Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 05-17-2017PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY, May 17, 2017 WHERE: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Plymouth City Hall 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 CONSENT AGENDA All items listed on the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner, citizen or petitioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on the agenda. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC FORUM 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve the April 19, 2017 Planning Commission meeting minutes. B. Approve the May 3, 2017 Planning Commission meeting minutes. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Creekside Plymouth, LLC. Rezoning and preliminary plat (replat) for "Creekside Woods" for property located at 17135 and 17215 Old Rockford Road. (2017033) B. The Waters Senior Living. Planned unit development amendment for The Waters of Plymouth Senior Living located at 11305 State Highway 55. (2017036) C. Inspired Athletics LLC. Planned unit development amendment to allow a sports and fitness club within an existing industrial building located at 2155 Niagara Lane. (2017039) 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Chick-fil-A, Inc. Sketch plan for a Chick -fit -A restaurant for property located at 3405 Vicksburg Lane. (2017045) M. e I X-1j1vl�TX`" Proposed Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 5A April 19, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners Jim Kovach, Julie Witt, Bryan Oakley, David Witte and Kira Vanderlan MEMBERS ABSENT: Donovan Saba STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barb Thomson, Senior Planner Marie Darling, Planner Kip Berglund and Community Development Director Steve Juetten OTHERS PRESENT: Council Member Ned Carroll 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC FORUM 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Vanderlan, to approve the April 19, 2017 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 5, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Kovach, to approve the consent agenda. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. KEN HEYDA DESIGN LLC (2017010) (Continued from the April 5, 2017 meeting.) Chair Anderson introduced the request by Ken Heyda Designs LLC for a preliminary plat and variance for "Garland Meadows" to allow the subdivision of a 0.83 acre parcel located at 1415 Garland Lane North. Planner Berglund gave an overview of the staff report. Proposed Minutes 1 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Chair Anderson stated that it seems the new lot being created is in a hole and asked if there are any elevation issues with the nearby wetland. Planner Berglund stated that there is indication and evidence of a wetland, which has been delineated. He said that there are times throughout the year where there is standing water on a portion of the property. He noted that staff has included conditions in the attached resolution that would require additional information related to the drainage concerns prior to the issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Witte referenced a privacy fence and asked if that issue has created any title issues or whether an easement was created. Planner Berglund replied that the neighboring property owners have worked with the property owner and are aware of the condition that the existing privacy fence needs to be removed as a result of the project and before the issuance of a building permit. Chair Anderson introduced the applicant, Ken Heyda, 200 Niagara Lane, who stated that he is requesting to split the lot in order to build two single family homes. He stated that his intent is to leave the foundation of the existing home and build up from that. Chair Anderson continued the public hearing. Chair Anderson introduced Diane Krump, 1410 Garland Lane, who stated that the neighbors know the previous owner of the existing home and noted that the existing foundation has damage. She stated that the existing home is on the highest point of the lot and therefore if there is damage there, the neighbors are concerned there would be water issues for any home constructed. She noted that the proposed homes would be twice the size of the existing homes, which were built in the 1950s and did not feel the new modern homes would fit into the neighborhood. She stated that the intent of the zoning district is to maintain the larger lots and as neighbors, they do not feel that the request and variance request meet the intent of the zoning district. She stated that as neighbors they want to live in the neighborhood and the larger more expensive homes would change the nature of the neighborhood. She referenced sections of the city code which she felt did not match with the intent of the request and noted that the proposed lots would not meet the minimum requirements. She provided historical information on a lot split that was done in 1981 across the street from the subject property. She noted that property had sufficient land to split the lot equally to meet the minimum requirements but for some reason one lot was 39 square feet short of the minimum requirements. She noted that lot split was for family members and the new home that was constructed still fits within the character of the other homes in the neighborhood. She stated in that case the family members built a home that they still live in whereas this request is simply for the applicant to build two new large homes that would be sold for profit. She said she did not feel that the applicant has met the criteria necessary to obtain a variance. She said she was submitting a petition from over 30 people in the neighborhood requesting that the City not approve the variance. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Proposed Minutes 2 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Planner Berglund provided details on the conditions that would be included with the resolution requiring the applicant to provide additional information on drainage. He noted that the applicant would need to prove that the existing home and the newly proposed lot would not cause additional drainage problems for the existing neighborhood. He noted that the existing foundation would be reviewed as part of the building permit process. Planning Manager Thomson reviewed the comments about whether or not the new homes would fit in with the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood. She stated that the term "reasonable use of the property" does not have a precise definition and provided further clarification on how that term is reviewed by city staff. She stated that the conclusion of staff is that the request would be reasonable but acknowledged that reasonable people can disagree. She stated that the lots would not meet the minimum standards and that is why the variance was requested. She noted that there would be conditions in place that would ensure all elements of concern are addressed and safeguarded before a building permit would be issued. Chair Anderson noted that a final plat would also be required, and the required details would need to be met before that approval would be granted. Commissioner Witte referenced the lot split that occurred with the property across the street and asked if that is being used as a basis for considering the variance for this lot or whether there are smaller lots in the neighborhood already in existence. Planner Berglund stated that the lots in this area were created in 1949 and reviewed the minimum criteria in place at that time. He stated that the majority of the lots meet or exceed those requirements. He also stated that he found the resolution from 1981 which approved the lot split for the property across the street, noting that lot split did not have a variance request. He further noted that both of those lots met the minimum width requirements but would not meet the half acre requirement. He noted that there are no other examples in the immediate area that would not meet the minimum requirements. Commissioner Witte stated that an issue was raised regarding the character of the new homes and whether they would architecturally fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Heyda stated that the designs proposed are what people want, which are cottage type styles, and provided an example sketch. He stated that as a builder you need to build what people want. He stated that people do not want to buy a 1950's rambler style home right now in this market. He stated that people want a bigger home with a three -car garage. He stated that he is attempting to bring the roof lines down to one and a half stories rather than full blown two story homes. He stated that by splitting the lot he is able to build two smaller homes rather than just one large home, which would be more affordable and in tune with the neighborhood. Commissioner Witt asked the price range of the proposed homes and the homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Heyda estimated the home values to be between $600,000 and $800,000. He noted that the existing home he purchased sold for $245,000. Proposed Minutes 3 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Ms. Krump stated has a close friend who is arealtor in Plymouth and noted that there is more of a demand for the smaller -sized homes right now as the market is full for the larger homes. She stated that there are plenty of neighborhoods in Plymouth where those large homes could be built and would fit. She stated that the family that recently moved into the neighborhood has a one - car garage. Commissioner Oakley said he appreciated the comments from Ms. Krump. He stated that some of the concerns she raised also caused him pause. He noted that it is common to see new homes replacing old homes, and drainage concerns can be alleviated with proper design. He stated there is not a method in which the lot can be split in order to meet the minimum requirements, and therefore the variance criteria would need to be met in order to obtain a variance. He noted that the owner of the property was aware of the lot size when he purchased the property. He stated that the variance is based solely on economic considerations and therefore said he felt that he could not support the request. He stated if there was additional land and the lot could be split into lots that would meet the minimum requirements, he would be able to support the request. Commissioner Witte stated that he agreed with the comments of Commissioner Oakley. MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Witte, to deny the request by Ken Heyda Designs LLC for a preliminary plat and variance for "Garland Meadows" to allow the subdivision of a 0.83 acre parcel located at 1415 Garland Lane North. Commissioner Witt stated that we don't have homes in Plymouth that can be new homes for new home buyers. She noted that kids who grew up here cannot afford to buy here and raise their families here. She acknowledged that new housing is market driven, but that homes cannot always be in the upper brackets. She said she worried that we don't have homes in the $300,000 range. She said the city lacks diversity in housing. She recommended that we don't pass this variance and asked the builder to continue to look at this lot and to be one of those few builders that can be able to bring young families to the community. Commissioner Vanderlan stated that she appreciated Ms. Krump's concerns. She said now that the northwest part of the city is built out, we are seeing that older areas are subject to teardowns and rebuilds. She reminded everyone that Plymouth has a robust housing and redevelopment program that is focused on affordable housing. She stated that she agrees with all the concerns raised, including the pricing of the homes. She said it would be ideal if Mr. Heyda could work with the City's housing and redevelopment program to build more affordable homes. Vote. 5 Ayes, 1 Nay (Anderson voting Nay). MOTION approved. B. PLYMOUTH HOTEL GROUP, LLC (2017019) Chair Anderson introduced the request by Plymouth Hotel Group, LLC for a preliminary plat, site plan, conditional use permit and variances for a Home2 Suites by Hilton on property located at 3000 Harbor Lane. Planner Berglund gave an overview of the staff report. Proposed Minutes 4 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Commissioner Oakley stated that the entrance on the proposed site plan looks different fiom what is shown on the existing conditions survey. He said he did not find anything in the attached resolution requiring the entrance to remain in its current location. Planner Berglund replied that there is no condition in the proposed resolution that would require that the entrance remain in its current location and noted that the applicant could speak to that matter. Commissioner Witte asked where the main entrance to the hotel would be. He asked for additional information on the proposed building height and drive aisle widths. Planner Berglund identified the area on the west side of the building that would be viewed as a main entrance for check -ins and identified another entrance area on the north side that could also be used for access to nearby restaurants. He noted that the applicant could provide additional details on the height. He stated that the fire lane requirement is less than the requirement of the city code for a drive aisle and therefore the proposed width would meet the requirement for fire safety. Chair Anderson asked if there would be rooftop equipment. Planner Berglund noted there is a condition in the proposed resolution requiring any rooftop equipment to be screened. Chair Anderson asked if the applicant is the owner of the Comfort Inn and Lucky 13 restaurant. Planner Berglund replied that he believes the applicant is the owner of both the other facilities. Chair Anderson stated that he visited the site and noticed a semi -tractor trailer in the parking lot and therefore assumed that clients of the Comfort Inn are over -the -road truckers. He stated that his concern would be that the semi -tractor trailer requires nine stalls, which could impact the required parking supply. Planner Berglund stated that he spoke with the applicant, and based on the zoning ordinance requirements there is not a lot of excess parking to allow large vehicle parking and still have sufficient parking. He noted that the applicant can provide additional details and could self - regulate whether that activity is allowed or not, based on the demand at the hotel. Chair Anderson asked about the plans for the head of the cul-de-sac and whether it would be a requirement to be built or would remain as -is. Planner Berglund stated that the cul-de-sac would be completed if and when the property to the north develops. Commissioner Witte referenced the two options for site access and asked how that would be resolved and what would occur with the orientation of the building should the second option be chosen. Proposed Minutes 5 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Planner Berglund stated that staff is recommending that the access remain as shown with a second entrance along Empire Lane. He provided additional details on how the second scenario could occur should a neighboring parcel redevelop in the future. He confirmed that the proposed resolution would support the access as shown. Chair Anderson introduced Jesse Messner, Cities Edge Architects, representing the applicant, who stated that the entrance is very close to the same location on the south side of Harbor Lane with the difference that the curb is extended slightly to the west. He stated that the main entrance to the hotel would be on the west side, while the entrance to the north would be used by guests to access the patio area. He stated that there would be rooftop equipment, as the roof is flat, and stated that the rooftop equipment would be behind the parapet and therefore additional screening would not be necessary. He stated that they would work with city staff if additional screening is desired. Chair Anderson introduced Alex Timm, representing the applicant, who stated that they have thought about the semi parking that occurs currently at the Comfort Inn and as a result they have added stalls to increase the total stall count. He stated that a lot of the corporate users of the proposed hotel would have shared vehicles. He noted that a majority of the parking lot remains vacant, even at almost full capacity because people share vehicles when traveling. He noted that they would also have discretion whether or not to allow semi parking if the demand for parking is high. Commissioner Oakley stated that the access is currently aligned and noted that he would be concerned that offsetting the entrance might increase problems with the movement of traffic. He asked the thoughts of keeping the entrance in the same location. Mr. Messner stated that the entrance is proposed to be slightly shifted to align and protect vehicles in the porte-cochere. Chair Anderson asked the height of the parapet compared to the flat portion of the roof. Mr. Messner replied that the height varies and identified the lowest portion of the parapet on a sketch. He identified the location of the rooftop equipment and noted that a six-foot person standing on the property line would not have sight lines to the rooftop equipment. Chair Anderson asked if the clientele of the proposed hotel would be similar to the Comfort Inn. Mr. Timm replied that the proposed hotel would be geared more toward corporate users, which would tend to result in more users arriving in shared vehicles. Chair Anderson asked the ratio of over -the -road truckers that frequent the Comfort Inn. Mr. Timm stated that he was unsure of the ratio but noted that the trailers are often not brought onto the property and truckers shuttle together to the property and therefore do not all have their trucks with them. He provided additional information on the relocation of the sign for the restaurant that would occur as a part of this project. Proposed Minutes 6 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Chair Anderson introduced Bev Kottas, 2995 Harbor Lane, who stated that she owns the Goodyear across the street from the proposed hotel. She stated that the Comfort Inn has been a wonderful neighbor throughout the years and has provided them with many customers. She stated she does not object to the use of the site. She stated that her primary concern would be that the traffic study left off the intersection of Fernbrook Lane and Harbor Lane. She stated that her primary concern is between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. when traffic backs up significantly. She stated that adding density would increase the concern. She provided additional comments on the entrance as proposed. She stated that a five -story hotel would change the character of the area as they prefer the two-story level of the Comfort Inn. She reiterated that the traffic concern would be increased with the additional density. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Planning Manager Thomson noted that engineering staff can further review the proposed plans before the item moves forward to the City Council. Planner Berglund stated that the Fernbrook Lane and Harbor Lane intersection was part of the traffic study. He said that the study found the intersection functions at an acceptable level today, and that this development would not impede the function. Chair Anderson referenced the traffic study and noted that a B rating was shown. He further noted that with such a short street, it could affect stacking but acknowledged that it would move fairly quickly. Commissioner Oakley stated that it appeared that the stacking issue was more of a concern for vehicles trying to access the street. Chair Anderson acknowledged that the layout of the roads can be a bit confusing coming from Emola Motorsports onto Harbor Lane and noted that perhaps a stop sign or additional signage could be installed. Planning Manager Thomson noted that engineering staff could review the plans to determine if changes would be necessary prior to this application going to the City Council. Chair Anderson noted that this is a very creative plan, as he would not have identified this site as a location for a five -story hotel. He stated that the location does appear to work and therefore this seems to be a good application. MOTION by Commissioner Witte, seconded by Commissioner Witt, to approve the request by Plymouth Hotel Group, LLC for a preliminary plat, site plan, conditional use permit and variances for a Home2 Suites by Hilton on property located at 3000 Harbor Lane. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. C. SKY ZONE (2017028) Proposed Minutes 7 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Chair Anderson introduced the request by Sky Zone for a conditional use pen -nit to allow an indoor commercial recreation use within an existing industrial building located at 1005 Berkshire Lane. Planner Berglund gave an overview of the staff report. Chair Anderson introduced David Hustrulid, the applicant, who stated that they decided to move from their current location and found a new location. He stated that because they had to go through this conditional use permit process, he did not sign the lease and there is now another person interested in the space and therefore the request may be moot. Chair Anderson stated that he hoped the business would be able to stay in Plymouth. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing and closed the public hearing as there was no one present who requested to speak on this item. MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Kovach, to approve the request by Sky Zone for a conditional use permit to allow an indoor commercial recreation use within an existing industrial building located at 1005 Berkshire Lane. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. MATTHEW DUNN (2017022) Chair Anderson: We have a variance application here and this is from Matthew Dunn. A variance to allow a second accessory building of over 120 square feet in area and 28 feet in height on the property located at 4130 Juneau Lane. Marie Darling will be presenting. Marie? Senior Planner Darling: Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. The subject property is located at 4130 Juneau Lane, which is just north of Rockford Road. The adjacent properties are all developed with single family homes. The applicant constricted the building, this building, in the back yard of his property after calling the City of Plymouth to ask if treehouses require permits. The City was notified of the construction by complaint. The accessory building is 28 feet in height and about 400 square feet in area. The building platform is about 11 feet above grade and is bracketed to some of the trees and also built on posts. This is the applicant's second accessory building over 120 square feet. The other accessory building is a roughly 400 square foot detached garage. Section 21120 of the Zoning Ordinance allows only one accessory building over 120 square feet and Section 21355 limits the height of buildings over 120 square feet to 15 feet. Approval of the variance request allows the applicant the ability to keep the structure on the property and denial would require them to remove it. Proposed Minutes 8 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Staff has reviewed the application based on the standards in the Zoning Ordinance and has found that while some of the conditions have been met, other conditions have not. I'd like to discuss a few of those standards. First off, staff has found that the property is 3.5 acres and at that size, it may be reasonable to allow the construction of a second accessory building over 120 square feet. However, staff finds that the applicant has not demonstrated any circumstances unique to the property, specifically that there is nothing, there are no circumstances that would require a 28 foot tall accessory building. The height variance, we further find, could be reduced or eliminated by placing the building on the ground and altering the roof loft area. Staff also finds, because the accessory building is taller than typical accessory buildings found in suburban neighborhoods, it could alter the essential character of the locality and be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood due to the uncharacteristic height. In conclusion, staff finds that the applicant has not established there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance and recommends denial of the application. Staff has received two letters of support for approving the variance from adjacent neighbors. Those letters are in front of you this evening, one attached to your staff report and one that was received later and are now part of the public record. I thank you for your attention this evening and would stand for any questions you may have. Chair Anderson: Questions for Marie? Okay, at this point we would like to have the applicant come up for his comments. Mr. Dunn? Planning Manager Thomson: Mr. Dunn, if you have anything you'd like to put on the overhead, you may want to speak from the other. Matthew Dunn: I don't at this time, thank you Barb. Good evening Plymouth Commissioners, Mr. Chair Anderson. Thank you for your time tonight, for your commitment to the City. I love the City very much and have been here my whole life. My name is Matt Dunn. I live at 4130 Juneau Lane North in Plymouth. I thank you for your time this evening to help, hopefully, clear up a misunderstanding that I've been working with solving with the kind people at the Planning Commission, or Division, excuse me. I moved into this home three years ago, in August of this year, and since then I've done multiple projects to the home. Each time, I've followed the same procedure. I've gone onto the Plymouth City's, City of Plymouth's website to look at Zoning Codes for anything I was working on. Then if I found something, or even if I didn't find something, I called the City and asked to speak with the right department and followed up to see if those questions, if I was doing things appropriately. Proposed Minutes 9 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 This past summer, in about June, I decided it would be fun, because I'm a bit of an adult child, to build a treehouse. I looked, again, followed the same procedure, looked on-line, didn't see anything about treehouses. I have a friend who's knowledgeable in this area look as well, and then I proceeded to call and I was connected with a nice gentleman, Dan Wallin. The conversation was as such, I asked if there was permits required for a treehouse and he said, `no.' I, just to kind of confirm, I said, `so, no permits needed for a treehouse.' And, he said, `that's correct.' The I asked if he could think of anything else that I might need to know for constructing a treehouse and he mentioned things such as don't build it on a neighbor's property line, make sure it's not going to be up and peeping into a neighbor's window, something of that nature. I thought those were good points. So, I thanked him for his time and I concluded the, ended the call. I then went to Google and typed in treehouses and I think, I don't know if Barb, or pardon me, if Marie, did you distribute any of those? Or, is that just one? Okay, there are some images that you'll see if you Google, that's basically what all of the images look like when you go to Google for treehouses. That's kind of what's being built across America. So, I looked at some of those pictures for ideas and then referenced a popular television show. If any of you have heard of Treehouse Masters, it's been on the air for six years. In fact, when people come over to my house now they go, `hey, did the Treehouse Masters guys do that?' So, that was what, in my mind, was the popular idea of what was a treehouse when I was calling the City. At the end of the 5 -month construction and then kind of as the snow flew, tapered off. It's probably 98% done. I have one side to paint yet. Then I got a knock on the door. I believe it was in January, I'm not positive, from someone from the Planning Department of Housing Authority indicating that a neighbor had called and complained about an eight -inch tall ice rink that I was putting in the front part of the property to do broomball and also had complained about the treehouse. I, obviously, expressed at that time some confusion saying that I had called up and asked. The conversation was polite, didn't last too long. As soon as that was done, I went into my files and I found the name of the gentleman I spoke with, Dan Wallin. I had written that down and I called up Dan and repeated, I asked if he remembered me and he said, `yes.' I asked if, I repeated the conversation that I thought we had had and he said, `yes, I don't, that's the conversation we have, or did have, but what you constructed is not a treehouse.' Then we began the fun conversation, that Barb and I have had before, of what is a treehouse. It is my recollection that Dan couldn't quite answer that at that time and I think he may have consulted with some staff. And, it was brought to my attention that when something is not in the Code book, that the Code book says to go to Webster Dictionary to look for the definition. Then the definition was presented to me, `a small house built among the branches of a tree.' I was told that I did not meet that definition because I was, the treehouse is next to a tree and not up in the branches Proposed Minutes 10 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 and that I was using multiple trees for support. And, as Marie mentioned, it is resting on five trees and I'll talk more about that. The City, at that time, seemed very adamant about, `hey, this is our definition. If you met that definition, everything would be, you know, maybe a -okay. But, unfortunately you don't meet that definition.' I, being a creative person, said, `is there anything that, you know, is there any way we can look at this to make it meet that definition. For example, the railings around the treehouse are made of the branches of a tree.' And I said, `therefore, wouldn't this be a small house built among the branches of a tree.' That was rejected. I asked if I could maybe staple some branches of a tree to the house to see if that would solve the problem. That was rejected. I asked if removing the legs, the additional support legs, and kind of attaching those to trees would solve the problem. That wasn't going to work. Then I simply posed the question of again, `this is something you say you do allow. There are no permits. Is there something we can do to solve ourselves time, the Committee's time, taxpayer dollars timeT At that time, as I recall, the city said, `I think it would be best if we have the City Attorney answer this question.' I did propose that to him and he responded by saying, `the City is requesting you get a variance and a building permit.' And, I politely said, `Well, that wasn't my question. My question was, in the realm of creativity, is there something we can do to make everybody happy. Could we paint it, could we add more branches, could we remove the legs, anything of that nature?' And, his response was, `you can tear it down.' Which, again, added to my confusion of if something is allowed, how, how can that be that we can't figure out a way to solve this. My attorney is a nice gentleman. He is the city attorney for Golden Valley. He started digging through the Code book to see if he could find some information. He found information in the Code book that said this is indeed not an accessory structure and that, therefore, it would be a treehouse. We presented the City Attorney of Plymouth with that information and he responded and didn't address the points we had found out of Code book. He just simply just said, `do what we want you to do.' I'll paraphrase, `do what we want you to do or you can remove the structure.' Basically, at this point, it was just very confusing for me. I know there was that definition. If you think about that, a small house built among the branches of a tree. It simply is lacking an exorbitant amount of information. It really doesn't even provide, almost provides no information, in fact, because it, especially when you're dealing with something with children, and/or adult children, it doesn't give any safety parameters, building plans, I mean, just nothing. It would be like saying a deck is an elevated platform next to a house. You can see how that could be confusing. In the realm of, hey this is, I mean somewhat humorous, is the Planning Department was saying this is not a treehouse because it's not up in the branches, it's not high enough, but I'm here today requesting a variance because it's too tall. Proposed Minutes 11 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 At one point, also, just maybe out of a little frustration, in some meetings I would say, `well is a permit required for a treehouse, even though we've answered that question.' But then I would get someone that would say, `well, sometimes a permit is needed.' So it started off with there isn't one, maybe there is, it just was very confusing to me. Safety -wise, I do have a structural engineer that has already signed off on the structure. He's reviewed it and he's ready to present a heavy packet of information to the City Council when I go there that says this is structurally sound, it was very well built, and he's ready to absorb any liability that would be associated with such. The property itself used to have horses, if you recall that, so it is fenced -in in the back yard so I don't think it would attract a lot of people wandering in. Also, from the lot, you may notice, of course, it's a very private lot, very heavily wooded. Structurally, to get back to the safety of the treehouse, as Marie mentioned it is anchored actually to five trees and we purchased the anchorage from treehouse.com, surprising. And, what it is, is arms that come out of the treehouse, or pardon me, a tree. You screw them in. It was quite difficult to do. And then the treehouse rests on those arms so that, therefore, if the house, or the trees were to move, the house doesn't. It stays very stationary. It's a very clever design. So, we have five of those. Those are rated at 10,000 pounds each. So, 50,000 pounds, which would be the equivalent of 16 cars parked on top of the deck of the treehouse. And, that does not count the additional 14 posts that I added on there just for additional safety. In comparison, my deck, which I would say is quite large, has 7 posts. The structure does, but I think it may say in Marie's report, that it didn't, maybe there might have been some feeling it didn't blend in well with the area. I took a great deal of time to make sure I made it almost disappear by using the colors of a tree and pulling those out of the tree with color swatches. And, I painted it a three - color treatment to actually try to camouflage it. There's three colors going on there. The pitch of the roof matches my house. The shingles match the color of my house, and the color is very close and it will be pretty darn close this summer when I repaint the house. I would just simply ask today that the Committee, I realize that this is an odd subject, it doesn't maybe meet some of the variance points, but I would request that you grant this request today that I'm making. It's been nothing but just an unfortunate, I think, misunderstanding. It's something that doesn't have a strong definition. There is no permit required for this. I was told it was okay to build this. It is away from neighbors. It's a very unique property. It's in the middle of the yard. I have been blown away by the kindness and sweetness of many of my adjacent neighbors who have said, two submitted letters, one is here tonight, two are here tonight, excuse me. And, I know at least one is here tonight saying, `hey, we're okay with it. It looks fine.' The other two neighbors behind me, that would Proposed Minutes 12 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 be to the east that are a little farther away, in two little white houses, I knocked on their door and they said, `hey, we think it's great. It's cute. You know, can the grandkids come see it?' It's going to be used for play and relaxation purposes. That's exactly what it was made for. I like my privacy, which is why I moved into that house. I like having that privacy. In conclusion, I did intend for this to be a treehouse. That's what I wanted. I could see if I had built a garage and it was two -feet off the ground and next to a tree and I had eight collector cars in there and I said, `no, no, it's a treehouse.' You'd say, `yeah, right.' This, I think, passes the sniff test. It looks like a treehouse, it smells like a treehouse, you know, it matches the pictures that you see on-line. Also, I'm a little familiar with the ask for forgiveness model and it's not one I believe in. I don't like to see that and I think that this would prove, as well, from what I built that it just doesn't, that wouldn't have been a logical thing to do. If you put a shed on your property and it's 10 feet over the square footage, you go, well, I wouldn't do this, but if you say, `hey, you know, no one's going to measure it. How would anybody know.' Obviously, building this structure in my backyard, all the neighbors saw it go up for over the course of five months. No one was hiding this. It would be at extreme cost to take it down and remove it. To be honest with you, I'm a little embarrassed to be here tonight because I have two businesses that I run and my name is associated with each of them. I don't like the idea that I did something wrong, or Matt Dunn is trying to sneak around the system and didn't want to get the proper permits. Because one of my businesses, I mean, that's what my reputation is. My good name. I was horrified that the letters went out to my neighbors saying I wanted special permission for something. Again, I just feel like this has been an unfortunate misunderstanding. I thank you very much for your time, for listening, your understanding, and your willingness to try to make this work. Chair Anderson: Thank you Mr. Dunn. Questions from the Commission for Mr. Dunn? Commissioner Oakley: I have a question. It was interesting that you quoted Treehouses.com. I did some research on Treeehouses.com and they define a treehouse as being supported primarily by trees. As I look at the photos, it looks like there's a lot of posts there. Do you have a feel for what percentage of the load is supported by the trees compared to the posts? Mr. Dunn: Sure. I don't know what that is. I have a retired friend of mine that helped constrict this with me. And, as he would say, he'll love watching this video, is, `oh, Mr. Dunn, no, no, no. We, there's something in this City called snow load and we want to be extra certain that this thing is not coining down and we've got to put some legs on this for extra safety purposes.' I think when we had chatted a few weeks ago, somewhere I recall hien saying, `the nubs in the tree will do it but let's be safe Proposed Minutes 13 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 and let's put these legs on.' That was one of my suggestions to the City as well, I'm saying, `could I remove the legs?' I think I was saying, `if you want them off the ground and want me to move thein in at a 45 and use one of these tree brackets again to anchor them to the tree so it's not touching the ground, I'd be happy to do that in a creative sense.' Chair Anderson: I have a question. You talked about a definition in Webster about a treehouse being in the branches of a tree and here you are more on the trunk of the tree. If you were to put this structure in the branches of these same trees, how much higher would it have to be? Mr. Dunn: I think, is, Marie, is that one pie, that individual picture I had that took up the whole page. Do you have that one? I mean, it's a pretty ridiculous photo. Right, so that would be an example of meeting the definition. And, I've said, I've showed that to a couple people, I showed that to somebody who's on the City Council who'll, I won't say who, but I said, `do you, would you have any interest in'going up into that.' And without blinking, `no.' And, neither would I and I kind of like heights. So that would be more the definition of what currently exists, which obviously is not something I would want myself or a child playing in. Chair Anderson: So the trees are quite tall and to put it up in the branches of the tree, it would be much, much higher than it currently is and, well, we don't have a number. Mr. Dunn: Yes. Ah, high. Commissioner Kovach: I was curious, during your conversations with the City, in my mind, I didn't go on treehouse.com or watch the program, but I consider a treehouse, if you asked me, it would be something for a little kid to play in with a rope hanging down, or whatever. Something to that effect. My concern, and I'm lost in some of the reading here, that during your conversations with the City, was your size ever discussed with the City? How big it was going to be? Mr. Dunn: Thank you. That questions was not brought up because I think it would be similar to the builder that was here this evening who said, `I don't know what it's going to look like because the, I don't know what the client wants.' I didn't know at that time what I wanted and that's why I went to Google to then kind of researched images and see what would be conducive to the area. In hindsight, I look back and say, `boy, I should have gone down and showed pictures and dimensions.' And I should have done that. Commissioner Kovach: That leads to my second question. Because you have your sketches of how the square footage and so on and so forth, which is extremely larger and through your investigation with the City Codes, over 120 square feet, this is way over 120 square feet. So, I would have imagined you thought, `oh, oh, this is bigger than 120 square feet. I probably need to go talk to the City before I construct this thing.' Proposed Minutes 14 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Mr. Dunn: If I may. I was more on the search for what's needed for a treehouse because it's going to be, tree anchorage, I didn't think to, I was thinking treehouse. What do you need for a treehouse. And, I would think that as a layperson on Codes and such, when I was calling to inquire with Mr. Wallin that that would be precisely the information he would say. `Well a treehouse, let's say, is an accessory structure. Make sure it doesn't go too high because obviously a treehouse, we're putting it up in a tree. Don't put it too high. Square footage -wise, don't go over this. If you have more than one accessory structure, you can't have more than one.' That was precisely the information that I was calling about. Commissioner Kovach: Okay, then I think it's a lesson learned from both sides that we need to be more diligent on both sides of asking questions. `Well, how big are you thinking of going?' Or, if you have any sketches, maybe you do need something. But, as far as how big it is, as a civil engineer myself, you know, I would have considered, okay, this is going to be pretty huge. More considered, I would have actually have tried to choose, typically, this is what we need to do. This is, now to me, is a house. A house in a tree, yes, but it's an elevated house if you ask me. Mr. Dunn: If I may, as well, to address that. In my mind, I was thinking, hey, we've got a television show that's been on the air for six years. We have a couple famous treehouses here in Minnesota as well. I though, when I'm asking for treehouse, that's what was in my mind. I thought that's kind of the latest. If you Google treehouses, it's pretty wild. That's what I was asking for and looking for more information. Commissioner Kovach: And, again, I think it's a lesson learned from both sides to be, what is your definition of a treehouse versus not a treehouse. I mean, I don't think, in my personal opinion from reading, I don't think that was really there. The communication wasn't there. What is actually a treehouse, what is not a treehouse. And, again, if I'm going to build a treehouse, if I was the City Engineer, what's a treehouse, I'm thinking of, I see somebody by (unintelligible) Church, there's a little treehouse there. They've got like a 25 square foot place. But I would not imagine this. I mean, again, I might be out of sync in what treehouses are and I don't watch that much TV about this type of stuff, but, you know, that's just me. Mr. Dunn: Thank you. Chair Anderson: Okay, any more questions for Mr. Dunn? Commissioner Witt: Yeah, just one more question. You're obviously a bright businessman that runs businesses. I would really challenge you that when you called the City, that you would think whoever answered on the other phone, that they would think when you said, `do I need a permit to build a treehouse?' I think if you did a survey amongst all the people in this room, we would all think of a child's treehouse. Right or wrong. And yes, I've seen that treehouse. And, there was this great big treehouse off of, very close to Calhoun, down there, and they had to take it down. Planning Manager Thomson: (inaudible) Boulevard. Proposed Minutes 15 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Commissioner Witt: Yes, exactly. And, that was a really big deal and they had to take that down. Mr. Dunn: I believe it fell down. Commissioner Witt: No, they had to take it down. Mr. Dunn: The one in St. Louis Park? Commissioner Witt: Yeah, it was there for years though. This is really cool but I think this is what our challenge is. Is that you set a precedence. This is the size of a small lake cabin. This is not a treehouse. This is not a screen porch. You have a loft. Cool, like really cool. But I just don't think it fits into the plan of the City. I mean, you know, we're here saying you probably shouldn't park an RV in the driveway or have sheds here or whatever. And I think if we were to say, `this is really neat and you get to do it,' my fear is what have we opened ourselves up to. And so for that reason, I think I'm going to have to say, `no, I don't support it.' But I really would, when you leave tonight, question yourself. Did you really not think that whoever you were talking to, and I would agree with my fellow Cormmissioner, when you think of a treehouse you think of a treehouse. This is like a little home, which is great but, so I don't think I'm going to be able to support it. Sorry. Chair Anderson: I'm a little concerned that we are moving into discussion when we haven't heard all the testimony on this matter. This is the section where we just ask questions of the applicant. So, if we have questions of Mr. Dunn, then let's do that and I have a couple of blue cards here that I'd like to get to before we move into any discussion on this. Any questions more of Mr. Dunn? Commissioner Vanderlan: Thank you, yes. Mr. Dunn, I have a question about the electrical in this. Who did the electrical? A skilled electrician? My concern is the fire safety being in the middle of the forest, you know, and dried leaves there. Can you tell me about that? Mr. Dunn: Sure. I did it myself. I have, it's not finished. It's currently run off of a carnival SO cord so it's just plugged into the exterior of the house. It was, more or less at the time, to get some light in there to kind of finish construction. I do have the little lanterns on there. Eventually I would have pulled a permit to have gotten that done properly. Commissioner Vanderlan: Do you have training, background in the electrical? Mr. Dunn: I don't. Commissioner Vanderlan: Okay, thank you. Chair Anderson: Okay, other questions? All right, thank you Mr. Dunn. Proposed Minutes 16 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Mr. Dunn: Thank you. Commissioner Witte: I've got a question for you Mr. Dunn. This issue came up as two accessory structures over 400 square feet. Mr. Dunn: Yes sir. Commissioner Witte: And, so you have a garage that's detached. Maybe you should attach that, take the top floor off this, come back, and maybe we could consider it if it was, as an accessory structure within the framework of the ordinance. Mr. Dunn: To connect my garage to the house? Is that what you're saying? Commissioner Witte: That's one way to have just one accessory structure. If this is your priority. Mr. Dunn: Sure. That idea was presented to me. I do like that idea if, if before, I don't know if you're able, before you vote, if you're able to. Commissioner Witte: No, you'd have to deal with this independently. But, I'm just saying you'd have to change the tcudible). facts?? @ 2.,13: into meeting. But, that might be something. You've got a height issue. You've got a square footage issue. Chair Anderson: Again, we're moving into discussion. Okay, any other questions? Thank you. Mr. Dunn: Thank you. Chair Anderson: It does raise one question though, your comment there Commissioner, for staff. Which is, the application is for a second accessory building. If he was to follow that suggestion and attach the garage to the house, I understand they're pretty close, and then suddenly this becomes the first accessory structure. What does that do to what we're talking about here? Senior Planner Darling: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, the property owner does have an attached three -car garage so we would have to look very closely at the size of the two together if you wanted to attach them together. I, because it is detached from the garage, to lift it up and attach that garage over, I think it would be a bit of a challenge. I mean, that would take some, that would also take some work too. Chair Anderson: Just so I understand Marie, you're talking about the existing detached garage that there would be, you would have to jack it up to? Senior Planner Darling: It is not connected to the existing house. Chair Anderson: Could you connect it with an enclosed hallway? A Code approved? I did go out because I wanted to see this. Proposed Minutes 17 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Senior Planner Darling: There are several issues that would come into play. First, detached accessory buildings are required to have footings. A main house would be so if you connect the two of them, that could be a challenge there in how that would work by Code because now you'd have a slab connected to a main house. Then you're also supposed to have your home constructed on a continuous perimeter foundation so that would also be a challenge as far as the Zoning Code. Chair Anderson: Those are technical details that Mr. Dunn would have to solve if he wants to go in that direction. I'm just trying to understand that. Is this variance application because it is a second structure? A second accessory structure? And if it became the first accessory structure, does that change what we're talking about here? Senior Planner Darling: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, that absolutely would change what we're talking about. He would only need one variance and that would be towards height. If somehow he removed the garage from the property or attached it to the house assuming the two of them together would be under 1,000 square feet. Planning Manager Thomson: And, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, and Marie correct me if I'm wrong, but he would also have to demonstrate that with that number of garages that they would still be secondary to the main part of the home. Is that correct? Under the Code? Senior Planner Darling: Yes. Chair Anderson: I have two blue cards on this matter. I have one from Rich Walsko. Is he, are you here? You can approach either microphone and do state your name and address at the mic so we have that for the recording. Rich Walsko: Sure, my name is Rich Walsko. My wife and I live at 4210 Juneau Lane, on the north side of Matt's property. We have lived there, this year will be 32 years. Our property size is about the same size, I believe almost exactly, as the size of Matt's property. I've known Matt for three years now. Matt is, has made a lot of improvements, very nice improvements, in the way of landscaping, on the front portion of that property. He's put in a stone gate at the front of the property and it's an electric gate. He's done a lot of plantings in the way of bushes and shrubs. He's built a small deck over the pond that is on the property. All of these things look very nice and good. However, I do have to object to this. And I'm sure Matt probably figured out who questioned the structure. Okay, I see it more than anybody else, other than Matt. It's fine and good as far as the color and everything else and attaching branches as railing; however, it is still an illegal structure no matter what and no pen -nit was ever pulled for it. From what I see of it, it is sitting on posts, on 8 -10 -foot high posts, and then two stories above that. I don't know if the City has verified the exact height of it. I know the variance asks for 24 feet but I heard it mentioned that it's 28 feet tall. I don't know who built the Proposed Minutes 18 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 structure. I don't know, it obviously wasn't a contractor. A contractor, I assume, would know to come to the City and get a permit or at least show them the plans. So, obviously, you know, it's a nice structure, but we're looking at the narrow side of it also, the thinnest side, which is, I assume the front. That's not the side that I see. I think the structure is out of place. I don't know how many of you have treehouses in your house, or on your property, but it's not a typical treehouse. To me it's a small cabin as was said earlier. I mean, that's how I see it. And, it's a freestanding structure. Even though it is bolted to trees, or attached to trees, it is still a freestanding structure. I know it's kind of a play on words when you say treehouse but I think, to me, when someone says, `I want to build a treehouse,' I think of what was mentioned earlier. A treehouse, that's about a 4 by 4 or 8 by 8 treehouse for kids. This, to me, is not a typical treehouse and I don't know how many structures similar to this, or were like shown on the screen, are there in Plymouth. Those are not typical treehouses, in my opinion. This variance, to me, seems rather excessive. It was mentioned that the second structure should be 15 feet. I thought I saw it in the ordinance as 10 feet and here we're asking for a 24 -foot variance plus it says it is 28 feet. Matt said it is 28 feet tall. So, to me this variance seems excessive in terms of height and also the square footage. I was not aware the square footage. I've never been in it. I've never been up close to it. I think it was mentioned. I mentioned earlier about verifying the height of this. What got me really concerned, with a lot of the improvements made on the property, this structure is also advertised on Matt's Airbnb website because he rents four rooms also of his home. To me, mentioning this treehouse, which it is mentioned if you go on Airbnb website as of a week ago, it was on there mentioning the treehouse, that the renters would have access to this treehouse. My concern with that is, who is liable if this is approved? If a child falls off of it? Besides the homeowner being liable, is the City liable? Pretty easy for someone to get injured. I don't know if the railings, if it follows Code at all. Matt said that, you know, an experienced individual built it. I don't know if he's licensed, a licensed carpenter, or what. I think he did a pretty nice job on it but still it's not a legal structure and it doesn't follow the ordinance for the City of Plymouth. As Matt even said, I don't know, maybe it's easier to pay a fine and keep the structure but it seems like it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission, as was said earlier. So, I just find it hard to believe that a businessman, or atypical homeowner like most of us are, that you're not aware of needing permits and needing licenses or at least communicating with the City with any type of construction, electrical work, plumbing, or whatever. The City also always needs to know. I had a roof done and some windows put in and I know permits had to be pulled for that. Proposed Minutes 19 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 I regret brining this up and I'm sure, like I said, Matt probably figured out who called the City and questioned some of this. Matt's been a good neighbor. We haven't had any problems; however, I do object to this structure being here. I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it was needed, other than being an accessory to help rent rooms, 4 rooms. It seems to me the property is turning into a commercial business where rooms are being rented and this is an accessory structure that kids can play on or go in. I just don't think it belongs. I appreciate your time. If you have any questions. Chair Anderson: Thank you Mr. Walsko. Any questions? Okay, I have a blue card from Robert Tucker. You can approach either microphone and state your name and address for the record. Robert Tucker: Yes, please have a map up there. I just want to show where I live so I can say a couple things. My name is Robert Tucker. I reside at 14550 41' Avenue North in Plymouth. I live in the property right here. There's my house, his lot goes the entire length of my property. His back yard starts about here and we have a 225 -foot common line between us. That goes along his whole back yard there to the end of the woods. I've lived there for 28 years and put up with some things with the prior owner and Matt has improved that property immensely. I have seen him take care of the front yard, remove older fencing that was falling down, cleaned up the pond. Just last week he was out there with a big crew cleaning up the woods for the first time in 20 years. All the downed trees and branches and some hanging trees that were dangerously hanging above the yard. I'm very pleased with what he's done with the property. He did tell me about his questions and discussions with the City and advised me quite a while ago that he found out that you don't have to have any special pen -nit for a treehouse but they couldn't give him any specific requirements. I should add that I think this is a beautiful structure. I actually think I'm in clearer view of it than the other neighbor. I look right into the back yard. What I had to put up with for the past 20 years with the previous owner was two horses that were stabled right adjacent to my back yard. I'm not quite sure about what the Codes were on that or what the requirements were or what that was about but I had to sniff horse poop when I'm up there at our fire pit. This brings up another point. My wife and I love being out in the woods. We sit up, we have a fire pit and we set some benches up just adjacent to Matt's property. I've got less than an acre. Matt's got 4 acres. My personal feeling is do we treat 4 acres the same way we treat a half -acre lot or a 1 -acre lot? He's got, what, 250 feet of woods in the back of his house. If he can't do anything in that whole area that would help him enjoy the forest, it doesn't seem right to me. We sit up three, four nights a week. Just sit up there and watch the stars and watch the rabbits and the foxes and the deer come by. I know Matt loves the outdoors. Proposed Minutes 20 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 He loves entertaining kids. He's done two fundraisers where he's shared his property with the public. He did one for National Night Out and hauled in national comedians and magicians. He did a Halloween party, both of which were to raise funds for Meals on Wheels. He's not doing this just to be fun. He's doing things for the community. I really respect him for that. As far as the structure's concerned, I think it's a great looking structure. It should be in Home Beautiful. We should be proud of something like that. I've also watched the Treehouse Masters and that's what you see. Yeah, the old definition of four boards at the top of a crick in an old oak tree, that's not there anymore. First of all, everybody realizes that's not safe. So now you've got some of these larger structures. I'm familiar with the one in St. Louis Park. I think that started falling apart and that's why they tore that down, I believe. I think that was mentioned earlier. From what I can see, this is very well designed and we love having it there. I have no problems whatsoever and I, you know from our yard, we have the only view of his back yard on 41' Avenue. It's just us and then there's two houses behind on Glacier that can see it. Other than that, nobody can see this structure except the neighbor to the north, obviously. I personally think, who is this harming? What is the harm? It's a beautiful structure. It looks very well built. If he needs to tweak a thing or two here to make it, you know, get people satisfied, that's fine. My wife and I enjoy seeing it. It's very comforting. It looks great in the woods. Bottom line, he's got four acres there. Let's, you know, let's try and let him enjoy his acreage, which he is paying taxes on. It is a rare situation to have this kind of acreage in Plymouth and to be able to have that wooded acreage. It's a lot of work. It's very costly for those of us that have the trees. I'm sure that, you know, the neighbor and Matt agree with that, because it, we, spend a lot of money taking trees out and making sure it's safe for everybody. I haven't seen any kids on that thing yet. I haven't seen, I really haven't seen anybody on the treehouse yet. But, it looks neat and I personally think and my wife thinks he should be allowed to keep it. I think the City should probably define the rules a little bit better and define what a treehouse actually is. This is something new, I understand that, and probably something that has not really come up in the past. He based his actions, based on what he heard from the City, it soimds like, and I support him and I know my other neighbors who have seen it support the stricture as well. I think that is all I've got to say. Appreciate your listening to me. Chair Anderson: Thank you Mr. Tucker. Any questions of Mr. Tucker? I have no other blue cards on this matter. Does anyone wish to address the Commission on it? Mr. Dunn: Mr. Anderson, may I speak again? Chair Anderson: Yes, you may. Proposed Minutes 21 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Mr. Dunn: Thank you. Chair Anderson: Mr. Dunn, state your name again when you get to the mic. Mr. Dunn: Matthew Dunn, 4130 Juneau Lane. Thank you Mr. Tucker and thank you, Rich, as well. I think you and Carolyn are lovely and I'm still delighted to be next door to you folks. You've got a nice property over there and are very, very nice people. I just wanted to address some of these points. I do periodically have Airbnb guests and I invite them to go into the garage and play pool and watch TV and if they want to go up in the treehouse, they are welcome to. If that was a concern, they don't have to. It was built for my personal enjoyment. Liability -wise, that's why I have the structural engineer. He's reviewed it. He signed off on it. And, he's saying, I think it's very, very close to Building Code. Some of the railings need to come up a little bit higher but we'll address that as well. I appreciate the points that were made about, maybe I should be smarter. That, that could be. I think what makes sense here is that it would not have made sense to have built something of this cost and size only to have the thought that it would come down. I have a history, as Mr. Tucker pointed out, I put the pillars in the front, I've done events in the front, I've done a lot of things with the property and each time I follow the same procedure. I look at the Code book and try to understand it the best as I can and then proceed to call, hopefully, an expert at the City to give me any additional information. That's precisely how I ended my conversation with Mr. Wallin was, `anything else you can think of that I might need to know?' I feel like that would have been the time to say things about, `do you have another accessory structure? How tall is it going to beT These are the questions, I would think, that an expert would say we need to know that before you proceed. Or, at the very least, you know, this has been going on for about five months. I'm a little surprised that the City of Plymouth, I realize to rewrite the Code book is probably not easy, but I would have thought it would be something simple to put on the website. You know, it's springtime, people are building things. If you're building a treehouse, please stop down with a drawing and some measurements and, so we can review this. That hasn't been done yet. It seems like the same setup, or, I don't know just, `uncovered manhole on the street for the next person to drop through.' And, there really is still no definition. No one has been able to come back to me and say, `you know, this is what a treehouse is. You missed it or you weren't listening.' I realize, just in conclusion, again, my name is extremely important to me. It's all I care about. I'm very paranoid about it. I would not have wanted somebody to say, `oh, he wanted to just ask for forgiveness. This was just a backdoor way of getting. Oh, he should have known that this was big.' I was going off of what my generation has been watching of treehouses and that's what I based this off of. I Proposed Minutes 22 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 would appreciate your vote in a positive manner on this. And, if there is anything I can do to still continue to satisfy folks, that is what I'd like to do. Thank you. Chair Anderson: Thank you. All right, we've had comments from all the blue cards. Barb, was there questions and things that came up in the process here that we should address? Planning Manager Thomson: Mr. Chair, there haven't really been any questions. I think, not really any questions that I have captured. Chair Anderson: All right, we are now to the discussion. We've heard some already. Commissioner Oakley: I'll jump in, Mr. Chair, if I may. Chair Anderson: Proceed. Commissioner Oakley: There's a lot of gray area here. You know, what's the definition of a treehouse? When do you need a permit? Looking at the requirements for securing a variance, the key one here, I think, is the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner. And, our conclusion in the staff report, is that this hasn't been demonstrated. I don't agree with that. I think the circumstance unique to the property is that Mr. Dunn called and asked a very specific question and got a very specific answer. Now, we could go on and say, `well, he should have described a larger structure.' Or, we could say, `it's actually 51 % percent supported by the ground.' I'm not sure what it is. But, the point being, I think he jumped through the hoops that he was supposed to jump through. And, I had a treehouse when I was a kid and it was a platform up in the branches in the trees that was pretty easy to fall off of. My brother fell off and broke his arm. But, if you aren't aware that treehouses look like this now, then you haven't been paying attention and I think that goes for City staff as well as Planning Commissioners and anybody else who's out there. This is not a, it's a unique structure in Plymouth, perhaps, but it is not a unique structure in society now. I think the City probably needs to address this because this won't be the last one that we see coming up. In everything I've said to this point probably snakes it sound like I'm going to vote in favor of it. However, the overriding issue here, I think, is still the neighbor's concern. And, if you had all of your neighbors on board with this, I would support it without hesitation. I have some hesitation here because I feel like the gentleman who spoke has rights for his property as well. And, sometimes trying to balance those things out, it can be challenging for the City. We dropped the ball in some of the instruction that was provided but in the end, I'm really hoping that there can be something that can be worked out to make this save -able. I'm hoping that whatever we decide to do tonight does not say you have to go out tomorrow with a crowbar, or after the City Council meeting I should say. Proposed Minutes 23 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Chair Anderson: We're not making that decision. That's for the City Council. I'll jump in here. I am concerned about a misunderstanding, first of all, to have a citizen call the City, ask questions, and proceed accordingly, and now we're at this point. I'm concerned about that. I think what we've discovered is a gray area and the gray area is called, `treehouse.' We need a definition of a treehouse in our ordinance. Jumping over to Webster doesn't quite do it for me. To say okay, this would be legal if you put it 40 feet up in the air but now that it's down starting at 12 feet, you know, that doesn't really work for me. So, clearly, the lesson here is that we need some regulation on this and something that talks about the square footage of the structure. I look at this going as variance, is even the right question that we should be addressing here at all. A 10 -foot hallway between the existing house and the 3 -car garage, suddenly this is the first accessory structure. Now we're looking at a different question. To me, this is a question of a building permit. I am concerned about, are the rails right? Is some kid going to fall off there or something like that? Those are building pen -nit questions. All the wiring, those are building permit questions. To me the solution is get a building permit on it. You know, to say yes is to say I even agree with the fact that we need a variance here and I'm not sure, you know to me, that has not been fully demonstrated. So, I think we found a lot of gray here and I'm really concerned about having discovered this. Other comments? Planning Manager Thomson: Mr. Chair, I'd just say before you vote, this would be a voice vote. Chair Anderson: Okay. Other questions? Comments? Commissioner Witte: I would just like to thank the neighbors. This is always a difficult situation whether you like it or you don't like it and you continue to be neighbors. Whatever we decide, please look past it and realize that this could be an attractive, playful adventure for you, it might be a nuisance for someone else. And, however this, it takes a lot of courage to stand up and voice concerns in a very diplomatic and civil way, and also in support. So, I would encourage you all to continue to be good neighbors. So, thank you. Chair Anderson. Okay, I think it's time to vote on a motion, which we don't have yet. Commissioner Witte: Mr. Chainnan? Chair Anderson: Yes? Proposed Minutes 24 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Commissioner Witte: I'm going to move that we deny the request for the variance to allow a second accessory structure to remain on the property at 4130 Juneau Lane North, based on the findings in the attached resolution by staff. Commissioner Vanderlan: I'll second. Chair Anderson: Okay, we have a motion and a second for denial of the variance. Any discussion? Planning Manager Thomson: Mr. Chair, just guessing that there might be some divisions here, would you like me to just call the roll instead? Chair Anderson: Yes, let's just call the roll. Planning Manager Thomson: Okay. This is a motion to deny. At this point, Planning Manager Thomson called each Commissioner's name: Commissioner Vanderlan: Aye. Commissioner Witte: Aye. Commissioner Kovach: Aye. Commissioner Witt: Aye. Commissioner Oakley: No. Chair Anderson: No. Okay, we have a recommendation on a split vote but more yeses for denial than nos. It was a 4-2 so this matter goes to the City Council on May 9th. But again, stay in touch with staff because the schedules do vary. Thank you all for coining. Proposed Minutes 25 of 25 Meeting of April 19, 2017 Proposed Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 46ES May 3, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners Jim Kovach, Julie Witt, Donovan Saba, Bryan Oakley, David Witte and Kira Vanderlan MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barb Thomson, Senior Planner Shawn Drill and Assistant City Engineer Mike Payne OTHERS PRESENT: Council Member Ned Carroll 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC FORUM 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner -Kovach, to approve the May 3, 2017 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. THE LUTHER COMPANY (2017014) (This item was removed from the consent agenda and renumbered Item 6A.) Approve site plan amendment for exterior lighting changes at Luther Collision and Glass for property located at 9825 56h Avenue. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. THE LUTHER COMPANY (2017014) Commissioner Witte asked for additional information on the number of poles and whether there would be a reduction in the number of poles. He also asked for additional clarification on the orientation of the lights, backlighting and uplighting. Proposed Minutes 1 of 8 Meeting of May 3, 2017 Planning Manager Thomson stated that the city has a lighting ordinance based on the International Dark Sky Association ordinance. She explained that the idea is to make sure that lighting on one site is not a problem for adjaent sites, which is addressed in part by the backlight, uplight and glare. Commissioner Witte stated that the language in the resolution refers to the removal of poles but does not discuss how many poles would be replaced. He also suggested rewording the condition addressing color temperature. Planning Manager Thomson stated that approval of the site plan amendment would be in accordance with the plans associated with the request and those plans include the number of poles to be replaced. Peter Beck, representing the applicant, responded that the poles are either being eliminated or replaced and there are no new locations. Commissioner Witte asked if the illumination desired could be reached at the lower color temperature. Linda McGinty, Luther Companies, replied that they could reach that level of illumination but there is an effect on color. She stated that the difference in temperature provides a different shade of light. She stated that they have not made the final decision on the lighting choice. MOTION by Commissioner Witte, seconded by Commissioner Vanderlan, to approve the request by The Luther Company for a site plan amendment for exterior lighting changes at Luther Collision and Glass for property located at 9825 56th Avenue. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MACO PROPERTIES, LLC (2017021) Chair Anderson introduced the request by Maco Properties, LLC for rezoning, site plan and conditional use permit for a memory care home for property located at 18040 Medina Road. Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report. Chair Anderson asked for more details on the bio -filtration system, whether it would be open water or walkable. Senior Planner Drill replied that it is a depression area with drain tile. Assistant City Engineer Payne stated that the bio -filtration basin would be designed to drain and not hold water. He stated that it would be required to drain water within 48 hours. Proposed Minutes 2 of 8 Meeting of May 3, 2017 Chair Anderson introduced Kelli Max and Katie Cochran, representing the applicant, who stated that the journey with the project began 11 years ago when their father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease. She stated that they had difficulty finding a long-term care facility that would meet the needs of their father and their expectations in this area. She stated that they identified land and created a team that would create a building and a place where people would want to live and quality care would be provided. She stated that they are looking forward to building a facility that would meet the needs of residents and families in this area. Commissioner Oakley noted that there are several items in the original submittal that did not meet ordinance requirements and asked if there are any concerns with the proposed revisions. Ms. Max replied that they did not have any issues with the revisions. Commissioner Witte asked if the applicants or their team have experience operating a memory care facility and whether the architectural team has that experience. Ms. Max replied that she and Ms. Cochran do not have experience but sought out a design team and operations team that will help them bridge those gaps. Commissioner Witte asked if a patient profile has been established for the facility. Ms. Cochran replied that the facility would provide care for different stages of dimentia. Ms. Max stated that they would be a locked facility and the operations team would have the experience necessary to provide guidance. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Chair Anderson introduced Jan Wyder-Barck, 18175 39'11 Avenue, who stated that they purchased their home three years ago and her property line borders the subject property. She stated that she has spoken with staff to learn more about the project and possible impacts. She stated that there are very high water tables in the area and they have made investments in their property to assist with the problem, including regrading and drains. She stated that they are worried about losing the wooded feel of their neighborhood and are concerned with the rezoning from R-1. She said she also has concerns with lighting and impacts to neighboring residential properties, noise that would be generated from visitors and deliveries coming and going, and water displacement. Chair Anderson introduced Martin Wirth, 18145 39th Avenue, who stated that there is a very significant woods behind the properties that provides a buffer to the roadway and traffic noise. He stated when the surveyors were on his property, they told him they were marking and cataloging each tree on 50 feet of either side of the property line. He asked if trees removed from the subject property would be replaced on the subject property. He also asked if there would be an insurance period for damage done during construction to tree roots on his property. He said he was concerned with lighting on the north side of the building and how that would be screened from the nearby homes. He stated that this building is proposed at one story and asked Proposed Minutes 3 of 8 Meeting of May 3, 2017 if there can be a stipulation preventing another level. He said he was concerned with possible noise from the generator or rooftop equipment. Chair Anderson introduced Barry Altman, 18120 39`h Avenue, who stated that there is an underground spring on the Perl property that causes water problems for the homes on 39th Avenue. He referenced the bio -pond and asked how that would drain when the ground in the area is saturated year-round. He stated that he would like the issue of underground water to be well addressed. Chair Anderson introduced Lori Berning, 3710 Urbandale Lane, who stated that she has concern with the traffic as Medina Road is already very congested. She asked when a sidewalk would be constructed as she has safety concerns with pedestrians and additional traffic. She stated that Medina Road already has flooding during certain times and asked where the water would drain from the subject property as she did not want to see additional flooding. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Senior Planner Drill stated that this site is not being subdivided and is not subject to the tree preservation ordinance. He noted that the site would be subject to the city's landscaping ordinance. Planning Manager Thomson noted that the city has curfew limits for lighting and therefore there would not be 24-hour lighting. She stated that there are requirements for dimming at certain hours as well. She noted that the city also has requirements for glare to ensure that neighboring properties are not disturbed. Senior Planner Drill noted that this is an LA -2 guided property and could have a variety of uses. He stated that the property has a development potential and that it has development rights. He said staff believes this would be a good use and fit with the neighborhood, given the other uses that could be developed on this site. He explained the steps that would need to occur in order to install a generator to ensure that the generator would comply with the noise regulations. He noted that the generator would also need to be screened. He stated that the surrounding road system was designed to support development of this intensity on the subject site. He noted that staffing may be staggered and visitors would most likely not have an impact because they would not be visiting at peak hours. He noted that the deliveries would probably be made by smaller UPS type vehicles and not semi -trucks. Assistant City Engineer Payne provided additional details on how the site would drain and noted that the actual rates of runoff are proposed to be a decrease from the current condition. He noted that the commission could require the applicant to have an engineer perform an analysis of the effect of the proposed development on the existing homes and submit their findings. Commissioner Witte asked if this site would have a basement and where the sump pumps would drain. Planning Manager Thomson replied that the building would not have a basement. Proposed Minutes 4 of 8 Meeting of May 3, 2017 Senior Planner Drill stated that the city forester reviews all development plans and he did not identify any issues with potential tree damage. He explained that there are distance setbacks but noted that he would have to study the grading plan to determine if there would be any impact to neighboring trees. He stated that two stories would be allowed under the proposed zoning, although the applicant is proposing a one-story building. He noted that the building is not being designed to support a second level. He also noted that if the applicant wanted a second story they would need to go through the process once again to amend their plan. He stated that the parks department is prioritizing a list of trails that will be presented to the City Council soon for feedback. He said he was not sure of a specific date the trail would be installed in this neighborhood, noting that it would be a city trail. Commissioner Oakley stated that it looks like there is some water that would runoff the site to the north and said he did not see a swale that would capture that water. He asked if there is some water that would drain off the site. Assistant City Engineer Payne replied that the vast majority is contained on site but was not certain the percentage of water that would run off-site. Commissioner Oakley stated that he would like some assurance that the townhomes would not be impacted by the runoff. Assistant City Engineer Payne replied that staff would research that further. Planning Manager Thomson stated that staff could answer those questions before the item goes before the council. Commissioner Witte asked the type of engineering study that would be done to ensure the surface water displacement was done in the correct way. Assistant City Engineer Payne replied that the applicant could provide that proof to identify any impacts to the homeowners. He stated that the geotechnical engineer would know what to look for. Commissioner Vanderlan asked if the generator could be on the side of the building near County Road 101. Senior Planner Drill stated that the power supply enters the building in that location, and that is where they typically place them. He noted that the applicant could provide more details on whether the generator could be placed further from the residential properties. Commissioner Saba acknowledged that the property does have rights to develop and noted that the site could be developed with townhomes. He said he believed the density range would be 24 to 28 units and asked if that is correct. Senior Planner Drill confirmed that should residential townhomes be constructed on the property, the density would be about 24 townhomes. Proposed Minutes 5 of 8 Meeting of May 3, 2017 Commissioner Saba noted that a development of that size would have two -car garages and would bring in more traffic and more people to the area as well as additional concerns with that size of development. Chair Anderson stated that one question for the commission would be whether a geotechnical study on drainage effects is required and whether that should be done prior to the council review. He stated that another concern was with potential damage to trees on neighboring properties. Commissioner Kovach asked if a traffic study should be a part of the discussion. Planning Manager Thomson noted that the amount of traffic generated would be significantly less than what would occur should the site be developed with townhomes and therefore a study would not be necessary. Commissioner Saba stated that the commission previously requested additional details on a similar use, but larger facility and noted that deep discussion occurred. He noted that a site of this size would have much less of an impact. Planning Manager Thomson referenced the geotechnical analysis and stated that it could be added as a condition that would need to be met before the issuance of a building permit and not conditional on the approval itself. Commissioner Vanderlan referenced the discussion regarding the generator and asked if that should be addressed. Chair Anderson stated that a generator is not a part of this request and that would require a separate application with requirements that need to be met. Planning Manager Thomson stated that the city is diligent with generators as there have been off- site issues in the past with other applications and therefore the city attempts to avoid those issues going forward. MOTION by Commissioner Kovach, seconded by Commissioner Witte, to approve the request by Maco Properties, LLC for rezoning, site plan and conditional use permit for a memory care home for property located at 18040 Medina Road with the added conditions of requiring that 1) a geotechnical engineer evaluate and show any off-site surface and groundwater impacts and 2) the city forester document any impacts on existing off-site trees. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved. B. WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS (2017025) Chair Anderson introduced the request by Wold Architects and Engineers for a site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment for building expansion at Meadow Ridge Elementary School located at 17905 County Road 47. Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report. Proposed Minutes 6 of 8 Meeting of May 3, 2017 Commissioner Witte asked if there will be space for an addition on the west side in the future and whether drainage needs would be met. Senior Planner Drill noted that there was a version that included that space for a gymnasium but noted that the school at this point in time has no intention of adding another gym. Commissioner Kovach asked why this was not done in the last round of additions. Senior Planner Drill replied that the growth in the community and surrounding cities has caused the school district to grow faster than anticipated. He stated that it is a challenge for the district trying to predict what will happen. Planning Manager Thomson noted that an application for an additional elementary school will be coming forward for review soon as well. Chair Anderson noted that the additional space will also require additional staff members and busses and asked how the parking is set up to support the additional staff and bussing needs. Senior Planner Drill stated that during the original construction, more parking was provided than needed. He noted that the site would still have more parking than needed to support even a future addition. He stated that the school district anticipated that the addition would result in the need to add only two additional busses in the morning and afternoon, as current busses are not at full capacity. Commissioner Witte stated that at this level of addition, the sizing for parking and drainage would be sufficient and asked if the parking and drainage would be sufficient for future expansion. Chair Anderson introduced Valerie Peterson, representing the applicant, who stated that the facility would still exceed parking requirements even if another gymnasium was added. She noted that the school requires more parking than required by city ordinance. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing and closed the public hearing as there was no one present who requested to speak on this item. MOTION by Commissioner Vanderlan, seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to approve the request by Wold Architects and Engineers for a site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment for building expansion at Meadow Ridge Elementary School located at 17905 County Road 47. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved. C. CITY OF PLYMOUTH (2017034) Chair Anderson introduced the request by the City of Plymouth for an amendment to Land Use Plan Appendix C of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Planning Manager Thomson gave an overview of the staff report. Proposed Minutes 7 of 8 Meeting of May 3, 2017 Chair Anderson asked if the Metropolitan Council agrees with the new language as proposed to ensure there are not additional issues. Planning Manager Thomson replied that staff verified that the proposed language would meet the concerns raised by Metropolitan Council staff. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing and closed the public hearing as there was no one present who requested to speak on this item. MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Kovach, to approve the request by the City of Plymouth for an amendment to Land Use Plan Appendix C of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved. R: R l IG11E9►1 /1110 11 MOTION by Chair Anderson, with no objection, to adjourn the meeting at 8:28 P.M. Proposed Minutes 8 of 8 Meeting of May 3, 2017 Agenda Number File 2017033 64 PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT TO: Plymouth Planning Commission FROM: Kip Berglund, Planner (509-5453) through Barbara Thomson, Planning Manager MEETING DATE: May 17, 2017 APPLICANT: Creekside Plymouth, LLC PROPOSAL: Rezoning and preliminary plat for "Creekside Woods" LOCATION: 17215 and 17135 Old Rockford Road GUIDING: LA -1 (living area 1) CURRENT ZONING: RSF-2 (single family detached 2) and FRD (future restricted development) SCHOOL DISTRICT: Wayzata School District (ISD 284) REVIEW DEADLINE: July 21, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of the following: • a rezoning of the approximately 1.22 -acre lot located at 17215 Old Rockford Road from FRD (future restricted development) to RSF-2 (single-family detached 2); and • a preliminary plat (replat) for "Creekside Woods" to establish I I single-family lots on 5.92 acres, the total area of the lots at 17215 and 17135 Old Rockford Road. The request is a combination of the preliminary plats for Creekside Woods and Creekside Woods Phase II previously requested in 2016. Under the plan, the existing home would remain. Notice of the public hearing was published in the city's official newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 750 feet of the site. A copy of the notification area snap is attached. Development signage has also been posted on the property, File 2017033 Page 2 CONTEXT: Surrounding Land Uses Natural Characteristics of Site This site is located in the Bassett Creek watershed district. Plymouth Creek lies south of the site and a portion of the site lies within the shoreland overlay district for Plymouth Creek. However, none of the proposed lots are entirely within the overlay district, and therefore are not subject to impervious surface restrictions. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map indicates that the southeast corner of the property contains a floodplain (Zone AE). The elevation of the floodplain is 980 feet and the survey submitted by the applicant shows all lowest floor elevations at least two feet above the floodplain, consistent with city requirements, There is a portion of a high-quality wetland basin located on the southeast corner of the site. The development is subject to the city's wetland buffer regulations. The site also contains mature trees and is subject to the city's tree preservation regulations. Previous Actions Affecting Site The property at 17215 Old Rockford Road is not platted. The existing home was constructed in 1984 and would remain on a newly created lot within the subdivision. In August, 2016, the City Council approval a rezoning from FRD to RSF-2 and preliminary plat for the property at 17135 Old Rockford Road. In February, 2017, the City Council approved a final plat for Creekside Woods consisting of seven single-family lots. The plat was never recorded at Hennepin County. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning application. This is because the rezoning of land is a "quasi -legislative" action (enactment of policy). The zoning ordinance and map are the enforcement tools used to implement the goals and standards set by the comprehensive plan. The proposed zoning for a property must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Adjacent Land Use Guiding Zoning North [across Single-family home on large lot FRD Old Rockford Single-family homes in "Plum Tree East"(NW) LA -1 PUD RocrD Single-family homes in "Golfview Estates"(NE) RSF-1 East Wetland and single-family homes in "Holly P-1 RSF-2 Creek" LA- i South Wetland and single-family homes in `'Holly LA -1 RSF-2 Creek 4`h Addition" West Single-family homes in "Kimberly Woods" LA -1 RSF-2 RSF-1 Natural Characteristics of Site This site is located in the Bassett Creek watershed district. Plymouth Creek lies south of the site and a portion of the site lies within the shoreland overlay district for Plymouth Creek. However, none of the proposed lots are entirely within the overlay district, and therefore are not subject to impervious surface restrictions. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map indicates that the southeast corner of the property contains a floodplain (Zone AE). The elevation of the floodplain is 980 feet and the survey submitted by the applicant shows all lowest floor elevations at least two feet above the floodplain, consistent with city requirements, There is a portion of a high-quality wetland basin located on the southeast corner of the site. The development is subject to the city's wetland buffer regulations. The site also contains mature trees and is subject to the city's tree preservation regulations. Previous Actions Affecting Site The property at 17215 Old Rockford Road is not platted. The existing home was constructed in 1984 and would remain on a newly created lot within the subdivision. In August, 2016, the City Council approval a rezoning from FRD to RSF-2 and preliminary plat for the property at 17135 Old Rockford Road. In February, 2017, the City Council approved a final plat for Creekside Woods consisting of seven single-family lots. The plat was never recorded at Hennepin County. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning application. This is because the rezoning of land is a "quasi -legislative" action (enactment of policy). The zoning ordinance and map are the enforcement tools used to implement the goals and standards set by the comprehensive plan. The proposed zoning for a property must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. File 2017033 Page 3 The city's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance. This is because preliminary plat review is a "quasi-judicial" action (enforcement of established policy). If a preliminary plat application meets the standards, the city must approve the preliminary plat. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: RF7nNTNr_ The applicant is requesting to rezone the lot at 17215 Old Rockford Road from FRD to RSF-2, consistent with the zoning of the lot at 17135 Old Rockford Road, The requested rezoning would accommodate the proposed single-family residential development. The FRD zoning district serves as a "Bolding zone" until property is developed, at which time it shall be rezoned in accordance with its land use guiding designation in the comprehensive plan. Any development of the lot at 17215 Old Rockford Road would require rezoning from the FRD classification. Comprehensive Plan The lot is guided LA -1 on the city's land use guide plan. The land use chapter of the comprehensive plan Iists single-family homes as appropriate land uses in areas guided LA -1. The LA -1 designation specifies a minimum density goal of two dwelling units per acre and a maximum density of three dwelling units per acre for residential developments. Density is based on net acreage (excluding areas of wetlands and required wetland buffer strips, areas below the 140 -year flood elevation, areas below the ordinary high water level of lakes and streams, areas below the high water level of ponds, and areas of right-of-way for arterial roadways), consistent with the procedures established by the Metropolitan Council. Based on roughly 4.34 net acres of both subject lots, this overall site should accommodate 8 to 13 dwelling units. The proposal would include 1 I dwelling units, for a density of 2.53 dwelling units per acre. Consequently, the proposal would be consistent with the density goal identified in the comprehensive plan. The RSF-2 district is listed as an appropriate corresponding zoning district for property that is guided LA -1. Single-family homes are allowable in the RSF-2 district as a permitted use. Consequently, the proposed development and requested RSF-2 zoning would be consistent with the LA -1 guiding of both lots. An excerpt of the LA -1 section of the comprehensive plan is attached. The surrounding properties to the south and east are zoned RSF-2 and are separated by wetlands and Plymouth Creek, The RSF-I zone to the west contains a compatible single-family development with similar lot sizes. The properties to the northwest (PUD) and northeast (RSF_ 1) are developed with single-family homes and are separated by Old Rockford Road. The properties directly west and north are currently zoned FRD and would be rezoned to a compatible zoning district if and when developed. File 201.7033 Page 4 Staff finds that the requested rezoning from FRD to RSF-2 would be appropriate, based upon the following findings: 1. The requested single-family use of the lot at 17215 Old Rockford Road is consistent with the LA -1 guiding of the lot. 2. The requested RSF-2 zoning would be consistent with the LA -1 guiding of the lot. The proposed lot arrangement would comply with RSF-2 standards. 3. The density and RSF-2 zoning would result in a development that would be compatible with the existing character and zoning of the adjacent properties. 4. Adequate infrastructure would be available to support RSF-2 zoning and the proposed development. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant proposes to subdivide the properties into I 1 lots for single-family homes. A new public street would be constructed off of Old Rockford Road. The proposed lots would all be served from the new public street. Water is proposed to be extended from Old Rockford Road and sewer would be installed along the new public street and connect to either an existing line south of the subject property or an existing line along Old Rockford Road. The final route would be determined as part of the final plat. The existing home would remain and become Lot 9, Block 1. Access to all lots would come directly from the new street. The driveway from Old Rockford Road to the existing home would be removed and access to proposed Lot 9 would come from the new street. A condition is included in the attached resolution reflecting this requirement. Lot Arrangement The RSF-2 zoning district requires a minimum lot area of 12,500 square feet and a minimum Iot width of 80 feet (as measured at the required front setback line). All proposed lots would meet or exceed the RSF-2 standards. The smallest lot would contain I2,572 square feet and the average lot size would be 23,127 square feet. Lot width would range from 80 feet to 95 feet. Tree PreservatioizlLandscapziag This development is subject to the city's tree preservation regulations. Section 530 of the city code requires preservation of at least 50 percent of the caliper inches of significant trees for residential development sites, or reforestation and/or monetary restitution for any removal in excess of this threshold. A significant tree is defined as one being eight inches or larger in diameter for deciduous trees, and four inches or larger in diameter for conifers. The tree survey indicates 5,459.5 caliper inches of eligible significant trees on the overall site, after deducting exempt trees located in the area of the water quality treatment pond. The applicant submitted a tree plan indicating that 2,353 inches of significant trees (43.1 percent) would be preserved. As a result, the applicant would need to plant 470.94 inches as restitution. The applicant's landscape/reforestation plan indicates 97.5 tree inches to be planted. Consequently, the applicant would be required to pay restitution for 279.25 tree inches in order to meet the city's File 2017033 Page 5 requirements for tree preservation. A condition is included in the attached resolution requiring the tree restitution planting, payment or combination there of, which would be collected through the development contract for Creekside Woods. DrainagelTrearment of Runoff' The city requires storm drainage systems to be designed so that the post -development rate of runoff from a site does not exceed the pre -development rate of runoff. Additionally, the city requires treatment of storm water runoff before it enters the drainage system. A water quality pond would be constructed in the southwest portion of the site to treat run-off and provide rate/volume control prior to discharge into the wetland to the south. The pond would be sized to treat runoff from the entire site. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant would be required to submit any necessary additional information, including drainage calculations, and address any needed changes to the proposed drainage system, so it complies with all city regulations regarding drainage and water quality. Park Dedication As noted above, the existing home was built on unplatted property and the final plat for the property at 17135 Old Rockford Road was never recorded. As a result, neither property has ever paid a park dedication fee. Consequently, in conjunction with the platting of 11 new lots, the applicant would be required to pay a cash fee in lieu of land dedication for 11 dwelling units, pursuant to section 528 of the city code. This matter is addressed in the attached resolution. SidewalkslTrails The applicant proposes to install a concrete sidewalk along the southeast side of the new public street in compliance with the subdivision regulations. The proposed sidewalk would connect with the existing sidewalk along the south side of Old Rockford Road. Trek Old Rockford Road is classified as a major collector on the Roadway Functional Classification Map in the comprehensive plan, Collectors are designed to serve shorter trips that occur within the city and to provide access from neighborhoods to other collector roadways and the arterial system. The latest traffic count (from 2013) is attached showing 5,200 trips along the segment of Old Rockford Road between Peony Lane and Dunkirk Lane. A single-family home generates an average of ten trips per day (a round trip constitutes two trips). if approved, there would be 11 lots where two originally existed. The nine additional lots would increase the traffic by a total of 90 average daily trips or a 1.7 percent increase. Staff finds that Old Rockford Road has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by the proposed subdivision. File 2017033 Page 6 Conclusion on fhe Prelitninart} Plal Staff finds the proposed plat would be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and would comply with the standards outlined in the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Community development department staff recommends approval of the following items for Creekside Woods: a) an ordinance approving the rezoning of the lot at 17215 Old Rockford Road from FRD to RSF- 2; b) a resolution approving the findings of fact supporting the rezoning; and, c) a resolution approving the preliminary plat. ATTACHMENTS: I. Draft Ordinance Approving Rezoning 2. Draft Resolution Approving Findings of Fact for Rezoning 3. Draft Resolution Approving Preliminary Plat 4. Applicant's Narrative 5. LA -1 Excerpt (Comprehensive Plan) 6. 2013 Traffic Counts 7. Location Map 8. Aerial Photo 9. Notification Area Map 10. Site Graphics P-TInkin i PS RttmWide Wecds R2 Kltcomro Pn,PC mpap ilmh CITY OF PLYMOUTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 2017 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CITY CODE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LAND LOCATED AT 17215 OLD ROCKFORD ROAD (2017033) THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS: Section 1. Amendment of City Code. Chapter 21 of the City Code of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, is hereby amended by changing the classification on the City of Plymouth Zoning Map from FR (future restricted development) to RS F-2 (single family detached 2) with respect to the roughly 1.22 - acre lot presently addressed as 17215 Old Rockford Road, and presently legally described as follows: That part of the following described property: The West 150 feet of the North 395 feet of that part of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 118, flange 22, described as commencing at the southeast corner of said West Half; thence North along the east line of said West Half 1334.59 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 89 degrees 29 minutes West 449 feet; thence North parallel with said east line 582.09 feet to the center line of County Road No. 9 (aka Rockford Road); thence easterly along said center line to said east line; thence South to the point of beginning. Which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said property; thence northerly along the east line of said property 50.00 feet to the center of a 50.00 foot radius circle; thence continuing northerly along said east line 50.00 feet to the point of beginning of said line to be described; thence westerly 59.69 feet along said circle, having a central angle of 68 degrees 23 minutes 39 seconds; thence westerly 104.09 feet more or less to a point on the west line of said property distant 53.39 feet north of the southwest corner of said property and there terminating. Ordinance 2017- 2017033 Page 2 Section 2. Effective Date. This amendment shall take effect immediately upon its passage, ADOPTED by the Plymouth City Council this **** day of ******* Kelli Slavik, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra R. Engdahl, City Clerk CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION No. 2017 - RESOLUTION APPROViNc, FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE REZONING OF LAND LOCATED AT 17215 QLD ROCKFORD ROAD (2017033) WHEREAS, Creekside Plymouth, LLC, has requested reclassification of the zoning from FRD (future restricted development) to RSF-2 (single family detached 2) forthe roughly 1.22 -acre lot presently addressed as 17215 Old Rockford Road, and presently legally described as follows: That part of the following described property: The West 150 feet of the North 395 feet of that part of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 118, Range 22, described as commencing at the southeast corner of said West Half; thence North along the east line of said West Half 1334.59 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 89 degrees 29 minutes West 449 feet; thence North parallel with said east line 582.09 feet to the center line of County Road No. 9 (aka Rockford Road); thence easterly along said center line to said east line; thence South to the point of beginning. Which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said property; thence northerly along the east line of said property 50.00 feet to the center of a 54.00 foot radius circle; thence continuing northerly along said east line 50.00 feet to the point of beginning of said line to be described; thence westerly 59.69 feet along said circle, having a central angle of 68 degrees 23 minutes 39 seconds; thence westerly 104.09 feet mare or less to a point on the west line of said property distant 53.39 feet north of the southwest corner of said property and there terminating. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public hearing and recommends approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an ordinance rezoning the affected parcel from FRD to RSF-2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BYTHE CITY COUNCIL OFTHE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for reclassification of the zoning from FRD to RSF-2 for the roughly 1.22 -acre lot located at 17215 Old Rockford Road (as presently legally described above), based on the following findings: 1. The requested single-family use of the lot is consistent with the LA -1 guiding of the Iot. 2. The requested RSF-2 zoning would be consistent with the LA -1 guiding of the lot. The proposed lot arrangement would comply with RSF-2 standards. 3. The density and RS F-2 zoning would result in a development that would be compatible with the existing character and zoning of the adjacent properties. Resolution 2017- (2017033) Page 2 4. Adequate infrastructure would be available to support RSF-2 zoning and the proposed development. APPROVED by the City Council this *** day of ******* STATE OF MINNESCITAJ COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that l compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on * * * * * * * with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this day of City Clerk CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION No. 2017 - RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CREEKSIDE PLYMOUTH, LLC, FOR "CREEKSIDE WOODS" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17215 AND 1 71 35 OLD ROCKFORD ROAD (2017033) WHEREAS, Creekside Plymouth, LLC, has requested approval of a preliminary plat for roughly 5.92 acres of land presently legally described as follows: That part of the west half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 118 North, Range 22 west of the 5th principal meridian, described as beginning at the southeast corner of the west half of the northwest quarter of said Section 17, thence north along the east line of said west half of the northwest quarter a distance of 1334.59 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described, thence north 88 degrees 29 minutes west a distance of 449 feet; thence north and parallel to the east line of said west half of the northwest quarter a distance of 682.09 feet, more or less, to the centerline of County Road No. 9 (also known as Rockford Road), thence easterly along the center line of said County Road No. 9 to the east line of said west half of the northwest quarter; thence south along the east line thereof to the actual point of beginning, except the west 150 feet of the north 395 feet thereof, according to the U.S. Government survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND That part of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 118 North, Range 22 West of the 5t" Principal Meridian, described as commencing at the Southeast corner of the West half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 17, thence North along the East line of said West Half of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 1334.59 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described, thence North 88 degrees 29 minutes West a distance of 449 feet; thence South and parallel to the East Iine of said West Half of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 48 feet; thence North 89 degrees 47 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 181.59 feet; thence North 83 degrees 13 minutes 25 seconds East a distance of 83.92 feet; thence North 82 degrees 05 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 185.69 feet to the actual point of beginning, according to the U.S. Government survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND The West 150 feet of the North 395 feet of that part of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 118, Range 22, described as commencing at the southeast corner of said West Half; thence North along the east line of said West Half 1334.59 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 89 degrees 29 minutes West 449 feet; thence North parallel with said east line 582.09 feet to the center line of County Road No. 9 (aka Rockford Road); thence easterly along said center line to said east line; thence South to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public hearing and recommends approval. Res. 2017 - File 2017033 Page 2 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 by Creekside Woods, LLC for a preliminary plat for Creekside Woods, subject to the following conditions: 1. A preliminary plat is approved for 11 single-family lots in accordance with the development plans received by the city on March 24, 2017, and additional information on May 10, 2017, except as amended by this resolution. 2. Approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon City Council approval of the rezoning of the site. Prior to commencement of site _development including grading operations, the developer shall: a} Revise the tree preservation plan to include tree preservation fencing for all trees to be preserved (numbers 400-402, 90 and 145-152). b) Install and request inspection of tree protection fencing and silt fencing. c) Obtain the necessary right-of-way permits from the City of Plymouth Engineering Division to allow work in the Old Rockford Road right-of-way. d) Obtain the required NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit. 4. Prior to recording the final plat, the developer shall: a) Receive city approval of final construction plans, including those related to drainage and treatment of runoff. b) Verify that proposed route of sanitary sewer connection into property to the south of the subject property is located within an existing drainage and utility easement. c) Remove any retaining walls within a drainage and utility easement or obtain an encroachment agreement for retaining walls that would lie within a drainage and utility easement. d) Remove the existing detached garage and other site features identified as being removed from the site. A demolition permit is required for removal of the existing detached garage. e) Revise the street name from Inland Court to Inland Lane. f) Execute the development contract and provide the required financial guarantees and fees. g) Pay the park dedication cash fee in lieu of land dedication for 11 dwelling units, in accordance with the dedication ordinance in effect at the time of filing of the final plat. h) Revise the landscaping plan to add additional trees and pay the required tree restitution fee, or a combination thereof. i) Obtain Bassett Creek Watershed approval. j) Submit Fire Inspector approved fire flow calculations. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall: a} Remove the driveway on Old Rockford Road and provide access to Lot 9, Block 1, Creekside Woods from Inland Lane. b} Provide a certificate of survey indicating a minimum of two front yard trees to be preserved or planted on each lot. This condition also applies when Lot 3 redevelops. cj For lots abutting the wetland or pond, the lowest floor elevation shall be at least two feet higher than the high water elevation for the wetland or pond. Res. 2017 - File 2017033 Page 3 Upon submission of the final plat application, the developer shall submit homeowner's association documents or covenants for city review. The homeowner's association documents or covenants shall address: a) responsibilities for maintenance and repair of developer -installed retaining walls, wetlands, wetland buffers, buffer monuments, sidewalks, and any subdivision signage or other similar or common features, and b] prohibition of structures and clearing of native vegetatlon within wetland buffers. 7. When the existing driveway along Old Rockford Road is removed and access to Lot 9 comes from Inland Lane, the developer shall submit revised plans showing. 1) the addition of bituminous curb to Old Rockford Road in the area of the existing curb cut; 2) the removal of any existing mailboxes, and 3) the restoration of the trail along Old Rockford Road as necessary - Standard Conditions: a. No building permits, including those for a model home, shall be issued until the final plat is filed and recorded with Hennepin County and the streets and utilities are installed. b. Development standards and setbacks for this plat shall comply with the RS F-2 zoning standards. No variances are granted or implied. c. Any signage shall require separate permits and shall comply with the city's sign regulations. d. Removal of all hazardous trees at the owner's expense. e. No trees shall be planted in the boulevard. f. This approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner or applicant has applied for final plat approval, or unless the applicant, with the consent of the landowner, has received prior approval from the city to extend the expiration date for up to one additional year, as regulated under section 510 of city code. APPROVED by the Plymouth City Council this **** day of STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEP{N7 SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on ******* with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof, WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this day of City Clerk C v+-7033 Creekside Woods, LLC Plymouth, MN REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT FOR "CREEKSIDE WOODS" rrF,IVE - Cll ." qF ?LWOUTH March 9, 2017 Revised May 10, 2017 • • • L A N D F 0 R M From Site to finish INTRODUCTION On behalf of Creekside Woods, LLC and Bert and Mary Olson, Landform is pleased to submit this application for the Creekside Woods subdivision. The application Includes a new preliminary plat of the 2016 approved Creekside Woods development, with the addition of the 1.22 -acre parcel at 17215 Old Rockford Road (referred to as the "Olson Property.") It also includes a final plat, and a request to rezone the Olson Property to be consistent with the rest of the site. The attached 'Plat Exhibit" (04-15-17) illustrates the approved ("Phase 1") plat and the proposed new overall plat incorporating the Olson Property. Five lots and the road right-of-way and access approved in the Phase 1 plat would be unchanged. The remainder (two lots and two outlots) would be combined with the Olson property to create an additional 6 lots, for a total of eleven lots for single family homes in the new plat. All lots will front on the new cul-de-sac street, Inland Court. Lot 9 shown on the new preliminary plat contains the existing single family home on the Olson Property. The existing driveway to Old Rockford Road will be removed and a new driveway to Inland Court will be constructed. If the home is retained, it will be remodeled to provide garage access from the new driveway. All infrastructure required for this development (streets, utilities and drainage improvements) will be constructed according to the approved plans for the Creekside Woods subdivision. This application replaces the application submitted for the Olson property and a portion of the original Creekside plat in November 2615. That application showed two lots for new single family homes fronting on Inland Court, and a lot containing the existing single family home with its current access to Old Rockford Road. A Planning Commission public hearing on the original application was noticed for January 18, 2617 and continued to February 15, when it was postponed again. Subsequently the application was withdrawn. A new agreement among the landowners created the opportunity to reconfigure the preliminary plat to eliminate an issue concerning driveway access to the existing home, to eliminate outlots in the original Creekside Woods plat, and to gain an additional buildable lot REZONING We are requesting that the Olson Property be rezoned from FRD (Future Restricted Development) to RSF-2 (Single Family Detached 2), This is consistent with the Living Area 1 (LA -1) land use classification, which anticipates 2-3 units per acre. RSF-2 zoning was approved for the Creekside Woods subdivision in 2616, KRZ16002.01.5 — Creekside Woods f . F O R M May 10, 2017 Project Narrative 2 All surrounding properties are guided LA -1. The properties to the east and south are zoned RS F-2. The adjacent properties to the west are zoned RSF-1. Properties to the north are zoned PUD (Plum Tree), FRD and RSF-1. Section 21410 of the Zoning Ordinance lists criteria that the Planning Commission and City Council must consider when reviewing a zoning map amendment. Our plan complies with the criteria, as noted below: I- The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. The proposed rezoning of the Olson Property meets the specific policies of Living Area 1 (LA -1) to create low density neighborhoods of single family detached homes at a minimum density of two units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the RSF-2 zoning district as appropriate zoning in the LA -1 land use category. It is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement pian. 2. The proposed action meets the ,purpose and intent of this Ordinance or in the case of a map amendment; it meets the purpose and intent of the individual district. The purpose of the Single Family Detached Dwelling District 2 (RSF-2) is to provide for new single family neighborhoods with a lot size that is smaller than the City's traditional single family lot size. The smaller lot size will make better use of the City's shrinking land supply and investment in public utilities and allow the City to better protect and preserve its natural resources such as wetlands and woodlands. In addition, the smaller lot size will help the City meet its two units per acre density goal for new single family homes. Properties to the south and east are also zoned RSF-2, so the proposed zoning would simply be an expansion of the zoning district area. The revised preliminary plat includes approximately 4.34 developable acres. The proposed eleven single family lots represent a density of 2.53 units per acre, meeting the goal of two units per acre provided by the LA -1 guiding, 3. There is adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed action. A full range of public services and facilities are available to the site. A new public street, Intand Court, will be constructed along with all other infrastructure as part of the final plat for Creekside Woods. KRZ16002.OLS — Creekside Woods L G F O R M May 10r 2017 Project Narrative 3 4. There is adequate buffer or transition provided between potentially incompatible districts. There is adequate buffer and transition provided between potentially incompatible districts. The surrounding properties to the south and east are also zoned RSF-2, with existing single family homes separated from the Creekside Woods development by an open space area and Plymouth Creek. Adjacent properties directly to the north are currently zoned FRD, and would be expected to be rezoned to a compatible district when and if they are subdivided. The areas to the northeast and northwest across Old Rockford Road are zoned RSF-1 and PUD, respectively. The right-of- way of Old Rockford Road provides a transition to the properties to the north. The nearby homes in these districts have their rear yards facing this Major Collector roadway. The RSF-1 zone to the west contains a compatible development of single family homes along Jewel Lane. Kimberly Lane Elementary School is located to the west of those properties and is adequately buffered from this site. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT We are requesting approval of a preliminary plat of eleven single famlly lots. The proposed lot size and lot widths meet or exceed the RSF-2 standards, which require lots a minimum of 80 feet wide and 12,500 square feet. Home sites on each lot will comply with alt required setbacks. Infrastructure Required construction plans for the street, sanitary sewer, water, storm drainage and water quality improvements have been submitted to the City as part of the approved Creekside Woods Final Plat application, and are currently under review. The plans will be revised as necessary to incorporate the Olson Property and to reflect the revised preliminary and final plat. Roadway Access The new street, Inland Court, will serve all lots in the subdivision. The existing driveway from Old Rockford Road will be removed. The roadway design and access location are consistent with the previously approved plans. Landscaping and Tree Preservation All lots will be landscaped according to city requirements when new homes are constructed. A new tree preservation plan was submitted for all eleven lots of Creekside Woods. There are 6,480.5 caliper inches of significant trees on the site, 5,459.5 of which are subject to the regulations. The plan shows removal of 56.9% of non-exempt significant trees. Replanting of 470.94 caliper inches will be required. The landscape pian shows 97.5" of new trees. Additional plantings will be added if site conditions allow, and the plan will be updated. Cash restitution will be required for the remainder if replanting is not possible. KRZ16002.OLS — Creekside Woods L f V O R M May 10, 2017 Project Narrative 4 SUMMARY We respectfully request approval of the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for "Creekside Woods". CONTACT INFORMATION This document was prepared by: Anne Hurlburt Landform 105 South Fifth Street, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Any additional questions regarding this application can be directed to Reid Schulz at rsch ulzp_la ndform. net or 612.638.0261. KRZ16002.OLS — Creek side Woods ' l G F D R M May 10, 2017 Project Narrative 5 Guidelines and Criteria Minimum Density: Maximum Density: City Utilities: Corresponding Zoning Districts: Types of Development Location Criteria: 4 units per acre 5 units per acre Required for all RSF-2 gle Family Detached 2) RS (Single Family Detached 3) F-4 (Single and Two Family) RMF -1 (Multiple Family 1) RMF -2 (Multiple Family 2) PUD for cluster developments ■ Single family detached dwellings ■ Two-family dwellings • Townhomes • Churches, schools and private recreational facilities ■ Not appropriate adjacent to principal arterial interchanges • Near large parks or permanent open space • Near neighborhood shopping and service facilities E LIVING AREA 1 (LA -'i) Living Area 1 (LA -1) identifies low density neighborhoods of single family detached homes and two-family homes, and directly related complementary uses such as churches, schools and recreational facilities. Lot sizes in areas guided LA -1 will reflect the City's goal to develop new homes at a rnin.imum of two units per acre as well as make reasonable use of the City's investment in public utilities and the limited supply of available land. This means that lots in future LA -1 developments may be smaller than is the case in some LA -1 guided neighborhoods today. Because LA -1 guiding is characterized by large, individual lots that typically offer less opportunity to preserve significant natural resources on individual sites, the City may allow townhomes up to three units per acre on a case by case basis. The City may allow townhomes if a developer can demonstrate that townhomes could preserve a significant natural resource that would be lost through conventional development of single family homes. Page 4 of 16 Appendix 3C Plymouth Land Use Pian - Apri1 14, 2009 Guidelines and Criteria Minimum Density: 2 units per acre Maximum Density: 3 units per acre City Utilities: Required for all areas Corresponding Zoning Districts; RSF-1 (Single Family Detached 1 ) RSF-2 (Single Family Detached 2) RSF-3 (Single Family Detached 3) RSF-4 (Single Family Two Family) Other zoning districts may he appropriate if the proposed development would meet the density criteria of 2 to 3 units per acre. Types of Development: ■ Single-family detached dwellings ■ Two-family dwellings • Townhomes if resource preservation criteria met ■ Churches, schools, and private recreational facilities Desirable Facilities: ■ Neighborhood partes, school parks or mini parks within 112 mile walking distance * Defsned trail system that connects the neighborhood to other services and facilities, including parks, schools, churches, and/or neighborhood shopping areas • Neighborhood shopping facilities within five minutes driving time from the neighborhood F LIVING AREA 2 (LA -2) Living Area 2 (LA -2) identifies areas for single and two-family homes and and directly related complementary uses such as churches, schools and facilities. The primary intent h d the LA-? designation is to respond to a need for smaller homes on smaller Tats. The it needs to offer the opportunity for this type of housing alternative to expand opp pities for families seeking more affordable single family home living and to respon changing demographics. As the population ages. there will be a growing need fo aller homes for empty nesters and for smaller families. LA -2 also offers the opportunity for townhomes, which provide ad nal life cycle housing opportunities. Townhomes in LA -21 neighborhoods offer resi option with less maintenance than a typical single fancily home, while still being located in a familiar residential setting. Page 5 of 16 Appendix 3C Plymouth Land Use Plan — April 14, 2009 oos c � ' L • j3�ack". � �+ ,.I i� Jfl _JJ 4 I .0092 A-Z'� 460 q jaiNuncit:jo , _..` �wr�11a� F1 -er '•. 1 LOEL i . ---- .- P : JV,6E�l.ld f� La to IN •' SITE 2017033 Creekside Plymouth, LLC Legend ® C. Comamial ® CC, City Center 17135 and 17215 old Rockford Roam Request for a rezoning and preliminary plat ® CO, Commercial Office ® IP, Planned Industrial o LA -1. Living Area 1 LA -2, Living Area 2 LA -3, Living Area 3 ® LA -4, Living Area 4 500 250 0 500 1,000 ® LA-Ri Feet . linty of LA -a2 � LA-R5 0 LA -RT Plymouth, Minnesota ® P -I, Publt,JSemi-PublidlnsGtutional T r: , �,. ;� ._� •• .- �� -•� : � : - tea- � X : `+ fr r too 0 ti. i 'moi. >, r "� � K •_ _ _ � a - � :f •[; : _ S t iW7 2017033 - Aerial Photograph 100 50 0 100 200 riboty of Feet Plymouth, Minnesota 2 c)1-70 53 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services Date: 3/21/2017 Buffer Size: 750 feet 0 120 240 480 ft Map Comments: I i i i 1 i i I l For more information contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South Minneapolis, MN 55487 gis.info@hennepin.us n , a 08-118-22-33 °' _ 08-118-22-34 e 1 - 18- 2 2 17-1 7 - � a 17-118-22-22 z, 17-118-22- 1' _ i i 17-118-22- 17-118- 7-118-17-11 17-118-22- 22- B r 40th Place Jj7aj,18-22-24 Buffer Size: 750 feet 0 120 240 480 ft Map Comments: I i i i 1 i i I l For more information contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South Minneapolis, MN 55487 gis.info@hennepin.us I n G f a r S 0z O a W �� 3 4 •C LuLLI_ • Z z ■ �[ U u • J � I v'I MIA, rE7- j I I i � i w f I I M a o LU LU fr C) v'I MIA, rE7- j I I i � i w f I I �� � ❑ 0 W i3 I it �+ ` . W 0 3' ---p — — ———— i 1 a•63ilissaass�a • v t.} a -cc3cia'sEi2iu5__� _ x � Ea� ���_t° ■�} f4i Q�8i -� a YF ��3 � F�j,y;��Cx�af�j gqp�ggS �7 CdSgG i !ar!p py. 3e 3 • cry to 3g7�°�'r£9EFiiz fai��l3a3g"^ R -j 4 ae I a Q§t�QB�°�a� !P19g8ag��e� I I � I I� I • [8CTRS ANO ,O �.flu.4'] :._ _/ dH in T� _ 3 I kyh r_ ■ e e ga i=r� 34 •n = ply - ;; pt rv'joy' ;8 a x e rr sGs .nnu1 's ,- - - �,:x g� 6- �i 3 _ ii ^r6 •i h�� �' i l I it �+ f . 3' ---p — — ———— i 1 li � • ! I I � I I� I • [8CTRS ANO ,O �.flu.4'] :._ _/ dH in T� _ 3 I kyh r_ ■ e e ga i=r� 34 •n = ply - ;; pt rv'joy' ;8 a x e rr sGs .nnu1 's ,- - - �,:x g� 6- �i 3 _ ii ^r6 •i h�� �' i l I f . ---p — — ———— LU U)T QT� IL ui of TP Lu ff � - Z � �€-$S ��$[ 1c••€ $�5� R{Rq�3s' °YuC■y9 ea �? �y$ e� I [� I d 6Q •�#Rl �g% Q�i� � :LYYF fY f' x3 1� ■ JI I RL - I sS'S85 X„so,o}.oRN} I rZ8 S9 i �� r ------s r------ -------r "'i I r -r._ -•_] r-----ry '• � �� a2_ a I int %' r — � ,y � f �� _'� -�5 •-, � , f f 5 � i I � j'f �� r�A�. �'r 4' � 5 { r 5 ` u .• i� r _�' i� 3 CCi ,f�9C.ilON 26595 J[,.9a.Rf.R(iry] ~� •�_ :y T i[I f4 I 3�t IC ■ tt ----- R o g? Il fi'j J o $1 all s Al w c°Cj {..� a pi gins d s�' Ls yy 3 3 r d 8 y 16 t ! 5 i ° 6 Ry S- i Y a ' ! p � 9� !� a7 i BeT" gag ,[ dC �n i tl� F8e�=F 'j j6:;g§ a $ ES =t� 2 7�4 a u g n3 -! }'• y S t" c $ °tee ggy �Ygg Ep i YF x +J_? 2. a •cy ".� ;$.� @ i�� � Ef" �$� `y Ea � a#sale 92x r, Y �a pn`� S`t_s s ya�_' cf yb� $an e3� ear# 'g6&S [Y=� 8 z �: ea= • i� ; § .$g: ?�.. } # ; gSP�t' ga a Fxn l.• ; '111is t; �Fxc N 1111;J a p j!1, iCE! a - S EA S q - d-9 $ 1: ° s ■ �Kwi 6 s lP 6p• •a- $B �= e] d € t n9 a g ay "P € 3 se G2 Si if cC d g a e a o $Jy$a df?# "y}p cs $ ap S E 4 g as =.S6e$ 15 �yS C • �{`g� b•- gg5 gg ]♦§a�j F [R xx F' 3 vE YFY d �• gi 8 Y ' i �= f fii� � eEl .ysi M Ia$6 ph l�trx�9 �9 �i� Nq €H g }f?- �Str2- g�`z ���'•ax s� eg�� ne82 37#a s is tJ 3�(sial ?3a3 ?: k$ a6 dR N, 1111 j��8 5E-� y r Y� cc' 4r'�g�E;i�l7i#}�F�e�iE x :�# pp i�gggg ���e mF 9 a t � S ��� RFs yy � 19 F4 Y•?i _ fit 5Ee8 y9i !� i�l F ! E �1 �9�• �3 T•.. y F} -k }`iA'3nSF4e ` �� �i�3� � �l�&E�• � � ! �S ed �• s H� ,. E�_a$ aE3 7 ,3y sgg9� Fla 3g yy yygggFq� ffffff y 1 C' g E �� 44� Sf €7��!= ���•s �uy 6 ee�c�}R�##i 33d�e F1F �r6 $�3�'$�6 ii e���i .e:�9 +��e =uf a3�d�: c §a 'a 4�4a 4 wU)s Cp0 9, LIJ fi �F 8 R ��R yy a •a R JV i s� a=ia zs� 3g = e fg TIM e p �'9 - JV i W circ r a � ! �'9 CI if T�� ,J/ � • o - e circ r a � ! .,—M WO~ i13 a s • .. t� g V O m � mg ,!4834 JIM .. 5; g; „ ' S 'Y6 5•xx a ��^S^S3�c 9 s C�;edai Hsi p 3c¢ a's Fr 23 #a5 _ k3 .,—M i13 a s • .. t� O m � mg ,!4834 JIM .. .,—M i13 a RAI m sr — —�/--- 'S IA. ii a4 4 I I I .,—M 1LJ LL [v W LU i i i ��;�{ O• e 3 •• LL - T LL Y 6Y f �3 1LJ LL [v W i� /Jp�t 1 --m LU _3oce aE� �a •• LL - T LL Y 6Y f �3 i� /Jp�t 1 --m 61 al it Ygg SE''sir i ti a ° i5i ° Y 'xp3 10 5E E r° Sq � � i x�Es its Y y �� r •g3 � 4$ a ggtf}g x45 �. �x:¢V:.�° � ey 61 al it Ygg SE''sir i ti a ° i5i yg � ey g V R4 CRs yi V❑ FFA �§ -- - b msr i �^'-- 1� oil' lgiR (,!pt p; saw, gN, ,A ME n U mLl- 4' 77 1 f, -T- , .- t —1, TR igh �Sff (,!pt p; saw, gN, ,A ME n U mLl- 4' 77 1 f, -T- , .- t —1, i 9 3 i t �•' �€ � uJ d o W RR JJ w �N o � {3ii�3�fSdEl�}�� • f � � Z jli: 2 • Q -, � � F 1 U U � 6 c3:Zc:''.3C.'63Lci.^. - _ € !L • � £ � A � = N �yv -�•m ii: w ,�.'.`."'a w n win o- "'"w, r on u'su+u. ,.. ,vim � .n� . r... •• arw �.rteal r712 . /ufr • —1 FS fir 9 _ Ha .r]a§ �I=1 li i=1- A=1Al I f • ^ a 5J "NIF �. _ �i�s� f =. ;_fit•,` g 3 f?t sE Z€p5���i v Min �ig �_s�� K y a 9a� I ja IlY6 '}�' �' Sti.�Tf p•.•g; 6 y��eJ3 ti £'� � �I Ix lwi MP3 jLp a 9a� I jLp SS§3i is f y � wog Npz g Y, LU ��tl�" ❑ �is9}€ i ml � a [ Y�;�:_—`i,•I-- =_Its Y g i g L l '•�s�+_'` 4g3 ,r•.'r- til h IFo Ilk taw aF Z. � ��• �I g3g3� 1 a ea $o ;� ��a . 'i ^ LY ¢g i • fit! 8z 1:41 di _;___� dl- -AlL. CL i s al R h�•1- � a L�zR a E M 333• p�g�a ,`,Y��� #� � �'� Tf3 �i y.. ..a53�=eZEi�y"iia i i$3 dl: yF e ��W FN N a I +5 I� dy FTF � V FN N a I it Q -- Lyssp- 21 CI n y m Jill A �, 1m�[ .JdL�Y f tit 1 gE�iA 33'g � I �e d • a � yE�q�l (� :e a - � G - m s fr � f Q -- Lyssp- 21 CI n y m Jill A �, 1m�[ .JdL�Y f tit 1 gE�iA 33'g � I �e d • a � yE�q�l (� :e Q -- Lyssp- 21 CI n y m Jill A �, 1m�[ .JdL�Y f tit .Y �„I."..,a�tn�i`wc .nrtru.' : � e s•°i.v fir." �'� �w I� � - ^ ��� .�•�� ��wwY°.wrnc :-uc�wa i � `R �xiai � c'; ,...v' -".i L:;. 4.Yu�Cf LEfSw=V�Ui }-iR.urR IYr• Il6' $nF[�nE:u M w LI w _ - _ !n =y nR r FTM ate �w.iwc.o^.!uv.r �e •.V .i �� Y7r • f�4'1 a �[ Vi Y+i. W�v ae+aw^S �6 npi'+�• 5 •- ^i •w aesn" •cnm F ra....... , x.,,,. 1M.� !o •�., vPCs' � {-^ Fi � �y° wcs• a -r' .EOaI.z j ; ci . 2 'ii ice, u• ;�P34338�15' i x m ni im tie., ' is t,'•`�;f,®R O f N.N m O _ oil] � 1 gE�iA 33'g �e d :e .Y �„I."..,a�tn�i`wc .nrtru.' : � e s•°i.v fir." �'� �w I� � - ^ ��� .�•�� ��wwY°.wrnc :-uc�wa i � `R �xiai � c'; ,...v' -".i L:;. 4.Yu�Cf LEfSw=V�Ui }-iR.urR IYr• Il6' $nF[�nE:u M w LI w _ - _ !n =y nR r FTM ate �w.iwc.o^.!uv.r �e •.V .i �� Y7r • f�4'1 a �[ Vi Y+i. W�v ae+aw^S �6 npi'+�• 5 •- ^i •w aesn" •cnm F ra....... , x.,,,. 1M.� !o •�., vPCs' � {-^ Fi � �y° wcs• a -r' .EOaI.z j ; ci . 2 'ii ice, u• ;�P34338�15' i x m ni im tie., ' is t,'•`�;f,®R O f N.N m O _ oil] � UJB LU ■ g5 Ir z:, �' ! ih I r it 11 • j I' 1 I I HE, •� - l•R jr II y�irll� { W1€ --•—I '? w , r�}jl.. I•� r � j nr7;rSr" � J �i i� `1 d � �#3! 1slrr'1�•,,�'r� — EyP i r- r r �,111p Zt�jfitl�l�l}�{N6?{� `I{Ft�r .�� IkR�•��f_r.. Y �= ® li] { I WNL A . II! X g Y02 pmm ILI1545 lip a 1R9 r f N WP d�ai1� :�l1t Ean }I" �Ik? f[� LTO Z P f ?�t� •�� • . i if 1 1i ggx2.yyp -•geg •��y�i 4.� a S � �y EE tilt -------------- { I a i � f ��• a. F a 1R9 r f ti 1 1i � •��y�i 4.� l S � �y -------------- %§\ ¢ �j � _ G � j •� �`|| }` L A�� ; �` �, 2■� @\p - § E q� E l § . `: . i z . �' ' • 0 0 $) :w m \ �ROME 1111 � 91,11 RUHR \. t ..2..\.\. £ {.:.r t:]RIMER . 915111111111111-10 gffl�.j.- _ �' t§\\ » ' .-y.'.R11111111,111,14 �N ff ffill� MINIMUM 11111,211, «\ \{ 2 .31.. q.� § 1111111111111:1113111141 1�.1 1Im 0Hollis: 1111 gid ;_ E ' ! ° rg p C S= a p 9p �.c y. 3y s r9 fj e�ij �� W Uj �Oz '! .s §- n� a 3 } 1M ':!y a �z at iI1 z w O x ; � $ : �?"• s ! '- @:s a ;35 � ?d4 air! z 9a• j`aF a z W pf;ili�nS3#3ssl� i r� �o gid ;_ E ' ! ° rg p C S= a p 9p �.c y. 3y s r9 fj e�ij �� • �� is .s §- n� a 3 } 1M ':!y i. �ia `; s: �? .• ; € $ : �?"• s ! '- @:s a ;35 � ?d4 air! z 9a• j`aF a z g r� �o " �5 � � ��6 CSFs �s4g ��g�Y 4F r ��� �8;=gt:s°z �!`i S�S !; r$og s '��sa7�F Y ��o�:�F•i�} + aS �� 7 1 e : � � � 3•@ igsgiia•1 `}�� S��ig38E�4`fl�x•} :ir3•A•E3 •�ie•�8� @ 6 :il�xi• ��� s sf i� y€9_C F���9 i;66�s� ygyg�s[x �Qr�l.� Y�9�9ppI ft � } � ' Y2r} 8 �.ii 'a .�i � t.d �-S�F� i•�� R•E� r7 gid ;_ E ' ! ° rg p C S= a p 9p �.c y. 3y s r9 _�� a a2it ;E3s S 5 gn �s a F It Ni 0 Og i Ef Y a 6 GS SC F I `� s•' e�ij �� °•' �y� R Fi g a z g r� �o _�� a a2it ;E3s S 5 gn �s a F It Ni 0 Og i Ef Y a 6 GS SC F I `� s•' Agenda Number File 2017 036 (V 16 PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT TO: Plymouth Planning Commission FROM: Shawn Drill, Sr. Planner (509-5456) through Barbara Thomson, Planning Manager MEETING DATE: May 17, 2017 APPLICANT: The Waters Senior Living PROPOSAL: Planned Unit Development Amendment to increase the number of care units within The Waters of Plymouth LOCATION: 11305 Highway 55 GUIDING: MXD (mixed use) ZONING: PUD (planned unit development) REVIEW DEADLINE: August 16, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a PUD amendment to increase the approved number of care units within the existing senior residential building from 90 to 94. Notice of the public hearing was published in the City's official newspaper. Because the request is for a PUD amendment, two mailed notices were sent out to all property owners within 750 feet of the site. One notice was sent upon city receipt of the application, and the other notice was sent 12 days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the notification area map is attached. Development signage has also been posted on the property. File 2017036 Page 2 CONTEXT: Surrounding Land Uses Previous Actions Affecting Site This site is located in the Crossroads Cormrnons PUD, which was established in 2006 and includes The Waters of Plymouth Senior Living, McDonald's, and a planned memory care building and retail/coffee building to the east. The Waters of Plymouth Senior Living building was constructed in 2013 and was approved for 90 care units, but presently contains 89 care units. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a PUD amendment. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The city may impose reasonable requirements in a PUD not otherwise required that are deemed necessary to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a PUD amendment that would increase the number of care units within the footprint of the existing building by re -arranging the interior space. Under the plan, the number of care units would increase from 89 existing (90 were approved under the PUD) to 94. The number of "assisted living" units would increase fi-om 61 to 64, and the number of "memory care" units would increase from 28 to 30, There would be no exterior changes to the building or site. Density MXD guiding specifies a residential density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre, based on the total upland {non -wetland} acreage of the PUD. Under die proposal, the density would increase from 10.8 to 11.2 units per acre. Adjacent Land Use Guiding Zoning North McDonald's MXD PUD (Across fist tage road) West Single-family homes Living Area l RSFA Single-family home East & Commercial C (commercial) C-2 South Single-family homes Living Area 1 RSF-1 Previous Actions Affecting Site This site is located in the Crossroads Cormrnons PUD, which was established in 2006 and includes The Waters of Plymouth Senior Living, McDonald's, and a planned memory care building and retail/coffee building to the east. The Waters of Plymouth Senior Living building was constructed in 2013 and was approved for 90 care units, but presently contains 89 care units. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a PUD amendment. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The city may impose reasonable requirements in a PUD not otherwise required that are deemed necessary to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a PUD amendment that would increase the number of care units within the footprint of the existing building by re -arranging the interior space. Under the plan, the number of care units would increase from 89 existing (90 were approved under the PUD) to 94. The number of "assisted living" units would increase fi-om 61 to 64, and the number of "memory care" units would increase from 28 to 30, There would be no exterior changes to the building or site. Density MXD guiding specifies a residential density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre, based on the total upland {non -wetland} acreage of the PUD. Under die proposal, the density would increase from 10.8 to 11.2 units per acre. File 2017036 Page 3 Parkin The ordinance requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit for senior housing, and one parking space per three beds of nursing care. Using this formula, 106 parking spaces would be required. However, staff notes that the 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit is based on independent senior living, as apposed to assisted living. There is no clear parking standard listed in the ordinance for assisted senior living units. Most of the residents in an assisted living arrangement do not drive, and parking needs are primarily related to employees and visitors. There are currently 26 outdoor parking spaces available to the site, 17 of which are located on the site and 9 of which are located on the abutting property to the east via a parking easement. In addition, there are 46 parking spaces under the building. The total number of parking spaces available to this building is 72. In their narrative (copy attached), the applicant states that the building is presently 100 percent occupied, and that 23 of the 46 parking spaces under the building remain available. As a result, sufficient parking would be available in relation to the proposed five additional care units. Conclusion In its review of the requested PUD amendment, the Planning Commission must consider the following: • Consistency with the City Comprehensive Flan Staff finds that the requested PUD amendment would be consistent with the objectives of the comprehensive plan and with the MYCD guiding of the site. ■ Impact on the purposes and intent of the Ordinance Staff finds that the requested PUD amendment would not affect the purposes or intent of the PUD. IN:14COJA IA_:U1 +V11leizA Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the PUD Amendment for The Waters Senior Living for property located at 11345 Highway 55, subject to the findings and conditions outlined in the attached ordinance and resolutions. If new information is brought forward at the public hearing, staff may alter or reconsider its recommendation. File 2017036 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance Amending Section 21665.39 at the Zoning Ordinance 2. Draft Resolution Approving Findings of Fact supporting the Amendment 3. Draft Resolution Approving PUD Amendment 4. Location Map 5. Aerial Photo 6. Notification Area Map 7. Applicant's Narrative S. Site Graphics Pi Planning Applications/261712017036 CITY OF PLYMOUTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 2017 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE TO AMEND THE CROSSROADS COMMONS PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11305 HIGHWAY 55 (2017036) THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS: Section 1. Amendment of City Code. Chapter 21 of the Plymouth City Code, Section Z 1655.39, is hereby amended as follows: 21655.39 CROSSROADS COMMONS PUD: Subd. 1. Legal Description. This PUD is presently legally described as Lot 1 of Block 1, Lot 1 of Block 2, and Outlets A, B, and C, Crossroads Commons, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Subd. 2. Incorporated herein by reference are the Crossroads Commons PUD plans received by the City on June 21, 2011, except as may be amended by City Council Resolution 2011-294, on file in the Office of the Zoning Administrator under File 2011014, and the Crossroads Commons Second Addition PUD plans received by the City on December 9, 2016, except as may be amended by City Council Resolution 2417-065, on file in the Office of the Zoning Administrator under File 2016088, and the PUD amendment plans for The Waters of Plymouth Senior Living building received by the City on April 4, 2417, except as may be amended by City Council Resolution 2017- on file in the Office of the Zoniniz Administrator under File ?() 17036 Subd. 3. Allowable Uses. The uses permitted in this PUD shall include any permitted, accessory, conditional, or interim uses allowed in the C-2 (neighborhood commercial) zoning district, as well as a mit 94 -unit senior housing facility (consisting of assisted living and memory care) on Lot 1, Block 1, and a free-standing drive-through restaurant on Lot 1, Block 2, as shown on the revised PUD general plan received by the City on June 21, 2011, as well as a 32 -room memory care home on land to be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads Commons Second Addition, and a 3,644 square foot retail building with drive-through on land to be platted as Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads Commons Second Addition, as shown on the PUD general plan received by the City on December 9, 2015. Subd. 4. Development Standards. Development standards shall be as indicated on the approved PUD General PIans, except as may be amended by City Council Resolution 2011- 294, on file in the Office of the Zoning Administrator under File 2011014, and except as may be amended by City Council Resolution 2017-065, on file in the office of the Zoning Administrator under File 2016088. (Amended by Ord. No 200611, 05109106) (Amended by Ord No. 2011-28, 08123111) (Amended by Ord. No. 2013-11, 04123113) (Amended by Ord. No. 2015-08) (Amended by Ord. No. 2017- 04, 2114117) Section 2. Effective Date. This amendment shall take effect immediately upon its passage, ADOPTED by the Plymouth City Council this ** day of ****, 2017. Kelli Slavik, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra R. Engdahl, City Clerk CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR /AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT RELATED TO THE WATERS OF PLYMOUTH SENIOR LIVING, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11305 HIGHWAY 55 (2017036) WHEREAS, The Waters Senior Living has requested a planned unit development (PUD) amendment to add five care units within The Waters of Plymouth Senior Living building in the Crossroads Commons PUD, for property located at 11345 Highway 55; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads Commons, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly Galled public hearing and recommends approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance text. 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 by The Waters Senior Living for a PUD amendment and related zoning ordinance text amendment, based on the following findings: The amendment is consistent with the objectives of the City's comprehensive plan and with the MXD guiding of the site. 2. The amendment would not affect the purposes or intent of the PUD. APPROVED by the Plymouth City Council this ** day of ****, 2017. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on 2017, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my nand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this day of City Clerk CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PUD AMENDMENT FORTH E WATERS OF PLYMOUTH SENIOR LIVING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11305 HIGHWAY 55 (2017036) WHEREAS, The Waters Senior Living has requested approval of a planned unit development (PUD) amendment to add five care units within The Waters of Plymouth Senior Living building located at 11305 Highway 55; and WHEREAS, the subject property lies in the Crossroads Commons PUD and is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads Commons, Hennepin County, Minnesota; 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 DFTHE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by The Waters Senior Living for a PUD amendment to add five care units with The Waters of Plymouth Senior Living building located at 11305 Highway 55, subject to the following conditions: The PUD amendment is hereby approved, in accordance with the application and plans received by the City on April 4, 2017, except as may be amended by this resolution. ' 2. All conditions of previous resolutions approving the Crossroads Commons PUD and any amendments relating to Crossroads Commons shall remain in full force, except as may be specifically amended by this resolution. 3. This PUD amendment hereby allows five care units (three assisted units and two memory care units) to be added within the footprint of the existing building, increasing the total number of care units to 94. 4. A separate building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of any interior work requiring a permit. APPROVED by the Plymouth City Council this ** day of ****, 2017. Resolution 2017- (2017036) Page 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on 2017, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Cleric and the Corporate seal of the City this day of City Clerk Lel MAIMI IF] � 3 ❑ LA- ❑ LA -1 LA -4 '*9f) Wa t/ 02:91 10 Sg 2017036 The Waters of Plymouth Senior Living 11305 State Highway 55 Planned Unit Development Amendment city of Plymouth, Minnesota 400 200 0 400 800 Feet C N 2017036 - Aerial Photo rp)city oj Plymouth, Minnesota 150 75 0 150 300 Feet NOTIFICATION AREA MAP w 35-118-22-12� -•--- C` 35-118-22-11 36-118=22-22 r � A 3i5-118-22-13 35-118-22-14 6-118 2-23 35-1118-22-13 6- 2= , A •,f., 5=f 2-14 35 118-22 42 ,� i 5-1 2-41 Sunset Tr, -I -i Norm 35-118-22-42 35-118-22-41 " Buffer Size: 750 feet Map Comments: 11305 Highway 55 Plymouth MN 55441 35-118-22-14-0029 -118-22-32 36-118-22-32 0 120 240 480 ft For more information contact: Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South Minneapolis, MN 55487 gis. info@ hennepin. us March 24, 2017 Mr. Shawn Drill Planning Division Plymouth City Hall 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 Subject: The Waters of Plymouth Dear Mr. Drill: j017 03( Thank you for the opportunity to apply for an Amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as Crossroad Commons, and in particular to Lot 1, Block 1, commonly known as The Waters of Plymouth. The Waters greatly values its relationship with the Plymouth Community and is excited that the proposed upgrades will benefit all residents. The proposed plan would take space on the first floor currently serving as the Community's Spa and Wellness Studio and create three additional one -bedroom units. In turn, the Spa and Wellness Studio will be relocated to space currently underutilized, serving as offices and general common space. Underutilized common space in the Memory Care wing of the building on the first and second floors would be converted to two additional one -bedroom units. Lastly, non -load bearing walls in the kitchen and chapel will be augmented to provide better sound barriers and acoustics. The City has expressed concerns surrounding parking on site and The Waters would like to address those concerns directly. Originally, the site was approved for 40 parking stalls within Lot 1 (Per Approved Sited Plan - PUD Final Plans for Crossroad Commons, Project No. 20091067,02) and 10 parking stalls were to be located on a parking and drive aisle easement located on Outlot B in favor of Lot 1, Block 1 (Per Administrative Approval Letter for PUD Final Plan, dated 211312012). Thus, the total parking spaces required on site was 50 stalls. The February 13t' .Administrative Approval Letters also granted The Waters of Plymouth approval for 90 units of senior housing. 1600 Hopkins Crossroad, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305 (952) 358-5100 TheWatersseniorLiving.com The Amendment, as proposed, calls for the construction of five additional units at the Community. Whale the original density approved for the site was 90 units, today there are only 89 units at the Community. Consequently, the requested �ensity increase to 94 units is only four above the current allowance, and of those four additional units, two are memory care, and thus have residents who do not require any parking. Today, there are 72 total parking spaces — 46 underground and 26 above ground — compared to the 50 stalls originally required. As our expertise as a Senior Living Operator has increased over the last several years, we have learned that the highest demand for parking comes during a building's initial lease -up. 1t is not uncommon for a resident to move in with their car, onlyto give up their rented parking stall after a few months once they realize that the vehicle is no longer necessary for their lifestyle. Today, The Waters of Plymouth is 100% occupied and we have 23 parking stalls underground that remain unrented. As we have experienced at our other Communities, demand for parking will continue to decrease as the residents age in place, and there will be an increase in the supply of spaces for guests, residents, and staff. Additionally, since opening The Waters of Plymouth in 2013 we have greatly refined our staffing model at our Communities to better support our residents and their needs, which has also had a positive impact on the parking on site. We look forward to serving more resident in the larger Plymouth Community and would be happy to address any questions or concerns the City Staff may have regarding our proposed plans. Sincerely, rel. Didier The Waters Senior Living k� a A u 7 } t. bg 0 e L7 >r �• • i � � < v mZ' 6 (1 1 9 � 8ii g0�®Tf T a A u 7 �y .fig 7p� g � �,b���� E�� � s�� � •�� €�yy �•�� s3N x5p •� g5$$f yxg f Q.S a s 'aki s p� e gg EIJINJ - # iF%' g g : R Y z:a_ $$ 4s p $e r a 8 ySs 'ca a gse� 8s s F' $EEar x @ago : a HPI §x € a g? € = a R g$ 4 I g aix gg Aga .fqs a°E�Ka SR' TA Ra Ra -p �R-�gr [ Y`"s_• ja e "gas P ss "s�3 4111 41 8F a � r 1 LLP 1 � � r I, W 1 1 1 12 z �� r 1 _ Q� ap r w r 3_LY�ci•Zcs +M] L j� � � i.. ...I: T S I °:y _ 1 1 � � �Avva C�AfP k--_f[� � s ]• f ESQ 1 crone -z I � _ � Y --------- -- ----- t. bg e w D �I �a W Q �y .fig 7p� g � �,b���� E�� � s�� � •�� €�yy �•�� s3N x5p •� g5$$f yxg f Q.S a s 'aki s p� e gg EIJINJ - # iF%' g g : R Y z:a_ $$ 4s p $e r a 8 ySs 'ca a gse� 8s s F' $EEar x @ago : a HPI §x € a g? € = a R g$ 4 I g aix gg Aga .fqs a°E�Ka SR' TA Ra Ra -p �R-�gr [ Y`"s_• ja e "gas P ss "s�3 4111 41 8F a � r 1 LLP 1 � � r I, W 1 1 1 12 z �� r 1 _ Q� ap r w r 3_LY�ci•Zcs +M] L j� � � i.. ...I: T S I °:y _ 1 1 � � �Avva C�AfP k--_f[� � s ]• f ESQ 1 crone -z I � _ � Y --------- -- ----- Z Wd ZZ: Otp L lOZ1 M J�r uospM suuN ly6u [doo cv B n � n c4i 0 ui cu'v D ' j, n IL P � � C n Q Ff Z Wd ZZ: Otp L lOZ1 M J�r uospM suuN ly6u [doo n �n M A r � L ■V, N � E 1 pO Vj, Hy�j C yy m ��H a�N mz ��[�� i coC7 J{ a -E 3 c 3� o0 0 a � m Lam, r' Mom m �CC ENd CZ. 1Z:y L GOVOI6 I uosliM seu)q IL ?iAdoC) Agenda Number File 2017439 loco PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT TO: Plymouth Planning Commission FROM: Shawn Drill, Sr. Planner (509-5456) through Barbara Thomsonn,,� Planning Manager MEETING DATE: May 17, 2017 APPLICANT: Inspired Athletics LLC PROPOSAL: Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow a spoils and fitness club within an existing industrial building LOCATION: 2155 Niagara Lane GUIDING: IP (planned industrial) ZONING: PUD (planned unit development) REVIEW DEADLINE: August 17, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a PUD amendment to allow a sports and fitness club within Suite 102 of the Northwest Pointe Business Centre building, located at 2155 Niagara Lane. Notice of the public hearing was published in the City's official newspaper. Because the request is for a PUD amendment, two mailed notices were sent out to all property owners within 750 feet of the site. One notice was sent upon city receipt of the application, and the other notice was sent 12 days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the notification area map is attached. Development signage has also been posted on the property. File 2017039 Page 2 CONTEXT: Surrounding Land Uses Previous Actions Affecting Site This site is located in the Parkers Lake PUD, which was established in the 1980's and includes a mix of higher density residential development and industrial development. The subject multi - tenant industrial office/warehouse building was constructed in 1997 and contains roughly 92,000 square feet. In November 2416, the City Council approved a conditional use pen -nit for Inspired Athletics at another multi -tenant industrial building in the city. The applicant was not able to reach a mutually acceptable agreement with the landlord of that building. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a PUD amendment. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The city may impose reasonable requirements in a PUD not otherwise required that are deemed necessary to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a PUD amendment to allow a 6,594 square foot sports and fitness club at 2155 Niagara Lane. The use would occupy Suite 102 located in the northeast portion of the building. There would be no physical changes to the site. The business would provide sports training/injury rehabilitation services. Hours of operation would be from 7 AM to 7 PM Monday through Saturday (closed on Sundays). It is estimated that there would be four employees initially, but they hope to add up to four more employees in the future. They anticipate roughly 12 to 20 athletes on site during peak operating tunes. Both 1 -on -1 training and small group training would be provided, Sports and fitness clubs that are located in conventionally -zoned industrial districts require a conditional use permit. Because the subject lies within an industrial planned unit development, a PUD amendment is required for the proposed use. Ad'acent Land Use Guiding Zoning North Industrial IP PUD (planned industrial) (Parkers Lake) East (across Industrial IP I-1 (light industrial) Niagara Lane) (planned industrial) South & West Parkers Lake LA -4 PUD Apartments (living area 4) (Parkers Lake) Previous Actions Affecting Site This site is located in the Parkers Lake PUD, which was established in the 1980's and includes a mix of higher density residential development and industrial development. The subject multi - tenant industrial office/warehouse building was constructed in 1997 and contains roughly 92,000 square feet. In November 2416, the City Council approved a conditional use pen -nit for Inspired Athletics at another multi -tenant industrial building in the city. The applicant was not able to reach a mutually acceptable agreement with the landlord of that building. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a PUD amendment. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The city may impose reasonable requirements in a PUD not otherwise required that are deemed necessary to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a PUD amendment to allow a 6,594 square foot sports and fitness club at 2155 Niagara Lane. The use would occupy Suite 102 located in the northeast portion of the building. There would be no physical changes to the site. The business would provide sports training/injury rehabilitation services. Hours of operation would be from 7 AM to 7 PM Monday through Saturday (closed on Sundays). It is estimated that there would be four employees initially, but they hope to add up to four more employees in the future. They anticipate roughly 12 to 20 athletes on site during peak operating tunes. Both 1 -on -1 training and small group training would be provided, Sports and fitness clubs that are located in conventionally -zoned industrial districts require a conditional use permit. Because the subject lies within an industrial planned unit development, a PUD amendment is required for the proposed use. File 2017039 Page 3 The zoning ordinance requires 22 parking spaces for this use. Based on the uses within the building, the zoning ordinance would require a total of 198 parking spaces. There are 237 parking spaces on the site. Consequently, the proposal would comply with the City's parking standards. In its review of the requested PUD amendment, the Planning Commission must consider the following: • Consistency with the City Comprehensive Plan Staff finds that the requested PUD amendment would be consistent with the objectives of the comprehensive plan and with the industrial guiding of the site. • Impact on the purposes and intent of the Ordinance Staff finds that the requested PUD amendment would not affect the purposes or intent of the PUD. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the PUD Amendment for Inspired Athletics LLC for property Iocated at 2155 Niagara Lane, subject to the findings and conditions outlined in the attached ordinance and resolutions. If new infonnation is brought forward at the public Hearing, staff may alter or reconsider its reconunendation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordnance Amending Section 21655.33 of the Zoning Ordinance 2. Draft Resolution Approving Findings of Fact supporting the Amendment 3. Draft Resolution Approving PUD Amendment 4. Location Map 5. Aerial Photo 6. Notification Area Map 7. AppIicant's Narrative 8. Site Graphics PJP1anningApp] ieationsi 17/2017439 CITY OF PLYMOUTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE No. 2017 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE PLYM0LITH CITY CODE TO AMEND THE PARKERs LAKE PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2155 NIAGARA LANE NORTH (2017039) THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS: Section 1. Amendment of City Code. Chapter 21 of the Plymouth City Code, Section 21655.33, is hereby amended as follows: 21655.33 PUD 83-1 (PARKERS LAKE): AMENDMENTS FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, NORTHWEST POINTE BUSINESS GENTS R CENTRE: Subd. 1. Legal Description. The property affected by the PUD Amendments is legally described as. Lot 1, Block 1, Northwest Pointe Business-Geffter Centre, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Subd. 2. Incorporated herein by reference are the Northwest Pointe Business Center Centre plans for a picture fi-aming facility received by the City on. June 25, 2443, on file in the Office of the Zoning Administrator under File 2003473, except as may be amended by 4h -e -City Council Resolution 2403-352 approved on August 26, 2003. 5_ubd, 3, Incorporated herein by reference are the Northwest Pointe Business Centre plans for a sports and fitness club received by the- City on April t9, 2417, on file in the Office of the Zoning Administrator under File 2017039, except as may he amended by City_. Council Resolution 2017- approved on 12017. Subd, 34. Allowable Uses. _A framing facility and warehouse with a showroom far retail sales and a sports and fitness club shall be pennitted on Lot 1, Block 1, Northwest Pointe Business £ter Centre, in addition to uses previously approved under the PUD. (mended by Ord. No. 2003-25, 08126103) Section Z. Effective Date. This amendment shall take effect immediately upon its passage. ADOPTED by the Plymouth City Council this ** day of ****, 2017. Kelli Slavik, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra R. Engdahl, City Clerk CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION No. 2017- A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT RELATED TO THE NORTHWEST POINTE BUSINESS CENTRE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2155 NIAGARA LANE (2017 039) WHEREAS, Inspired Athletics LLC has requested a planned unit development (PUD) amendment to allow a sports and fitness club in the Parkers Lake PUD for property located at 2155 Niagara Lane; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Northwest Pointe Business Centre, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public hearing and recommends approval, and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance text. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does support and approve the request by Inspired Athletics LLC for a Pita amendment and related zoning ordinance text amendment, based on the following findings; The amendment is consistent with the objectives of the City's comprehensive plan and with the industrial guiding of the site. 2. The amendment would not affect the purposes or intent of the PUH APPROVED by the Plymouth City Council this ** day of ****, 2017. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The undersigned, Being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on 2417, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this day of City Clerk CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION No. 2017- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PUD AMENDMENT FOR INSPIRED ATHLETICS LLC FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2155 NIAGARA LANE NORTH (2037039) WHEREAS, Inspired Athletics LLC has requested approval of a planned unit development (PUD) amendment to allow a sports and fitness club at 2155 Niagara Lane North; and WHEREAS, the subject property lies in the Parkers Lake PUD and is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Northwest Pointe Business Centre, Hennepin County, Minnesota; 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 by Inspired Athletics LLC for a PUD amendment to allow a sports and fitness club at 2155 Niagara Lane North, subject to the following conditions: 1. The PUD amendment is hereby approved, in accordance with the application received by the City on April 10, 2017 and related pians received by the City on April 19, 2017, except as may be amended by this resolution. 2. All conditions of previous resolutions approving the Parkers Lake PUD and any amendments relating to Northwest Pointe Business Centre shall remain in full force, except as may be specifically amended by this resolution, 3. This PUD amendment hereby allows a 6,594 square foot sports and fitness club in Suite 102 located in the northeast portion of the building. 4. Hours of operation shall be from 7 AM to 7 PM Monday through Saturday. Fitness clubs that operate 24 hours per day are not permitted in this PUD. 5. A separate building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of any interior work requiring a permit, and a separate sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any signage. APPROVED by the Plymouth City Council this ** day of ****, 2017. Resolution 2017- (2017039) Page 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on , 2017, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this day of City Clerk Ind Ind Ind LA-3 23rd Ave Ind Ind Ind Ind LA-3 LA-2 Im Ind Ind 4 Ind L� -`� 21 st Ave LA-4 LA-2 Shin anaoah L Public n LA-4 LA-2 2077039 Inspired Athletics, LLC 2755 Niagara Lane, Suite 702 Planned Unit Development Amendment city of Ptymouth, Minnesota 660 330 0 660 1,320 Feet riboty 2017039 - Aerial Photo of Plymouth, Minnesota 250 125 0 250 500 Feet NOTIFICATION AREA MAP I Buffer Size: 750 feet Map Comments: 2811822240116 NORTHWEST PROP REALTY LLC 2155 Niagara Lane North Plymouth, MN 55447 ?5th .Avenue W011 22-21 12&'11 -22mU- 28-118122-31 rs Lake Play -field 28-118-22-34 a 18t KA, o- '1 8- - _ l 3 • 21 st s i i 17th f .Aver .ni I 28-118q-23 t J- --r-._ 15th-Av_an_ui - _ 1-118-22-43 . 3?'r• ) L AP11—UE .?r•h iL �• 33-118-22-112? - 1 1_. _ 0 245 490 984 ft I i t i I i l t I 28-118-22-33` F venue llortf �- C[IU� ' JiCr1 33-118-22-22 I Buffer Size: 750 feet Map Comments: 2811822240116 NORTHWEST PROP REALTY LLC 2155 Niagara Lane North Plymouth, MN 55447 ?5th .Avenue W011 22-21 12&'11 -22mU- 28-118122-31 rs Lake Play -field 28-118-22-34 PAFKERS to i. 28-118-22-34 33-118-22-21 �w a 18t KA, o- '1 8- - _ l 3 • 21 st PAFKERS to i. 28-118-22-34 33-118-22-21 �w For more information contact! Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South Minneapolis, MN 55487 gis.info@hennepin.us a 18t KA, rvenu= - • s i i 17th f .Aver 15th-Av_an_ui - _ 1-118-22-43 . 3?'r• ) L AP11—UE .?r•h iL �• 33-118-22-112? - 1 1_. _ 0 245 490 984 ft I i t i I i l t I For more information contact! Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South Minneapolis, MN 55487 gis.info@hennepin.us Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Plan & PUD Amendment Summary Application Checklist Separate Attachment Item 6. Brief description of Request ECEI E 0 ^.CITY DF PLi'MOUTH fNITY DI-VELOI'MENT DEPA RMI Inspired Athletics, as Tenant, intends to lease approximately 6,594 square feet of space comprising Suite 102 at the Northwest Business Centre, an office warehouse facility located at 2155 Niagara Lane North in Plymouth. It is the Tenant's understanding that the City of Plymouth must amend the current PUD to allow Inspired Athletics to utilize the facility to conduct its business. At its meeting held on November 29, 2016, the City of Plymouth approved a Conditional Use Permit for Tenant's use at 2010 East Center Circle Drive in Plymouth, but the Tenant was unable to finally complete a mutually acceptable agreement with the Landlord. Inspired Athletics provides strength, agility and conditioning programs for high school, college and professional athletes along with injury rehabilitation and nutrition counseling services. Unlike typical "athletic or fitness clubs," Inspired Athletics trains its clients primarily on a one-on-one basis or in smatl groups numbering approximately 2-6 people depending on the activity and the focus. The maximum number of athletes being trained at any one time might be 12-20. Most of the activity involving local high school athletes takes place after the end of the school day. There are no shower facilities or other similar amenities in the Premises. Tenant currently conducts its business in a smaller space located in an office/warehouse facility in Eden Prairie. The business continues to grow and attract more and more athletes; Bence, the need for a larger and more centrally located space. The Niagara lane facility fits the firm's future growth plans well, and the current layout fits well with the planned functions in the Premises. Sports turf will be installed on the floor of the warehouse area of the Premises so that trainees can perform running and conditioning drills. There will also be a weight training area containing rubber flooring in a portion of the warehouse area. The office area will be used for the firm's business offices, conference area, treatment rooms and film room. The firm will reuse the existing sink and counter area currently in the space. There are in the Premises men's and wamen's ADA approved restrooms, respectively. t' :�..?�� L :';. cam,...._- � .d •........ ..... ..... ,oi -2 X39 I.EC�Jb ^5� ocfrr. srwr �+a 4� zI Ijj iatifiawyy cac +nc..s icwoc _ b rwc f•�a.••c ^9 ^..� • �a �y j 71 IH t mm r NORTHWEST POINTE BUSINESS CENTER 77 wmw. z� .o.r ax e a .� ALTA/AC.�.'d LAND TITLE SiTi vEy ' "� u•••••••• i �`, _�'—�' LaY I. fivac 1. �o1Rxrt7T T9oCT Metal C�iR! fLTi,a117L 6M-= A RECEIVED APR 1 9 207 City of plymoutil Comttli pity Gevefopment Hill _. 3 rt 31 w r a BUILDING � rj 42.111 e : r i , f Y G+ ,oi -2 X39 I.EC�Jb ^5� ocfrr. srwr �+a 4� zI Ijj iatifiawyy cac +nc..s icwoc _ b rwc f•�a.••c ^9 ^..� • �a �y j 71 IH t mm r NORTHWEST POINTE BUSINESS CENTER 77 wmw. z� .o.r ax e a .� ALTA/AC.�.'d LAND TITLE SiTi vEy ' "� u•••••••• i �`, _�'—�' LaY I. fivac 1. �o1Rxrt7T T9oCT Metal C�iR! fLTi,a117L 6M-= A RECEIVED APR 1 9 207 City of plymoutil Comttli pity Gevefopment z Agenda Number 7A File 2017045 PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT T0: Plymouth Planning Commission FROM: Barbara Thorrrso rPlanning Manager (509-5452) MEETING DATE: May 17, 2017 APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: GUIDING: ZONING: REVIEW DEADLINE: Chick-fil-A. Inc. Sketch Plan for a Chick-fil-A Restaurant 3405 Vicksburg Lane CC (City Center) CC -R & E (City Center, Retail and Entertairvnent) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a sketch plan review of a roughly 5,000 square foot Chick -f l -A restaurant with drive thru on the former Ruby Tuesday's site located at the northwest coiner of Vicksburg Lane and State Highway 55. In order to allow the drive thru, they are requesting to rezone the site to PUD. The project would involve razing the existing building and portions of the existing parking lot for the new building. It would not involve any impacts on the existing storm water management and wetland areas. Proposed signage would include signs on all four sides of the building plus a pylon sign and reader board in a parking lot island adjacent to Vicksburg Lane. Notice of the public meeting was mailed to all property owners within 200 feet of the site. A copy of the notification area map is attached. 2017045 Page 2 CONTEXT: Surrounding Land Uses The site is located in Plymouth Marketplace. It is guided City Center (CC) and zoned City Center Retail & Entertainment (CC -R & E). Bremer Bank is located on the lot immediately to the north. Noodles & Company and Chipotle Mexican Gill are located north of the bank. Both lots are guided City Center (CC) and zoned City Center Retail & Entertainment (CC -R & E), A wetland separates the site from the parking field at Lunds & Byerlys to the west. That site is guided Commercial (C) and zoned PUD. The Mann Plymouth Grand 15 is located to the east across Vicksburg Lane. The theater is guided City Center (CC) and zoned City Center Retail & Entertainment (CC -R & E), The Shops at Plymouth Creek are located south of Highway 55. The site is guided Commercial (C) and zoned FUD. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a high level of discretion in reviewing sketch plans. Any opinions or comments provided to the applicant by the staff; Planning Commission, and City Council shall be considered advisory only and shall not constitute a binding decision on the request. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: The purpose of a sketch plan review is to give the applicant an opportunity to solicit informal comments from the City before incurring costs associated with a full development application. Staff has not provided a detailed analysis of the site plan itself because the applicant's proposal is not consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and the zoning of the site. Although the applicant is requesting a rezoning to PUD, as discussed below, the City has long determined that PUD zoning is not consistent with City Center guiding. The City Council adopted the City Center Concept Plan and Design Guidelines in 1996 and reconfirmed thein both in the 2409 Comprehensive Plan. The vision in the plan "was to establish an identity in City Center that would symbolize the area as the heart of the community." While, the City recognized that City Center would not be a "downtown" in the traditional sense, it was envisioned that it would be more than a typical suburban shopping center. The City Center section of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City will require all proposed development and redevelopment to strictly adhere to the City Center Design Guidelines. The Buildings section of the guidelines states: "Prohibit uses that rely on drive-through sales and those that are solely aufoniohile- oriented " 2017045 Page 3 Permitted uses in the CC -R & E district include: "Dining restaurants (no drive-in or drive-through service), " Consequently, it is clear from both the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance that a drive thru is not consistent with the vision for Plymouth's City Center. The original application for Plymouth Marketplace, which includes the subject site, requested PUD zoning for all lots except those guided City Center. As noted in the 2000 staff report, the bank and two restaurant buildings along Vicksburg Lane would be located in the City Center district, and the only zoning districts consistent with City Center guiding are City Center zoning districts. Consequently, those properties could not be eligible for PUD zoning. Before the adoption of the City Center concept plan and zoning districts, City Center properties were zoned PUD. The PUD zoning, however, resulted in the development of freestanding sites with little relationship among them, To address this shortcoming, the concept plan is based on patters and relationships, It includes design guidelines intended to be used to maintain consistency with the concept plan and coherency in the patterns of development that result. Standard zoning districts were developed to reflect and carry out the plan and design guidelines where the flexible nature of PUD had failed to produce the desired results. As City Center deveioped, signage was added to the plan. In 2006, the City Council approved the monument sign on Highway 55 at Vicksburg Lane, just south of the Ruby Tuesday site. This sign announces the entrance to City Center, indicating that the two corners at Vicksburg Lane are the most important community commercial corners in the city. Allowing a drive thru at this location would not only be inconsistent with the guiding and zoning of the site, it would undermine what the City has worked to achieve in City Center over the past 20 years — something more than a typical suburban shopping center. Signage The Plymouth Zoning Ordinance would allow two building signs, one for each street frontage and one freestanding sign for the subject site. However, when the City originally approved the Ruby Tuesday site as part of the Plymouth Marketplace development, the site was allowed signs on the north, south and east elevations in lieu of a monument sign. The ordinance specifies that for lots directly abutting Highway 55, a freestanding sign not exceeding 36 feet in height and 100 square feet in surface area may be allowed in lieu of a monument sign. The ordinance states that such a sign shall be Iocated between Highway 55 and the building and shall be set back at least 10 feet from all lot lines. The ordinance also provides additional restrictions for electronic changeable message signs. The applicant is requesting script signs on the east, west and south elevations of the building. They are proposing an icon sign over the front door, The Plymouth Zoning Ordinance defines 2017045 Page 4 both script and icon signs as signs. Consequently, the applicant's proposal for signs on all sides of the building is inconsistent with zoning ordinance regulations as well as previous City approvals for this site. The proposed location of the freestanding sign in a parking lot island adjacent to Vicksburg Lane is also inconsistent with city regulations. The applicant has not provided a scaled drawing of the freestanding sign, so staff has not determined if the reader board is within the maximum area specified in the zoning ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide the following comments about the proposed rezoning and sketch plan to Chick-fil-A Inc. • PUD zoning is not consistent with the City Center guiding of the site at 3405 Vicksburg Lane. ■ The City's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance both indicate that a drive thrU is not consistent with the vision for Plymouth's City Center. • The request for signs on all sides of the proposed Chick -til -A building is inconsistent with zoning ordinance regulations as well as previous City approvals for this site. • The proposed location of the freestanding sign in a parking lot island adjacent to Vicksburg Lane is inconsistent with city regulations. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Location Map 1 Aerial Photo 4. Applicant's Narrative 5. Site Graphics PMannfng Appiicad ons120[7120[704SIL7iick- -fi[-A on Viekshurg Sketch plmi CITY ❑F PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION No. 2017 - A RESOLUTION PROVIDING INFORMAL COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SKETCH PLAN FOR A CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3405 VICKSBURG LANE (2017045) WHEREAS, Chick-fil-A Inc. has requested a sketch plan review for a restaurant to be located at 3405 Vicksburg Lane and legally described as follows: Lot 5, Block 1, Plymouth Marketplace, Hennepin County, MN; and WHEREAS, any opinions or comments on the sketch plan provided in this resolution or by the Planning Corn mission and City Council shall be considered advisory only and shall not constitute a binding decision on the proposed development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public Meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA that it should and hereby provide the following comments or suggestions on the submitted sketch plan application: 1. PUO zoning is not consistent with the City Center guiding of the site at 3405 Vicksburg Lane. 2. The City's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance both indicate that a drive thru is not consistent with the vision for Plymouth's City Center. 3, The request for signs on all sides of the proposed Chick-fil-A building is inconsistent with zoning ordinance regulations as well as previous City approvals For this site. 4. The proposed location of the Freestanding sign in a parking lot island adjacent to Vicksburg Lane is inconsistent with city regulations. ADOPTED by the Plymouth City Council this ** day of June, 2017. Res. 2017 - File 2017045 Page 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) 55. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed city clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on **, 2017 with the origins! thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the city this day of City Clerk SITE 2017045,- aerial Photograph 100 50 0 100 200 riboty of Feet Plymouth, Minnesota Chick -M -A, Inc. 5240 Buffington Road Atlanta, Georgia 30349-2999 Telephone 404-765-8900 Introduction: The following narrative outlines the proposed Chick-fil-A restaurant to be constructed at the northwest corner of the intersection of Vicksburg Lane and Hwy. 55 in Plymouth, MN (the "Project"). Chick-fil-A is in the process of executing a purchase agreement to redevelop an existing, vacant outparcel building into a new Chick-fil-A restaurant. Site Summary The subject property is a 2.18 acre lot located at 3405 Vicksburg Lane, Plymouth, MN within The Plymouth City Center development. The proposed redevelopment site is currently a single -tenant outparcel building which was formerly a Ruby Tuesday's and has been vacant for several years. The site is located at the southeast corner of the development and to the northwest of the intersection of Vicksburg Lane and Hwy -55. The site is currently zoned as a CC-R&E (City Center, Retail & Entertainment) and is proposed to be rezoned as a PUD District to allow for the operation of drive thru lane. The zoning adjacent to the shopping center is Planned Unit Development (south, north, and west), and CC-R&E (east). The Project will consist of razing the existing building and portions of the existing parking lot to construct the proposed Chick-fil-A restaurant, which will contain approximately 5,000 square feet of floor area, This restaurant development will be attractively landscaped, utilize the latest LED lighting technologies to illuminate the site at night, and will feature an outdoor seating area adjacent to MN Hwy -7. Lot Layout/Co nfig_uration The challenges for Chick-fil-A in determining a site layout for this property were implementing a plan that would fit a building and drive-thru facility within the existing developed area of the site to eliminate impacts to the adjacent stormwater management and wetland areas. Additionally, locating the building such that it could be visible from both Vicksburg Lane and Hwy -55 was important from a brand recognition standpoint and for potential customers to easily identify where we are located within the site. Visibility and appropriate signage will be paramount to the success of the store. Chick- fil-A feels the plan presented before you accomplishes all of the aforementioned challenges. The site has been oriented to locate the building along the south eastern side of the development area (same as the existing TGIF building) with Chick-fil-A's playground facing west overlooking the stormwater management/wetland area. It was important to orientate the site in a way to provide for the most efficient points of access to the site in order to minimize traffic backups onto the shared access drive and adjacent 35t" Ave. Additionally, this layout allowed us to isolate the drive-thru traffic from the dine -in traffic which will also help to eliminate traffic backups. The drive-thru lane has been proposed to wrap around the west, south, and east sides of the building. The proposed drive-thru will feature two stacking lanes up to the order points that will merge into one lane leading up to the pickup window. Chick-fil-A has found that this drive-thru configuration Chick -M -A, Inc. 5200 Buffington .Road Atlanta, Georgia 30349-2998 Telephone 404-785-8900 a increases efficiency and minimizes vehicle overflow into the parking lot and adjoining internal access road/entry magazine. Additionally, over the last year Chick-fil-a has enhanced the operations of the drive-thru lane by adding the ability for face to face ordering as well as automated payment prior to the pickup window. Innovative features such as these are what have earned Chick-fil-A best drive-thru in America for eight consecutive years as determined by a nationally recognized quick service authority. Out of all the quick service restaurants surveyed, Chick-fil-A scored the highest in order accuracy, friendliness of the order takers, and speed of service. Overall average wait time from the time an order is placed to pick up is approximately 90 seconds. Vehicular access to the proposed restaurant will be provided via an existing shared access drive that originates at 35'h Ave. and terminates at the proposed site. This shared access drive provides vehicular access from 35th Ave. to the ChipotlelNoodles development as well as the Bremer Bank and ultimately the proposed development site; 35th Ave. routes traffic through the overall shopping center from Vicksburg Lane to 36th Ave. Existing access to 35th Ave. is provided on the west and east sides of the overall development. The west access point to 36th Ave. is non -signalized with the leg of 35th Ave. being stopped while the east access point to Vicksburg Lane is a fully signalized intersection. The main parking field that is situated north of the building will, for the most part, remain as existing accept minor reconfigurations of the parking lot islands to adjust to the one- way drive aisle on the west side of the site to provide better circulation for drive-thru traffic. A concrete sidewalk for pedestrian access to the Chick-fil-A restaurant from the bike path along Vicksburg Lane is proposed. The site will be in conformance with the building and parking setback requirements on all sides of the site. Parkinu Per City Code, Drive-in or Drive-Thru restaurants are required to provide one stall for every 2.5 seats plus one stall per 15 square feet of public service and counter area - The proposed Chick-fil-A building has 117 seats (interior and no exterior) and a public service and counter area of 197 square feet which equates to 61 required parking stalls. At total of 61 parking stalls are proposed meeting code. Traffic To understand potential traffic impacts by the full build -out of the development, Chick-fil- A commissioned a traffic study that looked at impacts to four surrounding intersections which are: • Highway 55 & Vicksburg Lane a 35th Ave. & Vicksburg Lane ■ 35th Ave. & Internal Site Access 0 36th Ave. & West Access Chick-fil-A, Inc. 6200 Buffington Road Atlanta, Georgia 30349.2998 Telephone 404-765-9900 M The results of the study determined that no geometric or striping changes are required to the public roadways due to the expected traffic with operations remaining about the same. With exception of the Highway 55 & Vicksburg intersection, all other intersections operated at a Level of Service of B or higher in both the existing and full build -out conditions. The Intersection of Highway 55 & Vicksburg Lane operated at a Level of Service ❑ in both scenarios meaning the proposed development traffic did not decrease the operations of this intersection. See attached Traffic impact Study for further details. The only deficiency observed was at the internal access point for the ChipotlelNoodles and Company development. Based upon observations made, the site does not have enough parking to handle the mid-day peak. Vehicles were observed driving into the lot, not finding a parking spot, and parking in either the Bremer bank lot or the vacant Ruby Tuesday's lot. Vehicles were also observed at the ChipotlelNoodles and Company access waiting for parked vehicles to enter or exit parking spaces close to the access and blocking the northbound access drive that serves the bank and Ruby Tuesday's sites creating congestion. This congestion is a direct result of a combination of not enough parking, as noted above, and poor circulation through the parking lot as the lot is an L shape with a dead-end on one side and only one access point on the other. Improvements to mitigate this are limited given the lack of available area within and surrounding the ChipotlelNoodles and Company lot. As suggested in the Traffic Impact Study, the combing of parking lots and access points would be beneficial. As such, Chick-fil-A is working with the owners of the Bremer bank and ChipotlelNoodles and Company parcels on a concept to combine parking lots and eliminate the ChipotlelNoodles access point to the shared access drive in an effort to mitigate the traffic that was observed backing up into the intersection. It should be noted that the original approvals for the overall development as documented in Resolution 2000-323 include variations for 77 parking spaces and a condition that required the developer to provide a plan identifying where the 77 spaces could be constructed should a parking problem develop, It is not apparent that this plan was ever provided to the City so it is unknown as to where these 77 parking spaces were planned to be constructed. Nonetheless and even though this issue is not Chick-fil-A's responsibility to solve, as that burden is on the owner of the shopping center per the aforementioned conditions in the resolution noted above, Chick-fil-A has taken the lead to identify potential options and start discussions with adjacent landowners to hopefully arrive at a solution that works for all parties impacted and improve overall traffic flow within the greater development. I DtilifiRcz Utility service to the proposed restaurant will be provided via existing services that currently serve the former restaurant building. The Chick-fil-A development will utilize the existing sanitary service that is stubbed to the site and used by the restaurant. The proposed water service is proposed to be tapped into its' respective main north of the site; and stormwater runoff will drain to existing inlets within the parking lot matching Chick-fil-A, Inc. 5200 Buffington Road Atlanta, Georgia 30349-2998 Telephone 404-765-8900 existing flow patterns. Stormwater generated by the proposed building will be directed to the existing storm pipe that the previous development utilized, 5igna_G e Given the location of the building within The Shoppes at Knollwood development, signage will be paramount in notifying potential customers that are approaching the site from multiple directions of where the restaurant is located. As such, 00" script signs are proposed on the east, west, and south elevations to assist customers traveling on Hwy - 55 and Vicksburg Lane in locating the store. Additionally, an icon sign has been proposed over the main entry of the restaurant, which is the elevation facing north, to identify where the main entry is located for our dine -in customers. Total building signage square footage is proposed to be 211.25 sq. ft. Additionally, a pylon sign is proposed at the northeast of the building within a parking lot island adjacent to Vicksburg Lane which includes an icon sign and reader board. The reader board will be essential to inform our customers of events that may be coming up such as Daddy/Daughter night among others. This sign will also note that CFA is closed on Sunday's to eliminate unnecessary trips. Total square footage of the pylon sign, which includes the icon and reader board, is 84 square feet. Landscaping The project will be attractively landscape with a variety of deciduous and evergreen tress/shrubs along with ornamental grasses and perennials to give the site year round interest. Buildinq Elevations The building is proposed to be a mixture of brick, prefinished metal/aluminum, stucco and glass. 'Brick color currently proposed to be a Cidadel tan with white stucco accents. Mechanical units for heating/cooling will be located on the roof and will be screened via a parapet wall. Accent fight via wall sconces are proposers around the building to provide nighttime interest. Operationally, the trash enclosure has been integrated into the building and access to the dumpster area can occur internal to the building as required by ordinance. Project Phasinq & Construction Schedule If approved, the project is anticipated to start construction in spring of 2018 and complete in late summer of 2418. The construction would start with the razing of the existing restaurant building and applicable parking lot areas which will be followed by construction of the Chick-fil-A building and proposed underground utility infrastructure. After all utilities have been installed, the remainder of the site will be completed including curb and gutter, paving, and landscaping. The overall construction process typically takes 20 weeks including demolition from start to grand opening. Chick-fll-A, Inc. UA-ek 5200 Buffington Road Atlanta, Georgia 30349-2998 + Telephone 404-765-8900 D—W The Chick-fil-A Story It's a story that actually began 94 years ago when a man named Truett Cathy was born in 1921 in the small town of Eatonton, Georgia, about 80 miles from Atlanta, where he grew up. Truett's mom ran a boarding house, which meant she had to cook a lot of meals -- but Truett helped, and he paid close attention, and picked up cooking and serving tips that would come in quite handy later. Along the way, he also Learned to be quite the entrepreneur. He sold magazines door to door, delivered newspapers all over the neighborhood, and sold Coca -Colas from a stand in his front yard and all the while he was learning the importance of good customer service. After serving his country in World War II, in 1946 Truett used the business experience he gained growing up and opened his first restaurant with his brother, Ben, calling it the Dwarf Grill (later renamed the Dwarf House). Hamburgers were on the menu but, ironically, no chicken because he said it took too long to cook. Truett worked hard with that first venture, but considered Sunday to be a day of rest, for himself and his employees and as you know, that's a practice that Chick -fit -A honors to this day. The early 60s would be a pivotal time in Truett's life. That's when he first took a boneless breast of chicken and spent the next few years experimenting until he found the perfect mix of seasonings, he breaded and cooked the filet so that it stayed juicy, put it between two buttered buns and added two pickles for extra measure and in 1963 unveiled what we now know as the Chick-fil-A Chicken Sandwich. As far as the name, Truett says it just came to him. He had it registered that year in 1963 and created a logo that has been updated but is still very similar to the original designed 50 years ago. The Chick-fil-A sandwich was a huge hit, and in 1967 Truett opened his first Chick-fil-A restaurant in an enclosed shopping mall where, up to that point, food normally wasn't sold. Frankly, the developer of the Greenbriar Shopping Center in Atlanta wasn't too keen on serving food inside his mall, but as we know that turned out to be a very smart decision on his part, and especially Truett's. Today, Truett is recognized as the pioneer in quick -service mall food. It wasn't until 1986 that Chick-fil-A opened its first "freestanding" restaurant on North Druid Hills Road in Atlanta. Today there are close to 2,100 restaurants locations in 43 states and it's become so popular that people literally camp out in the parking lot the night before a grand opening of a new restaurant; they're hoping to be one of the first 100 people in line because they'll be rewarded with free Chick-fil-A for a year, which gives new meaning to the phrase "happy campers!" Chick-fil-A is now the largest quick -service chicken restaurant and one of the largest that's privately -held. Two generations of Cathy family members are involved in the business, including Truett's sons Dan (the president and CED) and Bubba (senior VP) and also, his grandchildren. Chick -FTI -A, Inc. 5200 Buffington Road Atlanta, Georgia 30349-2998 Telephone 404-765-8900 r Our Food There are a lot of things people say they like about Chick-fil-A, but it all begins with the food, and especially the Original Chick-fil-A Chicken Sandwich. It was a significant product innovation, and it remains our best-selling item on the menu. Our innovations didn't stop with the chicken sandwich. In 1982, we were the first restaurant to sell chicken nuggets nationally, and three years later added our trademark Waffle Potato Fries to the menu, and we still use 190% fully refined peanut oil, which is cholesterol and trans fat free. In 2010, we introduced the Chick-fil-A Spicy Chicken Sandwich. With its special blend of peppers and other seasonings, it became such a "hot" selling item that we soon after introduced the Spicy Chicken Biscuit. More recently and withint he last couple years we introduced to our menu a new grilled chicken sandwich and grilled chicken nuggets. People also like the fact that we offer a variety of menu options for those wanting foods that are lower in calories, Garbs or fats, such as the Chick-fil-A Chargriiled Chicken Sandwich, entree salads and fruit cups and by the way, fruit cups are an option with our kids meals these days. In fact, Men's Health magazine named us "America's Healthiest Chain Restaurant for Kids." The high quality of our food is the number one reason people keep coming back to Chick-fil-A but there are a few more reasons — and one has four legs and is a terrible speller. Serving our Customers Whenever you ask people what they like about Chick-fil-A, one of first things they say is "the service" and it's an important part of our story, because it goes back to Truett's experience as a young businessman and to the values he instilled in Chick-fil-A. We call it Second Mile Service, and it's based on the belief that if someone asks you to carry something for them one mile, you do one better and carry it for them two. Its doing those unexpected things that make people feel special. Our drive-thru has been voted "America's #1 drive-thru" for six years in a row. We do our best to ensure a quick and pleasurable experience, and might even have a nugget for the family pet when you arrive at the window. But no matter if you're being served in our restaurants, at our drive-thrus, or with an outside delivery, you can always count on our team members responding to your words of thanks with two special words of their own — "My pleasure." Chick-fil-R Philosophy & Operator/Employment Model The Company's philosophy is that their restaurants become integral parts of the communities in which they are located. Toward that end, Chick-fil-A makes scholarships available to store employees and sponsors the Winshape Foundation which supports a family of programs designed to encourage outstanding young people nationwide. The Foundation has a college program and operates a series of camps, homes, and retreats. On the local level, individual restaurant operators typically engage in community support activities such as sponsoring youth sports teams, supporting educational activities, and leadership initiatives. Finally, and in accordance with company policy, the operators and employees in each Chick fii A Restaurant strive for a level of customer service unequaled in the quick -service food industry. It is quite Chick-fil-A, Inc. 5200 Buffington Road Atlanta, Georgia 30349-2998 Telephone 404-765-8900 .O&P • common to go into a Chick-fil-A and have your tray carried to your table, have people clear your table, and ask if they can come and refresh your beverage. Beyond the above, Chick-fil-A's operators model is very unique in the fast food industry. In their situation, the operator is part owner with Chick-fil-A. ft's similar to a franchise except they usually have one location. Sometimes they have two but for the most part they have one location and what that provides is a situation where they have very competent partners with great character in the restaurants and they are involved in the community, are part of the community, and they spend a lot of time in the community, What Chick-fil-A likes to say is that their operators are in business for themselves, but not by themselves. It is very unusual for an Operator to shut Mown and the retention rate for operators is about 98%. A typical Chick-fil-A store will employ approximately 45 permanent jobs with approximately 120 jobs created for temporary construction employment. A typical store will operate between the hours of 6:00am to 10:30pm; Monday thru Saturday and are always closed on Sundays. 160379_Project Narrative—N-04-17 Ravised.doc