Loading...
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