Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 11-19-1986CITY OF PLYMOUTH PLAMING, C ; T S ON MINT $ t-wcwn, 119S6 The Rett lr Meet nq of the Plymouth Planning Commission was Bled to order at 7134 P.M. VIce, Chair t n 1 aubal Comm. ,sooner Wirer H" ;gnus, Plufka and Mellen Chairman Stt, 1)er d arrived P, M ABSENTS Co m i.oner t lberq S.TAFF PRESENT-Commonxt Development Coordinator Sara MoCona City Enqjneer Sherm. Co dherq Perks, Rec eati n 4re'tor rio 81ank Community Dere gpmenrt Director Blair Tremere Planning, Secretary,Grace Winem n CONSENT A MOTIOR by Commissioner, W Seconded by Commissioner Magaus, I -PN, TO, APPROVE to adopt the Consent Age,. assubmitted. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED Aye4*1 MOTION carried. NINES NOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by to m ssioner 3hlaqnus 00TION TOAPPROVE to approve the October , 1986 and November 5, 1986 Minutes,, as submittedi Vete. 5, Ayes. MOTION carr led on approval for October Z I 1986 Minutes. Vote. eyes* tY1,0TION carried on approval for November VOTE MOTION CARRIED 1986 Minutes, Commissioner Plufka Ab tained. WARING Vice Chairman Paul)a introduced the request by Image Homes.. IMAGE, HOW$ and *requested n overview of the October 7, 1986 Planninq R.0001 CONCEPT PLA Staff Report by Coordinator MoConn.IMIC.NARY PLANIPLAT REZONING- AND Coordinator Mof.onn introduced P r sh Recre tion Director COWITIONAL USE Frio Blank, who e p -wined ; the, , ooatzon and size of il; MST($608 anticipated parkland. He responded to the neighborhood input,. ashe explained the Cit l. wish to,preserve the pond- r r incl part of the parts and th need for better public. access to the party, Re reviewed the unique configuration and topography of the area Pace 251 Planning Co nissio 1-11nute November 19, 198 Chapman SteiQ rwald introduced Tim Erkkila, Westwood. Plan- ning & Eng neerinq who described the site- awned by the Cita of Plymouth. He noted` the City has encouraged them to pur- sue the development as a Planned Unit Development-., and,have- discourag d separate -development plans for the twoparcels The City desires to have the! -'e parcels, develop at the same time. The amenities as discussed In the staixf ,.w,xort are locate:! for the most part on the north and west wide this property Baas mature trees. and contains the ponding area D 'h' the developere'had agreed to retain as ta arkl and . In designing the la;;t,-ut for the north side, they noted the norchriest side of this property has a rugged terrain, and much of . the , existing vegetation . and mature trees are containedin this area. it was their opinion that multi- family dwellings would be inappropriate; that 32 single Family dwelling units would be more suitable and desirable from a marketing tandpo,int that multi -family units' would eta-ve the same impact can the propetty as single family dek iche l dwellings and, that the singie family homes;' would he more in cho- aeter with the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposal is for 77 single family detached units, 32 on the north sides 45 on the south, The ;clans preserve the amenities, existing vegetation, and provide the- roadway system per Cit s - andards, Mr.. Frkkita stated their plans give much more than what was given credit for in the Plan- raing Staff deport. it is their opinion they have developed - a good pian, especially for the property on the south sine. He explained the constraints which ige.lude limited access, the lot size and lot width as proposed are within • 9% of comparable lots in the adjacent development He believes the lot 'r.ontages, are more expansive than those lots in surrounding developments The development plans which include the S acres: for park- land,, establishes their compliance with the expected Planned Unit Development (PUD) Attributes. However, they are will;. ng to work with Director Blank and City staff regarding the changes needed per the Park Director's November 7, 1956 memorandum., Mr. Erkk.i la believes it is questionable that a 45 lot sub- division should be required to provide private open space in, addition to the, land granted For public park purposes He st~atcl that even though this philosophy may have st.me validity, it coulr oecome a burden to the home owners I lace 255 lann.inq ollw,1 ,Aon Minutes November 19y, 1986 will not develop for at 'least another 5 years., She believes been the intent of the Planning ComMissio.n and City Counoil that the area south of County Road 61 be developed with single family residences, but the tiri osals made by Sohn faros, and now by Image Homes, can in no w=ay provide comparable housing to that in titre existing neighborhoods, because the lets are too small. The south side has 'swamp and flood plain and would provide no play area. The proposal. shows no retention of trees in the southeast portWn, s; Brownell read Into the record, a ,letter from Pegg' Schaefer, a Plymoutn resident wio opposes this development proposal. lits. Schiefer states the lots are too small, and the development should he similar to. the Westminster devel- opment* It is her opinion the City should stand by the original plans for the area. She noted tier concern for the children and the lack of play areas,* and, th( City park is tido close to privat ly owned land. Will. Neurteister, Westwood Pl nninct, reiterated their plan to save as many trees as possi,b that are not; located in future streets or frontage. Hill Ciora, 3045 Rosewood Lane,, stated he objects to the development because the density is too high, especially ctn the south side. It is. his opinion` the rum -rs are inac- ourate. regarding lot i e and wAdth. He wants the unit number reduced to fat in with ire existing neighborhood. Deleting 6 to S dwelling units would' impr uve the pla€, Higher 4vit ity next to Westminster is not acceptable. Westminster lacks recreational ar ,;a- and perhaps would. not be, approved today. He pointed ottt there is much more existing vegetation than is :tthown on the plar,s. He is concerned about the requested sethaQks which could cause the homes to be on top, of each other. He read from the Planning Commission. Mirl..tes regarding the d velop.ttent; proposal by John Karo.s, and statements by rhe Chairman regarding lot si .e ar d layout which l:eaves, no 11elbow room". Commissioner Rlufka concurred with Mr. C,iora it that the site has more vegetation tAan what is shown or the ;clans. Tim Ctkkila stated that tree in this area are lesser quality species and fast growing, such as Boxelder. This site lack's the door -rant vegetation found on th,, north side. The tree, , s4.trround a depression and do not relate to the development plan. Page Planning.Comm1 ssion Minutes November if '1 i Paul laldon - os o stated he liv Heritage Estates and is ti n w resident In., Plymouth. tie stated the vegetation on the north s-ide consists,of oek and apple trees and that c ostructio multi -Family dwellIn s here would not save hese trees*' ' He 'stated this area is 'prime single family residetttial 'realestate and, 11t v uld be waste. to o str # t multi-atmily dwellings. Arlene 3ohnson 3535 Rosewood Uine stated she is also concCl!lhe about the children havlr (to '.cross County Road 1. 1hey conveyed their concerns, about cross :ung to French Park and were told 'there was.' no chance of stop st ns as thec- traffic hasto move. This development, will have just as many problems with access to the park. Their nelghborl oo has been promised a park for years. She noted her ;nei nbor- hood got along without public pari by people ; puttlog swing, sets in their yards., She, dlsoussed the mini -pari that w'ds defeated. She is concerned about losing more trees because the City chopped down many trees ; putting n County Poe 61,. an.0 this development plan should preserve the oak and maple Chairman Steilqerwald inquired abovit the pare access from the northwest* Director Blank stated they have purchased the 3 t. corridor r a Ives ano.; Coordinator McGoon oo,inted out the access points. Clr state they are ` askinq relief from the higher la, Westwoodcod Plannin sated they da do't' want the sY ommission to get caught up in the City issues dor parKtand. The deve-lopmeot plan provides" the land requested', end they don't want to be the "whipping boy" for the park system. They wart, to move Forward with their Concept Plan, and defer the preliminary plat s a. e They will review the plans with the Parks and. Recreation advisory Comrtzissiort to clarify the issues I and will work with the plenning staff to clarify tiie lot size and width requirements. He feels they are very close to compliance with their plans ." uhrn ttedt The concept J's reasonable and shoed be appr Chairman to Berwald elosad the pub is le4rxno I Commissioner Pauba inquired about the feasibility for a foot bridge to, the parks or would the cost, he prohibitive? Director Blankstated this would. be Inornditily, e rpen-.Ave and in, most uses where they have been erected they are not used Commissioner Pauba noted his, concern that< the south stale has been short changed. Director Blank stated they, looked at,,going under the- road,, bu=t there is not enough, room. t Roll Call Vote.. 6 A « * NOTION earripci. VOTE MxMOTION CARRIED h4trman St lgerwald closed, the Pu.b.lo H ar Incl. graia iYrrrrri, TIIarr[c 'I i 'IWIriC .[.. .:, moor, *,IN Planning omariss ion Minutes November 191. 196 Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Ron Clark. PON CLARK n nq PreI I CONSTRUCTION M 1 far -trice for property east of 1-494- ,* t en um bane at N , PRELIMINARY 4th vet u Furth. He requested an, vervlew of the November PLAT AND VARIANCE jai X986 Planning Staf e b* Crior nator'McConn ha r an I introduced r. urs Peretz:, Prudential In sura#ice Clompdny. fir.; PentPentz stated they have submitted a Atter in response to- staff concerns. Mike Glair, Garr A ,Assoc at stated they have met with the property owners, fir# aria Mrs Richard entonl '5 X niu Lane North, sooth of the proposed elopm nt and have made the arranqements that will atjow them to maintain, their Acftli A Tt,,y ai,suaqree to the conditions as proposed,b City mut , Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public.Hearing14 Mr., Rilc`hard Svvievton asked why the petitioner t.ould not buy th._r pr} opertyll> tie stated they are sitting on an island r d innow, They have, bean a pi uaoh o b erson Irtt-r st h4trman St lgerwald closed, the Pu.b.lo H ar Incl. graia iYrrrrri, TIIarr[c 'I i 'IWIriC .[.. .:, moor, *,IN e Planning Commission, Minutes 986 c It auba c one e b Chairman HOT -10R, PROVE t• r the ci r lnc t jtjer vajd to, r l m nax fiat¢, Ron lark Construction Company, subject to, the Conditions. as listoa in the November 1 t $986 Planning,Staff Report. Ko A.11 Vote. VOTE MOTION CARRIED Chairman Steitierivald Introduced the request by Mork Austin WK AUSTM:S141114 mIth rot airsPlus". He requested an of the C WR L DILVELOPWNT November 12, 1986 .iann riot Staff Report by Coordinator PLAN AW -NOME , SITE; c o n i{1iry,. PUSE IpONDITAND j. ] PRMIj ha rma Ste r aic -ttro - tr. ark Smith*, 115, ,n Av out innn dol s, who .stared he kyou1ti, answer ars uest ons, h N&s rt a n c'onf`ute tth report* Chairman Ste iq rwa.d opened the uhil( earinq), as thorn was n this Item, th , fkW iP Hearinq gasnoonepresentt,v, spy. ok (Iy closed. lr{ , . v Commi-S ic ner aubOTInt* Ly j b} y{yj Genera OTION PPROVEde yh Lipo i. .r.-comilZi n 'F.A F"roves W tb{ 1. '1+x: 4t F6 Jw F, Development PlaCre -commend the Amendment, Site P.Jant Cond itIona, b use Perm*tt and Variance F,)r dark Austin Smith for "Tires Phu -s", scbje(n- to the conditions Its"'Cod IV, ZJ« Novem'r 121, 19R4 P141nain ,Staff Report Commissioner Plufka tnqui,rea about ter. Smith's reaction two the requirement of a covenant to be placed on the property regardinq limitations to the property based on available, arkin . q Mr, Smith stated lie has no problem placint this covenant on the property as he will he a tenant and hopes to do business t this location for quite some timoHe draftedthe covenant that was reviewed by, the City Attorney and is agars of the latent and purpose of that covenant, and wanks it for his own protection. He stated that, company officers for Tires Plus l aro present ani lar,s r any questions. This o res nn X11 1l v as will tete usin ss. to be run by "Harmon Glassy", and they ha,a also agreed to all the ot)nd tions Inclnq storm their fom n v h les Inside the building,,, 4 A Alf \x': MOTION carried. i.a ;F.:A OTION Ai .,+ S,' 4dw Y Page 261 Planning, mm ssion Hirlotos November 15, 1986 U B- MOTION by Commissioner Wire,, wounded by Commissioner Magnus AT&T COMUNICATIONS ; to a a rovcal of the Site Plan for ATT nmmunica- T tions i r the construction of an attashed qaraqt, to theTIO PPRO E principal building located northeast 0 f 15th Avenue North and nium` Lane,, subject o the oc nd-ior s al s d h November, 1 StS5 planning Staff epor . Vote. Ayes. t4f lION carried. VOTE - ON CARRIED HER 13USINESS The Planning Commission disouss d o er' l measur s that STFt MLINING THE, could be taken o s reaml "nu the dove a ' Pment rev i w and DEVELOPMNT PROCESS, approval, process. The sugq s Eons inlQJuded in the November 51 195 memorandum from commune yvelo rm nt it dor filaI tiemere, serv=ed as a basis for t he dioussion. mzssie1onr lufl;a oonf m-sa land uses designated as a oor litional use i lud nq, Planned Unit Developments would not be inoluded for administvative a Prov°al. A site plan for developments iia non-residential are -as of Planned 'On It bev to mens (PUD), one the PUD Plan had been considered in 4ieoordanee; 'With the ourren review p;*ooedures, ,rould be subject to tete same, administrative procedures and requlru rents as non -PURI s the finding would additionally be made that the propused plans were c:onsLis ent with the approved NO Plan.. ` Chairman Stell rwa,l,d eonfirmed that in; order to institute, revised oec duces for approval of sl' plans a pub i bearinq would he required to consider amendatory language to,,, the loftinq Orc l.nanee4. Chairman ,Steigerwald inquired sof the Commission whether a "hook" should be Included in the, pro, c duresa via a Planning Commission member rev..ewlinq those applications, wh1oh. would qual l' Tvt for administrative approval prior to such approval being granted. The Commission repre- sents the ci i ens .and should be aware of development.: Wvice that' same of the Orda n= o missioner ire expressed bi anoe standards a,re nut clear, such as l i ht inch l and questioned how compliance with the Ordinance would be deter -- mined administratively,, Ile suggested that the ap lioa ions$ which satisfy all the Ordinance requirements be processed through the, Commission, but ago be formal l y discussed. Cep ordinator MoConn explained the Planning Commission already operates with a consent, agenda for such Items., The oonsen agenda saes the petitioner time at the Planning Commission: meeting but does not substantially, reduce the uv rally time for processing, the appliCation, 1 ADJ"Nt NT The meet -Ing, djourneId at IOM -30 P.M.