HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 08-17-20221
Approved Minutes August 17, 2022
Approved Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 2022
Chair Boo 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 20, 2022.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Michael Boo, Commissioners Marc Anderson, Clark
Gregor, Bryan Oakley, Julie Olson, Julie Pointner and Donovan Saba.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Planning and Development Manager Chloe McGuire, City Engineer Chris
LaBounty, Senior Planner Kip Berglund
Chair Boo led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Plymouth Forum
Approval of Agenda
Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Gregor 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 20, 2022.
(4.2) Variance for size of a detached accessory building for property located at 17210 12th
Avenue (Uriel Pacheco Resendiz – 2022057)
Motion was made by Commissioner Pointner and seconded by Commissioner Anderson to approve
the consent agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried.
Public Hearings
(5.1) Rezoning and preliminary plat request for Mission Ponds 3rd Addition (Mission
Ponds HOA – 2022055)
Senior Planner Berglund provided an overview of the staff report.
2
Approved Minutes August 17, 2022
Commissioner Saba asked if this would be part of the Mission Ponds HOA.
Senior Planner Berglund replied that he would let the applicant elaborate on that but as staff
understands, if approved, this would not be part of the Mission Ponds HOA.
Commissioner Saba commented that this is an opportunity where the property is being sold for
development and asked if those profits would go to the HOA.
Senior Planner Berglund confirmed that is correct.
Commissioner Pointner commented that she recalled that this property is pretty steep and asked
if there was also a creek in that location.
Senior Planner Berglund stated that there is some contour on the back and the waterway has
topography leading towards it. He stated that as part of the approval, the applicant would be
required to place that area into a drainage and utility easement.
Commissioner Gregor asked what the outlot was, as it was mentioned that part of the property
would remain an outlot.
Senior Planner Berglund replied that under a standards townhome development, this subdivision
was approved with unit lots that are privately owned while the remaining area is an outlot that is
owned by the subdivision as a whole.
Commissioner Saba commented that if approved, the new owner would be entitled to the entire
block even though .37 acres is being developed.
Senior Planner Berglund confirmed that to be true.
Commissioner Oakley referenced the drainage way and setback and asked the length of that
setback.
Senior Planner Berglund replied that there are two different setback requirements, the structure
setback from the rear yard of 25 feet and the drainage and utility easement which would be
greater than 25 feet. He noted that the applicant would be required to establish that area as a
condition of final plat if this moves forward. He stated that the shoreland ordinance requires a
ten-foot buffer on both sides of the stream as well.
Commissioner Oakley stated that in looking at the topography and aerial photos it would seem
that easement would cover the southeast portion of the site, as well as from the adjacent
townhomes to the single-family site, and asked if there are waterway buffers in that area as well.
Senior Planner Berglund replied that the townhomes and single-family homes were constructed
prior to those buffer requirements. He stated that if this area were to develop today, there would
be larger buffers. He noted that with this request the stream would need to be buffered and it
would need to be shown that the delineated wetland is not near the newly proposed home.
3
Approved Minutes August 17, 2022
Chair Boo introduced Tony Caster with Stantec Consulting, representing the applicant, who
stated that the President of the HOA is also present to address any questions of the commission.
Commissioner Oakley asked if the stream buffer would have any anticipated change to the
design that was submitted to the city.
Mr. Caster replied that he did not believe that would have any impact on the design of the
dwelling or landscape plan and provided details on the drainage ditch.
Commissioner Saba asked if this property would be split off and sold and would not be part of
the HOA.
Mr. Caster confirmed that the portion to the north would become a new lot and would not be part
of the existing HOA.
Chair Boo opened the public hearing.
Senior Planner Berglund commented that correspondence was received via email today from a
resident related to the request which was distributed to the commission members prior to the
meeting.
Chair Boo read aloud the email correspondence from Colin Nelson in support of the request to
enter it into the record.
Chair Boo closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gregor commented that this seems to be a logical use of the outlot space and
perfectly fitting within the character of the surrounding neighborhood and therefore supports the
request.
Commissioner Pointner agreed with Commissioner Gregor. She commented that when the
development came forward previously, she wondered what would be done with this area. She
appreciated the work that has gone into the landscaping and trees and believes that the plan is
well thought out.
Chair Boo commented that the commission commented that there was much discussion related to
a previous plan for the property and it is nice to see that this plan is supported by the neighbors
and incorporated the comments the commission previously provided.
Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Pointner to
recommend approval of an ordinance amending Chapter 21 of the City Code to classify the subject
property at the northwest corner of Zachary Lane and 36th Avenue, to recommend approval of a
resolution approving findings of fact for the property, and to recommend approval of a resolution
approving a preliminary plat for the subject property. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the
motion carried.
4
Approved Minutes August 17, 2022
(5.2) Reguiding request for four properties to MXD (mixed use development) for the
properties located west of Highway 169 and south of Bass Lake Road at Nathan Lane
(Enclave Companies – 2022058)
Senior Planner Berglund provided an overview of the staff report.
Planning and Development Manager McGuire commented that the preliminary plat would come
back to a future meeting. She explained that these actions were being considered separately
because of the time needed for review by the Metropolitan Council.
Senior Planner Berglund stated that staff did receive correspondence from adjacent residents and
those comments were provided to the commission tonight.
Commissioner Anderson stated that many large projects require an EAW and asked if that would
be triggered by this project.
Senior Planner Berglund replied that staff reviewed the proposal and as currently proposed with
220 apartment units and retail, it would not trigger an EAW.
Commissioner Pointner asked when the decision would be made on the restructuring of the road.
Senior Planner Berglund replied that would be part of the overall discussion. He stated that
tonight the focus is on the land use change only. He stated that in reviewing these properties, any
proposed development of these sites would include discussion of the road alignment. He stated
that based on the traffic study and staff review, this concept could happen.
City Engineer LaBounty stated that more information would be provided with the preliminary
plat submittal.
Commissioner Pointner stated that this road is already very congested and changing the plan,
rezoning the property, would give her pause.
Chair Boo asked what control the city would have to require a roadway change once the
comprehensive plan change occurs.
Senior Planner Berglund stated that the land use change would allow a developer to come
forward with an MXD request that would include a rezoning request, preliminary plat, and any
other applicable applications. He stated that the City Council has a high level of discretion on
any rezoning request and if a rezoning request did not identify changes identified in the traffic
study, the development could be denied.
Planning and Development Manager McGuire stated that the comprehensive plan amendment
would not include a condition related to the roadway, as that would be a condition of preliminary
plat. She stated that if a planned unit development request were to be submitted for
development, the roadway alignment could also be a condition of that.
5
Approved Minutes August 17, 2022
Commissioner Oakley asked if the property were to remain guided as commercial/commercial
office, would the city then have the authority to require realignment of Nathan Lane if a plat
came in that did not request any variances or revisions.
Senior Planner Berglund replied that the city would still have the ability to condition those
improvements as a traffic study would still be completed based on those uses and the existing
traffic study has identified needed improvements.
Commissioner Gregor commented that one of the bullet points mentioned limited impact on
traffic operations and asked for clarity. He commented that the estimated 1,618 daily trips would
not be considered limited.
City Engineer LaBounty stated explained the elements reviewed in the preliminary traffic study
and noted that the comparison under the full build condition did not show an impact to the level
of service for those intersections with the exception of a slight increased delay at Nathan Lane
approaching Bass Lake Road. He noted that the study will still need to be refined based on the
final layout.
Commissioner Pointner asked if the number of daily trips would increase if this were kept at
commercial.
City Engineer LaBounty provided details on the previous traffic study completed for commercial
use and confirmed that this proposed use would be a decrease in daily trips.
Chair Boo introduced Brian Bachman, representing the applicant, who stated that they began to
review the site about one year ago and realized that the previous concept was impossible for
them to build with the shoreland overlay. He commented that it became more apparent that this
would need to be one building in order to meet the requirements of the shoreland overlay district.
He noted that the rounded road helps to create a buffer between the other sites and would help to
discourage truck traffic as well. He stated that traffic continues to be the largest focus at the
neighborhood meetings. He stated that the preliminary plat will show much more detail
including two entrances to the garages in order to split up some of the traffic. He stated that the
retail space will be specialized because of the limited space available for hardcover. He
commented that they will hold another neighborhood meeting prior to submission of the
preliminary plat to answer additional questions and provide updated information. He stated that
their goal would be to begin construction still this year.
Commissioner Oakley stated that the question before the commission tonight is only related to
the reguiding. He referenced the area on the southwest side of Nathan Lane and asked if there is
an idea or concept for that corner.
Mr. Bachman replied that the council was clear that they did not want that parcel. He stated that
they considered asking whether the HOAs for adjacent properties would be interested in that
corner to provide additional buffering. He stated that he does not have interest in it because it
would be across the street.
Commissioner Pointner asked if there would still be plans for a drive-thru on the northwest
corner.
6
Approved Minutes August 17, 2022
Mr. Bachman stated that a restaurant use would be difficult for that location and stated that they
will need to get into a lot of detail with retail users to determine parking needs. He also provided
details on the gas station property, noting that in order to continue lease of that space they would
require remodeling to bring it up to date. He stated that perhaps the retail uses would be a
chiropractor or insurance agent because they will need less intense uses and access would be
difficult.
Commissioner Pointner stated that the corner by the gas station is the corner entering Plymouth
and therefore it is important.
Mr. Bachman acknowledged that and stated that he does have architectural detail prepared to
present at the next review of preliminary plat.
Commissioner Gregor asked if the curved roadway would be enough to deter truck traffic and
slow the speed of traffic.
Mr. Bachman commented on the multiple iterations they reviewed to make this work. He stated
that they attempted to find a way to make staying on Nathan Lane more difficult. He stated that
a truck would have to slow down and take a right turn and while a truck could make that turn, it
would most likely prefer not to take that route.
City Engineer LaBounty stated that with the sketch they are attempting to discourage trucks from
continuing down Nathan Lane. He stated that the area is designed for trucks to use the frontage
road, as is currently signed.
Chair Boo opened the public hearing.
Chair Boo reviewed the written/email correspondence received that will become part of the
public record.
Planning and Development Manager McGuire stated that the comments tonight should focus
only on the land use amendment. She noted that an additional notification will be sent to
residents prior to consideration of the preliminary plat.
Chair Boo introduced Mary Johnson, 5525 Nathan Lane N, Unit 3, speaking in representation of
the Hickory Hills Villas HOA, who stated that in regard to the proposed reguiding they are
opposed. She stated that the residents are concerned with the negative impacts to their homes,
with the largest concern being the increased density of an apartment complex. She stated that
they would see hundreds of additional personal vehicles and would also see school buses,
delivery vehicles, guests, and emergency vehicles. She stated that there are many other things
that would impact the zoning decision, but this is the focus of the residents in her community.
Chair Boo introduced Martha Packen, Hickory Hills resident, who stated that her question is
related to traffic and the restructuring of the roadway which she understands is more of a
question for preliminary plat and therefore will hold her comments until that time.
7
Approved Minutes August 17, 2022
Chair Boo introduced Paul Cranert who stated that he is in favor of maintaining the current land
use guidance for the undeveloped properties under consideration. He believed that the present
land use guidance is more desirable for the adjacent properties. He stated that the present use
designation displays a high level and careful thought towards development by previous planners.
He referenced the traffic report noting that there are two intersections that are important, one of
which has been appropriate addressed at 56th and Nathan Lane that would need improvements.
He commented on the noise from truck traffic that is currently experienced and the bad condition
of the pavement in that area. He commented that the rerouting of semi-trucks would be
beneficial to residents. He referenced the other intersection and recommended improvements for
the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Nathan Lane and noted differences between that older
report and the newer report. He believed that those differences should be addressed and
reconciled if this moves forward.
Chair Boo introduced Nancy Anderson, 5525 Nathan Lane, Unit 1, who stated that she is
opposed to the change from commercial to mixed use because of the increase to traffic. She
commented that trucks go right past her on 56th. She stated that the curves would make the
traffic choose 56th which further impacts her home.
Chair Boo closed the public hearing.
City Engineer LaBounty commented that the traffic study referenced was the one he mentioned
prior to the public hearing which studied the intersection based on the current more intense
guiding of commercial use. He stated that staff could provide a comparison of the two studies
when the preliminary plat request comes forward.
Chair Boo reiterated that the commercial use is a more intense use of the site that the proposed
mixed-use designation from a traffic standpoint. He noted that the other traffic improvements
mentioned would be looked into further at the preliminary plat request.
City Engineer LaBounty noted that the next step would include a final traffic study report and
would be provided to the commission at its review of preliminary plat. He confirmed that
delivery vehicles and others would be included in the traffic study.
Commissioner Anderson commented that he finds this to be a wonderful process in only
reviewing one piece at a time, rather than multiple actions to consider at once. He also
appreciated the fact that the developer has worked through multiple iterations to develop this
concept. He stated that this review would contemplate the existing office/commercial versus
residential/mixed use. He commented that it took 25 years to develop the buildings on the Bass
Lake commercial park. He stated that for this site to remain commercial/office he would
anticipate that it would remain empty for quite some time and therefore supported the concept
for mixed use with the incorporation of residential. He stated that he does support this change.
Commissioner Pointner commented that her biggest concern for this parcel has been traffic. She
stated that continuing this site to be commercial/office would result in more traffic and truck
traffic. She stated that she does support the mixed-use designation and believes that it will result
in a better project for the site. She was appreciative of the work that has gone into this concept.
8
Approved Minutes August 17, 2022
Commissioner Gregor stated that his question was related to what could go on the site under the
current land use and why it has not been developed. He noted that while keeping the site vacant
might be preferred by residents in the area, that is not best for the developer or landowner. He
agreed that mixed use with residential would make more sense for the site and to maintain the
character of the neighborhood. He also believed that it would be less intensive than a
commercial use.
Motion was made by Commissioner Pointner and seconded by Commissioner Olson to
recommend approval of the resolution of the comprehensive plan amendment to reguide the 19
acres from commercial and commercial office to mixed use development (MXD). With all
Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried.
New Business
(6.1) Sketch Plan application by Joshua/Markum Builders, Inc. for a 21-unit building at
18035 Old Rockford Road (Joshua/Markum Builders – 2022056)
Planning and Development Manager McGuire provided an overview of the staff report.
Commissioner Olson asked if there is a shortage of 55 plus luxury condominiums in Plymouth.
Planning and Development Manager McGuire replied that she is unsure whether there is a shortage
but noted that there is a need for that use within the metro.
Chair Boo asked for input on the setbacks that would be required for a building of this size.
Planning and Development Manager McGuire replied that a table was included in the packet with
the required setbacks and reviewed that information. She stated that the applicant would propose
larger setbacks than required. She noted that the setback from the wetland would potentially be
more constraining than the setback from the property line.
Chair Boo asked if the variance would then relate to parking setbacks. He also asked if this
proposal would fall within the allowed density.
Planning and Development Manager McGuire confirmed that 20 feet is required for a parking
setback whereas about ten feet is proposed currently. She noted that the applicant may be able to
meet that setback moving forward as this is very preliminary. She stated that it appears that this
proposal would fall within the density allowed by the comprehensive plan but noted that would be
finalized once the wetland delineation is completed.
Commissioner Gregor asked for details on whether amenities would be required or optional.
Planning and Development Manager McGuire stated that in the past it has been considered a
requirement, but the applicant can choose which amenity to incorporate.
9
Approved Minutes August 17, 2022
Commissioner Oakley stated that he struggles with that same question as it would seem that the
applicant would meet the requirement with amenities on two floors as he did not see a requirement
to have an amenity on each floor.
Planning and Development Manager McGuire confirmed that staff was asking for the help of the
commission to determine if the request would meet the intent of the zoning district. She stated
that some complexes have more amenities and therefore more could be required, or the
commission could find this proposal sufficient in terms of amenities.
Commissioner Oakley referenced the parking setbacks and asked where the parking would
possibly infringe on the setback.
Planning and Development Manager McGuire identified parking areas that appear to be about ten
feet from the property line.
Commissioner Oakley commented that in the areas around there it appears there is a fairly thin
strip of commercial property and asked if anything is currently on the property or what could
potentially be on that thin strip of property.
Planning and Development Manager McGuire replied that property is a larger commercial building
to the west and explained that the aerial photo just cuts off the picture.
Chair Boo introduced Markam Olson, representing the applicant, who stated that he worked with
city staff and the watershed to determine an appropriate use for the property. He reviewed the
adjacent property uses and stated that he is attempting to bring more of an urban feel to the
neighborhood which he believes will fit nicely into this area. He stated that he searched for luxury
55 plus units in this area and could not find a use of this nature in the area. He provided details on
the amenities proposed including the first floor lounge that would have a full kitchen and could be
used for residents to host larger family events. He believed that most of the setbacks were met and
noted that he would continue to work with staff on that. He stated that he would move the entrance
to align with the garage entrance, which may result in three less parking spaces. He provided
additional details on the exit proposed, which would be a right out onto Rockford.
Chair Boo commented that his initial thought was that this was attempting to develop a lot on a
small lot but after hearing the presentation this seems to be the best use for this small lot. He
commented that it is unfortunate on the distance pedestrians would need to travel in order to reach
the commercial area, as that would enhance the urban feel but recognized the difficulty in
traversing the wetlands.
Mr. Olson commented that there would be an easement that perhaps could be maintained as a trail
to provide that connection.
Commissioner Anderson commented that this is a creative proposal, trying to do something on a
small parcel that does not require huge changes in zoning. He commented that this is kind of a
hodgepodge area and there has been difficulty in making something work. He commented that he
also does not want to think there is a license to stretch the envelope and would want to see parking
and setbacks met, along with access considerations. He stated that he would not want to see the
applicant asking for a lot of flexibility in the future.
10
Approved Minutes August 17, 2022
Mr. Olson commented that he did reduce the building size in order to reduce the hardcover and
make room for ponding.
Commissioner Olson stated that the applicant mentioned that this would be for residents 55 plus
and asked if the units would be rental or purchase.
Mr. Olson replied that the units would be for purchase.
Commissioner Olson asked if the city would have the right to specify the number of amenities
when units are sold for purchase.
Planning and Development Manager McGuire replied that right is not given because of the intent
to sell the units. She explained that the commission has the right review amenities under the
housing for the elderly code requirements of the city.
Chair Boo stated that when the developer brings forward a request, the city would be able to dictate
that the underlying control documents specify the age of 55 plus and required amenities.
Commissioner Oakley agreed with Commissioner Anderson that this would be an interesting use
and he would like to see a proposal that complies with the city’s zoning codes and does not include
variances. He stated that this project would seem that with minor changes could completely meet
the code requirements and therefore the commission would have no choice but to vote in favor.
He stated that sometimes a variance request comes forward and typically he only supports those
when something is provided by the developer in exchange for the flexibility requested. He used
the example of a reduced setback in return for additional greenspace. He believed the simpler path
would be to comply with the requirements. He stated that in regard to amenities he would believe
the developer would have more expertise on what would be needed to attract residents based on
market conditions.
Commissioner Pointner agreed with the comments made thus far. She asked if the blue shown on
the map is included in this property.
Planning and Development Manager McGuire replied that the sliver to the east is included.
Commissioner Pointner commented that she agrees that the developer would include what would
be needed to make the building attractive to residents.
Commissioner Gregor commented that perhaps amenities can incorporate nature, such as an
outdoor rooftop for the third level.
Mr. Olson commented that he is thinking about including a pickleball court, whether that is on the
roof or in the backyard of the property.
Chair Boo reviewed the consensus that this seems to be an appropriate use of the property should
the request meet the guidance specified in city code.
11
Approved Minutes August 17, 2022
Planning and Development Manager McGuire noted that although this is not a public hearing,
notice was provided to residents. She summarized the comments that she received from residents
prior to the meeting and noted that the commission could also accept comments from members of
the public tonight.
Chair Boo introduced John Althoff, 18110 45th Avenue N, who thanked the commission and staff
for giving them an opportunity to listen tonight. He commented that any use of the property would
be an upgrade from what currently exists. He stated that the only concern he would have is related
to the available space and the space between Peony and this property and was unsure what would
develop on that parcel. He asked if this development could extend into that area rather than leaving
that vacant and more challenging for development.
Planning and Development Manager McGuire replied that sliver of property in the middle is part
of the drainage for the adjacent property and therefore would not be developable. She commented
that there are privately owned parcels at Peony which total 1.5 acres and is zoned commercial with
upland buildable area.
The Commissioners provided feedback to the Applicant and informal comments to the City
Council related to the potential lot split.
Adjournment
Chair Boo adjourned the meeting at 9:04 pm