HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 03-19-2014Approved Minutes
City of Plymouth
Planning Commission Meeting
March 19, 2014
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair James Davis, Vice Chair Bryan Oakley, Commissioners Marc
Anderson, Dick Kobussen, Gary Goldetsky, Gordon Petrash and Nathan Robinson
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Thomson, Senior Planner Shawn Drill and
Office Support Representative Janet Nelson
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PUBLIC FORUM
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to approve the
March 19, 2014 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 5, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to approve the
March 5, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (2014007)
Chair Davis introduced the request by Landform Professional Services for rezoning, preliminary
plat and variance for "Rose Garden" located south of Highway 55 and west of County Road 101.
Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report.
Commissioner Petrash questioned why the gap in Hamel Road is left for future construction. He
stated that it would be desirable to have it done as soon as possible, and not have two dead ends.
Senior Planner Drill replied that will be a City Council decision and when other road
construction is completed in the area, that may spur a decision to proceed.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 2014
Page 2
Commissioner Petrash asked who would be responsible for paying for Hamel Road construction,
who would be doing the work; and, if the city would have to hire a third company to connect the
two sections of road.
Senior Planner Drill stated the developer would be responsible for constructing the portion of
Hamel Road along Highway 55 within their development. He said the remaining segment of
Hamel Road would be constructed as a city project, and would be paid for through assessments
to the benefitting parcels.
Commissioner Petrash commented it would be inefficient to have construction set up three times
for this section of road.
Senior Planner Drill stated that because of the wetland issue, the developer would need to
mitigate for that impact and construct the road through the area abutting Highway 55.
Chair Davis wanted to know why Park Nicollet doesn't have to build their portion of the road
now.
Senior Planner Drill responded that because timing for the need for the road and its ultimate
alignment was unknown at the time of site plan approval, the Council approved the Park Nicollet
project without requiring them to construct the road through their site. He said that Park Nicollet
provided a road easement so any changes to the alignment can be easily made. He said that Park
Nicollet has agreed to be assessed for 100 percent of the cost of constructing the road through
their site.
Commissioner Kobussen asked if the city has an easement to the triangular piece of property
owned by the Melbert Mastley Estate.
Senior Planner Drill stated that the city would have to work with the owners to obtain an
easement or purchase right-of-way needed for that portion of the road. Being a benefitting party,
they would be assessed for one-half the cost of the segment of the road along their property.
Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Kendra Lindahl, of Landform Professional Services on
behalf of SVK. Ms. Lindahl stated they are requesting three minor modifications of the plan.
She said the site is tight for parking, and it is made tighter by having to construct the collector
road. Ms. Lindahl indicated that they have developed a program for the homeowners association
that requires homeowners to park their vehicles in their garages and not store anything that
would prevent vehicle parking in garages. She noted they did bring an exhibit that shows 11
parking stalls throughout the site. She stated they have concerns about some of these, and asked
that the condition in the approving resolution be modified to, "Work with staff to provide
additional guest parking".
Ms. Lindahl stated their second request is to modify the current condition regarding landscaping.
She stated that their plan addresses the screening issue better than the plan that the city has
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 2014
Page 3
proposed. She indicated their plan would provide zero to 6 -foot screening with evergreens,
filling in the gap that the existing evergreens create because they are trimmed so high. Ms.
Lindahl said that there was a meeting last night with the neighbors, and they were in favor of the
landscape design as currently shown.
Ms. Lindahl stated the third, and most challenging part has been the major collector roadway.
She stated there is a condition in the staff report that states they will build a trail within the right-
of-way of the portion of Hamel Road they are building. She said the report also states they will
provide a 10 -foot easement on the portion of the road that they are not building. Ms. Lindahl
stated that an additional 10 -foot easement is unnecessary, onerous and creates problems with
their ponding and landscaping. She stated the plan shows that the trail can fit within the right-of-
way, and asked that the condition for an easement request be eliminated.
Ms. Lindahl stated SVK was contacted by Park Nicollet to assist them in their project by
modifying their approved utility plan bringing sewer through their project. She noted that this
plan will save everybody money and answers problems for both parties.
Chair Davis asked Ms. Lindahl why the new Hamel Road alignment is better than the original
plan. Ms. Lindahl deferred to staff for the answer.
Senior Planner Drill stated that the road alignment is not platted right-of-way, but rather is an
easement on the Park Nicollet site. He stated the easement was required to provide for flexibility
in the road alignment, because the City did not know where and how the road would ultimately
align at that time. He said it has since been determined that it makes the most sense for the road
to go between the Rose Garden site and the abutting triangle -shaped parcel rather than curving
around and through the triangle parcel. He said the road alignment would result in less impact
on the triangle parcel, and that it makes more sense economically for the city in general.
Commissioner Petrash stated he has an issue with requesting homeowners not to use their
garages for storage. He stated this would be difficult to enforce and would be forgotten over
time. He commented there is adequate space for guest parking.
Commissioner Oakley commented the tech panel reviewed the plan and requested that some
units be moved out of wetlands, but it looks like they pushed further into Wetland A.
Ms. Lindahl responded that the plan reflects the conversations that they have had with the city.
She stated it does increase the amount of impact to Wetland A but reduces the amount of impact
to Wetland B. She stated the total impact is more with the revised plan. She said they triple
checked to make sure the city understands that and does support it because the impact is related
to the roadway.
Commissioner Oakley asked if there should be a discussion about the triangular property to bring
that into this project.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 2014
Page 4
Chair Davis introduced Scott Kevitt representing SVK Development. Mr. Kevitt stated that they
didn't contact the owners directly because it didn't seem to be residentially orientated since it is
so near the highway. He added after speaking with their realtor and finding out the price, they
were not interested in purchasing the triangle piece, believing it to be mostly unusable, so they
did not contact the owners directly.
Commissioner Kobussen asked for clarification regarding the number of lots in the development.
Reid Schulz, Landform Professional Services showed there are 22 unit lots and #23, 24 and 25
are common lots.
Commissioner Kobussen said he was concerned about cars maneuvering at Lots 17 and 18, and
asked if the driveway could be extended to allow for snow storage and ease in backing out.
Mr. Schultz said the two parking stalls will either be part of the required 11 parking stalls or used
for snow storage. He stated the 20 feet should suffice for backing.
Commissioner Kobussen stated that he was concerned that there were not enough trees in the
front yards with this proposed plan.
Senior Planner Drill explained flexibility was allowed for placement due the proximity of the lots
to Highway 55 and the size of the lots. He said the tree requirement would be met.
Chair Davis opened the public hearing.
Chair Davis introduced John Mastley, 1226 148th
Lane NW, Andover representing the Melbert
Mastley Estate. Mr. Mastley said that the trustees own the triangular piece of land in question.
He said that it used to be a larger piece of land but was altered when Highway 55 came through,
and it was left a triangle of less than an acre. He stated the property is basically undevelopable
under either of the options for the Hamel Road alignment as there would not be enough area left
after taking the right-of-way. Mr. Mastley added after having the lot on the market for some
time they have had no interested parties.
Chair Davis closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Petrash stated the triangle piece is not developable and the city shouldn't be
responsible for the outcome of it. He added the proposed plan looks good and serves the best
interest of the city and neighborhood.
Chair Davis said with the current plan we end up with a little piece of nothing. Chair Davis
stated he preferred the previous plan where the road swung parallel to Highway 55 and lined up
with Park Nicollet.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the comprehensive plan shows the first configuration.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 2014
Page 5
Senior Planner Drill stated that the comprehensive plan indicates the general location of a road in
the area between Hamel and County Road 101, but does not dictate any specific alignment.
Planning Manager Thomson added the main issue is the triangle piece would lose access once
the gravel road is gone, and would have to have access from the frontage road.
Commissioner Anderson said with the original configuration they would lose more property to
the right-of-way. It would be 100% on their property and the assessment would double or triple
as they would be assessed for that portion of the road. Commissioner Anderson said the
proposed road configuration is best. Commissioner Anderson said he cannot support the
argument that the triangle is undevelopable because some units could be put on this piece of
property. He said with the added assessment the land value will be hurt, but they can continue to
farm it. If the road goes through, the city will have to buy it or get an easement so they can
continue to farm it. Commissioner Anderson said he does not think the city harmed the property,
rather the combination of Highway 55 going through many years ago and this application are
affecting it too. Commissioner Anderson concluded that he likes the road in the configuration as
presented in the application.
Commissioner Oakley said the proposed road alignment is better as it reduces the number of
sharp curves and serves more properties. He stated the triangular piece does have value with the
road that is there, and would have had very little value with the way the road would have been
put in previously. Commissioner Oakley said this is a developable piece of property with two or
three units on it. Commissioner Oakley said the applicant has put a lot of thought into the
development proposal for a tough area with the wetland and the highway on either side. He said
he will support the proposal.
Commissioner Anderson stated he supports the modification of conditions to keep the trail
within the right-of-way and working with staff on landscaping to maximize screening using
materials, such as evergreens. Commissioner Anderson said he would like to see more parking
and supports 11 parking spaces, with six on the north and five on the south side. He added two
spaces by Lot 18 seems a poor location for two spots that may be needed on the north.
Commissioner Robinson concurred with Commissioner Anderson.
Commissioner Kobussen stated he supports the extra 11 parking spots as parking always
becomes a problem with narrow streets. He said the landscaping could be worked out with the
developer, and supports the trail if it will fit in the right-of-way. The triangle piece of property
could be developed and added the owner could submit a rezoning for something other than LA -2
in the future. Commissioner Kobussen said he likes the road the way it is, as it is the only way
that piece of land becomes anything. He said a second access to the driveway would be
impractical. Commissioner Kobussen said his biggest concern is when the last piece of that road
goes in. Citizens from other subdivision developments have stated there are problems with
traffic to get on to Highway 55 from Hamel Road. Commissioner Kobussen said the proposed
22 units will add to the congestion. Commissioner Kobussen said he is not in favor of going
forward with this proposal until a decision is made regarding connecting that piece of road.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
March 19, 2014
Page 6
Commissioner Anderson said he is not saying he is in favor, but Commissioner Kobussen's
solution is suggesting that construction cannot commence until the timing of the road is
determined and completed before any certificates of occupancy can be issued.
MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the
resolution for rezoning, preliminary plat and variance for Landform Professional Services for
Rose Garden" for property located south of Highway 55 and west of County Road 101 with the
following revisions: 1) Condition 3 requires guest parking spaces be located on each private
drive, with six on the north and five on the south; 2) elimination of the last sentence in Condition
9 requiring revisions to the landscaping plan; and 3) elimination of Item 1 LJ, which required a
trail easement adjoining the north -south segment of Hamel Road right -or -way in the east portion
of the site.
Motion for friendly amendment by Commissioner Kobussen, seconded by Chair Davis, to add
a requirement that before development can proceed, a plan for developing the east side of the
road must be completed, and the road must be constructed before certificates of occupancy can
be issued.
Roll Call Vote on friendly amendment. 1 Aye. 6 Nays. Chair Davis, Commissioners
Anderson, Kobussen, Robinson, Oakley, Goldetsky voting Nay. Motion for friendly
amendment denied.
Chair Davis said he is voting no as he still does not like where the road is. He said if the road
were moved back as Park Nicollet had presented, this property combined with the triangle
property could slide to the right, allowing more room for parking, and we would not have the
wetland issues. Chair Davis said he does not think this is a good plan.
Roll call vote on Main MOTION. 6 Ayes. 1 Nay. Chair Davis voting nay. MOTION
approved.
7. NEW BUSINESS
8. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Chair Davis, with no objection, to adjourn the meeting at 8:16 P.M.