HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 06-06-1984TY OF PLYMOUTH,
PLANOW MIRMS
The regular 'meeting of the planning Commission was called to
order at 7 -*153 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Vasi,llor., Commissioners
Wire,lagnus. Pluf!aa,. Paubal, Stulberg,
and 5tel erwal:d
STAFF PR Community Development Director
Blair Tremere
Cm.uni.ty Development Coordinator
Sara vieconn
Assistant City Engineer Sohn Sweeney
WHOTES
MOTION by Commissioner paubat seconded by Commissioner
Magnus to reg-ommend approval of the May 23, 1984 Minutes as
submitted Vote. 4 dyes. Chairwoman Vasilioul Commission-
ers Stu lberg and Stei:gerwal.d abstained* MOTTON carried.
Chairwommaki Vasiliou Introduced the request and Mr. Carlos
Hodge, prudential Insurance Company. She thanked. Mr. Hodge PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
for the letter to the Commission and Council updating the COWANY =- REVI,
status of the development the Alorth •aeest Business C`a p€s l P' 81WARY PLAT
Reading of the May 24, 19$4 staff report was waived. T1pl AN
1TI
Commissioner Wire inquired about the request for the vagi- PERKIT.1, SITE PLAN AND
anco from the fire lane requirements. Planning Direotor VARIANCE (84031
Tremere summarized the request, and noted that staff concur- 84032
red with the recommeodat"on of the Public Safety Direotor,
that the variance be approved. It was explained that the
City Counoil, in accordance with the Code, serves as the
Board of Appeals for this. Commissioner vire confirmed that
all new commercial and industrial structures are subject to
the Fire Code.
Chairwoman ,Vasiliou inquired about condition number 12 of
the staff recommendations. Coordinator McCona explait~ned
that the condition relates to the building signage that
would he used on the proposed office building.
planning Director Tremere commented, that the City will meed
to won for the development for the overall amou)at of office
uses in the Northwest Busines,% Campus, with respect to the
approved Envirdhmental.Assessment Worksheet (FAW)*
Also,. staff has, requested a clarification relating to the
previous Catty Council direction regard ng the orientrti:on of
parking lots.
ASS...
Page
Panning Commission Minutes
lune 1984
Chairwoman Vasillou opened the Public Hearing and ,introduced
Mr. Peter Jarvis, B i , dnsulta petitioner. r.
Jarvis >summarized the proposed amendment to the approved PUD
Plan involving Areas A and 8, which were platted originally
as Outlot F. He explained that there is not a chane Pro-
p sed o the use of the land; but rather a:reduction in the
number of buildings,, to provide fcr a larger office odm-
plexThe proposed
for the Planting armiss cn.
Commissioner PUO'YYa Inquired approximately how mane square
feet of offt,e spade would have been developed if the ap-
proved
p-
p u ed PW Plan ` had been accomplished. M.. Jarvis spam -
i ed that 'the EANV contemplated approximately 6001,000
f . of office development. The proposed site plan would
account for app o imat0t 50% of that amount, and the total.
development of Areas A and B would account for approximately
two --thirds of the 400*000 sq. ft. He.stated the petitioner
Is aware of the potential eircumstance where they may ha°
to address amending the EAW1, especially relative to air
quality andtraffic-,. At this polqt he stated the petitioner
felt the estimation of 600,000 sq. ft. is reasonable.
rold Sjkebolstad,, BRW, stated that approximately 10 to o
of the office area was located in Area P of the approved PUD
Part,,,
Commissioner Wire Inquired If, the petitioner Intends to
develop Area F as originally anticipated. Mr. Jarvis ex-
plained that the final s to plan details for Area P were ,not
completed at this times Commissioner Wire expressed concern
that if the proposed office complex Is -to he multiple store
he felt the previously identified multiple story buildings
should be reduced in height.
Commissioner P of a stated that he was concerned about not
only the potential ,impact on the approved EAW, but: also on
the utilities), especiall sewer, and traffic. He noted that
there may be difficulty in developing the other areas of the
approved PU , if the concentration of office as to be locat-
ed
o a -
e in areas A -and B. Carlos Hodge,*Prudential Insurance
Company, explained that the PUb Plan Is prepared to give a
potential representation of development. The building
locations and layout are used as a Ofoctprint" dnd not
detailed site plans.
Chairwoman VasI1104 stated the concerns voiced by Commis-
sioners, ommissloternWireandpifkawerevalidplanningconcernsanent
checks and balances on, the overall PUD; the rest; of the
Northwest Business Campus oannot he ignored.
Mr. Jarvis said that detailed analysis has not occurred' on
parcels that are- not involved in the trrent application*
Page7-0
Planning Commission Minutes
Jul
He stated that the petitioner will provide the necessary
eohnical dat4 w11e11 tile other oreati ate proposed for
development.
Mr. ercme Cooper* Consulting Architect, was Introducedt and
provided the Planning Com,alssien with a detailed description
of the site layout acid building desi. n. Both he and Mr.
arvis noted the parking lot screening.
The Public Hearing was closed.
MOTION by Commissioner Stelgerwaldt seconded, by Commissioner
Wire to take action on the petition, Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION,
ea S ied.
MOTIONCamnr ssi ner Steigerwal.d, seconded by Commissioner ATTR
Plufkat, to recommend approval of the revised Conditional Use MOTION TO APPROVE
PUD Plan. rEVISED CONDITIONAL
UD PLS
Commissioner Pauba co p1.111ented the petitioner on the Paan
Amendment.
Connissioner Wire reiterated his concern relating to the
height of the buildings In the remaining areas, especially,
the gateway entrance* and the east side.
Panning pirecxtor Tremere oonfirmed that the areas of the
PUD Plan which are not 'Involved I*n the current application
would stand as originally approved.
Vote. ' Ayes. MOTION carried. CEDVOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTIOR by Commissioner S eigerwald, seconded by Chairwoman NOTION TO P,.VE
Vasillou to recommend approval, of the MPUD Preliminary Plan
Plat, Final Plan Plat and Site Plan, subject to the
C 3nda ions and requirements as reflected In the draft
Resolu'tion$.
The Commission discussed the Couno l direction regarding the
orientation of parking, lots,* Commissioner Steigerwald
stated lie felt the direction should be retained, Itt order to
prov,11 a design considerations that the petitioner should
address when preparing detailed site plans. Commissioner
Plu€ka stated he felt the petitioner would have more flexi
bility in designing the parking orientation, If the direr -
tion were deleted. Commissioner Wire stated that the d .ree-
tion should be retained, as future,, long term, reference..
Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION oarried.
VOTE -- 14OT10CARRIED
Page Ul
Planning o issio-it Minutes
une 6f 1984
Auk Chairwoman asillou Introduced the request submitted by Mr. LAMIEL JOAM
and er for WrOYCs. f PlanTV Condition-
al Use Permit, She recognized Mr. rlemming who stated he AND COODITtONALUSE
had no questions related to the application* R adint of the PERMIT (8
May 24t 1984 staff report was Waived.
Chairwoman Vasillou opened and closed the Public Hearing as
no one v°!as present to speak on the iten),,
MOTION day Commissioner ''i re, seconded by Commissioner Plu ka RECOMMENDATION 8
to recofmmend approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site
Plan s b eot to the conditions and. requ . ,,ements a reflected
in the draft Resolutions
Vote, 7 Ayes, MOTION carried. VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
NEW SIMESM
Chairwoman Vasillou introduced the request submitted by Tip- TIPTON CORP. €2PUD
tarn Corporation and Introduced Hr. dike S eklocha, petition.. FIS PLWIPi ` I
r, Reading of the May 22, 1984 staff report was wa ved.> CMEEK 4TH
ADDITION (7 9006)
The P;anninq Commission discussed with the petitioner a en-
eral concern with snow storage and landscapinq on cul-de--
saoIs. Mr. 5 eW .)oha recommended that, In the planning,
4 ages, an open area should be retained for the dumping of
SWIM*
i 0TION by Commissioner 8tulberg f seconded by Ct mS' lssloner RECOMMENDATION C
Wira to recommend approval of the RPUD Final PlanlPlat sub-
ject to{op the and requirements reflected In the
t 7
conditions
dra t R e.7.*d S,i.Lfr A.Vt «
Vote* 7 Ayes.MOTION carried. VOTE ON CARRIED
Chairwoman Vasilloo Irtroduoed the request submitted byeVQlp KAK SALES SITE
nstructlon ompa y for W Sales fora Site Plan and Vari- VARIANCE
ante. Reading of the May Z4, 1984 staff report was waived. i$407.46)
Chairwoman Vesiliou introduced fir. Pick; Hollenkamp$ consult-
ant for the petitioner, who stated he had no questions re-
Varcinq the staf f report.
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner Magnus RECOMMENDATION
to, recommend approval of the Site Plan and Variance for XW
Sales subject to the condit ions and requirements reflected
in the draft Resolution*
Page 122
Planning CommIsslon Minutes
une 61 1984
Staff explained the concern, that if continued growth oc-
oug s, a, could exist. Chairwomanan vaslli ou
and Commissioner Stelgerwald ata` ed that If a. cropriate
documents are filed at Hennepin" oont s potential future
users of the building would be put on notVk:k of the parking
and use constraints.
Mme. Holleakamp, responded that the c,ie4 is aware of the
limits of the use, and that any potential future buyer
would, and should be aware situation. -seed that
the client Is willing to file the documents as required, and
recognizes the final risk i's the owner's.
R o-11 Call. Vote. 6 Ays.s. Commissioner Plu ka, May. DICTION VOTE - MOTION IED
carried.
Chairwoman as l.l.ou introduced, the request submitted by TRLL CROW CO,.
Trammell Crow Co.,, and reading of the May 241 1984 staff re- WOD FIS PLAN, ANO
port was waived.. S T.r PAN 1
54041 ,
Mr. Don ordan €. Trammell row , ComPant was reco nixed.
Commissioner Wire requested the petitioner respond to
staff*s recommendation number 9 in the drat Resolutions
Mr. gord:an stated that the petitioner desires to install
evelop- landscaping consistent wiiith the first two phases of develop-
m nt the Commission discusted the previous request thatme
was submitted with phase xl of the development•, and whether
credit should be allowed for the utilization of materials
other than over -story gees on the landscape plan.
Staff explained that the request for the'credit was initial-
ly denied by the Citi Council. and the petitioner was d rec-
tod to install the required number of plantings per the Pol-
oy. It was explained that, In order for the current pro-
posal to corpl.y with the number of required over -story
plantings, additional trees would have to be installed.
From a design standpoint, staff explained, that the recommen-
dation, -calls for additional conifers to be located along
Annapolis Lane, not necessarly in addition to the trees l ,M ATION E
shown on the plan, The conifers would afford more year
round screening.
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner
to berg to reoommend approval of the MPUD Final. Plan :and
Site Plan subject to the conditions as reflected .In the
draft Resolution.
Mr. 3ordan explained that t-ie petitioner did not wish to In-
stall additional. Conifer tr-,,-.s. along, Annapolis Lane. He
stated:, per policy, the overall treatment of this Phase war -
ranted a credit against the required number of trees.
Page 1
Planning Comms ion Minutes
dna 1984
He recalled the City Council had resolved a final lands a ,
plan after`reviewing the site* (NOTE! Staff will verUy
the record on this prior to City Council review),
Commissioner Wire stated the plana for Phase III should, he
consistent with the first phases, especially along, Annapolis
Lane
MOTION by Commissioner St igarwald: seconded by Commissioner MOTICA TO AMENQ
Plufka, to amend Condition Number 9 to read as t llnwst. "The
number of ,.ver -story trees to be enhanced by 1Z 'trees to
oomplywitn the Landscape Policy$ std that the landscaping is
conststent with that lanprov d In Phases T and 11.11
Vote on the Amendment. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried VOTE OR AMENDMENT
Vote on the Main MOTIOR as once Amended, 7 yes MOTION VOTE -» MAIN MOTION A
tarried ONCE AMENDED MOTION
CI
item on that agenda.