HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 10-06-1971PLANNIM COMSS,4 O1.Y
VILLAGE 4P P11HOUTH, MINNESOTA
As October 6, 1971
A regular meeting of tate Planning Commission teas called to order by Chairman Wahl at
7.40p.m.: in the Council` Chambers of the 1 ubllc;. "Works Building on Wednesday, October 6,
ii OUS, PRRS,RNT: 'Chairman Jim Wahl, Commissioners Marlo June,, John Roth, William
Beeley, Reg Kroskin, Gerald Neils and Dale PoV oche..
SUM= ABSENT; Commissioners Warren Chapman, Rd Egan,
S.TAFIF PRESENT, Jud; Lilli Quist, MUtin W, Overhise
PETITIONERS AND David Mormann, Dr.. Dee Rochenderfer, Fran. Berg, James Parker,'
AGENTS PRESENT: Kenneth Schiebe, henry Stenquisk,, James G: Shaughnessy, Richard
Larsen., Robert F. llughes, Teo Wolf, Gerald Wellik.
A-343 - David Mormann/Lee Kochenderfer = Rezoning R-4 to B-1`
Public hearing was hold on petition; of David Morman-n and lee Kochen- A-343
derfer to rezone property, located. at 10875 South. Shore Drit,*e from. DAVID MO.RMAINILEE;
R-4 (Eultiple Family Residence District) to E--1 (Limited Business l(OCHENDERFEM REZON Nl
District.) R-4 to B-1_
See, Record of Public Hearing and Discussion and Action by Commis- A-343 REFERENCE
sioners for details.. (A-343 10/6/71) 10/6/71
otion -made by Comissioner Pollock, second by Commissioner Keeley; MOTION FOR DENIAL
to deny the petition for the following reasons:
1. Proposed use would be incompatible with the established
and proposed residential uses in the area.
2, Proposal woul4 create an isolated district and thus be-
coma a "spat zona."
3,. Existing district boundaries appear to be properly drawn
in relationship to existing conditions and proposed de-
velopment plans.
4. Change could adversely affect future development of this
area. -
5 Change would constitute the granting of a special, ;privi-
Lege to this one lot.
6. 'Property can: be used in accordance with the existing R-4
zoning regulations
I,. There are adequate sites :dor the proposed use in exist-
ing districts permitting such uses,
8 The existing building would not meek the setback criteria
And would require variances.
Potion gassed 7-0 for denial.
Planning Couradasi.on I+ MLtes October ,6, 1971
A-3S1 Vern Donna ,, Homes Inc. Rezoning, 11-1 to R-3
A, public hearing w:as held on petition of Vern Donnay Domes, Inc. A-331
to rezone property located West of Mapledell Addition and Dina- VCRN DOM'Y HOMES
kirk Lane and South of Seven Ponds from R-1 (Single :Family Res!,- REZONING R-1 TO R-3
deuce) to R-3 (bUlt ple Yamily Res deno * District --Townhouses) .
See Discussioa and; :Action by'Commissioners and Record of Public A-331 - REFERENCE
Hearing for details. (A-331 - 10/6/71) 10/6/71
Motion made by Commissioner Neils, second. by Commissioner June, MOT1Ot3 FOR DENIAL
to deny= the request for the reasons below;
I. Although a future land use plan for this area has not
been adopted by the Planning Commission or Council,, it
in evi8ent:from the existing land use map 'that the area
between State 101 and Dunkirk Lame, South of County
Road 24 aaa North of Kraetz Lake, has and is developing
as a single family, area. (R 1). The proposed change
would be incompatible with the established land use
pattern.
The proposed change to R-3 would create an isolated
district of "higher density use not on a Village tho-
roughfare or collector street and surrounded by lower
density uses.
3, The exi.stiug.districtboundaries in this area appear
to be properly drawn in relation to existing conditions.
Basic land use considerations remain unchanged since
the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and development
in this area has been conforming to the R-1 regulations,
4, The property in question c.,; a be used in accordance with
the existing R-1. zoning regulations.
5.. The change in density should be within: the proponents ,
property.,
6. The request is for spot zoning and there is not adequate
access to the area for which rezoning is being requested.
Motion .for denial. passed 7-0.
It is the consensus of the Commission that Staff should. inforpj COMMISSION CObR ENT
petitioners in the future that plans fcr the entire development R, ALL PLO8 BEING
should be submitted rather than a request for rezoning of a por- - SMUTTED RATHER
tion of the land in. question. THAN ONLY PORTION
TO BE REZ010D:
lllanqing Commission, Minutes October E, 1971 ;
A-333 - Ngtro Development(Quality Homes' Rezoning R-1 to R-3
A lrablic hearing was held on petition of Metro Development Corpora- A-:33
tion (Quality "`domes) tol razon6 property at 10115 36th Avenue North MTRO X)EVEz OPMEN't
from R-1 (Single 'Family 'Res idence District) to R-3 ' (Multiple -Vamd ley QUALITY 1401iES)
Residence District--Townhouses) and petition for preliminary plat REZONING - R-1 to R3
approval,
See Di
Planning Commission &nutes -4- October, 6,. 1971
4. Provide for 60 foot street right-of-way
5. Dedicate sake front for public use.
6. Peti tloaer provide a pedestrian, walkraay off the surface
o;f the streets from the northeast bordar of his property
to East Medioine sake Blvd.
No lots requiring variances
8. Minimum 40% common area or public'open;space (less
lake front)
9.. Reduce the number of lots fronting on East Medicine
Lake Blvd:
10.. Refor public open space to the Park Commission .for study
Motion. wde by Commissioner Kroskin, second by CommissioYler June to MOTION TO TABLE
table the petition until such time as the Commission is assured by
Staff that the 10 conditions are adequately resolved. Motion passed
7-0
A-34::4 Robert E. Hughes Conditional Use Permit
Robert F. HuGhes requested permission for a driving range and coni- A-34.4'
structign of a utility Building on the driving; range at the South- ROBERT HUOITES
west corner of State 101 and 55. CONDITIONAL USE
See ]Discussion and Action by Commissioners for details. (10/6/71) A-344 - REFERENCE;
Motion made. by Commissioner dune, second by Commissioner Keeley, to MOTION TO 110,,D
schedule a public. hearing on the petition and to notify the resi- PUBLIC HEARING
dents in Schmidt"s Gardens and the owner of the greenhouse (W. Busch)
of the proposed hearing,, Motion passed 7-0.
A440 -lake Street Industries - Conditional Use Permit
Lake Street Industries requested a Conditional 'Use Permit to ton- A-340
strut#: a plastic laminate casework manufacturing plan in an 1-1 zone. LAKE STREET Il,!DUST.
Petitioner Gerald A. Wellik) CONDITIONAL USE
See Discussion and Action: by Co=issi,oners by details. (10/6/71.) A-340 - REFERENCE
Notion made by Commissioner Neils, second by Commissioner Kroskin, MOTI0N FOR INF0RM
that the Planning Commission indicate informal approval of the APPROVAL
proposed 'use in the NJ. .P. area. Motion passed 7-0.
The Planning Commission requested that they be ,shoran the site, plans
for the proposed plant at their October 13, 1971 meeting.
Di.scussi.on and Action by Commissioners A-343
iezoni David Mo?nn/Twee Kochenderfer l0 fZ 71'
R- no
Petition; Public hearing on petition of David Mormann/lee Ko.chenderfer for
re%oairig property locate, at 10875 South Shore Drive from R-4
zMal;tiple''Famil:y Residence District) to P,l (Limited Business;
District>,
Motion; Motion Made by Commissioner Pollock, second by Commissioner Xeeley,
to 4e4y,the petition for the following reasons:
1, Proposed use would be incompatible with the established ani
proposed residential: usas in the area,
2. Proposal wouldcreate an .isolated district and thus R ecome
a "spot zone.," ,
3.:,i.ssing district boundaries appear to be properly drawn in
xe.:ati.onship to existing conditions and proposed development
plans.
4,. Change could adversely affect future development of this area.
5. Change would constitute the granting of a special privilege
40
to this one lot..
6. Property can be used in accordance with the existing R-4
zoning regulations,
7. There are adequate sates for the proposed use in existing.
districts permitting such uses:.
8. The existing buildir'.& would not meet the setback Criteria
and would require variances.
Motion passed 7-0y
Record of Public, Re,Aripl, A-343
tezoniag - David Mormann/Lee :ocheaderfex 10/6/71
et fi;ion Public hearing on petition of David MormannjLee Kochieaderfer for
rezoning ,property located at 10875 Sbuth ;Share Drive from R-4.
Multiple Fatii1y'lAsidence District) to B-1 (Limited Bus noss
District).
plgaaer Oyorh: ser:. The 1.ot at the Northeast carver of 11.th, Avenue North and Soc:th
Share. Drive is an existing residence, The owner has a buyer
Dr. Tree. 1`och.enderfdr) who would remodel the existing residence
to a dental clinic. The ordinance requires that at leash four
00!-street parking spaces b ,rovided.
Dr. Kochenderfer: presented a brief sketch of the .°nwa and the plans for remodeling
the present house into a.dent ' el.iaie. Ile would like to: purchase
the ,house because it is near his present location and it is one
of the few ;streets. in Plymouth where a dental office would-be
acceptable. Will have off street parkin- for 1.1. cars. Where
mould not be more than 3 or 4 cars moving in and ont of the area
at one I-ime .
Com. Neils: A B4 district requires a 75' setback. It doesn't appear that
this'muld meet those requirements,
Opponents, Dwight Dlake - 10712 10th Avenue North; .Bob Chapman - 10877 South
ho,,e Drive; Chester 0. Wyatt -- 10712 10th Avenue North, ,lames
L. Ritzinger - 10880 South Share rAve. They all appeared to
oppose the petition. Their major point of contention was that
Hr. Mormann waG not fallowing the proper survey lines is work
relating to the building of some double bungalows. (See 'dile
A-317) -lie opponents were told this was a matter for the Village
staffto handle_. Planner Ovprhiser was directed to take it back
to the staff.
Motion; Motion made by Commissioner Pollock, second by Commissioner Xeeley,
to deny the petitionn for the following reasons,- easons,
1.. 1.proposed ixse would be incompatible with the established and
proposed reoldent%a,x uses in the area,
2. Proposel wra Ud create an isolated district and thus become
a arspot zone.'
3, Existing district boundaries appear to be properly drawn in
relationship to existing conditions and proposed development
plans,.
4x Change could advpp ..-Ty ;affect future development of this area,
5. Change ooul.d constitute the granting of a special, privilege
to axis one lot.
Discussion, ard', Action by CoTaaissio eac A-531
Vern ponnay Homes Inca Rezoning r -i. to R-
let on* Piiblti t hes...,ng v.as held on petition of Vers{ ? . *may Homes, IAc
to Irozorle property located Wein of k1aplede.11 Addition and Duo-
kirl :.ane and South of Seven Roods from R-1 <Siilgle 'ami lv,
Residence} to -3 (Multiple gamily Re sidence District --Town
bouses).
i
Oma Feekl$ the petitioner ahQa d be. d.scouraged from pursuing ;any
thing other than single family.- The area is now zoned. Y, -i and
i.s being developed as 1,
Cot,. Nei1st Fee.;s this is spot zoning.
Mo— t Y ti;oa made, by Commissioner Neils, second; by Commissioner June,,
to deny the request for the roasons below -
1. Although a fu ;u're land use plan for this area has not been
adopted by the Planning Cormission or Council., it ,is evi-
dent from the existing land use :map that the .area between
State 1.01 and 1) akirk Lane, S.oueh of County Road 24 and
Xorth, of Xraetz :Dale, has and i5; developing, as a single
family ,area ..-(4-1) . The proposed change to R-3 would be
incompatible with the established lana use pattern.
2, The proposed ab ngc. tc< P-3 wloule,' create an isolatod district
of hi.gber density u.e not ,ott a Village thoroughfare or
collector street and surr>w,, ned.:oy lower density uses.
3. The existing district hound=ies in this area appeor to be
properly drawn .a relation to existing conditi.or s. Basic
land use considerations remain unchanged since the. adoption
of the Zoning 'Ordinance and development in this area has
been con'formi to the R-1 regulations.
4. The property in question can be used in accordance Faith the
exis tizig R-1 zoning regulations.
5 « The change in density :shoula be within the proponents pro-
perty.
The request is for spot zoning and there is not adequate
access to the area for which rezoningis being requested.
Motion for denial passed 7-0,
A-331
IM` 10 6
1'atition Public hearing was held on petition of 'fern Donnay Homes, Inc;
to rezone property located West of XapladeA.I Addition and Dun-
kirk lane and South of Seven ,Poizds Erora 'R=I. (f -Ingle Family
Residence) to R-3 (Multiple Family Residence, 'District--Town-
housts)«
Rrank Berk: Representative for Ve'r Donnay Homes, Ino. Stated their request
is to rezone .from R-1 to T.-3, ,approximately 20 acres. They would
have approximately 72 units or 3.6 per gross acre.. The purpose
of rezoning is to give the overall proposal a better density and
better selection of home_ The remaining lots--159—would be
single family residential to be put into the Residential Tuba
division unit Projiect. They plan to have 20 acres of green
space --13• in the single Eemily arca and 7 In the R-3 area.
Tim Bunn; 2951 Comstock Lane - How does 3.6 compare with other develop-
ments in the area?
Chairman Wahl: Within our ordinances in R-3 zoning, townhouses could be 8 per
acre, but we do not have any or that density.
Mr.. Bunn- What would the price range of the townhouses be?
fir. Berg: The townhouses would sell for 29, 000-$30, 000.
Hearing Closed- The public hearing was closed at 8:27 p.m.
Motion: Motion made by Commissioner `Toils, second by Commissioner .Tune,
to deny the request for the reasons below,
1. Although a fu.,ture, la»3 use plan for this area has not
been adopted by the Planning Commission or Council, it
is evident from the existing land use map that the area
between State 1.01 and Dunkirk Lano, South of County Road 24
avcl North of Kraetz Lake, has and is developing as a, single fam-
ily area (Rl). The proposed change to R-3 would be incom-
patible with the established land use pattern,. .
2. The proposed change to R--3 would: create an isolated dais.trios
of higher density, use not on a Tillage thoroughfare or
collector street; and surrounded by lower density uses.
3. The existing district boundaries in this area appear to be
properly~ drswin in relation to existing conditions. Basic
land. ,use considerations remain unchanged since the adoption,
of the Zoning Ordinance and development in this 'area. has been
conforming to the R-1 regulations.
4. The property in question can be used in accordance with the
existing R-1 zoning regulations.
5. The change in density should be within their- own property. -
6. The request is for sport zoning and there :is not adequate access
to the area for: which rezoning is being requested.
Motion passed 7-0 for denial..
Diseussion and Action by Commissioners A-333
Development Tiburon October 6, 1971
pet it ionPulA c heating on petition of Xetro Development Corporation
Quality Homes) to rezone property at 10115 36th Menue, North
from; R- I Oingle Tama l:* Zesidence District) to R-3 (Multiple
1?'amlly, Reaidence District—Towrnhouses) and petition for prelimi-
AM Plat; approval.
Com. Keeley; Pointed out that one of the criteria of the Planning Commission
at this time is that a transition between: the different zoning
areas must be matte by 0o developer where a transition is aece€-
sary.:
Com. bells. Seems the situation either calls for buying the package as it
is with a fete minor changes or denying it.,
hir. er,- Yes.
Com.. Neils_; Gave a brief history about previous history in the area and the
rezoning requests.
Xotion; Mot.4oa made by Commissioner Keeley, second by Commissioner Neils,
to recommend denial of the petition. :the reason for denial is
that there are no substantial changes in those conditions which
led the Planning Commission _ to reguide this area .tc low density
on September 1, 1971.. Motion passed 6-1 with Cormiissioner June
opposed:
Record of Public Rearing IA-333
Rezoning Metro Development - Tiburon
Peti tion: Public hearing was held on petition of Metro Development Corpora-
tion (Qua; ity° Homes) to rezazie property at 10115 36th Avenue North
from R -I (Single Family Residence District) to R-3 (Multiple
Family Residence District --Townhouses) and petition for prel mi.w
naj approval.
fla mer Overh seri Gave a. brief description of the area. The area under considera-
tion is approximately 70 acres.. The units per gross acreage
would be 3.9 Units per net acreage (gross area less area. in
Streets) is 4.4.
lames Parker: Representative from Metro Development Corporation - Pointed out
the following:
1. Ouo oftoe 70 acres, approximately Z acres would be
open space:..
2. They ;are trying. to keep the development out of the wooded
and, marshy areas,.,
3. They are trying.to keep as many, lots as posoi,ble backing,
on the open :area.
4. Have provided pedestrian access all the way through the
area.
5. There would be twu parking spaces per unit --one .of which
would be Covered',,
6. Berms would be located on 36th Avenue North and along other
streets.
7. Structures would resemble single family residences, but
in reality would be :four individual units.
8. Structures wool.d be available in 3-5 di styles.
9. They would pkant two oiature trey per unit plus smaller
plants and sodding.
M An average of 50' between units is proposed.
Com., Keelf- Tow do you propose to divide each lot?
Mr, Parker: They will be divided into separate lots. Four owners ot,*n each
lot i.n- common, but stir space inside their home would be owned
by the indiv da.a,l only,
Metro Development Rezoning
record of Public hearing _.2 10/6 x'71 - .A.-333
Will the homeowners association, tahe tare of the outside? For
examplv., could an individual paint his house: any color he wanted?
Mr.,, Parker. To make sure things gat done,, trhere. would be a homeowners associa-
tion. The arch,itectual standards committee would have to control
this.
Coin. Pollock: Is the design such that you could build doubli garages?
Mr. Parker: Yas, Our plays are 'somewhat flexible.
Goma. Rothe What is :the cost per unit? Are there some. areas where there will
not be 50' between structures? Which way does the watr run off?
1'trCcr: Cosi per unit 'would be in the Haigh, 20's or low 30's. On the
average, the distance betoeen structures will be 501. The, drive-
ways will provide the run-off. The water will then flows into
the proseanatural ponding areas,
Kroskint that is the square footage of each 'unit? What is .the minimum
width of the green trays?
z . Pgr%er; Thera is a total, of 1,440 square feet --720 up and 720 down. The
720 square feet down can be .finished by the buyer, to suit his
S Individual needs, The average width of the green ways 'would be
501 with the miaimum, probably being 20'.
Com. Ra*h: Who woul d put the sidewalks in?
Mr. Parker; The developer would.
Com:.. Keclev If you are not allowed to build rine-half story below* level, would
thin destroy your plans?
kir. 'Varker; We have to go down 3k, feet anyway., The units would have both
ap and down levels with the lower, level being the expansion area
rather than the upper,
Com. Neils: Have you :considered phasing the project?
Hr.. Parker kre would want to build the whole thing at once. We would: grade
all streets and immediately go in to start construction.
Val puttenberg 305 Saratoga Lane . Represented the Middle Hast Homeowners Asso-
ciation and spoke in favor of the project by Metro Development
Quality Homes) . See attached letter (Exhibit A) for de -tails..
D6an Tohnson: 3190 Fast Medicine Take Blvd.} 'Represented the Med-O-Lake:, Home -
Hal Swofford; 10707 32nd Avenue ;Forth. } ownors Assocl a;tioa and spoke against
the proposal. See attached letter-,,(E chib t: R.) for details.
Addtl Comment. There were 12 members from the Med-0-lakes Association ,present.
Metra Development Rezoning
R000rd 11 Public Dearing -3- 10/6171. A-333
James Alt. 3805 Trenton Lane - reels the development of the latO is an
economi,a one. - They have enough pophlatioia in the ares... Can't
see any sound reason why a decision of this sort has to come
about nocx. Peals it is hasty planing, hasty zoning. and 'there
4r still toa many questions r,,-maini'ng, lie would like to sea
some. good, >concrete,, Vel,l- thought-out planning for this area
before any decision is made..
ToiaVanow: 4")15 Trenton pane •- represented the Lost Take area and stated
thay are not in ;favor of the development. The Planning Commis-
sion has a great responsibility for the future planning of Ply-
mouth. Asked that they think not only of planning today, but
for twenty years in the future.
uesion There was'some question a.s to the exact representation of the
homeowners: in the vicinity of 26th Avenue Forth. and Past Medi-
cine Lake Blvd. Mr, Paitteaberg stated they favored rhe project
and ab^. Johnson,, said they did not, There was no representative
present from the area..
Furthers Details: See Discussion and. Action. by Commissioners -- 10/7171
Motions Motion made by Commissioner Keeley, second by Commissioner Weil s.,
to 'recommend denial of the petition. The reason for denial is
that there are no substantial changes in those conditions which
led the Planning Commission to reguide this area to low density
on September l., 1971. Motion passed 6-1. with Commissioner June
opposed,
d,
n
A,-333
village off` Plymouth
13€300 Olson 11er rias H11filtray
Plymouth, Ydnnesota 55Wil
Deal" t :. 1 alzl ;dad Flaming Combs on M`oyzb~rsz
This letter expresses the opinion of the: members of the 11d6le East
PlinoutemhHoO rst Assn. Izac. alta rewidoWbs joining i-dth the Association,
in a peta cion prasaritad to the Plan.,.ng Co.,,r- ssion regttesting that gUdinp
of prcrcorty at 10115 36th Avenm, North be entirely I21, a"'.is opinion is
subrdttod i-rith respect to iter, number 3 (0) on the: Agenda of the Planning
Convission for Octob4r fir, 1971.
Thee persons join frith Quality Roples for po.es orequesting
rszonlna of the property described above to R-3 contingent on, the jkpproval
of *.,e 1'..inning Co.- is: on, of a unit plan proposal to be presentee., to the
Ply: iit Com "iso.Lon at the public hearing on October 6th. It is further
xeatxested tlMt ax, the event the P7 timing Co.,m`t ssion disapproves the unit
p1c;a for any reason, the gi.id ixg of this property return to P-1 111
Fn.Gcordanee t,Lth prasent coning and the petition previously subs-ittedn
s}' Thosa persons J;xn r in support of QuCtlj t xzc:#tes arc dc 1, so s 1.el r
due to rq.-presentations t ttyt : *a la ty Ron'os All constz"OYct a unit project
desl.rred to raze le (-,'pensavt_ 5irgle fainly d?.clling on lots hav:.n a
front.:;;e of 11.0 feet --nd hzmr it g at ave age di,; meo beti.,zeen nzystructrxesUrrcludi.n- g 'a"as) of 50 :Feet. It he bom repre entad
thr t (1) pa:*OUP.3 frill be lirillted to the side or back of al .L l:ix'UN.g
quart::rS, {2) dens r bo notreater l?zcn 27.2 units (t, z a i;s 1 6 lots),
3) a co.qtirehews: ve landscar.:' pleas ':ill. be e ntorod into with the V:!.,i..jgo
of P:3nnouth rCaquix n; sodding and l,andscapirg of each four unit structvxc
so that it resembles one sin t3 family landso ped home, and (4) a landsozVed
b ras having, r^ .ata vcl .m taro tr oes 'will be, placed a- on- 36th Avez us :orth
It is hereby rer-puected that the P14n'O.119 e-pprove the request
Of ,ala.ty 1101es, contin ent u- on a unit plan being presented at the public
he iP. rine'UnC tit:; rec uirer: mts set l girth above It is furs her requ rs t.ed
that the P1mi.':a.rz Gssion not consider this action to be C tacit or
Wlicit approval of any. further r,atiple tu'.it projects to the sout. o
vest.
Sincerely.,
Harold S. Ruttanberp,
President Middle Bast Plymouth
HoMa 0,=n -rs x As r t n. Inc.
i
r`
t.
ombor 26v 1971
TOx Plymouth Villatro Pl r4nin,,p Com. jss-Ion
5 IU v9*111, T i Development -if' tho AtItIm Property (app r"--4 ?D aore-8 in M Plymouth
Villag ),
rh ldh )'ollw4ed theQuality T16 -mm; Prosentation, at the Sagamore Apartm,nts o
epteni"^ r 7, 11171, it was ,the i3Yta rr !'.37J ii # r i 7'ia C±ents w," 32nd i"G£3'nm,
N xthl, t. -It tho East Med,!1no Like PjaT. s%oilij t-foj joued expljoitly.
10 tmald liko to go on record as sensing mly ahango in 113 Zon-np. on the. &Vj4
a . my r ^n% sT w t«ti a wish .rr ut that Cry' the total 1? '4Ac3k' ofpl
apbFrn t:".'.G,i tf:d i.&..b t.'.'Jyd. Aik PK, M. iai 1. .':i.Y '.f3b sE 4';+. :ee.y \a °"+'GrCe64 C+ 4[3. 1VLe,4.1t7e-iF;F a GC'Fdw4 ion.
tmcl e " Cio b` E corned f 'h r+& ... e Fif%y `..' G;-R C. . k 5 '!" t` {t f'! &; bra . , . or -. a n sti i 4
Th,,%rfa ya f,, -,r your att,,?v'tiot arcs your i-*oVs.eW: fmttftkon of --st
lncerel,y yours,
r
10/6[61
k--2311283
Petition.. Coriftittte ;report on preliminary plat: ,for 5chiebe's Oakwood..
Planner Over:wiser. Gave the following; committee report. Lot area --the developers
had represented on their site plan, building 0 units or 106,
107 ane` 107 on the three lots. By calculating the entire Block c1
on a Community Chit Ptoject basis, 1` Lind that with the allowances
they Could build 341 unite, By movin, the lot line between Lots 2
and 3 12 feet west, the following areas would -result for each:
lot figured separately:
I. Lot 1 - 244:,970 square feet ,. by 2,480 square .feet per
dwelling. unit 98 allowed (proposed 106)
2., Lot 2 - 290,876 square feet -: by -2,480 square- feet per
dwelling unit = 11.7 allowed (proposed 107)
3, Lot 3 _ 243,609 square feet - by 2,280 square feet per
dwelling unit = 106 allowed, (proposed 107).
Ther fore, the only lot which could not meet the R-4 requirarnei is
figured independently of the other lots would be Lot 1. After
prel L i.nary plan approval, the developer will have to accomplish
the t'ollowi.ng:
1. 'ina.l plat approval. by Council
2. 41ite plan approval by 'Planning Commission and Village
voancil .
3. Development contract between the Developer and Village
Vit-. Building permit
Conlw Nails: It is my understanding that this area was, rezoned to R-4 with an
R-3 density.
Chairman t ahl.:: If the. General Developm_-at Plan: is to be revised, the Planning
Comm] ssion would then see those; revisioza before any development
could take place.
Com, Jrine. This is a Planned Unit Development as .approved by the Council.
The petitioner; would have to build Lot 3 and/or zet 2firstt be-
cause lot l could not stand alone.
I#o tier; Motion made by Commissioner Rails, second by Commissioner Roth
to table the request until such time ass, the petitioner presents
a proposed plat with a General, Development Plan that can. stand
Un its ovn on each parcelMotion was defeated 3-4 with Comp
miSQioxu.rs Pollock., Moth and deals voting for tabling the peri-
tion z,ud Commissioners Wahl, Juno, KrosKin .and Xeeley voting
against the tabling,
SGhiebers OaWood ., Preliminary plat
Discussion and Action, by Commissioners 10/6/71. - A231/283
Com. Kroskin: What can be put, into a development contract?
Planter Overhiser: lou can -require almost anything, that the two parties agree to.
The development contract it a control, ,
Com Pollock: Would like to see the, General DevOopment Plan..
Henry Steaqui:st: Repro'st.rtting the developer--We will not change the ifttezit of the
plar .. We will still live within the General. Development Plan..
If a building were to shift for some reason, there would liave
oto be some minor revisions. We are tied to the General, Develop-
ment Plate as approved by the Village Council.
Coag..Roth # is it the intent of the o.iner to develop the entiro area himself?
Kenneth Sehiebe, We would start one lot.at a time. Subdivide, het a mortgage on
Owner: the plot and then move on to the next one. We will build only
one lot at a time,
Vhai:rman Wahl; Then it is your intent, to ,develop the land yourself?
Mr. Schiebe: Yes.
Conn. Neils: Feels that if the plat is passed without restrictions on the
adjacent parcel, we could end up with a project on one parcel
which in text cannot conform to lot setbacks, ct;.,
Gen. Statement: Following a discussion on the procedure to be followed in re-
gardu to the development- of this project and the adequacy of
the development contract requirement's ;ssuring that the storm
drainage problem will be resolved prior to any development,
L1ot on: motion was made ,by Commissioner Kroskin, second by Commissioner
uqe,, to ,recommend :approval of the preliminary plat with the
conditions that final plat be reviewed by the Planning Commission
and chat the storm drainage problem be resolved prise to the
submission of the final plat, Motioa passed 6-1 with Commis-
sioner Neils opposhd,
B'etition: Committee report on the preliminary plat for o.!4,mes G. S:haughnessyT-
the follot-ring conditions -were listed:
l.. Eliminate green strips (all green area) from Eastern
boundary of the plat to East Medicine Lake Blvd, and froza
East Medicine Lake Blvd. ;to the School (Armstrong.)
2. Ldd 20 ft, green strip north from Saratoga Lane to open
space area in the Northeast corner of the plat.
3. Provide 10 ;fit. drainage easement on each side of the
middle of -the geek.
4, Provide icor 60 foot street right -o4 -way.
5. Dedicate lake front for public use;
6. Petitioner provide a pedestrian walkway off the surface
of the streets from the Northeast border of his -property,
to Last Medicine Lake" Blvd,
T. Pio logs requiring variances
8. Minimum 10% common area or public open space (Less
lake front)
9. R4duce the number of lots :Fronting on East Medicine
Lake, Blvd.
10. R"Ler public open space to the Park Commission ,for
study
Motion:. Motion made by Commissioner .June, second by Commisaioner Kroskj:i,
to accept the Committee report as submitted. Motion passed 7-0.
Motion; Motion made by Comnissi,oner Xroskia,_, second by Commissioner .lune,,
to table the petition until such time as the Commission is assured'
by Staff that the 10 conditions are adequately resolved. Motion
passed 7-0,
A=344
Discussion and Action by Commissioners
Robert P. )Hughes Cov ditional Use Permit' - Driving Raiz e
e tion;: Request 09 'Robert V, Hughes for a driving range and to construct
a utility building on the dixing range at the Southwestcorner
of State 101 and 55
v
Pla<nner Overhiser: In June, Mr. Hughes was issued a grading ,pern t which gave him the
right to fill and grade the lou, spots on, his property. The Build-
ing Department 'told him he would naled a Conditional Use Permit
icor the driving range. Tie thenn applied for a Conditional Use
Permit -for the range. However, he has the light pole bases in
place, wiring i.n, earth mounded up and there is some misrepresen-
tation on the submitted drawing. The Southern most portion of
the driving range was shown as130feet north of their property
Line. it is actually only about 45 feet. There are two major
pr-oblems in the area:
1. The greenhouses on the adjoining property
2. The lights in relation, to disturbing the resi-
dents of Schmidt's Gardens
It is my, recommendation that the planning Commission schedule a
public hearing,
Robert liu hes:` Petitioner - He has talked to the one resident in Schmidis Gardens
and c:xe resident has no complaint. They are particularly interested
in the project and were pleased about the meadow besng drained.
The entire area is to be finished. The gradin; permit was to
r grade and fill, They have moved the driving range :.Further west
so it does not endnagex the greenhouses,
Com. Neils: khat will happen to the house on the property?
4ir. Hughes : The house will remain
Motions
1
Motion made by Commissioner June, second by Commissioner Keeley, 1
to schedule* a public hearing on the ,petition and to notify the
residents in Seboidt's Gardens and the owner of the greenhouse
Mr, Busch) of the proposed hearing. Motion passed 7-0.
Discussion and Action by Commissioners 3t 0
Lake Street Industries - Conditional Use Permit DO/6/71
petition, Request of Lake Street Industries to construct a plastic lams.nate j
casework, manufacturing plant in an Iwi mie, (Petitioner Gerald A.
Wel like
Leo golf: Architect for the petitioner r, Stated -xiey are taking soil tests
on the proposed site as they mar have some soil problems. They
will, have the results by priday, October 8, 1971. They would
like to build on this site if at all possible.. Otherwise, they
rill be going to an alternate location in tS.I.P.. In either case,
they -rill need 'a. Conditional. Use Permit.
Chairman Wahl; What type of equipment will be used?Will there 'be an odor problem?
1`h*._____io1P; It will be mainly saws, Their lamination process uses both, cold
adhesive and hot presses, but there is no odor problem.
Motion- Moticn made by Commissioner $ells, set:ond' by Commissioner' Kroski.n,
that the Planning Commission indicate informal approval of the
proposed use in the 11,1,P area. Notion passed 7-0:
Comment The Planning Commission requested that they be shorn the s;.te
plans for ;the proposed plant at their October 13, 1971 meeting.
i