HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 06-26-19915. As
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: June 11, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 26, 1991
FILE NO.: 90038
PETITIONER: Len Busch Roses
REQUEST: SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A LANDSCAPE
SCREENING BERM
LOCATION: North of Medina Road West of County Road 101
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LAR (Living Area, Rural)
ZONING: FRO (Future Restricted Development District)
BACKGROUND:
On June 18, 1990, by Resolution 90 -355, the City Council approved a Site Plan
for the construction of two greenhouses (numbers 15 and 16) at the Len Busch
Roses complex, subject to several performance related conditions regarding
lighting.
On December 10, 1990, by Resolution 90 -778, the City Council approved an
agreement with Len Busch Roses, Inc. concerning lighting of the greenhouses,
in response to item 13 of Resolution 90 -355. A copy of the agreement is
attached.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. One of the conditions approved by Resolution 90 -355 is that the petitioner
shall submit a Landscape Plan b September 1, 1990 showing effective
buffering by means of berming and /or landscaping and /or fencing along the
entire length of the property adjacent to Medina Road; the topographical
information shall be based on current data from the City and from a Site
Survey and shall account for the final elevations of new Medina Road. The
plan will be reviewed by the Planning commission and approved by the City
Council. The Site Improvement Performance Agreement and Financial
Guarantee shall be submitted to ensure completion of the improvements
shown on the approved Landscape Plan.
2. Item number 4 of Resolution 90 -778 approving an agreement between the City
of Plymouth and Len Busch Roses states that ..Len Busch Roses will also
install screening along Medina Road consisting of berming, landscaping,
and /or fencing pursuant to Resolution 90 -355, to partially block the view
of the greenhouses from Medina Road. Before constructing the screening,
Len Busch Roses will obtain City approval of its plans ".
see next page)
Page Two
File 90038
3. The petitioner proposes, in response to these conditions, the construction
of a berm parallel to Medina Road for a distance of approximately 1,000
feet ranging six to eight feet in height upon which would be planted 53
spruce trees at a planted height of six feet. The trees would be planted
at an effective spacing of just under 20 feet on center.
4. The petitioner has provided two cross - section views (near the east end and
near the west end of the proposed berm and plantings) showing the
relationship of the greenhouse structures to both Medina Road and homes
that would be constructed in the Bridlewood Farms addition south of Medina
Road. The cross- sections show impact of the berm as well as the proposed
coniferous trees - both at the planted height of six feet and the mature
height (after 15 years) of 25 feet.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. We find the berm alone will provide effective screening of the greenhouse
structures from Medina Road along the 1,000 foot frontage for which the
berm is proposed to be constructed. There will be isolated locations at
which berm alone will not provide total screening, but in those cases the
coniferous trees, even at planted height, will reduce the impact of the
greenhouse structures significantly.
2. We find that a combination of the proposed berm and the coniferous trees
at planted height will not initially provide effective uniform screening
of the greenhouse structures from second -story windows of homes
constructed south of Medina Road. In some cases the wide spacing of the
trees at planting will result in gaps through which the greenhouse
structures will be viewed, and /or the planted height is insufficient to
provide a visual barrier to a person looking through a second or third
floor window from across Medina Road.
At later stages of growth the coniferous trees proposed will provide both
the aeral and the vertical screening necessary to screen those houses.
We observe the intent of the Site Plan condition is to provide lateral
screening of the light produced by the greenhouses not to totally block
view of greenhouses. The greenhouses have /will have curtain screens on
the roofs to block reflective light transmitted vertically.
3. We find that Article No. 4 of the agreement between Len Busch Roses and
the City of Plymouth specifies that berming, landscaping, and /or fencing
pursuant to Resolution 90 -355 should partially block the view of the
greenhouses from Medina Road. We find the plan that has been presented
accomplishes the partial screening (in fact, almost total screening) from
Medina Road, and partial screening from the homes to be constructed south
of Medina Road as well.
see next page)
Page Three
File 90038
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend adoption of the attached resolution providing for the
approval of an amended Site Plan for Len Busch Roses under the 1990 planning
file consistent with Condition No. 10 of the 1990 Approval Resolution and
Article 4 of the agreement between Len Busch Roses and the City of Plymouth
regarding lighting of greenhouses.
Submitted by:
arles E. Dillerud, -Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution for Approval of Site Plan Amendment
2. City Council Resolution 90 -355
3. Agreement Between Len Busch Roses and the City of Plymouth
4. Location Map
5. Landscape /Berming Plan
6. Site Cross - Section
pc /jk /90038:dh)
APPROVING AMENDED SITE PLAN FOR LEN BUSCH ROSES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
LANDSCAPE SCREENING BERM. (90038)
WHEREAS, Len Busch Roses has requested approval for an amended Site Plan for
the construction of a landscape screening berm for property located north of
Medina Road, west of County Road 101; and,
WHEREAS, a Site Plan was approved by Resolution 90 -355 including a condition
requiring approval of plans for a berm, and;
WHEREAS, by Resolution 90 -778 an agreement between Len Busch Roses and the
City of Plymouth was approved that specifies a berm be constructed along
Medina Road per plans to be approved by the City, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said berm plans 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 Len
Busch Roses for an amended Site Plan for the construction of a landscape
screening berm for property located north of Medina Road, west of County Road
101, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements within 12 months of this resolution
date.
2. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
3. Compliance with all applicable terms and conditions of Resolution 90 -355,
90 -778 and the agreement approved by Resolution 90 -778.
res /pc /90038.sp:dh)
CITY or PLM40UTB
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 18th day of
June , 1990 following members were present: Mavor Bergman"
i ouncilme= bar` He' l well , Ricker, Vasiliou, and L tur
The following members were absent: Non
Counci>member Ricker introduced the following Resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 90 -355
APPROVING SITE PLAN FOR LEN BUSCH ROSES (90038)
WHEREAS, Len Busch Roses has requested approval for a Site Plan to construct a
greenhouse structure located north of Medina Road and west of County Road 101;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by Len
Busch Roses for a Site Plan to construct a greenhouse located north of Medina
Road and west of County Road 101, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum, except for Items 4 and 5.
2. No payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication or dedication of
land is required until such time that the land is subdivided for urban
development.
3. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing any open storm
water drainage facility.
4. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of approved site improvements.
5. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance.
6. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
7. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire lanes.
8. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within an enclosure. Trash
enclosure plans consistent with Zoning Ordinance specifications shall be
submitted prior to this resolution becoming effective.
see next page)
Resolution No. 90 -355
File 90038
Page Two
9. An 8 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.
10. The petitioner shall submit a Landscape Plan by September 1, 1990 showing
effective buffering by means of berming and /or landscaping and /or fencing
along the entire length of the property adjacent to Medina Road; the
topographical information shall be based on current data from the City and
from a Site Survey and shall account for the final elevations of new
Medina Road. The plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and
approved by the City Council. The Site Improvement Performance Agreement
and Financial Guarantee shall be submitted to ensure completion of the
improvements shown on the approved Landscape Plan.
11. The approval is for a maximum of two greenhouses as shown on the submitted
plans and no additional greenhouses are included with this *approval.
12. Effective screening and /or lighting schedules shall be implemented with
the new greenhouses so that no light produces glare beyond the boundaries
of the property.
13. The petitioner shall submit by September 1, 1990, a detailed schedule and
plan for abatement of the light emitted from existing buildings by
September 1, 1993 so that no glare is produced and no new greenhouses
shall be constructed on the site until such plan has been approved by the
City Council.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Council_me_mher Helliwell , and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Bergman, Counci?mwlberm
Helliwell, Ricker, and Zitur
The following voted against or abstained Councilmember Vasiliou
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting
of the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held
on the 10th day of December , 199Q. The following members
were present: Mayor Beraman, Councilmembers Helliwell, Ricker,
Vasiliou, and Zitur
The following members were absent: None
Co ncilmember Zitur introduced the following Resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -778
LEN BUSCH ROSES, INC. - LIGHTING AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously approved a site plan for
Len Busch, d /b /a Len Busch Roses, Inc., to further expand his
business of growing commercial flowers by Resolution No. 90 -355;
and
WHEREAS, said resolution established certain conditions, two of
which were: "12. Effective screening and /or lighting schedules
shall be implemented with the new greenhouses so that no light
produces glare beyond the boundaries of the property. 13. The
petitioner shall submit by September 1, 1990, a detailed schedule
and plan for the abatement of the light emitted from existing
buildings by September 1, 1993, so that no glare is produced and
no new greenhouses shall be constructed on the site until such
plan has been approved by the City Council. "; and
WHEREAS, the City staff and Mr. Busch have previously met to
develop an agreement which would address the conditions outlined
above; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on November 5, 1990 further directed
the City Manager and the City Attorney to meet with Mr. Busch and
seek to resolve differences in order that an agreement could be
negotiated between the parties; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager in his report dated December 7, 1990,
reported on those negotiations and submitted an agreement for
consideration by this Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that the agreement negotiated
between Len Busch, dba Len Busch Roses, Inc., and the City of
Plymouth, is hereby approved as meeting the Council's conditions
12 and 13 in Resolution No. 90 -355; and
FURTHER, that the City Manager and Mayor are authorized and
directed to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of
Plymouth.
1 0
12/10/90
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of ,
1990 between the CITY OF PLYMOUTH ( "City ") and LEN BUSCH ROSES,
INC. ( "Len Busch Roses ") .
RECITALS:
1. Len Busch Roses has conducted a greenhouse operation on
the property located at 4045 Highway 101 ( "Property ") in the City
since 1965. As part of the greenhouse operation, Len Busch Roses
uses special high intensity lights to assist in the growing
process. Exhibit A to this Agreement is a schematic of the
property depicting the number and location of the greenhouses.
Nearby neighbors and property owners have objected to the use of
the special high intensity lights because of the effect on their
property.
2. Pursuant to City Resolution 90 -355, Len Busch Roses has
received approval of a site plan for two additional greenhouse
structures (Nos. 15 and 16) on the Property.
3. One of the conditions of the site plan approval was
that Len Busch Roses submit a detailed schedule and plan for
abatement of the reflected light emitted from' the greenhouse
operation.
4. That the existing technology for screening greenhouses
uses a fabric that may damage the acrylic panels used in the
greenhouses of Len Busch Roses.
5. The City and Len Busch Roses enter into this Agreement
to set forth the respective rights of the parties concerning
implementation of said plan.
1. Len Busch Roses installed retractable, aluminum, opaque
screens inside the two greenhouses that were approved by the City
pursuant to Resolution 90 -355 (greenhouses 15 and 16). The
purpose of the screens is to block reflected light from leaving
the greenhouses, particularly from the roof or sidewalls. The
screen may be retracted during daylight hours but must be drawn
shut during the night time to keep light from reflecting outside
the greenhouses. The estimated cost of installing these screens
was $40,000.
2. By December 31, 1990, or as soon thereafter as the City
Council shall schedule, Len Busch Roses will meet on site with
the City Council and area property owners to evaluate the
effectiveness of the screening of greenhouses 15 and 16 and the
proposed screening of additional greenhouses.
r
As part of the evaluation process, Len Busch Roses first
will shut off the lights in buildings 11 through 14 to simulate
screening of those buildings and an assessment of the light
reduction will be made.
If the existing screening of buildings 15 and 16 and the
blackout of buildings 11 through 14 is deemed insufficient light
reduction, then Len Busch Roses will shut off the lights in
buildings 7 through 10 to simulate the screening of those
buildings and a further assessment of the light reduction will be
made. If the City Council decides that buildings 7 through 10
must be screened, the screening scheduled will be accomplished as
set forth in paragraph 3.
The purpose of the evaluation is to determine the
effectiveness of screening of the reflected light from the two
screened greenhouses, as well as the effectiveness of the
curtaining material and the effectiveness of proposed screening
of additional buildings.
3. By October 15, 1991, Len Busch Roses will screen, in a
fashion similar to greenhouses 15 and 16, greenhouses 11, 12, 13,
and 14.
If required in accordance with paragraph :2 of this
Agreement, Len Busch Roses will screen buildings.'7, 8, 9, and 10
by October 15, 1992.
4. Len Busch Roses will also install screening along
Medina Road consisting of berming, landscaping, and /or fencing
pursuant to Resolution No. 90 -355, to partially block the view of
the greenhouses from Medina Road. Before constructing the
screening, Len Busch Roses will obtain City approval of his
plans.
The City agrees to provide to Len Busch Roses, to the extent
available to the City, the necessary fill to construct a berm as
contemplated herein from the material taken from Medina Road in
the contemplated reconstruction of that roadway. The fill will
be provided to Len Busch Roses at no cost.
5. The Council and Len Busch Roses mutually acknowledge
that with the screening of greenhouses 11 through 16, as well as
greenhouses 7 through 10, if required, as well as screening of
any new greenhouses, the reflected light will be reduced to
conditions existing in 1985 which was prior to the construction
and lighting of the greenhouses referred to above.
6. The City and Len Busch Roses agree to exercise good
faith in implementing the terms of this Agreement. The City will
not approve any future expansion of greenhouses on the Property
if at any time Len Busch roses is in default of this Agreement.
i
7. If the screening material placed in any of the
greenhouses is determined by Len Busch Roses to damage the
acrylic panels, and the City Council agrees that such damage
cannot reasonably be mitigated, or that alternative screening is
not available, then it is understood that the screening may be
removed and that Len Busch Roses will not use any high intensity
lights to assist in the growing process in those greenhouses
where the screening is removed. If alternative screening
material is available, Len Busch Roses and the City Council shall
mutually agree as to its suitability to effectively block
reflected light from leaving the greenhouse.
8. Any breach of this Agreement by either party may be
enforced by the other party seeking equitable judicial relief in
order to specifically enforce the provisions of this Agreement.
9. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to be a waiver by
the City of its right to declare the use of the lights or the
greenhouse operation to be a nuisance and to abate it in
accordance with applicable provisions of law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their
hands the day and year first above written.
CITY OF 'PLYMOUTH
By
Mayor
Its
City Manager
LEN BUSCH ROSES, INC.
By
Leonard A. Busch
IF
IOM -WNN
i r
1,0
imp an
F-'B
A a
Z
W
N
co
S w
ox
Z N
m .
Z
W
v J
CC !
i
QH :
O ,
CL
l
I.
r ;
fit
1 =777! a L i-
V ;i'•'
g
d
1
NL ar +
I.
r ;
fit
1 =777! a L i-
V ;i'•'
g
d
1
W
W
1
W
littE i
l
J
i
o
to
Z ailvJ
cc
00
W L
a
i
i
i
r
r
I
f• ' I
3
Y
t Y
It ` t
f
o
W k
i'
n
III
I
I,I
3
Ir
I
I
II
II
t I
1
3
v
M r
com
k
1—
O
c
i Ci 1
littE i
l
i Y
c
IROM SBCTIM 9, SU ®IVISICN A
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Cammission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and 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 Conprehensive 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 dinunish 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
s
N
t
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: June 19, 1991
TO Ch ck Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
FROM: Daniel L. Faulkner City Engineerineer
SUBJECT: LEN BUSCH LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMENTS (90038)
1. The berm /landscape plan shall be submitted to Elm Creek for their
review.
2. Permanent vegetation shall be installed within 30 days after
completion of initial grading.
3. The City will provide the fill material available from the Medina
Road site as per the agreement with Mr. Busch.
4. Because Medina Road will be under construction when the berm is being
constructed, necessary erosion control measures shall be determined
by the City Engineer in the field.
DLF:rcj:do
5.8•
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: June 11, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 26, 1991
FILE NO.: 90103
PETITIONER: Hennepin County
REQUEST: AMENDED MASTER PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE
PLAN FOR A NEW WOMEN'S FACILITY AND PARKING LOT; AND, A
ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCE TO PLACE MORE THAN ONE PRINCIPAL
STRUCTURE CN A PARCEL OF RECORD AT THE HENNEPIN COUNTY
ADULT CORREZTIONS FACILITY
LOCATION: Southeast corner of County Road 6 and Vicksburg Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: Public and Semi - Public
ZONING: R -1A
BACKGROUND:
In 1981 the City Council, !)y Resolution 81 -141 approved a Site Plan and
Conditional Use Permit for Hennepin County to allow construction of the
Work /Study Release Residence Facility on the Adult Correctional Facility site.
The approval resolution contains several conditions including one that
requires submission by the County and approval by the City of a Master Plan
for the Adult Corrections Facility site within one year.
On January 17, 1983, by Resolution 83 -48, the City Council approved a
Conceptual Master Plan for the Hennepin County Adult Correctional Facility.
The approved Conceptual Long Range Master Plan identifies the proposed Women's
Housing Unit to be located adjacent to the existing Women's Residence as well
as additions to the existing Men's Residence Unit.
On November 20, 1989 the City Council adopted Ordinance 89 -38 adding Section
9, Subdivision E to the Zoning Ordinance. This Zoning Ordinance section
specifically addresses submission requirements and performance standards for
residential care facilities, including correctional facilities.
On April 16, 1990, by Ordinance 90 -09 the City Council amended the list of
allowable uses in the ironing Ordinance to include "adult corrections
facilities in operation as of November 20, 1989" as a Conditional Use in all
residential zoning districts. This action was to correct an oversight in the
1989 Zoning Ordinance amendments that inadvertently left the facility as a
nonconforming use.
These applications are to amend the approved Master Plan for the Adult
Correctional Facilities site to relocate the Women's Facility from the east
see next page)
Page Two
File 90103
side (the present location) to the center of the site, and construct
additional offstreet parking (114 new spaces) at the southeast corner of the
site. A Conditional Use Permit amendment responsive to Section 9 of the
Zoning Ordinance is part of the request. In addition, Hennepin County has
applied for an amended Site Plan approval to construct a new 68 bed, 36,437
square foot Women's Residence adjacent to the exiting "Work /Study" facility;
and, to construct a 114 stall offstreet parking lot south of the existing
Men's Facility ".
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City
Newspaper, and all property owners within 1,320 feet of the Adult Corrections
Facility Site have been notified, consistent with the provisions of Section 9,
Subdivision E of The Zoning Ordinance. A development sign has been placed on
the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The Conditional Use Permit application is responsive to the provisions of
Section 9, Subdivision E of the Zoning Ordinance governing Conditional Use
Permits for correctional facilities. This section of the ordinance
contains submission requirements; processing procedures; and development
standards /performance criteria in addition to those required for other
Conditional Use Permits. Application materials submitted comply with the
submission requirements of Section 9, Subdivision E, and the applicable
development standards /performance criteria.
2. All Conditional Use Permits approved by the City of Plymouth must be found
to meet six specific standards of Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. A
copy of those standards is attached, together with the applicant's
response to the standards.
3. The site is located in the Parkers Lake and Gleason Lake Storm Water
Drainage Districts; contains no storm water drainage, flood plain or
wetland features, but is partially within the Shoreland Overlay District
of Parkers Lake. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has been
notified of these applications and has concluded that all Shoreland
regulations are complied with. The site does contain existing woodlands
at the northwest corner, but no topography or slopes greater than 12
percent. The site is suitable for urban development with municipal
utilities in place, as they are presently. Proposed development of the
site is consistent with the features found in the Plymouth Physical
Constraints Analysis. No constraints to development are found.
4. The Site Plan for the new Women's Facility structure and the parking lot
at the southeast corner of the site has been reviewed for compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance and other City of Plymouth policies, codes and
ordinances regulating the design of such structures and site improvements.
Specifically, the design of the parking and circulation is consistent with
the standards of the Zoning Ordinance; trash containment will be internal
to the principal structure; no rooftop mechanical units are proposed which
would require screening; all setbacks of parking and structures are
consistent with ordinance standards; and landscaping is consistent with
the City of Plymouth Landscape Policy.
see next page)
Page Three
File 90103
5. The appearance of the structure will be in harmony with the existing Work
Release Facility, featuring decorative masonry broken with metal panels,
architectural features, and color to break the mass of the structure.
6. Approximately 50 percent of the existing wooded area at the northwest
corner of the adult corrections facility site will be graded and therefore
lost" to the women's facility construction. Sixty to eighty feet of the
existing wooded area along Vicksburg Lane and County Road 6 would remain
following,grading required to construct the facility.
7. A berm would be constructed consistent with City deign standard parallel
to Shenandoah Lane between the new parking lot in the southeast corner of
the site and the driving surface of Shenandoah Lane. The berm would be
approximately 6 feet in height, and intended to screen vehicle lights from
Shenandoah Lane consistent with the Zoning Ordinance standards in that
regard.
8. A berm is under construction consistent with City design standards
parallel to Vicksburg Lane as work related to the County Road 6
improvement project. The berm is shown on the Site Plan to be completed
with top soil and seeding. Berming and other methods of transitional
screening for the ACF site were conditions of the Site Plan and
Conditional Use Permit approved for the Work Release Facility in 1981.
9. The 1981 approval resolution also specified construction of additional
offstreet parking north of the men's facility, and paving of the new
parking within 3 years (by 1984_). The County has been repeatedly
reminded of the prior condition during staff review of these applications.
County representatives have informed staff that the existing gravel lot
will not be paved until 1993 - 9 years beyond the condition established
for the completion of that work in 1981. Paving of parking and
circulation access is a Zoning Ordinance Standard, and no variance was, in
1981 or since then, applied for or approved. The paving requirement was,
in fact, deferred by the 1981 action for 3 years, not added by the
Conditional Use Permit.
10. Section 10, Subdivision C, Paragraph 9 provides that there shall be no
more than one principal building on one lot. The existing adult
corrections facility does not now conform with that standard by the
location of two structures on the northerly tax parcel and four structures
on the southerly tax parcel. The proposal to construct a new women's
facility and raze the existing Women's Facility would result in a
continuation of two structures on the northerly parcel, one of which will
be new construction. A variance to Zoning Ordinance standards is required
to accommodate two principal structures on a single parcel i.e., the new
second structure. The Zoning Ordinance specifies 6 criteria that must Be
complied with for a variance to be approved. A copy of those criteria is
attached.
11. The application states the existing Women's Residence will be razed
following completion of the new structure per this application.
see next page)
Page Four
File 90103
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The variance to permit two principal structures on a parcel of record
complies with the zoning ordinance variance criteria. Specifically the
site and historical circumstances regarding multiple structures is unique
for this site compared to others found in the community, based upon the
campus" plan and ownership by a single governmental unit.
2. Both the development standard "2G" of Section 9, Subdivision E and
Conditional Use Permit standards 2, 3 and 4 found in Section 9,
Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a must be addressed regarding the plan to
relocate the Women's Facility on this site from the previously approved
existing location adjacent to Shenandoah Lane to the now proposed location
west of the Work Release facility at the corner of County Road 6 and
Vicksburg Lane.
Will the use continue to comply with the ordinance standards with the new
plan for the Women's Facility in the same manner as it did with the
previously approved Master Plan?
3. The Adult Correction Facility site is predominantly cleared of trees. The
only significantly forested portion of the site will be reduced by
construction of the Women's Residence. Staff has asked the County staff
during DRC review, and continues to ask if some other portion of the site,
where there are no existing trees, might be as suitable for the Women's
Residence.
4. We find the change of location for the Women's Residence proposed by the
new Master Plan to be in compliance with the Conditional Use Permit
standards found in both Section 9, Subdivision A and Section 9,
Subdivision E of the Zoning Ordinance. The structure will be located
approximately 180 feet from the Vicksburg Lane property line, over three
times the setback requirement of the Zoning Ordinance for structures
abutting a thoroughfare street.
Also, a minimum of 60 feet of the existing mature forested area at the
northwest corner County Road 6 and Vicksburg Lane will remain after
grading and construction activity related to the proposed Women's Facility
construction.
Based on these site locational factors and the fact that the use is
proposed to be reduced from 75 beds to 68 beds compared to the already
approved Conditional Use Permit we find amendment of the Master Plan and a
Conditional Use Permit to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance
standards.
5. Hennepin County has not completed improvements in compliance with
conditions approved concurrent with the 1981 approval resolution for the
Work Release facility regarding offstreet parking. The gravel parking
area north of the existing men's residence was constructed responsive to
see next page)
Page Five
File 90103
the condition of the Conditional Use Permit, but was never surfaced with a
dust -free material within the three year period as was also part of the
condition. Compliance with the conditions of a previous approval should
be a prerequisite to commencement of new construction on the site. No
variance from the ordinance standard for parking lots was requested or
granted. This lot should be finished before the new one is even graded.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend adoption of the attached resolution which provides for the
approval of a Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit amendment, Site Plan
approval for the construction of 36,437 square foot Women's Residence and 114
car parking area consistent with the Master Site Plan for the Hennepin County
Adult Corrections Facility which is part of the Conditional Use Permit. Also
approved by the resolution is a variance to locate two principal structures on
one parcel.
Conditions are recommended in the approval resolution regarding compliance
with the previous Conditional Use Permit regarding the surfacing of offstreet
parking.
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Site Plan and Variance
2. Resolution Approving Amended Conditional Use Permit
3. Engineer's Memo
4. Petitioner's Narrative
5. Amended Master Plan
6. Approved Master Plan
7. City Council Resolution 81 -141
8. City Council Resolution 83 -48
9. Location Map
10. Site Plan
11. Architectural Elevation
12. Landscape Plan
APPROVING AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR A
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. (90103)
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has requested approval for an Amended Conditional Use
Permit to Hennepin County for a Correctional Facility for property located at
the southeast corner of County Road 6 and Vicksburg Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Hennepin County for an Amended Conditional Use Permit for a Correctional
Facility for property located at the southeast corner of County Road 6 and
Vicksburg Lane, subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the site shall be in compliance with the Concept Master
Plan dated December, 1989. (Graphics Dated November 7, 1989)
2. Compliance with the provisions of Section 9, Subdivision E of the Zoning
Ordinance.
res /pc /90103.cup:dh)
APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR A NEW WOMEN'S FACILITY AND PARKING LOT AND VARIANCE
TO PERMIT TWO PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ON A PARCEL OF RECORD FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY
AT THE ADULT CORRECTION'S FACILITY (90103)
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has requested approval for a Site Plan for a new
Women's Facility and parking lot and a Variance to permit two principal
structures on a parcel of record for property located at the southeast corner
of County Road 6 and Vicksburg Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Hennepin County for a Site Plan for a new Women's Facility and parking lot and
a Variance to permit two principal structures on a parcel of record for
property located at the southeast corner of County Road 6 and Vicksburg Lane,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication of the new
construction in accordance with the Dedication Policy in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
3. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing any open storm
water drainage facility.
4. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements within 12 months of the date of this
resolution.
5. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
6. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and
fire lanes.
7. All waste and .waste containers shall be stored within the principal
structure and no outside storage is permitted.
8. An 8h 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.
9. A variance is approved to permit two principal structures on single parcel
of record (PIN 28 -33 -0003) based on compliance with the Zoning Ordinance
Variance Criteria.
11. Completion of curb /gutter and asphalt surfacing of the previously approved
parking area north of the Men's Facility prior to issuance of building or
grading permits for improvements hereby approved.
res /pc /90103.sp.var:dh)
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: June 19, 1991
FILE NO.: 90103
PETITIONER: Mr. Dan Young- Dickson, Hennepin County, A -2303 Government Center,
Minneapolis, MN 55487 -0228
SITE PLAN: HENNEPIN COUNTY /ADULT CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
LOCATION: South of County Road 6, east of Vicksburg Lane, west of Shenandoah
Lane in the southwest 1/4 of Section 28 and the northwest 1/4 of
Section 33.
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. .
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: Hennepin County shall be
responsible for one -half the cost of a 36 foot wide 7 -ton street
when Shenandoah Lane is imRroved.
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.)
8• X _ _ Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100
year high water elevation and conformance with the City's
comprehensive storm water requirements.
9. X All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities.
N/A Yes No
10. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way
to facilitate the development. It should be noted that this
vacation is not an automatic process in conjunction with the
platting process. It is entirely dependent upon the City receiving
a petition for the vacation from the property owner; therefore, it
is their responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated.
11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
2-
N/A Yes No
12. _ _ X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR X Bassett Creek
MN DOT X Minnehaha Creek
X Hennepin County Elm Creek
MPCA Shingle Creek
State Health Department Army Corps of Engineers
Other
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
13. _ X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The site plan will be submitted to the City's consulting engineer
for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations
shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The grading and drainage
plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary:
N/A Yes No
14. _ X _ Necessary fire hydrants provided -
The City of Plymouth requires that all parts of a building such as
the one proposed be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant. It will be
necessary to locate hydrants in such a manner that the site plan
complies with this section of the City Ordinance.
15. _ X Size and type of material proposed in utility systems has been
provided
The utility plan shall be revised to indicate the size and type of
material required in the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain services
and storm sewer.
16. _ _ X Post indicator valve - fire department connection
It will be necessary to locate the post indicator valve in such a
manner that it will not render any of the existing fire hydrants
inoperable.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. X
18. X
19. X
N/A Yes No
20. X
21. 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.
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.
Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
All existing street right -of -ways are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required on
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.
Storm sewer is not available on the east side of the site
4-
N/A Yes No
22. X
23. X
STANDARDS:
N/A Yes No
24. 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 whereitisnotnecessarytocontroldrainage. 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.
Complies with parking lot standards -
The City will require that all traveled areas within the parkinglot, 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 ofClass5100% crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. The site
plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with these
requirements.
It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utilityforeman,
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 theCity'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.
5-
26. X The site plan complies with the City of Plymouth's current
Engineering Standards Manual. See Item Nos. 12 and 16.
Submitted by: -4f
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
FTPROPERTY MANAGEMENT
A -2208 Government Center
HENNEPIN
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 -0228
i U
May 15,1991
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
Community Development Coordinator
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Chuck:
As we discussed earlier we are forwarding to you final submission
documents for your consideration regarding the Condition Use Permit for
the Adult Corrections Facility. Listed below are the documents in this
submission.
1. Rendering of Women's Section Building.
2. Plan of Project D, new parking lot and lighting diagram.
3. Women's Section Building drawings and site plans.
4. Letter written to you regarding the indicated uses of the Women's
Section building.
5. Letter written to you regarding verification of comparable facilities
licensed in the State of Minnesota.
6. Letter to you regarding emergency telephone numbers and addresses for
the Adult Corrections Facility.
I trust that the above is sufficient for you to begin processing of the
Conditional Use Permit. Should you have any questions or require further
information, please feel free to give me a call.
SA;6cerely,
Roge"PZ Martinsd`J
Archit t-Proje Manager
RM:mw
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
DATE: May 8, 1991
TO: Mr. Chuck Dillerud, Community Development
HENNEPIN Coordinator, City of Plymouth
Ij FROM: Sigmund L. Fine, Director, Adult
Corrections Department
SUBJECT: Emergency Telephone Numbers - Adult
Corrections Facility Management
Per your request, please be advised of the following:
NAME /TITLE HOME TELEPHONE
Sigmund L. Fine 612 - 553x0564
Director
Adult Corrections Department
5278 No. Ximines Lane
Plymouth, MN
John Skavnak 612 - 566 -6911
Manager
Men's Section
4117 No 79th Lane
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
Harry Lichy 612- 926 -7534
Manager
Work Release /Women's Section
4908 Hibiscus Ave
Edina, MN 55435
Rosemary Madison 612 - 522 -5475
Manager
Administration &Support Services
1939 Washburn Ave. No.
Mpls. MN 55411
C
C_
w
DATE May 8, 1991
TO: Mr. Chuck Dillerud, Community Development
HENNEPIN Coordinator, City of Plymouth
FROM: Sigmund L. Fine, Director, Adu
Corrections Department
SUBJECT: Requested Verification
This is to advise that there are no facilities comparable to the Adult
Corrections Facility licensed by the State of Minnesota within 1,320 feet of
the Adult Corrections Facility.
U=
1r -
r
G
F-71-
Armstrong
Torseth
Skold and
Rydeen
Inc.
May 3, 1991
Mr. Charles E. Dillerud
Community Development Coordinator
City of Plymouth
Community Development Department
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: New 68 -Bed Women's Correctional Facility
Plymouth, Minnesota
Project #84034.8
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
Hennepin County is applying to the City of Plymouth for a conditional use and site plan
approval to construct a new 68 -bed, 36,150 square foot Women's Correctional Facility
on County -owned property connected to the west side of the existing Work Study Release
Building in the City of Plymouth.
The new facility will comply with the 1990 Minnesota State Building Code and the 1988
Uniform Building Code involving all local codes and ordinances.
On site services and treatment at the correctional facility are for residents only and will
not be used for non - residents or persons outside the facility.
The exterior of the new facility will be articulated with a combination of metal standing
seam and batten roofing materials and a stucco -like wall finish, similar to the Work Study
Release Building. The scale and character of the new facility will be non - institutional in
appearance and consistent with the existing two -level Work Study Release Building and
other neighboring buildings. The new facility will continue the warm beige stucco
appearance and the gray sloped metal roofs. A red accent color will be used at the
exterior columns, entrances, screen walls and the connecting link similar to the red color
used on the Work Study Release Building's exposed exterior columns. These exterior
building materials and colors will be harmonious with the existing building and other
buildings in the neighborhood.
May 3, 1991
Mr. Charles E. Dillerud
Page Two
A graded berm and open space on the south and west side of the site and a natural
wooded area and berm on the northwest corner of the site provide privacy and an
appropriate transition from neighboring property. Parking will comply with City
standards and zoning ordinances. The existing building signage will be modified and will
not exceed 21 square feet in size.
The new facility will be provided with enhanced security designed into the exterior
windows, doors and building perimeter. The building shape creates an outdoor activity
area which utilizes the building for security on three sides and a 12 foot high non -
climbable fence on the open side.
Access to the site will remain off Shenandoah Lane from the east. The existing entrance
and access driveway for the Work Study Release Building will remain and also provide
access to the new facility entrance and parking area. A continuation and upgrading of the
existing fire lane provides a loop around both buildings and provides easy access for
emergency and county vehicles.
Attached is a zoning ordinance comparison sheet for your review. We are hopeful that
the Conditional Use and Site Plan Review Applications will be considered at the new
Planning Commission Meeting.
Sincerely,
Kenkrabow
Project Architect
KEG:bg
cc: Robert Martinson, Hennepin County Property Management
Dan Young- Dixon, Hennepin County Property Management
Harry Lichy, Hennepin County Adult Corrections Facility
ARMSTRONG, TORSETH, SKOLD AND RYDEEN, INC. ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS
WOMEN'S CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
HENNEPIN COUNTY ADULT CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
ZONING. ORDINANCE REVIEW
ACTUAL
USE CLASSIFICATION RIA
BUILDING AREA
LOWER LEVEL 1,120
MAIN LEVEL 29,370
UPPER LEVEL 5,660
TOTAL 36,150
LOT AREA
PROJECT 4.55 AC 3 AC MIN.
TOTAL A.C.F. 60 AC Approx.
LOT COVERAGE 14.8% 20% MAX.
BUILDING SETBACK
FRONT YARD 380 FT - From East 50 FT
Property line to .
Existing Work Release
Building
SIDE YARD 177 FT - From North 30 FT
Property Line
REAR YARD 168 FT - From West 40 FT
Property Line
BUILDING HEIGHT 24 FT 35 FT MAX.
NUMBER OF STORIES 2 3 MAX.
PARKING
STAFF AND VISITOR 24 Cars
NAMEPLATE SIGN 21 SF 32 SF
0
Sf D 1991 MASTER PLAIN
Z
W W
W
0
U)
W W
NORTH
R'
0n
0
Z
LU
J
N
f
1982 MASTER `PLAN ' EXHIBIT A
pt) - l
L \;i } `y• Facilities i
lomen OnlyCL
Facilities 1
w •
v\ \ _; P
1 Men Only
i='= • - Joint -Use
Fac i 1 i ty
Proposed Wo
41—W fits
C, Services Unit
Gym-
Em- -
F
J
Henrepin County Adult Corrections Facility
Conceptual Long Range Master Plan
MAY 1982 o so 1W 150
aa•
r
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a re user meeting of the City
Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was nTTo- a 2nd day of
Mar h , 1981 . The following members were present:
Mayor Davenp ort, CouncfTmeembers Hoyt, Neils, Schneider b Threinen
owing memDers were assent: None
ft•
Councilmember Neils introduced the following Resolution and moved
Its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -141
APPROVINu CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /SITE PLAN FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR WORT: /STUDY
Z£LEASE RE.'IDENCE FACILITY AT SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF COUNTY ROAD 6 AND SHENANDOAli
LANE (8006)
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has requested approval of a conditional use permit and
site plan for an institutional use in the R -1A District consisting of a work/
study release program residence facility on the site of the Hennepin County Adult
Corrections Facility at the southwest quadrant of County Road 6 and Shenandoah
Lane; and.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the request at two duly called
Public hearings;
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 Hennepin County
for a conditional use permit and site plan approval for in institutional use in the
R -1A Zoning District consisting of an approximate 29,574,square foot work /study
release program residence facility subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and ordinances,
particularly regarding maximum occupancy and security, and violation thereof
shall be grounds fer revocation; the permit shall be reviewed annually.
3. Cumpliance with City Code requirements as to fire lanes and fire hydrants,
including submittal of detailed plans regarding fire lane around the
proposed building.
4. Submittal of a Resolution of Compliance, adopted by the Hennepin County
Board, guaranteeing completion of approved site improvements within 24 months.
5. Any additional construction and expansion shall be subject to ordinance
conditional use and site plan approval requirements.
6. The historical cabin at the north end of the site shall not be disturbed
in any way snd shall be preserved.
S
r.
Resolution No. 81 -141
Page 2
7. Existing parking deficiencies and problems at the south end of the site
shall be resolved by:
A. Installation of 20 parking spaces in front of the existing men's
residence; this area shall be per City ordinance setback, paving,
curbing, and landscaping requirements; no variances are granted.
B. Installation of 7 parking spaces to the rear of the existing men's
residence for use of service personnel,
C. Installation of an 80 space parking area to the north of the existing
men's residence; approval of a variance to allow the use of aggregate
surfacing without curb for temporary overflow parking lot for a period
not to exceed 3 years.
8. The overall general development plan shall include any proposed changes,
together with a time schedule, which shall be prepared and submitted within
12 months of conditional use permit /site plan approval and including projected
type and number of prisoners and a permanent solution to existing deficiencie"
including transitional landscaping, buffering and berming and removal of the
greenhouse.
9. Hennepin County, together with the City of Plymouth, shall convene a public
informational meeting prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and
notice shall be given, by mail, to all residents within 500 feet, presidents
of homeowners associations in the area, and to all those who have appearej
at the Planning Commission public hearing and this Council meeting.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Co n ilmember Threinen , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Davenport, Councilmembers Hoyt,
Neils. Schneider 6 Threinen
The following voted against or abstained: None
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passe an a opte
r f t
r
CITY OF PLVNDM
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a rul r amptinp of the City Council of
the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 83T7thdayofJanuaryigP.
The following members were present: Mayor Davenport. CounciImembers b1! en;-iTeiTs,
Arhnpidpr and Threinen
The following members were sent: none
y
Cn,mrilmpmhpr Moen -introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 83- 4E
APPROVAL FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY CENER DEVELOPMENT /CONCEPT PLAN FAR THE HENNFPIN C(AINTY
ADULT CORRECTIONS FACILITY (80066)
WHEREAS, the City Council directed in their Resolution Mo. 81 -141 that a Public
Informational Hearing be conducted by Hennepin County; and,
WHEREAS, on July 27, 1982 such Public Informational Hearing was conducted; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly called Public Hearino and
recommends approval of the Concept Plan for Hennepin County Adult Corrections Facility:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMnIITH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Conceptual Master Plan for the
Hennepin County Adult Corrections Facility subject to the followina condition:
1. That future development shll be subject to the approved Conceptual Master
Plan.
2. That page 69 Objective 3 of the Master Plan narrative be changed to read "to
Indicate consideration of berming and /or landscaping compatible with perimeter
security ", and on page 139 Section E. paragraph 1, be modified to add: "to
accommodate berming and /or landscaping for transition to the perimeter of the
property where appropriate ".
3. That a Landscape Plan be developed, with the City's assistance, for the west
and south boundaries of the property.
The Not-Ion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
jgIncilmember Threinen !, and upon vote being taken trier —eon, I
following voted in favor thereof: _- MaYOr'Davenpart, Councilmembers- Mloen, Nei 1,
pidp_r and Thr nen .
ingedg nst or aostaied: -none
hereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.-
dWk2A
w
x.
7.
1
i
04 AN
411VNNII
M
w
w
1 Q 1
J O
Z cn -
LU
LU
1w.
cr a-
Ju
26
s
003
u
z i Q
33 4
Q W W I
Z • Z 3 ! 0.
fn1it • i
9 • a .
r
w a
1 3 K i S w 121 •
i a o=
a lA910101 °
jadiZ g o is
1..•. Y _ Zn viii 1 •
x Q
yr!
N x NCJit
j33ii
yy
j(
q01
P
e
LA
Q Q
CC
W
L
O•
1 Q 1
J O
Z cn -
LU
LU
1w.
cr a-
Ju
26
s
003
u
z i Q
33 4
Q W W I
Z • Z 3 ! 0.
fn1it • i
9 • a .
r
w a
1 3 K i S w 121 •
i a o=
a lA910101 °
jadiZ g o is
1..•. Y _ Zn viii 1 •
x Q
yr!
N x NCJit
j33ii
yy
j(
q01
P
e
LA
CC
1 Q 1
J O
Z cn -
LU
LU
1w.
cr a-
Ju
26
s
003
u
z i Q
33 4
Q W W I
Z • Z 3 ! 0.
fn1it • i
9 • a .
r
w a
1 3 K i S w 121 •
i a o=
a lA910101 °
jadiZ g o is
1..•. Y _ Zn viii 1 •
x Q
yr!
N x NCJit
j33ii
yy
j(
q01
a '
I
L11
a
V
i
mom
777 ,
is 4m
rim nr e. +a'•1la+
Fir
7L a
Alm
1i ' \ , , O /II 11' l: nom \` \
2 6
oi
Us
WIN
Uq "12j6.
IQ.1
J
t
20Op
uW
z W Z
003
08
i;
ie•
1
O C
a
W
c
ed
o
W
WpS
V
Zt =
s
goa
i
8
i
W
I Y Y
lot 1 M
oil
Y
74
to 1! . Im I
rir
I
oil
71,
oil -
I ON
Liu
L lug
Y
74
to 1! . Im I
rir
I
oil
71,
Liu
L lug
J
Ail I
id Hd 111L1111
till
Y
74
to 1! . Im I
rir
I
oil
FUW100UU
xis
71,
J
id Hd 111L1111
FUW100UU
xis
0 A
16
71,
0 A
16
ei
all
T
24
oil
28
lwzczz
Dzz
is 000u=
W.0
Zmx
z
x it
I
IT
t 17
71
It,
C')
LLI
cr
FS —
D
LLI
1 7 7--
z
oil
z
D
zw
PT
13
LL
LL. tRr
fA
zu.
IL
W
z
D
0
77
Ji
Le MP F jq
7_
1131
40
00
003
wzo
z
it
zor
dt A
ra
r
BE
Cu 0& e 1
04 L i x
rn J
50
tj-
U- '
0
4A
tri Za
11A ,
x
co
L . 1 17 a
z
LU
17
IA
cr
I a I Iillull! r! Mf
tlE JS
I t 4111
4t
OD
WZ
i
It c
e
c
Oil
6' 6
JI fig
le.
9- 3
tj
17
IA
cr
I a I Iill ull! r! Mf
tlE JS
I t 4111
4t
OD
WZ
i
It c
e
c
6' 6
9- 3
tj
0
eg
17
IA
cr
I a I Iillull! r! Mf
tlE JS
I t 4111
4t
OD
WZ
0
z
V
z
Ax
w
0
I>i I
0 -uj
a +QTY
z
co '
CL * LC
On
Iow,
0
CI)
cr
0
iLL
2
CL
c!)
9
I
O
20
z
02
3
1032
o ' i 4L
11
0
z-
tj
0
z
V
z
Ax
w
0
I>i I
0 -uj
a +QTY
z
co '
CL * LC
On
Iow,
0
CI)
cr
0
iLL
2
CL
c!)
9
I
O
20
z
02
3
1032
o ' i 4L
11
0
z-
0
00
4
00
fT.
10
4
J.
Iz
28
0 . uwwz
S,r002
u 0 IE
z•
FL -Z mW.0
Z,2
z0> 0w 'r irIL
72
14I
Pi
00
4
00
fT.
10
4
J.
Iz
28
0 . uwwz
S,r002
u 0 IE
z•
FL -Z mW.0
Z,2
z0> 0w 'r irIL
72
14I
f
r
J d i
uj
I
I
f
4
wl
i 1 11
W
N
R
I f9
I
zr
J
z
W 0
U Vz WW
j W ZIU
N
aZ
W
0,
i0a.
Y
IP o
ELI a
0
f
r
J d i
uj
I
I
f
4
r
ti
It Ei
it •
r
I
i
a
I
a ,
4 Y-
i
Q
I
1
Ik IA4
L v< P
f a
i
Zd \J 1
I I:i
rW
z
R
G I a F J
z
W 0
U VzWW
j W ZIU
N
aZ
W
0,
i _
i0a.
Y
i
t
ELI a
0
a
4`
1 i
3
r
ti
It Ei
it •
r
I
i
a
I
a ,
4 Y-
i
Q
I
1
Ik IA4
L v< P
f a
i
Zd \J 1
I I:i
ODD
j
Y
s
aa.
ai 1
ai ss
E.
Y
z
RLU
J
W 0
U VzWWZ
W 200
aZ 0,
i0a.
Y
r;
ELI a
ODD
j
Y
s
aa.
ai 1
ai ss
E.
Y
I N
5•C•
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: June 11, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 26, 1991
FILE NO.: 91011
PETITIONER: Bruce Biederman
REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOME OCCUPATION FOR SMALL
ENGINE REPAIR
LOCATION: 4115 Fernbrook Lane North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: R -1A (Low Density Single Family Residential District)
BACKGROUND:
There are no applications on file in the Community Development Department
regarding this parcel.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City
Newspaper, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The application results from a zoning violation citation issued by the
City of Plymouth on October 11, 1990. At least three signs along
Fernbrook Lane advertised a small engine repair business and, a large
accumulation of lawnmowers, snowblowers, and similar equipment was
observed in the driveway of the residence. The applicant was directed to
cease all repair of this type of equipment at his home, and make
application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation if it was
his intention to continue this business.
2. Section 4 (Definitions) of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance specifies two
activity levels of "Home Occupation" allowable in residential zoning
districts. Home Occupations that require equipment other than that
customarily found in the home, such as is the case with repair of small
engines and related equipment, requires a Conditional Use Permit. The
definition of Home Occupation, special provides a number of standards that
must be maintained. We have attached to this report copies of the Zoning
Ordinance Home Occupation definitions.
3. The applicant proposes to use his garage for the repair of small engine
powered equipment. In his letter the applicant describes the type of
equipment he proposes to repair, and states that "a small portion of the
driveway" would be used as well. The petitioner also states that he
rarely needs to run power equipment that he repairs.
see next page)
Page two
File 91011
4. Section 9, Subdivision A of the Zoning Ordinance provides six standards
that must be found by the Planning Commission in its recommendation to the
City Council, and the City Council in this decision concerning a
Conditional Use Permit. The applicant, in his letter provides responses
to those standards. A copy of the applicant's letter and the Zoning
Ordinance standards for a Conditional Use Permit are attached.
5. The applicant's garage is secondary to the principal residential use of
the site.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. A common problem with small engine repair activity is noise. Test running
of engines before and after repair would seem to be unavoidable by the
definition of the task. To meet the fire code requirements regarding
structure occupancy, outdoor handling of fuel is mandatory. In addition,
the applicant makes reference to outside storage of items to be repaired.
2. Without on -site testing of the equipment being repaired concerns with
noise associated with this activity can be overcome. A clear enforcement
parameter should be established. Staff can only recommend this
Conditional Use Permit for approval with a prohibition on test running.
3. In addition to violating the definition of "Home Occupation ", perceptible
noise would be inconsistent with the Conditional Use Permit standard
related to the "use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity for
purposes already permitted... ". The permitted existing use of other
property is single family residence. We cannot perceive how testing,
other than an entirely enclosed structure, would not be perceptible to
residential properties adjacent to this site.
4. The applicant proposes that repairs would be confined to the garage and
a small portion of the driveway... ". Permitting the use to extend
beyond the limits of the garage structure both introduces a site
appearance inconsistent with single family residence district in which the
site is located, but also compounds the potential problem with respect to
noise associated with the repair activity. In addition, no specification
is proposed with respect to the degree of outdoor extension of the use.
Once the use extends beyond the structure, enforcement of the scale of
operations will become nearly impossible. Staff cannot recommend approval
of a Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation where the activity
related to that occupation extends outside structures on the site.
5. We find the application as presented does not respond to the six
Conditional Use Permit standards that all Conditional Use Permits are
required to respond to. We find specifically that the proposed use will
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate
vicinity; may be detrimental to the public comfort and health; and, may
impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
property. This finding is
see next page)
Page Three
File 91011
based primarily on the probability that noise from the repair
of the products will be discernible beyond the property lines
residential appearance of the site resulting from outdoor
equipment related to the Home Occupation.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend denial
denial is attached
regard to proposed
and testing
and the non -
storage of
of the application as presented. A draft resolution of
which provides findings consistent with staff comments with
use.
There may be circumstances under which the proposed Conditional Us
a Home Occupation could be approved. Should the applicant be abl
his Home Occupation with those conditions - primarily related to
the use within existing structures and elimination of noise - a
Use Permit could be found to be consistent with the Conditional
standards. I have attached a draft resolution of approval
conditions that would result in the Home Occupation maintaining
with both the definition of "Home Occupation" and Conditional
standards of Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
e Permit for
e to operate
retention of
Conditional
Use Permit
containing
consistency
Use Permit
s -E. Dillerud, Cominun ity Development Coordinator
1. Resolution Denying Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation
2. Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation
3. Petitioner's Communication
4. Location Map
5. Zoning Ordinance Definitions of Home Occupation
6. Conditional Use Permit Standards
pc /jk /91011:dh)
ti
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BRUCE BIEDERMAN FOR A HOME OCCUPATION FOR
SMALL ENGINE REPAIR. (91011)
WHEREAS, Bruce Biederman has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a Home
Occupation for small engine repair for property located at 4115 Fernbrook Lane
North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request by Bruce
Biederman for a Home Occupation for small engine repair for property located
at 4115 Fernbrook Lane North, based on the following findings:
1. The noise associated with the use related to the testing and repair of
small engines will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity.
2. The noise and engine exhaust related to the use will be detrimental to
the public comfort and health.
3. The noise related to the proposed use and the storage of the equipment
outdoors, as proposed, will impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding property.
res /pc /91011.cup.ho.d:dh)
It APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BRUCE BIEDERMAN FOR A HOME OCCUPATION FOR
SMALL ENGINE REPAIR. (91011)
WHEREAS, Bruce Biederman has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a Home
Occupation for small engine repair for property located at 4115 Fernbrook Lane
North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Bruce Biederman for a Home Occupation for small engine repair for property
located at 4115 Fernbrook Lane North, subject to the following conditions:
1. On -site operation of internal combustion motors related to the repair and
testing shall be prohibited, unless conducted in a fully enclosed
structure meeting all fire code standards for handling of flammable
liquids and other codes relative to ventilation.
2. All repair and storage shall be limited to the garage structure at all
times. No outside storage, repair or testing is permitted.
3. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and
Ordinances, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
4. The permit is issued to Bruce Biederman for the facility at this tie, and
shall not be transferable.
5. There shall be no signage allowed on the property relative to the use.
6. The permit shall be renewed annually to assure compliance with the
conditions.
7. Compliance with applicable Building and Fire Code requirements shall be
verified by the City prior to permit issuance.
res /pc /91011.cup.ho.a:dh)
A
BRUCE BIEDERMAN
4115 Fernbrook Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55446
612) 557 -0369
February 1, 1991
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
It is my feeling that establishing a small repair company (lawn
movers, snow blowers, log splitters, roto tillers, etc.) will enhance
the public welfare.
I am able to perform the repairs knowledgeably and at savings to
the general public. As for the effect on the health and safety of
others, there is no effect as I do not do repairs while you wait.
As you know, these are not loud, and I rarely need to run them.
There would be no injurious effect on any other property as all
repairs would be confined to the garage and a small portion of the
driveway. Property values would not be effected because this
business does not require a lot of stock sitting around.
The establishment of the Conditional Use Permit would not impede the
use of surrounding properties for normal and orderly development.
There is more than adequate parking available in my driveway for up
to six cars. However, in performing this business previously, I
seldom had more than one and never more than two cars at once. There
are two doors on the front of the garage. One is a drive through
door, and one is a walk through door.
I feel that with my professional skills, I can be an asset to the
neighborhood and to the community.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
BRUCE BIEDERMAN
i
i a
e rs
P1.
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
I. Section 4, Subdivision B
building or portion thereof, exclusive of vent shafts and courts
Garage -- A building or portion thereof in which a motor vehicle taining
gasoline, distillate or other volatile, flammable liquid its tank, is
stored, repaired or kept.
Garage, Private -- A building or portion of a building not re than 1,000
square feet in area, in which only motor vehicles d by the tenants of
the building or buildings on the premises are stor or kept.
Garage, Public Parking -- Any garage other than a p ate garage.
Garbage -- Animal and vegetable wastes and other astes or putrescible matter
including but not limited to grease, wr pings, shells, grounds, bones,
entrails, and similar materials result' g from the handling preparation,
cooking, service and consumption of fo and other animal wastes. (Amended
Ord. 87 -31)
Gasoline Service Station -- Any buil g or premises used for the dispensation,
sale or offering for sale at r it of any motor fuels, oils or lubricants.
When the use is i/--
report
he conduct of a public garage, the premises
are classified as age.
General Development Plrt in text and map form with the map drawn to
scale depicting location and relationship of structures,
streets, drivewayn areas, parking areas, utilities, etc. as
related to a prop ent.
Grade (Adjacent Gr d Elevation) -- The lowest point of elevation of the
finished surf a of the ground between the exterior wall of a building and
a point 5 f t distant from said wall, or the lowest point of elevation of
the finis surface of the ground between the exterior wall of a building
and the gFoperty line if it is less than 5 feet of a public sidewalk, alley
or othpjFpublic way, the grade shall be the elevation of the sidewalk,
alley public way.
Guest Ro -- Any room or rooms used, or intended to be used by a guest for
sl ping purposes.
Hei of Building -- The vertical distance from the "Grade" to the highest
point of the coping of a flat roof or to the _deck line of a mansard roof or
Home Occupation -- Any gainful occupation or profession engaged in by the
occupant of the dwelling unit within the dwelling unit which is clearly
incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises, provided,
such activity does not produce light glare, noise, odor, or vibration
perceptible beyond the boundaries of the premises; does not involve the use
of accessory structures or any of the following: Repair, service, or
manufacturing which requires equipment other than that customarily found in
a home; over - the - counter sale of merchandise produced off the premises; or,
on* the employment of persons on the premises other than those customarily
residing on the premises. (Ord. 88 -37)
4 -7
Home
e
OWN>
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 4, Subdivision B
Occupation Conditional -- Any gainful occupation or profession, approved
pursuant to the conditional use permit provisions of this Ordinance,
engaged in by the occupant of a dwelling unit within the dwelling unit or
within not more than one accessory structure permitted by the Zoning
Ordinance, and which involves any of the following: Stock -in -trade
incidental to the performance of the service; repair, or manufacturing
which require equipment other than that customarily found in a home; the
employment on the premises, at any one time, of not more than one person
who is a non - resident of the premises; the teaching of more than one but
not more than four non - resident students at any given time; or the need for
not more than two parking spaces in addition to spaces required for the
persons residing on the premises. The activity shall be clearly incidental
and secondary to the residential use of the premises, including the
dwelling and permitted accessory or installations thereon; and shall not
produce light glare, noise, odor, or vibration perceptible beyond the
boundaries of the premises; and shall not consist of over - the - counter sales
of merchandise produced off the premises. (Ord. 88 -37)
gs
within the meaning of Minnesota Statute Chapter 144.50. (Ord. 89 -3
Hotel (Motel) -- Any building or portion thereof where lodging i
re
offered
to transient guests for compensation and in which there a a than three
3) sleeping rooms, with no cooking facilities in an in idual room or
apartment.
Impervious Surface -- Surfaces that do not absorb watgoF They consist of
all buildings, parking areas, drivewa s, roads, si walks, and any areas of
concrete asphalt. (Amended Ord. 89 -02
Junk Yard -- Land or buildings where waste, dis ded or salvaged materials are
brought, sold, exchanged, stored, cleaned acked, disassembled or handled,
including, but not limited /
ve*
1, rags, paper, rubber products,
glass products, lumber produts resulting from the wrecking or
salvage of automobiles or
otLandReclamation -- Depositing fi c yards or more of material so as
to elevate the grade.
Limited Access Highw/
thich
fic -way, including toll roads, for through
traffic, in res owners or occupants of abutting property or
lands and other e no legal right of access to or from the same,
except at such and in such manner as may be determined by the
public authority sdiction over the traffic -way.
Loading Space - -t portion of a lot or plot designed to serve the purpose of
loading or loading for all types of vehicles.
Lot -- One it of a recorded plat or subdivision occupied or to be occupied by
a b ' ding and its accessory buildings and including as a minimum such open
s es as are required under this Ordinance and having frontage on a public
4 -8
r
FR M SE' MCN 9, St13DMSICN A
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 recatmendation 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) Campliance with and effect upon the Ccuprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will pratate and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic
congestion in the public streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
forms:o >pl /cup .stnd /s) 10/89
I
4
i
5•D•
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: June 11, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 26, 1991
FILE NO.: 91040
PETITIONER: Mark McAlister
REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HOME OCCUPATION TO REPAIR AND
RESELL TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT
LOCATION: 1870 Troy Lane North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development District)
BACKGROUND:
There are no applications on file in the Community Development Department
regarding development action on this parcel.
The applicant proposes to use a portion of his existing home as a
office /repair facility for telephone equipment.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City
Newspaper, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. This application is the result of a complaint received by the City,
concerning observed delivery service traffic on a regular basis in a
residential zone. Following inquiry by staff as to the nature of the
activity at this location it was determined that the activity constituted
a zoning violation since no Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation
had been issued. The property owner was advised to cease the business
activities that provided the need for the Conditional Use Permit and make
application for a Home Occupation Conditional Use Permit if it was his
intention to continue in the future with that element of his business.
2. Section 4 (Definitions) of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance specifies two
activity levels of "Home Occupation" to be allowable in residential zoning
districts (see attached). Home Occupations requiring employment of
persons on the premises other than those customarily residing on the
premises or stock -in -trade incidental to the performance of the service
both of which are specified for the proposed use at this location)
require a Conditional Use Permit. Home Occupations not requiring these
and other specified characteristics are permitted uses in all residential
zoning districts.
see next page)
Page Two
File 91040 f
3. The area of the house proposed to be used for the Home Occupation will be
414 square feet, substantially less than half of the combined area of the
house, garage and utility area. The proposed use is secondary and
incidental to the single family residence use of the structure.
4. The parcel upon which the Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation is
proposed is located near the end of a private drive of over 2,000 feet in
length serving 16 homes. This residence is over 2,000 feet from a public
street. The private drive is not constructed to City street
specifications in terms of width and completed cross - section, but is paved
over its entire length. This private street is maintained by the
homeowners.
5. The Zoning Ordinance provides six standards to be met for approval of am
Conditional Use Permit. A copy of the standards is attached together with
a letter from the applicant dated May 8, 1991 in which he provides
evidence of his compliance with the standards, and describing his intended
use.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. We find the proposed Home Occupation use to be secondary and incidental to
the primary residence use of this parcel based on the area proposed to be
occupied by the use.
2. We find the proposed use to be clearly a "Home Occupation Conditional"
based on the employment of one person not a member of the immediate family
and the keeping of stock -in- trade.
3. The parcel upon which the Conditional Use is proposed is over 2,000 feet
from a public street and served by a narrow private drive providing the
only access to 15 other residences. We find the proposal introduces
nonresidential traffic related to the Conditional Use Home Occupation
which is inconsistent with the Conditional Use Permit standards related to
the endangering of the public health, safety and comfort; and, be
detrimental to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate
vicinity for the purposes already permitted. (residential only)
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend adoption of the attached resolution providing for the
denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation based on findings
that the Conditional Use Permit standards are not met.
see next page)
Page Three
File 91040
I have also attached, per commission practice, a resolution providing for the
approval of the Home Occupation Conditional Use Permit subject to the standard
conditions for such permits. Should the Commission find approval of the
Conditional Use Permit is appropriate, an additional condition should be
considered to limit the amount of nonresidential traffic permitted say, so
many deliveries per week during specified hours.
Submitted by:
ar17 -E. Dillerud, t7nfmunity Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Denying a Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation
2. Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation
3. Petitioner's Narrative
4. Conditional Use Permit Standards
5. Home Occupation Definitions
6. Location Map
pc /jk /91040:dh)
9
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MARK MCALISTER FOR A HOME OCCUPATION TO
REPAIR AND RESELL TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT. (91040)
WHEREAS, Mark McAlister has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a Home
Occupation to repair and resell telephone equipment for property located at
1870 Troy Lane North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commissjon 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 Mark
McAlister for a Home Occupation to repair and resell telephone equipment for
property located at 1870 Troy Lane North, based on the following findings:
1. The nonresidential pickup /delivery traffic generated will endanger the
public health, safety, and comfort in the neighborhood that is only served
by a private street of substandard design.
2. The use will be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of other property in
the immediate vicinity for the residential purposes already permitted by
the introduction of nonresidential traffic.
res /pc /91040.cup.ho.d:dh)
i
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MARK MCALISTER FOR A HOME OCCUPATION TO
REPAIR AND RESELL TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT. (91040)
WHEREAS, Mark McAlister has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a Home
Occupation to repair and resell telephone equipment for property located at
1870 Troy Lane North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Mark McAlister for a Home Occupation to repair and resell telephone equipment
for property located at 1870 Troy Lane North, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and
Ordinances, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The permit is issued to this property for the proposed use and shall not
be transferable.
3. There shall be no signage allowed on the property relative to the use.
4. There shall be no outside display, sales, or storage of merchandise or
related materials.
5. The permit shall be 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. Pickup and delivery trips related to the approved use shall be limited to
trips per , and shall be within the hourse of
and
res /pc /91040.cup.ho.a:dh)
d VA-10
aey
vz to cuee
WMI
wl.G
L&;+
b,,.......R. • /. eel -a,a /.ae.`
we ia.e n.o o% -e4u,Co
40A"
aLL- sc:L)
U eo-
t s %iw y Cau A
obC %n SSy 7
7j-W
7j - c/ 00
Cam)
w
fw- ez
U-r— yvt,,` ,,tio cc.2 Gc. v
7ws
AZA
7 A, 400-"
two
AAI-
lio
C t rkt a,L w.n. 9 i C"dZv-m
uJ)tt-eu au ccf -!.Q
F6-x-O
Aluc
e—Xt/Zc AAJa fA4-4 LAA-
a ,7- , 0,,J
ouh. u, -
VJ /
of' /lam
v- e- "- a,...P cti w e c164 c4e-
ll
wkt-c,k
m-'ac d
OA
J
a uA.o- ¢.Cueo .
J
C>
elf --
I
c
1
J
I
ko
W
x
77
3
O
a
a
M
LZ.+-
Q 1 All
r
aD 44
J
n
h
3
I
I
2 t
i
3
I
I
I
t • •• v ••.
FKM SFX.TICN 9, S[EDIVISICK A
2. gam. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a recommendation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
fir property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvemrent 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
building or portion t
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 4, Subdivision B
reolusive of vent shafts and cour
a
Garage -- A building or portion thereof in which a motor vehicle ntaining
gasoline, distillate or other volatile, flammable liqui n its tank, is
stored, repaired or kept.
Garage, Private -- A building or portion of a building no more than 1,000
square feet in area, in which only motor vehicles sed by the tenants of
the building or buildings on the premises are stor or kept.
Garage, Public Parking -- Any garage other than a p ate garage.
Garbage -- Animal and vegetable wastes and /othher stes or putrescible matter
including but not limited to grease, ings, shells, grounds, bones,
entrails, and similar materials resurom the handling preparation,
cooking, service and consumption of fo other animal wastes. (Amended
Ord. 87 -31)
Gasoline Service Station -- Any buildin r premises used for the dispensation,
sale or offering for sale at re of any motor fuels, oil's or lubricants.
When the use is incidental to onduct of a public garage, the premises
are classified as a public gar
General Development Plan -- A r rt in text and map form with the map drawn to
scale depicting the gen al location and relationship of structures,
streets, driveways, rec tion areas, parking areas, utilities, etc. as
related to a proposed d elopment.
Grade (Adjacent Ground E ation) -- The lowest point of elevation of the
finished surface o he ground between the exterior wall of a building and
a point 5 feet di ant from said wall, or the lowest point of elevation of
the finished su ce of the ground between the exterior wall of a building
and the proper line if it is less than 5 feet of a public sidewalk, alley
or other pub c way, the grade shall be the elevation of the sidewalk,
alley or pu is way.
Guest Room /--nrypr*oom or rooms used, or intended to be used by a guest for
sleepi oses.
Height g Building --'The vertical distance from the "Grade" to the highest
p t of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or
Home Occupation -- Any gainful occupation or profession engaged in by the
occupant of the dwelling unit within the dwelling unit which is clearly
incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises, provided,
such activity does not produce light glare, noise, odor, or vibration
perceptible beyond the boundaries of the premises; does not involve the use
of accessory structures or any of the following: Repair, service, or
manufacturing which requires equipment other than that customarily found in
wow> a home; over - the - counter sale of merchandise produced off the premises; or,
the employment of persons on the premises other than those customarily
residing on the premises. (Ord. 88 -37)
4 -7
1
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
4. Section 4, Subdivision B
Home Occupation Conditional -- Any gainful occupation or profession, approved
pursuant to the conditional use permit provisions of this Ordinance,
engaged in by the occupant of a dwelling unit within the dwelling unit or
within not more than one accessory structure permitted by the Zoning
Ordinance, and which involves any of the following: Stock -in -trade
incidental to the performance of the service; repair, or manufacturing
which require equipment other than that customarily found in a home; the
n one time of not more than one personemploymentonthepremises, at any P
who is a non- resident of the premises; the teaching of more than one but
not more than four non - resident students at any given time; or the need for
for thenotmorethantwoparkingspacesinadditiontospacesrequired
persons residing on the premises. The activity shall be clearly incidental
and secondary to the residential use of the premises, including the
dwelling and permitted accessory or installations thereon; and shall not
produce light glare, noise, odor, or vibration perceptible beyond the
boundaries of the premises; and shall not consist of over - the - counter sales
of merchandise produced off the premises. (Ord. 88 -37)
within the meaning of Minnesota Statute Chapter 144.50. ZthanHotel (Motel) -- Any building or portion thereof where lodg
to transient guests for compensation and in which there ree
3) sleeping rooms, with no cooking facilities in an or
apartment.
Impervious Surface -- Surfaces that do not absorb wate They consist of
all buildings, parking areas, drivewa s, roads, si alks, and any areas of
concrete asphalt. (Amended Ord. 89 -02
Junk Yard -- Land or buildings where
wZucts
d or salvaged materials are
brought, sold, exchanged, stored, ed, disassembled or handled,
including, but not limited to scgs, paper, rubber products,
glass products, lumber products ansulting from the wrecking or
salvage of automobiles or other ve
Land Reclamation -- Depositing fif 50) cubic yards or more of material so as
to elevate the grade.
Limited Access
HighZ--
A ffic -way, including toll roads, for throu gh
traffic, in reich owners or occupants of abutting property or
lands and otheve no legal right of access to or from the same,
except at such and in such manner as may be determined by the
public authori risdiction over the traffic -way.
Loading Space What portion of a lot or plot designed to serve the purpose of
loading unloading for all types of vehicles.
Lot -- unit of a recorded plat or subdivision occupied or to be occupied by
ilding and its accessory buildings and including as a minimum such open
paces as are required under this Ordinance and having frontage on a public
4 -8
64
Voil
40vC.I /:14
INE2VINI., :
Mr. & Mrs. Richard C. Klein
1840 Troy Lane
Plymouth, MN 55447
June 19, 1991
Richard G. Plufka
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Plymouth
4095 Terraceview Lane
Plymouth, MN 55447
JUN 21 --
QTY #;
RE: Request by Mark McAlister, under File 91040, for a Conditional Use Permit for
a Home Occupation for the resale and repair of telephone equipment located at
1870 Troy Lane
Dear Mr. Plufka:
We will be out of town on June 26th and are writing this letter to state our objection to
the above referenced request for a conditional use permit.
Troy Lane is a private road serving fifteen households in a heavily wooded area on the
east shore of Mooney Lake. It is a narrow road, about 6/10 of a mile in length, not
intended for truck traffic. The daily presence of numerous UPS Vans, Federal express
trucks and other delivery vehicles presents a safety hazard for the regular residential
vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
The frequent daily deliveries and pickups by noisy commercial vehicles violates the
peace and tranquility of this secluded neighborhood.
We are long term residents (24 years) who place a high value on the rustic character of
the neighborhood and we do not want to see it diminished by the presence of
commercial activities.
For the above reasons we urge that this request for a conditional use permit be denied.
Very truly yours,
Richard C. Klein
cc: Charles E. Dillerud
I
nadette J. Klein
1
M
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: June 24, 1991
TO: Planning Commi i rs
FROM: Chuck Dill r unity Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING
ORDINANCE REGARDING LIMITED RETAIL ACTIVITY IN THE I -1 DISTRICT.
At the Planning Commission meeting of June 12, 1991 a Public Hearing was
conducted and action tabled on a proposal of staff to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to allow for a limited amount of retail activity as secondary or
incidental Conditional Use in the I -1 (Planned Industrial) District. The
action was tabled due to the lateness of the hour.
I have attached a copy of the materials distributed to the Planning Commission
prior to the June 12, 1991 meeting concerning the subject. The amendment
should be again considered on June 26, 1991.
The application of "Fireside Corners" for a Conditional Use Permit to conduct
limited retail sales in the I -1 district was withdrawn. The withdrawal was
based primarily on the proposed limitation and percentage of retail sales that
could be conducted. That application was the catalyst for the staff
recommendation to consider amendment to the standards of the I -1 district to
permit retail sales on a limited basis.
Even though that application has been withdrawn, staff continues in its
recommendation with regard to limited retail sales in the I -1 district.
pl /cd /zonord.6- 24:dh)
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12,
Page 112
1991
Director Tremere ated that the process essary to do
this was for t abutting property owner to petition the
City for the cation of this property
Chairman Plufka introduced the request by the City of ZONING ORDINANCE
Plymouth regarding the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for AMENDMENT REGARDING
retail uses as a conditional use in the I -1 District. RETAIL USE IN I -1
DISTRICT
Chairman Plufka opened and closed the Public Hearing as
there was no one present to speak on the issue.
MOTION by Chairman Plufka, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO DEFER
Stulberg to defer this item.
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Chairman P fka introduced the request by the City of ZONING ORDINANCE
Plymouth to c Sider the revision of members hi terms for AMENDMENT REGARDING
the Board of Zo 'ng Adjustments and Appeals. BOZA TERMS
Chairman Plufka op ed and closed the Public Hea g as
there was no one pres t to speak on the issue.
MOTION by Chairman Plu\
Appe
ded by Commissioner Wigl MOTION TO APPROVE
to recommend approval oning Ordinance Amendment
regarding the revisiorship terms for the Board
of Zoning Adjustments s.
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. M OTION cg*ried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Meeting Adjourned at 1:35 p.m.
c =Z
1
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.
7
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 Nearing
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 is to the operation of the district and
whether the activity is primarily for the use of persons employed in the
district would not be required.
CONCLUSIONS /RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 ay establish a maximum percentaqe 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
a lowed principal nonretail use.
Underscore - indicates new text
Strikeeut -- indicates deleted text
pc /bt.zo.2 /6 -12)
j
f
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 8, Subdivision C
SUBDIVISION C - PURPOSE AND INTENT: INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
1. The Planned Industrial District is established to accomplish the general (
purpose of the Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and for the following
specific reasons:
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.
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.
1:15:
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
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)
Retail and service establishments essential to the operation of this At**o
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.
8 -7
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.
1
2 1
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: June 24, 1991
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT GRAPHICS MATERIALS
BACKGROUND:
The information and supporting documentation needs of the Planning Commission
tend to vary as the membership of the Commission changes. It is common that
requirements for plans of a certain size and of a certain detail will become
established as the norm and are represented to applicants as formal
requirements by virtue of the application information sheets and checklists.
The Planning Division staff has been for some time investigating ways that the
Plan Review process can be streamlined and how paper requirements can be
reduced while maintaining a high quality level of information that the
Planning Commission and City Council need to make their decisions.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
I have reviewed the following with Chairman Plufka and have implemented some
of the measures which happen to be coincident with the advent of the new
Planning Commission membership.
1. Graphics to be submitted following technical review by the City staff
shall be legible and accurate reduced -scale copies which can be
photographically reproduced on standard office photocopying equipment.
The quantity of graphic materials and the subject of the materials are as
identified on the information checklists provided by the City.
2. An area map - -also known as a location map - -can be prepared by staff to
show existing land uses on adjacent properties (at least, indicate vacant
versus developed land).
3. Other information varies from application to application. For Site
Plans, a copy of the Site Plan, Landscaping Plan, and Exterior Wall
Elevation Plan would be the requirement. Preliminary Plats would involve
a copy of the proposed subdivision including the Code - required data such
as typical setbacks and a General Development Plan. An application for a
Rezoning or a Land Use Guide Plan Amendment would include a General
Development Plan or Concept Plan, respectively, of how the property could
develop when changed.
Planned Unit Developments, from the Concept Plan stage through the Final
Plan /Plat stage would include the graphics necessary to reflect the
ordinance - required information; this is often presented in the form of a
narrative booklet.
4. Additional graphics will be provided when the staff or the petitioner
determines certain information is needed for a better understanding of
the proposal. For example, it may be relevant for the Commission to see
the Grading Plan if a development proposal included a change to the City
Storm Water Drainage Plan. Another example would be to show existing
land use on a given site as well as the proposed use (often shown by
virtue of an as -built survey).
Staff will monitor the quality of the graphics closely to ensure the date is
legible and that the data accurately reflects the full -size plans and
technical information submitted to the City and which the Development Review
Committee has been reviewing.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
The amount of paperwork involved with the Development Review process can be
reduced while maintaining a high level of quality and legibility for Planning
Commissioners, the City Council and the public. This is possible due to
current word processing and photo reduction technologies which are available
not only to the City but also to developers and their consultants.
I recommend that the Commissioners monitor our efforts and provide staff with
feedback as to the adequacy and appropriateness of the products.
pc /bt /graphics)
11
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: June 24, 1991
TO: Plannin issioners
FROM: Chuc D d, Community Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: PLAN D UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE - PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS
Late in 1990 and early in 1991 the Planning Commission considered amendments
to the Planned Unit Development section (Section 9, Subdivision B) of the
Zoning Ordinance. On January 30th the Planning Commission approved a
recommendation to the City Council amending the language of the Zoning
Ordinance, Section 9, related to the "PUD Attributes" (Section 9, Subdivision
B, Paragraph lc). The City Council adopted those recommendations and amended
the Zoning Ordinance on March 4, 1991.
Following the action recommending the changes to the PUD Attributes, the
Planning Commission discussed the basic concept of the Planned Unit
Development Ordinance. The Planning Commission minutes containing that
discussion (January 30, 1991) are attached. The staff was provided guidance
by the Planning Commission at that time regarding concerns the Commission had
with the structure of the current Planned Unit Development section of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Since January staff has provided the Planning Commission two earlier reports
concerning the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. One report, referred to as
the "Larsen Report ", was prepared in 1981, and resulted in amendments to the
Planned Unit Development ordinance at that time. A second report was prepared
by Director Tremere in 1988. Both reports are attached for consideration by
the Planning Commission at this time.
The foregoing brief summary of recent discussions of the Planned Unit
Development Ordinance, and the attached prior reports are intended to bring
new Planning Commissioners "up to speed" with regard to Planned Unit
Development Ordinance considerations. We will be available to discuss future
directions in this regard with the Planning Commission of June 26th.
pl /cd /pcpudord:dh)
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559 -2800
MEMO
DATE: August 15, 1988 for City Council Meeting August 16, 1988
TO: City Manager James Willis
FROM: Community Development Director Blair Tremere
SUBJECT OBSERVATIONS ON THE PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PROVISIONS.
what ; c it'?
A Planned Unit Development is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as "a tract of land
developed as a unit rather than as an individual development, wherein two or more
buildings may be located in relationship to each other rather than to lot lines with
regard to use and location, and in accordance with definite requirements as well as
provisions agreed to between the City and the owner."
This approach, which combines zoning and subdivision procedures and standards, was
adopted by the City in the mid- 1970's. A previous technique, the Subdivision Unit
Project, had been found to be unsatisfactory for the increasing demand the intense
development was placing upon the City and the desire by the City to better regulate
development and the acquisition and management of open space. The Subdivision Unit
Project Ordinance provisions were repealed upon adoption of the Planned Unit Develop-
ment Ordinance.
I have attached, for reference, several pages from Section 9, Subdivision B., of the
Zoning Ordinance Which set forth the purpose, permitted uses, area, density, setbacks,
and related regulations.
What does the Planned Unit Development do for the City and for the developer that the
conventional zoning and subdivision codes don't accomplish.
1. The PUD approach affords the developer a calculated "pure" density, which
means that, subject only to the deduction for land at or below the designated
Flood Elevation, density is calculated at the rate dictated by the Compre-
hensive Plan, e.g., 40 net acres translates to 80 dwelling units in the LA -1
guided areas. The same 40 acres with the same Guide Plan Classification would
yield only about 71 dwelling units in a conventional plat, at the Ordinance
minimum lot size of 18,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit; this includes an
approximate 25% deduction for streets, drainageways, and other open space
requirements.
Developers can depend upon the realization of more dwelling units with a PUD
with no bonus point assignment) than with a conventional development.
Page two
Memorandum to the City Manager
Planned Unit Development Provisions of the Ordinance
August 15, 1988
2. The developer gains a higher level of design flexibility in that he is not
constrained by rigid lot configurations or dimensions. The PUD is design -
based and lots and dwelling units can literally be shaped to fit the topo-
graphy, rather than a "gridiron" of a conventional plat.
3. The developer and new residents/ owners of a PUD can depend upon the PUD Plari
as a guide for the completion of the project.
4. The City benefits in the manner outlined in the PUD provisions in the Ordin-
ance (See attached, particularly the Section, "Purpose "). The City gains a
higher level of planning and, presumably a higher quality development than the
conventional, more generic Ordinance standards and procedures deliver.
5. The City also typically gains from development in larger tracts since the PUD
minimum size is 40 acres; this reduces the amount of speculation about transi-
tion and impacts upon future or existing owners, since much correction by
design can usually be accomplished within a 40 acre area. Future neighbors'
interests, outside the limits of the project, are more easily identified and
addressed, the larger the project.
How has it worked?
The PUD Ordinance has delivered a large amount of residential development and, to a
lesser extent, some mixed and non - residential development.
It is debatable whether the City has realized the "Expected Attributes" listed in the
Ordinance (See attached) throughout the community.
What have been some of the problems?
1. One of the problems identified several years ago, was that much smaller lot
single family residential development was underway, but the PUD Attributes
were not highly apparent -- particularly with respect to more suitably located
and useable open space. This surfaced as the result of observation of
approved developments, and as the result of increasing requests for density
bonus points for affirmative design efforts and provision for effective open
space.
The City Council had the Planning Commission study the issue about density and
bonus point application; a variety of amendments were made to the Ordinance to
clarify and to make more objective certain Bonus Point Criteria which had been
more design- oriented and subjective.
The density bonus point system was particularly problematical in that, a
number of developers saw it as a way to further increase the "pure" density
that delivered more dwelling units than a conventional plat; thus, there were
numerous proposals seeking to use this system.
2. Another concern has been that most of the designated open space for common
private purposes was found in developments with attached housing. Most single
family developments approved through the 70's into the early 80's involved
very little, if any, private common open space. (A notable exception is the
Mission RPUD which essentially was the first PUD and is one of the largest.)
Page three
Memorandum to the City Manager
Planned Unit Development Provisions of the Ordinance
August 15, 1988
The City has, in recent years, required developers to show more effectively
how open space attributes were being met and this has resulted in several
large single family detached dwelling developments where corridors and private
common open areas had been platted and put under the control of a private
Homeowners Association.
New residents in these subdivisions have generally not had the expectation of
being part of a Homeowners Association which is responsible for expanses of
open space which include dues and maintenance fees. The condominium or town-
house association is not often familiar to those who are buying a single
family detached home (probably similar to the one they left).
Disputes have arisen in some developments, primarily because developers did
not finish or even initially install much of the open space improvements
before selling the lots and allowing single family homes to be built on them.
Delaying the work, until after the residents had moved in, has presented a
multitude of political and emotional problems due to the expectations -- and
lack of expectations -- by the new residents.
3. Developers have tended to not keep the size of the new single family detached
homes proportional to the smaller lots they have platted in the PUD's.
Developers may have found the PUD approach to be a means of achieving what
some have unsuccessfully tried to achieve by proposed Zoning Ordinance Amend-
ments over the years: Smaller minimum lot sizes in the conventional single
family detached dwelling districts. The City Council, on several occasions,
over the last dozen years has decided not to reduce the minimum lot size
standards which have prevailed in the R -1A Zoning District for almost 20
years.
Thus, while developers have elected to plat smaller lots in accordance with
the PUD Ordinance provisions, the market demand for larger homes has been
relatively constant and the Plymouth developers have strived to meet that
demand.
This has resulted in political and emotional pressures which can be traced to
new homeowners who desire amenities such as decks, porches, and third garages
which don't fit within the design constraints that were originally promoted by
the developer.
The Plymouth Ordinance does not limit the size of the dwelling units. The
Ordinance 20% maximum lot coverage does apply to single family dwelling lots
regardless of area, and it has been the hope by the City that the 20% maximum
coverage would require a more proportionate dwelling on the smaller lots.
Instead, most of the recent variance and adjustment requests have involved
smaller lots in PUD's. Rarely are there lot coverage or even setback variance
requests involving a conventional lot standard dimensions.
What can be done? Are there any solutions? Food for Thought:
1. Reduce the minimum single family (R -1A) lot size from 18,500 sq. ft. to, say,
15,500 sq. ft. thereby slightly increasing the LA -1 base density. One result:
Less PUD's of marginal merit, minimal design, and substandard size.
Page four
Memorandum to the City Manager
Planned Unit Development Provisions of the Ordinance
August 15, 1989
2. Adopt formal sideyard setbacks for single family houses in PUD's, i.e., 10
feet. This should reduce some of the consternation about the subjective
design consideration which the current Ordinance promotes. If the Council
wants to establish a firm setback standard, which recent practice would veri-
fy, then it would be best to put that in the Ordinance.
3. Change the City's Policy and Ordinance direction regarding open space, partic-
ularly in developments which involve single family detached homes. This, for
example, could include more or even exclusive emphasis on passive open space/
natural areas versus formal parks, tot lots, and other more active open space
amenities.
Conservation easements or the equivalent could be used across platted lots
which would preserve desirable natural features, and the areas, at least aes-
thetically and visually, would be "common ".
One result of this would be to reduce, if not eliminate, the need for formal
associations in single family detached developments.
4. Another possible approach would be to have an Ordinance that allowed the City
to perform maintenance of designated open space in private developments; the
cost would be "built -in" and spread across the entire subdivision, for
example, not unlike street lighting. This would tend to reduce the need for
formally constituted Homeowner Associations that were active in terms of the
maintenance and upkeep of designated private open space.
5. Modify the maximum ground coverage percentage. The Planning Commission and
City Council had discussed this previously and concluded that it was approp-
riate to retain the 20% coverage as a standard with the option available for
PUD developers to demonstrate, after mass grading, that a higher ground cover-
age was warranted on a particular site.
The ground coverage percentage is a function of both aesthetic, in terms of
the proportion of building to available lot, and of storm drainage, since it
effectively controls the amount of impervious surface.
I have advised the Planning Commission and Council before that there is no
other "proper" number except for that deemed right for the City by the
Council. A previous Council, many years ago, determined that 20% was an
appropriate number and much of the physical development in the City reflects
that today.
Recent research by the State Home Builder Association which was made available
to me through the Plymouth Developers Council, indicates that many cities do
not have a maximum percentage ground cover for residential development.
Instead, they define the maximum building pad on the site with the minimum
side yard setbacks.
Page five
Memorandum to the City Manager
Planned Unit Development Provisions of the Ordinance
August 15, 1988
The most prevalent concern expressed by
decks. Original developers maximized the
houses, particularly on smaller lots,
decision was made to add a deck. It was
exceed the maximum ground coverage and a
the Board of Zoning and the City Council
and PUD Plan amendment requests.
developers recently has been with
amount of ground coverage with the
and when the occupant arrived, a
then discovered that the deck would
building permit was denied. Thus,
have been confronted with variance
The Plymouth Development Council is currently preparing information to be
conveyed formally to the Planning Commission and City Council, seeking amend-
ments to the Ordinance which would exempt uncovered decks from the ground
coverage requirement. The Council may wish to wait until that information is
provided before proceeding on this matter.
6. The Ordinance could be amended to mandate a certain amount of housing types
other than single family detached in all residential PUD's. The Ordinance has
always provided for this as an option (one could literally develop multi -story
apartments or townhouses in an LA-1 area). Most developers have not exercised
that. option, probably for economic reasons often attributed to the current
market. Nevertheless, the City could mandate that all PUD's contain a mix of
housing types in order to assure more affordable housing and to ensure a
better aesthetic product due to the "built -in" open space that comes with
attached housing.
CONCLUSION:
The PUD approach is design- oriented by definition. The more that development is regi-
mented and standards are made more objective, there will be a tendency toward less
innovation and creativity. The subjective nature of a design -based PUD can make for
tough decisions by the Planning Commission and Council, but generally, those tough
decisions can be traced to the desire of the City to retain certain rigid standards
which may or may not be addressed in the formal Ordinance. The tendency to create more
quantifiable and objective standards in the PUD Ordinance, essentially creates just
another standard zoning district which includes the procedural features of a Public
Hearing and a multi - layered approval process.
Attachments
Ordinance Excerpts
0
6 J & I VvkAe.'d.,
om
cc
P YMi)UTH Z0!1I1dS ORDIIWICE
Section 9
SUBDIVlSIOI, B - PLAILJED U!!IT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
1. Purpose
a. The provisions of this section of the Zoning Ordinance are intended to provid(- -
areas which can be developed with some modification of the strict application
of regulations of the normal zoning districts in accordance with the provis-
ions and regulations contained herein, the intent and purpose of the Compre-
hensive Municipal Plan, the general intent of the districts in which the
development is proposed, and generally in accordance with the "Community
Structure Concept" of the Comprehensive Plan.
b. The provisions of this section of the Zoning Ordinance provide design flexi-
bility for the development of larger parcels under single ownership or con-
trol, in order to obtain a higher quality of development than might otherwise
be possible should development occur under strict application of the zoning
ordinance regulations for a particular district.
c. The benefit to the developer is one of design and development flexibility; in
order to utilize this flexibility, the developer has the responsibility to
demonstrate that its utilization does indeed provide a development which has
substantial attributes to enhance the particular area or the City in total.
Expected attributes are:
1) Benefits from new technology in building design, construction and land
development.
2) Higher standards of site and building design through use of trained and
experienced professionals in Land Planning, Architecture and Landscaping
to prepare plans for Planned Unit Developments.
3.) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities and public facil-
ities to yield high quality development at a lesser cost.
4) More useable and suitably located active recreation facilities and other
public and common facilities than would otherwise be provided under
conventional land development procedures.(Amended Ord. No. 86 -07)
5) Demonstration of affirmative design efforts toward the preservation and
enhancement of desirable natural site characteristics.
Amended Ord. No. 82 -15)
The primary function of Planned Unit Development provisions is to pro-
vide developments which will preserve and enhance the worthwhile, natur-
al terrain characteristics, and not force intense development to utilize
all portions of a given site. In evaluating each individual proposal,
the recognition of this objective will be a basic consideration in
granting approval or denial. (Amended Ord. No. 86 -07)
M
PL1IdJ'JTH ZN1140 OPDIIJAtJ.E.
Section °, Subdivision B
d. The provisions for Planned Unit Developments in this section are applied in
t%o separate and distinct forms: A Residential Planned Unit Development
R.P.U.D.) and a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (t•1.P.U.D.). Where provis-
ions are not specifically designated for either the R.P.U.D. or M.P.U.D., the\
apply to both types. All property within a R.P.U.D. shall be in one or more R
Districts. Within a M.P.U.D. land shall include one or more non - residence
districts and may or may not include one or more R Districts.
2. Permitted Uses
a. Within a R.P.U.D. no land or buildings shall be used except for one or more of
the following uses:
1) Those uses listed as permitted or conditional uses in the District(s) in
which the development is proposed.
2) A variety of housing types allowable in any one Residence Zoning may be
provid District ed in and, of the Residence Zoning Districts within a
R.P.U.D., subject to 3., a., (2), of this Subdivision.
3) Consideration will be given to the integration of small retail conven-
ience centers, medical and professional offices within a R.P.U.D., pro-
vided such uses are designed and intended primarily for use of the resi-
dents in the development and not in conflict with the intent of the
Comprehensive Municipal Plan as to maintaining the integrity of the
neighborhood concept.
b. Within a M.P.U.D. no land or building shall be used except for one or more of
the following uses:
1) Those uses listed as permitted or conditional uses in the Zoning
District(s) in which the development is proposed.
2) Principal uses as allowed in Subparagraph b., (1), above and as uses any
allowable secondary uses in any of the Zoning Districts of this
Ordinance.
3. Area, Density, Setback, Height and Lot Coverage Regulations
a. Area and Density Regulations
1) The minimum total land area shall be not less than forty (40)
acres. Lots of less than forty (40) acres may qualify only if the
applicant can show that the minimum area requirement should be waived
because a P.U.D. is in the public interest and that one or both of the
following conditions exist:
a) Unusual features of the property itself or of the surrounding
neighborhood are such that development under the standard provis-
ions of the normal District would not be appropriate in order to
conserve a feature of importance to the neighborhood or community.
9 -7
PL1'IIJUTH ZO1;I11!0 ORDItl;A!:' E
Sectio- 9, Sut)diyisioi E
b) Tree property adjoins property that has been developed under t•.
provisions of this section and will contribute to the amenities o
the neighborhood.
2) Tne maximun number of dwelling units allowed in a development shall b,
be determined by the density (units per acre) approved for the develor-
ment within a minimum to maximum density range for the living area
category shown in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The density shall be
established by the City Council with the approval of the Concept Plar!
based upon recommendations from the Planning Commission. The actual
number of dwelling units allowed in a development shall be determines
upon the review and approval of the RPUD Preliminary Plan, Preliminar\
Plat, and Conditional Use Permit. The actual number of dwelling units
allowed shall be within the assigned density range for the development
nand shall be a function of the review of the detailed plans and infor-
mation required for the Preliminary Plat, Preliminary Plan, and Condi-
tional Use Permit.
The gross density allowable in any RPUD shall fall within this range to
only the degree that the RPUD Plan responds to the intents and purposes
of this PUD Section of the Zoning Ordinance. The allowable gross dens
ity shall be for only that land above the high water elevation estab-
lished by the adopted City Storm Water Drainage Plan as verified by the
City Engineer. To enable an objective assignment of gross density, a
density bonus system is hereby established providing for gross density
to be allocated in increments between the minimum density and the maxi-
mum density as per the LA category density ranges. The allowable gross
densities with bonuses applied are as indicated on the Bonus Point Table
in this section. (Amended Ord. No. 82 -15)
Bonus points are intended for those projects which satisfy one or more
of the stated Bonus Point Criteria. The evaluation of the project with
respect to those criteria shall be undertaken upon the determination
that the proposed project satisfies the basic attributes of a Planned
Unit Development as set further in this Section and thus qualifies as a
Planned Unit Development. (Amended Ord. No. 86 -07)
b. Front, Rear and Side Yard Building Setback Regulations:
Building setbacks from all property lines shall conform with the standards of
this ordinance except as otherwise authorized and shown on the approved final
P.U.D. plan.
c. Building Height Regulations
Height limitations for any building in a P.U.D. shall be as shown on the
approved P.U.D. Plan; provided however, the following State of Minnesota Code
of Agency Rules, Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division are hereby
adopted by reference: 14 MCAR Section 1.3015 (Criteria for Determining
Obstructions to Air Navigation) and 14 MCAR Section 1.3018 (Seaplane Opera-
tions within the Seven County Metropolitan Area). These regulations apply to
Please see pg. 9 -11 for cont'd)
9 -8
PLYIIJUTH ZOIIINS ORDIIJAIl!r--
Section °, Suhdi\isio., B
F301d'JS POINT CALCULATI01: TABLE
FLA14D USE
E PERMITTED GROSS DENSITY PER ACRE
Number of Bonus Points
5 4 3 2 1
LA -1 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.9
LA -2 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.6
LA -3 2. 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
LA -4 5.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 9.0
Number of Bonus Points
0 1 2 3 4 5
LA -1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
4.0
LA -2 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6
6.5
3.6
7.0 7.5
LA -3 5.0
10.0
5.5
11.0
6.0
12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0
LA -4
Number of Bonus Points
6 7 6 9 10
LA -1 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.9 3.0
LA -2 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.5 5.0
LA -3 6.0 6.5 9.0 9.0 10.0
LA -4 16.0 17.0 16.0 19.0 20.0
Bonus points may be assigned by the Cityr al
o con
thenfthe
recommendation of the
Planning Commission with Concept Plan app
9 -9
PLYIIJJTH ZOIIIIIG ORUIIIAI CL
Section °, Subdivision B
BONUS POIIlT CALCULATIO14 CRITERIA
Amended Ord. IJo. 52 -15)
a) The project is of a viable scale for PUD design -- Add one (1)
bonus point for each ten (10) acres of project size above fort
40) acres up to four (4 or subtract one (1) bonus point for
each five (5) acres of project size under forty (40) acres (no
fractional assignment).
b) The project proposes a significant percentage of quality housing
affordable by persons of low and moderate income as defined by
the Metropolitan Housing Authority; only projects demonstrating
a firm commitment for the financing of such housing under a bona
fide Federal, State, Metropolitan, or local program; or under a
bona fide private financing program which provides for the same
assurances, shall be eligible -- 0 -2 points.
c) The project provides a variety of housing types to include a
substantial mix of attached, detached and apartment -type dwel-
ling units subject to the following criteria: -- 0 -2 points.
Type of Dwelling Units
Detached Single
Detached Single with attached
Attached with Multi -story
Apartment
Detached Single, Attached,
and Multi -story Apartment
Percentage Mix Points
100% 0
40% or less 1
50 %/50% 1
40 %/30 %/30% 2
NOTE: The percentage mix may be adjusted up to 10% to allow for design alternatives
in all living area categories except LA -1.
d) The project clearly demonstrates affirmative design through pro-
vision of private /public open space, net (exclusive) of required
street right -of -way, required public park and trail dedication,
required storm drainage ponding areas, and required rear yards,
which preserve and enhance the worthwhile natural terrain
characteristics and which do not force intense development to
utilize all portions of the site, according to the following
schedule: -- 0 -2 points. (Amended Ord. No. 86 -07)
Percentage of Open Space Points
10 - 20% net area 1
20% or more net area 2
Amended Ord. No. 86 -07)
9 -10
PL1'MDJTH ZO':I;, ORJI1;
Section °, Subdi'i5iori E
the City of Plymouth due to the classification of Medicine Lake and Schmidt
Lake for seaplane operations. All de,elopnents im olvinc structures of e
height governed by these regulations shall be subject to the requirements of
those regulations as if they Mere part of this Ordinance. (Amended Ord. ND.
82 -15).
d. Special Protection District Requirements.
Planned Unit Developments involving land within the Flood Plain or Shorelaric
Management Overlay Districts shall be subject to applicable regulations set
forth for those Special Protection Districts in Section 6 of this Ordinance.
Section 6, Subdivision B, contains specific regulations for Planned Unit
Developments in the Shoreland Management Overlay District. (Amended Ord. No.
62 -33)
4. Buildino and Site Desion Construction. Maintenance. and Transition Regulations
a. More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in and
PUD.
b. Architectural stvle or type of buildings shall not solely be a basis fordenial
or approval of a plan. HoMever, the overall appearance and compatibility of
individual buildings to other site elements or to surrounding development will
be given primary considerations in the revieM stages of the Planning Commis-
sion and City Council.
c. No building permit shall be granted for anv building on land for which a plan
for a PUD is in the process of revieM or which does not conform to the appro%-
ed final plan or for one phase of the final plan.
d. Staging of Development:
1.) Anv P.U.D. Plan proposed to be constructed in stages shall include full
details relative thereto and the Planning Commission and City Council
may approve or modify where necessary any such proposals.
2) The staging shall include the sequence and the proposed time for begin-
ning and completion of each stage. Such sequence and /or schedule may be
modified by the Planning Commission and City Council on the showing of
good cause by the developer.
3) The land owner or developer shall make such easements, covenants and
other arrangements and shall furnish such performance bond or bonds as
may be determined by the City Council to be reasonably required to as-
sure performance and completion of private streets and utilities, land -
scaping and privately owned and maintained recreational facilities in
accordance with the plan and to protect the public interest.
9 -11
PLY1.11011TH ZNI ;, ORDIIJAt,CE
e. Open Space:
Section °, Subdivision F
The public or private open space shall he consistent with the Comprehensivf-
Hunicipal Pla,, Park and Trail System and with the stated purpose of preser\-
ino natural site features. All open space shall be labeled on the P.U.D. Pia,
as to intended use and ownership.
f. Operating and Maintenance Requirements for Common Facilities:
In the event certain land areas or structures are provided within the P.U.D.
for private recreational use or as service facilities, the owner of such land
and buildings shall enter into an agreement with the City to assure the con-
tinued operation and maintenance to a predetermined reasonable standard.
These common areas may be placed under the ownership of one of the following,
depending which ismore appropriate:
1) Dedicated to public where a neighborhood wide use would be anticipated.
2) Owner control when property, not subdivided.
3) Property Owner's Association, provided all of the following conditions
are met:
a) The Property Owner's Association must be established prior to and
sale.
b) Membership must be mandatory, for each owner, and any successive
buyer.
c) The open space restrictions must be permanent, not for a given
period of years.
d) The Association must be responsible for liability insurance, local
taxes, and the maintenance of residential and other facilities.
e) Landowners must pay their pro rata share of the cost and the asses-
sment levied by the Association that can become a lien on the
property in accordance with Minnesota Statutes.
f) The Association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet
changed needs.
g. Covenants, Easements and Restrictions:
The final plan shall identify and contain such proposed covenants, easements
and other provisions relating to the bulk, location and density of such resi-
dential dwellings, non - residential uses and public facilities as are necessary
for the welfare of the Planned Unit Development and are consistent with the
best interest of the entire City. All or any of the covenants, easements and
other provisions, if as part of the final plan may be modified as deemed
necessary by the City Council when the final plat is approved, for the preser-
vation of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of all City
residents.
9 -12
P 1!'JJTr-, Z01!I! 0_,=)I!!
Sect ion 9, Sub >,i\ision B
r,. Streets, Utilities, Ser, ices arid Public Facilities:
The uniqueness of each proposal for a P.U.D. requires that specifications any
standards for streets, utilities and services may be subject to minor modifi-
cations from the specifications and standards established in this and other
City ordinances governing their construction. The City Council may therefore
waive or modify thespecifications or standards where it is found that they are
not required in the interests of the residents or of the entire City. The
plans and profiles of all streets, utilities and services shall be revie"ed,
modified if necessary, and approved by the City Engineer and Building Official
prior to the final approval of the P.U.D. plan by the City Council. All
P.U.D. projects shall be served by publicwater and sewer systems. All utili-
ties including electrical shall be placed underground. The following table
shall be used as a guide and shall be the minimum street standards for all
streets, public or private, within a P.U.D.:
P.U.D. Street Design Standards
Street Description
Residential
Traffic (ADT)* Less than 400 400 -1,000 Over 1,000
Pavement %idth **
in feet
No Parking 20' 26' 44'
Parking One Side 26' 32' 44'
Presumed or Actual
Right of Hay Width 40' -44' 44' -50' 60' -66'
Sidewalks * ** None 014E OR
Street Slope * * ** 0.5%-10% 0.5% -10% 0.5%-S%
Anticipated Speed 20 25 30
Axle Load Design * * * ** 7 ton 7 ton 9 ton
Non - Residential
44'
44'
60' -70'
BOTH SIDES
0.5 % -B%
30
9 ton
ADT (Average Daily Traffic) is used as a measure of the number of vehicles using
a road during an average 24 -hour period.
Values shown are minimum. Conditions may require variations in pavement widths.
Lack of specific requirements may make sidewalks on one or both sides of
higher volume residential and of non - residential streets unnecessary.
Values shown are a range. Topographic conditions may require variations.
As defined in the Minnesota Highway Department Road Design Manual.
9 -13
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 9, Subdivision 6
i. Transition Design:
1.) The City Council has determined that specific standards and guidelines arenecessaryanddesiredwithrespecttothetransitionofResidentialPlanner'
Unit Developments particularly where such development contains housing types
other than single family detached dwellings, and abuts existing or future
residential development containing single family detached dwellings.
2.) The intent of the transition at the perimeter property line is to create b\
design, the perception of a single family detached neighborhood.
3.) Elements of the transition design may include:
a) Existing topographical and vegetation features.
b) Landscape plantings.
c) Spatial buffering through yard setbacks and open space.
d) Single family detached homes
e) Existing arterial streets.
4.) The folloHing standards shall apply as a guide to the use of various tran-
sition elements:
a) As a single element, two tiers /rows of single family detached dwellings
with approved yard setback and site improvements may be used.
b) An equivalent effect of the above single element may be created through
the use of spatial buffering (distance), berming, and landscaping.
c) Sight lines and the spatial perspective of scale must be considered
particularly where multi -story structures are involved so that the per-
ception-of the development from the perimeter is generally one of a one
or two story roof line.
d) Spatial buffering (distance) alone is not deemed to be an effective
transition, and must be supplemented with landscaping and berming.
e) Use of rights -of -way will be considered as a part of the transition only
in the case of existing arterial streets which have been installed at
full design standards.
Amended Ord. No. 82 -15)
9 -14
r .
REVIEW OF CURRENT
RPUD ORDINANCE
RESE1 lTE D TO
cizy CouNc.tL
Ocr TotSR Z6, IRS 1
October, 1981
Page 2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to review the requirements of
the current RPUD Ordinance with respect to density and lot
area requirements. This review stems from concerns with
current economic and housing constraints existing nationally,
and more importantly, within Plymouth.
We have solicited input from City Staff, other Commissioners,
Council members, the Development Council, and other interests
private citizens, real estate development, etc...) in pulling
together together this evaluation.
This report is designed to stimulate discussion regarding
major issues within the current ordinance, and allow the
reviewal process to initiate specific recommendations /input.
Though the current ordinance appropriately addresses the
current environment, we feel there may be ground for revisions
in restricted areas of regulation.
The practicality of our recommendations, or subsequent
suggestions, must be quantitatively evaluated against water/
sewer capacities of each district.)
Page 3
BACKGROUND
Rationale for revisions may be in the following data.
1. New home construction continues to decline to
levels lower than those of the post-war period
in the early 1970's.
2. In the area of financing, home mortgage problems
are stimulated by 1) the demise of the 30 year
fixed rate and 2) subsidies implicit in low savings
rates at S & L institutions and banks are phasing
our with-deregulation. Because of the latter
situation, it is expected that high mortgage rates
will prevail with or without high inflation.
Current conventional rates range from 15.5% - 12
points to 17.5% - 6 points. Even if conventional
rates drop to 15 %, the principal /interest payment
on a $60,000 mortgage would be $759 requiring a
household income of $32,500.
There are predictions by some economists that mortgage
rates will match the prime rate by the end of the
2nd quarter, 1982.
3. National inflation alone has been pushing housing
prices at better than a 12 1/2% annual rate.
Source: Real Estate Research Corporation). The
median new home price in Plymouth as of the 1st
quarter 1981, is $104,708 - ranking 5th in the
Minneapolis Metro Area; 34% above the area's norm;
55% above the national norm. (Source: Greater
Minneapolis Board of Realtors).
4. For the first five months of 1981, 718 of the new
homes purchased in the Minnetonka - Plymouth area
were corporate transferees - an overwhelming figure
considering the trend for transfers is rapidly
diminishing.
5. Accelerating these problems is the future demand for
housing - rental or owned. Over 41 million adults
will reach the age of 30 in the 1980'x, compared to
31 million in the 19701s. Currently, 18 million
households are headed by individuals 25 -35 years old
as compared to 10 million in 1970.
We, in particular, must face these challenges.
S
Page 4
EXHIBIT I
AVERAGE HOME PRICES - MINNEAPOLIS METRO*
Edina
Lake Minnetonka
Cedar Isles - Loring
Eden Prairie
Plymouth
Golden Valley
Hopkins- Minnetonka
Falcon Heights -St. Anthony
Calhoun- Harriet
Bloomington
Minneapolis Area - Average
MEDIAN HOME PRICE INDEX TO AVG.
118,713 152
113,343 145
109,623 140
105,959 136
104,708 134
94,512 121
93,000 119
92,917 119
87,853 113
83,109 106
75,036 100
Homes sold 1st quarter 1981
Source:- Greater Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors
Page 5
DENSITY
The current ordinance provides for a variation of density
through bonus points allocated on the basis of four factors:
project size (minimum 40 acres);
allowance for affordable housing;
variety of housing mix;
affirmative design.
The high degree of subjectivity and interpretation, though
purposely stated at the time to allow for freedom of design
under the RPUD concept, has been a source of confusion and
discontent to the reviewing bodies. The first criteria, and
possibly the third, is the only quantitative factor in
determining density; while the remainder are subject to
interpretation. In retrospect, it is our viewpoint that these
latter factors (affordable housing and affirmative design)
should be expected upfront in any development within the city
of Plymouth and therefore required without any further
qualification.
Option - Maintain the Current Method. Of the ten RPUD's to
affirmatively pass -thru the reviewal process, only three have
received bonus point allocation, primarily for project size
and one (Amhurst) for housing mix. The only support we find
for this option is to let the past record stand for itself.
There was however, considerable discussion among Commission
members questioning the 40 acre minimum in light of current
economics and available land.
Option - Revise the Criteria. A second option would be to
revise the criteria for bonug .point calculation to be more
specific and objective in nature. Exhibit II illustrates
the following revisions:
a) section (a) would remain as currently stated;
b) section (b) relating to affordable housing
would be eliminated, allowing the Comprehensive
Plan to speak to the issue;
c) section (c) now becomes (b) with specific
bonus point calculations designated for
each housing combination;
d) section (d) would be rewritten and become
c) to reinforce the RPUD concept of project
design.
Page 6
EXHIBIT II
OPTIONAL BONUS POINT CALCULATION
a) The project is of a viable scale for PUD design:
add one bonus point for each ten acres of project
size above forty acres up to four points; or,
subtract one bonus point for each five acres of
project size under forty acres to a minimum size
of fifteen acres.
b) The project provides a variety of housing types:
detached
detached with attached
attached with
apartment -type
detached, attached
and apartment
100% 0 points (base)
408 or less 1 point
508/508 1 point
408/308/308 2 points
Provision for a 108 range to allow for design alternatives
in various zoning districts.
c) The project demonstrates affirmative design through
provision of private /public open space net of street
right of way, park dedication, and rear yard:
10 -208 net area 1 point
208 or greater 2 points
Page 7
Notation of affirmative design (enhancement, preservation,
etc...) should also occur in Section 9, Subdivision B (lc)
as an expected attribute of a PUD within the city.
Section 9, Subdivision b (5b) should also require the
developer to address how the project meets each of the
conditions /expected attributes of a PUD.
We particularly support this approach in that
considerations are addressed specifically and
with flexibility provided in (b) for various
and other constraints or features. The third
the developer who approaches the RPUD concept
intended.
the two main
quantitatively
zoning districts
factor rewards
as originally
NOTE: The underlying assumption is a need to maintain a
separation of PUD development from conventional platting.
The city has long maintained a directive to provide open
space, quality environment, etc... which supports this
position. One could argue, however, that these "desired
attributes" should be expected upfront, regardless of the
developer or external circumstances and that any development
would be required to meet those demands. The problem, though,
becomes one of economics in which certain developers /landholders
cannot meet or plan to those requirements because of their
technical inabilities, or they (whomever) simply choose not to.
This "freedom of choice" is the catalyst to housing mix and
innovation in an ideal sense.
option - Elimination of Bonus Calculation. Density would be
dictated by project size or zoning policies under this option.
The other criteria would fall in the Comprehensive Plan or
other areas of the ordinance. But we consider this an
unreasonable, extreme option.
Page e
MINIMUM LOT AREA
Current ordinance requires a minimum of 18,500 sq.ft. in the
R -lA district for a single - family dwelling; 15,000 sq.ft. in
the R -1B district for single or two - family units. Concern
has been stated that these figures present an economic hurdle
to residential developers and the consuming public, restricting
the demographics of potential buyers to a select few. In
evaluation of this concern we have surveyed other communities
within the metro area.
Maple Grove is formally reviewing their current ordinance
with the expectation to reduce those requirements. Current
ordinance requires 20,000 sq.ft. in R -1 districts and
10,000 in R -2 districts (planned development). Projections
are that these will lower by 15% (while maintaining current
setbacks).
Burnsville, currently at 11,000 sq.ft. with an 85 ft. frontage,
is revising their minimum to 8,500 with 70 ft.
Bloomington currently maintains 11,000 sq.ft. regardless of
the platting procedure, accetting a 9,200 average within
major developments.
Eden Prairie is currently at 13,500 sq.ft. with a 90 ft.
frontage, but is looking to revise that standard to 10,000.
We do not wish to quote these as standards because "everyone
else does... ", for we are "smarter than they are ". But these
are the figures often presented by the developing interests.
We have found our current requirements are among the most
restrictive within the metro area - good and bad.
The Development Council has requested consideration that the
lot size be reduced in LA -1 districts to approximately 10- 10,500
sq.ft. with 75 ft. frontage.
Perhaps more appropriately, a reduction to 13,500 sq.ft. in
R -1A districts; 12,000 sq.ft. in the R -1B districts; and 11,000
sq.ft. in the R -2 districts would maintain an optimal balance
between the city's objective to provide a quality housing
environment (planned, space, etc.) and "affordable" housing for
the consuming public. All other area figures would remain
constant. Though smaller lot size does not guarantee affordable
housing alone, steps taken by the city to approach the problem
presently and in the future) reflect social responsibility and
positive direction.
Page 9
Exhibit III illustrates various density calculations at
varying lots sizes, providing density (units per acre)
for a gross acre (43,560 sq.ft.), net street right -of-
way, and net right-of-way plus park dedication. At the
13,500 sq.ft. figure the gross density exceeds the current
ordinance maximum of 3.0; however, net street right -of -way
density is 2.7 units per acre and 2.4 at the furthest
extreme. The suggested 12,000 figure for R -1B equates to
3.1 net street right -of -way, only fractionally over the
density requirement and of no significance.
The important factor in our calculations and rationale-for
these estimates is the use of an acre net street right -
of -sway, which exists on all residential lots (using 15%
as a general rule). The figures are reasonable and
progress logically, pertinent to "practical dimension" -
gross less right -of -way. other factors involved in our
recommendation included lot frontage, depth, and side yard
setbacks which will be discussed further.
Eyeball examination" of sewer /water capacities stated in
the Comprehensive Plan does not foresee problems. However,
it would be in the city's interests to initiate a detailed
study by Bonestro to assure the compatibility of these
figures. We may find that some districts cannot handle
the demands of this density level(s).
To maintain the separation between PUD and conventional
development, we suggest a reduction in the current minimums
18,500 and 15,000 and 15,000 respectively - to 15,000 and
13,500 and 12,000. These figures are, perhaps, more practical
within the current environment yet provide an incentive to
utilize the PUD concept, particularly if bonus point
calculations are retained in whatever form.
LOT SIZE
18,500
15,000
13,500
13,000
12,500
12,000
11,500
11,000
10,500
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
EXHIBIT III
DENSITY CALCULATIONS
GROSS AREA
43,560 SQ. FT.
2.4
2.9
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.1
4.4
4.8
5.4
6.2
7.3
NET STREETS,
ROW, ETC.
37,026 SQ. FT.
85$)
2.0
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.7
4.1
4.6
5.3
6.2
Page 10
NET STREETS
a PARK DED.
32,670 SQ. FT.
75 %)
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.6
4.1
4.7
5.4
Page 11
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, DEPTH
Exhibit IV illustrates various lot depth and width
combinations for different lot areas. From a practical
standpoint we established minimum /maximum lot depths of
100 and 200 ft. respectively.
Current ordinance requires minimum lot width of 110, 90,
and 50 ft. for single - family dwellings in the R -lA,
R -1B, and R -2, and R -3 and R -4 districts respectively.
On the basis of the 13,500 and 12,000 and 11,000
recommendations for lot area, we suggest:
90 ft. R -lA
75 ft. R -1B, R -2
50 ft. R -3, R -4 (no change)
Requirements for two - family dwellings could be reduced to
90 ft. in the R -1B and R -2 districts and 75 ft. in the
R -3 and R -4 districts, though we have not suggested revisions
to lot area in this unit category.
Cul -de -sac lots within the R -lA and R -1B districts could
maintain a 50' front yard at street right -of -way as long as
adequate side yard setbacks are established.
Page 12
EXHIBIT IV
LOT DEPTHS
FRONTAGE 110 100 90 80 75 70
LOT AREA
18,500 168 185 206
15,000 136 150 167 188 200
13,500 123 135 150 169 180 193
12,500 114 125 139 156 167 179
12,000 109 120 133 150 160 171
11,500 105 115 128 144 153 164
11,000 100 110 122 138 147 157
10,500 - 105 117 131 140 150
10,000 - 100 ill 125 133 143
91000 - - 100 113 120 129
81000 - - 100 107 114
7,000 - - 100
6,000
Minimum depth at 100 feet; maximum depth at 200 feet.
Page 13
MINIMUM SIDE YARD
Current ordinance requires 15 ft. and 10 ft. for each side
of a single - family dwelling in R -1A and R -1B districts,
respectively, and 20 ft. total in the other districts.
Though our initial thoughts were to maintain the current
standards, reduction to a 10/15 or 10 /10 combination in
the R -lA and R -1B districts could be substantiated without
detriment to spacial concerns.
Upon field examination, we do not find the Development
Councils request for 5/10 setbacks to be acceptable beyond
cul -de -sac application. ;
Exhibit V provides scenarios for two different homes with
90 ft., 80 ft., or 75 ft. lot widths.
5F5
DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 5
HEARING DATE: November 28, 1990
DESCRIPTION:
This amendment is intended to restructure the portion of the Planned Unit
Development section of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance that deals with the
expected attributes of a Planned Unit Development proposal.
SECTIONS INVOLVED: Section 9, Subdivision B.
EXPLANATION /PURPOSE:
Since its initial adoption in the mid- 1970's the Planned Unit Development
section of the Zoning Ordinance has been periodically revisited and from time
to time amended to reflect perceived benefits and problems that have resulted
by the application of this sophisticated development regulation device. The
City Council and the Planning Commission in recent months on several occasions
expressed concern with the difficulty of determining whether a'Planned Unit
Development proposal provides the attributes expected of a PUD as they are now'
defined in Paragraph 1 of Subdivision B, Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
These proposed amendments focus exclusively on Subparagraph c of this section
of the Zoning Ordinance where five expected PUD attributes are provided. We
have considered commentary of City Council and Planning Commission members
concerning individual attributes, and by the amendments proposed incorporated
what we believe to be the modifications necessary to address the current
concerns that have been raised.
The intended effect of these amendments is to modify or eliminate attributes
currently in the ordinance which no longer enable the City to distinguish
between PUD proposals and to clarify certain others of the attributes to
enable the Planning Commission and City Council to determine with a greater
degree of certainty whether the proposal qualifies as a Planned Unit
Development within the definition of the Zoning Ordinance.
An initial question concerning this section of the Zoning Ordinance is whether
it is the intent of the City to disqualify a proposal from consideration as a
Planned Unit Development if all of the stated attributes are not present in
the project proposal._
The findings required by Section 9, Subdivision B, Paragraph 5c, with respect
to the PUD Concept Plan does not include reference to whether the proposal
complies with the PUD attributes or not. Section 9, Subdivision D, Paragraph
5j, however, requires the Planning Commission to base its recommendation to
the City Council on Preliminary Plans /Plats in part on "compatibility with the
stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development Since the
attributes are an integral part of the Paragraph 1 of this subdivision
entitled "purpose ", the compliance of the plan with the attributes listed has
Page Two
often been a basis for the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the
City Council regarding the Preliminary Plan. Since by that time the Concept
Plan has already been approved, the question of whether the proposal qualifies
as a PUD should have already been rendered.
Based on the foregoing we are assuming that it is the intent of the ordinance
that the question of whether a proposal is a PUD or not is not addressed by
its compliance to the attributes under consideration. As suF, it is not an
all or nothing" question with respect to compliance with the attributes. We
are suggesting that the degree to which a proposal responds to the attributes
one or more) will however become the foundation upon which staff, the
Planning Commission and the City Council measures the degree of flexibility in
design that will be afforded to a particular development proposal (flexibility
from the "standard" Zoning Ordinance specifications and standards).
Even if a PUD proposal would not respond to one or more of the attributes, it
still could be a Planned Unit Development, but perhaps one where Zoning
Ordinance flexibility would be more limited than with a proposal that better
responds to the attributes. It is not the intent therefore for these
amendments to modify the judgmental or subjective nature of the decisions and
recommendations that must be made with respect to each individual PUD.
The intent with respect to changes regarding the specific PUD attributes
listed in Section 9, Subdivision B, Paragraph 1c is as follows:
1) No change is recommend with respect to the attribute involving new
technology and building design, construction and land development. We
believe it is clear what is intended by this, and we point to such
development concepts as the original "Tiburon" and the more recent
Laukka Development "Zipper -Zee" as types of development that respond
to this attribute. In our view very few projects we have seen to -date
actually present attributes related to "new" technology. At some
point "new" becomes "accepted" and therefore does not become an
attribute.
2) Because of specifications found in the Subdivision Ordinance and in
other sections of the Zoning Ordinance all development proposals
presented to the City of Plymouth require the use of trained and
experience professionals. At the time of the drafting the Planned
Unit Development ordinance this may not have been the case therefore
resulting in this as possible PUD attribute. This attribute can be
eliminated since little distinction is possible without rendering
value judgments as to the relative merits of various consulting firms.
3) Efficiency and effectiveness of the use of public streets, utilities
and other public facilities resulting in high quality development
remains an important aspect of urban design. Considerations of a
capital cost of, continuing operations cost of, and replacement cost
for urban infrastructure certainly cannot be overlooked. We have
added to this attribute the term "demonstrated ". This means that the
Page Three
proponent of a PUD must prove to us that he has provided more
efficient and effective use of infrastructure components than would be
expected from a lesser design or from conventional subdivision
development.
We would anticipate this to be in the form of quantitative data
verifiable by the Director of Public Works. We are also recommending
removal of the term "at lesser cost ".
4) We have modified attribute No. 4 to provide emphasis on the
demonstration by the project proponent that the recreation facilities
and other public and common facilities are truly more usable and
suitably located than under conventional land development procedures.
We are also adding the term "where proposed ". By this addition an
important policy change is produced that removes a requirement that
recreation facilities be included with each and every PUD. There may
be instances where active recreational facilities are clearly not
appropriate and therefore a PUD should not be penalized for the lack
of such facilities.
5) This attribute has become increasingly important in recent years but
was a critical element of the original concept embodied in the Planned
Unit Development ordinance philosophy. We are recommending amendment
to this attribute to more clearly define the desirable natural site
characteristics in terms of the Physical Constraints Analysis.
CONCLUSIONS /REC"ENDATIONS:
Based on the foregoing discussion of the purposes and intent of the amendments
proposed we recommend amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in Section 9,
Subdivision B, Paragraph 1c as follows:
allu y, .. - - - -_
deyelepmeLandse
3) Demonstration of more efficient and effective use of streets,
utilities and public facilities to yield high quality development. at-
a lesser eest.
4) Where proposed, mere usable and suitably leeat recreation facilities
and other public and common facilities shall be more usable and
suitably located than would otherwise be provided un er conventional
land development procedures.
5) Demonstration of affirmative design efforts toward the preservation
and enhancement of desirable natural site characteristics as defined
by the Plymouth "Physical Constraints Analysis ".
Attachments:
1. Zoning Ordinance Extract (Page 9 -5)
Underscore - indicates new text
3tri Feeat - indicates deleted text
pc /cd /zo.5)
Planning ommiss
January 30, 1991
Page 19
Chairman Plufka introduced the Zoning Ordinance ZONING ORDINANCE
Amendment regarding Planned Unit Development Attributes AMENDMENT FOR PUD
which was continued from the December 5, 1990 meeting. ATTRIBUTES
Chairman Plufka opened the Public Hearing. Chairman
Plufka closed the Public Hearing as there was no one
present to speak on the issue.
MOTION by Chairman Plufka, seconded by Commissioner Wire MOTION TO APPROVE
to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
regarding Planned Unit Development Attributes.
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes, Commissioner Marofsky, Nay. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTION carried.
Commissioner Marofsky stated that he felt the Zoning
Ordinance should be substantially revised regarding the
Planned Unit Development Attributes. Chairman Plufka
stated that he agreed and it was the consensus of the
entire Commission that this should be done.
Chairman Plufka introduced the request of Robert ROBERT GERSBACH
Gersbach for a Lot Division to create an 18,700 square (90110)
foot lot and an 84,478 square foot lot; and Variance to
allow a 50 foot front lot width located at 700 Harbor
Lane.
Coordinator Dillerud reviewed the January 17, 1991 Staff
Report.
Chairman Plufka questioned whether the east end of this
site will abut what in the future could be Fernbrook
Lane.
Coordinator Dillerud responded that Fernbrook Lane will
be proposed by a- future development.
Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. Peter Knaeble,
representing the petitioner.
Mr. Knaeble stated that the petitioner would like to
vacate the drainage easement to Parcel B in the future;
and would like sewer and water access for Parcel B to be
permitted from Harbor Lane if it is not available from
the north at the time of development.
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by MOTION TO APPROVE
Commissioner Tierney to recommend approval of the
request by Robert Gersbach for a Lot Division to create
an 18,700 square foot lot and an 84,478 square foot lot;
and Variance to allow a 50 foot front lot width located
at 700 Harbor Lane.
VOTE. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission
January 30, 1991
Page 20
Commissioner Marofsky stated that the Planning
Commission needs to discuss Planned Unit Development
Attributes.
Coordinator Dillerud stated that the Commission should
give staff clear definition of what they feel is wrong
or troublesome with the PUD Ordinance.
Chairman Plufka stated that the Commission should
discuss the issues in the letter from Commissioner Zylla
dated January 21, 1991 and give staff some direction as
to what information they would like.
The Commission discussed Item 1 from Commissioner
Zylla's letter regarding the requirement of lot
dimensions and square footage on Concept Plans.
Commissioner Zylla stated he was bothered by reduction
in lot sizes and setbacks. He said he felt the PUD
Ordinance was valuable and that a Development Contract
should be used for flexibility of each phase of a
development.
Commissioner Pierce agreed that lot size should be
included in the Concept Plan.
Chairman Plufka stated that a PUD allows flexibility and
some smaller lots sizes to go with the lay of the land;
but some developers simply use the PUD to squeeze more
lots into a given parcel of land.
The Commissioners agreed unanimously that the wanted
staff to respond to Item 1 of Commissioner Zylla's
letter.
The Commission discussed Item 2 of the memo regarding
Commissioner Zylla's comments on bonus points.
Chairman Plufka stated that he did not feel developers
should received points for project size.
Commissioner Marofsky stated that he would like bonus
points eliminated from the Ordinance.
Commissioner Stulberg stated that he was in favor or the
bonus points and felt project size is a benefit and
should be rewarded; such as combining two developments
with multiple owners.
Chairman Plufka stated that the Bonus Table should be
eliminated or have major revisions.
Commissioner Wire stated that the Bonus Table should be
looked at but that he felt major revisions were
unnecessary.
Planning Commission
January 30, 1991
Page 21
Minutes
Commissioner Stulberg stated that goals should be
defined for bonus points that could provide incentives
for the developers.
Commissioner Marofsky said that bonus points should be
discretionary and not awarded according to a formula.
Commissioner Tierney stated that perhaps staff could
look at past PUD's and analyze them in relationship to
bonus points.
The Commissioners agreed unanimously that we want staff
to research this issue.
The Commission further discussed Item 3 - regarding
reduction of side yard setbacks; Item 4 - regarding
exclusion of wetlands from density calculations; Item
5 - variety of housing types in LA -1 only under tighter
conditions; and, Item 6 - regarding conventional
platting rather than PUD's.
A suggestion was made that a separate resolution should
be required at the concept stage stating that a PUD
would be allowed because the request meets all
attributes of a PUD established by the Zoning Ordinance.
The Commission agreed unanimously to all points in
Commissioner Zylla's letter of January 21, 1991 as areas
they want staff to research and bring back to the
Planning Commission in the near future.
Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
i