HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 01-30-1991SA
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: January 17, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: Jan. 30, 1991
FILE NO.: 90087
PETITIONER: James Guddal
REQUEST: Rezoning of 1.28 Acres From FRD (Future Restricted
Development) District to R -2 (Low Density Multiple
Residence) District, Preliminary Plat for 3 Lots and
Variance for Lot Width.
LOCATION: West Side of Vicksburg Lane South of 46th Avenue North
4465 Vicksburg Lane)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -2 (Low -Mid Density Residential)
ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development)
BACKGROUND:
In 1972, the City Council, by Resolution 72 -1, approved a waiver of the
Subdivision Ordinance to create two parcels of land, one of which is the
subject parcel now being platted. The other parcel is the Dennis Arne
property, now the "Fawn Creek" subdivision. As a condition of the Subdivision
Ordinance Waiver, the City Council eliminated access to Vicksburg Lane from
this site, subject to a provision that access to Vicksburg Lane would be
allowed until such time as other public road access is available from a street
constructed west of Vicksburg Lane. Later in 1972 the City Council by
Resolution 72 -133 approved a lot division for this site.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. In addition a
development sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. This site is located in the Bassett Creek Watershed District, and contains
a small portion of Water Drainage Pond BC -P5. No DNR Protected or Corps
of Engineer's regulated wetlands are found on this site; it contains no
woodlands of significance; it contains no slopes of over 12 percent; it is
partially located within the Shoreland Overlay District of Turtle Lake;
and a small area of this site is marginally suitable for development of
public sewers. In regard to the physical constraints, this site is
suitable for urban development with public sewers.
2. The petitioner in his narrative has requested that access to Vicksburg
Lane remain. He states that it would be unreasonable to reorient the
garage to provide access to 45th Avenue North.
The issue of access to Vicksburg Lane from this site was originally
addressed by City Council in 1972. At that time, the Council agreed to
allow the house located on this tract to retain its access to Vicksburg
Lane. As a condition of this approval, the Council required that this
access be eliminated once other access points could be obtained.
Resolution 72 -1 states .. the rights of access with respect to both
Parcels A and B to and from Vicksburg Lane with the right to use their
present access until other access rights are provided and further, that
the burden for the permanent access for both parcels will rest within the
platting of Parcel B."
In 1990, City Council approved the Subdivision Plat for the Fawn Creek
Addition (the "Parcel B" of the 1972 action) located adjacent to this site
on the southwest. Two Outlots were included in that subdivision that have
been deeded to this petitioner (Mr. Guddal). As a result of that action
the Guddal parcels have 100 feet of street frontage on the recently
constructed 45th Avenue North. This design satisfied Council's
requirement of alternative access to the entire Guddal Tract.
3. The petitioner has chosen to design his subdivision to preclude direct
access to 45th Avenue North from proposed Lot 1 (the location of the
existing house). Access from this lot to 45th Avenue North could be
accomplished by driveway easement across Lots 2 and 3.
4. A variance has been requested from Zoning Ordinance Section 7, Subdivision
D, regarding the lot width at the setback for Lots 2 and 3. The
petitioner is requesting a lot width of 75 feet for Lot 2 and 58 feet for
Lot 3 versus the ordinance minimum of 90 feet.
5. A variance has been requested from Zoning Ordinance Section 6, Subdivision
B, regarding the Shoreland Overlay lot width standard for Lot 3. The
petitioner is requesting a lot width of 58 feet versus the Shoreland
Management Overlay District minimum of 75 feet.
6. During Development Review Committee consideration of these applications
the petitioner was advised that the existing accessory structures (2) must
be removed prior to recording of a Final Plat of the proposed design.
Accessory structures are not permitted without a principal structure on
the same parcel.
7. These applications have been referred to the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources for their review due to the small portion of the
proposed plat being located in the Shoreland Overlay District of Turtle
Lake. No response has been received as of January 23, 1991.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. We find the rezoning of this parcel to R -2 to be consistent with the Guide
Plan Classification for this area (LA -2).
2. The Preliminary Plat meets the minimum of requirements of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance except with respect to the requested variances.
3. Staff finds that the petitioner's request for continued access to
Vicksburg Lane to directly conflict with City Council action in 1972 as
well as City Council action in 1990. Adjacent property was deeded to the
petitioner in 1990 to secure the alternative access point as required by
City Council. A common drive to 45th Avenue North can be used by all
three lots.
4. Staff finds the variance from Section 7, Subdivision B of the Zoning
Ordinance for minimum lot width for Lots 2 and 3 to meet the variance
criteria due to the special circumstances regarding this site. Access to
Vicksburg Lane has been restricted by City Council action thus requiring
access from this site to 45th Avenue North. The access frontage on 45th
Avenue North is not long enough to accommodate two standard lot widths.
The 1972 requirement is indicative of good long range planning and it is
now time to implement the requirement. The present (increasing) and
future use of Vicksburg Lane warrant limitation of access drives.
5. Staff finds the variance from Section 6 Subdivision B of the Zoning
Ordinance for a minimum lot width for Lot 3 to meet the variance criteria
due to the unique conditions regarding the site. Access to Vicksburg Lane
has been restricted by City Council action thus requiring access from this
site to 45th Avenue North. The access frontage on 45th Avenue North is
not long enough to accommodate two standard lot widths.
6. Staff finds that the two accessory structures should be removed prior to
release of the Final Plat by the City of Plymouth.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat and requested Variance
based on the findings of the draft resolution.
I hereby recommen approval of the attached resolution for the Rezoning of the
property.
Submitted by: Llu
CT7r-les E. Di lerud, Community Deve opment Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Preliminary Plat and Variance
2. Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance
3. Resolution Setting Conditions Prior to Publication of the Rezoning
Ordinance
4. Engineer's Memorandum
5. Letters from Petitioner
6. Staff Letter of December 14, 1991
7. City Council Resolutions 72 -1 and 72 -54
8. Subdivision Ordinance Variance Criteria
9. Location Map
pc /jk /90087:jw)
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCES FOR JAMES GUDDAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 4465 VICKSBURG LANE (90087)
WHEREAS, James Guddal has requested approval for a Preliminary Plat and
Variances a plat for 3 lots on 1.28 Acres, located at 4465 Vicksburg Lane;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it hereby does approve the request by James Guddal
for a Preliminary Plat and Variances for a 3 -lot plat on 1.28 Acres, located
at 4465 Vicksburg Lane., subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
3. No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for
sewer and water.
4. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with
the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of filing the Final Plat.
5. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System.
6. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor
elevations for new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing
any open storm water drainage facility.
7. No building permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
8. Incorporation of tree protection provisions in the Final Plat and
Development Contract approval.
9. A variance is granted for a 75 foot lot width for Lot 2, and a 58 foot
lot width for Lot 3, based on the following findings:
a. Strict enforcement of the minimum lot width would deprive the
applicant of the reasonable use of the land.
b. That the conditions upon which the variance are unique to this site
and are not applicable, generally, to other property within this
Zoning District.
see next page)
Resolution No.
File 90087
Page Two
c. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property.
10. A variance from the Shoreland Management District is granted for a 58-
foot lot width for Lot 3, based on the following conditions:
a. Strict enforcement of the minimum lot width would deprive the
applicant of the reasonable use of the land.
b. That the conditions upon which the variance are unique to this site
and are not applicable, generally, to other property within this
Zoning District.
c. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property.
11. Access for Lots 1 and 3 from Vicksburg Lane is prohibited and shall be
provided via easement from 45th Avenue North.
12. The two accessory structures located on proposed Lot 2 shall be removed
prior to recording of the Final Plat.
res /pc /90087:jw)
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED
AT THE WEST SIDE OF VICKSBURG LANE SOUTH OF 46TH AVENUE NORTH AS R -2 (LOW
DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENCE) DISTRICT
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 -2 (Low Density Multiple
Residence) 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. 90087.
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
ATTEST
City Clerk
File 90087
ord /pc /90087:jw)
day of .
Mayor
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE REZONING LAND
FOR JAMES GUDDAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE WEST SIDE OF VICKSBURG LANE SOUTH
OF 46TH AVENUE NORTH (90087)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved an Ordinance rezoning certain land
located at the west side of Vicksburg Lane south of 46th Avenue North from FRD
Future Restricted Development) District to R -2 (Low Density Multiple
Residence) District in conjunction with approval of the Preliminary Plat for
James Guddal;
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
James Guddal for property located at the west side of Vicksburg Lane south of
46th Avenue North to be filed with Hennepin County prior to the publication of
said Ordinance.
res /pc /90087.sc:jw)
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
January 22, 1991
90087
Mr. K. James Guddal, 4465 Vicksburg Lane North, Plymouth, MN 55446
GUDDAL ADDITION
4465 Vicksburg Lane North
1. _ _ X_ Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No_. 1 and
No. 2•
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of final plat approval.
4. Area assessments: Watermain area assessment based on 3 units x $790
per unit = $2,370. Sanitary sewer area assessment based on 3 units x
440 per unit = $1,320.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None.
N/A Yes No
6. _ _ _2L Complies with standard utility /drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10')
in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width adjoining
side and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
7. — — X
8. X — —
9. — X —
All standard utility easements required for construction are 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 final plat and final construction plans.
Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year
high water elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive
storm water drainage plan.
All existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been
vacated
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way to
facilitate the development. This 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. The developer has submitted a
petition requesting the vacation of 20 feet of Vicksburg Lane right
ofway.
10. _2L The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application - If it is subsequently determined that
the subject property is abstract property, then this requirement does
not apply.
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
11. — — X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR X Bassett Creek
MnDOT — Minnehaha Creek
Hennepin County — Elm Creek
X MPCA — Shingle Creek
X State Health Department _ Army Corps of Engineers
Other
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
2 -
TRANSPORTATION:
N/A Yes No
12. _ X Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the
City grid system for street names. The following changes will be
necessary.
13. _ X _ Conforms with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's
adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
14. X _ Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
15. _ X _ All existing street rights -of -way are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required on
N/A Yes No
16. X Conforms with City standards requiring the developer to construct
utilities necessary to serve this plat -
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. See special conditions.
3 -
N/A Yes No
17. _ _ X Preliminary utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements
The developer has submitted the required preliminary plans for the
proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities. See
al conditions.
18. X Per developer's request a preliminary report and plan will be
prepared by the City -
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as
part of its Capital Improvements Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1,
of the year preceding construction.
19. x _ Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots.
N/A Yes No
20. _ X The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
21. _X_ The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
4 -
PRELIMINARY GRADING DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
N/A Yes No
22. X It will be *necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility
foreman, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility
connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The
developer shall also be responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the
Public Works Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging
within the City right -of -way. All water connections shall be via
wet tap.
23. _ _ X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted to
the City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if it is in
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All
of their recommendations shall be incorporated in a revised plan.
The grading and drainage plan shall also indicate proposed methods of
erosion control, including the placement of silt fence in strategic
locations. Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary:
Shall comply with Bassett Creek reQuirements.
24. A. The relocation of the storm sewer, as proposed, shall be the responsibility of
the developer.
B. Lot 1, Block 1 shall have access provided from 45th Avenue since Vicksburg Lane
is a minor arterial and driveway access is discouraged.
C. Invert and top of casting elevations shall be provided for the sanitary sewer
manhole and for each of the proposed storm sewer manholes.
D. The utility plan and street plan does not show the correct right -of -way for the
cul -de -sac. This shall be revised accordingly.
E. Cross easements for the sanitary sewer and water service will be required over
Lots 2 and 3 along with a driveway easement.
Submitted by:
5 -
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
is
L VARIANCE STANDARDS
9 2 -7
THE REQUESTED LOT DIVISION REQU IRE S A VAR I AIJCE TO THE CITY'S
SUBDIVISION CODE. THEREBY WAIVING THE A PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT. THE
LAND IS DESCRIBED BY MEETS & BOUNDS, NOT BY LOT & BLOCK. THE WAIVER
DOES ALLOW THE CITIZEN SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR PROPERTY WITH A RESULTANT
OF NOT MORE THAN 4 BUILDING SITES.
THE VARIANCE CRITERIA ARE THE BASIS ON WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
SHALL USE IN DETERMINING WHETHER A VARIANCE SHALL BE GRANTED OR NOT
GRANTED.
a. -THE PROPOSAL IS TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO 3 RESIDENTIAL HOME
SITES. WITH PARCEL "A" BEING OCCUPIED BY THE EXISTING HOUSE. THE
PROPERTY WILL BE SERVICED BY SEWER & WATER TO ITS PROPERTY LINE; VERY
LITTLE STREET WORK IS REQUIRED; AND THE DRAINAGE IS HANDLED ON SITE;
THEREFORE THERE SHOULD BE NO NEED FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AS
REQUIRED WITH A FINAL PLAT.
THE CONFI 1- (RATION PROPOSED WOULD NOT BE OBTAINABLE BY PLATTING BECAUSE
OF THE DIFFICULTY I t-J MEETING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THE ADDiT1'dAL EXPEt-JSE REQUIRED FOR PLATTING 12 NOT WARRANTED FOR THE
CREATION OF 2 AUK, I T I OtvAL LOTS.
b.-THE PROPERTY 1_11LL NOT BE ENHANCED BY PLATTING. THE VARIANCE WILL
ALLOW THE Oa.t ii =F. TO L I V I I-IE THE LOTS S SHO WhJ WITHOUT HAV I NU THE BLIF:UEtJ
OF DE'V'ELOPMENT CONITRACTS. FINANCIAL GUARANTEES WHICH AREN'T NECESSARY
FOR THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.
t. -THE GRAINITING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC
WELFARE OR IivTURIOUS TO OTHER PROPEPTY IN THE AREA IN WHICH THIS
PROPERTY 1 S LOCATED.
SHERMAN GOLDBERG &
12115 48TH AVE. N.
PLYMOUTH, MN 654422
AUGUST 17. 1 =;,gCj
CHUCK DILLERUD
CITY PLANNING DEPT.
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD.
PLYMOUTH. MN 55447
ASSOCIATES
RE: JIM GUDDAL
LOT DIVISION
4486 VICKSBURG LANE
DEAR MR. D I LLERUD
j
r-- •. P- f f t -I r r-1 r-,%
AUG 2
CITE` OF _, CUTH
C014MUN lY DEVELOPMENT DEPT
ON BEHALF OF MR. & MRS. JIM GUDDAL. I'M SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION FOR
A LOT DIVISION OF THEIR PROPERTY AT 4485 VICKSBURG LANE.
THE PROFERTY PREZEIJTLY IS OCCUPIED BY A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WITH
DETACHEDHED GARGE ACCESSING VICKSBURG LANE: TOGETHER WITH 22 SMALL
BU I Li I Cti _l= USED fiOF: STORAGE.
THE LE3IF;E TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY WAS PRECIPITATED BY THE PROPOSED
DEVELOFMEPJT OF THE ARNIE PROFERT`r', FROM WHICH THE GUDDAL PARCEL WAS
ORIGINALLY CREATED.
THE FROV11;ES FOR LAUD TO BE DIVIDED INTO LOTS BY PLATTING.
THE CODE ALSO REC= OGN I ZE THAT PLATT I Nil MAY NOT BE REQUIRED IF THE
SUBJECT PARCEL I3 TO BE DIVIDED IN TO NOT MORE THAN 4 LOTS. UNDER
SEC-ION' F• S• rO . L. "WAIVER OF COMPLIANCE ". THE CITY COUNCIL MAY
WAIVE THE PLATTING REQUIREMENT IN LIEU OF A LOT DIVISION. THIS IS A
WAIVER OF THE PLATTING ORDINANCE.
BASED OI'J THE FOREGOING. MR. & MRS. GUDDAL ARE SUBMITTING AN
APPLICATION! FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING 22 ADDITIONAL BUILDING SITES.
THEY PROPO3E TO ACCOMFLISH THIS MY REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE
PLATTING ORDINANCE, AND CREATING THE LOTS BY MEETS & BOUNDS
DESCRIFTIOIJ RATHER THAN PLATTING.
IT IS• PROPOSED TO CONTINUE TO USE THE EXISTING ACCESS TO VICK:SBURG
LANE FOR THE EXISTING HOUSE (PARCEL "A "). THE OTHER 22 LOTS (PARCEL "B"
C ") WOULD ACCESS TO THE STREET CREATED BY THE NEW ARNIE PLAT (45TH
AVE N.). THIS STREET DOES NOT PROVIDE PARCEL "A" WITH ADEQUATE ACCESS.
THE HOUSE IS ORIENTED TO VICKSBURG LANE AND IT WOULD NOT BE REASONABLE
TO ORIENT THE GARAGE IN ORDER: TO USE 45TH AVE. N. THE EXISTING ACCESS
HAS BEEN THERE FOR MANY YEARS AND ONLY 1 ACCESS POINT WOULD REMAIN
WHETHER: THE FRO11PERTY IS DIVIDED OP, NOT DIVIDED. IN ORDER TO KEEP THIS
ACCESS, WE REQUEST THE CITi' TO QUIT CLAIM THE CONDUIT DEED BACK; TO THE
GULDAL'.
THERE IS PREFENTLY A GO)' STREET EASEMENT FOR VICKSBURG LANE. WE ARE
REQUEST 1 ":0 THAT THIS BE REDUCED TO 40' SO IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO
SURROUNDING PLATS (AMHURST.OXBOW). THEY FEEL THIS IS NECESSARY TO THE
PRESERVA'" ION AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUR TANG' I AL PROPERTY RIGHT.
IN ORDER TO DEVELOP HIS PROPERTY IT IS NECESSARY TO RELOCATE THE
EXISTING 30" STORM SEWER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS PIPE
SHOULD BE RELOCATED TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. SINCE THE EASEMENT TO
INSTALL THE PIPE INITIALLY WAS GIVEN BY THE GUDDAL'S WITHOUT COST TO
THE CITY. IT SHOULD BE RELOCATED BY THE CITY AT CITY EXPENSE.
I HAVE ATTACHED A SHEET WHICH RESPONDS TO THE VARIANCE CRITERIA THAT
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER IN REVIEWING THIS REQUEST.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTACT ME OR JIM GUDDAL.
THANKS
SHERM N GOLDBERG.P.E.
cc MR. & MRS. GUDDAL
HARBOR PLACE
CORPORATE CENTER
3025 N. HARBOR LANE
SUITE 316
PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447
December 14, 1990
K. JAMES GUDDAL, MBA
LICENSED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER
612) 559 -0014
RES: 559 -2277
ACCOUNTING
INCOME TAX
FINANCIAL
PLANNING
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth Mn 55447
Attn Chuck Dille rud
In response to your request, we are resubmitting our-petition
of October 16, 1990 to the City of Plymouth as follows:
We respectfully petition the City of Plymouth to take the
following action:
The City of Plymouth shall vacate twenty feet (201) of the sixty601) foot easement running parallel to Vicksburg Lane so that
it confirms to and is consistent with the street easement of
existing plats such as Oxbow and Amhurst.
The City of Plymouth shall quit claim the Conduit Deed dated
Feb. 14, 1972 and recorded April 26, 1972 concerning access
to Vicksburg Lane back to the Guddals.
The City of Plymouth shall move, at its cost, the 30" storm
sewer on the southerly side of the Guddal property to the
southerly most properly line as shown in submitted plat.
Further, the City shall bear the cost of connecting the storm
sewer from the Guddal property to the storm sewer on the
northerly property line of Fawn Creek.
It is our intent that this petition stands on its own merits
relative to the plat that has been submitted. However, as a
matter of practicality and in the interest of time, we request
that this petition be processed along with the plat.
Sincerely,
im and Corinne Guddal
6 C 17 19%
Hand delivered to City of Plymouth December 14, 19 0. ;.'
UT
ENROLLED TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
December 14, 1990
Mr. K. James Guddal
4465 Vicksburg Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55446
SUBJECT: K. JAMES GUDDAL. REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE FOR THE
GUDDAL ADDITION" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4465 VICKSBURG LANE
90087)
Dear Mr. Guddal:
This letter is written to forward review comments and observations submitted
by the staff members at the December 11, 1990, staff review committee meeting
regarding the above referenced application. This shall also acknowledge your
meeting with the Development Review Committee on December 11, 1990 during
which the items found herein were discussed. During the staff discussion of
the application materials submitted, the following items were addressed:
1. The Abstract of Title for this property which you submitted on November
26, 1990 has been referred to the City Attorney for review and
certification, as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. The City
Attorney is accorded 30 days by the City Code in which to make his
certification with regard to the Abstract of Title. No publication of a
hearing notice for consideration of your plat by the Planning Commission
can be undertaken until at least such time as the City Attorney has
completed his report.
2. Your letter of November 23, 1990 references your desire for the City of
Plymouth, to "...quit claim back to us the deed to our driveway to
Vicksburg Lane." The terms of the deed given to the City by the previous
owner of your parcel are that access from your parcel to Vicksburg Lane be
discontinued at such time as alternative access is available to the west.
Regardless of progress of this subdivision platting action, your parcel
already fronts on. platted 45th Avenue North of the "Fawn Creek Addition".
The requirement that you abandon your driveway access to Vicksburg Lane
and substitute access to 45th Avenue North continues regardless of whether
this subdivision plat is approved, denied, or withdrawn.
3- You must submit to the Mayor and City Council a formal petition for the
vacation of 20 feet of existing Vicksburg Lane across the frontage of your
parcel. The purpose of this street vacation is to reduce the amount of
street right -of -way across your frontage to the maximum of 40 feet west of
center line, consistent with the needs of the City and dedicated right -of-
way both north and south of your parcel.
ection 4, Subdivision B of the Zoning Ordinance defines lot width as the
horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured at
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550 -5000
the required minimum front building setback line" (emphasis added). Based
on that definition, proposed Lots 2 and 3 are substantially less than the
90 foot lot width minimum specified for the R -2 Zoning District. If it is
your intention to pursue the subdivision design that has been presented it
will be necessary for you to include in your applications a request for a
variance to the Subdivision Ordinance to permit the creation of lots with
a substandard lot width. Your previous application also included a
variance, and therefore your variance fees have been paid. It will be
necessary however for you to submit a description of the variances that
you are now seeking together with a narrative describing how your proposed
variances comply with the findings specified in Section 500.41 of the
Plymouth City Code (the Subdivision Ordinance).
e provided you a photocopy of that City Code section during our meeting
on December 11, 1990.
The plan sheet that you have labeled "General Development Plan" makes no
reference to a "preliminary plat" nor do any of the sheets you have
submitted. We believe the sheet entitled "General Development Plan" is
intended to be the Preliminary Plat. It must be so labeled, for
compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance.
All references to "parcels" (including legal descriptions) must be removed
fr m your graphics. These are apparently left over from the previous lot
ivision action.
Your survey should be updated to include'Outlots A and B of the Fawn Creek
Addition to which you now have title. Your survey must show all
contiguously owned properties which would include these outlots.
V'You preliminary plat should include the entire area described by the
ooperty survey, modified as notified above.
Block 1" should be labeled on your preliminary D1a+
Your drawings indicate that there are two existing accessory structures
located on Lot 2. Upon the creation of proposed Lot 2 these accessory
structures will be legally separated from the residence (principal useexistingonproposedLot1. An accessory use" may not exist on a parcel
of land unless there is a principal use to which it can be accessory. The
staff commendation will be for the two accessory structures to be
rem9y0d from proposed Lot 2 prior to release of the final plat by the City
o lymouth.
The Engineering Division advised you that they will not recommend the City
of Plymouth participate in the movement of the storm sewer to the south
property line of Lot 3 as you request in your letter of November 23, 1990.
12. The park dedication for this plat will be fees -in -lieu in the amount
established by City Council Resolution effective the date of release of
the final plat by the City of Plymouth. Fees shall be payable in full for
three new residential lots prior to the release of the final plat mylars.
13. We 'reviewed the status of the two outlots that have been deeded to you
from the Fawn Creek Addition. We advised you that it will be necessaryforustoconsultwiththeCityAttorneyinthatitisapparentthatthose
two outlots are not reflected in the Abstract of Title which is currentlybeingreviewedbytheCityAttorney. It' may be necessary for other
parties to become signatory to this plat due to conditions related to
th outlots.
All utilities within 45th Avenue North and 45th Avenue North itself,
should be shown on your preliminary plat as "existing ". The sheets you
have submitted show these features as "proposed ".
15. The existing paving width of Vicksburg Lane should either be shown on the
preliminary plat or specified in a written statement accompanying the
preliminary plat.
6 We advised you that it will be our recommendation that the 45th Avenue
North cul -de -sac proposed to serve the lots have a right -of -way of a 50
foot radius with the balance of the outlots from the Fawn Creek Addition
to be incorporated in the areas of Lots 2 and 3 respectively.
The purpose of this letter is to notify you of those review items identified
during the staff review of the application materials. You should respond to
the above review comments in written and /or graphic form as appropriate. Your
earliest response in written and /or graphic form to the above points will
permit us to continue processing the application for review by the PlanningCommission. You should respond to all of the items.
Once the additional and /or revised information is submitted, the staff members
will in turn review the information to verify that all the items have been
addressed. If any additional comments arise from that staff review,
correspondence similar to this letter will be promptly forwarded to you. If
you have questions relating to the above review comments, or if you feel a
more detailed discussion (through a meeting with the staff members) is
warranted, please feel free to contact our office at your earliest
convenience.
We anticipate working with you through the completion of the review process.
Hopefully, this information will assist you.
S' rely,
Di
Community Development Coordinator
cc: File 90087
dre /cd /90087.2:jw)
Y C 7 ri •V-• r C • M .S t F
M• N,• N P • Y 1Nn •'1 T N 40 i a » sst
Q
M / M w n y
re Nyt p w 777SSS r• N N q4'
ry
N 7 • X '. i w K ' c 4• • ro r- -± 00 I, N K
r 'q 00to ` r. ... Y
A 0. v
x
r7
n A t• •, c> >,
ice
p w (t w M s w
4
A •MI ; ii •w ;d O y C 1 ° •
w
1• 6 d M C {.
M o rxi y •w i+ ."' '.
j
t" 6 q •1 O Y w
w w w A ww nf .
i r
M w w d
o r rtiwo
fi••
IA i'1 Q N T 5 a I A M • O • Y
N I. ... Y'•i 0.N O .. •n .° n r. 7[7 •.• b • O'
M. v r• •1 r U n IA Q M N A
p .-xO y •N op •a i w ' w M A o
a. o wan iNO "
Q v
o
n ! F9 a •" w °
M N
nn cyL,
H 9 • 4'••yy"
u1"
i
p '
a• n .r5
N •TIC •` *. N r :. ui n .i ' +V., ,,
lot
ON
ts
IL
M
Y n nJ CN^ ti 7 N1
af.,
N
w
A• O ••
n UU ••
y'
0. 7 •n ..1
Q•
w
to
w •.. °i.. T n .7 H Il V H M
Y . ,
M 4 • ,
p,• Y
N S ham Y f.% s . r
0 731 A [' ' Mr
r f N
N
17•
K !'II!
r•'
3 0 °yy1• i g
wtj Y
tllwwl
y ^
a • o
N
r
e r • v
1
r c Q5 3'Y M N •n ' w • x A
NNn n M
N • A A 7 A
N A " y 7 mFtNpC » rJ rCi w ' O Ri C
1• M 7 r
N NT•L' 4`+
T !
N ° N
ef'p
H
fir•• ''
Mj: ,j
O
y .
N
w
O " Y , OpOa
NOA N •
h N
107
14 •
11 Fq1 s X „4
N
0 ' [5' g y nt j •„ tl f/ P fi G
0 I N 30
w •. N M J N
r• • 0. !e'Y
r4f
wQFr
w'
N • ..
pa
AGM! d. •
w w
A
yr
Y ..
w N e5 f :.: N h " + O 1+ •" V Q N N W d M .
C w •° ti N w n •e Io a a •
N« w w y
O o
N . .. •( +ti N C'. i• n
wA N
Nr
N yNO O. r ii O '
r
N
O M M MNf ! e N M C S• iOLOC. M A TA O h~ N •w G M Or 119
rnnr9,
toN
r A1. X 6
A
M1 e• •
ri H• t. K
7 •1 w
M ,
Al 0
00
0
A :a
er
ri • r e:' r 6 N g 7
14 A
e M " Nom•+ -
y+ r. y .1
M N
w 0.v " N } Y
JI • •
O ', f^1
q "
S1 7 ryi r• • • d Old
e
U.
IR
r
Plymouth City Code
with applications for wa
462.358, Subdivision 4
provided
500.39
ion
vers of the prov atutes, Section
n or consolidation of lots or tracts as
7 shall show thereon sea level elevations at 50 foot
500.41. 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 judgement, 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 find-
ings, as required below, the Commission shall consider the nature of the pro-
posed 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
I in which the property is located.
The Commission findings in granting or denying a variance shall-be in writing
and filed with the City Clerk.
Subd. 2. Application Required. Applications for any variance under this
Subsection shall be submitted in writing by the owner or subdivider at the time
the preliminary plat is filed for consideration by the Planning Commission, and
shall state all facts relied upon by the applicant, and shall be supplemented
with maps, plans or other additional data which may aid the Commission in the
analysis of the proposed project. The plans for such development shall include
such covenants, restrictions or other legal provisions necessary to guarantee
the full achievement of the plan for the proposed project.
of
and. My person who conveys land by metes and bounds or by ref
unapproved plat or registered land survey in violation ovisions of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subdivis s subject to the penalty
provisions Of that Section.
Subd. 2. Waiver of lance. In any case where compliance with the
provisions of Minn tatutes, Section 462.358, Subdivision 4 will create an
unnecessary h ip and failure to comply will not interfere with the purpose
of this S on, the City Council may by resolution waive compliance with this
Subse n, provided, however, that the proposed conveyance has been reviewed
e Planning Commission and the Co as found that it complies with
F*
A
k 1 1iI
ki"
I
r:i m
VA
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: Jan. 15, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: Jan. 30, 1991
FILE NO.: 90111
PETITIONER: Independent School District 284 (Wayzata)
REQUEST: Extension and Renewal of the Existing Conditional Use
Permit for One Temporary Classroom Building at Wayzata High
School to June 1992.
LOCATION: 305 Vicksburg Lane (Wayzata Sr. High School)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: Public /Semi - Public Zoning
ZONING: R -1A (Low Density Single Family Residential)
BACKGROUND:
On June 1, 1987, the City Council, by Resolution 87 -350, approved a
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Amendment to this site to permit the
addition of a 2- classroom "relocatable" addition for a temporary period. The
current Conditional Use Permit expires June 1, 1991.
On August 22, 1988, City Council by Resolution 88 -503, approved a 40,510
square foot addition to the High School.
On September 10, 1990, City Council, by Resolution 90 -551, approved a
Conditional Use Permit for the Woodridge Church to use Wayzata High School as
a temporary site for worship and religious education until March 24, 1991.
On January 16, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a
Conditional Use Permit for St. Philip the Deacon Church to use Wayzata High
School as a temporary site for worship and religious education from April 7,
1991 to June 30, 1991.
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. A condition of the original Conditional Use Permit was a review at the end
of the third year, "...to determine what will happen with the temporary
building at the end of the fourth year... ". June, 1991 will be the end of
the third school year of use of this temporary structure.
2. The District states they desire renewal as a contingency should current
remodeling work not be complete at the beginning of the 1991 -1992 school
year. In any case, the School District is not requesting an extension for
the Conditional Use Permit beyond the 1991 -1992 school year.
3. The Conditional Use Permit is required responsive to the Zoning Ordinance
specification for schools in all Zoning Districts. The Planning
Commission is directed by Ordinance to consider all Conditional Use
Permits in the context of six specific criteria that such Conditional Use
Permits must respond to. A copy of these criterion is attached for your
information.
4. The applicant has submitted, together with its application, a narrative in
support of the Conditional Use Permit. They state that continued use of
the temporary building will not be detrimental to adjacent properties,
impede orderly development of the area or cause traffic congestion in the
area. In fact, they believe that extending the Conditional Use Permit
will enhance the general welfare by easing crowded conditions in the
School District.
5. The petitioner states in his letter of January 4, 1991, " Relocatables at
the high school will be used as a back -up in the event remodeling work is
not completed by the start of the 1991 -92 school year." The need for the
relocatables is clearly tied to the in- progress remodeling project.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. We find the proposed extension to the Conditional Use Permit is consistent
with the Ordinance- Prescribed Criteria.
2. We find the requested extension for the use of the temporary classroom
building to be reasonable in order to ensure adequate school space until
the addition to the High School is complete.
3. When a Certificate of Occupancy is granted to the School District for the
additions and remodeling currently in progress at the Wayzata High School,
the temporary building should cease and the temporary building should be
removed from the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
We hereby recommend the Planning Commission ado t the Draft Resolution
yrprovidingfortheA ftd ConditjAga e Permit
Submitted by:
arTErs E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit
2. Petitioner's Narrative
3. Conditional Use Permit Standards
4. Location Map
pc /jk /90111:1r)
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 284 (WAYZATA)
90111)
WHEREAS, Independent School District 284 (Wayzata) has requested approval for
a Conditional Use Permit to allow one temporary classroom building at Wayzata
Senior School for property located at 305 Vicksburg Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Independent School District 284 (Wayzata) for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow one temporary classroom building at Wayzata Senior High School for
property located at 305 Vicksburg Lane, subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and ordinances,
and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The permit is issued to Independent School District 284 (Wayzata) 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. No signage is allowed relative to the use.
6. All parking shall be off - street in designated areas which comply with the
Zoning Ordinance.
7. This Conditional Use Permit shall become effective upon the June 1, 1991,
expiration date of the current Conditional Use Permit for this use and
shall expire upon the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
addition and remodeling work now in progress at Wayzata Senior High
School. The relocatable classrooms shall be removed from the site within
30 days thereafter.
res /pc /90111:lr)
ta
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
pendent School District 284
JAN 4 1991
CITY' LF ' PLYMCUTH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 210 COUNTY ROAD 101 NORTH PD. BOX 660 WAYZATA, MN 55391 -9990 (612) 476.3100 FAX: (612) 476 -3214
January 4, 1991
Charles E. Dillerud
Community Development Coordinator
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
The 'enced significant census
growth at the elementary school level over st four years.
During this period elementary enrollment increas by 1074
students. To accommodate this increased studen population, the
District has built two additional elementary ools (Plymouth
Creek and Kimberly Lane).
During 1991 -92 we expect elementary sch 1 -aged population to
increase by at least 230 students. T accommodate this number of
students, we will need a total of 1 classrooms. With the
opening of Kimberly Lane Elementar School in Fall 1991, the
District will have 197 rooms inc ding the relocatables at
Birchview and Greenwood. We ex ct to use these extra eight
rooms in the 1992 -93 school y r, based on current demographic
data.
If the City of Plymouth dog& not continue authorization of the
conditional use permit on re four relocatables at Birchview and
Greenwood, the School Di rict will experience the following
problems:
1. Birchview will ve no classroom space for a Home Base
Latch Key) Pr ram.
2. A total of 6 sixth grade Birchview students will have to
be accommo ted in a classroom pod designed for-85 -90
students.
3. All av lable classroom space at Greenwood will be fully
used. Depending on what decisions are made regarding future
cit water and sewer service, this elementary school could
be impacted by new housing development. The administration
an tizens Advisory Counci wo
reloca e used as reserve spa Cr for
future growth
e. a ov C"
January 4,
Page 2
1991
ables until the District builds its next elementary schoo
projected 1995 -96). If this is not acceptable, the rict
would like to use the elementary relocatables um of two
years, or through the 1992 -93 school ye is would allow us
to see what happens with future ment in Plymouth and its
impact on enrollment.
Loss of the tables will likely necessitate changing
elemen tendance boundaries. Since this becomes a very
e nal issue and we are changing boundaries for the 1991 -92
school year, the District urges avoidance of any such action next
Relocatables at the high school will be used as a back -up in the
event that remodeling work is not completed by the start of the
1991 -92 school year. The District does not anticipate a need for
these relocatables beyond 1991 -92.
I trust this information will prove useful in your decision
making process. Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Many thanks for your time.
4LrBruceHalgren
Executive Director
Academic Services
ENRLMNT:Growth
K 606
Pr VISED DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTI--...S
647
Q - I l q C li (1 (
663
1 -6 3290
1990 -1995
3758 3930 4241
Merged Model Projections
1672
Housing Grade Pr
Grade 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
1821
Actual) Projected)
K, 606 626 620 647 653 663•
1 566 632 655 649 676 680
2 549 588 657 681 674 700
3 577 570 612 683 706 697
4 558 599 593 636 709 730
5 522 586 629 624 667 741
Y
6 518 545 613 658 651 694
7 538 560 591 663 711 703
8 534 558 581 613 688 737
9 485 554 581 605 637 712
10 518 496 567 594 617 649
11 504 530 508 581 607 630
12 550 518 545 524 597 623
TOTAL 7025 7360 7750 8155 8590 8957
K 606 626 620 647 653 663
1 -6 3290 3519 3758 3930 4081 4241
7 -9 1557 1672 1752 1881 2035 2151
10 -12 1572 1543 1620 1698 1821 1902
FKX S MMCN 9, SO®IVISICri A
2. Before any Conditional Use P eamit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Omu i.ssion for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a recaRnendation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Camiission shall review the application and consider its
confonnwre with the following standards:
1) Canpliance with and effect upon the Cagmehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will pranote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
irpair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and ', -savetrnnt 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.
fonns:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
firwalls
a,
Ipllill
uiiiiiiii
Raw. .
WA
T-.. ii
NOW
all Ill 1 1
lie
x1911
ILK
0MW a
Pw i /i//
c •
1"Is :.
IMP Tn7
11
11
Y • •
i=
tip'
t 1 1 -.
s ; a, • .' 7
LAJ
t „.,. . it +:. { 1 ! {III • ,,• , •..''ta',? .,+.
fir'"'' " s—•- ZsF ir I I {t F ,'7 7 rv z. .. i
d ws+wa•w.r4w17t T1's __ _ Ii
ii , M A •!n p rr•D i"Q rr c.T,_ ..• rr- ..
i re yew ww. Z••Wt /
F HIV i
fi
7 a I . y I
Y
f
i
r
11
i
i• 1
s rte. t p L. _ I w Mr
ff I ws.f'eir..•wfr"+r,
I.ikill
a I1
I 1
lid ,.. .,,' I ..
III i "'1 c t•.-:.SKJ rtic'
wasr lir welfl"M•w'/'1'degi _ .:'.' :?+:r.
r
11
i
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: Jan. 15, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: Jan. 30, 1991
FILE NO.: 90112
PETITIONER: Independent School District 284 (Wayzata)
REQUEST: Extension and Renewal of the Existing Conditional Use
Permit for One Temporary Classroom Building at Greenwood
Elementary School to 1995.
LOCATION: 3635 State Highway #101 (Greenwood Elementary School)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: Public /Semi - Public
ZONING: R -1A (Low Density Single Family Residential)
BACKGROUND:
On June 1, 1987, the City Council, by Resolution 87 -348, approved a
Conditional Use Permit at a site plan for this school site to permit the
addition of a 2- classroom "relocatable" addition for a temporary period. The
current Conditional Use Permit will expire on June 1, 1991.
On June 5, 1989, the City Council, by Resolution 89 -287, approved a site plan
and amended Conditional Use Permit for the addition of 2570 square feet to the
school site.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City
newspaper, and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified. A
development sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. A condition of the original Conditional Use Permit was a review at the end
of the third year, "...to determine what will happen with the temporary
building at the'end of the fourth year... ". June, 1991 will be the end of
the third school year of use of this temporary structure.
2. The applicant's request for a four year extension to use the temporary
classroom facilities is based on several factors. They state enrollment
is projected to increase 3 -5% over the next several years. The next new
elementary school construction is not projected until 1995 -1996; and, the
City Council's action on City water and sewer service may impact new
housing developments.
3. The School District has indicated that if the City is not favorable to the
four year extension, they could work with an extension through the 1992 -
see next page)
File 90112
Page Two
1993 school year. They state that without the continued use of the
temporary building, the School District will have a shortage of adequate
space at the elementary school starting this year.
4. The primary issue with this request is whether or not the use of temporary
classrooms for an extended period of time (1981 -1995) is appropriate.
5. The Conditional Use Permit is required to be responsive to the Zoning
Ordinance specification for schools and all Zoning Districts. The
Planning Commission is directed by Ordinance to consider all Conditional
Use Permits in the context of six specific criteria that such Conditional
Use Permits must respond to. A copy of that criteria is attached for your
information.
6. The applicant has submitted, together with its application, a narrative in
support of Conditional Use Permit extension which has also been attached.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The circumstances under which the District proposes to eliminate the
relocatables (until the next - beyond Kimberly Lane - elementar school is
constructed, or at least two more years - "to see what happens " are vague
and without clear definition. At what point does "temporary" become
permanent? If growth does not dictate a new elementary school, how long
does continue renewaF of a "temporary" situation? When does an
emergency fix" become a relatively "inexpensive" substitute for a
permanent solution i.e., a building addition?
2. With the uncertainty about future growth and another new elementary
school, as reflected by the petitioner's statements, we question whether
this "temporary" expansion of the school should not now be substituted by
a permanent structural addition to the school. This m y move the need for
a fourth new elementary school "out" in time and resolve the "temporary
versus permanent" issue related to the relocatable classrooms.
3. Rather than a multi -year renewal, as proposed by the District, a more
appropriate action is a one year renewal. The District should be required
to annually review growth and resulting facilities plans each year as a
basis for continued utilization of "temporary" solutions that are not
generally available to other property owners.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution providing for
one year renewal only of the Conditional Use ermit for the relocatable
classroom. __ 10_%
Submitted by:
arles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution Approving Amended Conditional Use Permit
2. Petitioner's Narrative
3. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
4. Location Map
pc /jk /90112:lr)
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 284 (WAYZATA)
90112)
WHEREAS, Independent School District 284 (Wayzata) has requested approval to
extend a Conditional Use Permit to allow two temporary classroom buildings at
Greenwood Elementary School for property located at 3635 State Hwy. 101; 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
Independent School District 284 (Wayzata) to extend a Conditional Use Permit
to allow two temporary classroom buildings at Greenwood Elementary School at
3635 State Hwy. 101, 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 Independent School District 284 (Wayzata) for
Greenwood Elementary School 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. No signage is allowed relative to the use.
6. This Conditional Use Permit shall run from the June 1, 1991 expiration
date of the current Conditional Use Permit to expire June 1, 1992. The
permit shall be reviewed prior to the expiration date to assure compliance
with the conditions and to review the need for the relocatable classrooms
based on District 284 facilities available or planned, and school
enrollment data.
res /pc /90112:lr)
C i
y a ta
iUBLIC SCHOOLS
pendent School District 284
JAN 4 1991
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 210 COUNTY ROAD 101 NORTH P.O. BOX 660 WAYZATA, MN 55391 -9990 (612) 476.3100 FAX: (612) 476 -3214
January 4, 1991
Charles E. Dillerud
Community Development Coordinator
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
The Wayzata School District has experienced significant census
growth at the elementary school level over the past four years.
During this period elementary enrollment increased by 1074
students. To accommodate this increased student population, the
District has built two additional elementary schools (Plymouth
Creek and Kimberly Lane).
During 1991 -92 we expect elementary school -aged population to
increase by at least 230 students. To accommodate this number of
students, we will need a total of 189 classrooms. With the
opening of Kimberly Lane Elementary School in Fall 1991, the
District will have 197 rooms including the relocatables at
Birchview and Greenwood. We expect to use these extra eight
rooms in the 1992 -93 school year, based on current demographic
data.
If the City of Plymouth does not continue authorization of the
conditional use permit on the four relocatables at Birchview and
Greenwood, the School District will experience the following
problems:
1. Birchview will have no classroom space for a Home Base
Latch Key) Program.
2. A total of 106 sixth grade Birchview students will have to
be accommodated in a classroom pod designed for 85 -90
students.
3. All available classroom space at Greenwood will be fully
used. Depending on what decisions are made regarding future
city water and sewer service, this elementary school could
be impacted by new housing development. The administration
and Citizens Advisory Council recommends that the two
relocatables at Greenwood be used as reserve space for
future growth.
3
January 4, 1991
Page 2.
The School District requests use of the four elementary relocat-
ables until the District builds its next elementary school
projected 1995 -96). If this is not acceptable, the District
would like to use the elementary relocatables a minimum of two
years, or through the 1992 -93 school year. This would allow us
to see what happens with future development in Plymouth and its
impact on enrollment.
Loss of the relocatables will likely necessitate changing
elementary attendance boundaries. Since this becomes a very
emotional issue and we are changing boundaries for the 1991 -92
school year, the District urges avoidance of any such action next
year.
Relocatables at the high school will be used as a back -up in the
event that remodeling work is not completed by the start of the
1991 -92 school year. The District does not anticipate a need for
these relocatables beyond 1991 -92.
I trust this information will prove useful in your decision
making process. Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Many thanks for your time.
Bruce Halgren
Executive Director
Academic Services
ENRLMNT:Growth
REVISED DEMOGRAPHIC :PROJECTIOmd a gaw3
1990 -1995
Merged Model Projections Housing Grade Pr
Grade 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Actual) Projected)
K 606 626 620 647 653 663
1 566 632 655 649 676 680
2 549 588 657 681 674 700
3 577 570 612 683 706 697
4 558 599 593 636 709 730
5 522 586 629 624 667 741
6 518 545 613 658 651 694
7 538 560 591 663 711 703
8 534 558 581 613 688 737
9 485 554 581 605 637 712
10 518 496 567 594 617 649
11 504 530 508 581 607 630
12 550 518 545 524 597 623
TOTAL 7025 7360 7750 8155 8590 8957
K 606 626 620 647 653 663
1 -6 3290 3519 3758 3930 4081 4241
7 -9 1557 1672 1752 1881 2035 2151
10 -12 1572 1543 1620 1698 1821 1902
t4ry.n
6& qwf%clrl
l
1
ir. ` Nora
r3,.a
A y
V
i t ticll b"y
L
gL/n1 Ft
i
l
f
y
IW
C4 Ay ..: apk
Ali
C o
ME)
As
CG„ ta +
M
IS
iRM SMUCK 9r S[ I SIM A
2• per. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Camni.ssion for
Purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a recamsniation to the City Council, which
shall malae the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Ccmnission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) Ccupliance with and effect upon the Ccoprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will pr mote 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
R=Poses already pen tted, 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 surroundingpropertyforusespermittedinthedistrict.
S) been or wiU , be. t a cen to txavide ingress,
rgre_s, ; ^:c'.' pniciix; So des igr?4A as to minimize traffic
congestion in the public streets.
6) The • corxii-_iorc Use-' shall; it
I
e1.1 t;tj'- r:r c,:--ts, confom to the
aW rNu1iiLions of the district ir,. Which it is located.
e ! l 1 1
f - fr arr ;>P-L /Cup sand /s) 10/89
ZF.f
to
pCAT101
1
90112
M _D,
C
QRD,
I EEL L t I -I
4"
I ... , -1 - -
JL-- J\ T[
F -AV$
Gri eA
6
C
WA I
fi!
cy
O
a'
11 9
3 :.
1 A. A
I 2,8214JO Ilp- 21111:1:1 1t71, i2i ii: ImE.
VSH- 11 3
i:; ;I if
W1
A [All
Hill.
101
Woe
ly -
1
rT ev
0
MC15000*
E
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: Jan. 15, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: Jan. 30, 1991
FILE NO.: 90113
PETITIONER: Independent School District 284 (Wayzata)
REQUEST: Extension and Renewal of the Existing Conditional Use
Permit for One Temporary Classroom Building at Birchview
Elementary School Through 1995.
LOCATION: 425 Ranchview Lane ( Birchview Elementary School)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: Public /Semi - Public Zoning
ZONING: R -1A (Low Density Single Family Residential)
BACKGROUND:
On June 1, 1987, the City Council, by Resolution 87 -349, approved a
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for the school site to permit the
addition of a 2- classroom "relocatable" addition for a temporary period. The
current Conditional Use Permit will expire on June 1, 1991.
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. A condition of the original Conditional Use Permit was a review at the end
of the third year, "...to determine what will happen with the temporary
building at the end of the fourth year... ". June, 1991 will be the end of
the third school year of use of this temporary structure.
2. The applicant's request for a four year extension to use the temporary
classroom facilities is based on several factors. They state enrollment
is projected to increase 3 -5% over the next several year; the next new
elementary school construction is not projected until 1995 -1996; and, City
Council's action on City water and sewer service may impact new housing
developments.
3. The School District has indicated that if the City is not favorable to the
four year extension, they could work with an extension through the 1992-
1993 school year. They state that without the continued use of the
temporary building, the School District will have a shortage of adequate
space at the elementary school starting this year.
4. The primary issue with this request is whether or not the use of a
temporary classroom for an extended period of time (1987 -1995) is
appropriate.
see next page)
File 90113
Page Two
5. The Conditional Use Permit is required to be responsive to the Zoning
Ordinance specification for schools and all Zoning Districts. The
Planning Commission is directed by Ordinance to consider all Conditional
Use Permits in the context of six specific criteria that such Conditional
Use Permits must respond to. A copy of those criterion is attached for
your information.
6. The applicant has submitted, together with its application, a narrative in
support of Conditional Use Permit Amendment which has also been attached.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The circumstances under which the District proposes to eliminate the
relocatables (until the next - beyond Kimberly Lane - elementar school is
constructed, or at least two more years - "to see what happens " are vague
and without clear definition. At what point does "temporary" become
permanent? If growth does not dictate a new elementary school, how long
does the City continue renewal of a "temporary" situation? When does an
emergency fix" become a relatively "inexpensive" substitute for a
permanent solution i.e., a building addition?
2. With the uncertainty about future growth and another new elementary
school, as reflected by the petitioner's statements, we question whether
this "temporary" expansion of the school should not now be substituted by
a permanent structural addition to the school. This may move the need for
a fourth new elementary school "out" in time and resolve the "temporary
versus permanent" issue related to the relocatable classrooms.
3. Rather than a multi -year renewal, as proposed by the District, a more
appropriate action is a one year renewal. The District should be required
to review growth and—resulting facilities plans each year as a basis for
continued utilization of "temporary" solutions that are not generally
available to other property owners.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution providing for
one year
classroom.
renewal only of the Conditional Use Permit for the relocatable
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution Approving Amended Conditional Use Permit
2. Petitioner's Narrative
3. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
4. Location Map
pc /jk /90113:lr)
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 284 (WAYZATA)
90113)
WHEREAS, Independent School District 284 (Wayzata) has requested approval to
extend a Conditional Use Permit to allow one temporary classroom building at
Birchview Elementary School for property located at 425 Ranchview Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Independent School District 284 (Wayzata) to extend a Conditional Use Permit
to allow one temporary classroom building at Birchview Elementary School at
425 Ranchview Lane, subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and ordinances,
and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The permit is issued to Independent School District 284 (Wayzata) for
Birchview Elementary School 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. No signage is allowed relative to the use.
6. This Conditional Use Permit shall run from the June 1, 1991 expiration
date of the current Conditional Use Permit to expire June 1, 1992. The
permit shall be reviewed prior to the expiration date to assure compliance
with the conditions and to review the need for the relocatable classrooms
based on District 284 facilities available or planned, and school
enrollment data.
res /pc /90113:lr)
Fa4115
uzata
LA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
pendent School District 284
qo i)a
90 u'1 --
T/13 DO
JAN 4 199?
UUTH
COM.- W^l1TY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 210 COUNTY ROAD 101 NORTH P.O. BOX 660 WAYZATA, MN 55391 -9990 (612) 476.3100 FAX: (612) 476 -3214
January 4, 1991
Charles E. Dillerud
Community Development Coordinator
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
The Wayzata School District has experienced significant census
growth at the elementary school level over the past four years.
During this period elementary enrollment increased by 1074
students. To accommodate this increased student population, the
District has built two additional elementary schools (Plymouth
Creek and Kimberly Lane).
During 1991 -92 we expect elementary school -aged population to
increase by at least 230 students. To accommodate this number of
students, we will need a total of 189 classrooms. With the
opening of Kimberly Lane Elementary School in Fall 1991, the
District will have 197 rooms including the relocatables at
Birchview and Greenwood. We expect to use these extra eight
rooms in the 1992 -93 school year, based on current demographic
data.
If the City of Plymouth does not continue authorization of the
conditional use permit on the four relocatables at Birchview and
Greenwood, the School District will experience the following
problems:
1. Birchview will have no classroom space for a Home Base
Latch Key) Program.
2. A total of 106 sixth grade Birchview students will have to
be accommodated in a classroom pod designed for 85 -90
students.
3. All available classroom space at Greenwood will be fully
used. Depending on what decisions are made regarding future
city water and sewer service, this elementary school could
be impacted by new housing development. The administration
and Citizens Advisory Council recommends that the two
relocatables at Greenwood be used as reserve space for
future growth.
January 4, 1991
Page 2
The School District requests use of the four elementary relocat-
ables until the District builds its next elementary school
projected 1995 -96). If this is not acceptable, the District
would like to use the elementary relocatables a minimum of two
years, or through the 1992 -93 school year. This would allow us
to see what happens with future development in Plymouth and its
impact on enrollment.
Loss of the relocatables will likely necessitate changing
elementary attendance boundaries. Since this becomes a very
emotional issue and we are changing boundaries for the 1991 -92
school year, the District urges avoidance of any such action next
year.
Relocatables at the high school will be used as a back -up in the
event that remodeling work is not completed by the start of the
1991 -92 school year. The District does not anticipate a need for
these relocatables beyond 1991 -92.
I trust this information will prove useful in your decision
making process. Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Many thanks for your time.
Bruce Halgren
Executive Director
Academic Services
ENRLMNT:Growth
REVISED DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIO1,J :
1990 -1995
Merged Model Projections Housing Grade Pr
Grade 199519901991199219931994
Actual) Projected)
K 606 626 620 647 653 663
1 566 632 655 649 676 680
2 549 588 657 681 674 700
3 577 570 612 683 706 697
4 558 599 593 636 709 730
5 522 586 629 624 667 741
6 518 545 613 658 651 694
7 538 560 591 663 711 703
8 534 558 581 613 688 737
9 485 554 581 605 637 712
10 518 496 567 594 617 649
11 504 530 508 581 607 630
12 550 518 545 524 597 623
TOTAL 7025 7360 7750 8155 8590 8957
K 606 626 620 647 653 663
1 -6 3290 3519 3758 3930 4081 4241
7 -9 1557 1672 1752 1881 2035 2151
10 -12 1572 1543 1620 1698 1821 1902
U •
a14O
4-)
3 t NW
C C OA
W -1 E C
vm cnW
D $4 O) O to
c; -+ x o
bW w
a
U)
C cOn A
Ln0C E W
0 v 3
aroh
E.
c 7E >7
0 o ro xL1V
er A N O O
v (1) o -4 ro
ro x oa
o ro
u w b cn
O ro O •,q
E4U ha
gsTaM aUEt r-
qeZ a9- 4hZu1o:)
ELn v W v tr r+
0 a0 •.
r O
0 V) C7 U) U)
co
Eu ;
0 •-+ C
O W
U
O ro N
W .-•I W
O r-I C
0 W W> W.WaoC aaV) E .0
xhc0 a
a
W
U)
W
1-
71, ws,-=ro=
o ai W
It to C >r U N
C 44 - O v v ,
a
4.
a
A)i th a
W
C -4 ro 0)c a)4Jr -U
00 r.,aa U)OCWU 'A 14 Cx>
WWtrio x(aEEoxWar+ 4 0) C 'o W 4J 3
t• C C a U •rI ro U :3•-1 C W•n0 W x 1.4 1-4 U)
Z 04
a ro A v•cmo Q
W x •H C w
od a) > >. v 41
ro W ro i
ell)
I^
T ro
ro
LAJ
N
L:
Wa
U •
a14O
4-)
3 t NW
C C OA
W -1 E C
vm cnW
D $4 O) O to
c; -+ x o
bW w
a
U)
C cOn A
Ln0C E W
0 v 3
aroh
E.
c 7E >7
0 o ro xL1V
er A N O O
v (1) o -4 ro
ro x oa
o ro
u w b cn
O ro O •,q
E4U ha
gsTaM aUEt r-
qeZ a9- 4hZu1o:)
ELn v W v tr r+
0 a0 •.
r O
0 V) C7 U) U)
co
Eu ;
0 •-+ C
O W
U
O ro N
W .-•I W
O r-I C
0 W W> W.WaoC aaV) E .0
xhc0 a
a
W
U)
W
1-
71, ws,-=ro=
Sa
rAr •.
cEn R'aS'
C C
ro
x
LJ C _ -
a cn
W
U
U N
v ,
a
4.
ar,
GC
W
N
0)c a)4Jr -U
C4JMV
Q)
U)OCWU 'A 14 Cx>
WWtrio x(a WU
r+ 4 0) C 'o W 4J 3 4 . 4-) 0-4
ro U :3•-1 C W•n0 W x 1.4 1-4 U)
Z 04u a a •-4 : cn ro 0) 4-)
Q
W x •H C w
od a) > >. v 41 v
co W s •1+ 10 U .0 W r+ >. to -a E 34
9 h a
rov Wa
x1% hu4xC4 h Axu=
Sa
rAr •.
cEn R'aS'
C C
ro
x
LJ C _ -
w -4
w A
O wx
x 'I, U
N .
0 >
vW
U fs1 >
1
tz-4 row
c wh E
1
a cn
U
N a
ar,
GC
W
N
C4JMV
a .0 > O
It 41 Wil)w
s It 41 v ro
c7 a4U)aoU
a,
w -4
w A
O wx
x 'I, U
N .
0 >
vW
U fs1 >
1
tz-4 row
c wh E
1
C C W W
4 u $4
v°iro x
a A 41 N w
sroa 0 S4 •O -4
c c0 aU
n
O .mi
W
E >4
O ri :+
i
U
E N E N
C4JMV
Q a c s •.
a, x Way 3
O rl C N N •••I C
Wc A• W v
E ro W x •H C w
OMWEU O:3
0 0•li aWro
9 h a
C C W W
4 u $4
v°iro x
a A 41 N w
sroa 0 S4 •O -4
c c0 aU
n
O .mi
W
E >4
O ri :+
i
ta
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
pendent School District 284
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 210 COUNTY ROAD 101 NORTH P.O. BOX 660 WAYZATA, MN 55391 -9990 (612) 476 -3100 FAX: (612) 476 -3214
7. Brief Description of Request - Conditional Use Permit Narrative
Birchview Elementary School
In June of 1987, Independent School District 284 received from the City of
Plymouth a conditional use permit for the use of a two - classroom, relocatable
structure at Birchview Elementary School. A condition of this permit required
a renewal application be submitted after three years. The application was
submitted in the Spring of 1990 and the District received an administrative
conditional use permit extension of one year with the understanding that an
application for the 1991 -92 school year would also be required.
The increasing enrollment condition existing in 1987 continues to be an issue
in 1990. Demographic projections for the elementary school population during
the next five year period show annual increases in the three to five percent
range. The school district is projecting to operate Birchview elementary
school over capacity during the 1990 -91 school year. We therefore see the need
for continued use of the two temporary classrooms at this site to alleviate
classroom shortages in this attendance area. We hereby request a renewal of
the conditional use permit for the two relocatable classrooms at Birchview
School.
We believe the request to continue use of the relocatable classrooms at this
location continues in compliance with the standards set forth in section 9,
subdivision A of the city's zoning ordinance. Each of the standards are
addressed as follows.
1. The existing and proposed use as a school facility at this location is in
compliance with the city's comprehensive plan.
2. The maintenance and operation of the relocatable classrooms will promote
and enhance the general public welfare by easing crowded conditions in the
balance of the District or within individual schools. The conditional use
will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, moral s
or comfort.
3. Because of the location and form of construction, the continued conditional
use of the relocatable classroom at this location will not be injurious to
the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity nor will
such use substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
4. The continued use of the relocatable classroom unit at this location will
not impede the moral and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
property.
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. We believe the conditional use shall in all respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it 4c located.
i
FWX SPNIQO 9, S[13DIMICIR A
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Cc mission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a recontn ndation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) CmPliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive 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 comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
en jcymnt 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 inpzov+ament 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
lip _?_ 1: ..' - .:.•• _.•..
11111111 r
mw
let Ll
1'• '
r -- .•:R: =,:
illlilll 1
a
J
KIM ` j
a lei
1 _
i -.,. SCHOOL .:
so
ITY
11111E
i = t ,
j ==1 if a f
t
I I! itii.
Jul 7 ! ,
lu
Maw 3AW7
6 MMa•'M Jrr°
N I_
1
1.,.,0 .. > ryt 7.
i y I Si
v'
lax"
ri
t I
trs .a
glit
4
y t
ON
0
6-
e
i
pia
srt
x"
r'
glit
4
y t
ON
0
6-
e
i
pia
srt
x"
DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 5
HEARING DATE: November 28, 1990
DESCRIPTION:
This amendment is intended to restructure the portion of the Planned Unit
Development section of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance that deals with the
expected attributes of a Planned Unit Development proposal.
SECTIONS INVOLVED: Section 9, Subdivision B.
EXPLANATION /PURPOSE:
Since its initial adoption in the mid- 1970's the Planned Unit Development
section of the Zoning Ordinance has been periodically revisited and from time
to time amended to reflect perceived benefits and problems that have resulted
by the application of this sophisticated development regulation device. The
City Council and the Planning Commission in recent months on several occasions
expressed concern with the difficulty of determining whether a Planned Unit
Development proposal provides the attributes expected of a PUD as they are now
defined in Paragraph 1 of Subdivision B, Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
These proposed amendments focus exclusively on Subparagraph c of this section
of the Zoning Ordinance where five expected PUD attributes are provided. We
have considered commentary of City Council and Planning Commission members
concerning individual attributes, and by the amendments proposed incorporated
what we believe to be the modifications necessary to address the current
concerns that have been raised.
The intended effect of these amendments is to modify or eliminate attributes
currently in the ordinance which no longer enable the City to distinguish
between PUD proposals and to clarify certain others of the attributes to
enable the Planning Commission and City Council to determine with a greater
degree of certainty whether the proposal qualifies as a Planned Unit
Development within the definition of the Zoning Ordinance.
An initial question concerning this section of the Zoning Ordinance is whether
it is the intent of the City to disqualify .a proposal from consideration as a
Planned Unit Development if all of the stated attributes are not present in
the project proposal.
The findings required by Section 9, Subdivision B, Paragraph 5c, with respect
to the PUD Concept Plan does not include reference to whether the proposal
complies with the PUD attributes or not. Section 9, Subdivision D, Paragraph
5j, however, requires the Planning Commission to base its recommendation to
the City Council on Preliminary Plans /Plats in part on "compatibility with the
stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development ". Since the
attributes are an integral part of the Paragraph 1 of this subdivision
entitled "purpose ", the compliance of the plan with the attributes listed has
Page Two
often been a basis for the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the
City Council regarding the Preliminary Plan. Since by that time the Concept
Plan has already been approved, the question of whether the proposal qualifies
as a PUD should have already been rendered.
Based on the foregoing we are assuming that it is the intent of the ordinance
that the question of whether a proposal is a PUD or not is not addressed by
its compliance to the attributes under consideration. As such, it is not an
all or nothing" question with respect to compliance with the attributes. We
are suggesting that the degree to which a proposal responds to the attributes
one or more) will however become the foundation upon which staff, the
Planning Commission and the City Council measures the degree of flexibility in
design that will be afforded to a particular development proposal (flexibility
from the "standard" Zoning Ordinance specifications and standards).
Even if a PUD proposal would not respond to one or more of the attributes, it
still could be a Planned Unit Development, but perhaps one where Zoning
Ordinance flexibility would be more limited than with a proposal that better
responds to the attributes. It is not the intent therefore for these
amendments to modify the judgmental or subjective nature of the decisions and
recommendations that must be made with respect to each individual PUD.
The intent with respect to changes regarding the specific PUD attributes
listed in Section 9, Subdivision B, Paragraph 1c is as follows:
1) No change is recommend with respect to the attribute involving new
technology and building design, construction and land development. We
believe it is clear what is intended by this, and we point to such
development concepts as the original "Tiburon" and the more recent
Laukka Development "Zipper -Zee" as types of development that respond
to this attribute. In our view very few projects we have seen to -date
actually present attributes related to "new" technology. At some
point "new" becomes "accepted" and therefore does not become an
attribute.
2) Because of specifications found in the Subdivision Ordinance and in
other sections of the Zoning Ordinance all development proposals
presented to the City of Plymouth require the use of trained and
experience professionals. At the time of the drafting the Planned
Unit Development ordinance this may not have been the case therefore
resulting in this as possible PUD attribute. This attribute can be
eliminated since little distinction is possible without rendering
value judgments as to the relative merits of various consulting firms.
3) Efficiency and effectiveness of the use of public streets, utilities
and other public facilities resulting in high quality development
remains an important aspect of urban design. Considerations of a
capital cost of, continuing operations cost of, and replacement cost
for urban infrastructure certainly cannot be overlooked. We have
added to this attribute the term "demonstrated ". This means that the
Page Three
proponent of a PUD must prove to us that he has provided more
efficient and effective use of infrastructure components than would be
expected from a lesser design or from conventional subdivision
development.
We would anticipate this to be in the form of quantitative data
verifiable by the Director of Public Works. We are also recommending
removal of the term "at lesser cost ".
4) We have modified attribute No. 4 to provide emphasis on the
demonstration by the project proponent that the recreation facilities
and other public and common facilities are truly more usable and
suitably located than under conventional land development procedures.
We are also adding the term "where proposed ". By this addition an
important policy change is produced that removes a requirement that
recreation facilities be included with each and every PUD. There may
be instances where active recreational facilities are clearly not
appropriate and therefore a PUD should not be penalized for the lack
of such facilities.
5) This attribute has become increasingly important in recent years but
was a critical element of the original concept embodied in the Planned
Unit Development ordinance philosophy. We are recommending amendment
to this attribute to more clearly define the desirable natural site
characteristics in terms of the Physical Constraints Analysis.
CONCLUSIONS /RECOhMENDATIONS:
Based on the foregoing discussion of the purposes and intent of the amendments
proposed we recommend amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in Section 9,
Subdivision B, Paragraph 1c as follows:
L andseaping te prepare plans fer Planned Unit develepments.
3) Demonstration of more efficient and effective use of streets,
utilities and public facilities to yield high quality development. at-
TeTGVSt
4) Where proposed, mere u5able and 50tably leeat recreation facilities
and other public and common facilities shall be more usable and
suitably located than would otherwise be provided under conventional
land development procedures.
5) Demonstration of affirmative design efforts toward the preservation
and enhancement of desirable natural site characteristics as defined
by the Plymouth "Physical Constraints Analysis ".
Attachments:
1. Zoning Ordinance Extract (Page 9 -5)
Underscore - indicates new text
Strikeeut -- indicates deleted text
pc /cd /zo.5)
Page Three
proponent of a PUD must prove to us that he has provided more
efficient and effective use of infrastructure components than would be
expected from a lesser design or from conventional subdivision
development.
We would anticipate this to be in the form of quantitative data
verifiable by the Director of Public Works. We are also recommending
removal of the term "at lesser cost ".
4) We have modified attribute No. 4 to provide emphasis on the
demonstration by the project proponent that the recreation facilities
and other public and common facilities are truly more usable and
suitably located than under conventional land development procedures.
We are also adding the term "where proposed ". By this addition an
important policy change is produced that removes a requirement that
recreation facilities be included with each and every PUD. There may
be instances where active recreational facilities are clearly not
appropriate and therefore a PUD should not be penalized for the lack
of such facilities.
5) This attribute has become increasingly important in recent years but
was a critical element of the original concept embodied in the Planned
Unit Development ordinance philosophy. We are recommending amendment
to this attribute to more clearly define the desirable natural site
characteristics in terms of the Physical Constraints Analysis.
CONCLUSIONS /RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the foregoing discussion of the purposes and intent of the amendments
proposed we recommend amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in Section 9,
Subdivision B. Paraaraoh 1c as follows:
T
tn\ Higher standards ef site and building design threugh u5e ef traine
3) Demonstration of more efficient and effective use of streets,
utilities and public facilities to yield high quality development. et
4) Where proposed, mefe usable and suitably leea recreation facilities
and other public and common facilities shall be more usable and
suitably located than would otherwise be provided under conventional
land development procedures.
5) Demonstration of affirmative design efforts toward the preservation
and enhancement of desirable natural site characteristics as defined
by the Plymouth "Physical Constraints Analysis ".
Attachments:
1. Zoning Ordinance Extract (Page 9 -5)
Underscore - indicates new text
Strikeeut - indicates deleted text
pc /cd /zo.5)
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 9, Subdivision B
SUBDIVISION B - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
1. purpose
a. The provisions of this section of the Zoning Ordinance are intended to
provide areas which can be developed with some modification of the
strict application of regulations of the normal zoning districts in
accordance with the provisions and regulations contained herein, the
intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan, the general
intent of the districts in which the development is proposed, and
generally in accordance with the "Community Structure Concept" of the
Comprehensive Plan.
b. The provisions of this section of the Zoning Ordinance provide design
flexibility for the development of larger parcels under single
ownership or control, in order to obtain a higher quality of
development than might otherwise be possible should development occur
under strict application of the zoning ordinance regulations for a
particular district. IL
benefit to the developer is one of design and development
xibility; in order to utilize this flexibility, the developer has
s responsibility to demonstrate that its utilization does indeed
vide a development which has substantial attributes to enhance the
rticular area or the City in total. Expected attributes are:
Benefits from new technology in building design, construction and
land development.
Higher standards of site and building design through use of
trained and experienced professionals in Land Planning,
Architecture and Landscaping to prepare plans for Planned Unit
Developments.
More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities and public
facilities to yield high quality development at a lesser cost.
More usable and suitably located recreation facilities and other
public and common facilities than would otherwise be provided ,
under conventional land development procedures.
Demonstration of affirmative design efforts toward the
preservation and enhancement of desirable natural site
characteristics. (Amended Ord. No. 82 -15)
e provisions for Planned Unit Developments in this section are
applied in two separate and distinct forms: A Residential Planned
Development (R.P.U.D.) and a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
M.P.U.D.). Where provisions are not specifically designated for
either the R.P.U.D. or M.P.U.D., they apply to both types. All
Unit
property within a R.P.U.D. shall be in one or more R Districts. Within
a M.P.U.D. land shall include one or more non - residence districts and
may or may not include one or more R Districts.
9 -5
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 5, 1990
The Regular Meeting of the City of Plymouth Planning
Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Plufka, Commissioners
John Wire, Hal Pierce, Dennis Zylla, Joy
Tierney, Larry Marofsky, and Michael
Stulberg (arrived at 7:40 p.m.).
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Coordinator Charles Dillerud, Director
Blair Tremere, City Engineer Dan
Faulkner, and Sr. Clerk /Typist Denise
Lanthier.
MINUTES
Chairman Richard Plufka announced that the Planning
Commission is tabling the request by Greenwalt
Development, Inc. per the petitioner's written request
dated December 4, 1990.
Chairman Plufka introduced the continued public hearing ZONING
for the Zoning Ordinance amendment regarding standards for AMENDMENT
outside display, storage and sale of merchandise.
Chairman Plufka reopened the public hearing from the
November 28, 1990, Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Marofsky noted a typographical error in the
Zoning Ordinance Draft Amendment No. 6. He noted that the
word "there" should be changed to "where" on Page 2,
Paragraph 3.a., Line 3 of the staff memorandum.
Commissioner Marofsky stated that he does not feel
comfortable adding Paragraphs (1) e. and f. under Section
10, Subdivision C, Paragraph 6.c. He stated he believes
these paragraphs should be set apart for clear reference
to transient merchant /sales.
Chairman Plufka noted the Planning Commission's receipt of
a letter from Jerry Theis of Dundee Nursery & Landscaping
Co. dated November 21, 1990.
Chairman Plufka introduced Jerry Theis of Dundee Nursery &
Landscaping Co.
ORDINANCE
Planning Commission Minutes
December 5, 1990
Page 218
Mr. Theis stated he is concerned that adoption of the
Zoning Ordinance amendment will envelop his company
causing him to apply for Conditional Use Permits or
Administrative Permits even though they are a permitted
use.
Chairman Plufka closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Chairman Plufka, seconded by Commissioner
Marofsky, to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance
amendment regarding standards for outside display, storage
and sale of merchandise.
Commissioner Marofsky stated that transient
merchants /produce merchants should not be allowed outside
storage in B -1 Business Districts.
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner
Pierce, to amend Zoning Ordinance Draft Amendment No. 6 to
insert the words "B -2 and B -3" before the word "BUSINESS"
in third line of Paragraph 3.c.
Commissioner Pierce asked if, by this amendment, the
outside storage standards will change for greenhouses and
nurseries.
Director Tremere responded affirmatively to the extent
that these standards impact greehouses and nurseries.
There are no specific standards for greenhouses and
nurseries.
Roll Call Vote on Motion to Amend. 6 Ayes. MOTION
carried.
Roll Call Vote on Main Motion. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried.
MOTION TO APPROVE
MOTION TO AMEND
VOTE - MOTION TO AMEND
CARRIED
VOTE - MAIN MOTION
CARRIED
MOTION by Chairman Plufka, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO ADVISE CITY
Pierce, to request staff to research the outside storage COUNCIL
and display of merchandise for greenhouses and nurseries
in preparation for a' Planning Commission study of the
subject.
Director Tremere was requested by the Planning Commission
to contact the nursery and greenhouse owners of Plymouth
to participate in the study.
Commissioner Wire stated the City should look at
administratively exempting Dundee Nursery & Landscaping
Co. from this Zoning Ordinance amendment instead of
webbing the ordinance around them.
Vote. All Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 1991
Page 9
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded b ommissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Tierney to recommend approval of the re st by Ray Wedin
for a Conditional Use Permit for ome Occupation to
operate a woodworking /cabinetry p at 16831 12th Avenue
North.
Roll Call Vote. 7 9jwl' MOTION carried unanimously. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Pluf introduced the Continued Public Hearing
for Zonin rdinance Amendment regarding Planned Unit
Develo t Attributes continued from the December 5, 1990
meet q.
MOTION by Chairman Plufka, seconded by Commissioner Wire
to continue the Public Hearing to the next meeting.
Chairman Plufka stated that he would like to have further
time for the Commissioners to study this item and submit
their written ideas to City staff. He said that he would
like to see the point system revamped.
Commissioner Pierce stated that he felt a PUD was really a
Conditional Use Permit and when it meets those criteria it
should be approved.
Commissioner Marofsky stated that he wondered if we really
want a point system.
Commissioner Wire stated that he thought just a few
changes needed to be made to the Draft Amendment.
Commissioner Stulberg said that a new ordinance should be
created and not revise the existing one if the Commission
really wants to continue with PUD's.
Commissioner Marofsky stated that he would like staff to
look at the existing ordinance and let the Commission know
exactly what the City gains from a PUD.
Commissioner Stulberg stated that they should look at the
sections in the City and analyze what they would be like
if PUD's were not allowed.
Chairman Plufka directed that staff and Commissioners
prepare their thoughts /opinions on PUD's for the next
meeting; consider whether PUD's are necessary; and, if so,
what should be changed.
MOTION TO CONTINUE
Wt?"Ilqk
9
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION to continue the Public VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Hearing carried.
mmurAme
Meeting adjourned 9:25 p.m.
January 21,1991
To: Planning Commissioners & Staff
From: Dennis Zylla
Re: PUD's M.
At the last city council planning commission workshop I provided to staff
my written comments on changes to be considered to the PUD ordinance. I
will restate and amplify on those points.
1. Require lot dimensions and square footage on concept plans.
This would minimize suprises.
2. Eliminate the bonus table.
Except in points for more open space we do not receive any positive
tradeoffs.
3. Stop reducing side yard setbacks.
Any resolution automatically includes this concession. Holding to the
ordinance standard may discourage lot width reductions.
4. Exclude wetlands from density calculations.
Wetlands distort the calculations and we are made to believe the
proponent will destroy the wetlands if he doesn't get credit for
saving them.
5. Allow variety of housing types only under tighter conditions.
LA -1 should allow attached housing only under special circumstances.
Otherwise our land use and zoning map tend to mislead.
6. Most importantly, staff should analyze PUD,s in light of the
standards for conventional platting and require platting unless
there is clear evidence to justify PUD. We do not owe anyone a
PUD approval and the staff report can begin with "we do not find
the filing of this PUD application to be justified."
To me PUD was originally intended to mean flexibility and scheduling.
Somewhere that intent got blurred in Plymouth. It is not too late
to clear our eyes and use the PUD for its origional purpose.
4.A
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: January 17, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: January 30,
1991
FILE NO.: 90110
PETITIONER: Robert Gersbach
REQUEST: Lot Division to create an 18,700 square foot lot and an
84,478 square foot lot; and a variance to allow for a 50
foot front lot width for Parcel B.
LOCATION: 700 Harbor Lane, East side of Harbor Lane and 7th Avenue
North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: R -1A (Low Density Single Family Residential)
BACKGROUND:
On January 7, 1985 the City Council, by Resolution 85 -03, denied a request to
allow for the division of this site into two lots.
A notice of Planning Commission consideration of this application has been
mailed, as a courtesy, to all property owners within 100 feet of the subject
parcel.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. Section 500.37 of the Plymouth City Code provides for the division and
consolidation of lots which are part of a recorded plat without the
requirement that a Preliminary and Final Plat be prepared in accordance
with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. The parcel proposed to
be divided is part of the recorded plat for "Glen Cove Acres ".
2. The requested variance is from the front lot width at the setback line of
110 feet. The petitioner is requesting approval of a 50 foot lot width
for Parcel B.
3. Section 500.41 of the Plymouth Subdivision Ordinance provides for
standards and procedures related to the approval of variances from the
dimensional standards of the ordinance. The ordinance provides for three
criteria that must be met before a Subdivision Ordinance Variance may be
approved. A copy of those three criteria is attached. The applicant's
letter of December 12, 1990 addresses these criteria.
4. The proposed lot division denied by City Council in 1980 varied in layout
from the current proposal. The 1985 proposal was designed in a manner
that would eliminate any option regarding the extension of 7th Avenue
North, east through this site. The current proposal maintains, as a
future option, the possibility of extending 7th Avenue North through this
site. This design could eventually provide lot frontage for additional
lots to the north of 7th Avenue and is the east part of this tract. The
petitioner has submitted a general development plan depicting such a
future platting arrangement.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Except with respect to the variance applied for and discussed below, the
lot division to create a new building lot is consistent with the
provisions of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance, and the density
requirements of the Comprehensive Plan for LA -1 classified and R -1A zoned
parcels.
2. The requested variance for lot width at the setback line for proposed
Parcel B does meet the three variance criteria of the Subdivision
Ordinance. Specifically, we find as follows:
a. There are special conditions affecting this site. The design of this
lot division provides opportunity for future development of
additional lots on this site as well as the possibility of providing
lot frontage for additional lots to the north.
b. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
C. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend the adoption of the attached resolution providing for the
division of platted property and approval of a variance, and resolution
providing for ttycf ting of c )ttRns priopeto) recording.
Submitted by:
rles E. Dilleru'd Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Division
2. Resolution Setting Conditions
3. Engineer's Memo
4. General Development Plan
5. Location Map
pc /jk /90110:jw)
of Platted Property and Variance
Prior to Recording
APPROVING LOT DIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR ROBERT GERSBACH FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT THE EAST SIDE OF HARBOR LANE AND 7TH AVENUE NORTH (90110)
WHEREAS, Robert Gersbach has requested approval for a lot division and
variance for the creation of two lots located at the east side of Harbor Lane
and 7th Avenue North;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the lot division
and variance for Robert Gersbach for property located at the east side of
Harbor Lane and 7th Avenue North.
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
PARCEL A
Lot 7, Block 1 Glen Glove Acres.
To be divided and consolidated as follows:
PARCEL A
The south 110.00 feet of the east 170.00 feet, as measured along the
south and east lines thereof, of Lot 7, Block 1, Glen Grove Acres.
PARCEL B
Lot 7, Block 1, except the 110.00 feet of the east 170.00 feet as
measured along the south and east lines thereof, Glen Grove Acres.
FURTHER, that the City Manager be authorized to make the necessary special
assessment corrections based upon City Policy when the division /consolidation
is approved by Hennepin County.
res /pc /90110:lr)
a
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO LOT DIVISION
FOR ROBERT GERSBACH FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF HARBOR LANE AND
7TH AVENUE NORTH (90110)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Lot Division and Variance for Robert
Gersbach located at the east side of Harbor Lane and 7th Avenue North;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the following
conditions to be met prior to recording of, and related to said lot division:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication prior to recording
of lot division with Hennepin County.
3. No building permit is to be issued until the Lot Division is filed with
Hennepin County.
4. Approved variances are
a. Lot width of 50 feet at the front setback line for Parcel B versus
the ordinance standard 110 feet
b. Approval is based on compliance with the variance criteria of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
5. No other variances are granted or implied for any of the parcels.
res /pc /90110.sc:jw)
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: January 22, 1991
FILE NO.: 90110
PETITIONER: Mr. Robert Gersbach, 10211 Cedar Lake Road, Apt. #202, Minnetonka,
MN 55343
LOT DIVISION /CONSOLIDATION: Lot 7, Block 1, Glen Grove Acres, Hennepin County, MN.
LOCATION: 700 Harbor Lane
N/A Yes No
1. _ X _ Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. _ X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Lot Division /Consolidation approval:
4. Area assessments: None.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None.
6. _ _ X Complies with standard utility /drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in
width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required,
it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents
executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any building
permits.)
N/A Yes No
7. _ _ X Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year
high water elevation and conformance with the City's Comprehensive
Storm Drainage Plan. A drainage easement for ponding shall be
provided to an elevation of 952.0.
8. X _ _ Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots:
9. _ X _ All standard utility easements required for construction
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities
10. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way to
facilitate the development. This vacation is not an automatic
process in conjunction with the platting process. It is entirely
dependent upon the City receiving a petition for the vacation from
the property owner; therefore, it is their responsibility to submit a
petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be
vacated.
11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
12. _ X _ All existing street rights -of -way are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required on
13. A. Since this parcel will not permit a second house without a variance, no sewer
and water services were installed when Harbor Lane was improved in 1990. If
the lot division is approved, the sewer and water service shall be provided
from the undeveloped property to the north at the time it is developed. This
developer will be responsible for the installation and cost of extending the
sanitary sewer service and water service from the mains in the undeveloped
property. No building permit shall be issued for Parcel B until the sewer and
water service is constructed.
2
B. The existing topographic survey and utility location shall be field verified.
Also, the existing street and utility easements shall be shown on the survey.
Submitted by:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
n
a
TAm 1 IATA:Ire l :LTAI =\1r:W_l0n'Ill&Ll
oll, A ICoo A Y
r
s,WMAW
op
T f
4 i l m ' 1