Loading...
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