HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 07-29-1981AOL
Page 205
Planning Cotmnission Minutes
July 29, 1981
Another emorandum Item No.. 2 is that
traveled areas within the parking lot and the proposed entrances
shall be constructed to a 7-ton standard.; Mr. Err,,t proposed a -ton
design noting that the existing lot hay a Ston design
i
Chairwoman asillou asked Mr. Ernst if he had reviewed these concerns
to staff and h}a answered that he had discussed the curbing, howeNer,
he had not gotten back to staff with the other concerns, Mr. Ernst also
questioned iter number fa in the Engineer's Memorandum on the req irement
of a -ft, drainage easement.
Chairwoman Vasiliou asked Mr. Ernst why he feels the ball field world
be unsafe with installation of curbit;go He stated the curbing could
cause- players trip, and: fall.
ommissioner pauha asked ab-it the church's long range planning for
expansion and asked whether this expansion would take place in the,
near future. Mr. Ernst stated th4 the decision on further expansion
will be grade by the middleof next years or: the surer of 1962 and
would probab e a two year process before it is finished* Their
membership is growing rapidly necessitating this expansion.
Staff stated that the requirement for curbing wa`: discussed with
Mr. Ernst and other representatives from, the church and that the
Ordinanceinstallationofthecurbin9isabasicrequirementofthe
it was also explained to them that they could use curbstone which
and can be removed or replaced with. future expansion.
ommissoner>Larson asked whether a rolled bituminous curbing was allowed.
Staff advised that the Commission and Council, have approved such
curbing in the areas proposed for expansion. Staff also advised that
the easement is a standard requirement,, and that the detains of the
easements could be worked out with the engineer.
Chairwoman Vasiliou opened the public Hearing and introduced the
first speaker Mrw Ronald Goltz of 2008 Independence Avenue North
who stated he will be moving in north of the church and his
concern is with the drainage and the possibility that water will
dram arra be trapped near the lots which he owns on the north.
Page 206
l anni ng Commission Ml nutes
July " 1981
He also inquired about the buffer between his lots and the church
parking lot, whether the buffering which would be required with
future expansion could be installed now.
1
Chairwoman Vasiliov advised Mr. Goltz that approval for this f
site plan I contingent on the fact that the drama e will
be workable and if it is not done correctly,, it will have to
be'' corrected*
Joe Vionnikko of 405 Narcissus Lanes oke on behalf of Paul
and Marilyn ;ones who live in what was at one time the
parsonage of the church. Their concerns are that there is
a "slough" area to the north and slightly west of their
home which could be classified as "wetlands" and that a poor
drainage plank could funnel water down through this area and
I
I
affect their walk-ou A
ter. Ernst pointed out that there are westerly limits to their
proposed and future parking lot so this should not cause a
problem., He explained the construction limits and the are&
drainage pattern#
r. Pannikke stated that Bones` were also concerned that there
be a buffer: between the parking lot and their home. He a'dvI sed
that he had walked the area today with the chug hts pastor where
the parking lot going in and it did seem to encroach into the visual
area of this home more than indicated on the site plan. He stated tha'
Mr. and Mrs. doves ~feel a 30 -ft. buffer strip between the lot and their
home would be desirable, so they are requesting than; etre 'buffer proposed
at til -ft. be increased to 30 -ft. He stated Mr. and yrs. Jones feel the
noise could be a problem as well.
Mr. Ernst stated they will be doing supplemental planting in the area
that Mr, Mann.,ko described. Chairwoman V sr1 ou co mertod that the
staff recommendation is that all plantings disturbed by construction be
replaced or replanted. Staff added that the staff deport addresses
displacement in addition to plantings shown on the plans.'
Chairwoman Vasiliou asked whether there would be heavy traffic
any time during the vt eek or would it occur gust on undays.
Mr. Ernst feels the heaviest traffic wilt b on Sunday and only
light traffic during the week o
1
i
i
page 2071.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 29-# '11981
Chairwoman Vasil i on asked 4,f there was an, -one else who wished to speak
on this }tear, Mr. Stu Turnbull of 16744 Grays Bay Boulevard who
is a representative of the cb rch stated that orf Mannikko had seemed
to infer that the pastor had agreed with his s atemen,. that
a -ft buffer would be ne,:essar, etween the parking lot: and the
property of cr• t4rs. Jones* r* Manniko agreed a trs
was misleading, and t%at it was not his intention to give this b-,qnressicn.
Chairwomanan asi l f ou closed the Public Hearing. The MOTIONwas rade
by Corerssiover Stecgerwald and seconded by Commissioner pa ba to
take action on this petition tonight. MOTION carried.
o issioner Wire commented on the Engineer's Memorandum regarding
the arts In the curbing along the south and west edges for
drainage. Staff sU-ted these c; ' ir-b cots are needed to guide drainage
to the ponding area and these arts will be grade at critical points
to create efficient drainage. The engineers have looked at tfve
drainage problems arefully=
Mr. Ernst stated that with his proposal, the lot design will allow,"sheet
drainage" and feels that breaks in the curb are too frequent
to drain properly end have a propi;r 'sheeting action"„
li
p
Chai rwa n' asl l ou wonderedwhether these itemsad. been dilzcussed
the '. itl, the evvekoiitenu Rve. /ii ,Vi$+
Ltefi.Staff advised that
engineers are requiring tho curbing to avoid "street drainage" and that
the curbing policy was discussed thoroughly with the petitioner and
Church representatives
MOTION by Commissioner Larson and seconded by Commissioner pauba to
recommend approval of the site ple n and conditional use permit for the
Wayzata Evangelical Free Church located at 705 Ro. Highway 1, wes
of Highway 101 , and north of Nar(issus Lane. sobje,,.t to the following
conditions.
I. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum,
except that bituminous curbing will be allowed
at the north side line of the parking lot.
2 Submission of required financial guarantees for
completion of the site improvement's termed for
4-monthso'
3. All shrubs and plantings displaced by new parking
lot construction shall be relocated or replaced
in kind to adjacent „hard areits.
207-
page 208
Planning Commission Minutes
July 29, 1981
MOT I Ot o amend by Commissioner Patilba, seconded by Commissioner
Wire to allow 5 -ton design in the pare nq lot rather than
7 -ton. Discussion ensued,,
Roll Call Vote on the Amendment* Commissioners ire*
st i orwald and paub , Aye; Commissioners Stulberg, Larson,
and Vasilibu, Nay4 Tie vote, MOTION failed*
Chairwoman Vasiliou called for a vote on the Main MOTIOU.
11 Call Vote* 6 Ayes, MOTION passed*
hai rwoman i i ous introduced thio next i t pr; reading o the NORTHWEST `O TAI
July 1 1981 4-taff report was waived. Chairwoman Vasillou SUPPLY, INC.
opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present CONDITIONAL USE
that wished to speak o.i this item. She asked for comments or PERMIT (81040),
questions from the petitioner.
Commissioner Stulberg asked about the any concerns on the
safety of the tank, Commissioner Wire added that his concerns
regarding safety would be vehicles parked close to the tank.
Staff advised that requirements in the past for this type,
of tank would be the placement of mar Ing posts, concrete
filled, or to put the tarok up on an island to teat it would
not be at grade with the parked vehicles-*.
Chairwoman teas i t l ou closed the public hearing. MOTION' by Commissioner
Stelqerviald, seconded by Commissioner parson to, ro nmitwnd approval
of the Conditional Use Permit for Northwest mountain Supply, Ino.
located at 1971 Annapolis Lane, southwest of Industrial park Boulevard'
and Annapolis Lane for the outsi do storage of a liquid .,rloon dioxide
tank subject to the following conditions*
1,. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
2. `ho p rr it is, issued to the petitioner as an operator
of the faoi l ty and shall not be transferable*
x Marker posts are required to be placed around the tank
and those posts shall be concrete filled*
4* The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulat ons
and ordinances, and violation thereof shall be grounds
for revocation.
Roll call dote; 6 ayes, MOTION carried.
0
page 209
lanni n Co i s s i on Minutes
July , 1381
Chairw%i,—(n Vasiliou introduced the next item, the reading staff report
i
LITTON
dated duly 13, 1981 'wars waived, she asked for comments or questions kICROWAVE
from the petitioner. SITE PAN AMEND- MEN -
111` MENTA-527) l
Commissioner Wire asked +he Litton representative, Mr. Ridge Becher
if the time of use 6,00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. for the proposed incinerator
would be Monday through Friday, Mr. Becher stated that Litton had,
written a letter requesting that the time of use be extended to
A.M. to l p. `.; because of production _schedules, and that they
would like the option to use it on Saturdays and Sundays.
Commissioner Wire stated the incinerator should not be operating on
r
teekends•
Mr. Becher introduced Mr. Harlen Meek'; the manufacturer's representativewhoexplainedthemechanicsoftheincinerator :and he -further stated
MELA that Litton has decided not to opt for the ` incinerator to be used as
part of a beat ' ecovery syste a.The incinerator will run at better
i
than 1200, with almost complete burn -off
Staff advised that there are no specific City guidelines with the
hours of operation and that it will be regulated under PCA guidelines
and regulations* if problems do occur, Litton will be notified
and required tocorrect any malfunctions*
C 1 woman Vasiliou commented that Litton is a good.corporate 'citizen
of Plymouth and she feels they will be certain to correct any problems
that could occur. Mr. Meek added that he has submitted tests on this
incinerator to the State, of Minnesota.
MOTION by Chairwoman Vasiliou', seconded by Commissioner Aire to
recommend approval for a site plan amendment for an accessory use
of an incinerator to be located on the north side of an existing
building for Litton Microwave located at 1405 Xenium Lane and subject
to the following conditions.
209
page 210
Planning Commission Minutes
July 29, 198
1. The operation s ial`l comply with Pe11n ,llerr Control -:
Agency permits and regulations.
2. The incinerator shall be used by the Litten Company
for disposal of products generated on this site
only#
Ther l,, 1 be no peripheral outside storage,
Al I nd waste ecrntai ners sh X11 be stored
within the building.
4. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary. manner.
Appropriate buildilng cedes and requirements shall
be complied with prier to installation, of the
1 nci aerator.
Roll call vote, 5 ayes, Commissioner Larsen nay. MOTION carried*
Commissioner Larsen stated he objected to the use of incinerators,
Chairwoman Vasiliou introduced the next item; the reading of the TEMROC METALS, INC
jul,y 231 1981 staff report was waived. Commissioner Steigerwald 16ITE PLANT/LOT
asked for a summation of the variances requested by the petitioner. NSOL1 TON
VNA-212)
Chas rwor an Vase l i ou introduced Mr. Jim Merila of Merila & Associates,
Inc. present who represents Temroo Metals, Ino., and Mr. Patrick
Vieno wa of Te rroo Metals, Inc. Mr, Merila commented on the
variance requests made by the petitioner and explained the history
of ,the site and T+emroc's building additions to b€r h lots*
Mr.. Merila reviewed his My 17 memo to the City and suggested the
variances were a matter of perspective and reflected several unique
characteristics. He noted the 1969 plea approval arra parking lot
design and the possible ground coverage for the north site only which
would allow sifimilar amount of building space., but not in the recesary
Cori ration, Pat Cienciwa stated every though 'e r-oc does not have
a great number of employees, they have purchased equipment which is
of a size and Magnitude requiring the additional space.
0
Planni,,,g Commission Mlinutes
JOY g=, 1981
k Mr. Oratas responded h there are no problems or concerns with
PI)TION by Corimissioner Wiro,, seconded y€ imi `on r Pauba to ren end
approval of the site ' plan ftr poral to consttucta 2,000 sq. 't t office
dill'tion tile the, existing Deltafacility located 13330 12th Avenue
111or h northeast of &.2,nium Leas and 12th Avenue North n o the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with i Engineer's Memorandtipt.
conomp"444ance with Ordinance rill requirements for
new Oriving and parking areas.
No t int storage or trash disposal ti n
those al lowed under 'the existing Conditi alU-A ,
Permi t.
Any expansion of approved parHreq facilities shall be -in
accordance wh approved proof -of -parking glen
dated Jane 14 1981 (Scheme 1).
h. Current as -built survey of the site 'improvements to
date a -d utilities shell be ubmitt prior to issuance
of a building permit.
6. Any future expa n5 i on of the facility shall tie` subject
t site elan review and approval.
Roll gall Vote. 6 a s MOTION carried.
Cbairviom n Vasiliou iritroduced the next iter, rearing of the July 13, t. PSHER- MITH
1981 stir? l" revert was. waived. She asked the petitioners for LABORVIRT
any u i ens o, comments* SITE PLAN
IA -696)
rr, L, Nelson, Vice President of U r-Smiththey have
questions regarding the location of a fire hydrant and the
requirement for sodding. Staff coi*=entad that the landscape
glen shows the only sodding required is at the southern half
f the traffit island fit the joining the existing building
n proposed addition,, end that the remainder - the sitr-
may be seeded, Mr. II-elsnn referred is letter; u 217, 1931
icing she S of these .
The petitioner Wa n rn d about petting in the fire) lane, around
ht. enc i te building.The Coimrission Advised that aTy cUngein
his requireLlent wouldhave to he decided by the City Council.
The question of, locating a fire hydront was i used and staff
stated theCity Fire Inspector had reviewed the plans a"d advised h
hydrants and fire, lanes he l orated per City Code.
212-
Page 213
P l ann i ng Commission t1i nutes
July 3 1981
The Commission advised the Ot t n r to discuss these nCe s wi U t
the Fire Inspector :and the Engineering Departmenti their site plan must
meet City Code*
Commissioners observed that existing vegetation tiro site needed
growing; discussion ensued, regardregardin original site improvements and
the need for ma nt nance of future expansion areas.
MOTION by C ray rwoman Vag, i l i ou,, seconded by CCom i ss i n r Wire to
recommendmend approval or site plan for r-Smith Laboratories for
an approximate 12,000 sq. ft. addition to the building 1 .atad at
14905 23rd Avenue forth and subject to the following conditions,
C)r lian with +he Engineer's emorandutn-
W All waste and waste containers shall be stored within
the structure and no outside storage Is permitted.
3. Location of fir .an s. and hydrants per City Code.
uh ssr required ::_i guava nt for
completion of site improvements termed for -tnonthsw
All areas got oth rwisa im rovad in accordance with
approved site plans or identified as future parking shall
be podded; planted areas disturbed by tonstruction shall
be seeded and moved regularly*
6. Compliance with Ordinance curbing requirements for new
driving and parking arts.
Roll call vote 6 ay st MOTION carried unanimously.
chairwoman Vasiliou introduced the next agenda item, reading of SOMERSET HOMES
the dryly 16 1981 ,tail` report was waived. She introduced Mr. LOT CONSOLIDATION/
Tom Swatosh who was present to represent the owner. LOT DIVISION/
VARIANCE (81038)
Mr. Swatosh stated that alternative nurnhp.r, two in the
staff report would cause the owner: undue hardship and
cause an impossible situation with the added expense of
relocating the garage* Adjusting the dot line une foot
to the south would be the acceptable alternative*
MOTION by Commisson r Paubal ,seconded by Commissioner
teigorwald to recommend approval of the Lot Consolidation/
Lot Division and variance for Lots 12 and 1,, Bloc 4 of the
Elmhurst addition at 23rd Avenue North and Kirkwood Marra
subject to the following conditions.
E f
Page 215
Planning Commission Wnutes
Vuly 2.1981
Chairwoman Vasil ou introduced the ` next, item, the report by Commissioners
Larson and Barron concerning Zoning Ordinance Lot Size Standards and
RPUD requirements.
Commissioner Larson ev44#wed in detail the July 29, 1981 Memorandum
attached).
He stated that it is important to consider current economic and housing
constraints throughout the country and within Plymouth toproperly
ascertain grounds for possible revisions of the regulations.
Chairwoman Vasiliou recognized former Mayor Toward Hunt and extensive
discussion ensued regarding the RPUD expected attributes as listed
in Section 9 of the Zoning grdinance
The Commission also reviewed the Memorandum and the,Zoning Ordinance
with respect to RPUD Bonus point triter a. Former Mayor Hunt recalled
that minimum 440 acre let size for PUDs was based upon the consideration
that two units per acres 80 units., was considered the proper minimum
for anticipated homeowner associations which would be responsible for
the maintenance o`' common areas.# e stated that perspective has
changed over the years in that single family detached subdivisions
typically do not have formal homeowner:associations responsible for
common area maintenance b cause t nere is not often private. common
area provided.
Commissioner tarsen thea outlined findings and recommendations reg irdi ng
adjustments to the conventional development Ordinance requirements and
specifically reddcion in I tsideti ial lot size requirements. It was
suggested that perhaps some element of the form r Subdivision Unit
Project Ordinance provisions could be considered providing for an over-
all average requirement for lot area in a givendi4vilopment to assure
densities consistent with the Land Use Guido plan* Staff recalled
that at the previous meeting, Councilman ihreinean had advised that
whatever lot area reductions were considered, they should be evaluated
against the density provisions of the Co iLprehen ive plan. In that
regard, the analysis of the, demand/capacity ratios for the sewer
system was essential if new net densities were to be considered.
Staff noted that in the Comprehensive Plan's Sanitary Serer Section,
the City's consulting engineer} had tes4.'ed the suer system capacity
using the established densities for each of the Residential Guide
Plan Categories(LA-1,, two units per acre, LA - 1, four units per acne;
LA -3, 7 units per acre, and LA -4, 16 units per acre)
zts-
l
E
s
f
July
TO MICIAhers oaf Plymouth nn i sion
f
FROM- Commissioners Frank Barron and Larry Larson
SUBJECT: Review of Current RPUD Zoning ordinanceC
k
f
I
PURPOSE
The Purpose f this study was to rOVIew the requirements f the
current RPUD ordinancewith respect ,to density and lot areauiy:emo ts. This review stems from concerns with current
000nomic and nousin. Constraints i tin nationally, acid moreimportantly, within Plyaiovth.
We have s l . k'ted ,input from city Staff, other Commissioners, COun it Members, the D,velopment Council, and other interests
private cto ns , real estate development, etc. n puttingtogetherthisevaluation.
This report i designed to stimulate discussion 're rdin majorissueswithintheurel, ord,nace, and ° allow the reviewal
process to initiate specific , r orend t ons/input> Though the
current ordinanc,rte r atel addresses the current environment. t%r rind fog~ revisions In :estr t d arszeatin
BACKGROUND
Rationale for revisions may be in the following data.
New home construction for the lst Quarter 1981 fell, within
of the national all-time low since the post-war period
n the early 's (Source; Dept f Housing & Redevelopment),
2. In the area financing, home mortgage rt,)bl ms' are stimulatedbyI) the e pane of the 30 year fixed rate and ) subs , '.IsiP.'Plicit in low savings rates at S & L institutions and
ban'"rs are phasing out with deregulation* Because of thela; ur situation, ;it is axted that hiqh mortgage rate: .1
pj:p.vai,l with or without high inflation,
Current conventional rates 'ange from 14 5/804 l ointstO165/8% - points. n if conventional rates drop 't14, the principal/interest payment on a O t GOO mortgage
would be $-.64 requiring a household income of $28,500.
Review of Current RPUD Zoning ()rdinant-f,
NAtiOnal inflation along pushing housing pr,ices t* betterthann; 1 1* annual rate, (Source; 1
c rigVra i n) The median home price in iA ym uth as o
the Ist Quarter 1481, i $104,708 - rankinq 5th in the
the n r (ource:Greater Minneapolis Arae Board
of Roy tors
4. For the first five months of 1981t 710-
0- file new horrieu
iarr -. ased in the t4 n nk.- Plymouth arcia were corporate
transferees - an overwholming figure considering the, trend
or transfers is rapidlydiminishing. of 18 major cor r rn ioxis
10Ctted in file 'Lwin Cities, only two eurrontly maintain an
n policy on employee t o err three are restrictingtransferstoseniormanagementonly. Thc, remainder have
r,,,pp d or are considering termir , ian of these . an`ers .
The List* of corporations surveyed included Prudential,
5. Aecelerating tease problems is thefuture demaxid for housing
rental or awned. Over 41 will ion adults wil reach t -he age
cif 3 0
Lin
the 1980'x, compared to 31 million in tile 19/0,s,
Curr _."t l , 18 mil' * n households are headed by irW * vi(. 1 r*
25-35 yoara oldas couip r cd 1,'.0 10 million in 1910 .
pitrticulart must face those challenqea.
SPECIFIC ITEMS B"VALUNrED
EM points alto k a e 1 on ' die
project size .Inir u 0 acres) ;
allowance for affordable housing;
variety o n,1 mJ1x.1
The high degree o)! subjectivity -and interpretation, though
purposely stated at thO blue to allow for freedom of design
under the RPUD concept, hao been a source of confusion and
1 Cn °n viewingbodie , The fit criteria, nd
Osaibly the th,4rd, is the only quant-itative factor in
determining densl ; while the remainder are subject ,
interpretation. In re rospec° , it is our viewpoint that these
r
Auk
Pate 3
a
E
atter faOtors (affordable housing and fl vesho t rc t anydevelopment i t l e t cityofPlymouthndther -fore requiredd w t o t any furti-1.2x
k
qualification
sr m our.researoho we present three optionsga rc .cul t itFirst, would t mpl maintain the', currenttd - Of the tell RPD's to affirmatively pa3s-tbru the
eviewaprt:cuss, only three have received bonus point
allocatif.%rit i)-ri-marily for Project size and one ;mr tl morhouslnlMILX . he myupork t we findfor this option is tletthepkist. stand for it
second optio: , would he to revise the criteria for bonus
pointc,ilationbe more specific andobjective in nature-.
Xhlb t Iriu t' t t wing revisiorls.,
aIul0ti ( would remain as currently
stated
b sb) relating to affordahousingwouldbeeliminated,. allowing
ensjvc, Plan to speak to the
C sectiOPI (now becomes (b) with j i
yu3 -alc l aurone cies i n tolu
ftir each housing combination- c ton-
d) see ko M would bo rewritten and
beO ( Y, to reinforce the RPUD concept
of projoot lesi,ga.
Notation of affirmative design ( nbancmertt, preservation,
ate.) s vi also occur in Section 9t Subdivision B (1cµ)
as an exPected attribute o.1--
a puD withj:.t the city.
Section 9, Subdivision B (5b) should also require the
developer to address how the project meets each of the
za a t c f attributes of a PUD.)
We parLicularly support this approach the two zj n
considerations, are a r specifically and quantitatively
with some JElexibility provided in (b) for various nen
at and other constraints or featuresl# The third act
r r developer who approaches the i,pUD concept as
nj
lt
A third option would dictate density bil.sis proja-ct, slize aloncl,
V
t
i
of Curx int D ora in nce
el min t nq the other coAcerns huh they would b stated
in other arses of the ordinanice and/or the ompr(( h(I°Iuivo
Plan), We consider this an n n< j ,( exttioll.
NOTE we have, refrain from desiqnInq > i number tables
at this pint die t theimportance of -the mainin dl3cussion
n lot' size, setbacks,, etc. as these elements all play an
important roll in density standardfl;/calcula ions.
minimum Lot Size. ,` urreat ordinance requir =minimum of
the 11 -JA district for a single-famijyt500sq.
dwelling; 15,000 sq. ft. in the R-lB district for sinqle or
two-family units. Concern has been stated th :. they figures
pr so t an economic hurdle t widen` li al developers and the
consumin(I public,' s'ri t nc theom graphi of potential
u e two a salect fear, in evaluation of this concern we
h4.ve surveyed other communitic,s within the metro area.
Maple Groveis formally reviewing their curr ntinu-ice
with the ptat n to r e uoe those requirements. C 'r en
ordinance requires 20,000. sq. ft.' in -1 districts and
10,000 in R-- is . a= (planned ,eve!"M gnu). Projec]uions
ars that these will lower by (whle maintaining current
set ac ) ,
UM3vil . currently at ` 1, ood sq. it., with an 85 ft. frontage-,
is rovisingt e c minimum to 8,500 with 70 ft.
Bloomington currently maixitains J,I,GOG sq. ft. reqardless of
the platting procedare, AccePtihq a 9,200 average with
major developments.
E'en Prairie is urgently ; at 13,500 sq. ft. with a 901ft-0
frontage, but is lookling to rovise that standard to 101000.
U,2 oto not Irish` to quote tease as standards because "everyone¢
else does for we are "smarter t-4._nhe- are". -But;
theso, are -the figures often presented by the°dovelupin
interests.
The DevelopmentCouncil, has requested- consideration that the
lot size be reduced in LA -1 district$ to 'approximately0-10,500 sq. ft., with 75 ft. frontagO.
Resview of Current RVUD ZoningOrl U . n
Page
Perhaps more appropriately, a reduction 3 t 500 sq. ft. InR-lA districts; 12,000 sq. ft, In the R 1B districts; and l , 000sq. ft,, in the R-2 districts would maintain an optimal . , t. ,
between the city's objective to provide,a quality housing environ- ment (planned, etc.) and "afford bleM housing for toconsuminginpublic. ` All ether area figures would remain on tant . Though smaller :dot size does not guarantee affordablehousingalone, steps tfak n by the city to approach the problem (presentlyandinthefuture) reflect social responsibility and positivedieifti
Exhibit lir illustrates various density calculations .t varyinglotsiOsoPrVidinqdensity (Units per acre) for a gross acre43,560 sq. ft.), net street right--of-wayt and net lght-cif-wayplusparkdedication. t the 13,500 sq. f.t figure the gross
densitY exceeds the ordinance maximum of 3.0, however, net street
right-of-way density is 2.7 units per acre and 2.4 at the furthest
extrema. Our 12,000 figure for -IB equates t * 1 net street
right-of-way, only fractioaaljy over the density requirement Mrd
of 'n *signifi an . (Theassumption is made that the bonus pint
table will be ad usted accordingly.)
The important factor in ourcalculations and rationalenal r thissimatesisthouso.of an acre net street right-cf way. The
figures are reasonable and progress logically yet maintaining adifferentialfromthesubdivisionfigures (Section 7t Subdivision1a)). "By ba l'.. examination" of sewer/water capacities statedintheComprehensivePlandoesnotfors: c blems t However, it 'wo :d b in the city's interest t in'It at a detailed studybyBone.,1,-ro to assure the compatibility of whatever figures areagreedLxo ..
A deterring factor in this revision is the lack of separation
between the conventional platting procedure and the RPUD concept. As staff has 'pointed out tc u , there is no incenti.ve for a.
developer to take on the detailed approach of a RPUD at thecfigures. The counter -argument to this is tiie maiority of Lixid to
be developed within Plymouth is so constrained physiologicallyPhysicalConstraintAnalysis) that open space: and " r e.rvIticn',
are virtually insured r is It).'
Another' arh to list sic requirements would be to reprise the
same .figures - 181500 and 15,000 and 15,000 - to 15,000 and 13,500
and 12, 000 ` respectively for conventional l.attin.g. In consideration
Of RSD Pl .ttin9 t the ordinance could` adept wording similar to hh
that of the old SUp Ord.in nca
Inance
f-ie total area in sc r feet devoted
Sive y to residentiallot. ( lusiv(-. f
sheet fight- i -w , , area lying below thy#
100 year water mark, open space, etc.)
c ob the total numberof rei r nt i a
lots, sha"111 equal or exceedt
13t5OO sq. ft. for R-IA
12r000 sq. Vt. for R-I
sq. ft, for A-2.
This approach Provides *P. ,.e lob: erase yet maintains
aeparatjor j &tvr "x the ccr-ventiOnal and RPUD methods. We favor this latter ¢ l..
3. Minimum Lot Width., D Currentrdin n requires ini xlotwidthof1nsingle-familyithe -I , R-11B and R-2t and R-3 and -4 districts`
respectively. On the e of the 1 , 0 and 12,000 andIlrOGOrecommendationsforlotarea, we suggest
90 ft. -i
75 t R-, -
50 t R-3, R-(no change)
Requirements for two-family dwellings could be reduced to0ft. ' in the IB and R-2 districts and 75 ft:,, in the
and R-4 districts, though we have nOt'ugic : i n t
lot aroma in this unit category,
Exhibit V providesmaximum lot depths lot aroa and frontage,
assuring, that current depth require,mentscould be maintained.
4. Minimum Side Yard.u rl nt ordinancer ir s l ft. and
l 7t- o each side o a F : n R-lA and R-IB districts,
respectively, and 26 ft. total In the other districts,
Exhibit VI provides scenarios for two il"fer nt homes with90ft.,, 80 ft.., or 75 ft,. iot widths* Th ugh our initial
thouqhts were to m in.t -Ln the current requirements, reduction
to a 10/15 or 10/10 OMbin tion• in the -i x and R-lB districts.
could be substantiated without det
ai-
m nt to spaclial concerns.
We not find the Development Council's x t for 5/1
ideya d setbacks to be a_ooe eta 1. .
VE
COMENUNITYaw-w;orvuxv...ar. .tt.wa+eFx+iwMEDIAN HOME PRICE
aw m„,;ww.>
11"(AVG.
avyrc«aaz+sa mw r w a.. +ews.axn+w yrwwr r;:y.
4d in a 118,713 152
Lake Minnetonka 1,13t343 145
Cedar Isles -Loring,. t# 23 40
Edon Priairie,, 136
vlymut% 104,708 134
Golden Valley 94t,512 l 21
Hop -,Ki nnotonka 93t000 119
Falcon Heights -St. Anthony 92r917 1
Calhoun -Harriet
Mw -4
Blownington83tiog 106
im. , apolls Area Averaq m 75,,036 100
Nomes sold Ist quarter 1981Orr : Greater Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors
J
WNW
t $
EXHIBIT TV
DENSITY CALCULATIONS
titer
f4
L
k
wnnaso+c : .:
NET STREEM, NET STREETS
GROSS AREA ROW, BTC,,PARK DBD, LOT SlU' 43,560 SQ. 7
tsoo 4.4 a d «
too 2.9 2.52.2
3,0 3.2 2.7 2.4
As 00 2.8 2.5
12,500 3.5 0 2.6
12,000
x 2.7
lit5oo 3.8 3.2 2.8
101000 4.4 3.
17
3.3
5.4 4.6 41
7,1000 6.2 So3 4.7
61000 7.a 6.
EXHIBIT
LOQ R H ;
FRONTAGE 110 100 90
LOT AREA
18 500 168 185 20
136 150 167 18
I
123 135 150 165 180 193
12,500 114 125 139 156 167 179
12,
000I
109 120 133ISO 160
11,500 105115 1,28 144 153 164
f 11t o o 100 110 138 147 157
1{,500li 1.17 131 140 150
r. 10'r 000 100 ill 125 133 143
9r000 100 113 120 129
oo 10 107 114
r 000 100
r
Minimum depth at loo maximum depth at 200, feet.
G
L"XHIBIT VI
SIMAR ETBACK CALCULATIONS
51DEYAIID
A A HOM,
90 T . WIDTH
15/15 both sides 51
remaining short 51
10/15 short at darage' remaining evNn
10/10 $11ort at garage 151
remaining remaining
short at garage 201
remaining t
remaining
80 "T. WjbTH
short Cd` t short 1
even short 101
10/10 51
remaining short 51
i 10, remaining even
75 T . WIDTIT
15/15 short 101 short 201
short. 51 short 151
s%ort
5/10 51
remaining short 51
Basis Square/rectanqular lot.
1 al n e - split entry home with t c -car garage.
equivalence - twro-story home with family room i& two -car garage,