HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 04-17-1974PLANNING'C%1NISSIOii
CI'T'Y OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA
April 17, 1974
A regular n,s.eting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was ,-ailed to order byChairm-rt Kroskin at 7.40 pi m. in the Council Chambers of the Public Works
Building, 14900 - 23rd Avenue :North.
MEMBERS PRESENT., Chairman Xroskin., Commissioners Schneider, Daven ortp a
Erickson, Hagen, and. Threinen.
MEMBERS ABSV.NT; Commissioner Stewart, was on vacation.
STAFF PRESENT: Marti ti 'Overhi ser, Milt Dale and Sherman Goldberg
This is a continuation of the Public Informational Neighborhood Meeting Opened 7.40 p.m.
A-338 MISSION PARTNERSHIP A-338 Concept Plan Review
Chairman Kroskin welcomed the public in attendance and asked how many were
there for the Mission Partnership Proposal. Approximately 120 people
Indicated that they were. interested In the Mission Partnership Proposal,
The Chairman explained the procedure that would be followed and introduced
Manner O,verhiser, who outlined for the audience the procedure contained in.
the recently adopted Residential Planned Unit Development Section of the Zoni'r.g
Ordinance. fie stated that there are three phases to a review of this type and
indicated that: during Phase 2 there would be an additional public hearing to
consider the more detailed plans. Planner Overhiser also indicated that the
State Environmental Quality Council has adopted rules and regulations for an
environmental impact statement,which became effective April 4, 1974. Residential
developments of over1,000 units on public sewer will have to have art Environ-
mental Assessment prepared which might Lead to presentation of an Environ'r ent.Impact
Statement.
Roger Clemence,representng the Mission Partnership, then described briefly
for the audience the proposal.. He outlined the property boundaries and reviewed
the general development concept which has been proposed to the City containing
some 3,150 dwelling units.
Planner'Overhiser then summarized for the audience the concerns that were expressed
at the April 3rd, 1974 Planning Commissi n Public Informational Meeting. These
concerns were dwelling density, type and height of buildings, impact on Medicine
Lake, traffic, crime rate as related to i'ensity, notice of meeting, ,open space
publio or private, and, timing of develapment.
Chai rmari Kroski i then recognized persor from, the audience to bring before the
Planning Commission new information which was not presented at the April 3Wd, 1974
Planning Commission Public Informational Meeting.
PLANNING C"I&;' TON MEETING ,MINUTES - 2 W April 17, 1974
Cl ,,4ton Ziebarth.e 2715 Sycanre L lie 'N`vrth, Pres dent, Creekwood HeighTs
Home6wners As -so., was concerned about ruvelupment in "Zone A" and wanted toknowapproximatelywhatstreetwouldbeonthesouthboundaryline. Mr. Cverhiser said that it would be about 31s:t A-lenue. As for development, ZoneA" is zoned RO (Residential Open) on the zoning map, The Land Use Guide PlanindicatesresidetialofLA -1t LA --2 and LA -3. The dividing line is expectedtobeCountyRoad61., South and east of County Road 61 would be logit densityandnorthandwestwouldbehigher, Mr.C1emence explained that Zone "A" showsadensityof12,.9 units per acre, and is an average w,th parts higher and pottionslower. Mr. Zlebarth wanted to know when the portion of Zone "A" would be
developed in the overall development. Mr. Clemence stated it would not be at
the earliest stage and would be somewhat further along. The earlier development
would occur in the northeast section and that section adjacent to the lake. The
major reason for this is that County Road 61 has yet to be located. Does this meanthattheLandUseGuicePianwouldgobythewaywasquestionedbyMr. Ziebarth,
as there have been people in the .Creekwood Area who have bought homes assumingthatthiswouldremainLA -1. Chairman Kroskin assured him that it would not
go by the way.. He further expounded on Planner Overhiser's explanation earlier
reminding the audience that the RPUD Ordinance does allow the developer who owns
the land to develop it with clustered homes and open spaces but to stay withinthedensityallowed. Mr. Ziebarth's comment was that,representing all the
members of the Creekwood Heights Additiopil,they wanted to go on record, as
Opposing high density in any area that is north of them and would prefer low
density residential,
Dean A. Johnson, 31.90 E, Medicine Lake Blvd., Med=O-Lake Home Owners Asso. Mr
4ohnson st ache had talked to other members of this association and they wereinagreementthatwehave: a Guide Plan to go by and they were under the assumption
that this strip north of the lake would continue growing as a single family
residential area, We have heavy density east and west along County Road 18. This association is in favor of low density along the lake.
Mrs. Pat Katzmarek, 3520 E. Medicine Lake Blvd., opposed the heavy densityes_pe_cially when it comes to the larger units ,and high, rises. She felt there
were too many of these units too close to her area.
William R. Boyden, 10804 - 2nd Avenue North, commented that he had: spent fiveyearsinEuropeinareaswheretherewere12,000 units, He stated he was
totally opposed to this plan and wanted to continue the use of the Guide Plan.
Roy Heinrich, 3750 Trenton Lane, states the residents in his area wanted to goonrecordtostaywiththeconditionsintheGuidePlan. Another consideration
was one of economics. Studies ;have been made and where the higher density isallowed, the higher density divided by the property tax dollars show they Justdon't carry the load for the services they require, 'therefore the taxes would go up.
Mrs. H. 8owdin, 8516 E. Medicine Lake Blvd., states she is new in the neighborhood,
and hiT not been notified of the meetings. She wanted to know how many low rise
0 apartments there would be and ,how many townhouses.. Chairman .Kroskin replied that
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 16 -- April 171974
OTHER BUSINESS
Planner Overhiser stated that the plat of Ranch4w Estates located south of
County Road 15 between Vicksburg and Ranchview Was ready for signature.;
MOTION was made by f ommissioner Hagen supported by Commissioner Davenport to
authorize the signature.
Motion CarriedALL in Favor MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Schneider asked for a correction in the minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting ofApril 3, 1974, in, that he was opposed to rather than
abstaining on the motion made by Commissioner Hagen to recommend approval of
a site plan dated March 7, 1974 requested by Monell Tool and Die Co. Correction
was noted
MOTION was made by Commissioner Schneider to accept the minutes of the Planning
Commission dated April 3, 1974 as amended,
Motion Carried (5-0-1) (Commissioner Threinen:abstaining) MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Hagen stated that while in Milwaukee recently he came upon a PUD
that was built in the 40's. This was a very extensive development and he was
amazed to see how well it had been kept up. He thought the town was Greenfield.
He did not know how many acres this covered but it went on, and on, Commissioner
Hagen felt someone from Plymouth should visit. Milwaukee,
MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen to move for adjournment, supported by
Chairman Kroskn, at 12:10 a.m.
Motion Carried ALL in favor MOTION CARRIED
APPROVED BY PLANNTNG COMKISSION: May 11 1974
Reg; KrosVi n, Chairman_
Plymouth Planning Comtxmi ion
W JzN6
m
Marin W. Overhiser, Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES •- 4 - April 17, 1974
Sam-Orr,3805 Pilgrim Lane, wanted to know what fraction of the land will notBeusedtobuildon. Mr, Clemence stated slightly less than half of the land
will not be built on. He state# the figures he has is 225 acres will be built
upon and 282 will not be built upon at this stage of development giving a densityof13to14peracre. Mr. Orr also waisted an estimate of the number of cluster
homes there would be. Mr. Clemence stated there would be about ten per acre.
Mr. Overhiser stated we have three PUD ` s now in Plymout , with cluster homes*
Chelsea Woods with about 100 acres and. 320 units, 3.2 units per acre; Shenandoah
of about 400 some units and the density unit is about 9 or 10 per acre, and
Tiburon with 214 units on about 70 acres. The Four Seasons Apartments have
bout 20 units per acre,
Tom Cori o , 3825 Trenton Lane .forth, wanted to know what kind of checks and
balance, t e City of Plymouth has to make sure the project is developed accord-
ing to the plan. qtr. Overhiser informed Mr. Conroy that when you get to the
third phase there will be a final plat, which is a legal "document filed with
Hennepin County showing lots and blocks When that is approved, a development
contract is also entered into between the City of Plymouth and. the developer.
This explains every little detail Before construction is begun, the public
streets and utilities are to be developed or bonded. If the developer goes
broke before the -development is completed, the City can Qo back to the bonding
company. The development contract is the very last instrument before building
i ermits are issued. That is like an insurance policy to the citizens and the City.
ftr. Conroy also wanted to know what the Ci Ly ofPlymouth could do to help with
the nuisance during the building and developing stage. Chairman Kroski;n said
here really is no answer to that queGtion but what do you do when ,you build a
road or anything, there is always a nuisance. Mr. Overhiser statue that this
is pert of the staging in the development which can be planned to be the least
disruptive to the neighborhood.
Mr. Conroy also wanted to know the approximate schedul( of Phases 1, 2 and 3
during the RPUD. Mr, Overhiser stated that was somewhat dependent upon the
developer, how fast he comes back with ,thr_ next stage. The Planning Commission
may make their decision tonight and then it would go to the City Councilon
their next agenda. It may talo the Council from one to two months to. act on the
recommendations. That would be the end of Phase I Concept Plan. Phase 2 would
take anywhere from three, four, up to six months. The last phase would be
shortened and not probably take over two months.
Ed Kirchoff, 10805 40th Avenue North, wanted to know what percentage of
Plymouth was undeveloped, Mr. Overhiser stated about 80 percent is undeveloped
at this time, and approximately one-third is provided with utility services, Mr.
Kirchoff commented on looking at the Land Use Guide Plan, many of the areas
stipulated as moderate or high density areas are undeveloped at this. time. Chair-
man Kroski'n agreed with this statement. Mr. Kirchoff also stated that when he
moved into Plymouth a year ago, he assumed that the area he moved into would
remain suitable for residence of families. With the proposed development, it
would seem like: the Downtown skyline with IDS buildings right in the area. He
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - 5 - April 17, 1974
wanted to know why this project could not be moved out farther where it would
not be disruptive to the public already there. He also wanted to :know why the
Planning Commission members were not responsible to the people of Plymouth
living there now "but were rather responsible to the 9,000 people who will be
future apartment dwellers. Chairman Kroskin replied that the Planning Commission
members are appointed, not elected:, they make recommendations to the Cpuncil, not
the final decisions. The Council makes the final decision. These people are
elected. That is the check and balance brought out before. He also reminded
the audience that some people were presumptous about a decision that has not
been made.
Al Clausnitzer, 10705 4 40th Avenue North, wanted to knot the number of units
5 Tiburon. Manner Overhiser stated as near as he could recall it, it was
about 214 on about 70 acres, or about 3 per acre. When he learnedthat the
units on this project were propo8ed for 3,100, he wanted to know what would
prevent the developer from putting in 3,500. Chairman Kroskin assured him that
the number of units which are approved are the ones that would be built.
I
Mrs. H. Fiatere, 108.15 - 40th Avenue North, asked about the 'Fire protection and
whether this increase would also increase theneed for this service. She further
stated tha:t., she apposed this development vehemently.
John McCullough, 2715A Nathan Rd., had not been notified of the previous meetings
and wanted, to state that he was opposed to this development.
Owen Keen, 4010 Saratoga Circle North, representing Lost Lake Homeowners Asso.,
wanted to determine if the property in question is owned by the developers or
ender option. Mr. Pflaum stated that it was owned.
George Zenanko, 12850 - 28th Avenue North, stated he was opposed to the high
density area om the proposed plan for the southwest corner.
Dawn Wannous, 4015 North Trenton Lane, was concerned with the number of renters,
ow many are home owners and how many renters.. The exact figures were not
available at the meeting but Chairman Kroskin did state the 0uide for Minneapolis.
Metropolitan Area was used as a basis in developing the; Land Use Guide Plan.
She was also concerned with the tremendous load apartment dwellers, who are
transient, would place on the schools and on the case workers. Planner OveTrhiser
pointed. out that according to the Metropolitan average based on 1970 f1'gures, it
showed about 65 percent were single families and 35 percent multiple dwelling,
while Plymouth was about 80 percent single and 20 percent multiple.. Chairman
Kroskin pointed OLIt that as Plymouth was developing, it was from east to west
and south to north, and the Land Use Guide Plan was developedtoprevent undue
heavy concentrations in a given area. He cautioned the audience not to be
presumptous even though it may appear that they were throwing the. Guide out the.
window and to remember that the Planning Commission was honor bound to look at any
proposal that any landowner or developer presented and to give thein the same rights
we show the public.;
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MI UTES April 17, 1974
Floyd Hedding, 10640 - 40th Avenue North, suggested that the public's adverse
attitude. was probably because they did not comprehend what thcre was about this
proposal being made to justify all the attention it was :getting as not all
proposals were submitted to such lengthy interrogation as this one. He wantedtoknowwhattherewasinthisproposalthatwasinaccordancewiththeGuide Plan, what the variances were from the Guide, Plan and were they good or bad., ChairmanKroskinexplainedthatthestaffbroughtouttheirquestionsandfeelingsinregardstothoroughfares, density, ponding, parks and recreation trails. ThebasicdeviationfromtheGuidePlanwasindensity. The. Guide Plan as adoptedbytheCouncilcallsforarangeofdensityunits. The density calculationstakeintoconsiderationalloftheland, and amounted to a maximum of 1,850 unitsTherewasanotherguideusedinthe. development of the Guide Plan and that showedamaximumof2,460 units. The maximum of the Guide Plan was 1,850 units, withtheactual. range being from. 964 to 1,850 units. The good points would be thatifyoudevelopedthislandassinglefamilydwellingunits, you would probablynothave; the park area, you could not preserve the lakeshore and some of the
other amenities. Thiss plan provides for the mixing of people of differentincomes. Mr. Overhiser stressed the najor concern of the Guide Plan was density,, looking at gross acres and using this to equate the total number of units thatcouldbeputonaparcelofland. It does not say they will all. be single,
family detached houses on half acre lots, nor does it say they will all beapartmentdwellings. The. Guide Plan is :,tended to be flexible in the type of
units but rigid in the range of density or number of dwellings permitted.
Steve Brown, 2730 Nathan Lane.,uestioned whether, the openqp spaces was to be
owned and maintained by the developer, owned by the developer and maintained
by the City or to be used by all of the City and maintained out of funds as
this fact affects the tax structure. Mr. Overhiser replied that this willbebroughtoutinPhase ?,at which time the Park Commission will become more
Involved and will make thyir recommendations to the City Coui?ci1 as to which
areas should be owned and operated by the developer and which areas will be
owned and maintained by the City.
George S. Macres, 3745 Trenton Lane, stated that as he understood this nand was
a rleadybougtbythedeveloper, it was very expensive land, and as such;, thedevelopermusthavehadsomeassurancethattheprojectwouldgothru. Chairmar
Kroskin assured the audience there was no such assurance for anything withrespecttothisprojecttothedevelopers, that he could not comment on whether'
or not this was good business judgment on the part of the developers,
Don Olson, 10825 - 40th Avenue North, stated law enforcement officials andso0F -OTfcials nationally take a dim view of high rises, not multiple units, but 'they do of high rises. He was a so concerned with the green strips and
schools with all this density in East Plymouth. There are no parks where you
can take your children for a picnic or tennis;. Mr. pverhiser explained the
concept of the Park Plan is to have neighborhoud parks so that you could walktothemwithinahalfmileofyourhome.
Krs. Ronald Fl ei s cher, 4015 Quaker Lame, woted to know if any federal moneyWasTnvolv(d, and was assured there was none.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES y - Arril 17, 1974
Ulysses Bennett, 10600 Union Terrace Way, asked if any members of the PlanningCo;fission iL%ed in this area, Chairman Kroskin said that wo;unissioner Hagen
did and had stepped down for the reason that he might later 1iecame involved in
some phase of this development. Also Commissioner Stewart, who was not present
at this meeting, lived in the area. Also Commissioner Erickson lives in the area
on the west side of Medicine Lake.
Mr. Bennett also wanted to know what the Planning Commission's acceptance of this
concept meant. Chairman Kroskin explained the ordinance we were operating under
was adopted only a, week ago and provides a great deal of flexibility for the
developer and responsibility of the Staff, the Planning Commission ,and the City
Council. Chairman Kroskin recommended that Mr. Bennett remain after the public
hearing was closed tonhear for himself the attitude and concerns of the Planning
Commission members and the final action taken by the commission tonight. Mr.
Bennett expressed personal disappointment with the attitude of the Planning Com-
mission members, and in addition to the traits of character, professional competence,
they should also have qualities of sensitivities to the people. The people in the
community have investments in the community not unlike those in a corporation and
he felt the people were due more kind and respectful attitudes from the Planning
Commission members, but if this was too much, he felt we should lower our expecta-
tions. He further stated that this was an example of lack of trust by citizens
towards public servants. In response to Mr. Bennett's statement, Chairman Kroskin
stated that the City has adopted Goals and Objectives relating to suitable housing
and environment; namely: Objective 1 - The ultimate population should be'approxi-
mately 175,000; Objective 2 Provide aiid main a range of quality housing for all
levels of income; Objective 3 - Develop and maintain a choice of quality environments.
Leonard Larson, 1940 E. Medicine Lake Blvd., wanted to know Tow this type of
development was going to,benefit the citizens of Plymouth as agaiost the homes
in Plymouth. Mr, Clemence responded that there is a need for planning in Plymouth
fora wide range of population and incomes. He reminded the audience that even
if they live in single family houses rnow,, many of them at one time or another did
live in apartment buildings and still they were nice people. When asked why all
of Plymouth could not be developed as single family dwellings, Mr. Clemence stated
this was why the Land Use Guide Plan was developed. Chairman Kroskin brought out
that Plymouth does have goals, objectives and criteria with respect to suitable
housing and environment: One of the goals was to provide for dignity of man by
the optimum population of Plymouth which should be 175,000 people to provide and
maintain a variety of housingat all' levels of income, and to develop and maintain
a choice of quality environments, These were the three basic iters and one of the
policies we operate under.
Al Sprague, 3719 W_, Medicine Lake Road, was concerned about the wildlife, fox,
deer, ducks, geese, etc; Chairman Kroskin stated that while he grew up in Plymouth,
he hunted here, and in the same areas where you all live now. The fact is we are
growing, we are west of Minneapolis and the least developed. Mr. Zejdlik stated
they are planning to continue and maintain the rearing ponds and the large open
spaces for this reason. The swamp lands contribute also to the wildlife preservation.
Tom Wannous, 401.5 Trenton Lane, was conce;rned about the green strip outlined in the
Land Use Guide Plan as possibly becoming a burden to the City of Plymouth and wanted
to know if this was right or wrong. Mr. Overhiser explained that he felt the
Council and the Park Commission believed in the lineal trails and that this was
still a sound plan and would continue supporting it financially.
PLANNING COMMISSION HEFTING MINUTE5 - 8 April 17, 1974
Carla Bronsun, 263 Peninsula Road, was concerned that with the addition of
9,000 people on or tear the lake, 1how many have access to the lake now. Chair-
man Kroskin replied, there were several public accesses .now. Mr. Bronson stated
the lake is overcrowded now., what would happen with this many more. Chairman
Kroskin brought out that the Environmental Impact Assessment would look into this.
The Public Informational Neighborhood Meeting was, closed at 9.36 p.m. The
meeting was recessed at this time and reconvened at 9:45 p.m
Chairman Kroskin presented a petition with 12 signatures representing 24 persons:
who opposed the. develorenent. He also presented a letter from Mrs. dames W.
Nelson, 3630 Trentsn Lane Borth, expressing favor of a development in this area,
only if the -density were no g -eater than allowed in the Land Use Guide Plan
but was definitely opposed to the proposal being offered.. Another letter dated
April 6,1974 from Fred H. Hafner and signed by ten other citizens was also
presented to the -Planning Commission. The letter also expressed oppasi'tion,
based on, comments of a similar nature to, those heard at the meeting,.
Commissioner Davenport wanted to know what other amenities the developers would
include in their conceptual plan of 1,600 to 2,600 dwelling units. Mr. Clemence
stated they had not gone into the economics of what was feasible at the: various
population figures. When asked why they could not live with a lower density figure
Mr. Clemence said he could not answer that, they had not done a cost calculation
but had taken into consideration the character of the land, capacity of the
land and the best and most sensible location of the major open space activity.
He elaborated further that the: higher the density, the more flexible the land
use would be as far as amenities were concerned. Part of the problem is that
a project of this size can not be built in two or three years and what is best
today as fat, as mixed units are concerned may not be best five or ten years
from now, and this is one of the benefits of flexibility in planning of mixed
units. Mr„ Clemence also admitted that they had, not made a cost analysis for
the 3,150 tinit figure. They had hooked at lesser densities to see what load
they would place on the nand, and what dwelling types would be needed. Lesser
density would mean more single family dwelling units which would be marketed over
a longer period of time placing a greater financial load on the developments and
returns of less money to the community. Mr. Clemence reminded the Commission
that these people would themselves become taxpayers and the large amount of open
space would become part of the overall park system. Mr. Clemence stated they were
presenting this plan and requesting the Planning Commission's reaction to the plan,
admitting that they had only explored the concept in a superficial way, looking
not at the economics but as to what the land could hold, -Focusing on the 3,150
units.
Chairman Kroskin asked what concern was given to the total of Plymouth, the
immediate surrounding area, the higher density of the apartments to the east
as far as community affect. Mr. Clemence stated they had studied primarily the
locational relationship of the development with neighboring facilities, shopping
center, and the proposed City Civic Center.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 9 - April 17, 1974
Commissioner Threinen asked why the Land Use Guide Plan density figure was not
used prior to making up the RPUD, Mr. :Pflaum stated they had not completelyignoredtheLandUseGuidePlan, stating that an earlier guide plan in January
1973 which was proposed and published but not adopted did allow 2,460 dwelling
units within this piece of land or some 800 units more than the July 1973 plan.
Also the energy crisis would find people moving closer to work. These were some
of the reasons they used in presenting this proposal. When askedby Commissioner
Threinen if they had discussed this drop of 800 units to the present Guide Plan
figure of 1,850 with anyone at City Hall, Mr. Clemence admitted he himself had
not and felt the reasons given above did not seem compelling enough to suggest
that the figure below 2,000 had to be adhered to so they looked at only what they
thought the Land could carry and came up with the proposal of 3,100;
Commissioner Erickson stated that some of the buffering fQr the multiple dwelling
uni=ts proposed for some of the are, was not considered in the southwest portion and
overall density should relate to the Land Use Guide Plan. Mr. Clemence stated
they presumed there would be single family units in that area, but there could be
some reduction in one area that is picked up in another by shifting of the unitsinthefinalplan.
Commissioner Threinen also wanted to know why they could riot use more buildings
of a Lower size on the land.. Chairman Kroskin remarked that a great deal of time
was spentoon the Land Use Guide Plan but it was just a plan as such and was to.:
provide flexibility to the developer. They did not want the population of Plymouth
to exceed 200,000 people. Chairman Kroskin wanted to know if by allowing 9,000
people 3,1,50 dwelling units, why was this going to be better for Plymouth. Mr.
Clemence ;tated if you concentrate the dwelling units, you get more open.spaces
Commissioner Threinen wanted to know if you cut the figure by one-third or one-half,
would you not get as much open space, but Mr. Clemence stated not necessarily as
you would find yourself gluing to larger lots and use up more of the land.
Commissioner Schneider mentioned that 70 acres would be itnundated by water at some
time, and wanted to know how much other land could not be used to build on. Mr.
Clemence stated he questioned the 70 acres but Planner Overhiser replied that 18
acres are required for ponding and in addition there are some 56 acres subject to
flooding but these are not required. Technically he thought the City might let
them develop parts of the 56 acres.
Commissioner Threinen mentioned the fact that play areas seemed to be lacking.
There Is a golf course for the older people but nothing for the children. He
also felt that open spaces did not add relatively anything, to the co hunity if
the densities are increased in the irmnediate area. Mr. Clemence reminded them
there were no parks, no place to go with the children. How much land would be
owned by the developer and how much would be public was a question that would
have to be discussed with the Park Commission.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen supported by Chairman Kroskin that the
Mission Partnership Developers redesign the RPUD concept to incorporate no more
than 1,850 dwelling units with a wide range of amenities for all ages, children
thru adults, including a statement on the impact on the environment, especially
on Medicine Lake, and further decreasing thermuttiple dwelling units not to
exceed 40 percent of the units.
PLANNING C( 414ISSION MEET ING MINUTES - 1p April 17, 1974
MOTION was made to amend the motion made: by Commissioner Th ei nenby Charman
Krosk'in to add the following conditions:
1) That the intent of the thoroughfare guide plan must be maintained.
StIc6 fi cal ly, Zachary Lane, 36th Avenue, Larch Lane, County Road 61,
West Medicine Cake Boulevard, County Road 9 and other collectors
within the project.
2) That the developer show how all adjacent property be served with streets
and utilities, and that the use of the City owned site south of C unty
Road: 9 be reviewed with the City Staff.
Motion to Amend Carried (5-0-1) (Commissioner Hagen abstaining) CARRIED
MOTION was made by Commissioner Schneider to amend the motion that multiple
dwelling units not exceed 35 percent instead of the 40 percent as given in
the original motion.
Motion to Amend Failed for Pack of a second to the motion FAILED
Commissioner Threinen reiterated that he felt low profile buildings were in
order particularly at the end of thz lake where you can see for three miles.
He was also concerned about the impact of multiple :swellings on schools.
Motion as amended Carried (5-0-1) (Commissioner Hagen abstaining) MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Kroskin remarked to the audience that we recently held a public hearing
do this proposed Zoning Ordinance Admendment to permit. RPUD''s and had only six
people show up.
Meeting was recessed to allow individuals to leave.
Meeting reconvened at 11:10 p.m.
A-511 MBC, INC. A-511 Registered Land Survey Request
Chairman Krosiin opened the public hearing on the request of MBG, Inc. for a
Registered Land Survey. Commissioner Hagen returned to his chair.
Asst. Planner Milt Dale introduced this request and related Staff's recommendations.
for approval with the condition that Parcel "B" of R.L.S. '#321 be consolidated
with R.L.S. #1251, which is owned by Graybow-Daniels Co. Commissioner Hagen
questioned whether this would cut down on parking but Planne. Overhiser assured
him it world not affect the parking as this area is actually their yard and would
only cut down the size of the yard'storage if anything.
MOTION was made, by Commissioner Erickson supported by Commissioner Schneider
that the request of MBG.,, Inc. for approval of a R.L.S. division dated March 22,
1974 be approved subject to Parcel '•'B" of R.L.S, #921 be consolidated with R.L.S.
W1252 (owned by Graybow-Daniels Co.)
Motion carried ALL in favor MOTION CARRIED
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - 11 - April 17., 1974
A -00Z SHEPfANDOAH DEVELOPMENT CORP. A-552 Preliminary Plat Approval
Asst, Planner bii t Dal e presented this proposal acs-. Staff's recommendations with
a suggested change requested by Shenandoah Development Corp. as follows: In
Condition No, 1 petitioner requested that the ten foot utility and drainage
easements be shown along all street rights-of-way on the final plat rather than
along all property lines as there is the: possibility that two or more lots may be
developed or incorporated as one some time in the future. The Staff recommends
the change be made.
C .mmissioner Erickson observed. that a 40 foot right -of -Stay might be appropriate on
28th Avenue North making the street 80 feet wide, Planner Overhiser stated this
was correct as plans in the future were to have this street become a Local
Thoroughfare. There was also some discussion regarding the 75 -Afoot setback and
the green area, but Planner Overhiser assured the members the green area was
protected by an additional 25 -foot setback. The small siz_ f the ten 7cts was
questioned and Planner Overhiser stated he did not agree W, their thinking at
first but after conversations with the developers, he was c winced there probably
would not be ten small buildings and felt at this stage i't was easier to go to
platting small lots and sell one or more as they are developed. Otherwise you plat
larder lots and end up selling a half lot.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Hagen supported by Commissioner Threinen that
the request of Shariandoah Development Corp. for preliminary plat approval for
Metro Industrial Park 2nd Addition" dated March 15, 1974 be approved subject
to the following conditions
1) That ten foot utility and drainage easements be shown along all street
rights -Of -way onon the final plat.
2) That the recommendations of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
be made a part of this recommendation. A cash payment to satisfy the
Park Dedication requirements would amount to $5,215.
3) That a 40 foot right--of-way from the center line of 31st Avenue North
along the north boundary of the proposed 3rd Addition be dedicated to
the city for street purposes.
Motion Carried ALL in favor MOTION CARRIED
A-377 RAMADA INNS, INC. A-377 Site Plan Review
Chairman Kroskin excused himself from this discussion and stepped down, because
B.W, and Leo Harris are representing him in t'le sale of some land, turned over
the chair to Vice -Chairman Hagen
Asst. Planner Milt Dale related the Staff's recommendations, nuting there were
some.chahges made after the agenda was published. They were as follows;
Condition 1) has an.abvious er or in It, and should be "northbound" traffic
instead of "southbound" as given,
is Condition 3) as we do not have a landscape plan as yet, this condition should
read "There shall be Planning Commission and Staff review of the landscape plan
in addition to the landscaping and drainage bonds for the project being posted
with the: City prior to a building permit being issued".
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 12 April 17 1974
The peti ti ones is not requesting a: 60 foot pylon sign at the '"A" location:
although there is one pylon sign for the development, so Variance _2) can be
strken, This also changes the numbering in the conditions, striking Condition
2) entirely and renumbering the conditions 3 thru 7 as conditions 2 barb 6.
This would leave only 3 variances recommended by the .Staff,
Mr. Ray Harris, representing. the developer, and Mr.. Joe Emmons, representingiRamadaInns, Inc.,were present, and answeredthe questions of the commissioners
regarding the signs and their locations. They still are requesting variance
W allow four signs and also a variance in the surface area of two of the signs
from the: ordinance requirement of 106 square feet to 188 square feet. Mr. Harris
stated they are not requesting a pylon sign next to the freeway at this time but
this has been in the preliminary plan for the development and it is his under-
standing that they will request this at some future date.
The question regarding crossover traffic was brought up and City Engineer
Sherman Goldberg isbrought „ht out the fact that when the curbing is put in and the
driveways built, they could be done in such a manner as to prevent crossing over,
Mr. Emmons stated they, hoped to start construction this summer with completion
accomplished in about a year.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Erickson with the support of Commissioner
Davenport that the request of Ramada Inns, Inc. for a site plan approval based
on a plan dated April 1, 1974 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That an in --only driveway access for northbound traffic along Fernbrook
Lane be permitted and that a de -acceleration lane be provided to
facilitate this in -only traffic,
2) That the Staff and Planning Commission review the landscape plan, and
that the landscaping and drainage bonds for the project be posted with
the City prior to a building permit being issued.
3) That additional seven feet of right-of-way along Fernbrook lane be
granted to the City to total a 40 -foot right-of-way from center line
of Fernbrook Lane.
4) That the recommendation of the Park and Recreational Advisory Commission
be a part of this rec,,mmendation, i.e. acceptance of a cash donation to
the Park Dedicatior Fund. This would amount to $2,400 (4.8 acres x $500).
5) That the recommendation of the Fire Chief regarding fire hydrants and
fire lanes and the: recommendation of the Building Inspector 'rFgarding
handicapped parking lades be a part of this recommendation,
6) That no variance be permitted for the Ramada Inn sign on the building
facade but that it be permitted below the building roof line as per
ordinance requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 13 - April 17,1974
Also the Planning Commission recommends the following variances be permitted
as a part of this site plat; request;
1) That a variance of 3Z parking spaces be permitted but that the courtyard
area be so designed that use of this space could be made available should
additional parking be necessary.
2) That a -variance for the; total number of signs be permitted to allow Tour
signs on the site,
3) That the variances relative to parking setback for the front yard along
State Highway 55 and the side yard along the north boundary be permitted
as per Council Resolution No 74--47.
Motion Carried (5-0-1) (Commissioner Kroskin abstaining) MOTION CARRIED
A-557 ALFRED J EBERLE A-557 Lot Division Unplatted Property
Commissioner Kroskn r-dturned and took over the chairmanship again.
Asst. Planner Dale presented the staff's recommendation for this request, subject
to the noted. conditions. Mr, Eberle questioned the need for dedicating seven
feet for a street r:ghteof-way purpose, what was he to do with all the trees
on this portion of thA lot, and what guarantee was there that Hennepin County
would not come: in and buy this land. Planner Overhiser replied that the City of
Plymouth has jurisdiction over the rights-of-way on plats of lot divisions and
that Hennepin County has requested this. Commissioner Hagen stated there was no
guarantee that Hennepin County would not come and buy the land and that Mr. Eberle
had the right to withdraw his request if he so chose. Mr, Eberle then wanted to
know if he was being singled out with regard to this dedication of seven feet for
right-of-way purposes. Several comments were directed towards Mr. Eberle trying
to convince him that from this time on, all such requests for lot driisions would
also carry this requirement. Several comments were also made to assure Mr. Eberle
that at present there are no plans for paving this area for streets so at least
for now and most likely for some time the trees can be left undisturbed. Mr. Eberle
was again asked if he wished to withdraw his request, but he stated as long as
others would be treated in like manner, he wanted his request acted upon, and that
he was forced into this action as a result of his father's will.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Erickson supported by Commissioner Schneider
that the request of Alfred J. Eberle for a division of unplatted property as
per survey dated March 21, 1974 be approved subject to the following conditions.
1. That a cash dcnation of $150 for the creation of a new lot (Parcel "B")
be paid ,to the Park Dedication Fund.
2) That an additional seven feet be dedicated along Zachary Lane to the City
for street right-of-way purposes.
PLANRING COMMISSIOU MEETING MINUTES - 14 - April 17, 1974
37 That a ,joint driveway be developed at such time as a house is
Parcel "B".
Motion CarriedALL in favcr MOTION CARRILU
A-556 JEROME BEGIN -A--7-6 Lot Division - Unplacted Property
Petitioner was not present -at the meeting. Chairman Kroskin opened up the
discussion on this matter..
Commissioner Threinen stated he had personally gone out to the site and had
walked onto the land stated that he felt a better solution would be for a
separation of 35-5 acre split w.th an easement along the north propa'rty,line
to Xenium and felt this would solve the problems, and both Parcels "A" and
118" will be opened for access.
Staff concurred with this recommendation as given by Commissioner Threinen.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen supported by %.-3mnissioner Hagen that
the request of Jerome Begin for lot division of unplatted property as per
survey dated. March 22, 1974 be approved subject to the division being a '35-5
acre split with an easement along the north property line to Xenium to be granted
with the division.
Motion Carried ( 4.2-0) (Commissioners Davenport & Kroskin opposed) MOTION CARRIEI
A-522 ROGERTiMER AND DONALD HUS AD A-522 RPV0A, roval Concept Plan
Asst.. Planner Dale stated that the petitioners have changed the concept plan to
assure three basic clusters. The density has been decreased. There are single
detached unitson the south and north boundaries. The total dwelling units on
the site will be 18 and Staff is recommending no more than 17. Two of the dwelling
units are existing single family and the third existing will be used as some sort
of a community building next to the pool
Chairman Kroskin- asked what happened to the 40 acre requirement requested.
Commissioner Davenport felt this request should be .denied based on the 40 -acne
requirement. Mr. Fazendin reminded the commissioners there actually was only
15 acres of land, and only 7.7 of this buildable acreage He thought the 40 -
acre. requirement was unrealistic, reminding them that on Queensland Lane (North
Broadway, you are in a different situation where there are 5 -acre tracts with
houses and there are houses that are within 20 feet of the road. Chairman
Kroskin stated the Planning Commission came i'n with a lesser figure but the
Cou,pcil had adopted the 40 -acre requirement.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen suppoi-ed by Commissioner Davenport
to schedule a public 'informational meeting.
Chai mean Kroskin asked what the reason was for the Staff recommending this RPUD.
Planner Overhiser stated the ordinance recently adopted states 40 acres unless
one of two conditions exist.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 15 - April 17, 1974
He stated one reason was the natural f,atures of the land. Secondly he felt
that eventually the property ta. the south and the Elwell property to the west
will be developed in this fashion. It would have been much easier if the
Elwell property was developed as a RPUD. These are two reasons the staff
felt it was appropriate.
Mr.. Fazendin commented that there was a lot of objection to the attached single
family unit. Assuming that the rest of the land around the lake were developed,
we would see no objection to the attached single family houses.
Commissioner Kroskin asked if the Commissioners were looking for in-put or just
noticing the public. Commissioner Threinen remarked this was a private lake and
there was substantial homes there. Mr. Fzzendin informed the Commission that
they had held a neighborhood meeting and invited everybody to the meeting before:
they came to the Council. There are only four on this lake. They have a view
of the lake but not of this property. if another public meeting is held', what
it amounts to is inviting the same people to a third meeting. Mr. Fazendin
asked the Commission what do you do with a 5'-acre piece of property with 300 foot
frontage, that this is one of the real problems in planning. He statedthey
were taying to create a good neighborhood out of something that was done wrong.
Commissioner Erickson stated this was a concept plan and there would be another
public hearing when the preliminary plan was presented. Commissioner Threinen
expressed the fact that because of the 40-acre variance the public hearing was
a good point but his main objection was the 40-acre variance and wanted to move
conservatively on this.
Motion Denied (2-3-1) (Commissioners Erickson, Schneider &
Threinen opposed, Commissioner Hagen abstained) MOTION DENIED
After further comr, 'ints by the Commissioners, a MOTION was made by Commissioner
Threinen supported by Chairman Kroskin to defer the matter to another work
meeting.
Motion Denied (2-3-1) (Commissioners. Schneider, Davenport
Erickson opposed, Commissioner Hagen abstained) MOTION DENIED
Commissioner Davenport stated that he wasnot opposed to the RPUD but that. the
7.7 acre was too small under the present RPUD Ordinance,
MOTION was .made by Commissioner Davenport supported by Commissioner Threinen to
reconsider the matter and to go back to the public hearing for public opinion.
MOTION CARRIED (4-1-1) (Commissioner Erickson opposed,
Commissioner Hagen abstaining) MOTION CARRIED