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.