HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 10-14-1992s A*
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: Oct. 5, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 14, 1992
FILE NO.: 92077
PETITIONER: James M. Raddatz Company
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for outside storage of trucks, and
related materials; and Zoning Ordinance Variances.
LOCATION: 5575 Highway 169
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: I -P (Planned Industrial)
ZONING: I -1 (Planned Industrial)
BACKGROUND:
On April 15, 1974, the City Council, by Resolutions 74 -196 and 74 -197,
approved Site Plans for two buildings on adjacent parcels.
Since that time, the two structures have been physically connected and the two
parcels have been combined into one. In addition, the paving and parking
arrangements have been modified. There are no Community Development
Department files regarding these changes.
On July 10, 1992, the City received a complaint regarding the outside storage
of vehicles and equipment on this property. On July 14, 1992, the City
inspected the site and found that a Conditional Use Permit was required for
the outside storage and that this approval had not been previously granted. A
letter was sent to the property owner on August 4, 1992, stating that the
outside storage was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance since no Conditional
Use Permit was approved as required in the I -1 Zoning District. The
petitioner submitted. this Conditional Use Permit application on August 19,
1992.
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. The letter sent to the petitioner on August 4, 1992 notifying him of the
zoning violation, required that action be taken within 15 days to correct
the situation. This application is in response to that letter. The
application was received on August 19, 1992. As of October 8, 1992, the
outside storage has not been removed from the site.
Page Two, File 92077
2. The petitioner is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the
outside storage of vehicles and equipment for the Classic Asphalt Company
in a 180 by 80 foot enclosure at the southwest corner of this site.
3. The Zoning Ordinance states that a
an accessory use to a principal us
single site, it actually consists
outside storage is located on the
southerly parcel does not contain
exist on the northerly parcel. Th
Variance from Section 8, Subdivisio
accessory use, outside storage, on
conditional use for outside storage is
e. Although this site functions as a
of two separate legal parcels. The
southerly of the two parcels. The
a principal use. A principal use does
e petitioner is therefore requesting a
n D of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an
a parcel without a principal use.
4. The Site Plan submitted for this request shows parking spaces located
within 3 feet of the west property line versus the previously approved 15
foot setback. Although a formal variance request was not submitted for
this setback, staff is reviewing this proposal as a formal variance
request.
5. 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. Attached
is the Zoning Ordinance citation and the petitioner's response.
6. Before any zoning variance may be granted, the Planning Commission must
review the request for compliance with the criteria set forth in Section
11, Subdivision C, Paragraph 2d. of the Zoning Ordinance. Attached is the
Zoning Ordinance citation and the petitioner's response.
7. The petitioner's narrative has indicated that they will be paving the
surface area for the outside storage, and revising their plan to provide a
20 foot gate entrance into the site for fire protection access.
PLANNING STAFF COhMENTS:
1. The Zoning Ordinance requires that outside storage be screened from
adjacent property. The petitioner has proposed to construct a wood
screen fence around the outside storage area. The property directly to
the west however, is at a higher elevation than this site. The proposed
fence will not provide the standard 90 percent opacity required by the
Zoning Ordinance from the property to the west.
2. Staff finds that the requested variance for an accessory use on a parcel
without a principal use does not meet the variance criteria. This parcel
can be combined with the adjacent property thereby eliminating the need
for the variance. Staff did suggest this option to the petitioner. A
letter from the Community Development Department dated July 7, 1981
recommended to the petitioner that the parcels be combined.
3. Staff finds that the implied variance request for parking setback of 3
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND VARIANCES FOR JAMES
M. RADDATZ COMPANY LOCATED AT 5575 HIGHWAY 169 (92077)
WHEREAS, James M..Raddatz Company has requested a Conditional Use Permit, Site
Plan Amendment and Variances for outside storage of vehicles and equipment for
property located at 5575 Highway 169; 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
James M. Raddatz Company for outside storage of vehicles and equipment for
property located at 5575 Highway 169, 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 the James M. Raddatz Real Estate as operator of
the facility and shall not be transferable.
3. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
4. Any signage shall conform with the City Ordinance standards.
5. There shall be no signage allowed on the property relative to the use.
6. The Conditional Use Permit for the outside storage of vehicles and
equipment is approved for a 80 by 160 foot area on the site.
7. Outside storage shall be screened by a 6 foot wood fence.
8. A variance is granted for an accessory use (outside storage) on a parcel
without a principal use.
9. A variance is granted for a 3 foot setback versus a 15 foot setback for
parking spaces to the property line.
10. All outside storage shall be on an improved paved surface which meets
City standards for cross section and drainage control.
11. The gate opening for the outside storage shall include a 20 foot wide
gate for Fire Department access.
res /pc/92077)
Page Three, File 92077
feet versus the 15 foot requirement does not meet the variance criteria.
The parking spaces can be restriped so that they meet the previously
approved 15 foot setback granted in 1974.
4. Staff finds that the proposed outside storage of vehicles and equipment
for Classic Asphalt does not meet the Conditional Use Permit criteria.
The proposal does not provide adequate screening for the property to the
west and due to the elevation differences, it appears that 90 percent
opacity screen will not be possible. This use will be injurious to the
use and enjoyment of surrounding property.
5. We have provided draft resolutions for denial, consistent with our
findings; and, for approval, as requested (or implied)
Submitted by: L 1
Charles E. Di leru , Community Deve t Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Denying Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Variance
2. Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Variance
3. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
4. Zoning Ordinance Variance Criteria
5. Petitioner's Narrative
6. Location Map
7. Letter to Petitioner Dated August 4 1992
8. Letter to Petitioner Dated July 7, 1981
9. Site Graphics
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND VARIANCES FOR JAMES M.
RADDATZ COMPANY LOCATED AT 5575 HIGHWAY 169 (92077)
WHEREAS, James M. Raddatz Company has requested a Conditional Use Permit, Site
Plan Amendment and Variances for outside storage of vehicles and equipment for
property located at 5575 Highway 169; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request by James
M. Raddatz Company for outside storage of vehicles and equipment for property
located at 5575 Highway 169, based on the following findings:
1. The request does not meet the Conditional Use Permit criteria. The
outside storage of vehicles and related equipment will be injurious to
the use and enjoyment of other property.
2. Adequate screening can not be provided due to the elevation difference
between this site and the adjacent property to the west.
3. A variance for an accessory use on a parcel without a principal use is
denied based on the finding that the parcel is not unique and can be
consolidated with the adjacent property.
4. A variance for a 3 foot parking setback for parking versus the required
15 foot setback is denied based on the finding that the variance criteria
have not been met.
5. The Site Plan is denied based on non - compliance with setback, screening
and Conditional Use Permit standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
res /pc/92O77)
FKK S MON 9, St IVISIM 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 reo t : ration to the City Council, which
shall make the final detenmination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will prorate 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 develogrnnt and improvement of surrounding
property for uses Permitted in the district.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic
congestion in the public streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
forms :o>pl /cup. surd /s) 10/69
I
11 • 141 1 k, r r'
1. That because of the particular physical surroundingst shape, or
topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, a
particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a
mete inconvenieme, 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 income potential of the parcel of land.
4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Ordinance and
has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the
parcel of land.
S. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or its 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
August 19, 1992
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE AND ITS CONFORMANCE
WITH THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SECTION 9 OF THE PLYMOUTH
ZONING ORDINANCE
1) The proposed use will comply with the Comprehensive
Plan.
2) The conditional use will promote the general
public welfare and will not be detrimental in
any way.
3) The proposed use will not be injurious to the
neighbors or adversely affect property values.
4) The conditional use will not impede any
development of the surrounding property.
5) There is no problem relating to providing
ingress, egress, parking, or potential
traffic congestion relating to the proposed
use.
6) The conditional use will conform to all
regulations of the district.
JAMES M. RADDATZ REAL ESTATE
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
3025 Harbor Lane North
October 5, 1992
Mr. John Keho
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Keho:
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 (612)553. -1560 '
rLYIWOUTHCDMMUN'Ty DEVELOPMENT WT.
In response to your request, this letter will address the
six ordinance variance standards.
First, the land involved was purchased separately by the
previous building owner. I would like to maintain the same
flexibility in case I wish to sell this land separately.
Secondly, I do believe that the variation for which this
petition is based is unique to the parcel of land.
Thirdly, my request is not based on a desire to increase
the value or income potential of the land.
Fourthly, the difficulty has not been created by any person
presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
Fifthly, the granting of the variation will not, in any
way, be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other and /or improvements in the neighborhood. Lastly,
the granting of this variation will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to adjacent property or increase
the traffic congestion, or increase the danger of fire,
or endanger public saftey, or dimishish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
Sincecel
JAMES M. RADDATZ
JMR:ec
cc: Gerry Brown
Classic Asphalt
August 4, 1992
CITY OF
PLYMOUTR
Precision Engineering Company
9300 52nd Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55428
SUBJECT: Violation of Plymouth Zoning Ordinance
Dear Sir or Madam:
An inspection was conducted at 5575 State Highway 169 in response to a
complaint regarding a tenant of yours, Classic Asphalt, who is storing
vehicles, excess materials and some debris outside on your property.
Additionally it was also indicated that Classic Asphalt has done some dumping
of materials in a potential wetland area located on your property.
Section 8, Subdivision D, of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance requires a
Conditional Use Permit for any outdoor storage in the Industrial district.(See
copy of ordinance enclosed). The dumping or filling of a wetland or a ponding
area may also violate other Governmental Unit Regulations.
Please take the necessary action to correct this violation by removing
vehicles and materials from the property. I have enclosed a Conditional Use
Permit application, if you choose to pursue the outside storage.
This matter will be reviewed in 15 calendar days from the date of this letter
to ensure action has been taken to correct this violation. Your prompt
attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.
If you have any questions in regard to this, please call me at 550 -5052.
Sincerely,
Y v
e
Myra Wicklacz
v
Development Services Technician
Enclosure
cc: 01 -41 -0009
nu /mwp /01410009
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550 -5000
i
Yt
CITY a
PLYMOUTH+
July 7, 1981
Mr. Jim Raddatz
Raddatz Real Estate
3025 Harbor Lane No.
Suite 324
Plymouth, MN 55441
RE 5575 - 5605 North County Road 18
Dear Mr. Raddatz:
You have inquired whether the north portion (5605) of the subject building
can be sold and occupied separately from the rest of the structure. The
Chief Building Official and I have researched the files and the City
ordinances regarding this and find that this could not be done under present
conditions.
You may recall that we had discussed 0is property earlier and we have record
of discussing the conditions on this property with the former owner, Precision
Engineering.
1. There are essentially two buildings on this property which
at one time were each on a separate parcel. Several years
ago, the then owner /occupant proposed and received approval
for a connecting link which remains and which was viewed at
the time as temporary since apparently, the owner had at one
time contemplated enlarging the total building on a permanent
basis.
2. The site for this development presently consists of two legal
parcels which under the terms of the City ordinance should
have been combined into a single parcel, but for some reason
were not: Those parcels are: (1 The original two parcels
plus the parcel to the west, formerly known as Outlot E of
the Basslake Plaza Addition; (2) An equivalent size parcel
to Outlot E which lies immediately south of Outlot E. These
two parcels are indicated on the Half- Section Maps as Parcels
9 and 10 under the current Hennepin County property description
system.
3. The west portion of Parcel 9 and all of Parcel 10 were intended
to serve as parking for the total cc+mplex; field observation
indicates that this was the use of the property.
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE 1612) 559.2800
111
Mr. Jim Raddatz
5575 - 5605 North County Road 18
7/7/81
Page two
4. The elimination of the connecting masonry link would leave
two separate buildings on one legal parcel and City
Planning Commission and City Council approval would be
required to separate that Parcel into two by means of
platting. It is our observation that the substandard size
of the original parcels might serve as a basis for a
negative finding on such a proposal.
5. In other words, from a planning perspective, it would seem
more appropriate to consider consolidating Parcel 10 with
Parcel 9 and perhaps even enclosing additional space between
the structures to form a single development on a single parcel.
6. Another reason the north structure could not stand alone under
present conditions is that it does not have an appropriate
fire wall separation where it connects to the link; this
reflects no doubt the fact that this was a single ownership
and /or operation at the time the linkage was permitted.
Our field observation suggests that the site despite its age and certain
nonconforming characteristics could be upgraded and used for industrial
purposes - to include prssible multiple tenants. The Parcel 10 should
be consolidated with Parcel 9 to form a single property and to assure
appropriate parking provisions for the total building. we can assist you
with an application to achieve that consolidation.
I have enclosed a copy of a current County Half- Sertion map with the subject
property outlined for your reference. Please contact Building Official,
Al Kleinheck or myself if you have further questions.
Thank you for your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Blair Tremere, Director
Planning and Community Development
BT /gw
cc: File A -553
V4"
Al Kleinbeck
ENC
4Wow,rf
LAIM
a -
1992 PARCEL MAP
SS LME PLAZA
ON
ta)
W
m
r s
lift is
pan•.
ias 31 A `
at
PdAzA
8
NORTHERLY PARCEL
war 9
a•
SOUTHERLY PARCEL --
11
e
1
F "Qi 2
26l
4 g
wo-•• - --
3
FIR JI VO 1 3 0
of . ol vr+• s•o :
PROPOSED OUTSIDE STORAGE
r
e •
S!••
vl ;
y r
x
I
0
1972 PARCEL MAP
J.
1 1• 1 1 1
pIl
I 1
os, •y I ao
I
til-
01
A -553 I A -554
4
v
v
O
cc! cql
Y
O v
n C
t'
o
v
APPROVES 4 SI PLAN ; `':;-
1
f !
it ..
V I + +!f
x
ILI z
1
Qt i
ilk
1
8 i9 t.
oil
I i• ' 1 r '' 1
ls
I
I
T Z APPROVE 1974 1•T
FiId# 1
i 1
4
W
i
F
t-, TE
i
e.' Oki •^ ~ ,
g to •jp '' '
r all r
M
h•
0
PLAN
O
5-1
pw
X
3
3
s1
V,
pJ
Qi
5
D(
10,
01 lk
ell ` w a
t.
ALL/
QAy
i
M
11
a', Y { A• v 11
11-464
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: October 8, 1992
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation EID
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - PLAN AMENDMENT, COMPREHENSIVE
SIDEWALK /TRAIL PLAN
For the last five months, the Park and Recreation Advisory
Commission has been working with the City's consultant, Strgar-
Roscoe- Fausch, on the updating of the City's comprehensive trail
plan. At their September 10 meeting, the Commission voted
unanimously to recommend the amendments as proposed in Fig. 7 of
the SRF study. Figure No. 8 represents the new, enhanced
comprehensive trail system plan. The actual proposed changes are
as follows:
New Class I Off -Road Trails
19th Ave
Lancaster Ln, between 36th & Pilgrim Ln
26th Ave, between Medicine Ridge Rd & Hwy 169
Nathan Ln, including the frontage road from Hwy 55 to
the Minnetonka border
Xenium Ln, from Sunset Trail to the Minnetonka border
New Concrete Sidewalks
Carlson Pkwy, from Gleason Lk Dr to the Minnetonka border
Vinewood Ln /42nd Ave, from Co Rd 9 to Co Rd 61
Olive Ln and 14th Ave at the Co Rd 6/101 intersection
New On -Road Bike Lanes
45th Ave, from Vicksburg to Fernbrook Ln
Pilgrim Ln, from 36th to 26th Ave
25th Ave, from Co Rd 101 to Dunkirk Ln
12th Ave, from Co Rd 101 to Co Rd 6
Niagara Ln, from Gleason Lake Rd to 9th Ave
Harbor Ln, from 4th Ave to the Luce Line
Juneau Ln, from Co Rd 6 via 13th Ave to Fernbrook Ln
I have also included for your information a copy of the current
sidewalk and trail system plan and a copy of the plan which shows
all of our existing constructed trails within the City. I will
be available at next Wednesday's Planning Commission meeting to
answer any further questions you may have with regard to this
plan amendment.
EB /np
PRAC Minutes /September 1992
Page 43
is a person familiar with the community. Annette's
background includes a major in music and communciations,
and extensive volunteer work with the park reserve, Camp
Fire, and the gifted program. She also stated that
having six children kept her involved in the community
and the schools.
Commissioners questioned Director Blank on what direction
they were to take in terms of the volunteer coordinator.
They were still somewhat unclear about this assignment.
Director Blank said he understood that PRAC was to
research the benefits a volunteer coordinator might
provide to the City, which departments besides park and
recreation have needs, and how to justify a paid
position, be it full -time or part -time. It was suggested
by Chair Anderson 'that at this time, it might be
appropriate to appoint a sub - committee to look into this
further. Those volunteering were Chair Anderson,
Commissioners Waage and Watson, and staff members Bisek
and Blank. They will meet prior to the next regular PRAC
meeting.
b. Review sidewalk and trail plan. Director Blank said that
it would be necessary for PRAC to recommend approval of
the sidewalk /trail plan. A MOTION WAS MADE BY
COMMISSIONER WATSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WAHL
RECOMMENDING THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE REVISED
SIDEWALK /TRAIL PLAN (FIG. 8)- AS PROPOSED BY THE
CONSULTANT. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL AYES.
C. Park projects update. The three neighborhood parks were
all seeded and the grass is growing nicely. We will take
ownership of the Bass Lake Lake Playfield within'a week
or two. Tennis and basketball courts are open at both
playfields. The bridges at Fazendin and Four Seasons
neighborhood parks are now in place.
d. Focus groups and surveys. Commissioner Johnson agreed to
chair the sub - committee, and a date for their first
meeting will be chosen following tonight's regular PRAC
meeting.
e. Amendment to park plan - playfield site selection. No
discussion.
f. Proposed 93 -97 CIP. The Planning Commission held a
public hearing. An addition to the CIP in 1993 is a
trail along Zachary Lane as part of the road reconstruc-
tion if approved by Council.
6. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to discuss.
5 A 0
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: Oct. 5, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 14, 1992
FILE NO.: 92089
PETITIONER: Hance Distribution
REQUEST: Site Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Variance for a
parking lot expansion.
LOCATION: 12195 -16th Avenue North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: I -P (Planned Industrial)
ZONING: I -1 (Planned Industrial)
BACKGROUND:
On April 7, 1986, the City Council, by Resolution 86 -184, approved a Site Plan
and Variances for the construction of a 40,600 square foot
office /manufacturing building. Variances were approved for a 15 foot drive
aisle setback, 40 foot parking setback, and a 5 foot parking lot setback to
the building.
On April 7, 1986, the City Council, by Resolution 86 -185, approved a
Conditional Use Permit for incidental retail sales in this facility.
On September 10, 1986, a Site Plan was administratively approved for this
site. The Site Plan Amendment included relocating the building 17 feet to the
south and included a Proof -of- Parking Plan which showed a parking ramp on the
south side of the building. This relocation eliminated the need for the
setback variance previously granted for the project.
In 1987 a Site Plan Amendment and Variance identical to the one currently
proposed was submitted for staff review. On April 10, 1987, staff forwarded a
Development Review Committee letter to the petitioner indicating that a Proof -
of- Parking Plan had been approved for this site and that staff would not
support the variance request, a 23 foot setback for parking versus the
required 50 foot setback, since a hardship had not been shown to exist. The
Site Plan and variance request were then withdrawn by the petitioner prior to
Planning Commission review.
Notice of this variance request has been sent to all property owners within
100 feet.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The petitioner is requesting approval of a Site Plan Amendment and
Variance to allow for the construction of 24 additional parking spaces
along the north side of the site. The parking spaces will. encroach 27
Page Two, File 92089
feet into the required 50 foot front yard setback. The encroachment will
result in a 23 foot setback of the parking from the property line.
2. The site currently contains parking spaces for 58 cars. Based on the
current use of the building, the parking on site meets Zoning Ordinance
requirements. This site would require 116 parking spaces based on 100
percent manufacturing use of the structure. The approved "Proof -of-
Parking" Plan provides for 121 parking spaces on site with 40 spaces on
the second level of a parking ramp.
3. The parking setbacks on the properties to the east and west of this site
appear to meet the required 50 foot setback requirements.
4. Before any zoning variance request may be granted, the Planning Commission
must review the request for compliance with the criteria set forth in
Section 11, Subdivision C, Paragraph 2d. of the Zoning Ordinance.
Attached is the Zoning Ordinance citation and the petitioner's response.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The petitioner's narrative response to the zoning variance criteria states
that the prime reason for this request is to provide for a more convenient
parking location for the clients of the product testing center at the
General Mills tenant space in this building. The petitioner has not
indicated that there is a need for additional parking beyond what has
already been constructed on this site. Their concern is the location of
the parking on site, not the number of total available parking spaces.
2. If the setback variance is granted, there will be a noticeable difference
in the proximity of the parking lot to 16th Avenue North when viewed from
the west. The parking on the Hance Distribution site will clearly be
located closer to the street than the parking to the west. The grade
difference between the street and the proposed parking (the street is at a
higher elevation) does mitigate this difference by screening the parking
when viewed from directly across the street (from the south)
3. As part of the earlier approval of this facility, a "Proof -of- Parking"
Plan was approved. The "Proof -of- Parking" Plan was to show how additional
parking can be provided on site if the use of the site is intensified to
the Zoning Ordinance maximum use. For this project, the "Proof -of-
Parking" has been provided which shows that a parking ramp can be located
on the south side of the building.
These additional "Proof -of- Parking" spaces would still not meet the
desired goal of the petitioner. The location of the additional parking
spaces are not any closer to the north side of the building, where the
main entrance to the facility is located, than the existing parking at the
rear of the site.
Page Three, File 92089
4. Staff finds that the requested variance from parking setback standards
does not meet the variance criteria. The petitioner has not indicated
that the parking setbacks creates a hardship for the site other than a
mere inconvenience to the petitioner.
5. Draft resolutions providing for both denial and approval are provided for
Planning Commission consideration.
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Site Plan Amendment and Variance
2. Resolution Denying Site Plan Amendment and Variance
3. Engineer's Memo
4. Petitioner's Narrative
5. Zoning Ordinance Variance Criteria
6. Location Map
7. Site Graphics
0
APPROVING SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE FOR HANCE DISTRIBUTION LOCATED AT
12795 -16TH AVENUE NORTH (92089)
WHEREAS, Hance Distribution has requested approval for a Site Plan Amendment
and Variance for property located 12795 -16th Avenue North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Hance Distribution for a Site Plan Amendment and Variance for property located
12795 -16th Avenue North, 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. This Site Plan Amendment is for the construction of 24 additional parking
spaces.
5. A Variance is hereby approved for the 23 foot setback versus the 50 foot
setback required for the parking to the property line based on the finding
that the Variance criteria have been met.
res /pc/92089)
DENYING SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE FOR HANCE DISTRIBUTION LOCATED AT
12795 -16TH AVENUE NORTH (92089)
WHEREAS, Hance Distribution has requested approval for a Site Plan Amendment
and Variance for a 23 foot parking setback versus the 50 foot parking setback
for property located 12795 -16th Avenue North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request by Hance
Distribution for a Site Plan Amendment and Variance for a 23 foot parking
setback versus the 50 foot parking setback for property located 12795 -16th
Avenue North, based on the following findings:
1. The Variance criteria have not been met, in particular, the request has
not been shown to be a hardship for the petitioner versus a mere
inconvenience.
2. The streetscape on the south side of 16th Avenue North will be negatively
impacted if the variance is approved. The proposed parking would result
in an obvious difference in the parking setback between this site and the
property to the west.
res /pc/92089)
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: October 8, 1992
FILE NO.: 92089
PETITIONER: Mr. Thomas Hance, Hance Distribution, 12795 16th Avenue North,
Plymouth, MN 55441
SITE PLAN: PARKING EXPANSION - HANCE DISTRIBUTION BUILDING
LOCATION: 12795 16th Avenue North, Plymouth, MN
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
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 -
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None
LEGAL /EASEMENTS /PERMITS:
6. _ 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 Rroperty. 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 _ _
13. _X_
14. X
n
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
Does the Site Plan comply with The City's Adopted Storm Drainage
Plan? If "No" is marked, the following revisions are required:
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: Hal bales
shall be placed around the existing catch basins until the new
parking . lot has been 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. JL _ _ Is the size and type of material proposed in the utility systems
included on the utility plans?
If "No" is marked, the utility plan shall be revised to indicate the
size and type of material.
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
Storm Sewer
3-
N/A Yes No
17. X _ _ Is the post indicator valve and fire department connection provided?
If "No" is marked, they shall be included in the site utility plan.
18. 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
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. Show a detail for the
concrete curb and gu r-
24. _ _ X Does the site plan comply with parking lot standards?
The City requires that all traveled areas within the parking lot, as
well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a 7 -ton
standard City design with six inches of Class 5 10OX crushed
limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one -half inches
of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be
constructed to a standard 5 -ton design consisting of four inches of
Class 5 1001 crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. If "No" is
marked, the site plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with
these requirements: Show a detail for the parking section.
4-
N/A Yes No
N/A Yes No
C
25. X _ _ Is it necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's public utility
foreman, at 550 -7492?
If "Yes" is marked 24 hours notice is required in advance of making
any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and
water systems. All water connections shall be via wet tan.
26. _ _ 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. _ _ 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 14. 23. 24. and 28.
29A. Show proposed elevations for the retaining wall and parking.
Submitted by: e^^
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
5-
I
PARKING ADDITION
VARIANCE REQUEST OCT 4 SE-9-2
H. C. E. PROPERTIES
CIITY•
s
OUL- 1- ilAOUTH
A variance is requested to allow construction of 22 additional parking spacesWinlr%-Antol WRY he
North side) the building at 12755 16th Ave. North. Currently, the space between the parking
lot curb and the street is 52 feet. The requested variance would result in a setback of 23 feet
from property line to parking spaces.. The rationale in support of this request is as follows:
Variance standard # 1 - This request is not based on any hardship caused by physical
surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the land involved.
Variance standard # 2 - This request is not based on conditions unique to this parcel of land.
Variance standard # 3 - The proposed variation does not in any way increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land. The current parking capacity of 57 vehicles is adequate
to cover the needs of all three businesses operating in the building. The problem that the
proposed additional parking spaces will address is one of proximity to the front entrance.
In November, 1991, General Mills Inc., signed a long term lease for the middle third of
the building for use as a warehouse and a product testing center. In April, 1992 the product
testing work was initiated. The product testing requires up to 35 people at a time for periods of
about one hour. The people who do this work do not do it on a regular basis and are not
regular or permanent employees. (We try not to use anybody more than three times per year).
Most of the product testing work is done in the evenings from approximately 5:00 p.m. to 9:00
p.m. Occasionally the product testing work starts earlier in the day and during these times,
the front parking lot fills up and the people who do the product testing must use the back lot
parking spaces.
Using the back lot parking spaces has not been a problem so far but we anticipate that
the early darkness of winter evenings and the possibility of poor footing might cause
apprehension about parking in the back lot. The addition of 22 parking spaces in the front
would eliminate any possible concerns on this issue.
Variance standard # 4 - The hardship addressed by this request is caused by the setback
ordinance and not by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
Variance standard # 5 -, The granting of the proposed variation will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed
variation will not be noticeable from the street due to the elevation differences between the
street and the parking lot.
Variance standard # 6 - The requested variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and
air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of public streets, or increase
the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
12OSI
PARKING ADDITION
VARIANCE REQUEST
H. C. E. PROPERTIES
A variance is requested to allow construction of 22 additional parking
spaces in front of (on the North side) the building at 1275516th Ave.
North. Currently, the space between the parking lot curb and the
street is 52 feet. The requested variance would result in a distance of
38 feet from parking lot to street. The rationale in support of this
request is as follows:
Variance standard # 3
The proposed variation does not in any way increase the value
or income potential of the parcel of land. The current parking capacity
of 57 vehicles is adequate to cover the needs of all three businesses
operating in the building. The problem that the proposed additional
parking spaces will address is one of proximity to the front entrance.
In November, 1991, General Mills Inc. signed a long term lease
for the middle third of the building for use as a warehouse and a
product testing center. In April, 1992 the product testing work was
initiated. The product testing requires up to 35 people at a time for
periods of about one hour. The people who do this work do not do it
on a regular basis and are not regular or permanent employees. (We
try not to use anybody more than three times per year). Most of the
product testing work is done in the evenings from approximately 5:00
p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Occasionally the product testing work starts earlier
in the day and during these times, the front parking lot fills up and the
people who do the product testing must use the back lot parking
spaces.
Using the back lot parking spaces has not been a problem so
far but we anticipate that the early darkness of winter evenings and the
possibility of poor footing might cause apprehension about parking in
the back lot. The addition of 22 parking spaces in the front would
eliminate any possible concerns on this issue.
Variance standard # 5
The granting of the proposed variation will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the
neighborhood. The proposed variation will not be noticeable from the
street due to the elevation differences between the street and the
parking lot.
C
n • Z, 1 «.
1. That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or
topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, a
particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a
mere inconvenience, if the. strict letter of the regulations were to be
carried out.
2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are
unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not
applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning
classification.
3. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire
to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land.
4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Ordinance and
has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the
parcel of land.
S. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or improveaoents 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
Mn
lamm-
WA
a NAMES- law