Loading...
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