Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 03-03-1971INOThS OF A, REGULAR MEETING OF TAIL PLANNING CQINiMI SS I CN PLYMOUTH"INNFSOV. iMa ch 3, 1971 regular moeti,ng of the Planning Commission was called to order by AktLng Cita:irman P llok at 7:40 p.m. on March $ , 1971, In the Council Chambers of the P7,ymouth Public Works .wilding. PRPP NTZ Acting Chairman, Pollock, Planner Bergl,y#, Engineer Rudrud Comm'Lssi oners l Is, Chapman, and Keeley, with commi ssi ones s curio, Kroskin ai-id iahl, arriving shortly* after. ABSENT: Chalrptan ligan and Coimmi.ssi.Qner Roth Acting Chairmaa Poltock recognized Mr, and Mrs, Ray Roving who. ROVING ADDIS rad; been referred bac-; to the Planning Commission by the Council RIhCUOUNT with their ,proposed toying Addition Flat because the Council AVENUB ailed to, see any comments in regard to the extention of Rldgemount Avenue i*rom #Gl", West to the new #61. Planner BeTi 2ly pointed out that I. PUdgemount Avenue is a< collector street and is shown as such on the thoroughfare plan. 2. The main purpose of Rid.gemount Avenue is to serve the residents of the neighborhood and not to provide a through tva fic route. 3. The extension of Ri.dgemount Avenue would cotnect it to a maj Gr thoroughfare and would lose its primary Purpose as a collector street. 4, A report is to be given to the Council as soon as possible, explaining why t wouldPgy __ not be desi.reable o have Rdgeimount Avenue extended He had been in touch with tlhe Planning Director of Ninnetonka and h# concurred with the report. Coy mxs;,ione.r Neils pointed out that there are two east - west routes serving the area, I. A li,ghway` #12 service_ road to the south of the area. Z. County Road #15 Comni:ssi oner Neils statod that athero didn't seem to he anyneedtocontinueRi:dgemount Avenue and that any extension of R dgomouxit Avenue would,onn,ly complicate traffic, Planning Comrni.ssion PAGE Tl c March 1,971 MOTION was made by Comxissioner Chapman to recommend to MOTiON the Council. that. RidgemQun,t be left as a collector street and not extend it through to proposed #61, and that the report submitted. b/ Planner )3ex' be attached to the roc:ommendati.on, The motion, was second by CommissionerNeils . Discussion, Acting Chairman Pollock: New Hope has had a problem' with Doone Avenue.. On paper it was to be a collector street but has since caused many problems as it substitutes as a major thor.dughfaxe , The extension o RidgemaYht wozld ?result in the same problem. 11ngineer Rudrud; I have talked: to the people in the engineer- ing department of Golden Valley, They have "no -intention Of extending Ridg.emount Avenue to the East. In addition there are very had grades and bad soil conditions in the area east of County Road #73. Commis$iOner Neilsz Since the initial upgrading of Ridge - mount to 9th Avenue standard, our now proposed thorough- fare plan makes the new Touting of County x 15 an oast - west thoroughi«are through that quadrant of the Village. The MOTION was voted on and carried with all voting aye The next =order of business was discussion of the memoran- R dum, by Commissioner Neils proposing possible amendments pROPOSM regarding height requirements- and setback requirements, ORDINANCECommissionerNeilscalledattentiontoanomaliesinset_ AMENDMENTSbackrequirements. During the ensuing discussion the following comments were made Neils- It would be reasonable and proper to require a 50 ft setback for business and apartmen s as wel.l as a residential home. Dergly: The initial ordinance that was presented as part of the 701 Planning Program was written that in all residential; districts there would be a 35 :-t setback (primarily to obtain more living space in the rear'of the residential lots) and in a11 commercial and i,7ld4strial districts; there would be a 50 ft setback, 1t was changed little by little and at the time, for good reasons Pollock: The lesser front setback would wean more ba(„k- yard area., which 'In his opinion would Make. more sense, with the exception of frontirg ,-.an a: major thoroughfare where there should -'Ve a greater setback dine t o txai:i:xc density. lie said if it was a well. maintained. residentialdenti,al area (on a major thoroughfare) and holds it's value over a period of time it is probably because it is sitting well back ;from the Major thoroughfare Iii contrast Minneapolis where Planning t:ommi:ssi.o-I PAGE TIMEMarch5; 1571 the residential areas on mayor thoroughfare-- horoughfare- arearesetback at a minimum and are right on tap pQ.pSBDofthe- traffic, the property tends to go t k Dl iF Bdownhillinvalue.: AMBNBMENTS Pollock,: The and the size of the lot have to be con It coigatabl wahl« The Commission should 'legislate the minianm , and xtot the optiailttm, Hei1s: heave the SO ft as the normal setback in trh( ' awl. standard plat, single family and require 50 ft in an R-1 Unit ProJeet if the ' lot fronted an a thoroughfare but ,0+ervris'C leave it at S ftp Keeley. Why not set aside the R-1 Planned Unit. and let haat. falrl whet. -e it may but restrict the, r est: to a 50.ft front setback, Chapman, Commissioner Keelaey x s proposal is not fair to someone with a single lot, Wahl Rgouests for variances to the - ront yard setback requirement is one of the most frequent to appear before the Board of Zoning Adjust- old ust- anentments , Wahl: Due to this . regtlent request this would lead me to believe poGs bly the setback should be re- duced from 50ft to 35 fit in all residential areas except those fronting a major thorough- fare, Xeils : The alignment provision {Section7, Subdivision 5 Paragraph .2-a) in the existing ordinance only applies where the current stTuctures 'a - o closor to the front lot line than the standard req'uire- menu By ,.hanging the minimum setback now ' may run into a: circumstance where plats that are partially 'built and by alloying a lesser setback, cause houses in the sage area to be 4etback diffexeaatly. Bergly: Clarified thco alipimexat pro -vision as fol.l.ours « 1w,, o, s"lial l be a ; r ont yard haVing a depth of not less than fifty feet unless thirty percent or move of the runt age an the same side of the street: between tato intersecting streets is improved with buildixigs than have observed a great ar or less depth of front yard in which in.siance no neer buildings or portion thereof $hall project beyond a straight 'line drawn b.etueen the point closest to that street lane of the residence uponeither side of the Proposed structure, or if there be s residence upon mrll.y one side then beyond. the straight tL+;l Sx V Al4l1 .%,i R,,3e o.4A. Pl' Gt FO'i ME xarch ,a$ 1971 dine projected from the front of the two Ttearest residences. Pollock*c Any residence on a major thoroughfalre should. DISCUSSION either, have reversed frontage or a service road. Con ergly: In an P.-2zone the density is two units for, 20,000, sq ft where, in R-1 it is one unit for 18),$00 sq ft which in changing the setback in the R-2 Zone,. -would provide more back yard area.: Bargl : A l.essev so-Oja:ck in other comiawniti.es does not taKe away from the quality= of the community. Neils., In the B -1,D` 2 r D- 3 and B-4 and everything , except the Irt2 districts require a. SO ft etbacR. Why, in a district that would have the heaviest use, would there be .a 3S ft setbatk as opposed to 50 ft? ;Referring to the I}-2 zoned F01100"t If there is parking in the front setback area a SO ft front setbaCk, requirement is reasonable. Further, he was concerned about the 'under - utilization of Land. Citizens of the Northivest quadrant of the Village have contacted the planner and were, considering the presentation of a formal petition asking the lot size be increased to possibly one acre for that area,. Planner Bergl,y commented favorably about Commissioner Neils report It was MOVED by Commissi.on,r Neils that* an ordinance be MOT drafted to require front yard setbacks of 50 ft £orales district$ except the R-1 unit project.; r Acting Chairitzran Pollock felt it would be better to got a preliminary show of hands. Commissioner Neils withdrew the motion. Item PRELIMINARY OTE-REPO:Rr Requiring the front yard of So ;fit for all districts; including ac gfass the street from any residence district exc.ept where ' he street is a thoroughfare. There was/were l in favor. Tto.w P2 Require front yar. of 75 f"%, for all, business and in- id,ustrial di.stric ts °across toe street from any residence district except wherty the street is a thoroughfare. Thorn waa/were 6 in favor, Planning Commission PAGE F V.E Karch 3, 1971 Item # RB Require side or :Near yards of 75 ft for all business PRELIMINARY and industrial .districts where the yard adjoins a VOTE -REPORT lot line of any residence district. At present the Con't requirements vary from 30 ft to 75 ft. There wos/we o 4 in. favor. There w4s considerable discussion relative to business- industris.I. districts and residential districts each bearing their portion of the burden ,of 'transition whorl rezoning Item # Set normal height regulations at two and one half stories or 30 ft for all business districts, Commissioner Neils explained the proposal was to re- quire a Conditional Tose Permit. for any building over two and one half stories or 30 ft,, thus setting a standard lieight maximum for all tidistvicts There wokild be no actual, maximum height limitation Acting Chairman Pollock stated the Commission would set. aside Item #F4 for further study. MOTION by Commissioner Chapipan that Ripon Mr. Neils' redo.- MOTION x,maend_ati ons they ask the Plainer to draft an ordinance for a public hearing for Items,two and three and ask the Planner to prepare an ordinance o- Items five, six and seven that could be recommended to the Council Items one and four being left out. Second b, Commissioner Wahl and the motion carried by all members voting aye. RE The members discussed the ober size garage doors. It was. GARAGE DOORS agreed, in some cases they were acceptable while in others they were very unsightly. It was ,Suggested by Acting Chairman Pollock that Commissioner June would write up some suggested standards. Commissioner June felt the Building Inspector would be the best person to consult in this area. Conmissioner Chapman moved the minutes of February 17, 1971 RB: APPROM be ;Qrrected as R011014s : OF MINUTES Page seven, Paragraph twoto read. Commissioner Juno insteadi"of Commissioner Chapman. Engineer* Rudrud had a; cortectien to the February 17, 1971 minutes a,S follows. Page three, fifth compl.ote pa-agraph to read: has ,ordered acquisition of necessary right of wary, instead of has purchased. 1<rtz ng Coamji ss cin RACE 81X- March 3 1071, MOTIOX " s second bI ssioner June. Co r issimer June then Dion tione the le- ter had xeceived ` from Zxr" C'. h asoa, 11 in regard to Nlr., Daniel Otten rho had appeared before the Planning COlttmission with the petition: tP rezzQna land at fiighway #101 and #, on Feb- ruary 1 1971." At that time Jr, Otten led the Commi ss to bolitve he teas being ;represented by the firm Mason, Wohrzan, Chapman and Associates, to serve as planningcortsulta.nts for ham in, the rezoning_ of 'th1$1 land The lettor stated that , mrthe above firm has in no way assistedtteiasaprivateconsultantinreon' Ing land intheVillagoofPLymouth , He further moved, this I-otter be made a part of the ininutesandthemotioncarried -with an all in favor vote Commissioner Neils MO ID that the Cominissiozl commend the ' MOTIONfirm .of son} Wohrman q Chapman and Plannex: Bergh" for takzng a: forthright position on an inferred +cone.'ct of interest 'Metter, second by Commissioner June and the motx OU carried by an all in favor vote. Acting Chairman Pollock felt it bras time to set L'!p st7`JCIB meetings with the Park Boavd to work on .5tandard.zing MBET1NC IV1T4 be Oninology and developing -criteria for accepting public MAK WARD open space. Ile appointed CoYrmissioner Neils and offered his as.51stan.ce to meet with the Park Board. Commissioner Keeley volunteered his rervices'also. Planner Berly relatod to'The Commission that an existinglaudusei*tap had been prepared and was just a matter. of getting it pr nto. Cor m,issi oDor Neils mentioned a. report he had received in regard to the platting" ordinance relating to dedication sofpa-k a..a.nd or -does In 'lieu thereof, He felt ,this could eititev be acted do by the Council .or sent back to "the PlanningC,Wrnission to ;hold, a public hearing on. Insteadof havingtheacreage, it would be an acreage equa.vi .ant to the percent of the parcel, and value. acting Chairman Pollock felt this might 'be a .subject to b,e considered by the Park toa,rd: Coriurtxssiai er ,lune woudered how you could deteximino tete `notal land Value .sand Commissioner Neils felt tie Assessor could;. Another r'_'commendation in the report was that the land value should be adjusted in acc QTdnnce -with the c;he,aage in zoningthatisunder. consideration. CO-Mm ssioher K'rosk n asked what t1eh cash donatiLwa would go kor anal he was talcl strictlyfqrparkl:a.nd acquisition. MOTION was made. by Commissioner Chapman and second,, to adjourn tMOTION TO the xit eting . motion passed by an all in favor vote . ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at ll OQ p.tt.