HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 04-08-19920
5! A.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: March 30, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 8, 1992
FILE NO.: 92013
PETITIONER: Independent School District 284 (Wayzata)
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to allow public school use of an
existing place of worship for an adult education program.
LOCATION: 13200 State Highway 55 (Vision of Glory Church)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: R -1A (Low Density Single Family Residential District)
BACKGROUND:
On September 22, 1980, the City Council, by Resolution 80 -687, approved a
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan to construct an addition to Vision of
Glory Lutheran Church of 12,040 square feet. Numerous conditions were
attached to the resolution, including the direction that the plans were to be
revised to eliminate all variances relative to the new parking lot. This
addition to the church was constructed.
On February 27, 1989, the City Council, by Resolution 89 -109 approved a Site
Plan and Conditional Use Permit for an addition of 21,424 square feet to the
Vision of Glory Church, including the approval of variances for parking and
drive setbacks, and access to 26th Avenue North.
On July 24, 1989, the City Council, by Resolution 89 -414 approved an Amended
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for Vision of Glory Lutheran Church.
Included was the requirement that the Site Plan was to be amended to specify
brick similar to the existing church as the exterior treatment on the
addition. The addition was not constructed and on July 24, 1990 the
Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, and Variances expired.
On April 22, 1991, the City Council, by Resolution 91 -204 approved a Site
Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variances for the addition of a 14,700 square
foot addition onto the church site.
On October 7, 1991, the City Council, by Resolution 91 -591 approved a Site
Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of a
bell tower to 60 feet in height.
Notice of the Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper, and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified. A
development sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. This application proposes the use of four classrooms in the Vision of
Glory Lutheran Church for adult education programs including preparation
for the GED (General Educational Developmental) examination and English as
a second language. Additional support services include child care, child
lunch, transportation, and parenting -self esteem classes. Approximately
30 students and children, and 4 staff members will use this facility at
any one time. The school district will use these rooms on Tuesday and
Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m..
2. Section 9 of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance provides six standards that
must be met on any application for a Conditional Use Permit. A copy of
those standards has been attached to this report along with the
petitioner's narrative.
3. The petitioner has indicated that this use would be a Permanent use within
this structure and not a temporary use. Based on this information staff
recommends this Conditional Use Permit be renewed in one year to determine
if any unforeseen issues arise from this use.
4. The Plymouth Zoning Ordinance does not include parking requirements for
adult educational facilities. The approved Site Plan for this church
includes 182 parking spaces.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Staff finds the proposed use of the Vision of Glory Lutheran Church for
public school purposes responsive to the six standards of the Conditional
Use Permit section of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance.
2. If every student and staff member arrives at this site by individual
automobile, no more than 34 spaces would be used. Parking at this site
will serve both the needs of the proposed adult education classes and the
church use.
3. Use for public school purposes shall be limited to Tuesday and Thursday
from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.; four classrooms and a maximum of 35
participants /teachers.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend adoption of the attached resolution providing for the
approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the use of facilities at the Vision
of Glory Lutherinl by Indepen t School rict 284.
Submitted by:
arTes E. Dillerud, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit for Public School Activities
in a Church Structure
2. Conditional Use Permit Standards
3. Petitioner's Narrative
4. Location Map
5. Large Plans
pc /jk /92013:jw)
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 284 AT VISION
OF GLORY LUTHERAN CHURCH (92013)
WHEREAS, Independent School District 284 has requested approval for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow public school use for adult educational
classes in an existing place of worship for property located at 13200 State
Highway 55; 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
Independent School District 284 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow public
school use for adult educational classes in an existing place of worship for
property located at 13200 State Highway 55, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and ordinances,
and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The permit is issued to Independent School District 284 for adult
educational classes located in the Vision of Glory Lutheran Church and
shall not be transferable.
3. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
4. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within approved designated
areas.
5. No signage is allowed relative to the use.
6. The permit shall be renewed in one year to assure compliance with the
conditions.
7. All parking shall be off - street in designated areas which comply with the
Zoning Ordinance.
8. Maximum occupancy in the adult educational class facility is limited to 35
sum of participants /teachers).
9. Hours of operation of the adult educational classes shall be 9:00 a.m. to
12:30 p.m. Tuesdays and Thursdays, only.
res /pc /92013:jw)
FR M S=CK 9, MWIVISICH A
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a reccmTendation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Camprnhensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already penutted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to minin za traffic
congestion in the public streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
forms:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
The Community Education WE CAN Literacy Program would utilize four
classrooms in the Vision of Glory Education wing on Tuesdays and
Thursdays mornings. This program would also use on additional room
for childcare. The basic purpose of the ABE WE CAN! program is to
provide free learning opportunities for adults interested in
improving basic reading, writing, spelling or math skills,
preparation for the GED (General Educational Developmental)
examination, and English as a Second Language (ESL) . Additional
support services are provided for the students including free child
care and child lunch, free transportation, and parenting -self
esteem class.
F
9T- if •
qP 7
M
LO
n
I e
L G l f 1
ee w m— re ,
wrr rwr. b n h Cl st O I
t
M ' , I I ` 1• ra..l \I.R nr T v. )• as ....rh/ - "L
Il,••. +w•rrw..A.rn
r
ti
f
a s r r+ u
r r, -- __ a ars s
r
AW
4•: r t
c
i
4s ii j "t
4
ti Eli r
I
lll 1 1 ITT 7
a
1A s PIN
I
i
SS X
AbW
VP
I
lll 1 1 ITT 7
a
1A s PIN
E,• '1 :S" ,:tS.'itl; +sit ;s. ._..
lit
Of
6
If -in
fife! € =
VIGION GLOQ`( LOIJERAN CWUK)4
3k SS X
AbW
VP
E,• '1 :S" ,:tS.'itl; +sit ;s. ._..
lit
Of
6
If -in
fife! € =
VIGION GLOQ`( LOIJERAN CWUK)4
AbW
i.
FUTURE ADDITION
EXIST EXIST
STOR. MECH.
it ±;
EXISTING EXISTING
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM I i i
un
EXIST LOBBY lXISTING 6ANCTUARY
Dos IN ri UL
EXISTGCLASSROOM
EXIST
S
EXIST SEC.
EXISTING
EXIST M
NURSERY EX.
EXISTiNG m
IS TCLASSROOMXIST
EXISING
NURSTERY I P4,1D EXIST EXIST
rL& I OFFICE
2 1EXIST
STOR.
lillt
EXIST. 1'. MECK . . 0 EXISTM FELLOMSMP HALL
h,l
47
LOBBY
FELLONSHP
HALL
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
VS., V-O*
Ito"
MECH.
smoom M w M CLASSFIM. CLASSROOM I'M w QAS*tOom mass000m
Iall
m""OO
wA I
CORRIDOR CORRIDOR
f I IIffil
9E=-Il CLASSRM.
CLASSROOM CLAsdRoom c-Asimo
CLASSRM.
om CLAS" 9 .4
LOWER FLOOR PLAN UPPER FLOOR PLAN
11I6,• r-o' 1116•• r-o•
i
6
I
ii b 0 A6
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: April 3, 1992
TO: Plannin C ission
FROM: Chuck Di d, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: DOWNT N PLYMOUTH PUBLIC FORUM
Attached for your review is a copy of a memo which summarizes the meeting I
attended regarding Downtown Plymouth.
Please bring your notebooks on Downtown Plymouth to the April 8, 1992 meeting.
Thank you.
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: March 23, 1992
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Chuck Dillerud, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN PLYMOUTH PROPERTY OWNERS MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1992
The City Council has requested a brief summary of the captioned event at which
I was in attendance.
Joe Domagala invited all property owners of record, in the area bounded by
Plymouth Boulevard, Rockford Road, Vicksburg Lane and State Highway 55 to
attend an informal discussion of the general concept of Downtown Plymouth.
The meeting was held in the City Council Conference Room at 4:00 p.m. March
10, 1992. Joe asked if I wished to attend as an observer and as a
representative of the property owned by the City of Plymouth in this general
area. I agreed to attend as an observer only.
The meeting was convened as scheduled, with representatives of virtually all
of the property in the subject area in attendance. There were approximately
15 individuals at the meeting. There was no formal agenda for the meeting,
but the following topics were discussed:
1. The City /County Library - Joe reviewed the progress of locating a new
County Library at the northeast corner of Vicksburg Lane and State
Highway 55. I was asked to review the process that went into selecting
that site. Joe indicated to the property owners that, although no
construction awards have been made to construct the library, the process
of the City acquiring the site through Emminent Domain was proceeding to
conclusion very rapidly.
A number of the property owners indicated that the uncertainty regarding
the future of the Bill Cavanaugh site (where the library is now proposed
may have led to the demise of development proposals in that area of
Downtown Plymouth that would have included that site. They also
indicated that any future development proposals for that area of Downtown
Plymouth will be handicapped by that particular site being used for
library purposes.
2. A number of property owners north of the Cub Foods site noted that the
current Downtown Plymouth PUD Plan virtually eliminated the possibility
of retailing uses north of 36th Avenue North. They indicated that this
constraint, voiced by the City in response to inquiries regarding
potential uses north of 36th Avenue North, had "killed" several potential
sales of property and the resulting development.
3. The multiplicity of owners of the land both north and south of 36th
Avenue North will create difficulty if it eliminates the possibility of a
single development effort involving a sizeable end user.
The group then discussed actions they might take as a group regarding the
problems in the development of Downtown Plymouth that had been observed. They
decided on the follow actions:
1. To draft a letter to the City Council advising the City Council of the
difficulties to the development of the area south of 36th Avenue North
that results from both the future uncertainty and the current probability
of a library site.
2. They decided to express the issues raised here at the Public
Informational Meeting scheduled before the Planning Commission on April
8, 1992. They indicated that it appeared to be the consensus of the
property owners that amendments to the PUD Plan were now necessary to
reflect development that has occurred and significant changes in the
general development environment since the original plan was approved.
3. The group concurred that any replanning efforts with regard to the
remaining undeveloped property within Downtown Plymouth may be assisted
through financial contributions of the property owners and could include
designed controls in return for flexibility for use.
I advised the group that the PUD Plan could be amended even though the
original sponsors of the PUD were no longer available to originate that
amendment. I advised them that with such a large percentage of the property
owners here represented as sponsors of a PUD amendment process, the chances of
success to amend the PUD in some fashion that would better support the
continued development of Downtown Plymouth, would have a greater probability
of success.
pl /cd /jw.3- 23:jw)
i
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: April 3, 1992
TO: Planning Co i sion
FROM: Chuck D'll , Community Development Director
SUBJECT: SHOPPINGINTER SIGNAGE
The attached staff report and sign illustrations are included per your request
for the Planning Commission's discussion on Shopping Center Signage. The
staff report was prepared for the Planning Commission discussion of the
petition by Ryan Construction Company to increase the allowable signage
coverage at the Waterford Park Shopping Center. The City Council ultimately
approved increasing the percentage of building wall coverage to 10 percent in
accordance with a specific sign plan which also restricted the location of the
signage allowed. The last two drawings in this agenda item show the
difference between a 5 percent wall coverage and a 10 percent wall coverage
for an individual tenant sign.
pc /jk /signs:jw)
744
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: February 6, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 13,
1991
FILE NO.: 90078
PETITIONER: Ryan Construction Company
REQUEST: RECONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER SIGN PLAN
FOR "WATERFORD PARK PLAZA"
LOCATION: Northeast Corner of 6th Avenue North and Revere Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CS (Service Commercial)
ZONING: MPUD 86 -1 (Underlying zoning is B -3)
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting of January 28, 1991 the City Council acted to refer this
request back to the Planning Commission, together with the Ryan letter dated
January 24, 1991.
The Council also directed staff to provide the Planning Commission with
research on similar standards (related to wall signage in shopping centers) in
comparable communities. A copy of the City Council minutes of January 28
concerning this request is attached, together with Ryan's letter of January
21, 1991 which was presented to the City Council, but which the Planning
Commission had not seen during their deliberations.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
As directed we have requested information from nine communities which are
developing suburbs" similar to Plymouth.. We've attached a summary of our
findings upon review of the Zoning Ordinances of each of these communities
regarding wall signage permitted in a shopping center context for the
individual shopping center tenants.
In those communities that control wall signage by formula related to the size
of the wall upon which the signage is to be attached the maximum percentage
permitted ranged 10% to 30% of wall area. Some communities allow the signage
to be "moved" between tenants (but controlled by the shopping center owner and
a master sign plan).
I have also attached a letter from Ryan Construction Company dated January 30,
1991 together with the graphics that were submitted with that letter. The
table submitted by Ryan dated February 4, 1991 and entitled "Retail Signage
Page Two
Codes" does not correspond with the data we have independently secured from
the communities that mentioned in common with our research. I am not certain
of the source of information used by Ryan.
The structure of the sign regulations found in the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance
are substantially more specific than that found in Zoning Ordinances of the
communities surveyed. In most cases the actual standard such as 10 %, 15% or
30 %) does not vary in the other communities between a use located in a
shopping center or a use free standing not within a shopping center. Certain
rules and applications (such as aggregation) may apply to multi- tenant
buildings in other communities but the percentage of wall area allowable for
wall signage is the same whether a tenant is in a shopping center or not.
The sign provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance are drafted to clearly
distinguish between a business located in a multi - tenant shopping center and a
business ocated in a free standing structure with respect to the allowable
wall signage as a percentage of the wall to which the signage is attached. In
both the B -2 and B -3 Business Districts the general requirement for free
standing businesses is wall signage equal to 20% of the wall upon which the
sign is to be located; but, maximum wall signage is limited to 5% of the wall
area to which the sign is attached for the businesses located in a multi -
tenant shopping center environment.
The Plymouth Ordinance is more focused and discreet with respect to standards
for wall signage than the Ordinances of other communities.
The sign provisions related to wall signage for shopping centers were
incorporated in the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance through Ordinance amendments in
1984. At that time there were a number of Ordinance Amendments adopted by
City Council following extensive review and research by the Developers
Council, Staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council. There was
extensive public involvement and input from the business community in the
creation of the Sign Ordinance Amendments that were adopted in 1984, including
wall signage provisions for shopping centers.
Since the 1984 amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Sign Provisions regarding
wall signage in shopping centers, there have been three multi- tenant retail
commercial projects approved, in addition to the subject Waterford Park Plaza
and Ryan's referenced Rockford Road Plaza.
The only wall signage flexibility granted in the approval of these three
multi- tenant commercial projects (Town Center at Parkers Lake, Oakwood Square
Shopping Center, and Plymouth Plaza Shops) was the PUD plan flexibility
granted for Town Center at Parkers Lake to allow use of the surface area
calculations from the west "end -cap" to be figured in with the all surface
area calculations on the front surface of the proposed center. This resulted
in an effective 8.72% wall signage approval in a PUD context. In this case
the end cap oT the shopping center was a valuable concession because it faced
Vicksburg Lane.
Page Three
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
The amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to provide a more restrictive standard
for wall signage in shopping center locations was a deliberate and specific
modification to the Zoning Ordinance undertaken in 1984. I believe the clear
intent was to provide individual signage within a shopping center context only
sufficient for internal identification of individual tenants from within the
center. I find the signage ratios to be an improvement over that found in the
Ordinances found in other comparable Metro communities in that it clearly
recognizes the reduced signage needs that result from a shopping center
configuration. Also, the proportionality of sign to the wall it is on is
recognized, though, of course, the percentage can be any number found to be
consistent with this community's standards.
The shopping center itself is the geographic locational factor and individual
wall signage t ereafter becomes only a means of distinguishing one merchant
from the next within the center itself.
The Plymouth ordinance provisions are an effort to ensure attractive urban
design and enhanced public safety, as noted in our January 4, 1991 Staff
memorandum on the Ryan PUD Amendment application.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Based on information provided by the applicant herein the Planning Commission
should again take action regarding this application; either affirming the
prior recommendation to dew the PUD Plan amendment, as recommended by staff;
or, provide a modified recommendation based on the new information provided by
this memorandum and attachments.
Should the Planning Commission decide to modify its recommendation on this
application based on a finding that a 5 percent standard for shopping centers
is generally too limiting, I recommend consideration be given a Zoning
Ordinance amendment in that regard following proper notice and Public Hearing.
Submitted by:
arses t. u m erua, community ueveiopment coorainator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Table 1. - Zoning Ordinance Standards
2. Ryan Letter of January 30, 1991
3. City Council Minutes of January 28, 1991
4. Ryan letter of January 21, 1991
5. Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991
6. Staff Memo of January 4, 1991
pc /cd /90078.1:lr)
Apple Valley
Blaine
Bloomington
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Burnsville
Coon Rapids
Eagan
Eden Prairie
Plymouth
MAXIMUM PERMITTED WALL SIGNAGE
Calculation Basis
Floor Area Formula
10% of wall
Plat Maximum
30% of wall
10% of wall
16% of wall
20% of wall
20% of wall
15% of wall
5% of wall
Table 1.
Assuming a single "bay" of Waterford Plaza at 20 foot width, 30 foot depth and
16.75 foot front wall surface height.
Apple Valle
Blaine
Bloomington
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Burnsville
Coon Rapids
Eagan
Eden Prairie
Plymouth
pc /cd /90078.1:lr)
Maximum Allowable
Square Feet
104
33.5
40
100.5
33.5
54
67
67
50
16.75
LM
lk
5 a^•*y..} tt + •µ ' "
yam , I a.•d _4
TOwrWi?z+ . -
s•- _ a+
as ., , 'g u ;. 7 C1
g fir:: _ - `- _ .• L . -_ -l_ _1 '_.
T _ 7 c . Z. ;. xc _w. s: err
c -_ , ` / --.. u. "' Y*f'r :t'.,` .3' -C"i . . -> a7, ?a•. i':s"4',''P — ..sKc' ir?,n,= i
i
Sr,, :,,,'4sty -S '+'i4 p'4 s.. • r *.,....
li
j,. ` .by. t Y'y c' 3.. h`%.+r • "- "'4'Y- :`:?'?y2'1° +Y#'! ^ yji; ,r..''.. r ++....- ."'..,
S^i
ia
of
er J' ` Y T - Cl - `F..Ra'Y•'t ' . gt 1 /'}s if !' C !.! - f ..
IV It-
oil
9MA
Ila
A
LA. V&JWq 11P.
1.
4
or,
F,