Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 01-28-1981Page 18 G, & Ply January ,, 1 1 Thi regul ar deet erg of the ; fiiouth Planning€. i s i a called to order in the nunci a f the Plynouth CityCenter at 5400 Ply; o fBoulevard y C i r i a Vi s t, MEMIE S PRESENT.- 'Ca woma r r, a f i r., C.t i ss rr rs Barron,, Hetchler, Steiqerwald, gal, Larson and 4a r. w 3 g1 ta A++s 4'fi .,w" 's.6 Ea.#i it a fi2%e4ifiy STAFF PRESEN'r- CoMlrlun i ty Development Director Blair Tremere and Community, Develk,.ient Coordinator Mary Ray, ha rwt-.art '' - 'E i miz,- : kaas 1e rev'4_ c format o r Planning miss orr Minutes rr asked that the ConzIssions, coimplirents be directed to the Secretary. MINES PIOTION was made by Conmissioner lietchler, se EG Cor.-ep issi n r Larson to approve the Minutes of the PLANNInG COM14ISSION l3': bv$-, y 15 10 raec'te tiF #"FAg, as +t: te brw*. ti.p @ January 15, 1981 l t on carried ort a Roll Call v t , :,ri ayes Chairwoman 'nasiliou 'fai ed the advisory role olF the Colmission for the benefit o ane the functions the:11ri arming Commission i to conduct Public' Hearings. She reviewed the procedures used for Public Hearings# The tin was recessed at 7. -IA". P.M. and resutme at 7-.2G P.M1, so that persons iqteres'ted in speaking at the Public Hearings could comj)lete and turnn in, idea ifica- 71on cards MOTI II was -made by Commission rm, seconded by ' Commissioner AM NDWNT OF AGENOA Wire to PiovL-Tree 6-A an the agendaa ° ic tion 80048) up t considered with item 4- (Application 1003) Commissioner arr on noted that the itens were related and involved the saes area for which neighbors been notified f the Public Hearing this everts rig* Mot.;ort carried on a Roll Call vote, seven ayes. PUBLIC'HEARINGS Chairwoman Va i l i Act i . roduced item and exp , a' ned that it WARREN S. CARLSON - involved `only the recldSSifiCatiOn of the Land Use Guiding of LAND USE GUIDE PAS tete ;property at the northeast coener of Zachary Lane and,Irlounty AMENDMENT (80065) Barad 9., Staff reviewed the January 27, 1981 staff report arra Ste -ted that the proposed guiding of LA -3 was consistent with tit( criteria for LA -3 classificAt-ion as staged in the City s Planning :In Minutes January 23, 198 Page 15, Land Us iidf, Plan. Chalmioman Vasiliou revieviedthe criteria listed in the Compreheiisi,ip. Plan.the A-3 guiding classification. C mile ssion r 'Barron requested staff to review the purpose the P l ,/ -Pubs ft guiding l s i ` ion and the status of ParkPaek planning i the area. Staff indicated that the I)urposeo she ' 1 -public classification in this area waIj- in earlier anticipation of possible publ Ic school nee -45 on the east side Zachary Lane. P also pl i : d tcoini-lunity playfield had been planned and development scheduled n t1in east side of ZacharyLane; no publi, '.- ovelopment rspi nrd forthe area ori the east side. Chairvioman Vasiliou reccqn4zed "fir* Warren Ca 81 s n the ,, l - n r who presenteA. G history of the present- owner's experiences with, shesubj property; He indica'ued that sirce 1959 when a rural nurser,. type use was approved, a vamoaty of; pu l 1.. ctiens have pa d the land including property taken for school purposes), street purposed and the anticipated future C inty Road 9 right-of-way. r. Carlson sf;qgested that. rind;a,r the present quilding and Zoning the owners has seenthe land dif nis " In size and, kiven in, value as the surrounding area del opL-d; one of the purposes for th.vi requiding was to provide for a feasible and ssur° f i the owner. V{ s4 d drat the future Cunt road las andexisting 0 r r ' r s on the mita and east pr s nt d constraints which dis urvi d potentla buyers of ane lead. 4r,. Ci, -I son also rev? -wed the present uiding and zoning -kli) 0,0 tle rr -iper - as well as the land use,; on surrounding properties. He suggested that e.OstingCounty Road 9 r,>presented division I 'ne bo-tween a lower,density, guiding to the soutb and `southwest from, a higher density quiding tete n r° n and northeast. Hscated one value f LA -3LA-3guiding for the subj(I " property would be to provide a tuffer with an a c r d n ii development wit -L, ialore open space. Ct; rtiai%au Vasiliou co-mmented thet the C mis inn 'would assume the pr,scyit owner received some (ompensation for that land taken ior pui,,Tic pvrposes and tact the owner had made a conscious 2 i fian to. sway on the lard as: the surrounding area developed. C arrnMn Vsilidu ann ui dd that the public nearing was open and again enc.l in d tete p,. -n edures followed ky the Commission. Verne 0635 40th Avenue North stated he generally represents concerns of the Last Lake '.Iemeowners and he Inquired s whether rer wool d b garages` wit' ?r sed u Cn jrwomn a i l i on stated that. site plans were n presented to the C rtmA ss n at this time; _ staff responded that it' the land an ar, k5 ,-Sk ge r were r g i d d and ultimately zoned fcr n-Atiple dwelling usage the Zoning Ordinance're,40red garage parking for multiple family dwellings, ka ryr T. Andrews, 10840 Rockford Rose, Apartment 213, stated he r pr rr d fhanoreOwners Asso-iation and wished to Zta e opposition to the proposal., He sated that such a devel reef generate a heavy concentration cf 01 11dren and that fro: their u d rs aq'in of the p titionois ultimate plans Miers would oe little-site recreation area. He s-%"*at6,,d also the concerns for viin ra i qaras and storage space and additionial traffic generation in the area where there was,already high traffic,'` He stated a petition had been circulated among the Sagamore hcmcvinrs and the petition was in opposition to prof nct Al Clauswitzer, 10705 - 40th Avenue North, presented a petition re.prinenting 2655 signatures of citizens living in theLos Take area who were opposed to the proposal., lie stated the concerns as to high density for a small site; intensification of a had f'.XAffic situation, including safety, aZa s for children crossing County roads;. and the need to avoid a concentration of low to vtoderate incon.ehousing in one area which he understood ti be a goal adopted by the City. He stated the, residents were concerned that City officials la t year apparently had approved the proposal and he referred to a letter frau forimer Mayor Howard Hunt t the Metrc cl i tan Coon :i l endorsing the-location of .the d,.-welopment. Chairwoman Va-siliou indicated that that letter did not constitute approval of the proposed requiding, and she appreciated concerns of the neighbors as to apparent City approval, of the project,; she noted a letter from the lann rr Director which described the Planning Cc Yai s si n's informal review. f Mr. Ca, x ` s proposal at an Open Forum. lases spring. She stated that -,wte Conirmission had not taken ac for approving the pr of ct and neither had the Cite Council Ir. Clauswitzer also stayed concerns that effective shopping and recreation aci1iti s were not readily available to the site and would require pedestrian °gavel down major streets. Robert Pl ddl mist 4140 "Ximines' Lan , stated that he was the primary KviiFbper of the Lost Lake area south of County Road and indicated that he Nae d velaped the area and that his customers had purchased hones in the area with the understand- ing nd rst nd-x- ing of the *sting L-1 guiding. He stated :large lot sizes had ossa maintained and expensive hoes had becn bvilt and the proposed 9 lidlng was not deeined to be compatible with that; d nsiti or type of housing. fie stated -I guiding should be retained as mart of the effort to mak lymo th a heauti Ful i ty. January ,, 1981 Page 21 Oudy Fralke4s, 11500 - 39th Avenue 1 r , . d she was President af she read a letter which had been ;x;W "3 kir. Carlson tatinfj concerns with the density, Tf-*c and general corc6rns of rr gars as to the imp o4 a multi -residential development. She indicated a petition grad been circulatei sttating tq opposition the proposal also stated 'concerns regarding automobile nose, the reed for buffering,, id the large nwriber of children for which safely accessible- play areas were not Jim Rona` o, 4150 Xitidnes Lanot., stated be representee ro i - mately 25 otwners run the Lost Lake area and stated opposi- tion to the proposal. He indicated'that most .r: rs had checked the i v's Uand Use Guide Plan for the area before purchasing home a I had depended n the LA -1 quiding. He s {ted that Deters bad been told by the City that it would ba very doubtful if the plan would d d and that a general City policywas to adhere to the ul4e Plan. He std he believed the site Oras too close to eXisting LA -1 development to he r- giddied for igher density. AV` -c e stated that neighoors, and rs d the r r ; far nu ew d tyre earl _gar l tees fret nn s .- and the former Mayor ' s for; ial r d rs . rs of fir. ar sun" proposal; he su s * d that the y should correct that understanding if, in fact, the development had not been rnvd a gt I ass}- t 1 i a a a f A re rm e, n n C A * xi4* iT& x kL a:$ l4 Ri b b a,„.x T ie: G ,at -tale x f4 FOn 1110 Fzit,7 ?A 6.2 LRi{T A. f t.Council read approved development a implications " of the staff letter were not valid as a formal endorsement. She: stated sae was concerned that the mmi s n was not even aware of the letter t,.jntil it had been brought to their attention by neighboring ow rs who had reg ^i v d It frnra P":". Carlson. 10800 - s Ave-nue , stated e hid speedNc comments, other than' endorse the previous speaker,. shardry 4835 York -own Lanes stated he was the sirraer ofa n4 u t.bons and he recalled r n a-Milt..k l arnd single family developments in ik.t area d#s a stated the net, effe t was Increased trafffn ire Op area. flxr also f} wanted that a Mr. Nel sort of ttero an Counci l bad suggested that the # 1-dor" s to ni ', ton had been perceived es, cup, nd dried" endorsement of the pro -fee N s uss on , n su d andC'Orivaissioner Barron cited the 'ls Objectives and Criteria noting that one of the goals was to avoid a torr" out -rat ion of low to Moderate cost housing. He January 28, 1931 Page 4 nquir of .rClaus?4 a" the such was *n the rimae, and r usti : r re that t hifrh density on a small site representel a onceptration;he had not s!qqested tears was an existing concentra'Zion of 7 W to Pnoeforate incomehousingn the aroa. Its response oracer s by Chairwoman Vasilicu as to thi eccepi ti of the V4e t ropol i * a n Coatic17 s ex, plai ned ti r- ' .,- of h Nletropolitan Council in reviewing financing a t, for-subsidizod housing. Staff explained Oat time ltropolitan Council evaluatessuch -proposalss l a regional housing goals and that the Metr000litan Coun,, m .does' not act upon lamed use matters such as that before the Coranission, Staff interpreted the fortner tray 's letter as endorsirg proposal for lo i to moderateate nc mhousitiq consistent m0 t h City goals wh had been reviewed and, adopted in term;; .ar letterregional housing policies. Staff noted that both thtk`,ynr and °staff's lettpr explaired that all land um pproval , had yet to he mmmd. Chaimmiian, Vasiliou ellosed the puti c hearing* MOTION by Commissioner Pa.iha, i c rended by Co moil s .i -t; r Wire to act on tf,,i is pet It Ion at this mm, it 11Q. f m t i on carried on a Roll vo1N seven Ayes. ymmi ssi onsa Pzba qtip.stioned whether proper r-is*."Oort -° ol d be provided consideIng the location and size mak tim °msite. tie also cited concerns Illy the City Engineer a potentialal _ access problems for Ithis property and stated haeras gonerally no supportive of the -opo *,l for establishing LA -3 density guiding directly acr-.ss frii-i Uk, * ammmm s mm m s f. general ree mm n and stated that she proposed guiding,represented adi rans!'tion from the LA- developments to the sout-lb. Commissioner He",chler stated there, were patential problpMs with transition,, particularly with respect m the future status o existing Cunty Road ni ch would become a City street., H stated that perhaps the north part of time site could be a higher density uidin such as LA -3 butdid not f o, higher density uidin was a0propridto for the south portAhNn which s c m;mmmmis ioner Wire commented on the mm mem ze County Road alignment dividing time site and Commissioner Pami stated ia- because the existing LA -1 portion t,-ioul(I be "sandwiciled" between future County Road 9 And existing County Road 9, -2 94iding might be Planning Omm ss rr nines January "1. IC11% Page MIGTION by .k;),irass n r Barron,,, secondee by ft:mmissioner h to r E, d n,, nova a al ot - to h d Y se wide Man forthe rIss ii c of rq) rk e cornerortofZachirerd9fr. and uh x i -P ubl itx LA -3 as propose"" by lt4arrenCarlson , the basis that the proposed q dig Is consistent with, the Coraprehansive Plan Goals Objeactives and Criteria for A— developments,; specif"T'cally the sliCe imeets the criteria for such guiding and -1 guiding is not approprialCe for this site. Commissioner rr on stated thato the only issue before the Commission at this time I's an, appropriatelard use guide cla ssi f E ion; is nog a specific site pl r develop -merry ss r r stated he ,A"s,agraed with she vlotion and he also cited the criteria for LA -3 classification noting that the LA -3 guilding should not 4e used exclusively to create buffering. Comm ssi er rr^ stet d h d f . ; Into ns i on' the adjacent r developmentpmt whi h was `guided ani z had in the hs "dens -if l ssiillAon in the City C"oraraissioner Wire stated he did not feel' the impact of the transition from the Sagamore d e the area t she south was a radical as that proposed by the petitioner considering existing- develop-mant. Commi ssloner , Steiq_erwald inquired of CotiTtissioner Wire whether, LA—Z qu'dMq would he considered more o r i and Commissioner t4ire responded that while the north portion of the site might be appropriate for LA -3LA-3the such portion was not and perhaps A-2 woul d be. Couiraissio,ler Hetchler noted that the proposal r~ h or~rrjrssid I was not to rde the land to LA -2. Cor -mai s si o>r r r` d stated that this site appears to be ideal for LA -3 guidingand given the size and constraints _° the existing and proposed roads would not spread. fie also cited the need in the City for low to moderate income ,- n the developing communityn p' a field across she st'leet to the west; and the reasonably accessible shopping fi i i s. orrrssir Mohr v ad:hr IId s northwent of the site across Zachary Larne anti children therefore would nave to cross that street, - MOTION by C"O r e MOTI mmi ssi on r Pauba, seconded tai ss r onor Wire to amend the motion to chane she guiding designation from LA -3 t LA -2; ; the rrot r on was subsequently withdrawn following discussion ER x WyyepE4H46a F, gage 294 t et an '+`&° a ,o p,, 4,, t on thatasttheeifir`i ner'_ request the4#rx" `Fi§ a Sr+ 5 to i..Gt'+w+-1 4 a6,i °,s'X Yr: LtAi 4CiS.s €X:. 1• #as tf# irrCY ti,+ lAz4 Mit-loner did not .OF01 anythw[nq less than :t= n wo u I = reader the site feasible for developxneat..Gorimftsidner W i r,, stated that in that case the Cummv.!ikssion, should consider low ving the guiding as it is. Chairwoman jai noted hat the motion amend had been withdrawn and called for a roll cal, vote the main potion. Motion carried on a ' ("all vote,, Commissioners Ifitt-Chlar,. fere ani Pauba opposed, h a! r o -a a 3 ou introduced h itmi and statea that she NNEPI N CUNT understood smf the neighbors In the area had fcri;ied an CONDII-IONAL USE interest group alliance that had certain perception,. as to the P11111ellik, SITE PLAN aces of this petition. She responded to some of those APPROVAL FOR, WORK concerns: the Planning Commission had not bad any publithearings STUD'RELEASE prior to this ono and to, her knowledge no M*annirq 41'*'ormaission, RESIDENCE ,210066 ) meiabers had taRt with neigiftrhood groups ra ga a g this itemo Also there were concerns, reqarding earlierr spenta tt t ' a l t4hen rrr,, l s ion was sought 'For'Fora fence n par ho. size of the existing facility to the effect ha- ! was a low security operation* The subsequentrV iia trail beet* high security type of fence and she referred t ersons to trrc Chief BuiIdi ng Official as lie specifics. C nmi ssI oner arson stated he was a member of the Coarct of Zoning Adjustments when the matter was reviewed and'that a fence had been approved around a detention area but had not been for high security purposes. Ile noted that it didinclude rain design features including ` r be wire. 11µ0a organ Vosiliou continued her observations affront ighbor- hvc cone -erns nand r evi w.e h;,kiaterials submitted by the,Colt ty, Staff reviewed the 4,.rnrrar , "1431 staff -report and Showed slides. 011 the oxisting detention facility. Staff stated concerns with the existing paK ung problems on the site which encroached, nto Shenandoah Lane and suggested with the l4nd area available saltation should be possible to this parking problem Chair nllan Vasil r ou recoggaized Mr., Oale, Ackimann, Renneep n County m` ar r,, whi.int-roduced several representatives the County and skated they wrere prepared to explain the proposal ai4d to ansvi r any questions. He stated that the proposal was not to build a fdcility for purpa es of; n erg i, i n the exist- xist-in inguse but rather representative reorganization xis n operations. I PI ann i ngr"'OssioMinutes Janudr°y 23, 1981 age tr e 'tl r 0aFa,,representing t1l tier , staged the originall sn'b- c0ttal had failed to address the entire site t that additional arcs visas 4eing prelpared, as reilijested Irk City staff. She briefly reviewed tht of the unt ' Witt, the property noti it had been mj i red; y, the County in 1979 and that 'Che Countywas currently r i ti to resolve a number 17 1,hysical and operational inherent with r facility, She reviewed the use of the various baildings and the type of operations and cited various probletas. Ms. ' 4ark a also r'.0,01-ewted. existing, programs and, also lcaq ranje pans which at this time simply represented possibilities including xp sl existing facilities other than that proposed for the work release facility. Relative to rk i rig she s-tated that in the long tern the County's Capital Improve - i Plan ropos that in 11083 a new parking of to the north of fhe existingbuilding could be provided; followingin further rev I ew of the ex'sting conditions it was evident there was problem that needed to be solved on a "temporary" basis. 'Sire that teip6rary plans had her drawo which would reduce theur- nt parking in the 1 r t, OF the imain facility to apprtx J at,~ y 20 spaces; 7 spaces could be provided the rear of the facility; and a temp:., r r (unpaved) `dot to the north of the main building cool provided and would allov, for approxi- mately 80 pproxi- m lspaces. She stated the total interim parking would he about 107 r_* .xs and that the peak demand was now considered about She stated that detailed parks erg plans Would be submitted toe Citi staff for approval n approximately 30 days Discussion ensued' - regrding the*eros . m ar, pare r rr and Cornmi ssi oner W1 re .ari IN ed that, t the. proposalsa u€d be for a gravel base parking lot which would not be paved -until sometime n the future. Commissioner Barron stated ' concerns With possibilii for future expansion and Ms. Markhan, emphasized that they only represented planning possibilities at thispoint. She stated p that one expansion could be contemplatedin approximately 1984. ss r r sr ra ' rrrar dark! n to be located wherere a future wi rr's residence would be located and lie finquired whether the parking could not he surfaced at this time o eventualTy also serve the wo en's re i dance. Mr. Sigmund rine representing the county, introduced r. George Watt's, who described the program involved with the w rk1release facility. -fie read a description o the activity which had been Bann fing comiss- ii' An Minutes anary 28,, 1981 Page 2 Z. a .`a t+i#9sed ,ts.- is.e. 191 —<3 xretted 4C1 Ia d ng or , S h sentence ' imposed by, the court the average langur of stay was from 20 t 120 days. Ile nosed the counseling, in d with the service and that a program was Individ, 1,11, CrIented, Mr. Fine and fir. Wa- s exolained that persons firs, to this facility leave during return the that nose individuals leave on the to 6e with, their ar r" t s, and in response to a n s .,. v Commfssioner *Wire as to how Chi i s facility related to h a I foray iiauses and s- ar facilitiesil they indicated that it effectively was more secure.` fir.l i ` ria, of George 11"Rein Associates,, the architects for the project, `° vi the site plans and +.he design of the r p,os d facility. Staff noted a letter which bad !m in sn mi ,"* to the Commission which respo de to a number of concernsorcens .cit e ye staff report about he new facility. Staff yn A `atd that as long as there was an,understanding that land was o.v,, t , able to provide additional parking the proposed parking w adequate for the proposed use.; C.nanssrnr Larson statedconcerns as to security for the building and the response was that it was similar to, a dormitory and was generally open though finder supervision. Mr.01 Watts noted that the doors have alarms for unauthorized exiting, thoughlegally people can "check out" of the facility, but that it s in their interests not to leave without a 'thori a i . Comilssioner Barron iiot d r! extent of the existingland area and commentqd as to fiiturepotential uses for the property. Mr. Mkmann responded that it was icu"If", to project ten to fifteen ears i the f4 nr or beyond and ss i d o if there actually was an excess of lan4 bort that theCounty would work w y, to a3sure proper ""ransi ,inn to surrounding and uses Mr.. Arkmann emphasizcd again that this was not ` n intensification bot rather a relocation of an i ;r - ung program. Chairwoman Vasiliou declared the public hearing open. Ellen Olsen,, 1506 Weston Lan ,, stated concern with indefinite r ) ns; and intensification of the use. She stated brat neighbors were cnnr rnsd about Proper security and buffering and questioned the use of the !xistinq gain Facility, once the new building way built. She statnd that the Com 4ssi n should consider how the rrtQ`Z life -in the fity of Ply -mouthh nefi s from this facility. Chairwoman V si i u stated this vias one of thL concerns of the nihhv-hood interestgroup and in particular what the - 10, future use of the existAnq building would be. Mr mann stated that the main building would be retained and upgraded 26- Planning omm.i ss in nut s ll Page 2 and wn the work s d r t asp w=ld be d o Y lie astated that hlcould yot CyGe:the new f c i he crime rates in the future and tbus the volurzieol-, persons stint +40 the adult detention a,-Ality# Mr. Fine o the nature. of the operations and the size if the popullation at any j a u n Atime and he C-nfitined for Commissioner Wire that the vacated space in the existing building would be devoted office and administrative uses and would nod e to accomodate -additional "straight time" confinement. Gary Hudson, 815 Shenandoah Lane,, stated he did not feel it was interest of the conitnunity to allot the expansion. H stated the Planning Commission should consider the protection the public and particularly of the residential area. He nosed that it was an old facie its` which at one time had been appropriate out in the country but that ins had changed and iit ias no longer-, coirfpatible with the urban developi,.ient of the surroundinq area. Rfe stated his train concern was with the flkgtttre expansion of the facility and be did not have specific probllzms ` with that is there right now* Bruce R. Johnson, 820 Shenandoah Lane, stated theee are strong n rns about the impact f the facility on the neighborhood including periodic escapesand presence o uniformedofficersfern in the areaIn response to alarms sounded by the facility. ,e stated that peoplewere affected by this proposal 4 nd the legal area to which not4ces were sent. fie stated many people in the area were alienated y the use and that people wire told sone years ago that this would be a low Iter facility and eventually wo d be redeveloped into a different type of use. H stated that now the County was proposing expan;0on of the facility,, and he did not feel this vies compatible with the uses in the area* Eisele Totman, 15510 - 9th Avenue North, stated rw•. r s of the Wei r jinth i ch were generally in opposition to the r oposal It was explained that a formai neighborhood "alliance" did riot exist but rather general concerns mora to many people find been exprOssed including security and ,. Anda' danger t children. ne rte X45 anc i bane, stated that ter seems o be a increase in the u at on of the facility proposed and h read a letter the had dva tt d for the 111anning Commission which had been signed by a nurtioer of neighborhood residents* Ile seated that Mr. Fine of the County had met with some of the a Paarrdnfratrr had been provided regarding existing and proposed facility. eta, stated that in, addition to three basic issues, code compliance,' usageomplfiance (zoning), S Page 23 and safety,. another overriding issue was the desire of the Coon _ expand the fad t ity. He stated thatt t hadoriginally been r-opresented as a low key operation was now being , proposed to b:t more,active and ;could have serious tt p ° 'Z -he City as a whole. tie stated that the proposal warrants pur r consideration by the Cite and suggested that the Planning ta consider all of the issues irlvolkm - in addition to the- appaoent ones of compliance and safety. Chairwoman Vasillo,i responded that it was the role of the Commission to take testitiony such as that presented and to considers all of the issues including h broader picture s suggested. r ` t ri d. , 15730 - 'nth- Avenue North, stated he was a relatively new r s n o the x and abutted, the site. He. stated the City had at one time find- rated the facility would eventuallyb closed or, converted to another ase. tie stated tie was not i n favor of the proposed i(,,n* Rrtf Jt4in on, 820 Shenandoah Lane, added commnep-*s relative 0 r r i off idols, thai. the land could 'perhaps be used for den space purposes r a pe -1 . Chairwoman 'Y i l iou closed the public hearing. ng. MOTION by Coutimissiopor ponded by Commissioner Pauba t ` act on this petition at this meeting Matian carried on a Rol I Call, vote, seven ayes* Discussion ensued and Commissioners Pa.n and Wire Inquired as to toe nature, of controls the Citi had thrcuph t conditional use permit for ars institutional use in the R -1A District. Staff r apond d as to the basis for a -olondiltional use permit,and the criteria listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff explained that. w the t n adult orr ons facillity had been established j)r7 r to ordinance classification of this use as, a tonditional ise perms c but the proposed facility and site improvements were b ct `` to the current ordinance requirements. to ` ex0lained that the controls of a conditional use permit generally re-lare-late to thei pact of a proposed use and that conditions could be applied obi w ld city the act i n€t d r - mental or hazardous to the area. Commissioner Wire stated 10's concern that there should b assu,,,,%d rice thatthe oo r} tdo would be as proposed, specifically, t hat the use of the -building would be within the dd d limit tions and not subject to change or expansion. Commissioner eig rwald suggesked that ':ire Coitmiidid not necessarily Planninq Commission Minutes Janu€ , 193,11 P have . approve the m n proposed since it s mi:.M to retprespat an expansion of the six i ng use. Wminis ion r:W re staged that while' e appreciated the nature f the work ud release program thlerp were -Pw quaratiltees to the number and type of persons sentenced to the program r t10 h-e detent i on fac is ty® Chairwoman V s i l i oft sated that, 4 gars waS ille'rit in establishing specific condi i rs and controlon the use b=it the need a r eared to be defining what those controls might b , Sbe s"ggested that niximaR occupancy nor ; to otie and that as staff izZ11 dated controls as to providing appropriate parking and physical design features teas another. Commissioner Barron suggested -',here was it, nee for periodic monitoring and control'ss s to the intensity f file use. Commissioner 'Steigerwald recited the ordnance criteria and standards for conditional use permits a ,' stated there was` a need for ftunwther information to ga a spocific understanding as to the existingand proposed operatione igerviald, seconded by CommissionirMOTIONbyCommissionerSte. to defer action en the Y—,tition so thot additional information can be gathered to answer r t i ns raised at tate b a nq spel"ifically inforp,Ation should be soughtfrom the Public; Safety Departm"t as Zlo, any problems and demands for service e v d over period of riga such as the last two ars, and information should be asseinbled by staff as to what specific on rcould be applied by the City through the conditional use port-Mit n the operation. Commissioner fletchler con x nd that he afireed additional information was needed so the Commission could full* study the issues at sand noting that if the entire adult corrections facility were being proposed today in this R-1A District, was unlikely that it would be approved. He staged that specifically- the omm ss on madded to determine whether the proposed viork study residence represented an x ans on and intensification of the existing use., Commissioner 'Wire stated that he would evaluate the potition r s f ` the total needs of ttomr.u.nityand that he was concernn d particularly about accomodati ns for "s rai b+ prra,a MOTTON4by Commissioner Larson,, seconded by Commissioner Stec ger wa d to amend the :main iziotion CO direct further 'iof rma inn fr ay the petitioner as to a d , `I d description of existing uses 30- Vlanning CoommissionIrlinuttes January 2.03. 1931 Page 30 broken down by type so that tiro Commission c'uld evaluate the degree of any expansion. Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, seven ayes= Chairvtoman Vasilioustated that the Ccriumiss i should direct. 1'4- h at she public hearing be continued and Chat: all property owners who received nod i cc of this hearing should be renotified when htem came back. MOTION by Commissioner Barron, 'seconded by Commmissioner Larson o arnend the ta n notion directing the petitioner to provide input as to what controls, > if any, existed over the Judicial system ut "expansion" pressures on the fa-lility in terms f City ander County abilities to regulato. the size and intensity of the facility. Vlo ion c trri d on a Roll Call vote, seven ayes* Chairwoman Vasiliou called for a voce on the main motion as twice amended. Motion carried on a Roll Call Vote, seven ayes. fir fkmee+i s recessed a+ P.M. aid a .* Staff reviewed the January 23, 1981 staff report explaining WALLACE , FREEMAN the ,petitioner was seeking approval of a conventional multi. CONDITIONAL USE family rr al d v l c t rr acres a IT, SIT% PLAN quadrant of Nathan Lane and Bette Crocker Drive extended. ANVARIANCE FOR a"2 explained that the petitioner was seeking approval for 90 111W LOW'GROVE units which would require a0pl ica i crr of several ordinance CONDOMUNIUMS11 allowtinc s for density credits and variances to allow more an 81003) the base density of 66 units. Cba rw,o an Vase r ou recognized Mr. H.;ward Dahlgren who rep- resented the petitioner and who also introduced Mr. Craig Freeman, an, r. Bob Coffman, Mr. Lynn Caswell,, Mr. Jeff Martin and Mr. Frank Rowe. Mr. a r r n stated that p ion is main concern wit the ro ject and the staff report ",:fthe density and that the or mar is relative to design features and ordinance standards could be resolved, fie reviewed the development of the site and the area including the history of Betty Crocker Drive. He described the density of the ad jacent multi -family units in Louis Park and of the Willow Grove Apartments in Plymoutn. ale stated the developer had 'initially thought 120 units would be appropriate for this project but had reduced the number to, g 30- ni ng Ummi ssi on t4l notes January 20u, 1981 Page 31 r aonroximatelv 14.7 units per acre. He stated this density wa -wer than that of the adjacent l in St. c!r*r j Park and compatrable to thosethe Iffillow Greek Apartments. He stated than; it was the ref. it of the petitioner r area dra ra problems r ce . yr, thatw concern of Wan o f the r d t tb we4 t ?tirees would be retained as much as possible and that additional trees viere proposed. Mr. Dahl9ren showed profiles of the proposed berming and landscap- ing 4n rrds a - rr d noted that relatIve to parking lo diwen rr ,, deeper stalls were being proposed`than the ordinance inimura and tnat accounted for bi differential in the aisle width a notedi the staff report. fie stated that City Engineer's conczrns relative to the grading: and drainage plans could be resolyL,, and anted the intent of the developer, use a natural ponding m. Mr. Dahlgren olso commented that the petitioner preferred patht-tay around the building as shown rather than the full rd nand required i rye lane,, noting tha the City had in the past approved soar designs provided a proper base was provided underneath +he sod. Commissioner Hetchler observed that, as noted in Abe staff report, the submitted plans -were not consistent as to the fire lane in thatone la how d it at ordinance rr ;r r requirements and another showed it in the Form of the pathway. tie stated that the development should comply with the City Codd. r* 'ab r r n describedbd the layout of the building and the provision ford yard ar a . As to r qu std v r is ices on density, Mr. Da ren Mated that d1lowance #3 0ould ba viewed as to its intentand not necessarilyily to its specific provisions. He staked that the read had been installed as a thoroughfare acrd that r: design standards were such that it was capable I supportinqsupportapproximately 15,000 R° hicles per day. He stated thv# Commission should ba able t ional i ' that the project faces a thoroughfare street evert tho jgh it is not technically an irterial and does not,, at this time, carry '10,000 cars per day. Mr- Dantgren comiiient d as to the I ori to moderate incomehousing allowance and stated that stibsIldized goosing was difficult t Corrie by at this point in time in that the amount available was: determined on a metropolitan basis; also Plymout',`bad recently received ' approval for several project. -s involving subs di zed low to moderate income housing. He, stated that the Metropolitan R x Planning m err Minutes, January 28, 1931 Page 3 Council also classified as "affordable' heusing in a price range rrow a "modest cc,st" and That the Proposed eo dormini lm a s C'Men' at $55- 45t,000 sould qualify, 'as' it de t cost". He stated that the developer was Hance the project under the HUD 234 i nancirig'ro ra r'° and that this was within the spirit of the ordinance to provide "-,fforda le" housing. lie tared that the Commission wind again rationalize that the developer's intentions were s ct-r 'hat addit rra " densityculd e provided -i nee more a ' erg able housing would be realized* f Commissioner Barron inquired a to the elevation of NMarr Lane, the elevationion of the Twin Fountain Condominiumsin St, Louis Park to tyree ar'- rrd the elevation of the Plymouth residential street in the northwest corner of this site« Cormaissioner Barron also inquired as to whether any : r ion of the building was within 150 feet of an established single family residential district,, Mr.' a r ren responded in the inegative to the latter question and referred 'the elevation questions to the surveyor,, fir, Caswell. Referring to the submitted plans, Mr. ; a el stated that approximate elevatio ' r Natthan Lane wa s`-, feet; the Twin Fountain Condominiumsa was not clear; and ;)rk the street in the northwest. corner was approximately 890-891 feet. He sty ed the first e r elevation of- the proposed building was 903 feet Commissioner Barron:stated his concern that the site appeared to be filled and relatively high compared to surrounding r erg ies and that this would have hearing on the screening and buffering proposed. Chairwoman Vasiliou announced that the public hearing ' was now open. Dick .205 Quaker :pane, stated his understanding that Quaker arr wFs t -e be a dead one and that rerideits were.concerned with reepi and berming. He noted earlier concerns regarding he Willow Grove Apartments to the north as to buffering from the single family residential area. He else stated that people are now cuttinj across this property from, a er Larne to qct t i the condominium project in St. Louis Park. Mr. C,,offwan representing the petiltioner responded ra the grading and ponding design proposed would inhibit the unauthorized traffic ores the property.r - Coffman also responded toi we stlon ' Mr., Lee as to the height of the building and the proposed buffering. Mr. Lee noted that there were a large number of apartment €gaits and condomlniu.m units being developed in this areas ar wed em Saratoga .ane, stated concerns writ the existing Wain'ageage d stated he did not wan+ the problem a ravgted* Mr. January 241, 1981 Page 33 Dah1gren, responded ir'intention tu resolve the existing drainage r t?: s 1 -a , with a sora ads approved by theCity. Mr. Swedbergk that lie was oon e' neo thit existingtrees be retained an noteal that many trees rl,-iy die as the result of the 1: grad n ot soAiiIn yRobinson, k g3 Quaker Lane, a wig that ?4 i. p' Y as ++ y` nceR 4 density " of rc project$£ i h A traffic: n r-3 i n on Quaker Lane including during the construc- t v r od. 4 a d that dv ver are now driving down Quaker andcutting acrossthis pr em arra he sought assurance that the sll:e Arlan would provide o i barriers o any traffic. He su q 4 that the initial s4te grading include the b r in anti other fig ura which Auld insure no traffic on (ua er Lane. V -fl Scheqlowski,, 6 Saratoga Lane, inquired about the amount of Trr rid 'Whother proposd I mer I n o rest dents woul d be welfare recipients Staff responded to the proposed paeking plans and Chairwoman Vasitiou indicated that the source of tm for prospective occupants was not a mater, before the Planning Commission* Mr. Scht-*gTowski. also Inquired as to the future of a short sec, - f-wa near,w,ient of his property. Staff indicated that he 4=ld petition for its ror no plans to rd to segment further to the east as a City street. Chairwoman Va i l i u closed the publit hearing. Further e"ssiod ensued regarding the code related items which had r.., rt di u "d by the petitioner. Staff Indicated th the allmiances for dqnsity were quite specifir and objective and that in the cess oF the street adjacent tro the project it clearly was not an arterial street as specified by the surd rr 1rro , gaff stated the City had consistently required demonstrated ow to inoderate income units through a ov subsidized pro4ects, including the Willow Grove apartments to the north* The ordinance incentive gas designed for low to inoderate income housing, nn)". Just "affordable" market rate grousing Staff suggested tfla if higher density were deemed appropriate, t should be vievied as s warranted overall r i ante; rationaliza- tion atio ra` itiono, the, deasity al lour ns was not appropriate. Regardi ng the proposed patbway I r l i eu of ful I f 1 re l antis, staff cited the Cite Code requiring, full width -Fire lanes at proper design standards around all sides of the uidirq lie suggested that the r t t. on r had not indicated a need for a variance but rater asked for something less as, a matter of design* January 28), 1931 Page 3 Stai-f colmn-nteif is oo the design * the northwest area h r- it*.#,e-r a 1 : t the i its C_ ' this. pr=- per v < beingR hovin as part Oe site M i ii #. r r e rr , int, part r site,, t r tr rrshould be on the property itself. romnidione - Wile stated Ills CoAcOrnsthe northwest area and the need to provide positive traffic barriers. !ie stated that if the land were vacated the right-of-way would go to the rt r r rr residential propertya of - } ri," propert Y.properthus the indil;iied improvei,,ients shouldbe relocated. gMr. Dalilgren res,,pondedthat the petitioner had not. assteied the right-of-way, vacation wld go. to hem but rather would to to the neiqhbot- ing profertywo r with whom they would worppropriate grading alandscaping. fir. Coffinan said that- Much otf the beriinq was alreat,in place at this location* Commisssioner Barron noted that Che petitioner's information booklet rub -o ,-)nsis ent witil the statement- by Mr. flablgren that, all of the units were one or, two edr° . He notedthe booklget suopstelthat there are spine terse -)edroom unit's. Mr. r Ohl r n i a a t 'r errorr r t d urits would be one and two bedroom, only, COQIP i ,- Larson iaquired as to the garages provided and unit*,. Yetbl= rat, least ty n}_#_ 2t garage would 2 5yyyMnn ¢ y provided. g` s 3ggq each n Z ai{ *,. Mr. . il i; 3 Ori% k: 14,1 14de-4.i i -L. SA i fi i r gja+ Z o''15 ti i Y ! statedthat there would e separate, storage areas provided or each init. 140T I ON 'by Copunissioner Barr , , seconded day Comm s c ner Iffire to, errpetitionr t'leeting. M 'Jonot carried r k Roll Callrdyes* V1 , T 10 I dryi&lmtssltnr BArron, seconded by COMMISSIO W Wire to s I eparate the 'various issues since he believed hepe ition shoulde furred for certain reasons but coulti be acted upon without urt r deliberation rr 3thers. Mot i on CarAed on a Rola SM$ ieven ayes. o reconwre rd approval of a condit, nal use, permit, `, r* a iltiulti- residential building, a r tyre 4Dis-',Xict as pr000sed by Wallace, r mar with (in a rs um.b r of dwelling units of 76, b ised upon d ;ls i t allowances p ordinancenan criteria #1 and #21, an additional 6 units per criteria #r- will be permitted only upon demonstration by tr n r of a bona fide low to moderate it.coiae ho -,;sing appry federal c stets agencies priorr 34- January, ?FI, 001 Page 5 Afth Ak XXUO e$ MA;Mn carried on a Roll Call vote, seven ayes. defer final action on the,proposed site 1,,wlan and variance." with 4iroction, to the petitioner to: oak s-ecifically addressthe orading and, drainage. Issfies f raised h o i ° An the C Frig* neer* Revised plans. to comply with City Fire Code reqatrevents relative to fire lanes and hydrants. i)r rr) ton- and/or ri icat oar of vibmitteti p'I compliance w4th ordinance standards as to aisle width and - yard setbacks. MOTION Ly XJ to alnend the main motion to direct revision of plans specify AM effective jnethWj. l -Ithfe, norlChwest area o er'rrcrrrrr rrc barrier fromo er r *ane; the matter of ihovt Qacaker L-ne will b vacated and fermi mated with a cul-de-sac should he clarified with the City Engineer. r Issioner Barronoff"(1-red she following as general Girpction to the petitioner: thkA the site slould be carefully evaluated as to mcg and proposod elevationsparticularly wit respect to drainage concerns and buffering of the Project` from neighbor- ing single fa eig b - i mi residential l rb r o. f.0 stated he w,is,,hed tq see a clarifi net effect of the bu.1,1ding design and the landscaping. Mr * ' 1".gra std-stdt-ed thatthe i,ew building. vi approximately N higher than the i* g bu i 9 a indica diet no X 411 had deen provided in this area and that it was l originally. Conmissioner Barron stated his concerns wO"e Properly evaluating the elti this development against existing surrounding v iant. He suggested h't the petitioner shoe severkil through ; to the seat and to the south, which were vroperly verified against the proposed and exit ra . m,%aan Vasiliou sjqq..,ted that tete petitioner ocare- fully evaluatethe drainage conditions and suggestod that commmuni cation be establish,d with the adjacent homeoviners so that there was no misunderstanding as to what the develo,,er would and would not d matter f his r rr ii "t t , ire ah gree' stated again the r ti l ner' meet was to resolve he areadrainage problems. Plarmil""q commuission Minute* a 14r. Dableren stated concern the ; the wfe T units and spa -ted he coij' ' not understand why the would not wamt to havo 14 more units in considerstion of additional tax base. mmi is Yner Sar- om stated, that as a Planning Commissioner,, It was :lase -tat allotvan'Ce could he made for criteria #1 ani #2 b t It if=s d fi ,' to , not approp °tete o apiply criteria #3 s i ose th, arc e -e road was- not art r kind di k not beer over 0 ° x r.; per da . Commissioner Barron al s explained that 'i R . a very requirInq developers to Shoe approved subsidited housi, ng moderateIncis omethat- wlovetasczonher_ aggcy 22 vjidexnte + gf p y " p y, ^ g Y pd 4t +3' 4f - ov n or i'E4{€'.t .. w 4dt '++i` A.ia kf iR r7go''S C'ka R". g}', Purposes with inods s. r. Dahlgren, suggested that the Cm.mission should consider rationali.-ing the specific conditi s and proposal and vary egtmh rules.Chairwoman i i ou dt d that was not the gpVas x"'u%l icy " 4Kheu. d l yogi uth P11 --a ift#@n Cha. rman Vasiliou called for a vote the amend.11 Matilon carried on a Roll Call vote, seven ss. m^' m'-. ° called for voteti,3 l m a yy pp t ion carried on a Roll Call vote seveft ages. miissioner Stigemald left 'Che table a -.0 A.M* The item was introduced by staff and included a twmmary_ f the VEIACE FREEMANU January , 1981 5 4` report REVISEGPRELIMINARY PLAY AN REV ED Chairwoman Vasiliou recognized Mr. Bob Coffman who represented GENERAL DEVELOPMENT the, petitioner and a, brief di-scussion ensued as to the earlier PLAN FOR "WILLOW concerns r ised by °theni mma sst n relative to access GROVE 2ND ADIDITIONIt onto Betty Crocker Drive and concerns which had been expressed 80048) response to questions by the resident of 6 Saratoga Lane, staff explained the type uses which were proposed in the general alte p e t- pii and 'which would be permaitted by the Coini;iissioner Wire stated nc rn s to the stains of the general development pian with respect to the resident !' area since- the layout on the qcneral devolopment r1an differed from the r ,j s d site plan. Staff i di *.,at d ghat at Stith .time the lanni 0 m issi a d itounciarvdthesite e cat i 61003, that could be ,Ad an. approved an,en4m ent to this general Oevelopraent plan w ich wmi a footprintpri for tin... Pagei3" ^ aniticpated types of uses. rairw ;. a V llou noted that none of the otherer ti- p a rr ; Property owm rs who were present wishedto to recom. mian for "Willowrevisedgeneraldevelopment ,,)Tan far Wallace Free tok Fd 1tA.[ $R 3+ Grove a°„ Addition" a#.'Tyiad the following 0.n Cmiipl iar t:e with tyre City Engineer's Mmoran- rr dor 2. ucimilopmk !it, of the property 'is subject to eventual final sitspli n approval, € rr3on I a e reoulations,, q thex m.,quireiaents, ofSection 6 of the Zoning r %;%- regarding General Flood 41'" ain District. Payment of park dedication fees and provision for erre necessaq trail easements shall be meds wif,.b fimlsite plan approval, 4. Development plans shah baa 0l),je review by the Bassett Creek Watershed Di r l -.-. 1,13 building permits t <verx untilfinal PWS hasi been filed t, tij 1n CotInty. 6. Resolution of the proposed street vacation and land use i the northwest corner Gf LiA_,,, Block 1. Future ', ` rr access along t. u athan Lane shall gyred iai K, approved access paints along the west sideof llathan Leas. 84 Payment of pro -rated casts relative to Betty Crocker Drive as computed by the City Coxae Park err letter dated January 2, 1981. m R,3aioval of all dead or diseased trees from the property the owner's expense. W. written a-.pproval of anY ourb cut access Gnto, Re",tyCrockery Drive by the City {ulf St., Louis Par n r Hennepin e rr * sf ll rr carried on a Rall Cell six Reading of January 1, 1931 staff report was waived. WLTAK CORPORATION hai r o Vas i 1 u r c rr fir'. i rr Mir. Gene SITE PLAN AMENMME NT A LD Nelson r epr nting the petitionem TION (A-664)(1981) 37- 4anu-dry 23,. 1981 ige 308 AaDiiissioner Wire stated "drat Aditionallandscaping erre trees relied" to the largetaass of the building as seers from Xenlurll Cage. Oe stated that the submitted rr cprmed with t r City's Landscape Criteria -and tbus the petitioner should art least redistribute som f tete proposed trees or consi4er addingsome erase Mr. Gene "nelson Stated that the landscape plart could he mo)dlified with a rearrangement tr=ees to provide' aoditional lfands-apinq in the viest area fi MOTION by Commissioner Ifire., s,,econded by Commissioner He,%;chler comirvi d wpproval of the site plan -ipiendment and lot consolidation pr r_Deltak Corporation for ars a,proxfitate 28,003 square foot addition at the northeast corner of Xeniull. Lane and 12tb Aventi 'Niorth subject to the Following conditions: Tante with the Cite Engineer's Meatorandum, R. Submittal of ordinancerequtred site performance f ' qua -rant errr fes ' 24 mon'ths. Payment dark dedication fees in lieuf land, dedication r;)r Z.241 ams -* c r aw q rig y Park x i r. i P In pie a t building p it- i-isua-flce. 4. Lot consolidation to be filed witt Hennepin County, prion to rbuilding permits* 5. Compi i a rice with City Cade r r cen for fire lanes , and ire kydrants. 6. Complianen. oith crdinance, curbing requirementsor nelvi drivino an! parking areas. 7. Iq outside storms{i r or° r lfacilities beyond those l owed under tho i sfi ng conditional use perriit4 8. Any, expansion of approvedr a i t s, shall be in accord-ince with the approved "proof of piar i ng" plan. 9. Sionage on the site shall conpivwith the Citi 10. The larrdsca -e plan sk ll, be amended to locate additioilal trees sari plantings on the west and northwest sides ' Vh site to' r t r t r' f r" he uses the d n seen frog rr rrm Motion carried n a Roll Call vote, six ages Pcunni ;Cor(wYdssion 14irvites AnUa0y 21, 1981 Page 3 The reading othe January Re2 , 198 -staff report s waived. FORD . OBBI S R Staff plainer! the item had - n considered t theeceru r MUCHAEL ,FF. . h 1980 meetina and; been deferred so the petitioner LOT DYST could submit accurate surveyinformation relative to the 9NS04k 1 O N subject properties, VARIA Chai-*wolman Vs i i ori r nt zed Mr. Robbins and discussion ensued regarding the existingconditions., k r. Robbins stated that the pet gn r agreed,to the reco:mnended conditions of approval as rstaffidInthestaffreport. MOTION y `o.71!1,s.s n r Larson, s nde by, Commissioner 1.1ire t reconiend approval of the lot division/consolldation variance for rd 14. c h ins subject to theffollowing, conditions, 2. Provision of allrequired casements as aaproved by the ty Engineer pri r to filingthe lotdivision/consolida- 3.No yrdsetback variances are granted or implied. 4. The W ht ani location of theexisting Fence shall be brought i roto compliance with the Zoning Ordinance; wh1W the petitioner mly seek a zoning variance, hi; action should not be construed to be endorsementof such variance, and in any case, priorl i , tree fence shall € removed from thefiling, to-#'' f aypCityi y ri h . -oye * ormiss loner Hetchler inquired a h t the hardship was and in particularthehrs ip that Wsrelated to theaid— 'H inquired as to whether such a hardship was the reason :the City was being forced to consider a varidnce action. Mr. Robbins responded that it was not theintent of the petitioner tforce the City sato ranting a variance and he recited the history of the property where unauthorized lob had been filed wi Id nn pin County and then brought to the attention of the petitioner an requiring ity approval. He stated that the now existing fence had not been in plece at the time that, action was taken. tie stated the hardship with the Wind involved existing trees at the rear line of the property which the wn rs felt ould have to be mago r r moend in ordner to locate the fence on the existing property line. Commissioner uba stated that he believed ,he, fence could, have been located on the xisting lot line without removing or damaqing the trees. Cotmissioner Wire observed that the, magnitude the variance as si n fKaot in this case and that because both looms h. -A beon developed the impact was minimal,, fie also noted that the a vwr Planning Cortnission January 2-; 198 Pees 40 ion would incidentally resolve a problem w rtr the deck cessA. a^aa, k: a r +cs. 1`ggg . - din- t srr i.cy.:: gFF$v:4.,... Tw &. i",s ,ap..FY $A Fi'RT'.; 'vs #T. i a.«0.3tie-. i'wfF Sa!€ d3,F& F:3hF distance requ r, amen s During further- di u s n., Mr. Robbins ru-ethat the Commission view the natter in fits basic form, ia lot d s r rr nosing that the owners were pr jm r d to resolve the zoning proOegis resulting fromi the fence !:cation,,, V si i u called for vqte on she motion. Mot!on carried or a Roll Call e Unmissioner 'Hetchler opposed and w"rrd than fie did not see a.c unusual hardship per Ordinance Variance OTHER BUSINESS In Wier business Chfairwoman ac z , ou stated that the Mayor had requested etzm nd n ror i i mss' ,w V C r s rp for the coming r* FlOtION by CommissionerBarron seconded by Commissioner Larson to recommend to the Mayor that jo in ssi ner Steigerwald be designated as Vice Chair the coring .year. Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, six , Chairtaoman Vase l i u stated that she was appointingommni ss nn r Larson as the continuing representative of the ",sarssion Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals torough June,, 1981. Chair -woman V si l i on also stated that the representatives d the Plymouth Developer's Courcil would un i, rare to be Commissfener Barron and Coatmissioner Steigetwald as Alternate* Chairwoman s i , F a ed that she had asked staff to prepare a statement to be ddopted bv the Commission stating the purpose of the open forum and specifically to rote that the p-,jrp9se was for citizen input regardino p1Cnning and zoning watters, in general and was not rid --d for de, -!elopers to seek it'ifurrmal endorse ent of l ns. In oxher business.. the ,,mmilssiun discussed the desirability of receiving dopy, the full size plans especially relaltive to s te plans, landscape plansand ;)rel kmi nary plats since the bi of submitted 2 by reductions was not consistent# Staff noted that many communities del require this and if the Commission felt that was appropriate it could be required, nnti q, hued ur, that it would r sult in substantial additional volume, of paper. It was the concenses of the nissin that if highly legible redactions could not u