Loading...
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