HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 02-18-1976PLANNING COMMISSION'
CITY OE PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA
February 18, 1976
A regular, meeting of the Plymouth Planning_ Commission was called to order by
Chairman Kroskin at 7,30 p.m, at the Council Chambers of the Public Works
Building, 14900 .. 23rd Avenue North.
MEMBERS PREF, Chairman Kroskin1 Commissioners Erickson, Davenport,
SchneidEr, Threineni, Hagen and Stewart
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESrIRTz Charles Dillerud, Milt Dale, Randy Thoreson and Kate €4arx
Chairman Kroskin opened the public hearing at 7.30 p.m.
A-647S~h-t idt Lake Estates A-647 Rezoning
Staff presented petitioner's request for rezoning of property located at the
northwest corner of Schmidt Lake from R -O to R -i. The request would be
consistent with the Land Use Guide Plan.
Chairman Kroskin opened the public hearing to questions from the audience. Mrs.:
Ahlers, 4730 Larch Lane, questioned whether there was a limit as far as lot size
for the development. She stated that she was under the impression that all lots
had to be 18,500 sq, ft. Planner Dillerud explained to Mrs. Ahlers that because
of the particuiar type of development Lundgr-n Bros. were requesting, i.e.:
Subdivision Unit Project, the lots could be si,*,after in actual size, however, the
developer is required to set as?de a certain amount of land for public open space.
In the case of Schmidt Lake Estates, park acreage has been set aside to be
maintained by the Homeowner's Association for such purposes.
Chairman Kroskin closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m,
MOTION was made by Commissioner Hagen supported by Commissioner Stewart, that
the Commiss'on act on rezoning request for Schmidt take Estates at this meeting.
MOTION CARRIED (6_0-0) (All in favor) MOTION CARRIED
A-323 Wallace E. Freeman A-323 Site Plan
Staff presented petitioner's request for site plan approval of an apartment
complex totaling 240 units on 21+ acres located at the southwest corner of
Highway 55 and County Road: 18. It teas noted that the: Plymouth Village Council
approved the General Development Plan April 17, 1972. At that time, the General
Development Pian was approved to include the adjacent B-1 and B-2 zones.
Petitioner's request, at this time, was only for the R-4 portion of the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -2- February 18, 1975
Staff noted that the proposed site plan did meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Staff presented several concerns with respect to the site as listed in the Staff
report ofFebruary 13, 1976.
A recommendation for approval was proposed by Staff subject to eleven conaitions
as listed in the Staff report of February 1.3, 1976,
Commissioner Hagen questioned petitioner as to the height of the units. Frank
Burg, petitioner's engineer, responded that the buildings would. be 3.2 feet above
the ground.,
Commissioner Stewart asked petitioner what the distance was from the north end of
the site to the exit on Highway 55. Mr. Burg responded that it was slightly
greater than 300 feet from the exit,
Commissioner Threinen questioned petitioner as to the reason for the change in
location of the bWdin' s from that proposed in1977.. Mr Burg responded that
the location was changed responsive to the soil conditions on the site. There
were problems with the peat content and depth within the site. This location
was chosen :as the least; problematic in terms of building the units. Commissioner
Threinen questioned whether soil unsuitable for apartment buildings would be
any more suitable for the businesses to be located east of the site. Mr. Burg
indicated that the type of building proposed may or may not pose problems with
the soil conditions in the B-1 area.
Commissioner Threinen stated further that the traffic to be generated from the
site would be emptying onto Highway 55 at an unsignalized intersection. He
questioned Staff as to whether any plans had been proposed for the signalization
of the intersection. Staff stated that there were no such plans at this time.
Commissioner Hagen questioned Mr. Burg with respect to the difference in grade
between Quaker Lane and the site.. Mr. Burg responded that the grade of the site
would be 92.9 ft. while the grcde at Quaker Lane was approximately 914 ft.
Chairman Kroskin questioned Mr. Burg as to the previously approved distance
Between the buildings and the abutting R-1 district. Mr Ourg responded that
the distance varied from 130 ft., to 460 ft.
Mr. Burg then presented more detailed development plans for the site including
explanations of the ponding requirements, grade preparation, etc
Chairritan Kroskin questioned petitioner with respect to the placement of the
buildings on the lot. Mr. Burg responded that this parricular placemc,st of the
buildings presented the least cost in terms of sub -grade preparation. Chairman
Kroskin asked if the ,possibility of pile driving had been considered. Mr. Burg
responded that it had been considered, however, the difference in economics of the
alternative were approximately $25,000.
Fr. Burg ,.ontinued with his presentation of the proposed apartments, including
utilities to be available and used, landscape treatment, etc.
Mr, c=rank Reese, Reese -Rona Architects, detailed the design of the units
particularly with respect to outer appearances, soundproofina and the size of
various units.
PLANNING, C01141JST64 144 TING MINUTLS -3- Fehruary 18 1976
CoMissionew Davenport: questioned Mr. Burg with respect to the time schedule
for completion of the units. M,,. Burg responded that there were hopes to
have tr,onstruction, begun by fall of this year. Financing would be approveu
for tine second phase at such time as 60% of thefirst phase units would be
rented.
Chairman Kroskin asked Mr. Burg how the new plans he was presenting were of
more benefit to the people of Plymouth than the previous plans approved in 1972, Mr, Burg responded that the new plans provided for lower rental, costs due to the
lower initial cost of preparing the, ground. Also, the site would be providing a
viable storage capacity for the Basset Creek Flood Plain,
Chairman Kroskin questioned: Mr., Burg with respect to the ocat- on of `he parking. Mr. Burg responded that the parking 'would be on the interior of the site, as far
as possible from the adjoining R-1 d°;strict,
Chairman Kroskin opened the public hearing to questions from members of the
audience.
Staff presented two written statements to the Commission, one from 'two property
owners in the adjacent R-1 district and one from the City of Golden Valle;'.
The letter From private citizens Dennis Herkal and Steve Walker stated that they
felt the proposed buffet area between the apartments and Choir ,homes was
inadequate and not acceptable. The z +rtments were too close, the berms and
creeping not high enough and there w,s not adequate privacy control
The City of Golden Valley stated the following three concerns
1.) Overload of traffic resulting from the proposed d YJopment
2.) The development proposed for the remainfi.4 acreage kB-1 and B-2
zones adjacent tc the site) and
3.) Maintenance of the existing flood storage.
Mr. Dennis Herkal, 210 Quaker Lane stated that he did not feel the berming wouldbeadequate. He further stated that he and ;.Yost of the other property owners in
the area had walk -out basements and were already hating problems with water in
their back yards, He wanted to know if the apartment complex would create anyfurt"rr problems in this respect:.
Mr. Burg responded that this project would ncL' create any further drainage
problems but could possibly alleviate some of them.
Mr. Dennis LgDgren, 235 Quaker Lane stated that he felt the transition was not
adequate between the R-1 and R-4 areas, The berming would not be sufficient.
He further stated that he felt there was,a severe problem with the Highway 55
intersection at this time and that the apartment units would only magnify the
problem. Mr. Longren also stated that the height of the buildings was
inconsistent with the height of the other biildings in the area.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 4-- February 18, 1976
Mr. Mike Miles, Shelard Companies, stated that his company was concerned with the
naming of the street. the intention was that Shelard Parkway be a Loop street
rather than continue into Plymouth. He further stated that the street name
should be Nathan Lane as proposed by Staff
Mr. dim Touvey, owner of Brown's market, asked the Commission 11 any plans had
been made to take care of the problem of traffic in this area, Staff responded
that there were plans to aid the traffic situation, one of which was to close
the entrance to Highway 55 at this location and route tr-ffic to the lighted
intersection at So th Shore Drive. Another potential solution was to upgrade
and re-route Count, Road 73. tone of these plans had received approval at this
time. Staff further stated that Hennepin County had just completed a study of
the entire West Hennepin area with respect to traffic. No action hal been
taken on that plan at *.w s time,
Mr . Steve tialker, 220 Quaker Lane, stated that the 'type of tree proposed to be
planted at the top of tl`e-: t,erm wwculd lose its leaves during the fall and the
cover would be virtually lost, for the greater part of the year, He suggested
some type of pine or evergreen tree would be more appropriate for the tree
cover on the berm;
Commissioner Threinen stated that the first time this proposal had been before
the r>immission, the problem of water in the underground parking stalls had been
discussed. He questioned Mr. Burg as to whether this problem had been considered
and solved for this proposal
Mr. Burg stated that; by use of extensive granular fill, the problem would be
taken care of.
Chair-4an Kroskin closed the public hearing at 8:50 p.m,
Cor.,zsioner Erickson arrived at 84-50 p.m.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Schneider supported by Commissioner Davenport
that the Planning Commission act, on th~s petition at this meeting,
MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1) (Commissioner Threinen against, Commissioner Erickson
abstained.) MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Threinen stated that there had been a substantial change in the
General Development Plan approved in 1972 in comparison to this, plan. He
further stated that under the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, Section 17, Subdivision
3, the zoning was granted based on a General Development Plan. With a change
in this plan he stated that he was concerned what the change would be to the
B-1 and B-2 areas to the east. Commissioner Threinen stated that he would
prefer to see the entire General Development Plan prior to acting on the proposal.
Chairman Kroskin declared a five-minute recess at 5.0o p.m.
Chairman Kroskin called the meeting back to order <:A` 9,05 p.m
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 5_ February l8, 1976
Commissioner Hagen absented himself from discussion and ac•zion on the followingIteal
A-09 Eugene Hickok A-"609 Preliminary Plat
and' Rezoning of
Bass Lake Highlands
Staff presented petitioner's request for preliminary pkat approval and rezoning
Of 35.12 acres for 56 single family detached dwellings at the southeast corner
of Pineview Cane, and County Road 47'' :pan as Bass Lake Highlands. The plat
was denied previously based on a lack -f public utilities at the site.
Staff recommended approval of the plat and rezoning subject to several conditions
as stated in the Staff report of February 12, 1976,
Commissioner Stewart asked S,—ff where the closest recreation area would' be for
the neighborhood, considering the fact that there is no park proposed within
the plat.. Staff responded that the Neighborhood, Park plan did not call for a
park in this location. Also the Timber Shores park is in the area and. 'Hennepin
County is proposing a multi-purpose trail adjacent to the proposed plat.
I
Commissioner Threinen questioned whether there had been a final alignment decided
upon for County Road 6.1. Staff responded that the staffs of the communities
involved :had all agreed upon an alignment; however, public hearings had not yet
been held' in any of the communities. It was further stated that this issue would
be coming before the Commission in the near future.
Bruce Thompson, attorney for the petitioner responded to each of the seven points
listed in the Staff report indicating that compliance would not be a problem with
any of the requests.
Commissioner Schneider questioned petitioner with respect to the lots fronting
on the lake. It is required that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) approve
fill' for any lots in locations such as these. \,ommissioner Schneider questioned
whether petitioner had received such approval Mr, Thompson stated that they had
spoken with the DNR on this issue and that DNR was in the process of writing a.
letter indicating that fill would be permitted. Staff would be receiving a copy
of this letfer for their files.
Chairman Kro kin opened the public hearing to questions from the audience.
Mr. John P'ippson, 5905 Jonquil Lane, president ofthe Shorewood Homeowners
Association siated that his association was still concerned with the traffic
situation for the site. Their desire was to keep as little traffic from the
proposed development going through the present development (Shorewood Hills)
as possible.
Mrs. Hoppheim, 5890 Kirkwood lane, asked if there had been consideration of
another access to the major thoroughfares from the west side of the property.
C"nmmissioner ahreinen responded that the County Road 47/Pineview intersection
as proposed, would be Far too dangerous to have two access points from the
project to Pineview so close together.
Mrs. Hoppheim also asked petitioner what consideration would be given to the
existing hills and trees in the area proposed for development. Mr. Hickok
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN8 MINUTES -6- Febru,,.ry 13, 1976'
responded that the minimum of earth and, trees would be moved in the development
of the _property.
Ir. Boyer Palmer, 5700 Oakview Lane, stated that he felt there would be a
severe traffic problem created at the northeast corner of the site as the plat
reached full development. He stated also that he felt the parks would be too
far away ;nor the children of the development if a park was not provided in this
particular development, Chairman Kroskin pointed out to Mr. Boyer where the
Neighborhood Park System Pian would be building; a park as well as the Pannepin
County Multi-purpose trail to be located near the development Mr. Falmer also
questioned the alignment of County Road 61. Staff i,xplained the proposed
alignment.
rh'iirman Kroskin closed the public hearing at 9;50 p.m.
MOTION was made by Commiss oner,Davenport supported by Commissioner rhreinen
that the Planning Commission act on this petition at this meeting.
MOTION CARRIED (6-0_1) (Coromi'ssioner Hagen abstained) MOTION CARRIED
A-6417 Schmidt Lake Estates A-647 Rezoning
MOTIUN ,gas made by Commissioner Stewart supported by Commissioner Hagen that
the Planting Commission make the following recommendation to the Cite Council:.
a that the request of Lundgren Bros. Construction Inc. for rezoning
of the property known as Schmidt Lake Estates from R -O to R--1 be
approved.
MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1) (Commissioner Erickson abstained) MOTION CARRIED
A-323 Wallace E. Freeman A-32: Site Plan
MOTION was made by Cow-missioner Threinen supported by Commissioner Schneider
that the Planning Commission defer action on the request for site plan approval
for Willow Creek until such time as a revised General; Development Plan is
presented to thµ. Con0ission which answers the questions as to what will be done
with the remainder of the property, more specifically, the B-1 and B-2 areas as
well as. the pote.1tial for repositioning the apartment buildings on tete site
Commissioner Threinen stated" his reasons for the motion as follows:
1.) As Goal A, Objective 3, Criteria 7 of the Coals, ObJectives and
Criteria document, the burden of transition between ,zonings shalletheresponsibilityofthedeveloperoftheland. He stated
that he did not feel the developer had fulfilled this responsibility.
2.) Section 17, Subdivision 3, paragraph 4 provides that the General
Development Plan shall be a part of the rezoning action, Commissioner
i
M
E:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 7- February 18, 1976
Threinen maintained that since the General Development Plan had;
been changed, then the rezoning is subject to question.
3.) As per Goal O; Objective 1, Criteria s of Goals Objectives and
Criteria document, direct connectionof collector streets in
a jjacent neighborhoods to discourage through traffic should be
avoided, this project as proposed presents a major access: and
traffic problem to the surrounding area which requires solution.
The Commission then discussed the motion in detail and the following vote resulted,
MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1) (Commissioner Erickson abstained) MOTION CARRIED
114,01710N was made by Commissioner Hagen supporte( y Commissioner Schneider that
the surrounding property owners be notified again when this item comes back to
the Planning Commission.
MOTION CARRIED (7-0-0) (All in favor) MOTION CARRIED
A-609 bene Hickok A-6090 Preliminary Plat
and Rezoning of
Bass Lake Highlands
The Commission discussed the traffic situations at the northwest and northeast
corners of the site.
MOTION was glide by Commissioner Stewart supported by Commissioner Erickson that
the Planning Commission make the following recommendation to the City Council,
That the rezoning of ;35.142 ` acres commonly termed '"Bass Lake Highlands"
from R -O (Open Residence to R-1.(Single Family Residence) be approved.
MOTION CARRIED (6-0.1) (Commissioner Hagen abstained) MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Kroskin questioned Staff as to whether it was necessary that Outlot 1
be left as an outlot rather than made a part of the adjacent lots. Staff
responded that this outlot would be ;used for purposes of the: proposed CountyRoad61right-of-way,
MOTION was made by Commissioner Stewart, supported by Commissioner Erickson that
the Planning Commission make the following recommendation to the City Council.
That the preliminary plat for "Bass Lake Highlands" for 56 lots and
one outlot on 35.12- acres be approved based on the following conditions::
1.) Lots 2 3, 5, 61 10, 12 and 14 of Block 2 .be adjusted to equal
a minimuin of 18,500 sq. ft.
2.) Petitioner :pay a Park Dedication Fee equalling $8,400 payable
to the City of Plymouth at the time the development contract
is drawn,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES _g- February 18, 1976
3,) Street names to correspond to the City street naming > system.,
Engineer's recommenda-ions for drainage and utility easements
be included in the final plat.
S•.) No building permits be issued until public sewer and water
is available to the site,
6.) No fill in Lots 1, ;! 3, 4 1P., 19, 20 or 21, Block 3 be
allowed prior to DNR and City a, proval. (These lots are
fronting on the lake with a high waiver mark of 906.2 ft.,,)
7,.) Outlot 1 be deeded to the City for County Road 61 right-of-
way purposes.
MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1) (Commissioner Hagen abstained) MOTION CAPPIF0
A-302' Wil m Oadtke A-302 Conditional Use 'Permit
and Site Pan
Staff presented petitioner's request for a conditional use permit and site plan
approval for a car trash at the northeast corner of Kilmer Lane and 36th Avenue
North.
Staff recommended approval of the request subject to the seven conditions as
listed in the Staff report of February 12 1976,
Commissioner Stewart questioned the calculations as to the number of cars
petitioner could possibly stack on the site at any one time; Mr. Gadtke
responded that he felt 15 cars could be stacked at any one time.
Commissioner Stewart askedpetitioner if he would have overhead doors.
Petitioner responded that he would.
Commissioner Threiren asked petitioner if this would be an all -,weather car
wash. Petitioner responded that it would be. It would be a concrete building.
Commissioner Threinen questioned petitioner with respect to storage on the
site. Petitioner responded that during the operating hours, litter barrels
would be available outs7de of the building; at. night the barrels would' be
placed in a storage arca and locked inside of the building.
Commissioner Threinen stat..J that he felt this use would better serve the
surrounding neighborhood t -.n the previously requested used car lot at this
location;.
The Commission discussed the tential hazard of the use in torms of traffic.
Commissioner~ Erickson expressed °oncern over the small amount of space available
to the site for this use. He stz"'ed that he felt the site was more. suitable
wo a use with less traffic.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN& MINUT:Fs February 18, 1976
MOTION was made by Commissioner Stewart supported by Chairman Kroskin that the
Planning Commission make the following recommendation to the City Council:
That the request of William Gadtke for a conditional use permit for
a car wash and a site plan for same at the northeast corner of Kilmer
Lane and 35th Avenue Nort.b be approved subject to the following
condi trans i
1,) A redraft of property lines to accommodate all of the car
wash on one lot ;or a lot consolidation providing for three
buildings on one lot,
2.) A variance of 20 ft. be granted for the front yard setbacks
from Kilmer Lane and 35th Avenue North,
3z) Approval of the water drain system by the City Building
Department and City Engineer prior to building permit
approval
4,) A redesign of the litter barrels to incorporate 4`^gip items
into or attached to the building.
5.) All traffic movement to be as proposed on the site plan, i.e.
in-traffic from 35th Avenue North and exiting traffic onto
Kilmer Lane
6.) A landscape and blacktop/paving bond to be provided by
petitioner to ensure satisfactory completion of work as per
the adopted site plan.
1',) Signs: to be, limited to ordinance reg0 rements, i.e. area of
210 sq. ft. on the building_ facade and one exit and one entrance
sign not to exceed four sq. ftp
0,) Nko outside: storage be allowed, other than as allowed in condition,
number 4.) above.
Commissioner Threinen stated that the easterly street had already been posted
for no parking and questioned whether it would be possible to have the north
side of that 'intersection also posters for no parking. Staff responded that it
should not be a problem.
MOTIONTO AMEND was made by C=i issioner Threinen supported by Commissioner
Hagen to add a condition number 9.) to read as follows* "Bequest be made to
the City Engineer for the posting of "no parking" signs on the north side of
35th Avenue North.„
OTIOR TO AMEND CARRIED (7-0-0) (All in favor) MOTION! TO AMEND CARRIED
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MIN1JTES - l0- Febura ^y 18, 1976
MOTION TO AMEND was made by Commissioner Hagen supported by Commissioner Davenport
that a condition number 10.) be added to read as follows "Conditional Use Permit
to be renewed after one year."
MOTION; TO AMEND CARRIED (6-1-0) (Commissioner Erickson against)
MOTION r0 AMEND CARRIED
The Commission then voted on the main motion as twice amended,
MOTION CARRIED (6-1-0) (Co issioner Erickson against) MOTION CARRIED
Commissioners Erickson stated that he was against approval because he felt the j
size of the site was too small for the proposed use.
A-650 Arthur BaldwT Conditional Use Permit
Petitioner was not present to represent his request..
MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen supported by Commissioner Erickson that
the item be deferred until such 'time as petitioner could be present to represent
his request,
MOTTO! CARRIED (7--0-0) (All in favor) MOTION CARRIED
A-651 Richard Heinen A-651 Conditional Use Permit
Staff presented petitioner's request to operate a beauty shop in the basement
of his home at 13425 1st Avenue North. Staff recommended approval subject
to the conditions as listed in the Staff report of February 1'2y 1976.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Schneider supported by Commissioner Stewart that
the Planning Commission make the following recommendation to the City Council:
That the request- of Richard Heinen for a conditional use permit to
operate a beauty shop in his home at 13425 -- lst Avenue North be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1.) No signs
2.) No operators other than the immediate family,
3.) Annual renewal of permit.
4.) No on-street parking be allowed for the use.
MOTION CARRIED (7-0i0) (All in favor) MOTION CARRIED
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 18, 1976
A 450 iTravel Agency A-457 Conditional Use Permit
Staff presented petitioner`s request for a conditional use permit to operate a
travel agency in a B-1 (Limited Business District) zone. Staff' recommended
denial of the permit based' on the following three conditions.
1.) The 8r1 district is intended primarily for office uses. Travel
agents often have significant public contact.
2.) Present parking is already limited for the building in which
petitioner wishes to locate. A travel agency would only increase
this. problem.
3.) The present B-2 Shopping Center District is intended by design
for this more active public contact use.
Mr. Wright Wailince, attorney for petitioner, stated that the type of travel
agency intended by Omni Travel was one dealing strictly with commercial accounts.
Their bt,,,siness is not one where they are looking ° to attract the people off the
street to walls in and plan a trip. Over 95% of the business conducted byOmniTravelAgencyisdoneoverthephoneorbythemails.: In this regard, it
was petitioner's contention that a B-1 district would be most appropriate for
the use they intended. There would be no additional parking problems created. Only three, and eventually five employees would be involved as far as parkingcarsinthelot.
Commissioner Davenport asked petitioner if this was a merchandising use. GeneralManager, Mr. Rodeman, stated that it was not. It was opey'ated rauch like an
insurance agency several of which are located in the building in which the
petitioner would like to locate
Mr. Rodemain furhter statedd, that it was their intention to close out their operationsinSt. Paul, which is in a street -front location, to move into an office building
to avoid as much.public contact as possible inorder to enhance the phone and
mailing operations of the business which in their case is more profitable. Their
operations are such that a single person or family planning a trip presents no
profit gain and often a loss in terms of time spent with the people. They prefertodeal` strictly with commercial accounts.
The Commission discus„ed the use in detai'l's
MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen supported by Commissioner Stewart that the
Planning toirmission make the following recowna3ndation to the City Council:
That the request of Omni Travel Agency for a conditional use permit
to operate a travel agency in a B-1 district be granted under Section11, Subdivision 5, item 10, i.e. "A merchandising or merchandising
service which is incidental or accessory to the primary use of the
particular property"
MOTION CARRIED (5-1--0) (Chairman Kroskin against) MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Kroskin stated that he felt the use way more appropriate for a B-2
zoning district; therefore he voted against
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 18, 1976
45 Walter Strand A:T45 Conditional Use Permit
Staff presented petitioner's request; for a conditional use permit to operate
a truck and trai`lor rental service at his`5ervice station located at the
northwest corner of Highway 101 and County Road 6,
Commissioners expressed .concern over the 'Fact that petitioner had been operating
the truer/trailer rental service illegally over the past 3 to 4 years; the fact
that pet"tioner delayed so long in responding to Staff's request that he applyforapermittobeoperatinglegallyw;thin the Zoning Ordinance; and that the
site is seemingly over capacitized,
Commis4ioner Davenport suggested several items he felt would be appropriate in
order to bring tl;e site up to code, i.e. restricting parking on thea site, a
landscape bond witb a 120 day term to cover the revised landscaping, deletion
of the westerly most drive within 60 days, and that the conditional use permit
be renewed for comp" w=:;ce to these items after C months.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Davenport supported by Commissioner Hagen that
the Planning Commission make the following recommendation to the City Council':
That the request of Walter Strand for a conditional use permit
to operate a truck7trailor rental service at 1525 North Highway 101
be approv..d subject to the following conditions
1.i Parking of rental equipment be restricted to designated
areas as shown on the site plan dated February 6, 1976;
whereby stcrage numbers Mould not exceed `V'G rental
vehicles.
2..) Total numbers of existing transplanted and. new plantings
of trees not to be less than that shown on the site plan
dated February 6, 1976 and t"rat a bond be posted with a
120 day term to assure compliance.
3.) Delet on of the Westerly most service drive,'
a.) Setbacks maintained.
5) Permit be renewed six months after Council approval'.
MOTION TO AMEND was made by Commissioner Stewart supported by Commissioner Hagen
than a condition number 6.) be added to read as follows: "All parking areas becoveredwithadust -free surface".
MOTION TO AMEND CARRIEP (7-0-0) (All in favor) MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
The Commission then voted on the main motion as amended.
MOTION CARRIED (7-0-0) (All in favor) M011*10N CARRIED
PLANNING C01,1MISSION MEETING MINUTES -13= February 18, 1976
REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Planner Dillerud reported on progress to date or the Oowniown Plymouth project,
Chairman Kroskin commended the Commissioners on their presentations to the City
Council at their joint meeting of February , 1976.
Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 4, 1976
MOTION kvas trade by Commissioner Schneider supported by Commissioner Hagen that
the minutes of the February 4, 1976 Planning Commission meeting be approved as
written,
MOTION CARRIED (7-0%0) (All in favor) MOTION CARRIED
MOTION was made V Commissioner Stewart supported by Commissioner ,,Erickson that
the meeting be adjourned.
Chairman Kros ki n ad„iourned the: meeting at 11:35 p.m.
APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSCiN March 3 1976.
Reg Kroskin, Chairman
Plymouth Planning Commission
x
Charles E. Dillerud Secretary