Loading...
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)