HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2005-420CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2005-420
APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENYING THE REZONING, PRELIMINARY
PLAT, SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, INTERIM USE PERMIT, AND
VARIANCE FOR LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES FOR 13, MULTIPLE FAMILY BUILDINGS
ON A 15.99 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
THE INTERSECTION OF NATHAN LANE AND BASS LAKE ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 10)
(2005115)
WHEREAS, Lifestyle Properties has requested reclassification of the zoning from FRD (Future
Restricted Development District) , C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial), and RMF -2 (Multiple
Family 2) to RMF -3 (Multiple Family 3) and RMF -4 (Multiple Family 4), a preliminary plat, site
plan, conditional use permit, interim use permit, and variance for 13, multiple family buildings on
15.99 acres of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Nathan Lane and Bass
Lake Road (County Road 10), legally described as follows:
Outlot A, HICKORY HILLS VILLAS, and,
Lot 1, Block 4 Bass Lake Villas, and,
Outlot H, the Ponds at Bass Creek, and,
The north 300 feet of the east 110 feet of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter
of Section 1, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public Hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request for
reclassification of the zoning from FRD, C-2, and RMF -2 to RMF -3 and RMF -4, preliminary plat,
site plan, conditional use permit, interim use permit and variance for Lifestyle Properties for 13,
multiple -family buildings on 15.99 acres of land located near the southeast corner of the
intersection of Nathan Lane and Bass Lake Road (County Road 10), based on the following
findings:
Resolution 2005-420
Findings of Fact (2005115)
Page 2
1. The subject property is guided LA -3 by the Comprehensive Plan, which lists the following
zoning districts as compatible: RMF -1 (Multiple Family 1), RMF -2 (Multiple Family 2),
and RMF -3 (Multiple Family 3).
2. While the Comprensive Plan also states that, "Other zoning districts may also be
appropriate if the proposed developmentwould meet the density criteria of 6 to 12 units
per acre", the RMF -3 and RMF -4 zoning districts and the development proposed is
inappropriate in this location because of the following findings:
a. The graduation in land use intensity proposed by the applicant using the RMF -3 as a
transition between the existing adjacent residential strictures and the proposed RMF -4
district is not adequate.
b. The scale and appearance of the development is incompatible with the surrounding
residential strictures, especially the height permitted by the RMF -4 district.
c. The distance between the existing adjacent residential strictures and the proposed
strictures is not an adequate transition due to the scale and appearance of the
development.
d. The surface parking areas required for apartment uses are incompatible when located
adjacent to the existing residential strictures.
e. The use of natural features does not an adequate transition between the existing
residential strictures and the proposed strictures.
f. The buffering and screening proposed does not an adequate transition between the
existing residential strictures and the proposed strictures.
3. Other zoning districts and stricture types would be more appropriate for the site and the
surrounding area and meet the intent of the LA -3 land use guide plan designation.
4. The preliminary plat, site plan, conditional use permit, interim use permit and variance are
denied, based on the denial of the rezoning.
ADOPTED by the City Council on November 8, 2005.
Resolution 2005-420
Findings of Fact (2005115)
Page 2
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS.
The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth,
Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the
Plymouth City Council on November 8, 2005 with the original thereof on file in my office, and the
same is a correct transcription thereof.
WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this
day of
City Clerk