Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 11-03-2010Approved Minutes City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meeting November 3, 2010 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair James Davis, Commissioners Dick Kobussen, Nathan Robinson, Scott Nelson, Erik Aamoth and Marc Anderson. MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Gordon Petrash STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Senness, Senior Planner Shawn Drill, Public Works Director Doran Cote and Office Support Specialist Laurie Lokken 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC FORUM 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Commissioner Kobussen, seconded by Commissioner Robinson, to approve the November 3, 2010 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 6, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve the October 6, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CITY OF PLYMOUTH (2010082) Chair Davis introduced the request by the City of Plymouth to adopt the 2011-2015 Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Public Works Director Cote gave an overview of the staff report. He summarized the projects and funding by department. Chair Davis asked if the funding for the fire engine pumper trucks under Central Equipment are being deferred to the 2011 budget or from 2011 to a later date. Public Works Director Cote confirmed that they are being deferred to 2011. Approved Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2010 Page 2 Commissioner Anderson asked what the improvements are to be done in the city council chambers upgrade under Facilities Management. Public Works Director Cote responded that the televising and transmitting of the signal is outdated technology. He said that the city has funds set aside for the updating of that technology. Commissioner Nelson asked if this was identified as something we need to do right away or if the funds became available. Public Works Director Cote replied that the funds had been set aside for some time through a grant with Northwest Cable. He said that the project itself had never been included in the Capital Improvement Program before as it had been overlooked. Chair Davis asked what the replacement NICE DVR under Information Technology is. Public Works Director Cote responded that is the technology for our security system (cameras and locking system) here at city hall. Chair Davis said that Parks and Recreation has some significant changes to the dog park already and asked what they are planning. Public Works Director Cote replied that the proposed improvements include paving the parking lot, adding additional stalls, adding a water fountain and a well to serve that water fountain. He said that the project could include some improvements out on County Road 47 for accessibility and some minor improvements around the parking lot, making it more accessible with sidewalks, etc. Commissioner Nelson asked why under Sanitary Sewer the cost to abandon the Conor Meadows Lift Station is $200,000. Public Works Director Cote responded that it is more than just removing the controller cabinet. He said that they have to connect the sewer from the south side of Schmidt Lake Road to the gravity system on the north side of Schmidt Lake Road. He said that rather than shut down Schmidt Lake Road and open cut, they will have to directional drill and do some improvements to connect the gravity system upstream to the gravity system downstream. Chair Davis asked if the federal funding under Streets for 2011 are committed, anticipated or hoped for. Public Works Director Cote responded that the federal funding is for two different projects. He said that one is for the Wayzata School District Safe Routes To School grant and that funding is committed. He said that the other project is for the rail safety improvement along Nathan Lane and that funding is also committed. Chair Davis asked if those funds are specified for those projects. Public Works Director Cote answered affirmatively and said that the Wayzata School District Safe Routes To School project is designed to promote biking and walking to school. He said that the funding is for infrastructure improvements at Birchview Elementary, Sunset Hill Elementary and Wayzata East Middle School. He added that there is no local match on those projects except in-kind services. Chair Davis asked about the $40,000 donation listed in 2012. Public Works Director Cote said that those are in-kind services. Commissioner Kobussen asked if the projects for 2014 and 2015 are realistic numbers or if that will be leveled off and these are just placeholders for the time being. Public Works Director Approved Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2010 Page 3 Cote replied that the significant increase in funding is reflective of a couple of different things. He said that one is related to the street maintenance and rehabilitation program and that we have not adjusted 2012 to 2015 to reflect that new program. He said that the next time you see the numbers for the street reconstruction projects, those numbers will go down. He said the other one is the inclusion of some large projects in anticipation of some federal funding. He said that the numbers will be leveled off in the out years. Commissioner Anderson said that County Road 101 is open now and assuming that the weather cooperates and they get the bituminous trails down, it looks like they are pretty much wrapped up. He asked how we are spending $800,000 in 2011. Public Works Director Cote responded that normally Hennepin County bills us for 95% of the project costs when they award a contract but we were able to negotiate with them to get billed for half of it at the beginning of the project and half of it at the end. He said that we have the funding programmed, anticipating that it will be done next year. Commissioner Kobussen asked what the Station 169 Transit Facility under Transit. Public Works Director Cote said that in the Metropolitan Council capital improvement program, they have a placeholder for a future transit facility somewhere along Highway 169. Commissioner Robinson asked why under Water is painting water towers so expensive. Public Works Director Cote replied that it is a very rare service so there are not a lot of local contractors that bid on these types of projects. He said that the costs depend on the type of tower and include sandblasting, priming and painting. He said that when contractors do this type of work, they have to shroud the entire facility so it gets quite expensive. He said that all of the water towers were painted in the 1980's, with the last one painted in 1986 or 1987. Commissioner Nelson said that some of the funding sources are bonds and asked if all the bonds are sold. Public Works Director Cote responded that one of the projects that would be proposed for funding through bonding is an out year project to construct a fourth fire station. He said those bonds would be sold at the time. He said that the other ones are the northwest greenway land acquisition and the city typically bonds as the funds are needed. He said that there would be more bonding coming up. Commissioner Aamoth asked how the city council is involved in determining the projects. Public Works Director Cote replied that the council gets this every year so they would have seen 2011 and beyond at budget time last year. He said that the first draft was available in August 2010 and they set study sessions to discuss it. 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, recommending that the 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) go to City Council with approval by the Planning Commission. Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. Approved Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2010 Page 4 B. CITY OF PLYMOUTH (2010081) Chair Davis introduced the request by the City of Plymouth for city code amendments relating to development fees. Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Robinson asked how the Zoning Administrator would determine what additional funds would be required to be deposited in the cash escrow account when the account is depleted to less than 10% of the original amount. Senior Planner Drill responded that the additional amount would depend on where the application is in the process. He added that whatever funds are not used would be returned to the developer. Commissioner Kobussen asked if work would stop on the project once the escrow account funds reach zero. Senior Planner Drill noted that if the escrow account gets down to 10%, staff would ask for additional funds. He said that this shouldn't be a problem as developers want project approval. He said that if they choose not to provide additional needed funds, they could withdraw their application. Commissioner Anderson asked what services would be charged against the cash escrow account. Senior Planner Drill replied that it would include services related to the review including staff time for writing planning reports. Planning Manager Senness added that other cities also require an escrow for staff time. Commissioner Anderson said this hearing was published in the official newspaper and asked if any developers had been contacted about the proposed increases. Senior Planner Drill said developers were not contacted and noted that for this type of code amendment, the city generally does not send out any separate notices. He said that some developers are aware of the proposed change and hearing. Planning Manager Senness added that due to the fact that there are a number of other communities within the general area that have a similar fee schedule, this wouldn't be different from what developers have already experienced in other places. She said that if we would have been one of the first communities requiring an escrow, we would have done more to reach out. Chair Davis asked if there is a draw schedule for staff time. Senior Planner Drill replied that staff would enter time expended for each project on their timesheets so we'd know how much time is being charged to each project during a specific pay period. He said the details of when the city would decrease the escrow have not yet been determined. Chair Davis asked if there had been any studies done. Senior Planner Drill responded that staff had run through a series of analyses with all the application types to try to gauge costs. He said it is based on estimates and every situation is going to be different. He said staff is confident that they are starting at a good point and the numbers can always be adjusted in the future as needed. Approved Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2010 Page 5 Chair Davis asked if we are anticipating getting the whole escrow or a percentage. Senior Planner Drill replied that we would collect the entire escrow and then charge against it. He said that any remaining funds at the end would be returned to the developer. Planning Manager Senness added that at present time, staff time is not being covered for many of the development applications. Chair Davis said that from a developer's standpoint, it looks like a huge increase. Senior Planner Drill said that, under the change, developers would pay the actual costs for reviewing and processing their application. Commissioner Nelson said that it is almost like if you hire an attorney and pay them a retainer. He said that the concern is if there is a schedule of costs for the services that staff will be providing and drawing down from the escrow. Planning Manager Senness responded that a detailed breakdown of the time spent, with the hourly rate for each staff person, would be available for any developer. Chair Davis said that his concern is that enough due diligence was done in calculating the number so that it is a reasonable expectation of what this is going to cost under average circumstances. Planning Manager Senness said that the numbers are based upon the amount of effort that is required for a typical review. Commissioner Aamoth asked if there are any developers who may not have as much cash on hand as others, so that this would be a burden for them. Senior Planner Drill responded that most of these development types would affect larger, new developments. He said that there would not be cash escrows required for variances or conditional use permits so homeowners would not be affected by these changes. He said the changes are mainly for the development community and that he did not believe that there would be a problem with the proposed fee arrangement. He said that of the cities surveyed, their fees and escrows are in the same ballpark or maybe a bit higher. Chair Davis opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the item. Commissioner Anderson said that he is concerned any time he sees fee increases. He said that he has noticed over the last decade that fees associated with projects have increased dramatically. He said that staff time is a new category to be charging for and that personally, he is not in favor of that. Commissioner Anderson said that his other concern is that there was only a legal notice in the newspaper and he feels that is not sufficient notification. He said that we are going to be increasing fees drastically and developers were not contacted directly for some discussion on this; therefore, he would not be able to support the amendment. Commissioner Nelson said that overall, he does not have a problem with the fees for the city to recover costs associated with development. He said that his only concern is that it is very Approved Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2010 Page 6 important that before we go asking for additional funds to cover services or work being done by staff, that there is a set schedule/cost structure of what the developer is paying for. He said that he does not have a problem approving this, and asked if the schedule should be added to the amendment. Planning Manager Senness responded that nothing would need to be added as the structure is in place and it's what everyone is paid. She said that we felt that we didn't need to be explicit because that information will be tracked here and it is public information that would be available to anyone who wanted to come in and see it. Planning Manager Senness stated that the developer could get a breakdown of the estimated costs for escrow ahead of time. Commissioner Aamoth said that he would be more supportive of collecting a larger amount in the beginning, as it would be more cumbersome to be in a situation where they would have to come back with additional funds. He said it would be something the developer could budget for and that they may be willing to pay a higher amount knowing that they will get the money back as a way to cushion just in case something would happen. Planning Manager Senness responded that one of the things we are trying to do is balance the outlay that needs to be made upfront. She said that for everyone's comfort, we would want to have some kind of opportunity to be able to collect additional funds if needed. She added that whenever we do something new, we do monitor it closely to determine whether adjustments need to be made. Chair Davis said that he was uncomfortable that no one from the public is at the meeting. He said that some of these increases are significant. Planning Manager Senness stated that staff will be very careful about how time is charged. She said that we will be extremely cautious, as staff has not operated under a system like this in the past and we will have to change how we operate. Commissioner Kobussen asked if developers would be told what escrows would be needed when they come in with a project. Planning Manager Senness responded that staff would tell them that they would need to escrow for the application with the highest dollar amount. She said that we ask developers to combine all development items together because it is more efficient, as we can then review all of those things at the same time. Commissioner Aamoth asked what timeline the council has requested on this. Planning Manager Senness replied that the council is looking to have this in place by the beginning of the year. Commissioner Kobussen said that developers have been getting off quite inexpensively with their developments. He said that the city has been taking up the costs and now developers are going to have to start paying their fair share. He said that when you start looking at the costs of some of these developments, adding these fees to the development costs is insignificant. He said that they would barely notice it when looking at the costs for putting in roads, sewer and water, etc. Commissioner Nelson added that this fee arrangement would also help because a number of developments have been reviewed and approved but not built. He said that staff has spent a lot of time working on these, so those are costs the city has incurred that we should be able to recover. Approved Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2010 Page 7 MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to approve the request by the City of Plymouth for city code amendment relating to development fees. Commissioner Robinson said that he would make the suggestion that the city look into developing and understanding productivity utilization, especially when charging developers for time. He said then next year when a developer asks, we could give them a fairly accurate measurement of anticipated costs. He said that he would be voting in support of the amendment. Commissioner Aamoth said that he is going to oppose this recommendation. He said that he is not sure that this is the right process to use. He said that he agrees that we should have a meeting with developers and possibly postpone this amendment. Roll Call Vote. 4 Ayes (Nay votes from Commissioners Aamoth and Anderson). MOTION approved. 7. NEW BUSINESS Chair Davis introduced the request to cancel the November 17, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as there have been no applications received. MOTION by Chair Davis to cancel the November 17, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Chair Davis, without objection, to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m.