HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 05-13-1992q*
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: April 28, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 13, 1992
FILE NO.: 92020
PETITIONER: Vicki Siskin
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat to divide a 6.42 acre site into 10 single
family detached building lots including a Variance from the
front lot width and the length of a cul -de -sac.
LOCATION: North side of Sunset Trail, West of Deerwood Lane North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residence District)
ZONING: R -1A (Low Density Single Family Residential District)
BACKGROUND:
There are no Community Development activity files on this property.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the official City
newspaper, and all property owners within 100 feet have been notified. A
development sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant proposes a 10 lot single family detached conventional
subdivision in the R -1A Zoning District. Each lot meets or exceeds the
18,500 square foot minimum lot size for the R -1A Zoning District.
2. The site is located in the Basset Creek Watershed District and contains no
Shoreland Management or Floodplain Overlay Districts; it does contain
Federal and local wetland areas; it contains no significant woodlands;
and, contains some small areas in excess of 18 percent or greater natural
grade. The soils on the site are suitable for urban development with
municipal sewers -which are available. The site contains some physical
constraints of significance as determined by the Plymouth Physical
Constraints Analysis, primarily due to the wetlands and significant slopes
in the northwest corner of this site.
3. A variance from the Subdivision Code is requested to permit a lot width of
45 feet for Lot 4 versus the ordinance standard of 110 feet for lots in
the R -1A Zoning District. This request is due to the location of wetland
on the north side of the proposed cul -de -sac. Lot design variances
requested concurrent with Preliminary Plats may be approved only upon a
finding that the request is in compliance with Subdivision Ordinance
Variance Criteria. A copy of this criteria and applicant's response is
attached.
4. A variance from the Subdivision Code is requested to permit a cul -de -sac
length of 550 feet versus the ordinance standard of 500 feet. A copy of
the Variance Criteria and the applicant's response is attached.
5. The Development Review Committee has analyzed proposed plat for compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Code, and all other City Codes,
Ordinances, Policies and Standards regarding platting of property in the
R -1A Zoning District. Except as noted above, the Preliminary Plat meets
or exceeds all the City of Plymouth standards.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Except as noted, the proposed Preliminary Plat meets or exceeds all
standards for single family detached subdivision development in the R -1A
Zoning District.
2. The requested variance for lot width for Lot 4 complies with the
Subdivision Ordinance Variance Criteria.
3. The requested variance for length of a cul -de -sac complies with the
Subdivision Ordinance Variance Criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend adoption of the attached resolution providing for the approval of
a Preliminary Plat of 10 lots including the Subdivision Ordinance Variance to
permit a lot width of 45 feet for Lot 4, and a cul -de -sac length of 550 feet
complies with the Subdivision Ordinancexariance Criteria.
Submitted by: (
Charles E. Dil erud, Community Develop Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Preliminary Plat,
2. Engineer's Memo
3. Subdivision Ordinance Variance Criteria
4. Petitioner's Narrative
5. Location Map
6. Site Graphics
pc /jk /92020:dh)
and Subdivision Code Variances
0
0
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION CODE MINIMUM REQUIRED
LOT WIDTH AND CUL -DE -SAC LENGTH FOR VICKI SISKIN LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF
SUNSET TRAIL, WEST OF DEERWOOD LANE NORTH.•(92020)
WHEREAS, Vicki Siskin has requested approval for a Preliminary Plat and
Subdivision Ordinance Variance for Pine Creek Subdivision, a plat for 10 lots
on 6.4279 acres located on the north side of Sunset Trail and west of Deerwood
Lane North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it hereby does approve the request by Vicki Siskin
for a Preliminary Plat and Variance for Pine Creek Subdivision for 10 lots
located on the north side of Sunset Trail and west of Deerwood Lane North,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
3. No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for
sewer and water.
4. Payment of park dedication fees -=n -lieu of dedication in accordance with
the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of filing the Final Plat.
5. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System.
6. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor
elevations for new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing
any open storm water drainage facility.
7. No building permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
8. Incorporation of tree protection provisions in the Final Plat and
Development Contract approval.
9. A Subdivision Ordinance Variance is hereby approved for a lot width for
Lot 4 of 45 feet versus the Zoning Ordinance Standard of 110 feet based
on compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance Criteria.
10. A Subdivision Ordinance Variance is hereby approved for a cul -de -sac
length of 550 feet versus the Subdivision Ordinance standard of 500 feet
based on compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance Criteria.
11. All setbacks shall meet the Zonirc Ordinance standards.
12. All access shall be off Evergreen Lane, and all private driveway access
to Sunset Trail is prohibited.
13. No building permit shall be issued until the house on Lot 1 is removed.
14. No building permit shall be issued for Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 until the
existing house on Lot 8 is removed.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: May 5, 1992
FILE NO.: 92020
PETITIONER: Ms. Vicki Siskin, 3531 Oakton Drive, 11012, Minnetonka, MN 55343
PRELIMINARY PLAT: PINE CREEK
LOCATION: North of Sunset Trail, east of Forestview Lane in the southeast
1/4 of Section 35.
N/A Yes No
1. _ —I- _ Have watermain area assessments been levied based on proposed use?
2. _ _ Have sanitary sewer area assessments been levied based on proposed
use?
3. _ _ Will SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits
are issued? These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1
and No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of final plat approval.
4. Area assessments: None,
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None.
LEGAL /EASEMENTS ,IPERMITS:
N/A Yes No
6. _ J Does the preliminary plat comply with standard utility /drainage
easements?
If "No" is marked, the City will require utility and drainage
easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet
61) in width adjoining side and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
7. _ _ X Are all
provided?
The City
easements
utilities
with the
following
standard utility easements required for construction
will require twenty foot (201)
utility and drainage
for proposed utilities along the lot lines where these
are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed
Dreliminary plat construction plans. If "No" is marked, the
shall be included on the final plat:
8. _ _ X Complies with ponding requirements?
The City requires the dedication of drainage easements for ponding
purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year high
water elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive storm
water drainage plan. If "No" is marked, the following easement shall
be included on the final plat:
The 100 year high water elevation 910.0 shall be shown on the final
plat for Pond BC -P32B. Also the 100 year high water elevation shall
be shown for the pond in the northeast corner of Lot 6. Block and in
the south half of Lots 5 and 6. Block 1.
9. X _ _ Have all existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been
vacated?
If "No" is marked it will be necessary to vacate the obsolete
easements /right -of -way to facilitate the development. This is not an
automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It is
the owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated.
N/A YES NO
10. X Has the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to
the City with this application?
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the city
attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easement or vacation of unnecessary
easement.
11. _ _ X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
If "No" the following permits must be obtained by the developer:
X DNR
MnDOT
Hennepin County
X MPCA
X State Health Department
2 -
X Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
X Army Corps of Engineers
Wetland Conservation Act of
1991 from City
N/A Yes No
12. _ X _ Does the preliminary plat conform with the grid system for street
names?
If "No" is marked, the following changes will be necessary:
13. JL _ _ Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided? If "No" is marked,
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
14. _ _ Are all existing street rights -of -way the required width?
If "No" is marked, an additional feet of right -of -way will
be required on
15. _ _ Do the preliminary street and utility plans conform with City
standard requiring -the developer to construct utilities necessary to
serve this plat?
If "No" is marked, in accordance with City standards, the developer
shall be responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer,
water, storm sewer and streets needed to serve this plat. A
registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and profiles
of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and
streets to serve the development.
N/A Yes No
16. _ X _ Do preliminary utility and street plans submitted comply with all
City requirements? If "No" is marked, the following revisions are
required for:
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
Storm Sewer
Street /Concrete Curb & Gutter
3 -
N/A Yes No
17. _ X _ Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Thoroughfare Guide P1an7
If "No" is marked, the following revisions must be made to conform
with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan:
Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Thoroughfare Guide Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions must be made to conform
with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan:
19. _ Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required:
N/A Yes No
20. _ X _ Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required:
21. _ X Is it necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's public utility
foreman, at 550 -7492?
If "Yes" is marked 24 hours notice is required in advance of making
any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and
water systems. All water connections shall be via wet tan.
22. Is it necessary to contact Tom Vetsch, the City's Street Foreman, at
550 -7493 for an excavating permit?
If "Yes" is marked 24 hours notice is required before digging within
the City right -of -way.
4 -
Y
N/A Yes No
23. _ _ X Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions are required Must comely
with all agency permits.
24. _ _ Does the preliminary Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan
comply with the City's erosion control policy?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required: 6
crushed rock berm shall he constructed at Sunset Trail_ and Evergreen
Lane.
25. _ _ Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots: Lots 5 and 6 Block 1 This must be a minimum of 2 feet above
the elevation of the opnd.
6) I oil 40 0 Flo) z PE ; •
26. A. Existing sewer and water services for the existing homes shall be shown on the
utility plan. The stop boxes shall be removed from the water service and shut
off. The sanitary sewer services shall be plugged.
B. The proposed work within the pond within the south portion of lots 5 and 6,
Block 1 shall be submitted to the Council with the preliminary plat based on
the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.
nI
Submitted by: +c, %7-r Zhu f' =CL
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
5 -
Doc. Format Rev. 2- 11 -92)
w
kii%s
1. General Conditions. The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from
the provisions of this Section ( 500.41) as to specific properties when, in
its judgment, an unusual hardship on the land exists. In granting a
variance, the Commission may prescribe conditions that it deems necessary
or desirable in the public interest. In making its findings, as required
below, the Commission shall consider the nature of the proposed use of the
land and the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons
to reside or work in the proposed subdivision, and the probable effect of
the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. No
variance shall be granted unless the Commission finds:
a. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
specific property such that the strict application of the provisions
of this Section would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of
the land.
b. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoymnt of.a
substantial property right of the applicant.
c. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in
which the property is situated.
The Commission findings in granting or denying a variance shall be in
writing and filed with the City Clerk.
2. Application Rem. Applications for any variance under this Subsection
shall be submitted in writing by the owner or subdivider at the time the
preliminary plat is filed for consideration by the Planning Co mission,
and shall state all facts relied upon by the applicant, and shall be
supplemented with maps, plans or other additional data which may aid the
Commission in the analysis of the proposed project. The plans for such
development shall include such covenants, restrictions or other legal
provisions necessary to guarantee the full achievement of the plan for the
Proposed project.
forms:o >pl /sub.stnd /s) 10/89
City of Plymouth
6.
Bob Joh .
wetland
iCHOELL & MAOSON, IN,
2- April 3, 1992
report (and supplement as requested by Mr.
rtr)repared by Ms. Ellen Klanderman, our
Verification of Continuous Land
We herein state that all commonly owned contiguou is
a -a _ - L_ _,_A
Variances
There are two variances requested on the subject plat.
These are: 1) The front setback width of Lot 4 is 45 feet rather
than 110 feet; and 2) The length of cul -de -sac is 550 feet rather
than 500 feet. Both of these minor variances are caused by our
efforts to save trees and wetland preservation. The first
variance could be eliminated as we originally had done by
widening the street right of way to cause a "bulb" at the curve
of Evergreen Lane. Staff called and requested that we request
the variance instead. We fully agree with staff on this matter.
The second variance is a minor one and is required. Ms. Siskin
the proponent) is very sensitive to the tree preservation issue,
and we have done our best to save trees.
It i proponent's desire to deepen and enlarge (if
possible) the w pea of the Corps of Engineers designated
wetland on Lots 5 and a intend to concurrently process a
request to the Corps of Engin on this matter. The proponent
would also like to (if possible) la a the pond edge with
boulders and plantings.
We appreciate your assistance in this submittal process.
Please advise as to questions.
Sincerely yours,
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
1
Jai s R. Orr
JRO /cj
enc.
cc: Vicki Siskin
r
r
LOW
Ord
I",&
I
4.13,
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: May 4, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 13, 1992
FILE NO.: 92023
PETITIONER: H.I. Enterprises, Inc.
REQUEST: Lot Division, Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Fernbrook Lane and Harbor Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CS (Service Business)
ZONING: B -3 (Service Business District)
BACKGROUND:
On May 7, 1990, the City Council, by Resolution 90 -292 approved a Site Plan,
Conditional Use Permit and Variances for a construction of an auto repair /car
wash /gas facility and convenience retail store on this site. This project was
not constructed.
Notice of this 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. The Physical Constraints Analysis shows this property to be located within
the Bassett Creek Drainage District; does not contain any wetlands, major
woodlands, or severe slopes; and the soils are suitable for urban
development with public sewers.
2. The petitioner is requesting approval of a Site Plan for a 3,600 square
foot convenience store and gas station to be located on the west half of
this parcel. This parcel is proposed to be divided into two lots
consisting of a 1.28 acre site and 1 acre.
3. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the Planning Commission
must review the request against the standard set forth in Section 9,
Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a of the Zoning Ordinance regarding Conditional
Use Permit Criteria. Attached is the Zoning Ordinance citation and the
petitioner's response to the criteria.
4. The division of platted property is responsive to Section 500.37 of the
City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) where the City Council may approve the
division of platted property based on a survey without the benefit of a
full subdivision plat.
1-
5. The Site Plan for the convenience store, gasoline station has been
reviewed by the Development Review Committee responsive to the Ordinance
and Policies regarding development in this zoning classification.
6. The building facade will be a gray brick with a metal canopy extending
from the building to cover the pump islands. An 86.6 square foot pylon
sign is proposed for this site. The wall signage proposed is less than
the allowed 5% wall coverage per elevation. Review of the appearance of
the building is responsive to the City's policy on aesthetics and
architectural design.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
The Site Plan proposed will meet or exceed all the Zoning Ordinance
requirements and other related City policies and standards for development
in the B -3 Zone.
2. Staff finds that this request meets the Conditional Use Permit Criteria.
3. Staff finds that the architectural appearance of the proposed structure is
consistent with the terms of the City of Plymouth policy regarding
building aesthetics and architectural design.
4. Staff finds that the lot division meets the requirements of the City of
Plymouth Subdivision Ordinance -as it relates to division of property.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the request for Lot Division, Site Plan,
Conditional Use Permit and Variance subject to the conditions of the draft
resolution. ^ --1\ ^ ___1\
Submitted by:
arses t.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Site Plan, Conditional
2. Resolution Approving Lot Division
3. Resolution Setting Conditions Prior of Lot
4. Engineer's Memo
5. Petitioner's Narrative
6. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
7. Large Plans
pc /jk /92023:dh)
2-
eiopment uirector
Use Permit and Variance
Division
APPROVING SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR H.I. ENTERPRISES, INC.
92023)
WHEREAS, H.I. Enterprises, Inc. has requested approval for a Site Plan and
Conditional Use Permit for a convenience store and gas station for property
located at the southeast corner of Fernbrook Lane and Harbor Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
H.I. Enterprises, Inc. for a convenience store and gas station for property
located at the southeast corner of Fernbrook Lane and Harbor Lane, subject to
the following conditions:
I. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with
the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of issuance of a building
permit.
3. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing any open storm
water drainage facility.
4. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements within 12 months of this date.
5. Any signage shall be in compliance with the approved Site Plan.
6. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
7. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and
fire lanes.
8. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within approved trash
enclosures identified on the Site Plan.
9. An 8k x 11 inch "As Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted prior
to the release or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City Policy.
10. No building permit to be issued until the Lot Division is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
res /pc /92023:dh)
APPROVING LOT DIVISION FOR H.I. ENTERPRISES, INC. (92023)
WHEREAS, H.I. Enterprises, Inc. has requested approval for a lot division for
the creation of two lots located at the southeast corner of Fernbrook Lane and
Harbor Lane;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the lot division
for H.I. Enterprises, Inc. for property located at the southeast corner of
Fernbrook Lane and Harbor Lane.
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
PARCEL A
Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth Freeway Center. ALSO
The north 40.73 feet of Tract A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1424.
To be divided as follows:
PARCEL A
The west 240.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth Freeway Center. ALSO
The west 240.00 feet of the north 40.73 feet of Tract A, REGISTERED LAND
SURVEY NO. 1424.
PARCEL B
That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth Freeway Center, lying east of the
west 240.00 feet thereof. ALSO
That part of the north 40.73 feet of Tract A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO.
1424, lying east of the west 240.00 feet thereof.
FURTHER, that the City Manager be authorized to make the necessary special
assessment corrections based upon City Policy when the division is approved by
Hennepin County.
res /pc/92023.1d)
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO LOT
DIVISION /CONSOLIDATION FOR H.I. ENTERPRISES, INC. (92023)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Lot Division for H.I. Enterprises,
Inc. located at the southeast corner of Fernbrook Lane and Harbor Lane;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the following
conditions to be met prior to recording of, and related to said lot
division /consolidation:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. No yard setback variances are granted or implied.
3. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing open storm water
drainage facilities.
4. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication prior to issuance
of building permit in accordance with City Policy in effect at the time
of the Lot Division.
5. No building permit is to be issued until the Lot Division is filed with
Hennepin County.
6. Submittal of all necessary utility easements prior to filing of the Lot
Division with Hennepin County.
res /pc /92023.sc)
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: May 5, 1992
FILE NO.: 92023
PETITIONER: Ms. Beverly Rottas, H.I. Enterprises, 7925 Wayzata Blvd.
Golden Valley, MN 55426
SITE PLAN: HOLIDAY EXPRESS CONVENIENCE STORE /GAS STATION
LOCATION: East of Fernbrook Lane, south of Harbor Lane in the southwest 1/4 of
Section 22
v1 •
N/A Yes No
1. _ . X _ Have watermain area assessments been levied based on proposed use?
2. _ X Have Sanitary sewer area assessments been levied based on proposed
use?
3. _ _ Will SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building
permits are issued? These are in addition to the assessments shown
in No. 1 and No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Site Plan approval:
4. Area assessments estimated - None
5. Other additional assessments estimated: fg6
v_ 14 Z ; v
6. _ X _ Is property one parcel?
If "No" is marked, the approval of the site plan as proposed
requires that a lot consolidation be approved by the City Council.
N/A Yes No
7. _ _ X Complies with standard utility /drainage easements?
If "No" is marked, the current City ordinance requires utility and
drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and
six feet (6') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines.
If easements are required it is necessary for the owner to submit
separate easement documents executed and in recordable form prior to
the issuance of any building permits.)
S. X _ _ Complies with ponding easement requirements?
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100
year high water elevation and conformance with the City's
comprehensive storm water requirements. If "No" is marked, the
following changes are necessary:
9. Are all standard utility easements required for construction
provided?
The City requires twenty foot (20') utility and drainage easements
where these utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has
been reviewed with the final site plan. If "No" is marked, the
following changes are necessary:
10. X _ _ Have all existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way been
vacated?
If "No" is marked, it will be necessary to vacate the obsolete
easements /right -of -way to facilitate the development. This is not
an automatic process, it is the owner's responsibility to submit a
petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be
vacated.
X Has the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to
the City with this application? If it is subsequently determined
that the subject prosy is abstract property. then this
requirement does not annly.
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
2-
N/A Yes No
12. _. _ X Have all necessary permits for this project been obtained?
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
DNR
MN DOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
X Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Wetland Conservation Act of
1991 from City
13. _ X _ Does the Site Plan comply with The City's Adopted Storm Drainage
Plan? If "No" is marked, the following revisions are required:
14. _ X _ Does the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan comply with the
City's erosion control policy?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions are required:
15. X _ Are necessary fire hydrants provided?
If "No" is marked, the City of Plymouth requires five hydrants be
spaced 300 feet apart. It will be necessary to locate hydrants in
such a manner that the site plan complies with Plymouth City Code
Section 905.05.
16. _ X _ Is the size and type of material proposed in the utility systems
included on the utility plans?
If "No" is marked, the utility plan shall be revised to indicate the
size and type of material.
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
Storm Sewer
3-
N/A Yes No
17. _ _ X Is the post indicator valve and fire department connection provided?
If "No" is marked, they shall be included in the site utility plan.
Show the location of the Fire Department connection.
18. _ X _ Are hydrant valves provided?
If "No" is marked, all new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6"
gate valves per City Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W -2.
19. _ _ X Are sanitary sewer clean -outs provided?
If "No" is marked, it will be necessary to provide clean -outs on the
proposed internal sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot
intervals.
N/A Yes No
20. X _ _ Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided?
If "No" is marked, Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at
the intersection of
and
21. _ _ X Are all existing street rights -of -way the required width?
If "No" is marked, an additional five (5) feet of right -of -way will
be required on Fernbrook Lane.
22. _ X _ Does the grading plan comply with site drainage requirements?
If "No" is marked, the City will not permit drainage onto a City
street from a private parking lot, the site plan shall be revised
accordingly.
23. _ X _ Is concrete curb and gutter provided?
If "No" is marked, the City requires B -612 concrete curb and gutter
at all entrances and where drainage must be controlled, Curb Stone
may be used where it is not necessary to control drainage. For
traffic control either B -612 or curb stone is required around the
bituminous surfaced parking lot. The site plan shall be revised to
indicate compliance with this requirement.
24. _ X _ Does the site plan comply with parking lot standards?
The City requires that all traveled areas within the parking lot, as
well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a 7 -ton
standard City design with six inches of Class 5 10OX crushed
limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one -half inches
of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be
constructed to a standard 5 -ton design consisting of four inches of
Class 5 1002 crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. If "No" is
marked, the site plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with
these requirements:
4-
N/A Yes No
N/A Yes No
25. _ X _ Is it necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's public utility
foreman, at 550 -7492?
If "Yes" is marked 24 hours notice is required in advance of making
any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and
water systems. All water connections shall be via wet tan.
26. X Is it necessary to contact Tom Vetsch, the City's Street Foreman, at
550 -7493 for an excavating permit?
If "Yes" is marked 24 hours notice is required before digging within
the City right -of -way.
27. _ X _ The City requires reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer, water
service and storm sewer As- Builts for the site prior to the
financial guarantee being released.
28. _ _ X Does the site plan comply with the City of Plymouth's current
Engineering Standards Manual?
If "No" is marked, see Items 7. 11, 12, 17, 19. 21. and Special
Conditions.
29 A. An additional gate valve will be required on the six inch water line west of
the service into the Holiday Station Store and also, east of the proposed
water service to the future building.
B. Fernbrook Lane shall be widened to 37 feet from the centerline of the existing
median along the entire length of the lot. This will be the responsibility of
the developer. Plan and profile sheets along with specifications, shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval. The widening shall have a nine
ton design.
C. Two and a half feet of cover is required over all storm sewers. In cases
where this condition cannot be met, special bedding should be used for the
storm sewer.
D. The berm along Fernbrook Lane and Harbor Lane cannot encroach on City right -
of -way. The 2x boulevard grade must be maintained.
E. Shared drive, storm sewer, and watermain cross easements will be required.
L'y cam- a C TGcSubmittedby:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
5-
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: May 6, 1992
FILE NO.: 92023
PETITIONER: Ms. Beverly Rottas, H.I. Enterprises, 7925 Wayzata Blvd., Golden
Valley, MN 55426
LOT DIVISION /CONSOLIDATION: Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth Freeway Center
LOCATION: East of Fernbrook Lane, south of Harbor Lane in the southwest 1/4
of Section 22.
N/A Yes No
1. _ X _ Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ X _ SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Lot Division /Consolidation approval:
4. Area assessments: None.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None.
414 1 y &TTJ 4 Z V
6. _ _ -1L Complies with standard utility /drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (61) in
width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required,
it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents
executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any building
permits.) A 6 foot drainage and utility easement will be required on
each side of the new common property line. A 10 foot drainage and
utility easement will be required along Fernbrook Lane adjacent to
the new 5 foot street right -of -way that will be required.
N/A Yes No
7. X _ _ Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year
high water elevation and conformance with the City's Comprehensive
Storm Drainage Plan.
8. _ _Z_ _ Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots:
9. -2-- _ _ All standard utility easements required for construction
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities
10. — _ All existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way to
facilitate the development. This vacation is not an automatic
process in conjunction with the platting process. It is entirely
dependent upon the City receiving a petition for the vacation from
the property owner; therefore, it is their responsibility to submit a
petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be
vacated.
X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
12. _ _ JL All existing street rights -of -way are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required on 5 feet of additional
right -of -way will be required on Fernbrook Lane.
VU 40 IC11 e) I 010 0 Q) Rn • r
13. A. Shared drive, storm sewer, and watermain cross easements will be required.
Submitted by:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
2
ADDENDUM I TO PLANNING AND ZONING
APPLICATION FORM DATED MARCH 27, 1992
Conditional Use Permit Standards from Section 9, Subdivision A
of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance
1.) We believe that our convenience store and tunnel car
wash as proposed will be in complete compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. Having participated in the Plymouth
Planning Commission and City Coucil deliberations on the
Comprehensive Plan Admendments, we agree with those Planning
Commissioners and residents who believe that there is a need
in the City for this type of development but do not want them
located too closely to their neighborhoods. Since the Comprehensive
Plan Admendments approved in December, 1989 reguides Plymouth
Freeway Center, 1st Addition of which this proposal comprises
Block 1, from CL or Limited Business to CS or Service Business,
this proposal is in accordance to the purpose of the CS guiding
which is to provide a district located in close proximity to
an arterial street or highway in order that service types of
land use can be provided. The secondary purpose is to concentrate
service, commercial and retail commercial uses in compact
and convenient locations to better serve the needs of City residents,
employees and the motoring public. The proposed convenience store
and tunnel car wash would reinforce the predominate land use
pattern of the northwest and southwest quadrants of the Interstate
494 /Trunk Highway 55 interchange. Our development will be an
amenity to the existing restaurant, motel andhotel, day care,
financial institution and office uses in the area.
2.) The proposed development would promote and enhance general
Public welfare, as outlined above, and will not be determental to
or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
3.) Since the property in the immediate vicinity is either
developed or has some type of commercial guiding, the conditional
use as proposed will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes
already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair the
property values within the neighborhood. The proposed development
should be an amenity to the area, and actually reinforce the
uses developed.
4.) As stated above, since the property in the immediate
vicinity is either developed or has some commercial guiding, the
establishment of the conditional use permit will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of the surronding
property for uses permitted in the district. Within Plymouth
Freeway Center, 1st Addition, the other undeveloped property
is actually owned by us.
5.) Adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress,
egress and parking so designed to minimize traffic congestion
on public streets.
6.) The conditional use as proposed shall, in all other
resepcts, conform to applicable regulations.
ZO fa i '-' ' § ' :1'. 1
ISM S=(" 9, SUBaIVZSICTT A
L.1 7 Ovd, •_ ) 1. _ 0,11, •_;0
2. Before any Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Camission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a reoanmendation 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) Campliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will promote aid enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
imaix property values. within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly developnent and improvement of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic
congestion in the public streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
forms:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
4,
A % _ -, tai y \tw
11 mg
vith
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT •
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: May 4, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 13, 1992
FILE NO.: 92029
PETITIONER: OPUS Corporation
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for a two -lot subdivision;
Site Plan for a 107,000 square foot office /warehouse
facility; and, Rezoning of a 21.2985 acres from the B -1
Office Limited Business District) to the I -1 (Planned
Industrial District).
LOCATION: Northeast of County Road 9 and Berkshire Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: I -P (Planned Industrial)
ZONING: B -1 (Office Limited Business)
BACKGROUND:
On April 7, 1980, by Resolution 80 -222, the City Council, approved a 15 lot
plat known as "Plymouth Office Commercial Park ".
In 1989 during the overall Comprehensive Plan update, this site was reguided
to I -P (Planned Industrial). The guiding went into effect on this site in
January, 1992 when the Metropolitan Council formally approved the 1989
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified and a
development sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. This site is within the Shingle Creek and Bassett Creek Watershed
Districts, contains no shoreland or DNR regulated wetlands. The site does
contain locally and federally protected wetlands; some woodlands; and,
some slopes in excess of 18 percent. There are some areas which are not
suited for development even with public sewers.
2. The petitioner is proposing to replat an existing 11 lot portion of an
existing subdivision into 2 larger lots and the construction of 107,000
square foot office /warehouse facility on the northern lot. As part of
this platting process, Annapolis Circle and associated easements will be
vacated. The vacation process will be handled separately from this
application.
3. The General Development Plan submitted does not propose disturbance of the
wetlands on the site.
4. The Site Plan proposed will meet or exceed the standards of the Zoning
Ordinance, other codes, ordinances and policies governing the development
of sites if the I -1 Zoning District. Specifically, offstreet parking will
1 -
be consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements, trash containment will
be screened, there will be no rooftop mechanical equipment, the
Landscaping Plan is consistent with the Landscaping Policy and internal
circulation on the site does provide for ease of access.
5. The petitioner proposes a proof -of- parking plan for 187 parking spaces of
the total required 306. The petitioner is proposing to install 119
parking spaces at this time. The proof -of- parking plan will be required
to reflect the required 306 parking spaces.
6. The exterior appearance of this structure will be a 31 foot high precast
concrete wall structure with the use of tinted glass and face brick at the
southwest corner of the building. The Landscaping Plan shows that
existing trees and newly planted trees including Colorado Spruce, Redmond
Linden, Amur Maples and other trees will be located east of the structure
to soften the appearance of the facility to I -494. This structure is
similar in appearance to the existing building on the east side of
Berkshire Lane. The appearance of the structure is consistent with the
City Council Policy regarding site and building aesthetics and
architectural design.
7. When this property was reguided to IP (Planned Industrial) in 1989, it was
intended that the site would eventually be rezoned to I -1 (Planned
Industrial District) for industrial uses. The zoning request is
consistent with that intention.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The Preliminary Plat meets or exceeds all standards in the Subdivision
Code and Zoning Ordinance with regard to division of property in the I -1
Zoning District.
2. The Final Plat meets or exceeds all standards of the Subdivision Code and
Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with the Preliminary Plat.
3. The request to rezone this site for B -1 (Office Limited Business) to I -1
Planned Industrial) is consistent with the Land Use Guide Plan.
4. The Site Plan meets or exceeds all City standards with respect to design
of industrial buildings in the I -1 Zoning District.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend adoption of the attached resolutions providing for the approval of
the Preliminary Pla '.nal Plat, and 'te Plan.
eNSubmittedby: L:&!) '
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Preliminary Plat
2. Resolution Approving Final Plat and Development Contract
3. Resolution Setting Conditions to Be Met Prior to Filing of and Related to
the Final Plat
4. Resolution Approving Site Plan
5. Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance to Classify Certain Lands
6. Resolution Setting Conditions to be Met Prior to Publication of Ordinance
Rezoning Land
7. Engineer's Memo
8. Petitioner's Narrative
9. Location Map
10. Site Graphics 2 -
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OPUS CORPORATION FOR PLYMOUTH BUSINESS CENTER
6TH ADDITION
WHEREAS, has requested approval for a Preliminary Plat for OPUS Corporation
for Plymouth Business Center 6th Addition, a plat for 2 lots on 21.2985 acres
located Northeast of Berkshire Lane and County Road 9; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it hereby does approve the request for a Preliminary
Plat by OPUS Corporation for Plymouth Business Center 6th Addition, a plat for
2 lots on 21.2985 acres located Northeast of Berkshire Lane and County Road 9,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
3. No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for
sewer and water.
4. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with
the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of issuance of the building
permits.
5. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor
elevations for new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing
any open storm water drainage facility.
6. No building permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
7. Incorporation of tree protection provisions in the Final Plat and
Development Contract approval.
res /pc /92029.Pp)
1
APPROVING FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR OPUS CORPORATION FOR
PLYMOUTH BUSINESS CENTER 6TH ADDITION (92029)
WHEREAS, has requested approval of a Final Plat and Development Contract for
OPUS Corporation for Plymouth Business Center 6th Addition located Northeast
of Berkshire Lane and County Road 9; and,
WHEREAS, the City staff has prepared a Development Contract covering the
improvements related to said plat;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Final Plat and
Development Contract for OPUS Corporation for Plymouth Business Center 6th
Addition located northeast of Berkshire Lane and County Road 9 ; and,
FURTHER, that the Development Contract for said plat be approved, and that the
Mayor and City Manager be authorized to execute the Development Contract on
behalf of the City.
res /pc /92029.fp)
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO FINAL PLAT FOR
OPUS CORPORATION FOR PLYMOUTH BUSINESS CENTER 6TH ADDITION FOR (92029)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Final Plat and Development Contract
for OPUS Corporation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the following to
be met, prior to recording of, and related to said plat:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. The Ordinance rezoning the property shall be published upon evidence that
the Final Plat has been filed and recorded with Hennepin County.
3. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with
City Policy in effect at the time of issuance of Building Permit.
4. No Building Permits shall be issued until a Contract has been awarded for
the construction of municipal sewer and water.
5. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
6. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 19 -80 regarding minimum floor
elevations for new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing
any open storm water drainage facility.
1. No yard setback variances are granted or implied.
8. No Building Permits to be issued until the Final Plat is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
9. Access shall be limited to internal public roads and prohibited from
County Road 9.
10. The Development Contract as approved by the City Council shall be fully
executed prior to release of the Final Plat.
res /pc /92029.sc)
APPROVING SITE PLAN FOR OPUS CORPORATION FOR NEBCO EVANS (92029)
WHEREAS, OPUS Corporation has requested approval for a Site Plan for Nebco
Evans for property located northeast of the corner of Berkshire Lane and
County Road 9; 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
OPUS Corporation for a Site Plan for Nebco Evans for property located
northeast of Berkshire Lane and County Road 9, subject to the following
conditions:
I.- Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with
the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
3. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing any open storm
water drainage facility.
4. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements within 12 months of the date of this
resolution.
5. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance.
6. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
7. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and
fire lanes.
8. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within a trash enclosure.
9. An 8k x 11 inch "As Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted prior
to the release or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City Policy.
10. No building permit to be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded
with Hennepin County.
11. The Site Plan is for a 107,000 square foot structure.
12. A Proof -of- Parking Plan for 187 of the required 306 spaces is approved.
res /pc /92029.sp)
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED
NORTHEAST OF BERKSHIRE LANE AND COUNTY ROAD 9 AS I -1 (PLANNED INDUSTRIAL)
Section 1. Amendment of Ordinance. Ordinance No. 80 -9 of the City of
Plymouth, Minnesota, adopted June 15, 1980 as amended, is hereby amended by
changing the classification on the City of Plymouth Zoning Map from B -1
Office Limited Business) District to I -1 (Planned Industrial) District
District with respect to the hereinafter described property:
Insert Legal)
Section 2. General Development Plan. This Ordinance authorizes the
development of saicT tracts only in accor ance with the Plan approved for the
File No. 92029.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon filing
the Final Plat with Hennepin County and upon its passage and publication.
Adopted by the City Council day of .
Mayor
ATTEST
City Clerk
File
ord:pc /jk/92029)
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE REZONING LAND
FOR OPUS CORPORATION FROM B -1 (OFFICE LIMITED BUSINESS) TO I -1 (PLANNED
INDUSTRIAL)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved an Ordinance rezoning certain land
located Northeast of Berkshire Lane and County Road 9 from B -1 (Office Limited
Business) District to I -1 (Planned Industrial) District in conjunction with
approval of the Preliminary Plat for OPUS Corporation for Plymouth Business
Center 6th Addition;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the Final Plat for
Plymouth Business Center 6th Addition to be filed with Hennepin County prior
to the publication of said Ordinance.
res /pc /92029.rz)
DATE:
FILE NO.:
PETITIONER:
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
LOCATION:
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
May 4, 1992
92029
Mr. Gary O'Brien, Berkshire Lane 1 Limited Partnership, Carlson
Center, 601 Lakeshore Parkway, Suite 200, Minnetonka, MN 55343
PLYMOUTH BUSINESS CENTER 6TH ADDITION
North of County Road 9, west of Highway 494 in the northwest 1/4
of Section 15.
1. _ _1L _ Have watermain area assessments been levied based on proposed use?
2. Have sanitary sewer area assessments been levied based on proposed
use?
3. _ _x_ _ Will SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits
are issued? These Are in addition to the assessments_ shown in No. 1
and No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of final plat approval.
4. Area assessments: None.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None.
N/A Yes No
6. _ X _ Does the preliminary plat comply with standard utility /drainage
easements?
If "No" is marked, the City will require utility and drainage
easements ten feet (101) in width adjoining all streets and six feet
61) in width adjoining side and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
7. _ X _ Are all
provided?
The City
easements
utilities
with the
following
standard utility easements required for construction
will require twenty foot (20') utility and drainage
for proposed utilities along the lot lines where these
are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed
areliminary plat construction plans. If "No" is marked, the
shall be included on the final plat:
8. _ _ —X- Complies with ponding easement requirements?
The City requires the dedication of drainage easements for ponding
purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year high
water elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive storm
water drainage plan. I€ "No" is marked, the following easement shall
be included on the final plat: The 100 year high water elevation
MMM
9. _ _ X Have all existing unnecessary easements and rights -of. -way have been
vacated?
If "No" is marked it will be necessary to vacate the obsolete
easements /right -of =way to facilitate the development. This is not an
automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It is
the owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated.
N/A YES NO
10. _ _ _JL Has the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to
the City with this application?
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the city
attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easement or vacation of unnecessary
easement.
11. _ _ _JL All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
If "No" the following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR
MnDOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
JL Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek*
JL Army Corps of Engineers
Wetland Conservation Act of
1991 from City
2 -
TRANSPORTATION•
N/A Yes No
12. _ X _ Does the preliminary plat conform with the grid system for street
names?
If "No" is marked, the following changes will be necessary:
13. _.x._ _ _ Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided? If "No" is marked,
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
14. _ _ Are all existing street rights -of -way the required width?
If "No" is marked, an additional feet of right -of -way will
be required on
15. _ Do the preliminary street and utility plans conform with City
standard requiring the developer to construct utilities necessary to
serve this plat?
If "No" is marked, in accordance with City standards, the developer
shall be responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer,
water, storm sewer and streets needed to serve this plat. A
registered professional engineer must prepare the plans anf profiles
of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and
streets to serve the development.
UTILITIES:
N/A Yes No
16. _ J _ Do preliminary utility and street plans submitted comply with all
City requirements? If "No" is marked, the following revisions are
required for:
Sanitary Sewer None
Watermain None
Storm Sewer None
Street /Concrete Curb & Gutter None
3 -
N/A Yes No
17. _ X _ Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Thoroughfare Guide Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions must be made to conform
with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan:
18. X _ _ Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Thoroughfare Guide Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions must be made to conform
with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan:
19. X _ _ Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required:
N/A Yes No
20. X Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Conprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required:
21. _ X _ Is it necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's public utility
foreman, at 550 -74927
If "Yes" is marked 24 hours notice is required in advance of making
any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and
water systems. All water connections shall be via wet UW.
22. Is it necessary to contact Tom Vetsch, the City's Street Foreman, at
550 -7493 for an excavating permit?
If "Yes" is marked 24 hours notice is required before digging within
the City right -of -way.
4 -
C
PRELIMINARY GRADING DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
NIA Yes No
23. _ X _ Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions are required:
24. _ _ L Does the preliminary Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan
comply with the City's erosion control policy?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required: H=
meet all agency new
X Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots:
Submitted by: CzL4k ,f' 9 e -,{ ,t t
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
5 -
Doc. Format Rev. 2- 11 -92)
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: May 4, 1992
FILE NO.: 92029
PETITIONER: Mr. Robert Worthington, AICP Executive Director, Gorvernmental
Affairs, Opus Corportion, 800 Opus Center, 9900 Bren Road East,
Minnetonka, MN 55343
SITE PLAN: NEBCO /EVANS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
LOCATION: North of County Road 9, west of Highway 494 in the northwest 1/4 of
Section 15.
N/A Yes No
1. _ X _ Have watermain area assessments been levied based on proposed use?
2. _ X _ Have Sanitary sewer area assessments been levied based on proposed
use?
3. _ _ Will SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building
permits are issued? These are in addition to the assessments shown
in No. 1 and No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Site Plan approval:
4. Area assessments estimated - None
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None.
LEGAL /EASEMENTS /PERMITS:
6. X Is property one parcel?
If "No" is marked, the approval of the site plan as proposed
requires that a final plat be approved by the City Council.
N/A Yes No
7. _ _ X Complies with standard utility /drainage easements?
If "No" is marked, the current City ordinance requires utility and
drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and
six feet (6') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines.
If easements are required it is necessary for the owner to submit
separate easement documents executed and in recordable form prior to
the issuance of any building permits.) Will comfy with the filing
of the Final Plat of Plymouth Business Center 6th Addition,
8. _ _ $ Complies with ponding easement requirements?
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100
year high water elevation and conformance with the City's
comprehensive storm water requirements. If "No" is marked, the
following changes are necessary: See Item No. 7.
9. _ _ X Are all standard utility easements required for construction
provided?
The City requires twenty foot (20') utility and drainage easements
where these utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has
been reviewed with the final site plan. If "No" is marked, the
following changes are necessary: See Item No. 7.
10. _ _ Have all existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way been
vacated?
If "No" is marked, it will be necessary to vacate the obsolete
easements /right -of -way to facilitate the development. This is not
an automatic process, it is the owner's responsibility to submit a
petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be
vacated. A public hearing has been scheduled for June 1. 1992 to
consider the vacation of Annapolis Circle and unnecessary drainage
and utility easements.
li. Has the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to
the City with this application? If it is subsequently determined
that the subject property is abstract property, then this
requirement does not apply.
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
2-
N/A Yes No
12. _ _ X Have all necessary permits for this project been obtained?
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
DNR
X MN DOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek*
X Army Corps of Engineers
Wetland Conservation Act of
1991 from City
13. _ X _ Does the Site Plan comply with The City's Adopted Storm Drainage
Plan? If "No" is marked, the following revisions are.required:
14. _ _ X Does the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan comply with the
City's erosion control policy?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions are required:
Silt fence shall be installed along Berkshire Lane.
15. _ X Are necessary fire hydrants provided?
If "No" is marked, the City of Plymouth requires five hydrants be
spaced 300 feet apart. It will be necessary to locate hydrants in
such a manner that the site plan complies with Plymouth City Code
Section 905.05.
16. _ X _ Is the size and type of material proposed in the utility systems
included on the utility plans?
If "No" is marked, the utility plan shall be revised to indicate the
size and type of material.
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
Storm Sewer
3-
I
4 N/A Yes No
17. _ X _ Is the post indicator valve and fire department connection provided?
If "No" is marked, they shall be included in the site utility plan.
18. _ _i_ Are hydrant valves provided?
If "No" is marked, all new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6"
gate valves per City Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W -2.
19. _ Are sanitary sewer clean -outs provided?
If "No" is marked, it will be necessary to provide clean -outs on the
proposed internal sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot
intervals.
N/A Yes No
20. X_ _ _ Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided?
If "No" is marked, Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at
the intersection of
and
21. _ X _ Are all existing street rights -of -way the required width?
If "No" is marked, an additional feet of right -of -way will
be required on
22. _ X _ Does the grading plan comply with site drainage requirements?
If "No" is marked,- the City will not permit drainage onto a City
street from a private parking lot, the site plan shall be revised
accordingly.
23. Is concrete curb and gutter provided?
If "No" is marked, the City requires B -612 concrete curb and gutter
at all entrances and where drainage must be controlled, Curb Stone
may be used where it is not necessary to control drainage. For
traffic control either B -612 or curb stone is required around the
bituminous surfaced parking lot. The site plan shall be revised to
indicate compliance with this requirement. Along with the detail of
the B -612 curb and gutter note the curbing with a double line symbol
on the Site Plan.
24. _ X _ Does the site plan comply with parking lot standards?
The City requires that all traveled areas within the parking lot, as
well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a 7 -ton
standard City design with six inches of Class S 1002 crushed
limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one -half inches
of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be
constructed to a standard 5-ton design consisting of four inches of
Class S 1002 crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. If "No" is
marked, the site plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with
these requirements:
4-
N/A Yes No
N/A Yes No
f
25. _ X _ Is it necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's public utility
foreman, at 550 -74927
If "Yes" is marked 24 hours notice is required in advance of making
any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and
water systems. All water connections shall be via wet tap.
26. _.X_ Is it necessary to contact Tom Vetsch, the City's Street Foreman, at
550 -7493 for an excavating permit?
If "Yes" is marked 24 hours notice is required before digging within
the City right -of -way.
27. _ X _ The City requires reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer, water
service and storm sewer As- Builts for the site prior to the
financial guarantee being released.
28. X Does the site plan comply with the City of Plymouth's current
Engineering Standards Manual?
If "No" is marked, see Items 6. 7. 8. 9. 10, 11, 12, 14. 23 and
Special Conditions.
29 A. The 0 rings and seals shall be replaced in the hydrants prior to
reinstallation.
B. Gate valves will require individual inspection by the plumbing inspector prior
to installation.
C. All reused water pipe shall be inspected by the plumbing inspector.
Submitted by:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
5-
4
a OPUS CORPORATION
a DESIGNERS• CONTRACTORS• DEVELOPERS
800 Opus Center
9900 Bren Road East
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
612) 936 -4444
April 10, 1992
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
Community Development Director
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Mailing Address
P0. Box 150
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440
Fax(612)936 -4529
RE: Nebco Evans Office /Warehouse Distribution Facility
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
920219
Opus Corporation, in behalf of the Berkshire Lane I Limited Partnership
100% funded by St. Paul Properties, Inc.) and Nebco Evans, is pleased to
submit the enclosed application(s) and supporting plan material to the City
for review and processing. The plans are for the construction of a 107,000
square foot office /warehouse distribution facility for Nebco Evans on the
undeveloped 20± acres of land located generally east of Berkshire Lane N.
in the vicinity of Rockford Road at its interchange with I -494. The
subject property was previously subdivided and platted into several lots
Plymouth Office Commercial Park) by the original owners, Rembrandt
Properties, whose intent was to develop the property as a
commercial /office /industrial business park. The Berkshire Lane I Limited
Partnership and St. Paul Properties, Inc. have entered into a contract with
Opus Corporation to construct a 107,000 square foot distribution facility
for Nebco Evans on a portion of the subject property and have it ready for
occupancy by October 31, 1992. Nebco Evans is a distributor of food and
related supply items to several well —known national fast food restaurant
chains located within the metropolitan area.
The Nebco Evans facility will be a one story, painted precast wall panel
building with brick and window treatment at corners on its south side. The
building will encompass approximately 73,000 square feet of general
warehouse, 25,000 square feet of freezer cooling and refrigerated docking
space and 9,000, square feet of general office space. Access to the
building will be via driveways accessing directly onto Berkshire Lane N.
riza A total of 291 on site parking spaces, which exceeds city requirements, are
being provided and shown on the proof of parking plan for the facility.
P However, only 121 spaces will be installed initially. Nebco Evans believes
that this number of spaces should be more than adequate based on its past
and current operational experience. If additional stalls beyond the 121
provided spaces are needed, they will be installed by Nebco Evans on an
incremental basis to cover any shortfall that may occur.
Truck loading is designed to take place on the south and east sides of the
building. A fourteen (14) door loading dock area has been designed for the
south side of the building with a second five (5) door dock on the east.
Affiliated Companies: Austin • Chicago • Dallas • Denver • Houston • Milwaukee • Minneapolis • Tampa • Pensacola • Phoenix • San Diego • Seattle
P.Ad\
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
April 10, 1992
Page -2-
Landscape, signage, parking lot lighting, floor plan, building elevation
drawings, utility, grading, drainage and erosion control plans are included
in the materials enclosed with this letter. A general development plan for
the entire 20± acres subject property is also included with this material.
In order to accommodate construction of this proposed building and its
future expansion, Opus requests that the City grant approval of the
following development transactions:
I. Rezoning. The entire 20± acres is currently being ugidedasindustrial
by the City's Comprehensive Plan. There is some question as to whether
it was ever rezoned to I -1 in the past, however. Therefore, we request
rezoning from B -1 to I -1 of the entire 20± acres if generally east of
Berkshire land, such rezoning is appropriate.
2. Replatting. We request that all of the lots and blocks contained in
Plymouth Office Commercial Park east of Berkshire Lane N. be replatted
as a one block, two lot subdivision to be known as Plymouth Business
Center, 6th Addition.
3. Street Vacation. We request that the existing right -of -way and
associated drainage and utility easements for Plymouth Commercial
Office Park, Blocks 2, 3 and Annapolis Circle, generally east of
Berkshire Lane N., excepting the existing bank building dedication in
the southwest corner, be vacated and the utility lines beneath that
street abandoned in connection with the replat described in #2 above.
4. Development Agreement. We request that the City Engineering Department
assemble the necessary development agreement document for signature and
approval by the Berkshire Lane I Limited Partnership, owners of
property, as soon as possible.
5. General Development Plan. Opus requests that the overall general
development plan proposed for the entire 20± acres east of Berkshire
Lane N. be approved as the current guide for the Nebco Evans facility
as well as any related development occuring in the subject property in
the future.
6. Site Plan. Opus requests that the enclosed site plan for the Nebco
Evans facility be reviewed and approved by the City preliminary to the
issuance of a building permit for the building.
7. Watershed District. Opus requests that the grading drainage and
erosion control plans for the Nebco Evans facility be scheduled for
approval by the Shingle Creek Watershed District at its regularly
scheduled meeting in May.
p }w.
t
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
April 10, 1992
Page —3—
We would appreciate having the enclosed rezoning, replatting and site plan
review application requests scheduled for consideration by the Planning
Commission at its May 13 meeting. In order to meet the client's October
31, 1992 occupancy requirement, we also request that the Council review and
act on the Planning Commission's May 13 recommendation at its May 18
meeting.
Please give me a call if you have questions or require any further
information. Thanks for your help and consideration.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Worthing o , AICP
Executive Director
Governmental Affairs
RAW /kf105
c: Ray Marshall, Nebco Evans
Gary Land, St. Paul Properties, Inc.
Gary O'Brien, Berkshire Lane I Limited Partnership
Pat Dady, Opus Corporation
IOFAI1010 0kviILI is
IV
Ti
T
as
ral
UpgIIa L
op
yl 1 V
1".
N yo 1)6
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: April 28, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 13, 1992
FILE NO.: 92031
PETITIONER: Valvoline Rapid Oil Change
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for an automobile servicing
business.
LOCATION: 11050 Highway 55.
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CS (Service Business)
ZONING: B -3 (Service Business)
BACKGROUND:
On August 6, 1984, the City Council, by Resolution 84 -522, approved a Site
Plan and Conditional Use Permit for an auto parts store and car wash at this
site.
On August 19, 1985, the City Council, by Resolution 85 -627, approved a Site
Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variance for a car wash and auto parts store.
The 1984 Site Plan had not been constructed.
On June 16, 1986, the City Council, by Resolution 86 -352, reinstated the 1984
original Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a car wash and auto parts
store.
On October 28, 1985, the City Council, by Resolution 85 -879, approved a
Variance that allowed the facility to be constructed without a fire protection
sprinkler system in the car wash.
Notice of this 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. The proposed Conditional Use Permit request is for an oil change facility
Valvoline Rapid Oil Change) to occupy a vacant facility which was
originally occupied by a Crown Auto Parts store. The 6,493 square foot
space will be remodeled to include one additional doorway and a
facade /signage update. The west portion (retail area of Crown Auto) will
be office area and the east portion drive through oil change bays.
2. No building or parking lot expansion is proposed with this request.
3. No outside storage of vehicles is proposed with this use.
MW
4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider all
Conditional Use Permits in terms of the six criteria found in Section 9,
Subdivision A of the Zoning Ordinance. I have attached a copy of the
referenced citation along with the applicant's narrative.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The existing wood fence located along the north property line on the Site
Plan has not been adequately maintained and has fallen into disrepair. If
this Conditional Use Permit is approved, the petitioner should be required
to repair the fence to ensure adequate screening of this facility from the
adjacent residential property.
2. Staff finds this request is responsive to the Conditional Use Permit
criteria for automobile repair use.
3. - Since the petitioner has not proposed any outside storage of vehicles, I
have included as a condition of approval, that outside storage of vehicles
is specifically prohibited.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend adoption of the attached resolution providing for a Conditional
Use Permit for an auto servicing facility.
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Resolution Approving Conditional
2. Engineer's Memo
3. Conditional Use Permit Standards
4. Applicant's Narrative Submissions
5. Location Map
6. Large Graphics
pc /jk /92O31:jw)
Use Permit for an Auto Repair Facility
2 -
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VALVOLINE RAPID OIL CHANGE (92031)
WHEREAS, Sathre - Bergquist has requested approval for a Conditional Use Permit
for Valvoline Rapid Oil Change for property located at 11050 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
Sathre - Bergquist for a Conditional Use Permit for Valvoline Rapid Oil Change
for property located at 11050 Highway 55, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Engineer's Memorandum.
2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and ordinances,
and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
3. The permit is issued to Valvoline Rapid Oil Change for automobile
servicing facility and shall not be transferable. No automobile repairs
of any type are authorized.
4. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
5. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within approved designated
areas.
6. All parking shall be off - street in designated areas which comply with the
Zoning Ordinance.
7. All outside storage of vehicles is prohibited.
8. The screening fence along the north property line shall be repaired prior
to occupancy.
res /pc /92031:jw)
MEMO
CITY OF.PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: May 7, 1992
TO: John Keho, Associate Planner
FROM: Robert C. Johnson, Senior Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: VALVOLINE RAPID OIL (92031)
Please include the following in your CUP:
The catchbasin in the west driveway at the frontage road shall be lowered
to correct the drainage at the entrance. The catchbasin, at the present
time, is raised above the pavement and is collecting no water.
16 IL
I, j& 1.1' 1 • L: • 1 Ile • ' • 1 •:
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Cmnission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a recommendation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) compliance with and effect upon the CaNwehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvemment of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic
congestion in the public streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
forns:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
2 rolow itk
O
TIf
tiFAs Q p.
April 10, 1992
Ct ZO 3 I
SATHRE - BERGOUIST, INC.
150 SOUTH BROADWAY
612) 476 -6000
CITY OF PLII KXJTH
Community Development Department
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
RE: VALVOLINE - RAPID OIL CHANGE
Plymouth Site
Dear Plymouth:
WAYZATA, MN 55391
FAX 476 -0104
f r? MF p?f D
APR •ex_92
M QF F! "MIOUTHO' MEI -C) PENT bin
This is a request for a conditional use permit for the site formerly
known as the Crown Auto Store at 11050 Highway #55.
This request does not include the car wash portion of the building that
is designated as Unit #1 of Condominium No. 594.
The westerly portion of the building that was used for a retail store
will be used mainly for office space.
The easterly portion of the building will be used as a drive thru Rapid
Oil Change.
The only change to the exterior of the building will be to repaint the
front of the building, add wing walls to the front of the building and
put a sign across the front face of the building.
This request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The establishment, maintenance and 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.
The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already
permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within
the neighborhood.
0
PS SU9
F
SATHRE - BERGQUIST, INC.
150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN 55391
612) 476 -6000 FAX 476 -0104
c4FRS v-,0
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.
Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress,
and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public
streets.
The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 476 -6000.
Sincerely,
SA BERGQUI i', INC.
Thomas S. Bergquist
TSB /dm
w
40
E.
I
N. LNL °P THL OW 4 °v TNa.NN s
Of 3lf,.. Sff.,T. lls L.LL • ! C
0°5OS2 "E
On
V
h•f
rn
Fy/1iN - c j
fin° ^'• ' y 1
m
N
n ®
u
0 '
0
J ' <+' ° '. • . err .,
LA
30 • • r C a
to
a 6 r
r
B
je. { I 8
It
C
R
Fe
O1,O'
JV
C•
A r •
Y rf
9
I 41'— 3 1/2"
a
hl i >
D
r-
0
O
m
C
1—J
a o
I°
of
I
I
I 0I
t
i
a
I
8 C
rn
a T'
o
Z
o
r
6 E*
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: May 4, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 13, 1992
FILE NO.: 92032
PETITIONER: Thompson Land Development Company, a Division of U.S. Homes
Corporation
REQUEST: Land Use Guide Plan Amendment to reclassify approximately
50 acres from Public /Semi - Public to LA -2 (Low Medium
Density Residential); and, LA -1 (Low Density Residential).
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Rockford Road and Dunkirk Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: Public /Semi - Public
ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development District)
BACKGROUND:
On April 6, 1992, the City Council, by Resolution 92 -205 denied a Land Use
Guide Plan Amendment for Thompson Land Development to reclassify this site to
LA -2 (Low Medium Density Residential).
Also on April 6, 1992, the City Council, by Resolution 92 -206 approved Concept
Plan B for Thompson Land Development. Concept Plan B showed an outlot in the
area guided by Public /Semi - Public.
Notice of this 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. The Land Use Guide Plan Amendment is to reclassify approximately 50 acres
of Public/Semi- Public land to 27.8 acres of LA -1 (Low Density
Residential), and approximately 21.9 acres of LA -2 (Low Medium Density
Residential). The area proposed for LA -2 guiding is south of Plymouth
Creek with the LA -1 proposed guiding located north of the creek.
2. The applicant has addressed the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment in the
report dated April 1992, including responses to the Land Use Guide Plan
checklist items. Staff findings with respect to the Land Use Guide Plan
Amendment and checklist items are addressed in the comment section of this
report.
3. This site is located within the Bassett Creek Drainage District; contains
land located within the Flood Plain Overlay District, and Shoreland
Overlay District; and, contains federal wetlands, city wetlands,
Department of Natural Resources Protected Wetlands and City of Plymouth
1 -
ponding areas. The site does contain significant woodlands and some areas
of significant slopes in excess of 12 percent. Large areas on this site
do contain physical constraints to urban development with public sewers
related to the physical constraints identified.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Staff analysis and findings per the application checklist for Land Use
Guide Plan Amendments are as follows
a) The existing classification, Public /Semi- Public meets the locational
criteria as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
classification of LA -1 (Low Density Residential) and LA -2 (Low Medium
Density Residential) also meet the locational criteria of the Land Use
Guide Plan.
b) The area proposed for the Land Use Guide Plan reclassification is
proposed for development under the existing classification as a
community playfield. This playfield is one of two remaining
undeveloped community playfields in Plymouth. A total of 10 community
playfields will be constructed in the City of Plymouth consistent with
the Park and Trail Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
c) There is not a lack of developable land classified as LA -1 (Low Density
Residential) or LA -2 (Low Medium Density Residential) in Plymouth.
d) A reclassification of the property may effect the development of other
public and semi - public classified property. If this playfield site is
not replaced, the remaining playfields would have increased levels of
demand placed on the services offered at those sites. The potential
for enlarged facilities and increased traffic due to the elimination of
one community playfield would also increase.
Existing property guided LA -1 and LA -2 will not be negatively impacted
by this proposal since the addition of 27.8 acres of LA -1 and 21.9
acres of LA -2 property would not represent a significant increase in
the overall supply of undeveloped LA -1 and LA -2 property.
e) The proposal marginally demonstrates merit beyond the interests of the
owner by providing for tax revenues for the City of Plymouth as a
result of residential development. There is a need for public
facilities such as a community playfield that have unique
characteristics that limit the locational options for such facilities.
The need for a large area of level well- drained land is critical for
the development of a community playfield. This type of land is limited
in Plymouth.
f) Although retaining this site as Public /Semi - public for a community
playfield may not necessarily be considered the highest and best use,
the City must base the determination of the best use for the property
in relationship to the needs of the entire community and the fact that
there are a limited number of potential community playfield sites such
as this within Plymouth.
g) The potential impact upon the several elements of Plymouth
Comprehensive Plans have been reviewed during the Development Review
Committee process. No specific negative impacts have been identified
with respect to Capital Improvement Programs, Official Controls, Storm
Sewer, Traffic, Housing or Sanitary Sewer Element.
2 -
This reclassification proposal does negatively impact the Park and
Trail Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This site is proposed
for a community playfield. If this site is reguided, then the Park and
Trail Plan Element must also be amended to reflect this change and to
identify another suitable location for this use or the elimination of a
playfield from the Plan.
h) Impact on the utility charges for this site would not be significant.
i) Impacts on future property tax assessment will be significant since tax
revenues would not be generated by City -owned property if this site is
ultimately developed as a community recreational facility. If the Park
and Trail Plan is amended to provide for a Community Playfield in
another location, the tax assessment impact would be negligible.
2.We find the proposal to reclassify approximately 21.8 acres from
Public /Semi - Public to LA -1 (Low Density Residential) and 21.9 acres from
Public /Semi - Public to LA -2 (Low Medium Density) not to be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. While the reclassification proposal may meet the
locational criteria and may respond adequately to the many checklist issues
to be considered in the review of Land Use Guide Plan Elements for LA -1 and
LA -2 property, the proposal is inconsistent with the Park and Trail Plan
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend adoption of the attached draft resolution denying the
proposed Land Use Guide Plan Amendment. I have also included a resolution
approving the request as has been the standard for the Planning Commission. A
significant condition to that approval is amendment of the Parks and Trails
Element of the Comprehensive Plan to coincide with the Land Use Guiding of the
site.
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Denying Land Use Guide Plan Amendment
2. Resolution Approving Land Use Guide Plan Amendment
3. Petitioner's Request and Study
4. Land Use Guide Plan Checklist
5. Location Map
6. Site Graphics
pc /jk /92032:jw)
3 -
DENYING LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THOMPSON LAND DEVELOPMENT TO
RECLASSIFY APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF PUBLIC /SEMI - PUBLIC TO LA -1 (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL) AND LA -2 (LOW MEDIUM DENSITY (92032)
WHEREAS, Thompson Land Development has requested approval for a Land Use Guide
Plan amendment to reclassify property located at the southeast corner of
Rockford Road and Dunkirk Lane from Public /Semi- Public to 27.8 acres of LA -1
Low Density Residential) and 21.9 acres of LA -2 (Low Medium Density); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the request following a duly
scheduled Public Hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the reclassification
of land use guiding for Thompson Land Development for approximately 50 acres
located at the southeast corner of Old Rockford Road and Dunkirk Lane from
Public /Semi- Public to 27.8 acres of LA -1 (Low Density Residential) and 21.9
acres of LA -2 (Low Medium Density), subject to the following findings:
1. The reclassification proposed is not consistent with the Park and Trail
Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan. It has been determined through
the review and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan that this location is
the most suitable location for a community playfield to serve the needs of
residents of Plymouth.
res /pc /92032:jw)
APPROVING LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THOMPSON LAND DEVELOPMENT TO
RECLASSIFY APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF PUBLIC /SEMI- PUBLIC TO LA -1 (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL) AND LA -2 (LOW MEDIUM DENSITY (92032)
WHEREAS, Thompson Land Development has requested approval for a Land Use Guide
Plan amendment to reclassify property located at the southeast corner of
Rockford Road and Dunkirk Lane from Public /Semi - Public to 27.8 acres of LA -1
Low Density Residential) and 21.9 acres of LA -2 (Low Medium Density); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the request following a duly
scheduled Public Hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the
reclassification of land use guiding for Thompson Land Development for
approximately 50 acres located at the southeast corner of Old Rockford Road
and Dunkirk Lane from Public /Semi - Public to 27.8 acres of LA -1 (Low Density
Residential) and 21.9 acres of LA -2 (Low Medium Density), subject to the
following findings:
1. The reguiding of this property to LA -1 and LA -2 is the highest and best
use of the property.
2. This reclassification is contingent on approval of an amendment to the
Parks and Trails Element of the Comprehensive Plan removing the community
playfield designation of this site.
3. Approval is contingent on the concurrence of the Metropolitan Council.
res /pc /92032:jw)
LAND USE REGUIDING
THOMPSON LAND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. HOME CORPORATION
APRIL 9, 1992
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision an that a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the
laws of the St f innes a.
04/09/92
r . \ .........................
Minn. Reg. No.11571
Grego. rank, P.E.
LAND USE REGUIDING
THOMPSON LAND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. HOME CORPORATION
This application for reguiding proposes to reguide 50.6 acres of a 122.7
acre tract of land from Public - Semi - Public to 28.7 acres of LA -1 and 21.9
acres of LA -2.
The present zoning of U.S. Home's 122.8 -acre site is FRD (Future Restricted
Development); and the current land use designation is Public and Semi - Public
for the northern 50.6 acres and LA -2 for the southern 72.2 acres. Land to the
east is guided LA -2; whereas land to the north and west is guided LA -1. Refer
to Exhibit A.
Originally, the area that is guided Public /Semi - Public was targeted as a
school campus site for an elementary and /or junior high school site by the
Wayzata School District. Plymouth Creek Elementary School. to the east,
questions the need for additional school property. The City Park Department
designated this 50.6 -acre parcel as a large community park for soccer and
lighted ball fields.
On April 6, 1992, the City Council formally denied a request by the
applicant to reguide the 50.6 -acre property to LA -2 and then several City
Council members informally stated their opinions that the City was not
interested in acquiring the property. If the northern 50.6 acres is to be
developed as Public /Semi - Public, the applicant has requested that this parcel
be acquired by the City of Plymouth.
Based on these actions, the applicant is submitting this proposed reguiding
application. Plymouth Creek acts as a natural topographic division and planning
division between land uses. For this reason, it is proposed that the 27.8
gross acres located north of Plymouth Creek be reguided to LA -1, which is
consistent with the guiding north of Rockford Road and west of Dunkirk Lane.
The 21.9 gross acres south of Plymouth Creek that is currently guided
Public /Semi - Public logically relates to the currently guided LA -2 portion of
the 122.8 acre parcel, as well as the LA -2 area immediately to its east.
10
The following justification is provided for the proposed reguiding:
1. Demonstrate whether the Locational Criteria of both the existing and
proposed classifications are satisfied by the specific site.
The fact that the surrounding land uses are the same as the proposed
guiding demonstrates that the site will satisfy the specific usage to
the proposed reguiding.
2. Demonstrate why the classification should be changed. Explain why the
site cannot be reasonably developed under the current classification.
Recognizing that the City may not acquire the 50 -acre tract, the
reguiding is better suited to the highest and best use. The reguiding
also is necessary because low and medium residential usage is not
allowable in Public /Semi - Public areas. Under the present guiding, the
Developer has no ability to use his property.
3. Is there a lack of developable property in the City which has the same
classification as that proposed?
In recent years, the City Council reviewed changes to the
Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan. These changes had the net affect
of reducing the overall residential density throughout Plymouth. The
reguiding from higher to lower density is reflective of what the City
believes to be a lack of low density land available in the community
and demonstrates that lower density is clearly the market preference
in Plymouth.
4. As a result of this action, will there be an adverse impact upon:
Other undeveloped property in the classification proposed for
this site?
Other developed property in the classification proposed for this
site which may be subject to redevelopment /rehabilitation?
No, there will not be any adverse impact on any of the other
undeveloped property in the classification proposed for this site or
that which may be subject to the redevelopment /rehabilitation.
El
5•
7•
t 0
Demonstrate that the proposal has merit beyond the interests of the
proponent or of the prospective developer of the site.
The City installed the northwest area trunk sewer that bisects this
parcel. The reguiding will have a positive economic impact on the
City by providing additional area assessments and tax revenue
generated from the development that would not be realized if developed
as a Public /Semi - Public usage.
Demonstrate that the new classification would be the highest and best
use of the site. What is the public need or community benefit?
As demonstrated by the attached exhibits, the surrounding property is
LA -1 and LA -2, indicating that the reguiding is appropriate and would
be the highest and best use of the site. The community benefit is
that the reguiding provides for more residential development.
What impact will the proposed change have upon the following
Comprehensive Plan elements:
Sanitary Sewer. In conjunction with the recent trunk sanitary sewer
extensions for the Northwest sewer district, the City assessed
November, 1991) the Jordan parcel's net 108 -acres for sanitary sewer
trunk service at a rate of 2 units /acre, representing a total site
projected flow rate of 68,040 gallons per day (108 acres x 630
gpd /acre). This was in spite of the fact that the northern 50 -acres
was guided Public /Semi - Public.
Based on the proposed reguiding, the projected flow rate for the
entire site is estimated as follows:
Land Use - Proposed Guiding
LA -1 27.7 net acres @ 630 gpd /acre 17,451 gpd
LA -2 83.2 net acres @ 1,020 gpd /acre 84,864 gpd
ESTIMATED SEWER FLOW 102,315 gpd
Based on existing land uses, the sewer flow projections are as
follows:
Land Use - Existing Guiding
LA -2 62.5 acres @ 1,020 gpd /acre 63,750 gpd
Public /Semi - Public 48.4 acres @ 250 gpd /acre 12,100 gpd
ESTIMATED SEWER FLOW 75 b0 gpd
Storm Sewer: Plymouth's Comprehensive Storm Sewer (Plan) was based on
this site being developed as LA -3 and Public /Semi - Public, as well as
additional properties in this watershed being developed in higher
uses. When the City down - guided properties several years ago, they
did not amend the storm sewer plan. That is, the Plan still reflects
storm sewer flows based on the 1980 Storm Drainage Plan land use
designations.
The composite run -off rate from the 122.8 -acre parcel, per the 1980
Storm Drainage Plan is calculated as follows:
Acres Runoff Coefficient Composite
Public /Semi - Public 50.6 0.2 10.1
LA -3 72.2 0.5 36.1
TOTAL 122.8
Based on the reguiding, the composite runoff rate is calculated as
follows:
Acres Runoff Coefficient Composite
LA- 1 /LA -2 122.8 0.4 49.1
The difference between these is very minor in terms of storm sewer
designing. Considering the fact that significant other areas in
Plymouth in the same watershed were reguided downward by the City,
there will be no impact on downstream facilities from a 100 -year storm
event associated with the proposed reguiding.
Traffic: Prior to Plymouth's reguiding in 1990, the Transportation
Plan for this area was based on the Jordan parcel developing as LA -3
and Public /Semi - Public and other surrounding properties developing in
higher use. With the earlier guidings, trip generations are estimated
as follows for the Jordan parcel:
Trip Trips
Land Use Net Acres Density Generation (ADT)
Public /Semi - Public 48.4 N.A. 6.0 /Day /Acre 290
LA -3 62.5 6.0 unit /ac 8 trips /unit /day 3000
TOTAL 3290
During the City initiated down - guiding, the City's traffic consultant
studied the impact of the reguiding on the transportation system. In
the area north of T.H. 55 and east of Dunkirk, a projected loss of 105
households and a loss of employment of 661 was estimated, yet the
Thoroughfare Guide Plan Update" and the "Proposed Thoroughfare Guide
Plan" did not recommend any changes to the transportation system in
the immediate area north of T.H. 55 and east of Dunkirk Lane.
Because the City did not change the transportation system plan in this
area in their down - guiding, it follows that the system can adequately
accommodate the traffic from this site for the proposed Concept Plan/
reguiding which will have a traffic projection comparable to that
which existed before the City down - guiding. The fact that other
properties were down - guided in the immediate area further supports the
conclusion that the reguiding proposed by the developer will not
impact the City's transportation plan.
r • :' II''I:ti't`1s1 1 V ':rl'•,' '•' :r+ r 41QUO • :'I
tt 1;4fk1k I • '1:r I D, ;j kv, 5W I ! 11'' • C, M 54 D, u 4 ZI '
Each item must have a response, including "Not Applicable ", if that should be
the case.
1. Is the locational criteria of both the existing and proposed
classifications satisfied by the specific site? Explain.
2. Can the site be reasonably developed under the current classification? If
not, explain and demonstrate.
3. Is there a lack of developable property in the same classification as that
which is being proposed? If so, is the proposed expansion supported by
the Ccaprehensive Plan Community Structure Concept? If not, explain the
need for expansion.
4. Will other undeveloped property, in the classification proposed for this
site, be adversely affected by this action? Will other developed property
in the proposed classification, which might be subject to
redevelopment /rehabilitation, be adversely affected by this action?
5. How does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of the owner,
proponent, or prospective developer of the site?
6. How does the proposal demonstrate that the new classification would be the
highest and best use of the site? What is the public need or canmmity
benefit?
7. What impact will the proposed change have upon the several Commprehensive
Plan Elements?
Transportation
Sanitary Sewer
Storm Drainage
Municipal Water
Housing
Capital Improvement Program
Official Controls (Zoning, Subdivision, Environmental)
City Parks and Open Space
8. What would be the likely impact upon area utility charges; current and
future special assessments; current and future property tax assessments;
and, per capita -based municipal aids?
forms:o >pl /lugp.item /s) 10/89
sm :19
m
1
i'
11
a' '
F t
it
II" t"
ll
fd f" 1'' I'' f'' " i11 IN I11 IU fill 1111 P' !" t" i" f I" f1, I11 !11 I/, 11 11•
2qll ;
iVAi,,
i ebHill! ., l ' i s . •; . s • ' •
ti t irt
ifi +1 5l 4
SLr.i
lS.Itli(i '
i1
Ij11 ,1 ll i•l (: w n t 11, 1 i' ' 1 III'1 `
I IIS'
i -
uia Ilor
Iljl11 liil;
qa; jiCs l , 1,1 •
ill. 11Y 111 liili "',1, oq Z is;a' Ills' 1111' i "s• ,jNi .11( ii fl 'fiiii 111 F!1.1
till '' 11 fill ' :1 ` (l1 r' -1 ' ill ' it' i'i '• ' !•' j ll'1 S•!!' .' ' 1 1
111 lulls11' i li„ li
Ills i' i; p•,i ,'.. Mill p„ • i.•. 1! !' r hi /Si11 ,1,l, i ;',l itilj11i ` !.
nu 1111 11 quill
Ig" !• Ii •
t
1
S {S' I{';i ' ', 1+ i, ii ! 1111. •!,.!! • i : . l` illwlj !! lj 11:; ' 311 i '!y '•i. ? N j ij I;j n•1
1
i'
11
a' '
F t
it
t t E
t
7
rrr•r
i -
M {F •
T
T
i
ti •o
le
d .
II , 1
cr----- -_ - - - mw
a ., o •'
S 1
r
it
x
1
1
J
0 oa
a • o --
1
1
ji
j - •
it
0 o \ \\
I `` -- e 1 iii i `•
o
Cid
e ; • `i . •
iii _,• -.:: C•. Rd. No. 9
Sh
pr
A -
s a I ' e
R
o
Fib • \ /
2
NJ
4,6 r's
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: April 28, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 13, 1992
FILE NO.: 92033
PETITIONER: Patricia Hyland
REQUEST: Amendment to Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional
Use Permit for a 3- season porch in "Cimarron Ponds ".
LOCATION: 1150 Xene Lane North.
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -3 (High Medium Density Residential)
ZONING: RPUD 76 -3
BACKGROUND:
The Cimarron Ponds RPUD was approved as a Preliminary Plan /Plat by City
Council Resolution 76 -680 on November 15, 1976. The plan called for 228 patio
homes and 18 single family homes. The project has been constructed basically
as approved in 1986. Since 1981 the City Council has approved 10 Conditional
Use Permit Amendments to the RPUD to allow construction of additions to patio
homes within this project. The most recent Conditional Use Permit Amendment
was approved by the City Council on October 7, 1991 by Resolution 91 -582.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper and notices have been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The proposed 12 foot 2 inch by 16 foot 8 inch 3- season porch is a type
common throughout the community. The porch is similar to those
constructed previously within this development. The porch is designed to
be constructed to match existing residences as to design and construction
of materials.
2. An RPUD Final Plan /Plat for the Cimarron Ponds Addition depicted exact
structure footprints within the confines of the platted lots. The plan
approval, in that case, establishes setbacks, lot coverage and related
matters based on the plan rather than on numeric standards in the Zoning
Ordinance. A feature of each of the patio homes is a concrete patio 10
feet by 14 feet, constructed on the side of some homes and at the rear of
others. In the case of this parcel, the patio is constructed on the side.
Various nonstructural enclosures have been constructed to cover those
patio areas where no building permits have been required in locations
throughout this development.
3. Most of the preceding requests in the Cimarron Ponds Conditional Use
Permit were to allow construction of 3- season porches as a substitute for
1-
the existing concrete patio. One of the previous applications was for a
3- season. porch in addition to the concrete patio. Staff recommended
against allowing the - season porch and retention of the concrete patio
based on resulting increased structure coverage as this could set a
precedent for the rest of the PUD. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the retention of the concrete patio in addition to the 3-
season porch.
4. Location of the proposed 3- season porch would result in a 1 foot
encroachment into the setbacks of the lot as established by the PUD Plan
building footprint.
5. The City has received a letter from the Cimarron Ponds Homeowners
Association which indicates that the Homeowners Association did approve
the plan for this 3- season porch. The City of Plymouth is not a party to
the Homeowners Association and the Homeowners Association does not govern
with respect to the zoning regulations.
6. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider a
Conditional Use Permit on this in terms of the six criteria found in
Section 9, Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a. I have attached a copy of the
ordinance citation together with the petitioners response to those
criteria.
7. The Planning Commission must also consider this particular Conditional Use
Permit in terms of the Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat /Plan
review criteria found in Section 9, Subdivision E, Paragraph 5j of the
Zoning Ordinance. I have also attached a copy of this ordinance citation.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Staff finds the proposed PUD Plan Amendment is responsive to the Planned
Unit Development criteria.
2. Staff finds that the proposed PUD Plan Amendment is responsive to the
Conditional Use Permit criteria.
3. The proposed 3- season porch will be 9.96 feet from the west property line
at its closest point.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend adoption of the attached draft resolution approving the Amendment
to the PUD Plan and Conditional Use Permit for "Cimarron Ponds" to permit
construction of a 3 -se
n
p orch.
Submitted by:
arses t. uiiie
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
2. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
3. PUD Plan Criteria
4. Petitioner's Narrative
5. Homeowners Association Approval
6. Location Map
7. Site Graphics
ty Development Director
to the Planned Unit Development Plan and
2 -
pc /jk /92033:jw)
APPROVING AMENDMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PATRICIA HYLAND (92033)
WHEREAS, Patricia Hyland has requested an Amendment to the Planned Unit
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for property located at the 1150
Xene Lane North to allow for the construction of a 3- season porch in "Cimarron
Ponds "; 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 of
Patricia Hyland for an Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Plan and
Conditional Use Permit for property located at the 1150 Xene Lane North to
allow for the construction of a 3- season porch in "Cimarron Ponds" subject to
the following findings and conditions:
1. No other amendments or variances are granted or implied.
2. All applicable requirements of the City and State Building Codes shall
be implemented and enforced; no Code requirements are waived by this
approval.
3. The granting of the Permit is responsive to criteria of the Zoning
Ordinance for Conditional Use Permits and PUD Plans.
4. The size of the porch shall be 12 foot 2 inches by 16 foot 8 inches.
5. The 3 seasons porch may encroach to within 9.96 feet of the west
property line.
res /pc /92033:jw)
It
FKM S=CN 9, S(IEDIMICK A
2. per. 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 recannwndation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Cc mission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) ccnpliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvanent of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic
congestion in the public streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
forms:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
764 TZ
ram SBCTICN 9, A
2. Pte• Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Cannission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and develognent of a reccnmendation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Cannission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Canprehensive Plan. X-v-s
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will pranote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, -
morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood. _
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvanent of surn nc(in
property for uses permitted in the district. QX `
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to minimize trafficcongestioninthepublicstreets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is. located.
WE
forms:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
Ci203j
1111 A R R 011 P 0110 S Home owners Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 261
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
May 8, 1991
Patricia Hyland
1150 Xene Lane
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Pat,
Your plans for a permanent three season porch have been
approved as submitted. The roof shingles and the brick
facing must match existing shingles and brick.
The Association will not be responsible for any repairs or
maintenance to the new structure or the existing roof
adjacent to the new structure. When the units are painted
or re- roofed you will be charged a proportionated share for
the new structure.
Our present - insurance company, Zurich American, will cover
the new structure under our master blanket liability policy.
Wishing you good luck on construction.
Sincerely,
67
Lynne R. Taylor
President
CC: Architectural Control Committe of Cimarron Ponds
City of Plymouth Planning Commission
ERT IFICATE OF SURVEY
FOR:
r 95e, 8
X ENE I AM E
Bi>l vlod5
Nd x't5z•y_s
75Z. ®Y J4
ew Zl'10 •
r .,rr.Fl 1
r
l,.72.
o Not1,5
G' 11' 1.76 ,/
Od3L'i
V)
0 •
a a 115o M •
coittrefep{O
x953 a 90•e K'
4
CA e2-
a
9
At I
z 952 • u
sy51447.E -
1 . and ofrirge — TyYeaa Pnf-
Y -- 82:2.9 ,.
o L E-.4L EsG.Q Prioly
Center in {. of oi><ch Lo r 2Z, f,3Loc 2
Civ.¢RRo t/ Po c/05'
o Denotes iron monument Proposed lowest floor elev. _
o Denotes offset stake Proposed top ePr ~lobo- elev. =aj53.of.
x 000.o Denotes existing elev. BENCH MARK:
000.o) Denotes Proposed elev.
Denotes surface drainage
Proposed gerage floor elev.=
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of
the boundaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings,
DEMARS • GABRIEL if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land.
LAND SURVEYORS, INC.
As surge ed by me th'
3030 Harbor Lane No.
Plymouth MN 58441
Phone: (612)559 -0908
Minn. Reg. No.
File No.
985 -A
Book — Page
253 -15
Scale
s
El
1`
L
i
I
O
C
IL
6
Iri
q.,
I L L Z?
II
I
I
q.,
I
Ave 66
DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 1
HEARING DATE: May 13, 1992
DESCRIPTION:
Amendment to reestablish minimum side and rear yard setbacks for dwellings,
over two family.
SECTIONS INVOLVED: Section 7, Subdivision D, 1. and 9.
EXPLANATION /PURPOSE:
On October 20, 1986 the City Council by Ordinance 86 -26, amended Section 7,
Subdivision C regarding minimum setbacks for dwellings. The ordinance
established a minimum setback for dwellings, two - family. Previously, there
were minimum setbacks for dwellings, one - family and dwellings, over two -
family. The proposed revision was to add a new setback specific to dwellings,
two - family. When the ordinance was revised and reprinted, the line "Minimum
Rear and Side Setback for Dwellings, over two - family" was inadvertently
deleted from the Zoning Ordinance text. This ordinance amendment is to
correct this error.
CONCLUSIONS /RECOMMENDATIONS:
The provision will correct a typographical error that was not discovered when
the 1986 Zoning Ordinance text amendment was printed.
The Planning Commission should conduct a Public Hearing and make a
recommendation to approve the following change:
Amend Section 7, Subdivision D, Schedule of lot areas, depth, width, coverage,
setbacks, and height regulations in residence districts.
FRD R -1A R -1B R -2* R -3* R -4*
8. Minimum Side Yard in Feet **
a. Dwellings, one family 15 15
b. Dwellings, two family 15 15
c. Dwellings, over two family
de. Other Uses 30 30
ed. Other Uses abutting
50 50
6
residences 50 50
fe. Detached accessory uses 15 6
gf. Attached accessory uses 15 15
Items 8 a. & b. Amend. Ord. 89- 37)(Items 8 e.
9. Minimum Rear Yard in Feet **
a. Dwellings, one family
10 10
10 10 20 20
15 20 25
30 30 30 30
50 50 50 50
6 10 20 20
10 10 20 20
f. Amend. Ord. 90 -4)
25 25 20 15 -- --
b. Dwellings, two family 25
c. Dwellings, over two family- -
de. Other Uses 40
ed. Other Uses abutting
15 20
residences 50
fe. Detached accessory uses 25
gf. Abutting an arterial
50 50
street 50
Bold s- indicates new text
15
Strikeout indicates deleted text
Ord:zo /draftl /5 -13)
50
25 20 15 15 15
15 20 15
40 35 30 30 30
50 50 50 50 50
6 6 15 15 15
50 50 50 50 50
DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 2
HEARING DATE: May 13, 1992
DESCRIPTION:
An amendment to revise the number of required parking spaces for car wash -- automatic
or self- service facility._
SECTIONS INVOLVED: Section 10, Subdivision B, Paragraph 3 c.
EXPLANATION /PURPOSE:
During the last year, several car wash Site Plan /Conditional Use Permit applications
have been submitted as either freestanding car washes or in combination with gas
stations. The Zoning Ordinance requires 25 parking spaces be constructed for car
washes. These 25 parking spaces are in addition to ten stacking spaces required
elsewhere in the Ordinance. Neither staff nor the petitioners have been able to
follow the logic of requiring 25 parking spaces for a car wash. Perhaps at the time
the Zoning Ordinance was written, a different type of car wash was in use whereby
after the cars were washed, they were parked on site for drying. This type of car
wash is not in common usage today. More commonly, the car washes today include
drying provisions. The City Council has in fact required drying provisions as part
of the wash during cold weather.
The City Council has approved variances from this parking requirement for several
car washes in the past year. The draft policy is partly in reponse to those
multiple variances.
CONCLUSIONS /RECOMMENDATIONS:
The proposed revision will reduce the number of required parking for a car wash to
be more in line with the actual parking requirements for the use.
The Planning Commission should conduct a Public Hearing and make a recommendation to
approve the following changes:
Page Two
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Amend Section 10, Subdivision B of the Zoning Ordinance to read as follows:
TABLE 2 - SCHEDULE OF REQUIRED OFF- STREET PARKING SPACES
Number of Parking Spaces Required Per
Unit of Measurement
Use or Use Category Number Unit
3. Non - Residential Total Unit
a. Automobile, trailer, marine,
implement, garden supply,
building and material sales, 6.0 principle use, 500 sq. ft.
auto repair 1.0 floor area over 1,000
b. Bowling alley 5.0 per alley
c. Car Wash (in addition to required
stacking) Section 10, Subdivision 5,
Paragraph 5.1
1. Automatic Drive - through 5 or 1 per employee on the
maximum shift, whichever is
greater
2. Self- Service 1 per bay
3. No parking spaces (in
addition to the required
parking spaces for the
principal use) are required for
a car wash which is a secondary use.
Car 25.0 lane ii. wash autematie er self ryer ss-"
1.
5eryiee (Amended Oy Ord Ne. 82 98)
Service garages and fnanual 4.0 Stall in addition to
ear wash 2.0 gas pump area
Bold - indicates new text
Strikeeut - indicates deleted text
Ord:zo /draft2 /5 -13)
5e Ae
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: April 28, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 13, 1992
FILE NO.: 90093
PETITIONER: Carlson Real Estate Company
REQUEST: Final Plat for 28 single family lots and 1 outlot
subdivision plat and a Variance from the minimum lot width
at the front setback and a Variance from the minimum rear
lot width.
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Carlson Parkway and I -494.
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential), LA -2 (Low Medium Density
Residential), and LA -4 (High Density Residential).
ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development) District and R -1A (Low
Density Single Family Residential) District.
BACKGROUND:
On March 20, 1991, the Planning Commission
Preliminary Plat for 16 single family lots and
request change from the FRD District to the
apartment complex; and, that the Land Use Guide
reviewed to determine the appropriate land use
vicinity.
recommended approval of a
1 outlot; denial of a zoning
R -4 District for a proposed
Plan and Thoroughfare Plan be
and Thoroughfare Plan in this
On April 1, 1991, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to hold a
Public Hearing to consider both the Land Use Guide Plan and the Thoroughfare
Plan for the subject area.
On May 8, 1991, the Planning Commission held Public Hearings and tabled
consideration of recommendations regarding the Transportation Plan. The
Planning Commission .directed staff to inform residents in the neighborhood
between Harbor Lane and Kingsview Lane of its intent to consider a
recommendation regarding the construction of 10th Avenue North between Ithaca
Lane and Kingsview Lane in the existing public street right -of -way
undeveloped) as a potential method to address traffic circulation concerns
raised during the review of the Fernbrook Lane Minor Collector Street.
The Planning Commission adopted recommendations regarding the Land Use Guide
Plan reclassification for that area from LA -4 (High Density Residential) to
Public /Semi - Public North of the Luce Line and west of Fernbrook Lane; and,
from LA -4 (High De sintyResidential) to LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
District for the area south of the Luce Line and east of Harbor Lane.
1 -
On June 12, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended an amendment to the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to delete the minor collector
shown on the plan on the approximate alignment of Fernbrook Lane between
County Road 6 and Gleason Lake Drive.
Also on June 12, 1991, the Planning Commission acted to reconsider their May
8, action and recommended reclassification of a portion of the land south of
the Luce Line Trail to LA -2 (Low Medium Density Residential) classification.
On July 1, 1991, the City Council by Resolution 91 -366, approved a Land Use
Guide Plan amendment to reclassify land south of the Luce Line Trail and east
of Harbor Lane from the LA -4 (High Density Residential) to LA2 (Low Medium
Density Residential) and, land from LA -1 (Low Density Residential) to LA -2
Low Medium Density Residential) . In addition, the City Council took no
action to reclassify Fernbrook Lane from a Minor Collector street to a local
street, as had been under consideration.
On November 4, 1991, the City Council, by Resolution 91 -689 approved a
Preliminary Plat for a 30 lot single family subdivision.
A Final Plat for a 30 lot subdivision was placed on the March 16, 1992 City
Council Agenda. Prior to Council action, the petitioner requested withdrawal
of the request so that they could redesign the project.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The site is located within the Bassett Creek Watershed District; contains
no Flood Plain Overlay District or Shoreland Overlay District; contains
both DNR protected waters and City of Plymouth ponding areas; contains
significant woodland coverage; contains areas with slopes in excess of 18
percent; and contains some land not suitable for urban development with
municipal sewer system -- related to wetland area.
2. The Final Plat proposal is to divide the westerly and central portions of
the site into 28 single family detached building lots, 4 of which are
within the proposed R -1A zoning portion of the site and the balance of
which are within the proposed R -2 zoning classification of the site.
Those lots within the R -2 portion of the site (the center) are, in some
cases, under 18,500 square feet, but all are at or above the 15,000 square
feet minimum specified for lots in an R -2 Zoning District.
3. This plat is not identical to the approved Preliminary Plat. The
Preliminary Plat contains a cul -de -sac for 8th Avenue North with 5 lots.
This Final Plat replaced the cul -de -sac with a cul -de -sac turn around but
without any street. This configuration results in the loss of 2 lots and
the subsequent variance requests. This change is due to the costs
involved in constructing the cul -de -sac.
4. Previously approved variances were for reduced lot widths for Lots 2 and
8, Block 1 and for a (0) zero foot rear lot line for Lot 10, Block 1.
5. The Final Plat includes a request for a Variance from the Subdivision
Ordinance as follows:
a. Lot width at the setback line for proposed Lot 5, Block 2 of 30 feet
versus the R -2 Zoning Ordinance standard of 90 feet.
2 -
b. Lot width at the rear lot line of 20 feet for Lot 7, Block 2.
6. The Final Plat proposed is responsive to the intent of the City Council
with respect to this development of this neighborhood as reflected in the
Land Use Guide Plan amendments adopted earlier this year. The technical
details surrounding the conservation easement over, and the ownership, of
Outlot A should be concluded prior to the recording of the Final Plat.
7. Variances from the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance may be approved
only upon a finding the Subdivision Ordinance Criteria of Section 500.42
are complied with. A copy of those Subdivision Variance Criteria together
with the applicant's response to those criteria.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Except as noted in the Engineer's Memo, and related to the Variances
requested, the Final Plat complies with the standards of the Zoning
Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and all other City of Plymouth codes,
ordinance and policies regarding development in the R -1A and R -2 Zoning
Districts.
2. The Subdivision Ordinance Variances requested are related to the unique
shape and environmental status of the site. Requested Variances meet the
three Subdivision Ordinance Variance Criteria, and are recommended for
approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend adoption
the Final Plat for
requested.
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
of the attached resolution providing for the approval of
Harbor Woods" together with the Subdivision Variances
1. Resolution Approving Final Plat and Development Contact
2. Resolution Setting a Condition Prior to Recording of the
3. Subdivision Ordinance Variance Criteria
4. Engineer's Memo
5. Location Map
6. Preliminary Plat.
3 -
Final Plat
APPROVING FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR CARLSON REAL ESTATE COMPANY
FOR HARBOR WOOD LOCATED NORTH AND EAST OF HARBOR LANE AND 8TH AVENUE NORTH
90093)
WHEREAS, has requested approval of a Final Plat and Development Contract for
Carlson Real Estate Company for Harbor Woods located north and east of Harbor
Lane and 8th Avenue North; and,
WHEREAS, the City staff has prepared a Development Contract covering the
improvements related to said plat;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Final Plat and
Development Contract for Carlson Real Estate Company for Harbor Woods located
north and east of Harbor Lane and 8th Avenue North; and,
FURTHER, that the Development Contract for said plat be approved, and that the
Mayor and City Manager be authorized to execute the Development Contract on
behalf of the City.
res /pc /90093.fp:jw)
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO FINAL PLAT AND
VARIANCES FOR CARLSON REAL ESTATE COMPANY FOR HARBOR WOODS (90093)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Final Plat and Development Contract
for Carlson Real Estate Company for Harbor Woods located north and east of
Harbor Lane and 8th Avenue North;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the following to
be met, prior to recording of, and related to said plat:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with
City Policy in effect at the time of recording of the Final Plat.
3. No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for
the construction of municipal sewer and water.
4. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
5. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing any open
storm water drainage facility.
6. Minimum yard setbacks shall be 35 feet for the front yards, 15 feet and 15
feet for the side yards and 25 feet for the rear yard for Lots 1 -3, Block
1 and Lot 1, Block 2.
7. Appropriate legal documents regarding a perpetual conservation easement
covenant and restrictions for Outlot A, as approved by the City Attorney,
shall be filed with the Final Plat.
8. Minimum yard setbacks shall be 35 feet for the front yards, 10 feet and 10
feet for the side yards and 15 feet for the rear yard for Lots 4 through
10, Block 1 and Lots 2 through 18, Block 2.
9. Approved variances are:
a. Lot width at-the setback line of 30 feet for Lot 5, Block 2, versus
the Zoning Ordinance minimum of 90 feet.
b. Lot width at the rear lot line of 20 feet versus the Subdivision
Ordinance minimum of 30 feet for Lot 7, Block 2.
10. Emergency access shall be provided across the Luce Line Trail at Fernbrook
Lane.
11. Fernbrook Lane shall be improved to a 33 foot wide street to the north
plat line with a temporary cul -de -sac adjacent to Lot 20.
12. Carlson Real Estate Company shall retain ownership of Outlot A unless a
transfer of ownership is approved by the City.
13. Submittal of required utility and drainage easements as approved by the
City Engineer prior to filing the Final Plat.
14. No building permits to be issued until the Final Plat is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
15. The Development Contract, as approved by the City Council, shall be fully
executed prior to release of the Final Plat.
res /pc /90093.sc)
1. GenPral Conditions. . Tire Planning Commission may recommend a variance from
the provisions of this Section ( 500.41) as to specific properties when, in
its judgment, an unusual hardship on the land exists. In granting a
variance, the Commission may prescribe conditions that it deans necessary
or desirable in the public interest. In making its findings, as required
below, the Commission shall consider the nature of the proposed use of the
land and the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons
to reside or work in the proposed subdivision, and the probable effect of
the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. No
variance shall be granted unless the Commission finds:
a. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
specific property such that the strict application of the provisions
of this Section would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of
the land.
b. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
c. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in
which the property is situated.
The Commission findings in granting or denying a variance shall be in
writing and filed with the City Clerk.
2. Application . Applications for any variance under this Subsection
shall be submitted in writing by the owner or subdivider at the time the
preliminary plat is filed for consideration by the Planning Commission,
and shall state all facts relied upon by the applicant, and shall be
supplemented with maps, plans or other additional data which may aid the
Commission in the analysis of the proposed project. The plans for such
development shall include such covenants, restrictions or other legal
provisions necessary to guarantee the full achievement of the plan for the
proposed project.
foams :o >pl /sub.stnd /s) 10/89
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATES March 4, 1992 REVISED APRIL 30, 1992
FILE NO.: 90093
PETITIONER: Mr. Rick Sathre, Sathre- Bergquist, Inc., 150 South Broadway, Wayzata,
MN 55391
FINAL PLAT: HARBOR WOODS
LOCATION: East of Harbor Lane, west of Highway 494, north of 4th Avenue in the
northeast 1/4 of Section 33.
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. _ _ . X Have watermain area assessments been levied based on proposed use?
2. X Have sanitary sewer area assessments been levied based on proposed
use?
3. _ X Will SAC and REC charges be payable at the time building permits
are issued? These are in addition to the assessments shown in No.
1 and No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are
reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that
in effect at the time of final plat approval.
4. Area assessments: Watermain area assessments based on 20.86 units
x S790 per unit - S16.479.40. Sanitary sewer area assessments
based on 6.94 units x S440 per unit - S3.053.60.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: Harbor Lane Street
JU=nvements estimated cost is 556.90 feet x S69.28 per foot -
S38.582.03.
6. _ X _ Complies with standard utility /drainage easements?
If "No" is marked, the City requires utility and drainage
easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six
feet (61) in width adjoining side and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
7. _ _ X Are all standard utility easements required for construction
provided?
The City requires twenty foot (201) utility and drainage easements
where these utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has
been reviewed with the final construction plans and if "No" is
marked, the following changes are necessary:
Some adjustments to the 2roposed alignment of the 16 inch
watermain within Outlot A is expected to save trees. A 20 foot
drainage and utility easement shall be provided in recordable form
over the watermain as- built, Easements shall be provided on Lots
S and 6. Block 2 to 10 feet north of the storm sewer and 10 feet
south of the watermain and an easement 20 feet wide over the storm
sewer east of Lots S and 6. Block 2.
X Complies with ponding easement requirements?
The City requires the dedication of drainage easements for ponding
purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year high
water elevation in conformance with the City's comprehensive storm
water drainage plan. If "No" is marked, the following changes are
necessary: Note the 100 year high water elevation on the grading
plans for the pond in the northeast corner of the plat,
9. _ X _ Have all existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way been
vacated?
If "No" is marked it will be necessary to vacate the obsolete
easements /right -of -way to facilitate the development. This is not
an automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It
is the owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as
legal descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. A_public
hearing was held on March 16. 1992 to vacate the unnecessary
street right -of -way and lanes and alleys.
N/A Yes No
10. X Has the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted
to the City with this application?
It'. will be necessary for the property owner to provide the city
attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easement or vacation of unnecessary
easement.
2
N/A Yes No
11. _ _ X Have all necessary permits for this project been obtained?
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
If "No" the following permits must be obtained by the developer:
L DNR Bassett Creek
Mn DOT Minnehaha Creek
Hennepin County Elm Creek
MPCA Shingle Creek
State Health Department X Army Corps of Engineers
Wetland Conservation Act of
1991 from City
12. _ X _ Conforms with the City's grid system for street names?
If "No" is marked, the following changes will be necessary:
13. X _ _ Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided? If "No" is marked,
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection
of and
14. _ X _ Are all existing street rights -of -way the required width?
If "No" is marked, an additional feet of right -of -way
will be required on
N/A Yes No
15. _ X _ Will final plans be prepared by the Developer?
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities
as part of its Capital Improvements Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is January 1
of the year in which the project is requested for construction, if
the developer is paying 1001 of the cost.
Note the construction _flans for street. curb and gutter. and
storm sewer for Harbor Lane will be prepared by the City).
16. _ _ X Do final utility and street plans submitted comply with all City
requirements? If "No" is marked, the following are required for:
Sanitary Sewer See Special Condition 25D
Watermain
Storm Sewer None
Street /Concrete Curb & Gutter None
3
N/A Yes No
17. _ _ X Do the construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Thoroughfare Guide Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions must be made to conform
with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan: Fernbrook Lane
shall be extended to the north property line with a temporary cul-
de -sac adjacent to Lot 20, Block 2.
18. _ X _ Do the construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required:
19. _ X Do the construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required:
N/A Yes No
20. _ X Is it necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's public utility
foreman, at 550 -7492?
If "Yes" is marked 24 hours notice is required in advance of
making any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary
sewer and water systems. All water connections shall be via wet
I" .
21. X Is. it necessary to contact Tom Vetsch, the City's Street Foreman,
at-550 -7493 for an excavating permit?
If "Yes" is marked 24 hours notice is required before digging
within the City right -of -way.
22. _ _X_ _ Do the construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions are required:
4
N/A Yes No
23. _ _ -JL Does the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan comply with
The City's erosion control policy?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required: A
ditch of adequate capacity shall be constructed from the existing
44 inch RCP storm sewer adjacent to the Luce Line Trail to the
proposed storm sewer in the plat Bassett Creek requirements
shall be met.
24. _ __8._ _ Have minimum basement elevations been established? If "No" is
marked, they must be established for the following lots: Lot 1.
Block 9 948.5: Lot 10 Block 1 943.0: Lot 5. Block 948.0: Lots 6-
12 Block 2 946,00: Lots 14 -18, Block 2 elevation not known at
this time.
25. A. MnDOT letter dated February 25, 1992 states the development appears to be
blocking overflow from 44" span R.C. arch westerly to pond BC -P19B. All
drainage maps, storm sewer and ponding computation should be submitted when
applying for permits.
B. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over Outlot A from the pond
in Harbor Place Addition to the pond adjacent to Lot 5, Block 2.
C. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over the exception parcels
along Harbor Lane as necessary prior to grading plan approval. If the
developer cannot get the easements, the grading plan shall be revised to
divert the water from flowing across the exception parcels.
D. Manhole 7 shall be relocated between Lot 2 and 3, Block 2 and the sanitary
service to the exception parcel shall be connected directly to Manhole 7.
E. A permanent emergency overflow system must be provided from Pond BC -P19C to
Pond BC- P19B.'
Submitted by:u -L_
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
5
Doc. Format Rev. 2 -4 -92)
z
W Vi
a
May 6, 1992
C'?boCT 3 F,.
SATHRE - BERGQUIST, INC.
150 SOUTH BROADWAY
612) 476 -6000
Mr. John Keyo
Associate Planner
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Subject: HARBOR WOODS
Dear Mr. Keyo:
WAYZATA, MN 55391
FAX 476 -0104
DD -.,97r R
IL
MAY 6 1992
IN)
ba
n,', :
i'.'JI,
COMMUNITY C' L' 01r" IT DEPT.
In response to your letter requesting the grounds for which variances
are requested for two lots in the subdivision we offer the following:
As you know we have recently revised the plat of the HARBOR WOODS
subdivision to shorten the cul-de -sac in the southeasterly portion of
the single family neighborhood. In doing so two lots were dropped from
the proposal so that the number of lots has been reduced from 30 to 28.
This increases the Outlot A land area. As you will recall Outlot A is a
protected open area over which covenants are being created to preserve
the land in it natural state.
Our goal in shortening this cul-de -sac and losing these two lots is to
better preserve the character of the land (both the hill area leading
down to the wetland and the wooded knoll which is now totally within
Outlot A).
When shortening this cul-de -sac we found it best to created one, what we
will call a neck lot (or flag lot), which we have numbered Lot 5, Block
2. This lot has a narrow strip of land which extends out to the cul -de-
sac through which a driveway will be built. The house will sit back to
the southeast of cul-de -sac where the lot widens out to over 90 feet
wide at the proposed building setback line. A variance for this lot is
necessary because the lot is narrower than 90 feet at the minimum 35'
front yard setback.
The way to avoid this variance request is to extend the cul-de -sac about
50' farther into the wooded area so as to create the full lot width for
Lot 5 at the minimum building setback line. It is our opinion that this
pushing of the cul-de -sac deeper into the woods only serves to remove
trees and to provide strict compliance with the zoning ordinance.
It seems to me that a hardship is truly created on the land by this
extension of the cul-de -sac and the resulting loss of trees. We believe
that a variance is warranted due to this hardship on the land.
Two lots farther to the north, Lot 7 extends down into the wetland area.
This wetland is DNR protected as well as being protected by the Federal
Government and also by the City of Plymouth as the Local Government Unit
of the recent State Wetland Act. Technically speaking and correctly
this lot at it's rear lot line is less than 30' wide. This creates a
variance condition because the rear yard minimum lot width is supposed
to be 30'. Practically speaking however, the lot really ends from a
physical use standpoint at the edge of the wetland. At this location
the lot greatly exceeds 30' in width. So from a practical standpoint
the concerns of the City over difficultly in maintenance and strange lot
configurations if lots come to a point or to a narrow rear yards is not
a issue.
As you can see from the plat (and can imagine) we could move lot lines
around to avoid a variance situation for Lot 7. The City's policy or
history on some occasions has been to grant a variances for lots, such
as this, that are deeper than normal and that extend into wetland areas
but are narrower than 30'. We request that the Planning Commission and
Council allow this lot to remain as is and grant the necessary rear lot
line width variance to allow it.
Please let me know if you need further information.
Sincerely,
SATHRE- BERGQUIST, INC.
Richard W. Sathre, P.E.
RWS /dm
cc: Ms. Kathyrn Benz, Carlson Real Estate
Mr. Peter Pflaum, Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc.
I - 6006 a
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: April 28, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 13, 1992
FILE NO.: 92025
PETITIONER: Charles and Laurie Cappellin
REQUEST: Lot Division and Variance for Lot 7, Block 1, H.T. Johnson
Addition
LOCATION: 915 Queensland Lane North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential District)
ZONING: R -1A (Low Density Single Family Residential District)
BACKGROUND:
There are no Community Development files on this parcel.
Notice of this Variance has been sent to all property owners within 100 feet
of this site.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant proposes a division of an existing 60,352 square foot lot
into two parcels of 34,274 square feet and 26,077 square feet. A single
family house currently exists on this site.
2. Also requested is a variance from the lot width requirement of 110 feet.
The petitioner's request would result in a 15 foot lot width at the front
setback line from a "panhandle" lot configuration.
3. Section 500.37 of the City Code the Subdivision Ordinance permits the
division and consolidation of a lot which is part of a recorded plat to be
approved by the City Council without preparation of a formal final plat.
The recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding such lot
consolidation /lot division is required when a variance from City standards
is requested.
4. The Subdivision Ordinance provides for three criteria to be found by the
Planning Commission and City Council before any Subdivision Ordinance
Variance may be granted. A copy of those three criteria and the
applicant's response is attached to this staff report.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The lot division proposed is consistent with the standards of Section
500.37 of the City Code regarding the division and consolidation of plat
and lots.
2. A unique situation exists with this lot in that this subdivision was ,
platted prior to the availability of City sewer and water to this lot. At
that time larger lots were required for on site septic systems. City
sewer and water is now available to this site and therefore this area
could be developed in accordance with the traditional R -1A zoning
standards. The oversized lot would no longer be required.
3. We find the requested variance complies with the Subdivision Ordinance
Variance Criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend adoption of the attached resolution providing for the
approval of the lot division; resolution setting conditions prior to the
recording of a lot division; and, granting Subdivision Ordinance variance as
requested.
A , -A
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Lot Division
2. Resolution Setting Conditions and Granting Subdivision Ordinance Variance
3. Engineer's Memo
4. Subdivision Ordinance Variance Criteria
5. Petitioner's Narrative
6. Location Map
7. Site Graphics
pc /jk /92025:dh)
0
APPROVING LOT DIVISION FOR CHARLES AND LAURIE CAPPELLIN (92025)
t
WHEREAS, Charles and Laurie Cappellin has requested approval for a lot
division into two lots located at 915 Queensland Lane North;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the lot division
into two lots for property located at 915 Queensland Lane North.
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
PARCEL A
Lot 7, Block 1, H.T. Johnson Addition, according to the recorded plat
thereof.
To be divided as follows:
PARCEL A
Lot 7, Block 1, H.T. Johnson Addition, according to the recorded plat
thereof; except the West 120.00 feet thereof and except the North 15.00
feet of that part of said Lot 7, lying east of the west 120.00 feet
thereof.
Subject to an easement for utility and drainage purposes over and across
the north, west, south, east and northeast 6.0 feet of the above
described parcel A.
PARCEL B
The west 120.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 1, H.T. Johnson Addition, according
to the recorded plat thereof and the north 15.00 feet of that part of
said Lot 7 lying east of the west 120.00 feet thereof.
Subject to an easement for drainage and utility purposes over and across
the north, west, south, and east 6.00 feet of the west 120.00 feet of
said Lot 7,; Also
Subject to an easement utility and drainage purposes over and across the
north 15.00 feet of that part of said Lot 7 lying east of west 120.00
feet of said Lot 7, reserving the right for driveway purposes over and
across said easement.
FURTHER, that the City Manager be authorized to make the necessary special
assessment corrections based upon City Policy when the division is approved by
Hennepin County.
res /pc/92025.1d)
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO LOT DIVISION
FOR CHARLES AND LAURIE CAPPELLIN (92025)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Lot Division for for Charles and
Laurie Cappellin located at 915 Queensland Lane North;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the following
conditions to be met prior to recording of, and related to said lot division:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. No yard setback variances are granted or implied except as noted below.
3. Approved variance is for a 15 foot lot width at the front setback line
versus the 110 foot ordinance standard based on the request meeting the
variance criteria.
4. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing open storm water
drainage facilities.
5. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication prior to recording
of the resolution approving the lot division in accordance with City
Policy in effect at the time of recording of the resolution.
6. No building permit is to be issued for a new principal structure until
the lot division is filed with Hennepin County.
7. Submittal of all necessary utility easements prior to filing a lot
division with Hennepin County.
8. Prior to any building permit issuance on the new parcel, a wetland
analysis of the site must be prepared in accordance with the provisions
of The Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.
res /pc /92025.sc)
t
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: May 6, 1992
FILE NO.: 92025
PETITIONER: Mr. Charles Cappellin, 915 Queensland Lane North, Plymouth, MN
55447
LOT DIVISION /CONSOLIDATION: Lot 7, Block 1, H.T. Johnson Addition
LOCATION: 915 Queensland Lane
V I A
N/A Yes No
1L Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. _ _ Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ _ SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Lot Division /Consolidation approval:
4. Area assessments: Watermain area assessment based on 1 unit. S790.
Sanitary sewer area assessment based on 1 unit. S440. total - S1.230.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: Watermain lateral
assessment, S2.280. Sanitary sewer lateral assessment. S2.280. total
S4.560. The assessments will be collected with the building
Rat
LEGALfEASEMENTSIPERMITS:
6. _ _ Complies with standard utility /drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (61) in
width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required,
it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents
executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any building
permits.)
N/A Yes No
7. X _ _ Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year
high water elevation and conformance with the City's Comprehensive
Storm Drainage Plan.
8. _JL _ _ Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots:
9. _X_ _ _ All standard utility easements required for construction
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities
10. JL _ _ All existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way to
facilitate the development. This vacation is not an automatic
process in conjunction with the platting process. It is entirely
dependent upon the City receiving a petition for the vacation from
the property owner; therefore, it is their responsibility to submit a
petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be
vacated.
The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
12. _ X _ All existing street rights -of -way are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required on
13. A. It will be the owner's responsibility for the cost and installation of a water
and sanitary sewer service along with restoration of Queensland Lane.
B. The proposed sanitary sewer service is on the adjacent private property. The
owner of the new parcel shall get an easement for the sanitary sewer service
before a building permit is issued.
Submitted by:
Daniel L. L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
2
k
1 AI • 61_x'
1. c-=,1 Conditions , The Planning Commission may recommend a variance fram
the provisions of this Section ( 500.41) as to specific properties when, in
its judgment, an unusual hardship on the land exists. In granting a
variance, the Cbm fission may prescribe conditions that it deems necessary
or desirable in the public interest. In making its findings, as required
below, the Commission shall consider the nature of the proposed use of the
land and the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons
to reside or work in the proposed subdivision, and the probable effect of
the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. No
variance shall be granted unless the Commission finis:
a. That there are special circumstances or corxiitions affecting the
specific property such that the strict application of the provisions
of this Section would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of
the land.
b. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
c. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in
which the property is situated.
The Commission findings in granting or denying a variance shall be in
writing and filed with the City Clerk.
2. Application Rer?uired. Applications for any variance under this Subsection
shall be submitted in writing by the owner or subdivider at the time the
preliminary plat is filed for consideration by the Planning Commission,
and shall state all facts relied upon by the applicant, and shall be
supplemented with maps, plans or other additional data which may aid the
Commission in the analysis of the proposed project. The plans for such
development shall include such covenants, restrictions or other legal
provisions necessary to guarantee the full achievement of the plan for the
proposed project.
forms :o>pl /sub.stnd /s) 10/89
I
City of Plymouth / Planning and Zoning Application Form
PROPOSED LOT DIVISION / 915 N. QUEENSLAND LANE / CAPPELLIN
April 8, 1992
ATTACHMENT #1:
7. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The existing lot at 915 N. Queensland is 1.385 acres fronting
a cul -de -sac at its northwest corner.
It is proposed that this lot be divided into an east Parcel A
0.787 acres) and a west Parcel B (0.598 acres). The existing
residence is situated on Parcel A. Street access for Parcel B
will be to the Queensland cul -de -sac via a 15 foot wide leg
abutting the north edge of Parcel A.
Parcel B does not meet Plymouth Zoning Ordinance requirements
for minimum lot width at the front building setback distance,
for which a variance is requested.
1
ct -2,0 2-5
City of Plymouth / REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
PROPOSED LOT DIVISION / 915 N. QUEENSLAND LANE / CAPPELLIN
April 8, 1992
The Plymouth Zoning Ordinance requires that lot width be no less
than W*' feet at the front building offset distance of 35 feet.
The ordinance specifically cites lots on a cul -de -sac turning
circle as an instance where this requirement may be waived.
Proposed Parcel B accesses the cul -de -sac turning circle via a
15 feet wide leg that is over 35 feet in length. The applicant
requests that a variance be granted for the following reasons:
I. The existing lot size was defined prior to
being available to the site. Therefore, a
required to provide a safe distance betwee:
and well.
2. The proposed lot division defines two lots
consistent with lot sizes in the immediate
public utilities
large lot was
n the septic system
of sizes that are
area.
3. Immediately to the west of proposed Parcel B is a wetlands
area, meaning that there is no possibility of future access
to Parcel B from the west. The only possible access to
Parcel B is from the Queensland cul -de -sac to the east.
4. Access to Parcel B from the Queensland cul -de -sac along the
north edge of Parcel A is the most direct route and has the
least impact on surrounding properties. It is noted that at
the north end of the existing house on Parcel A is a garage
and laundry room, not primary living spaces.
5. Granting this request for variance would not be setting a
precedent. Variances have been given in similar situations.
The applicant believes that in this situation an unusual hardship
exists. The applicant believes that granting this variance request
will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the area and that denying this request would deprive
the applicant of reasonable use of the land and enjoyment of a
substantial property right.
eP
aQ -
I
s /io/
y
q • _
W
s • sf C 6.
r'
1
m
s `V
Ia
6 y arnv o ti B 6 — O
c m QN
o £i
EFlo -
Q
J
Q °_ lf o/ GB's/
I
I ,,
I 'ee•
IIf ?
P
z s f to aJ -
mac ,} — - . ..
a V
777
00 OOZ
0
P3
0
rtJ
ir
X O L C
S
O
F
c
M „ZS,S'-t,00N M
m 67
LPO Q
Ii
S /a.v annoy 3o,q O
mW ((
Q0 ,
LL9
O N Ulu ,
N /
Q ' c
A•
S / o
rte by 'L9
to
cow---
M y S
r
Gr1
I Q
1=
i
C
apo—., S I llOEM • a NT*-
1
FALTER -1
g,m w I
m=
uu
Wlff _
r
IN
hoar:
11
1` l
OVA
ZIA
F
HARBOR WOODS
i
KAY KU91 $ SATNRE- SERGCUIST. INC.
r'g; €.rtj CARLSON REAL ESTATE "°."'." .'°.'"'....._.......
Sen. .. " ~.°°
3 Lvwoutw. r wot.
50 e.
0
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: April 24, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 13, 1992
FILE NO.: 92028
PETITIONER: Jesse Priem
REQUEST: Lot Division and Variance for Carlson Center Sixth Addition
LOCATION: 325 Berkshire Lane North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -2 (Low Medium Density Residential)
ZONING: R -2 (Low Density Multiple Residence)
BACKGROUND:
On March 2, 1981, the City Council, by Resolution 81 -143 approved a
Preliminary Plat and General Development Plan for the "Carlson Center Annex"
for the platting and general planning of this entire area. Subsequently, on
April 20, 1981, the City Council approved a revised Preliminary Plat and
General Development Plan for this area.
On June 17, 1985, the City Council, by Resolution 85 -424, approved a Final
Plat and Development Contract for the Carlson Center 3rd Addition. That Final
Plat incorporated this lot. Rezoning of this lot to R -2 was accomplished
concurrent with the Final Plat action.
On May 1, 1989, the City Council, by Resolution 89 -240, approved a blanket
Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of two family dwellings on 14
lots within this subdivision, including this lot.
On December 10, 1990, the City Council, by Resolution 90 -755, approved a
General Development Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit for the
conversion of an existing single family unit into a two - family unit located
within the Carlson Center 3rd Addition.
On May 21, 1991, the City Council, by Resolution 91 -278, approved a
Conditional Use Permit Amendment and General Development Plan Amendment to
allow single family detached units on three lots and single family detached or
duplex units on three other lots within the Carlson Center Sixth Addition.
On July 22, 1991, by Resolution 91 -400, and on November 4, 1991, by Resolution
91 -695, the .City Council approved a Lot Division on lots with duplex
buildings.
Notice of this Public Informational Meeting was mailed to all property owners
within 100 feet of the site.
1-
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant proposes a division of an existing 18,501 square foot parcel
into two lots of 9,365 square feet and 9,136 square feet. A duplex
structure is now under construction on this parcel. The lot division
would create a property line at the "party wall" thereby allowing the
owner to sell each half of the duplex.
2. The primary issue with this lot division is the request for a variance
from the lot size requirement of 9,250 square feet. The petitioner's
request would result in a 9,136 square foot lot.
3. Section 500.37 of the City Code "the Subdivision Ordinance" permits the
division and consolidation of lots which are part of a recorded plat to be
approved by the City Council without preparation of a formal Final Plat.
A recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding such lot
consolidation /division is required when a variance from City standards is
requested.
4. The Subdivision Ordinance provides for three criteria to be found by the
Planning Commission and City Council before any Subdivision Ordinance
variance may be granted. A copy of those three criteria and the
applicant's response is attached to this staff report.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The lot division /consolidation proposed is consistent with the standards
of Section 500.37 of the City Code regarding the division and
consolidation of plats and lots.
2. There have been several previous lot divisions involving duplex structures
approved in this subdivision. The lot immediately on the west received
City Council approval of a Lot Division on July 22, 1991.
3. We find the requested variance complies with the Subdivision Ordinance
Variance Criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby
approval
recording
requested.
recommend adoption of the attached resolution providing for the
of the lot division; a resolution setting conditions prior to
of the lot division; and, granting Subdivision Ordinance Variance as
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Lot Division
2. Resolution Setting Conditions and Granting
3. Subdivision Ordinance Variance Criteria
4. Petitioner's Narrative
5. Location Map
6. Site Graphics
pc /jk/91089)
2 -
Subdivision Ordinance Variance
APPROVING LOT DIVISION FOR PRIEM HOMES, INC. (92028)
WHEREAS, Priem Homes, Inc. has requested approval for a lot division for the
creation of two located at 325 Berkshire Lane North;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the lot division
for Priem Homes, Inc. for property located 325 Berkshire Lane North.
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
Lot 2, Block 1, Carlson Center 6th Addition.
To be divided and consolidated as follows:
PARCEL A
That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Carlson Center Sixth Addition lying north of
the south 59.03 feet as measured at right angles to the plat thereof, on
file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
PARCEL B
The south 59.03 feet of Lot 2, Block 1 Carlson Center Sixth Addition as
measured at right angles to the south line thereof. According to the
plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder
in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
FURTHER, that the City Manager be authorized to make the necessary special
assessment corrections based upon City Policy when the division /consolidation
is approved by Hennepin County.
res /pc /92028.1d:jw)
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO LOT DIVISION
AND APPROVING A SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FOR PRIEM HOMES, INC. (92028)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Lot Division and Subdivision Variance
for Priem Homes, Inc. for the creation of two lots in the Carlson Center Sixth
Addition located 325 Berkshire Lane North;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the following
conditions to be met prior to recording of, and related to said lot
division /consolidation:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Submittal of all necessary utility easements for approval by the City
prior to filing this action with Hennepin County;and, filing of the
easements concurrent with filing this action.
3. A variance is approved for a 9,136 square foot lot for Parcel B, based on
the request meeting the variance criteria.
res /pc /92028.sc)
1. General Conditions. The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from
the provisions of this Section (500.41) as to specific properties when, in
its judgment, an unusual hardship on the land exists. In granting a
variance, the Commission may prescribe conditions that it deans necessary
or desirable in the public interest. In making its findings, as required
below, the Commission shall consider the nature of the proposed use of the
land and the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons
to reside or work in the proposed subdivision, and the probable effect of
the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. No
variance shall be granted unless the Commission finds:
a. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
specific property such-that the strict application of the provisions
of this Section would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of
the land.
b. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
c. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in
which the property is situated.
The Commission findings in granting or denying a variance shall be in
writing and filed with the City Clerk.
2. Application . Applications for any variance under this Subsection
shall be submitted in writing by the owner or subdivider at the time the
preliminary plat is filed for consideration by the Planning Commission,
and shall state all facts relied upon by the applicant, and shall be
supplemented with maps, plans or other additional data which may aid the
Cormission in the analysis of the proposed project. The plans for such
development shall include such covenants, restrictions or other legal
provisions necessary to guarantee the full achievement of the plan for the
Proposed Project.
forms :o >pl /sub.stnd /s) 10/89
QQ
A., A '41
a
C
r
a° Am
I
1
wrA ='
rim
I I-
2
w
R
a
w
U)
w
2 O
N
O
FOJ
I
i
3Nh 3UNI5
r
r
Y
1
s •
pp
r
E
l fit ft
3ji3# a i
iUji
lot
3Nh 3UNI5
r
r
Y
1
5. D.
m1
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: May 8, 1992
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chuck Dillerud, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: PYLON SIGNAGE
The attached chart is in response to the Planning Commission's desire to see
pylon signage requirements in various suburbs. Of the five communities
reviewed, Apple Valley, Brooklyn Center and Minnetonka all allow for increased
pylon signage based on square footage of buildings. Blaine and Maple Grove
also allow for increased signage based on either specific building type or the
zoning of the property. The Plymouth Zoning Ordinance allows for increased
signage size for the B -2, B -3, and I -1 Zoning Districts over the B -1 Zoning
District, but does not allow for increased signage based on the size of
buildings.
pc /jk /pylon.memo)
PYLON SIGNS
APPLE VALLEY
1 sign per each collector or arterial for
shopping centers (other than shopping centers,
Height 28'
Height 36 ft.
Size 110 sq. ft. for under 50,000 sq. ft
180 sq. ft. for over 50,000 sq. ft.
Height
125 sq. ft. for a single occupant building
BROOKLYN CENTER
Height 36 ft.
Height varies from 24 ft. to 32 ft.
Size varies from 90 sq. ft. to 260 sq. ft.
based on the size of the building
BLAINE
Height 25 ft.
Size up to 140 sq. ft. for a single structure
180 sq. ft for large projects (100,000 sq. ft.)
MAPLE GROVE
Height varies from 20 to 25 ft.
Size varies from 45 to 70 sq. ft. based on zoning
MINNETONKA
Height varies from 15 to 30 ft.
Size varies from 80 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft.
based on the size of the building
PLYMOUTH
B -1
Height 16 ft.
Size 64 sq. ft., a second 50 sq. ft. sign
is permitted if the site exceeds 20 acres and is in
lieu of permitted wall business signs
B -2 1 sign per each collector or arterial for
shopping centers (other than shopping centers,
1 sign only)
Height 36 ft.
Size 96 sq. ft. individual building and
neighborhood shopping centers
120 sq. ft. community shopping centers
B -3
Height 36 ft.
Size 96 sq. ft.
I -1
Height 36 ft.
Size 96 sq. ft.
160 sq. ft. for industrial developments over 20 acres
sr:pc /jk /pylon:jw)