HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 07-24-19852
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLAMINC COMISSIONHINUTES
241t 1,985
The regular Vloetinq c' 4.' Plymouth Planning Comitission was
called to order a `7,100 . M.
HEWERS PRE-tiENTz Vice Chairman Pauba, Commissioners
Stulhero, Magnus, P .uf a, Mellen an
na r an i rwald ;arrived at 805
p*m*
TtkFF P S °NT: Community e elopmen o rd not r
Sara MoConn
City Engineer Shorn. Guldberg
Community Development Director
Blah Tremere
Associate, plannerAlCottingham
CONSENT AGENDA
YTT by Commissioner Iu eoonded her o overAGENDA
Mellen to adopt the=4,ent agenda. Six ayes. MOTION
arr.ed.
MM* h Commissioner Pluf a j seconded by Commissioner WNL1T- 3OLY 9p
Moller, °3 _1 eoommended approval of the 3uly 91 1985 minutes.
Five ay, Commissioner W. re ab takned*. MOTION. carried.
PUBIC IRDS:
Vice Chairman Pa-Ub-i iv troduoed the f first pu4lie h..arinq item BWGER KING CORP.
and Mr. Kent Coulson representing the petitioner, who stated CW AWND
the staff report accurately represented their pea tion. 85061+)
Vice- Chairman Pauba opened the public hearing. No one was
present to speak on, this item artf; thus the public hearing
was closed.,
06taon by Commissioner Wlre seconded by Commissioner p of a TO APPROVE
o recommend approval of the Conditionalonal Use Pernik
Amendment for Gerry Sisk, Burger King, subject to the
cond,1-t1jon3 suited in she luly 9 staff report.
Roll Call ' T * 6 ayes, MOTION carried. NOTION CA:
Vice Chaitrillan, Pauha introduced the public nearing and asked REVISED OST
the Commissioners if they had any questions of staff. ORDINANCE A t
Commissioner Wire requested staff inform the 'Planning
Commissionion w`ien changes were authorized to approved
Cood ttonal Use Permits. S!-aff responded in the
affir€ a t e4
166-
page 161,71
Plonning Commission Minutes
July 24,1 1985
Vice Chairman Pauba opened the public hearing. No one ryas
present to ',speak on this item and thus the public hearing
was closed..
MV110N. was made by Commissioner Stulbc.,r , seconded 1 TO x OV
Col,,i miss toner Ka nus to approve the draft ordinance amendment
regarding admini'strativn approval for minor changes to
approved conditional uses.
Roll Gail VOTE,
I,
6 ayes. MOTION tarried.. t101 - W1100 CARRIED
Vice Chairman Pauba introduced the,public hearing and waived REVISIONS TO Gll'Y"S
review of the staff report., qtr. Bob Burger, President of tWPUE-RENSIVE PLAN
the Plymouth Development, was recognized and stated he
concurred pith the Goalst Objectives and Criteria.
Vice Chairman Patiba;.opened and closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Paub,4 brought to the Commission's attention a
letter by Mr. Paul S. Volstad which stated his concerns
regarding limitations to the amount of tax exempt land that
the City can support and regarding human development in
that the City should encourage development of facilities for
spiritual. growth.
Commissioner PlufkA stated that he had a concern Witt, the
second portion of Mr. ` ol.stad`s letter in that it, would be
crossing church and stag boundaries. He did ugx*f, with
Mt. olstad* s statement regarding limiting the amount of tax
exempt, land.
Staff .clarified that tax exempt land would t.ot just be for
churches but also for parks, schools and any City owned
lard. Staff does not feel that the City would deny a site
Calan solely on the i,ax exempt Issues. Staff discussed the
situation of a church being located on commercially ,zotied
land as compared to locating on residentially zoned land.
plissioner Wire thought that the wording could be arranged
to RCity owned tax exempt land'' or "review or monitor the
amount of tax exempt land" ratter than "limit the amount of
tax exempt land."
Commissioner Magnusfelt that the word "limit" was a good
ehoice and; that if a limit is reached, the City should
consider the financial impact.
Page.166
Planning Commission Minutes
zo * 19s5
Bora Burger representing the Plymouth Development Council
felt the, City could separate "public" versus "Private" tax
exempt .land. Staff pointed out that the wording could be
changed to '"strive to limit the amount of public tax exempt
land and to mon tt,,- the amount oT private tax exempt 'and"
rather than "limit the amount of tax exempt land."'
Commissioner Wire feels that the mord "limit" is a very
strong word and should be removed.
Commissioner Mellen felt: that the wording of "monitoring the
amount of tax exempt land" does not allow for the City to
restrict the development of tax exempt land f if a maximus
level is reached.
MOTION, was made by Commissioner pluf aj seconded by MOTIF To AMEND
Commissioner Wire, to amend the wording from "limiting-, the
amount of tax exempt land" to "mal,atain the amount of
pubtiely held tax exempt land at a reasonable level
ccs" ensurate with City needslt and, monitor the amount of tax
exempt land held by other for periodic evaluation."
Roll Call VOTE. 6 ayes. MOTION -carried. VOT£.. - MOTION CARRXED
4f
lotion by Commissioner Magnus, seconded byo aissioner NOTION T APPROVE
Wire to approve the Goals,, Objectives and Criteria element
of the Comprehensive Plan as amended.
lnl,l, Call VOTE. 6 ,ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE .. MOTION CARRIED,
WWI BUSINESS
Vise Chairman Pauba introduced the request by Opus OPUS CORPORATION
Corporation for a Lot; Consolidation, Site Plan and LOT CONSOLIDATIONt
Variance. Reading of the 3u,ly; 11, 1985 staff report was SITE PLAKAND
dived. NCE
pp
Vice Chairman- Pauba introducA.0 Mr. Bob Worthington of Opus
Corporation.
Mr. Worthington reviewed the location of the sites history
of the land and their current proposal. He referenced that
this would be a high-tech building and distributed marketing
information on the Westfield, Optvp 11 development, which
would be similarto the proposed buildings. He reviewed :shy
they requested twG building on one site, stating thsat it was
mainly for marking purposes for the smaller companies who
did not -grant to share offices in a larger building with
Page 169
Plarni g Commission Minutes
my 24, 1985
larger companies. He, stated that the Zoning Ordinance
requires this, be a vari.anoet< but variances don't consider
marketing aspects. He concurred with staff's approach of
the Phase 1 approval, then with Phase 11 a lot division
could be requested. He requested approval for the concept
as shown with two buildings He stated that they were
excited about the project and the building would have a good
view from Highway 55, this would finish the ;Circle Star
Business Center Industrial development.
MOTION by W -f re t seconded by Commisioner Magnus TION TO APPROVE -
to approve the LotConsolidation) Site Plan for Opus
Corporation su ect to the conditions In the staff report
dated duly 11, 1955 wi h the addition to item #5 stating
that
L "any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to
required reviews and approvals per Crd.nanc! provisions, and
consistent with the raster planning for the second
building."
Commissioner St.-Jberg inquired if item #41 whether the
signage program needed to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission and City Council if it met Ordinance standards.
Bob Worthington stated that they are locking at a new
concept In signage and are requesting to come back and show
t to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Roll Call VOTE. ayes. MOTION carrl.ed. VOTE - ,MOTICK CARRIED
Vice, Chairman Pauba introduced the request by Nathan bane NATHAN LAW. ASSOC*
Associates for a Lot Consolidation, Site Man And Variance. LOT CONSOLIDATIONs
Reading of the guly 10, 1985 staff report was waived. Vice SITE PLAN AND
Chairman Pauba introduced Mr. Ron Ryan and Mr. Marshall VARIANCE
Siegel who stated that Mitner-Wiseman Company occupies 8,5058
approximately 90 percent of the building and would occupy
the same percentage of the new building. They have been
located. in Plymouth for ten years. He feels that their
company has been a clean operation and noted they employ
approximately 100 people. Mr. Ron Ryan spoke to, the two
parts of the review, the parking setback Variance to Nathan
Lane and the Variance to have the bituminous, located :around
the structure. He stated that they would rather have
bituminous at the buildingthan have a rock mulch, curb or
sidewalk for pedestrians. He stated that this would allow
thea larger ,maneuvering area for the true load dock
area and would also be easier to maintain, He stated that,
they do propose to mark this area with striping to shoe a
walkway area..
Page 170
planning commission Minutes46my $ 1985
Commissioner Wire inquired why they would riot want a
sidewalk along the portion of the building. t*fir. Ryan
explained that they hope to limit the amount of pedestrian
circulation around the building with a rear access and
parking along Nathan Lane side of the building.
Staff explained the Ordinance intent of having a separation
between the building and bituminous areas is to delineate
circulation ' patterns, allow for more snow storage and reduce
potential damag to the building aid vehicles.
Commissioner dellen stated that he understood the petitioner
but feels that sidewalks are good for pedestrian circulation
and for their safety.
Mr. David Fink of Nathan Lane Associates stated that
currently they have, a ° separation between the existing
parking area and the front of the building. The s oripl.ows
in the wintertime have a tendency to spill this rock 411
over the parking area and to rip out the curb$.
Staff reviewed the locations of existing fire lanes and
loading dock areas.
Staff continued to state that a uniqueness or hardship
has not been demonstrated by the petitioner'.
Commissioner Wire felt that there is a heed to have some
sort of a buffer between the building and parking areas for
safety for the employees.
Mr. Fink responded noting the concern of safety of the
building and the employees and stated that they 'could put up
posts in the ground to keep the vehicles away from the
buildings. Commissioner Fire: inquired where the accesses to
the building would be located. Mr. Fink stated that this
company was a o garette and candy distribution area and that
accesses were .limited Clue to, the security needed for the
product. The office employees would access on the east side
of the buildinn where there is presently a shortage of
parking- the warehouse employees would access on the rear
side of the building. He stated that if no variances were
grantee to the parking area on the east side' of the
building., that the office employees would need to walk
approximately 1:000 feet from the parking area to the
entrance* He stated the Minneapolis Auto Auction has
perking at the property line and felt that similar
consideration could be -j ven-
Page 171
Planning Commission Minutes
3-aly 24f 1985
Commissioner Wire stated the neighborincgr property is not
grounds for granting the variances.
Max ilutman located the entrances and explained they have
snowplow servio s. Many timespeople. get to work at 4:00 or
0 a.m.$ it is a tremendouswalk from the west side of the
building to the east' side of the build n f if a variance is
not granted.
Commissioner Pldfka stated that with the new construction
for the building and where the entrances are located that
that makes staff Is point of need for separation from the
bituminous to the building, a great heed for safety
purposes. Mr. Rutman stated they could relocate the
employe entrances to resolve' that problem.
Mr. Ryan referred to the screening and landscaping diagram
which showed a crassvi ew of the site from Nathan Lane.
People Nathan lane would barely no:
Page 172
Planning Commission Minutes
Commissioner Wire s. that the re ion for recommending
approval ,of this vari---o was because t is similar to the
e is *Ing building and bituminous areas. If It were, a
totally nev, bul; l.ding he Nyo l d want Irdinance compliance.
He went on to state the areas f cr tie loading docks were
very confusing. Mr. = ink stated that the loath ducks were
pl ,aced where they are due. to the types of operation that is
conducted within the building.
Mr.. Rutman stated that the traffic of the people is such
that they come after the materials are received f then fill
the orders. There is not much traffic for these employees
to worry about In getting to the entrances.
Mr. Siegel ` stated that the company ins i' ompt ng to fill,
orders in the evening and have the during the day,
as It would be a more efficient use of the building and save
n traffic flow of peoples,
Commissioner Magnus stated that _ he had a concern of not
granting a variance along Nathan lane since then there would
not be room for the employees to park on this side of the
building.
Coordinator MaConn stated that the company could control
where the employees park ,and reserve the parking long
Nathan Lane for visitors. She stated that a uniqueness or;
hardship bats not been demonstrated.
MOTION was made by 'Commissioner Magnus, seconded by MOTION To ND
Commissioner Plufka) to amend the Main Motion by changing MAIN MOTIF
Condition #11 to grant the variance of par -king setback to
Nathan, mane, as requested.
Roll Call. VOTE. 5 ayes. Commissioner Stulberg voted VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
nay and. Chairman Stel,gerwal.d abstained. MOTION carried.
Vote on the Main Notion, once amended,, 6 ayes. Chairman VOTE - MOTION GARBLED
teigerwal.d abstained. MOTION carried
MOTION by Commissioner plufka, seconded by Commissioner RUTLEDCE CONSTRUCTION
Mellen to recommend approval for a Lot Division, Site Plan
and Variance for Rutledge. Construction Company scab eci to LOT DIVISIONO SITE
the conditions as stated in the duly 10, 1985 staff report. PLAN AND VARIANCE
85061
Roll Call VOTE. 6 ayes, MOTION carried. MOTION TO APPROVE*
VOTE NATION CARRIED