Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 05-20-1975 Special1® 0 MI MUTES SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING May 20, 1975 A special meeting of the Plymouth City Council was called to order by Mayor Hilde at, 7:30 P.M. 1n the Council Chambers of the Puclic Works Building, 14900 Twenty-third Avenue North, on May 20, 1915. PRESENT: Mayor Hilder Councilmen Neils and Seibold. i ABSENT: Coincilmen 4unt and Spaeth. MINUTE'S NOTION was made by Councilman Neils, seconded by Councilman Seibold, to change the date of the Board of Review from June 3, 1975 to June 10, 1975. Notion carried, three ayes. NANCE Discussion was held on Subdiviiien 3. Mobile Home Park Development - P. 59. Mayor hilde .reviewed some of the arguments favoring larger and smaller lot sizes. One argument is that tae should not lower our lot size and reduce the size of homes in Plymouth because if we do, it will result in poorer type neighborhoods which will result in a fiial drag on our community. By sticking with the some ratio of land to house, you are satisfying env'ronmentalists. On the uther side of the coin, the gist of it is ttat the econov has gone through a tremendous metamorphosis where jest a small fraction or people can afford tp) btt a haute anywhere ani fewer can afford to buy a home in Plymouth. We should be cooperating with others by doing something in order to make it possible feir more people to own homes. We sill win more favor of the federal anti authorities who grant funds for aid. Some people in our comnupiiy would favor thi; approach for humNnitarian reasons. We shout; tali; about the basic philosophical question. Ccum; ilman Neils state I that ne does n -it think we would he doi ny anyone afavor (y taking the position that a mk.!Ie home is a suitable permanent residen:e. The life soeii cif a mobile home is about twelve to f;fteen years. It vas noted that avei'4bie new home costs are so high that only a smallfractionofthet.»rke, pan afford to buy new homes. Caum ilman Neils stated that it woulc* be better for people to build homes that etre luwL:r in i; gyros but that 0ey can afford - - quality homes for a lesser price, ray:' `+.n cheap louses they will he sorry they ever boug Ht, 150- E 4 S*ial.Council Meeting May 219 1975 Page 151 Councilwo Selbold stated he could understand all the arguments against mobile hWK-s: hcwever, our comitunity is griming rapidly and in vtow of the,permanent citizens within our communil y, -it behooves this Council to thtnk about our citizens in Plymouth that `pare groaning ,old and want ' to,, stay in Plymouth. He further stated that a mobil_ home does fulfill a need. We. should have an ordirier:-ce that permits Aooile homes. If it were _to be set up 1n the right manner with a proper ordinance, it could be attractive. Mobile hares do produce some purchssig 00"t even though they do not produce taxes. I , Councilman Seibold stated he thinks that in a truly completely planned community there is a place for a good mobile home park. Planner Dillerud explained that this ordinance it structured differently than other codes wherein we are applying PUO to Mabile Home Parks. Design is strirtly- controlled by the Planning Commission and City Council. The vas} majority of our conanunity is ruled out from mobile homes since only LW and LA4 areas have enough density for a feasible Mobile Home project. The design control!. there but that does not guarantee that we always get good developments. He doubts that we will receilie riany serious applications for mobile homes dLe to the density problem. Mayor Hilde stated we could increase the density in our living areas. The total devisity is associated with the Guide Plan, recognizing that we had a it of 130,000 to 175400. If we have a leaning and suspect that we wanted to move in the direction of increasing density in LA -1, vie would neid the Planning Department to recalculate what that decision meant. From the standpoint of appearance, we could increase the non-RPUD LA -1 density to 3 units per acre instead of 2 to lower costs,, Mayor Hilde stated that our housing committee claims that you really cannot reduci? the cost of housing to any considerable degree by decreasing lot size. Councilman Neils stated that as far as housing costs I are concerned, to increase the density at that level would only increase the profit to a developer. Instead of two $6G,000 homes per acre, they would have three $60,000 hom-s. Over the last five years, any single family development has been strictly on the SUP concept, averaging lot sizes and leaving more open space. The technical density is two units per acre but in that dRvelopnent concept the individual private lot size is allowed to go down to 11,000 square feet provided the average lot size 1n a particular plat is 13,500. At far as quality and cost of honss that have been built in small lots, they are not getting smaller. When you allow the individual lot size to decrease in that form or s'Te similar form without changing the gross density per acre, what happens? "ou can not effectively utilize land to get two units per acre if you set a lot sire of 18,500. Going from 18,500 to SUP minimum lot sixes you go from somewhere around 1-1/2 units per acre on the average land in Pl ,. uth up to an average two units per acre. I think we could go down to 12,.000 sgc are foot lots as opposed to 18,500. Mayor Hilde questioned w!_:ther allowing 5 units per acre would contribute to lower cost housing as compared to 2 units per acre. Councilman Neils ctated yes he' thought so. He further ttateO that he feelu their -is only no much n 1 Special Council Meeting MAY'209 1975 Page 152. money to put into housing industry., Except for mobile homes, people are not,.going to buy beyond their means even if they can afford it. MOTION was made by Councilman Neils, seconded by Councilman Seibold, that staff be directed to prepare a direct ccipatison of minimum house square footage area between. the existing° Zoning ordinance, the proposed toning ordinance and the current Uniform"But-lding Code. He further stated that he believes the right course of action with respect,tWminimum floor area would be to rely strictly on the State Building Code. Notion carried, three ,ayes. INCREASING DENSITY - RESIDEKE"AREAS Councilman Neils stated that we re talking about mutual objeV:sves here. As he understood, John SpaeW s p sitioh, his argument was th4t we ought to let single family home$ be built°on 6,000 squar2 foot lots in any Guide Plan or toning categories.' Nomuard Hunt's position on lot size was "fine" but let's respect the model of the Guide Fian and all of the work w '°:3we done. Dyer Hilde stated that from the standpoint of PR, it seems to him that when you bulk about densities of a community they always, talk about single family densities. A lot of policies are made on the basis of emotions. There,should be areas i a this community where we have a thorough LA -1. Maybe we ought to take another look at the Guide Plan and change,some of our density and switch some from LA -1 to LA -2. We must recognize that the intent of the PUD section and intent of Goals, Objectives and Criteria is that there is a marked change in density and structure type between LA districts and., therefore, we do require a transition. We must not end up with an LA4development with two acre lots and a1/2 million homes next to a 6,000 squame foot lot with a 35,000 home on it. NOTION was ffade by Councilman Neils& seconded by Councilman Seibold, that flection 7, Subdivision 4, of the proposed new ordinance be expanded to provide fob as 50 foot rear yard for all classes of residp;tces where such rear yard abuts x thoroughfare. Motion carried, three ayes. SECTION 10 - v,ENERAL REGULATIONS This section deals With regulations the first of which is signs. The only part of the sign section t`At was chanyed is Business Section,invo1ving B4, which s pears on P. 62 under Item 4. 4-B involves the 18" factor from the face of the building. Avoids perpendicular signs. 152- J \ SMapeyc201 975ci 1 , I eti ng Pae 153 PARKING LOT DESIGN - P. 69 Setback provisior s are put in., graphic fom... There are changes in setbacks. In the B'Yne; the parking setback used to range from 20 to 5 feet on del sides except the front, now it is a flat 10 feet in all Vzones. lin" I-1 zones Parking .setback used to run from a setback 1n the front yar& of ,rjO feet down to l5 feat on', the other property lines. Now it is a flat,) 10 feet bn all sides except the front." r, i,xi irr),r.•ni.>xnr)r>>oJr>,,,ii.0„-x,q:r>>o_rarrrxiya r,9 J) 1J X) . r .> , CounCtl WAN -Neill ' ttlogts tid that the i 0 foot setback be put back to 15 feet since thereA s rho control on blacktop and the only control on lot coverage is with the setts%,.AA. MOTION was made,hy Councilman NeIIs,'seconded by Councilman Seibold, that dimension "P” its related to "now -residence districts" as found in Table 1 Parkin Lot Design be increased from 10 feet to 15 Beet. Motion cared, three ayes. NOTION was made by Councilman Neils, seconded by Councilman Seibold, that dimension "N" as found in Table 1 Parking Lot Design be.expanded to read J/ "Setback ofa rkin or dive from pr ncipa building'. Notion carried,, three ayes. Councilman Neils stated lie think3 we should have some limitation that says parking lrt, over 3 given size mt `, have catch hesinspand piped to storm sewer or adjacent ponding areas. 0 MOTI0N was made by Councilman Neils, seconded by Councilman Seibold, that Section 1C, Subdivision 2, paragraph 5 be expanded to pt,,ovide for parking lots being required to provide certain Internal drainage, facilities directed to the City storm water drainage system, based upon the recommendation of the City Engineer, Motion carriedr, three ayes. PARKING FORMULAS' Changes are as follows: In terms of uses that were in the old ordinance: top of P. 70, item 4-D gives a parking consideration to projects involving rentals to persons of 60 years of age or older. MOTION was made by Councilman Seibold, seconded by Councilman Neils, that Section 10, Subdivision 3,pparagraph 4,d'be,amended from A to 1.0 total spaces per dwelling unit. Notion carriedr three ayes. MOTION was made by Councilman Seibold, seconded by Councilman Neils, that Section 10, Subdivision 2 of the ordinance`be expanded to provide for underground parking in apartment and townhouse/condominium projects to the degree now required by the existing ordinance but to also Include provisions for unique alternative parking plans responding to the same Intent; i.e., reducing site coverage required to acctmmodate parking. Motion carried, three eyes. 153• , l Special Council Meeting 20. 7,075 Page 154 MOTI00 was made by Counc lman Seibold, seconded by Councilman Nells.,that Seckii on 109 Subdivision Z of the ordinance be expanded to provide fore appuation of the highest use (parking demand) formula to any use that by s, nature would dictate application of =two or 'more different parking standQTVZs% Notion carrieds three ayes. Councilman Nei 1 s stated that In the „last years we 'plat all parking requirements on the site plan providing for develcpatent at the maximum of the stated use of the building or less. Planner Dillerud stated that the formula to be,used for shopping centers has been changed sdbstantially although tae., change Mould appear to him. to result in a lesser parking v quirjment. The means' -for calculating ; has. been changed to a straight formulla. NOTION was mady be Councilman Neils, seconded L, -`Councilman Seibold, that for multiple tenant strud.tures in "I! zones the ordinance mandate use of the manufacturing parking formula only. Notion carried`. three ayes. NOTION was made by Councilman Neilso seconded by Councilman SetboIJ. that Subdivision 3 of Section 1-0 entitled "Administrative Pr0'edure"'be moved to Section 11. Administration., Notion carried, three ayes, JUBDIVISION 5 - P. 77 NOTION was made by Mayor Hilde, seconded by,Councilman Neis, that WR dovelop a provision for Section 10. Subdivision 5 dealing with fences on corner lots that will allow sufficient sight clearance and thereby also allowing fences in the trent yatd of residence$ of the same dimensions as in side and rear yards; i.e., up to 6 feet. Notion carriedo three ayes. ADMINISTRATION AND FEES Co^,ilmen Neils stated he felt that in an industrial PUD the land to be developed should show only the approximate placement and size of buildings. We shpuld be concerned strictly with having developable parcel sizes in confokmnce with streets, sanitary drainage, curbs, etc, because with very few Uceptions structyres will never be as proposed at the time the site is sols for specific development, MOTION vas made by Councilman Neils. seconded by Councilmen Seibold, that the Central Development Plats or PUD's for industrial development not require placement of buildings but rather deal with such exact placement on site plan approvals, except where multiple buildings are to be placed on the same lot. Notion carried., three. ayes. NOTION was ;Wade by Councilman Seibold, seconded by Councilman Neils, that the existing policy be converted into ordinance form that changes in site plans that are not executed within a specified period of time in accordance with existing ity policy shall be required to conform to current code ordinance standards. Notion carried, three ayes, ' 154- o r- j MOTION vas made by Councilman Neils. seconded by Councilmen Seibold, that the Central Development Plats or PUD's for industrial development not require placement of buildings but rather deal with such exact placement on site plan approvals, except where multiple buildings are to be placed on the same lot. Notion carried., three. ayes. NOTION was ;Wade by Councilman Seibold, seconded by Councilman Neils, that the existing policy be converted into ordinance form that changes in site plans that are not executed within a specified period of time in accordance with existing ity policy shall be required to conform to current code ordinance standards. Notion carried, three ayes, ' 154- r- Special Counts' May 20. 1975 Page 155 0 rJ o l_V Ing p O 5 c NgTION was made Counc i l®an Set bold, "seconded by Council Nei tiffs, =that the Manager .draft Fa minIstrative guidelines for the Engineer(and Planner regarding administtive staff time allocated to assist dev topers with project deign: piitularly those developers that should have familiarity with Plymouth po ides and procedures, based on past,expetfe ce. Motion catried, three ayes.' J There is,only a small percentage of developers who are not using our staff properly.. , SUBDIVISION- 6-2 MOTION was made,'by Mayor,Hilde, seconded by Councilman;Seibdld, to strike V4 words ufixed and additioQnal costs incurred" and losert "the Oee chard" in Sectionil, Subdivi.sioll 6, paragraph 2. Notion carried, three ayes. j NOTION was made by MlayorHjlde, seconded by Co14ncilmaq Neils, tkat we, clarify and make man. -consistent the R -O and R-1 designation of open resid";e districts. Motion carr!-tt, three ayes. MOTION was made by .Mayor Hilde, seconded by Councilman Neils, that the reference to S-acre'\Iots in respect to Subdivision 1 in Section 7 be researched in,, terms Q! any impact the Metropolitan Development Framework 1 have on 1t so thai,,we sre consistent and yet carry out our own aims. Notion carried, three ayes. Mayor Hilde adjourned the meeang at 110:15 PA 1$5- A_ r• iiir J La anne D. Carlson Secretary to Council I J r o c I