Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 07-20-2011Approved Minutes City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair James Davis, Commissioners Nathan Robinson, Gordon Petrash, Scott Nelson, Bryan Oakley and Marc Anderson MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Dick Kobussen STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Thomson, Senior Planner Shawn Drill, 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 Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve the July 20, 2011 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 6, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Robinson, to approve the July 6, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. B. CITY OF PLYMOUTH (2011045) MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Robinson, to approve the request by the City of Plymouth for a site plan amendment to add a skate park, shade structure and batting cages at Plymouth Creek Playfield located at 3625 Fernbrook Lane North. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. C. MARK AND LYNN ECKERLINE (2011049) MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Robinson, to approve the request by Mark and Lynn Eckerline for a variance to allow a paver walkway to encroach into the structure setback from a wetland buffer strip for property located at 1241 Vagabond Court North. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2011 Page 2 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. OPPIDAN, INC. (2011014) Chair Davis introduced the tabled request from the July 6, 2011 Planning Commission meeting by Oppidan, Inc. for a land use guide plan amendment, preliminary plat and PUD amendment for Crossroads Commons at the former Plymouth Shopping Center site located south of Highway 55 between Cottonwood Lane North and County Road 73. Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report. Senior Planner Drill noted that an additional letter had been received and added to the public record. Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Paul Tucci, representing Oppidan, Inc. Mr. Tucci presented information on the five additional requested items from the July 6, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Dan Parks, Westwood Professional Services, stated that they had marked trees on site that would be preserved with this project. He said that it is important to note that with Cottonwood Lane being terminated at the present dead end location, there are quite a few trees that would remain. He said that there would be trees removed in the area for construction of the new building. He presented sight line drawings and photo graphics showing elevations and distances from properties to the west, south and southwest of the proposed senior building. Commissioner Petrash asked for additional clarification of the location of the first and fourth stories of the proposed building on the graphics shown. Kathleen Conlin -Joyce stated that the conifers planted would provide significant shading of view of the first floor. Mr. Parks added that the elevation of the house would be 10 feet above the elevation of the proposed building. Commissioner Oakley stated that the trees look to be about 45 to 50 feet tall on the graphics shown and asked if he estimated the height of the existing trees. Mr. Parks responded that the trees are 30 to 40 feet high. He said that on the west side, trees that are straight and tall that are closer to the property line would remain but some of the trees that are starting to lean would interfere with the roof of the building and that would precipitate removal of those trees. He said that there is a fairly good stand of trees along the west side that would remain with the project. Commissioner Anderson asked for the height of the proposed building at that location. Ms. Conlin -Joyce replied that it is approximately 53 feet. Commissioner Anderson stated that the proposed building would tower over the trees and that views from the fourth story would be looking over the trees. Ms. Conlin -Joyce stated that was correct. Commissioner Anderson asked what vertical and horizontal scales were used. Mr. Parks responded that this was a true scale, it was 1:1 and not exaggerated. Mr. Parks added in response to Commissioner Oakley's comment about the height of the trees, that is was not part of their sight line study to know exactly where the trees were in terms of Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2011 Page 3 elevation. He said whether or not they will be at that location at the finished fourth floor level or whether or not they are going to extend up above the deck, they don't have that information right now. Chair Davis introduced Lauren Leith, 610 Cottonwood Lane North. Ms. Leith said that because it is a four story building, 53 feet high, the placement of it truly does not go with the character of the neighborhood, which is all single family, one story homes. She said that because it is only 35 feet from the property line to a four story building, it's clearly going to obstruct their view. She said that it is going to be a big force in the neighborhood and it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. Ms. Leith said that the site line views are great and they are showing us a lot of deciduous trees with a lot of leaves on them. She said that in the winter time those leaves are going to be gone and the building will be seen in the winter time. She said that at planting, they are going to have trees at a 20 -foot tall maximum, maybe 15 feet. She said that she is concerned about their sight line drawings showing all these trees in this small 35 feet between the property line and the proposed building. Ms. Leith said that she is also concerned about the environmental impact. She presented a picture of an existing tree depicting that it is 54" in diameter. She said that they are old growth trees that have provided the neighborhood with all kinds of cooling, they buffer all the noise for the residents and they provide habitat for wildlife and vegetation. She said that they have over 40 of these old growth trees in this area. Ms. Leith said that her other concern are the ponds and she presented pictures of the existing ponds. She said that the drainage from a 65 vehicle parking lot would go into the small pond that is home to wood ducks and where wildlife drink. She said that drainage from the roof of the proposed building, from the huge parking lot and from the manicured lawns would drain straight back into the pond on her property. She said that because of the concerns that she has for the trees and the wetland areas where there is no buffering in place, she has filed a petition with the Environmental Quality Board requesting that an EAW be done on this site before any building is done. Ms. Leith said that she is completely for the senior project. She said that we need more senior housing and as a resident of Plymouth, she thinks that's great. She said that there is certainly room to move that forward so that we are not impacting these ponds and the wetlands as much. She said that with the unique habitat buffered in those woods with 54 -inch trees, that needs to be looked at as well. Chair Davis introduced Frederick Young, Gries & Lenhardt, PLLP, representing Lauren Leith, 610 Cottonwood Lane North and Leonard Lindelof, 620 Cottonwood Lane North. Mr. Young said that with regard to the 24-hour operation of McDonalds, all the concerns discussed at the July 6, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting are quite real. He said that McDonalds' 24-hour operation would not fit the character of the neighborhood. He said that the applicant had readily admitted that there is a bar rush that occurs and that again is absolutely inconsistent with the single family homes that are bordering the property in question. Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2011 Page 4 Mr. Young said that with regard to the sight line study, it is somewhat selectively done in that there are a number of trees that are depicted that don't exist right now and it shows some full foliage and growth. He said that it will take quite some time for trees that are planted to reach that stage of growth and size. He said that the senior building would still apparently tower 53 feet, with the fourth floor viewing down into the single family, one -level homes that are on Cottonwood Lane. He said that was the primary concern and the reason the Planning Commission had tabled the matter in the first place. Mr. Young said that in addition to the EAW petition that they filed, there are a number of concerns that are extremely significant and, at least in its current form, they would ask that the Planning Commission deny the application. Chair Davis introduced Len Lindelof, 620 Cottonwood Lane North. Mr. Lindelof said that 60 years ago on Cottonwood Lane where the trees are now, it was all hayfield. He said that the trees have been growing there since the mid -50's and they would like to keep them there. Mr. Lindelof said that he didn't understand why in Brooklyn Park, before water can run from a parking lot into a wildlife area, it has to run into a rubber -lined ponding area. He said that the environmental people with the state said it couldn't run straight into a ponding area, it had to run to a rubber -lined pond. He asked why that does not have to be done here. He asked why they would be able run from the parking lot straight into the wildlife area. Chair Davis introduced Peter Samargia, 618 Cottonwood Lane North. Mr. Samargia said that he did not understand how the artist's renditions could be admissible. He said that they are not accurate. He said that he could draw up a picture and show skeletal trees in the fall or in the winter and show a four-story building. He said that in Minnesota, that is most of the year. He said that he appreciates the fact that they are looking to keep the old-growth trees. He said that pictures of the trees marked for preservation should have been submitted and they would have clearly showed that these are old trees. He said that would have painted a different picture. He said that he did applaud their pictures because they do make their case. He said that they don't show a building at all in one of them. He said that if that were the case, that would be great. He said that you don't know which trees are real and which ones aren't real and then to look at these being trees that are going to have their foliage disappear, that is a concern for him. Mr. Samargia said that he knows that there is going to be development but compromise is needed. He said that having a McDonalds open 24 hours right next to his house is not acceptable. He said if they could cite examples of other McDonalds open 24 hours that are close to houses, then he could accept it because it happens in other places. Mr. Samargia said that he would have liked to have seen actual pictures of the area as it is today. He said in doing a sight line study, tree height would be an important part of the study. He said that the height of the trees would definitely have an impact on whether the line of sight would be coming into his house. He said that he is for the development if they could have some concessions here. He said that they did not talk about having two floors in the senior building and if they had even thought about it. He said that McDonalds should have business hours that Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2011 Page 5 are acceptable to families in the area. He said he does love Plymouth and that he does appreciate that they are looking at development here. He said that he is very happy that they would keep the dead end street. He said that he would be against a four-story building and that a concession would be if they would back it up 75 feet instead of 35 feet. He said that if they did that, they wouldn't have to cut down any of the trees that are there and it would ease a lot of concerns for a few of his neighbors. Chair Davis introduced Toni Muckala, 11009 State Highway 55. Ms. Muckala said that she is excited about the easement and putting a driveway across it. She said she has a few questions about dimensions, maintenance and who would build it. Planning Manager Thomson stated that for the EAW petition, the EQB rules state that there can be no final governmental action while an environmental review is pending. She said that a petition for an EAW goes to the City Council and they make the decision whether or not to prepare an EAW. She stated that whatever the Planning Commission might decide would not constitute a final action; therefore, the Commission could make a recommendation at this time. City Engineer Moberg stated that the reason why Brooklyn Park would require rubber -lined ponds is because they do not have the clay soil that Plymouth has. He said that with their sandy soils, in order to get a pond to hold water, they have to line them. He said that is not a situation that Plymouth generally has to deal with and that is why the City of Plymouth would not require a rubber -lined pond for a development. City Engineer Moberg stated that in 1994, the previous owner had done some grading work on the site. He said that the two stormwater ponds referred to were created at that time. He said they are not wetlands or natural basins, they are stormwater ponds. He said that according to the plans for the senior building, they show a stormwater pond that would capture runoff from the parking lot and roof drains. He said that the existing ponds were initially intended to collect runoff from the existing building water and to treat it before it would go into the wetland basin. He said these two ponds have overflow structures that drain into the wetland and then in turn, there is a pipe from the wetland that runs back to the north and underneath State Highway 55. He said that there would be a very small area along the south side of the proposed building that would be graded to drain towards Cottonwood Lane. He said that very small area, which is all green space, would either drain to the south or most likely would drain to the east over land to get back to the wetland. He said that the likelihood of any water leaving the site and draining to the south across Cottonwood Lane is highly unlikely. Planning Manager Thomson added that the same regulations for stormwater runoff and how it is treated in Brooklyn Park is basically the same rules and regulations that Plymouth has to follow as well. Mr. Parks stated that the project does indeed take into account the city's watershed rules for volume, for rate control and for water quality. He said that Plymouth has probably the most difficult water rules in terms of infiltration and water volume. He said that in this case, the roads are going into an infiltration basin, which will then slow water down and discharge it into the Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2011 Page 6 ditch. He said the roadways will actually be discharged into a below -ground vault that they would be providing on the site. He said runoff from the front of the proposed senior building would be directed to the infiltration basin there and then rerouted by pipe into the existing stormwater pond. He said that when that stormwater pond overflows, it goes into the larger wetland. He said the large culvert there drains the water back to the State Highway 55 improvement. He said to keep in mind that there would be a 50 -foot buffer of natural area along the south side of the site that would not be disrupted at all and would handle any additional drainage. Mr. Parks stated that they did take photos of the site that were used for the graphics. He said the larger trees in the background are the existing cottonwoods that are in place. He said the conifers, the spruces and evergreens, are the trees that they put in the plan. He said that they tried to depict the trees that would remain and then augment them with the additional trees that are being shown on the landscape plan. Commissioner Petrash asked if these are actually based off of real photographs, if there is no interpretation and this is the way it really would look. Mr. Parks responded that he took pictures of these locations, which then became visualization graphics that the architect put together. He said that his intent was to give them a product to show the existing trees. He said the landscaping, preservation and inventory plans were used and trees to be taken down were masked and trees were shown where they would be added. Commissioner Petrash asked if the building depicted is actually at 53 feet. Mr. Parks replied that this is a real depiction of the height. Commissioner Oakley asked how much of the ground would be disturbed for the grading proposed along the south side of the building. Mr. Parks responded that there would be a minimal amount of trees remaining in that area but there would be a large stand of trees that would not be affected. Commissioner Oakley asked if this plan was representative of the trees that have been marked for preservation. Mr. Parks replied affirmatively and stated there might be even a few more. Commissioner Petrash asked how the placement of the building was decided and what the design parameters were. Ms. Conlin -Joyce replied that their design strategy was based on marketability of the project. She said they wanted to reduce the number of parking spaces in the front of the building so that it's not such a massing of concrete and parking. She said that they wanted to be able to market the wetlands and foliage behind the building. She said that they were not interested in having a building right up on a major road. She said they were more focused on pushing the building back, having a little parking in front, with more parking underground and then being able to market the wetland and foliage in the back. Planning Manager Thomson responded to the question regarding the admissibility of the graphics. She said that the Planning Commission had requested that the applicant provide sections that showed the relationship between the building, the landscaping and the houses. She Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2011 Page 7 said that they have provided information in scale drawings and they also provided the pictures, which are less precise, but give an idea. Mr. Tucci stated that it was their intent to provide an easement to Ms. Muckala. He said that it would be their intent to have her design and construct the driveway. He said they would provide the land. Planning Manager Thomson responded to the request for examples of other McDonalds locations that are near residences. She said that at this point, she would not be able to give an example. Commissioner Oakley asked Ms. Muckala about the material in her existing driveway. Ms. Muckala responded that her driveway is concrete. Commissioner Anderson stated that the applicant has done a lot to make their case. He said that the 10 -foot easement is a nice offer but that it is insufficient, in his mind. He said 10 feet is certainly not wide enough to construct a driveway there. He said the ground goes up and down, there's a foundation in there and fiber optic cables run through there. He said that basically, they are saying the solution is going to cost this property owner some pretty hefty dollars, engineering wise. He said to do a driveway within 10 feet would not be possible. Commissioner Anderson stated that he does have a concern about the 24-hour operation for McDonalds. He said this is a re -guiding and a PUD amendment and are we getting something better than what we have there. He said the residents are saying no. He said that the road pattern for Cottonwood Lane is better but he has a hard time believing that many people are going to be using Cottonwood Lane, even under the previous plan, when you have access available on the front side of the development. He said the neighborhood is saying they don't want the 24-hour operation there and he would want a condition with that regard. Commissioner Anderson stated that his biggest concern is with the height of the proposed building. He said that a 53 -foot tall structure that close to the property line and that close to these neighbors is too much. He said the applicant has stated that in order for this project to work, they need this many units and they need this amount of height. He said that economics is not something that he sees in the code as something that we pay attention to or should use in our decision process. He said that there is a recession and we need to be somewhat flexible but that does not sway him to the fact that this building is too high and too close to the neighborhood. Commissioner Petrash stated that he also has a concern about the 24-hour operation for McDonalds. He said that he is also concerned about the location of the building because it is so close to the residences. He said if this is what makes sense economically, he thinks that there is opportunity to look at placing the building closer to the McDonalds and having more buffer, even if it is just parking spaces from line of sight. He said that he did not know if trading cars in a parking lot is any better than the height of a building but he thought that those were options that could be looked at. He said that people may have just as much problem with placing the parking lot in the back as the building. He asked that if it makes economic sense to make it that tall, have they explored making the footprint of the building larger and the height lower. Ms. Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2011 Page 8 Conlin -Joyce responded that they are always very conscious of the length of the building. She said it is important to their residents that they don't have massive, long corridors to walk to get to various elevators and common spaces so our buildings are generally this footprint. She said that they are always walking a tightrope between visibility from a major freeway or from a road, jelling with the neighborhood and also offering views for our residents. She said they found that this placement of the building was the best of all worlds for our residents and it addressed the parking needs. She said that there is also a large ponding area that is required. She said that they are struggling to place the ponding, parking and building, given the setback requirements as well. Commissioner Petrash asked if the building would be placed from the road because of setback requirements. Ms. Conlin -Joyce replied no, that the building is placed from the road to accomplish parking, views and amenities for our residents, as well as the ponding requirements. Mr. Tucci added that one of the driving factors that they are dealing with on this whole site is the existing frontage road located in the west half of the site, directly abutting State Highway 55. He said that one of the requirements from the previous PUD and this one is to allow for better stacking, especially at the Medicine Lake Road intersection and coming back down to County Road 73. He said that in order to do that, they have been required to rework the frontage road and that has dictated and divided the site. He said that created an area that basically becomes a drainage lot for the road, where there is no drainage and water quality management on the road today. He said that they worked with the Waters Group on this to provide a transition to protect and to try and buffer the commercial uses from the single family residential. He said that this area is dictated to a degree by the road and the placement of McDonalds. Ms. Muckala stated that she has some concerns on the easement and the financial burden, which is going to be huge. Mr. Tucci responded that they would provide a large area for the easement because they agree that 10 feet is hard to try and construct something. He said that their intent is to provide the easement, whether it is a gravel drive or something else is still to be determined. He said that they can use a bigger area to get the grades taken out. Ms. Muckala asked if they would be able to grade the driveway when they are working on the road, because that would be one of the greatest issues. Mr. Tucci responded that they would be able to grade the driveway. Commissioner Oakley stated that the other commissioners have raised a number of issues. He said that with Ms. Muckala's driveway, he does not think it is fair for the developer to require her to spend money to correct an issue that would be worsened by the development. He said that was not an issue that she created, so the solution needs to be part of the developer's scope of service as well. He said that at the very least, it should be graded and a driveway surface should be provided. Commissioner Oakley stated that he walked the site and that he did not think Mr. Parks accurately estimated the height of the trees. Commissioner Oakley stated he believes the trees are taller than 40 feet. He said the issue still exists that the building gets very close to the homes back there. He said he thinks that it would be possible, without redesigning the entire Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2011 Page 9 development, to rework just the site for the proposed senior housing building to soften that up a little bit. He said if it were a three story proposal, he would vote to approve the request as it is submitted. He said if it was four stories and sitting further back from the road, he would vote to approve the request. Commissioner Oakley stated that in order to get a favorable vote from him, the McDonalds would need to have limited hours of operation. Commissioner Nelson stated that he would echo those same sentiments. He said that he liked the idea of this property being developed. He said that he would like to see Ms. Muckala's driveway taken care of at no expense or burden to her. He said he does not have an issue with a McDonalds but is not supportive of it being a 24-hour operation in the neighborhood. He said the way the property is guided and zoned, it would not make his vote go one way or the other if it was 24 hours. He said that the building either has to be lower or it has to be moved. He said that four stories that close to the properties is troublesome for him. He said he thinks that it is a great idea and that it would be a great facility but he understands the neighbors' concerns and there are just too many concerns for it to be that close and be four stories. Commissioner Robinson stated that he would be voting in support of this request for a number of different reasons. He said that the applicant has shown that they are willing to work with both us as well as with some of the residents. He said that although a lot of this is not ideal, he liked the easement and that they would widen the north end of Cottonwood Lane and they are willing to add additional screening on the west hill. He said that the height of the senior building is a concern to him as well, but based on the fact that this development is based on a very specific size, it would not hold him back from voting in support of this request. Chair Davis stated that he concurs with Commissioner Robinson and that he would vote in support of this request. He said that this would be an improvement over the existing plan. He said that keeping Cottonwood Lane a dead end would be an improvement over the fact that Cottonwood Lane was going to go all the way over into the shopping center. He said that while the building would be four stories, there are only three properties that would be adjacent to it. He said that the other properties are 100 to 200 feet away from it. He said that he appreciates the developer's good faith effort on the easement and he has gone far enough. He said that he did not think that they would have to build the driveway. He said that he has no issue with McDonalds being open 24 hours. He said this may not be the best plan ever but that it works on the site that is there. He said that the developer has worked hard to answer our questions. MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Robinson, to approve the request by Oppidan, Inc. for a land use guide plan amendment, preliminary plat and PUD amendment with revision to include a condition that the developer provide a permanent easement in favor of the property addressed as 11009 State Highway 55, per the drawing dated July 20, 2011 for purposes of providing a driveway that is graded and surfaced consistent with city driveway requirements for Crossroads Commons at the former Plymouth Shopping Center site located south of Highway 55 between Cottonwood Lane North and County Road 73. Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2011 Page 10 MOTION AMENDED by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to add that McDonald's hours of operation be limited to 5 a.m. to Midnight. Roll Call Vote on Amended Motion. Aye votes by Commissioners Oakley and Anderson with Nay votes by Commissioners Nelson, Robinson, Petrash and Chair Davis. AMENDED MOTION denied. Roll Call Vote. Aye votes by Commissioners Petrash, Robinson and Chair Davis with Nay votes by Commissioners Oakley, Nelson and Anderson. MOTION tied. B. CORNERSTONE AUTO RESOURCE (2011037) Chair Davis introduced the request by Cornerstone Auto Resource for rezoning and a PUD general plan to expand the automobile sales area for property located at 3901 and 3955 Vinewood Lane North. Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report. Senior Planner Drill noted that a letter had been received and added to the public record. In response to the letter, he stated that although the city can regulate the location, size, and height of signage, the city cannot regulate the content unless it is considered to be obscene under state law. Commissioner Nelson stated rezoning this site to PUD allows the car dealership site to expand to the abandoned BP site and gives the city greater flexibility in the future, should uses change on this site. Senior Planner Drill concurred, noting there were two or three options that could have been considered to allow expansion of the site. He said one option would have been to rezone the entire site to C-5 (commercial/industrial) where auto sales are presently allowed; however, C- 5 also allows other uses that may not be suitable for this highly visible site in the long term. Senior Planner Drill stated another option that could have been considered would have been a zoning text amendment to allow auto sales in the C-4 district. He said that option was not looked upon favorably either. He said the idea of the PUD came up and that was the one that seemed to win out as far as providing the city with more control over how this site could ultimately be used. Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Steven Rohlf, representing Cornerstone Auto Resource. Mr. Rohlf stated they are proposing to improve their parking lot. He said it was built over a landfill and there is a lot settlement that has occurred. He said that it is in bad disrepair. He said they are trying to attract a new franchise to this location. He said that out of this project, the city will get better lighting than what is there now, better screening for the neighbors, safer access to the property, and removal of the abandoned BP gas station. He said that he is in agreement with the staff report and resolution. Commissioner Oakley stated that on Vinewood Lane, there are currently quite a few boulevard trees and it looks like at least two or three of them are going to be taken out when the entrance moves. He asked if an equal number would be going back in. Mr. Rohlf responded they are increasing the number of trees on the overall site. He said he would work with staff to make sure Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2011 Page 11 they would not be affecting sight visibility lines, but they could add more trees in the Vinewood Lane boulevard. Commissioner Oakley stated that he would just like to see an equal number of trees in the Vinewood Lane boulevard. Mr. Rohlf replied he did not have a problem with that. Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Chair Davis introduced Richard Cook, 13319 39th Avenue North, President of the Plymouth Ridge Homeowners Association. Mr. Cook stated they had several meetings with the applicant. He said the applicant had invited them to come to their building, to sit down and go over all the plans. He said they appreciated that and that Cornerstone has been a really good neighbor and that they have no complaints with them moving into that area. He said they are pleased that somebody is going to take up that spot as it has been empty for awhile. He said that it actually has been a real eyesore. He said the property hadn't been kept up and the grass had been cut maybe once a summer in the past. He said that when Cornerstone moved in, they had high hopes that they were going to improve the site. He said they like what they are going to do. He said they are going to add a lot of trees along the woods that separates their properties. He said they are in favor of this project and hope the Planning Commission would consider approving their request. Chair Davis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Petrash stated that this corner has been an eyesore and embarrassing to drive by. He said that he was glad to hear that the neighborhood supports it and he would vote in support of this request because it is such a visible area in Plymouth. Commissioner Oakley sated that he was very pleased to see this project come forward as well. He said that it has been an eyesore and the gas station was an eyesore even before it closed. He said that there is a lot of opportunity for improvement there and he asked that staff keep in mind the boulevard trees on Vinewood Lane. He said that he would vote in support of this request. Chair Davis asked if there was any remediation that needs to be done to the gas station before they can turn it into a parking lot. Mr. Rohlf responded that they would have to do a destructive asbestos survey and then dispose of the materials appropriately. He confirmed for Chair Davis that the tanks have already been removed. Chair Davis stated that the city would get more trees, more green space, better traffic flow, increased traffic safety, better lighting, better control of the site, better screening, and it is supported by the neighborhood. He said he would vote to approve this request. MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve the request by Cornerstone Auto Resource for rezoning and a PUD general plan to expand the automobile sales area for property located at 3901 and 3955 Vinewood Lane North. Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. Approved Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2011 Page 12 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Chair Davis, with no objection to adjourn the meeting at 8:47 p.m.