Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 06-28-1995CITY OF PLYMOUTH PLANNING COMMISSION MRNUTES TUNE 28,1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Mike Stulberg, Commissioners Barb Stimson, Virginia Black, Christian Preus, Allen Ribbe, Linda Oja and (Saundra Spigner MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT; Director Anne Hurlburt, Planning Supervisor Barbara Senness, Senior Planner John Keho, Planner Shawn Drill, City Engineer Dan Faulkner, and Planning Secretary Denise Hutt Commissioner Spigner noted that in the last paragraph on Page 123, it should be Commissioner Ola asking the question. MOTION by Commissioner Ribbe, seconded by Commissioner Preusrto approved the June 14, 1995 minutes as amended. Vote. 7 Ayes, MOTION carried unanimously, SCHERBER PARTNERSHIP PROPERTIES (95027) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Scherber Partnership/Holly Creek 4th Addition for an RPUD Concept Plan, Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for five new single family lots; rezoning from FRD to R -IA to be incorporated into RPUD 92-1; and, a PUD Preliminary Plan/Plat Amendment for four existing lots in RPUD92-1, Senior Planner Keho gave an overview of the June 20, 1995 staff report, , Commissioner Preus questioned if the applicant were to proceed with the ExtraordinaryManagementPractices, how that would affect the average for buffer width. Senior Planner Keho responded that staff did not specifically look at that since staff was recommending against the use of the Extraordinary Management Practices. He said that the reduced buffer would have to be averaged out somewhere else on the property, Chairman Stulberg stated that even 1f you use 25 feet, you still have to average 50 feet; therefore, you would have to use 75 feet somewhere else on the property. a Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1995 Page #132 Commissioner Black asked how the applicant complies with the requirements for a PUD Condition #5) when they are asking for Extraordinary Management Practices. Senior Planner Keho responded that by looking at the proposal as a whole, including stairs recommendations, it would meet the criteria;, Planning Supervisor Senness stated that using the Extraordinary Management Practices, the average used if from the Alternative Buffer Standards, not the normal buffer standards. Chairman Stulberg introduced Tom Loucks, representing the petitioner. Mr. Loucks stated that he concurs with staffs recommendations with the exception of a couple of issues. After discussions with staff regardbyg Lot 2, the lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 was adjusted so that Alternative Buffers and Extraordinary Management Practices are not needed. Mr. Loucks stated that there is a trunk sanitary sewer located along the lot line on Lot 3 from which they would want the house pad to be. a minimum of 25 feet away; The wetland on Lot 3 is in a side yard and would be 40 feet from the wetland. He added that the house could be turned, but it would make for a very unusual house and pad site and be quite out of character for the area. Mr. Loucks commented that he would be open to the idea of placing a covenant on Lot 3 regarding fertilizer, if needed. Senior Planner Keho stated that staff agrees that the northerly lots would be suitable, but still believes that there are alternative house designs for Lot 3. Chairman Stulberg asked if the buffer on Lot 3 was reduced to 25 feet, would the lot be taken out of the calculation for the required average of 50 feet. Senior Planner Keho replied that using the alternative method, the average would be 25 feet. Commissioner Preus asked what the distance was between the house pad on Lot 3 to the wetland. Mir. Loucks responded that the distance is 40 feet and would use Extraordinary Management Practices for this lot only, because of the sanitary sewer issue, Commissioner Black asked how far Lot 3 is from the sanitary sewer. Mr. Loucks' answered that the pad for Lot 3 is 25 feel from the sanitary sewer and if the sewer failed, you would need at least 25 feet to repair it, Senior Planner Keho stated that if the alternative wetland buffer was approved, phosphorous chemicals would be prohibited on the lot. a Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1995 Page #133 Planning Supervisor Senness stated that staff could not agree with the applicant at this time on Lot 3, it would have to be discussed it further before the item goes to City Council because of ordinance requirements. Mr. Loucks stated that a covenant could be placed on Iot 3, but it may be more of an enforcement issue with the City. Chairman Stulberg opened the public hfaring. Chairman Stulberg introduced Mary Orton of 4315 Fountain Lane North. Ms. Orton asked how many trees would be removed and what would happen to the walldng path. Ms. Orton wanted to know if she':would be able to see homes on Lots 2 and 3 from her residence, and how the proposal would affect the wetlands. Chairman Stulberg introduced Sheila Langer of 1285 Fountain Lane North. Ms. Langer commented that the notice she received from the City was confusing and that her main concern was for protection of wetlands. Chairman Stulberg introduced Gary Langer of 4285 Fountain Lane North. Mr. Langer stated that when he purchased his property, he was told that no homes would be built on the other side of the wetlands. He commented that residents just voted to improve the wetlands, and it seems that the applicant is trying to figure out how to go around the wetland issues and to fit in more homes. Chairman Stulberg introduced Mery Swigart of 3324 Aquila Avenue South. Mr, Swigart wanted to know what he was supposed to do with his property since it is now classed as a Welland, and was not when he purchased it. Chairman Stulberg introduced Dan Sullivan of 4265 Fountain Lane North. Mr, Sullivan commented that he was concerned with the preservation of the wetlands and the City should not be amending the conditions to allow flexibility. He stated that there is still land available for building without having to encroach the wetland. Mr. Sullivan asked if any fill would be pushed out into the marsh area. Chairman Stulberg closed the public hearing, a Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1995 Page #134 Mr. Loucks stated that the subdivision would be located south of the walking path and no trees would be removed. He commented that there is the possibility of one home that the Ortons would see from their home. Senior Planner Keho stated that vegetation will be removed from this site. Chairman Stulberg stated that there is no variance from the wetland protection. Mr. Loucks is requesting an alternative for Lot 3 only and all of the other lots do meet the new Wetland Ordinance Standards that were adopted in January. Director Hurlburt commented that staffwould take a look at the property notice to see ifimprovementsarewan -anted. Chairman Stulberg asked Mr. Langer who told him that there would never be any homeslocatedacrossthewetlands. Mr. Langer replied that it was a combination of developer, owner, and real estate agent.. Chairman Stulberg apologized for any misunderstanding and stated that the City has no controloverwhatissaidbetweenprivateparties. Senior Planner Keho stated that since 1992,.a cut -de -sac was anticipated for this area. Mr. Loucks stated that there will be some filling on Lot 8, but they will be mitigating 2:1 for any fill going into the wetland. Senior Planner Keho added that the applicant will have to submit the wetland mitigation for City Council review. He explained that this wetland was not identified as a wetland previously, but showed up as part of the review of the plan. Chairman Stulberg commented that new ordinances are continuously developed and Mr. Swaggart would have to try and work something out for developing his land. MOTION by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Spigner recommending the approval of the request by Scherber Partnership/Holly Creek 4th Addition for an RPUD Concept Plan, Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for five new single family lots; rezoning from FRD to R -IA to be incorporated into RPUD 92-1; and, a PUD Preliminary Plan/Plat Amendment for four existing lots in RPUD 92-1, as recommended by staff. MOTTON by Commissioner Preus, seconded by Commissioner Stimson to delete` Conditionq3 of the Resolution Approving the Residential Planned Unit Development Concept Plan; to delete Lot 3 from Condition N6c, of the Approving Resolution for the Residential Planned Unit a Planning Commission Minutes Yune 28, 1995 Page #135 Development Preliminary plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit; and to add a Condition to theApprovingResolutionfortheResidentialPlannedUnitDevelopmentConceptPlanstatingthatExtraordinaryManagementPracticesareacceptableforLot3. Commissioner Preus commented that flexibility should be allowed when the developer isofferingtoworkwithLot3, and they should be able to use Extraordinary ManagementPractices. Commissioner Oja stated that she would not support the motion, as the lot is developablewithoutusingtheExtraordinaryManagementPractices. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that if the change is made, the Concept Plan is the onlyPartoftheproposalthatcouldmoveforward, as the City Council would have to act on theExtraordinaryManagementPracticesfirst. Director Hurlburt stated that there could be at least a two week delay. She added that thePlanningCommissioncouldrecommendboththeConceptPlanandthePreliminaryPfau, butitonefallsthrough, they have to go back to Planning Commission. Roll Call Vote on Amendment. 3 Ayes. MOTION failed on a 3-4 Vote. (CommissionersBlack, Spigner, Oja and Chairman Stulberg voted nay.) Roll Call Vote on Main MOTION. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously. JOHN ROUNDS/ROUNDS ADDITION (95035) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by John Rounds for a Preliminary plat approval, Rezoning from FRD to R -1A and Variances for the creation of four lots for single familyhomeslocatedat3320XeniumLaneNorth, Planner Drill gave an overview of the June 19, 1995 staff report. Chairman' Stulberg introduced John Rounds, the petitioner, Mr. Rounds stated that he bought property hoping to subdivide so he could move his in-laws intotheexistingsinglefamilydwelling. He stated that he concurs with the staff report and isWillingtoworkwiththeneighborsandtheCity. Chairman opened the public hearing, Chairman Stulberg introduced Rebecca Fielb of 13340 32nd Avenue North, Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1995 Page #136 Ms. Kielb stated that no hardship had been proven to grant the variance. She stated that it should be subdivided into three lots instead of four. Ms. Kielb stated she was concerned with the area being so swampy and wanted to know where the "muck" would go as they are gradingthearea. She also indicated concern for the steep driveway and tree preservation. Ms. Kielb stated that the elevation for the homes in the neighborhood are at 933 feet and was concerned that this proposal shows 936 feet. She wanted to ]mow if any of the homes would have basements. Ms. Kielb asked who would maintain the existing building on Lot 1 and if the owner is developing these lots or selling them. She also asked -what -would happen if someone buys a lot and runs out of money to develop it, who would finish it. Chairman Stulberg introduced Craig Petersen of 13410 32nd Avenue North. Mr. Petersen stated that the property has two to four feet of standing water during spring rains. He wanted to know how the water would be diverted. Mr. Petersen asked if the proposal is approved and it causes water problems with his home, can he sue. Chairman Stulberg introduced Ann Slavec of 13404 34th Avenue North. Ms. Slavec wanted an explanation of Future Restricted Development District. She asked what Mr. Rounds' motive was for requesting the change. Ms. Slavec stated that there seems to be too much development and it could affect the property value of her home. Chairman Stulberg introduced Steve Forsberg of 1340032nd Avenue North. Mr. Forsberg stated that he was concerned with drainage from the property as there is already a problem with standing water. Mr. Forsberg presented pictures of the property indicating standing water. He was also concerned with tree preservation and bringing in a substantial amount of fill. He stated that there should be a restriction placed on Lots 2 and 30 and homes should be built as close to Xenium lane as possible. Ms. Kielb asked if these homes would have any restrictive covenants placed on them. She asked if the petitioner would be required to keep the same square footage of the lowlands as her builder was required to do. Chairman Stulberg introduced Bob Sundag of 13300 33rd Avenue North. Mr. Sondag asked if there were any ordinances pertaining to how steep a driveway could be. Ms. Slavec asked for an explanation of Future Restricted Development versus low density. She asked if the proposal is in compliance with the regulations. Chapman Stolberg closed the public hearing.. a Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1995 Page #137 City Engineer Faulkner stated that these are no ordinances or requirements pertaining to thedriveway. Mr. Rounds concurred that the driveway is steep and the slope is approximately 20%. He added that the driveway was moved because the city would allow only two access points fromXeniumLane. They will serve Lots 2 and 3. Planner Drill stated that with respect to variances, staff looked at the overall parcel size and concluded that four lots would be a "reasonable" use of the property. The proposed density isonly1.6 units per acre. Staff looked at the surrounding area and the lots directly to the north which are less than 110 feet in width. The variance requested fur Lot 1 is a temporarysituationuntilthehouseisconstructed. Planner Drill explained that land is generally classified as Future Restricted development until someone submits an application for development. He continued that B lA is the most restrictive, with the least amount of density allowed (two to three dwellings per acre). The Permitted use would be for single family dwellings. He added that the proposed zoningcomplieswiththeLA -1 guiding of the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Stulberg introduced Tim Erkkila of Westwood Professional Services, representingthepetitioner. Mr. Erkkila concurred that the water on the site is an issue. He stated that the piping in the storm drain is small and the catch basin under Xenium Lane should be repaired. He stated that the site in nota wetland and the run-off comes from the development along 32nd Avenue. City Engineer Faulkner stated that the petitioner can not increase the water runoff from pre- existing conditions. He added that calculations indicate this proposal would have a negligible impact on the water storage capacity of this site. Mr. Erkkila stated that there will be some top soil from the she that would be stockpiled to be used later for creation of pads. He added that there may P need to create a basin behind Lot2. Mr.. Rounds stated that he will not be the builder, he will just develop the property. Mr. Erkkila stated that he expects that there could be a basement on Lot 2, and Lot 1 could have a walkout. Mr. Erkkila stated that 10 to 12 trees would be removed from the site. Senior Planner Keho'stated that the petitioner would have to abide by the Tree PreservationPolicyandworkwiththeCityForester. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1995 Page #138 Chairman Stulberg stated that the homeowner of Lot 1 would be responsible for mabitenance of the storage shed. He added that restrictions on homes are placed by a homeowner's association, and it is the choice of the builder whether to have an association. Chairman Stulberg explained that in order to develop property, it needs to be rezoned. Senior Planner Keho stated the petitioner can place the houses where they want on the lots as long as they meet the building setback irquiremeuts. Director Hurlburt stated that staff received aplan showing thepadc, but to push the pads back further away from Xenium lane would require more fill and more expense, so the petitioner may not waAit to do this. Commissibner Ribbe asked if the petitioner is dependent upon the improvement of flow under Xenium Lane going westward in order to complete the plans. 1: Mr. Erkkila replied that they can accommodate the building just as it is now. He stated that he is not prepared to offer a solution at this time regarding the drainage, as it is a technical matter that would need to be discussed with staff between preliminary and final approval: Chairman Stulberg asked what the phasing of project will be. Mr. Rounds replied that the builder would like to start this fall and that he intends to sell three lots. Commissioner Black asked why the applicant proposed four lots instead of three. Mr. Rounds answered that Lots 1 and 2 are exceptionally large and that the site could accommodate four lots. Chairman Stulberg introduced Ruth Rounds, the petitioner. Ms. Rounds stated that when the development was built around the site, 20 feet was taken for an easement for 32nd Avenue. Chairman Stulberg asked what the requirement is for the R -IA District, and if the surrounding lots are comparable. Planner Drill replied that the lot size requirement for the R -IA District is 18,500 square feet and the proposal is comparable with the existing surrounding lots. Commissioner Black asked what the existing structures are being used for. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1995 Page #139 Mr. Rounds answered that his wife's parents will live in the existing home and that the bam is in good shape. City Engineer Faulkner pointed out that the minimum basement elevation is 933.3 feet. Mr. Erkkila corrected his earlier statement, noting that there would not be basements for Lots 2 and 3. MOTION by Commissioner Stimson, seconded by Commissioner Black to recommend approval of the request by John Rounds for a Preliminary Plat approval, Rezoning from FRD to R-IA and Variances for the creation of four lots for single family homes located at 3320 Xenium lane North. Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously. Chairman Stulberg called for a recess at 5:50 p.m, and the meeting was reconvened 9:07 p.m. DEVELOPMENT REVfEW PROCESS Senior Planner Keho explained who is involved in the Development Review Committee process. He indicated that there is employee representation from each department in the city. Planning - John Keho, Shawn Drill, Barb Senness; Building - Chris Lane Plans Examiner; Public Works - Bob "Johnson, Shane Missagtu; Fire Division - Stan Scofield; Parks & Recreation - Mary Bisek, Paul Buck) and notices are sent to various other staff personnel public safety and City Manager). Planning Supervisor Semmes stated that thergm is a formal and informal process. The informal process consists of meeting with a potential applicant regarding what policies, rules and regulations allow. She indicated that staff may meet with a potential applicant more than once on an informal basis. She stated that the actual process starts with submission of an application and plans. The deadline for submission is each Friday by noon, Senior Planner Keho stated that there are 2,5 weeks from submittal of the application and plans for all staff to review. He explained that the Planning Division looks at the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan,_ and City Policies (Tree, Landscaping) for compliance as does each department, Staff meets to go over items and come up with list of shortcomings: A letter is then sent to the applicant for revisions if they do not schedule a meeting with staff. Commissioner Black asked if there is a time frame for applicants to respond to the revisions, Senior Planner Keho stated that the State has implemented a time frame recently, but there was not one previously, except for preliminary and final plats. a Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1995 Page #140 Director Hurlburt stated ,that with the new time frame cities have to mach to zoning related matters within 60 days from submission of the completed application and 10daysto confirm whether the application is complete or not. The statute does allow for an additional 60 days, if needed. Director Hurlburt stated that staff will automatically ask for an additional 60 days on anything that requires a hearing. She added that proposals may have to be approved with more contingencies on them. Commissioner Spigner asked if something is tabled and it goes beyond the 60 days, is it an w automatic approval. Director Hurlburt responded affirmatively. Commissioner Preus asked what was the origination of the statute. i Director Hurlburt replied a real estate group in Dakota County. Chairman:Stulberg asked if the applicant can authorize an extension. Director Hurlburt responded affirmatively. Senior Planner Keho stated that after an application is submitted, staff decides if it can be administratively approved or if it requires a public hearing. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that the City Council has decided what can be administratively approved, basically any non-residential use that is not adjacent to a residential area. An administrative approval letter is sent with the conditions listed. Minor variances (not more than 25% into encroachment) can be approved if no negative comments are received within 14 days. If a concern is raised, then it would go to the Planning Commission and City Council. Chairman Stulberg commented that the Ordinance authorizes staff to do this. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that an application goes through public meetings, a public hearing, and receives input from staff and residents. The Planning Commission can approve, change, or table an item.. The item then moves on to City Council for their approval or denial. Some applications such as final plats, lot divisions, fire code issues, PUD Final Plans and wetland mitigation go directly to City Council and variances (excluding minor variances) go to the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals. Director Hurlburt stated that if a proposal receives a unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission, then it is placed on the consent agenda for the City Council meeting. a Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1995 Page 11141 Planning Supervisor Senness stated that if there are no substantial changes between preliminary and final plat (basic street layout, number of lots) it would go directly to the City Council and not back to the Planning Commission, Senior Planner Keho stated that there may be changes after the final site plan when applicants apply fora building permit, for example an entrance may change for a commercial building already approved for a certain footprint. In this type of a case, staff will authorize an Administrative Approval. On Landscaping Plans, an applicant may have planted ash trees instead of maple or change the location of trees. This would be okay as long as it doesn't change the screening requirements or buffers. The City .Forester also looks at the landscaping plans and will give his recommendation. Staff determines whether it is a minor or substantial change. Planning Supervisor Senness offered that changes may also occur going from two dimensional to three dimensional (paper to building). Director Hdrlburt commented that an administrative approval saves time and money for the applicant. Planning Supervisor Senness explained that staff interprets from the Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision regulations that were established though public hearings. Lakeview Commons was approved and then Bassett Creek Watershed District said no to its water quality alternative, so staff needed to decide whether another public hearing was needed. Chairman Stulberg commented that minor changes can occur after Planning Commission and that the City Council may act without sending it back to the Planning Commission, Planning Supervisor Senness stated that Prudential provided staff with a revised plan, The applicant now proposes to put in angle parking for an additional row, thus changing the circular motion around the parking lot to a "K -Mart" style parking lot. She stated that it certainly is not the best design, but they would gain 70 parking spaces. The new plan does not change the view from the street. It does allow them to move their handicapped spaces so they don't have to cross the drive aisle, They are proposing fo only build a portion of the north parking lot (93 spaces instead of 156). The tree loss would be reduced from 214 to 139. Tho NURP pond would not be as large. Staff did discuss with the applicant whether they would need more parking in the 'future. The applicant stated that the building is almost fully occupied, but staff is skeptical that they won't come back for additional parking spaces. Director Hurlburt stated that Prudential is currently running two shifts that overlap and there could be a need to go three shifts. Planning Supervisor Senness stated her concern with the smaller lot is the potential that Prudential will comeback in a few years to request an expansion of the lot. She stated that the r•I Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1995 Page #142 shared parking option needs to be discussed further. The applicant indicated that they would meet with the Radisson and would invite staff to attend. She added that then: is still the option of decking for parking. Director Hurlburt asked if the difference of loss of trees would have made a difference to Commissioners. Is this a significant enough change to meet the PUD requirements. Commissioner Stimson stated it wcah not have changed her mind. Commissioner Oja commented that the applicant should look into two tiered parking, shared parking, Metrolink, and other options. Also, she stated that the tree difference would not have influenced her decision. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that the applicant did not want to use the Prudential facilityonBassLakeRoadbecauseofhavingtorunashuttleallthetime. Commissioner Black stated she would not have changed her vote. Chairman Stulberg stated that the applicant submitted'a mvised'plan, but that they should be ' able to do mora than what has been offered so far. Chairman Stulberg asked if the applicant will be allowed to present a new plan, and if so, what would staff's recommendation be. Planning Supervisor Senness stated the recommendation would be for denial. Director Hurlbutt explained that if the applicant proposed a new plan that expanded the parking lot, it would Have needed to go back to the Planning Commission. There will be new information in the staff report to the City Council because of the numerous changes. Commissioner Oja commented that the applicant is getting closer, but they are not thele yet. Commissioner Black wondered what else the applicant could come up with. Commissioner Oja stated that the items she would like to see come back to the Planning Commission were movement of NURP ponds,'building outside the perimeter removal of trees, and movement of buildings. Senior Planner Keho stated that building facades do change. Commissioner Oja stated that for example if Prudential had revised their plan to build outside the parking lot area causing tree removal, she would like to see it come back to the Planning Commission. a a a Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1995 Page #143 Director Hurlburt stated that a decision needs to be made of what is a substantial change (morethan10% different than ortgi.:ahy planned) and how it will relate to the new statute. Commissioner Oja stated that she wants to be assured that what she voted on is really going tobebuilt. Commissioner Stimson commented that changes are often made before an item goes to the CityCouncilandeventheCityCouncilcanchangewhatisdecidedbythePlanningCommission. Chairman Stulberg asked if the planning Commission wants to change procedures, if theZoningOrdinancehastobeamended, Director Hurlburt responded affirmatively. The Planning Commission would have torecommendittotheCityCounciltoauthorizeandthenapublichearingisheldduringaPlanningCommissionmeeting, Commissioner Spigner asked if the 10% is in the ordinance, She stated that it seems to beambiguousandwouldliketoseemoreofadefinition, Chairman Stulberg stated that you need to trust in staff and their opinion as to what 10 % is, Commissioner Spigner stated that she doesn't mind flexibility, but the language could beinterpretedinmanydifferentways, Senior Planner Keho read the passage from the Ordinance relating to the 10 %, Commissioner Spigner stated that after hearing the text in the Ordinance, she felt morecomfortablewiththelanguage, Director Hurlburt stated that an application also has to meet all zoning ordinance requirementsandstaffcannotapproveitifitdoesnot, Chairman Stulberg stated that if the Commission wants to something, specific things are easierthanthechangingthe10%, Director Hurlburt cautioned that changing specific items would be more restrictive, Anyperimeterchangegivesnodiscretionatan. She stated that you have to be reasonable enough, and not be arbitrary. Planning Supervisor Senness commented that staff could say no each time, but that would notalways, be the best for the City, She added that changes do occur with more detail design as aprojectmovesforward, a Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1995 Page #144 Commissioner Stimson commented that she did not feel she could dispute any changes, as she is not an expert. MOTION by Commissioner Preus, seconded by Commissioner Black to move on to the next item. Vote. 7'Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously. REVISIONS TO 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM Director Hurlburt stated that the report is not inquired, but it is a way of communicating an update to the City Council, as priorities have been changed. Chairman Stulberg commented that it should be reported what was accomplished or not accomplished during the fust and second quarter. Director Hurlburt stated that northwest Plymouth was delayed because of the Elm Creek cluster planning process that the City is participating in. Staff will be working with the Metropolitan Council for the overall strategy for that area and that will take place within the next few months. The City may also want to enter into a housing agreement for the Livable Community Act. The City Council added tree preservation and also moratorium on commercial/industrial platting. She indicated that the 4th quarter was changed in regards to review and recommended revisions to the subdivision regulations. That will be put off until next year. Planning Supervisor Senness stated that staff will move forward with street design standards. Chairman Stulberg asked if you can review PVDs without revising the subdivision regulations. Director Hurlburt replied affirmatively; but the subdivision regulations will have to be fixed at some point. MOTION by Commissioner Preus, second by Commissioner 5pigner to recommend approval of the revised work plan and forward it to the City Council, Vote.7 Ayes. MOTION carred unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Director Hurlburt stated that discussion regarding tree preservation will start on July 12 and a public hearing held on July 26. Street designs will be discussed on July 26 also. Commissioner Black stated that she will not be at July 12 Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1995 Page #145 MOTION by, Commissioner Spigner, second by Commissioner Ribbe to adjourn, S Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously. j Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.. 1 i I i I i i If i P