HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 11-01-1978PLANNING COMmiss ON
CITY OF PLYMOUTH r
November 1, 1978
A regular meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was called to order by ChairmanDavenportat7:,35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Public Works Building, 14900 - 23rd Ave. No:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Davenport, Commissioners Schneider, Threi nen, Vas i l i ou, Erickson, Barron and Wire
STAFF PRESENT: Blair Tremere and Mildred Jansen
A-85'6 McCombs -Knutson Associates for Guide Plan Amendment/Rezoning/ SJH Industrial Park Preliminary Plat
The Secretary introduced the item reviewing the Staff Report dated October 30, 1973forthe40-a'cre property at the southeast quadrant of Xenium Lane and Plymouth Creek, The Secretary clarified the Staff Report by exp-laining that the General Flood PlainDistrict (GFP), which involves the north and east ,portion of the site, is an overlaydistricttowhateverzoningisestablishedforexplainedrtheproperty. .: Hee 1 appYxp fined that anylandintheCity, despite the established guiding and land use zoning, which iscoveredbytheGFPdistrict, is subject to specific technical analysis as set forthinSection6oftheZoningOrdinance,
The Secretary further explained that the application of the GFP requirements would
occur in this case when development zoning was established from the present R-0
restNicted residential subdivision district), He stated the GFP requirements requireanengineeringdeterminationofthetypeoffloodplaininvolvedandoftheconstraints
which would apply to that land, which could very wed' determine whether it is usableatall. He explained that the use and subdivision of property within the GFP districtrequireaconditionalusepermit.
The Secretary also explained that the petition as presented should be considered ininterdependentstages: reguiding of the non -IP (planned industrial) portions to IPguiding; rezoning of the property, then, from R -O (restricted residential subdivisiondistrict) to i-1 (planned industrial district); and approval of a preliminary planandplitforthedevelopmentoftheproperty.
The Secretary ^ 01ained that the petition did not include at this time any of therequireddocumeiltationorrequestforconditionalusepermitasspecifiedbythe GFPrequirementsofthezoningordinanceandthattheserequirementswouldapplytothispetitionupondeterminationoftheguidingissue
The Secretary also observed that the proposed layout for development could alsc be
viewed as a proposal for the alignment of Countyj pad 61 through this area, and thatinresponsetothepetitioner's proposal and inquiries, Hennepin County had endorsedtheconceptpresented 'ay the petitioner. The Secretary cautioned that while StaffhadbeeninformedoftheproposedalignmentandhaddiscussedthematterwiththeCounty, the City Cour it had yet to review and act upon the proposed alignment notonlythroughthisspecificareabutalsofortheentirealignmentnorthofHwy. 55.
Chairman Davenport recognized Mr. Rick Sat„"'T who oepresented the petitioner and who
stated; the proposr.d layout was sensitive n t only t..e Vne General Flood Plain District
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -2- November 1, 197$
but also to the established single-family residential areas to the east. He noted
that for the most part the proposed layout reserved the north and east portions of
the property to open space and parking:
Mr. Sather also stated that petitioner recognized all the ordinance tech A cal require-
ments for General Flood Plain District and Eov ron ental Assessment were not complete
at this time, but he indicated those items would be prepared and submitted for review
prior to final platting. He submitted a 'letter dated November 1, 1978 stating concern
with Staff's initial recommendation that the item be deferred following resolution of
the guiding issue, so that these technical requirements couldbe met. The letter
requested that the matter not be deferred and that it be forwarded to the Council
pursuant to planning Commission action.
Chairman Davenport askedforclarification of that request; mainly, whether the
petitioner was seeking approval or disapproval at this time and not any deferral for
any reason. Mr. Sather responded that the petitioner sought action. but emphasized'
the desire to resolve any problems which were evident and not push for approval or.
an all -or -nothing basis,
Chairman Davenport announced that a ",iblic Hearing had begin scheduled and that neigh-
boring property owners had been notified. He also referred to an October 27, 1978 -
letter submitted by Robert George :Ind James Schaefer, identified as spokesmen for the
Westminster homeowners east of the site.
Henry Jensen, 12905 - 30th Ave.. No., submitted a signed petition representing 27 house-
holds inthe Westmins-'er area opposing the rezoning, from R -O to 1-1 as requested by
the petition. Mr. Jensen stated rezoning was opposed on the grounds that it is too
t1 ose to the existing and fu,, -ore residential developments and that the nat+'µal beauty
of the area is better suited for residential development. He stated the residents
do not understand and do not agree with the I-1 guiding in the east portion of the
area.
James Schaefer, 3025 Oakview Lane, also stated opposition to the proposal and noted
Tfidt Kr, _ at`ier, representing the petitioner, had met with several of the homeowners.
He also explained that, while the letter submitted by himself and X.. George discussed
possible options to assure compatability between the industrial development and the
residential development, the petition represented a more current and accurate view
of the homeowners. He stated one basic concern was with traffic generation in the
area and the number of small children who play in the area and on the streets. He
indicated that 30th Ave. 4. should be closed as a cul-de-sac to any future alignment
of proposed County Road 61.
Robert George, 3050 Rosewood Lane, stated that the apparent discrepancy between the
hReot` vn" e - posi tion in the earlier letter and in the current petition could be
explained by "panic" since most neighbors felt the zoning and guiding were foregone
conclusions and that something as opposed to nothing had to be done. He also com-
mented that most residents felt they were "misled" when they were informed the land
around them was zoned.'"residential" He stated now, after purchasing their homes,
they are informed the R -G residential district means future rezoning will occur accord-
ing to the guiding and that the neighbors do not agree with the proposed rezoning.
Mr: George also stated that the neighbors, want to be assured they will be involved in
the decision-making process on this matter and asked that they be kept filly informed
of the progress of this petition.
I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -3- November 1, 1978
Commissioners Threinea and Vasiliou asked for clarification of the statement that
prospective property owners were "misled" by the City as to the zoning around their
property. The Secretary stated that apparently a full and complete explanation of
the City's land use guiding and zoning was not made when the many daily inquiries
are received as to zoning around a specific property. The Secretary stated that it
was quite evident the "R-0 (restricted residential subdivision disari ct)"could be
translated by persons as meaning pFermanently residential and not as a "holding"
category for future development according to the guide plan.
Substantial discussion ensued following the suggestion by ommissioner Threinen and.
Chairman Davenport that, as per earlier similar consideration in other areas, the
neighboring property owners and the developer could perhaps discuss their differences
and work out a landscape and buffering plan which would be acceptable to all parties
and submitted to the Planning Commission for review.
Before continuing the Public hearing, Chairman Davenport noted; that the residents
should be aware the east portion of the property is already guided for planned indus-
trial, and the purpose of the hearing at this time is to evaluate the proposal by the
owner to reguide the west and north portions of this property to industrial.
Mr. Atchinson, 3020 Rosewood Lane, and Mr.Danielius, 2980 Norwood Lane, stated oppo-
sltTon to t proposal in that it would be detrimental to the residential area.
Mr. Puck, 12810 - 37th Ave. No,, stated opposition to the proposal and stated the
B—ur-a-e-T-sliould be on the petitioner to show why it should be rezoned.
Mrs. Kamerud, 12565 - 30th Ave. No.., stated opposition and specifically requested
Chair 30th Ave. No. not be connected with Xenium Lane,
Mr. Feuer. 3060 Posewood Lane, cited the need for harmony with the land uses in the
area an. felt the open space and residential development should be preserved.
Roger (A roux, 3025 Rosewood Lane, statcl concern that the property owners' objections
156 prFo6rlylentered into the record and considered. Chairman Davenport responded
that that was the purpose of the Public Hearing and that the concerns would be taken
into account during the Commission'S deliberation.
Chairman Davenport recognized Mr. Sather who responded to a number of concerns by
stating the petitioner was concerned with the proximity of the various land uses and
felt the reguiding and rezoning would allow for a development which would assure the
best compatibility. He stated this had been taken into account with the
proposeui
alignment of County Road 61 and, in response to several questions from the Commission,
stated that he expected the property eventually would be developed according to {he
established guiding, which included industrial on the east, whether this petitionwere
improved or not.
Chairman Davenport also recognized one of the petitioners, Mr, Schmelz, who statcd the
proposed uses would be whatever the ordinance permitted and that there would be r,,:
buildings higher than those established already in the Minneapolis Industrial Park area.
Chairman Davenport inquired of Mr, Puck and others present whether ther,7-, was any value
in deferring the item so that the petitioner and homeowners could pur.;ue possible
solutions to a proposed development within the guide plan; Mr. Puck and several others
responded that since the petitioner had not clearly shown why the land should be
r 'ded or rezoned; and since the property owners generally were opposed to the request, egui
it did not seem there would be any merit in deferring the item.
M
17',
is
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -4 November 1, 1978
Mr. LarE.. 12715 - 30th Ave. No., stated that at -this time the City should adhere to
the wide plan and not grant the specific request based on that guide plan. He
suggested that if any reguiding were to take place it would be to ultimately eliminate
the industrial guiding and replace it with residential yuiding.
Following farther discussion Chairman Davenport announced that the Public Hearing was
closed.
MOTION by Commissioner Vasi"liou, seconded by Commissioner Threinen, to take action on
the petition at this meeting,
MOTION CARRIED (7-0'-0) (All in Favor)
The: Commission recessed from 9:40 p.m. to 9:50 p.m.
Chairman Davenport stated that considering the persons present who were interested in
the ;petition, the Commission would take action at this time prior to other Public
Hearings.
Chairman ;Davenport also _explained to the ,pfoperty owners present that the matter of
30th Ave. No. and whether it should be cl o, -sed by a cul-de-sac, rather than inter-
secting with proposed County Road 61, is a separate issue which eventually will be
the subject of an engineer's report as directed by the City Council. He stated the
City Council would be making the final determination of the alignment of County Road 61,
whether this petition went forward or not, and that matters of safety and the impact
of the land use guide plan would be considered then.
MOTION by Commissioner Threinen, supporters by Commissioner Erickson, to recommend to
the City Council that the request by McCombs -Knutson Associates on behalf of "SJH
Industrial Park" for reguiding,; rezoning, and preliminary plat approval in the south-
east quadrant of Xenium Lane and Plymouth Creek be denied, citing the following reasonst
1 Reguding of the north portion from LA2 to IP appears to be a moot question
in consideration of the General Flood Plan overlay and any subsequent uses.
2. Reguiding of the CL (limited business' portion on the west to IP is not
appropriate because of the need for coconer4cial guided land and, based upon
preliminary Staff data, there appears to bu sufficient industrial land
guided and zoned in the City.
3. The ordinance requirements for information and analysis as to the General
Flood Plain District have not been satisfied to determine whether the area
can be used as proposed.
4. The proposed industrial development would intensify the traffic generation
in an area where the impact of traffic is a major concern.
5. The planned alignment of County Road 61 served as the boundary between the
commercial and industrial guiding; now that a more specific alignment is
proposed, allowing for four industrial parcels south of the road, consid-
eration should be given to expanding the commercial or residential guiding
northwest of the alignment, as per the original planning.
Further discussion ensued to clarify the intent of the motion which is the industrial
guiding in the area should not be expanded; the appropriate guiding based upon a known
alignment of County Road 61should serve as the basis for possible reguiding of at
least a portion cif the industrial area north of the County Road 61 alignment; and the
need to evaluate fully the General Flood Plain constraints and neighborhood concerns.
a
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES --5- November 1, 1978
Chairman Davenport stated that should there be a subsequent petition for development
ofthat area now guided industrial, the Commission will expect provisions for height
and use limitations that will reflect consideration of the environmental and neighbor -
Ing hand use constraints,,
Chairman Davenport caked for a vote,
MOTION CARRIED (7..0-0) (All in Favor)
Conditional Use Permit/Rezoning/
A-745 Larry Laukka Associates Preliminary Plat Plan Approval
The Secretary introduced the item involving proposed RPUD 78--3 and reviewed the Staff
report dated October 30, 1978. The Secretary cited a number of design concerns as
well as the criteria which the Commission must speak to according to the Zoning
Ordinance PUD requirements.
The Secretary explained that the plat had been reviewed by the Parks and Recreation
Department against the adopted pa,,,k and trail plan; there is no need for open space
or trail dedication from this area. He stated the indicated open space areas north
of County Road 9 should be incorporated within the proposed lot and that easement
provisions can be made for the necessary drainage
The Secretary also stated that the proposed streets should be named in accordance
with the adopted street -naming plan i'or the City, and that consideration should be
given to restricting access of certain proposed single-family lots from proposed
44th Ave. No.
He stated that the submitted plans appear to comply with the provisions of City Council
Res. 78-550 approving the concept plan, but ;hat the Commission should pay particular
attention to the proposed landscaping and grading east of the proposed quadraminiums
south of new County Road 9
The Secretary also stated that specific attention should be drawn to the proposed
setback variances implied in the petitioner`s plan report; and that any specific
variances granted should be detailed in the recommendation. He noted that no
graphics, as required by ordinance, had been submitted detailing the location of
structures on the lot.
Chairman Davenport announced that a Public Hearing had been scheduled and noted that
none of the notified property owners was present,
Chairman Davenport recognized Mr. Fran Hagen, Mr. Don Hess, and Mr..Larry Laukka,
who represented the petitioner and who presented the preliminary plat and responded
to Staff report.
Mr. Hagen presented a graphic showing a typical single-family dwelling setback as
proposed, and extensive discussion ensued as to the proposed setbacks and the need
for any variances.
Extensive discussion also ensued regarding the recomrmendation of Chairman Davenport
that both the filed plat through adopted covenants ar;d the sales literature for the
homes should make both narrative and graphic reference 'o the approvQd planned unit
development. Chairman Davenport stated that experience with other POD's in the City
made it clear that future residents should be f0ly and a cux ately that
their property was within -a planned neighborhood which involved a variety of dv*-I l i ng
types and densities
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -6 November 1, 1978
Mr. Laukka stated that he had no objection to incorporating such informational mater-
ials with his sales literature and that he would provide whatever legal documentation
was required at time of platting to indicate the PLID status of the project.
The Secretary explained that the ordinance requires the filed finalplat to indicate
that it is an RPUD within the City of Plymouth, and that the ordinance also classifies
PUD's as conditional uses wherein the requirement that saleF literature for the homes
may Abe required to include specific graphic and narrative reference to the approvedRPUD.
Chairman Davenport closed the Public Hearing and there was a MOTION by CommissionerBarron, supported by Commissioner Erickson, to take action on the item at this mEtting.
MOTION CARRIED (7-0-0)_ ;All in Favor)
MOTION by Commissioner Threinen, supported by Commissioner Barron, that t e PlanningCommissionrezommendtotheCityCouncilthattherequestbyLarryLaukkaassociatesforaconditionalusepermit, rezoning, and approval of preliminary ;plat/plin.forproposedRPUD78-3, according to plans Staff dated 11/1/7$, be approved subject to
the following conditions;
I. Compliance with the City Engineer's memorandum for this project.
2 Payment of park dedication fees -in, -lieu in an amount determined according
to City Council park dedication policy:
3. Compliance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Zoninq Or-linance with
respect to RPUD operating and maintenance regvirements for corr.,ion facilities,
and with respect to the provision of covenantsand testi-icti'ens, a:, approved
by the City Attorney,
4. taming and renaming of indicated streets in accordance with the adopted
street -naming scheme.
5. Dedication of rights-of-way and utility and drainage easements as approved
by the City Engineer.
6, The following single-family dwelling lots shall have access restricte(I to
the adjacent streets and cul-de-sacsother than 44th Avenue North: Block 2
Lots 4, 8, 18; Block 4 Lots 1, 13 Block 5 Lot 6 Block 6 Lot 11; Blocl• 7
Lot 1 :Block 8 Lot 5, and Block c +,ot 3:
7. Building permits for the single-family detached homes shall include a gat -age
site layout within ordinance setback standards whether it is to be constricted
initially or later. R
8. All open space indicated as outlots north of proposed County Road.9 shall %
incorporated into the adjacent blocks and lotswith provision by easement forneededdrainageandutilities; further, the open space south of proposed
County Road 9 west of proposed Larch Lane indicated as Outlot v shall be
incorporated into Block 16 pending; future development but shall not be con-
sidered for density purposes.
Further discussion ensued regarding the yard setbacks of the single-family detachedhomesaswellasthequadraminiumbuilding. Chairman Davenport and Commissioner Barron
stated it did not appear the requested variances resulted directly in overall open
space and that the proposal represented ,any hardship or uniqueness.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 7_; November 1, 1978
MOTION by Commissioner Erickson, supported by Commission Schneider, to amend theMotionwitha9thcondition: Single -,family detached and quadraminium front yardshallbe35'; the minimum si.deyard s-etback shall be 10' according t-` the graphicsdated11/l/78; and the distance between quadraminium garages, where
the
face
one another, shall be 66'.
MOTION by Chairman Davenport, supported by Commissioner Vasiliou, to further amend
the motion with an loth condition: A copy of the approved plat and the approved RPUD
shall- be attached to all purchase zvireements for sales -of lots and units within the
project.
In further discussion Mr. Hess stated that in certain cases, he believed front ox
side yard setback variances were necessary to accommodate dwellings within the existingtopography. Chairman. Davenport stated that the Commission will further consider the
matter of yard setback at the time of final plat approval since specific lot layouts
must be represented as part of the documentation at that time.
Chairman Davenport called for a vote on the second amendment to the main motion.
MOTION CARRIED (7-0-0) ('All in Favor)
Chairman Davenport called for a vote on the first amendment to the main motion.
MOTION CARRIED (7-0-0) (All in Favor)
Chairman Davenport called for a vote on the main motion twice amended.
MOTION CARRIED (7'-0-0) (All in Favor)
A-265 Gleason Construction Company_ Preliminary Plat
Chairman Davenport opened the Public Hearing.
Staff presented background per the October 27, 1978 Staff Report. The north units
were constructed; the south building had footings and foundations. There was one over-
all community unit project originally, but no specific landscape plan was submittedforthissitealone. Petitioner now desires to plat this tract for townhouses
resulting in 11 lots, one being common area.
Commissioner Threinen said the entire project was supposed to be harmonious develop - merit, and now due to economic problems, the townhouses are separate and not rf a
compatible style.
The petitioner stated that when he purchased this property, he met with former
City staff who approved his plait to sell individual' units,
Commissioner Schneider read Staff's recommendations, and petitioner was agreeable.
There was considerable discussion by the commissioners on the open parking areas,
monthly homeowners' fees, the required landscape bond, and City's authority to main-
tain and assess cost to homeowners' association if adequate maintenance is not performed.
Robert. Stahl, 1625 Merrimac lane, commented on guest parking areas, inquired when the
next five are to be built and when manhole covers will be waterproofed.
Bill Smith, 1705 Merrimac Lane, stated that manhole covers will be waterproofed before
the b acktoppirg'is done,
The petitioner stated that they hope to start the south five units this fall.
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -8- November 1, 1978
Chairman Davenport requested motion to close the. Public Hearing,
MOTION by Commissioner Erickson., supported by Cournissioner Schneider, to close the
Public Hearing,
MOTION CARRIED (7-0-0) (All in Favor)
MOTION by Commi'ssio-ier Schneider, supported by Commissioner Erickson, that Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council she following:
Approval of the preliminary plat consisting of 11 lots (10 dwelling units
and common area) for Gleason Construction of "Merrimac Addition" subject
to the following:
I. Final plat shall include the filing of homeowner association
covenants as approved by the City Attorney,
2. The homeowners association covenant shall specify that if adequate
maintenance is not performed with respect to the, streets, utilities
and common areas, the City will have the authority to maintain
such areas and assess the cost to the homeowners association.
3. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted based upon the community
unit project approved under the Res. 72-176, and the number of outside
parking stalls shall be reduced with the areas to be landscaped.
4. The required site .performance guarantee shall be submitted and
termed for 18 months.
S. Payment of park dedication flees-in-lieu in the amount of $2,750.00
10 dwelling units x .275.00).
6. Compliance with the City Engineer's memorandum for this project.
MOTION CARRIED (7-0-0) (All in Favor)
A-859 Peter Meshes Conditional Use Permit (Home Occupation.)
The Secretary introduced the item and reviewed the Staff Report dated October 25, 1978.
Chairman Davenport opened the Public Hearing,
The petitioner stated his desire to have a part-time furniture shop in his garage to
make furniture and cabinets 4 - 6 hours daily.. He cited medical reasons for a, home
occupation as the most feasible way for him to make a living,
Chairman Davenport stepped down due to a oossible conflict of interest, and Vice
Chairman Schneider presided:
The Commissionersinqui red as to now many vehicles he had, noise, adjoining lots,
loading, unloading and delivery of materials, and duration of permit.
The petitioner stated that he had .a Pi-'nto and a pickup, would be using power tools a
maximum of two hours daily, would be making 2 or 3 pieces of furniture monthly
regvirinc3 minimum material and delivery which he would make, and all work would be
contained inside the insulated garage.
Robert Hanson, 3245 Shadyview Lane, expressed concern of open; acreage north of
33rd Ave.. No., rights of future property owners north of 33rd Ave. No., and permit
duration.
Art Moening, 3255 Shadyview Lane, expressed concern about noise and hours of operation..
Jon & Karen Moebs, 3225 Ranier Lane No., expressed concern about noise and traffic;
and handling complaints.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -o- November 1, 1978
lJoe Vorderbruggen, 18110 - 33rd Ave. No., suggested ilio possibility of using nearby
farm buildings due to heavier traffic. He stated that it is an area of 8 homes
with about 22 preschoolers. He felt a part-time business would restrict desira-
bility of home sales,
Anot"ar neighbor stated that the next lot was owned by a Bloomington developer.
Staff stated that permit duration may be set by the CityG)uncil; if there were
r°`,lems City would check into complaints which could be basis for revocation.
There being no furtherdiscussion, Vice --Chairman Schneider called for motion to
close the Public Hearing.
MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1) ChairmanDavenport Abstained
MOTION by Commissioner Vasiliou, supported by Commissioner Erickson, that the
Planning Commission make the following recommendation to the City Council;
Approval of the conditional use permit request for a home occupation byPeterMesher, 18040 33rd Ave. No., subject to the following conditions,
1, The permit is subject to all applicable ordinances, codes and
regulations and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. Outside storage of materials or manufactured products is prohibited,
3. No signs related to the home occupation shall be, permitted.
4. The PNmises shall be inspected by the: building official and code
required modifications for the proposed occupancy shall be
completed and approved.
5. The permit is issued for one year,
MOTION TO AMEND by Commissioner Erickson, supported by Wire, to add No. 6 and 7 asfollows:
6. Hours of operation are to be limited from 8 6 p.,m. Monday throughFriday.
7 Materials to be delivered by petitioner only.
MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1) Chairman Davenport Abstained
SECOND MOTION TO AMEND by Commissioner Wire, supported by Commissioner Barron, thatNo. 5 be amended and No, 8 be added as follows.-
S.
ollows:
5. The permit is issued for one year, and subject to revle:a in six months.
8, Overhead garage doors are not to be open during the tperGtions ofthehoursofbusiness.
MOTION CARRIED (5.1 1} Chairman Davenport Abstained
Commissioner Vas linu Opposed
MAIN MOTION, TWICE AMENDED CARRIED (5-1-1) Chairman Davenpor, Abstained
Commissioner Threinen `unposed
Mr. Davenport returned to the Chair at 12;20 a.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -l0 November 1, 1078
A-730 James L:okerr Conditional Use Permit
Staff introduced this item and reviewed -the October 25, 1978 report. The conceptplanisfora14,400 sq. ft. building for raquetball courts with provision for twooutsidedecktenniscourts. RefFerence was made to future plans for upgradingFernbrookLanetofullwidth, with median islands, and consideration of CheshireLanetotherearbecoming :main access into this area.
Commissioner Threinen expressed concern that the prime 'location sl'ould be care-
fully designed if conversion from athletic purposes were required ;n the future.
Petitioner outlined plans for 12 courts, 1,200 members, fees, hours, and parkingplansfor82spaces. He also stated that almost all raquetball court buildings areinindustrialparksanddesignedwithinterior "portable" sport systems which canbereadilyconvertedtowarehouseuse, if necessary.
MOTION by Chairman .Owenport, supported by Commissioner Threinen, to recommend
approval of a conditional use permit as requested by James Loken for a racquetball/
indoor sports facility as a compatible service -type use in the I-1 District at
property in the Southeast quadrant of Highway 55 andFernbrook Lane, subject to the
ordinance site plan approval requirements and to a building design which will permit
conversion to other I-1 uses.
MOTION CARRIED (7-0-0) (All in Favor)
A-823 Edward T. Johnston Final Plat pprova7
Mr.Fran Hagen, representing petitioner, asked that the item be deferred Jo a Paterdate,
MOTION by Chairman Davenport, supported by Commissioner Barron, that this item bedeferred,
MOTION CARRIED (7-0-0) (All in Favor)
A-94 U.S. Pont Office Final Plat Approval
Staff updated progress on plans for Downtown Plymouth U.S. Post Office.
Chairman Davenport referred to elderly housing ordinance provisions to be discussedatalatermeeting, per Planning Commission Special Meeting of March 22 1978.
Meetinr- ned at 12:35 a.m. _
APPROVED BY PLANNING i3OMMISSION
David J. Davenport, Chairman
Plymouth Planning Commission
Blain Tremere, Secretary