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.