HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 11-13-19915. A -
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: October 30, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 13, 1991
FILE NO.: 91090
PETITIONER: Dan and Mary Catena
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow a swimming pool
to encroach into the 50 foot rear yard setback
LOCATION: 3205 Quinwood Lane North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: RPUD 87 -2
BACKGROUND:
On November 6, 1989, the City Council, by Resolution 89 -693 approved a
Residential Planned Unit Development and Final Plat for this subdivision,
including the 50 foot rear yard setback along County Road 61.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant proposes construction of an 18 foot by 36 foot swimming pool
in the rear yard of the home adjacent to Northwest Boulevard. Swimming
pools are defined as "structures" by the Zoning Ordinance and therefore
subject to structure setback requirements.
2. Northwest Boulevard is a "Minor Arterial" component of the Plymouth
Transportation Plan, and therefore the Zoning Ordinance specified setback
for structures from Northwest Boulevard is 50 feet.
3. The proposed pool location will place the outer edge 18 feet from the
right -of -way line (rear property line) at Northwest Boulevard. This
results in a setback 32 feet less than the 50 foot ordinance standard.
4. The massive decorative /screen fence surrounding the Heritage Ridge
Subdivision is located approximately midway between the Northwest
Boulevard right -of -way line and the proposed outside edge of the swimming
pool structure.
5. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider an RPUD
Conditional Use Permit Amendment based on the six criteria found in
Section 9, Subdivision A, Paragraph 2a of the Zoning Ordinance for all
Conditional Use Permits, as well as the specific considerations of a PUD
Conditional Use Permit found in Section 9, Subdivision B. A copy of the
related ordinance provisions together with the applicant's response is
attached.
Page Two
File 91090
6. Within the findings the Planning Commission must make is the consideration
of the impact of the approval of the type of Conditional Use Permit
adjustment petitioned over the entire PUD of over 70 lots. Apart from the
Variance" aspects of the petitioned action - -such as direct physical
impact on adjoining properties - -the Planning Commission must consider the
larger issues of setting a precedent that can be applied to virtually any
lot within this Planned Unit Development. This then becomes a two stage
decision making process:
a. Is the proposal reasonable in terms of the immediate impact on the
property and the adjoining properties?
b. Is the proposal in the best interests of the City, considering the
Planned Unit Development status of this site and the fact that there
are over 70 other lots of similar size and shape contained within the
Planned Unit Development?
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. This particular lot within the Planned Unit Development has unique design
characteristics that distinguish it from many of the other lots within the
Planned Unit Development. Specifically, the lot is adjoining Northwest
Boulevard and therefore is subject to a 50 foot rear yard setback
provision where most of the lots in the subdivision are subject to 25 foot
or 35 foot rear yard setbacks; and, a substantial screen /decorative fence
has been constructed as a feature of the PUD that effectively screens the
rear yard of this structure from the adjoining Northwest Boulevard,
thereby mitigating many otherwise undesirable impacts that could result
from pool construction in the rear yard.
2. Based on the unique characteristics of this lot -- applicable only to a
limited number of lots within this Planned Unit Development - -we find the
proposal to construct the swimming pool in the rear yard setback to meet
both the Planned Unit Development and the Conditional Use Permit
standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend adopt ion of the attached resolution which provides for the
approval of an amendment to the Planned Unit Development Conditional Use
Permit for Heritage Ridge for construction of a swimming pool within the rear
yard setback, as pKji ipped.
Submitted by:
s "E. Dillerud-, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution Approving Amendment to a Planned Unit Development
Conditional Use Permit
2. Zoning Ordinance Citations
3. Petitioner's Communication
4. Location Map
5. Site Graphic
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 91-
APPROVING AMENDED RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR DAN AND MARY CATENA (91090)
WHEREAS, Dan and Mary Catena have requested an Amended Planned Unit
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow a swimming pool to
encroach into the 50 foot rear setback of an existing home located at 3205
Quinwood 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 approve the request of Dan
and Mary Catena for an Amended Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional
Use Permit to allow a swimming pool to encroach into the 50 foot rear setback
of an existing home located at 3205 Quinwood Lane North; a subject to the
following findings and conditions:
1. No other amendments or variances are granted or implied.
2. All applicable requirements of the City and State Building Codes shall
be implemented and enforced; no Code requirements are waived by this
approval.
3. The granting of the Permit is responsive to criteria of the Zoning
Ordinance for Conditional Use Permits and PUD Plans.
4. A setback to the Northwest Boulevard property line of 18 feet to the
edge of the swimming pool structure is approved. The concrete patio
surrounding the pool is not considered part of the structure.
Adopted by the City Council on
res /pc /91090)
FBI S=CN 9, StJEDIMICN A
L I- • d • 6 • 11 • - 1 •'
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a reccnmendation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic
congestion in the public streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
forms:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
P.U.D. CRITERIA
The Planning Commission, after holding the public hearing, shall make its
recommendations to the City Council for approval; approval with conditions;
or denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a P.U.D., preliminary plat and
rezoning if considered.
The Planning Commission shall forward to the City Council its recommendations
based on and including, but not limited to the following:
1) Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit
Development.
2) Relationship of the proposed plan to the neighborhood in which it is
proposed to be located, to the City's Comprehensive Plan and to other
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
3) Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities;
circulation and parking facilities; recreation areas and open spaces.
conventions:pl /jk /pud)
RESPONSE TO VARIANCE QUESTIONS
1. Because of the designation that all homes that back Northwest Boulevard
require two front yard setbacks, does not allow use of normal backyard
for family recreational use. We had moved to this location, strictly
because it had a level yard with no trees and had room for a swimming
pool. But because of the front yard designation and 50 ft. setback
requirement we have only five feet of useable space. If normal
classification of backyard was made, proposed inground pool would meet
all setback requirements. Allow 18 ft. setback from property line,
58 ft. setback from Northwest Boulevard curb.
2. Zoning variance has already been made to allow construction of a 6 ft.
wood and brick fence at a 10 ft. setback from property line and 50 ft.
setback from Northwest Boulevard curb.
3. According to Real Estate statistics, an inground swimming pool returns
less than 20Z of the investment, thus not an investment to increase
property value.
4. The proposed inground pool is totally within the lot boundaries and
would meet all normal setback requirements if rear yard setbacks were
enforced.
5. The proposed inground pool and surround area would be 58 ft. from the
Northwest Boulevard curb, 8 ft. beyond the existing fence which is
50 ft. from the curb. It will be enclosed in the yard with a 6 ft.
high matching wooden fence with two gates with access only from the
interior yard. Pool will not impair any existing views or effect
neighboring properties, as it will be lower than existing fence. The
pool is designed for family entertainment in a private yard and will
have all necessary safety equipment.
6. Proposed inground pool and surround will have no effect on neighboring
properties as far as light or air impairment. Being in a totally
enclosed private yard, it will have no effect on public congestion,
safety or visual aesthetics. There are four other existing inground
pools in Heritage Ridge and they have not had any detrimental effect
on property values.
11
NOTCI The, propused Uradus _. {e Ilo exactly the &ame
j / as shown on d •vul. pulunt p In, see cevur &a side,
4ort_11 Wa cat XPW A -Vibrd
s . _ -
log
P..1 a .:..1.. •i •. f' :. ; .a +_., a,
S I . .
P41-a
r-
1N
N
n .w
o
p ysti •
9S8 y
od In Lin M oZ k's / —F .y-o
c.K4 • d 5 a 0 S' S I" E I
LI
JUL--.-
ii r''ii f ;r A'
f-
LA
L
J
o
0
J
C.11, „good
ISOjoe
ASS 9
La Inq..I
M.a.
Y hereby certify that this survey was prepared by ale or urldur lily dirisCL supervision
and.that I am a ly Re6istered Professional laud Surviiyur under the laws ul' the
State nasal. Uatud is 261;h day of VuhruUVY, 091,
8 s- i r'_ L.p MinnuuuLa 1.11.!urlbu Nu. 1:267
I,
I
I - 4.(•0
I
Pei I
y r•,f v ¢ 1 1I
at' j •1 bt
Ss" 44 1 4s a
ii r''ii f ;r A'
f-
LA
L
J
o
0
J
C.11, „good La Inq..I
M.a.
Y hereby certify that this survey was prepared by ale or urldur lily dirisCL supervision
and.that I am a ly Re6istered Professional laud Surviiyur under the laws ul' the
State nasal. Uatud is 261;h day of VuhruUVY, 091,
8 s- i r'_ L.p MinnuuuLa 1.11.!urlbu Nu. 1:267
5.8.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: October 30, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 13, 1991
FILE NO.: 91091
PETITIONER: Wagner Spray Tech
REQUEST: Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit for the
outside storage of trucks and trailers; Final Plat to
consolidate Lot 1 and Outlot A into one lot; and, a
Variance for offstreet parking.
LOCATION: 1770 Fernbrook Lane North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: IP (Planned Industrial)
ZONING: I -1 (Planned Industrial)
BACKGROUND:
On May 20, 1974, the City Council, by Resolution 74 -244, approved a Site Plan
and Conditional Use Permit for the Wagner Spray Tech building.
On December 6, 1976, the City Council, by Resolution 76 -694, approved a Site
Plan for a 130,000 square foot building.
On October 17, 1977, the City Council, by Resolution 77 -581, removed the
prohibition against outside storage of waste and waste containers required by
Resolution 76 -694.
On January 25, 1988, the City Council, by Resolution 88 -50, approved a Final
Plat for this site.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper, and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified. A
development sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant proposes to Final Plat a combination of the existing Wagner
Spray Tech plant parcel with an outlot immediately south of the plant
parcel that was created at the time of the 1988 final platting of the
entire northwest quadrant of County Road 6 and I -494. The land that had
been platted as outlots in 1988 has been previously sold by Wagner Spray
Tech to other interests. Now Wagner Spray Tech intends to reacquire
approximately half that property ( Outlot A) as an addition to their site.
The Final Plat will simply consolidate the Wagner Spray Tech holdings into
a single parcel of approximately 15 acres.
Page Two
File 91091
2. The applicant also proposes a Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use
Permit to rearrange the parking configuration; incorporate the area of the
site that will result from the demolition of an existing building on the
outlot that is now part of the plant site; and create an outdoor storage
area for semitrailers.
3. Maximum required parking for this facility, based on 100 percent
manufacturing utilization, is 397 spaces. The applicant proposes a proof -
of- parking plan showing the capability of providing 452 spaces of which he
proposes construction of 282 spaces. Applying the offstreet parking
formulas of the Zoning Ordinance to the actual use of the facility yields
a requirement of 373 offstreet parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant
proposes a proof -of- parking plan to satisfy the 24 space deficiency from
the maximum parking required for the site, and a Variance for the 182
spaces represented by the difference between parking required for the site
by the actual use of the building and parking proposed to be constructed.
4. The application for a Conditional Use Permit is for the outdoor storage of
up to twelve 55 foot semitrailers at the eastern extremity of the site.
This request is responsive to the Zoning Ordinance requirement that any
outdoor storage in the Industrial District be the subject of a Conditional
Use Permit. The ordinance also requires that such outdoor storage be
screened. The applicant proposes a combination 8 foot high redwood fence
and 6 foot Colorado green spruce to accomplish the screening of the
outdoor storage. No fencing is proposed for the south exposure of the
outdoor storage - -only the evergreens. The entire eastern exposure of the
outdoor storage would receive both fencing and evergreens.
5. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider all
Conditional Use Permits for compliance with the 6 Conditional Use Permit
standards of Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. A copy of those standards
and the applicant's narrative response is attached to this staff report.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The Site Plan Amendment proposed meets or exceeds all City ordinances,
policies and standards for site design in the Industrial Zoning District
except as noted below.
2. The Variance request for the reduction in the amount of constructed
offstreet parking is consistent with the Variance Criteria. The puc
interest is best served from both the perspective of aesthetics and the
perspective of storm water runoff where parking is constructed only as
perceived to be needed. The proof -of- parking plan clearly shows how the
site could be used for additional offstreet parking.
3. The request of a Conditional Use Permit for outside storage is responsive
to the 6 Conditional Use Permit Standards. We recommend however that the
8 foot fence be extended westerly from the southeast corner of the parking
area to fully screen the south exposure of the truck /trailers to be
parked.
Page Three
File 91091
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend adoption of the attached resolution providing for the approval of
a Final Plat; setting conditions prior to recording of the Final Plat; and,
approving the Amended Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variances, as
petitioned.
Submitted by: (L.L ? (IAL.Ars I 393C4
Char es E. Di eru Deve opment Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution Approving Final Plat
2. Resolution Setting Conditions to be Met Prior to Recording
3. Resolution Approving Amended Site Plan and Variances and a Conditional Use
Permit for Outdoor Storage
4. Engineer's Memo
5. Conditional Use Permit Standards
6. Applicant's Narrative
7. Location Map
8. Site Graphics (Note: Reductions were submitted responsive to Old sizing
rules).
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO FINAL PLAT FOR
WAGNER SPRAY TECH FOR WSP 2ND ADDITION (91091)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Final Plat and Development Contract
for Wagner Spray Tech for WSP 2nd Addition located at 1770 Fernbrook Lane
North;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the following to
be met, prior to recording of, and related to said plat:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with
City Policy in effect at the time of filing of the Final Plat.
3. Removal of existing structures at the developer's expense.
4. No yard setback variances are granted or implied.
5. Submittal of required utility and drainage easements as approved by the
City Engineer prior to filing the Final Plat.
res /pc /91091.sc)
APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR WAGNER SPRAY TECH FOR WSP 2ND ADDITION (91091)
WHEREAS, Wagner Spray Tech has requested approval of a Final Plat for WSP 2nd
Addition located at 1770 Fernbrook Lane North; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Final Plat for
Wagner Spray Tech for WSP 2nd Addition located at 1110 Fernbrook Lane North.
res /pc /91091.fp)
APPROVING SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR WAGNER
SPRAY TECH FOR WSP 2ND ADDITION (91091)
WHEREAS, Wagner Spray Tech has requested approval for a Site Plan, Conditional
Use Permit and a Parking Variance. for WSP 2nd Addition for property located
1770 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
Wagner Spray Tech for a Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Parking
Variance for WSP 2nd Addition for property located 1770 Fernbrook Lane North,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements within 12 months of the date of this
resolution.
3. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
4. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and
fire lanes.
5. A Variance is approved, based on compliance with the Zoning Ordinance
Variance Criteria, to permit 282 offstreet parking spaces versus the
required 373 offstreet parking spaces. The Variance is also based on a
mitigation plan showing capability for construction of 452 offstreet
parking spaces on the site. Should additional parking be required in
addition to the 282 spaces to be constructed, the property owner will
immediately construct those additional spaces when notified by the City of
Plymouth.
res /pc /91091.sp)
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATEz November 4, 1991
FILE NO.: 91091
PETITIONER: Mr. Kenneth Ester, Wagner Spray Tech, 1770 Fernbrook Lane, Plymouth,
MN 55441
FINAL PLAT: WST 2ND ADDITION
LOCATION: East of Fernbrook Lane, north of County Road 6, west of Highway 494
in the southwest 1/4 of Section 21.
N/A Yes No
1. _ X Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. _ X _ Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ X _ SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits
are issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No.
1 and No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are
reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that
in effect at the time of final plat approval.
4. Area assessments: None.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: In accordance with the
City assessment_ policy. the developer is responsible for the cost
of a 12" watermain along Highway 494. The estimated cost for this
assessment is 974.33 feet x S26.50 per foot - S25.819.74.
A ZI 14 z y VU 4 A ; M
N/A Yes No
6. _ X _ Complies with standard utility /drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet
101) in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width
adjoining side and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
7. _ X _ All standard utility easements required
provided -
The City will require twenty foot (20')
easements for proposed utilities along the
utilities are proposed to be installed.
reviewed with the final construction pli
changes are necessary:
8. X _ _ Complies with ponding requirements -
for construction are
utility and drainage
lot lines where these
This item has been
ins and the following
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100
year high water elevation and conformance with the City's
comprehensive storm water drainage plan.
9. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights- of -xiay have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way
to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process
in conjunction with the platting process. It is the owner's
responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions
of easements proposed to be vacated. The 6 foot drainage and
utility easement along the south property line of Lot 1. Block !.
WST 2nd Addition and the north line of Outlot A WST Addition.
10. _ _ X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to
the City with this application - If it is subsequently determined
that the subject property is abstract property, then this
requirement does not apply.
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the city
attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the
11. _ _ -Z- All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR X Bassett Creek
X Mn DOT Minnehaha Creek
Hennepin County _ Elm Creek
MPCA Shingle Creek
State Health Department _ Army Corps of Engineers
Other
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
2 -
N/A Yes No
12. _ X _ Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the
City grid system for street names. The following changes will be
necessary.
13. _ JL _ Conforms with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's
adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
14. X _ _ Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection
of and
15. _ X _ All existing street rights -of -way are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required on
UTILITIES:
N/A Yes No
16. _ X _ Conforms with City standards requiring the developer to construct
utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the developer shall be
responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water,
storm sewer and streets needed to serve this plat. A registered
professional engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the
proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and
streets to serve the development. See Item No. 18.
3 -
N/A Yes No
17. _ X _ Final utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements -
The developer has submitted the required construction plans for
the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities;
and has also furnished profiles of these utilities as well as the
proposed street system (public and private). See Item No. 18.
18. _ X _ Per developer's request final plans will be prepared by the City.
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities
as part of its Capital Improvements Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1
of the year preceding construction, if the developer is paying
1002 of the cost. The developer has petitioned the City to
construct a 16" watermain along 494.
19. _X_ Minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots.
20. _ JL _ The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
21. _ X _ The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
4 -
N/A Yes No
22. X _ It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's public
utility foreman, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed
utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water
systems. The developer shall also be responsible for contacting
Jim Kolstad of the Public Works Department for an excavating
permit prior to any digging within the City right -of -way. BU
water connections shall be via wet tap.
N/A Yes No
23. X _ _ Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted
to the City's consulting engineer for review to see if it is in
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan.
All of their recommendations shall be incorporated in a revised
plan. The grading and drainage plan shall also indicate proposed
methods of erosion control, including the placement of silt fence
in strategic locations. Additionally, the following revisions
will be necessary: The grading plan will be reviewed with the
site plan,
24. A. In accordance with the general development plan, there shall be one shared
access to Fernbrook Lane for Lot 1, Block 1, WST 2nd Addition and Outlot B,
WST Addition.
B. The word "lane" shall be added to the dedication paragraph on the signature
page of the final plat.
Submitted by:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
5 -
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: November 4, 1991
FILE NO.: 91091
PETITIONER: Mr. Kenneth Ester, Wagner Spray Tech, 1770 Fernbrook Lane, Plymouth,
MN 55441
SITE PLAN: ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR WAGNER SPRAY TECH
LOCATION: East of Fernbrook Lane, north of County Road 6, west of Highway 494,
in the southwest 1/4 of Section 27
N/A Yes No
1. _ x Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. _ X _ Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ X _ SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and
No. 2•
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Site Plan approval:
4. Area assessments estimated - None
5. Other additional assessments estimated: In accordance with the Citl
Assessment Policy the developer is responsible for a 12 inch
watermain along 494. This estimated cost is 974.33 feet x S26.50
per foot - S25.819.74.
N/A Yes No
6. _ _ _)L 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. Will cgaly with the filing of the final plat for WST 2nd
Addition.
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.) See Item No. 6.
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. The existing 6
font drainage and utility easement along the south line of Lot 1.
Block 1 WST 2nd Addition and the north line of Outlot B. WSJ
Addition.
X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
2-
N/A Yes No
12. _ _ X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR
X MN DOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
X_ Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Other
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
13. _ X _ Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The site plan will be submitted to the City's consulting engineer
for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations
shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The grading and drainage
plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary:
N/A Yes No
14. X _ _ Necessary fire hydrants provided -
15. — -JL —
16. X_
The City of Plymouth requires that all parts of a building such as
the one proposed be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant. It will be
necessary to locate hydrants in such a manner that the site plan
complies with this section of the City Ordinance.
Size and type of material proposed in utility systems has been
provided
The utility plan shall be revised to indicate the size and type of
material required in the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain services
and storm sewer.
Post indicator valve - fire department connection
It will be necessary to locate the post indicator valve in such a
manner that it will not render any of the existing fire hydrants
inoperable.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. X _ _ Hydrant valves provided -
All new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City
Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W -2. This plate should be
referenced on the site plan.
18. _JL _ _ Sanitary sewer clean -outs provided -
It will be necessary to provide clean -outs on the proposed internal
sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot intervals.
19. X _ _ Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
N/A Yes No
20. _ _X_ _ All existing street right -of -ways are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required on
21. _ X _ Complies with site drainage requirements -
The,City will not permit drainage onto a City street from a private
parking lot; therefore, the site plan shall be revised accordingly.
4-
N/A Yes No
22. _ _ X Curb and gutter provided -
The City requires B -612 concrete curb and gutter at all entrances
and where drainage must be controlled, Curb Stone may be used where
it is not necessary to control drainage. For traffic control either
B -612 or curb stone is required around the bituminous surfaced
parking lot. The site plan shall be revised to indicate compliance
with this requirement. Temporary curbing shall be provided for the
truck parking where concrete curb and gutter will not be installed.
23. _ X _ Complies with parking lot standards -
The City will require that all traveled areas within the parking
lot, as well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a
7 -ton standard City design with six inches of Class 5 10OX crushed
limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one -half inches
of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be
constructed to a standard 5 -ton design consisting of four inches of
Class 5 10OX crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. The site
plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with these
requirements.
N/A Yes No
24. _ X _ It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility
foreman,
24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to
the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The developer shall
also be responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the Public Works
Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the
City's right -of -way. All connections to the water system shall be
via,wet tap.
25. _ X _ The City will require reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer,
water service and storm sewer As- Builts for the site prior to
occupancy permits being granted.
26. X The site plan complies with the City of Plymouth's current
Engineering Standards Manual. Item No's 6. 7. 10, 11, 12. 22. and
Special Conditions.
5-
27. A. With further development a shared drive access to Fernbrook Lane shall be
provided for Lot 1, Block 1, WST 2nd Addition and Outlot B, WST Addition.
Submitted by:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
6-
may- . JI•• 1 V' ' ••
FF M SFJL`FICN 9, SaMIVISICN A
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Camiission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a recompndation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Catmission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) ccrrpliance with and effect upon the Camprehensive 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
fair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal, and orderly development and imprnvsment 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 minimise traffic
congestion in the public streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
forns:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
WAGNER SPRAY TECH CORPORATION
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE
AND PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT
September 20, 1991
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
Wagner Spray Tech Corporation is located at 1 770 Fernbrook Lane in the City
of Plymouth on the east side of Fernbrook Lane, north of County Road 6. The
main building and limited employee parking are located on Lot 1, Block 1, WST
Addition, with additional employee and truck parking on Outlot B, WST Addition.
Under the enclosed request, the Owner proposes to replat the above
referenced Lot 1 and Outlot A into a single lot as WST 2nd Addition, per City
ordinance requirements. Outlot B is presently owned by Told Development 7
Company. Wagner Spray Tech proposes to complete purchase of subject Outlot
from Told Development Company, prior to filing the new WST 2nd Addition plat.
A7
Under the enclosed request, the Owner is requesting a Conditional Use
Permit for limited seasonal storage within truck trailers parking briefly on
the site. The materials and /or equipment temporarily stored with the trailers
are of a non - hazardous non - flammable nature that are not in conflict with City
ordinance requirements for storage of hazardous materials.
Under the enclosed request, the Owner is requesting a variance from parking
required under Section 10, Division B of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. With
the present Wagner Spray Tech operation, at the periods of peak employment,
only about 70% of the existing available employee parking is utilized. Adding
additional parking simply to meet ordinance requirements contributes only to
the "sea" of unused asphalt frequently found on many industrial sites. A
proof of parking" Plan, demonstrating the capability of providing the total
parking requirement for the existing warehouse /manufacturing combination is
provided.
It is recognized that, under another ownership, the existing building with
100% manufacturing would carry a higher parking requirement than the existing
warehousing /manufacturing combination. A second "Proof of Parking" layout is
provided, demonstrating that this requirement can be met.
Under the enclosed request, the Owner is requesting plan review and
approval for demolition of the existing building on Outlot B and constructing a
bituminous surfaced parking lot for truck trailer parking.
An additional catch basin pickup is proposed to be constructed to provide
an pickup for storm water runoff from the new truck parking area. New storm
water runoff coefficients and areas are approximately the same as existing
conditions and will have no impact on the existing storm sewer facility, other
than providing an additional more effectively located inlet structure.
The proposed improvement is consistent with the zoning previously approved
for the site and will not affect the Comprehensive Plan for this area. The
variance for reduced parking will provide and enhance the general public
welfare by allowing a greater landscape area until such a time as additional
parking is needed. The Conditional Use Amendment for the short term truck
storage will promote and enhance the general public welfare by assuring
continued on -going employment and will not be detrimental to or endanger public
health, safety, morals or comfort.
The proposed improvement is consistent with other industrial uses in the
area, and will not diminish or impair property values, nor will it impede the
normal and orderly development of surrounding properties. The additional truck
parking does not affect ingress or egress or parking within the site.
flt44A I [•10 1 rwlm,
Ln
IM !! a
u
f
f
J
I ••;i 3
2j
j
t r . o .a a F c
its ks
or 011t t
lit
ts
1 ! y
ear \ 1
s _, - 1 771`f 1771
z 'f ri
lit
4•+ 4p
l N•— I i L } f
rtiv
f .
t r_ .
1 0
t
m
sit
It
50
I s ; i= itf i:li \• s 1 : ' ' s q s
E IE E E • _
E I 4J o
f 111
X Y :
Tl Qi l' i 1
iBt ife # j
q
E
It
A
at
cr
I It
E ;Fiat - -- —'"_ _,
t ,
I i
J.L1.1.1J°L1a.:l.1JJ. Luil11JJ . III
AXIS
AO k"w. ISM i.l. r.. IFA '• .
w ..n.nr
i
s
J
2
XW
eo)
fille
filll • + CJr
3 r1
r
i.
f
I
c I
h .
J..cr 1
1
1-
E
1
3 % I I anR .vs qn.t•
Z1
m mew am AOM Mail am
Nld'1 ?jQ029f ... ~- - - - -- - - --
0
to
I
II j,
I
r 1 S
1 l 3i
of \
P
s
R
3
I I I
t•
11
r l 1-01'1
M L I
i tt
tiTcR. • • e .
1f1
I a
U..(Ji111J_l.L," -III
I
l
t
rE
J
0 I !
J
r
S- •
ti
4,14 J 4k 0 3
i i l i i l I! • #S i
I
I_
IIII II I III III= '
w-
1
sag
e
3
V I Illli ll.llllllll- -- .
II \. j illllliiiilllll —
a 1 ;- j Illllllll llllli
I
1 14 ITS1.L' ILI-
r :1T1.1(>'1 11.1'f'11,
c'^ - - I •a li Q
r
c .•_ S _a I I
r ,LlU.1.J -1LU 11ji L1LL1111J.. ; I f
G_
1 • ' t+tYrry 0" A&- w
07 I I
I I
I
r
1.
fig
i _Ito €F
it
11
iaii€ Ill :• i € N
a W:
o`
Q
N
i"
Z O s
N
Sk
N " m=
u
E
1 sill sj% i : i, _11111
in
WWSN
N
O
FW
WS
N
e
TH
11nl
W-MA-6-ftJ
Q
ev
s
r
I t
Q 4 I
I '
I r
O: I
IW
I r V •• 4.
r all I,
I i
I
II _ ::Ww %
fur
3a02f.•M 1 Y'• • w
OC
X878
0
5C
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: October 30, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 13, 1991
FILE NO.: 91092
PETITIONER: Margaret Liao
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a Class II Restaurant
LOCATION: 4190 Vinewood Lane North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CR -2 (Retail Shopping)
ZONING: MPUD 89 -2
BACKGROUND:
On November 6, 1989, the City Council, by Resolution 89 -689, approved an
Amended MPUD Preliminary Plat /Plan and Conditional Use Permit to develop over
400,000 square feet of retail /commercial structures on a site of 52 acres,
subject to 17 conditions of approval.
On October 16, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution 89 -619 finding "no
need" for an Environmental Impact Statement based on the review of the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
On April 2, 1989, the City Council, by Resolution 90 -233, approved a Final
Plat and MPUD Final Plan (Final Plan was only with respect to the outlots) for
the entire 52 acre site.
On May 21, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolutions approving both the MPUD
Final Site Plan for the area to be occupied by the "Target Store" west of
Vinewood Lane and a Master Sign Plan for the entire MPUD.
On July 30, 1990, the City Council, by Resolution 90 -430, approved a MPUD
Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit for 28,000 square foot outdoor
garden area; and by Resolution 90 -421 a Final Site Plan for Baker's Square;
and, by Resolution 90 -432, a Final Site Plan for a multi- tenant retail
shopping center on the east side of Vinewood Lane.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified. A
development sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant proposes utilization of a 3,003 square foot portion of the
Rockford Road Plaza Shopping Center as a Class II restaurant. No exterior
modifications are proposed and signage would be consistent with the
previously approved master sign plan for Rockford Road Plaza.
Page Two
File 91092
2. We have attached to this staff report portions of Section 4 (Definitions)
of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance which provide the definitional
distinctions between a Class I and a Class II restaurant. This
restaurant, since it features carry -out service, is defined as a Class II
restaurant and therefore is required to have a Conditional Use Permit in
addition to the original Conditional Use Permit that was granted for the
overall shopping center PUD.
3. The Planning Commission is directed to review any application for a
Conditional Use Permit for compliance with the six Conditional Use Permit
standards found in Section 9, Subdivision A of the Zoning Ordinance. A
copy of those Conditional Use Permit Standards together with the
applicant's responses is attached.
4. The primary consideration in review of Class II restaurant Conditional Use
Permits, particularly when such Class II restaurants are proposed for
location in a shopping center environment, is the impact on the offstreet
parking element of the site. Since Rockford Road Plaza is not completely
occupied at this point, ample parking remains in relation to the occupancy
of the structure. The Development Review Committee analysis of this
proposal included compatibility with offstreet parking requirements of the
site.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The proposed Conditional Use Permit complies with the six standards of the
Plymouth Zoning Ordinance (Section 9, Subdivision A).
2. No conflict with offstreet parking requirements of the site is apparent at
this time. The Conditional Use Permit will be subject to future review
as are all Conditional Use Permits) and should parking become a problem
in the future, the Conditional Use Permit could be subject to modification
or revocation.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend adoption of the attached resolution providing for the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Class II restaurant at the Rockford
Road Plaza Shopping.Center, as petitioned.
Submitted by:
rtes t.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving a
2. Conditional Use Permit
3. Section 4 Definitions
4. Location Map
5. Site Graphics
pc /jk /91092:dh)
erud, CoM fnity Development Director
Conditional Use Permit for a Class II Restaurant
Standards and Petitioner's Response
of Restaurants
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 91-
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CLASS II RESTAURANT TO BE LOCATED AT
4190 VINEWOOD LANE NORTH
WHEREAS, Margaret Liao has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a Class II
Restaurant to be located at 4190 Vinewood 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 for a
Conditional Use Permit for a Class II restaurant, 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 the as operator of the facility and shall not be
transferable.
3. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
4. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within approved designated
areas.
5. Any signage shall conform to the approved Master Sign Plan for Rockford
Road Plaza.
6. There shall be no outside display, sales, or storage of merchandise or
related materials.
Adopted by the City Council on
res /pc /91092:dh)
FKX SECTION 9, SUBDIMIQI A
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a recommendation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
ynp3i r 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' • '-• v • -.
FBI S=CN 9, SEMIMICH A
2. Proc Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Camdssion 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 Cmrdssion shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) Canpliance with and effect upon the Canprehensive Plan.
yF-S ;I,+ 1L Cn+v.`e5 -;1t4k C11Ivim%... -.erg•- 'k, `.I'-
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will prarote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public helth, safety.
morals or canfort. s ->
1*4 ".. ( } - a
3) The conditional use will not be injuriou to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
jqDair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district.
o -r-k
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. y s j , k gal . ,,. 'I,— b
6) The conditional use shall, in all respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
forns:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 4, Subdivision B
ional Flood -- A flood which is representative of large floods known to have
ccurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can
b xpected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100
year currence interval.
Regulatory Floo rotection Elevation -- A point not less than one foot above
the water su ce profile associated with the regional flood plus any
increases in f heights attributable to encroachments on the flood
plain. It is the vation to which uses regulated by this Ordinance are
required to be elevate r flood proofed.
Residential Facility -- a dwells where a State - licensed residential program,
public or private, which for g ' or otherwise, regul.arly provides a 24-
hour- per -day substitute for care, food, lodging, training, education,
supervision, habilitation, rehabilit 'on, or treatment for one or more
persons, as defined by the State Human rvices Licensing Act, outside a
person's own home, except in the case of sons with mental retardation
where the program may be in the person's home. Ord. 89 -38)
Residential Shelter -- A supervised facility providi short -term housing,
food, and protection for transient individuals. The t does not include
Residential Facilities, Community Correctional Facili ' s, Day Care
facilities, Hotels, Motels, or Nursing Homes. (Ord. 89 -38)
Restaurants (Class I) -- Traditional Restaurant -- Food is served to a tomer
and consumed by him while seated at a counter or table. Cafeteria -- od
is selected by a customer while going through a serving line and taken to
Restaurants (Class II) -- Fast Food Restaurants -- A majority of customers
order and are served their food at a counter and take it to a table or
counter where it is consumed. However, a significant number may take the
food outside to eat in an automobile or off the premises. Drive -in
Restaurant -- Most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless
of how it is served. Carry Out and Delivery Restaurant -- Food is prepared
for consumption off the premises only.
r lane and, typically, where the horizontal plane o the
roof commences. oof treatments may be considered as
extensions of a building wall sur a nsard -like treatment is
applied around the entire perimeter of the bul the
mansard -like treatment will be considered part of the roof. (Amen a d.
No. 84 -24)
4 -14
GINA I IV] 0 N livi VA am
I, !4L!
Olt
it
to
v, l I 1 1•'!
O
C
y
42nd. PLACE N.
t t + -- - i
N Cd N.,? Z O
Tl•/
o
T O
All, f f -f-
x 11 1 1 11
1
1 I I 1 C OIli
1 1 la ja la
1 1 1 et l l
1
Z ) J
m 1 _
r- _ o n¢svLu j
At Nl
Y11111111111
1`-'
at SK
1 Cq
ro
L '
f
DoqC.M
f44
P.
Z
RI
o
o is
ZA U.
91 5
o
AI Qa
0
I \1
O:\ li
i
i
I
i
i
i
FXRTBTT A -1
q
y O
q
RNCHOR •3
tsm at.
1P
1
2iRZA
AR
zZ
N I
I \1
O:\ li
i
i
I
i
i
i
FXRTBTT A -1
m I I I
0
I I I
e e e e
e my
I
Im
M
t J. MAXX 25.000 &r.
Q EXHIBIT B -2
N
A P:v i
S C 8i9 tiM
9 Q
Ol t0 fp
e fill
a fill J
M
t J. MAXX 25.000 &r.
Q EXHIBIT B -2
5.7>.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: October 30, 1991 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 13, 1991
FILE NO.: 91095
PETITIONER: Kelly Inns Ltd.
REQUEST: Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit to allow a
new roof cupola to exceed the 45 foot height limit and to
add a portochere onto the east side of the building.
LOCATION: 2705 Annapolis Lane North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CL (Limited Business)
ZONING: B -1 (Office Limited Business)
BACKGROUND:
On September 4, 1973, the City Council, by Resolution 73 -351, approved a Site
Plan for a motel with 149 rooms.
On January 7, 1974, the City Council, by Resolution 74 -15, approved a Site
Plan Amendment to add 26 rooms to the motel increasing the total number of
rooms to 175.
On May 16, 1983, the City Council, by Resolution 83 -257, approved a Site Plan,
Variance and Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of the motel by 42
additional rooms.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper, and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified. A
development sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant' proposes architectural modifications to the existing
restaurant /motel. The most significant modifications proposed are
entrance coverings at both the proposed new entrance to the restaurant
east side) and the existing entrance to the restaurant /motel. While
these are primarily architectural features, a measure of protection from
the elements for customers is also provided. Since no Zoning Ordinance
variances are proposed, the Site Plan for these modifications alone could
be handled by administrative approval were it not for the Condit notalUse
Permit requirement.
Page Two
File 91095
2. The applicant also proposes to modify the roof of the restaurant portion
of the structure resulting in an overall roof height of 66 feet (to top of
spire) versus the Zoning Ordinance standard and the existing height of the
restaurant roof of 45 feet. Section 10, Subdivision C, Paragraph ld of
the Zoning Ordinance permits a structure to exceed height limits of the B-
1 Zoning District under certain circumstances, and with a specific
Conditional Use Permit.
3. A copy of the referenced Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding exceeding
height limitations is attached to the staff report.
4. The Planning Commission is directed by the Zoning Ordinance to consider
any application for a Conditional Use Permit as to compliance with the six
Conditional Use Permit standards found in Section 9, Subdivision A of the
Zoning Ordinance. A copy of those Conditional Use Permit standards and
the applicant's written narrative and response to those standards is
attached to the staff report.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The Site Plan, as it exists, meets the standards of the Zoning Ordinance
with respect to the setbacks required in relationship to the height of the
structure in excess of the B -1 Zoning Ordinance standard. Specifically
structure is set back from all property lines a sufficient distance in
excess of the Zoning Ordinance standards to comply with the extra setback
requirements due to the proposed height of the structure.
2. The "Site Plan proposed has been reviewed by the Development Review
Committee and complies with Zoning Ordinance standards and applicable
standards of other City Codes, Ordinances and Policies.
3. A Conditional Use Permit complies with the six standards of Section 9 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend adoption of the attached resolution for a approval of a
amended Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit to exceed height standards, as
petitioned.
Submitted by: 11 f -d a -1,4 " -)
Charles E. Dill6 , Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Amended Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit
2. Section 10, Subdivision C, Paragraph ld of the Zoning Ordinance Concerning
Conditional Use Permit for Height of Structures
3. Conditional Use Permit Standards
4. Petitioner's Narrative
5. Location Map
6. Site Graphics
pc /jk /91095:dh)
APPROVING SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR KELLY INNS LTD.
WHEREAS, Kelly Inns Ltd. has requested approval for a Site Plan Amendment, and
a Conditional Use Permit to allow a new roof cupola to exceed the 45 foot
height limit by 13 feet for property located at 2705 Annapolis 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
Kelly Inns Ltd. for a Site Plan Amendment, and a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a new roof cupola to exceed the 45 foot height limit by 13 feet for
property located at 2705 Annapolis Lane North, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements within 12 months of the date of this
resolution.
2. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance.
3. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
4. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and
fire lanes.
5. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within the principal
structure and no outside storage is permitted.
6. An 8k x 11 inch "As Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted prior
to the release or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City Policy.
res /pc /91095:dh)
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 10, Subdivision C
SUBDIVISION C - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, EXCEPTIONS AND MODIFICATIONS
1. Height Regulations:
Where the average slope of a lot is greater than one (1) foot rise or fall in
ven (7) feet of horizontal distance from the established elevation or the
pro ty line, one (1) story in additional to the number permitted in the
Distri in which the lot is situated shall be permitted on the downhill side
of any bu in-g.
b. Height limitati set forth elsewhere in this Ordinance may be increased by
one hundred (100) p cent when applied to the following:
1) Monuments.
2) Flagpoles.
3) Cooling Towers.
4) Elevator Penthouses.
c. Height limitations set forth elsewhere in the Ordi ce may be increased by
Conditional Use Permit when applied to the following:
1) Church spires, belfries, or domes which do not contain ble space.
2) Water Towers.
d. Height limitations set forth in the R -4, B -1, B -2 B -3 and I -1 Districts may
be increased to a greater height provided the following conditions are met:
1) No increase in height limitations shall be allowed, except by
Conditional Use Permit.
2) The building or portion thereof with increase height shall not be
adjacent to nor closer than three hundred (300) feet to any lot in any
R -1, R -lA, R -1B or R -2 District.
3) Where an increase in the height limitation is allowed under this
Subdivision, the building or portion thereof shall be set back from all
side and rear lot lines an additional distance of one (1) foot that the
building exceeds the height limitation of the District in which it is
located.
4) The building or portion thereof with increased height shall be set back
from front yard lines an additional distance of one (1) foot for every
one (1) foot that it exceeds forty -five (45) feet.
10 -41
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 10, Subdivision C
5) Conditional Use Permit. Such site plan shall show the location and
extent of the proposed building, parking, loading, access drives
landscaping and any other improvements. Upon consideration by the
Planning Commission and subsequent approval by the City Council saidsiteplanshallbeattachedtoandbecomeapartoftheConditional Use
Permit. Any substantial change to the site plan shall require aresubmissiontothePlanningCommissionandsubsequentapproval by the
City Council.
6) The provision of subparagraph (2), (3) and (4) above, may be waived by
the City Council, in whole or in part, upon a finding that such a waiver
would not have a deleterious effect upon surrounding properties.
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 Operations within the Seven County
tropolitan Area). These regulations apply to the City of Plymouth due to
th classification of Medicine Lake and Schmidt Lake for seaplane operations.
All velopments involving structures of a height governed by these
regula ns shall be subject to the requirements of those regulations as if
they were art of this Ordinance. (Amended by Ord. No. 82 -08)
2. Yard Regulations:
a. Measurements shal a taken from the nearest point of the wall of a building
to the lot line in q stion, subject to the following qualifications:
1) Cornices, canopies, eaves may extend into the required front yard a
distance not exceeding our (4) feet, six (6) inches.
2) Fire escapes may extend in the required front yard a distance not
exceeding four (4) feet, six X inches.
3) A landing place or uncovered porc ay extend into the required front
yard a distance not exceeding six ( feet, if the landing place or
porch has its floor no higher than the ntrance floor of the building.
An open railing may be placed around sace.
4) The above enumerated architectural features m also extend into any
side or rear yard to the same extent, except th N no porch, terrace, or
outside stairway shall project into the required like yard distance.
5) When a future public street alignment and /or right -of- width is
known, as indicated on the adopted City Thoroughfare Gui Plan, the
front yard setback(s) of a proposed structure shall be mea ed from the
known future right -of -way.
b. On double frontage lots, the required front yard shall be provided on Dqh
streets.
10 -42
Z r. rat --*1 Do ' Di .. 1 M WZY V 1 • •.1.
FKM S'=CN 9, A
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Camdssion for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a recamendation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Camiission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) compliance with and effect upon the Ccaprehensive 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 cclmfort.
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
S C H W A R Z / WEBER A R CH IT E C T S
3952 LOUISIANA AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS • MINNESOTA • 55426
6 12) 926 -1156
This application deals with the proposed changes to an existing hotel/restaurant/theater
structure currently known as Plymouth Place. The new owners are interested in
changing the building to a much more appealing and exciting building. Currently the
building lacks human scale and presents a rather uninviting appearance to both the
motel entrance and provides the restaurant with no separate entrance.
We are suggesting the addition of a portcochere at the motel entrance. This is shown
on the drawings. It provides an inviting entrance to the motel.
A new motel roof will be applied to the existing mansard roof. New panels will be
placed over the vents for the room mechanical system. this will generally improve the
appearance of the motel.
The restaurant portion of the structure has a altered facade and roof line. We are
suggesting to remove the large overhang, change the design of the cupola at the top of
the structure and provide a new roof material.
It is our understanding that the reason we must request a conditional use permit is the
fact that the new cupola changes the peak of the structure from 45' to 58'. The main
structure is unchanged.
The facade of the restaurant provides additional glass and covered areas which adds a
human scale to the project.
The design of the cupola in conjunction with the revisions of the facades of the
restaurant we feel greatly enhances the current structure. The design brings a human
scale to the building that currently does not exist. We feel that this proposal will be an
improvement that the City of Plymouth will be proud to claim.
The changes are minimal in relation to the total site. The documents submitted deal
only with the proposed changes. We have followed in this narrative the items as listed
in the check list for site plan approval and Conditional Use Permit.
R I C H A R D I S C H W A R Z a N E I L W E B E R I AND R E L AT ON DR E S S E
SITE PLAN CHECK LIST
1. Accurate Certified Survey - This survey has been updated within the last 6 months.
Copies enclosed)
2. Detailed Site Plan - The survey is the site plan with only the area around the motel
and restaurant entry being altered. We have attached a drawing showing the impact
of the changes at the entry area.
3. Grading & Drainage Plan - No change from the existing plan.
4. Utility Plan - No change is being made.
5. Landscape Plan- No change is being made.
6. Sign Plan - We are utilizing the existing signage as shown on the survey. The new
signage occurs as shown on the elevation drawings. A new sign is being proposed
at the new entry to the restaurant and on the portcochere as shown on the drawings.
The signage will meet the sign ordinance and will not be larger than 5 % of the
elevation area. Final application for signs -All be made as the final copy for the
signs is determined.
7. Fire Protection Plan - No change is being made.
8. Building Plans - We are including drawings indicating the changes at the entrances
and facades.
9. Trash Enclosure - We are not proposing to change the location of enclosure walls
but they will be rebuilt as they are now in a deteriorated condition. The elevation
of these enclosures are shown on drawings.
10. Luminaire Plan - We will not be adding any parking lot lighting. The lighting will
be decorative or downlighting in nature. There will be no lighting that would
provide greater than .5 foot candles at the property line. Lighting diagrams will be
submitted for staff review as fixtures are selected.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CHECK LIST
We respond to the six items listed in Section 9, Subdivision A of the Zoning
Ordinance:
1. We are not changing the use of the building from its current use. Therefore we will
still be in compliance with the comprehensive plan.
2. We feel that the changes we are requesting will enhance the building and the area in
general.
3. The changes will not effect the enjoyment and use of the property within the
neighborhood.
4. The proposed changes will have no effect on the surrounding properties.
5. Higress egress, and parking will not be changed with this proposal.
6. We believe that in all other respects that this proposal conforms to all applicable
regulations of the B1 district.
GI !ll o [•1.l 1 r,'. 6
Ili
fi,1 iih btw
F4
Ud-
tom-•, rn ' . • •: °:
ttl1 r M w e/c
s
83j ti
l / = ::fir <. , , E;; - °;sc e
G9 •0 r 3.• [
or i` : J
co 1W o a
6
a g cj r • _ _ _ biT __ ____ 4401
I
Z C K< i e oz 33
J
l 0 'k —(
11
F
lid O
M J
g
ov, z or o
tj i I k
I
461 nb\
Lo
rr
f
J ^
wl• .
lo
s•'
yf ,06 s,asf /
1
r a, s oz ' I __ t fi I
I 1`— •22aGirL'tZ TJr. n0 9,v, nLno<. ^ f ^' ,, I Z I ,
J
W
V
Q
1
1 V
h$ a
Q
J
d
J,
V
yqb_
N
VVO
n1
J
EDrx I
6
4
S
r
I
a> (
1
1
rb J
i
i
v
i W °Q
9S oz
3 till k — , LLJ oyp
z ov z av S p
r r
A `
w its
Li Z
z \ I
0
0
r
I
i'llil
7
i
z
Z
j
i
uj
Y
Zz
ic
z<
o
15 cum,
J
7
i
z
Z
j
i
uj
Y
Zz
ic
z<
o
cum,
1°=
LU
j
Lu
0
lilt O 'g -) ' b\J4 -v-- I y ZZ
O W Z d
g c } z 5 f
rLeLl I G+ W W oF
F NiLL-
CCU
lie
Z a
lot
Q.
m
I —
L7=:
Q
H
r -
rsrs
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: November 8, 1991
TO: Planning Commissioners
FROM: Chuck Dillerud, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SECTION OF THE PLYMOUTH
ZONING ORDINANCE (SECTION 9, SUBDIVISION B)
The Planning Commission has directed the agenda for the November 13th meeting
include discussion of the Planned Unit Development section of the Zoning
Ordinance. Several efforts have been made to initiate such a review over the
past two years. Unfortunately due to Planning Commission turnover, and other
more pressing staff priorities we have not been able to complete that review.
The impetus for a review of the Planned Unit Development section of the Zoning
Ordinance has been from both staff and the Planning Commission (as well as the
City Council) based on observations made by all three groups with regard to
problems with the concept of Planned Unit Development as regulated by our
current Zoning Ordinance provisions. Some of the problems that have been
observed by either the Commission, the Council or staff include the following:
o The assignment of bonus points has been arbitrary.
o Most recent projects have received substantial density consideration only
because project scale.
o Many single family residential subdivisions developed using the Planned
Unit Development Ordinance have resulted in nothing more than small,
narrow lots -no discernible attributes.
o Private open space created in single family detached subdivisions in
response to PUD standards is not desired, used, or well maintained in
many of these single family neighborhoods.
o Minor amendments to PUD plans involving individual lots are cumbersome
and inordinately time consuming.
To assist the Planning Commission in initiating your review of the Planned
Unit Development Ordinance I have attached to this memorandum several
documents that should prove valuable in providing both historical perspective
and technical background, as follow:
1. My July 25, 1991 memorandum to Blair Tremere concerning the Planning
Commission discussion of Planned Unit Developments at its meeting
July 24, 1991 (this is the most recent discussion of the Planned
Unit Development concept carried on by the Planning Commission).
2. My June 24, 1991 memorandum to the Planning Commission concerning
Planned Unit Development.
3. Memos from Commissioner Zylla of January 4, 1990 and November 14,
1990.
4. Blair Tremere's memorandum to the City Manager of August 15, 1988
concerning Planned Unit Development.
5. Report to the City Council concerning the Planned Unit Development
Ordinance of October, 1981, often referred to as the "Larson
Report ".
Within the Larson Report you will find tabular information regarding lot areas
and frontages related to specific zoning districts in the City consistent with
what I believe to be the request several Commissioners made for such
information at an earlier meeting.
Staff will prepare such additional material as becomes available to assist in
introducing the topic at our meeting of November 13, 1991.
Attachments:
1. Memo to Blair Tremere of July 25, 1991
2. Memo to the Planning Commission of June 24, 1991
3. Memos from Commissioner Zylla of January 4, 1990 and November 14, 1990
4. Memo to the City Manager of August 15, 1988
5. Report to the City Council of October, 1981
pl /cd /pc.pud.11- 13:dh)
U 2-
41-
oD /
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: July 25, 1991
TO: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
FROM: Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: NOTES REGARDING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING ON JULY 24, 1991
The Commissioners discussed for some time the philosophy and mechanical
workings of a Planned Unit Development Ordinance. A question was asked of me
Why a Planned Unit Development Ordinance "? I suggested to the Commissioners
that the old and current attributes that are listed in the first section of
the current Planned Unit Development Ordinance gives broad description of what
some of the reasons are or were for Planned Unit Development Ordinances, such
as:
1. A device to assist cities in preserving valuable natural resources that
otherwise would be lost to conventional development.
2. A device to reduce the cost of housing to the end user.
3. A device to allow for "experimentation" with housing styles and types to
both enhance "livability" and increase "affordability ".
4. A tool to allow the reduction in the amount of individual lot area
required to be held and maintained by respective property owners by
aggregating portions of lot area into private or public commonly owned
open space to be held and maintained for the benefit of residents of the
development. The rational (which I believe continues to be valid) is
that there are folks that desire to live in single family detached (or
other housing styles) with a minimal amount of yard area to be
responsible for, but yet value the low density, uncrowded "feel" that
results from developments at two units an acre, or thereabouts. They are
perfectly happy to have someone else maintain the open space, but they do
not want any more neighbors than they would otherwise have.
5. In the manner in which RPUD is structured it also becomes a device to
encourage the aggregation of large parcels of property for concurrent
developmental planning. This is not always the case with Planned Unit
Development Ordinances, but is with,Plymouth's at this time.
Page Two
PUD's
I then asked the Commissioners to consider those and such other reasons for a
Planned Unit Development Ordinance that may come to mind and consider whether
community development in a 1991 context affects the validity of any of those.
Indeed, I suggested that there may be new concerns in a 1991 community
development context that would provide additional reasons for a Planned Unit
Development Ordinance and which may impact the design of such an ordinance for
the future.
For example, I suggested that efforts by state and federal agencies to protect
wetlands have multiplied geometrically since the mid 1970's when our original
Planned Unit Development Ordinance was drafted. Also, the City has separately
addressed the preservation of natural resources in the Subdivision Ordinance;
through watershed directed maintenance of storm water quality; and, through a
Tree Preservation Policy. Where the "trade -off" between development
flexibility and preservation of natural resources was about the only device
for protecting those resources (short of purchasing them) in the mid 1970's,
other tactics for preservation of natural resources are now available to us,
and can be applied with a conventional plat as easily as with a Planned Unit
Development.
The Commission did not wish to get into specifics at this meeting and asked
that we set aside an entire evening to discuss the concept of Planned Unit
Development in the near future. No specific date was discussed. It appeared
to be the conclusion of the Commission that they wish the Chairman to suggest
dates in the future where the PUD work could continue.
pl /cd /notes:dh)
1 1
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: June 24, 1991
TO: Pl ann i ncL Cow ssioners
FROM: Chuc D d, Community Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: PLANNtD 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)
Date: January 4, 1990
To: Plymouth Planning Commission •
From: Dennis Zylla
Re: Reductions in Minimum Lot Area in PUDs
The down guiding that the planning commission and city council recently accomplished is a step
in the right direction in returning the character of Plymouth to a community of mixed housing
types with a greater concentration of single family detached dwellings. As was clear from
information previously provided by the city manager, the character of the city has changed in
recent years to much higher concentrations of attached and apartment dwellings. I believe the
city should now take steps in its zoning controls and through council policy to:
1. Ensure that residential guided land is developed at or near the minimum lot
areas established in the zoning code.
2. Amend city council policy not to penalize developers by city assessment policy
who wish to down guide property from higher density to lower to develop their
land at a lesser number of dwelling units per acre than specified in the
comprehensive plan.
I am limiting my request for study to PUDs, but realize some of what I state in this
memorandum may also result in a need for change to the subdivision ordinance.
Planned unit development application should not imply reductions from the minimum lot
requirements established in the zoning code. PUD should imply flexibility in set ba4s and
design, and allow for staged development of land based on prior PUD approvals. The key to
proceeding with a PUD rather than application under the subdivision code, in my opinion, is
the introduction of flexibility for the developer, not compromising existing code requirements.
Too often in the past, we have seen developers set aside as public open space land below the
hundred year high water mark and/or create ponds as aesthetic open space, and capitalize on
the bonus point table in the zoning ordinance, with the result that single family lot sizes have
been reduced substantially from the minimums established in the zoning ordinance. Our bonus
table even encourages deductions in acreage as implied trade offs for amenity and multiple
housing types. In fact, a developer receives no bonus points for detached single family projects.
I believe we ought, as required by the ordinance, to ask specifically the developer to calculate
the gross acreage for only the land above the high water elevation, as now required by the
zoning code, and have that information verified by our city engineer. 1A -1 guided land should
be developed up to 3.0 units per acre calculated on land above the high water elevation and to
the minimum lot area requirements established in the zoning code. The table of bonus points
should be eliminated We should require a minimum of 10% dedication in land or cash in lieu
of land for public open space from land above the hundred year high water mark without
allowing minimum lot sizes to be reduced, and only vary our requirements for minimum lot area
if we are able to pick up the gross acreage reduction from lowering minimum lot sizes in a one
for one ratio in public or private open space dedication beyond the 10% we must receive.
Under no circumstances do I believe the reductions from minimum lot areas for dedications of
public or private open space, or for any reason, should be more than 20% below the
established minimum square footage requireinent.
I do not believe what I am proposing would result in substantive ordinance amendment, with
the exception of the deletion of the bonus point table and the provision of maintaining
minimum lot areas to no less than 80% of the minimum established by the zoning code.
The city council should direct staff to interpret the land use guide plan as density maximums
rather than absolute minimums and maximums; we could then avoid developers being obligated
to develop more multiple dwelling land in the city or subjected to down guiding time
considerations and costs.
I would like the planning commission to implement this proposal as a high priority for early
1990, and if the commission and city council agree, to ask that staff immediately advise
developers before the DRC for PUD review of the pending changes.
Duvs
4ZS -74
Issues and Solutions
Issue Loss of minimum lot sizes in RPUDs
Solution 1. Require lot dimensions and square footage in all concept plans.
2. Eliminate bonus table.
3. Stop reducing side yard set backs.
4. Exclude all wetlands designated for retention from density calculations.
5. Amend zoning code to allow variety of housing types subject to Section 9,
Subdivision B.3 rather than just 3.a(2).
6. Direct staff to analyze RPUDs in light of standards for conventional platting,
and require platting unless there is clear evidence that filing as RPUD is
justified
Issue Developers are being penalized for downguiding and rewarded in bonus points for
using RPUDs.
Solution 1. Interpret guiding to be the highest guiding allowed rather than the only
guiding.
2. Stop required payments for lost area assessments, et cetera, if someone
downguides.
3. Eliminate references in reviews to highest and best uses.
Issue Poor image of Plymouth (see attached)
Solution 1. Determine why this image exists.
2. Take action to counteract this impression.
Issue Fire lanes
Solution Do not impose fire code regulations more stringent than state fire codes.
DZ.jvs
on-,
CX4
je
6
Ok .
A 766-, /kD
Y st i/ 0// 9.
M First Minnesota's tower might stay on- ly a plan.
Minnesota Real Estate Journal Jan 22 1990teary ,
FROM THE INSIDE CORRECTION -
NORWEST CORR'S possible purchase of
First Minnesota Savings Bank could spell
doom for a proposed office project in
downtown St. Paul.
Minnetonka -based Opus Corp. planned to
build a headquarters for First Minnesota at
Fifth and Minnesota Streets on a site owned
by the savings and loan. First Minnesota
planned to occupy about a quarter of the pro-
posed 20 -story, 300,000 square foot office
tower.
Opus has held the project on the drawingboards, waiting to start construction until the
project was at least half leased. The sale of
First Minnesota, however, could leave Opus
without its anchor tenant.
Norwest and First Minnesota announced
Jan. 9 that they have signed a letter of intent
that could lead to Norwest's acquisition of
First Minnesota. First Minnesota eventually
would be combined with Norwest's Min-
nesota banks, which include facilities in
downtown St. Paul.
Asked how the acquisition might affect the
proposed building, Jay Pfaender, a
spokesman for First Minnesota, said, "That
just hasn't been discussed at all"
An Opus official, however, was not
optimistic.
It's obviously taken a big bite out of what
we had projected as having leased up;' says
Jeff Essen, vice president of real estate
development for Opus. "Does that kill the
deal? Yes. as we contemplated it"
Essen says he's confident that downtown
St. Paul can support more Class A office
space. Opus remains interested in developing
0Uh
o. 0
n
3
underground parking space," according toVISION. "Construction of the first phase is
expected to commence in early spring 1990withinitialoccupancyinmid - summer 1993:'
Coughlin formerly worked with Paragon
Group and Ellerbe Inc.
WATCH OUT, Lincoln Property Co.
Firms eager to replace the Dallas -based
firm as leasing and management agent for the
troubled Lincoln Centre office building in
downtown Minneapolis have been courting
the owner, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
New-York-based Cushman & Wakefield,
Minneapolis -based Towle Real Estate Co.
and Eden Prairie -based Welsh Cos. Inc. are
among several firms that have made pro-
posals to Metropolitan Life to lease and
manage Lincoln Centre, sources say.
We're not in a position to make any
changes at this point; says Ralph DePas-
quale, an investment analyst with
Metropolitan Life.
Metropolitan Life has not solicited any
proposals for companies to replace Lincoln
Property, DePasquale says, although he says
that "quite a few companies have talked to us"
It has not been at our invitation;' he says.
When you own a building in any town,
you're constantly approached by different
companies to possibly sway you into having
them do your leasing and management"
When asked whether Metropolitan Life is
satisfied with Lincoln Property's perfor-
mance, DePasquale said he had to end the in-
terview for a meeting. He could not be reach-
ed later.
Lincoln Centre, the 627,000 square foot
tower at 333 Seventh St. S., is 70.percent va-
cant two years after completion.
FOOD AND BEVERAGE operations often are
viewed as critical components for a hotel's
success. But it might be time to add high -tech
to the list of amenities.
The February issue of Publish! magazine
a journal about desktop publishing -
reports that one hotel in San Francisco
already has added computers to each of its
rooms. Now an inn owned by Dartmouth
College in New Hampshire has the same
idea.
Actually, it's not quite the same idea. The
Nob Hill Lambourne in San Francisco in-
stalled MM Personal System/2 computers in
its rooms. The Hanover Inn in Hanover,
N.H., plans to add Macintosh computers in
at least half of its 32 rooms, according toPublish!
The Macs would be wired so that they
could access computers on the Dartmouth
campus.
The "hostile" and "supportive" headings
in the answer to the question about regulatory
environments in various Twin Cities com-
munities were transposed on page 13 in last
week's report on results of the 1990 Min-
nesota Real Estate Survey.
Here, to clarify, are the same results, but
with the "hostile" and "supportive„ headings
over the correct columns:
Which of the following cities do you consider
to have regulatory environments which are
hostile to or supportive of development?
Anoka
Hostile
2.1 %
Supportive
15.9%
Apple Valley 3.9 20.7
Blaine 3.4 17.2
Bloomington 22.7 28.2
Brooklyn Center 9.9 11.9
Brooklyn Park 5.6 20.3
Burnsville 11.2 1115
Champlin 2.6 10.6
Chanhassen 4.3 22.5
Columbia Heights 0.9 4.0
Coon Rapids 2.1 23.8
Cottage Grove 0.9 11.0
Duluth 0.9 18.5
Eagan 17.6 18.5
Eden Prairie 31.8 20.3
Edina 19.7 9.3
Fridley 1.7 10.1
Golden Valley 12.0 11.0
Hastings 0.4 7.0
Hopkins 5.2 7.5
Inver Grove
Heights 4.3 8.4
Lakeville 3.0 15.0
Maple Grove 9.0 1&1.
Maplewood 9.0 5.7
Mendota Heights 8.6 7.9
Minneapolis 16.7 26.0
Minnetonka 25.8 10.1
New Brighton 1.7 12.3 -
New Hope 5.2 7.0
Oakdale 3.4 18.5
Plymouth 37.3
Richfield YA 6.2
Rochester 3.0 11.9
Rosemount 2.1 6.6
Roseville 5.2 16.7
Savage 1.3 62
Shakopee 3.9 9.7
Stillwater 3.9 6.2
St. Cloud 2.1 21.6
St. Louis Park 15.0 9.3
St. Paul . 5.2 19.4
Vadnais Heights 1.3 13.2
Wayzata 14.2 1.8
West St. Paul 3.4 4.0
White Bear Lake 6.4 8.8
Woodbury 6.0 23.3
Other 2.6 4.8
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559 -2800
MEMO
DATE: August 15, 1988 for City Council Meeting August 16, 1988
TO: City Manager dames Willis
FROM: Community Development Director Blair Tremere
SUBJECT OBSERVATIONS ON THE PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PROVISIONS.
What is it?
A Planned Unit Development is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as "a tract of land
developed as a unit rather than as an individual development, wherein two or more
buildings may be located in relationship to each other rather than to lot lines with
regard to use and location, and in accordance with definite requirements as well as
provisions agreed to between the City and the owner."
This approach, which combines zoning and subdivision procedures and standards, was
adopted by the City in the mid- 1970's. A previous technique, the Subdivision Unit
Project, had been found to be unsatisfactory for the increasing demand the intense
development was placing upon the City and the desire by the City to better regulate
development and the acquisition and management of open space. The Subdivision Unit
Project Ordinance provisions were repealed upon adoption of the Planned Unit Develop-
ment Ordinance.
I have attached, for reference, several pages from Section 9, Subdivision B., of the
Zoning Ordinance which set forth the purpose, permitted uses, area, density, setbacks,
and related regulations.
What does the Planned Unit Development do for the City and for the developer that the
conventional zoning and subdivision codes don't accomplish.
1. The PUD approach affords the developer a calculated "pure" density, which
means that, subject only to the deduction for land at or below the designated
Flood Elevation, density is calculated at the rate dictated by the Compre-
hensive Plan, e.g., 40 net acres translates to 80 dwelling units in the LA -1
guided areas. The same 40 acres with the same Guide Plan Classification would
yield only about 71 dwelling units in a conventional plat, at the Ordinance
minimum lot size of 18,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit; this includes an
approximate 25% deduction for streets, drainageways, and other open space
requirements.
Developers can depend upon the realization of more dwelling units with a PUD
with no bonus point assignment) than with a conventional development.
Page 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, 1988
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 developers recently has been with
decks. Original developers maximized the amount of ground coverage with the
houses, particularly on smaller lots, and when the occupant arrived, a
decision was made to add a deck. It was then discovered that the deck would
exceed the maximum ground coverage and a building permit was denied. Thus,
the Board of Zoning and the City Council have been confronted with variance
and PUD Plan amendment requests.
The Plymouth - Development Council is currently preparing information to be
conveyed formally to the Planning Commission and City Council, seeking amend-
ments to the Ordinance which would exempt uncovered decks from the ground
coverage requirement. The Council may wish to wait until that information is
provided before proceeding on this matter.
6. The Ordinance could be amended to mandate a certain amount of housing types
other than single family detached in all residential PUD's. The Ordinance has
always provided for this as an option (one could literally develop multi -story
apartments or townhouses in an LA -1 area). Most developers have not exercised
that option, probably for economic reasons often attributed to the current
market. Nevertheless, the City could mandate that all PUD's contain a mix of
housing types in order to assure more affordable housing and to ensure a
better aesthetic product due to the "built -in" open space that comes with
attached housing.
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
r -
REVIEW OF CURRENT
RPUD ORDINANCE
WassmTE D To
G t't y Go u N C t L.
oG To$ER Z&G t4S 1
October, 1981
Page 2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to review the requirements of
the current RPUD Ordinance with respect to density and lot
area requirements. This review stems from concerns with
current economic and housing constraints existing nationally,
and more importantly, within Plymouth.
We have solicited input from City Staff, other Commissioners,
Council members, the Development Council, and other interests
private citizens, real estate development, etc...) in pulling
together together this evaluation.
This report is designed to stimulate discussion regarding
major issues within the current ordinance, and allow the
reviewal process to initiate specific recommendations /input.
Though the current ordinance appropriately addresses the
current environment, we feel there may be ground for revisions
in restricted areas of regulation.
The practicality of our recommendations, or subsequent
suggestions, must be quantitatively evaluated against water/
sewer capacities of each district.)
Page 3
BACKGROUND
Rationale for revisions may be in the following data.
1. New home construction continues to decline to
levels lower than those of the post-war period
in the early 19701s.
2. In the area of financing, home mortgage problems
are stimulated by 1) the demise of the 30 year
fixed rate and 2) subsidies implicit in low savings
rates at S & L institutions and banks are phasing
our with-deregulation. Because of the latter
situation, it is expected that high mortgage rates
will prevail with or without high inflation.
Current conventional rates range from 15.5% - 12
points to 17.5% - 6 points. Even if conventional
rates drop to 15$, 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 lst
quarter 1981, is $104,708 - ranking 5th in the
Minneapolis Metro Area; 34% above the area's norm;
55% above the national norm. (Source: Greater
Minneapolis Board of Realtors).
4. For the first five months of 1981, 71% of the new
homes purchased in the Minnetonka - Plymouth area
were corporate transferees - an overwhelming figure
considering the trend for transfers is rapidly
diminishing.
5. Accelerating these problems is the future demand for
housing - rental or owned. Over 41 million adults
will reach the age of 30 in the 19801x, compared to
31 million in the 19701x. 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.
Page 4
EXHIBIT I
AVERAGE VOME PRICES - MINNEAPOLIS METRO*
COMMUNITY MEDIAN HOME PRICE INDEX TO AVG.
Edina 118,713 152
Lake Minnetonka 113,343 145
Cedar Isles - Loring 109,623 140
Eden Prairie 105,959 136
Plymouth 104,708 134
Golden Valley 94,512 121
Hopkins- Minnetonka 93,000 119
Falcon Heights -St. Anthony 92,917 119
Calhoun - Harriet 87,853 113
Bloomington 83,109 106
Minneapolis Area - Average 75,036 100
Homes sold lst quarter 1981
Source:- Greater Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors
Page 5
DENSITY
The current ordinance provides for a variation of density
through bonus points allocated on the basis of four factors:
project size (minimum 40 acres);
allowance for affordable housing;
variety of housing mix;
affirmative design.
The high degree of subjectivity and interpretation, though
purposely stated at the time to allow for freedom of design
under the RPUD concept, has been a source of confusion and
discontent to the reviewing bodies. The first criteria, and
possibly the third, is the only quantitative factor in
determining density; while the remainder are subject to
interpretation. In retrospect, it is our viewpoint that these
latter factors (affordable housing and affirmative design)
should be expected upfront in any development within the city
of Plymouth and therefore required without any further
qualification.
Option - Maintain the Curren* 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)
40% or less 1 point
50$/50$ 1 point
40$/30$/30$ 2 points
Provision for a 10% range to allow for design alternatives
in various zoning districts.
c) The project demonstrates affirmative design through
provision of private /public open space net of street
right of way, park dedication, and rear yard:
10 -20% net area 1 point
20% or greater 2 points
Page 7
Notation of affirmative design (enhancement, preservation,
etc...) should also occur in Section 9, Subdivision B (lc)
as an expected attribute of a PUD within the city.
Section 9, Subdivision b (5b) should also require the
developer to address how the project meets each of the
conditions /expected attributes of a PUD.
We particularly support this approach in that
considerations are addressed specifically and
with flexibility provided in (b) for various
and other constraints or features. The third
the developer who approaches the RPUD concept
intended.
the two main
quantitatively
zoning districts
factor rewards
as originally
NOTE: The underlying assumption is a need to maintain a
separation of PUD development from conventional platting.
The city has long maintained a directive to provide open
space, quality environment, etc... which supports this
position. One could argue, however, that these "desired
attributes" should be expected upfront, regardless of the
developer or external circumstances and that any development
would be required to meet those demands. The problem, though,
becomes one of economics in which certain developers /landholders
cannot meet or plan to those requirements because of their
technical inabilities, or they (whomever) simply choose not to.
This "freedom of choice" is the catalyst to housing mix and
innovation in an ideal sense.
Option - Elimination of Bonus Calculation_. Density would be
dictated by project size or zoning policies under this option.
The other criteria would fall in the Comprehensive Plan or
other areas of the ordinance. But we consider this an
unreasonable, extreme option.
Page 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, accelpting a 9,200 average within
major developments.
Eden Prairie is currently at 13,500 sq.ft. with a 90 ft.
frontage, but is looking to revise that standard to 10,000.
We do not wish to quote these as standards because "everyone
else does... ", for we are "smarter than they are ". But these
are the figures often presented by the developing interests.
We have found our current requirements are among the most
restrictive within the metro area - good and bad.
The Development Council has requested consideration that the
lot size be reduced in LA -1 districts to approximately 10- 10,500
sq.ft. with 75 ft. frontage.
Perhaps more appropriately, a reduction to 13,500 sq.ft. in
R -lA districts; 12,000 sq.ft. in the R -1B districts; and 11,000
sq.ft. in the R -2 districts would maintain an optimal balance
between the city's objective to provide a quality housing
environment (planned, space, etc.) and "affordable" housing for
the consuming public. All other area figures would remain
constant. Though smaller lot size does not guarantee affordable
housing alone, steps taken by the city to approach the problem
presently and in the future) reflect social responsibility and
positive direction.
Page 9
Exhibit III illustrates various density calculations at
varying lots sizes, providing density (units per acre)
for a gross acre (43,560 sq.ft.), net street right -of-
way, and net right -of -sway plus park dedication. At the
13,500 sq.ft. figure the gross density exceeds the current
ordinance maximum of 3.0; however, net street right -of -way
density is 2.7 units per acre and 2.4 at the furthest
extreme. The suggested 12,000 figure for R -1B equates to
3.1 net street right -of -way, only fractionally over the
density requirement and of no significance.
The important factor in our calculations and rationale'for
these estimates is the use of an acre net street right -
of -way, which exists on all residential lots (using 15%
as a general rule). The figures are reasonable and
progress logically, pertinent to "practical dimension" -
gross less right -of -way. Other factors involved in our
recommendation included lot frontage, depth, and side yard
setbacks which will be discussed further.
Eyeball examination" of sewer /water capacities stated in
the Comprehensive Plan does not foresee problems. However,
it would be in the city's interests to initiate a detailed
study by Bonestro to assure the compatibility of these
figures. We may find that some districts cannot handle
the demands of this density level(s).
To maintain the separation between PUD and conventional
development, we suggest a reduction in the current minimums
18,500 and 15,000 and 15,000 respectively - to 15,000 and
13,500 and 12,000. These figures are, perhaps, more practical
within the current environment yet provide an incentive to
utilize the PUD concept, particularly if bonus point
calculations are retained in whatever form.
LOT SIZE
18,500
15,000
13,500
13,000
12,500
12,000
11,500
11,000
10,500
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
EXHIBIT III
DENSITY CALCULATIONS
GROSS AREA
43,560 SQ. FT.
2.4
2.9
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.1
4.4
4.8
5.4
6.2
7.3
NET STREETS,
ROW, ETC.
37,026 SQ. FT.
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
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 1100 90,
and 50 ft. for single- family dwellings in the R -lA,
R -1B, and R -2, and R -3 and R -4 districts respectively.
On the basis of the 13,500 and 12,000 and 11,000
recommendations for lot area, we suggest:
90 ft. R -lA
75 ft. R -1B, R -2
50 ft. R -3, R -4 (no change)
Requirements for two - family dwellings could be reduced to
90 ft. in the R -18 and R -2 districts and 75 ft. in the
R -3 and R -4 districts, though we have not suggested revisions
to lot area in this unit category.
Cul -de -sac lots within the R -lA and R -1B districts could
maintain a 50' front yard at street right -of -way as long as
adequate side yard setbacks are established.
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 - 100 111 125 133 143
9,000 - - 100 113 120 129
8,000 - - 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 -1A 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.
5F3
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 sucfi, 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 /RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the foregoing discussion of the purposes and intent of the amendments
proposed we recommend amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in Section 9,
Subdivision B, Paragraph 1c as follows:
2) Higher standards ef site and building design threugb use ef traine
Landseaping te prepare plans fer Planned Unit deyelepments.
3) Demonstration of more efficient and effective use of streets,
utilities and public facilities to yield high quality development. ,at-
lesser eest.
4) Where proposed fnere u5able and su4tably leeat recreation facilities
and other pu lic and common facilities shall be more usable and
suitably located than would otherwise be provided under conventional
Tand 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
R,-eeut - indicates delete text
pc /cd /zo.5)
Planning Commission
January 30, 1991
Page 19
Minutes
Chairman Plufka introduced the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment regarding Planned Unit Development Attributes
which was continued from the December 5, 1990 meeting.
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
to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
regarding Planned Unit Development Attributes.
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes, Commissioner Marofsky, Nay.
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
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.
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.
ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT FOR PUD
ATTRIBUTES
MOTION TO APPROVE
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
ROBERT GERSBACH
90110)
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
Minutes
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 Minutes
January 30, 1991
Page 21
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.
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: November 8, 1991
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chuck Dillerud, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: MORATORIUM AND AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING
On October 7, 1991, the City Council approved an Interim Ordinance, effective
for a period of 6 months from October 21, 1991 prohibiting processing of
applications for permits to install advertising signs (billboards) within the
City. This moratorium is permissible under State Planning Statutes to allow a
community an opportunity to review and consider amending its Zoning Ordinance
regarding a perceived zoning - related problem.
The moratorium was recommended by City staff in response to an application
made for a permit to install an advertising sign on Xenium Lane (County Road
61) where it crosses the railroad tracks in southeast Plymouth. It had been
the perception of staff that the Zoning Ordinance, as now drafted, allowed
outdoor advertising only in the three major thoroughfare corridors of County
Road 169, State Highway 55, and Interstate 494. As a result of a review of
the application which staff had received to place an advertising sign on
Xenium Lane we have determined that the Zoning Ordinance inadvertent) (we
believe) does permit outdoor advertising in locations zoned in ustrial other
than in the three major thoroughfare corridors noted.
I have attached a copy of the Interim Ordinance for the review of the Planning
Commission. Please note in Section 1.04 of the Interim Ordinance that the
City Council has determined that there is a need to study the regulation of
advertising signs within the City to ensure that the City's regulations are in
full compliance with the applicable State and Federal Law. Note also that
Section 1.03 of the Interim Ordinance states that the City staff has
recommended to the City Council that a study be conducted to determine the
appropriate method of regulating advertising signs in the City.
I have attached for the background review of the Planning Commission that
portion of our Zoning Ordinance that regulates outdoor advertising. I have
also attached a copy of the American Planning Association Zoning Bulletin
concerning the regulation of billboards which was published in June, 1988. I
will have available for the Planning Commission such other background
information as I can gather at the November 13, 1991 meeting.
Page Two
Advertising
I recommend the Planning Commission, either as a committee of the whole or as
a specific ad hoc subcommittee, immediately begin review of our current
outdoor advertising provisions together with other pertinent information to
determine what direction the City should take with regard to the regulation of
outdoor advertising. This stud should result in a Public Hearing (if
ordinance amendments are in order and a report to the City Council. Since
the Interim Ordinance will be effective through April, 1992, it would be
prudent for the Planning Commission to plan on having a recommendation
available to the City Council no later than mid - February to allow time for
redirection by the City Council before the expiration of the Interim
Ordinance, if necessary.
Attachment:
1. Ordinance 91 -31
2. Staff Memo to the City Council
3. APA Technical Report Concerning
sr:pc /cd /blbd)
Concerning the Proposed Interim Ordinance
Controlling Billboards" (June, 1988)
OCT 0- "j1 11 :44 HC -U1E'3 - GRH -:'Efd
ORDINANCE NO. 91 -. /
INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR PURPOSE OF PROTECTING
THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY
AND WELFARE OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH AND PERTAINING
TO THE REGULATION OF ADVERTISING SIGNS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS:
Section 1. Background.
P.2
1.01. The City has received an application for the
installation of an advertising sign on property located
within the I -1 (Planned Industrial) District.
1.02. As part of reviewing the advertising sign
application, the City staff has determined that there are
inconsistencies and ambiguities in the City's Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to the regulation of advertising signs.
1.03. The City staff has recommended to the City
Council that a study be conducted to determine the
appropriate method of regulating advertising signs in the
City.
1.04. The City Council has determined that there is
a need to study the regulation of advertising signs within
the City to insure that the,City's regulations are in full
compliance with applicable state and federal law.
1.05. There is a need for an interim ordinance to
be adopted for the purpose of protecting the planning
process and protecting the health, safety and welfare of the
residents of the City until the study of advertising signs
has been completed. There is a need to restrict any
applications for advertising signs until such study has been
completed and any possible modifications to the City's
zoning ordinance have been adopted.
1.06. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, subd.
4, permits the City to adopt an interim ordinance to protect
the planning process while the study is ongoing.
Section 2. Development Restrictions.
2.01. During the period that this interim ordinance
is in effect, no applications for permits to install
advertising signs within the City shall be processed by the
City staff or approved by the City Council.
I
N_T C '91 11 4 1 HC1 LI °IE3 :':= Rii'•:EII
2.02.
of
interim
six months after
ordinance
its
shall re main
for
a period
date unless
earlier repealed by the City Council.
2.03. This ordinance applies to any
application for
an advertising sign that is currently pending in the City.
2.04. Nothing in this ordinance s all be construed
to discourage or prevent any person from p 9 City
with information concerning the regulation of advertising
signs within the City.
Section 3. Exemptions .
3.01. Exemptions from the provisions of this
interim ordinance may be authorized by a majority vote of
the City Council. Any person requesting an exemption from
the provisions of this ordinance shall file a request with
the City. The request must demonstrate that the-applicant
not
will suffer extraordinary hardship if his app
processed and that the health, welfare or safety of the City
would not be jeop ardized by gra ting n exemption.
Section d
with Subsection c110.
11effective
of the Plymouth
publication 1.nn accordance,
City Code.
Attest:
City Clerk
r Mayor
2
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
g_EE
DATE: For City Council Meeting of October 7, 1991
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Building Of is oe 'Ryan through Acting Community Development
Director Ch rl Dillerud
SUBJECT: INTERIM OR INANCE ESTABLISHING MORATORIUM RELATIVE TO ADVERTISING
SIGNS
ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the attached Interim Ordinance for a period of
six months to permit a study to be conducted to determine the
appropriate method of regulating advertising signs in the City.
BACKGROUND:
The Building Inspection Division has received an application for the
proposed installation of two advertising signs within the I -1 (Planned
Industrial) Zoning District for properties which are not adjacent to primary
or secondary arterials.
It was our understanding that the Zoning Ordinance would limit the placement
of such signs exclusively to properties located along State and Federal
Highways (I -494, State Highway 55 and State Highway 169). It appears
however, that the Zoning Ordinance does not accomplish that. We believe
that it is appropriate to adopt a moratorium for a period of six months
pending study and review_ of the provisions contained within the Zoning
Ordinance to determine the appropriate method of regulating advertising
signs.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
I recommend that the City Council adopt the attached interim ordinance
placing a moratorium on advertising signs for a period of six months.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance
Controlling Billboards
Edward T. McMahon
What's big, seen all over, and hard to,get rid of? For many
communities, the answer is billboards.
All across America, billboards are going up, and trees are
coming down. Sign clutter is choking our cities and reaching
into the countryside. But many communities are saying enough
is enough. Over the past several years, more than 500 cities
have enacted new regulations to control the proliferation of
billboards.
The Coalition for Scenic Beauty acts as a clearinghouse of
information on aesthetic regulation and sign control. We have
collected and analyzed hundreds of local ordinances and have
provided technical assistance to dozens of local communities.
Through this experience, the Coalition has developed
considerable expertise in the legal, political, and practical
aspects of drafting workable billboard and sign control
ordinances. We have also developed a set of model ordinance
provisions and lessons learned. These are discussed below.
Billboard Bans and Moratoriums
No single ordinance will serve all communities. Each
ordinance should be adapted to the character of the community
and the image to which it aspires. However, many communities
have concluded that the best ordinance is one that bans all
billboards and requires the removal of any already in existence.
Billboards have long been prohibited in communities such as
Aspen, Colorado; Alexandria, Virginia; Annapolis, Maryland;
and Marin County, California. In May 1987, voters in
Jacksonville, Florida, endorsed a referendum mandating
removal of all billboards along city streets within five years.
Today over 1,000 U.S. cities and towns totally ban billboards;
so do several states — Vermont, Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii.
Temporary Moratoriums. Whatever kind of ordinance your
community considers, it needs a temporary moratorium
banning new billboards while the new code is under
consideration. A moratorium freezes the status quo and
prevents the industry from rushing out and erecting dozens of
new signs while the community debates what to do. It also
gives the community time to proceed in a careful and orderly
fashion without pressure from sign operators.
No New Billboards. In recent years, the trend has been for
cities to ban the construction of all new billboards. Houston,
Texas; St. Louis, Missouri; San Diego, California; and Little
Rock, Arkansas, are communities that have prohibited the
construction of new billboards.
The Houston ordinance, passed May 9, 1980, is typical:
b) Prohibition ofNew Off - Premises Signs. From and after the
effective date, no new construction permits shall be issued
Edward T. McMahon is an attorney and executive director of the Coalition for
Scenic Beauty.
for off - premises signs within the sign code application
area. The prohibition shall apply to all classifications of
signs, types of signs, and special function signs, all other
signs used as off - premises signs, including portable signs.
Existing signs are typically grandfathered but can not be
altered, substantially repaired, or relocated.
A ban on new billboards will not improve a city's appearance
overnight, but it will prevent the problem from worsening. This
is particularly important to rapidly growing communities
because it ensures that new roads do not become as cluttered
with billboards as existing roads.
A ban on new billboards is a simple, popular technique that
has worked in hundreds of communities. It costs taxpayers no
money, affects no existing leases, and, ironically, increases the
value of existing signs. It will also slowly reduce the number of
existing billboards. This is because about five percent of all
off - premises signs are lost each year due to attrition through
redevelopment, cancelled leases, etc. In Houston, for example,
the number of billboards has declined from 7,084 in 1980 to
about 4,800 today.
Problems with Amortization
An ordinance should provide an effective mechanism for
removing existing nonconforming billboards.
Historically, a community has had two options when it came
Billboards not only detract from a community appearance, they can
also scar the natural environment. Trees and vegetation were cleared
for these new billboards on Interstate 295 outside Richmond, Virginia.
Coalition for Scenic Beauty
to removing existing billboards. The community could use its
zoning authority to amortize signs, or it could pay for them.
Amortization provides a designated period of time during
which a nonconforming use may remain. When this period
ends, the nonconforming use must be removed or modified to
comply with the ordinance. The technique has been approved
by an overwhelming majority of courts that have considered the
issue.
As a practical matter, however, amortization won't work in
many communities because the federal Highway Beautification
Act mandates cash compensation to remove signs along all
federal interstate and primary highways. What's more, many
states have adopted legislation to require cash payments for the
removal of signs along all other roads.
Even where amortization is permitted, it frequently doesn't
work. In practice, billboard companies almost never
voluntarily remove billboards pursuant to an amortization
statute. It doesn't matter whether the amortization period is
three years, five years, or 10 years, billboard companies
typically leave their nonconforming signs standing until the day
the amortization period expires. A lawsuit is then filed to
enjoin enforcement of the ordinance. Win or lose, the litigation
can drag on for years. During this time, the nonconforming
billboards remain standing, earning income. Litigation is
simply viewed as a cost of doing business. In the end, the
billboard company usually loses, but by then there is a new city
council that is usually asked by the companies to reconsider the
issue. Failing this, the industry will go to the state legislature
seeking to override the city's legal authority to amortize signs.
Exchange Only Codes
Given the practical problems with amortization, many
communities are enacting exchange provisions. These
provisions require billboard companies to remove one or more
existing nonconforming billboards before being allowed to
erect a new conforming billboard.
A community that allows the construction of new
billboards —under any circumstances— should not add insult to
injury by allowing new billboards to go up at the same time
billboard companies are refusing to take down existing
nonconforming billboards.
A new approach is to cap the number of signs and prohibit
the construction of new off - premises signs, except to the extent
that such signs replace existing billboards. The 1987 Mobile,
Alabama, ordinance is representative:
Moratorium —No outdoor off - premises advertising shall be
constructed or erected after the date of the enactment of this
ordinance, except to the extent that such outdoor off - premises
advertising replaces an existing off - premises sign. Any
replacement sign shall conform to all provisions of this
ordinance.
An exchange provision can require a company to remove any
number of nonconforming signs prior to being issued a permit
for a new conforming sign. Orlando, Florida, for example,
recently enacted an ordinance that requires the removal of three
nonconforming billboards in exchange for every new billboard
erected.
Specific Provisions Used to Control Billboards
If a community cannot or does not want to ban all new
billboards, it might want to adopt the following provisions,
which are designed to alleviate some of the most objectionable
aspects of billboards.
Billboards should be a conditional use, not a permitted use
This allows a community to consider billboards on a case -
by -case basis. Conditional use statutes usually require a
public hearing and notification of nearby residents and
others who might be affected by construction of a new
billboard. Some communities, like Prince George's County,
Maryland, make billboards a permitted use in heavy
industrial zones but require a conditional use permit in all
less intense zones. Other communities require a conditional
use permit in all cases.
Billboards should be charged an annual permit fee ofat
least $200 per sign structure. Until recently, most
communities simply charged a one -time building permit
construction fee. However, an annual fee is necessary to
ensure that there is a yearly updated inventory of signs and
to cover the cost of hiring staff to enforce the ordinance.
Fees can be based on either the value or the size of the sign
At a minimum, permit fees should be high enough to cover
the cost of one or more sign inspectors.
No billboards should be permitted in any residential
district, historic district, agricultural district, neighborhood
shopping district, or in the downtown commercial core.
Most ordinances prohibit billboards in some or all of the
districts listed. Billboards are inappropriate uses in each of
these locations. Even some billboard companies agree that
billboards are out of place in such areas. For example, one
outdoor advertising company recently agreed to voluntarily
remove billboards located in downtown Colorado Springs,
Colorado.
No billboards should be permitted along any designated
scenic street, road, drive, parkway, or highway. Every city
should have some streets that are totally free of billboards,
regardless of zoning. Many communities have developed
urban corridor plans (see Zoning News, February 1988) or
simply designated certain streets as scenic districts, subject
to special sign controls. A new ordinance in Chattanooga,
Tennessee, provides an example:
Sec. 3 -54— Scenic Corridors Established. There are hereby
established scenic corridors, which shall consist of certain
strips of land that are 660 feet on either side of the outermost
edge of the right -of -way of all the roads, routes, and rivers
specified in this article, within which scenic corridors all off -
premises signs are regulated as set forth herein.
Sec. 3 -55— Off - Premises Signs Along Scenic Corridors
Prohibited. No off - premises signs shall be permitted within
the scenic corridors established along the following routes,
roads, and rivers, and no off - premises signs shall be
permitted outside of any such scenic corridors that are
principally erected toward or are designed or situated to be
observed from any of the following roads, routes, or rivers.
The ordinance then describes 11 different roads and a section
of the Tennessee River, which are designated as scenic
corridors.]
No billboard should be erected within 300 feet ofany
residence or within 750 feet of any historic district, park,
school, church, hospital, cemetery, convention center, or
government building. Setbacks are an essential part of any
ordinance. Most ordinances prohibit billboards on
residential property, but if the ordinance allows billboards
on the commercial lot next door or across the street, the
provision is meaningless. Likewise, setbacks are needed to
protect critical environmental areas, such as parks or
historic sites, and to prevent outdoor advertising from
intruding into other inappropriate locations.
There should be a minimum of 1,500 feet between billboards
on interstates and primary roads and a minimum of 1,000
feet between billboards on secondary roads. Spacing
requirements are essential, but they must be meaningful.
Billboard companies typically favor spacing of 300 to 500
feet on the same side of the road just enough spacing to
prevent a competitor from placing a sign in front of one of
their own. This type of spacing is meaningless as a tool for
improving community appearance. A 500 -foot spacing
requirement that only applies to one side of the street really
means there can be 20 billboards per mile. In other words,
your vision would never be free of billboards when travelingbycar. Spacing should apply to both sides of the street. A
1,000 -foot spacing requirement, applied to both sides of a
street would mean five billboards per mile. New Bern,
North Carolina, enacted an ordinance in 1980 that provides
an example of a meaningful spacing requirement:
Spacing. Outdoor advertising structures shall be located
2,000 feet apart, measured in all directions.
No billboard should exceed 25 feet in height or 300 square
feet in size. The new monopole technology allows billboards
to soar to a great height. Mammoth billboards balanced on
single pole supports are obscuring scenery all over
America. It is the enormous size and height of new
billboards that has generated much of the growing outcry
against billboards. If permitted at all, the largest billboards
672- square -foot, painted bulletins) should be restricted to
high - speed, limited- access highways. These giant signs are
simply out of scale and out of place along city streets and
rural roads. Furthermore, billboards should not be allowed
to tower over the roofs of buildings.
Without going into detail, a few other provisions that will
help control billboards are: no billboard should be illuminated
at night if it is in view of any residence; no billboard should be
stacked over or placed next to any other billboard; no billboard
should be permitted at any bridge crossing or situated in a way
that impairs any scenic vista.
Expect Opposition
When you propose a sign ordinance, expect opposition. The
billboard industry routinely opposes all meaningful regulation.
The industry employs lobbyists, lawyers, public relations
experts, and others to oppose control at the federal, state, and
local levels.
At the local level, the industry uses a set of standard tactics to
oppose regulation. Industry executives are trained in
techniques for defeating regulation. Typical tactics include
generous contributions to political candidates; donating
billboard space to charitable organizations, which are then
asked to testify against regulation; demanding the
establishment of a "sign committee" to take power away from
planners; and packing public hearings with industry
employees.
Almost nothing will destroy the distinctive character of a
community faster than uncontrolled signs and billboards. New
technology, aggressive tactics, and weak government controls
have all contributed to a proliferation of billboards, but
hundreds of communities are acting to clean up the clutter.
For additional information on any aspect of billboard and
sign control, contact the Coalition for Scenic Beauty, 218 D
St., S. E., Washington, DC 20003, 202 -546 -1100.
L.A.s Xeriscape Code
Many southern and western cities are getting serious about
water conservation and are sharply curtailing the amount of
water used to maintain landscaping and lawns. Last month, Los
Angeles adopted a new " xeriscape" code (derived from the
Greek word, xeros, meaning dry) that requires the use of
water- conserving ground cover and vegetation.
The new Los Angeles landscape code encourages developers
to limit turf (sod and grass) to no more than 25 percent of the
total landscaped area. The xeriscape code gives builders
points" for using water- conserving landscaping. A minimum
number of points must be gained before a building permit will
be granted —the larger the development, the more points that
are necessary. According to the code, points can be gained for
ground cover or vegetation that uses little water, irrigation
systems that are electronically set for night and /or early
morning irrigation, and designs that collect and recycle water.
Such systems must be laid out to minimize overspray onto
nonlandscaped areas to avoid wasting water.
By adopting its water- conserving landscape code, Los
Angeles joins Contra Costa County, Santa Barbara County, and
Ventura County, California, and Pima County and Tucson,
Arizona, in requiring water- conserving plantings. Several
years ago, Contra Costa County, California, enacted a code
that limits turf to 20 percent of the land area in industrial,
commercial, and multifamily residential developments. The
Pima County, Arizona, landscape code encourages builders to
cluster landscaping to form a "mini- oasis; and it also calls for
rain harvesting for irrigation and the use of effluent for the
maintenance of landscaping.
According to Los Angeles city planners, the most difficult
part of adopting such a code is convincing homeowners that
grass and sod are not an essential part of the American Dream.
The other difficult issue is the assumption by many property
owners that water is unlimited.
Growth Control
in New England
As Maine goes, so goes Vermont, and, to a lesser degree, New
Hampshire. In recent months, all of these northern New
England states have passed important new growth management
legislation. Below is a roundup of the new state laws.
Maine. In April the state legislature adopted a growth
management bill that requires municipalities to adopt
comprehensive plans consistent with statewide planning goals.
Local plans must include planning elements that address
infrastructure costs, land use, and affordable housing. For
fiscal year 1988 -1989, the growth bill authorizes $1 million to
support the preparation of municipal plans, $600,000 for
regional planning, and over $1 million for 12 or 13 planning
positions in a new state Office of Comprehensive Planning.
The statutes also create a structure for a legal defense fund for
local plans and growth controls. The fund will support the
work of attorneys in the state's attorney general's office.
The municipal plans must be completed by 1991, 1993, or
1996, depending on the community's rate of growth. The
January 1991 deadline applies to approximately 100 of the
state's fastest - growing cities and towns. If the plans are certified
by the new office of comprehensive planning as being
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 10, Subdivision A
Allowable uses and business establishments other than those in
lti- tenant commercial buildings may have a free - standing
D ess sign which shall not exceed 96 sq. ft. in surface area,
and t. in height, and is setback a minimum 20 feet from the
property es.
3) Individual buss s and tenants in multi- tenant commercial
buildings may have 11 Business Signs provided they are designed
and arranged in accor a with a comprehensive sign plan for the
entire multi- tenant comm 'al building which has been prepared
by, and submitted to the Ci the owner and which has been
approved by the City; further, aggregate area of such signs
shall not exceed 5% of the area o e wall to which they are
attached. All such signs shall be re ed by the building
ownership or management who shall provid written endorsement at
the time application is made for the sign pe 't; the endorsement
shall indicate that the proposed signage has be found to be
consistent with the approved comprehensive sign p
4) One free - standing Business Sign shall be permitted provi the
surface area of the sign does not exceed 96 sq. ft., does n
exceed 36 ft. in height, and is set back in no case less than
c. Advertising Signs. Advertising signs may be allowed by Conditional Use
Permit in the B -3 District subject to the following standards and
criteria:
1) The total surface area of any advertising sign shall not exceed
300 sq. ft. per face, or be less than 110 sq. ft. in area
including border, trim, and any projections of the featured
message, but excluding base and apron supports and other
structural members. Advertising signs fully visible from
Interstate Highways may be increased in area to no more than 750
sq. ft.; the area may be increased further by 10% for cut -outs,
or extensions of the featured message.
2) The maximum height of all advertising signs shall not exceed 36
ft. above the established grade of the site upon which the sign is
located.
3) The minimum distance between advertising signs shall be based upon
the posted speed limit of the public street or highway as follows:
1,500 ft. 55 mph; 1,400 ft. - 50 mph; 1,300 ft. - 45 mph; 1,100
ft. - 40 mph; and, 1,000 ft. - 35 mph or less. Distance
restrictions between advertising signs apply only to those signs
physically located on the same side of the street or highway,
regardless of the direction of travel to which the display message
is directed. Measurements to determine the location of one
advertising sign in relation to another, will be made along the
right -of -way line between the closest extremities of said signs,
with the termini projected along lines perpendicular to the
right -of -way of the street or highway.
10 -13
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 10, Subdivision A
4) No advertising sign or structure shall be located closer than 200
ft. from the boundary of any urban residential district, park,
playground, school, or church on the same side of the street or
intersection of streets; or 200 ft. from any structure located
within single family residential district located on the same side
of the street or intersection of streets.
5) The City Council, upon recommendation by the Planning Commission,
may require the relocation or removal of advertising signs from
sites where urban development is proposed, and when by virtue of
site plan review and approval, it has been determined the
advertising sign presents an obstruction and /or conflict with
other signage as proposed on the site by the owner and /or
developer. Likewise, the City Council may limit the amount of
freestanding signage allowed on a site, which contains an existing
advertising sign at the time of development.
6) The application for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit
shall be in accordance with the standards and procedures in
Section 9 of this Ordinance.
7) The application shall include, in addition to the required site
plan, perspective drawings, or superimposed graphics on
photographs of the proposed sign in relationship to the adjacent
properties; an accurate map showing the location of all existing
signs on the property; and current photographs of all existing
signs on the subject property.
8) The City Council, upon recommendation by the Planning Commission,
and in addition to the standards set forth in Section 9 of this
Ordinance, shall make a finding that, by granting the Conditional
Use Permit, such an advertising sign will not have a deleterious
effect upon existing establishments on the subject property, or
upon surrounding properties.
4nounce and promote developments and events, and to direct persons to
activities which are of limited duration.
1) One to ry sign identifying architects, engineers, contractors,
or supplie , of exceeding a total surface area of 96 sq. ft.,
not exceeding m than 16 ft. in height, and not less than 2 ft.
above the ground sha a permitted on the property under
development. The sign s be setback at least 20 ft. from front
property lines, and shall not located in any required side
yard. The sign shall be allowed ree years from the date of
original Building Permit issuance, or u ' 85% of the
construction in the development is complete ich ever occurs
first, unless otherwise specifically provided in s Subdivision.
Amend. Ord. 90 -38)
10 -14
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 10, Subdivision A
One free standing Business Sign shall be permitted provided for
lti- tenant buildings the surface area of the sign does not
e d 96 sq. ft. , does not exceed 36 ft. in height, and is set
back no case less than 20 ft. from the property lines. The
area ma increased to a maximum of 160 sq. ft. for industrial
developmen f over 20 acres.
5) Individual busin es and tenants in multi- tenant industrial
buildings may have a standing business signs, provided they are
designed and arranged accordance with a comprehensive sign plan
for the entire multi -tena industrial building which has been
prepared by and submitted to a City by the owner and which has
been approved by the City; fur the aggregate area of such
free standing signs shall not exce 5% of the wall area of the
wall adjacent to the signs, nor shat a free standing signs
exceed 6 ft. in height. The free stands signs shall be in -lieu
of any wall signage on the wall adjacent to a free standing
signs.
6) All such signs shall be reviewed by the building own hip or
management who shall provide a written endorsement at time
application is made for the sign permit; the endorsement 11
indicate that the "proposed signage has been found to be cons ent
with the approved comprehensive sign plan.
1 1f_.__J •1_ p_r_ A
c. Advertising Signs. Advertising signs as provided herein are intended
to direct attention to a business, commodity, service, activity, or
entertainment which is not conducted, sold, or offered upon the
premises which such sign is located. Advertising signs shall be
permitted only within the Planned Industrial District under the
following conditions:
1) The total surface area of any advertising sign shall not exceed
300 sq. ft. per face, or be less than 110 sq. ft. in area
including border, trim, and any projections of the featured
message, but excluding base and apron supports and other
structural members. Advertising signs fully visible from
Interstate Highways may be increased in area to no more than 750
sq. ft.; the area may be increased further by 10% for cut -outs, or
extensions of the featured message.
2) The maximum height of all advertising signs shall not exceed 36
ft. above the established grade of the site upon which the sign is
located.
10 -18
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 10, Subdivision A
3) The minimum distance between advertising signs shall be based upon
the posted speed limit of the public street or highway as follows:
1,500 ft. 55 mph; 1,400 ft. - 50 mph; 1,300 ft. - 45 mph; 1,100
ft. - 40 mph; and, 1,000 ft. - 35 mph or less. Distance
restrictions between advertising signs apply only to those signs
physically located on the same side of the street or highway,
regardless of the direction of travel to which the display message
is directed. Measurements to determine the location of one
advertising sign in relation to another, will be made along the
right -of =way line between the closest extremities of said signs,
with the termini projected along lines perpendicular to the
right -of -way of the street or highway.
4) No advertising sign or structure shall be located closer than 200
ft. from the boundary of any urban residential district, park,
playground, school, or church on the same side of the street or
intersection of streets; or 200 ft. from any structure located
within single family residential district located on the same side
of the street or intersection of streets.
5) Advertising signs may be located in required industrial yard
setback areas if all requirements of Conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are
satisfied.
6) The City Council, upon recommendation by the Planning Commission,
may require the relocation or removal of advertising signs from
sites where urban development is proposed, and when by virtue of
site plan review and approval, it has been determined the
advertising sign presents an obstruction and /or conflict with
other signage as proposed on the site by the owner and /or
developer. Likewise, the City Council may limit the amount of
freestanding signage allowed on a site, which contains an existing
advertising sign at the time of development.
ounce and promote developments and events, and to direct persons to
th ctivities which are of limited duration.
1) One tem sign identifying architects, engineers, contractors,
or supplier t exceeding a total surface area of 96 sq. ft.,
not exceeding mo an 16 ft. in height, and not less than 2 ft.
above the ground sha ermitted on the property under
development. The sign sha a setback at least 20 ft. from front
property lines, and shall not cated in any required side
yard. The sign shall be allowed fo ee years from the date of
original Building Permit issuance, or un 5% of the
construction in the development is completed, 'ch ever occurs
first, unless otherwise specifically provided in Subdivision.
Amend. Ord. 90 -38)
10 -19