HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 03-07-1979PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
MARCH 7, 1979
A regular meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was called to order by Vice-
chairman Virgil Schneider at 7+35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 3400 Plymouth Blvd,
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Schneider, Threinen, Barron, Vasiliou and Wire
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman 'Davenport
STAFF PRESENT Director of Planning, Blair Tremere
OPEN FORUM (7 UO p.m.
Mr, Dick Knutson of McCombs-Knutson Associates a,;d Mr. Cale Kennedy of Carlson Properties
reviewed the status of planning for I-494 interchanges at County Road 16 and County Road 6,. Mr. Knutson explained there would be close coordination with the City of Minnetonka and
that .comparable presentations would be made before the planning Commissions and CityCouncilsofbothcommunities.
There was brief discussion regarding the present and future status of Cor.—ty Road 61PlymouthRoad) particularly in the vicinity of State .Highway 12,Also discussed was the
design of the proposed intersection of Fernbrook Lane with County Road 15 and concerns
with respect to not directing traffic oi;to Harbor Lane,
Commissioners were :asked for general input regarding the Land Use Guiding of the Carlson
properties. on eithor side of I-494. Commissioner Schneider stated that development in the
area should adhere to the Guide Phan; he stated, however, that he would entertain sound
planning proposals that might involve some adjustment of the guiding in specific areas.
Commissioner Threinen stated that future graphics and information should include the
guiding of land in Minnetonka. Commissioner Vasiliou stated concurrence with Commissioner
Schneider's observation of adering to the Guide Plan subject to persuasive sound planningproposalsthatmightinvolvespecificadjustments, Commissioner Barron stated that the
development of the area, should generally adhere to the :established Land Use Guiding.
Vice-chairman Schneider called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
A-615 - Lundgren Bros. Construction Final Plat
Staff reviewed the report dated March 2 1979 regarding the proposal for final plattingofthe29single -family lot Ferndale North 4th Addition. Staff explained that this
represented the final phase of the Ferndale North development, and the total number of
actual platted lots would be 176 versus the preliminary platting of 180,
Staff observed that approvals of the Ist, 2nd and 3rd Additions indicated that park
dedication rquirements for, the total development had been satisfied.
Vice-chairmrn Schneider recognized Mr. Sherman Goldberg who stated he had no further
comments.
MOTION by Commissioner Vasiliou, ;,econded by Commissioner Barron, to make the followingrecommendationtotheCityCounc1.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2 March 7, 1979
That the final plat submitted by Lundgren Eros. Construction Company for
Ferndale North 4th Addition consisting of 29 single-family dwelling units
east of Ferndale Road and southwest of Hadley Lake be approved, subject
to the following conditions.
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's memorandum for this project.
2. Compliance with City -Council policy resolution 79-80 regarding
minimum floor elevations for new structures in subdivisions
adjacent to or containing open storm water drainage facilities.
3. Satisfaction of park and open space dedication requirements as set
forth in the development coptracts for the 1st and 2nd Additions.
MOTION CARRIED (5-0-0) All in favor
A-615 - Lundgren Bros. Construction Co. Arend Conditioral Use Permit
The item was introduced by Staff who reviewed the report dated March 2, 1979 which
explained the petitioner was seeking an extension from May 1. 1979 to 5epteutoer 1, 1979
of the Conditional Use Permit approved under Council Resolution 78-638, Std Ff explained
that the permit allowed'a temporary real estate tract office within the Ferndale North
development.
Vice-chairman Schneider recognized Mr. Sherman Goldberg who stated the need for extension
was due to unanticipated delays in construction of new office facilities for the
petitioner in Wayzata
Following a brief discussion there was a MOTION by Commissioner Barron, seconded by
Commissioner Wire to make the fallowing recommendation to the City Council:
That the rquest of Lundgren Bros, Construction Company for an extension
from May 1, 1979 to September 1, 1979 as an amendment to City Council Resolution
78-638 be approved subject to the conditions sited in the resolution;
MOTION CARRIED (5-0-0) All in favor
79003 - Trammell Crow Company Site Plan
The item,was introduced by Staff who reviewed the Staff Reports of March 2 1979 and of
February 2,-1979. Staff explained that plans had been reviewed at the February 7, 1979
meeting leading to a recommendation of denial due to concerns with the existing peripheral
road which the owner proposed to vacate, said vacation being critical to the proposed site
plans. Staff explainedthat the City Council had considered the petition to vacate the
peripheral road and had established a public hearing for March 19, 1979, directing that
the owner submit a letter from the State Transportation Department that vacation of the
road would not have an adverse affect upon the proposed interchanges at County Road 6
and at County Road 15. Staff explained that such a letter had been submitted and that
it was recommended the Commission re -consider the item and make a recommendation to the
City Council, contingent upon the vacation of the peripheral road.
MOTION by Commissioner Threinen, seconded by Commissioner Vasiliou, to re -consider
application #79003 submitted by Trammell Crow Company.
MOTION CARRIED (5-0-0) A11 in favor
PLANNING COM14ISSION MINUTES -3- march 7, 1979
Staff commented on the March 1, 1979 letter from the petitioner requesting certain
variances relative to the site plan and Staff recalled a variance proposed earlierregarding "Building A" Staff also commented that required data falative to fire flowwastobesubmittedforreviewbytheEngineeringDepartmentandthatspecificdeter-
mination as to number and location of fire hydrants and location of fire lanes shouldberesolvedpriortoconsiderationoftateplansbytheCityCouncil.
Vice-chafi"an Schneider recognized Mr. Kirt Woodhouse who represented the petitioner
and who cDfrmented on the request to not only defer parking as represented between thepry -posed site plans and.. the "proof of parking plan" but also to defer the installationofparkingbetweenbuildings "B" and "C" in the first phase, Mr. Woodhouse presented
a site plata representing that deferral which indicated the provisions for a fire lanebetweenthetwobuildings.
Mr. Woodhouse commented that the site plan indicated concrete curb and gutter throughoutbutthatavariancewasrequestedforthecurbinnalongthewestedgeoftheparkinglot, the petitioner proposes the use of bituminous curbing rather than concrete curbing.
Mr. Woodhouse also commented that the architect had submitted narrative data regardingtheproposed: sign treatment for the buildings, but that no graphics had been submittedbecausetheneedsoftenantswerenotknownatthistime,
Extensive discussion ensuel regarding the variance request from the curbing policy. Commissioner Aire stated that he was primarily concerned with protecting the power linetowerandsurroundingareaandthathispreferencewastohaveconcretecurbingthrough- out. Commissioner Vasiliou stated that it was not clear that the variance requirementsforhardshipanduniquenesswereclearlyestablishedandthatshewasconcernedwith
the durability of bituminous curbing versus concrete curbing,
Vice-chairman Schneider stated that concrete curbing should be used particularly alongthewestsideMnconsiderationoftheanticipatedtrucktrafficthroughthearea.
Commissioner Threinen stated that concrete curbing would be appropriate since the
Proof of parking plan suggested that there would be automobile parking in that area.
Vice-chairman Schneider stated concern with the proposed number of over -head doors andloadingdocksasshownontheelevationplansforbuildings "B" and "C" and stated there
seemed to be conflict with the prcof of parking plan since the area in front of thedoorswouldbestripadforparking.
Mr. Woodhouse commented that while the overhead doors and loading dock openings would beroughedininitially, could actually be blocked in from the inside and only openediftenantneedsrequ`re k:m. He stated that should the maximum number of loading docksberequiredfortenantmuds, the parking demand would be low since those uses would
typically be warehouse aid distribution rather than manufacturing.
Regarding the: vacation of the peripheral road, Commissioner Threinen stated that he had
not been aware of a circulation road within the highway right-of-way, between CountyRoads6and15. He stateta that his primary concern had been circulation and that inlightofthefutureroads=.ay adjacent to the 1-494 freeway, he could support the vacationoftheperipheralroad.
Vice-chairman Schneider stated concern with respect to the proposed variance for
straightening the west wall of Building "A" which would bring it closer to the rearpropertyline. He stated that while he could support the request from a design stand- point, he was concerned that additional floor area was added to Building "A" which
already was shown as approximately 34.9%.
PLANNING C0;4.4ISSION 14INUTES -4- March 7, 1979
There was further discussion regarding landscaping and the proposed sign treatment
for the. various buildings. Commissioner's offered suggestions to Mr. Woodhouse for
sign plans comparable to previous developments in the are.,
Mr. Woodhouse stated that a sign plan would be prepared and submitted -for Commission
review and approval; he reiterated his observations in the March1, 1979 letter
regarding the variance request for th(., curbing along the west edge of the parking; lot.
MOTION by Commissioner Barron, seconded by Commissioner Wire, to make the followingrecommendationtotheCity .Council
Thatthe site plans for a 2 -phase 3 -building warehouse distribution center at
the southwest corner of 13th Avenue North and Berkshire Lane as proposed by
Trammell Crow Company be approved subject to the following conditions;
1) Vacation of the entire peripheral road between 13th Avenue North
and County Road 15 prior to the issuance of building permits,
2) Compliance with the City Engineer's memorandum for this project;
specifically includiaig item number 8 relative to the required
concrete curb and gutter throughout.
3) Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance
with City policy requirements effective at time of development, and
in accordance with the verified acreage of each development site,
4) Certain ordinance required parking as indicated on approved plans may
be deferred from initial installation until such time it is deemed
necessary by the City; and at which time the required additional parking
will be installed in accordance with the approved proof of parking plan.
5) Site plan approval for the 2nd phase may be required if permits for
the 2nd phase have not been taken within one (1) year from the date
of Council approval of the site plans,
6) Rear yard variance of approximately 20 -feet for Building "A" to
allow the west wall to be straightened, in recognition that it is
adjacent to the railroad trackage and does not present problems in
light of the: abutment to the site of Building "B" provided that
Building "A"' shall conform with the ordinance site coverage require-
ment maximum of 35%.
7) Detailed sign plans shall be submitted for review and approval prior
to the issuance of permits for any signs; no variances are implied.
8) Eire lane and fire hydrant requiremcnts shall be determined and
reflected on detailed site plans prior to review by the City Couw l .
MOTION by Commissioner Threinen, seconded by Commissioner Vasiliou to amend the main
motion by adding a 9th corp -inion as follows,
Ordinance require; ite performance financial guarantee shall be
submitted prior to -issuance of permits and shall be termed for
eighteen (18) months,
In further discussion, Vice-chairman Schneider stated that the Commissions' intent
relative to the requested variance regarding curbing should be reflected in the minutes
as follows: Long term maintainence will be assured particularly in light of the head-on
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- March 7, 1979
parking shown along this area; an undesirable precedent would be established since
no finding is made with respect to uniqueness and hardship; and the use of concrete
curbing along the west boundary of the parking lot would assure protection of thegreenareaandthepowerlinetower..
Vice-chairman Schneider called for a vote on the amendment.
MOTION CARRIED (5-0-0) All in favor
Vice-chairman Schneider called for a vote on the main motion,
MOTION CARRIED 5-0-0) All in favor
Approval of Minutes —
Commissioner Barron stated concern that certain editorial comments he had made at theFebruary2101979meetinghadnotbeenreflectedintheminutes; he stated the specific
reference was to the discussion and recommendation on the Plymouth Hills General
Development Plan modifications and on the proposed "Overland Park RPUD Concept Plan Herecalledthathehadremarkedthat, notwithstanding the Commission's unanimous recommen-
dation for approval of the proposal', he was concerned that the Commission was deviatingfromtheoriginalintentofdevelopmentinthisareainthatasuburbanhousingand
commercial character was being encouraged rather than urban character.
Staff acknowledged that the remarks had not been included in the minutes; but that theStaffmemototheCityCouncilhadreflectedsimilarconcerns. Staff also related the
action the City Council had taken off the matter at the March 5, 1979 meeting, which
included denial of the concept plan for the Overland Park RPUD and related aspects of
the proposed modifications of the General Development Plan.
MOTION By Commissioner 11asil%oul seconded by Commissioner Wire, to approve the minutes
of the February 21, 1979 meeting.
MOTION CARRIED (5-0-0) All in favor
Commissioner Threinen read a leeter addressed to members of the Planning Commission datedMarch7, 1979 (attached) regarding concerns as to Council actions on various petitions
versus Planning Commission recommendations and. deliberations. He suggested that the
concerns recited in the Tetter be discussed with the City Council at the joint meeting onMarch14, 1979.
In other business, Staff confimed that the joint meeting with the City Council was
scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on March 14, 1979,
ataff briefly reviewed several pending matters which would be coming before the Commission.
Staff informed the Commission that Mr. John Eagleton, 115 Magnolia Lane had been appointed
by the City Council to fill the ,,eat vacated by Mr, Del Erickson.
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner Vasiliou to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION CARRIED (5-0-0) All in favor
Vice-chairman Schneider declared the meeting adjourned at 10 p.m,
APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION
fiivi d J. Davenport, Chairman
Blair Tremere, Secretary Plymouth Planning Commission
March 7, 1979
Members of the Planning Commission of the City of Plymouth
In view of recent actions of the Council of the City of Plymouth,
one example being the action regarding the proposed amendment to
the Genera, Development Plan of Plymouth Hills (Overland Park Section),
T question our role as an advisory body to the Council: There is a
communications break -down somewhere, and I respectfully suggest
it is our responsibility, to improve the transfer of information
regarding our deliberations to the Council. I further suggest that
one or more of the following are true;
1.. The Council does not receive complete records of our considerations
in reaching an advisory decision.
2.. The Council does not have faith in our deliberative powers,
3 The .ouncil does not read records of their previous actions
or of our previous actions.
4. Staff does not thoroughly present our considerations and deliberations
in a consise, comprehensible, unbiased manner to the Council,
5. Petitioners present different arguments -t; -,'iie Council than they do
to the Planning Commission to persuade memb..rs to act in their behalf
contrary to Planning Commissioti recommendations.
It is a futile and unrewarding task to waste hours and keep minutes
in an effort that m;y be for show only, Let us present these concerns
to the Council at out March 14 meeting to see if they are founded in fact.
Should they be, I no longer wish to be a part of this charade. It is
embarrassing for me and should be so for the City of Olymouth,
James T. Threinen
Planning Commissioner
City of Plymouth
March 7, 1979
Suggested Solutions to the Communications Problems:
l,. One member of the planning Commission be present at each Council
meeting which considers matters referred to the Commission;
2. Shorten "laundry lists" of conditions attached to recommendations,
or move to recommend denial where such lists seem necessary tomakethepetitionacceptable,
3. Where staff opinions do not concur with recommendations of the
Planning Commission, let the presentation to the Councilreflect
the opinion of both parties, clearly labeling the differences
between Staff and the Commission. 'There the members of the
Commission differ on a close vote, let there be recorded the
minority position arguments
4.: Let the minutes reflect the arguments of the petitioners and where
those arguments are changed or are inconsistent when presented to
the Council, let this be noted by Staff aloud. Here again, the presence
of a Planning Commission member bids well for our recommendations.
5. Telephone Council members to brief them on items of a complex nature,. Build their confidence in our deliberations.