HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 03-03-1976PLANNIK COMMISSION
CITY OF PLYMOUTHS MINNESOTA
March 3, 1976"
A regular meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was called to order by
Acting Chairman Hagen at 7:30 p.m, at the Council Chambers of -the Public
Works Building, 14900 -23rd Avenue North
MEMBERS PRESENT Acting Chairman Hagen, Commissioners Erickson,, Davenport,
Schneider and Threinen
MEMBERS ABSENT. Chairman Kroskin (111) and Commissioner Stewart (I11)
STAFF PRESENT Charles Dilleruct, Milt Dale, Randy Thoreson & Kate Marx
OTHERS PRESENT: Gerry Neils, City Council Representative to Planning
Commission Tom Vettel, YAAC Representative
A-338 Mission PartnershiL P-338 Revised RPUD Concept
Plan
Staff reviewed the lengthy history behind the, present request and the reasons
for the proposed revised concept plan for the -Mission Partnership RPUD. A major portion of the site, i.e. 160 acres, has been acquired by the Hennepin
County Park Reserve District thereby removing these lands from residential'
Planning purposes. This has caused two significant changes: 1) The previously
integrated plan has now been divided by the County's purchase: leaving a small
parcel at the southwest corner of the proposed park and a larger parcel at
the northeast corner of the proposed park; 2) Previously, there had been density
transfer considerations involving the land that has been acquired by tt,e
Hennepin County Park Reserve District.
The land use of the: present RPUD proposal reflected 1974 approved plans basically.
The, geographic arrangement and density remains much as it did in 1974. There
has been, however, deletion of the commercial area (JI and J2) due to the
major reduction in the nimber of residences proposed far the development.
Staff they,, reviewed the concept plan as now proposed. The major question at
this point was that of the density to be allowed for the remaining parcel's
of land subsequent to the Hennepin County Park. Reserve District purchase.
Staff indicated that the land Use Guide Plan dictated a .range between 640
and 823 units for the entire remaining portions of the project. The Com-
mission was referred to the Staff report of February 27, 1976 for a detailed
history and discussion of density for the project.
Staff' recommended approval of the revised concept plan subject to the six
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -2- March 3, 1976
conditions as listed in the Staff report of February 27, 1976.
Commissioner Erickson questioned the relationship of the southwest portion
of the RPUD (Area 11) as to its relationship to County Road 61, Staff
explained that the final alignment of County Road 61 had not yep: been decided;
and the present proposed arrangement was shown with the likely alignment of
the road drawn in. The Commiss'on will be discussion the alignment of County
Road 61 in the near future. After that time, the final alignment for the
portion of the road affecting the Mission Partnership RPUD will be de» !ed
upon and the plat would have to be adiltsted accordingly,
Mr. Roder Clemens, consultant for petitioner, reviewed. the RPUD concept
man as revised. "
Commissioner Threinen questioned petitioner as to what percentage of the total'
number, of units built were contemplated for loser and moderate income housingMr. Clemens responded that it would be approximately 209. Commissioner Threinen
further asked if this housing would be concentratedin one area or mixed
throughout the project. Mr. Clemens responded that there would be one concentra-
tion of housing for the elderly in area dl. The rest would be mixed within
the remainder of the development,
Acting Chairman Hagen asked petitioner if it was not required that in the case
of housing for the elderly some type of commercial area be within walking: distance, in which case it may not be wise to totally eliminate the commercial
area proposed in, 1974. Petitioner responded that many times high-rises
for the elderly have commercial operations located on the lower floors of
the building. Also, it is their feeling that the proximity to County Road 9
and other commercial establishments and a bus line is such that this would
not pose a problem,.
The Commission then discussed the density to be allowed for the project and
whether or not to grant a bonus for the low and moderate income housing.
He stated' that this would allow the developer, in this case, a density of
940.945 units, for the total project.
Commissioner Erickson stated that he felt if the Coirimission would: go over
that maximum, there would be overloading of the Guido Plan overall.
Coimissioner Schneider stated that the park proposed by Hennepin County would
also be an intense use, even though it would not be used fur residential
developmL % --
MOTION was made by Commissioner' Threinen suppoIted by Commissioner Erickson
that the Planning Commission make the following recommendation to the City
Council;
That the request of Mission Partnership for approval of their submitted
concept plan of an RPUD of March 3, 1976 be approved and that the
Petitioner be directed as follows.
1. That area designated Alb and that area designated J2 be brought
into con--%rmance with the hand Use Guide Plan. Further, that
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -3- March 3, 1976
Area Jl be designated for housing for the elderly.
2. No LA -2 density be allowed south and oast of County Road 61's
alignment as it goes through Area II (west portion of the RPUD).
3. The street. circulation system be redesigned in Area 11 and the
alignment of County Road 61 follow the more easterly alternative.
4. A density of 940-945 dwelling units for the entire project be
e6tablished, ba6ed on the subsidized housing listed in the chart
submittedby petitioner (page 13 of the Staff report of February 27,
1976), specifically that area J1 include 103 housing units for the
elderly. Additional: subsidized housing (14 units minimum) in
other areas to correspond to said chart. The result would be a
density credit of approximately 10%1 beyond the Guide Plan, provided
these additional units be in low and moderate income housing only.
S. That all ponding areas as requir d by the City Storm Drainage Plan
be shown on the preliminary plat,
Commissioner Schneider questioned whether City policy specifically stated
that exceeding the Guide Plan assigned densities was allowable. Commissioner
Threinen stated that policy statements recorm4ended such actions in situat4,ons
where it would be appropriate. Commissioner Threinen indicated that he felt
it would be appropriate in this case.
MOTION CARRIED (4-1-0) (Commissioner Schneider against) MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Schneider stated that he voted against the motion on the grounds
that the approved density for the project would exceed the Guide Plan densities.
He further stated that he did not feel there was any reason to treat this
project as an exception.
Councilman Neils indicated that it may not be appropriate to associate specific
density credit mechanics found elsewhere in the existing Zoning Ordinance
with RPUD density considerations. The RPUD density considerations relate.
directly to Guide Plan ranges that were adopted subsequent to and therefore
not contemplated by, other sections of the existing Zoning Ordinance that
speak to specific density credits. He further noted t}..,.. the PUD ordinance
that we have states that approvals at the Concept Plan stage are not parti-
cularly binding on the City. There is an expected performar a that comes along
with that.
Acting Chairman Hagen declared a five-minute recess at 9;35 p.m.
PLAN INq COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -4- March 3, 197
Acting Chairman Hagen called the meeting back to order at 9<40 p.,m,
Commissioner Erickson left the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
I
A- 2 &2 t & 0 Motors A-652 Conditional Use Permit
Petitioner was not present to represent his request.
110TION was made by Commissioner Threinen supported by Commissioner Schneider
fiction on this item be deferred until such time as petitioner could be
preset to represent; his request.
MOTION CARRIED (4-0-0) (All in favor) MOTION CARRIED
AA-M,McCormick A-658 Lot Division
Petitioner was -tint present to represent his request.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Davenport supported by Commissioner Threinen
that action on tti:r item be deferred until such time as petitioner could be
present to repress," his request.
MOTION CARRIED (4-0-0) (All in favor) MOTION CARRIED
REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND CWMISSIONS
promo used New Zoning Ordinance --Review of Final Draft
Staff reviewed with the Commissioners change in the proposed Zoning Ordinance
that were: suggested as a result of the Connission's joint meeting with the
City Council on February 2, 197. They were as follow
1 Provision for a convenience grocery store xn residential districts.
2 Reduction in the time required to, process an RPUD to be more consistent
with conventional platting procedures
Staff was also directed to look into the potential "legal r; sk" of rezoning
certain areas of the City to correspond with the Guide Plan,
W*
PLANNING CO3MMISSIOR KETM MINUTES -5- Burch 3, 1970
Minutes of the Pl_annUg Commission Meetin5 of February 18 1976
Commissioner Davenport stated that, the motion made an the Walter Strand herr;
A-645) iter #3 was to include a 50-day time period. It would then read,.
Deletion of the westerly most service drive within 60 days."
MOTION' was made by Commissioner Davenport supported by Acting Chairman Hagen
that the minutes, of the February 18, 1975 Planning Commission meeting be
approvedd as corrected.
MOTION CARRIED (4-0-0) (All in favor) MOTION CARRIED
MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen supported by Cornnissioner Davenport
that the meeting be adjou.*ned;
Acting Chairman Hagen adjourned the meeting at 1.0:05 p.m,
APPROVED BY PLANNING CC+1MISSION _ March 17, 1976
Reg Kroskin, Chairman:
Plymouth Planning Commission
Charles E. Diller? d, Secretary