HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 05-31-1989CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COHOSSIOR MINUTES,
MAY 31t 1939
The Study Session of the Plymouth Planning
Commi ss orr called to orders at } . M .
E BES PRESENT: Chairman Rlohard Plufka,
Commissioners goy Tle`rney, Larry
tar fs y, 'MI'dael Stulberg, Denn's
Zyl a, John Wire and Hal Pierce.
MEMBERS ASSENT** N oii e
STAFF PRESENT-. Community Development director
Blair Tremere, Coltintut, i ty
Development Coordinator Ctarls
Di°leruct, Associate Planner Al
Cottingham
AVLE
introducedhalrmanPlu%ka the Comms ss i on ; and
explained that this was a special study, session
f foloina the. Public Hearino conducted on May 101,
19$9, regardingpossible amendments to the City o
Plymouth's Land Use Guide Plan and, Com1p ehensive
Plan. He asked that if ` there, were anyone present
who could be called upon as a resource, should
cue tions, arise, they should identify themselves by
turning in a blue card He stated that it was not
the nt ent i on of the Commission to reopen the Pub1 i c
fleas k ng.
MOTION, by Commissioner Wire, seconded by C H1'!. ON TO APPROVE
Commissioner Marofsky, to, approve the Minutes for
the say IC's 1989, Planning Commission Meeting.
There was a brief discussion between: Commissiorxer
Ti erney andi Commissioner Maroi:sy about
clary i_cation of the ,Coals, Objectives, and. Criteria
text,
Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carred, VOTE LOTION
CARRIED
MOTION by Commissioner Tierney, seconded by MOTION TO APPROVE
Commissioner Pierce to approve the Minutes for the
May 17, 1989f Planning Colrmissior meeting.
Planning Commission mutes
hay 31, 1989
Page 139
Rol I
Cal,
1 Vote. 5 Ayes. ChAi man PI ufka and Commissioner VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Wire abstained. MOTION carried'.
The Corrmission discussed the order of business.
MOTION by Commissioner ire, seconded by Commissioner MOTION, TO APPROVE
Marofsky, to consider Item gc first nand Use Guide Plan
narrative).
Roll Call Vote, 5 Ayes,.Chairman 'P1uf a and Commissioner VOTE MOTION CARRIED
tuTberg Nay, MOTION carried.
Commissloner Wire stated concerns about the introductory LAD USE GUIDE PLM
language on .sewage flow and the; need to update that ELEMENT
information.
Director Trero.ere explained that the data was not available
at i s. time ' but WOL,, d be obtained from the Metropol i tant'
Neste toaitrol Cm ission as well as front studies that the
City would be conducting regarding the Sanitary Sewer Pian,
MOTILIN 'by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner'MOTION TO APPROVE
arofsky, to direct staff to present the quantitative,
information necessary to complete the Introductory portion
of the sand Use Eltment, when it is avar abbe.
Note., 7 Ayes. MOTTON carred. VOTE MOTION CARRIED
i
Commissioner Wire noted a need for a paragraph break on Page
a; iit was noted by staff who said the draft would be revised
accordingly:,
MOT1014 by Commissioner Marofs y, seconded by Commissi o,n r MOTION TO AMEND
Wire, to amend the language on page g in the subparagra.prr
Neighborhood Center Area", striking the words gra
neighborhood shopping center (Targe supermarket and drag
store as major tenants)" and inserting, afters the word
include" the words "retail service.,"
Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried T -- MOTION CARRIED
MOT`IO by Commissioner ;'ire, seconded by Chair aaaa PTufka# o cTTICN APPROVE
revise the third sentence on page 26 to insert the words
retail services" after the wor "concept" in lieu of any
reference to :neighborhood shopping center, and to make the
related graimati cal change i n that sentence.
Vote, 7 ;Ayes} MOTION carried, VOTE MOTION CARRIED
MOTIOW b Commissioner Wire to del ete ' the gu dei i nes and MOTION TO APPROVE
criteria for fire C% classification on Rage 28.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3 L 1989
Page 140-
P onI for lac of second TIC
NO SECOND}
MOTION by Com ai ss i.on r Wire to delete the guidelines and MOTION TO APPROVE
criteria for the CS classification on page 32.
Motion failed for _hack of a second, MOTION FAIUEED
0 SECOND
MOTION by Commissioner Tierney, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Marofs y, to use the term 'required in all areas" 1n lieu of
all existing. Ianguage relative t Citi ut l't' as
reflected on Rages 32, 88, and 40.
Vote. 7 Aye3. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIEb
MOTION by Commiss i ner 14,111re, Seconded by ommissioner MOTION TO APPROV
Pi erre, toz del ete the 275„'CCC square foot maximum lot for
coverage by all buildings from the proposed CR -2
elasssifrcation as reflected on page 37.
Orscussion pursued,, and Commissioner Marofsky indicated that
the Land Use Guide Plan should contain at `feast for
guxdance,; maximum coverage and that it should not be left
n eLf ed 3
Director Tremere eXpl ai ned that the number was derived from
nfor atron supplied by the retail development 'industry and
represeArt d a shopping center size ghat w s gess than
regional scope but: greater .than small neighborhood center.,
Rol I Q0 I Vote. Commissioners Pierce and Wire A;yts, VOTE - MOTION FAILED
Commi ss I oners, ZylIa, Tierney, Marofs y, Stulberg, and
Chaff )`Vary RI ufka Nays- MOTION failed.
M++
ttO{
TIONA Ir ire[ to:
yM dy}e lej''t
ye
the proposed moTIO TO _APPROVE
s g,
by *
p Cryon-flis.ssY oon
yy.'.t imum lot tC7 ' if* Q S VI:.I ,M%` 41, '4'A'`f t.Al7. #.4 ”` from the : /'k S
area coverages by a11. buildings, on pages 37 and 38.
Motion failed for lack of a second, MOTION FAILED -
O SECOND
Commissionerssioner T'erney stated that the identification of the
nes reta classification should be modified to be
compatible with the other references which use the "CR."
MOTION by Co:m ssroner Tierney,. seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
ire', to substitute the term 1 CR (Commercial Retai 1 for
the term "CRS (Commercial Retail Shopping)" as reflected on
page 37 and elsewhere.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 31,. 1989
Page 141
Rol I Call Vote. trlitrl ss r.orrers , t CARTED
and Marofs y Ayes, Commissioners Stulberg and Chairman
P of a Nays. MOTION carried.
MOTION by Comuiissloner Tierney, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Wire, to not delete the reference to , re mouses and
nurseries,with rebtall s? l ,$" from the type of development
section on page 33.
Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried VOTE -- MOTION CARRIED
MOTION by COMMIssioner Marofs y to delete the publicysemi— MOTION TO APPROVE
public land use classification from the Land Use Guide Plan,
Motion failed for lack of a second* MOTION FAILED -
Q SECOND,
MOTION by Commissioner Stulber , seconded by Cor rw"tissioner, M TIC f TO APPROVE
yl l a to table further- consideration of ; the Land d e Guide
Plan until the next study session.
Vote, ' i Ayes VOTE MOTION CARRIED
The next item was, consideration of the proposed' than es to
the Land Use Guide Plan, map in fight of the testimony
received at the Public, hearth * The item, etas introdu4ed by
Chairman Pluf a, who requested staff to explain the staters
V1 each area commencing with Area I.
Also ale Planner Al Co t rthar epi and the proposal ,gas AREA 1.
to reclassify the area: from A- o F" A - Y p c i ea'Tl,
there, was , a quests orr. whether to leave Parcel 43.0002 in the
LA -3 classification due to a pending separate application by
the owner. There, was also discussorr regarding Parcel 24
CCQ n .rection IC and whether ". t should be a corrtrtrerc i al
classification v s . LA - Prior no I S had trot suggested
than there would be a commercial classification considered
in this area.
ha r r ran Pluf a stated that the issue in Area I was one, of
dens* y p tent ial . Commissioner Marofrkv stated that there
could be a result of a 11 s andwi c of `ec t " o an LA -3 to to
plece.e stated that the size of tete LA -3 iz, o,
concern.
er?rrr son Pierce nest; oned where the - I -I
terminate if it is riot to be el iminated (-:Iti rel .
TIQ by Chairman Pluf a, seconded bCommissioner °:i r, tri IlO O Wil
reclassify Area I frog LA -3 to LA -2,,
Y^v
AWA I
Planning Oor ssion. Minutes
31 1989
Page 142
A4 r -nt, Rlufka noted the May 2-5, 1 letter from Attorney
Bruce Mal erson }
Al s c was the May 4, 1989, letter for M k Darrel
cyna
GoF yea.
Commissioner Marofsky asked dor sp t on on this
p since he back a potential conflict of interest regarding
part of the land,
MOTION Commissioner Marofsky, sec4}nde£ Chasrma MOTIONTO AMEND tAIN
PI fka, to limit the vete. on Area I to that land south of MOTION AREA
the Soo Line Railroad tragi. t- only.
Roll Call rote. o Tnuissioner.. y1ia, Marofsi y, and Chairman QCT P tOTI
P ufka Ayes.. Commissioners Wire, Pierce, Tierney, and FAILED
Stulberg Nays. MOTION failed.
11 - Al Call Vote oil main motion.. Ayes.' Commissioner VOTE MAIN MOTION
Marofsky abstained. MOTION carried. CARRIED
Associate' Planner: Al - Cottingham expla.°ined the proposed, AREA 2
change.
MOTION by Comt,1ssToner Pierce, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE -
Tierney, tib change the c aSsiflGatIon of Area 2 from 0-3,to, ARCA tl
LA-.
Ro,l1 Call I Yote. 6 .Ayes Commissioner Mari fsky abs.talned. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTION carried.
Assoc ate, Planner Al Cottingham explained the proposed ARgU
change, and he noted, the May 24, 1989, getter received from
property owner, Mansoor Alyeshmerd , SPIN03-24-0002).
MOTION :by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Comm ssifiner MOTION TOAPPROVE
Zylla, to recommend .a reci ssification, of Area 3 frout LA -3, AREA
I
to LA -2.
I olI 'Call' Vote. 7 Ayes, MOTION carried. VOTE -- MOTION CARRIED
Cha) roman Plufka stated that no cbanes had been, discussed, t ARCA e6- AN
the Public Hearling .
He recognized Attorney Bruce Mal kerson, who stated that his
client, the Hoyts, own land in Area 6, and he mane reference
to his May 25,1 1989, letter.
Chad ratan PI ufka stated that for purposes for discussion
here, act'orns should be taken on the areas other than C
which could then: be discussed if the Commission so desires.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 31 , 1989
Rage 143
MrTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE -'
T'o recommend ghat Area 4 b reclassified from LA- AREAS 4t: ;, AND 7
to LAR- that Area 5 he :reclassified from IP to LARD and that
Area 7 be reclassified frotr LA -2 tc LAR.
discussion ensued regarding A, ea part of is inside
the Metropolitan Urban Service Area.,
Associate Planner Al Cottingham explained that there was
some precedent since the Commi ss i on had elsewhere in the
City, proposed that land without services be, classified LAR
given though the land was inside the Urban Service Area.
MOTION by Commissioner Tierney, seconded by C muni slob r MOTION TC AMEND MAIN
Marofsky to amend the motion excluding fro=,11thla MOTION AREA
reclassification that part of Area . that is within the
Urban- Service Area.
1,n. farther discussion, Commissioner Time expressed
concern about the futLre development of Area 4 in light of
the uidi nog of the adjacent areas
Coa is-Ao er _yl stated his concern with the LA- ccridinc
in the nett area if the guiding in Area 4 ws to remain LA- A-
CommissioverCommissionerTierney clarified the motion to amend by
explaining that that part of area for north Qf the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area line shouldbe LA -21k
Commissioner Zylla concurred in that clarif1cation.
Roll Cali Vater 5 Ayes, Commissioners Stu]berg and VOTE SECOND MUTICR
Chairman Rluf a Nays.MOTION carried, CARRIED
Roll Call Vote on main motion, h. Ayes. Commissioner VOTE MAINI MQTICTI
Stulberg Nay. MOTION carried. CARRIED
Chairman Rluf a explained th t Area a would be discussed
next
Associate Planner Al Cottingham explained the proposed A;R S ,4
change, and he indicated the change In ,Area o from IR to LAR
was in rectogni tl on that the l and should be LAR since
utilities will not be available for °some time.
Attorney Pruce Malkerson requested that the Commission vote
on :Area :C separately from Areas 8 and g, noting the
significance of the Soo Line Railroad tracks , as a
demarcatI on
ommissioner Marofs v dis -ussed the proposal in Area,. g to
have a small commercial area and that the intent was to have
Planning Comm ii Minutes ;
May 31 198
Page 144
approximately acre parcel that would be on one side of
char' dt Lake Road, .
Chairman Rl ul" a stated that details as to precl se size and
precise location could be rear ped when actual development
t os propor'ed, `
Chairman Rlu ka suggested that Area 6 be reviewed by itself
so that it could be voted upon,.
Commissioner Marofsky stated .concern with tra fic from an
industrial area going down through a residential area.
Commissioner Zylla stated that while be was generally
supportive of residential l this area, be could see the
M o industrial err` vlcrrliy o a proposed :suture
interchange.
MOTION by,, Commissioner Marolwsky, seconded by Commissioner
Wire, _ to recommend a change i n the classification of Area 6 MOTION TO APPROVEfrom- IP to LAR. AREA 6
Roll Call Vote 6 Ayes Commissioner Tierney Pay. MOTION VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
carried..
Associate Banner Al Lotti ngharrr noted the May 15, I989, A
I et te-rc f rout Flul Oyne Oorpovati on rel a tiv,, to their property
in Area 8k
MOTION by Commissioner zyl l a t seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
arofsky to recommend a change of classification of, Area 8 AREA
roar IR to LA -2{
Associate Planner Al Cottinghaiii also noted the
correspondence received form Attorney Malkers.on as well as
f4r. Mike ' air on behalf of the Hoyt -tevelopment Company
relative to land i n ,Area 6.
ommisSioner Pierce stated that the issut,, of whethvr this
area develops as industrial should be tied to hett)er, I n
fact, there will be an interchange. Director Tremere
p.l ai ned that the Thoroughfare, Guide Plan contemplates an
trier~ hacrge dor, a variety of reasons; and. ; thk, tui d i ng of
this `particular site was one o the factors? Changing the
land use gu 'ding may or rrray not have tyre result of
el l oinating the interchange from the Thor; ug4 ar°e Guide
plana
Cotrrmissroner Marofsky, verified that the llui,D'no operation
would be a legitimate 'tgrandfathered" use if the guiding and
h
eventual zoning were, changed
Planning tCommissiOn Minutes
May 31, 1.9.E
Page 1.45
Chairman Plufka stated that he did not support IP guiding in
this area; fie said it is not the correct gui dlixg primarily
for the lack of good access other than through residential
areas.
Commissioner Wire suggested that the FluiOyne site by left
IP so that there would not be potential problems with
respect to the "grandfathered" use status later on.
Roll Call' Vote. 6 Ayes. Commissioner Pierce Nay. MOTION VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
carried.
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded u.) waaissioner
Stulberg to recommend reclassification of Area h,om IP to;
the commercial "CR" classification showing the intent that
the guiding is for a 5 acre convenience shopping site. -
MOTION by Chairman Plufka, seconded` by Commissioner Wire, to MOTION TO AMEND
amend the motion to reclassify Area 9 from 1P to LA -2
Chairman Plufka recognized Brad Hoyt who requested that if
the eguiding is to be changed, the specific location should
be d.es i grated' as suggested by Commissioner 'Marofsky earl er
in the meeting. Chairman Plufka clarified the motion and
his earlier comments, lie stated' it is too early to
specifically design a commercial site and that eventually it
could be reviewed as a specific plat and development plan is
considered.
Commissioner Wire also noted that the City had not formally
acted upon the proposed revisions to the commercial
classification.
Roll Call Vote. Commissioners Wire, and Chairman Plufka VOTE - MOTION FAILED
Ayes, Coortai ssi overs Pierce, Zyl la, Tierney, Marofsky and
Stulberg Nays. MOTION failed.
Roll Cal' l Vote on main motion'. " omni ss i overs Zyl l a, VOTE ON MAIN MOTION,-
Marofsky, and St lberg Ayes. Commisbioners Wire, Pierce, MOTION FAILED
Tierney, and Chairman Plufka Nays. MOTION failed.
Further discussions pursued as to the appropriate location
for a commercial Ote and whether theV should be LA -
guiding specification $.
Discussion involved questi ons and responses form Attorney
Malkerson and Mr., Brad Hoyt.
MOTION by Commissioner Pierce, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Marofsky, to reconsider the motion on regui di ng Area 9 from AREA 9
IP to commercial.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 31, 1989
Page 146
Roll Call Vote, 6 Ayes. Commissioner Wire V`ay. *TION VOTE MOTION CARRIED
carried.
MOTION by CommissiDner Pierce, seconded by Commissioner MOTION OAP'RCVE
Marofsky, to recommend reclassificat urs of Area 9 from IP to
LA -2 for that portion nort-iA. of future Schmidt Lake Road and
from IP 'to commercial for that portion south of future
Schmidt Lake Road -ith the intent . that the coiimte.rci al site
would be cif approximately 5 acres
Roll Call Vote, 4 Ayes. Commissioners Wire, Tierney, and VOTE MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Plufka Nays. MOTION carried.
Associate Planner Al Cottingham' expl-aided the proposed AREA 10
change and concerns that had been voiced by various property
owners. He also noted a May 25, 1989, letter form Attorney
Steven A. Sondrall on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Robert Porter
PIN 15-23-0008). Also, he noteda May 22, 1989,' letter
from Mr. Robert H Sevoy regarding his property (PIN 15-22--
0001.)
Commissioner Marofsky staled that his notes show that Mr.
Wally Anderson desired to leave two of his parcels in
Section 15 guided LA -3 trough he supported the change in
guiding for his other property. Associate Planner Al
Cottingham referenced the May 10 Minutes and clarified the
concerns of the various' property owners including Mr.
Anderson.
MOTION by Commis ior er Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Zylla, that the Commission recommend the reclassification in AREA 10
Area 10 from LA -3 to LA -2 for that property gest of
Berkshire Lane and up to a point that is in line with the
aevey property; and that that part of Area 10 north ` of the
land owned by Goff Homes be reel ase i fi ed from LA -3 to LA -2;
and that the rest of the land in Area 10 remain LA -3
namely, the Sevey property).
Commissioner Aire stated concerns with the partial reguiding
of Area 10 . Director Tremere clarified Commissioner
Marofsky`s motion and Associate Planner Al Cotting.ham
indicated the areas of proposed change on the map.
Chairman Plufka stated he was unsure about -the "sandwich,
effect" that would occur. In further discussion, it was
verified that the remaining LA -3 land could develop and that
it would not be incompatible with the LA -2 area around it.
Roll Callall Vote. Commissioner Marofsky Aye. 6 Nays. MOTION VOTE - MOTION FAILED
failed.
Planning Commission Minutes
May .31, 1989
Page 147
MOTION by Commissioner St 1 rg, seconded by Commissioner IOTION APPROVE
Wire, to recommend g°eclass;fication of Area 10 from LA -3 to
LA -2.
Vote. 7_ Ayes, VOTE - MOT10 CARRIED
Area 11 Associate Planner Al Cottingham explained theRE__,__A
proposed change.
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Tierney, ' to recommend reclassification of Area 11 from LA -3 AREA 11.
to LA -2.
Vote. 7' Avec. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTIO=N` CARRIEi
Associate Planner Al' Cottincdbam explained the proposed
chance and the information received from Harstad Companies
regarding properties They own in this area. Commissioner
Marofsky requested that the petitiorzr further clarify their
position. Chairman Plufka recognized Mr. Ken Briggs
representing Harstad Companies=
He stated the petitioner was proposing an eventual Planned
Unit<Development in this area that would have a variety of
densities and that this area would be best 'regui ded to LA} -2.
Director `a'remere commented that the Planning Commission's
position had been focused on the appropr=iate commercial,
guiding for the area and that the pity had not identified
the need to establish residential guidingih this area. He
indicated' that if a large plarnied unit development were
proposed that included' both residential land and cowmercial
land, the mixing of uses that is allowed by a PUD could
address the petitioner's concerns, No specific proposal has
been submitted at this time.
Mr. Briggs confirmed' that discussions with staff had
indicated the existing guiding could, perhaps, serve their
needs in, that vein and therefore, perhaps, the guiding
should remain CSS
Chairman Pl ufka observed that the area is environmentally
sensitive because of the goods, and that tie does not see
where CL is the best cliassificat c -n if the intent is to
preserve the woods
Mr. Briggs observed that they would actually prefer an LA -1
classification in Area 12 although he had not prepared a
precise density calculation for development. a ,7 specific
Commissioner Marofs ky agreed with Chairman Pl ufl a about the
environmental sensitivity Zkvit indicated that LA -1 did not
ter.
Planning Commission Minutes .
May 3 19814
Page 148
match the locational . criteria for this area particularly if
a higher density was,contemplated.
Commissioner Wire commented on density and suggested that
the issue was not ac ommodat on of a particular future
eves opmen t but,, rather;, ,,as the best use of the and f'
Di rector Tremere commented that there ere many regulatory
means > by which, the City could assure tree preservation. He
recommended that the basis for evaluating the appropriate
guiding would be more ,than just preserving tree..
MOTION by Chairman Pl u ka, seconded by Commissioner Wire, to MOTION TO APPROVE
recommend that the classification of Area 12 he thanged from AREA 1
CS to LA -2.
Com issionor Maro sky asked for staff's reaction to that
motion Director Tremere stated that, based on Tocational
criteria, the land', is more suitable for CL -type development
than. < He urged the Co1,1rmision to consider, carefully,
their recommendations for both Area 111 and Area 13 and not
deal with Area '1 n an isolated manner.
Roll Cali Vote. 5 Ayes, Commissioners, Marofsk and VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
tut berg Nays. MOTION carried.
AssociatePlanner Al Cottingham explained the proposed AREA
change and noted the information submitted or) behalf of
Harstad Companies,
MOTION by Comtr i ss 1 oner Tierney, seconded by Comae ss i over MOTION TO APPPOVt
Maro sky, to recommend reclassification of Area 13 from C
to LA -2.
Chairmanan Pl ufka clarified that the concept of an %A,4'1
classification came from the proposal ? Paxseau Co rpan es,
Mr. john ,Johnson, ,represent. riq Harstao Com aoi es, commented
on the concern they had aboet residential density in this
area.
Vote. 7 Ayes. SOT OI carr ed VOTE MOTION CARRIED
Associate Manner Al Cottingharn, explained the proposed APA4
change and noted that. the May 2, 1989, correspondence had
been received from Michael Cronin, representing N egele
Outdoor Advertising* Inc, He also noted the correspondence
dated May 23t, 1989t had been received from, Mr. ,ferry Theis
of Dundee nursery relative to property 3n Area, 14, also,
correspondence dated May 23, 1989, hada' been received from
4 Mrs Robert R. Melcher, representing, Tri-State Drilling,
Inc,, regarding property In Area 14.
launing Iion Minutes
May 3L 1989
Pale 149
M ICN by Chairman , ,seconded by C01.11mission r Wireo MOTION TO APPROVE
recommend reclassification of the qui4inqin Area 14 east of AREA l
Dunkirk Lane from, CL to LA -.2 ' and or the; area west of
Dunkirk Lane from CIL to, CSS and that the , a west of
Dunkirk Lane account for the location of the future frontage
mad and the wee `hand area whit , can be used for
deMa rc at i on .
Director Tremere commented that the road contemplated by the
current Thoroughfare Gui cue :Plan may or may, not charge
theproposed r5eguiitig.
Vote. Ayes. MOTION carried. VOYE MOTION CARRIED
Associate Planner Al Cottinghaw explained the proposed AREA
change C ir trtissioner Pierce guest%oned the status o the
proposed plat for part of the area., Mr. MarO sky stated
concerns about the port east .arid north of edIn Road- be
suggested that that portion be S and the rest be LA -1.
Associate Planner Al oWnghat explained the alignment of
existing and future Medina Road.
MOTION b Commis ones Marofs seconded b C, mot s ioner' MOTION APPROVE,
tulberg, to recommend the: change in guiding class f1cat on AREA 15
04 Are- 15 nor -0 of new Medina Road frol-I CL to
Chas ratan Pl ufka recognized Mr. Hans Hagen who stated he had
submitted , conceptual, plans including a possible preliminary
plat to the City for review and that be understood both the
City, and County were evaluating appropriate alignments for
County Road 24 and future Medina Road,
Director Tremere stated that the considerations of Land Use
Guiding :should deal, generally,, with the land use
relation. stips n the area and not be tied necessarily to
possible future development. The Thoroughfare Guide Pl art
will be reeval uated once the Caird 1se ui de Plan
classifications have been confirmed, of chang,d.
MOTION by Commissioner Tierney, seconded y Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Pierce, to attend the rttairl motion by reclassifying the area
i
from CL to the CR classification .and not CS.
1
Roll Call Vote. Commissioners Pierce, Tierney, and Chairman VOTE MOTION FAILED
Pluf' a Ayes,. Co.mn,'i ssitoners WIr'e;, Y'lla, Marofsky, and
Stul erg Mays.: MOTION'failed.
May 311, 1989
Page 150
Associate Planner Al Cottingham explained the. change and a AREA 16
discus Ion ensued regarding the general conceptual plans
submitted b Mr. flans Hagen. The ridge line in the area was
considered as vell, as the future read al ra e ts.
LOTION by Chairman Pl ufka, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TC. APPROVE
Harof"S to rec-ormuend reclassification of Area from LA -3 AREIfni 01
o .
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. Commiss c- '. rofs y abstained. VOTE MOTION CARRIED
f'
MOTION carried.
Associate 'Planner AT Cottingham explained the proposed
change.
MOTION by Commissioner Tierney, seconded by Commi ss i over MOTION TO APPROVE
r re,. to Brecon mend: that. Area 7 be changed from LA -2 to LA- AREA 1.7
4 k
Vote, 7 Ayes MOTION carried. VOTE MOTIONS CARRIED
This was reviewed by Associate Planner Al Cottingham whoh13
noted the May 11, 1989, petition received front residents in
the area of County Roads 101 and 24.
MOTION by Coatis loner Pierce, , s con .' by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Tierney, to not recommend a change from LAyA for Area 18. AREA 1.8
Roll Call, Vote. 6 Ayes"#Commissioner Marof ky Nay. MOTION VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
carried..
Changes were reviewed . Associate 'Planner Al Co ingl atn4 REA 1
MOTION 'by Co mmI ss ones Tierney,, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO 'APPROVE
tulberg, to recommend reclassifiC at ioa of Area 19 from LA -I AREA 19
o LA -2.
Vote -# 7 Ayes MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
The proposed changes were explained by Associate Planner AT A O
Cottingham, and he noted the staffrecommendation would to
I eave the area as LA- Z
MOTION, by Commissioner Stu l berg , seconded by Commissioner MOTI O TO APPROVE
Pierce, a net recommend a chary e in lie LA classification AREA C
i0sofArea20.
R01 Call o e Ayes Chairman Plu°fka flay. MOT ION VCS` - MOTION CARRIED
y
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO DEFER
Pierce, to defer consideraf'on of Area 1 unfrl Areals AREA
rkeyaewed later in the meetin .
Vote.. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE MOTION CARRI O
Planning Commission Minus
May 3111 1989
page
The proposed change was reviewed by Associate Planner Al AREA
Cott i nham who, noted May, 24, 1989, correspondence had been
eceived from ;John Johnson of M r%i la Associates on behalf of
Narstad Companies.
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Marof y, to reLo mmend that the guiding of Area 22 be. AREA 22
changed from IP to LAR,
Roll Call Voice. AyesCommissioner Tierney flay. MOTION COTE - MOTION CARRIED
carried.
Associate P -n er' Al Co ingham explained the proposed AREA23
chane and noted the May 10, 1.9 9, correspondence that had,
been received at the Public hearing from Mr. 8urdick PIN
08-32-0001).
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Coiiimissioner MOTIONJO APPROVE
tulber0, to recommend the reclassification of Area 23 from AREA 2
LA -2 to LAR.
Roll 'Call Motet 6 Ayes tsommi sio er Tierney Rdy, MOTION VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
carried.
Associate PlannerAl Cottingham explained the change and AREA
noted correspondence received from, Mr. Johnson of r la
Associate on '.behalf of Harstad Companies.
MOTION by Commissioner Zylla, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Marofsky, to recomeod that Area 24 :be reclassified from LA- AREA 24
2 to 'LA -1.
Roll Call Vote 7 Ayes, MOTION carried.. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
This was 'explained by Associate Planner Al Cottingham who
noted the May; 24, ; 1989, correspondence from Mr. Johnson of
Meril;a Associates on behalf of Nars ad Companies.
MOTION by Coni-aissioner Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner MOTIO1 TO APPROVE
Tierney, to recommend reclassification of Area 25 from IP to AREA 24
LA -I w
Vote. 7 Ayes, MOTION carried, VOTE MOTION CARRIED
This was reviewed by Associate Planner Al Cottingham. ARS
MOTION by Commissioner Tierney, seconded by Commissro.rer, t OTIO TO APPROVE
tui er , o r°commend that Area 26 be reclassified from CS AREA
and LA - o CE
Vote. 7 Ayes, MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3L1989
Page 152'
h s; wa-s rev e. 0& 4 +a i0.,*
r1
no Al + who
noted correspondence dated May 23t 1989, from DundeeNursery,
nd frog r ri
MOTION by Commissioneroner ire seconded by Commssioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Pierce, to recommend that Area 27 be reclassified from LA-3 AREA 2
to Cs,
Poll Vote, Ayes.Commissioner Metro', ; day. MOTION VOTE 0 C R I ED
cary
yCyal
The proposal was reviewed by Associate i-Ilanner Al APES 2
Cottingham. '.
MOTION y Commissioner Zy1la, seconded, by Commi sion zr MOTION TO APPROVE
t lberg., to recommend classH cation of Area 8 from LA-2 ARCA 28
to LA-1.
RollCall: Vote. 6 Ayes. Commissioner Stulberg day. ria-TION VOTE - M07FIOW CARRIED
carried,,
This was reviewed by Associate Planner Al Cottingham.R A:2
r '= MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded b Clla f f ar Pl a a, to
MCM
TO APPROVE
not recommend the reclassification of Area 29 from AREA
bl i c/se Ali ` publl i
Roll Call Vote.. 6 Ayes. Commissioner Marofsky Nay. MOTION VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
carried.
This was explained by Associate Planner Al Cott it, h m who AREA
peti ron dated, May 101 1989, re ce7ved from areanoted{{
6
the
s.
MOTION by Commissioner Tierney, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Wire, to, not recommend a recl as s i f i
cation of Area 30 from AREA 30
LA-1
Vote. 7 Ayes, MOTION carried_ COTE MOTION 'CARRIED
Commissioner Tierney, left the table at 11 415 p.m.
The hear was introduced by Chairman Pluf a who noted that AEA. ....I. 102'
consideration of Area 21 had been tabled earlier in the
Meeting'.,
Associate Planner,, AT Cottingham notjd that the staff
recommendation for Area 14 was that the classification of
Area 21 should remain: CS ratber thFa be changed to IP, If
the classification of Area 31 was to be changed-. from IP to
LA-1 and commerce al
Planning Cormaission lMin tes
May 3 1,x1989:
Page 153
MOTION by Chairman I of ka, seconded by Commissioner Wire, to M-0TI0N T- APPROVE
recommend reclassificationkation of Area 21 l rote CS to CR t the AREA 21
r
proposed commercial retail c 1on.
f.
Vote. Ayes. MOTION, carried, VOTE - MOTION, CARRIED
Asxsoclate Mariner Al Cottingham reviewed the proposed change
for Area 31 and noted t,- was to reclassify tine area friary IP- ntotobothLA-1 and corrrrerc 1 al` R
There, was discussion as to nether the crew classification
should be only LA-1 without any , orr1r1rercial.
R
Chairman Rluf Ca e pl am d that the issue at this time and
for the following ; item was whether a Public fearing should
be scheduled on the proposal so that they, would be
considered as part of the City-sponsored changes.,
MOTION by Cha1rrrran Rlufka,, seconded by. Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
tulberp, to schedule for Public Rearing the AREA
reclassification of Area 31 from 1P o LA-1R
Coll Carl Nate. 6 Ayes. Commissioner Marofsky Nay MOTION VOTE - MOTION: CARRIED
carried,
The r~oposed c iange was review u Associate -1 r ner Al
Cotti nghajrr who noted May. 25, 1989, correspondence from
Attarney a W Dai eat er` on behal e BeverlyKe as,,, who
represents ownership of that land indicated, on she graphic
which Is only a part of t°,re northwest quadrant of Highway 55
and 1-494. The corresporidence indicates the desire of the
petitioner to have the City reclassify; all of the band in
the Plymouth Freeway Center Addition from Cb to C Re
Director Trentere questioned `the need to reclassify the,
entire quadrant on the basis that a distinction between
ccmitrrercia,1
I classifications could be made sorely on the basis
of the degree to which uses are accessed by automobile. He
reminded the Commission that there are distinctions between
the commercial categories a a natter of appropriate
zoni
np
and that thue change inding -of the ent r°e are-, -- uld
charnter f entire area which was aIY,e,adyc1lanethetie
partially developed.
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner MOT1C14 ".1`0-APPROVE
ire, to subinit for
Publ1-
flearinja the reclassificatiq" from AREA 32
Cb to C of all of the land east of Fernbrook Lane n the
northwest quadrant of Highway 55 and 1-1-49-4.'
Vote. 7 Ayes 140TION tarried K J 10"N BAR rI D
W rr' x*. z dEiLyr 4 c r^»e t w a
planning Commission Minutes
may 31, 1989
mage 154
A an yq1A,*,.jpA 4-Uq4- + cf-tt" ssoc'* ate Al, Cootting"nam 1., 1 AJtrlx. U LXL,iI is Sr LR
bad been proposed. by US Homes. The proposal was to
re c I a. s s, i fy the pub,li.c/semi-public land to, LA -2 whIich would
be more consistent tq 7, t h their development plans for the
area.,
MOTION, 'by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Chai rman MOTION TO APPROVE
Plufka, to not submit` for bearing Ue reclassification of AREA 33
Area, 33
Roll Cali; Vote. 6 Ayes.. Commissioner Marofsky Nay. MOTION, VOTE MOTION CARRIED
carried.
Comm un i ty Development Coordinator Charles Dilleruct explained AREA
the request and recalled tNlat tbere,bad been a staff mix-up
with: graphics submitted by Attorney Linda Fisher on behalf
of Trammel Crow Company at the May 10 hearing.
He noted., correspondence dated May. 23, 1989, from Linda
Fisher, and Chairman Plufka recognized Ms. Fisher.
She recounted t1he.points made at the Public Hearing and
offered to answer any questions that might have resulted.
from ,the i i n, graphics since the owner is concerneduix -up, 1 the
that the item not 0 forward toRub I ic Nearing .
MOT10t4 by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissiot)er TO, APPROVE
Pierce, to submit for Public Hearing the reclassification AREA 34
I involves part of th' dproposedinArea34, which, I e LA -3 I an
which would be reclassified to'IP}
ChaIrman Plufka questioned whether this was appropriate
since not all Commissioners received the data for Area 34.
Vote,. 7 Ayes. MOTIQN carried. VOTE MOTION CARRIED
I rCommunityDevelopmeptCoordinato Charl es` DI I I era- EAR
introduced this item and noted that the', graph:ics for this
area had been involved. in the mix-up for Area 34. Ne noted
the May 23, 1989, correspondence from,Attorney Linda Fisher,
on b eb a-1 of Trammel Crow
Ms, Fisher was -recognized and explained that ,ey had
reviewed the extensiof thisvehistory property, and the
zoncerns expressed by the City Council when action was taken
for a similar reguiding from CL to IP for vantage companies.
S h e stated. that the, concept ' prom,oted by her client is
Penning Commission, f4inutes
May, 311, 1989
Rage 5
MOTION by Commi ss1oner 1arof y to not include Area °gin. MOTION TO APPROVE
the Publi Hearinspecific plans were not available- AREA 3.
for rev i ej.
Motion failed for lack, of a second. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK
A SECOND
OTIN by Cha rran Plufa, seconded by Commissioner Piero, 1OTOi TO AL
table consideration of this proposal, to., include :Area 35 AREA 3
into ;Public Hearing, until the study sesson scheduled for
June, 9 9 so X11 Comm' soon rs can review the materials
sobr i ted by Trammel Croy for this area.
Rall Call Vote. 6; Ayes. Commissioner, Stulberg Nay, MOTION VOTE N10T ON CARRIED
carried
Commissioner Tierney, returned to tine table at 12.1 a,m.
irectos Trerere question th need to recons tier this
irceeCi ty Council had acted upon the petition of C,
Rein to regu de the property from CL ' to CS. The City
Council had unanimously elected to Heave the property g,Atded
CL
This area had been "created" by the Commis ion to ref iee
the fact tna a petition ifas oeing. considered for regulding
at the same time the Cite was considering whether to reguide
areas: of the community Noir that the City Council has made
ruling on that petition, thei°e does rrot seem to be any
hasps for the City tCi revive the ,ssue of a
reclassification"
There was no consensus to proposed for Puhl1c Nearing a
rec 1 ass I f I cation of the property from CL.
Assoc r ate Planner Al Cottingham explained the proposal and AR An 37
referred to May 4, 1989, correspondence from John Johnson
of Merila Associates representing Elar tad Companies., He
explained further; that a petition had: been submitted by
arc ed Companies and that it was scheduled tocome' before
the Commission at the t e -t mei ng.
It was the consensus to not submit Area 37 for Public
lHearing,
a
This was, explained by Associate Planner Al Cottingham who ARLA 3,
doted the i nforma ion submitted by Narstad Companies, who
has prepared prospective deveiopYp nt plans for the area west
Vicksburg Lane of Highway 55. of and north
LOTION by Comm ss oner yl1a, econd.ed by Commissioners LOTION TO APPROVE
tarofsky,: to not. submit a reclassification of Area 38, now AREA 38
guided CC, to Publr Nearrnp
Plann n g Commission In tes
may, 1 1989,
Page 166
Chairman Rlufka agreed and stated that any requiding of this
area to, another commercial category should be the result of
a specific developrent :proposal:
Vote. 7 Ayes. 140TIO carried. VOf _ MOTION CARRIED,
This war, explained by Associate Planner Al Cott nghar as a
housekeeping matter" of a small, area that had been
overlooked in the earlier rev ew'
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
larca, to submit Area 89' to Public Hearing for possible AREA 39
recl ass ifIcat lon from IP to LAR*.
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MICTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Plu ka explained that the Commis{sion has now
reviewed and has made recommendation upon ,all areas for
proposed change in the sand Ilse Cuide plan classification,
except for those which, are to be considered an additional
Public Hearl ng and the one area which may be included alter
the study meeting on June 7, Those areas for which a final
recommendation has been made will be referred to the City
Co nc-i1 for final action.
Goals,objectives -and Cr heti a, Cay rman pl ufka i trodCd
the iter and noted that staff had prepared a revised draft
of the Coags, Objectives, and Criteria text as last reviewed
by the Corrrrrrisslon..
MOTION by Commissioner Marof sky, secondee by Chairman MOTION T4 APPROVE
Plufka., to recommend approval of the amendments to the
Coals, ob ect ves, and Criteria element of the Comprehensive
Plan, subject to revising the index so it is consistent with
the body of the document.
MOTION by Corm i ssi ober Pierce, seconded by Commi ss7 over MOTION TO 'TADbC
Wire, to table farther consideration and action on the
k Coals, Objectives, and Criteria element until the dune 7,
1989, study session,
Vote. 7 Ayes, MOTION carried, VOTE -- MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Plufka adjourned the meeting at I2.30 a, m,