Loading...
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.