Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 01-23-1974i PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PLYMOUTH, iINNESOTA January 23, 1974 A regular meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Kroskin at 7:38 p.m. in; the CouncilChambers of the F" blic Works. Building, 14900 23rd Avenue North. MEMBERS PRESENT:: Chairman Kroskin, Commissioners Erickson,; Majka and Threinen MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Hagen, Johnson and Stewart STAFF PRESENT; Martin Overhiser, Milt Dale; 1,,ou Tiber Proposed. Amendment to Sectio' 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 1S, 16 and 20 of The Existing Plymouth Zoning Ordinance to Permit Planned Unit Development in All Zoning Districts Except R-0 Open Residence District by Conditional Use Permit After Public Hearing PCO is Hearing opened, 7:40 p.m; Planner Overhiser explained that an official notice of the public hearing appeared in the Plymouth Sun two weeks prior to this hearing, and a copy of the notice and proposed amendment was also sent to the active developers in the area and all Home Owners Associations. Only one individual from Quality Homes had inquired as to how this amendment might affect their current developments, Chairman Kroskin indicated: he had visited with one member of a Home Owners Association who. had not been able to understand the application of this amendment. The Chairman expressed concern that there were not more people in attendance as thissis a very important amendment that the Planning Commission is considering. He stated that he felt it was desirable to provide. the flexibility that is contained in the POD amendment but that this is going to place an increased amount of responsibility on the Council, Planning Commission and staff to see that this flexibility is not abused. Planner Overhiser said tke intent of this change was to allow a developer to mix housing types (townhouses, single family or maybe condominiums and apartments) which is not permitted in our present ZoningOrdinance. The concepts within the Land Use Guide Plan adopt^d in July 1973 is to encourage the new technique of tPl anned Unit Development of mixing different types of housing :nits within: a development and make concessions in the traditional setbacks, lot sizes and side: yards. The new plan shifts from the traditional single --family, townhouse, apartment concept to a concept of density - the number of dwelling units per acre. The density would be consistent with that shown on the adopted:Land Use Pian. A developer may 'look at a low density area with no more than 3 units per acre and on the average no more Vian two, or another, of medium density with 3 to 5 units per acre, 5 to 10 or 10 to 20 units per acre. 'Within those density ranges certain types of dwelling units could be mixed within a planned project. if adf\ated, this plan would give the 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 Commissi"n Minutes 3 - January 23, 1574 Chairman Kroskinfor a count of those persons in attendance with regard to the proposed aineidmtot, P,i which there were six present, and coiments from thein, Mrs, Nathan Plint ton- 18316D 8th Ave. No. - commented that this type of had long been. the desii4e of environmentalists to preserve the natural resources and thi t the proposed,amendment would, call for greater responsibility on the part of ":ity officials to be certain proposed developments be tastefully designed Roger Fazendin, a developer in Plymouth said the pnz posed amendment woul n -increase density but is necessary in order for the City of Plymouth to do an even better job with that already exists and that the developers are not. providing pressure to approve the Ordinance change. Developers aro merely requesting these types of developments_ as the public has a market for grouping houses. Comm ssioner Threinet, stated that in conversation with a local attorney he learned that residents of Shoreview had tested a portion in the court regarding mandatory membership in the Home Owners Associations, Thiswill be checked out by the City Attorney.) Chairman Kroskin noted that problems with subsequent purchasers and possibly renters may create difficulties regarding restrictive covenants, Planner Overhiser stated that: it is both common and legal for the land ower to, place restrictions on the title of land so that the buyer must assume those: restrictions. MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen, supported by Commissioner Erickson to defer -action until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission, February 6 1974, as 3 members were absent. Motion carried 4-0 MOTION TO DEFER/ Carried Public. Hearing Closed at 8:40 p.m, ortzwestern Bell Tee one Co. T-386 N.t1, De11 Telepljone Site Plan Review Location: SE Corner Xenium Lane & Co, Rd. 6 Planner Dale introduced this proposal to construct a structure For maintenance vehicles to be located south of the existing structure and it does comply with the Ordinance, The Staff has listed three conditions. MOTION was made. by Commissioner Threinen, supported by Commissioner NaJKa that the request of Northwestern Bell for site plan approval for maintenance vehicle storage building': be approved subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1974 1, That two additional fire hydrants be added as per Fire Chief recommendations. 2. That 'the park Dedication requirements be as recommended by the Parks and Recreation ;advisory Commission (Staff recommends 5,000 or !/ of site 6 acres x,$500/acre). 3'x That a performance bond for landscaping be posted and that there be no outside storage of materials or waste containers. Motion carried 4-0MOTION CARRIED or western Bell o. A-252 N.W.. Bell Telephone Location: NE Corner Co,' Rd.. 9 and Fernbrook Lane Site plan Review Planner Overhiser advised that a Conditional Use Permit has already begin granted, and Mr. Peterson of Northwestern Bell reports they are ready to begin construction in the Spring of 1974.` The petitioner's,architects request, and the Staff recommends, that we add to Condition I the words, "if required by the State Building Code," The petitioner's architect feels there is a possibility they will not have to sprinkle the building if it can be designed to have openings every 50 feet around the building where firemen could gain entrance with their hoses, and it must be unobstructed inside for a 50-75 ft. radius around that opening. The Staff recommends we allow them to prove to the Fire Chief and Building inspector that they will not require the sprinkler systema Our Building Inspector and Fire Chief conclude that the building will have to be sprinkled, and, therefore, they would have to provide their own well: and storage tank reservoir for the water, and the pump would pressurize the sprinkler system. Regarding Condition. #4 as recommended by the Planning Staff, the petitioner has shown a 60 ft. setback from the property line rather than from the center, line of the: street, so they actually have 16 2- feet more. The property line should actually be moved on the site plan 161z- feet to the west. It is recommended that the wording be changed to read, "That sign as proposed maintain a 50 ft, setback from the future street right of way,." Mr Robert Peterson, a representative of Northwestern Bell, advised that there will be six full time employees in this new Northwestern Bell switching facility, Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1974 muriON was mado by Commissioner Erickson, supported by Commissioner Threiner that the Northwestern Bell Telephone request for site plan approval for a central telephone equipment facility dated, 12-17-473 be approvedsubject to the following conditions: 1. That two "dry" fire hydrants be added as per Eire Chief recommendations 2, That a cistern, and fire pump to supply sprinkler system be included if required by the State Building Code. 3. That a performance bond for landscaping be posted and that there be no, outside storage of materials or waste containers. 4. That the landscaping plan dated` 12-17-73 be revised to show all proposed plantings within property lines exclusive of street ROW's 5. That sign as proposed maintain a 50 ft, setback from the future street right of way. Motion carried 44 MOTION CARRIER Commissioner "kroskin inquired as to Northwestern Bell's requirements for the Park Dedication. Planner Overhiser reported the Staff has recommended that half the: site be subject to Park Dedication Requirements. The existing building was: constructed before the Park Dedication Ordinance applied to commercial/industriali Therefore, only half the site should be subject to this requirement. The Park Dedication Requirement for the Eernbrook site has already been met. William Howard, 14005 40th Avenue North - expressed cor.;:ern about the raainage through the Northwestern Bell site frota property to the. north. He felt his properuy may be directly affected and had some contact with our Engineer Engineer, after a drainage ditch was dug running toward Co Rd.. 9 and causing, the runoff to drain to the southeast near Mr. Howard's property. Mr. Overhiser explained that: the City Engineer had been aware of the drec'gincu, or cleaning out of the Swale, that was: done after the triangular parte' had been dedicated to 'the City for drainage purposes.: If there is now pollution flowing through this ditch from the property to the north, this will be, stopped. Planning Commission Minotes - & - January 23, 1974 Consider Setting Public. hearing for Amendment to the Land Use Guide Plan For The Area Between Co. Rd. 9 and 49th Ave. West of Co. Rd. 18 AG -II Bb' Chairman. Kroskin explained that the reo:;est Land Use Guide Pian Amendment of the dome Owners Association is to eefer setting a public hea.rzng date because there ika a point of disagreement ';etween the Home Owners Association representatives and Planning Comdission recommended, draft and that two of the Commissioners who reside in or, near the area are not present. Chairman Kroskin offered an opportunity for the representatives to add their 'brief comments larding this subject. Planner Overhiser explained the changes from the January 16 meetng (Page 3 Special Planning Commission Meeting January 16, 1974) and that it: was decided the highway service :uses 'in. that area should be located zdjacent to the northeast of the proposed Rockford Pend shopping center. It was. also recommended that the highway service use as shown on the Guide Plan on Co. ted. 9 just west of Zachary Lane should be deleted and guided for LA -1 use and the highway service use at the northwest corner of Co. Rds. and 18 be changed to Limited Business. John J. ,tire - 4130 Quaker Lane Pio. - asked specifically why the changes we'e following his attendance at the January 16 meeting, to change from the 49th area back to the Planning Commission proposal'. Con iss°oner Threinen explained the three reasons; 1, Twice the Planning Commission had recommended to the City Council that the SW corner of 49th and Co. Rd. 18 be Service Business, and twice it was rejected. Z. By removing the second one, we then needed a centralized business area for that neighborhood, 3. The concept of it being integrated in one location is preferable from the standpoint of being able to control the traffic. z Commissioner Majka'noted that: the term 'highway service' is often conf«sed with gas stations, when actually the term refers to several businesses normally attractive t4% motorists. Mri John Wire said actress to highway service in that area would have tb come off Co. Rd. 1.8 onto Co. Rd. 9 and back up onto Nathan tame and would attra(.t a greater amount of traffic outside the neighborhood resulting in congestion. He thought locating the service area at 49th would minimize the congestion. Mr4 Wire asked what appropriate businesses might be included in that area, which would compliment the neighborhood. Chairman Kroskin responded auto orientated services, restaurants, and other similar uses, Mr. Hire expressed concern about the fact that this locution is possibly within 200 feet of the original proposed site for the Baldwin Chevrolet dealership which had previously been unacceptable. The possibility might arise where he would merely move to comply with 'highway service' Plannitng Commission Min Utes 7 January, 23, 1974 location.. If it is limited. business, you can get a Conditional Use permit approved for a variety of businesses; Planner Overhiser explained tha neighborhood concept contains several Making neighborhoods within the driving neighborhood, The planning; Commission and Council: wish to concentrate the commercial needs of from Oa000 to 40,,000 residents when saturated, There could be extensive pressure placed because the: demand will be there if not provided for in our present planning. MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen, supported by Commstassiover Erickson that this matter be deferreii until the next meeting, MOTION TO DEFER/ Motion carried 4-0 Carried MOTION was made by Commissioner Erickson, supported by Commissioner Threinen, to accept the ;Minutes as, corrected. Motion carried, 1/9/74 Mnu'tes Motion carried 3--0-1, with Commissioner Majka abstaining. II MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen, supported by Commissioner Majka, to accept the Minutes as corrected. Motion carried. 1/167L Minutes Motion carried 34-1, Chairman Kros ki n abstaining MOTION to adjourn, 9:55 p.m Adjourn APPROVED BY PLANNING C0 IISSION February 6 1974 Reg Kroski n, Chairman Plymouth Planning Commission Ate•--. Martin W. Overhiser, Secretary