HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 10-12-1988s
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE October 3, 1988 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 12, 1988
FILE NO.: 88106
PETITIONER: CAD/CAM Limited Partnership
REQUEST: Approve Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Division of
Platted Property to Construct New Building with Outside
Storage
LOCATION: Highway 55 South Service Drive Between Industrial Park
Boulevard and County Road 6 (12855 State Highway 55)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: IP (Planned Industrial)
ZONING: I-1 (Planned Industrial)
BACKGROUND:
Review of the records of the Planning Department does not reveal any activity
of a Planning and Development nature concerning this parcel of ground during
the past fifteen years.
A notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper and mailed notice has been sent to all property owners within 500
feet. In addition, a development sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. Proposed is the division of a parcel of 4.6 acres into two parcels, both
over the size minimum; one containing the existing structure of 30,392
square feet, and one to contain a new structure of 15,745 square feet.
The application also is for the Site Plan to construct the new building
together with a Conditional Use Permit to permit outdoor storage to the
south of the new building.
2. Review of the proposal in the context of the Physical Constraints Analysis
reveals the site to have no wetlands; no woodlands; no slopes of greater
than twelve percent; no agricultural capabilities; and is suitable
Page 2
88106) Staff Report
for development with on-site sewers. In addition, the site is not a part
of a shoreland overlay district or flood plain overlay district. The site
is located in the Bassett Creek Watershed. In all respects the site is
suitable for development within the context of the Physical Constraints
Analysis.
3. The site plan presented for the new structure meets all requirements of
the zoning ordinance and related policies for the design of a site and
structure in the I-1 district. Specifically, all external setback
requirements are met; all off-street parking requirements are met
including proof of parking to one hundred percent manufacturing occupancy
both sites); site landscaping is consistent with landscape policy; no
roof top mechanical equipment is proposed; and the outside trash enclosure
is designed consistent with the Zoning Ordinance specifications.
4. The requested Conditional Use Permit is to create an outdoor storage area
of 17,050 square feet to the rear of the newly constructed building for
the storage of brick building materials. It is proposed that the outdoor
storage area be bituminous surfaced and surrounded by an eight foot high
wooden fence on three sides, with the structure serving as screening on
the fourth side. In addition, the landscape plan calls for Austrian Pine
plantings on the East and South side of the fence to break the monotony.
The Zoning Ordinance provides that the Planning Commission must review the
proposal within the context of six criteria. Those criteria are an
attachment hereto.
5. The petitioner is proposing to divide existing parcel responsive to
Section 500.37 from the City Code with regard to the division or
consolidation of platted lots. Each resulting parcel will be in excess of
the frontage and size required in the I-1 zoning district. In all
respects, the proposed division is consistent with the requirements of
Section 500.37 of the City Code in that regard.
PLANNING STAFF COMENTS:
1. The site plan as proposed is responsive to all related codes and
ordinances.
2. The Conditional Use Permit for the outside storage is both responsive to
the six criteria that must be addressed by the Planning Commission for any
Conditional Use Permit and the provisions of Section 10 Subdivision C,
Paragraph 4 of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the screening of any
outside storage.
3. The land division is responsive to City Code requirements and will result
in no substandard parcel dimensions.
Page 3
88106) Staff Report
RECOMMENDATION:
We have attached two draft actions which we recommend for approval by the
Planning Commission. The first action is for approval of the Site Plan and
Conditional Use Permit and the second action is for the approval of the Lot
Division Conditions Prior to filing.
Submitted by:
I
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft action for approval of the Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit
2. Draft action for approval of the Lot Division Setting Conditions Prior to
Filing.
3. Engineer's Memo
4. Location Map
5. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
6. Section 500.37 of City Code
7. Section 10 Subdivision C, Paragraph 4 of Zoning Ordinance
8. Large Plans
APPROVING SITE PLAN, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CAD/CAM LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP (88106)
WHEREAS, CAD/CAM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP has requested approval of a Site Plan and
Conditional Use Permit for New Structure of 15,745 square feet with outdoor
storage of building materials to be located at 12855 State Highway 55; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said requests at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it hereby does approve the request for CAD/CAM
Limited Partnership for a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a new
structure and outdoor storage of building materials to be located at 12855
State Highway 55, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements.
3. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance.
4. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
5. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and
fire lanes.
6. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within the enclosure, and
no outside storage permitted.
7. An 8-1/2 x 11 inch "As Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted
prior to the release or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City
Policy.
S. No Building Permit to be issued until the Lot Division is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
9. Filing of cross easements with the parcel to the west providing for joint
parking and access prior to Building Permit issuance.
10. A variance from the Fire Code is approved to delete a fire lane on the
east side of the new building.
11. An area of 17,220 square feet immediately south of the new structure is
approved for outdoor storage of brick building materials subject to
construction and continual maintenance of bituminous surfacing; an 8 foot
high wood fence on the east, south and west sides; and Austrian Pine trees
outside of the fence consistent with the approved Landscape Plan.
e
a
T-
p
2. Procedure. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the application
therefore, shall be referred to the Planninq Commission for puraoses of evalua-
tion against the standards of this Section, Public Hearing, and development of a
recommendation to the City Council, which shall make the final determination as
to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the applicatio," and consider its con-
formance with the foilowinq standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
z) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will
promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimen-
tal to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already
permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within
the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses
permitted in the District.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress,
and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public
streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the appli-
cable regulations of the district in which it is located.
Plymouth City Code 500.35
Subd. 3. Subdivider May Perform Work; Election. The owner or subdivider
may elect to construct the improvements required by this Subsection at -his own
expense and without City participation in the expense thereof. _In'such event,
the owner or subdivider may retain an engineer and contractor -to plan, design
and install such services, subject to review and inspection by the City Engineer.
The estimated cost of the improvements, including-NSe administrative charges of
the City Engineer for supervision and inspectl*n, shall be included in the owner
or subdivider's contract with the City, pursuant to Subsection 500.359 and the
appropriate security in the form of 9&4fi or bond shall be deposited with the
City as required by that Subsect-karr
500.35. Subdivision Conlrect. In order to effectuate the provisions of 500.25
to 500.31, the owner SubOlvider shall enter into a subdivision contract with
the City providin or the installation of the improvements required by those
Subsections. a subdivision contract shall provide for, among other things,
security the City in the form of a surety bond, or cash in lieu thereof, in
such ar9o(int as the City Engineer shall deem to be adequate to insure the
satis actory completion of the improvements. The subdivision contract shall be
satisfactory in form and substance to the Citv Attnrnry__
500.37. Division or Consolidation of Platted Lots. Subdivision 1. General
Rule. The division and consolidation of lots which are part of a recorded plat
and tracts which are part of a recorded Registered Land Survey is subject to
the provisions of this Subsection.
Subd. 2. Filing; Survey. The owner of lots, or tracts, to be so divided
or consolidated shall file an application for such division or consolidation
with the Building Inspector together with a proposed survey plat or registered
land survey of the lots or tracts to be divided or consolidated, showing the
dimensions of the lots or tracts as measured upon the recorded plat or survey,
and the proposed division or consolidation thereof. A written description of
the separately described lots or tracts resulting from the proposed division or
consolidation shall be filed with such plat or survey. The plat or survey
shall also show the location of all buildings then existing and all proposed
structures to be built upon the lots or tracts to be divided or consolidated.
Subd. 3. Inspection; Fee. Upon receipt by the Building Inspector of the
application required by Subdivision 2, and upon the payment by the applicant of
the fee set by Chapter X, the Building Inspector shall make a physical inspec-
tion of the lot or lots proposed to be divided or consolidated.
Subd. 4. Council Action. Following the inspection of the lot or lots to
be divided or consolidated, The Building Inspector shall cause the application
to be placed upon the agenda of the City Council for the next regular meeting
of the Council following such inspection. The Building Inspector shall transmit
to the City Council the application and all materials related thereto with his
recommendation with respect to the application.
Subd. 5. Building Permits. No building permit shall be issued for the
construction of a structure on lots or tracts divided or consolidated contrary
to the provisions of this Subsection.
PLYMOUTH Z0!4ING ORDINANCE
Section 10, Subdivision C
b. On double frontage lots, the required front yard shall be provided on both
streets.
c. In determining the depth of rear yard for any building where the rear yard
opens into an alley, one-half (112) of the width of the alley, but not exce-
eding ten (10) feet, may be considered as a portion of the rear yard subject
to the following qualifications:
1) The depth of any rear ,yard shall not be reduced to less than ten (10)
feet by the application of this exception.
2) If the door of any building or improvement, except a fence, opens toward
an alley, it shall riot be erected or established closer to the center
line of an alley than a distance of fifteen (15) feet.
Amende(I Ord. No. 85-07)
3. Yard Landscaping:
In all CLASSES OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, all required yards shall
either be open landscaped and green areas or be left in a natural state, except
as provided by Subdivisiori B, paragraph 5(f) of this Section. Yards to be land-
scaped shall be landscaped attractively with lawn, trees, shrubs, etc., in ac-
cordance with the adopted landscaping standards and criteria policy. Any areas
left in a natural state shall be properly maintained in a sightly and well -kept
condition. Yards adjoining any of the Classes of RESIDENCE DISTRICTS shall be
landscaped with planting buffers or other screens. Plans for such screen shall
be submitted as a part of the application for site plan approval and building
permit and installed as a part of the initial construction.
4. Storage and Display of Materials:
In all CLASSES OF BUSINESS DISTRICTS and the INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, open storage or
display of materials in any required front, side or rear yard shall be prohibit-
ed. Any other outside storage shall be located or screened with an adequate buf-
fer so as not to be visable from any of the CLASSES OF RESIDENCE DISTRICT,
adjoining property or public street.
10-36
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: October 6, 1988
FILE NO.: 88106
PETITIONER: Mr. Michael Murray, Cad/Cam Limited Partnership, 8400 Normandale
Boulevard, Suite 1040, Minneapolis, Mn. 55437
LOT DIVISION/CONSOLIDATION:Parcel 27-118-22-14-0004
LOCATION: Southwest of Hwy. 55, south of Industrial Park Boulevard in the
northeast quarter of Section 27.
N/A Yes No
1. X Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
X _ SAC an? REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Lot Division/Consolidation approval:
4. Additional assessments estimated: None.
5. _ _ X Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
Len feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in
width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required,
it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents
executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any building
permits.)
6. X _ _ Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year
high water elevation and conformance with the City's Comprehensive
Storm Drainage Plan.
N/A Yes No
7. X Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots:
g. X All standard utility easements required for construction
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities
9. X — _ All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-way to
facilitate the development. This vacation is not an automatic
process in conjunction with the platting process. It is entirely
dependent upon the City receiving a petition for the vacation from
the property owner; therefore, it is their responsibility to submit a
petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be
vacated.
10. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
11. _ X All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on
1
submitted by:
Chester SJ Harrison, JrU P.E.
City Engineer
2
I
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: October 6, 1988
FILE NO.: 88106
PETITIONER: Mr. Michael Murray, Cad/Cam Limited Partnership, 8400 Normandale
Boulevard, Suite 1040, Minneapolis, Mn. 55437
SITE PLAN: Cad/Cam Building
LOCATION: Southwest of Hwy. 55, south of Industrial Boulevard, in the northeast
one quarter of Section 27.
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. X Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and
No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Site Plan approval:
4. Area assessments estimated - None.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None.
LEGAL/EASEMENTS/PERMITS:
6. X Property is one parcel -
The approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot
consolidation be approved by the City Council and the necessary
resolution should be processed at the same time as the site plan
approval. Will comply when the Lot Division for Cad/Cam is filed
with Hennepin Count
I
N/A Yes No
7. X Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
Len feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in
width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required
it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents
executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any
building permits.)
8. X _ _ Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100
year high water elevation and conformance with the City's
comprehensive storm water requirements.
9. _ X _ All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities.
10. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-way
to facilitate the development. It should be noted that this
vacation is not an automatic process in conjunction with the
platting process. It is entirely dependent upon the City receiving
a petition for the vacation from the property owner; therefore, it
is their responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated.
11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
2-
UTILITIES AND TRAFFIC:
N/A Yes No
12. X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
13
14
15
16
X
X
X
X _
DNR
X MN DOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
X Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Other
Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The site plan will be submitted to the City's consulting engineer
for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations
shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The grading and drainage
plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary: Drainaz
calculations are in the process of being reviewed.
Necessary fire hydrants provided -
The City of Plymouth requires that all parts of a building such as
the one proposed be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant. It will be
necessary to locate hydrants in such a manner that the site plan
complies with this section of the City Ordinance.
Size and type of material proposed in utility systems has been
provided
The utility plan shall be revised to indicate the size and type of
material required in the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain services
and storm sewer. See 24F.
Post indicator valve - fire department connection
It will be necessary to locate the post indicator valve in such a
manner that it will not render any of the existing fire hydrants
inoperable.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. X Hydrant valves provided -
All new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City
Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W-2. This plate should be
referenced on the site plan.
18. X Sanitary sewer clean -outs provided -
It will be necessary to provide clean -outs on the proposed internal
sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot intervals.
19. X Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
20. X All existing street right-of-ways are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on
21. X Complies with site drainage requirements -
The City will not permit drainage onto a City street from a private
parking lot; therefore, the site plan shall be revised accordingly.
4-
N/A Yes No
22. X Curb and gutter provided -
The City requires B-612 concrete curb and gutter at all entrances
and where drainage must be controlled, Curb Stone may be used where
it is not necessary to control drainage. For traffic control either
B-612 or curb stone is required around the bituminous surfaced
parking lot. The site plan shall be revised to indicate compliance
with this requirement. The curb and gutter shall be noted with a
double line symbol on the Grading and Utility Plan or on the Site
Plan.
23. X Complies with parking lot standards -
The City will require that all traveled areas within the parking
lot, as well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a
7 -ton standard City design with six inches of Class 5 100% crushed
limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one-half inches
of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be
constructed to a standard 5 -ton design consisting of four inches of
Class 5 1007 crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. The site
plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with these
requirements. All drive aisles must be seven ton design. parking
stalls only may be five ton design.
STANDARDS:
N/A Yes No
24. X It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility
foreman,
24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to
the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The developer shall.
also be responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the Public Works
Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the
City's right-of-way. All connections to the water system shall be
via wet tap.
25. X The City will require reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer,
water service and storm sewer As-Builts for the site prior to
occupancy permits being granted.
26. X The site plan complies with the City of Plymouth's current
Engineering Standards Manual. See Item 6 7 ll 12 13 15. 23
and 27A.
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
27. A. A manhole shall be provided where the 21 inch storm sewer makes a bend that
runs to the existing manhole on the frontage road.
B. Cross easements shall be required for driveway parking areas, storm sewer and
watermain.
C. The existing 10" VCT being replaced by the 21" RCP shall be removed.
D. The existing 10" VCT from the building shall be connected to the 21" RCP with
a manhole.
E. The north arrow shall be shown on the utility plan.
F. Watermain shall be DIP not CIP.
G. Show detail revisions to fire sprinkler standpipe and manhole, it appears to
be in the new parking area.
H. Provide manhole and catchbasin details.
I. The class of pipe used for the storm sewer shall be noted on the utility plan.
J. The fire hydrant proposed to be served from the 8" line to the fire sprinkler
standpipe and manhole will not be allowed. The hydrant shall be served from
the 12" watermain in the frontage road. The connection shall be wet tapped.
Submitted by: LLti L
Chester J Harrison, Jr., P.E.d
CAty Engineer
5—C
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE October 4, 1988 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 12, 1988
FILE NO.: 88117
PETITIONER: Prime Development Corporation
REQUEST: Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center
within the Prime West Business Park
LOCATION: Southwest corner of Revere Lane and 6th Avenue North
bounded on the south by State Highway 55)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CL (Limited business)
ZONING: B-1 (Office limited business)
BACKGROUND:
The Preliminary Plat for this site was approved by City Council Resolution 88- 119 on February 22, 1988. Subsequently, on March 7, 1988, and June 20, 1988, final plats were approved for the Prime West Business Park. The latest finalplatapproved, by Resolution 88-351, provided for a single lot at the
northwest corner of Revere Lane and 6th Avenue North, with the balance of theoriginalplatshownasoutlots.
Subsequent to the latest final plat approval, a Site Plan has been processedbytheDevelopmentReviewCommitteeforadministrativeapprovalforanofficebuildingtobelocatedonthesinglelotcreatedinJune. Formal
administrative approval of that Site Plan is being held in abeyance until
Prime Development Corporation has completed processing an Indirect SourcePermitApplicationwiththeStatefortheentiredevelopment.
Notice of this Public Hearing was published in the official City newspaper andmailedtoallpropertyownerswithin500feet.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
I. The Applicant proposes a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow the
construction of a single story building of 5,890 square feet on a site of43,560 square feet. The building will house four classrooms; an infantcarearea; and related service facilities. Site access will be by way ofacombineddrivecurbcutto6thAvenueNorthlocated110feetwesterlyofthewestpropertylineofthesiteuponwhichthestructureistobelocated. Access easements will be required over the property to the west.
October 4, 1988
Staff Report (88117)
Page 2
The purpose for this alignment is to allow adequate stacking distance for
the intersection of 6th Avenue North and Revere Lane, and to avoid access
problems to the site resulting from medians extending the entire site
frontage on both Revere Lane and 6th Avenue North.
2. With respect to the Physical Constraints Analysis, this site is located in
the Bass Creek Watershed but contains no flood plain; is not within any
shoreland management overlay district; contains some wetland; contains no
woodlands; exhibits no slopes over 12%; is not an area of agricultural
capabilities; and, contains soil suitable for urban development with
public sewers. It should be noted that the overall Prime West Development
site does contain numerous areas of questionable soils. Adequate measures
to stabilize future development sites will likely be necessary.
3. The proposed Site Plan is responsive to the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance and City policy related to construction in the B-1 zone.
Specifically, the Site Plan provides for adequate parking; proposes
landscaping consistent with the City Landscape Policy; exhibits wall
signage well under the maximum allowable in the B-1 zone; proposes a trash
enclosure consistent with the Zoning Ordinance design standards; presents
no rooftop mechanical equipment in need of screening; and meets all
parking lot design requirements including handicapped facilities. Parking
requirements of 19 off-street spaces are proposed to be constructed and
adequate proof of parking for 100% office occupancy (30 spaces) is
depicted on site. The building will be constructed of six inch cedar lap
siding with asphalt shingles. Trim will be with brick tile panels. The
building will feature a cupola -type feature upon which wall signage will
be inscribed.
4. The proposed Conditional Use Permit for a day care center at this location
is responsive to Section 8, Subdivision B, Paragraph 9 of the Zoning
Ordinance that provides for day care centers in any of the commercial
zones to be allowable only by Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use
Permit recommendation by the Planning Commission must be responsive to the
six Conditional Use Permit criteria specified by the Zoning Ordinance and
which are attached to this Staff Report. The Petitioner has not provided
narrative support for the use permit responsive to these criteria.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The Site Plan, as proposed, is responsive to all related City ordinance
and policy criteria. No variances are requested.
2. The Conditional Use Permit request responds positively to the six criteria
of the Zoning Ordinance related to Conditional Use Permit issuance.
Specifically, a day care facility at this location would appear to be
October 4, 1988
Staff Report (88117)
Page 3
particularly well located based on the extensive commercial and office
development contemplated in this northwest quadrant of County Road 18 andStateHighway55.
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached Draft Action providing for the approval of the Site Plan and
Conditional Use Permit is recommended for approval.
Submitted by: I-
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Action Approving Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit
2. Engineer's Memo
3. Location Map
4. Resolution 88-119
5. Resolution 88-351
6. General Development Plan
7. Conditional Use Permit criteria
8. Large Plan
APPROVING SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PRIME DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (88117)
WHEREAS, Prime Development Corporation has requested approval of a Site Plan
and Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center to be located at the
southwest corner of Revere Lane and 6th Avenue North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it hereby does approve the request for Prime
Development Corporation, for a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a Day
Care Center to be located at the southwest corner of Revere Lane and 6th
Avenue North, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance withtheDedicationPolicyineffectatthetimeofBuildingPermitissuance.
3. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79-80 regarding minimum floor
elevations for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing any open
storm water drainage facility.
4. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements.
5. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance.
6. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
7. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and
fire lanes.
8. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within the enclosure, and
no outside storage is permitted.
9. An 8-1/2 x 11 inch "As Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted
prior to the release or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City
Policy.
10. No Building Permit to be issued until the Final Plat is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
11. Filing with the Final Plat of driveway easements, approved by the City
Attorney, providing for perpetual access to this parcel access the parcel
to the west, as depicted on the Site Plan.
12. A copy of the State license shall be filed with the City prior to issuance
of the Conditional Use Permit. A copy of the current State license shall
APPROVING SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
File No. 88117
Page 2
be kept on file in City records.
13. Building Permit issuance shall be subject to issuance and filing with theCityofallrequiredStateandFederalpermits/authorizations.
I•MM
Mpoowli_mi
iV---7
I
i
CITY OF ST. LOUIlmsmSimi
I
i
CITY OF ST. LOU
C1 f 1' of Pl yH(HITti
Pursuant Lo due c,ill ani no'.ic.
y oCitf PlymouU, Minne rrCa,
r-,r,f +<ci
I
it rneetiny o ;
tollow1ng mernbe;s were
wr
1)F,tst; r
n e G o'i h 2>nd day of Fet rrjr;
Zitur and Sisk
levor ch 1d.'c Councilm — r cmbcr5, Vj>llio.i, Recker,
following members were absent: None; Thr
K**
Coune_ilmember Sisk
adoption:
Yif
rt
1nLrOduced Che following Resolution and moved 1t.5
RESOLUTION NO. 88_119
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FPR PALfiICK HAGEN, PRIME DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR PRIMEWEST (87123)
WHEREAS, Patrick Hagen, Prime De, elop'"flit Corporation, has requested approval for aRezoningandPreliminaryPlatforeightcurantrciallotsandoneoutloLonapproximaLe!, 41.3 acres located northwest of State ffighway 55 and pucker Lane, and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission ha,; revs%wed the recuest at a duly ca_!- ing and recommends approval, i Y utfublic Hca;_
NOW THEREFORE,
s
IT HFR (
J HES(il_VED ll'i THt C.' i Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY Of PLYMOUTlj, tF1LN- Nrirn( , that it should and hcrebv rear
nprt>ve the Preliminary Plat foe Patciek Hagen, Prime Development Corporatio for Prime W'csL lucated northwest of State highway 55 an'! Quaker Lane, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Comp lance w lth the City F nq nrter' s h1 ;:rdndi rn,
2. Removal of ,ill dearj n dvin .rccr, ,;r;r tf,. p''operty at Lhc owner's expense.
3. No Buildingding Permits
water. and
watshall
b,r issued un - a Contract has been awarded for sewer
4. Payment of park dedication fees-initeu of dedication in accord anDedicationPolicyineffectatthe ce with the
Limu of issuance of the Building Permit.
5. Street names shall comply with the City St;etL Naming Sys Lem.
F• Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79-14O regarding minimum floor elevations fornewstructuresinsubdivisionsadjacentto, or containing any open storm waterdrainagefacility.
7. Rezoning shall be finalized with filinrt of the Final Plat.
fi.
No Building Permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recordedwithHennepinCounty,
9. No yard setback variances arc granted or irnpl-led,
PLEASE SEE PAGE TWO
n
H so.ution ti;.
1U. Access shall be limited to internal Yi,blic roads. Private drive access onto Stat.
Highway 55 and Revere. Logw is ornh'bitcd.
11. Configuration of the intersection of the frontage road with the existing Quaker
Lane/Highway 55 intersection shall be coordinated with the access point for the
land to the east.
1Z. The manufactured homes located along the western portion of the site shall be
removed prior to this area being platted into lots; or, the encroachment will be
legally resolved including any necessary revisions to the plat.
13. All structures and light poles, relating to the "Driving Range" shall be removed
prior to or concurrent with the first phase of construction. Any existing wells
and/or septic systems shall be appropriately sealed and/or removed.
14. Appropriate legal documents shall be reviewed and approved the the City Attorney
encumbering Outlot A to the land on the west side of future Revere Lane.
15. The required Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) shall be processed in
accordance with the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) regulations and City policy.
16_ Prior to the issuance of any Building Permits within the plat, the developer will
agree to pay one-half the cost of a detailed traffic diversion study to accurately
identify and assess MOM percentages and subsequent assessment obligations or,
the Revere Lane extension; and, that the total cost of Revere Lane from 8th Avennt:
North to 10th Avenue North will be Assessed to the Prime and Ryan parcel;.
Further, before a Building Permit is issued, the Development Contract associated
with the Final Plat will state this development's obligation toward t5,<'
construction of Revere Lane as determined by the diversion study.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Counclimember Zitur , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof: Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers Vasillou, Ricker, Zitur
and Sisk The following
voted against or abstained: None Whereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF PLYKOUTF1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of theCityofPlymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 20th day of June , 1988. The
following members were present: Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers Vasiliou, Ricker, Zitur and Sisk
The following members were absent: None
Councilmember Sisk introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 88-351
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO THE FINAL PLAT FOR
PRIME WEST BUSINESS PARK 2ND ADDITION FOR PRIME DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (88058)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Final Plat and Development Contract for
Prime West Business Park 2nd Addition as requested by Prime Development Corporation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MIN-
NESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the following to be met, prior to
recording of, and related to said plat:
I. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. The Ordinance rezoning the property shall be published upon evidence that the
Final Plat has been filed and recorded with Hennepin County.
3. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with City
Policy in effect at the time of issuance of Building Permit.
3. No Building Permits shall be issued until a Contract has been awarded for the con-
struction of municipal sewer and water.
4. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense.
5. Removal of existing structures at the developer's expense.
6. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79-80 regarding minimum floor elevations for
new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing any open storm water
drainage facility.
7. No yard setback variances are granted or implied.
8. Submittal of required utility and drainage easements as approved by the CityEngineerpriortofilingtheFinalPlat.
9. No Building Permits to be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded with
Hennepin County.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded byCouncilmemberZitur , and upon vote being taken thereon, the followingvotedinfavorthereof: Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers Vasiliou, Ricker, Zitur
and Sisk The following
voted against or abstained: one Whereupon theResolutionwasdeclareddulypasseaaimaope .
Y..U! AUn Tl1
vim---.
c ^[a
ro a.r. at-o
1
i-Y-l(T_t aaoct t
i -- a.* kCRLa
79,000 t.r- atn4
Y..U! AUn Tl1
vim---.
c ^[a
ro a.r. at-o
u,AFntt
mo i
0 t0 100 loo aO11T0.
lVT 1 •IOCJC t
LOT 1 KOC[ \ jACntC
1OT (KOC[ 1 I
0.4 AC RCa TO .\
ACOU MCO fn Vr
CfTY
1,
ii
i
s pct
f/ '
u,AFntt
mo i
0 t0 100 loo aO11T0.
lVT 1 •IOCJC t
LOT 1 KOC[ \ jACntC
1OT (KOC[ 1 I
0.4 AC RCa TO .\
ACOU MCO fn Vr
CfTY
1,
f/ '
s`yr(Gl.
2. Procedure. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the applicatio-
therefore, shall be referred to the Planninq Commission for purposes of evalua-
tion aqainst the standards of this Section, Public Hearing, and development of a
recommendation to the City Council, which shall make the final determination as
to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its con-
formance with the following standards:
1 ) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will
promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimen-
tal to or endanqer the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already
permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within
the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses
permitted in the District.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress,
and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public
streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the appli-
cable regulations of the district in which it is located.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: October 6, 1988
FILE NO.: 88117
PETITIONER: Mr. Patrick Hagen, Prime Development Corporation, 6442 City West
Parkway, Suite 400, Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344
SITE PLAN: NEW HORIZON DAYCARE PRIME WEST PARK
LOCATION: North of Hwy. 55, west of Revere Lane, south of 6th Ave. in the
southeast one quarter of Section 36.
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1, X Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and
No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Site Plan approval:
4. Area assessments estimated - Watermain area assessment based on one
acre x $2,060 per acre - $2,060. Sanitary Sewer area assessment
difference between residential and commercial rate. One acre x
85.00 = $385.00. The area assessments shall be paid with the
building permit or the developer may sin a waiver of assessment
bearine and the assessments will be spread over 5 years.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: The estimated assessments
for Project 648 $47-776.59 and Project 815 $176,675.80 will
apportioned to each lot or outlet within the Prime West Business
Park 3rd Addition.
LEGAL/EASEMENTS/PERMITS:
6. X Property is one parcel -
The approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot
consolidation be approved by the City Council and the necessary
resolution should be processed at the same time as the site plan
approval. Will comply with the filing of Prime West Business Park
Third Addition.
N/A Yes No
7. _ _ X Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in
width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required
it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents
executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any
building permits.) See Item 6.
8. _ X _ Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100
year high water elevation and conformance with the City's
comprehensive storm water requirements. As shown on the final plat.
9. X All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities.
10. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-way
to facilitate the development. It should be noted that this
vacation is not an automatic process in conjunction with the
platting process. It is entirely dependent upon the City receiving
a petition for the vacation from the property owner; therefore, it
is their responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal.
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. The developer has
petitioned to vacate the existing ping easement within Outlot B
Prime West Business Park 2nd Addition The necessary ponding
easement will be dedicated with Prime West Business Park 3rd
11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
IWAS
UTILITIES AND TRAFFIC:
N/A Yes No
12. X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR
MN DOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
X Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Other
13. X _ Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The site plan will be submitted to the City's consulting engineer
for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations
shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The grading and drainage
plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary:
14. X Necessary fire hydrants provided -
The City of Plymouth requires that all parts of a building such as
the one proposed be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant. It will be
necessary to locate hydrants in such a manner that the site plan
complies with this section of the City Ordinance.
15. X Size and type of material proposed in utility systems has been
provided The type of material to be used in the w ntermains and
sanitary sewer services shall be shown in the utility Plan•
The utility plan shall be revised to indicate the size and type of
material required in the proposed sanitary sewer,
watermain services
and storm sewer.
16. _ X _ Post indicator valve - fire department connection
It will be necessary to locate the post indicator valve in such amannerthatitwillnotrenderanyoftheexistingfirehydrants
inoperable.
3-
i
N/A Yes No
17. X
18. X
19. X
20. X
21. X
Hydrant valves provided -
All new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City
Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W-2. This plate should be
referenced on the site plan.
Sanitary sewer clean -outs provided -
It will be necessary to provide clean -outs on the proposed internal
sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot intervals.
Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
All existing street right-of-ways are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on
Complies with site drainage requirements -
The City will not permit drainage onto a City street from a private
parking lot; therefore, the site plan shall be revised accordingly.
QM
22
23
N/A Yes No
X
X
STANDARDS:
N/A Yes No
24. X —
Curb and gutter provided -
The City requires B-612 concrete curb and gutter at all entrances
and where drainage must be controlled, Curb Stone may be used where
it is not necessary to control drainage. For traffic control either
B-612 or curb stone is required around the bituminous surfaced
parking lot. The site plan shall be revised to indicate compliance
with this requirement.
Complies with parking lot standards -
The City will require that all traveled areas within the parking
lot, as well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a
7 -ton standard City design with six inches of Class 5 100' crushed
limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one-half inches
of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be
constructed to a standard 5 -ton design consisting of four inches of
Class 5 100% crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. The site
plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with these
requirements.
It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility
foreman,
24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to
the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The developer shall
also be responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the Public Works
Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the
City's right-of-way. All connections to the water system shall be
via wet tap.
25. X The City will require reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer, water service and storm sewer As-Builts for the site prior to
occupancy permits being granted.
26. X The site plan complies with the City of Plymouth's current
Engineering Standards Manual.
5-
IF
f
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
27. A. Cross easements will be required for driveway access and storm sewer on Outlet
A to serve this site.
B. Prior to a building permit being issued, all conditions noted within Prime
West Business Park 2nd Addition Development Contract 88058 shall be met.
C. The developer shall place iron monuments at all Lot and Block corners and at
all other angle points on boundary lines. Iron monuments shall be placed
after all street and lawn grading has been completed in order to preserve the
lot markers for future property owners.
D. No direct driveway access for this site to either Revere Lane, Hwy. 55 or 6th
Avenue is permitted. Access shall be from 6th Ave. through Outlot A by
private easement.
E. No building permit shall be issued until the plat of Prime West Business Park
3rd Addition is filed with Hennepin County.
Submitted by: ;
Chester ,7V Harrison,'., PT
City Engineer
S
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE October 4, 1988 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 12, 1988
FILE NO.: 88114
PETITIONER: R. J. Walser/Walser Automotive
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for an addition to
Walser Chevrolet
LOCATION: Southwest quadrant of County Road 18 and 56th Avenue North
9825 56th Avenue North)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CS (Service business)
ZONING: B-3 (Service business)
BACKGROUND:
The City Council by Resolution 78-823, on December 19, 1978, approved a Site
Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Baldwin Chevrolet Company that provided
for the construction of the existing 26,800 square foot automobile dealership.
A copy of that Resolution is attached.
The notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified by mail.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The Applicant proposes to construct two additions to the showroom and
offices existing dealership structure totalling 5,682 square feet.
Concurrent with the additions will be landscape, sidewalk, and parking
stall adjustments on the southeast and north sides of the existing
structure. The site, after completion of the proposed construction will
exhibit 9.2% lot coverage, with 32,482 square feet of building on a site
of 353,277 square feet.
2. With respect to the Physical Constraints Analysis, the site is located
within the Shingle Creek Watershed; is not in a shoreland or flood plain
overlay district; contains no wetlands or woodlands; contains some slopes
over 12%, but those slopes have already been accounted for with prior site
work; has no agricultural capabilities; and is suitable for development
with public sewers. It should be noted that as of 1988, sewers are
available to this site and the proper sewer and water connections have
been made.
October 4, 1988
Staff Report (88114)
Page 2
3. The Site Plan responds positively to all zoning ordinance and City policy
requirements with respect to development within the B-3 zone.
Specifically, all setbacks are maintained; all off-street parking is
sufficient in quantity and correct by design; new landscape features are
consistent with the City Landscape Policy; the existing trash container
will remain unchanged and is consistent with the code; no new signage is
proposed; and no new lighting is proposed. The asthetic appearance of the
structure will match the existing structure appearance.
4. The Conditional Use Permit amendment is for the expansion of the Walser
Chevrolet dealership. Just as with the original Conditional Use Permit,
the Planning Commission must consider such an extension based on the six
criteria for Conditional Use Permits that are attached to the Staff
Report.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The Site Plan as proposed meets all City codes and policy and is
consistent with the Physical Constraints Analysis factors. We recommend
approval of the Site Plan as proposed.
2. The Conditional Use Permit responds to the six criteria listed by the
Zoning Ordinance and we recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The attached Draft Approval Action provides for the approval of the Site Plan
and Conditional Use Permit and we recommend the adoption.
Submitted by:
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Engineer's Memo
2. Location Map
3. Resolution 78-823
4. Conditional Use Permit criteria
5. Large plans
APPROVING SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR R. J. WALSER
88114)
WHEREAS, R. J. Walser has requested approval of a Site Plan and Conditional
Use Permit Amendment for an addition to the Walser Chevrolet building of 5,682
square feet to be located at 9825 56th Avenue North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said requests at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it hereby does approve the request for R. J. Walser
for an addition to the Walser Chevrolet building of 5,682 square feet to be
located at 9825 56th Avenue North, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements.
3. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance or previously
approved variances. No new signage is approved hereby.
4. Any subsegnsnr phases or expansions are subject to required reviews -and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
5. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and
fire lanes.
6. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within the enclosure, and
no outside storage is permitted.
7. An 8-1/2 x 11 inch "As Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted
prior to the release or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City
Policy.
8. No outside storage of auto parts, tires or related merchandise is
permitted.
9. All parking, storage, and display of automobiles shall be on areas
designated on the Site Plan and properly paved.
Q
c -
f N Av t
CITY OF 0OUTH 0.'
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a re ular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Plymouth, MInnesota was held on tFe
19th day of December , 1978 . The following members were
resent: ', ^i~ "I ilr and Snaath
The follar_ ing me ers were
u
absent: _ Cnrmcilma,yher SeihLI
Councilmem'uer Spaeth introduced the following Resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 78-823
APPROVING SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BALDWIN CHEVROLET COMPANY (A-449)
WHEREAS, Baldwin Chevrolet Company has requested approval of a site plan and condi-
tional use permit for an automobile dealership business located at 9825 - 56th Ave.No.-.
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request and recommended approval and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the site plan on November 27, 1978 and directed
certain modifications;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does, approve the request of Baldwin Chevrolet
Company for site plan and conditional use permit located at 9825 - 56th Ave. Nn.,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Engineer's memorandum and a -proved grading and drainage plans.
2. Submittal of the required financial guarantee for all approvedsite improvements
termed for 24 months from date of approval.
3. Subdivision, through platting, of Outlot D, in accordance with the Bass Lake
Plaza general development plan approved by the City Council under Res. 75-42.
4. Installation of ordinance required minimum 10' setback delineation adjacent
to the building on all sides where parking is provided.
5. Variance of 20' for the yard setback along 56th Ave. No.
6. 18 Green Ash or Silver Maple trees 2i," in diameter 30' on center shall be planted
along the west green strip; additional trees, either spruce or ash, at least 30'
on center shall be planted equidistantly along the south boundary; and additional
10 - 2Y' diameter Green Ash trees shall be planted equidistantly along the north
green strip.
7. Parking lot lights shall be adjusted so as not to produce glare and there shall
be no searchlight advertising.
8. There shall be no outside storage of trash materials or automotive parts,
9. Vertical curbing shall be allowed in areas not affected by water control.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
unci mp b and upon vote being taken thereon, the
o ow n9 vote n aYor t1`ere o7:Mayor Hunt CnimcilmFml:a s Nn t No;lc
and Spaeth
T - Tro-wng vote a a ns ora stained;
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passe actdadopted,
C. IG Ee
I/
IT-' 07
Z. Procedure. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the application
therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for purposes of evalua-
tion against the standards of this Section, Public Hearing, and development of a
recommendation to the City Council, which shall make the final determination as
to approval or denial.
a. The Planning COm i55iOn shall review the application and consider its con-
formance with the followinq standards:
1 ) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
Z) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will
promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimen-
tal to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already
permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within
the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and
orderiv development and improvement of surrounding property for uses
permitted in the District.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress,
and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public
streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the appli-
cable regulations of the district in which it is located.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE. October 6, 1988
FILE NO.: 88114
PETITIONER: R. J. Walser, Walser Automotive, Suite F, 5555 W. 78th St., Edina,
Mn. 55435
SITE PLAN: Addition Walser Chevrolet
LOCATION: South of 56th Avenue, west of State Hwy. 18 in the southeast one
quarter of Section 1.
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. X Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and
No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Site Plan approval:
4. Area assessments estimated - Area assessments were levied on Oct.
3, 1988.
5. Other additional assessments estimated:
LEGAL/EASEMENTS/PERMITS:
6. X Property is one parcel -
The approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot
consolidation be approved by the City Council and the necessary
resolution should be processed at the same time as the site plan
approval.
N/A Yes No
7. X Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in
width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required
it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents
executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any
building permits.)
g, X _ _ Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100
year high water elevation and conformance with the City's
comprehensive storm water requirements.
9. X All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities.
10. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-way
to facilitate the development. It should be noted that this
vacation is not an automatic process in conjunction with the
platting process. It is entirely dependent upon the City receiving
a petition for the vacation from the property owner; therefore, it
is their responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated.
11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
1'M
UTILITIES AND TRAFFIC:
N/A Yes No
12. X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must he obtained by the developer:
DNR
MN DOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Other
13. X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The site plan will be submitted to the City's consulting engineer
for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations
shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The grading and drainage
plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placemen of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary: No
changes proposed for the existing conditions.
14. X Necessary fire hydrants provided -
15. _ X
16. _ X
The City of Plymouth requires that all parts of a building such as
the one proposed be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant. It will be
necessary to locate hydrants in such a manner that the site plan
complies with this section of the City Ordinance. Hydrants shall
be installed in accordance with City Standard Plate No W-2.
Size and type of material proposed in utility systems has been
provided
The utility plan shall be revised to indicate the size and type of
material required in the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain services
and storm sewer.
Post indicator valve - fire department connection
It will be necessary to locate the post indicator valve in such a
manner that it will not render any of the existing fire hydrants
inoperable.
3-
17
Ir.
N/A Yes No
X
19. X
X _
20. X
Hydrant valves provided -
All new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City
Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W-2. This plate should be
referenced on the site plan.
Sanitary sewer clean -outs provided -
It will be necessary to provide clean -outs on the proposed internal
sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot intervals.
Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
All existing street right-of-ways are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on
21. X _ _ Complies with site drainage requirements -
The City will not permit drainage onto a City street from a private
parking lot; therefore, the site plan shall be revised accordingly.
No changes are proposed to the existing conditons.
4-
N/A Yes No
22. X Curb and gutter provided -
The City requires B-612 concrete curb and gutter at all entrances
and where drainage must be controlled, Curb Stone may be used where
it is not necessary to control drainage. For traffic control either
B-612 or curb stone is required around the bituminous surfaced
parking lot. The site plan shall be revised to indicate compliance
with this requirement.
23. X Complies with parking lot standards -
The City will require that all traveled areas within the parking
lot, as well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a
7 -ton standard City design with six inches of Class 5 100% crushed
limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one-half inches
of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be
constructed to a standard 5 -ton design consisting of four inches of
Class 5 100% crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. The site
plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with these
requirements. No new parking areas are proposed at this time.
STANDARDS:
N/A Yes No
24. X It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility
foreman,
24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to
the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The developer shall
also be responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the Public Works
Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the
City's right-of-way. All connections to the water system shall be
via wet tap.
25. X The City will require reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer,
water service and storm sewer As-Builts for the site prior to
occupancy permits being granted.
26. X The site plan complies with the City of Plymouth's current
Engineering Standards Manual. See Item 27A.
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
27. A. 56th Avenue shall be restored to the following section:
6" Aggregate B Class 5 1007 crushed rock.
3" Bituminous Base 2331
1 1/2" Bituminous Wear Course 2341 if in place.
B. A private utility easement is necessary on the west 190 ft of Outlot D, Bass
Lake Plaza Addition for the sanitary sewer service.
Submitted by: l I
Chester 'J.) Harrison, J'P
City Engineer Ij
UI 4W
i I
Yi is V
I I I I I I I Q !
r
i
R;p
a
y I
j
h e
c i
II I • mi
s J •
I
SII I t lt.'.l 1 • .
1
o4 — •—i--
Iovri.:
bivaR
A 'a,.;owi.l.,.u•d'
NO=.
SII •Y
I
I
I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1..
0 5 0
ON
70 p
9 aR m
m F 61 N N N W
O m Np N W m w Q tNN :E IJ m r N N
i ; n
s'' '• jail [ i Nei p0:0
zr
c ty
FIF Its I I I I i I I I 1,IM
i
s
R
lz
C
a mv_
IR
I
it g oMMOM
r
g
a b= { Mo s
v 1
II
Eli, °a o
i nii
G
7
fill go CA
1 a m m00
y3
y
NO
S
s
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE October 5, 1988 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 12, 1988
FILE NO.: 87065
PETITIONER: Robert and Mary McAuliffe
REQUEST: Lot Consolidation/Lot Division and Variance
LOCATION: Northwest corner of County Road 18 and 18th Avenue North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low density residential)
ZONING: R -IA (Low density single family residential)
BACKGROUND:
This Application was originally considered during 1987. At its meeting ori
October 28, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to table a denial
recommendation that had been presented for 60 days to allow the Petitioner the
opportunity to file a Petition to Vacate an adjoining alley and to consider
the possibility of adding land Petitioner owns to the south. On January 11,
1988, the City Council approved the vacation of an alley located south of the
subject parcels, 14 feet in width. Staff has communicated with the Petitioner
by our letter of August 31, 1988, of which we have enclosed a copy.
As the minutes reflect there were no members of the general public addressing
the Planning Commission concerning this matter at the original meeting in
1987, we have not re -notified any of the adjoining property owners of this
continued consideration.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. As noted above, since the October, 1987 consideration of this Application,
the alley vacation that was referred in the Planning Commission Minutes
has been accomplished. The vacated property was distributed evenly
between the lots lying north and south of the vacated alley consistent
with the State law in that regard. The total amount vacated, and
therefore passing an ownership to the McAuliffes was 2,027 square feet.
2. At this time, the McAuliffes are proposing to include the entire 2,027
square feet as an addition to Parcel B resulting in Parcel B increasing in
October 5, 1988
Staff Report (87065)
Page 2
size from the 6,829 square feet depicted in 1987 to a size of 8,856 square
feet including the vacated alley way. No proposal has been made by the
McAuliffes to consider any of the land located south of the vacated right-
of-way that is in their ownership.
3. The variances from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance proposed with
this lot division with respect to parcel dimension are now as follows:
a. Lot size for Parcel A of 16,639 square feet where 18,500 is required;
b. Minimum lot width for Parcel A of 76.5 feet where 110 feet otherwise
required;
c. Minimum lot size for Parcel B of 8,856 square feet where 18,500 square
feet would otherwise be required;
d. Minimum lot width for Parcel B of 50 feet where 110 feet would
otherwise be required.
The parcel dimension variances still are required, even after addition of
the vacated property to Parcel B. The amount of variance with respect to
Parcel B, however, has been reduced.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The first basis for the 1987 Staff recommendation for denial of this
Petition for Division/Consolidation was the non -responsiveness of the
proposal to the three criteria listed in Section 500.41 of the City Code.
Copy attached). We cannot see how the addition of 2,057 square feet to
Parcel B would change that status. Any prior finding of the variance
being detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in
the territory may be mitigated somewhat by the slightly larger
configuration of Parcel B.
2. A second basis for the 1987 Staff recommendation for denial was the
potential for establishing an undesirable precedent by the granting of the
requested variances. The undesirability of that precedent is again
somewhat mitigated by the enhanced area and lot width for Parcel B, but
there are no further special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property such that a strict application of the code will deprive the
applicant reasonable use of the land.
3. It was confirmed at the 1987 Planning Commission meeting that the
McAuliffes own land south of the subject parcels. Incorporation of that
land with Parcel B could result in a sizeable reduction in the variances
required.
October 5, 1988
Staff Report (87065)
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION:
We have attached a draft action for denial of the application consistent with
the earlier direction of the Planning Commission. We have also attached a
draft action for approval. Should the Planning Commission determine the
addition of the alley area and width to Parcel B is sufficient to overcome
earlier object i onV,-"iq*pti on of thi,,-econd action is appropriate.
Submitted by:
es E. Dillerud,-C6mmunity Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Action for Denial
2. Draft Action for Approval
3. Location Map
4. Engineer's Memo
5. Planning Commission Minutes of October
6. Staff Report of September 16, 1987
7. Petitioner's Submission of October 21,
8. Staff Communication of August 31, 1988
9. City Code Sec. 500.41
10. Graphics
28, 1987
1987
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR OCTOBER 12, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR
ROBERT AND MARY MCAULIFFE (87065)
DENIAL OF THE LOT DIVISION/LOT CONSOLIDATION AND VARIANCE FOR ROBERT AND MARY
MCAULIFFE (87065)
1. Compliance with the variance criteria has not been established.
2. The requested variances would establish an undesirable precedent.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the
City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day
of , 19_ The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
introduced the following Resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 88 -
APPROVING LOT DIVISION/CONSOLIDATION FOR ROBERT McAULIFFE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 1855 KILMER LANE NORTH AND 1806 EAST MEDICINE LAKE BOULEVARD (87065)
WHEREAS, Robert McAuliffe has requested Division/Consolidation of the
properties described as follows:
PARCEL A:
Lot 5, Block 1, Inglebrae, Hennepin County, Minnesota, including the
South Half of vacated 19th Avenue North.
PARCEL 6:
Lot 4 and that part of Lot 3, Block 1, Inglebrae, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, lying Westerly of the following described line: Commencing at
the East Quarter corner of Section 25, Township 118, Range 22; thence on
an assumed bearing of South 1 degree 13 minutes 35 seconds East along
the east line of said Section 25 a distance of 561.42 feet; thence South
88 degrees 46 minutes 25 seconds West a distance of 177.70 feet to the
beginning of the line to be described; thence North 1 degree 14 minutes
56 seconds West a distance of 182.65 feet; thence Northerly 186.55 feet
along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 2186.70 feet and
a central angle of 4 degrees 53 minutes 17 seconds; thence North 6
degrees 08 minutes 13 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance
of 85.46 feet; thence northerly along a tangential curve to the right
having a radius of 2257.35 feet a distance of 79.74 feet to the northerly
line of said Lot 3 and there terminating. Together with that part of the
South Half of vacated 19th Avenue North accrued thereto.
PARCEL :
Lot 10, Block 1, Inglebrae, Hennepin County, Minnesota, including the
South Half of the vacated alley.
PARCEL D:
Lot 11, Block 1, Inglebrae, Hennepin County, Minnesota, including the
South Half of the vacated alley.
PARCEL E:
Lot 12, Block 1, Inglebrae, Hennepin County, Minnesota, including South
Half of the vacated alley.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve a
Division/Consolidation resulting in parcels described as follows:
PARCEL A
That part of Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Inglebrae, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, lying westerly of Line A and northerly of Line B as described
below:
Line A: Commencing at the East Quarter corner of Section 25, Township
118, Range 22; thence on an assumed bearing of South 1 degree 13 minutes
35 seconds East along the east line of said Section 25 a distance of
561.42 feet; thence South 88 degrees 46 minutes 25 seconds West 177.70
feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North
1 degree 14 minutes 56 seconds West 182.65 feet; thence northerly
186.55 feet along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of
2186.70 feet and a central angle of 4 degrees 53 minutes 17 seconds;
thence North 6 degrees 08 minutes 13 seconds West, tangent to said
curve a distance of 85.46 feet; thence northerly along a tangential curve
to the right having a radius of 2257.35 feet, a distance of 79.74 feet to
the northerly line of said Lot 3 and there terminating.
Line B: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 5; thence on an
assumed bearing of South 1 degree 22 minutes 48 seconds East along the
west line of said Lot 5 a disance of 76.50 feet to the point of beginning
of the line to be described; thence South 89 degrees 42 minutes 35
seconds East 60.09 feet; thence South 44 degrees 42 minutes 35 seconds
East 36.01 feet; thence South 88 degrees 01 minutes 35 seconds East
56.91 feet to the intersection with Line A as described above and there
terminating.
Together with that part of the South Half of vacated 19th Avenue North
accrued thereto.
PARCEL B:
That part of Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Inglebrae, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, lying westerly of Line A and Southerly of Line B as described
below:
Line A: Commencing at the East Quarter corner of Section 25, Township
118, Range 22; thence on an assumed bearing of South I degree 13 minutes
35 seconds East along the east line of said Section 25 a distance of
561.42 feet; thence South 88 degrees 46 minutes 25 seconds West 177.70
feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North
1 degree 14 minutes 56 seconds West 182.65 feet; thence northerly
186.55 feet along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of
2186.70 feet and a central angle of 4 degrees 53 minutes 17 seconds;
thence North 6 degrees 08 minutes 13 seconds West, tangent to said
curve a distance of 85.46 feet; thence northerly along a tangential curve
to the right having a radius of 2257.35 feet, a distance of 79.74 feet to
the northerly line of said Lot 3 and there terminating.
Line B: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 5; thence on an
assumed bearing of South 1 degree 22 minutes 48 seconds East along the
west line of said Lot 5 a distance 76.50 feet to the point of beginning
of the line to be described; thence South 89 degrees 42 minutes 35
seconds East 60.09 feet; thence South 44 degrees 42 minutes 35 seconds
East 36.01 feet; thence South 88 degrees 01 minutes 35 seconds East
56.91 feet to the intersection with Line A as described above and there
terminating.
Also that part of the vacated alley lying southerly of the above
described parcel and the northerly 7.07 feet (accrued alley) of Lots 10,
11, and 12, Block 1, Inglebrae, Hennepin County.
PARCEL :
Lot 10, Block 1, Inglebrae, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the
northerly 7.07 feet thereof (accrued alley).
PARCEL D:
Lot 11, Block 1, Inglebrae, Hennepin Count , Minnesota, except the
northerly 7.07 feet thereof (accrued alley .
PARCEL E:
Lot 12, Block 1, Inglebrae, Hennepin Count Minnesota, except the
northerly 7.07 feet thereof (accrued alley .
FURTHER, that the City Manager be authorized to make the necessary special
assessment corrections based upon City Policy when the Consolidation is
approved by Hennepin County.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by , and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against or abstained
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the
City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day
of , 19 The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
moved its adoption:
introduced the following Resolution and
RESOLUTION 88 -
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING AND REGARDING LOT
DIVISION/CONSOLIDATION FOR ROBERT McAULIFFE (87065)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Lot Division/Consolidation for Robert
McAuliffe for property located at 1855 Kilmer Lane and 1806 East Medicine Lake
Boulevard under Resolution Number 88- ;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the following
conditions to be met prior to filing of and regarding said Lot
Division/Consolidation:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. No yard setback variances are granted or implied.
3. Submittal of all necessary utility easements prior to filing Lot
Division/Consolidation with Hennepin County.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by , and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against or abstained
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
po. s
tee. Z, f
MEDICNE
LAKE
puiiCV 4 4
II 3
1
I I'
37065
L_
n a
c2S 0K
A O
C3 •.
0.
V•
1 -
be"w
e4,
City of P1_vmnuth
E N G I N E E RS M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: September 17, Z987
FILE NO.: 87065
PETITIONER: Mr. and Mrs. Robert McAuZiffe, ZB55 KiZmer Lane North, PZymouth, Mr:.
5544Z
LOT DIVISION/CONSOLIDATION: Lots 3, 4 and 5 IngZebrae Addition and the South Z/2 of
vacated 19th Avenue.
LOCATION: West of County Road Z8, North of Z8th Avenue in the Southeast Z/4 of
Section 25
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. _ X _ Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
3. _ X SAC and REC charges will be pavable at the time building permits are
issued.
4. Additional assessments estimated:
None
Legal/Easeuents/Peruits:
5. _ _ X Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements ten
feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width
adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required, it is
necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents executed
and in recordable form prior to the issuance of anv building permits.)
6. X Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for ponding
purposes on all property lying below the established 100 vear high water
elevation and conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage
Plan.
N/A Yes No
7. y Conforms with Citv policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following lots:
8. _ _ _ All standard utility easements required for construction
The following easements will be required for construction of utilities
9. _ _ _ All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-wav have been vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right-of-wav to
facilitate the development. This vacation is not an automatic process in
conjunction with the platting process. It is entirely dependent upon the
Citv receiving a petition for the vacation from the property owner;
therefore, it is their responsibility to submit a petition as well as
legal descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated.
10. _ _ The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the City
with this application -
It will be necessary for the propertv owner to provide the City Attornev
with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that he may file
the required easements referred to above.
11. All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on
SPECIAL CONDITIONS EEQIIIEED:
Z2. A. The existing sewer and water service for the existing ]douse on proposed ParceZ B
is Zocated on ParceZ A. ParceZ B wiZZ not have direct access to pubZic sewer
and water as required by the Subdivision Code. For this reason it is recommended
that the Lot Division be denied.
B. If the City Council approves the Lot Division, ParceZ A shall provide easements
for the sanitary sewer and water services that serve ParceZ B.
Submitted by:
City Engineer
2-
Paqu 249
hlanninq CummWi nn Kinubun,
OaLoner 29, 19h-
NEW HUSINESS
Chairman Steigerwalrl introduced the request, reading of the
September 16, 1987 staff report was waived.
Chairman Steigerwaid introduced Dr. Robert McAuliffe, who
discussed the material submitted for City staff and Commis-
sion review. He stated he did not go into any detail at
first because he assumed the need would be evident. He
believes the staff report describes the situation in a non-
specific way and does not convey the reality of the
situation.
Dr. McAuliffe believed that originally, it was not clear
that the rearrangement of the property would solve the prob-
lems and he believes it does, very easily. He has provided
additional detail describing hardships.
He explained that his application came about as the result
of interest expressed by the renter of the house on Lot 5,
in buying the property; and, after discussing existing
conditions that would make the property unsaleable. He
explained the various options discussed that included pos-
sible mutual verbal agreement between, the parties; mutual
lease agreement; and, all these seemed to create severe
legal problems for the future. `i-, rioted that providing a
u Miity easement for the property was acceptable to the
buyer.
He explained that his review of an area map confirmed that
there were lots smaller than Lhe proposed parcel and, in
making these comparisons, he cannot see how this proposal.
would not be in character with surrounding properties. He
does not believe granting this request would set a
precedent.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired about the alleys and, are they
used by or maintained by the City? Mr. McAuliffe stated
these areas are maintained by the people who live there; not
by the City.
The question of petition for vacation of the alleys was
discussed.
Commissioner Marofsky noted that property, at the west end,
has been acquired for park.
Dr. McAuliffe agreed that vacation of the alleys/or portions
thereof, could resolve the problems; put the property back
on the tax roles; and, the City would not even need to con-
sider their maintenance.
Further discussion ensued regarding the status of the
alleys.
ROBERT AND MARY
McAULIFFE/LOT CONSW
IDATION/DIVISION ANU
VARIANCE (87065)
Pagr 70
Plann]nq_ Com-L.siun PIKUte.'.
Octohcr 25, 1997
Engineer Sweeney stated there is no assuram c upon vacation
that half would go to each property owner. Director fremer.e
agreed, and explained that the vacation approval would go to
the County who makes the decision on land reallocation.
Or. McAuliffe stated that even half Use aliey would bring
the size of the smaller lot to a size equal or greater than
the majority of lots in this area. As the property owner,
he could discuss any reallocation of Chat land with the
County. .
Further discussion ensued regarding the existing homes,
garages, and garage -like, storage building. There was con-
cern expressed regarding the use of the storage building;
and, whether it could be moved or should be demolished. The
Ordinance restriction, that there be one principal buildinq
on a single lot, was discussed.
Dr. McAuliffe stated he believes there is one parcel in the
area with three homes on it.
Director Tremere stated that with the creation of two par-
cels, it should be acknowledged that everyone is aware there
could be an additional variance required; or, that granting
that variance could set a precedent. He explained that upon
sale of property, attorneys and financial institutions re-
quire specifiQ information from the City concerninq zoning;
and, if there, is a non -conforming use, the City must report
this.
Dr. McAuliffe reiterated the hardships imposed and the priv-
acy factor for keeping the buildings they use and maintain
on their property.
MOTION by Commissioner Marofskv, seconded by Commissioner
Pauba to recommend denial of the Lot Consolidation/Lot Div-
ision and Variance, based on the reasons cited in the
September, 1967 staff report.
Commissioner Piufka stated he would speak against the
Motion. He recognizes the general planning concerns, but
this is also a practical matter; and, a totally unique situ-
ation in which it makes sense to rearrange the property so
to be more useable. He believes this can be accomplished,
perhaps contingent upon the garage/storaqe building to be
demolished at the time the property is sold by Dr.
McAuliffe.
It was verified by the petitioner that he owns the land
south of the alley.
page 751
Piannino Commission Miha':,
October 75, 1987
Conn issioner Marofsky stated a petition for vacation of the
alley should be required so that the additional land to the
south could provide a new lot configuration and more ade-
quate lot area. The petitioner has created his own problem
by placing these buildings when he could have had his choice
of area; but, given his ownership it would not be a hardship
for the petitioner to petition for a vacation to bring the
land into conformance with the Ordinance. If approvals are
granted on the application as submitted, this would warrant
others in the future to say that, since the City granted
this variance, it permits them to do the same thing, and
thus, could cause future problems.
Commissioner Wire concurred, noting this is an unusual
situation; and, the petitioner should be given time to
investigate the option of petitioning for vacation of the
public way and the incorporation of the additional _and.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Chairman MOTION TO TABLE
Steigerwald to table the Motion to deny for sixty days; not-
ing there is practical value to incorporating the property
to the south and to explore a petition to vacate the alley,
since the petitioner controls the property to the south.
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. Commissioner Stulberg, Nay. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTION carried.
Director Tremere stated it should be possible to ascertain
from the County how the land would be reallocated upon
vacation. He had not been aware that the petitioner owned
the land to the south. The City staff could assist the
petitioner in developing an alternate layout.
OLD BUSINESS
Chair
Amoco Oil mpanv met with Community Development Coordinator REZONING, C AL
Anderson and er staff members on two occasions; and, the DEVEL PLAN
Coordinator adv is that he is awaiting revised plans. P NARY PLAT
NAL PLAT
MOTION by Chairman Stei ald, seconded by Commissi COIDITIONAL USE
Marofsky to table this item. PERMIT, VARIANCES
AND SITE PLAN (870620
VOTE. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried. TABLED
MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner fx1la, seconded by Commissio MINUTES APPROVED
Stulberg to approve ie October 14, 1987 Minutes as
submitted.
VOTE. yes. Chairman Steigerwald and Commissioner VOTE - MOTI
Pluf stained.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT DATE: September 16, 1987 MEETING DATE: October 14, 1987
FILE NO.: 87065
PETITIONER: Robert and Mary McAuliffe
REQUEST: Lot Consolidation/Lot Division and Variance
LOCATION: Northwest corner of County Road 18 and 18th Avenue North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (low density ZONING: R -1A (low denisty single
residential) family residential)
BACKGROUND:
The petitioner requests approval of a Lot Consolidation, Lot Division and Variance of
two platted lots into two parcels with a rearranged property line. There are single
family residences on both of the existing lots and they will both be retained.
The proposal includes a request for a variance from the minimum lot size requirements.
The proposed lot sizes are 16,639 sq. ft, and 6,829 sq. ft. versus 18,500 sq. ft. The
request also includes a variance from the minimum lot width requirement. The proposed
lot width is 35.87 ft, vs. 110 ft.
Property owners within 100 ft. of the site have been notified of the variance request.
ANALYSIS:
1. The two property owners request this rearrangement on the premise that the change
will improve the usability and enjoyment of the property for both families.
The petitioner's statement explaining the variance request is attached, along with
the Subdivision Code variance criteria.
2. The current lot sizes are 10,12.4 sq. ft. and 13,343 sq. ft. The lot widths are 60
ft. and 79.06 ft. respectively.
3. Attached is an area map identifying the lot sizes for property in this area. The
lots adjacent to the north, west and south are generally smaller than the R -1A
minimim lot size standards but are larger than the smaller of the two lots.
4. The Physical Constraints Analysis identifies the property is within the Bassett
Creek Drainage District. The site does not contain any wetlands, severe slopes or
major woodlands. The property appears to be suitable for urban capability with
public sewers.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
We find the proposal to be inconsistent with the character of the land located in this
area. The proposed division could set a precendent for other lots within this area.
Staff Report for Mr. and Mrs. McAuliffe
September 22, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting
Page two
Even though the existing westerly lot does
current size is approximately 3,400 sq. ft.
thus, making this situation worse.
RECOM FNDATION:
not have frontaqe on a public road, its
larger than the proposed rearrangement,
We recommend denial of the application as submitted per the reasons in the draft
recommendation.
Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Lot Division and Variance,
approval should be subject to at least those conditions reflected in the draft recom-
mendation.
Attachments:
1. Recommendations
2. Location map
3. Existing lot layout
4. Proposed division
5. Petitioner's statement
6. Area map
7. Variance criteria
8. Engineer's Memorandum
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MFETING FOR ROBERT
AIJD MARY MCAIJLIFFE (87098)
DENIAL OF THE LOT DIVISION/LOT CONSOLIDATION AND VARLANCF FOR ROBERT AND MARY MCAULIFFE
87098)
1. Compliance with the variance criteria has not been established.
2. The requested variances would establish an undesirable precedent.
res/sept(mcauliffe)2
RECOMMENDED CONDTTIONS FOR SEPTEMBFR 22, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MFETING FOR ROBERT
AND MARY McAULTFFE (87065)
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING AND REGARDING LOT DIVISION/LOT
CONSOLIDATION FOR ROBERT AND MARY McAULIFFE (87065)
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. No yard setback variances are granted or implied.
3. Submittal of all necessary utility easements prior to filing Lot Division/Lot
Consolidation with Hennepin County.
4. Approved Variances are:
a. Lot sizes of 16,639 sq. ft. and 6,929 sq. ft.
b. Lot width of 35.87 ft.
res/sept (mcauliffe)1
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
For:
ROBERT McAUL11'r'
32D 1---
14{'! /O.
Pa cel A: Lot 5, Block 1, Inglebrae Hennepin County, Minnesota,
nc u ing the South Half of vacated 39th Avenue North.
Parcel Lot 4 and that part of Lot 3, Block 1, Inglebrae,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Westerly of the following
described line: Commencing at the East Quarter corner of Section
25, Township 118, Range 22; thence on an assumed bearing of South
1 degree 13 minutes 35 seconds East along the east line of said
Section 25 a distance of 561.42 feet; thence South 88 derees 46
minutes 25 seconds West a distance of 177.70 feet to the
beginning of the line to be described; thence North 1 degree 14
minutes 56 seconds West a distance of 182.65 feet- thence
Northerly 186.55 feet along a tangential curve to the left having
a radius of 2186.70 feet and a central angle of 4 degrees 53
minutes 17 seconds; thence North 6 degrees 08 minutes 13 seconds
West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 85.46 feet; thence
northerly along a tangential curve to the right having a radius
of 2257.35 feet a distance of 79.74 feet to the northerly line of
said Lot 3 and there terminating. Together with that part of the
South Half of vacated 19th Avenue North accrued thereto.
SCALE 1 Inch= `Feet ro Denotes Iron I Deurings shown are on an assumed daium.I Job No.,9/13 I Book—L PogeT-
We hereby certify that this le a ?rue and correct representation of a survey of the E. G. RUD 81 SONS, INC.
boundaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings, if any, LAND SURVEYORSthereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land, 9560 Lexington Avenue N. E.G. RUD SONS, INC.
22" /, hDotedday4, 19.—.
New Brighton (Lexington), Minnesota
this of
f: •. rJ c 55112 I000frE,'mn/1• vz/'/ 9-/5'-Ri by
I ,, TPIPnhnnp- 7R8-5556
Cel ;1kale or.""lirvey
ror: cob 14c. A u 11%'e
IFROC E. Medicine Zk 8M-1.
y mocilt).? A4n. 55441
Fy'ilini 9jrI1Xa,y Scwcr
j33.04 - )V99'423.5"W ....
enoles iron rnanumenl sel
Jtnojep eXjs1tf-4 iron monur,.
Bearinos shown are eisSurlud
w
o 1,9 T11 A Vc- - A/ VACATED
Per Doc. No. 4557125
T
27.3
r/h Wes forner 0/' 0" -5
SO
A
x k
42
24-- KYA
a
92
crislir YOU.9e
IV
T
41?EAsr
wvn`'
Parc e / 4 IC, 6
in 0.3,01
Parcel 8 t 6922,-
all
14 4. Ri
4
cf nd5, ElJcttrae FP nn e n a
el. y a s de;cr4ted belc,:
I or, 25. To-rs-T 11E, he On
rc ni, 2'. 1'-e fast CC'I%e: 'f Eec_ f -all
degree 13 mlrl'.es 5eCC.'Cs'-a3t a -0 -g tl.e Ez
an asz m_ var-,sacf Cut' 1 de EeZ 0 n, u . e s 4 seconz est 1-7.-C6feetle-ce 5 .1lec"4cr. d z I n, or 4 2 ; - - 1 In 4 t e ,
et IF . r, e• In, to sc"te: ; .. n C h C '
sf C . e I 't D - i re , t a' or & a .ani I I the -
d5 '"' ' _' -e-: - j
t ercesecencs '6 2 - nort
av ng a Of 'IE6 fee eet and a cer,r'a a - i- of e-ees -3 mine fee-.; 2 E't r. o said c-rve a d: ,an C E
C-th CE min-,es 13 second
0
fee,., a
e r Ort;eril a-0-6 2'tangen-_ial curve t I t r "-fin; t I a rad c.` 2 2
1_e 0: , nc there tr174natlrg. 0 r t he r I v -C Lstarceo fee, Co e
tre'ce on an 'Iz ncd of so'.'
OC. ng a" tie norttwes' corner fhe c fEetef !B j LCt a d -,ance c' 76 50Ea , ccn, East 21PnE t 1L6Ee22 , , t , n
0 the PC r. r -eS;rn' .g Or tee "ne to 'o doSC_
r5 ;.:-es o' -_h S; degrees, Ce,
t 2 j 35 seconds Fast E a C; t ence
c r. d s -ant 66.09 re e t t h e 1. 1 e C - -necti c I a t I M C a
er" " 1 v,'; ';7 io F C'o -6 East ,t f e Is - - L C 1jO inter
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
We are applying for a Land consolidation/Division which is, in essence,
a redrawing of lot lines within the same land area.
To accomplish this we will need, and hereby we are requesting, a
variance allowing the two lots resulting from the Consolidation/Division to
be undersized.
It must be noted that the land to be consolidated and divided currently
consists of two undersized lots. These lots became undersized as a result of
City lot -size requirements established for single family residences long after
these lots were originally created. The lots resulting from the consolidation
and division will consist of the same land area as before the consolidation and
division.
In other words, the total land area will be exactly the same before and
after the consolidation and division, but the lot lines in this land area will
be different.
The lot line changes are being requested to make the arrangement/location
of the land assigned to each residence more appropriate, more accessible and
more useful for home and family yard use purposes.
As they now exist, the land that constitutes the readily accessible front
yard of the west -(Lake) -facing residence at 1855 Kilmer Lane is the remote
backyard of the south -facing residence at 1806 E. Medicine Lake Blvd.; and she
land that is the easily accessible side yard of the E. Medicine Lake Blvd.
residence is the remote back (side) yard of the 1855 Kilmer Lane residence.
Changing the lot lines will provide ready access in both cases and will
greatly enhance the useability and enjoyment of the properties by their
occupants and/or owners.
The requested Land Consolidation/Division and variance will have no detrimental
effects on public welfare: health, safety, fire and police protection, utilities,
or other City/county/ State services. There will be no resulting increase in
population, traffic or hazards; and there will be nothing injurious to other
property in the territory in which this property is situated. Most of the
single family residential lots in this area of Plymouth are, in fact, undersized
according to the present City requirements.
Currently, access to driveway of residence at 1806 E. Medicine Lake Blvd. is
through alley from/to East Medicine Lake Blvd. This access will continue to
remain the same after lot consolidation and division.
v
186 )
185)
184 )
183)
182)
181)
I
109)
r
I
6VODIV16IVN CODE
VACRNCF- .67POVDPADS
GENERAL CONDITIONS The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from the
provisions of this Section (500.41) as to specific properties when, in its
judgment, an unusual hardship on the land exists. In granting a variance, the
Commission may prescribe conditions that it deems necessary or desirable in the
public interest. In making its findings, as required below, the Commission
shall consider the nature of the proposed use of the land and the existing use
of land in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside or work in the proposed
subdivision, and the probable effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic
conditions in the vicinity. No variance shall be granted unless the Commission
finds:
a) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
specific property such that the strict application of the provisions
of this Section would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of
the land.
b) That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in
which the property is situated.
The Commission findings in gr?nting or denying a variance shall be in writing
and filed with the City Clerk.
APPLICATION REQUIRED Applications for any variance under this Subsection shall
be submitted in writing by the owner or subdivider at the time the preliminary
plat is filed for consideration by the Planning Commission, and shall state all
facts relied upon by the applicant, and shall be supplemented with maps, plans
or other additional data which may aid the Commission in the analysis of the
proposed project. The plans for such development shall include such covenants,
restrictions or other legal provisions necessary to guarantee the full
achievement of the plan for the proposed project.
Page 228
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22, 1987
Lot Consolidation/Lot Division and Variance for Robert and ROBT_ & MARY
Mary McAuliffe deferred at the request of the petitioner and MCAULIFFE/DEFERRED
agreed to by consensus of the Commission at the beginning of (87065)
the meeting.
airman Steigerwald introduced the request by Lorraine E. LOT CONSOLIDATION
Ma r. Reading of the September 9, 1987 staff report was LOT DIVISION AND
waiv d. VARIANCE FOR
LORRAINE MAYER
Jim Gam'tjle, 400 Pineview Lane, is a party to the Lot (87074)
Consolida'tion/Division and inquired about Item No. 12-A of
the Engineer's Memorandum. Chairman Steigerwald stated this
is a question of safety measures as noted by the Engineering
Department.
MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner Wire MOTION TO APPROVE
to recommend approval for the Lot Consolidation/Lot Division
and Variance for Lorraine E. Mayer, subject to the
conditions listed in the September 9, 1987 staff report.
VOTE. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Begin BEGIN DEVELOPMENT
Development for Site Plan and Variance for Berkshire Office SITE PLAN AND
Park. Reading of the September 9, 1987 staff report was VARIANCE (87098)
waived.
Mr. David Peterson, introduced himself as the vendor of the
property and the representative for Hew -Lyn Inc.
Greg Begin, petitioner, stated his concern regarding the
additional 20 ft. of right-of-way the City is requiring,
since the plat has already been approved.
Engineer Sweeney stated that the plat was approved a number
of years ago and utilities were partially installed but not
accepted by the City for maintenance and the street has not
been constructed to plan. Since the plat approval, the re-
quirement for the additional 20 ft. of right-of-way was
identified by a traffic study authorized in 1986 with a re -
guiding application from this property owner. It, was
confirmed at that time there was not sufficient right-of-
way. The traffic study contemplated the office park uses,
including this site. \
The study was later reviewed again by the City's traffic
consultants with another development proposal. The proper- l
ty, if developed as zoned, would make the improvements
necessary and full right-of-way would be required for the
intersection. The traffic consultant pointed out the neces-
sity that the traffic lanes on Annapolis Lane, south of
County Road 9, align with traffic lanes north of County Road
9 qn Berkshire Lane.
D;
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FOR APPLICATION FOR
LOT CONSOLIDATION DIVISION AND VARIANCE,
FILE k 87065, by
Robert and Mary McAuliffe
Included are the following:
1. AMPLIFICATION OF THE APPLICATION
2. RESPONSE TO THE STAFF REPORT OF
SEPTEMBER 16, 1987
3. RESPONSE TO THE ENGINEER'S MEMO OF
SEPTEMBER 17,•1987
4. ADDENDUM TO THE APPLICATION
SUBMITTED 10-21-87
ROBERT M. McAULIFFE
MARY B. McAULIFFE
OCi 1:. W17
05
9305
Woleimo.n
19th w— Ave. --w N. o
zz, No.
1 Y/S 1
9tiV
5
v 77
O
m
9a s
Eo. _
B4 B/ q>
Alley
The reciutsl.ed Lot Consolidation/Division, together with the variances
required t, accomplish this, are needed because the configuration/shape of
these parcels of land create hardships for both Lot 4 and Lot 5.
These hardships will be remedied if the requested Lot
Consolidation/Division is granted.
Other, additional benefits will also accrue.
And if the City/County will vacate the easterly 144.81' of the 14'
alley contiguous to the southern side of south lot line of proposed Parcel
A, very significant benefits will accrue.
A. There are at. least eleven (11) unusual hardships on -L - ot 5 directly
due to the existing shape(configuration) of the Lot, namely,
1. Lot 5 has no frontage on a public road, and has no
possibility of ever acquiring frontage on a public road as it now exists.
This condition was created when the City/County vacated 19th
Ave. North and assigned the vacated land to adjacent (contiguous) lots.
Lot 5's frontage had been on 19th Ave. North. When the City/County
vacated this road, Lot 5 was deprived both of its existing frontage on a
public road, and of any possibility of ever acquiring such frontage.
2. As an immediate consequence of having no frontage on a public
road, Lot 5 is deprived of any actual or possible direct auto access to
and from a public road.
Auto access to Lot 5, as it is currently , exists by means of
the west 150' of an alley that runs between E. Medicine Lake Blvd. and
Bulmer Lane North. The south lot line of Lot 5 fronts on this alley.
3. There is no actual or possible auto access to the back
north) yard of Lot 5.
a. On the east side of the Lot, access is blocked by the
existing house, -which extends to within six inches (6") of the east Lot
line.-
b. On the west side of the Lot, access is blocked by a three
and a half to five foot (3'6"-5') stone retaining wall that extends from
the southwest corner of the southernmost part of the existing house to the
west Lot line south and west of the house.
C. Even if the retaining wall could be surmounted, (which it
cannot ) the ter, foot. (10') set back between the west lot line and the
existing housr- would create an additional hardship in the way of putting a
driveway there.
allowing a three foot (3') set back between the west lot
line and the driveway would only leave room for a driveway seven feet (7')
wide with zero clearance from the west side of the house.
4. rhere is no possible foot access to the back (north) yard of
Lot 5 on the east side. Foot access is blocked by the existing house,
which extends to within sit inches (6") of the east Lot line. Foot access
on the east is only possible by trespassing on the neighboring Lot 4.
5. There is no convenient fool. access to the bath (north) ,yard
of Lot 5 on th, westsi-de of the house. Foot access, though not
impossible, i- a hardship because of the distance involved and the
irregular terrain.
6. There is no possibility of building a free standing garage
with auto acc,,ss on Lot 5 as it. now exists.
Thr tuck -under garage in the existing house on Lot 5 is no
ionger used h<crtuse of the hardship of excessive heat loss created by its
use. It is both reasonable and desirable, to build a free standing garage
with auto access to remedy this hardship.
Du=, to the shape (configuration) of Lot 5, there is no
possible auto access to the back (north) ,yard of the Lot and there is no
room in the front (south) yard of the Lot to build where auto access is
possible.
7. There is a stone -paved patio extending approximately ten feet101)
east from a sidewalk leading to the east entry- door of the existing
house on Lot 5. in this situation,
a. The patio already extends approximately seven to eight
feet (7'-8') onto the adjacent Lot 4; and
b. The residents of the house on Lot 5 can not use their
patio except by trespassing on the neighboring Lot 4.
8. The north ,yard space on Lot 5 suffers total lack of privacy
for family- use or -for any other use.
This space is directly west of the existing house on Lot 4,
and is overlooked by eleven (11) windows on the west side of the house,
including two (2) bathroom windows, five (5) living room windows and four
4) bedroom windows.
This space is also directly over -looked by two (2) patio
doors on the west side of the house and by a ground level patio and a
first floor level deck.
The only possible way to gain privacy would be to erect an
opaque fence approximately nineteen feet (19') high and fifty three feet53') long between the north yard space on Lot 5 and the existing house on
Lot 4.
9. The south yard of Lot 4 directly overlooks five (5) windows
on the east side of the existing house on Lot 5, including two (2) bedroom
windows, a bathroom window and a kitchen/dining window. The result is
loss of privacy for residents of Lot 5 when the south yard of Lot 4 is
used by residents of Lot 4.
10. There is no possibility of Lot 5 meeting (a) setback
requirements and (b) e;? ment requirements as it n exists.
Th'' on -;t .ctiist in' house-' un Lot 5 comes to withinsisinches (G of the east lui line of Lot .5, lea.ing no room for
required set. L:u ics and eascmen Ls.
l. 1,1i> one or several of the above hardships create the furtherhardshipsofmakingLot5 (a) less desirable to potential buyers and (b) less marketahlc by potential sellers.
all of the above hardships taken together make Lot 5 as it
now exists almost totally undesirable to potential buyers and almost
completely unsaleable by potential sellers
S. There are at least seven (7) unusual hardshipson Lot 4 directlyduetotheshape (configuration) of that Lot, namely,_ __
1. The east side of the existing house on Lot 5 extends to
within six inch,.s (6") of the lot line between Lot 5 and Lot 4, thus
depriving Lot -:f the easement space and setback clearance that Lot 5 is
required i.c, , --.},!isle.
I. I'I same condition: creates the hardship of an ongoing
potentiafc-, riflict/frict7.on due to Lot 5 residents trespassing on Lot
4 tc, gain a r to the north pard of Lot 5.
g onF paved patio on the east side of the existing house on
Lot 5 extends si>; to eight feet (6'-8') onto Lot 4, creating the hardship
of an ongoing pc,tential for conflict/friction due to residents of Lot 5
trespassing on Lot 4 in order to use their patio.
4. The south yard space on Lot 4 is very difficult to use for
family or other purposes because
a. It is distant, remote from the existing house on Lot 4,
lying south of the garage.
b. The terrain is very irregular on both east and west
sides, going around the garage and entering the south yard space.
5. The south yard space on Lot 4 suffers total lack of privacy
for family use or for any other use, because this area is directly east of
the existing house on Lot 5, and is overlooked by five (5) windows on the
east side of the house, including two (2) bedroom windows, one (1)
bathroom window and one (1) kitchen/dining room window.
6. The north yard space of Lot 5 directly overlooks nine windows
in the west side of the existing house on Lot 4, including four (4)
bedroom windows, three (3) living room windows, and two(2) bathroom
windows
hiss yard space also directly overlooks two (2) patio doors
on the west. side of the house, and a ground level patio and a first floor
level deck
Tho result is a loss of privacy- for residents of Lot 4 when
the north yard of Lot 5 is used by residents of Lot 5.
7. Any of the above hardships create the further hardship of
making Lot 4 (a) less desirable to potential buyers and (b) less
marketable by potential sellers
All of the above hardships taken together make Lot 4 as it
now exists almost totally- undesirable to potential buyers and almost
completely unsaleable by potential sellers.
y,,,,,, ///•
VT{
I ARE
Parcel Q '
13.5.04 AMY42'35"W ---
Parce l
VAC A TEL) 19 Tfl A l/E . /V
M (Per Doc. No . 455712,5)
li •;:a C/filifv asemcnl -;---- "-""-•
J Norlheriy line oj%ol 3
Alorlhwesl corner a%'[of 5
6I \ I ]o N h
I
C E ,
v
l2 l
O
S89'42'35
O ;r
a.2
Nouse
5C. 91... '.
J o
2 PJ I Z
Z
Q L..`._ Drdina e 1 y
A h c I Easem¢.
Pzt L------------- 1---!
J4 4. 81 / N88' DI 35"W --'- ----•
QL"L 5Y
That part of -Cts %, u, and 5, block 1 inflebrae, }ennepin County, hinnesota,
Lire P. and nortberly of Lire E as described below:
Line A: A: Commencing at the East Quarter corner of Section 25, Township 116, 'Range 22; an assumed bearing of South 1 degree 13 minutes 35 seconds East along the east lineSection25adistanceof561.2 feet; thence South 66 de-rees L6 minutes 25 seconds Wesfeettothepointofbeginningofthelinetobedescribeed• thence North 1 degree 14 mi-.
Legit 1F2.65 feet; thence northerly 186.55 feet along -a tangential curse -to
1C. Granting thr requested Lot Cohso idation/llivision, together with the
variances require -d to acc-mplish this, will directly remedy the hardships
created on both i.ot 5 an, of 4 by the existing shal (configuration) of
these parcels of land
Granting the request will remedy the hardships on Lot 5 by creating
Parcel B,
1. Parcel B :ill have frontage on a public road on the easy,
namely on Kilmer Lane North.
2. Parcel B will have direct auto access to and from a public
road, namely, Fulmer Lane North.
3. Parcel B will have direct auto access to yard space east of
the existing house on Lot 5.
4. Parcel B will have direct foot access to ,yard space. The
need to trespass on any neighboring property will be remedied.
5. Parcel B will have immediate and easy access to ,yard space.
Hardships caused by distance and terrain will be removed.
6. Parcel B will provide the possibility of building a free
standing garage where direct auto access to a public road is possible.
7. The stone paved patio east of the existing house on Lot 5
will be included within Parcel B, thus eliminating its current intrusion
onto neighboring property and eliminating the need to trespass in order
to use it.
U. Th. lacke of pri:a<y caused by having the north ,yard space of
Lot. 5 direct J;. overlooked by eleven windows,, two patio doors, a patio and
a deck in Oki, %rest side of the existing house on Lot 4, is remedied by
creating Parcel B, which creates east. yard space directly overlooked by
windows in 'h, cast: side of the house to which the yard space itself
belongs
9. ih.c loss. priNIlk y by residents of Lot 5 caused by residents
of Lot 4 wain- '.heir south yard, which looks directly into five (5)
windows in !,h- as! side .)f t.ho existing house on Lot 5, will be remedied
by including +hi-. v:Ard space in Parcel B
10. The shape (configuration) of Parcel B makes it possible to
meet setback and easement requirements.
11. All of the hardships on Lot 5, which singly and together make
it undesirable to buy and practically impossible to sell, will be remedied
by creating Parcel B.
B. .Granting the request will remedy the hardships on Lot 4 by
creating Parcel A.
1. Parcel A will not be deprived of the easement space and
setback clearance that the existing Lot. 5 cannot establish.
2. This ongoing potential for conflict/friction will be remedied
by eliminating any need for Parcel B residents to trespass on Parcel A in
order to reach their yard space.
3. This ongoing potential for conflict/friction will be remedied
by eliminating any need for residents of Parcel B to trespass on Parcel A
in order to use their patio
4. Parcel A will provide west yard space for the existing house
on Lot 4, that will not be distant, remote of access on the other side of
the garage and over irregular terrain, but instead, that will be
immediately, directly and easily accessible to the residents of Parcel A.
5. Parcel A will remedy the lack of privacy caused by having the
south yard space of Lot 4 directly overlooked by five (5) windows in the
east side of the existing house on Lot 5.
Flnrcel A will create west yard space directly overlooked by
windows in the 1,est side of the house on Parcel A, to which the yard space
itself belong:
6. The loss of privacy by residents of Lot 4, caused by
residents of Lot 5 using their north yard, which looks directly- into nine
windows, two patio doors, one patio and a deck on the west side of the
existing house on Lot 4, will be remedied by including this ,yard space in
Parcel A
7. All of the hardships on Lot 4, which singly and together make
it undesirabl, bud and practically impossible to sell will be remedied
by creating Par(oI A.
a
STAFF REPORT OF 9-22-81 bi,der the
section,"An,' on pag,.. 1, there is reference (item #3) to an
area map ider;tiing the lot size for property in this area."
Actually, too (2) area maps are included, one on page 5 and another on
page 9.
The following is a review of data shown on these area maps that have a
critical bearin-d on our application.
a. On the area map on page 9
UC i
I " J
1) 25 lots are shown
2) 10 lots - or 40% - are smaller than the smallest
Parcel B is 6,829 sq. ft.
i) Of the 10 lots smaller in this area:
1 is 6,400 sq. ft.
1 is 1,800 sq, ft.
are 4,680 sq. ft..
3 are 3,500 sq. ft.
3 are 2,400 sq. ft.
i5) Parcel B is larger than 40% of the lots in this area.
6) 4% of lot widths in this area are smaller than
Parcel B.
7) Conclusions:
a.) Our proposal is entirely consistent with the
character of th land located in this area.
b.) The proposed division could not in any way set a
precedent for c•'her lots in this area.
c.) Although the current size of the existing
westerly lot i pproximately 3,400 sq. ft. larger than the proposed
rearrangement, he proposed Parcel B is still larger than 40% of the lots
in this area; r. i in addition it provides frontage on a public road (which
is currently iir-,ssible), thus malting the situation very much better.
UC i
I " J
b. On th area map on page 5
1) 45 lots are shown
2) 17 lots - or 38% - are smaller than the smallest
proposed lot, Parcel B.
121 Parcel B is 6,829 sq. ft.
4) Of the 17 lots smaller in this area
1 is 6,400 sq. ft..
1 is 5,800 sq. Q.
is 4,850 sq. ft.
7 is 4,400 sq, ft.
is 4,716 sq. ft.
2 are 4,680 sq. ft.
I is 4,092 sq. ft.
1 i.= 3,184 sq. ft..
1 is 3,750 sq. ft.
1 is 3,652 sq. ft-.
3 are 3,500 sq. ft.
3 are 3,500 sq. ft.
3 are 2,400 sq. ft.
5) Parcel B is larger than 38% of the lots in this
area.
6) 9% of the lot widths in this area are smaller
than Parcel B.
7) Conclusions:
Same conclusions as (7) (a.),(b.),(c.) above
plus:
d.) Four (4) lots, or 91 of the lots in the
area are narrower in width than Parcel B,
which is 35.87'.
Two (2) lots are 32' wide.
Two (2) lots are 35' wide.
ie.) The two (2) lots that are 32' wide on their
ya t end, are 40' wide on their west end.
Parcel B is 35.87 on the east end and 58.55
on the west end.
f.) The two (2) lots that are 35' wide on their
east, end are 57.5 on their west end.
Parcel B is 35.87 on the east end and 58.55
on the west end.
l iGC.i-. Lii /C'C V (.
F/ )
Q'
7 q/ .
U J! " '„ .'{-c: '.!/ ,C/lii
Q/
1F If
2/ -`- -
J? 'Z C,'.1.4,/L`//LL L
j -(,.
2L1 't 2'a""„ --
4> Z) Z)
So x 70= 3SvU
t.
y 3 7)
qO)
x
M)
t.
3 K ( 3f = Y%
Plymouth City Code — 500.39
500.39. Sea Level Elevations Required. All surveys submitted in connection
with applications for waivers of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section
462.358, Subdivision 4, or for division or consolidation of lots or tracts as
provided in Section 500.37 shall show thereon sea level elevations at 50 foot
Intervals.
500.41. Variances. Subdivision 1. General Conditions. The Planning
Commission may recommend a variance from the provisions of this Section as to
specific properties when, in its judgement, an unusual hardship on the land
exists. In granting a variance, the Commission may prescribe conditions that
It deems necessary or desirable in the public interest. In making its find-
ings, as required below, the Commission shall consider the nature of the pro-
posed use of the land and the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number
of persons to reside or work in the proposed subdivision, and the probable
effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity.
No variance shall be granted unless the Commission finds:
a) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
specific property such that the strict application of the provisions
of this Section would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use
of the land.
b) That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right of the applicant.
I
c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory
In which the property is located.
The Commission findings in granting or denying a variance shall be in writing
and filed with the City Clerk.
Subd. 2. Application Required. Applications for any variance under this
Subsection shall be submitted in writing by the owner or subdivider at the time
the preliminary plat is filed for consideration by the Planning Commission, and
shall state all facts relied upon by the applicant, and shall be supplemented
with maps, plans or other additional data which may aid the Commission in the
analysis of the proposed project. The plans for such development shall include
such covenants, restrictions or other legal provisions necessary to guarantee
the full achievement of the plan for the proposed project.
500.43. Compliance; Waivers; Building Permits. Subdivision 1. Conveyance of
Land. Any person who conveys land by metes and bounds or by reference to an
unapproved plat or registered land survey in violation of the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subdivision 4, is subject to the penalty
provisions,bf that Section.
Subd. 2. Waiver of Compliance. In any case where compliance with the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subdivision 4 will create an
unnecessary hardship and failure to comply will not interfere with the purpose
of this Section, the City Council may by resolution waive compliance with this
Subsection, provided, however, that the proposed conveyance has been reviewed
by the Planning Commission and the Commission has found that it complies with
all provisions of this Section.
M
133. 04 c IV99'42'35"kV
EXiS1 n M+ro,C•"nXY: i
VACATED i9rN Avg, n/.,•` .
T
I(per Doc. /o . 455712-9 ;
y Northerly lifx c('Lof 9 .....
I L r
Z4TAlor/hw[sI Corner o lof5 ` _ 11.5 27.3
L3i
O. \.may 1 [•
N
12
us I
I At
Exlslir> /-louse
0
0
144.61
VACATED
145-93
cl
0
N88` 01'35' IN
ALLEY —)
A/ 88' 0,7 3 5
t part cf Lotr 77 a, en0 5, 730Ck t In7lepru , E.on.p10 Ccuntf, Mlnneaot., :fie? veat.rlTn. l and certhrrl7 ot•Ltnr 1 u due rlh•d be o0: f
Line l: [ee srneSnp at the Eaat Q.artar carr.., or S•ctlon 75, Tovr,ahlp Ste, Raeje 77; thencr or. n asavae4 he.r I of 700th 1 d.4r.• 13 elnut-1 33 see. nGa Caal stand lh. .ut ]1na of a•laS.c tion 73 a dl u.ner of SU .a7 fvrt; then. 3ovth de Ee`ru a tb •i 't.t 75 1•eonCs Yert 177,70h.t to the po5•t of he Snnl nt of th. lSa• t0 to dt: crl h. th. nc• Bort! 1 de rr. fa alnvtea 55second, ex.es f.a : the.t. nartlerlr 166.55 f..t •lana . e..,..,,.f _..___ - .