Loading...
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.