HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 02-13-1991r 0 r 1 4
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: January 30, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 13,
1991
FILE NO.: 91002
PETITIONER: Martin & Andrea Campion
REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOME OCCUPATION TO OPERATE A
BEAUTY SALON
LOCATION: 4215 Revere Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (low density residential)
ZONING: R -1A (low density single family residential district)
BACKGROUND:
There are no applications on file in the Community Development department
regarding development action on this parcel.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City
newspaper, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The area of the house proposed to be used for the home occupation will be
150 square feet, or under 30% of the house and garage area combined, and
is secondary and incidental to the single - family residence primary use of
the structure.
2. Certain home occupations that involve the keeping of "stock- trade" or
requiring equipment other than that customarily found in the home, require
a Conditional Use Permit. Beauty salon supplies will be kept in this
house in addition to a beauty salon station (see attached Ordinance
definition).
3. The Zoning Ordinance provides six standards to be met prior to any
Conditional Use Permit. A copy of the standards is attached and the
letter of the applicant dated January 25, 1991, is also attached in which
she provides evidence of her compliance with the standards.
Page 2
File 91002
4. In her letter, the petitioner states that the beauty salon will be located
in the basement and that no more than two customers will be on premise at
any one time. The petitioner also states that the driveway for the house
is approximately 130 feet long which would provide adequate room for two
parking spaces.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The proposed home occupation meets the definition of a "home occupation -
conditional" of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, subject to control of the
number of clients automobiles and the number of beauty salon stations.
2. The proposed home occupation meets the six standards of the Zoning
Ordinance specified for any Conditional Use Permit.
3. The proposed home occupation is secondary and incidental to the primary
use of the single family residence.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend adoption of the attached resolution providing for the
approval of a home occupation- condition for the operation of a beauty salon as
requested. /_11V_ 1___\
Submitted by:
arles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit for home occupation
2. Zoning Ordinance definition of home occupation - conditional
3. Conditional Use Permit standards
4. Petitioner's letter dated 1/25/91
5. Petitioner's letter dated 1/2/91
6. Location map
pc/j k/91002: 1 r)
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR Martin and Andrea Campion at 4315 Revere
Lane (91002)
WHEREAS, Martin and Andrea Campion have requested a Conditional Use Permit for
a home occupation to operate a beauty salon occupying 150 sq. ft. of the
basement in their home located at 4215 Revere Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Martin and Ardrea Campion for a Conditional Use Permit for a beauty salon shop
occupying 150 sq. ft. of the basement of property located at 4215 Revere Lane,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and
Ordinances, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
3. There shall be no signage allowed on the property relative to the use.
4. There shall be no outside display, sales, or storage of merchandise or
related materials.
5. The permit shall be reviewed annually from the date of this Resolution to
assure compliance with the conditions.
6. A maximum of two parking spaces for customers shall be allowed.
7. One beauty salon station is allowed.
8. The beauty salon station shall be located per approved plans.
9. The permit is issued to Martin and Andrea Campion for 4215 Revere Lane
and shall not be transferable to any other site.
10. A copy of the appropriate State license shall be submitted prior to
issuance of the Conditional Use Permit.
11. Compliance with applicable Building and Fire Code requirements shall be
verified by the City prior to Permit issuance.
res /pc /91002:lr)
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE'`
Section 4, Subdivision B
a d vegetable wastes and other wastes or putrescible matter
including but not limited o shells, grounds, bones,
entrails, and similar materials resulting from t e aration,
cooking, service and consumption of food, and other animal waste (Amended
Ord. 87 -31)
Gasoline Service Station -- Any building or premises used fo a dispensation,
sale or offering for sale at retail of any motor fue , oils or lubricants.
When the use is incidental to the conduct of a p is garage, the premises
are classified as a public garage.
General Development Plan -- A report in text map form with the map drawn to
scale depicting the general locati and relationship of structures,
streets, driveways, recreation are parking areas, utilities, etc. as
related to a proposed development
Grade (Adjacent Ground Elevation -- The lowest point of elevation of the
finished surface of the and between the exterior wall of a building and
a point 5 feet distant om said wall, or the lowest point of elevation of
the finished surface the ground between the exterior wall of a building
and the property 1' a if it is less than 5 feet of a public sidewalk, alley
or other publi . ay, the grade shall be the elevation of the sidewalk,
alley or publ' way.
Guest Room -- ny room or rooms used, or intended to be used by a guest for
sleepi purposes.
Height Building - -The vertical distance from the 'Grade" to the highest
int of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or
Home Occupation -- Any gainful occupation or profession engaged in by theoccupantofthedwellingunitwithinthedwellingunitwhichisclearly
incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises, provided,
such activity does not produce light glare, noise, odor, or vibration
perceptible beyond the boundaries of the premises; does not involve the use
of accessory structures or any of the following: Repair, service, or
manufacturing which requires equipment other than that customarily found in
a home; over- the - counter sale of merchandise produced off the premises; or,
the employment of persons on the premises other than those customarily
residing on the premises. (Ord. 88 -37)
Now-
e Occupation Conditional -- Any gainful occupation or profession, approved
pursuant to the conditional use permit provisions of this Ordinance,
engaged in by the occupant of a dwelling unit within the dwelling unit or
within not more than one accessory structure permitted by the Zoning
Ordinance, and which involves any of the following: Stock -in -trade
incidental to the performance of the service; repair, or manufacturing
which require equipment other than that customarily found in A home; the
employment on the premises, at any one time, of not more than one person
who is a non - resident of the premises; the teaching of more than one but
not more than four non - resident students at any given time; or the need for
not more than two parking spaces in addition to spaces required for the
4 -7
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE •.__
Section 4, Subdivision B
persons residing on the premises. The activity shall be clearly incidental
and secondary to the residential use of the premises, including the
dwelling and permitted accessory or installations thereon; and shall not
produce light glare, noise, odor, or 'vibration perceptible beyond the
boundaries of the premises; and shall not consist of over - the - counter sales
of merchandise produced off the premises. (Ord. 88-37)
an beings
within the meaning of Minnesota Statute Chapter 144.50. (Ord. 38)
Hotel (Motel) -- Any building or portion thereof where lodgin is offered
to transient guests for compensation and in which there ar more than three
3) sleeping rooms, with no cooking facilities in an . dividual room or
apartment.
Impervious Surface -- Surfaces that do not absorb wa They consist of
all buildings, parking areas, drivewa s, roads, si walks, and any areas of
concrete asphalt. (Amended Ord. 89 -02
Junk Yard -- Land or buildings where waste, discar
ed
or
isassembled or handled,
are
brought, sold, exchanged, stored, cleaned, p k
including, but not limited to scrap metal rags, paper, rubber products,
glass products, lumber products and produ s resulting from the wrecking or
salvage of automobiles or other vehicle
Land Reclamation -- Depositing fifty (50) ubic yards or more of material so as
to elevate the grade.
Limited Access Highwa/
under
traffic -w , including toll roads, for through
traffic, in resp which ers or occupants of abutting property or
lands and other s have legal right of access to or from the same,
except at such ponly , d in such manner as may be determined by the
public authority jur diction over the traffic -way.
Loading Space -- That on f a lot or plot designed to serve the purpose of
loading or unloa all types of vehicles.
Lot -- One unit of a ed plat or subdivision occupied or to be occupied by
a building and issory buildings and including as a minimum such openspacesasarereunderthisOrdinanceandhavingfrontageonapublic
street or 'approv vate street.
Lbt Area -- The toAl land area within the lot lines.
Lot Area per Dw ling Unit -- The lot area required by this Ordinance to be
provided r each dwelling.
Lot, Corn -- A lot situated at the junction of and fronting on two or more
str ts.
Lot overage -- The area of a Tot occupied by the principal building or
buildings and, structures, exce by this
nrtii nanr -
4 -8
3
PBM S=CK 9, S[IDUMISION A
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Camii•ssion for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a recamsndation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Camii.ssion shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the CmPrehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will proamte and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and im 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.
d.
forns:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
ate, /99i
91 c)62,
JAN 25 1991
ffy nc aoow ztdT OcPT
02
uzJ
zl Lb
6,& mat-, Y-k-e-
man. 14 42e
4C
I
td-,) 7 Uo dai: your
5a rrl uc -fie by Goi'x ozf-. Dt,(h.s
et C
b? 2) X70
G a o.e oJ e7 /1,liv lxd--o-r- .
i{.c.•v fpa u.e 6w u 6u c
740
0
o e.a 4 V-/ ha- d
kga 4 q. J
P—d,— 9
D td— Co"Rd-9,
oyc.. -
i
a_r- _ D U.A,
aff
D 19QAIL42 C Ot YAc.c> 15 t/lzzj--
Ln Gzcfv h cua.e. , wk. c , Qs c uC.e.R
1 4-41 -f -A Al _AttA a_
o -
C f J _./c2.,6 YU : -4- 1C1tJ _ L'a yr'''• -- C./t- .JIGL,_ -_ `f J .. ?LGd 2.
L 2C.2r, c..f- G,-C.E -f" 7iG f iG•CJ CL_ /?,t` c,C.G •-C% CJZ C iz.1 _
oz/
C---lTL&
eo
G
1)d >4G Z`75_a_
ccr
I
i
SI "'
7- 63 % _ .
11
Fwrld lj 1! OR-1
IR
Zmmum
of A
do 1 .r
COAP
OP
r
iu fd
ivi
5.B
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REPORT DATE:
FILE NO.:
PETITIONER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
GUIDE PLAN CLASS:
ZONING:
BACKGROUND:
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
January 31, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 13,
1991
91004
Greenland Investment Company (Midwest Brick)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT WHOLESALE
SHOWROOM AREA, FOR HOME CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS, IN AN
EXISTING WAREHOUSE BUILDING.
5205 Hwy. 169
IP (Planned Industrial)
I -1 (Planned Industrial District)
On January 4, 1988 City Council by Resolution 88 -06 approved a Revised Site
Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variance for an office /warehouse/
manufacturing use for five tenants in an existing 97,000 sq. ft. building.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City
newspaper, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet, and a
development sign has been posted on the site.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The use proposed is similar to the existing Midwest Brick Wholesale use at
this site. The lease spaces will resemble a convention deay area with
partial partitions separating each display area, %n1d different
construction products firms will be displaying available selections in
each space. The partitions will not extend to the ceiling of the room.
The proposal is for up to 19 lease spaces to occupy the 12,000 sq. ft.
room. Customers will browse through the room looking at various products
on display and then contact one of the two employees, at the entrance of
the room, for additional information.
No retail sales will take place at this location, and no employees will be
located within the leased spaces.
Page 2
File 91004
2. Presently this portion of the structure is used for warehousing space. If
the Conditional Use Permit is approved, the warehouse space in the
facility will be reduced from 61,537 sq. ft. to 49,537. The remaining
space in the structure, 22,000 sq. ft. of office and 13, 463 sq. ft. of
manufacturing space will not be changed.
3. The primary issue with this request is related to the number of parking
spaces required by the proposed use. The petitioner's description of this
use states that at no time will there be more than two employees on site
for this new use. The parking requirement for this wholesale use, based
on both the number of employees and square footage of the proposed use, is
six parking spaces. The current parking requirement for the warehouse
space located in this 12,000 sq. ft. area is also six spaces, therefore,
no additional parking spaces are required for the wholesale use. The
existing parking at this site meets the minimum requirements for the
current uses.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Staff finds that the existing parking provided meets the minimum City
requirements for both the remaining uses and the proposed wholesale
showroom.
The site does not however, provide any parking spaces in excess of the
minimum code requirement; 179 spaces are provided and 179 spaces are
required.
2. Staff finds that the proposed wholesale showroom meets the six standards
of the Zoning Ordinance specified for any Conditional Use Permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby
approval
business
recommend adoption
of a Conditional Use
at thi
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
of the attached Resolution providing for the
Permit for the operation of a wholesale showroom
1. Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit
2. Zoning and Conditional Use Permit standards
3. Petitioner's letter dated December 28, 1990
4. Location Map
pc /jk /91004:lr)
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GREENLAND INVESTMENT COMPANY (MIDWEST
BRICK) AT 5205 HWY. 169 (91004)
WHEREAS, Greenland Investment Company has requested approval for a Conditional
Use Permit for a wholesale showroom facility to occupy 12,000 sq. ft. of the
property located at 5205 Hwy. 169; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Greenland Investment Company (Midwest Brick) for a Conditional Use Permit for
a wholesale showroom facility to occupy 12,000 sq. ft. of space located at
5205 Hwy. 169, subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and ordinances,
and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
3. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within approved designated
areas.
4. No signage is allowed relative to the use.
5. The permit shall be reviewed annually to assure compliance with the
conditions.
6. All parking shall be off - street in designated areas which comply with the
Zoning Ordinance.
7. There shall be a maximum of two employees on the same shift within this
12,000 sq. ft. wholesale showroom site.
8. Compliance with all applicable terms and conditions of Resolutions 88 -06.
Previous Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit).
res /pc /91004)
may- • Do v .r •.
FRM S=()N 9, RWIVISIGH A
god
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Cammission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and develcprent of a reccnmenlation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning C m-nission shall review the application and consider its
confonTence with the following standards:
1) Canpliance with and effect upon the Canprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will pr cote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or canfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly developient and impraveient 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
Attachr,. A to Conditional Use Permit App cation
BUILDER °S SELECTION CENTER
December 28, 1990
We are proposing a remodeling of 12,000 square feet of warehouse to
wholesale showroom. The space would be sublet and operated by 1 to
2 employees. Clients would be referred to the center by invitation
only. We anticipate 40 to 59 clients per week.
Because this !se does not fall into any pre - established zoning
categories. > Planning Department has requested that we obtain a
conditional permit.
Comprehensiv.:, `plan
We fee; '-is use is compatible with the Industrial Zoning
already in e on the site. A showroom exists within the
premises (bt and fireplace). 'Its frequency of use and impact on
parking are °:;filar to this proposal.
Health and r;
µ: Although we anticipate a maximum occupancy in this space
of under 10, we are providing exits for 300 people which
corresponds to an occupant load factor of one occupant per 40 square feet,
far in excess of the requirement for office space (one occupant per
100 square feet). Exits will conform to State Building
Code Requirements. This building went through an extensive
remodeling in 1987 and '? 3, at which time it was brought up to
current standards. ..:.e this portion of the building is Type
I constructir. .ire resistant, concrete structure and walls) and
is separated f= adjacent spaces by 4 Hour area separation walls
it was not req_, d to be sprinkled. We feel the fire load of
the proposed conte -Is will be less than if it were warehouse
space. Therefore we are proposing to leave the space un-
sprinkled. Neighborhood
Impact Since th+ is an interior remodeling project there should
be no impact on ncighbori:ng property
values, Development
Impact Same as !. ,
ove. Parking and ,
rilfic The si.tt `gas been designed to handle parking as if
the building were used for 100% manufacturing (350 square feet per
car) or 34 cars fQr the proposed
space, Kevin M.
Murphy Greenland Investment
Company A Minnesota General
wb IITIL
Nil
MINVIAZA
GREENLAND INVESTMENTS
5205 NORTH STATE HIGHWAY 169, WEST FRONTAGE ROAD
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55442
PHONE (612) 559 -0150 FAX (612) 557 -0112
February 7, 1991
Tilt-!
Mr. John Keho
Associate Planner
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Keho:
I would like to confirm that there will be a need for only
three permanent parking spaces for the Builder's Selection
Center employees. None of these vehicles would be corporate
signed) vehicles. Thank you.for your consideration.
Sincerely,
evin M. Murp
Managing G ral Partner
KMM /smz
GREENLAND INVESTMENTS
5205 NORTH STATE HIGHWAY 169, WEST FRONTAGE ROAD
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55442
PHONE (612) 559 -0150 FAX (612) 557 -0112
February 8, 1991
Mr. John Keho
Associate Planner
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear John:
Ll
FED 8 1991
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT,
q 10 ol
I am writing to confirm that we are anticipating two employees on
duty at the design center at any time. The center will not require
staff or parking per space or product group. I hope this will
clarify our proposal. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kevin M. Murp
KMM /smz
t do
t
i y
Attachment to Conditional Use Permit Application r l 71MIDWESTBUILDER'S CENTER
December 17, 1990+
We are proposing a remodeling of 12,000 square feet of warehouse to
wholesale showroom. The space would be sublet and operated by 1 to
2 employees. Clients would be referred to the center by invitation
only. We anticipate 40 to 59 clients per week.
Because this use does not fall into any pre - established zoning
categories, the Planning Department has requested that we obtain a
conditional use permit.
Comprehensive Plan
We feel this use is compatible with the Industrial :Zoning
already in place on the site. A showroom exists within the
premises (brick and fireplace) . Its frequency of use and impact on
parking are similar to this proposal.
Health and Safety
Although we anticipate a maximum occupancy in this space of
under 10, we are providing exits for 300 people which corresponds
to an occupant load factor of one occupant per 40 square feet, far
in excess of the requirement for office space ( one occupant per 100
square feet). Exits will conform to State Building Code
Requirements. This building went through an extensive remodeling
in 1987 and 1988, at which time it was brought up to current
standards. Since this portion of the building is Type I
construction (fire resistant, concrete structure and walls) and is
separated from adjacent spaces by 4 Hour area separation walls it
was not required to be sprinkled. We feel the fire load of the
proposed contents will be less than if it were warehouse space.
Therefore we are proposing to leave the space un- sprinkled.
Neighborhood Impact
Since this is an interior remodeling project there should be
no impact on neighboring property values.
Development Impact
Same as above.
Parking and Traffic
The site has been designed to handle parking as if the
building were used for 100% manufacturing (350 square feet per car)
or 34 cars for the proposed space.
X
m
R
CD
CA cc
0
E
TI z
co(D z
m m
10, 1 ;mu
I _--ic
G. ,4
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: February 6, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 13,
1991
FILE NO.: 90104
PETITIONER: Great Midwest Construction Company
REQUEST: RECONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
LANCASTER PARK APARTMENTS"
LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Pilgrim Lane and Lancaster Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -4 (High Density Residential)
ZONING: R -4 (High Density Multiple Residence) District
BACKGROUND:
On January 30, 1991 the Planning Commission, on a vote of 6 -1, acted to table
consideration of the subject applications until the February 13, 1991 Planning
Commission meeting. In its tabling action the Planning Commission directed
the applicant to submit a landscape plan for the west property line that would
provide screening equal to 75% opacity. The tabling action also specified
that no other design issues were required to be addressed and that the
landscape screening be no less than six feet in height.
Commissioner Wire voted against the motion to table because, he stated, he
desired the elimination of the curb cut access to Pilgrim Lane to be included
as an additional design modification that would be required of the applicant.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant has subsequently submitted (on February 6, 1991) an amended
landscape plan for this project. The plan proposes to relocate nine
coniferous plantings from the west end of the drive and service areas at
the toe of the slope to the top of slope on the west property line of the
project. Also proposed are 35 additional Colorado Spruce trees of six
feet height along the center 380 feet of the West property frontage at the
top of the existing slope. The northerly 35 feet and the southerly 80
feet of the west property line would not receive the coniferous planting
treatment.
2. There would be a double row of coniferous trees along the portions of the
west property line that directly abut houses located west of the site, and
a single row of coniferous trees on approximately 13.5 foot centers over
the balance of the west property frontage proposed to be screened. The
second row of coniferous trees, in the areas proposed, would be planted on
Page Two
File 90104
approximately 13.5 foot centers staggered with the first row, resulting in
trees on effective 6.75 foot centers screening the house locations.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The degree of opacity is very subjective; "opacity" is mentioned in the
ordinance in terms of screening headlights. The intent of the Commission
direction we believe was to enhance the transition between two housing
types. The plan is so responsive.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
I have attached a copy of the original Staff report on this topic with an
amendment added as an additional condition to the approving Resolution which
provides for the adoption of this landscape plan received by the City of
Plymouth February 6, 1991 as a substitute for the previously submitted
landscape plan.
The proposed plan is responsive to the direction to enhance the screening. It
is substantial and exceeds ordinance standards. We recommend approval.
Submitted by:
es E. DiITerud, Tommunity M elopment Goorainator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Minutes of January 30, 1991
2. Staff Report of January 17, 1991 (with Amended Approval Resolution)
3. Amended landscape plan
pc /cd /90104:lr)
REVISED 1/31/91
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: Jan. 17, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: Jan. 30, 1991
FILE NO.: 90104
PETITIONER: Great Midwest Construction Company
REQUEST: Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a 50 Unit Multi -
Family Development and a Variance from the Zoning Ordinance
Required Setback of 20 Feet Between Principal Buildings and
Parking Spaces.
LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Pilgrim Lane and Lancaster Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -4 (High Density Residential)
ZONING: R -4 (High Density Multiple Residence) District
BACKGROUND:
There have been no recent Community Development applications on this site. In
the 1970's, this tract of land was proposed for the Plymouth House Apartments
elderly housing).
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper, and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The Park dedication requirement for this project will be a combination of
cash and trail easement dedication. Credit will be given to the developer
for the paving of the trail on this site.
2. This site is in an R -4 Zoning District where the basic standard is 4,000
square feet site area per dwelling unit. Lot credits and allowances are
specified by the Zoning Ordinance to be used in calculating the minimum
net lot size per dwelling unit. A copy of the Zoning Ordinance, Section
7, Subdivision E, where lot area credits and allowances are described, is
attached. This proposal responds to these standards as follows:
a. Standard R -4 Lot Area /Dwelling Unit . . . . . . 4,000 square feet
b. Adjacent to Business Use (north and east) . . . . . - 300 square feet
c. Adjacent to R -1A Zoning District
24 units within 150 feet) . . . . . . . . . . + 72 square feet
NET REQUIRED LOT AREA /DWELLING UNIT . . . 3,772 square feet
The applicant proposes 4,115 square feet of area per dwelling unit in
conformity with the Zoning Ordinance density standard for this parcel.
see next page)
File 90104
Page Two
3. The Site Plan complies with the ordinance provisions for lot size and
dimensions; number of parking spaces (50 within garages and 50 surface
parking spaces); rooftop equipment (none); lot coverage by structures,
17.8 %) ; building height (not more than 35 feet); illumination
requirements; signage; and landscaping.
4. The petitioner has requested a variance from the Zoning Ordinance, Section
10, Subdivision B for the setback width between the principal buildings
and parking spaces. The Site Plan shows some structure -to- parking
setbacks of less than the ordinance minimum of 20 feet. The petitioner's
response to the six variance criteria is attached. He states that due to
the unique condition of this site including a 16 -18 foot wide steeply
sloped area; a 30 foot trail easement; and two front yard setbacks, the
usable area of the site is significantly reduced. He also states that the
hardship is unique to this site; is not intended to increase property
value; that the hardship was created by the Ordinance; and that the
variance will not negatively impact the surrounding property.
The location of parking spaces that do not meet the minimum setback
requirement are scattered throughout the site, and affect each building in
the project. In ten locations, the setback between the parking spaces and
the building is 10 to 12 feet. In an additional six spaces, the set back
varies from 0 to 9 feet between the building and parking space.
5. The landscape design for this project does include transition screening of
surface parking from the low density single family zoned and developed
property to the west of this site. Six foot evergreen trees, spaced
approximately every 15 feet, are proposed to screen the surface parking
area.
6. With respect to the Physical Constraints Analysis we find the project to
be located within the North Branch Drainage District; to contain no
hydrological features; to contain no Flood Plain Overlay District or
Shoreland Overlay District; to contain no DNR protected waters or City of
Plymouth ponding areas; to contain no woodland stands of significance; to
contain some slopes of 18 percent or greater; and to be suitable for urban
development with municipal sewer services. The heavily sloped western
edge of the project is not proposed to be disturbed.
7. During the initial review of this project, the City parking standards
changed from 1.5 spaces per unit to 2 spaces per unit and garage aprons
and driveways providing access to garages no longer qualify as offstreet
parking spaces. The petitioner redesigned the parking layout to meet this
change.
PLANNING STAFF COMENTS:
1. Staff finds the requested variance for the setback between principal
buildings and off - street parking spaces to meet the variance standards in
the Zoning Ordinance. We base our findings on the following:
a. The particular physical surroundings of this site includes steep slopes
on the western portion of the property which prohibits the use of that
area for development.
see next page)
File 90104
Page Three
b. The conditions upon which the variance request is based is unique to
this parcel in that the west side of the parcel contains a steep slope
and the east side of the parcel contains a trail easement and utility
easement which preclude those areas from development.
c. This variance request is not based exclusively upon the desire to
increase the value for income potential of the land
d. This hardship has not been created by the persons have the direct
interest in the land having the present interest in the land.
e. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other properties.
f. The proposed variance will not impair the adequate supply of light or
air or increase congestion or substantially diminish property values in
the neighborhood.
2. The site plan meets the design criteria as stated in the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The requested multi - family use meets the six Conditional Use Permit
criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the draft resolution approving the Site Plan,
Conditional Use Peryrq/ -and variance.
Submitted by:
arses t. uiiieruo, community uevelopment coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variances
2. Engineer's Memorandum
3. Zoning Ordinance Variance Standards
4. Petitioner's Letter
5. Large Plans
pc /jk /90104:jw)
APPROVING SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR GREAT MIDWEST
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (90104)
WHEREAS, Great Midwest Construction Company has requested approval of a Site
Plan, Conditional Use Permit and variance from the Zoning Ordinance required
20 -foot setback between principal buildings and parking spaces for property
located at the southwest corner of Pilgrim Lane and Lancaster 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
Great Midwest Construction Company for a Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and
variance from the Zoning Ordinance required 20 -foot setback between principal
buildings and parking spaces for property located at the southwest corner of
Pilgrim Lane and Lancaster Lane, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's memorandum.
2. Park dedication requirements shall be payment of fees in lieu of
dedication in accordance with the dedication policy in effect at the time
of building permit issuance and provision for a 30 -foot wide trail per the
Comprehensive Park Plan, as verified by the Parks and Engineering
Departments, with submittal of detailed plans as to construction of the
trail per City standards. A credit will be given to the developer for the
paving of the trail to City specifications within the trail easement.
3. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures on the sites adjacent to, or containing any open storm
water drainage facilities.
4. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for all site improvements within 12 months of the date of this resolution.
5. All signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance.
6. Any subsequent phases or expansions were subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
7. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and
fire lanes.
8. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within each building, and
no outside storage is permitted.
9. An 8 112" x 11" "as- built" fire protection plan shall be submitted prior
to the release or reduction of any Site Improvement bonds per City policy.
10. A variance is granted from the Zoning Ordinance required 20 -foot setback
between principal buildings and parking spaces based on the finding that
the Zoning Ordinance Variance criteria have been met.
11. The Conditional Use Permit is granted based on compliance with the
Conditional Use Permit Standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
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.: 90104
PETITIONER: Mr. Ken Isaacson, Great Midwest Const., Inc., P.O. Box 16512,
Minneapolis, MN 55416
SITE PLAN: LANCASTER PARK APARTMENTS
LOCATION: South of Pilgrim Lane, west of Lancaster Lane in the northeast 1/4 of
Section 13.
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
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. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and
No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on/ January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect
at the time of Site Plan approval:
4. Area assessments estimated - Sanitary sewer area assessment based
on 50 units - 42.5 units previously assessed - 7.5 units x $440 /unit
3,300. Watermain area assessment based on 50 units - 18.17 units
Rreviously assessed - 31.83 units x S790 /unit - $25,145.70.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: Street Reconstruction
Program, City Project No. 001, estimated construction cost
S18,673.50.
LEGAL /EASEMENTS /PERMITS:
N/A Yes No
6. _ X _ Property is one parcel -
The approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot
consolidation be approved by the City Council and the necessary
resolution should be processed at the same time as the site plan
approval.
N/A Yes No
7. _ _ 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.)
g. 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 water requirements.
9. X All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities.
N/A Yes No
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. It should be noted that 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.
2-
UTILITIES AND TRAFFIC:
N/A Yes No
12. — _ X
13. _ XX
N/A Yes No
14. _ XX
15. — X —
16. X --
All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR
MN DOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
X Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Other
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The site plan will be 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:
Necessary fire hydrants provided -
The City of Plymouth requires that all parts of a building such as
the one proposed be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant. It will be
necessary to locate hydrants in such a manner that the site plan
complies with this section of the City Ordinance.
Size and type of material proposed in utility systems has been
provided
The utility plan shall be revised to indicate the size and type of
material required in the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain services
and storm sewer.
Post indicator valve - fire department connection
It will be necessary to locate the post indicator valve in such a
manner that it will not render any of the existing fire hydrants
inoperable.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. _ XX Hydrant valves provided -
All new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City
Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W -2. This plate should be
referenced on the site plan.
18. _ X Sanitary sewer clean -outs provided -
It will be necessary to provide clean -outs on the proposed internal
sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot intervals.
19. X Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
N/A Yes No
20. _ X All existing street right -of -ways are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required on
21. _ X Complies with site drainage requirements -
The City will not permit drainage onto a City street from a private
parking lot; therefore, the site plan shall be revised accordingly.
4-
e
N/A Yes No
22. _ X Curb and gutter provided -
The City requires B -612 concrete curb and gutter at all entrances
and where drainage must be controlled, Curb Stone may be used where
it is not necessary to control drainage. For traffic control either
B -612 or curb stone is required around the bituminous surfaced
parking lot. The site plan shall be revised to indicate compliance
with this requirement.
23. _ X _ Complies with parking lot standards -
The City will require that all traveled areas within the parking
lot, as well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a
7 -ton standard City design with six inches of Class 5 100% crushed
limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one -half inches
of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be
constructed to a standard 5 -ton design consisting of four inches of
Class 5 100% crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. The site
plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with these
requirements.
STANDARDS:
N/A Yes No
24. _ 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's right -of -way. All connections to the water system shall be
via wet tap.
25. _ X The City will require reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer,
water service and storm sewer As- Builts for the site prior to
occupancy permits being granted.
26. X The site plan complies with the City of Plymouth's current
Engineering Standards Manual. Note Item No's 1. 2. 7. 11, 12, 26,
27A. 27B .
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
27. A. The 100 year ponding elevation 896.25 is only one and a half feet below the
finished floor elevation of 897.75 of six of the buildings. A two foot free
board must be provided.
B. Two and a half feet of cover must be provided over all storm sewers and around
the catch basins, or special bedding provided, or the pipe shall be insulated.
C. The pipe slope from Catch Basin 3 to Catch Basin 1 is .71% rather than .56 %.
The flow capacity, however, is okay.
D. Using N - 0.013, pipe capacity of storm sewer from Catch Basin 1 to existing
Catch Basin is about 11 c.f.s. The required capacity is 12.3 c.f.s. 24 inch
RCP shall be used instead of the 21 inch RCP.
E. A 30 foot trail easement shall be provided in recordable form along Lancaster
Lane.
Submitted by:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
F]
January 24, 1991
Mr. Ken Isaacson
Great Midwest Const., Inc.
P.O. Box 16512
Minneapolis, MN 55416
CITY OF
PUmoUrR
SUBJECT: SITE PLAN FOR
LANCASTER PARK APARTMENTS (90104)
Dear Mr. Isaacson:
The Engineering Department has completed their review of the above
referenced Site Plan.
The Engineer's Memo has been submitted to the Planning Commission for
their consideration at the January 30, 1991 Planning Commission
meeting.
If you have any questions regarding the contents of the enclosed memo,
please call me at 550 -5072.
cerely urs
John R. Sweeney
Assistant Engineer
JRS:kh
enclosure
cc: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
Daniel L. Faulkner, City Engineer
Donald Munson, Assistant Building Official
Robert C. Johnson, Senior Engineering Technician
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550 -5000
S I'll 1.. x_[41 1Z 41Z
1. That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or
topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, a
particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished fran a
mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be
carried out.
2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are
unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not
applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning
classification.
3. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire
to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land.
4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this ordinance and
has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the
parcel of land.
5. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in
which the parcel of land is located.
6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of
the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public
safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
forms:o >pl /zon.stnd /s) 10/89
January 9, 1991
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
9 C) (C) I-
JAN IC1 'g :'
DEPT.
Great Midwest Construction, Inc. requests a variance from Plymouth
Zoning Ordinance Section 10, Subdivision B, specifically to reduce
the setback of parking from principal buildings from 20 ft. The
site plan reflects various setbacks from 8 ft. to 20+ ft. for the
setback of parking to the principal buildings. It is our intention
to comply with the recent changes in the Zoning Ordinance No 90 -38
that reflect. concerns about the lack of additional parking in this
type of development. We ask that you grant our variance application
based on conformance to the Zoning Ordinance Variance Standards
outlined below:
1. That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or
topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land
involved. a particular hardship to the owner would result, as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter
of the regulations were to be carried out.
This particular site is a double - frontage lot that restricts
the parking area from the front setback. The entire southwest
property line is a 16 - 18 ft. hill which restricts the amount
of land. that is available for parking setbacks. The Lancaster
Lane frontage is located on the Plymouth Park Trail Corridor
Plan. A 30 ft. wide easement to the City, to allow for the
Park Trail, further restricts our ability to increase the
parking setbacks.
2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is
based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance
is sought and are not applicable. generally, to other property
within the same zoning classification.
A combination of conditions exist ie. Park Trail Corridor. a
double frontage lot, and the unusual topography that are unique
to this site and are not applicable. generally. the other
property within the same zoning classification.
3. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon
a desire to increase the value or income potential of the
parcel of land.
The purpose of this variance request is to address the concerns
of the Community for the need for additional parking in this
type of development.
e
4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this
Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently
having an interest in the parcel of Land.
The hardship is caused by the Ordinance. The applicant has
tried to be diligent in working with staff to comply with all
areas of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements
in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
The variance request is contained entirely within the site, and
will not adversely affect the public welfare or be detrimental
to the surrounding neighborhood.
6. That the proposed variation will not. impair an adequate supply
of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially
increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the
danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially
diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
The parking has been positioned to have the least affect upon
adjacent properties and persons living within the principal
buildings. Patios /desks and open areas have been screened from
the parking areas.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Great Midwest Construction. Inc.
Ken Isaacson
Product Manager
rofA I (oil 9 !i FL
I i 11 loRd I
sm.019WO
Ldw
I
iJ
m
P.
M MR W D
JAN 24 1991
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT,
January 22, 1990
Charles E. Dillerud
Community Development Coordinator
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: File NO 90104
Pursuant to your notification that the Great Midwest Construction, Inc.
under file No 90104 has requested a permit to build a 52 unit
multifamily development located at the southwest corner of Pilgrim Lane
and Lancaster Lane, I have the following comments:
My husband and I do not approve of such a request for the following
reasons: added traffic to an already busy residential street,
increased noise, increased crime (since most of the crime in our area
occurs in the apartment complexes located on Lancaster Lane), also a
decrease in our property values. We feel the area is already saturated
with apartment complexes on Lancaster Lane as well as those behind the
Holiday Food Store.
We are encouraging our neighbors to support our comments and contact
your office.
Your consideration is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
9
Mr. and Mrs. Jack Jenkins
4030 Pilgrim Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55441
612) 541 -5346
cc: Neighbors
744
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: February 6, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 13,
1991
FILE NO.: 90078
PETITIONER: Ryan Construction Company
REQUEST: RECONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER SIGN PLAN
FOR "WATERFORD PARK PLAZA"
LOCATION: Northeast Corner of 6th Avenue North and Revere Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CS (Service Commercial)
ZONING: MPUD 86 -1 (Underlying zoning is B -3)
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting of January 28, 1991 the City Council acted to refer this
request back to the Planning Commission, together with the Ryan letter dated
January 24, 1991.
The Council also directed staff to provide the Planning Commission with
research on similar standards (related to wall signage in shopping centers) in
comparable communities. A copy of the City Council minutes of January 28
concerning this request is attached, together with Ryan's letter of January
21, 1991 which was presented to the City Council, but which the Planning
Commission had not seen during their deliberations.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
As directed we have requested information from nine communities which are
developing suburbs" similar to Plymouth. We've attached a summary of our
findings upon review of the Zoning Ordinances of each of these communities
regarding wall signage permitted in a shopping center context for the
individual shopping center tenants.
In those communities that control wall signage by formula related to the size
of the wall upon which the signage is to be attached the maximum percentage
permitted ranged 10% to 30% of wall area. Some communities allow the signage
to be "moved" between tenants (but controlled by the shopping center owner and
a master sign plan).
I have also attached a letter from Ryan Construction Company dated January 30,
1991 together with the graphics that were submitted with that letter. The
table submitted by Ryan dated February 4, 1991 and entitled "Retail Signage
Page Two
Codes" does not correspond with the data we have independently secured from
the communities that mentioned in common with our research. I am not certain
of the source of information used by Ryan.
The structure of the sign regulations found in the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance
are substantially more specific than that found in Zoninp Ordinances of the
communities surveyed. In most cases the actual standard such as 10 %, 15% or
30 %) does not vary in the other communities between a use located in a
shopping center or a use free standing not within a shopping center. Certain
rules and applications (such as aggregation) may apply to multi- tenant
buildings in other communities but the percentage of wall area allowable for
wall signage is the same whether a tenant is in a shopping center or not.
The sign provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance are drafted to clearly
distinguish between a business located in a multi- tenant shopping center and a
business located in a free standing structure with respect to the allowable
wall signage as a percentage of the wall to which the signage is attached. In
both the B -2 and B -3 Business Districts the general requirement for free
standing businesses is wall signage equal to 20% of the wall upon which the
sign is to be located; but, maximum wall signage is limited to 5% of the wall
area to which the sign is attached for the businesses located in a multi -
tenant shopping center environment.
The Plymouth Ordinance is more focused and discreet with respect to standards
for wall signage than the Ordinances of other communities.
The sign provisions related to wall signage for shopping centers were
incorporated in the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance through Ordinance amendments in
1984. At that time there were a number of Ordinance Amendments adopted by
City Council following extensive review and research by the Developers
Council, Staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council. There was
extensive public involvement and input from the business community in the
creation of the Sign Ordinance Amendments that were adopted in 1984, including
wall signage provisions for shopping centers.
Since the 1984 amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Sign Provisions regarding
wall signage in shopping centers, there have been three multi- tenant retail
commercial projects approved, in addition to the subject Waterford Park Plaza
and Ryan's referenced Rockford Road Plaza.
The only wall signage flexibility granted in the approval of these three
multi- tenant commercial projects (Town Center at Parkers Lake, Oakwood Square
Shopping Center, and Plymouth Plaza Shops) was the PUD plan flexibility
granted for Town Center at Parkers Lake to allow use of the surface area
calculations from the west "end -cap" to be figured in with the all surface
area calculations on the front surface of the proposed center. This resulted
in an effective 8.72% wall signage approval in a PUD context. In this case
the end cap of the shopping center was a valuable concession because it faced
Vicksburg Lane.
Page Three
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
The amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to provide a more restrictive standard
for wall signage in shopping center locations was a deliberate and specific
modification to the Zoning Ordinance undertaken in 1984. I believe the clear
intent was to provide individual signage within a shopping center context only
sufficient for internal identification of individual tenants from within the
center. I find the signage ratios to be an improvement over that found in the
Ordinances found in other comparable Metro communities in that it clearly
recognizes the reduced signage needs that result from a shopping center
configuration. Also, the proportionality of sign to the wall it is on is
recognized, though, of course, the percentage can be any number found to be
consistent with this community's standards.
The shopping center itself is the geographic locational factor and individual
wall signage thereafter becomes only a means of distinguishing one merchant
from the next within the center itself.
The Plymouth ordinance provisions are an effort to ensure attractive urban
design and enhanced public safety, as noted in our January 4, 1991 Staff
memorandum on the Ryan PUD Amendment application.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Based on information provided by the applicant herein the Planning Commission
should again take action regarding this application; either affirming the
prior recommendation to dew the PUD Plan amendment, as recommended by staff;
or, provide a modified recommendation based on the new information provided by
this memorandum and attachments.
Should the Planning Commission decide to modify its recommendation on this
application based on a finding that a 5 percent standard for shopping centers
is generally too limiting, I recommend consideration be given a Zoning
Ordinance amendment in that regard following proper notice and Public Hearing.
Submitted by:
rles -E. D—iTlerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Table 1. - Zoning Ordinance Standards
2. Ryan Letter of January 30, 1991
3. City Council Minutes of January 28, 1991
4. Ryan letter of January 21, 1991
5. Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991
6. Staff Memo of January 4, 1991
pc /cd /90078.1:lr)
Apple Valley
Blaine
Bloomington
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Burnsville
Coon Rapids
Eagan
Eden Prairie
Plymouth
MAXIMUM PERMITTED WALL SIGNAGE
Calculation Basis
Floor Area Formula
10% of wall
Plat Maximum
30% of wall
10% of wall
16% of wall
20% of wall
20% of wall
15% of wall
5% of wall
Table 1.
Assuming a single "bay" of Waterford Plaza at 20 foot width, 30 foot depth and
16.75 foot front wall surface height.
Apple Valle
Blaine
Bloomington
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Burnsville
Coon Rapids
Eagan
Eden Prairie
Plymouth
pc /cd /90078.1:lr)
Maximum Allowable
Square Feet
104
33.5
40
100.5
33.5
54
67
67
50
16.75
M.,
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 10, Subdivision A
oduce
merchants. The sign shall not exceed 16 sq. ft. in sur rea,
and shall not exceed 6 ft. in height. The a setback
at least 20 ft. from the str - ay line and shall be
erected o er od of transient sales. (Amended Ord.
so-
6 -3 (Service Business) D!AiKt. S' itted and
3 District; only the following si s are
permitted in this District, unless otherwise specifically ovided in this
Subdivision.
a. Directional Signs. Directional Signs shall b ermitted in any
approved o - street parking area, when deeme ecessary for the orderly
movement of traffic, provided that such s' s shall not be used as
advertising space.
1) Directional Signs shall not a ed 4 sq. ft. of surface area, and
shall not be erected higher an 8 ft. above grade.
2) Directional Signs direc d at per off the site shall be
limited to one such s' n per collector or arterial street approach
to the site.
3) Directional Sig shall not be illuminated unless illumination is
deemed by the ,ty as essential to the orderly flow of traffic.
4) Directiona Signs may be located on the private property next to
the stre right -of -way line, but shall be so located and designed
so as not to obstruct traffic or vision of drivers and
pedes ians.
5) 0 off -site directional sign shall be permitted for the
llowing: church, school, hospital, sanitarium, noncommercial
club, library or similar use provided that the sign is located on
1rivate Droperty which abuts a collector_ or arterial road leading
to the su
Business Signs. Business Signs are specifically intended for use by
allowed commercial enterprises and are used to direct attention to the
business, profession, commodity, or service which is found on the
premises where the sign is located.
1) Allowable uses and business establishments other than those in
multi- tenant commercial buildings may have wall Business Signage
limited to flat wall sign, not extending more than 18 inches from
the face of the building, except that such signage may extend from
the face of the roof over a covered walk, or from a marquee,
providing the signage does not extend above the roof or parapet
line of said building. Such wall Business Signage shall not
exceed 20% of the area of the wall to which the signage is
attached.
10 -12
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 10, Subdivision A
2) Allowable uses'and business establishments other than those in
multi - tenant commercial buildings may have a free - standing
business sign which shall not exceed 96 sq. ft. in surface area,
and 36 ft. in height, and is setback a minimum 20 feet from the
property lines.
3) Individual business and tenants in multi- tenant commercial
buildings may have wall Business Signs provided they are designedandarrangedinaccordancewithacomprehensivesignplanforthe
entire multi- tenant commercial building which has been prepared
by, and submitted to the City by the owner and which has been
approved by the City; further, the aggregate area of such signs
shall not exceed 5% of the area of the wall to which they are
attached. All such signs shall be reviewed by the building
ownership or management who shall provide a written endorsement at
the time application is made for the sign permit; the endorsement
shall indicate that the proposed signage has been found to be
consistent with the approved comprehensive sign plan.
4) One free - standing Business Sign shall be
surface area of the sign does not exceed
exceed 36 ft. in height, and is set back
ft. from the property lines.
Advertising signs may be
Permit in the B -3 Distric
criteria:
permitted provided the
96 sq. ft., does not
in no case less than 20
allowed by Conditional Use
andards and
1) The total surface area of any advertise ign shall not exceed
300 sq. ft. per face, or be less tha 10 sq. ft. in area
including border, trim, and any pr ctions of the featured
message, but excluding base and on supports and other
structural members. AdvertisjK signs fully visible from
Interstate Highways may be reased in area to no more than 750
sq. ft.; the area may be ' creased further by 10% for cut -outs,
or extensions of the fe§Ared message.
2) The maximum height all advertising signs shall not exceed 36
ft. above the est ished grade of the site upon which the sign is
located.
3) The minimum stance between advertising signs shall be based upon
the posted eed limit of the public street or highway as follows:
1,500 ft. 5 mph; 1,400 ft. - 50 mph; 1,300 ft. - 45 mph; 1,100
ft. - 4 mph; and, 1,000 ft. - 35 mph or less. Distance
restr' ions between advertising signs apply only to those signs
phys' ally located on the same side of the street or highway,
re rdless of the direction of travel to which the display message
i directed. Measurements to determine the location of one
vertising sign in relation to another, will be made along the
ight -of -way line between the closest extremities of said signs, nes perpendicular to the
right -of -way of the street or highway.
10 -13
nYA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
OF MINN_ ESOTA, INC.
January 30, 1991
FEB 4 1991
Mr. Charles Dillerud
Community Development Coordinator 0tlTH
City f Plymouth
p
nn11`aa
cur,
Y y OWMU 'T f r r's.:`v +9r -XT DEPT.
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: WATERFORD PARK PLAZA SIGNAGE APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
As I am sure you are aware, the City Council at its January 28, 1991, meeting sent us back to
the Planning Commission for our Waterford Park Plaza PUD Amendment to increase signage
from 5 % to 10 % for the small shop space. Regarding the issue, please find below an updated
middle ground" position by Ryan Construction, as well as the enclosed exhibits indicating
where signage would be prohibited, and a list of several developing communities and their retail
sign limitations.
We would like to restate that Ryan Construction is willing to prohibit signage on the west, north,
and east walls of the Rainbow building, and of the west end cap and the north and east walls of
the strip center building in exchange for increased signage from 5% to 10% for the small shop
space (exclude Rainbow Foods). Again, we reiterate that we believe this is a reasonable "middle
ground" to the issue at hand.
Additionally, we would like to state that the current signage allowance does not provide for
adequate signage to be seen from within the very shopping center parking lot (we have shared
enlarged photographs with the Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council to that effect).
It is one thing to stand in the Rainbow lot and look for the signage at the small shops, and it is
entirely another matter to have signage "grab" your attention from the small shops while you
are standing in the Rainbow lot. We believe the increase from 5 % to 10% to will go a long way
in helping to draw the patrons from within the Rainbow Foods parking lot to do business with
the small shops.
We do not believe that the increase in signage would cause a traffic concern on Hwy. 55. The
increased signage would be minimal from that distance, and would still probably not be readable
from Hwy. 55.
700 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE, 900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE 6121339.9847 FAX 6121337.5552
Mr. Charles Dillerud
Page Two
January 30, 1991
Finally, please find enclosed additional exhibits that show where the signage would be
prohibitive, where signage would remain at 5 %, and where signage would increase to 10 %.
As requested by the Mayor at the Council meeting, please find enclosed a list of developing
communities and their retail sign restriction.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me at 336 - 1236. As always, we look
forward to working cooperatively with the City of Plymouth staff to successful resolution of this
matter.
Sincerely,
RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
OF NUNINIESOTA, INC.
G 7
Vincent J. Driessen
Development Associate
VJD /sl
Enclosures
c; Bill McHale
V]D2\L?R.55
APPLE VALLEY
W I
BLOOMINGTON
BROOKLYN CENTER
EAGAN
BURNS VILLE
COTTAGE GROVE
PLYMOUTH
Assumes:
RETAIL SIGNAGE CODES
February 4, 1991
UP TO 48' S.F. ON 20' STOREFRONT, OR 14.33 %
UP TO 37' S.F. ON 20' STOREFRONT, OR 11.04%
UP TO 48' S.F. ON 20' STOREFRONT, OR 14.33%
UP TO 48' S.F. ON 20' STOREFRONT, OR 14.33 %
UP TO 48' S.F. ON 20' STOREFRONT, OR 14.33 %
UP TO 48' S.F. ON 20' STOREFRONT, OR 14.33 %
UP TO 48' S.F. ON 20' STOREFRONT, OR 14.33 %
UP TO 16.75' S.F. ON 20' STOREFRONT, OR 5.00%
16' x 3' = 48 s.f. signage on 20' typical bay front with 16.75' typical high facade, as is the
case with Waterford Park Plaza.
V)D2 \MISC.60
Special Council Meeting
January 28, 1991
Page 24
Vincent Driessen, Ryan Construction Company,
stated this request is being made on behalf of
the Plaza's smaller tenants. The current signage
is not adequate to attract customers from the
Rainbow store parking lot. He showed
Councilmembers pictures of the existing signage,
as well as similar signage in another community
where a 10 percent standard is used. Mr.
Driessen stated the petitioner is willing to
restrict signage to three of the eight walls if
the allowable area is increased to 10 percent.
Mayor Bergman asked if this signage issue has
recently been studied by the City. Director
Tremere responded that the most recent study
involved real estate and temporary signs; this
specific issue has not been studied. He
explained that the Sign Ordinance shopping center
wall sign standards do not differ between Planned
Unit Developments and conventional developments.
Councilmember Ricker stated that the Planning
Commission recommendation of denial was made
without the benefit of the Ryan letter. He
suggested that the request and the letter should
be submitted to the Planning Commission for
review.
The Mayor stated that before the Planning
Commission reconsiders the item, staff should
research similar standards in comparable
communities.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Ricker, seconded
by Mayor Bergman, to refer the Ryan Construction
Company request (90078) to the Planning
Commission, along with the Ryan letter dated
January 21, 1991. Staff is also to provide the
Planning Commission with research on similar
standards used in comparable communities.
Motion carried, four ayes.
The Council considered the request of Builders
Development Inc. /James Development Company for
rezoning a 30.9 acre tract from FRD to R -1A and a
47 lot Preliminary Plat with Variances for cul-
de -sac length and rear lot width (90095).
Refer to Planning
Commission -
90078)
Item 8 -A
Builders Dev. Inc.
James Dev. Co.
90095)
Item 8 -B
QYAK CO
ONSTRCTION
F
MIS
NESO A NC.
NY
January 21, 1991
Mr. Charles Dillerud
Community Development Coordinator
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Ci
Re: Waterford Park Plaza -
Wall Signage Application
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
r7,7
JAN 23 tool
As a follow up to the January 16, 1991, City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meeting
regarding our application to increase wall signage from 5% to 10% at Waterford Park Plaza,
the following is our response on a few of the items the Commissioners focused on during the
meeting.
First and foremost, it was suggested that a middle ground may be met with some potential "trade
offs ". Ryan Construction is prepared to not put signage on the East, West and North walls of
the Rainbow /Big Top building, and to not put signage on the West end cap, North and East
walls of the strip center building. Limiting signage to three of the eight wall faces of the
existing buildings in exchange for an increase in the permitted signage area from 5 % to 10% on
the front of the strip building seems to be a reasonable compromise.
Secondly, our intent is not to have signs fully legible from Hwy. 55, but rather to have signage
legible from within the shopping center parking lot. Please find enclosed a photo taken from
the Rainbow parking lot towards the strip center. It clearly indicates the current signage is not
readable from within .the shopping center parking lot. (Please note that this is a comparable
photo to what I showed the Planning Commission January 16, 1990.) Furthermore, increasing
the small shop signage from 5% to 10% would not make the signage visible from Hwy. 55.
Therefore, the increase in signage is not one that would generate traffic and safety concerns
along Hwy. 55, but rather would simply provide identification and visability from within the
same shopping center. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that the signage be legible from
within the same parking lot.
Finally, the Commissioners made light of the Smiley Moose One Hour Photo exhibit we
included in our initial submittal. Please recognize that the exhibit was used only as an example.
The signage increase is a formal request for all of the small tenants at the shopping center, not
700 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE, 900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE 612/339.9847 FAX 612/337.5552
Page 2
Mr. Dillerud
January 21, 1991
just Smiley Moose. Additionally, it is common practice to not allow the product and /or service
as the main theme or focus of the tenants signage. For example, we do not allow hair cut,
signs, food and cellular phone for the respective tenants of Great Clips, Signs Now, Jein Fung,
and Excell Cellular. The Commissioners suggestion to emphasize one hour photo was not
appropriate. The name of the business is what is important to the small tenant identity, as well
as to the signage controls imposed by the developer.
In summary, please consider our offer to "trade off' five walls of the existing eight for increased
signage on the strip center and recognize that the increase in the signage will only serve to draw
attention from within the existing parking lot and not serve to draw attention from Hwy. 55.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me or William J. McHale at 339 -9847.
As always we look forward to cooperatively working with the City staff towards a successful
completion of this application.
Very truly yours,
RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
OF I%HN 'ESOTA, INC.
Vincent J. Driessen
Development Associate
VJD:r r
Enclosure
c:\WP5I\R0XANN035
O
O
O
bwo
ad
q
ra
n A
W7.- 7 M
A-
t4
Milt
V-
W4-
IC
ILI
t
Als
q
ra
n A
W7.- 7 M
A-
t4
Milt
V-
W4-
IC
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 16, 1991
The Regular Meeting of the City of Plymouth ning
Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Plufka, Commiss' ners Hal
Pierce, Dennis Zylla, Joy Tierney, Larry
Marofsky, Michael Stulb g, and John
Wire (arrived at 7:15 p .)
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Coordinator Ch es Dillerud, City
En/
arofsky,
ineer Dan aulkner, and Planning
Watson.
MINUTES
MOTION by Commissieconded by Commissioner
Pierce to approve r the November 28, 1990
meeting.
Vote. All Ayes MOTION carried.
MOTION by C missioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner
Tierney t approve the minutes for the December 5, 1990
meeting.
Votes All Ayes. MOTION carried.
Chairman Plufka introduced the request of Ryan
Construction Company for a MPUD Plan and Conditional Use
Permit Amendment to increase the percentage of wall
coverage by signs from 5 percent to 10 percent at
Waterford Park Plaza (except for Rainbow Foods) located at
the northeast corner of 6th Avenue North and Revere Lane.
Coordinator Dillerud reviewed the January 4, 1991 Staff
Report.
Commissioner Marofsky asked if the 5 percent current
coverage is based upon the entire wall space of the
shopping center.
Coordinator Dillerud stated that the wall coverage is
based on the wall coverage of each individual tenant as
represented by the approved Master Sign Plan.
MOTION TO APPROVE
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTION TO APPROVE
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
RYAN CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY (90078)
r
Planning Commission Minutp
January 16, 1991
Page 2
Commissioner Pierce asked if the rear wall area of the
buildings are included in the wall coverage.
Coordinator Dillerud stated that it is not.
Chairman Plufka introduced Vince Driessen of Ryan
Construction Company, representing the petitioner.
Mr. Driessen stated that the logic used for Rockford Road
Plaza could be applied to Waterford Park Plaza in regard
to PUD flexibility, uniform and controlled signage,
approval of all signs by the developer, and the setback
distance of the shopping center.
Mr. Driessen showed the Commissioners photos taken at
Waterford Park Plaza to support the position that the
signage is difficult to see from the highway, stating that
this request is for the small retailers of the center. He
said that Ryan Construction Company would be amenable to
some trade -offs for the increased wall signage. He stated
the current signage was not real visible from inside the
shopping center area and that larger signs would be more
readable from the highway thus making the signage less of
a problem.
Chairman Plufka stated that traffic safety becomes a
problem even when the signs are big enough to see but not
big enough to read. He said that the developer had
created a nice center and the retailers in the center
should be advertising their location in the "Waterford
Park Plaza ". Once customers arrive at the shopping center
they should then be able to find the shops supporting the
current signage.
Commissioner Marofsky stated that the pictures presented
to the Commission were not a true representation of the
issue.
Commissioner Stulberg stated that he has been to Waterford
Park Plaza and knowing which retailers were located in the
center, was very able to locate them by the existing
signage. He said that an increase in wall signage would
not make the retailers any more visible.
Commissioner Zylla stated that the issue of sign
visibility will continue to be an issue as more
development takes place in the center.
Commissioner Pierce asked Mr. Driessen if the developer
had size standards for the retailers.
Mr. Driessen responded that they did.
Planning Commission Minute -
January 16, 1991
Page 3
Chairman Plufka open the Public Hearing. There being no
one present to speak on the issue, Chairman Plufka closed
the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO DENY
Marofsky to recommend denial of the request by Ryan
Construction Company for a MPUD Plan and Conditional Use
Permit Amendment to increase the percentage of wall
coverage by signs at Waterford Park Plaza from 5 percent
to 10 percent (except for Rainbow Foods) located at the
northeast corner of 6th Avenue North and Revere Lane.
Commissioner Tierney asked why the wall signage area for
shopping centers is less as compared with freestanding
businesses which allow 10 percent coverage of wall signage
in B -2 Districts.
Coordinator Dillerud responded that he did not know the
exact reasoning used when the Zoning Ordinance was drafted
but that he thought that the identification of this
shopping center by the pylon sign was meant to be the main
signage needed for a shopping center. Upon entrance into
the center the individual signs could be seen.
Commissioner Pierce stated that he felt there must be some
middle ground that could be reached allowing some trade-
offs to allow the increased signage.
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO AMEND
Tierney to Amend the Main Motion by deleting Finding No. 1
of the Denial Resolution.
Commissioner Marofsky stated that he felt Finding No. 1
should be left in the Denial Resolution because even
though the size of a sign is increased, it may cause
someone to look but may still not be large enough to be
readable.
ROLL CALL VOTE. 3 Ayes, Commissioners Zylla, Marofsky, VOTE - MOTION FAILED
Stulberg and Chairman Plufka, Nay. MOTION to Amend
failed.
ROLL CALL VOTE. 5 Ayes, Commissioners Pierce and Tierney, VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Nay. MOTION carried on a 5 -2 vote.
Chairman Plufka stated that the Planning Commission may
want to look at the quality of signage in shopping centers
as a study item.
Chairman Plufka int uced the request of Builders BUILDERS DEVELOPMENT,
Development, Inc. /James velopment for Rezoning from FRD INC /JAMES DEVELOPMENT
to R -1A; Preliminary Plat or a 39.9 acre tract for 47 COMPANY (90095)
single family homes; and, variance located west of
County Road 101, approximately e- quarter mile north of
County Road 24.
i...A
Y 11
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: January 22, 1991 For City Council Meeting of January 28, 1991
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Community Development Coordinator Cha 1 . Dillerud through
Community Development Director Blair Tr e
SUBJECT: RYAN CONSTRUCTION CO. MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE WALL SIGNAGE AT
WATERFORD PARK PLAZA LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 6TH
AVENUE NORTH AND REVERE LANE (90078) (MPUD86 -1)
ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the attached resolution providing for the
denial of the request to double the allowable area for a wall signage
within the Waterford Park Plaza Shopping Center, as recommended by the
Planning Commission. Per Council direction, a resolution that would
approve the request has been drafted and is attached.
A 4 /5ths vote of the City Council is required to approve any amendment
to an MPUD Plan and Conditional Use Permit.
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting January 16, 1991 the Planning Commission, on a vote of 5 -2,
acted to recommended denial of this request to increase the allowable area
for wall signage for the shopping center from the ordinance standard of 5%
of the wall upon which the sign is attached to a proposed 10% of the wall to
which the sign would be attached.
The dissenting Commissioners (Pierce, Tierney) stated that it was their
belief that some "middle ground" could be found whereby the property owner
could be permitted additional wall signage if petitioner would propose to
provide the City additional PUD design attributes in exchange (such as
reduction of other signage to be allowed).
see next page)
Page Two
Resolution 90078
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
The Planning Commission vote to recommend denial is consistent with the
recommendation of the staff for denial. The findings of the staff and the
Planning Commissioners in support of the denial recommendation address the
potential of additional signage to endanger the Public Safety by providing
additional distraction to the motorists on State Hwy. 55; no documentation
of a change in circumstances that would warrant a need to change the master
sign plan previously approved for the shopping center; and, that the
existing signage at the center provides adequate visibility and direction to
patrons and potential patrons to the shopping center.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
I hereby recommend adoption of the attached resolution providing for the
denial of the amendment to the MPUD Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use
Permit for Waterford Park Plaza regarding the increase in the amount of
allowable wall signage, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Consistent with City Council direction, I have also attached a resolution
providing for the approval of the Plan Use Development Amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution to Deny MPUD Plan and Conditional Use Permit Amendment
2. Resolution to Approve MPUD Plan and Conditional Use Permit Amendment
3. Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 1991
4. Location Map
cc /cd /90078:lr)
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the
City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day
of , 19 The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
introduced the following Resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 91-
DENYING MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR "WATERFORD PARK PLAZA" (90078) (MPUD 86 -1)
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company has requested approval for a Mixed Planned
Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Amendment to increase the
wall coverage of signs from 5 percent to 10 percent of the wall to which they
are attached for Waterford Park Plaza for property located at the northeast
corner of 6th Avenue North and Revere Lane except "Rainbow Foods "; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request by Ryan
Construction Company for a Mixed Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional
Use Permit Amendment to increase the wall coverage of signs from 5 percent to
10 percent of the wall to which they are attached for property located at the
northeast corner of 6th Avenue North and Revere Lane except "Rainbow Foods ",
based on the following finding:
1. The amendment to the Conditional Use Permit will be detrimental to and
endanger the public safety by the increased distraction of motorists on
State Highway 55 resulting from the enlarged signage for individual
tenants.
2. The approved Master Sign Plan was deemed appropriate for this center, and
no information has been presented to indicate changed conditions or
circumstances that warrant increased signage here.
3. The approved signage, including the freestanding business sign, provides
visibility and direction to patrons and potential patrons.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by , and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against or abstained
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopte
res /cc /90078.den)
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the
City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day
of , 19 The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
introduced the following Resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 91-
APPROVING MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR "WATERFORD PARK PLAZA" (90078) (MPUD 86 -1)
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company has requested approval for a Mixed Planned
Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Amendment to increase the
wall coverage of signs from 5 percent to 10 percent of the wall to which they
are attached for Waterford Park Plaza for property located at the northeast
corner of 6th Avenue North and Revere Lane except "Rainbow Foods "; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Ryan Construction Company for a Mixed Planned Unit Development Plan and
Conditional Use Permit Amendment to increase the wall coverage of signs from 5
percent to 10 percent of the wall to which they are attached for property
located at the northeast corner of 6th Avenue North and Revere Lane except
Rainbow Foods ", 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 percentage of building wall allowance to be covered by signage shall
be 10 percent of building wall to which the sign is attached.
3. The increase in wall coverage does not apply to the Rainbow Foods
building.
4. The Conditional Use Permit Amendment is in compliance with the Conditional
Use Permit Standards of Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. A revised detailed Master Plan shall be submitted to the Building
Official, prior to any sign permits.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by , and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against or abstained
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
res /cc /90078.app)
ILI
BOB
i
min
Ir
f 76 d 0
M.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: February 8, 1991
TO: Planning Co issi
FROM: Charles D 11 , Community Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: CONTINUED NSIDERATION OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SECTION OF
THE PLY ZONING ORDINANCE.
Please find attached a memorandum originally prepared by Blair Tremere for the
City Manager and City Council in August of 1988.
The Planning Commission may find the contents of this memorandum of interest
for its review while we continue to prepare responses to the Planning
Commission concerns and issues raised concerning the Planned Unit Development
Ordinance at its meeting January 30, 1991. The issues discussed in 1988
resulted in some council action such as amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
relative to uncovered decks. The Council more recently amended the ordinance
to repeal the so- called "private street" standards.
Additional discussion by the Commission may provide further guidance on issues
that should be addressed today. It is advisable to clearly identify the
questions /problems /issues now to productively pursue the
answers /solutions /analysis.
Attachment
cd /pc2.2 -8:lr)
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559 -2800
MEMO
DATE: August 15, 1988 for City Council Meeting August 16, 1988
TO: City Manager dames Willis
FROM: Community Development Director Blair Tremere
SUBJECT OBSERVATIONS ON THE PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PROVISIONS.
What is it?
A Planned Unit Development is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as "a tract of land
developed as a unit rather than as an individual development, wherein two or more
buildings may be located in relationship to each other rather than to lot lines with
regard to use and location, and in accordance with definite requirements as well as
provisions agreed to between the City and the owner."
This approach, which combines zoning and subdivision procedures and standards, was
adopted by the City in the mid- 1970's. A previous technique, the Subdivision Unit
Project, had been found to be unsatisfactory for the increasing demand the intense
development was placing upon the City and the desire by the City to better regulate
development and the acquisition and management of open space. The Subdivision Unit
Project Ordinance provisions were repealed upon adoption of the Planned Unit Develop-
ment Ordinance.
I have attached, for reference, several pages from Section 9, Subdivision B., of the
Zoning Ordinance which set forth the purpose, permitted uses, area, density, setbacks,
and related regulations.
What does the Planned Unit Development do for the City and for the developer that the
conventional zoning and subdivision codes don't accomplish?
1. The PUD approach affords the developer a calculated "pure" density, which
means that, subject only to the deduction for land at or below the designated
Flood Elevation, density is calculated at the rate dictated by the Compre-
hensive Plan, e.g., 40 net acres translates to 80 dwelling units in the LA -1
guided areas. The same 40 acres with the same Guide Plan Classification would
yield only about 71 dwelling units in a conventional plat, at the Ordinance
minimum lot size of 18,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit; this includes an
approximate 25% deduction for streets, drainageways, and other open space
requirements.
Developers can depend upon the realization of more dwelling units with a PUD
with no bonus point assignment) than with a conventional development.
Page three
Memorandum to the City Manager
Planned Unit Development Provisions of the Ordinance
August 15, 1988
The City has, in recent years, required developers to show more effectively
how open space attributes were being met and this has resulted in several
large single family detached dwelling developments where corridors and private
common open areas had been platted and put under the control of a private
Homeowners Association.
New residents in these subdivisions have generally not had the expectation of
being part of a Homeowners Association which is responsible for expanses of
open space which include dues and maintenance fees. The condominium or town-
house association is not often familiar to those who are buying a single
family detached home (probably similar to the one they left).
Disputes have arisen in some developments, primarily because developers did
not finish or even initially install much of the open space improvements
before selling the lots and allowing single family homes to be built on them.
Delaying the work, until after the residents had moved in, has presented a
multitude of political and emotional problems due to the expectations -- and
lack of expectations -- by the new residents.
3. Developers have tended to not keep the size of the new single family detached
homes proportional to the smaller lots they have platted in the PUD's.
Developers may have found the PUD approach to be a means of achieving what
some have unsuccessfully tried to achieve by proposed Zoning Ordinance Amend-
ments over the years: Smaller minimum lot sizes in the conventional single
family detached dwelling districts. The City Council, on several occasions,
over the last dozen years has decided not to reduce the minimum lot size
standards which have prevailed in the R -1A Zoning District for almost 20
years.
Thus, while developers have elected to plat smaller lots in accordance with
the PUD Ordinance provisions, the market demand for larger homes has been
relatively constant and the Plymouth developers have strived to meet that
demand.
This has resulted in political and emotional pressures which can be traced to
new homeowners who desire amenities such as decks, porches, and third garages
which don't fit within the design constraints that were originally promoted by
the developer.'
The Plymouth Ordinance does not limit the size of the dwelling units. The
Ordinance 20% maximum lot coverage does apply to single family dwelling lots
regardless of area, and it has been the hope by the City that the 20% maximum
coverage would require a more proportionate dwelling on the smaller lots.
Instead, most of the recent variance and adjustment requests have involved
smaller lots in PUD's. Rarely are there lot coverage or even setback variance
requests involving a conventional lot standard dimensions.
What can be done? Are there any solutions? Food for Thought:
1. Reduce the minimum single family (R -1A) lot size from 18,500 sq. ft. to, say,
15,500 sq. ft. thereby slightly increasing the LA -1 base density. One result:
Less PUD's of marginal merit, minimal design, and substandard size.
Page five
Memorandum to the City Manager
Planned Unit Development Provisions of the Ordinance
August 15, 1988
The most prevalent concern expressed by developers recently has been with
decks. Original developers maximized the amount of ground coverage with the
houses, particularly on smaller lots, and when the occupant arrived, a
decision was made to add a deck. It was then discovered that the deck would
exceed the maximum ground coverage and a building permit was denied. Thus,
the Board of Zoning and the City Council have been confronted with variance
and PUD Plan amendment requests.
The Plymouth. Development Council is currently preparing information to be
conveyed formally to the Planning Commission and City Council, seeking amend-
ments to the Ordinance which would exempt uncovered decks from the ground
coverage requirement. The Council may wish to wait until that information is
provided before proceeding on this matter.
6. The Ordinance could be amended to mandate a certain amount of housing types
other than single family detached in all residential PUD's. The Ordinance has
always provided for this as an option (one could literally develop multi -story
apartments or townhouses in an LA -1 area). Most developers have not exercised
that option, probably for economic reasons often attributed to the current
market. Nevertheless, the City could mandate that all PUD's contain a mix of
housing types in order to assure more affordable housing and to ensure a
better aesthetic product due to the "built -in" open space that comes with
attached housing.
ODNCLUSION:
The PUD approach is design- oriented by definition. The more that development is regi-
mented and standards are made more objective, there will be a tendency toward less
innovation and creativity. The subjective nature of a design -based PUD can make for
tough decisions by the Planning Commission and Council, but generally, those tough
decisions can be traced to the desire of the City to retain certain rigid standards
which may or may not be addressed in the formal Ordinance. The tendency to create more
quantifiable and objective standards in the PUD Ordinance, essentially creates just
another standard zoning district which includes the procedural features of a Public
Hearing and a multi - layered approval process.
Attachments
Ordinance Excerpts
nanc.E.
P Yh10UT H
0-
cewlK 7`
Z01411,) ORDINANCE
Section
SUBDIVISI011 B - PL.AN:4ED U!JIT DEVELOPME-ENT (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 applicatior,
of regulations of the normal zoning districts in accordance with the provis-
ions and regulations contained herein, the intent and purpose of the Compre-
hensive 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 flexi-
bility for the development of larger parcels under single ownership or con-
trol, in order to obtain a higher quality of development than might otherwise
be possible should development occur under strict application of the zoninc .
ordinance regulations for a particular district.
c. The benefit to the developer is one of design and development flexibility; in
order to utilize this flexibility, the developer has the responsibility to
demonstrate that its utilization does indeed provide a development which has
substantial attributes to enhance the particular area or the City in total.
Expected attributes are:
1) Benefits from new technology in building design, construction and land
development.
2) 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.
3.) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities and public facil-
ities to vield high quality development at a lesser cost.
4) More useable and suitably located active recreation facilities and other
public and common facilities than would otherwise be provided under
conventional land development procedures.(Amended Ord. No. 86 -07)
5) Demonstration of affirmative design efforts toward the preservation and
enhancement of desirable natural site characteristics.
Amended Ord. No. 82 -15)
The primary function of Planned Unit Development provisions is to pro-
vide developments which will preserve and enhance the worthwhile, natur-
al terrain characteristics, and not force intense development to utilize
all portions of a given site. In evaluating each individual proposal,
the recognition of this objective will be a basic consideration in
granting approval or denial. (Amended Ord. No. 86 -07)
9 -6
PL1110UTH ZOI:II!O ORDIIIA!;.L
Sectior, 9, 5ubdivisiot, B
b) The property adjoins property that has been developed under tI,
provisions of this section and will contribute to the amenities of
the neighborhood.
2) The maximum number of dwelling units allowed in a development shall ht
be determined by the density (units per acre) approved for the develop-
ment within a minimum to maximum density range for the living area (LA)
category shown in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The density shall be
established by the City Council with the approval of the Concept Plar,
based upon recommendations from the Planning Commission. The actual
number of dwelling units allowed in a development shall be determined
upon the review and approval of the RPUD Preliminary Plan, Preliminar\
Plat, and Conditional Use Permit. The actual number of dwelling units
allowed shall be within the assigned density range for the development
nand shall be a function of the review of the detailed plans and infor-
mation required for the Preliminary Plat, Preliminary Plan, and Condi-
tional Use Permit.
The gross density allowable in any RPUD shall fall within this range to
only the degree that the RPUD Plan responds to the intents and purposes
of this PUD Section of the Zoning Ordinance. The allowable gross dens--
ity shall be for only that land above the high water elevation estab-
lished by the adopted City Storm Water Drainage Plan as verified by the
City Engineer. To enable an objective assignment of gross density, a
density bonus system is hereby established providing for gross density
to be allocated in increments between the minimum density and the maxi-
mum density as per the LA category density ranges. The allowable gross
densities with bonuses applied are as indicated on the Bonus Point Table
in this section. (Amended Ord. No. 82 -15)
Bonus points are intended for those projects which satisfy one or more
of the stated Bonus Point Criteria. The evaluation of the project with
respect to those criteria shall be undertaken upon the determination
that the proposed project satisfies the basic attributes of a Planned
Unit Development as set further in this Section and thus qualifies as a
Planned Unit 'Development. (Amended Ord. No. 86 -07)
b. Front, Rear and Side Yard Building Setback Regulations:
Building setbacks from all property lines shall conform with the standards ofthisordinanceexceptasotherwiseauthorizedandshownontheapprovedfinal
P.U.D. plan.
c. Building Height Regulations
Height limitations for any building in a P.U.D. shall be as shown on the
approved P.U.D. Plan; provided however, the following State of Minnesota Code
of Agency Rules, Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division are hereby
adopted by reference: 14 MCAR Section 1.3015 (Criteria for Determining
Obstructions to Air Navigation) and 14 MCAR Section 1.3018 (Seaplane Opera-
tions within the Seven County Metropolitan Area). These regulations apply to
Please see pg. 9 -11 for cont'd)
9 -8
PLYHWTH ZONII;G ORDII4AI1',__
Section 9, Subdivision B
BONUS POIWT CALCULATIOI4 CRITERIA
Amended Ord. No. 82 -15)
a) The project is of a viable scale for PUD design -- Add one (1)
bonus point for each ten (10) acres of project size above forty
40) acres up to four (4 or subtract one (1) bonus point for
each five (5) acres of project size under forty (40) acres (no
fractional assignment).
b) The project proposes a significant percentage of quality housing
affordable by persons of low and moderate income as defined b\,
the Metropolitan Housing Authority; only projects demonstrating
a firm commitment for the financing of such housing under a bona
fide Federal, State, Metropolitan, or local program; or under a
boria fide private financing program which provides for the same
assurances, shall be eligible -- 0 -2 points.
c) The project provides a variety of housing types to include a
substantial mix of attached, detached and apartment -type dwel-
ling units subject to the following criteria: -- 0 -2 points.
Type of D%ellina Units
Detached Single
Detached Single with attached
Attached with Multi -story
Apartment
Detached Single, Attached,
and Multi -story Apartment
Percentage Mix Points
100% 0
40% or less 1
50 %/50% 1
40 %/30 %/30% 2
NOTE: The percentage mix may be adjusted up to 10% to allow for design alternatives
in all living area categories except LA -1.
d) The project clearly demonstrates affirmative design through pro-
vision of private /public open space, net (exclusive) of required
street right -of -way, required public park and trail dedication,
required storm drainage ponding areas, and required rear yards,
which preserve and enhance the worthwhile natural terrain
characteristics and which do not force intense development to
utilize all portions of the site, according to the following
schedule: -- 0 -2 points. (Amended Ord. No. 86 -07)
Percentage of Open Space Points
10 - 20% net area 1
20% or more net area 2
Amended Ord. No. 86 -07)
9 -10
PLYIIUJTH Zoi41110 ORDIIJAWH
Section 9, Subdivision B
e. Open Space:
The public or private open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensiy
Municipal Plarl, Park and Trail System and with the stated purpose of preser\-
ino_ natural site features. All open space shall be labeled on the P.U.D. Play
as to intended use and ownership.
f. Operating and Maintenance Requirements for Common Facilities: \
In the event certain land areas or structures are provided within the P.U.D.
for private recreational use or as service facilities, the owner of such lane,
and buildings shall enter into an agreement with the City to assure the con-
tinued operation and maintenance to a predetermined reasonable standard.
These common areas may be placed under the ownership of one of the following,
depending which ismore appropriate:
1) Dedicated to public where a neighborhood wide use would be anticipated.
2) Onner control when property not subdivided.
3) Property Owner's Association, provided all of the following conditions
are met:
a) The Property Owner's Association must be established prior to any
sale.
b) Membership must be mandatory for each owner, and any successive
buver.
c) The open space restrictions must be permanent, not for a given
period of years.
d) The Association must be responsible for liability insurance, local
taxes, and the maintenance of residential and other facilities.
e) Landowners must pay their pro rata share of the cost and the asses-
sment levied by the Association that can become a lien on the
property in accordance with Minnesota Statutes.
f) The Association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet
changed needs.
g. Covenants, Easements and Restrictions:
The final plan shall identify and contain such proposed covenants, easements
and other provisions relating to the bulk, location and density of such resi-
dential dwellings, non - residential uses and public facilities as are necessary
for the welfare of the Planned Unit Development and are consistent with the
best interest of the entire City. All or any of the covenants, easements and
other provisions, if as part of the final plan may be modified as deemed
necessary by the City Council when the final plat is approved, for the preser-
vation of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of all City
residents.
9 -12
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
i. Transition Design:
Section °, Subdivision B
1.) The City Council has determined that specific standards and guidelines arenecessaryanddesiredwithrespecttothetransitionofResidentialPlanner' Unit Developments particularly where such development contains housing types
other than single family detached dwellings,
le
and abuts
dwellings.
or future
residential development containing single
2.) The intent of the transition at the perimeter property line is to create b\
design, the perception of a single family detached neighborhood.
3.) Elements of the transition design may include:
a) Existing topographical and vegetation features.
b) Landscape plantings.
c) Spatial buffering through yard setbacks and open space.
d) Single family detached homes
e) Existing arterial streets.
4.) The following standards shall apply as a guide to the use of various tran-
sition elements:
a) As a single element, two tiers /rows of single family detached dwellings
with approved yard setback and site improvements may be used.
b) An equivalent effect of the above single element may be created through
the use of spatial buffering (distance), berming, and landscaping.
c) Sight lines and the spatial perspective of scale must be considered
particularly where multi -story structures are involved so that the per - ception.of the development from the perimeter is generally one of a one
or two story roof line.
d) buffering dtand
e effective
supplemented with landscaping berming
transition and must be
e) Use of rights -of -way will be considered as a part of the transition onlyinthecaseofexistingarterialstreetswhichhavebeeninstalledat
full design standards.
Amended Ord. No. 82 -15)
9 -14
7. v
MI-3171
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: February 8, 1991
TO: Planning o i on
FROM: Charle Di d, Community Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: ZONIN RDINANCE STANDARDS CONCERNING GREENHOUSES AND NURSERIES.
At its meeting December 5, 1990 the Planning Commission adopted a
recommendation to amend the Zoning Ordinance regarding outside storage and
display. During the hearing concerning the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Jerry
Theis of Dundee Nursery expressed concern over the impact that the Zoning
Ordinance Amendments would have on the nursery and greenhouse business in the
City of Plymouth.
Following the hearing, the Planning Commission also unanimously adopted a
motion recommending research of the outside storage and display of merchandise
for greenhouses and nurseries in
On December 10, 1990 the City Council adopted the Zoning Ordinance Amendments
recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Theis appeared before the City
Council explaining his concerns with regard to the impact on those Ordinance
Provisions on the greenhouse and nursery business in Plymouth.
The City Council unanimously adopted a motion directing Staff and the Planning
Commission to consider the issue of nurseries and greenhouses in Urban Zoning
Districts as a Conditional or Permitted Use relative to the outside storage,
display and sales standards.
Responsive to the direction of the City Council Staff has initiated research
of the subject. The following activities have been initiated:
1. We have solicited the input of Jerry Theis of Dundee Nursery with regard
to the kinds and types of outdoor display, storage and sales that would
be included with an "urban" nursery or greenhouse. (As opposed to a
rural setting such as Dundee Nursery now has).
Page 2
2/8/91
2. We will specifically relate the new provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
with respect to outdoor storage, display and sales to nursery and
greenhouse businesses in the appropriate Urban Zoning Districts. The
result will be a memorandum reviewing the impact of those new standards
of the Zoning Ordinance on existing and future nurseries and greenhouses
in the urban area of Plymouth.
Items worthy of note include: The basic zoning classifications for this
land use have not changed (FRD and B -2, B -3); also, the Task Force work
on outside storage, display and sales was, on the whole, generic -- no
particular uses were excluded or included. To a great extent, the
revised" standards deal with temporary situations (and allow for
administrative permits); otherwise the basic requirement for a
Conditional Use Permit (in the urban districts) for outside activities
was unchanged.
We will be transmitting the research products that we are now working on to
the Planning Commission under separate cover at such time as the work has been
completed.
Attachments:
1. Tremere Letter to Theis 1/30/91
2. City Council Minutes of 12/10/91
3. Planning Commission Minutes of 12/5/91
cd /pc.2 -8:1r)
January 30, 1991
Mr. Gerry Theis
Dundee Nursery
16800 Hwy. 55
Plymouth, MN 55446
Dear Gerry:
The City Council at your request directed Planning Staff and the Planning
Commission to review the Zoning Ordinance requirements and standards relevant
to greenhouses and nurseries. You indicated to me that you would provide
information that describes what activities would typically be found with
landscaping /nursery businesses that would be located in an urban area.
We are drafting materials for consideration by the Planning Commission and it
would be appropriate to get that information from you as soon as possible.
May I suggest that you describe an operation that would be reasonably found in
an urban setting rather than one in a rural setting which is the case with
Dundee Nursery at this time. The Zoning Ordinance standard we will be
examining are those applicable to the urban business districts.
Also, I understand your concern is with the standards that would apply
relative to activities outside; we have no questions and I believe you had no
questions as to Zoning Standards relative to activities inside.
Call me if you have any questions regarding this. I
what information you could provide by February 7th.
hearing from you. —
GLrly,
Blair Tremere
Community Development Director
cc: file
bt /theis.1- 30:lr)
would like to receive
I look forward from
e,.s
sp ty
DU l 0-4A
Iq I
49, KCB i
V\.St TL.-f
c>.e 1 i h,f , 0-k-
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550 -5000
Special Council Meeting
December 10, 1990
Page 506
MOTION was made by Councilmember Zitur, seconded
by Councilmember Vasiliou, to adopt RESOLUTION
NO. 90 -800 APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 2, COUNTY
ROAD 101 TRUNK WATERMAIN, CITY PROJECT NO. 012.
Motion carried on a roll call vote, five ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Zitur, secg6d
by Councilmember Vasiliou, to adopt RESOLD ON
NO. 90 -801 ORDERING PUBLIC HEARING ON T
PROPOSED VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILI
EASEMENT, LOT 8, BLOCK 3, SWAN LAKE WE
Motion carried on a roll call vote) Live ayes.
CHOGE ORDER
r . 2, COUNTY ROAD
01 TRUNK
WATERMAIN,
PROJECT NO. 012
Item *7 -Q -2
d RESOLUTION 90 -801
ORDERING HEARING
ON VACATION OF
EASEMENT, SWAN
LAKE WEST
Item *7 -R
MOTION was made by Councilmember itur, seconded
by Councilmember Vasiliou, to a pt RESOLUTION
NO. 90 -802 ORDERING PUBLIC NG ON THE
PROPOSED VACATION OF A DRAINA EASEMENT FOR
PONDING PURPOSES, LOT 2, BLO 1, RIDGECREST 3RD
ADDITION.
Motion carried on a roll /call vote, five ayes.
Item 7 -T was deferred /or consideration until
December 17.
RESOLUTION 90 -802
ORDERING HEARING
ON VACATION OF
EASEMENT IN
RIDGECREST 3RD
ADDITION
Item *7 -S
Tax Increment/
Commercial Uses
Item 7 -T
Item 7 -U was defe red for consideration until D.A.R.E. Program
December 17. Funding
Item 7 -U
Councilmembe Ricker suggested that no action be Request to Hire
taken on t request to hire two additional Two Additional
police of icers since the budget will be adopted Police Officers
on Dece er 11. No action was taken by the Item 7 -V
Counci .
Community Development Director Tremere described Zoning Ordinance
various Zoning Ordinance amendments relating to Amendments
parking for multiple family units, completion of Item 7 -W
entrance monuments and perimeter landscape
improvement, and temporary sign provisions:
These were recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission.
Jerry Theis, Dundee Nursery, stated that one
provision could impact nurseries in B -3 Districts
ecial Council Meeting
iDecember 10, 1990
Page 507
by requiring a Conditional Use Permit, even
though they are a permitted use given the nature
of greenhouses and nurseries which can involve
outside uses. He stated that he presented his
concerns to the Planning Commission, who
suggested that perhaps the specific use of urban -
zoned nurseries should be studied further. He
requested that the Council direct this to be
studied further.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Ricker, seconded
by Mayor Bergman, to direct staff and the
Planning Commission to consider the issue of
nurseries and greenhouses in urban zoning
districts as a conditional or permitted use
relative to outside storage, display and sales.
Motion carried, five ayes.
Discussion was held on the recommended provisions
for perimeter landscaping and monument signs in
PUD' s .
MOTION was made by Mayor Bergman, seconded by ORDINANC E 90 -38
Councilmember Zitur, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 90 -38 AMENDING ZONING
AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE 80 -9 ADOPTED ORDINANCE
JUNE 16, 1980, AS AMENDED, AND KNOWN AS THE Item 7 -W
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE, deleting Section 1
which would reduce the side yard setback in R -lA
Districts as recommended by the Planning
Commission, and deleting Section 2 to be
rewritten by staff to clarify the situation of
phased projects and interior common area
improvements.
Motion carried on a roll call vote, five ayes.
MOTION was mad by Councilmember Zitur, seconded RESOLUTION 90 -803
by Councilmember. asiliou, to adopt RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
NO. 90 -803 AUTHORI G CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS CONDEMNATION
NORTHCENTRAL TRUNK S R, CITY PROJECT NO. 015. PROCEEDINGS
NORTHCENTRAL TRUNK
Motion carried on a roll 11 vote, five ayes. SEWER,
PROJECT NO. 015
Item *7 -X
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
Wing
Commission is tabling th reenwalt
Development a itioner's written request
Chairman Plufka introduced the continued public hearing
for the Zoning Ordinance amendment regarding standards for
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.
ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
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.
MOTION TO APPROVE
MOTION TO AMEND
VOTE - MOTION TO AMEND
CARRIED
Roll Call Vote on Main Motion. 6 Ayes. MOTION 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