HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 02-03-1971MINM 7 QF 'WILAR ME-ErM, (1F'
M PIAMING CaflISSIOt
PLYMM M MESUZ
rE-tWARY 3, 1971
regular iweting of the Planning Co.,Mnission was call-d, to order by
Ciai,rman 4an at 7:0 p,mR on Pebtlalary 3, 1971; in the Council Chamfers
of tete 'l':l)Tm th; Public lgarks Building.
PR£:S . S : Chairman, Egan, Planner 13ergly, Commissioners Kroskln, June,
Prekker, Mails and Chapman,. Commissioner Pollock arrived
latera
SE r** Commissioners Hafner and Roth,
The fixsrt item. of business was a public hearing for an addition to the
ordinance <sending Section 17 Subdivision 3 TU'lative to height regulations.
Planner Bergly discussed, with, the commission,_ his, report arc. sow_.changes
in yarding. fle explained that as a building increased 51h heigat, the
setback would then become greater; one foot additional se tha& for each
fWt in height over the requirement. He thea drew a diagram showzn ,
B-5 and B-2zones . Mr • (nary Freund,, Circle Star Business, Baas interested
in knowing whether, or not .his amendment Mould take care of Iais request
to .allots a fourth story` pe;ithouse on his building, on State llighgay #55,
which, is in a B-3 zone, Mr. Freund has obtained a variance for a th. ird
storyfiono the',:_Board of Zoning Adjustments. However, a„ was ostablished
that by increasing the height as prev5 ously sta'cd, the setback would
increase in proportion and, due to the size and shape of the lot on Which
his building is to be built there would not be enough room to comply.
It was defznately decided and stated by Chairman ,Egan that this amendment
did fit the request by Mr. Freuna', Alternatives were given later in
h}ny ot
CoYraiissi,oner Kroskin :asked Pl='rer Bergl,y if t'he're were any particular
points that could cause problems with this amendments. Pimmer Beergly
dial mention where in the ordinance it reacts "a lot shall not be adjacent
to or, closer than 300 feet of any lot in any R=O, R-1, or R-2 pxstr ct.'t
he t#aaught being possibly the ordinance should read building or stricture
rather than lot. Buildings of lower heights would baa3cn,reT.
After discussion as to the placement aazd distance from buildings, the
Corranissioriets discussed the following of the Guide, Plan. CommissiGnor
Neils .stated that in the Guide Plan there are no precise lines. It was
felt that it .should read "the building_ or structure on a lot adjacents to
R-(}) R,-l., TZ-2 or t4 ;hall not be Less than 300 feet from that lot line.'
I Commissioner Neils felt the burden of setback from the "aller build'ngs
was being, prat on the R-1 anal R -4 . Chairman Egan felt that this was not
4
Jnecessaz.ly, so as tv as prevv..otzsly stated that no building or struct tre an
a B-3 zone could be closer than 30 feet from a -residential lot lane.- From
there as the building increases, in height it will also beset back further.
Page 2
Chairman Egon then closed the public hen -ring at 3:4S p,m. and any
decks a on reg&rdbg :.he acceptance of the amendmeztt to tho zoning
ordinance was delnved pending further study andcloser examination
of tl e wording.
Comissia.-r Chao n then suggested -rather thaA to lay the issue
over, tlu a cxmittee be appointed to study the amendment in detail.
Chairman Egan asked Commissioner Neils to lock into the mauler and
make a report at tete n^-" 'meeting
Del.ative to Mr, Gary Pxs request, `Comn ssioner Neils presented
the following;
1. Solutions are to rezone to 13-1 or grant a variance.
Z.. All factors considered, it appears, inappropriate. to
rezoz e the single lot.
3. Variance is recommended because the •-dditional story
constitutes no more than a penthous4> on the basic
building. Further, the penthouse height ''aces an
I-1 District, wherein the additional height is
oth.engise allowed and would therefore ,zot constitute
an ad;-erse effect on the adjacent property,
CommissionFr June mad- a motion that Mr. Freund go back to the Board
of Zt%ning Adjustments with a roc rimndation from the Planning Commis-rion
to grant a variance since the proposed rezoning would. not bo bennific t
Zn this particular wase and the Planning Commission reels this to be
th-- nroper use .for this site and recommends the Board of Zoning
Adm =ments grant a varimr-e for a fouz tai. story penthouse.
Motion gas, seconded by C=missioner Chapman and further discussion: was
heed, Commissioner Neils felt both the Fl^tinning Commission and the
Board of Zpaing should give the Council smro.^ sort of memorandum on the
reasoning, behind the course of action taken. It was pointed out by
Comnissi<oner J enc thnt: when Mr. Freund presented lis petition to the
Board of Zoning there was ti deadlock vote, for reason the Board didn't
Camel they sbouid grant a varianL on top of a variance without consulting
othev- since they ha6 al-ieady granted a variance for a third story.
Consequently instead of denying t.w request, it resulted in a deadlock'
vote acid Mr. Freund could then appeal to the Council
Purther discussion raised the question of possibly rezoning the, entire
piece of p aper ty from B-3 to: I-1 or B-1. it was decided the simlest
sol-,ttivn, was still to send the request back to the Board of Lon3't1g,
a .!rman Epaa asked for a vot i on the original motion made by Commissioner
lurid and 'tire noticni carried by an all in favor vote.
Chairman. Egan; thea directed the meeting toward discission an the setting of
goals, By following the book, "Village of Plymouth, Goals for Community
Douelopment" the discussion bek rul with community goals.
Page
S It was generally felt that any goal noel set would be a lasting one.,
Chairman Egank stated he felt goal setting should be done lav thePlangCocrrmxssionandthatfloeCouncilisinvolvedhecaus,e they are
oleser tc the people and that tho tete would have to vork together to
find out w4iat the residents of Plymouth y,,Mted, Corim issioner Yxosk-
then asked for, a definition of the ward residents as used in the
later Part of the first. paragraph on, page 14. It was agreed that
anyom who rnenod land, resided in Plymouth, or operated a business in
Plymouth; would, in this case, be defined as a resident.
Chairman .Egan stated that one of the more obvious goals uvould be to:
first male Plymouth a place to lxre3 The commissioners touched brieflyonthetypesofusestl,,e people would avant, tax bast:, housing in generaletc, and Comr i,ssi.oner Kroskin felt that by looking at a cross picture
and discussing goals would be bemefi;a.al to the citizens. Chairman
Agan stated that with a Village the of Plymouth there are Obviously90xntobeseveralkindsofusesotherthanSingleFamilyWelling.,
Commissioner Neil, Suggested'Plyriouth should be looking for a full
spectrum sof housing costs under the :open market, rather than. setting
Sade areas dor government housing or specifically setting aside an
area for subsidized housing but rather to 'vielcome the full sT . arum; of
hoar ng which can be built' and marketed privatGly. Chairman Egan felt
at. this paint, there were other areas to examine and they would get back
to the housing issuo : He then skated that an planning, the goals he lvould
like to ask tvha.t kind of a community 'do we really wan*? One that does
not conflict with the neighboring cixmiunita.es ..
Chairman Agan felt the Corntnissi:on should first arrive at their alternatives
and then Pl' sent them: to the people. There were several suggestions as
to hoiv to get the 7 -;sues to the public,. It was general o, felt . hat a public
hearing was net the ansver. Planner Bergly mentioned another commission
lie had worked with and divided the Conanission up into groups and have
study .a:r eas
Going into the General pevelopme,nt Coals, Camnissioner Neils added his
definition of balance as something one wants compromised to the extent
that one ,f f.-, afford it.
Under item thee, reasons for iganting business arra ;*LndustV were advertising, addtat tulg more people, balancing the tax bole and creating places to workforthepeopleuholivedinPlymouth., Tt ..ro were var ed e"inions as to-;4hethex
or not the majority of the people l.avbaq, i.A a coinnuni,ty actually workedinthatcomammtY.Commissioner .Neils felt. at Inas tivxang to place all theandustr along, a thoroughfare, Commissioner l roskin felt it is a misconception;
to think that by pro-4ding more ;
Page ,
In ai$c0 sing item three, the Comissf.on touched on shopping centersandwhattheyoffered. the comnizn:tyby conveneneo and a tax base. Xt wa: -pointed out that the same huilditt in a shopping center comparedto,a buildin ` rt the Industrial urea has a more valuabl Y tax lase
to the oor muflity. Chairmanl fan. felt that they should just keep in
pp; rAnd what kind of shop an areas would 'nest segue the community., He
then reminded the Commistion that thel discussion was to make each
m d)er ask what does Plymouth want, and why.
Under item four, Commissioner June expressed his: idea, relative to
school, lie felt the Village should be the ones to decide where they
shouldgo and work: with the, sclIool districts in this area..
Planner ilexply stated that the ;sdhool dii,`ricts were more interested in
placing there secondaryschools on traffic arterio rather than in themidstofapopulatedarea., Relative to the placement of schools., Col ssaoner Neils, drug attention to the two j=or high .schools inDistrict #281 that were approximately within a -1.1e of each other. He
pointed out that they were not reasonably spacea with regard to the
popal.a,tion. area they should draw fxoa. Thus, more students are beim* bussed,, An, example of questionable location by the school distract was the
Neil A msttong School, which is located near the western edge of thedistrictandon; a lake,
hazrman Fgan asked as a point to consider when setting goals, hoer we
can plan to work biter by locating utilities and by development,
Cinder item sax, Chairman Agan then asked the Ccinissioners to examine
the paragraph and ask- if they wanted to ki ,.,p the. present 4 U L'de Plan..
As it was discussed by the Comnissioa, it was established: that there
were certain areas that had been developed that now don't fit into the
comprehensive glide plan, such: as Cavanaugh Addition and the residential
area.hast of Zachary Lane Comm-tssioner Neils emphasized the importance,
of zoning for heavy yses, commercial and industrial and voiced objection
to the com iozrrical and industrial; developmOnt along every thoroughfare. Plarner Berp,,'Y mentioned where they are putting parks along the freeways
some areas whereby they do not force anyone along the freeways.
Commissioner Neils felt that the COM -fission should set forth some
Ordinances or administrativ,o procedure for some rules than say the
residents or citizens or "business property Lolders have a; vehicle to
re -open heraxings on Ga ide Plans. Chairman Erm
of the Guide Plan. an suggested ;annual rev ewal
fit was agreed there should be a duly constituted procedure in i,&ich the publicCouldinitiatereopeningandconsiderationofthAGuidePlan,
After several suggestions as to how fregue t the Guide Plan should be
reviewed, Commissioner Pollock felt a review every five 'Years would be
adegtia,te a Planner Bergly .suggest the lona yan A,e Plannxn j Committee and, thecnin Committee could irake notes and ork and check on events and
make ropoits to the Y arming Cor-'aiss on and have these periodical re vie' s.
Page
Com".ssioner Chelan. suggested insort;ing an item 64, to the
effect that whenever we mako a plan tae shouldst ck to it as ,
closly, a$ post'ible, Coamissioner Jutke felt that was the idea
Of reviewing the guide plea .and tlpdatirg as development 'pro-
gre s:ci d that the Commission wou: d gave to be able to rezone
as ,azt;:as change*,
elcitVe t0 reolang, Caaan Egar. 'sugestetd the members -turn
to page 16 and read item S, under Dousing Ge,als which reads
as follows
The Village will encourage the use of de;''sitT•
zoning for single family development utillzirng
lot sizes to accrue :major open space lands. for
d(-,dication.
Chairman Egan felt that when looking over a new pant, one shwld
be Lble to- recognite. some of the problem; areas and work them. out
t,,-Rare hand by pass-*.bly, having to crotid som 'of, tae lots or to
abtazzn variances if necessary and provide some of the teen space
Coirtissioner Neils felt that a developer who expects to get top
return on every ;tot has 'a problem wW,-'s left over,. A - ad instead
of spot. Zoning he should plan ahead as some people have committed
their investments on the basis of one particular zoning
Planner Bergl.y added. as well as zoning,, the goals of the Village
or what wv, accept as, reasonable standards will tell people what
they are buying.
In reference to the Creentree area, Commissioner Neils felt the
div -eloper was dam to the last feet problem parcels and minted
to maximize his return by cha ging the zoning.. He felt this should
have been recognized in the beginning of the stages..
The discussion as to whether or not these problems can always be
pinpointed ahead. of time was controvercial,
Cotirtissxoner Pollock felt that under the provisions of the Conditional
Use in the Zoning Ordinance the Planning Conn ssi.on would ,have the
authority, to grant or, deny' a use permit'. The portion Commissioner
Pollock was referring to reads as follows;
The 'Planning Comission shall not recommend the granting
of ai Conditional List Permit mless it f ids that the establishment,
matatenar ce or conducting; or the use for which a use peak 3't is
sought will hot, under tho circumstances of the particular case,
he detrimental to the health safety moral.s, comfort, convenience
or welfare of the person retslding or working izi the area ada lent
t0 such use, or to, the public welfare or injurious to the i?ropexty
or improvements in the area adyacent to such use.
She Commission members discussed briefly INIau;-,,au homes, anal mobile homes
but Chairman Egan felt this would be covered. more thoroughly wherx
they, gat into housing} goals.
x.
Pam 6
plannor B r gly then presented an "Item Eight.
MO Village idl<l project and enhance t ort thilo
natural resources and omities by allaAtg ani
encouraging only, those basic l.rad uses and
de'veloM',,ent plans which are consistent with this
ob.ective ;
The CoMmIssi.on members felt this was good in theory but questions were
raised w to whether or not it could be donee
a.i,rsuan lagan decided to postpone the discussion on housing goals
until: the ren± meeting and then* go into the comercial and industr.al
at that bane, He then asked if it would be possible to locate some
samples of questionaires to get an idea o how to got the feelings of
the people in lel nouth. Ozvm.issioner :Neils felt distribution 'thrsout 4 ,
apart deft buildings would be benaeficial.. `
I
The minutes of December lei , 1970 wore cor reeted as follv4st
age , paragraph three, sentence seven, the Fiord should
read Me building on a lot.
Ntetidn was made by Coudssioner Chapman:, seconded by "'m issi otzer
I`xoskin to 4norove be(-ember 16, 1974 mi tts as corrected. The motion
was carried 'cup al l in favor vote.
Ilia mitwtos of January 20, 1971 were corrected as follows
Page six, Paragraph eight, the third sentence to read;
Comnii:ssloner Kroski.n felt -that traffic problem is up
to the developer to )olve and their present solution
is not a satisfactory solution.
gag three, Paragraph four, to read, Conaiii sjoner dune
moved to recoonand approval of the application and
that the oumer is ree: ponsible for tx parking in the
area mid if the parking becomes a problegi that they
must mak( h' Vrovm-_nts or the Police wi.li have to take
action, and the use permit could bt reviej ed and possil)ly
cancelled at that tibie .
t
gage three, paragraph.tido, should react? Crami.issi,00er,
Chaff :Felt when property' is zoned. R-1 in a neighborhood,
it should remain, such to, allow people to build or buy
Nmies arae be assured that adjoining lets will xemain R-J
pago .seve , the motion by Coi,aid slonar C;hapvwi was seconded
by Comnxss ones JLme:
page five, paragraph eight, to rmlz Cmnissioner PrA*6r
moved for deni,el of the request Ixcause of the non-
eonfor nce of Section 12 Plan and the tvaffic in relation
to the access roads, in the area.
Motion by Cam sSioner June to accept to minixtes of Tame Aary 20,
Page 7