Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 03-26-1996CITY OF PLYMOUTH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 26, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairperson Saundra Spigner, Commissioners John Stoebner, Roger Berkowitz, Jeff Thompson, and Tim Bildsoe MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Mike Stulberg and Commissioner Allen Ribbe STAFF PRESENT: Director Anne Hurlburt, Planning Supervisor Barbara Senness, Planner Shawn Drill, City Engineer Dan Faulkner, and Clerical Supervisor Denise Hutt 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Public Forum: None. 3. Approval of Agenda: Legal Notice for Wayzata Farms (96013) published to be heard at this meeting was postponed at the applicant's request. A legal notice will be republished with a new date. Item #6A for Valvoline Rapid Oil Change was withdrawn at the applicant's request. 4. Approval of Minutes: MOTION by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Bildsoe to recommend approval of the March 12, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously. 5. CONSENT AGENDA No Items. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. CARLSON REAL ESTATE CO., INC. (96004) Acting Chairperson Spigner introduced the request by Carlson Real Estate Co., Inc. for a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan/Plat, Final Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for the creation of two lots for two multi -story office buildings totaling 160,000 square feet located at the southwest corner of I-494 and Carlson Parkway. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page #62 Planning Supervisor Senness gave an overview of the March 22, 1996 staff report. Planning Supervisor Senness presented pictures taken by staff depicting an existing dense buffer on the adjacent residential sites. Commissioner Berkowitz asked how the proposed application for parking compares to the Prudential building parking lot. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that the parking spaces at the Prudential parking lot are quite a bit smaller than the proposed parking for this application. Acting Chairperson Spigner introduced Matt Van Slooten, representing the petitioner. Mr. Van Slooten concurred with the staff report. He presented a rendering of the building and explained that the proposed buildings would be similar to the multi -tenant office building across the street. Mr. Van Slooten stated that the Concept Plan previously approved was for 185,000 square feet with a multi-level ramp, but the ramp didn't work well for multi -tenants. Thus, they decided to redesign to two one -level decks. He explained that the Site Plan approval is for phase two and they will develop with the north phase first. Commissioner Stoebner asked how many stories were approved under the original Concept Plan. Mr. Van Slooten replied that the previously approved Concept Plan consisted of two four story structures with a bridge in between the buildings. Mr. Van Slooten stated that the proposed five story building is below grade, so it is no higher than the four story building that was previously approved. Acting Chairperson Spigner opened the public hearing. Acting Chairperson Spigner introduced Alan Gustner of 14611 Gleason Lake Drive. Mr. Gustner asked if the application included both phases. Mr. Gustner stated that his property is located behind One Carlson Parkway and he is concerned with the height of buildings proposed. He voiced his objection to any building higher than 40 feet. Mr. Gustner commented that the buffer trees in the pictures taken by staff are not spruce or pine trees and have no leaves on them for six months. Mr. Gustner stated that the lights from Carlson Center buildings are on from 6:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. which illuminates his property. He was concerned that two more buildings would add to that. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page #63 Mr. Gustner presented petitions from surrounding neighbors objecting to the proposal. Mr. Gustner asked why Carlson is proposing a five -story building since a four story building had been previously approved. Mr. Gustner voiced his dissatisfaction for the residents being mislead with items proposed by Carlson for this area throughout the years. Acting Chairperson Spigner asked where Mr. Gustner's residence was located compared to the proposal. Mr. Gustner replied that his residence is the third lot on Gleason Lake Drive looking at the southeast corner of the proposed site. Acting Chairperson Spigner introduced Ruth Gregory of 14811 Gleason Lake Drive. Ms. Gregory stated that she concurred with everything Mr. Gustner stated. She indicated that the residents were told there would be low-density, low structured buildings in that area. She added that the residents were promised by previous City Council members that when Carlson Parkway was put in, traffic would decrease on Gleason Lake Drive. Ms. Gregory stated that she would like to be notified of proposals for that area, even though her property is not within 500 feet. She stated that staff should look at who may be potentially impacted by a proposal and go beyond the 500 feet if warranted. Acting Chairperson Spigner closed the public hearing. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that the review period deadline for the proposal is July 12, 1996. The Preliminary Plan/Plat that is requested is for both buildings. She explained that the Final Plan/Plat does not come before the Planning Commission, but rather goes directly to the City Council. Director Hurlburt explained that there is only one public hearing for the proposal. The five story building will go directly to the City Council at a later date. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that the previous approval did not specifically state how many stories would be allowed. It stated that they were allowed to go up to four stories and beyond if certain criteria was met. Acting Chairperson Spigner asked what the criteria would be to extend beyond four stories. Planning Supervisor Senness replied that the criteria would be the setback requirements. The proposal meets the 300 -foot setback from the nearest residential property; however, it does not meet the additional 35 -foot building setback from the property lines. The Zoning Ordinance permits the City Council to waive the additional setback requirements if the waiver would not have a deleterious effect upon surrounding properties. Staff finds that waiving the additional setback from the property lines would not have a deleterious effect Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page #64 upon surrounding properties. Specifically, the site includes a large wetland and the increased building height permits the full development of this property while meeting the wetland setback. Mr. Van Slooten stated that there have been a number of different plans that have gone by the wayside. In 1983, there was an approval for office buildings that were to be eight stories, and then later reduced to four stories. He stated that the benefit of the five story building is less density with smaller floor space and more green space. There would be excavation of dirt and one story would be below grade level so there would be minimal change in height from the four story building. Commissioner Thompson asked how reduction in density is accomplished going from a four story to a five story building. Mr. Van Slooten replied that there would be more green space with a five story building and the parking space is now for two two-story parking ramps instead of the three level parking ramp. Mr. Van Slooten stated that Carlson Real Estate did invite surrounding neighbors to a meeting to discuss the proposal and no one attended. Mr. Gustner stated that neighbors did not attend the meeting because of past experiences with other proposals for the area. City Engineer Faulkner commented on traffic study issues raised, stating that a traffic study was not required because the proposed development is consistent with the land use guiding. He agreed that Gleason Lake Drive has numerous access points and experiences a lot of through traffic. He stated that Zachary Lane and Fernbrook Lane are classified as major collectors and are similar to Gleason Lake Drive. He estimated that there are currently 3,000 to 4,000 vehicles per day on Gleason Lake Drive. Acting Chairperson Spigner asked if traffic would increase because of the proposal. City Engineer Faulkner responded affirmatively. He stated that an intersection was planned to intersect the major access of Gleason Lake Drive and Carlson Parkway with a traffic signal. The City is currently conducting a preliminary signal justification study to see if warrants are met for a four way signal. The developer would have to commit to one-fourth of the cost with the City responsible for the remainder. The City asked the consultant to look at Gleason Lake Drive to forecast the impacts on Gleason Lake Drive with a signal. Director Hurlburt stated that the if study shows it is warranted, it would be with or without the proposed development. She asked if there are any places west on Gleason Lake Drive that would warrant it. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page #65 City Engineer Faulkner replied that the City has not received any request for additional stop signs on Gleason Lake Drive. Commissioner Thompson asked if the height of the five story building elevation above the grade would virtually be the same as the four story building. Mr. Van Slooten replied affirmatively. Director Hurlburt asked if Carlson had considered doing any computer imaging, or the like, of what the height of the building would look like from the residential area. Mr. Van Slooten replied that was the intention of the rendering that was presented. Director Hurlburt stated that the view from the residential back yard would be different, but the building would not be visible because of the existing building and the current trees. Mr. Van Slooten concurred. Commissioner Thompson asked if there will be landscaping below grade. Mr. Van Slooten indicated on the landscape plan that some of the landscaping would be at a lower grade. MOTION by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Acting Chairperson Spigner to recommend approval of a MPUD Preliminary Plan/Plat, final Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Carlson Real Estate Co. for property located at the southeast corner of I- 494 and Carlson Parkway. Commissioner Stoebner stated that there was no rush for approval as they are not under tight timing constraints. He indicated his preference for discussion between Carlson Real Estate Co. and the neighbors and would not be opposed to the formation of a committee for discussion. Acting Chairperson Spigner stated since the public hearing is closed, the Commissioners should make their decisions based on what was said. She did agree that it could be sent to a committee for discussion or request the applicant to prepare computer imaging. Director Hurlburt stated the Commission could table the action on the applications to a certain date and ask the applicant to meet with the neighbors to discuss the issues raised. Commissioner Bildsoe pointed out that the applicant had already invited the neighbors to a meeting and no one attended. He added that it would be a waste of time if the neighbors did not want to discuss it with the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page #66 Commissioner Thomspon stated that he was moved by the neighbors' comments, but also satisfied by the applicant's statements. He did not see any reason to disapprove, and would support moving forward with a computer image. Director Hurlburt stated that a computer image is only useful if there is something to see. She added that more information could be provided about what exists today. Commissioner Thomspon stated that the landowner has the right to develop property within the guidelines and the proposal seems to meet the guidelines. He commented that the neighbors did not take advantage of the scheduled meeting with the applicant. SUBSTITUTE MOTION by Commissioner Berkowitz, seconded by Commissioner Stoebner requesting the item be tabled to the April 23, 1996 meeting. The applicant should meet with the residents to discuss issues raised and submit further documentation to support the proposal such as computer imaging, or the like. Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously. It was requested that the neighbors be re -notified of the April 23 meeting date. C. FULER, SEAVER & RAMETTE, P.A. (96015) Acting Chairperson Spigner introduced the request by Fuller, Seaver & Ramette, P.A. for a Lot Division/Consolidation and Variance for property located at 10820 Highway 55 and 10700 Highway 55. Planner Drill gave an overview of the March 19, 1996 staff report. Acting Chairperson Spigner introduced John Brumback of Welsh Companies, representing the petitioner. Mr. Brumback stated that he concurred with the staff report. Commissioner Thompson asked if the properties affected are owned by one owner. Mr. Brumback responded that each of the parcels has individual owners. Planner Drill added that the application was signed jointly by both owners of the individual parcels. Acting Chairperson Spigner opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the issue. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page #67 MOTION by Commissioner Stoebner, seconded by Commissioner Bildsoe to recommend approval of a Lot Division/Lot Consolidation and Variance for Fuller, Seaver, & Ramette, P.A. for property located at 10820 Highway 55 and 10700 Highway 55. Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously. D. ASCENSION LUTHERAN CHURCH (96018) Acting Chairperson Spigner introduced the request by Ascension Lutheran Church for a Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow construction of a 3,570 square foot addition onto the north and west sides of the existing church located at 15870 -46th Avenue North. Planner Drill gave an overview of the March 15, 1996 staff report. Commissioner Berkowitz asked if there was any expansion being requested to the parking lot. Planner Drill replied that no request is being made for parking lot expansion. Acting Chairperson Spigner introduced Jeff Siewert, representing the petitioner. Mr. Siewart stated that he concurred with the staff report. Acting Chairperson Spigner opened the public hearing. Acting Chairperson Spigner introduced Larry Deeney of 4625 Terraceview Lane. Mr. Deeney stated that his backyard is adjacent to the property. He stated that he was concerned with increased daytime activities and traffic because of the expansion. Mr. Deeney asked if there were any plans for additional landscaping for the area immediately north of the church as it has previously grown wild. He stated he would like to see it maintained at a better level, as his yard is affected by dandelions from the area. Mr. Deeney asked if any additional buffer is proposed to screen the parking lot area from the neighbors. Acting Chairperson Spigner closed the public hearing. Mr. Siewert stated that there are no immediate plans for increased day time use of the church. The expansion of classrooms are for Sunday mornings only, so there would be no change in traffic patterns except for Vacation Bible School held in August. Mr. Siewert commented that they are conscious of the grass on the north side and have contracted it out to be cut once a month beginning this summer. Mr. Siewert stated that there are no immediate plans for a buffer along the eastern edge of property line. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page #68 Acting Chairperson Spigner asked if it would be possible to install additional buffering along the eastern edge of the site. Mr. Siewert responded that it would be possible, but the church expansion would take place on the north and west sides and the residential area lies to the east. Acting Chairperson Spigner asked if the area north of the church has grown wild in previous years. Mr. Siewert replied affirmatively. Commissioner Berkowitz asked what the City's Weed Ordinance states. Director Hurlburt responded that the Weed Ordinance states an eight inch maximum. A notice would be sent to the owner and the owner does not responsd, the City would cut the grass and bill the owner. MOTION by Commissioner Bildsoe, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Site plan Amendment for Ascension Evangelical Lutheran Church for property located at 15870- 46th Avenue North. Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously. E. JAMES R. HIL,L/LAUKKA WILLIAMS (96020) Chairperson Spigner introduced the request by James R. Hill/Laukka Williams for a Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Amendment for Suncourt II to change 41 detached single family units to a total of 59 detached single family units and attached townhouse units. Planning Supervisor Senness gave an overview of the March 22, 1996 staff report. Acting Chairperson Spigner introduced Larry Laukka, the petitioner. Mr. Laukka gave an overview of the area, noting principal developments, number of units and unit type within each development. Mr. Laukka stated that he has been trying to market single family dwellings for Suncourt II during the past 18 months with little success, thus, the need to request a change to townhomes. He stated that density is still available due to not being used in other areas of the Planned Unit Development. Mr. Laukka stated that he wrote to the neighbors in the Ashburne townhome development to explain why a change was needed. He wrote to them because when they purchased in Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page #69 Ashburne, single family dwelling units were planned for the area. He wrote them a second letter inviting them to a meeting to discuss any issues. He stated that four people attended the meeting. Mr. Laukka stated the residents were concerned about the affect of their property values with townhomes versus single family dwellings. He presented a chart depicting Parkers Lake market appreciation since 1989. Mr. Laukka stated that the proposed townhomes will sell for $130,000 to $150,000 and will have the Uplands townhome design. He stated that the Uplands townhomes that were completed in 1994 sold for $105,000 with the average resale now being $113,000. Acting Chairperson Spigner opened the public hearing. Director Hurlburt read a letter dated March 25, 1996, from Darwin Kopp of 15160C 24th Avenue North. Mr. Kopp's letter stated that now that most of Ashburne had been marketed, Mr. Laukka has decided to rezone the property (Suncourt II) to multi -family housing due to difficulty in moving the properties, although several had been sold. The sudden unexpected change in zoning would have a measurable impact on the current valuation and future appreciation potential. Other concerns raised in Mr. Kopp's letter included that there would be more townhomes on the immediate market. He indicated that he was told by Mr. Laukka's sales staff that the Ashburne units would be the last townhomes to be built in this area. The proposed townhomes will be newer townhomes. The proposed units will be better townhomes than the Ashburne units. Mr. Kopp's letter also stated that he felt that the residents of Ashburne, having purchased their properties from Laukka Development on good faith, have a right to receive full compensation for the changes made for Mr. Laukka's benefit, or else the zoning should stand as originally represented. Acting Chairperson Spigner introduced Merrill Albert of 15610D 24th Avenue North. Ms. Albert voiced her objection to the dwelling unit style proposed based on both community and personal issues. She commented that she purchased her home on the premise there would be single family dwellings next to her. She agreed that her home would increase in value, but not as much as it would have if single family dwellings were built. Ms. Albert stated there should not be any more townhomes in the area and the change requested is just self-serving to Mr. Laukka. Ms. Albert stated that she would be facing more black asphalt and the views would be different than with single family dwellings. The proposed townhomes would be closer to the line lines. Ms. Albert also stated that there is also a major drainage problem with her residence. Commissioner Thompson asked Ms. Albert if she had heard the same statements as referenced in Mr. Kopp's letter when she purchased her home. Ms. Albert responded that she was only told that there would be single family dwellings adjacent to her home. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page #70 Acting Chairperson Spigner introduced Terrance Bakowski of 15610H 24th Avenue North. Mr. Bakowski stated that he was in favor of the proposed change, as he would just like to see the neighborhood completed. He stated that the neighborhood needs to be completed to help increase the value of their home, instead of having vacant land. Acting Chairperson Spigner introduced Ann Bakowksi of 15610H 24th Avenue North. Ms. Bakowski stated that when they purchased their home, they were told something would be going in adjacent to them, but not specifically single family dwellings. Acting Chairperson Spigner closed the public hearing. Acting Chairperson Spigner asked if the property had always been zoned LA -3. Director Hurlburt stated that the property was developed as a Planned Unit Development and many times amended, but has always been zoned as LA -3 during that time. Mr. Laukka assured that the drainage patterns would not change with the development. He stated that now that he is aware of the drainage problem that Ms. Alberts is having, he will check into what can be done to correct it. Mr. Laukka stated that has not survived 35 years of business by lying to potential homebuyers. He stated that he does not own all parcels remaining in Parkers Lake and would not tell potential homebuyers that there would not be anymore townhomes going in. Commissioner Thompson asked what Mr. Laukka would do if the Concept Plan was not approved. Mr. Laukka stated that he did not know what he would do with the property, but it would not be marketed for single family dwellings, as that had already been tried. He stated that this proposal would increase property values. Commissioner Thompson asked how many lots were sold during the 18 months. Mr. Laukka replied that four were sold on the cul-de-sac with two being built on. He stated that a total of six are built or sold. Commissioner Berkowitz asked what the price range difference was between the single family homes and the proposed townhomes. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page #71 Mr. Laukka replied that the single family homes would have sold for $210,000 to 290,000, versus the townhomes of $130,000 to $150,000. He added that the proposed townhomes would have full basements. MOTION by Acting Chairman Spigner, seconded by Commissioner Stoebner to recommend approval of the MPUD Concept Plan Amendment for Laukka-Williams Parkers Lake for property located on 25th Place northeast of Shenandoah Lane. Commissioner Thompson commented that he was deeply troubled when a subdivision plan changes when people relied on specific information when they purchased their home. He agreed that no development at all would be detrimental for everyone involved, but was not sure that he could support the change. Acting Chairperson Spigner stated that the proposal is for a Concept Plan only, and when you have difficulty selling the lots, you need to go back to the drawing board. She stated that the value of surrounding properties will increase due to the proposed more expensive townhomes. She added that this is not the final approval, but the proposal looks like it would work. MOTION to Amend by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Berkowitz to table the item to the April 23, 1996 meeting in order for the applicant to submit letters from the single family dwelling units and to poll the residents of Ashburne. Commissioner Bildsoe asked how many single family dwelling units are owned by individuals other than Laukka. Mr. Laukka replied that there are four single family homeowners and he has letters from them stating that they do not object to the townhomes that are proposed. Commissioner Bildsoe commented that he could see no reason for the amended motion, since Mr. Laukka has letters from the single family owners as they would be affected the most by the change. Commissioner Thompson stated that his main concern is the issue of representation of the Ashburne residents when they purchased their homes. Roll Call Vote on Amendment. 3 Ayes. MOTION carried on a 3-2 Vote. (Commissioner Bildsoe and Acting Chairperson Spigner voted nay.) Mr. Laukka asked for an explanation of the amended motion and stated that the request is not reasonable to poll 84 homeowners. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page #72 Commissioner Thompson explained that he wanted the residents of Ashburne polled to see if they agree or disagree with the proposed change from singe family dwellings to townhomes. Director Hurlburt commented that the Commission can not require Mr. Laukka to produce a petition or to poll the residents. She stated that Mr. Laukka can submit the letters from the single family dwelling homeowners and any other written comments that he would like to support his request for a change. Acting Chairperson Spigner called a recess at 9:38 p.m. The meeting reconvened off -camera at 9:50 p.m. 9. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of Zoning Ordinance. Background on philosophy, administrative sections, commercial/industrial districts and mapping. Planning Supervisor Senness provided the new Planning Commissioners with a detailed background of the draft zoning revisions to date. She also reviewed the process and time tables, noting that staff would try to keep special meetings to a minimum. Planning Supervisor Senness introduced David Licht, Project Consultant. Mr. Licht reviewed the structure of the draft ordinance. He noted that there is an interrelationship between the various sections, where one section may rely on, or refer to, another section. Mr. Licht reviewed the draft Administrative Section, item by item, noting the following changes or features: The section is fairly complete except for Definitions. Public Hearing process outlined is governed by State law. Conditional Use Permits to be approved by simple majority vote. Interim uses would be a new use classification. Administrative Permits apply to Christmas tree sales, grand openings, and other special events. This is a somewhat unique permit that was not revised a great deal. Variances cannot be granted to permit "uses" not allowed in the district. Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on all major variances. Appeals process provides a means to appeal an interpretation of the ordinance and is rarely used. Environmental Review section is a positive addition to the ordinance. Site Plan Review provisions are a fundamental section of the ordinance. Commercial/Industrial Districts Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page #73 Mr. Licht noted that the current ordinance is "cumulative" and is structured like an inverted pyramid. He stated that this arrangement affords little control. Mr. Licht reviewed the purpose of, and uses allowed in each of the commercial/industrial districts. He noted that two additional industrial districts would be created to support both light and heavy industrial uses. Mr. Licht also stated that an institutional district would be established to support public uses, including schools. Planning Supervisor Senness reviewed the mapping process to apply new districts to the land. She noted that the City wants to avoid creating non -conformities to the extent possible. She also noted that the mapping exercise should apply the most appropriate classification to the "existing" use of the property. Long range planning should not be a goal of the mapping exercise, as that will be addressed when the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is reviewed. Meeting Adjourned at 10:40 p.m.