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.