Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 06-25-1980City of lym June 25,19-80 The regular ineeting of , he Plytmhan i4n sin was cdlled to order i the Council er f the y au City Center at $400 Plymouth Boulevard 7:35 by Chairwom.an Vasiliou. MIEM SIN' Chairiaorman Vasiliou,, Cor.nnissioners, Barron., Pauba., Steigeiivald,, Wire and Larson SIE,14SE S, T: Conmiissloner lietchler STAPF PRESENT: ny. Development Director Blair r re. Cor,,Lnlunity in&e or i at%,,r M Fay and, Planning cr gary, arra Anderson 46 On R. ARWirspAmended Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit This m ijias introftced ky staff who revievied the June C20, 1.80 s a report. mii ss r r i ° about oath floral use permit and staff res Onded that planned unitmz s require, a condition# use permit because the ordinance class=y yes them as conditional uses in the residential zoning districts. lStaffalsosty . -,Aaai, in the CityCouncil approval of the toncept plan they, gave direction that landscape plan subimitted, with the r i ! plat and should be revic-1. fi this evening., r. Fred Haas was present on behalf of the itiDeer and he gavea review of the proposal. Mr. Haas stated they want to put townhouses , this particular area because of the topography of the area. stated that the townhouses do, not exceed the height o a two-sl,ory si l ani hoes. H stated teat t r ra, ; less traffic generated by a townhouse development.Hem=nt that they would maintain the private streets and would have a homeowners association which would prohibit recreational vehicles,, boats, etc,, being parked or stored outside.He stated they, provide their own lai-intare and watering so the exterior of the develop,. ment would probably look better tear a single family residential neig od They are spending approximately $64,000 on the terming along Zachary Lane OilZ. will r idi transition screening to tht homes on the east side of Zachary Late. Chaiiiiawan nasiliou declared the public hearing open. Peggy, Har t,, 3630 Saratoga Lane asked about the. cast o townhouses and inquired about whether there would be any accessibility to tho lake by the She also; inquired about trap €o patterns. Mr. Haas responded that thea. was a considerable range in price of the townhouses; anyw r from $34jOVJ to 85,001x. He stated there wrd be no public access to the 'fake because of this v . He explaineit the traffic flow pattern and' stated that it was feasible tto°a g -onto 49thAvenue. a David Craint 4860 Forestview, Lane,, comrtzented on the transition p l v and stated that there were homes which are not 'totally screened from this property,*, he has read the Percy and all homes in the area shov d be screened,, He stated that there is no apparent reasonforthisdevelopment to exit onto a residential street x x a Face sca'ek k M91"Nz E —2-t= tag A MMM, Leas) and he feels that there should e '11'ot*al Qttz- 4,411.4h,AvenueN N r t and DerhaDs an additio-"! ex*t Quo_ = Y'? j g * as w '-s Possible would b O have this exit onto thoroughfareand cofactor streets* CommIssioRer Steigerwald arrived at the e g. I . Crain all.,zo discussed the trafftc floe patterns and stated he objjoctshaving the additional r f ion. 48th Avenue Nort i. Ch-iirworzan Vasiliou s ac that it v s the concern of Councilm.ember Schneider that all homes act, " Zachary, y, , screamed this proposed development wt h conceptplan appeared beforethe City CourciII., and: tiles tits` cou-n-"i detemf*neud that the policy does not vequtre thatthere must be total screening,. xIr. Crain stated that he regi einbe ' -' "tat discussion. aas respondol. to corr,,rtents rede liyredVlv% Crain and he stated that they have t -re than two entrances into thiseve-I me . The home on the east s I of Zachary - Lane is not totally screened duo to topography but they will see twenty. percent less roof mass than with singly= family detached homes. Mr. Crain stated that the traffilz pattern had not beeryoitoy and tsar. Haag s4a that peonie from the i, st. r auld,be driving into this develt-nT-tent,, as part of the area traffic circulatica ger City plans and earlier approvals of plats in thi s area T Vern kr., .0- -4 Avenuevenue North,'. sat +hat he a9reQs with n5feaxose first s yt _nd that he x7 wO ha3raf 43 co-, irns& V' #tnvl=me. He asked why the traffic couldn't be directed east onto Zachary Lan,--,. Mir. Haas responded that the terra i rr rakes this prohibitive as it is too steep Stephan Pezalla., 11715 - 48th Place North,, stated that he also had traffic concerns.. He feels that' 48t1i Avenue wouldd become a thoroughfare and 49th Avenue would bacons . less used than was intended. He stated he feels betraWed by the Planning Conn-rission and the C a- thiv rade an inquiry into tthe plans dor this area and they purchased their home with thrd a standing that it would be developed as single faraily residential. Now theyr trying to salvage what they can froii this new proposal. David gain asked whether there, Bald be any variate of color for the buil ns. Mr. Haas stated that each group gad be a different tone of earth color and they also will provide $1.600 for extra plantings and shrubbery for each townhdtrs Peggy Ha rte stated that she was told that the park would not have any public lake access when she '4 her lot and she does not believe that 48th Avenue' should go all the ray through, She also consented on the exterior finish on the townhousesand stayed that other townhouse developinents, had had problems wl l- " bubbling of the sheeting. Haas stated that they will not he cheaply sided and if anything should happen to the exteriors.. they would he repaired or replaced. Geta i rwoman Vasiliou closed the public hearing. A, June fir IWP oia Rs[ vne ato takeaction o i PetftiOn this evening. TION CARRIED 5-0-0g IN FAVOR tois that public" oat access onto " "Ch idt Lake. The planned p - park abuts the lake and thus peop e could qct to the shore. Also, uF. .tkd that the Cite Counctl has reqjired, with the approval of s di is- requirednsthatapatha!j ee\ryto .. itr xn nr C-ji kmTa street system ofthetStaffcomqentedthatpeoplewouldgotothenorthto49"h Avenue t get Zachary Lane, e City Council did not, allow an access to Zachary LaneOeCauseoftheseveregradeproblemsemsandtrafficcondiBoris. Ery.'i s ner 1i ire inquired about *!Ie "dot o the west side o ac ark Lan regard- ing the scree p problems«_ red Haas stated that it is a. walk -out lot and it i very difficult to put any plantings in at that he' ht. He stated he would work with she owner of the property to -put in some, plantings which would hopefullyprovidetorescreening,,, and stated that 6t. wished this entered into the record. ConeIsayer Barron stated that he does not feel it isincutllllben-t, on the developer 0 screw this unit from the le eaop e - the ownor of the property Is not present, and did not have such concerns at earlier hearings. 1 Chairwoman gas' zcu stated that she felt it was very, reasonable of Mary ndersoConstructionctionpantooffertoworkwiththepropertyownerre4ardingthisP, re b I ek:3. I O N k xorn ssioner Wfire, seconded by Coimmissioner Vauba to ree end appro a of _ the revised pre minar plat and a condi io pe°aaa t -for_ ar AndersononstructionCo. involving 1,00 townhouse units and 84 Single family detached dwellingunitssubjecttothefollowingconditions comupliance with the CityEngineer's Memorandum. 2. Ot.-Mcat en of trail corridor segments (approximately 1.95 acres) and of "park" area p `o i ate y 3.4 acres, l` fiith the finalp aft i *, with the balance of the dedication requirement fees -in -lieu o dedicator accordancewith the Perk Dedication policy in effect at the time of final platting. Compliance with City Council: policy Resolution No.70-80 regarding subdivisionscontainingord# acant to stogy water drainage facies. Street naves and numbers to Comply with the City's ordinance" C No building pe is to be issued until the final plat .*s fijed and recorded f` with Hennepin County. 6. Final landscape plana prepared per adopted Landscape Criteria. Additional landscaping shall he added to the rear of the "exception tit west of Zachary Lane. c 'Revised The reading of the Juneo0*staff report vi 6 . u s ° I;1 a 1'1',' tv resquireh,., she houses on the lots with Vdr yes + set C n.ini um vas e hlc widths Comp ped c tie ordinance 1 feet) . MOTION y Carnunissioner Barron, ascended by Comraissioner Steiggerwald to recomarnend approval of the prelimtinarplat (Alternate 111' r"Oakdale W " r Doll ' e r r conditions - subject to the following COMPliance vii th the City Engineer's ilemor d % y pari, dedication" ` i lieu dedication i accordance i h he Y POlicY ineffect at the time of final platting-, and improvement of trail corridor per Cite standards with r ive for the cost of Stich improvements s verified by the City Engtineer i with the Peek Dedication, Policy., 3. 'No buildingmi be issued until municipal ms' s and services are physically v i bi,- to the property. 4. , c icy Resolution 111 } regardingdivis - ii ions containingadjacent r .eater holding - S. di building setback variances are greeted or ii, particularly for those lots approved with aria r m ordinance Mlnimum width and depth s"andards. A -r t namingt e c s s with adopted street nai in tM. 7. Final platting shall i>. elude certified sae -From a regisured land surveyor that all gots wRet or exceed ordinance rin.inimum. area standards. S. Lot width and depth variances are approved as followst Lots 2 & 3,, Block Lot L, Block 1, Lots Block 7, 9: Structures on Lots 2 & 3, Otock 33 shall be setback at a minimumtthe distance from, the front property line where h lot is 110 feet wide so as -i";o comply with the width requirentent in the ordinance. Commissioner arson arrived ` t 8420 P.M. MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1 Commissioner Larson Abstained ameq din . Rezoning and Pr l irain- ar Plat , for "Carlson Center" ChairwomanVasiliou introduced the item and explained the fortrat of the meeting which was_not the official public hearing. She stated that regarding any is- Y ;e tlons that r4ay exist about the Carlson Center proposal,, there have been no approvals by either the Planning Commission or by the Cite Council to date. Staff reviewed the 4une 20, 1980 rp.port and co men ed that the pink covered developer's booklet titled " dde and in W ad dated June, 1980 s per eded all x I , C+,1'M 1 aN I NLIT - s`Y' baa°ii St9 b".5.6 ° a previous publil-.1ations relative to tn`iis proposal and contains Vla most current S is fr M h evel o er . z Aff l -, € 3 3 - x ..za fi !2e x•.w w.T sm#Nw .. a:., o S:s sig¢ FIV tae teff is 'I in B"'w' Ial t# ian 3tf report" OPOR) prepared by Barton-AscNrianAssociates regarding theproposed inter- change of 1-494 and County Read 15 had been sub,.riitted for informational p rp ses. Staffcemme-irr ed that the petition consists of Three rrelatedr. requidi rez and preliminary plat. Chairwoman Vasiliou recognized Mr. John e d $ l ¢r. Dick Knutson, and Mr. Tedd Hea.lund who, represented the pet one -r; she asked then to cowraentthe changes thich had been de since, the Planning erw $ ion pub] Ic hearing :his ma ger in April. r. Dice Knutson r, mumen'ted as to general changes and discussions wilich the petitioner had had anth neighboring property wers. He suggested that the petitioner could respond to specific concerns and questions raised by the Coaission and/or the neigh!-'-rs who were present. In response to qaestions by Commissioner Barron as to information in the pini, covered book on pages 13 through 17, Ir. Knutson explained that Exhibit, H had been modified with three supplemental exhibits which Mh i h ed', r.har ges in she various areas. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed revised alignmeat of County Road 15 and Berkshire Lane e,,, of 1-041. R table 5 regarding proposed lot dens"ity on Let .,,, Block , 1.44r. Knutson stated that there had been a typographical error and treat the height of the s+r **'t wo,04" 1-e s"Caries. Commissioner Steigerwald inquired about specific beaming plans partilcularly east o -49 s represented on Exhibit -3. Mr. Knutson responaed that the proposal is at a concept stage and as the platting process continues the developer ecoid work out details of the perming with the Coniission and the neighborhood, emrrssen.er Steigerwald stated _concerns about the transition frvin. the residential to the proposed industrial developments. Chairwoman Vasiliou stated that among the calls which she had received on this project, a number had regarded the proposed tax increment financing. She stated that; theown'ss oh would, d not he acting on the tax increment financing, proposal s that is a matter for Council review. She stated that the 'Gurmrission has Ag ed t the public bearing for a brief ever? l cwt of the tax increment finaneingfor general information purposes. Commissioner Wire requested that the Cowission her from thoseproperty Janes in the vicinity of Berkshire Lane and County Read 15 regarding their reaction to the proposed revisions. Russ Rahernia , 414 Berkshire Lane, stated he represented five property owners in the neighborhood, all of whom were present. He stated they had not seem anything in the way of a nerve or transition that would be effective as far as screening or buffering the development. He stalted concerns 'as to being Isolated by. th( read proposal and he Loud not be able to get to neighborhood homes without going through the industrial park, He also com ien d as to Hoke problems in the area and n ha -t fie had type recordings of n,,)Ise generated by earth : i o6lpae nt ii` 3°_!_+ 4"`. '* t P"iap 1, t4i V*a s"°'"4 g' 'pea +ma[}y r' thatp* "^' yyt'a. c*w ai a Snxe. . +F+... w" a.. "1.. »..: +. ,yintilevicinity. nrw,&lpw '_Al t'4's.$ ha Fp 6a Ti I£; Con1ce& , VL w„ . js— I *on was valid one,, mssµ_ . aerBarroninquired as to what s v1r N,.h rn a would propose, Mr. Nahrni . esponded he and erre neighbors would prefer tQ be relocated. F r e- discussion ensued regarding the cul -de -sae design east of 1 494 and Chairw*man Vasiliou stated that It t1as her understanding that Carsen Companies did not recd to purchase the houses andIr. SeboU confirrriedthis wa's the case. Discussion ensued regarding the berming and buffering in the area and the genera development plan revisions and Exhibits H-3 and -4. Mr. Knutsoln stated that there would be substantial plantings and berming proposed with the finai plans and that the work would be dere initially as pari of the overall project development. Corm ss o er Wire commented on the modification shown on xhi bi H-2 and the k -k ign- rnent of County Road 15 rest of -4944 Mr. Knutson stated that the developer was assure°fig County Road 15 would probably terminateRoad 61 to the east and that the roadway would revert to Citywn t.it °' r 'Wire noted that properties on the north side of County Read 15 west -494 were affected by she proposed read design and he questioned the viability of future access Froin, those properties. o%wilssioner Larson stated cencern as to the inters,?ction of CountyRead15withCarlsonParkwayparticularlyfrotathewestanditsimpacton, the properties along the north side of County load 15. 111r. Knutson commented as to Exhibit H-"' and noted that a neighborhood meeting had been he'd wherein the developer afire d that the maximum height of the proposed buildings t;ould be 26 feet and Viat the pondinq/berming design had been reversed re -In the originalnal rep a l at the re ue-sof the neighbors. Commissioner Wire inquired as to whether any of the neighbors had oiz e on the preposkid shopping center at the southwest quadrant of the proposed 1-494/County Road 15 interchange. Jartlev, Sentman, 13510 County Read 151 stated that general concern was that the guide pian "footprint" did not call for industrial development in the area. He stated that it would be an undesirable impact upon the residential area by. ther'epd-ed com r tial and industrial density and that the shopping center would attract more people into the area. He stated he was generally opposed to the proposal. Robert Tr emel,, 14808 County Road stated he believes the shopping center would increase the pressureon County Road 16 to the rest and would prefer that it remain guided CL. Mr. Tom Redman, 13420 County Road requested further Information regarding the proposed shopping canter. Mr., Knutson responded a to the type of uses. Mr. Redman commented that he was also concerned with the traffic generation in the area and the impact on County Road 15. As to the general development plan as shown, Exhibits H-1 and H-2,, Mr. Knutson responded that approximatelya ages had been changed In Minnetonka to provide -for additional mi al -residential housing , nd that the neighborhood shopping center inthePgPlymouthportionwouldserveasaneighborhoodceter. Mr. Knutsontso also, addressed; information contained in Table 2 of the pink covered booklet regarding, trip gendratIon and noted that t- e effective numbers of trips had been cut fror, PLANNING COMMISSION June 251 1980 those that could, he generated by the existing guiding. Mr., Knutson also coramen ed that: discussions with the staffs of Plymouth and M,innetonka suggested that Parkers Lake Road south of County Road 15 could he terminated in . cul-de-sacs or soave o her design on both the north avidthe , south therefore- not allowing hrou h traffic to State Highway 12. "';aff commented that this was in response to Original concerns fr eA b uthroughabout traffic increase especially from the norl,, and that the iiihnetna staff stated access to Minnetonka properties could be from, the .gest. Cha"IrWo en, Vasiliou and CornIrlissioner stei erwald commented as to the traffic generation data and stated tiat'more area data would he desirable especially considering the press -rt development of the Rod edale perimeter area. Mr. Ne kind of Urton-Aschliaan Associates stated tn, such an area wide analysis would be a 'along shote at hest and that the analysis prepared had concentrated on the specific Carlson Companies development, At the request of the Commission, Mr. egldnd reviewed the project development. report (PDR) relative to the proposed interchange. He stated that the design was based primarily on engineering criteria in response to the general land use planning and world he forwarded to the State Department of Transportation. He stated; that daring the approval process it could be expected tha;. changes wo ld be made and eventually vol ve formal ' City approval. Chairwoman Vasillou commented as to concerns regarding County Road 15 expressed at the earlier public hearing and Pyr* fleglund responded that the proposed design now shoes the bridge ,At 4 lanes in addition to provision for bicycle lanes, Mrs. is ovs i' 1. 1 County Road l stated that her hors is the first hoarse gest of the interchange,, and that she was concerned about the impact of he i ter- cphan e and Ccunty Road 16 improvements since the graphics showed impact upon her prcpert . the stayed that future access freer her property to County Road 15 was not clear and she was very concerned about the ultimate impact of the improvements on her land and the involvement of her property in the development,, Mr. Knutson and Mr. Haglund responded that the design at this point is preliminary. and that concerns of the neighbors would be taken into account as final plans are eventually developed Chairwoman Vasi l iou recognized Mr. Lee Wentzel who stated concerns about tree proposed interchange designs as they ;related to the east side and the Berkshire ane area Mr. 'Knutson commented as to the total road network for Carlson Center' and i sinner Jeig rc a' d inquired as to the completion of County Road l as well asI - the 1-494/County Road 15 interchange; He stated his concern was the co, pletio, t dates versus the developers proposed construction timetable. Mr. Knutson respond- ed that the development timing would probably be adjusted during the plan approval process and the the completion date for the County, Road 61/County Road 15 interchange, mpr vee definite. Commissioner Barron' stated concerns that traffic analysis information in that section of the pink covered book did not appear to be consistent vith information in the planning portion of the pink covered book. e stated that the dune 23, 1980 memo rod Westwood Planning and Engineering who had reviewed the traffic analysis information for the City also indicated, discrepancies. fie stated concern that the PLPRiNING COQ N1 N ,IUN -3- dune 25, 1980 information resen ed by the developer's consultants should be consistent se that it could be more readily understood .and related the proposal Ir. Heglund commented that the reason various tables did not seep to coincide in the ur-as was that different sets of figures were used as to traffic generation peak hour traffic versus daily trips). Mr. Knutson co ented that the petitioner did not fall, agree with certain a ped is of the We;;ktwoodu Planning rue-morandum`€ staffed ra the discrepancies vere significantas suggested. ale sae that the petitioner agreed with the overall conclusions of ibe, Westwood Planning MeRlo. Cormaissioner Barron reiterated that cons y ency is essential given the large volume and technical nn oil` the in or G tlon=a rwo gar `Vasiliou stated that he Planning Co mi sicF_. are not technically oriented nor are they engineers and e information was. ,, to cvcr 1 ° ,suggested t a Itioner could put future materials n a o 'umar firma , which would be easier to digest and cross-reference. She commented that perhaps a loose-leaf birder forret might help with, any additional revisions The meeting recessed at 10.-00 .M. and resumed at 10:20 k1 Staff reviewed the requiding portion of thepetition and noted that staff had prepared a graphic showing eight re idin "areas" which, cold be used by the Flaming Commission in their deliberations. Chairwoman asillon' suggested that the Commission discuss the iters individually and ry-to incor-Dorate then. into ona action if pcssible. Discussion ensuo - Commissioners Wire and Barron arrd Steigerwald Indicated that they bad ct.aixrns about various areas and that ea -.,h area should bo. d. alt with separately. c,=dssioner Barron referred to Table 1. of the pink covered report (page 19 and stated that fear different guiding categories were Involved.' He stated his concern as to, the loss of residential' guided land and its replacement with industrial land, thus :reatinq an industrial strip along 1-494. ne Commission then discussed the proposed guiding in Area 1. N;OTION by Cotpxflissioner Barron, seconded by Couniissioner Stdigerwald to, recommend hat Area I regain guided -4 consistent with the proposal. MOTION CARRIED 6-0-0 ALL IN FAVOR. The ComlldsssJon then discussed Area ll. Commissioner Barron staked that approxi- niately 1acres of LA -2 land (up to 60 dwelling units) imld be lost and changed to industrial usage. Mr. Knutson need; that the area to the south in Minnetonka s stere eo¢merci a.l guiding would change to high density residential. He also: o€nnented' that the petitioner has met with neighbors regarding the buff=ering and screening which was proposed as transition in lieu of LA-2guiding. Cates..isi ,ner tei erwald commented that establishment of industrial in this area in lin OT - could be considered in terns of ether areas where he believes residential quid ng was more critical. P N' -ISSIOINt iMUINUTES June 25, 11,130 moTIONI by Commaiss ones Stelgerwaald, seconded ky Chairwoman Vasiliou to r eom;.tend that ? Y3 1 1 g k 4 s"* U -Z JSuF aproposed. Area 1 la Tr M Discussion ensued. Comanissioner Larson stated he disagreed with the proposal because of the residential area to the north and he felt that Area 11 should 4 i LA -3 vtas to be changed from the existing MION FAILED 3-3-0 Comimissioners Larson, Wire and Pia Deposed Chairwoman Vasiliou stated that the Corumizsion could return to consideration of Area; 1 and discussion ensued as 111. 1*4'4' by Commissioner Barron, seconded by Covirmissioner Pada +,-;-,00rd1,.end approval of the rego d ng of Area III from CL to CN as proposer. MOTIOU CARRIED 4-2-0 Commissioners Larson and Wire Opposed Cormaissioner' ire corgirented that the neighborhood shopping center would increase traffic and Comumissioner Larson stated that he does not see the need nor* it as Ridgedale and the ,perimeter cournercial developments are so close. Commissioner Barron stated that he felt that a walking neighborhood shopping center as needed and that a location on the east side of 1-494 was preferable to the east side. The os r ss on herr discussed Area and o issioner Baron stated tna , the only industrial guiding on the vest side of 1-494 is in Area TV. He stated his concern about creating a "pocket" of industrial land and he felt that the land should re fain guided CL or it least be the sage as Area 11,' om ss oner Larson disagreed that the guiding should be the same as Area It noting that tn e is a different trans- tion l situation on the ease, side of Carlson Parkway. MOTION by. Commissioner Wire, seconded by, Commissioner Larson to, recommend approval of the regoid ng of Area IV from CL to IP as proposed* Further discussion ensued regarding the Comprehensive Pian concept of CL guiding providing a "gateway" " development; consideration was given to the physical con- straints o - stra nts In this area and the feasibility of proposed uses. Chairwoman ` asil oo called for a Grote.: ION N PP S -2Commissioners t lerg ald and Barron Opposed Commissioner Barron suggested that the Commission now. refer back to Area M, MOTION by Comm ssioner; Barron, seconded by Commissioner Steigerr ald to recommend approval of the regold ng in Area 11 from LA -2 to IP as proposed MOTION FAILED - 3- Commissioners Wire, Larson and Pana Opposed NNUNG C0iN'*4ISS1ON M11NUTES-10- June 25, 1930 Chairwoman Vasiliou stated that t6y would reform to consideration of Area 11 and discussion ensued; regarding area V. oemalssloner Barron oomroe ted that this reguiding involved orange of approximately 22.8 acnes from , the CL category andhecreationofTpusage. MOTION by Coirxiiissioner Wire, seconded by Co,runissioner :Larson to regio .end approval of the reguid ng of Area V : from CL to IP as proposed. Discussion ensued. Cd fission r Steigerwald stated his concerns about providing effective buffering of the residential areas to the north. Commissioner 'Wire stated that he felt there was distance buffering provided with the existing CL totyrenorth_ f4OTIOW CARRIED 4-2-0 Commissioners Steigerviald and Barron Opposed The` m;n ssion toren discussed Area VI and Commissioner Barren questioned the information in the pink booklet bet seen Exhibit K and Table I on page 19. He stated it was not clear as to the extent of existing LA -2LA-2guiding. Staff referred to the Existing Guide plan Map and to ExhibitG in the pink covered booklet. Mr. >",n son ;stated the intent was that the CL guiding, wouldd extend from Area V to realigned County ;Read . MOTION by Commissioner Barron, seconded by Chairwoman nasi io re%:emm nd approval of the r g idii.-g in ,Area VI fromLA-2 to CL as indicated on Exhibit G. Furthertyre discussion ensued retarding buffering and transition in this area. The R and second wc-r r i t ad a . It was the concen us of the Commission to designate en the staff graphic that area of existing C, north of Area V as area , MOTION by, Commissioner arron, seconded by, Commissioner Steigerwald to recommend that Area VI remain guided LA -2,; that Arpa VIT be established w -didi ; and that Area: IX be requided from CL to LA- . MOTION CARRIED ALL IN FAVOR Discussion ensued regarding Area Vill. Commissioner Steigerwald stated that he was very concerned about proper transition in this area as well as the concern expressed by Commissioner Barren relative to elimination of a substantial resident- Tally guided area. MOTION by Commissioner Steigerwald. seconded by Commissioner die to recommend the following guiding in Area VIII referring to the preliminary plat graphic, Exhibit the approximate north one -gyral- of bots 1 and 2, Block 6 and the approximate east one- half of bot , Block 6 and Let 2, Block 7 be mains aned as LA -3, with the balance of Area Vill regded to IP. Discussion ensued and Commissioner Barron stated that be disagreed with the motion, and that he would be more in favor having a continuation of LA -2 guiding rather than LA -3 for pari. of the area with that area designated in the motion as IP be left s bA- . PLANININIG COMIDIIISSIONMINUTES -11- dune , 1900 Commissioner Steiderwald read frog the comprehensive plan lane u4j as t,,_t burden taeg.ea. v' #+..'.e... ^i a,: a3.Lx x,.tK. ,i:`. .2,. x e a w,r t # to aaan c ' n roc he . r uses the various digit districts eigerwald staffed that he felt the petitioner has oaken steps to preservethe natural area to the south and that he yeas attemp vie a transitioni e Clty of Plymouth for the: existing single family dwellings. He stated he Could see merit in the developer's proposal to have somee industrial in this area provided proper tranon was allowed. Commissioner nrro noted the substantial amount of industrial land which had been proposed In earlier action, Chairwoman Vasilld called for a vete. 11,0TION FAILED Commissioners Wl re, Barron and Vasiliou Opposed MOTION b, Commissioner Barron, seconded by Chairwoman Vasiliou to recommend the guiding of area VIII be as f llov s with reiPerence to the: preliminary, plat and Exhibit K in the pink covered book: the ap roxima e ; north half of Lots I and 2. Block 6 and the approximate east one-half of Lot 2, Block 6 and dot 2,, Block 7 be r q ed o A— 2 , with the balance of area VIII o remain .-3. Discussion ensued. Cow,,-,.niissioner Wire stated that he felt that some IP guiding s qu d be allowied provided that substantial tfr n i C on area in the foram oft LA -2 or - was provided. C mr ssion r Barron stated that he felt substantial. amount of Ip guiding had been recommended and he was concerned with the loss of housing in this area N TIOR CARRIED 4-m CommissionersWire and Steigerwald Opposed Further discussion ensued regarding Area II. MUM by, Commissioner Wire, seconded by Copriissioner Larson to recoimtend that the guiding in area II remain LA-. MOTION 4-2-0 Commissioners Steigerwald and Barron Opposed Commissioner S ei erwa' d co ented that he felt the Industria: guiding in the area should be unified and that as CopnissionerBarron had stated. Areas II and IV should be treated alien MOTION by Comiaissioner t1ire, seconded by Commissioner .Zteigerwald that the petition should be deferred so that the developer could prepare a revised general development plan reflecting the reeownended guiding on a consolidated plan, MOTION by Commissioner Barron, seconded by Conmiissioner Stelgerwald to amend the main motion to defer only the rezoning and the preliminary plat portion of the petition and to forward the recommendations as to guiding on to the City Council for disposition prior to Commission action on the rezoning and replatting, Commissionerissiner Barran stated; that due to the complexity, of the issue and the differen- ces, iffren. e s between the developer's proposal and the Commission's action Cite Council determination should be mads at this time. Mr. Knutson stated that the petitioner NUrE 1 Juno 5 1980 mom VF had no obe- tiorr to that "' lapproachnotingthattyre ' r}e iim* ar t t-Ias essential :"ty a W Tunis °-evclopment due to the processing requirements fr,_ errenv rorr reata assess,,kientt vor .sheet and other matters, regarding the proposed interchange at 1-494. . further discussion, Chairwoman Vasiliou stated in the resolution of tyre re aidirr < by the Council would expedite the oonplete review of the total propa,sal hy the ion; the petitioner concurred. MOTION RD ALL IN FAVOR Cormnissioner 1.4re cormnenteo regarding the proposed graphics and specifically the area rest of 1-4.04 north of CountyRoad 15 that the petitioner should investigate Possible terra rves to alleviate the problem with the houses on the north side- ideandandtheirfutureaccess. Tile * ing recessed at PJAI. and resumed at 12:i'.l midnight. Kission Hills Pari Conce2t,, Plan and Variance The readinS of the June 19,, 1980 staff report was ,.,. avec . herrn Goldberg and Gene o dere s ere - e represe tin the e i i e ` _ i so ! r. Forester was present as he a.nrs the property to the viest of the propos41 Mr. Shen Goldberg gave a brief overview of theproject and compared it to the rest of the 14 ssion i pari, additions. Mr. Forester that they haveI's stated a 1 ncern at,ut access onto County Road 9 and asked whether this road,viould go o to tine Girth staff responded that the City would not contemplate a road going north tnless developent required it. Mr. Forester stated that he would like to see the read exit r°oitr the development in alignment water his",fires access to County Road 9 frotmtine north. Mr. Goldberg stated that this is a problem air wouldldandlo the 'rand to the nest. r . Forester stated that he feels that the and lotr County Road 9 should be a_ ti her density than single family residemia because o the high traffic volume. E Mtr4 Goldberg showed photos of the County Road 9 sight distance from the proposed intersection. µW1 Chairwomanpan Vase l lou referred to concerns expressed in the staff report,, one o white is the access onto County Road k Staff stated that the ci.-cu ation on tr'e site rias sta 's oncern- with the new concept pian these concerns have been add s^Med _. Commissioner ®ire Mated that the concept plan still does not integrate the property to the east. Mr. Goldberg, responded that there -are development problems on the parcel Gird they have seer t the only way they, feel it can feasibly develop. Commissioner Wire stated that as a b the laird ad acenu should be included. He noted tine parcel has a for sale sign on it. 4r. Goldberg also stated that the trail can be ha, died to the north rather than. to the south or east along the backs of the lots In the Mission Hills development. He stated that slreenii lg from ount Road 9, will be quite difficult as the rand is depres4ed and they, feel ft is 'i>apractical to try of construct berming between the ire deve cp ent and: County Road 9, He also discussed the depth.' of the lots abutting x AAatttXMNG- tll'INUTES dune 5 MG County Road (11 and suggested that the area would provide buffering, Staff 'oa k# *4Te t hat a trail corridor r linkage should,out the southeast corner and eventually cQanect with the trail easeiziskent x10119 7achary Large. aiscuss*on ensued#uua' inner Barron asked if this were a conventional plat rather h.n a RPUD, would it require a landscapeplan. Staff said that a formal an woula not be requ i red , but concerns relative to buffering peri rwould proieably result in i ds - zm design requireiments. Co;iuiissioner Wire stated Ithat since i' was a sub -standard PUS mere should e a deduction of density points. Staff stated that the petitioner was seeking variance for being under~ thearea requirement for planned unit d v m ts. Co;=Iiissioner Sarron stated he is generally opposed, to theapproval of a PUD with variance as to size because it s tos a precedent which is undesirable. 4e would rather consider c nvena ,anal platwith warranted r antes rather hPUD which provided little in its design other than numterous lots srua 7 r than she ordinance rainimunni, requirements. IN i ION by Commmissioner Barron, seconded byilT Corimiissioner Wire to rialmt t s}4t1'nd ienial o hsize variance and PUD c P for Mission Hills Park ar ners pbecause1) the request requires a variance from theordinance provision for deduc-t- ingdensity points-, the proposal does not incorporate the parcel to theeast which cold provide adds ill n l land area and open space for the number of lots proposed Y0.*; iplai. t '.a § 'i T^L1 1 §.t "` 5314 ' di 4, 4 Tt,, ,Az :: M a ., y. y Wxl. xhn $ $ ZV s ; s d l s14= 14l . w1al, ;.a ' r 1 1. 1 d lc nland should not r 'red but leaving s a remnant and not providing more open space for the substandard PUB were considerations in evaluating the su s` ani .l g'Ni nc s requested, MIOT1 ION CARRIED - ALL IN FAVOR Staff interpreted omm ssi nr 'Wire's concern that since hpetitioner got an option on this land over time, it should be as feasible for then to obtain additional land for a more viable PUD. 1` krwrmn V silio ,, seconded by CorMssfloner Barron to approve the nutes of the dune 11,, 1960 meeting. MOTION CARRIED Commiss ne* s Steigerwfald and Pauba Absta4ned due to absence from that meeting Chairwoman Ve_,4iliou stated the first tn.eetinq in August should be on Tuesday,, Augusts 2 so as not to interfere,withMusic in Plymouth. There i} y n n furtherhr businessbeforer Commission,, fission, tie t e °adjourned a q 1 i _ A.M. S.