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.