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.