Loading...
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.