HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 12-19-1973PLAN -RING COMMISSION
VILLAGE OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA
December 19,, 1973
A regular meeting of the Plymouth Planning CoMmiSsIop was called to order
by Chairman Kroskin at 7*37 p.m, in the Council Chambers of the Public
Works Building, 14900 23rd Avenue North,
MEMBERS PRESENT-. Chairman Kroskin, Commissioners Threinen, Erickson,,
Johnson,, and Majka
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Hagen and Stewart
STAFF PRESENT-. Martin Overhiser, Milt Dale, Georgia Rehbein
A-63O Mendota, qcoA-530MENDOTA, 10
TU -5 1 i ce a ri n gPublicHearing, dpened, 738 p.m. Rezoning R -O
to B-2
Planfter-Overhiser introduced the proposal, explaining that this
requa-t for rezoning from R -O to B -Z Shopping Center District of
the area at County Road 10 and 1-494 should be viewed in conjunctionwithdevelopmentinMapleGrove. He stated that this request takes
in the entire area north and south of County Road 10 and west of proposedCountyRoad61• .
He stated that Plymouth's Land Use Guide Plan was reviewed by Maple Grovebeforeitwas, adopted, and our Plan was actually drawn to conform withMapleGrove's 1970 Plan.,
He explained that the basic problem is this: Between the Maple GrovePlan, the Plymouth Plan, and the Mendota proposal.,, there are threedifferentproposedlocationsforaretailcenter. Plymouth's conceptOfaneighborhoodretailshoppingcenteristhatofacenterservingatwoto, - :three mile radius (north central Plymouth and south centralMapleGrove,) He added that since this retail center will primarily serve20,000 to 30,,000 people, consensus must be reached on which, site. (southofCountyRoad10snorthofCountyRoad10, or northwest of County Road10and1-494) would be, best for this type of use, and then a circulationpatternshouldbeestablishedtoservetheuses.,
Chairman Kroskin asked Planner Overhiser to identify the difference betweentheMendotaproposalandPlymouth's Land Use Ovide Plan. Planner Overhiserexplainedthatthisproposalwouldsuggestashopping, center district bothnorthandsouthofCountyRoad10andwestofCountyRoad61, Our Plan, he continued, shows a neighborhood shopping center to the South of CountyRoad10andnorthofCountyRoad47only, He stated that there is a majordeviationintheextentoftherequest. He stated that technically a
portiork of the rezoning request south of 10 and north of the Co,,;knty Road 47intersectic4n, (approximately 6.,7 acres), is in conformance with the PlymouthLandUseRl.an; the rest is not, i.
Gene Hickok, petitioner , stated he is the fee owner of the property andintroducedhiscounselsMr, Bruce Thom sen and his planner, Mr, Carl D.4ie.
Planning Commission Kinvtes December 19 1973
Mr, Thompsen, provided a history of the property; Mr. Dale stated that
he had dravin this plan baset'. on the Guide Plans, of both Plymouth and
Maple Grove and was extremely surprised at the reaction of Plymouth. ile
itt'aiat4ined that both CompNeiiensive Plans show intensive commercial use 4,t
the proposed location, and, added that the size of the proposed use was
scaled off the map. He continued that he would agree with Staff in 0,ne
respect,- 1,300 feet should be allowed from the diamor,1 to allow pienty
of stacking distance. He stated that the parcel closest to single' family
homes is proposed for, multiple uses which will be controlled by individual
site plan review for, each, proposed use, He stated. that a Planned. Ullit
Development Ordinance is needed, but he asked that the two communities
agree on, the proposed land use and proper site plans. He stated that their
major concern is that the shopping center be built for logical land use
planning, which dictates that the site extend into Plymouth. He provided
the Commission with a review of studies that had been done on the site,
including a site analysis and design study. He stated that the essential
development is in Maple Grove and added that rezoning in Plymouth is not
essential to that development. He added, however, that road development
in Plymouth is essential to development. He suggested that perhaps
connection to Maple Grove services could occur for part of this area.
Commissioner Threinen asked for a t4lme schedule on the proposed development.
Mr. Carl Dale stated that the shopping center, motel, and freeway service
development would perhaps occur within three to five years; the rest
of the project would be considered a 10 -year program. He continued that
if approval is granted by Maple Grove, all development within the next
five years would occur in that community, If approval is granted by
Plymouth , no development would occur within two to three years except for
two roadway extensions. Some free-standing buildings would be developed
in Plymouth in about five years, Mr. Dale stated, provided utilities were
available along proposed County Road 61,.
Planner Overhiser stated that the in-Itia, Maple Grove Plan (adopted in
1970) showed retail shopping center at the northwest and southeast
quadrant of the, County Road 10/1-494. intersection. On that 1970 Plan,
general business was shown in the area. immediately adjacent to 1-494
north of County Road 10. Plymouth, in drawing its planimplied that
this was a. highway service area, not a retail area. He stated that the
Plymouth Plan calls out a retail center south of County Road 10 and the
official Maple Grove Plan shows tileir retail center at the northwest
quadrant of 10 and 494. He stated that the intended use for the area in
question, according to the Plymouth Plan, would be for motels., restaurants,
highway service type uses - not for a retail shopping center.
Mr, Thompsen responded to the Staff Report, indicating that utilities
can be worked out with the cooperation of both villages involved. He
stated that as far as the adequacy of thoroughfares, the County Highway
Department feels County Road 10 will be adequate until 1985, adding that
a major freeway such is 494 is crucial to location of a shopping center
and tenants, 'rather than a Guide Plan, will determine where a major
shopping area will be located.
Mr. Edwin Kauffman, 3900 36th Avenue North, stated that he owns, a Z6 -acreMr,
adjacent to and east of this development, He stated that he is
not opposed to the proposal, but as he did build some of the homes in
the Bass Lake area that would be affected, he would like to have good
buffering, provided and would like to, see the owners of property in this
area, namely, Mr, Boyer Palmer, Mi-,, Guggenheim, and himself, provide
Planning Commission Minutes Deceiber 19., 1973
some sort of Planned Unit Development for their pr-Nperty contiguous with
this development which would indicate to, the home owner..i in the areawhat
sort of development they can expect,
OtN1r. Virgil_ Schneider, President of the Bass, Lake Homeowners Assoclation,
satedtrimrepresents 75 families in the area. First, , he s,ated he does
not believe adequate buffering is being provided in this development,
maltitainitig that the area up to County Road 10 is guided LA -1 on the
Guide Plan, 4o there will be homecwners someday who are muc)i closer to
this development than, existing development conveys, unless the, developer
plans to build duplexes or apartments in this area for buffiering. Second,
he continued', if County Road 61 is moved east to create a larqcr C.,(,mmercial
parce7f, the roadway is -brought even closer to existing single family olites.
Third, lie stated that he does believe the existing wooded, hilly terrainWi1beruinedbythisdevelopment.
Joyce Morris, 6915 Kirkwood Lane, stated that the traffic pattern for this
proposed deTelopment is poorly planned and added that it would be difficult
for persons residing in her area to take advantage of shopping facilities in
this development unless, as had been suggested at the Maple Grove hearing, a tunnel, is built under or a bridge built over County Road 1G.
Mr. G. Paschke, President of the Shorewood Rills Romeowners Association,
stated__t-h_a_F_tTe main objection of thepeople in his area is that adequate
buffering is not provided on the Hanson parcel that is near the lake.
Mr. b. V. Welk, 6010 Kirkwood Lane North, stated that though not, opposed
to progress, Te woOld ask that this project be fully coordinated by the
two Villages and the County. Re urged that ('equate pedestrian and
vehicle safety considerations be given and thit an adequate buffer be
established between, the intense commercial use and existing ane future
single family dwellings, thi-s buffering to consist of a transitional area
moving from commercial to 'residential facilities, to townhouse and single
family dwellings.. He added that this transitory zone should be planted
with trees and shrubs, with shallow earth berming coordinated with a
carefully planned design, He continued that possibly landscaping could
serve as. an effective sound barrier of sufficient depth and to avoid
residential view of the commercial area, including the parking, related to
that area, He concluded that he believed that any rezoning should be
properly coordinated to reflect the above concerns.
Hr. Hickok summarized and stated that: detailed, buffering plans W, 11 be
provided at the time a site plan is proposed for these parcels, He stated
that it is extremely difficult to work out this type of.detail at, this
st,ige,, before free-standing buildings are even located. He indicated that
the intent has been to comply with Plymouth's existing Land. Use Plan. With
regard to a circulation pattern, Mr. Hickok stated that traffic 'as been
kept away from the, residentia area and pedestrian ways can coincide with
those outlined on the Plymouth ar',Maple. Grove Plans. He stated that green
space t as been provided through drainageways, and although most of them
are In Maple Grove, a. corner of Plymouth is involved. He indicated that
through the phasing of development the existing single family areas will be
buffered as the proposed free-stAnding buildings utilize the natural terrain at
berming., He stated, that he is aware that the development will not be
0 successful if attention is not paid 'to the natural amenities, as financing
agencies are aware of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for
new developments,
Pla-Anirtu* Commission Minutes -4- December 19, 1973
ChaIrman Kroskin asked Mr. Hickok if Mendota, Inc. will be developingthisproposalfromstarttofinish, Mr, Hickok answered that they will
be developing any Prop rty in Plymouth from start- to finish.
Commissioner Erickson commented that the triangular parcel of propertyisproposedtoberezonedtoB-2, yet the uses proposed fall into the
B-1 category..
Public Hearing Closed, 9.-13 p.m, Hearing Cloted
MOTION, was made by Commissioner Threi nen, supported by 'Commissioner NOTION TO
Erickson, that action be taken on this Proposal at the present ACT/
meeting.
Motion carried,, 5-0. Carried
MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen,, supported by Commissioner MOTION TO
Johnson, that the request of Mendota, Inc, for rezoning from R -O DEFER/
to B-2 basedon a General Development Plan be defer -red for the
following reasons.
1) Plymouth, Maple Grove, and County Staff should confer on
uses, particularly the proper zoning, since part of the property
could be zoned 8-1, part B -Z or B-1 with a Planned Business
Developrr.-nt. In addition, where zoning is not specific, rezoning
should n,t be granted (i.e, the southern parcel at the inter-
section of County Road 47 and County Road 10),
2) More concrete time tables must be established to allow schedules
for providing roadways and services; a, soluti'on, should be worked
out rather than just postulated on provision of services, to the
area.
3) Realignment of Hemlock Lane (County Road 61) and County Road 47
should be worked out,
4) The comments of Mr. Kauffman should be considered in that se)'oral
land owners will be affected by this development, and t}ey or
their representatives should be present at meetings of the Plyiiaouth,
Maple Grove, and County Staff.
MOTION was made by Chairman Kroskin, supported by Commissioner MOTION TO
Threinen, that the motion be AMENDED to incorporate this point: AMEND/
5) Definitlons be clarified by the Villages involved on both
zoning and land use guide plans.
AMENDMEOT carried, 5-0. AMENDMENT CARRIED
ORIGINAL MOTION carried, 5-0, MOTION CARRIED
A deferral period of 4 to 6 months to allow time for the accomplishment
of the directives was discussed.
A-8_L8J Fritz 3ul1ickson =A- 5 1=8 FRITZ GULLICKSON
Public Hearing opened, 9:15 p,.m. Public Hearing
Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 1973
tanner Dale introduced the, proposal, with Planner Rezoning 9-0
verhi ser explaining that addi'tional4right of way is to R-200ing, required on the west for Zinnia Lane and on the east
for County Road 61. He stated that the County is flexible
with regard to County Road 61 and will put it most anywhere
Plymouth will provide right of way.
Mr, Gullickson questioned why right of way is. being required on two.
ends of the parcel, Planner Overhiser answered that the western
right of way would be for a future road to which this proposal would
have access, He added that the three lots would back up to future
County Road, 61, a major thoroughfare,
Commissioner Erickson askedif the right of way rights for CountyRoad61areflexible. Plantar Overhiser answered they could be, addingthatthisproposalwouldrequireadditionalaccesstothesouth, north,
and east.
Mr. C. W. Gordon,'13b12 8 County Road 15, stated lie is against rezoning
of thispropertyto multiple dwellings. He, stated, that there are only
single family homes in the area, and they were all required to buy 1/2
acre in order to build their homes. He stated he cannot see six families
living on 1 1/2 acre. He presented, to the Commissioti a petition with
33 signatures, representing every homeowner in the Immediate area, asking
the Planning Commission to deny the request.
Amr. Jim Brenner, 302 B Zinnia Lane, stated that this develapment is
W—nanimously 0 pposed by ti,,e neighborhood, He stated that it would be
illogical and an eyesore in this section,
Mr. Curtis G. Carlson, 335 B Zinnia Lanes stated that he supported all the
previous arguments, Nat the proposal is not in keeping with the neighborhood.
He stated that major upgrading has taken place in the neighborhood in the
past three years, and he wishes to see this continued, He felt that
allowing, a development of this type would break the neighborhood spirit
and the close union that is responsible for the upgrading.
Mrs. C. W. Gordon, 13512 B County Road 15, stated that the petitioner
proposes to use this property as rental property, and is really not
concerned. about the neighborhood.
M,,, Gullicks.o4i stated that this property is guided for LA -2, which permits
a density of 3-5 dwelling units per acre. He stated that he only wishes
to use this property according to the Guide Plans as ha is paying taxes
and assessments on the land.
Commissioner Threinen commented that, the LA -2 guiding specifies single
family detached dwellings or duplex, in a Planned Unit Development,
Planner Overhiser responded that Staff views the R-2 District, which does
allow duplexes, closer to LA -2 density than R-1 and as the area will be
bound on the north by future County Road 15, on the south by existing Countyioad15, and on the east by future County Road 61, it would '6e'a-polssl4le future
ransitional area like, the Cottonwood Lane 'rezoning to B-1.
Public Hearing closed,. 9.-35 pm. Hearing Closed
MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen, supported by Commissioner MOTION TO
ACT/
Planning Commission Minutes Decem!lier 19, 1973
Johnsonx that action be Oaken on this proposal oit the present
meeting,.
Motion carried, 6-0. Carried
MOTION was mde by Commissioner Threinen, supported by Commissioner MOTION TO
Johnson, that the request of Fritz Gullickson for rezoning from RECOMMEND
R"O to R-2 and a division of unplatted property be recommended for DEHIAL/
denial for the following reasons -
1) The p,opcsal would adversely, affect penple in the area -
further, under Goal C, Objective Z, Paragraph 3, Village
Goals, Objectives, and Criteria., rezoning of this area
would qualify as spot zoning.
2) The guidelines o.f the Comprehensive P,1an state that LA -2
should besingle family detached dwellings unless in a
Planned Unit Develapment.
Commissioner Threinen added th.&,t, the intent of this proposal is not to
provide a Planned Unit Development, as the Guide Plan text would suggest.
He stressed that this aree is already 75 to 80 percent developed, in single
family homes.
Motion carried, 5-0. CARRIED
A -377B. V. and Leo Harris company L_ -377 B. W. & L80 HARRIS
Chairman Kroskin stepped down for this matter and
Commissioner Threinen served as Acting Chairman.
Public Hearing opened, 9t40 p.m,
Preliminary Plat
Public Hearing
Planner Overhiser stated that Mr,. Harris called on this
e to and informed Planner Dale that the General Development
an would be ready -for the Planning Commission meeting of
January, 9,, 1974. Therefore, Mr. Harris most have assumed that
the public hearing was not going to be held as he would not be
at the meeting. Planner Overhiser suggested that the public
hearing be held and comments collected from neighboring property
owners that have been noticed.. He added that January 9 the revisci
General Development Plan should be ready for consideration.
Planner Overhiser explained that the property is located at the northwest
quadrant of 55 and 494, with a preliminary plat under consideration at
the present meeting which would extend Harbor Lane to the east of
rerabrook and establish a short cul de sac south to Highway 55. He
stated that one outlot is shown in the northeast corner of the proposed
plat and Staff proposes that that outlot not be developed until the area
is replatted and the street extended to the north.
WTom Reietsq_L rd, co-owner of a long, narrow 10 -acre parcel east of the
arris property (along. with Albert Yngve and Tom Wheaton.) which fronts
on 494 and lies between the Harris property and 494, stated that they had
hoped they could perhaps exchange property with the Harris brothers
north for south' in an attempt to square off both properties and give
Planning CommissionMinutes .7. December 19, 1973
the Harris brothers freeway frontage on the southern end., He stated'
they were never > ronti,:ted by the Harris brothers and learned of the
proposal before the Planning Commission quite by accident a week ago.
He stated that they have a problem in that their 10 -acre parcel is
landlocked and their thinking is that as 'Plymouth develops, ten acres
of 494 frontage should not be left in that condition, Mr. Rei ersgord
stated that some recognition should be given to access requirements.
He indicated that discussions were held with the Village several years
ago relative to storm sewer and they had been told that this would be
considered when the time came. He continued that he believed that
allowing a plat like that proposed by the Harris Company which has
8,400' feet ,of 494 frontage inaccessible is not wise plan,nitig. He stated
than this is the most critical intersection in the Village of Plymouth.
Acting Chairman Threinen asked, if M'^. Rei.er.sgor.d was suggesting an
extension of Harbor Lane. Mr. Reiersgord responded that he is in
essence asking that a larger portion of the Harris property and the property
he owns be platted together possibly further north;, with a road put in
He stressed that some ,cognizance must be 'made of this intersection, adding
that they would suggest that a larger portion of the Harris property be
platted at this time with that plat to include some road access to his
10 -acne parcel. He stated it may be possible for he and his co-owners
to arrive at some compatible solution with the Harris _brothers and
return to the Village with the problem resolved,
Public Hearing closed, 959 p.m. Hearing .Closed
MOTION was made by Commissioner Erickson, supported by MOTION TO
Commissioner Johnson„ that this proposal be deferred until DEFER/
the Planning Commission meeting of January 9, 1974.
Motion carried 4-0-1, with Chairman Kroskin abstaining. Carried
FA -75 -2 -fl Carlson Companies/Litton Industries A-527 CARLSON PROPERTIES/
LITTON:
Public Hearing opened, 10.00 p.m. Pub i'c (-fearing
Planner Dale introduced and explained the
Preliminary Plat
p proposal.
Mr. Robert Berkw tz, Attorney for Carl son Comapni es, stated that
they would concur with Staff's proposed conditions and,would ask that
the Planning Commission approve their request with those conditions.
Commissioner Erickson questioned the: future expansion on the north
side of the site. Dick Napol i tano, Litton industries, stated that this
future expansion would be used for office parking and shipping truck access
to warehouse storage area, He added that this expansion would only occur
in conjunction with exercising of optional land north of County Road 6,
on which discussions have been held with Plymouth Staff, Chairman Kroskin
rondered if the future expansion would take place on 'Lot 2, Block 1 of the
site. fair. Bud Schoening, representing the petitioner, stated that the
option for future expansion and the consolidation of the facility is
intended for this location however, specific plans are tenuous at this
time. He indicated that a time frame: shows completion in October, 1974=
for the existing building and the optional lard will be exercised when the
market is firm for the full range units being produced. He stated that
Planning Commission Minutes, December 19 1973
the building may become a research technical center and added that
18they do have future plans for consolidating their office corporate
facilities by County Road 6.
Chairman Kroskin questioned the distance between County Road 6 and the
northernmost driveway. Godfrey Love, Engineer for Carlson Companies,
indicated this distance to be 3251. Planner Overhiser stated that
this plan has been submitted to the County, but as yet comments have
not been received. He added; than an objective of the Village ha
been that access to thoroughfares would be by public street only, but
since tris is an extersive development of 40 acres, conceivably under
one ownership, Staff believes that in lieu of a public street cuttingup 'the property, access would be similar to that of apublic street.
He explained further that the Thoroughfare Guide Plan shows an interchange
at County Road 6 and 1-494 which wouldrequire an off-ramp. From that
Point, attempt would be made to allow 1,000 foot setback before access
would be allowed to County Road 6. H:e stated that the property has threee.h k
nd ^„^ acceSS to the north-would seemproposedaccesspointobi4tieeasar,u u", ,,,,, , _
the most logical.
Public Hearing closed, 10:12 p.m. Hearing Closed;
MOTION' was made by Commissioner Threinen, supported by Commissioner MOTION TO
Erickson, that this proposal be acted upon at the present meeting. ACT/
Motion" carried, 5-•0 Carried
Plannner Overhiser st,kted that he believes a condition should be
added to state:: "Parking variance of 44 spaces be granted subject
to having area on the site available for this if necessary in the
fu tore. '
Commissioner Threinen suggested another condition: "That the placement
of the driveways be subject to County approval,"
MOTION was rade by Commissioner Erickson, supported by Commissioner MOTION TO,
Majka, that the request of Carlscn Companies, In.c. and Litton RECOMMEND
Industries for approval of a Sit= Plan and a Conditional Use Permit APPROVAL/
for a plant 'Lo be constructed at the southwest corner of County Road'
6 and Xenium Lane as per Site Plan dated December 10 1973 be recommended
for approval subject to the, following conditions;
1) That a performance bond for landscaping improvements be
Placed with the. Village prior to Building Permit approval.
2} That the pari: dedication requirements recommended by the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission be made a part of
this recommendation, i.e. with Staff -recommending a cash
contribution of $14,000 for 28 acres.
S) That a drainage easement along the west portion of the property
be provided as per Engineering Department recommendations.
4) That more complete architectural plans relative to air
conditioning units, ducts, and other mechanical equipment on
the _roof of the proposed structure be subject to the approval
of the Director of Planning and Community Development.
5) That no outdoor storage of garbage and waste materials be
pera,i tied .
6) That fire lanes as recommended by the Fire Chief be made a part
Of this recammendation.
Planning Commission Minutes =9- December 19, 1973'
7) That a parking variance of 44 spaces be granted subject
to having area on the site available for this if necessaryinthefuture.
8) That the placement of the driveways be subject to County
approval,
Chairman Kreskin questioned the location of sanitary sewer in the area.
Planner Overhiser answered that this project is underway and construction
is taking place on Xenium Lane close to the tracks.
Motion carried, 5-0: Carried
A 133 Sammy Al l en A-133 SAMMY K. ALLEN
Planner Dale introduced the proposal explaining than Site Plan Review
S—If has recommended that the proposal be recommend J for Conditional
al.., val subject to six conditions. He stated that condition Use Permit
five calls for landscaping improvements and there may be some
question whether any landscaping of the area to the west portion
of the site can be done because of a 75 foot wide Northern States
Power easement.,Stafi bel -i eves some bermi ng or some low plantings
would be helpful to buffer the operation from the residential use.
Planner Overhiser added that condition six , which sets forth the park
dedication, should have the phi^a.se added "if not previously paid"
because the previous property owners maintain that they did pay a
park dedication fee in 1567. He added that these records have to
be examined to see if this payment did include the property Mr. Allen
now owns
Mr. Allen questioned why he is being asked for 27 feet of right of way
along Highway 101 when it is apparent other buildings adjacent did not
meet that requirement. Planner Overhiser pointed out that the setback
for the pool operation just across Merrimac was computed from the existing,
right of way and 27 feet was then subtracted, so a variance was granted
on the: setback.
Mr, Allen stated. that reduction of the driveways on Merrimac to one
driveway a minimum of 65 feet from the new right of way line of Highway
301 as proposed by Staff would create a hardship with people unable to
see the entrance and causing difficulty in maneuvering for regular
vehicles and delivery trucks because of the sharp "S" shapedcurve
this proposal involves. Planner Overhiser responded that Staff has no
strong feeling that the driveways as proposed Mould create a crisis
situation, but it could pose a problem.
Commissioner Johnson pointed out that there is a blind corner from this
site south and he stated he believes the Staff proposal for a driveway
to be betters than that suggested by the petitioner because the Staff
proposal allows stacking time near the corner. Plansier Overhiser stated
that if Highway 101 is widened to four lanes in the: future, and if the
existi r g driveway is left., it would be 45 to 50 feet off the pavement•,
Staff is =,recommending: that the drivewayy be 100 feet off the future
Highway 101 pavement,
Planning Commission Minutes -10- December 19, 1973
Mr. Allen asked that the term "kennel operation" be deleted from the
condition which prohibits that 'no kennel operation or outdoor confinement
Wor anime.ls be allowed on the premises''. He stated that his operation
ii I I not be a boarding place for animals, which the -14--arm 'kennel' connotates,,
butt rather a diagnostic and hospitalization center for sick animals. After
discussion, consensus was reached on the meaning of the term 'kennel'.`
MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen, supported by Commissioner MOTION TO
Johnsox,, that the request of Sammy K. Allen for a Site Plan and a RECOMMEND
Conditional Use Per ait for a dog, cats, and pet hospital as per APPROVAL/
plans da"ted Noue.r.bc - 20, 1973 be recommended for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1) That. 27 feet of additional right of tray be required along
that portion of the property fronting on State T.H. 101.
2) That drainage easements as required by the Village Engineer
be a part of this recommendation.
3) That driveways on Merrimac Lane be redued 'to one driveway
a .inimum of 65 feet from the new right of way line of
State T.H. 101
4) That no kennel operation or outdoor confinement of animals
be allowed on the premises.
5) That the park dedication requirements recommended by the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission be made a part of
this recommendation, i . e. with Staff recommending -a z ash
contribution of $75,0 for that portio, of the propert,F above
the high water mark of 980' elevation if not previously paid,
MOTION was made by CommissioTGr Johnson, supported by Commissioner MOTION TO
Maj'ka, that the original motion be AIMENDED to add the following AMEND/
Staff -proposed condition as euited
6) That a performance bond for landscaping improvements in
compliance with easement restrictions be placed with the
Village prior to Building Perwit approval and that a
more complete landscaping plan for the area adjacent to the
residential uses be submitted to the Director of Planning
and Community b,2velopment for approval.
Motion to amend carried, 5-0. AmenOment carried
Original motion carried, 5"0. MOTION CARRIED
Aµ825 Hetty PacyA-325 HETTYE PACYGA Commissioner
Maj.ka gEestioned how long this beauty shop Home Beauty Shop has
been in operati om. Mrs. Pacyga answered three years. CUP Renewal Chairman
Kroskin (,suestioned how many customers the petitioner harp
in a week. Mrs, Pacyga respondedthat she works four days
a week and ha., approximately 18 customers per days MOTION
was made by Commissioner Erickson, supported by Commissioner MOTION TO Majka,
that the request of He-ttye Pacyga for a Conditional Use RECOMMEND Permit
renewal to operate a beauty shop in her home: at 805 Lanewood APPROVAL/ Lane
be approved for one year, Motion
carried, 5-0, Carried
Planning Commission Minutes - January 23, 1974
developers much more flexibility, but would also place much more responsibility
OnthePlanning Commission, Staff and Council to see that this flexibility wouldnotbeabused,. It will be necessary to enter into a working relationship withthedevelopertoseethatgoodplannedprojectsresult. This is being encouraged
by the citizens concerned with preserving open space, natural drainage areas,
where if we re a 7-1 adeveloper tqo have half acre lots and; he tries to peat
the entire area, c, may destroy the entire landscape. This way clustering
could be allowed and we would save the wood lots and natural drainage areas_,
preserving as much character of the site as possible.
The Pianziing Commission is still working on the Draft Zoning Ordinance text,
and the COLM it would like to see the Planned Unit Development section added
to the Current Zoning Ordinance because there are developments being proposed
that would like to use this technique., Prior to the complete rewriting of
the Zoning Ordinance being presented to the Council they have requested that
the. Planning Commissionhold hearings to add the Planned Unit Development Section
to the present ordinance in the R-1 and. R-2 Districts. This is being proposed
to be permitted by a Conditional Use Permit in all except the R -U Open
Residence District,
Planner Overhiser then stated that the basic procedure would be that a general
concept plan would be presented by the developer at a public meething held by the
PlanningCommission and at that meeting the neighboring property owners
within 500 feet would be invited to hear the presentation of the concept
plan and would be given an. opportunity to comment on it. The Planning
Commission would then make a recommendation to the Council of whether this
concept would be acceptable for that particular area, with or without
modification; then if endorsed by the Planning Cotmmission and City Council,
the developer would be permitted to. do more work on his project and come
back in with more detail at which time an official public hearing would be
held. The first.public meeting would be informational, and the second would.
be the official public. hearing. The Council would thea consider granting a
Conditional Use Permit for the Planned U°nit Development based on those plans
submitted. those plans would. become an attachment to the permit and
development could occur, then only in accordance with that plan.
There is to be an annual, review of the Planned Unit Developmot progress. If
there is a substantial deviation f om the plan, there will be other meetings
on the revisions to that plan. The plan will be approved as a whole, with
a takedown of that plan in stages_. Phase I ;night include 1d4 of the project,
and that would be final platted lots, blocks, streets - and there would
be a development contract with all the improvements bonded for before
buildings started., If he has financial problems after Phase I, the balzmce
of that property might be sold, and the buyer would buy the plan as approved,
and the purchaser would have to request a continuation or transfer of the
W under new ownership. A CLIP would be granted to an individual or a
corporation, and it would be implied the City would continue this develop-
ment-with
evelop--
meatwith another owner. We would all hope that all developments started
will be completed,
Commissioner Cricksbn recommended that within eacl' phase a certain portion
Of the amenities should be included and completed before another stage
began.
Planning Commission mittutes -12- December 19, 1973
in a manner compatible With thtir homes, and residential livin.g of
some, sort enters their minds, knowing the area cannot support single
Ofamily living as they know it, He stated that the Council has suggested
that perhaps this area an the Guide Plan should be re-evaluated because
of the Northwestern Bell and shopp';Iig center developments,
Tom Wanous) President of the Lost Lake Homeowners Association, stated
lhit Heyaremerely represent -Ing the vies of the people In their
Associations. He indicated that they would apprecia.te, it if this matter
could be studied and if that study could include a small committee of
people who live in the area. He stated that at the time of the initial
public hearings on the Guide Plan, input of people in the area had been
for, single family residential use, lie stated he believes there is good
reason to revise the Plan to allow uses that may be better In that area
than uses, called out. on the existing Guide plan.
Councilman Neils stated that in view of the roadway, the Planning
Commission could be consideredunder mandate to reconsider that easterly
half between 49th Avenue, and County Road 9 in light of the developments
that have transpired and alignment of an interior collector. He questioned
if the uses at that point are most appropriafor any future road alignment.
Chairman Kroskin stated that he would concur with Commissioner Th,,ainen;
he stated he could see business use in this area, but not residential.
He stated that continual amending of the Guide, Plan could throw the entire
Village out of proportion, Commissioner Erickson stated that the concept
that each neighborhood should have other services because these services
would be used by the driving, neighborhood should be maintained.
Study Session
It was agreed that Wednesday, January 16, 1974,would be used as a work
session to study the requested revision to the Guide Plan and also to,
work on the revised Zoning Ordinance.
I A -4Q1, Association of Free Lutheran Congregations 62 ASSOCIATION OF
FREE LUTHERAN
MOTION was made by Commissioner Tlireinen, supported by CORREGATIONS
Commissioner Johnson, to defer action on this request,
MOTION TO DEFER/
Motion carried 5-0. Carried
R e c a
Planner Overhiser recapped Council actions at the recent meeting of
December 17, 1973,
4PMOTION
A-378 Roger L. Johnson's,lst Addition ROGER L. JOHNSON'S
IST ADDITION
N was made by Commissioner Threinen, supported Final Plat
by Commissioner Johnson, that the Chairman be authorized. MOTION TO AUTHORIZE
to sign the Final, 1111,it for Roger L.Johnson's Ist Addition. SIGNATURE/
Motion carried, 5-0. Carried
Planning Commission; Minutes December 19, 1973
A- 49 Wal tbn Ford A- WALTON FORM
OMOTIOR was made by Commissioner Johnson., Supported by Final Plat
commissioner taJka, that the Chairman be authorized to MOTION TO
sign the Final Plat for Walton Ford; AUTHORIZE SIGNATURE/
Motion carried on a vote of 2-0--3 Carried
MOTION was made by Gommissloner Threinen, supported by Chairman: 12/5/73
Kroskin, to accept the Minutes as corrected. Motion carried, IF, nutes6-0,
MOTION to a=djourn, 11:49 p.m, Adjourn
APPROV50 BY PLANNING COMMISSION U-o,,;ary g, 1974
Reg Kr6skin, Chairman
Plymouth Planning Commission
Martin W. Overhiser, Secr,Mary