Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 05-19-1982PLANNIOG COTSSl, MINUTES CT'Y O rLY : T" MAY 193, 1982- A Special Meeting, of the Plymouth Plarirting Commiss,on was called to Larder in the City Center Council Chambers at .gP.M* MEMBEPS PRESENT: Chairwoman Vdsiliou, OMIsslory rs Wire) Mdltluss Stulberg, t xoerwald, and plufka. STAFF PRESENT'* Community Development Director Blair ` remere Community Development coordinator Sara McCann OLD BUSINESS Continued consideration of the Final PPUD Pian/Plat for M155IONOUSMissfonOaks". Chairwoman Vdsillou reviewed the ,purpose of FIRST ADDITION the Special, Meeting drid the direction qi erj" to the pit it i n- RpUD 1=INA1_ KAT" er* She stated that information received from the Name- AND SITE PLAN owner's Association suggest there Haight be an alternate pian A-338) ata she e ptalned that arty alterriate plans presented at the Commission meeting would be referred to staff for full review before dny final action could be taken. She further explained that the, pui pose of deferring the stem was to afford the Homeowner- Is, Assoc!: tion an opportunity to reviewtheplans, but that the latent was not to negotiate changes or revisions to the plans with the developer. Chairwcmar, asiliuu recognized Nr. 3oe Thompson, p resident of the MissionRidge/Mission Mills Homeowners Association and he reviewed the intent ofthe Associations, position statement dated May 18,, 1982 which had been submitted to theC`- He stated It was the Intent of the As o-dation to express concerti ark not to negotiate alternot ,: r res with the developer. Chairwoman Vas.iliou, requested staff to review the May 19, Memorandum. Staff explained that some 0' the materials requested by the Commission had been subm '*-d under the cover of a May 172 198Z Mei orandumand the May 1,9, 1962 memo reflected the analysis o those ma'._ ~ ials. ' Staff commented that the landscape pian. had been revised to sod- di.ngt but there were still areas which were proposed not be sodded. Also,, the petitioner continued the request for a varidnee from the garage requirement,* therefore, that variance issue needed to be addressed. I 1,37 6 Page P1a11caing ommi Slott filinutes May 191 1982 Staff explained that correspOndence, hadbeen received ro m a rtumber of Individual residents in the area and that all of that correspondence was included in the stay, 19, 1982 rasemo except for tetter whir',h had been delivered to the ;, ommJ$_ sion from tally . ansen% 4415 Everqreen Lane Che.1irwoman Vasillou recognized Mr. Dick ZeJdlIk who rep e, seated the petitioner. ,the inquired whether art extension of time from the Dear 1st deadline eould'be made. Mr. , eJdlik responded that th - Minnesota Housing F inanee Agency indicat- ed that rte 'xtension of time were av all ab le. The Commission then reviewed the revised graphics ,,nd exten- sive disco ion ensued as to access to the site. Staff explained that the possibility of art aeoess onto CouYlty Roadhadbeenreviews$' earlier with the petitioner and that the petitioner had elected not to provide such dect-ss because of the physical 411d economi ., factors.. Therefore, the a -cess would be from 41st Avenue Morh as represented on, the pi,rts which had been presented to the Commission. Staff xpla,in- ed, that in light of concerns by the Homeowty-res Associa- tion, if such art access were preferred by theCommission," the Sits: Plan would he substantially modified since the project would hfi reoriented and since there would be ` no access i "-wed to 41st`# Chairwoman Va it ou confirmI+ that the plata before the Connlissi n were based on access from 41st and that no other plans could e considered at this time. Chairwoman asi,i iou recognized Mr. Spencer Saw,,tenl who stated he was ex- ioe President of the Homeowner's Associa- tion. Me stated his understanding that his role in ommuni- cat'Ons he* oeen the developer artd the Homeowner's Associa- tion last year had been discussed at the last meeting and he wished tc clarify certain i.ssu s. He explained that he had been !nvolved in arranging a meeting of the Mission Partners and the Homeownerts Association, but that he had not been aware of the sped fid plans now presented. He stated that he knew individual members of the Missioit Partnership andh,ad dome business, with Mtntlesota omesf but that there was no conflict of interest on his part relative to this partiOu ar Cevelopment. ChdIrwOman Wksiliou stated that she appreciated Mr. San en explaining hi,s role with the Homeowner's Association. are lanrring, co ants l.orx Minutes M4Y 19 X982 Commissioner Stelgerwald stated coni ears with the request for a varlanct fi=r bm the Ordinance garage; re ulrer ent and commented ori previous Council approvals of Similar project",-, In the City which also sought variances from the garage requ emertt . tenslve dlsenussi ensued ' aridPr. 4.em1d'LLK reiterated that the 3-bedroom units would have full base merits but the2-bedroom units would riot. Commissioner Wire stated he was concerned that people in the area had reason to believe r m earlier reviews of the glans that there would be Compliance with Ordiriance requirements for garages and storage space, aridthat the developer should adhere to those standards. He ,asked Mr. ejdlik whether; it ds their Intent throughout the development process ` to have 1;mited storage;, Mr., Zejdltk responded It was, since Section dousing Projectsects ypi, )ally do not have , garage, at - l 1. o " lss .one ire suggested that should have been W--rel ly expressed to the area residents. lr , ejdlik reviewed' the status of the project relative; to it aneing and the nature of Subsidized housing projects in general. He skated that relative to the storage and garage issues $ the federal, standards. do not provide for garages, but do eV,4 tli.sh cert4lrr minimum storage standards per dwel- ling unit- He stated the federal regulations assume that low to moderate incf)me renters could; not afford to rent: gax Arles and the federal regu at Ions do not support %nclud- Ing garages _ In the mortgage. He stated that garages there- ore'$ are fecund ,o be a local requirement and that there have been precedents set* he stated that the Minnesota Housa.nq Finance Agency and federal authori. l.es have worked with prOJJects that had up to 0 of the parking in garages. ommiss,iotier' Wire stated that in wintery conditions, and the limited 'bus ser , ice available,' it would appear that garages were virtuallyessential; also, there was a need for adequate storage.r# eJ lik responded that 'substantial storage was provided within the units Arid it was In excess of the federal minimum standards, He: reviewed the blue- prints with the Commission. hairwoman Vdslllou Inquired whether the amount of covered parking could be raised, and ter, e dllk responded that con- straints on- straints were such that It could riot. He rioted that the mortgage amount had been sets rents were established by the federal program,, and the developer has already substantiallywrittendowntheland. cast* 140 Plarming Commission Minutes may 1x 1982 Commissioner Plufka raised sevrai ' questions about edesignofthe "buildings, the number of garages, and the. 14yoot Of the site. He stated his conder is were: The sodding proposal for only that area 25 feet back from the units and the parking; he noted ;that there could be heavy use of those areas arid,, of the entire site which wWild war- raat complete s dding. Also, he stated that there eight beprybiesaisIt, Maintaining the proposed ground coyer dependingoiltheprovisions, for snow st raae. Finally,, he stated that the parking oil the site sho! d be fully accessible to the residents especially in the w.rrter months. Commissioner Wire asked further questions regarding the floor plan layouts aril the specific designation of stxor,.Ige areasFurther review ensued of the floor plans, and Mr. Zt-jdlik explained, the provisoes for inside storage. Mr4i ZejdlIk noted, regarding the sodding, that there was sohst4ntl4i woody areas on the site, and that a landscape 4roflitect had ear°ef Illy reviewed the site and proposed the sodding as shown err the revised plans., Regarding storage, Mr. Zejdlik noted that the federal mini- mum standard called ' for ZOO cubic feet Of storage area In the -bedroom units (those wi.thovt basements) versus the 404 cub`-. feet Proposed by the petitioner. OMMiss over St i.qe wild inquirea whether the proposed storage ared in the front of the units could be enlarged. He stated that this could be a way to address concern about adequate storage with m irtimal cost. Mr. Zejdlik responded that there would be architectural problems with the propowed windows to the units. Commissioner Stelgerwald suggested that there seemed to be the possibility of some enlargement. Regarding si ow removal, Mr. Zejdlik told Commissioner plufkdi that the snow would be removed from the site. Mr.Ze d,lik ` stated that lie ap. reoiated the concern about Initial improvements and long-term' maintesrance. He stated that the budgets for such projects regarding maintenance andupkeepweres+ubstarit i al. and that he as the. developer would be tied to this ;project for at least five years which was the duration of , the bond that he was required' to submit. Commissioner Magnus inquired whether the project could be turned over to another developer after 5 years, and qtr. Ze dlik responded that the project could be sold at anytime, but that, the Original developer was ban es for the lmprovements and upkeep for five years.