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