HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 05-24-1995CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 24, 1995 i
l
A 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 Saundra Spigner, Linda
Oja, Virginia Black, Allen Ribbe, Christian Freus and Barb
Stimson E
MEMBERS ABSENT:
k
STAFF PRESENT: Director Anne Aurlburt, Planning Supervisor Barbara Sexiness,
Senior Planner john ICeho, Panner Shawn Drill; City Engineer
Dan Faulkner and Planning Secretary Denise Hutt
I
MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Black, seconded by Commissioner Ribbe to approve the May 10,
1995 Minutes.
Vote. 6 Ayes. (Commissioner Stimson abstained.)
LUTZ CONSTRUCTION (95042)
Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Lutz Construction fora Preliminary Plat and Lot
Width Variance for the creation of three lots for single family homes located at 15 Niagara
Lane North.
Planner; Drill gave an overview of the May 12, 1995 staff report,
Commissioner Ribbe asked if it would save trees if the sewer and water services were brought
up the along the driveway.
City Engineer Faulkner responded that typically it is not advisable to bring the sewer and
water services up the driveway.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Jim Lutz, the petitioner.
i
Mr. Lutz stated that he concurs with the staff report and it is his intent to save as many trees as
possible. He stated that on Lot 3, the sewer and water services are going up at an angle near a
i
e 0
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1995
Page 101
manhole, as suggested by staff. He added that he would not have a problem changing it, if
recommended by staff.
Chairman Stulberg wanted to know how many trees could be saved by running the sewer and
water services up the driveway.
Ms. Lutz responded that he did not know how many trees could be saved and that the
individual homeowner of each lot would have to decide how many trees needto be taken to
construct the homes.
Chairman Stulberg asked Mr. Lutz if he was aware of Condition #5 of the approving
resolution requiring a tree preservation plan to be submitted with the Final Plat application
which indicates which trees are to be preserved.
Mr. Lutz answered that he is aware of the condition and will comply.
City Engineer Faulkner stated that the survey plan indicates services will be hooked up at the
end of an existing sewer line in which the road would be torn up. The petitioner would be
responsible for replacing the road in a reasonable condition.
Chairman Stulberg opened the public hearing.
Chairman Stulberg introduced letters dated May 24, 1995 received from Thomas F. Walsh of
75 1Gngsview Lane and Harold D. Lemke of 1Q0 Parkers Lake Road. Mr. Walsh's'letter
stated that by bringing the services up the proposed driveways, the tree removal could be kept
to a minimum. He wanted to know if the connection of these services will damage Niagara
Lane further and if the developer would be responsible for restoration. He was concerned with
the sight distance of this portion of Niagara Lane. He asked if the project will affect the
existing intersection with Yingsview Lane and if the builder will be putting curb and gutter on
both sides of Niagara. Mr. Lemke's letter ttated that he was opposed to the project as he did
not feel that it meets the Plymouth Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance since two of the lots do
not have the minimum frontage requirements on a public street. He added that the property
could be subdivided into two lots and no variances would be required if the developer chose to
adhere to the requirements. Mr. Lemke's letter also stated concerns of drainage and sight
distance.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Harold Lemke of 100 Parkers Lake Road, Wayzata.
Mr. Lemke stated that he is aware of other neighbors that are concerned with this project and
would like more time to obtain a petition from them stating their concerns. Mr. Lemke did
not feet that this proposal meets the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance because a variance is
requested for the lots. Mr. Lemke was concerned with drainage as the property drops six to
nine feet from the proposed lots to hs lot and water could be problem. He stated that if the
a
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1995
Page 102
driveway is placed as proposed, it is at a crest of a hill and could be dangerous. Mr. Lemke
stated that there are not any lots on Niagara lane or Parkers lake Road that do not meet theSubdivisionandZoningOrdinancestandards.
Chairman Stulberg indicated that the staff report contains seven letters from neighbors in
support of the proposal.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mark,Mpp of 13435 70th Place North, Maple Grove.
Mr. Kipp stated that if the proposal is approved, he will become the owner of Lot 1. He
indicated that he has been in contact with US West and NSP and they have visited the site and
stated there should not be any problem incurred placing the services between the twodrivewaysonLot1andLot2.
Chairman Stulberg closed the public hearing,
City Engineer Faulkner addressed the issues regarding Niagara Lane stating the petitioner
would be responsible for restoration of Niagara Lane after placement of services and would be
required to put up cash or a Letter of Credit to cover one-half of the street improvementsincludinginstallationofcurbandgutter. City Engineer Faulkner agreed that the sight distanceisnotideal, but thought the road as proposed is the best solution.
Senior Planner Keho stated that except for lot width, the applicant meets the requirements of
the City Code Chapter 5, Section 500 for property in the R-lA zoning classification and is not
out of character with the neighborhood.
MOTION by Commissioner Ribbe, seconded by Commissioner Spigner to recommend
approval of the request by Lutz Construction for a Preliminary Plat and Lot Width Variances
for the creation of three lots for single family homes located at 15 Niagara Lane North, subjecttoallconditionslistedintheMay12, 1995 staff report,
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carred unanimously.
CELLULAR ONE/WEST HEALTH (95046)
Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Cellular One/West-Health for a PUD Plan
Amendment and Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 125 foot cellular antenna to
be located in the Northeast corner of Highway 55 and 1-494 on the West Suburban HealthCampus,
Planner Drill gave an overview,of the May 15, 1995 staff report.
Commissioner Oja questioned why a payment in lieu of dedication fees was not required.
a
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1995
Page 103
Planner Drill responded that the fees have been paid already from construction of the West
Health Campus building.
Senior Planner Keho replied that park dedication fees are required and paid at the time of
construction of the principal building.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Ted Olson, the petiticner.
Mr. Olson stated this site was chosen over other quadrants because of less interference with
traffic competing with the antenna.
Commissioner Oja asked if the petitioner would be required to improve the road.
Mr. Olson replied that the road was abandoned many years ago and no improvements are
planned, as they intend to secure an easement from Prudential to gain access to the equipment
building and antenna structure. The abandoned road surface was targeted so that no trees
would need to be removed.
Commissioner Oja asked if trees would be trimmed now and in the future.
Mr. Olson replied that trees will not be trimmed now, but the possibility exists for the future.
Commissioner Oja wanted to know if the tower falls over in a storm, would it cause any
damage.
Mr. Olson stated that in the ten years that this type of pole has been manufactured, no failures
have been reported. He explained that the pole has sections in which the bottom sections 'slide
into the top sections and is bolted in place. If it would fail for some reason, it is designed to
collapse on itself,
Chairman Stulberg commented that an ordinance is in place that it could not fall off of their
property line.
Commissioner Black asked what area would be served by the tower,
Mr. Olson replied that this tower will add capacity to relieve sites in Ridgedale and Brooklyn
Park to enable handling more phone calls in this particular area,
Commissioner Black wanted to know how much one tower could handle before they would
have to expand.
I
a
Planning Commission Minutes
May24, 1995
Page 104
Mr. Olson responded that it is too hard to predict the trends of usage, but they prefer to
increase the number of antennas on a given site, rather than securing new locations. He stated
that there it is typically only one site per city.
Chairman Stulberg opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak
onthe issue.
MOTION by Commissioner Preus, seconded by Commissioner Ribbe to recommend approval
of the inquest by Cellular One/West Health for a PUD Plan Amendment and Conditional Use
Permit for the construction of a 125 foot cellular antenna to be located in the Northeast comer
of Highway 55 and 1-494 on the West Suburban Health Campus, subject to the conditions
listed in the May 12, 1995 staff report.
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH (95053)
Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by the City of Plymouth to Rezone eight properties
from FRD (Future Restricted Development) to R-lA (Low Density Single Family Residential).
The properties are located at 4795, 4805, 4815 and 4825 Quinwood Lane North, and 12905,
12925, 13025 and 13030 -47th Avenue North.
Planner Drill gave an overview of the May 12, 1995 staff report:
Chairman Stulberg opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak
on the issue.
MOTION by Commissioner Ribbe, seconded by Commissioner Spigner recommending
approval of the request by the City of Plymouth to Rezone eight properties from FRD (Future
Restricted Development) to R-lA (Low Density Single Family Residential). The properties
are located at 4795, 4805, 4815 and 4825 Quinwood Lane North, and 12905, 12925, 13025
and 13030 -47th Avenue North.
Roll Call Vote, 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH (95054)
Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by the City of Plymouth for a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to amend Section 7 concerning Adult Correctional Facilities and Section 12
concerning Non -Conforming uses.
Senior Planner Keho gave an overview of the May 15, '1995 staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1995
Page 105 ,
Chairman Stulberg wanted to know why staff is presenting an Ordinance Amending Section 7,
Subdivision C of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance if the City is the petitioner.
Senior Planner Keho replied that staff prepared the amendment as an option for the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Preus asked why the Adult Correctional Facility was deleted from the Zoning
Ordinance in 1992.
Senior Planner Keho responded that there had been numerous changes at the Adult
Correctional Facility and the City has more control with a non -conforming use.
Commissioner Preus asked why the Adult Correctional Facility was added back into the
Zoning Ordinance in 1990.
Senior Planner Keho replied that state regulations changed in 1989 and the City changed the
Zoning Ordinance to comply with the regulations and the Adult Correctional Facility was
inadvertently left out.
Commissioner Preus questioned if the second condition, pertaining to expansion of not more
than 50%, assumes from the original time of non-conformance.
Senior Planner Keho stated that it would be the square footage from the original time of non-
conformance,
Commissioner Preus asked what was meant by condition N1 "discontinued for more than a
year"
Senior Planner Keho explained that if there was only one building, and use had been
discontinued for more than one year, it may not be resumed, but if there are multiple
buildings, and the use in only one building had been discontinued for more than one year, it
may be resumed.
Commissioner Preus wanted to know if condition Nl dealt strictly with the Adult Correctional
Facility,
Senior Planner Keho stated it was not intended solely for the Adult Correctional Facility, but
also Union City Mission and any others that may arise,
Commissioner Spigner questioned if the amendment was approved, how would condition N1
affect the Adult Correctional Facility if they wanted to use the old Women0s Facility,
a
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1995
Page 106
Senior Planner Kehn explained that the old Women's Facility could be used as they havemultiplebuildingsonthesite.
Planning Supervisor Senness commented that all buildings on the site would have to cease use
in order for condition R1 to affect the Adult Correctional Facility.
i
Commissioner Black asked if the same would apply to a building that experienced a fire.
P
Senior Planner Keho replied that there are other sections of the Zoning Ordinance coveringbuildingsthataredamagedbyfire.
Commissioner Preus wanted to know where the 50% came from that staff is recommending for fcondition #2.
Planning Supervisor Senness replied that it is consistent With other parts of thb zoning
ordinance dealing with non -conforming structures damaged by fire, etc.
Chairman Stulberg opened the public hearing.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Bruce Johnson of 820 Shenandoah Lane.
Mr. Johnson stated his concern and the need to control She expansion of the Adult Correctional
Facility. He added that the plan in 1992 was for the Adult Correctional Facility to be a non- conforming use to have more control over expansion.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Greg Bohnert of 845 Ranchview Lane.
Mn Bohnert stated that in 1990 the Adult Correctional Facility was inadvertently left out of
the zoning ordinance and at that point added back in along with public safety buildings. He
stated his concern for the size and expansion of the Adult Correctional Facility, type and
number of inmates and the aesthetic appearance. He urged that the Adult Correctional Facilityneedstocontinueasanon -conforming use to allow some control over it.
Chairman Stulberg closed the public hearing.
I
MOTION by Commissioner Stimson, seconded by Commissioner Oja to recommend approval
of the request by the City of Plymouth for an Ordinance Amending Section 12 of the Plymouth
Zoning Ordinance concerning Non -conforming uses, subject to the conditions listed in the May j1511995staffreport.
Commissioner Preus wondered if stating <50% in condition H2 gives up too much contiol by theCityiftheyshouldencounterotherprojectsinthefuture.
a
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1995
Page 107
Senior Planner Keho replied that an applicant would also have to comply with the other
standards of a Conditional Use Permit that provide additional grounds for possible denial.
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously.
MOTION by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Ribbe to recommend denial of
the request by the City of Plymouth for an Ordinance Amending Section 7, Subdivision C of
the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance concerning Adult Correctional Facilities.
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously.
Chairman Stulberg called a recess at 8:19 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at 8:32 p.m..
HENNEPIN COUNTY (95024) .
Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Hennepin County for a Conditional Use Permit,
Amendment to the Master Site Plan and Site Plan for an expansion of two buildings at the
Hennepin County AdultCorrectional Complex.
Commissioner Spigner disclosed that she works for Hennepin County Bureau of Community
Corrections but did not feel that this proposal would create a conflict.
Consensus of the Planning Commissioners that a conflict did not exist.
Senior Planner Keho gave an overview of the May 12, 1995 staff report.
Commissioner Oja questioned where the loading docks are to be located.
Senior Planner Keho pointed out that there are two loading docks proposed for the south side
of new industry addition building. The applicant is proposing a new berm and evergreen trees
placed to screen the loading docks.
Chapman Stulberg introduced Sig Fine, representing the Adult Correctional Facility.
Mr. Fine explained that the purpose for the request is to upgrade services, electronic security,
and expand industry space to allow more residents of the facility to help defray the cost of
their incarceration, If approved, this would allow an additional 75-80 inmates to work. The
proposal does not add: any resident beds to the facility,
Chairman Stulberg asked if the loading docks are an upgrade.
Mr. Fine responded that there are existing docks on the site and there are two new docks being
proposed.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1995
Page 108
Chairman Stulberg asked if the petitioner would accept a condition added to control the usage
of the old Women's Facility as it was originally supposed to be demolished.
Mr. Fine responded that be would accept a condition limiting the usage of the old Women's
Facility or designate a portion of the building for other uses.
Commissioner Spigner asked if the old segretation cellunit would be torn down.
Mr. Fine replied that it would be torn down to allow the program services in its place.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Clifford Buikema, architect.
Mr. Buikema indicated that there are currently four outside overhead doors on the south side
of the industry building and the proposal is to close three and add two enclosed loading docks.
Commissioner Spigner asked if there was another loading dock on the other side of the
building.
Mr. Buikema replied affirmatively and it would continued to be used.
Commissioner ltibbe wanted to know what type of work is done in the industry building.
Mr. Fine replied that the Adult Correctional Facility has received legislative authority for a
manufacturing plant for sub -assembly work. There are also inmates working o0side the
facility and some telemarketing in the Women's Facility.
Chairman Stulberg opened the public hearing.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Greg Bohnert of 845 Ranchview Lane.
Mr. Bohnert commended Hennepin County for their willingness to inform the residents of
proposals and inviting them to informational meetings. He stated that from a conceptual stand
point he understands what the petitioner is trying to accomplish. Mr, Bohnert asked if the
population in the industry building will come from outside the facility or on-site. Mr. Bohnert
stated that he assumes the industry building will be for light manufacturing. Mr. Bohnert.
commented that he is concerned with not only expansion out, but up also, Mr. Bohnert asked
what thetruckpatterns would be for the new building.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Bruce Johnson of 820 Shenandoah Lane.
Mr. Johnson asked if the industry building would operate during weekend hours and how
heavy the truck traffic would be,
0
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1995
Page 109
Chairman Stulberg closed the public hearing.
Mr. Fine stated that the workers in the industry building would consists of inmates currently
on-site. The work would consist of light manufacturing only and go on mainly five days per
week.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Robert Martinson, project manager for Hennepin County,
Mr. Martinson stated that currently truck traffic consists of 4.5 small semi -trucks per day and
estimates it will increase to 5.25 trucks per day.
Senior Planner Keho indicated that the normal traffic pattern would be to exit on Shenand ah
Lane and go north to County Road 6 and east I-494.
Mr. Fine commented that if the hours and truck traffic becomes an issue, Hennepin County
can control it.
Chairman Stulberg asked if the hours "would be expanded to the weekends.
Chairman Stulberg introduced John'Skavnak of 1145 Shenandoah lane.
Mr. Skavnak, manager of the Men's Section replied that there has been some overtime work
on Saturday, depending on the need. He added that funding has been secured for upgrading
security for electronic locks and gates, television cameras, sally ports, blocks and cells.
Commissioner Oja asked how many escapes has the facility had in the last five years.
Mr. Fine replied one in the last five years, and eight in the last fifteen years (seven at one
time),
Commissioner Oja asked how many trees will be planted along the berm as the pages
submitted were conflicting.
Chairman Stulberg introduced P.J. Anderson.
Mr, Anderson stated the revised plan shows 84 four foot evergreen trees.
Commissioner Oja wondered if they wouldconsider putting in taller evergreen trees.
Mr. Anderson replied that if taller trees were requested, the number of trees would-be to be
reduced.
0
D
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1995
Page 110
Commissioner Oja commented that larger tmzs would screen the whole building.
Mr. Anderson responded that the primary concern is to screen the loading dock and that four
foot trees will accomplish that and also screen trucks coming in and out of the site.
Commissioner Black asked how high the beret is.
Mr. Anderson replied that the berm is three feet high and adding the four foot evergreens
would make a total of seven feet.
MOTION by Commissioner Stimson, seconded by Commissioner Black to recommend
approval of the request by Hennepin County fora Conditional Use Permit, Amendment to the
Master Site Plan and Site Plan for an expansion of two buildings at the Hennepin County
Adult Correctional Complex, subject to the con&flons listed in the Mary 12, 1995 staff report.
Commissioner Spigner asked if approving the request limits the applicant from moving the
number of beds between buildings.
Chairman Stulberg stated the applicant can move the number of beds between buildings,
except for the old Women's Building as long as it does not exceed 601 beds.
MOTION by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Preus to amend Condition q3
adding that a covenant shall be placed on the old. Women's Building that it will never be used
for beds.
Vote on MOTION to Amend. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously.
Vote on Main MOTION. 7 Ayes. MOTION carred unanimously.
RYAN CONSTRUCTION Co. (95045)
Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Ryan Construction Co. for a PUD Preliminary
Plan Amendment, Final Plan, Lot division and Conditional Use Permit for a TCF Bank to be
located west of Vinewood Lane in Rockford Road Plaza..
Senior Planner Kohn gave an overview of the May 15, 1995 staff report.
Chairman Stulberg asked if this proposal is affected by the amended the Zoning Ordinance to
add specific regulations for drive through facilities that are adjacent to residential
neighborhoods.
Senior Planner Keho responded affirmatively.
a
a 0
Planning Commission Mhmtes
May 24, 1995
Page Ill
Chairman Stulberg asked for clarification that the proposal does not comply with the Uniforr{iBuildingCode (UBC).
Senior Planner Keho replied that Chairman Stulberg was correct.
Commissioner Oja wanted to know if the applicant is proposing to create a separate lot.
Senior Planner Keho responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Preus questioned if the amended Zoning Ordinance for drive through facilities
includes the parking area as part of the area that must be at least 300 feet from residential uses.
Senior Planner Keho responded of mnatively.
Commissioner Preus asked if staff is including the six stacking spaces in their measurement of
the 300 foot requirement.
Senior Planner Keho replied affirmatively.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Peter Coyle with Larkin; Koffman, Daly, Lindgren, Lill.,
representing the petitioner.
Mr. Coyle stated the fundamental design and usage has not changed since the hast time the
Planning Commission considered and approved the proposal.
Mr. Coyle gave an overview of the.Proposal stating the planning and zoning is guided for
neighborhood commercial, and was given MPUD approval for 401,088 square foot shoppingretailcenter. A bank is a permitted use and the site was approved for 15;123 square foot of
retail and the correspondent allocation of traffic. The residential area surrounding the site is
guided high -medium density; and was rezoned from PRD to R-3. People were aware of the
commercial/re!dil development when they purchased their homes.
Mr. Coyle stated that the PUD that was approved sought flexibility and was allowed that
flexibility. In 1992, the applicant was seeking every density opportunity they could get andtheCityCouncilfoundthatthecommercialusewascompatible. In 1994, the TCF submittal
was supported by City staff and the Planning_ Commission. The neighbors opposed the
proposal because of traffic, noise, and lighting issues. With the 1994 submittal, there was no
mention that the Target Greatland building would no longer be in compliance with the UBC.
The residential property to the north was initially guided for multi -family and 'then was
changed to single family dwellings; multi -family was the natural buffer for the commercial
area.
Chairman Stulberg 'introduced Greg Madsen, representing Ryan Companies.
a
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1995
Page 112
Mr. Madsen reviewed the site improvements for the proposal indicating the TCF building
would be 4,400 square feet with five drive-through lanes and is basically similar to their
previous submission. The drive-through lanes were moved further from the neighborhood, the
lighting for the monument sign was deleted and the sign moved north to guide traffic into the
site. A six-foot high 180 -foot screen wall has been added along with additional landscaping on
the north side including eight -foot high evergreen trees. The only lighting added would be on
the building itself.
Mr. Madsen stated that City building inspectors did approve their plans in previous meetings p
and no issue was ndsed in regards to compliance with the UBC. He explained Ryan
Companies gained approval for a similar project with Drug Emporium and TJ Maxx at
Rockford Road Plaza. The building would haven separation wall and should be acceptable to
City staff. Mr. Madsen stated that there are three other users in Rockford Road Plaza that do
not have a 200 -foot lot depth (Blockbuster Video, Bakers Square and Texaco). Mr. Madsen
stated that there is no required dimension listed in the Zoning Ordinance for automobile
stacking and felt this proposal was adequate.
Mr. Madsen presented a video using computer imaging illustrating how traffic would flow
through the site. The video indicated that the light generated from traffic would not affect the
neighborhood.
Mr. Coyle continued his presentation of the proposal pointing out that a bank use is not like
retail use, as a bank has shorter hours of operation and would not be open on Sundays. The
traffic studies done indicate there would be no negative impact. The average daily trips
anticipated from the City consultant were 1,200 compared to actual daily traffic generated
from similar TCP facilities in Ridgedale (709), Woodbury (472) and Plymouth (340 estimate).
Mr. Coyle stated that the lighting/noise studies indicated there would be no impact. A letter
was sent to City staff ,requesting installation of different traffic signage, but no responFe has
been received,
Mr, Coyle argued that a MPUD encourages design and development flexibility and is not
restricted by straight zoning, Jt is for more efficient and effective land use. The PUD to the
north got flexibility and the TCP proposal should also be entitled to flexibility.
Mr. Coyle stated that the Conditional Use Permit amendment standards are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and promote health, safety, morals, 'comfort; and are compatible with
adjacent uses. It does not impede surrounding developments and conforms to zoning
regulations.
Mr. Coyle reminded the Commission that they approved this proposal last fall and that it is a
FUD and flexibility is allowed.
a
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1995
Page 113
Mr. Coyle stated that for a moratorium there needs to be a planning process a City is trying toprotect. He alleged staff could not identify another project that was being planned. Mr. Coyle
stated that a City may not arbitrarily, adopt an interim moratorium ordinance to delay or
prevent a project. Neighborhood opposition is not a basis for denial.
Mr. Coyle indicated that the Drive Through Standard consists of "All portions of businesses
with drive through facilities..., including but not limited to the building in which they are
located, service windows and queuing spaces,... shall be set back at least 300 feet from
residentially zoned or guided property." The standard does not say anything about parking.
He added that the TCF proposal satisfies the Drive Through Standard as the drive through
service use is 300 feet from the residential lot line.
Mr. Coyle stated that setback requirements are grandfathered by the PUD. The 22 -foot car' queuing standard is not in code and can not be applied to the project. According to Mr.
Coyle, staff indicated that their plan was acceptable.
Mr. Coyle stated that there would be no economic impact on the surrounding residences. The
neighbors bought with knowledge that this was zoned for commercial use.
Commissioner Preus stated that staff is recommending a 22 -foot car queuing standard and
wondered how the petitioner can request an 18 -foot standard now.
Mr. Coyle replied that staff previously approved an 18 -foot standard last fall and up until two
weeks ago staff indicated no problems with that.
Mr. Madsen added that car queuing spaces normally range from 15 -feet on up. Ryan
Companies typically use an 18 -foot standard throughout the Twin Cities area,
Director Hurlburt stated that earlier reviews of length of queuing spaces were not an issue
because the City did not have a setback requirement. Staff looked for authoritative sources forwhatanappropriatelengthofqueuingspacewouldbe, and located the study from ITB which
was attached to the staff report. Staff did make the architect; for the proposal aware of the ITE
study.
Commissioner Ribbe commented that a key issue is if this proposal complies with the UBC.
Mr. Madsen explained that when a building reaches 72,000 square feet and it sprinkled YOU
have to have 60 feet around that structure. Intermediate property lines mean zero lot lines andthatisthewayitwasdonepreviouslyatRockfordRoadPlaza, and you consider it one
building, TCF should be considered as one building with Target.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1995
Page 114
Chairman Stulberg pointed out if TCF was considered one building with Target, then you
would have to measure the 300 foot setback from the back of the Target building.
Mr. Madsen replied the 300 -foot setback requirement of the ordinance is ambiguous.
Mr. Coyle stated that Target does not have a drive through as part of their use and should be
grandfathered in.
Chairman Stulberg asked that if TCF is considered part of Target to satisfy compliance with
the. UBC, then where does the measurement start for the setback requirement.
Mr. Madsen stated if a separation wall is required, then it would be two separate buildings.
Mr. Madsen stated it can be done either way.
Chairman Stulberg opened the public hearing.
Chairman Stulberg received three letters from the petitioner; Vincent Driessen dated May 22,
1995, Dennis Crowe dated May 19, 1995, and Jeffrey Skold dated May 23, 1995 all in
support of the project. Chairman Stulbeig also received`a letter dated May 22, 1995 from nine
families (Pat & Sue Henkemeyer, Melony & Jeff Micheals, Kim & John Donoghue, Amy &
Jim Amast, Bev & David Wedel, Heather & Bill Froelich, Mac & Holly McDonnell, Steve &
May Fox-Stromen, Jane :& Dennis Murschel) opposing the project.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Pat Henkemeyer of 4205 Wedgewood Lane North,
Mr. Henkemeyer stated that his property would be the most affected by the light generated
from the proposed project, but the video of computer imagipg'answered his concerns. He
indicated that there is a drop on the embankment and wondered if the wall would be high
enough to, shield the light. He understood the property could be used for an extension of
Target Greatland, but not a parking lot.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Bev Wedel of 4225 Wedgewood lane.
Ms. Wedel stated that the nine families that signed the letter were in attendance and would like
the Planning Commission to deny the proposal. Ms. Wedel presented photographs of the
residential neighborhood indicating that even the, homes furthest away on Wedgewood lane
can see the development. She stated that she was aware that the property was zoned for
commercial use when she purchased her property, but was concened with the proposal as TCP
has the most progressive hours in the Twin Cities. Ms. Wedel staled that the proposed wall
would be invasive to their development and that the traffic would create a fish bowl affect on
the neighborhood. Ms. Wedel commented that eight 8 -foot trees would not camouflage the
wall enough. Ms. Wedel stated that traffic is already treacherous at the Vinewood lane and
Northwest Boulevard intersection during peak hours,
0
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1995
Page 115
Chairman stulberg introduced Jeff Micheals of 4200 Wedgewood lane.
Mr. Michaels stated that the road behind Target is less than 150 feet to his property line. He
stated he was concerned that his property would decrease in value if the proposal was
approved:
Chairman Stulberg closed the public hearing.
Chairman Stulberg asked if the petitioner took into account the decline in the embankment
when they did the computer imaging.
Mr. Madsen replied that they used the correct dimensions for the computer imaging and it is i
an accurate reflection of how traffic and light would flow through TCF: Mr. Madsen stated
that fights will not shine up to a second story and the wall at its closest point is So feet away jfromTargetproperty. He added that vegetation, landscaping, and wall options are open for
discussion:
Chairman 5tulberg stated that the Planning Commission does not get involved in„property
values and cannot comment on the issue.
Mr. Coyle stated the neighbors understood a retail use of the property, what they don't like isaTCFbankuse. The ditch area is currently Target property and not intended for pedestrian
access, and is a risk that those pirents are taking already.
Commissioner Preus wanted to know staff's version as to their position stating that the
applicant's, proposal does not comply with the UBC:
Senior Planner Keho replied that staff is only addressing the application on hand.
Commissioner Preus asked if the applicant,s previous application complied with the UBC:
Senior Planner Keho responded that at the time the previous application was submitted, theZoningordinancedidnotrequirethe300foo, setback.- if the applicant states that TCF iscombinedwiththeTargetbuildingtomeettheUBCthentheyhavetohaveanalternativetoLotmeetthe300footsetbackasrequiredbythedrivethroughstandard. The requested
Division makes the Target facility violate the UHC and if you combine the two buildings, then
the 300 -foot setback requirement is not met.
Commissioner Preus questioned when the Ordinance was adopted.
Senior Planner Keho replied that the Planning Commission approved the amended Zoning
Ordinance on February 22 and it was adopted by the City Council on March 7, 1995.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1995
Page 116
MOTION by Commissioner Spigner, seconded by Commissioner Ribbe to table the proposal
for 90 -days in which the petitioner and staff could work together on amendments.
Roll Call Vote.: 3 Ayes. MOTION failed on a 3-4 Vote. (Commissioners Stimson, Preus,
Oja and Chairman Stulberg voted Nay.)
MOTION by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Black to recommend denial of
the request by Ryan Construction Co. for a PUD PreliminaryPlan Amendment, Final Pian,
Lot division and Conditional Use Permit for a TCF Bank to be located west of Vinewood Lane
in Rockford Road Plaza.
Commissioner Oja asked why Target was not requesting the building expansion if this was to
be a single building. She stated that she views TCF as a separate building from Target. She
commented that the parking area is so far back you have to walk through the drive through
lanes to get to the bank.
Commissioner Preus commented that the petitioner has done a good job at making every effort
they could to satisfy staff and the neighbors, and agrees with the majority of what was
presented by the petitioner, but it still comes down to the 3170 -foot setback for the drive
through. Commissioner Preus believed the City did not have this proposal in mind when the
moratorium was adopted, it was the intent to have an Ordinance that satisfies the City as a
whole and the issue had been on the back burner for some time. Commissioner Preus stated
that he understands the frustration of the petitioner, but it still does not :comply with the
Ordinance. Commissioner Preus said that he interprets the Ordinance to include the entire
area of the business including the parking spaces.
Commissioner Ribbe commented that he was troubled by the timing of the moratorium and the
amended Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the petitioner has done an exemplary job trying to
address all concerns.
Commissioner Spigner stated that the petitioner has put forth a good solid plan and she
supports iL
Chairman Stulberg stated that the role of the Planning Commission is to support and
administer the ordinances of the City no matter if it is a good plan, or that the petitioner works
with the residents. Chairman Stulberg staled that he voted in favor of the project last fall, but
has to vote against it now because of the amended Zoning Ordinance,
Commissioner Spigner stated that the petitioner claims to meet the standards of the new
ordinance.
6
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1995
Page 117
Chairman Stulberg stated that the proposal does not meet the 300 foot setback, if they are
considered one building, then the 300 foot setback applies to the building; in either case it does
not meet the ordinance standard.
Commissioner Black agreed that the issue for denial is the 300 -foot setback requirement. I
Roll Call Vote, 5 Ayes. _MOTION carried on a 5-2 Vote. (Commissioners Spigner and
s
Ribbe voted nay.)
NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Oja stated that any changes recommended after Planning Commission approval
should comeback to the Planning Commission for consideration. Items that she would like to
see come back to the Planning Commission include movement of a NURP pond, building
outside the perimeter, trees removed, and relocation of buildings. She commented that the
removal of the trees at Armstrong could have been eliminated if the changes had been brought
back to the Planning Commission,
Director Hurlburt commented that if there are only minor changes, it wnuld be unreasonable
for the applicant to have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval. She stated
that there was a slight change in the NURP pond for the Armstrong site, but that was the only
change and staff considered it minor. She added that there was a lot of misunderstanding as to
what was actually approved for that site plan.
Chairman Stulberg stated that if Commissioner Oja wants to see certain issues come back to
Planning Commission for approval, then a motion should be, made and staff would have to
come back with an ordinance amendment.
Director Hurlburt suggested, this issue should be tabled and staff would review the ordinance
pertaining to administrative approvals and prepare for this to be reviewed at the next meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Stimson, seconded by Chairman Stulberg to adjourn,
Vote. 7 Ayes. Meeting adjourned at 11:29 p.m.
0