HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 12-22-1982CITY-OFCITY-OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DEMwER 22,4 1982
The re ulat meeting of ti,. Plymouth planning Commission was
called to order at 704 pat,
HEMBERS PRESENT- Chairwoman Vasillo , Commissioners
teigerwaldy Pauba, Wire, Magnus.,
and Stulberg (arrived at 9-00 P.M.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Plufka
STAFF PRESENT: COMMUnity Development Director
Blair Tremere
ommuAlty Development Coordinator
Sara McCoinn
Chap x (Mark, Vasf
liou stated that the ommission would consid-
er ltem 5-A, 5-8 and 5-C as the first Items of business and
then proceed with the remaining ; ,tears in their regular
sch,edulea
MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner Wire
to approve th .t Minutes of the December 8,, 19,52 meeting as
submitted. . Vote 4 Ayes, Commissioner Magnus abstained.
Commis,,sloners Plufka and Stulberg absent.
NEW BUSINESS
Chairwoman Vasl,li u introduced the request submitted by Mr. GREGORY BIGOTGregoryBigotdoraLotDivisionandVarianceofproperty
GT
DIVISION AND VARIANCEionatedat224Forestvi-.w Lane. Reading of the December 10, 82063), Ttem 5-R. 1952 Staff Report was waived.
airwo an Vasiliou recognized the petitioner who said he
did not have any questions or comments,
MOTION by Commissioner Wiref seconded by ' Ommissi oner
of
RECOMMENDATIONSte1gerwaldtorecommendapprovaltheLotDivisionand
Variance subject to the conditions as stated .in the drat
Resolution; variances ;are approved for the lot size and lot
Width requirements because of the unique parcel shape and
the Variance criteria are met.
I
Commissioner Pauba expressed concern of setting a precedent
by approving the petition. Commissioner Ware .stated that
due to the "pie -shape', of the lot, It would be difficult to
maintain the required setbacks.
k
Page 331
Planning Commission Minutes
December 1
Mr. Fine stated that each time Hennepin COWAY modifies theYearplan, or proposes further development, the Commission
and City Council will have a;4 opportunity to review the
landscaping and roise the bermino tonc rn. Mr. Fine. stated
he hoped the Planninq; Commission would not withhold a recom-
rner datidn oh the Mdster Plan due to the b rm. nct and land,
sgpe issue.
ommissloner dire concurred and stated that he felt the
Master elan should r cogrO e the Cityts'concern and consider
some method of ultimate resolution. ter. Pmt`s stated that he
was not Indicating t?hat'ennepin County would not conduct
some site improvements for land oap nq, however, he is
bound, to current the54-ear plan. qtr. Fine suggested that
the Commission state their concerns and dire tion in a
recommendation to the City; Council.
hairwoman llasi l lou stated she concurs with Commissioner
Wire,, and that she thought the Master Plan should reflect -
landscaping in connection with the County budget process.
Chairwoman Vasillou Inquired how often the budget;is review-
ed for Hennepin County. Mr.. Fine explained that the budget
Is reviewed four times a year, the next scheduled review is
Februarys ter. Fine explained thebudget process for
Hennepin Count v and noted that the Master Plan is a concept-
ua layout and that funds for all of the improvements called
for have not been allocated. The Hennepin County ward has
approved' fund allocations ' for ; the next; 12 months and tate
Year Plan ' as a conceptual layout., Fae budget. review
projects possible improvements for the next 5 years,
Chairwoman VOiliou 'explained the use of concept plans such
as the approved plans for the "Wwn owli Plymouth" area which
represent a Conceptual layout or "footprint" of how develop-
ment could occur. Staff noted that if tete petitioner does
riot subtnl.t or propose any ,,hatiges to an approved concept
plan for approval, then the City does expect future develop_ merit to generally adhere to the plan.
Commissioner magmas Inquired if Hennepin Count: would be
required to comply with the Landscape Polley if an expansionisproposed. Staff 'explained that site plar;s would, e
subject to the policy. The City's practichas been that
the Polley Is applied to the developing, area of an already
developed site and not the entire property.
i
Page
p1tinni g Commission Minute's
December ZZ, 1982
Commissioner teigerwa,ld stated that the new, lot would be
similar to the ad aceat lots located to the south and east,
and it is across from an open area.
Rail Call Vote. 5 Ayes, Commissioners Plufka and Stulberq VOAabsent* MOTION carried.
Chdirwomdfllasilio l f trcouc
dROf*.
RT
the request .submitted by
SCOTT FOR
MORT K3ELLMRG FOR
Robert Scott for wi jjt XjelRl.berq. ' for Ordinance and, Pol. (,, t.4T DIVISION
variances to permit division of a 20 acre parcel by metes VARiANCCf. (s2o6o)
and bounds description In to two parcels. Readino of the Item -C
e ember 10, 1982 Staff Report was waived.
Chairwoman Vasiliou recognized fir. Robert Scott, a realtor,
representing the petitioner. Mr. Scott stated he oue t,iox ed
the need for a pending easemen! as defined in item number 6
of the Engineer's 14er orandum because the culvert at the
northeast corner of the property is very h,it1h and should be
able to handle any flood aq. that '`would oe.:ur r Mrr. Scott
stated he thought the Eagineerinq f)epartment misunderstood
the request,, per the comment on the submitted future subdi -
lsl n putt. He clarified that the proposed lot division
cai.li.-d for a total of two lots Mr, Scott stated he recog-
nI es that the City does not want urban development to occur
in this area of eche City, and requested withdrawal of the
future Subdivision Platt.
Chairwoman Vasa iou explained that the future Subdivision
Plan rices riot bind future development, but is evidence of
p,larttting, as to how land might develop in the future, r.
Scott requested an explanation of the LAR guiding and FR
Parr. Scott expressed concern that if the City does n --allow
the division of Lind, the landowner would be limited to one
residence on a large lot, Also, Mr. Scott expressed concern
that if the division I not approved., tt wouldd be a limita-
tion Oil the value of the land and he, will request a lowering
of the assessed value, which would reduce the amount of
taxes.
Chairwoman Vasiliou, Inquired if a "For Sale" seen is Located
on the property. Mrs. Scott indicated a sign was on the
property but has been removed. Chairwoman a-Fi l lou .inouireo
If the property has already been sold. Mr. Scott st4ted
that there is a tentative purchase agreement for the sale of
ten acres,
Chairwoman Vasili.ou confirmed that, fir. Scott was a real,tor
repro= entLig .r* Kjel.l.berq.
Page 321
Plann!'nq Commisslon, Minutes
December 22, 1982
Staff explalaed that the land Involved has ' iways been
viewed as agricultural, which Is reflected in the nuidinct
and zoning.
Staff explained tfiat each variance request shou .d b
v oa Its own merits, however, there are Issues
similar o the application submitted by Vis. Cuoozngham,
which was dealed earlier. Staff noted that concera has been
expOessed previously about the abundance of rural lots which
exit today. Today's iireentory would place sionifioant
demota t oil CItv services should they all be dov loped Th
Commission and Council, need :to determine > whether it is
appropriate to add another developable lot to the rural area
of the City.
r® Scott suggested that Deed restrictions b placed on the
propor.y prohibit"'ng future division. Commissioner Fire
confirmed that on res16 oe would be constructed on the
property, Chairwortian Vasillou noted that the Commission
could riot preclude a new ownerfrom reouestino future sub-
division.
MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner RECOMMENDATION -8
Magnus to reoom ;end denial of the proposed Lot 0ivilsion And
Variance for Robert Scott for Dwight Kjellberq as stat -ed In
the 41-14f t ql so Ultl .n'consistent with the previous ommIls "`
s on and City Council. actioxls.
Roll Cay I Vote. 5 Ayes. Commi-3sioners Pl,ufka and Stulberq VOTE
absent.
Chairwoman Vasilloo introduced the request submitted by DONALD Cs W LPMAN
Donald, C. ter$ ma;i for a Final Plat "Scoville Business FINAL PLAT FOR
dark". 11eadinq of the December 10, 1W Staff Report was OSCOVILLF WSINFSS
waived.KIRK11 82062)
i
hairwoman Yasillou recognized ter. David Fair who had no
Its 5-A
questions or comments.
MOTION by Chaim,,oman lasitiou, seconded by CommissionerRECOMMENDATIONC
Pouba to recommend gpproval" of the Final plat sub, eot to the
conditions as stated in the draft Resolution.
Page 328
Planning Commission minutes
December Ut`5
Commissioner Wire confirmed that the trail construc,.Ion
would be dt'Perred as recommended with the preliminary plat.
ote6 5 Ays. Commissioners Pluf a and Stulberct absent VOTE.
MOTIONON o irr.red
PUBLIC 'E
Chairwoman Vasillou expl i.a.ned that this Public Hear oq was HENNEPIN COU14T
scheduled for a regular Planning Co,,nmi$sion meeting and ADULT CiRREC
that a special meet i req was not called for th .s item. hair- FACILITY HASTwomantrasllourecdniedMr. Sick Fine, ennep n County, who
R
VQ6
reviewedthe- proposed taster Plan. Mr-* Fine stated that
there were no changes from the plan that was reviewed at the
August, 1982 neighborhood meetznu.
Chairwoman Vasillou noted that :she and Commissioner Steiaer-
wald attended the special Informational Meetirru for the
public. Staff explained that; the Commission should tape
public input and develop a recommendation to the City
OUncll, intimately, future development would be cons stent
with the taster Plan.
Gary Schmidt, 15730 9th Avenue Northy stated that he was
concerned that the meet ng was scheduled so close to the
holidays and that more people 'Mould stave attended,
Mr. Sobm dt inquired what 000e compliance improvements would
be made. K7. Fine explained that once any modif ^.atxona are
proposed to the main buildinq, the bux .uline# must comply withtheFireCodeYnoludrngsprin ,lering anij emergency exits.
This is not scheduled to occur until 1987. The approximate
cost of a sprin ier system would utilize most of the bucket--
ed funds.
James Olsen, 1,506 estoo Lane, stated he is upset that tht
Puts is Hearing Notice was received' December 10th and that
the meeting was scheduled so close to the holidays which
made It difficult for neighbors to get together before the
hearing. Mr. 01%ern Inquired what signzf * cance the5-Year
Plan hes. Chap rwoMari Vasillou explained that it represents
a conceptual layout of how development could occur, on the
property. The plan .sq subject to revisions, which 'if
proposed, will be reviewed by the City (both the Planninci
Commission &id City Council). Mr. Olsen stated that if the
plan r'epre; tents a General Concept, he saw no problem.
Page 329
Planning Commission Minutes
december U7 1982
Mr. 01,tien stated that he thought tite appearance of tie prem- ises should be embancedit and, Since the residents In the
area have to live with the facility, the facility, should fitinwiththereg .dent al land uses. He suggested the ` ae of
bermml.no and recalled the County's concern with security..
hairwOmd" Vaslllou stated she concurred.. Mr. Olsen stated
t: that if changes are proposed, the residents should be
properly noticed. Chairwoman Vasz', jou explained that, In
addition to the legal notice requirements, staff notified
all those persons who Spoke at Previous hearings. 5h+
stated that those who. are unable to attend the meetings can
submit their comments In writinq which become part of the
hearing record. W Olsen statedhe felt these limits of
the Public noticing were not s ffic cnt.
Commissioner Pauba inquired of Mr. Olsen, what In his
0000non would be more importantt aesthetics or security, Mr. Olsen stated that it is a "double-edged sword" in that,
on one hand, the residents want the facility screened; and,
ci the cher hand the bounty wants opol visibility of the
prem ises Mr. Olsen explained that he was concerned that
Hennepin County has don played the seriousness of securltyInsomecases, and in tither cases seems very concerned about
security. He stated he would not sly that security its
second to aesthetics, however, he felt teat Hennepin Countycanandshouldmeethathobjectives,
Ar, NNW stated he felt the general appearance of the
property, particularly arouna the main buildino is not good,
and that the facility should have berming and ,landscaping. l
Mr- Fine stated that there are many options; alternatives
end measures to berm and light the property, but few are
feasible. To berm the main building, a %fiery substantial
mound would have to be created. Such berminq would oos
concerns about WentIfying vehicles and ' people entering orleavingt - property. State r°egu. atiomts require a clear
view of the grounds.
Mr. Fine stated he felt the trees which were planted recent-
ly will in time provide screening to some extent. He
teiterated that he is bound by the current Master plan es
approved by Hennepin County.
ge
piagnin(4 Commission Minutes
December 221 1962
Commissioner Stelperwald inquired who owns the Luce, L.Ine
railroei tracks, Staff explained that the City has an ease- tent for trail purposes. The trail system and park plan for
area Nes discussed. Staff explained$ that when, the
t#erty i oa: d to the north) which is owned by theCity >of
x,)i.is ev,lops, it would be re su abl to expect that
nerty around Parkers Lake would be dedicated o the
r upe;1 space# The . Line Trail will coni-je t irtto,
Cemmis .Ioner Stei e wal.d suggested that when that
pt operty develops, the City should assist in desionina the
landscaping and (trading to the south, in such a manner to
address the residents' concerns on screening the Adult
Corrections Facility.
Commissioner Wire stated he felt Hennepin County si7ioutd
budget funds for Improving the aesthetics of the buildt t
and landscaping as well as internal i spruvem nts
Chdirwom n ' asili.du concurred and stated that when the total
bUdgut is crmv4id r d landsc4pinq would be a Minimal cost.
Commissioner Magnus noted that there may be odditiv.gal,
alternatives to perimeter bermi,ng such as, add1tiora1J'r*#an _
Ing and greeae_,*y ..our+d the bui-lding and improving vvlie yard*
In response to Mr. Cls n's inquiry- staff explained that ifEimpsvements'rectar0 n site planni.nq are proposed by Benne-
pin County It would be subject to City requirements, Includ-
ing landscaping. Staff recalled the :Site Plan and
Conditional Use permit Amendment for the Fork Release
Facility, Staff also explained that the Codes and Policies
do not require screening of buildings,, and that the CityCouncilhasthediscretiontoupholdordenythePlanninq
Commission's recommendations regarding such improvements.
r. Olsen suggested that Hennepin County commence with land-
seapinp improvements so that in the future the efforts would
be in place. The Commission and residents concurred that
the Work Rel.ezlse Facility is a positive development.
Mrs, Schmidt inquired !'u,'1A the status of the Plarnnin Com-
mission' , reco menti. ticia rat.h resp et to the non- onforminq
use Ordinance ar endm Staff explained that tf,#p City
Council received the C mmi siott' recommendation and deferred
action on the issue until the Master Gln was completed and
reviewed at hearings.
Page 332
Planning Commission Minutes
December ZZ, 1982
Chairwoman Vaslli*u closed the Public fiearinq.
UTION by Commissioner Ware, seconded by Commissioner Magnus
to take action on this petition. Vete. 5 Ayes.
C Plufka and Stulberq absent.
MOTION by Commissioner Ware, seconded by Chairwoman asil'uu R COM!NDATION 1)
to recommend approval, subJeet to the condition as stated in
the draft Resolution and modified to req.,&Ire that, on page
6, Objective 3 f the tJaster Plan Marrat lve he changed to
read: "to Indic ite consideration of berminq ind or landscap-
Ing compatible with per.imete:r security" and, on page 13,
Section E,. paragraph T be mod?;fled to add: "'to accommodate
berming and/or landscaping for transition to the erimett--r
of the propertx where appropriate".
Commissioner Magnus suggested that the word 'perimeter" be
removed from the recommended modification ori aue 13, to,
include the entire site. Chairwoman '$Vito stated tt 4t
the Notion sou I remain as proposed so that adequate direi,-
tion is Provided to tlenite in County.. Commissioner Stexoer-
F wild stated his concern is with the viers from the west and
South.
M TIGN to amend by Commissioner Steikierwaldr seconded by MOTIfW TO A `Nfl
Commissioner Pauba to add a condition which reQuires that
within the net two years a Landscape Pian be ,`deve`loped,,
with the; City's assistance , for the Qwest and south bounddr-
ies. Commissioner Stelgerwal.d noted that the City should
offer help to accomplish the appropriate landsedpinq.
Vote ; on the Amendment to the Main Motion. 5 Ayes. VOTE ON ` THE AMFNCY.J NT
Commissioner Stulberg; abstained. Commissioner Pluf a
absent. MOTION carried.
gate on the Maia MOTION once amended. 5 ; Ayes. Commissioner VOTE, ON TUE MAIN
tul.berg abstained. Commissioner _Plu ka abscot., MOTION MOTION
carried.
OLD BUSINESS
Chairwomaa Vasiliou introduced the request submitted by MINNEAPOLIS A11TO
Minneapolis Auto Auction for a Site Flan Amendment to AUCTION _ SITE Pim
construct two building additions.. Beading of the November AMENDMENT (820 1)
C, 198Z staff report was waived.
A03OURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at X4.30 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS DECEMBER Z71 19R
PLANNINq COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ECEM )ER , 19 2
RECOMMENDATION C
n 'Tl i iTIOS TO M14ET PRIOR T FILING AN REGARDING FINAL ,PLAN LAT FOR
O : U xi1 ESS PAR FOR DONALD C. WlLDRAN (82062)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Final Pima p1-. and Development rontract for
11Scc ille' Business Park" as requested by Donald $' Wildman,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE JT HEREBY R .St L E y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYM(1TH,,
iNN S TA that it should and hereby does approve the fol i,cwi na conditionsions to he met
prier to reeor4ttiq aixd regarding said plat
i'. Compliance with the City's Enqtneerls Memorandum
7. The Ordi.na ice rezoning the property shad.l be published < upon evidence that the
Final Plat has: been filed and recorded with Hennepin County.
Provisions for a 0 -ft.. wide trail easement per Comprehensive Park Plait, as
verified by the Parks and Fn ineering Departments, wi th submittal of detailed
Plans as to grading of the trail. per City standards; the trail plans shall be
coordinated with the site landscaping plans so to enhance future paving of the
trail .and to minimize construct ion problems,
4. Pdymeat of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in ars amount determined
accordinging tc verified acreage and according to the Dedication Policy in effect
at the time of Building Permit issuance. Trail paving is deferred and the
trak*l shall be graded at the petitioner's expense.
5. Ho building permits shall be issued until municipal sewer and water are
physically available to the sites,
Removal of all demi or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense.
a Removal of existing structures at the developer's expense concurrent with
Initial pkat grading., i.nq.
1
8.
J
No yard setback variances are granted or implied
9.
I
No building permits to be Issued until. the Final Plat is filed and ..,fed
with Hen4epin County.
10. Appropriate legal documents regarding the shared private drive easement for
Lots 2 and 3 be submitted prior to filing the Final Plat with Hennepin otttkty.
11. All existing equipment and debris shall be removed concurrently with ini:tiel
grading cf plat,
skA