HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 02-10-1988CITY OF "L
ACOMMH M S
RMARY 1988
all was,
1 " AE-q.T r r Paub 'o t o ir
arrived t 14M. % t ,
r -tif s y and Tierne,
MRS h i A n r S b r
Imunit° RESENT* p
Ol l.r Tremere
Associate Planner
City Fnqlneer Chet arr Oil
Planning r,, ti Wineman
n -t -k i" arofs4! 3 t ltti k tm }#d T € e,OVE
i #1 it Sfiitf#
TOOT iiAP
Approve, the MIj for z1inuary 2 7 , 11,9163 h th
fo ll o r n —r"
Motion
0 1d
yin stnapprove
ndd
y} ed S ow
cr n t n r 1)a b secondee b Comion r u b rg,
OTE* '.. "F ': i4 ke KFI ii 4 M1, T ril r,.r ' +6'Fi t t tt ,. MT+2NIe A. kba i=af'
t'j a n p uba introducedPlann nq Commissioner 3o
pnznted b the Citi_ cin c vacancy
I b nr r h lrolan pawl e r a d
HEARINGS
hairilan p k a n rnd d. t r. `t: by Daniel and £dee IXMERTES
stn r the Uwilry , 1 staff report t WNTAW Mr
was pr"Ovide d yttn ottingha:nj
Ch airman, # u d Rs4., n ha " Or r pte
se n h p i do r, t ..har xp Aned the request
and sated h eine ddi ionalL n Vi l r d n would
n rt t t t a ' b nelphb rbc d that .; seemed
h rpr rr r ay In bt b
oil -the
den ' Gould bo Oh the property, ter r
not ' r t the h t o dt the ho' m than the
t ot 1,0" ' he'perce.1veo it,jr wa s part of his prop,p*tY,
s. h r. fa ct b r n pro,,val, for the Loi ivislon
h . d. r n opAe me k `systems th fir* and Mrs,",
Mertes, w e l d" b deprived 14 the highest and best u o
theirr prop r . , KiPP,r a` , v r rent ran d", The are
Page 29,
Planning Commission Minutes
February ' 0, 198
concerued that the 'vacant" portion of their property would
rema aj an ':eyesore" as It was not landscaped to tae part of
the yard area for the existing residence.
Ms. Kular preserntod the Planning Commission with let(ers.
from ome neighboring residents who support the -Mertes'
request but Who could 'not -attend the meeting. She .il.so
cited Ordinanoe variance standards a -id bow the, request
complied (Mote; the request. is not for a variance)'
Mr. Daniel Mertes explained that he bought has home two and
one-half years agog he dial not know the 11- acalit" area was
part of his property; he was not shown a plot plan, or site
layout and he believed that another home would be built on
this "vacant lot."
Chairman Pauba stated that it seemed unusual that a property
owner would riot be aware of the lot dimensions when buying a
home. He explained the POO Attributes which include opera
space" and the retention of s: to characteristics and natural
vegetation*-, these were considered when this. development was
reviewed and approved.
Commissioner Marofsky inquired about rear yard set ac*sl
Planner Cottingham eonf3rmea' the requirement for the Ordin-
ance minimum of 25 ft,
f Chairman Pauba opened the POlic' Hearing.
Mr. Bob Carlson, 4 I5 Cottonwood Lane, lives directly north
of the Mertes' property <and selected his home because of the
larger lots and aesthetics of this neighborhood. He waA
told at the time he purchased his property that remaining
open space would not be developed. He stated that the
unimproved portion of the Mertes property i s an "eyesore"
Mr. Carlson- stated that th,e nelghborhood' residents who wrote
In support of the het Division applicatioa are not directly
affected by this proposal. He does not support the Mertes'
request,
Mr.. Ronald Fvrl.ong, 11420 42nd Avenue Morth. stated he
opposes the Lot Division. Wt stated that the peti ti.oner I s
contention' that; portions of lots in the neighbdrhond are not
useable 1a incorrect; for example, be uses a portion. 'af his
property for a Winter sports arca and the views. from the
homes to the natural open areas are valuable to the resi,
dents. He believes the unimproved portion of the Mertes'
property could be better maintained. ,
He, is concerned that Mr. and Mrs,, Mertes are represented by
legal, counsel, whereas, the neighbors who wish to pretder.t
the character of this neighborhood .have not had the time to
seek legal, representation, or to formally est<abl.ish a
position.
ki o 30,
Kenninq Cc)oimissionMinute,
Chairman a. ha Inquired If the residents have an' active
fomeAwn.. 'Associat to i Mr,,Furlong tilt d they have &I
Assoolationj ; but it has been d-) 0 t Vv e
NorthAvenueKathyEnolarl114101421ndstatedshe "hos lived
In, her home' three year$, and wasalso 'gold that the larger
lots h this One would, not be ivid and there ,
would h t ther c n trV ` 0R* ih tthat
unimproved e t n o tt-rt-e.51 r op ' L lfor'
and she concexr,ned about property values., She aeleoltO
her home bombe of the lamer lots and open space
to Hearinqha;mkart Pana closed the Putil.
MOTIOR by Commissioner Zyjjaj and d by Commissioner MOTION TO DMY
I ka to recommend d rlial o the ann d Un t o vo m t
thrArndmtaidLotDivisionforthe reasons cited n
the, %nuary, 28 196 staff report,
w ar x stated that the fac - that r. rte
finds the, man nan tai the n , rov d portion of his
t b Ener , Is not a rati n: fog r -
r nn a ha m auha staffed that 'royal ,d sed
an nd ra :thin a ,Planned -Unit v6-
and, that base improvements, can be made to,the roperty to
enbance the value,. of theTr p r t t the owner,, A o l the
a rov d d n it fir thy, d ve mo"nt I the ma Imk M.
11 C4 I I Vo, to # Ayes M1 Darn d . CARRIED
Chairman Pa ha In trodueed the request by AlHamell Cauqbah AL HAWL
ma aktthatfnd tin and h LANDjr
the t t r n response- d.j tjon g n by the Pian- E ONXWo. AR'
n m a n at h hl Haring held on ; c k r 4
d "
i 1 R `
Con, llss-it fl r Zy I. ja inquired ablut' the r rt eto 4 Vari-
anit,Ole-. . t "+ I"k r' s` nafta t ,1 C tt ngh r
and that thnh and Coach homes are platted asow
psearat t, an df which d4)ot tb t o public r ad a r
hiobo d-;.. *?, C n tr'..ied ' '`:.'"7.K„1 `im . ` Ll, §
dards— hrr. the have tra t
r I th r. townhouse plats. have been 'approved which are
Ilar itua d *
mr n arof stated 'h ntjnn' concern rep. d-
ad atarkjng, n a b. h ; parking pays behind
the garages Hejs concerned about s taf f int rpr tate o
the par kinq r qcj r mnt and bel v the delineation o
Trr l k. tan a; "k t G o ot,v;
for t ark n Ther alsq a of oty, bon l6 rat on j
Paw I I-
o;lanni:ng Commission Minutes
February 10, 198
where a unit owner could be blocked from leaving: the gars
a e. He believes there is avai.lab}e area dor additional
parking, and it should be shown. He bel.ievm i there is area:
avallabl.e for striped/designated parkinn which could ` sure--
stantiall.y increase the parking for the coach home and town„
home units_.
Commissioner plufka inquired whether there would be a prod-
le;n fitting a vehidle wi.trhtn the concrete curbs behind the
garages, In areas where the buildings are offset.
Discussion ensued regard.inq alternative parking.
Planner Cottingham explained the Ordinance parking require-
ments. If the Commission and Council have specific concerns
regarding; the Ordinance minimum parking standards for resi-
lentil development this should be addressed as an Ordinance
amendment
Mr, Al Hamel: stated that the buildings are staggered to
reduce the "row effect" for this development, The Commis-
sion's direction for changes to thedevelopment plan were
ac(-(, nplished by reducing the density; providing parking for
the coach _ hcmes that exceeds the Ordinance standards, and,
two parking stalls in the attached garages for the
tc wnh mes
Commissioner M'arofsky reiterated his concern is the lack of
effective quest parking and the distribution of that guest
parking.
Discussio;i ensued regarding parking provided to similar
developments by Gaughan Company.,
Com ssioner Plu.fk.A stated that the parking stalls behind
the garages for thy; townho: ies, in many cases, will not' con-
tain a. vehicle catlis ng it to, protrude into the drive. With
the staggered effect of the buildings and the internal
islands, it makes ik difficult for veh"cies to traverses
Mr. camel. stated this can be modified, there is 6a ft. from
4rage- to-qr rage, allnw ng adequate spore for parking and
maneuvering,
t
The Commission discussed parking design for recent townhome
developments.
Commissioner Wire stated he is also concerned with the prob-
lem of parking distribution and recalled the Commission's
discussions at the Public Hearing regardingt the distribution
E. of amenities,specific-ally for the apartment building, and
r the lack of avallablt green space.
r.
page l32
lannlrlg commission Minutes
February 10 9
Mrs Hamel explained that they proposed a tennis court: on the j
original plans, however, in losing a number of units to 1
minim'ze the density to provide additional, open space, they
cannot afford to construct this. amenity,
Commissioner Marofs y noted'his previous concern regarding
the 64 ft piece of property to the south of the proposed
Lot 61 He does not understand the rationale of the
property, ownce ab(,,-I. having this, ,and suggests, that it be
platted as an out' txi he consolidated with proposed Lot 6
at such t1.me as It . R.AI(: be considered for development.
Conaissi.on r Marofs y sucge5ted this extension piece be past
of the oriclinal, owner's property, ie.,, proposed Lot 61
Commissioner plufka stated it would not be appropriate for
the City to interpose between parties who are buying and/or
selling property. Mr. Hamel:said it would be problematical
to do that.
Director Tremere discussed decisions made regarding other
C ',,exception parcels The language of Homeowner Association
covenants and bylaws do account for open soacek then, if
there Is a lack of upkeep and maintenance that diminishes,
the aesthetic value of the area, the City can hold the
Association accountable to provide that upkeep.
f
On the question of future consolidation, the property owner
i is a party to this plat; ands thore :is a general Development
planh-ich..is always require in these cases L
k
Al Hanel stated that Mrs. Fullmer, the property owner
indicated where she wanted her .tot lines located; the 64
ft. piece contains trees she wished to retiin, but it is riot
to be part of her let.
i
Commissioner Ma:rof sky s ated plat tir4g the extension as ata 1
outlot would not answer the problems it appears it should be
combined with the proper`t'y i tained by Mrs. Fullmer`.
Al Hamel inquired if it ; is the consensus that he "give back
the property." They have closed on and paid for this
property, Commissioner ' arofskc - questioned how this could
be, ,lnce the plat was not. approved. Mr. Hamel said the
deeds had been drawn, h,.t not filed.
Director Treimere stated there are two issues; the present
proposal for platting the property and fc.ture development of
yrs. Full.mer's property, which should to shown ars a General
Development plan. Commissioner Plufka stated he recalls
seeing this plants
Coinm.issioner Marofsky stated that the dimensions of this
parcel Wnder the one acrominimum) would constrain future
development, and would actually constitute a variance, now,
since the City is being asked to "create" the 10L Y,14
plrattng_ .
Page 33
Planning Commission Mum
February 11G, 114M
Director Tremere agreed and explained that, from a platting
aspeotx the exception parvel caq be lategratedl however,
from a design standpoint, development could be constrained
Unless firs, Fullmer° s propely were enlarged to meet Orlon-
enoe standards. He explained that the integration of the
coul.d be ac,!!o' the Ho teowne s Associationlh{e,,d
pmpl jby
y
pi}
d/,#
ry+(covenantsand
Com-nissioner Zyj1a believed that from a planning standpoint
rand consolidation should be encouraged, rather than foster -
Ing another substandard site whic"i could be difficult to
develop.
Commissioner ltarnf kv stated this could be problem tical
once the development is complete, and in place for some
years; and, that the single 'yam! ly dwelling is a non-
onf€ rming use in this Zoning Distriot,
Director Tremere statedthat prior to Final Plat approval.,
specific direction should be provid o i elative to drafting
documents to be reviewed by the Cly Attorney that would
reflect the concerns discussed.
1.1 Preservation of the single family home.
2.) Integration of the property with the multiple
dwelling site, i.e., at least an assurance that it
could be integratedted, in- the - future when the current
use ceases
3. Platting Lot 61 as an outlot, to facilitate late-
gration and/or to inhibit speculative alternative
uses of the Lot whaoh is substandard,
Mr. Hamel stated the home is relatively retie and it would not
seem plausible that someone would want to grove the home cuff
the property and build a 4-plex.. However, he has no problem
with platting this land, an outl.ot, and developing reasonable
cavi tnants
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner Plufka OTION TO APPROVE
to recommend approval for the Rezoning and 'Pr liminary Flat REZONING AND,
subject to the eight conditions listed in the January 26, PRELIMINARY PLAT
188 staff report, adding Condition No. 9 Lot 61 shall be 670 71
t platted as an outlot; and, the status as. a site for the
existing rmm -conforming use shall b6 legally documented,
including rotation of the ,intent that the land eventually
should be made pari of the adjacent property.
Roll Call Vote 6 Ayes, MOTION carried, VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTION by Commissioner Wire} seconded by Commissioner Zylla NWON TO APPROVE
to recommend approval for the Site plan and Condi.timl. Use SITE, P AND
Permit, sdbjeot to the,,condi.tions as: listed in the January COMITIONAL 0SE
1988 staff repu t
PaQP 34
Planning: Commission Rioutes
February 101, WS
Cozssi.on r Plufka rei-ter,ted his concerns - regardi.ng the
distribution for effective quest ,parking and those parking
stalls behind the: garages} especially those which could be A
barrier to vehicles entering the area at the major entrance
to l.he- site.
MOTION by Commissioner Wire seconded by Comm:,ssi.oner Zy,lla MOTION TO A
to Amend the Motion to add Condition Nq, 14. The 4 -unit
townhoae to the north shall be rel.o cated to accomodate the
landscaped islands 20 ft. beyond the nearest garage and the
aisle width shall, be preserved
AY Hamel confirmed that this would be 20 ft. beyond: the
closest garage for all, buildings, with the required, drive
aisle width being maintained.,
Roll Call Vote on Amendmeti't, 6 Ayes., MOTION carried. VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO AHEND
Marofs y to Amend the Motion to add Condition No. 15; The
low elevation north, of the apartment bvilding site shall be
filled, consistent with the requirement's of the City's
mineering Department, to gain m re use of the site.
Roll Cali. Vote. 6 Ayes.' MOTION carried. VOTE -- MOTION' CARRI:
Motion by Commissioner Marof sky to amend the Motion to add
41"ondition No., l&. Five adds. onal parking stalls to be
added for the townhomes in tho southwest quadrant. Motion
died for lack of s!cond.
Roll Vote Main Motion as twica Amended. 5 Ayes. Commis- VOTE ON MAIN MOTION.
sinner Na.rorsky, Nay. AS TWICE AMEM—ED
aT KON CARRIED
Commissioner Marofsky ,noted his ooncern' with the current
old Xenium Lan." ex.'
s+ ,
directly' into County_ Road 4. The - heCityCityCouncilshouldpursuethecampleta,on of "new" Xenium
Lane because of the increased traffic and 'hazards that could
make the City liable. Commissioner plufka, concurred.
OTHER Eili "CSS
Direct)r Tremere- outlined the purpose of the special. analy- REVIEW O
sis of the City parking requirements for retail uses and for P'RELItiXNARY DRAFT
B-Z District shopping centers. The study was authorized by PARKING STUDY
the City Council last fall and the costs are being. under
written by several develop+ient interests. The study is
being coordinated through the Community Development Depart-
ment and the analysis includes= current 'Field, data from
retail and shoppinq establishments in the Twin Cities metro- etro-
politanpolitanarea,, i ncl,udi.nq ;Plymouth.
iia tie 5
Planning Commission 'Minutes
February 10, 1
me explained that the purpose of tzte dis ussion -now is t
htaln quest olis or request: for further information from
the Commission so that the consultants can finish the report
and meet with the Commission to explain it in `detail.
Chairman Pauba asked if the gentleman present was the
consultant; Director Tremere stated that the consultant was
unable to clime and that the gentleman preser't was Mr. Al
r chactman representing Ryan Construction Company.
Commissioner Wire stated he had read the report and
generally agreed with its fled nqs and observations., ations. Ne
stated he was concerned with the recommendation of revising
parki.nq lot destgn standards, especially with respect to
stall widths. He said his particular concern has been and
continues to be that, the Ordinance assure a minimum .level
of parking that ivill be adequate ovetty time; since uses
change,
Director Tremere explained that the purpose of the analysis
vas to determine whether the established Plymouth standards
were valid for the broad range of retail and shopping center
uses; and,, the study is not based on the assumoti;on that" the
standards need to be reduced.
C oimmissi.oner Plufka commented .Chau with respect to width of
parking stalls, he had observed that the stall widths at:
Byerly's grocery stores were particularly accommodatinq.
Utector Tremere commented that information developed during
the study indicates that this is due to the desires of the:
Byerly' s ownership and does not Part i- lilarly reflect stand-
ards in the various communities < where the storey are
located.
Commissioner Dire reiterated his concern that the dimensions
of a parking bay should be the only requirement of an ordin-
ance; thereby allowing the developer to stripe a lot in any
fashion.
Extensive discussion ensued' regarding the appearance impact
of parking lots throughout the City; and that this was just
as important as the function of the parking lots -
Discussion focused on the summary portion cf the report,
particularly as to widths.
Commissioner Mar°ofsky Mated concern with the statement on
page. 33 that. `.hr. data shown olarifies a ratio of 5 spaces
per 1,000 sq. He said this should be clarified since it
I s doubtful it Is applicable for all uses:.
Page
Planninq Commission Minutes
February 10, i9
Commissioner plufka stated that he cons1dered the "proof -of -
parking" requirements of the Ordinance to be critical, and
4ha C o SwE d4 L SF t CV[R M aiiS ndiiFen i? h City's arki n
standards should riot be based upon the desire to create more
buildable land or to allow more intense occupancies. H
explained ghat all properties, should be held accountable for
the full complement of parking as determined by reasonable
st.andarjs which Plymouth apparently h,a. He said that,
while flexibility was. Important, as in the recognition of
various types of uses, caution should be used in establish- stab ish-
inpingnew minimums,, espeoi z ly where Jt has not been
demonstrated the existing minimums are unreasonable.
Director Tremere stated that some developers wil.11 talo the
view that only the parking needed for the specific initial
use should: be provided. The current, Ordinance states that
parking should be calculated based upon the most intense use
that could gG into the building. Installation of 4 portion
of the minimum required parking may be : deferred, but the
plan mast be provided whi,oh show , the full complement can be
provided on the site,
Commis loner Plufka. 'stated that he, does not want to take. the
chance having inadequate partInq ora sites in the ions-
run because inadequate stand-irds were adopted,,, or because
tproofl-of- park3lnq" was not required.
liurina further, discussion, Commi,ssiorter Mar ofsky stated that
perhaps the Ordinancecould provide for a "two- tient
approach for various uses where' a minimum standard would be
adopted with an ihdi.cation ;of the desirable minimum which
should` be installed. The margin between the two min .mums
would effectively be, the "proof -cif -parking".
Comi.ssa.oneNr Pluft*a sated that open space should b
considered" as well when requests are made to defer instal- n talwlationlationofsubstantialamountsofminimumparking., He said
that, specifically, the City should "trade" landscaped opera
space for deferred pavement.
It was the consensus o1= the Commissioners to have staff
relate the concerns and comments to the consultant and to
arranar a stud session where the consultant could discuss
thedfinal report In detail.
1rectot Tremere reviewed the status of the study and the CV0,11"'WN, 1 W Y-13ASED
planning Commissi an' s direction., He ;aid that the Co mi NTI;AL
sloe had indicated a desire to meet with the Community Task PACILITIES
Force 'wh ch .had been appointed' to advise the oonsultantl
and, the ^ommisslor" 11 -tad ,discussed the feasibility of sending
the City Council some prel.t,In;iry findings and questions
whichi when answered,, would. provide d .rectivs to the Commis-
sion for specific action relative to possible amendments to
the Comprehegsive Plan and City Code,
The mclills jourtie at 1 * 0 P.M*
k.