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.