HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 04-11-1984CITY OF PLYMOUTH'
PLMKING COWISSION MINUTES
ARIL 111 1984
The,e.gular Meeting of the Planning oru—nission was all.cd to
order at ;5 P.M.
W-MBERS PRESENT** :al my a, ' asiliou, Commissioners
Stei Verwald, Magnus, Plufka, Pauba and
Stulberq
MEMBERS ABSENT. Commissioner Wire
STAFF PRESENT:6 Community DeveloMent Coordinator
Sari Mccona
Comiiunity Dek z"Io pment Director
Blair Tremere
Assistant City Engineer John Sweeney
NITS
MOTION by Commissioner, Pluf a, seconded by Commissioner
Magnus to recommend approval of the March 26, 198 Minutes
as s omittedote Ayes. Commissioner Wire assent.
IO SON ,carried.
TION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded ` by Commissioner.
Magnus to recommend approval of the April . 19$4 Minutes as
submitted, Vote. 5 Ayes. Commissioner ;teiger aldab-
stained, Commissioner Mire absent. MOTION carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS-
hairwoman Vasiliou Introduced the request submitted byChairwoman NAEGELE OUTDOOR
Naegele outdoor ;advertising Company for an advertising sign ADVERTISING COMPMY
to be .located at 11120 Highway 55. Reading of the April 21 CONDITIONAL USE
1984- Staff Report was Waived She opened the Public Hear- PERMIT (84016)
Ing.
Chairwoman Vasil.lou clarified for the petitioner the reoom-
mended Condition No. 5 In the draft Resolution statins that
the proposed outdoor advertising s-ign shall not be used to
advertise products or s rvlces or uses on the property.
Planning Director Tremere nosed this is an (Ordinance re-
quirement based upon the defiiiition of ani advertising sign.
Steven Peters, petitionerts representative, stated that the
advertising sign may be used for generic product advertise-
ment, but no for a specific business. or product on the
site. He tonfirmed his understanding of the condition.
ommIssioner, Pauba confirmed thit the proposed sign was
identical to the advertising sign previously approved on the
adjacent property to the west. The previous application has
been withdrawn.
Page SS
pl n Ing. Commilssloa Mit"Iutes
April. 1, 1984
Chairwoman Vasillou closed the Public Hearing?.
MOT11,01114 by ommi: salouer Paub , (-,onded by Commissioner
Magnus take action On this petition. Vote. 6 eyes,
NOTION carried
140 IO by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner tul- RECOYkENDNTION A
berg to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for
an outdoor advertising sign at 111,20 Highway , subject to
the conditions and requirements as stat -.-d In the draft Res- VO - NOTION CARRIED
olution. Vote. 6 Ayes. NOTION carried.
Chairwoman VasIllou intro.'uced the request submitted by ROGER FA NKid
Roger razendin ;for the RPUD Preliminary Plan/Plat, Ftnal RPUD PRELIMINARY PLAN
lan, P att and Conditional Usa Permit for a development to SEPI„AIIt UXTIU U
be known as The Villages. the proposal calla for the ap- PERMITf FINAL PLA
proximate 12.5 acre site t be developed with 16 new singlee AINID PAS' (63060
family residential unl,ts, retaloing two existing- single
family homes for a total of IS dwelling units
Leading of the April. 3f 1984 Staff Report iyas waived.
hehairwoman4G, a, summarized the developmentthrough tir
use of overhead graphics describing the required setbacks
forhorel-aad Manage lent requirements: building setbacks to
the exterior propertylines; density calculations; City
Council. Resolution No. 83.680, approving the Concept Plani
the traffic study conclusions as prepared by the City's con-
sulting engineers internal trazlwaystem-, proposed lets;
and, the City Attorney recommendations
Dan Fazendial, petitioner's representative, inquired if the
proposed cul. -de -sac for 11th Avenue North could be shorten-
ed since the traffic study concluded that the street not be
extended further to the north on adjacent property. He said
added. l.andsc.apang would be.added north o the cul-de-sac.
Planning Director Tremere stated that :the suggestion may be
desirable From; an aesthetic standpoint since the street
would likely not be extended in the future,
Commissioner Plu ka complimented: the proposed landscape
plan, and overall design. Commissioner Pauba: concurred.
Chairwoman Vasiliou closed the Public Hearing.,,
MOTION by Commissioner telge wald, seconded by Commissioner
Pl:ufka to take action on this petition. Vote 6 Ayes
MOTION carried
Page 8
April 11, 1984
MCTION,b Commissioner P i,uf a j. seconded by Commissioner RECO DA ION
tulberg to recommend approval of the RPUD Preliminary
Plan/plat, Conditional. dse Permit and final plan/plat
subject to the conditions and requirements as stated in the
draft Resolutions with the added recommendationt; The
cul-de-sac for 11th Avenue North shall be reduced in length
approximately 30 to 35 ft.,, and a modified landscape pian
shall be prepared with additional trees to; be .nstal.led at
the north end of the ul-de-sac.
VOTE. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE •- MOTION CARRIED
Planning D'rector Tremere requested tha;-. revised plans and
graphics be submitted to staff before this tear,proceeds to
the City Council
W BUSINESS
ha r Oman Vasiliou introduced the request submitted by RICHARDPALNQUIST
Richard Pal.mgUist L
for a Lot Division am Variance for SOT 1V1`STON AND
property located southwest c County Road ' and Pinev' w VARIANCE (6 9
Lane. The proposal cabs for the unplatted parcels to, be
divided Into two parcels b metes and hcrnds deser %can
rather than by platting. The existing residence would be
retained can one parcel, and the second parcel would be
for sake and future development,
Chairwoman ` asil lou ,recognized Mr. Gregg Murray, Attorney,
representing the petitioner. 1r. Murray recited the
Minnesota State Statutes relating to the division Of
property, suggesting that economic factors could be
Considered in the review of a variance request. Mr. Murray
stated that the proposed division would not. Increase the
traffic In the areae as i,1- would add only one more house.
M. Murrayexplained that the petitioner desires to divide
the property and sell the additional parcel to his son for
development He explained that the issue for the Planning
Commissionssion Is to t'termilne whether there is an unusual
hardship, and referred to the City Code standards for
granting variances, Mr, Murray stated the petitioner is
prepared to move on to the City Couneil, $ and asks that
Planning Commission support the request. Also,, he stated
the petitioner, was prepared to plat the property, but the
petitioner felt the cost, of platting was not Justified