Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 04-10-1985CITE" OF PLY14OUTH INC C0W4ISSION 14INUTES APRIL. 10, 1985 The regular meeting Of the Plymouth lanai Commiss o wa called to order at 700 P.M. MEMBERS€ RES T: Chairman Steigerwal.d, Commissioners Wire, St l.ber , -Magnus, Pl.0 'ka, Dellen, and Pauba t4EIVERS, AB MT* NONE STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Coordinator Sara 11cConn City rigIneer Sherm Goldberg Community 'Development :secretary Grace Wineman Community evelopmeP*It Virector Blair Tremer MINUTES MOTION by Commissloner Magnus., seconded- by Commissioner HINUTES - MARCH Vu ka to approve the Minutes of Larch 27, 1985 as 27, 1985 sibmitted s VOTE. Ayes. C(,;. .s i n r ulb r abstained. ION y[ ie9'.;s Mcarried. PUBLICHEARINGS- INGS- CharmanChairman Stexgerwal.d Introduced the first public hearing WIN R. JOHNSON item and asked Coordinator McConn for an overview of the CONSTRUCTION CO. March 283 1985 staff report. Chairman Stec erwald confirmed AMENDMENTSTS Til TUE that the options for this petition would be redesign, APPROVED .PUD P'L'C repl¢. t nq, or dental. Coordinator AcConn noted that the FOR CREE SIDE QUADRA Commission could determine that the proposal °.'s appropriate INY14I0M DEVELOPMENT as submitted, or that the plat should be revised per 79018) Ordinance standards. Chairman Stelgerwal.d .introduced Mr. Dean 'lohnson, representing the petition* ter. 3ohnson stated that many of the homeowners want to add a deck to their units, ana that the Homeowner's Association ° has met and changed their covenants and bylaws so th Is can be accomplished. He noted that repl.a ting would be very costly, that as the common ground is awned by the Homeowner's Association they have: unanimously voted to change their bylaws to allow the addition of the decks, and., that this Amendment is not an unreasonable request. He noted that , no utility easements would be impacted by the addition of the decks. Page, 73 Planning Commission Minutes April, 10.1. 4965 Commissioner Piuf a inquired about the renderings show ng chaages to the type of unit. `fir. Johnson stated that these units will have tuck-under qaragesi the buildings that, will have the decks have an attached ga aqe. The Unit Dreviou l.y copstruoted (that may have the maddition of a deck) is 52 sq. ft. smallser.He added that the unit with the tuck*-under garage is more cost effective= He went on to explain that the deck Is a popular selling paint. He does riot want to construct all three--level units as it has been found they are not as saleable, o this change, is requested. Commissioner Pluf a inquired if it could be implied from the changes made by the Hoard for the Homeowner's Association that they are requesting to encroach on the common open area, and that the concrete pads have been put In. Mr Johnson answeted negatively that the pads are not in place, they do not encroach; however, ; the deck addition would encroach into the common area. Commissioner Wire inquired if concrete 'would be placed ander the deeka as planned; Mr,.. Johnson answered that crushed roc would be Utilized For low maintenance and the plantings would be placed as shown. Commissioner Wire confirmed that the Landscaping would be 'provided as approved. Chairman Stelgerwald opened the Public Hearing and introduced ` r. Frank Freels, 15115 38th Avenue Borth. Mr. Friels staved he is President of the Homeowner's Association for the property owners who Live on the south side of the subject property (Parkbrooke). He stated they had met with Mr. Johnson last year and it is their opinion that he is a fine builder.. He inquired if the deckss would be ground lev,=l, or elevated. Mr. Johnson answered that the decks would be two ft off the ground and would be typical of the usual deck construction. Mr. Freels stated that there is some concern by the residents that they may be faced with looking directly onto the decks that would include patio furniture and ether items malting them look "junky". He inquired about the Landscaping and screening between the properties and whether this landscaping would coincide with the work done on their pr,)pertles Chairmdn oteigerwald rei,ter°at-ld that the Landscaping for the common area has becn approved and will be installed. Mr. Freels commented that he is in favor of the new unit design. for the homeowner r i the plat is oot vedrawn to accommodate the deck construction. Page 74 Planninq Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Ch irm r t ici rwald about the southern boarder* between these two properties.: ' r Johnson stated that the the units with driveways onto 37th Avenue Northhave double width drives and there could he no berminq placed here. Chairman Steiqerwild inquired about the direction the decks would fare t4r., Johnson stated the decks would be constructed facing eastand- west. He noted that the common area will he maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Commissioner Wire inquired about the types of landscapi,nq materials. Coordinator McConn listed the plantings, to ' he installed. Chairman Stelgerwald introduced lir. Herb Reinhard, 15625 0th Avenue North". Mr. Reinhard stated he is the 'lice President for the Plymouth Creek Homeowner's Association. He noted that he dog=s not live within the area of notification, but was representing the, residents of Plymouth Creek who were notified. He noted that the e pl. natlons of this application have answered most of his questions and he: would inform the residentsdents l n his Association. PublicHearing. ' iCharmant.ei:rwalcl closed the P Commissioner Stu,lbe.rq inquired if the issues should be addressed separately, the Commission concurred. Chairman Stelgerwald noted that there is the concern of setting a precedent with the addition of decks. ommis i.oner Plufka commented on the letter in the packet from Jim Staller insurance Agency, that the decks ould 'tie Insured adequately; however, 'what happens when for whatever reason a polio , would not be maintainedd by the -jni'= owner,, Commissioner Pauha noted that the easter Policy r, ,lit <rzver the structure and decks, and that the individual owner Coull' chop;3c a t: rm C,1,1 Tenant o,)? ic v that would cover personal r proxpv , l y and a small portion of the structure, noweni t it m,.iy itot cover the deck. He noted tb t .liability is not a problem, and there should he no worry about the insurdAce factor. Coordinator Mo one commented the -it any City liability had been checked with the City Attorney's of o , and It is held that the City would not be in a precarious position from liability standpoint with the addition of h se decks. Commissioner Plfka reiterated that It could be a problem for the homeownerr i the plat is oot vedrawn to accommodate the deck construction. Page 75 Planning Commission Minutes April 10s, 1955 Co i.ssi.,)ner pauba reiterated that there would be no problem with Insurance.- however) he is concerned about setting a precedent on constructing Into the common area. Commission- er ire noted that there had been a previous application where the homeowner built over existing easements. Coordin- ator McCona explained that application involved d structural expansion to the unit. She vent on to recall the Shenandoah development where decks were added* however, in this case the lots- were redefined so the entire unit was on one lot and the lots would be individually owned* MOTION b Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner 1 3TION TO DENY pauba to recommend denial of that part of the Conditional Use permit Amendment that would allow the addition of decks onto the quadrami.nium structures for the 'reason that tine plat should have reflected a lot layout to accommodate the deck construction, and the development should be r platted to al leer the con.structi,o`i of decks d ssione Pluf,a cor i.urred but not?d that the approving Res aluti.on calls for ° evisi.on of the 1st and 2nd Addition plans, so couldn't th4ey proceed with this recommendation. Comnissioner Stlberj stated they could, however, he doesn't see that the request included an option of replattinge Commissioner Wire need that the ideal situation would have been if the plans had been care 4ijinal l'y approved for the deck construction and the plat had covered this contingency; how- ever, he agreed with ter. Johnson that replattinq is very costly. He would not like to see a replatting that would diminish the landscaping approved, 'is has opinion that the building design is -good and the decks would be a plus for the units. Commissioner Stulberg mated the Commission cannot make the decision for replatti,ng and this should be sent on to the City Council for final action as recommended Chairman Stei. erwald inquired how many buildings are constructed, Mr. Johnson stated there are dS buildings total* ,7 or S would have decks added; and, fourteen build- ings are left to be constructed. Chairman Steige wa.ld noted previous discussions about and recommendations' for more loft coverage within AU's. This makes it difficult to decide against Mr., Johnson's petition, as his; development is well laid put; the purchaser would be aware of the commitment for maintenance through the Home- owner Association bylaws and covenants; and, the Homeowner's Association is in concert with Mr. 3ohnsin's request; it is hi's opinion that the problem is minimal. Paye 76 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Commissioner Wi.re noted that :the sleeks would not he apt to create runoff and drainagee roblaems as patios Might and adding decks would provide a, bett--r unit design, 0,, Tmis icner Plufka stated that the A"W is =ion not saying that decks are bad and ,inquired if the Commission believes that the decks should encroach into lard owned by the Hom. e- o ner' Association. The question is, shcu-14 the Commission deny or approve with direction for redesign and replattin . Coordinator McConn noted that Commissioner Stulberghas cor- rectly pointed out that the petitioner does not feel that replatting is viable, so the recommendation for denial would be apprcnriate and the City Council will make the decision for giving direction to the ptitscner» Commissioner Stulberq reiterated that he is not comfortable with decks encroaching vette commonly owned property. , Commissioner Magnus inquired if Mr. Johnson would be propos- Ing to add decks to units neer than those noted in this p t posal. Mr. Johnsen answered that thea; 'is ns ly one ,%tyl:e of unit where: the deck could , e addod, others would rewire extensive remodeling* R noted that the Homeowner's ssoei- aticn ,addressed the use of decks, the covenants were charged the general mem rs p by, unanimous voted and, it gas determined that the decks would be for the sol: use of the unit resident. Commissionerr Plufka 'Inquired if this could riot be changed by future Boards of the Homeowner's Association via the same route? Commissionerr Pa ba concurredwith Commissioner Wire and is comfortable with the knowledge that the Homeowner's Associa- tion has indicated: they have covered this amo-ndment, by amending their covenants and bylaws; and $ that It would seem there would be a better quality of maintenance ;for the entire develpment than can be looked for from the individual homeowner. Rall. Call VOTE. 2 Ayes. Commissioners Wire, Mellen, Pa ufka, Padba and Chairman Stei erwal,d, May. 140TIOR failed. MITE MOTION FAILED OTI%4 by Commissioner Wire,' seconded by Chairman eigerwal.d to recommend approval for the Conditional. Use WITION TO APPROVE Permit Amendment for the Residential 'Planned Unit Develop- ment eve,lop- m nt for the addition of decks as proposed by Dean R. Johnson Construction ,_ Inc. subject to the conditions as listed with, the deletion of Condition No. 11 and renumbering. Rage 7 Planning Commission Minutes, April. 10, 1955 Commissioner Wire noted that he does not want the petitioner to have to, rept t the property. Commissioner Plufka noted that the Homeowner's Association will require the indly-4dual home.,) ner to tnstal,l olantin s around the decks. if the development is replatted and the. ` deck is constructed, the Homeowner's Association' would install the plantinqs as approved on the'-landscape plan, but the problem remains that it is ; undesirable to set a precedent by havi.nq the decks over commonly owned property. It is his opinion that this should gra forward with Condition No. 1 In pace. MOTION by Commissioner plufka, seconded ` by Commi.ssioner NOTION TO A14END wlbe g to Amend the MOTION by restoring Contrition No. 1 to the draft Resolution. Commissl.oi e r Wire noted t*oat there is no situation of choice*, the landscaping is part of the common area and the landscaping would be included as approved. Mr. Johnson confirmed that if the property Is not replattedt the common ares will be Landscaped as approved. Commis- sioner Wire reiterated that there would be better mainten- AAk ance of the common area by the Homeowner's Association. Roll Call VOTE on the AMENDMENT to the MOTION. 1 4 Ayes, VOTE ON A14E T Commissioner W ret Mellen and Chairman Steigerwald Nay, NOTION CARRIED MOTION to AMENR carried. MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded , by Commissioner Pauba MOTION To ANEWD to AMEND the MOTION with direction that the deck alone would be within the replatted lot and the landscaping would be In the common ,area and maintained by the Homeowner's Association, Roll Call VOTE on the AMENDMENT to the MOT"iON 6 Ayes. VOTE ON AMENDMENT Commissioner Mellen, Nay. MOTION carried. ; MOTION CARRIED loll. Call VOTE on MOTION AS TWICE AMENDED. 7 Ayes. MOTION VOTE MAIN NOTION carried. TWICE AWJ40M MOTION CARRIED Cxrm ss— toner Wire stated` he voted in favor as he is concern= ed about the private ownership. of the deck area.; and,that long term maintenance for the landscaping would be assur:d if provided by the Hw.r,owner's Association. MOTION by Commissioner plufka, seconded by Commissioner MOTION FOR APPROVAL tulberg to recommend _approval for the Conditional Use Permit Amendment for the Residential planned that Development for new building design as proposed by Dean R. Johnson Construction Company. , Tipton has done. Pae 78 Planninq Comm 11 ss Ion Minutes April 10, 1985 Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOT. C-41 CARRIED hairm n Stei erwald called a Recess at 8.20 P.M. RECESS Chairman St i e wal.d introduced the request by Tipton Corp- TIPTON CORPORATION oration, reading o: the March 28, 1955 staff report vias REZONING,, RELT-MINARY waived. Chairman Stelgerwald introduced qtr. Nichael PLATT r1,4A.L PLAT, S r.looha representing Tipton Corporation. qtr,. jek.lccha SITE PLAID AND mmmented that this application Is part of she Park.. place VARIANCE (85-013) devel.cpricnt and their onqoInq management of thL5 develop- ment. Ne irtcted that they were requested to complete the, loth Avenue ri ht -of— dy, and beeause of their d sire U -o move the=ir corporate offices Into the area, they elected to purohase the property for company o ` ices.- fie noted that the variance request is bec,use this site f the lob is re- duced by granting the required richt of-way to the City* NO noted 'that this is a commercially ,coned corner, and they t el the variance request is reasonable Commissioner Wire noted he has a concern regarding the homes to the south, noting the staff has recommended the luminaire plan as proposed. He inquired about the hours of operation and the lighting for the building. fir. Sjeklccha stated the lighting would be low level.; the business hours would be normal for office functions with meeting$ held in the evening,. Coordinator McConn noted that the sign location would be north of the most sotjtherl_y access on the east side Of the building. and that there. would be lighting at accesses to building- ; Commissioner Plufka cen `%rmed that the vari.an(e is for lot width and the setback to the drive aisl.o. Coordinator McConn noted that there has been contact made; with the homeowners; to the south; they understand the plans and do not have any concerns. Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing and intro ducedMr. ' Jack Propsma, 3M Minnesota vane Norttj. I lir. propsma stated he is representing the Cavanaugh Moore -owner's ocl:atlonj and: that they support ipton's plans. He stated that Tipton has been very cooperative and 'it world be benet'icial, if all developers worked with the residents as Tipton has done. Page 79 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 198 Chairman Stelgerwald closed the Public Hearing. MOTION, y Commissioner Kaaba, secondad by Commissioner 140TI N TO APPROVE Magnus w recommend approval for the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, i.nai 'Play.,. Site Plan and Variance for Tipton Corpor- ation subject to the conditions as stated in the draft Resolution. Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried. CUTE - NOTIOn CARRIED Chairman Steigerwald Introduced the request by DeVries DeVRIES BUILDERS builders, Inc. and requested Coordinator McConn give an LAND USE GUIDE PLAN overvie% of the March 28, 1985 staff report. AWNDMENT (85618) Chairman Steigerwald introduced fir.. Sohn DeVries. 1r. DeVries stated that in reviewing the staff" report he doesn't agree with the interpretation of the guidelines* He stated they have access to major collectors in that County Road 36 is nearby; that 34th and 522nd Avenues are minor arterials, that Pilgrim Lame is a minor arterial•, and, there are sub- stantial roadways in and around the property. He noted the open mound the property; that there is a shopping areaarea at 36th Avenue and County Road 13 shopping, and restaurants at¢County Road 18 and Medicine lake Road.He noted that. the roper t tSLL .d L 1p, T -011 C0 .14 '+ =.:. T-F+J lit%ice 'Y 3 i cF .Y-^ area; and, that to put a road through, will require clot of fill. He stated that the original fill, will need to be re- moved and replaced which will be very costly. He stated that a lower density (such as the LA-?_ suggested by staff) would necessitate cutting a stand or trees for the roadway to provide for lot layout. He stated they are not interest- ed in developing the hand if they cannot attain the ..and Use Wide Plan A,iendment for 1,A-3 quiding He stated thea: are natural buffers: to adjacent property, He noted that staff did not want to commit to a specific density, however, the problem with the roadway construction makes it necessary to bring up the fact of density for developing this property,. Chairman Steigerwald commented that be is aware that .left over, pieces oflandare problematical for development. He inquired if they had considered- that LA- guiding would allow 3 to -5 units per acre. Hr. QeVries noted that it is obvious 'it would be 3 units per acres unless the development were a Planned Unit ,Development and they do not qualify for bonus points. He noted they would need to get 5 units ,per acre to develop the property.. Chairman Stelgerwald inquired about the 3 .Alts per acre. Coordinator McConn, explained the PU0 provisions for 'bonus points to provide higher density. Pate 80 plminCormaission Minute -,-S. April 10,, 1985 Coordinator McConn, ' in response to Mr. DeVries Initial re- marks, clarified that 36h Avenue North is a major collector, 34th Avenue and Pilgrim Lane minor collectors, and r County Road 1S Is an intermediate arterial. Commissioner Pauba inquired if Mr. Me ries came back with a plan for 5 units per acre, would the City Council approve the plan? Coordinator McCona answered that wtthin the A - designation the PUD -attributes and the bons point erIterla would have to be demonstrated to achieve 5 units per acre. Other development plans for PUD's and SUP's have been approved In this area as the Council has determined that it was appropriate, One approval that have included waivers from the 40, acre minimum for PUD's was the " 1 rr ' Middle - mist" t" development. Mr, De ries stated had disour-sed a: Planned Unit Develop- ment, but there were, many obstacles; the cost would be pro- hibitive without assurances of ap§)rova ll and, it would be a big risk, He stated that In looking' at the PUD provisions I t was felt they could not achieve 5 units per acre but they do meet the criteria, for the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment. Chairman Steigerwald noted that approval, for LA -3 aul.ding could open the 'door for 5 to 10 units per acre Lhat would not be appropriate for this,, property. It was his opinion that exploring the options and perhaps taking the middle ground recommendation would make s rico for developing this property. Coordinator McConn, noted` that, the Merry Middlemist develop- ment was first proposed as a conventional. tat but the a Council was .not oom ortaoie with the variances requested, so tine PUD application and deaign flexibility was approved. Chairman Ste e viald opened the Public Hearing and introdue- od Greg Anderson, 3220 Pilgrim Urie Vx, Anderson noted the neighborhood is zoned single family and he wants low density development. Mr. Wayne Corrigan, 3230 Pilgrim Lane3 stated th t be would be opposed to removal of the trees as noted by Cir. De ries. He stated the tree are behind his property and are an attractive a.meity for the neighborhood, He stated he is not specifically opposed to rezoning) but would want to retain the trees. Page 81 planningnning ommi ssion Minutes April 101 190 Leve Somme,3200 Pilgrim .ane,, staters he concurs with fir* Corrigan, that the trees and grassland hour be retained. He stated he has a road In front and beh ;A hf fi homes so certainly is net in favor of a road that r ou .e bf to the side of his home. He stated thatthe;qui.ding is not ; big problem and he. appreciates what Mr= De ries Is trying to on with the property. He assumes that development of the prop- erty will occur, however ' he does not want a roadway through the wooded area. mar Johnson, 9895 31st Avenue North, stated his major con- cern is the safety of the children in the 'neighborhood and that high density creates higher traffic levels. noted that the neighborhood pare was not meant for large numbers of people.. He stated he purchased his home because of the life styles it provides for his family. He is concerned that development will create nose and dirt$ and that property values could be'`diminished by high density development. Jeff Neshe t , 1085 Pilgrim lane, inquired about Merry Mxd- d:lemist development, noting that it is a single family resi- dential e i - dentia , development. Chairman Steigerwald explained that, tr !;4 v,Izes were _smaller than in the typical. LA -1LA-1guided ark-- ,, that It was an odd piece of land requiring the t afforded .t by a Planned- Unit Development. Mr. 4,sheam stated' that the density allowable; for LA— guided property is too high and inquired about bullding plans# Chairman Steigerwald ;explained that specific build - Ing plates would not be part of this application, however, LA -3 t,ided .land could be planned- with quadraminiums, duplex .3, or townhaises. Mr* Neisheim commented that the traffio increase would he undesirable for this neighborhood, and noted that the shop- ping as described by ter. De ries are only small coveni nce steres' and, some restaurants that would not be adequate to service a high density development. Marilyn Stalheim, 3210 Pilgrim lane, stated her concern about having a street behind her home and losing the open area and trees: She stated;' that development _ is occurring everywhere A'Wd` that open areas are nee -.ss ry for all neighborhoods. She noted that tate playground mentioned by Mr. DeVries is a school playground, not a public play area. She stated that Plymouth has planned wisely for the communi ty and she doesn't want the City to lose sight of good planning for this area.. Page Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 198 Doug Taubman, 10000 31st Avenue North,, commented his state- ments reflect the social: concerns. He passed out informa- tion to the Commission that he had put together regarding crime statistics, noting that hiih density -eas show higher crime rates. He cotrumenA;ed on pie traffic problems that could occur. He stated his concern is that Plymouth is allowing all property to be developed to .its fullest and he would like retention of open space. Ellen Peterson, 3340 Pilgrim Lane, concurred with these speaking for retention of open ,space. She stated that dra nae and lights from the playground impact her home She stated her concur teat drainage problems caused by the topography of the Viand to be developed could impact her residence, and is concerned about the problems discussed by Mr. DeVries regarding road construction through the proposed deve.l.aprnen Ted H. Auer, 3250 Pilgrim Lang, confirmed that as the prop- erty is guided nowt an apartment building could be built without re uiding or re oni,ng# and he would not like to see a building of this magnitude constructed on the property. He stated he vas in favor of her. peVries retaining ;the trees, and that perhaps his ideas for development for the properly pool d be approp- fate.. He feels a common sense ap- proach' to development f t,l s land is needed, perhaps the land cannot be develop, -d at all and, this should be considered Mr. DeVries stated that previously a site plan had been ap- proved for a 60 unit apartment building on the site but con- struction was never implemented. o+ rdinator McConn on - firmed this. Stephen Smarjesset 10020 31st Avenue North. stated that den- sity is the primary issue, noting ,that there is already faigh density in the _area with, the Tiburon development. He stated that some people, wish to Live in Multi -residential units, however, there are already enough of those available in this area. He noted that her. DeVries has developed some fine projects but that somehory this proposal is inconsistent those projects Fte o, Thompson,. 9,390 31st Avenue North, stated, his concern11 about: ' the increase in traffic and stated the importance of AWN retaining the trees., Mr. DeVries stated hre agrees with what has been said and he wants to try to assure everyone that in undertaking develop- ment of the property he wants o retain the trees and create some open space, that these amenities also sell his product. He noted that development of this property creeds Paw:S Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 to be economically feasible. H01 comm iilred that they units proposed vi uld be owner occupied. ter. f e ries e pl;,pined that at the time of development he has always worked ,i t the residents of the neighborhood and tried to keep thea Informed. Lama.- Johnson stated; that there i ; alot of commercial devel- opment on the north side of 34th Avenue and this could be a t)uffer for the neighborhood. He stated that a high density development will eliminate the buffer and this should be kept ais open space bcoau e of its alignment to County Road 18 and the commerclal. area. He stated the. residents have a right to open space and that none of them want to see co do - M iums or dpo t sent,; buildings built on this property, Cdtm i Psion r Plufka explained that the City does not own the Land and thp. landowner has the right to develop under the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance. He stated that, on hearing the background and blending that with what has been heard from the neighbors, it seems the PUD concept could` cork that clufitering could be an option which would , it tin presence some cif the amenities for the neighbor- hood; and, the LIA-2 quiling, allows attached housing and gives the flexibility and development opportunity for this property* Ms. Stalheim inquired if the City would consider buying the property to leave as open spade. Chairman' Stelgerwald advised the residents that they could take tne question of the City purchasing this Land before the City Council. Chairman Stei.gerwald closed the Public Hearing.. Commissioner Wire stated' he egress with Commissioner Plufka ori the'.need to keep development in this area compatible with the !rurroundinq residential neighborhoods. He noted that a P td Plan could be one option and tie emphasized the needfor transition. Chairman Steigerwald reminded the Commission that this application is for reguiding`and plass for construction are not being reviewed at this time4 Commissioner mire stated that he did rata, want to approve a specific designation without more delta .,eq plans, Chairman Steigerwald stated he does not want' to make it difficult Vor the developer tomake plans for this property, however, he would prefer to make a recommendation for, re - guiding they property to LA -2. Page 84 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 MOTION by Chairmanteigerwal:d, seconded by Commissioner APPROVE Riuba, to recommend approval for the Land Use Culde Plan Amendment LA- (lore medium density residential) tesi.gna- tibnt and requesting that the City Council consider the highest density allowed (5 units per acre) by this designa- tion -1 and, that the Council give air et ion and guidelines concerning the density for this project. Commissioner Stulberg pointed out that a portion of the property is now quided LA -41 so that the highestdensity could be achieved for this area by the developer. He feels this recommendation is "putting the cart before the horse". He is also opposed to, changing the guiding to LA -3, hovre er, the developer is requesting, the Amendment and has notcon- ceded ,that the property can be developed under the LA -2 designation. It is opinion that timeCommission's recommend- ationn for LA -2 guiding Is not appropriate. Commissioner Pldfka stated the Commission must deal with the request for the LA -3 gulling and can move to recommend denials, however he would like to discuss the development proposal as a concept# it is his opinion that there are parameters without design characteristics that may indicate the di:reoti.on that should be, taken to male palatable use of the land, Coordinator McConn stated that the Commission's hesitation in making a recommendation for the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment seems to be based on not being able to foresee what the development proposal for this property will be, however, detailed plans are not required with this applica- tion. in somee situations joint applFi. of lons are considered which contain more detail. Commissioner Plufka stated that tate Commission could offer design direction, but that it i.s not needed to make their decision tonight. Mr. DeVries stated that he has submitted his application to change the guiding to L -A-3 and does not. 'want` the Commis- sion ' m:ocommendat.ion for LA -2 guiding. He stated he would rather go ba,k and, meet with staff to seg if a PUD Plan Is feasible. Chairman Steigerwald noted that the Planning Comrulstson' has concurred ghat LA -2 guiding, is the most appropriate, and .hat, this recommendation would move the application through; for: Council* consideration. ter# DeVri.es r° iterat ;d that his ;appl oation is requesting A-3 guiding Commissioner Pldf a noted that Mr`. iieVrles has the option to withdraw the application. Commissioner Pauba Inquired if the petitioner should withdraw this application would new it tog fees be required. Coordinator McConn answered affarmatIvely» page 85 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 19S Comm! si fir ba ba inquired if ttie Commission could defer re ommend- tion and give direction for -design fI rdi.i a tor McConn inquired What would be ire -designed as the request calls only for the land use designation to be changed; no specific development plans are b ing considered at this tame Commissioner Stulberg inquired if Mr. DeVries is the proper- ty fee owner. Coordinator McConn noted that co -signatures and a dopy of the purchase agreeme. t were required for mak- Ing this application. Commissioner Wire stated, he speaks against tree Motion, aAd noted thatother than Mr. DeVri.es could come back With another de elQpment proposal. Commissioner Plufka 'stated he is in favor of the motion and that the Planning Commission needs a frame: of reference to advise the Council of their r000mmendation for LA -2 guiding for mils property. Coordinator McConn stated that the petitioner can disbus5 his, application with the City Council and the `fact' that he may want to investigate further the feasibility of a PUD Plan. Roll Call OTE. 3 Ayes. Commissioners Stulberg, Magnus, VOTE - MOTION FAILS Wire, and Mellen , day. MOTION fails MOTION by Commissioner Stulbergt seconded by Commissioner TION TO Ki4Y Wire to recommend denial for the request by DeVries Build- ers, Inc. for a Land Use Guide Plan for property` located south of 34t1h Avenue; North and west of Kilmer Lane for the reason that the request for LA -3 (high medium density resi- dential) guiding is not a proper use for this land? the appropriate guiding for the property is LA- (low medium density residential.) designation; and, that the Planned Unit Development planning process may have merit in providing a method to ,address the concerns of increased traffic for this area; to retain the amenities within th 's property, and, to assure a development consistent with the ad :)ini.ng neighbor- hoods. Roll Call VOTE on the MAIN MOTION. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE MOTION CARRIED Mr., hamar Johnson stated that he aloes not avant to see access provided from this development into the Residential area. Chairman Steige val.d stated that the City Engineers Will re- view the traffic circulation and, the residents will be noticed regarding the public Tearing where there will be a more detailed review at 'Che time of plat proposal. Page 80 Planning Commission fiinutes Aprill ` G, 1985 Chairman SteigerwAl,d called a Recess at 9:55 P.M. NEW BUSD$: Chairman Steigerwald reconvened the meeting and introduced PAUL AND LOIS the variance request. R adin of the March Z8,'1985 Staff HAGEWISTER Report was waived. Chairman Stelgerwald introduced Mr. Paul VARIANCE 1U ALLOW Hageme ster TW ISSUANCE O BUILDING PAMITS Mr. llagemeister reviewed iris request with the Commission FOR PARCELS WITHOUT noting that fie has met the requirement by submitting ease- FRONTACE ON A PUBLIC gent docar nts d110VVing for; the 20 ft. wide ingress and ROAD (85015 egress so that a private drive may be extended to serve both parcels. 1„1e noted that originally there was a house on Parcxel, 8 that burned and was removed. When he bought the property there would have been room to build, however t meet the required 75 ft. setback required by the Shoreland Management Regulations, this is no longer possible. He com- mented that he _. had met with staff and it was suggested to him that becac: , , there would he no public- street, the drive would be considered an "alley" and he would need only a 1 ft, setback on the bjsis of a survey that was made. Upon of his application by the staff review committee, hereview was informed that a 35 ft. setback would be required .and this will restrict the house design ar he was planning the installation ofa passive solar system for the home requir- ing it to face south. He commented that he wound appreciate receiving approval, for the 11 ft* variance so that he can design the house as planned. Chairman "teigerwal,d noted that this is not a Public Hear - ng, but is a public informational meeting and rn4.roduced Mr. Ken Peterson, 1325 Kingsview Lane, who statg d that he supports staff's recommendation but asked for clarification of where the setbacks would be on Parcel B. Coordinator McCann stated that the; recommendation calls for a ft. front yard setback from the south edge of the private drive easement. Mr. Hagemeiste,., stated that this could prevent constructing an attached gavage and b cau:et there is a steep drop-off on the property, he would have to, hail,d a rrstilt house". He suggested that the 35 ft. setback be from the east property line. Mr. Wait Domseth, 1301 Kingsview Lane, inquired about the location of the front yard. Coordinator glcConn pointed out that the Shoreland Management Regulations Increase the set back requirements from the lake;'that the recommended front yard setback is from the private drive easement and she explained the setbacks for each parcel. Page 57 Planmag Commisi%lon Minutes April 109 1935 o iss .ones Plufka confirmed that' he south Line of Govern- ment Lot I is not an ownershiv, lire=, and not part of the subject Property. MOTION by Commissioner Wire) seconded by Commissioner Plufka OTION` TO APPRO to recommend approval of the Variance to allow the issuance of Building Permits for pdr_,els without frontage on a publ x.c roadway; that Parcel A have a front yard s€tback of 24 ft. as requested with the 11 ft. var anoe* and that Parte havea 35 ft. front yard setback measured from the north property line which includes 20 ft. of the drive ay easement, ec:om- Mr. Ken Peterson stated he has no problem with, this recom- itm n at on. Commissioner Plufka noted "that > this woutd, pro- mendation. vide the area required to set the ,hoose away from the adja- cent .lot to the cast. VOTE. Ayes. MOTION carried. ION CARRIEDT- OTHER MSIN SS hairman Steiqirwald introduced the item and noted the pre- ZONING ORDINANCE vious discussion by the Commisrion at the Public Hearing ND TOl EWl00 N-ld February , 1985. Community Development Director R T T Mair "remere discussed the information renard*no the Amend- ment and asked Commissioner Mellen about the steps taken by Honeywell regarding noise factors when Installing evi'-"went at their plant. Commissioner Mellen explained that k,., had studied the situation and it 'seemed that the noise from the fans was most noticeable when the system was elthet going on, or shutting down, the constant noise from the fans dial not seem to be as noticeable. However, it is difficult to screen out the perceived intensity of sound generated from Ignition and shut-down of equipment. Mr. Carlos Hodge, Prudential Development Company, stated ht, had attended toe Public Hearing, and was representing those developers who _attended that meeting. He stated that the Ordinance language is reasonable and, his only concern is that it can satisfy_ the conflicting interests and does not become a major Issue. Sir. Richard A. Lindell, 8433 39th Avenue k1ortgh-1, concurred with fir. Hodge' statements. Commissioner Wire noted. that It c.)dld be subjective, but it is a means of salving some problems Direa.tor Tremere discussed the Pollution Control Agency PCA) standards, and 'noted. the Importance of addressing the design and. standards for rooftop equipment up front when Page 813 planning Commission Minutes Atari 'C) 1981 zv s ally there are adjacent or abutting residential d v lopments. MOT CH Cdmm,ss nr. r Pltjfka,, seconded by Commissioner fere 140TION to recommend the adoption of Ordinance Amendments concerning rooftop equipment. VOTE. 7 Ayes. MOTION carr d. VOTE -MOTION Coordinator HeConn discussedd upcoming Planning Commission ag nda$ and applications W prope s. Director Tremere explained the staters of updating the Housing Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APRIL 10, 1965 APPROVAL OF A CONDIT;OINAL USE PEW4IT A ENDR NT FOR DEAN R. JOHNSON CUNTRUCT ON11 INC., TO, AMEND THE APPROVED RESIDENTIAL €OAHU UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR "CR EKSIDE OF PLYMOUTH" LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTY ROU 9 AND EAST OF PLYMOUTHCREEK (79018 ) WHEREAS, Dean R Johnsen Construction, Inc. has requested a Con6itional Use Permit Amendment to amend the approved RPUU Plan for "Creekside of Plymouth" to Include the construction of decks that; would be seated within the common open area for 814 dwelling units and a new building design for property located south of County Road and east of Plymouth Creekil and., WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public hearing and recommend approval; NOW, THEREFORE, ORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that It 'should and hereby does approve tilt, request for Dean H. Johnson Construction, Inc. for a Conditional Use PermitAmendment to amend the approved RPUD Plan to allow for the con trocticn cf:` decks that would be located within tine common open area for 84 dwelling units and a new : uildinq design for property Located south n ' County Road 9 ,and east of PI)mouth Creel, sub*ect':to the following conditions: 1« That the final plats for Ca eekside of Plymouth 1st and ?nd Additions be revised to provide adequate lot area and dimensions to accomodate the construction of the decks- ` that n , Yr the -deck addition will. be within the repl.atted` lotand, the g l nds pin will Association, y lf)e installed in th common area; and maintained bar the o 2. `l t amended Ho enwrler Association documents allowing for the addition of decks be filed and re-.orded at Hennepin ° County with the revised final plats. 3. The construction of the decks s°_ *1 not encroach Into any existing utility and drainage easements, 4. All other 'teras of development as identified in the Development Contracts for the Cree Side of Plymouth Ist and rnd Additions are carried forward. Auk RECOMMENDATIONS FORAPRIL. 10, 1985 APPROVING PRE LIMINARPLAT FOR TIPTON CORPORATIM4 FOR T PTON BUILDING (65013) WHEREAS, ptcn crPdr- tion has requested approval for a Preliminary Plat for Tito Building to -create one Parcel for the remodeling and expansion of an existing dwelling unit on .65 doreslocated on the southwest coater of 34th Avenue North and Fernbrook Lane; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval-, NOW, THEREFORE, OF IT H :P Y. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTHI, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Prelimir iry Plat for Tipton Corporation for Tlpton Building located on the southwest corner of 34th Avenue North and F'ernhrook Lane$ suh oct to the following conditions« 1. Compliance with the 'City Engineer's Memorane.om.; 2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense. 3. No Building Permitsshall be' issued until a Contract has been awarded for sewer and water; at;d, anti the F 4,nal Plat is filed and recorded with Hennepin County. 4. Provisions for a 0 ft wide trail, easement per Comprehensive Park Plan, as ver ifi:d try the Pare and Engin ringDeartmonts7 with submittal of detailed plans as to construction of the trail. per City standards. 5. Payment of pari dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication with appropriate credits in an amount determined according to verified acreage and paving costs and ac- cording to the Dedication Policy In effect ,t the time of issuance of Building Permit. 6 Rezoning shall - e finalized with f,Mng of the rinal. Plat. 7 Approved variances are: lot size (.65 vs 1 acre)' and lot width (136 vs. 150 ft.). 4i RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APRIL 10, 1985 SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET P TOR TO FILING OF AND QATED TO FINALL PLAT FOR T PT N UAL 11M. FOR TIPTON CCP TT 14 (85013 ) WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Final Pkat for ,Tipton Building as requested by Tipton Corp r tion,** W,THEREFORE,, A: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APRIL 0 1985 APPROVING SITE PLA14 AND VARIANCE rOR TIPT ti CORPORATION (85013) IEREA , Tipton Corporation has requested approval of a Site elan and Variance for the remodeling, grid eypan ins of a dwelling snit as an office facility located on the southwest corner of 34th Avenue North and F rntrroo Lane; and$ 1HER A 1 the Planning Commission has reviewed said request aL a duly called Public. Hearing and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOU1411 141NIKESOTA, ' that it should and hereby do --s approve the request for Tipton i rporation for a Site plan and Variance for the remodeling and expansion of a dwel iinq as an office > facilityty located southwest of 34th Avenue Borth and Fernbrook lane) subject to the following conditions*' 1. Compliance with City Engineer's Memorandum yment of par &d.loati.on fees -in -lieu of dedication with appropriate credits in an amount determinedd accordin ` to verified acreage and paving cost,, and ac- cordino to the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of Building Perot 3. provisions for a 20 -ft. wide trail easement per Comprehensive park Plan, as verified by the parrs and Engineering Departments with submittal of detailed plans as t constroti.on of the trail r City ;standards. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement for completion of site improvements. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approv als per Ordinance provisions. Compliance with the Ordin--nce regarding the location of fire hydrants and fire lanes, with the waiver of fire lane re uir ments on the west 51de of the structures. 7. All waste and waste containers shall he stored within the structure and no outside storage is permitted. No Building Permit to be issued until the Final. Flat is f!led and recorded with Hennepin County. 9 Approved Variances 'include; ream setb,ick to drive aisle (6 ft vs. 15 ft. ). v v 10 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APRIL 10, 1955 DENYING LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR DM;S BUILDERS, INC., OR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF 34TH AVENUE AND WEST OF KILMER LANE ( 85018 ) N 'R AS, Inc. gas requested approval of reclassification of Land else Guiding for an approximate 18.7 acre parcel located south of 34th Avenue and west of Kilmer Lane from LA- (log densityresidential) :and LA -4 (high density multiple residential) to LA- (high medium density r sidentia )1- and, WHEREAS, the Planning CotT.rdsslon has or sidered the request following a duly sche- duled public hearing and has recommended denial, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE IT ` CF PLY14OUTHI MILAN SOTAt, that it should and hereby does deny the reclassification of Lard Use Guid- ing for aeVries Nuilderst Inc,, for approximately 1 .i acres located south of 34th Avenue ana west of Kilmer Lane from LA- ' ( low density residential) and A-4 ,high density multiple residential) to LA- (high medium density residential) for the fol- lowing reasont ol- lowi.n.reasont I., Tne: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Guide Plan locational criteria for the LAS designation are rot satisfied. The request for LA-, (high madium density residential) designation ' is not proper use for ois property. 3. The appropriate guiding for the property is LA-- (low medic density residential) designation* 4. There is merit ,in consideration of the Planned Unit Development planning process for this property to address the concerns of increased traffic, to retain the amenities within this property), and, to assure a development that is consistent with the adjoining neighborhoods. RECOmmaIDATIONS FORAPRIL 'ltd, 1985 APPROVING VARIANCE FOR PAUL AND LOIS HAGEMEISTER TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION O, TWO RESIDENCES ON TWO PARCELS WHICH 00 NOT PROVIDE ORDINANCE MINIMUM REQUIRED R S A ON A PUBLIC ROAD LOCATED WEST OF KINOSVIEW LANE + EHERAt.LY NORTH OF 13TH AVENUE m RTH IN SECTION 33 (85415) WHER'n , Paul and Lois Ha em inter have re uested approval, for a -ori-ince to allow the construction of two residences on two parcels which do not provide Ordinance required frontage on a public road for Property located west of Hang view Lane and generally north of 13th Avenue North in Section ; arid, WHE.REA f the Planning Commission has reviewed said request and rec amends approv ll NOW THEREFORE, 3E IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY UE PLYM UTHt MINNESOTA, that it should " and hereby dors approve a riancr to llow' construction of two residences on two parcels which do not provide Ordinance minimum required frontage on a public road on property located ;,,est of Kingsview Lane and generally northof 'lath Avenue Horth in Section 33, subject to the following: 1. Compliance with the Engineer's Memorandum. 2. Parcel: A shall have a 24 ft front yard setback (a variance of 11 ft. )$' and Parcel R shall have a 35 ft. front yard setback measured from the north property line. 3. Prior to issuance - of any Building Permits, ' appropriate legal, documents on Parcels A and H, allowing for the 'shared driveway shall be filed and recorded at Hennepin County 4Submittal of all utility and drainage easements as approved by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of Building Permits. Variances are approved to allow the construction of two ; residences on two parcels which -c not provide Ordinance minimum required frontage on a public road on the basis that the two parcels were created when no public frontage: was provided, and on the basis ,that, it is not feasible to extend a public road westerly from Kingsview Lane.