HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 02-01-2012Approved Minutes
City of Plymouth
Planning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2012
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair James Davis, Commissioners Dick Kobussen, Nathan
Robinson, Gordon Petrash, Bryan Oakley and Marc Anderson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Scott Nelson
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Thomson, Senior Planner Shawn Drill, Public
Works Director Doran Cote and Office Support Specialist Laurie Lokken
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PUBLIC FORUM
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to approve the
February 1, 2012 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 18, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Robinson, to approve the
January 18, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved.
6. PUBLIC HEARING
A. HAMPTON HILLS INVESTMENT, LLC (2011097)
Chair Davis introduced the request by Hampton Hills Investment, LLC for a preliminary plat for
Hampton Hills South Plateau for 63 single family lots in the south portion of the former
Hampton Hills golf course for property located at 5313 Juneau Lane North.
Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report.
Commissioner Anderson asked for the size and architectural requirements for the homes to be
built in this development as the lot sizes appear smaller in size than these in the addition to the
north. Senior Planner Drill responded that it has the same zoning, RSF-3, as the areas north of
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
February 1, 2012
Page 2
the proposed development. He deferred to the applicant for further information on what the
homes might be like.
Commissioner Anderson asked how the driveway in the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 would be
constructed across the wetland, if it would be surcharged, if it would be greater than the
easement area, how would it be maintained and what kind of easement would it be. He said he is
concerned that at some point, someone will come back to the city for maintenance and plowing
and asked if it would be very clear that it is the new property owner's responsibility for that.
Senior Planner Drill deferred to the applicant to help answer that question. He stated that this
would all be part of the private lot. He said that the city didn't want a public street through that
area for that reason; the city doesn't want to try to maintain a public street through a wetland
area. He said the driveway would not be in an easement, but actually on the property. He said
the developer would dedicate some land for a park trail, which would be owned and maintained
by the city. He said the maintenance of the private driveway would be the responsibility of the
eventual homeowner.
Commissioner Anderson stated the entire wetland would be owned by that homeowner as well.
Senior Planner Drill confirmed affirmatively.
Commissioner Anderson asked how much of the four -inch compost soil amendments for
stormwater they would be doing and where that would be located. Senior Planner Drill deferred
that to the applicant to explain.
Commissioner Kobussen asked who would have final ownership of the proposed Outlots A and
B and if there was any intent to build on Outlot B in the future. Senior Planner Drill responded
that staff has been working with the developer on Outlot A to look at a way to incorporate it into
the lots abutting it. He said we wouldn't want an outlot sitting out there that is not usable for
anything because if it goes tax forfeiture there is nothing that can ever happen with it. He said it
would be staff recommendation that Outlot A get added into the abutting lots. He said that
Outlot B would probably then be renumbered to Outlot A. He said there is some upland area
there that cannot be reached because of the wetlands. He said that potentially when the area to
the west is developed, there may be some opportunity to incorporate that into the platting of the
property to the west.
Commissioner Kobussen asked how the water would go out of Outlot B and if there is a
requirement that the water has to go to the west. Senior Planner Drill responded that would be
done through the looping of the utilities. He said the developer's intent is to take the water line
down and extend it to the west and deferred to the applicant to explain further.
Commissioner Petrash asked if there is a requirement or responsibility to the homeowner to
maintain the wetlands in Lot 1, Block 1 or is there any obligation from the city to maintain that
in any way. Senior Planner Drill responded negatively, noting wetlands that are privately owned
are considered to be private property just like the rest of your property and the homeowner who
owns that would be responsible for it.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
February 1, 2012
Page 3
Commissioner Petrash asked if there are maintenance issues with a wetland. Senior Planner
Drill responded not generally. Planning Manager Thomson added that one of the reasons why
the city instituted the wetland buffers is to make sure that there is an area where nothing is
disturbed that will help protect the wetland in the future.
Chair Davis asked if years ago the city had gotten involved in a program for dredging up some
wetlands or if that had been ponds. Public Works Director Cote responded that he was referring
to our pond maintenance program. He said that wetlands are not included in that particular
program. He said for the most part, it is particularly for aesthetics. He said if there were flood
concerns, then the city does have some obligation to maintain them. He said the pond
maintenance program involved dredging of natural basins that are used for stormwater and for
water quality ponds.
Commissioner Anderson stated that the purple loosestrife plant has been identified in some
wetlands in the area and asked if that appears in this wetland, is that going to be the
responsibility of the homeowner to remove and who would enforce that requirement. Senior
Planner Drill responded that if our weed inspector would find noxious weeds on a property, they
would require the homeowner to eradicate them.
Commissioner Oakley asked if the city had any restrictions on the number of lots that can be in a
development with a single outlet. Senior Planner Drill responded that there is not necessarily a
limit on the number of units. He said our subdivision regulations do have some limitations on
length of cul-de-sacs. He said that in this case, there are no options for a second outlet. He said
that with the location of the railroad tracks and wetland basins, there was no way to have a cul-
de-sac that is, for instance, limited to 500 feet in length. He said that staff has looked at how
traffic would go through this area and do not have any concerns, at this time with how the street
layout would work.
Commissioner Kobussen asked where the cell tower is located in that area. Senior Planner Drill
responded that the cell tower is located in the area that will be platted as Hampton Hills 4th
Addition and he deferred to the applicant to talk about the long term platting.
Commissioner Kobussen asked what the impervious surface restrictions are for homes being
located in the shoreline district for Bass Creek and if this development would meet that
requirement. Senior Planner Drill confirmed affirmatively. He said the restrictions are a 25%
maximum impervious surface coverage and that affects the properties to be located along the
south edge of the development.
Commissioner Kobussen asked if there were any calculations available on the properties that
border the area where the railroad has an unusual "notch" of land because it looks like they will
easily be butting up to 25% if they put driveways, sidewalks and a home that is any size on those
lots. Senior Planner Drill responded that has been a concern that the applicant and the city
mutually share. He said the applicant is trying to work with the railroad to acquire that land and
if that happens at some point, that area would be added onto the abutting lots, modifying the plat.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
February 1, 2012
Page 4
Commissioner Petrash asked if the drainage flow in Lot 1, Block 1 goes from the wetlands to the
lake. Senior Planner Drill responded affirmatively. Commissioner Petrash asked what the
elevation would be from the houses to the wetlands. Senior Planner Drill responded that it looks
to be about 16 feet in one area and 10 or more feet in another area. Commissioner Petrash asked
if the natural drainage flow would be interrupted or blocked, would that be the homeowner's
responsibility, as that would seem to be a lot of responsibility for one homeowner. Senior
Planner Drill responded that there would be an overland overflow swale that would be lower
than the elevation of the houses so it would flow over land into the lake before it would get up to
the level of the houses. He deferred to the applicant to go over that area in more detail.
Commissioner Robinson asked if a 16 -foot wide private drive is wide enough for an emergency
service vehicle to get in and turn around. Senior Planner Drill responded affirmatively. He said
that if they are not using the outriggers on the fire truck, for instance, they need a 15 -foot width
minimum so they would meet that. He said that as far as a turnaround for a private driveway, we
wouldn't require a full turnaround.
Commissioner Robinson asked if there would be any restriction on the runoff from the wetland
and driveway into the lake on Lot 1, Block 1 if the homeowner wanted to salt that road. Senior
Planner Drill responded that he was not aware of any prohibition on salting a driveway that goes
through a wetland but staff would check into that and make sure that if it is an issue it would be
addressed before this item goes on to city council.
At Commissioner Anderson's request, Senior Planner Drill showed on the site map where the
access roads would be located for the three ponds.
Commissioner Anderson asked what would happen to the access easement if Outlot A were to go
away. Senior Planner Drill responded that the easement would be on the individual lots.
Commissioner Anderson asked whose responsibility it would be to maintain a private drive on a
lot that is serving a pond. Senior Planner Drill responded that the developer would provide the
access route to the pond and the city, when it needed it, would go in and use it to maintain the
ponds.
Chair Davis asked what is going to happen in terms of the wetland mitigation bank. Senior
Planner Drill responded that when it comes to wetland replacement, you can either recreate new
wetlands at a 2:1 ratio for whatever amount you fill or, as in this case, the developer has
previously created a large wetland bank in the Hampton Hills
4th Addition development to the
northwest. He said that they get credits for that and when you fill a wetland you can replace that
in a wetland bank that has all ready been created. He said that is what they are requesting to do
here and the city council will be considering this in a few weeks. He deferred to the applicant to
talk more about their plans for improving the wetland and the banking. He said that they actually
have enough credits to potentially sell to other developers who need to create wetlands.
Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Rob Wachholz. Mr. Wachholz stated that Plymouth is
seeing very positive response to new housing development and this application for preliminary
plat of the plateau is being prompted by builder interest in the property. He said that it is ahead
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
February 1, 2012
Page 5
of schedule from where they thought they would be after starting just a year ago but they are
delighted by that prospect. He said they did not submit a preliminary plat for this plateau at the
time that they submitted the other Hampton Hills developments because they knew this parcel
would attract interest from a builder who would want to specifically size the lots to their product.
He said this builder is building in Plymouth and will be bringing in the same product line to this
site. He said the home sizes are in the 2,600 to 3,200 square feet. He said the builder is in their
due diligence period, which ends at the end of this month.
Mr. Wachholz stated that they are delighted by the prospect to establish the wetland banking. He
said the city and all the other agencies that are involved in wetland administration encouraged
this approach, which is being achieved through restoration rather than creation of wetlands. He
said they will be regulating the flow of the creek to hold back a little bit more water and improve
the hydrology in this wetland area and therefore, restore the low lying areas into wetland
characteristics. He said for the most optimum banking program, you need to restore five acres of
wetland minimum and they are achieving that. He said one of the reasons why in the preliminary
plat they didn't take up the idea of platting the lots through the other wetland is there are
additional wetland banking opportunities along the wetlands in Outlots A and B. He said they
are in the process of sorting out what those possibilities are and that may affect how they deal
with the lot lines.
Mr. Wachholz stated that all the drainage for the wetland in Lot 1, Block 1 is going south and not
to the lake. He said it will be going south across the wetland complex and then out towards Bass
Lake. He said effectively, there is a strip of high ground along the edge of the lake and they are
utilizing that area to position the city trail around the lake in its most optimum and high value
position. He said the rest of the configuration, both with the private drive and the utilities, is a
function of soils and just the engineering of the sanitary sewer itself to make this all work. He
said the sanitary sewer when installed is going to be essentially at existing grade. He said that's
the way the engineering works for all the grades to work to connect to the existing manhole. He
said sewering in this direction is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. He said they
would be covering the line for frost protection and that creates a part of this impact. He said that
the fact that the line sits at grade, they were striving to separate the sewer utility and the roadway
so that the pipe would not be put in jeopardy by a road, particularly since this is not a public
street, just a private drive and not engineered to that extent. He said the private drive was slid
south and positioned in a location where it can take advantage of a little finger of upland to
minimize the wetland impacts. He said if the private drive were to run parallel to the sewer line,
the impacts would have been greater. He said it is clearly a private drive on private property,
with no expectation of public maintenance, and they would construct it within the impact zone
that has been designated. He said they will be layering the material in, letting it settle and
stabilizing that drive over time because they do not have any immediate plans to sell that lot.
Mr. Wachholz said stated the impervious surface limitations on the lots all work with the
builder's largest footprint, standard driveways, etc. He said that the lots that would be abutting
the railroad property are squeezed a bit and they are working on solutions there. He said there
are a lot of things they can do; such as, limit it to smaller footprint houses or use permeable
pavers in the driveways or sidewalks. He said it has taken them two years to convince the
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
February 1, 2012
Page 6
railroad that they own that property. He said now they hope to be able to work something out to
purchase the land and expand the area of the lots.
Mr. Wachholz identified the location of the cell tower on a site plan. He said that when the final
plat is presented, they will be temporarily deflecting the road around the cell tower and
ultimately, when the cell tower goes away, they will reinstall that section of street. He said all of
the lots in the 4t' Addition plat that are within the fall zone will not be platted at this time. He
said that they are working with the owner of the cell tower to find a solution to have them
relocate sooner rather than later. He said at the longest, they are there by lease until 2021.
Commissioner Kobussen asked if Lot 1, Block 1 would need a lift station in the house to drain
the sewer or if the sewer would be at a level that the sewer wouldn't drain back into the house.
Mr. Wachholz responded that the sewer for the whole site would be gravity to that location so
the elevations would be made to work for a gravity sewer for that home.
Commissioner Kobussen asked how Bass Creek flows and drains out through this property, if it
goes under the railroad tracks somewhere and if there are any easements into that area to
maintain the culverts, etc. Mr. Wachholz identified the flow on the site plan. He said the
railroad has installed a corrugated metal pipe that is underground. He said the creek drains
through that pipe and then is exposed again at the south end of the proposed wetland #2 until it
reaches another corrugated metal pipe, which they are still researching. He said they believe that
the installation of that pipe was in connection with the power line tower located there and as part
of their easement and improvement. He said the pipe is not in any kind of public easement, it's
not on our property and it's the railroad's maintenance responsibility and they can access it off
the railroad. He said they believe the other pipe is the power company's installation and
responsibility within their easement and they are working to confirm those things with both of
those parties. He said after that, it is off the site and then an open ditch or creek again. He added
that the lake outflows into the proposed wetland #2 and there is a bit of an open corridor that is
about one-third of the way into the wetland that ultimately comes down and joins into this outlet.
Commissioner Kobussen stated the wetland buffer on Lot 14, Block 1 looks like it would be
right up against the back door to that house and it also looks like there would be an issue on
drainage going down the hill along Lots 12 and 13, Block 1. Mr. Wachholz responded the buffer
is inside the setback line on Lot 14. He said that home would have a relatively shallow backyard
but would also have expansive rear views across the wetland. He said he felt, for the integrity of
Lot 1, Block 1, that he wanted to keep the upland buffer, or as much of it as he could, in that lot
as it is part of a wetland enterprise versus getting it conflicted with each individual lot owner on
the side having the buffer and a piece of the wetland. He said that his strategy was to draw the
lot lines so that Lot 1, Block 1 had the wetland and virtually all the buffer as well and that set the
edge for the rest of the lots. He said that is why Lot 14 appears like it's pinched but they find it
would be an acceptable lot. He said the main thing they are trying to avoid between Lots 12 and
13 is taking any of the trees out of the tree line. He added that they were confident the drainage
would work.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
February 1, 2012
Page 7
Commissioner Anderson asked what would happen if the builder decided not to proceed. Mr.
Wachholz responded that they would have a preliminary plat of single family lots at a
marketable size. He said he wouldn't rule out the fact that they might have to come back and say
they would rather have some other sizes but they felt comfortable enough in their discussions
with this particular builder to proceed with the investment and these plans. He said they have
every indication that the builder will proceed forward. He said they like this plat and it will work
for an array of builders, beyond just this one.
Commissioner Anderson asked if there are any architectural requirements on this builder. Mr.
Wachholz responded that there is a homeowners association there. He said that it would be
relatively generic, from their standards, in terms of what they have done in other communities.
He said they would be quality homes with stately fronts, quality materials, professional
construction techniques and job site performance much as being built in the city already.
Commissioner Anderson asked about the other ideas for Outlot A in terms of additional banking
and staff recommending platting lots through that outlot. Mr. Wachholz responded that they
could plat the lots through there just as the lots in the 4th Addition are platted through the wetland
bank area. He said they do want to try to identify if they can find enough area for any additional
banking. He said Outlot B is probably the area that offers the most opportunity to extend the
banking by the time you put the public trail through and deal with the ponds and buffers. He said
that likely there is minimal banking opportunity, but they are investigating it and will have it
figured out before final platting these areas.
Chair Davis asked if grading clauses are put in resolutions when the plans aren't sufficient.
Public Works Director Cote responded that these comments are where the city sees deficiencies
in the grading plan and the applicant's engineer has responded to all of those comments. He said
that in their response, they state a swale will be added to the final grading plan between Lots 12
and 13 of Block 1.
Chair Davis opened the public hearing.
Chair Davis introduced Tony Zeig, 5353 Empire Lane North. Mr. Zeig stated that existing
homes in the cul-de-sac are at an elevation of six to ten feet above existing grade where the home
would be built in Lot 1, Block 1. He said his concern is that there will be water issues in that
home, depending upon how high they are going to bring that grade up to build that home. He
asked if at the walking path location, the sewer and water would run and tie in as well. He asked
that if the sewer and water would be at grade where it is right now, would the walking path be
put in on top of that pipeline and in essence building that walking path up two to four feet. He
asked if it's going to be a 2:1 wetland bank replacement, if there would be enough left in that
area to replace what is filled in that area. He asked if there was still discussion about putting in a
community park or community children's area there as well.
Chair Davis introduced Elizabeth LaFrenz, 14420 51St Avenue North. Ms. LaFrenz stated she
was surprised to see this plan's density. She asked that if Lot 1, Block 1 was excluded from the
average lot size, would the development still be within the density requirements. She asked with
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
February 1, 2012
Page 8
the tree preservation, how many trees would be cut down. She asked if a request could be made
of the builder and/or the Planning Commission to consider not disturbing the natural grade, as
well as the trees, as part of the preliminary plat. She stated that the Public Utilities Commission
is considering an application from Xcel Energy to put a large substation in that area and asked, as
part of this process, if that is a consideration in approving this plat at this time.
Chair Davis closed the public hearing.
Planning Manager Thomson stated that after a number of discussions with city park staff, the
upland area of Lot 1, Block 1 is not an area that they are looking for a community park. She said
that they do want the trail to go around the lake but the remainder of the upland area was not
something that fit into the overall parks plan for the city.
Public Works Director Cote stated that as indicated previously, a home built on Lot 1, Block 1
would be at a lower elevation than the homes around it but it would be at a higher elevation than
the wetland around it to the west and south. He said that it appears from the grading plan that it
will be adequately drained.
Public Works Director Cote stated that the applicant indicated that the sewer is basically at
grade. He said that it is very shallow, by sewer standards, but it is 6 %2 to 7 1/2 feet deep, as is the
watermain. He said sewer and water will be insulated and covered and the trail would be built
on top of that. He said the drainage patterns from the lake to the wetland would be maintained.
Planning Manager Thomson stated the wetland bank is going to be creating more area than is
needed for mitigation related to this project.
Senior Planner Drill stated the guiding of this property, LA -R2, allows two to four dwelling units
per acre. He said the density on this project is about 2.3 units per acre so it is on the lower end of
the allowable density.
Chair Davis asked if they could exclude Lot 1, Block 1. Senior Planner Drill responded that we
take all of the upland acreage and then divide that by the number of units so wetlands are always
excluded from the density. Planning Manager Thomson added that there are only four acres of
upland in that area. She said that prior to the adoption of the last comprehensive plan, this area
had been guided for a rural density but that was changed with the plan that was adopted in 2009.
Mr. Wachholz stated they are sensitive to the trees on the edge of this area. He said in that tree
line, just a few trees at the very end would be lost as part of this project. He said that closer to
Ms. LaFrenz's home, the grading they would be doing within the railroad parcel would
backslope to feather the grading into the lot. He said the trees on their property would not be
disturbed. He said there would just be a smattering of trees on one lot that would be lost. He
said the profile of trees that she sees would be preserved.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
February 1, 2012
Page 9
Mr. Wachholz confirmed for Ms. LaFrenz that they would not be eradicating that area as they
want to keep that berm there, too. He said this grading would be just to tie the backyard grades
into the backslope of the hill to be better than the current condition, which is ragged.
Public Works Director Cote stated that he has been an observer in the Hollydale transmission
line and substation and he knows the applicant has been involved as well. He said that Xcel
Energy has identified two potential sites for a substation and they are going through their state
review process. He said that is a separate process entirely from any city reviews and they
supersede the city's authority. He said that the applicant's property was one of the alternative
sites chosen but he does not think it was sited specifically anywhere on this property except to
identify it as vacant and this could be a place where one could go. He said the other site is a city -
owned property at the intersection of Schmidt Lake Road and Interstate 494.
Chair Davis said if they start building houses there, it would no longer be vacant land and asked
if they could still come in and take a lot and say they are going to put it there. Public Works
Director Cote responded Xcel Energy has the authority, like the City of Plymouth, to condemn
property through eminent domain and, as far as he knows, they have not initiated that action on
any property in the City of Plymouth for this particular project. He said the applicant is not
compelled to wait for them to decide what to do as Xcel is compelled to do something about it on
their own.
Mr. Wachholz added that if they want, they could condemn it from them but they don't need to
sit around and wait for them to decide. He said they are entitled to pursue their objectives with
the land, irrespective of what designs Xcel may have. He said it is clearly their number two
choice and if it goes away as it becomes platted lots, it is no longer a choice. He said they are
advancing what they feel is the highest and best use for the property and that is a single family
development.
Commissioner Anderson stated that we have a situation where we have a plat designed
specifically for a builder that is not committed, we have interest in land that the railroad owns
that is not included in this plat and it is not known if and when that would be included, we have a
creek that's going through a culvert (which is always a bad idea) and the applicant believes a
second culvert is perhaps controlled by the utility and that may have a bearing on the storm water
system and then we have an issue of possible wetland credits associated with Outlot A or B that
may have a bearing on the layout of the plat. He asked staff if this is premature or are these the
kinds of issues that can typically be handled between preliminary and final plat. Planning
Manger Thomson responded that we can not require that there be a builder identified with the
plat. Commissioner Anderson said that this is designed for a builder and if that builder goes
away, then perhaps the plat would be different and we may be looking at this again in another six
months all over again because they aren't committed to exactly what they are doing yet.
Planning Manager Thomson responded we would still have to have a basis with which to deny it
and under the subdivision regulations, that would not be a basis.
Senior Planner Drill stated that there are a number of conditions in the resolution that do address
all aspects of the project. He said regarding the design of the lots along the railroad, they would
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
February 1, 2012
Page 10
meet the requirements regardless of whether or not they are able to obtain that property.
Planning Manager Thomson added that if there was any change with respect to the wetland
banking, that is something that could definitely occur between the preliminary and final plat and
would not constitute a major change in the lots layout.
Commissioner Petrash asked if it is typical that large amounts of wetland like that are owned by
a private lot owners. Senior Planner Drill responded it is, in fact the majority of wetlands are
privately owned. He said the city owns some that are part of the city's storm sewer drainage
system but for the most part, wetlands are part of private property.
Chair Davis stated that there are wetlands in other sections in this development that are divided
up against various lots but with this wetland, one person is going to own the whole thing. He
asked if there are many instances in the city where one homeowner would own such a large
wetland. Senior Planner Drill replied that it was probably unusual. Planning Manager Thomson
added that if you think about the lakes, lots are platted out into the lakes, too, without any
requirements that they have to do something about their part of the lake. She said we try to make
sure that what happens adjacent to the edge of it, that homeowners aren't doing anything that's
going to further alter the nature of the wetland but typically, you are not doing anything in the
wetland.
Commissioner Petrash asked if the private owner is able to do anything he wants to the wetland.
Planning Manager Thomson responded we have regulation of the wetland buffer. Public Works
Director Cote added a private property owner is subject to the same regulations for wetland
impacts as a public owner and as a developer. He said they cannot go in and fill the wetland,
mow the wetland or drain the wetland as they are subject to the same controls. Commissioner
Petrash stated that there is a responsibility that goes with ownership of this wetland that the
homeowner will have. Public Works Director Cote replied that regardless of who owns it, those
conditions are there.
Senior Planner Drill confirmed for Chair Davis that those are state and federal rules.
Planning Manager Thomson added the basic idea is to make sure that the quality of the wetlands
stays the same as they are today. She said the wetland buffer is intended to help preserve the
quality. She said runoff coming from the house, etc. is filtered through the buffer before it gets
to a wetland. She said the intent was that the width of the wetland buffer be related to the quality
of the wetland.
Commissioner Petrash asked if somebody has an ongoing responsibility to maintain this wetland
or do things to prevent things from happening to it; such as, salt on the driveway. Planning
Manager Thomson said that not altering the wetland buffer and not altering anything within the
wetland buffer itself. She said that if we find that there is alteration in the buffer, we have
required property owners to go back and restore it.
Commissioner Oakley stated that he has seen instances where the wetlands are owned by
adjacent homes and one homeowner respects the wetland buffer while another one mows into the
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
February 1, 2012
Page 11
wetland. He said there seems to be a greater potential for problems if you have multiple owners
than there is with one. He said the biggest problem he has with this plat is with Lot 1, Block 1.
He said it doesn't feel like it fits into the neighborhood that it's being platted with or the
neighborhood that exists there. He said it also adds some complexity to the utilities that are
being run there. He said that he understands we have to build what basically amounts to a dam
on the south end of the lake to put the sewer in. He said there is going to be culverts in there and
the sewer is going to either go over or under and it will be insulated. He said putting a second
dam or driveway seems to make that even more complicated. He said the utilities have to go in,
in order to serve the neighborhood but he's not sure that adding a single lot really adds much
value. Planning Manager Thomson responded that in order to have access to the sewer in this
area, we would have to have some kind of a road going through this area. Public Works Director
Cote added that in order to access a couple of the manholes, we have to have reasonable
proximity to access it with a vehicle if needed. He said the trail provides that in this case and it
wouldn't be a separate access road. He said our requirements are that in the event there isn't
something like the trail there, we would have to have an access road to access the manholes on
the utilities. Planning Manager Thomson added that this area is high and dry and if they can
provide access to it in a reasonable fashion, it's pretty difficult to deny one lot.
MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the
request by Hampton Hills Investment, LLC for a preliminary plat for Hampton Hills South
Plateau for 63 single family lots in the south portion of the former Hampton Hills golf course for
property located at 5313 Juneau Lane North.
Commissioner Anderson stated that Lot 1, Block 1 is certainly not the best of all possible worlds.
He said the difficulty that we have with land is that it gets parceled off in hard lines and this is
part of the original plat. He said in a perfect world, that land would have been combined with
the land to the east and all worked together. He said that was not an option at that time and we
have to deal with what we have now and it needs to be utilized somehow so what they have done
here is acceptable to him.
Chair Davis stated that he would vote in approval of this request. He said we talked about a lot
of little issues and it appears that our resolution addresses them.
Commissioner Petrash stated it is scary that we have so many houses being built in Plymouth.
He said over the last two years, we have approved so many of these and he is hoping that we
don't end up with a ghost town in the northwest quadrant.
Commissioner Kobussen stated this is a very challenging piece of property with all the wetlands
and the location of the railroad tracks and he thinks they have done a pretty good job of trying to
fit everything in there and still make everything work. He said Lot 1, Block 1 is a very
challenging lot and trying to figure out what to do with Outlot B as it stands now and there are
some other challenges. He said this is a first good stab at getting it done and making it work. He
said there may be some more changes with the railroad property that may solve a lot of problems
with the lots in that area. He said the developer has done a very good job and if things change,
they may be back in redoing things but that's the way things work.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
February 1, 2012
Page 12
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously.
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Planning Manager Thomson gave an overview of the Community Development 2011 annual
report.
Commissioner Petrash asked if all the building permit activity in the City of Plymouth is also
occurring in the surrounding suburbs or if this is an anomaly in Plymouth. Planning Manager
Thomson responded that part of our activity has to do with the fact that we have land in the
Wayzata school district, which seems to be a very popular place to be.
Chair Davis stated that the building permit activity is remarkable in that from 2002 it goes way
down and is now coming back up. Planning Manager Thomson replied that part of the change is
that we don't have as much undeveloped land as we used to have and part relates to the
economy. Chair Davis stated now that the economy might be improving, it should swing back
up. Planning Manager Thomson added that in the first part of the decade, there was a lot of
multi -family development that went on and we have seen a lot less of that in recent years.
B. ACCEPT 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM
Planning Manager Thomson gave an overview of the 2012 Planning Commission work program.
MOTION by Chair Davis, with no objection, to accept the 2012 Planning Commission work
program and forward it to the City Council. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved.
C. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
FOR 2012
MOTION by Commissioner Kobussen, seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to elect James
Davis to position of the Chair of the 2012 Planning Commission. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION
approved.
MOTION by Chair Davis, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to elect Dick Kobussen to the
position of Vice Chair of the 2012 Planning Commission. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved.
D. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO SERVE AS LIAISON
TO THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Commissioner Kobussen offered to continue as the liaison to the Park and Recreation Advisory
Committee.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
February 1, 2012
Page 13
MOTION by Chair Davis, with no objection, to appoint Commissioner Kobussen as liaison to
the Park and Recreation Advisory Committee. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved.
8. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Chair Davis, with no objection, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m.