HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 02-12-1975PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA
February 12, 1:975
A; regi, # ar meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was called to order byActingCi,,Taman Hagen at 7 30 p,m., February 12, 1976 in the Council Chambers
of the Pu lic Works Building., 14500 - 23rd Avenue North.,
MEMB S "RE NT: ,acting Chairman Flagon, Commissioners Threinen, Stewart,
Schneider, Davenport and Erickson
MEIMB RJ ABSENT: Chairman Kraskin (ill)
STAFF PRESENTS Charles E. Dillerud, Pilton Dale, Randall Thoreson, and
Agatha Portonson,
OTHERS PRESENT: tonne Genung, Y.A, C. Representative
Acting Chairman Hagen opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m
A-527 LITTOR I}NDISTRTES, INC. -527 Site Plan and Variance Request
Staff presented the Site Plan for substantial addition to petitioner's buildingonXeniumlaneJustnorthoftherailroadtracks.. Staff detailed items which
they felt needed special attention asfollows:
1; A variance allowing25 foot setback in the rj!ar yard die to the design of
the building.
2 A five-foot strip is shown at the rear, resulting from Staff's requirement
for a 16Mfoot fire lane along the rear yard. Staff did not feel this con-
flicted with City Council's concerns of maintaining the 1.5-foot non-paved
areas because of the substantia; holding pond area directly in back of it
3. The siamese two-line connection should be replaced with a siamese four-line
connection as suggested by the Fire Chief,
4,. The parking requirements would need a variance in that they were proposingthreelessspacesthanrequired, The two methods of computing the spaces
required were outlined by Staff,
Jack Vulkoviiz, Litton Industries, Inc., was present to answer questiont of the
Cnmumissioners.
Points brought out in the discussion Were as follows:
1.; It Would not be practical to move the lot line to provide 15 feet for a buffer
with the knowledge that no building or hard surface would be placed on the
adjoining storm drainage area.
e Z. Litton has an option on the land to the north, Lot 2.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 12, 1975
3 Parking stalls are currently IO feet wide and could be reduced to the 8-foot
width required by the City, thereby increasing the number of stalls available
4. For disposal of waste, they use a compactor fed from inside the building toadumpster500feetoutsidethebuilding, which is completely enclosed exceptforanopeningtoallowthetrucktoget. to the dumpster., s
MOTION was made by Commissioner 'Schneider supported by Commissioner Davenport that
the Planning Commission hake the following recommendation to the City Council.
That the request of Litton industries, Inc. for Site Plan Approval of an addition
to their plant dated January 17 1975 and the request fora rear yard variance
of five feet and a parking variance of three spaces be approved, subject to the
following conditions.-
1.
onditions.
1. A landscape and drainage bond be posted with the City ?tior to the issuance'
of a building permit.
2. All storage of waste, garbage and materials be within the building.
3 Recommendations of the Staff relative to placement of fire lanes, handicapped
spaces and water connections be a part of this recommendation.
Commissioner Schneider stated that he recommended approval of the variance of
five feet for the rear yard due to the holding pond to the immediate west and
the construction problems related to making the building addition smaller. Fie
also recommended approval of the variance to allow three spaces less than re-
quired due to the width of the parking stalls.
MOTION CARRIED All in favor, CARRIED
The public hearing was opened at 7.55 p.m. by Acting Chairman Hagen.
A- 38 LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTIOCI, I .,C. A-538
Rezoning from R-O to R-10 Preliminary
Plat of "Mission Ridge" and Conditional
Use Permit for Subdivision Unit Project
For the purposes of clarity at the public lbearing, Staff presented the requests
for rezoning, approval of the Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit as one
package as all three requests concern the same property.
Staff pointed out the location, reviewed it in connection with the previously
approved Concept Pian of Mission Partnership, Inc. and the proposed Hennepin
County Park Reserve, and explained the situation which prompted the petitioner
to present this portion of the Concept Plan at this time.
I
PLANNING C"ISSION MEETING MINUTES 3 February la 1975
Points brought out in the presentation by Staff were as follows.
1, The City Attorney expressed the opinion that he saw no problem in consider-<
Ing this plat prior to resolving the density problem of the Concept Phan.
2. City Council informally expressed the attitude that they would be willingtoconsiderlookingatapreliminaryplatonaportionofthepropertypriortoreachinga, solution to the density problem, in view of the proposedHennepinCountyPark.
While the question of density was still unresolved in total number of units,
the Land Use Guide Plan indicates a 1-3 unit per acre density for the areawithintheproposedplat, which is also the lowest density presented byMissionPartnership, Inc., in the overall Concept Plan,
4. The request for rezoning from R -Q to R-1 is in agreement with the Land Use
Guide Plan.
S As for the plat itself, the lot sizes meet the requirements of a SubdivisionUnitProjectwiththeexception. of Lot 5,61ock 2 which is 5 feet short in
width at the setback line. Staff recommends that the lot line be adjusted
to conform to the: requirements.
6.: The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission recommendations were outlined,
being somewhat different from Staff's, recommendation. Staff' was trying to
work the park dedication into a neighborhood park system for the whole area.
The .Park Commission's proposal would accept certain land as public landand
thereby meet the Subdivision Unit Project requirements but with the recordsindicatingthatwhenthelandtotheeastwasplatted, a parcel identical in
size and shape would be dedicated also, thus giving the City an 88 -acre con-
tinuous piece of property for a public park that would be easily maintained:
and readily accessible. Staff recommended accepting the. Park Commissions'
suggestions.
7 The City Engineer, was concerned with East Medicine Lake Boulevard, as it
currently lies in an area that will cut diagonally across a corner of the
proposed' plat and, a part of two of the lots on the plat. The problem is:
supplying a way of getting from 36th Avenge North to County Road 9, One
possible solution would be Zachary Lane, which will not be built until next
year. A temporary solution could be thru stipulation in the development
contract in which the developer is to furnish an outlet to the north from
the plat and over to East Hedicine Lake Boulevard, An alternate temporary
solution could be to leave East Medicine Lake Boulevard in place as it is,
with an easement granted to the City over the lots the road would cross,
and providing for release of the easement when Zachary Lane is built:: The
City Engineer preferred the alternate temporary solution.
Staff recormiended approval of the rezoning as requested, and of the PreliminaryPlatandConditionalUsePermitforthe#'Subdivision Unit Project as related; in
their report and .outlined in the ,above stated items.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - 4 February 12, 1975
Discussion centered around the following points
1 It would be unwise planning to couple a good road (Evergreen Lane) with abadone (East Medicine Lake Boulevard), even temporarily, Once this area
begins to develop and people are living in the subdivision, problems would
arise if the City blocks off East Medicine Lake Boulevard and channeled
traffic over to Evergreen Lane,
2. The original Concept Plan did calx( for single family residences east of
East Medicine Lake Boulevard.
Peter Pflaum, Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc., represented the petitioner
to answer questions and concerns of the public and the Commissioners.
JTomWanaus, 4015 Trenton Lane, was concerned about the following:
I. How the water and sewer would be assessed along 36th Avenue and especiallyinconnectionwiththeproposedproject.. Acting Chairman Hagen explained
the City's policy on this matter,
2. How the land on each side of the proposed plat would be developed. Acting
Chairman Hagen explained the Developer's plan indicated single family
residence, which is also what the adopted Land Use: Guide Plan called for.
3. Why the need for additional park land in addition to the 240 + acre CountyParkbeingproposedjustsouthofthisplat, Staff relayed tine discussion
at the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission on this subject, and their
conclusions, i.e, the Land Use Guide Plan calls for a neighborhoodpark in
the area, and the types of activity offered in a neighborhood park are notfoundintheRegionalCountyPark. Another problem would arise in the fact
tho Regional County Park must be self-supporting and thus charge a fee for
the use of the park; while neighborhood parks are used free of charge. If
a neighborhood park would not be provided in this area, citizens would- be
unequally required to pay a fee to use the park in their area.,
4. What can be done to Save as many of the trees as possible on this plat?'
Acting Chairman Hagen pointed out that the developer has shown in the past
that they too want to save as many trees as possible and was sure they ;could' do so in this case,
Tom Berg, 3820 Trenton Lane was concerned about tha following:
1.' Improvementspovements of 36th Avenue North and what affect the park would have in
drawffig traffic onto 36th Avenue north, Staff pointed out that the City
was trying to have the entrance to the Regional Park come off County Road 9
onto Larch Lane and directly into the heart of the park; Larch Lane is
scheduled to be built next year north of County Road 9. The vity also is
concerned abort additional traffic on 36th Avenue North, especially any thatwouldbegeneratedbytheestablishmentoftheRegionalPark,
2* Do the lot sizes meet the requirements. Acting Chairman Hagen explained the
method of determining the average lot size under the Subdivision Unit Project,
PLANNING CO*tISSiON MEETING MINUTES 6 - February ':2,,1975
3. when construction would begin. Mr. Pflaum statadl they anticipated starting:
in the spring,
4. The cost of the homes to be built, Mr. Pflaum stated they would be in the
price .range of $SOT70,000,
Tom Conroy, 3825 Trenton Lane, statV5 his concerns had already been answered.
Merle S Mark, 10730 Union Terrace Way, expressed concerns as follows.
1. The n«cure of development Dn either side of the proposed plat.
2. Fire and police protection. He was also concerned about the condition of
the fire barn on County Road 9. Staff pointed out thatPlymouth`s 7 fir;
rating is low, resulting in lower insurance costs for citizns of Plymouth
in comparison with other communities. Also with construction of the :new
fire barn listed in the C.I.P. and with completion of the nets water storage
facilities now under construction, water availability and pressure will be
improved. The suggestion was made by Commissioners that fir, Mark take up
the problem of police protection with Chief Hawkinson and for Mr. Vil l i s, CityManager, but did point out to Mr. Bari; that possib)y one reason be did not
see the squads so often > was because he lived on a cul-de-,sac.
3. Traffic on 36th Avenue North is heavy noxi, develol-mient will drag more, what
was being done or planned to help with this problem? Commissioners relayed
their concern also and some of the plans that are being discussed along this
line.
Discussion cenferp around the rgquirements of meeting the park dedication. Staff
relayed Park an reation Advisory Commission's desires to getgood land and
that proper steps oe taken to assure this end result. The question was brought up
as to what could be done to assure that the $7,600 paid into the Park Dedication
Fund would be used for the neighborhood park it this area. It was pointed out that
this was a general fund with no intent that: ,monies paid in would be specified for
areas from which i t was drawn. Some areas, such as industrial areas, pay into the
Fund with no provision for a park in the area at all:.
Suggestion was made that possibly` something should be given in writing that we
want this additional land to the east for the neighborhood park when that land
is developed, Mr. Pflaum stated that Mission Partnership was aware of the
desire
Mr. Fa stated he would like the Plann,,,u Commission to take some positive
action regarding reasonable visible screening along 36th Avenue, and pointed out
the unsightly wood fence and the unkempt area near it which can be seen from
35th Avenue North.
Public. Nearing was closed at: 9:00 p.m
MOTION was made by Commissioner Stewart supported by Commissioner Erickson that
the Planning Commission take action on the request of Lundgren Brothers Construction
Inc, for approval of Rezoning from R-Q to. R-1 of 26.2 + acres based on a General
Development Plan dated ,January 17 1975
PWRING COMNIISSION MEETING MINUTES 6 - February 12, 1978
MOTION CARRIED All in favor CARRIED
MOTION was made by Commissioner Stewart supported by Commissioner Erickson that'
the Planning Commission take action on the request olf Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc. for approval of a Preliminary Plat dated January 17, 1979, and a Conditional
Use Permit for a Subdivision Unit Project for "Mission Ridge",
POTION CARRIED All in favor CARRIED
MOTION was -made by Colmissioner Threinen supported by Commissioner Stewart that
the Planning Commission make the following recommendation to the City Council:
That the request of Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc. for the rezoning of26,2 + from R --O (Open Residential) to R -y1 (Single Family Residential) based, on
a GenFral Development ,Plan dater{ January 17, 1975 be approved,
MOTTON CARRIED All in favor CARRIED
MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen supported. by Commissioner Stewart that
the Planning Commission make the following recommendation to the City Council;
That the request of Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc. for approval of a
Preliminary Plat to be designated as "Mission Ridge" dated January 17, 1975 and
a Conditional Use Permit for a Subdivision Unit Project for this plat be approved,,
subect to the following conditions:
1 Lot 3, Block 2, bah revised to conform to Toning Ordinance requirements
relative to lot width at building se'tiaack.
2 The recommendations of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission be made
part of this recowgirzndation
3, The utilities, roads, and drainage recommendations of the City Engineer be
made a part of this recommendation
4 Street name changes be as follows Green Ridge Drive to Fverc een Lane;
Oak Hill Circle to 37th Avenue North; Birch Circle to 371,- Avenue North,
West Lane and Maple Circle to 38th Avenue North
a There be no construction on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, until East Medicine Lake
Boulevard is vacated and an easement be granted across those two Eats until
such time as Zachary Lane is constructed and 'East Medicine Lake Boulevard
is vacated
M07IOil CARID All iiA favor CARRIED
f
PLANNING OMISSION M5ETING MINUTES 7 - FFbruary 12, 1975
CoMissibners stated thes= actions were recommended by them on the assumptionthatthePreliminaryPlatof "Mission Ridge" was consistent with the overallConceptPlanapprovedbyCityCouncilonduly1., 1974.
Meeting was recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 V.-m.
A-148 AhL ill CKIjDR, AriiO U I.EUPfARD A-148 Site Pian "South Shore
Villa Apartments"
Staff presented the request to approve a site plan essentially the same and onthesamesiteashadbeenapprovedin1969, at which time the project contained96units. After the plan was approved in 1959., it was dropped by the petitioner.. It is now being presented by the same developer but with new ownership. In theinterim, zoning requirements have changed, which would allow only 55 units bycurrentstandards. Staff was concerned about the density problem and presentedanopinionfromCityAttorneyHerbert` efler. Mr. Lefler indicated building per- mits could not be issued based on City approval granted in 1959 unless the densityconformstocurrentstandardsoravariancewouldhavetobegranted. Petitioner's
letter in effect requests consideration of a variance to allow greater densityorthattheCityCouncilhonoritsearliercommitment. in view of the magnitudeofthedensityproblem, staff did not thoroughly check the plat itself with theotherrequirementsastheyMoulddonormally. Staff didnotethe foll'ovting itemswouldneedspecialconsideration:
I. Staff favors the site plan as now presented, whish , slightly rearranged fromtheoriginal,
2. Garages above grade are necessary due to the high water table in this area,
and staff would Favor granting a variance to allow this.
3. Comments from Bassett's Creek Flood Control Commission have not been receivedasyet, but they would be concerned only with runoff from this plat.
Commissioner Hagen requested permission to abstain because of a possible conflictofinterest. Permission was granted to permit him to act as moderator with no
voting privileges.
Dan Ralicki, 150 Peninsula Road, as petitioner, explained that in 1969 they hadpresenteTc `a site plan showing three buildings (twc1 36-units each and one 24-unit),,
which was approved, stamped and initialled by City Council. They have a carbonCOPYofthisplan. They applied for,paid for, and received building permits, but financial problems arose and they were unable to begin construction. Commissioner
Hagen verified that he had seen the plans with the City's, approval stamped on it
but could nOt verify that a Councilman's signature or initials were on that plan.
City Attorney Lefler had copies of the entire file when he offered his opinion.
PLNINING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES , 8 February 12, 1975
Discussion centered on evidence or lack of evidence in the records indicatingwhatwasapproved, Records make reference to approval of a site plan but not
specifically s4atfng the number of units. The original approved site plan was
not in the files. Staff acknowledged they had seen a copy of the W-Iding
plans with the City's Building Department stamp of Approval on it that had been
presented by petitioner.
The fol'lowi'ng points were brought out in the, discussion.
1 Since l4r. Lefler had copies of the file, his opinion probably would i Amain
the same as he did not question whether approval was granted but ratnOr
directed that a new variance would ti'ave to be granted by the, Council i-,F,they
chase to approve the plan in view of the changes in requirements -made by theCitysince196q
2 City Council's policy adopted April 21, 1972 reflects that development should
be timely. Ifthere were undue delays, any changes in the requirements made
by thy City would be applicable, Commissioners felt this policy applied inthisinstance
u. Me Ralicki confirmed that he and Capital Investment previously owned. the
site and now he and Dr. Leonard were fee owners. filo monies other than the
purchase by Dr. Leonard have been expended since 1969 untilnow.,
4. The changes in the new site plan were necessary to meet today's requirements
in the Building Code, such as the addition of elevators and additional garages.
S. Market today has also changed: In 1969 one building would be built and
filled before the next unit ,,as started. Today the market calls for more
dely-:n accommodations with amenities.
Welli .. al ,Law, 670 Pillsbury Building, attorney for petitioners, stated he haddiscus!edthis matter with Mr. Lefler and was under the impreission that Mr.
Lefler felt the request should be presented to the Council for clarification '),n
whether tbov would honor the approval of the 96 -units, and if they would honor such
approval, a variance would be needed. This was what petitioners were requestingatthistime.
Conclusion reached was that the main issue at present was the density problem,
which needed' to be solved before time and consideration should be spent on the
Site plan itself,
a.
MOTION' was Made by Commissioner Stewart supported by Commissioner Erickson that
the Planning Commission make the following_ recommendation to the City Council
That the rdquest of Daniel Ralicki/Dr., Arnold Leonard for approval of a Site Plan
of "South Shore Villa Apartments", approved by City Council April 28, 1959, be
denied because maximum density for tt;'s site should be no more than the ZoningOrdinanceallows, i.e. 55 apartment units,.
PLANINO COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - February 12, 1975
AMENDMENT was made by Commissioner Threinen supported by Comissioner Stewart
to add the fol lowIng
Should the Council decide that the 96 -unit density be allowed, the Planning
Commission requests the opportunity to marc fully evaluate the: Site Plan,
especially along the following issues;
I. Yards-:
Lot Coverage.;
Sa Enclosed parking;
4. Traffic problems on South Shore Drive
E. Drainage problems, if any,"
MENDMENT CARRIED (5..0_1) (Kam. issioner Hagen abstaining), CARRIED
MAIN MOTION CARRIED (.5-0-1) (Commissioner Hagen abstaining. CARRIED
Time suggestion was made to'the petitioner that wbcn he appears at the Council
meeting that he have with hist all of ,tis re.coras, especially the approved site
plan,
Old Business was concluded at 10;00 p.m.
REPORTS OF BOARDS, OFFICERS AND 'COMMITTEES
New Board ofZoning Adjustment
Because of an almost completely :new Board of Zoning Adjustment, Cotwissioner
Threinen asked that wthenever there was a work meeting on the new draft ZoningOrdinance, copies of the minutes be forwarded to members of tate Board of Zoring; Adjustment.
Staff stated they wii replanning to attend the next Board of Zoning Adjustment
Fleeting at which time they would go over the new draft. with the new Board and
also plan to submit written material for the Board's guidance and reference,
Metropol i tats Transit Cgmmoi ssi on
Commissioner Stewart stated' he met with Jim Johnson, Medicine Lake Lines, and
discussed some of the <problems,, He pointed out some ways Plymouth could helpasfollows
1x Developers could be encouraged to promote the availability of public transit
in their advertisements
2. Dedication for public transit on similar basis as park dedication could be
cot ,,,s x dared, either cash or land
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES A 10 February 1 1976
1. Plymouth could require provision for bus Shelters as a colidition for
approval (he cited a case in Bloomington where such a condition was
placed on approval of a site ,plan).
4. Developers or larger developments (such as apart.,;ent-. co 4d provide park-
ing areas and/or bus shelters within thein devei:gpment or assist in the
purchase of land on a street nearby. (Fox Meadows, have a waiting area
within thai,- building),
Discussion brought out the following;
1. One concern brought out as to who would mainfain °'rie shelters onco they
were built, to clean thear and keep the,1 in repair? If M.T.C. would main -
twin them, the shelters would have to be built to their stadu.rds and placed
where they demanded. Plymouth does not h-ve fhe right-of-way on which to
pit the bus stops.
The requirement of dedication for such an iss ,:y would require an act of the
State Legislature, unless it could fall under the category of "Parks and
Recreation"", which is the only category so designated as present.
34 If the. City acquires thru dedication and: land purchase the areas neeu,.ai for
Uh s shelters and park and ride lots, they could thereby influence where the
bus routes would be established.
4. Until the problen of who will provide mass transit service in.PlPlymouth hass
been settled, the issue of shelters and party and ride lots can not be re --
solved.
5, Medicine Lake Lines needs to do more education to l .ate public know where
their bus routes are located
6. Policy tc provide mass and rapid transit is listod in Plynouthls, "Goals,
Objectives and Criteria"", under "Section D. Goal,* Access, Objective #l,`
especially #3 under "Mass and, Rapid Transit", but the policy is not being
enforced,,
MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen supported by Commissioner Davenport to
make the following recommendation to the City Cou,cil:
That the Plymouth City Coutiril formulate a policy to implement the goal of '%F cess"
under "Mass and RapidTransit", as found on page 13 of Plyhnouth's "Goals, ObjectM
Ives and Criteria" in some manner that would enable the City to acquire sites fo,
shelters, bus stops, parking areas, etc. or funds as developments are made in keep-
ing with the six goals they have set forth
MOTION CARRIED All in favor CARRIED
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 12; 1916
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
Staff explained that. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission will begin working, on a system elan for the Neighborhood Park Segment of the Land Use Guide Plan.
Council authorized Staff to aYIsist in putting this system together. Council
also authorized the retention of'a consultant to do a complete Trails System
Plan and the expenditure of up to 2 000 on the plan,
Council also asked that the Planning Commission be in--olved in both efforts:;
Similar efforts will be following with 1'ommunity Parks Segment.. Eventually these
plans will be presented to the Penning Commission and then on to the Council
and thus they will have the same status as for example the Storm Dvainage Plan.
Commissioner Thre nen brought up the matter of the lack of coordinating memberbetweenPlanningCommissionandParksandRecreationAdvisoryCommission,
although a request for such was made a year ago,
MOTION was trade by Coniaission,r Stewart supported by Commissioner Erickson that
the Planning Commission take up the arra Iter of the appointment of an ad he
member to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission be made at the next
meeting
MOTION CARRIED All in favor CARRIED
The minutes for the Planning Commissi,\-, Meeting of Jar,tary 22, 11075 were presentedforapproval.
Commissioner Hagen questiciea the reference made to the comments of Chairman
Kroskin on page 1 of the minutes as he was absent erom the January -22nd meeting,. Staff related that these comments were given verbally to Staff prior to the
January 22nd Meeting and relayed by Staff to the Planning Commission during the
meeting
Commissioner Erickson asked if -he statements made in the first paragraph on
page 1 were the results: of questions asked or concerns expressed. Staff explained
that, in drafting of the minutes, an attempt was being made to relate question
With the answer in the same sentercp- for brevity, omitting reference as to whobroughtupthequestion,.
Commissioner' Stewart surgosted some points Were being left out but had no specific
point in mind as far as the minutes of the January 22nd meeting was concerned.
He recalled such an occLirrence with "Greentree West" petition, which has previouslybeencorrected, Staff assured him they would be more diligent in the future.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Stewart supported by Commissioner Erickson that
the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 223 1975 be accepted
as presented;,
MOTION CARRIED All in favor CARRIED
PLANNING C0141ISSION.. MEETING MINUTES February 12, 1976
The next, Hanning Commission Meeting will be held Wednesday, February 19th, tobriagthemeetingsbackonscheduleagain,
MOTION was made by Commissioner Erickson supported by Commissioner Schneid€" that
the meeting he adjourned.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION March 5, 1975
Reg Kroskin, Chairman
P1 outh Fl
anng-
n Co,mass " n
Charles E. Di'ieruct, Secretary