HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 12-08-1993CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 8, 1993
The regular meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Mike Stulberg.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Mike Stulberg, Commissioners Barb Stimson,
Mike Wigley (arrived at 7.10 p.m.), Julie Witt, Ed Albro
and Dennis Zylla.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Scott Syverson.
STAFF PRESENT: Director Anne Hurlburt, City Engineer Dan Faulkner,
Associate Planner John Kebo, and Planning Secretary
Jackie Watson.
MINUTES:
MOTION by Commissioner.Zylla, seconded by Commissioner Witt to approve the
November 10, '1993 Planning Commission minutes.
Vote. 4 Ayes, Commissioner Albro abstained.
MINNF,GASCO (92049)
Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Minnegasco for the Renewal of an
Amendment to a PUD Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow for an experimental
fuel service pump at a single family site at 11525 51st Avenue North.
Chairman Stulberg waived the review of the November 18, 1993 staff report.
Associate Planner Kelm stated that no complaints have been received in the past year.
Chairman Stulberg opened and closed the Public Hearing as there was no one present to
speak on the request.
MOTION by Commissioner Zylla, seconded by Commissioner Albro to recommend
approval of the request by Minnegasco for the Renewal of an Amendment to a PUD
Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow for an experimental fuel service pump at a
single family site at 11525 51st Avenue North, subject to all conditions listed in the
November 18, 1993 staff report.
Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. Motion carried.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
Page 210
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATES (93121)
Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Commercial Property Associates for a
Preliminary Plat of a 5.9 acre parcel into 5 single family lots at 2220 County Road
101.
Associate Planner Keho reviewed the November 19, 1993 staff report.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Greg Frank, representing the petitioner.
Mr. Frank discussed the request for the variances Mating that they resulted from the
additional right-of-way requested by Hennepin County for County Road 101.
Chairman Stulberg opened the Public Hearing.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mrs. Al Heitkamp of 2116 North Highway 101..
Mrs. Heitkamp stated that she would like a berm created in the back yard of the home
that would abut the road near he home so that they would not have to see the back yard
from their home.
Chairman Stalberg introducedMs. Kathy Stuebner-Holt of 17635 24th Avenue. Noi+.h.
Ms. Stuebner-Holt stated that her concern was with the back yards of Lots 4 and 5
which would back up to her home. She said she did not want anything built on this site
because of the wild life in this area. She stated that they' ha,i planted some small fir
trees on one of the lots and they would like some assurance that they could move and
replant these trees before development began.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Michael Stuebner-Holt of 17635 24th Avenue
North.
Mr.'Stuebner-Holt stated that he was concerned with the drainage from the site. He
said he would like to know what was designated as the front; back, and side of the lots
on the north portion of the site.
Chairman Stulberg closed the Public 1leming,
W. Frank discussed the drainage from the site stating the flow would be to the south
and eastward to the county road. He said that there will be a treatment pond for the
runoff before it flows into the DNR protected wetland.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
Page 211
City Engineer Faulkner stated that the drainage plan meets the City's requirements.
Mr. Frank stated that they anticipate beginning development next summer. He said
that the developer would be building his own home on Lot 2 and that the outlot would
be attached to this lot.
Mr. Frank stated that the Stuebner--Holts could move the small trees they planted, and
he would discuss this with them after the meeting..
Associate Planner Keho explained where the fiont, side and rear lines were on Lots 3
and 4 of the site.
Commissioner Witt asked if the owner of Lot'2 could sell the outlot that would be tied
to that parcel.
Mr. Frank responded that the deed to Lott would state that the outlot could never be
smarated from the parcel.
Commissioner Zylla asked if there would be driveway access across Outlot A.
Associate Planner Keho stated that a 30 foot wide easement exists to allow for the
driveway across Outlot A.
Commissioner Zylla stated that he would be in favor of a variance on Lot 4 for a 25
foot front yard setback to bring the house closer to the road because of the steep slopes.
Mr. Frank stated that the steep slopes are grades for a walkout design home and they
would not need the variance for reduced front yard setback.
MOTION by Commissioner Zylla, seconded by Commissioner Stimson to recommend
approval of the request by Commercial Property Associates fora Preliminary Plat of P.
5,9 acre parcel into 5 single family lots at 2220 County Road 101, subject to all
conditions listed in the November 19, 1993 stiff report.
MOTION to Amend by Commissioner Witt, seconded by Commissioner Zylla to add
language to Condition No. 10 stating that ownership of Outlot B can only be
transferred along with the ownership of Lot 2, Block 1, and can never be separated
from Lot 2, Block 1.
Commissioner Wigley stated that he opposed this amendment because conditions could
change in the fumie and this outlot could be wanted as asite for a park. Chairman
9
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
Page 212
Stulberg stated that he agreed with Commissioner Wigley. Chairman Stolberg said he
felt the lot and outlot should be conveyed as one parcel.
Roll Call Vote on Motion to Amend. 5 Nays, Commissioner Wittvoted Aye. Motion
failed.
MOTION to Amend by Commissioner Zylla, seconded by Commissioner Albro to state
that the from yard setback for Lot 4 could be reduced to 25 feet, if desired by the
developer.
Commissioner vtrgley stated he favored this reduced front yard setback.
Roll Call Vote on Motion to Amend. 6 Ayes. Motion carried.
Roll Cal. Vote on Main Motion. 6 Ayes. Motion carried on an unanimous vote.
DANIEi. DEV1 DPMENT COMPANY (93106)
Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Daniel Development Company for a
Mixed PUD Concept Plan, Preliminary Plan/Plat, Conditional Use Permit; and, a
Thoroughfare Guide Plan Amendment for property located south of County Road 10at
Trenton Lane.
Associate Planner Keho reviewed the November 22, 1993 staff report.
Commissioner Zylla asked how the amount of bud, required for park land is
deenained.
Associate Planner Kebo stated there is a formula in the Park Dedication Policy that is
used when the develcpment is a Mixed Planned Unit Development Plan.
Commissioner Zylla asked what the traffic analysis for the site determined with the
different street plans.
Associate Planner Keho stated that study said determined that either street plan would
not create any problems for traffic.
Commissioner Wigley asked what the procedure was or a change in the Thoroughfare
Guide Pian,
Associate Planner Kohn explained that the Metropolitan Council would have to approve
the change if the City Council approved it.
0
planning Commission Mmutes
December 8, 1993
Page 213
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Greg Frank, representing the petitioner-.
W. Frank discussed and showed on the overhead the large amount of wetlands on the
site. He stated that their plan would include filling only 1 acre of wetland and this
would be done in order to provide a roadway through the site,
i;
Mr. Frank discussed the park dedication policy which required that 6.1 arms ofhigh
and dry land were required to be dedicated for park land. He said that the developer
would be increasing the amount by donating 3.1. acres above what is required. !'
Aft. Frank discussed cul-de-sac requested which would allow access to 4lots to
minimae the impact on the wetlands in thatarm. He said that all the houses would be
built on the south side of the cul-de-sac, and they would post signs stating that would
be no parking on the north side of the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Frank discussed the traffic analysis. He said that the Level of Service at all 3
intersections on their plan would be acceptable. He said that they were not in favor of
staff's recommendation because of safety concerns. He said they feel Trenton Lane
needs to go through to provide emergency access to the area. He said the long Trenton
lane cul-de-sac of 1200 feet would require a variance.
Commissioner Wigley asked where 55th Avenue North would cut through the wetlands
if it were extended to Nathan Lane.
Mr. Frank pointed out the area on his plan .
Commissioner Zylla;t ded that the extension of 55th Avenue North would allow
development of land to the east of this site..
W. Frank stated the eastedy site would have access from Nathan lane without the
extension of 55th Avenue North.
Commissioner Zylla asked if the east property could develop without access onto 55th
Avenue North.
Associate PlannerKeho stated that the immediate parcel on the east would not be able
to develop until the property east of it was developed since access to the county road
would probably be restricted.
Chairman Stulberg opened the Public Hearing
Chairman Stulberg introduced Ann Bipes of 10605 52nd Avenue North.
M
Planning Commission himutes
Dec:mber 8, 1993
Page 214
M. Bipes stated that her concern was the wildlife on the site and said she was opposed
to any development on this site. She said she was also concerned with an increase in
vandalism resulting from the increase in development,, and, also the loss in property
values. She said that the wetlands are important to bolding home values in this area.
She said she thought the increased development would cause more noise from the train
tracks due to a tunnel effect. She said she would like the wetland replaced on a 2:1
ratio and would bice the park development included in the first phase of the
development. She asked how much of the trail system would go through the
neighborhood.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Jeffrey Bipes of 10605 52nd Avenue North.
M. Bipes stated that he was opposed to any development in this area. He asked why
does the Planning Commission discuss preservation: of wetlands and development in the
same arena. He said the only development he approvedof on the site was the park, he
said he opposed commercial and residential development.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Bernhard Fokken of 5175 Trenton Lane North.
M. Fokker stated he wanted to know the size and the price of the proposed
condominiums.
Chairman Shalbc,s intiuduced Mr. Don Gardner 10699 53rd Avenue North.
M. Gardner said he lived in Pheasant Trails and asked if there would be a buffer
between the existing homes and the proposed development.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Glenn Olander-Quamme of 10750 55th Avenue
North.
Mr. Olander-Quamme, a resident of the Harrison Hills development, stated he alas
impressed with this proposed development, and said that he had met with the
developer. He said he was an environmental attorney. His greatest concern was the
traffic flow throughout the area. He said that stafrs proposal for 55th Avenue North to
connect with Nathan Lane would encourage people to use it as a shortcut to Nathan
Zane, which would increase traffic in the Harrison Hills development. He said that
until 55th Avenue North was completed to Nathan lane, all traffic would go through
Harrison Hills.
Mr. Olander-Quamme stated he also had a problem with the developer's traffic plan
which would provide a quick exit to Zachary lane from Trenton Lane. He suggested
pbluling Commission Iffinut0s
December S, 1993
page 215
that 55th Avenue North be ss
fromfrenton lane vIlth a fire bac b . reak which
would provide emergency access 10 the area.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Robert Otto of 5365 Orleans Lane. tb Cardinal Ridge Townb0mrs residentsd&Ig in behaff. f the id their concerns were WithMr. Otto stated he was SPPA ie development. He sm not want Nathan IA00stafmgtheywereinfavoroftheCardinalRidge, and, they dowedands, dMinage of ponds near
extended past the Cardinal Ridge
development.
600 43rd Avenue North.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Ket, Payne Of 10
east. go said his landthp. owner of the land lying to the e He said he
ayne stated that he was , P the Provision for 55th to Cross his property'
would be landlocked without Of this landlocked situatlull.
eannot s6tt propertybecause
Chairman Stulberg introduce Mr- wMarn Gimble, Of 5405 Orleans 'Ane* tidge development. He said he was
propose -
site. He said that
r
d parkimblestatedbelivedintheCardinalIMr. was located west of the He asked who put
concerned with land whicht was too ambitious around the Park am' this proposed develOPmen rove of the Proposed Project
the wetlarid stakes out. He said he did however APP
overall. ced M. Bin Sprooll of 10741154th Avenue North, Chairman Stulberg introduced InUsand supported the developer's pbn- He
Mr, Sproult stated he lived and
Hamson S for the site.
M - much better than some
earlIef Plan
He said
said this Proposed development Was5thAvenue North beitig extended to Nathan LaneHesaidbewasagainst5ZacharyLanetocutthroughthe Site towouldencouragetrafficfromZacwe6ndsandwoodlandsinthearea Of
this extension minimize the impact On
Nathan Lane, He said that there are significant, the developer to North contained a
the 54th Avenue cul-de-sac and would like to S e lot on 540h Avenue. lower portion Of the 'all Hills development
hc),.neowners in the Harnsonthem. He said that the ice skating by and setbacks. in this
pondwhich is used for. - Me said that the rear yal
Id not like his access blocked wetlands if any future owners were to
and they Won could also impact the
area of the development
erect fences at the rear of their lots.
inger, of 5465 Orleans Lane'
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr, Ken Wind
anywedands at the
concerned about the removal of
Mr. winding er stated he was most would be removed and there was no
South pad of the site as it looked like
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1953
Page 216
indication of where the replacemeat would be. He said he was also concerned that
setbacks be enforced around the wetlands, and with erosion control during construction.
Chairman Stulberg introduced W. Dennis Jackson of 10700 53rd Avenue North.
Mr. Jackson stated he was concemcd about the removal of the wetlands in the
southwest comer and asked if the panding area would have the same crinditions
stipulated for that lot as does the Harrison Hills property that abuts this ponding area.
Chairman Stulberg closed the Public Hearing.
Chairman Stulberg advised the audience that the Planning Commission does not address
the subject of property values.
W. Frank stated that he did not think a'tunnel effect would be created from the
railroad as only 3 lots will be built near the tracks. He described the trail plan which
he said was still in the development stage and would not defined until after this site
is approved. He said that 9.2 acrep of the trails were outside the wetlands.
Associate Planner Keho stated that the phasing plan for the park willbedetermined
until after this development is approved.
Mr. Frank stated that the Park Department had indicated that there could possibly be
some park development started next year.
M. Frank stated that the townhome area was only concept, that no specific plans for
this area have been made at this time. He said there were no plans to create a buffer
between this development and Pheasant Trails at this time. He said that it might be;
possible that some future homeowners would plant something there or something could
be planted at the time of construction. He stated that the Olander-Quamme suggestion
to break Trenton Lane and provide only an emergency access would be very difficult
for the City and was very unusual.
Mr. Frank discussed the drainage plan in the area near the Cardinal Ridge
development, stating that the developer would continue with the City's comprehensive
drainage plan. He said the runoff could be less, but nevertheless cannot negatively
impact other property. He said the water would be treated before it enters the
wetlands.
City Hngmeer Faulkner stated that John Anderson, a wetlands expert, staked the
wetlands and staff found his report to be in order.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
Page 217
Mr. Frank discussed the wetlands around the No. 2 area and the areas which would be
filled. He showed where the mitigation will enlarge two wetlands on a 1:1 ratio. He
said that the wetlands would act as a buffer between the single family and townhome
area.
t
Mr. Frank discussed the setbacks around the wetlands which would be 10 feet or more.
He said that most of the DNR wetlands are in City park area. The DNR requires a 50 it
foot setback from Bass Creek which would be in the townhome area.
City Engineer Faulkner stated that a^;ion control would be monitored by the
Engineering Department during the grading phase, that during the building phase it was
the developer's responsibility. He said that the developer was required to post a bond
with this City to ensure that erosion control was adhered to.
Mr. Frank stated that it may be. possible for an easement to be granted which would fenableoccupantsofHarrisonHillstoaccessthepondonthesouthwestportionoftheIsite.
City Engineer Faulkner said that he did not believe that 55th Avenue North would be
used as a short cut, and he said it was important to maintain the integrity of the
Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
Chairman Stulberg recognized Mr; Ohinder-Quamme. i
Mr. Olander-Quamme stated that he did not want the parcel north of Harrison Hills and
west of this proposed site to be connected by street to Harrison Hills in the future;
Associate Planner Keho stated that access to this parcel would probably connect to the
future townhome site but there could be no assurances of this at this time. He said
there was not an application for the development of that site.
City Engineer Faulkner stated that 55th Avenue North was designed to be a minor
collector and would be expected to handle the traffic.
Associate Planner Keho stated that this proposed plan would generate less traffic than
anticipated because of the reduced density.
Commissioner Wigley asked if the 3rd traffic option of an estimated 210 trips at
ti
V
Zachary Lane and 55th Avenue North.
City Engineer Faulkner replied that staff agreed with the traffic consultant's esthnate.
i
He said that the intersection at Trenton Lane and Bass Lake Road would eventually be
signalized.
Planning commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
Page 218
Commissioner Zylla asked if access from the commercial area would be allowed onto t
Bass Lake Road.
y
Associate Planner Keho stated that there were no specific plans for this access at the
present time, but access would probably not be allowed onto County Road 10 (Bass
Lake Road) from the commercial site;
Commissioner Zylla asked if the future commercial site would remain commercial as
It .
guided in the City's plan.
t
Mr. Frank stated that the owner plans to keep this site as commercial as he feels this
would be the best use of the site.
Mr. Dan Hunt, the owner of the site, stated that he discussed acquiring the property to
the east for purchase but that was only a discussion with. that property owner, and no 4
decisions were made.
i
Commissioner Zylla stated that he agreed wish preserving the integrity of the
Thoroughfare Guide Plan, and that it made sense to have 55th Avenue North connect to
Nathan Lane
Mr. Frank stated that the logical place for 55th Avenue North to extend through 4,6 site ii,
would be through Lot 5.
MOTION by Chairman 5tuiberg, seconded by Commissioner Albro to affirm the
Tbdroughfate Guide Plan.
µ
ii Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. Motion carried on an unanimous
vote. MOTION by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Wigley to
recommend approval of the request by Daniel Development: for a MPiJD Concept Plan for
the property located south of County Road 10 and Trenton Lane, subject to all
conditions listed in the November 22, 1993 staff report.
r- MOTION to amend by Commissioner Wigley, seconded by Commissioner Zylla
to
6 recommend the Alternative 1 Roadway System Plan showing Trenton Lane
connecting to 55th Avenue
North., Roll Call Vote on Motion to Amend. 6 Ayes. Motion carried on an unanimous
vote. Roll Calf Vote on Main Motion 6 Ayes. Motion carried on an unanimous
planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
Page 219
MOTION by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Stimson to recommend
approval of the request bylana,'. ^evelopment for a MPUD preliminary P1an!plat and ;
Conditional Use Permit.
MOTION to Amend by Commissioner Wigley, seconded by Commissioner Zylla to
delete Condition 26 on the approving resolution.
Roll Call Vote on Motion to Amend. 6 Ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION by Commissioner Albro to require mitigation of the wetlands on a 2:1 ratio.
Motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION to !smend by Commissioner Wigley, seconded by Commissioner Witt to add. a restrictive covenant to the deed for Lot 2; Block 5 which would allow the Harrison
Hills homeowners to the west to have access to the pond on this site.
Chairman Stulberg stated that he would not support this amendment because access
rights would be up to the owner and not the Commission.
Roll Call Vote on Motion to Amend. 1 Aye, Commissionas Albro, Zylla, Stimson, Witt and Chairman Stulberg voted Nay. Motion failed on a 1-5 vote.
Roll Call Vote on Main Motion as once amended, 6 Ayes. Motion carried on an
unanimous vote.
MOTION by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Wigley to recommendapprovaloftheResolutionSettingConditionstobeMetPriortoPublicationofthe
Rezoning.
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. Motion carred.
Chairman Stulberg called a recess called at 9:15 On, The meeting reconvened at 9:30
p.m.
BATON CORPORATION (92113)
Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Baton Corporation for an AmendedRptWpreliminaryPlan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for 10 single family lots and18twinhomeunits; and, Subdivision Variance for cul-de-sac length for property
located southeast of Larch Lane and old Rockford Road:
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
Page 220
Associate' Planner Keho reviewed the November 30, 1993 staff report.
Director Hurlburt stated that the Planning Commission should focus on the applicant's.
compliance with the 14 conditions which were added to the approving resolution by the
City Council.
Commissioner Albro asked why the Variance for the long cul-de-sac was needed.
Director Hurlburt stated that the access to this parcel has char. -ed over the years and
the access was been limited, thus the need for the long cul-de-sac.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Richard Zejdtik, representing the petitioner.
Mr. Zejdlik stated that there was a deadline for a decision on this -request. He said that
they have complied with the 14 conditions requested by the City Council.
Chairman Stulberg stated that the Commission would limit the time for each speaker to
5 minutes, because of the late hour.
Chairman Stulberg opened the Public Hearing.
Chairman Stulberg introduced letters received by the City from Marlin Sjaarda dated
November 30, 1993; from Robert Donley and David Priebe dated December 2,1993;
and another by David and Lavonne Priebe into the record,
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Marlin Sjaarda of 11720 38th Avenue North.
Mr. Sjaarda commended staff on the language included in the denial resolution attached
to the staff report. He said that they hit most of the points but there are a few major 9
issues that they left out. He said this plan continues to live even though there are
significant variances that point out the inappropriateness of placing it on this particular
property. If seems to have all the variances that it can have, front yard, side yard, cut -
de -sac length, bluff, storm water and now even the Shorehvid Management District.
He said that at the last Planning Commission hearing the Shoreland Management
District became an issue and the petitioner said at that time that if any of the units
were in the Shoreland Management District that he would leave those out. Now he
wants a variance on that as well. Mr. Sjamda asked what the justification for all these
variances was. One of the key issues is the fact that Richard Zejdlik is a partner in
Mission Partners and has been throughout this whole process along with Lundgren.
Mission Partners owned the property that Lundgren developed to the east and therefore
cut off the access, it has been the same ownership eiroughout.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
Page 221
Yvfr. Sjaarda said that one of the big concerns about this plan is that the whole
development has moved much much closer than this developer had promised. He was
also concerned with the maximum ground floor elevation. The floor elevation makes a
major difference on the effect to the neighboring areas. W. Sjaarda was concerned
that staff had pointed out long cul-de-sacs in the area but that the attributes of those cul-
de-sacs were very different, not only because of the natural features on this site which
are very significant, but also because of the layout of those cul -desacs which allowed
greater emergency vehicle access. the cul-de-sac that we are talking about is very long
and a "mitigating factor" seems to be proposed as the emergency access from the south.
The trail is too narrow, it's through woods, and it's a mile from one end to the other to
Set access.
Mr. Sjaarda said that from 1990 and 1991 virtually the same plan was proposed. Staff
at that time had said their concern was that it did not maintain the integrity of the
neighborhood as far the Planned Unit Development with loss of private open space,
they say that existing residents bought into this existing plan with open spaces which
are tieing depleted, they refer to the Subdivision Code clearly directing you as the
Commission to consider the natural features of the site.
Chauman Stulberg introduced Mr. Hugh Maynard.
Mr. Maynard stated that he would pass at this time.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Bob Donley of 11740 38th Avenue North.
Mr. Donley discussed his letter which was introduced into the record.
Mr. Donley said that this project is not compatible with the environment, City
ordinances; the Mission PUD standards that have been developed and approved upon or
is it compatible with the expectations of the property owners that bought into the
Mission PUD. He read the pages which referred his overheads which are a matter of
record.
He said we deserve. answers from you people as to why you like this project.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Ms. Rita O'Donnell of 12105 41st Avenue North.
Ms. O'Donnell read the "Quotable Quotes" from Mr. Donley`s letter which is a matter
of record. She said these quotes tie in with what she has to say. She discussed the
DNR leiter received by the City today (12/8/93). She said the issues here are concerns
of water quality. Just one example that comes from this letter is that they refer to the
letter submitted by Summit Environmental Solutions on discussing waterquality. She
said this letter Was one of the items that Mr. Zejdlik is using to respond to the
17
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
Page 222
mitigation points. This letter is totally inadequate becaise its based on using the 7
acres DNR pond in the middle of the property as a storm water detention basin in
itself. She said it washer understanding is that thaPs totally unacceptable to the DNR
and they will not allow that to happen.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. David Priebe of3825 Forestview lane.
Mr. Priebe stated that he believed that Baton did not have the right to use the outlot as
part of this development.
Mr. Priebe also said that the diad restriction protects no one in the area. The only
people protected by deed restrictions in a plat or development are those who are in the
plat or development. It is only enforceable among the owners of the plat who are
participants in that deed restriction.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Hugh Maynard, the attorney representing Mission
Partnership.
Mr. Maynard stated that Mission partnership is a partnership consisting Lundgren Bros.
Construction, a minority shareholder, Northland Financial, which is a majority
shareholder, and Richard ZgJdlik, not his corporation, but as an individual shareholder,
an extremely tiny shareholder.
Mr. Maynard discussed deed restrictions stating that he writes deed restrictions all the
time, deed restrictions are in DecLarations of Covenants which is the way Best and
Flanagan prefers and is the way most attomeys around town prefer to do it. These are
generally in speaking in favor of the people in the subdivision. He said they write a lotofdeedrestrictions, in Plymouth in favor of the City, we also sometimes write deed
restrictions in favor of the adjoining landowners or somebody else, it is very possible
to do deed restrictions which would run in your favor.
on the issue of Outlot A, those who spoke have misstated what the agreement was
about Outlot A, Mission Ridge 2nd at the time. He read from the Development
Contract between Lundgren Bros. and the City of Plymouth from June, 1976. Oudot
A'of this plat contains 6.53 acres. of that amount 1.46 acres shall be preserved as
open space for this plat as Mission Ridge 2nd pursuant to subdivisionproject unit
requirements. The balance of Outict A, 5.07 acres shall be available for open space
credit to a subsequent plat to the north. It is understood that the entire Oudot Ashall
remain in private ownership with responsibility to reside with the developer until
transferred to a City approved homeowners association. He said this plan does exactly
what was planned. Mr. Maynard showed various plans for the area dating from 1976.-
a
Planning Commission lvfmutes
December 8, 1993
Page 223
He said that in 1975 the City of Plymouth blasted through this whole neighborbood
with a huge interceptor sewer. The sewer destroyed the trees and everything in its path
and left a. natural place to put the trail or an emergency access. This trail or emergency
access is not significantly different than the through street which was originally
proposed in 1976, or the long cul-de-sac proposed in 1978, or any other plans.
Chairman Stulberg recognized Mr. Donley.
i
Mr. Donley stated that back in 1978 under Resolution 78-579, the City Counc
approved development of Mission Woods in this area. Mission Woods was proposed as
two condominiums, 46 units. That's what was approved. He said what 1.ir. Maynard
is telling you is not correct, they may have proposed other ideas but what was approved
in 1978 was Mission Woods and nothing else and that's what it stood like until Baton
came along 3 or 4 years ago.
Chairman Stulberg closei the Public Hearing.
r
Chairman Stulberg asked that staff explain the agreement by the developer to address
the Best Management Practices plan.
a
City Engineer Faulkner stated that the Engineer's Memo had not addressed Best
Management Practices in writing but that the developer would be required to adhere to
them.
Director Hurlburt stated that that is a requirement for all developers in the City of
Plymouth.
Mr. Zeidlik stated that justification of the variances for the long cul-de-sac is the most
pronounced variance. He said they had at least two engineers look at the site and
determine that the place for a mad was almost predetermined. So we left it as the only
way was to bring the fire lane down to 36th Avenue North.. The neighbors wanted the
houses as far away from their lots as they could get them, and they said there was
always a question of a new homeowner coming m and cutting down the trees on the
property line. That's where this covenant came from o protect the neighbors on the
back side, plus they have 50 fcet which is an outlot, plus there's probably 50 feet more
to their houses, plus about 50 more feet to our houses. That variance to bring the
house forward was given so that we could put that 10 feet back Into a covenant to the
back yards of the single family residences. He said they talked with the DNR about the
variance in the bluff which is about 100 feet long. The DNR was concerned with it
a while and then had backed off on thea concern because it was an individual item that
doesn't extend out past our property. He said that when they put in that storm sewer
they cut into our hill, and it was, it was never put back in the shape that that hill was.
That hill was not the slope that itis now. That's where we inherited that 100 feet of
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
Page 224
0 degree slope. Mr. Zejdlik responded to the issue of the units in the bluff setback.
He said I didn't give them away at that point as was stated here. I said we'd lose them,
we wouldn't fight it, we'd just eliminate them. It didn't become an issue because after
studying that slope and what it is and how it was developed it was soften, keyed down.
Mr. Zejdlik stated that the 3 -story condo that would have been built over a garage with
the pitched roof would be similar to the roof over at Parkside. It had a 995 plus
elevation. The roof elevations on a single family, okay the houses seem to vary and
then you would go up 20 feet for a two-story house, a single story house you would go
up 10 feet.
Mr. Zejdlik stated we couldn't possibly lose as many trees as stated, by Mr. Donley.
The whole project has a tree count of 190 trees as stated by Sathre-Bergpist which is
an independent survey. He said that the mere fact that there is a 50 foot buffer to
protect these people themselves either visually or whatever way from their neighbors,
how many places do we have in the whole suburban area that have this kind of
condition plus the fact of a 30 and 40 foot covenant, so by adding that all up I think our
plan is very good and protects the neighbors very well.
Chairman Stult g commented on an opinion stated in one of the letters entered as
public record during the Public Hearing stating °I don't believe myself as being
controlled by any constimenzy nor am I under control of any constituency control i
program nor as advocated that he ivas not controlled as insinuated. Everyone has their R
opinions on that.
I.
Commissioner Albm asked if the lot that would have provided sheet access to this site
from 36th Avenue North had not been sold would the long cul-de-sac be needed.:
Convince me that if this lot were still there you would need the long cul-de-sac.
Mr.,Zejdlik stated that it would depend on one plan that at one time the road went all
the way through. Then it would not have been cul-de-sac at all.
Commissioner Albro asked if there still would have been a 500 foot cul-de-sac.
Mr. Zejdlik resynded that he couldn't remember there have been so many changes in
plans.
Commissioner Albro asked Mr. Zejdlik to point our where that access would Have been
on the map.
Mr. Maynard showed the March and May, 1978 plans where access front Goldenrod
Ime had earlier provided access for Mission Trails.
Planning Commission Mantes
Decemb.^r 8, 1993
Page 225
Commissioner Albro asked if this access was north or south of the ravine.
Mr. Maynard stated both plans showed a subdivision called Mission Hills Park 6th
Addition showed the mads with a long driveway with two condominium building.
Other condominiums were shown further north, two more buildings between the
wetland pond. The plan shows a public drive down to the ravine with aprivate drive
crossing the ravine to the condo buildings, somewhere it has to cross the ravine.
Chairman Stulberg asked that these plans be laid down so that the public could whew.
them.
Commissioner Albro asked the petitioner if they were saying that it really didn't matter
that the access lot to this site was sold, that there would have to be a cul-de-saa there
anyway. The ravine would have to be crossed but would it have to be crossed in the
most destructive way that will happen with the current plan or could it have been
crossed further up the hill.
Mr. Zejdlik stated that he would have to look again. He said the earlier plans showed
the ravine being crossed. The ravine is now going to be in rip rap mck or the big
stones, it's going to be planted, it's going to be very good to the eyes, it's not going to
be an eyesore.
Commissioner Albro stated that if he had access on the far side of the ravine a lot of
this construction wouldn't be happening. I don't think we need to give him a variance
to get in there to create a problem now.
Director Hurlburt asked if Associate Planner Keho would mark on the overhead wbem
the current plan crosses the ravine.
Commissioner Albro asked if the crossing was south of the ravine that he had his time
in the sun to do this development without causing a lot of pain.
Mr. Maynard discussed the locations of the streets which crossed the ravine on earlier
plans. In the 1978, a long cul-de-sac was planned. No one even promised any of these
people that atter 15 years every single building would be in the exact location as on
earlier plans.
Commissioner Albro asked if there were elevation of grades from Jonquil Lane down
to 36th Avenue N., and asked if it would be passable in the winter.
Associate Planner Keho stated that staff had not received a formal revised trail plan.
He said on an older plan one grade of 8 percent was shown.
EN
Planning Commission Mmutes
December 8, 1993
Page 226
Director Hudburt stated that in the resolution for den al the last part of the first.
paragraph discussed the fire lane and because we don't have a revised trail plan, we
don't know what the impacts will be.
Commissioner Albin stated that these are precisely the same questions be had in
February and in September and he asked if there was some legally technicality that
prohibits the City of Plymouth from giving that variance for the cul-de-sac. He said
that he didn't lice the mitigation plan for the cul-de-sac. He said he felt tbatthe
developer should not be able to build the cul-de-sac since he trashed his own access to
36th Avenue in 1978.
Commissioner Stimson asked if in 1978 when the 36th Avenue North access was
deleted, was the cul-de-sac approved at thattime.
Director Hurlburt asked what the status was of the second plan submitted in 1978 that
showed the cul-de-sac as a private street.
Mr. Maynard replied that the plan was approved by the City.
Commissioner Albro stated that we have these criteria to follow. One of those is if the
applicant contributed to his own downfall then we are not supposed to give him a
variance.
Commissioner Stimson stated that if at some point the City approved the Concept Plan
fora col -de -sac going in there be it private or public, then at that point he probably
thought that it was acceptable.
Commissioner Wigley asked if the developer have an approved plan for this parcel.
Associate Planner Keho stated that a Concept Plan was approved. showing twinhomes,
single family and a long cul-de-sac. A variance was not granted as this was just a
Concept Plan.
Commissioner Wigley asked if the former condo plan showed a long cul-de-sac.
associate Planner Keho stated it was a combination of public street to the north and
private street to the south, it would not have been a variance for a public street.
Commissioner Wigley stated that this development on the table is significantly better
than that what could have been built in the past. I believe that on every single item of
this request that the quality of the development that we will end up with, just take it
down the list, that this project "slam dunks" any earlier project than what the developer
0
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
Page 227
could have built earlier in this development. He said he was supportive of the
downsizing of theproject and would vote in favor of this plan.
MOITON by Commissioner Wigley, seconded by Commissioner Stuasonto
recommend approval of the request by Eaton Corporation for an Amended Residential
Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for 10
single family lots and 18 twin homes, and a Subdivision Variance for a cul-de-sac,
subject 7.o all condiitious listed in the November 30, 1993 staff report.
Commissioner Zylla stated that be agreed with Commissioner Wigley. He said he
believed this is the right thing as far as impact on the neighborhood, and this plan is
better than the earlier approved plan. He said he felt the Variances are needed because
we were trying to protect the weilands; not trying to give someone something. He said
that related to the crossing of the ravine, the City has gotten away from private streets,
and wants more tree preservation. He said the word tradeoffs is pertincnt, that a
developer has a right and flexibility to make changes. He said this was a betterplan,
even though the developer still has some additional plans to complete. He said that he
felt that the best job has been done to protect the developer, the adjoining property
owners, and, the property in all the discussion.
Commissioner Stimson stated that she agreed with the statements of Commissioners
Wigley and Zylla.
Commissioner Zylla stated that he would like the Planning Commission to review
ordinance requirements for fire lanes and cul-de-sac, and he would like to see 500 feet
requirement eliminated from the code.
Commission Wigley stated that most variances forme lanes or cul-de-sacs were usually
approved as they were always to mitigate the natural conditions.
Commissioner Albro asked what natural conditions this variance would mitigate. I
don't see where it's protecting anything.
Associate Planner Kelm stated that Mission Trails was approved by the, City years ago,
if it eliminated the access to this site, access has to come from another point. When
earlier plans were reviewed they would have had to deteunine that access to the
property would come from somewhere else:
DirectorHUrlbUR stated that approval of a Concept Plans implies certain approvals and
the Concept Plan did show this cul-de-sac. There are variances implied that the
a,^plicant relies on.
M
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
Page 228
Commissioner Zylla stated than an emergency access of 7 tons could be done without
showing any blacktop.
Commissioner Albro stated that the issue is the matter of necessity of the distance from
36th and could a snowplow get up the grade. My concerns are the safety aspect of the
issue and not the natural characteristics.
Commissioner Witt stated she favors denial because of the cul-de-sac length. We've
gotten off track. As a resident she said she does not support this area being purchased
for a park. She said she would vote for denial just because she does not feel right
about the cul-de-sac.
MOTION for a Substitute Motion by Commissioner Albro, seconded by Commissioner
Witt to recommend denial of the request by Baton Corporation based on only Condition
1 of the denial resolution.
MOTION to Amend by Commissioner Wht to delete the first sentence of Condition 1
of the denial resolution
Motion died for lack of a second.
Roll Call Vote on Substitute Motion. 2 Ayes. Commissioners Zylla, Stimson; Wigley
and Chairman Stulberg voted Nay. Motion failed on a 24 vote.
Roll Call Vote on the Main Motion. 4 Ayes. Commissioners Albro and Witt voted
Nay. Motion carried on z4-2 vote.
Chairman Stulberg stated that he apologized for leading Commissioner Albro to put a
substitute motion on the table. He said that the Concept Plan stage does not imply
variance approval, no variances are granted or implied, and, that the Commission in
the past did not imply that the variance for the cul-de-sac would be approved.
Chairman Stulberg called a recess at 11:05 p.m. The meeting reconvened of 11:15
S.T. & M., INC. (93128)
Chairman Stulberg introduced the'request by S.T. & M., Inc. for a Residential Planned
Unit Development Concept Plan
Associate Planner Keho reviewed the November 23, 1993 staff report.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Terry Schneider, representing the petitioner.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
Page 229
Mr. Schneider discussed the iahue to try to eliminate the impact on the wetlands. He
stated that these are complicated wetlands, and that most of the vegetation was upland
shrub type 1 wetlands. He said that they have come with a plan without any variances.
He said they would work with staffto possibly reduce some setbacks that would reduce
the impact on the wetlands. He said that they woldd add open water wetlands to the
site, and storm water retention ponds to collect the drainage from the site that would
nun into the wetlands;
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Tom Gottwalt of 4620 Trenton Circle.
Mr. Gottwalt stated that all surrounding homeowners bought their homes and expected
the woods to be preserved with an approved apartment complex. He said a 1987plan
was proposed and the City Council stated that it should not be changed. He said this
proposed plan placed homes too close to the existing homes. He compared the
previously approved plan to this plan and said that the proposed pond would be a
hazard to small children. He said the only positive aspect of ttis plan was a less dense
development.
Mr. Gottwalt discussed the general statement of the Concept Plan in the staff wport
under item No. 5, and said this statement that the area to the north and east is
undeveloped was in error, that it is undeveloped because it was a park. He presented
the Commission with some petitions opposing the project. He said that the developer
has had 7 years to develop this site before the wed and rules changed.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. John Fthios of 10225 4th Avenue North.
Mr. F.thios slated he was concern with water damage and nmoff from this
development. He said he was concerned that water levels could get as high as they
were in 1987. He said it would not be fair to pass this request at this time instead of
waiting for the stronger wetland mitigation requirements which become effective
January 1, 1994,
Chairman Stulberg stated that there Was no way anyone could guarantee that water
levels would not get as high as they did in 1987 from the unusual rain storm.
Chairman Smlbe,'g,introduced Mr. Anthony Foth of 4550 Trenton Circle.
Mr. Foth stated that lie was aware of the plans for an apartment complex on this site
when he purchased his home. He said he felt this proposed plan, if approved, would
devalue property and destroy the woodlands on the site:
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Bill Johnson of 4570 Trenton Circle.
0
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
Page 230
Mr. Johnson stated that he concurred with the previous speakers and he asked the
Commissioners to reject this request.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Brian Larson of 4540 Trenton Circle.
Mr: Larson stated that he concurred with the previous viewpoints.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Paul Schupanitz of 46011 Trenton Circle.
W. Schupanitz stated that they bought their home knowing what was to be developed
on the site. He said he felt this was a rth stic change from what they expect to bedevelopedonthesite.
MCMON by Commissioner W igley, seconded by Commissioner Albro to recommend
denial of the request by S.T. & M., Inc. for a Residential Planned Unit Development
Concept Plan Amendment, based on Conditions Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in the denial
resolution.
Commissioner Wigley stated he usually favored lesser density, but in this case he felt
the earlier plan would lze best for this site.
Commissioners Witt and Stimson both stated they favored denial because of the
anticipated loss of the woods.
Commissioner Zylla asked if the 71 apartment units could be built as previouslyapproved.
Associate Planner Keho stated that it would be difficult to meet the current wetland
mitigation rules and even more difficult to meet the new wetland rules which go intoeffectafterJanuary1, 1994.
Mr. Schneider stated that they have a purchase agreement on this site, and they would
not proceed with another phi for an apartment project if this request is denied. He
said that an apartment project was not the type of project the company was interested
in. He said that he did not think the adjacent homeowners realize that an apartment
complex, if developed on the site, would either have to be in the woods or in the
wetlands.
Mr. Steve Bob], also representing the petitioner, discussed a similar project that was
done in Eden Prairie which was very high quality development. Be also stated that
an apartment complex, as approved, would take out many of the trees just during the
grading phase.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
Page 231
Chairman Stulberg stated that he felt the developer had a good product, but that it justdidnotfitonthissite.
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. Motion to deny carried on an unanimous vote.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS REGARDING PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS
Director Hurlhurt discussed the December 1, 1993 memo regarding Planned UnitDevelopments.
The Commission discussed the concerns expressed in the staff memo, however, the
consensus of the Commission was that they would like the report forwarded on to the
City Council, for action with one change. They recommended that the minimum PUD
size be eliminated only for residential developments (RPUD's), but be retained for non-
residential development. The Commissioners stated that they had been directed to
study this issue by the City Council and had spent a great deal of time on this issue and
wanted the current City Council to act on them if possible.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO SIGNS
Director Hurlburt discussed the November 16, ,1993 staff memo relating to anamendmentforsigns.
The Commissioners concurred that staff should draft an ordinance change and schedule
a Public Hewing for January, 1994..
Chairman Stolberg suggested that the 500 cul-de-sac length issue also be reviewed inthecomingyear.
Director Huriburt stated that it was part of the Subdivision Code and would be
reviewed sometime in 1994.
The Commissioners approved the proposed Meeting Date Calendar for 1994 as
proposed with the exception of moving the November 23 meeting date to November30, 1994:
The meeting adjourned at 12:45 a.m.
0