Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 10-05-2011Approved Minutes City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair James Davis, Commissioners Dick Kobussen, Nathan Robinson, Scott Nelson, Bryan Oakley and Marc Anderson MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Gordon Petrash STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Steve Juetten, Planning Manager Barbara Thomson, Senior Planner Shawn Drill, Senior Planner Marie Darling 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 Planning Manager Thomson announced the request to cancel the October 19, 2011 Planning Commission meeting and this item will be placed on the agenda under New Business, item 7. B. MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to approve the October 5, 2011 Planning Commission Agenda as amended. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Kobussen, seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to approve the September 21, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. GRONBERG AND ASSOCIATES (2011071) Chair Davis introduced the request by Gronberg and Associates for a preliminary plat for Churchill Ridge 2nd Addition" for two single-family lots for property located at 18820 County Road 24. Approved Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2011 Page 2 Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Nelson stated that the house on the property to the east of this site appears to have been built on the property line. Senior Planner Drill said that is shadowing on the aerial photo and the home does comply with all the setbacks. Commissioner Kobussen asked what the setback would be at that north/northwest corner of the east property. Senior Planner Drill responded that the property is zoned RSF-2, so the minimum setback is 10 feet. Commissioner Kobussen asked if Hennepin County would ever have any intent of closing off the access on County Road 24 to where a driveway in the rear would be needed. Senior Planner Drill responded only if that site is redeveloped. He said that as long as the house stays there, the county has no intentions of trying to close the existing access. Commissioner Kobussen stated that his concern is that the 15 -foot strip for the south lot won't be able to be accessed because of the hill. He asked if a legal driveway could be developed there. Senior Planner Drill responded that a driveway could be developed there; however, whether or not that ever happens may be a question. Commissioner Kobussen said that he didn't see the county ever denying access from the homes to County Road 24, unless they were going to totally redevelop that highway. Senior Planner Drill stated that the 15 -foot strip provides an option for alternative access, if needed, in the future. Commissioner Oakley asked how the front setback would be defined if it were redeveloped. Senior Planner Drill responded that front setbacks are 50 feet along County Road 24 and 25 feet along Xanthus Lane. Commissioner Oakley stated that a redeveloped home potentially could still face County Road 24 and have a rear entrance garage. Senior Planner Drill agreed. Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Mark Gronberg, representing Gronberg and Associates. Mr. Gronberg stated that this plan was approved when they did the original plat of Churchill Ridge. He said that he looked at the grading plan and a driveway in the 15 -foot strip would be at a 10% slope or less, so it is possible to put in a driveway that meets the city's requirements. Commissioner Kobussen asked if the maximum slope on a driveway is 10%. Senior Planner Drill responded that we have different standards, depending on the roadway classification for maximum slope on public streets but not on driveways. He said that for a driveway, 10% is pretty steep but it can be done. Chair Davis opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the item. MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the request by Gronberg and Associates for a preliminary plat for "Churchill Ridge 2nd Addition" for two single-family lots for property located at 18820 County Road 24. Approved Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2011 Page 3 Commissioner Kobussen stated that it would be a great improvement to split this property up. He said now that the garage has been removed, it's basically an undeveloped piece of land that's really not mowed and taken care of, so adding the second home there would probably be an improvement to the overall neighborhood. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. B. SUNCREST BUILDERS (2011075) Chair Davis introduced the request by Suncrest Builders for an interim use permit for temporary occupancy of an existing home while a new home is constructed for property located at 12316 Old Rockford Road. Senior Planner Darling gave an overview of the staff report. Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Brad Johnson, representing Suncrest Builders. Commissioner Nelson asked if the applicant would also be doing the demolition of the existing home. Mr. Johnson responded affirmatively. Commissioner Kobussen asked if there would be any problems with the restrictions and dates that are in the proposal. Mr. Johnson responded negatively and that it would be about a four month process for them. He confirmed for Commission Kobussen that it would take three to four days at most to take the existing home down. Commissioner Nelson stated that the home was built in 1948 and asked if they would be doing an asbestos abatement. Mr. Johnson responded that part of the demolition process includes an asbestos inspection. Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Chair Davis introduced Arland Anderson, 12405 42nd Avenue North. Mr. Anderson asked if it is part of the regulations that a person has to get temporary approval to live in his house while the other is being constructed. He said that the gentleman who is requesting this approval has not complied with the regulations for the City of Plymouth. He asked if this lot would be subdivided. Mr. Anderson said that he has been trying to sell his property since May of last year. He said that over 180 people have gone through and looked at his property since then and he has not received one offer. He said that one of the reasons being the back yard. He said that for ten years he has been looking out of his living room window into the back yard and seeing a sea of dandelions and tall grass. He said that this year the dandelions were killed and that was an improvement. He said that along the east border of the property and along the north 45 to 50 feet is an area where there is nothing but brush and trees and his sore point is that there are dead logs, timber, brush and wood. He said that stuff has been sitting there since he moved in 11 years ago Approved Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2011 Page 4 and it's never been cleaned up. He said that's another point that people looking at the house don't like and they also don't like the cemetery that's next door and adjacent to the property. Mr. Anderson said that about seven or eight years ago, a shed was moved in and set on the north end of the lot. He said his next door neighbor was also not happy about the shed and they went over and measured it. He said it is 12' x 14', which is 168 square feet. He said that he spoke with staff about the shed and was told that if a shed was 120 square feet, it had to conform with the color of the house. He said the house is faded canary yellow but it has weathered and the paint on the front of the shed has peeled off and it does not look very good. Mr. Anderson said that about five or six weeks ago, a survey was made for this site. He said that at the northeast corner of his lot, there are three stakes (one of which was put in when a survey was made for the church so they could put up a fence). He said another stake is 12 to 15 feet down the line towards the applicant's house, which is nothing but a steel post. He said that in between these two posts is the survey stake, which is a lath piece of wood stuck in the ground with a little red flag on it. He said that he worked for a surveyor for three months out of high school. He said when they surveyed lots, they put it in a metal or iron pin to designate where the property lines is. He said that all there is now is a lath and someone could come and rip it out. He said they don't have a legitimate stake where the property is. He said the shed is either sitting on his property or is just inches over. He said that staff told him that there has to be a setback of 6 feet and asked if that was true or false. Mr. Anderson said that as far as he was concerned, the Planning Commission could go ahead and approve this as he hopes to be out of there but in the mean time, he would like to have the shed removed and the area around the side of yard cleaned up where the dead and rotted wood lays. Chair Davis closed the public hearing. Planning Manager Thomson responded that several years ago, the city did adopt the regulations allowing homeowners to stay in their existing home while building a new home. She said that this would be the third time that this has occurred since the regulations went into effect. Senior Planner Darling responded that the applicant has proposed to construct their home in dead center of the existing lot. She said the existing zoning district is future restricted development district and the property would not be able to be subdivided unless the property is rezoned, which would require additional public hearings and notice to the adjacent property owners. She said that by placing the home directly in the middle of the lot, the applicant has stated that they would not be subdividing the lot. Senior Planner Darling responded that staff did receive some concerns on the condition of this property and the shed in particular. She said the code enforcement officer had the submitted survey when he went out to the site. She said that the survey shows the shed is 6.4 feet from the north property line. She said that in walking the property, the code enforcement officer did not find any evidence of debris or rotting wood on this property. Planning Manager Thomson added Approved Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2011 Page 5 that our code enforcement officer had indicated that while the shed was not the most attractive, it is not in such a condition that we would require any changes to be made to the shed at this time. Senior Planner Darling responded that the property was surveyed by Gronberg and Associates and the survey indicates that there are corner pins in the property at two locations along the north property line. She said that those pins are typically located underground and are located with metal detectors. She said that frequently they are opened up and surveyors will put wood lath in as they review the site. She said that it is an aboveground marker indicating where the underground corner pin is located. MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Robinson, to approve the request by Suncrest Builders for an interim use permit for temporary occupancy of an existing home while a new home is constructed for property located at 12316 Old Rockford Road. Commissioner Kobussen stated that a new home on this property would be a great improvement. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. 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 Redevelopment Study. Community Development Director Juetten opened the presentation of the Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Study to the Planning Commission by providing a funding and project background. Planning Manager Thomson gave an overview of the draft Guiding Principles in the Four Seasons Redevelopment Study. Brian Harjes, representative of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. (HKGi, Inc.), gave a presentation of the four illustrative scenarios in the Four Seasons Redevelopment Study. Community Development Director Juetten concluded the presentation with the final steps of the process. Commissioner Nelson asked if the guiding principles would be consistent throughout the City of Plymouth. Planning Manager Thomson responded that the guiding principles have a fair amount of similarity to design principles that are established and adopted for the city center and we have also expanded and made some changes to that to fit this area. She said that they would be tailored to this particular site. She said that some of them are seen elsewhere in the city. Approved Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2011 Page 6 Commissioner Nelson asked who is determining the market needs for the use or mix of uses as outlined under the Land Use/Urban Design in the guiding principles. Planning Manager Thomson responded that this is based on the market study that was completed in May. Commissioner Nelson asked if the needs of the market are essentially determined by what somebody wants to try to build or develop based on somebody wanting to do business there. Planning Manager Thomson responded that what this is referring to is that the desire is, in this particular case, that because we did do a market study to determine where there are holes in uses that would be helpful to the community that we would like to see that reflected in whatever is redeveloped here. Chair Davis asked who created these guiding principles. Planning Manager Thomson responded that staff generated the guidelines through a variety of means as some of them were adapted from City Center design standards, some of them came from staff and some of them came from looking at other sources of design guidelines. Chair Davis introduced Janet LaFrence, 12335 52nd Avenue North. Ms. LaFrence stated that she is a 24 -year resident of Plymouth. She said that she resided for one year in The Place Apartments on Nathan Lane, which is right across from the Four Seasons Mall. She said that she utilized the park and ride there for many years while she worked downtown. She said that she attended the September 22nd open house. She complemented everyone that participated in it and that she thought that they did a wonderful job. Ms. LaFrence said that she sees that property as one of the busiest intersections in Plymouth, along with 55 and Vicksburg. She said that she liked that the guiding principles are consistent with the design principles that were used in the city center area. She said that she has seen over the years that with development of this area, this has become a community gathering place. She said that she would like to see the Four Seasons area become a community gathering place also and to serve that community. Ms. LaFrence said that based on the market study that was presented that talked about the aging population in the United States in general and specifically in Plymouth and based on the residential area that surrounds that property, she believes that scenario 3 with the mixed use best complements and respects the scale of the adjacent residential and office development. She said that scenario 3 achieves the best pedestrian movement with community meeting spaces and with the park and ride being closer to the apartment complexes where a lot of people will gather and get on the bus there or drive in from community neighborhoods like hers. She said that she likes the fact that scenario 3 helps meet the needs of that aging population with some units of senior housing but its not an overwhelming use of the property like scenario 2 is. She said that it also has complementary services for seniors, including the medical office and the pharmacy and then it has a little bit of retail and restaurant but not an overwhelming amount. She said that part of the market study that was presented said that as a population ages, their need for medical services and pharmacy increases and their needs for mass quantities of retail decreases so it would make sense to her that there would be less retail and restaurant business but enough to bring in people from the surrounding communities and then giving them a place to gather and get there by bike or walking. Approved Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2011 Page 7 Ms. LaFrence said that she is not so much in favor of scenarios 1 or 2 because there is an overwhelming single use in both scenarios. She said that she likes the fact that in both scenarios 3 and 4, they talked about reusing some of the existing facility to save money and to recycle. She said that scenario 4 does not meet the needs of the senior living population. Ms. LaFrence said that she is strongly opposed to Wal-Mart building a large facility there. She said that she sees that intersection as the gateway to her community and she would like to see it be a warm and inviting place that serves the needs of the neighborhood and also complements the residential living space with some senior living. Ms. LaFrence asked what the square footage is of the existing facility. She asked if it is possible to put a zoning limit on the square footage for any single building on that property. She said that to her, the mixed use is so much more complementary to the neighborhood with a smaller mix of uses rather than a large single facility, whether it's a senior living space or a single retail. Ms. LaFrence said that she wanted to reinforce the importance to many people in the community of having that park and ride. She said that she would prefer having it closer to the apartment complexes with complementary retail spaces. Chair Davis introduced Rick Taylor, 4035 Orleans Lane North. Mr. Taylor said that he had attended both the open house for the market study and the open house for the guiding principles. He said that he was very pleased with what he saw. He said that the guiding principles that came out of that really did a good job of reflecting the market study. He said that it was important that those two pieces go together. He said that he liked that the guiding principles were specific. He said that they were broad enough that a redevelopment entity could work within them but they play some guidance within that. He said that especially liked that under Land Use/Urban Design it would prohibit outside storage and the display of goods. He said that he also liked that under Architectural, trash and recycling storage would have to be internal to the buildings. Mr. Taylor said that he really likes the idea of a mixed use. He said that scenarios 3 and 4 really reflect what he heard in the market study. He said that an entity that is coming in and would look very closely at doing something along the lines of scenarios 3 and 4, that redevelopment would have some very good neighbors. He said that the facilities would be patronized. Mr. Taylor said that his concern is with the pinch point at Rockford Road and Lancaster, that Pilgrim Lane would become the defacto access point. He said that it would not be difficult to see someone taking a shortcut through the quiet neighborhoods to not have to sit at a light at Rockford Road and that is a concern to him. He said that in scenario 1, it's difficult to see any real pedestrian use for a large single retailer in that spot. He said that the only thing that would attract pedestrians would be something along the lines of scenarios 3 and 4. Chair Davis introduced Ray Mowery, 12435 43rd Avenue North. Mr. Mowery said that he has lived here 22 years. He said that he used to leave his house and reach Highway 55 without a single stop sign. He said that there are now 19 stoplights between his house and Highway 55. He said that when you get to 494, there is not a left turn lane to get onto the freeway so Approved Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2011 Page 8 everybody in the left lane blocks everybody back two or three blocks. He said that under scenario 1 under a big box, specifically Wal-Mart, the market study stated that there would be 6,000 trips per day and 600 cars in the parking lot. He said that he had 1,400 signatures on his petition that went to the City Council. He said that the biggest concern that they had was traffic congestion and the lights from Wal-Mart in the parking lot. He said that the noise from the 18 - wheelers, 24 hours a day, upsets him. He said that scenarios 3 and 4 looked a lot better to him, especially scenario 3. He said that Trillium Woods is aimed at the rich to move into there. He said that development should accommodate the people who live in that area and who have been paying taxes for 40 or 50 years. He said that it should be reasonably priced so that the average person could live there. Chair Davis introduced Jeanne Reimer, 3425 Yates Avenue North, Crystal. Ms. Reimer said that she has lived in the area for 50 years and shops in this area. She said that when Four Seasons Mall was vibrant and had a mix of stores, she went there lots of times. She said that she does not want the scenario 1 there and that she does not want a Wal-Mart there. She said that if you go with scenarios 3 or 4, scenario 3 especially, it would bring a lot of people in but not so much that it would cause havoc with the traffic. She said that it would make it a vibrant place to shop and maybe to have coffee. She said that shopping centers, like Golden Valley, are a hum of activity but not too much and it brings a lot of economic growth to the area. She said that people like to go there and that there is a nice mix of things. She said that like in Maple Grove, they have their shopping development without a big box right in the middle of their main street. She said that it is a nice mix to have a pedestrian -friendly aspect of scenario 3. She said that you have the residential area that would make lots of use of that and that would really make the city shine. Planning Manager Thomson responded that the square footage of the existing building is 117,000 square feet. She said that the reason that there is a difference between the 89,000 single user and the 117,000, is that traffic works differently when you are looking at a single big box than a number of smaller uses. She said that in the C-2 zoning district, which is what this site is zoned right now, the maximum size for a grocery is 55,000. She said that would be the largest single user and a big box retailer is not allowed in C-2, only in a C-4 district. Ms. LaFrence asked if an 89,000 retailer wouldn't be allowed there. Planning Manager Thomson responded that the only scenario right now where all the uses would be allowed is scenario 4. She said that in C-2, housing is not allowed so there would have to be some changes to allow that as well. Commissioner Anderson asked if they are to pick a scenario or if they are to approve or discuss the guiding principles. Planning Manager Thomson responded that the scenarios are just illustrative of the various guiding principles. She said that the centerpiece of the study is really the guiding principles and that will help the city in evaluating any development that may come forward in a redevelopment type scenario. Commissioner Anderson said that scenarios 1 through 4 are just examples and the market could bring more but whatever is brought forth is going to be examined based upon these guiding Approved Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2011 Page 9 principles and based upon the market study. Planning Manager Thomson affirmed that is correct and that the guiding principles are really the main focus. Commissioner Anderson said that we know that we have 117,000 square feet out there now and asked if we know what the trips per day were when the Four Seasons shopping center was in full operation. Planning Manager Thomson said that when the city did a traffic study about a year ago, it was based on what was there at the time. John Hagen, representative of SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Mr. Hagen added that SRF Consulting did the traffic study for the development scenarios. He said that as far as what the existing Four Seasons Mall would generate if it was fully occupied, he did not have that number at hand. He said that the traffic study that they did last fall, when they looked at Wal-Mart, that the Wal-Mart did generate more than what the existing mall would be at full occupancy. Commissioner Anderson stated that we are looking at four scenarios and rounding to the nearest thousand a day, etc. He said some park and ride is included within that. He said that from MFRA, the Wal-Mart consultant, they are saying that the November 2010 traffic study confirmed that they could have as much as 148,000 square feet of building and still accommodate adequate traffic levels of service. He asked if Mr. Hagen agreed with that. Mr. Hagen responded that their previous study did look at the full, not quite 200,000 square foot, Wal-Mart and they did find that the roadway system, with improvements, could accommodate that traffic. He said that the improvements that they looked at were not just the retiming of signals. He said that there were some pretty substantial improvements at the Lancaster Lane/Nathan Lane/Rockford Road intersection, which included a dual westbound to southbound left turn. He said that there is currently only room there now for a single lane. He said that there would need to be quite a bit of improvements to Rockford Road in order to accommodate that that could potentially go back to the overpass over 169. He said that it's not to say that there couldn't be improvements made to accommodate it but some of them would be pretty substantial. Commissioner Anderson stated that in scenario 1, it states that it exceeds the market study limit and he asked what the market study limit is for this scenario and why are we not putting the market study limit in this number. Planning Manager Thomson responded that when the market study was reviewed by both the Planning Commission and the City Council, there was a request that a single user be looked at, recognizing that that did not match the market study. She said that staff respected that request and looked at a single user but because of the major concern for traffic, we basically backed in to the 89,000 square -foot number to make sure that traffic would still work with a single user. Commissioner Anderson stated that we understand that zoning would have to change if some of these scenarios happen at all and that comes later. He said that our focus is on the guiding principles and he likes what he sees. He said that he is in favor of what staff has done and he wished that we had more of this around the city. Approved Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2011 Page 10 Commissioner Anderson said that the guiding principles state that site access points are to be limited to the current locations. He said that across from Pilgrim Lane is very appropriate but on the other one, he would like to give the developer a little bit of flexibility. He said that they can be creative at times and may come up with a solution that works and satisfies everybody. He said that on the impervious surface, there are so many stormsewer requirements that are needed and maybe they can figure out a way to make that work. He said that maybe they could put some stormsewer improvements under the parking lot and he would not want to limit it by the requirement that the site development must result in less impervious surface. He said that is placing a restriction on there and taking possible creativity away. He said that we know that they have to meet all these requirements in so many areas but let's let them figure it out and show us that they are doing that. Commissioner Anderson complemented staff and the consultants that worked on this to come up with some pretty good principles. Planning Manager Thomson responded that we also had SRF take a look at the access locations and the recommendation based upon good traffic principles was to leave the northern access in the same place. She said that there is a curve there and a lot of issues. Planning Manager Thomson responded that the impervious surface was not put there as a stormwater related matter. She said that it wasn't to make sure that stormwater is improved, it was really more related to having more open space than what is existing there today, which is basically nonexistent. She said it was to also have something that is more reflective of its location within a neighborhood. Commissioner Kobussen asked what requirement the city could have on this piece of property as far as putting in the park and ride if the developer decides that he doesn't want to put it in. He said that since we are talking mainly about traffic as being one of the limitations, why have the park and ride there if it's going to limit the development in the area. Planning Manager Thomson responded that she was not sure that the park and ride would necessarily limit development. She said that there are some advantages to having the park and ride there, especially depending on the type of use that comes in that people use it before and after, etc. She said that we can't compel someone to put the park and ride there and we do have a location across on the north side of Rockford Road right now. Commissioner Anderson asked if we are expecting the property owner to fund the park and ride or is it something that is paid for by the county or city. Planning Manager Thomson responded that the previous and the current park and ride is a financial arrangement between the city and the property owner. Commissioner Oakley asked if the city has a maintenance ordinance on canvas awnings. Planning Manager Thomson responded not specifically; however, if there are issues where there are unsafe situations, etc. we can certainly deal with that. Approved Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2011 Page 11 Commissioner Oakley stated that we apparently used the market study to define the market needs. He said that the commercial market needs did not consider that some things currently built in the commercial environment are in need of replacement and will probably not be replaced with a commercial big box. He said that it is a fair assessment to say that it's overbuilt and he would leave that to the developer who comes in to develop the site to determine whether the market is calling for them to develop it or not. Commissioner Oakley stated that in looking at the four scenarios and if he were to pick his favorite one, he would pick scenario 3. He said that it looks like a fun development, it has a lot of different uses, it would be a nice place to go and have a meal on a Friday night. He said that the problem is that we do not have anybody proposing to develop that. He said that is one of the most important things that you need, is somebody to propose a development. He said that this study could be a great tool for the city, if it is useful in future development proposals. He said the only future development proposal, that he is aware of, is for big box retailer that is not going to be happy with 89,000 square feet. He said that we have scenario 1 that considers something that is bigger than a grocery store but smaller than a Wal-Mart and may not be a very good tool for this city to use in evaluating a development from Wal-Mart. He said that one of the guiding principles under Transportation states that development shall not exceed the capacity of the existing roadway network, unless improvements can be made to maintain the existing level of service. He said that the gentleman that prepared the city's traffic study also prepared Wal - Mart's traffic study a few months ago and they stated that it can service with improvements. He said that we don't have in our study a list of what those necessary improvements are. He said that it would be much more useful for the city to have requirements when Wal-Mart comes in with a development that we can check off the list. He said that if we have that, we have a little bit more control over the type of development that they may propose. He said that in the end, the city does have the ability to not approve a zoning change. He said that with the money that was spent on this study, it seems like we should be looking at the potential options that will be proposed. Commissioner Oakley stated that he appreciated the people that spoke. He said that he feels the city offers great service and he doesn't mind paying his property taxes because we get good service but he wouldn't mind if somebody else came in and paid some property taxes, too. He said that he is in favor of development if it is done properly. He said that the study has a lot of good information in it and that the consultants did a good job of looking at things. He said that there are a couple of open-ended items that he is not quite satisfied with. Community Development Director Juetten responded that the guiding principles are somewhat of a checklist. He said that we would go through any application that came in to see that they meet the requirements and that is how a presentation would be made to the Planning Commission and City Council. He said that because this isn't a process to review what somebody may or may not do, it's a process of identifying what things we are concerned about. He said that when somebody comes in with a formal application, the traffic analysis would be done. He said at that point if there are too many trips a day, then the applicant would need to come up with their plan of how the roadways could be improved to meet those guidelines. He said this study wasn't intended to design a roadway so Wal-Mart or somebody else of a big box Approved Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2011 Page 12 of 148,000 square foot or larger could work here. He said that it was designed to come up with the concerns and the issues that we feel are necessary to be looked at when we analyze an application. He said that we don't have the exact design of what Lancaster Lane or Rockford Road would be but this would identify it and a traffic study would be done. Commissioner Oakley stated that the report appears to say 89,000 square feet is the largest that could be considered for the site but then it gives the loop hole with regard to traffic. He said that they could have pushed that a little bit by looking at structured parking and traffic as things that might be required for a larger development. Mr. Mowery stated that he has spoken to several different communities about where Wal-Mart puts a smaller building in and then increases the size of the building. He said the neighborhood deteriorates. He said that this has to be stopped here. James Johnson, 8100 Bass Lake Road, New Hope. Mr. Johnson asked that if there were improvements to the road around that area, who would pay for the improvements to the road. Planning Manager Thomson responded that the improvements would not be made by the city. She said that in other cases where development has resulted in the need to expand a roadway, the improvements are paid for by the developer. Commissioner Anderson stated that he understood Commissioner Oakley to say that development shall not exceed the capacity of existing roads and this would give an opportunity for a developer to expand beyond the current scenario by road improvements and therefore, expand the square footage. He said that he did not read it that way. He said that he would read it that there is a traffic issue that you have to solve but also there is a market study issue and we are saying that the market study, at this point, is limited to 89,000 square feet under scenario 1 with an asterisk and there are zoning constraints. He said that he is perfectly fine with that statement that it can't exceed existing network unless improvements are made. He said that we have the market study to protect us in terms of square footage growth. Chair Davis stated that he is reading it that way on transportation but not reading it that way on land use where it says that they can't exceed what the market study says we need. He said that it just says that it should fill it and it doesn't say that it can't exceed it. Commissioner Anderson said that the way it is worded now gives it some constraint. He said we can't go out into left field doing something that we haven't established as a need in the market place. Chair Davis asked if we are picking winners here by saying that it can't be big enough to put somebody else out of business. He said that we shouldn't be picking winners but that the market should pick the MAif I "I Mr. Mowery stated that citizens should pick the winners. He said that the citizens can beat Wal- Mart because the citizens elect the city council, they represent us. He said that the citizens have to go to the council to talk to the leaders of our community. He said that this is all about quality of life in this city. He said that it isn't all about money and it isn't all about tax revenue. He said that the quality of life is going down with the traffic and congestion at that intersection. Approved Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2011 Page 13 Commissioner Robinson stated that the study was well done and that he liked a lot of the principles that are in there. He said that his problem is that there are 55 site specific principles and he is very uncomfortable with enacting or recommending 55 principles for a specific site. He said that if he was an individual investor who wanted to come in and open up a business at this site, he would have 55 additional principles which he would have to abide by, according to his interpretation. He said that if another investor wanted to open the same business down the road, he wouldn't have these 55 principles even though it's in the exact same district and zoning. He said that his position is let any future developer come in and play by the same rules as everybody else. He said to let the standards be universal and if our current zoning ordinance is ineffective, maybe we need to look at that entirely and not just these site specific principles. Commissioner Nelson asked if he was saying that our current comprehensive plan should be sufficient in guiding these kinds of things. Commissioner Robinson replied affirmatively. Commissioner Nelson stated that he understood what Commissioner Robinson is saying. He said that our comprehensive plan is something that we work on, on an annual basis. He said that one of the scenarios that he sees potentially happening is there is a strong movement to not do scenario 1 being voiced by the people. He said that Wal-Mart, who owns the land, could sit on that land for five or six years and not do anything with it and we have nothing there. He asked if these documents are meant to be a living document that is going to follow along when we may be picking these back up again in five years. He said that it is a great document for evaluating the situation today but isn't our comprehensive plan designed to deal with the longer-term, potential situation that could be happening. Planning Manager Thomson responded that she would agree that the comprehensive plan does address the longer term. She said that she would look at City Center, which is a confined part of the city and has more than 55 principles that everyone has to meet on every site within the City Center. She said that it came from the comprehensive plan and was put into the zoning ordinance as well. She said that it is not without precedent to have an area of the city that has some additional requirements. Commissioner Nelson asked if it would be safe to say that the $118,000 plus resources that have been spent on this market study won't have to be done again if this happens to not come up again for five years. Community Development Director Juetten responded that he can't guarantee that you don't have to do a market study again or that somebody else can't come in with a market study that may show different. He said that it allows us to look at it differently than if we didn't have one. Community Development Director Juetten stated that this is a little different site because it is a redevelopment site. He said that it does make sense to take a look at it and if nothing else, what we are doing is letting the property owner (or if they choose to sell it somebody else) understand what we are looking at for the property and understand that there are some concerns. He said that Commissioner Robinson's business example could come in right now and build on this site without any of these conditions because it's a C-2 use and it's allowed. He said that if you wanted to come in and propose to change zoning, these are things that we are going to ask for because we think it is an important site and there are some overriding things that we want to make sure you deal with. He said that they could build scenario 4 without adding a lot of the Approved Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2011 Page 14 amenities but if they want to do scenarios 1, 2 or 3, this gives us an opportunity to show them we are looking for something a little bit different. He said that as a C-2 zoning, this site serves and works exactly like any other C-2 site within the city. He said that the difference is that if you want to come in and change that, it tells you that we are looking at it differently and this is how you can accommodate what you want to do and get it on the site. Commissioner Nelson stated that the city is preparing itself to deal with what is coming down the road when the moratorium expires. Community Development Director Juetten said that at this point, he can't answer if Wal-Mart is submitting something or not. He said that they have respected the process and have been at the meetings. He said that they are waiting until the process is completed prior to deciding how and what they should include in the submittal, if they want to submit something. Commissioner Nelson stated that in this document, there is a letter from their consultant that disputes some of the guiding principles all ready. Community Development Director Juetten responded that is true. Commissioner Nelson stated that he does not have a problem with saying that the guiding principles are a good way to move forward on this. He said that there are just so many open- ended issues yet to be brought up, talked about and discovered. He said that it is good to have this framework in place so he does not have a problem in approving this as they are. Commissioner Anderson stated that these guiding principles, in a way, are a response to the people. He said that this city cannot zone to say a certain business can't come here. He said that typical retail, big box users want to do their own thing. He said that people rose up and the city said that we are going to adopt a moratorium and we are going to take a look at this. He said that we are going to say that it is a redevelopment and we want to see some nice things here. He said the Four Seasons is old and there are some things that he does not like about the design of that site. He said that we are trying to make it better and the guiding principles are trying to do that. He said that it is going to make it difficult for a huge, big box to come in here. He said that once the moratorium is lifted, we are going to deal with whatever we have to deal with. He said that at least we have a framework to work from. He said that he is in support of recommending these guiding principles to the City Council. Chair Davis said that the statement that the site access points should be limited to the current location is not a big thing where we have to make that a shell statement. He said that when they go to develop, they might find that is the best location but he does not feel that it has to be set in stone. He said that the use of the site should dictate where the access points are. Community Development Director Juetten responded that flexibility will allow them to come up with possible options but not just the site circulation is important. He said that there are other people that use those intersections and they have to be taken into consideration as well. Chair Davis said that he does not agree with the statement that outside storage and display of goods and/or merchandise shall not be allowed. He said that there all kinds of things that they put outside of a store. He said that we have zoning rules in place now for outside storage and Approved Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2011 Page 15 displays that are sufficient for the property. He said that we would not want to put even more constraints in here. He said that this seems to be what the city would like to see. He said that the idea is to lay down a marker and say that if you want to develop this property, here is what we would like to see in your plan. He said that this is a good list and if you can develop something that meets it, he thinks it would be a good project for the city and the property will look well and hopefully, it will be successful. He said that we should pass this on. MOTION by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve the guiding principles and to forward all comments received on the Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Study to the City Council. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. B. CANCEL OCTOBER 19, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Planning Manager Thomson stated that there are no items for the October 19, 2011 agenda. MOTION to approve cancellation of the October 19, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Chair Davis, with no objection to adjourn the meeting at 9:02 p.m.