Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 03-23-1994CITY OF PLYMOUTH. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 23,1994 The regular` meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m, by Chairman Mike Stulberg. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman ivfike Stulberg, Commissioners Barb Stimson, Ed Albro, Jack Hill; Virginia Black, and Linda Oja. MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Allen Ribbe. STAFF PRESENT. Director Anne Huriburt, City Engineer Dan Faulkner, Planning Supervisor Barb Senness; Associate Planner John Keho, and Planning Secretary Jackie Watson MINUTES: Changes to the minutes included a change by Commissioner Black to add to page 22, paragraph 4 the words "gas and other fluids" to her question; Commissioner Oja asked for a change on page 29, paragraph 8 to state to "add 11 trees for a total of 22 trees"; and, Commissioner Albro stated that on page 27, paragraph 2 that it was Commissioner Hill who asked the question regarding Hennepin County. MOTION by Commissioner Black, seconded by Commissioner Albro to approve the Planning Commission, Minutes of March 9, 1994 with the changes as noted above. Vote. 6 Ayes. Motion carried STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (94017) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for a MPUD Final Site Plan for a 17,000 square foot office building; and, Lot Division/Consolidation for property located at the northwest comer of Plymouth Boulevard and 37th Avenue North. Associate Planner Keho reviewed the March 14, 1994 staff report. Chairman Stulberg asked why the piece of land was being divided from the site to be given to the Amoco Station site. Associate Planner Keho described the movement of the property line at what would have been a joint driveway to the Amoco site. a Planning Commission Minutes March 24,1994 Pagc35 Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Robert Cummins from Phoenix, Arizona, representing the petitioner. Mr. Cummins stated he was in agreement with the staff report:. Commissioner Oja asked if the petitioner had a larger detailed drawing ofthe landscape per• M. David Nash displayed a large drawing of the landscape plan on the overhead projector. Mr. Cummins described the landscape plan. Chairman Stulberg introduced W. James Guddal of 4465 Vicksburg Lane, owner of the property that abuts this site. Mr. Guddal asked what changes were planned for the internal private roadway system, vacations, and the orientatim of the building, garage doors, windows and office space. Associate Planner Keho stated that only a portion of the Amoco driveway would be vacated aW that the property owner will have to obtain approval of all other property owners on the block for the changes in the internal private drive access system. He said that the private drive system in the block is to allow access from all lots to the public streets. He pointed out where the primary access would be to the site. Mr. Dave Nash stated that the City asked them to design an access plan for the entire block. Associate Planner Keho stated all property owners must agree to the access plan and if they do not, State Farm would have to amend their access plan. City Engineer Faulkner stated that easements are the standards following the property lines. Mr. Cummins discussed the orientation of the building, He said the customers main entrance coil be on the east side where they would park in the guest parking area, and enter the office for paper work completion; they will then drive to the inspection area on the west side of the building, and exit the building on the north side. Commissioner Black commented that this design had a north/south orientation with the doors facing east, and the inspection arra on the north side of the building. Commissioner Oja stated that she thought this was a good landscape plan, and asked' where the trash enclosure would be. 0 a, 1 0 Planing Commiaion Minutes - Mamh 24.1994 Page M Mr. Cummins responded that the trast. enclosure would be at the northwest comer of the parking lot with a 6 -foot high screen. He said that 98 people will work at this site once they are fully operational. Commissioner Oja asked if they would be storing any damaged vehicles on the site. Mr. Cummins stated there would be no storage of damaged vehicles, that only driveable vehicles would come to the site for.inspections. Chairman Stulberg asked if they had other similar sites in the area. Mr. Nash stated that there were similar sites Vadnis Heights and Brooklyn Center. Mr. Guddal asked if this was considered a commercial use and if any rezoning would be needed. Associate Planner Keho stated that this conforms to the B-1 zoning for office use. MOTION by Commissioner Albm, seconded by Commissioner Black to recommend approval of the request by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for a MPUD Final Site Plan for a 17,0()0 square foot office building; and, Lot. Division/Consolidation for property located at the northwest comer of Plymouth Boulevard and 37th Avenue North, subject to all conditions listed in the March 14, 1994 staff report. Commissioner Albro stated he had some concerns regarding the color of brick which looked very bright and whether it fit with the City's aesthetic plan. He asked if the private drive system was designed to limit access to bothVicksburg Lang and County Road 9. He asked how wide the internal streets would be. Associate Planner Kcho stated that the private drive system was designed with 26 -foot wide streets to help internal circulation on the block. He said that all lots would have access to apublic street, but the internal drive system would be maintained by the property owners. Roll Call Vote, 6 Ayes. Motion carried on an unanimous vote. PROPOSED WETLANDS ORDINANCE Planning Supervisor Senness discussed her March 23, 1994 memo regarding, the 5 meetings staff held with citizens and developers. She stated that a mailing list of all 0 Planning Commission Minutes Mamh 24, 1994 - Page 37 attendees has been developed and an article will be in the next Plymouth newsletter to inform citizens of what the City is working on regarding a wetland ordinance. She stated that there are 3 major areas of concern; 1) Ties is a complex issue with many questions including legal issues,• and, additional data needs to be gathered, 2) What size should a buffer be, and, 3) What is the actual purpose for a wetland ordinance and what areas should be zeroed in on. She said that most attendees agreed with these concerns. She said that they have had other meetings with several developers since the public meetings who are looking for answers as to how they should plan for new developments that include wetlands. She said that staff needed to inform homeowners so that they are aware of restrictions which could apply in their present or new comes. Commissioner Black stated that she had attended most of the meetings and that staff reached a lot of people, and the meetings went well. Commissioner Albro also attended most of the meetings and he agreed that the meetings went well but he said he had hoped to see more citizens in attendance. He said that some people were concerned with the pace of the schedule and others with the impact this ordinance would have. 'He said that people need to know more about wetlands and buffers, and we need to increase the public's interest in this subject. He said be believes the pace is too fast. Commissioner Albro said that there was a common thread throughout studies he's read' that a buffer could eliminate problems of sedimentation, nutrients, and chemicals, but may not be as effective as staff hoped. He stated that buffers,manufactured or natural, may be ineffective on uneven ground, and are more effective when drainage passes over in a sheet on even ground. He said that the prime degraders are fertilizer and pesticides, and that chemicals should be looked at more than buffers. He said we maybe should be looking at manufactured buffers, and not looking at protecting habitat, since we are looking at protecting water quality, He said we don't need more deer, geese and mosquitoes. He said that studies stated that variable buffers were more effective and we should do what's fair and effective for the land owner. He questioned whether we were after water quality or habitat or beth. He said that an extremely largebufferwouldbeneededtoprotecthabitat. Commissioner Black stated that the purpose of the ordinance has to be determined. She said she does not feel it is just water quality. A_10'foot buffer would not be adequate for any protection. She said we should also limit chemicals and fertilizers. What type of enforcement would be determined and who on staff would determine variables is a question. She said we can't afford to lose a lot mom of the wetlands, and we need to have moratorium so that the questions raised would be answered. Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1994 Page 38 Commissioner Albro stated that a 30 -foot buffer would protect wetlands if water gdality is the goal. He said we should not be trying to protect all the little mammals. He quoted part of the City's mission statement that says that the City of Plymouth is to give the impression of rural living in an urban setting. The City purchases public open space to provide this setting for the citizens: He said he doesn't' feet the tax roles should be decimated to preserve the wetlands on every lot that touches a wetland. He said he was concerned with the effect an ordinance could have on existing homes; that if a house burned that abutted a wetland the new buffer restrictions could prevent that person from rebuilding a home comparable to what was lost. He said he favored protecting wetlands but also wanted to protect taxpayers. These issues must be answered before an ordinance is approved. Chairman Stulberg stated that he felt that once an ordinance was drafted and in front of the Commission, then it would be up to the Commission to see if it contained the language the Commission wanted. Commissioner Albro stated he just wanted to raise awareness of some of the issues. He said he heals environmentalists voicing their opinions and he felt that the direction of the City Council was as that of environmentalists. Chairman Stulberg recognized a visiting Boy Scout troop in the audience and asked them if they had any questions or comments on the subject. The Scout leader stated that he thought it was hnpottant that more people become involved in this issue. Chairman Stulberg recognized Ms. Rita O'Donnell of 12105 41st Avenue North. Ms. O'Donnell defined a buffer as natural indigenous vegetation which has not been disturbed and where citizens cannot mow or cut down trees. This buffer would preserve water quality. She said that the proliferation of mosquitoes and geese is created by citizens in sodding to the edge of wetland, A buffer of taller grasses would keep the geese in the wetlands as they don't like the tall grass. The buffer would also become habitat for insect eating birds which would nest in the wetland. She said the whole eco system is very complicated and includes water quality and habitat Planning Supervisor Senness stated that a response from the City Attorney was exported on Friday which would address issues such as phasing in, who Could be affected, vested rights, and non conforming uses. Commissioner Black asked if the attorney's office would comment on the ;30-foot/50- foot buffer issue, DirectorHurlbud stated that the attorney's office may advise that staff have good reasoning behind whatever is decided. a Planning Commission Minutes March24, 1994 Page 39 Planning Supervisor Senness stated that the schedule for adoption of an ordinance was directed by the City Council, and in fairness to the questions raised, it will take more time to research and answer these issues. She passed out information received from the City Attorney which she requested regarding the adoption of a moratorium. She discussed her memo of March 18, 1994 regarding development requests affected by a possible moratorium. Commissioner Black asked if staff was looking for a recommendation from Commission. Director Hurlburt stated the Planning Commission must hold a public hearing regarding a moratorium. Director Hurlburt stated that if the consensus of Commission was that staff proceed to draft a moratorium ordinance, then it would be their right. The City has done a moratorium before and she felt that they needed direction from the City Council. Commissioner Hill asked at what point could a reasonable wetland ordinance be done without imposing a moratorium. Director Hurlburt responded that it is technically possible to be done by June, but 6 months would be more reasonable. Chairman Stulberg stated that he felt none of this could be decided until the goals have been defined and he didn't feel the Commission had enough information yet to determine if a moratorium was needed. Commissioner Albro stated that another item should be included in the March 18, 1994 memo regarding exceptions during a moratorium. He said that a developer should be able to develop a portion of a site that is within a specified distance from a wetland, ah,'owing the site to be developed in two phases, and possibly eliminating risk to the City. Planning Supervisor Soulless stated that her memo noted a need for exceptions for hardship. Commissioner Stulberg askei. 'staff wanted the Commission to do anything; regarding the ordinance at this meeting. Planning "Supervisor Senness stated that the Commission could give staff some direction as to how they should proceed if they chose. Commissioner Black stated that she sensed that more time would be needed for further research and discussion and that moratorium may be needed to meet this end. Planning Commission MInutes Nfan:h.24,.1994 Page 40 MOTION by Commissioner Black, seconded by Commissioner Albro, that staff look at developing moratorium to allow enough time to look at additional information and to fscheduleaPublicHearingonApril13, 1994. l Commissioner Black stated a moratorium would be needed so that wetlands are not lost while this issue is being reviewed. ChairmanSmlberg asked for clrrification of the motion asking if the motion was to look at.a diaft ordinance on April 13 and a public hearing att a later date, which would allow more time for review of the subject. Commissioner Albro stated he would withdraw, his second of the motion if it was as ciatified by Chairman Stulberg. He said that he felt a public hearing could be scheduled for the moratorium on the wetland ordinance at the next possible meeting. Commissioner Black responded that it was her intent on the motion to have a Public Hearing on April 13, 1994 for a moratorium. Commissioner Albro leaffinned his second of the motion. Planning SupervisorSenness stated this would revise the current schedule. Commissioner Albm stated he would like to adhere to the schedule regarding the wetland ordinance but have the moratorium ready in case it would be needed, Planning Supervisor Senness said it would be difficult to follow the current schedule, as there is not enough time to answer questions and put together an ordinance. Director Hurlburt stated that she sensed that there was not a general consensus as to what the purpose of an ordinance should be. Chairman 5tulberg stated that lie did not feel it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to define the focus of this issue. He said he thought it was up to the Water Quality Commission and the City Council to do so. Director Hurlburt stated that it was ultimately lip to the City Council to provide direction, with the Water Quality Commission providing input. Commissioner Hill stated that he had a problem with a moratorium in that we don't' know what it will take to come up with an ordinance, Planning Supervisor 5enness stated that a time line would be a part of a moratorium. a Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1994 Page 41 Commissioner Hill stated that he had nothing to base a decision on. He said that staff should have a good feel as to what to place the focus on. He said be felt a public hearing was needed to learn what is the focus, the options and the pros and cons. He said he wanted to know what the wetlands ordinance would look like. Commissioner Stimson stated that she did not want staff time going into developing,a moratorium and would rather see an ordinance developed. She said she felt the City Council needed to amend the schedule to allow more time for the subject. Commissioner Hill stated that a moratorium should be last resort. Commissioner Black questioned when or how do we determine how long the time frame should be for this issue. Commissioner Hill stated that he thought is would be unfair to string developers along with a moratorium. Chairman Stulberg stated that a moratorium would affect both citizens and developers. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that most projects currently applied for in the city would be affected bywetl Inds. Director 1Hurlburt stated that we r re`continually accepting applications and we need the moratorium to allow more time to study the issue. Chairman Stulberg stated he would not support the motion to have this item on the April 13 agenda as he would not be able to attend that meeting and wanted to be there if there when it was discussed. MOTION to Amend by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by CommissionerStuason to change the date on the original motion for a public hearing on a moratorium to the April 27, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Black stated that a new time table needs to be developed as staff needs time to address the issues and the moratorium was needed. Chairman Stulberg stated that his experience with previous moratoriums was that the full time for the moratorium was used and then extended: He said he felt that if there was a schedule for an ordinance without a moratorium, by a given deadline date, that it would be done. He said that there were previous issues that the Planning Commission studied by direction from the City Council and once all the study had been completed the issues were ignored by the Council, He said that the City should hire consultants or whatever it takes to get the ordinance done, a Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1994 Page 42 Commissioner Stinson stated that she agreed with Chairman Stulberg's statement. Vote on Motion to Amend. 6 Ayes. Motion carried. Roll Call Vote on Main Motion. 5 Nays. Commissioner Black voted Aye. Motion Failed on a 5 to 1 vote. Commissioner Hill requested that staff put together a list of issues and a time table for next Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Stulberg stated that staff and the City Council need to decide what the schedule should be. Director Huriburt stated that staff would develop an outline with options as to where the emphasis should, be, with alternatives. She said that she would report to the City Council that the Planning Commission felt the schedule would need to be altered. Commissioner Hill asked for a tentative time table along with outline at the next Planning Commission meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Albro, seconded by Commissioner Oja for staff to go back to City Council and request that they narrow the field of vision and get some specifics on the mission for a wetland ordinance. Commissioner Hill asked what was our function on this issue. He said he thought the Commission should look at the options and give the Council sometime to vote on. Chairman Stulberg stated that the Commission also needed to focus on affordable housing in the City of Plymouth. He said that wetland ordinance would effect affordable housing as well as other things in the City. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that these issues need to be addressed at the same time as a wetland ordinanc f. Roll Call Vote. 3 Ayes, Commissioners Stimson, Hill and Chairman Stulberg voted Nay: Motion failed on a tie vote. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that staff would come back at next meeting with a list of options. Chairman Stulberg asked the Commissioners if they had noted the change in the staff report format. He said that he would like to see staff reference the portion of the Zoning Ordinance which applied to those parts of the staff report when appropriate. He suggested that staff focus on issues if they were a concern of part of the staff a L ii '. 4 I it t. 0