HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 11-17-1971AMENDED & .APPROVED 12I1/71
PLANNING COMMISSION
VILLAGE OF PLYMOUTH, t1 t "S 07A
Ntivemb er 17. :971l
A .regulon meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman. Wahl
at 7s45- ii»m. a n the Council Chambers of the'ublic Works Building .onTodnesoay,
November 17, '1971.
M=
I -
RS )?RESENT- Chairman Jim Wahl., Commissioners Reg Kroskka, bale Pollock,.
Gerald Neils, Join Rath and William Keeley.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Ed F.&4n, Wrarren Chapman
STAPH' PRE -SENT: Judy Lilliquist,; Martin 0 lerhiser, James Willis, Ronald Rudrud
OTHERS PRESENT: Carl. Hoffstedt; Craig. Spencer, Otto Bonestroo, Frank Brixius
Carl Hoffstedt,.Minnesota State Highway Department, Craig Spencer THOROUGHFARE GUIDE
Ronnepia County Highway Department, Otto Banestroo, Engineering PIAN
Consultant, Ronald`Rudrud, Village Engingpr and .Tames Willis, `Village
Manager were present to discuss the Thoroughfare Guide Plan with
the Planning. Commission, Major items of discussion were -
1. Distance between interchanges-- DISCUSSION
Carl. Hoffstedt stated that the. State Highway Department
was trying to ;follow the. Metropolitan Council's standards
of one mile between touchdown points between, interchanges,
but that they Have allowed oneo-half mile intervals under
special coaditx`oas, (Commissioner Roth pointed out that
tt is 1.8 mi.1eg from the middle of the 1-494 and State
11181,vay 55 interichaoge :to the proposed 9, 24 & 55 inter- (AMENDED 12%1/71)
change,
2. County Road 9 from County Road 18 to the proposed 24.9
and 55 interchange --
Mr. Graig, Spencer stated that the original 1985 traffic
projection of .30$000 .trips pr , -r day on County Road 9
between County Road 18 and 6Late Highway 55 was based on
incomplete data. With the current data available, a figure
of 20,000 is more I:ealistic. Commissioner Keeley asked
whether that figure had been, adjusted since the Metro-
politan. Council reduced 'the, population figures. Mr. Spen.-
cer indicated that he didn't feel they had, It was pointed
out by Consultant Bonestjroo and Mr. Spencer that the major
traffic ,generator west of Highway 55 on County Road 24 would
be Morris T. Baker Park
Planning Commission, Minutes • 2- November 17,, 1971
3# Desirability for planning. for 'more than one interchange
from 1-494 to State` Highway 101--
An Latercbange, is necessary at Peony Lane (State Highway
101) and State Highway 55 to serve the already zoned in-
dustrIal district north of 55
It appeared that iaterchanges, at Vicksburg Lane. and Peons
Lane would necessitate moving ' the proposed 24-9 and 55 n-
terchange west is order to maintaia safety distance.
The question "Can the 24-9 and 55 interchange be moved west
in such a manner :that interchanges can safely be provided
at Vicksburg Lane and State Highway 1.01?" was asked at (AMENDED 12/1172) ,
least four times, but not definitely answered by airj of the
resource people avai.labl,e.
Cha rman Wahl .agreed with Consultant Bonestroo that the lo-
cation of the cloverleaf interchange should be fixed as soon
as po:siblc is order to protect the land needs, but that he
felt that tha interchange should be located in such a manner
to allow maximum flexibility in providing for other needs
along 55,
4-1 The alignment of Peon} Lane north to Maple Grove--
Planner Qverhiser presented an acceptable alternate: which had
been prepared by he and Planning Consultant John Bergly.
5, Realigning County Road 24 north of Holy Name :Lake--
It was pointed out ;bat the County Road 24 alignment north of
Holy Name Lake would result, in: having thoroughfares on three
sides. of Greenwood Elementary School. The County pointed out
that there ware several topographic: difficulties in an align
Ment north of Holy Name Lake, but that they had not considered
the :matter in depth. Consultant Eonestroo felt that there was
adequate room for acquisition of right-of-way to upgrade exi.5 ting
County Road 24 to )ajor thoroughfare status.
6. Moving Medina Road north between Vicksburg Lane to County 24 --
Commissioner Pollock suggested. that Medina Road should be moved
to within $00 faet of 55 between County Road 24 and Vicksburg
Lane. Commission is cognizant thao it will ;be gong through
the swamp.
7.. Elimination of proposed County Road 1.5 and 1-494 interchange and
retaining proposed. 1.494 and County Road 6 interchange-
Che Commission felt that County Road 6 and 1a-494 interchange was
more important than the County Road 15 and 1-494 iaterchange and
Plann$ng commission Minutes - - No-rember 1.7, 1971
that an. ntorrhange at County Road 15 would' "be unsafe due '
to the dist4ace of the touchdoa points between the proposed
County Road 5 interchange and the Highway 12 1',nterchange on
1-494,
Wdcsburg hang and County R4?ad 9 --
EngineerRadrudEngineerRadrudpointed out that with Vicksburg Lane planned
as a major north/sough thoroughfare, it probably would be
necessa-zy to plan for a grade separation at that and other
intersections where local traffic volumes are going to be
high
Consultant bonestroo stated he thought that the Thoroughfare
Guide Plan should show intersections which will require special
treatment in, the future. Some major thoroughfare intersections
may require grade separations in the future,.
Motion made by Commissioner Keeley, second by Commissioner 'Kroskin, to
approve the Thoroughfare Guide flan as revised. Motion passed 5-1 with
Commissioner Neils voting aga,inst, Commissioner Neils voted aga nv
because he is concerned with the Vicksburg Lane and Highway 55 area.
r
Motion made by Chairman Wa:hl., second by Commissioner Neils, that the
Council be informed that the Planning :CommisslQn is concerned with access
to -Highway 55 from 'Vicksburg Lane and that the 9-24 and 55 interchange
should be moved west if the County will agree to a new realignment of
County Road 24, Motion. passed 6.0.
A-224 - Subd vision [ giver - Zata Properties, and Hasty Property -,
Hirsch Brothers Site Plan - Steve Lisle Rezoning also
involved
Planrier Overhiser referred to the November '9, 1971 letter from Attorney A2224
Lefler regarding the rezoning of Parcels A and R hack to RI -1. Single IATA PROP,
Family Residential. from, R-4- Multiple Residence family District. He SUBDIVISION
statsd that the Planning Commission shogld only deal with the sub- WAIVER
division waiver at this time.
The history of the two parcels was reviewed by the :;ommission, HISTORY
1, 4'50/.69 -- 'Public Hearing. 21;Rnning.r Commission recommends
deferring action (Lisle)
2t 5/19/69 - Council defers action (Lisle)
3, 8/18/69 - Ccar_cil defers: rezoning request to 1/20/70 (Lisle)
4. 8/17/70: Council grants rezoning (,isle)
5. 2/1/71 '- Subdivision waiver denied (Council) - (Dickey)
b,, 5/17/71 Council denies floor space variance: (Hirsch)
Fl, anaiog 'Commission Minutes Move er 11, 1971
7 5/19,172 Planning Commission approved site plan with
conditions (Hirsch)`
6/1/71 Council:approved- site plan with conditions (Hirsch)
94 6/16/71 Planning Cora dssi.on approved site plan (Hirsch)
101 7/19/71. - Cou-icil approved site plan rscia)
11 ll,/3/7l - Planning CQ miission defiers action n -n, subdivision
waiver (lata Properties)
l
12, 11117/71 -Under; review by Planning Commission (zata.)
There was much, confusion xega;ding 'the owners of thegropertv.ran:
ri€ius, attor ey for Zata Properties stated that they do, in fact,
o,m Parcel B and have right of first refusal. on Parcel: A (The hasty
Homxesltead) . Mr, Bri ius stated that at n.o time dirt ";_ , 'iTirsch have title
to theproperty.. When Mr. Hirsch. brought I is site pj, kj into the Com.
mission and Council, he was merely speculating on purchasing the property.
Zata Properties purchased the property approximately a. year ago --Novem-
ber, 1970. This was a.Zter the rezoning requested by Petitioner Steve
Lisle, had been granted by the Council (the Planning Commission 'had
recommended deferral of the rezoning).
Chairman Wahl, stated that the granting of the subdiv-1sion waiver will
automatically void the .11irsch. BrotheMs General Delelopment Plan. Planner
Overhiser stated that -the oz,ginal rezoning petition by Steve Lisle did
not have a General Development. Mr. Brixi,us stated that when they develop
the property, they will Comply wiQz all. Village ordinances and conditions
as set forth by the 'Village Cc acil.
Motion made by Commissioner Neil,, second by Commissioner Seeley, to MOTION
recommend that the subdivision waiver be denied and that the Council
be informed that the Planning Commission feels that the petitioner
sboul.d go through the formal,: platting pa: oae4ures and that the plat
provide, only one access to Councy Road; 6 for both p4-rcels .Motion
passed 6-0.
The minutes ;of November- 3, 1971. and November 10, 1971. were approved..
Meeting to adjoexn passed all in. favor,
J7 m C. Wahl, Chairman
Plymouth Planning Cor=issi.on
l
Xaxtin W. Overhiser, Director
Planning and Community Development
01,
THOR0UGWAR GUIDE PWJ
Discussion and, Action by CoruUssioners
11/l/71
Carl 11offstedt<,, XGnesot;a Stare llli,gbway Department, Craig Silencer AOROUGHlARF, GUIDE
Uenaepi °County HighwAy Depar`tmeat ; Otto 1poaestroo, Lngineeri.ng PLAN
Consultant, Ronald Rudrua, Village En;ingpr a.izd Jartes Willis, Village
Manager mere present to, discuss the Thoroughfare ui.de`Plait -7i.th
the Planning "Commissi.m Major items of diseussi.oa i7eres
r
l.,° Distance between iatorchanges- DISCUSSION
Carl '1tofist:edt stated that the State Highway Department
was trying to follow the Vie tropolitan Council's standards
of ona mile- bet •Teen touchdowns points between interchanges.,
but that they have allowed one-half mile intervals under'
speca a1 conditions. (Covmi.ssioner l otl: painted out that
it is 1.8 miles from the middle of the 1-494 and State
llivtivay $5 interehange, to the proposed 9, 24 & 55 inter- AMENDED 12/1/71)
change.
2} ,' Coua. y Road 9 from County Road 12 to the proposed 24--9
and 55 interchange—
Mr. Craig Spencer stated that the origi.nel 1985 traffic
projection o,t 30,000 trips per day on County Road 9
between County Road 1S and State. Highi-i" 55 was based on
incomplete data. With the current data -available, a figure
of 20)000 is more realistic. Commi.:ssionei. Xeelc} ,asked
rrhethor that figure had been adjusted since the Metro-
politan Council reduced the population figures. Mr. Spen-
cer indicated that the didal t feel they had. It vias pointed
out by Consultant honestroo and Xr. Spencer that the major
traffic generator west of Highway 55 on County Road 24 4rould'
be Morris T.' Baker Park.
e 3. Desirability for planning_ for more than oaa interchange
from 1-494 to State Highway 101- 01.-
AnAni.ntercbangze is 'necessary at Peony Lana (State Ei:ghway
1.01.) and State llightray 55 to serve the already zoned i.n,-
dustri.a.l district north of 55.
It appeared ;that interchanges at Vick burg Lane and peony
Lane Mould accessitate moving, the proposed 24-'9 and: 55 in_
for bange verest in order to maintain safety distance,
They question "Can the 24-9 and 55 interchange bc, rnvod 1wast:
i,n aucn a manner that intsrcht-nges can sa ely be provIded
it Vicksburg Lane and State H' `,way 101?" was asl,ed at AMENDED 7.2/1./71)
least roux times, but not deftititally ansviered by any of the
resource pcoplc ayaa Itb1G
fi e+tiCitY#+'sro'am•^wrraA sawaa+aa sr vram.x n mr,wrcx':5tts,^>:.a:t. y
l'11011oucl ' 1tL cuxDPI PIAT
11-TE /l
Msr°w-,ssion anti Action by Cairun.ssionexs
w.. `+
n"..-".
cam...ern"'.
s.+c.::x'•,"'"'A..A.a',"'' r w w:?.+T.i.'Si,a'"TM"..wz""'':v.=x="5'+:C;.:++^..`"'..
Chairman, Wahl agreed Ath Coai ul.tant Fonestroo the ; the lo-
cation of the cloverleaf interchange should be fixed as soon
as, possible in order to protect the: land needs, but that he
fell, that the intarchan:, should be .ached in such a wanner
to allow n %imam fl.oxilollity in providing for other nerds
along 5,5
4 The alignmi=t of Peony Lane north to 3•iaple
Planner Overbiser_ presented art acceptabLa alternate which ?lad
beetprepared by be >,and Plann' ng Consul-John Lergl.y.,
5Realigci,ng County Road 24 north of Holy Xmm Lake—
It tea, pointed out that the County Road 24 alignment north o
Uoly Name Lake would result in having thoroughfares on three
sides of Greenwood tlemeatary School. The County pointed out
that there were several topographic difficulties in an align-
went ,north of Holy Name Lake, but that tbey& haat not considered
the matter in depth. Consultant Sonestroo felt that there was
adequate room dor acquisition of t i;ght-o£-way to upgradt existing
County Road 24 to major thoroughfare status.
6. Moving Madin.: Road north between V? cksburg Lanr. to County 24--
Commissioner
4x-
Comm ssioner Pollock .uggestea that 'Wina Roar: should be moved
to within 500 feat of 55belxieen tCounty Poad 24 and Vicksburg
Lane. Commission is cognizant that it will be going through
the swamp".
7. Elimination of proposed County Road 1.5 and 1-494r ;interchange and
retaining piopo!.ed 1-494 and County° Road 6 interchange--
The Co;missioa felt that County Road 6 and 1-494 interchange, was
m more important than the County Roast 15 and 1-494 interchange and
that an interchar,-o at County Road 15 would be unsafe due
to the distance: of the touchdown paints between the proposed
County Road 6 interc:hanga ,and. the Highway 1.2 interchange on
4,94.
8. Vi.cksburg, Lane and County Road 9- -
RnSi mer Rudrud pointed out that vith Va cksburg Lane planned
X
as a major north/south thorou hfaro,; it probably would be
necessary to plan for a grade separation at that and cutter
intersections where local traffic volumes are ;going to be
high
TITOROVIJIVARE GUIDE PLAN
Di,scuskioa and Action by Commissioners
t,»"."':r++;":.:`'"..:•'.'w'°`"+wi`'^,:;+u""`c'.:w.:,s.m..,fv.,..w.amu.>:za...+ya«»`.t.":w.s-u "vs£,»',"` .
Consultant Bonostrcoo stated .he thought that the Thoroughfare
Guide ?lan should sbow intersections wh4lcb, will require special
treatment in the future. Some major thoroughfare intersections
r quay require gz e separations in the future,
Motion made by Con i,ssic Xeel:ey, second by Com;ai.s.%,ioner Xroshka, to
approve`t:he Thoroughfare ."de Plan as revised. Motion passed 5.1 truth
Commissioner trei:ls voting against. Cormis;ai:oner Neils voted against
because''hei.$ concerned with the Vicksburg Lane-awl Highi-,my 55 area,
Motion made. by Chairman Wahl, second by Co- nissioner Neiis, that; the
Council be informed that the planninZ Cotmui.ssi,on i.s concerned vi,th access
to Highway 55 from Vial;sburg Laas and that the 9-24 and 55 interchange
should be moved crest if the County wri.11 agree to a new realignment of
Couaty Road 24, Motion passed 6-0.
ZA7:A PROPRIMES AND liAO'JT Vk`4C}l'I'I:'I:Y
4
SubdivisionSubdivision Rai:vex
11/17/71
Discussion and Action by Commissioners
At-224 - 'Subdivision Waivei Zata Properties and hasty Propartiy
Olirsch Brothers $; tte Plan - Stgve Lisle Rezoning also
involved)
Planner 0verbiser referred to the November 9, 1971 letter from Attorney .4224
Lefler regarding tl-e rezoning of Parcels A and b back to R-1 Single ZATA RRQP.
Family Residential, from P-4 Multiple Residence Fancily District, lie SU1;UxV.0 ION
stated that: the Planning Commission. should only deal with the. sub- WAIVER
division: waiver at this time., 4
Ile history of .the two parcels was reviewed by the Comilssion. ttiST()kX
1.. 4/30/69 -; Public hearing - Planning Commission recommends
deferring action (isle)
2. 5/19/69 - Council defers action (Lisle)
3., 8/18/69 Council defers rezoning 'request to ;1/20/70 (Lisle)
4. 8/17/70 Council grants rezoning (Lisle)
5,°' 2/1/71 Subdivision waiver denied (Council) (Rickey)
6., 5117/71 Council denies floor space variance (Itixsch)
7. 5/19/71 Planning 'CoDnnission approved site plan with
conditions (Kirsch)
t3 6/7/71 - Council approved site plan with conditions (11i rsch)
9. 6/16/11 Planning Commission approved site plan (111.rsch)
10, 7/19/71 Council approved site plan (Ilirsch)
11.:* 11/31171 Planning Commission defers action on subdivision
waiver (lata Properties)
12. 11./1.7/71 -Under review by Planning Commission (Z.atea)
Tbere was much confusion regarding the owners of the property. Prance
Brixi.us,, attorney for 'Lata. Properties, stated that they, do, in fact,
oixn P arcol fi and have right of first refusal on l'azc-I A ('i'he hasty
omes toad) . Mr. Bz: ixius stated t:ha t at no time did Mr. Hirsch have title
to the property. When Mr. ttirsch brought his site plaii into the Com-
mi.tsion and Council, he ,eras Me"ly speculating on purchasing the property.
Zats Properties, purchased the property approximately a year ago--Xovem-
bar 1.970This a'. 7 . was after the rezoning requested byPe: .taoneN,. St eve
Lisle, bact been granted by the Council (the Planning Comm.:ssion had.
retornn aided deferral of the rezoning).
Chairman Wahl, stated than the granting of the suhdiv4sion waiver, will
hut±omatical.ly void the 11i,rscl Bzothers: General. Development Plan. Planner
Ovarliisar stated that the original rezoning peCition by gteve Lisle diad
not have ia, Gunai;al Development. t~ir. ,Brixius statod that, ti ban they develop
the property, they iAll comply -with all Villag,T ordinances and conditionsCassetforthbytheVillageCosc°nciZ,
i
i".i1.ZY2R".'...^.."X'Tk+:RY..",«e':;,`F i V!I..A"YY%':i.s.'Y:'1L's'.!F=i `I.$:t
ROPERT
A-7
Subdivi.sio Waive:-
11 17171.
Dist ssion axed Atti,on'by Cottmissioners ....
Xotion tia,de by Coxmissi.ortor Leila, second by Commissioner Keeley, to Iip_ TIONrecommendthatthesubdivisionwaiverbedeniedandthattheCouncil
be i.nyorrned that the Planning Comission feels that the petitioner
should -So through the formal-platti.np, procedures and that the plat
provide only one access to Councy Road 6 for boar parcels. kIot:i.on
passed 6"0
r
e
r
V
l