Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 04-01-2015Approved Minutes City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 2015 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair James Davis, Commissioners Marc Anderson, Julie Witt, Bryan Oakley, Gary Goldetsky MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Kovach, Donovan Saba STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Thomson, Senior Planner Shawn Drill 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC FORUM 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Commissioner Goldetsky, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the April 1, 2015 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 18, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Goldetsky, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the consent agenda. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. LTF REAL ESTATE COMPANY, INC. (2015014) (Continued from the March 18, 2015 meeting.) Chair Davis introduced the request by LTF Real Estate Company, Inc. for a site plan amendment and variances for a parking expansion at LifeTime Fitness and the Plymouth Ice Center located at 3600 and 3650 Plymouth Boulevard. Planning Manager Thomson gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Goldetsky stated that it appears there will be a traffic problem whether Option 1 or Option 2 is chosen, specifically in regard to the number ofparking stalls. Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 2015 Page2 Planning Manager Thomson replied that there would be enough parking if the on-street parking is included, noting that Options 1 and 2 would add the same number of stalls. Commissioner Goldetsky stated that he drove past the location at 6: 15 p.m. today and counted the number of open stalls in the area, noting that he stopped at 100. He questioned what the peak hours are, when there would be a conflict between the two buildings. Planning Manager Thomson deferred to the parks staff to answer that question. Commissioner Goldetsky stated that it appears designs were made early on during the design build phase of this project that were the decision of the applicant. Planning Manager Thomson stated that the topography was a major factor as well as utilities located near the lot line, which caused the building to be pushed back further on the site. She stated while not ideal, it did seem to make the most sense at the time. She stated that as the facility and use have expanded, the parking has expanded in the front and back as well. Commissioner Anderson stated that he is a member of LifeTime Fitness. He stated that this week is not a typical use week because of spring break and noted that he has seen the parking lot completely full on Saturday morning and in the late afternoons. He questioned the current ownership, confirming that the city owns the sheets of ice. He questioned if Life Time would be paying for this project or whether the cost would be shared. Planning Manager Thomson stated that when this project was approved there was a cost share agreement put in place and advised that the parking improvement would be shared on a 50/50 basis between the city and LifeTime. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that some of the congestion is also caused by the use of the ice arena and is not solely from LifeTime. He referenced the issue of landscaping and acknowledged that it is difficult to put in additional landscaping when there is a lack of space. He questioned if there had been thought to planting bigger specimens of landscaping. Planning Manager Thomson stated that with Option 1 (southwest part of the site), the city forester has stated there is insufficient space to plant specimens of any size. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that new landscaping would be installed in other parts of the parking lot. Planning Manager Thomson responded that landscaping would be placed in areas where there is enough space. Commissioner Anderson questioned if larger trees could be placed in the areas where trees are being planted. Planning Manager Thomson responded that a condition could be added to the resolution specifying greater size. Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 2015 Page3 Commissioner Anderson questioned if the construction would be completed at one time, or whether there would be phasing to allow cars to park in the alternate areas of the site. Planning Manager Thomson deferred that question to the parks staff. Commissioner Oakley referenced the size of the stalls and questioned if there could be some stalls identified for compact car only parking. Planning Manager Thomson responded that the zoning ordinance does allow for a percentage of stalls to be sized for compact cars, in lots over a specified size. She confirmed that this request would meet the lot size threshold and advised that this request does include some compact stalls. Chair Davis referenced the southwest portion of the plan, which would remove the trees and retaining wall to add parking, and questioned if there would be a retaining wall on the other side. Plam1ing Manager Thomson identified the location of a retaining wall in Option 2, noting that there would not be enough room for a retaining wall in Option 1. She confirmed that there would be a grade difference between the sidewalk and parking stalls in this area. Chair Davis referenced the northwest portion of the plan, which is currently a grassy knoll and would be paved for additional parking. Commissioner Oakley questioned why there would not be a retaining wall in Option 1. Planning Manager Thomson responded that there would not be enough space. Cormnissioner Witt stated that it feels like there were a lot of promises made, and the facility continues to grow. She questioned at what point there is enough. She stated she was concerned with additional parking across Plymouth Boulevard not only because of safety but also because she did not think users would find that to be ideal parking. She stated she is not in favor of Option 2, which would have shorter stalls, and questioned what impact that would have on snow storage. She also commented on the lighting, noting that it appears this plan would reuse lighting and would not meet the standards of the city. Planning Manager Thomson responded that the lighting does not meet the current standards - the lot is over-lit and there is too much glare. Commissioner Witt stated there is a lot of asphalt on the site and questioned where the runoff would go in relationship to the wetlands and the park behind the site. Planning Manager Thomson responded that the applicant would have to meet all of the city's standards in regard to storm water runoff. Chair Davis referenced the agreement to park cars at the office lot across the street, noting he believed that to already be in place. Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 2015 Page4 Planning Manager Thomson responded that the agreement is already in place but noted that additional aspects are in process. Commissioner Goldetsky stated that this request requires a number of variances and questioned ifthere have been measures to divert users to times other than the peak hours. He stated he is not aware of any incentives. Chair Davis introduced Aaron Kohler, representing LifeTime Fitness, who stated that there have been questions regarding planning and whether proper planning was done in the beginning. He stated that both facilities have been successful and have continued to grow, noting that the parking has not grown in the same measure. He stated that there has been a pretty significant drop in the membership at LifeTime in the past few years and noted that they continue to hear that the lack of parking is the main reason for members leaving. He stated that the largest conflict for parking occurs in the evenings and on weekends, especially during the winter months, when the ice arena has a significant amount of use that conflicts with the peak use of the LifeTime facility. He said members state that they cannot find a single spot to park. He referenced the use of incentives for non-peak hours and stated that is not something LifeTime would be interested in. He explained that LifeTime focuses on convenience and offers the flexibility of monthly membership and would not want to push people into specific times. He stated that most people choose to work out before or after work and on weekends. He agreed that this week is not a typical week for the facility because of spring break. He referenced the trees that would be planted and noted that this is a joint venture between the city and LifeTime and stated that upsizing trees has not been discussed. He noted that he would be open to discussion on that matter. He referenced the phasing of construction and anticipated that the construction would be phased to minimize the number of stalls not in use at any single time. He referenced the shared parking across the street and appreciated the efforts of the city to obtain that shared agreement, although he did not believe that LifeTime customers would park in that area. He referenced the issue of lighting and stated that currently the lighting is above the level set by the city and advised that with the expansion of the parking lot and relocation of some of the lights, the site would come closer to the level set by the city. He stated there is a plan for underground storm water management, which would meet the requirements of the city. Commissioner Goldetksy conf"mned that LifeTime has not offered incentives for non-peak use of the facility. He referenced the statement that membership has decreased because of the lack of parking and questioned if the decline in membership could also be due to negative press the business received because of the legal problems of the CEO. He stated he did not believe there is a study showing that parking is the sole reason for the decline in membership. Mr. Kohler replied that there is no study showing that parking is the reason but stated that is the most frequent complaint they hear from members. He stated there are many LifeTime clubs in Minnesota that do not have the same decrease in membership. Commissioner Oakley stated that he is a former member of LifeTime, noting that he did not leave because of parking or issues with the CEO. He stated that he was not aware of any stalls in the lot marked for compact parking. Approved Planning Commission Minutes April I, 2015 Page 5 Bill Abel, Ice Center Manager stated that there are eight to 12 compact spaces located on the side of the ice center, and there are not any located on the Life Time side. Commissioner Oakley stated that it appears the parking behind the building is underutilized and was unsure people were aware of that parking. Ice Center Manager Abel stated that the rear parking lot has expanded since the third ice sheet was added. He noted that the majority of those using the ice center park in the rear because it provides easier access to the facility. He stated he did not believe many LifeTime users park in the rear lot, but noted that LifeTime employees do park in that lot. He stated they receive parking complaints during high school games and tournaments that users of the ice center are having to park a block or two away from the facility. Commissioner Witt referenced an article in the newspaper that mentioned the ice arena and the parking. She stated that article also stated that the trend is towards smaller sheets of ice, away from the Olympic-sized ice and asked if that means the users will also decrease. Ice Center Manager Abel stated that the smaller rink simply means a smaller-sized ice sheet and advised that the number of spectators will remain the same. He explained that the smaller ice sheet is easier for young people to learn the sport. Commissioner Witt confirmed that the schools using the ice pay a fee and questioned if there has been discussion of increasing the fee if the use increases to support additional parking improvements. Ice Center Manager Abel stated that to his knowledge there have not been discussions with the schools to recover any of the costs. He stated that there is an agreement between Life Time and the city for these two facilities and the parking and stated that the schools would not want to be involved in something of that nature. He advised that the schools have their own expansion issues that they are involved in with their own facilities. Chair Davis questioned if users parking in the rear lot would have to walk all the way around the building to enter the facility. Mr. Kohler replied affirmatively as the only member entrance is at the front of the building. Chair Davis asked if anyone present wished to speak on this item. Chair Davis introduced Ray Knoss, 15105 3gth Avenue, who stated that his concern is with aesthetics. He stated that currently the site is attractive, and he is concerned with expanding the asphalt toward the sidewalk. He referenced the issue of compact parking and stated that he rarely sees a hockey parent with a compact vehicle. Chair Davis introduced Tom Klevorn, 4755 Kingsview Lane, who stated it is his understanding that the land is owned by the city and there is a lease agreement between LifeTime and the city, Approved Planning Commission Minutes April I, 2015 Page6 which will be renegotiated in the future. He questioned what would occur once these improvements are completed if the two parties cannot come to an agreement, specifically who would own which aspects. He stated that perhaps the LifeTime employees should park across the street to free additional spaces in the lot. Diane Evans, Park and Recreation Director, responded that the city has a 40-year lease agreement with LifeTime. She stated that the city owns the ground and LifeTime is leasing the facility. She stated that ifLifeTime goes into default, the city would own the facility. Commissioner Anderson stated that this appears to be a land use issue and stated that he believes that there is a need for this improvement. He stated that this is a partnership, not only between the city and LifeTime Fitness but also the Wayzata School District. He stated that the school district made a large investment in the swimming pool, which their swimming team utilizes. He stated that in regard to lighting, he does not have a problem with the upsized lighting, noting that the area had been identified as a potential location for crime. He stated it is unfortunate that the landscaping would be minimized but did not see any other options with the available space other than upsizing the trees. He stated that he prefers Option 2 because there would be additional landscaping. Commissioner Goldetsky stated he has concern that the applicant has not tried other options to alleviate the parking problem. He stated there are a number of variances being requested and did not believe the applicant tried alternate options prior to this request. He stated he believes this to be a design build problem caused by the applicant. He stated that with any use there is a finite number of users. He stated he will be making a motion to deny the request after the discussion is complete. Commissioner Oakley stated that his experience does not support the level of parking problems presented tonight. He agreed that there would be parking issues when the hockey uses and the peak LifeTime hours overlap. He stated that while he does not have a problem with expanding the lot, he does not prefer either Option I or 2. He stated that Option 1 would be problematic for the users because of the grade proposed, while Option 2 would be problematic because the stalls are small and would not provide a large enough drive aisle. He stated he would like to see other alternatives explored. Commissioner Witt asked for clarity in regard to the variances being requested and whether they city had already approved some of those in the past. Planning Manager Thomson stated that in the past the city has approved variances to allow for parking in the front and at street corners, noting that this request would expand the variances issued in the past. Commissioner Witt stated she has not heard a conviction that additional parking is needed at this time. She stated while there may be a need for parking, perhaps additional options could be researched as she did not prefer either option presented. Approved Planning Commission Minutes April I, 2015 Page7 Chair Davis stated he is also not in favor of the options presented tonight. He stated that aesthetically, knocking down the trees and changing the southwest corner would negatively change the appearance of the property. He stated that there would not be anywhere to put the snow in the winter, noting that there are already problems with snow on that site during the winter months. He said he did not think that there would ever be enough parking to support the use during peak times. He stated that the whole lot cannot be paved to support the use and therefore he would not be supporting this request. MOTION by Commissioner Goldetsky, seconded by Commissioner Witt to recommend denial of the request by LTF Real Estate Company, Inc. for a site plan amendment and variances for a parking expansion at LifeTime Fitness and the Plymouth Ice Center located at 3600 and 3650 Plymouth Boulevard. Vote. 3 Ayes. MOTION approved. (Commissioners Anderson and Oakley voted nay.) B. PROVIDENCE ACADEMY (2015023) Chair Davis introduced the request by Providence Academy for a variance for the height of the field house/concessions building at 15100 Schmidt Lake Road. Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Anderson referenced the average method for determining the current height of the building and questioned what the height of the building would be using today's method. Senior Planner Drill replied that height would be 25 feet and explained how that determination would be made. Commissioner Goldetsky questioned if there is a design or engineering requirement for this height or a design preference. Senior Planner Drill replied that the school can present their design preference but noted that there is nothing from the city that would require this height. Chair Davis introduced Jack Amdal, representing the applicant, who stated in 2013 the plan came before the city for the sports complex west of the main school building. He discussed the layout of the complex, noting that everything is symmetrical and equidistant, and that the same method is being proposed for the field house. He referenced the property line and advised that the closest home would be 500 feet from a building. He stated that they have followed a programmatic process for determining what they will need in the field house and displayed a floorplan for the building, identifying features. He discussed the Georgian Gothic architecture proposed, which fits well with the other campus buildings, noting that similar materials and architectural features are proposed. He stated that this is a detached accessory structure but it is not a shed and is instead a unique standalone feature. He discussed the elevation and how that impacted the relocation of some of the nearby sports fields. He stated that the height of the proposed building is below the height of the main building and the sports dome. He said he Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 2015 Page 8 believes that the applicable standards are being met through the request and that this 1s a reasonable request for a K-12 school campus. Commissioner Oakley referenced the elevations and asked for clarity if the building were made to be 14.5 feet shorter in terms of the tower. He asked if that would change the use of the building in any fashion. Mr. Amdal replied that decreasing the height of the building would not impact the use of the building but would impact the screening of the rooftop mechanical equipment. Commissioner Anderson referenced the concession stands in the front of the building and stated that it appears the concessions should be located on the other side of the building to make that feature closer to the seating. Mr. Amdal agreed that it would be a lengthy walk but explained the placement would limit the amount of exposure to the running track. Commissioner Anderson stated that the applicant has indicated that the concessions building is not as high as the main campus building but noted that the applicant has not stated why 57 feet is needed for this building. Mr. Amdal stated that there is a need for an elevator overrun. He stated that this is a four-sided building, which is visible from all four sides and advised that flat spots have been created on the roof to allow for rooftop equipment. He stated that the proportion of the design is what brought the height to this level, which also allows for the screening of rooftop equipment. Commissioner Goldetsky stated that there could be alternative options and/or placement for the rooftop equipment. He shared the concern expressed by Commissioner Anderson in regard to the height of the building. He said he believes that the building could still fit with the design of the other buildings while also complying with the regulations of the city. Mr. Amdal he stated that the original plans did not include the elevator and elevator overrun. He advised that a rooftop terrace was also added in order to enhance the game day experience. He stated that the mechanical systems have been enhanced, including the addition of air conditioning, noting that the building would be open year round. He stated that the building would be open to the public and not just the students. He stated that the design changes were made to not only improve the design and features of the building but to enhance the game day experience. He stated that the building would match the character of the campus but also have its own identity because of its location on the sports field. Commissioner Goldetsky stated it is clear that a great deal of thought has gone into the design. He questioned if the applicant has an alternate design choice that would meet the city's height requirements. ApprovedPlanning Commission Minutes April 1, 2015 Page 9 Mr. Amdal stated he did not have that option with him. He explained that the proposed design uses symmetry and is on an axis with the football field, noting those concepts are also used throughout the campus. Commissioner Oakley stated that it appears the elevation line mentioned earlier is still above the terrace level. Mr. Amdal responded that the line is above the terrace level. He stated that the height would need to be approximately 14 to 15 feet above the terrace level in oraer to allow for the elevator and elevator overrun. Chair Davis questioned if the applicant would need to come back to the city if they desired to replace the religious statue with a video scoreboard. Senior Planner Drill responded that the applicant would have to come back to the city and would need to follow the conditional use permit (CUP) process. Todd Flanders, Head Master of Providence Academy, referenced the central location of the concession stands. He stated that for years the school has had ad hoc concessions near the different sports fields, and they thought it would be nice to have a centrally located concessions area that all patrons could utilize. He stated that the petition for a height variance comes from the school's special consideration for premium architecture. He stated that since the city graciously approved plans for the expansion of the fields and performing arts center, the school has carefully considered how to maximize the use of the facilities with maximum architectural design. He stated that the field house will serve as a gateway not only to the school and visiting teams but also with the community and residents. He stated that the intent is that the noble design will be attractive and pleasing to the community and guests while ensuring that the height will not adversely affect the existing sightlines and the residents to the west. Chair Davis asked if anyone present wished to speak on this item. Chair Davis introduced Keith Moeller, 5150 Quantico Lane, who stated that he is a neighbor to the west of the school and identified his property on the map. He stated that since the overhead map picture has been taken, some of the trees shown on the map have been removed. He stated that while there has been a lot of attention to how the property looks from Schmidt Lake Road, there has not been a lot of attention to how the property looks to the properties behind the campus. He stated there are people that have been negatively affected and only the future can tell what the negative impact to those prope1iy values will be. He stated it is not a secret that some of the neighbors were displeased when the dome was approved, as it has an industrial feel to the neighboring homes. He stated that while the dome has a height of 66 feet, that feature is seasonal while this proposed structure would be permanent. He stated that every building and variance that comes forward causes concern for the neighboring property owners. He said he believes that the school site was previously zoned residential and then was changed to allow this use. He stated it appears that this campus is trying to be something that should be in an area with more open spaces. He stated that they purchased their home with the intent of being there for many years, but noted that as this campus continues to grow, their desire to stay is diminished. Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 2015 Page 10 He asked that the commission discontinue the variances that are allowing the sightline and property values of the neighboring homeowners to be negatively affected. Chair Davis introduced Scott Fairbairn, 5045 Quantico Lane, who identified his property on the overhead map. He stated that his sightline is directly affected by this campus. He said he did not think this request should be considered during spring break, noting that this is the second year in a row when the commission considered a request from this school during Wayzata's spring break. He noted some of the people that may have wanted to attend are on vacation and therefore cannot express their opinions. He said that he did not want to state the school is not a good neighbor but noted Providence is a private school and therefore their access to the facility as neighbors is not that available. He stated that the tennis courts are locked and the neighbors are not allowed to use them. He stated that during the football games their roads are packed with vehicles, and he has had damage to his sprinkler system from cars driving on them. He stated that this improvement would bring in additional vehicles. He said he believes that the domes and additional building proposed would negatively affect the value of his property. He stated that the embankment of trees behind the tennis courts has already been removed, which takes away from the screening and natural setting. Chair Davis introduced Tom Klevom, 4755 Kingsview Lane, who stated he believes that whether or not the variance is approved, the school will build something. He stated that he lives adjacent to the property and noted that it looks nice. He stated that during past construction the roads were not clearly labeled for trucks hauling to and from the site. He stated that with Vicksburg to be blocked this summer, Schmidt Lake Road will become a busier road and asked that the roadway be well marked for trucks hauling in order to increase safety. Chair Davis introduced Gary Zurek, 5050 Quantico Lane, who identified his property on the overhead map, noting that his home is the closest to the school. He agreed that the trees have been removed, which previously provided his home with privacy. He stated there is no doubt that the architecture proposed is beautiful but referenced the tower which is specified as VIP seating and questioned who that would be used for. He stated that they came into the neighborhood when it was nice and quiet and the character has changed very quickly. He stated that they are not happy with this, and they have been very disappointed. He acknowledged that there is a small number of residents being affected but noted that they are being greatly affected. Chair Davis introduced Paul Billon, 16130 481h Avenue, who stated he is a proponent of this request. He stated that he has lived in his home for 13 years, and he cannot even get out of his neighborhood because the access is off Vicksburg, noting that his home is not near the school. He acknowledged that there is change in any neighborhood over the years. He stated he understood the other issues the neighbors have but said that this request is only for the building. He stated that the decision should not be made solely based on the amount of change as Plymouth as a city is developing. He stated that Plymouth has two great jewels in the Wayzata schools and Providence Academy. He said he hopes that the schools will bring in additional residents and will increase property values in the city. Commissioner Oakley stated that this is a beautiful building and should be a crown jewel of the city. He stated that the question is not whether this is beautiful and well-designed but whether Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 2015 Page 11 this could be beautiful and well designed while still being 14 feet lower. He said he believes that this building could be designed to meet the regulations and stated that he would be opposed to the request. Chair Davis questioned the allowed height of the building and if the commission would need to review the request if the height were under that limit. Senior Planner Drill responded that the height could be 25 feet measured from the lowest elevation to the highest point on the north side. He confirmed that the commission would not need to review the request if the height were under 25 feet. Commissioner Goldetsky shared the comments of Commissioner Oakley and stated that he will also be opposing the request. Commissioner Anderson stated that he also shares a concern with the proposed height. He stated that the applicant would not need to go back to the original design and believed that the added elements would be beneficial. He said he was surprised that the height limitation for accessory structures is 15 feet. He stated that he does like the architecture of the campus but believed that this building as proposed has more of the feeling of a castle. He stated that 57 feet is excessive for height and he could not support a building of that height. Commissioner Witt stated that she loves the structure and feels that it would be perfect in that location but believes it is too high. She asked that the applicant simply reduce the height. Chair Davis stated that he likes this plan and did not think lowering the building by ten feet would accomplish much. He said he did not think that the lower height would solve the problems of the neighboring property owners. He stated that he would vote to approve the request. MOTION by Commissioner Goldetsky, seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to recommend denial of the request by Providence Academy for a variance for the height of the field house/concessions building at 15100 Schmidt Lake Road. Vote. 4 Ayes. MOTION approved. (Chair Davis voted nay.) 7. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Chair Davis, with no objection, to adjourn the meeting at 9:04 P.M.