HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 07-08-199214
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: June 24, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 8, 1992
FILE NO.: 91071
PETITIONER: Metropolitan Life
REQUEST: Amendment to a Residential Planned Unit Development
Preliminary Plan /Conditional Use Permit and Final Site Plan
to increase offstreet parking by 99 places on an existing
site; including a variance to exceed 30 percent impervious
coverage in the Shoreland Overlay Management District.
LOCATION: 15700 Rockford Road
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -4 (High Density Residential)
ZONING: RPUD 88 -1
BACKGROUND:
On March 21, 1988., the City Council, by Resolution 88 -188, approved a RPUD
Concept Plan /Preliminary Plat /Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Final Site
Plan for the Vicksburg Village Apartments.
On August 20, 1990, the City Council reviewed the parking situation at the
Vicksburg Village Apartments in response to concerns of residents of the
apartment complex and of the Plymouth Creek Townhouse Association concerning
the lack of parking at the site. The City Council directed the Welsh
Construction Company to provide the City with an Action Plan by October 1,
1990 on the resolution of the parking problem with this complex. In addition,
the City Council directed City staff to amend the Zoning Ordinance to require
two parking spaces per dwelling unit for multiple family development.
On September 25, 1990, the Vicksburg Village management sent to the City their
Interim Plan regarding the parking situation at the Vicksburg Village
Apartments. The action plan included reducing the number of the excess
handicapped parking spaces (continued Code compliances); adding parking spaces
for other residents; clearly marking all fire lanes; prohibiting the storage
of boats, trailers, classic cars and seasonally used vehicles on the site;
requiring registration of all resident vehicles with the apartment manager;
registering all long -term guest parking the apartment manager; and, to require
all persons with underground parking to use the spaces to free up the outdoor
lots.
On December 10, 1990, the City Council, by Resolution 90 -38, approved a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to require two parking spaces per unit for multiple family
dwellings and to require .5 parking spaces for guest parking for multiple
family dwelling projects. Projects approved prior to this Zoning Ordinance
Page Two, File 91071
Amendment are not required to bring the site in compliance with the new
regulations.
On October 21, 1991, the City Council, by Resolution 91 -651, denied the
request to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan for two additional parking
lots with a total of 101 parking spaces. One of the two lots was to be
located on the eastern side of the lot, within the 50 foot shoreland setback
and contained 49 parking spaces. The second lot was in the same location as
the current request and contained 52 parking spaces. The City Council's
denial of the request stated that the proposal would be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood.
The City Council also directed the petitioner to include the neighborhood in
the redesign of the project and relocation of the proposed easterly parking
lot.
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 applicant proposes to construct one parking area and add to an
existing parking area to create an additional 99 offstreet parking spaces.
A total of 564 parking spaces alreaa yT on the site (345 in garages
and 219 at grade) . An additional parking 92 parking spaces would be
constructed at the northwest corner of the site adjacent to Vicksburg Lane
with 7 spaces added to an existing parking lot adjacent to the most
northerly building on the site, northeast of the tennis court.
2. The Vicksburg Village project is comprised of 334 multifamily dwelling
units on a site of 16.7 acres. The current offstreet parking component is
564 spaces for a ratio of 1.69 spaces per dwelling unit. The proposal is
to increase offstreet parking to a total of 663 spaces for a ratio of 1.99
spaces per dwelling unit - -still well below the current Zoning Ordinance
standard of 2.5 spaces per unit.
3. A portion of the Vicksburg Village site is located within the Shoreland
Management Overlay District of Plymouth Creek (that portion of the site
within 300 feet of the centerline of the creek). The special provisions
of the Shoreland Management Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance
Section 6b, Subdivision 6), therefore apply. The construction of the new
parking area and expansion of the existing parking lot will result in an
increase in the impervious surface within the Shoreland Management Overlay
District to 32.5 percent versus the Shoreland Management Overlay District
standard of 30 percent.
Consistent with the terms of the Shoreland Management Overlay District
regulations, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources was advised of
the original variance requests. The DNR recommended denial of the 1991
request to increase impervious coverage to 32.9 percent. A separate DNR
finding on this new application has not been solicited since the coverage
proposed is very similar to that previously proposed.
Page Three, File 91071
4. Except as noted above, the proposal to add parking to the Site Plan meets
or exceeds standards of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable City
Codes, Ordinances and Policies with regard to construction of this type of
facility in the R -4 Zoning District. The design and the features of the
offstreet parking proposed ere consistent with City Codes.
5. Section 10, Subdivision B, Paragraph 5d of the Zoning Ordinance provides
that offstreet parking and loading areas near or adjoining residence
districts shall be screened by a fence or planting buffer. The ordinance
provision does not specify height of the screening, but in practice staff
has recommended a screening height sufficient to screen vehicular
headlights from a person standing at the property line of the subject
site.
6. The applicant proposes compliance with the screening standard of the
Zoning Ordinance for his new parking areas by a combination of earthen
berm and a variety of landscape materials. The effective height of the
berming ranges from 0 feet at the west edge to 6 feet over the center of
the site to 4 feet on the east edge of the parking lot. Landscaping in
addition to the earthen berm is proposed to be comprised of deciduous and
coniferous plantings. A total of 29 deciduous trees, 24 coniferous trees
and a mixture of 56 other plantings are proposed. The trees proposed meet
the City's Landscape Policy regarding size of trees at planting.
7. Amendment to a PUD Conditional Use Permit must be considered for
consistency with the 6 Conditional Use Permit standards of the Zoning
Ordinance as well as the Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan
criteria. Copies of those standards and criteria together with the
applicant's narrative responses and project description are attached.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The proposal is to increase the offstreet parking at the site in an amount
to bring the site to 79 percent compliance with the current Zoning
Ordinance standard for offstreet parking for this type o-f—cevelopment.
There is no requirement that the applicant do so since nonconforming
status forthe existing offstreet parking component exists. Increase in
the offstreet parking of this site is, however, a proposal consistent with
the concerns raised by the City Council in response to complaints received
concerning available offstreet parking on this site in 1990. The City
Council did not mandate increasing the offstreet parking available on the
site, but this proposaaT to increase the offstreet parking is certainly a
response to the problems previously observed with regard to offstreet
parking.
2. There may not be as much latitude in the location of additional offstreet
parking on the site as the extensive acreage may imply. Substantial
portions of the north quadrant of the site contain soils that are not
conducive to any type of construction.
3. We find the proposal to amend the Site Plan to be consistent with the
Zoning Ordinance and other Codes, Ordinances, Policies and Standards of
the City of Plymouth regarding the development of sites in the R -4 Zoning
Page Four, File 91071
District. The findings include compliance with the provisions of Section
10 with regard to the screening of offstreet parking adjacent to
residential areas. We note that no specific quantitative standard has
been provided by the Zoning Ordinance in regard to the extent of screening
required, and the standard that has been applied in preceding cases has
related to the screening of vehicular headlights at the property line.
4. We find the proposed Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Preliminary
Plan and Conditional use Permit is consistent with the general Conditional
Use Permit standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the criteria for a
Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan.
S. We find the Shoreland Management Overlay District variance requested to
respond to the Zoning Ordinance Variance criteria of Section 11 of the
Zoning Ordinance and the purposes and intent of the Shoreland Management
Overlay District in Section 6, Subdivision 6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend adoption of the attached resolution providing for the approval of
an Amended Residential Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan, Conditional
Use Permit, and Final Site Plan, including a variance from the Shoreland
Management Overlay District standards with regard to impervious coverage
within the shoreland, ^/requested. _
Submitted by:
arles—E. Dillerud,
ATTACHMENTS:
veiopment uirector
1. Resolution Approving RPUD Preliminary Plan Amendment and Conditional Use
Permit, and Final Site Plan
2. Engineer's Memo
3. Conditional Use Permit Standards
4. Zoning Ordinance Variance Standards
5. Applicant's Narrative
6. Minutes from the October 21, 1991 City Council Meeting
7. Location Map
8. Resolution 91 -651
9. Site Graphics
APPROVING AN AMENDED RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AMENDMENT; AND AMENDED RPUD FINAL SITE PLAN INCLUDING SHORELAND
OVERLAY DISTRICT VARIANCE FOR METROPOLITAN LIFE FOR VICKSBURG VILLAGE
APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 15700 ROCKFORD ROAD (91071)
WHEREAS, Metropolitan Life has requested approval of a for an Amended
Residential Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditiunal Use Permit; and, an
Amended RPUD Final Site Plan to increase offstreet parking by 99 parking
places on an existing site; and, Variance to exceed 30 percent impervious
coverage within the Shoreland Management Overlay District for offstreet
parking for Vicksburg Village Apartments located at 15700 Rockford Road; 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
Metropolitan Life for an Amended Residential Planned Unit Development Plan and
Conditional Use Permit; and, an Amended RPUD Final Site Plan to increase
offstreet parking by 99 parking places on an existing site; and, Variance to
exceed 30 percent impervious coverage within the Shoreland Management Overlay
District for offstreet parking for Vicksburg Village Apartments located at
15700 Rockford Road, subject to the following findings and conditions:
1. No other amendments or variances are granted or implied.
2. The granting of the permit is responsive to criteria of the Zoning
Ordinance for Conditional Use Permits and PUD Plans.
3. Compliance with the applicable conditions of City Council Resolution 88-
188 (RPUD Concept Plan, Preliminary Plan and Final Site Plan).
4. A Variance from the Shoreland Management Overlay District regulations is
approved based on compliance with the Shoreland Management Overlay
District purposes and intent and the Variance criteria of the Zoning
Ordinance as follows:
a. Impervious coverage within the Shoreland Management Overlay District
of 32.5 percent versus the Zoning Ordinance Standard of 30 percent.
res /pc /91071)
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: July 2, 1992
FILE NO.: 91071
PETITIONER: Mr. Paul Anderson, Welsch Construction Company, 11200 West 78th
Street, Eden Prairie, MN 55344
SITE PLAN: ADDITIONAL PARKING (BASED ON REVISED PLAN DATED 6/2/92)
VICKSBURG APARTMENTS
LOCATION: North of County Road 9, east of Vicksburg Lane in the southwestern
1/4 of Section 16.
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.
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 (101) 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.)
8. _ _ 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. 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:
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.
11. , 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 property is abstract Droperty. then this
re uirement 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.
X 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: The new
catch basin shall be protected until the parking lot is paved.
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. _ J _ 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.
18. _ _ 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 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. _ _ 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. For the 7 new stalls by
the northeast corner of Building No. 3.
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 100X 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 10OX 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 -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 taR.
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 12, 22, 26, 29A, 29B, and 29C.
29 A. The relocated trail passing through the 92 stall parking lot on the north side
of Building No. 4 shall require the installation of approved pedestrian curb
ramps for the handicapped per City Plate No. SPP -lA wherever there is concrete
curbing adjacent to the parking lot and all drive aisles.
B. Sheet A -2R shows the seven new stalls connecting with the fire lane /drive
aisle. A 24 foot-wide street and curb and gutter shall also be required in
the area of this connection. The plans shall be revised accordingly.
Submitted by: " S` Vl a_- l t l -
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
5-
Jtj1. '9 ± L.IULt_t :Ltr1F'ttrdlE'_ rEL
CtevenCcott
III:U la t.',C111CI11 I 11C'UI X)1'a1CCl
July 2, 1992
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Vicksburg Apartments
15700 County Road 9
Plymouth, Minnesota
Lot 1, Block 1
Vicksburg Addition
PIN # 16- 118 -22 -32 -0024
I Vicksburg Village Apartments is a planned unit development which was completed
in 1990 consisting of 334 rental apartment units and one recreation building. We
are at this time requesting the approval of one additional parking lot at the west lot
consisting of 92 parking stalls and the expansion of one parking lot last of the
tennis court consisting of 7 (seven) parking stalls.
2 The addition of these parking stalls is an attempt to bring the parking ratio from
approximately 1.6 to 1 to a 2 to 1 ratio as is currently required in the revised City
Ordinances. The addition of these stalls will eliminate the problem of residents
parking in fire lanes, handicap stalls and other "no parking" areas. It will also
eliminate the issuance of parking violations.
3 In an attempt to be sensitive to the impact of neighboring developments and also
the resident within the Vicksburg Village project, we have developed a
comprehensive landscape and berming plan and have made every attempt in the
designing of these additional lots to minimize any potential impact.
In addition, the current management policy of not allowing any recreational vehicles
or storage of automobiles, boats, etc. will remain in effect so that these lots will be
used for resident vehicles only.
4. The addition of these parking areas will not be changing the current use of the
project.
5. The addition of these parking areas should not be a cause for increased traffic but
should rather create a more organized situation and eliminate the problem of
residents parking in fire lanes and "no parking" areas.
6. The additional parking areas will meet all requirements of the existing parking.
I.cadc's in M11111- Family manaocnlent
hIN.),5 `;t r. ;lra Kuuh'ar(1 Mlnneapolv,, N innesot.a 354 16 (6121) 544.5228 1 =AN (012) 544-1725
itt =n_u -t - -= i- itr'1F't IIE'_ TEL r•1 '- 5- 11 -1 "r F'. -
tevenCcott-,
1 » ;ln;l cr »crlt ill'coll-)o atcd
July 2, 1992
VARIANCE REQUEST
Vicksburg Apartments
15700 County Road 9
Plymouth, Minnesota
Lot 1, Block 1
Vicksburg Addition
PIN # 16- 118 -22 -32 -0024
1. The original project was designed around the existing zoning ordinances at that
time which included a 1.5 parking stall per unit ration and a maximum impervious
surface coverage in the shoreline area of less than 30 %. DUe to these
ordinances, the project was held away from the creek area and utilized most to of
the land outside of the 300' shoreline setback.
2. There are currently large open green areas on the project site which fall within the
300' shoreline area. Due to this setback requirement, we are unable to get the
additional parking without encroaching on this area. With these additional parking
areas, we would be increasing the impervious surface with the shoreline area from
the original coverage of 25.6% to 32.5 %.
3. The addition of these parking areas is for the sole purpose of resident parking and
to eliminate parking in handicap stalls and fire lanes.
4. The project was built by and exceeded the requirements of the 1.5 to 1 parking
stall ratio set forth in the previous City Ordinances. The current owner,
Metropolitan Life, is attempting to bring the parking ratio up to the current City
standards.
5. Extensive landscape and berming plans have been developed in an attempt to
minimize any potential impact on neighboring developments and the residents of
the Vicksburg Village Apartments.
6. The addition of these parking areas should not affect traffic or impair property
values within the neighborhood. It will, however, eliminate the resident parking and
restricted fire lane areas to maintain proper access for fire department and public
satety vehicles.
1._emler,: in Mulii-Family Management
hlN).5 \''aviara Buulcvar t Minnraln)li.. Minnesota 554 1t, 0 (612)544-522S FAX (()12) 5411 -.1725
0 S ceven cots
F_ a :3 1
management incorporated
May 4, 1992
Inge Moore
15645 - 40th Avenue North
Plymouth, MN 55446,
Dear Ms. Moore:
I represent the owners of Vicksburg Village Apartments located on
the land west of the Plymouth Creek Townhomes. Last fall the City
of Plymouth City Council directed us to work with your Homeowners'
Association to receive approval for the addition of a parking lot
on the Vicksburg Village property.
For the past year we have been talking to a Mr. Pat Halisey, who
appeared to be operating on behalf of the Board of Directors and
Homeowners' Association. However, since we never received official
notification from the Board of Directors that Mr. Halisey was
authorized to negotiate on your behalf, I thought it important to
open communication directly to move the project ahead.
I would appreciate your contacting me at your earliest convenience
to discuss the progress of the parking lot plans and review any
items of concern you may have. I can be reached daily at my
office, 544 -5228, or in the evenings at home, 482 -1750. I would
appreciate hearing from you soon because we would like to meet with
the City of Plymouth Planning Commission in May.-
I await your response.
Sincerely,
STEVEN SCOTT MANAGEMENT, INC.
Barbara J. Ruhberg
Director of Asset Management
Leaders in Multi - Family Management
6005 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 (612) 5411 -5228 FAX(612)544-1725
Steven Cott
management incorporated
June 1, 1992
Plymouth Creek Townhomes
c/o Inga Moore
15645 -40th Avenue North
Plymouth, MN 55446
Dear Ms. Moore:
I have not received a letter from you regarding an authorized
representative to negotiate with us about the Vicksburg Village
parking lot addition. Therefore, to insure that the Board of
Directors of the townhome association has the correct and most
updated information, I decided to forward these preliminary prints
to you.
Please review the enclosed drawings and feel free to contact me
with questions %or for an explanation of any detail. These plans
were drafted to meet requirements of the City of Plymouth after an
initial inspection of this proposal by the City staff. You will
remember that we decided to pursue this option after several
meetings with Mr. Hallisey during which he indicated preference for
this type of solution over others.
Ms. Moore, should your Board of Directors not be interested in
continuing negotiations with us on behalf of the owners of
Vicksburg Village as it had been indicated by Mr. Hallisey in his
presentation to the Board prior to our meeting with you several
weeks ago, please inform me of this decision and I will communicate
with the City regarding our options at this time.
I look forward.to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
STEVEN SCOTT /WELSH MANAGEMENT
le6
Barbara J. RuhFerg .
Director of Asset Management
cc: Katherine McCarthy
Lisa Moe
Leaders in Multi - Family Management
6005 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 (612) 544 -5228 FAX (612) 544 -1725
CtevenCcoa :3 - 0 management incotpomted
June 12, 1992
Plymouth Creek Townhomes
c/0 Inga Moore
15645 - 40th Avenue North
Plymouth, MN 55446
Re: Vicksburg Village Parkin Lot qjgg
Dear Ms. Moore:
R ECHdED
JUN 16 1^:2
OF PLYMOUTH
COMii i;;,'il I DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
To date, we have not received any type of communication from the
Plymouth Townhome Association regarding an appointed representative
or a status on the association's opinion on the preliminary parking
lot plans sent to you June 1, 1992. I must advise the City
whether or not we will be proceeding with this matter at a July
meeting and need to have a direction from you prior to this
contact.
I would appreciate your contacting me with any information you have
regarding this matter. I can be reached weekdays at 544 -5228 and
evenings and weekends at 482 -1750.
I await your response.
Sincerely,
STEVEN SCOTT MANAGEMENT, INC.
rL OCLY( L
Barbara J. Ruhber g
Director of Asset Management
cc: Katherine McCarthy, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
Chuck Dillerud, City of Plymouth
Lisa Moe, Steven Scott Management, Inc.
Leaders in Multi- Family Management
6005 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 (612) 5445228 FAX (612) 544 -1725
n
p 1 ijC i'j
JUL ,
El
Ms. Barbara J. Ruhberg June 29, 1992
Director of Asset Management C, ` • , 4 f V.
H.ti.. L45a ",
STEVEN SCOTT MANAGEMENT INC. cptd;?`'`
6005 Wayzata Blvd.
Minneapolis, M 0N55416 '
Dear Ms. Ruhberg:
Your letters, dated 6/1/92 and 6/12/92 have been forwarded to me by Ms.
Inga Moore from Plymouth Creek Board of Directors. She forwarded your
letters to me for response because I am one of the three advisory committee
members who was authorized by the Board of Directors for Plymouth Creek
to work with Vicksberg Village, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and Welsh
Construction along with yourself and your company to resolve the parking
situation at Vicksberg Village. The other two committee members from
our group are Mr. Patrick Hallisey of 4065 Quantico Lane North and Mr.
Sy Friedman of 4155 Upland Lane North. The three of us have been the
collective primary contacts from Plymouth Creek who have met with or
worked with you, Lisa Moe and others from Metropolitan Life, Vicksberg
Village and Welsh Construction over the past eight months (since October,
1991). We received authorization from the Board of Directors for Plymouth
Creek (of which Mr. Friedman and myself are current Board members and Mr.
Hallisey is a former Board member) following the Plymouth City Council
meeting last October. During this meeting, Mayor Bergman's direction to
Welsh Construction and the management company for Vicksberg Village (Z & S
Management) was to include Plymouth Creek homeowners in further redesign
efforts to alleviate the parking problems at Vicksberg Village. Our
committee was formed to respond to this direction at the time and we have
continued to remain the key resources on this issue from Plymouth Creek.
Our committee designated Mr. Hallisey as the key contact to establish
communication with the appropriate representatives from the apartments,
Metropolitan Life, and Welsh Construction. Additionally, he has been
responsible for establishing mutually convenient meeting times with as many
of the parties represented as possible, for presenting and'reviewing all
suggestions and alternatives to resolve the parking problems during these
meetings, for recording and maintaining documentation on the progress made
at these meetings, and for reporting periodic progress on this issue to the
Plymouth Creek Board of Directors. Additionally however, Mr. Friedman and
myself have also taken the responsibility for reporting progress, participating
in meetings, and presenting progress reports within the Board of Directors
sessions when Mr. Hallisey may not have been present.
As the authorized representatives from Plymouth Creek, we regarded the
City Council's request quite seriously when we initiated discussions with
Vicksberg Village and attempted to collaboratively approach this task of
resolving the parking problems with a plan that we both could endorse. We
agreed early on last fall, that any eventual alternative(s) designed and
proposed needed to be presented as a comprehensive plan to address the range
of parking problems present within the apartments. It was quite evident
following the October 1991 City Council meeting that the parking lot(s)
approach in the absence of additional management directives, efforts, etc.,
would not resolve the parking problems in total. Consequently, when Mayor
B. Ruhberg
Page 2
Bergman closed the meeting that evening last October, he specifically
directed that Welsh Construction and its representatives involve the
Plymouth Creek homeowners or representatives therein in further efforts
to define the specific parking problems and to design a plan to address
these problems. This direction was given because it was originally
Plymouth Creek homeowners who had suggested that we work collaboratively
on the parking issues given the adverse impact the apartments had alreadyhadonthetownhomeproperties. Addition of parking lot(s) proposed last
fall, was therefore considered only a partial solution to this problem.
With this as a bit of rehashing of history which I'm sure you are alreadyfamiliarwith, I again reference your two June letters to our Board president,
Ms. Moore. Both letters contain several false and misleading references
on the subject of the parking situation which, we feel, requires clarification
and correction.
First, there should be no reason to question who the "authorized representative(s)"
have been from Plymouth Creek as you personally, have worked with Mr.
Hallisey over the past eight months. When you elected to contact Ms. Moore
to request attendance at our May, 1992 Board meeting, Ms. Moore confirmed
in your presence, that Mr. Hallisey, Mr. Friedman and myself have always been
authorized to work with you on this issue. This is not new information to
you. Your letters imply that you were unaware of this authorization with
whom to work with from Plymouth Creek. The fact is however, that you have
been very awarerof who to deal with as evidenced by your reference to Mr.
Hallisey in your June 1st letter. Additionally, if there was a legitimate
concern or question regarding the "authorization" of anybody from PlymouthCreek, you have had the past eight months to seek clarification! Raising
the question now creates a scenario which looks as though Plymouth Creek
has not been responsive in providing resources on this issue. Nothing couldbefurtherfromthetruth. Your raising the issue is a false and misleading
picture of the reality of the situation which could easily be refuted by a
review of our files on the discussions, proposals, and results of these
discussions over the past eight months, of which you were a part.
Second, you reference in your 6/1/92 letter, Mr. Hallisey's preference for
a proposed parking lot to be built on the westernly portion of the apartment
complex. You submitted preliminary prints to Ms. Moore with your letter to
insure that the Board of Directors of the townhome association had the
correct and most updated information." You sent this information to Ms.
Moore under the pretense that you were uncertain who the authorized
representatives were from Plymouth Creek, and therefore decided that the
Board president was the authorized representative. Unfortunately, as you
discovered, Ms. Moore thoughtfully reminded you to respectully consider
operating within the process which had been designated last October rather
that requesting an audience in the absence of agreement reached with our
committee on the parking situation. You chose however, to send your
parking lot proposal to the Community Development Director, City of Plymouth,
and to bypass the Plymouth Creek committee members. This, in an attempt to
hurriedly ensure that a parking lot commence this year.
B. Ruhberg
Page 3
Mr. Hallisey was also present at our May Board meeting to report on the
progress of the discussions and the proposed resolutions to solving the
parking lot problems at Vicksberg Village. His version of his "preference"
for the parking lot alternative over other solutions, is quite contrary to
the information you prsent. As the key resource and committee head for our
group at Plymouth Creek, Mr. Hallisey has always indicated, and we have
concurred, that any eventual resolution to the parking problems at Vicksberg
Village would need a combination of efforts to alleviate and resolve this
problem. You yourself, had acknowledged during our May Board meeting that
Vicksberg Village is an exceptional property from your standard apartment
projects given the large number of units situated on such a small, restrictive
plot of land. Given this fact, Mr. Hallisey has indicated that if actual
construction of a parking lot or some similar type of parking structure were
to take place, then it would need to be done as part of a total comprehensive
plan to address the parking problems. This plan would need to first, define
the parking problems, and second, provide activities, actions, resources,
timetables and costs for resolving these problems. Included in such a plan,
could be a parking lot, but only if it is a factor within the context of
the broader plan, and not the sole alternative.
Neither Mr. Hallisey, nor any of the Plymouth Creek committee members on this
subject, nor our Board of Directors has indicated a preference for a parking
lot in the absence of a total comprehensive plan which includes additional,
less costly measures and actions which could be taken prior to the parking
lot construction phase of a project. Your insinuating that Mr. Hallisey
prefers" the parking lot solution over other alternatives is false and
completely contrary to what Mr. Hallisey has in fact, discussed with you
and other Vicksberg Village and management company representatives since
last fall. Consequently, we have asked Mr. Hallisey to compile the
documentation on all suggestions and responses to these suggestions from all
discussions over the past eight months. We will provide this information
to the Plymouth Planning Commission and the Plymouth City Council in order
that they too have "the most correct and updated information."
Ms. Ruhberg, we have acknowledged all along, that when we reached mutual
agreement on how to resolve the parking problems, our committee would
approach our Board of Directors and then our homeowners to ensure their
endorsement and support. We have also agreed, that we would then petition
the City of Plymouth collectively in order that they, too, would know that
we had complied with their directive and had reached an agreement that Plymouth
Creek, Welsh Construction, Vicksberg Village, and your management company
could live with. It has been critical that we be in a position to support
any parking problem resolution(s) to our homeowners especially, given the
existing adverse impacts the apartments have had on Plymouth Creek. These
impacts have affected our property values which have been diminished partially
due to the apartment complex, have affected the additional pollution of the
Creek due to construction materials, etc., which have .yet to be cleaned up
in the creek, and the general impairment of the land between Plymouth Creek
and Vicksberg Village.
B. Ruhberg
Page 4
Your letters, and subsequent efforts to deliberately bypass the City Council's
directive to involve and work with Plymouth Creek are unconscionable, but
not surprising considering the past efforts of Metropolitan Life and Welsh
Construction on this project. Your submission of a parking lot as the
agreed upon resolution to all the parking problems existent at Vicksberg
Village falls short of the comprehensive plan proposed by our committee
and homewoners through Mr. Hallisey. The pieces of the plan which you
neglected to include, but which bear some review include the following:
The actions, timetables and resources with Steven Scott Management
will be taking to manage the existing and future parking situations
within the Vicksberg Village project.
A formal documentation from Steven Scott Management which outlines
the total number of apartments in the complex, the number of
parking spaces required by unit, and the alignment of all
parking spaces to allow for adequate resident and visitor parking.
The redesign plan for all interior parking and the timetable for
completion of this piece of the project.
The specific efforts and activities proposed by Steven Scott
management in terms of communication vehicles to better inform
tennants about the true parking situation within the complex.
If there is a parking lot proposal presented to the City of Plymouth which
lacks the abovementioned items and additional items from Mr. Hallisey's
documentation, then I can assure you that it is a plan that has not been
endorsed by, nor has it involved appropriately, the Plymouth Creek represen-
tatives.
Finally, your 6/1/92 letter indicates that the Plymouth Creek Board of Directors
may not have been interested in continuing negotiations with you, given Mr.
Hallisey's recommendation to this effect at the May, 1992 Board meeting.
Again, this is completely untrue and unfounded. By a review of your efforts
as of late, it is quite apparent that you, not Plymouth Creek, are unwilling
to negotiate on this issue. In your urgency to get a parking lot built, you
have completely ignored the process directed by Mayor Bergman last October,
and have adversarially bypassed the Plymouth Creek committee and homeowners
on this issue.
We remain committed to working together to resolve the parking situation;
however, we cannot have our efforts represented to the City bf Plymouth
under the false scenario's which you have presented. We respectfully request
that if you cannot or will not work with us on a collaborative basis, that you
identify someone else from your organization with whom we could work.
If you desire to discuss this letter and /or respond, you can contact me
directly at 4061 Quantico Lane, Plymouth, 55447 or at 559 -0087.
cerely,
J
B' SieverdinYc g
L OUTH CREEK BOARD OF DIREC 0
B. Ruhberg
Page5
cc: Plymouth City Council
Plymouth Planning Commission
lymouth Creek Board of Directors
Chuck Dillerud, Plymouth Community Development Director
Katherine McCarthy, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. - Chicago
Lisa Moe, Steven Scott Management, Inc.
Pat Hallisey, Chair, Plymouth Creek /Vicksberg Village Committee
Regular Council Me Ang
October 21, 1991
Page 407
MOTION was made by Councilmember Vasiliw,,
seconded by Councilmember Zitur, to ad t
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -647 ADOPTING ASSESS NTS,
ABATEMENT OF HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS, 27 KIRKWOOD
LANE NO. AND 3135 FERNBROOK LANE NO
Motion carried on a roll call votes five ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember asiliou,
seconded by Councilmember Zitur to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -648 APPROVIN FINAL PLAT AND
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR HANS GEN HOMES, INC.
FOR "SEVEN PONDS SECOND ADDI ON LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DUNKIRK AND STATE
HIGHWAY 55 (91062) (MPUD 9 -1).
Motion carried on a roll)ball vote, five ayes.
MOTION was made tylm:u il member Vasiliou,
seconded by Coun er Zitur, to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 91-64 SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE
MET PRIOR TO FILING F AND RELATED TO FINAL PLAT
FOR HANS HAGEN HO , INC. FOR "SEVEN PONDS
SECOND ADDITION" CATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF DUNKIRK LANE STATE HIGHWAY 55 (91062)
MPUD 91 -1).
Motion carried/on a roll call vote, five ayes.
MOTION was de by Councilmember Vasiliou,
seconded by Councilmember Zitur, to adopt
RESOLUTION O. 91 -650 ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS, CITY
PROJECT . 129, SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN
AREA, SFJFEN PONDS SECOND ADDITION.
RESOLUTION 91 -647
ADOPTING
ASSESSMENTS FOR
ABATEMENT OF
HAZARDOUS
BUILDINGS
Item *7 -G
RESOLUTION 91 -648
APPROVING FINAL
PLAT AND
DEVELOPMENT
CONTRACT FOR SEVEN
PONDS SECOND
ADDITION (91062)
MPUD 91 -1)
Item *7 -H
RESOLUTION 91 -649
SETTING CONDITIONS
TO BE MET PRIOR TO
FILING (91062)
MPUD 91 -1)
Item *7 -H
RESOLUTION 91 -650
ADOPTING
ASSESSMENTS,
PROJECT NO. 129,
SEVEN PONDS SECOND
ADDITION
Motion carried on a roll call vote, five ayes. Item *7 -H
Community Development Coordinator Dillerud stated Vicksburg
the owner of Vicksburg Village Apartments has Village - Increase
requested an amendment to the site plan and a Parking
conditional use permit to increase the off- street Item 7 -I
parking on grade. The Planning Commission
recommended denial of this request based on the
finding that the conditional use permit
application did not comply with two of the
conditional use standards set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance. Neighborhood objections related to
appearance of the vehicles, outside lighting, and
increased runoff into Plymouth Creek.
Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 1991
Page 408
The applicant had asked staff to hold the
application for one meeting before presenting it
to the Council in order to give the applicant an
opportunity to meet with the neighborhood. The
applicant submitted a letter describing the
results of those meetings. The meetings were
held subsequent to the Planning Commission
meeting and the information has not been
considered by the Commission.
Councilmember Vasiliou asked why the application
should not be remanded to the Planning Commission
if new information has been presented, consistent
with Council policy.
Coordinator Dillerud stated the only new
information has received to date is the letter.
No amended plans have been submitted.
William Scott, 15720 Rockford Road, #225, stated
he has been a resident at Vicksburg Village for 1
1/2 years. He is in support of the application.
He stated that they have been restricted in
having guests come to visit because of the
inadequate parking. He stated the current
situation is a safety concern, and the problem
has become progressively worse, particularly on
weekends. There is no on- street parking in the
vicinity. Visitors have to park near CUB Foods
or several blocks away in another residential
neighborhood.
Councilmember Zitur asked if the parking problem
could be the result of too many adults living in
some of the units.
Mr. Scott stated there is restriction on the
number of adults allowed per unit, and he has no
knowledge that this is a problem.
Councilmember Vasiliou asked if similar problems
are being experienced in other multiple dwelling
units.
Coordinator Dillerud stated that similar problems
are occurring in other locations, and cited
Parkside Apartments as an example. The standard
for determining the number of required parking
Regular Council Mef' -ing
October 21, 1991
Page 409
stalls has changed since these developments were
built.
Grayson Smith, 15720 County Road 9, #202, agreed
with the statements made by Mr. Scott. He has
experienced the same problems due to inadequate
parking.
Lorrie Smith, 15720 County Road 9, #202, stated
the residents of the apartments need help to get
additional parking.
Pat Hallisey, 4065 Quantico Lane, represented the
Plymouth Creek Townhomes Association. He stated
that the development was originally built with
344 units and 564 parking spaces. This is only
1.68 spaces per unit.
He asked that the Council uphold the Planning
Commission recommendation of denial, and stated
he was disappointed with the staff finding that
the proposed Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit
amendments meet the ordinance standards and that
the proposed screening would be adequate. Since
this is a Planned Unit Development, he asked that
the Council consider the request in a more
restrictive manner. He believes the proposed
plan contains inadequate berming and screening.
Mr. Hallisey stated that at the meeting held
subsequent to the Planning Commission, the
petitioner and his representatives did not listen
to neighborhood concerns. He stated the
petitioner tried to convince the neighborhood
that their proposal was correct, rather than
considering alternatives.
He stated the Plymouth Creek Association had
suggested that the parking lot proposed on the
southeasterly edge of the site be moved to the
northerly center. The petitioner's
representatives stated it was not a convenient
location for the apartment residents. Mr.
Hallisey stated that the petitioner was going to
do further architectural studies for
consideration by the Plymouth Creek Association
for review and comment before presentation to the
Council. This was not done. Mr. Hallisey stated
the Plymouth Creek Association is still willing
Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 1991
Page 410
to work with the petitioner on alternatives to
the problem.
Attorney John Ploetz, represented Welsh
Construction and Z & S Management. He stated
that Vicksburg Village currently has inadequate
parking and it causes congestion. The units are
85 percent occupied and 100 percent of parking is
being used. The result of an insufficient number
of parking spaces is vehicle parking in fire
lanes and handicapped zones.
Mr. Ploetz stated the plan meets or exceeds
current aesthetic /construction standards and will
improve the health and safety of the apartment
and condominium residents. The water quality of
Plymouth Creek will improve as the result of the
skimming and sedimentation /filtration ponds that
will be included in the plan. He stated the
property values of the adjacent condominium units
will increase due to the cleaner water. The
proposed landscaping and berming will enhance the
view of the apartments from the condominiums.
Mr. Ploetz questioned whether Planning Commission
Chair Plufka was impartial on this issue since he
is an owner and resident of one of the Plymouth
Creek units, and the Association has been very
vocal in opposing the plan.
He stated that the proposal mentioned by Mr.
Hallisey to move the easterly parking lot was
considered; however, the locations would not be
close to any of the apartment buildings and a tot
lot is nearby.
Councilmember Vasiliou stated she takes offense
and exception to the comments made about Chairman
Plufka. The first time this parking issue was
before the Council she had someone call the
Vicksburg Village leasing office asking if there
was a problem with parking. She was told there
was no problem with parking.
Regular Council Me ing
October 21, 1991
Page 411
MOTION was made by Councilmember Vasiliou,
seconded by Councilmember Zitur, to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -651 DENYING AN AMENDED
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND FINAL SITE
PLAN, INCLUDING SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT
VARIANCES FOR WELSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (91071).
The petitioner wai directed to include the
neighborhood in further redesign, and to relocate
the parking lot proposed on the easterly portion
of the site.
Motion carried on a roll call vote, five ayes.
RESOLUTION 91 -651
DENYING AMENDED
RPUD PLAN AND CUP
AND FINAL SITE
PLAN FOR WELSH
CONSTRUCTION CO.
91071)
Item 7 -I
MOTION was made by Councilmember Vasiliou, RESOLUTION 91 -652
seconde by Councilmember Zitur, to adopt RELEASE OF SITE
RESOLUTI NO. 91 -652 AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF SITE PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANC %
84(WAYZATA)
RANTEE FOR INDEPENDENT SCHOOL GUARANTEE FOR
DISTRICT 2 FOR GLEA.SON LAKE I.S.D. 284 (88036)
ELEMENTARY OL (88036) . Item *7 -J -1
Motion carried oNa roll call vote, five ayes.
MOTION was made by uncilmember Vasiliou,
seconded by Councilme er Zitur, to adopt
RESOLUTION 91 -653 AUTH IZING RELEASE OF SITE
PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT 284 (WAYZATA) FO PLYMOUTH CREEK
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (88035) .
Motion carried on a roll call'lote, five ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember a
seconded by Councilmember Zitur, t
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -654 AUTHORIZING R
PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR INDEPENDE
DISTRICT 284 (WAYZATA) FOR PLYMOUTH
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOCATED AT 16005
NORTH (90072) .
siliou,
adopt
OF SITE
41ST 'XVENUE
Motion carried on a roll call vote, five
MOTION was made by Councilmember Vasiliou, \
seconded by Councilmember Zitur, to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -655 AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF SITE
PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR PHEASANT TRAIL
INVESTORS FOR PHEASANT TRAIL TOWNHOMES LOCATED
SOUTH OF 53RD AVENUE NORTH AND EAST OF XIMINES
LANE (87107).
RESOLUTION 91 -653
RELEASE OF SITE
PERFORMANCE
GUARANTEE FOR
I.S.D. 284 (88035)
Item *7 -J -2
RESOLUTION 91 -654
RELEASE OF SITE
PERFORMANCE
GUARANTEE FOR
I.S.D. 284 (90072)
Item *7 -J -3
RESOLUTION 91 -655
RELEASE OF SITE
PERFORMANCE
LARANTEE FOR
P SANT TRAIL
TO HOMES ( 87107 )
Item *7 -J -4
Rip
lV,.. . —.
on
ii u, r w
tt• : \'Ili .,,• ..,,
MEN
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 91- 651
DENYING AN AMENDED RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND FINAL SITE PLAN, INCLUDING SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT
VARIANCES FOR WELSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (91071)
WHEREAS, Welsh Construction Company has requested an Amended Residential
Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit and Final Site Plan
including Shoreland Overlay District Variances to increase offstreet parking
by 101 parking places on an existing site for Vicksburg Village Apartments
located at 15700 Rockford Road; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends denial;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request of Welsh
Construction Company for an Amended Residential Planned Unit Development Plan
and Conditional Use Permit and Final Site Plan including Shoreland Overlay
District Variances to increase offstreet parking by 101 parking places on an
existing site for Vicksburg Village Apartments located at 15700 Rockford Road
based on the following findings:
1. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will
be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or
comfort.
2. The conditional use will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted
and will substantially diminish and impair property values within the
neighborhood.
Adopted by the City Council on October 21, 1991.
res /pc /91071)
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 1991
Page 171
and what controls are in place to insure the s
family homes.will be built on the site.
Chairman Plufka stated that
anything but single family
replatted or combined.
e
lots are not large qoFugh for
homes, but said thgf could be
Coordinator Dillerud stated he has not seejrthis happen.
Chairman Plufka closed the Public Hear
Commissioner Stulberg stated
with the condition for access
A, and said this access shoul
the petitioner and the City C9
that is not comfortable
to a site through Outlot
i worked out with staff,
cil.
MOTION by Commissioner S berg, seconded by Commissioner
Stimson to recommend -oval of the request by Custom
Building Concepts, I for a Preliminary Plat to divide a
5.20 acre parcel to 9 single family lots, Variance
regarding lot de and Rezoning from FRO to R -2 for
property locat at the intersection of Northwest
Boulevard at h Avenue North.
City Engin r Faulkner stated
an ease to the site and
show this access will be
on adjoining property.
that the outlot will provide
the petitioner will need to
accomplished for 1 or 2 lots
Chairman Plufka introduced the request by Welsh
Construction Company for an Amendment to the RPUD
Preliminary Plan /Conditional Use Permit, Final Site Plan,
and Shoreland Management Variances, to increase offstreet
parking by 101 places at the Vicksburg Village Apartments
at 15700 Rockford Road.
Coordinator Dillerud reviewed the September 16, 1991 staff
report.
Chairman Plufka asked for an explanation of the parking
shortage complaints previously expressed before the City
Council.
Coordinator Dillerud stated that residents of the project
complained in August, 1990 that some people were parking
in fire lanes and driving lanes. The City Council asked
for a management plan from owners which would eliminate
the problem of parking in prohibited areas.
Chairman Plufka asked if this is still a problem.
MOTION TO APPROVE
WELSH CONSTRUCTION CO.
91071)
I.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 1991
Page 172
Chairman Plufka read a letter from Ceil Strauss of the
Department of Natural. Resources in which she stated DNR
opposition to the increase in impervious coverage on the
site over 30 percent. He also read the Conditional Use
Permit and Variance criteria.
Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. John Ploetz representing
the petitioner.
Mr. Ploetz stated that additional parking was needed to
reduce congestion on the site. He stated that cars are
being tagged currently for illegal parking. He said the
owners are trying to comply with current parking standards
and the proposed parking will be used only for resident
vehicle parking (no boats or recreational vehicles). He
said that landscaping will be installed to minimize the
effect on adjacent property owners.
Mr. Ploetz stated that the proposed northwest parking area
will be further away from the creek thus eliminating
pollution. He said he is open to suggestions on how to
reduce the amount impervious coverage.
Chairman Plufka asked what percent of apartments and
garage parking stalls are occupied.
Ms. Lisa Moe, Property Manager, responded that 85 percent
of the apartments are occupied and all garage parking
stalls are occupied.
Chairman Plufka asked for an illustration of the berming
height and landscaping.
Paul Anderson described the landscaping and berm on for
east side of the site to block headlights from .a lower
proposed elevation of the parking lot.
Mr. Anderson described plantings which would screen
without a fence. He stated that a 4 foot berm height
would be maintained, and that soil conditions are not
good.
Commissioner Syverson asked if adequate lighting will be
provided.
Mr. Anderson stated that lighting will be consistent with
the present lighting.
Chairman Plufka asked what hours the parking lot lights
would be on.
Mr. Anderson responded that parking lot lights would be on
all night.
Chairman Plufka open the Public Hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 1991
Page 173
Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. Patrick Hallisey of 4065
Quantico Lane.
Mr. Hallisey stated that he represented himself as a
property owner and the Plymouth Creek Homeowners
Association. He presented a petition to the Commission
from 75 -85 percent of the Association members. He stated
that proper planning, adherence to code, and sufficient
parking were previous concerns of the homeowners when the
development was first proposed. He said that the complex
contains maximum density with bad planning. He stated
that the high rental rates, because of amenities, causes
doubling up in apartments and the use of the amenities by
friends of residents.
Mr. Hallisey commented on the staff report recommendation
for approval. He said that items 5 and 6 on page 3 of the
staff report were concerns. He explained that homeowners
in the area are not concerned with the screening of car
headlights as much as screening the parking lots from
homes which are above level of the parking lot. He said
that he is able to look directly into the parking lot from
his home. He said the lights are also visible from his
home and should be screened.
Mr. Hallisey stated that an increase in parking spaces was
not the only way to solve the parking problems. He said
that landscaping is preferred for screening, but it must
be adequate and homeowners must be allowed to determine
the type of screening. He said aesthetics is an issue and
also homeowners want the agreement of the DNR and Bassett
Creek Watershed District for any increase in impervious
surface.
Mr. Hallisey stated Variance criteria are not met by the
petitioner since adjoining property values have diminished
since construction as per the City Assessor. He said that
the proposed solution violates the City Codes and is
injurious to surrounding property owners. Mr. Hallisey
stated that the homeowners would like to see a committee
formed by neighbors, tenants and the City to define
problems and look at alternate solutions.
Chairman Plufka introduced Ms. Mary Campbell of 4120
Ranchview Lane North. Ms. Campbell stated she concurred
with Mr. Hallisey's comments.
Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. Don Connors of 15565 -41st
Avenue North.
Mr. Connors stated that he is concerned with the pollution
of the pond and Plymouth Creek. He said he has studied
the pollution of the creek and has found an increase in
pollution of the water.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 1991
Page 174
Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. Jerry Massmann of 4069
Quantico Lane. Mr. Massmann stated he endorses Mr.
Hallisey's comments.
Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. Dan Sieverding of 4061
Quantico Lane North.
Mr. Sieverding stated he is concerned with the diminished
values of property in the area, which is 7 percent. He
suggested that alternatives be considered to solve the
parking problems. He said that the number of cars for
each apartment should be limited, and a possible solution
would be to fill in the swimming pool and use the space
for parking. He said he is also concerned with the
pollution of the area and suggested that the creek be
cleaned up.
Mr. Ploetz stated the units are 2 bedroom, and they are
trying to eliminate recreational vehicles on the site. He
said they have tried to address aesthetics with the berms
and landscaping. Mr. Ploetz commented that some loss in
property values may be due to the economy.
Chairman Plufka closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner
Zylla to deny the request by Welsh Construction Company
for an Amendment to the RPUD Preliminary Plan /Conditional
Use Permit, Final Site Plan and Shoreland Management
Variances to increase offstreet parking by 101 places at
the Vicksburg Village Apartments at 15700 Rockford Road
based on the finding that the request does not meet
Conditional Use Permit standards 2 and 3.
Commissioner Stulberg stated that it is not necessary to
review the topic of whether this request meets the Zoning
Ordinance standards if the Conditional Use Permit is
denied.
Commissioner Stulberg stated that he would like to see
something done to solve the problems of parking and the
pollution.
Chairman Plufka discussed lower property values and stated
that he liked the suggestion that the Homeowners
Association get involved in discussions with Department of
Natural Resource, and apartment owners.
Coordinator Dillerud stated that it seems the discussion
mostly relates to the east parking lot area. He asked if
the issues affect the west parking lot in the same way.
Chairman Plufka stated that both areas are affected.
MOTION TO DENY
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 1991
Page 175
Coordinator Dillerud asked the Commissioners if parking
should be considered anywhere outside the perimeter of the
buildings and if so .further discussion would be helpful to
staff.
Chairman Plufka stated that the motion is for denial of
the request, and not for tabling.
Commissioner Syverson stated that he had lived in the
Vicksburg Village apartments and there is a need for
compromise between the neighbors and the apartment owners.
Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION for denial carried on a
5 -0 vote.
was reconvened at 8:55 p.m.
VOTE - MOTION FOR
DENIAL CARRIED
Chairman Plufka introduced the request by Vision of G ry VISION OF GLORY
Lutheran Church for a Site Plan Amendment and Condit nal LUTHERAN CHURCH
Use Permit to construct a 60 foot bell tower the (91076)
existing church at the. southwest corner of Teakwo Lane
and 26th Avenue North.
Chairman Plufka waived the review of the Se 1mber 16,
staff report.
There was no representative from the c/
ta,
esent at the
meeting.
Chairman Plufka opened the Public Hear
Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. Bob representing
We lsh Companies for the Prudential Com
Mr. Bouta asked if the bell tower uld be 60 feet from
ground or from the top of church.
Coordinator Dillerud responded at it was 60 feet from
the ground, and would be built to the side of the church
in a notch.
Mr. Bouta stated he has noAbjection to the proposal.
Chairman Plufka closed Ae Public Hearing.
MOTION by ChairmpF Plufka, seconded by Commissioner
Stimson to reco d approval of the request by Vision of
Glory Luthera hurch for a Site Plan Amendment and
Conditional a Permit to construct a 60 foot bell tower
to the e ' ing church at the southwest corner of Teakwood
Lan 26th Avenue North, subject to the conditions of
t
1/
18.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: June 24, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 8, 1992
FILE NO.: 91085
PETITIONER: Ryan Construction Company
REQUEST: Amended Mixed Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional
Use Permit for Waterford Park Shopping Center to allow for
a second pylon sign of 54 square feet.
LOCATION: Northeast corner of 6th Avenue and Revere Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CS (Service Business)
ZONING: MPUD 86 -1 (underlying zoning is B -3)
BACKGROUND:
On August 24, 1987, the City Council, by Resolution 87 -540, approved a Land
Use Guide Plan Amendment and MPUD Concept Plan for Ryan Construction Company
on this site.
On June 6, 1988, a MPUD Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit was
approved for this site by Resolution 88 -308. The approval expressly stated
that the PUD Plan included no variances from the Zoning Ordinance
specifications, which would include signage.
On September 9, 1988, the Site Plan for Waterford Park Plaza was
administratively approved, including signage consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance standards.
On March 4, 1991, the City Council, by Resolution 91 -113, approved an Amended
Mixed Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to increase the
percentage of wall coverage by signs from 5 percent to 10 percent.
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 applicant proposes a second pylon sign along the west side of the site
adjacent to Revere Lane. TFe sign will be located within 4 feet of the
right -of -way line of Revere Lane and 4 feet from the parking spaces on the
west side of the parking lot. The sign structure is proposed to be 12
feet 6 inches tall by 11 feet 1 inch wide with 54 square feet of signage.
2. The petitioner indicates that this additional signage will aid in the
visibility and identity of the individual retail stores in the strip part
of the shopping center.
Page Two, File 91085
3. The existing 94 square foot pylon sign is located at the entrance to the
center off of 6th Avenue North. The sign is set back from the property
line and drive aisle 20 feet; and, 35 feet from adjacent parking.
4. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the Planning Commission
must review the requested proposal for purposes of evaluation against the
standards set forth in Section 9, Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a of the
Zoning Ordinance. Attached is a copy of the Conditional Use Permit
criteria along with the petitioner's response.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. At the current time, the Planning Commission is reviewing the Zoning
Ordinance criteria for signage. Part of this review includes City
requirements for freestanding signs. Planning Commission review of this
subject has not been completed as of the date of this staff report.
2. The setback of the center was a design consideration from the developer.
This is a typical center layout with parking in front, and a broad open
exposure of the face of the center to the main entrance way which is along
Revere Lane.
3. While no specific "hardship" need be established for a PUD Amendment, at
least part of the basis for this request is the inability of prospective
customers to the shopping center businesses to identify which businesses
are located in the center. The existing freestanding sign (on the State
Highway 55 Service Road) identifies three of the several existing and
future tenants within the center.
4. The underlying zoning of this PUD is B -3 (Service Business) but, with
respect to the shopping center itself, could as easily have been B -2. The
significance of this with respect to signage of the shopping center is
that a shopping center such as this in a B -2 zoning district is permitted
pylon (freestanding) signage based on the number of collector or arterial
street approaches to the shopping center. On that basis, once Revere Lane
is extended northerly to 10th Avenue North this site will have two
collector street approaches and, then were it zoned B -2, it would eligible
for two freestanding signs. This is the type of distinction with regard
to Zoning Ordinance detail that it often the subject of flexibility in a
PUD Plan - -or PUD Plan Amendment.
5. There would appear to be a number of options available to the property
owner to accomplish the signage "mission" being addressed without the
necessity for a second freestanding sign. These would include but not be
limited to the following:
a. Enlarging the existing freestanding sign.
b. Moving the freestanding sign to a location where better visibility is
afforded in combination with enlargement of the freestanding sign.
Page Three, File 91085
C . Redesign of the freestanding sign to place a greater emphasis on
several tenants of the center rather than just three.
6. Particularly because Revere Lane is a collector street, it will, when
connected through to 10th Avenue North, carry substantial traffic. We
find the proposed setback reduction from the 20 feet required by the
Zoning Ordinance to the 4 feet proposed by this application to be
significant, both in terms of the appearance of the streetscape, and the
potential for the sign to constitute distraction, therefore a hazzard to
motorists.
7. Requested is an amendment to the Planned Unit Development Conditional Use
Permit. One of the foundation principals of the Planned Unit Development
approach to land use control is that a measure of flexibility is provided
by the City from dimensional standards of the Zoning Ordinance where the
public good is not compromised in return for a measure of design
creativity and project enhancements from the developer. Here the
developer is proposing to increase the level of flexibility by requesting
signage in excess of the ordinance standards but proposes no corresponding
enhancements or creativity with respect to the design features of the
project.
RECOMMENDATION:
While the concept of a second freestanding sin for a shopping center where
two collector street approaches are available such will be the case here) i -s
not without merit based on the Zoning Ordinance, I can not find sufficient
basis to recommend approval of this particular proposal. The sign proposed
both is and looks like an "after thought ", and will detract from the
streetscape of Revere Lane -- particularly since it is proposed to be located
significantly closer to the right -of -way line than most other signs in the
community. Perhaps a sign with a theme such as the existing freestanding
sign, at a location closer to the appropriate setback line (which could result
in a need to alter the parking lot), would both serve the mission of the
developer in this instance and be more in the public interest, thereby
qualifying as a Conditional Use Permit amendment.
Consistent with prior practice I have prepared resolutions both denying the
Conditional Use Permit Amendment, as recommended; and, approving the
Conditional Use Penn t,,Amendment conkistent wy't!y the application.
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
eruct, commun
Draft Resolution Denying Amended MPUD Plan and Conditional Use Permit
Draft Resolution Approving Amended MPUD Plan
Conditional Use Permit Standards
Petitioner's Narrative
Location Map
Approved MPUD Plan
Petitioner's Graphics
and Conditional Use Permit
DENYING AN AMENDED MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR WATERFORD PARK PLAZA LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF 6TH AVENUE NORTH AND REVERE LANE (91085)
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company has requested approval for an Amended Mixed
Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Waterford Park to
permit a second pylon sign for property located at the northeast corder of 6th
Avenue North and Revere Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
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 request by Ryan
Construction Company for an Amended Mixed Planned Unit Development Plan and
Conditional Use Permit for Waterford Park to permit a second pylon sign for
property located at the northeast corner of 6th Avenue North and Revere Lane,
based on the following findings:
I. The proposed second pylon sign will endanger the public safety and be
injurious to the travelling public along Revere Lane.
APPROVING AN AMENDED MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR WATERFORD PARK PLAZA LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF 6TH AVENUE NORTH AND REVERE LANE (91085)
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company has requested approval for an Amended Mixed
Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Waterford Park to
permit a second pylon sign for property located at the northeast corner of 6th
Avenue North and Revere 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
Ryan Construction Company for an Amended Mixed Planned Unit Development Plan
and Conditional Use Permit for Waterford Park to permit a second pylon sign
for property located at the northeast corner of 6th Avenue North and Revere
Lane, subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and ordinances,
and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. A second pylon sign is permitted along the west property line of the
project. The sign shall be limited to 12 feet 6 inches in height by 11
feet 1 inch in width, with a setback of 4 feet to the property line and a
4 foot setback to parking spaces.
3. A total of 54 square feet of signage is permitted.
1' s•. 1 V •.
Pxx S=CK 91 S[ IVISIQT A
2. $fig. 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 recal lation to the City Oauril, 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 Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will prcmDte and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endangar 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 pe=tted, nor substantially duwu sh and
impair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not bpede the
normal and orderly development and impr+avement 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.
fo:= :o>pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/69
NARRATIVE
WATERFORD PLAZA - PYLON /MONUMENT SIGN
PUD AMENNENT /00NDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The following points are per Section 9, Subdivision A of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance:
1. The addition of a pylon /monument sign at Waterford Plaza PUD complies with the
City's overall Comprehensive Plan.
2. The addition of a pylon /monument sign at Waterford Plaza PUD will promote and
enhance public welfare. It will not be detrimental to nor endanger the public
health and safety. morale. or comforts of the residents of the City of Plymouth.
3. The approval of this conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity for the proposed uses
already permitted. It will not substantially diminish or impair property values
in the neighborhood. Quite the contrary, this addition of a pylon /monument sign
at Waterford Plaza PUD will enhance the broader desirability of Waterford Plaza,
thereby improving the property values within the neighborhood.
4. The establishment of the conditional uses will not impede the normal and orderly
development of improvements of surrounding property values for the uses permitted
in the district.
5. The addition of a pylon /monument sign at Waterford Plaza PUD shall conform in all
respects to the applicable regulations imposed upon the overall Master PUD.
1 A
It
MI_
a.Z
m
mix
I_ _
k_,
OW
1
o
e
r
4b
k_,
OW
1
o
e
r
j I
LP oil
I kit;
Till! "P
J11.1LJj ILI!
A
JIB
lit
Nm
am
0
n
rug
I
I
a
1
F3
1ZI-41
U->
IFE-)
ij
IN&W METAL COLUMW
STEEL COLLW W - SEE
STMTUCAL
TOUMD COWL. FOOTWG
SEE STX CTUtAL
FWLSh1ED GRADE
1171" • 1' -0"
METAL FKANJ W/ -i
FREFWL44hW ,
r
CALUNW COVtR
JUL 1 1992
CITy 0- i vi
COMMUNITY D6-VI: GF'P.1 114T UEPF
STEEL cam -SEE SIGWAGE bU KHEAD
STMTW.AL AaO&
12" . 1 ' -O"
There are no Community Development files related to this issue.
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 petitioner is proposing to attach two 30 inch by 90 inch banners to
the light poles in the median of Carlson Parkway. These banners will
include the Carlson Center name and logo. A total of 8 light standards
are proposed to :have these banners attached. This banner proposal is in
conjunction with the banners proposed on Carlson Parkway in Minnetonka.
The petitioner has indicated that the banners are maintenance free and
have a life expectancy of 2 to 4 years. They have also stated that they
will replace any worn banners.
The Conditional Use Permit is for temporary banners in City right -of -way.
2. The variance request is from the Zoning Ordinance 60 day maximum time
limit for temporary banners in City right -of -way. The Planning Commission
must review this request versus the Variance Criteria set forth in Section
11, Subdivision C, Paragraph 2d. Attached is a copy of the Variance
Criteria.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: June 25, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 8, 1992
FILE NO.: 92048
PETITIONER: Carlson Real Estate Company
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow banners to be
attached street light poles in the median of Carlson
Parkway.
LOCATION: Carlson Parkway Right -of -Way extended south from Interstate
494 to the south City limit line.
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: Northeast of Carlson Parkway is guided CR -2 (Regional
Shopping); northwest is guided LA -1 (Low Density
Residential); and, both sides of the south half of Carlson
Parkway guided as CL (Limited Business).
ZONING: Northeast of Carlson Parkway is zoned B -2 (Shopping Center
Business); northwest is zoned R -1A (Low Density Single
Family Residential); and the south half on each side of
Carlson Parkway is zoned B -1 (Office Limited Business).
BACKGROUND:
There are no Community Development files related to this issue.
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 petitioner is proposing to attach two 30 inch by 90 inch banners to
the light poles in the median of Carlson Parkway. These banners will
include the Carlson Center name and logo. A total of 8 light standards
are proposed to :have these banners attached. This banner proposal is in
conjunction with the banners proposed on Carlson Parkway in Minnetonka.
The petitioner has indicated that the banners are maintenance free and
have a life expectancy of 2 to 4 years. They have also stated that they
will replace any worn banners.
The Conditional Use Permit is for temporary banners in City right -of -way.
2. The variance request is from the Zoning Ordinance 60 day maximum time
limit for temporary banners in City right -of -way. The Planning Commission
must review this request versus the Variance Criteria set forth in Section
11, Subdivision C, Paragraph 2d. Attached is a copy of the Variance
Criteria.
Page Two, File 92048
3. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the Planning Commission
must review the requested proposal for purposes of evaluation against the
standards set forth in Section 9, Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a. Attached
is a copy of the Conditional Use Permit standards and the petitioner's
response.
PLANNING STAFF CObMENTS:
1. We are not certain that our current Zoning Ordinance standards anticipated
some of the more contemporary methods of personalizing and creating
atmosphere" in commercial /industrial or residential development projects.
We can find no provisions in the ordinance that would allow the light pole
banners that have become popular in many communities, other than for a 90
day period. Clearly the Zoning Ordinance anticipated any of these banners
would be of a strictly advertising nature rather than a project
enhancement - -such as appears to be the case with this proposal.
If this reasoning is accurate, the appropriate question would be whether
it is better to amend the Zoning Ordinance to address contemporary project
features (such as banners on a full -time basis) or address each proposal
on its merits using the Conditional Use Permit /Variance procedures of the
Zoning Ordinance. If this were expected to be a reoccurring request, an
ordinance amendment would be the most appropriate.
If, on the other hand, only a few possibilities exist in the community for
such a request:to be repeated, perhaps the best method would be to simply
use the Conditional Use Permit /Variance procedures in this and whatever
few other cases might appear in the future.
Since the opportunity for banners on public light poles (whether in
medians or not) are extremely limited within Plymouth - -and since most of
those opportunities other than here are within PUD's where requests can be
handled simply with a Conditional Use Permit amendment - -we do not
recommend amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate requests such
as these at this time.
2. We can clearly distinguish between this particular request for banners of
a project enhancement nature and similar types of requests that would
involve either site or tenant advertising. These banners would become
enhancements that identify a sizeable project with many individual parcels
and many more individual businesses. There are few other developments
within Plymouth that would fit the same criteria (such as Northwest
Business Campus or the Bass Creek Business Park).
3. The most obvious potential "downside" of this proposal is the certainty
that banners such as this will over time, if not continuously maintained,
become shabby and therefore detract from the appearance of the project
rather than work as an enhancement to that appearance. While Carlson
Companies have in their application indicated it is their intention to
perpetually maintain the banners, and we have absolute confidence that
Carlson Companies will remain "on the scene" to do so, we believe it is
prudent for the City to periodically review this type of project
enhancement for its continued contribution to the project -- primarily since
it is located on public property.
Page Three, File 92048
4. Based primarily on the foregoing we find the application, when conditioned
on periodic renewal of the Conditional Use Permit meets both the Zoning
Ordinance Variance standards and the Conditional Use Permit standards. An
appropriate condition has been added to the recommended resolution of
approval providing for renewal of the Conditional Use Permit at two -year
intervals to monitor the condition of and continued need for banners.
5. The request for banners in the Minnetonka portion of Carlson Parkway is
scheduled for their Planning Commission on July 18, 1992. We understand
Minnetonka staff may recommend limiting the banners to every third or
every other light pole from an aesthetic perspective.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend ap oval of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the
attachment of banne light poles the Ca on Parkway right -of -way.
Submitted by:
Char es E. Di eru , Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit and Variance
2. Conditional Use Permit Standards
3. Variance Standards
4. Petitioner's Narrative
5. Location Map
6. Petitioner's Graphics
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR CARLSON REAL ESTATE COMPANY
LOCATED AT THE CARLSON PARKWAY RIGHT -OF -WAY EXTENDED SOUTH FROM INTERSTATE 494
TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMIT LINE(92048)
WHEREAS, Carlson Real Estate Company has requested approval for a Conditional
Use Permit to allow temporary banners in the public right -of -way and a
variance to allow the banners to be within the right -of -way 365 days a year
for property located at the Carlson Parkway right -of -way extended south from
Interstate 494 to the south City limit line; 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
Carlson Real Estate for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for temporary
banners in the public right -of -way and a variance to allow the banners to be
within the right -of -way 365 days a year for property located at the Carlson
Parkway right -of -way extended south from Interstate 494 to the south City
limit line, subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and ordinances,
and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. Carlson Real Estate Company will maintain the banners and replace any
banners which fall into disrepair.
3. A Variance has' been approved to allow for temporary banners to be located
within the right -of -way in the right -of -way for 365 days a year versus the
Zoning Ordinance maximum of 90 days.
4. The Conditional Use Permit shall be renewed in two years to evaluate the
maintenance and continued need for the banners.
I i• ,N .7 • :•. I v •.I.
FROR SBL` CN 9, St_UIVISICN A
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Cm uLi.ssion for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a reoamrendation to the City Council, which
shall make the final date munation as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Mmmission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Chensive 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 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.
fonds :o>pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
e 11 , —zq 1 0 M'
1. That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or
topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, a
particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a
mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be
carried out.
2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are
unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not
applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning
classification.
3. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire
to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land.
4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Ordinance and
has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the
parcel of land.
S. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in
which the parcel of land is located.
6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of
the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public
safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
forms:o >pl /zon.stnd /s) 10/89
CARLSON REAL ESTA'T'E COM PAIN 1'
May 20, 1992
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
Planning Director
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Chuck:
JUN 4 1992
CITY OF PLYMOU i H
COMNIUNiTY DE1iELOPNIENT DEPT.
Because I am requesting a conditional use permit, I would like to
respond to the six points that the City will be considering:
1. The addition of decorations in the right -of -way will
not have any effect upon the comprehensive plan for two
reasons:
a. There will be no impact on traffic.
b. There will be no adverse impact on other buildings
of the surrounding neighborhood because this is an
aesthetic change, not a land or building use
change.
2. The establishment and maintenance of the conditional
use will promote and enhance the general public welfare
by adding additional beauty and uniqueness to the
heavily landscaped and tree -lined Carlson Parkway.
This decorative conditional use will not endanger the
public health, safety, morals, or comfort in anyway.
3. This conditional use will not adversely impact any
other properties in the area. In fact, these
decorations will enhance the beauty of Carlson Parkway
and add to the harmony of the Carlson Center
Development.
4. This does not apply because this conditional use permit
requires no changes in land use or traffic counts.
5. N/A
6. It is our intent to comply with all applicable
regulations.
2222 Plaza V11,45 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612- 333 -9898
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
May 20, 1992
Page Two
If you have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely,
CARLSON REAL ESTATE COMPANY, INC.
Kathryn I. Benz
Manager of Investments
612) 333 -9879
RIB /tlk
CARLSON REAL ESTATE COMPANY
a
NO
11
M .
oil lox Fil
am
I11 i ..
I
i
C0 !,11,11!1:2 to] ,,1:,!
I
Mom
STREET LIGHTS
NIl Allo 64100"11.1
1 A l ll •LNOI i sain
V
GIEAS
N
I2
W
W
Z
W
U
Z '
O
on
J
ir
U J #
0
I
Q
Q
o
0
a
1
I /
Zl/
r
i l
ITY OF PLYMOUTH
CITY OF MINNETONKA
N
T
z
z
O
U
W
n
W
z
Z Z
O WiAU
J
Q
U I
it Z
En
I1 U
I /
Zl/
r
i l
ITY OF PLYMOUTH
CITY OF MINNETONKA
N
T
Lill 3
C
A
R
L
S
O
N
C
E
N
i ui a
t
Lill 3
C
A
R
L
S
O
N
C
E
N
i ui a
mli
IL
z
24
7rZY,, 7
1 "71
q, 1) -
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: June 25, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 8, 1992
FILE NO.: 92049
PETITIONER: Minnegasco
REQUEST: Amendment to Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional
Use Permit to allow for an experimental fuel service pump
at a single family site.
LOCATION: 11525 -51st Avenue North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: RPUD 76 -4
BACKGROUND:
On June 6, 1977, the City Council, by Resolution 77 -269, approved a
Residential Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit for the
Schmidt Lake Woods subdivision.
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 petitioner is requesting approval of the installation of a vehicle
fueling appliance (VFA) to be located on the exterior of a Minnegasco
employee's home. Staff has determined that this would constitute an
Amendment to the PUD Plan. The VFA will pressurize regular house natural
gas for fueling a natural gas powered vehicle. The natural gas powered
vehicle is provided to the employee by Minnegasco. This is an
experimental project to determine if vehicle fueling appliances can be
utilized for residential uses on a commercial basis.
The proposed VFA is to be located 7 feet in front of the garage. The VFA
will have a 6 foot hose so the vehicle cannot be refueled while parked
inside the garage. The VFA is also proposed to be located 11 feet from
the property line. The side yard setback in this Planned Unit Development
is 10 feet.
2. The proposal includes two posts to prevent vehicles from bumping into the
VFA.
Page Two, File 92049
3. The proposal includes two plants to screen the VFA from the street. The
plan does not indicate the type or size of the landscaping.
4. The petitioner has provided information showing that the 45 dba noise
level generated by the vehicle fueling pump is less than a window air
conditioner which generates 50 dba. The 45 -50 dba is listed as moderate
noise in the 1989 Fundamentals Handbook of the American Society of Heating
and Refrigeration Association for Engineers, Chapter 7.2.
5. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the Planning Commission
must review the requested proposal for purposes of evaluation against the
standards set forth in Section 9, Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a. A copy of
the Conditional Use Permit criteria is attached along with the
petitioner's narrative.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Staff finds that the Landscape Plan does not provide effective screening
of the VFA from the street or from the adjoining property. The Landscape
Plan should be modified to require coniferous plantings of at least 28
inches in height at the time of planting. The VFA is 28 inches in height.
In addition, two additional plants should be placed on the east side of
the VFA to screen the VFA from the adjacent lot.
2. Staff finds that the noise level generated by the VFA is within the
acceptable noise levels in a residential area.
3. Staff finds that the request meets the Conditional Use Permit criteria as
an experimental project, based on the conditions listed in the draft
resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the installation
of a vehicle fuel ino,anliance at a_ residential site.
Submitted by:
nity Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution Approving an Amended RPUD Plan and Conditional Use Permit
2. Conditional Use Permit Standards
3. Petitioner's Narrative
4. Location Map
5. Petitioner's Graphics
APPROVING AMENDED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
MINNEGASCO LOCATED AT 11525 -51ST AVENUE NORTH (92049)
WHEREAS, Minnegasco has requested approval for an Amended Planned Unit
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to install a vehicle fueling
appliance for property located at 11525 -51st Avenue 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 should and hereby does approve the request by
Minnegasco for an Amended Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use
Permit to install a vehicle fueling appliance for property located at 11525-
51st Avenue North, subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and ordinances,
and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
3. No signage is allowed relative to the use.
4. The Landscape Plan shall include 4 coniferous plantings of 28 inches in
height at the time of planting, 2 in front and 2 on the east side of the
VFA to screen the vehicle fueling applicance from the street and from the
adjacent property.
5. This Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to renewal one year from the
date of this resolution. At that time the need for subsequent annual
renewals shall be considered.
i
i
PKX SWnCN 9, S--- IVISICK A
2. Pte. Before any Conditional Use Pe=t 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 re=,via elation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Catmission shall review the application and consider its
conformw -ce with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Caq=ehensive 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 pe=Litted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
property for uses perntitted 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.
formsso >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
FACTORY DIRECT
DEDICATED NATURAL GAS VEHICLES
AND
RESIDENTIAL FUELING APPLIANCES
THREE YEAR TEST PROJECT
Overview
1992 Objective
1992 Scope
1992 Program Measurement
1992 Schedule
MINNEGASCO N.G.V. TEAM
MAY 1, 1992
i t60TTS-50N
I
OVERVIEW
Minnegasco plans to expand its Natural Gas Vehicle program by conducting a test
over the next three years which will include the installation of a maximum of twenty
Vehicle Fueling Appliances (V.F.A.'s) at the residences of company employees in
the Metro area. Along with the V.F.A.'s these employees will receive factory
dedicated Natural Gas Vehicles (N.G.V.'s).
Minnegasco will train these employees on the use and safety features of the
V.F.A.'s and vehicles, as well as conduct monthly safety and maintenance
inspections. All V.F.A's and dedicated vehicles will be Minnegasco owned and
operated by Minnegasco employees only.
The installation of the V.F.A's will occur upon approval from the Zoning, Planning,
and Fire authorities from each jurisdiction. The V.F.A.'s will be installed for outdoor
fueling only such that point of transfer (end of hose) will not allow for indoor
fueling.
Annual and final reports on test program findings will be available to interested
state and local officials upon request. Safety, reliability, and economics will
eventually determine future commercial market opportunity in Minnegasco's service
territory.
1992 OBJECTIVE
To field test manufacturer's dedicated natural gas vehicles in conjunction with the
home vehicle fueling appliance concept.
To evaluate equipment and vehicle durability, reliability, driver acceptance, and
installation costs.
1992 SCOPE
Place (6) Dodge B250/350 full size vans, (2) G.M Sierra 3/4 ton pick -up trucks in
residential application for fueling by ( 8) Fuel Maker fueling appliances.
The fueling appliance offers opportunities to fuel fleet vehicles which are not
centrally based, and traditionally would not be considered candidates for natural
gas fuel. These new products will be introduced and evaluated in Minnegasco's
fleet to assist and support OEM's in the development of the alternate fuels market,
as well as determine actual installation and operating cost savings. Vehicle fueling
appliances will be installed at residences of drivers who volunteer to participate in
this program and accept dedicated natural gas vehicles.
Minnegasco will fund all installation and operating costs associated with these
dedicated vehicles and fueling appliances. Residential locations will be kept in
close proximity to company yards that are compressor equipped to serve as back-
up for the at -home fueling appliance. Expansion of this program in 1993 and
beyond will depend on operating experience and driver acceptance.
1992 PROGRAM MEASUREMENT
VEHICLES - Operating and maintenance data will be tracked. The monthly gas
consumption will be inputted based on 125SCF as the equivalent to a gallon of
gasoline.
FUELING APPLIANCES - Maintenance and repairs that result from monthly checks
or unanticipated downtime will also be tracked.
DRIVER ACCEPTANCE - Survey will be utilized on a semi - annual basis.
acair.rvgv
Cl 2 0ek 9
Conditional Use Permit
for Minnegasco's V.F.A. Installation
Minnegasco requests Planning Commission approval for the installation of a Vehicle
Fueling Appliance (V.F.A.) at the residence of Robert Yerxa of 11525 51st Avenue North,
a Minnegasco Appliance Serviceman.
The V.F.A. fuels a Minnegasco owned factory built dedicated Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV)
by compressing regular house pressure natural gas. No gas storage is involved (other
than on board vehicle storage).
The V.F.A. meets the American Gas Associates (AGA) listing requirements for safety and
use in outdoor residential applications. The unit will be installed per manufacturer's
specifications as well as National Fire Protection Association (N.F.P.A. #52) Standards
for Compressed Natural Gas Vehicular Fuel Systems.
The unit will be located next to the driveway and in front of the garage, per request of
state and local Plymouth Fire Marshals. The V.F.A. installation is similar in appearance
to an air conditioner, but approximately half the size and quieter (40% less noise output).
The attached overview explaining Minnegasco's V.F.A. program has been included for
your information.
Alp
attachment
W
TS11C_i
IL 1E
MEMO
z::i" uml
N 0/
NMINI
R.. TP aw!t
i osAP m w a -j,
Iwewo
in
6
tomii ," /1,j ,
lab
OWN r
I II:i.l 1i Nonni
i .!a llill_ 11 tI'mr!
fil
IL 1E
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: June 25, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 8, 1992
FILE NO.: 92050
PETITIONER: U.S. Homes Corporation
REQUEST: Amended Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use
Permit to allow for fencing over 3 feet in height in the
front yard.
LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 5, Bridlewood Farm.
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: RPUD 90 -2
BACKGROUND:
On December 10, 1990, the City Council, by Resolution 90 -771 approved a
Residential Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan /Plat, Conditional Use
Permit, and Rezoning for U.S. Homes Corporation.
On July 1, 1991, the City Council, by Resolution 91 -354, approved a Final Plat
for Thompson Land Development for Bridlewood Farm.
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 petitioner is requesting approval of the placement of a fence in
excess of the 3 foot height standard in the front yard on Lot 1, Block 8.
The proposed fence is to be 6 feet in height. Only a 15 foot 6 inch
section of the 40 foot fence will exceed 3 feet in height. The fence is
to consist of cut field stone with the Bridlewood Farm signage placed on
the fence. The signage is in compliance with Zoning Ordinance standards.
2. The petitioner has indicated that they will amend the Declaration of
Covenants for the subdivision to include Homeowners Association
maintenance of the proposed fencing and landscaping within the easements
along Medina Road.
3. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted or amended, the Planning
Commission shall review the requested proposal for purposes of evaluation
against the standards set forth in Section 9, Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a.
A copy of the Conditional Use Permit criteria along with the petitioner's
narrative is attached.
Page Two, File 92050
4. The Planning Commission must also consider this request in terms of the
Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan /Plat criteria found in Section
9, Subdivision B, Paragraph 5, of the Zoning Ordinance. We have attached
a copy of this criteria.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Staff finds that the proposed request meets the criteria for Conditional
Use Permits. Staff finds that the increased height and size of the fence
does not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the
surrounding property and will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the subdivision.
2. Staff's primary concern, maintenance of the fencing, has been satisfied
with the petitioner's proposal to require the Homeowners Association to
maintain the fence.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the attached resolution approving the Amended
Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow for
increased height of nce from 3 fe to 6 feet.
Submitted by: 011
Charles E. Dil erud, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution Approving Amended Planned Unit Development Plan and
Conditional Use Permit
2. Conditional Use Permit Standards
3. PUD Plan Standards
4. Petitioner's Narrative
5. Location Map
6. Petitioner's Graphics
0
0
APPROVING AMENDED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
U.S. HOMES LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 5, BRIDLEWOOD FARM (92050)
WHEREAS, U.S. Homes Corporation has requested approval for an Amended Planned
Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to permit a 6 foot high
fence to be located in the front yard for property located at Lot 1, Block 5,
Bridlewood Farm; 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
U.S. Homes Corporation for an Amended Planned Unit Development Plan and
Conditional Use Permit to permit a 6 foot high fence to be located in the
front yard for property located at Lot 1, Block 5, Bridlewood Farm, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and ordinances,
and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The Homeowners Association Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions shall
be amended and recorded with Hennepin County to provide for Homeowners
Association maintenance and upkeep of the fencing prior to issuance of the
fence permit.
FROM S=GN 91 SUBDIVISIGN A
MFe19 zi
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a 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 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 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
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
P.U.D. CRITERIA
The Planning Commission, after holding the public hearing, shall make its
recommendations to the City Council for approval; approval with conditions;
or denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a P.U.D., preliminary plat and
rezoning if considered.
The Planning Commission shall forward to the City Council its recommendations
based on and including, but not limited to the following:
1) Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit
Development.
2) Relationship of the proposed plan to the neighborhood in which it is
proposed to be located, to the City's Comprehensive Plan and to other
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
3) Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities;
circulation and parking facilities; recreation areas and open spaces.
r
conventions:pl /jk /pud)
Planning and Zoning Application Form
Page 2
7. BRIEF DESCRIPTION oF-REQUEST (Attach separate sheet, if necessary):
To install entry monuments and fencing at intersection of Medina Road and Yellowstone /Urbandale
Lanes North. Entry monument and fencing to be owned and maintained by Bridlewood Farm Homeowner's
Association. Easements will be created where Monument and Fence exist.
rte ''C*T.11
ri)
r M
ra
ice F
lSRI=
m
I'
I 1
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DATE: July 10, 1992
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: James G. Willis, City Manager
SUBJECT: JULY 13 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
The City Council has scheduled a study session for 5:00 p.m., Monday, July 13 to discuss 1993
budget priorities. A light dinner will be served.
Attached is information about the 1992 tax levy, tax capacity value, and market value, and the
estimated tax capacity value and market value for 1993.
Two significant changes will occur in 1993. First, the tax classification rate for our households will
change from 1% for values less than $72,000, 2% up to $115,000, and 2.5% beyond $115,000
value, to 1% for less than $72,000 value and 2% for anything above that value. Similarly, the
commercial tax classification rate will decrease from 4.75 % to 4.70 % and 3.6 % to 5.4 % for
apartments. For the average Plymouth taxpayer, this will represent some easing in property tax
burden, all other things being equal. The legislation provides that the tax capacity value which
would otherwise have been provided by this half percent, will be made up by greater Homestead and
Agricultural Credit (HACA) Aid. The second major change is that levy limits have been eliminated
for the first time in many years.
I am hopeful that the Council will spend the available time Monday evening discussing its
expectations for 1993 service levels and priorities. At the meeting I will provide the Council with a
list of new positions which have been proposed by department heads in their 1993 budgets. I would
also like to discuss with the Council the following:
1. Funding sources and levels for street reconstruction.
2. Initiation of a storm sewer utility fund.
3. Creation of a centralized code enforcement office for point of sale and rental unit inspections.
The study session is scheduled to adjourn at 7:00 p.m.
SPECIAL LEVIES
rax abatements and
1992 1992 1993
200,483
Adopted Adopted Tax Proposed
63
Levy Capacity Rate Levy
3ENERAL PURPOSE LEVIES
254,000 44
City Special Assessments
eneral Fund 8,038,400 13.89
357,410
Infrastructure 930,818 1.61
2.30
Storm Sewer Tax Districts 300,034 52
Total General Purpose 9,269,252 16.02
SPECIAL LEVIES
rax abatements and
cancellations 200,483 35
1980 Park Bonds 363,000 63
1980 Storm Sewer Bonds 44,000 08
1987 Fire Station Bonds 254,000 44
City Special Assessments 110,000 18
HRA 357,410 62
Total Special Levies 1,328,893 2.30
TOTAL ALL LEVIES 10,598,145 18.32
LESS: HOMESTEAD &
AG CREDIT AID
HACA) 1,413,712 2.44
9,184,433 15.88
TAX CAPACITY VALUE $57,854,472 $53,163,336
MARKET VALUE $2,759,981,400 $2,789,728,100
1993
Proposed Tax
Capacity Rate