Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 09-24-1996CITY OF PLYMOUTH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Mike Stulberg, Commissioners Allen Ribbe, John Stoebner, Tim Bildsoe, Saundra Spigner, and Roger Berkowitz MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: 1. 2. 3. 4. CALL TO ORDER: PUBLIC FORUM: Commissioner Jeffrey Thompson Community Development Anne Supervisor Barbara Senness, Planner Engineer Dan Faulkner, and Clerical Hutt APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hurlburt, Planning Shawn Drill, City Supervisor Denise Commissioner Ribbe requested that the following be added to Page #210, Paragraph #4 Acting Chairman Ribbe replied that if the application was approved, it would not constitute a precedent. Each application is considered on its own merit." MOTION by Commissioner Ribbe, seconded by Commissioner Bildsoe to recommend approval of the September 10, 1996 Minutes as corrected. Vote. 4 Ayes. (Chairman Stulberg and Commissioner Spigner abstained.) 5. CONSENT AGENDA: No items. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C. (96108) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Opus Northwest, L.L.C. for a PUD Preliminary Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of an 82,129 square foot industrial building east of Northwest Boulevard at Xenium Lane North. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1996 Page #220 Planner Drill gave an overview of the September 18, 1996 staff report. Planner Drill submitted a new approving resolution noting that Condition #7 was added requiring that the developer shall provide funding for one-fourth the cost of the signalization for the intersection of Northwest Boulevard and Xenium Lane if and when a traffic signal becomes necessary at this location. He pointed out that Condition #2 was revised to reflect that the City shall receive written notice from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that the Indirect Source Permit has been amended, or the city shall receive documentation that the amendment is not required. Planner Drill stated that prior to the meeting, the applicant requested that the wording on Condition #7 be changed to "The developer shall enter into an assessment agreement for...". Chairman Stulberg asked if Condition #11M was also added to the revised resolution. Planner Drill replied affirmatively. Commissioner Bildsoe asked for an explanation of an Indirect Source Permit (ISP). Planner Drill stated that an ISP is a permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) that pertains to allowable building area based on parking and traffic generation. Planner Drill noted that verbal communications with the MPCA indicate that the requested increases are not considered substantial, and may be exempt from requiring formal amendment. Director Hurlburt added that Indirect Source Permit means air pollution from cars. Chairman Stulberg introduced Jim Neyer, representing the petitioner. Mr. Neyer showed aerial photos depicting the site, and pointed out the existing trail and the distance of the residential area from the site. He stated that there is a fair amount of vegetation and Plymouth Creek buffering the residents from the site. Mr. Neyer stated that he would like clarification on three items in the Engineer's Memo. He stated that pertaining to #30.H, they are not grading on property other than their own. Mr. Neyer stated that due to the building elevation being lowered three and one-half feet, Item #30.P would cause a problem. On the main entrance drive, there is currently an apron, and because the elevation will be lowered, the driveway is best tipped down. He stated that he is willing to work with the Engineering Department to make sure they are comfortable with any modifications to that condition. Mr. Neyer also noted that on item #30.Q, they are not filling any wetlands. Mr. Neyer presented a rendering of the building stating that the building will be a smooth pre -cast building, providing recesses to break up the building mass and to allow consistent signage. In response to issues raised with the Engineer's Memo, City Engineer Faulkner replied that that the applicant's plans indicate grading off the site. If the applicant is not grading off-site, their plan needs to reflect that. City Engineer Faulkner stated that the applicant would be impacting the wetland for installation of a pipe in one small area, and that is why the condition is listed. Mr. Neyer commented that they would be impacting the wetland but not filling it. City Engineer Faulkner responded that the applicant may have to do a small amount of fill, however, there is an exemption procedure they could go through. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1996 Page #221 City Engineer Faulkner stated that City staff will work with the applicant on the driveway condition, but staff is concerned with the percentage of the slope and drainage issues. He stated that all conditions should remain in the Engineer's Memo for now. Chairman Stulberg continued the public hearing. Chairman Stulberg introduced Liz Schultz of 2935 Oakview Lane. Ms. Schultz stated she would like to know more specifics pertaining to the type of uses and if there will be any restrictions on the types of tenants. She asked if there will be heavy or light industrial, and how the added tenants affect noise, traffic, and lighting. Ms. Schultz also wanted to know how many tenants are projected to occupy the building. Chairman Stulberg introduced Bruce Schultz of 2935 Oakview Lane North. Mr. Schultz stated that he talked with someone from the DNR and they said it should be a protected wetland, and whatever is filled should be replaced elsewhere. According to Mr. Schultz, the DNR said "off the record" that there will be problems with flooding, as the project will affect the water table in the entire area. Mr. Schultz stated he was concerned with the water as there was considerable flooding this year. Chairman Stulberg introduced Judy Johnson of 12950 -30th Avenue North. Ms. Johnson stated that she does not want to see the area disturbed and is concerned that the wetland be protected and left natural. Ms. Johnson was also concerned with the impact of additional traffic and the trail so near the main driveway entrance. Ms. Johnson stated that lighting from the building could be a problem to the residential area. Ms. Johnson wanted to know what types of businesses would occupy the building and also would like to see some restrictions placed on the building similar to the Plymouth Ponds Development. Chairman Stulberg closed the public hearing. In response to questions raised pertaining to tenants, Mr. Neyer stated that they have developed many of these types of buildings, and typically 20-25% will be office use, 75- 80% warehousing or light manufacturing, although there could be a machine shop. Typically, they operate with standard business hours, but some businesses might run a second or third shift. Mr. Neyer stated that ideally they would have four tenants, but there could be up to a maximum of eight. Planner Drill read from the current Zoning Ordinance as to what types of uses could be located in an I-1 District (Planned Industrial District). Planning Supervisor Senness stated that under the proposed Zoning Ordinance, the I-1 District is for lower intensity industrial, which means less truck traffic. The intention of the I-1 District is to regulate uses to facilitate compatibility with adjacent residential areas. Director Hurlburt stated that the main difference between the present and proposed I-1 District is that under the new ordinance, distribution centers and heavy industry will not be allowed. She stated that the I-1 District will be the most restrictive industrial district. Director Hurlburt added that any tenants that move into the proposed building will have to comply with the new Zoning Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1996 Page #222 In response to issues relating to the wetlands, Planner Drill stated that the DNR was contacted and a copy of their response letter is attached to the staff report. The DNR does not recommend approval or denial of an application -- they simply review the application to ensure protection of wetlands. Planner Drill stated that there was nothing in the DNR's letter relating to the concerns voiced about the water table. City Engineer Faulkner commented that the developer is responsible for taking soil bearings. He added that the on-site ponding area is for water quality treatment, and the ponding area will control the potential for flooding. In response to Ms. Johnson's concern of the main driveway entrance being too close to the trail, Planner Drill presented a map depicting the distance between the City trail and the driveway, which is roughly 500 feet. He stated that Public Safety did not indicate any concerns with the driveway entrance and traffic through the Development Review Committee process. City Engineer Faulkner commented that the proposed driveway entrance is in the most appropriate place. Planner Drill added that the lighting plan was revised to comply with the City's 0.5 maximum foot-candle requirement at the lot line. Commissioner Spigner asked who oversees projects and conditions in a resolution. Director Hurlburt explained that there are certain conditions that must be met before issuance of a building permit. Once a permit is issued, various departments including Building, Planning, and Engineering monitor the development and conditions in the resolution. On-site inspections are performed by City staff before any financial guarantee is reduced or released. Commissioner Bildsoe asked if a traffic study will be done after the project is completed. City Engineer Faulkner replied that the traffic will be monitored over time. If City staff feels a traffic study is warranted, they would make a formal request to Hennepin County to perform the study. Commissioner Berkowitz asked who owns the property that the trail is on, and if there is anything that needs to be addressed with this application pertaining to maintenance. Director Hurlburt stated that the City has an easement for the trail. Planner Drill commented that the trail is maintained by the City. Planner Drill noted that the trees along both sides of the trail would remain. Commissioner Berkowitz asked if any berming would take place along the trail. Planner Drill replied negatively. MOTION by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Ribbe recommending approval of the MPUD Preliminary Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Opus Northwest L.L.C. for property located east of Northwest Boulevard at Xenium Lane. Commissioner Berkowitz asked if a change should be made to the wording of Condition 7 as requested by the applicant. Chairman Stulberg stated his preference would be to Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1996 Page #223 leave the wording, and let the staff and the City Attorney decide if it should changed. Director Hurlburt commented that the applicant will provide the funding, and the wording shouldn't be a problem. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that the applicant's concern with the wording has to do with the relationship with their tenants, and the change could allow the applicant more flexibility. Planning Supervisor Senness stated there should not be a problem with changing the wording. Staff could simply change the wording prior to the Council's review. Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS A. PLYMOUTH PONDS DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. (96096) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Plymouth Ponds Development L.L.C. for a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and Final Plan/Plat for a 110,632 square foot industrial building at Plymouth Ponds Business Park located south of Highway 55 and north of Holly Lane. Planning Supervisor Senness updated the Commission on what has taken place regarding this item since the August 27, 1996 meeting. Chairman Stulberg introduced Brad Moen, the petitioner. Mr. Moen stated that they met many times with the residents and have reached an agreement that should please the residents. Commissioner Spigner thanked Mr. Moen for all the time and effort he put into the project and for meeting with the residents to address their concerns. MOTION by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Bildsoe recommending approval of an MPUD Preliminary Plan for Plymouth Ponds Development IV, L.L.C. Moen Leuer Construction) for one lot located west of Medina Road and County Road 24 MPUD 91-1). Commissioner Spigner questioned if all issues decided upon between the residents and the developer were listed in the new resolution. Director Hurlburt replied that issues relating to Building Four are listed in the resolution and Condition #7 pertains to the agreement reached between the residents and the developer. Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously. B. ROBBINSDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT (96120) Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1996 Page #224 Chairman Stulberg noted that school district wants to come back at a later date. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that the application would most likely come back for Planning Commission consideration sometime in November, after all outstanding issues have been addressed. MOTION by Commissioner Ribbe, seconded by Commissioner Spigner to recommend continuation of the request by Robbinsdale School for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried on a unanimous vote. C. CITY OF PLYMOUTH - ZONING ORDINANCE REVISIONS (95100) Planning Supervisor Senness gave an overview of the materials that were distributed pertaining to the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that the Comprehensive Plan Amendments are housekeeping issues to make both the plan and the ordinance consistent with one another. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that staff is trying to target a variety of audiences with the various meetings. There will be three afternoon sessions from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on October 9, 10 and 15th for property owners in commercial/industrial areas. There will be a developers meeting on October 23, 1996 from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.. There will also be two community meetings; one on October 24, 1996 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at Zachary Lane Elementary, and one on October 29, 1996 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at Parkers Lake Pavilion. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that Commissioners are welcome to attend any or all meetings, as it might be helpful to hear some feedback from the public. Planning Supervisor Senness noted that the City Council will hold a work session at 7:00 p.m. on October 1, 1996 in the Public Safety Training Room to discuss the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. Director Hurlburt stated that most of the City Council work session will be spent walking the City Council through the Proposed Zoning Ordinance, as they have not seen any of the components. Chairman Stulberg requested that someone take notes at the public meetings, as it would be useful for the Planning Commissioners when they have to make a decision on the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Supervisor Senness replied affirmatively. Chairman Stulberg asked what would happen if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved at the public hearing and the Proposed Zoning Ordinance does not go forward. Director Hurlburt replied that the City Council will not formally adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment until the Proposed Zoning Ordinance is approved. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Zoning Ordinance will be adopted at the same time. David Licht of Northwest Associated Consultants gave an overview of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Licht stated that there were no changes to the environmental districts and no content change to the sign regulations. The City Center Districts and Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1996 Page #225 antenna regulations have already been changed and adopted. The basic structure stressed is the administrative, general performance, and district sections. Administrative: There were a number of additions to various chapters that were primarily for legal reasons. The Conditional Use Permit was amended to clarify and document current procedures. New sections were added for environmental review and another for interim use that allows you to set a time when an activity is to cease. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals (BOZA) was deleted under the Variance section, as the City Council now serves that purpose. The Sketch Plan Process is also introduced under this section. General Performance Standards: The non -conforming use section clarifies more specifics on uses and how each matter is addressed. The general performance standards on noise pollution were upgraded. The fence, screening and tree preservation sections remain the same. The loading docks standards changed, and a table was provided indicating the parking changes. A model home section was added with specific regulations governing that. The animal section was upgraded somewhat, as the State becomes involved at certain points. A new section addressing landfill and excavation was added. A section pertaining to specialized housing bed & breakfast, residential shelters) was added. The Sexually Oriented Business section was revised somewhat due to the outcome of a Crystal court case. District Section: Major changes under the district section include expanding the five residential districts into nine. With more districts and definitions, more certainty is ensured. The RSF 1, 2, 3, and 4 districts allow single family dwellings. What has been approved in the past will now be regulated without the need of a PUD. The RMF 1 through 4 districts are multiple residential with one exception is that RMF -2 does allow single family dwellings at high density with a Conditional Use Permit. A new technique introduced is the OR district, which is a transitional district where office uses would be permitted and residential uses would be a conditional use. There are now four commercial districts instead of three. The City Center Districts have already been adopted. Two other transitional districts are B -C and C -W. The C -W district has larger type volume commercial such as car dealerships and lumber yards. There are now three industrial districts proposed instead of one. There is a new specialized district, P -I (Public Institutional) which will be for churches and schools. The Planned Unit Development District is a new district to the City. Most PUD's will be rescinded by the new ordinance, with zoning to be consistent with City development approvals or existing base zoning. There are no changes proposed to the three environmental districts (Wetlands, Shoreland and Floodplain Overlay). Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1996 Page #226 Commissioner Spigner questioned if the recycling business currently located at 36th Avenue and Highway 169 would be an appropriate use under the proposed zoning ordinance. Director Hurlburt replied that the City is currently pursuing legal action on the owner of the business, as it is not an allowable use at that location under the current ordinance, or under the proposed zoning ordinance. Planning Supervisor Senness gave an overview of the Proposed Zoning Map. She stated that staff tried to place each property in a classification that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that is as close as possible to its current designation. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that no planning studies have been done to date, and this exercise is regulatory in nature. Chairman Stulberg commented that this probably would not be the time to request a zoning or comprehensive plan change. Planning Supervisor Senness replied that there will likely be people who will argue the proposed classification of their property. Staff will recommend that those individuals pursue reguiding or rezoning as a separate action. Planning Supervisor Senness noted the following regarding the proposed zoning map: Land currently zoned FRD will stay the same (primarily in northwest Plymouth) with one exception -- if the property is City -owned, it will now be classified as P -I district. Areas currently zoned R -IA would become RSF-l. Director Hurlburt noted there were exceptions around Medicine Lake where some land was placed in the RSF-2 district because of small lot sizes. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that looking at developed areas, staff used what seems to be the most compatible with the side yard setbacks. There were no changes to the City Center area. Industrial areas adjacent to residential developments were placed in an I-1 District, as it is the least intense industrial category. Businesses such as Olympic Steel and Ryerson will be classified as I-3, Heavy Industrial. The P -I District (Public Institutional) will be for the high schools, churches and the Adult Correctional Facility. The elementary schools will be classified the same as the surrounding zoning and it will exist with a Conditional Use Permit. All of the PUDs will cease to exist except for four areas because of special provisions: a portion of the Parkers Lake PUD, The Villages, the multi -family portion of Nanterre, and the residential portion of Rockford Glen. Planning Supervisor Senness commented that Commissioners could contact staff if they have any questions pertaining to the proposed zoning ordinance. Director Hurlburt stated that information pertaining to the proposed zoning ordinance will be published in the Plymouth News and letters will be sent out to industrial/commercial property owners and developers/builders in the City. Staff is also planning on doing a spot for Cable Television. MOTION by Commissioner Spigner, seconded by Commissioner Berkowitz to adjourn. Vote. 6 Ayes. Meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.