planner Sommers responded that staff worked with the applicant to remove that as it would have required an additional variance and would have impacted traffic flow. Commissioner Boo asked the emergency vehicle consideration when there are pass through lanes and canopies. Senior Planner Sommers responded that police and fire have completing their modeling to support their vehicles and they would not be impacted by that area. Commissioner Pointner asked how people would get around the vehicles to access the bank. Senior Planner Sommers responded with the path those customers would most likely take to access that area. Chair Anderson asked if the bank would have a drive-through. Senior Planner Sommers responded that the bank would not have a drive-through. 16 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 Commissioner Witte asked if there has been flooding in the parking lot as this site tends to sit lower. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that this is a lower area and the 100-year storm as modeled would impact the peripheries of the site. Commissioner Witte referenced the number of variances requested and noted that this would seem a good candidate for a PUD rather than multiple variances. Senior Planner Sommers responded that was a discussion in the beginning. She noted that there have been at least ten different site plans with different layouts and options and the applicant was able to fix a majority of the issues that were identified. She stated that many of the variances are related to existing conditions and the additional right-of-way that would be dedicated. Commissioner Witte stated that there is no drive-through for the bank but there is a large bank of windows that face the restaurant. He asked if there could be a shared drive-through with separate permit in the future. Senior Planner Sommer responded that she has never heard of such a concept but recognized that things continue to change. She noted that it would be difficult to bank from the passenger side. Commissioner Markell referenced the traffic study from 2020 that seems obsolete based on the new layout. Senior Planner Sommers responded that there is an addendum in the back of the report. Chair Anderson introduced Joe Vavarina, Corporate Dr., McHenry, IL, representing Chick-Fil-A, who stated that they have been working on this for the past year to develop a concept and site plan that would work for all parties. He stated that this plan accomplished those goals. He referenced the concern that stacking could impact the access from Harbor. He noted that the dual drive-through lane came about from the challenges of COVID and increased drive-through traffic they experienced. He stated that the genesis of the double drive-through assists in speeding traffic through the drive-through lane. He noted that during those times, four to six team members are also outside collecting the orders rather than using the speaker box. He provided additional details on elements they have implemented in order to speed up drive- through service. He stated that they recently completed a study for a location in Wisconsin that reviewed the peak hours at lunch and dinner with a single lane drive-through and measured an average of 90 seconds from the time an order is placed until it is received at the pickup window. He stated that during the non-peak hours the outer lane shuts down and it becomes a single lane drive-through and regular pickup window. He commented on the flexibility that the additional drive aisle would provide for the drive-through and other ordering elements. He noted that the dual lane drive-through has been implemented in the last six months and has been successful. He stated that they would like to keep the right in as proposed as people may miss the exit at Harbor and therefore the right in would provide that second option for access. Commissioner Markell stated that he appreciates the concern over the traffic stack up at Fernbrook noting that he would still be inclined to support the staff recommendation to not allow 17 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 that right in. He referenced the expected stacking of the drive-through which shows the stacking reaching the point of ingress. He believed that peak times for banking would align with peak times for the restaurant and therefore there could be a conflict for those attempting to access the bank. He commented that the layout is great and was happy to see some open space incorporated. Commissioner Boo asked for additional information on why the right in from Fernbrook is opposed. He was unsure what else could be done related to stacking as Chick-Fil-A seems to have perfected that model. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that there are a number of reasons that supported the removal of the right in access. He stated that access does not meet the spacing requirements as it is too close to both intersections. He noted that the intersection of Harbor and Fernbrook is one of the worst for local city streets. He noted that 67 crashes were reported in the last ten years and 50 of those were the result of left turn movements. He stated that their fear would be traffic from Highway 55 would come on Fernbrook and attempt to make a U-turn to access the site from that right in location. He stated that the police also do not support that access and shared the same opinion that traffic is much cleaner and smoother if all the Chick-Fil- A traffic takes Fernbrook to Harbor to the access. Commissioner Oakley asked stated that there was a mention of a U-turn at the Highway 55 intersection attempting to go back to Harbor Lane and asked if engineering has concern with that. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie responded that would be a dangerous maneuver. He did not believe U-turns were explicitly prohibited at that location. Commissioner Witte stated that some restaurants have stop and wait locations for orders that take a longer time and asked if this proposal would include that option. Mr. Vavarina responded that there would be two spots for vehicles to pull ahead of the pickup window and wait and other vehicles can use the bypass lane to travel around those waiting. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Chair Anderson introduced Paul Guidera, 3011 Walnut Grove Lane, Plymouth, stated that he is a longtime fan of Chick-Fil-A. He stated that Chick-Fil-A is the gold standard of drive-through service. He stated that last Friday he went through the drive-through and timed the service and it was about 90 seconds from order to pick up. He stated that there is no U-turn sign at Fernbrook and Harbor and believed the right turn in would be a critical part to the site plan. He stated that if that is removed accidents would be moved to Harbor and the entrance to the property. He supported the request and variances as proposed. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Boo stated that this is a mess of a spot and was unsure if this was a creative approach to a messy spot or just a mess. He appreciated all the effort that has gone into making this work. He stated that there are variances all over this area and therefore not unique to this 18 Approved Minutes July 21, 2021 site and more to address the limitations of the site. He stated that he would defer to staff about the access recommendation. He stated that this is a reasonable proposal for a difficult site. Commissioner Witte stated that he agrees. He noted that it is nice to see something going into a site that has been vacant for some time. He believed that Chick-Fil-A wou ld be a great addition to the community, and he will support this as recommended by staff. Chair Anderson stated that his only concern is for the bank without a drive-through. He stated that this is a difficult site, and the owner will have to live with what there is. Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, and seconded by Commissioner Boo, to recommend approval of the request for site plan, conditional use permits and variances for a bank and a restaurant with drive-through at 3005 Harbor Lane, subject to the conditions in the supporting resolution (Chick-fil-A, Inc. - 2021013). Commissioner Saba asked if that would close the right in access from Fernbrook and it was confirmed as such. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. General Business Chair Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m.