Loading...
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