Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning Commission Packet 12-09-1992
I CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: November 23, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 9, 1992 FILE NO.: 92090 PETITIONER: Graham Land Company REQUEST: Preliminary Plat for 3 lots in the FRD (Future Restricted Development District) and Variances LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Cottonwood Lane. GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential) ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development District) BACKGROUND: On October 15, 1979, the Cit Council, by Resolution 79 -681, approved a variance and Lot Consolidation7Division which separated this parcel from the existing Forster Meat Packing facility on County Road 9. There have been no Community Development Department files on this property since it was divided from the larger parcel. Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City Newspaper and has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. A development sign has been placed on the property. PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: 1. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all Preliminary Plat applications include all contiguous property owned by the petitioner. The petitioner in this request is primarily concerned with developing a 10 acre portion of the property south of Old Rockford Road. The legal description of this parcel not only includes the 10 acres south of Old Rockford Road; but 7.47 acres of land between Old Rockford Road and County Road 9; and, 14.54 acres of land north of County Road 9. This request must therefore include the entire 32.87 acre parcel of land. 2. Since this parcel is physically divided into 3 separate areas, the petitioner is requesting a Planned Unit Development Concept Plan,, Preliminary Plan /Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit for only the most southerly portion of the land. The middle and northerly portion of this land are proposed to be platted as outlots with no detailed plans for future development but a General Development Plan is proposed together with the Preliminary Plat. 1 - 3. The lots are under the minimum lot area for property in the FRD District 20 acres) . The lots can not be platted in any larger size than the requested size. Two roadways bisect the property which created these three parcels. The outlots will meet the minimum lot standards for lots in any of the residential zoning classifications that may be proposed when these two sites are developed. A variance from the 20 acre lot size minimum of the FRD Zoning District is proposed. 4. This site is located in the Bassett Creek Storm Water Shed District; contains no storm water holding required by the City of Plymouth; contains no Shoreland Management areas, contains no Flood Plain Overlay District; contains no DNR, or Army Corp wetlands but does contain wetlands regulated by the 1991 Minnesota Wetland Regulations; contains no woodlands of significance and does contain some limited slopes greater than 12 percent located in the extreme western edge of the site; and contains land which has physical constraints to urban development with public sewers, related to the wetlands only. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: 1. The proposed Preliminary Plat meets all zoning and subdivision ordinance criteria. 2. The proposed Preliminary Plat meets the Variance criteria. This site is unique and can not be platted in any configuration other than the three outlots. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution Approving a Conventional Preliminary Plat and Variance 2. Draft Resolution Setting Conditions to be Met Prior to Publication 3. Draft Resolution Denying a Conventional Preliminary Plat and Variance 4. Variance Criteria 5. Location Map 2 - APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE FOR GRAHAM LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE CORNER OF 42ND AVENUE NORTH AND COTTONWOOD LANE 92090) WHEREAS, Graham Land Development Company has requested approval of a Preliminary Plat and Variance for property located northwest of the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Cottonwood Lane North; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the 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 Preliminary Plat and Variance located at the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Cottonwood Lane North, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum. 2. Rezoning shall be finalized with the filing of the Final Plat. 3. No building permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded with Hennepin County. 4. Compliance with the terms of City Council Resolution 89 -439 regarding tree preservation. 5. A Variance is granted for creation of lots less than the minimum 20 acres required in the FRD District. The site is unique and can not be platted in any other configuration. 61 DENYING PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE FOR GRAHAM LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LOCATED NORTHW EST OF THE CORNER OF 42ND AVENUE NORTH AND COTTONWOOD LANE 92090) WHEREAS, Graham Land Development Company has requested approval of a Preliminary Plat and Variance for property located northwest of the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Cottonwood Lane North; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the 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 Preliminary Plat and Variance located at the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Cottonwood Lane North, subject to the following conditions: Plymouth City Code 500.39 500.39• Sea Level Elevations Required. All surveys submitted in connection with applications for waivers of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 1162.358, Subdivision 4, or for division or consolidation of lots or tracts as provided in Section 500.37 shall show thereon sea level elevations at 50 foot intervals. 500.111. Variances. Subdivision 1. General Conditions. The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from the provisions of this Section as to specific properties when, in its judgment, an unusual hardship on the land exists. In granting a variance, the Commission may prescribe conditions that it deems necessary or desirable in the public interest. In making its findings, as required below, the Commission shall consider the nature of the proposed use of the land and the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside or work in the proposed subdivision, and the probable effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. No variance shall be granted unless the Commission finds: a) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the specific property such that the strict application of the provisions of this Section would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land. b) That the variance is necessary for the preservation and 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. ii a i ww"aIRmo loop IWO& i2aI N ®0® W r.i 6j = w 4 IINW641mi -- loze 17, Hill PINSWILIMIS 1111 14 VIA FAFAT Jr In Romp A I;• / // cOR , MA lawns I I WNTf NO l i • 'sna r4 1/ /I..:T RulesMaim Ira ion!% N R. Y. i! Wool! ME U CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: November 23, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 9, 1992 FILE NO.: 92090 PETITIONER: Graham Land Company REQUEST: Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Concept Plan; Preliminar Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit; Rezoning from FRO (Future Restricted Development District) to R -1A Low Density Single Family Residential) of a 10.86 acre site for a 24 lot single family residential development; and, a Variance for the minimum size of a Planned Unit Development. LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Cottonwood Lance. GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential) ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development District) BACKGROUND: On October 15, 1979, the Cit Council, by Resolution 79 -681, approved a variance and Lot Consolidation Division which separated this tax parcel from the existing Forster Meat Packing facility on County Road 9. There have been no Community Development Department files on this property since it was divided from the larger parcel. Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City Newspaper and has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. A development sign has been placed on the property. PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: 1. MPUD Concept Plan a. The Concept Plan presented provides for 10 acres of Low Density Residential on the south side of Old Rockford Road to be developed as 24 single family detached lots. An extension of the existing 42nd Avenue North will proceed west through the site and swing north to intersect with Old Rockford Road b. Section 9, Subdivision B, Paragraph 5.c. of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance specifies a written review concerning the following regarding a Planned Unit Development Concept Plan: 1 - 1) Relationship to surrounding neighborhood - The site is adjacent to undeveloped lan on the west boundary of this site and north of Old Rockford Road. The land to the south and east has been developed as single family residential neighborhoods. The PUD Plan for the property located directly west provides for 60 units of low to moderate income housing. The units are a bonus on top of the number of units allowed by the Guide Plan. If the units can not be built as low to moderate income housing, then the 60 units are not approved to be built. 2) Compliance with Zoning Ordinance Comprehensive Plan - The Concept Plan proposed shows compliance with all related—City ordinances to the degree that such compliance can be identified at this level of detail. c. Gross density calculations include all land that is above the High Water elevation established by the adopted storm water drainage plan. The proposed average lot size is 15,736 square feet. The proposed density per net acre is 2.21 vs. the Land Use Guide Plan maximum density of 3.0. See Exhibit A for an analysis of subdivision design. d. Surrounding single family development (east and south of the site) exhibit sot net densities ranging from 2.3 units /net acre (east) to 3.33 units net acre (south). It should be noted, however, that the surrounding development was all a part of the large Mission PUD, where the relationship between spot density and the Land Use Guide Plan was not specifically addressed at this scale of consideration. 2. PUD Preliminary Plan /Plat a. The PUD Preliminary Plan /Plat proposes single family lots that are below the R -1A standards. The proposed minimum lot size is 10,800 square feet. b. Section 9, Subdivision B, Paragraph 5j. of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance specifies a written review of the review of PUD Preliminary Plan /Plats. Staff has addressed the issues related to the Preliminary Plan /Plat regarding compatibility of the proposal with the PUD, adjacent property, City regulations, and internal organization under Staff Comments. c. The petitioner is proposing a 30 foot front yard setback; a 10 foot side yard setback to living areas; a 6 foot side yard setback to the garage side; and, a 20 foot rear yard setback. The standard R -1A setbacks are a 35 foot front setback; 15 foot side yard setback; and, a 25 foot rear yard setback. 3. Conditional Use Permit a. Planned Unit Developments are permitted in the R -1A zoning district upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. A copy of the Conditional Use Permit criteria is attached. 4. Characteristics regarding the proposed PUD density, and lot size are contained in Exhibit A. 2 - PLANNING STAFF CENTS: 1. MPUD Concept Plan a. The Concept Plan appears compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Concept Plan proposes single family lots of a similar size to the single family lots directly south and east. b. The Concept Plan appears to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and other City ordinance regulations that are applicable to this project. c. This Concept Plan provides for a greater density than is permitted by the PUD bonus point system as applied to the Land Use Guide Plan classification of the site. (Minus 5 bonus points for project scale in LA -1 equals 1.5 units per net acre, versus 2.21 units per net acre proposed.) d. If the site was developed using either the conventional R -1A standards, or the density permitted by the PUD bonus system, the resulting subdivision would contain approximately 12 lots. The lots would be significantly larger than the existing lots to the south and east. It appears that the concept for lots of similar size to the existing lots, even with an increase in density, would be appropriate in this location. 2. PUD Preliminary Plan /Plat /Conditional Use Permit a. The PUD Preliminary Plan /Plat appears to be compatible with the intent and purposes of the PUD. b. The PUD Preliminary Plan /Plat /Conditional Use Permit appears to present a positive relationship to the expected land uses in the area and to the other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. c. The internal organization of the proposal appears to be functional. The extension of 42nd Avenue North from the east and the intersection of Evergreen Lane North with Old Rockford Road is the most logical layout for this property. d. The City Council has approved reduced front yard setbacks in PUD's where it can be clearly demonstrated that natural features can be preserved. The petitioner's request is for reduced front and rear setbacks throughout the development, whether or not any natural features will be preserved by the request. The City Council has also approved reduced side yard setbacks, such as the 10 and 6 foot setbacks requested. In most of those instances, a minimum of 16 feet was required between buildings to prevent the garages from being constructed 12 feet apart. e. The Preliminary Plan does not show any monument signage for this development. Any request for monument signage in this development will require a PUD Amendment. 3 - f. The proposed rezoning to R -1A is in conformance with the Land Use Guide Plan. 3. Variance for PUD Minimum Size a. The proposed variance from the Zoning Ordinance required minimum 15 acre size for a PUD appears to respond to the Zoning Ordinance variance criteria. 4. We have pro=solutions f pprova , and for denial. Submitted by: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution Approving RPUD Concept Plan 2. Draft Resolution Approving RPUD Preliminary Plat /Plan and Conditional Use Permit 3. Ordinance Rezoning Land from FRD to R -1A 4. Draft Resolution Denying RPUD Concept Plan 5. Draft Resolution Denying RPUD Preliminary Plat /Plan and Conditional Use Permit 6. Engineer's Memo 7. Conditional Use Permit Criteria 8. Variance Criteria 9. Location Map 10. Petitioner's Narrative 11. Wetland Mitigation Report of November 19, 1992 12. Site Graphics 4 - EDIT A GUIDE PLAN CLASSIF UNITS GROSS ACRES ACRES REQUIRED PONDING NET ACRES DU /ACRE DU /ACRE PER GUIDE PLAN BONUS POINTS REQUESTED FORSTER'S PRESERVE PROJECT LA -1 DEDICATIONS TOTAL 24 ACRES / % DEFINED WETLAND 2.7 ) 24.9 % ACRES / % TRAILS 0 ) 0 % ACRES / % ACTIVE OPEN SPACE 0 ) 0 % ACRES / % PASSIVE OPEN SPACE 0 ) 0 % 2.7 ) 24.9% 10.86 0 10.86 2.21 Up to 3.0 5 REASON: The project is under the 40 acre PUD standard. MEDIAN LOT SIZE SQUARE FOOTAGE NUMBER ZONING CODE NUNDAUM MINIMUM LOT SIZE 10,800 24 18,500 100% MEDIAN LOT SIZE 15,736 LOTS < 10,000 S.F. 0 96 37 LOTS < 12,000 S.F. 9 96 54 LOTS < 15,000 S.F. 13 96 100 LOTS < 18,500 S.F. 24 APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR GRAHAM LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE CORNER OF 42ND AVENUE NORTH AND COTTONWOOD LANE (92090) WHEREAS, Graham Land Development Company has requested approval of a Residential Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for the development of 24 single family detached lots on 10.86 acres located northwest of the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Cottonwood Lane North; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public Hearing 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 Residential Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for the development of approximately 10.86 acres located at the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Cottonwood Lane North, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum. 2. All public street right -of -way shall be dedicated. 3. The maximum number of dwelling units approved is 24. 4. The concept of 2.31 dwelling units per net acre is found to be compatible with the existing densities of the adjacent subdivisions to the east and south. DENYING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR GRAHAM LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE CORNER OF 42ND AVENUE NORTH AND COTTONWOOD LANE (92090) WHEREAS, Graham Land Development Company has requested approval of a Residential Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for the development of 24 single family detached lots on 10.86 acres located northwest of the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Cottonwood Lane North; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public Hearing 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 Residential Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for the development of approximately 10.86 acres located at the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Cottonwood Lane North, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed dwelling unit density is in excess of that permitted by the underlying Land Use Guide Plan classification and applicable PUD bonus points. 2. The proposed PUD Concept Plan is less than the minimum 15 acre size required by the Zoning Ordinance for a Planned Unit Development. 3. The proposed variance from the minimum size does not meet the variance criteria. APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT /PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR GRAHAM LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE CORNER OF 42ND AVENUE NORTH AND COTTONWOOD LANE 92090) WHEREAS, Graham Land Development Company has requested approval of a Residential Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat /Plan for 24 single family lots on 10.86 acres, Conditional Use Permit and Variance for property located northwest of the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Cottonwood Lane North; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the 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 Residential Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat /Plan for 24 single family lots on 10.86 acres, and Conditional Use Permit and Variance located at the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Cottonwood Lane North, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum. 2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense. 3. No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for sewer and water. 4. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication with appropriate credits in the amount determined according to verified acreage in effect at the time of filing of the Final Plat with Hennepin County. 5. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System. 6. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations for new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing any open storm water drainage facility. 7. Rezoning shall be finalized with the filing of the Final Plat. 8. No building permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded with Hennepin County. 9. Final Plat mylars shall refer to RPUD 92 -4. 10. Approved setbacks are: a. 10 foot (living) and 6 foot (garage) side yard setback in no case however, shall the minimum distance between houses be less than 16 feet. b. 30 foot front yard setback c. 25 foot rear yard setback d. Minimum lot size at 10,800 square feet 10. Maximum lot coverage shall be 20 percent. 11. Compliance with the terms of City Council Resolution 89 -439 regarding tree preservation. 12. A variance is granted for a PUD of less than 15 acres based on the finding that it meets the Zoning Ordinance variance criteria standards. 13. The proposed Planned Unit Development complies with the Conditional Use Permit standards. 14. Approval by the City Council of the Wetlands Mitigation Plan submitted responsive to the Wetlands Act of 1991. 15. All wetlands mitigation features recommended by the report of Summit Envirosolutions dated November 19, 1992 shall be referenced in the Development Contract and subject to financial guarantee for compliance. DENYING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT /PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR GRAHAM LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LOCATED NORTHW EST OF THE CORNER OF 42ND AVENUE NORTH AND COTTONWOOD LANE 92090) WHEREAS, Graham Land Development Company has requested approval of a Residential Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variance for property located northwest of the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Cottonwood Lane North; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the 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 Residential Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat /Plan and Conditional Use Permit and Variance located at the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Cottonwood Lane North, based on the following findings: CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 42ND AVENUE NORTH AND COTTONWOOD LANE NORTH AS R -1A (LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (92090) Section 1. Amendment of Ordinance. Ordinance No. 80 -9 of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, adopted June 15, 1980 as amended, is hereby amended by changing the classification on the City of Plymouth Zoning Map from FRD Future Restricted Development) District to R -1A (Low Density Single Family Residential) District with respect to the hereinafter described property: Insert Legal) Section 2. General Development Plan. This Ordinance authorizes the development of said tracts only in accordance with the Plan approved for the File No. 92090. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon filing the Final Plat with Hennepin County and upon its passage and publication. Adopted by the City Council day of . ATTEST City Clerk File Mayor SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE REZONING LAND FOR GRAHAM LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 42ND AVENUE NORTH AND COTTONWOOD LANE NORTH (92090) WHEREAS, the City Council has approved an Ordinance rezoning certain land located northwest of the intersection of 42nd Avenue North and Cottonwood Lane North from FRD (Future Restricted Development) District to R -1A (Low Density Single Family Residential) District in conjunction with approval of the Preliminary Plat for Graham Land Development Company; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the Final Plat for Graham Land Development Company to be filed with Hennepin County prior to the publication of said Ordinance. DATE: FILE NO.: PETITIONER: PRELIMINARY PLAT: LOCATION: N/A Yes No City of Plymouth E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0 to Planning Commission & City Council December 2, 1992 92090 Mr. Thomas Graham, Graham Land Development, 10201 Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN 55305 FORSTER PRESERVE South of Rockford Road, west of Cottonwood Lane in the northeast 1/4 of Section 14. 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. _ L — Will SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are issued? These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 And No. 2. Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at the time of final plat approval. 4. Area assessments: None. 5. Other additional assessments estimated: None. N/A Yes No 6. _ L — Does the preliminary plat comply with standard utility /drainage easements? If "No" is marked, the City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet 61) in width adjoining side and rear lot lines. N/A Yes No 7. X Are all provided? The City easements utilities with the following standard utility easements required for construction will require twenty foot (20') utility and drainage for proposed utilities along the lot lines where these are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed Dreliminary plat construction plans. If "No" is marked, the shall be included on the final plat: 8. _. _ X Complies with ponding easement requirements? The City requires the dedication of drainage easements for ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year high water elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive storm water drainage plan. If "No" is marked, the following easement shall be included on the final plat: Drainage easements for ponding shall be provided over Lots 1 throu¢h 12. Block 2 to the 100 year water elevation of 940.0. and over Lots 5. 6. and 7. Block 1 to the 100 year high water elevation of 437.0. 9. . X _ _ Have all existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been vacated? If "No" is marked it will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It is the owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. N/A YES NO 10. X _ _ Has the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the City with this application? It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the city attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that he may file the required easement or vacation of unnecessary easement. 11. _ _ X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained - The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit. If "No" the following permits must be obtained by the developer: DNR MnDOT X Hennepin County X MPCA X State Health Department 2 - X Bassett Creek Minnehaha Creek Elm Creek Shingle Creek X Army Corps of Engineers X Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 from City 1 • i • N/A Yes No 12. _ X _ Does the preliminary plat conform with the grid system for street names? If "No" is marked, the following changes will be necessary: 13. X _ _ Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided? If "No" is marked, Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of and 14. _ JL _ Are all existing street rights -of -way the required width? If "No" is marked, an additional feet of right -of -way will be required on 15. _ X _ Do the preliminary street and utility plans conform with City standard requiring the developer to construct utilities necessary to serve this plat? If "No" is marked, in accordance with City standards, the developer shall be responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the development. N/A Yes No 16. _ Do preliminary utility and street plans submitted comply with all City requirements? If "No" is marked, the following revisions are required for: Sanitary Sewer The must be exten4f-T-1 to the north side of Old Rockford Road with the construction of the agnitary sewer extension om 42nd Watermain Gate valve shall be placed to the east side of the plat on 42nd Ave. Storm Sewer None. Street /Concrete Curb & Gutter None. 3 - N/A Yes No 17. _ X _ Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted • Thoroughfare Guide Plan? If "No" is marked, the following revisions must be made to conform with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan: 18. X _ Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan? If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required: 19. _ X _ Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan? If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required: 20. _ _ 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 tap. 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 PRELIMINARY GLIDING the City right -of -way. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL: N/A Yes No 22. _ X Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan? If "No" is marked, the following revisions are required: 23. _ _ X Does the preliminary Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan comply with the City's erosion control policy? If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required: Silt fence must be placed wherever drainage leaves the site. Silt fence must be placed around the wetlands. Silt fence or hay bales must be used around the catchbasins. Crushed rock berms will be required on 42nd Avenue at the existing 42nd Avenue and on Evergreen Lane at Old Rockford Road. 24. _ X _ Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following lots: 942.0 minimum basement elevation for Lots 1 through 12. Block 2 and 939.0 for Lots 5. 6. and 7. Block 1. 25. A. Easements will be required from adjacent property owners if grading encroaches onto their property. Submitted by: """`" Q /" -GC Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. City Engineer 4 - PR M SELICN 98 SI-- DIVI - A i' i J„ e_ /, a Ins. _, 2. p g, Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Cmmi,ssion for purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public Hearing, and development of a recammaixiation to the City Council, which shall make the final deteanination as to approval or denial. a. The Planning Camu ssion shall review the application and consider its conformance with the following standards: 1) Compliance with and effect upon the Cagxehensive Plan. 2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will prarote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. 3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. 4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. 6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. forms:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89 i 1. That because of the particular physical surronnd.ings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished frcm 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 inccme 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 1` ile,r o'er- Ia1! 'i ocii AnWoof oil mean W - s ! !%; - 1 . III II I ui1. .a ., 1 ` -ter =• a ice ® f , . Nows) 1 - . s . sue. r11HI iii i • AIWM -W w lug INS :10 long MA I MM i MEN logo Olt Vf40 0, sue •. NVA Ismail M. lot If u1 W aloult nO,- IS -2Z.- yL CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: October 27, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 9, 1992 FILE NO.: 92092 PETITIONER: Benson -Orth Associates, Inc. REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for the outside storage of boats and semi - trailers. LOCATION: 14910 -28th Avenue North GUIDE PLAN CLASS: I -P (Planned Industrial) ZONING: I -1 (Planned Industrial) BACKGROUND: On November 21, 1977, the City Council, by Resolution 77 -668 approved a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a 31,770 square foot office warehouse building. On January 29, 1979, the City Council, by Resolution 79 -63 approved a second Conditional Use Permit for additional office space in the existing building. On May 1, 1992, the City received a complaint regarding the outside storage of trailers and pallets on this property. On May 18, 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 September 2, 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 September 29, 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 September 2, 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 September 29, 1992. As of October 27, 1992, the outside storage of boats and semi - trailers has not been removed from the site. A small group of pallets are also still stored on the site. 2. The petitioner is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the outside storage of semi - trailers and boats for various companies that have Page Two, File 92092 leased space within the building. A total of 5 existing parking spaces will be lost to the site to accommodate the storage of these semi - trailers and boats. The petitioner has not included the pallets in the request for outside storage. He indicated that the pallets are removed from the site at the end of each month. The outside storage is not proposed to be centralized in one part of the parking lot but is scattered throughout the lot. 3. The petitioner has stated that some of the tenants of the building need additional storage area for their businesses. Instead of screening building space, the tenants are using semi - trailers to provide the additional storage area. 4. The Zoning Ordinance states that all outside storage shall be screened from adjacent property and City right -of -way. The City Council does have the authority to waive this requirement. The petitioner has requested that this screening requirement be waived. The outside storage is visible from the properties to the north and east as well as from 28th Avenue North. 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. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: 1. It appears the request to waive the screening requirements does not meet the intent of the Zoning, Ordinance. We believe the purpose of the waiver provision is to account for storage not otherwise visible to adjoining properties or the public due to land forms or other structures. 2. The approved Site Plan for this facility required 93 parking spaces. This proposal would eliminate 5 of those parking spaces without providing replacement parking. This use would create a zoning violation by reducing the number of parking spaces below zoning code requirements. 3. Although the petitioner has indicated that the pallets are removed at the end of the month, they are stored outside and are subject to the Zoning Ordinance requirements on outside storage. 5. Current City policy has been to discourage the use of semi - trailers for product" storage for any significant length of time. Approval of this request for permanent storage in trailers may result in a precedent for the use of semi - trailers for storage purposes. 6. The proposal, if approved, may not promote or enhance the general welfare and could be injurious to use and enjoyment of surrounding property since screening has not been provided. F, Page Three, File 92092 7. Due to the location of the proposed outside storage (scattered through the parking area), screening requirements could result in the screening of the entire parking lot. 8. We have provided draft resolutions for denial, and, for approval as requested. d Submitted by: OOOA JA Charles illerud. Comm pity evel ament Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Denying Conditional Use Permit 2. Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit 3. Conditional Use Permit Criteria 4. Petitioner's Narrative 5. Location Map 6. Site Graphics DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BENSON -ORTH ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE LOCATED AT 14910 -28TH AVENUE NORTH (92092) WHEREAS, Benson -Orth Associates, Inc. has requested a Conditional Use Permit for outside storage for property located at 14910 -28th 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 Benson -Orth Associates, Inc. for outside storage for property located at 14910 -28th Avenue North, based on the following findings: 1. The request does not meet the Conditional Use Permit criteria. 2. The outside storage of semi - trailers, boats and pallets will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood, and will not promote or enhance the general public welfare. 3. Adequate screening can not be provided for the proposed outside storage. APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BENSON -ORTH ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE LOCATED AT 14910 -28TH AVENUE NORTH (92092) WHEREAS, Benson -Orth Associates, Inc. has requested a Conditional Use Permit for outside storage for property located at 14910 -28th 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 Benson -Orth Associates, Inc. for outside storage for property located at 14910 -28th Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and Ordinances, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The permit is issued to Benson -Orth Associates, Inc. as operator of the facility and shall not be transferable. 3. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner. 4. There shall be no signage allowed on the trailers stored at this site. 5. This Conditional Use Permit is for the outside storage of 5 semi- trailers, boat trailers and pallets as identified on the Site Plan dated September 29, 1992, only. 6. A maximum of 300 gallons of hydraulic oil storage is permitted. 7. The storage of hazardous materials in the semi - trailers is prohibited. MM SFX.TIQN 9, SUIDDIVISICN A 2. Procedure. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Camiission for purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public Hearing, and development of a recammendation to the City COUncIl, which shall make the final determination as to approval or denial. a. The Planning Cammi.ssion shall review the application and consider its conformance with the following standards: 1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. 3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. 4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. 6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. forms:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89 4 0 James. M. Morltgomc-ry' ("onsiAting Frfgine( -•s" 1ricl. Water Quality Labc)ratory a-f-id Fieid 14910 - 28th Avenue North Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 r 177 Ms. Myra W j. ck, I a c z 0,7tvt Aopvjerit 'Services Techn.1C.3"al-I City of pl.ymol'itf-I CITY i'OUTH14110P-3 -vnicii)t I i P I \7d 1*'1yrw-"t)J.1-J' HN 5 4 4 `7 fOMIMUNITY DEPT D'ar M" t-, r a i L --- r e- d i_, ;rats i I i t' I i e parking; L c) of t I ;i b,-,) v r a, i, I r F, '111 1 a onsi Erigi-rip.en,, Tric. wc)vildC, -i n t, I jl%.r--, f r c. c - t ,-I i t. i -., r, a I use permit for th e- E. e boats. V- Jalfir--s 1-11). consi'l-Iting I I f.ahora1'c')ry Manager t, rw I, r r d! vi : s L bow I l aw m w.i LID CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: November 20, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 8, 1992 FILE NO.: 92102 PETITIONER: Val and Zach Haider for Kabobs To Go REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a 505 square foot Class II Restaurant LOCATION: 11540 Bass Lake Road GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CR -1 (Retail Shopping) ZONING: B -2 (Shopping Center Business) BACKGROUND: On June 20, 1977, the City Council, by Resolution 77 -296, approved a Site Plan Amendment for a 3,000 square foot addition to the existing structure. On February 25, 1985, the City Council, by Resolution 85 -131, approved a Land Use Guide Plan Amendment to reclassify this parcel from LA -1 to CN Neighborhood Shopping Center). On August 22, 1988, the City Council, by Resolution 88 -504, denied a Land Use Guide Plan Amendment to reguide 3.28 acres of land adjacent to this site from LA -1 to CN (Neighborhood Shopping Center). On December 18, 1989, the City Council adopted a revised Land Use Guide Plan which reclassified all CN property as CR (Retail Shopping). This site was therefore reclassified to its current CR -1 designation. 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 approval to locate a deli restaurant in an existing structure. The restaurant is to consist of 505 square feet with a seating capacity of 4. 2. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider a Conditional Use Permit in terms of criteria found in Section 9, Subdivision A, Paragraph 2.a. We have attached a copy of the referenced citation together with the petitioner's narrative. Page Two, File 92102 3. The primary concern regarding this site is the nonconforming status of the facility. The original structure was built prior to the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance and an addition was approved by the City Council in 1977 for this structure. This site currently does not meet parking lot dimensional criteria in regards to setbacks to either the building or property lines. Twelve of the parking spaces at this site encroach into County right -of -way for County Road 10. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: 1. This petition does not include any outside improvements related to parking lot or to floor area expansion. Since there will be no outside improvements required by this request, it does not appear appropriate to apply current Zoning Ordinance parking lot setbacks to this existing structure. 2. Under certain circumstances, the City has approved variances for existing nonconforming setbacks. It would not be appropriate to approve variances for the existing nonconforming setbacks on this property as it would prevent the City from requiring the site to be brought up to current codes, if and when a major addition to this structure is proposed. 3. We have provicq rresoluti r agp r *ate and for denial. Submitted by: es E. Dillerua, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit for a Class II Restaurant 2. Draft Resolution Denying Conditional Use Permit for a Class II Restaurant 3. Petitioner's Narrative 4. Conditional Use Permit Standards 5. Location Map 6. Site Graphics il El APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VAL AND ZACH HAIDER FOR KABOBS TO GO, A CLASS II RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 11540 BASS LAKE ROAD (92102) WHEREAS, Val and Zach Haider have requested approval for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Class II Restaurant for property located at 11540 Bass Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by Val and Zach Haider for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Class II Restaurant for property located at 11540 Bass Lake Road, 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 Val and Zach Haider and shall not be transferable. 3. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner. 4. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within approved designated areas. 5. All parking shall be off - street in designated areas. 6. This permit is for a 505 square foot Class II restaurant with a seating capacity of 4. 7. No variances are granted or implied by this resolution. 8. This request meets the Conditional Use Permit criteria. U DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VAL AND ZACH HAIDER FOR A CLASS II RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 11540 BASS LAKE ROAD (92102) WHEREAS, Val and Zach Haider have requested approval for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Class II Restaurant for property located at 11540 Bass Lake Road; 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 Val and Zach Haider for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Class II Restaurant for property located at 11540 Bass Lake Road, based on the following findings: 1. The proposal does not meet the Conditional Use Permit criteria. 2. The parking lot layout does not meet City Zoning Ordinance regulations. In particular, the proposal violates Zoning Ordinance parking setback requirements from the property line and structures. 3. The proposed use will increase the number of automobiles which will be parked in the spaces which are in violation of the Zoning Ordinance setback requirements. cl'2102 Project Description Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to locate a small carry out food establishment in an existing building that is currently zoned B -Z. This existing building is currently occupied by other retail business. The space occupied by the proposed deli, which will specialize in Aghanistani foods, will be approximately 498 square feet. This proposal fits with the current retail mix, has adequate parking and street access. ro N D L- 46-& -7 P A S - ocotuLo. ¢ a,Af,or-r ijJSc9elbus m o-A—, 4-NP 4=i C YMGNZ' UFR OT[fc(L w(LL- DoT lu P-At P— «r, DIM INte74 ?"e?-r{r VLLOt-c> 3 Compartment Sink I Storage Storage Cabinets/Shelves 96 "x23" Cabinets 24" 108" x 12" Storage Cabinets/Shelves 2 Compartment Sink/ 108" x 18" Prep table LI i2an 72 "x24" Sandwich Unit Door Door M M Fridge Freezer Work Table 48"x35" 32" x 36" 7" x 36 108" x 24' FIX= W Char m r°, Oven O Deli Case Steam Table Broiler Z'-` 36 "x30" 72 "x31" 48 "x31" 48 Counter X24" ;124 "x24" ° D 21 - - 11/2' Haider Deli Concept Plan Scale: 1140 = V 0 0 0 o O F- n ?` i CITY 1(Yi li l: t 4. 4 f I FrICK S=ON 9, S[- DIVISION A 2. per. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public Hearing, and development of a recommsmxiation to the City Council, which shall make the final det 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 Crnprehensive Plan. 2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will pramte and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or camfort. 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 i I.M OVERnent 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 tpml! l rim \_ ORE 1 i2q, E CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: November 24, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 9, 1992 FILE NO.: 92104 PETITIONER: Tobin Real Estate REQUEST: Amended MPUD Concept Plan, Preliminary Plat /Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the "Northwest Business Campus" LOCATION: Northwest corner of Highway 55 and Northwest Boulevard GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CL (Limited Business) and I -P (Planned Industrial) ZONING: MPUD 81 -1 BACKGROUND: On February 2, 1981, the City Council, by Resolution 81 -89, approved a MPUD Concept Plan for the "Northwest Business Campus ". On the May 4, 1981, the City Council, by Resolution 81 -281, approved a Land Use Guide Plan Amendment and MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit for the "Northwest Business Campus ". On December 21, 1981, the City Council, by Resolution 81- 846, approved a Final Plat and Development Contract for the "Northwest Business Campus" for a series of outlots and public street right -of -ways. The total project size in each of these actions was 167 acres. On May 1, 1989, the City Council, by Resolution 89 -235, amended "Area G" and Area D" of the MPUD Plan to allow for some limited retail uses. On July 2, 1990, the City Council, by Resolution 90 -392, approved an Amended Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Concept Plan to increase the PUD in size by 1.5 acres and increase the planned structure square footage in the Planned Unit Development by 179,000 square feet. Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City Newspaper and has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the original PUD perimeter. A development sign has been placed on the site. PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: 1. The Concept Plan Amendment is to allow several structures totalling 710,000 square feet as a medical campus, a joint venture between Abbott Northwestern Hospital and North Memorial Hospital. a. This project will wrap around the existing McDonalds Restaurant. No changes are proposed for the McDonalds site. This is an increase of 26,600 square feet (slightly less than 4 percent) over the currently allowed general office and retail uses in this area of the Northwest Business Campus. The proposed medical campus will consist of 5 Page Two, File 92104 structures ranging in height from one story to 7 stories with two parking ramps. At the campus core, 3 buildings and 2 parking ramps will be connected by skyways. The development of the medical campus will be phased over several years. The first phase will include 125,000 square feet of structure and 648 parking spaces. Use PnVowd Square Feet Ambulatory Ca wD"gaostic Ceara (Phase 1) 45.000 Clinical and Diagnostic Services Outpatient Basis Women's/Children's Outpatient Clinic 30.000 Obsteuics/Gynecology Pediatrics Ambulatory Care/Ou4mlient Clinic Expansion 30,000 Additional C7inicaMagnostic Services Response to future area growth and demand for services Medial Office Building 801000 General ()office Space Physical Therapy Retail Pharmacy Accessory Retail(Restataant Lease Space 10,000 SF) Medial Office Expansion 70,000 Office Space as Above (No Retail) Demand Driven Short Stay/Birthing Center 110,000 100 Beds - "Short Stay" Recovery 50 Beds - Obstetrics Accessory ReWl/Restaurant Lease Space 10,000 SF) Radiation Thetapy/Oncology 15.000 Radiological Lab and Treatmeat Nursing Home Facilities 50,000 Group III: Custodial Care 100 Beds Step -Down Cue Facility 50,000 Hotel -like Accommodations loo Beds (Not Licensed) Fitness/Physical Therapy Center 20,000 Medial Training/Health Awareness/Educational 40,000 Facility Continuing Education for Health Care Providers Serninar/Classroorr/Meeting Roosts Media Production (Audio/Video/Print) Human Services Facility 30,000 Behavior Medicine Counseling Social Services Supporting Services 140,000 Multi- Tenant Office Accessory Retail/Services New (Future) Technologies Page Three, File 92104 2. MPUD Concept Plan a. Section 9, Subdivision B, Paragraph 5c. of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance specifies a written review concerning the following, regarding the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan: The relationship of proposal to surrounding neighborhood. The site is adjacent to office buildings on the north, Interstate Highway 494 on the west, a mixture of commercial uses south of Highway 55 and undeveloped land east of the project. The land north and east of the site is included in the "Northwest Business Campus" which is zoned for office and industrial uses. The land south of Highway 55 is zoned B -1 for office uses and the land west of Highway 494 is zoned B- 3 for commercial business uses. Compliance with the City Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Concept Plan Amendment is consistent with the related City ordinances and elements of the Comprehensive Plan to the same extent as was the original MPUD Concept Plan. It should be noted that the applicant has paid for a traffic study which has been completed by the traffic consultant of the City to determine the relative impact of the Amended MPUD Concept Plan on the City's Transportation Plan and the other roadway components related to this site. The consultant has made numerous recommendations for improvements to the roadways in the vicinity to mitigate the impact of this development. Those recommendations are the same as those previously made regarding the existing PUD plan for the site. No new improvements are recommended. b. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment to the MPUD Concept Plan as to need to prepare an amended Environmental Assessment Worksheet. We have determined that the proposed MPUD Concept Plan Amendment does not result in sufficient additional environmental impacts to warrant tie preparation of a new Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Rules of the Environment Quality Board provide for findings such as this to made with respect to amendments to projects upon which previous Environmental_.Assessment Worksheets have been prepared. c. The current PUD Plan provides for 1,751,050 square feet total development within Northwest Business Campus. The proposed amendment will increase the total to 1,777,650 square feet. The overall increase in structure square footage proposed is approximately 2 percent of the entire PUD. Page Four, File 92104 d. The traffic improvements required for the development of this site include adding an additional through lane in each direction for Highway 55; dual left turn lanes for Highway 55 to northbound Northwest Boulevard; new traffic control signal lights at Highway 55 and Northwest Boulevard; and signalization of the Northwest Boulevard and Campus Drive intersection. e. An Indirect Source Permit has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the Northwest Business Campus MPUD. It is the responsibility of the project applicant to secure the approval of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the amended project plan if it is approved by the City. f. The Natural Resource Analysis shows an extensive grove of trees in the northwest corner of the site. The approved plan shows an office building and parking ramp replacing most of the existing woods. The proposed amendment also places a building and parking ramp in approximately the same location. It appears that less of the existing trees will be lost under the proposed amendment than the current plan. 3. PUD Preliminary Plan /Plat a. The PUD Preliminary Plan /Plat proposes to vacate Annapolis Circle and replat 6 existing parcels into one large lot. No plat changes are proposed for areas "E" and "F ". One of the parcels proposed for inclusion into the new lot is the "Sinclair Gas Station" lot. b. Section 9, Subdivision B, Paragraph 5j of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance specifies a written review concerning the following regarding the Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit. 1).Compatibility with the purposes and intent of the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment is generally compatible with the original purpose and intent of this MPUD. Most of the site would not change in use character from office /research to office /medical /clinic. The portion of the site that wraps around the McDonalds site will change in use character from neighborhood shopping to medical use. Relationship to the neighborhood, Comprehensive Plan and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance The proposed amendment is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and does not deviate from the Land Use Guide Plan designation of Limited Office. Lot 5 is also in compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as can be determined at this stage of application. Internal organization and adequacy of the uses of circulation and parking facilities The proposed PUD Amendment does adequately address internal organization and circulation. The proposal includes an internal Page Five, File 92104 driveway system and pedestrian skyway linkage between buildings and parking ramps and the provisions for transit dropoff facilities. c. The building elevations of the campus will include the use of brick, stone and reflective glass in earthtone colors which are to be compatible with the existing buildings and environment of the Northwest Business Campus. The parking ramps will be approximately 50 percent open to avoid the need of mechanical ventilation. Brick masonry or textured cast -in -place concrete will be used for the remainder of the garage facades. The color will match the color of the campus buildings. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: 1. MPUD Concept Plan a. The proposed amendment to MPUD Concept Plan for the "Northwest Business Campus" complies with the provisions of MPUD section of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance with respect to the level of detail required for Concept Plans. b. The proposed amendment to the MPUD Concept Plan does not reflect significant environmental impacts beyond those comprehended by the original MPUD Concept Plan and, therefore, no new or amended Environmental Assessment Worksheet is required. c. The concept to replace the office /office- research /retail use with a medical campus in this portion of the Northwest Business Campus appears to be compatible with the intent of the PUD. Both the office and medical uses are in the same land use category of the Plymouth Land Use Guide Plan. While the PUD plan change in 1989 creating the neighborhood commercial area surrounding McDonalds was argued as providing service to the PUD, that was debatable then, and still is. The change likely had more to do with what was, then, an "in hand" buyer. The PUD provision allowing retail uses is a PUD regardless of underlying zoning proved to be a provision of convenience. At the same time, however, because retailing was approved here in 1989 the impact of introducing transient activity here by the clinic uses does not appear significant; where it might be were the current PUD use environment 100 percent office. d. The basic layout of this site has not changed significantly. The two cornerstone" buildings at Northwest Boulevard and Highway 55 are not proposed to be changed; and, the major parking areas are proposed to be located adjacent to Highway 55 and I -494, as is currently the plan. 2. PUD Preliminary Plan /Plat /Conditional Use Permit a. The PUD Preliminary Plan /Plat appears to be compatible with the intent and purposes of the PUD. Page Six, File 92104 b. The PUD Preliminary Plan /Plat /Conditional Use Permit appears to present a positive relationship to the expected land uses in this area. c. The internal organization of the proposal appears to be appropriate. The proposed platting of this site is consistent with the existing platting of the PUD. d. The architectural appearance of this project will have a major impact on the "image" of Plymouth due to the large size and location of the Campus. The petitioner has indicated that the Campus buildings will use predominantly earth tone colors and a design that will not become outdated in a short period of time. The parking ramps are to be designed so that they are similar in appearance to the Campus buildings. A preliminary landscape plan has been provided which shows the retention of some existing trees adjacent to one parking ramp and extensive landscaping of the remainder of the site. The final Landscape Plan will be submitted with the Final Site Plan application. 3. We have provi Wresolutiona,4or/6Nrov and r denial. Submitted by: Chad es E. Dillerud, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution Approving Amended MPUD Concept Plan 2. Draft Resolution Approving Amended MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit 3. Draft Resolution Denying Amended MPUD Concept 4. Draft Resolution Denying Amended MPUD Conditional Use Permit 5. Engineer's Memo 6. Traffic Study 7. Conditional Use Permit Standards 8. Planning Commission Minutes Regarding 1989 and 9. Location Map 10. Petitioner's Narrative 11. Large Plans Plan Preliminary Plan /Plat and 1990 PUD Amendments APPROVING AMENDED MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR TOBIN REAL ESTATE FOR WEST SUBURBAN HEALTH CAMPUS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 55 AND NORTHWEST BOULEVARD (92104) WHEREAS, Tobin Real Estate has requested approval of an Amended Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for the development of approximately 38 acres located at the northwest corner of Highway 55 and Northwest Boulevard; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. MPUD 81 -281, approved an MPUD Concept Plan for this site; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution MPUD 81 -281, approved the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment, MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit; and by Resolution 81 -846, approved the Final Plat and Development Contract for the Northwest Business Campus; 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 Amended Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for the development of approximately 38 acres located at the northwest corner of Highway 55 and Northwest Boulevard, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum. 2. Staging of the development shall be in accordance with utility availability as approved by the City Engineer. 3. Compliance with the applicable conditions of Resolutions 81 -89 (MPUD Concept Plan), 81 -281 (MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat /Conditional Use Permit), 81- 846/847 (MPUD Final Plat /Setting Conditions, and the Development Contract). 4. The amended MPUD Concept Plan shall be subject to the conditions of the current or any required supplemental Indirect Source Permit (I.S.P.). The applicant shall apply to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for a determination of any amendments required to the current I.S.P. resulting from this MPUD Plan Amendment. 5. No Environmental Assessment Worksheet is required considering the small size of the addition. 6. Compliance with the ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and fire lanes. 7. A revised MPUD Preliminary Plan for the entire MPUD and reflecting all Council approved changes shall be submitted and placed on file per the Zoning Ordinance development requirements. DENYING AMENDED MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR TOBIN REAL ESTATE FOR WEST SUBURBAN HEALTH CAMPUS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 55 AND NORTHWEST BOULEVARD (92104) WHEREAS, Tobin Real Estate has requested approval of an Amended Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for the development of approximately 38 acres located at the northwest corner of Highway 55 and Northwest Boulevard; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. MPUD 81 -281, approved an MPUD Concept Plan for this site; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution MPUD 81 -281, approved the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment, MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit; and by Resolution 81 -846, approved the Final Plat and Development Contract for the Northwest Business Campus; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public Informational Meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the Amended Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for the development of approximately 38 acres located at the northwest corner of Highway 55 and Northwest Boulevard, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed Amended MPUD Concept Plan changes significantly the purpose and intent of this office high tech business campus. The proposed use is not compatible with the existing office warehouse development in the Northwest Business Campus ". APPROVING AMENDED MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN /PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TOBIN REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 55 AND NORTHWEST BOULEVARD (92104) WHEREAS, Tobin Real Estate has re uested approval for an Amended Mixed Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Plat and Conditional Use Permit for the West Suburban Health Campus on approximately 38 acres for property located at the northwest corner of Highway 55 and Northwest Boulevard; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the 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 Tobin Real Estate for an Amended Mixed Planned Unit Development Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit for property located at the northwest corner of Highway 55 and Northwest Boulevard, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum. 2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense. 3. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu at the time of filing of the Final Plat. 4. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations for new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing any open storm water drainage facility. 5. No building permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded with Hennepin County. 6. Final Plat mylars shall refer to MPUD 81 -1. 7. The approved Amended MPUD Plan is illustrated on the plans dated November 25, 1992. 8. Approved maximum height of any structure in this portion of the site shall be no higher than 105 feet. 9. Total PUD development shall not exceed 1,777,650 square feet of structure area. 10. Easement for additional road right -of -way over Lot 1, block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, Northwest Business Campus 4th Addition. 11. The Final Plat shall include the parcel known as the "Sinclair Site" (PID 22 -34- 118 -22- 0009). DENYING AMENDED MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN /PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TOBIN REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 55 AND NORTHWEST BOULEVARD (92104) WHEREAS, Tobin Real Estate has re uested approval for an Amended Mixed Planned Unit Development Preliminary PlanNlat and Conditional Use Permit for the West Suburban Health Campus on approximately 38 acres for property located at the northwest corner of Highway 55 and Northwest Boulevard; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the 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 the request by Tobin Real Estate for an Amended Mixed Planned Unit Development Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit for property located at the northwest corner of Highway 55 and Northwest Boulevard, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed Amended MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit is not compatible with the purpose and intent of the existing "Northwest Business Campus" PUD Plan. 2. The proposed uses will negatively impact the existing office uses in the Northwest Business Campus" development. DATE: FILE NO.: PETITIONER: PRELIMINARY PLAT: LOCATION: N/A Yes No City of Plymouth E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0 to Planning Commission & City Council December 2, 1992 92104 Mr. Collin Barr, Tobin Real Estate, 625 Marquette Avenue, #735, Minneapolis, MN 55402 NORTHWEST BUSINESS CAMPUS 10TH ADDITION South and west of Campus Drive, north of Highway 55 in the south 1/2 Section 22. 1. _ _ _X_ Have watermain area assessments been levied based on proposed use? 2. _ _ X Have sanitary sewer area assessments been levied based on proposed use? 3. _ _ Will SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are issued? These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 And No. 2. Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at the time of final plat approval. 4. Area assessments: Waterma4n area assessments Tract D. R.L.S. No. 1173 0.63 acres x S2.370.00 /Ac. - S1.493.10. Tracts G. M. N. 0. P. and Q. R.L.S. No 209. 1.38 acres x S2.370.00 /Ac. - S3.270.60. The total amount is S4.763.70 and shall be paid with the building permit, 5. Other additional assessments estimated: None. N/A Yes No 6. _ _ Does the preliminary plat comply with standard utility /drainage easements? If "No" is marked, the City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet 61) in width adjoining side and rear lot lines. N/A Yes No 7. X _ _ Are all standard utility easements required for construction provided? The City will require twenty foot (20') utility and drainage easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines where these utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed with the preliminary plat construction plans. If "No" is marked, the following shall be included on the final plat: 8. _ X _ Complies with ponding easement requirements? The City requires the dedication of drainage easements for ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year high water elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive storm water drainage plan. If "No" is marked, the following easement shall be included on the final plat: 9. _ _ X Have all existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been vacated? If "No" is marked it will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It is the owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. Annapolis Circle right -of -way the ten foot drainage and utility easements adjacent to the Annapolis Circle right -of -way. The existing drainage easements for ponding purposes. Roadway easement created by Document Nos. 587183, 450636, 463303, 485729. 1408814. and 1408813. N/A YES NO 10. _ _ X Has the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the City with this application? It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the city attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that he may file the required easement or vacation of unnecessary easement. 11. _ _ X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained - The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit. If "No" the following permits must be. obtained by the developer: DNR X MnDOT Hennepin County X MPCA State Health Department 2 - X Bassett Creek Minnehaha Creek Elm Creek Shingle Creek X Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 from City N/A Yes No 12. _ X _ Does the preliminary plat conform with the grid system for street names? If "No" is marked, the following changes will be necessary: 13. X _ _ Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided? If "No" is marked, Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of and 14. X _ _ Are all existing street rights -of -way the required width? If "No" is marked, an additional feet of right -of -way will be required on 15. X _ _ Do the preliminary street and utility plans conform with City standard requiring the developer to construct utilities necessary to serve this plat? If "No" is marked, in accordance with City standards, the developer shall be responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the development. N/A Yes No 16. X Do preliminary utility and street plans submitted comply with all City requirements? If "No" is marked, the following revisions are required for: Sanitary Sewer Watermain Storm Sewer Street /Concrete Curb & Gutter 3 - N/A Yes No 17. X _ _ Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan? If "No" is marked, the following revisions must be made to conform with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan: 18. X _ _ Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan? If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required: 19. X _ _ Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan? If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required: 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 tan. 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. N/A Yes No 22. _ X Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan? If "No" is marked, the following revisions are required: 23. _ _ X Does the preliminary Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan comply with the City's erosion control policy? If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required: LU erosion control methods shall be shown on the final grading plan. 24. _ _ X Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following lots: The minimum basement _elevation for Lot 1. Block shall be 962.0. N• •N • 25. A. The on -site utilities will be reviewed with each site plan application. B. There shall be no direct access from Annapolis Circle or any lots which abut Highway 55 to Highway 55. The ingress /egress easement benefiting R.L.S. No. 1173, per Document No. 837859 shall be conveyed to MnDOT. Submitted by: Daniel L. L. Faulkner, P.E. City Engineer 4 - City of Plymouth E N G I N E E R' S M E M O to Planning Commission & City Council DATE: December 3, 1992 FILE NO.: 92104 PETITIONER: Mr. Collin Barr, Tobin Real Estate, 625 Marquette Avenue, No. 735, Minneapolis, MN 55402 CONCEPT PLAN: NORTHWEST BUSINESS CAMPUS 10TH ADDITION/WEST SUBURBAN HEALTH CAMPUS LOCATION North of Highway 55, west and south of Campus Drive in the south 1/2 of Section 22 This memo was prepared in response to the request for an amended concept plan for the Northwest Business Campus for the proposed construction of West Suburban Health Campus. CONCEPT PLAN 1) An amended Indirect Source Permit will be required. 2) Based on the revised traffic study for the Northwest Business Campus the required street improvements are included in the 1994 MnDOT Construction Schedule for Northwest Boulevard and Highway 55, City Project No. 210, except an additional left turn lane must be added for southbound Northwest Boulevard to eastbound Highway 55. This cannot be done until after reconstruction of the County Road 61 intersection on the south side of Highway 55. 3) The trunk sewer system and the eight inch lateral sewer in Xenium Lane will adequately handle the increased flows from the West Suburban Health Campus. 4) Additional right -of -way will be required from Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, Northwest Campus 4th Addition for the Highway 55 /Northwest Boulevard intersection improvements by MnDOT in 1994 (City Project No. 210). This shall be granted to the City at no cost after the area is defined by MnDOT. SUBMITTED BY: A) y z - Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. City Engineer SRFSTRGAR - ROSCOE- FAUSCH, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & PLANNERS TRANSPORTATION CIVIL STRUCTURAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAND SURVEYORS November 17, 1992 Mr. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. City Engineer City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 SRF No. 0921755 Vol/ I L f ? 19 RE: TRAFFIC STUDY/REVIEW OF THE 1990 ISP LAND USE AND THE 1992 PROPOSED MEDICAL COMPLEX FOR THE NORTHWEST BUSINESS CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT Dear Dan: As requested, a Traffic Study/Review has been completed for the above referenced project, located in the northeast quadrant of T.H. 55 and I -494 (see Figure 1). This report describes the results of the traffic analysis and recommended design guidelines. Based on this study /review, the following comments and recommendations are offered for your consideration: In order to evaluate the traffic impacts of the 1992 proposed development plan (see Figure 2), a comparison was made between the 1992 proposed development trip generation estimates and an estimate of the site developed based on the 1990 Indirect Source Permit General Development Plan (see Figure 3). Using the stated land use assumptions and the 1991 ITE Trip Generation rates (see Table 1), the p.m. peak hour trips generated are tabulated as follows: P.M. PEAK HOUR DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS BASED ON 1991 ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES 1990 ISP Land Use 1992 Proposed Land Use In Out Total In Out Total 799 2,330 3,129 998 2,548 3,546 Suite 150, One Carlson Parkway North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 612/475 -0010 FAX 612/475.2429 MAPLE ._. GROVERu, OlSSEO. Ai will I f tsr_ CORCORAI *.r . f —, r_ 169 Gy O y j[ • ••. ry ,r CJ ,' p, . -- - - - -- - -- - slw....• g a © •ass Luc ' gyp ti p MLC _ LAM Ell 1 `tp PantrL•aw +ee ` r Roii! , • •. • RO L Fine . IIrODC Lai :•: i•;' • LAAL Fqb •.Z' -- ht. '•. .o rM `• PLYMOUTH Co- EW HOPE CRMEMNAN "~ \ _LS[It v • c, r ..aa, i :i "' E .CF. tD[tFDIm I O IeOCilDtD o - '::5;;x;0 q ¢wt ' 1. SITE 169• . ...:_• - =::• I MOOnIIy MEDI _.Aire S yae. 6 L 4e .. i-• LAME=...:.. t`y vl, .+..•. ... .a+ 4 GOLDEN VALLEY - w zLrn j vwovv. , tti i.,r c.aaet j' Ji• .1•iad' 3 Laitn : i B Tr¢rLS. • ' r o dee .aiet <: V IS 61. Am! , 4 55 50L f: *r.:.4.r ....L , , -,• , :. •c.- C wit X11"-. --i1 0 .• 0 ON Q 1 •'•L .'...'. FWAYZA A It 91 z` Fends nape• u..s aaF • . ' W¢yaat'. =.. . MINNETON=A .. o• r.ls' brounu 'hkr tt1 169 :Hannan w osl e/ Bcry WOODLAND Gray J 1 t O•/ bey pp : 16b I[ •:' s, 3.nrt•,aa.. K. 1'OT L AK Y• ' . ucc 'c O e ,. .t :.c:, 1 L,I, s, TOKA : -::a ' : ":.'. x s `Mr wirn, n tisanC a .;; - . :: : : ..:;:.•, . •:.•. : • .:.:. I , .• sT.LOV ssnMINN— PARKDEEPHAVENLDWERUE .e. P s+{ i a •'.... a P • ` cl :_.,. A. 1 Y.• .:. :?•: Luc[ s, ^ . Ic 169 S, VD -f:•\ LvC.' .f...w rr. •:'! BA SRF STRGAR- ROSCOE- FAUSCH, INC. CITY OF PLYMOUTH FIGURE consLtn`tc ENCwEERS & ninNNFRs PROJECT LOCATION 1 SRF NO. 0921755 NORTHWEST BUSINESS CAMPUS TRAFFIC STUDY 1{ 1 n la t I 4yl WI I I I I I -,, ry TA o sia s•ssl qJ1 1l MM.Y. PMNTISFD MTR v N M. ll wLn t \ WlF D[ \111MVE T: IHN'IIYD lRl1/1M:D \yl uf. UF.\ sYI.T l'Y Vl6M- LLIMTN'.: IFLAtl lilvt ": Itl.w M 6fIV: MN\If: Plw fINrT \TA\ tlNTNIV:: lrlr l aPrlrr srn -NSS nlN'i. I.lrl TATAL: 1Nirl t'RSI%G FACILITY• • IM REDS: MAN S.F. MEDICAL OFFICE EXPANSION: TRAM S.F. W0MAN -S CHILDERENS OUTPATIENT CLINIC: LRAM S.F. LORRY SUPPORT RETAIL: 10.000 S.F. MEDIC AL OFFICE: 0.000 S.F. 4MRL LATORY CARE CLINIC: 45.098 S.F. r AMBULATORY CARE CLINIC ENP4NSIVN: 16.000 S.F. 4 U• BIRTHING CENTER - 50 REDS: 35.000 S.F. LORR\ I SGAVRT RETAIL: 10.006 S.F. SXIIRT Sf.iY CENTER • IM REDS: 0.5.098 S.F. t R ADIATIIN THERAPY', I/NC(IIIN:Y' CLINIC: I5A00 S.F. P STEP -D0"N F%CILITY' - IM REDS: 50.006 S.F. i FITNFSS PHYSICAL THERAPY: 30,6110S.F. ` \•'\ , [)( ;/, 0 0 MEDICALTRUNING: 40.000 S.F. \ HUMAN SER \'ICES: 314000 S.F. \. MILT - TENANT OMCE: 140.000 S.F. SRF STRGAR - ROSCOE- FAUSCH,INC. CITY OF PLYMOUTH FIGURE CO \SULTLNC ENCINEERS dE PLANNERS 1992 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2 SRF NO. 0921755 ' NORTHWEST BUSINESS CAMPUS TRAFFIC STUDY n C C L 0 L wj To z z w jDw0 w a. U- o w L) z ui 0 a C6 as M I- u aZ P cc z rn a F O O I I in tilt II 'infix, 7 dF n C C L 0 L wj To z z w jDw0 w a. U- o w L) z ui 0 a C6 as M I- u aZ P cc z rn a F O O A EL- IN fJRTrP%E::' C'....in.G.. f I. ' r!,P GEIEr.A;,L'rJ :, .... v -1C ^nL C'c:ELFNEhI r'li; TRI=' '-'N. RVE RIF K rnn rMCAAL'r.E FOR A.M. r A.. r. PI . .AY. inrrnSULI pM. fl-Jr. USES TRIP SEN. ``ATE ; IN OUT IN HOTEL CCE'JF'tcr RJu "S 4.46 V.26 0.40 HEALTH CLUB sa. ft. c oi! DFFTCE b se. ft. ; i..- 0.116 4.23 OFFICE 5. ft. STEP DOWN !vURS NE KINE sc. ft. 0.25 Trt f sa. ft. 7 484Ktim,L V CC. f.. i.ry .. 6 FAST FOOD RESTAU'RMW rt : ft. oSUFFICEfLt sa. s OFFTrE F a. OFF:CF; -Z luL'!S G =_e. ;t. 1.51 ?.18 jCE lnr S EAR rig rOFFL.:rc.Lrt v sa. ft. r ^ OFFICE,•'6`ESEARCH H L'r 10E RESE nn 1 _ SQ. I.. J.'. s ' NOTE: HE3E F,ATC= AF--L .f L. _ ii i.` t1r :,. }.,C `rTC `11I P LC ' I. Ohl :iu AO.. . ih! TIrL NORTHWEST cUSTN'cc ':rt'F_ }. "R'F ._ EI'JaL'f r F 0 .7 N EF r;.. }N Rrir_. . .,E .:Z:EL.rMcNI FL 56 kmit H0UR OUT 1.._ . i IDS S.u' 24.44 Tc r 6EN. RATE 1N ul'I 0.40- U. 4 611' 1.. 1... 2.85 Jl . 4.41 0.95 27.56 24.44 0.34 1.70 0.2? x1.28 4.:L TRIP SEN. RATE HOTEL OCCUPIED n r 4.4 6 HEALTH CLUB sa. ft. OFFICE B sa. ft. 1.32 0.16 MEDICAL OFFICE sC. ft. 2.11" 0.6 MEDICAL CLi! +IC a. it. 0." 0... STEP DOWN !vURS NE KINE sc. ft. 0.25 0.15 SHORT STAYiBiR'HING sa. ft. 4.70 0.20 FAST FOOD RESTIAURAN - , f t. 7b7 6.27 OFFICE E sa. ft. 1.64 0.20 OFFICE F ft. 1.58 4.19 OFFICE ?SHOWROOK G sa. ft. 1.51 0.18 ' OFFICE/RESEARCH . - t. 1.23 0.26 n FFT CER ESE-CH ft. V- 1. iOT E: TrE5E nA ,;T -S J7 THE nrrr{ r r}nr rn A r nlacr.Ll. I. 0..,- 1% . a u ;L. T r, u RL: Mi. v" '.M! i, ALL ' ::'JE r. Tii:Ai 'i: nn ,ri 'A :.,T_ i-- F.. t AYE. L'C FA! - rn.^M THERLr, _ .. _.... TF u- KEnAn 1 13!N E CR' nTT /n1dV. ;, 56 kmit H0UR OUT 1.._ . i IDS S.u' 24.44 Tc r 6EN. RATE 1N ul'I 0.40- U. 4 611' 1.. 1... 2.85 Jl . 4.41 0.95 27.56 24.44 0.34 1.70 0.2? x1.28 4.:L Mr. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. -6- November 17, 1992 From the 1991 ITE Trip Generation estimates (see Table 2), it can be assumed that the 1992 proposed development plan would generate 400 more trips than the 1990 ISP General Development Plan during the p.m. peak hour. The 1992 proposed development would also generate 1,500 more trips on a daily basis than the 1990 ISP Land Use Plan. In order to analyze the capability of the existing and proposed roadways to accommodate traffic from the proposed development, traffic was analyzed using 1992 ITE Trip Generation Rates, 1992 Northwest Business Campus Proposed Land Use and updated data on existing and future background traffic. In reviewing the key intersections serving the subject site, it was determined that the intersection of Highway 55 and County Road 61 (Northwest Boulevard/Xenium Lane) is the most critical intersection in determining the traffic impacts in the study area. The existing intersection of Highway 55 and County Road 61 operates at Level of Service D during the p.m. peak hour. Adding the traffic generated by the proposed development to the 1992 background traffic to the existing intersection would result in a Level of Service F operation (see Appendix for capacity analysis worksheet and a description of levels of service). Year 1994 (one year after project completion) and year 2010 forecasts for the Highway 55 and County Road 61 intersection were developed based on the 1990 ISP and proposed 1992 Northwest Business Campus Proposed Land Use. the existing p.m. peak hour volumes and the latest Plymouth Thoroughfare Plan 2010 forecasts for Highway 55 and County Road 61 (see Figure 4). Based on these forecasts and the most optimistic level of intersection geometric and traffic control improvements, a year 1994 and 2010 capacity analysis of the subject intersection indicated the future p.m. peak hour level of service to be Level of Service C in 1994 and Level of Service D in 2010. Based on the long range nature of these forecasts, this would be an acceptable year 2010 level of service. TABLE TWOTn.c +lu yr7rv ...v.•. TnTF' r NER IC r- .y;:TFr. .QC T.: .D. - bFr..i -1' B ML' PLANA. .,rnr..nT.:,r cc.:... s. ,•., .. -... _rl -.-.nom DE., L r .;iT r-tl T*AFFIC GENERATED 8ENE4ATE -1 A.N. PEAK M. PEAK HOUR ; Ln "Ni' L!SE5 CicE BL!'1.E . IN CUT IN BUT ; LID= 4: wf:..:yE w 56^.'! 9: E'er PEAL Ta CLUE 20 . `!00 S.F. i: 3 ?4 : 3 52 34 OFFICEif...,_ i+ 3 ?8,6Ju S.P. F5 S4, 1 459 86 4i8 , OFi -IrE C 400 000 .F. 3.584 Sp {! 62 86 431 ; RETAIL y 38.400 S.r. 1589 ; 59 25 193 FA. FBBC _Int. Ate" r i8b OFFICE 8 {',V!l.i a. ". l,ic` : 144 21 : 26 138 OFFICE : t: . 49 : 51 4.4 OFFCE:CFCkRCrry, r,., 48 OFF T-C R`CY iJ I: 5(i ilAA .... C T . 1. 55 OFFiCERECEAReH H 24 139 REEARCJOFF' CE!S : t nn 6 5 r^ 5: i5: i,i 1 Y: NBRT'r.WEC': u5'NEB.. F' r .'.`C`: TG SF SirN t R•.AT:' Gu ^h -_ - 0 6nrF: r__ , rrrr J-3 n tiPLAIN TRr-T rirr:. nT -nGENE^n Tn GENERATED I A.M. i'.M. PEAK HOUR LAND L =EB R; p r: i MITUU 11T i... iY.• iv 4i1' I . rl:;LTH C_ur vl. r;.lU .. 52 4 OFFiCC $ 8.6`0, 34: 495 bi 86 428 r11 ICENF?I ni BFF:,.r 1 C 5• S.F. 1JO,OiIt! 1 - 264 11 43I. Ii.= 184 2 14i8 • dEG'CA! CLINIC a;;,n; ?rJ C; c. I eJ6: rr 3 44 : 2 41 346 ' STEP DOWN NL!?SitdB r`NE 100.000 C., . 25 15 : 15 20 SHORTu !(n1 u i? iV. 01.C" S.F. . r. 4 41 Qc I FAST FOOD f;E ALr.nn; J,010 a. 6 23 15 ; 83 13 OFFICE E 70.000 S.C. 1,0 ?2 ; 5 14 ; 24 119 ' OFFICE F 4 {!,C'00 221 40 195 ; CE , OFFIr SHBbfiOL?N C 1 1 "V r 0 .. 62 32 ' 48 232 ; OFFICE /RESE;YP,CN 8 C r50,000 S.F r Cn: 1 Jai! Rbi T I11 11 t 1b.l OFFICE'RESEAR H a 12'. { " ?', ... 22 1'9 nG : a 139 1 OFFitc'R- c-AcrH . CMrtr, I,. iii,. i' is c.rJ: 2-2y: 1IC. T =. ALL TF1 =' SE'tiE= ,, "T:uN' FATrC .cE n1,Er•rF n'T'F_ =G;nML. h ±sr 1C •.M, ul THE TC'j'1rr I.T.C. rr:f E`.JEF T. N R.Ec'C8T 'TH ",T T.n,. i . i -A. W N C7 e: wwi0 N N WC G I J z 02IL it Z I ` r VW LL A QIvmZ = W O Z CL al U cni3O2w IW > Y Z U W m a w a z Qj O Z ` p cc O 1 N Z W r t 11 LL Q` i kn zz J Ian Z z z Z VQ III E— o M u M ti lu Ni3 $ 1 Z 4. a N z oJ C Y Y J N a M M-- 3s ,o 3 N u 4 v 8 LV o W~ 3 J,1 N N of W Z a Z Voi N Z L 7 J Z v h J C Y Y J N a M M-- 3 u 4 v 8 LV Jw u O p- 3 N of a Z v h 5 a W Mr. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. -9- November 17, 1992 Summary of Recommendations Based on these analyses, it is concluded that the land use assumption in the 1992 Northwest Business Campus proposal could be supported by the adjacent roadway system, if the following recommended intersection and traffic control improvements are implemented at the Highway 55 and County Road 61 intersection at the time of the " 1992 Proposed Development ": a. A third through lane in each direction be added to Highway 55 from the east I -494 ramps to a point approximately 2,000 feet east of County Road 61. These improvements are needed in order to provide additional "intersection" capacity needed for safe and effective traffic operations. This improvement will include new right turn lanes on the east and westbound Highway 55 approaches to County Road 61. b. Dual left turn lanes be added to the eastbound Highway 55 approach to County Road 61. c. The traffic control signal be reconstructed to accommodate the above geometric improvements. d. The north and southbound County Road 61 approaches to Highway 55 be reconstructed to provide facing dual left turn lanes, two through lanes, exclusive right turn lanes and an improved acceleration lane for the southbound right turn movement. e. The intersection of Campus Drive and County Road 61 must be signalized. Improvements a, b, and c are currently scheduled by Mn/DOT for construction in 1994. Improvement a is scheduled for 1993 by the City of Plymouth. Any other future traffic control and geometric improvements identified and recommended in previous reports of the study area are also valid. Should you have any questions or comments concerning this study /review, please call. Sincerely, STRGAR - ROSCOE- FAUSCH, INC. Dennis R. Eyler, P.E. Principal DRE:mdg APPENDIX I LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS The operational characteristics of roadways can be expressed as one of six levels of service (L.O.S.), described as A through F. Levels of Service "A" through "C" describe free to stable flow conditions where there are few problems in using the roadways. Level of Service "D" describes conditions approaching unstable flow where problems begin to occur on the roadway, especially for turning traffic. Level of Service "E" describes unstable flow conditions where traffic volumes on the roadway are at capacity levels and many problems develop, i.e., long delays, much congestion and long queues (a queue is a waiting line of vehicles). Level of Service "F" describes forced flow and failure conditions on the roadway, characterized by severe congestion and extremely long delays. As an example, under L.O.S. "F" conditions, a motorist would experience a delay of at least one full cycle length at a signalized intersection. U. H — C W ; ; W Q Q IEM N v V L=..J B-31 i N Q^. Z xrox z, U IW Vol0 Y V ir N 2 N1 V IW R ` v W i X nnga N N N V — C 1 1 TI N Y V X O i N 2 N z SW G W V/ VJ C'3.V1 'U ZQ a ZV a LL UW yI O WN rnIU) LL zi o?I COZW Cc W W S Q Z W IL a Ly 7 Z t F E t Q Q IEM N v V L=..J B-31 i N Q^. Z xrox z, U IW Vol0 Y V ir N 2 N1 V IW R ` v W i X nnga N N N V — C 1 1 TI N Y V X O i N 2 N z SW G W V/ VJ C'3.V1 'U ZQ a ZV a LL UW yI O WN rnIU) LL zi o?I COZW Cc W W S Q Z W IL a Ly 7 N z SW G W V/ VJ C'3.V1 'U ZQ a ZV a LL UW yI O WN rnIU) LL zi o?I COZW Cc W W S Q Z W IL a Ly 7 I iKM SFX'PICN 9, SEWIVISICK A r i • A. • Irh •_i," 1I':. Ms 2. Before any Conditional Use Peennit may be granted, the application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Comdssion 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 dete=minaticn as to approval or denial. a. The Planning Cmr fission 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 riot impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 5) Adequate measures have been or will be ta)wn 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. fonns:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89 e CITY OF PLYMDUTH PLANNING COlMISSION MINUTES JUNE 13, 1990 The Regular Meeting of the City of Plymouth PlanningCmIssionwascalledtoorderat7100p.m. n1tru S PRESENT: Chairman Richard Plufka, CommissionersHalPierce (arrived at 7:10), LarryMarofsky, Michael Stulbe , Joy Tierneyarrivedat8115)0 John Wire, and DennisYylla. NVBM ASSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Coordinator Charles Dillerud, CityEngineerDanFaulkner, and PlanningSecretaryJackieWatson. MINUTES Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by CommissionerMarofsyovetheMay23, 1990 minutes Vote. 5 Ayes, MOTION Carr MOTION by Coweissioner Stulberg, seconded by sinnerMarofskytoapprovetheConsentAgenda. Vote. 5 Ayes, MOTION carried. Chairnan Plufka introduced the request of PrudentialInsuranceCompanyforanAmendedMPUDConceptPlanforNorthwestBusinessCampus" located at the NortheastcornerofHighway55andI -494. Coordinator Dillerud reviewed the June 7, 1990 StaffReport. Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. Ron Pentz representingPrudentialPropertyCompanyandMr. Miles Lindberg of BRW, Inc., the engineer for the project. Mr. Pentz stated that he was in agreement with the June 7, 1990 Staff Report. He said that he wanted to emphasizethatItem6oftheEngineer's Memd had been discussed previously with staff regarding the street system and thatgetswillbeattheexpenseofPrudential, theeortheCitydependingonlocation. E MOTION TO APPROVE VOTE - MOTION CARRIED MOTION TO APPROVE VOTE - 9N RRIED PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. (89102) Planning Commission Minut June 13, 1990 Page 87 Mr. Lindberg stated that the Indirect Source Permit willbeupdatedfromtheprevious1985approval. He statedthatanewtrafficanalysiswasdonewhichreconfirmedthePastanalysis. Mr. Lindberg said that the private streetinAreaCwasproposedsothatthenaturalresourcescouldbepreserved. Chairman Plufka opened the Public Hearing. Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. John Dumez of 2510 RosewoodLane. Mr. Dumez asked if a traffic signal would be placed at theintersectionofNorthwestBoulevardandCampusDrive. City Engineer Faulkner stated that a recent traffic countindicatedthattheintersectionwasclosetowarrantingatrafficsignal. Chairman Plufka closed the Public Nearing. Discussion continueded with regard to the various changesmadetotheMPUDConceptPlanfromitsinceptionin1981tothepresentpropciedamendment. NOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner2llatorecommendapprovaloftheAmendedMPUDConceptPlanforPrudentialInsuranceCompanyforthe "NorthwestBusinessCampus" located at the Northeast corner ofHighway55andI -494 subject to the conditions listed intheJune7, 1990 Staff Report. MOTION to amend by Connissioner Marofsky to remove Area EandAreaFfromtheapprovalrecommmmendationuntiladiagramshowingthechangeinthesquarefootageoftheareaswasavailable. Motion failed for lack of a second. Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. wisiman rluTKa introduced the request of MutualInvestmentCompanyforanAmendedConditionalUsePermitandSitePlanforMinn -Well Supply Company for enlargedoutsidestoragelocatedat1540028thAvenueNorth Chairman Plufka waived the revs the June 7, 1990StaffReport. Chai r a introduced Mr. Bill Reavley representingetitioner. 0 MOTION TO AMEND MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND VOTE - MOTION CARRIED MUTUAL INVE COMPARX4" r CITY OF PLYMOUTH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1989 I UJ Mepting of the PlyTouth Planning Commission was / called to order at . MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Plufka, Commissioners John Wire, Dennis Zylla, Joy Tierney, Michael Stulberg and Hal Pierce (arr at 7:40 p.m.). MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Larry Marofsk STAFF PRESENT: Community Development ordinator Chuck Dillerud, Assista ngineer John Sweeney and Planning Se ary Jackie Watson. MOTION by CoSKsioner Zylla, seconded by Commissioner Tierney, to prove the Minutes for March 29, 1989, as submitte MOTION TO APPROVE Chairman Plufka introduced the request of Prudential PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE Insurance Company /Northwest Business Campus for an Amended CO. /NORTHWEST BUSINESS Mixed Planned Unit Development Preliminary CAMPUS (86133) Plat /Plan /Conditional Use Permit and Mixed Planned Unit Development Final Site Plan /Final Plat located at the southwest quadrant of Annapolis Circle and Campus Drive. Chairman Plufka waived the reading of the April 3, 1989 Staff Report. Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. Mike Gair representing the petitioner. Mr. Gair stated that this project is a joint venture with Ron Clark Construction and Prudential Insurance Company. Mr. Gair introduced Mr. Ron Clark, Ron Clark Construction, and Mr. Ron Pentz from Prudential Insurance Company. S 0 Mr. Pentz stated that this development will be a one land owner development owned by Mr. Ron Clark. Mr. Pentz expressed his support of the project. Mr. hair stated that he would like to expand the uses for the Service Center as stated on Page Two of the Staff Report. He stated that the following items should include expanded definitions: Stationery - to include art suppliers or graphic suppliers; Card Shop - to include cards and gifts such as Hallmark; Candy - to include bakery, pastry, ice crew, or yogurt; Financial - to include credit union or financial broker; Photo - to include electronic suppliers; and Shoe Repair - to include beauty or barber. Chairman Plufka asked whether he was including convenience stores, retail stores and foodstuffs in his definition. Mr. hair replied that the development would be strictly a service center and that no grocery stores, other than the previously approved convenience store were proposed. Conissioner Stulberg asked why the building plan was changed to be just one building instead of 5 as originally proposed. Mr. hair stated that this was Ron Clark's decision. Mr. Ron Pentz stated that many developments that Prudential is associated with have the same type of service center - one building with many retail service centers. Commissioner Wire stated that the building orientation on the property may not be the best as he observed the trash structures 1c._ -ted near the public street would be visible. Mr. hair stated that landscaping would hide any unpleasant views. Commissioner Wire asked if.there would be a service station on the campus. Mr. hair stated that the service station located at the northwest corner of Northwest Boulevard and Xenium lane in the 1985 plans had been relocated into the convenience centef• of this site. Comissioner Wire asked if the service station hours would be the sage as those of the Northwest Business Campus and the balance of the proposed service center. Mr. Pentz re lied that the hours of the camp,,s are not given - that it operates 24 hours a day. 0! Commissioner Wire asked if the lighting for the service center would be visible from the highway and said that if it was not visible from the highway would it then minimize customer traffic from the highway. Mr. Gair stated that the lighting will match that of the Prudential Building and will not extend beyond the property lines. Reflectors will be used to cast the light downward and there will be no floods on the buildings. Signs will be backlit and will match the Campus fixtures. Chairman Plufka asked if there would be one pylon sign. Mr. Gair replied that there would be one pylon sign at the southwest corner of the site. Commissioner Wire stated that the previous design prohibited tenants of the center from placing signs on I -494. Mr. Pentz said that the subject of signage will be addressed in a later petition to the Commission to amend the entire Nortiraest Business Campus sign plan. Commissioner Zylla stated that he did not feel the campus alone could support the center. He did not went to see uses so restricted that the center would not succeed. Chairman Plufka opened the Public Hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue. Chairman Plufka closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Wire asked if a the traffic study looked at Northwest Boulevard and Campus Drive usage. Coordinator Diilerud reported that the traffic consultants had suggested some improvements and some of the improvements are already contemplated. Commissioner Stulberg asked if the center proposed to draw customers from the campus only. Mr. Gair responded that the center hoped to draw from the campus as well as the industrial business in the area. Commissioner- Zylla stated that commercial areas are important to industrial areas and he felt it was important for the center to pull people from outside the campus and to expand its uses to insure success. r t Commissioner Stulberg stated that the Pylon sign should face Highway 55 in order to draw additional traffic to the center. Coordinator Dillerud stated that a pylon visible from Highway 55 would not be needed if this site was truly to serve = the Northwest Business Campus. MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Zylla to recommend approval of the resolution for an Amended Mixed Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat /Plan /Conditional Use Permit and Mixed Planned Unit Development Final Site Plan /Final Plat .ubject to the 10 conditions listed and to include a Condition ! 11 to allow additional uses as permitted in the 6 -2 district or allowed by conditional use permit in the 6 -2 district - with a Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Plufka stated that B -2 usage is appropriate for neighborhood shopping centers and is not appropriate here. He said that the increased usage is more appropriately 6 -3. Mr. Ron Clark stated that he is not interested in having grocery sales in the center but that he had talked to users that are acceptable in the B -2 areas that are interested. He said that some latitude is needed because uses will change as time goes on. MOTION to amend the Main Motion by Chairman Plufka seconded by Commissioner Tierney to change Condition 011 to include uses as permitted or allowed by Conditional Use Permit in the B -3 area. Roll Call Vote. 4 Ayes, Commissioners Wire and Stulberg, Nay. MOTION carried. Roll Call Vote on Main Motion as Once Amended. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. for a La-n-&-Use Guide Plan Amendment. Coordinator Dillerud presented a summary of the St port of April 4, 19:10. Chairman Plufka introduced Sherma dberg, representing the petitioner. Mr. Goldberg that he did the tra tr sign yy. discus a traffic study results and stated i2ZoW the traffic would increase as much as udy stated. He asked who would pa for the 1 Would not be used. MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION TO AMEND MAIN MOTION VOTE - MOTION CARRIED VOTE ON MAIN MOTION - MOTION CARRIED. M 1 11 I I %p1 =1 RM k- 0 r fps \i s .• Hui FMW MINI lb Rio CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: December 2, 1992 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 9, 1992 FILE NO.: 92114 PETITIONER: Plymouth Partners II REQUEST: Waiver of Subdivision Ordinance and Variances on the 47.7 acre tract of land LOCATION: Northwest corner of Interstate Highway 494 and Schmidt Lake Road GUIDE PLAN CLASS: I -P (Planned Industrial), CR (Retail Shopping), and LAR Living Area Rural) 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 of 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 offices with lunchroom and locker facilities for plant personnel. The plant is no longer in operation. On October 5, 1992, the City Council, by Resolution 92 -589 approved a lot division of this site to separate a 2.1 acre portion of this parcel for a United Power substation. By Resolution 92 -588, the City Council also approved a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the United Power substation. PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: 1. The applicant proposes a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance to permit division of an existing 47.7 acre unplatted parcel into 4 parcels; 6.8 acres, 3.1 acres, 3.5 acres, and 37.8 acres. Section 500.43, Subdivision 2 of the City Code permits such a waiver under certain circumstances. 2. Also requested is a variance from Section 500.21 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Section 500.21 requires that all lots meet the minimum size as established by the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. The minimum lot size in the FRD Zoning District is 20 acres. The variance request is to allow the creation of two parcels smaller than the 20 acre minimum size established by the Zoning Ordinance 3. The Subdivision Ordinance provides for 3 criteria to be found by the Planning Commission and City Council before any Subdivision Ordinance Variance may be granted. A copy of those 3 criteria and the applicant's response is attached to this staff report. 4. The City Code specifies review of a Subdivision Waiver by the Planning Commission, particularly relating to "hardship" and non - interference with the purpose of the Subdivision Code. 5. The entire "parent" parcel is included within a ' Preliminarx Plat application now scheduled for Public Hearing before the Panning Commission at a subsequent meeting. The three smaller parcels created by this waiver proposal are all "outlots" on the Preliminary Plat- -not for development. 6. The City of Plymouth will be acquiring all of the three smaller parcels for road and trail right -of -way. 7. The Preliminary /Final Plats that will redesignate the three smaller parcels proposed to be created by this waiver action will be the subject of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. No final (noncontingent) approval of either a Final Plat or a Preliminary Plat may be executed by a City until the EAW process is complete - -a process of several months. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: 1. The waiver request is to mitigate a hardship perceived by the applicant resulting from the EAW process precluding the ability to convey the outlots" to the City, since no plat can be finally acted upon while the EAW is in process. Since these "outlots" will not appear to result in development that would impact the EAW, the hardship appears valid. 2. Since no development will result from the waiver it does not appear that the waiver requested will interfere with the purpose of the Subdivision Code -- control of property division to assurance consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The variance for parcel size is also a "timing" issue since all of the parcels will meet or exceed the minimum parcel size for the underlying zoning that wi 1 futjqe acti 'th the plat. Submitted by: r Vjz,4./ Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution Approving Lot Division 2. Draft Resolution Setting Conditions Granting Subdivision Ordinance Variance 3. Draft Resolution Denying Lot Division 4. Subdivision Ordinance Variance Standards 5. Location Map 6. Site Graphics APPROVING WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISIONORDINANCE AND VARIANCES FOR PLYMOUTH PARTNERS II LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF I -494 AND SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD 92114) WHEREAS, Plymouth Partners II has requested approval for a Waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance and Variances for the creation of 4 parcels located at the northwest corner of I -494 and Schmidt Lake Road; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance and Variances for Plymouth Partners II for property located at the northwest corner of I -494 and Schmidt Lake Road. EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL A To be divided and consolidated as follows: 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 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); 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 the first above described strip. PARCEL B That part of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 10, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies westerly 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 easterly and southeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said southeast quarter of the northwest quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of south 89 degrees 58 minutes 47 seconds west along the southerly line of said southeast quarter of the northwest quarter for 1010.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence north 00 degrees 01 minutes 13 seconds west for 90.00 feet; thence northerly and northeasterly for 376.99 feet along a tangential curve concave to the east, radius 480.00 feet and central angle 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds; thence north 44 degrees 58 minutes 47 seconds east along tangent to said curve for 225.00 feet; thence northeasterly for 99.85 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northwest, radius 500.00 feet and central angle 11 degrees 26 minutes 33 seconds to a point on the first above described line distant 705.69 feet northerly from its point of beginning and there terminating. PARCEL C That part of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 10, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying north of a line drawn parallel with and 50 feet northerly (measured at right angles) from a line extending from a point on the east line of the southeast quarter of said 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. PARCEL D 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. SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION CODE AND SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FOR PLYMOUTH PARTNERS II (92114) WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Waiver of the Subdivision Code and Subdivision Variance for Plymouth Partners II for the creation of parcels located at the northwest corner of I -494 and Schmidt Lake Road; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the following conditions to be met prior to recording of, and related to said lot division: 1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum. 2. No yard setback variances are granted or implied. 3. A variance is granted from Section 500.21 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) for the creation of a 6.8 acre parcel; a 3.5 acre parcel, and a 3.1 acre parcel versus the Zoning Ordinance minimum 20 acres in the FRD Zone based on the request meeting the variance criteria. res /pc /92114.sc) 11 DENYING WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND VARIANCES FOR PLYMOUTH PARTNERS II LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF I -494 AND SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD 92114) WHEREAS, Plymouth Partners II has requested approval for a Waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance and Variances for the creation of 4 parcels located at the northwest corner of I -494 and Schmidt Lake Road; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the Waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance and Variances for Plymouth Partners II for property located at the northwest corner of I -494 and Schmidt Lake Road, based on the following findings: I. Variance criteria has not been met. This parcel should be platted into lots and blocks, not divided by metes and bounds. Plymouth City Code 500.39 500.39. Sea Level Elevations Required. All surveys submitted in connection with applications for waivers of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 162.358, Subdivision 4, or for division or consolidation of lots or tracts as provided in Section 500.37 shall show thereon sea level elevations at 50 foot intervals. 500.111. Variances. Subdivision 1. General Conditions. The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from the provisions of this Section as to specific properties when, in its judgment, an unusual hardship on the land exists. In granting a variance, the Commission may prescribe conditions that it deems necessary or desirable in the public interest. In making its findings, as required below, the Commission shall consider the nature of the proposed use of the land and the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside or work in the proposed subdivision, and the probable effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. No variance shall be granted unless the Commission finds: a) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the specific property such that the strict application of the provisions of this Section would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land. b) That the variance is necessary for the preservation and 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.