Loading...
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,