HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 03-25-1981PLANNING COQ I t E
City of Plymouth
The Special meeting of the Plymouth lc gni sion was called to order in
the Council Chambers Conference Room of the Plytrtou h City Center,, 3400 Plymouth
Boulevard CC P.M. by Chairwoman Vasiliou.
N airwoman asilio€, Commissioners tdlber , ei rwald,
auba, Wire and Larson
MFTIBERS ABSENT.- Barron
STAFF PRESENT. Community Development Director Blair Tremere alid Building
Official AT Kleinbeck
REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE CRITERIA POLICY RESOLUTION
Staff reviewed the report of February 6,, 1981 including, the recoAmend tions o
the City Subcommittee f l l o i ne meetings with a subcotriti tte o the Plymouth
Development Council . Chairwoman Vasiliou recognized Mr. Loftu!, of the
Vantage Companies who is a member of that subt.b rai t- . Discussion ensued regard-
ing the three items listed in the staff report a -ad the recommendations of the
Development Council Subcoimittee.
Chairwoman Vas liou also recognized Councilmanan cilaeider and: she noted the
Commissionion had r eceive l his letter of Pebruaxy , 1981. regarding the Cit,y. Sub-
committee 's recommendations.
Regarding possible revisions to Iter 413 of P,solution No. -347 and the incorpora-
tion of various specific elements of landscape design, Commissioner sire inquired
whether it would b appropriate o include such things s sculpture, f0ntains,
benches and other decorative materials as suggested by the Development Council Sub-
mmcommittee. Chn ssioner Wire stated concern as to iron an equivalency could be
established for such items as compared to plantings.
Mr. Loftus responded that those items' constituted the "other" elements that could
he lased in landscaping a site and stated it was a matter of aesthetic taste. He
cited exampleses of where such elements had been used by his company in projects
elsewhere.
Commissioner Pauba stated that it could ba. very difficult to equate such items with
landscaping and noted that the present landscape policy does not preclude the use
of such items.
Mr. Luaus stated that she basic concern of the Development Council had been with
the current policy requirements for an absolute minimum number of trees. Council -
ran Schneider stated that that was the basic issue and he agreed; with Commissioner`
Pauba: that it wars trot clear whether the particular 'element was needed as specific
iters. Councilman Schneider recalled past concerns by the Pl nuing Commission and
Council regarding the evaluation of landscaping plans and the amount of time
required when such plant were not in order. He sty tec,' J -.bat discussions with the
Planning Commission Minutes
Marcli 2.5, 1931 Special Meeting
Page 83
o mii sioner Wire recalled that the formulas in the, policy had been -established
after a great deal of research as to typical and actual site plats which had been
approved the City-, staff indicated than the formulas were also b(ased upon
minimum planting standards °or mature trees and did not represent an excessive
mount in: consideration of the area available.
MOTION b omm ss i oner Steigerwald, seconded by CominissionerPauoa to recommend
amendment of Item #3 in the current policy to include tete following.-
An
ol w
gagnequivalentofuptofiftypercent, 0:: may be created through tete
use of over -story trees, in combination with other landscape design
elements as listed aboven no case shall the number of over -story
trees be less than fifty percent bra') of the appropriate formula.
The oui%den shall be upon the developer to demonstrate by narrative and
graphics how the equivalent effect is provided. The equivalency stall
be subject to approval by tiie City Council.
Commissioner tarson stated concern that the intention should not be to simply
provide a wad f reducing the landscape standards fifty percent and noted that
the approach would bevery subjective. Further discussion ensued and fir* Loftus
indicated that If the -intent of the City was to get quality landscaping treatments
the proposed standards were good ones and if properly administered should result
n good plans,
om IsSioner Aire. suggested that the Planninq Cezanission would nded to make scute
hard decisions since a more subjective approach was being provided for and '.hat
the Commission should either approve or not approve plans and not waste tate at
meetings trying to design appropriate plans for developers.
Chairwomanwoman as l io called for a vote on she motion,
MOTION carried on a Roll Call vote, six ayes.
Regarding the third item in the staff report, Chairwoman Vasiliou stated that
with the provision :for the flexibility as provided for in the earl i Qr recommenda-
tion, there did not need to be specific variance language provided in the policy.
Staff noted that theonin :Ordinance alread, had a variance pro educe and Stan
ands. Chairwoman Vaseliou stated that developers could submit their plans and
provide their demonstration of how a credit of up- to fifty. percent could be pr"e-
vided and that would constitute any variance from the basic ,ijuirements of the
landscape policy f rmul s.
It was the concensus of the Commission to not 'insert new lanquage into the policy
regarding variances.
Chairwoman Vas llou thanked Mr. Loftus for the time whl h the Development Council
Subcommittee had devoted to this matter and indicated that staff would draft a
revised policy incorporating the recommended conditions which would then be passed
on to the City, Council in the near future.
83-
Planning Commission Minutes
March 25, 1981 Special lh ee T' n
Page 85
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissionerei r al to direct
staff to research possible definitional amendments regarding the determination
of surface area and return with rets ti .
M10TION carried' on a Roll Call vote six ayes.
Discussion also ensued regarding provision for temporary signs advertising new
developments.
MOTION' ky Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Wire to reword language
in Suqdivision ,., c to provide for "Whichever occurs first." referring to
eighth -fie percent completion of the project orher years from the date
f the original pert ,
MOTION carried on a 'Roll Cala vote, six ayes.,
The Commission discussed with the Chief Building Official enforcement problems
particularly with reduced m4nooweit end staff suggested there were possible ways
whic i would enhance the enforcibility cf the sign ordinance including licensing
of contractors. Staff cornedthat there were a nut b r of housekeeping amend-
ments which could be madeeto the or d Trance that would help clar i ordinance
provisions and thus hopefully make them more ettforcible. Staff commerted that for
every nes requirementnt. air added degree of enforcibility was necessary and this should
be carefully evaluated before ,.dd,i tonal regulations are added.
It was the co ceras s of the Commission that staff should include in their:
recommendations the possibility for licensing of sign contractors.
REPORTS OF SUBCOMMITTEES
Chairwoman Vasiliou called for a repent of the various subcommittees
owm ssfoner Wire reported on his research regarding solar energy and solar build-
ing design. Commissioiters Steigerwald and Stulberg reported on their research
regarding ordinance provisions for outside rash disposal and outside storage*
Cliair*roman Vasillou stated tho.,t Commissioner Barron was continuing his work re-
gardingardn the planned unit development provisions of the 'ordinance.
OTHER BUSINESS
ha r soman Vasi l i ou reviewedewed pending 'i ems and l nd ca ,ed that meetings should be
chedul ed for April 15th, 2?nd, and 29th.
AOJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission the meeting was adjourned
84-
Planning Commission Mil nuteF
l
arch 25, 1981 Special Mee Ing
Page 84
DISCUSSION OF ZONING OR S SIGN PROVISIONS
rairwoman Vasiliou reviewed the comments in the i arcF 20,, 1951 staff memo
recalling that "fast year the Commission had decided to defer any detailed
considerations of the sign provisions until a later date. Commissioners were
asked to state concerns they had abort the sign ordinance.,
Staff indicated that the concer;s would be noted and that staff would return with
draft amendments in nucb the same format as tete zoning ordinance amendments were
handled last year.
Commissioner Larson stated he had concerns regarding ordinance provisions for
illumination and for well signs and nameplate signs particularly on corner lots,
Commissioner Rauba stated he was concerned as to the definition for determining
surface area of a sign.
Chairwoman Vasiliou stated that she had some concerns about enforcibility of the
sign ordinance particularly with respect to signs erected contrary to the ordinance
or to sin plan approvals,
Regarding illumination Commissioner Faire suggested consideration of an intensity
standard for reflected 119ft. Commissioner Stulberc stated that some communities
don't allow reflected light at all but only internal lighting. permit
Staff read the ordinance provisions regarding illumination. Regarding tete
possibility of an intensity standard staff stated concerns as to the enford bilit,
of such a standard
Following further discussion there was a MOTION by Commissioner -- ald,
seconded by Commissioner Stulberg to include in the ordinance the
deletion of the words "or by reflected light" from the illumination proAsions in
Section 10, Subdivision A,, 7, a,
MOTION carried on a' Roll call vote, five ayes, Commissioner Larson opposed.
Regarding sin treatment of buildings on corner lots, Chairwoman "asi1iou stated
that the recent approvals regarding two banks had been consistent and (lid; not
establish an adverse precedent.
Commissioner Larson reviewed theCommission's findings as to the .purpose of having,
two .,i ns on the building.
MOTION by ChaIrwoman. Vasillou,, seconded by Commissioner S ei erwal *-o include in
the amendments to the sign provisions the addition ;of the words "ii' required" after
the words "to such ;signs" in Section 10, Subdivision A, 2, c.
MOTION carried on a Roll Call vote, six ayes.
Staff reviewed the ordinance provisions for determinirg the surface area of a
sign and concerns were specifically noted as to vn'iat co,ist Luted a sign structure.
84-
Pl nrrpWrtiv'ssss r'lin 1, s
March 25, 19,131 peri al Meeting
Fags 8,21
Development need ' establish a policy centered around
performance and design.,
Chairwoman Vasiliou statueaaa Commission in the pa=t has been amenable to
plans whichwere designed to fit sites and has not been opposed additional
1rr l 1r -nanti wa rials. n response r question b Chair- treatmentswom 41s1l l r Councilman Schneider ;stated that his letter to tile Planning
urrld's1 n Was, nGt a formal City Council position but was the basis of the Cite
In further dls ussi n,urralssiunr Larsen stated that a substantial amount of
para1vera site should be subject o open, space treatment although much of that
often, goes for parking. Coaimissioner Steigerwak inquirod as to hwi,a developer
typically determines e atuou °-1 of landscaping an'. Loftus responded that
typicallyis not donne earl, a straight percentage uf the totai cost but rather ,as
a matter of des i ra.
Discussion ensued as to whether the reference to man made materials ou d be
included as an element. ummiss oners para and Stulberg,recolmilended that the
1 tears soul d left in as quidance for evaluating plans, but would not necessarily
tae mitOm i. requirements. Cominis ion r Stei j rwikiid suggested that by leavinct in
soilue r ° ur nct. to such design features othee than just plantings the City 6uld be
suggestive as to the type of things a developer r fru ; ,msider,; the basic planting
requirements would be retained, owever .
1-10TION by f,,,)m i s s i ower Larson,, seconded 0 Comi.,n ss 1 over Wire to recomimend ' amend-
rr u r pca i l dResolution r I 1 rr 2 r' ' P101 lidation
fropi, the Development Council a comm u deleting recomfunded heir, VAM
MOTION c;arrWd on a Roll Call vote, six ayes.
Staff reviewed fru r c:omatrurad ti r contained in the second iter,, of the staff
eeportr egiftr' irrr the r infinum number of trees. The staff recoimitendation allows
for a credit of up to 50 percent of the required number of trues rather than
reducingi fru minimum policy formulas as suggested bar the Development ' un i1 ub-
r iso ttee.
Councilman Schneider stated that the burden, should always be on the developer to
establish that pro sed plans deserve the credit against the ,minimum number of
trues'.
ConimissionerISteigerviald said that there seep ud to merit in 'the print( -sed re-
vt SZn ira ha i uul d al ldr duv el o' pets a r ea t deal o f f1 ex i b I 11 ty Ujt tw 1d
yup the burden on thedeveloper to provide a full landscape design.
Mr. Loftus stated that the reconmrunddd approach was ; ,. , flexible than the exist-
ing policy but muted that d v lop ri 'ordinarily would berm and other iso, landscape
heir si tae pr posed policy would be more wear a l ever, though a earl r i:-carr number
of trees would still bu required. He reiterated than the Development Council's
riginalUbL-I*ection to the policy had been the absolute number of trues for any
given ate.