Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 01-17-20241 Approved Minutes January 17, 2024 Approved Minutes Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 2024 Chair Boo called a Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on January 18, 2024. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Michael Boo, Julie Olson, Jennifer Jerulle, and Josh Fowler COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bill Wixon, Marc Anderson, and Neha Markanda STAFF PRESENT: Planning and Development Manager Chloe McGuire, Community and Economic Development Director Grant Fernelius, Senior Planner Kip Berglund, Senior Planner Lori Sommers, and Engineering Services Manager Chris McKenzie OTHERS PRESENT: City Council Liaison Julie Pointner Chair Boo led the Pledge of Allegiance. Call to Order Open Forum Joel Spoonheim, 11710 28th Avenue N, commented that he serves on the housing and redevelopment authority (HRA). He stated that the HRA has spent over two years reviewing the housing needs of the community and developed a plan which they continue to work on. He stated that at the last meeting it became clear that the HRA and planning commission need to work together. He commented that it has become clear that the city lacks housing for fixed income seniors, young adults, and for the local workforce. He stated that while the HRA can act on some things, ordinances would be needed that would fall into the jurisdiction of the commission. He stated that other cities have clear rules for developers and findings related to affordable housing, which Plymouth lacks and therefore causes confusion for developers. He looked forward to working with the planning commission and council to accomplish the housing goals and related policies and ordinances. Chair Boo thanked Mr. Spoonheim for the information and looked forward to working together on this topic. Approval of Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Olson, and seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to approve the agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. 2 Approved Minutes January 17, 2024 Consent Agenda (4.1) Planning Commission minutes from meeting held on January 3, 2024. Motion was made by Commissioner Olson, and seconded by Commissioner Jerulle, to approve the consent agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Public Hearing (5.1) Land use guide plan amendments, PUD amendment, PUD general plan and preliminary plat north of Highway 55, south of 10th Avenue, east of South Shore Drive and west of Revere Lane (2023060) Senior Planner Sommers presented the staff report. Chair Boo referenced the variance requested related to screening which would apply to the east side of the retail building and asked for more details. Senior Planner Sommers replied that it would most likely be box trucks in that area, making deliveries and explained that trash is internal to the building and would not occur in that area. Chair Boo acknowledged that the development is being pushed towards Highway 55 and recognized the wetlands, which constrains the amount of developable land and room for landscaping. He asked where the additional monetary contribution in lieu of trees would go. Senior Planner Sommers commented that the additional funds collected would be allocated to the tree preservation fund and those funds are used for plantings within the park system. Chair Boo commented that it seems that the traffic study anticipates that most traffic would go north to 10th Avenue or use 6th Avenue to Revere Lane. He stated that it does not appear that it would be anticipated that much of the traffic would be anticipated to go north onto 8th Avenue. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie commented that the majority of the traffic will use Revere Lane to Highway 55, using 6th Avenue to access/leave the site, while others may choose to use 10th Avenue. He stated that the frontage road will be available but its connection to Highway 55 will be severed as part of the station 73 project, but drivers could travel west on the frontage road to 10th. He provided more details on the station 73 improvement project. Chair Boo referenced the areas ranked with E or F on the traffic study and asked for more details. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie commented that a few things contribute to those rankings, noting that this proposed development would be estimated to add a five second delay at those intersections which is within the nature of this area. He noted that those ratings are not uncommon for intersections in this area as priority is given to drivers on Highway 55. 3 Approved Minutes January 17, 2024 Commissioner Olson stated that during the last review of this parcel there was a lot of concern with pedestrian safety. She asked if Union Terrace Lane and the extension of 6th and 10th avenues would be designed to take the burden off that street. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie commented that there is a regional trail as well as sidewalks on 6th and 10th avenues to get pedestrians off the street. Commissioner Jerulle commented that the plan is much improved from the first review. She recognized that this land has environmental cleanup needs and asked if that would be addressed before residents move to the property. Senior Planner Sommers confirmed that the applicant would be required to follow MPCA rules for soil remediation. Commissioner Jerulle referenced the proposed height and asked for height comparisons of adjacent development. Senior Planner Sommers provided heights of nearby buildings which are similar or even taller than the proposed height in this development. Chair Boo introduced Cody Dietrich, representing the applicant, who provided details on the project timeline which began with concept meetings in July of 2022. He stated that the proposed density would match the intent for the comprehensive plan due to the proximity of the park and ride. He stated that they have gone through multiple iterations to ensure that the apartment would not shadow nearby residential and meet the other constraints of the site. He reviewed the details of the proposed site plan as currently presented. Chair Boo introduced Petro Megits, representing the applicant, who provided more information on the proposed architectural details of the plan noting that the overall intention is to have a campus feel with similar materials used throughout the site. Chair Boo echoed the input that this updated plan seems very responsive to the comments received in the previous review. He asked how visitors would access the door from the parking area. He referenced the proposed shared parking and asked if there would be concern with a potential parking shortage with restaurant and residential uses. Mr. Dietrich commented that the back parking area is for guests that are familiar with the site and there will be wayfinding signage. He stated that there would be a second entrance on the back with a telephone system that would allow residents to buzz in their guests. He stated that the residential building would be at a rate of 1.57 per unit, which is above the typical 1.5 per unit they would normally do to ensure they would meet the city requirements. He stated that they feel comfortable without the join facilities agreement, but wanted to meet the code. He stated that the potential retail is not included in the count as that would supply the retail parking demand in the future. Commissioner Olson asked if there is a proposed order for development phasing. 4 Approved Minutes January 17, 2024 Mr. Di etrich commented that in phase one everything, but the townhomes would be done, as they would want to activate the commercial right away. Commissioner Fowler referenced the additional retail space and asked where that would be on the current plans. Mr. Di etrich replied that is currently shown as parking, but noted those stalls are not included in the parking counts. Commissioner Fowler asked if there would be a concern with leasing retail in that space because it is further setback from 55. Mr. Di etrich commented that they have spoken with a few small retailers and noted that it would be more likely to be neighborhood serving, perhaps a smaller local coffee shop or deli. Commissioner Fowler asked if there is a landscaping plan. Mr. Di etrich commented that are placing trees wherever they can, but recognized that they could not fit 500 trees on this site with development, and shared the landscaping plans. Commissioner Fowler asked the topographical difference between the street and plaza. Mr. Dietrich replied that difference is six feet. Chair Boo opened the public hearing. Chair Boo introduced Clyde Steadman, 1180 Trenton Pond Circle, stated that some of his previous concerns have been addressed by the changes to the plan. He asked why the developer would need TIF financing and subsidized housing if this is an economically feasible project. He stated that there are already many apartments with subsidized housing in Plymouth, much of which is not being used. He believed the traffic study to be wishful thinking as he believes that most residents will use 10th to access Highway 55. He stated that the waiting time at the Highway 55 intersections is already over five minutes and those intersections become clogged. He asked how vehicles would get in and out with that congestion. He stated that an additional 330 units would place more burden on public safety, noting that the fire department is already short staffed. He commented that the response time to this site would be 12 minutes. He asked who would be responsible for the cost of the road construction that would be necessary. He commented that the mobile home park currently encroaches on this property and asked how that would be addressed as those homes have existed in that location for 25 years. He asked why there would be three separate properties, other than making it easy for the developer to sell each of the three properties separately. Chair Boo introduced Ruth DiMucci, 826 Trenton Lane N, who expressed concern with the increase in traffic. She noted a senior center and daycare and did not believe the traffic study took into account how that area would be impacted. She believed that area should be disconnected. She asked why the site is being labeled a campus as this is proposed to be a highly dense area that would impact the existing townhomes, mobile home park, and Trenton ponds. 5 Approved Minutes January 17, 2024 Chair Boo introduced Mark Peterson, 1052 Trenton Circle, who stated that this development seems very large. He stated that this proposal would have 100 more units on a slightly larger footprint than an existing apartment complex he used for comparison. He stated that the setback from Highway 55 is proposed to be 20 feet and was concerned with the visual impact of a six- story apartment complex. Chair Boo introduced Joe Benz, 834 Trenton Lane N, who stated that he is the president of the Bassett Creek townhome association. He referenced the 12 proposed townhomes and asked whether those would be part of an association, noting that an association of that size would have difficulty obtaining services for landscaping and snow removal. He referenced the transition from 8th Avenue to 6th Avenue, which is very narrow and would become unpassable with this level of traffic as people often park on the road. Chair Boo introduced Elaine Trombley, 1192 Trenton Circle North, who commented that there are a lot of people that walk in the area and asked how pedestrian traffic on 10th would be managed. Chair Boo introduced Alice Jevne, 844 Trenton Lane North, who asked if the connection to 10th would be a new road and whether there would be a stoplight to manage that traffic. Chair Boo closed the public hearing. Chair Boo commented that the commission does not discuss the use of TIF or subsidized housing, although there are some extraordinary conditions on this site that require the use of TIF and there is a need within the community for additional subsidized housing. He stated that those issues will be addressed by the city council. Engineering Services Manager McKenzie provided details on the newly proposed Union Terrace Lane, which would have a proposed trail that would connect to a proposed trail on the south side of 10th Avenue with an improved crossing of 10th Avenue. He reviewed more details on the pedestrian elements that would be part of the Station 73 project. He stated that there would not be a signal warranted for Union Terrace and 10th as traffic volumes would not be that high. He stated that both 10th Avenue and Revere are collector roads that are designed to handle high levels of traffic, as are South Shore Drive and 6th Avenue, therefore staff does not have concerns. He stated that the narrowness of 8th will help to keep people off that roadway and drive traffic instead to 6th Avenue to Revere. He stated that Union Terrace and 6th Avenue within the development would be the responsibility of the developer while the other discussed improvements would be part of the larger Station 73 project. He also provided details on planned city road improvements in the area. Senior Planner Sommers commented that both fire and police are part of the review meetings and therefore have reviewed the plans and provided comments. She confirmed that the issue mentioned with the mobile home encroachment on the right-of-way would not impact this development. Mr. Dietrich commented that the townhomes need to be separated in order to dedicate right-of- way. He stated that the retail is also separated in the case that the retailer would like to purchase the property. He noted that there would be a reciprocal operating agreement that identifies the 6 Approved Minutes January 17, 2024 maintenance and control of the properties. He stated that they are currently planning to rent the townhomes, which would have access to the apartment amenities but could be converted for sale in the future. He referenced the comparison project that was mentioned by a resident noting that is more of a micro-unit development whereas these would be larger apartments. He stated that while there has been a shift in some markets to have smaller units, he has focused on building greater places for people to enjoy their homes. He reviewed the proposed unit mix and estimated number of residents for this site. He estimated a distance of 45 to 60 feet from the building to the curb of Highway 55. Senior Planner Sommers commented that distance would be about 50 feet and noted that MnDOT will need to review the plans to ensure there are no drainage impacts along Highway 55. Chair Boo recognized that there is continued concern as to how this will interact with the neighboring residential properties. Commissioner Olson commented that it looks like there has been a lot of work to address previous comments and liked the concept of moving closer to Highway 55. She stated that the request does meet the zoning requirements with a few exceptions. She stated that the density would meet the requirements of the city and asked what would stop the commission from approving this request. Planning and Development Manager McGuire commented that the level of discretion is low because the requirements are met by the request. Senior Planner Sommers commented that a land use guide change is requested from commercial office and public/institutional to MXD. Chair Boo commented that this project is consistent with the project 73 plan for this area. He stated that it has been indicated that residential would be appropriate for this location as it is near a transportation hub and the developer has presented a plan that meets those wishes. He recognized that any higher density development would impact the neighbors but noted that the remaining uses are mostly commercial and therefore a good location for this type of development. Motion was made by Chair Boo, and seconded by Commissioner Olson, to recommend approval of the land use guide plan amendments, PUD amendment, PUD general plan, and preliminary plat, subject to the conditions within the draft resolution. Further discussion: Commissioner Fowler commented that this updated plan addresses the comments provided at the March review and reduces the impact to the neighbors. He stated that he has mixed feelings about the separated retail but believes that works better than the original concept. He recognized that there will be some traffic impacts, but this is a project that has been desired for this area. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. 7 Approved Minutes January 17, 2024 New Business (6.1) Request for a home occupation license to operate a basketball training business for the property located at 1315 Oakview Lane North (Daniel Makepeace – 2023091) Senior Planner Berglund presented the staff report. Chair Boo referenced the statement that there could be no more than ten clients, whereas the draft resolution states no more than ten one on one clients. He stated that he would want clarification that there would only be one on one sessions. Senior Planner Berglund commented that has been discussed with the applicant and he has agreed that these would be one on one sessions. He noted that language could be strengthened in the draft resolution if desired. Chair Boo asked if the applicant has agreed to a time no later than 9 p.m., even though the ordinance would allow up to 10 p.m. Senior Planner Berglund replied that the applicant’s narrative has stated that sessions would end by 9 p.m. although that would not be a condition. Chair Boo introduced Daniel Makepeace, applicant, who stated that he was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Jerulle asked if this is already an operation. Mr. Makepeace replied that it is. Commissioner Jerulle asked if the license is being requested as a result of a complaint. Mr. Makepeace replied that there was a complaint about on-street parking and on-street parking will no longer be allowed for his clients. Commissioner Jerulle asked if there would be changes to the schedule for business from what has been occurring. Mr. Makepeace replied this is the same schedule that he has had for clients. He stated that his hours vary and provided examples, noting 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekends and 7 a.m./p.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays. He stated that he also coaches at Providence Academy and would not anticipate using the sport court as much in the summer as he often travels with different sports programs and participates in offsite group programs. Commissioner Olson referenced the summary which estimates 10 to 15 one on one sessions per week, noting that is considerably less than what would be allowed. Mr. Makepeace commented that is average as weekends sometimes have more sessions and some weekdays have zero sessions. He stated that clients would park in the driveway moving forward as there is sufficient space. 8 Approved Minutes January 17, 2024 Chair Boo asked if Mr. Makepeace has children. He asked what would prevent the neighborhood from coming to have fun in the sport court, as that should not be prevented. Mr. Makepeace replied that he has four children. He commented that it a concern as to how the neighbors would know the difference between their children and friends playing in the sport court versus him completing a lesson. He stated that they could have friends over that park on the street and asked how the neighbors would know the difference between what is allowed as a resident versus training related. Commissioner Jerulle asked if the commission reviews a lot of these licenses, noting a desire for consistency. Chair Boo estimated that the commission reviews perhaps one per year. Planning and Development Manager McGuire noted that most license requests are reviewed administratively but if there is a complaint, it comes before the commission for review. Motion was made by Commissioner Olson, and seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to recommend approval of the home occupation license for the property located at 1315 Oakview Lane, subject to the conditions within the draft resolution. Further discussion: Chair Boo asked to include a provision that there would only be one on one sessions as part of the license. Commissioner Fowler stated that perhaps up to three people could be allowed given the parking available in the driveway. Chair Boo stated that he would prefer to specify one on one lessons as proposed in the narrative from the applicant. Commissioner Fowler agreed with the language proposed by Chair Boo. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Adjournment Chair Boo adjourned the meeting at 8:43 p.m.