Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 12-05-2012Approved Minutes City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair James Davis, Commissioners Dick Kobussen, Nathan Robinson, Gordon Petrash, Scott Nelson, Bryan Oakley and Marc Anderson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Thomson, Senior Planner Shawn Drill, Senior Planner Marie Darling, Senior Planner Joshua Doty 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 December 5, 2012 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 7, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Robinson, to approve the November 7, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. WAYZATA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (2012086) Chair Davis introduced the request by Wayzata Public Schools for a site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment for a building expansion and related site improvements at Greenwood Elementary School located at 18005 Medina Road. Senior Planner Doty gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Kobussen asked if the proposed relocation would impact baseball fields, who would be responsible for relocation and if the Park and Recreation Department has been notified of any impact to the playground. Senior Planner Doty responded that the proposed turn lane Approved Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 2 would have no impact to the ball fields located to the west. He said that there is an existing ball diamond located south of the proposed bus turn lane. He said there are no plans to relocate this field and it would remain as an existing condition. Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Joe Matson, representing Wayzata Public Schools. Mr. Matson stated that the softball field located south of the proposed bus loop is very lightly used, it is not a major field and it is in poor condition. He said it is not used for more than physical education. Commissioner Kobussen stated that the ball field is used all summer by the girl's softball league. Mr. Matson responded that could be but he was not aware of that. Commissioner Kobussen stated they would also lose a soccer field that is used all the time that would get cut off at the end of the proposed bus lane. Mr. Matson replied that the soccer fields are located further west. He said there used to be a skating rink where the bus loop would go in and the soils are poor. He said the skating rink has not been there for several years. Commissioner Kobussen stated that all of the soccer fields are used all summer long. He said it is one of the busier playgrounds in the city. Senior Planner Doty confirmed for Commissioner Kobussen that the Park and Recreation Department had reviewed their application. Chair Davis opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the item. Chair Davis stated this is a needed action for the school district to increase the size of the school and it looks like they came up with a plan that does not require any variances. He said he would vote in support of this request. MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the request by Wayzata Public Schools for a site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment for a building expansion and related site improvements at Greenwood Elementary School located at 18005 Medina Road. Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. B. WAYZATA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (2012088) Chair Davis introduced the request by Wayzata Public Schools for a site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment for a building expansion and related site improvements at Oakwood Elementary School located at 17340 County Road 6. Senior Planner Doty gave an overview of the staff report. Approved Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 3 Commissioner Anderson asked in terms of the additional hard cover, what provisions would be made for the additional stormwater. Senior Planner Doty said the applicant is proposing two infiltration basins west and north of the building addition. Commissioner Anderson asked if the ball diamond located in that area would go away. Senior Planner Doty replied that the proposed drive aisle would cut through that ball diamond. He said they would still have greenspace at that location, which could be available for passive use. Commissioner Petrash asked who would be responsible for maintaining all of the other playgrounds, soccer fields and ball diamonds on the school district property. Senior Planner Doty responded that the school district and the city Park and Recreation Department work together. Commissioner Kobussen asked about four parking spots proposed to be removed or that require an agreement. Senior Planner Doty replied that the condition is referring to four proposed bus staging spaces. He said that for those spaces to remain, there would need to be an agreement with the school district that those buses would move in the event of a fire to keep the fire lane open. Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Joe Matson, representing Wayzata Public Schools. Mr. Matson stated that fire lanes are used at several of the schools for bus drop off. He said they have an agreement with the city that they will keep the drivers in the buses so that they can pull out if the alarm sounds. Chair Davis opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the item. MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to approve the request by Wayzata Public Schools for a site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment for a building expansion and related site improvements at Oakwood Elementary School located at 17340 County Road 6. Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. C. AMERCO REAL ESTATE COMPANY (2012091) Chair Davis introduced the request by Amerco Real Estate Company for a conditional use permit, variances and site plan amendment for a truck and trailer rental operation accessory to a self -storage facility for property located at 1225 State Highway 169. Senior Planner Darling gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Nelson asked if the parking lot located on the east side of the property could only ever be used for parking of regular passenger vehicles. Senior Planner Darling responded that would be acceptable. She said the applicant also asked if they could do a building expansion on that side of the site since they wouldn't need all the parking. Approved Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 4 Commissioner Nelson asked what the proposed signage would be, as seen from State Highway 169. Senior Planner Darling replied that the applicant has not submitted their sign package but stated they would meet ordinance regulations. She added that the ordinance would allow wall signage on three sides of the building and they could propose up to 10% of the total wall area on each side. She said they could also have one freestanding sign and that sign could be 100 square feet and 36 feet in height. Commissioner Kobussen asked if the applicant could park small trailers in the front. Senior Planner Darling responded that the applicant would be allowed to park three of the smaller vehicles in the front of the building. She said that would include some of the trailers, the cargo vans and smaller trucks. She said that according to their website, their 10 -foot trucks would be under the gross vehicle weight rating. Commissioner Kobussen asked if the applicant would be able to sell propane if it was sold for barbeque grills rather than for vehicle fuel sales. Senior Planner Darling replied that the reason staff included that condition is because vehicle fuel sales are not permitted in industrial districts, so there could not be a gas station or an equivalent with an alternative fuel. She said if the applicant would want to propose smaller propane sales for grills, staff would review that with an administrative permit. Chair Davis asked what type of screening would allow the applicant to be able to park the trucks they are proposing to park on the east side of the building. Senior Planner Darling responded that they would have to show, at a minimum, that they could screen the parking area to a height of six feet. Chair Davis asked if they put a six-foot fence on the eastern property line, would they be able to say they are screening. Senior Planner Darling stated that normally staff would say that would meet the requirements; however, on this particular property, staff would find that would not meet the requirements because there is a significant grade difference between State Highway 169 and the parking lot. She said if they put up a six-foot fence, it would be the equivalent of providing no screening. Chair Davis asked what type of screening they would have to provide that would be viable and meet the requirements. Senior Planner Darling replied that they would need to show that they could screen the vehicles at least to a height of six feet of visibility from the highway, which would be a very tall screening area and would not be feasible. Commissioner Petrash asked if the intent of the screening is primarily an aesthetics issue, wouldn't the issue be the aesthetics from the frontage road in this case. Senior Planner Darling responded that it is an aesthetic issue. She said the city wants to present the best face forward to the people that are passing by and through the community. She said that the industrial properties up and down State Highway 169 have their office areas toward the front of their buildings and where there is outdoor storage, it is located on the west side of the properties away from State Highway 169. She said you don't see outdoor storage between a building and State Highway 169. Commissioner Petrash asked about the lines on the aerial photo for the property to the south. Senior Planner Darling indicated that they are self -storage buildings owned by Public Storage, a competitor. Approved Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 5 Commissioner Nelson asked if the property to the north, behind 13th Avenue North, has requirements for screening with the outdoor storage. Senior Planner Darling replied the 13th Avenue property does have a screen fence, six -feet high with slats in it for screening. Commissioner Nelson stated that their inventory is much higher than the six -feet screening. He asked if that was similar in our ordinance for industrial yards with inventory. Senior Planner Darling stated it is the same requirement, except instead of parking commercial vehicles it is outdoor storage of goods. Commissioner Nelson asked if on that property to the north, that is not considered front of the building. Senior Planner Darling responded it would be considered the front of the building if it extends closer to the road than the front of the building. She said in this instance, it is a side yard. Commissioner Petrash asked if this would be a similar situation as the property located along State Highway 55 that has cranes sticking up higher than the fence. Senior Planner Darling replied it is essentially the same thing. She said those particular cranes and the property are located right up against residential properties, so we did ask for a taller fence in that situation. She added that we cannot shield all of those cranes but we do screen the majority of the activity on that property. Commissioner Petrash asked about aesthetic consistency on properties around the city or if it is just pretty much that a complaint is received before something gets done. Senior Planner Darling responded that people may be operating outside of the regulations. She said in those situations, the city enforces on a complaint basis. She said we also have legally nonconforming situations that have existed prior to our modern zoning regulations. Commissioner Oakley asked if there was a particular reason why staff wouldn't request that the applicant revise the site plan based on the feedback given tonight if the variance is denied for the screening but the variance for the setback is approved. Senior Planner Darling stated the Planning Commission could require that the applicant change their site plan; although, the applicant would probably like to speak to the City Council before they make those changes. Chair Davis introduced the applicant, David Pollock, representing Amerco Real Estate Company and U -Haul. Mr. Pollock stated they are seeking Planning Commission approval to allow them to complete this property acquisition and to allow them to expand and open their business here, which would total 17 U -Hauls in the state of Minnesota. He said they are satisfied with the majority of the items as stated by staff. He said in order to be successful at this location, they need assistance with the staging and the placement of their rental equipment. Mr. Pollock said that in the past, they would purchase a vacant property and put up a building for what they needed. He said today, their energies are focused completely on sustainability, doing what is right and being a good, corporate citizen. He said they expand their business and help a community by taking a vacant property inventory off the market. He said they modify their business plan and adapt it to that particular piece of land. He said this location is a prime example. He said they have altered portions of their business operations to fit this property location, the existing building and site conditions. He said they submitted an operational design that would provide the best possible services to their customers and allow them to be successful Approved Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 6 for the next 20 to 30 years. He said 90% of their business operation and daily activity on the site would be in the northeast corner of the building, where the sales area, the show room and where the customers would come and go. He said they would like to stage their equipment in the property location that is both convenient and secure for the customers and their employees. Mr. Pollock asked if the Planning Commission would establish a condition that would allow them to stage possibly 25 pieces of equipment within this proposed site location as submitted. He said they are also open to an alternative quantity as they truly want to be at this location. He said with regard to propane, they do state on their website that they do offer propane as an alternative fuel. He said they would not put a system in place that would be considered a gas or fuel station. He said a condition could be added that they would only sell propane for barbeques and grills. Commissioner Petrash asked if that would include RVs. Mr. Pollock responded that if they would need to fill their RV, they would have to fill a container and take the container off site. Commissioner Nelson asked what would be the amount of pieces you would want to stage in that area. Mr. Pollock responded there would be a center portion of the site for shunting/staging (an area where orders are lined up to go out that day). He said the parking lot would only really be able to function with about 30 to 40 vehicles. He said 25 would still function. He said they would not ask to put up a wall that is six feet higher than the freeway. Chair Davis opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the item. Commissioner Petrash stated that he drives up and down State Highway 169 quite a bit and there is a lot of aesthetic pollution in all places around there, whether they are behind buildings or not. He said that this would be a good reuse of this property and having those trucks out there with visibility from State Highway 169 would be acceptable for the better good of bringing the business to Plymouth and reusing this property. He said that it looks like that's the right place to put those vehicles. He said he would vote in support of this request. Commissioner Nelson stated he agreed with Commissioner Petrash. He stated the variance is restrictive in this situation simply because the height of State Highway 169 is not the applicant's fault. He said there are many businesses around where this ordinance isn't doing any good anyway. He said in this situation, it makes perfect sense for the business to be able to stage their vehicles in this location. He said as a business that operates in the City of Plymouth, we would want them to succeed and in order for them to succeed, people have to be able to see the inventory. He said he is inclined to grant the variance with regards to the screening ordinance. Chair Davis stated he is so inclined also. He said if this were in a residential area, like Tri-State Drilling, he could understand why we are attempting to screen the residential area from the industrial company. He said in this case, we don't need to screen this property from State Highway 169 drivers. He said the applicant just opened up a business in Brooklyn Park and if Approved Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 7 they managed this property like they seem to be managing that one, there wouldn't be a problem. He said he would vote in favor of approving a variance. Commissioner Kobussen asked about planting trees along the front of the area and eventually, they may become tall enough to screen some of it from State Highway 169. He said it does not make much sense to have a business in front and have all the trailers in the back. Commissioner Oakley stated the screening ordinance is fairly important and we do apply it in a lot of instances and sometimes there are exceptions where it is more difficult to implement. He said it does not appear as though alternative site layouts or alternative methods of screening were looked at. He said some landscape options would be a good way of softening the large expanse of asphalt with a lot of trucks. He said while there are a lot of aesthetic eyesores along State Highway 169, it's not a good idea to miss an opportunity to correct one. He said he is also conflicted the way the resolution is written as he doesn't believe the site plan can be approved contingent on a denial of the variance and doesn't like having them combined in one resolution. Planning Manager Thomson stated that if the Planning Commission recommended approval of all the items, staff would send two resolutions to the Council: the original resolution and one with the Planning Commission's recommendation with a summary of the findings discussed. MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Robinson, to approve the request by Amerco Real Estate Company for a conditional use permit, variances and site plan amendment for a truck and trailer rental operation accessory to a self -storage facility for property located at 1225 State Highway 169 with an alternative resolution that outlines why the Planning Commission supports the variance for storage of vehicles on the east side of the property without screening because 1) the property is an industrial location and 2) the nature of the business with its particular operation and logistics supports a storage location on the east side. Commissioner Oakley asked to clarify if the Planning Commission would only be voting on the variance for screening first. Commissioner Anderson stated he agreed that he would want to see some screening. He said there have been no attempts and that an attempt to screen could be made fairly easily with landscaping growing taller over time. Commissioner Oakley stated he wanted to emphasize that a "no" vote did not mean that he was opposed to everything. He said he would like to have an opportunity to vote on each request separately. Planning Manager Thomson responded it would be difficult to take each item separately as the conditional use permit and the variance for screening are intertwined. Commissioner Petrash asked if the motion could be modified to include landscaping. Planning Manager Thomson responded that you could propose a friendly amendment. Approved Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 8 Chair Davis stated the front is a little plain and even if just shrubs, it would make it look a little more appealing. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, accepted by Commissioner Nelson, to request the applicant to submit a landscape plan for the purposes of softening the appearance of the east side of the building to be reviewed by staff. Chair Davis stated he appreciated the fact that the whole purpose of this plan is to reuse an existing building, which is commendable. Commissioner Kobussen stated one of the real problems is the elevation of State Highway 169, which makes this property really unique because there is no reasonable way to screen it. Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. D. HAMPTON HILLS INVESTMENT LLC (2012093) Chair Davis introduced the request by Hampton Hills Investment, LLC for a preliminary plat for Hampton Hills South Plateau 3rd Addition for eleven single family lots for property located at 50th Place at Juneau Lane (south-central portion of the former Hampton Hills golf course). Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Anderson asked if no additional engineering drawings were submitted with this application because there were no changes from the drawings that were submitted with the preliminary plat. Senior Planner Drill responded the preliminary plat is on file and includes all the engineering. He said this really amounts to an amendment to the approved preliminary plat so no additional engineering drawings were required. Commissioner Kobussen asked if it is known why the railroad is refusing to sell the property located to the south, what is going to happen to that parcel and how it is going to be maintained. He asked what drove the developer into adding an extra lot into this plat because that would make those lots smaller. He asked if this would decrease the value of the homes in this section compared to the other homes in the development. Senior Planner Drill replied that the applicant has been working with the railroad for a year or more and they have not been able to get anywhere in negotiations to purchase that parcel. He said the parcel is owned by the railroad and they would be required to maintain it. He said it is currently in a natural state. He said that even with the additional lot, all of the lots would exceed the RSF-3 standards. He said they would be slightly smaller than what was first proposed with ten lots but it is also more of an opportunity to put new houses along the railroad at a more affordable cost. He said that from a marketing and sales perspective, the developer is not having a problem moving these lots as they are being sought after for purchase. Commissioner Petrash asked if the railroad is restricted on how it could use that piece of land. He asked if they would be able to store rails, ties, etc. on that land so that in the future that land Approved Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 9 would become a problem for the new homeowners. He asked if the railroad would need approval to change the use of that property. Senior Planner Drill responded that he did not know if the railroad would find it convenient to use that property because it is in the middle of nowhere from their perspective. He said that at the first public hearing for the overall South Plateau plat it had been mentioned that when the developer went to the railroad and asked if they could purchase that piece of property, the railroad didn't even realize that they owned it. He said that he does not know that they would use it for anything but they potentially could. Commissioner Petrash asked if the railroad were to use the land for anything other than what is allowed in the zoning ordinance, would they have to come to the Planning Commission or is there some other approval mechanism that bypasses the Commission. Senior Planner Drill replied that if they were going to use it for outside storage, they would have to come to the city and get approval for that. Chair Davis asked what the developer's plan was when they initially wanted to buy this property and incorporate it into the plat. Senior Planner Drill responded that the developer would have taken the lot lines and extended them down to the south so the lots would have been deeper. Senior Planner Drill confirmed for Chair Davis that it would not have changed the dynamics of the plat. Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Rob St. Sauver, representing Hampton Hills Investment LLC. Mr. St. Sauver stated that they have talked with the railroad several times. He said when they first started conversation about the land, the railroad didn't even know that they owned it. He said that trying to get through the layers of people was the biggest challenge. He said they finally got to an employee based in Minneapolis and then that employee was let go. He said they started from scratch again and he talked with an employee in Tennessee. He said he got passed around. He said that when the railroad finally figured out that they owned the land, they wanted no part of selling it. He said that employee was transferred and they got switched to another individual. He said they are still in the process of trying to come to an agreement and obtain the property if at all possible. He said that in the mean time, they are coming forward with this 3rd addition. He said they didn't think they would be moving this quickly but that they have had a lot of interest in those lots. He said that all seven lots in the 2" d addition have been sold and they have three reservations on lots in the 3rd addition already. Chair Davis opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the item. MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to approve the request by Hampton Hills Investment, LLC for a preliminary plat for Hampton Hills South Plateau 3rd Addition for eleven single family lots for property located at 50th Place at Juneau Lane (south- central portion of the former Hampton Hills golf course). Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. Approved Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2012 Page 10 7. NEW BUSINESS A. CANCEL DECEMBER 19, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION by Chair Davis to cancel the December 19, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Chair Davis, with no objection, to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 p.m.