HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 07-27-1983CITY OF PLUS
PLANNING COMMISSION iT:
wLy 271, 1983
The r(quldr meetingof the Plymouth PlanotnoCotmmtssion, was
N..,- PRESENTS;airW aid j Co"mi sion rs
Wire, Stulbero, tiperwal and Paubaw
Commissioner Pluf a arri P-M
MEMERS ABSENT- Commissioner flagn"s
STAFF PRESENT1*1
ara12Cy r
yytiAssistptyFnkJ
5y
e e ney
Planninq Secretary Gra-ie Wineman
NOTION by CQhimilssioner $tulbk,,r91 seconded by Commissioner
Steigerwald to, approve the 1111nut f 3,ty 13, 198J a
submitted with one correctionon 131, t Motiont
t s fur " i l to B 2 shows no
con 't urt Motion ted and reads as
follawst "MOTION by CGmmisstoner Wire, seconded -by
Commissioner Piuf a to retommeod approval of, the stqnaqe for
Willow Bend" for Lundgren Brothers Construction Company
subject to thelconditions and requir ments. reflected ;in the
draft Resolution. 'gat °, 7 Ayes. MOTION arrie ". (
LET THE MINUTES SHOWthat an error on the AQenda for this
meeting reads that the Site Pian, Condition-al Use Permit
Amen( ient and Final Plat for "'Mission east,, is lited under
NE Nf, SSS Tela It. should 'dated under "PUBLIC
HL i t S11 s reflected In these Minutes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
a rwomanasill' ou Introduced the Ittem for consideration, RICHARD ZE LIK
Site, Plan, Conditional Use 'emit Amendment and Final Plat 13 TOR CORPORATION
for ' u t West" and Mr. Richard ZeJdIIk. Readinq of the SITE PLAN,
ui 4, 3 stiff ort w4 waived. CONDITIONAL USE PER-
MIT AWNDMEW AND
ChdIrwvoman, lVs t ou asked 1"Or quersttons from the TCUMMIssionk FINAL PLAT FOR
MSSIONI WKT (-8) :
Commalssioner Pauba Inquired whetter Sheet T Is the offi. iai.j
approved Site Min. Staff Mated that It 'is Nvith the
exception that the road onne tzoo between the sites must he
added.
IJ5-
I-Ildnainq comidission Minutes
July 2, 10,83
Chairwoman Vasiliou Inquired 1?
the ro4dway as approved
by Y ou!'61 has been c let d. Staff stated they
north -south road in Hission Oakshas ;been ootistrveted per
the 4pprolved plans with no accessto 41st 41ventte North,
C',onsitruet-tion of 41. IAV
i
Commissionerner Wire asked the petitioner, M Richard jc i ,
why the road contim'-tion has not been n tr tebra
ZeJdlik stated this Is d "deep 'problem", and we -tit on to
address, the exhibits fast Indicate the development plans and
4PPrDues since 1978$ in termsf access. There had been
a* -,"Cess r to Rockford Road (County Read ' between the
two, projectsct which the Petitioner felt formeda
pert of the plan because traffic would feed to Rockford od
County Road ) tt t Avenue N th,, Pie reviewed the Citi
Council dlreestion and the revis"'on of plans,, statinq that
the Issue is a Matter of the pettlionerls tn*erpretat*
Ns,. stiff interpretation of the CiteCouncil action.* He
stated theuncit direction to move the. north -south road to
align ri th Goldenrod Lane at County Road 9 led, to the
deletion of thettt: o we the sites*
Mr. ZeJdIlk stated, that the met with the Mission
Homeowner's Association, and advised them of the access
alternatives -,a-sreg sed. further stated that they
cannot accept the staff recommendation regarding access
between the sites as it is untenabley It would affect 46
owners who would have poor traffic circulation r m their
residencer,, and would route traffic t rouqh the rental
project parking, areas which, would , be -difficult for
maneuverability.
Commissioner Wire commented that the road Sonne tion, between
the sites w pproved at the p tft`jonerl$ r qt, "I that
now the petitioner asking ; the Commission to recommend
d-pproval for a different layouts per the d phase.
Mr. ZeJdlik stated that access t eou ty Road 5 from Phases
was "lost" without. the petitioner realizing it. He
stated that the accuse to 44 t Avenue North is necessary
Randy t- i t t e the history onthis Issue `of limited
accessto County Road 9 is not cleat*
Chairwoman i esuask,Staff to revi w they fftered .
Staff stated that Resolution No. 8Z--.5541 condition ber 2,
states that Phase 11 would have c eo 41st Avenue North
vtd the approved access through they "MUsioh Oaks" develop-
ment* Hennepin County approved they alignment of they
North -south road with Goldenrod Lane at County Road 9,, but
further access to 'County Road 9, woul(I not he allowed.
A
Pdge 1,38
Planninq Comm! $$I or, MinUes
3uly 271 198
r*, Thompson stated that scows )unt,v Roado
Avenue North was favored b l City Council* and att w*req
the second dcoess onto 41,$t Avenue tforth is not the vicey the
RPUD was d ign d.e, forther statedd that there ars safety,
Eaters for children and pedestrians,
fr other concerns Involve bufferinqof
the area As Vi y have noted that south of Covnty Road
north. of 41st-nue)- the r in is louver than originally
s1gn t d2, and the landscapinq has not been completed. He
noted that the driveway rill the east side ellmlinates parr of
the buffer from the first phase,, and that the arade of the
dr 'Velva is ,f")rive street levet etch wt .t allow car It+ ht
to shineInto the residences tear by. He stated that
occupfincy occurred lit Phare t while it was still under
Constluction, which -fused a problem of cars parkinq alonq
unfinished roadwa - they are concerned that 411
construction is complete before; Phase 11 Is allowed t
Mr. Thompson wanted it on record that the homeowners oommend
the developer on Phase I,, hoiyev r. In r and t Phase t
they ask that the a itiq rtt ion confirm that the
setbacks are sufficient.,
He also, asked that density be considered since It was not
clear the proposed units : in Phase tt would qualify as Icer
axid, moderate Income units.
here is. concern regarding, adequate drainacle and nd T1q,-
and it is requested that the bylaws and covenantsnant the
Homeowners o tat ton for these, o f t- reviewedby the
City Attorney to State that any ` Future site Improvements
such as swimmingpools or other common area development
rohib ted, c trsdirt ; limited open area and density.
Mr. hd p , stated they had no concern regarding the
roca at t r signage except that the location is too 01066
to the single famllv homes and should bje, placed northerly
along County Road and setback sufficiently from, 41st
henulew art dt tnt n the -Impact tnq family homes.
Chairwoman Vasiliou (Iosed the Public it arla .
Randy Zejdlik Stated that, while n of the proposed
41ternates calls' for ars additional access to 41st Avenge
ort j "Alternate till is acceptable, to them which onl
relocates the approved access,,. and is the better alternative
for those peoplewho will live in the rental ou tnq,
qe 140
Planning ommiss on Mllnut e5
Judy 41- - 198J
CumTisalouer Bio is oorao about the oar* ItPht patterns
and InquirLd 'if this can be reduced to lessen the Im9act on
other r'ostd noes; and, that pt-haps the access should be to
the east of "Alternate 811.
Randy jd stated that s to throuqh sections were r r-
od and these show the berm.ing and p ant ry that apt'! shield
the homes rtom car lights. The grade will be hlQher and
t a .V have no problem w tb Illstalling more screening and
pldntloq trees In this area.
The Commission continued to discuss access. Convissioner
Steigerivald stated if the interconnect ion weree onstruct d,
traffic congestion, would be relieved brou bout.. Commi$_
stoner* StuP)erq statedthat the Intearated projecthis lost
Its commonality.:
Com tss .oner Wire asked ' when, 41st Avenue is to, be coM,
pit. -Led., Stiff stated that according to current plans. ;I
will be Constructcd, this year.
NOTION b . Commissioner Wire j seconded 'omm s ioner
tel orWald to take action on this petition. Vote 6 Ayes.
NOTION carried.
NOTION by Commissioner Wirel seconded by Commissioner RECOKWNDATION,
t rq ra d to recommend approval of the FAnal Pat for MOTION; TO PRO
Mission - subject to the conditions In the drift FINAL PLAT
yyyyIVes
VOTE 6 Ayes, MOTION carried. VOTE - .MOTIONCARRIED
uiamissron r Stelgerwald stater, that relative to access from
41st aAvenuet the approved access could come down on the
easterly side and go through an interconnection at, the
north end so that traffic ecoid pass b fever units.
MOtION by Commissioner 'ire,, seconded by Commissioner Stuff. -MOT TOM TO APPROVE
bora to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Amend- CONDITIONAL USE
ft-nt end 1t n subject. to condition numbers 1 through PERMIT T
of the draft Resolution. ANU SITE PLAN
NOTION b om.m .ss on rtulb r% seconded by Commission MOTION TO AMEND
Wire, to AMEND Condition Number I7 to specify that "access to
41stAvenue North shall be per *Alternate B1 as submitted"
and that h adirgbtlace Myatt may occur frim the approval of
I.tAlternate B1 seta be soreened"; Condition Humber 14 Is ad-
ded to read "An ,Interconnection be constructed between the
projectsis iia the northerlyl portion of the project*l and, haat
a ,rtxvised grading para for the issron Maks aria shall be
submitted if the revised access to 41st Avenue North Its con-
strrrotod as proposQd%
acs 14
la tlimi Cow issIon, Minutes
0Y 27, 1.93
Richard d Stated he is concernedd that the construction
of Phase 11, will be delayed because of any delays the
construction of 41st 1Wenue North Staff stated construe-
tort u!d e done by the end of the construction season.,
fait asphalt can penerally be installed until Thank v t.
n Vasiliou rev ievied tete Problems of allowing
wupancy in the roJec?t before Completion and that
undo on, dumber °1 should read t a._ € ,; shall no
y#.31r . L: l 41 to.'
s r i9; `Commissioner
Stulberg concurred* the amendment %A k -v s d to include
this.
im. s r Plufka .stated that for the rpos of clarity
reqdrdinq condition number 14 the words, "110 -ft. utility
Basemen' " be added to the lanquaqe relative to the direction
r the interconnection. The, amendment was revised t
Include this lanquaqe.
o i6silon r Wire cautioned that an interconnection wit h
Phase I was vital ..if construction commenced on Phase 11
before t Avenuwas completed. He stated the to arar
ontiucV, access ontoCunt Road 9 should not used b
resrn d
OTS on AMiNDMENT to the MOTION. 6 Ayes, MOTION carried. V` ON A-WI40MENT
MOTION o s io r t lh-r , .seconded by Commtssioner MOTION TO AMEAD
Steigerwald to delete Condition Number 8 and renumber the
conditions.
Commissioner a inquired if flleCommission, In d. ting
condition num r, is taking away 'the yard setback w t the
allowance of underground encroachment into the setback area
from. County Road 9 as stated. Commissioner Stulberq stated
this was not the Intent and that his MOTION Should, be re-
worded t state that "the last sentence o dition Number
be deleted".
d 1 6, ayes. NOTION carried. VOTE ON, ;!NG AWNDWRT
VOTE MAD4 MOTION twice AMENDED. D. Rol -Call Vote. 6 VOTE - MAIN MOTION
Ayes. MOTION 0arrI e d.
Chairwoman as x called for a recess at 9*110 P,M. and
reconvened the meeting at 7:2G P.010
Pagex 142
Planninq Commission
July° Z71 1983
NEW BUSIRLSS,
Chairwoman Vdslljou Introduced th ,x petition submitted by ROBERT RUBT
Robert Rubin$ Stevens-Lee ompa for the expansion of iii STEVENS-LEE Alm
l tx rt 1 located n the ° s c r of iriu SITE FLAN AM
Lane and County Road 6. Reading of the 3uly 13, 1983 staff LAND DIVISIONt
report was wa v d* CONSOLIDATION 3009
hairwom-ei,a Vastillou asked staff about the land proposed to
be purchased for future perking needs. Commissioner Stul-
berq v rifled with staff that there is to be a covenant re- e—
Bardgardingng future parking needs, and possible construction of a
ramp.
Chairwoman Vasillou recognized the petitioner Mr. Robert
Rubin, who introduced tor. eivart, Rubin and James Cooperman,
Architect. Nr. Rubin stated that the cotenant should be
drawn so ythat it dues not stop a mortgacie for the bulldinr5-
otherivise they d.re agreeable to havtn this covariant. ple
t"Urthvr stated that the attorneys and the mortgage company
Will need t afire to sand approve theovens t.a f r Rubin
tat, d that he did not feel a future purchaser would aurae
to buy We property if it did not have adequateparkino.,
Commissioner Plufka stated that this unfortunately does
happen with a buyer who 1s naive regarding the use and park-
Ing needs.
NOTION by Commissioner Wtr , seconded by Commissioner auba RECOMMENDATION B
to recommend approval the Site Plan acid Land Divlsivz
Consolidation for R bertubin for Stevens-Lee Company
subject to the conditions Listed in the staff report.
VOTL. 4 Ayes. MOTION t arr , d.
OTT
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairwo.man Vasillou stated that, she had spoken with the R v-
ell pm nt Council regarding these it !ms and, they agreed to DISCUSSION OF STUDY
provWe feed#back regarding para es and private streets, ITEMS
She Introduced fir. Marlin Grant and ftp. Fred Haas of fiary GARAGE' REQUIRF.WNTS
Ander-son Homes., FOR SINGLE °AMIVY
HOMES AND PRIVATE
Chairwoman VaslJoij stated that some members of the 0 velo _ RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Mont Counoll suggested that the Commission consider the f- IN PLANNED, UNIT
fordability factor If leaning toward requiring garages Ivi h DEVELOPMENTS
all single family dwellings; and that ns de' ration should
be given to acceptable accessory buildings for storage. She
0WW1tVd that one of tale Developm'tt Council members stated
there are problems with private streets, with second and
third owners of dvyellings, In PUDs, but that he dos not
feel there is any penalty to the homeowners who Live in an
area with private street$,,
July 2T, 1983
ou stated that # i Nag
letter stating he is of the opinion that garaqvs, should
required in '"n -fill ared
COMM*sIoner Pauba stated that realistically,., a requirement
to build garaqes, can't Make that fouch difference because the
btlik Of hOmes ' Y 111uut are not rilthin the eeontmtc reach
of the first ttMx home buyer-,, however, a arage, makes a b Itl
differ snceto the alWarance and aesthetics of f
neighborhood.
r - Grant and Mr. Haas stated that a double qdrage could add
as much 4s $6,,000 t $8,500 to the'price of home.
ComTissloner Rauba stated it is important to have a
or t least ad -equate storaoe for the homeowner so that lawn
maintervance equipment, recreational Items such as bIkes f and
boats, are not stored outside,
Commissioner Wire stated that an accessary budding is not
favorable alternative to a garage, as these buildings
usually do not "fit -in" arch t tectura I ly In a neighborhood.
Commissioner t lber stated there are several Firms which
se - 1 " tc .-„ *e—V Yglalagesy and the;° seems t-0 be --fleetinq a
demand,
Chairwoman Vdslllou confirmed that generally there arV, no
emits taken out when placing a prefabricated or non
m" in nti" accessory building on properties.
c ss k;--er Plufka, discussed the New Hope experiences
re at v ., to garages,:st t nct that ' the Ordinance at one time
required that the required area be available on the dot or
the future ' construction of garage; then the Ordinance
stated that single familyresidences seal have qare s, He
stated he Is not In favor, of cce ry buildings in lieu of
a agest howevert there ils an OblIqation to provide
affordable housing to a comm n ,ty # He stated his opinion
that th6 housing stock In a community must he maintained and
that garages add to the dur; . tu that anus# st'dc
cnmiltss! oiler Steig Ilya nfirmed with r Crant that the
additional cost of a 44ra0e can add '$71.AO monthly to a
mortgage payment, and that tete garage On 4 30 -year mortgaqe
wIlLI cost the, homebuyer V,t.00.
P z 145
Planning Commission 1,14nutf
y 2, 1953
lhepact pon the t ? i%
would he minimal with, the loss of 2 pointst If garages were
required.
Commissioner- t b r discussed the perceived eed that
dictates '`qdrdqe. He qu stloned whether they were for
vehicles, or for qeneral storagewhich tan be pub elsewhere,
uch As In a basement.
Co"'llissioner Ptufka Commented that lawn maintenance e u p-
ent, and the like is usually stored to a garaoef and these
items are generally not taken to the easement.
Mr. Great commented that it makes sense to requtl ba- e -
me , this could not h readily added later, but et`
can he added later. In most eases, homeowners build their
garaoes within a.relatively siiort period after buvipq their
homes. This hd4 alwaysbeen the cask in commtindfes where
h a W6 done building.
Hai i adders that, in the 1950's there were o ;„. H_ e re-
quirernents to provide an area within the setbacks for adding
garage. ventua l, everyone, wan is a garage, dndd It I
worthwhile not requirinq It. up front to allow more pope to
eve :*in the community.-
Chairwoman
omm n
tray€ca r. Vali lou stated that the provision for O'Ce oil
the lotto add a qdrage is appropriate.,
Commissioner Stulberg agreedwith ` trrvomaa Vasilioustat-
Ing,
t t -
I n that the requirement to show where a qaraqe can be built,
on ttLe, within the setback requ4ments will eliminate th -
ne ld to rant variance later*
Commia.sioners Whe anct tulberq discussed requiring qaraqes
In;Hin-fill” area--, and Commissioner Were said a distinction
could be ban between existing developed and new developing
arae.
Commissioner P ufka stated fie doesn't understand "In—fill",,
And what gives 10--15 vfar resident a neighborhood the
rt ht to ontroa joli l.n . proper a said this was a
t in myback yard" approaCh.
l cut'sion ensued regarding prof. ty values at the Impact
of hdvinq gdrages.
Chairwoman Vasillou st4tod that tile City goal IS to provide
for affordable housing to as many as we can, but not to have
tacky or cheap housing. She stated the r quitrement for a
arae would be a "nuisance requirement" ` which u neces-
arlly a1ded cot to homes.
Page 146
lann n r commission l notes
July 27, 198.).
Comm
x
g +
r . r
who
stated Nista there w11 *111 always, Awa
y
be
sharpies", i' o "Loom fob.µ.. a lot 4,i d 4+' i. area
with dmeilttes 4nd oho will build a cheap om_ and downqrade
the ier Steigerwald c m wilt d that it is his
opintoft that a 3-(,,,ar j r, - I 'lot always 4t,
chura flhd'W men which edn stick out like a 'llso humb", and
yet o one tries to keel) then) ot of
neighborhood$. MVtett by Commissioner t i er„il d,.,. seeonded by Commissloner
RECOWENDATION lufka to direct pr Paration of n Ordinance for
residential holose plans to includea layout for at least indie
gar odrage within the required tbaeks of the,
property. OTE. 5 Ayes. Commiss toner Wire Ndy. MOTION i-arr
ed. Commissioner- Wir pla ned his Opposition and statedthat
t the option to guild, or to not build a qdraveshould
be -- allowed within o PUDI, but not In e,5tablIshednotli dr
ods wheru the 5urroundinq hum-se oarages. Also,, he
impact upon the City's housingperformance Point would be minim
i. Chairwoman Vdsillou requested they Commission to consider
the item of privatevs. public re, 45che stated that t
o Development COW1011 consensus was that developers
prefer public
streets. Mr rant stated that be Is notspeakinq g on
behalfall developers,, but If the ost Is equltable$ hewould idr
r public streets. However,, there has been quite 4
difference in cost Of constructionfor private streets yrs,
public Chairwoman Vrillou stated that the Commission
should 4ddress the perceptions of the homeowner ti tr
developments with private stre t . Tissue that it
1 perceived that ` there is a 3rdoublburden” because
o tdx4ttoll Mus the cost to the assoclation for rain ai
nin the streets within the deve-lopm(-
nt. 4r. fra_t and Mr. Haas Commented that they have had il.-
he cellon e communities to build the poetic streeL at
it 26 ft. width with tioncre l curb andgutter; this width
I adequate for snowremoval i grid traffic safety ooncernst
lid irip* prtti'U LAnd areas they would like to see this
width ap rov d for public tr et
Page 147
Plinninq Corintissionm*yjutes
July 198TH
Chairwoman Vasiltou inquired about me-4 street width
r it ;-,tt s. Staff stated that in Ply-mot,101 r u 11c
residenti,il streets are 32 ft. in vildth.
Cbmmls,zloner Plufkd commented that therO are problems with
dlloyi n -ft- Ride strectsi,e for an example, in
his nelqhborhood,, the streets re 32 ft. wlde7 and durini,
wee nd$ and, heavy traffic tames_ there concernfor
hil r xn' safety. He t that if P-8 ft. were the
i li u, all streets %youldberuItt that wildth.
The Commission ` discussed the , ooncern reoardinq amore
It was agreedthat tile private maintenance
compenies do not have the heave equipment needed for qood
now removal and street maintenance. It was noted that the
i n en n x*n t I usually do not know when street
maintenance should ufief holy oftefly ho extensivej, and
the City Ils better equipped to deat with these matters
because they have a, constant and ()r qti'-inq program*
Commissioner t i er v iii ` stated that there could be,
significant cost differential In the construction off" 32-ft.
wide and -ftp wide streets
Mr* Grant stated that the "lose' if x1atidi for -Y
4tr , I.
is riot so much of a Problem for the developerlbuilder as the
actual construction goat
Commissioner Plufka commented that the PUD plan with private
streets has the advantage of safety for those who live
within the _development because the traffic Is nl that
gerierated within the developmerit.
r. Grant stated there has been one case lie knows of when
the City approved -ft gide street, and thisworked
bec4use there Is ent off-street parkinq.b
C-)Otter Plufka ctn stip end whether there were any
problems with this deslqa* Naas statedthat the -ft.
eet were constructed per Cit; ; st r&Ox-ce t for the
w' th*
Commissioner Stulbertqueried tneCity shouldy
ellmindte private,streets in all ,)e tjon of Plymouth.
Coru-0$51,oner Plufka ;stated they 11oui only be accepted by
tt it public streetsIf they meet the standards."
Page 4
pfd""Ing COMM15sion Minutes
iv 27. 1981
Commissioner Wi.ro stated, that an option for reduced width
public streets addresses the qoal of affordable housino.
Comm iss tottr a commented that he understands that, a
third time buyer may riotunderstand Why h ' has to maintain
the private streets construoted in his di vei pm tl; buts
the person f moderate, art: who lives a public street
contends Lith the itch asstgaiinq the malntenince costs for
substandard private streets.
Commissioner Plufka staffed there is a need for different
qualifications and requirements for s reg tsj and that cri-
tvr14 5hould be .yet for narrower public streets under
certain i,rdumstan s.
Staff stated that there are problems with narrower streets,
whleh would require restrictions n pdrkino,, the -placement
of private drives, the problems with t now removal and there
would have 'to be strict adherence to p r ire sp iii ati s
and layout.
missi n r Plufka commented that an ' accommodation cFan he
for ' whilel not "locking into,, 28 -ft. as a minimum st n-
ddrd, consider all facents of such ars option and set ri-
t r a to, allow the eonst oti r' of publicstreets at itss
than -t. in width.
Messrs* Grant and Haas concurred, and stated that ars option
regarding, reduced street A h can "rk.
Chairwoman Vasil lou recognized Mr,. Gene Gaubert, who lives
in Shenandoah. a ad 1concerned that the City is considering,
al1lowinq narrower streets. He feels Shenandoah is. the per -
feet example of why narrow streets should not be allowed.
Chairwoman 'nasiii u r l;,irtd d tit ctmmis ion; - is no
in in. this developmeatt and that ourb,and gutter is now
required.
Commissioner it questioned the nature di` criteria for
Optional standir s for narrower public streets.
o m sslon r Plufka, ;stated t ¢t the Commission is asking
staff to develop data on private streets and' raarr w r public
streAs relative to, par in , number of driveways, ways, snow
removal and storage, public safety etc,.
Commissioner u a comment -ed that it is "arquinq both sides
f the nce"t to say that the developer should provide
i fftlyddbl housing without Such exibi itas provided In
th IUD ordinance*
r
z
PMOR 'P11 -AND f-111"CIARDING FILING FINAL PLAT FOR 1!"WLTV, PATON CORVORAMOR FM
R101drd 7ejd1tk-t Sdton Corporation I s reqtv- tinotiniavprov for an I
xrc P Use Permit ekrendment, Sitelairs and Final or r Jo -n West
WOERIVI the Flanoinq commt.001 has reviewed the request(it ar duly called 11=iblie
Waring Iml r eo—omm n approval; dual,
WAS, aka City nor null has approved the Final Plat for MissionWest;
Mlvv, M WORK PE IF M MY =01.00 RY THL MY OU 'SCI V TMS. CITE * . FIX" UHI, 1M1LS() , that it shouldand hereby does approve e RMID ` nditicn l Use lormit
And ;, e Plat, a"d the, cond-01ons to be met prior to and reoardinki ft'.1no the
inhinal Pint for Richard ` .gid .? , Peton (urpor4tion for Mission West VVI -111) 76-1) ocil e(
of 41oldenrod Lane and CountyRoad 9 subjt ct to thelay conditions:
Hance ail0 the City na ne ' Memorandum
l.. Submission of required Uan ri l c-udrentee and erffor a rIce amara e `
MWetion of site tmproveoents.
SignMe shall he In i opij ante, with the r rqnr Paq
4. All wdste and wdste oontainert.,all Z"; stored and .r° . , within an approM
5tructure and no vutslde stoetijae is pt r i x ° k
5, of park dedicatioi feej-An-liou fdicat n to accordancedinCity
0110 i s efft at e time, of filinqthe Pirie: Plat.
6. No, HulldtnqPermtts shall be tssued val! a ' ntraCt has been, awarded for the
coastruetton of mantelpAl se,,-;er and wa to-
Removal of all _',„ad erg dyinq trees f -e a* -ty ,' the ouner, expense,
ydrd 15etb”k shall ," in accordancece wi h prvv plan-, includinq
aider zot!nd qar:qe encroamentinto sethack arts from County floc 9 for
Bu,
Suboittol of required utility and drainage ehe js roved y City
Ltqitiper prier to filinai the Final Plat.
Hutldhq Permits to be twed until the Final Plat Is filed? and recorded
with Henneptn ` aru-ty.
11. Appropriate legal documeritisvaqardinq the VOMeMiller 14sociationy_ l w and
covonants dndestri i and zegardng sharod access and 1r c lay coot, drives
as approved by the Ci urea shall be fjjc-tjail ter the Final Plat.
IMF
MAST SECOND <<
t3:'<1 .
RECOMMENDATION
V PLAN
tart Roti
int t.a ompjn t rego4, t , oat for qua Plan Baa
A 30"702 tiq, ft . additioll to all vxlstlflf uillfl a( I odw on the a orthive tt.*ner of
ena nfll Lane prat County kc;<.ad 61- ra(t,
NONijT, H. %t ,%)t'tj By THE t. Y COUNC' r Off` TWIT `t t, to -a 1T
NIMLttTA, that it o;ia ,d irwd hereby d v,3 approve the M" # roar Robert Ruhin for
tiDvinis-gear., Company for a . iV sq. ft. act€tt t iora to ar) existinti t art tett t ,,Ited 11
the northwest, COMer of XenitimLane I'M Ci,.; nt Road 6 ub i-Oct to, t e fi li.)wt,.
v equine fitia clua rate an erfo °mane(,>uarante-, fo
complett, !Ott of tte,
4 Alt wd to Intl wa s t e c-Italners shaP e stored atid screenedwithin an approNet'
t.thturfarc' nu outside t rro t£; t a~ ttte
Appropriate ted t documments eta t t t f".( €aa t a k d th
Its A,tO "C dud fited at Hennepin rourity ideritifyin(j,that the future use of
the buildi1g, Mai requ're ' the construction of a parkinqramp to sajt'lsfv
Ordinanceparkinq r qui eive ats..
tit coveedqe of 0% is i 4mttv-d Oil the tat tex t, the Proposal milli ewith
Section 10, S ubditvlslon
tF the- Land Divi slion/Consot idat, t not filedt the proposedSitet tan hal l
v revised to vemptv vvit ,, l4nerequirements, t rq lot coveraqe and
aa Ane
7. NO tauP (Asea rmll' h$ t 1 be t suvd Aritil, the La t t t oja.r 'c).,` ,, t t; tat t ra t
f i lees, dt lienveptit cvullty.
s