HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 07-14-1982Page 176
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 1982
Chairwoman Vasiliou closed the public hearing.
OTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner Wire
to take action on this petition. Seven ayes. MOTION
carried.
Motion by Commissioner Paubap seconded by Chairwoman
asi 110u to recommend approval of the Land Use Guide Plant RECUtfi NliATION A
amendment request subject to the conditions, listed in the
draft resolution. Roil call vote seven ayes. MOTION
carried.
Chairwoman Vasiliou introduced the 'request submitted by the
Wayzata Evangelical Free Church for a conditional use permit
to operate a nursery school in the church located at 705 WAY ATA EVMGE'LTCAL
North Highway 101. .oadl.rtg Of the duly 16, 1982 staff report FRS CHURCH
was waived. CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (82032)
Chal r w0tla.. a x, Inquired if the church ; previously
operated a dayeire center from their facility and if they
are currently advertising For a nursery school. Mary
cearcy, representing the petitioner confirmed that approxi-
mately a year ago the church did operate a daycare center
and that ads are currently advertising a nursery school, In
hopes that thy. condi tionai use 'permit request would be
r
approved*
I
Mary Scearoy; indicated she was representing the church and
was available to answer any questions.
Chairwoman Vasiliou closed' the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberqj, seconded by Commissioner
Wire to take action on this petition, Seven ayes, MOTION
carried
140TION by Commlss oner St igerwal.d seconded. by Commissioner RECOMMENDATION N'
Wire to recommend approval of the conditional use permit re-
quest submitted by Wayzata Evangelical Free' Church for the
operat ila of a nursery school subject to the conditions re-
flected In the drift resolution
Roil call vote seven ayes. MOTION carried.
i
i
Page 177
Planning omnission Minutes
July 14, 19 P52
Chairwoman Vasiliou introduced the request submitted by XNMPENDENT SCHOOLIndependentNo. 28, dor a conditional use DISTRICT Mon. 284
permit and site plan to construct A central maintenance CONDITIOML M ,
facility at the Oakwood Elementary School site located FERNY A-V SITE
so theast of Highway 101 and 19th Avenue North, Chairwoman
asi.liou explained that this meeting was not the forum to
discuss the recent bund referendum. The discussion tonight
involves the conditional, use permit and site plan. request.
Chairwoman 'Vaslll.ou asked staff to review the; July 7, 1982
staff report .
Staff explained that the proposed use is comprehended as a
condit,lpnal use permit within the ordlndt ice provisions. i
was explained that the buildinq would ',i; au ilize' d by thedistriotforcentralpurchasingstorage, vehicle storage.,
general shop; shipping and receiving I and related of fids.
The area of the proposed bul.ldinq will be approximately2GO00 ,square feet in size*
Staff explained that the Planning Commission should review
the petition with respect to the ordinance standard$ for
cond.itoal jj permit and it could be appropriate for the
commiss1011 to reemmend additional conditions, where
app11c,able.
public hearing notices were sent to all record property
owners within 500 feet of the school district property
oundaris.
Chairwoman Vasillou recognized Mr.` Bob Labat, t"hairman of
the Wayz to School District who in tura introduced M. Olson,
F. WIzenburg and R.' Luckey of the $ahool District and
Messrs. lark Pearson and, Clark Wold of the Wold Association,
Architects..
Mr. Clark Wold presented a sodle model and largt; scale
graphics of the proposed site devel pint and explained that
It Is the Intent of the petitioner to retain a nature center
area'on the site, Mr Wald referred to the gaster plan for
the Oakwood Elementary School property and reviewed the ele- l -
mentsmets of the site. The distribution Of Wt tial stored` in
the proposed facility was explained. fhe structure would
include a maintenance area,- office space for buildit con-
trol and small, lunch room. The structure would helve a total
staff of 11. people; o'ne or two.of those employees would work
within the proposed facility and the remainder would be In-
volved in the delivery/pickup of materials, ; The structure
would be one ,story In height.
Page 178
PlannIng Commission Minutes
my 14, 1
Mr. Weld displayed site through -sect Ions. one view was
ai nng north from, i hway 11011 and a second view facing, east
and west. Also, a view from 19th Avenue was displayed.
Mr. Pearson brought forward a sample of the exterior build-
4119.materials.
Commissioner Pauba Inquired as to when the freezer area
would be installed. Mr.. Wold expi i ed that the school
district did not know when the interior freezer area would
be needed, however, the building would be constructed t
acc date a freezer area should a need, occur.
Chairwoman Vasillou declared a tern minute recess at 8 P.M. RECESS
so that the residents could review the large scale graphics,
Model and sample materials closely. She then opened the
Public Hearing,
Darr Myron, 2425 Merrimac Lane, requested to speak last an
this item.
Richard Movack, "1000 'cuntain Lane, inquired as to when the
future expansion would occur and the an iclpated size.
Clark Wold explained that the district does not have any,
definite e pa sion pans at this time. However, bec4use
there is land which could be used for more building, an
area fir additional storage was 'identified. Mr. Wold
recognized that should the distract so desire to expand In
tiie future it would require tooth-.ional use permit site plan
review and a prevall
4 Mr. Nov ck inquired if the proposed facility adequately
craven- the current needs. Frank winz nburg, r presentliiq
School District No,, 284 stated' that the district discussed
pos ibl6. slz s with other 'districts with comparable facili-
ties,
acili-
ties, anew It is anticipated that the proposed facility will
serve the needs for many years. Mr. M vack inquired how
the safety aspects of the nature center and maintenance
facility has been addressed with regard tc` children. Mr.
Wold explain d that nothing ha, ardeds or dangero4s would be
steed on the site Bob Labatt School District No.
indicated the district is currently working to Improve, the
parking area for the playground arid` will centinu tc pursue
this. The vehicles to be stored will be lo ( -ked and secured
and Mr. C.abat anticipated minimal problems.
page
Planning Commission Minutes
Illy 14 1982
Mr. Pribble summarized his main concerns as the potential
water pbil.uti.on; water runoff frm the vehicle storage area
and locating such a facil*ty of this site. Clark gold res-
ponded that the school district needs a place to store their
vehicles and explained that any runoff would be controlled
and would not pollutethe pond,
Further discussion included the road limits for Hlghway101- the amount ofI i :at would be required; and, the
b €il ding setbacks relative to truck turning radius require-
ments. Staff commented that permits will be required from
the Watershed District, and this was calieo for in the
naineer r s Memor ndum.
Gail Rutherford, 1715 Garland Lane stated that most ' of her
concerns had been discussed, but she Inquired why this
facility was not Indicated on the reforendAim. Also
Ms* ' ,Rutherford inquired why this structure was not proposed
In the ' Industrial park -and, why the `' school district was
selling the property to the City when previously they would
not sell the land to Mr. Don Myron.
Cheirwomdn Vsiliou confirmed that the City I$ not I vol od
in purchasing any of the school district land. Bob i.abat,
Chairman of the School District explained that the district
reviews their facility needs for the benefit of the stud-
ents. Mr. L.abat reviewed the alternate locations and ex-
plained that the district determined that OakwoodElementarySchoolsiteismpteconomicalandfeasible. els. Rutherford
inquired if this facility could be .located tib the Greenwood
Elementary School site. Mr. Labat explained that the dis-
trict had discussed that sitew.ith City ,staff and it is not
serviced, with public utili.ti,efis and the adjacent roadways are
not improved. The district could not -afford to lease in-
dustrial: space elsewhere.
Alam Zi skin, 16925 21st Avenue Horth. stated the Planning
Commission has an obligation to review the application care-
fully and to consider the chil4r, , trucks, bikeways, and
traffic. MSX. Ziskin Identified that compatibility Is a
major, concern, and he cited problems with the pl,ayfiold on
the property. He wondered whether all of the decisions were
pre ete.rmined -cltirg pcoments aLout other locations, and the
recent construction of 19th Avenue He Inquired whore the
vehicles would be fueled. Chairwoman Vatillou referred to
correspondence dated duly 8. 1982 in which it was explained
that the district antliolpates using ;the existing City fac.il-
sties at the Public Works garage. He stated concerns
about outside storage.
A
Pao 181
anning Commission Minutes
July 14, 1982
Chairwoman " as llou explained that the Planning Commission
not discussed alternate and has riot deliberated
this petition. it was explained that 19th AvenLie North was
upgraded for Oakdale West devael opment and not specifically for the school district Chairwoman Vasillou urged the
citizens to inform the City Council, of their concerns if
they fral their input; here is not effective.
Mr. Labat, explained that the shoal district scheduled
two, neighborhood meetings in May and In July, and several
builders, In the area attended,,
Fred Coyne, 17230 24th Avenue North inquiredab tjt he
closed storage area, the economics of constru t i nq j new
building arid, the determination to propose a facility on this
site. He requested that the Planning Commission riot 'approve
I the proposal. Mr. ' Wizeriburg stag, the economic return
would be significant with °such > a facility.
Mr. Vermillion., 16905 23rd Avenue: North, stated concerns
with the effectiveness of the fencing, the truck traffic,
and the nature of materials that would be .located In the
area identified for flammab-le storage. Frank WInzenb rr
explained the materials li,cluded paint, duplicator fluid,
arid the like. Mr. Vermillion inquired if the submitted
gr°aphirs Identify the unpaved trails. Staff explained thatitheunpavedtrailswerenotidentified,,, but the: City. trail
corridor was shown.
rarr Winzenburg explained that there appears to be an er-
r0fleous assumption of heavy track traffic. The facilitywouldbeusedforLarnevoluepurchasing. Approxlriately
ten vehicles would operate from the facility and make deliv-
eries to the various schools,, perhaps twice daily... The
times of distribution were discussed. Tt was explained that
the total budget for this builriinq was approximately85"JI0 0* Mr. Labat commented that the existing central
kitchen facility at Oakwood School: and' related deliveries
have riot caused undue 'traffic or accidents since the service
began. The traffic cmparilsons to commercial or industrial
uses were not warranted.
William KOMP,- 16900 23rd Avenue Kurth expressed concern
about the increase in traaffIc7 and the incompatibility of
this use with; the year-round recreational facilities. Also,
Mr, Romp Indicated that the proposal could result In
nuisance vandalism.
I
Pape l
Planning 'Commission; Minutes
ui 1982
Gary Roderick, Wayzata, explained that he is currently con-
trdct111 homes irr the Oakdale lest dev lip rent ¢ Rethought
the Planning Commission and City Council have done >a good
job to date. Mr. Roderick explained he was biased as a
builder in the arca and is concerned about the future resi-
4ents of the Oakdale development.
Mr. Roderick emphasized that the future residents will be
affected bar the "huge" building as proposed.
Mr. Roderick stated the ommission a obligation is to the
City 'Of Plymouth and not to the School District. Concern
was expressed that staff had approved the proposal, and It
appeared: that the plans were already approved. Commissioner
tulberg reviewed the staff report which reviews the propo-
sal with respect to the ordi,na aoe standards,end he explain-
ed, the recommendation summarizing that review and Including
the recommended conditions of approval should the Commission
so recommend to the City Council. Commissioner Pl.ufka
stated that the 'staff report does" not commit the PlanningCommissiontoarecommendation.
l01 summary Mr. Roderick stated that the dramatic charge to
the area, caused by this facility ; sh,)t.ld not be approved.
Mr. Roderick expressed concern that the meetings field by
the school district were held at 00 A.M. $ and thin, riot
many residents could attender phi l ¢ there may be economic
rea or for the proposed use-, it not good land use pian_
rtl,Ti.
Roert Roderick, 1841015th Avenue, explairrd that he does
not ;.live in the Cit: but is a taxpayer. He stated, alternate
areas should ; be consldered It was confirmed for Mr. Rod-
erick that l th Avenue North was not constructed :o the same
specifications a: Highway 101. Mr. Roderick stated that
taxpayers would be assessed again should 19th Avenue North
Meed upgradIng because of this use. r Roderick stated he
thought the proposal should be locA d in a commercial or
industrial, district and not in a residential area. He asked
how, the school officials would like .such a facility near
their homes
Dr. Thomas A Brodie, ,uperintend _n of School I9istr int 244
explained that he is a resident of Cimma on East development
which Is located adjacent to an industr al park, and he Is
not negatively impacted by the industrial area. He explain-
ed that he felt the proposal would be an attractive land
use. Mr. Rb10h.-k summarized that he was concerned with a
commercial use .in a residential area and recommended that
the Planning, Commission deny the proposal.
page 113
Planning Cor mission Minutess
July 1 1982
Denise Holstad, 17235 24th Avenue Borth su q sted that the
i'ia trrin of is ion visit the nature center area prior to
taking action on the petitions Ms. 401- ad expressed con_
t, -n about the children and adults asing tie trails in this
area after the facility is constructed. pis. Hdlst d com-
mented that people had bought homes believing taxis to be a
residential area, and she stated concern with hsize ;o
the buildi.n #
Dari Bartus, ` 17-00 hadyvi Lane explanted fie is a resident
Of the ImPe- ial Hill's area and a homebuilder in Oak0tile
est, . B,' rte s stated that the district should utilize
the allocated rr oey for the storage of ui.p nt and mat-
erlals In a leased off-site facility rather Than for the
construction, of the proposed building.
Doti' Myron , 2425 Merrimac Lane., requested the Planning Com-
missionmission t o deny the proposal. Mr. Myron explained t h<tt h
deferred speaking when First Balled upon In ardor for the
Commission to get a feeling of the hey. hborhood comments and
concern $,.
Mr. Myron observed, that if a resident desired o ideate a
c mercxi di rise in a residential arca, the ` property would
have to be rezoned. However,' because the petitioner is a
public body. ;they can 'request approval of a conditional use
permit. Mr. Myron pperceives that t els is a circumvention :of
the rules to mix comm relal property and private property.
Mr. Myren indicated that If the proposed use was allowed a
precedent would be set wh1oh could :raate problems., He said
he was at one of the district's neighborhood meetings, and
he recalled fir. .abat's comments about other pol.enti.al com-
mercialmeri.al uses of school property. Mr. Myron stated that com-
mere ial property dnd single family dwellings :are not compat-
ible and the ,Planning Commisslon should recommend d --tial.
Chairwoman V slilora closed the, public hearing. There was a
recess from s40 to 9045 P.M.
Motion by Commissioner Stulbe g, seconded by Commissioner
Pduba to tale action on this petition. Seven eyes. MOTION
carried.
Commissioner $tei+ erwald Inquired if the district' considered
the Sunset Elementary and Ridgemotint Junior High School
sites. Mr. Labat explained that there is not sufficient
land for expansion with the appropriate access.
r
i
I
page iA
Planning om aission Minutes
3u y 14, 1982
Commissioner Ste gerwaid ;Inquired If the proposed use is
ai lowed, per Its f o* 7 oaf Section 7 SubdIvision C11, Staff
also referred to item No.19 which allows for ',essential
service buildings". it is staff's Interpretation that the
school. Is allowed as a public and semi-public institution
and the proposed facility is allowed as an es nial service
building,, would appropriate for the Commission to
deliberate the appropriateness of that interpretation
Ommissioner Magnus-ngji `ed if the area circulation pat-
terns, load r uir-e .unts and need for acceleration and
dec titer t,lon. lanes were considered and reviewed. Staff
explained that Highway, 101 is a state road and the regent
imp ov r encs were constructed in resp rase to the Oakdale
West developnent. it wa explained that 19th Avenue Is a
minor collector street, and the nature of the proposed use
is a compatible design and does not require special ro-adway
construction. Staff explained that the roughest traffic can
be construction, vehicles such as those used, by contractors
In a developing area. Staff does not anticipate Industrial
park -type traffic with this facility.
Commissioner Wira inquired if the district will always use
this facility for the etated purpose,, Mr. tabat and Dr.
Brodie explained that the district does not see any need for
additional f ci.li tle.5 or e panslon within 10 to 15 years;
and no other uses have been contemplated. fir.- Wold
to similar faciliti s in other districts'.
foAmi,ssi;oner, Wire inquired about the maintenancee acti.vitics
and passible need to ,stockpile materials. Mr. Win encu
explained that ail equipmentent and vehicles would n stored
inside and Haat. there Is no advantare to the district, to
stockpile materials outside.
MOTION by Commissioner pauba, seconded by Commissioner R CQMWNDATiON
Plufa to recommend denial of the request. Commissioner
duba explained that the basis for his motion is the issue
cif land use that is not appropriate for this area.
Commissioner WIrr-identified that the Commission can only
grant conditional ' use ` permits per the criteria within th.e
ordinance. Commissioner Wire stag teat criteria numbers3and4,, in S ctiofi, , Subdivision A, were not satis-
fied. ommi:ss:ioner Steigerwaid reviewed that all of the
CItY's essential siervice buildings are located, in theIndus-,
trial area and that 'the proposed use would be "'injurious" to
the area. The Commission cora-ensus wasthat the proposed
plan wa good one however this was an inappropriate
to ation
f
I
page 185
planning Commission Minutes
3u y 14, 1982
Roll call vote. Seven ayes. MOTION carried. iVOTE
9
NEW ` W $
hairwom dit Vas li4_u introduced the request submit by M RUSTVU
Helen Rusten for a Lot ,3 ivision/Varaarce application for LOT DIVISIONIVA IAt~c
land l.oeated ,ifst sof Queensland Lame at Sth Avenue North. or h! VJJN 0 )
Reading of tni duly , 1962 3taf f report was waived. ha r
woman "asil,iou, recognized the petitioner.
Mrs. Rustem referred to staff report discussion Item no. 2,,
and explained, teat It, her opinlor , the larger paref-I couj' d
never provide the rbquired frontage onto a public road The
re, nest to divide the property Is based upon .he expense of
keepinqthe hand and the need to sell it,
Mrs.. Rustem expIdIned that there Is a jyf-r :for the property
who anticipatesicipates developing the sinal P_-,r parcel wL th perhaps
Five houses.
Mrs. R sten explained that they could provide a plan of how
the property can be further subdivided, however, they did
not feel it would be practflcal. The plan was required for
the Internal Revenue Service several years aqo relative to a
tornado damage claim, She questioned whether development
would actually docur Irl compliance with a future subdivision
Platt.
She said that the sale. of the property included restrictions
to preserve the existing pond.
The staff report referred to City plans which would require
eventual connection of 8th Avenue North and Urbandale Lane.
Mrs. Rustem said that if the connect lon is required, the
property would be difficult to sell. -arid develop. Mrs.
Rustem suggested that alternatives should be considered.
She also noted existing trees on the site.
Mrs. Rustem commented on the high water elevation .indicated
In the City Engineer's Memorandum, Item No. 6. tars. Rustem
reviewed several di scosslons aW letters regarding BadleyLakeandtheirlandovertheyeatstandshehasrecently
spok'
seq
Withth the City Manager ` and Mayor to resolve the
corIcer'AIs.
Staff commented on the need for ,art ult Imate development plan
for, the parcel. t -old,, Staff indloated that the Thor- homoughfareoughfareGuldePlanandTrailplanidentitiesaconnection
between 8th Avertue North and Urbandale Lane, and as the
petitioner Indicated* there are constraints on the property.
Page
P ttrtitt CC tm*s jon min
duly 1 8
H the plait Is riot required at this paint, and the bind is
not platted, .initial _development of the site would not take
into consideration the possibilities of future division or
pi tting#
MOTION by Chairwoman Vasilfou, seconded by Commissioner Wire RECOM NDATION D
to recommend approval or Lot Di,vis, on/Var ante for Helen
Ouster, s proposed.
Chairwomatt Vasilfou e pl,ined that the development of the
E s idller parcel will have a Minimal ,impact on others and that
there are eternal effects on the petit fan r s jan ,A rich
have occurred over time th,;. were not their doing -
t
Mrs#. Rustert discussed th,# potential buyer's plants for
development.
omissiorter Pauba idaoated he concurred, with the remarks
to some extent, but desires to see a plant frjr future devel,
opmertt Com issioner Plufka agreed. However, with the low.
land that exists, the two parcels are phys. y:al„ly distinct. What is developed on t.rte piece will not Impact the other
parcel.
Staff suggested that Condition No-, 8 of the recommended
ResQW—tion be revised to require that 4 future Subdivi.si,on
plait be submitted by the new owner prior to Issuance of '' a
Building Permit. Mrs* Rusten concurred, with the suggestion.
MOTION by Commissioer Pauba, seconded by Commissioner Fire
to AMEND ; 'the Motion by Inserting in Condition No. 61 the
provision for a Future plait by the owner prior to issuance
of a, Building, Permit Commissioner 8te1gerwal.dconfirmed
that the Motion recommended payment of Park Dedication
fee' O per City Policy*
Voce on the MOTION once Amended 7 Ayes. MOTION carried
Vote on the Main MOTION. 7 Ayes* MOTION carried
Cha,irwanan Vasillou introduced the request submitted by the PRN11,rNT `AL TNS1jRANCF '
Prudential ins ra ce Company for the Final Plat to be known COMPMY PMD FINAL
as "'Northwcst Business Campus Second Addition" located on PLAT fOR "NORTHWEST
Crttlot D, Northwest Business Campus. Reading of the July 71 RUSTNE8S CAMPUS
1982 staff report was waived. Chdirwomart Vattillou recpgniz- SECOND ADDITION"
ed Mr. Carlos Rodgc, Ron Pent.,; and Peter Jarvis who repr•e- 8000
sented the petitioner.
Commissioner Wire conf,ir•med that the treet lighting pian is
In accordance with; the approved plan.
1
page 187
Planning CommiI s lrr Minut's
3uly 141, 9
MOTION ' byar<tm,i si,oner Wire, seconded b Commissioner tul. R COWNDA lONbergtorecommendapprovalofthefinalPlatforNorthwest -
Business Campus Second Additlon per the staff reoomw,-,ida_
tions l,rr the draft Resolutiott.
taste on the MOTION, 7 ayes. c4rried
Chairwoman asiji%ju Introduced the request submitted by the
PRUDCNTlAL INSURANCE
COQ - 155lTL PLA tPrudentiallsrt °arree Compariv for d Site plan For an 84t950 7033
sq ft. office building to be loce.ted northwest of Campus
Drive and Northwest ou lev r /County, Road 61. Reading of
the'July 7, 1987 staff report was waived.
The, Commissioners reviewed the orrrresponderioe submitted bythepettlonerdatedJtoie21, 19-52. This correspondence; is
referred to. in the staff report for this applications
Chairwoman Vdsillou explained, that adjacent property owners
were not_ i fl eo by r rrf rma l ion al Not -ice of the mee t i nq . rhe
petitioners were recognized,_ and Peter, Jarvis, BRW, repre-
senting the petitioner summarized and presented the proposal
to the Commisslort.
Mr. Jarvis reviewed the grade arra topographic changes of the
16 arul e plIalried that these become critical with the <fe-
tails of Fite plan preparation. It is the intent to save
the existing trees in the southeast corner of the site, and
present d "cdhipus", atmosphere. The .lanai use proposed is in
accordance with the approved ' UD Plan. Specifically, the
proposed lana use calls for da office-showr000, 'Mr. Uarvis
explained that this type of facility is a high quality, up-
graded office warehouse .
Mr« 3arvis,submitted that the Site Man Intends to separate
the tenant and quest parking from the loading dock areas.
This .i: accomplished through providing Individual access for
the tenants, and smaller parking areas. The parting is
termed and, landscaped from the adjacent steets which
assists ,Ire saving the existing trees to accompli.
I
sh the »;nage
of a park or campus..
A graphic id nti,f inn the out and fill amounts for the pro-
posed grading was reviewed,, The overall site
I
and build!nq
landscaping :was presented. Site sections from Xenium Lane
to Caraipus Drive were de :ribed to the Commission..
I
Page
Planning commis5lon Minutes
3uly 14, 196Z
wiss,loner Steigerwald inquired how the buildings would be
addressed? Staff Indicated this is ourrently beijiq review-
ed by the Building Department as to whether there would be
multiple or single street addressesfor the tenant areas. ,
The Commlaslort discussed the proposers signage as it relates
to addressitty arae tenant area identifi.oatigl
Mr.. garvi.s reviewed the p titlor,ers' concern with Item b
of the Engineer's Memorandum. The petition r submitted the
site design with an "S" vrve` acrtess onto Campus Drive On
the basis that it aligns wi`;h Annapolis Trane, provides a
landing" area for entering oars, dnd is diverted from
ent ring directly to the building. r» 3arvis s(mmarizecl
that the building elevation cannot be raised! a 70 -ft. Iong
driveway dries sod~ provide art adequate landing area, it is
undesirable to h ve a "T" intersection directly in front of
the building; and, the Petitioner would like to minimize the
pro-number of accesses onto camp,,$' Drive. therefore, the
posal, was designed to accommodate the required: curve and
E rad .uses for maneuvering trucks, widens the paver rat at the
entrance, and, proposes a 1 11 grade..
The City Engineer explaineded that, when the MPO Plan was
app4 oved, County Read 61 aad Xen ium Lane were identified as
major roadways. The remaining public mads 'provide; olle -
for access t hr4 ugh the develo ` $fent area. campus Or j ve is
one of those roads which should provide internal access to
the ` developing sites. Engineer Moore' submitted t *. two
drives veto Campus Drive dries not present a circulation con-
cern, as, much as the intended use for this roadway. The
curvature proposed Is tight and the recommendation tames
Into oonsIder°atiora future additional development.
commissioner Steigerwald inquired if the buildings were
addressed from Xenium lane if tra-'flc would" be less likelytouseCountyRoad1? Engineer Moore did not ;think this
would impact the traffic routes as the cl.ientel and employe-
es generally use the same route -ever day
Mr. Jarvis suggested a third posalhle design alternative
which would eliminate the petitioner's' proposed' access to
Campus 3+ ive and provide one access approximately feet
to the west, The Commission discussed the zecess and circu-
lation alternatives including an overlay which represented
the City ngineer's r ommepdatiorns
Mr. 3arvis stated that the petitioner would dove the entry
5#n per the Engineer's Memo (iteft "al , _ however$ they
request the access as proposed on the submitted plans.
Page lg
Planning Commission inute
Iuly 14, 1982
Commissioner Steigerwald stated *kern with le development
Of 4 "Campus" effect per the approval of the t4PUD Plan. He
that the proposed design for the bulldlix on this site was
Impressive even though there was parking located adjacent to
the streets. Commissiontz Steigerwald, st4tee that the
broad lawn design toward the streets, should be presented.
The Commission and petitioner discussed the City's petit-
ations, deflnl on, and ant ieipat d develo n nt to provide
the oam s
Y
atmosphere, ter. gary s indicated that tradi-
tiunali. , a campus character was presented by buildings
located < close together, smith pedestrian circulation and
quality exterior amenities,,, 4r. arvls suggestedthat,
since his firm had not been lovolved with the development
and approval. of ' the NPUD Plan, It would be productive to
have a discussion with the Commission, ih the future to
establish a mutual underst4ndi g of the "campus" 'effect.
Chairwoman Vasillou recalled the f-,-tensly> graphics and
presentations made by Prudential at earlier hearings, and
stated that the. "oma ission and the heig boring property
Owners Were left with a very strong impression and expecta-
tions, The Commission's rale is to assure that actual deve-
lopment conforms to the approved MPUC Plan and those
expectations.
Staf f reviewed, the graphic of the MPU Pl n which was pre-
sented whtn Resolution No. 81-281 was passed. The,plan
graphic has not been revised to r fl"t the conditions and
direction given at that time. Staff suggested 'thkit the
petitioner have the plan revised, and then the staff, Com-
mission, and the petitioner could discuss it at a sub eque t
meeting prior to further Site Plan applications.
Commissioner Wire expressed concern that extensive identifl#
at.ion .s gndg6 does not represent a campus image,
Commissioner Stelgerwald stated the pr,sent plan Nils be-
tween the "c:ar,pus" concept, and a conventional industrial
site. Commissioner 15tulberg expressed concern that the
campus design exp ctations he r fledt n si e pians in the
future.
Carlos Nudge, Prudential insurance `Companyy stated that on
this specific plan, the petitioner cannot provide the total
campus atmosphere that was suggested in the presentations
during the previous ap;praval* This is because of the type
of use proposed and the character of the site. The intent
is to provide a campus effect for the complete MPUD.
page
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 198.,
MOTION by Commissioner Stei.gerwaid, seconded by `h, lrw(,man RECOMM F
asiliou to recommend ,approval of the p --posed Site plan
Ni3ATlOt4
for an approximate g,Crgo sq. ft office/showroom at I,
northwest corner of Campus thrive and Northwest Boulevard
submitted by Prudential Insurances Company s . ctto thet
sten recommended conditions and the Engineer's Memorandum,
In ludi g Items 26a and Z6b,,
MOTION to amend by Commissioner Pluf a, seconded by AMENDMENT
Commissioner Stelgerwald to AMEND the Motion by d let n
Item Ub of ,' the 'Enni peer's Memo, and direct that one drive
access ;hold be provided to tampus brie. The access
should either almgn with Anoapolls Lane, or be Located
farther to the west.
Co mi ssicaler Wire e nr co -sed concern about additional curb
cuts with the next phase of development. Mr Jarvisstated
one was anticipated.
Upon ther disc ssicr, ' of ' the percent of grade, and AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN
4li,gnmer ts, Commissioner Plufka withdrew his amendment,
The petitioner indicated that they did not want to construct
two driveways even though it is che trer. commissitner
Plufka agreed with the petitioner as he preferred the
proposed access*, Commissioner Pauba agreed..
MOTION by Commissioner Magnus, seconded by r-romxssioner AMENDMENT
Stulberg to AMEND the Main MOTION to approve the Site Pian
with the drive ,access as proposed, deleting It .-i No. 26b or
the Engineer's Memoraradumr. dated June 19, 1982.
Vote on the Amendment. 6 ayes. Commissioner Stelgerwald, VOTE
Nay. MOTION carried.
Vote on the Main Mg,ION as once amended. 7 ayes. MOTION
carried.
The Commissiori discussed the proposed signage tr at nt for
the buiidi.ng, with tt,-- petitioner. It was suggested to use
mr 1-'Mited signage than what was indicated on the `'i to
plah
f
Fide"li.ng Commis -,ion Minutes
July 14$,198Z
Chair a pan Neem iou introduced he n submitted ; by CUL -PEPPERSt :phert e* ua d Or Cul-PePPer Constt-uctlon Company to FinalPlat NSTRUCT!ON Co. land located northwest of 25th Avenue. North and FINAL PLAT FORCheshireLane.Reading of the July 6, 198Z 'staff report was CHESHIRE ADDITION" waived.hr,- 1"eter Bishop,McCombs-Xnutson Associates, was 2034)
present to represent the petitioner shnu!4 the Commission
h<s e any qkyest lolls.
MOT1014 by tommissioner Wlre, seconded by Commissioner WOMINENDATION CSteigerwald ' to recommend eoproval of the Fin i Plat for
Cheshire Addition" subject to the conditions in the draft
Resolutlona
dote on the MOTION. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried'. VOTE
OLD BUSINESS
Cha .rwo dln Vasiliou introduced the request submitted by CUL -PEP kStephenNesandforCul -Pepper Construction Company for a CO. Site Pla4 10 coAstrUuct a multi -tenant office buildinq. SITE PLAN (82005)
R adirSq of the July 6,, 1952 ,staff report was waived.
MOTION by Commissioner S elgerwaid, seconded by Commissioner RECOMW, NDATION H
P4uba to recommend approval Of the Site Plan subject to the
conditions of approval in the draft_ Resolution,
Vote: on the MOTION, 7 Ayes. MOTION carried.
Chairwoman Vasiliou introduced the item and recognized Mr. RICHARD ZEJOLIKRicharde,idlik who represented thepetitioner. Reading of RPD FINAL /PLATthe3uly2, 1982 staff report was warred, AND SITE PLAN FOR
Mr. Z,Ied l i,k stated he had ,one concern with the staff room-
MISSION OAKS FIRST
ADDITION" (A-338) mendat.ion, specifically, he questioned item 26 e of the July211952Engineer's Memorandum on the site pian, relative to
constructing the internal roadway from the parking lot to
the property line with a barricade.at the end of the road.
The road would not be connected by means of a driveway to41stAvenueNorthuntilthatstreetisplattedand
constructed.
The meeting adjourned at 12:55 .M
PLMNING COMMXSSION RECOMWNDATION FOR MLY 14t 1982
RECOMMENDATIONION
SETTING NDITION G WT PRIOR TO FILING AND R GAR)NLOT DIVISION O 101k
WHEREASWHEREASO
Rusertl-
theCity or ad
and, has approved e Got Division of unplatted p eperty for Helen
WHERAI. the Planning rli,ss.ion hay reviewed the request and has recemoerided approval,,,
NOW, if -RUOR a BF IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY CUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PGYMUTH, MINNESO `, , that it shouldand hereby does approve ` the
prior t
1. to q conditions be va:
ling and regarding the property d.i slon with HennepinCounty-.
11. Compliance with the City Engineer's ftwrandum.
24, No yard setback variances are granted or Implied.
Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 7MG regarding minimum floor
elevations for new structures n sites ad aeerat o or eorrtai ni n open
storm water drainage facilities;
Payment park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication, for the new parcel
prior to issuance of Building Permit in accordance with City Policy illeffectatthetimeofBuildingPermitissuarieeo
No Building, Perin to be issued untilthe dotivmmsin s fried withtHennepinr er r
i
6. Submission of Future Subdivision Plani- and aporooriate documents shall
be filed can all parcels ndicat.ing that In onjun n with this div- ision, a conceptual: plan oas been placed on rile with the City for
i fuwre reference,,
i. Submittal of all necessary utility easements prior to filing Get DivisionwithHennepinCountyr
Approved v Iriances lnc,ludef, w
PLANNItC COM14ISSION RECO14MENDATIONSULY 11+ 1982
RECOMMENDATION E
SETTING COND N$ TO BE MET PRIOR O FILING Or A. 0 REGARDING FINAL PLAT FOR NORTHWEST
BUSINESS CAMPUS 2ND ADDITION FOR PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MPUD 81-1) (8006?)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Final Plat for Wrthw st Business Campus 2nd
Add it i, n as requested by Prudential Insurance Comps ny;
W 7 THEREFORE f B IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CI T'I COUNCIL (F THE CITY QF PL Y W
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby 4oes approve the followinq to be met prior to
recording of and regazdliiq said plat. - lat
Complianceomplin with the City Engineer'Memof,- :nd m
2.
s
Payment of park d dicatioa fees -in- If.eu of dedication In accordance
with City Polityy in effect at the time viidIn t Permit issuance.
No Building Permits shall be issued until mtX1. iPal sewer and water
are physically available to the sites.
4. Removal of all dead or ding trees from the Property at the owner's
xpens *
5. No yard s tbie' variances are granted-; or Implied.
4. Any future division of Let It Black 11 Northwest Business Campus 2nd
Addit ler. shall be by mearks of platting.
7. Compliance with ipp ..i able provisions _ of Resolutions 1-281 and 1.64
and the Development Contract for " orthwost Business Campos 500 2 Y
N NG COMHUSSION RECO WNDA` ONS FOR 3 LY 14, 1982
RKOMMENDATI00 R
APPROVI NG, S 'ITE PLM FOR "NESHIRE ADDITION" LOCATED NORTHW$T OF 25TH AVENIX NI)RIN 44DCHES'941RE LANE ON05)
WHEREAS, Stepheti i e.s und, Cul -Pepper Construction Companhas requested approval of aItePanfor "Cheshlre Addition:" to be loe t ed n r h st of 25th Avenue Nrt dhsh - *i and,
WHEREAS* the lnninqQf13mlf,$ a f pis rev sewed SU -1d request and r. t m nd.- Its ap val;; i
THEREF0,1E, BE IT HEREBY K.SOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ` CITY OF
i
PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA,, that il shouldld nd hereby does a`dr ve the requeste4es ofStephenapen 5lu nINeCul- epp r Construction C pilt' for Sitio Plan approval . i° "Cheshire Addition" to blov-A edgyyy northwest :. of 25th Avenue North and -Cheshire .ane subject to .the fol low ngtoniaR
1. Compliancenc with the ' Engineer's Memorandum,
Payment o d r edlk cvtt jot, fees -in -lieu of d dic t on in -lcord n e,
with Dedicatloq p a y crI effect at the time of Sull,.'Ing Perms
3. Complianceanc with Poll Y a!sol t.I.on No. i9-830 reqardinq minimum floor
P,Ievato ns for new structures on sltcs d x-Y,cnt to or containing any
open storm irk; tr d-rainage tacit .ty.
ass n of required guarantee and performdnce agreement
or completion of site Improvement s.
Any sign aq shall. be In compliance w th the Ordinance.
6. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to reser r,vlews
and epprovals pe, ° Ordinance prouscns.
f
i
f
The Landscape Plan shall be revised t Comply with the required num r of
Plant i rags per the Landscape Policy, or a survey verifyi,19 the exi t r raatreesWh1r.* a Mart - m1111MUM size aria type of platitinqs as sperlfledj,1
the Landscape Policyicy ;strait, be submitted prior to issudrt# of
P r'M t. The Site shall be Sodded and seeded In acc rdal on with the CityLdn(i5capitig Policy., The intention or thf landscdPIA9 at the South side? of the,
parking lot abutting 41st Averiue is to Screen the lights of and t he lotgars
fr a the hwles ont oath Side f ?g
l vefloje.; and the Past . ngs and bier
chours m4y be adjusted, i necessary to achieve the. ordinance, r nl.rl red
screening cif, opatJty#
7. The tot ai number of units for the "Mi
ion Oaks First Addition Phase P
shalt be twenty-six per the Site Plaw, Staff dated arra starved ativroved.
The-Pim m ra rrn: r cif' units to bc, constructed in O t se ii shall forty-six
units.
Deval oppw-nt of Phase 11 is tf , ,t to Ordinance reoulat Ions for P1 t t yrp.
Appropriate legal do,,u#x rats Shall he approved, y ' the City Attorney andfiledwiththtIn ' Plat pr v dluq for the st, rc=d access drlvcs , acrd
parkingbet-ween t to i Ptiasp' .
1. ComplidnCe With Section 9 of f Zoning Ordliriance regardinq the f r ii n
f applicable covenants, and other documents qo rnfnw control. arid mal of ri ric.
f CtAM011 'hese.
fi 1. Setbacks shdll be appy
I
oved per
I
Silt e Pl ara st of f dat ed and stamped approvd.
Fuurtetfi { 14) outside. eleotri a out*ets. on pasts Shall be Installed I n
the parking areas In proportion to the parkis.0 stalls.
13. Required Site Performance.- Finan ial ,aarantrk-e . and Agreement shall be stip—
m tted prior to Issuance of Bonding Permits, and costs of the construct,ion
of the proposed play area shall included in the(juarantee provided by the
P -I t, i t ion r for on-site ciev l opme at ,
14. Apj)rov i Includes a variant-, from the Ordinan-ze covered parka F§ r
r rat tar b faf en parade unit , tw of which may be used for
4 tor4ge, of equipment.
95. Storage areas with outside access shall be no less than 30 sq, ft. for 4 i
two-bedroom, units.
The nKitlon for adoption of the foregoing Resolution eras drily seconded bytwraiimerSanduponvote: taken thereon, fC3 cawr vUt n avor ' Q ura ilr:m ;x' toren Neilsj_Schneider
Threlnen and ala, o{$ r Davenport16 ry t s
yy
a'M
E hereupon the Resolution was declared dcziy passed and adopted''