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.