Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 03-13-1996 SpecialMINUTES SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 13, 1996 A special meeting of the Plymouth City Council was called to order by Mayor Tierney at 7:00 p.m. in the City Center, 3400 Plymouth Blvd., on March 13, 1996. COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Tierney, Councilmembers Black, Lymangood, Wold, and Granath. ABSENT: Councilmembers Anderson and Preus. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Johnson, Assistant City Manager Lueckert, Community Development Director Hurlburt, Public Works Director Moore, and Park and Recreation Director Blank. Mayor Tierney announced that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss several issues relating to Downtown Plymouth. Community Development Director Hurlburt outlined the format of the meeting and summarized the agenda items. She reminded the Council that due to the nature of the ordinances and the resolution, five affirmative votes are needed for adoption. Director Hurlburt presented the history of the recently adopted concept plan, and the proposed zoning guidelines. She said that before coming to the Council, the comprehensive plan amendment was sent to the Metropolitan Council for examination. Approval by the City Council will mean placement of a new set of zoning text and maps, and revocation of existing mixed planned unit development and conditional use permit requirements. She stated that the new zoning regulations would apply to future development applications. Community Development Director Hurlburt said that the downtown area is the first stage of the proposed zoning ordinance changes that will be carried out on a citywide basis at a later date. She stated the present B-1 and B-2 office zoning classifications are restrictive, and under the proposals would be changed to allow for more varied permitted uses and conditional uses, as well as dissolving the existing planned unit development. Community Development Director Hurlburt outlined issues regarding the proposed land use plan and zoning changes for the downtown area. She said one set of issues applies to ordinance text and what names will mean for different zoning classifications. The other issues are concerned with the map itself, and what will be considered permitted uses and conditional uses for individual properties in the area. She stated that under the proposals, retail areas would be created similar to other B-2 classifications, but narrower for the city downtown Special Council Meeting March 13, 1996 Page 2 area, so that parcel development will be compatible with pedestrian -oriented uses. Office and office/technology areas have been expanded to allow showroom activities that are now restricted to industrial areas. Also, retail uses may be developed through conditional use permits. She stated that some parcels have legal boundaries that overlap usage areas but these issues can be faced as the properties are developed. Community Development Director Hurlburt stated that staff recommends inclusion of an amendment permitting temporary structures in the district on a short term basis. This would be in effect until the new zoning code is put into place. She stated the biggest issue in the downtown area relates to conditional uses. She reviewed definitions of the conditional uses. She stated that most uses that allow a consistent overall character for the district, and that are not highway or vehicle oriented, would be permitted. She said it is important for the City to scrutinize how something is done on a parcel as well as what is done. The proposed changes would increase the amount of permitted uses and reduce the number of conditional use permits. She stated the proposed changes make conditional uses much more specific and will clarify the criteria the City will use in granting conditional uses. She said the Council will no longer need to adopt a conditional use permit by a super majority vote; only a simple majority vote will be required. Community Development Director Hurlburt outlined the available options. She recommended that the Council not delay action because that would increase the risk of inappropriate use of parcels and cause conflicts with the comprehensive plan. The Council could delay action until the next meeting. Another option would be to adopt the ordinance text and delay map amendments to all or part of the properties in the City Center district, or to continue with the existing planned unit development for some or all of the properties in the district. She said that within six months, the new zoning code will be in place. She stated another option would be for land owners to apply for changes in zoning and the comprehensive plan if they find there is no use for a parcel under the zoning classification. Community Development Director Hurlburt introduced David Licht of Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Mr. Licht wrote the ordinance text. Councilmember Wold asked if there was any retail service not permitted in the office/technology zoning classification. Community Development Director Hurlburt stated anything listed in the zoning definition would be permitted, and that the conditional uses are listed as well. Mayor Tierney asked if automotive uses would be addressed. Community Development Director Hurlburt stated that businesses with a drive-through would Special Council Meeting March 13, 1996 Page 3 not be allowed. She also cited car dealerships, saying that the goal is for pedestrian -oriented services. Mayor Tierney invited the audience to speak on any items on the agenda. She reminded those present that this is not a public hearing. Councilmember Lymangood asked that speakers express concerns about individual parcels or about zoning language, or offer alternative uses. He asked that suggestions and concerns be clearly stated to allow for a clear understanding of the discussion. Councilmember Granath asked that speakers make comments only if the comments add new issues or items of information, since some people in attendance had submitted detailed written comments. Ken Streeter, 13100 35th Avenue North, asked that the Council keep delays in making the zoning changes as short as possible. He recommended that the Council discuss at length the alternative uses of parcels. He asked for clarification on proposed conditional use changes, so that property owners and developers do not face having to file for conditional use permits for uses that were once permitted by the previous zoning code. He stated that his parcel is proposed to be classified for retail use. He stated that if traffic studies were conducted, retail uses wouldn't have to require conditional use permits. Community Development Director Hurlburt stated that the proposed classifications have many varied allowable uses. She stated staff will not conduct traffic studies unless there is a concern that potential traffic problems may be an issue. Councilmember Lymangood asked Mr. Streeter if there was some specific use or situation on which he had concerns. Mr. Streeter asked if a proposed small shopping center, restaurants proposed in shopping centers, or free-standing restaurants with a liquor license would require a traffic study. David Licht explained why a restaurant in a shopping center might require a conditional use permit. He said it relates to parking and the function of a shopping center. Problems can occur because of the demands of restaurant traffic. He stated a review of a restaurant proposal would ensure coordination with other properties in the area. Ken Streeter asked whether a business offering coffee and bagels, then installing a soda bar would require a conditional use permit for each addition in offering. Community Development Director Hurlburt said restaurants are defined in another part of the zoning code; not in the ordinances about the City Center uses. She said Special Council Meeting March 13, 1996 Page 4 the code gives the City the option to review plans when changes are made to an existing building. She said that not every food item would require a conditional use permit; it would depend whether or not it met the definition of a restaurant. Don Sjostrom, 405 Comstock Lane, deferred comment. Mery Bjerke, 15925 Fourth Avenue N., deferred comment. Jim Guddal, 4465 Vicksburg Lane, represented Westland Equities. He cited a recent newspaper article about development of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, which reported Plymouth was the municipality closest to Downtown Minneapolis with the most remaining land to develop. He asked where retail space will be designated in the northwest quadrant of Plymouth, outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, since there is not a lot of retail space in Plymouth. He outlined articles submitted to the Council about growth, stating Plymouth is at a crossroads to consider what remaining space is available for retail, industrial, and residential uses. He believes that the overall tax base will benefit from increased retail space which has a higher tax rate, and this will help keep property taxes reasonable. Mr. Guddal introduced Russ McGinty of Griffith Companies, 3800 West 80th Street, who spoke on behalf of Westland Equities, which owns property on 37th Avenue that would be designated office/technology. McGinty stated the office/technology zoning classification would hurt Westlund Equities and its investment. He stated the parcel will have good traffic accessibility, fairly good visibility, and would be a good candidate for retail service use such as insurance, medical, or other professional services. He stated the office/technology zoning classification would diminish the value of the property. Mr. McGinty noted that increased traffic from the proposed recreational facility would help business for a retail site which would also increase the tax base. He stated that showroom type facilities allowed in office/technology zoning will draw increased traffic to the area, with an emphasis on heavy truck traffic and parking problems as well as increased environmental concerns such as odors. He believes that an undue financial burden would be placed on those property owners. Community Development Director Hurlburt responded that zoning is not always done solely for tax base reasons. She stated that changing the zoning classification name does nothing if the requirements behind it are not altered as well. She noted that retail use is not entirely prohibited in the office/technology classification. It is disallowed only if the City perceives zoning criteria would not be met. She said under the present zoning, any use of the property would need a conditional use permit. Special Council Meeting March 13, 1996 Page 5 Councilmember Wold asked if changes in the proposed zoning map could legally be made at this meeting. City Attorney Knutson stated that as of August 1, nothing can be done until the comprehensive plan is first amended. Councihnembers Wold and Lymangood asked Jim Guddal if keeping the existing B-1 zoning classification for his parcel would be more restrictive than changing the parcel to office/technology. Mr. Guddal said the B-1 classification is unacceptable. He stated that two previous studies showed that office space doesn't appeal to financiers. He was skeptical about the possibility of shared parking with neighboring properties because his parcel is locked in by berms. He asked that the Council act on the merits of a zoning classification, not because a property would look nicer one way than another. He asked that the City keep the options open for allowing retail development. Manager Johnson asked whether shared parking was an issue in allowing conditional uses. Community Development Director Hurlburt said shared parking is not a criteria when considering a conditional use permit. Councilmember Wold asked Community Development Director Hurlburt how a change in the zoning classification might be initiated. She stated either the City or the developer could request a zoning change for a parcel. Dennis Zylla, 3125 Holiy Lane, spoke on behalf of The Outpost and its owner Jay Sperry, who is looking to purchase 2.6 acres at 34th and Plymouth Boulevard. Mr. Zylla stated that discussions in January led him to believe outdoor merchandise and displays would be allowed as a permitted use. He now believes that this would be precluded under the new proposed zoning. He said Mr. Sperry is interested in using the site for a retail operation of selling sporting and recreational goods with outdoor display of some recreational equipment. He showed a proposed site plan and said the building has been moved closer to the street, with parking in the rear, in order to follow proposed City Center guidelines. Mr. Zylla said he was advised that the only place their plan would be allowed would be abutting County Road 9. He said this would no longer be permitted under the new plan. Jay Sperry, 115 Peninsula Road, owner of The Outpost, described his business as selling sporting equipment, including guns and ammunition, rods, reels and lures, but also snowmobiles, small boats and motors, jet skis, as well as sporting clothes and accessories. He is limited by manufacturers' franchise about where he could move. He feels that he is being cooperative in his design to meet City requirements. He said there are not a lot of ideas being given him by the City. Special Council Meeting March 13, 1996 Page 6 Councilmember Lymangood commented that he is happy to see so many development proposals proposed for the City Center area. Mayor Tierney asked Community Development Director Hurlburt to comment on Mr. Sperry's concerns. Community Development Director Hurlburt stated that sales, service and storage of the watercraft and snowmobiles are not uses permitted by the proposed zoning. She said she won't comment on whether the plan would meet the development standards. It may be that part of the plan is compatible, and the appeal process is also available when the new zoning ordinance is adopted. Councilmember Granath asked if a business like The Outpost would or would not be allowed. Community Development Director Hurlburt stated she saw the retail element fitting in, but was skeptical about snowmobile and watercraft sales and service. She said those could be a problem under the proposed ordinance. Dennis Zylla stated he only wanted to give the Council an indication of what is going on with plans for the City Center. Councilmember Lymangood stated that plans have moved through the approval process more quickly in recent times. He said the Council should address individual issues at a later time. Brad Lis, 2222 Plaza VII, Minneapolis, represented Carlson Real Estate. He referenced a parcel adjacent to the south lot line of CUB foods. He stated that development plans could be done under the proposed new zoning. However, a plan is difficult to prepare because they do not know where 35th Avenue will be located to connect to Vicksburg Lane. He asked for a specific traffic study finding to address where the new 35th Avenue should be located. Community Development Director Hurlburt stated that a previous traffic study didn't consider changes in the zoning plan. She said that once a more specific development plan is proposed for the site, a new traffic study may be needed. She said it wouldn't make sense to select a location for the street without a specific development plan. Councilmember Lymangood asked Public Works Director Moore for a timeline on a traffic study. Public Works Director Moore stated that a traffic study had been done using three scenarios in the past. He explained how traffic would be handled at the Vicksburg Lane and Highway 55 intersection. He said that without knowing the proposed uses for parcels along Vicksburg Lane, it isn't practical to determine the new street location. Special Council Meeting March 13, 1996 Page 7 Brad Lis stated the proposed zoning changes would cause difficulty for the Carlson parcel. He asked if he should submit development plans based on what is known about the zoning today, or wait until a new ordinance is adopted. He stated that if this parcel cannot be developed and if the street is installed, their property should be taken by the City for street use. He asked that a traffic study be done. Councilmember Lymangood stated that zoning questions need to be addressed. Don Sjostrom passed on his opportunity to comment. Mery Bjerke passed on his opportunity to comment. Mayor Tierney restated that five affirmative votes are needed to pass the items before the Council. She said if any councilmember feels there is a problem, she would be willing to delay action until the following week. She asked for comment from the Council. In her view, she said that to move ahead does not preclude later individual changes. Councilmember Black felt that staff has done a good job in accommodating all parties. She expressed a willingness to move forward on the issue. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 80-9, THE PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE, TO CREATE CITY CENTER DISTRICTS AND RELATED ALLOWABLE USES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. CITY OF PLYMOUTH. (96009) MOTION was made by Councilmember Wold, seconded by Councilmember Black, to adopt ORDINANCE 96-5 ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 80-9, THE PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE, BY CREATING CITY CENTER DISTRICTS AND RELATED ALLOWABLE USES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, ADDING SUBDIVISION. 5 TO THE LIST OF USES BY ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT ALLOWED IN ALL CC DISTRICTS TO INCLUDE TEMPORARY SALES OFFICE FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED ONE YEAR. Motion carried, five ayes. Special Council Meeting March 13, 1996 Page 8 APPROVE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY IN THE PLYMOUTH CITY CENTER AREA (ALSO KNOWN AS DOWNTOWN PLYMOUTH), TO SEVERAL NEW "CITY CENTER" ZONING DISTRICTS. CITY OF PLYMOUTH. (96010) MOTION was made by Councilmember Black, seconded by Councilmember Wold, to adopt ORDINANCE 96-6 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED NORTH OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 55 AND WEST OF VICKSBURG LANE NORTH (96010). Mayor Tierney called for discussion. Councilmember Wold stated that a different zoning has been requested by Westland Equities for their parcel. He asked that staff work further towards an agreement on that parcel. Mayor Tierney recommended that staff come back with market studies from concerned property developers. She stated that the new office/technology zoning classification will give them the greatest degree of flexibility, including the opportunity to develop almost any sort of retail business. Motion carried, five ayes. Mayor Tierney encouraged property owners to move forward with their plans. She said that by submitting applications, the burden of proof to justify land use will be placed on the City. REVOCATION OF PLYMOUTH HILLS MPUD (MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-2. AS IT APPLIES TO THE PROPERTY IN THE PLYMOUTH CITY CENTER AREA (ALSO KNOWN AS DOWNTOWN PLYMOUTH). CITY OF PLYMOUTH. (96011) MOTION was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-152 REVOKING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 78-2, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 55 AND EAST OF VICKSBURG LANE NORTH (96011). Councilmember Lymangood stated there is a need for the City to adopt this revocation in order to get properties in the district moving forward with development. He thanked staff and property owners for their comments and suggestions. Motion carried, five ayes. Special Council Meeting March 13, 1996 Page 9 Mayor Tierney thanked the public for their comments and for showing patience with the Council. She understands that some gray areas remain in the Downtown Plymouth zoning. APPROVE SITE PLAN FOR TEMPORARY SALES OFFICE FOR LIFE TIME FITNESS. CITY OF PLYMOUTH. (96026) MOTION was made by Councilmember Wold, seconded by Councilmember Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-153 POSTPONING CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LIFE TIME FITNESS SALES TRAILER UNTIL THE MARCH 20,1996 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. Motion carried, five ayes. APPROVE WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE RECREATIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX LOCATED EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 36TH AVENUE AND PLYMOUTH BLVD. Public Works Director Moore presented the staff report on the impacted wetland surrounding the site for the proposed recreation sports complex. He stated that almost one and a half acres of low quality wetland would be impacted by plans for parking and storm water drainage at the complex. Approximately three acres of wetland would be developed, making partial use of existing wetland on the east side of the site, meeting the 2:1 replacement ratio. MOTION was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-154 APPROVING FILLING WETLANDS AND THE WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN FOR RECREATION SPORTS FACILITY CITY PROJECT NO. 541. Motion carried, five ayes. Councilmember Black stated that she is glad that mitigation was accomplished so close to the original wetland site. The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.