HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 10-26-1988IV
5E
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE October 18, 1988 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 26, 1988
FILE NO.: 88124
PETITIONER: Hillsborough Manor, Inc.
REQUEST: Revised Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit
for Boulder Ridge (formerly Harrison Hills 3rd Addition) to
construct 53 single family attached housing units on a site
of 12.8 acres. (Net of ponding areas)
LOCATION: Southeast corner of County Road 10 and Zachary Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -2 (Low Density Multiple Residence)
ZONING: RPUD 80-2
BACKGROUND:
In August, 1979, the City Council approved an RPUD Concept Plan for "Harrison
Hills" which included this parcel as part of an 82.9 acre site.
This approved Concept Plan was later revised by the City Council under
Resolution No. 80-143. The approved density for the 82.9 acre site was 3.8
units per acre, based on a total of four bonus points with a maximum number of
units equalling 252.
In June, 1980, the City Council approved a Preliminary Plan/Plat and
Conditional Use Permit for Harrison Hills. This proposal specified
development would occur in four phases and that the maximum total number of
dwelling units, subject to Final Site Plan approval, would be 252. Project
density was established at 3.8 units per net acre granting 2 bonus points for
project scale and 2 bonus point for "affirmative design... private/public open
space".
The Final Plat for Harrison Hills Addition was approved by Resolution No. 81-
02 in January, 1981, and included a plat for 59 single family lots, 3 common
lots, and an outlot.
Resolution No. 83-293 revised the Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use
Permit for "Harrison Hills" to change the housing type to single family
detached, townhouses and condominiums, with a maximum number of units to be
252, as originally approved. The site under consideration at this time,
Ir
Staff Report (88124)
October 18, 1988
Page 2
Phase III", was approved to include 104 condominium units and 7 multiple
family buildings.
In August, 1983, the City Council approved a Final Plat under Resolution No.
83-409 for Harrison Hills 2nd Addition, RPUD 80-2. This plat included 70
single family residential lots. The site under consideration at this time,
was platted as Outlot B by this action.
In 1987, an Application was presented to amend the site under consideration at
this time as to Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat/Plan from the 104
condominium units previously approved to a design of 28 single family detached
lots and 76 units in an apartment/condominium building on one lot. At its
meeting on January 13, 1988, at the request of the developer, the Planning
Commission acted to defer consideration of this proposal. On September 28,
1988, Hillsborough Manor, Inc. formally withdrew the 1987 Application to amend
the RPUD Preliminary Plat for the Harrison Hills 3rd Addition.
A Public Hearing notice has been published in the Official City Newspaper and
all property owners within 500 feet have been notified. A development sign
has been placed on this property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The Application now presented for "Phase III" of the "Harrison Hills"
project returns to the 100% "attached" dwelling unit style approved in
1983. Staff has not required a new Concept Plan with this Application in
that there really is no major change in concept (attached housing
totally), but rather a reduction in unit count (from 104 to 53); and an
increase in the number of structures from 7 to 15. The spot density of
Phase III is reduced from a previous 8.13 units per net acre to a proposed
4.14 units per net acre.
2. Since the current Application makes no reference to an amendment involving
the previously approved Phase IV of Harrison Hills, that stage remains at
19 units and the overall project scale is reduced from 252 units to 201
units. The overall project density therefore is reduced from the previous
3.8 units per net acre to a proposed 3.03 units per net acre. The density
falls within the LA -2 range with a single bonus point. With 66 acres
above the ordinary high water mark, the overall Harrison Hills RPUD is
eligible for 2 bonus points "by right", or 3.4 units per net acre.
Therefore, on site size alone, this amendment proposed results in the
overall project not using all bonus density available.
3. The Applicant proposes that this "Phase III" of the overall Harrison Hills
RPUD be itself phased into a Phase I (15 units) and a Phase II (38 units).
The staging plan directly reflects the relationship of the respective unit
counts to the two cul-de-sac streets proposed to serve the development.
4. The Zoning Ordinance provides the Planning Commission criteria upon which
to analyze and make a recommendation concerning an RPUD Preliminary
Staff Report (88124)
October 18, 1988
Page 3
Plat/Plan. Those same criteria are equally applicable to a Revised
Preliminary Plan/Plat such as is under consideration here. Those criteria
and the response provided by the Petitioner are as follows:
a) Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit
Development. Those purposes are generally spelled out in Paragraph 1 of
Subdivision B, Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner, in his
narrative under "requested action", addresses the relationship of the
project to the expected Planned Unit Development attributes found within
the Ordinance citation noted above. The Applicant states that the
proposed Preliminary Plat/Plan amendment is both consistent with the
previously approved PUD plan and represents an improvement over the
previously approved plan for this area, while continuing to preserve the
natural site characteristics and the elements of good professional design
expected in a Planned Unit Development.
b) Relationship of the proposed plan to the neighborhood in which it is
proposed to be located, to the City's Comprehensive Plan and to other
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The present plan for this site is
responsive to the Land Use Guide Plan with respect to project density and
structure type (density, when combined with the other three phases of the
Harrison Hills RPUD). The neighborhood to which this particular phase of
the Harrison Hills plan must relate is separated from the project by a
major collector (Zachary Lane) and a minor arterial (County Road 10).
Because of this, a harmonious physical relationship is not difficult to
achieve. A primary concern with this plan is the need to intersect
Zachary Lane across from existing 57th Avenue North to the west. The plan
has accomplished that requirement.
c) Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or density:
circulation and parking facilities: recreation areas and open spaces. The
plan now proposed as Phase III of Harrison Hills provides a double cul-de-
sac internal circulation plan; densities consistent with the guiding of
the site; and recreation/open spaces equal to 36% of the net site acreage.
Not including storm water drainage areas). The recreational amenities
proposed are reasonably centralized and are addressed to an adult
population. No strictly child -related facilities are proposed.
5. The front yard setback proposed by the Petitioner with this amendment is
20 feet minimum on internal streets and 50 feet minimum on Zachary
Lane/County Road 10. The 20 foot setback on internal streets constitutes
a change from the original Preliminary Plan approval whereby 35 feet was
the stated internal street setback distance, except 20 feet under special
circumstances for areas south of the Phase. Imo 20 feet setbacks were
previously approved for this area of Harrison Hils. A setback to internal
streets of 35 feet in this area is clearly established by Concept Plan and
Preliminary Plan approval resolutions. The Applicant provides no
Staff Report (88124)
October 18, 1988
Page 4
narrative discussion of the proposed change in setbacks. Although not
stated in the project narrative, other setbacks to property lines proposed
on the plan are 10 feet sideyard and 20 feet rearyard. Both dimensions
are consistent with the previously approved RPUD plan.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The proposed amended plan for "Phase III" of the Harrison Hills RPUD does
respond to the criteria the Zoning Ordinance specifies for the Planning
Commission to consider in the review of any RPUD Preliminary Plat/Plan.
Specifically, the plan does exhibit consistency with Comprehensive Plan
elements; presents a workable internal circulation plan and private open
space of reasonable scale; and generally responds to the previously
approved Concept Plan for this site, but at a reduced density. On
balance, this plan is as good or better a Preliminary Plat/Plan response
to the originally approved Concept Plan as that last previously approved
for this "Phase III" site. The 1987 plan was never formally addressed by
the Planning Commission and is therefore not being considered.
2. An important element of Phase III development is the extension of sanitary
sewer both to this site and to existing development of the Harrison Hills
project to the south. An important of the approval of this Preliminary
Plat/Plan will be the extension of public sewer to eliminate the need for
the temporary lift station located south of this site.
3. We note the specific lack of recreation facilities for younger residents
of this proposed development. While we recognize the probable marketing
direction as being toward adults, we do anticipate that there will be
youngsters residing within the area and that there should be private
recreational facilities for them as well. The Final Plat/Plan should be
directed to both further detail the private open space facilities now
proposed, and provide for additional facilities addressing future younger
residents. A lack of complete plans with prior stages of this RPUD has
resulted in difficulty in defining developer responsibilities during
construction of private open space improvements.
RECOMMENDATION:
We hereby recommend approval of the subject Preliminary Plat/Plan for the
Boulder Ridge phase of the Harrison Hills RPUD. We have attached a draft
resolution providing for approval subject to a number of conditions.
Submitted by:
Charles E. Di leru , Community Development Coordinator
Staff Report (88124)
October 18, 1988
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft resolution for approval of the amended Preliminary Plan/Plat and
Conditional Use Permit.
2. Engineer's Memo
3. Location Map
4. Resolution No. 80-372
5. Resolution No. 80-143
6. Resolution No. 83-293
7. RPUD Preliminary Plat/Plan Review Criteria
8. Petitioner's narrative
9. Large plan
N
APPROVING REVISED RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN/PLAT
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR "BOULDER RIDGE" (RPUD 80-2)(88124)
WHEREAS, Hillsborough Manor, Inc. has requested approval for a Revised
Residential Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan/ Plat and Conditional
Use Permit Amendment for Phase III of the Harrison Hills (RPUD 80-02), to be
known as Boulder Ridge, to change the type of housing to single family
attached townhouses with the number of units to be 53, located in the
Southeast Quadrant of Zachary Lane and County Road 10; and,
WHEREAS, The City Council approved the RPUD Preliminary Plan and Plat through
Resolution No. 83-293; 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 by Hillsborough
Manor, Inc. for a Revised Residential Planned Unit Development Preliminary
Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Boulder Ridge (RPUD 80-2)
located in the Southeast Quadrant of Zachary Lane and County Road 10 subject
to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
3. No Building Permits shall be issued until municipal sewer and water are
physically available to the sites.
4. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with
the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of filing the Final Plat.
5. Street Names shall comply with the City Street Naming System.
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. Rezoning shall be finalized with filing of the Final Plat.
8. No Building Permits shall be issued until the final Plat is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
9. Yard setbacks are approved per the RPUD Plan, specifically 50 feet to
Zachary Lane and County Road 10; 35 feet to internal streets; 10 feet side
and 20 feet rear.
10. Appropriate legal documents regarding Homeowner Association covenants and
restrictions as approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the
Final Plat.
11. Detailed construction drawings of proposed private recreation area, to
include facilities for children, as well as the trail system, with the
Final Plat application.
12. Staging of development shall be in accordance with utility availability as
approved by the City Engineer. Those areas which cannot be serviced with
utilities at this time shall be platted as outlots in the Final Plat.
13. Submission of required Site Improvements Performance Agreement and
financial guarantees for completion of site improvements.
14. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance and final detailed
plans shall be submitted with the Final Plan/Plat application.
15. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
16. All streets serving platted single family attached dwellings in the
development shall be public.
17. Public sanitary sewer shall be extended to replace the temporary lift
station as a function of the initial final plan for this stage.
18. All private trails shall be constructed to the City of Plymouth trail
design standards.
19. All trail and private open space grading, landscape and facility
construction shall be completed, and approved by the City, prior to
Occupancy Permit issuance for residences adjoining trails or private open
space.
20. A sign with a map showing all approved lots and public and private open
space, trails, and amenities shall be displayed at all entrances to the
subdivision so all prospective buyers know their location.
21. Slopes and trees along the Bass Creek Conservation area are not to be
distrubed by construction except where necessary to install sewer and
water, and that necessity is to be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer.
22. The Final Plat resolution setting conditions and the Development Contract
shall contain provisions of the tree preservation process including the
penalty of $50.00 per caliper inch and a $15,000.00 performance guarantee.
2-
i..
O
Pursuant to due call an6otice thereof, a regular meeting oftheCityCounciloftheCityofPlymouth. Hinnesota was-TeTdonthe
16th day of June 19 80 The following memhers we e
present', ,, u, t. Coun'ilmembers Davenport, Hoyt, Neils and Schneider
The fol low n mem ers were a sent: _None _—
Councilmember Schneider introduced the following Resolution and
moved its a option:
RESOLUTION NO. 80-372
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT/PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEWITT PETERSO"
FOR "HARRISON HILL" RPUD /80-1 (79055)
WHEREAS, Hew i•.t Peterson has requested approval of preliminary plat/plan and
conditional ;se permit for a residential planned unit development known as
Harrison Hiils" located at the southeast corner of Zachary Lane and CountyRoad10; amj
WHEREAS, tiie City Council has approved a concept plan for the proposed RPUD
under Resclution #80-143; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission following a duly called public hearing as
re:ommer,ded approval of the request;
NOS, TiERFFORE, EE IT HEREBY RESO,VED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMO'TH
MINNE"OTA that it should and hereby does approve the preliminary plat/plan and
conditional use permit for Hewitt Peterson for "Harrison Hills" RPUD ;80-1
at tte southeast corner of Zachary Lane and County Road 10 subject tc the follchin:
conditions:
1. Ccr•nliance with the City Engineer's memorandum.
2. Density shall be 3.8 unite Fer acre, exclusive of the 16.3 acres located
below the 100 year high water level elevation 903; the maxirum tote] of
252 dwelling units shall be subject to final site plan approval.
3. Completion of the required Environmental Assessment Worksheet process
prior to final platting, and prior to any site work.
4. Detailed construction drawings shall be submitted cf the proposed recreation
area as well as of the trail s,. -stem.
5. Payment of park dedication fees in -lieu of dedication, in accordance with
the dedication policy in affect at the time of filing the final plat(s).
6. Compliance with City Policy Resolution #79-80 regarding developments
containing or adjacent to a storm water holding area.
LI P
Resolution #B0-372
Page 2
7. Street names shall be in accordance with adopted street naming, policies.
B. Staging of developments shall be in accordance with utility availablity
as approved by the City Engineer.
9. Approval is based upon exisiting LA -2 guiding of the entire property;
no reguiding of any portion is approved. Rezoning of the property will
be accomplished with the approval of the final plat(s).
10. Substantial buffering through the use of topography and plantings will
be provided along the south, west, and north perimiters of the property.
11. Access to County Road 10 should be indicated in the form of an east bound
exit only, subject of review and approval by the City and County engineerir:c,
departments.
12. Required site improvement perfromance financial guarantee shall be termed
for 24 months.
13. Setback of all structures from the public right. -of -way shall be at least
the minimum of 35 feet; except for County Road 10 and Zachary Lane where
setbacks shall be a minimum of 50 feet; and except for cul-de-sacs from 53rd
Avenue and northeast of 53rd Avenue, where setbacks shall be a minimum of
20 feet, providing the developer saves the existing trees.
14. All cul-de-sacs in Phases 1 and 2 shall be public streets and shall be
constructed according to crdinance standards.
15. Site landscaping shall be in accordand with the City Landscaping Standards
and Criteria.
U
the motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Councilmember Hoyt , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following votQ in favor thereof. Mayor hunt, Councilmembers Davenport,
Hoyt. Neils and Schneider
17le 2nllowing voted against or abstained: None
Nhereupon the Resolution was declared duly passe3 and adopt
RRA RRR RAA
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was a on the 3rd day of
larch , 19 80 . The following members were present: Mayor Ftint,
r^,, Neils and Schneider
The fol owing members were absent: None
tiNr •t • • * •
Councilmember Neils introduced the following Resolution and moved
s adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 80- 143
APPROVING REVISED R.P.U.D. CONCEPT PLAN FOR PETERSON PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 10 AND ZACHARY LANE (79055)
WHEREAS, Peterson Properties has requested approval of a revised R.P,U.D. Concept
Plan for "Harrison Hills" as approved under, Council Resolution No. 7S-490 with
respect to density on approximately 82.9 acres at the southeast corner of Zachary
Lane and County Road 10; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal at a duly called Public
Informational Meeting and has recommended approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the revised R.P.U.O, concept plan
for "Harrison Hills" for Peterson Properties at the southeast corner of Zachary
Lane and County Road 10 subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Completion of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process.
3. Staging of development shall be in accordance with utility availability as
approved by the City Engineer.
4. Approval is based upon existing LA -2 guiding of the entire property; no
reguiding of any portion is approved.
S. Substantial buffering through the use of topography and plantings will be
provided along the south, west and north perimeters of thr2 ,property.
6. Setback of all structures from the public right-of-way shall he at least the
minimum of 35 feet, except for County Road 10 and Zachary Lane where
setbacks shall be 50 feet.
7. Approved density for this project shall be exclusive, of the wetland area and
in consideration of the assigned density bonus points as follows: 2 bonus
points per Criteria A for the site of the project; and 2 bcmus points per
Criteria D for affirmative design efforts, with none allowed for Criteria C,
with a total of 4 bonus points or a density of 3.8 units per acre, with a
maximum number of units of 252.
9
Resolution 030-143
Page 2
8. A. -cess to County Road 10 should be indicated in the form of an eastbound exit
only subject to review and approval by the City and County Engineering depart-
ments.
9. Staging area no. 4 in the northeast portion of the site shall be redesignedshouldapublicroadbeavailablefromtheeastpriortoconstructionofthose
units.
10. An area road needs analysis be accomplished in conjunction with the City
Engineer, especially directed to providing access to the east in a
continuous pattern with adjacent area residential land.
11. Petitioner shall consider the soil conditions in the northwest corner
of the site due to filling operations.
12. The proposed northerly intersection with Zachary Lane should be moved
further south to the maximum distance possible as verified by the City
Engineer.
13. Preliminary plat survey of the property should include a survey of
existing major stands of trees and shall be used to evaluate the proposed
relocation of trees from one portion of the site to another.
14. Final density shall be based on demonstration of final site plans and final
plat details.
n
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution vas duly seconded
by Moor Hunt and upon vote being taken thereon, the
folio ng votedin avor ereo Mayor Hunt, Councilmembers Davenport, _
vt_t. Nails _and Schneider
iv iEe M.. swing vote— against or a stained: done
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passe'Tc __ aiaopt e'
AAA AAA RQA
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on t e H day of Juen . 19 83
The following members were presents Mayor Davenpor , unci1members Men, 'e II S.
Schneider and Threinen
sTfarolLow ng members were absent: none
te s*w +rd+r
Councilmember Neils introduced the following Resolution and moved Its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 83-293
APPROVING REVISED RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN/PLAT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR "HARRISON HILLS" (RPUD 80-2) (79055)
WHEREAS, David Peterson, Harrison Hills Partnership and Hillshorounh Manor, Inc. has
requested approval for a Revised Resldcntial Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan/
Plat and Conditional Use Permit Amendment for "Harrison Hills" (RPUD 80-2) to channe
the type of housing to single family detached, townhouses and condominiums, with the
number of units to be 252 originally approved, located in the Southeast Ouadrant of
Zachary Lane and County Road 10; arid,
WHEREAS, THE City Council approved the RPUD Preliminary Plan and Plat through Resolu-
tion No. 80-372; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Puhilc.
Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORL, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MIN-
NESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the reouest by David Peterson, Harrison
Hills Partnership and Hillsborough Manor, Inc. for a Revised Residential Planned Unit
Development Preliminary Pian/Plat and Conditional Use Permit Amendment for "Harrison
Hills" (RPUD 80-2) located in the Southeast Ouadrant of Zachary Lane and County Road 10
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all dead or dyinq trees from the property at the owner's expense.
3. No Building Permits shall be issued until municipal sewer and water are physi-
cally available to the sites.
4. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with the
Dedication Policy in effect at the time of fiinq the Final Plat.
5. Street Names shall comply with the City Street Naminq System.
6. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79-80 renardlnq minimum floor elevations
for new structures In subdivisions adjacent to or containinq any open storm
water drainage facility.
page two
Resolution No. 83-293
7. Rezoning shall be finalized with filing of the Final Plat.
i
0
8. No Building Permits shall be Issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded
with Hennepin County.
9. Yard setbacks are approved per the RPUD Plan.
10. Appropriate legal documents regarding Homeowner Association covenants and
restrictions as approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the Final
Plat.
11. Detailed construction drawings of proposed private recreation area as well as
the trail system with the Final Plat application,.
12. Staging of development shall be in accordance with utility availability as
approved by the City Engineer. These areas which cannot he serviced with
utilities at this time shall be platted as outlots in the Final Plat.
13. Submission of required Site Improvements Performance Aqreement and financial
guarantees for completion of site Improvements.
14. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance and final detailed plans
shall be submitted with the Final Plan/Plat application.
15. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
16. All streets serving platted single family attached and detached dwellings in
the development shall be public.
17. Approval is given for the construction of a lift station to be used for 70
units only until the construction of the Pike Lake Interceptor, and all
expenses for maintenance and repair shall be borne by the developer. An
agreement shall be executed between the City and developer, and approved by
the City Attorney.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Moen and upon vote ¢eing taken thereon, the
oave,rtp' n. nn votedn favor ereo sMar npo membgrs Moen, Neilt,
Oe'qft ow ng vot aga ns or =11
Whereupon the Resolution was declared
dsk2
none .
PJAa 7rR / s c rr5S
C. The benefit to the developer is one of design and development flexibility; in
order to utilize this flexibility, the developer has the responsibility to
demonstrate that its utilization does indeed provide a development which hassubstantialattributestoenhancetheparticularareaortheCityintotal.
Expected attributes are:
1) Benefits from new technology in building desian, construction and land
development.
2) Higher standards of site and buildino design through use of trained and
experienced professionals in Land Planning, Architecture and Landscapina
to prepare plans for Planned Unit Developments.
3.) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities and public facil-
ities to yield high quality development at a lesser cost.
4) More useable and suitably located recreation facilities and other public
and common facilities than would otherwise be provided under conven-
tional land development procedures.
5) Demonstration of affirmative design efforts toward the preservation and
enhancement of desirable natural site characteristics.
Amended Ord. No. 82-15)
SFer 9, StASO 9
Dj.yMoum+ ZAWIA%
Okj> J N ANGE
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: October 19, 1988
FILE NO.: 88124
PETITIONER: Mr. Hewitt Peterson, Hillsboro Manor, Inc., 4900 N. County Rd. 18,
Apt. 102, Minneapolis, Mn. 55428
PRELIMINARY PLAT: BOULDER RIDGE
LOCATION: East of Zachary Lane, south of Co. Rd. 10 in the northeast one
quarter of Section 1.
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 final plat approval.
4. Area assessments: Watermain Area Assessment based on 53 units
S685.00 per unit. 1 11 -r Assessment
on 53 units8380.00 per unit1 1 11
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None.
6. _ _ X Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10')
in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width adjoining
side and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
7. _ X
0
9
X
X
All standard utility easements required for construction are provided
The City will require twenty foot (20') utility and drainage
easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines where these
utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed
with the final plat and final construction plans.
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 drainage plan. A drainage easement for ponding purposes
shall be provided on the final plat to an elevation of 903.0.
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 is not an automatic process in
conjunction with the platting process. It is the owner's
responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of
easements proposed to be vacated. The unnecessary ponding easement in
the southerly portion of the plat, Lots 1. 2. 4, 5, 6. 7. and 9.
10. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application - If it is subsequently determined that
the subject property is abstract property, then this requirement does
not apply.
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 necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
X DNR
MnDOT
X Hennepin County
X MPCA
X State Health Department
2
Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
X Shingle Creek
X Army Corps of Engineers
Other
TRANSPORTATION:
N/A Yes No
12. X Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the
City grid system for street names. The following changes will be
necessary.
13. _ _X — Conforms with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's
adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
14. _ _ X Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
15. X All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on
16. X Conforms with City standards requiring the developer to construct
utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the developer shall be responsible
for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and
streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional
engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary
sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the
development. See Item 17.
3
1'
N/A Yes No
17. X Preliminary utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements
The developer has submitted the required preliminary plans for the
proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities. The
six inch watermain shall be extended north from Yorktown Lane to
County Rd. 10.
18. T Per developer's request a preliminary report and plan will be
prepared by the City -
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as
part of its Capital Improvements Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1,
of the year preceding construction.
19. _ _ T Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots. Lots 1 thru 11 and 20 thru 29 and 32 and 33 shall have minimum
basement elevations of 905.0.
20. T The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
21. T The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
4
0
PRELIMINARY GRADING DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
N/A Yes No
22. 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 right-of-way. All water connections shall be via
wet tan.
23. _ _ X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been 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:
Drainage calculations shall he provided for review.
SPECIAL CONDTTTONS REQUIRED:
24. A. The final plat for this subdivision shall not be approved until the developer
of the property to the east (Harrison Hills Ponds) has under contract and has
provided the City financial guarantee for the sanitary sewer necessary to serve
this plat or the developer of Boulder Ridge shall furnish the construction
plans for the extension of the sanitary sewer including eliminating the lift
station in Harrison Hills Second Addition.
B. The sanitary sewer invert at Zachary Lane and 56th Ave. shall be 900.8 and
900.0 at Zachary Lane and 57th Ave.
C. If this plat is developed prior to Harrison Hills Ponds, this developer shall
construct the control structure for Pond SC -P20.
Submitted by:
ChesterH rrison, Jr., P.
City Engineer
5
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Twin Cities St. Cloud 15050 23rd Ave. N.
Plymouth, MN
55447
October 21, 1988
Mr. Chuck Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
SUBJECT: Hillsborough Manor
Boulder Ridge
Plymouth, Minnesota
MFRA #8323
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
Telephone Engineers
612/4f6-6010 Planners,
Surveyors i
OC"
We have reviewed the staff report dated October 18, 1988, and have the
following comments:
1. Condition No. 1 of the proposed approving resolution references the
City Engineer's Memorandum. This memorandum has not been made
available to us, and we, therefore, must request an opportunity to
review it as a condition of our approval.
2. Condition No. 9 addresses setbacks. Our request for front yard
setbacks on internal streets is 20 feet, not the 35 foot noted in the
condition. Our justification for the 20 foot setback is that the site
layout provides for clustering of units around private driveways, with
no parking being provided in the access driveways from the streets.
Therefore, the setback areas will be landscaped, without individual
driveways from the street to individual garages. The clustering and
site layout is very similiar to Deer Haven, immediately west of the
project, where front yard setbacks are typically 20 feet. Without the
reduced setback, the General Development Plan will be impacted
significantly. It is our opinion that the proposal will produce an
extremely high quality development, where the clustering and
landscaping will mitigate any impact of the reduced setbacks.
3. In Condition No. 19, a restriction is placed on building permits for
units adjoining trails or private open spaces. We understand the
City's history with respect to trails and private recreational
amenities. However, in this project, every townhome unit abutts the
private open areas. Consequently, this restriction is extremely
prohibitive. We request that only those lots adjoining trails or
private recreational amenity areas be restricted.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
October 20, 1988
Page Two
US.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
Very truly yours,
M BS FRANK RO AS OCIATES, INC.
i
Gregor J: kank, P.E.
GJF:jmj
cc: Hewitt Peterson, Hillsborough Manor
5F
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE October 18, 1988 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 26, 1988
FILE NO.: 88125
PETITIONER: Donald G. and Sarah E. Colpitts
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to allow a home occupation of a
cosmetology salon
LOCATION: 2255 Highway 101
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: R -IA (Low Density Single Family Residential)
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Department records indicate no applications for planning and
zoning activities have occurred at this location over the period that records
have been maintained.
A 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. Proposed is the use of a 225 square foot portion of the basement of an
existing single family residence. The proposed beauty shop area would
represent less than 20% of the total finish area of the structure and less
than 10% of the total area of the structure at 100% finish.
2. The Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation is applied for responsive
to the new definitions of "Home Occupation" and "Home Occupation
Conditional" as adopted by the City Council recently in Ordinance 88-37.
We have attached a photocopy of the subject Ordinance and we have
determined that the operation of a beauty shop does require "Equipment
other than that customarily found in a home", and therefore the Home
Occupation does qualify as one of those that would be "conditional".
Based on the foregoing, relationship between the primary use of the
structure (residential occupancy) and the proposed beauty shop use which
is proposed is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of
the premises.
Staff Report (88125)
October 18, 1988
Page 2
3. Review of the proposed Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission
is guided by the Zoning Ordinance provision of six criteria that must be
addressed. We have attached a copy of those criteria, and we have
provided a copy to Petitioner. By their letter of October 16, 1988,
Petitioner has responded to those criteria.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The Application is responsive to the requirements for a "Home Occupation
Conditional" found under the definition. Specifically, the proposed use
is incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises and
will not produce light glare, noise, odor, or vibration perceptible beyond
the boundaries of the premises. Finally, the use is not proposed to
consist of over-the-counter sales of merchandise produced off the
premises.
2. We concur that the specific site with respect to the relationship to
adjoining properties is particularly well-suited for a Home Occupation and
clearly meets the requirements of a Conditional Use Permit with respect to
prohibition of impact on adjoining properties.
3. The private driveway to the residence from Highway 101 provides a distinct
advantage over most residences with respect to insulating traffic impacts
from neighboring homes. In this case, however, that private driveway as
it is now configured also provides a negative factor with respect to this
Conditional Use Permit. The driveway is quite steep and provides a
minimal landing area at the top. Where the driveway intersects Highway
101 is midpoint in a curve and it is also a part of a slope. Considering
the speed of traffic on Highway 101, sight distance to the west over the
top of the hill is not ideal.
4. Based on the foregoing, we find that the proposed Home Occupation
Conditional Use will not be responsive to Conditional Use Permit criteria
involving the endangering of the public safety and the provision of
ingress and egress to public streets. We particularly encourage the
Planning Commission to itself visit this site and determine individually
as to vehicular safety related to the Application.
RECOMMENDATION:
We have provided two draft Resolutions for consideration of the Planning
Commission. The first Resolution provides for denial of the Conditional Use
Permit based on the factors of traffic safety referred to above. The second
draft Resolution provides for approval of the Conditional Use Permit based on
compliance with all Conditional Use Permit criteria provided for by the Zoning
Ordinance.
Staff Report (88125)
October 18, 1988
Page 3
Submitted by: L—. \ /d/_ll
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution for Denial
2. Draft Resolution for Approval
3. Location Map
4. Ordinance 88-37
5. Conditional Use Permit criteria
6. Petitioner's narrative of October 16, 1988
7. Petitioner's graphics
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HOME OCCUPATION
DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DONALD AND SARAH COLPITTS FOR A HOME
OCCUPATION AT 2255 NORTH HIGHWAY 101 (88125)
WHEREAS, Donald and Sarah Colpitts have requested a Conditional Use Permit for
a Home Occupation to operate a beauty shop of 225 square feet from the
residence at 2255 North Highway 101; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends denial.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request for
Donald and Sarah Colpitts, for a Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation
to operate a beauty shop of 225 square feet from the residence at 2255 North
Highway 101, based on the following findings:
1. The operation of the Conditional Use will be detrimental to the public
safety due to additional traffic that will be added to the private drive
access to Highway 101 at a location of restricted sight lines.
2. Ingress and egress to the site of the Conditional Use Home Occupation is
of a design that will cause traffic congestion on a public street due to
the steep grade and short "landing area" at Highway 101 for the driveway
access.
E
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HOME OCCUPATION
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DONALD AND SARAH COLPITTS FOR A HOME
OCCUPATION AT 2255 NORTH HIGHWAY 101 (88125)
WHEREAS, Donald and Sarah Colpitts has requested a Conditional Use Permit for
a Home Occupation to operate a beauty shop of 225 square feet from the
residence at 2255 North Highway 101; 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 should and hereby does approve the request for
Donald and Sarah Colpitts, for a Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation
to operate a beauty shop of 225 square feet from the residence at 2255 North
Highway 101, subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and
Ordinances, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The permit is issued to Donald and Sarah Colpitts as operator of the
facility and shall not be transferable.
3. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
4. There shall be no signage allowed on the property relative to the use.
5. There shall be no outside display, sales, or storage of merchandise or
related materials.
6. The permit shall be renewed in one year to assure compliance with the
conditions and review the impact of the use on Highway 101 access.
7. A copy of the current State license shall be provided prior to issuance
of the Permit and shall be kept on file with the City.
8. Compliance with applicable Building and Fire Code requirements shall be
verified by the City prior to Permit issuance.
9. All parking shall be off-street in designated areas which comply with the
Zoning Ordinance.
10. Petitioners, at their expense, shall acquire, install, and maintain a
stop" sign of regulation size and design at the point the driveway of
the subject parcel intersects Highway 101.
Iou,: :,
I- 1 2,:.C1. 1,11) F- ( 191 n R ' ( 14) 13)
69
1110lt4•
MAA w 2 T) t Is, :31' $ q ]I IL' 0 b lis
l 4'2) 6155)'-''v .>, B (]1) 8 f16` r (5;
R
V g
m 0 X21}) () R I - (25) - (27) .,.
OA00 I Huts 2=
y 25TH s aAVE' -
N`
M Ib p3
33) ) (
38)
K IY.o 8 ,,S:a. 1° II 1 Fx.el I •.ti (61 2 (9) ! IS) R (311
to Y J°
297 t
Is. sr- , - ti IPA
R (34) _ / '317.9 < 1
oi, ,
I1w- 6 Ipp-ep' y. _ o 1 fR2 W Im.
W - s, .,;
n ' _ (38) r^Ijlt•'!
4
PM770j
1 ¢ _ )
6•/ -
t-!, - ---'
18 W. a (17) C33) 8
D. (35) _
R . d
6 I_ 7 ` ' 62,
p(
36) M (}7) 10 v - 6 161-06
S_ -r ) U c'A 1 ° ® (
i0) , ( 14) ( 13) (12) 1111 t ( 15) (34)
x d`': I '1 T n r - p(a a - -
6s- e5• 192. P. 1 w• IID. r6 IRS
Irr
l . ADD. R_ 'aY
m .:.
ti (
56)%47)_7y
F.
ro11
8 24
6 ^ 4 1 o. • :4 1.9. »' A.R ;t (Iy1 .I`IW, p4) o ( 5) A - (7) % 1 57) 9 6
13' s •.vR. r ' 16) - t ,^ )t 0 UI) Ci (22) qr, •so,, 1. m x. vs 8 F SWill?'. t
S ti (65) - y n' I .. rr' SA ' • /
P15'
11
R .
1 °. e °-.a V\• rt]. _ y g `,"' 6 (}
7
r Ise) 8 /
9
a a ) 16 40) ;c) _ 9
c3e) ` Ss
y
117) -
ie. b II.. m'R `1' (64)E ,m -
i.y9 'O (39)
D \ ti F1711». ' _ ., * $ %
o (
5 .'" '°. ''b•N-
r
II' IO ,..• M9
10)
O. .°. K. 04 N0. ^•
l .H r .!e.QO'
21)
r 1, P a O 4 , e - (!7) ria „2.. a
19) R
1591
OB
60)
e' : o »1. ee• o >, 111 B' 1 ,
y =I q K
R ^
1481 (52)
1 VEER 9 (
11)
160)
oe
m _ d (49) 8 (JJ) : (51) bI
7b; S a 1621 3 `') Iu-• '
Zr. '
12) ° ) ,73u'2) %-
n 1:' LLe6• M9')5'9 Z-5, 55 ]O.e Aq. K' (66) DI • ' _-
I 74 a 160.61• 246\-
a
R R (21 (I) 2
56)
eM1 (
57) `° l - - ,•l0'a. ,c / ('I
61' i P \
10• It.. )." s1 .e j (21 (31
5) z "o. $QUEENSLAND
3) _ (14) 12 5 1 4; • / '/
7) as. . Bev, R' LAKEYI - SWIDERAp 1
Ire. n' I)1.
r12».
5 v. (61) I OpY7Y oi.
1
I
r1' I _ ( 1960 AERIAL RNO10)
No m. .09' y", 5 Y !(
A7) (45) r % 1 g sq
11 '
W,l o'
9) C e"'1 el.^ (491 _
i r tn• (211 7.92.- ' `\
74 4z,
A 21STaAVE. 40. in 2'
eo•
0 • *
4
v a e 6 n R (63) 1 , r e 4C C', 11
14)
tt .0' I I. P' \
n !!
S•) .r Z-Ivti. b• 1 8
r
t (13) (23)
s o ' q1 `Ty i'6 •.:.
o (66) 9 I $'i1, Jfs
IN.1, 170.9)• n : a0
T
r . - 1 , R 6 A tr. o 196.72' . ®
II 20TH SA 6T»T 1 FSVC. p ibr•z]• Y[ ro.712r er N. ro os')
1 N. D. 110' I10' 110' 110' 6}. O2•Y .. 4!
1I, '
111 I2' A •.(7. rper/q //// //// /5/7
135 m• k Z - mi C3, WILD' e
19 9 eUU LS /S 6 8 u . E (7) a ns. e5' o^ (e.t
30) (29I$ r (26). (
25)- R4)8 l27) t 25) ry x - (,IJ e
28) 127) 8 - _ MI 8 (21)g- q3.0
I'D I'D.,.II ^ ri Rn i 105' 05' n1 W6, b' 1r.
61. or
Ale9'S4 - p . m a 790. m'
f. 9e' 110. • I b• b .
30' S0' n L . S .
ES'06'E 56]•31. 6 111. 76' 111. 117 5' - o I - ) . -:_:! .
rE7d'--
I
v R e n J (9) Q - 12 ,] I. Jb. ilii
It 1391 Q(38) a (
37) a 136)6 l35), 134)6 i (671 914
9 16) 1101 - R(1A) (19) 3~ (20) Ri .8 TRACT
40)'. , (33) fro• ue' m' m..vr
100' 1qr. 11r. 1' 0. S7•C 61 M' -6.91lLiI
Y
Y
t v ,!G' ` -- H F 1911 AVE, N0. 4541.55,11
S"' I d 1t 1 2 IW.00 , '95
11:7• .25 .
N A. 6066)
v8,' -
Ilf R
s \9= - rw) r57)
r
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ORDINANCE NO. 88-3'7
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDINANCE NUMBER 80-9, ADOPTED DUNE 16, 1980ASAMENDED, AND KNOWN AS THE PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE, RELATIVE TO PROVISIONS FOR HOMEOCCUPATIONCONDITIONALUSEPERMITS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Amendment of Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 4, Subdivision B., is herebyamendedbydeletingthedefinitionforHomeOccupationinitsentiretyandsubstitutingthefollowing:
Home Occupation -- Any gainful occupation or profession enga ed in by the occu- pant of the dwelling unit within the dwelling unit which is clearly incidental andsecondarytotheresidentialuseo_f the premises, provided, such activity does riotproducelight21are2noise, odor, or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries ofthepremises; does not involve the use of accessory structures or any of thefollowing: Repair, service, or manufacturing which requires equipment other thanthatcustomarilyfoundinahomeover-the-counter sale of merchandise produced offthepremises; or, the employment of persons on the premises other than thosecustomarilyresidingonthepremises
Home Occupation Conditional -- Any gainful occupation or profession approvedpursuanttotheconditionalusepermit +
y
p provisions of this Ordinance, engaged in bytheoccupantofadwellingunitwithinthedwellingunitorwithinnotmorethan
one accessory structure permitted by the toning Ordinance and which involves anyofthefollowing: Stock -in -trade incidental to the performance of the service, repair, or manufacturing which require equipment other than that customarilyfoundinahome; the employment on the premises, at any one time, of not more than onepersonwhoisanon-resident of the premisesi the teachin of more than one but notmorethanfournon-resident students at any given time; or the need for riot morethantwoparkingspacesinadditiontospacesreuiredforththepremises. The activity shall be clearly incidental
residential use of the premises includ' the dwelling
li
andinstallationsthereon; and shall not produce ht glare, nc
perceptible beyond the boundaries of the premises; and
over-the-counter sales of merchandise produced off the oremi
e persons residing on
and secondary to the
permitted accessor— y or
ise, odor, or vibration
shall not consist of
ses.
Section 2. SECTION 7, Subdivision C., USES, is amended as follows to provide for
permitted and conditional home occupations as allowable uses in all Residential ZoningDistricts, including the FRD:
DISTRICTS
FRO R -1A R -IB R-2 R-3 R-4
22.[C] P [C] P [C]P[C]P[C]P[C]P
23. C C C C C C
USES
Home Occupation as defined by this Ordinance
Home Occupation Conditional as defined by
this Ordinance
Se CTI 9
Coeld(r+oria/ lose
PerM'T' GrITCe'r1a
2. 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 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 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.
Mr. Charles E. Dillerud
City Of Plymouth
October 16, 1988
Page 2
PLYMOUTH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA
Our salon will be located in the southwest corner of our
basement. The effect that having a business such as this in
our home will have many benefits for our community.
Sarah's recent tenure has been at, The Salon Of Wayzata,
already drawing a substantial portion of her clientele from
the immediate Plymouth area. This relocation will:
A) Not diminish the drawing capacity of any local
competing businesses, since Sarah's customers were
already taking their cosmetology business to
Wayzata.
B) Make things more convenient for Sarah's Plymouth
clients.
C) In fact, since another segment of Sarah's clientele
reside in surrounding cities, the relocation of
her business into our home will bring into Plymouth
a number of potential shoppers, exposing them to
restaurants, grocery stores and other divergent
product and service oriented businesses.
D) Adding the salon will enhance the value of our home
thereby increase the cities taxable valuation.
The salon will not be detrimental or endanger the safety ofthepublic. The construction of the salon will be in
accordance to the cities building codes. Since the salon
will be licensed by the State of Minnesota Cosmetology Board,
the day to day operation of the salon shall be governed bytheirrulesandregulationsassetforthbythatboard, and
regularly inspected for adherence to those rules.
Since the salon will be located in our basement the onlychangestothehousewillbeinternal. There will be no
signs on the outside of the house or at the street. Our home
also has an exclusive driveway- it serves no other homes or
businesses and is accessed off of highway 101. Since I€ it
is a private driveway there will be no additional traffic in
the surrounding neighborhoods.
I
Mr. Charles E. Dillerud
City of Plymouth
October 16, 1988
Page 3
Also, there are natural boundaries between our home and the
surrounding homes;
A) creek and undercover to the west
B) undercover beneath power lines to the north
C) highway 101, trees and undercover to the east
D) trees and Snyders Lake to the south
All of these natural boundaries provide visual and auditory
insulation from neighboring sites.
We have provided parking in our driveway in a special
designated area away from the garage. Whether turning into
our driveway or leaving it there is good visibility in all
directions. Also since it is a small business we will have
no more than two cars per hour, maximum.
gyp\
W
56
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE October 17, 1988 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 26, 1988
FILE NO.: 88126
PETITIONER: David and Joan Parker
REQUEST: Amend RPUD Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of
a deck within the prescribed sideyard setback.
LOCATION: 2115 Archer Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -2 (Low Medium Density Residential)
ZONING: MPUD 83-1
BACKGROUND:
The last previous approval action for this PUD was by City Council Resolution
87-96. Structure setbacks are established by the plan submitted covering this
area of the overall PUD. Specifications for this area (D1) call for sideyard
setbacks of 6 feet on the garage side and 9 feet on the living area side, but
by prior Resolution the sum of the distance between structures cannot be less
than 15 feet.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The Applicant proposes the construction of a deck on the side of the
existing home, 10 feet by 24 feet in size. The proposed deck on the side
of the home would extend to within 6.0 feet of the side property line.
The PUD plan provides that setbacks shall be a minimum of 9 feet on the
living" side of a home, and in no case less than 15 feet between
structures. The garage portion of the structure constructed immediately
to the north is within 11 feet of the common line with this structure.
The resulting distance between the two structures will be 17 feet if the
amendment to the Conditional Use Permit is approved as proposed.
2. An amendment to RPUD dimensional specifications such as here proposed must
be reviewed by the Planning Commission consistent both with the RPUD
Preliminary Plan criteria found in Section 9, Subdivision B 5 j of the
Zoning Ordinance; and consistent with the Conditional Use Permit criteria
Staff Report (88126)
October 17, 1988
Page 2
found in Section 9, Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a of the Zoning Ordinance.
Copies of both of those citations are attached to this Staff Report for
the consideration of the Planning Commission.
3. The total structure, including the proposed deck, will occupy less than
200 of the lot area. Lot coverage is not an issue with this application.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property -
particularly the property within the Steeplechase Planned Unit
Development - will be impacted by the proposed Conditional Use Permit.
The basic design of the Steeplechase Development was clearly predicated on
sideyard minimums that were clearly stated. The sideyard minimums
approved for this RPUD already provided for a substantial reduction from
the RI -A zoning standards that would otherwise apply. (Fifteen feet on
both sides). In fact, the RPUD provision for the sum of two adjoining
sideyards to be as little as 15 feet represents a 50% reduction from the
conventional Zoning Ordinance standard. We cannot find any physical
characteristics of the subject site that is sufficiently unique to justify
the amendment to the Planned Unit Development proposed.
2. Since the subject site cannot be viewed as in any way unique with respect
to the other sites within the Steeplechase RPUD, approval of the proposed
Conditional Use Permit amendment will become precedent for any such
amendment to sideyard specifications throughout this PUD. In addition,
the approval of a setback of less than 10 feet on the "living" side of a
residential structure in a single family detached neighborhood will
constitute a departure from a setback standard that the City has
maintained even in Planned Unit Development designs.
3. It is the larger issue of maintaining the integrity of the Planned Unit
Development rather than 18 inches of setback that forms the basis for the
Staff recommendation for denial of the requested Conditional Use Permit
amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
We have attached a draft recommendation for denial of the Conditional Use
Permit amendment based on findings related to the Conditional Use Permit and
Planned Unit Development criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. Consistent
with Planning Commission direction we have also included a draft action for
approval of the Conditional Use Permit amendment.
Staff Report (88126)
October 17, 1988
Page 3
Submitted by:
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Draft action for denial of the Conditional Use Permit amendment
3. Draft action for approval of the Conditional Use Permit amendment
4. Petitioner's narrative
5. Section 9, Subdivision B 5 j of the Zoning Ordinance
6. Conditional Use Permit criteria
7. Petitioner's plans
DENYING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
AMENDMENT FOR DAVID AND JOAN PARKER (88126)
WHEREAS, David and Joan Parker have requested approval for a Residential
Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit Amendment for property located
at 2115 Archer Lane to allow deck construction to within 6.0 feet of the
property line where 9 feet is the approved RPUD standard; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends denial;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the Residential
Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit Amendment for David and Joan
Parker located at 2115 Archer Lane, based on the following finding:
1. The request is not responsive to Residential Planned Unit Development
Conditional Use Permit findings with respect to compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood.
2. The amendment would establish an undesireale precedent for this and
similar developments.
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT FOR DAVID AND JOAN PARKER (88126) (MPUD 83-1)
WHEREAS, David and Joan Parker have requested a Planned Unit Development Plan
Conditional Use Permit Amendment for property located at 2115 Archer Lane to
allow deck construction to within 6 feet of the side lot line where 9 feet is
the RPUD approved standard; 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 should and hereby does approve the request for
David and Joan Parker for a Residential Planned Unit Development Plan
Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow deck construction to within 6 feet
of the side lot line per plans filed for property at 2115 Archer Lane pursuant
to the following findings and conditions:
1. No other amendments or variances are granted or implied.
2. All applicable requirements of the City and State Building Codes shall be
implemented and enforced; no Code requirements are waived by this
approval.
3. The granting of the Permit is responsive to criteria of the Zoning
Ordinance for Conditional Use Permits and PUD plans.
9 R_ •' S i Int _ I. c
VICKSBURG VEST r``
6 a
M •i Y `q 1 +
ao
J _
a ID
Q
187 E 4 ,2 > SP 7) P
s Via. _ }i C:5) 111 /
b' 141.1 I
R - .,.:js,;.; .fp, •7. -c,. T ]u.7z Hula (5) Y K
0 E (
7) 't+ (I I) ei .n / '° ''ter j 2(6)
19) Ph rl
r '
Yr31) I I
IJtq (
1
vIA PAR 13 .M'
lee'1 +
5bee •
ijy a'. S
18) r
1 ^
ta G-
3 (Z0)C31)
s R e9 fn n:. o5' .
e
3<y, 's. f ,•. 5 I° 1 Gi) .
r •7
17)
t Igp.5f1P:NO. B _ (31 a (17) c Wit.]•' (2 11 l?, O• 1 7 \{
f
err' _\
e
Ay I (ID) b 'tty I 153 53. tn. F
p .
10' _
11 4F-5 d /^'' 3
rr._ 'b. •t (Z6)t 7 .. $ (I S) `I (77) •+ (33) q
A. (' S 1'
16)
Y. (257 ULU7'.03. fe' IpO, ' ,o.0J(34) q> Y `6
2t) YE • (
29) I 1• -
11,.•,' •+. e1• q2b ...,e' C35)
bpR - r..r. • Irl v7
P7ik
t(
26)
28)
2g 701
11.
r.14 r1+.1 11]51 H.I (1.+3 bF f 1 \
fir, \'
5) .. .... '0 (7) u: c
2 r5 (
1 )
pr ` 7
Ora)
tc §] l (16) • B .,
I
I e) )
rr+
a{f) n E.St g , tsly" )rr>10
Ilq)+ ^
ady6 > w n'
a k . I'Y a 2 •+ IZ ^ (11 ti ` OUTLOT E n'
OUTLOT J
r I °UTIo 133 (al p ', '
117) (13)"
1A) .. . XVE. NO. S I , S 4 psi f 9. (T +5 R. (f i ] i 4G5) f 6 ,. •
f rul
i
07 13
F`
1f) 1 z p "r r ,(sq `O'•b =.>.>r ^:
x N tl lo`IYt >`
O !'r
r53)
a `. (16) Q .. (f5) w _ b ^(
y7)1 tr .
7. a' 9, - __
a •1
Jt +,r
ds
71.p - J B .rr >y rr
f - ,r
i 7J wa
54) = OUTLOT A c ] )
t +b. C IJ* .. >
Ep F -S
Nrr
f 3 a 4v bq)r, 4
55)
f+ • 15 _
if)
II ,i!> s •'
y,- /3 .iln)I
OpV - I sf K 12 •
5 .4 g'7 )4> (W) ; Pt g]) I •,r y ` .w w c+ / >, _
3
a( 13
3 ' ,, q (Lf) •L 1A _ '
s•+ „ +`
3 7 +s+ r J(ct)4
2
2 ^ a C• ('L AJ
4b.t 1.
r+'
rr+ I t4 8r S - 3 J J
j'q) (N 0) (JI)
v(6')`, uf: n• 'S -
2N +8 15 17 IB '19
13•
e G ) -. lb. Al be. fi • 91,... f .'
a' ,: Irt - roln tea.
53) (7) $_Ie ' (
4 • " 1 • 7 'r'
f :.(
1 .). .o o s N
1Jr.Y _ r IAI 6... a' 'fir !p -
1b...lt _ 1lGJ _" $
Ir.•.t
9C.N
1 f11: f 191' ]'•+ M1'S''I MTp"p 110. ]i
5•) /
tg
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 9, Subdivision B
10) A Natural Resource Analysis containing the existing vegetation a as
consisting of forest and woodlots as well as wetlands and wetlan ege-
tation; the geology, slope, soil and ground water characteristi of the
site; existing lakes, streams, ponds,
drainageZ
settling
areas, and floodplains must be identified; anallationship
of the proposed use of the existing natural conabove.
11) Circulation - including vehicular and pedestriaughout the
site, relationship to the City Thoroughfare Gu adjoining
land, a descriptive statement of objectives nd standards for the var-
ious circulation elements and the p osed jurisdiction of each
component.
40
12) Densities and distribution for various residential categories, pro-
jected occupant characteristi and projected market sales price of the
housing units. These tabu ions will be used to evaluate the adequacy
of living space, open ace, educational facilities, utility systems,
traffic generations yit other services both public and private.
13) Mass grading - dicating which areas must be adapted to allow the dev-
Zaging
ed and how it will visually and physically affect adjoin -
d what soil erosion and sediment controls are to be
ndicating geographic staging and approximate sequence of
rtions thereof.
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing or hearings on the P.U.D.
Preliminary Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat and Zoning Amend-
ment in the manner prescribed in Section 11.
j. The Planning Commission, after holding the public hearing, shall Make its
recommendations to the City Council for approval; approval with conditions; or
denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a P.U.D., preliminary plat and rezon-
ing if considered.
The Planning Commission shall forward to the City Council its recommendations
based on and including, but not limited to the following:
1) Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit
Development.
2) Relationship of the proposed plan to the neighborhood in which it is
proposed to be located, to the City's Comprehensive Plan and to other
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
3) Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities; circu-
lation and parking facilities; recreation areas and open spaces.
9-17
Se CTO el 9
co'ld,ronar 64S
Pe/O M,T C i7certa
2. 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 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 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.
l
c'V O
0
J
O
I '% alb ``
NPJ.
to •
PRO
An
LOC RTiON
o Denotes Iron Monument /
x
X000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation Proposed Top of Foundation Elevation = 9B S1000.01 Denotes Proposed Elevation Proposed Corage Floor Elevation = 99( -Z
Denotes Direction of Surface Drainage Proposed Lowest Floor Elevation = 71f3.5
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of:
Lot I, Block 3, STEEPLECHASF 2t-{) K-OlTLCa^ , Hennepin County, Hinnesoto
And of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, fromoronsaidland. As surveyed by me this 9th day of April 19 f;(, .
Rfv/5E0 NOU5E 10CA7/0/v 4-ia•86 G.R.G. Thomas S. Beroquist
PEv/5f0 ,UeusE ¢-ii•86 ..e.5:
Registered Land Surveyor, Minn. Lic. No. 7725
r—
SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC.
939 1A[T WAYZATA AIVO. WAYZATA. MM. 96301
T[l1..0.4 1I[JIl-09 9
KAP[
A ..
53 7!
IIU N .
5440-j60
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
for
LW CX;RFN BP,OS. CONSTROCTIal, INC.
A 514
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE October 18, 1988 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 26, 1988
FILE NO.: 88129
PETITIONER: Gary and Denise Solarz
REQUEST: RPUD Conditional Use Permit Amendment to sideyard setback
provisions to allow construction of a fireplace chimney 22
inches within the 10 foot sideyard setback.
LOCATION: 4880 Cottonwood Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: RPUD 77-6
BACKGROUND:
The last revised RPUD Preliminary Plat/Plan for Zachary Hills, of which this
parcel is a part, was approved by Resolution No. 80-453 on July 21, 1980.
Subsequent to that the Final Plat and Development Contract were approved on
June 1, 1981 by City Council Resolution No. 81-346.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The Applicant proposes construction of 54 inch wide chimney structure to a
depth of 22 inches on the side of the home on the subject parcel. The
home is currently constructed with the wall upon which the fireplace is
proposed on the 10 foot sideyard setback line. This results in the
proposed chimney extending 22 inches into the 10 foot sideyard. The
adjacent parcel to the southeast is so constructed as to provide a 16 foot
setback from the nearest point of the structure to the common property
line. The minimum distance existing between the two structures therefore
is 26 feet. Because the structure to the southeast is on a cul-de-sac
lot, the structure is set at an angle to the property line. This results
in the actual distance between the structures being in excess of 26 feet
at all but a single point.
2. Standards provided for setbacks in this portion of the Zachary Hills RPUD,
as confirmed by the Development Contract for the Zachary Hills 4th
Addition, call for a minimum of 10 feet as sideyard to the dwelling unit,
and 6 feet as a minimum sideyard to a garage wall.
Staff Report (88129)
October 18, 1988
Page 2
An amendment to RPUD dimensional specifications, such as here proposed
must be reviewed by the Planning Commission consistent both with the RPUD
Preliminary Plan criteria found in Section 9, Subdivision B 5 j of the
Zoning Ordinance; and consistent with the Conditional Use Permit criteria
found in Section 9, Subdivision A (2a) of the Zoning Ordinance. Copies of
both of those citations are attached to this Staff Report for
consideration by the Planning Commission.
4. The petitioner has submitted a narrative response to the Conditional Use
Permit criteria, which is attached.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
We encourage the Planning Commission to ask the question, "Would the
Zachary Hills RPUD in particular, or any other RPUD within the community
in general, be negatively impacted if every lot within those RPUDs were
granted the same dimensional concession for the same purpose as is
proposed by this Applicant?". We would not find such an impact to be
significant either within Zachary Hills or within each and every lot on
each and every RPUD within the community. The circumstances surrounding
this particular case include the fact that the eave overhang will extend
further into the 10 foot setback area (as allowed by the Ordinance) than
the proposed chimney extension.
2. We find no inconsistencies between the proposed encroachment and the six
Conditional Use Permit criteria that must be addressed or the three
criteria for an RPUD Preliminary Plat/Plan that must be addressed.
3. In this particular case, we are not dealing with structures on the
adjoining property that are built to the absolute minimums of the RPUD
approval dimensions. The actual distance between structures in this case
is approaching what would be found in a "conventional subdivision" (30
feet).
RECOMMENDATION:
We have attached a draft Resolution for approval of the Conditional Use Permit
amendment as proposed.
le--\
Submitted by:
Charles E. 711lerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution for Approval
2. Location Map
3. Resolution 80-453
4. Page 13 of the Development Contract
5. Conditional Use Permit criteria
6. RPUD Preliminary Plat/Plan criteria
7. Petitioner's narrative
8. Petitioner's plot plan
for Zachary Hills 4th Addition
0
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 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT FOR GARY AND DENISE SOLARZ (88129) (RPUD 77-6)
WHEREAS, Gary and Denise Solarz have requested a Planned Unit Development
Conditional Use Permit Amendment for property located at 4880 Cottonwood Lane
to allow setback for chimney construction of 8.2 feet where the RPUD standard
is 10 feet, 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 should and hereby does approve the request for
Gary and Denise Solarz for a Residential Planned Unit Development Conditional
Use Permit Amendment to allow setback for chimney construction of 8.2 feet for
property located at 4880 Cottonwood Lane, pursuant to the following finding
and conditions:
1. No other amendments or variances are granted or implied.
2. All applicable requirements of the City and State Building Codes shall be
implemented and enforced; no Code requirements are waived by this
approval.
3. The proposal is responsive to the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit
and a PUD per the Zoning Ordinance.
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.
r 1 ]•offjw
I• ,
e\< '
e' ) } d (J) - .OT •1,,)J :. <, ]
o
IS r6
IIR „° 'I CJ1 _ - (Bi U'(
s : ;
6)7=Y7®114 'r•a
V r.11 p1T
s •]
so .•( i j r.
VR .I}J 1' , IF 19; Ile e•
A e.) ps .
p0 10 '' Y. 1 •a 0. r 0
r_
I
S ,r'I R - . LAfSC 'R:. ,e'7` ]1 - Li l• l' !Gr•-, ,^`l rO
i ec cz A Nu. _oG .< d)'pd` a 6 J s rr re L,a-:
9 t+ >
a fACKAAT r i62\ 67)_,R
s
LCKS fO,T ` LAKE - _ MOOD'
t r )N PL. FN 1_ ,•r'nl •(s ],
6 n j._ 4 '. Zj
27) A) 1;
II)]`('alp.~' •.
t ,]' o, (
rs)
di*, >
z r> (
rfj s '3 (r O].
wJ
F2 e ! r _ Ie) (<" s I , i D] Mf LL(69; .y¢ 4 :.
2 }/re 7 >
20a •
YI
3'li Fl
IB1 •5:.}H ' : l: : 3 _ I O )
y
uo. tT w } ,n
i err Pt%8 (In1 (//) Mts} j (
61e
7) ~
0 9 0 P'• an F ry
tl
i'• ,,, 6.. .
0.,
7L- "
u.. Is. ` S'` .I70I 2 Js : 3 } '<•. I
1 ^
q'
t% rr '"/
S •
r (
t5) r >.. 1e1H` -,UaY I 2, 3 .tire "•-r -
I29) ^' e 9 R Ir01 I j } tl' x"\ n' :) I a ( •qD l' . • „> 31
3C) ic•(71) .c :
ro vlr _ Ixl • I r c .a' '"(16 s 6 r'wi r/'f 38 0 ^ R. . Ir.) ` ^! 494 p• ('.7) ; J• o \")
yi a yrs 4( _ a P), .+ • Ipy' u !
r0(7}7 •
e
Ics $ >`', ».',
ri e] •3e
cl ;7v 3 ' „'••A
a ) ADD-C,_ it
p -t. e: - ] Y r) + _ 'L 1- ` .. r. r77
7) - y _
pCC.
B . -a` t' d _ g (%) •y ra y 37 • i r
rr,<_
i ry „ _ ,L`r \ In I p'' P\'F-' y i 4F.t .
s, 'n > . v '.(7 f
c l1 Y+ YZ ^ , 12ItI,e rO]'[Js='' ^ r •
s ` _ r.,r y'r ]l pS Y (tll = }})[Q w'
78) r]Le0 I((V) 35
s 2,s1)a •.
ror. .. _- JAMESTOWN2list)
w
f(u]}3 I.
1]]I >J
II ] ... pp. ) r p
Ib' v,r Il. r•' a a]. a M.6j. •'. ta]1 Y ] • 1 '1Y•e a` '.. r. ;Yf_ y r]<]
o .
K Ii F ; n Lm-
X ..,r .s.s]-~', -+ e..r. .. sr',.4 r. k (e•; /I 7 SsilR1>)1 r as', " •F y/%
l ]
r [ 6 /
170 %
o 12)
o ] Ibs I ( .fa' e.n•_ a'. ss^
I. ..:
a :tev) - P( •t ^_ d 9
v
4
seen
7
1I
9 1911 ! - e
l I ^
r1M. '
0>. 6r' 1]) 0]'
r {-
n.<,. / I
L _ •
r'> + e ,
281
4ry/r]
g ( Y)
7 A Y'I IL26 _ ) .;,)' eJAMESTOWN z
fl 2(f;) 8 20 B+ r ..]1 (
p1) _ (]I] i. 2 .sf ]Y ' (11,.>
Rp
e j ]
f. G,
9<sr
10 ; '• . (
ps). ,<ss •. 0.[.. `(6}2: lei i6 3 • •` `.
3 ) •(y1)19 < r r `2 W •w 1 -.75)7 d r er;t(a) 23 95)
Ir .]
atf 8(if) • ] •r
I 1• l
d e(m)15 • (`s 6s' ,'' H I -\is I (ir ``. ]1)3 ^i ..
5
1
0.1.1 (S)) ,7.•A`_„ • 71) M. ]f\. 20 >eta C `- '
l+ 1 nJ • 2 17f 16 'p
1 '
3:
10
J _
@19,
r
2
t c<reo. s 16 1 -wwa.tlr.! 7 d tR (']'7 •e
a 190) (0) 3 1
per.
7),' 5 rel
F
µ' o.,. I (vl l •,
la u
r
I/ffi, -
12 p,
1 _< ^ U'] ' c(I%e > Y E]) a f/9] iilfp i (•)
9
9fl5 (
ys)
r 4 , AD n yl
6 11 fs 11 9 m r] , .< T' m f ORM• R 0 St. NO e x n>.< f.• L t' .10 !
le
W n. Y ,+. rD' Y.•t' KS a}' N' l I 5 a>,
s >1 ( ]t' r+I r1' I rr• I ,I' lig
J3 rD E D ) 1 ES AT S c Ctrs iJl+r °:coJl^I n -
IV. F Ct1 .. F. li;: •(.o R 1! lail 7t Iv!• -1, ep. -e•. •
a'" - - . b Y' ^er.0 -e'er. " ,.
rq... ASE• [ ° N•
a R. 4 n. ,art. n'
R ] V •'"Y.
p •.,
te :' s }r. e1. t. 1. •.r ,...a'ez a' n' e,
n 1
R )
to*
1] Inr II. + AT ,It'. •`E 4 I)]
r ` f pl ,
I
llai s•, )' fJf rq a^:s l9'ft le _ - y.l'sl-
I JJI33)= (]alti 1)E)Q (9T IA]I :Itl) (6tr. Iti7)1 I r pJ
R • . 93 «.•3' M. Oe U.Ds' tl. m' W, 06 0 A311
9
2a e - 1 n l ] e , :• I.H 1.0' 1. e1 'r. r' 'JJ tY1 -J ' I e; )O I»] 6OOD (nr frn _ .. a •a an .
a ]
I,
j Ia Y (q)_ r 1']1R IIeIP r} r]s Ir91 Ilol
p `' s y (
nl _-: z u•) _ trs
m
61E • =
STAS
uel
r)
r - 3. .A b' ''A,'I1Y }]'• AVE. , PM„P'))'•
r,
1r'9f
1ee' (
64 T 9 0' o. ,9 j »Jr•. a
G. '<
I' ). ae I a. 1
1
p93 •7 U (
L ]) 9'((f
1N.
el ,,LO P -x arr F I ^I 37 ) ! • J F o Irr) - 11). I}el ' )
I '
JA Ix!)}
e'/, >>r., e, .. S
3 (: a
I Ir' I IreJ '< IAl lbl nn Y 1v1 _ 1 . O - I _Irr„ 1}elR IW, R, .a cr `
r• a D E
WOOD o
Tr? T` la °C .•r, ]., 9 QU e ; r.
r. I , w QS1
I\)° , ,.•' - r }
p' 55) '`' JS.g I5e) f59), - 2 a r,.rte 46TH R PLACE '•
r'
8.
9,
73)1 o g(5B7/ (56) n rf 4. 's'e.. ] ` j g C3e1 c O C•a 2 •j .>.ae 111 , <^ rr.
u
D 60\ g Yf,e V ;r rrm I 2 , p`"• +(] I''-(\Sr - _+•
rur
9, (a7),o
rn ., OL = (+
J < J.• i %
20s) E ATES(^ IPL iT 7
fl
i 1 1-- [ I 11. i f1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting oftheCityCounciloftheCityofPlymouth, Minnesota was held on -c he2_1st — day of July , 19 80 The following memhers werepresent: Ma or Hunt, Councilmembers avenporf—,-Neils and Schneider
The following mem-ers were d0senf. Counci ImemBer oy
Councilmember Davenport introduced the following Resolution andmoveditsadoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 80- 453
APPROVING REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MARV ANDERSON
CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR ZACHARY HILLS RPUD 77-6 LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
OF THE INTERSECTIO14 OF HAMEL ROAD WITH ZACHARY LANE (79045)
WHEREAS, Mary Anderson Construction Co. has requested approval of a revised
preliminary plat and conditional use permit for 100 townhouses and 84 single
family lots on a total of 70.4 acres located in the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of Hamel Road and Zachary Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the request following a duly calledpublichearingandhasrecommendedapproval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and herr!)-,does approve the revised preliminary plat and
conditional use permit for Mary Anuerson Construction Co. for Zachary Hills RPUD
19 77-6 for 100 townhouses and 84 single family lots on a total of 70.4 acres located
in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Hamel Road and Zachary Lanesubjecttothefollowingconditions:
I. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Dedication of trail corridor segments (approximately 1.95 acres) and of "park"
area (approximately 3.44 acres) with the final platting; with the balance of
the dedication requirement fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with the
Park Dedication Policy in effect at the time of final platting.
3. Compliance with City Council Policy Resolution No. 79-80 regarding subdivi,.,ions
containing or adjacent to storm water drairl:ge facilities.
4. Street names and numbers to comply with the City's ordinance.
5. No building permits to be issued until the final plat is filed and recorded
with Hennepin County.
6. Final landscape plan prepared per adopted Landscape Criteria.
7. Additional landscaping shall be added to the rear of "exception" lot :vest of
Zachary Lane.
8. Eliminating access onto Balsam at 48th Avenue and moving it to 4Eth Place.
Th40emotionfortheadoptionoftheforegoingResolutionwasdulysecondedbyCouncilmemberNeilsanduponvotebeingtakenthereon, the0owngvote n avor t ereo ayor Hunt, Councilmembers Davenport,
Neils _
The following voted against or abstained: 4uIl i member SchneiderWhereupontheResolutionwasdeclareddulypasseoaope .
14. Other Requirements (continued)
14.3 Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
14.4 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.
14.5 Setbacks shall comply with approved setbacks for Zachary Hills 2nd
Addition (35 ft. front yard; 25 ft. rear yard; 6 ft. side yard or
garages; and, 10 ft. for dwellings).
14.6 No building permits to be issued until a contract has been awarded for
municipal sewer and water, and the financial guarantee is submitted to
the City.
14.7 This development covers:
Lots 3-17, Block 1 (15 lots)
Lots 2-5, Block 4 (4 lots)
13-
CcoldXtoncat 64Se
2. 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 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 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.
Puts 47rR/ SUTOS
C. The benefit to the developer is one of design and development flexibility; in
order to utilize this flexibility, the developer has the responsibility to
demonstrate that Its
has
substantial attributes
ttoization does Indeed vienhancetheparticulararea
orde
a vthe pCity
snmentich
total.
Expected attributes are:
1) Benefits from new technology in buildina desion, construction and land
development.
2) Nigher standards of site and buildino desion throuoh use of trained and
experienced professionals in Land Planning, Architecture and Landscaping
to prepare plans for Planned Unit Developments.
es
3.) More etolyield
highequalityeuse
of
developmenteatsa lesserlcost
d public facil-
ities4) More useable and suitably located recreation facilities and other public
and common facilities than would otherwise be provided under conven-
tional land development procedures.
S) Demonstration of affirmative design efforts toward the preservation and
enhancement of desirable natural site characteristics.
emended Ord. No. 82-15)
SFer 9, SusoB
Pi.yMourr+ Zoow&
OXj> 1 N I4MGE
77
SURVEY FOR: MARVIN H. ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO.
DESCRIBED AS: Lot 2, Block 5, ZACHARY HILLS 4TH ADDITION, City of Plymouth,
Hennepin County, Minnesota reserving the drainage and utility
easements as shown on the record plat thereof.
y674
966.E I- - 6
970,¢ 970
NES IR- PLA C -"-
TZ ET
I
gOAl I — )
PON
6 i C"IC. rUgLK
O Q
I
6-07TONl 1/OOL
ELEVATIONS
Street At Driveway 9%Z,
Garage Floor
Yard Grade At House 9791yt
Top Of Foundaiion y 7 Z
F.rst Floor 7-4.
Upper Basement
Lowor Basement i6 7
Sanitary Sewer
O
jam'
CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION OF ITDf NG
I hereby certify that on J a
i made a survey of the location of the
building on the above described property
and that the location of said building is
correctly shown he abov P t i
CEFtTIFIGATE QF UJR 7/18/84
I hereby certify that on I surveyed the property described above and that
i_. t. .. r^rrort rweresenlolion of sold survey. /
I
51
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE October 19, 1988 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 26, 1988
FILE NO.: 88130
PETITIONER: Superior Ford, Inc/Ben Stroh
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan to Enlarge and
Redesign Vehicle Parking and Storage Areas - No New
Structures Proposed
LOCATION: Southwest Quadrant of County Road 10 and County Road 18
9700 56th Avenue North)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CS (Service Business)
ZONING: B3 (Service Business)
BACKGROUND:
On October 15, 1973 by Resolution #73-408, the City Council approved a Site
Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Charles A. Walton for the original Ford
Dealership at this location. In February, 1976, by Resolution #76-103, the
City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for Superior Ford to
temporarily park vehicles on their site on a non -hard surfaced area.
On November 4, 1985, The City Council appointed Resolution #85-889 approving a
Conditional Use Permit to Superior Ford to allow expanded outdoor storage of
automobiles, and a Variance to allow temporary vehicle storage on unpaved
surfaces. That Conditional Use Permit and Variance was to be renewed on a
year-to-year basis.
On July 20, 1988, the Community Development Director sent a letter to Superior
Ford and administratively extended the Conditional Use Permit to November 4,
1988. With a completion of the sanitary sewer project to this area and the
installation of sewer to the Superior Ford Site, the continued need to
postpone installation of hard surface storage areas has terminated.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
Staff Report
October 19, 1988
Page 2
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. Proposed is a Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of the storage
facilities for the car dealership onto a new paved area that will total
approximately 3.5 acres. Approximately one acre of this newly surfaced
parking is already in use as an unsurfaced "temporary" vehicle storage
area. As noted above, this temporary storage area was first authorized by
a Conditional Use Permit and Variance in 1985. This "temporary"
permission to use unsurfaced vehicle storage will expire November 4, 1988.
The site plan also proposes to alter the parking configuration in other
locations on the Superior Ford site, specifically along 56th Avenue North
and adjacent to the current primary access point to 56th Avenue North.
The net increase in vehicles on site, as a result of this request in
action, will be 300. The total allowable vehicles on site (both storage
and required off-street parking) if this proposal is approved will be 779.
Of that number, 61 spaces are required by the Zoning Ordinance to meet the
off-street parking requirement of the structures currently existing.
2. The Zoning Ordinance specifies six findings that the Planning Commission
must make before they can recommend approval of any Conditional Use
Permit. We have attached a copy of those six Conditional Use Permit
Criteria together with the Petitioner's September 29, 1988 responses to
those criteria.
3. Review of the Physical Constraints Analysis finds this site in the Shingle
Creek Watershed District (not a part of a flood plain); containing no
wetlands of consequence; containing no woodlands of consequence
remaining); does present some areas of slopes of greater than 12% over
the already developed portion of the site; and, displays some areas of the
site with soils either marginally suitable or unsuitable for development
even with public sewer service. Those unsuitable areas are used for
vehicle storage, not structure.
The Staff Analysis concurrent with the 1985 request for a Temporary
Conditional Use Permit referenced a finding that a portion of the site may
be a part of the Shoreland Overlay District of the Shingle Creek drainage
area located Northwest of the site. Minnesota DNR was, at that time,
notified of the possibility of the site being within a shoreland area and
asked for their commentary. The DNR offered no objections to the issuing
of the Conditional Use Permit. They did comment, however, that if the
site were found to be within the Shoreland site it would be subject to a
requirement that not more than 30% of the surface area be covered by non-
absorbent surfaces (such as structures, concrete, or asphalt).
Because of the critical importance of ground coverage to a Land Use such
as an automobile dealership, we have again reviewed the relationship of
the Shoreland Overlay for Shingle Creek in relationship to the property
Staff Report
October 19, 1988
Page 3
lines on the survey submitted with the Site Plan. A careful layout of that
survey on the air photos for this area results in the finding that the
Shoreland Overlay District of Shingle Creek does not extend into this site
at its current configuration.
4. The Site Plan as submitted responds to all applicable City Code and Zoning
Ordinance specifications for the work proposed to be undertaken.
Specifically, provisions of the Landscape Policy and the off-street
parking section of the Zoning Ordinance are responded to confirmatively.
As has been the case with previous Site Plans involving vehicular storage,
a distinction has been made between the areas of the site that are
intended for the storage vehicles from the areas of site in which parking
spaces are for transient use. In the areas where the use of the parking
stalls is for storage exclusively double loaded isle width has been
reduced from 26 feet to 24 feet, installed length has been reduced from
18.5 feet to 18 feet. These dimensional adjustments are considered
characteristics of the Conditional Use Permit rather than a Variance to
the Parking Ordinance.
5. We do not foresee completion of this work prior to the November 4, 1988
expiration of the existing CUP for temporary storage. In fact, it is
doubtful this new surfacing will be complete during this construction
season. An extension of the existing CUP for temporary storage until
April 30, 1989 is recommended.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit as proposed, respond to the
respective Ordinance provisions and Conditional Use Permit Criteria. We
recommend approval subject to the standard conditions per such actions
including the Engineer's Memo.
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached draft recommendation is for approval of the Site Plan and
Conditional Use Permit and extension of the existing Conditional Use Permit
until April 30, 1989.
Submitted by:
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
Staff Report (88130)
October 19, 1988
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution approving the Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit
2. Engineer's memo
3. Location map
4. Petitioner's narrative of September 29, 1988
5. Resolution #85-889
6. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
7. Letter of Director Tremere dated July 20, 1988
8. Large plans
APPROVING SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SUPERIOR FORD/BEN STROH
88130)
WHEREAS, Superior Ford/Ben Stroh has requested approval of a Site Plan, and
Conditional Use Permit for Car Storage and Parking Lot Expansion to be located
at 9700 56th 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 Superior
Ford/Ben Stroh for a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Car Storage and
Parking Lot Expansion to be located at 9700 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.
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 structure, and
no outside storage is permitted.
7. The Conditional Use Permit and Variance granted to this Petitioner by
Resolution No. 85-889 is hereby extended to April 31, 1989. No
enlargement of storage beyond the scope of that approval is hereby
authorized.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E P' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: October 19, 1988
FILE NO.: 88130
PETITIONER: Mr. Sen Stroh, President, Superior Ford, 9700 56th Avenue N.,
Plymouth, Mn.
SITE PLAN: ADDITION TO SUPERIOR FORD
LOCATION: South of County Rd. 10, west of County Rd. 18, north of 56th Avenue
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 Sept. 3.
1988 Resolution No. 88-603.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None. Sanitary Sewer and
Water Storm Sewer and Street installed by M. G. Astleford.
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.)
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-
A
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
13. X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
X Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Other
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: See Item
2-7A
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. Hydrants will be
installed with the proposed building addition.
15. X 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. Watermain shall be ductile iron pipe.
16. X 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.
See Item 27A.
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.
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.
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
27. A. The storm drainage calculations submitted do not meet the requirements for
five year design storm. The calculations submitted indicated 1.0 CFS for the
south storm sewer system, it should be 10.0 CFS and for the north storm sewer
system, 1.5 CFS was indicated and it should be 14.2 CFS. Up to five catch
basins may be needed for the storm sewer system. The Site Plan shall be
revised and the storm drainage calculations resubmitted.
B. A catch basin and short storm sewer to the east is needed south of the
existing building where the new parking stalls are being added.
Submitted by:L
Chester J. Harrison, Jr., P. -EE,
City Engineer
r
x R
B
T
M A
A
Phone (612) 559.9111
Superior Ford, Inc.
9700 - 56th Avenue North
County Road 18 8 Bass Lake Road
September 29, 1988
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55442
City of Plymouth
Community Development Department
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Attn.: C. E. Dillerud
Dear Mr. Dillerud,
The proposed use of this conditional use permit shall be for the
expansion of the parking facilities, new and used car storage
for our dealership. Including all lighting, drainage, landscape
and utility plans.
The application is in conformance with the six (6) standards
listed in Section 9 of the zoning ordinance and listed herein.
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 detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
3. The conditional use.will not be injurious to the use 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 applicable regulations of the district
in which it is located.
Should you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Ben Stroh
BS:ksg
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a reyuio -. .,,y
the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 4th day ofy mker fly
The following members were present: Mayor Davenport. Councilmembers Neils
Schneider, Cin and Va iii
The following members were absent: n ne
a.:
Councilmember Vasiliou introduced the following Resolution and moved Its
adoption:
RESOLUTION N0. 85- B89
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR BEN STROH, SUPERIOR FORD, INC.
85105)
WHEREAS, Ben Stroh, Superior Ford, Inc. has requested a Conditional Use Permit and Var-
lanee to allow for expanded outside storage of automobiles and to allow temporary
vehicle storage no unpaved surfaces at 9700 56th Avenue North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Publir
Nearing and recommends approval;
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 request for Ben Stroh, Superior
Ford, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow for expanded outsidestorageofautomobilesandtoallowtemporaryvehiclestorageonunpavedsurfacesat
9700 56th Avenue North, subject to the following conditions;
1. The permit Is subject to all applicable Codes, regulations and Ordinances, and
violation thereof shall he grounds for revocation.
2. The permit is issued to Superlor Ford, Inc. as operator of the facility and shall
not he transferable.
The site shall he maintained in a sanitary manner.
4. The permit shall be renewed in one year to assure compliance with the conditions
and determine the status of permanent parking areas.
5. All parking and dlsplAv of vehicles shall be off-street in designated areas. No
display of vehicles or storage of lnvento•y In yards or outside of designated
areas are permitted. Tie storage of %enicles shall be located and limited to thV
two areas identified on the plans staff dated September 130 1985.
on inpaved
6.
shallvhe
maintaineds
for proper
thrdcainaary r, erosion tccontrol and las dust
areas which
free. Th-
storage hestoraaofvehiclesdoesnotcomprehendcustomertraffic/circulation.
7. Appropriate legal documents, as approved by the City Attornev shall he flied and
recorded at Hennepin County allowing for the parking areas and drive, to cross com-
mon property lines with adjoining land.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing peso ution was
and upon vote bel gni
d bythereon, the
Councilmember Schneider
following voted in Tavor thereo :Mayor uavenporty Councilmembers Neils,
SchneiderCrain and Vasiliou
0 0 ng vo aye ns or a s e ne : none
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passu an adopted.
CO^o Tiona Se
2. 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 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 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.
July 20, 1988
Mr. Ben Stroh
President
Superior Ford, Inc.
9700 56th Avenue North
Plymouth, MN 55442
Dear Mr. Stroh:
CITY O
PUM0 I +
This is in response to your duly 14, 19PO letter to me and, to your :luly 14,
1988 letter to Community Development Coordinator Chuck Dillerud.
I have reviewed the file generated by your 1985 request for a Conditional UsePermitandVarianceforthetemporaryexpandedoutsidestorageofautomohileson
unpaved surfaces. I understand your anxiousness about getting your prospective
plans together and I understand the frustrations you have had with the time to
complete the sewer in this area.
The Conditional Use Permit (copy of Resolution No. 85-889 enclosed) called for a
Renewal in one year of Its original approval, November 4, 1995. That has heen
extended for you once, and I believe it would have been extended again as you
requested, if your letter had not been misplaced.
I hereby extend the Conditional Use Permit originally authorized under Resolu-
tion No. 85-899 to Friday, November 49 1988, which is exactly three years from
the date of the original approval. My administrative approval is subject to the
following:
1. There will be no further administrative extensions. Outside storage
of automobiles on unpaved surfaces without benefit of City Council
approval will not be authorized. City Council approval may or may not
be granted in conjunction with your intended submittal of expansion
plans for your property. I am taking into account the winter season
and 1 am not authorizing continued parking or storage of automobiles
on unpaved surfaces beyond November 4th,
The sewer is now available and is now installed. You have adequate
time to pave this area or to make other arrangements so that there is
no longer a need for storage of automobiles on an unpaved surface.
The extension is subject to the same conditions and requirements set
forth in Resolution No. 85-889. I expect that you will take positive
steps to assure that every condition is satisfied; and particularly, I
draw your attention to Condition Nos. 5 and 6.
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800
Page two
Mr. Ben Stroh
Superior Ford
July 20, 1988
I encourage you to promptly submit plans to Chuck Dillerud regarding any expan-
sion of this facility. The review and approval process can be very expeditious
but it is getting well into the construction season. A pro forma test that I
must go by is whether there is a legal basis for continuinq a condition, i.e.,
parking on unpaved surfaces, for any business. I do not have unlimited
authority to continue an infinite extension of a variance which was intended for
a temporary condition.
I believe this extension is responsive to your needs and your request. Tnank
you for your inquiry. Call me if you have any questions regarding this.
Sinrel y
Blair Tremere, Director
Community Development
HT/gw
cc: Community Development Coordinator C.E. Dillerud
City Manaqer ,lames Willis
File 85105
enclosure
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE October 20, 1988 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 26, 1988
FILE NO.: 88131
PETITIONER: Trammell Crow Company
REQUEST: Site Plan to construct new 111,000 square foot
office/warehouse building
LOCATION: East end of 10th Avenue North, east of Xenium Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: I -P (Planned Industrial)
ZONING: I-1 (Planned Industrial)
BACKGROUND:
The revised Final Plat covering the Carlson Companies 2nd Addition, of which
this site is a part, was approved July 16, 1979. Resolution No. 79-393 set
the conditions to be met prior to filing of the Revised Final Plat.
The Site Plan is presented to the Planning Commission and City Council, even
though there are no Conditional Use Permits or Variances involved, responsive
to the provisions of Section 11, Subdivision A (8) of the Zoning Ordinance
which describes Site Plans that may be administratively approved. This site
abuts a residential district, thereby processing of the Site Plan through the
Planning Commission and City Council is required.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. Proposed is the construction of a 111,340 square foot multiple tenant
office/warehouse structure on a site of 11.45 acres.
2. The Site Plan proposed responds affirmatively to the various City
Ordinances and Policies with regard to site design. Specifically, the
proposal meets all required setback requirements; all required off-street
parking requirements including proof of parking to 100% occupancy; design
of trash facilities (inside of the principal structure); treatment of
roof -top mechanical equipment (painted on the west side to match the
structure and screened with a board fence for noise control on the east
end of the structure); and internal design of circulation and parking
facilities, including fire lanes. Current parking construction with a
total of 131 stalls (15% office/85% warehouse). "Proof of parking" for an
additional 187 spaces is depicted to accommodate 100% manufacturing use.
Staff Report (88131)
October 20, 1988
Page 2
3. Application of the Physical Constraints Analysis to the site under
consideration reveals the site to be in the Bassett Creek Watershed
District and not within a shoreland management or flood plain overlay
district; to contain a minimal amount of wetland area on the far eastern
extremity of the site; to contain no significant woodland areas; to
contain no slopes in excess of 120; and to be suitable for development
with urban sewer service.
4. The exterior appearance of the structure is predominantly that of ribbed
stand-up concrete panels with a 24 foot roof height. The east and west
elevations of the building are dominated by that type of appearance. The
north elevation of the building features 4 entry "office finish" features
that include tinted glass and copper roofing. The south elevation of the
structure involves the services areas with overhead doors and steps to man
doors breaking up the ribbed concrete appearance. The structure is of an
office/warehouse multi -tenant appearance similar to many structures in the
Minneapolis Industrial Park. Direct comparability to adjacent structures
is difficult to address in that the existing structures are several
hundred feet away from where this structure will be located.
5. A major issue addressed during Development Review Committee (DRC)
consideration of this proposal has been the relationship of the proposal
to the Park System Plan, adopted in 1982. That plan depicts an
enlargement to the Gleanloch neighborhood park located immediately to the
east of the site upon which the proposed structure is to be located. The
Park Director indicates that the enlargement is based on the need for the
Gleanloch Park to provide additional unstructured open play area, not
involving any facilities, equipment, or development. A need for an area
250 feet by 300 feet is considered ideal, and the area should be
relatively level and free of physical impediments. Since the Final Plat
and Development Contract for the Carlson Companies 2nd Addition, of which
this parcel is a part, specifies that park dedication for the site will be
in the form of fees -in -lieu at the time of building permit issuance, we
have been advised by the City Attorney that it may not be appropriate to
now require a specific dedication of land when no platting activity is
being proposed.
6. The 1977 platting action including this site provided for a transition
area from 50 to 300 feet in width running north/south along the east
property line of the plat. The original developer was required to record
a covenant with the plat providing that no improvements would take place
within that transition area. The purpose of the transition area is to
buffer the Gleanloch residential neighborhood from the industrial
development of this Carlson 2nd Addition Industrial plat. This Site Plan
conforms to the specifications of that covenant.
7. The developer also owns the parcel immediately to the south of the subject
parcel. His current plan is to divide a portion of the subject parcel
Staff Report (88131)
October 20, 1988
Page 3
off and attach that land to the south parcel to create a more buildable
site. At that time, park dedication strategy may be re -addressed with
respect to both parcels.
8. The developer has indicated his intention to cooperate toward a potential
solution to Gleanloch Park requirements from lands now subject to the
development ban covenant.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. We find the Site Plan to respond affirmatively to the Ordinance provisions
and pertinent City Policy with respect to development of sites within the
I-1 zone.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend approval of the Site Plan as reflected by the attached Resolution
of approval.
Submitted by: l L(AIL SW -Y" \</
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution of Approval
2. Engineer's Memo
3. Location Map
4. Large plans
APPROVING SITE PLAN FOR TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY (88131)
WHEREAS, Trammell Crow Company has requested approval of a Site Plan for an
office/warehouse structure of 111,000 square feet to be located at the end of
10th Avenue North east of Xenium Lane; 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 Trammell Crow
Company for a Site Plan for an office/warehouse structure of 111,000 square
feet to be located at the end of 10th Avenue North east of Xenium Lane,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication according to the
Dedication Policy in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. If,
prior to Building Permit issuance, the City and the Applicant agree that
other lands under the Applicant's control are suitable for expansion of
Gleanloch Park, dedication of land may be substituted for part or all of
the fees.
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 structure, 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.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: October 19, 1988
FILE NO.: 88131
PETITIONER: Mr. John Griffith, Trammell Crow Company, Suite 375, 8400 Normandale
Lake Boulevard, Bloomington, MN 55437
SITE PLAN: MINNEAPOLIS INDUSTRIAL PARK WAREHOUSE D
LOCATION: East of 10th Avenue, North of 6th Avenue on the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 34
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 REG 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.
N/A Yes No
7. _ _ X
8. — X
9. X
10. XX
11. _ 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.) Six foot drainage and utility easements will be
required on the west south and east property lines The easements
shall be provided in recordable form.
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. A drainage easement for
ponding purposes to an elevation of 936.0 shall be provided alone
the east property line north of the south property line.
All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided - A 20 foot drainage and utility easement snail De
provided over the proposed public sanitary sewer along with a 30
foot wide drainage and utility easement from the end of the sanitary
sewer west of the west property line and 30 feet wide alone the
west property line to the north right-of-way line of 10th Avenue
Along with the necessary drainage and utility easements for the
sanitary sewer and storm sewer within the City Park property and
north and south of the building.
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities.
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 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-
U
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. _ _ X
14. X
15. _ X —
X DNR
MN DOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
X Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
X 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: Drainage
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. The exact
locations of additional hydrants shall be verified with the Fire
Department.
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.
16. X 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
23. _ X
STANDARDS:
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 1003 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.
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.
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
27. A. The eight inch storm sewer from Catch Basin No. 2, noted as eight inch PVC
shall be a minimum of 12 inch.
B. Where the 33 inch RCP enters the Park property from Catch Basin No. 1, there
is an Ag. Lime Trail. This trail shall be noted on the utility plan.
C. The utility plan shall be revised to show the eight inch public sanitary
sewer.
D. The class of storm sewer pipe shall be noted on the utility plan.
E. Plan and Profile sheets along with specifications for the storm sewer north
and south of the building shall be submitted with the Building Permit
Application.
F. The existing storm sewer at the end of 10th Avenue is not shown correctly.
Submitted by: -v `"
Chester J. Ha ison, Jr., P.
City Engineer
ZZ
i
r r a:
m
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE 10/19/88 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 26, 1988
FILE NO.: 88112
PETITIONER: David Dahl
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, and Subdivision Design Variance
to Permit The Creation of 11 Single Family Residential Lots
on a Parcel of 7 Acres, and a Conditional Use Permit to
allow keeping of animals.
LOCATION: South of County Road 24 at Garland Lane.
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development)
7TiT.ZeT:iili1 1 1
No prior development activity on this parcel is reflected by the Planning
Department files.
A notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City
Newspaper and notice has been mailed 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 platting of a seven acre parcel into 11 "conventional"
single family detached building lots, including one lot upon which an
existing residence will be located.
The plat design includes the need to request a Variance to the subdivision
design standards to allow a cul-de-sac of over 500 feet (660 feet
proposed).
2. Concurrent with the platting action rezoning is also requested from the
existing FRD to the R -1A that is consistent with the guiding of the
property and for which the property is eligible due to the existence of
public sewer.
3. The petitioner is also seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow the owner
and resident of the existing home to keep two horses and a goat on
Staff Report (88112)
October 19, 1988
Page 2
that parcel of 45,775 square feet until July, 1989. This Conditional Use
Permit becomes.required as the property is rezoned from FRD to R -IA. The
keeping of those animals is a permitted use in the FRD zone as the
property now exists.
4. Consideration of the Conventional Preliminary Plat is guided by the
provisions of Section 500 of the City Code. The Planning Commission is
generally directed to review the Preliminary Plat within the context of
the design features listed in Section 500 and the dimensional
specifications of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The Subdivision Variance is to the dimensional provisions of Section
500.17 Subd. 2 which provides, in part, that cul-de-sac shall not be
longer that 500 feet. The petitioner is proposing 660 feet for the length
of the cul-de-sac in this subdivision. The Subdivision Variance must be
reviewed responsive to the provisions of Section 500.41, wherein the
Ordinance directs that no variance shall be granted unless the Commission
makes 3 specific findings. We have attached a copy of Section 500.41
which reviews the 3 findings that must be made by the Planning Commission.
6. The rezoning requested, RIR-1A, is consistent with the guiding of the
parcel. The timing of the rezoning action is appropriate with this plat
action and the availability municipal sewer for the site.
7. The Zoning Ordinance provides six specific findings that must be made by
the Planning Commission with respect to the requested Conditional Use
Permit. A copy those six criteria is attached to the Staff Report.
8. The Plymouth Physical Constraints Analysis finds the subject site partly
within the Gleason Lake and partly within the Basset Creek Watershed
Districts; not a part of any shoreland or flood plain overlay district;
not the location of any wetlands as defined by the Constraints Analysis;
contains no woodlands of significance; does not present slopes in access
of 12 percent; and is suitable for urban development with public sewers.
A very small portion of the site is designated as unsuitable for
development, constituting the lowland portions of the site.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Except for the Variance applied for, as noted above, the Preliminary Plat
is consistent with the design standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and
the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the
development of single family conventional subdivisions in the R -1A zone.
Staff Report (88112)
October 19, 1988
Page 3
2. We find that special circumstances with respect to the long narrow shape
of the parcel and the existence of pockets of unsuitable soils provide
basis for the Variance that is requested with respect to the length of the
cul-de-sac street. We find the Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of the property rights of the applicant and that the
granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to any other property in the territory in which the property is
located.
3. We find that the proposal for the Conditional Use Permit to keep two
horses and one goat at the existing facilities on lot 2 for a period
ending July 31, 1989 is responsive to the six Conditional Use Criteria
found on the Ordinance. As an FRD district, this home is presently
keeping agricultural animals by right. To extend that right by less than
a year is neither detrimental to the surrounding property owners nor
contrary to the general public welfare.
4. The rezoning from FRD to R -1A is responsive to the LA -1 guiding of the
site in the general City Policy with regard to rezoning from FRD to the
Zoning District responsive to the Land Use Guide Plan concurrent with
development action and the existence of public sanitary sewer.
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend approval of the development actions applied for.
The attached Approval Resolution covers a Preliminary Plat, Subdivision
Variance and Rezoning. The Conditional Use Permit approval is by a second
resolution.
Submitted by: (' ' 4 1 i= 2
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution approving Preliminary Plat, Variances, Rezoning, and
Conditional Use Permit
2. Engineer's Memo
3. Location map
4. Section 500.41 of the City Code
5. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
6. Petitioner's narrative with respect to the Conditional Use Permit
7. Large plans
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE FOR DAVID DAHL FOR PLYMOUTH MEADOWS
88112)
WHEREAS, David Dahl has requested approval for a Preliminary Plat and Variance
for Plymouth Meadows, a plat for 11 single family residential lots on 7 acres
located north and east of the intersection of County Road #24 and 32nd Avenue
North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recortmends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it hereby does approve the Preliminary Plat and
Variance for David Dahl for Plymouth Meadows for 11 single family residential
lots located north and east of the intersection of County Road #24 and 32nd
Avenue North, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
3. No Building Permits shall be issued until a Contract has been awarded for
sewer and water.
4. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with
the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of filing the Final Plat with
credit for dedication of the trail outlot along County Road #24.
5. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System.
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 Building Permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
8. Approval includes a Variance from the Subdivision Design Standards to
permit a cul-de-sac sheet with a length of 660 feet where the standard is
500 feet, based on the finding that the Subdivision Code Variance Criteria
have been met.
9. Incorporation of tree protection provisions in the Final Plat and
Development Contract approval, providing for payment of $50.00 per
diameter - inch and for a $15,000.00 Bond.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ROSE DITZLER TO KEEP AGRICULTURAL
ANIMALS IN THE R -1A ZONE AT 16925 COUNTY ROAD 24 (88112)
WHEREAS, Rose Ditzler has requested a Conditional Use Permit to keep
agricultural animals in the R -1A zone located at 16925 County Road 24; 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 should and hereby does approve the request for
Rose Ditzler for a Conditional Use Permit to keep agricultural animals in the
R -1A zone, subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and
Ordinances, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The permit is issued to Rose Ditzler as occupant of the parcel and shall
not be transferable.
3. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
4. The permit shall expire on July 31, 1989.
5. Animals kept shall be limited to 2 horses and 1 goat.
6. This Conditional Use Permit shall become effective upon publication of
the ordinance rezoning the parcel to R -1A.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: October 19, 1988
FILE NO.: 88112
PETITIONER: Mr. David R. Dahl, 4255 Kingsview Lane, Plymouth, MN 55446
PRELIMINARY PLAT: PLYMOUTH MEADOWS
LOCATION: South of County Road No. 24, north of 32nd Avenue, west of Dunkirk
Lane in the northwest 1/4 of Section 20
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. Y SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These
No. 2.
are in addition to the assessments_ shown in No 1 and
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 final plat approval.
4. Area assessments: NONE
5. Other additional assessments estimated: NONE
t EGAt /EASEMENTS /PERMITS :
6. _ _ `C Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10')
in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width adjoining
side and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
7. — _ X
8. _ _ X
9. X
All standard utility easements required for construction are provided
The City will require twenty foot (20') utility and drainage
easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines where these
utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed
with the final plat and final construction plans.
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 drainage plan. A drainage easement for ponding purposes
shall be provided on the Final Plat to an elevation of 1003.5.
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 is not an automatic process in
conjunction with the platting process. It is the owner's
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 - If it is subsequently determined that
the subject property is abstract property, then this requirement does
not apply.
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 deed for outlot.
11. X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR
MnDOT
Hennepin County
X MPCA
X State Health Department
PA
X Bassett Creek
X Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Other
TRANSPORTATION:
N/A Yes No
12. X Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
13. X
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the
City grid system for street names. The following changes will be
necessary.
Conforms with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's
adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
14. _ X Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
IT 4:11114
15. X All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on
16. X Conforms with City standards requiring the developer to construct
utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the developer shall be responsible
for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and
streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional
engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary
sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the
development. See Item No 24A.
3
3
N/A Yes No
17. _ X Preliminary utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements
The developer has submitted the required preliminary plans for the
proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities. 3-e&
Item No. 24A.
18, X Per developer's request a preliminary report and plan will be
prepared by the City -
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as
part of its Capital Improvements Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1,
of the year preceding construction.
19. X Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots. ro c 1, 2, 3, 4, 5., and 6 shall have minimum basement
elevations of 1005.5.
20. X_ The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
21. X The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
L^
PRELIMINARY GRADING DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
N/A Yes No
22. 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 right-of-way. All water connections shall be via
wet tap.
23. X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been 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:
Shall coMply with all drainage district requirements.
24. A. The utility plan shall be revised to show storm sewer manholes with proposed
invert and top elevations. The existing storm sewer under County Road 9 shall
be extended to the west property line of Lot 11 to maintain drainage.
B. If this plat is proposed to be developed prior to the property to the east, it
will be the developer's responsibility to install sanitary sewer from Garland
Lane to the existing sanitary sewer north of Fountain Avenue along with
obtaining the necessary easements.
C. Copies of soil borings and R -Value and street design calculations shall be
submitted with the Final Plat application.
D. Drainage calculations and drainage maps shall be submitted with the Final Plat
application.
E. The invert elevations of the culvert under County Road 24 and the drainage
pattern from the pond west of Lots 8 and 9 shall be shown on the final grading
plan.
F. Storm sewer shall be constructed from 32nd Avenue to the pond.
G. Relocate the storm sewer from Garland Lane between Lots 6 and 7 to between Lots
2 and 6.
H. The trail outlot shall be deeded to the City.
I. No driveway access is permitted to County Road 24.
J. The driveway for Lot 11 shall be on the southerly portion of the lot.
i
Submitted by:
Chester'J•,Harrison, P.E.
City Engineer
5
n
Ju
t
SV5D1V1511)N CoDE-
VA C RNGF- 6771 Iw pqA KD 5
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 granting 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.
Se CT o., 9
ComdrTona ( t4S E
Perm'7- Ge-rrla
2. 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 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 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.
Request for Conditional Use Permit
for Rose Ditzler in proposed
Plymouth Meadows Development - Block 1, Lot 2
Rose Ditzler is presently the owner of the 7 acre
approximate) parcel being replatted as Plymouth Meadows.
She currently has a house, a barn and a shed on this property
and has kept a number of horses, goats, ducks and geese on
this property over the past years. She presently has 1 goat
and 1 horse on this property.
When this property is replatted, Rose will retain Block 1,
Lot 2 which contains her present house and barn.
This request is for a conditional use permit to retain 2
horses (one for each grandchild) and 1 goat on Block 1, Lot
2, for as long as Rose Ditzler continues to own and occupy
the home at that address.
Rose Ditzler
1 1
Dave Dahl
J
Chester Harrison
Plymouth City Engineering Dept.
Request for Variance - Plymouth Meadows
The purpose of this letter is to request a variance to
accommodate a cul de sac of 660 feet in length. This cul de
sac will be the only street serving this development and
represents the most logical position of the street to
maximize utilization of the presently undeveloped land and
minimize disruption to rear yards of the adjacent developed
properties.
David R. Dahl
August 1988
5c
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE October 17, 1988 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 26, 1988
FILE NO.: 88122
PETITIONER: Michael J. and Cynthia L. Amundson
REQUEST: Amend Conditional Use Permit for the Preliminary
Plat/Preliminary Plan of Bass Lake Heights RPUD to
construct a Deck Addition within the prescribed setback
area.
LOCATION: 5630 Sycamore Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: RPUD 83-4 (Underlying R -1A)
BACKGROUND:
On December 19, 1983, the Preliminary Plat/Plan for this RPUD was approved by
Resolution 83-681. Setbacks were addressed by Condition No. 9 of the Subject
Resolution referencing the PUD plan. Attached are copies of the Preliminary
Plat/Plan Resolution together with the pertinent portion of the PUD plan and
Resolution No. 84-96 approving the Final Plat/Plan on February 27, 1984.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The Applicant proposes the construction of a deck on the side of the
existing home, 4 feet by 6 feet in size. This deck would be in addition
to the proposed deck on the rear of the home, 16 feet by 26 feet in size
no CUP amendment required). The proposed deck on the side of the home
would extend to within 8.5 feet of the side property line. The PUD plan
provides that setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet on the "living" side
of a home, and in no case less than 16 feet between structures. The
garage portion of the structure constructed immediately to the north is
within 6 feet of the common line with this structure. The resulting
distance between the two structures will be 14.5 feet if the amendment to
the Conditional Use Permit is approved as proposed.
Staff Report (88122)
October 17, 1988
Page 2
2. An amendment to RPUD dimensional specifications such as here proposed must
be reviewed by the Planning Commission consistent both with the RPUD
Preliminary Plan criteria found in Section 9, Subdivision B 5 j of the
Zoning Ordinance; and consistent with the Conditional Use Permit criteria
found in Section 9, Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a of the Zoning Ordinance.
Copies of both of those citations are attached to this Staff Report for
the consideration of the Planning Commission.
3. The total structure, including the proposed deck, will occupy exactly 20%
of the lot area. There is no issue of lot coverage with this application.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property -
particularly the property within the Bass Lake Heights Planned Unit
Development - will be impacted by the proposed Conditional Use Permit.
The basic design of the Bass Lake Heights Development was clearly
predicated on sideyard minimums that were clearly stated. The sideyard
minimums approved for this RPUD already provided for a substantial
reduction from the R1 -A zoning standards that would otherwise apply.
Fifteen feet on both sides). In fact, the RPUD provision for the sum of
two adjoining sideyards to be as little at 16 feet represents nearly a 50%
reduction from the conventional Zoning Ordinance standard. We cannot find
any physical characteristics of the subject site that is sufficiently
unique to justify the amendment to the Planned Unit Development proposed.
2. Since the subject site cannot be viewed as in any way unique with respect
to the other sites within the Bass Lake Heights RPUD, approval of the
proposed Conditional Use Permit amendment will become precedent for any
such amendment to sideyard specifications throughout this 80 lot RPUD. In
addition, the approval of a setback of less than 10 feet on the "living"
side of a residential structure in a single family detached neighborhood
will constitute a departure from a setback standard that the City has
maintained even in Planned Unit Development designs.
3. It is the larger issue of maintaining the integrity of the Planned Unit
Development rather than 18 inches of setback that forms the basis for the
Staff recommendation for denial of the requested Conditional Use Permit
amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
We have attached a draft recommendation for denial of the Conditional Use
Permit amendment based on findings related to the Conditional Use Permit and
Staff Report (88122)
October 17, 1988
Page 2
Planned Unit Development criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. Consistent
with Planning Commission direction we have also included a draft action for
approval of the Cond' i nal Use Perm'amendmen
Submitted by: G
Charles E. Dillerud, ommunity Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Draft action for denial of the Conditional Use Permit amendment
3. Draft action for approval of the Conditional Use Permit amendment
4. Petitioner's narrative
5. Section 9, Subdivision B 5 j of the Zoning Ordinance
6. Conditional Use Permit criteria
7. Resolution 83-681
8. Resolution 84-96
9. Petitioner's plans
DENYING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
FOR MICHAEL AND CYNTHIA AMUNDSON (88122)
WHEREAS, Michael and Cynthia Amundson have requested approval for a
Residential Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit Amendment for
property located at 5630 Sycamore Lane to allow deck construction to within
8.5 feet of the side lot line where 10 feet is the approved RPUD standard;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends denial;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the Residential
Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Michael and
Cynthia Amundson located at 5630 Sycamore Lane, based on the following
finding:
1. The request is not responsive to Residential Planned Unit Development
Conditional Use Permit findings with respect to compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood.
2. The amendment would establish an undesireable precedent for this and
similar developments.
n
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT FOR MICHAEL AND CYNTHIA AMUNDSON (88122) (RPUD 83-4)
WHEREAS, Michael and Cynthia Amundson have requested a Planned Unit
Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Amendment for property located at 5630
Sycamore Lane to allow deck construction 1.5 feet inside of the 10 foot
sideyard setback; 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 should and hereby does approve the request for
Michael and Cynthia Amundson for a Residential Planned Unit Development Plan
Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow deck construction 1.5 feet inside of
the 10 foot setback per plans filed at 5630 Sycamore Lane pursuant to the
following findings and conditions:
1. No other amendments or variances are granted or implied.
2. All applicable requirements of the City and State Building Codes shall be
implemented and enforced; no Code requirements are waived by this
approval.
3. The granting of the Permit is responsive to criteria of the Zoning
Ordinance for Conditional Use Permits and PUD plans.
0.
ti
I
76.6.83' Fd S.
452)
c
t+s.a• larIrl -n• . A• w• .
AJ
i )
i 0.l. A
42)
t (5) Oo +q 121.1. 4.9) t . (
45) ) y
Qy l(55) (48 (5)
21. ar
56)
14
14)
owe +•,. (a) -
3 is
ry (6 (]6) (35) \ (7.
At
r (3e)
rte (
20)
G`"3 "`' 3 hl' ,
yf70)
4 4!r p
1 (
22) R (ly) swr /
trG w ro Y• 23)(4)
40) M• • Q (4) I f
40) (ib) nl 2 ' 9SDI \ .u•.
r
of a Al (3)
86
s. 7 i/om :i?i' ! w •a L (26) S 16) j(2)
t .
s• ¢ , tS
V
p .
l(
fI,
o,
def. sq)
3
L
fdes))
6 ±; (
30)i
H
2 ;4: Z7) -
01 y (IS'+) 3 I
29) (28) 1
i.
ar•
tT
rl.
1>.•r1A;
3C)
64
zO7)
rso ,f.1• , ,. •o.ao0 fano
low I i
B i '(
Ili R
ry1.o0 L 171.W 1,>.2f rtt.to ` 1v°. 61 ret fo , be)W
s 413AL3A E() ' Go B IO I I
o r,
p is 5.+• (\•) (It) , u0 M 14 Is IT ) f c I 9 U-0 c
m a; 3 M1 2' 9 - (so) fit. "(,Z) ,, n
161 .; (
17) ,
trs 12 g "(/J) _,
1'P _ .. ' (13)
G•
J 1. (7'1 - - - 7 8 = (31) a - `r` rt— ', f. •(,
T (
1 • )
s 1; (1f) Curer ^ j311
z`,.Gt
yW
Awto
tIIi
r'. >
T 61j O -hcf (J'
73OilCis) M1 i 1
12 134rRf!
ll.
o -- iJJIfT
m LZ7 s zo S. i" 6d, „:-W ,I
r e) «^ 2 a2z fj
1
Q rj J
YOil
1, OO O8 170.W Z' (
2 3 4 9 og °
u.GJ (Z !2s) 1xv (,4f]
iyS.pO
I10
ZY fO 71.2f 14. °l • t ?sO. LD 2ft.CG 1,0.0° 4O11iAn ..-• . .____ - - -
122
A rv1 VtiD
i ! e CQ l/t F f f"t'1 r 5. U -a ) c . o LO Y G! r , o vt Ti I Lt S
Y1 r+ +7C> ((a cove
and D+aIr wad fo 7i0O(AJ c_Qss V-augh -z) I'l
enAis+I P-2)1-tb door. 7 1 'a- wr II etc d r.
t -.,0 '', -r-, K SSS c, h a c.. s2..
r,
2 c C t 5'{"n 5 1''10 t S2. r'S
o f o k r m r zz
r
t r/o vn + y rr, _t Yo {- I i n 4.
a 5 1 l d c z d a t/1-- Yth Q_ --Z) 14 a c h ( ! o f d V Z) c) t
vt
o 4, o v,,. O.{rl 'tY.] vv . [-..i t+-\
a VA d a V dS _ Sc= ( d rl lac --ILL VA 9 0 11 2
Z-oV) inG4cZvlcE' `. cci LZ(t
61 ry, e lvit , n-1 _3 t vt- f /z vt c e c3 1 d
012 -HAP--
4-1f) HAS4--0 or
Vlnp z ( D GO 1-p (_
e I d 1L ..w i 1 o %e i nJ c -t 1S f t.t s-
and merit 'oJ rvt v,t o - v ft, ,o e' -Dv1d_.v cI
sof r.ti.-za r op- v(r-fe-s -t v Q hhdrh
uV o r_.l .-
1LQ
t v-, - a r.5 ( cz ui % c c- J (,ID ,
T(ne o Q fih ee_
cc-1
11 ¢_ r vase e( ` w t ( 1 v -f- t'-ce,' -4-V
ie 1 6 0 cvLl C-6V G/v t„Ji l' (r
PLY110UTH ZONIl4G ORDINANCE
0
Section 9, Subdivision
10) A Natural Resource Analysis containing the existing vegeta 'on areas
consisting of forest and woodiots as well as wetlands and tland vege-
tation; the geology, slope, soil and ground water chara ristics of the
site; existing lakes, streams, ponds, drainage swale , run-off settling
areas, and floodplains must be identified; analys' of the relationship
of the proposed use of the existing natural con tions listed above.
11) Circulation - including vehicular and pede rian movement throughout the
site, relationship to the City Thorough re Guide Plan and the adjoining
land, a descriptive statement of ob' ctives and standards for the var-
ious circulation elements and he proposed jurisdiction of each
component.
12) Densities and distributi for the various residential categories, pro-
jected occupant charac ristics and projected market sales price of the
housing units. The tabulations will be used to evaluate the adequacy
of living space, pen space, educational facilities, utility systems,
traffic genera ons and other services both public and private.
13) Mass grad' g - indicating which areas must be adapted to allow the dev-
elopmen proposed and how it will visually and physically affect adjoin-
ing ands, and what soil erosion and sediment controls are to be
e oyed.
14 Staging plan indicating geographic staging and approximate sequence of
the plan or portions thereof.
i. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing or hearings on the P.U.D.
Preliminary Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat and Zoning Amend-
ment in the
j. The Planning Commission, after holding the public hearing, shall make its
recommendations to the City Council for approval; approval with conditions; or
denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a P.U.D., preliminary plat and rezon-
ing if considered.
The Planning Commission shall forward to the City Council its recommendations
based on and including, but not limited to the following:
1) Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit
Development.
2) Relationship of the proposed plan to the neighborhood in which it is
proposed to be located, to the City's Comprehensive Plan and to other
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
3) Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities; circu-
lation and parking facilities; recreation areas and open spaces.
9-17
se CT 0t, 9
C o^ d rTo rt ca ( t4S E
Pe,M,T C ei rer,a
2. 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 Commission shall review the application and consider its con-
formance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Pian.
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 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.
CITY OF PLVNC TN
Pursuant to due call and notice thereofo a regular mroetinq of the City Council of
the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was "Id on 83dayofDecember19.
The following me" were present: Mayor bavenpor ou cilmembers Moen, NeIrS,
Schneider and Threinen
MW following rs were absents none
Councilmember Moen introduced the followlnq Resolution and moved its
doPtIon3
RESOLUTION NO. 83- 681
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL Pl!,NHED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN/PLAT, AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR DICKMAN KNUTSON, K -M PARTNERSHIP FOR BASS LAKE HEIGHTS (RPl)n No. A3- )
83008)
WHEREAS, Dickman Knutson, K -M Partnership, has requested approval of a Residential
Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan/Plat, Rezoninq and Conditional Ilse Permit for
80 residential lots on 38.3 acres located west of Pineview Lane, south of County Road
47, north of Soo Line Railroad and east of I-494; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called puhlic hear-
ing and recommends approval;
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 Residential Planned Unit Development
Preliminary Plan/Plat, and Conditional Use Permit for Dickman Knutson, K -M Partnership,
for Bass Lake Heights, on property located west of Pineview Lane, south of County Rnad
47, north of Soo Line Railroad and east of I-494, subject to the followlnq conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense.
3. No Building Permits shall be Issued until a contract has been awarded for
sewer and water.
4. Provisions for a 30 -ft. wide trail outlot per Comprehensive Park Plan, as
verified by the Parks and Engineering Departments, with submittal of detailed
Plans as to construction of the trail per City standards.
5. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication with appropriate credits
In an amount determined according to verified acreage and paving costs and ac-
cording to the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of filing the Final
Plat.
6. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System.
7. The rezoning ordinance shall be published when the Final Plat has been filed.
8. No Building Permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded
with Hennepin County.
PLEASE SEE PAGE TWO
4ii1...
t
Page two
Resolution No. 83- 681
9. Setbacks shall be per approved plan, noting that the side yard setback on the
garage side of the dwelling units shall be 6 ft. minimum and in any case, the
side yard setback between two dwelling units shall he a minimum of 16 ft.;
front yard setback shall be 30 ft. for the L-shaped" dwellings; all others
shall be 35 ft.
10. Appropriate legal documents regardlnq covenants, Homeowner Association
restrictions and bylaws, as approved by the City Attorney, shall he filed with
the Final Plat.
11. Maximum number of dwelling units shall be 60 with a density of 2.2 units per
acre for the land at or above the established High Water Elevation per the
City Storm Water Drainage Plan as verified by the City Fnnineer. One bonus
point is assigned as follows: a). One point based on the provisions for open
space.
12. Minimum lot size shall be 9,500 sq. ft.
13. Double fronted lots on Pineview Lane shall have a minimum depth of 150 ft.
14. Double fronted lots for single family detached dwellings on County Road 61
shall have a minimum depth of 145 ft. If other than sinqle family detached
lots are proposed, the minimum lot depth shall he 120 ft. along proposed
County Road Al. All lots on proposed County Road 61 shall be buffered by an
earthen noise barrier.
15. No phasing requirements are Intended or Implied.
16. The Homeowner's Association covenants and restrictions shall he submitted with
the Final Plat application and shall be approved by the City Attorney, and
such conditions, covenants, and restrictions shall provide: There shall he no
more than 20 modular homes In the development; there shall be no modular homes
adjacent to Pineview Lane; all homes shall have, at a minimum, double car
attached garages; and, all homes shall have a minimum 1,100 sq. ft. finished
living area at the time of Initial occupancy; further, the 14 lots abuttinq
Pinuview Lane and Outlot D ("Area All on the petitioner's drawlnq with the
letter of December 16, 1983) shall have a minimum of 1,100 sq. ft, of fin!shed
living area on the main level.
The motion Tor adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Threinen , and upon vote being taken t .rem eonthe
following votedn favor thereof t
Mayor
avenport, Councilmembers Moen, Nei's
and Threinen
The following voted against or abstained: Gouncllmemner acnneiuer
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
dsk2-A.2
0
J
Ld
Q
Z
W
J n
l d J
tLli
W Q u J
o m o
Lu °-
lll
LD r0 QQZO
J Z -j ' 0 u N n pW J
Z c11 u W
0 Q Q plc i
WO
w W` w
N O `n
LD
OQ r c ow"PLU _j< 0o3
I
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a s ecial meeting of the City Council of
the City of Plymouth, Nieeesota, was held on t 277th day of February1984.
The followinq members sere present: Mayor Davenport, Councilmembers Schneider
And Crain ...... I I . ....... .
11he Tollowing members were absent: Councilmem ers Moen and Neils
ss a•
Mayor Davenport introduced the following Resolution and moved its
t on:
RESOLUTION NO. 84- 96
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO FINAL PLAT FOR RASS
LAKE HEIGHTS FOR BLH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (83008)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Final Plat and development Contract for Rass
Lake Heiqhts as requested by B1,9 Development Company:
NOW, THEREFORE, rE 1T HEREBY RESOLVED BY
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does
recordinq of, and related to said plat:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF TNF CITY OF PLYHnilTH,
approve the following to he met, prior to
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with Citi
Policy in effect at the time of filing the Final Plat.
3. Provisions for a 30 -ft. wide trail easement per Comprehensive Park Plan, as
verified by the Parks and Engineering Departments, with suhmittal of detailed
plans as to construction of the trail per City standards.
4. Submittal of required utility and drainage easements as approved by the rity
Enainrer prior to filing the Final Plat.
5. Appropriate legal documents regarding Homeowner Association covenants and
restrictions as approved by the City Attorney, shall he filed with the Final
Plat.
6. A variance is granted for street desion to allow up to an 8% orade.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
o ncilmember Crain , and upon vote beino taken thereon, t%
ollowinq voted n favor thereof': Mayor evenport, Councilmember Crain
The following votes against or aostai
Whereupon the Resolution was declared
dsk8
i
1
I
1
I
5;
1
a `I
D 1
I 30.Oo
L 9E
N R 60.3
y a
o
a W
r
4
1
L
80.00
1 CN
NI
r
J
Ii
MH
V
50
rh 'tialp '44fr
5r
B0 00
12 '0 E
5 9. 94,
O Denotes Iron Monument
Denotes Wood Stake
X000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation Proposed lop of Foundation Elevation= 1004. 5000.0) Denotes Proposed Elevation Prcposed Garage Floor Elevation- 1 no +- p
Denotes Direction of Surface Drainage Proposed Lowest Floor Elevation- o
Top n f A/ d. cvI - de Sao 57if Aa, h' 3 cie-v, /01o.29
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of:
Lot 2, Block 1, BASS LANE HEIGHTS 3RD ADDI7'0N, Hennepin County, Minnesota
And of the location of all buildings, it any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or
on said land. It also shows the location of the stakes as set for a proposed building. As surveyed
by me or under my direct supervision this 23rr day of A71eus r 198_
Paul A. Johnson
Land Surveyor, Minn. Reg. No.10938
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYR,,7
forMcMBS-KNUTSGfJASSOCIATESINC.
fUL1gD 11DIRnRS • LARD ]UAl(,011t tail ?IARA(
RE/D E N C O N S Te
51)
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE October 18, 1988 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 26, 1988
FILE NO.: 88123
PETITIONER: James Parker
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat and Variance to the Subdivision Ordinance
to create two building lots (existing structure on one lot)
LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of 49th Avenue North and Zachary Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: R -1A (Low Density Single Family Residential)
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Department records reveal no prior applications or development
activity involving this parcel. The site is surrounded on three sides by the
open space outlot of the "Arrowwood Addition".
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. In addition, the
development sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The Application is to plat an existing metes and bounds parcel of slightly
over 33,000 square feet into two building lots, each slightly over 16,000
square feet. The northerly parcel would contain the existing one story
home. A new home would be constructed on the south parcel. This is
proposed to be a "conventional single family plat" and therefore R -1A
Zoning Ordinance standards are applied. A Variance to the Subdivision
Ordinance is requested to allow conventional standards for the proposed
lots that would be less than the requirement under R -1A zoning.
Specifically, it is proposed that the lots be 16,392 square feet and
16,735 square feet instead of the required 18,500 square feet. It is also
proposed that the lot depth range from a minimum of 111 feet to a maximum
of 115 feet, where the R -1A standard is 120 feet.
2. The action as proposed is responsive to Section 500 of the Plymouth City
Code covering conventional subdivisions. The Variances being applied for
are responsive to Section 500.41 of the City Code, which specifies that
Staff Report (88123)
October 18, 1988
Page 2
the Planning Commission may recommend a Variance from the provisions of
the Subdivision Ordinance where an unusual hardship on the land exists.
The Planning Commission is directed to consider three findings positively
before it may recommend approval of the Variance. A copy of the Ordinance
section containing the three findings referenced is attached.
3. With the exception of the Variances noted above, the proposed Plat is
designed consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance and the requirements of
the City Engineer, including the dedication of all required right-of-way
on Zachary Lane.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. It is certain that the property division that created this parcel of
33,000 square feet took place many years ago, perhaps prior to active
involvement by the City in Zoning. We can determine that this division
took place prior to the time that records were kept within the Planning
Department for such activities. The issue related to the foregoing
observation is that of "self-imposed hardship". Whatever hardship which
may exist in support of the Variances requested is not self-imposed.
2. We do not believe that maintaining a single lot of over 33,000 square feet
at this location represents a reasonable use of the land. The effective
development density of the Arrowwood Development that surrounds this site
is in excess of three units per gross acre. The density impact of this
Preliminary Plat would be slightly over 2.6 units per gross acre. The
density impact of denying the proposed plat, thereby limiting development
to a single unit on 33,000 square feet would be 1.32 units per gross acre.
The 2.6 units per gross acre that would result from the plat as proposed
is reasonable east of the property given the surrounding development. To
require the land to remain as a single parcel resulting in 1.32 units per
gross acre is unreasonable use of the land.
3. The Variances as applied for are required and necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
Applicant.
4. By granting the Variances requested, the City will not in any way harm the
public welfare or injure other property in the territory in which this
property is located. The parcel is particularly well -buffered to the west
by the existence of the Arrowwood, and open space, and to the east by the
existence of Zachary Lane.
Staff Report (88123)
October 18, 1988
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat as proposed including the
Variances for lot area and lot depth. We have attached a draft recommendation
for approval.
0
Submitted by:
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff recommendation for approval of the Preliminary Plat with Variances
2. Location Map
3. Section 500.41 of the City Code
4. Engineers Memorandum
5. Petitioner's plans
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR JAMES PARKER (88123)
WHEREAS, James Parker has requested approval for a Preliminary Plat and
Variances for the creation of two building lots and Variances for lot size and
lot depth on Zachary Lane at 49th 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 Preliminary Plat and
Variances for James Parker for a two lot subdivision located at Zachary Lane
at 49th 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 with
the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of Final Plat approval.
3. No Building Permit to be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded
with Hennepin County.
4. Variances to Section 500.21 of the City Code are hereby approved to allow
lot sizes of 16,392 square feet and 16,735 square feet; and to allow a
minimum lot depth of 111 feet.
5. No Variances are granted or implied with respect to minimum yard setbacks.
0
w
a
It
VIAwl W L%h4
I
u
Plymouth City Code 500.39
j00.39. 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.
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 of 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.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: October 19, 1988
FILE NO.: 88123
PETITIONER: Mr. James H. Parker, 5811 Cedar Lake Road, St. Louis Park, Mn.
55416
PRELIMINARY PLAT: LEHN ADDITION
LOCATION: West of Zachary Lane, north of 49th Avenue, in the northeast
quarter of Section 11.
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 final plat approval.
4. Area assessments: None.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: Assessment for Sanitary Sewer
Lateral and Watermain Lateral not previously assessed 85,983.04.
6. _ _ X Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10')
in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width adjoining
side and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
7. X All standard utility easements required for construction are provided
The City will require twenty foot (20') utility and drainage
easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines where these
utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed
with the final plat and final construction plans.
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 drainage plan.
q. 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 is not an automatic process in
conjunction with the platting process. It is the owner's
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 - If it is subsequently determined that
the subject property is abstract property, then this requirement does
not apply.
It will be necessary foi 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 necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR
MnDOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
2
X Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Other
TRANSPORTATION:
N/A Yes No
12. X _ Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the
City grid system for street names. The following changes will be
necessary.
13. _ _ X Conforms with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions :rust be made to conform with the City's
adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan. Additional 20 feet of right-of-wav
is required for Zachary Lane.
14. X — — Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
15. X All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on An additional 20 feet of
right-of-way In required for Zachary Lane,
16. X Conforms with City standards requiring the developer to construct
utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the developer shall be responsible
for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and
streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional
engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary
sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the
development.
3
N/A Yes No
17. X
18. X
Preliminary utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements
The developer has submitted the required preliminary plans for the
proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities.
Per developer's request a preliminary report and plan will be
prepared by the City -
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as
part of its Capital Improvements Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1,
of the year preceding construction.
19. X Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots.
20. X The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
21. X The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
4
PRELIMINARY GRADING DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
N/A Yes No
22. 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 right-of-way. All water connections shall be via
23. — _ X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been 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:
Certificate of Survey shall include proposed grading and shall bsubmittede
to Bassett Creek for their review showing erosion control
methods.
24. A. The developer shall be responsible for extending the water curb box to the new
property line for both Lots 1 and 2.
7
Submitted by:
Chester J':_ arrison, Jr., P.E.
City Engineer
5
5A
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE October 20, 1988 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 26, 1988
FILE NO.: 88060
PETITIONER: Graham Development/CSM Corporation
REQUEST: Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Preliminary
Plat/Plan and Conditional Use Permit to develop a 75 acre
parcel with 292 townhome units and 85 single family
detached lots.
LOCATION: The southeast quadrant of County Road 47 and Interstate I-
494
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -3 (Medium Density Residential), LA -2 (Low Medium Density
Residential), and LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development)
BACKGROUND:
On July 11, 1988, the City Council, by Resolution No. 88-393, approved an RPUD
Concept Plan for the subject site that provided for 310 townhome units and 85
single family lots.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. A development
sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The Application is for the Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use
Permit stage of a project proposed to now total 377 dwelling units on a
site of 76 gross acres. The project provides for 85 single family
detached building lots together with 4 lots upon which 292 townhouse units
are to be constructed.
2. A review of the Preliminary Plan/Plat is guided by provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance where criteria are listed upon which the Planning
Commission should base its recommendations to the City Council as follows:
Staff Report (88060)
October 20, 1988
Page 2
a. Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit
Development. Paragraph 1, Subdivision B, Section 9 of the Zoning
Ordinance addresses the purpose of the Planned Unit Development ordinance,
primarly in terms of the attributes expected of a Planned Unit Development
proposal. Applicant by his letter of May 2, 1988 has addressed the
responsiveness of the plan proposed to those attributes. His response was
related to the Concept Plan for the site, but is equally applicable to the
Preliminary Plan stage.
b. Relationship of the proposed plan to the neighborhood in which it is
proposed to be located to the City's Comprehensive Plan and to other
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The Preliminary Plat/Plan responds to
the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan affirmatively.
Specifically, the inclusion of the Northwest Boulevard corridor and the
Pineview Lane re -alignment is an important response to the Thoroughfare
Guide Plan. In addition, the Land Use Guide Plan specifies various
portions of the total RPUD site as guided LA -1, LA -2, and LA -3. The 72
acre overall PUD size qualifies the proposal for 3 RPUD density bonus
points consistent with the provisions of Section 9, Subdivision B of the
Zoning Ordinance. Those bonus points alone qualify the project for 2.2
units per net acre in LA -1, 3.4 units per net acre in LA -2, and 6.0 units
per net acre in LA -3. Our calculations indicate that the total RPUD site
of 72 net acres qualifies for 384 total units based on the Land Use Guide
Plan districting for the site coupled with the 2 bonus points the site is
entitled to by the Zoning Ordinance.
The Parks and Trails element of the Comprehensive Plan also draws a
response to the Preliminary Plat/Plan under consideration. Specifically,
the trail ocrridor specified in the trails element along the Northwest
Boulevard is provided for dedication on the east side of Northwest
Boulevard. Construction of that trail will take place concurrent with the
public improvement construction of Northwest Boulevard. Considering the
scale of the project, the relationship to adjoining neighborhoods is
relatively insulated by existing or future major thoroughfares. To the
extent that the proposed plan does directly relate to adjoining
neighborhoods, the proposed development style is similar to that which
exists in the adjoining neighborhood (on the east), or Petitioner is
proposing a landscape and elevation change transition to adjoining
neighborhoods where his use structure differs from that existing or
planned in the adjoining neighborhood (to the south and west).
Staff Report (88060)
October 20, 1988
Page 3
c. internal organizaLlOn dI1U dUt!gUdLY VI V01fVuZI uacZ VI ucnai ic.
circulation and parking facilities: recreation areas and open spaces. The
Preliminary Plat/Plan proposals regarding these issues have not changed
significantly from the approved Concept Plan. The circulation features
for streets represents a compromise between perfect road design and
recognition of the topographic and landscape features that currently exist
on the site.
All recreation areas and open spaces on the site except the trail corridor
mentioned above, are private in nature. The Applicant has provided on his
Landscape Plan details for the structures to be provided in these areas
and landscaping that will be installed. The areas do not differ
significantly from those depicted in the approved Concept Plan.
3. The Preliminary Plat/Plan must also be reviewed with respect to the
responsiveness to design considerations contained in the resolution
approving the Concept Plan. Issues raised by a Concept Plan Approval
Resolution No. 88-393 and the measures found in the Preliminary Plat/Plan
addressing those issues include the following:
a. iransltlon LO dUIOIIIIIIU UdVLUI, VII LIM IIVI LII nczL anu JVuu1 vtvv...'X
lines and internal transition between structure types. The Preliminary
Plat /Plan proposes transition to the west property line by way of a
combination of landscape features (depicted by the Landscape Plan) and
topographic berming (depicted by way of the Grading Plan). The height of
the berm proposed varies from 6 to 12 feet. To the south and east
transition is exclusively landscape (spruce and pine).The transition to
the north for both the single family along Pineview Lane and the townhomes
along County Road 47 is again primarily provided with evergreen landscape
plantings. The internal transition between the two dwelling types is both
addressed with landscape plantings and 20 feet of topographic differential
between the single family homes and the townhouse structures.
b. Provision of a_private internal tragi system constructeu Lo LILY
specifications. The approval resolution for the Concept Plan did not
specify at what stage the plans for the private internal trail system were
to be presented, however it is typical that at least tentative plans of
this nature be presented at the Preliminary Plat/Plan stage. The
southerly single family detached neighborhood is shown to have a 5 foot
sidewalk constructed to City standards to provide internal circulation and
access to the private and open space. Neither the northerly single family
development nor the townhouse development, at this stage, reflect any type
of a private trail system to provide access to the private open space as
the Concept Plan resolution directs. The Applicant has not provided a
reason for not providing those plans.
Staff Report (88060)
October 20, 1988
Page 4
c. Attention to the preservation of natural amenities on the site. The
Petitioner has presented a detailed graphic analysis of existing site
conditions with respect to landscape features of the site. Petitioner has
also provided a graphic plan for the preservation of the existing
vegetation, primarily in the northeast single family residential area and
in the center of the townhouse area.
4. The Physical Constraints Analysis indicates this site is located in the
Shingle Creek Watershed District but contains no hydrological features of
significance involving shoreland or flood plain overlay district
considerations; contains only a small wetland area adequately addressed
with the Preliminary Plan as to preservation; contains 2 woodland areas of
consequence, both of which are addressed in the Tree Preservation Plan;
contains several areas involving slopes of 129-. or greater, providing a
major basis for the design that we are now considering; and contains a
small portion of the site considered unsuitable for urban development with
public sewers. Those areas are scheduled to not be constructed upon by
the current plan.
5. The current Environmental Quality Council rules state this project is of a
scale requiring an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The City of
Plymouth will be the Responsible Government Agency on such an action. The
Petitioner has submitted a draft Environmental Assessment Worksheet which
Staff will submit to the Environmental Quality Board if and when the City
Council approves the Preliminary Plat/Plan and Conditional Use Permit.
6. With respect to dimensional standards, the Preliminary Plan proposes that
the single family lots maintain a 30 foot frontyard setback; 15 foot
sideyard setback; and 30 foot rearyard setback; with a minimum lot width
of 80 feet at the front setback line. The minimum single family lot size
proposed is 11,000 square feet. With respect to the townhomes, it is
proposed that there be 32 buildings of 8 units, 24 buildings of 6 units,
and 12 buildings of 4 units with external setbacks of the structures to
the adjoining residential development to be 30 feet. Proposed street
setbacks to Northwest Boulevard and County Road 47 for both the single
family detached and the townhomes is proposed to be 50 feet. Setback to
the west property line for the townhomes is proposed to be zero at a
minimum based on the assumption that the adjoining West Medicine Lake
Boulevard will be vacated upon the opening of Northwest Boulevard. No
representation as to lot coverage is made by Petitioner. Lot coverage,
therefore, is to be per the Zoning Ordinance standards of 20% maximum.
Staff Report (88060)
October 20, 1988
Page 5
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The proposed Preliminary Plat/Plan is responsive to the approved Concept
Plan for the subject parcel. The building unit types and densities are
both responsive to the Land Use Guideplan and the reasonable design given
the physical site characteristics. The site is designed responsive to
identified Physical Constraints and the existing natural amenities.
2. Our concern continues with regard to the transition of the subject project
to adjoining properties. Particularly, our concern lies with the
transition to the south to LA -3 guided property that is yet to be
developed. We reiterate the need and requirement for the developer to
provide the transition on the subject parcel rather than relying on the
adjoining property owner to the south to provide that same transition. It
is this developer that has chosen to go to single family detached housing
on LA -3 guiding, and the property owner to the south should not be
penalized for that. With the lack of topographical relief or distance, we
are concerned that the proposed method of transition landscaping alone is
not sufficient to provide an adequate protection for the change of use
that will likely occur.
3. No private trail system has yet to be proposed for the townhouse area or
serving the single family detached neighborhood to the north. Access to
the private, open space areas proposed was a major topic during Concept
Plan discussions. At least a preliminary location of such trails in the
townhouse area should be a part of this stage of approval
4. The Petitioner has done a creditable job in identifying the existing
natural vegetation of the site. His plan for preserving as much of the
natural vegetation as possible appears reasonable given the substantial
other physical constraints this site presents to design.
RECOMMENDATION:
We hereby recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat/Plan, Re -Zoning and
Conditional Use Permit and have attached a Resolution providing for those
actions subject to a number of conditions, including those normally attached
to RPUD Preliminary Plan approvals and those related to concerns addressed
above. If the Planning Commission concurs that all trail plans - as to
location - be a part of this RPUD stage, deferral for inclusion of those plans
for the townhouse area may be in order.
Submitted by: -`)\!`
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
Staff Report (88060)
October 20, 1988
Page 6
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution for Approval
and Conditional Use Permit
2. Engineer's Memo
3. Location Map
4. Resolution No. 88-393
5. Petitioner's letter of August
6. Large Plans
of the RPUD Preliminary Plan/Plat, Re -Zoning
10, 1988
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/PRELIMINARY PLAN/PLAT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GRAHAM DEVELOPMENT/CSM CORPORATION (88060)
WHEREAS, Graham Development/CSM Corporation have requested approval for a
Residential Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional
Use Permit for Bass Lake Hills for 85 single faily detached lots and 292
townhomes on approximately 76 acres located at the southeast corner of County
Road 47 and I-494; 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 the
Residential Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use
Permit for Graham Development/CSM Corporation for Bass Lake Hills located at
the southeast corner of County Road 47 and 1-494, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
3. No Building Permits shall be issued until a Contract has been awarded for
sewer and water.
4. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication with appropriate
credits in an amount determined according to verfied acreage and paving
costs and according to the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of
filing the Final Plat issuance.
5. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System.
6. 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.
7. Rezoning shall be finalized with filing of the Final Plat.
8. No Building Permit to be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded
with Hennepin County.
9. Maximum density shall be 5.22 units per acre for the land at or above the
established high water elevation per the adopted City Storm Water Drainage
Plan as verified by the City Engineer. Two density bonus points are
assigned for the project size. The maximum number of dwelling units is
377.
10. No private Drive access shall be permitted to County Road 47 or Northwest
Boulevard; all private drives shall be provided by internal public
streets.
11. The private trails shall be built to City standards and shall be
constructed prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits for homes on lots
adjacent to the trails.
12. The minimum sideyard setbacks for all detached dwellings and accessory
buildings shall be 15 feet; the minimum front setback shall be 30 feet;
and the minimum rear setback shall be 30 feet.
13. The design of proposed private open space areas including tot lots is
specified on the Landscape Plan. The approved improvements and equipment
shall be installed prior to issuance of Building Permits for homes on the
adjacent lots. All Landscape Plan improvements shall be secured and
guaranteed with a Site Improvements Agreement.
14. Staff shall incorporate with the Final Plat and Development Contract, the
provision for tree protection, as earlier drafted, providing for payment
of $50.00 per diameter - inch and for a $15,000.00 Bond.
15. Completion of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Process as required
by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board.
DATE:
FILE NO.:
PETITIONER:
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
LOCATION:
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
October 19, 1988
Mr. David Carland, CSM Corporation,
Minneapolis, Mn. 55414
BASS LAKE HILLS ADDITION
680 Kasota Avenue,
South of County Rd. 47, west of Pineview Lane, east of W. Medicine
Lake Drive, east half of Section 3.
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10')
in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width adjoining
side and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
1. X Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. Y Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. Y SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments
No. 2•
shown in No. 1 and
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 final plat approval.
4. Area assessments: Watermain Area Assessments based
minus 46.86 units_ previously assessed = 330.14 units
equals 5226,145.90. Sanitary Sewer Area Assessment
46.86 assessed = 330.14
on
x S685
based
units
377 units
per unit
on 377
x S380 per
5.
units minus units previously
units = S125.453,20,
Other additional assessments estimated: Project
Boulevard, See Item 24A.
416 Northwest
EGAL/EASEMENTS/PE
6. X
MITS:
Complies with standard utility/drainage easements
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10')
in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width adjoining
side and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
7. X
8. - - x
All standard utility easements required for construction are provided
The City will require twenty foot (20') utility and drainage
easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines where these
utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed
with the final plat and final construction plans.
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 drainage plan. A drainage easement for ponding purposes
shall be provided to the elevation of 970.0 for Pond SC -P15 and for
the pond west of Northwest Blvd and south of Co. Rd. 47 to the
established 100 Year Elevation,
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 is not an automatic process in
conjunction with the platting process. It is the owner's
responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of
easements proposed to be vacated. When the new intersection of
Northwest Boulevard and Pineview lane and County Rd. 47 is
constructed a portion of County Rd 47 right-of-way may be vacated
per Hennepin County Approval The old right-of-way for Pineview Lane
is no longer necessary for street right-of-way. When Northwest
Boulevard has been constructed from 47th Avenue to County Rd 47 West
Medicine Lake Drive may be vacated.
10. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application - If it is subsequently determined that
the subject property is abstract property, then this requirement does
not apply.
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. For Lot
i, Block 5 and Lot 4, Block 6 for trail purposes The Preliminary
Plat shall revised to show these as outlots.
11. X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR
MnDOT
X Hennepin County
X_ MPCA
X State Health Department
2
Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
X Shingle Creek
X Army Corps of Engineers
Other
TRANSPORTATION:
N/A Yes No
12. X Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the
City grid system for street names. The following changes will be
necessary. The street names shall be checked by the Building
Department when a 200 scale drawing is submitted for their review.
13. Conforms with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's
adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan. The right -of -moi for Northwest
Boulevard shall be 100 feet wide Northwest Boulevard shall be
dedicated with the first final plat.
14. X Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided - Shall comply with
Hennepin CQUnty requirements with intersection of Underwood Lane and
County Rd, 47.
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
15. X All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on As shown on the
Preliminary Plat an additional 7 feet of right-of-way shall be
dedicated on the Final Plat for County Rd 47 making a total distance
from centerline 40 feet
16. X Conforms with City standards requiring the developer to construct
utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the developer shall be responsible
for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and
streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional
engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary
sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the
development. See Item 24A.
3
N/A Yes No
17. X Preliminary utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements
The developer has submitted the required preliminary plans for the
proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities. 5e
Ttem 24 A.
X Per developer's request a preliminary report and plan will be
prepared by the City -
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as
part of its Capital Improvements Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1,
of the year preceding construction. The developer shall construct
Northwest Boulevard including a 12 inch watermain or shall petition
the City to construct Northwest Boulevard and the 12 inch watermain.
19. _ _ X Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots. All lots adjacent to pond SCP15 shall have minimum basement
elevations of 972.0.
20. X The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
21. X The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
4
PRELIMINARY GRADING DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
N/A Yes No
22. 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 right-of-way. All water connections shall be via
wet tan.
23. X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been 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:
The storm drainage plan shall comply with Shingle Creek requirements,
Storm drainage calculations shall be provided with the Final Plat
application.
24. A. Estimated assessments for Project 416 Northwest Boulevard: The developer shall
be responsible for one half the cost of a 9 ton 44 foot wide street and one
half the cost of a 12 inch watermain (LA3 guiding) west of Northwest Boulevard
Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4) which is estimated to be $225,550 for the street, curb
and gutter, $32,838 for watermain, $2,662 for sanitary sewer and $20,100 for
storm sewer. Also responsible for one half the cost of a 7 ton 36 foot wide
street (LA2 guiding) east of Northwest Boulevard (Block 5) which is estimated
to be $84,575 for street, curb and gutter and $30,234 for storm sewer. Cost of
concrete curb and gutter (LA1 guiding) (Block 6) which is estimated to be
3,056.
B. The developer shall be responsible for grading and seeding the trail.
C. The developer shall be responsible for construction of Northwest Boulevard from
Pineview Lane to the south plat boundary or they shall petition the City to do
the construction.
D. Hennepin County shall approve the grade for Northwest Boulevard before the City
can approve the final grading plan.
E. The Engineering Dept. recommends an 8% grade on Rosewood Lane be approved in
order to preserve the trees because of the following reasons: A 7% grade would
require lowering the building pads for proper driveway grades and retaining
walls will not work in the cul-de-sac area because of the limited frontage.
5
Special Conditions required:
F. There shall be no access to West Medicine Lake Drive, Co. Rd. 47 and Pineview
Lane except for Block 6.
G. The Preliminary Plat shall note the width of all right-of-ways including the
radius for the cul-de-sacs.
H. The developer shall construct Pond SC -P15 in accordance with one storm drainage
plan.
i
Submitted by:—
Chester J.',, -Harrison, Jr.,"R.E.
City Engineer
14
1
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City
Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on thei1thday of July
19 88 The following members were present: Mayor Schneidei,councilmembers
Vasiliou Ricker, Zitur and Sisk
The following members were absent: None
Councilmember Vasiliou introduced the following Resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 88-393
APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR GRAHAM
DEVELOPMENT/CSM CORPORATION (88060)
WHEREAS, Graham Development has requested approval for a Residential Planned
Unit Development Concept Plan for the development of 310 townhome units and 85
single family lots on approximately 76 acres located at the southeast quadrant
of County Road 47 and I-494; and,
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the 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 should and hereby does approve the Residential
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Graham Development/CSM Corporation
for a development to be known as Bass Lake Hills consisting of 310 townhome
units and 85 single family lots on approximately 76 acres located at the
southeast quadrant of County Road 47 and I-494, subject tot he following
conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Staging of the development shall be in accordance with utility
availability as approved by the City Engineer.
3. Maximum density shall be 5.5 units per acre for the land at or above the
established high water elevation per the adopted City Storm Water
Drainage Plan as verified by the City Engineer. Density bonus points are
assigned as follows:
a) Project Scale - 2 points
4. Draft restrictive covenants for the private open areas shall be submitted
with preliminary plat/plan application.
S. Petitioner will submit cross through -sections with preliminary plan/plat.
6. A private trail system to be constructed within the project providing
residents of the Planned Unit Development with internal access. All
private trails shall be constructed to City specifications.
Resolution No. 88-393
Page 2
7. No private drive access shall be permitted to County Road 61, County Road
47 or Pineview Lane; all private drives shall be provided by internal
public streets..
8. The preliminary plat/plan submission shall include the details of the
transition buffers" on the north, west and south property lines, and
internal transition between structure types.
9. The petitioner shall with the Preliminary Plat/Plan provide attention to
the preservation of natural amenities on site to the greatest extent,
particularly in the areas of greatest densities.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Ricker , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Schneider Councilmembers Vasiliou,
Ricker. Zitur and Sisk
The following voted against or abstained None
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
GAIR & ASSOCIATES :: z
Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc.
Site Design and Planning Consultants e '-
August 10, 1988
Mr. Blaire Tremere
Planning Director
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: Bass Lake Hills
P.U.D. - Preliminary Plan
Rezoning
Preliminary Plat
Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr. Tremere:
At the July 11, 1988 City Council meeting, the Council moved and adopted
Resolution No. 88-393, approving a Residential Plan Unit Development Concept
for Graham Development/C.S.M. Corporation (88060).
This letter accompanies an application, filing fee, and exhibits in support of
the preliminary plat and preliminary plan unit development request.
The application includes requested actions from both Graham Development Company
and C.S.M. Corporation as co -applicants. As previously represented, Graham
Development Company will develop and market the single family detached portions
of the P.U.D. C.S.M. Corporation will develop, build, market, maintain and own
the townhouse portion of the proposed plan.
The single family detached areas, of which there are three sites, two located on
either side of Pineview and the third located west of future Highway 61, include
36.1 acres and 85 lots. Common private open space equalling 4.1 acres has been
provided in two locations serving primarily the single family detached portions
of the subdivision; one area of 1.5 acres and the second area in the major
development area equalling 2.6 acres. Both areas were previously included in
the approved Concept Plan. Covenants and restrictions will be recorded with the
plat setting for responsibility, use, ownership and maintenance of these two
areas.
The design, layout and proposed uses within the single family detached area of
the P.U.D. remain unchanged from the previously approved plans. A five foot
concrete sidewalk will be included within the public right-of-way providing easy
access to the common private open space in the southern central portion of the
plan. In addition, Graham Development Company will be providing play equipment
within the 2.6 acre open space area for the benefit of the single family
homeowners.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue • Suite 250 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413
6121331-8668 TWX: 910-576-3111
Page Two
Mr. Blaire Tremere
August 10, 1988
The C.S.M. Corporation townhouse portion of the Plan Unit Development,
consisting of 31.3 acres and 310 residential attached units, has been altered
from the approved Concept Plan. Specifically, the proposal has been modified
downward from 310 units to 292 units. This reduction in the unit count by 18
units is the result of a more sensitive use of the site relative to existing
woodland.
A tree inventory has been completed which revealed the extent of trees worthy of
preservation. The shifting of buildings, along with the use of retaining walls
and the elimination of 18 units, provides for an extensive and valuable wooded
central open space within the townhouse portion of the proposal.
This central open space area allows for the preservation of trees and the siting
of a community center, pool and tot lot play area.
These modifications in the plan result in a superior plan relative to
recreational uses, tree preservation and, in general, better site aesthetics.
The preservation of this open area further allows for a better location of the
community center and pool relative to the entrance into the project from County
Road 47, and provides for a more desirable orientation of the future residents
and visitors to the townhome area.
The loss of units is of consequence to the proforma of the plan, and C.S.M.
Corporation reluctantly agreed to the change.
With regard to tree preservation on the east side of future Highway 61, namely
in the area of the proposed single family subdivision, you will note the limits
of site grading are confined to an absolute minimum.
The only immediate tree loss experienced in this area will be caused by the
developer during the construction of streets and utilities. The technique of
limiting tree loss only to the site development work provides greater tree
preservation potential and maximizes future flexibility by architects, builders,
and homeowners as individual homes are custom designed to the site and existing
woodland areas.
The density of woodland in the single family area lying east of future Highway
61 is comparable to that which exists on the west side of Highway 61. The
density and types of plant material is comparable on both sides of future
Highway 61.
Tree preservation on the east side of future 61 is accomplished by; 1) the
inclusion of a 1.5 acre private common open space area, 2) minimal tree loss by
the developer during site utility and roadway construction, and 3) the use of
retaining walls and custom site/lot utilization and design.
The fact that multi -family housing, namely townhomes, are proposed in this Plan
Page Three
Nir. Blaire Tremere
August 10, 1988
Unit Development, a Conditional Use Permit is being requested.
The following discussion deals with criteria pertinent to the Conditional Use
Permit:
1. The Plan is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
This was essentially confirmed in the concept approval and articulated
in the City staff reports dated June 22, 1988, Page 2, Item 2, and the
City Council memorandum dated July 1, 1988. The proposal is consistent
in terms of land use and density.
2. Relative to the proposal's enhancement of and promotion of general
public welfare, we believe that the single family detached market
continues to be highly demanded and desirable properties in all real
estate markets of our metro area. Single family detached housing is
and continues to be perceived as the ultimate alternative to meeting
housing needs.
The townhomes, which are proposed as rental properties, offer an
alternative to ownership and an important alternative to traditional
apartment structures. It is believed that a strong market exists and
the general welfare and interest of future tenants will not deter or
detract from the general welfare of Plymouth residents but rather the
general welfare could be enhanced by the housing mix and proposed
alternative lifestyles.
The ownership, maintenance and management of the townhomes will
continue with C.S.M. Corporation.
3. The properties proposed for townhouse use are presently guided for
similar uses in the LA 3 district, however, of potentially higher
density and greater populations. This proposal is very modest in size
and well within the residential guidelines established by the City.
It is inconceivable that such a proposal would be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other properties considering its relative isolation,
location, density and site design factors.
4. The proposed uses will not impede normal or orderly development of
surrounding property. In fact, the prospect of completing a portion of
Highway 61 will enhance development potential for other area
properties, in particular those south of the subject site.
Proper transitions and buffering strips are required which will
accommodate development to the south. All other property boundaries
abut roadway right-cf-way or compatible uses.
Page Four
Mr. Blaire Tremere
August 10, 1988
5. The approved Concept Plan provides for roadway connections,
intersections and road continuity. All intersections with County
roadways will be thoroughly reviewed, and traffic projections are the
subject of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. No adverse affects
are envisioned as a result of this proposed development on existing or
proposed roadway elements.
6. The conditional use, as proposed, does not conform in all regard to the
R3 zoning district regulations. The following tabulation summarizes
the differences:
Lot Area Per Unit
Lot Depth
Lot Width
Lot Coverages
Minimum Front Yard
from public right-of-way)
Minimum Side Yard
Minimum Rear Yard
Minimum Distance Between
Principal Building
Minimum Unit Width
114,669 sq. ft. per unit vs. 6,000 sq. ft.
Conforms
Conforms
14.6% vs. 20%
Conforms
Conforms
10-15 ft. vs. 30 ft.
30 ft. vs. 35 ft.
16 ft. vs. 22 ft.
The proposed request is accompanied by plans including a tree inventory,
preliminary plat, preliminary utility plan, preliminary grading plan,
landscaping and buffering plans and a 50 scale site plan.
The proposal is consistent with the City's development plans, land use guide,
and the proposal compliments surrounding existing uses. The proposal is
consistent with the previously approved Concept Plan with constructive and
positive improvements as already noted in the above.
The applicant has requested the City proceed with the actions necessary to cause
the preparation of plans and specifications for County Road 61, and both C.S.M.
Corporation and Graham Development Company are anxious to proceed with this
development.
As you well know, the development of these plans and the accomplishments to date
have been long in coming and not without considerable expense and frustration.
We believe that the current proposal represents a fine and appropriate use of
the land.
The resulting residential neighborhood will be a source of pride for the City of
Plymouth as well as future residents and owners.
We would respectfully request your favorable consideration of these planning
Page Five
Mr. Blaire Tremere
Page 5
requests and forward these materials to the City Planning Commission for their
review and consideration.
Kindest regards,
GAIR & AASSOCIATES
Mi hael J. Gair --
MJG:klm
cc: Thomas Graham/Graham Development Company
Dave Carland/C.S.M. Corporation
Pug A 7rR / 3 UTRS
c. The benefit to the developer is one of design and development flexibility; in
utilizeordertolflexibilltyohdeveloperto
demonst atethat itsutilizationdoesindeIndeed provide a developmentwhichhas
substantial attributes to enhance the particular area or the City in total.
Expected attributes are:
1) Benefits from new technology in bulldino design, construction and land
development.
2) Higher standards of site and building design through use of trained and
experienced professionals in Land Planning, Architecture and Landscaping
to prepare plans for Planned Unit Developments.
3.) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilitieslesser
and public facil-
ities to yield high quality development t.
4) ande
common
useable
facilitiessuitably
t
ancated wouldrecreation
otherwise
facilities other
provided u der conven-
tional
land development procedures.
5) Demonstration
ot
desirabletive naturalign sitefforts
toward
eharacterist cs.
e preservation and
enhancement
Amended Ord. No. 82-15)
Seer 97, Sµsc B p`
yMoutN &N/A t)
kt> I N pNGE
S t o„ q
Co,,drroha( Se
Pe rM 7 G.,T e a
2. 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 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 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.