Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 10-08-1986CITY Of T1 PLANNING COMISSION HW' M OCT Kq_ 8t 91 The Regular Meeting of tnQ Plymouth: Planning Co » ssion was called to order at 7:30 P.M. Ch-nm#i.oter# Wire S ul.berg, Magnus, -Pluf ka and Paubc Commissioner 'Mel en arrived at 7 35 KIK ER5 NT: None STAFF PRES N;T Community Development Coordina r Sara 1conn City Engineer Sherm Goldberg Commdn t Development rector Blair Tremere Planning Secretary Grace 10ineman Chairman Steigerwald stated that the Public Nearing; for the on n Ordinance Amendments after consideration of other . business items. MMES MOTION by Commissiotler Magnus, seconded Commission T ' APPROVE pauba to approve the September 24, 1986 Minutes as subtai t ed * VOTE. 3 Ayes, Commissioners Wire and P. ufka abstained. VOT - MOTION 113 I NOTION carried* YC HEARINGS Chairman S eigerival.d Introduced the application by Aksphalt ASPHALT DRIVEWAY CO. Driveway CoMpany to .use a slaq1e fame ly home for offices and SITE PLAN A outstde storage in the Industr al District. Reading of the C TYONAL USE 0(,-tober 1, 186 planning Sta a Reportas wa ved. Pil RMT (86102 hairoaof & eiger al.d ntt,)duced Tom Loucks, 7216 Boone Avenue Na., representing the petitioner. Mr.Louc s stated . b he has read, the report and has comments regarding the re- or- rement for blue spruce gees on tbe south and north Bide , of the property, He staked this ,Is a minor point) but the trucks will be parked artd, stored in a low, ,depressed partof the site, so that only the tops of the trucks coulAl .he seen from the street. There is existing vegetation zn,0luding a large shrub h oh provIda s adequate screen. na N:..A second concern is that they will, in essences be doing wbiter cans ructiou and khat same of 1 he ,i Imp ovements cannot be completed until next sprinc(41 He noted. they Wi11 197- Roll Call Vole. 7 dyes. MOTION Denied.. VOTE -,MOTION VOT . Ayes* MOTION carra.eds. OTE TIN C page 199, October 6, 1986Planning Commission Minutes Chairman Stelggerwald Introduced the app.11eat-Ion by Mike MIKE 80WELL unntUIY Bunnell Construction, Ine. Tor L.Iot Division and W&ELL Variance. Heading of the .September j 195 planning Staff LOT 01VISIONIVARIANCE Report was waived. 66095) Chairman Steigerwatd introduced Mr., Mike unnell.', 11200, 51st Avenue 'forth:. Pir. 13unnell stated be has presented a. 1.-,tte whish addresses the Variance Criteria. in, that thisproposal Is similar to other divisions accomplished in this neighbor- hood. The letter also explains the reasons why lt' is not feasible for him to pursue the extension of a public road. Chairman St l.gerwa,ld Inquired if Mr. BunnelI didn't agree that additional lots would bring more money for the land? Mr. Bunnell stated It might if the parcel' were larger$ how- ever. he doesn't believe he can ' aak the price needed to clover the additional' expense that would be .incurred from farther division and extension of a road. Chairman Ste ger ^ald noted this development area has good amenities because of the Luce Bine Trall and Hadley Woods, develop- ment. Mr. Bunnell stated -a property owner next door has had his property for sale; for some, time and it has not sold. Chairman Ste .gerwa,ld inquired if there as room on the South side of the large lot, to; extend a oul.-de- sacs? Mr. Bunnell answer :d In the Negative, the cs rrent house foundation restricts further division. -be is wilt n - to file the eoes- sary covenants on the property restricting future division. Chairman Steigerwald ,inquired about the foundation -of the home that was razed. Mr.' Bunnell :stated there is no reason to dig out this old foundatl.on : the new home will `" be constructed In another area of the site. Mr. Don Peterson, 17595 4th Avenue; north, read the appraisal of this property regarding the use of the land which states that tree to four ,fats., with installation of a cul -de -sae built at that scale; may not be feasible, and is not cost effective. The division is more desirable with two building sit $.. he land has be -do for sale for over a year, plans wore drawn f`or the property that contained. Four lots)but developers backed out because of the cost factors. f r l M by Chairman Stelgerwald, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE PlOka., recommending approval for the Lot Division and Vari- ance subject, to the conditions as listed In the September 1986 staff report» Approval: of the Variance is based on the, `act that this property is too- small for the lnst:aI- VOT . Ayes* MOTION carra.eds. OTE TIN C Ch.al.,man Steigerwald inquired how the City could handle this Page October 5, 1966 Planning Commission Minutes Chairman SLeigerwald introduced the application oy John 30fiN 0' DONNELL O onnel fbr Lo s ori Varian., for property in the LOT 3 V ON/VA IAN FRO Zoning District. Reading of the September C, 8,6097) Planainq Staff Report was waived., Ch-airmanSzeigerwald introduced Mr, O'Donnell who stated h had no questions or comments MOTION by Commissioner Plufka,. seconded by Commissioner MOTION O; PPOV Pauba t:o recommend approval for the Lot Division zkol Varl ance for John ° onne,ll, subject to the condrti Y,ks a, listed n the September 30, 1986 planning staff repoyr t VOTE, 7 Ayes. MOTION carr red,OTE MOTIONCARRIED PLOLIC BMI14G Chairman Steigerwald 'opened the Public Hearing on the Zoning GROINAMENDMENTS Ordinance Amendments. Reading of the October 3, 19$6 Plan- qWINA14M AMENOMENT Ping-Staff Report was waived. HOy e .l,troduced lr Dale Kennedy, Carlson Companies, whose interest is In the discussion of Item No. 6 to the; October 1986 Planning Staff Report, Clarification of standards for, determining percentage of office use and occupancy in, buildings in the IP (planned industrial) D stri"ct. Chairian eteirwa#;iLoduced the Amendment and requested an overview :of the draft mendment b Coordinator It Con Mr,Kennedy stated Carlson Companies has to think about their needs; for future expansion and it is their opinion that they should be able to do this without having to go through;. the entire applicationcat, on process,.They contemplate conversion of warehouse space that may be office/ C% warehous nq 'that .has the required parking,, and where no change will be made to the outside of the building This, In ;their, opinion, should be able to be reviewed by the City without having to go through, the entir: approval. process. The time element is. the majo- problems becclose of the time consumed by legal. notice, Puol tc Hearing, and app ov4 by the Coftviss on and the City Council. Commissioner Plufka confirmed that Nr,, Kennedy ;:is not opposed to the City's review and approval, but is looking to shorten the time it takes by allowing more admr itr ative discretion., Mr. Kennedy stated the time element is impor- tant and City staff could rev.lew t'he proposal and make their redoome dations Ch.al.,man Steigerwald inquired how the City could handle this Page 203 October, 8 1 planning Commission Minutes reviewed nd approved b he fel. renin Commission and l Council, or if City staff : review and approval can be granted. The Commission should move on, the Amendment, but Iar flca insi that those e , sting b ildings with pending plans for changing the character and use of the building , wl;l.l, be subject to',existing requirements. Director Tremerestated these' can ` e revieweded on a se-by- ea :e basis,. New requirements 'would not be applied to exist- Ing proposes now being r vl.ex ed. Commissioner Wire stated he does :not want to obstruct the review of plans, such as those now by'Carlsonproposed Companies. e is in favor of the lanr uage` in the C r i nanee as it is,, and believes- if there is no Conditional Use per- ml, here s pct,`:ro He suggests fere be ' further discussion regarding administrative approval of Conditional Use Perini s#. NOTION by Commissioner Pluf a, seconded. by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE to lberg to recommend adoption of Draft Amendment No 6, AMENOWNT NO,. clarifying the standards elating to the calculated pereen - ageof 'of'floe use and occupancy in buildings In the =f-1 p tinned ndus trial is rio as presented int, tine October 3, 1986 Planning Staff Report, Roll Cail Vote. i Ayes. Mg ON carried. VOTE -MOTION CARRIED Chairman Steigerw1ald introduced Mr, Douglas. R. Schroeder, ORDINANCE AWROWNT 5230 'Vicksburg sane, who stated his interest n the draft 4 onI _j Ordinance Amendment No. 4 of ' the October 3, 1986 Planning Staff Report, Mr, Schroeder inquired °why the City, is opposed to large .lot, "Hobby Farms" in the FF0 (future restricted development): Dis r ct? lie : has a hobby farm and teas read the State law drafted In W82. He has ho problem with the Clty,ls l,n.vol.vemen t as far ' as determinat * on of reasonable access and roadways., but to say that the parcels Involved must be at least 20 acres, is to say there won't be hobby farms. lie does not understand this opposition. ter. Schroeder Is is ingconcernedthatthisamendmentwillfurther "cement" existing regulations which could male the process of changing ;theregulations City Policy more difficult. e stated he has a -,draft of the Me ropolltan Council devel.opmen ria ework and that their goidellnes suggest a density of ori dwelling per 10 acres is a good standard for rural areas discussionor ensued andhairm. n Ste4gerwald inquired about page g October 6 Planning Commission Minutes Director Tremere explained the history of the Ui,baa Develop - merit Policy. He stated the City not changiAg philosphy or' ; Tf:e cl rify ,ng mendmen reflects the current policy and State law as sated. Commissioner Plufka stated th,it translation of this Policy into the Code is appropriate., Mr.,, Schroeder stated he reviewed as RI s chance o. raise this as a policy issue, It is his opinion the City should doll, with this now. Chairman eige wal,d "advised r. Schroeder that this am iad- mens will move forward to, the City Council and he should cheek, with City staff for the date of that meeting. Commissioner S ul.berg stated It wo rl s be helpful to see the exact statement that would be inserted in the Ordinance-. He stated he supported the proposed clarification, but 'that' it would help the Commission and other interested parties to see the ;exact language prior to adoption, MOTION by`ommi:s ,loner Pluf a, seconded by Commissioner WTION To,.APPROVE 44el en to recommend approval of Draft Ordinance Amendment AWNOW T O_ No. 4, clarifying of minimum,lot area and width req° Airrements for parcels in the FRD (future restricted devAopm n ) District as presented, and, that, the final Ordinance lang- uage shall be reviewed by the Commission prior to City Council consideration.. i.on. Chairman St i.gerwald stated that Mr. Schroederls concerns about the Urban Development Policy and the status of "hobby farms in the rural area could be discussed by the Planai.ng Commission and City Council at a future point meeting. He told Mr. Schroeder to contact- City staff periodieall.y to confirm 'the date and time of that joint meeting, since It is a public meeting,,,, so .he could provide; Input" The ' current ao aon is to provide the public with,clear understanding of current policy and jaw, and is not viewed as an obs ruc- i.on o future oonsid ra ion of the'Policyicy itself. Roll Call. Vote.. 7 Ayes..., MOTION carried. VOTE - KfIO-N.CARRIED Chairman Steigerwald Introduced, Draft Amendment No,. I from ORKHAWE A NDMENT the October 3, 1983 Planning Staff 111eport., 11, MOTION by Corionisszoner Magnus, seconded by Commissioner 140TION To, ;APPROVE St lberg to 'recommend approval of Draft; Ordinance Amendment No. 1, reclassl:fioatlon. o'f, two-family d et inns from a conditional, to, permitted use in the R-2 (_low density Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried,. VOTE )~.AI0#4 CARRIED Page 206 October 6, 1986 Planning Commission minutes Chairman texgerwal.d Introduced Draft Amendment No. 2 in the ORDIKV4CE AWNUMENT, October, , 1986 Planning Staff Report, Commisstuiler Plufka stated his concern of the development of two a y twel Ing for one lot within the t area of primarily single, family hones. It would be uncharacteristic of the eritire nei hborhood. He stated he could rot vote for this amendment in light of the in -fill developrP,,,nta that can occur in the R-2' Zoning Districts and,, that the Conditional Use Permit requirement is necessary In these cases. Director Tremere and Coordinator McConn noted the R-2 Zoning District contains Residen ial planned Unit Developments that have this protection built in under the orliginal approvals through the requirement of a general development plan. Director Tremere questioned what is being accomplished by requiring the Conditional, Use Permit In : the R-2 Zoning District if the structure meets the lot size requirements. Further d1seussion ensued regarding neighborhood concerns and the fact that not that few lots remain in the R-2 Zoning; Districts which could be affected. Direotor Tremere pointed out that this amendment Is formulated as a part of ; the Council direction for streamllning the Ordinance, and development application process. Re suggested that an: effective date couId be set., this would allow these lots already platted, to develop: in accordance with current Ordinance provisions. View lots would be subject to the new MOTION by Commissioner plufka,, seconded by Commissioner 140TION TO APPROVE tulberg to r oommend approval of Ordinance Amendment No. 2j AWNDMENT no. 2 reclassifying, two-family' dwellings from a conditional to peg*ra tted arse in the -'2 low den4ity multiple family residence) District as presented,. adding that this language becomes effective for lots in subdivisions approved after January 't 1 1987. Roll Call Vote ¢ 7 Ayes. MOTION, carried. VOT, MOTIOIN CARR.IEO Chairman Steigerwald introduced Or -aft Ordinance Amendment AMENDMENT 3,11n, the October 3, M6 Planning Staff Report. 0. Commissioner Wire stated his concern about the future of existing single family homes in the R-3 and Rye Zoning . Districts which would no longer be allowable uses. Comnis:sibrrer Plufka noted that if the property abuts a lower den s^lt - zoning district, bethjepro/p er r^ t}y i ( could yy ( rrie zoy rting iA..tt e'erA 4'FaV d, .4.kFt1#4.e.S« 4e a3:2*fi M4J6.Ml Ht4.' case of a single lot created by metes and bounds where reasonable I use of the land may be a basis for rezoning*. October 8, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes There are opportunities td address this at ,the time Of Plat- ting and plann'ri for any remnant pieces; Also, through Unit evel pme- atf all types of haus tla are ; allowed. Commissioner Wire noted his concern for any homeowner whose . fananc al situation could be impacted by this amendment, MOTION by Commissioner Magnus, seconded by Commissioner 1 ZION AP , V pauba to approve Draft Ordinance Amendment o , deleting. I ANC A NOWT single, a za 1y d ell.n s as allowable (conditional) uses in Q. the R- (medium derisIty multiple family residence) and R- hioh density multiple residence) D stricts as presented, Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE MOTION CARRIED Chairman Steigerwald introduced Draft Ordinance Amendment ORDINANCE AMENOMEXT No., in the October 11 1966 Planning taff Report, No.. 19OTI by ommissxoner tu.lber , seconded . b; Chairman APPROVE tei erwald to recommend approval for Ordinance Amendment No. 5 as presented in the October 31 1986 Planning Staff Report, prc va,d'Ln j rc r standards for temporary advert nc signs for ca.v lc groups In all Zoning istriats as, presented* l3V7W }-i F 7 Ayes, bTi N cr r ie wRo '..+ ,u Call 19TF- - MOTION CARRIED Chairman telger rald introduced Draft Ordinance Amendmc rrt TINA AMENDMENT din, 7 in the October 3, 1986 Pjannjag,Staff Reports ND* 7 MOTION by Chairman to Berwald,. seconded. by Commissioner WTION TO APPROVE p.lufka to defer- consideration of the review of the list of allowable uses in all Zo ning Districts to coordinate with the direction from the City Council concerning the stream- lining of the application prooe„s.4 Roll Call Vote. i Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED Chairman Steigerwald introduced ta.i- Draft Ordinan".,e Amend- DRAT ORDINANCE meat provided to the Co!,jj)a.sston concerning fences ' and LA lifi E.Ea ES AND walls, The draft is, provided to help, clarify the Ordinance WALLS lntuacen etxcnD regarding fences and walls in resp dential djstrjcts. This evolved from a mis, nterpvtatiOn Cif the Ordinance by a; c ti en who erected a fence in the re- ua,red from yard and City right-of-way on a corner lot. Co a B oner Plu ka stated he sees no problem with this amendment, but suggested that it be reviewed by the Board of nedZoning; Adjustments And Appeals. Director T'remere explained, the amendment was recommend d by the Board Char pan, and a copy will be sent to ham prior to Council consideration- Pegs 208 NMI 1 x:986, P nnin Commission inures 4mo -TION ommissio r Pl J seconded y mm ssi ner ilre OV to recommend approval o the Ordinanee language for Section IN Subdivision 01, Fences and ells as presented- In the, October,, , Jan- _1 n Staff Lipo t Poll Call -Vote.. Ayes. N parried, T - H , CARRIED MOTION y Chairman SteigerwaId, seconded by Commissioner:ON PlUfka that the record slew -it was the consensus of til oMission that ` the Ply Hearing for discussion 1)f the Site Ptan, and Conditional Use Permit f or Alpha Human Services, Inc. is to be continued on October 22, 1986 Vote, 7 Ayes,, MOTION carried. VOT M, OTION CARRIED: ADJOURN"T The meeting, d our ed. at 10130 P.M.