Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 04-03-1974PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNE=SOTA April 3, 1974 4 regular meeting of the Plynyy.,uth 'PLanning Cpmmission was called to order by Chaiman Kroskin at 7740 p.m. in the Council:Chambers of the Public Works Building, 14900 - 23rd Avenue North. MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Kroskin, Commiss oirers Davenport, Hagen, Schneider, Stewart and Erickson MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Threine STAFF PRESENT: Martin Overhiser and _Milt Dale Public Info°m.ational Neighborhood Meeting Opened 7.40 pm. A-333 MISSION PARTNERSHIP A-338- Concept plan Review The informational meeting was to rev*,ew the concept plan proposed by the Mission Partnership under a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to Residential Planned Unit Developments,. Chairman Kroskin informed the i n attendanx:e that the Mission on rpeopletPa tnersh7 pro ,e t r es involve s-oma. P P 500, acres and wilt likely be one of the largest Planned Unit Developments in the City. He then introduced, Marirfrr Overhiser to explain the proposed. RPUD section of the Ordinance. Planner Overhiser related briefly the history of planning in Plymouth seating that the first comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was-adopted in 1965 with a Land Use Guide Plan adopted. in duly of 1973 by the Plymouth Council. At present the Council' is still reviewing a proposed RPUD amendment to the existing Zoning Ordinance. He listed: some of the advantages of a Planned Jhnit 7evelop- ment such as redurtion of front, side and rear yards, retention .of common open space, greater respect for topography., encourages shorter streets, separation of pedestrian/auto traffic, mix ofcommerce and residential uses and reduction in utility costs. Three 1•arge developments in Plymouth presently have used the RPUD approach, i.e. Tiburon, Chelsea Woods, and Shenandoah. Harry Jensen introduced members of 'the Mission Partnership which is a general' partnership consisting of Thorpe Investment Company, Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc., Richard Zejdlik and himself. Mr. Jensen then introduced Roger Clemence, consulting planner for the Mission Partnership, who reviewed the concept plan for the Planning Commission and audience. Slides of the Mission Partnership properties showed its natural features --- the steep slopes, the lower swamp lands and the substantial lake frontage. The relationship of natural, areas with different housing types.; the development of two golf courses and t.ther open spaces it Reston, Virginia was shown on slides. I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 17, 1974 basi.ally this is at the conceptual_ pian stage and how many of each has not been estabi she d yet as ahe plans are far an overall concept. Mr. Clemente stated: that at thus stage they are only speculating, but one calculation using 3,150 units basis indicates 485 single detached and 385 single attach with 480 low rise units and 600 elevator apartment units in one zone in the northeast section. They are also speculating 17Q single detached, 240 single attached with 400 low rise apartment units and 400 elevator units. This figures out to be just over 20 percent single detached, 20 percent attached and 60 percent mixed between low and elevator apartment units. These figures were developed from the basic profile data. The large majority of people moving into Plymouth so far have been moving into single family detached units. We feel this causes logical problems and recommend mixing these units. Mr. Clemente verified this was based on 3,150 units:: 60 percent multiple, 20 percent single; detached and Z0 percent single attached, John Lei gh ton, 10830 - 40th Avenue North, wanted to know what procedure was f`oT owed day` ne Planning Commission when they get dissenting comments from all of the people in the area and how dei they go about putting this thru against the feelings of all of the people in this area. Chairman Kroskin ren,i nded Mr. Leighton that he was assuming the Planning Commission would, be recommending approval.. He reminded him that Mr. Overhiser had earlier outlined' the procedure and again briefly reiterated the procedure. He explained that the Goals and. Criteria adopted by the City of Plymouth, the Land Use Guide Plaii and the overall Concept Plan would all be taken into consifG,-ation We have a framework and policy that we work within. Anyone who-ristes to develop land has a right to be heard just as the people who live in the sur-ounding areas have a right to be heard and to express their opinions ',o the Commission. We have a responsibility to the people of the future as has been shown 'to the people in the past. We do have to have a mixing of horsing as not everyone who lives in Plymouth can live in a $100,000 single family home, Jim Rager, 10505 -; 39th Avenue North, stated he was interested in any re- routing-of e- rougngfCounty Road 9 as he had teen some reference to this. Planner fiver- Kiser reviewed the City Thoroughfare Plan which was adopted by the City Council on February 28, 1972,`There was Hennepin County Highway Department involvement in that ,plan and they concurred in it. There is no time limit on when this will be done but the City wishes to reserve the rights-of-way as the land is developed so that in twenty years or so.,. when the re --routing is actually doge, no houses will have to be torn down. Rick Ackerman, 10510 - 38th Avenue North, states you will have to have schools v7you re going to bring in 15,000 (corrected to 9,000) people in,. The Plannin0 Coainission and Mr. Overhiser seem to want to push this thru no matter what the people say, and if you do, you will have to have the money to build new schools as soon as the first apartments are up. To do this we will have to pay for therm for the use of only a small portion: of the population, Commissioner Threinen reminded Mr. Ackerman that this is an autonomous form of government. The home owners build the school by the issuance of bonds and if they do riot want to have a school, they can vote against it. Planning CoWssion Minutes - 3 . April 3, 1974 swam area l Y p r ea a ang Medicine Lake He felt that the question of density should be resolved by the planners 'rd it was alright with him if the 95 acres; was not included. Mr. Danger then stated tha it appeared to him that the density on the buildable portion of Viis site would. be approximately 15 dwelling units per acre. He wondered if Ws would not constitute an area: of higher crime as it is his understanding t}:at the high crime rates in Plymouth are now in the apartment complexes, whe*ee the density is highest. Mr. Clemence said that density does not relate to crime and that it depends upon; the type of people in the development And their propensity towards committing crimes. Often in areas where density is highs visibility is also high and it acts as a deterrent to crimes. tar. Danger closed. his comments by saying that his major concern was the high density proposed for the site and the problem of providing adequate sewer line service in the future. Mr. Clemence said that the sewer capacity as he understood it was more than sufficient and should prove no problem, but some of this would depend on the size and scope of future developments to the north, Air. James i3'argan, 12135 County Road 5, wanted to know if all the amenities propose' were definite or ",just hopes Viet the developers had. Mr. Clemence said this woulid depend ort how much density v;ould be allowed on the site. Mr. 5jorgan asked if an environmental impact statement had been done for the: site Commissioner Hagen .oimnentrd tint at this concept. stage -for a RPUD develop- ment the attempt is to get a reading ft%om the Planning Commission, the public, and the Council for Vie concept itself and not detarls such as an environmental stateirent. However, a natural resources analysis will be required at the next phase. Mr. 'Tom Wanous of the Lost Lake Homeowners Association felt that the tower type apartments similar to those in the ;edar-Riverside project would be inappropriate in 'Plymouth and was ir opposition to such towers.. He also expressed the opinion thy:+ Planner Clemence should: refer to these buildings as apartments and not housing, He believed that apartments are becoming more and more condominiums and this is a trend for the future. He wondered if the Mission Partnership has taken this into account, Mr. Clemence. said that the buildings ould be no more than ten stories or 100 feet in height and not as tall as the Ce-.'Iar-Riverside apartments. In the Cedar-River0de project the density Is some 1.60 units per acne, while the density on this site is 7.5 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Zejdlik explained that most two-and-one-half story apartment projects are at a density of 20 dwelling units per acre with many town house projects at 10 units per acre: Mr. Fred Hafner, 3212 Jonquil Lane, said that he looks forwar4 tatthis development and that he was encouraged that there was no proposal to develop the swamp land along the lake. He also wanted to know if 36th Avenue would be paved and who would pay for this. paving. Martin Qverhiser said that C sh Avenue would be paved as the land was developed and the details for who would pay the cost would be spelled out: in a development contract, The benefitting property owners would be the ones assessed for the cost of such improvements. Mr. Hafner wondered if the density along 36th Avenue North Planning Commission. Minutes _ 4 - April 3, IgE would be as high as indicated on the concept plan. Roger Clemente sai d that the plan was schematic and that at the more detailed planning stage they .,*Vd take into account such things as existing woodlandand would not be likely to ;develop high density up to 36th Avenue North. Mr. Hafner also wanted to know where the high-rise units would go . Mr, Clemence said there were two or three locations for these un;ts-one-was on the west side at a fairly low elevation, another was on the -rest side on one of the higher hills, which would provide for excellent vistas from the housing units, and the third location would be nor the east side rear the center of the site. Mr. H. C. >"istere, 10815 - 40th Avenue North, had questions relating to a street on the east. side and who would be okbligated for paying the costs for maintenance of open spaces_. Mr. Clemence said there was not a street on the east, but this was a property line and that the maintenance costs for open space operations would be pard for by a homeowners association or the City if this open space were public. Mr. 1=istere added that it was his under- standing that the new town in Columbia, Maryland had a very high crime rate and just wanted to add that comment for the record. Mr. Tom 8 rc ofthe Middle East Homeowners Association said that he approved 0 the golf course proposal on the site and wondered if the course would be open to the general public and, as well, would the open space be open to the general public. Mr. Clemence assumed that this ,could be the case, although some open space would be private to the development Lnd, yet, they would not be fenced off" from the .general public as such. Tom Berg also asked of the staff what the Guide Plan density is and how it related to this proposal. Martin Overhise explained that the staff looked at the density in two ways and if the Guide Plan were to be interpreted stri 10y according to the July 1973 adopted 'plan, the density range would be 964 to 1,529 dwelling units for 417 acres with a second )ethod resulting in a range of 1,121 to 1:,8$5. Mr Berg: also wanted to know what the disadvantages of RPUDs may be as all he had heard so far were the many advantages. Commissioner Hagen stated that a disadvantage might be that the Planning Commission and Council, in addition to the publ,c are required to review carefully all development proposals. Mr. Berg then wanted to know what the projected traffic would be from the site. He was told by Mr. Clemence that this information was, not available at this tire. Mr. John hire, 4130 Quaker Lane No., asked what the spread of housing unit costs for the entire project would be.. Mr. 7ejdlik said there would be a wide range for condominium units, anywhere from $60,000 to $70,000 down to a low of $15,000-18,000. 1n addition, Chairman liroski n wanted to know what percentage of the project would be geared to different .economic levels.; Harry Jensen stated that approximately 15 percent might be geared to senior citizens, 25 percent would be one and two bedroom apartments, 25 percent high income, and ten percent for moderate income. Mr. Wire also wanted to know what the sequence of building would be on the site and would they start with the highest density area first and build the high-rise buildings initially. Planning Commission Minutts April 3, 197 Peter Pflaum indicated that this would all depend on the market and what housing: demands were, What mortage money would be available would also be a consideration. It is their' intention, however, to build single family homes first at this stage, but he did feel that the plan as proposed provided great flexibility and would allow the Partnership to react to changing market conditions. Mr. mire wanted 'to knuw how much would be spent on development of a golf course and would it be just a nine -hole, par three or a more challenging course. Mr. Clemence said it would be a par 33 course, but no cost figure has been determined. Mr. Frank Dvorak, 38.5 Saratoqa Lane, questioned the high density proposed and a .so who wroun' d be responsible for the maintenance of common areas within the project. Mr. D. L. Maxwell, 2630 E. Medicine Lake Blvd., wanted to raise the objection, that the informational meeting did not serve the purposes of a public hearing, because of the insufficient notice given of the meeting and also because of the severe winter storm. He felt that both factors contributed to the limited turnout at this meeting. Chairman Kroskin and Martin Overhiser responded by stating that the property had been posted at three different locations, propertyownerswithin540feethadbeennotified, and a news article had appeared in the Minneapolis Star, all relative to the Mission Partnership plan. In addition, Mr. Overhiser said that the meeting was not a public hearing, as such and. no legal Notice or information to property owners would have been required; however, it was the intention of the Planning Commission and the staff to inform as malty people of the:: meeting as was possible. Mr. 'Maxwell felt that the 500 foot distance from the project was not enough and that more .people: should be noticed. He also wanted to know how much land within the project would be dedicated for park purposes. Martin Overhiser answered that the Park Commission would have a chance to review the more detailed plan and they would recommend what land would be needed for public use. A minimum of ten percent of land or value of land would be required and this would depend upon density. Mr. Maxwell also wanted to know if a density figure would be arrived at in this stage. Chairman Kroskin said that as far as he knew, the definite density figure would not be arrived at yet, but a guideline would be given to the develeptr. Mr. Overhiser said that ranges at this stage would be given to the developer after review by the: Planning Commission and the Council, but some flexibility might be granted. In closing his remarks, Mr. Maxwell, stated that the character of Medicine Lake will be greatly influenced by the intense development on this site. Mrs. Bonnie Kerschke, 3030 Larch Lane No., was concerned with Medicine Lake and the t ousands'of people that would be living in this project and their impact upon the lake. She ;wanted to know how wide the channel was that went up into the Mission Properties in terms of width and acreage. Mr. Clemence stated that it probably consisted of 50 acres of surface water. He also added that there would probably be some access point on the lake for residents, but it would be controlled at one -or two points.. In addition, Mr. Pflaum Platning Commission Minutes April 3, 1 74 said that one of the reasons a meeting like this would be beneficial to developers such as themselves would ,be to find out from the people where and how the lake should be used. A comment from the floor to the effect that building ':eights; of ten floors would be objectionable as none of the trees on that site are: over three stories, in height and this height would be quite visible fromm all points on the lake. Mr. Will England, 3350 North Jonquil Lane, wanted to know how many acres onThesitewouldbeconsideredbuildable. Mr. Clemence stated that they do: not know the exact: figure at this time, but this would be determined at a later stage, Martin Overhiser added that a total of 18 aches were needed for ponding and. another 56 acres would be subject to flooding during the 1.00 ,year flood, Chairman Kroskin said that as there were no more questions from the audience., the Planning Cowrission wound be given the opportunity to question the peti- tioners. Fran Hagen stepped down from his place on the Commission as he stated there may be a possibility his firm could be involved in this at a later date, Mr. Richard Zejdlik said that he would likA to make some remarks. He felt tliat LI'le tCt1, Ulwiti question was a rare piece of land and it offered the City of Plymouth a rare opportunity for a very fine development. With,the energy crisis curtailing to and from; work movement, more people are seeking housing close to work.. The addition to the Jewett property has made this plan much more workable than earlier plans which do not include this parcel. He finished' his remarks by stating that density, economics and amenities all go hand in hand. Mr. Al Klosner, representing the Lost Lake Homeowners Association, stated that the developers knew what the Land Use Guide Plan density figure was when they purchased the propefty and, consequently, should not be asking for such a substantial increase in density. Chairman Kroskin requested that the Planning Commission members address their questions to the petitioners. Del Erickson stated that it was necessary that the plan relate to the density and housing mix proposed by the Land Use Guide Plan and the rest of the City. He felt there was no- transition zoning of housing density in the southwest corner of the plan as shown at the north and east portions ,,)f the plan. He added that this transition was necessary to reduce the high densities down to the single family densities as guided; border- ing the southwest portion of the project. Virgil Schneider directed the question to the staff of why a figure of 1,850 dwelling units was selected for this site. Martin Overhiser went into the two methods used for calculating the density and explained that the staff looked at the petitioners' plan and also the adopted Land Use Guide Plan; 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 7 April 3, 1974 Vsin these two a roaches there would be a density range of from 954 dwelling units at thelowendofthescaletoa1,885 at the high end of the scale. Further, it was his contention that only if a very superior plan was proposed would the high range be allowed. In this case he did feel the petitioners had proposed some very excellent features that would be a real benefit to the community. Mr. Schneider wanted to know if there was any way the devel- oper could go over the proposed high of 1,85:5 units, Martin Overhiser said that it would be his opinion that the 1.,855 dwelling units should be the absolute maximum or the Guide Plan should be revised. Wayne Stewart questioned Mr. Clemence about sewer capacity and whether it was adequate:. Mr. Clemente did not feel this would be a problem. In addition, Mr.. Stewart felt that the neighborhood concept would be destroyed if 3,100 dwelling units were permitted on this site. He was also concerned with density transition on the east and the damage that could result to the lake. Chairman Kroskin said that as the hearing had been taking a lengthy period of time,he polled the Planning Commission to find out if they would like to meet at a later date to discuss the plan and to allow tha public to have ample opportunity to comment- further on the plan. The size of the development dictated that a lot of discussion and thought should go into any recommendations on this proposal and that it wotjld be necessary to take intoaccount the needs of the entire City in addition to this project. All the Planning Commission members were in agreement with the Chairman's proposal and it was decided that at the next meeting on April 17, the plan would be up for further review and discussion. 553 MONELL TOOL DIF CO,, INC. A-553 Site Flan Approval Martin Overhiser introduced this request for site plan approval for a building addition to an industrial building. Al Ende introduced himself as a contractor and it was mentioned by Mr. Overhiser that the Building Departmenthad given him a number of ticketsto stop construction on this site as he had proceeded' without a building permit, Chairman Kroskin wanted to know how long Mr. Ende had been a contractor and why he had neglected to get a building permit prior to construction. Mr. Ende said he had been a contractor for eight years, was licensed and bonded, and the whole problem was a result of a misunderstandingonhispart. Virgil Schneider wanted to know if the staff would have recom- mended a two -foot variance if the footings had not been put in place. Mr. Overhiser said there was sufficient space between the adjoining building as it was ten and one half feet from the property line and the ordinance allows a five foot side yard. Mr. Schneider wzindered'if it was good practice to allow a variance when the footings were put in illegally; it may tend to encourage this type of practice in the future. Chatrman Kroskin wanted to know if the property owner to the south objected to the variance request. Mr. Louis Casey, representing Precision Engineering, saic-1 he hid no objection, but would have to consult with his attorney before he could give a final decision. Commissioner PIann!ng Commission Minutes - April 3, 1974 Hagen wanted to know what the real reason was for a variance. He stated that a variance should only be granted for a reason of hardship and he could see no hardship here other than an illegal act. Mr. Endo, explained that, thy+ building owner needed the extra square footage and, in addition, needed to enclose hiswellbythisnew, building addition. Chairman Kroskin said he would entertain a motion on this request. Commissioner Hagen favored the motion as per, staff recommendati iii. but he would like to remove the warding; "unless footings should be removed", ` as this is a prorogati ve of the building official and would be done if it would prove necessary. Commissioner Erickson wanted to add, a seventh condition which would be "!a letter be obtained from the adjoining property owner stating he had no objection to the granting of a two foot variance.,t Those in favor of the amendment were Commissioners Davenport, Erickson, Kroskin and Stewart. Opposed were Commissioners Schneider and hagen. Commissioner Hagen stated he was against: placing any restriction on Precision Engineering as condition 7 would impose, and felt that this would pose a legal problem. Mr. Casey of Precision Engineering said he would not be opposed to the variance: M.OTIOK was made by Commissioner Hagen supported by Commissioner Erickson that the request of Monell Tool and Die Co., Inc., for apprc ,il of a site plan dated March 7, 1974 and a two-foot building setback variance be recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions. 1) That the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission be made a part of this recommendation. A cash donation to the Park Dedication Fund would amount to $145, 2) That a landscaoing bond be posted and a completion date established prior to a building permit being issued. 3 That one parking stall for handicapped be maintained. 4) That the private disposal system meet the State and City standards. 51 That a; surface drainage plan be approved by the City i^ngineer. 6) No outside storage of materials or waste. 7) That a letter from the adjoining property owner stating that he had no objection to the granting of a two foot variance be obtained. Motion Carried 5-0..1 (Commissioner Schneider opposed) MOTION CARRIED 1 Planning Commission Minutesa - 9 - April 3, 1974 5`RCIvI Pj —ENGINEERING COMPANY X554 Site Plan Approval Mar'a.i n Qverhiser introduced this request as :a site plan approval for a building addition on. property just south of the MonellTool & Die Co. on County Road 18. A question arose regarding the storage of outside waste and it was agreed that an eighth condition should be added. I"TION was made by Commissioner Hagen that the request of Precision Engineering Co. Co. for appraval of a site plan dated March 7 1974 be rcommended for approval subject to the following conditions 1) That the recormendation of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission be made a part of this recommendation. A cash donation would amount to $460. 2) That a landscape band be posted and a completion date established prior to a building permit being issued. 3) That the recommendations of the Fire Chief as relating to a front fire lane 20 feet wide and that two ten foot wide handicap lanes be provided in the front as per Building inspector's recommendation. 4) That the loading dock area be reduced by ten feet on the west and south to permit better parking lot access and improved loading.. 5) That the private disposal system meet State and City standards. 6) That a surface drainage plan be approved by the City Engineer. 7) No outside storage of materials. 8) Outside storage of a waste container shall be permitted at the northwest corner as long as it is screened by a wall of the same materials as that used on the building proper. Motion carried. ALL in favor MOTION CARRIED AA-49GLYNN SABOURIN A-549 Site Plan Approval Martin Cverhiser stated that as this was an 1-1 District location, it was necesary that the petitioner go through the site plan review process, in an R --O` Zone he normally would have been granted a building permit. Some discussion resulted regarding. the building setback from County Road 9 with the petitioner agreeing to the 150 -foot setback and a single drive to County Road 9. Commissioner Erickson wanted to know if the petitioner would lease out space in his pole barn. Mr. Sabourin said he would not and it was for his own personal use. Planning Commission Minutes 10 - April 3, 1974 S MOTION was made by Commissioner Schneider supported by Comm-aissioners Davenport> that the request of Glynn Sabourin for approval of a site plan dated,March 7 1974 be recommended for approval subject to the following conditions 1) That a 150 foot setback from road center lie be maintained. 2) That parcel 6655 and parcel 6680 be consolidat,d as one tax parcel 5) That park dedication requirements be met when ,property is developed for non --agricultural or residential uses, 4) That one drive be developed to service the pole barn and residence with a turnaround provided so vehicles do not back onto County Road 9. 5) That there be no outside. storage. Motion Carried ALL In favor MOTION CARRIED A-555 WAYZATA COMMUNITY CHURCH A--555 Conditional Use Permit Martin Overhiser gave a brief review of this request and introduced Mr. Coil' who was representing the church and its request for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Coil said that they would be bidding for the two mobile educational units now at the Wayzata Senior high School site, A question came up regarding land- scaping around the units and if skirting could be put around the bottoms of the units. MOTION was made by Commissioner Davenport that the request of %yzata Evangelical Free Church for approval of a Conditional Use Permit dated March 7, 1974 be recommended for approval subject to the following conditions; 1) That the Conditional Use Permit expire July 11 1977 and temporary buildings be removed prior to that date. 2) That the temporary units be set back 20 feet from the existing church. 3) That the petitioner add skirting or informal landscaping around the units; Motion Carried ALL in favor MOTION CARRIED NOTION was made by Commissioner Schneider, supported by Chairman Kroskin, to accept the minutes of the Planning Commission dated March 20, 1974 as amended, Motion Carried (Commissioner Stewart abstaining) 5-0-1 MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 3, 197 MOTION was made by Commissioner Erickson, supported by Comm7soner Schneider> to addourn at 1.2:05 a.m. Motion Carried ALL in favor MOTION CARRIED APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMIsSIQR April 1.7,1974 Reg Kroskin, Chairman Plymouth Planning Commission Martin W. Ouerhi ser, Secretary