Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 05-10-1989I Planning Commission Minutes may 10, 198911Page107 the Planning Commission with regard to the proposals made. He indicated that he would suggest a later date at which the Planning Commission could discuss the results of the hearing0-1. and begin -n T-irmulating, a recommendation concerning these matters for th'e City Council. Oalrman Plufka indicated that staff would, as each new area was Introduced for public hearing testimony, briefly describe the area under consideration on the overhead maps and indicate the extent of physical constraints on the site related to woodland= and wetlands, Chairman Plufka stated that there is no limit on the length of time fcr public comment but lie would appreciate initial comments being limited to 5 minutes. If additional time is required by, any speakert they would again be recognized once all persons had an initial opportunity to sneak. Joe Do%agala, no address given, indicated his enera,l supe rpt AREA I for Uind Oce Planning such as the Planning Commission was undertaking,. He indicated his concern for opening up areas for development, such as this, based primarily on the' demands such new development would place on the city water system and the aquifers that support that city water system. He stated that it would he advisable for the city to first study the available. water resources andthen design development plans for the community 'based on those findings. Darrel Conyea, Minneapolis, stated 14hat he was the owner, of parcel 'in the Curtis Lake area, (PIN 10-42-0002) ana Mated that it was his desire that the Planninq,Commission retain the existing LA -3 guiding of this area instead of down guiding to the LA -2 as was now proposed., He stated that due to, the proximity of this area to the freeway the flexibility to Udo higher density housing was necessary to enable placement of the structures further from the noise of the, freeway. Brad Hoyt of Hoyt Developmert Company stated that his firir, was the owner of a small piece of proI 11 41ertyadjacenttotheS-1— idt Lake Road underpass at 494 10-24-000), His property was north of Schmidt Lake Road and east of 4911 with no spe6fiIIic guiding on it at the present time. He indicated thzt he understood the lack of guiding wa- a result of the need. "or this property for a future interchange for Schmidt Lake Road and 4,94. He stated that it would be his desire to have CN guiding on the property as an alternative to the' LA- that was now being proposed. Tom Loucks indicated that he was a consultant representing Dr. Chou the owner of the parcel of property immediately saAh o,%, the Sioux Line tracks (PIN 10-13-0002). -Mr., Loucks noted that his client is in support of the, proposed, req I LA -2. ulding fr 1, :1 to chairman Plufka noted that no cards bradeear rec:eI ved ARBA ndicating a desire to speak with respect to the proposed guide' plain amendrtents to Area He confirmed that no one in a tendan a indicated a desire to speak to, Area 5 Chairman P 1 u a noted that no cards had been received AREA indicating, a des re to, ;speak with respect to the proposed guide plan amendments to Area 6. lie confirmed that no one I n attendance indicated a desire to speak to, Area 6. Chairman ' Plufka noted that no cards had been received ARS indicating a desire to speak with respect to tho protos.ed guide p Ian amendments to Area 7, He confirmed that no one in attendance indicated a desire to speak to Area T, Cha rman Plufka iWtated that a letter had been received f rom, ARE, i e Gair with regard to the Hoyt ownership within area 8 (PIN 10.23-0002 and 10,24-0003t 0004; and 0005). Jim Stedlen, 100 piper Towers representing Hoyt Development stated than proposal to regciide A,ea 8from the existing, Planned W,O—.trial to the proposed. LA -2 would dawn value his ofrent's ar pert; several, million dollars. He indIcated that based etre impact of the proposed reguiding, he woutd require mor ; ti*, to address the issue than . the Planning, -Commission had Planning Commission lI nutes may 1989 Page IIS Bob JJUqheSt 17825, i County kad 24, indicated that he was the AREA 2 owner of the Miniature golf course parcel within area 20 (PIN 8-13-0001.), and did qot support the proposed reguiding fro, LA- LA -3. r. Huggies stated -that he would desire either VS or CL guiding for his parcel, based on its location adjacent kc, taloa thorough f ares..,, Brad -Davenport,. 4435 Peony Lanell indicated that he was the AREA 211 oWe r* of a parcel within Area 1 (PIN 18-1,9 010) and that h supported the proposed reg __*d ing of Area 21 front CS to Planned Industrial. He, noted that fie sees Peony Laue as future County Road 101 north. of Highway 55. JackiceF Center, ind at d he represented the owners of RIMS #1001 within Area 2 (VIN I8-12-0000), He prefei,s the existing 0S guiding for Area. 21 to the p,posal by the omiti1s 'idn to guide the area Planned Industrial. 0i rector emere briefly described the basis fcnr the proposal AREA 22 & 2 to reguide Areas 22 and 23 LAR. He polnteo cjt that Area 2.3 was located outside the Metropolitan Urban, . Service Area, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Council, and that Area 22, although within the i U&ti, was an area. in which sewer was not anticipated for Many years. I Curd*-ck, 426 Lake Street, Excelsior, indicated he was the AREA 3 owner of a parcel with .Area 23 (PIH 08-32-0001) , and that he opposed reguiding of his property, to LAR -t Mr. Burdick i nd)oated that it ` was h x s preference than. his Land be g0 Jed Planned Industrial as an alternative to the L.A--2 guiding that it now has RowHockridgel 1405 Olive Mane Korth, stated that, he owned land west of Peony Lane in Area 23 (PIH 07-13-0001). He noted that the land he owned; i n Area 23 was part of 130 at re parcel and that he would desire whatever, guiding would he necessary to allow him; to :make 5 acre lot divisions such as existed in the Troy Ridge llevelopmert"to the north, Director Tremere explained that the Troy Ridge was the last, of the 5 acre subdly si cans that were permitted prior to a change n the Subdivision Law to preclude divisions of land without municipal sewer into parcel's of less that 20 acres. hairman ,Plufka declared a 5 minute recess of the hearing at 10:30 P.M. Chairman Plufka reconvened the Hearing at 10,35 John 0h Johnson,. 8401 73rd Avenue North, stated that he represented Harstad Company, the owners of property located in Areas 22, 241 and 25,' well as property located west of Area 24, but not proposed for Land Use Guide Plan reclassif=ication by the Pl'annin0ommis ion (PIS 07-42-0001. and 0002- 07-34 0002 and 0003; 0744-0003-1 1.7-22-0002; 0744-0003; 0741.-0003, and Planning Commission Minute May 10, 1989 Page 116 08-33-0001 and ) Mr... Johnson indicated that his firm favored the reguiding proposal for Area 24 from the existing Punned Industrial to the proposed LA -1,. He stated that the site was best suited for LA --1 guiding based on a need for such guiding that his firm had perceived in the City of Ply mouth as well as probability that development could be better accomplished within the Area 24 using LA -1 type development because of the extensilve wetland areas, He also stated that his firm had conducted research, finding that Plymouth had an abundant resource of industrial l and without Area 24, or the area west of 25 - s,g`fi ci ent f, -.r Planned Industrial development over, the fiext 26-30 years. $4o, noted that the concept of direct rail service ,to industrial sites, as had been, the basis for original guiding of this area, in part, was no longer common with the emergence of piggyback rail service and containerized freight, Mr. Johnson also indicated that the proposal to reguide Area 25 from the existing Planned Industrial to Commercial was probably correct in intent, but incorrect in location. He suggested that the area diagonally across Rockford Road:. and Peony Lane Area 21) would be a better location for a commercial node to seriice this area. Mr. Johnson distributed graphics to the Planning Commission describing the guide plan amendments that Narstad Companies proposed Chairman Plufka indicated that he had no cards from persons AREA 26 desiring to address Land Use Guide Plan Classification for Area 26. lie confirmed that there was no one in attendance at this time wishing to speak. Mery Deergari, 3324 Quilla Avenue South, stated that he was the AREA 27 owner of a parcel within. Area 27 (PIN 17-32-0001 He stated, that he was opposed to the Planning Commission proposal to reguide Area 27 from LA -3 to LA -2, and he desired his land to be regu i;ded from the existing LA -3 to Commercial. He noted that the Commercial zoning was consistent with the highway t rontage to State: Highway 65 that existed for the parcel, and other parcels in the immediate vicinity. Dave Davenport, 740 East Lake Street, stated that his clients Dundee Nursery and Tri --State Drilling also had interest in Area 27, and would desire Area 27 to be guided commercially in the same manner and upon the same arguments as had been presents d with regard to Area 14 earlier. David Davenport, represe tting Dundee Nursery, indicated his AREA 28 client owned a triangular portion in the southeast corner of Area 28.` He stated tht Dundee had no preference for the guiding in Area 28, and therefore would be as comfortable with the LA --1 guiding the Planning Commission now proposes for the area as they were with the LA -2 guiding that now exists on the area. John Johnson, 6401, 73rd Avenue Rorth, stated that he AREA 37 rhecorimenda.tlorrs iouTd make t4 the City Council with regard the three elements on which hearings had been geld this ev ern . 44e indicated fl at it wo ld be preferable for the orrrrrr ss n-to,draft those recommendations based written, rinutes of the Hearings that had Just been held. The P Tanning, onuoisslon indicated Its general consensus with the proposal of tyre Chap rman , iter regard o future cons IderatiOn of the nearing matters, Chaffrman Pl f . thea rpened tb Pubs c Hearingconcerning the onlnD Ordinance Text Amendments,, Seeing no;; person wishing t speak at the Public lleariniq,. Chairman Plufka closed the Rubl is Hearing concerning on n1g , Ord1n nc1e Text Am.endr en s . MOTION by Commissioner 5tulbcr€ , seconded by Comods.Joner Wire MOTION TO APPROVE to r cotrmend approval the Draft Amendment:[ as de ri red by the May 15, 1989 Staff Memo concerning zoning, ordinance sign regul at l or.,,> regarding temporary, commerrl al signsIL Roll Call Vote, 6. Ayes, Commissioner Marofsky N ay MOTION VOTE MOTION CARRIED carried. Commss i oner Marofsky stat-od hat i t was i, s os ro at there be a separate ordinance section addressing, grand opening sign s i( provisions. MOTION bitV Commissioner, Marofs k , seconded by, Commissioner MOTION TO APRON` Stu.Iberg to recommend approval of Daft Zoning Ordinance Amendnrerrt #2, as described by the May 5, 1980- Staff Memo concerning deferral. of posting fall financial guarantee for sl to improvemeots until the time of a Certificate of Occupancy. Roll Call Vote, 7' eyes. MOTION carried,. VOTE,- MOTIa CARRIED MOTION by Chair ran lufka', seconded by Commissioner Wire to MOTION, TO i%PPROV recommend approval of Draft zoning` Ordinance Amendment. a described by the Staff Mem cry May 51 1989, concerning clarificatlon of minimum lot area and width requirements for parcel s i n tyre FRDFRO(Future Resta cted Dovey oprrrent) District . Roll ;Call Vote. dyes. NOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED MOTION by Commissioner Wl re, seconded by Commissioner Tierney MOTION TO APPROVE to recommend approval of t°raft Zonfi;g Ordinance Amendment 4 as described by tyre Staff Monro of May 6 1959 concerning an added coed tfanal use for the ISI District of participative athletic uses. Tris amendment would include a new definition of participative athletic uses" to be included within the Zoning Ordinance.. Roll Call: Vote. i Ayes.. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTiO CARRULD Chair ran pluf`ka adjourned the lTreet rng at 1 1 ASM.