The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Commission Packet 06-12-19915-d- CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: May 20, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 12, 1991 FILE NO.: 91024 PETITIONER: Chuck Youngquist Jr. for R.L. Johnson Investment Company REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COUNSELING CLINIC LOCATED WITHIN AN EXISTING 8,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING LOCATION: 1695 Hwy. 169 GUIDE PLAN CLASS: IP (Planned Industrial) ZONING: I -1 (Planned Industrial District) BACKGROUND: On October 3 1983, City Council, by Resolution 83 -550, approved a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for an existing office building at this location, including setback variances for both the building and parking. Notice of this proposal has been published in the official City newspaper and notices have been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: 1. The Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow use of this structure for group counseling purposes. Such use transcends the "office" use permitted in the I -1 zoned parcel by the 1983 Conditional Use Permit. This is a service use, requiring a Conditional Use Permit which can be issued based on a finding that the use is "essential to the operation of this district ... and is primarily for the use of persons employed in the district..." (Plymouth Zoning Ordinance Section 8, Subdivision D, Paragraph 2b. attached.) 2. This application results from a notice to the property owner on March 8, 1991 citing use of the structure is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and existing Conditional Use Permit. No expansion of the building is proposed. The applicant has provided a letter with a description of the use proposed. (Letter Attached.) 3. The use will not create a need for a variance in the number of parking spaces provided on the site. The site contains 43 parking spaces, and 40 spaces are required by the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider a Conditional Use Permit in terms of the six criteria found in Section 9, Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a. We have attached a copy of the referenced citation together with the petitioner's response. In addition, a finding see next page) Page Two File 91024 5/20/91 is required that the proposed use meets the "use by persons employed in the district" standard of the I -1 (Planned Industrial) Zoning Classification. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: 1. The request meets the Conditional Use Permit criteria. 2. From the use description and evidence we have been provided we find no clear basis that this use primarily serves persons in the I -1 district or is essential to the operation of this district. 3. The City found that the unique situation at this property with the freestanding office building warranted a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed permit involves a use one could expect to find in an office building in a Business District, and a use that is not incompatible with the industrial district. Care is needed to evaluate such proposals since it is a primary use tenancy), and, in this case, is not a matter of secondary or incidental use. A variance is not legally appropriate per state law (to allow a use not otherwise allowed in a district), but there does seem to be merit in recognizing the uniqueness of this situation. The Commission could make a finding that the use here is an appropriate one for this building whose conditional use status was established after it was built and initially occupied in conjunction with the original use of the entire property, i.e., the large steel fabrication facility to the south and this "headquarters" building. We do not find an undesirable precedent in this case, if the Commission agrees to the finding of "general compatibility," of this use at this location. RECOMMENDATION: I have attached a resolution denying a Conditional Use Permit for a Counseling Clinic in the I -1 District based on noncompliance with the Zoning Ordinance Condition about service uses in the I -1 district; and, for Planning Commission consideration, a resolution of approval was drafted citing a finding outlined above. I / (e, n• Submitted by: L -,/ (& I , QJ , - /L C 2(- "X) Charles E. Di erud, Community Deve ment Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution Denying Conditional Use Permit 2. Draft Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit 3. Conditional Use Permit Criteria and Excerpt from Section 8 4. Petitioner's Narrative 5. Resolution 83 -550 6. Location Map. 7. Existing Landscape Plan DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHUCK YOUNGQUIST JR. FOR R.L. JOHNSON INVESTMENT COMPANY TO OPERATE A COUNSELING CLINIC IN THE I -1 ZONING DISTRICT 91024) WHEREAS, Chuck Youngquist Jr. for R.L. Johnson Investment Co. has requested a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Counseling Clinic in the I -1 (Planned Industrial) Zoning District at 1695 Highway 169; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public Hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request by Chuck Youngquist Jr. for R.L. Johnson Investment Co. for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Counseling Clinic in the I -1 (Planned Industrial) Zoning District for property located at 1695 Highway 169, for the following reasons: 1. No documented evidence has been presented establishing the use as essential for operation of the district or as primarily serving persons employed in the district as required by Section 8, Subdivision D, Paragraph 2b. of the Zoning Ordinance. res /pc /91024.den:dh) APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHUCK YOUNGQUIST JR. FOR R.L. JOHNSON INVESTMENT COMPANY TO OPERATE A COUNSELING CLINIC IN THE I -1 ZONING DISTRICT 91024) WHEREAS, Chuck Youngquist Jr. for R.L. Johnson Investment Co. has requested a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Counseling Clinic in the I -1 (Planned Industrial) Zoning District for property located at 1695 Highway 169; and, WHEREAS, the City Council under Resolution 83 -550 approved the use of the building as a freestanding office building consistent with the Zoning Ordinance; 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 Chuck Youngquist Jr. for R.L. Johnson Investment Co. for a Conditional Use Permit to operate the Earnie Larsen Life Management Center Counseling Clinic in the I -1 (Planned Industrial) Zoning District in 8,000 square feet of the freestanding office building at 1695 Highway 169, based upon the following findings and 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. All 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. The approved Permit is for the Earnie Larsen Life Management Center Counseling Clinic only, in 8,000 square feet of the existing building. 9. The use proposed is found to be appropriate to this unique circumstance of a freestanding office building granted office use in the I -1 Zoning District after the building was constructed and initially occupied in conjunction with an I -1 use. res /pc /91024:lr) iRM SEMGN 9, SE DIVISION A r v OLSMW46 ZOILeffe '.401 kd 2. Procedure. 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 rexAtatendation to the City Council, which shall make the final detenm nation 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 Caprehensive Plan. 2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. 3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the .immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. 4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. 6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. forms:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Section 8, Subdivision D SUBDIVISION D - ALLOWABLE USES: INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Within an I -1 PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, no building or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses, providing they comply with the performance standards set forth in Subdivision G of this Section. 1. Pop PERMITTED USES a. Any manufacturing, production, processing, cleaning, storage, servicing, repair or testing of materials, goods or products that is wholly contained within a building and which meets and maintains allenvironmentalstandardsestablishedbythe_State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (Amend. 89 -36) b. Municipal and other public agency administrative and service buildings, including public works maintenance facilities, post offices, fire stations, and the like which are compatible with other allowed uses is the district. (Ord. 89 -36) c. Essential services. (Ord. 89 -36) 2. CONDITIONAL USES a. Any permitted or accessory industrial use not conducted within a building including, but not limited to, outside storage as defined by this ordinance. (Amended Ord. 91 -14) own b. Retail and service establishments essential to the operation of thisdistrictandprovidinggoodsandserviceswhichareprimarilyforthe use of persons employed in the district; any such commercial use allowed under this Section shall be subject to all requirements of this Ordinance and the City Code applicable to such commercial use. Amended Ord. No. 82 -08) c. Free standing office buildings for corporate, administrative, executive, professional, research, sales representatives offices, or similar organization, and generally compatible with the industrial district; any such commercial use allowed under this Section shall besubjecttoallrequirementsofthisOrdinanceandtheCityCode applicable to such commercial use. (Amended Ord. No. 82 -08 and 86 -26) d. Industrial Buildings including single tenant /occupant and multi - tenant /occupant buildings, allowed by this Section, which contain office uses which occupy more than 50% of the gross floor area of the building and are found to be generally compatible with the Industrial District. Any such commercial use allowed under this Section shall be subject to all requirements of this Ordinance and the City Code applicable to such commercial use. (Amended Ord. No. 86 -26) e. Residential structures and related residential uses necessary for security and safety reasons in relation to a principal use. f. Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) as regulated in Section 9. NOW F 7. Brief Description of Request Request to grant conditional use permit to allow a counseling service in the I -1 industrial district for Earnie Larsen Life Management Center. 1) The conditional use does not comply with the comprehensive plan, but its effect upon the plan would be similar to use as office as already granted by a previous conditional use permit. 2) The counseling clinic provides individual counseling and counseling for group sessions of up to ten people. The counseling deals with disfunctional problems at a Stage II level. That is the problem has already been identified and treated elsewhere, i.e. marital problems, alcholism, stress, etc. The intent is to discover the basis for the cause of the problem so that growth and change can occur.in the individual. This positive approach to problem solving will promote and enhance the general public welfare. The counseling clinic could provide services to the community, its surround- ing residences and employees in the 1 -1 district. 3) The use would provide for quiet enjoyment in the vicinity for the purposes already permitted. 4) The building as a free - standing office building provides a buffer between the indistrial buildings to the south and the residential neighborhood to the north. In addition it serves to screen the public beach from the state highway. It provides this buffering effect yet does not impeed the various uses as noted above. 5) In 1985 site improvements were made. Trees, shrubs and green areas were planted, curb and gutter and storm sewer was installed. Definition of the parking areas and ingress and egress was established. Parking for 43 cars is provided which is in excess of the amounts required for both offices and clinics as set forth in Section 10, Subdivision B3.d. & g., therefore all parking would be on -site. 6) The conditional use as a counseling clinic is non - conforming with the zoning ordinance. It will, however, be non - threatening and comply with codes, standards and safety issues. EARNIE LARSENI 0,o, (pW p Life Management Center 1695 Hwy. 169 South • Plymouth, MN 55441 DEC 27 1990 612) 544 -8424 r if COMMUNITY` DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Dec. 26, 1990 City of Plymouth Attn: Myra Wickiacz Development Services Technician 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, Ki 55447 Dear Ms. Wicklacz, The following is in response to your letter of December 21,1990 regarding the use of the property at 1695 Highway #169 North. The Earnie Larsen Life Management Center is involved in providing individual counseling and a sixteen week STAGE II program. The STAGE II program is led by a trained counselor and attended by a maximum of ten clients. Each group session lasts two hours per week over the sixteen week period. The vast majority of these group sessions occur in the early evening hours. In addition to the counseling staff of five, we also have a small administrative staff which includes markPti.ng, speretar_ial, receptionist, etc. If you have any questions on these matters please feel free to call me. Siriserely, Gene Hoe Scher, President 0 CITY OF PLYMOUTH Pursuant to due call and notice therrsf, a regular meeting of the City Councl the City of Plyiouth, Minnesota, was held on t— he —rd dayy of October . 1983 The following members were presents Mayor Oavenpor ouncilmemb s, Schneider and Threinen The following memipers were a sen : none ar4 afs Councilmember Neils introduced the following Resolution and moved It adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 83 -550 APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN FOR EXISTING OFFICE BULDING FOR BRUCE DIGERNESS FOR ED KAPLAN FOR DICO ENTERPRISES, INC. (83014) WHEREAS, Bruce Digerness, for Ed Kaplan for Dico Enterprises, Inc., has requested approval of a Site Plan and Final Registered 1-and Survey for an office building in the I -1 District on land located west of County Road 18, south of 17th Avenue North, and north of 13th Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the City Council approved a Preliminary Registered Land Surrey and Conditional Use Permit for Dico Enterprises throuqh Resolution No. 83 -346; and, WHEREAS, the City Council approved a Lot Consolidation, Variance, and Parkinq Plait through Resolutions 82 -117, 82 -118, and 82 -119 for Dico Enterprises, Inc.; arid, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request 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 of nruce Digerness, for Ed Kaplan, for Dico Enterprises, Inc. for Conditional Use Site Plan for an office building In the I -1 District on land located west of County Road 18, south of 17th Avenue North, and north of 13th Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with City Engineer's Memorandum. 2. The applicable conditions of Resolutions 82 -118 and 82 -119 shall he Implemented with approval and filing of the Registered Land Survey. 3. If for whatever reason evidence that the imminent sale of Tract C or 0 Is not submitted prior to filing the RLS or January 1, 1984, whichever comes first, the RLS shall be revised combining the land In proposed Tracts C and D into one tract; applicable conditions of Resolutions 82 -118 and 82 -119 shall be implemented with the approval and filinq of the Registered Land Survey. Page two Resolution No. 83- 550 4. If the RLS is not filed by January 1, 1984, the City shall file Resolution No. 82 -117, consolidating existing Tracts A and B of RLS 1376 into one parcel; and, per the intent of Condition Nor 6, Resolution No. 82 -119, a Resolution consolidating existing Tract A, RLS No. 942 and Tract A, RLS No. 1376 shall be filed. 5. Submission of required Site Performance Aareement and financial guarantee for completion of site Improvements. 6. Any additional slgnage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance 7. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per Ordinance provisions. 8. All waste and waste containers shall he stored within the approved structure and no outside storage is permitted. 9. An 8 112 x 11 Inch "As- Built" Fire Protection Plan shall he submitted prior to the release or reduction of any site Improvement bonds per City Policy. 10. Approved Variances include: a) Building front yard setback (64 ft. vs. 75 ft.); b) Building side yard setback (20 ft. vs. 25 ft.); c) Parking front yard setback (26 ft., )3 ft., 37 ft. vs 50 ft.); arid, d) Parking rear yard setback (10 ft. vs. 20 ft.). 11. Required easement agreement for shared sanitary sewer for Tracts R and C, as approved by the City Attorney, shall be fl led and recorded at Firnepin County concurrently with the Final Pealstered Land Survey. The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Counci lmember Moen , and upon vote being taken therep: i ie following n favor thereof: Mayor 'Davenport, Councilmen er Moen, Schneider and Threinen The following votid against or abstained: none Whereupon the Resolution was declared dulypasse d and adopted. dsk8 iff OIN i [*,dj ]4 7 A f A I mill - i6 L mossim moo a 1 •5. = LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANT LIST Key Common Name Botanical Name ASH Marshalls Ash GSP Colorado Green Spruce MAP Amur Maple RTD Redtwig Dogwood AWS Anthony Waterer Spirea fraxinus Penn. Lanc. "Marshall" Picea Pungens Acer Ginnala Cornus Stolonifera Baileyi Spiraea x Bumalda "Anthony Waterer" Oty. Size 4 2V BB 6 6' 88 5 6' pot 30 2' pot 12 18" pot I I j n a•AhN Ow t,, 1 ii j i, 15•fITD ,, V 1.0 O o _-r1 i 45P iiiA i OfJ(lh TPA e• I 2,0.0 1PkhP T EU`$ 7 C Ab Ixw I cFp,6 Cyj; t iL•AW'7 y b-NTD w a C:^JNTY H1Grfve Y LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANT LIST Key Common Name Botanical Name ASH Marshalls Ash GSP Colorado Green Spruce MAP Amur Maple RTD Redtwig Dogwood AWS Anthony Waterer Spirea fraxinus Penn. Lanc. "Marshall" Picea Pungens Acer Ginnala Cornus Stolonifera Baileyi Spiraea x Bumalda "Anthony Waterer" Oty. Size 4 2V BB 6 6' 88 5 6' pot 30 2' pot 12 18" pot I I I 5-D. CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: May 24, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 12, 1991 FILE NO.: 91026 PETITIONER: Kirk Sorensen for Fireside Corners REQUEST: SITE PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW RETAIL SALES IN THE I -1 ZONING DISTRICT LOCATION: Northeast corner of 10th Avenue North and Highway 169 GUIDE PLAN CLASS: IP (Planned Industrial) ZONING: I -1 (Planned Industrial District) BACKGROUND: On June 16, 1975, the City Council, by Resolution 75 -294, approved a Site Plan for the Thompson Lumber Company to construct a 3,038 square foot building and to relocate a 3,200 square foot existing structure on the site. On October 6, 1980, the City Council, by Resolution 80 -751 approved a Site Plan Amendment for the Thompson Lumber Company to add an approximate 3,000 square foot addition onto an existing building. Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City Newspaper, and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified. PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: 1. Proposed is the use of the existing (and now vacant) Thompson Lumber facility for a wholesale fireplace distribution outlet. The use of the structure for the wholesale distribution of fireplace equipment is a permitted use in the I -1 (Planned Industrial District) however, the applicant proposes a secondary use of the structure involving the sale of fireplace equipment at retail on an occasional basis. 2. No expansion of the facility is proposed nor is the previous outdoor storage conducted by the Thompson Lumber tenant proposed to continue. No external changes to the site are proposed at this time. The Site Plan submitted in support of the Conditional Use Permit shows parking and circulation as existing and previously used by Thompson Lumber Co. Off street parking now provided (28 designated spaces) complies with Zoning Ordinance standards for the I -1 (Planned Industrial) district, but is partially located in the front (street) setback of 50 feet. see next page) Page Two File 91026 6/3/91 3. The initial application included a Conditional Use Permit for outside storage in the open southwest corner of the site, and the Site Plan submitted references this proposal. By his letter of May 24, 1991 the petitioner has totally withdrawn the request for a Conditional Use Permit for outside storage, but no revised Site Plan has been submitted. 4. The Plymouth Zoning Ordinance provides that "retail establishments essential to the operation of this district and providing goods and services which are primarily for the use of persons employed in the district... " may be allowed by Conditional Use Permit (Section S, Subdivision D., Paragraph 2b, copy attached). The key issue in determining whether a Conditional Use Permit should be approved has been the provision of the goods and services persons employed in the district the I -1 district). The applicant, in his written narrative, addresses the issue of sales to persons employed in the I -1 district. It should be noted that while the applicant in the narrative accompanying his May 24, 1991 letter references "incidental" and "secondary" use of the building for retail sales he provides no specific quantitative level of retail activity proposed. 5. The Planning Commission is directed by the Zoning Ordinance to review all applications for Conditional Use Permit as to conformance with six specific standards found in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 9, Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a, (copy attached). The applicant, in his narrative of May 24, 1991, has addressed the proposed Conditional Use Permit within the context of the six Conditional Use Permit standards found in Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: I. Staff finds the proposed use can meet the six standards of Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance within the concept of incidental retail sales, clearly secondary to the primary use of wholesale distribution. That is consistent with the intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the I -1 Industrial District. 2. We have separately recommended an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would provide in the I -1 district the secondary and incidental use language now found in the Business Districts - but subject to a Conditional Use Permit. We find, however, the need to both continuously monitor (on an annual basis) the retail activity approved; and, to provide conditions of approval that physically constrain the growth of such retailing beyond the secondary /incidental nature intended by the Zoning Ordinance. 3. We recommend that there be limits as to advertising and signage as well as an annual review to determine scope of the retail activity. We recommend a maximum retail sales volume not more than 5 percent of total sales volume at the site. The owner of the parcel should annually certify that the degree of retail activity is no greater than at the time of the previous Conditional Use Permit renewal date. see next page) Page Three File 91026 6/3/91 4. The applicant accurately observes in his narrative submission that it is reasonable to assume that employees of the I -1 District in Plymouth make up at least a portion of those visiting the site to acquire products on a retail basis. 5. With no outside storage now permitted or proposed a 15,000 square foot area of the site is unused. The opportunity is available to remove all parkin from the front setback to the Highway 169 Service Drive (11 spaces? and relocate those spaces to the west of the principal building. A portion of the unused area of the site is already paved, as is required for all off - street parking areas. RECOMMENDATION: I hereby recommend adoption of the attached resolution providing the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow incidental and secondary retail sales to a principal wholesale distribution use in the I -1 Industrial District subject to conditions related to the control of the scale of the retail activity to be undertaken. Submitted by: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit for Retail Sales in the I -1 District 2. Conditional Use Permit Criteria 3. Section 8, Subdivision D, Paragraph 2b of the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Uses in the I -1 District 4. Petitioner's Letter and Narrative in Support of the Application of May 24, 1991 5. Location Map pc /jk /91026:dh) APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR KIRK SORENSEN FOR FIRESIDE CORNERS. 91026) WHEREAS, Kirk Sorensen for Fireside Corners has requested approval for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for incidental retail sales as a secondary use in the I -1 District for property located at the northeast corner of 10th Avenue North and Highway 169; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE .IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by Kirk Sorensen for Fireside Corners for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for incidental retail sales and the property owner shall certify in writing that the volume of retain sales does not exceed 5 percent of total sales at the site in the I -1 District for property located at the northeast corner of 10th Avenue North and Highway 169, subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and ordinances, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The permit is issued to Kirk Sorensen for Fireside Corners and shall not be transferable. 3. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner. 4. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within approved designated areas. 5. No signage is allowed relative to the retail use. 6. The permit shall be reviewed annually to assure compliance with these conditions and the property owner shall certify in writing that the volume of retain sales does not exceed 5 percent of total sales at the site. 7. All parking shall be off - street in designated areas which comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 8. There shall be no outside storage or display of product, materials, or merchandise. 9. Prior to occupancy a revised Site Plan shall be submitted showing all parking relocated out of the front (street setbacks). res /pc /91026.cup:dh) FRW SHM N 9, SLEDMSICN A 2. Proc Before any Conditional Use Peaait 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 rec,cnTnendation 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 improvanent of surrounding property for uses pernitted 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 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Section 8, Subdivision D SUBDIVISION D - ALLOWABLE USES: INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Within an I -1 PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, no building or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses, providing they comply with the performance standards set forth in Subdivision G of this Section. 1. PERMITTED USES a. Any manufacturing, production, processing, cleaning, storage, servicing, repair or testing of materials, goods or products that is wholly contained within a building and which meets and maintains allenvironmentalstandardsestablishedbythe.State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (Amend. 89 -36) b. Municipal and other public agency administrative and service buildings, including public works maintenance facilities, post offices, fire stations, and the like which are compatible with other allowed uses is the district. (Ord. 89 -36) c. Essential services. (Ord. 89 -36) 2. CONDITIONAL USES a. Any permitted or accessory industrial use not conducted within a building including, but not limited to, outside storage as defined by this ordinance. (Amended Ord. 91 -14) am b. Retail and service establishments essential to the operation of thisdistrictandprovidinggoodsandserviceswhichareprimarilyforthe use of persons employed in the district; any such commercial use allowed under this Section shall be subject to all requirements of this Ordinance and the City Code applicable to such commercial use. Amended Ord. No. 82 -08) c. Free standing office buildings for corporate, administrative, executive, professional, research, sales representatives offices, or similar organization, and generally compatible with the industrial district; any such commercial use allowed under this Section shall besubjecttoallrequirementsofthisOrdinanceandtheCityCode applicable to such commercial use. (Amended Ord. No. 82 -08 and 86 -26) d. Industrial Buildings including single tenant /occupant and multi- tenant /occupant buildings, allowed by this Section, which contain office uses which occupy more than 50% of the gross floor area of the building and are found to be generally compatible with the Industrial District. Any such commercial use allowed under thisSectionshallbesubjecttoallrequirementsofthisOrdinanceand the City Code applicable to such commercial use. (Amended Ord. No. 86 -26) e. Residential structures and related residential uses necessary for security and safety reasons in relation to a principal use. f. Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) as regulated in Section 9. NEW F Building Better Fireplaces Since 1951 I May 24, 1991 Displays and Warehouses at: 2700 N. Fairview Ave. Roseville, MN 55113 612) 633 -1042 Main Office 6000 Wayzata Blvd, Golden Valley, MN 55416 612) 542 -8995 WIS. Contractor Div. F MAY 24 1991 CEILING FANS eC T Mr. Charles -erud ` Community De opment Coordinator City of Ply-. ._.:th 3400 Plymoutn Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 SUBJECT: Fireside Corner, Conditional Use Permit Property Located at 1005 Highway 169 (91026) Dear Mr. Dillerud: Please find enclosed the Amended Conditional Use Permit Application for Fireside Corner. I believe that the materials that have been previously submitted for our site plan have been reviewed and approved by the Development Review Committee and the only thing that is currently pending is our amended CUP application to authorize Fireside Corner's proposed sale of products at retail in the I -1 Zoning District. If my assumption is incorrect or if upon review of our amended application it is found that additional information is required, please contact our counsel, David Davenport at Lindquist & Vennum, 371 -2499. It is my understanding that the notice of public hearing will be published and that we will be on the agenda for the Planning Commission on Wednesday, June 19th. If I am incorrect, please advise me. Thank you for your continuing assistance. Fireside Corner is looking forward to the opportunity to relocate its business from Golden Valley to the City of Plymouth. Sincerely, FIRESI ,- INC. WOOD BURNT G STOVES 'rk. Sorensen FIREPLACES SALES AND PROFESSIONAL INSTALLATION OF ALL MAJOR BRANDS... FIREPLACES • WOOD BURNING STOVES • CEILING FANS • CHIMNEY LINERS BRICK & STONE • GLASS ENCLOSURES STOVE BOARDS • ACCESSORIES -- FIRESIDE CORNER, INC. AMENDED APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT We hereby amend the Conditional Use Permit Application for Fireside Corner, Inc. as follows: V. 1. Our request for a CUP for outside storage at the site is hereby withdrawn. It is likely that in the future we will separately apply for a CUP for outside storage, at which time we will respond more specifically to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and particularly those conditions outlined in the April 26, 1991 correspondence from Mr. Dillerud to Fireside. 2. We hereby formally apply for a CUP to conduct limited sales of products to the general public, i.e. retail, in the I -1 Zoning District at 1005 Highway 169. The following narrative is offered in support of our request for a CUP to authorize the sale of products at retail. Fireside Corner has entered into a purchase agreement to acquire the property, formerly the Thompson Lumber Company site. For many years Thompson Lumber has conducted its lumber and building supply business from this location. Most of Thompson's sales, like Fireside's, are at wholesale and to the construction industry, not to the general public. The Thompson Lumber site currently consists of 2 buildings. The largest building contains approximately 8,000 square feet and includes approximately 3,500 square feet of showroom space and 344 square feet of office space. The second building contains approximately 3,200 square feet. The balance of the space in the larger building and all of the space in the second building is devoted to warehouse. Fireside Corner is a fireplace and stove company that sells primarily at wholesale to approximately 300 contractors in the Twin City metropolitan area and also to 100 dealers in the upper midwest. We currently operate at two locations. Our main office is at 2700 Fairview Avenue and County Road C in Roseville, and we have a second facility at 6000 Wayzata Boulevard in Golden Valley. The City of Golden Valley is requiring us to close our business because of a redevelopment project, and it is this operation that we propose to relocate to the Thompson Lumber site at 1005 Highway 169 in Plymouth. Our Roseville building consists of approximately 22,000 square feet including 5,500 square feet of showroom space. The Roseville building is located in an industrial zoned area. We do conduct incidental retail sales from this location, but the City of Roseville does not require a conditional use permit for such purpose. At our Golden Valley location we also conduct retail sales in an industrial zone but these sales are also incidental to Fireside's permitted use, the distribution of fireplace products, etc. to the construction industry and we are not required to have a conditional use permit in Golden Valley either. At both our Golden Valley and Roseville locations, retail sales are generated occasionally from walk -in clients and from customers who initially purchased products from Fireside Corner through their builders in conjunction with the purchase or remodeling of their homes. You will note that the site plan that we have submitted to the City contemplates no expansion of the portion of the building Thompson Lumber utilized for a showroom. In considering our request it is important to understand that even if no retail sales were conducted from the building, the maintenance of a showroom is a very important part of our business and showroom sales are of course permitted by the Zoning Ordinance without a CUP. We must have a display area where prospective customers can choose from many operating fireplace and wood stove options in a finished home setting that will be duplicated in our showroom. Our showroom will also display the stone and brick mantels that we sell. Section 8, Subd. C(2) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that permitted and conditional uses in an I -P zone to be compatible with the character of development in approximate area. Since we will not be changing the essential character of the Thompson Lumber type use, we believe our proposed use is totally compatible with the adjacent development. Also, Section 8, Subd. D does contemplate the City's grant of CUP's for retail uses that are "essential to the operation of this district in providing goods and services which are primarily for the use of persons employed in the district ". The City Council, Planning Commission and staff historically have construed this language flexibly so as to permit casual or incidental retail sales from businesses in the I -1 zoning districts. For example, Pan O'Gold Bakery located on the frontage road adjacent to State Highway 55, has been permitted to conduct retail sales for day -old baked goods from its commercial bakery which is also located in an I -1 zoning classification. Also, the Zoning Ordinance at Section 8, Paragraph 3, specifically permits secondary uses customarily "incident to the permitted or conditional uses listed including but not limited to over the counter printing, duplicating and photocopying services, secretarial and word processing services and telephone answering services." Our proposed retail sale of fireplace equipment and accessories is a secondary use only. Although we cannot project accurately the level of retail sales that will be actually made to persons employed in this I -1 district, we do anticipate that walk -in customers will be generated from other businesses in the I -1 area over the noon hour, etc. Although retail sales will continue to generate only a small percentage of Fireside's overall gross sales, we expect that sales will also be generated from persons employed in other I -1 districts in the 2 City, and to residents of the City at large. Except for the nature of the products we sell, i.e. fireplace equipment and supplies, our proposed use of the site will substantially replicate Thompson Lumber's use and most of our sales will be at wholesale. It is our understanding that the limitations on retailing currently contained in the Zoning Ordinance were adopted in 1982 and Thompson Lumber Company's retailing from the site had existed previously and was thus "grandfathered" following the ordinance amendment. To our knowledge and based upon conversations with the City staff, Thompson Lumber's conduct of limited retail sales from its showroom at the site has never created problems with traffic or any adjacent businesses in the I -1 district. Nor has Thompson Lumber competed with other retail uses within the City. Neither would Fireside Corner. Finally, Section 9, Subd. A of the Zoning Ordinance, paragraph 2a(1 -6) outlines the standards that Fireside Corner must conform with to qualify for the Conditional Use Permit including compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and we do conform for the following reasons: Our site plan and proposed use, i.e. distribution of fireplace and accessory materials to the building and construction industry is a permitted use within the I -1 Zoning District. The Thompson Lumber site and the building and improvements thereon that we are proposing to purchase satisfy the Plan's Guidelines and Criteria for lot coverage, minimum lot area, zoning designation and public utilities and the Plan's Locational Criteria. The site is also adjacent to Highway 169 and located in the area of other industrial uses with direct transportation access to principal arterial streets. The site also complies with the Ordinance's parking requirements. There are 25 parking places on the site, which number exceeds the number of parking spaces required by the Ordinance for the conduct of full -time retail sales. Traffic ingress and egress is satisfactory. Parking on the site was designed by Thompson Lumber in accordance with the City's requirements to minimize traffic congestion on the site and in the adjacent public street. Since our proposed use of the site, except for the nature of our product, is identical to the use of this site by Thompson Lumber, the conditional use permit, if granted, would not be detrimental to other property adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of this site. Nor would Fireside Corner's proposed use adversely impact property values within the area. In fact, to the extent that the economic vitality of the neighborhood can be maintained by the site not becoming vacant, property values should be stabilized and even enhanced. Our proposed use will not in any impede the orderly development that might take place on surrounding properties since those properties are already developed and are mature sites. 3 In summary, it should be emphasized that any retail sales that Fireside Corner would conduct from the site will be incidental to our primary business which is the sale at wholesale of our products to the construction and building trades industry. From the City's perspective, the impact of our use will be identical to the historical use of the site by Thompson Lumber. Fireside Corner has had an excellent working relationship with both the Cities of Golden Valley and Roseville and we would be happy to have you contact the Planning Departments in either community for references. Most recently Mark Grimes, Golden Valley's Community Development Director, has worked with us because of our need to relocate the business due to the redevelopment taking place in Golden Valley. We also believe that we are good participating members of the communities in which we do business. For example, on March 27, 1991 Roger Sorensen, President and founder of the Company, was named by the Roseville Chamber of Commerce as the 1991 "Small Business Person of the Year ". To be eligible for this award the recipient must demonstrate a contribution to the Roseville community, as well as to the customers and employees of his or her business. 4 G7 AT1[3T1 ! 9'1fl28' N G WI` M MN M!,m Calm--a" I ILZ -M A M MN M!,m Calm--a" i I I I i I a = Zoo. oO 9 403 ir s O 41, s{ L I Vi a = t• j D •gym i 2 Q Sao 4G. 3 i oD ic C rh r- • • i Q,; c 4 y J Y J 0 _ _ y 46 3! W Iw 8 I'•' O e, ,, t... tea^ I S c tL , 6 01) S It oN 5 E. CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: May 7, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 12, 1991 FILE NO.: 91027 PETITIONER: Don Hunger REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE ENCROACHMENT OF A GARAGE ADDITION INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. LOCATION: 10625 48th Avenue North GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential) ZONING: RPUD 84 -1 BACKGROUND: A Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Preliminary Plat /Plan and Conditional Use Permit for "Rolling Hills Park ", including this parcel, was approved by Resolution 84 -128, on March 5, 1984. The RPUD Final Plat and Development Contract was approved by Resolution 84 -474. Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City newspaper, and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified. PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: 1. The petitioner is proposing construction of an 11 foot wide addition onto an existing garage for a third car garage stall. The addition will be located from six feet to eight feet to the side property line with an angled side property line. 2. The property abutting the site is a 30 foot wide City -owned outlot for an asphalt walkway path; and the yard at issue is a side yard. 3. The resolution approving the RPUD, 84 -128, specifically cites yard setbacks which vary from the standard zoning ordinance setbacks for s epcifiedlots (not including the subject lot). The resolution states that all other lots not specifically identified, including this lot, require a 10 foot side yard setback. Therefore, this request is for encroachment from a maximum of 4 feet to a minimum of 2 feet. 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider a Conditional Use Permit in terms of the six criteria found in Section 9, Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a. We have attached a copy of those together with a response to those criteria from the petitioner. see next page) Page Two File 91027 5. Within the findings the Planning Commission must make, but worthy of special focus as an issue to be addressed with this petition, is the consideration of the impact of the approval of the type of Conditional Use Permit adjustment petitioned over the entire PUD of 83 lots. Quite apart from the "variance" aspects of the petitioned action - such as direct physical impact on adjoining properties - the Planning Commission must consider the larger issues of setting a major precedent that can be applied to virtually any lot within this Planned Unit Development. This must be particularly considered in the context of the current desirability of three car garages throughout the community. This then becomes a two stage decision making process: a. Is the proposal reasonable in terms of the immediate impacts on the property and adjoining properties? b. Is the proposal in the best interest of the City considering the Planned Unit Development basis of this site and the fact that 83 other lots of similar size and shape are contained within that Planned Unit Development? PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: 1. The Park Department has advised, during the Development Review Committee process, that they are concerned with the proposed encroachment on the public trail corridor that would result from this proposal. Both public enjoyment of the trail and continuing maintenance of the trail will be impacted by the proposal. 2. The orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property - particularly the property within the mentioned Planned Unit Development will be impacted by the proposed Conditional Use Permit. The design of the Rolling Hills RPUD did not contemplate three car garages on lots that were reduced in size from those that would normally be expected under the LA -1 guiding /R1 -A Zoning of the general area. At least a partial basis will be established for granting of revision to overall Planned Unit Development Specifications by the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. Whereas the construction of a third garage space on this particular site may or may not be reasonable from a physical stand point, the basis for a piece -by -piece amendment of Planned Unit Development will likely be established by the approval of this proposal. 3. The approved Planned Unit Development Plan is the reference point for all property owners in their development; that plan includes the approved minimum setbacks which, because of effective design efforts, are less than conventional ordinance standards. If an amendment is approved it could be viewed as applicable throughout the project. see next page) Page Three File 91027 4. The proposed amendment will increase the degree of encroachment on the existing public trail corridor on the adjacent parcel and, with that increased encroachment, will become detrimental to the public safety and comfort. 5. The original RPUD approval included a degree of flexibility for all lots of the development by a reduction of side yard set back minimum 1m the 15 foot R -1A standard to 10 feet (and 6 feet in selected cases, not including this lot). This 50% reduction from the Z nonigOrdinance standard was responsive to PUD attributes proposed by the developer, including committing a sizeable parcel to development. No additional PUD attributes are available at this time as a response to the additional set back flexibility proposed. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend adoption of the attached draft resolution denying the amendment to the Rolling Hills Park RPUD 84 -1 based on the findings of the resolution. I have included in addition, a draft resolution approving the petitioner's request in conformance with Planning Commission's directive. Submitted by: . Charles E. Dil eru ommunity Development Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution Denying an Amendment to a Plan Unit Development Planning Conditional Use Permit Amendment 2. Draft Resolution Approving an Amended Plan Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Amendment 3. Petitioner's Narrative 4. Conditional Use Permit Criteria 5. Location Map pc /jk /91027:dh) APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR DON HUNGER (91027) WHEREAS, Don Hunger has requested a Planned Unit Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Amendment for property located at the 10625 48th Avenue North to allow for a reduced sideyard setback from 10 feet to 6 feet; 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 of Don Hunger for a Planned Unit Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow reduced setbacks for property located at the 10625 48th Avenue North subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. No other amendments or variances are granted or implied. 2. All applicable requirements of the City and State Building Codes shall be implemented and enforced; no Code requirements are waived by this approval. 3. The granting of the Permit is responsive to criteria of the Zoning Ordinance for Conditional Use Permits and PUD Plans. 4. A sideyard setback of six feet is granted on the west property line to permit the construction of a third car garage. res /pc/91027) 2 pgs. DENYING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR DON HUNGER (91027) WHEREAS, Don Hunger has requested a Planned Unit Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Amendment for property located at the 10625 48th Avenue North to allow for reduced setbacks from 10 feet to 6 feet; 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 deny the request of Don Hunger for a Planned Unit Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow reduced setbacks for property located at the 10625 48th Avenue North subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. The request does not respond favorably to the Conditional Use Permit standards from Section 9, Subdivision A, of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. 2. The public welfare will be negatively impacted by additional encroachment toward the City trail on the adjacent parcel. 3. No additional PUD attributes are proposed in support of the additional PUD flexibility requested. res /pc/91027) 2 pgs. APR 1oq TO PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH FROM: MR. & MRS. DONALD HUNGER RESIDING AT 10625 -48 AVENUE NORTH RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A THIRD STALL GARAGE ADDITION TO OUR PRESENT GARAGE, AT 10625 -48 AVENUE NORTH 1. COMPLIANCE WITH AND EFFEECT UPON THE COMPREEENSIVE PLAN The intended use of this addition will be for the storage of a vehicle and other personal property. It will provide us with security for our property as we&.l as keeping it out of sight of the general public. Structurally it will conform with the uniform building code of the State of Minnesota. Architecturally, all exterior materials will match present materials as used on our hone and garage. 2. THE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE OR OPERATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL PROMOT AND ENHANCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC WEEFARE AND WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO OR ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS OR COMFORT. THE CONDITIOI}1AL USE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF OTHER PROPERTY IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY FOR THE PURPOSE ALREADY PERMITTED. THIS WILL NOT IMPAIR NOR GREATLY EFFECT PROPERTY VALUES WITHIN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PROOPOSED ADDITION WOULD BE SET BACK APPROXIMATELY 16 FEET -0 INCHES FROM THE EDGE OF THE BLACKTOP WALKING PATH. THIS WILL NOT IMPAIR ACCESS OR VISIBILITY OF THIS WALKING PATH. THIS ADDITION WILL INCREASE OUR PROP- ERTY VALUES TO BE COMPARABLE WITH A SIGNIFIGANT NUMBER OF OTHER HOMES IN OUR IMMEDIATE ARREA WITH THREE STALL GARAGES. 4. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONDITIONAL USE WILL NOT IMPEDE THE NORMAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVMENT OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY FOR USES PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOW NEARLY FULLY DEVELOPED AND GRANTING OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE WILL HAVE NO IMPACT OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR AREA. 5. ADEQUATE MEASURES HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE TAKEN TO PROVIDE INGRESS, EGRESS, AND PARKING SO'DESIGNED AS TO MINIMIZE TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN PUBLIC STREETS. WE WILL BE PLACING A NEW ASPHALT DRIVEWAY THE FULL WIDTH OF THE PRO_ POSED ADDITION TO MEET THE EDGE OF OUR PRESENT DRIVEWAY. THE LENGTH OF THE NEW DRIVEWAY WILL ALLOW ONE VEHICLE TO PARK THERE ON A TEMPORARY BASIS. IT THEN NARROWS, ROUGHLY LOOKING FUNNEL SHAPED, AND MEET THE PRESENT DRIVEWAY. THIS DESIGN WILL NOT REQUIRE ANY WIDENING OR DISRUPTION OF THE EXISTING CURB OPENING. 6. THE CONDITIONAL USE SHALL, IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, CONFORM TO THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED. THE ADDITION WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO CONFORM TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. THE EXTERIOR MATERIALS WHICH WILL BE USED ARE TO MATER THE MATERIALS ON OUR EXISTING HOME. THE ARCHIQECHURAL DETAILS WILL ALSO MATCH THE DETAILS OF OUR HCME. NO TREES WILL BE REMOVED TO ALLOW THIS CONSTRUCTION, NORE ARE THERE ANY IN THE AREA WHICH WOULD BE HARMED IN ANY MANNER DURING CONSTRUCTION. OUR PLAN IS TO CONTINUE THE PRESENT LANDSCAPING AROUND THE NEW ADDITION. CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS WILL BE CONTAINED ON THE SITE AND REMOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR UPON COMPLETION. IN SUMMATION, THIS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED IN ANY MANNER THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH OTHER NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. FRM SEM N 9, SINDIVMCN 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 pramote 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 iselocated. forns:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89 or I , , fj s i 91 ice 11190 r u, N0. 29346 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. INVOICE F. B. ICE LAND SURUTORS SCALE I" = 20 :-- REOIBTTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MWNES01 7601.7Srd Avenue Notch Minoapdis, Mlnnaota 65428 pro s ate GRAY, RMT, MOM, MOOTY E BH#IEIT AS BUILT SURVEY" O Denotes Won Monument A o Denotes Wood Hub Set 6tiW0g8 For Excavation Only x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation 0 Denotes Proposed Elevation E— Denotes Surface Drainage Proposed Top of Block Proposed Geroge Floor Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Building - Area of Lot - 12,817 Square Feet Area of House - 1,510 Square Feet Area of Proposed Garage - 231 square Feart Lot 8, Block 3, ROLLING HILLS PARK no only eseements shown ere from plate of record or Infomvflon provlde0 by dw VO hs a certify thst No be a the end correct representation of a survey of 00 barrwarlso of ft above ascribed land ud trio hoeatlon of ail buildings srxt via IDla encroahman4, Ifar}y, from a on aak lend. 8urveyed by us !1111 ' n dey of May W 91 Revised May 1S, 1991 A Z-10,141 1/1 1 / 84ned Milton E. Hyland, Minn. R! 20262 5 <. CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: May 23, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 12, 1991 FILE NO.: 91032 PETITIONER: Quantum Development Inc. REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A SCHOOL, DAY CARE FACILITY; A SITE PLAN FOR A PARKING LOT EXPANSION, AND A VARIANCE FOR A DRIVE AISLE SETBACK. LOCATION: 12325 Highway 55 GUIDE PLAN CLASS: Public and Semi - Public ZONING: R -1A (Low Density Residential District) BACKGROUND: In 1982, the Beacon Heights school was closed by the Wayzata School District. On August 20, 1984, the City Council, by Resolution 84 -546 denied a Land Use Guide Plan Amendment and rezoning of this site from the R -1A (Low Density Single Family Residential) to the B -1 (Office Limited Business District). This application is for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a nursery school and day care center, as a secondary use to the school, in the R -1A District; a Site Plan for parking lot expansion; and, a drive aisle setback variance. Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City Newspaper and all property owners within 1320 feet have been notified. A development sign has been placed on the property. PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: 1. The applicant proposes to relocate the current St. Mary's of Lake Nursery School and Day Care Facility, under the name Family Child Development Center, from the location of the past 20 years at 105 Forestview Lane North to a rehabilitated 20,000 square foot portion of the former Beacon Heights School. To accommodate the new use a Site Plan is proposed to construct a drive aisle along the west side of the existing structure to service a new parking area for 19 vehicles west of the existing building. The drive aisle to service the new parking area will parallel the west encroaching to within 20.5 feet of the west property line at one point and inside the 30 foot drive aisle setback standard for non residence uses in the residential zone over a total of 160 feet. A variance from the Zoning Ordinance Standard for drive aisle setback is therefore requested. see next page) Page Two File 91032 2. A private Nursery School is an allowed use in the R -1A (Single Family Residence Zoning District as a Conditional Use. A day care facility is allowed as a conditional use in a R -1A when operated in a public or private school, as regulated in Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 9, Subdivision E describes special application requirements for day care facilities with regard to submission requirements and standards /performance criteria. The application submitted complies with the special submission requirements of Section 9, Subdivision E. 3. This site is located in the Basset Creek Watershed District and contains no wetlands, storm water drainage facilities, or flood plain /shoreland; contains no woodlands of significance; does exhibit slopes in excess of 12% and is currently serviced with municipal utilities. With proper drainage and erosion control, the site appears suitable for redevelopment or expansion based on the findings of the Plymouth Physical Constraints Analysis. 4. The Site Plan meets the standards of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance and other applicable City of Plymouth codes, ordinances and policies regarding this type of development in the R -1A Zoning District. The proposal to increase the size of the offstreet parking area meets standards with respect to that part of the building to be occupied, regarding design, location, and drainage, except with respect to the setback of the drive aisle to the west property line for which a variance is requested. In addition, the applicant proposes a trash enclosure facility consistent with the design standards of Section 8 of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance for such facilities and screening of roof equipment. A fire lane variance has been requested and recommended for approval by the Fire Chief. Fire lane variances are approved by the City Council wiht no recommendation by the Planning Commission. 5. The applicant proposes screening of the newly constructed drive aisle and parking area from the adjoining properties by use of existing topographic features and structures to the north, east and south. Approximately 260 lineal feet of six foot board -on -board fencing is proposed for two locations, screening the west elevation of the new drive aisle and parking area. In addition the applicant proposes 45 Austrian Pine to be planted along a portion of the west property line that will serve as a screen to future parking lot expansion. Rooftop units proposed for addition to the south wing of the building will be screened with vertical board screens with designs similar to the vertical board fencing proposed elsewhere on the site. 6. The Planning Commission, in considering a Conditional Use Permit as directed by the Zoning Ordinance must find the six standards of Section 9, Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a. are complied with. (Copy of Zoning Ordinance Conditional Use Permit Standards Attached.) In addition, the day care facility Conditional Use Permit must meet the development standards and performance criteria found in Section 9, Subdivision E, Paragraph 2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted narrative (also attached) describing the use proposed in detail, and responding to the Conditional Use Standards for see next page) Page Three File 91032 both the nursery school and the day care facility. The initial information does not address the use of the rest of the school building; the applicant has been asked to provide more data. 7. The applicant proposes architectural improvements to part of the complex at the existing south wing to include refinishing existing wood and new windows to enhance both the energy efficiency and the architectural appearance of the building. Those improvements, together with the screening and site landscaping addressed above, are the applicant's responses to the City Council Policy and Standards and Criteria regarding site and building aesthetics and architectural design (Resolution 88 -253). The entire building is not involved with refinishing based upon plans submitted. 8. The applicant states that school operating hours will be 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekdays, and the maximum enrollment will be 250 students. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: 1. We find the nursery school facility complies with the six standards of Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance required for approval of a Conditional Use Permit subject to conditions with regard to operations. 2. We find the day care facility, as a secondary use to the private school principal use at this location, both complies with the six Conditional Use Permits standards of Section 9, Subdivision A and, complies with the Development Standards and Performance Criteria for day care facilities found in Section 9, Subdivision E of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to conditions related to operations. 3. Except with respect to the variance addressed elsewhere the Site Plan proposed meets the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable ordinances, codes and policies for the portion of the building to be occupied. The plans do not include a Master Site Plan that accounts for full occupancy of the total building by allowable uses. 4. The minimum distance between the west building wall of the existing structure and the west property line is approximately 55 feet. Applicable Zoning Ordinance Standards to construct a drive aisle within this zoning district specify a 30 foot setback to the property line for non - residence projects; a 24 foot minimum pavement width for the two -way drive aisle; and a 10 foot setback from the drive aisle to the existing structure. (A total of 64 feet). Construction of a two -way drive aisle in this location appears to be the only way to provide access to the substantial area existing west and south of the existing structures. A variance to at least one of the standards applicable to this site feature will be required if the drive aisle is to be constructed. The construction of the six foot board -on -board fence will substantially mitigate impact on adjoining property regardless of whether the setback to the property line, width of the drive, or setback from the building are varied. see next page) Page Four File 91032 RECOMMENDATION: I hereby recommend adoption of the attached resolutions providing for the approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a private nursery school; approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a day care facility accessory to a private school; and, approval of a Site Plan to construct a parking lot and drive aisle with a variance for side yard setback of a drive aisle subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. No Conditional Use Permit for the day care facility can be considered without first approving the Conditional Use Permit for the nursery school, and the continued school occupancy is required for the day care use. Submitted by: / Char es E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Private Nursery School 2. Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Facility in a Private School 3. Resolution Approving a Site Plan With a Drive Aisle Setback Variance 4. Engineer's Memo 5. Conditional Use Permit Standards 6. Variance Criteria 7. Petitioner's Narrative 8. Location Map 9. Large Plans pc /jk /91032:dh) APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR QUANTUM DEVELOPMENT INC. FOR FAMILY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER FOR A PRIVATE NURSERY SCHOOL. (91032) WHEREAS, Quantum Development Inc. for Family Child Development Center has requested approval for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a private nursery school occupying 20,000 square feet of the structure at 12325 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 Quantum Development Inc. for Family Child Development Center for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a private nursery school occupying 20,000 square feet of the structure at 12325 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. 4. Signage relative to the use shall be per ordinance standards and the property owner shall apply for any permits and shall account for total signage for the building. 5. The permit shall be renewed annually to assure compliance with the conditions. 6. All parking shall be off - street in designated areas which comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Operating hours shall be 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays. 8. Total enrollment, including any secondary uses shall not exceed 250. 9. A copy of the current State operating certificate and /or license shall be kept on file with the City. 10. The permit shall not be issued until the required building improvements and site improvements have been completed and have been approved by the City. res /pc /91032.cup.ns:dh) APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR QUANTUM DEVELOPMENT INC. FOR FAMILY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER FOR A DAY CARE FACILITY IN A PRIVATE SCHOOL. (91032) WHEREAS, Quantum Development Inc. for Family Child Development Center, has requested approval for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a day care facility in a private school at 12325 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 Quantum Development Inc. for Family Child Development Center for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a day care facility in a private school at 12325 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 permit is issued to Quantum Development Inc. for Family Child Development Center to operate the facility within the area approved for the school and in conjunction with the school. This Conditional Use Permit is valid one with a concurrent Conditional Use Permit for a private school as the principal use of this parcel. 3. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner. 4. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within approved designated areas. 5. Signage relative to the use shall be per ordinance and shall be subject to total signage permitted for the building as applied for by the property owner. 6. The permit shall be renewed annually to assure compliance with the conditions. 7. All parking shall be off - street in designated areas which comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Operating hours shall be 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays. 9. A copy of the current State license shall be kept on file with the City. res /pc /91032.cup.dc:dh) APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR A PARKING LOT EXPANSION AND A VARIANCE FOR A DRIVE AISLE SETBACK FOR QUANTUM DEVELOPMENT INC. (91032) WHEREAS, Quantum Development Inc. has requested approval for a Site Plan Amendment for a Parking Lot Expansion and a Variance for a drive aisle setback for property located at 12325 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 Quantum Development Inc. for a Site Plan for a Parking Lot Expansion and a Variance for a drive aisle setback for property located at 12325 Highway 55, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum. 2. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement for completion of site improvements for completion of improvements within one year of the date of this resolution. 3. All signage shall be in compliance with,the Ordinance. 4. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per Ordinance provisions. This approval contemplates the occupancies proposed and approved at this time for a portion of the existing building. 5. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and fire lanes. 6. All waste and waste containers including recycling containers shall be stored within the approved enclosure, and no outside storage is permitted. 7. An 8k x 11 inch "As Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted prior to the release or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City Policy. 8. A variance is approved for drive aisle setback to the west property line of 20.5 feet versus the Zoning Ordinance standard of 30 feet based on a finding that the Zoning Ordinance variance criteria are met. res /pc /91032.sp.var:dh) City of Plymouth E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0 ' to Planning Commission b City Council DATE: May 31, 1991 FILE NO.: 91032 PETITIONER: Mr. Clint Carlson, Quantum Development, 202 Penisula Road, Minneapolis, MN 55441 SITE PLAN: FAMILY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER LOCATION: Southwest of Highway 55, south of 15th Avenue North (Old Beaconite School) 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. _ _ X Complies with standard utility /drainage easements - The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any building permits.) g, X _ _ Complies with ponding requirements - The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year high water elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive storm water requirements. 9. X All standard utility easements required for construction are provided - The following easements will be required for construction of utilities. N/A Yes No 10. x All existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been vacated - It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way to facilitate the development. It should be noted that this vacation is not an automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It is entirely dependent upon the City receiving a petition for the vacation from the property owner; therefore, it is their responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. 11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the City with this application - It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that he may file the required easements referred to above. 2- 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 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. 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: Silt fence shall be extended along the frontage road. 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. M919 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. The sanitary sewer service is existin¢. 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. All Rermanent curbing must be B -612 and noted on the site plan. Bituminous curbing may be used where the parking lot is to be expanded in the future Curbstone at a minimum shall be used around the existing bituminous for parking. 23. _ X _ Complies with parking lot standards - The City will require that all traveled areas within the parking lot, as well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a 7 -ton standard City design with six inches of Class 5 100% crushed limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one -half inches of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be constructed to a standard 5 -ton design consisting of four inches of Class 5 100% crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. The site plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with these requirements. STANDARDS: N/A Yes No 24. _ X It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility foreman, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The developer shall also be responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the Public Works Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the City's right -of -way. All connections to the water system shall be via wet tap. 25. _ X The City will require reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer, water service and storm sewer As- Builts for the site prior to occupancy permits being granted. 26. X The site plan complies with the City of Plymouth's current Engineering Standards Manual. Note Items 7. 11, 12, 21, 22, 27A. 27B. 27C. 27D. 27E, 27F. 27G. 27H. and 271. 5- 0 n 1 ly-OUTZIM __• 1 27 A. Insulation shall be installed over the storm sewer crossing the frontage road. B. The grading plan shall be revised to show the proposed parking in front of the building. C. Spot elevation shall be noted on the new parking lot to show how the stall will drain. D. Catch Basin No. 2 with the proposed T.C. of 940.50 is too high to pick up some of the drainage below 940.5. Provisions shall be made to take care of the drainage below 940.5. E. A detail shall be included for Catch Basin No. 2. F. The new drive to the main parking area shall be adequately tipped to force drainage to the proposed Catch Basin No. 1. G. Drainage area plan and calculations shall be submitted for review. H. A flared end section shall be installed at the storm sewer outlet. I. A stop sign shall be placed at the intersection of the one way drive and the main drive and at the main drive and the frontage road. Submitted by: Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E. City Engineer Q-M I' • :A'. 1 HIV• • ., FROM SECTION 9, S[NDIVISION A A: - & iM;0 W4 P-1i k 1, W46 11 • Z. 0 1 M 2. Prmced+?re. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Coimission for purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public Hearing, and development of a rec.atmerxdation to the City Council, which shall make the final deteanination 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. forms:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89 Fe `II' - el K • '.1 1 r 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 inane potential of the parcel of land. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. 5. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. forms:o >pl /zon.stnd /s) 10/89 QUANTUM DEVELOPMENT, INC. 202 Peninsula Road Medicine Lake, Minnesota 55441 Mr. 0harles E. Dillerud Community Development Coordinator r.ity of piymouth 31-00 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Dear .Mr. Dillerud, 0 7- ret JUN 6 1"1 CITY OF ` t 6VIOUTH COMMUNITY DFVV 0PPpjT 9EPT, Tune 6, 1991 persuant to your telephone request I am writing to verify our plans for the balance o? the Beacon Heights project. As shown on the plans, we will be using fire walls to separate the parts of the building occupied by Family Child Development Center from the unoccupied areas. As we discussed, the unoccupied area will remain unreno- vated. We are continuing to seek additional compatible tenants for the balance of the building. We are focusing our search on tenants that are within the types that the city of plymouth has dictated (schools, churches, and municipal and administrative and service buildings.) If you need anything additional, please call me at 5+'+-0965. Sincerely, to) s C Clint Carlson president St• M°ry eke y/50/9/ c9p 105 Forestview Lane • Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 • (612) 545 - 7271 April 29, 1991 City of Plymouth Plymouth Zoning Ordinance Subdivision E, Application for conditional use permit b (5) There are no comparable facilities licensed by the State of Minnesota within 1,320 feet. The Family Child Development Center will be the new name at Beacon Heights school which is a unique educational program. The Department of Human services licenses all child care programs. Public schools are licensed under another department. Because of the educational component at our center each child encounters a daily activity planned by the teachers in their curriculum design and delivery. We have been awarded NATIONAL AOCEEDITATION which means we have demonstrated substantial compliance with nationally recognized criteria for high quality Early Childhood programs. 1) attached 14 center survey, license application Subdivision E, Application for conditional use permit L". l) Attached is our service agreement between St.Mary's CDC and Hennepin County Community Health Department Child Care Consultation program 2) Suggested Procedures for recording and reporting Child Abuse 8) Emergency procedure guidelines and Fi.re/`tbrnado schedule attached (6) exhibita T B more 1 We are applying for a conditional use permit at the former Beacon Heights School in order to iWplement an educational preschool child development center in a portion of the building. The Family Child Development Center will occupy approximately 20,000 square feet of the building. The proposed use will serve preschoolers up to the age of 5. The kindergartners and school agers up to age 8 would be at our site before and after school and have their school day at either Sunset Hill Elementary or Birchview Elementary depends on the busing schedules. Our goal is to continue maintaining the enrollment we currently have at St.2•iarys which is 250 children. The hours of operation will be 6:30a.m. to 6:OOp.m. monday through friday throughout the year excluding national holidays. There will be some evening parent education classes and workshops for parents and families. The area proposed for use immediately would be seven classrooms, an activity room with an office and small kitchen area off that room plus a girls and boys lavatory. There are three exits and entrances to the building. Staff size will vary depending on the number of children enrolled, initially we will start with 10 teaching staff, a director and office manager. The child /staff ratio varies depending on the number of - children their ages and room sizes. All ratios will meet state licensing guidelines. Parking will include enough spaces for staff, and for parents to drop off and pick up their children. Lunches will not be prepared on site until a licensed kitchen is approved by the State Health inspectors. Snacks will be provided twice a day. The Family Child Development Center will add to the existing playground space to be completely fenced in for the safety and protection of the children. The total program will be licensed by the State of Minnesota Department of Human Services. For the past 20 years the above mentioned program has been in operation at St.Marys of the Lake Church. Just 3 years ago the center was judged to be a Nationally Accredited center. We have applied for re- accreditation and hope to be moving as an accredited center. see attachment A Attached please find a summary of our program plus a brochure. ARCHITECTURAL OFFICES TO: City of Plymouth FROM: Architectural Offices DATE: 18 April 1991 Family Child Development Center Formerly St. Mary of the Lake Development Center Comm. No. 91183 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit, Variances and Site Plan Conditional Use Permit: Per City Ordinance relative to R -1 -A Zoning on behalf of the user, Family Child Development Center, we are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to reuse the existing building for a child development center. Written Description of Proposed Use: The proposed use will be that which would normally be associated with educational functions such as the following: Educational Weekdays 6:30 AM to 6:00 PM Conformance with Conditional Use Permit Standards: 1. Family Child Development Center has made and will make every effort to comply with the Comprehensive Plan as directed by the City of Plymouth. 2. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the Conditional Use will promote and enhance the general public welfare, Family Child Development Center will insure that the child development center will be operated with the highest quality and integrity and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort of the community, as none of the functions of the child development center involve any commercial or industrial operations. The existing building will house the existing St. Mary of the Lake Child Development Center that is presently located in the St. Mary of the Lake Catholic Church. ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • RESEARCH • URBAN DESIGN • 4941 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55410 • TEL $12/920.5598 City of Plymouth 18 April 1991 Page 2. 3. The Child Development Center will not be injurious of 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. Quantum Development, Inc., will substantially upgrade the property with additional parking, fire lanes, fencing and improve the quality of the existing building. 4. Reuse of the building will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the District. 5. Adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets by providing adequate on site parking and following the City's guidelines for access and egress. 6. Reuse of the building shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of this district. 7. An information meeting for all neighbors within 500' of the site is planned to occur during the next 30 days. ARCHITECTURAL OFFICES Family Child Development Center Formerly St. Mary of the Lake Development Center Comm. No. 91183 TO: City of Plymouth FROM: Architectural Offices DATE: 19 April 1991 SUBJECT: Variance 20.5' Setback in Lieu of 30' Setback at Road VARIANCE TO ALLOW 20.5' SETBACK IN LIEU OF 30' SETBACK AT ROAD Per City Ordinance relative to R -1 -A zoning on behalf of the user, Family Child Development Center, formerly St. Mary of the Lake Development Center, we are requesting a variance to allow a driveway within 30' setback in an R -1 -A zoned site. The problem that we encounter is on the northwest corner of the gym. In order to create a "safer" enter /exit road we must drop the road connecting the new parking to the frontage road elevation. If we do this using the 30' setback we will be undermining and exposing existing footings. The civil engineer and I recommend: that a variance be granted for a 20.5' setback in lieu of a 30' setback. WITH REGARD TO VARIANCE STANDARDS The reasons stated for variance indicate compliance with variance standards in that: I. The variance is due to the need to safely engineer the west access to parking. 2. These conditions are unique to this user and the existing structure. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare as it has been demonstrated by the documentation submitted. 4. Variance will not impair property values, increase traffic conjestion or endanger public safety, the variance will help safety. ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • RESEARCH • URBAN DESIGN • 4941 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55410 • TEL 612/920.5588 ARCHITECTURAL OFFICES Family Child Development Center Formerly St. 11ary of the Lake Development Center Comm. No. 91183 TO: City of Plymouth APP 17 19o? Attn: Chuck Dillerud FROM: Jack Ovick DATE: 17 April 1991 SUBJECT: VARIANCE We have been retained to help Family Child Development Center, formerly St. Mary of the Lake Development Center. This is the project that Clint Carlson reviewed with the DRC a couple of weeks ago. The south wing of the school will be occupied first by the Family Child Development Center, formerly St. Mary of the Lake Development Center. The roads /parking is shown per City ordinance, except north- west corner. The problem that we encounter is on the northwest corner of the gym. In order to create a "safer" enter /exit road we must drop the road connecting the new parking to the frontage road elevation. If we do this using the 30' setback we will be undermining and exposing existing footings. The civil engineer and I recommend: that we APPLY FOR A 10' VARIANCE. JO /dn Enclosure cc: Quantum Development Inc. Attn: Clint Carlson Larson Engineering Attn: Ron Dokken ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • RESEARCH • URBAN DESIGN • 4941 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55410 • TEL 612/920 -5588 re ri;7 iovpt —,bd I Pm tt s i{ ittls t j' r !• '` isi ••st ., . ti R ' ji 1 3 r's fillfill t= • ,I• ! r 11r I rI . (fir• t = { ( • , ` lot r ` ,f,t ' ',1 _` r= it i (`. _ ' '• ` t t F ft•3rt 3= t 3 1 `t 1 il ;r fi3s Ef I ;: ir ilia s €! 1 1.111 Sc tt ill or Z T u -mom r_ i :i I- is 5/. 6 i r- 1i1t1 iti •'. F 'i 11 i ry{ `t #(ii 't ii 3`tr I I F ! , 1 "•T ilp I I,, r i c A 1 pti R z I i J I A litt -all s Fgee 3 as•4 w ! Wm PLA" -• = FAMILY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER , ARCWrECTURAL OFFICES, I_•/ PROFESSIONAL ASSOCU 10W L 12326 NiONWAY 96 PLYMOUTH M'l w rr.ru w..r raft. i r)- L -r` c6jri r YZ4 2" r 9 J C i 6 ti Wm PLA" -• = FAMILY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER , ARCWrECTURAL OFFICES, I_•/ PROFESSIONAL ASSOCU 10W L 12326 NiONWAY 96 PLYMOUTH M'l w rr.ru w..r raft. t 4f1: 14 rf i mill r !' Al Wm PLA" -• = FAMILY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER , ARCWrECTURAL OFFICES, I_•/ PROFESSIONAL ASSOCU 10W L 12326 NiONWAY 96 PLYMOUTH M'l w rr.ru w..r raft. 7-1 7 X 11. J 77 it if if IS i WE FAMILY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER 1232• "KIHWAY 56 PLYMOUTH WL I f 1, -1 111...CTURAL OFFICE, ASSOCIATON S 10 7 MAM Tms FAMILY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER 1232• "KIHWAY 56 PLYMOUTH WL I f 1, -1 111...CTURAL OFFICE, ASSOCIATON S 7 q i 43 Iq MAM Tms FAMILY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER 1232• "KIHWAY 56 PLYMOUTH WL I f 1, -1 111...CTURAL OFFICE, ASSOCIATON S v c r c z a 1= T I it I 3 II r I i I S ` ° S C jQ t C_ 61 S,Rj•ieSiiYPC P't EFLIK i F. 3 '- z" L t f i f Lr c 3 T i x E 5 o e t C R o t t ii i wm "Croft mss` FAMILY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER 1:aa .oMwAr 05 rLrnotrtN WL THE ARCI TECTURAL OFFICES, n OFESSMAL ASSOCATaNInl '— _ L1 I O I JJ ii i wm "Croft mss` FAMILY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER 1:aa .oMwAr 05 rLrnotrtN WL THE ARCI TECTURAL OFFICES, n OFESSMAL ASSOCATaNInl '— _ ii i 5 G. CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: May 23, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 12, 1991 FILE NO.: 91038 PETITIONER: Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota REQUEST: LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM CL (LIMITED BUSINESS) TO CS (SERVICE BUSINESS) , REZONING FROM B -1 (OFFICE LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT) TO B -3 (SERVICE BUSINESS DISTRICT) AND, AMENDED MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 1.17 ACRE SITE OF THE "WATERFORD PARK PLAZA" MPUD. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Highway 55 and Revere Lane GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CL (Limited Business) ZONING: MPUD 86 -1. Underlying Zoning is B -1 (Office Limited Business District) BACKGROUND: In June, 1988, by Resolution 88 -308, the City Council approved a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Ryan Construction Company for "Waterford Park Plaza ", including this site as a bank" site. In August, 1988, the City Council, by Resolution 88 -508, approved a Planned Unit Development Final Plat and Development Contract which included this site as an outlot, and therefore subject to future replatting. The foregoing MPUD Plan Approvals were responsive to an MPUD Concept Plan including this site that was approved in August, 1987, to include an amended Land Use Guide Plan for this vicinity. The Land Use Guide Plan Amendment changed a portion of this site from IP (Planned Industrial) to CS (Service Business) and a portion from IP (Planned Industrial) to CL (Limited Business). On September 10, 1991, the City Council, by Resolution 90 -545 denied a Land Use Guide Plan Amendment for the Ryan Construction Company for an Arby's Restaurant on a 1.2 acre tract of land at the northeast quadrant of 6th Avenue North and Revere Lane. That site was directly east across 6th Avenue from the current subject site. The Land Use Guide Plan approval previously granted for this MPUD ( "Waterford Park Plaza ") amended the Land Use Guide Plan classification from previous I -1 Planned Industrial) to specified portion of CL (Limited Business) and CS Service Business). Subsequent PUD Plans for this site have rotated the see next page) Page Two File 91038 actual usage approximately 90 degrees, but the proportion of CS classified property to CL classified property is reflected in the approved Development Plans. A "balance" has been retained consistent with the intent of the Land Use Guide Plan. The proposal to reclassify a portion of the CL property will, in effect, change the "balance" that was created with the original reclassification of the entire PUD site. What is proposed, is, an addition to the 90 degree juxtaposition of uses that has been permitted as being consistent with the amended Land Use Guide Plan, the applicant now proposes to increase actual amount of CS classified land. These applications are to reclassify 1.17 acres of "Waterford Park Plaza" (the area of "island" created by Revere Lane 6th Avenue and Highway 55) from the existing CL (Limited Business) to CS (Service Business); rezone the site from the existing underlying B -1 (Office Limited Business) to B -3 (Service Business District); and an amendment to the MPUD Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit to substitute an "Arby's" Class II restaurant for the approved "bank ". No MPUD Final Plat or Site Plan is proposed at this time. Notice of this Public Hearing was published in the official City Newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. A development sign has been placed on the property. PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: 1. Land Use Guideplan Amendment a. The Application Checklist for a Land Use Guideplan Amendment specifies eight items to be addressed by the staff for each application to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Guideplan Element Map, as follows: 1) Is the locational criteria of both the existing and proposed classifications satisfied by the specific site? A key element of the CL location criteria is a "gateway" component. This site continues to function as one of the premier gateways" to the City of Plymouth. This factor is acknowledged by the petitioner in his narrative with respect to the locational criteria. Primarily on the "gateway" basis, the existing CL Guiding of the site is in response to the Developmental locational criteria. During the Development Review Committee consideration of these applications staff has suggested to the applicant that the gateway" effect intended for this site by the CL Guiding that exists can potentially be physically accomplished with other Land Use Guideplan Classifications. The "gateway" concept embodies appearance as much as use. As a rule, CL type development produces an appearance more conducive to the "gateway" concept that CS, or any other type of commercial guiding, but that appearance function can be artificially created in other than a CL context with proper site grading, landscaping, building aesthetics and other aesthetic treatments. see next page) Page Three File 91038 2) 3) Can the site be reasonably developed under the current classification? The current CL classification does permit Class I restaurants Sit Down ") as conditional uses, and a variety of other uses are permitted or conditional (such as banks). The site can be reasonably developed under the current classification but the development that would be permitted under that classification does not fit the specific use (Class II restaurant) that the developer is currently proposing for the site. Is there a lack of developable properil is the same classification as t -at w is is being proposed7 I so is the proposed expansion supported the Comprehensive Plan Community Structure Concept? There is undeveloped or underdeveloped property within the CS Classification existing north of Highway 55 between South Shore Drive and West Medicine Lake Boulevard. In addition, there is undeveloped property in the CS Classification at the northwest corner of State Highway 55 and I -494. Finally, there are substantial areas of undeveloped land, both north and south of Highway 55, with a CS Land Use Guideplan Classification west of Vicksburg Lane and north of County Road 24. The need for areas of CS Guiding relates to both the location of major thoroughfares and is of a community wide basis, and therefore, the current availability of undeveloped land in that category is a factor regardless of the proximity to the specific site now under consideration. 4) Will other underdeveloped property, in the classification proposed for this site e a verse y a fected by this action? Will other property in the proposed classification, which mi t be su Ject to redeve opment re a i itation, e adversely a ecte s action As noted above, significant areas of both undeveloped and underdeveloped property with the CS Land Use Guideplan Classification exist west of this site along State Highway 55. The development or redevelopment of these areas currently guided CS could be negatively impacted by the reclassification here proposed simply through the mechanics of supply and demand. With a relatively weak demand for commercial property any increase in the supply may tend to reduce the value of the existing supply. In addition, the Class II restaurant that is proposed for the site that would be reclassified is a use allowable by Conditional Use Permit in the CR Land Use Classification. Potentially, therefore, not only would other CS classified property in the City be negatively influenced by the reclassification of this site, but also undeveloped or underdeveloped CR classified property. see next page) Page Four File 91038 5) How does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interest of the owner, proponent, or perspective developer of the site? The applicant in his narrative support of these actions of April 26, 1991 states there is a need for the restaurant facility that would result from the Land Use Guide Plan classification proposed. As such, the applicant contends that the reclassification demonstrates merit beyond the interest with the proponent. It is difficult to measure the "adequacy" of restaurant facilities in the neighborhood. 6) How does the proposal demonstrate that the new classification wou e t e ig est an est use o t e site? W at is t o ublic need or community benefit The applicant states that the text book definition of "highest and best use" is "that use of a parcel of land which will produce the greatest current value ". The issue that must be considered is whether that value is strictly measured in dollar return to the property owner, or whether that value should include value to the community resulting from the use of the parcel of land, which may not always be measurable in dollars. 7) What impact will the proposed use change have upon the several Comprehensive Plan elements? The report of Strgar- Roscoe Fausch, the City traffic consultant, of June 26, 1990 found that the traffic that would be generated from a Land Use Guide Plan Amendment proposed immediately north of this site of an identical description (CL to CS) for an identical use (Class II restaurant) resulted in an increase in traffic of approximately four percent, which was not considered significant. The City Engineer advises that the traffic impacts of this proposed Land Use Guide Plan amendment would be the same as those found earlier, and therefore no traffic impact is anticipated from the proposed amendment. No significant impacts are anticipated from the proposed amendment relating to the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan including sanitary sewers, storm water drainage, water distribution, housing, parks and open spaces, and the current Capital Improvements Program. 2. AMENDED MPUD PRELIMINARY PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT a. The Zoning Ordinance, in Section 9, specifies that the Planning Commission make its recommendation with respect to a new or amended Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan based on the compatibility of the Plan with the purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance (Section 9, Subdivision B); the relationship of the Plan to the neighborhood in which is proposed and to the City's Comprehensive Plan, and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; and, the internal organization and adequacy of various uses and densities, circulation and parking facilities, and recreational areas /open space. see next page) Page Five File 91038 b. The amendment to the Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit proposes a substitution of a Class II restaurant (Arby's) for the approved "bank" on the outlot "island" surrounded by Revere Lane, 6th Avenue North and Highway 55. No variations from Zoning Ordinance Standards are proposed by the PUD Plan Amendment. c. Compliance of the PUD Plan Amendment with the Comprehensive Plan relies on the preceding request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to amend the classification of this site from the existing CL Limited Business) to CS (Service Business). The amendment to the Planned Unit Development to change the use of the site, as proposed, cannot be considered unless an approval recommendation is made with regard to the Land Use Guide Plan reclassification request. d. The applicant, in his April 26, 1991 narrative submission, addresses both the compliance of the plan amendment with the six Conditional Use Permit standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the attributes expected of a Planned Unit Development. Together with the applicant's responses we have attached copies of the Conditional Use Permit standards and PUD attributes from the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. e. The applicant has also submitted a detailed Landscape and Berming Plan for the site in support of his contention that the site can be designed as a "gateway" by use of landscape and other aesthetic treatments. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: 1. No clear public purpose has been presented by the petitioner to support a need to rec Tassify the subject site from CL (Limited Business) to CS Service Business) other than the applicant's contention that a need exists for additional restaurant in this quadrant of the community - specifically a Class II restaurant. Although staff can not quantitatively dispute the contention of need, we can observe that we have not received comments or complaints from residents or employees of the community that service business is in short supply and that our Comprehensive Plan should be amended to rectify that situation. Other parcels exist within the community - both developed and undeveloped - that could be negatively impacted by the creation of additional CS guiding. In addition, there are CR classified sites in the community that could be negatively impacted by the development of this site with a Class II restaurant, as proposed by the PUD Plan Amendment. We do not find a lack of developable property in the community and along thoroughfares with the CS (Service Business) classification. 3. The applicant has submitted a conceptual Landscape Plan and building elevation for the site to support the concept that a "gatewa aesthetic impact can be created with the CS (Service Commercial land use classification proposed and the Class II restaurant site use proposed as a part of the PUD amendment. During the Development Review Committee see next page) Page Six File 91038 consideration of these applications staff has suggested to the applicant that aesthetic treatment of the site of an exceptional quality mfr provide the "gateway" effect with the CS land use classification that is expected by the Comprehensive Plan through the existing CL (Limited Office) classification of the site. The applicant's conceptual Landscape Plan meets the minimum standards of the Plymouth Landscape Policy (Resolution 81 -273). Neither the number of landscape items proposed nor the planting size of the items exceeds the minimal standards of the City to a significant degree. No "gateway" effect results from the conceptual Landscape Plan and building aesthetics proposal. 4. The application for an MPUD Preliminary Plan /Conditional Use Permit amendment was submitted concurrent with the application for the Land Use Guide Plan amendment for this site. This action was taken by the applicant with full realization that, should the Land Use Guide Plan amendment not be successful, the other application would be without purpose. Should the Planning Commission and City Council concur in staff findings with respect to the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment, no further action is necessary or should be taken with respect to the MPUD Preliminary Plan /Conditional Use Permit amendment. 5. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of a reclassification from CL (Office Limited) to CS (Service Business), the MPUD Preliminary Plan /Conditional Use Permit amendment should be considered, and a recommendation made. 6. With the proper Land Use Guide Plan classification in place, we find the proposal to amend the MPUD Preliminary Pan and Conditional Use Permit as to the use of this specific site meets the standards of the Zoning Ordinance for a Conditional Use, and PUD attributes, as they are applicable to a nonresidential use. 7. The applicant will be required to submit a complete MPUD Final Site Plan and a separate Conditional Use Permit application for a Class II restaurant in the B -3 zoning district. At that time the landscape and site aesthetics issues could be scrutinized in an effort to produce the gateway" effect desired for this site. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend denial of the Land Use Guide Plan amendment requested based on the findings noted in the draft resolution for denial. Consistent with City practice I have also included a resolution of approval for the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment subject to the usual conditions, including concurrence by the Metropolitan Council. see next page) Page Seven File 91038 Should the staff recommendation for denial of the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment be supported by the Planning Commission, no action with respect to the MPUD Preliminary Plan /Conditional Use Permit need be taken. That application, on its face, is inappropriate because the existing land use guiding of the site will not support the plan amendment. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment, consideration of the rezoning and MPUD Preliminary Plan /Conditional Use Permit is appropriate. The Preliminary Plan /Conditional Use Permit Amendment and rezoning should be approved subject to review and approval of an MPUD Final Site Plan and a separate Conditional Use Permit for a Class II restaurant in the B -3 Zoning District. Resolutions are attached for denial of the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment (as recommended), approval of the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment, and approval of the MPUD Preliminary Plan /Conditional Use Permit and rezoning. Submitted by: arles E. DilTerud, Community Development Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Denying Land Use Guide Plan Amendment 2. Resolution Approving Land Use Guide Plan Amendment 3. Resolution Approving Amended MPUD Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Permit Ordinance Rezoning from B -1 to B -3 Resolution Setting Conditions Prior to Publication of the Ordinance Engineer's Memo Petitioner's Narrative Resolution 90 -545 Denying Previous Resolution 88 -308 Approving MPUD Permit Location Map Large Plans pc /jk /91038:dh) Rezoning Land Use Guide Plan Amendment Request Preliminary Plan /Plat /Conditional Use DENYING LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA FOR "WATERFORD PARK PLAZA" (91038) (MPUD 86 -1) WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota has requested approval for a Land Use Guide Plan amendment to reclassify approximately 1.7 acres in Waterford Park Plaza" located at the northeast corner of Highway 55 and Revere Lane from CL (Limited Business) to CS (Service Business); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the request following a duly scheduled Public Hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request by Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota to reclassify approximately 1.7 acres in Waterford Park Plaza" located at the northeast corner of Highway 55 and Revere Lane from CL (Limited Business) to CS (Service Business), based on the following reasons: 1. The existing classification (CL) is more responsive than the proposed classification (CS) to the locational characteristics of the site, specifically the "gateway" characteristic. 2. No lack of developed or undeveloped land of the CS classification has been demonstrated. 3. Existing developed and undeveloped land in the CS and CR classification would be negatively affected by this reclassification. 4. The requested action would constitute "spot" guiding and thus "spot" zoning which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Criteria. 5. The proposed classification does not constitute the highest and best use of the property. res /pc /91038.lugp) 2 pgs. APPROVING LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA FOR "WATERFORD PARK PLAZA" (91038) (MPUD 86 -1) WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota has requested approval for a Land Use Guide Plan amendment to reclassify property in "Waterford Park" located at the northeast corner of Highway 55 and Revere Lane from CL (Limited Business) to CS (Service Business); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the request following a duly scheduled Public Hearing and has recommended approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the reclassification of land use guiding for Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota for "Waterford Park Plaza" for approximately 1.7 acres located at the northeast corner of Highway 55 and Revere Lane from CL (Limited Business) to CS (Service Business), subject to the following conditions: 1. Concurrence of the Metropolitan Council. 2. Development shall take place consistent with plans approved for this site as MPUD 86 -1 and 91038. 3. The Development Contract shall be executed and the building permit shall be issued, with all fees paid, prior to December 31, 1991, or this resolution will be void, and the reguiding will not take place. res /pc /91038.lugp) 2 pgs. APPROVING AMENDED MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA FOR WATERFORD PARK PLAZA" LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 55 AND REVERE LANE (91038) (MPUD 86 -1) WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota has requested approval for an Amended Mixed Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit to change the use of Outlot B, "Waterford Park Plaza" located at the northeast corner of Highway 55 and Revere Lane from "Bank" to "Class II Restaurant "; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota for a Amended Mixed Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit to change the use of Outlot B, for "Waterford Park Plaza" located at the northeast corner of Highway 55 and Revere Lane, from "Bank" to "Class II Restaurant ", subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum. 2. Rezoning shall be finalized with the filing of the Final Plat. 3. Compliance with the applicable conditions of Resolution 88 -308 and 88 -508. 4. Final Plat mylars shall refer to MPUD 86 -1. 5. A separate Conditional Use Permit application is required for a Class II Restaurant in the B -3 Zoning District concurrent the PUD Final Site Plan application. 6. No building permit to be issued until, in addition to other applicable conditions, the Final Plat for Outlot B is filed and recorded with Hennepin County. 7. This amendment is subject to and based on an amendment to the Land Use Guide Plan considered a separate. resolution, and including a condition if certain actions were not taken by December 31, 1991 Land Use reclassification action would become null and void. This resolution shall become null and void without further recourse should the reclassification of this property from CL to CS, for any reason, be voided. 8. The petitioner is directed to substantially enhance the site aesthetics including landscaping, grading and other aesthetic features) from the plans submitted in support of this MPUD Preliminary Plan amendment to create a "gateway" appearance to the site with the MPUD Final Site Plan and Plat. res /pc /91038.pp) SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE REZONING LAND FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR "WATERFORD PARK PLAZA" (91038) (MPUD 86 -1) WHEREAS, the City Council has approved an Ordinance rezoning certain land located at the northeast corner of Highway 55 and Revere Lane from B -1 (Office Limited Business) District to B -3 (Service Business) District in conjunction with approval of the Preliminary Plat for Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota for "Waterford Park Plaza "; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the Final Plat for Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota for Outlot B, Waterford Park Plaza to be filed with Hennepin County prior to the publication of said Ordinance. res /pc /91038.sc) CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF 6TH AVENUE NORTH AND REVERE LANE AS B -3 (SERVICE BUSINESS) (91038) (MPUD 86 -1) Section 1. Amendment of Ordinance. Ordinance No. 80 -9 of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, adopted June 15, 1980 as amended, is hereby amended by changing the classification on the City of Plymouth Zonin Map from B -1 Office Limited Business) District to B -3 (Service Business? District with respect to the hereinafter described property: Insert Legal) Section 2. General Development Plan. This Ordinance authorizes the development of said tracts only in accordance with the Plan approved for the File No. 91038. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon filing the Final Plat with Hennepin County and upon its passage and publication. Adopted by the City Council this day of Mayor ATTEST City Clerk File 91038 ord:cc /cd/91038) 1991. DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT WATERFORD PARK PLAZA OUTLOT B ARBY' S PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA DEVELOPER/APPLICANTS RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, INC. APR ' 1091 ARBY'S RESTAURANT H APRIL 26, 1991 DEPT Introduction Waterford Park Plaza was approved as a Mixed Used Planned Unit Development (MPUD) in 1988. It was an expansion of the Waterford Park/Grove's Office Park MPUD adjacent to the east. The Waterford Park Plaza involved a reguiding /rezoning and rotation from Industrial to a mix of Service Business (CS /B -3 Retail Zoning) and Limited Business (CL /B -1 Office Zoning). Initial construction consisted of the retail shopping center known as Waterford Park Plaza, including the Rainbow Foods facility, and the adjacent strip space on the retail /CS portion of the site. Subsequently, the Devac facility has been removed, with Outlot A currently existing as a rough - graded parcel. This application is for Outlot B, Waterford Park Plaza, which was originally included in the Waterford Park Plaza MPUD as a drive -thru bank facility. Outlot B was guided and zoned CL /B -1 Office Zoning as part of the rotational shift of CL and CS to accommodate the shopping center and Outlot A. Outlot B is essentially the residual of the frontage road planning. The proposal is for development of an Arby's restaurant (3,490 sq. ft.) on Outlot B, Waterford Park Plaza. This reguiding and rezoning will not affect the Outlot A 4.79 acre site known as the Devac parcel. It must be emphasized that Outlot B, Waterford Park Plaza is not in a Tax Increment Financing TIF) district. Furthermore, the Applicants have met twice with the City Staff to informally review the conceptual site plan to ensure no variance for the development. It is our understanding, therefore, that the conceptual site plan as part of this submittal has no variances. A: \VJD6.09 /sl Land Use Guide Plan Amendment 1. Demonstrate whether the locational criteria of both existing and proposed classifications are satisfied by the specific site. A. Existing CL- Limited Business Classification 1. The site is directly adjacent to the signalized intersection of T.H. 55 and Revere /Quaker Lane. The site is in the northeasterly quadrant of said intersection. T.H. 55 is an intermediate arterial, while Revere Lane and the frontage road found on the north and east boundary of the property are defined as major collectors and provide alternate access routes to the intersections of 13th Avenue/T.H. 169 and Southshore Drive/T.H. 55 (via 10th Avenue). The site has a very high degree of access and exposure via the T.H. 55 and Revere Lane intersection and its proximity to T.H. 55. 2. Industrial property is located north of Waterford Park MPUD. The site is not adjacent to other industrial properties. High density residential is nearby but not adjacent, lying south across T.H. 55 and to the northwest across 10th Avenue. 3. The site is within the Waterford MPUD and adjacent to the Prime West project - both major retail and commercial centers, respectively. In fact, this site is located directly in front of the Rainbow Foods facility, anchor tenant to Waterford Park Plaza. Access to the Waterford Park Plaza retail facility passes directly alongside of or directly in front of the subject site. 4. The site is located approximately 1/4 mile west of the southeast gateway intersection to the City of Plymouth (T.H. 55 and T.H. 169). It should be noted that the architectural features and design elements of the planned Arby's facility will tie in specifically in color and shape to the existing Waterford Park Plaza retail facility and Waterford Park office complex. The gateway image is one that can be addressed not only by use, but also by design and architectural quality control. In this case, tieing in the Arby's restaurant as an Outlot facility to the overall Waterford Park development would not only meet, but enhance the "gateway" image to the City. A AVJD6.09 /sl 2 B. Proposed CS - Service Business Classification 1. The site is located at the intersection of T.H. 55 and Revere Lane, providing excellent access and exposure as required by a retail use of this type. This proximity to highway exposure, in fact, would be detrimental to uses more commonly found under the CL /B -1 guiding that require less traffic and quieter facilities (i.e., executive, medical research, professional governmental offices, etc.). In fact, vibrations from traffic on T.H. 55 may well preclude any professional, office, medical, or state of the art research and development facilities where vibrations and noise would impact the day -to -day operations. 2. The site is adjacent to the existing Waterford Park Plaza retail center (CS Building) and the Waterford Park office center. Additional business service is being developed immediately to the west in the New Horizon Day Care facility, which requires a conditional use permit under both CL /B -1 and CS /B -3. It is clear that the logical use for the site is retail orientation given its position in front of the Waterford Park Plaza shopping center. It should be noted that the Land Use Guide Plan Element (dated December 18, 1989), indicates that CS- Commercial Service should not be adjacent to residential development living areas unless approximate to retail shopping centers. Residential land is nearby, but not adjacent to the site line, both south of T.H. 55 and to the northwest. 2. Can the site be reasonably developed under the current classification and why should it change? The current CL classification does not allow for a class II restaurant. Those types of developments outlined in the Land Use Guide Plan Element dated December 18, 1989, for CL development, we believe are not applicable to this site. Specifically high amenity office facilities, i.e. administrative, executive, medical research, professional and governmental offices, and research and development laboratories would require further setbacks from major thoroughfares, a substantial amount of green space (especially one associated with a gateway type site plan and design), as well as sites that are less visible and busy, thereby providing a more peaceful environment for the use. A: \VID6.09 /sl 3 The proposed use is allowed as a conditional use within the CS classification and related B -3 zoning. The reguiding would be compatible with, and a logical extension of the adjacent CS retail center. Again, here we would like to re- emphasize that the proposed use would be a more appropriate development for the site, given its size and shape, its location relative to T.H. 55, its accessibility via Revere Lane and existing infrastructure, and its proximity to the existing Waterford Park Plaza and Rainbow Foods. 3. Is there lack of developable property in the same classification as that proposed? There is other CS land in the southeast portion of the City, however it is limited, essentially developed, or unavailable for development. Additionally, there is CS land available in the western /northwestern portion of Plymouth, however this market is currently served by the existing Arby's facility found on T.H. 55 west of I -494. It is stated in the Land Use Guide Plan Element dated December 18, 1989, that commercial land uses (including CS) "is perhaps the most critical in terms of location and accessibility ". This is most true as it applies to retail development and retail businesses which live and die on accessibility, visibility, and other locational criteria. More importantly within the retail environment, the more retail found, the better off are all the surrounding retail businesses. The proposed use is supported by the Comprehensive Planned Community Structure concept, and, more speficially, the driving neighborhood concept. With grocery shopping being the primary focus of neighborhood retailing, Waterford Park Plaza has become a significant neighborhood center area for retailing activities. Although the site is accessible via community trail systems for pedestrian traffic, the focus on Waterford Park Plaza is vehicular circulation with the excellent accessibility via arterial and collector streets and trunk highway systems neighboring the site. This provides convenient and safe access to the retail center from within the driving neighborhood and outside the neighborhood. Additionally, under the driving neighborhood concept, neighborhood center areas are to be designed to promote visual identity and provide convenience. This is most appropriate for the retail uses, and will be most applicable to our particular site with its extremely high visibility from T.H. 55, and the design of the Arby's facility to tie in with the existing design elements of the neighboring shopping center and the office towers. A: \VJD6.09 /sl 4 Furthermore, there has been demonstrated a need for additional restaurant facilities, like Arby's, in the neighboring office and industrial complexes. Last summer, within the period of couple of hours and an impromptu survey, the Property Management department of Ryan Construction was able to generate more than 85 signatures of office employees at the Waterford /Groves office complex that would utilize additional fast food restaurants if made available. 4. As a result of this action, will there be an adverse impact upon other undeveloped property in this classification? This reguiding for a 1.17 acre site is minimal in nature and will have little or no adverse impact on the remaining undeveloped CS property in the City of Plymouth. The user, Arby's, has indicated that they have no interest in locating either west of their existing location, or in any of the CS locations found around Southshore Drive. They have selected the Waterford Park Plaza neighborhood retail center area as the focus for their expansion in the City of Plymouth. Should they not have the opportunity to locate within the immediate vicinity, they will not place an additional store in the City of Plymouth. Therefore, opportunity is not being diminished for other CS properties. Additionally, the generation of more high- quality design and operation retail in the immediate neighborhood retail center focus around Waterford Park Plaza, will generate more spinoff retail development and re- development along the T.H. 55 retail corridor. In and of itself, however, the Arby's facility is not of the magnitude that would generate re- development or rehabilitation in any of the existing CS developed sites. Again, the opportunity for redevelopment and rehabilitation is not diminished by this reguiding. 5. Demonstrate that this proposal has merits beyond the owner, proponent or prospective developer of the site. The proposed restaurant would have benefit to the residential /commercial /industrial /retail uses in the area by providing convenience and access to this type of use. The immediate neighborhood has very little access to this type and quality of use in this immediate area. Additionally, need has been demonstrated by the signatures obtained from the employees in the immediate neighborhood that would utilize such a facility. Furthermore, more retail begets more retail, thereby benefitting small tenants in Waterford Park Plaza. A: \VJD6.09 /sl 5 6. Demonstrate that the new classification would be the highest and best use of the site. What is the public need or community benefit? The Minnesota Real Estate Textbook Second Edition, written by Richard Larson and Bruce Harwood (that textbook used for educating real estate professionals in the licensing process in Minnesota), defines "highest and best use" as "that use of a parcel of land which will produce the greatest current value". The site generates the highest and best use when developed as a quality retail facility that has architectural characteristics that tie into the existing Waterford Park Plaza and Waterford Park office towers, thereby enhancing the gateway complex already established in the northwest quadrant of T.H. 55 and T.H. 169, while at the same time takes full advantage of the high degree of visibility and accessibility of the site. Placed directly in front of a high traffic major grocer and neighborhood retail center, one can only conclude that the highest and best use for this land is retail in nature. Any other type of use would not take full advantage of the sites' locational characterists, and therefore would not be the highest and best use. Additionally, restaurant uses are limited in this area. This proposed use would help fill that void. This is especially true given the large amount of office /retail/ industrial space in the area and the need to provide these uses with convenient lunch restaurant access. The use will provide a needed mixed use diversification element to this gateway area of the City which is compatible with the adjacent existing uses. 7. What impact will the proposed change have upon various Comprehensive Plan Elements? A. Transportation - Per informal discussions with City Staff reviewing the site plan for the site, it was indicated that a revised traffic study over and above what was provided during the summer of 1990 for a similar submission would not be needed. That traffic study indicated that the traffic change from the existing guiding to the proposed guiding would not be considered significant. B. Sanitary Sewer - The sanitary sewer flow for the proposed use is expected to be less than that of a comparable CL development. However, the change is not considered to be significant. See attached Engineer's Memo indicating that the sanitary sewer flow will be less than the allocation for the site. C. Storm Drainage - Storm water storage and in -place storm sewer have been designed to accommodate site runoff. D. Municipal Water - An existing 12 inch watermain is adjacent to the site on the frontage road. Water service to the site will loop with other watermains in the area. Water service should be more than adequate. A: \VJD6.09 /sl 6 E. Housing - No impact anticipated. F. Capital Improvement Program - No impact anticipated. G. Parks and open space - No impact anticipated. H. Official Controls (zoning, conditional use permit, PUD amendment, variances, subdivision, environmental). 1. This site will require a rezoning to B -3 to be compatible with the proposed land use change. This has been requested with this proposal. 2. The proposed use will require a conditional use permit under the B -3 zoning. The conformance with standards in Section 9 of the zoning ordinance is as follows: a. Compliance with the comprehensive plan - The site is proposed to be reguided from CL to CS to allow the intended use. Discussion regarding the Land Use Amendment occurs elsewhere in this narrative. b. Impact on general public welfare and the public health, safety, morals or comfort - The proposed use will enhance the general public welfare by providing a needed type of use in the area. The proposed restaurant is also regulated by other governmental agencies such as the Department of Health. This type of use would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. C. Will the use be injurious or impact property values in the area? - No. The proposed use will be compatible and complimentary with adjacent uses. It will provide a desirable service to uses within the area. Providing compatible architectural detail (same brick as the retail center), tasteful signage, appropriate landscaping and other controls within the PUD will assure a compatible appearance with the adjacent Waterford Park Plaza Retail Center and not impair property values within the area. d. Impact on orderly development - There is little to no undeveloped B -3 land in the area. The proposed use will not impede other development permitted within the district. A: \VJD6.09 /sl 7 e. Access - Primary site access will come from the frontage road in front of Waterford Park Plaza Retail Center site. Its location along the frontage road will allow ease of site access while minimizing impact on and maintaining appropriate ingress /egress to other surrounding uses. f. Conformance to applicable regulations of the district - The site is within the Waterford Park MPUD. The proposed use will conform with the various regulations of the zoning ordinance or MPUD as appropriate. 3. PUD Amendment The proposed use will require an amendment to the existing MPUD. The PUD is intended to provide flexibility in development and design. Review of the expected attributes of the PUD as it relates to the proposed amended use is as follows: a. Benefits from new technology - The building design and materials are intended to be compatible with the adjacent retail center. The same brick will be used on Arby's as on the existing retail center. The proposed use is compatible with and a desirable supplement to the adjacent area land uses and the Waterford MPUD. b. Registered architects, engineers, landscape architects and trained site planners have prepared and reviewed plans for the proposed restaurant use to assure compatibility with the adjacent Retail Center. The same wagon wheel design element, as well as similar colors as the retail center, will be utilized. C. Efficient use of infrastructure - The proposed site development uses existing utilities and access. There would be no additional cost for new public improvements. d. Recreational Facilities - There would be no need for additional public or private recreational facilities. The original MPUD provided for trails and common open space within the area. e. Preserve desirable site characteristics - There are none to preserve. The proposed development will improve the image and character of the previous land use. A: \VJD6.09 /sl 8 4. Variances Per informal Staff meeting to review the site plan, no variances will be required. 5. There will be no environmental impact. A: \VJD6.09 /sl 9 0 CITY OF PLYMOUTH ENGINEER'S MEMO to PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL MEMBERS DATE: May 31, 1991 FILE NO.: 91038 PETITIONER: Mr. William McHale, Ryan Construction Company, 900 South 2nd Street, 44700, Minneapolis, MN 55402 LAND USE GUIDE: OUTLOT B - WATERFORD PARK PLAZA PLAN AMDEND. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Revere Lane and 6th Avenue North Ryan Construction Company is proposing to reguide Outlot B from CL to CS to allow the construction of an Arby's Restuarant. The reguiding will have no impact on: 1.) Traffic 2.) Sanitary Sewer System 3.) Watermain System 4.) Storm Sewer System. If this application is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, a final plat application, along with a detailed site plan will be required. SUBMITTED BY Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. City Engineer CITT Ot PL=80= Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a ragular meeting of the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 10th day of SA91mobat„ 1990 The following members were present: _ May BerQMAnA. nunnil+e."h.ra Nellirell Ri ez Vasiliou, and Zitur The following members were absent: Nona picker introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 90 -545 DENYING LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR WATERFORD PARK PLAZA 2ND ADDITION" LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF 6TH AVENUE NORTH AND REVERE LANE (90052) (MPUD 86 -1) WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company has requested approval for a Land Use Guide Plan amendment to reclassify 1.2 acres of property, a portion of Outlot A, Waterford Park Plaza, located at the northeast quadrant of 6th Avenue North and Revere Lane from CL (Limited Business) District to CS (Service Business) District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the request following a duly scheduled Public Hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the reclassification of land use guiding for Ryan Construction Company for "Waterford Park Plaza 2nd Addition" for approximately 1.2 acres located at the northeast quadrant of 6th Avenue North and Revere Lane from CL (Limited Business) District to CS Service Business) District, for the following reasons: 1. The existing classification (CL) is more responsive than the proposed classification (CS) to the locational characteristics of the site, specifically the "gateway" characteristic. 2. No lack of developed or undeveloped land of the CS classification has been demonstrated. 3. Existing developed and undeveloped land in the CS and CR classification will be negatively affected by this reclassification. 4. The requested action would constitute "spot" guiding and thus, "spot" zoning which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Criteria. S. The proposed classification does not constitute the highest and best use of the property. The motion foe adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Zitur , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Councilmembers Helli veil, Rirk_ar. and Zituz The following voted against or abstains d_yor Baran and cninei 1,".,"ti.. you. Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF PLYMOUTH Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a radar_ meeting of the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the -6th — day of :tune , 1988. The following members were present: Deputy Mayor TNT, Councilman ers as ou, Ricker and Zitur The following rs were absent: Mayor ne r Councilmember Vasiliou intro6iced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 88 -308 APPROVING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN /PLAT AND CONDITIONAL.USE PERMIT FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA FOR WATERFORD PARK PLAZA (MPUD 86 -1) (87027) WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota has requested approval for a Rezoning, Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Waterford Park- Plaza, for three commercial /office lots on 21.34 acres located in the northeast quadrant of State Highway 55 and Revere Lane (extended); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public Hear- ing and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MIN- NESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Ryan Construction of Minnesota for property located in the northeast quadrant of State Highway 55 and Revere Lane (extended), subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum as amended, and the Traffic Engineering coisultant's recommendations. 2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense. 3. No Building Permits shall be issued until a Contract has been awarded for sewer and water. 4. Payment of park dedication tees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of issuance of Building Permit. 5. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79 -00 regarding minimum floor elevations for new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing any open storm water drainage facility. 6. Rezoning shall be finalized with filing of the Final Plat. 7. No Building Permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded with Hennepin County. 8. Approval of PUD Preliminary Plan /Plat includes no Variances from Zoning Ordinance specifications, specifically off- street parking and structure parking setbacks. CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO 231con No. 8a =908 f 1 The final plat shall show Lot 1, Block 29 as an outlot, due to its size. . r.10. Demolition of the DeVac building shall be no later than October 17, 1989. II: • m v The notion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Councilwewber Utur and upon vote being taken thereon, the foll owing v' - n avor ereo : e r Sisk Councilweebers Vasiliou r., Vicke ' and Zitur e followLwg voted against or a s a ne : hereupon the Resolution was declared duly pas sed and adopted. t @I OfA 9 147V R.Roo 1 10 w i ii'6i ow I M NIUAIIIIII R111 a rem. mM 1 AMC Q m ic rn o _ N a D; c N y 0 H = y y n m R o Q a nn 0-4 - ° a a mm m QQ ?m Dm m m a w D a D t 0 A m Z to '- -- m o 75 i D I L7 IL a JL Cc 7-Z-Z iC F 1- On T7 i 1 f b pad o o x m ou o 11.0 411E ILK Iv r z.' /n/, v G ^t4t -4 I VLru 611L 11 E v. 894.1 OfQ,+ m I Rti 1 • 1. .1 81 9y.9 a 1¢I '1 /•\ 1 .' I 'a yr xa` G m .o0 1 b ins` A v RN P •00 1 PVC FLEV. B9! QD 1 z wr ,<r, 6'kr PVI ElFV 89616 Y00 1 - PVT ELEV 9969! 0 A 90 PvC FLEV 9W911 p z N •oo i S PV .I ELEV.90169 lI _J(/ \ S minDVnl I=iIE .60 HI PVI FLEV 9019. I Rap D / RU 0 r v _ o m c rs C3. } iiz' LIEV 911.29 n' 1n V t OZ Y m& E, Grjo II p41 — 4 rL CD p ~ - CA U LANE V h 4v a g U o Ll NQ l F D T1 W O N n r D m N m of iprZm cn i ;S D N D Fili 711, Fe I fl, 1 -14 1 119 Ix; 0 0 A Dam, gm czmm ol czof Z III CC mom 0 30 Z ) z0 wn 41 71 0 r r 0 I 3 T - IR r"+P i7 pa I - M O u p u E Nib s iUi• w' riir B F't, u 10 iK a't'm oA Imo r Zz z n m} Ai 0 m K S t Y ICH Eft E°6El ylE;s2 -\ \ \ 10.24 I EEEV 90I 60 I i a 1 ,n I -' a l o; 77T PM to jF 0 .r• 5 vV1EEEV a9s5e - mm nm[ u c y -[0 vVt EEE •8526 l -I 144 • 14N — __... _. _. ._p A 1 ,•S ` - p 1 m I n S m ii Fl} m( I I gN I i m boo flit Im im i I >s mvoJU i S PIN 2 jig 11 yt 'R Em: qq o ^n im ql eel m ax `,, "" 4 y °d u€ ?i 5a9 =!g ve'r^$2% t 111 a m9w I ul ' x GT yvn s °' 4 a 3 1 al PK YV. ELEV 89022 ~ wY• xi \.\ ^m ^ PVT EEEV •90N -')_ t \ in< ell 1 i rU i i ' 'w o /• X42 8g° a -C u 10 pn S r Zzz n r 0 m K 8 -9 8 c M m i 00 > 1 gn b s°. °3 I 0 2$ 6 O m m 0 PIN 2 jig 11 yt 'R Em: qq o ^n im ql eel m ax `,, "" 4 y °d u€ ?i 5a9 =!g ve'r^$2% t 111 a m9w I ul ' x GT yvn s °' 4 a 3 1 al PK YV. ELEV 89022 ~ wY• xi \.\ ^m ^ PVT EEEV •90N -')_ t \ in< ell 1 i rU i i ' 'w o /• X42 I REPORT DATE: FILE NO.: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND: 5• P. CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT May 23, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 12, 1991 91036 City of Plymouth CONTINUED REVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION PLAN Harbor Lane to Kingsview Lane and 10th Avenue North to Gleason Lake Drive R -1A (Low Density Single Family Residential District) On April 1, 1991 the City Council directed the Planning Commission to hold a Public Hearing to consider the Land Use Guide Plan classification of the area from Harbor Lane to I -494 and County Road 6 to Gleason Lake Drive; and to consider the reclassification and location of the Minor Collector street between County Road 6 and Gleason Lake Drive on the general Fernbrook Lane alignment. On May 8, 1991, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing; preliminarily recommended several land use reclassification actions; and, reviewed the Thoroughfare Plan regarding the extension of Fernbrook Lane as a Minor Collector between County Road 6 and Gleason Lake Drive. The Planning Commission acted to table the Thoroughfare Plan review to the June 12, 1991 Planning Commission meeting and to hold a Public Informational Meeting to discuss the connection of Kingsview Lane to 10th Avenue North, as a potential alternative for access to the existing Harbor Lane neighborhood. Property owners in the vicinity of 10th Avenue North and Kingsview Lane have been notified. (An Area Notification Map is attached.) PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: 1. The public right -of -way exists between Ithaca Lane and Kingsview Lane where a 500' segment of 10th Avenue North could be constructed. Via Kingsview Lane and Lanewood Lane this connection would provide alternative access to the Harbor Lane subdivision now served only by Harbor Lane. 2. The connection of 10th Avenue North would also result in alternative access to the Kingsview Lane neighborhood, now a cul -de -sac of 2450 feet length. City subdivision design standards limit cul -de -sac length to 500' for emergency access reasons. 3. There are no state or federally designated wetlands, or City storm water holding areas in the 10th Avenue corridor. There are moderate grades and existing trees that would be impacted by any road construction. see next page) Page Two File 91036 4. Transportation plans for the City have, since before 1975, proposed a thoroughfare street connection between County Road 6 and Gleason Lake Drive. Thoroughfare Guide Plan maps for many years have depicted this road segment to generally follow the Fernbrook Lane corridor north of the Luce Line Trail and extend as a straight line south from the Luce Line to intersect Gleason Lake Road. The City Council has directed Commission review of this proposed collector and its general alignment. 5. In a traffic study prepared by the City in September, 1982 to analyze the need for a parallel road way system to I -494, Fernbrook Lane and 13th Avenue North were addressed. The study found that due to the guiding of the vacant land in this area and the distance and travel time to the nearest Fire Station, Fernbrook Lane and 13th Avenue North should be extended to provide additional access to the area. In addition to providing a parallel roadway to I -494 the traffic study proposed four alternatives for the Fernbrook Lane /13th Avenue North alignment. The recommended alternative shows Fernbrook Lane connecting from County Road 6 south through Harbor Lane near Carlson Parkway. The recommendations also included connecting 13th Avenue North under I -494 west to the extension of Fernbrook Lane. This has now been precluded by the reconstruction of I -494 underpass. 6. The design of the "Harbor Place" subdivision included the roadway extended to the east line of the subdivision (with no cul -de -sac) that could serve as the corridor for the northerly extension of Fernbrook Lane to its present terminus north of the Luce Line. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: 1. We find connection of Kingsview Lane to Ithaca Lane via 10th Avenue North will provide alternative access to both the Harbor Lane neighborhood and the Kingsview Lane neighborhood by eliminating an existing cul -de -sac street of approximately k mile. Regardless of the Fernbrook Lane Minor Collector decision, this connection would bring circulation /access in this neighborhood to the standard of design required elsewhere in the City. 2. We find no significant change in conditions regarding the need for a collector street to connect County Road 6 with Gleason Lake Drive through this area. Even if the land that is currently classified LA -4 is reclassified to a less dense residential class on the Land Use Guide Plan, findings of the 1982 traffic study for this area point to the need for the collector street connection between County Road 6 and Gleason Lake Road for circulation, access, and public safety reasons. These are particularly relevant now that this area has been filled in with developed /developing plats. A connection of Ithaca Lane to Kingsview Lane via 10th Avenue North would address a part of the existing access and circulation problems. see next page) Page Three File 91036 3. Concurrent with recommendations as to streets and thoroughfares the Planning Commission may determine reconsideration of Land Use Guide Plan recommendations of May 8, 1991 to be appropriate. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The transportation system for the overall area and for the community should be the focus for the review of the Transportation Plan and Guide Map. The issues are circulation and access. The specific alignment of a road is a and can be addressed by directing that specific plats and plans are evaluated. concern of the residents in this area various alternatives be considered as The need to get from one point (County Road 6) to another (Gleason Lake Road) is vital as this heretofore "underdeveloped" are of the City "fills in." I recommend, based on public safety access and effective circulation considerations, that the minor collector corridor between County Road 6 and Gleason Lake Road be retained and the Transportation Plan not be amended. The exact routing for the corridor south of the Luce Line could be accomplished with several options. The routing option provided for by the Harbor Woods" preliminary plat is consistent with the Transportation Plan. Alternate plat designs are possible for this area, and can be considered with the detailed review of specific plats. The connection of Ithaca Lane to Kingsview Lane is advisable regardless of the Fernbrook Lane Minor Collector decision. I recommend the connection be directed as a future street project in the Capital Improvements Program. Submitted by: arTes E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Location Map 3. Transportation Plan Thoroughfare Map 4. Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 1991 5. Previous Draft Resolution Adopted by the Planning Commission Regarding Land Use Guide Plan Amendments pc /jk /91036.2:dh) RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING A MINOR COLLECTOR PARALLEL TO INTERSTATE 494 FROM COUNTY ROAD 6 TO GLEASON LAKE DRIVE (91036) WHEREAS, the City Council has directed consideration of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the Minor Collector proposed between County Road 6 and Gleason Lake Drive parallel to I -494; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly publicized Public Hearing to consider this matter; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a Public Informational Meeting to consider the construction of 10th Avenue North between Ithaca Lane and Kingsview Lane as an alternative, or additional, action related to this consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, should and hereby does reaffirm the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the need and requirement for a Minor Collector Street between County Road 6 and Gleason Lake Drive on the approximate alignment of Fernbrook Lane as the Transportation Plan now proposes, based on the following findings: 1. A connection between County Road 6 and Gleason Lake Drive in the approximate alignment of Fernbrook Lane has been an element of the Transportation Plan (and former Thoroughfare Guide Plan) for the City of Plymouth for many years, and locational decisions involving private investment and public safety have been made in reliance on that plan. 2. No substantiative documentation or basis has been presented to support a finding that the Transportation Plan should be amended in this area based on changes in land use or circulation. 3. The need continues to exist for secondary access for private and emergency vehicles to the neighborhoods south of the Luce Line Trail west of I -494 and north of Gleason Lake Drive where single access only is available through numerous residences for a distance of over 2,000 feet versus the Subdivision Ordinance standard of 500 feet maximum. FURTHER, the Planning Commission is hereby directed to consider inclusion of an element in the 1992 - 1996 Capital Improvements Program for the construction of 10th Avenue North between Ithaca Lane and Kingsview Lane to provide alternate access to the Harbor Lane and Kingsview Lane neighborhoods south of the Luce Line and north of Gleason Lake Drive. res /pc/91036.2) l d(al0 iyiFA. i . . . - j [IKi: L 7 0 V 111 r i;plolQ! iIl j! !fil# , ttI111110,11 1 i.e_ l 4'tti!:s rKVrvJCu Um" Lv -^ B...A.u1908 THOROUGHFARE GUIDE PLAN r City of Pymouth, Minnesota FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFIMON NOTICE TO USERS ft cod m9dob Motor cdwctm 1. The O y cwna may ouvict" afrnafrw+Y b >ttt plOtf/rtrop. A OfInfimWYAMkWMhoCOYCIO affNnaltlMlb Y ft1 110tNa mby"co vwv Minor AnWM E 4+p Vtomho gees wO ptlpwment. Plorrnfaa Wal aRpM 2 ANa to Cornp"*wwm Plan br *won~ of wwmuV= glom pion. L 1ENTIFIC 17, . AVE N r J2 W17 6 1 1 AVE OU A SUBAREA AVE il2i Lid 146 T- -7 tAKI Toll. A C I 'A O'Y'I- SUBAREA E.CD C5 PO Im t °`rte I OA Q' K Z 7 AREA J: Wil Li ol 2i Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1991 Page 70 MOTION by Commissioner Zylla, seconde y Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE Wire to recommend approval of the re st by Carlson Real Estate for a Conditional Use Pe Amendment to allow single family detached dwellin nits in Block 1, Carlson Center 6th Addition located uthwest of Xenium Lane and Zinnia Lane. Roll Call Vote. 7 Aye MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED Chairman Plufk oved item 5 C. to the end of the Public Hearing it as there was no one present representing the petitioner. Chairman Plufka introduced the request of the City of LAND USE GUIDE PLAN Plymouth for consideration of a Land Use Guide Plan & TRANSPORTATION PLAN classification and Transportation Plan thoroughfare street (91036) proposals within the area of the City bounded by Glacier and Harbor Lanes (extended), Gleason Lake Drive, I -494 and County Road 6. Coordinator Dillerud reviewed the April 24, 1991 Staff Report regarding the Land Use Guide Plan. Public Works Director Fred Moore reviewed the May 8, 1991 Engineering Staff Report regarding the Transportation Plan for Fernbrook Lane as a Minor Collector street from County Road 6 to Gleason Lake Drive. Commissioner Marofsky asked if the existing Harbor Lane would connect to Fernbrook Lane directly at or close to the Luce Line, noting that there are wetlands close to the Luce Line. Director Moore stated that they it connect south of the Luce Line near 8th Avenue North because of the wetlands on both sides of the Luce Line. He said that a curve in the design would miss the wetland areas. Chairman Plufka stated that the congestion at Gleason Lake Road and Harbor Lane would increase an already bad congestion problem if Fernbrook Lane were connected. Commissioner Marofsky noted that emergency vehicles could reach the area faster if Fernbrook Lane were connected at the northerly end. Director Moore stated that the farther south the connection between Fernbrook Lane and Harbor Lane was made the more difficult emergency access would be because you would have to drive a distance north on Harbor Lane. Chairman Plufka suggested that some streets in the proposed development for this area could be designed to run between Harbor Lane and Fernbrook Lane. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1991 Page 71 Commissioner Tierney asked how much land in the southerly area of the proposed Fernbrook Lane would not be buildable. Director Moore responded that approximately the south 1,000 feet in this area is not buildable as it is protected wetlands and too narrow. Commissioner Tierney asked if it would be more expensive to fill this southerly area for a road than road construction on a flat parcel. Director Moore stated that is would cost a little more. Chairman Plufka opened the Public Hearing. Chairman Plufka introduced Jeremy Wilson -Dando of 14400 4th Avenue North. Mr. Wilson -Dando stated that he represented the Harbor Place Homeowners Association. He stated that the Homeowners Association would like to discuss any change in plans Carlson Real Estate Company has for this site with the company. He said the Homeowners Association is concerned about the loss of trees and the buffer, and that removal of the buffer would increase the noise to the homeowners in the area. Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. Robert Gersbach of 700 Harbor Lane. Mr. Gersbach stated that he recently subdivided the property he owned on the east side of Harbor Lane west of one of the ponds. He said that the extension of Fernbrook Lane as proposed would go through the pond and he was concerned that the buffer of the pond would be eliminated. He said he thought the construction of Fernbrook Lane would not be feasible because of the soil type in this area. He asked that the definition of a minor collector be explained. City Engineer Faulkner explained that a minor collector limited speed to 30 mph and is intended to provide access to the immediate area. He said the minor collector streets are 4 feet wider than residential streets. Chairman Plufka introduced Ms. Kathy Blish of 510 Glacier Lane. Ms. Blish stated she was concerned about the increase in noise in the area if the buffer were leveled for construction of Fernbrook Lane. She said that her home would have a street on both sides which disturbed her. Ms. Blish stated that she preferred to see the guiding of Planning Commission Minutec, May 8, 1991 Page 72 the LA -4 parcel changed to LA -2 so that there would be less traffic from the site. Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. Rob Goltz of 535 Glacier Lane North. Mr. Goltz stated one of his concerns is the drainage in the area to which flows drain from the Glacier Lane cul- de -sac. He stated that a holding pond in the area has not been constructed. Mr. Goltz stated that if a stop light were placed at Carlson Parkway and Gleason Lake Road it would make egress from Harbor Lane more difficult than it already is. He said he would like the guiding of the LA -4 parcel changed to either LA -2 or LA -1. Mr. Goltz stated that a trip from the fire station to the area using Highway 394 and Carlson Parkway would be faster than using the proposed Fernbrook Lane extension. He suggested that the Minnetonka fire department would help out since he heard they were building a new fire station close to this area. Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. John Grams of 1230 Harbor Lane North. Mr. Grams stated that he was not in favor of the extension of Fernbrook Lane as there are wetlands both north and south of the Luce Line, and also on the west side, that are all connected. He suggested that the City purchase the property and guide it as Public /Semi - Public. Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. Jim Hartmann of 1140 Harbor Lane North. Mr. Hartmann read a history of the area as he recalled it during the time he has lived in the area and presented the Commission with a copy. He said that LA -1 guiding would give the developer more flexibility to work around the wetlands and wooded areas for preservation. He stated that he thought the single family development would create a more stable tax base. Mr. Hartmann said he timed a trip from the fire station which took only 3 minutes. He said the extension of Fernbrook Lane would be detrimental to the public safety, and would increase the crime rate in the area. He said that if the LA -4 parcel was reguided to LA -1 the thoroughfare street would not be needed. Mr. Hartmann stated that to preserve the neighborhood, no development would be best, but single family would be the next best possibility. He suggested that the City purchase the site for a park. Planning Commission MinuteF May 8, 1991 Page 73 Chairman Plufka introduced Sunia Hartmann of 1140 Harbor Lane North. Sunia Hartmann stated that she was 9 years old and she enjoyed walking in the wooded area near her home. She asked the Commissioners to not allow the destruction of the trees. She distributed a handout to each of the Commissioners stating her concerns. Chairman Plufka introduced Ms. Lori Hempel of 450 Glacier Lane North. Ms. Hempel stated that her home is the house next to the stub road and that if Fernbrook Lane were extended, her home would have a street on 3 sides, and the rear of her home would be 35 feet from the road. She said that emergency access is necessary but that the time saved for emergency vehicles by constructing Fernbrook Lane is not a priority. Ms. Hempel stated that she wished to see the guiding lowered on the LA -4 parcel to LA -2 or lower and to see no development at the southerly tip of site. Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. David Leschak of 14385 4th Avenue North. Mr. Leschak stated that the area has changed with prior development and he thought LA -1 or LA -2 guiding would be best for the LA -4 parcel. He said he did not think the extension of Fernbrook Lane was necessary. He stated that the steep grades, soil composition, and wetlands in the area are not conducive to the extention of Fernbrook Lane. He asked if the width of Fernbrook Lane would be 36 feet, and said he thought Highway 394 was the route to use for access to the area. Chairman Plufka stated that he would like to know how many new dwelling units could be constructed in each of the areas on the site. Chairman Plufka introduced Ms. Linda Neudeuker of 500 Glacier Lane North. Ms. Neudeuker stated she was a school teacher and was against the extension of Fernbrook Lane because of the danger to the children in the area which would result from the increase in traffic. She said her home would be adjacent to the road and she would want a barrier created to protect her home from the road. She stated that County Road 6 provides adequate egress from the area. Ms. Neudeuker stated that high density housing has an effect on schools especially low income housing. Planning Commission Minute May 8, 1991 Page 14 Chairman Plufka stated that low income housing cannot be prohibited in any area of the City. Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. LeRoy Reinke of 14411 County Road 6. Mr. Reinke stated he favored reguiding the LA -4 parcel to LA -1. He said he wanted to see the land preserved in the area. He stated that he was against the extension of Fernbrook Lane as it would cause more traffic on County Road 6 which he is against. Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. John Richter of 1205 Fernbrook Lane North. Mr. Richter stated he lives north of the Luce Line and is in favor of reguiding the LA -4 parcel to LA -1. He stated that Fernbrook Lane north of the Luce Line is already a busy street with truck traffic and he thought that the extension of the road would create a major thoroughfare street. He stated that he was also concerned with the possible loss of the wetlands and wildlife in the area if Fernbrook Lane were extended. Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. Dean Riesen of Carlson Real Estate Company, the owners of the subject property. Mr. Riesen stated that they would not necessarily develop the LA -4 site to its maximum density and that the company was working with the City to find alternatives for this site. He said that as the owners of the site have held it for some time, and it was their intention to develop it and make a profit. Mr. Riesen stated that the guiding on this site has been reviewed several times during the last 15 years by the City, and has never been changed from the present LA -4 guiding. He said that the company would like to see the LA -4 guiding remain for the parcel. He asked that the Public Hearing be continued until a meeting in June so that Carlson Real Estate Company would have time to prepare an alternative proposal for the site. Chairman Plufka introduced Ms. Terry Rosen of 425 Harbor Lane. Ms. Rosen state she would like to see Carlson Real Estate Company donate the land to the City for preservation. She said she would like the wetlands preserved and would like more time to see if she could discuss this with the DNR and have the area declared a wetland. She said she would like the area designated for the extension of Fernbrook Lane made into a bike path and park. Planning Commission Minute May 8, 1991 Page 75 Ms. Rosen stated that the fire station is only 3 minutes away from the area and she suggested that in the case of an emergency the use of the Minnetonka fire station. She said that the extension of Fernbrook Lane would increase traffic in the area and cause people to use it as access to County Road 6. Chairman Plufka stated that the citizens cannot petition the DNR to have land redesignated as a protected wetland. He said that if the area was made into a park and bike path the area would need to be accessible to all Plymouth residents, not just the area residents. Chairman Plufka introduce Mr. Richard Schmidt of 14310- 13th Avenue North. Mr. Schmidt stated that he preferred reguiding the LA -4 site to LA -1. He said he was against the extension of Fernbrook Lane and thought that if emergency access was needed in the area that a road be built to be used only for emergency vehicles. Chairman Plufka introduced Ms. Alice Williams of 14325- 12th Avenue North. Ms. Williams stated she was against the extension of Fernbrook Lane and the LA -4 guiding on the site. She said she wanted the wetlands and wildlife preserved in the area. Chairman Plufka introduced Ms. Sandra Pasmanter of 515 Glacier Lane North. Ms. Pasmanter stated that she was against the extension of Fernbrook Lane because of the increased traffic and pollution it would generate, and wanted the LA -4 guiding changed to LA -1. Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. David Tolchiner of 14390- 4th Avenue North. Mr. Tolchiner stated he was against the LA -4 guiding because it would increase the traffic in the area and cause property values to decrease. Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. Mike Lichty of 14525 -7th Avenue North. Mr. Lichty stated he was against the LA -4 guiding of the parcel. He said that the increased traffic from the LA -4 site would increase the traffic wanting access onto Gleason Lake Road, and this was already a busy intersection. He said he did not think the extension of Fernbrook Lane would create a faster access to the area for emergency vehicles. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1991 Page 76 Chairman Plufka recognized Mr. Reisen of Carlson Real Estate Company. Mr. Reisen stated that he came to the meeting with good intentions and has listened to all the comments made regarding this site. He stated that the company will continue to work on an alternate plan for the site, and will try to work with the citizens in the area to develop an acceptable plan. Chairman Plufka called a recess at 10:13 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:18 p.m. MOTION by Chairman Plufka, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE Marofsky to recommend that the area referred to as Subarea B in the April 24, 1991 Staff Report be reguided to Public /Semi - Public and to leave Subareas A and C as currently guided. Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried. Commissioners Pierce and Wire suggested that the Commission wait to reguide the LA -4 parcel until June when Carlson Real Estate Company can return to the Commission with an alternate plan for this parcel. Chairman Plufka stated that he thought LA -1 guiding was the proper guiding and that if a PUD plan were proposed by the owner a LA -2 type of development could be achieved with the LA -1 guiding. He said that any roads within a residential development will be 32 feet wide. Commissioner Wire stated that any new streets become a problem to neighborhoods. Commissioner Marofsky stated that he has seen many changes in the ordinance that impact this area since it was guided LA -4. He said that he thought the Commission was more aware of the environmental issues affecting this area. MOTION by Commissioner Marofksy, seconded by Commissioner Zylla to recommend reguiding of the LA -4 parcel to LA -1; to recommend against the connection of Fernbrook Lane; to recommend the connection of Kingsview Lane to Harbor Lane at 10th Avenue North to provide a second access to the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Marofsky stated that Fernbrook Lane would become a minor arterial street if connected in any way. Commissioner Tierney asked Coordinator Dillerud for his projections on the number of dwelling units that could be constructed on this site. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION TO APPROVE Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1991 Page 77 Coordinator Dillerud stated that in Subarea C and D combined, the net area less the wetlands was 30 acres and that 60 dwelling units could be constructed if the parcels were guided LA -1. He said that if the guiding were LA -2, 90 units could be constructed, and if LA -4, 120 to 150 units. Commissioner Pierce asked how many dwelling units had been proposed in the Carlson Real Estate Company's original proposal. Coordinator Dillerud responded that approximately 160 units had been proposed for the LA -4 guiding and 18 units for the LA -1 parcel. Chairman Plufka stated that those people living at the southerly end of Harbor Lane are the "forgotten folks" as all traffic leaving the area will use the Gleason Lake Road as egress. He said that if Fernbrook Lane were extended those living on the southerly end would drive north to exit the neighborhood. Commissioner Tierney questioned whether a PUD for Subarea D would be of any value. Coordinator Dillerud responded that this parcel was only 12 acres and a PUD would not be feasible. Substitute MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner Zylla to recommend reguiding of the LA -4 parcel to LA -1. Roll Call Vote on the MOTION to Substitute. 4 Ayes, Commissioner Wire, Pierce and Stulberg voted Nay. MOTION carried on a 4 -3 vote. Roll Call Vote on the Main Motion as Substituted. 4 Ayes, Commissioners Wire, Pierce and Stulberg voted Nay. MOTION carried on a 4 -3 vote. Commissioners Wire and Stulberg stated that their Nay vote was because they want to see an alternative plan submitted by the owners of this site so that the neighbors can see the plan before the Thoroughfare Guide Plan is changed. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO APPROVE VOTE - MOTION CARRIED VOTE - MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE Tierney to recommend that classification of Fernbrook Lane as a Minor Collector between County Road 6 and Gleason Lake Drive be deleted from the Thoroughfare Guide Plan and that a recommendation be made to have Kingsview Lane connect to Harbor Lane via 10th Avenue North. Commissioners Wire and Stulberg again stated that they were not comfortable making a decision on streets in this Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1991 Page 78 area until they could see an alternative plan submitted by the owners of the site. Commissioner Marofsky stated that this motion does not change the developers plan. Commissioner Tierney questioned the definition of a "paper street ". Director Moore explained that the City owns the right -of- way on a paper street (such as 10th Avenue North between Ithaca Lane and Kingsview Lane) and to construct the street may require a Public Hearing. Roll Call Vote. 3 Ayes, Commissioners Wire, Tierney, Stulberg and Chairman Plufka voted Nay. MOTION failed. MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner Pierce to recommend that Fernbrook Lane be retained as a Minor Collector but that the Thoroughfare Guide Plan show no connection for Fernbrook Lane across the Luce Line. Roll Call Vote. 2 Ayes, Commissioners Zylla, Tierney, Marofsky, Stulberg, and Chairman Plufka voted Nay. MOTION failed. MOTION by Chairman Plufka, seconded by Commissioner Tierney to recommend that Fernbrook Lane be removed from the Thoroughfare Guide Plan as a minor collector; do not connect Fernbrook Lane to the southerly stub at Glacier Lane; extend Fernbrook Lane across the Luce Line with a connection to Harbor Lane that will be dependent upon how the development will be done, at a width of 32 feet. Chairman Plufka stated that access needs to be available to people and those living on Fernbrook Lane will have to absorb some of the traffic. Commissioner Wire asked if the County provided any aid or restrictions on residential streets. Director Moore stated that the County cannot control the speed limit, but can control the weight. Commissioner Marofsky stated that his intent in removing the designation of minor collector from Fernbrook Lane removes the necessity for it to connect to another arterial and it can be developed as a residential street from the Luce Line south into the LA -4 (now recommended as LA -1) area without connecting to Harbor Lane. MOTION by Commissioner Tierney, seconded by Commissioner Wire that the MOTION by Chairman Plufka regarding Fernbrook Lane be tabled until June 12, 1991. VOTE - MOTION FAILED MOTION TO APPROVE VOTE - MOTION FAILED MOTION TO TABLE Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1991 Page 79 Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes, Chairman Plufka voted Nay! VOTE - MOTION CARRIED MOTION to table carried. Commissioner Wire stated that a plan w/less s could preserve the wetlands. Commissioner Tierney asked if a Publuld be necessary to discuss the connection oane to 10th Avenue North. Coordinator Dillerud responded th a Public Hearing may not be legally necessary, but ma be advisable when street opening is considered in a dev oped area. Commissioner Pierce st4A that he was against any connection of 4th Avenue orth to a future Fernbrook Lane. MOTION by Commissio r Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE Wire to schedule ublic Informational Meeting to discuss the connection Kingsview Lane to 10th Avenue North and Harbor Lane the next meeting, with notices being sent to the resi nts of the Parkdale Addition. Roll C Vote. 6 Ayes, Chairman Plufka voted Nay. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED MOTIO carried. Chairman Plufka introduced the request by the City of Plymouth for consideration of Land Use Guide Plan reclassification from CL (Limited Business) and LA -2 (Low Medium Density Residential) to LA -3 (High Medium Density Residential) and LA -1 (Low Density Residential) for the area located at the northeast corner of Dunkirk Lane and Highway 55. Coordinator Dillerud reviewed the April 24, 1991 Staff Report. Chairman Plufka asked where access to the property is available. Coordinator Dillerud responded that access would have to be from 36th Avenue North on the east side of the site and /or County Road 9 at 37th Avenue North on the west side of the site. Chairman Plufka opened the Public Hearing. Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. Jim Fenning of 2058 Acorn Circle, Wayzata. Mr. Fenning stated that he was the owner of 23 acres of the site and would like to see his site reguided to service or retail to be consistent with other sites in the area. He stated that he would like to have access to his site from Highway 55 to make it more usable. CITY OF PLYMOUTH LUGP RECLASSIFICATION 91035) APPROVING LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth has proposed reclassification of land use guiding from LA -4 (high density residential) for property located in the southeast quadrant of Fernbrook Lane and County Road 6. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the request following a duly scheduled Public Hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the reclassification of land use guiding for property located in the southeast quadrant of Fernbrook Lane and County Road 6 as follows: 1. From LA -4 (High Density Residential) to Pubilc /Semi Public PIN 27- 118 -22 -0001 to 0005 PIN 34- 118 -22 -0002 PIN 34- 118 -22 -0017 2. From LA -4 (High Density Residential) to LA -1 Low Density RPCidpntial PIN 34- 118 -22 -0007 PIN 34- 118 -22 -0010 to 0013 PIN 34- 118 -22 -0015 PIN 34- 118 -22 -0020 PIN 34- 118 -22 -0024 to 0025 Outlot J, Carlson Center Second Addition FURTHER, approval of the Land Use Guide Plan amendment is contingent upon, and subject to, the required review and response by the Metropolitan Council; and the Final Plat which shall be approved by the City Council prior to finalization of the amendment. res /pc/91036 mc: I.p zj lilt I.p zj a 1 03(0 MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: May 8, 1991 TO Planning Commission and City Council FROM Fred G. Moore; Director of Public Works SUBJECT: FERNBROOK LANE — MINOR COLLECTOR STREET COUNTY ROAD 6 TO GLEASON LAKE DRIVE At the request of the City Council, the Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on the City's Land Use Plan for a portion of the property between County Road 6, Gleason Lake Drive, I -494, and Vicksburg Lane. The area is along the alignment of Fernbrook Lane, as indicated in the adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan. The public hearing will also involve the Fernbrook Lane connection as part of our Thoroughfare Guide Plan. In the City's first Thoroughfare Guide Plan, adopted in 1972, Fernbrook Lane, along the west side of I -494, was indicated as a "Minor Arterial" roadway. County Road 61, along the east side of I -494, was also indicated as a "Minor Arterial" roadway. As defined in the plan, these were to be high capacity roads supplementing the pattern of limited access highways (I- 494). In 1980, the City reviewed its Comprehensive Land Use Plan and also the Thoroughfare Guide Plan. This was done as a requirement of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Based upon the land use approved along this corridor, County Road 61 was still indicated as "Minor Arterial" roadway for the area. Since the land use along Fernbrook Lane, south of County Road 6, was indicated as residential, the classification of the roadway was changed to a Minor Collector" street. As defined in the plan, the purposes of Collector" streets are as follows: 1. Provide adequate access to abutting parcels. 2. Design to minimize through traffic. The layout of Collector" streets should not promote diversion of traffic from "Arterial" streets. 3. Design of "Collector" streets should discourage excessive speeds. 4. "Collector" streets should permit the efficient use of land for laying out plats. 5. "Collector" streets should be laid out in order to be compatible with the topography of the area. SUBJECT: FERNBROOK LANE - MINOR COLLECTOR STREET May 8, 1991 Page Two The land use along this corridor was designated as LA -1, LA -2, and LA -4. Both the 1972 and 1980 Thoroughfare Guide Plans only indicated corridors and types of roadway which would be necessary to provide adequate transportation as the land developed. In 1982, the City began the construction of what would become County Road 61, the "Major Arterial" roadway through this area. As part of the planning process, a Corridor Study was prepared by the City's traffic consultant for the entire alignment from the City's south city limits to the north city limits. Other associated roadway issues adjacent to the corridor were addressed. One of these issues was the need for the Fernbrook Lane connection as part of the system. Regarding Fernbrook Lane, the following transportation needs were identified. 1. A new roadway is required in the Fernbrook Lane Corridor at least between County Road 15 (now Gleason Lake Drive) and the railroad right -of -way to accommodate the planned LA -2 and LA- 4 development. Without such a roadway, traffic to /from this new development would have to use Harbor Lane causing negative impact on the single family homes adjacent to this street. 2. An exception to the first finding could occur if the property is developed as LA -1 and not LA -2, and LA -4 as included in the plan. In this event, Harbor Lane could accommodate the projected traffic without a new parallel north /south street. 3. A strong need exists for emergency vehicle access to and from the north for the potential new development property as well as for the existing residential development on streets such as Harbor Lane, 7th Avenue, Ithaca Lane, and Kingsview Lane. Emergency vehicle service to existing developments on these streets is seriously hindered by the present lack of access to and from the north. In 1984, the City Council received a petition from the residents living along Niagara Lane /9th Avenue /Shenandoah Lane concerning what they perceived was excessive traffic on their street. The existing roadway provides a continuous street system between Gleason Lake Drive and County Road 6. It is also designated as a "Minor Collector" street within our transportation system. The City Council authorized a traffic study for this area. The traffic study made the following recommendations: 1. It is not necessary to close Shenandoah Lane at this time. The traffic volumes, speed checks, and accident studies indicate no unusual problems. SUBJECT: FERNBROOK LANE - MINOR COLLECTOR STREET May 8, 1991 Page Three 2. It is recommended that the City proceed with plans to provide the Fernbrook Lane connection from County Road 15 (Gleason Lake Drive) to County Road 6. This will complete the north /south "Minor Collector" street between I -494 and Vicksburg Lane. The first actual development along this corridor was the Harbor Place Addition proposed by Hans Hagen Homes. As part of their development proposal, they were requesting that the land be reguided from LA -1 to LA -2. As part of a previous land use update, the land had been reguided to the LA- 1 classification. In accordance with the traffic studies, Fernbrook Lane was proposed on a new alignment so that the additional higher density traffic would not have a negative impact on Harbor Lane. Also, other vacant property within the area was proposed as LA -4 use. The development proceeded and the first portion of the Fernbrook Lane connection (Harbor Lane /4th Avenue) was constructed. The intersection of existing Harbor Lane and 4th Avenue was also modified to discourage traffic from using Harbor Lane when 4th Avenue was extended northerly in the future as property was developed. The City's latest Land Use Plan and Thoroughfare Guide Plan was adopted in 1989. This plan indicated the need for the same transportation system since undeveloped property in this area was still proposed as LA -4. Also, the Harbor Place Addition was developed at LA -2 densities. As analyzed in two previous traffic studies and three Comprehensive Thoroughfare Plans, a local "Collector" street is needed within this area to provide an adequate transportation system. Currently, some of the properties south of the railroad track must travel 3/4 of a mile on a dead - end street to access their properties. At various town meetings, the City Council has heard comments from residents of this area that at times they experience lengthy delays to access Gleason Lake Drive from Harbor Lane. As property within the area continues to develop, traffic will only increase and these delays will become longer. With the Fernbrook Lane connection, traffic will be able to disburse in two directions and relieve traffic congestion at the existing access. Also, another route for emergency vehicles will be provided. As indicated in the traffic studies, if the entire area is developed as LA -1 or low density housing, Harbor Lane could serve as the "Minor Collector" street. A connection would be made from Harbor Lane to Fernbrook Lane. The Metropolitan Council is still reviewing the City's latest Thoroughfare Guide Plan. As part of our review meetings, they have stressed the need for cities to have an adequate thoroughfare system to serve local traffic within the community and not place the burden of serving the local traffic on the Metropolitan system. I -494 is one of the roadways in the Metropolitan system. Studies also indicate that there is existing congestion on I -494. The City's Thoroughfare Plan satisfied the requirements of the Metropolitan Council since there were roadways on either side of I -494 providing for the movement of local traffic. SUBJECT: FERNBROOK LANE - MINOR COLLECTOR STREET May 8, 1991 Page Four Although the roadways were shown on the local system, the Metropolitan Council also required a schedule of when these roads were proposed for construction. The City's Adopted Capital Improvements Program was submitted to indicate the construction schedule. The Fernbrook Lane connection is indicated as a proposed project for 1993. This was predicated on anticipated development within the area. If the Fernbrook Lane connection is removed from our adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan, we will no longer have continuity of the system between County Road 6 and Carlson Parkway west of I -494. The Planning Commission and City Council will be considering the land use and thoroughfare system within this area. It is my opinion that to have an adequate transportation system, continuity is needed between County Road 6 and Carlson Parkway. If the existing land uses are changed and the entire area is developed as low density housing, then existing Harbor Lane can serve this function if it is connected to Fernbrook Lane. FGM:kh CITY OF PLYMOUTH PLANNING COMMISSION PLYMOUTH, MN. 55447 ATTN:MR. DICK PLUSKA CHAIRMAN SUBJECT: PRE AGENDA NUMBER 10TH AVE.NORTH EXTENSION JUNE 12, 1991 DEAR MR PLUSKA I AM ATTACHING SEVEN COPIES OF THE AGENDA THE RESIDENTS OF KINGSVIEW LANE NORTH WOULD LIKE TO BE PRESENTED AT THE INFORMATIONAL ON JUNE 12, 1991. OUR CONCERN IS THE PROPOSED 10TH AVE. NORTH EXTENSION. WOULD YOU ASSIGN A PRE AGENDA NUMBER FOR MR. ROY OBERMILLER, 920 KINGSVIEW LANE NORTH, TO REPRESENT THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS OF TO THE 10TH AVE. EXTENSION. I AM ATTACHING SIGNED PETITIONS FROM THE KINGSVIEW RESIDENTS FOR THIS REPRESENTATION. WE BELIEVE THIS WILL GREATLY REDUCE THE TOTAL TIME INVOLVED FOR THIS DISCUSSION. PLEASE CALL ME AT 473 7653 IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. SINCERELY a & HAROLD BAKKE 815 KINGSVIEW LANE N. 0f 7 WE THE FOLLOWING CITIZENS ON KINGSVIEW LANE NORTH, PLYMOUTH, MN. DO HEREBY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF 10TH AVE.N. WE REQUEST THAT OUR REPRESENTATIVE BE SCHEDULED TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL AT THE 6/12/91 INFORMATIONAL MEETING. rl 61 7 J 9 A WE THE FOLLOWING CITIZENS ON KINGSVIEW LANE NORTH, PLYMOUTH, MN. DO HEREBY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF 10TH AVE.N. WE REQUEST THAT OUR REPRESENTATIVE BE SCHEDULED TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL AT THE 6/12/91 INFORMATIONAL MEETING. h f1sC?u t, L v;;V 1 _.c n 6'yomj 4z3 T7 7 0 WE THE FOLLOWING CITIZENS ON KINGSVIEW LANE NORTH, PLYMOUTH, MN. DO HEREBY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF 10TH AVE.N. WE REQUEST THAT OUR REPRESENTATIVE BE SCHEDULED TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL AT THE 6/12/91 INFORMATIONAL WE THE FOLLOWING CITIZENS ON KINGSVIEW LANE NORTH, PLYMOUTH, MN. DO HEREBY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF 10TH AVE.N. WE REQUEST THAT OUR REPRESENTATIVE BE SCHEDULED TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL AT THE 6/12/91 INFORMATIONAL MEETING. WE THE FOLLOWING CITIZENS ON KINGSVIEW LANE NORTH, PLYMOUTH, MN. DO HEREBY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF 10TH AVE.N. WE REQUEST THAT OUR REPRESENTATIVE BE SCHEDULED TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL AT THE 6/12/91 INFORMATIONAL MEETING. P V 7- K, WE THE FOLLOWING CITIZENS ON KINGSVIEW LANE NORTH, PLYMOUTH, MN. DO HEREBY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF 10TH AVE.N. WE REQUEST THAT OUR REPRESENTATIVE BE SCHEDULED TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL AT THE 6/12/91 INFORMATIONAL MEETING. 7F7 WE THE FOLLOWING CITIZENS ON KINGSVIEW LANE NORTH, PLYMOUTH, MN. DO HEREBY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF 10TH AVE.N. WE REQUEST THAT OUR REPRESENTATIVE BE SCHEDULED TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL AT THE 6/12/91 INFORMATIONAL MEETING. PAGE 1 PLYMOUTH PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED 10TH AVE. EXTENSION ONTO KINGSVIEW LANE NORTH THE RESIDENTS OF KINGSVIEW LANE NORTH ARE UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSED TO THE EXTENSION OF 10TH AVE. AS WITNESSED BY THE ATTACHED PETITION. THE COMPLETION OF AND DEVELOPMENT ALONG FERNBROOK LANE SHOULD NOT CHANGE THE TRAFFIC OR THE LIFE STYLE OF THE RESIDENTS OF KINGSVIEW LANE NORTH. WE BOUGHT OUR HOMES ON WHAT WAS PURPORTED TO BE A DEAD END STREET. THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF 10TH AVE. NORTH WOULD ROUT TRAFFIC THROUGH A SERPENTINE COURSE FROM HARBOR LANE TO KINGSVIEW LANE TO 4TH AVE AND TO EITHER LANEWOOD OR JUNEAU LANE NORTH. THESE TWO STREETS WOULD EXIT ONTO GLEASON LAKE DR. WITH THE MAJORITY OF CARL GOING EAST TO THE INTERSECTION OF CARLSON PKWY; HARBOR LANE, OR I -494. (SEE EXHI_BIT Al WE CONCUR WITH THE APPROVED LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHICH SHOWS FERNBROOK LANE AS A COLLECTOR ROAD BETWEEN COUNTY RD, 6 AND GLEASON LAKE DR. AS PART OF THAT PLAN A NEW EN7p','JCE WAS CONSTRUCTED ON CO. RD. 6 TO I -494 AT A COST OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, SO WHY IS THE CITY PROPOSING TO MAKE A BANG -A.I) FIX, BY EXTENDING A VERY SHORT SECTION OF 10TH AVE? WE BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL PLAN SHOULD BE ADHERED TO. THE SOLUT,I_ON IS THE COMPL_ET.ION OF FERNBROOK LANE WITH cx.ITS AT CO. RD. E__, HARBOR LANE, AND GLEASON LAKE DR. THE U iL.i_ATLON OF THE LUCE LINE TRAIL IS MINIMAL NEAR ITS TERMINATION JUST EAST OF FERNBROOK LANE. IN OUR OPINION THIS CROSSING WOULD BE OF LITTLE RISK AS WITNESSED BY THE LUCE LINE CROSSING AT VICKSBERG AND SHENANDOAH. HARBOR LANE COULD THEN HAVE A ADDITIONAL EXIT TO FERNBROOK LANE RELIEVING SOME OF THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AT HARBOR AND CARLSON PKWY. L5-EE EXHIBIT B) THE RESIDENTS OF KINGSVIEW LANE NORTH BELIEVE THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH WOULD NOT SHOW GOOD FAITH IN OPENING KINGSVIEW LANE AFTER MORE THAN 25 YEARS AS A DEAD END STREET. 1. OPENING A STREET NOT DESIGNED FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC IS OF TREMENDOUS CONCERN FOR THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS OF SIX STREETS INVOLVED IN THE TRAFFIC OUTLET. THE STREET WIDTH IS GENERALLY LESS THAN 25 FEET WITH AT LEAST ONE CURVE HAVING LIMITED SIGHT DISTANCE. 2. ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS WHEN THE RESIDENTS PURCHASED THEIR HOMES ON KINGSVIEW LANE WAS THAT IT WAS BE A DEAD END STREET. PAGE 2 3. PART OF FOUR FRONT YARDS WERE TAKEN FOR THE CUL -DE -SAC, WITHOUT COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND BY THE CITY (AND NONE WAS EXPECTED) TO MAKE KINGSVIEW LANE NORTH A DEAD END STREET. 4. THE EXTENSION OF 10TH AVE. NORTH WILL POSE A DRAINAGE PFROBLEM. A WETLAND HAS TO BE FILLED TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEB+ EXTENSION OF THE STREET. FOUR LOTS SLOPE TO THIS WT_TL.,ND AND DEPEND ON IT FOR SPRING AND HEAVY RAINFALL RUt',OFF. THIS WETLAND APPEARS TO BE PART OF THE SHORELINE SHOwf,,i ON THE ATTACHED MAP. 5. W", -. PAYS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAYS PRESENTLY ENTEPING THE EXISTING CUL -DE -SAC? t:, PART OF A WETLAND WILL HAVE TO BE FILLED TO MAKE WAY FOR THE STREET. IT SEEMS THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY WOULD EE NEEDED. WH411 HAPPENED TO THE GOOD FAITH OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH WHEN THEY PUT IN THE CUL -DE -SAC WITH THE STATED INTENT OF ABANDONING THAT SECTION OF THE STREET, TOOK OUR LAND AND NOW WANTS TO CHANGE THE GROUND RULES. WE BELIEVE THE PROPOSED OPENING OF 10TH AVE. SERVES ONLY THE PEOPLE OPPOSED TO THE COMPLETION OF FERNBROOK LANE. WHY TRY_ TO FIX SOMETHING ON KINGSVIEW LANE THAT ISN'T BROKE. SEE ADDITIONAL EXPRESSED CONCERNS ON THE ATTACHED TWO PAGES. WE REQUEST THAT A REPRESENTATIVE FROM KINGSVIEW LANE BE SCHEDULED TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING ON 6/12/91. L AM EXHIBIT WK019 OF PARIARS LAAE 3 LOCATED 11•20•43 1 -973 AE1114 P.070) 9 M 1-1 AS w 04 PLATS 107, 4"A, "TO) 65) IT) Af ce CL W E Ev; wu - A (4) a W) 2 ml I .... - 1 ........ AVE MJIL IM: 7w— us) AVE .......... LLJ 910 All 3w Di 40) uj 3MD ELI 11 C013) 5 5. 1H "AVE W 01) to p (36) > (43) (30) ( 19) 0 47) co ay j , •n111 CAM) bd (4) 1p U. 5 04) In 1. _* i, 4 ` - - — 20) Ill) PzAcf 2 Its) w 00, It 46) 1 ITT, 1 4 J) IM ING) 01) As cb 11 1, Mll Iw, 11 3) IN) 137 RO I'm IF it llid ... I a S21ILI, (4) A, RAM Im ( 27) Mr (03 Fs lie) IF) (56) 1w d.5 co CIRCLE PARK h I in 00s) A. 9 J Itto 13, on too) in M AT %few got bl%TDIST :DIT1) to IMI 11r 1171 - IT t, 4 good 3 To IT ............... 1114 89) ...... ..... .... It 0 2 114) • 111 4 SO) 14) (75) J#P " 31.) 421) 114 16 M .(Mw A 4p IN P. -4 W3 331 SON CARL lit m ItIn ..At III. . r. N In- I I IDO p no NP; kINA . ., EXHIB'IT'B a 6MLINE W PAMEAM L"t A S LOCAR -1D -70-05 cis. E 72) 0 ill?$ AEP AL K010) 0 IMCM11, INE AS AN A Z m a" PLATS NO Mw WS, To fm 40) 0-k Wa-r A, A, A • AWP N (4) m 29 yy 77 CIS 1"I InI INS 4- ` 10 M.1 lai AZT 46 2 0' =_-.;r 0 3 -c W.. TV A. . . ..... lRb I IFUN 8 IT UT) LM ("») t wj • AVE AA . .......... LU a. A TWONv; !IN AKETI') A 96tul .0 1 A < VOID) I • I ( lUmT (31) i'll-i (A) W) NEW EVEAVE W bd w 0 364) 00) 0 gm Z A, Mi2l I)NNA LT. (MIT • ) n LL A30) #AMX PUCI Z 1) A rw 1. " ILL. e. 2(Q) NARWWt c mm 43) I AN TO n Nv (20 46) Us AT 4, 32) 11 i fr A On AV 1 (36) Ist 84TV A. IM No J. nM.W rn AT12). To I 4 H AVE s-N —8 AT TV) TA 31) A To, 4f n 0 IN vwgw3- IT 8) 140 (16) 1 VI A *X'f TV ToToN. Q) 2 2L — 31 Cot T 30) • -- - -- 3) a ITT, n IWO( A) M 11.1 i A 26) 9 m 30) M T, in 24, CARLSON Cf v W.. FknJ ADDITIONAL EXPRESSED CONCERNES OF THE RESIDENTS OF KINGSVIEW NORTH 1. MOST OF THE KINGSVIEW LANE RESIDENTS ARE LONG STANDING RESIDENTS: MANY FOR OVER 15 YEARS. KINGSVIEW LANE IS A QUIET, PEACEFUL, DEAD END STREET. TRAFFIC IS LIGHT AND IN MANY CASES IT IS OBVIOUS WHEN A STRANGERS CAR IS ON THE STREET. MANY OF THE RESIDENTS DECISION TO BUY (PARTICULARLY THOSE ON OR NEAR THE CUL -DE -SAC) WAS SWUNG BECAUSE OF THE DEAD END. THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A NUMBER OF ANNUAL FUNCTIONS AND MANY CLOSE FAMILY FRIENDSHIPS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. IN SHORT, WE BELIEVE THAT ALLOWING THIS ENCROACHMENT WILL DESTROY THE IDENTITY AND INTEGRITY OF THIS ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD. 2, TRAFFIC ON KINGSVIEW LANE IS LIGHT AND IS THAT OF ONLY THE RESIDENTS AND THEIR ACQUAINTANCES. THROUGHOUT THE YEARS THERE HAVE BEEN FEW INSTANCES OF CRIME. WE BELIEVE THE RELATIVE OBSCURITY AND INACCESSIBILITY OF THE STREET IS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR. OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS DUMPING INTO THE KINGSVIEW LANE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL ONLY INCREASE THE EXPOSURE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE RISK OF SACRIFICING OUR SAFETY. THE STREET WIDTH OF KINGSVIEW LANE IS GENERALLY LESS THAN 24 FEET AND AT LEAST ONE CURVE HAS LIMITED SIGHT DISTANCE. THE WIDTH IS LESS THAN ACCEPTABLE STATE -AID STANDARDS. CARS PARKING FOR SOCIAL ENGAGEMENTS LIMIT WIDTH TO ONE LANE, WHICH WOULD rJJT BE ACCEPTABLE FOR OTHER THAN A CLOSE NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DAY -CARE FACILITIES ON PATRONS HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERNS FOR THE SAFETY OF THEIR CHILDREN IF MORE TRAFFIC WERE ADDED TO THIS STREET. 3. PLYMOUTH HAS PRIDED ITSELF ON ITS QUALITY OF LIFE, ITS PARt <.S, ITS TRAILS, ITS PLAYGROUNDS AND ITS GENERAL CONCERN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. WE FEAR THAT THIS PROPOSAL WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE SAME. MUCH OF KINGSVIEW LANE FALLS IN ELEVATION TOWARD 10TH AVE. THE DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION IS GREATER THAN 60 FT. WITH THE LOW END OF KINGSVIEW BEING VERY CLOSE TO THE OLD PLOTTED SHORELINE OF PARKERS LAKE. THE DRAINAGE AREA COVERS NEARLY A BLOCK EACH SIDE OF KINGSVIEW. IF CONSTRUCTED 10TH AVE. WOULD ALSO CARRY RUN -OFF FROM THE ITHACA LANE AREA AND BEYOND. THE RUN -OFF COULD BE MORE SWIFT AND SEVERE THAN THE PRESENT. THE AREA WHERE 10TH AVE. WOULD BE BUILT WOULD PASS THROUGH THE OLD PLATTED SHORELINE AREA AND WOULD IN EFFECT TAKE AWAY SOME OF THE PONDING AND HOLDING AREA. IN SHORT WE BELIEVE THAT A WETLAND AREA WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED. FURTHERMORE, THE AREA ALONG 10TH AVE IS FILLED WITH VEGETATION WHICH OFFERS NOT ONLY A GREENWAY AREA BUT A BUFFER BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE LUCE LINE TRAIL. WE NOW EXPERIENCE MUCH WILDLIFE SUCH AS FOX, PHEASANT, DEER, DUCKS AND GEESE. WE FEAR THAT FURTHER DEGRADATION OF OUR GREENWAY AREAS WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEPLETION OF THOSE PLEASURES. PAGE 2 4. AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED MOST RESIDENTS PURCHASED THEIR PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE QUIET, PEACEFUL NEIGHBORHOOD ON A DEAD END STREET. THE FEAR OF INTRUDERS WAS MINIMAL. SOME CHOOSE IT BECAUSE OF THE PARK -LIKE ATMOSPHERE. WITH THESE AMENITIES DIMINISHED WE BELIEVE THAT OUR PROPERTIES WILL NOT BE AS DESIRABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY NOT AS VALUABLE. 5. WE BELIEVE THAT THE ASSOCIATED COSTS OF BUILDING 10TH AVE WILL FAR EXCEED THE BASIC COST OF JUST BUILDING THAT SHORT 1- 2 BLOCK SEGMENT. KINGSVIEW LANE WILL LIKE NEED REBUILDING AND WIDENING. THE EXTRA STORM WATER RUN -OFF WILL LIKELY CREATE SEVERE PROBLEMS TO THE HOMES AT THE NORTH END OF KINGSVIEW LANE AND A STORM SEWER SYSTEM NEEDED. THE PRESENT CUL -DE -SAC HAS TAKEN PARTS OF FOUR FRONT YARDS WITH NO EASEMENT, PURCHASE, OR COMPENSATION. IF 10TH AVE IS BUILD THE YARDS AND DRIVEWAYS WOULD HAVE TO BE RESTORED. A HYDRANT WAS PLACED IN THE MIDDLE OF PLOTTED KINGSVIEW AND WOULD NEED RELOCA ION. 6. WE BELIEVE THAT ACTIONS OF THE CITY HAVE LED US TO THE CONCLUSION THAT KINGSVIEW LANE WAS AND IS TO BE A DEAD END STREET. THE CITY ORIGINALLY BUILT THE STREET TO A NARROW STANDARD IMPLYING THAT IT IS TO SERVE A LOW FUNCTION AND NOT AS A ROAD THAT IS FED BY OTHERS. THE CITY BUILT THE CUL -DE- SAC. RECENT CITY PUBLICATIONS SHOW KINGSVIEW LANE AS A DEAD END. 7. IN SUMMARY, WE BELIEVE THAT THE CITY, THROUGH ITS ACTIONS HAS LED THE CITIZENS OF KINGSVIEW LANE TO THINK THAT THE STREET WAS MEANT TO DEAD END. WE BELIEVE THAT TO PROCEED WITH THIS PROJECT WOULD CAUSE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS ON NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY, SAFETY, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND ON PROPERTY VALUES. WE BELIEVE THE COST AND THE ASSOCIATED COSTS ARE SO HIGH AS TO FAR OUTWEIGH ANY BENEFITS. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 10TH AVE EXTENSION IS TO PROVIDE A RELIEF VALVE FOR TRAFFIC CAUSED BY DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED FERNBROOK LANE. WE "ESTABLISHED RESIDENTS" OF KINGSVIEW LANE TAKE GREAT EXCEPTION TO PLAYING SECOND FIDDLE TO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. WE BELIEVE THERE ARE OTHER ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING A "NO BUILD ". FURTHERMORE, WE RECOMMEND THAT, IF THIS PROPOSAL IS TO BE CARRIED FURTHER, AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BE FIRST CONDUCTED. THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD ADDRESS IMPACT ON WETLANDS, EFFECT ON NEIGHBORHOODS, EFFECT ON WILDLIFE. IT SHOULD EXAMINE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES, SHOULD EXAMINE TOTAL COSTS FOR THE SAME, AND SHOULD ADDRESS WHO WILL BE PAYING THOSE COSTS. MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: June 7, 1991 TO: Chuck Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator FROM: Kevin C. Leuer, Fire Inspector SUBJECT: CONNECTION OF FERNBROOK LANE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 6 TO 4TH AVENUE FILE NUMBER 91036 In a recent internal fire suppression study conducted by our department we identified a need to have a road connection south from County Road 6 to the area south of the Luce Line, in the vicinity of Fernbrook and Harbor Lanes. Due to the current in service and travel time for fire apparatus we cannot provide a fire truck on the scene of an emergency in ten minutes under normal conditions. The extension of Fernbrook lane south of the Luce Line to 4th Avenue would reduce our response time by several minutes to the residents of the area and bring us in line with our ten minute targeted response time. The map indicated as page number 4 shows the current Fire Department ten minute response area. Note that the area in question is outside of this response area. The map indicated as page 5 shows the areas in our City where the department cannot provide fire apparatus on the scene within ten minutes in most cases. The map indicated as page 6 shows the areas that our mutual aid departments can arrive on scene within ten minutes of being called. The map indicated as page 7 shows the areas where fire protection can be provided within the targeted ten minute response time by our department or our mutual aid departments. Page 8 shows the areas where fire suppression cannot be provided within ten minutes due to the increased travel time caused by the indirect routes that fire apparatus must take to get there. The map indicated as page 9 shows some of the key roadway extensions necessary for the timely arrival of fire apparatus on the scene. One of the areas is the extension of Fernbrook Lane. The extension of Fernbrook Lane into the area south of the Luce Line would greatly enhance the City's ability to provide effective fire protection to those residents of our community. KCL:df cc: Lyle C. Robinson, Fire Chief 1 I N CITYV W P E O SCALE C. MILES PLYMOUTR S ' l311H.11 11111119011I'I1, 111hI III hill! tl nii mil Ij'1IIiiEIIIIIi.iti til llEil tttttttttttt!t!ttt!!!liittt! ..., .- .rne n nr r,. !ili!t!tli:tllliiitt!tt RESPONSE ZONE PAGE 4 i- r ' i r 7 O kwtk= r ' i r 7 O kwtk= 1) nFAL LEAL A, MAPLE GROVE F Dffi k. 1 N F E SCALE Of MILES 41 CITY O 4PLYMOUTH- FIRE ° ' RESPONSE ZONES tlillililitiillitt111 i rrl r w I w PROTECTED IN 10 MINUTES BY PFD AND AUTOMATIC MUTUAL AID i PAGE 7 v CITY C) S PUMOUTF+ ItittlltlltltEtttlttlitlitl FIRE RESPONSE ZONES uo T WE,: -M '" m' N W P E CITY OF SCALE of MILES 1 1 PLYMOUTR_ if. iif 1(ril iilYiil:• S list! !Ill11111 11h.oii1:1111111 161 It l f .- us a..r 91 EXTENSION OF KEY RVAVS PAGE 9 X100 w a. DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 1 HEARING DATE: June 12, 1991 DESCRIPTION: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the term of office for Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals members consistent with City Council direction for Boards and Commissions. SECTIONS INVOLVED: Section 11, Subdivision C. EXPLANATION /PURPOSE: The City Council earlier this year adopted amendments to the City Code relative to the term of office for Planning Commissioners and Park and Recreation Advisory Commissioners. The Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals is established under the City Code but for many years the term of office and appointment procedure has been found in the Zoning Ordinance, to which the City Code refers. Thus it is necessary to amend the Zoning Ordinance which requires a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission. The City Attorney has drafted two amendments one of which is the subject here and the other which would amend the City Code simultaneously. The subject amendment would remove from the Zoning Ordinance the appointment provision and the companion amendment that would insert those provisions in the City Code. The Council determination is that terms should be for a maximum of three years and that no one Commissioner should serve more than two terms. CONCLUSIONS /RECOMMENDATIONS: It would be appropriate to amend the Zoning Ordinance so that the language regarding the appointment process for the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals is removed from the Zoning Ordinance and subsequently inserted in the City Code as is the case with the other appointed Commissioners. see next page) Page Two Zoning Ord. Amendment I recommend that the Zoning Ordinance be Amended in Section 11, Subdivision C as follows: Creation and Membership: The Koara of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals as established by Section 305.07 of the Plymouth City Code is vested with the administrative authority and duties as hereinafter provided. Underscore - indicates new text Strikeee t— - indicates deleted text pc /bt /zo.6 -7) F VLt •' ro act: 5N91X1rrEa o cif CouNc /L CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS AND AMENDING SUBSECTION 305.07 OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Plymouth City Code, Subsection 305.07 is hereby amended to read: 305.07. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, a Board of Adjustment and Appeals is hereby designated. The Board consists of the Board of Zoning Adjustments established by Section 11, Subdivision C of the Zoning Gede- Ordinance. The Board shall perform all duties imposed on it by the Zoning Gede Ordinance. The Board shall consist of one member of the Planning Commission and six citizens of the City. The citizen members of the Board shall be appointed by the City Council for three year terms and shall hold office until their successors are appointed and qualified. No person may serve more than two consecutive terms on the Board or six years, whichever is greater. The Planning Commission member shall be appointed for a term coinciding with his or her term on the Planning Commission. The Chairman of the Board shall be selected by the Board subject to the approval of the Mayor. Terms of the citizen Board members shall be staggered so that two terms expire each year. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication in accordance with Subsection 110.11. Adopted by the City Council this day of , 1991. Mayor ATTEST City Clerk Shelf- Mater4-a4- - indicates deleted text Underscore - indicates new text cc /bt /code.305.07) PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Section 11, Subdivision C, SUBDIVISION C - BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS 1. Creation and Membership: A Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals is hereby established and vested with such administrative authority as is hereinafter provided. Such Board shall consist of one member of the Planning Commission and six (6) citizens. The Zoning Administrator shall serve as an exofficio member without the right to vote on matters before the Board. The seven (7) Board members shall be appointed by the Mayor and City Council. The Board shall serve without compensation. Its Planning Commission member shall be appointed for a term coinciding with his term on the Planning Commission and its citizen members shall be appointed for two (2) year terms. The Zoning Administrator shall act as Secretary of the Board. The Mayor shall appoint the Chairman from the citizen members of the Board. 2. Powers: The Board shall have power to hear appeals from administrative determinations and questions of doubt concerning the exact location of District boundary lines, to hear appeals of administrative determinations from and to grant adjustment in and exceptions to any of the provisions of this Ordinance, except those adjustments and exceptions governed by City Council determination as specified by Section 11, Subdivision A, to the extent of the following and no further: a. To consider applications for variances and modifications in any of the provisions of this Ordinance relating to: 1) Height, yard, area and lot width and depth regulations. 2) Sign dimension and location regulations for properties other than those in approved Planned Unit Developments, provided that no variance shall be granted contrary to the requirements of the Minnesota Outdoor Advertising Control Act and provided further that no variances shall be granted to permit signs in districts or places where such signs are prohibited or not allowed. (Amended Ord. No. 84 -24) (Amended Ord. No. 89 -26) 3) Parking and loading regulations. 4) Fence regulations. 5) Minimum floor area requirements. 6) District boundary lines for Special Protection Districts (Section 6) provided the purpose and intent of the Districts are maintained and the provisions of Section 6, Subdivision A Paragraph 5 e are given due consideration in the cases of both the Flood Plain Overlay District and the Shoreland Management Overlay District. Amended Ord. No. 82 -33) 11 -10 Plymouth City Code 305.05, Subd. 3 Rev. 1989) Three members of the Commission are appointed from the City at large. Members of the Commission are appointed by the Council for a term of two years expiring on January 31st of each year. (Amended Ord. No. 79 -33, Sec. 1; Ord. No. 88 -01, Sec. 2; Ord. No. 89 -03, Sec. 2) Subd. 3. Officers; Meetings. The Chairman of the Commission shall be appointed by the Mayor from among the members of the Commission for a term of one year. The Commission shall adopt its own rules and procedures with the approval of the Council. All members of the Commission, including the Chairman, may vote on any questions before the Commission. No member of the .Commission shall pass upon any question in which he is directly or indirectly interested. The Commission shall determine the date and time of meetings and shall set such public hearings as are necessary and desirable, or required by law or this Code. Subd. 4. Powers and Duties. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission has the following pokers and duties: a) To hold meetings of its members, to consider such matters pertaining to parks and public recreation programs in the City as shall be referred to the Commission by the Council, or as the members of the Commission themselves deem proper. b) To prepare a comprehensive plan for the future development of the City park and recreation system, to be submitted to the City Council for implementation, and to maintain said plan, and recommend amendments of the plan to the City Council, as may become necessary or desirable. c) To act in an advisory capacity to the Council in all matters relating to a park and recreation program in the City. Subd. 5. Reports. The Commission shall make an annual written report to the Council, not later than the last day of February of each calendar year, containing the Commission's recommendations for the ensuing year. 305.07. Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, a Board of Adjustments and Appeals is hereby designated. The Board consists of the Board of Zoning Adjustments established by Section 11, Subdivision 3 of the Zoning Code. The Board shall perform all duties imposed on it by the Zoning Code. 305.09. Removal of Appointees to Boards and Commissions. A member of any advisory board or commission appointed pursuant to the provisions of this Section or the Zoning Code may be removed at any time by the Council. rz DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 2 HEARING DATE: June 12. 1991 DESCRIPTION: Amend Ordinance to provide for limited retail activity as secondary or incidental conditional use in the I -1 (Planned Industrial) District. SECTIONS INVOLVED: Section 8, Subdivision D. 2. EXPLANATION /PURPOSE: The Industrial District by design does not permit traditional commercial or retail uses. The ordinance does allow some retail and service establishements as conditional uses subject to the tests that the retail or service establishment is "essential to the operation of the district" and that the retail or service establishment "provides goods and services which are primarily for the use of persons employed in the district". The ordinance also provides for freestanding office buildings for uses that are found to be generally compatible with the Industrial District ". The ordinance provides for "secondary uses customarily incident to the permitted or conditional uses allowed" in the three business districts as accessory uses which means a principal permitted or conditional use must be established. The key word in this provision is "customarily." The Planned Industrial District also provides for accessory uses, but the provision is much more limiting and was last reviewed in 1987. It reads as follows: All secondary uses customarily incident to the permitted or conditional uses listed including but not limited to the following in approved multi - tenant buildings: over - the - counter printing, duplicating and photocopying services; secretarial and word processing services; and telephone answering services. The purpose and intent of the Industrial District is stated in the Ordinance see attached page). It is clear, all things considered, that the City planned for and has strived to implement a Planned Industrial District that is not in competition with the plan in established commercial districts. We periodically are confronted with uses that clearly belong in the I -1 Planned Industrial) District as a principal use but which may have certain features which are not clearly within the intent of the Industrial District. Specifically, we have dealt with a firm that provides repair and manufacturing for electronic sound systems for automobiles but which also has a showroom where periodic retail sales can be made. The retail activity was allowed by conditional use permit subject to a number of conditions and has not been problematical. A baking company distribution center was authorized a conditional use permit to have a "day old" bread store which retailed returned bread products to the public, and this has not been a problem. Recently a brick /fireplace distributor has proposed to locate in the Industrial District and indicated that they feature a showroom whereby the public could view and select merchandise for purchase on a retail basis although the company's business principally is not retail to the public. The Planning staff has concluded that it would be appropriate to consider an amendment to the I -1 District standards which would allow for a limited amount of retail activity as a conditional use, not an accessory use. That would require that a proposed retail activity would be subject to a Public Hearing and review by the Planning Commission and City Council and that reasonable conditions could be established for such activities on an individual basis. The key to this suggestion is that the retail uses would not be freestanding or principal but rather would be clearly secondary and incidental as well as related to the principal use. The tests of how essential the use whether the activity is primarily district would not be required. CONCLUSIONS /RECOMMENDATIONS: is to the operation of the district and for the use of persons employed in the It is appropriate for the Commission to consider this in the context that there appear to be a number of Industrial principal uses that have periodic retail sales functions but which cannot satisfy the tests of the ordinance for retail establishments. It is possible to provide for a limited amount of incidental retail activity by conditional use permit whereby each proposed use would be subject to review by the Planning Commission and City Council and whereby reasonable conditions can be applied to ensure the secondary and incidental nature of the activity. I recommend the Commission recommend the adoption of the following amendment to Section 8, Subdivision D.2: Limited retail sales which are clearly secondary and incidental and demonstrably related to the principal allowed use. The property owner must demonstrate how the site will support the proposed retail activity in terms of the minimum parking required by the ordinance for the retail activity in addition to the allowed principal use or uses of the property. The City may establish a maximum percentage of floor area or sales volume and periodic reporting thereof as a reasonable control measure to ensure the retail activity is secondary and incidental to the allowed principal nonretail use. Underscore - indicates new text Stri keeur - indicates deleted text pc /bt.zo.2 /6 -12) 1 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE r Section 8, Subdivision C SUBDIVISION C - PURPOSE AND INTENT: INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS 1. The Planned Industrial District is established to accomplish the general 4 purpose of the Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and for the following r specific reasons: L a. Develop major centers or complexes in separate areas to allow for distribution of peak period traffic, efficient access, effective distribution of primary water and sewage facilities and property utilization of land suited for industrial development. b. Prevent expansion of scattered industrial operations. L c. Allow mining and extraction operations by conditional use permits to assure planning for maintenance of the land for subsequent use. d. Limit most industrial uses to planned industrial parks where uniform performance standards and land use regulations can be applied. e. Protect industrial areas from encroachment by non - industrial use. f. Allow a limited amount of Service /Business uses, by conditional use ! permit, which are either essential to or compatible with the operation of the Planned Industrial District or which provide essential services to employees within the District. (Amend. Ord. 89 -17) 2. The I -1 PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT is intended to allow for industrial operations with high standards for site development and use performance. Permitted and conditional uses shall be compatible with the character of development in proximate areas. The development types and locational criteria of the I -1 District shall be as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. f W. PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Section 8, Subdivision D SUBDIVISION D - ALLOWABLE USES: INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Within an I -1 PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, no building or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses, providing they comply with the performance standards set forth in Subdivision G of this Section. 1. PERMITTED USES a. Any manufacturing, production, processing, cleaning, storage, servicing, repair or testing of materials, goods or products that is wholly contained within a building and which meets and maintains all environmental standards established by the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (Amend. 89 -36) b. Municipal and other public agency administrative and service buildings, including public works maintenance facilities, post offices, fire stations, and the like which are compatible with other allowed uses is the district. (Ord. 89 -36) c. Essential services. (Ord. 89 -36) 2. CONDITIONAL USES a. Any permitted or accessory industrial use not conducted within a building including, but not limited to, outside storage as defined by this ordinance. (Amended Ord. 91 -14) b. Retail and service establishments essential to the operation of this district and providing goods and services which are primarily for the use of persons employed in the district; any such commercial use allowed under this Section shall be subject to all requirements of this Ordinance and the City Code applicable to such commercial use. Amended Ord. No. 82 -08) c. Free standing office buildings for corporate, administrative, executive, professional, research, sales representatives offices, or similar organization, and generally compatible with the industrial district; any such commercial use allowed under this Section shall be subject to all requirements of this Ordinance and the City Code applicable to such commercial use. (Amended Ord. No. 82 -08 and 86 -26) d. Industrial Buildings including single tenant /occupant and multi- tenant /occupant buildings, allowed by this Section, which contain office uses which occupy more than 50% of the gross floor area of the building and are found to be generally compatible with the Industrial District. Any such commercial use allowed under this Section shall be subject to all requirements of this Ordinance and the City Code applicable to such commercial use. (Amended Ord. No. 86 -26) e. Residential structures and related residential uses necessary for security and safety reasons in relation to a principal use. f. Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) as regulated in Section 9. LIM 40 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Section 8, Subdivision D g. Waste Facilities as regulated in Section 9. (Amended Ord. 87 -31) h. Participative athletic uses as defined by this Ordinance where the property owner has demonstrated how the site will support at least the minimum parking required by Ordinance for the proposed use during the hours of operation of the proposed use; and where the proposed use is found to be consistent with the conditional use permit standards set forth in Section 9. (Amended Ord. 89 -17) i. Essential service buildings. (Ord. 89 -36) j. Community Correctional Facilities as regulated in Section 9. (Ord. 89- 38) k. Adult Correctional Facility as regulated in Section 9. (Ord. 89 -38) 3. ACCESSORY USES a. All secondary uses customarily incident to the permitted or conditional uses listed including but not limited to the following in approved multi - tenant buildings: over - the - counter printing, duplicating, and photocopying services; secretarial and word processing services; and telephone answering services. (Ord. 87 -16) b. Off- street parking and loading as herein regulated. c. Signs as herein regulated d. Outside, above - ground storage facilities for gaseous, non - liquid fuels used for heating purposes, or for dispensing purposes clearly incidental to the approved principal use and not for sale, as regulated in Section 10. (Amended Ord. No. 82 -15). e. Temporary retail activities directed at the general public may be allowed as an accessory use subject to issuance of an administrative permit and subject to the requirements of this paragraph. For purposes of this paragraph "Retail Activities" shall include temporary, short -term warehouse sales, inventory reduction or liquidation sales, distressed merchandise sales, and product promotion events including displays, introductions, expositions, and swap meets related to the products and /or services of the established tenant or owner, and conducted on the premises of permitted and conditional uses in this District; but shall not include sales events which are regularly scheduled or seasonal in nature. (Amended Ord. 82 -29 and Ord. 86 -07) 1) Application and Fee. a) Application for a temporary retail activity shall be made to the Zoning Administrator on forms to be provided by the City at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the proposed event.