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