HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 04-10-19915:8
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: March 19, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 10, 1991
FILE NO.: 91005
PETITIONER: Tobin Real Estate Company
REQUEST: Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit for Outside
Storage
LOCATION: 13310 Industrial Park Boulevard
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: IP (Planned Industrial)
ZONING: I -1 (Planned Industrial)
BACKGROUND:
On September 12, 1989 a Site Plan was administratively approved for an
addition of 50,600 square feet to an existing structure at this site.
The requested Conditional Use Permit is for outside storage of truck trailers.
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. A tenant in this building, Custom Deliveries, Inc., has a contract to
repair and maintain trucks and trailers for Chrysler Motors. All
maintenance and repair is carried out within the building on this site.
Due to congestion at the adjacent Chry —sue site, Chrysler Motors and
Custom Deliveries have requested use of a portion of the subject site to
store trailers temporarily awaiting service to help alleviate congestion
at the Chrysler site. A maximum of 10 trailers would be stored on the
site.
2. The proposed Site Plan Amendment is to relocate proof -of- parking from the
rear of the site to the front of site adjacent to the existing fire lane;
to construct ten trailer parking spaces, and 15 automobile parking spaces
at the rear of the property site; and to remove two existing parking
spaces on the east side of the facility to provide access to an overhead
door. Off street parking, constructed and proof -of- parking, will continue
to equal or exceed Zoning Ordinance Standards with these amendments.
3. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the outside storage of materials,
products and vehicles in the I -1 (Planned Industrial District) by Section
8, Subdivision D, 2a of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance.
see next page)
Page 2
3/19/91
File 91005
4. The application is required to respond to the Zoning Ordinance
specifications for Conditional Use Permits. A copy of that criteria is
attached for your information.
5. The applicant has submitted together with its application, a narrative in
support of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Amendment.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Staff finds that the Site Plan Amendment meets the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. Staff finds that the Conditional Use Permit is responsive to the ZoningOrdinancecriteria.
3. The Planning Commission and City Council have the flexibility to determine
what constitutes screening, and if screening is actually needed for theConditionalUsePermitrequested. Staff finds that screening trailersfromadjacentpropertyisnotreasonableinthiscase. The storage of
trailers in this location will not be visibly different from the par kin_qoftrailerswhichisallowedinthislocation. The only difference will
be in the length of time the individual trailers will be on the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution approvingtheConditionalUsePermitandSitePlanAmendmentfortheIndustrialPark
Business Centre.
Submitted by: 1= . ;al—
C ar es E. Dillerud, Community Development oor inator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Amendment2. Engineer's Memorandum
3. Petitioner's Narrative
4. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
5. Location Map
pc /jk /91005:jw)
0
APPROVING SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TOBIN REAL ESTATE
COMPANY (91005)
WHEREAS, Tobin Real Estate Company has requested a Site Plan Amendment and
Conditional Use Permit for outside storage of 10 truck trailers; construction
of 15 new offstreet parking spaces; elimination of 2 previously approved
parking spaces; and relocation of proof -of- parking for property located at
13310 Industrial Park Boulevard; 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
Tobin Real Estate Company for a Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit
for outside storage of truck trailers for property located at 13310 Industrial
Park Boulevard, 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. Any signage shall conform with the City Ordinance standards.
5. There shall be no outside display, sales, or storage of merchandise or
related materials other than approved herein.
6. The Conditional Use Permit shall be renewed in one year to assure
compliance with the conditions.
7. All parking shall be offstreet in designated areas which comply with the
Zoning Ordinance.
8. A maximum of 10 semi trailers may be stored only at the trailer storage
area designated on the Site Plan for the purpose of repair and
maintenance of the trailers only No storage of goods or materials
inside of the trailers is hereby approved, and no repair /maintenance may
be undertaken outside of the principal structure.
9. Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning
Ordinance, Section 11, Subdivision A, paragraph 11, with respect to a
Site Performance Agreement and financial guarantee shall be complied
with.
10. The outside storage of truck trailers is not required to be screened from
the adjacent I -1 zoned property.
res /pc /91005:jw)
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: April 4, 1991
FILE NO.: 91005
PETITIONER: Mr. Thomas P. Sexton, Vice President, Tobin Real Estate Company, 625
Marquette Avenue, Suite 735, Minneapolis, MN 55402
SITE PLAN: TOBIN REAL ESTATE COMPANY /INDUSTRIAL PARK BUSINESS CENTER
LOCATION: North of Industrial Park Blvd., east of Xeninum Lane, west of Highway
55 in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27.
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 - None.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None.
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. —._2_—
8. X --
9. X --
N/A Yes No
10. X — —
11. 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.)
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.
All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities.
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.
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-
N/A Yes No
12. _ _ X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR $ Bassett Creek
MN DOT Minnehaha Creek
Hennepin County _ Elm Creek
MPCA _ Shingle Creek
State Health Department _ Army Corps of Engineers
Other
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
13. .X _ _ 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:
N/A Yes No
14. x _, 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.
15. X 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.
16. ,X _ _ 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. X 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-
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. A detail shall be shown on the Rlan for the park*n¢
lot section.
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.
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
27. A. At a minimum, spot elevations shall be shown on the new parking area to
identify the storm drainage pattern.
Submitted by: rte / G Li tN L• L l '
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
INDUSTRIAL PARK BUSINESS CENTRE JOINT VENTURE
c/o Tobin Real Estate Company
625 Marquette Avenue, Suite 735
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
J 1 W7EM
FEB 15 1991
Ci ' -', i'r ?OUT HCi
COI'NIUNITY DEVELOFWEN' DEPT,
Re: Industrial Park Business Centre (91005)
Conditional Use Permit for Truck Trailer Parking
Dear Council Members:
The owners of the above referenced property ( "Property ")
respectfully request they be granted a Conditional Use
Permit to allow the parking of truck trailers in the area so
designated on the site plan for the benefit of the
operations of Customer Deliveries, Inc. and Chrysler Motors
Corporation. To familiarize you with the intended "use" for
which this Conditional Use Permit is being sought, please
find below a background narrative:
Background Information:
The area designated for truck trailer parking was
constructed to service two different but related needs as
follows:
1. Custom Deliveries, Inc., a subsidiary of Leaseway
Transportation Corporation, is the contracted trucking
company for Chrysler Motors Corporation. As part of
Custom Deliveries trucking contract with Chrysler Motors
Corporation, trailer parking was to be made available
for ongoing transportation of goods to and from the
Chrysler Motor distribution facility. Also, an area was
to be provided within a building to allow Custom
Deliveries to maintain and repair the trucks and
trailers used for this operation. As a result, Custom
Deliveries, Inc. requested, and was granted, a lease in
the property to maintain and repair trucks and trailers
for Chrysler Motors Corporation.
2. Chrysler Motors Corporation recently consolidated their
Jeep AMC parts distribution into their Plymouth facility
which is adjacent to the Property. However, with the
limited trucking facilities relative to their
distribution needs for their building, and the physical
property constraints not allowing additional truck
facilities or trailer parking to be constructed, Custom
Deliveries and Chrysler found it increasingly difficult,
if not impossible, to process trucks in and out of their
facility. Therefore, Chrysler Motors and Custom
Deliveries jointly requested leasing an area of the
Property to park trailers for the repair and maintenance
of such trailers as well as to park trailers temporarily
to help alleviate some of the truck trailer congestion
their current facility was feeling.
Even prior to their consolidation of Jeep AMC parts
distribution, Chrysler was repeatedly parking trailers
within the fifty foot (501) front yard setback from
Industrial Park Boulevard, as well as staging idling
trucks with trailers on Industrial Park Boulevard.
To address each of the Conditional Use Permit standards
pursuant to section 9, subdivision A of the Plymouth Zoning
Ordinance, please find the following narrative response by
corresponding number:
1. The property is within the Comprehensive Plan zoned I -2,
and the requested use of truck trailer parking is
permitted within this zoning, as is evident on all sides
of our property. On any given day you can see LSI of
America, the previous Target facility and Chrysler
Motors parking numerous trailers to the west, south and
east of the property, respectively. The difference is
each of these companies are parking trailers on their
properties for the operations within their properties.
Our request is that we be permitted to use the area
designated on the property for truck trailer parking to
allow neighboring businesses that do not have enough
land on their property to adequately handle their truck
trailer parking. In this case, we are intending to park
truck trailers used to service the adjacent Chrysler
Motors facility.
If Chrysler Motors had enough excess land to provide
truck trailer parking at their site, they would not need
a Conditional Use Permit and this would be a permitted
use under I -2 zoning. However, they did not have enough
land to do so, and requested the adjacent land owners to
provide for such parking on their excess land (the
Property). Therefore, the requested Conditional Use
should not have any negative impact upon the
comprehensive plan.
2. Clearly the establishment, maintenance or operation of
the Conditional Use will promote and enhance the general
public welfare and will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort
for two reasons as stated below:
a) First, by allowing Chrysler Motors this truck
trailer parking, we are allowing them to run their
operations more efficiently which in turn increases
their productivity within this facility thereby
promoting their tenure to jobs and payment of taxes
within Plymouth. No compromise is being made of anyone
else since their use of this truck trailer parking is an
extension of their current operations which is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and a permitted
use in the zoning (the only exception is that this truck
trailer parking is not legally part of their facility).
b) Second, prior to the construction of this truck
trailer parking area, trucks with trailers would
circulate or park idling in the streets awaiting an
opportunity to gain access to the Chrysler's limited
truck dock facilities. By alleviating some of this
congestion for Chrysler we not only enhance the safety
of ingress and egress for our facility but that of the
general public using Industrial Park Boulevard.
3. This Conditional Use for truck trailer parking is less
visible from public roads than any of the truck trailers
parked for other properties in this immediate vicinity,
and in no way is injurious to the use and enjoyment or
diminishes the value of properties in the neighborhood.
In fact, by not allowing this use, truck traffic and
parking out in front of the Chrysler facility negatively
impacts the visibility of our building, building
monument sign and signs on the building. As noted
previously, this trailer parking use is evident on all
sides of the Property.
4. The above referenced Property is the last property to be
developed and is completely surrounded by developed
properties zoned I -2. Since truck trailer parking is a
permitted use for each of the surrounding properties,
this conditional use should in no way be inconsistent or
impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted
in the district. In fact, I believe it promotes the
business for adjacent properties for which the area was
intended to be developed by allowing them to operate
more effectively and safely.
5. As is evident on the site plan, by positioning the truck
trailer parking as far back on the site and by assisting
Chrysler with their current truck congestion, we have
promoted less traffic congestion in the public streets.
6. Other than allowing adjacent property users (i.e.
Chrysler) the conditional use shall, in all other
respects, conform to the applicable regulation of the
district in which it is located.
Finally, to confirm the intent of Chrysler to use this
trailer parking area to move product in and out of the
adjacent distribution facility, rather than using parked
trailers as a permanent means of storing product, I have
requested and enclosed a letter from Chrysler Motors.
In summary, I believe the truck trailer parking promotes
business and safety in an area consistent with the zoning
for this district. We once again respectively request your
due consideration in allowing us to use the area so
designated to park truck trailers for adjacent business
concerns.
If you should have
information, please
612) 337 -8498.
Sincerely,
Thomas P. Sexton
Vice President
TPS /ck
ipbcpark
any questions or need any additional
do not hesitate to give me a call at
F" S=CN 91 A
i- 'i • . ' • any ;• 1,, ,ys
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Camtission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a reoatmeniation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Canprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or 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 development and improvement of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic
congestion in the public streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
forms:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
IB T 01. - _w
FIRi6m
1 "
1-+ r
W-'V'O-AA &
1:T \ ml
k loommol
n
Mal"
i_..,
EM
4m) 0 6*
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: March 20, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 10, 1991
FILE NO.: 91006
PETITIONER: Laukka /Williams Parkers Lake
REQUEST: AMEND THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT AND SIX FOOT PERIMETER PRIVACY
FENCE AROUND THE SUBDIVISION AND EIGHT FOOT PRIVACY FENCING
ALONG TERRACEVIEW LANE.
LOCATION: The southeast corner of Vicksburg Lane and 18th Avenue
North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -2 (Low Medium Density Residential)
ZONING: MPUD 83 -1
BACKGROUND:
The MPUD Concept Plan for Parkers Lake Development was approved by the City
Council on March 21, 1983, by Resolution 83 -134, and included a total of 425
acres. The approved Concept Plan consists of residential, neighborhood,
commercial, and industrial land uses. The MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat for
Parkers Lake Development Stage B, Parkers Lake North property, was approved on
May 21, 1984 by Resolution 84 -323.
A revised MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Parkers
Lake North was approved on March 16, 1987 by Resolution 87 -176.
A revised MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Parkers
Lake North Third Addition was approved on June 1, 1987 by Resolution 87 -337.
The PUD Final Plat for Parkers Lake North Third Addition was approved on
October 5, 1987 by Resolution 87 -618.
A revised PUD Final Plan for Parkers Lake North Third Addition was approved on
September 11, 1989, by Resolution 89 -504. This action modified the height of
certain privacy fences within the development.
A revised PUD Final Plan for Parkers Lake North Third Addition was approved on
November 6, 1989, by Resolution 89 -691. This action allowed six foot high
fences in specific front yards.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City
newspaper, and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified.
see next page)
Page 2
File 91006
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. There are three basic elements to this request.
First is a request for an eight foot perimeter fence along those lots
that are closest to County Road 6 that do not have a berm screening
County Road 6.
Second is a request for a six foot high perimeter fence around the
remainder of the project.
The third portion of the request is to increase the height of
previously approved fencing along Terraceview Lane from six feet to
eight feet.
2. The location of the site perimeter fencing is proposed to be at the toe of
the berm that surrounds the site or at the easement line inside the
individual lots, whichever is closest to the property line. In any case,
the proposed fences would be located in individual lots, (no further than
five feet from the rear or side lot lines).
3. The increased fence heights for lots adjacent to Terraceview Lane is to
allow the side fencing to match the previously approved eight foot rear
yard fencing, and pro.vide additional privacy from the public street.
4. In each case where an eight foot fence is proposed, a traditional board -
on -board six foot fence with a two foot lattice section located on top of
the six foot portion is proposed, bringing the overall height of the fence
to eight feet.
5. The Planning Commission is directed by the Zoning Ordinance to consider
any amendment to the Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit
within the context of the Planned Unit Development criteria addressing
relationship to adjoining neighborhoods; compatibility with the purpose of
the Planned Unit Development Ordinance; and the internal organization of
the site.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. At the time the PUD Plan for the so- called "Zipper -Zee" lots was approved,
Outlot A was established to provide common open -space and to allow a more
compact, efficient layout of units within this Planned Unit Development.
If the perimeter fencing is approved and constructed there would be very
little access to' the Outlot from this subdivision. In addition, the
Outlot would be visually cut off from Parkers Lake Third Addition.
During the initial review of the project a berm was required and
constructed around the majority of this site to provide screening from
Vicksburg Lane and County Road 6.
2. The maintenance of those areas of the individual lots "outside" the
perimeter fencing is a major concern. The proposal is to locate the
fences on private property with a minimum of five feet between the fence
and the rear or side property line. It is not clear how individual
property owners will access the area without any gates or breaks in the
fence so they can maintain the small portion of their lot outside of the
fence (for which they are legally responsible).
see next page)
Page 3
File 91006
3. If the request is approved, there would be a reduction in the size of
usable rear yards for the lots affected by the perimeter fencing. The
lots would lose between 250 -300 square feet, or 5 -6% of their lot size as
that portion of the yard located outside of the fence. These lots are in
the 5,000 square foot range, already small by Plymouth standards; this lot
area reduction is a significant issue especially since the common area is
also being constrained.
4. The eight foot fences previously approved between the back -to -back lots
was to provide additional privacy in the yards and homes from those houses
immediately across the property line. The eight foot fences proposed on
Terraceview Lane will not serve the same privacy purpose and are primarily
requested for aesthetic purposes.
5. There is some merit in providing for taller fencing for Lot 62 Block 1,
Lots 1 -6 Block 2, and Lots 1 and 2 Block 3. These lots do not have any
berm adjacent to them, providing visual screening of County Road 6 or
Vicksburg Lane. In addition, Outlot A breaks up these three blocks with
several paths leading to 15th Place, thus preventing a fortress -type
appearance from occurring if the fencing were approved and constructed.
RECOMMENDATION:
We conclude that the original purpose for Outlot A (project open space) would
be compromised; the berm adjacent to Vicksburg Lane provides necessary
noise /visual abatement without a fence; and, the effective project density
would increase (by lot sia reduction) by allowing construction of the
perimeter fencing, except for a small section parallel to County Road 6.
I recommend approval of the request to allow an eight foot fence to be located
on nine (9) lots only on the findings stated in the proposed approval
resolution.
If the Planning Commission finds the other elements of the request to be
appropriate for an approval recommendation, the following should be added to
the resolution: "... along Lot 62, Block 1; Lots 1 -6, Block 2; Lots 1 -2,
Block 3; a 6 foot perimeter fence along the balance of the project perimeter;
and an 8 foot fence along a portion of the Terraceview Lane frontage." The
first sentence of item 1 should be deleted and items a -d would become 1 -4.
Submitted by: C\V,
Charles E. Di lerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving PUD Conditional Use Permit Amendment as modified.
2. Petitioner's Narrative.
3. Location Map.
pc /jk /91006:lr)
APPROVING MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
FOR LAUKKA /WILLIAMS PARKERS LAKE (91006)
WHEREAS, Laukka /Williams Parkers Lake has requested approval of a Mixed
Planned Unit Development Plan Conditional Use Permit amendment for property
located at the southeast corner of Vicksburg Lane and 18th Avenue North, to
allow construction of a six foot and eight foot perimeter fence and an eight
foot fence along portions of Terraceview 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
Laukka /Williams Parkers Lake for a Mixed Planned Unit Development Plan
Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow an eight foot fence to be located on
nine lots located at the southeast corner of Vicksburg Lane and 18th Avenue
North as follows:
1. Fence locations and heights are approved only for Lot 62, Block 1; Lots
1 -6, Block 2; Lots 1 -2, Block 3 based on the following findings and
conditions:
a) The request is responsive to the Mixed Planned Unit Development
Conditional Use Permit findings with respect to compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood for the following lots: Lot 62, Block 1;
Lots 1 -6, Block 2; Lots 1 -2, Block 3.
b) Consistency with applicable conditions and Resolution 87 -618 approving
the MPUD Plan and Resolution 89 -504 modifying the height of certain
privacy fences and Resolution 89 -691 allowing fences in specific front
yards.
c) No other amendments or variances are granted or implied.
d) These nine (9) lots do not have the benefit of a landscape berm to
screen the lots from County Road 6 and Vicksburg Lane.
res /pc /91006.mod:lr)
L.A. LAUKKA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
January 7, 1991
TO: Myra Gibson Wicklacz
Development Services Technician
City of Plymouth
CC: Larry Laukka
RE: Final PUD Plan Amendment
Description of Request
Parkers Lake Development
North 3rd Addition, SunCourt Homes
FROM: Greg Anderson
Laukka Develo ent
EMS
7,10 1
JAN
Laukka Development is hereby resubmitting its request to the City of Plymouth to
increase the height of all privacy fencing (front and rear yards of the above referenced
SunCourt homes) to eight feet (8' -0 "). This resubmission is in response to your attached
letter dated November 21, 1990 and our subsequent conversations regarding this issue.
Our response to your attached correspondence is as follows:
1) As we discussed, we are unable to provide you with a signed site plan
based on a certified survey which will indicate the exact location of all
proposed fencing at the SunCourt Homes. The variation in the ten (10)
models of single family homes that are available at Parkers Lake does
not allow us to guarantee the location of all fencing at this time. The
attached drawings illustrate the proposed fencing's general location and
relationship to the single family homes. The rear yard fencing of the
zee" homes, however, will not extend beyond the base of the property's
earthen burm or the property line, whichever is less. (Please note same
on the attached drawings.)
3300 EDINBOROUGH WAY • SUITE 201 • EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 • TELEPHONE 612/896 -1971
January 7, 1991
Page 2
2) The revision to the privacy fencing hereby requested will have no adverse
effect upon the city's comprehensive plan, in fact, it will certainly enhance
and increase the values of the properties at Parkers Lake.
3) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will
promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental
to our endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
The maintenance of this fencing should be almost non - existent as the
installation will be comprised of cedar lumber, galvanized fasteners, and
concrete reinforced fence posts.
4) 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.
5) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses
permitted in the district.
6) The conditional use shall have no effect on traffic congestion in the public
streets.
7) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable
regulations of the district in which it is located.
In general, the revision requested is in compliance with the provisions of Section
9, Subdivision A of the Plymouth zoning ordinance. The purpose of this revision is
to enhance the privacy of the home's rear and side yards and, in turn, increase the
value of the overall development. Also please note my previous correspondence to
your office dated November 8, 1990 regarding our request.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please let me know.
L.A. LAUKKA DEXELOPMENT CO.
November 8, 1990
TO: City of Plymouth
Planning Commission
RE: FINAL PUD Plan Amendment
Description of Request
Parkers Lake Development
North 3rd Addition; Suncourt Homes
FROM: Greg Anderson
Laukka Developien
Laukka Development is hereby requesting that all privacy fencing
for the Parkers Lake Suncourt Homes be allowed to be installed
at a height of eight feet (8' -0 "). The style and construction
of this fencing will be equal to that presently installed at our
project.
The basis for our request is comprised of two main issues. The
first being the need to create a more uniform look at the Suncourt
Homes' side and rear yards. The present mixed use of 6' -0" and
8' -0" fencing creates a varied and somewhat haphazard appearance.
We believe that the use of 8' -0" privacy fencing for all locations
will standardize the site lines of the project in a more orderly
and appealing manner.
The second and ultimately the most important factor in our request
is that of our homeowners' concerns and input toward this revision.
Several of our present homeowners have requested that their side
and rear yard fencing be increased to a height of 8' -0 ". These
requests have been made for both "Zee" and "Zipper" homes. As we
reviewed their requests we certainly agree that an increase in
fencing height would improve their rear yard privacy and, in turn,
value. The most apparent locations for this fencing would be along
County Road #6 and Vicksburg Lane. We are requesting, however,
that all fencing be allowed to increase to 8' -0" in height.
Please note the attached drawings regarding the scope of this
request for the 3rd addition. I would appreciate the opportunity
to further discuss these revisions with you, if necessary.
atts.
3300 1MINBOIZ00011 WAY • SUIT1; 201 • 1:I)INA, \JINNI :SOTA 55435 • TELI: III IONI: 612/890.19 71
61 .,
a m. fO..
a•, +
qwm
onn
W
TRIP
OF -
10,10
I - -- ,
i:.
VON
a` NUI
IMP
i nnnm i
zoo*"
DO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: March 19, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 10, 1991
FILE NO.: 91012
PETITIONER: Vision of Glory Lutheran Church
REQUEST: Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a two -story
addition to an existing church and a Variance for parking
setbacks and street access.
LOCATION: Southwest corner of Teakwood Lane and 26th Avenue North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: R- 1A.(Low Density Single Family Residential)
BACKGROUND:
On October 6, 1980, the City Council adopted Ordinance 80 -20 amending the
zoning for the subject site from I -1 to R -1A. This action was taken to
correct an error made during guiding /zoning consistency action accomplished
earlier.
On September 22, 1980, the City Council adopted Resolution 80 -687 providing
for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan to construct an addition to Vision
of Glory Lutheran Church of 12,040 square feet. Numerous conditions were
attached to this resolution, including the direction that the plans were to be
revised to eliminate all variances relative to the new parking lot. This
addition to the church was constructed.
On February 27, 1989, the City Council, by Resolution 89 -109 approved a Site
Plan and Conditional Use Permit for an addition of 21,424 to the Vision of
Glory Church. Included in that resolution was the approval of variances for
parking and drive setbacks, and access to 26th Avenue North.
On July 24, 1989, the City Council, by Resolution 89 -414 approved an Amended
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for Vision of Glory Lutheran Church to
that approved by Resolution 89 -109 in February. Included in that resolution
was the requirement that the Site Plan was to be amended to specify brick
similar to the existing church as the exterior treatment of the addition. The
addition approved by Resolution 89 -414 was not constructed and on July 24,
1990 the Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, and Variances expired.
Notice of this Public Hearing was published in the Official City Newspaper and
mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
see next page)
Page Two
File 91012
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
It
1. This petition is before the Planning Commission because the construction
approved in 1989 was not undertaken within a year of approval. The
proposed addition at this time is 14,700 square feet. The 1989 proposal
was for 21,424 square feet. The proposed addition will house a new
fellowship hall and classroom facilities. The exterior of the addition is
proposed to be finished with brick that will be similar in color and
appearance to the existing church.
2. An issue with this proposal as with the 1989 proposals is the retention of
23 parking spaces currently located approximately two feet from the right -
of -way line of Highway 55, and proposed to continue at that location. Due
to projected highway volumes in this area Highway 55 may eventually be
widened to six lanes. If this does occur a dangerous situation could
result due to the close proximity of the parking to the property line.
3. The parking provided for this church is in excess of the number of spaces
required by the Zoning Ordinance. The number of parking spaces required
for this use is 100 spaces based on the number of seats in the main
sanctuary. The Site Plan provides for 187 parking spaces.
4. Another concern with this Site Plan is the appropriate screening for the
new parking area at the southeast corner of the site. The screening is
required to screen the parking spaces from the residential areas to the
east of Teakwood Lane. In response to the Development Review Committee
findings of March 4, 1991, the petitioner has submitted a letter of March
25, 1991 indicating that they do propose to screen the new parking from
the public street and residential property across Teakwood Lane.
5. A variance is requested from the Zoning Ordinance, Section 10, Subdivision
C 14b which requires that a place of worship have direct access on a minor
arterial or major collector street. Neither 26th Avenue North nor
Teakwood Lane is a minor collector. A Variance was granted for this item
with the Site Plan approved in 1989.
6. A variance is requested from the Zoning Ordinance, Section 10, Subdivision
6, Table 1 to allow parking and driving aisles along 26th Avenue North and
Highway 55 to be' located 20 feet from the property line instead of the
required 30 feet.
7. This request is required to be responsive to the Zoning Ordinance six
specific criteria for Conditional Use Permits and the criteria for a
Variance. A copy of those criteria is attached for your information.
8. The applicant has submitted together with its application, a narrative in
support of the Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and variance requests.
The applicant states that there are no other alternative access routes for
this site in regards to the first Variance request; and, that the Setback
Variance requests are unique to the site due to the triangular shape of
the property; and, that variances have previously been granted on this
site for parking setbacks.
see next page)
Page Three
File 91012
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Staff finds that the Conditional Use Permit is responsive to the Zoning
Ordinance criteria.
2. Staff finds that the Site Plan is responsive to the criteria of the Zoning
Ordinance with the exception of the requested Variances.
3. Staff is concerned with the proposed parking lot design. The site
contains a suitable area within this southeast corner for additional
parking that could be constructed to replace the parking adjacent to
Highway 55. In addition, the 23 spaces adjacent to Highway 55 are not
needed to fulfill parking requirements for this site. The proposed
park ng lot design is not however, different from the parking lot design
approved for the previous two site plans for this site. A Variance was
granted in each case to allow the existing spaces adjacent to Highway 55
to remain.
4. Staff finds that the requested variance from the Zoning Ordinance for
access to a local street meets the variance criteria due to the unique
circumstances that this site is prohibited from having access to Highway
55, and local streets are the only alternative access routes.
5. Staff finds the requested variance from the Zoning Ordinance for a 20 foot
setback for driveway parking spaces to meet the variance criteria due to
the unique shape of the parcel.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and
variances for the proposed addition to the existing church.
Submitted by:
arses
ATTACHMENTS:
V 1;W—
eruct, community ueve nator
1. Draft Resolution Approving Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variances
2. Engineer's Memo
3. Petitioner's Narrative
4. CUP Criteria
5. Variance Criteria
6. Location Map
pc /jk /91012:jw)
APPROVING SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR VISION OF GLORY
LUTHERAN CHURCH (91012) ,
WHEREAS, Vision of Glory Lutheran Church has requested a Site Plan,
Conditional Use Permit and Variances for an addition of 14,700 square feet to
an existing church for property located at 13200 State Highway 55; 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
Vision of Glory Lutheran Church for a Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and
Variances for property located at 13200 State Highway 55, 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 as diagrammed on the plans dated March 10, 1991.
4. Any signage shall conform with the City Ordinance standards.
5. The permit shall be renewed in one year to assure compliance with the
conditions.
6. Compliance with applicable Building and Fire Code requirements shall be
verified by the City prior to permit issuance.
7. All parking shall be off - street in designated areas which comply with the
Zoning Ordinance.
8. Submission of the required financial guarantee and Site Improvement
Performance Agreement for completion of site improvements.
9. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approval per ordinance provisions.
10. Compliance with the ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and
fire lanes.
11. An 8 112" x 11" "as- built" fire protection plan shall be submitted prior
to the release or reduction of any Site Improvement Performance Agreement
guarantees per City Policy.
12. A Variance is granted to allow access to the church from local streets
based on the following findings:
a. Strict enforcement of the requirement to have access on a minor
arterial or major collector street is impossible.
Page Two
File 91012
Resolution No.
b. The conditions with which this variance is requested are unique to
this site and not generally applicable to other property within the
zoning district.
c. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property.
13. A variance is granted for a 20 foot setback for parking and driving
aisles based on the following findings:
a. Strict enforcement of the 30 foot setback would deprive the applicant
of the reasonable use of the land.
b. That the conditions which the variance is requested are unique to
this site and not generally applicable to other property within this
zoning district.-
c. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property.
res /pc /91012:jw)
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: April 4, 1991
FILE NO.: 91012
PETITIONER: Mr. David Henderson, Chairman, Vision of Glory Lutheran Church, 13200
Highway 55, Plymouth, MN 55441
SITE PLAN: VISION OF GLORY LUTHERAN CHURCH
LOCATION: South of 26th Avenue, west of Teakwood Lane, northeasterly of Highway
55 in the northeast 1/4 of Section 27.
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 - Watermain area assessment based on 20
acres x S1.580 per acre S316 Sanitary sewer area assessment
based on 20 acres x S808 an acre = S176. Area assessments are for
the vacated Portion of 26th Avenue The assessment shall be paid
with the building rermit.
5. Other additional assessments estimated:
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.
0
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.)
8. 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-
N/A Yes No
12. _ _ _X_
13. _ _ X
N/A Yes No
14. _ X _
15. — — X
16. _ X
All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR
X_ 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: Shall
comply with watershed requirements.
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.
All watermains shall be identified as DIP.
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. The post indicator valve shall be relocated to between
the hydrant and the building.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. X 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-
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. See Items 1. 2. 12, 13. 15 and 16 and
7A.
5-
1 410 • Z&V a*1114 =
27A. A detail sheet shall be included.
1
Submitted by: l 2lt`'
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
6-
January 30, 1991
City of Plymouth
Community Development Department
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
P1 mouth Minnesota 55447
REL-3,- -,P7T
J I
pp
Attn: Mr. Charles E. Dillerud; Community Develop t5DJ?& for
RE: Vision of Glory Lutheran Church lTY (li' i 'ss , "ia-6.0 l+
13200 Highway 55 MiJN:T, "Z`
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Comm. No. 1419 (City of Plymouth File No.89052)
12 N E 3rd STREET 0 FARIBAULT, MINNESOTA 55021 0 BOX 367 cD) 507/334 -2251 612/333 -6713
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
This letter accompanies a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit
Application for an addition to Vision of Glory Church. The purposes
are to provide a written description of the project, show conformance
with the Conditional Use Permit Standards, and to provide a
description of two variances that the property owners are requesting
for this addition.
Project Description
The project is a two story addition to the existing Vision of Glory
Church. The addition will contain a new fellowship hall and a new
wing of classrooms for their Sunday School programs. The exterior of
the addition will be finished with brick that will match the color
and appearence of the existing building as closely as possible. The
exterior walls will be approximately 26 feet high. The total area of
the addition is 14,700 sq.ft. with a footprint area of 4900 sq.ft. A
Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit were previously approved for
this addition by th.e City of Plymouth on February 27, 1989,
Resolution 89 -109) This new application is being submitted because
no construction was undertaken within a year of approval due to
unavoidable delays and it is our understanding that this necessitates
a resubmittal. The site plan is essentially unchanged from the one
previously approved. The square footage of the addition has been
reduced by 6400 sq.ft. from the previous scheme.
architects 0 interior design 0 contract coordination 0 planners
Written Narrative
Vision of Glory Lutheran Church
January 30, 1991
Page 2
Conformance with the Conditional Use Permit Standards
1) The proposed addition appears to comply with and reinforce the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Plymouth. The addition is an
expansion of an original building that was previously approved by
conditional use permit.
2) The proposed addition will promote and enhance the general public
welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger public health,
safety, morals, or comfort.
3) The proposed addition will have very little effect on the use and
enjoyment of other property in the area. The site is surrounded on
all sides by street or highway right -of -way which provides a buffer
between it and any adjacent uses. Additionally, most of the traffic
generated by the church occurs at off peak times when the mostly
commercial adjacent property is not generating traffic.
4) The proposed addition will not effect development in the area as
it is already nearly fully developed. The addition would not appear
to have any negative effect on any possible future improvements in
the area.
5) See the enclosed site plan for the proposed layout of ingress to
and egress from the site. Because the property is almost surrounded
by streets and roads, good flow of traffic on and off the site is
easily maintained while having a minimum effect on adjoining
properties.
6) The proposed addition will conform to all applicable regulations
of the district it is in except for two variances being requested by
the property owner.
Written Narrative
Vision of Glory Lutheran Church
January 30, 1991
Page 3
Requests for Variance(2)
a) From the provisions of Section 10, Subdivision C, Paragraph 15b
of the Zoning Ordinance to allow direct access to 26th Avenue North,
presently a minor collector. The variance is requested on the
following grounds:
1. The site has no direct access to a major collector as required
by the Zoning Ordinance. Access to Highway 55 is prohibited;
Teakwood Lane is a local street; and 26th Avenue North is
classified as a minor collector. A particular hardship would be
caused the property owner by a strict interpretation in this case
because there is no, alternative means of ingress and egress on
the existing site which was purchased and developed before this
requirement of the Zoning Ordinance was in effect.
2. The conditions on which this request for variance are based
are unique to this parcel of land.
3. The purpose for this variation is not based exclusively upon a
desire to increase the value of this parcel of land.
4. The hardship in this instance is caused by the new provisions
in the Zoning Ordinance and not by the property owner.
5. Granting this variation will not result in any hardship'to
other property owners in the area; it will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, and welfare; and it will not decrease
property values in the area.
b) From the provisions of Section 10, Subdivision B, Table 1 of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow parking and drive aisles along 26th Avenue
North, only to within 20 feet of the property line. The Ordinance
Standard was revised to 30 feet in early 1989. The variance is
requested on the following grounds:
1. The site has a unique triangular and concave shape that is
almost entirely surrounded by street and highway right -of -way. A
particular hardship would be caused the property owner by a
strict interpretation in this case because as much as 35% of the
Written Narrative
Vision of Glory Lutheran Church
January 30, 1991
Page 4
1.(continued)
site would be unusable for parking after setbacks, building
footprint, and required separations are factored in. The property
owner is making a good faith effort to reduce the non - conformity
of the existing parking along 26th Avenue North by moving it
farther away (20 ft.), from the street right -of -way than the two
feet which now exist in some areas.The church's plans for future
expansion were based on the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
before 1989 and this site plan complies with the standards that
were in effect at that time, (when the original application was
made).
2. The conditions on which this request for variance are based
are unique to this parcel of land.
3. The purpose for this variation is not based exclusively upon a
desire to increase the value of this parcel of land.
4. The hardship in this instance is caused by the new provisions
in the Zoning Ordinance and not by the property owner.
5. Granting this variation will not result in any hardship to
other property owners in the area; it will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, and welfare; and it will not decrease
property values in the area.
I would like to point out that both of these requests for variance
were approved by the City of Plymouth on the property owner's
previous application and that it was upon this previous approval that
the owner's acted in good faith in finalizing the site design.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Please
contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of additional
service.
Sincerely,
r:rt Am
Jeff Amerman, AIA
Project Architect
Architects Plus
1' 1'• t Y • • '
F M SW nCN 9, SEEDIVISICN A
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Cmnission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a xecatwer dation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Caaprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or 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 penmitted, 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 imprvvenent of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic
congestion in the public streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
forms:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
i i I jeff • Z. «.
1. That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or
topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, a
particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a
mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be
carried out.
2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are
unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not
applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning
classification.
3. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire
to increase the value or incase 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 improvanents 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.
foans:o >pl /zon.stnd /s) 10/89
n r'•I C
LA2Hw"
W,
I IWA L' fad
Big
NOW Illsk
i
40i
A
SOON two
ones :•_•_ \ \N
RICO
snow _
MW
fa f i
ryl
zoo* E9
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: March 21, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 10, 1991
FILE NO.: 91015
PETITIONER: Kevin Begin
REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LAND RECLAMATION
LOCATION: 4300 Fernbrook Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -2 (Low- Medium Density Residential)
ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development District)
BACKGROUND:
There are no applications on file in the Community Development Department
regarding development action on this parcel.
Prior to the current placement the concrete fill on this site, other materials
were deposited at this location. Items stock piled on the site include
broken -up concrete with exposed steel reinforcing rods, excess building
materials, junk vehicles, and other items deposited on the property illegally.
After the then property owner was notified and failed to remove the material
primarily junk vehicles and automotive parts), the City cleaned up the Site
in 1988, and placed a lien for the cost of cleanup on the property title.
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. Since 1988, concrete fill has again been deposited illegally on this site
as well as on property to the east and a very small portion on the
property to the north. The City has notified the property owner of the
violation and has given the owner the option of either removing the
material, or obtaining a Conditional Use Permit to reclaim the site. The
petitioner has decided to bring in fill to cover the concrete and to
formally reclaim the site.
2. A Conditional Use Permit is required for any land reclamation in which
over 50 cubic yards of fill is brought into the site. The petitioner is
proposing to deposit approximately 1,200 cubic yards of fill on this site.
The Zoning Ordinance provides six standards to be met prior to any
Conditional Use Permit. A copy of those standards is attached.
see next page)
Page 2
3/21/91
File 91015
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Staff finds that the proposed land reclamation meets the six standards of
the Zoning Ordinance specified for any Conditional Use Permit.
2. Staff finds that prior to any grading permits, that soil boring tests
should be obtained to determined soil conditions in the area that will be
reclaimed.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend adoption of the attached resolution providing for the
approval of a Lan eclamation Conditi al Use Pe
Submitted by:
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit.
2. Conditional Use Permit Standards.
3. Location Map.
4. Petitioner's Narrative.
pc /jk /91015:lr)
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR KEVIN BEGIN FOR LAND RECLAMATION (91015)
WHEREAS, Kevin Begin has requested approval for a Conditional Use Permit for
Land Reclamation for property located at 4300 Fernbrook Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at . 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
Kevin Begin for a Conditional Use Permit for Land Reclamation for property
located at 4300 Fernbrook 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. Reclamation operations shall be completed and shall have ceased by October
31, 1991.
3. Soil tests at locations to be approved in advance by the Building Official
shall be obtained and reported to the City regarding soil condition of the
area to be reclaimed prior to any new fill being added to the site.
4. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 84 -760 regarding erosion control
regulations.
5. An "as- built" survey shall be submitted at the completion of the
operation.
6. All disturbed and reclaimed areas shall be seeded.
7. The permit is issued to the petitioner as operator and shall not be
transferable.
8. The permit allows a Grading Permit to be issued for approximately 1200
cubic yards of clean earth fill only.
9. The permit does not allow for a sanitary landfill.
10. Hours of operation shall be 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
11. A City Grading Permit and approval by Bassett Creek Watershed District and
Shingle Creek Watershed District shall be obtained.
res /pc /91015:lr)
6. : :, • .
PRM SBI` ON 9, S[EDIMICN A
2. $ Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a recommendation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic
congestion in the public streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
forns:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
I401TIOWM± d r 01 I I T ,
LF .
VA
oil
AP94A
e M! .
110uI IINI 1
J
C1
vebrua-v 21, 1441
ptmn gr r rn *,M?- jr)'r,T. TJGF'. °F°'eTn'
The conditional use rermit wi11 be used for a site imrrovenent, by the
coverinz of so-?e exrosed concrete fill that exists on the northeast co -ner
Of T'.?.'. 15- 11R -22 - ?2 -0006 at 4340 7ernbrook lane north. There now exists
a larre amount of concrete fill. mo the best or our knowledme it is a
srancrete rroduct which was rlaced on the rrorerty because of an arranne -ent
between the former rrorerty ovner ('w contract for deed) Lavrence H. Aemin
3n3 'i truck, -c conran`.'.
Z006 F.
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: March 25, 1991
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chuck Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS REGARDING DOG KENNELS (91016)
BACKGROUND:
In a letter of February 27, 1991, a copy of which is enclosed, the applicant
provides the details of her reason for requesting an amendment to the text of
the Zoning Ordinance to allow an increase in the number of dogs permitted
before requirements for a "dog kennel" become effective. The primary
significance of the requested amendment lies in the standards of the Zoning
Ordinance where a "dog kennel" by definition is permitted only in the FRO
Future Restricted Development) Zoning District, and then only with a
Conditional Use Permit.
The Ordinance does not permit the keeping of more than two adult dogs as
pets" in other Zoning Districts.
We have researched the Zoning Ordinances of several comparable and neighboring
communities as to the numerical threshold used to distinguish between the
keeping of "pets" and the more regulated "dog kennels ". The majority of the
communities addressed (Maple Grove, Hopkins, St. Louis Park, and Minnetonka)
specify the same threshold at which the definition "dog kennel" applies --
three adult dogs. In each case, the keeping of up to two adult dogs is not
regulated but three or more becomes a "dog kennel" and therefore becomes
subject to more restrictive standards and, or prohibition in all but the
agricultural zoning district.
There are suburban communities elsewhere in the Metropolitan area where the
threshold is four adult dogs, thereby permitting as many as three adult dogs
to be kept without becoming a "dog kennel" by definition.
Page Two
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:
We do not find a basis in our research to support the proposed amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance which is consistent with municipal neighbors in terms of
the threshold at which a "dog kennel" is defined - -three adult dogs.
Should the Planning Commission find that amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is
in order to increase the threshold for the definition of "dog kennel ", on_L
the numerical standard found in the definition should be considered for
amendment.
The addition of performance standards involving lot size and fencing when
applied to a singular circumstance - -the keeping of three adult dogs -- is
inordinately complex and would be difficult to enforce without the benefit of
a Conditional Use Permit process.
Attachments:
1. Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 1
2. Petitioner's Letter of February 27, 1991
pc /cd /zo.dogs:jw)
DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 1
HEARING DATE: April 10, 1991
DESCRIPTION:
This amendment has been proposed by a citizen of Plymouth in an application
for amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment would modify
the term "dog kennel" to increase the minimum threshold of allowable dogs
outside the definition of "dog kennel" from the existing three to a proposed
four.
SECTIONS INVOLVED: Section 4, Subdivision B ( "definitions ").
EXPLANATION /PURPOSE:
This amendment would allow the keeping of up to three adult dogs in all
residential zoning districts.
Kennels would continue to be permitted only in the FRD (Future Restricted
Development) Zoning District. The impact of the ordinance amendment would be
to raise the threshold of what is defined as a kennel by the Plymouth Zoning
Ordinance from the present three adult dogs to a proposed four.
The applicant has suggested that the Zoning Ordinance could also be amended to
include special yard size and fencing requirements for properties where three
dogs are kept.
CONCLUSIONS /RECOMMENDATIONS:
We conclude amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as follows are reflective of
the citizen application for Zoning Ordinance text amendment:
Amend Section 4, Subdivision B to read as follows:
Dog Kennel -- Any premises where three -( 3) four 4 or more dogs, over
four (4) months of age, are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale.
We find little basis for amending the Ordinance standard. We do not support
special standards - -yard size, fencing, and the like - -for allowing more dogs in
the urban residential districts.
We recommend that the Zoning Ordinance not be changed.
Underscore - indicates new text
Strikeeut indicates deleted text (zo.amend /dogs)
City of Plymouth
Community Development Department
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
February 27, 1991
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
The present definition of a kennel in Plymouth reads:
Dog Kennel- Any premises where three (3) or more dogs, over four (4) months of age, are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale.'r
I am seeking to change that definition. I will leave the wording to the PlanningCommissionbutmysuggestionsforchangefollow.
I propose the breeding, boarding or being offered for sale of three (3) or more dogsoverfour (4) months of age remain limited to the FRD Zone and define a kennel. I
propose the dog owners in R -1X Zone or all other zones also be allowed to own amaximumofthree (3) dogs over four (47 months of age as pets only providing theapplicanthasalotofoneor -more acres and possibly with the provision said lot is• fenced, without being considered a kennel. I stipulate the lot be one or more -acresinfairnesstotheanimalshousedthereandtothesurroundingneighbors. Also, thenumberoffamiliesowningthree (3) dogs and pets would be curtailed due to the
specification of lot size. I mention the possible requirement of a fenced lot as that
would also curtail the number of families keeping three (3) dogs as pets due to thefinancialcommitmenit.necessaary. Willingness to comply with such a requirement would
also signify one who is willing to be responsible for his or her pets.
I have a personal interest in seeking such a= change to the definition of a kennel. We own our home in Plymouthfs R -tA Zone. We have 1.4 acres, completely chain -linkfenced. We have three (3) adult dogs, two (2) spayed females and one neutered male. We purchased our home because we love the area and what it has to offer. We also
chose to stay with a smaller home with a big fenced yard to accommodate our pets. Our dogs are loyal, loving, gentle companions. To make the choice of one to leave uswouldbelikebanningafamilymemberfromourhome. They are not housed outside but
of course play in the yard and accompany us in the yard during outside activities.
They sleep next to our bed and remain in the house when we go to work or anywhere else. They are only out if they desire when we are here to be aware of their activities. They never leave our yard.
I understand the need for restrictions in a city, but for those of us who are willingandabletomaketheproperprovisionsasstatedpreviously, a way should be made tograntsuchaprivilege. I believe you would find any one who is willing to complyy- -withsuchconditionsandwhodesirestohavethemaximumofthree (3) dogs a,.s pets onlywoulddosobecausetheytrulylovetheiranimalsandwouldcareforthemaccordingly. Haring three dogs as pets is not that unusual in today's society. Those of us who are
willing to provide humane and loving homes should be granted -the opportunity.
I am not ignorant to the fact that just as we love animals, there acre those who a=renotfondofanimalsandwouldobjecttosuchaproposal. I have been fairly specificas-to the proposed changes. The changes do not indicate a sweeping change to current
policy but would accomodate those that have both the conditions and desire to housethreedogsaspetsonly. It is not equitable to have a blanket policy for the communitywithoutdifferentiationforthosesituationssuchasIhaveputforth.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dear Myra,
I thought possibly I should include this letter should the subject of two complaints
nearly a year apart arise,
I would like the members of the Planning Comission to know the complaints both had
extenuating circumstances. The first incident happened when my youngest daughter
forgot to get the dogs in before going to bed.-'when she had the next day off of school
and was up later than the rest of us. Two dogs were left out for the night until
I discovered her mistake when I missed the dogs upon getting up at 5 A.M. Its was —5
degrees that night and I felts terrible they had been left out and even worse when
I realized theyhad disturbed someone, They sleep next to our bed at night so being
outside at that time ways definitely not the usual routine. The second incident
happenend February 6th, the day we closed on our home here. We had several down to
the wire details which had to be taken care of that required various service people
to be at our home that morning. I let the dogs out at 9:10 A.M., showed someone to
the boiler location in our basement and came back upstairs at 9:20 A.M. The dogs were
barking through the fence at the neighbor's dogs and I called them in immediately.
Normally our dogs and the neighbor's dogs do just fine together, but that morning -
there was also as dog there which does not live there but visits occasionally and is
known to be an offensive barker. That dog has been known to instigate fervent barking
in the others who normally get along simi&bly. About ten minutes later the Community
Service Officer arrived at our home,
From what we can derive from the Community Service Officer it is only one party who
has made both complaints. I have contacted ten neighbors so far, most of them
adjoining our lot and some ftrosa the street, So far no one has claimed to have made a
complaint, Most didntt even know we had three dogs, haven't heard offensive barking,
nor were most even aware there is an ordinance against having three dogs in our zone.
One elderly lady was almost angry a complaint had been made, She stated she had just
told someone that as soon as she heard a bark she also heard us calling our dogs in.
She encouraged me to drag up a petition in our support.
I just wanted the members of the Planning Commission to be aware the com* ints on my
dogs have not been severe, nor regular.
While I realize consideration of this matter includes more than just our situation, it
is important to me that those reviewing this proposal know that my family and I are
responsible pet owners and neighbors.
Sincerely,
M1
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: April 1, 1991
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE STANDARDS FOR GRAND OPENINGS
BACKGROUND:
The Zoning Ordinance contains standards, mainly related to signs, that address
grand opening events for businesses. The basic standards were developed many
years ago and have been occasionally reviewed and partially modified,
primarily in response to specific circumstances.
There has not been a comprehensive review of the regulations that considers
current technology and practices.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
We raise this as a study issue primarily for the following reasons:
1. Significant developments have occurred and are occurring in the retail
business areas of the City that, heretofore, have not presented the
community with enterprises that sought to advertise their new presence
with a special promotion /grand opening event. Several shopping centers
and the Cub Store in downtown Plymouth have opened recently and will be
opening in the near future.
2. Vendors who specialize in grand opening support services use technology
that perhaps was not available or at least was not widely used when the
current Ordinance standards were developed.
A multi -light device sometimes called a "sky tracker" has come into more
common use than the World War II- vintage spotlight.
There is new technology with respect to portable signs where special
lighting effects and digitized messages can be displayed. We recently
learned of one model sign that can be raised 20 -30 feet on a scissors -
type mechanism.
Periodically, we also receive inquiries about the use of large balloons or
inflatable devices that simulate product packaging. It is not unusual for
proposals to include placement of these on the roof (as well as in the yard).
Most activities that would involve the special signs can be handled
administratively. We find little need for relaxing standards or changing
standards except to the extent that the regulations should be reflective of
the Community standards. Thus, when inquiries or proposals are made involving
devices that are not consistent with the adopted standards, staff can with
confidence indicate that a particular device or activity is not allowed in
this community. Likewise, if a broad array of devices and activities are
allowed then it will facilitate the various vendors and contractors who
promote these items.
There are legitimate public safety concerns about various devices whose light
and movement can create obstructions, glare and confusion for motorists. The
ordinance addresses these, but perhaps the standards preclude some devices
that are not problematical. The current standards are very specific and allow
a minimum of interpretative discretion for new technologies.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
It is worthwhile for the staff and Planning Commission to consider whether the
current regulations are reflective of Community standards with respect to
special activities such as grand openings. The effort is one of updating
standards which is the result of activities and events now experienced in the
City.
I recommend that the Planning Commission consider the current standards. The
Commission should determine whether more information is desired and /or whether
certain draft amendments should be prepared for further consideration and
eventual Public Hearing so that a recommendation can be developed for the City
Council.
Attachments
Memos:pl /bt /pc:jw)
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 10, Subdivision A
The owner or manager of the sign, the owner of the land, or the
political candidate shall be equally responsible for the proper
location, maintenance, and ultimate removal of the signs. Setback
requirements may be waived for such signs, provided that they are
located on private property with the express consent of the
property owner, and provided that they do not impede safety by
obstructing vision of pedestrians or motor vehicle operators.
Amend. Ord. 90 -38)
5) Temporary Signage for commercial announcements such as grand
openings and special events, may be mounted on a portable stand,
O)t with a maximum surface area of 32 sq. ft., or may be wall signage
subject to the same standards as the permanent wall signageY4allowedfortheenterprise. Such signs may be used not more than
four times per calendar year, and for a period of not more than 14
days per time or of the duration of the event promoted by the sign
j message, whichever is less. The sign, sign supports, and portable
stand shall be removed from public view at the end of the period.
Multi- tenant buildings shall be considered as a single property
for purposes of this paragraph, and the use of the single
temporary sign by tenants on the property shall be the
responsibility of the property owner or designated manager who
shall endorse in writing, all applications for sign permits. The
owner or manager of the sign and the owner of the property shall
be equally responsible for the proper location, maintenance, and
removal of the sign.
Setback requirements may be waived for such signs provided they
are located on private property with the express consent of the
property owner and provided that they do not impede safety by
obstructing vision of pedestrians or motor vehicle operators.
Amended Ord. 89 -14)
6) Temporary Signs for non - commercial announcements by civic groups
shall be a maximum 32 sq. ft. in surface area, provided that a
maximum of three such signs may exceed 32 sq. ft., to a maximum
300 sq. ft., in surface area provided that the larger signs are
for city -wide and free community events.
Temporary Signs for non - commercial announcements by civic groups
shall be removed when the intended purpose has been fulfilled.
Signs with a surface area greater than 32 sq. ft. are allowed for
a maximum of ten days.
The owner or manager of the sign, the owner of the land, or the
sponsoring civic group shall be equally responsible for the proper
location, maintenance, and ultimate removal of the sign. Setback
requirements may be waived for such signs provided that they are
located on private property with the express consent of the
property owner, and provided they do not impede safety by
obstructing vision of pedestrians or motor vehicle operators.
Amended Ord. 86 -26)
10 -11
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 10, Subdivision A
b. All signs may be illuminated internally or by reflected light subject
to the following:
1) The light source shall not be directly visible and shall be
arranged to reflect away from adjoining premises.
2) The illumination source shall not be placed so to cause confusion
or hazard to traffic, or to conflict with traffic control signs or
lights.
3) All illumination shall not exceed the recommended levels of
exterior illumination as set forth in the most recent edition of
the Lighting Handbook published by the Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America. A copy of the current edition of that
publication shall be on file at the office of the City Zoning
Official.
4) All applications for signs which are to be illuminated shall
indicate the level of illumination, in foot candles, and a permit
shall only be issued upon the determination by the Zoning Official
that the illumination is within the adopted standards.
E (
5) No illumination involving movement, by reason of the lighting
arrangement, the lighting source, or other devices shall be
permitted. This includes blinking, flashing, rotating, and
message changing, except that signs alternately displaying time
and temperature may be allowed.
c. Advertising and Business Signs painted directly on building exteriors
are not permitted.
EeNol, o freestanding signs shall project higher than 36 ft. above the
tablished grade of the site.
wall sign or other sign attached to a building shall project above
e roofline of the building to which it is attached or shall
nstitute a roof sign as defined by this Ordinance.
f. No sign shall be located in a required yard or building setback area,
except as otherwise specifically provided by this Section.
g. No sign shall be erected or placed that resembles any official marker
directed by a government agency, nor shall signs display such words as
Stop" or "Danger" except that in shopping centers these or other
traffic control signs may be used where deemed appropriate by the City
Engineer.
h. No sign shall obstruct any window, door, fire escape, stairway, or
other authorized or required building opening.
Ii. No sign shall be erected or placed that, by reason of position, shape,
size, or color, would interfere with proper functioning of a traffic
sign or with reasonable visibility at a street intersection.
10 -22
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 10, Subdivision A
j. Signs shall not be permitted within the public right -of -way, or within
dedicated public easements except that the City Council may, upon
recommendation from the Planning Commission, grant a Conditional Use
Permit to allow temporary signs and decorations to be strung across and
within rights -of -way and easement for a period not to exceed 90 days.
k. Approved automotive repair and motor fuel stations may, in lieu of
other business signage allowed in the respective District, erect pylon
signs with a maximum area of 64 sq. ft. which may be placed in the
front yard, at least 20 ft. from the front property line; two price
signs, not to exceed 16 sq. ft. per sign, either attached or detached
to the pylon may be allowed, but in no case may they be placed in any
side yard. On corner lots, such signs shall be subject to the
provisions of Subdivision D, paragraph 5 -b of this Section. The
maximum height shall be 36 ft.
1. The owner, lessee, or manager of any sign, and the owner of the land
upon which the sign is located, are responsible for keeping the grass
and other vegetation cut and for keeping debris and rubbish cleaned up
and removed from the property where the sign is located. Further, the
same parties shall be responsible for assuring that every sign,
including those which may be specifically exempt from this code
relative to permits and permit fees, shall be maintained in good
structural condition at all times. All signs shall be kept neatly
painted, including all metal parts and supports thereof that are not
galvanized or of rust resistant material. '
M. Signs which, by reason of deterioration, may become unsafe or
unsightly, shall be repaired or removed by the licensee, sign owner, or
owner of the property upon which the sign stands, upon written notice
of the City Zoning Official.
n. All signs shall direct primary attention to the business, commodity,
conducted, sold, or offered on the
service, activity, or entertainment
premises where the sign is located, except as otherwise specified and
allowed.
EON The construction of all signs permitted by this Ordinance shall be in
accordance with the current edition of the Uniform sign Code published
by the International Conference of Building Officia s, which is hereby
adopted by reference as part of this Ordinance and a copy of which
shall be maintained by the City Zoning Official; and with the State
Building Code.
WW-M -1--
p. No temporary or permanent sign shall be tacked, or otherwise attached
to trees, fences, utility poles, or other such structures or supports,
unless expressly permitted by this Ordinance or other law.
q. No sign which revolves, rotates, or has any visible moving parts shall "
be permitted, except that signs alternately displaying time and
temperature and barber poles may be allowed.
10 -23
I Be
IM
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: April 5, 1991
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director &
011,
L
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AND TRANSPORTATION
PLANNED ELEMENT FOR DESIGNATED AREA WEST OF I -494 AND NORTH OF
GLEASON LAKE ROAD.
The City Council at their April 1, 1991 meeting directed staff and the
Planning Commission to initiate the Public Hearing process for reviewing and
evaluating the Land Use Guide Plan and Transportation Plan elements of the
Comprehensive Plan for the area I have shown on the attached map as bounded by
I -494 on the east, Harbor Lane and Harbor Lane extended on the west, County
Road 6 on the north, and Gleason Lake Road on the south.
This was in partial response to the discussion by the Planning Commission at
the last meeting and the recommendations regarding the application submitted
by Carlson Company. That application is yet to be considered by the Council;
the petitioner's attorney asked for time to consider the Planning Commission's
action and the item was deferred from consideration at the April 1 meeting
the residents of the area were notified).
The hearing is being scheduled pursuant to State law and City practice for all
considerations of the Comprehensive Plan Element.
The hearing is scheduled for May 8, 1991.
The Council's direction has been discussed with Chairman Plufka who requested
that I place the planned hearing on the agenda at this time so that
commissioner's could identify information desired in advance of the Public
Hearing and to identify issues or questions that likely would be addressed at
the hearing.
I recommend that the Commission avoid discussion of findings or conclusions at
this time; rather, that should be reserved for the period after the Public
Hearing.
Tentative issues and questions include:
1. Should there be a collector street between County Road 6 and Gleason Lake
Road as indicated on the Transportation Plan?
Page 2
04/05/91
2. Should there be a street connection of a class other than cr-'ector?
3. If the finding of either question is negative, then what impact is there
relative to the Land Use Guide Plan, particularly the area now classified
as LA -4?
4. If the answer to either of the first two questions is affirmative, what
is the impact upon the Land Use Guide Plan classifications in this area,
particularly for the area now classified as LA -4?
5. What information would be helpful in preparation for the hearing?
6. Are there other issues regarding the Land Use Guide Plan and /or
Transportation Plan for this area?
Attachments
pc /bt.4 -5)
AVE
L 09ITf
Cal
LAKE
AP
7 In
LN
co
macm
L' '`•
i =siii.
ii iii 1 e:':ly
4:
VIII i=ii a 11
F (:
I ;~: • - s•; •1--- ` '
j i •^•.n,.A::eov w. C i
fl
a q
iii
y-i
Al
IF
CL
CL
Ni-
y
v A
e JJJJ
SEE
S. y
a1
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: April 5, 1991
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: STATUS OF RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS ON PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
We are continuing to research the subject as directed by the Commission and to
analyze the specific questions raised by the Commission. Our research has
previously included my memorandum to the Planning Commission and City Council
regarding the subject of Planned Unit Development; a copy of that was sent to
you.
I recalled that, in 1981, the Planning Commission had undertaken the review of
the Planned Unit Development Ordinance and that then Commissioner Larry Larson
had spearheaded a study which was presented to the City Council. A copy is
attached.
The study eventually stimulated some amendments which included revisions to
the bonus point criteria and to the attributes.
One of the issues that developers discussed at that time was whether some or
all PUD design features could be allowed as a matter of "conventional
development" without the process of preparing plans and without a Conditional
Use Permit. This was not then deemed appropriate.
I recommend that the Commission keep a copy of the "Larson Report" after
reviewing it and, at a future study session, it may serve as the basis for
additional questions and observations.
Incidentally, the report includes a photocopy of the original "Residential
Subdivision Unit Project" provisions that were in the Plymouth Zoning
Ordinance before the adoption of the Planned Unit Development in the mid -
1970's.
Attachment: "Larson Report" and Related Information
pc /bt /pud)
Ir
REVIEW OF CURRENT
RPUD ORDINANCE
G 1't y Go U N G. l L..
OG. To$ER 260 IRS I
October, 1981
Page 2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to review the requirements of
the current RPUD Ordinance with respect to density and lot
area requirements. This review stems from concerns with
current economic and housing constraints existing nationally,
and more importantly, within Plymouth.
We have solicited input from City Staff, other Commissioners,
Council members, the Development Council, and other interests
private citizens, real estate development, etc...) in pulling
together together this evaluation.
This report is designed to stimulate discussion regarding
major issues within the current ordinance, and allow the
reviewal process to initiate specific recommendations /input.
Though the current ordinance appropriately addresses the
current environment, we feel there may be ground for revisions
in restricted areas of regulation.
The practicality of our recommendations, or
suggestions, must be quantitatively evaluated
sewer capacities of each district.)
011961
a`=
ri
N c
subsequent
against water/
i
Page 3
BACKGROUND
Rationale for revisions may be in the following data.
1. New home construction continues to decline to
levels lower than those of the post-war period
in the early 1970's.
2. In the area of financing, home mortgage problems
are stimulated by 1) the demise of the 30 year
fixed rate and 2) subsidies implicit in low savings
rates at S & L institutions and banks are phasing
our with-deregulation. Because of the latter
situation, it is expected that high mortgage rates
will prevail with or without high inflation.
Current conventional rates range from 15.5% - 12
points to 17.5% - 6 points. Even if conventional
rates drop to 15 %, the principal /interest payment
on a $60,000 mortgage would be $759 requiring a
household income of $32,500.
There are predictions by some economists that mortgage
rates will match the prime rate by the end of the
2nd quarter, 1982.
3. National inflation alone has been pushing housing
prices at better than a 12 1/2% annual rate.
Source: Real Estate Research Corporation). The
median new home price in Plymouth as of the 1st
quarter 1981, is $104,708 - ranking 5th in the
Minneapolis Metro Area; 34% above the area's norm;
55% above the national norm. (Source: Greater
Minneapolis Board of Realtors).
4. For the first five months of 1981, 71% of the new
homes purchased in the Minnetonka - Plymouth area
were corporate transferees - an overwhelming figure
considering the trend for transfers is rapidly
diminishing.
5. Accelerating these problems is the future demand for
housing - rental or owned. Over 41 million adults
will reach the age of 30 in the 1980'x, compared to
31 million in the 19701s. Currently, 18 million
households are headed by individuals 25 -35 years old
as compared to 10 million in 1970.
We, in particular, must face these challenges.
t
Page 4
EXHIBIT I
AVERAGE HOME PRICES - MINNEAPOLIS METRO*
COMMUNITY MEDIAN HOME PRICE INDEX TO AVG.
Edina 118,713 152
Lake Minnetonka 113,343 145
Cedar Isles- Loring 109,623 140
Eden Prairie 105,959 136
Plymouth 104,708 134
Golden Valley 94,512 121
Hopkins- Minnetonka 93,000 119
Falcon Heights -St. Anthony 92,917 119
Calhoun - Harriet 87,853 113
Bloomington 83,109 106
Minneapolis Area - Average $75,036 100
Homes sold lst quarter 1981
Source:- Greater Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors
Page 5
DENSITY
The current ordinance provides for a variation of density
through bonus points allocated on the basis of four factors:
project size (minimum 40 acres);
allowance for affordable housing;
variety of housing mix;
affirmative design.
The high degree of subjectivity and interpretation, though
purposely stated at the time to allow for freedom of design
under the RPUD concept, has been a source of confusion and
discontent to the reviewing bodies. The first criteria, and
possibly the third, is the only quantitative factor in
determining density; while the remainder are subject to
interpretation. In retrospect, it is our viewpoint that these
latter factors (affordable housing and affirmative design)
should be expected upfront in any development within the city
of Plymouth and therefore required without any further
qualification.
Option - Maintain the Current Method. Of the ten RPUD's to
affirmatively pass -thru the reviewal process, only three have
received bonus point allocation, primarily for project size
and one (Amhurst) for housing mix. The only support we find
for this option is to let the past record stand for itself.
There was however, considerable discussion among Commission
members questioning the 40 acre minimum in light of current
economics and available land.
Option - Revise the Criteria. A second option would be to
revise the criteria for bonug .point calculation to be more
specific and objective in nature. Exhibit II illustrates
the following revisions:
a) section (a) would remain as currently stated;
b) section (b) relating to affordable housing
would be eliminated, allowing the Comprehensive
Plan to speak to the issue;
c) section (c) now becomes (b) with specific
bonus point calculations designated for
each housing combination;
d) section (d) would be rewritten and become
c) to reinforce the RPUD concept of project
design.
Page 6
EXHIBIT II
OPTIONAL BONUS POINT CALCULATION
a) The project is of a viable scale for PUD design:
add one bonus point for each ten acres of project
size above forty acres up to four points; or,
subtract one bonus point for each five acres of
project size under forty acres to a minimum size
of fifteen acres.
b) The project provides a variety of housing types:
detached 100% 0 points (base)
detached with attached 40% or less 1 point
attached with
apartment -type 50$/50$ 1 point
detached, attached
and apartment 40$/30$/30$ 2 points
Provision for a 10% range to allow for design alternatives
in various zoning districts.
c) The project demonstrates affirmative design through
provision of private /public open space net of street
right of way, park dedication, and rear yard:
10 -20% net area 1 point
20% or greater 2 points
Page 7
Notation of affirmative design (enhancement, preservation,
etc...) should also occur in Section 9, Subdivision B (lc)
as an expected attribute of a PUD within the city.
Section 9, Subdivision b (5b) should also require the
developer to address how the project meets each of the
conditions /expected attributes of a PUD.
We particularly support this approach in that
considerations are addressed specifically and
with flexibility provided in (b) for various
and other constraints or features. The third
the developer who approaches the RPUD concept
intended.
the two main
quantitatively
zoning districts
factor rewards
as originally
NOTE: The underlying assumption is a need to maintain a
separation of PUD development from conventional platting.
The city has long maintained a directive to provide open
space, quality environment, etc... which supports this
position. One could argue, however, that these "desired
attributes" should be expected upfront, regardless of the
developer or external circumstances and that any development
would be required to meet those demands. The problem, though,
becomes one of economics in which certain developers /landholders
cannot meet or plan to those requirements because of their
technical inabilities, or they (whomever) simply choose not to.
This "freedom of choice" is the catalyst to housing mix and
innovation in an ideal sense.
Option - Elimination of Bonus Calculation. Density would be
dictated by project size or zoning policies under this option.
The other criteria would fall in the Comprehensive Plan or
other areas of the ordinance. But we consider this an
unreasonable, extreme option.
Page Q
MINIMUM LOT AREA
Current ordinance requires a minimum of 18,500 sq.ft. in the
R -lA district for a single - family dwelling; 15,000 sq.ft. in
the R -1B district for single or two - family units. Concern
has been stated that these figures present an economic hurdle
to residential developers and the consuming public, restricting
the demographics of potential buyers to a select few. In
evaluation of this concern we have surveyed other communities
within the metro area.
Maple Grove is formally reviewing their current ordinance
with the expectation to reduce those requirements. Current
ordinance requires 20,000 sq.ft. in R -1 districts and
10,000 in R -2 districts (planned development). Projections
are that these will lower by 15% (while maintaining current
setbacks).
Burnsville, currently at 11,000 sq.ft. with an 85 ft. frontage,
is revising their minimum to 8,500 with 70 ft.
Bloomington currently maintains 11,000 sq.ft. regardless of
the platting procedure, accepting a 9,200 average within
major developments.
Eden Prairie is currently at 13,500 sq.ft. with a 90 ft.
frontage, but is looking to revise that standard to 10,000.
We do not wish to quote these as standards because "everyone
else does... ", for we are "smarter than they are ". But these
are the figures often presented by the developing interests.
We have found our current requirements are among the most
restrictive within the metro area - good and bad.
The Development Council has requested consideration that the
lot size be reduced in LA -1 districts to approximately 10- 10,500
sq.ft. with 75 ft. frontage.
Perhaps more appropriately, a reduction to 13,500 sq.ft. in
R -lA districts; 12,000 sq.ft. in the R -1B districts; and 11,000
sq.ft. in the R -2 districts would maintain an optimal balance
between the city's objective to provide a quality housing
environment (planned, space, etc.) and "affordable" housing for
the consuming public. All other area figures would remain
constant. Though smaller lot size does not guarantee affordable
housing alone, steps taken by the city to approach the problem
presently and in the future) reflect social responsibility and
positive direction.
Page 9
Exhibit III illustrates various density calculations at
varying lots sizes, providing density (units per acre)
for a gross acre (43,560 sq.ft.), net street right -of-
way, and net right -of -way plus park dedication. At the
13,500 sq.ft. figure the gross density exceeds the current
ordinance maximum of 3.0; however, net street right -of -way
density is 2.7 units per acre and 2.4 at the furthest
extreme. The suggested 12,000 figure for R -1B equates to
3.1 net street right -of -way, only fractionally over the
density requirement and of no significance.
The important factor in our calculations and rationale-for
these estimates is the use of an acre net street right -
of -way, which exists on all residential lots (using 15%
as a general rule). The figures are reasonable and
progress logically, pertinent to "practical dimension" -
gross less right -of -way. Other factors involved in our
recommendation included lot frontage, depth, and side yard
setbacks which will be discussed further.
Eyeball examination" of sewer /water capacities stated in
the Comprehensive Plan does not foresee problems. However,
it would be in the city's interests to initiate a detailed
study by Bonestro to assure the compatibility of these
figures. We may find that some districts cannot handle
the demands of this density level(s).
To maintain the separation between PUD and conventional
development, we suggest a reduction in the current minimums
18,500 and 15,000 and 15,000 respectively - to 15,000 and
13,500 and 12,000. These figures are, perhaps, more practical
within the current environment yet provide an incentive to
utilize the PUD concept, particularly if bonus point
calculations are retained in whatever form.
LOT SIZE
18,500
15,000
13,500
13,000
12,500
12,000
11,500
11,000
10,500
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
EXHIBIT III
DENSITY CALCULATIONS
GROSS AREA
43,560 SQ. FT.
2.4
2.9
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.1
4.4
4.8
5.4
6.2
7.3
NET STREETS,
ROW, ETC.
37,026 SQ. FT.
858)
2.0
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.7
4.1
4.6
5.3
6.2
Page 10
NET STREETS
PARK DED.
32,670 SQ. FT.
75 %)
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.6
4.1
4.7
5.4
Page 11
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, DEPTH
Exhibit IV illustrates various lot depth and width
combinations for different lot areas. From a practical
standpoint we established minimum /maximum lot depths of
100 and 200 ft. respectively.
Current ordinance requires minimum lot width of 110, 90,
and 50 ft. for single - family dwellings in the R -lA,
R -1B, and R -2, and R -3 and R -4 districts respectively.
On the basis of the 13,500 and 12,000 and 11,000
recommendations for lot area, we suggest:
90 ft. R -lA
75 ft. R -1B, R -2
50 ft. R -3, R -4 (no change)
Requirements for two - family dwellings could be reduced to
90 ft. in the R -18 and R -2 districts and 75 ft. in the
R -3 and R -4 districts, though we have not suggested revisions
to lot area in this unit category.
Cul -de -sac lots within the R -lA and R -1B districts could
maintain a 50' front yard at street right -of -way as long as
adequate side yard setbacks are established.
EXHIBIT IV
LOT DEPTHS
FRONTAGE 110 100 90
LOT AREA
18,500 168 185 206
15,000 136 150 167
13,500 123 135 150
12,500 114 125 139
12,000 109 120 133
11,500 105 115 128
11,000 100 110 122
10,500 105 117
10,000 100 111
91000 100
8,000
7,000
6,000
Page 12
80 1 75 1 70
188
169
156
150
144
138
131
125
113
100
200
180
167
160
153
147
140
133
120
107
Minimum depth at 100 feet; maximum depth at 200 feet.
193
179
171
164
157
150
143
129
114
100
Page 13
MINIMUM SIDE YARD
Current ordinance requires 15 ft. and 10 ft. for each side
of a single - family dwelling in R -1A and R -1B districts,
respectively, and 20 ft. total in the other districts.
Though our initial thoughts were to maintain the current
standards, reduction to a 10/15 or 10 /10 combination in
the R -lA and R -1B districts could be substantiated without
detriment to spacial concerns.
Upon field examination, we do not find the Development
Councils request for 5/10 setbacks to be acceptable beyond
cul -de -sac application.
Exhibit V provides scenarios for two different homes with
90 ft., 80 ft., or 75 ft. lot widths.
r.
EXHIBIT V
SIMARD SETBACK CALCULATIONS
SIDEYARD
SETBACK AT:
90 FT. WIDTH
15/15 both sides
10/15 short at garage
10 /10 short at garage
5/10 short at garage
80 FT. WIDTH
55' HOME
5' remaining
10' remaining
15' remaining
20' remaining
Page 14
65' HOME
short 5'
even
5' remaining
10' remaining
15/15 short 5' short 15'
10/15 even short 10'
10 /10 5' remaining short 5'
5/10 10' remaining even
75 FT. WIDTH
15/15 short 10' short 20'
10/15 short 5' short 15'
10 /10 even short 10'
5/10 5' remaining short 5'
Basis square /rectangular lot.
55' equivalence - split entry home with two -car garage.
65' equivalence - two -story home with family -room & two -car garage.
Page 15
SUMMARY
Bonus Point Calculations. This issue is a matter of
interpretation and policy by the City Council, Planning
Commission, and City Staff as to whether the "desired
attributes" should be treated as incentives or as
mandatory elements in development. If they are to be
retained, in whatever format, and the suggested minimum
lot dimensions are accepted, the density tables must be
re- evaluated for compatibility and the minimum coverage
area (40 acres) should be evaluated given the current
environment.
Lot Dimensions. Within the conventional platting concept
we strongly suggest a reduction to 15,000 sq.ft., 13,500
sq.ft. and 12,000 sq.ft. in the R -lA, R -1B, and R -2
districts respectively. All other minimum lot sizes in
other districts can remain current.
Under the RPUD concept we strongly suggest that adjustments
be made within the terminology of the former SUP Ordinance
as illustrated in Exhibit VI. This terminology serves
a twofold purpose by restricting certain dimensions
specifically, yet allowing overall lot coverage flexibility
for the developer.
Density. The end - result of these components, density within
theLAS districts should be insignificantly affected by
these suggested changes. Density, however, should be
evaluated in terms of gross area versus net street right -of-
way, in a true sense. The affect of the suggested changes
must also be evaluated in terms of sewer /water capacities,
existing and planned.
Page 16
EXHIBIT VI
RECOMMENDED STANDARDS R -lA
Development within the R -lA District shall maintain a
minimum: -
1. Area of 11,000 sq.ft.; while the total
project area devoted strictly to residential
lots (exclusive of open space and street
right -of -way) divided by the number of lots
shall equal or exceed 13,500 sq.ft.
2. A front yard not less than 90 ft. (50 ft.
for cul -de -sac lots).
3. A lot depth of not less than 120 ft.
4. A side year of not less than 10 ft.
RECOMMENDED STANDARDS R -1B
Development within the R -1B District shall maintain a
minimum:
1. Area of 9,000 sq.ft.; while the total
project area devoted strictly to residential
lots (exclusive of open space and street
right -of -way) divided by the number of lots
shall equal or exceed 12,000 sq. ft.
2. A front yard of not less than 75 ft. (50'
for cul -de -sac lots).
3. A lot depth of not less than 120 ft.
4. A side yard of not less than 10 ft.
Page 17
The revisions suggested by this report are designed to help
meet three critical issues:
current metro standards;
current housing economics;
future housing availability/
economics.
None of the items discussed will solve our current problems
in and of themselves; nor have we approached them as such.
But the suggestions we've made are logical and, most
importantly, realistic within the current environment -
a step in the right direction.
N
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION UNIT PROJECTS 4
I. Purposes:
The purpose of this Subdivision is to make provision for residential sub-
division unit projects within the R -I RESIDENCE DISTRICT for larger tracts
of land under single or unified ownership. Such Residential Subdivision
Unit Projects to allow modification of individual lot area and width re-
quirements and to secure park recreational lands, and open space while main-
taining area requirements for a Subdivision Unit Project as a whole.
Such local open space areas to offer recreational opportunities close to
home, to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation
of natural green spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and
monotony, to conserve local spots of natural beauty, and to provide for
more unified neighborhood subdivision design. Residential Subdivision Unit
Projects shall be developed in accordance with an overall design and an in-
tegrated development plan and otherwise in accordance with the Village Sub-
division Regulations. Such Project to be consistent with the intent and
purpose of this Ordinance and not to adversely affect the property adjacent
to the land area included in the Project.
2. Regulations:
a. The minimum area of land to be included in a Residential Subdivision Unit
Project shall be at least twenty (20) acres except where a proposed Sub-
division Project adjoins an existing Subdivision Unit Project for exist-
ing park or is otherwise compatible with the Comprehensive Plan for the
community.
b. The Residential Subdivision Unit Project shall be served by public or
community water and sewer systems.
c. All utilities services to lots in a Residential Subdivision Unit Project,
including telephone and electric service, shall be placed underground.
d. With the exception of individual lot area and frontage requirements, the
Residential Subdivision Unit Project shall conform to-the requirements
of the Village Subdivision Regulations.
e. The Residential Subdivision Unit Project shall contain an adequate amount
of land for park or local permanent open space use, exclusive of sump
and drainage areas, which shall not be less than ten (10) percent of the
4
MIA Zortmj Orativ %a -cf. ii8.8. This se &tdaol
WO-S A&%a +ed wket, f kt Zrh,.tS QrJ@#L&#tct
WALs RUIStj 10% 19'18. uv},1 +Ver\, S UP'S
a.= C RP1AVS ordirmAce
Page 2
gross area of the property and which shall be land that can be util-
ized for park and playground purposes without extensive fillfng opera-
tions, and such land shall conform, as near as is practical, to park
areas proposed by the adopted Village Comprehensive Plan. Low or
swamp lands may be a part of such open space when the Planning Commis-
sion finds that such lands: arc needed for drainage purposes, are suitable
for park development, and conform to the Comprehensive Plan, and will
enhance the neighborhood through the preservation of natural areas. Such
open space shall be permanent and may not be replatted in the future.
The Planning Commission may in the case of such plats showing land to be
used for park, recreation, school open space, or other municipal use,
set forth conditions of the ownership, maintenance, and use of such
lands as it deems necessary to assure preservation of such lands for
their intended purpose. Park, recreation, school or open space lands at
the option of the Village may be deeded to the Village, retained by the
developer or deeded to an association of home owners. When such lands
are retained in other than Public ownership, plans for improvement and
maintenance of these tracts must be approved by the Village Park Board
and suitable deed restrictions must be approved by the Planning Commis-
sion to assure both continuing use of the tracts for such purposes as
well as proper use and maintenance of the same.
f. The Residential Subdivision Unit Project shall have a minimum individual
lot size of:
1) A front yard of not less than thirty -five (35) feet.
2) A side yard of not less than ten (10) feet.
3) A rear yard of not less than twenty (20) percent of the depth of the
lot.
4) A width of not less than seventy -five (75) feet at the building set-
back line.
5) An average depth of not less than one hundred and twenty (120) feet.
6) A area of not less than eleven thousand (11,000) square feet.
2.-
Page 3
g. The total area in square feet in the Subdivision devoted to residential
lots, and a percentage of the land area conveyed or dedicated for parks
and /or trails when it is found by the Village Council after receiving
a report from the Village Manager to be necessary for the completion
of a portion of the Comprehensive Guide Plan for Parks and Trails (ex-
clusive of street rights -of -way, sump and drainage areas other than as
provided in Paragraph 2 (e) of this Subdivision) divided by the total
number of residential lots shall equal or exceed eighteen thousand five
hundred (18,500) square feet. The total area in square feet devoted ex-
clusively to residential lots (exclusive of open space, street rights -
of -way, sump and drainage areas) divided by the total number of resi-
dential lots shall equal or exceed thirteen thousand five hundred (13,500)
square feet. (Ord. 72 -18 Sept. 25, 1972)
3. Administrative Procedure:
a. The proponents of a Residential Subdivision Unit Project shall submit a
preliminary subdivision plat along with the application for a Conditional
Use Permit to, and secure the approval of the Village Planning Commission
and Village Council. Such preliminary plat shall conform to the pro-
visions of this Ordinance and the Village Subdivision Regulations. In
addition, such proposed preliminary plat shall clearly indicate the
land areas to be dedicated for park and recreation purposes and the
proposed sewer and water systems.
b. If the Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat are approved, the
preliminary plat is attached to and is a part of the Conditional Use
Permit. Any substantial change to the preliminary plat will require
a resubmission to and approval by the Planning Commission and Village
Council.
c. If the Conditional Use Permit is approved, the final plat shall be
submitted to the Village in accordance with the Village Subdivision
Regulations. Designated park and recreation land shall be dedicated
to the Village as a part of the final plat.
300.
11LAK5Ci4 '
REPORTS,,
1 01-
Page 215
Planning Commission Minutes —
July 29. 1981
Chairwoman Vasiliou introduced the next item, the report by Commissioners
Larson and Barron concerning Zoning Ordinance Lot Size Standards and
RPUD requirements.
Commissioner Larson reviewed in detail the July 29, 1981 Memorandum
attached).
He stated that it is important to consider current economic and housing
constraints throughout the country and within Plymouth to properly
ascertain grounds for possible revisions of the regulations.
Chairwoman Vasiliou recognized former Mayor Howard Hunt and extensive
discussion ensued regarding the RPUD expected attributes as listed
in Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Commission also reviewed the Memorandum and the Zoning Ordinance
with respect to RPUD Bonus Point Criteria. Former Mayor Hunt recalled
that minimum 40 acre lot size for PUD's was based upon the consideration
that two units per acre, 80 units, was considered the proper minimum
for anticipated homeowner associations which would be responsible for
the maintenance of common areas. He stated that perspective has
changed over the years in that single family detached subdivisions
typically do not have formal homeowner associations responsible for
common area maintenance because there is not often private, common
area provided.
Commissioner Larson then outlined findings and recommendations regarding
adjustments to the conventional development Ordinance requirements and
specifically reduction in residential lot size requirements. It was
suggested that perhaps some element of the former Subdivision Unit
Project Ordinance provisions could be considered providing for an over-
all average requirement for lot area in a given development to assure
densities consistent with the Land Use Guide Plan. Staff recalled
that at the previous meeting, Councilman Threinen had advised that
whatever lot area reductions were considered, they should be evaluated
against the density provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. In that
regard, the analysis of the demand /capacity ratios for the sewer
system was essential if new net densities were to be considered.
Staff noted that in the Comprehensive Plan's Sanitary Sewer Section,
the City's consulting engineer had tested the sewer system capacity
using the established densities for each of the Residential Guide
Plan Categories (LA -1, two units per acre; LA -2, four units per acre;
LA -3, 7 units per acre; and LA -4, 15 units per acre).
215-
Page 216
Planning Commission Minutes
July 29, 1981
Staff recommended that if in the LA -1 category higher net densities were
proposed, the consulting engineer should be directed to reanalyze the
system since the test based upon two units per acre showed some areas
of the City as near capacity. Staff also noted that the analysis in
the Comprehensive Plan was based upon gross developable acreage, and
was not based upon density which was net of streets and rights -of -way.
Following further discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission
that there are grounds for revising and reducing the Zoning Ordinance
Standard for minimum lot size and areas in the residential districts;
that a low end possibility would be 8000 sq. ft. lots with 70 foot
widths, with a more likely range of 11,000 to 13,500 sq. ft. lots
with 70 to 80 foot widths.
It was suggested that staff analyze the sewer demands as capacity
ratio in terms of a net density range of 2.7 - 3 units per acre.
Staff stated that the consulting engineer would be contacted as
to the time needed to perform such an analysis.
Chairwoman Vasiliou stated that it was essential the Commission develop
recommendations for presentation to the City Council as soon as
possible, and requested that staff indicate to the City Manager that
this matter should be scheduled for a City Council agenda in early
September. There was discussion as to the desirability of having
the consulting engineer's analysis before making a recommendation
to the City Council; staff indicated that it was not known at this
time whether the analysis could be accomplished in time for an early
September presentation since the original analysis took a substantial
period.
There being no further business before the Commission the meeting adjourned
at 11:30 P.M.
216-
M
Page 251
Planning Commission Minutes
August 26, 1981
Staff requested that Comm' en ing the
Associati po Itan Municipalities Housing Conference on
em er 16th should so inform the Department Secretary.
Chairwoman Vasiliou then asked Commissioner Larson to present his
final findings with respect to possible Zoning Ordinance amendments
relative to conventional and planned unit development standards.
Commissioner Larson distributed copies of the final report (attached)
and reviewed the background for his recommendation contained in
proposal number 3. He stated that the proposed lot size adjustments
should be tested against the City's Utility Plan for final adoption.
Extensive discussion ensued regarding recommendations for amendment
to conventional standards. There was also discussion regarding
changes to the planned unit development section of the Ordinance
and the provision for bonus density points.
Commissioner Barron suggested that the Commission recommend at this
time changes to the conventional standards but perhaps retain a
revised" bonus point system, per Commissioner Larson's "optional"
bonus point recommendations. Commissioner Steigerwald expressed
concern that realistic standards be retained for planned unit
developments.
Commissioner Barron observed that the present minimum lot area,
18,500 square feet, provided a gross density of 2.4 units per acre;
he stated this related to the chart in the report which indicated
15,528 square feet would be a net density of 2.4 units per acre.
He noted that the recommended average lot area of 13,500 square
feet which yields a net density of 2.7 units per acre was too
high for an average. Commissioner Wire agreed.
Following further discussion, Chairwoman Vasiliou stated that
Commissioner Larson's report would be forwarded to the City
Council and that she would recommend that all the Commissioners
be present when the item is considered by the Council.
r business, the Commission reviewed the A
staff rep arding administrative review and
outside accessory ®rage facilities.
gust 21, 1981
approval of
MOTION by Commissioner Barron, sec® Commissioner Steigerwald,
to recommend approval of a policy resolution ding administrative
review and approval of outside accessory fuel stora Eilities
consistent with the criteria listed in the August 21, 19 f
report.
251-
Special Council Meeting
October 26, 1981
Page 320
Larry Larson, representing the Planning - -,ion oresented
a report on Zoning Ordinance standards for aeveiopwc,i6 in the
community. He defined the areas the subcommittee discussed,
the current standards the City uses to zone, and the possibility
of revising current standards. He stated the Council must consider
what type of housing the City wants to maintain for the future.
Discussion followed on the recommendations dealing with the
proposed reduced square footage in lot size.
PLANNING COMMISSION R
RESIDENTIAL ZONING
STANDARDS
Item 6 -D -1
Councilmember Threinen stated the suggestions in the report are excellent
and suggested a study session to discuss the matter further.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Hoyt, seconded by Councilmember
Threinen, to accept the residential zoning project report
as prepared by the Planning Commission subcommittee and review
it at an upcoming joint study session.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Neils, seconded by Councilmember
Hoyt, to amend the motion to refer this matter to the Planning
Commission in advance to that study session with the Planning
Commission to address the subject of numerical criteria for open
space, the matter of corner lot dimensions and double frontage lots.
Maria Vasiliou, Chairman of the Planning Commission, stated that
the maximum capacity of the City's sewer system must be known
before any numerical limits should be set and asked if the City
would consider a study by an engineering consultant to determine
this.
Councilmember Neils answered that this evaluation could be done at
Council direction after the Commission's recommendations are made
and reviewed.
Motion to amend carried on a Roll Call vote, three ayes.
Councilmember Threinen and Mayor Davenport voted no.
Motion as amended carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Neils, seconded by Councilmember
Threinen, that staff contact the Development Council and ask if
they can conduct a general study for the Council to identify what
the cost of workman's compensation is in a house built today.
Councilmember Threinen asked that such a study include a breakdown
of all costs and e: Wises involved with home construction and marketing.
Councimember Neils ...Led the developers' view should also be requested
as to how much might be saved on the price of a house if the builder had
an opportunity for "one stop" permits satisfying the requirements of all
other jurisdictions.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Threinen, seconded by Mayor
Davenport, to amend the motion to add that a breakdown on a percentage
basis of all costs of the construction and sale of a home be prepared,
and consideration he made for the possibility of one stop permits.
Motion to amend c: ?d, five ayes.
Motion as amended ca,ried, five ayes
320-
5pecial Council
October 26, 1981
Page 321
et i ng
1.
Paul Steigerwald, Planning Commission member, presented the TR H DIS
subcommittee's report on a trash disposal facilities study STANDARD ; begun about one year ago. They are recommending that at the Item 6-D'- Planning Commission level specific site locations be designatedfortrashdisposal. They would suggest further that a notice be
sent to companies which are not in compliance with the ordinance. In addition to the zoning ordinance amendments, some new wordingtothepublichealthcodewaspresented.
Councilmember Threinen asked about maintenance and whether the
ordinance would mandate any.
Mr. Steigerwald answered that enforcement by the City is vital.
He added that the type of disposal facility will be dealt with bythezoningordinanceandtheupkeepofthatdisposalfacilitywillbedealtwithbythepublichealthordinance.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Hoyt, seconded by CouncilmemberNeils, to receive the report regarding trash disposal facilities
and place it on file for further study.
Motion carried, five ayes.
Anr1y natirn_ ropcesenting the M;....eset_ Waste euntrv} it)rrj--MCTR- OPOLITAstatedthattheWasteManagementBoardfeelsastrongcommitmentMANAGEMENTBntopublicinvolvementintheselectionofpossiblewastePRESENTAT
processing sites in the metropolitan area. They want the City Item 6-.E-, to be informed on what they are doing and may be proposing inthefuture. They are considering a site within Plymouth and
will be holdingg public hearings on November 12 and 13 at the - City Center. /
He stated hazardous waste disposal must be managed within the
state and the identification of areas for processing faciilities is
a critical part of the Board's function. He defin 0 izardous
waste, methods of handling different types of we, and lainedthatthereasonthePlymouthsitewasputontlistc- Bible
sites was that it was volunteered by the A to Corn. ;:itch currentlyoperatesabuildingblockplantthere. a pointed out some of thebenefitstotheCityofhavingafacitysuchasthisincludingemploymentopportunitiesandthectthatthistypeoffacilitywouldattractcertainothertsofbusiness. The proposed facilitywouldservethesevencounareaandpossiblybeyond.
Councilmember Threine asked if the City could look to sources otherthanthetaxpayersPlymouthforassistanceinhavingthefacility'saccesstoI494amelRoadimproved. Mr. Datko answered that the
sXis
nvolved but the Waste Management Board would not be.
Cils asked about the amount of review a volunteered
ss gets as opposed to others. Mr. Datko answered
toard's intention to continue to study the proposed
st all proposed sites alike.
321-