HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 10-04-1972PLANNING =81ISSSON
VILLAGE OF PLYMOUTH ) LY OUTH, MINNESOTA
October 4, 1972
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order
by Commissioner Keeley at 7`x34 in the Council Chambers of the Public
Works Building on Ifedne.-day, October 4, 1972,
MEMBERS PRESENT. mice -Chairman Reg Kxoskin, Commissioners Fran
Hagen Bill Keeley, Wavren -Chapman, and John Roth
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Jim Wahl, Commissioner Jim Threinen
STAFF PRESENT': Martin. Overhiser, Georgia Rehbein
A-42TINaege1e Outdoor Advertising Company I A-423 NAEGELE'
OU'
Planner Overhiser introduced the proposal, explaining that AD ER" SING
under the provisions of the newly adopted. Zoning Ordinance
the Village can authorize by Conditional Use Permit the CUP for Signs
placing of advertising signs within the h-3 and B-4 business
districts. Mr. Overhiser added that the proposal is to
construct six (6) advertising signs at two locations: County
Road 9 and State Highway, 55 and Peony Line and State Highway 55.
Staff in checking has found that the location at Peony Lane and
55 would exceed the maximum size permitted by the Ordinance.,.
Staff, therefore, recommends that the request be recommended
for approval subject to only two panels being placed at each
location, one facing in each direction.
ommissioliar Roth was concerned that even though this is a E-4
arca,, there are homes around the sign location. He questioned
how far the north sign was from the existing homes. Commissioner
Keeley answered thaw the sign to the northwest was approximately
400 feet from the first house.
Commissioner Chapman wondered what the required setback from
Peony Bane was since it is called out on the Thoroughfare Guide
Plan as a inajor thoroughfare. Planner Overhiser answered that
the new Ordinance sets spacing requirements for signs but requires
no additional setback from thoroughfares.
Commissioner Keeley stated that some thought has been given to
changing the guiding in this area to a "Living Area" designation
on the Guide Plan which could suggest a problem in regard to
this proposal. Planner Overhiser add§d that if this sign were
placed in a B-4 area and the area was rezoned to residential, the
sign would become a lion -conforming use and Naegele would then have
five years to remove the sign.
Vice -Chairman Kroskin chaired the meeting at 7:43 p.m.
Commissioner Hagen pointed out that if you go due southwest from
the northwesterly signs, you are only the distance of a right -of-
Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1972
way way From an R-1 zone. Planner Overhiser pointed out that
the Ordinance reads..
x'41, No advertising sign or structure shall be located
closer than two hundred (200) feet from the boundary
of any Ri-"., R-2, R --Z, or R=4 district, park, play-
ground, school or cburch or two hundred (206) feet
from any structure located within. an R-0 district
located on the same side of the street or inter-
section of streets."
Commissioner Hagen questioned the interpretation of the above state-
ment with. reference to 'the R -O district, adding further that he
believea the intent of the Ordinance to be that a sign should not
be within 200 feet of a R-1 district whether that district is on
the same side of the street or not,
Commissioner Keeley pointed out that he believed the original
intent of the Ordinance was that a sign or billboard would not be
placed across the street from a. residential area. Planner Ovexhiser
stated that the zoning-botinda ry does go to the Centex line of
State Highway 55,
Vice-Chaiimxan Kroskin stressed the high frequency of accidents on
these intersections, adding further that within the last year there
has been - according to the Plymouth Police Department - one
fatality on the intersection of SS and 10`1 and within the Last
five years, two to three fatalities at the intersection of County
Road 0 and Highway 55. Mr. Kroskin maintained that if one of the
objectives of the Planning Commission was to plan a safe communityandifitcouldbeassumedthatsignsattractthevisualattention
of a driver, then these locations are the poorest possible in view
of the accidents - both fatalities and various minor accidents,
Commissioner Keeley wondered if there were any other signs in this
B-4 area, Planner Overhiser answered that thea: were some signs in
the area but they would be removed, Commissionei Roth asked if
the signs would be illuminated, Air. Hokemeir, representing Naegele,
stated that they would be,
Commissioner Chapman made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chairman MOTION TO
Kroskin, that the Conditional Use Permit for the signs in two RECOMMEND
locations be recommended for denial due to the hazards at both DENIAL
intersections and also due to the fact that even though the
area is now zoned 8-4., there is R-1 in the area and adjacent to
it. 'Therefore, the future use of the land is not yet determined
so, if we do or do not want signs in the area pends.
Commissioner Roth stated that perhaps these signs would be of no
more distraction to a driver than the driving: range along 55. Vice
Chairman Kroskin disagreed, stating that there is distraction with
a driving range, but that that type of thing is not meant to attract
the driver4s attention while driving, while a sign is,
Motion to recommend denial was voted upon and carried, 3-0-2, "LOTION
CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes October 41 1972
Commissioners Keeley and Hagen abstaining until a determination
could be.ma.de on the intent of the Ordinance with regard to required
distance of a. sign from an R-1 district.
Commissioner Hagen made a motion, second by Acting Chairman MOTION TOKroskin, to seek clarification on Sectior, 4, Paragraph 6 of CLARIFY
thG' Ordinance. Motion carried, all ayes.
Mr. Harry f1bkemeir, representing Naegele Signs, stated that ther,
have been accidents at these two intersections, and 'here will be
acciaents there whether or not Naegele has two signs located there.
Be stated that Naegele has taken pains to conform to the Ordinance
as it relates to a B-4 area - the signs are set back 3601 from
Peony Lane and 700' from County Road
0
9,
Mr.'I-Jokemeir. explained that the "Land on which the signs are to be
placed has been leased and that the use isnotpermanent as Naegele 's
use can be cancelled if a developer should wish to purchase the land
from the owners.
1A 428 Ace Billiard and Recreation, Inc. A-428
Planner Overhiser explained that the petitioner wishes to obtain
a Conditional Use Permit to occupy an existing one-story buildingforthesalesandserviceofpooltab -les, -related accessories ACE BILLIARD
and, equipment, and other similar recreatimal products. Mr. CUP P R SALES
Overhiser added that this is not a use specifically called out AND SERVICEin, a B-3 service business area, but that it is similar to other
uses permitted by the Ordinance.
Commissioner Roth questioned if this would be considered an off -
the -street sales function, Planner Overhiser answerod that it
would and added that it could also be considered a specialty
sPortilig goods store.
Commissioner Chapman 'mad a motion, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TOKeeley, that the proposal be recommended for approval, but RECOMMEND
pciated out that he, would like to have Staff look into what he APPROVAL
believes to be a possible violation of the Ordinance in that
there is no ingress at all on the driveway for the building andth- uld be corrected to allow one to two points. of ingress.
The petitioner stated that one of the reasons that the drivewayisSoOpenisthatitservesnotonlySouthShoreDrive, but
there is also a service road, - and there is no inlet.
Motion was called to the floor.; motion to recommend approval
carried, all ayes.
is
MOTION
CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes _4- October 4, 1972
33 Tri-State Drilling Company 1A-4 3
Planner Overhiser introduced. the proposal, stating that the TRI -STAT)
petitioner wishes to add a second floor to an existing office DRILLING
building, Mr. Overhiser salad he had viewed the site, and
that it is not real attractive but it is fenced and is not SITE PLAN
unsightly from Highway #55. He added that parking is adequate REVIEW
and the :Front parking lot on the south is paved.
Commissioner Keel,-y- questioned if there are any -front yard parking
requirements in an, I-2 district. Planner Overhiser stated only a15' setback. Comm.issiouer Seeley that he felt the parking
requirements should be the same for the I-1 and 1-2 districts.
The Planning Commission Tkv ewed the site plan as proposed; MOTION TO
Commissioner Keeley made a 1g0tion to recommend approval of RECOMMEND
the petitioner's request. Commissioner Roth seconded tZ7e APPROVAL
motion; Notion carried, all: ayes. MOTION
CARRIBD
A-429 John Yngve A 29
01anner Overhiser introduced the proposal, stating that the JOHN YNGVE
titioner has a tentative purchaser for a house located on SUBDIVI ,aN
Farcel A and that the purchase depends on subdividing the
property. far. Overhiser added that Mr. Yngve has agreed to
eliminate driveways off County Road 6 and will develop a
private cojimion driveway which would be used by Parcels A,
B0 C, and D, would lead to the west and connect with
Queensland Lane just before the entry markers to imperial
Aills. As far as meeting the Ordinance requirements,
Planner Overhiser pointed out that Tracts B and D :are under
the 18,SGO square feet. Mr. Overhiser added that a notice was
s,nt to the three lots that back up to the subject property on
Queensland Lane, a call was received from. Mr. Taylor, owner of
oao of the lots, and he had no objection to the subdivision as
Lang as the sand would be used for single family dwellings
Mr. Overhiser stated Staff recommends approval of the proposal
subject to five conditions.
Commissioner Hagen -wondered about the piece of land owned by
Ecklund-Swedlund i}nmediately adjacent to the subject property;
Planner Overhiser stated that Mr:. Szvedlund has agreed, to deed,
this land to the Village and an RA . S., has been prepared that would
create the park, parcel creating 4 lots with two strips for a trail
so it would be the grillage permitting the drive to cross that strip.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 4, '.972
Commissioner Keeley voiced concern that there was a brick: wall and
a brick island located wh,.,.re it might obstruct the view at the end
of the driveway and that perhaps it would be better to bring the
driveway out to County Road 6, planner Overhiser agreed that the
biggest obstruction is the ?hick wall but added that on Queensland
there is not as much traffic - most of it is southbound and this
can be viewed well, Vice -Chairman Xrosk.in questioned the problem
created by trafficturning right off of County Road 6, Planner
Overh ,ger emphasised that speechof traffic should be consiered
a significant factor here, that Queensland traffic is much slower-
moviag than traffic on. County Road 6. Commissioner .Roth :felt
That a solution should be considered that would allow the drive-
way to go in without going through the gates. Commissioner Keeley
asked. about the feasibility of a dr ver ol., on, the back property
line; Mr. Yngve answered that there iv no room there,.
Commissioner Roth was concerned that Sze brick island was high
enough to block view at the end of the driveway; Mr. Yngve
stated that it was high enough, but not big enough, as the road
is very wide at that point, Mr. Yngve added that he felt this
would be the most desirable glut' n to the drivewaya.o h r. wa problem and
added that this ;,ituat on was really no different thaa driveway
coming from: a hone
Mr. Yngve stated that the title to the property is now subject to
Ofan existing road and 80' of right-of-way on County Roa.! 6,. Commissioner
Keeley asked Mr. Yngve if he now had title to what used to be part
ofthe right-of-way. Mr. Yngve answered yes:
Mr. Yngve stated that he felt the Village position of eliminating
access on County Road 6 a sound one. Ile added that the Village
wishes an additional, 20' to bank for future en.iargement of County
Road 6, Mr. Yngve felt that this preserves the value of the property
by creating a circular development of homes, thus leaving an open
space in front of the homes.
ommissioner Hagen felt that the area of the ]sots should be reduced
because there was no cul, de sac, adding that on an R.,L.S, the square
footage goes over road easements, etc.; 1:6,ODO square feet is actually
about 13,800 square feet - and Tract C of the proposal is thus going
to be small.
Commissioner Keeler made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chairman Kroskin, MOTION
that the Commission recommend approval of the petitioner's request TO
subject to the five conditions as recommended by Staff RECOMMEND'
1) That Tract E be deeded to the: Village for street
APPROVAL
purposes and that all required utility easements
also be deeded to the Villcge;
2) That plans for the private driveway be approved
by the Village Engineer ,and constructed by the
petitioner before any Building Permits are issued
for Tracts E, C,. and D;
3) That access to County Road 6 be eliminated ,after the
private driveway is constructed
tb
Planning Commission Minutes .o- October 4, 1972
4) That ,all required .additional utility stubs and
ResiderA,tiial Equivalent Charges be pari to the
Village by the petitioner
5) That future assessments to this property be shared
on an .equitable basis by all four` new tracts,
Commissioner Chapman was concerned that as time passes, item 42,
for example, might not be followed. through. Planner Overhiser
assured him that. extensive A -files,, Building ,Department files,
as well as the Assessor's files, are kept and consulted when
building permits are requosted,
Commissioner Keeley questiozied that if the subject proposal is
recommended for approval, is a variance necessary. Planner Overhiser
stated that by accepting the proposal, the Commission would auto-
matically grant the variance.
Commissioner Dagen woaidered if, since this is a private street, it
would be maintained privately, Planner Overhiser stated it would.
Motion to recommend approval carried, all ayes. MOTION
CARRSPD
Proposed Sidewalk and. Trail Policy, Redraft 10-2-72
The P1aniiing Commission reviewed the redraft of the sidewalk and
trail policy. 'Mice -Chairman Kroskin polled the Commission as to
whether or not: action, should be taken on the proposed policy at
this meeting. Commissioners Rath and Keeley believed that more
time should be spent on editing the proposal, and asked that it
again be discussed at the October 1.$ meeting for action at that DEFER
time. ACTION
A-379 1Proposed Plat for AMBER WOODS A}-379
Planner Overhiser explained that the Planning Commission had
approved the preliminary plat and that no change has been.made
since then, with the exception of the sidewalks. He added that
the outlots will be replatted when more soil borings are taken
and Dreyfus may then want to alter the streets somewhat, but they
have to come in with a revised plan at that time.
Commissioner Keeley asked if the drainage problem had been solved.
Planner Overhiser answered, it had.
Commissioner Keeley made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chairman Kroskin, MOTION
to authorize the Chairman to sign the hard shells of AMBER WOODS TO
when they come in, Motion carried, all ayes. AUTHORIZE
SIGNATURE
Planning Commission lKinutes -7. October 4, 1972
General, Discussion
1) Commissioner Roth. believed that the Republican Headquarters
Mobile Unit 1oc^t:ed temporarily within the Village should
have .gone thrrugh the ?Manning Commission, adding, that it
would have been approved,
2 The Commission as a whole felt ihczlt public hearingsshould be
scheduled as routine procedur:- in cases of conditional use
permits. Commissioner Roth ,sated, though, that sometimes
a public hearing was ineffective if a site plan did not show
a.cou°ratelyyfuture land use. Planner Overhiser stated that
Staff Reports could specify whether or, not parties had been
notified ^Xd/or a public hearing was deemed necessary. Vice -
Chairman kroskin stated he felt Staff had done a good job
in the past with regard to scheduling public hearings, The
Staff is to use reasonable judgment in setting public hearings
and if one i,s not set by Staff,; and Planning Commission feels
one is necessary, the; action can be deferred un-til a public
hep-ring is set.
3) Commissioner Kigen pointed out that Ile would cite 36th. AtiTenue
and Pilgrim :bane as one example of a fence creating a real
driving hazard,. Al;th-)ugh the fence meets standards of the
Ordinance, it impairs vision. He added that he felt a 30'
setback fro:a the highi-,,.?y not adequate for a six-foot high,
totally opaque fence,
4) A Sun Newspapers reporter present at the meeting requested
Planning-Commiss-ion memos, stating that Commission meetings
would be covered by a reporter from now- on.
Commissioner Roth made a Motion, seconded by Commissioner Keeley, 9-20-72
to approve the September 20, 1972 Commission Minutes. Motion Minutes
carried, all ayes.
Motion to adjourn, 9:30 p1m,
101.1.72gx
James C. Wahl, Chairman
Plymouth. Planning Commission
MartinW. D "Aerh'ser, Secretary
APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 1.0-18-72