Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 05-06-2015Approved Minutes City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2015 MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Marc Anderson, Bryan Oakley, Gary Goldetsky, Jim Kovach, Julie Witt, Donovan Saba MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair James Davis STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Thomson, Senior Planner Shawn Drill, Senior Planner Marie Darling 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 Oakley, to approve the May 6, 2015 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 15, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Goldetsky, seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to approve the consent agenda. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. SOLUTRAN PROPERTIES, LLC (2015015) (Continued fi oin the April 15, 2015 meeting) Vice Chair Anderson introduced the request by Solutran Properties for a site plan and conditional use permit for a new office building for property located at 13305 12°i Avenue. Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report. Vice Chair Anderson introduced Scott Nordstrand, representing the applicant, who stated that Solutran has been a tenant in Plymouth for about 30 years and are pleased that they have found a place to build a headquarters and remain in Plymouth. He stated that the business has about 100 Approved Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 2015 Page2 employees and is a financial transactions company, processing Women Infant Children (WIC) checks and SNAP benefits payments. He stated that the company also processes checks for companies and is involved in healthy savings, which is a grocery discount card offered to Medica customers. Vice Chair Anderson continued the public hearing and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the item. Vice Chair Anderson referenced the aerial photograph that was shown and asked for additional information regarding the yellow line shown and the relation to the adjacent prope1iy's parking. Senior Planner Drill replied that there are cross parking easements for these prope1iies. He stated that all of the businesses exceed the minimum parking requirements, regardless of the shared parking agreements. Vice Chair Anderson referenced the close proximity of the two driveways and questioned if there would be a traffic problem. Senior Planner Drill replied that the engineering depmiment reviewed the issue and determined this to be a better layout for access. Commissioner Oakley stated he had noticed in the original application that the lighting proposed exceeds that of the city stm1dard and questioned how that compares to what is there currently. Senior Planner Drill replied that he would expect there to be a difference from what is 111 existence as the new site will comply with the most current city standards. MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Kovach, to recommend approval of the request by Solutran Properties for a site plan and conditional use permit for a new office building for property located at 13305 12°1 Avenue. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. B. OPPIDAN, INC. (2015005) Vice Chair Anderson introduced the request by Oppidan, Inc. for a PUD general plan and preliminary plat for a retail building with drive tln·ough for prope1iy located south of the Highway 55 frontage road, between West Medicine Lake Drive and County Road 73. Senior Plam1er Drill gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Goldetsky stated that he found the W1ite up from staff to be very thoughtful and asked for more details as to what a more creative and efficient use of the space could be. Senior Planner Drill responded that if the proposed lot line were removed, the site could better meet the vision of the city. He noted that this is a highly visible site from Highway 55 m1d the city's vision was for mixed use with perhaps for a larger building. Approved Planning Commission Minutes May6,2015 Page3 Planning Manager Thomson stated that there is more than one answer, noting that there could be two separate buildings, but staff would prefer to see both buildings come forward together to ensure that the development is unified. Commissioner Oakley asked for additional information regarding the jog in the lot line. Senior Planner Drill replied that the lot line is centered on the curb cut with the idea that the access point would be shared when the neighboring lot develops. Vice Chair Anderson referenced a drawing of what a two-story office building on Outlot A could look like and asked to see that. Senior Planner Drill presented that sketch and explained that the sketch was a concept for what could happen on the neighboring site, noting that the applicant does not own that parcel. Vice Chair Anderson introduced Tom Ryan, representing the applicant, who presented a sketch of the proposed retail center with a concept for a two-story office building that could fit on the adjacent parcel. He stated that they do not own the adjacent parcel, nor do they have a user for it, but they had been asked by staff to complete a concept. He stated that they are going to meet with the adjacent landowner in attempt to work together. Connnissioner Witt asked how the number of tenants was determined, noting that as proposed it appears there will be three tenants. She questioned how the applicant would determine the amount of square footage needed. Mr. Ryan replied they are showing three tenants but noted that one tenant could come in and occupy the remainder of the space. He stated that Caribou Coffee would be the anchor tenant and explained that it would not make sense to build a larger retail center without a larger anchor tenant. Vice Chair Anderson questioned the square footage of the Caribou Coffee site. Mr. Ryan replied that tenant would occupy 2,500 square feet. Vice Chair Anderson stated that it appears there is a retaining wall to the east of the drive­through and asked if that is conect. Mr. Ryan confirmed that there is a five-foot retaining wall east of the bypass lane. Vice Chair Anderson referenced the trees near the wetland and questioned if those would be removed. Mr. Ryan replied that those trees would remain. Vice Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Approved Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 2015 Page4 Vice Chair Anderson introduced Lauren Leith, 610 Cottonwood Lane, who stated her property adjoins the wetland near the building. She expressed an environmental concern with these plans as she did not believe the impervious surface would be setback far enough from the wetland. She proposed a 50 foot minimum setback to allow for a proper buffer. She stated that if a 50-foot buffer cannot be provided, she would like to see an environmental assessment completed. Vice Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Dan Parks, Westwood Engineering, stated that this project will take storm water from the building to drain in a pond behind the building, which will act as an infiltration basin. He advised that there will be another infiltration basin in the front of the building. He stated that the city does have buffer standards based on the quality of the wetland and advised that the plan was designed to meet the buffer standards of the city. Commissioner Oakley questioned what would happen to the water that falls onto tl1e drive­th:rough. Mr. Parks explained how the runoff would be directed on the site, noting that there is curb and gutter around the drive-through to prevent that water from running into the wetlands. Commissioner Witt stated that she would agree with staff that placing this building on tlie site would limit what could happen on the remainder of the site. She stated that she would like to see tl1e site develop as one whole parcel. Commissioner Goldetsky agreed with those comments and also echoed the comments of staff regarding efficiency. Commissioner Oakley stated he believes tliat it is important to let the market conditions drive the development and that the applicant is meeting the requirements of the city. He noted that this would be a small portion of the site and would still leave a large portion of the site for development. Mr. Ryan presented the original plan that was approved by the Council in 2005 and included many and eclectic buildings, which he believed to be the intent of the PUD. Commissioner Saba referenced the proposed concept for the office building and questioned how staff believed tliat would fit witl1 tlie original concept if that were being proposed today as well. Senior Planner Drill replied that the location of the frontage road has changed from tlie original plan as it had previously been proposed as a backage road. He stated that when the frontage road was relocated that significantly changed how the city views the site. He noted that the addition of the senior living also changes the intent of tl1e site. He stated tliat if the office building were being proposed witli this retail site, staff would most likely have a different recommendation. Mr. Parks stated that he grew up in Plymouth as his family moved here in 1964. He provided background information on the site, noting that tliere is about 30 to 40 feet of bad soils, which is Approved Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 2015 Page 5 why the site has remained vacant for so long. He explained that the bad soils also directed the alignment of the frontage road. He stated that the intent of the concept for the adjacent parcel was to show that there could be a viable use for that parcel if this parcels develops as proposed. Vice Chair Anderson stated that he is in support of the building. He stated that the plan has been adjusted based on market forces and that he understood how hard it is to get things to develop at the same time. MOTION by Commissioner Goldetsky, seconded by Commissioner Witt, to recommend denial of the request by Oppidan, Inc. for a PUD general plan and preliminary plat for a retail building with drive through for property located south of the Highway 55 frontage road, between West Medicine Lake Drive and County Road 73. Vote. 3 Ayes, 3 Nays. (Commissioners Oakley, Kovach, and Anderson voted nay.) C.LIFE CARE SERVICES (2015018) Vice Chair Anderson introduced the request by Life Care Services for a PUD amendment for a master sign plan at Trillium Woods for property located in the southeast corner of Juneau Lane and County Road 47. Senior Planner Darling gave an overview of the staff report. Vice Chair Anderson introduced Bryan Schnurr, representing the applicant, who stated that he is present to answer any questions. Vice Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Vice Chair Anderson introduced Deepak Asrani, 5825 Juneau Lane, who stated that the sign labeled 107 is right outside his driveway. He stated that the roadway is a small, two-lane road and expressed concern that the sign would limit the visibility of drivers and could endanger his children when they are exiting the driveway. He stated that Juneau Lane is going to be closed sometime in 2016 and therefore did not see any traffic that would be coming from that way to access that parcel. He stated that a lot of the bedroom windows in his home face Juneau Lane and expressed concern with the lighting of the sign. He stated that he did not oppose any of the other proposed signs for the propetiy but asked that this sign be relocated. Vice Chair Anderson questioned the distance between the driveway and the proposed sign. Mr. Asrani estimated about 14 to 15 feet between the driveway and proposed sign location. Commissioner Goldetsky asked for Mr. Asrani to point out the location of his home to better determine the distance from the proposed sign. Mr. Asrani identified his home on the map. Vice Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Approved Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 2015 Page6 Mr. Schnun confirmed the location of Mr. Asrani's home and stated that the directional signage labeled 107 had originally been shown on the south side of the road and was moved to the north side by the direction of the Planning Commission. He stated that the sign would not be lit. He recognized that Juneau Lane will be closed later this year but noted that it is the primary service lane for the back of house operations and that is why the directional sign will be needed. Mr. Schnun confirmed that the distance between the sign and the edge of Mr. Asrani's driveway is closer to 3 5 to 40 feet. Mr. Asrani stated that he does have a safety concern for his children, especially with the large trucks that will be accessing this site from the roadway. Commissioner Witt questioned if the sign is used for service h·ucks, which usually come early in the morning, how helpful the sign will be if it is not lit. Mr. Schnurr stated that the sign would not be lit as the street signs would provide sufficient illumination to identify the location. Commissioner Goldetsky stated that the signs would seem to provide a more orderly flow for h·affic and would not be a distraction. MOTION by Commissioner Goldetsky, seconded by Commissioner Kovach, to recommend approval of the request by Life Care Services for a PUD amendment for a master sign plan at Trillium Woods for property located in the southeast corner of Juneau Lane and County Road 47. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. D. CITY OF PLYMOUTH (2014100) Vice Chair Anderson introduced the request by the City of Plymouth for the annual update to the zoning ordinance and city code. Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report. Vice Chair Anderson asked if the proposed higher parking ratio would apply to movie theaters. Senior Planner Drill confirmed that movie theaters would be included. Vice Chair Anderson stated that the theater on Vicksburg appears to be expanding and reducing parking. Senior Planner Drill replied that the theater has also reduced the number of seats through the remodel. Vice Chair Anderson opened the public hearing and closed the public hearing, as there was no one present to speak on the item. ApprovedPlanning Commission Minutes May 6, 2015 Page? Commissioner Witt referenced the provision regarding recreational vehicles in a driveway and questioned if a visitor could come to your home in a recreational vehicle and spend a few nights in your driveway. Senior Planner Drill stated that this is an attempt to address complaints. He provided the example of a van that was parked in a residential driveway and consistently used for sleeping over an extended period of time. He stated that if someone were visiting and sleeping in a recreational vehicle in your driveway, it would most likely not cause complaints and if a complaint did arise, the resident would be given a few days to remedy the situation. MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Goldetsky, to recommend approval of the request by the City of Plymouth for the annual update to the zoning ordinance and city code. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 7.NEW BUSINESS 8.ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Vice Chair Anderson, with no objection, to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 P.M.