HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 05-26-1982PLANNIC COMMISSj0t4 MINUTES
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
HAY& 261
A regular meeting of the Plymouth Planniaq, Commission was
called to order In the City Center Council Chambers atPA -1. by Chairwoman V sl,l.lou.
WMBEIRS PRESENT: Chalrwoman Vaslli0u, Commissioners
Stulberyr ted erwald, Plufka, Paub ,
omr lssloner Wire arrived 7:40 P.M.
Commissioner Magnus arrived . P.M.
S AI PRESENT* Community Dovel.opr ent Director
Blair Trem ire
Cumvnunity Development Coordinator
Sara McConn
HINUTES:
MOTION hx Commissioner Pl.ufka, seconded by Commissioner LO1 X HILLStulbergto, approve the Minutes of May 12, and May 19,
1 CONSTRUCTION COMPANYeyesCommissionertegerwaldabstainedfrom' CO# TT ONAL USEvotingforMay12, 1982 Minutes, and Commissioner Pau%a PERMIT AMENDMENT ANDstainedfromvotingdorMay19, 1 Minutes. REVISED FIML PLAT/
PUBLIC HEARINC PLAN "OEJER14AVEN11 RPUD
Chairwoman Vasiliou Introduced the request submitted byLowryKillConstructionCompanyforaConditionalUsePermit
Amendment and Revised Final Plat for "Deerhaven" ,
Chairwoman V&,iliou requested a review of the Jjav 1% 1!182
St,aff Report.,
Staff reviewed the application highlighting that when the
final construction plans for the dwelling units were prepar-
ed, the units were "larger than originally anticipated and
did not comply with the minimum vard setback requirements.
The petitioner proposes an amendment to the approved plan to
rotate the building locations and a new Final Plat changingthe ,lot Lines.. The proposals calls for the same number of
units
Chairwoman Vasillou recognized Mr. Melt Wet r, ConsultingArch.1tect who explained the architectural revisions and set-
back changes. Mr. Weber explained that the proposed build-
ing closest to Dee wood .Lane- on . the north side of 57th
Avenue ryaed 15 feete#ue No rMh would located closer t o Dnyrw od
Lane than the approved PUD Plan (g feet verslis 45 feet) .
Mr. Weber pointed out that this would be a one-story $true-
ture rather than a two-story strut,ure.
145
6A
Page 146
Pi,anning Commission Minutes
May , 1982
Chairwoman Vasiliou expressers concern that the .proposal
calls for the units to be olo$L-r to the adjacent residential
area.
Mike Paxton, 11610 57t1i Avenue North, stated his primary
oonoern was that the proposed units encroached within the
approved 65 foot setback. Mr. Paxton inquired if the
approved berriing alon4 Deerwood Lane would stay the same and
be consistent with the unit located o the south of 57th
Avenue North.
Doh emrick, 50'35 Evergreen Lane, representing the Bass Lake
Improvement Association, stated their concern was 4imil. r,
1-44r. Pemrick recalled that during the Public Hearings for the
approved plan transition was the primary concern, and that
e developer presented two alternatives. The Casty Council
approved the alternative r4th a 65 foot setback. He i.s con-
oez *ed that the proposal will destroy what was previously
accepted.
lir perk expressed his personal concern about the
relationship of the berm along 1eerood Lane and it's
rcl tionship to the proposed unit. 1vt appears that the
proposal is. based on economics.
Dick Cas,?ns5.,510 Evergreen Lane, expressed concern with the
changes f. c)m the original approval. Mr. Essen stated he has
always felt that the density is too great. Now that the
approved: uni-ts, cannot be constructed within the setbacks,
he believes the number of Emits should be reduced.
Mr, Essen expressed concern about the amount of water on the
land,hairwoman, asillou clarified dis-
cussion
the issue for di
ous, ion is that of transition to the adjacent areas and not
density,
Neil weber clarified that the petition does not call' for a
variance from the minimum Ordinance setback requirements,,
but a change- from the PUD pian approval,. He explained the
ber ting along Deerwood Lane would be unchanged.
Chairwoman Varillou inquired if the petitioner anticipated
attending the meeting Mr. Weber stated ; he thought the ITEM DEFERRED
petitioner would attend, Chairwoman Vasiliou confirmed that
Mr. Weber was given authority to speak for the petitioner,
Chairwoman Vasitiou closed the Public Hearing and deferred
action on the item until later in the meeting when the
petitioner would be present.
Commissioner Wire arrived at 7.40 P.M.
Page 147
Planning Commission Minutes
may 26, 1982
NEW BUSINESS
Chairwoman Vasiliou introduced the petition Arid regio rrized CENTURION COMPANYMr. Leer Thiel, errl;-urlonbmpaoy- arid, Mr- Ron Bastyr,, RPD FITNAL KAT/PLAN
McCombs-Knutson Associates, Reading of the May 1$, 1 FOX FOREST" RPUD
Staff Report was warned. 000145 .
Staff explained :hat the petitioner's consultant tet with
the Parks and Recreation Director and rt has been recommend-
ed that the 30-ft. gide trail not be ioeated aionct the west
property line but through that portion of the ;.*rte to be
platted as Oudot 181. Staff recommetided that Coeidlitlo,i
UQ be deleted from the recommended Resolution, and that
the trail eerridor be determined with the subsequent Proal
dn/Plat for Qut,lot W.
MOTION by Com-11issrort,ir St l erwald, secondea by Commissioner RECOMMENDATION A
Stulberg to recommerio approval of the RPUD Final Plat/Plar,
application for erttur on o paoy. subject to the conditions
as Ii-,.ted in the St4ff Report, with Condition No. 4 changed
to read "a30-ft. wide trail outiot. shall .be provided with
the subsequent phase development of Out lot 1 x 1,.
Vote 6 Ayes, MOTION carried.
Gh*rrwomarr VAs,rliou Introduc=ed the petition submitted by DENNIS 09WEA AND
Dennis Gonyea and Henry Meyer for a Final Plat of property HENRY HUER - FINAL
100cited northwest of County Road 9 and 0ounty Road 18. PLAT "MEYER-COWEA
Rt-ddlng of the May 18,1 198Z Stjf Report was waived.. Chair-ADDITION 81021)
woman asl xou recognizeded Mr. Mike Gar.r Gair & Associates,
representing the petitioner,
Mr. Garr stated he had no questions on the staff report,
however, he would be available to answer any of the Commis-
sion's questions.
staff confirmed for the record, that the petitioner has sub-
mitted a documentation of ur,.suooessful efforts to include
the exception parcel with this plat.
MOTION by Commissioner Stutber , seconded by Commissioner RECOMMENDATION 8
Pduba to recommend approval of the Final Plat for "Meye -
Gunyea Addition" submitted by Dermis Gonyea and Henry Meyer
subject to the conditions reflected in the recommended Reso-
lution. Vote 6 Ayes. MOTION carried*
Page 148
Plarating Commissioll Minutes
May 26, 1982
ti 1.1 N by Com"fa ssio er Stulberq, seconded by Commissioner RESUME REVIE ! OFPlufkatoresumediscussiononitem4-A, Conditional Use "DEERHAVENO RPUDPermitAmendmentandRevisedFirialPlat/Play for "Deerhaveri'l REVISIONS ( 1011
Vote Ayes. NOTION carried.
Mike Paxton, 11610 57th, Avenue North oont lMed that the
proposal Calls for smaller units, acid expressed concern
abouts the impact ort the ad.4adent property values that sMal-
ter units may have.. hell Webers consulting architect$ Indi-
adted the anticipated price range is from $1101,000 to
Mr. Barr, the petitioner arrived.
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberq,l seconded; by Commissioner
Plufka;to take action to take action on this petit ion. Vote
Ayes. MOTION carried.
Commissioner %re expressed concern, that it was unclear
where the berm would be located in a north to south
direction Nell Weber confirmed the location does not
change from the previous approvals, Mr. Weber explained
that the pr,pused units along Deerwood mare would be one-
story writs. Commissioner Pauba clarified that the proposed
roof h i ht would be approximately 8 feet lower than the
approved two-story utzit.
The Commissiott reviewed the approved POD Plarif landscape acid
grading plans.
MOTION by Commissioner 5tulber , 'seconded by Commissioner
teiger a.id to recommend approval Of the`onditl r*al l#se
Permit Amendment and Revised Final Plat for t° e rha\crib
subject to the recommended Reso lut xort.
Commissioner Stulberq stated he does riot think the proposal
adversely Impacts the tr4.risitiori to the units to the west,
Commissioner Wire inquired about a method to insure that the
un t s n rtQh alto Of De rwood Lane and 57th Avenue north would
be one-story units.
MOTION to AMEND by Commissioner Wire,, seconded by ;Comma: s_
sinner Pauba to amend the; Main Motion with the addition o a
condition to read "the units 'constructed s .all be per the
approved plans submitted".
Commll.
ssiover Pauba explained that originally he rias concern-
ed about the transition to the adjacent units, however, the
cine-stony.jnit provides a`, trade-off for the closer proximity
with the uaderstanding that the landscaping and rminq are
004sistr- c 4s approved.
Page 10
Vidlining Commissiotl Minutes
NY 1 162
C m i-5si ner Plu kaoonfirm d that the berminq would b
installed per the approved plans.
Vote oft the Amendment to the Malta Mott cara. 6 Ayes. MOTION
carried ECOMMENDATI
Vote on taae It IN MOTION orate AMENDED* 6> Ayes. MOTION
CUP AMENDMERT j 'Iih L
PIAT 'REVISED FORcarried. DECiAV '" (81011)
Chairwom'40 VdSlllou ntro `od this petition and explained T AMMELL CROW COMPMythatthePid'A"Ing Commi,ssioln should review the petition in' ARIAMCE, MPUD FINALlightoftheCity,Council Minutes of the September 14, 1981 PIM/PLAT AND SITE
meeting zra which the Council approved, the MPUD FIndl. Plan/ PLAN FOR PHASE 11plat. 'Reading of the may 19, 1982 Staff Report was PLYMOUTH, - NE
waived*, CENTER" (810 /82-o 3)
Chairwomanan Vasillou iart,h r' stated that ttr.Woodhouse,
Tremme,l l Crow Company. would have to ask the Cit. Coun*
t whether the Intents if their direction is satisfied,. Mr.
Woodhouse concurred that. the City Council must explain and
clarify if their direction fs satisfied without relocatingtheof .tines between Phase 1 and Phase 11.
Chairwoman `asIIjou inquired If Trammelli Crow Ompany ownsx
rthebuildingsafterconstruction. qtr. Woodhouse explained
that the company does own the buildings lir Phi se .l, and that
approximately 106 new gabs have been provided from the dev-
e.lopment.
Chairwoman Vdsiliou asked If the leases between the owner -
arid the tenants address retail sales In the Industrial
01 strict . Mr. Woodhouse explained that the leases specifythatretailsalesarenotallowedwithouttheowner`s
permission and 'that the tenant gust comply with all CityOrdinancesandreu,lat torts
Chairwoman ' asillou suggested that the Plymouth Development
Council address the Issue of conducting retail sales it
Industrial areas due to the economix,- t,-onditions. Mr. Wood-
hou5e stated that If the sales are .1ducted in a reazonable
manner, such saps should be allowed"beoau-e* several of the
businesses are having economic problems. Mr. Woodhouse e~a-
couraged oopt rat> ion between the City arra : he businesses on
this matter.
Commissioner Plu ka commented that the retailers aro also III
economic trouble.., and that warehouse sales may prat an
additional burden Ott tht retail buslnesses.
P,ldtininp Commission Minutes
May 261, 1962
Regarding the proposed plaits and plat,. Commissioner Wire
asked what type f rocks are included in the referenced
landscape rock". Mr. ::' adhcuse explained that multicolor
landscape rook would he utilized In rock beds around the
shrubbery aired ornamental 'platairigs. Also,, boulders would be
lobated at the erg*-ranc:es to further enhance the landscaping.
Commissioner Wire asked what; percerit:age of the landscapino
was complete In Phase 1. Mr. Woodhouse explained that the
sod had riot: been lald, shrubs were not planted$, and that
approximately one-third of the landscaping was complete..
Mr. Woodhouse graphIcAlly did rammed the ares where the
rock would be utilized.
Mr. Woodhouse asked whether the planning Commission could
approve the request subject to the Citi Council interpre-
tation
nterpre-
tation of the earlier direction relating to the; movement of
the lot lines between Phase l Arid Phase ll, Chairwoman
Vas i. l lou stated that the Planning Commmi ss ion would fol l w
the City Council direction as reflected in the Minutes.
I qtr. Woodhouse stated that the concern was with the amount of
green area grid the proposal satisfies the intent;.
Commissioner Magnus arrived at 8:35 P. M4,
Commissioner Plufka indicated that the Council direction is
clear and based upon' sound planning; thus the plans should
be revised by moving the lot lines before approval, Mr..
Woodhouse *Indicated that if the lot lines were to be meed
5 feet., he would then seek a building setback variance,, He
explained that he has no problem with moving the lot lines,,
but does not warn to move the building.
Chairwoman Vas,111ou referred to the recommended Condition
o it, the staff report draft Resolution which would
dppro,,e a variance from the yard setback requirement of
drives U.) the interior lot lines. Commissioner Pldit;a
clarified that the staff recommendation is that the lot, line
bemoved as directed by the, City Council, and the draft
Resolution is included with the staff report, as art ,option,
should the Planninq Commission determinc that the petit Ion-
er''s request is appropriate.
Staff stated that the Planning Commission should realize
that if the proposed setbacks In Phase ,l and Phase ll
re ainj they will occur with Phase ill' of the development.
Staff stated that the petitioner Inquired whether the intent
is to provide flexibility. While that is true, because the
PUD Ordinance allows for multiple buildings on one ,let,: the
petitioner also desires the conventional development bene-
fits of platting individual lets.
Page
Planning Commissiorr mit v
May 26, 1982
Staff further t ted that the City Courtcii direction was
clear and that the submitted proposal does riot respond to
that direction.
1-0mrtrl siorter Steigerwald asked the petit;drier, about ti t(
Constraints. Mr. Woodhotise explained that there are time
constraints due to winter, the economy and < market
conditions..
C r missi rter St igerwald stated that the City Council direo-
t iort is clear and that the petition should either be de er-
red or dented.
Chairwoman Vdsillou,; suggested denying the petition on aitfriendly" basis,, $0 the apps c;at Torr can b `or ae ded to the
City Council. The reoommendat Lori should editorialize teat
the basis is that the application does not comply witt. t ",
City Councilit direct ion,, Nr. Woodhouse stated he preferred
the application be denied, so it Gait be forwarded to Ci ti
4 ur e1#.
NOTION by C mmr,ss inner Steiqerwald, seconded by Commissioner
tulberg to reoommert.41 denial of the Variance, PUD Final
Pldnjp : t grid Site Plant for Phase ll "Plymouth Center hd RECOMWNDATION
Addition" based ori the reason that the, applIoation does not
conform to the City Council direction. Should the CityCourtellconcur - with the Planning Comtrris Slort, and require
that the lot lines, parking arta drive areas, and buildirigs
be. 'shifted 15 feet to provide the required setback areas, it
would not be required that the application be reviewed again
h ; the Planning Commission.
Mr. Woodhouse stated he understood the Planning Commission
Mot ion,
Vote 6 ryes, Corrtmissioner Magnus abstained. MOTIONON carried.
OL,D BUSINESS,
Chairwoman Vasilljou introduced Mr. Henning Is request for
Preliminary Plat and Variance for a 28.9 acre site. She
requested sta pray1de art update of the petitioner since 30M L. HENNING
the April '.'41 19 PlanningCommission meet,inq; the 18, PRELIMINARY PLAT ANDMay
1982 tdff Report was reviewed. VARIANCE "HENNING'S
FIRST-AJ)DITI0N"
ii
79036)
i
x
Pace
4€rr-1119 commissloo Minutes
May Z61 '14982
Staff
I summarized the Parks axed R cre t Lon Directors r or: - m ndat:ion that the City p z sue locating the neighborhood
park on the adjacent church property. The Park Director has
indicated the church is favorable to negotiating an [ errt dark use their property, Tho final terms ror'
such n agreer ent meed to be firr4li'z' kc . Staff believes this
could be act -or- Ii.sh d prior to Findl, Plat oiallcat ion by thepetitioner..
The Parks dnd ,Recreation Director has submitted d further
recommendat Leri ' that, should the park not be located on the
church property, Lots 1 through 5t Block 21 shoulI be
required for Park Dedication, The Parks and R creat 0n
Advisory mmis i.on; RR concurs with that r comm rrdatiorr#
Commissioner Steigerwald_ askLJ :,hether the petitioner could
CoMmence gtadirtq on the lots which are designated for park
use to provide fill - for other areas within the development.
Staff expl irred' that it i L11kelowra at' thiS time if such an
arrarigrric:r:t is Possible, if the lard is needed for park, pur-
poses. The petitioner has indicated he desires to commence
d $,elo In lock 1,( that area north of County Read 1), first. This could he accomplished with firal platting theareasouthofCountyRodd15asan ,)utlot.,'
t:ommis ,iuner Md9nus provided ars update cit' the Parks andRov,,reation Advisory Commission's consideration cif this
dppl,ic tlort. PRACPRAis irr favor of locating the park On the
adjacent church property, but if t1i.s cannot be accomplish-
ed, then Lets I' through 5, Block ., should be required for
park.larrd.
Commissioner Stellerwald inquired why the park recommenda-
tion changed from the pr vitius Cons id rats rt. CommissionerMagnusexplainedt! -.at Lots I through $ Block , provide
higher ground, arid Is a better location.
staff statethe Commission had also directed Investigation
pis to whether a roadway could be provided to serve the rear
of ` t r ad ac rpt log E to t he west. A ;goad from County Road15tothesouthisnotfeasibleduetothetopographyofthe
site and construction economics. A road could be provided
from Lot 4, Block 1,, of Mr. Hennincg's plat to service the
j adjacent llo ,. A rO dway' is riot ident fVF d on the Thoro qh-
fare Guide Plan, and the >City crow not propose to construct
4ny roadways in, this are4. The adjacent, property owners
would reed to acquire lap -J from Mr. Henning and pay for theconstruction, or request that the City construct the road
and assess the costs _back to their' proper'ty• Stallf explai n -
ed there is no burden on Mr. Renrrinq to provide a roadway toservicetheseparcels.
l
f
Pace 153
Planning omm s .on Minutes
May 2 1
Staff further stated that additional er gineer nq data has
been provided as requested by the Commission, and the pro-
posed panding conforms to the t' ty*s Storm Water Drainatie
Cha=rwdsrarr Vasiliou recognized Mr., 3ack Lynch, 801 repre-
F seating the petitioner,* Mr. Lynch expldinpd that the
I petitioner prefers that the park be located on the adjacent
church property,.; and he does anticipate de e. opinq Wock It
rti t ial ly . Mr. Lynch stated that the petitioner des *res to
develop those lots adjacent to County Road ` 15 as utilities
are provided to the sites
Mr. Lynch explained that if, the 'park is to be located osr
Lots 9 through 5, Bleck ; the petitioner requests that the
City a sl,-t In the cost for constructing the southern cul-
de-sac street what would abut tete park property.
Mr. Lyncrt expressed concern about ;the staff recommendation,
oIAa, Wn No. 3 in the draft Resolution which requires that
utlot A be deeded to the City for roadway purposes. The
petitioner questions deeding the City the property Instead
of waiting for Hennepin County to purchase the property.
Staff explained, that the Subdivislon Ordinance. and policy
require that the right-of-way for future thorou hfares bp-
included. yincluded. Outlet A re;presjrts future County Road 15 as
shown on the adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
1Reino l uoll t, 500 Magnolia Lane North, stated he does not
feel MrsHenning nor the City awes the ad ac eivt pr€rpert lei a
road, however, the adjacent lot owners did believe there
would be a road along the sewer easement . The ad.aeent
hard ow!iers dial expect that. ori $ day access could be provided
to the rear of their lots, so additional ,tats could be,
created
o miss .ones Steigerwdid asked if the City has a policy, of
asslstijig with costs for roadways; when they abut parkland.
Staff explained that such issues were referred to the
Council's assessment Committeefor recommendation.
Craoe Swenson, 430 Mcignolia Lane North, stated she concurs
with Mr. Wuollet$ however, she was surprised to see a pro-
poseded development without a ;'road offering access to the
adjacent properties.
Pale 154
Planning Commulssiotl Minutes
May 26y 1962
Ms, Sw nsOn asked about the review process. Chatrwnman
Vaslll.bu explained that the Planning Commission wouldformu-
late a recommendation acid the appliedtion would be forwarded
to City Council for theft review. the Petitioner would then
proceed tO flildl plat the property and commence d v l op - m "t, Ms.Sw nfon ,asked if the adjacent land owners are
required t act 1; 0,dlat ly In order to Juscuss arrangementsforproviding41.0 q to the reap" of their 'lots. Staff`
xPloi t that It was riot necessary, owners need to dtsbusswithMr, Henning the possib l l t y o ac qu cin property l rr
orderr prdvld a roadway to the ear of their .tats.
Mr. Heniting stated he would agree' to meet with the adjacent
property owners to see if art agreement could be reachedbeforetot4, Block 11is sold' or developed.
It was confirmed that that Planning Commission is not addres.-
sing 4vY roadway considerations beyond the proposed plat.
Cummisslon r Plufka stated that there are possible .ways t
provide access to the adjacent lots, however, the adjacent
Property owners should determineh ich way most feasible.
kEarl Erpelding, 12015 County Road 15, stated that his
j c:r rc, rr s Involve drainage. He asked how the drainage
requirements were determined acid -who- approv-es the plahs
Chairwomanan astll u e% plained the Devilnpm nt Contract
requirements and that the final details of the dral.nage plan
would be submitted with the Final Plat applioatlon.
Staff 0011firmedrmed the pending has been rev i wed by the
consulting en ineer$ and It, has been determined that the -
proposal :meets the capacity requirements.
MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner
plu fka to recommend approval of the request by vhn L.
Henning for Prelimin4ry Plat and Variance approval for P COMMS bATZON. . Henaktig's, `first Addition", ubJect to the conditions as
stated to the draft Resolution. Commissioner Pauba further
stated that he recommends the pity ;Pursue locating the
parkland on the adjacent church property.
MOTION to AMEND by Commissioner Stelgerwa .d, seconded byCommissionerPaubatoaddConditionNo, 12 to read "the
natural drainage' under County Road 15 be ' allowed to flow
through all phases of construction".
page
Planning Commission Minutes
May 26) 198Z
Commissioner Steigerwdld also recommended that the parkland
be located on the St. Mary's Church .property as it is acces-
sible to more people,
Commissioner St lherg Inquired as to the process with, the-
City heCityCouncilwithrespecttotheCityparkissue, Staff
explained thf t the Comprh nsive park Plan calls for a neigh-
borhood park In this area. The park Director recommends
that Lots I through 5, Bleck 21 be required for Park gedlc:a-
011, unless a art Option, the City Council d termine$ to
pursue that the parkland be located on the dd a0ent.
property-, if a determination is not: rade within a reason-
able time (due to negotIdtlQns with the church), the
petitioner could final plat tots I through 5,, Block 2, as art
ou lot,untit the park issue is resolved,
Commissioner teigerwal,d stated that the Planning Commission
should make a formal recommend as to the pari issue,
Commissioner pldf a expressed concern that the Ccxrmissl,ora
was I i
o—! d in a parks 'acid ecr at;!Xn Advisory Commission
decision. He explained that it i appropriate for the Cori--
m1sslcrr1ers to offer comments ' on the issue at not make a
formal r eco mendat ion.
MOTION by Commissioner St;ulbe g to AWND the MAIM MOTION to
add Condition No. 13 to read ``the City shall pursue locating
the park on the adjacent 'St* Mary's Church property in -lieu
of requiring Lots `t through 5. Block 21 as the adjacent
property would meet the needs of the, neighborhood". The
MOTION was WITH1RAR! upon the Planning Commission's deter-
mination that it would be .inappropriate for the Commission
to 'make a formal.' ` recbmmevdat ion a
Vote on the 'AMENDMENT to the MOTION. 7 Ayes. MOTION
carried.
Vote on the MAIN MOTION once AMENDED. Ayes. MOTION
carried
Commissioners $tdlb, rq, Wires Ste,111gerwald, Paubat area Chair-
wo era VdSlllou recommend hat the City pursue' locating the
parkland on the adjacent ohdreh property. Commissioners
Magnus and P'l.ufka stated they disagree Commissioner pl.0 ka
stated that It Is Inappropriate for the Planninq Commission
to make a rccomm ndat;:iort on this park issue