HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 09-23-1992So A a
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: September 15, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 23,
1992
FILE NO.: 92075
PETITIONER: United Power Association
REQUEST: Lot Division, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and
Variances for an Electric Substation
LOCATION: Southwest of the Soo Line Railroad at Interstate Highway
494
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: IP (Planned Industrial)
ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development) District
BACKGROUND:
On August 19, 1985, the City Council, by Resolution 85 -624 approved a
Conditional Use Permit for outside storage for vehicles and equipment for a
nonconforming industrial use.
The site was rezoned from IP to FRD as part of the Comprehensive Plan
reconciliation on March 12, 1985.
This property was previously used by its owner, North Central Lightweight
Aggregate (aka Aglite) until early 1981. The facility was constructed in
1957, and in 1958 the company commenced a mining operation for clay. The
aglite business consisted of supplying a light weight aggregate to concrete
block producers in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
In 1976, the plant was remodeled to include a new building to house the `
pollution equipment, provide storage for material handling equipment, and
office with lunchroom and locker facilities for plant personnel. The plant is
no longer in operation.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City
newspaper and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified. A
development sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The Physical Constraints Analysis shows this property to be located within
the Shingle Creek Drainage District; it does contain federally protected
Wetlands; does not contain any State or locally protected wetlands or
woodlands of significance; it does contain some slopes in excess of 18 %;
and, some of the soils are unsuitable for urban development with public
sewers.
Page Two, File 92075
2. The petitioner is requesting approval of a Site Plan for an electric
substation. The Conditional Use Permit request is for the placement of an
essential service building, and for a 99 foot high radio antenna versus
the ordinance permitted 35 feet.
3. Variances have been requested from the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance)
to allow for the division of unplatted property; for the creation of
parcels of less than 20 acres in size; a lot without street frontage; lot
width of 250 feet versus the code required 300 feet; and, a lot depth of
350 feet versus code required 500 feet.
4. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the Planning Commission
must review the request for compliance with the standards set forth in
Section 9, Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a of the Zoning Ordinance regarding
Conditional Use Permit Criteria. Attached is a Zoning Ordinance citation
and the petitioner's response.
5. Resulting from this property division application is a variance from
Section 500.37 of the Subdivision Ordinance. This section permits a
division of platted land, but does not provide for the division of
unplatted land. The variance is to al-ow the division of the unplatted
parcel by this procedure.
6. A variance is also requested from Section 500.21 of the City Code
Subdivision Ordinance) to permit the creation of a 2.1 acre and 21.3 acre
parcels versus the 20 acre minimum lot size in the FRD District required
by the Zoning Ordinance.
7. The Subdivision Ordinance provides for three criteria to be found for the
Planning Commission and City Council before any Subdivision Ordinance
Variance may be granted. A copy of the Variance Criteria and the
applicant's response is attached.
8. The Site Plan includes provisions to
west side of the property and to
south, and east side of the property.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
retain existing vegetation along the
plant new landscaping on the north,
I. Staff finds the _requested variances comply with the Subdivision Variance
Criteria.
2. Staff finds that the approval on this Lot Division will facilitate the
development of the United Power Association substation, which will serve
this portion of Plymouth.
3. Staff finds the approval of the Lot Division will not negatively impact
the future development of the remaining 20.3 acre tract.
4. Staff finds that this request meets the Conditional Use Permit Criteria
for the 99 foot high radio antenna.
5. Staff finds that this request meets the Subdivision Ordinance Variance
Criteria.
Page Three, File 92075
6. The Site Plan meets the minimum standards width in the Zoning Ordinance
for this type of development.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the request for Lot Division, Site Plan,
Conditional Use Permit and Variances for United Power Association Substation
subject to the cond. i s of a draft pesIlutio n.
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances
2. Resolution Approving Lot Division
3. Resolution Setting Conditions Prior to Filing of Lot Division
4. Engineer's Memo
5. Petitioner's Narrative
6. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
7. Subdivision Ordinance Variance Criteria
8. Location Map
9. Petitioner's Graphics
pc /jk/92075)
APPROVING SITE PLAN FOR A SUBSTATION, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR UNITED
POWER ASSOCIATION LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF THE SOO LINE
RAILROAD AND INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 494 (92075)
WHEREAS, United Power Association has requested approval for a Site Plan, and
Conditional Use Permit for a substation on property located at the southwest
intersection of the Soo Line Railroad and Interstate Highway 494; 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
United Power Association Substation for a Site Plan, and Conditional Use
Permit for a substation on property located at the southwest intersection of
the Soo Line Railroad and Interstate Highway 494, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing any open storm
water drainage facility.
3. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements within 12 months of the date of this
resolution.
4. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance.
5. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
6. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire lanes.
7. No outside storage is permitted.
8. No building permit to be issued until the Lot Division is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
9. A Conditional Use Permit is approved for a 99 foot high radio antenna.
res /pc/92075)
APPROVING LOT DIVISION FOR UNITED POWER ASSOCIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF THE S00 LINE RAILROAD AND INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 494
92075)
WHEREAS, United Power Association has requested approval for a lot division
for the creation of a 2.1 acre tract of land located at the southwest
intersection of the Soo Line Railroad and Interstate Highway 494;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the lot division
for United Power Association for property located at the southwest
intersection of the Soo Line Railroad and Interstate Highway 494.
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
PARCEL A
Tract 1
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section
10, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying south of a
line drawn parallel with and 50 feet southerly (measured at right angles)
from a line extending from a point on the east line of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, distant 1150.08 feet north from the
southeast corner thereof to a point on the west line of Government Lot 2,
Section 9, Township 118, Range 22, distant 972.4 feet north from the
southwest corner of said Government Lot 2;
except that part which lies within a distance of 100 feet easterly and 164
feet westerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the east and west quarter line of said Section
10, distant 305.12 feet west of the center of said Section 10; thence run
northeasterly at an angle of 86 degrees 51 minutes 15 seconds with said
east and west quarter line for 2300 feet and there terminating;
Also except all that part of the above described tract which lies westerly of
the above described strip and easterly of the following described line: From
a point on the above described line, distant 768.22 feet southerly of its
point of termination, run westerly at right angles with the above described
line for 164 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described;
thence run southwesterly to a point distant 210 feet westerly (measured at
right angles) from a point on the above described line, distant 1068.22 feet
southerly of its point of termination; thence run southerly and parallel with
the above described line for 1300 feet and there terminating;
Also except all that part of the above described tract which lies easterly of
the first above described strip, westerly of the westerly right -of -way line of
the public road running along the north and south quarter line of said Section
10 and northerly of a line run easterly at right angles from a point on the
first above described line, distant 681.78 feet northerly of its point of
beginning (when measured along said line);
1-
Also except that portion of the southerly 50 feet of the above described
tract, which lies easterly of the first above described strip;
Also except a triangular piece being all that part of the above described
tract, which lies easterly of the first above described strip, northerly of
the last above described strip and southwesterly of the following described
line: From a point on the first above described line, distant 131.78 feet
northerly of its point of beginning, run easterly at right angles with the
first above described line for 100 feet to the point of beginning of the line
to be described; thence run southeasterly to a point on the northerly boundary
of the southerly 50 feet of the northwest quarter of said Section 10, distant
115 feet easterly of its intersection with the first above described line and
there terminating;
Also except that part of the above described tract which lies Westerly of a
line drawn parallel with and 210 feet Westerly of the following described
line:
Beginning at a point on the east and west quarter line of said Section
10, distant 305.12 feet west of the center of said Section 10; thence run
northeasterly at an angle of 86 degrees 51 minutes 15 seconds with said
east and west quarter line for 2300 feet and there terminating.
And which lies Easterly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point 40.00 feet south, along a line perpendicular to the
south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, from a
point on said south line 650.00 feet west from the southeast corner of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence northerly to a
point 468.00 feet South, along a line perpendicular to the north line of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, from a point on said
north line 647.00 feet West from the northeast corner of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence northeasterly to a point 211.00
feet north, along a line perpendicular to said north line, from a point
on said north line 559.00 feet west from the northeast corner of said
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and there terminating.
Tract 2
The Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 10, Township 188,
Range 22, except that part thereof lying within two lines drawn parallel with
and 50 feet on each side of a line extending from a point on the East line of
the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 10 distant
1150.08 feet North from the Southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter to a point on the West line of Government Lot 2, Section 9,
Township 118, Range 22, distant 972.4 feet North from the Southwest corner of
said Government Lot 2; also except that part thereof lying between two lines
drawn parallel with and 50 feet Southerly and 100 feet Southerly measure at
right angles from the above described line and Westerly of a line erected
perpendicular to the above described line at a point thereon 169 feet Easterly
from its intersection with the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter.
To be divided as follows:
2 -
PARCEL A
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10,
Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying south of a line
drawn parallel with and 50 feet southerly (measured at right angels) from a
line extending from a point on the east line of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter, distant 1150.08 feet north from the southeast corner
thereof to a point on the west line of Government Lot 2, Section 9, Township
118, Range 22, distant 972.4 feet north from the southwest corner of said
Government Lot 2;
And which lies Easterly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point 40.00 feet south, along a line perpendicular to the
south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, from a
point on said south line 650.00 feet west from the southeast corner of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence northerly to a
point 468.00 feet South, along a line perpendicular to the north line of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, from a point on said
north line 647.00 feet. West from the northeast corner of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence northeasterly to a point 211.00
feet north, along a line perpendicular to said north line, from a point
on said north line 559.00 feet west from the northeast corner of said
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and there terminating;
And which lies Northerly of the southerly 711.61 feet of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
And which lies Easterly of the westerly 425.59 feet of said Southeast Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter.
Tract 1
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section
10, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying south of a
line drawn parallel with and 50 feet southerly (measured at right angles)
from a line extending from a point on the east line of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, distant 1150.08 feet north from the
southeast corner thereof to a point on the west line of Government Lot 2,
Section 9, Township 118, Range 22, distant 972.4 feet north from the
southwest corner of said Government Lot 2;
except that part which lies within a distance of 100 feet easterly and 164
feet westerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the east and west quarter line of said Section
10, distant 305.12 feet west of the center of said Section 10; thence run
northeasterly at an angle of 86 degrees 51 minutes 15 seconds with said
east and west quarter line for 2300 feet and there terminating;
Also except all that part of the above described tract which lies westerly of
the above described strip and easterly of the following described line: From
a point on the above described line, distant 768.22 feet southerly of its
point of termination, run westerly at right angles with the above described
3 -
line for 164 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described;
thence run southwesterly to a point distant 210 feet westerly (measured at
right angles) from a point on the above described line, distant 1068.22 feet
southerly of its point of termination; thence run southerly and parallel with
the above described line for 1300 feet and there terminating;
Also except all that part of the above described tract which lies easterly of
the first above described strip, westerly of the westerly right -of -way line of
the public road running along the north and south quarter line of said Section
10 and northerly of a line run easterly at right angles from a point on the
first above described line, distant 681.78 fett northerly of its point of
beginning (when measured along said line);
Also except that portion of the southerly 50 feet of the above described
tract, which lies easterly of the first above described strip;
Also except a triangular piece being all that part of the above described
tract, which lies easterly of the first above described strip, northerly of
the last above described strip and southwesterly of the following described
line: From a point on the first above described line, distant 131.78 feet
northerly of its point of beginning, run easterly at right angles with the
first above described line for 100 feet to the point of beginning of the line
to be described; thence run southeasterly to a point on the northerly boundary
of the southerly 50 feet of the northwest quarter of said Section 10, distant
115 feet easterly of its intersection with the first above described line and
there terminating;
PARCEL B
Also except that part of the above described tract which lies Westerly of a
line drawn parallel with and 210 feet Westerly of the following described
line:
Beginning at a point on the east and west quarter line of said Section
10, distant 305.12 feet west of the center of said Section 10; thence run
northeasterly at an angle of 86 degrees 51 minutes 15 seconds with said
east and west quarter line for 2300 feet and there terminating.
And which lies Easterly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point 40.00 feet south, along a line perpendicular to the
south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, from a
point on said south line 650.00 feet west from the southeast corner of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence northerly to a
point 468.00 feet South, along a line perpendicular to the north line of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, from a point on said
north line 647.00 feet West from the northeast corner of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence northeasterly to a point 211.00
feet north, along a line perpendicular to said north line, from a point
on said north line 559.00 feet west from the northeast corner of said
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and there terminating.
Tract 2
4 -
The Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 10, Township 188,
Range 22, except that part thereof lying within two lines drawn parallel with
and 50 feet on each side of a line extending from a point on the East line of
the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 10 distant
1150.08 feet North from the Southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter to a point on the West line of Government Lot 2, Section 9,
Township 118, Range 22, distant 972.4 feet North from the Southwest corner of
said Government Lot 2; also except that part thereof lying between two lines
drawn parallel with and 50 feet Southerly and 100 feet Southerly measure at
right angles from the above described line and Westerly of a line erected
perpendicular to the above described line at a point thereon 169 feet Easterly
from its intersection with the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter.
EXCEPT
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10,
Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying south of a line
drawn parallel with and 50 feet southerly (measured at right angles) from a
line extending from a point on the east line of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter, distant 1150.08 feet north from the southeast corner
thereof to a point on the west line of Government Lot 2, Section 9, Township
118, Range 22, distant 972.4 feet north from the southwest corner of said
Government Lot 2;
And which lies Easterly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point 40.00 feet south, along a line perpendicular to the
south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, from a
point on said south line 650.00 feet west from the southeast corner of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence northerly to a
point 468.00 feet South, along a line perpendicular to the north line of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, from a point on said
north line 647.00 feet West from the northeast corner of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence northeasterly to a a point
211.00 feet north, along a line perpendicular to said north line, from a
point on said north line 559.00 feet west from the northeast corner of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and there terminating;
And which lies Northerly of the southerly 711.61 feet of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
And which lies Easterly of the westerly 425.59 feet of said Southeast Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter.
FURTHER, that the City Manager be authorized to make the necessary special
assessment corrections based upon City Policy when the division /consolidation
is approved by Hennepin County.
res /pc/92075.1d)
5 -
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO LOT
DIVISION /CONSOLIDATION FOR UNITED POWER ASSOCIATION (92075)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Lot Division for United Power
Association located at the southwest intersection of the Soo Line Railroad and
Interstate Highway 494;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the following
conditions to be met prior to recording of, and related to said lot
division /consolidation:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. No yard setback variances are granted or implied.
3. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing open storm water
drainage facilities.
4. Submittal of all necessary utility easements prior to filing the Lot
Division with Hennepin County.
5. A variance is granted from Section 500.21 of the City Code (Subdivision
Ordinance) for the creation of a 2.1 acre parcel of land versus the
Zoning Ordinance minimum of 20 acres in the FRD Zoning District based
upon the request meeting the variance criteria.
6. A variance is granted from Section 500.37 of the City Code (Subdivision
Ordinance) to permit the division of unplatted property based upon the
request meeting the variance criteria.
7. A variance is granted from Section 500.21 of the City Code (Subdivision
Ordinance) for the creation of a lot without street frontage; a lot with
250 feet of depth versus the code required 300 feet; and, a lot width of
350 feet versus code required 500 feet in the FRD District based upon
the request meeting the approved variance criteria.
8. With the future development on the remaining parcel, a trail outlot will
be required along the north side of Schmidt Lake Road.
res /pc /92075.sc)
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: September 16, 1992
FILE NO.: 92075
PETITIONER: Mr. Miles Lindberg, BRW, Inc., Thresher Square, 700 3rd St. S.,
Minneapolis, MN 55415
SITE PLAN: (UNITED POWER ASSOCIATION SUBSTATION)
LOCATION: West of Interstate 494, south of Soo Line Railroad Tracks, north of
Schmidt Lake Road in the northwest 1/4 of Section 10.
N/A Yes No
1. _ _ X Have watermain area assessments been levied based on proposed use?
2. _ _ X Have Sanitary sewer area assessments been levied based on proposed
use?
3. _ . X _ Will SAC and REC charges 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 - Watermain area assessments will be
levied under City Project No. 213. Sanitary sewer area assessments
will be levied under City Project No. 015.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: Watermain lateral. sanitary
sewer lateral. storm sewer. and street curb and gutter will be
levied under City Project No. 213.
6. _ _ X Is property one parcel?
If "No" is marked, the approval of the site plan as proposed
requires that a lot consolidation be approved by the City Council.
N/A Yes No
7. X Complies with standard utility /drainage easements?
If "No" is marked, the current City ordinance requires utility and
drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and
six feet (6') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines.
If easements are required it is necessary for the owner to submit
separate easement documents executed and in recordable form prior to
the issuance of any building permits.) Outlot A only. Ten foot
drainage and utility easement will be required along the east
property and six feet along the south. west. and north property
lines.
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 (201) 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. JL _ _ 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 property, then this
requirement does not aovly.
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 Parks
MPCA
State Health Department
Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
X Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Wetland Conservation Act of
1991 from City
13. _ X Does the Site Plan comply with The City's Adopted Storm Drainage
Plan? If "No" is marked, the following revisions are required:
14. _ X _ Does the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan comply with the
City's erosion control policy?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions are required:
15. X _ _ Are necessary fire hydrants provided?
If "No" is marked, the City of Plymouth requires five hydrants be
spaced 300 feet apart. It will be necessary to locate hydrants in
such a manner that the site plan complies with Plymouth City Code
Section 905.05.
16. _ X _ Is the size and type of material proposed in the utility systems
included on the utility plans?
If "No" is marked, the utility plan shall be revised to indicate the
size and type of material.
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
Storm Sewer
3-
N/A Yes No
17. _ _ _ Is the post indicator valve and fire department connection provided?
If "No" is marked, they shall be included in the site utility plan.
18. X _ _ Are hydrant valves provided?
If "No" is marked, all new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6"
gate valves per City Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W -2.
19. X _ _ Are sanitary sewer clean -outs provided?
If "No" is marked, it will be necessary to provide clean -outs on the
proposed internal sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot
intervals.
N/A Yes No
20. X Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided?
If "No" is marked, Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at
the intersection of
and
21. _ _ X Are all existing street rights -of -way the required width?
If "No" is marked, an additional feet of right -of -way will
be required on will comply when the Lot Division /Consolidation A&
filed with HenneRin County.
22. _ X _ Does the grading plan comply with site drainage requirements?
If "No" is marked, the City will not permit drainage onto a City
street from a private parking lot, the site plan shall be revised
accordingly.
23. X Is concrete curb and gutter provided?
If "No" is marked, the City requires B -612 concrete curb and gutter
at all entrances and where drainage must be controlled, Curb Stone
may be used where it is not necessary to control drainage. For
traffic control either B -612 or curb stone is required around `the
bituminous surfaced parking lot. The site plan shall be revised to
indicate compliance with this requirement.
24. X _ _ Does the site plan comply with parking lot standards?
The City requires that all traveled areas within the parking lot, as
well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a 7 -ton
standard City design with six inches of Class 5 1002 crushed
limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one -half inches
of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be
constructed to a standard 5 -ton design consisting of four inches of
Class 5 1002 crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. If "No" is
marked, the site plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with
these requirements:
4-
N/A Yes No
N/A Yes No
25. X _ _ Is it necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's public utility
foreman, at 550 -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 tay.
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 No's 1. 2. 6. 7. 11, 12. 21. and 28
Submitted by: Z. 4 d
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
5-
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: September 16, 1992
FILE NO.: 92075
PETITIONER: Mr. Miles Lindberg, BRW, Inc., Thresher Square, 700 3rd St. S.,
Minneapolis, MN 55415
LOT DIVISION /CONSOLIDATION: PARCELS 10- 118 -22 -23 -0002 AND 10- 118 -22 -24 -0007
UNITED POWER ASSOCIATION SUBSTATION)
LOCATION: South of the Soo Line Railroad Tracks, west of Interstate 494,
north of 49th Avenue, in the northwest 1/4 of Section 10.
N/A Yes No
1. _ _ _X_ Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use
2. _ _ X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ _ SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Lot Division /Consolidation approval:
4. Area assessments: Watermain area assessments will be levied under
CityProject No. 213. Sanitary sewer area assessments will be levied
under City Project No. 015.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: Watermain lateral, sanitary
sewer lateral. storm sewer, street curb an Butter will levied under
City Project No. 213.
6. _ _ -X- Complies with standard utility /drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in
width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required,
it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents
executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any building
permits.) The easements will be for Parcel A only. 10 feet alone the
east property line, six feet along the south, west, and north
property lines.
N/A Yes No
7. X _ _ Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year
high water elevation and conformance with the City's Comprehensive
Storm Drainage Plan.
8. X _ _ Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots:
9. X _ _ All standard utility easements required for construction
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities
10. X _ _ All existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way to
facilitate the development. This vacation is not an automatic
process in conjunction with the platting process. It is entirely
dependent upon the City receiving a petition for the vacation from
the property owner; therefore, it is their responsibility to submit a
petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be
vacated.
X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
All existing street rights -of -way are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required on Schmidt Lake Road and
Fernbrook Lane as follows:
Easements for street and utility purposes
1. Fernbrook Lane: 40'
2. Schmidt Lake Road:
for trail purposes.
601, this includes the required easement
Submitted by: L..-JO/ r
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
2
2 0 -75
ME@HWE
August 14, 1992 AUG 14 1592
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
COMMUNM DMOPMW DEPT
B R W INC. City of Plymouth
Community Development Department
Development Review Committee
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: Land Development Application for United Power
Association Plymouth Substation
Planning Dear Committee Members:
Transportation
Engineering With this application, BRW, Inc. is requesting approval for three actions
Urban Design necessary to allow the development of an electrical substation generally located
on vacant property in the northwest quadrant of Interstate 494 and 49th Avenue
Thresher Square North. The property was formerly a gravel pit and processing plant operated
700 Third street So. by Northwest Central Lightweight Aggregate Company, Inc. Although the pit
Minneapolis, and plant are no longer operational, fee ownership has been retained by the
MN 55415 Trustees for the "Liquidating Trust for Assets of North Central Lightweight
612/370 -0700
Aggregate Company, Inc." Plymouth Partners 11, a limited partnershipFax612/370 -1375
controlled by Hoyt Properties, Inc., of Eden Prairie is in the process of
Minneapolis purchasing the property for future development via a contract- for -deed from the
Phoenix Trust. United Power Association (UPA) has negotiated the purchase of
Denver 2.1 acres of the subject property for development of an electrical substation,
Orlando contingent upon obtaining necessary approvals from the City of Plymouth.
San Diego
Seattle On behalf of these three entities with an interest in the property, BRW is
requesting approval for the following actions necessary to implement the
Donald W. Ringrose project:
Richard P. Wolsfeld
Peter E. Jarvis
Waiver of subdivision requirements; a lot division of unplatted propertyThomasFCarroll
in an FRD zone for development of a facility without City sewer andCraigA. Amundsen
water services. This request also includes variances from the zoning codeDonaldE. Hunt
John B. McNamara for minimum lot size in an FRD zone, and from the subdivision code
Richard D. Pilgrim with respect to direct lot access from a public street.
Dale N. Beckmann
Jeffrey L. Benson • Final site plan approval for the proposed substation.
Ralph C. Blum
Gary J. Erickson
John C. Lynch
Paul N. Bay
Development Review Committee
August 14, 1992
Page 2
A conditional use permit for a 99 -foot height radio antenna which is a
part of the equipment necessary for operation and monitoring of the
facility.
This narrative is intended to provide, in concert with the other required written
and graphic submittals, explanation of, and justification for the requested
approvals. The explanations which follow are organized sequentially as they
relate to the three requested actions described above.
LOT DIVISION OF UNPLATTED PROPERTY
The attached project description prepared by United Power Association clearly
describes the need for the substation and the locational criteria which led to
selection of the subject property. However, lack of public services to the site
precludes rezoning and subdivision processes which would normally be utilized
for property within the FRD zone prior to this type of development. Although
improvements are planned for late 1992 and early 1993, the need for UPA .to
expand electrical distribution capacity prior to peak demand periods in the
summer of 1993 requires that grading and foundation work be completed in
1992 so that construction of the control building, installation of equipment, and
installation of overhead and underground powerlines can be complete by June
1993. Thus, even though the power station is needed, and provides an essential
public service, the construction scheduling requirements put the project in
conflict with the City's development policies, even though the use is permitted
in the FRD zone. The need for UPA to own the site in fee in order to obtain
financing for the project's initial construction and future improvements requires
that a subdivision of land, in some manner, occur so that ownership may be
transferred. Since platting is not an option, a lot division of the unplatted
parcel is the only available method of creating a saleable land parcel.
However, the FRD minimum lot size requirement of 20 acres is greatly in
excess of both the needed site size, including expected expansions for the next
10 to 15 years, and the financial capabilities of UPA for purchase of land for
the intended purpose. Therefore, although the requested lot division solves the
ownership problem, it must be accompanied by a request for variation of the
minimum lot size requirement of the Zoning Ordinance for the FRD zoning
district.
Development Review Committee
August 14, 1992
Page 3
The lack of existing public streets in the area combined with the configuration
of the larger parcel to be subdivided, and the most appropriate location for the
substation, also require that a variance be requested from the Subdivision Code
requirement that all lots front on or have direct access to a public street. After
studying several options for the possible location of the substation within the
context of the entire land parcel, the northeast corner of the parcel south of the
Soo Line railroad tracks was selected for the following reasons: -
The location provides maximum separation (distance) from areas guided
for future residential development west of Fernbrook Lane.
The location allows overhead powerlines to the substation from the
northwest to be located adjacent to the Soo Line tracks where they can be
installed with minimum impact on vegetation and where they will be
subjected to minimum future disruption.
The location allows underground powerlines from the substation to the
east side of the Interstate to be installed with minimum disruption to
vegetation, wetlands, and Bass Creek. If the substation were located in
the western part of the site, two crossings of Bass Creek would be
necessary, and would occur in locations where future storm drainage
improvements for increasing the size of the culvert crossings under the
railroad tracks will occur. The location also allows easy accessibility to
the existing grade separation of the freeway and railroad for crossing the
freeway corridor with underground lines.
The location allows accessibility to the NSP transmission lines for future
power source without the need for additional transmission towers or
major structures.
The location helps maintain flexibility and efficiency for the future
development of the balance of the property. The need for right -of -way
for the future Schmidt Lake Road interchange in the southeast corner of
the parcel creates a rather awkward configuration at the east side of the
property. The proposed lot division helps resolve the remaining land area
by "squaring -up" the eastern boundary.
Development Review Committee
August 14, 1992
Page 4
The location falls within the Shoreland Zone defined for Bass Creek.
The substation requires a minimal amount of impervious surface and
therefore represents an efficient use of the property consistent with an
important environmental safeguard.
Unfortunately, public street access was not one of the benefits of locating in
the northeastern part of the property, but adequate access can be provided to
the proposed lot for UPA by utilizing a common access agreement and
easement across the property not controlled by UPA from 49th Avenue North.
A proposed access easement is illustrated on the survey showing the proposed
lot division. The easement would be granted until such time as the remaining
property develops and permanent access consistent with the development can
be defined. This could include either public street access or permanent access
by easement depending on the development configuration which evolves. UPA
will participate in the future platting of the balance of the property by including
their parcel in subsequent platting requests. This will prevent resolution of
permanent, appropriate access to the substation from being ignored or
overlooked in the future. Because radio - monitoring of the substation limits the
need for access to occasional equipment and site maintenance and repair,
access via an easement arrangement is perfectly acceptable to UPA.
With the above points in mind, justification for the lot division and variance
requests can be summarized as follows:
The hardship in this case is caused by the need for ownership by UPA,
and the timing requirements for meeting the demand for an essential
public service. These factors conflict with the City's development policy
related to public services, which is entirely reasonable under most
circumstances. Because they provide a public service, and because
development of their facility does not require sewer, water, or public
street access, the request is reasonable.
The requirement for a 20 -acre minimum lot size would create a burden
on UPA, and would effect adversely the future developability of the
balance of the property. The logic which applies to 20 acres as a
minimum lot size for residential land use in an FRD zone is not
Development Review Committee
August 14, 1992
Page S
applicable to the proposed use of the parcel. The proposed lot is of
sufficient size to allow facility expansion well into the next two decades.
The requested variances will not negatively affect adjacent landowners or
developments. On the contrary, the proposed configuration allows for
efficient use of the parcel by UPA, and flexibility for development of the
balance of the property.
The proposed variances are the product of unique circumstances. Just as
street, sewer, and water services are necessary for future development as
recognized by City policy, the demand for electrical service is a
necessary component of growth. In order to provide economical, reliable,
and timely electrical service in this growing part of Plymouth, the
substation and the variances necessary to implement it are needed.
However, the ordinances and policies treat this use as a development
rather than as a utility extension which would otherwise distinguish it
from uses which require public services for maintaining health, safety and
welfare.
FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL
The graphic submittals depict the physical development proposed for the initial
phase of the substation. The location of the first -phase elements, the proposed
grading and drainage plan, and the proposed landscape plan are all predicated
on the future expandability of the facility. A site plan depicting the "ultimate"
development of the substation is included to illustrate the extent of the
enclosure and equipment needed at full build -out. Based on the full
development plan, the Phase I site plan, grading and drainage plan, and
landscape plan have been developed to minimize future disruptions of the site
drainage provided, and of the screening which will be provided by the
proposed plant material over time. The following points should be noted in
your review of the plans:
Although not paved, the access drives and gravel parking areas are
located consistent with setback requirements for driveways and parking
lots as applied to the non - residence districts. Building and fencing
setbacks are likewise consistent with non - residence district requirements.
Development Review Committee
August 14, 1992
Page 6
The site can be rezoned without creating non - compliance to Zoning
Ordinance site development standards.
The gravel specified for the facility is purposely intended to minimize the
potential for rapid run -off and the transport of fines to the drainage
system and Bass Creek. Because of this fact, and the minimal amount of
impervious surface, we have not, at this time, provided siltation ponding
subject to the concurrence of Staff and the Watershed District. Some
capacity to settle out particles is provided by the riprap area adjacent to
the storm drain inlet. An energy dissipator and surge diaphragms have
been included to avoid potential erosion problems from water velocity
due to the necessary steep slope of the pipe.
The corridor cleared for storm drainage improvements will provide a
pathway for extending underground powerlines down the slope without
additional impact on existing vegetation.
The number of coniferous and deciduous trees proposed is in excess of
the minimum required by the Landscape Standards policy as it applies to
non - residential development, that is, a minimum of one tree per 50 feet
of perimeter site distance. Although the mix of deciduous and coniferous
trees is not consistent with the policy, the objective of providing visual
screening dictated the predominant use of conifers as opposed to
deciduous trees. Large deciduous shrubs in informal, "hedge rows"
provide screening and seasonal variation which would otherwise be
provided by deciduous tree plantings.
To the extent possible, existing grades were maintained where there was
an opportunity to provide some screening benefit. The proposed
elevation of the fenced enclosure at approximately elevation 969
represents a compromise between the amount (volume) of earthwork, the
locations available for placing material generated by lowering the
substation site, the desire to place fill where it won't need to be moved
again, and the ability to dovetail the substation grades with future
development scenarios on the balance of the property (refer to Future
Subdivision Plan).
Development Review Committee
August 14, 1992
Page 7
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The proposed radio antenna at a height of 99 feet requires a conditional use
permit in the FRD zone and also in any of the non - residence districts if the site
is eventually rezoned. The need for radio communication with monitoring
equipment in the control structure is an essential element of the efficient
operation of the facility, and of the consequent reduced need for frequent
access to the site. The height is dictated, as described in UPA's project
description by the need for line -of -sight transmission to their control center in
Elk River. Little can be done to minimize the visual impact of the antenna, the
height is dictated by features outside of UPA's control. The equipment,
including the pole, was selected to be as unobtrusive as possible. The NSP
highline tower adjacent to the site likely has a greater visual impact than the
proposed antenna, and should, in fact, make it less obtrusive than it might be in
other surroundings. In any case, the proposal does not conflict with the six
standards to be met for positive findings in favor of granting a Conditional Use
Permit for the antenna installation.
Respectfully submitted,
BRW, INC.
Miles Lindberg, ASLA
M1Jch
cc: United Power Association
Hoyt Properties, Inc.
File #1424C01
011171
PKi S M=ICN 9, A
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Cmulssion for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a re=uen3ation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial•
a. The Planning Cc mission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) Campliance 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 duninish and
impair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and it vement of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic-
congestion in the public streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
forns:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
1. General Qpat i ons . The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from
the provisions of this Section ( 500.41) as to specific properties when, in
its judgment, an unusual hardship on the land exists. In granting a
variance, the Commission may prescribe conditions that it deems necessary
or desirable in the public interest. In makiM its findings, as required
below, the Commission shall consider the nature of the proposed use of the
land and the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons
to reside or work in the proposed subdivision, and the probable effect of
the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. No
variance shall be granted unless the Commission finds:
a. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
specific property such that the strict application of the provisions
of this Section would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of
the land.
b. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
c. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in
which the property is situated.
The Commission findings in granting or denying a variance shall be in
writing and filed with the City Clerk.
2. ,implication Required. Applications for any variance under this Subsection
shall be submitted in writing by the owner or subdivider at the time the'
preliminary plat is filed for consideration by the Planning Commission,
and shall state all facts relied upon by the applicant, and shall be
supplemented with maps, plans or other additional data which may aid the
Commission in the analysis of the proposed project. The plans for such
development shall include such covenants, restrictions or other legal
provisions necessary to guarantee the full achievement of the plan for the
Proposed project.
forms:o>pl /sub.stnd /s) 10/89
INA r [oil 0 1 ivi r
0'
m
saw
i,. • =.:_" ice ..
1! MrMw i1
n
M,
Doom
Sol
i -1 ;'ITT
ENDv7/
1"u
ti, gal
NO
ME
1
3.8•
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: September 10, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 23, 1992
FILE NO.: 92078
PETITIONER: Pan -O -Gold Baking Company
REQUEST: Site Plan Amendment for a 490 square foot addition and
Variance for a Parking Lot Expansion
LOCATION: 3200 Ranchview Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: IP (Planned Industrial)
ZONING: I -1 (Planned Industrial District)
BACKGROUND:
On December 3, 1979, the City Council, by Resolution 79 -780 approved a Site Plan
for the construction of the building where the Pan -O -Gold Baking Company is
presently located. Also on December 3, 1979, the City Council, by Resolutions
79 -781 and 79 -783 approved a Lot Consolidation of two lots, and denied a request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a retail outlet in this facility.
On July 28, 1980, the City Council, by Resolution 80 -486 approved a Conditional
Use Permit for a retail bakery located in this site.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City newspaper,
and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. Section 11, Subdivision A, Paragraph 23 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that
for proposals requiring Site Plan review pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance,
City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, shall act as
the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals with respect to Variances from
the Zoning Ordinance proposed by the Site Plan.
The Zoning Ordinance Variance Criteria found in Section 11, Subdivision C of
the Zoning Ordinance applies to the Variance received in this procedure. A
copy of the Variance criteria is attached to this staff report together with
the applicant's response.
2. The proposed Site Plan Amendment is for a 990 square foot expansion for 2
dock doors and a Variance for a 10 foot parking setback to the side property
line, versus the Zoning Odrinance required 20 feet.
3. The variance request is to provide a larger maneuvering area where trucks
will back up to the building. The petitioner has indicated that the size of
trucks has increased since the building was originally constructed in the
late 1970s.
4. When this property was developed, a proof -of- parking plan was approved where
only the parking spaces needed for the actual use were built. This proposal
will not remove any parking spaces that are needed for the actual use of the
building and will not prevent the future implementation of the proof -of-
parking plan.
5. The property directly to the east has been developed with a parking lot
adjacent to this lot line.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Staff finds that the parking setback Variance meets the Variance Criteria
found in the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Staff finds that the Site Plan Amendment is responsive to the City's
Policies, Codes and Ordinances with respect to Site Plans.
3. Staff finds that the proposed parking setback variance will not negatively
impact the use of the parking spaces on the adjacent lots.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the parking lot setback Variance and Site Plan
Amendment as in o fiance wi tt reso tions.
Submitted by:
rles E. Dillerud- Community Development Direc
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Draft Resolution Approving Site Plan and Variance
2. Engineer's Memo
3. Zoning Ordinance Variance Criteria
4. Petitioner's Narrative
5. Location Map
6. Petitioner's Graphics
pc /jk/92078)
APPROVING SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE FOR PAN -O -GOLD BAKING COMPANY
92078)
WHEREAS, Pan -O -Gold Banking Company has requested approval for a Site Plan and
Parking Setback Variance for property located at 3200 Ranchview 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
Pan -O -Gold Baking Company for a Site Plan and Parking Setback Variance for
property located at 3200 Ranchview Lane, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements within 12 months of the date of this
resolution.
3. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
4. A Variance is granted for a 10 foot parking setback to the side lot line,
versus the Zoning Ordinance required 20 feet.
5. This Site Plan Amendment is for a 490 square foot dock expansion.
res /pc/92078)
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: September 15, 1992
FILE NO.: 92078
PETITIONER: Mr. Robert Gartland, Pan -O -Gold Baking Company, P.O. Box 848,
St. Cloud, MN 56302 -0848
SITE PLAN: PARKING LOT EXPANSION - PAN -O -GOLD BARING COMPANY
LOCATION: 3200 Ranchview Lane
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. _ X _ Have watermain area assessments been levied based on proposed use?
2. _ X _ Have Sanitary sewer area assessments been levied based on proposed
use?
3. _ X _ Will SAC and REC charges 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: 1J=
6. _ X _ Is property one parcel?
If "No" is marked, the approval of the site plan as proposed
requires that a lot consolidation be approved by the City Council.
N/A Yes No
7. _ X _ Complies with standard utility /drainage easements?
If "No" is marked, the current City ordinance requires utility and
drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and
six feet (6') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines.
If easements are required it is necessary for the owner to submit
separate easement documents executed and in recordable form prior to
the issuance of any building permits.)
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 groggrty, then this'
requirement does not avnly.
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
2-
N/A Yes No
12. X _ _ Have all necessary permits for this project been obtained?
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
DNR
MN DOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
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: Hay bales
shall be placed around the existing catch basins until the
additional barking 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. X _ _ Is the size and type of material proposed in the utility systems
included on the utility plans?
If "No" is marked, the utility plan shall be revised to indicate the
size and type of material.
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
Storm Sewer
3-
0
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. X _ _ Are hydrant valves provided?
If "No" is marked, all new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6"
gate valves per City Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W -2.
19. .JL _ _ 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. _C_ _ _ 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. A detail of the curb
shall be provided on the Ranchview parking revised site Rlan.
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 1002 crushed
limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one -half inches
of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be
constructed to a standard 5 -ton design consisting of four inches of
Class 5 1002 crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. If "No" is
marked, the site plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with
these requirements: A detail for the bituminous and gravel base
shall be provided on the Ranchview parking revised site plan.
4-
N/A Yes No
N/A Yes No
25. _ _ Is it necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's public utility
foreman, at 550 -7492?
If "Yes" is marked 24 hours notice is required in advance of making
any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and
water systems. All water connections shall be via wet taD.
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 No's 14. 23. 24. and 28.
Submitted by:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
5-
1. That because of the particular physical surxo x ings, 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 cut.
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 imcm 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.
5. 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
Planning and Zoning Applicat -i Form
Page 2
7. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF RECAIEST (Attach separate sheet, if necessary) :
PAN-0-GOLD Baking Co. is requesting a variance in the side yard setback on
approximately the Northerly half of the east property line from the standard
20' to 10' in order to allow our company truck traffic the needed mobility
to operate effectively.
GOLD
CENTRAL OFFICE: 444 EAST ST. GERMAIN ST.
P.O. BOX 848
ST. CLOUD, MINN. 56302
August 7, 1992
Planning Commission
City of Plymouth
Community Development Department
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
RE: PAN-0-GOLD Request for Variance
Dear Commissioners:
B al;irig Cc:),.
TELEPHONE 612- 251 -9361
MINN. WATS LINE 1- 800 -444 -7005
TOLL FREE FROM MPLS. 340 -9696
M E T E q W, E Mogul
AUG 9A i°°'
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
I believe PAN- O- GOLD's request for variance satisfies the criteria set out
in the "Variance Standards" checklist obtained through Plymouth Community
Development Department. I will address each of the "standards" in numerical
order.
1. The lot is somewhat lower than the road grade on the west side therefore
PAN-0-GOLD chose to locate the building as near to the east line as reasonably
possible to facilitate a useable exit grade. However, circumstances have
changed since 1980 when the building was constructed. The industry as a whole
has changed with the introduction of larger trucks. Trailers have increased
from 40 feet to 53 feet creating overall unit lengths of 65 feet today as
compared to 50 feet at the time the building was constructed. The east lot
area is 75 feet from the building to the setback. Route trucks that were
20 feet in 1981 have increased to 24 feet and due to new types of route
trucks used in the industry, up to 32 feet in length. PAN -O -GOLD needed
to expand to the larger trucks to remain competitive. Because of these
unforeseen changes what was once a reasonably sized lot is now quite
restrictive and hampers movement. A slightly larger lot on the east side
would greatly help our situation.
2. The condition upon which the petition for variance is based is unique
to this parcel based on the fact loading docks are located on both sides
of the building. Furthermore, if the variance was granted an ample
greenway with trees would still remain.
3. The variation is not based upon a desire to i I
income of the land. Rather, its based on wanting
attractive, and presentable facility. Photos are
ongoing destruction of the curb and grass that we
A01SOlMI
and problematic.
Country Hearth
q..&
crease the value or
to maintain a neat,
enclosed showing the
object to as unsightly
PAN — O — GOLD B along co.
Planning Commission page 2
City of Plymouth
Community Development Department
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
RE: PAN-0-GOLD Request for Variance
August 7, 1992
4. If not for the ordinance the eastern parking area would have been
slightly enlarged when constructed to prevent this problem. At the time
of construction trucks were somewhat smaller and this did not pose a
problem. Nevertheless a greater margin would have been included if not for
the ordinance.
5. The variation will not be detrimental to the public or neighborhood.
On the contrary, it should enhance the neighborhood, and improve neighboring
property values by repairing the destruction and providing for reasonable
truck movement.
6. 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.
Rather it will allow for better and safer mobility of public safety
vehicles and fire fighting equipment while trucks are positioned in the
loading dock.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
PAN -O -SOLD Baking Co.
Howard R. Alton III
President
HRAIII:lt
Enc:
M_
MWMWa
a`'u - I /l1111111i
AS
107= '
I W VA 10101i
o
win =j_ww-_
1 KI
BW
NONNI
M
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: Sept. 15, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 23, 1992
FILE NO.: 92082
PETITIONER: Baton Corporation
REQUEST: Residential Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Amendment
for Mission RPUD
LOCATION: Southeast of Larch Lane and Old Rockford Road
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: RPUD 76 -1
BACKGROUND:
1. The original plan for this 257 acre PUD was approved in 1976. This
approval was for 822 market rate units with an additional 20 percent
allowed if they were available for low to moderate income housing. This
allowed for a maximum of 988 units with bonus points. Several phases have
been platted and developed primarily with single family lots. Three
multifamily attached projects have been developed (Mission Ponds, Mission
Oaks, and Parkside at Medicine Lane Apartments).
2. The City Council under Resolution 78 -579, approved an amendment to the PUD
Plan which enlarged the single family area by adding 39 single family
detached units in the north central area eliminating 111 single family
attached units. The plan further eliminated 12 additional single family
attached units and 13 multifamily units and relocated the difference of 97
units to the west; 57 multifamily units were placed in an area northeast
of the pond with the remaining 40 multifamily units being added to the
area north of the pond.
The 1978 approval did not change the total number of units; however, it
concentrated the density to the westerly portion of the PUD, i.e., it
allowed a transfer of density to "future" areas.
3. In July, 1983 the City Council authorized eminent domain proceedings for
the original detached "westerly parcel: of approximately 38 acres to
acquire right -of -way for Northwest Boulevard. The PUD was amended by
Resolution 83 -348 to decrease the number of units based on the loss of the
westerly parcel.
The revised allowable unit count became 690 units, with an additional 20
percent allowed provided they were exclusively for low and moderate income
persons, for a maximum potential unit count of 828 units.
1 -
4. In 1983, approval for Parkside Apartments at the southwest corner of Old
Rockford Road and 41st Avenue North (which included an amendment to the
approved RPUD Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit), allowed the change in
types of units from "elderly" housing and "condominium units" to
apartment units ". This did not change the overall potential number of
units. (Resolution 83 -349 is attached.)
5. In September, 1985 the City Council approved an amendment to the RPUD
Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit to revise an area (the exiting
Mission Trails) which called for 62 multifamily dwelling units and 14
single family residential lots to allow development of 26 single family
residential lots, a reduction of 50 dwelling units allowable in the PUD.
The overall RPUD density was thus amended to allow a dwelling unit count
maximum of 640 units with an additional 20 percent for up to a maximum 770
units, provided they were exclusively for low and moderate income persons.
6. 471 market rate units and 70 subsidized units have been constructed to
date, for a total of 541 units. All of the 276 approved single family
detached lots have been platted. TFe—remainder of the project consists of
attached housing. A total of 169 market rate units remain to be
constructed, and a total of 60 additional bonus units could be constructed
only if they are affordable by low- moderate incomes, as defined by the
Zoning Ordinance. Together these two remaining components total 229
units.
7. This applicant proposed, in 1989 -90, an RPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat and
Conditional Use Permit amendment for the remaining 29 acre undeveloped
area of this RPUD. The Preliminary Plan and Plat proposed a
redistribution of units within the boundaries of the PUD, but no increase
in the PUD overall dwelling unit count.
8. On March 28, 1990 the Planning Commission recommended denial of the RPUD
amendment similar to the present request. On May 7, 1990, the Community
Development Department received a letter from the Baton Corporation
requesting that formal review of their PUD amendment be "suspended" until
a revised plan could be developed.
9. On June 28, 1990, the Baton Corporation submitted a revised PUD amendment.
After several requested extensions by the petitioner, the revised PUD
amendment plan was submitted to the Planning Commission.
10. On July 1, 1991, by Resolution 91 -353, the City Council denied an Amended
RPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit to rearrange
densities and change the type of dwelling units. This proposal showed 34
twinhomes on this site.
11. On October 21, 1991, by Resolution 91 -646, the Final Site Plan for the
Parkside Apartment portion of the PUD was amended to allow construction of
21 additional offstreet parking spaces. This expansion has been
completed.
13. Notice of the Public Informational Meeting has been published in the
Official City Newspaper, and notices have been mailed to adjoining
property owners within 500 feet. A development sign has been placed on
the property.
2 -
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. Planning Commission review at the PUD Concept Stage is for the
acceptability of the general concept, not for specific details. Concept
Plan approval determines the general dwelling type and distribution as
well as the densities approved in the project. Detailed review of
setbacks, grading plans, tree preservation, wetland mitigation and the
like is at the PUD Preliminary Plan /Plat stage.
2. The PUD Plan, as last amended in 1985, specifies, on the remaining vacant
portions of the site, 103 attached units south of 41st Avenue North and 66
market -rate attached units north of 41st Avenue North. In addition, 60
bonus" attached units are approved north of 41st Avenue North, if earned,
and if qualified by affordability.
3. The Physical Constraints Analysis shows this site to be located in the
Bassett Creek Watershed District. The site is not located within a Flood
Plain or Shoreland Management District, but does contain several wetlands.
The site does contains some major woodlands. The site also contains some
severe slopes located in the same general areas as the woodlands. The
soils appear suitable for urban capability with public sewers.
4. This application for a Concept Plan Amendment, if approved, will result in
an application for a RPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat amendment. With every
Preliminary Plat, including Preliminary Plat amendments, an analysis of
the proposal must be made in compliance with the 1991 Wetland Conservation
Act in addition to the natural environment analysis that have been
prepared for previous proposals. This State Statute contains more
stringent regulations than were in effect when the original Preliminary
Plat was approved.
5. The Concept Plan proposes to replace the 103 units in 4 multifamily
buildings, with 18 twinhome units to be located on the west side of the
extension of Jonquil Lane; and 10 single family lots on the east side of
the extension of Jonquil Lane. An outlot would be located at the
southeast corner of 41st Avenue North and Jonquil Lane. Also as part of
this Concept Plan Amendment is the conversion of the existing outlot in
the Mission Ridge 2nd Addition from its original intended use as a trail
outlot to private ownership by the adjacent homeowners and the relocation
of the trail to the interior of this site. The plan also proposes 3
single family lots on a cul -de -sac extension of 36th Avenue North.
Ownership of the remainder of Outlot A north of the 3 single family lots
is not clearly identified.
6. Section 9, Subdivision B, Paragraph 5 C of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance
specifies a written review concerning the following regarding the Planned
Unit Development Concept Plan:
a. Re.lationship to Surrounding Neighborhood - This site is adjacent to
developed land on the east and some developed land on the west. East
of the site is developed as single family with a multifamily apartment
complex located north of the wetland and west of Jonquil Lane. North
of this site is currently vacant land as is the land directly to the
south. The property to the southwest of this site is included i n the
Clifton E. French Regional Park. The property to the north of this
3 -
site is included in the same Residential Planned Unit Development and
the property directly to the east and south of the site is zoned R -1A.
b. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan - The Concept
Plan proposed shows compliance with all related City Ordinances to a
degree that such compliance can be identified at this level of detail.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Staff finds that the concept to eliminate the existing trail outlot may be
satisfactory if the trail can be relocated and still provide a connection
from Goldenrod Lane south to Jonquil Lane and ultimately to the French
Regional Park. The Concept Plan should also show trail access from 38th
Avenue North to the proposed north /south trail corridor. The trail along
Jonquil Lane should be located outside of the actual street pavement.
2. Staff finds that this proposal to reduce the number of dwelling units from
103 to 28 on this site does not negatively impact the overall intent of
the Mission PUD.
3. The type of dwelling units proposed gives an indication of the impact on
the natural environment that can be expected with this proposal. The
request for 9 twinhomes, and 10 single family dwellings and the 3 single
family houses proposed for 36th Avenue North may impact a larger area of
the site since the dwellings will be spread throughout the site more so
than the 4 multifamily buildings currently approved. The relative visual
impact however, may be expected to be less intrusive than the original
proposal which allowed for 4 large multifamily structures with surface
parking lots. The approved Preliminary Plan shows the multifamily
structures as 3 112 stories with an approximate length of 200 to 250
feet. The twinhome /single family mix can be blended into the environment
with careful site planning and tree preservation.
4. Current State wetland regulations require that any wetlands, meeting
specific criteria, lost due to development, be replaced at a 1 to 1
ratio. The replacement wetland must be of the same type of wetland as
was lost. This new regulation will require a thorough review of the site
in order to avoid as much of the existing wetlands as possible.
5. The remainder of Outlot A north of the 3 proposed single family lots
should be incorporated into a Homeowners Association property to
accommodate ownership and maintenance responsibilities.
6. The approved plan shows a private drive crossing the "draw" area. Private
streets can be designed with more flexibility to reduce impact on the
draw" than a public street which meets standard City regulations. Staff
finds that additional review of design options for the proposed street
should be included in the Preliminary Plan /Plat review to reduce the
impact of the public street on the "draw ".
7. The petitioner has proposed minimum standards for the single family lots
along Jonquil Lane. The proposal is for a minimum lot size of 14,020
square feet; a 30 foot setback; a 90 foot lot width; and, a minimum lot
depth of 120 feet. The Mission Ridge 2nd Addition directly east of this
site was approved with a minimum lot size of 11,250 square feet; a 35
4 -
foot front setback; a 70 foot lot width; and, a 122 foot average lot
depth. The lots adjoining this site average an estimated 19,000 square
feet; 77 feet in width; and, 178 feet in depth. The single family lots
proposed by the Concept Plan are estimated to average 24,033 in area; 122
feet in width; and, 187 feet in depth.
8. Staff finds the proposal to replace the multifamily dwellings with a
twinhome /single family mix to be compatible with the overall PUD Plan to
encourage a development which is potentially responsive to the
environment and to provide for a mixture of housing types.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend adoption of the attached draft resolution approving the
RPUD Concept Plan AK&ent. 1-1/
1'—i
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving RPUD Concept Plan Amendment
2. Engineer's Memo
3. Location Map
4. Site Graphics and Petitioner's Request
5. Letter from Mission Hills /Mission Ridge HOA
6. Approved Mission PUD Plan
5 -
APPROVING AMENDED RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR BATON
CORPORATION FOR MISSION RPUD (92082) (RPUD 76 -1)
WHEREAS, Baton Corporation has requested approval of an Amended Residential
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for the development of approximately 20
acres located southeast of the intersection of 41st Avenue North and Jonquil
Lane North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called
Public Informational Meeting and has recommended 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
Baton Corporation for an Amended Residential Planned Unit Development Concept
Plan for the development of approximately 20 acres located southeast of the
intersection of 41st Avenue North and Jonquil Lane North, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. No yard setback variances are granted or implied.
3. The Concept Plan provides for 18 twinhome units and 10 single family
detached units on Jonquil Lane North, and 3 single family units on 36th
Avenue North, per the Concept Plan graphic dated September 15, 1992.
4. Provisions for a public trail extension from Goldenrod Lane North south to
Jonquil Lane North and west to the French Regional Park shall be included
in the Preliminary Plan.
5. The remainder of Outlot A north of the 3 single family lots shall be
incorporated into a Homeowners Association.
6. Design options for the public street crossing of the "draw" shall be
included in the PUD Preliminary Plan /Plat review and recommendation.
res /pc/92082)
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: September 17, 1992
FILE NO.: 92082
PETITIONER: Mr. Richard F. Zegdlik, Baton Corporation, 331 2nd Avenue North,
Minneapolis, MN 55401
CONCEPT PLAN: MISSION PUD
LOCATION South of 41st Avenue, west of Goldenrod Lane, north of 36th
Avenue in the south 1/2 of Section 14.
This memo was prepared in response to the request for Concept Plan approval for
Mission PUD including multifamily and single family dwellings.
1) Our assessments records indicate that the property has not been assessed
for area assessments. The area assessments will be levied with the
Final Plat.
2) The applicant shall have the burden of establishing exact locations of
the boundaries and type of wetlands as determined by a qualified
consultant based on the State Interim Wetland Act of 1991. Drainage
easement for ponding shall be required over the areas determined to be
wetlands. No alterations will be allowed to the wetlands without City
Council approval.
3) The City of Plymouth has an easement for sanitary sewer purposes as
evidenced by Document No. 4147753. The legal description of the parcel
in the easement document appears to contain a typographical error. This
easement shall be dedicated on the Final Plat over the sanitary sewer as
determined by the survey. A new easement in recordable form shall be
provided over Outlot A, Mission Ridge 2nd Addition.
4) The drainage and utility easement filed as Document No. 5058048 filed -
December 3, 1985 shall be included on a Final Plat.
5) An easement for drainage purposes shall be provided from Pond BC -P37
south to 36th Avenue North.
6) The City will require 10 foot utility and drainage easements on each
side of a public utility where these utilities are proposed to be
installed.
7) The developer will be responsible for the construction of necessary
watermain, sanitary sewer, storm sewers and streets to serve the site.
8) The City will require a final plan and profile for the proposed sanitary
sewer, watermain, streets and storm sewers, plus a grading and erosion
control plan that is in accordance with our Engineering Guidelines.
ENGINEERING MEMO - CONCEPT PLAN
Page Two
9) The City will require a storm drainage plan showing proposed finished
contours indicating how the proposed plat will ultimately drain. This
material must be submitted in conjunction with purposed storm sewer
plans. The City will then review the proposed storm drainage plans to
make sure they are in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan for
Storm Drainage System.
10) The comprehensive storm drainage plan calls for an 18 inch outlet from
the pond along with a four foot wide ditch that will continue to 36th
Avenue as an outlet control. This shall be constructed with the Final
Plat.
11) A storm water drainage map with runoff calculations and pipe capacity
calculations shall be furnished to the City prior to the final approval
of the storm sewer system.
12) The temporary turn arounds at the end of Jonquil Lane and 36th Avenue
shall be removed with the extension of Jonquil Lane and 36th Avenue.
SUBMITTED `
BY: C / 4 a-
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
Mission Hills/Mission Ridge
Homeowners' Association
September 17, 1992
Mr. Michael Stulberg
Chairman
Planning Commission
City of Plymouth
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear Chairman Stulberg:
ZNE: iNP'l 0
V n at
CITY OF PLAUMN
WON" 00 so WWOM
The Mission Hills/Mission Ridge Homeowners' Association represents
approximately 250 single family homes in the Mission Planned Unit
Development. Our Association has been active in the community since
1979.
In early 1990 a subcommittee was formed to address residents' concerns
regarding proposed amendments to the final undeveloped areas of the
Mission PUD by the Baton Corporation.
The attached memorandum responds to the current request by Baton
Corporation to amend the PUD and states the major concerns that area
residents have with the request. Residents are concerned with the
continuing piecemeal approach to the design of the remaining undeveloped
PUD area. Residents also feel that the proposed amendment includes
housing types, density and site coverage that are very inappropriate for
this area and very inconsistent with the approved PUD. The proposed
plan does not maintain the quality of the approved PUD by significantly
eroding the open space and natural characteristics of this unique area.
It is difficult to truly understand and appreciate the topography and
natural characteristics of this area without seeing and walking it
firsthand. We invite you to walk this area yourself to enhance your
understanding of our concerns. Attached is a map of the area showing
the existing walking paths to assist you.
The subcommittee has met and shared these concerns with the developer
several times over the past two years.
Based on our concerns, the Mission Hills/Mission Ridge Homeowners'
Association requests that the Planning Commission act to recommend
denial of the proposed amendment by the City Council.
i
September 17, 1992
Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to share the concerns of area residents
and have faith that the City staff, Planning Commission and City Council
will act to represent the interest of all parties.
Sincerely,
Stan Chanson =
President,
Mission Hills/Mission Ridge Homeowners' Association
cc: Planning Commission Members
Plymouth City Planning Staff
MISSION HILLS / MISSION RIDGE ASSOCIATION
RESIDENTS' CONCERNS REGARDING THE REQUEST BY BATON CORPORATION FOR AN
AMENDED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE MISSION PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT UNDER FILE #92082 BEING CONSIDERED BY THE
PLYMOUTH PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 23, 1992
Area residents are responding to Baton Corporation's latest request to
amend the Mission Planned Unit Development to assure that development of
the remaining undeveloped areas of the PUD includes appropriate housing
types and density to preserve the significant natural characteristics of
the area.
The residents' major concerns about the current request for amendment
are 1) the piecemeal approach of requesting amendment to only a portion
of the remaining undeveloped section of the approved PUD and 2) the
significant increase in destructive impact to the natural
characteristics of the area south of 41st Avenue indicating that the
amendment request does not make use of appropriate housing type and
density.
HISTORY
Prior to the current request for amendment and similar 1990 and 1991
requests, there is a long history of requests to amend the original PUD.
The PUD was approved in 1976 and then amended in 1978 to enlarge the
single family area and to shift 57 units into the area currently being
reviewed. It was again amended in 1983 to allow apartments at Parkside
instead of elderly housing and condominiums. Baton requested an
amendment to allow for additional subsidized units at-Mission Oaks which
was denied. The PUD was also amended in 1985 to allow single family
homes in the Mission Trails area. This pattern of piecemeal development
is not consistent with and may in fact conflict with the concept of a
PUD. By addressing the area south of 41st Avenue in isolation, the
piecemeal approach would be allowed to continue.
The homeowners' association desires to have the remaining PUD area plan
finalized as a whole and not have to continue to deal with these PUD
changes that impact our neighborhood both economically and emotionally
about every couple years when the developer decides he doesn't like the
approved PUD.
Baton's requests for amendment in 1990 and 1991 were similar to the
current proposal for development of the area south of 41st Avenue (see
Exhibit A attached showing the 1991 design). In 1990 the Planning
Commission; after considering Baton's proposed revision to the PUD,
concerns of area residents and the recommendation of the City staff;
denied Baton's request because of the negative impact to the area.
Baton was to design a plan that would preserve the characteristics of
the area as the approved concept plan did. In 1991 Baton filed a
1
request very similar to the 1990 request. The Planning Commission acted
to recommend that the City Council deny this request for amendment. The
staff report indicated that the City staff could not recommend approval
of the proposed PUD amendment because "The added potential impacts of
the amendment on the PUD; the site features; and properties adjoining
but not within) the PUD exceed any added PUD attributes." The City
Council considered and denied the 1990 request for amendment.
Since the denial of Baton's previous request, there have been
discussions between the developer and a homeowners' association
subcommittee to attempt to reach a conciliatory agreement on all
remaining parcels of the PUD. At no time during these discussions was a
separation of the parcels presented. In fact, Baton spent considerable
time responding to our 1991 objections for both parcels as recently as
August 10, 1992. The first opportunity we had to review a separation of
these parcels was on August 24, 1992.
It seems that both the City and the residents would be best served if a
total concept plan amendment was acted on rather than separate parcels.
We will however, with some reluctance, respond to the amendment request
at hand.
RESPONSE TO CURRENT PROPOSAL
Area south of 41st Avenue:
Natural Site Characteristics
We feel that the current concept plan amendment request does
not make appropriate use of nor does it protect the significant
natural characteristics of the area. This site is made up of
areas of significant trees, wetlands, and steep slopes and is
home to abundant wildlife.
The approved concept plan is much more sensitive to the area's
natural and desirable characteristics than is the requested
amendment. The approved plan uses a type of housing which can
be constructed in areas to minimize impact on the area - IE.
preserve much of the wooded area and natural topography. The
requested amendment places single family lots /homes and
townhomes in areas which will destroy significantly more of the
natural open space which is preserved in the current concept
plan.
The approved PUD allows approximately two hundred and fifty
feet (250) from the back lot line of the existing homes and the
structures planned for this development. This distance allows
2
a significant portion of the existing wooded area to be
preserved.
The current request would allow the building of single family
homes within a distance of seventy feet from the back lot line
of the existing homes - a significant decrease of both visual
space and wooded areas.
The approved PUD made use of a private drive to access the
southerly portion of the development. The private drive
preserved much of the topography and woods since it was
designed to wind around natural areas and follow the natural
topography because it did not have to comply with the 7%
maximum grade restriction of a public street. The current
request, in contrast, will require extensive grading and
filling causing major damage to the area.
Existing residents bought into this area under the current PUD
with defined open areas and significant distance between their
homes and the structures to be developed. This currently
approved distance allows for a significant area of natural
vegetation which is very valuable and was a significant
consideration in the purchase of the adjacent lots.
Baton is now asking to be allowed to deplete this natural area.
This value should not now be allowed to be taken away.
Further Impact on Neighborhood/Value
The area to be developed is unique and, as the approved concept
plan shows, is not conducive to the typical design of a public
street with homes on both sides.
The current request does not maintain the integrity of the PUD
with the additional loss of open space that will occur. To
negatively change the concept plan established in the approved
PUD years after area residents made their decisions on their
properties is inappropriate.
The request for single family lots totally changes the
characteristics of the property in relation to the adjacent
properties. The adjacent properties were purchased with the
attractiveness of a natural and forested area free of any
structures for a significant distance. Of all housing types
presented hy the developer thus far. single family lots/homes
are the most inappropriate type for this area because they
cause and or allow the most destruction to the natural
characteristics of the area. This is in direct conflict with
3
the approved PUD which maximized the preservation of the area.
In addition to single family lots/homes being inappropriate for
this area, several of the northerly lots (lots 1, 2, 3 and 4)
do not seem to have enough buildable area for single family
homes and several of the southerly lots (lots 7, 8, 9 and 10)
seem to be smaller than the existing adjacent properties,
adding to the negative impact on value of the area by
indicating smaller homes than those on existing properties.
Lot 1 is directly across from Parkside Apartments - an unusual
location for a home in this price range.
This concern is further magnified by the concern that the homes
that will be built could be lower priced due to the fact that
they are across the street from townhomes. The concept of
mixing housing types is inconsistent with other areas in the
PUD where visual barriers allow for a transition between
different housing types.
In summary, the increased loss of natural areas and the
proximity to these proposed homes will negatively impact the
value of the existing adjacent homes in this area.
Variance to Ordinance
A major variance to the City ordinance would be needed due to
the requested length of Jonquil Lane (about 1,400 feet versus
maximum code length of 500 feet for a cul -de -sac). A
cul -de -sac street of that length raises concerns about the
access for fire and emergency vehicles.
Clarification /Corrections
Clarification and /or correction of some statements in Baton's
explanation to the proposed amendment is needed.
Baton states in the filed request for amendment that townhome
prices in this proposed development have gone up from the
100,000 per unit range (referring to the 1990 proposal) to the
160,000 range per unit in the current request. Townhome
prices were stated by Baton to be in the $150,000 range in
1990, not the $100,000 range now being mentioned.
Baton states that they propose to divide and deed Outlot A to
each existing adjacent home owner "as a conciliatory gesture."
The adjacent homeowners may agree to this resolution, but this
4
outlot is already dedicated to Mission Ridge Second Addition.
Dividing and deeding the outlot will simply resolve an
unfinished piece of business.
Baton states that several meetings have been held with
homeowners over the last several years and that they feel the
current proposal "is a fair and good compromise for all parties
involved." What is not mentioned is that while there have been
some meetings, the current request was never even presented to
the homeowners for discussion and does not respond to the
concerns that have been voiced by homeowners over several
years.
Baton states that "The homes in the Mission Ridge and Mission
Trail neighborhood which directly abut this proposal are all
constructed (at) significantly higher elevations than the
proposed development." This may be true for the existing homes
adjacent to proposed lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and maybe 5 but it is
definitely not true for lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. The elevation
of the existing homes adjacent to these lots is about the same
as the proposed development.
Baton states in the filed request for amendment that
construction activity will avoid major tree concentrations."
In reality, the proposed construction of Jonquil Lane and the
proposed single family lots are directly in the middle of the
most significant number of trees present on this property.
Area North of 41st Avenue:
There are two undeveloped areas to the north of 41st Avenue
that are part of the current PUD. We have spent considerable
time, with Baton addressing this area in past discussions,
including our meetings in June and August of 1992. Certain
features for this area were verbally agreed to by Baton
including a walking path around the area, access from Old
Rockford Road instead of from 41st Avenue, moving the townhome
units (GH4) from the planned location in the southeast corner
and leaving the GH4 location undeveloped. We feel that with
the small amount of the current PUD remaining to be developed,
any amendment process should include finalization of the entire
remaining PUD area..
Alternate A:
This proposal for single family
5
homes in the portion of Outlot
A has been raised several times in the past. Outlot A is
designated as green space and any development of this area is
therefore not appropriate.
SUMMARY
We respectfully request denial of this requested amendment to the PUD.
The proposal does not include appropriate housing type or density for
the property involved and it is very inconsistent with the preservation
of the valuable characteristics of the area as is accomplished in the
approved concept plan.
The original PUD was designed and approved based on certain design
features and qualities centered around the preservation of this
beautiful natural area. Existing residents bought into this approved
plan with the open space areas as a desirable PUD attribute. Allowing
this requested amendment would not maintain the integrity of the
approved PUD and would have a negative impact on the neighborhood.
Baton has allowed its concept design to be heavily influenced by
economics. The plan for condominiums approved in 1976 is sensitive to
the area but is not currently an economically viable option for the
developer. Baton's approach to amending the PUD over the last several
years has been to maximize its own profit in the development. In doing
this, however, they are ignoring their design's lack of appropriateness
for this property, the commitment to open space and preservation of the
natural characteristics of the area included in the PUD, and the
negative impact on neighboring property owners who relied on the
approved PUD attributes when making the decision to build homes in this
area.
The City of Plymouth should not accept this or
concept which does not maintain the quality
was established in the approved concept plan.
2
any proposal to amend the
of land development which
Tom
Irm
a_
1
Z
Q
J
CL
0
W
0
CL
0
m
a
J
A
t s
cc
W
EXHIBIT A
O
Z
d
a}
J
30
O
W •
m N
m '
LL
O ? W iJ} N N ;O
a Z°—
Cc
do
UJ
H
N
a1
x
H
S
b
a
m
d
I)
M
d 41 m H
a)
JJ JJ 1J dJ
0°
0
d
O m
H m
4j 'd
a)
Mi
m
3 m o 0
H go
tm O 41 it O
q m 0
d iJ ji 4
t~
w iJ om
r. m
HO'dm
4.)
U
0
E-4
bOO o'dU
O
0 'd H d
bab
4) -q CD 41
o 00
0 0 0 0 0
A H H H 4
H 044-) 044.)
i
T]
i
1
i
e.,
rh
2^
f
I
i I M
tl
4
1
F1
9I
in
e r//
i , 1
1
I o \
o" \
Z \
A
I O
1
s I
1'
I +
J
o.
O
2
W0
VOb
a .
b
z=o , O
J ° I
c M,st. FI.IpS
n va "Vi
a°
ezO
OO°
J v °
d
O \
3\
0
o e• ;; /
W w • } / v
3 x = oo
W '
j;`a y,IO.OpIGN
e
iY1dpA, l.yt! :t
ll
O Y Y Y
s
OL
W;
w
l.F /.fN.tOS'
J
Li
ri
v
S
a U
S
d
s
W;
w
l.F /.fN.tOS'
J
Li
ri
v
20K2-
MISSION HILLS/MISSION RIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SUBCOMMI n/j(',7(1
August 31, 1992
Richard F. Zejdlik
SEP 15 1992
Baton Corporation
331 Second Avenue North CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Minneapolis, MN 55401 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Dear Mr. Zejdlik:
Your letter dated 8/18/92 has perplexed the homeowners of Mission
Hills/Mission Ridge. Confusion and misconceptions seem to be the
order of the day in our continuing relationship vs. clear,
concise communications. The following will represent our attempt
to clear up some of the confusion and misconceptions resulting
from your communique. We are focusing on a few of our more
important concerns rather than attempt to correct all the
inaccuracies in your letter.
SEPARATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT: (excluding the property north of
41st)
Your first paragraph states definitively that your proposal or
resubmission of an application to the City of Plymouth only
includes the land south of 41st Ave. No. You made us aware that
your option to develop the land North of 41st as Baton
Corporation has expired. In our meetings you did not mention
excluding the Northern parcel from the resubmission of an
application to the City. This is totally confusing to us and
objectionable due to the fact that we have never discussed a
separation of the parcels with you. In fact, during the 6/22 and
8/10 meetings, you committed to various revisions concerning the
parcel North of 41st. We felt that these suggested revisions
were positive steps. To now receive a letter which, not only
ignores these revisions, but totally excludes this parcel of land
from the proposal is perplexing to us. We agree with the City of
Plymouth's Planning Commission decision as expressed during the
review of Baton's proposed development in 1990. They strongly
stated that a complete plan for all remaining property be
submitted with any change to the PUD. It was our understanding
that the third empty parcel due east of Mission Oaks would also
be addressed in the current resubmission.
INCORRECT STATEMENTS CONCERNING MEETING ARRANGEMENTS:
At the August 10th meeting with the Committee you asked if a full
homeowners meeting could be arranged for 8/17. You suggested
this date because you would not be able to attend a meeting after
that date. The Committee believed that 7 days was not sufficient
time to obtain a meeting room, prepare the meeting notices,
distribute the notices and give the homeowners enough time to
plan their schedules. We never "rejected" your presence at the
next meeting, but rejected the idea of a full homeowners meeting
in 7 days.
In addition, the letter dated 8/18 was not "hand - delivered" until
8/24. Once our review of this letter made us fully cognizant of
the inaccuracies and misconceptions it contained, we called Randy
Zejdlik on 8/25 and requested that someone representing Baton be
present at our homeowners meeting on 8/27. Randy attended the
meeting, but unfortunately could only respond generally to our
questions. We are also very disappointed that you are again
bypassing the Homeowners and going directly to the City of
Plymouth. We have consistently indicated by our actions and
correspondence over the past few years that we are willing to
meet with you to discuss your proposals and deliver meaningful
feedback.
Since Baton is under such a stringent time constraint to resubmit
a revised development plan with the City, as stated in your 8/18
letter, then your 7 week gap in time to prepare the revised plan,
i.e. 6/22 to 8/18, created the excessive time crunch; not our
request for a 2 week notice to invite 200+ homeowners to a
meeting.
Due to the confusion, misconceptions, inaccuracies and decisions
contained in your correspondence, we must notify you that,
following your example of bypassing the established communication
patterns with the subcommittee, we will take any action
appropriate to protect our interests, which will include
communications with the city as well as your partners in the land
ownership, as well as any other interested parties that may
surface. We will, however, continue to meet with you assuming
that the Homeowners receive a letter specifically addressing the
issues raised in this letter including an adequate explanation as
to why your written comments are in direct conflict with your
presentations to the subcommittee on 6/22 and 8/10.
Sincerely:
y
Robert Donley 11
r
Charles G. Lymangood fCNancyLehrman
Michael Ricci, Jr. ... --
Marlyn Sjaarda
cc: Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Director
mllRmllq mll! m.m mll MIN! MINI MINI mm, Moolm,mRmwfmmlmmlm MN!Mm,M MNI!MM! .; , mmmool ... n
MC '"Umd) 4#
S112 SEC. f if F. f f 9 ff. 22
LOCATION MAP 92082
I "")
zss
i
15--. -
a
un 10 ows mm it on
to
IWO in —
23, .22
ACRIAGE I
r
m
tc
ni
6.1
not" 0
I ?
I
Ys, `
l
IE
s..............
A
7L'L7
T-
APPROVED plan
lt"'rJ"ulill
mission p LcL r N
I
5. Do
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: Sept. 15, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 23, 1992
FILE NO.: 92083
PETITIONER: Ronald and Irene Corbett
REQUEST: Amended Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use
Permit for a 3- season porch in the Plymouth Creek 3rd
Addition
LOCATION: 4060 Terraceview Lane North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -2 (Low Medium Density Residential)
ZONING: RPUD 80 -1
BACKGROUND:
On March 17, 1980, the City Council, by Resolution 80 -177, approved a
Preliminary Plan /Plat for a 122 unit townhouse development on 27.4 acres.
On January 9, 1984, the City Council, by Resolution 84 -04, approved a RPUD
Final Plan /Plat and PUD Amendment for the Plymouth Creek 3rd Addition.
Two similar Plymouth Creek PUD Amendments have been approved in the recent
past. The most recent one, located at 4130 Shenandoah Lane, was approved by
the City Council on August 17, 1992.
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:
I. The proposed 10 by 14 foot 3- season porch is a type common throughout the
community. The porch is designed to be constructed to match the existing
residence as to design and construction materials.
2. The RPUD Final Plan /Plat for the Plymouth Creek 3rd Addition established
setbacks in accordance with the approved PUD Plan. The approved PUD Plan
shows a 25 foot setback between buildings in this addition. Lot coverage
and related matters are based on the Preliminary Plan /Plat rather than on
numeric standards in the Zoning Ordinance. Each of the homes contains a
concrete patio or deck for outdoor living.
3. This request is to allow the construction of a 3- season porch in addition
to an existing 16 foot 5 inch by 10 foot concrete patio. In previous
requests the 3- season porch has been proposed to replace the existing
concrete patio, which would then not be considered an increase in lot
coverage.
Page Two, File 92083
3. The location of the proposed 3- season porch will result in a setback of 20
feet between buildings.
4. The City received a letter from the Plymouth Creek Homeowners Association
which indicates the Homeowners Association has approved the plan for the
3- season porch. The City of Plymouth is not a party to the Homeowners
Association and the Homeowners Association does not govern with respect to
zoning regulations.
5. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider a
Conditional Use Permit in terms of the six standards found in Section 9,
Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a. I have attached a copy of those ordinance
citations together with the petitioner's response.
6. The Planning Commission must also consider this particular Conditional Use
Permit in terms of the Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan /Plat
review criteria found in Section 9, Subdivision A, Paragraph 5.j of the
Zoning Ordinance. I have also attached a copy of this ordinance citation.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Staff finds the proposed PUD Plan Amendment is responsive to the Planned
Unit Development criteria.
2. Staff finds that the proposed PUD Plan Amendment is responsive to the
Conditional Use Permit standards.
3. The proposed 3- season porch will be no less than 20 feet from the adjacent
structure.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend adoption of the attached resolution approving Amendment to the
Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for "Plymouth Creek
3rd Addition" to 0tr 't construction o a 3 -se n p rch.
Submitted by:
arses t. u merua,
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
2. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
3. PUD Plan Criteria
4. Petitioner's Narrative
5. Homeowners Association Approval
6. Location Map
7. Site Graphics
unity uevelopment uirector
to Planned Unit Development Plan and
0
APPROVING AMENDMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RONALD AND IRENE CORBETT LOCATED AT 4060
TERRACEVIEW LANE NORTH (92083)
WHEREAS, Ronald and Irene Corbett have requested approval of an Amendment to
the Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow the
construction of a 3- season porch in the Plymouth Creek 3rd Addition for
property located at at 4060 Terraceview Lane North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Ronald and Irene Corbett for an Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Plan
and Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 3- season porch in
the Plymouth Creek 3rd Addition for property located at at 4060 Terraceview
Lane North, subject to the following conditions:
1. No other amendments or variances are granted or implied.
2. All applicable requirements of the City and State Building Codes shall
be implemented and enforced; no Code requirements are waived by this
approval.
3. The granting of the Permit is responsive to criteria of the Zoning
Ordinance for Conditional Use Permits and PUD Plans.
4. The size of the 3- season porch shall be 10 by 14 feet.
5. The 3- season porch shall be setback 20 feet from the adjacent building.
FiCM SFMCN 9, S[IDDIMICK A
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a recommendation 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
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 impnt 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.
conventions:pl /jk /pud)
Request for Conditional Use Permit
Ron and Irene Corbett
4060 Terraceview Lane
Plymouth, MN 55446
Phone: 559 -1586
1. We, Ron and Irene Corbett, 4060 Terraceview Lane, Plymouth, MN hereby request a
Conditional Use Permit to add a three season proch to our present townhome, situated
on Lot 4, Block 1, Plymouth Creek Third Addition according to the plat therof on file or
of record in the office of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
The addition of a three season porch on this premise is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Plymouth and the Plymouth Creek Townhome
Association.
2. The three season porch will enhance the whole of the City of Plymouth as well as the
Plymouth Creek Townhome Complex and will not be detrimental to\or endanger the
public health, safety, morals or comfort of any one individual of the City of Plymouth
or the Plymouth Creek Townhome Complex.
3. The three season porch will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially dimish
and impair property values within the neighborhood. On the other hand, the building
of the three season porch will raise the value of this property as well as the property of
the immediate residents in the area. The building of the porch will improve the
aesthetics of said property as well as that of the surrounding properties.
4. The building of a three season porch will in no way impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of sourrounding property for uses permitted in the
district.
5. The building of a three season porch will have no impact on the present ingress, egress
or parking in the area. It will have no effect on traffic congestion in the public streets
since the porch will be built on the rear of the present structure and will not be visible
from the street.
6. The building of a three season porch on the present structure at 4060 Terraceview Lane,
Plymouth, MN will in all respects conform to the regulations of the City of Plymouth
and the district in which it is located.
An additional note: The attached plan has been approved by the Plymouth Creek
Association Architectural Committee as well as the Plymouth Creek Association Board of
Directors. The three season porch meets all the specifications and regulations set down by
the Plymouth Creek Townhome Association. The contractor has also agreed to build the
addition according to the specs sited in the plan.
G)
Signature of Applicant Date
PAL
Zbs Architectural Comdtt8e
P xmI A 0 x E IVZO lar lV T77fk it Address:
Mailing Address:
If different from unit address)
Day Phone Numbers SS"' / S it wMdng Phone NcV&*X:
It is requested that the Board of Directors approve modification(s) to the
above stated unit as described below:
1. Genera], description and location of proposed modification: Describe
specifically arry work involving electrical, plumbing, heating or other
utility Changes, or wall modifioation or r nrval) :
px- 1p"P r'' A T T n- c ko o/
2. Attach diagram/floor plan shaAng pxnposed alterations.
N L
3. Proposed work schedules Start date:
CMpletion date:
4. N&m r address . and &M nm"r of contractor: o '6 'e-
5 . Names and addresses of oontractor' s insurer and agents 70' .a-
d •e Ci
Rev 11191
a. Additional information or a site inspection required by the Architectural
Committee or the Board of Directors must be praiptly submitted or
arr&xjed.
b. No work may be aammenvad, until written approval is received from the
Association. The Board or it's appointed representatives will try to
expedite approvals, denials or modified approvals. Work must be
cmpleted as represented in this Request for Approval of Modification
form.
c. The applicant warrants that the modification will be performed in a
worlamanlike manner. If approved, the applicant understands that the cost
of this modification, and all future maintenance and repair, will be the
responsibility of the owner and/or its assignees.
d. Any agreement with the contractor must contain a provision restricting
mechanics lien rights only to the contracting owner's unit. Lien waivers
for work and materials should be obtained from the contractor when
Payments are made.
e. The owner is responsible for obtaining any required building permits and
providing a copy to the Board of Directors prior to start of
construction.
f. The Owner is responsible for payment for any damage or other impairment
Of the building or grounds resulting from the proposed oonstruction
activities.
g. Construction work must be performed within the time limits approved by
the Board of Directors.
h. All assessments owed xequest M owner must be paid in full before
ideeraation for mxU icatioan is given:.
Signature Date
Do not write below this line)
Date received %— o --
7he Board of Directors or its appointed representatives have
yr-.-
est for fi tion .
d- 7 / -2v
Association President Date
or Amt
OP.
ted —
Appointed R%zesmtati
tot .
Appointed Representative
Date
Ir
r4ii. -• five
1
sir:
i "° `'' . ,,,.
Od `! 1! .• ° .' I1) =:M'.. a 1 1 ' J! `
0
MEM
min
M.
IIA/ N .
plk w
W to
wpm
G4 HIM.
Intl
a- WK I.A. ;$ Eby • ' '
j L•+ via
low
IV's
up
Maw 7
owIn
VFW mt
a rrrr r,`IIIIiIi
at -1•,r: _y .
t O% SAO 15 0
Ti
11
L,yT
o
pa4 Y
0 ZS 50 "!;"\\
REQUESTED
DISTANCE
VAR I ATION
OF ZO' =.,
i
i
r
I
I
i
1
f
J j /
A_f
I •' ,1, s AVE
McCOMBS- KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
9ja3uuuC 110.1101 a Uaa fWVIT491 • Sitt •WGIAS
rllw_ L41NNEAPOLIS aid MUTCMINSONNINNESOTA
Fl
i192
ca MQY 1984
a.
9
I
T`(P1C.Al. SETS
FOR UE-W CD •520.°1
Vy0G s,SuQG L.r NE
L'.31T -T LINENS
40 / 7
i
Li /
N.
N 7
REV 3• iZ -54-
PLYMOUTH CREEK
TYPICAL BUILDING SETBACK
lk -I IOZ
r 5-9*
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: Sept. 14, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 23, 1992
FILE NO.: 92085
PETITIONER: Jerome Begin and Barb DeMars
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for outside storage of new
automobiles.
LOCATION: 3900 Vinewood Lane North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CS (Service Business)
ZONING: B -3 (Service Business)
BACKGROUND:
On February 9, 1987, the City Council, by Resolution 87 -94 approved a Site
Plan for Cottonwood Plaza Shopping Center. Since that time, Conditional Use
Permits have been approved for the Big Wheel Rossi Store, Domino's Pizza, and
Duffner's Restaurant.
On July 6, 1987, the City Council, by Resolution 87 -449 approved a Site Plan,
Conditional Use Permit and Variances for a Lincoln Mercury dealership on the
property located directly west of this site.
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 petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for outside
storage of new cars on the existing shopping center parking lot. The new
cars are owned by the Lincoln Mercury dealership located across Vinewood
Lane. The proposal is for 72 cars to be placed along the west and north
parking lots of the shopping center site.
2. In August, 1992, City staff reported to the Community Development
Department that new automobiles were being stored in the Cottonwood Plaza
Shopping Center parking lot. An inspection of the site verified that the
storage of new vehicles was taking place on the site. Outside storage is
permitted in the B -3 Zoning District only upon approval of a Conditional
Use Permit. A Conditional Use Permit has not previously been approved for
outside storage at this site, nor applied for.
Page Two, File 92085
On August 21, 1992, Mr. Begin and Al Crain (of Premier - Lincoln - Mercury)
were sent letters notifying them of this zoning violation. They were
given 10 days to correct the situation. On August 27, 1992, Mr. Begin
made this application, but no action to correct the violation has taken
place.
3. The Site Plan provided by the petitioner does not identify where on the
site that the automobiles are to be stored. The staff report was written
with the assumption that the proposed location is the same as the location
where the cars were located when the original inspection of the violation
took place. The cars were located along the north and west property
lines.
4. The graphics normally attached to the staff report are not available. The
petitioner refused to provide the 15 plan sets as requested in our
September 3, 1992 letter to Mr. Begin. That letter is attached.
5. The Site Plan submitted shows a total of 378 parking spaces located in the
shopping center. The Zoning Ordinance standard for shopping center
parking was reduced from 10 spaces /1000 square feet to 6 spaces /1000
square feet in 1988. Current Zoning Ordinance requirements for this
shopping center would require a total of 240 parking spaces. The 72
spaces proposed for outside storage would not occupy spaces required for
the existing uses in the shopping center.
6. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider the
Conditional Use Permit in terms of the six criteria found in Section 9,
Subdivision A, Paragraph 2.a. I have attached a copy of the referenced
citation together with the petition's narrative.
7. Section 10, Subdivision C.4.(a) of the Zoning Ordinance specifically
prohibits any outside storage and display in the required front or side
yards. The petitioner is proposing to locate the automobiles in the
required front and side yards of the shopping center structure.
8. The Zoning Ordinance also requires that all outside storage shall be
screened from adjoining property and public streets. The petitioner is
not proposing to screen the outside storage of automobiles.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
I. Staff finds that the proposal to locate the outside storage of new
automobiles in the required front and side yard does not meet Zoning
Ordinance requirements and is specifically prohibited.
2. The placing of "For Sale" vehicles by an adjoining car dealer on the
shopping center parking lot presents at least two issues:
a. Reduction of offstreet parking availability to the shopping center.
b. The "display" of those vehicles, essentially extending the active (as
opposed to storage) aspects of the automobile dealership on to the
shopping center parking lot.
Page Three, File 92085
Given the arithmetic of offstreet parking that is existing at this
shopping center (10 spaces /1000 square feet versus the current standard of
6 spaces /1000 square feet), it can perhaps be found that there is neither
inconsistency with Conditional Use Permit standards nor any threat of
precedent circumstances related to the storage aspect, i.e., 72 cars on
the shopping center lot -.someplace.
3. While no specific proposal has been made as to where on the lot the 72
cars are proposed to be stored, we can assume that where those cars now
are located is what the applicant has in mind. These locations, in the
front setbacks of the structure to County Road 9 and Vinewood Lane not
only violate a Zoning Ordinance standard for outdoor storage but represent
a direct extension for the "display" function of the automobile dealer -
beyond simple storage.
4. The approved Site Plan of Cottonwood Plaza designates 132 offstreet
parking spaces behind the shopping center to the east and south. Use of
the least visible of these 132 spaces (oriented to the southeast corner of
the site) would substantially mitigate the "display" versus "storage"
issue.
RECOMMENDATION:
Given the ongoing violation and the subsequent lack of cooperation by the
applicant regarding application graphics we can not recommend approval of this
Conditional Use Permit. Our recommendation is denial - violation of the
Zoning Ordinance, as is currently taking place in this regard, is basis for
denial per Conditional Use Permit Standard #6 (see attached).
Should the Planning Commission /City Council find a temporary Conditional Use
Permit for this activity is in the public interest the scale should be limited
to the 72 vehicles requested (or less) and the activity should be limited to
the 72 spaces closest to the southeast corner of the shopping center site
using both sides of the drive aisle). An ;P4 on date should also be
specifiecF. n r n
Submitted by:
arses t. uiiierua, community ueveiopment uirector
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Denying Conditional Use Permit
2. Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit
3. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
4. Petitioner's Narrative
5. Site Graphics
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR JEROME BEGIN /BARB DEMARS FOR OUTSIDE
STORAGE AND DISPLAY OF NEW AUTOMOBILES LOCATED AT 3900 VINEWOOD LANE NORTH
92085)
WHEREAS, Jerome Begin /Barb DeMars have requested approval for a Conditional
Use Permit for outside storage and display of new automobiles for property
located at 3900 Vine Lane North; 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 by Jerome
Begin /Barb DeMars for a Conditional Use Permit for outside storage and display
of automobiles for property located at 3900 Vinewood Lane North, based on the
following findings:
1. The request does not comply with the Conditional Use Permit criteria.
2. The proposal will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of property in the
immediate vicinity.
3. The proposal does not conform with all applicable zoning regulations,
specifically, the proposal is for outside storage in the required front
and side yards. Outside storage and display is specifically prohibited in
the required front and sideyards by the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The subject site is currently in violation of Zoning Ordinance standards
and has been cited by the City as such. This is direct noncom liance with
Conditional Use Standard #6 of the Zoning Ordinance FSect 9,
Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a.(6)).
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR JEROME BEGIN /BARB DEMARS FOR OUTSIDE
STORAGE AND DISPLAY OF NEW AUTOMOBILES LOCATED AT 3900 VINEWOOD LANE NORTH
92085)
WHEREAS, Jerome Begin /Barb DeMars have requested approval for a Conditional
Use Permit for outside storage and display of new automobiles for property
located at 3900 Vine Lane North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Jerome Begin /Barb DeMars for a Conditional Use Permit for outside storage and
display of automobiles for property located at 3900 Vinewood Lane 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 permit is issued to Jerome Begin /Barb DeMars for outside storage and
display of new automobiles and shall not be transferable.
3. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
4. No signage is allowed relative to the use, only the new car sticker item
may be placed on the car and it shall only be located on door windows.
Signage is specifically prohibited from the front windshield of the
vehicles.
5. Screening of the outside storage and display is hereby waived.
6. A maximum of 72 parking spaces may be used for the outside storage and
display of new automobiles.
7. Vehicles shall only be stored in the 72 parking spaces at the most
southeasterly corner of the site -- behind the shopping center.
8. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire on December 1, 1992 after which
date all such storage shall cease.
IJ 37N V771TWO .4q
pyM SE MCtq 9, SUBDIVISION A
2. Procedure. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Cmm Tnission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a reccmmmendation to the City Comu'cil, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Canmission 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 developnent and i1pravenst nt 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.
formms:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
Planning and Zoning Applice m Fonn
Page 2
7. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF RECILIEST (Attach separate sheet, if necessary):
We would like Permission / Conddtional Use Permit allowing us to park vphirlpc
owned by Premier Lincoln) along the Perimeter parking spaces at Cottonwood Plaza_
on a temporary basis only. These Parking spaces are usually vacant. dup to the
excess parking space requirement enforced during the construction lhaGec of the
shopping center. The current Barking space reQ3iirement has been rpdurpd to half the
half the amount we were required to have
8. PROJECT NAME: Conditional Use Permit for temporary parking of new rare_
Sf 12 SEC. f ff F. f f 9 ff. 22
TION MAP 92085)
no.42 lws
SUBURBAN HEN SPIN
awi
7
a.
AX.
ACR f 469
WEI SBINF! Iti fl9l 491 lif
m
0 REGI(
SUBURBAN
HENNE
REGI(
STORM SEWER DISTRICT BOUNDARY
S0400L DISTRICT BOUNDARY
WATERSHED DISTRICT BOUNDARY
INCREMENT BOUNDARY
D I'
r%
a rr•s
r
p..,o „
swsEy
r Ame
t- lwwrrrre /
VINEWOOD
want•,. laia,w /r
I
a .w.ers s s uuf
LAN E
rev-,/ AV, Asc. Ne. i21f 2 '
T-' I
a
O 'I
0
D
v
40
I
I
i
I IA
I
l_—______________ ___ ____ ___--- ______---- __ - -__ —_
lii i ' •' t e
tiE
IN.
l I i
1
1 1
II
I
I
i?
C 1•
q
L
40
I
I
i
I IA
I
l_—______________ ___ ____ ___--- ______---- __ - -__ —_
lii i ' •' t e
tiE
IN.
l I i
1
1 1
II
1
Z
IN.
l I i
1
11
II
1
Z
A
Aa
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: September 10, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 23, 1992
FILE NO.: 92076
PETITIONER: A.J. Poppelaars
REQUEST: A Final Plat of Outlot B of Ponderosa Woods into 4 single
family lots and a side yard variance on two lots.
LOCATION: Northwest of 18th Avenue North and Forestview Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: R -1A (Low Density Single Family Residential)
BACKGROUND:
On April 3, 1989, the City Council, by Resolution 89 -183 approved a Preliminary
Plat for an 18.8 acre tract of land for 28 single family homes.
On October 16, 1989, the City Council, by Resolution 89 -640 approved a Final Plat
for Ponderosa Woods which included this site as an outlot.
All property owners within 100 feet have been notified.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant proposes four single family lots and two outlots in a
conventional subdivision in the R -1A Zoning District. Each lot meets or
exceeds the 18,500 square foot minimum lot size for the R -1A Zoning District.
The Plat is in conformance with the Preliminary Plat approved by the City
Council.
2. A Variance from the Zoning Ordinance standard is requested to permit a 10'
foot side yard setback along the westerly lot line of Lot 1 and the easterly
lot line of Lot 4. This request is due to the location of large storm and
drainage easements running on both Lots 1 and Lot 4. Lot setback variance
request concurrent with Final Plats may be approved upon the finding that the
request is in compliance with Zoning Ordinance Variance criteria. A copy of
these criteria and the applicant's response is attached.
3. The Development Review Committee has reviewed the proposed for compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance Code, and all other City
codes, ordinances, policies and standards regarding platting of property in
the R -1A Zoning District. Except as noted above, the Final Plat meets or
exceeds all of the City of Plymouth standards.
Page Two, File 92076
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Except as noted, the proposed Final Plat meets or exceeds all standards for
single family detached subdivision development in the R -1 Zoning District and
is in compliance with the approved Preliminary Plat.
2. The requested variance for a 10 foot side yard setback for Lots 1 and 4
complies with the Zoning Ordinance Variance Criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend adoption of the attached resolution providing for the approval of a
Final Plat for four lots, two outlots including a ning Ordinance Variance for a
side yard setback 1 feet for of and 4.
Submitted by: fall
Char es E. Dil erud, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Final Plat and Zoning Ordinance Variance
2. Resolution Setting Conditions Prior to Filing
3. Zoning Ordinance Criteria
4. Petitioner's Narrative
5. Location Map
6. Site Graphics
pc /jk/92076)
APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR A.J. POPPELAARS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF
18TH AVENUE NORTH AND FORESTVIEW LANE (92076)
WHEREAS, A.J. Poppelaars has requested approval of a Final Plat for Ponderosa
Woods 2nd Addition located northwest of 18th Avenue North and Forestview Lane;
and,
WHEREAS, the City staff has prepared a Development Contract covering the
improvements related to said plat;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Final Plat and
Development Contract for Ponderosa Woods 2nd Addition located Northwest of
18th Avenue North and Forestview Lane; and,
FURTHER, that the Development Contract for said plat be approved, and that the
Mayor and City Manager be authorized to execute the Development Contract on
behalf of the City.
res /pc/92076)
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO FINAL PLAT AND
ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCE FOR A.J. POPPELAARS FOR PONDEROSA WOODS 2ND ADDITION
92076)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Final Plat and Development Contract
for Ponderosa Woods 2nd Addition;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the following to
be met, prior to recording of, and related to said plat:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with
City Policy in effect at the time of recording of the Final Plat.
3. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
4. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79 -80 regarding minimum floor
elevations for new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing
any open storm water drainage facility.
5. Minimum yard setbacks shall be 35 feet for the front yard, 15 feet for
the side yards and 25 feet for the rear yard.
6. Approved variances are: A 10 foot side yard setback from the westerly
lot line of Lot 1 and a 10 foot side yard setback from the easterly lot
line of Lot 4.
7. Submittal of required utility and drainage easements as approved by the
City Engineer prior to filing the Final Plat.
8. No Building Permits to be issued until the Final Plat is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
9. The Development Contract as approved by the City Council shall be fully
executed prior to release of the Final Plat.
res /pc /92076.sc)
0
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: September 11, 1992
FILE NO.: 92076
PETITIONER: Mr. A. J. Poppelaars, 5236 Lochloy Drive, Edina, MN 55436
FINAL PLAT: PONDEROSA WOODS 2ND ADDITION
LOCATION: North of 18th Avenue, west of Forestview Lane in the southwest 1/4 of
Section 26.
N/A Yes No
1. _ _ X Have watermain area assessments been levied based on proposed use?
2. _ X _ Have sanitary sewer area assessments been levied based on proposed
use?
3. _ X Will SAC and REC charges be payable at the time building permits
are issued? These are in addition to the assessments shown in No.
1 and No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are
reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that
in effect at the time of final plat approval.
4. Area assessments: Watermain area assessments based on 4 units x
S790 per unit - S3.160,
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None.
6. _ X _ Complies with standard utility /drainage easements?
If "No" is marked, the City requires utility and drainage
easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six
feet (6') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
7. — X Are all standard utility easements required for construction
provided?
The City requires twenty foot (20') utility and drainage easements
where these utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has
been reviewed with the final construction plans and if "No" is
marked, the following changes are necessary:
8. X Complies with ponding easement requirements?
The City requires the dedication of drainage easements for ponding
purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year high
water elevation in conformance with the City's comprehensive storm
water drainage plan. If "No" is marked, the following changes are
necessary: The management envelope for Bassett Creek alone this
development is 894.0. Drainage easements for ponding purposes
shall be noted on the final plat to the 894.0 elevation.
9. X Have all existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way been
vacated?
If "No" is marked it will be necessary to vacate the obsolete
easements /right -of -way to facilitate the development. This is not
an automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It
is the owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as
legal descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated.
N/A Yes No
10. X{ Has the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted
to the City with this application?
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the city
attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easement or vacation of unnecessary
easement.
I- .
11. _ X Have all necessary permits for this project been obtained?
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
If "No" the following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR Bassett Creek
Mn DOT Minnehaha Creek
Hennepin County Elm Creek
MPCA Shingle Creek
State Health Department Army Corps of Engineers
Wetland Conservation Act of
1991 from City
2
G
N/A Yes No
12. _ X _ Conforms with the City's grid system for street names?
If "No" is marked, the following changes will be necessary:
13. X _ _ Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided?
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are requi
of and
14. _ X _ Are all existing street rights -of -way the
If "No" is marked, an additional
will be required on
N/A Yes No
If "No" is marked,
red at the intersection
required width?
feet of right -of -way
15. _ XX Will final plans be prepared by the Developer?
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities
as part of its Capital Improvements Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is January 1
of the year in which the project is requested for construction, if
the developer is paying 100% of the cost.
16. X Do final utility and street plans submitted comply with all City
requirements? If "No" is marked, the following are required for:
Sanitary Sewer Show size and type of service
Watermain Show size and type of service
Storm Sewer A flared end section and trash
guard will be required at the end
of the storm sewer.
Street /Concrete Curb & Gutter Protect the concrete curb and
gutter and street as necessary.
Trench shall not undermine street.
3
N/A Yes No
C1
17. X Do the construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Thoroughfare Guide Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions must be made to conform
with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan:
18. X Do the construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required:
19. X Do the construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required:
N/A Yes No
20. _ X _ Is it necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's public utility
foreman, at 550 -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
I-&
21. _ X Is it necessary to contact Tom Vetsch, the City's Street Foreman,
at 550 -7493 for an excavating permit?
If, "Yes" is marked 24 hours notice is required before digging
within the City right -of -way.
4
N/A Yes No
22. _ X Do the construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions are required:
23. _ X Does the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan comply with
the City's erosion control policy?
If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required:
24. _ _ X Have minimum basement elevations been established? If "No" is
marked, they must be established for the following lots: 1hg
minimum basement elevation for Lots 1 through 4 shall be 896.0. A
development ,plan showing the lowest flood elevation shall be
provided prior to issuing building permits.
25. A. On Phase II of the plans, a hydrant will be required at the intersection of
Kirkwood Lane and 18th Avenue and at the high point of the watermain near
Manhole No. 5.
B. The Sanitary sewer for Lot 1 shall be connected directly to Manhole 3.
C. At the end of the flared section ditch to daylight and insall rip -rap.
Submitted by: _6" J
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
5
Doc. Format Rev. 2 -4 -92)
i • FP 1 ; 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.
5. 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
A. J. Poppelaars
5236 Lochloy Dr.
Edina, MN 55436
612)925 -2761
September 17, 1992
John Keho
Associate Planner
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
SUBJECT: Ponderosa Woods 2nd Addition(92076)
Dear Mr. Keho:
In response to your September 3rd letter informing me of the outcome of your staff review
of my application, I would like to address the following item that was listed in your letter.
Item 2 suggests a' L" shaped pad site instead of my proposed variance from setback
standards. My surveying of Block 1 - Lot 1 and Block 1 - Lot 4 provided me with the following
information that I think should also be considered in the city's review of my variance request.
Block 1 - Lot 1
By keeping the rectangular pad site, located as shown in my application, this will allow me
to save the following species of trees that would not be preserved otherwise:
1 - Maple 21" 1 - Ash 15"
1 - Maple 16" 1 - Ash 14"
1 - Maple 12" 1 - Ash 13"
1- Maple 9"
Block 1 - Lot 4
By keeping the rectangular pad site, located as shown in my application, this will allow me
to save the following species of trees that would not be preserved otherwise:
1- Maple 24"
In addition to saving this valuable tree, by maintaining a 30' sideyard setback on the west
side of the lot I will be able to maintain more of the natural vegetation abutting the storm sewer
corridor.
I hope this added information will allow you to re- evaluate my variance request. If you
have any further questions, please call me at 925 -2761.
Sincerely,
Q,G-,
Tony Poppelaars
August 6, 1992
RE: LOTS 1 and 4, PONDEROSA WOODS 2nd ADDITION
We hereby apply for a lot sideyard variance as follows:
A 10 -ft setback from the Westerly lot line for Lot 1 and
a 10 -ft setback from the Easterly lot line for Lot 4.
Hardship exists due to the location of the large storm
sewer and drainage easement running on either side of
Lot 1 and Lot 4.
The topographical conditions of Lot 1 and Lot 4 are unique
to this land and due to the tree preservation, which was
of primary importance at the time of the preliminary plat
approval, the grading is to be kept to a minimum in order
to preserve the natural beauty of this property.
This variance would enable the applicant to enjoy reasonable
use of these lots compared to adjacent lots and would not be
detrimental in any way.
In view of the above, we hope the Variance Committee will
grant approval to our request.
Applicant: A. J. Poppelaars
925 -2761
5236 Lochloy Drive
Edina, MN 55436
IS
i
1l,T'1, `
a
0
M .
0 10 704-r-- I. ; ; I - w A % -,
may /%1
A
Io
A
gf, A °s
N
pig
ly
SM-
C a
r
w
Q
Z
w.w 11. (`
y I
a: Q
8s
s= = r ! €
i
q •
i '
r
is i ixi Ofti r r^i=
M H
s
pis
t
fall
e
00014
i0 K /M
09 'SH
K
1
I
c
i e 0 -
I =F
a 'a
I
J
M
G
Y
H
l J
I•
s
1 ! ! b Q
Y L J ff ;s
a
tap
zg
L
r
1 I.
l
s
rl
NWQUQ
e0
w
Q
Q
Q
O
F-
Y ^ i" n
m c
s