HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 05-25-1988CITY P PLYMOUTH
L NN NC COMMISSION HIRUTES
MAY, 251,
The Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Planning C'orim.ission was
13 PAealledtoordera,
IMEIMS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Plufka, Ctoi niarofskyand
s+syiyoner
ryy
rne
Commissioner Wire arrived at 7830 p.
MEHMSS ANT Chairman Pauba
STAFF PSE T-. Comity Development Coordinator
Chuck Qzlleru
Commupity Development Director
Blair t remere
City Engineer Chet Harrison
Planning Secretary Tandy 'W'ard
MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner St;; -berg, seconded by ConT scion r MOTTON TO-APPRuVE
Tierney to approve the Hinut-s for May ll 198a as
submitted.
Roll Call Vote. t? Ayes.. Mation Carried. VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
POOLIC HEARINGS
ytairman Plufka introduced the request. Coordinator, RYAN C44TUCTi0a
D , lerud provided an overview of the May 1 1986 staff CO. REZONING: F ,
red ortq. Ctordinator Dillerud noted a response by the H.P.U.D,. PRELIMINARY
petitioner vegarding the inclusion of the Devac building as PLAT9, SITE PLM AND
act of Fice. CONDITIONAL USE
PERNIT TO Wr
h a ( yy yU opened pPublic Hearing. . ED UNIT
f
Co ioner MarofskyAinquired as to ghat: area would he CORCEPT PLM,
rezoned to B-3 and guest.ioned if this woult.i Include the UN EERT& WORK, IN
out o R Coordinator b llerdd explained that it couldshow FW AY. (88033)
as an`exteAsion of the MPUD zoning of the propertyL located
next door and would not have distinct lines on the -map-
Director T'remere stated that if the 1P is changed to CL upon
Council approvaxE, the; ultimate underl.yind .zoning for
purposes of the record will be B--3 where it lndloates CS and
1 where It indl-oates CL., By virtue of the Planned Unit
Development plan, then the location of the uses could be
what the Council approves. He added that this would be
similarar to the ;NW Business Campus,
P age 110
Planning Commission Minutes
may n, 1988
Commissioner _ Marofsky noted that the Engineer's Report
indicated that the access road should be moved further to
the east Phase T access be roved to the east to match the
proposed access to the Phase. IT' He inquired what this
would do with respect to the outlot. Engineer Harrison
indicated that this item has been addressed between staff
and the developer and is walling to accept the interim
design (access road) out onto the frontage road. The owner
will provide financial guaraote-es, that the .road can be
relocated to where the City selects,, at the tine the: City
selects, based on the capacity, of the intersection and
improvements needed to meet capacity needs.
Commissioner Marofsky Inquired if there was an assurance a
to when tKe Devac outl;ot would be developed. Coordinator
Di.11erud confirmed that toere were no a ;auranoes, however,
the acquisition is pro, -,+used for late 1989; Commissioner
Marofsky inquired about ownership of the property.
Coordinator 0111l.erud advised that the petitioner did not
currently own- the property, however, they did have d
purchase agreement with a time line for the possession.
Director Tremere added that: the property owner has
authorized the approval of Ryan's plans and this will hold,
from the City's prospective, unless the plans .are amended.
Commissioner Zylla kwis concerned with the Devac site and
wanted to have some type of assurance that the approved
concept plan w-auld he developed. Director 7remere advised
that the City h- ' ao control over the timing regarding the
non-conform,,,ng use,, however, another party, could: ,not
redevelop the site without the City's prior scrutiny.
Chairman Pl.fka advised that the Corimiss on's responsibility
was to make recommendations to the City Council, withisti.pul;aticas, and the uestior;.> should be directed to the
petitioner.
I
Chairman Pl,ufka introduced the petitioner, Alan Schackman,
of Ryan Construction. Mr. Schackman stated that the staff
had done an excellent job summarizing the proposal, and
discussed the access issue, and the €3evat site issue. Mr.
Schackan responded to Commissioner Zyllals questions
regarding "high -}tech" and advised that there would he
compliance with 'the guiding for office use at a future
time* He Vindicated that what Ryan proposes is an upgrade
from the existing conditions and that is what the City
Council was looking for. Mr. $ohackman advised ,that Ryan
dries not currently own the property, however, _ they intend to
have ownership by October 1985. Regarding access. concerns,
h said Ryan can post the necessa,y financial guarantees.
Commissioner Karof sky inquired if there was a bInding
agreement with the owners of the Devac_ site, or if there
were any oontingenctes regarding the sale of the property,
where either of the parties could back out: Mr, Schackman
f
Page Iii
Planning Commission, Minutes
May ` 1_ 195
indicated that Ryan could not default on the agreement. He
added that the seller could deliver possession prior to
October 1959. This would be unl'A kei.v
Chairman Plufka opened the Publir, Hearing. There was no one
present to speak on this proposal. - Chairman, Plufka closed
the public Hearing
Chairman Plufka. conflr d w,-th * r. Srhackyfian that the future
bank site would be pl.atLed as an outiot since the proposed,
site has not been fully acquired.
t"amrmm ssloner z lla Indicated that he was not opposed to the
concept; however, he did -want to make sure that the City
gets what it is supposed, to get and did not want to be left
with only par's of a plan. He, expressed his concern that
type y` Attorney that thesometeofassurancebesetbytheCity
avec site 'would indeed be changed to conforms to the guiding
Director Tremere Indicated that there are no absolute
guarantees and that thl$ was a unique situation. He stated
that It was better to have the land' included in a Planned
Unit Development Plans with the existing bui ding, than to
not have the land included. The site would still have a
building on it with; a non -conforming use. This proposal has
the best options- with good intentions.
iii. Schackman advised the Commission that Ryan takes pride
In what they develop, and they, have never none' any less, than
what they were commtted to clow
Commissioner Tierney inquire4, if the Devac site is used for
office, will there need to be a change in the parking
requirements. Mr. Schackman stated that any plan for the
utlot must stand o its own. Commissioner Tierney Inquired
if the Conditional Use Permit was due to the error oaohment on
the the floodplain and questioned if this would be an
encroachment regardless_ of the parking. roquirements. Mr,.,
Schackman advised that the Engineer's Stuily Indicates that
the encroachment is minute and does not affect the flowage,
of water.
Commi.ssi.oner Marofsky inquired about the foot bridge having
no connection with the Sg C+ Yves site, He also mentioned the
soil in the back area was the worst available soil
Mr. Schackman stated that th,- trail was designed to be a
foot trail. used by pedestrian tra=fIc. He added that the
intent is to connect the system wlth the SO Groves site
during Phase III of the davel.opment. Mr.. Schackman also
indicated that the impact on the Bassett Creek Floodplain
is mi nimrtali With rc `ard' to the soil, Mr. Schackman Ind cat
ed that Ryan does not build on bad soil and measures would
be taken to improve the soil.
ae 112
Planning Commission. Minutes
May 25, 18
Coordinator Dill.erud neted that item 24 of theEngineer's
Report needed to .be modified to reflect the agreement status
to vnodify, the curb cuts and be consistent with the j
3
a
Motion by Commissioner Wirey seconded. by Commissioner Zylla
to recommend approval of the preliminaryp",at/plan,
rezon.i "fig, Conditional Use Permit and Planned Unit MOTION TO APMOVE
Development subject to the Ist Condition being revised to be a
in compliance with the City Engineer's. Memo as amended and
Conditions 2-7 as stated
Commissioner Wire moved to amend the main notion by adding a MOTION TO AWMIMAIN
Condition 8 to allow a parking variance if they. have B-2 t l`I N
uses, rather than the B-3 uses In the center.
No second, the motion falls.
i
j
VO - MOTTO FAIL$ 1
Motion by CrrAiis,$loner Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner
1
MOTION TO AWNS
hire that a new Condition 6 shall snow the Lot i, Block 2
acres) as an outl,ot. Director Tremore inquired if the
reason was to assure packaging of the land to create a
buildable site. Commissioner Marofsky indicated the reason
was, it is a. non -buildable site at .4
Roll Call. Vote. 6 Ayes. Motion Carried
i
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Commission .r 7yila moved, seconded by Commissioner Marofsky
to amend the. main motion by adding a Condition 9,` that the MOTION TO, A
City Council gain assurance from the developer} now, that
the non -conforming use on the Devac property be el.lmf.,.ted
by a specific :late so the proposed planned Unit Develu::I;ent
Plan can be fully implemented.
Commissioner Marofsky clarified the motion for Commissioner
ierney*, this developer should be responsible for any,
economic considerations regarding displacement of the gevae
plant and ;jobs
Roll Call Vote 3 Ayes, Commissioners Stul.berg, Tierney and VOTE - NOTION ATLS
Chairman Pl:uf'ka Mays. Motion fails on the tie.
Discussion ensued; Commissioner said he disagreed with the
condition, buthe understood the InteTit to realize the
proposed use.
Commissioner Marofsky said the key issue is haat Ryan is
creating the non -conforming use with their proposed zoning,,,
and they should be herd accountable for xmpiementing the
Plans that were deemed a basis for changing the guiding and
zoning.
Page 113
Planning Commission Minutes
May 25, 1988
Motion by Chairman Plufka, seconded by Commissioner Marofsky MOTION TO A11END
for an amendment to restore Condition S as a new Condition
Doll. Call vote. 6 Ayes. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Plufka introduced the request. The reading of the METROPOLITAN WASEMay16, 1985 Staff 'Report was waived. Chairman Plufka CONTPOL COWISSIONintroducedthepetitioner*5 representative,` Harold Voth, PRELIMINARY PLAT,, Metropolitan baste' Control Commission, 350 Metro Square, SITE PLA41
St. gave an overview of the pro4ect CONUITIOKM_
al on h
aM
hist
of-
tigyfhesite. Mr. Voth stated that to U$E PERMIT AND
lift station is currently at or near- capacity. Mr. Vn i. VARL04CE TO 0NSTRUCT
indicated two items on the staff` report which did .not A SANITARY LIFT
receive recommendations. by staff. The first being the STATIC AND U ALLOW
setback between the roadway andthe buildings and the GONSTtgCTXUN WITH-IN I
second ,item was, the. variance for two:principal buildings on ff'E I LO00WAY
accomplished, however, they would be, restricted on the west 5 033),
side by the existing station. The new station would have to
be mdytd futther to the east; which would be further in the j
floodway, of Bassett Creek. The current proposal, compresses
the facility and minimizes impact -on Bassett Creek. Mr.
Voth indicated that the reason for the two strUetres iso
effort to coordinate the aesthetics with the ad ace:
property owners,
Commissioner Stulberg stated that .items 64,,5 and ofthe
variance findings were adequa.tel.y addressed by the
petitioner: `wever, regarding .item 4, he felt that no
physical. h .-A4ps were indicated by the petitioner. Mr,
Voth con(( x d that there. were no physical constra*nts or
ordznanc:Z-JZthey could show caused the need for a I
variance,,
Commissioner Wire .asked` if'the redesign to one structure,; iwouldbe, from an engineering standpoint,. a :better design.
Mr. Voth indicated that both options were comparable,. yet
there were some advantages. Commissioner Wire asked _ what
the ,:ost _ would be toredesign the project, Mr. Vatic stated
that he would estimate the cost to be approximately $30,_0
and there- would be a significant; ti;i delay if the project
was to be redesigned because they have proceeded to schedule itheworkantosolicitbidsbasedupontheirplant.
Commissioner Wire Inquired if the added cost would be
charged to the Citizens of Plymouths Mrs oth indicated
that the revenues from the e
sevan county Metro 'area- would be
assessed for the additional amount. I
Commissioner Marofsky inquired If the proposed site'would be IadequatetohandleseweruseprQections` through the year
2030. Mr. Voth indicated that it would and the only change
that would aced to be made is the pumps, which are Internal
and this would not change the: bu ,ldi.ng dx sign
l
Page 11
Planning Commission Minutes
May 25, 1988
Commissioner Tierney asked the petitioner if they were
content with the aesthetics. The petitioner indicated their
preference was ft.r .the single building, however,_ they_ were
content with the two building proposal.
Chairman Pl.ufka opeAed the Pubic Heari.nq. There were no
x
speakers on behalf of this proposal and the 'Public Hearing
was closed
Commissioner wire asked: whythe adjoining property owners
were .interested in the two bui.ldirk design-* Mrs , sloth
reiterated that the single building site would be two feet
above . the .roadway, and the two building site. plan, would be
less visible
Motion by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner Zylla
to approve the preliminary plan/plat, site plan, Conditional
Use Permit and variances subject to the si.x oondition
lasted in the staff' report,
Coordinator D llorad noted that condition 'six had some
typing that should have been deleted and this would be
removed fromcondition six
Rall Cali: Vote on approval, 4 Ayes. 'Commissioners Stulberg
and Marofsky, Mays. MOTION carried., VOTE _ TIONCARRIED,
Chairman Plu ka introduced the request. Coordinator
Dillerud provided an overview o the ?#ay 17, 1988 staff POINTE
report and pointed out the two basic ,issues addressed in the DEVELOPMENT Gfi0U',
staff report: iters 8 In the primary issues and analysis, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND
regarding the Thoroughfare Guide 'an and item 2 of the FINAi,, PLAT(88044)
staff comments with regard to the conservation and
preservation, of the natural environment., A Planned Unit
Development approach. would seem` appropriate except the size
of the parcel dial not qualify.
Chairman Pl:ufka introduced the petitioner, 31m Orr, Sohoel.l
Madson, Inc., I10550' Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN
5531+3* Mr., Orr .indicated that the items in the staff
report had previously be,,n addressed in concept, and there
now appeared to bea communication gap, possibly due tothe.
change In staff.,
Chairman P.lufka askod tor. Orr to respond. to the following
three items1 l City's Code Standards on conservation and
preservation of naturalenvironment, 2) street grade and, 3)
private driveway access to .inset grail. Mr. Orr indicated
that engineering staff had originally indicated a positive
recommendation for the 6% grade. He stated that the reason
for the grade ,was for the preservation of the trees.: Mr:
Orr added that the reason they were ince ested in the site
wasdue to its t0 and trees and they, w re going, to
they ?r. preserve that fan tTe best that oould, Orr so
11
Planning Commission Minutes
May 25, 1988
indadated, that fie dad not feel that the area was being 4,er
developed Mr. Orr disagreed tt:lth staff comments regart .nq
poor sight distance on lots 173 an. 14.
Chairalan P.lufka opened tete Public Hearing.
Dianne Camp, 11403 Sunset. Trail, expressed concern for the
preservation of the natural ammeni.tl.es o Ms. Camp was also
concerned about Sunset Trail;, indicating that it was already
a very busy and dangerous street, FIs. Camp indicated that
It, would be much safer if the road wrould access on 6th
Avenue, or perhaps on Sunset Trails f it were lined up with
the existing intersection at Balsam Lane. Ms. Camp
3tdl; ated that it was a shame to. put a hoose directly in
front, of the existing house. She also added that the
configuration of Lot 2 was "absolutely ridiculous-',
Phyllis. Ransom, 11415 Sunset Trai i , stated that Sunset: Trail
is indeeda very busy and dangerkus road. She stated it Is
very hard to back out onto Sunset Trail. his. Ransom was
al,so concerned with the loss of trees due to the
development
Regina Sjoguist: 11317 Sunset Trail, stated tha?; she lives
directly. ;across from Vie proposed' Cottonwood, Cane T4s
Sjoquist indicated that with the proposed street aocess,
headlights would ;tit her windows, exhaust fumes would blow
towards her houses maklog it virtually Impossible to Live its
her herre= She indicated that she has lived at this loeatlon,
for 32 years, Ms.# _ Sjoqui.st also expressed concern regarding
how busy and dangerous Sunset Trail is# She. felt that
c-ess from 4th Avenue would be a much better proposal. M's
SjogQist Inquired as to when the construction would begin..
Mr,, grew indicated that 6th Avenue was in the 5 Year Capital
Improvertnent plana, He added that the Liming was uncertain and
made 6th Avenue unfeasible) besides which, there would be
grading problems. Mr. Orr noted: that the exiting house
will not have a house built in front of its
Mrs Robinson, 11203 Sunset Trail, e*.Irei, ed concern for the
grading. fir, Robinson was also concerned with Lots 1 & 2«
He Indicated that there Is a nasty curve at Balsam Lang and
the proposed driveways would make the road even' mare
dangerous. Mr. Robinson stated that there were Mater pro-
blems In the area and Inquired if this development would
only- add to their- current water problems., Mr Orr explained,
the design of Lots l & 2, Indicating that Lot 1 would be a
walkout lot and would tyke a minimum amount of fill..
Chairman Plufka closed the Public Hearing.
Page 11
Planning P,.ommlssioa Minutes
May 25, 198
Marof sky inquired about the Thoroughfare Guide plan and
mere the connector street would cone in. Engineer Harrison
explained the. alternative contemplated for a north/south
road between 6th Avenue and Sunset Trail, He added that
access to 6th Avenue was not more feasible than the proposed
Sunset Trail.
ommissi ner Wire inquired as to the City's` standards
regarding curves. Engineer Harrison explained that the City
dio not have an set standards, but In the past they have
used a minimm curve at a 300 food radius. Engineer
flarrison indicated that they may look at moving Surlsot
Trail to the north,
Director Tremexe explained that, whereas 5th Avenue.Ncrth
was in the -year Capital Improvement Plan, the roan could
be built as developed warranted,, The Capital Improvement
Plan is the City's statement that, notwithstanding
development, the road will be done via: public works project
means.
Commissioner Wire inquired about the possibility of reducing
the curve to rake the access safer e agreed with the
re. -idents' concern about the intersection in the middle of
the bock. Mr Orr stated that they have considered t lsam
Lane, but this road would have grading problems. Other
alternatives were exarri.ned and were found: 'to be
Inappropriate.
Commissioner Marofsky inquired if lots 1.1 and 12 cotild have
a driveway that Lot 14 could use, possibly solving part of
the problem with the private driveways. fir. Orr ,indicated
that they had proposed that idea however, staff had pointed
out the ordinance standards for frontage and the potential
f'or public safety problems.
Commissioner Harofsky stated that there may be a public
safety issue.. Director Tremere indicated that an emergency
could create a problem with the long private drives, in ,lieu
of actual access to the abutting public street.
Commissioner zylla indicated' that he does not see the 7%%8%
street grade as an Issue. However, he is concerned with the
possible publ to safety issue, He added that the proposal
should be redesigned to a single access print or wait until
nth Avenue is comp t -ted= Commission, Zyl:la stated that he
was sympathetic. to the, developer, however, supported the
denial because of the public safety issues
Commissioner M rofs y inquired about exiting on 6th Avenue.
Engineer Harrison indicated that there, was no preference,
but access to future 6th Avenue would he viewed as less
desi.reable than access onto Sunset Trail since It would 1
carry more tKro gh traffic. Commissioner Turney inquired
Page 117
Planning Co=ission minfites
May 2, 1988
If the bend could be straightened for -;access onto Balsam
L.ane, Chairman Plufka Indicate that the redesign was ,roti up
to the Commission or Staff,
Motion by Commissioner, Zylla, seconded by Co? i nis sioner MOTION FOR DENS., Tierney to recommend for denial of the prellmtnary ,plat,
deleting findshgs l and 2 from the staff recommended action
and renumbering finding 3 to be ;find'ng i
Roll, Call, Vote. 4 Ayes, Commissioners S.tulberg and Plufka wVOTENOTION TO
Nay. MOTION carried. RECD DENIAL
Mfr. Orr asked for clarification of the reasons for the
CARRIED
recommendation. Commissioner dire indicated his reason eras
the accessproblem., Commissioner Marofsky Indicated that he
would like to see the private drives onto Sunset Trail
eliminated. Comtftissioner Tierney indicated she did not like 1
the number of driveways onto sunset Trail and. fell the
street in the middle of the development: gas di scQurteous to
the resident across the way. Commissioner Zylla cited his;
previous concerns; access was the main one.
Chairman Plufka introduced the request, The reading of the
GREG DEWEE, C
LITTLE CAESARS PIZZA
May 1,p1388 ' Staff Report was: waived. Chairman Plufka or W INC
introduced the petitioner Mr. Greg eWeese. CON ITI N& U,'
5,8047
Nr. Gree eWeese, Little Caesars Pizza of MNI Inc.,, stated'
PERMIT
that he had no comments and agreed with the staff report.
Chairman Plufka opened the Public Hearing., There ryas ne vne
present to speak on the proposal and the Public Hearing was
closed.
Motion by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner
Stulberg to recommend approval subject to the 9 conditions
listed in the staff report.
a
Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried.
i
Chairman Plufka called for a five minute recess at 10: 25.
esimed a{ 10 ttThe. meeting resumed 32.:
NEW -BUS IN SS
Chairman Plufka, Introduced the request, The reading of the
May 16,, 1988 Staff Report was waived. The petitioner was
not preservt,F bowever, comments were heard from those CRLIKR DEVELOPMENT
present. CORP. SITE PLANS
AND VARIANCES
Nr. Tom Lanenberg,l O4C 20th Avenue North, President of 880
Cimarron East, stated that -there: is a "large mess" from; the
previous building' ,that eras cotistruoted. He stated that the
grass is uncut, and the sod Is dead. Mx:. Lanenberg stated
f-
i
Page 118
Planning Commission Minutes
May .25,, 1388
that the residents Cimarron East take pride in their area
and would III -v, trs ; ;
something done to have tFi.s area
cleaned u.
Mr. Sanford, 1570 Black Oaks bane) stated that he is on the
Board for Cimarron East and confirmed that there is "a mess"
from the construction of the previous building at the site.
He added that the the berm does -not belong to Cimarron East
and they were to rlintain it until; the completion of the
bui;l.ding* No one else is maintaining it at this time.
Chairman Plufka asked if the petitioner owned Phase I.
Coordinator Dill.erud indicated that he did not know.
Chairman Plufka suggested that this tem be deferred until
the n-xt meeting. He asked that staff;letormine who owns
the existing building,, and perhaps -his would be a City
enfor eme t problem. Director Tremere indicated that 'those
present at this meeting could be sent notices for the future
meeting;
Nation by Chairman Plufka, seconded by Commissioner
Stulb rg o defer this item and to direct' staff to determine MOTTO t To DEFER
ownership of the site and any special conditions of approval
for the original plat that would apply here regarding
maintenance of the open area..
Vote to Defer. 6 Ayes.: MOTION carr1t.ed.
VOTE MOTIORCARRIED
OLD BUSINESS
Chairman Plufka Introduded the request. The reading of the.
May 17, l;'n88 Staff report was waived. , 04alrman Plufka INOR PAKICIiENKO. SUPE
introduced the petitioners Ar. lhor P,anchenk.o. Pyr. 8 NOTEL. SITE PLAN,
Panchenko advised that the proposal was redesigned to CONDITIONAL USE
accommodate the changes. He stated that regarding the. PE 4IT AND VARIANCE
Engineer's Report) the calculations were on their- way.' ter. 88017)
Pancheako ; Indicated that they were wil l,ing to do whatever
was necessary for approval* $perm Goldberg indicated that
the resolution should reflect compliance with: the City
Engineer's May 1.8, 1988 Remorandum, not the April 16) 1988
as stated.,
Commissioner Marof'sky inquired if Prudential Properties had
been notifiedied of this meetlnq. Coordinator Dil.l,erud
indicated that they had not.
Commissioner Zyl,l.a inquired If any other materials than
those' depicted were ever used for construction. Mr.
Panchenk.o Indicated that they were not, Commissioner Zyl.l.a
stated that he had been to the Eden Prairie location which
had bri,ok and stucco exterior and said he was not ' impressed
with the physical appearance of the proposed bul.dng.