HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 09-06-1972PLANNING COMMISSION
VILLAGE: OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA
September 6, 1972
A regular meeting ofthe Planning Commission was called to order
by Acting Chairman Kroskin at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers
of the Public Works Building on Wednesday; September 6, 472
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Reg4roskn, Commissioners
Warren Chapman, Bill Keeley, John Roth,and
Jim Threinen
MEMBERS ABSENT': Chairman Jim Wahl, Commissioner Fran, Skagen
STAFF PRESENT. Martin Overhiser, Georgia. Rehbein
Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance AG-I(d)
The. Public Hearing opened at 7;:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING
ZongOd
Planner Overhiser introduced the proposed amendment to the Amendment -
Zoning Ordinance relating to the Dedication, of Land for Park. Dedication
and Trail Purposes. 'tic explained that the intent of this of Land"
amendrient is to provide the Village Council the option of for Park and
granting a percentage of park land donated, for density Trail Purposes
credits, the problem being that developers of over 30 acres
by State, Law have the option of gig ing cash or land. Planner
Overhi!.er then pointed out a conflict: The existing Zoning
Ordinapoc- says land dedicated for parks: can be used for
density crtd.it and the Subdivision Regul7tons adopted as
to park dedication specify that land given cannot be used: for
density credit.; _.
Councilman. Niles stated that he felt there was not a problem OPPONENT
with the existing Ordinance but that the Ordinance as presently,
revlsed removed a conflict. He stated that the Ordinance now
lays out deliberately in Unit Subdivision, Projects the 10%
open space- in lieu of the required park dedication. He
added that we can refuse to grant a conditional use permit
for that kind of plat and this is the method that should be
used. Commissioner Roth agreed with Councilman Niles.
i Commissioner Keeley asked what the amendment actually specifies.
Planner Overhiser stated that the amendment would rectify the
problem that is created with developments of over 30 acres
when tie developer hae the option. By State Law he can donate
land even if the Village Comprehensive Plan does not call out
any need for land in his development, or he can give cash when
the Plan calls for land. Planner Overhiser, added further that
Planning CommissionMinutes - 2_ September 6, 1972
Staff believe i' , s the ..a.age position is a weak onea. n sayingwedowantlandinthiscase. He recommended that the Council
be given the option of granting a percentage of that land
donated for density calculations so the Village gets the
parks and trails as shown on the Guide Plan. This then
gives the Council more negotiating power with the developer
so we get cash or land ,based on the Guide Plan.
Commissioner Keeley queried whether it was the developer's
option or the option of the Planning Commission and the
Council to specify cash or land. Planner Overhiser answered
that informally in the granting of e4nditional use permits
there are certain administrative methods that can be used
to tell a develoker we don't want land but if that developer
wants to stick "o the letter of the State Law which ? says e
can donate either cash or 1 -and - he could do so
Commissioner Roth stated he felt there would be few times this
would ever happen if State Statute allows that either cash or
land can be obtained.. Councilman Nixes stated that the Village
should be careful about placing too much emphasis on money to a
buyer or developer. He added that land value should be assigned
relative to the average value of land for the portion of land
the developer wishes to develop, that if a developer wishes to
edonate swamp land one-tenth the value of the total parcel., then
he should be required to donate ten times as much. lard Mr.
Niles felt that if there were a deliberate shucking of junk
land, then, action depended on the circumstances. He added: that
as we prcceed with this Ord%ance change in single family
developments which is not a unit Project allowing them to
go down to 13,500 square feet per lot and creating open space
by reducing to 13,500 square feet per lot, this proposed revision
of the Ordinance would have the net effect of reducing the
amount of Land dedicated, thus increasing the density.
Planner Overhiser answered that the Village Council could give
developers 0-130% of the park land as density credits:.. H
pointed out that if the landd were ponding and drainage area,
staff recommendation would be zero density credits. fie cited
the Donnay plat as a good example: That 100 -acre devclopment
was called out on the Guide Plan for a proposed neighberhood
park? by using the present Ordi.ra.nLe only 90 acres of that
property could be developed The amendment would provide that
if th proposed donation is necessary for the completion of a
portion of the: Comprehensive Guide Plan, then a portion of land
0-100%) could be given to the developer for density credit.
Councilman Niles stated that in this case the developer's decision
would be that if he donates land, heloses ten to fifteen units
Mr. Niles further pointed out that the 30 -acre change in the
Planning Commission inutes -3-- September 6, 1 72
State Sta'tlte was iatitiated ?t Plymouth's request - before
that, the option was entirely up to the developer.
Commissioner ThreinEl, ,%tressed .hat this could jeopardize otiir
entire trails concept; Acting Chairman Kroskiv, stated that we
have various amena.ties but it has to be reasonable from the
standpoint of the developer, Commissioner Threinen stated
a?though the land did belong to the developer, that developer
has the rosponsiblity of providing open space for communities,
which are; entitled •L,:,' parks and trails
Commissioner Keeley questioned actual, percentage of credit
given. Planner Overhiser stated that the only time any credit
would be figured would be when the developer proposed a donation
of land that did fit into the Village Comprehensive Land Use
Guide Plan as a neighborhood park or trail.
Councilman Niles stated'`that the Park Dedication Ordinance was
first drawn in terms of park dedication requirements as general
intent withthe ground rules specified in a resolution; many
exceptions made this unworkable. If the; existing Ordinance is
retained., the Council can is special cases give additional density
through a. Special Resolution.
Public Hearing closed at 8:06 p.m. HEARING
CLOSED/
Commissioner Roth made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keeley, MOTION TO
for action on this proposed amendment. notion, carried. ACT -CARRIED
Commissioner Threinen believed our trails and parks in jeopardy
without this, amendment, adding that reclaiming is a costly
business. He felt that this revision would, give the Village
an opportunity to obtain that Land that fi-ts:into the Compre-
hensive Plan.
Based on the above,. Commissioner Threinen made a motion to MOTION TO
recommend Village Council acceptance of the proposed amendment, RECOMMEND
Acting Chairman Kroskin seconded the motion. APPROVAL
Planner, Ov°erhiser stated that the Planning Commission and staff,
will be instrumental in recommending a percentage of credit
for park dedication. He added that the ultimate solution 'to`
the problem would be to have the State Law changed ir, order to
make it Village option in all cases when a Guide Flan has been
adopted Planner Overhiser stated that the, League of Munici- un ci-
palitiespalitieshas this problem under consideration, now and could
w,ltmit a proposed amendment to the State Law this year,
Councilman Niles stated that if the proposed change in the
Ordinanc?y would not effect allowing a developer to go
to less •s.har, 18,500 square foot lots and for Sub- get credit
division Regulations requirement of 10 by shrinking his lot
Planning C6mmission minutes: September 6, 1972
size:, then that is a problem; if the intent is that the develonP-n
does not want to donate land but rather cash, in satis.faetion.ok
his requirement and Village Staff says cash is fine., but a trail
is still needed,, if he still wants to give density credit for
open space created for a trail over and above 1.0¢ cash he had
dedicated in lieu of land, then the change I:n the Ordi.nanoe
would be consistent with the intent of both Subdivision
Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance; but, when,a, developer
wishes to give cash and Village Staff desperately wants land., if :tees than the required amount of land is taken and. densitycreditgivenfor ,it, then the land is being used. twice,
Planner Overhiser assured Councilman Niles and the Planning
Coy: mi cion. that the intent of the amendment is not to increase
density, but rather to get the Ordinances to agree and offer
density credit to 'a develoner if a proposed park or trail
might be lost by a developer giving Kash.
Acting Chairman Kroskin recapped and called for a vote on
the motion to recommend approval of the amendment;. Commissioner
Keeley stated that a change should also be made to Page 1.69b
of the Sxibdivsion Regulations. At this point, Commissioners
Threinen, Keeley, and Xroskin voted in favor; Commissioner
Chapman opposed and Commissioner Doth opposed. motion :MOTION
carried, -2--0 CARRIED
Commissioner Keeley added that we would recommend; that this
never be used except in extreme cases.
AC-1~ td) Pro osed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance AAG-I Cd )
The Fublic Hearing opened at 8:07 p..m PUBLIC UARh' NG
Zoningg Ord
Planner Overhisev explained that the idea of permitting Amendment
office uses in the 1-1 Planned Industrial District was: Permitting
introduced at the .August 1.6 1972 Planning Commission_ Office Uses
meeting. The pr oposeu revision would add another per- _ in the
mitted use to t?"s district. PlanneT`n astral
District
Mr. Richard Cox, proponent, stated that he was in favor
of this change. He stated that Minneapolis industrial
Park (HIP) was spot-zoned B--1 where Carlson Motel. is PROPONENT
going to go in. He added that a proposed office plaza is
proposed to be located next to the Motel and 141P can either
ask for rezoning or ask to build under present I-.l zoning'.
He maintained that he could not see why an office building
would not be a permitted use in an 1-1 Planned Industrial
District if the uses were compatible,
Planning -Commission Minutes September 6, 1972,
Acting Chairman Krosksn asked Planner Overhiser for possible:
negative aspects Planner Overhiser stated that he had tried
in a phone conversation with Jahn Bergly to establish the
original intent of the Ordinance,: He believed that the
original intent was, that offices of general multiple occupancy
were not to be permitted in: industrial areas, that the B-1
districts were for office uses and the 1-1 districts for
industrial uses, Planner Overhiser then directed a cluesti,on
toward Commissioner Chapman as one of the opi.ginal draftsmen
of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Chapman answered that
he believed differentiation of function should be maintained;
he added that he might consider offices as conditional uses
in certain cases, -
Commissioner `; hreinez. stated that he had previously opposed
the idea; 'howev'er, after considering it, he felt that every
industry has offices and ?.aboratories in the building but
they are treated as accessory uses.
Commissioner Keeley stated he felt an office building to be
a place open to the public and which encourages the public to
come in, He added that he agreed with Commissioner Chapman
in that the Village should have conditional use permit control.
He stated further that the last tato lines of the proposed
amendment eliminate sales representatives such as a manufacturer
who would want a showroom would cater to people in the Park,
and would to buying and selling, He added that "limited to
the general public't should be stricken as a B-1 use, that B-=1
and I -1 districts generate different types oftraffic (the
general public, cars, and -4he industrial, park, heavy traffic
such as trucks) which are incompatible.
Planner Overhiser read: provisions from 1-1, B-1, and B-4
Business Districts noting, that in .noving from the B-.4 uses
to B-1., to the: 1-11that the districts become more limiting
in the amount of traffic and people permitted; he added that
the existing I--1 district is the most limiting as far as
Office uses.
Commissioner Chapman maintained that in an I-1 Industrial District,,
90$ of 'the goings on aree in the plant, whereas in a B-1 Business
District, the greatest share of the business does not, relate to
anyth.Ing happening in the plant but rather serves as a place to
type and transact out --business. He added that 1-1 offices ars,
by nature offices that must accompany any plans:
Mr. Cox stated: that he i:avored the conditional use permit idea
because he believes there are places where the Planning Commission
and Council would be wrong to allow the building of an office.:
Planning Colmission Minutes -6_. September 6, 1972
He declared .hat the responsibility of the Planning Commission
and Village Council was to guard the long-term economics, of
the community; therefore, he agrees with the: idea of not making
a wholesale change in permitting office uses in the 1--1 Planaed
Industrial District.
Public nearing closed, 8 : 2 5 p.. m. HEARING
CLOSED/
Commissioner Threinen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO
Keeley, to act on the proposed amendment. Motion carried, ACT
4-1--0, Warren, Chapman. opposed. CARRIED
Motion was mads: by Commissioner Keeley, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO
Threinen to recommend eVilla Council v gVillage .. appro al of the follow.n, RECOMMEND.
proposed amendment to Subdivision 3 of Section 15 of the Zoning APPROVAL
Ordinance::
L Offices .for administrative, executive,
professional, research., sales repre
sentatives or similar organization,
and generally compatible with the
industrial district."
Motion carried, all ayes, MOTION
CARRIED
AG-1Kd)l Proposed Amendment to the zoning Ordinance(AG--I(d)
Public Hearing opened, 8:29 p.m. Pi,`iL HEARING
ZoWig` rbc _
Planner Overhiser explained that the problem centers Amendment -
around. the fact that the existing Ordinance stipulates Parking & Loading
no parking between street and building and if the ill I-1
building is set back 100 feet rather than 56, then no Planne n ustrial
parking is allow;-d between the building and the street. District
Mr,. Cox voiced the opinion that he believed the Village
unduly restrictive if parking is prohibited completelyw
in the front yard area. Councilman Niles injected that
it was not unusual, for an industrial building to be
centered on the site, thus creating four front yard areas
and consequently prohibiting parking on the entire parcel.
Public Hearing closed at 8:40 p.m, HEARING CLOSED
CommiWsioner Keeley made a motion, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO ACT'
Threinen, f<,r action on the proposed amendment. Motion CPRRIED
carried, all ayes.
Commissioner Keeley made a motion, seconded by Acting Chairman MOTION TO
Krockin, to recommend Village Council approval of the following RECOMMEND
proposed amendment: APPROVAL.
in an 1-1 FiANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, no parking
or loading space 'shall be located in any required
setback area lying between the side lot linea, or
in any required side yard or rear yard that abuts
any of the CLASSES OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, and
in no instance shall parking or loading space be
located within fifteen ( 15) feet of a side or
rear property line, except for railroad loading
areas, except in the case: of parking space on
the adjoining property in which case no setbackshallberequired_,"
Acting Chairman Kros"kin questioned the intent of requiring that
no parking or loading space be located within fifteen feet
of a side or rear property line. Planner Overhiser answered
that the intent is to mainta-in azo open space free and clear
of parking and loading at all times,
Acting C11airrtariKroskin called for a vote on the motion; MOTION
motion carried, all ayes CARRIED
A-352 Northwestern Bell Telephone CompanyA-352 NW BELL
Requestfor
Northwestern Bell proposes to subdivide an existing Subdivision
unplatt,ed panel of land of 7.3acres into two parcels Variance
of 1.8 acre and 5.5 acres,
Commissioner Keeley questioned if the 1.8 acre parcel
would be large enough to develop. planner Overhiser
answered that 20 acres is the ,minimum size of an
industrial development. Commissioner Chapman wondered
where the property would obtain access: Planner Overhi.ser
stated that the land would have access off County Road 9.
Commissioner Chapman stated that it was undesirable to
create smaller parcels where there was an industrial area
and pointed out the traffic congestion that this created..
Planner Overhaser skated that we can require that the owner of
Parcel A deed to the Village anyriight of access that the
land has to County road. 9 and that traffic be controlled
via a 30 to 40' -foot frontage road along County Road 9
Cornmissiorer Xeeley felt that access should be deeded to
the Village through Parcel A and that a circulation plan
and frontage road along the south side of Parcel B should
be investigated.
Acting.Chairmam Kroskin suggested that the Planning Commission DEFER
defer action until t)ie plan is more solidified and some access ACTION
or right-of-way on Parcel. A for ' B is obtained,,
I
Planning Commission Minutes _g_ September 6, 1972
A-
23A-
IOS A-195
01 Fox Meadows Apartments [ A-230
planner Overhiser introduceu the proposal: The developer FOX MEADOW
wishes to 'remove 52 enclosed parking spaces and add 55 Proposed
open parking spaces. Revision,
of General
Don. Russ, owner -operator of rox Meadows, stated that he Development
would like to remove these garages and house a garbage, Plan
pickup and: walkway, for the people in the building
Commissioner Threinen wondered if a compactor of some
type would not be more effective than dumping garbage
in an emptor building. Mr. Russ indicated that his
experience w extensive in this area - had been that
garbage pickup once; or twice daily was the best method,
Commissioner Keeley wondered what was to be done with
the berm placed on the original, site to screen the garages
from view if the garage was going to be removed.: Mr. Ross
indicated that the berm would be removed; Commissioner
Keeley stressed that this could not be done as the berm
was a part of the landscaping requirement on the original
site plan approval.
Mr. Russ assured the Commission that parking setback requir-a-
ments could be fulfilled easily as he is in the process of
purchasing more land to fulfill those requirements and to
create a picnic area to the north of the complex.
Commissioner Keeley made a motion, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO
Chapman, to recommend approval of the rox Meadows site, plan RECOMMEND
as revised on condition that the developer acquire land APPROVAL
adjacent to the south property line and that 55 open parking
spaces be located there north of a suitable berm.
MOTION
Motion carried, all ayes. CARRIED
RequestLot6, Block 1., Fazendin-Krogness Addition Street Easement
for
Planner Overhiser explained that Mr. Roger Johnson has expressed Voidance
a desire to build a home on Lot 6,,, BlocR l of the Fazendin- of F:treet
1Crogness Addition but a street easement on the property makes Easement
it unacceptable to him. Therefore, he requests the Village
to vacate that section of the street in order that he may
build at the, end of the turnaround and not have to set back
SO feet from the street easemeait which might be extended in
I
Planning Gomiasion Minutes 9- September 6, 1972
the. future. Planner Overhiser stated that Staff would recommend
that the request be denied because. that section of the street'
maybe needed for future Village extnesion of Queensland Lane
to the west and back north to 8th Avenue
Commissioner Chapman made a motion, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO
Threinen, that the: request be recommended to the Villa-ge RECOMMEND
Council for denial for the above reason. Motion: carried, DENIAL/
all ayes MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Keeley stated that although a cul de sac raised:
the value of the Land, he did not feel the easement should
be vacated because it is needed for the circulation of water.
Commissioner Thr,einen added that police and fire protection
is made difficult in any cul de sac situation.
Discussion of Proposed Flood Plain Ordinance PROPOSED
FL OU D PLAIN
Planner Overhiser stated that the Staff now recommends that bRUIRANCZ—
thee Commission use a different Sample Flood Plain Zoning
Ordinance. The first Sample Ordinance distributed to
Commissioner Hagen's Committee was for committees without
detailed engineering studies. A Comprehensive Sanitary
Sewer Study is now being prepared and can be used as a
basis for a Flood Plain Zoning Ordinance which would be
more detailed' and based upon the Storm Sewer Plan now
being prepared,
Commissioner Threinen made a motion to accept the Commission 8-16172
Minutes of August 16, 1972 as corrected. Commissioner Keeley Minutes'
seconded the motionn motion carried. —
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m
09f12/72gr Jim C. Wahl, ChLixman
Plymouth Planning Commission
Martin W. Overh..-ter,
Secretary
APP'Rnt1Pn AV PT.AMVTrir rnMM rcernrr 1)