Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 06-09-1999Draft Minutes City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meeting June 9, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Mike Stulberg, Commissioners Allen Ribbe, Bob Stein, John Stoebner, and Sarah Reinhardt MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Bob Sipkins and Roger Berkowitz STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Anne Hurlburt, Planning Supervisor Barbara Senness, Planner John Rask, City Engineer Dan Faulkner and Clerical Supervisor Denise Hutt 4 Approval of Minutes MOTION by Commissioner Ribbe, seconded by Commissioner Stoebner to approve the May 26, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes. Vote. 4 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. (Chairman Stulberg abstained.) 5 Consent Agenda 6 Public Hearing A MOEN LEUER CONSTRUCTION CO. (98201) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Moen Leuer Construction Co. for 1) a rezoning from FRD (Future Restricted Development) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), 2) a PUD General Plan for four buildings totaling 383,964 square feet, and 3) a preliminary plat to allow the creation of 4 lots located north of Medina Road, south of Highway 55, and west of the existing Plymouth Ponds Development. Planner Rask gave an overview of the June 3, 1999 staff report. Commissioner Stoebner asked if staff considered requiring a higher berm along Building 5 for screening. Planner Rask replied that they are at the maximum of a 3:1 berm on the side slope now. Commissioner Reinhardt stated that the traffic study indicated that there would be less than 10,000 trips, but the report referred to 7,000 to 7,500 trips. Planner Rask responded that the difference is based on different reference years. Commissioner Stein asked if the possibility of flipping the proposed site around was considered. Planner Rask replied affirmatively. He stated that if the site is flipped around, then you expose the back side of the buildings to residents that will live in the Draft Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1999 Page #84 Cornerstone Commons development, and there isn't any opportunity to provide screening for them. He stated that the site would also face Highway 55. Commissioner Stein asked what criteria is used to determine if the landscaping is providing adequate screening. Planner Rask stated that staff would inspect the site to ensure the landscaping is adequate. Director Hurlburt stated that the ordinance criteria requires an "opaque screen" which is measurable, and if is isn't adequate, then a fence would be required. Planner Rask commented that if the screening is not adequate, then a fence would be required right away. Commissioner Stein asked if staff would be checking the screening as soon as Building #5 is completed. Director Hurlburt replied that the screening is required to be completed with Phase I, no matter which building is built first. Commissioner Stein asked if access to the loading docks could be restricted completely on Sundays. Planner Rask explained that restrictions have varied depending upon the project and the proximity of residential homes to the industrial site. He stated that a recommendation should be based on what is reasonable in light of what the applicant is asking for. Chairman Stulberg commented that with a PUD, the number of days could be limited. Director Hurlburt stated that there is a requirement that states you must be reasonable. She said that the City's authority is not unlimited, and that you have to have a good solid reason for restrictions. Commissioner Ribbe questioned if the bottom picture on the computer image has allowed for the growth of the trees. Planner Rask stated that the pictures depicts the stage of planting - 6 -foot high trees. Commissioner Stoebner asked if the building depicted on the computer image is based on staff's recommendation of eliminating 80 feet from Building #5. Planner Rask stated that the image is based on the applicant's proposal. Planner Rask indicated on the computer image what portion of Building #5 that staff is recommending be eliminated. Planner Rask presented a cross-section from the closest residential lot, indicating that the residential area would only see the tops of the proposed buildings, not the loading docks. Commissioner Reinhardt asked what would constitute an actual noise ordinance violation. Planner Rask replied that an officer on the scene witnessing the actual noise exceeding the ordinance. Planner Rask stated that the officer will typically ask the person to alleviate the problem before a citation is issued. Commissioner Reinhardt asked if there is restrictions of hours on Plymouth Ponds I. Planner Rask replied negatively. Draft Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1999 Page #85 Commissioner Reinhardt asked if the enforcement of the noise ordinance is up to the police officer responding to the call. Planner Rask replied affirmatively. Director Hurlburt stated that the City recently updated the noise ordinance and enforcement procedures. Commissioner Stein asked for an explanation for the condition allowing storage of truck trailers since that was prohibited in Plymouth Ponds I. Planner Rask stated that storage of truck trailers is an allowed use with a conditional use permit. He stated that as part of the requested PUD, the applicant has asked to be able to store truck trailers for over 96 - hours in the area between Buildings 7 and 8, if needed. He said that the applicant sees this as opportunity to take care of any tenant problems with storage of trucks for both developments. Commissioner Reinhardt asked what the maximum height is for lighting. Planner Rask replied that there isn't any maximum, but rather it is regulated by light levels and that the lights can't produce glare. Chairman Stulberg introduced Debbie Brodsho, landscape architect for the applicant. Ms. Brodsho stated that the proposal complies with all the zoning ordinance standards. Ms. Brodsho stated that the existing trees consists mainly of Box Elder, Elm and a few Oak trees. They originally wanted to try to save the existing trees as they would be taller than the proposed buildings and would shade out the good stock of evergreen trees that would be planted. Ms. Brodsho stated that the applicants have met with the neighbors regarding the proposed landscaping. She said that they have tried to address the neighbors' concerns relating to screening Building #5 by adding a serrated edge to the building which allows better maneuvering for the trucks. She stated that they checked the MPCA on the noise generated by trucks, and that they do comply with their standards. Ms. Brodsho said that they have proposed to lower Building #5 and drop the grades of the loading dock area. Ms. Brodsho commented that the computer images are an accurate depiction of the screening. She said that the evergreens mixed in with deciduous trees will provide year- round screening. Ms. Brodsho stated that other landscaping will provide screening from different vantage points on Medina Road. Ms. Brodsho stated that they don't object to the elimination of parking along Building 5 as proposed by staff She stated that they have moved the buildings all over the site with numerous plans, and they believe that the best plan is being proposed. Ms. Brodsho commented that the PUD is not a detriment for the neighbors. She said that under the I-1 zoning, they could have proposed two large buildings with more surface coverage. She stated that the reason they applied for the PUD is because two buildings don't have street frontages. She said that they are not intensifying the use with a PUD, but rather is the Draft Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1999 Page #86 building coverage is less and there is more parking available. Ms. Brodsho stated that the neighbors directly across Medina Road from Building #5 will be impacted the most, and therefore the highest concentration of landscaping and screening is being proposed in this area. Ms. Brodsho stated that they disagree with staff's recommendation of reducing the size of Building #5 by removing 80 feet from the west side of the building. She said that by reducing the building size, it reduced the income potential by $600,000 to $800,000. She said that the reduction is comparable to a small strip center. She said that they feel that they have addressed the screening issues without having to remove any portion of the building. She stated that the property is industrial and they have exceeded the required setbacks, and have gone overboard in satisfying all issues. Ms. Brodsho stated that some of staff's conditions are financially overboard. She said that limiting the hours of operation would be too restrictive. She stated that the wetland mitigation has been resolved and they are in compliance. Commissioner Reinhardt asked what the applicant's feelings are about staff's recommendation to reduce the number of loading docks by eliminating the first three bays on the west side of Building #5. Ms. Brodsho replied that they object to the removal of the loading docks and the reduction of 80 feet from Building #5. She stated that they accept the recommendation to remove the parking from the main drive aisle to the west of Building #5 and to the screening and landscaping for the areas south of Building #5 in the first phase of development. Director Hurlburt asked if the applicant objects to the Condition #19 requiring the installation of a six-foot high wood fence on top of the retaining wall if the landscaping does not provide the necessary screening. Ms. Brodsho replied that they would prefer to add more trees to the screening rather than a fence. She stated that a fence is hard to maintain and trees would look better. Commissioner Reinhardt asked the applicant what their options are if the Commission recommended something different than what is being proposed. Mr. Leuer stated that they hope the proposal would be approved as they have requested. He stated that if they do not receive approval for their project as presented it would create a financial hardship. He said that they have done all they can do to mitigate concerns that have been brought up by staff and residents, but they need the entire square footage in order to survive financially. Chairman Stulberg continued the public hearing. Chairman Stulberg introduced Tom Fleming of 3340 Olive Lane North. Mr. Fleming commented that staff's recommendation for the proposal looks reasonable. He said that he would support a compromise for Building #5. Draft Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1999 Page #87 Chairman Stulberg introduced Harry Lindberg of 3435 Holly Lane North. Mr. Lindberg commented that he had a concern with the direction Building #5 faces, but it was covered in staff's presentation. Mr. Lindberg stated that he was concerned with traffic safety at the intersections of County Road 24 and Medina Road and County Road 101 and Medina Road. He said that there are already traffic problems at those intersections and asked what the expectations are for the future. Chairman Stulberg introduced Laurie Jones of 3430 Jewel Lane. Ms. Jones stated that she still questions the need for the rezoning to PUD. She commented that the developer will benefit from the PUD. Ms. Jones stated that if the developer were to comply with I- 1 zoning, they would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for setbacks. Ms. Jones stated that the Commission should look over the PUD attributes before they vote because they are subjective and can be interpreted in different ways. Ms. Jones said that the proposal does not comply with any of the attributes. Ms. Jones stated that the site will have 80 percent coverage by building, parking stalls and trucks. She said that the site is 27 acres, but can't store the water runoff or limit the runoff She commented that they can only accommodate the runoff by putting in a NURP pond on the property to the west that they will be purchasing. Ms. Jones stated that the intensity of the development shows that we are enabling them by letting them request a PUD. Ms. Jones stated that the City would have better enforcement opportunities with an I-1 zoning versus the PUD. She referred to the trash enclosures on Plymouth Ponds I as an example of the enforcement issue. Chairman Stulberg introduced Dan McCarthy of 3455 Holly Lane North. Mr. McCarthy stated that he represents the Seven Ponds Homeowners Association, and that they are not in support of the proposed PUD. He stated that they are not opposed because of fear or subjective worry, as they have lived with the first four buildings for the last five years. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Plymouth Ponds I development has not been a compatible development to their neighborhood. Mr. McCarthy stated that preliminary approvals on Buildings 1 and 2 resulted in a moratorium. He said that it was determined that the zoning ordinance was not adequate for buffering industrial developments from residential areas. Mr. McCarthy said that there is documentation of letters to the developer on file pertaining to complaints and compliance issues. Mr. McCarthy made reference to a meeting held in December, 1998 between the developer and the residents citing that Director Hurlburt stated that the City has a moral commitment to the residents. Mr. McCarthy said that any condition that has been placed on the developer for Plymouth Ponds I has been up to the residents to remind the City. He stated that there have been multiple instances of problems with the existing development. Mr. McCarthy stated that a PUD is not appropriate. He said that someone should draft a blueprint of what it would look like under an I-1 zoning for the residents to evaluate. Mr. McCarthy stated that the proposed PUD is not in harmony with the neighborhood and that the efforts that have been made by the developer are not adequate to address the concerns. He stated that the applicants have made no substantive changes that the Draft Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1999 Page #88 residents sought such as moving Building #5 around or changing the circulation plan so that there wouldn't be traffic on Holly Lane. Mr. McCarthy stated that the projected increase in traffic is almost three time more than what they have currently, which will directly impact the neighborhood. Chairman Stulberg introduced Carolyn Narveson of 17780 32nd Place North. Ms. Narveson stated that her concern is the increase in traffic. She said that there is no way for pedestrians to cross County Road 24 by the shopping center. She said that she can't think of any City that has an industrial park and a grocery store that use the same road. Chairman Stulberg introduced a letter dated June 9, 1999 from Deb Caris of 3415 Jewel Lane North. Chairman Stulberg closed the public hearing. In response to questions/issues raised pertaining to the County Road 24 and Medina Road intersection, City Engineer Faulkner stated that the City has had Hennepin County take a look at the intersection for the last two years. He said that when they did counts last August, the intersection was close to meeting the warrants for a four-way stop or traffic light. He said that Hennepin County will take another look at the intersection again this fall. He stated that even though an intersection meets the traffic warrants, the County does not necessarily install a stop sign or traffic light right away. City Engineer Faulkner stated that the City will continue to strongly press the County for a traffic light for County Road 101 and Medina Road to be placed as a project in the year 2000. Director Hurlburt explained that every year the list of traffic lights needed in the County are prioritized. City Engineer Faulkner stated that the City will have the money available for their portion of the traffic light. Commissioner Reinhardt asked if there is a long lag time from when an intersection meets warrants to when a light is put in. City Engineer Faulkner stated that once an intersection meets warrants, it is placed on the County list and they develop a priority factor. He stated that there are a lot of locations in Hennepin County that may come before this intersection. City Engineer Faulkner stated that the traffic light could possibly take place within the next five years. He said that there is a pedestrian crosswalk, and soon there should be some signage at that intersection for helping pedestrians. In response to questions/issues pertaining to a PUD versus an I-1 zoning, Planner Rask stated that a PUD would allow a lot without a frontage, reduced setbacks, and shared and reduced parking. He said that a PUD gives the City the ability to attach conditions such as restricting loading dock hours and adding site modifications. Director Hurlburt stated that the City encourages shared parking which reduces the amount of parking spaces needed on a site. She stated that the setback issue is the main benefit for the developer. Draft Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1999 Page #89 Planner Rask stated that the proposal could be handled with a conventional I-1 zoning without variances. He said that the proposal would require an Interim Use Permit for the setbacks, but the City's discretion would be less. City Engineer Faulkner stated that the City has a Transportation Plan which is part of the Comprehensive Plan, and Medina Road is designated a major collector street. He said that Medina Road is constructed to handle industrial uses and the area was laid out for these traffic projections to the Year 2020. Director Hurlburt commented that the Comprehensive Plan is updated every 10 years, which the City is in the process of doing now. She said that it isn't typical to put in traffic signals until they are needed. Ms. Brodsho stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicated that the area is industrial which does increase traffic, but Medina Road was designed to handle the traffic. She stated that the green areas for the development are adjacent to the residential area. Ms. Brodsho stated that the traffic will be directed in through their existing development on Holly Lane. She said that if there were another developer for the site, that wouldn't be the case. Ms. Brodsho stated that developers don't develop land for charities — they develop land to make a living. Mr. Moen stated that they have worked on this proposal for a long time, and he believes that they have presented the best plan. He stated that he doesn't see that anything should be taken away from the proposal, as they comply with the ordinances and codes. Commissioner Stoebner asked about the interior setback lines under an I-1 zoning proposal. Planner Rask replied that through the zoning ordinance you can request an interim use permit for shared parking and reduced setbacks, and a conditional use permit for a lot without frontage. He said that he has seen a few of those requests, but it would be difficult for the staff and the applicant to go through and to enforce. He said that the PUD allows the applicant to establish a plan based on the criteria set forth in the zoning ordinance and the City can regulate it more easily. Commissioner Reinhardt asked if there is better enforcement with an I-1 zoning versus a PUD. Planner Rask replied that under the PUD the City has greater control for enforcement, especially since the zoning ordinance was changed in 1996. Planner Rask stated that the City has been involved in enforcement actions. He said that Moen Leuer has not violated the ordinance, but rather their tenants. He said that the City entered into an agreement with Moen Leuer and that they are submitting bi-weekly reports for compliance issues. He said that since that process began, the City has not received any complaints. Planner Rask stated that City staff periodically checks the site for compliance. Commissioner Stein asked if there would be more square footage allowed under an I-1 zoning. Planner Rask replied that there would be less square footage with the PUD. Draft Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1999 Page #90 Commissioner Stein asked why staff is recommending reducing Building #5 by 80 feet. Planner Rask replied that by reducing the size of the building it would provide higher quality site design. He stated that staff recommended removal of the parking area and the first three bay areas to make the loading dock area less intense. Commissioner Reinhardt asked if the 80 feet were removed from the building, if the applicant could remove the landscaping, since it wouldn't be a loading dock area. Planner Rask replied that they could conceivably do that, but staff would still want them to keep the screening as recommended by staff Commissioner Stoebner asked if 80 feet is the magic number, or if there is a smaller number that works. Planner Rask stated that the bays are 40 feet. He said that 80 feet allowed the parking to be rearranged. He said that if the building were reduced by one bay, you would still get some of the same benefits. Mr. Leuer the stated that the proposed buildings are symmetrical with the buildings in Plymouth Ponds I. He said that the project wouldn't be economically viable if they have to reduce the size of the building, as they have lenders and tenants to deal with and need those docks. Mr. Moen stated that the pictures and cross elevations indicate that you can't see the buildings or the docks from the residential area; therefore, he doesn't see the need to remove any portion of the building which would make it less economically viable. He said that he would need some proof or evidence as to why it should be done. Mr. Moen said that it is not going to benefit the City to cut off a portion of the building. He said that he can't endure a hardship like that without a reason why, when the proposal complies with the zoning ordinance. Director Hurlburt stated that to some degree the recommendation to reduce the size of Building #5 and the number of loading docks is subjective and a judgment call on staff s part. She said that no matter how well you screen the project, it is still the back of the building which is adjacent to a residential area. She said that staffs recommendation was directed at achieving a higher level of design. MOTION by Commissioner Ribbe, seconded by Commissioner Reinhardt recommending approval of an Ordinance amending Chapter 21 of the City Code to classify certain lands located north of Medina Road, west of County Road 24, and south of Highway 55 as PUD (Planned Unit Development) and Findings of Fact for Rezoning for Moen Leuer Construction for property located north of Medina Road, west of County Road 24, and south of Highway 55. MOTION to Amend by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Ribbe to remove Subd. 6(a) from the Ordinance. Draft Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1999 Page #91 Commissioner Reinhardt stated that she wouldn't support the motion, as she lives behind Target Greatland and knows what kind of noise is made from loading dock areas. She stated that it seems reasonable to limit the hours. Chairman Stulberg stated that he doesn't believe it is appropriate to restrict movement times in an industrial area. Roll Call Vote. 2 Ayes. MOTION to Amend failed on a 2- 3 Vote. (Commissioners Reinhardt, Stein and Stoebner voted Nay.) Roll Call Vote on Main MOTION. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. MOTION by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Reinhardt recommending approval of a Planned Unit Development General Plan and Preliminary Plat for Moen Leuer Construction for property located north of Medina Road, south of Highway 55 and west of County Road 24. MOTION to Amend by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Ribbe to remove Condition # 15. Commissioner Ribbe stated that this has been a troubling development and that the basic conflict was created by decisions made in 1992, 1993, and 1994 by making this an industrial area. He stated that the proposal complies with the ordinance and the removal of the 80 feet of the building won't alleviate any of the neighbor's concerns. Commissioner Reinhardt concurred with Commissioner Ribbe. She said that she would like to live next to this proposed development versus what she sees everyday in her neighborhood. She said that the proposal exceeds a lot of the standards that we have and 80 feet won't make that much of a difference. Commissioner Stein stated that he wouldn't support the amendment, as it is still the back of a building, and residents would probably still see some of the loading docks. He said that anything that can be done to help the situation should be done. Commissioner Stoebner concurred with Commissioner Stein. He stated that he understood the economic concern of the applicant, but the loading docks are facing the neighborhood. Chairman Stulberg concurred with Commissioners Reinhardt and Ribbe. He stated that the site was contemplated to be industrial 15 years ago, prior to the construction of the residential developments. He stated that Medina Road is designed to support industrial traffic. Chairman Stulberg stated that the proposal is within what was contemplated for the area. Draft Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1999 Page #92 Roll Call Vote on MOTION to Amend. 3 Ayes. MOTION to Amend approved on a 3-2 Vote. (Commissioners Stein and Stoebner voted Nay.) MOTION To Amend by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Ribbe to remove Condition #16. Commissioner Stein stated that he wouldn't support the motion since placing loading docks facing residents wasn't contemplated. He said that eliminating docks and putting a store front on that portion would enhance the building. Commissioner Stoebner concurred with Commissioner Stein. Roll Call Vote on MOTION to Amend. 3 Ayes. MOTION to Amend was approved on a 3-2 Vote. (Commissioners Stein and Stoebner voted Nay.) MOTION to Amend by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Ribbe to remove Condition #20a. Chairman Stulberg stated that it isn't appropriate to restrict the hours of operation in an industrial development. Roll Call Vote on MOTION to Amend. 2 Ayes MOTION to Amend failed on a 2-3 Vote. (Commissioners Stein, Stoebner and Reinhardt voted Nay.) Roll Call Vote on Main MOTION. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. 7 Other Business Director Hurlburt reminded the Commissioners of the open house meetings pertaining to the proposed land use amendments for the focus areas. Commissioner Ribbe stated he wouldn't be able to attend the June 23, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Stoebner, seconded by Commissioner Reinhardt to adjourn. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.