HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 05-18-2011Approved Minutes
City of Plymouth
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 2011
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair James Davis, Commissioners Dick Kobussen, Nathan
Robinson, Gordon Petrash, Scott Nelson, Bryan Oakley and Marc Anderson
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Steve Juetten, Planning Manager
Barbara Thomson, Senior Planner Joshua Doty, City Engineer Bob Moberg 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 Kobussen, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve the May
18, 2011 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 20, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Robinson, to approve the
April 20, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BAUER DESIGN BUILD, LLC (2011015)
Chair Davis introduced the request by Bauer Design Build, LLC for a site plan amendment and
conditional use permits for Twin City Fan Companies for property located at 5959 Trenton Lane
North.
Senior Planner Doty gave an overview of the staff report. Senior Planner Doty noted that a letter
had been received and added to the public record.
Commissioner Anderson asked if separate lots for two buildings aren't usually required. Senior
Planner Doty replied that was correct; however, the zoning ordinance does, through approval of
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2011
Page 2
conditional use permit, allow two principal buildings to be on one property. Commissioner
Anderson stated that was apparently the applicant's choice on the matter and that perhaps there
was not enough setback if they were to make it two lots, so this works.
Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Josh Gallus, Bauer Design Build, LLC. Mr. Gallus stated
that Twin City Fan Companies was looking to expand their current function and was very
excited about this project.
Commissioner Nelson asked how long Twin City Fan had been at this location and how long the
company had been in existence. Mr. Gallus responded that they have been at this location since
1993 and that they have been doing this type of product since the 1960's.
Chair Davis opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the
item.
Commissioner Nelson stated that in the early 1990's, this site was divided into two parcels and
then it was brought back into one parcel. He said that his concern was that if Twin City Fan
leaves, that there would be a piece of property with two separate buildings that could not now be
divided into two separate parcels for the purpose of selling to someone else. He said it would
have to be somebody who could use two buildings on one parcel going forward. He asked that if
this building was constructed, would the parcel be able to be divided again. Senior Planner Doty
replied that subdivision requirements would have to be met but it looks like the property could be
subdivided.
Senior Planner Doty confirmed for Chair Davis that the owner of the property could rent one
building to one tenant and the other building to a different tenant.
MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to approve the
request by Bauer Design Build, LLC for a site plan amendment and conditional use permits for
Twin City Fan Companies for property located at 5959 Trenton Lane North.
Chair Davis stated that it was good to get expanded businesses in Plymouth and that he would
vote in support of this request.
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously.
B. CITY OF PLYMOUTH (2011021)
Chair Davis introduced the request by the City of Plymouth for conditional use permits to allow
additional playfield lighting at Elm Creek Playfield (located west of the Wayzata High School)
and at Zachary Playfield (located north of Rockford Road and west of Zachary Lane North).
Senior Planner Doty gave an overview of the staff report.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2011
Page 3
Commissioner Anderson asked if there was a set time that these lights have to be turned off.
Senior Planner Doty replied that there is and he deferred the question to Superintendent of
Recreation Diane Evans. Superintendent of Recreation Evans responded that the lights are
typically out at playfields at 10:30 p.m.; however, they will let an inning complete prior to
turning the lights off but they should be off by 11:00 p.m.
Chair Davis opened the public hearing.
Chair Davis introduced Rod Shilkrot and Cheryl Levy-Shilkrot, 11545 43rd Ave N. Ms. Levy-
Shilkrot stated that they are the last house at the end of the cul-de-sac next to Zachary Park. She
said that they love it and that they don't necessarily mind the lights at night but they don't shut
off until quite late and they do shine into an upstairs bedroom. She said that they have talked to
the city. She said that when the playfields were built, they cut down all the trees. She said that
they are no longer blocked from Zachary and from County Road 9. She said that they have no
privacy at their lot anymore. She said that they begged the city to do something. She said that
the city planted four small trees. She said that they asked for a fence because the balls come into
their driveway and have hit their car once. She said that the fence looks like they took the
neighbors fence, chopped it down and pieced it back together. She said it is so little and very
thin so they are fully exposed. She said that with the new lighting, they are worried that they
will have even more light and they just want a buffer. She said that they want something done so
that they are not right out there in the open and have some kind of privacy fence or trees or
something that shields them.
Mr. Shilkrot added that the city did plant pine trees and that they are growing, so eventually they
will be higher and thicker. He said that he did not think that they planted enough. He said that
the trees that they took down were actually on city property and that they were removed in order
to build a retaining wall and an improved fence in the outfield of this playfield. He said that it is
a split -rail fence that is not going to block anything and that it is basically a cosmetic fence.
Mr. Shilkrot confirmed for Chair Davis that this is the property line fence that is located outside
of the outfield fence. Mr. Shilkrot said that they are very concerned about increased lighting and
what it will do to their privacy at that end of the cul-de-sac.
Chair Davis closed the public hearing.
Planning Manager Thomson stated that the good news is that the light that spills off the field
right now will change with the new lights. She said that with the fully cut-off fixture, the light
should stay on the field itself and that they should see an improvement in that regard.
Superintendent of Recreation Evans said that they have been working with the Shilkrot's for
years. She said that she was not as versed in that particular issue but that they can certainly go
back and look at the trees. She said that she thought that the split -rail fence was put in place to
designate the Shilkrot's lot line so that park users didn't go onto their property. She said that it
was never really intended to stop balls as the outfield fence would provide that. She added that
staff was certainly willing to go take another look at it.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2011
Page 4
Commissioner Petrash asked why the trees that were there in the first place were removed.
Superintendent of Recreation Evans responded that four or five years ago, this whole park was
redesigned. She said that to change the field configuration and for drainage, the whole area was
reworked and that was why the trees were removed.
Chair Davis added that took place while he was on the Park Board. He said that there used to be
four fields and that the trees were removed to squeeze a fifth field in.
Commissioner Oakley asked what type of trees are there. Superintendent of Recreation Evans
replied that without looking at it, they probably are pine trees that were planted there as they
provide the best privacy. She said that she did not have the information regarding what trees had
been there.
Commissioner Petrash stated that he felt that if this were a private owner who was asking for
new lighting and neighbors raised concerns, he would be very supportive of the neighbors
having some sort of barrier with less intrusion of light and noise. He said that the city should be
sensitive to the surrounding neighbors with accommodating a fence or trees. He said that in his
opinion, the city should consider putting a fence and additional trees in to accommodate these
homeowners.
Commissioner Kobussen said that he felt that the new lighting that they would be putting in
would be going to shield the lighting in such a way that the homeowner should have less lighting
in his area. He said the idea of putting the new lights in is to increase the light on the field while
at the same time eliminating all the light that spreads out and to try to keep that area dark and to
not interfere with the other neighbors around the side. He said that additionally it cuts the
operating cost for the city and makes it more flexible for the city to maintain the lighting and
keep the fields in better shape. He said that what happened five years ago should have been
addressed then when that grading was done. He said the idea is to try to work with the
homeowner and to try to keep the light out of his home from the new lighting that goes in and to
try to make an improvement for that homeowner and for all the homeowners around all the
different sites.
Planning Manager Thomson stated that he was correct that the issue with the trees and the fence
dated to when the field was changed. She said that the Park Department has indicated that the
city will take a look at this again and see what can be done for these particular homeowners.
Commissioner Petrash asked if the lighting expert would address whether there would be more
or less light on that property. Craig Gallop, representing Musco Lighting, responded that the
lighting that they would be putting on the field would reduce unwanted spill and glare light by
about 90% compared to what is there right now. He said that they would be adding two
additional fields so there would be additional light from those new poles but overall, the light
going on to that property would be less than what there is now.
Commissioner Petrash asked if he was referring specifically to this piece of property. Mr.
Gallop replied that it would be for all the residential properties that adjoin the park.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2011
Page 5
Commissioner Anderson stated that condition number three in the proposed resolution is a pretty
strong condition that supports what is being asked here.
Chair Davis asked to whom this verification would be submitted. Planning Manager Thomson
responded that the lighting engineers would be submitting that to the city. She said that the
major point is that the lights that are out there now are unshielded and the light spills off the park
site and that will dramatically be improved.
Superintendent of Recreation Evans added that the city did hire an electrical consultant and an
electrical engineer to manage the project. She said that we have two experts that are working on
this project to ensure that the neighborhoods are receiving less light spill and that it is more
comfortable for them to live on the park.
Commissioner Petrash asked what the typical barriers are around this field and the residences
behind. He asked if it was similar to this property or if it was different all the way around.
Superintendent of Recreation Evans stated that any home abutting a park property typically has
trees or bushes as barriers as well as their own fence that they may put on their property. She
said that other parks have similar issues. She said that other homes have similar setbacks from
park property. She said that the city works hard when developing parks to provide to the
community for sports but also to try to do as much buffering and shielding where we can. She
said it is a difficult task but we work hard and try to preplan so that buffering is provided and
work with our neighbors to make them safe and comfortable and to not be too intrusive.
Commissioner Petrash asked if there was a procedure in place for resolving issues with
neighbors. Superintendent of Recreation Evans responded that the city is always communicating
with the community and the neighbors. She said that there are always calls with questions and
the city works hard to do what they can, within reason, to take care of issues and to work
together with the neighborhood.
MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to approve the
request by the City of Plymouth for conditional use permits to allow additional playfield lighting
at Elm Creek Playfield (located west of the Wayzata High School) and at Zachary Playfield
located north of Rockford Road and west of Zachary Lane North).
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Petrash,
to add an additional condition (# 6) to the resolution directing the Park Department to work with
this particular homeowner to develop an appropriate resolution to the visual privacy issues and
the stray ball issues. Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes (Nays by Commissioner Kobussen and Chair
Davis). MOTION approved.
Roll Call Vote on Motion as amended. 6 Ayes (Nay by Commissioner Kobussen). MOTION
approved.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2011
Page 6
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. CITY OF PLYMOUTH (2010101)
Chair Davis introduced the request by the City of Plymouth for review of the Four Seasons Mall
Market Study.
Community Development Director Juetten opened the presentation of the Four Seasons Mall
Market Study to the Planning Commission.
Jay Demma and Paul Bilotta, representatives of Bonestroo, gave a presentation of the purpose,
site analysis, demographics and conclusions of the study.
Planning Manager Thomsen gave an overview of the staff report and next steps in the overall
Four Seasons Mall study.
Commissioner Petrash stated that there is no mention of the property owner being a participant
of this study and asked if they are not going to be a part of this at all. Community Development
Director Juetten responded that from our point of view with what has happened to date, the
owner is somewhat taking a backseat and watching the process. He said that as far as
participation, it is a public process and if they want to participate and provide comments and
suggestions, they are capable of doing that. He said that we have had a couple of brief
conversations as far as what's happening but they have not elected to provide any input at this
point. He said that it is really up to them if they want to comment on what comes up but to a
certain extent it is somewhat of an independent study for the city to take a look at what the city
would like to see on the property and then turning around and showing what the city wants to the
landowner and letting the landowner then decide on how they want to proceed.
Commissioner Petrash asked about the use of three terms used in the study: neighborhood based
retail, neighborhood retail and neighborhood orientated retail. Mr. Bilotta confirmed that they all
mean the same thing.
Commissioner Petrash stated that it was conspicuous that big box retail was not prominently
mentioned in the study and that he could infer by the absence of it is the implication that a big
box store should not be considered for this site. Mr. Bilotta responded that the big box concept
falls under the community retail area. He said that their analysis is not with the ownership at all.
He said in the community retail is where most of the big box uses come into play. He said that
the market doesn't show a need for a large big box on the site.
Commissioner Robinson asked when designs are complete, if they would include road changes
to Lancaster or would it be specific to the lot itself. Planning Manager Thomson responded that
the traffic part of the study will look at the layouts that are presented for the site design. She said
that if there are any traffic/roadway improvements that need to be made in order for those to
occur, they will be identified.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2011
Page 7
Commissioner Nelson asked if redoing Lancaster had ever been brought up before. City
Engineer Moberg responded that Wal-Mart did pay the city to have a traffic study done for an
early concept proposal (not an actual application). He said that as these other alternatives are
considered as well, there will be a need for an additional traffic study to be done. He said that
from his perspective, there are capacity issues on Rockford Road at its intersection with
Lancaster and the need for additional turn lanes but that road is the county's jurisdiction.
Commissioner Petrash asked if the existing road system would accommodate a parking lot full of
cars. Community Development Director Juetten responded that early this past fall, Wal-Mart
had provided funding to the city to commission a traffic study. He said that the traffic study
looked at a big box community retail versus a full Four Seasons, which is a large neighborhood
commercial development. He said for neighborhood commercial, the traffic comes from
different areas at different times throughout the day. He said that for big box, the traffic
consultant's analysis shows that they have substantially different peak times and those peak
times are what causes problems at the major intersections. He said that in preliminary discussion
with our traffic consultant, a big box is dramatically different and causes more problems with the
intersection than if we had a full Four Seasons Mall. He said that there would be concerns with
that but not to the extent as with a big box.
Commissioner Anderson stated that having some traffic information available in the next steps of
the process to make sure that they are not designing something that absolutely is not going to
work traffic -wise would be a smart thing to do but it sounds like that from that study, there is
some general information in terms of problem areas that may occur. Community Development
Director Juetten stated that was a fair statement. He added that he does not see the process
happening in step order but rather that it will be a blended process.
Commissioner Anderson stated that this is a very thorough report and it gives a lot of good
information on a lot of different and full spectrum product types. He said that he also first saw
the absence of big box but in discussing it with staff, realized that community retail responded to
that. He asked if we have the zoning instruments, comp plan instruments, etc. to require a mixed
use type of site. He asked if we can create out of this process, a new multi -zoning category that
is going to accommodate all these kinds of things. Planning Manager Thomson responded that
the comprehensive plan does have a mixed use classification that is available. She said that at
the time the comprehensive plan update was completed, there wasn't enough known about this
site. She said that without this study being done, the step of making a land use change was
premature. She said the comprehensive plan suggested PUD zoning would be associated with a
mixed use guiding.
Commissioner Anderson stated that the PUD becomes the instrument then to move this kind of
concept forward. Planning Manager Thomson responded that it would have to start with guiding
as you can't really establish a PUD without a project.
Commissioner Anderson asked how we could put our teeth into some of the things wanted at this
site when an owner comes along and throws a building out and says here it is. Community
Development Director Juetten responded that as we go through the process, it will be something
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2011
Page 8
that we will continue to develop and that when we bring the final package back to you and to the
City Council, that's the type of question that we hope to answer for you.
Commissioner Nelson stated that the market study is great, with lots of good information and
that he likes the path we are going down. He said that the steps that are in place are going to be
great. He said that the end game is still a little cloudy as somebody else owns the property, the
city doesn't. He said that it's going to be interesting to see where this ends up and what the
owner decides to do.
Commissioner Kobussen stated that the need is not immediate for all these different uses but we
might have a need in 2013-2015. He asked if we can hold the property empty waiting for
something to happen. He asked who would coordinate all the mixed use and if there was a
developer in this economy right now who would be willing to take on a piece of property that big
and develop something mixed use and make it worthwhile. He asked how all the funding gets
done and what the city's effort will be to make that happen. Community Development Director
Juetten responded that we do not have all of the answers tonight. He said that one of the parts of
the study will be a real preliminary market analysis and part of the team includes a developer that
has done mixed use projects. He said that the economy is going to play into what happens out
here, what could happen or how quickly something could happen. He said that these are
questions that will be looked at over the next couple months.
Chair Davis asked if there will be a final package for consideration. Community Development
Director Juetten replied that there will be a final package that wraps it up. He said that the open
house is scheduled for September 22nd and then the final package will come back to the Planning
Commission and to the City Council for completion by December 14tH
Chair Davis stated that these studies will be done, recommendations/suggestions made and asked
if the property owner can suggest what they want. He asked if the owner can come to the
Planning Commission and City Council with their plan that may bear no resemblance to what
these studies think is the best plan. Community Development Director Juetten responded that
any property owner has the right to propose whatever they want to but the city still has the right
to make decisions based on their comprehensive plan and whether or not the zoning of the
property is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Community Development Director Juetten confirmed for Chair Davis that if the zoning that is
tied to the property is consistent with the comprehensive plan, we have some controls on how
much of something could happen at the property.
Commissioner Petrash asked if we, as a community, have a responsibility to other communities
about cannibalization and suggested that is why someone is here from the county. Community
Development Director Juetten responded that we care and should care in making sure that what
we do and what the other communities do so that we don't saturate the market to the point where
we have empty spaces. He said that the county involvement with the project is specific to the
stormwater and creek and not market area or to try to coordinate how the different city's deal
with each other.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2011
Page 9
Commissioner Petrash stated that the report was great as far as demographics and projections
ahead. He asked how current development enters into our thinking. Planning Manager Thomson
responded to keep in mind that the information provided was for the portion of Plymouth around
the Four Seasons Mall. She said that demographics are changing overall and that is a factor here
as well. Commissioner Petrash said that builders are worried about what they can build and sell
over the next two years and he asked if we should be thinking about what happens 10 to 15 years
from now and what we could do about it. Planning Manager Thomson replied that we should be
thinking about it. She said that the northwest area of Plymouth does not have the highway
system and the commercial areas the rest of the city has. She said that it is not suited for higher
density and there are a lot of wetlands. She said that development going in is more suited to the
land that is there.
Commissioner Oakley asked if the site design will be looking exclusively at mixed use
developments or will there be a variety of solutions proposed. Community Development
Director Juetten responded that we have not sat down with the design consultants yet as they are
waiting for the market study to be finished first. He said that Commissioner Oakley could ask
that they look at different uses.
Commissioner Oakley stated that the community retail comments in the report had detailed
numbers on the square footage available and what will be needed. He said that his calculation
would be slightly less than one big box over on our 2020 projection. He said that one thing not
considered is the age of the existing retail facilities and whether those will remain viable in the
future. He said that those are considerations as we look at upgrading senior housing and the
same type of consideration could be applied to upgrading retail. He said that he believes that it is
very important when a city undertakes a project like this to take an even handed look at all viable
solutions and he thinks that we have a very viable solution in big box retail because they own the
site. He said that he would like to see a fair evaluation given to both sides.
Commissioner Anderson stated that there are three alternatives listed in the market study. He
said that the only thing that makes sense to him is having medical adjacent to senior housing
because those folks need the medical more so than the rest of us. He said that he also saw in the
report a market need for rental housing. He said that he agrees that with the rental that is
available south of the site that is appropriate to not study that anymore and want to provide some
other needs for the area.
MOTION by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to forward all
comments received on the Four Seasons Mall Market Study to the City Council. Vote. 7 Ayes.
MOTION approved.
8. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Chair Davis, without objection, to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m.