Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 08-04-2021 1 Approved Minutes August 4, 2021 Approved Minutes Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 2021 Vice Chair Markell 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 August 4, 2021. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Justin Markell, Commissioners Michael Boo, Julie Pointner, Donovan Saba, David Witte, and Bryan Oakley. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Marc Anderson STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Steve Juetten, Senior Planners Lori Sommers and Shawn Drill, and Engineering Services Manager Chris McKenzie. OTHERS PRESENT: Councilmember Ned Carroll Vice Chair Markell led the Pledge of Allegiance. Plymouth Forum Approval of Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Pointner to approve the agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Consent Agenda (4.1) Planning Commission minutes from meeting held on July 21, 2021. Motion was made by Commissioner Witte and seconded by Commissioner Saba to approve the Consent Agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Public Hearings (5.1) Request for Site Plan, Variance and Conditional Use Permit for a new wireless cell tower for property located at 5725 Juneau Lane (Verizon Wireless – 2021019) Senior Planner Sommers provided an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Boo asked why the existing Hampton Hills cell tower is going away. He also asked how the city has verified that the developer has exhausted a search for other sites that would meet their standards. 2 Approved Minutes August 4, 2021 Senior Planner Sommers responded that in 2011 the city council approved a preliminary plat for the former Hampton Hills golf course and at that time the cell tower had a lease until 2021, therefore it was allowed to remain through the term of the lease. She stated that the city has been working with the applicant to find an appropriate location and the city desires that the location be on city property to provide the city with more control. Commissioner Boo asked for additional explanation as to the control the city would have going forward that it would not have on private property. Senior Planner Sommers responded that there would still be a lease agreement for the site and the city would have control over access, how maintenance is done, traffic in and out of the site and security. She stated that when the Hampton Hills cell tower is gone there are not many other sites that would fill the capacity analysis for coverage. Commissioner Oakley stated that he believed that it was stated that the existing tower is taller than the proposed tower and that the proposed tower would be going on a lower elevation. Senior Planner Sommers responded that is correct. Vice Chair Markell introduced Karyn Acevedo, representing Verizon Wireless, the applicant, who stated that they held a neighborhood meeting virtually to review all possible sites. She noted that included private properties as well. She stated that the city was very receptive and agreed that the city would have more control over what would occur on the site. She believed that this would be a community benefit for the city to reap the rental from the lease as well. She referenced the elevation and noted that it would not be three antennas, but three arrays. She stated that the structure could handle additional capacity, as Verizon would only take the top array upon construction. She noted that any subsequent carriers that wish to co-locate could take the other two spots. Commissioner Saba asked if further arrays were to be added, would the power control unit at the base be changed. Ms. Acevedo responded that each carrier would have their own set of ground equipment therefore the cabinet on the site plan would only be used by Verizon. She stated that the compound is already laid out and designed and the cabinets would fit within that space. Commissioner Saba asked if this proposal would be limited to three arrays. Ms. Acevedo confirmed that this would be setup to handle three arrays and any future array request would require a structural analysis. Commissioner Witte asked if it would be expected to have noise generated from the power base or antennas. Ms. Acevedo responded that there is a generator that could kick in if power were to go out and backup emergency power would be needed. 3 Approved Minutes August 4, 2021 Commissioner Witte asked if there would be steel guidewires to provide support. Ms. Acevedo responded that the structure would be self-supporting. Commissioner Witte asked for details on the lightning rod. Ms. Acevedo responded that every tower has a lightning rod, but she did not have data on that. Commissioner Boo asked why the other sites that were rejected and whether any of those were within industrial areas. The applicant responded that some of those locations were within industrial areas. She noted that they reached out to property owners in multiple different ways, and they did not hear back from those property owners. Commissioner Boo asked if there was any discussion with other property owners. Ms. Acevedo responded that was over one year ago so she would have to check her notes as to who responded but noted that they did not have much luck. Vice Chair Markell opened the public hearing. Vice Chair Markell introduced Mat Boie, 5775 Juneau Lane, who asked whether this would be a 4G or 5G tower. He noted that there is another tower south on Juneau Lane, although he was unsure who operated that tower. He stated that it would make more sense to have a tower in an industrial area rather than a residential area. He asked why only properties within 500 feet were notified when the tower is visible from a further distance. He asked for information related to electromagnetic fields and asked if a consultant was hired to explore exposure limits. He asked the amount the city would receive in rental income for the lease. He stated that if the plan goes through, he is happy to see a nice array of landscaping around the base station area. Vice Chair Markell closed the public hearing. Senior Planner Sommers stated that the city will still have to negotiate a lease agreement and bring that to the city council. She stated that related to magnetic fields, the city did not require a study but was unsure if the applicant did such a study. She stated that the 500-foot notice is the requirement for this type of application along with the blue sign posted on the site. She stated that perhaps this location was needed in addition to the other tower on Juneau in order to ensure service coverage in that area. Ms. Acevedo stated that they have to remove the existing tower, and this is a replacement tower, not an addition. She stated that 5G is not planned for this tower as that is more of a pedestrian scale technology. Vice Chair Markell asked whether a consultant study was commissioned on electromagnetic fields. 4 Approved Minutes August 4, 2021 Ms. Acevedo responded that the FCC governs the frequencies that Verizon is able to use, so those questions would go through the FCC process and licensing. She stated that the local jurisdictions do not have purview over licensing, frequencies, or safety. Motion was made by Commissioner Witte, and seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to recommend approval of the request for a site plan, variance, and conditional use permit for a new wireless cell tower, for property located at 5725 Juneau Lane, subject to the conditions in the supporting resolution (Verizon Wireless – 2021019). With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. (5.2) Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to the I-2 Zoning District and a Conditional Use Permit for a dog day/overnight boarding use, with an indoor dog park, veterinary clinic with grooming, and an accessory restaurant, for property located at 2605 Fernbrook Lane (Agnilu Veterinary Partners-Plymouth LLC . – 2021034) Senior Planner Sommers provided an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Witte asked if the proposed language for the text amendment is broader than needed by the applicant. He stated that the applicant is not proposing need for an outdoor kennel space, whereas the text amendment includes that. He stated that some other things are also inconsistent such as whether cats would be boarded and whether the restaurant would have coffee and snacks or whether there would be alcohol served. Senior Planner Sommers responded that the eight-foot-high fence and indoor/outdoor is existing language. She stated that there are other boarding businesses that have outdoor space. She stated that the applicant would look to include alcoholic beverages. She stated that even though cats are not expressly called out, cats are allowed in the other boarding facilities. Commissioner Boo stated that he has never read dogs to include cats but can understand that has been allowed to happen by practice. He stated that this would allow for the addition of a cafeteria or retail food service to occur within this industrial use. Senior Planner Sommers responded that only the dog day/overnight boarding use is allowed within the zoning district. She noted that this would add in the vet clinic, the pet sales, grooming, indoor dog park and accessory restaurant as conditional uses as long as the dog day/overnight is the primary use. Commissioner Boo asked if accessory restaurants are allowed elsewhere within the zoning district. Senior Planner Sommers responded that a distillery allows a certain portion of accessory uses and restaurant with it within the industrial district. Commissioner Boo asked if this would open up pandora’s box where every warehouse could want to have a coffee and snack bar, or whether that would require different approval. 5 Approved Minutes August 4, 2021 Senior Planner Sommers responded that if there were additional requests to add accessory food service, those uses would need to come forward for a text amendment as well. She noted that this would add those accessories uses for dog day/overnight boarding facilities. Vice Chair Markell asked what would constitute an indoor dog park that would not be part of the dog daycare boarding business itself. Senior Planner Sommers responded that staff did not want the entire space to be an indoor playground for dogs and therefore there was a regulation added that would limit the size. Vice Chair Markell asked if someone wanted to take a space of this size and use it exclusively for a dog park/dog run with accessory food service, would they be limited by a 5,000 square foot threshold and not a percentage of the space. Senior Planner Sommers responded that in order to have those uses, there would also need to be a dog day/overnight boarding facility as the primary use. Vice Chair Markell asked what the total gross floor area is being used, whether it is the building or size of the applicant’s unit. Senior Planner Sommers responded that it would be the size of the applicant’s unit. Vice Chair Markell introduced Angela Woodward, representing Agnilu Veterinary Partners- Plymouth LLC, the applicant, who reviewed her background. She stated that her business has been growing and the pandemic caused her industry to expand within a short timeline and they are running out of space to expand. She stated that in their search for a site they wanted to expand services to add boarding and grooming. She stated that there was not much opportunity to combine those opportunities within the different zoning districts. She stated that this proposed site would allow animal use and their concept was to have the veterinary service, grooming and boarding, dog park, and beer and wine service. She stated that in order to serve beer and wine they would need to offer some type of food service. She noted that it would be an accessory use for those visiting the location with their pet. Commissioner Boo asked if there would be a limit to the number of dogs and cats that could be within the dog park at one time. Ms. Woodward responded that she does have recommendations on how many dogs would be allowed of different sizes per the square footage. She noted that they would intend to split the area into spaces for large and small dogs. Vice Chair Markell asked if there would be a situation where the dog park would be full by the animals being boarded and members of the public coming to use the dog park would not be allowed. Ms. Woodward reviewed the proposed hours for the dog park, which would focus mainly on evenings or afternoons on weekends. She stated that the dog daycare and boarding dogs would play in the times when the dog park is not open, and the public would use the space when the boarded animals are not in the dog park area. 6 Approved Minutes August 4, 2021 Vice Chair Markell opened the public hearing. No comments made. Vice Chair Markell closed the public hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Witte, and seconded by Commissioner Pointner, to recommend approval of the request for a zoning ordinance text amendment to the I-2 zoning district and a conditional use permit for a dog day/overnight boarding use, with an indoor dog park, veterinary clinic with grooming, and an accessory restaurant, for property located at 2605 Fernbrook Lane, subject to the conditions in the supporting resolution (Agnilu Veterinary Partners-Plymouth LLC . – 2021034). With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. General Business (6.1) Sketch plan review for a mixed-use development concept by Doran RE Partners, LLC, for property located at 10000 Highway 55 (2021039). Senior Planner Sommers provided a review of the staff report. Commissioner Oakley stated that there was not a mention of affordable housing and asked whether a portion of the project was considered for that purpose. Senior Planner Sommers responded that this proposal did not include affordable housing, but the applicant has stated they would be open to discussing that further. Commissioner Pointner asked if there would be information as to how the traffic might flow, as she was a bit confused about that. Senior Planner Sommers responded that there is access off 6th Avenue and identified the parking garage access. She stated that there would also be a curb cut that would access between Bachman’s and the adjacent site. Commissioner Witte stated that it was mentioned that setbacks, parking spaces, and height requirements are not being met. He asked if there is consideration towards the height requirement that the first two levels would be parking with residential above. Senior Planner Sommers responded that staff does not differentiate whether there is parking or not in terms of height. She noted that the parking is proposed above ground because of the groundwater levels. She stated that they would review the heights of the buildings in proximity to determine how the proposed building would fit in. Commissioner Witte stated that it appears the applicant has stated that they do not need the additional parking based on their experience. He asked how additional parking could be provided. 7 Approved Minutes August 4, 2021 Senior Planner Sommers responded that there could be a shared parking agreement with the office use and adjacent shopping mall. Commissioner Witte asked how the applicant would meet the landscaping requirements as the setbacks are not being met. He asked where things could be planted to meet the requirements. Senior Planner Sommers responded that she was unsure. She noted that the PUD could provide flexibility and staff could work with the applicant to look as to how the site could be improved. Commissioner Saba referenced the impervious surface regulations within this district and asked if there is an estimate of the hardcover that would be provided on this site. Senior Planner Sommers responded that the existing surface is paved and therefore if the 25 percent is already exceeded, the applicant could meet that existing hardcover without requiring a variance. Commissioner Boo asked for clarification on whether the office parking requirements would be met as a portion of that would be going away. Senior Planner Sommers responded that is a question staff has as this moves forward, to find out what is being utilized by the office building currently. She agreed that parking would be reduced if the building goes in. Vice Chair Markell stated that the applicant asserts that the actual need is more like one stall per bedroom and therefore there should be sufficient parking. He asked if the city believes that one stall per bedroom is accurate for a market rate facility. Senior Planner Sommers responded that staff has found that other apartment buildings typically come in at 1.8 stalls rather than two per unit. Commissioner Boo asked the number of units being proposed. Senior Planner Sommers responded that there would be 162 units proposed. Vice Chair Markell introduced Tony Kuechle, representing Doran Companies, the applicant, who stated that they are a local based developer and contractor based in Bloomington. He stated that this is a parking lot that has traditionally never been used and therefore they believed there was a potential to provide market rate, and possibly affordable housing. He stated that this would allow walkability to the retail opportunities to the west and also to transit. He stated the building was designed to minimize the impact on the wetlands. He noted that this would go right onto the parking surface and therefore the impervious surface should not increase. He stated that this would feel like a master plan community with the proposed traffic flow. He stated that they are proposing 162 units with 223 parking stalls. He noted that he would be happy to discuss parking with the city. He stated that their portfolio has about 3,000 units and they have based their parking calculations off the need they have seen. He noted that this would be seven stories with two of those levels being above grade parking because of the high groundwater levels. He stated that there would be a courtyard on the third level, and they could add enhanced landscaping on 8 Approved Minutes August 4, 2021 that level to soften the feel of that. He noted that additional trees could also be planted throughout the office building site. Mr. Kuechle introduced the project architect, Ben Lindau, and Cody Dietrich with Doran Companies. Mr. Lindau stated that the building is more tucked back in order to work with the adjacent uses. He noted that the front door would be a gracious experience and visually focused, providing additional details. He stated that they are attempting to create visual interest on the corner because the building would be setback on the site and displayed sketches. He commented that this is a very linear building, and the creek side units would have large windows to take advantage of that view while the units on the other side would have views of the amenity deck. He noted that this is an initial pass on the design and would like to have something familiar in terms of design but also something midcentury. Mr. Dietrich stated that they strive for the live, work, play vision through amenities that they provide within the building and adjacent uses. He reviewed some of the proposed amenities and provided photographs of amenity spaces at their other metro facilities. Community Development Director Juetten stated that staff would like feedback on whether the commission would support a comprehensive plan amendment to change the use from office to mixed use and whether it would support more than 20 units per acre in terms of density given the setting. Commissioner Oakley asked if there is any zoning available that would allow a higher density or whether 20 tends to be the maximum allowed. Community Development Director Juetten responded that there is one guiding, LA-5, which is specific to those sites that have two major roadways next to them (such as Highway 55 and TH 169). He noted that this site would not meet that requirement and provided details on the zoning that could be used to accommodate this type of use. Commissioner Oakley stated there are some things the city needs that this type of project could address, such as residential areas within walkable areas. He stated that this would be the type of place where people want to live now, where they could walk to retail, and service uses. He stated that the struggle is that this is a difficult site to develop and there are challenges. He stated that when there is something provided that benefits the city, there is more room for variances or TIF. He stated that another thing that is important to him is affordability and if the city is going to get involved in this project with tax relief and variances, it would seem to be that there should be more benefits to the city. He encouraged the developer to look at what they could do to increase the benefit to the city. He stated that he is skeptical about the density because of the wetland setbacks and floodway, which will squeeze the site as they go further into the details. He noted that a density of 28.4 units is a jump from 20 but believed there could be room for some additional density above 20 units. He stated that perhaps a slightly less dense site would not have the same problems with landscaping and other required elements. Commissioner Boo stated that the concept of housing at this location makes sense. He stated that density is an issue but while he was a bit concerned with that he is not opposed to more 9 Approved Minutes August 4, 2021 density if it makes sense from a planning standpoint. He stated that the developer is requesting a lot of tradeoffs to shoehorn this development in. He stated that he would be concerned that encroachment into the wetlands could result in wetland replacement somewhere else. He recognized that would be a challenge to the developer. He stated that if funds are being requested from the city, affordable housing is one of the things he would be looking for on behalf of the city. Mr. Kuechle stated that they would not encroach on the wetland but would encroach on the floodway. He stated that they would increase the capacity of the ponding system in order to mitigate that floodway storage onsite. He noted that they have a long tradition of including some level of affordability and would work with staff to accommodate that. Vice Chair Markell asked for an opinion on affordable housing versus the TIF assistance. Mr. Kuechle stated that this is a site they believe is underutilized. He noted that they would need to have a deep foundation system and the initial TIF request was for that foundation system. He stated that if they add affordable housing, they could use an affordable housing district and accommodate both of those uses within the district. Commissioner Oakley stated that there was a request for the building height and stated that he has no issue with the height because the other buildings in the area are taller and this would fit with the neighborhood. Mr. Kuechle stated the design with above ground parking fits in well with the design, giving the units a better view. Commissioner Pointner stated that she agrees with the comments thus far and believed that this would be a good use and could support the shopping area. She stated that she is hesitant to have that many people there and has a concern about parking. Commissioner Witte stated that he is intrigued by this and would support the comprehensive plan amendment. He stated that his disappointment is that the entire site did not anticipate this mixed use. He stated that this is a challenging site and was unsure that they could get the needed support. He stated that given the height of the adjacent commercial buildings, he would support more height if the footprint could be shrunk. Commissioner Saba stated that he echoes the comments thus far. He stated that he is excited about this project and this location. He agreed that it would make sense to go a little higher to blend with the adjacent uses. He believed that this looks worth exploring. Vice Chair Markell stated that he would also support a proposal that might come forward for a comprehensive plan amendment, variance, or land use. He stated that this would be a good parcel for a different approach to density. He stated that the charge to the applicant would be to bring an articulated TIF request with affordable housing plan and how the site will flow and related to parking. Community Development Director Juetten stated that traditionally the commission would make a motion to forward the minutes from the meeting to the city council. 10 Approved Minutes August 4, 2021 Motion by Commissioner Boo and second by Commissioner Pointner to forward the minutes of the meeting as comments to the City Council on the sketch plan for a mixed-use development concept by Doran RE Partners LLC, for property located at 10000 Highway 55 (2021039). With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Vice Chair Markell adjourned the meeting at 8:28 pm