Loading...
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.