HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 03-28-1990PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WHERE: Plymouth City Center
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1990 3400 Plymouth Boulevard
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Plymouth, MN 55447
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed with an asterisk ( *) are considered to be routine by the
Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner, citizen or
petitioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the
consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on the agenda.
9111WITFUNIT44k
ll99 W
Mllj 114 to •
7:15 P.M.
7:30 P.M.
March 14, 1990
A. Baton Corporation. PUD Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Plan /Conditional Use Permit located Southeast of Lancaster Lane and
Old Rockford Road (89103)
B. Amendment to the Park and Trail System Element of the Plymouth
Comprehensive Plan.
C. Amendment to the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, Section 7, Subdivision C
regarding Correctional Facility in Residential Districts.
A. 918 Plymouth Partners. Site Plan and Variance for property located
North of County Road 9 and West of Highway 169 (90010)
B. 918 Plymouth Partners. Site Plan and Variance for property located
North of County Road 9 and West of Highway 169 (90011)
5--A
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: March 16, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: March 28, 1990
FILE NO.: 89103
PETITIONER: Baton Corporation
REQUEST: RPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit
Amendment for Mission RPUD
LOCATION: Southeast of Lancaster Lane and Old Rockford Road
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: RPUD 76 -1
BACKGROUND:
The original Plan for this 257 -acre PUD was approved in 1976. This approval
was for 822 market rate units with an additional 20 percent allowed if they
were available for low to moderate housing. This allowed for a maximum of 988
units with bonus points. See Table A for unit breakdown and acreage. Several
phases have been platted and developed primarily with single family lots.
Three multifamily attached projects have been developed (Mission Ponds,
Mission Oaks, and Parkside at Medicine Lake Apartments).
The City Council under Resolution 78 -579 approved an amendment to the PUD Plan
which enlarged the single family area by adding 39 single family detached
units in the north central area eliminating 111 single family attached units.
The plan further eliminated 12 additional single family attached units and 13
multifamily units and relocated the difference of 97 units to the west; 57
multifamily units were placed in an area northeast of the pond with the
remaining 40 multifamily units being added to the area north of the pond.
The 1978 approval did not change the total number of units; however, it
concentrated the density to the westerly portion of the PUD, i.e., it allowed
a transfer of density to "future" areas.
In July, 1983 the City Council authorized eminent domain proceedings for the
original "westerly parcel" of approximately 38 acres to acquire right -of -way
for Northwest Boulevard. The PUD was amended by Resolution 83 -348 to decrease
the number of units based on the loss of the westerly parcel.
see next page)
LW
ftj
Fr W H
rn j -1 00OH
WI b &. tn00:ro
n
01 N oP t1i tri
O N J O v
to (n (n H
0) W W t1i 1 01 N -j
OW01Oo CDwlim OFrF+NF -+C
t"
H to %D ko to t1i
cn Cn H to to to H 0 co 00 -1 -
z C H H t1i En Ln Lo OD a)
rz r vCnn3Q0U)i 30a
HHrt-I0 HHtiL O
o
0I%jmm v mm
H W H
En
C1i H 0 NNNNN
C17HN
U)
v t-+ t2i y r z u+ Ln tii
0 0-1 0) co 00 H
kato o
t -4 t" tt4t''H
v
04 04
b
O z O C
v b7
HCHM1.0 C tt1i H to
000o0,rnC
to
0000 0n
xxO xxH v
t1i t1i to t1i t1i 0 N N N N N m
vv vt70 0101PFrN
b H x
C t 1 t=i
v v
LW
ftj
Fr W H
rn j -1 00OH
WI b &. tn00:ro
n
01 N oP t1i tri
O N J O v
to (n (n H
wt''zzH
H H r r 0 t"
v04t17M H
Nr trJ rJ,b WNWWNf1i
t1i H (n Oto01 P01
t1i F ON0)tsj
F-4 °
zo
z v
En
En
nonx Gy
x x 0 0 0-1 0) co 00 H
vvOOONN
FO-
3
v
b
C
v b7
WWWrnrnz
000o0,rnC
to
H
I-1N00OH
O O OD OD OD
H
L=i
File 89103
Page Two
The revised allowable unit count became 690 units with an additional 20
percent allowed provided they were exclusively for low and moderate income
persons, for a maximum otpentialunitcountof828units.
In 1983, approval for Parkside Apartments at the southwest corner of Old
Rockford Road and 41st Avenue North (which included an amendment to the
approved RPUD Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit), allowed the change in
types of units from "elderly" housing and "condominium units" to "apartment
units." This did nt chan a the overall potential number of units.
Resolution 83 -349 is attached.
In September, 1985 the City Council approved an amendment to the RPUD
Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit to revise an area (the existing Mission
Trails) which called for 62 multifamily dwelling units and 14 single family
residential lots to allow development of 26 single family residential lots, a
reduction of 50 dwelling units allowable in the PUD.
The overall RPUD density was amended to allow a dwelling unit count maximum of
640 units with an additional 20 percent for up to a maximum 770 units,
provided they were exclusively for low and moderate income persons.
471 market rate units and 70 subsidized units have been constructed to date,
for a total of 541 units. All of the 276 approved single family detached lots
have been platted. The remainder of the project consists of attached housing.
The applicant proposes an RPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use
Permit amendment for the remaining 29 acre undeveloped area of this RPUD. The
Preliminary Plan and Plat proposes a redistribution of units within the
boundaries of the PUD, but no increase in the PUD overall dwelling unit count.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City
newspaper, and notices have been mailed to adjoining property owners within
500 feet. A development sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The PUD, as last amended in 1985, specifies, on the remaining vacant
portion of the site, 103 units south of 41st Avenue North and 66 market -
rate units north of 41st Avenue North. In addition, 60 bonus units are
approved north of 41st Avenue North, if earned, and if qualified by
affordability.
Proposed is the relocation of 67 of the approved dwelling units from south
of 41st Avenue North to north of 41st Avenue North. Also proposed is
modification in dwelling unit ty= to be constructed south of 41st Avenue
North. Two -story twin homes are proposed as a substitute for 3 story
multifamily type structures. Essentially 18 smaller structures are
proposed to replace 4 larger /higher structures now approved.
see next page)
File 89103
Page Three
North of 41st Avenue North the number of dwelling units would increase by
67 to a total of 193 units. The increased dwelling unit count would be
concentrated at the southeast corner of Larch Lane and Old Rockford Road.
The structure type north of 41st Avenue North is proposed to be modified
from the approved 8 stories, 4 story and quadraminium structures (5 total)
to 3 total structures (of 3 stories each).
2. The physical constraints analysis shows this site to be located in the
Bassett Creek Watershed District. The site is not located within a
Shoreland Management District, but does contain several wetlands.
The aerial photos the City uses to generally identify the potential areas
of federally regulated wetlands shows four areas of the site where such
wetlands appear to exist. They are immediately south of the "pond;" the
area surrounding the "pond;" the southeast corner of 41st Avenue North and
Jonquil Lane; and, north of 41st Avenue North and Goldenrod Lane. It
appears there will be no impact on any of these wetlands with this
proposal.
City review of wetland conservation /preservation measures of development
applications is responsive to the provisions of Section 500.15,
Subdivision 5 of the City Code (the Subdivision Ordinance); and with a PUD
application such as this Section 9, Subdivision B, Paragraph 1C (5) of the
Zoning Ordinance. We have attached copies of both ordinance provision.
The site contains some major woodlands located south and east of the pond
and north of 41st Avenue North and Goldenrod Lane. The site also contains
some severe slopes located in the general areas as the woodlands. The
soils appear suitable for urban capability with public sewers.
3. The Zoning Ordinance provides the Planning Commission criteria upon which
to analyze and make a recommendation concerning an RPUD Preliminary
Plan /Plat. Those criteria are as follows:
a. Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit
Development. The applicant, in his narrative submission identifies
the professional design assistance being used, the proficient use of
streets and facilities (access will be via Old Rockford Road and 41st
Avenue North), usable suitably located passive and active recreational
facilities (walking paths and tennis courts) and affirmative design
efforts towards the preservation of desirable natural site
characteristics. The proposed tennis courts and a portion of the
walking path is located on Outlot A, Mission Ridge 2nd Addition - -which
is Q a part of this application. Prior approvals of the Mission
Ridge 2nd Addition call for use of a portion of this Outlot by future
development " for density calculation.
see next page)
File 89103
Page Four
b.
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The present plan for this site is
responsive to the Land Use Guide Plan with respect to the project
density and structure type based on the LA -1 guiding.
The relationship to the surrounding neighborhood is influenced by a
proposed lower density twin home in the area adjacent to the existing
single family dwellings, and a higher density multifamily unit in the
areas adjacent to the existing multifamily developments. The spot
densities will range from 3.36 units per acre in the twin home south
of 41st Avenue North area up to 12.7 units per acre in the multifamily
and (northwest of 41st Avenue North and Goldenrod Lane). The approved
densities for the areas were 9.61 and 7.61 units per acre
respectively. Density east of Mission Oaks is proposed to increase
from 10.7 to 14.Q dwelling units per acre.
The applicant is requesting front yard setbacks of 20 feet (versus the
Ordinance minimum of 35 feet) for the townhouse area with all other
setbacks meeting or exceeding the R -1A minimum standards.
The single family attached twin home units proposed (south of 41st
Avenue North) would be a maximum of 2 stories in height versus the
approved 3 and 4 story multifamily units. The apartment units located
north of 41st Avenue North, west of Mission Oaks are proposed as 2 and
3 story units with underground parking versus the approved 8 story
midrise and 4 story multifamily units. The apartment units located
north of 41st Avenue North, east of Mission Oaks would be 2 story
units which is what was approved. A reduced height of the structures
is proposed over the remaining PUD.
The overall traffic impact from the proposed amendments is slightly
less -- approximately 133 in the average daily trips - -due to the type of
units proposed. The multifamily units generate a lesser trip
generation rate per unit than the single family attached units that
are proposed to be replaced. The impact to 41st Avenue North would be
reduced (down approximately 1,000 average daily trips) while the
impact to Old Rockford Road is an increase (up approximately 900
average daily trips), due to driveway access being changed from 41st
Avenue North to Old Rockford Road.
c. Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or density;
circulation and aorkingfacilities; recreation areas: and open spaces.
The Zoning Ordinance states the maximum number of dwelling units
allowed in a development shall be determined by the density approved
for the development within a minimum to maximum density range for the
living area category shown in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The
see next page)
File 89103
Page Five
density proposed by the petitioner is consistent with the previously
approved densities (640 market rate and a potential 130 subsidized for
a total of 770 units). ,
The circulation of the streets with the exception of the length of
Jonquil Lane is consistent with previous approvals. The Subdivision
Code provides for the maximum length of a cul -de -sac to be 500 feet.
The approved plan for Jonquil Lane was approximately 800 feet while
the proposed plan is approximately 1,400 feet.
4. The petitioner is proposing a total of four entrance monument signs
identifying different development areas within this portion of the PUD.
The Zoning Ordinance allows for a total of two area identification signs
not to exceed 32 square feet in surface area located at the entrance to
the PUD. Recent amendments to the Planned Unit Development section of the
Zoning Ordinance permit signage to be considered an element of PUD design
subject to the flexibility inherent in the Planned Unit Development. As
such, the concept of four entrance monument signs should be considered a
proposed PUD design feature rather than a variance to the Zoning
Ordinance. The PUD Ordinance provides for review of the PUD Master Sign
Plan at the final plan stage. Specifics with respect to project signage
should, at that time, be proposed. Staff has not reviewed signage aspects
with this stage of the PUD, including number or location suggested.
5. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed Planned Unit
Development amendment maintains /or enhances the overall PUD design it
would be in order to consider amending the Conditional Use Permit based
upon review of the CUP criteria which are attached.
6. The proposed amendment will have an impact on the ground coverage which
will result in a loss of open space, and possibly a loss of additional
native trees versus the approved plan. The ground cover south of 41st
Avenue North will be approximately 1.1 acres greater while the area north
of 41st Avenue North will be approximately 1.7 acres greater. With the
increase in ground coverage and the further extension of Jonquil Lane
south of 41st Avenue North, there will be a greater impact on the steep
slopes in this area. Due to the size of the structures in the area north
of 41st Avenue North and the increased ground coverage, there will also be
a greater impact on the steep slopes in this area.
7. The Preliminary Plan contemplates the maximum number of units for this
development including the maximum number of subsidized units based on the
maximum number of market rate units. The developer is proposing to have
48 of the subsidized units, along with six market rate units located east
of the existing Mission Oaks development, and locating the other 12
subsidized units on the west of the Mission Oaks development. This is
responsive to Development Review Committee comments related to the
packing" subsidized units on one site.
see next page)
File 89103
Page Six
In addition, Resolution 83 -348, Condition 3, specifically refers to the
PUD "rules" with respect to locating subsidized units.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. We are concerned that the proposed amendment does not maintain the
integrity of the Planned Unit Development with the loss of private open
space which is typically provide in an attached housing development. This
concern is in relation to the 36 townhouse units proposed south of 41st
Avenue North in lieu of three larger multifamily buildings in this same
area. Our concern is that the original mix and variety of housing styles
which were approved and the open space which served as part of the basis
for the approved number of units, should not be eroded.
2. Another concern, which was raised previously, is the tendency to
concentrate the multifamily structures at the perimeter of the development
rather than providing a mix throughout the project. The overall
development concept of a PUD is to provide a density and unit type mix;
preserve open space; and, allow flexibility in design and zoning.
Staff strongly recommends additional redistribution of the subsidized
units, so if subsidized money is not available and thus the units are
never built, densities would be more compatible with the LA -1 District
rather than having the possibility of densities being below one unit per
acre.
3. The Commission should determine whether or not the modifications to an
approved plan may be needed. Continued and /or substantial changes may
result in a less desirable plan.
The Commission should discuss whether additional area identification
impacts the neighborhood and PUD identity. The issue is: should the PUD
plan be modified for a certain product on undevelopable land, which is
part of a Planned Unit Development, and which was approved based upon
certain design features and qualities?
4. Staff believes the redistribution of density along with the different
types of units decreases the amount of usable open space that was
originally contemplated with this Planned Unit Development. Existing
residents bought into this approved plan with the open space areas which
are being depleted.
5. The Subdivision Code clearly directs the Planning Commission to consider
natural features of a site with any preliminary plat -- or amendment to a
preliminary plat. The PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance also addresses
presentation of natural site features as a desirable PUD attribute. The
plan amendments proposed result in greater overall site coverage
see next page)
File 89103
Page Seven
structures plus parking /drives). Because the site is forested with steep
slopes that increase will likely result in an additional impact on natural
site features versus the approved plan.
6. The proposed setback to Jonquil Lane for the "twinhome" structure is 20
feet. We recognize both the limited public use of Jonquil Lane by this
plan, and the need to minimize site area disturbed. We note, however,
that public street setbacks -- even under these circumstances have seldom
been approved at less than 25 feet. Vehicle storage on the driveways may
be adversely impacted -- particularly during snow months -- by a setback
as little as 20 feet.
7. While structure height would be less with the amended plan, proximitX to
other PUD structures will increase (particularly those structures south of
41st Avenue North).
8. The property we are dealing with is part of a Planned Unit Development.
As such, the purposes and components of a Planned Unit Development must be
addressed with reference to the opening paragraph of Subdivision B of
Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Here a Planned Unit Development is
described as a process whereby the City grants the developer the
opportunity for flexibility from the prescriptive standards of the Zoning
Ordinance in return for "good design ". This relationship is carefully
considered at the time that the PUD plan is reviewed by the City -- prior
to the construction of the very first house. The standards established
are considered to be a direct reflection of the beneficial aspects that
the PUD plan presents to the City.
The relationship between the PUD plan for this development and the extent
to which flexibility from prescribed Zoning Ordinance standards was to be
granted was established at the time of the original Conditional Use
Permit. Unless there has been a change in that relationship that is
applicable to all properties within the PUD, this portion of the PUD
should not be granted additional flexibility.
RECOMMENDATION:
I cannot recommend approval of the proposed PUD amendment, as it is presented.
The added potential impacts of the amendment on the PUD; the site features;
and properties adjoining (but not within) the PUD exceed any added PUD
attributes.
I recommend the Planning Commission determine if the proposed amendment is
appropriate. A recommendation for approval should be subject to at least
those conditions stated in the draft resolution.
If the Commission determines the proposal is inappropriate a recommendation
for denial should be made on the basis that compliance with the PUD attributes
and expectations for this PUD are not satisfied.
see next page)
File 89103
Page Eight
The Planning Commission may remand the Plan amendment for redesign based on
staff findings and the results of the Public Hearing. The findings of staff
with respect to the relationship of impacts to PUD attributes could be
mitigated with careful redesign.
Submitted by:
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving RPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit
Amendment
2. Engineer's Memorandum
3. Location Map
4. PUD Attributes
5. CUP Criteria
6. Approved PUD Plan
7. Subdivision Ordinance Excerpt with Respect to Preservation of Natural
Resources
8. Project Booklets and Large Plans
pc /cd/89103:dl)
APPROVING RPUD PRELIMINARY PLAN /PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR
BATON CORPORATION (89103) (RPUD 76 -1)
WHEREAS, Baton Corporation has requested approval for an RPUD Preliminary
Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit amendment to develop the remaining area
of this RPUD for property located southeast of Lancaster Lane and Old Rockford
Road (Plan Areas GH4, GHS, GH6, J1 and J2); 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
Baton Corporation for an RPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit
amendment to develop the remaining area of this RPUD for property located
southeast of Lancaster Lane and Old Rockford Road, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
3. No Building Permits shall be issued until a Contract has been awarded for
sewer and water.
4. Provisions for a 30 ft. wide trail easement per Comprehensive Park Plan,
as verified by the Parks and Engineering Departments, with submittal of
detailed plans as to construction of the trail per City standards.
5. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System.
6. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79 -80 regarding minimum floor
elevations for new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing
any open storm water drainage facility.
7. No Building Permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
8. Approved setbacks are: 20 ft. front yard; 25 ft. rear yard; 10 ft. side
yard.
9. Appropriate legal documents regarding Homeowner Association documents,
covenants and restrictions as approved by the City Attorney, shall be
filed with the Final Plat.
10. Compliance with the terms and conditions of City Council Resolution 85-
751, as they apply.
11. Compliance with provisions of City Council Policy 89 -439 regarding tree
preservation.
12. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits State and Federal wetland
alteration permits shall be approved and secured, as required.
13. The Final Plan /Plat application shall include sign construction details.
There shall be a property covenant for monument sign maintenance over the
entire subdivision, as approved by the City Attorney; such covenants to be
filed prior to issuance of a sign permit. Appropriate easements for the
location of the signs on the property shall be filed prior to issuance of
a Sign Permit.
14. Maximum lot coverage by structures shall be 20 percent per Ordinance
calculations.
15. Overall RPUD density is hereby amended to allow a maximum of 640 units
with a potential increase of 20 percent for up to 770 units, should
provisions be made for low and moderate income units consistent with
parameters identified in Resolution No. 83 -348.
DATE:
FILE NO.:
PETITIONER:
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
LOCATION:
N/A Yes No
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
March 22, 1990
89103
Mr. Randy Zegdlik, Baton Corporation, 331 2nd Avenue North,
Minneapolis, MN 55401
MISSION PUD
South of 41st Avenue, west of Goldenrod Lane, north of 36th
Avenue, in the south one half of Section 14
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: Watermain area assessment based on 169 units x
790 /unit = 9133-510, Sanitary sewer area assessments based on 169
units x $440 /unit = $74.360.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None.
6. _ _ X Complies with standard utility /drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10')
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 for construction are provided
The City will require twenty foot (20') utility and drainage
easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines where these
utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed
with the final plat and final construction plans. See Special
Conditions.
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 drainage plan. A drainage easement for ponding purposes
shall be provided for Pond BC -P37 to the 100 year high water
elevation of 908.0. The drainage easement for opnd'- purposes shall
include the pond east of Jonquil Lane, south of 41st Avenue North.
Also, for the existing pond within Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, along with
drainage easements for the existing swales carrying drainage from the
existing storm sewer system.
9. 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. 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 temporary easement for roadway
purposes, Document No. 5035424 will expire when Jonquil Lane is
dedicated in the final plat of Mission PUD.
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 required easements referred to above.
11. _ _ X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
X DNR
MnDOT
Hennepin County
X MPCA
X State Health Department
X Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
X Army Corps of Engineers
Other
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
2 -
TRANSPORTATION:
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. _ X _ 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
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 Special Conditions.
3 -
N/A Yes No
17. X Preliminary utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements
The developer has submitted the required preliminary plans for the
proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities. 9=
Special Conditions.
18, X Per developer's request a preliminary report and plan 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.
19. _ _ X Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots. The minimUM basement elevation for all lots within Block 1
shall be 910.0 and two feet above the existing pond in Lots 2 and 3.
Block 2 as determined by the developer's engineer.
20. _ X The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
21. _ X The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
4 -
PRELIMINARY GRADING DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
N/A Yes No
22. 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 right -of -way. All water connections shall be via
wettap.
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:
Shall comply with all agency permits.
24. A. The City of Plymouth has an easement for sanitary sewer purposes as evidenced
by Document No. 4147753. The legal description of the parcel in the easement
document appears to contain a typographical error. This easement shall be
dedicated on the final plat over the sanitary sewer as determined by the
survey. A new easement in recordable form shall be provided over Outlot A,
Mission Ridge 2nd Addition.
B. The drainage and utility easements filed as Document No. 5058048 filed December
3, 1985 shall be included on the final plat.
C. Old Rockford Road shall be widened to 16 feet, south of centerlines, with
concrete curb and gutter along the entire width of Block 2, Mission PUD.
D. A second access for the apartment buildings within Lot 1, Block 2 shall be
provided to 41st Avenue.
E. An easement for drainage purposes shall be provided from Pond BC -P37 south from
the pond within Block 1 through Outlot A, Mission Ridge 2nd Addition to 36th
Avenue North.
F. The Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan calls for an 18 inch outlet from the pond
along with a four foot wide ditch that will continue to 36th Avenue as an
outlet control. This shall be constructed with the plat.
G. 30 foot wide trail easements will be required for the public trails. The
location of the trails shall be approved by the City Park Director. Easements
shall also be provided over Outlot A, Mission Ridge 2nd Addition.
H. The temporary turnaround at the end of Jonquil Lane shall be removed with the
extension of Jonquil Lane.
5 -
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
Page Two
I. A preliminary grading plan shall be submitted showing the area to be disturbed.
J. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted for review.
Submitted by:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
6 -
J
r
VON
y
i . sets "
d
mm
II
WE
WIP
y.
y
W
PjAt> 47rR/ XUTRS
c. The benefit to the developer is one of design and development flexibility; in
order to utilize this flexibility, the developer has the responsibility to
demonstrate
attributes to enhance the
provide a
or
development
thepC
which
City
a
ity in total.
Expected attributes are:
1) Benefits from new technology in bulldina desion, construction and land
development.
2) Higher standards of site and buildina desion through use of trained and
experienced professionals in Land Planning, Architecture and Landscapina
to prepare plans for Planned Unit Developments.
3.) More etoficdeedevelopmenteatsa
utilities public facil-
ities y ield high quality
4) More useable suitably
than
located
wouldr
otherwise
facilities
bei
other
provided u der conven-
tional
and common
land development procedures.
S) Demonstration of affirmative design efforts toward the preservation and
enhancement of desirable natural site characteristics.
Amended Ord. No. 82 -15)
5ear 9, SµsoB PcyMOUrn+
ZON/A OXj>
1 N pNGE
Z 93WO ' C1' ' 1 V • '•.
FROK SECTION 9, - - 04MCK A
r 'ice•. . .n._ • :5 1,:,«
2. $rte. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Carmission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a recammendation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Carmission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Camprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will pramote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traf f is
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
PeAaidd¢
vr.n s..t.1i.'ii -•-
LICUel
IFT
Eg
k ; > -' I I
V _._ _?
I
lo
1
t I- L'.`
rl,. =\ ,, , ' _ ?i Imo•
1, -' ^Ptt /\\ '
C./ LJ
tom•- - i
i
CSS
1 •,'. T ;; ' ^,. ,•fit / / •
TY S'
1-
o
1
It .
yl] , 1 - •i''• 4kr
V. ` a / iit w..*P J L . -; " i
i666a,,,. ' ' . 4 ^ { ` i•.h 1 I: '',:
cp
p i•,1 Ot
Ar
It
f
a
k' - Ism
4 p x 4
IIIIIIIIIIIAlk
pwd uolsslua
ueld O3AOUddV Jl €
Ica
A
gird uolsslw
a3AOUddV
LJI
17 1
i i
SWA
1?
i {
F 4•rl
CITY-OF PLYROUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof ` s -Lecial meeting of
the City Council of the City of Plymouth -1 -Minnesota was held on the the
13th day of _ September , 1976 '.;:_.The following members were
present: _M yor Hilde. Coungilmen Nils Seibold'and Spaeth
The following members were absent: CguncliMan Hunt
Councilman Seibold introduced the following Resolution and moved
is adoption:
RESOLUTION #'16- 514
APPROVING RPUD CONDITIONkL USE PERMIT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MISSION PARTNERSHIP
RPUD 76 -1 (A -338)
WXFREAS, the Mission Partnership has petitioned for an RPUD Conditional Use Permit
and Preliminary Plat for 167 acres in Sections 14, 22 and 23 otherwise known as
RPUD 76 -1 (A -338);
AND, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said requests for RPUD Conditional
Use Permit and Preliminary Plat and recommends their approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BF. IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA that it should and hereby does approve a conditional use permit for a
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) and Preliminary-Plat as evidenced by
two maps, a density chart and seven photos dated August 11, 1976 and signed by R. F.
Kroskin, Chairman of ;,he Plymouth Planning Commission.
FURTHER, that said approval is based upon the following conditions:
1. Outlots G, I and J be combined with adjoining parcels.
2. Petitioner pay fees -in -lieu in the amount of $29,350 in addition to dedication
of Outlots A, B, C, D. F and N for park purposes (780 + 167 X 4.19 X $150).
with the final amount of park dedication being determined by the final density.
3. Density shall be restricted to 615 units, however, an additional 165 units
shall be.granted if they are low and moderate subsidized housing.
4. Above density range approvals are predicated cn adequate de'sign and use
of the land in accordance with the objectives of the Residential Planned
Unit Development Ordinance.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Councilman Neils , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Hilde, Councilmen Neils, Selbold
and . aeth
Tne following voted against or abstained: None
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed arid adopted.
CITY OF P0l7Lll}i
IS
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a reqWlar meeting of t:s City
Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 18th day of
September 19 78. :he following maabers were present--.-7MTM Mayor
Spaeth, ouncil-m-e-ilers Hu t, Neils end Seibold
fol lowing iii&rs were sent: y r un
AAA ** AAA
Councilmember Neils introduced the following Resolution and moved
is adoption:
RESOLUTION 78-579
APPROVING REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT /PLAN FOR MISSION PARTNERSHIP R.P.U.D. 16 -1 (A -338)
WHEREAS, the Mission Partnership has requested approval of the revised preliminary
plat /plan for the Mission Partnership R.P.U.D. 76 -1, located North of 36th Avenue
North, West of Zachary Lane and South of County Road 9, consisting of various
Single and Multiple Family Residential uses; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request and recommended approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should, and hereby does, approve the request of the Mission
Partnership for approval of a revised preliminary plat /plan for the Mission Part-
nership R.P.U.D. 76 -1, located North of 36th Avenue North, West of Zachary Lane
and South of County Road 9, consisting of various Single and Multiple Family
Residential uses, per the plan dated May 16, 1978, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Outlots E. F and J be combined with adjoining parcels.
2. Petitioner pay fees -in -lieu, it addition to the Dedication of Ou,.lots
A, B. C and D fur park purposes, in an amount determined acc.rdii,7 to
Council policy Resolution 78 -:308.
3. Addition of the "Panhandles" in Outlot J to adjoining Lots of Missi-.n
Ridge 2nd Addition, and Lot 9 of the 1978 preliminary plat.
4. Deletion of the thru roadway, the Westerly most roadway, intersecting
36th Avenue North from the multiple units of Block 9 areas GH -5, 6, and
7a as designated in 1976 plans and as per the preliminary plat /plan
dated May 16, 1978.
S. All areas other than single - family attached dwellings shall require
detailed site plan approval prior to final plat stage and final
determination of the number of units on those sites will be conditioned
upon approval of the site plans.
rr ,
M
Resolution i 78-579
Page 2 4' f
Yb -
z. IC .
6. That the central and southwest'aree of higher density (GH5, 6 and
7a) be provided with additional access directly to County Road 9
without passing through the Singlq- family area.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Councilmember Hot 9 and upon vote being taken thereon, the
foffo— iW..ng voted favor ereo : Acting Mayor Spaeth, Councilmembers
i',nvt" Nei l sand , .4 d
r following vote"agg aa'imt or a s s one
Whereupon the Resolutisn was declared duly pass a p .
y n 5 ., • _ is d ?!,' r ; • t t';'' ` ! 'i frt'M * % .. Wallowa
malt
1X
Pursuant to due call and notice thereofg a -special aeetinq of the City Council of
the City of P1yPlymouths Mimesota, was bald on e - day of • • -Ju Ey • - 19:
The following webers were present: Mayor -Davinpori CaTi'i ilr»erpbef _ -Moen ell'; -
Schneider and-Threinen " ' -'
following rs were absent; ...... none ----------------------- -- ------------
l,ncilmember Threinen ._ •_-introduced the following Resolution and Moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 83- 348
AMENDING RPUD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PLAN FOR MISSION RPUD 76- 1/75 -2 RFLATIVF TO
OVLRALL DENSITY (A -338)
WHEREAS, The City Council, under R ,3solution3 76 -152, 76 -514, and 78 -579, approved a
Rtvised Concept Plan, RPUD Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat, and Revised
Preliminary Plat /Plan for the development known as Mission RPUD located in Sections 14,
22, and 23; and,
WHEREAS, the maximum approved density on approximately 267 acres was 823 units plus a
possible additional 165 units representing a 20% "bonus" for low to moderate Income
persons, for a total of 988 dwelling units; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council under Resolution No. 83 -274 authorized condemnation
0 proceedings to acquire the approximate 38 acre site In Section 22 fc,r Public Works
Project Nu. 205 (County Road 61); and,
WHEREAS, this land had been identified on the PUD Plan as a part of the west detached
Area I1" and was assigned a potential density of 160 units, Includinq the ?0% hum s;
NOW, THERLFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYM011TH,
MI10ILSOTA, that it should and hereby does approve and direct the Amendment of the
Mission RPUD Conditional Use Permit and Plan by deletinq the approximate .3A acre parcel
In Section 22 and by adjusting the overall allowed density as follows:
1. The allowable density for the remaining RPUD on in approximate 219 acre site
shall be 690 units.
2. A density bonus of 20% for a total additional 13A, units shall he allowed,
provided such units are subsidized and developed exclusively for low and
moderate income persons, for a maximum potential density of 828 units.
3. The maximum number of units for each of the development areas designated on
the approved PUD Plan shall be the number of units designated for each area on
he Plan; provided, however, if the number of units to he subsidized And
developed exclusively for low and moderate income persons In each area Is less
than 20% of the number of units designated on the Plan, the designated nundber
of units for each area shall be reduced accordingly. The City Council will
consider a transfer of bonus unit credits from one area, where the number of
subsidized low to moderate income units exceeds 20%, to another, where less
than 20% are proposed; provided the units in excess of 20x have been developed
0 PLEASE SEE SECOND PAGE
w /jy•: s`.a r >i{- T,1''f.r,,A; j y,• , q,.•.4. - .. - a. 4
Page two
Resolution No. 83- 348
and it is demonstrated that the subsidized units are mixed and inteqrated
with, rather than concentrated and isolated from the market rate units.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilman er M en • • - • • • - • •, and upon vote being taken thereon, he
Tollowing voted In ravor t6aireoraMaypr nocy t C ald lmembers• Meow,• Nei-ls,-
g'tt .-....... ...................... ...•..................._...._..
e following voted Against %gainst or a s a s-••.. .................................
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly PaSsed adopted.
dsk2B
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof: a meettnq of the City Council of
the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 11th day of MY 1983.
The following members were present: MayorDayenpor , ounci lmembdr moen, RtrTTS, '-
Schneider and Threinen .
e folloolng sembers were absent:----none .._ ............
rrr e +e•
Councilmember Threinen introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 83- 349
APPROVING REVISED RPUD PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FnR MISSION PARTNERS, FOR
MISSION DEVELOPMENT" (RPUD 76 -1) (A -338)
rrr
WHEREAS, Mission Partners have requested approval of a revised RPUD Plan and
Conditional Use Permit for "Mission Development" (RPUD 76 -1) which changes the unit
designation for two portions of the "31 Area" from "elderly" houslnq and "condominhim
units" to "ahartmernt" units, located south of the Intersection of Larch Lane and County
Rudd 9; and,
WHLRLAS, the City Council under Resolution Nos. 76 -152, 76 -514 and 78 -579 approved an
RPUD Pldn fur Mission Partners for the development known as "Mission Develu;xnerit "; arid,
WHLRLAS, the Pldnnlnq Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public
hearinq dnd recommends Its approval{
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNLSOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request of Mission Partners for
revislun to the RPUD Plan and Conditional Use Permit for "Mission Development" changlnq
the deslgnatlun of portions of the "01 Area" from "elderly" housinq and "cond0minlum
Wilts" to "aparWent units" located south of the Intersection of Larch Lane and County
Road 9, subject to the following cunditlonss
1. Cumplldnee with appllcahle requirements of the previous RPUD Plan approvals.
l_. Final Site Plans shall be submitted and approved per the Ordinance provisions
for Planned Unit Developments.
Total manlmum number of units for the two areds remains at ?.11 units.
4. Development shall be in accordance with the approved overall RPUU Plan which
has been revised to reflect the overall adjusted density as described In
Resolution No. 83 -348.
5. The revised density range is 540 units to 690 units( with 20% addItlonal units
138) allowed for low and moderate income housing, with a demonstrable effort
by the petitioner to develop half of such units as elderly houslnq. The total
maximum number of units achievable is 828.
0 The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
co-incilmamher Neil and upon vote bet ng taken thereon the
following voted n avor ereo s _Major-Davenport, Councilmembers Moen, Neils,
Sr_hnClogr_an _1hre ne
The followIng voted against orabsfTd - - none - -
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
dsk2B
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
is _meeting of the City Council ofPursuanttoduecallandnoticethereof, a Special y
the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 23rd day of `S,,,tF,mhpr T 9-zrr
The following members were present: Deputy tjayor S .nn iaer- Cnti ncilmF r hprs
Crain, Neils and Vasiliou
The following members were absent: Mayor Davenport
ttf• ...
Councilnember Crain introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 85- 751
APPROVINC RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN /PLAT AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AMENDMENT F014 LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR MISSION TRAILS
RPUD 76 -1) (85091)
WHFRFAS, Lundgren Brothers Construction Company has requested approval for a Re.si-
clentlal Planned Unit Development Preliminary Pldn /Plat and Conditional Use Pcrrmit
Amendment fr,r Mission Trails for 26 sinqle family residential lots located north of
Coldenrod Lane and 41st Avenue North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planninq Commission has reviewed the request at a duly cdl led Puld it•
Hearinq and recommends approval;
t1OW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYI101JTll,
WNW SOTA, that it should and hereby dues approve the Residential Planned Unit Df•vf•1-
opment Preliminary Pldn /Plat and Conditional Use Permit ivnendoncot for Luodcirrn
Brothers Construction Company for Mission Trails located north of Goldenrod Lant• and
41st Avenue North, subject to the following conditions:
Camplidnce with the City Enqineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all lead or dyinq trees from the property at the owner's expense.
t, No B1_iilding Permits shall be issued until d Contract has been awarded for str »t r
and water.
4. Provisions for .d 30 ft. wide trail outlot per Comprehensive Park Pl.tn to hr
located between Lot 1, Block 4, and Lot 6, Block 2, as verified by the Parks .+ud
Fngineerinq Departments, with :,ubmittal of detailed plans as to c:nnstructioti of
the trail per City standards.
5. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication with appropriate credits
in an amount determined according to verified acreage and pdvinq costs . nd ac-
cording to the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of filing the final Pldt.
6. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System.
7. No Buildinq Permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded
10 with Hennepin County.
PLEASE SEE PACE TWO
W'' I on —00 -•
Page two
Resolution No. 95- 751
S. Final Plat mylars shall refer to PUD No. 76 -1.
9. Appropriate legal documents regarding Homeowner Association documents, covenarst:
and restrictions as approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the final
Plat.
10. Approved setbacks are: 30 ft. front yard; 25 ft. rear yard; 10 ft, side yard.
11. The Final Plan /Plat application shall include sign construct on de,talls. Thera
shall be a property covenant for monument sign maintenance over tliv entire.
subdivision, as approved by the City Attorney; such covenants to be filed prior
to issuance of a sign permit. Appropriate easements for the location of the
signs ors the property Shall he filed prior to issuance of a Sign Permit.
12. Maximum lot coverage by ;tructures shall he 70 percent per Or(i in,iiwev
caIculat iorss.
13. Overa 1 1 RPl)n dens l t I s here.hy amended t a l low a max imam of 640 ors Its w 1 t is
potential increase of 20 percent for up to 770 units, should provislons he rn,wv
for low anti moderate Income unitf. consistent with parameters Identified In
Resolution No. 43 -344.
I
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seco:eded by
Councilmember Neils , and upon vote being taken thereoes, the;
following voted in favor thereof: Deputy Mayor Schneider. Councilmem _
Crain, Veils and Vasiliou
Th—e--ToT1owIn,g voted agalo st or abstained: none
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted
40
Plymouth City Code —
500.13
e) Private restrictions and trusteeships and their duration; should such
restrictions and trusteeships be of such length as to make the lettering
of same of the plat impracticable, and thus necessitate the preparation
of a separate instrument, reference to such instrument shall be made on
the plat and the book and page number referring to the instrument shall
be added to the plat after the restrictions or trusteeship have been
recorded.
f) The form for approval of County authorities as required.
500.13 Supplementary Documents and Information; Subdivisions. A complete set of
subdivision development plans shall be filed with the City and shall conform to
City, requirements. A complete set of "as built" construction drawings for any
improvements constructed in the subdivision shall be furnished to the City when the
construction is complete and finally approved by the City.
500.15 Subdivisions; Design Standards; General Requirements. Subdivision 1.
Streets and Public Lands. The Planning Commission in its review of a preliminary
plat will take into consideration the requirements of the city and the best use of
the land being subdivided. Particular attention will be given to the arrangement,
location and widths of streets, the general drainage situation, lot sizes and
arrangement, as well as Comprehensive Plan requirements, such as, but not limited
to, parks, school sites, boulevards and highways.
Subd. 2. Adjoining Land: The preliminary plat must cover all of the owner's
continguous land, but the final plat may cover only a portion of the preliminary
plat, provided it is in conformance with an approved preliminary plat and other
requirements herein.
Subd. 3. Large Tracts. Where the parcel is subdivided into larger tracts
than for building lots, such parcels shall be divided so as to allow for the
opening of major streets and the ultimate extension of adjacent minor streets.
Subd. 4. Unplatted Strips. Subdivisions showing unplatted strips or private
easements controlling access to public ways shall not receive approval.
Subd. 5. Conservation and Preservation of Natural Environment. All
developers are required to retain and maintain the features of the natural
environment as much as possible by such measures as the preservation of desirable
trees, shrubs, land forms, wetlands, and ponding areas. The Planning Commission
shall pay particular attention to proposed measures to preserve or to mitigate the
Impacts upon natural features and to the compliance, where applicable, with the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Special Protection Districts. The Commission
shall consider the degree to which a maximum reasonable effort has been
demonstrated to preserve and conserve the natural features, including mitigation
measures, and the degree to which minimum adverse impact upon the natural
environment will be realized as the result of the proposed development. (Ord.
87 -17)
EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED
AIAIENDTIIIENT TO "1ISSION RPUD
Description:
Because of market considerations we are proposing an amnedment of the Mission RPUD
Concept and Preliminary Development Stage Plan. Amended conceptual approval is
sought for all remaining PUD sites. Preliminaryplat plan approvals are soug(th for allbutMissionOaks2ndaddition. The proposal includes a transfer of density and a
change of unit types on the remaining 111ission Property. We are proposing shiftingofdensityfromGH5 & 6 and J1 center to J2 & (jH 1. The parcels GH 5 & 6 and
J1 center will be co-m-orn—edlo torm a 36 unit raulit- family development and 3 single familyhomes.
Preliminary approved with the Mission RPUD Preliminary Plan were Multi - familyattachedhousingareasonseveralsites. GH 5 & 6 were approved for 46 dwelling unitsonapproximately16.5 acres. J1 center contains 57 units on approximately 7.5acresandJ2 & GH 4 contain 80 units on 10.5 acres. These sites are immediately to thewestofi.lission Trails and VIission Ridge 2nd Addition.
The present proposal calls for combining GH 5 & 6 and J1 center into a new development
area. GH 5 & 6 north and J1 center are proposed to contain 36 Multi- family lots with 1
and 2 level Townhomes with dimensions and style similar to the preliminary drawingsthataccompanythisreport. The Townhomes will be available with a variety of optionsandfloorplans, all of which are designed to incorporate highly efficient use of space,
sought after standard and optional features, and aesthetically pleasing, architecturallycompatibleexteriors. In GH 5 & 6 south we are proposing 3 single family lots accessedoffof36thAvenueNorth. The single family plans for these lots will offer choices of
either 2, 3 or 4 bedrooms with an attached two or three car garage. Sale prices of boththesinglefamilyhomesandtheTownhomesareprojectedtorangeabove $140,000.
The 3 single family lots would average approximately 23,000 square feet, be a mirlimum
of 90 feet wide at the front yard setback and have no less than 20 feet of backyarddepth.
The proposed minimum standards for the 3 single family lots are summarized below:
Lot Area (sq. ft.) 16,900
Front Yard 301
Side Yard 101
Rear Yard 201
Lot Width at Building 901
Lot Depth 1801
Another part of our proposal involves a change in the concept of the housing type on J2. The approved plan allows 2 structures, a 8 story and a 4 story Mid -Rise. We believe
the use of that site for an 8 story structure may no longer be appropriate. We now
propose to place a lower profile structure on the site with a maximum of 3 storys over
an underground parking garage.
1.
Originally 2 buildings were proposed for this site and we are still proposing 2 buildings.
The apartment building would be similar in style and construction to the Parkside
Apartments. The other building would be a 16 unit building manor home that would range
in height one story to 3 stories high with materials compatible to the apartment
building.
The GH 4 site is approved for 12 units of attached Multi- family housing. The proposed
plan contemplates an increase to 14 units of attached Multi- family housing in a single
structure. This building would be a manor home identical to the 16 unit on J2 but smaller.
An effort is being made in the P.U.D. Amendment to shift density further from the
existing single family neighborhood.
It should also be noted that the on -site parking density has been increased from the 1.5
cars per unit at Parkside Apartments to a minimum of 2.0 cars per unit on the proposed
Multi- family developments.
A summary of the proposed changes are listed below:
I. Market Rate Units
W
GH4
J1 Center
GH 5 & 6 North
GH5 &6South
II. Subsidized Units
Mission Oaks
2nd Addition
Number of Units Building Type Proposed Proposed
Currently on Approved Currently Number Building
Preliminary Plan Approved Of Units Type
56 8 Story 00 3 Story
High -Rise Apartment
12 4 Story 16 1 -3 Story
Mid -Rise Manor Homes
12 Attached 14 1 -3 Story
Housing Manor Homes
57 3 Story 14 1 -2 Story
Multi - Family Twin Homes
46 3 Story 22 1 -2 Story
Multi- Family Twin Homes
3 1 -2 Story Single
Family Homes
183 169
Number of Units Building Type Proposed Proposed
Potentially Available. Currently Number Building
For Low /Mod program Approved Of Units Type
60 2 -3 Story 60 2 -3 Story
Multi - Family Multi- Family
Q
Neighborhood Involvement:
The conceptual planning process for the proposed changes to the approved
preliminary plan began in the summer of 1987. We have held numerous
meetings with the current property owners, civil engineers, the City of Plymouth
staff and The Mission Hills Homeowners Association. The plan has evolved from
an initial proposal of 121 apartment units and 48 townhomes to a compromise
plan that tries to be sympathetic to the desires and concerns of the adjoining
neighborhoods. We are currently submitting a revised plan that calls for 100
apartments, 30 manor homes, 36 tomhomes and 3 single family homes.
The townhouse plans have changed from 30' wide 1,000 square feet foundation
size to a 40' wide 1,500 square feet foundation size. The prices of these units
have gone from the low $100,000 range to the $150,000 plus range. This
represents a dramatic improvement in quality over what was originally contemplated.
The approved preliminary plan also calls for a 50 foot outlot along the east edge
of GH 5 & 6. It is our understanding that the city does not want this property
for park land, so, as a conciliatory gesture we are proposing that the outlot be
divided into smaller outlots and then deeded over to each adjacent homeowner
as compensation for any inconvenience the change may have caused. These
outlots would contain strict conservation provisions and deed restrictions that
would not allow change or development without the approval of the Homeowners
Association for the new twinhomes. Absolutely no removal of trees or other
vegetation would be allowed.
It is our feeling that the proposal we are submitting for review and approval is a
fair and good compromise for all parties involved, and an improvement over the currently
approved plan.
Staging:
This property will be developed in 3 stages. The first phase to be developed will
be the 36 townhomes and 3 single family homes on parcels GH 5 & 6 and J1 center.
This development is projected to proceed in the spring of 1990 with a model to be
completed by the fall of 1990 and anticipated build period of 2 years.
The second phase would be the apartment and manor home site J2 and GH 4. This
parcel will proceed when market conditions improve for this type of project.
The third phase is the Mission Oaks Second Addition and this parcel is on hold for
a program that would make subsidized units feasible.
KQ
Natural Resource Analvsis:
A. Terrain Characteristics
The portion of the Mission RPUD proposed for amendment is rolling and partially wooded.
Elevations range from a high of 965 on J2 and high of 959 on GH 5 & 6 to a low of
904 at the edge of the pond on the west edge of GH 5 & 6. The lowest elevations
are along the southerly edge of the GH 5 & 6 and just north of 36th Avenue North. The
dominant feature of the site is a north south ridge which dominates the east central
portion of the property. The eastern edge of the property is on a heavily wooded slope
and wherever possible existing mature trees will be preserved to assure excellent mitigation
of the influence of the proposed Multi- family housing adjoining single family neighborhoods
to the east. Where natural vegetation is not present we have used grade change to
visually buffer the proposed development from the single family homes. The Townhomes
are to be positioned along the east side of .the _proposed Jonquil Lane extension and back
from the wooded portions of the slopes to preserve as much as possible of the natural
beauty and utility of this amenity.
The plans seek to minim ize alteration of the existing topography, either for street
construction or for the preparation of individual building pads. The homes in the Mission
Ridge and Mission Trail neighbors which directly abut this proposal are all constructed
at significantly higher elevations than the proposed Townhouse development. The
design of the development site on J2 is respectful of the existing topography and
vegetation by sitting the building around the heavily wooded and sloping central
portion of the J2 site.
B. Geological /Hydrological Characteristics
A survey of surrounding conditions indicates a variety of clayey and loamey soils. Most of
the site has slight, if any, development limitations. Home construction is not to be
attempted where severe limitations, such as steep slopes or poorly drained soils, exist.
The rolling character of the topography, its tree cover, and the permeability of its soils
tend to reduce the runoff generated by this land. The proposal does, however, anticipate
the impact which the construction of ha[dsurfaces will have on storm drainage.
C. Vegetation
The site is primarily grassy rolling meadowland aId mo6erately to heavily wooded slopes.
Trees appear to be a balanced mix of hardwoods and softwoods.
Construction activity will avoid major tree concentrations. Where development is to
occur, sensitivity to the environment has been a major consideration.
Intermediate ground cover is generally a mix of wild and natural grasses and, in some
locations, mixed wild flowers.
4.
Vehicular Circulation:
Under the proposed plan amendment GH 4 would have one access for the 14 unit manor
home building located off of 41st Avenue North. J2 would have an access off of
Rockford Road.
Access to the proposed 36 unit Townhome development would be from Jonquil Lane.
Jonquil Lane would be a dead end public street and would be extended from its present
location to a culdesac located just to the east of the south end of the pond. The 36
Townhome units would have driveway access directly off of Jonquil Lane.
The access to the 3 single family home lots would be from an extension off of 36th
Avenue North culdesac which is located at the southern border of GH 5 and 6. This
would be a public street and an additional culdesac would be provided at the end of this
approximate 200 foot drive.
With this amendment we are requesting an access off of old Rockford Road to Mission
Oaks Second Addition. At the time the original plan was approved Rockford Road was
a County Road with much higher traffic volume than at the present time. The
construction of n&iCounty Road 9 creates an opportunity to encourage traffic to use
the collector street system to the north, thereby, reducing the previously planned
for traffic volume within the neighborhoods to the south and east.
Overall traffic generation on to 41st Avenue North would be significantly reduced under
the amended plan as shown by the following graph:
5
APPROVED PLAN TRAFFIC GENERATION
Average Daily Trips 41st Ave. Rockford Road 36th Ave.
Mission Oaks 60 X 6 = 360 180 180 0
J2 68 X 6 = 408 408 0 0
GH4 12X7 =84 84 0 0
J1 Center 57 X 7 = 399 399 0 0
GH5 &6 46X7 =322 322 0 0
Totals 1573 1393 180 0
AMENDED PLAN TRAFFIC GENERATION
Average Daily Trips 41st Ave. Rockford Road 36th Ave.
Mission Oaks 60 X 6 = 360 0 360 0
J2 100 X 6 = 600 0 600 0
16X7 =112 0 112 0
GH4 14X7 =98 98 0 0
J1 Center 36 X 7 = 252 252 0 0
GH5 &6 3X10 =30 0 0 30
Totals 1452 350 1072 30
5
Homeowners Association:
The developer does not propose to create a Homeowners Association for the apartment
site or the single family lots, as there is to be no commonly owned property.
There will be a Homeowners Association for the Townhomes. The lots will be individually
platted and the surrounding property will be controlled and maintained by the Homeowners
Association.
A sample copy of similar association documents used on previous Townhouse projects
will be available upon request.
6.
Proiect Identification:
An entrance monument for the Townhouse site would be constructed at the corner
of 41st Avenue North and Jonquil Lane. This monument will be within an easement
area dedicated for this purpose.
The developer would be responsible for the maintenance of the easement area during
construction and until the Homeowners Association assumes control of the development.
The Homeowners Association will be required to maintain the easement by means
of a covenant recorded with the Association documents.
The apartment site J2 and GH 4 will also have a permanent entrance sign and monument.
The apartment building monument will be located at the intersection of 41st Avenue
North and old County Road 9. Each manor home building will have an entrance sign at
their driveway entrances. The maintenance of the signage area will be the responsibility
of the apratment management company. In addition to the permanent signs a bill-
board type sign will be used during rent up to give project information to prospective
tenants.
7.
Land Ownership:
The property that is part of this P.U.D. amendment application is all of the remaining
property controlled by Mission Partnership.
A
no" .11I i.'i I i4Jll llillu.11l{a
III
al%Ill'I'IO
IIIIII II!II!IVIk 1!I %Ilii)I UIgPV6
pp
it .
i
I,
II UUII'I 1 i
ti% I
FYI! I Il r ll
sm:lIII 1' III
UllAI
f
I t I
I
I
1 I
L7 1_
2
r
Big, I m
no" .11I i.'i I i4Jll llillu.11l{a
III
al%Ill'I'IO
IIIIII II!II!IVIk 1!I %Ilii)I UIgPV6
n !!,p Ii1YII
II UUII'I 1 i
FYI! I Il r ll
sm:lIII 1' III
UllAI
I
iv
o.
U) U)
U) CA
0 0
cc cc
La ljli
Go 40
Iii 0''o
0 c9
CL lai
C.)
j lun
Z
0
U)- IC
cc t 4
ic z
a
V) LO
0
cr
L!
LL
ui ,
00
LO
U) U)
U) CA
0 0
cc cc
La ljli
Go 40
Iii 0''o
0 c9
CL lai
C.)
j lun
Z
0
U)- IC
cc t 4
ic z
a
V) LO
0
cr
L!
LL
ui ,
00
EF1 FIJ
0 LU lat 1.
m Pri
IIInl
It I
it
II
II
4
it
if
W-
BUILDIN(
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: March 23, 1990
TO: The Plann='.
r
ission
FROM: Charl D Community Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: PUBLI fiEARING ON THE UPDATED PARKS AND TRAILS ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - MARCH 28, 1990
Attached please find another copy of the amendments proposed to the Parks and
Trails Element of the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Park and
Recreation Advisory Commission and the Director of Parks and Recreation.
These amendments are responsive to the Land Use Guide Plan amendments that
were recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council in
December 1989.
This public hearing is held responsive to requirement of State Statute that
the Planning Commission hold all public hearings with respect to proposed
amendments to any element of the Comprehensive Plan. Director of Parks and
Recreation, Eric Blank, will present the elements of the updated Parks and
Trails Element prior to the public hearing.
Members of the Plymouth Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission will be in
attendance at the public hearing in support of their recommended amendments to
the Parks and Trails Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
The action of the Planning Commission, upon conclusion of the Public Hearing,
will be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council in the same manner
as recommendations have been sent forward with respect to other elements of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Attachments:
1. Park Commission Minutes of July 1989
2. Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Recommended Amendments to the
Parks and Trails Element of the Comprehensive Plan
pc /cd /park:dl)
July 1989 PRAC Minutes
Page 28
utlet is tie 'nto the w er low mana m nt systeT,-Tol, the w le
area. Comm" Sion r Rosen sked if the eigh ors wo d be willi g
contribute to the;cost of he pr ject. r. llega a ind cate tha
that would'be post'ible, bu he di.n't f 1 the shou d bear the ntir
Lost, since the ity cau ed the proble in a fi st plac wh n th
utlet was instal ed to p event loodi seve al y ars ago H feel
Id
he projgct wouldibenefit the en ire ci y bec use would re a mor
w ter s face fo water kiing, fishin , and for ark bea of cation.
Ch it wards rec mmend d that t e pro osal g ba to sta f or study
and mmunicatio wit the cit ang neer a d anning a artments.
Mr. Willegale will ept infor ed.
4 REPORT N AST COUN IL A TION
a. Sw n a e P a D rector Blank expl ined ow e a reeme t wa
re ched n the Swan L ke P1 and a prow d by t e C ncil
b. C mmunit Cen r. Th sche atic pl ns ere ap rov by t e C ncil.
C. est Med'ci Lake ' e a' T roject it probably o out fo
bid in S mber.
S. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Comprehensive Park & Trail Plan - Public Hearing. Director Blank
explained that the city is working on updating all comprehensive
plans, and that PRAC has been working on updating the Master Park and
Trail Plan adopted in 1981. Seven parcels have been identified as
desirable for park land. This designation does not affect the zoning
or guiding on the property. When the land is developed in the future,
the city would acquire it through purchase or park dedication. The
outlines of the proposed park land are just approximate at this time.
The final boundaries would be determined at the time of development.
Parcel 1 -A Northeast of County Road 9 and Fernbrook. Owned by Harold
Hytjan. Bordered by 494 on east and existing parkland on west,
surrounding the north side of a pond area. Designated as a
neighborhood park with a main intent of preserving trees. There were
no citizen comments on this parcel.
Parcel 2 -A Southern side of the pond. Owned by Harold Hytjan. Tree
preservation important. There were no citizen comments on this
parcel.
Parcel 1 -C West of 1 -A and 1 -B and south of the existing parkland.
Owned by Robert Sevy. Liv Horneland (8804 Knollwood Dr., Eden
Prairie) with Coldwall Banker, spoke for Mr. Sevy. Mr. Sevy has a
purchase agreement in place with a developer at the present time. He
is concerned with the size and shape of the proposed park, since it
takes up a considerable portion of his land. Since the developer is
purchasing land from two different owners for this development, Mr.
Sevy is concerned that if the agreement falls through, the large
parkland proposal on his property would adversely affect the value of
his property in the future. The developer is aware of park dedication
requirements.
July 1989 PRAC Minutes
Page 29
Parcel 2 Located north of Plymouth Creek Park. Preservation of the
hillside is a prime consideration. Owned by the Thornton's. Attorney
Wade Anderson represented the Thornton's. They have a purchase
agreement with a developer, and hope to have the final plat approval
and closing in September. Director Blank stated that he has been in
contact with the developer, and the developer has agreed to the park
dedication as shown. However, this parcel still needs to be approved
in the Comprehensive Plan in case this purchase agreemnt falls
through.
Parcel 3A East of County Road 101 and north of County Road 24. Owned
by Richfield Bank & Trust. Parcel is east of previously designated
parkland. Would add to the flexibility of this neighborhood park.
Preservation of-trees and marshland would be important. There were no
citizen comments on this parcel.
Parcel 3B West of Parcel 3A. Owned by Clinton Stromseth.
Preservation of trees and marshland also important. There were no
citizen comments on this parcel.
Parcel 4 Southeast of Old County Rd 9 and Dunkirk Lane, by Plymouth
Creek Elementary School. Owned by Anna Jordan. Would be designated
as a Playfield. Bill Pritchard with Orrin Thompson Homes spoke
against this park site. Orrin Thompson has a purchase agreement on
this land. The site contains 118 acres, and 50 acres would go toward
the park. When they first approached the city about the Comprehensive
Park Plan, an area to the west of this parcel was designated as park.
The land on which they have a purchase agreement is zoned as semi-
public. They felt the parkland was workable as originally shown.
They are not opposed to having a neighborhood park in this area, but
are opposed to the size and type of park the city is proposing, a
playfield. He feels it would have a negative impact on the
neighborhood and on housing value. He would like to work with the
Planning Commission and Council to re -guide this land to LA -2 and
would prefer to dedicate about $217,000 in lieu of land. He would
like the park to remain on the west side of the development. Mr.
Pritchard stated that he is going to the Planning Commission meeting
on August 9.
Parcel 5 Southeast of County Road 44 and Juneau Lane. Owned by
Sanford Williams. The Comprehensive Plan had showed a playfield by
Pomerleau Lake, however there is a house there now. An alternative
was sought. Mr. Williams has sold the eastern 200 feet to Hennepin
Parks for a trail corridor, which would bisect our park lands and
provide good public access. The 25 acres in this parcel would be good
for a playfield. No sewer is available, and the land would probably
not be developed in the foreseeable future. Sanford Williams (14511
County Road 47) stated that there is no wetland or trees to preserve
on this piece of property; it is farmland. He objects to the park
because it would not leave him with enough land to develop.
Parcel 6 South of Mud Lake, connecting to current park land around
the lake. Tree preservation and development of neighborhood park key
goals. Owned by Greg Begin. Mr. Begin (5525 Renium Lane) stated that
July 1989 PRAC Minutes
Page 30
he was against the park because the city already has him tied up in
court, and now they are trying to take his home. His home is on the
property. Jerome Begin (5635 Vicksburg Lane) also owns part of this
property. He stated that there is no way the city can take this land
unless they pay him $10 million.
Parcel 7 West of Zachary Playfield and north of County Road 9. Owned
by the Forster's. It would create a buffer zone between housing and
the playfield. Tom Forster (11420 County Road 9) stated that he was
unhappy with the condemnation of his land for the water treatment
plant, and he probably won't get fair value for this land. He
disagrees with the size, not the idea of the buffer zone.
Commissioner Freels asked about the idea of a trade for some land
owned by the city south of County Road 9. Mr. Forster felt that the
value of that land was not as great. He doesn't feel that a buffer is
really very necessary because houses do abutt the park in other
portions of the park. He has had some layouts done by potential
developers, but none of them contain a buffer zone.
The commissioners discussed what their next step should be.
Commissioner Rosen requested that Director Blank set up a working
meeting, perhaps with Planning Department staff or the City attorney,
to better clarify their role. They would like to meet at 5:30,
sometime soon. Director Blank stated that a September or October
joint meeting with the Planning Commission had been discussed. Chair
Edwards said the Commission should hold back action at the present
time so that the commissioners can think over the citizens' objections
and come back to the next meeting with some ideas.
b Amouth Cr Parkin x ansion at The in lotpK
e rly do It sti need a inch w r r, li and
lan scap' g.
C. CIP 193 - Director Blank ointe out that we a $210,000 short
for 1990 ' .account 218 (Co nity Par s, Playfield B T ils) because
we spent 500,000 on land th s year. A count 219 Neighb rhood Parks)
is OK in, all the years. a commissi ners disc ssed wh t should b
cut for,/1990. Commissione Hanson mov d to appr ve the IP with t e
transfer of the P1' outh C eek Tennis ourts to 991 and arkers L ke
Playfield to 1992. Co issioner A derson econded he mot' n.
Commissioner Beal
I
felt t at the Park rs Lake layfield would s rve
more Plymouth redents an the Bass Lake P1 field. he amm nded
the motion to tra sfer B ss Lake Pla field to 1991 and arkers Lake
Playfield to 1990 ndment was econded y Commis ioner osen.
Director Blank poi ted t that he fe t the n d was gre ter f Bass
LaAedhese
el beca se he peopl in t e Osse Sc 1 Dis rict eve no
pl al to a in t c Y. The ndme t we de eated 5
n ye. he original otion was passe 5 ayes to 1 Y.
d. Coenter U date. irecto Blank s ared the newest drawi gs
wi ommis ion and ointed ut than es. For udget urpos s,
thoof h s been anged to shingl s, and the woode beams n
thd g have een change to eel. The upol has be n
dehese eature may be bid s a alternates. ector Bla
rpc )IT Y Of
PLYMOUTR
March, 1990
Dear Resident:
v Nom
f-/r/ovF
The attached information has been put together in an effort to allow you to
quickly reference the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Park and Trail
System Plan.
The following documents have been prepared for your review:
A map and accompanying narrative describing the proposed park system changes.
A map and narrative describing the proposed trail system changes.
A document from the City's consultant dated December 21, 1989, which outlines
the changes for specific facilities such as baseball, softball, hockey, etc.
This document also talks about the need for parks in northwest Plymouth.
A copy of the original 1982 adopted park system plan.
By reviewing these documents you should be able to get a clear understanding
of the proposed changes to the overall park and trail system plan. If you
need more detailed information than is supplied here, please feel free to
contact Eric Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation, at 550 -5131.
The Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on the proposed park
and trail system update at their Wednesday, March 28, meeting. Please plan to
attend this meeting if you wish to make comments or suggestions with regard to
the proposed plan update.
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
I CITY OF
DIVMnl 11'1 -F
SCALE OF MILES
QRpg•t} t4:'E €f `:'- r53z =:€ _! ; €z6ie; tai= E >'s.tLE a Jg;`•5s':a:
SFf:5IrF Rl
12122F = €€ ! € f- SE6 Et Et TQ:t
IT6 ® STREET MAP - g
Deaf mo. PLO PARK PLAN
PARK PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 1990
NEW PARKS
1. New shape of proposed neighborhood park
2. New location of community playfield
3. Additional land north of Plymouth Creek Park
4. New location of neighborhood park
5. Additional land west of Zachary Playfield
6. New community playfield
7. New neighborhood park
B. New neighborhood park
9. New neighborhood park
10. New neighborhood park
11. New neighborhood park
12. New neighborhood park
The development of parks inside the MUSA boundary is dependent on the
existence of urban development that may take place in the future.
See current park system map for location of all existing or proposed sites
that are not changed by this plan update.
PROPOSED SITES TO BE DELETED FROM PARK PLAN
A. Proposed community playfield /neighborhood park site
B. Propoosed neighborhood park site
C. Proposed City park, community playfield, neighborhood park
RCITY of SCALE OF MILES
PLYMOUTR ° '/
2 '-•
4 E S `s: ' =:r . ;'x1:`. a S •Yi'f+ s•;a Y; 5:`is F'EF €c.:tc,
011 1. 1`aie:I Ky S?i r13' der$
All
6155
Lei'
S
i •
t ' ..i j j
Lam.•
l
ws .o•: i l ti..•S
IEfJ• r .. [
r! 41.
ot -
are A
AV vs
cc
XL
Y.
y %A r
rporr r
AKE
a
1 Ear ... •
4js.i. : " i / . ..,'tom •
PAwros
ss7
s: • . sue; j
r • +
T `I ,,
pr's• J . -
c_'L { •C, _ _ —
J Awl
n.
fj '
3 /• w 1. 5,f ( l Y•• ..a• -.- -
t , ' a ifs, .Ss•i3 - i, ! ! . . • ':.,..• - t _: ! ,.
C:.ASE ::. STREET MAP e
X x x x x DELF?C .K,.I: o up,
TRAIL PLANMACEI: &EC0:.E5 CIa II55I '.
A Dr—r,! MDtSE ",I'
TRAIL PLAN UPDATE
MARCH 1990
A. New Class I Trails
Hwy 101, 26th Avenue north to Sault RR
Dunkirk Lane, 25th Avenue north to Old County Road 9
Vicksburg Lane, Old 9 north to County Road 47
Fernbrook Lane, Sault RR to County Road 47
Schmidt Lake Road north to RR
Xenium, 13th Avenue south to Sunset Trail
West Medicine Lake Drive, RR south to Highway 55
County Road 9, Zachary to Nathan
South end of Mud Lake
B. Class II Upgraded To Class I
County Road 6, Fernbrook to Highway 101
County Road 47, Vicksburg to County Road 10
Ferndale Road, south of County Road 6
C. Change Class II to Class III
53rd Avenue from Pineview to Zachary
Larch Lane from Schmidt Lake Road to 53rd Avenue
D. Delete from Plan
Hemlock Lane, County Road 19 north
56th Avenue, Nathan Lane east
Sault RR west of Highway 169 to Revere
E. Change in Use
Sault RR trail, Zachary to 494 - delete horse use
Trail around Pomerleau Lake
December 21, 1989
Mr. Eric Blank
Director of Parks & Recreation
3400 PLymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: Update Plymouth Park System - Revised Final Report
B&A #89 -40
Eric:
The following information is to update you and your Parks and Recreation Committee on
our findings and recommendations to date.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following is a summary of our findings and recommendations from this study:
FINDINGS
1. Plymouth playfield facility standards compare favorably with standards from
neighboring communities.
2. Community playfield acreage standards for some facilities do not meet area
needs.
3. City wide population growth has surpassed projections in the 1982 Park
System Plan and playfield facilities are deficient.
4. The Elm Creek Community will require 36 acres for playfield facilities by the
year 2010.
5. The city currently owns sufficient land for the Bass Lake communities
projected year 2010 playfield needs.
6. Proposed land use guide plan changes will require one additional
neighborhood park in Elm Creek and one in the Bass Lake Community prior
to the year 2010.
Mr. Eric Blank December 21, 1989
Plymouth Park System Final Report B&A 89 -40
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. No changes are necessary in playfield facility standards.
2. Increase the standard acreage for the following playfield facilities:
softball /baseball (601- 75 1) from 2 AC.to 2.9 AC.
baseball (90 1) from 2 AC. to 4.2 AC.
football /soccer from 1.5 AC. to 3.0 AC.
hockey from .42 AC. to 1.3 AC.
3. The following playfield facilities need to be added to meet 1990 needs:
softball /baseball (60, - 75,) ...............3 each
baseball (90 ,) ....... ..............................6 each
hockey rinks ......... ..............................3 each
football /soccer fields ..........................4 each
4. Acquisition of land for a playfield for the Elm Creek community should be
considered before available land within the M.U.S.A. line becomes scarce.
5. Acquisition of land for a future playfield west of 494 for the Bass Lake
community should be considered.
6. Early acquisition of land should be considered for one neighborhood park
in the Elm Creek community. Develop one neighborhood park, (Mud Lake
Neighborhood Park).
2
Mr. Eric Blank December 21, 1989
Plymouth Park System Final Report B&A 89 -40
FACIUTIES STANDARDS & PROJECTED CITY WIDE NEEDS
STANDARDS
In an effort to update your existing facility standards for community playfields
several standards were to be researched, including national, state and local
standards. Unfortunately the National Park & Recreation Association standards
have not been updated since October 1980. Both the Metro Council and the
Minnesota Recreation and Park Association refer to and rely on the N.R.P.A. for
guidance. This leaves us with comparisons of local communities to update the
facility standards.
The cities chosen for the comparison, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, and Maple Grove
are similar to Plymouth in that they are all located in the western suburban metro
area, all have been fairly rapid in growth and have similar population characteristics.
Your specific concerns were for updated standards for hockey, tennis courts, and
softball fields. I have also included comparisons of football, soccer, and baseball.
Modified 12/14/89 as directed by P.R.A.C.
Plymouths Community playfield standards meet, within reason, the other
communities standards for facilities compared. The only exception is hockey,
which falls short. Based upon the cities demand for soccer facilities some change
in the facility standard should be considered. This should be based upon the cities
increasing field use.
3
SELECTED COMMUNrrY PLAYFIELD FACILrTY STANDARDS - #Facilities /1000 Population
PLYMOUTH MAPLE GROVE EDEN PRAIRIE MINNETONKA AVERAGE
Hockey 25/1000 33/1000 5/1000 5/10D0 39/1000
Tennis 5/1000 66/1000 5/1000 5/1000 54/1000
Softball 5/1000 5/10D0 2/1000 5/10D0 42/1000
Baseball 2/1000 14/1000 2/1000 2/1000 185/1000
Football /Soccer .3/1000* 25/1000 N.D. 2/1000 216/1000
Football N.D. 05 /1000 N.D. 05/1000
Soccer N.D. 1/1000 N.D. 1 /1000
Modified 12/14/89 as directed by P.R.A.C.
Plymouths Community playfield standards meet, within reason, the other
communities standards for facilities compared. The only exception is hockey,
which falls short. Based upon the cities demand for soccer facilities some change
in the facility standard should be considered. This should be based upon the cities
increasing field use.
3
Mr. Eric Blank
Plymouth Park System Final Report
December 21, 1989
B&A 89 -40
Although not specifically requested, I would like to suggest the following
modifications be made to the standard areas required for a few of the Community
Playfield facilities.
AREA REQUFEMEWS (Comrnunhy PlayFold)
Facility 1962 Plan * Suggested Acreage **
Trails
Softball 2 AC 2.9 AC
Swimming (outdoor) 2 AC 2 AC
lee Skating 1 AC 1 AC
Tennis 16 AC 16 AC
Court Games 2 AC 2 A
Baseball 2 2 AC 42 AC
Football /Soccer 3 1.5 AC 3.0 AC
Play Apparatus
Hockey
4 42 AC 1.3 AC
Horseshoes
Acreage's extrapolated from Facility Standards (by park type)
page #12, Park Needs Analysis, 1982 Park System Plan
Changes in acreage are due mainly to better definitions of facilities, changes
in play requirements and expanded areas surrounding the facilities for
drainage and safety.
1. Softball/ Baseball - 280, foul line w/501 all around.
2. Baseball - 300, foul line w/751 all around.
3. Football /Soccer - 360, x 225, w/501 all around.
4. Hockey - 85, x 200, w/501 all around.
Please keep in mind these revisions in area needs when considering acquisition of
land for community playfields.
NEED
As requested, we have developed a chart comparing the cities demand for hockey,
softball, baseball, tennis, and football /soccer facilities against the updated *
4
Mr. Eric Blank December 21, 1989
Plymouth Park System Final Report B &A 89 -40
NEED (continued)
population growth projected by the City planning staff. The projections are for
saturation at the current M.U.S.A. line and assume a straight line growth. Attached
to this report is the inventory of existing facilities supplied by your office. With a
current population of 51,390, we have calculated the current demand for each
facility. it is assumed that softball fields must have backstops, skinned infields, and
a minimum foul line range of 200 to 300 feet.
SIMPLE NEEDS PROJECTION (City woe) - BASED UPON STANDARDS 1982
Year Pop* Hockey Tennis Softball/ Baseball Football/
25/1000 .5/1000 Baseball 2/1000 Soccer
60' -75) 901) 3/1000 **
5/1000
1990 52,939 13 26 26 11 16
1995 60,682 15 30 30 12 18
2000 68,426 17 34 34 14 21
2010 83,913 21 42 42 17 25
This represents growth with the current M.U.S.A. line.
Modified 12/14/89 as directed by P.R.A.C.
These projected needs are compared with existing facilities to determine the
demand for new facilities between 1989/90 and 2010. This analysis assumes the
participation in these sports continues to grow in proportion to the straight line
growth in population.
PROJECTED ADDED FACILITIES (City Wide) - BASED UPON SIMPLE NEEDS PROJECTION
Existing
1989 1990 1995 2000 2010
Tennis 28 +0 2 4 8
Courts
Softball /Baseball 23 + 3 4 4 8
601/75, base
Baseball 5 + 6 1 2 3
90' base
Hockey 10 +3 2 2 4
Rinks
Football /Soccer 12 +4 2 3 4
Fields
These Added Facilities Are Not Cumulative)
5
Mr. Eric Blank
Plymouth Park System Final Report
December 21, 1989
B&A 89-40
Baseball fields, those with 90 foot baselines, and softball /baseball fields with 60 to
75 foot baselines, have been and will continue to be in short supply unless
additional fields are made available. Additional hockey rinks are also needed.
If in fact the standards for these community playfield facilities were correctly
calculated in the 1982 Park System Plan and they compare favorably with current
standards from other communities, the question needs to be asked as to how
Plymouth finds it's self today with these shortages? The answer lies in the
explosive growth in population experienced by the city in the last eight years. This
growth has accelerated the need for these facilities. The population today is over
18% higher than was predicted for the year 1989 in the 1982 Park System Plan.
The chart below compares the 1982 population projections with current projections.
COMPARISON OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS
YEAR 1982 PROJECTION 1989 PROJECTION 1989 DIFFERENCE
1990 43,500 52,939 +21.7%
2000 54,000 68,426 + 26.7%
2010 --- 83,913 --
Development of additional Community Playfield facilities will have to be accelerated
if the city is to keep pace with demand.
BASS LAKE & ELM CREEK COMMUNITY PLAYFIELD NEEDS
ELM CREEK
In review of the proposed changes made in the guided land use for the Elm Creek
Community, the Plymouth planning staff has recalculated the projected populations
for this area.
These projections, as stated earlier, are to saturation and do not project any
changes in the M.U.S.A. line or land use.
The revised population for the Elm Creek Community at the year 2010 is 8760. It
should be noted that the vast majority of this population will be concentrated in the
southern s of the community.
D
Mr. Eric Blank
Plymouth Park System Final Report
December 21, 1989
B &A 89 -40
Elm cF EEK commuNrrY PLAYFIEID NEEDS AT 2010
Facility Description Quantity Acreage
Trails
Softball /Baseball (60' to 751) 4 11.6'
Swimming (outdoor) 1 2
Ice Skating 1 1
Tennis 4 .64
Court Games 4 .8
Baseball (901) 2 8.4
Football /Soccer 2 6
Play Apparatus "
Hockey 2 2.6
Horseshoes — ""
Estimated Parking 328 z 2.7
Total Acreage Needed 8 2010 36
1. Modified Area Requirements used, (see Area Requirements Community
Playfield), this report.
2. Based upon the assumption that softball, baseball, and football /soccer fields
could all be in use simultaneously, (40 cars each, for softball and baseball
and 44 each for football /soccer).
It should be recognized that 36 acres for community playfields in the Elm Creek
Area does not account for future changes in land use. If one playfield is developed
in this community, certain portions of the population will be outside the 1.5 mile
service radius for a single playfield. Currently, no land is owned by the city in this
community for playfield use.
Our recommended community playfield location for acquisition and development
in the Elm Creek community is shown on the attached graphic #1.
The location, adjacent to the Plymouth Creek Elementary School has the following
advantages over the location indicated in the 1982 plan:
gentle rolling topography
adjacent to school
excellent trail access
cleared land with pockets of hardwoods
vehicular access on two sides
land is available in acreage required
central to land within M.U.S.A.
rA
I LA
A.J.1 Ano.ow. ow, ft d IP
r
1. i l i "
T. I if
IL
f.It11I I'`_
rr•
3Y -r. w .f,(' -.... _ 1 i 1 ,
I '.
rte, • 1 _..a,._
Ij
r "'
1_ lll I N lul i
l , ';_ ELM CREEK COMMUNITY
s. `I;i,riiq;1r -: Community Playfield Needs
ILA 'KEY,.
r` ! _ — FUTURE PLAYFIELD NEEDS
w/ 1.5 ml. service radius
t EXIST. PLAYFIELR
w/ 1.8 ml. service radius
NO RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
per 1989 proposed land use. changes)
7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Mn 55344 PRIVATE RECREATION USE
612) 941 -1660 GRAPHIC #1
Mr. Eric Blank
Plymouth Park System Final Report
Bass Lake
December 21, 1989
B&A 89-40
The revised population for Bass Lake community at the year 2010 is 2710. The
population for Bass Lake will be concentrated within the M.U.S.A. boundary. This
area is largely east of highway 494. The city has already acquired approximately
21 acres of land east of 494 for playfield use.
BASS LAKE COMMUNITY PLAYF1EW NEEDS AT 2010
Facility Description Ouantity Acreage
Trails
Soltball /Baseball (60' to 75 1) 1
e
2.9
Swimming (outdoor) 1 2
Ice Skating 1 1
Tennis 1 .5 16
Court Games 2 1
Baseball (901) 1
2
4.2
1
Football /Soccer 1 3.0
Play Apparatus
1 1.3Hockey
Horseshoes
Estimated Parking 124 1
Total Acreage Needed @ 2010 16
Although this community will have five acres of land in reserve for community
playfield needs in the year 2010, those acres will not be located where population
growth is anticipated. Additionally, some of this reserve will be lost to slopes and
to existing trees. Consideration should be given to setting aside land for a playfield
on the west side of 494. This was also suggested in the 1982 System Plan. Keep
in mind the fact that 494 acts as a major barrier in this community.
Our recommended community playfield location for acquisition in the Bass Lake
community is shown on the attached graphic #2.
Adjacent to Mud Lake, this location has many of the same attributes at the location
recommended in the 1982 Plan.
access to regional trail system
adjacent to a body of water
vehicular access on two sides
central to west h of community
cleared land with pockets of hardwoods
Land acreage required for this facility is not easily determined. A minimum
population should be projected by the city for this area with urban services so that
a quantity may be determined. Acquisition could then take place prior to further
rises in land values.
0
I
f
Rik
I __:., i- '..:: ::, : +, _} •,, , ; •,= ;.'ern .:,:.,... .
a
1 Y
II I.
I[?yI! i _ II p I I• l ''r {f I - ' T +,.; i40: `1
A AIL
3' `.
i1,: .ill I •• l ; .'=' ... .
I I iu Itl• X11 .I ; j; L 1" I
J ' _
I ' ' .fI 1 . t
I
AI
1''17
ry r ,Ili .'.z:..' I ,` 'XiT. •'
1 i. . ,.. j() •, I w +rte • ' , '.. •i
L
rrIii 1 .illlll 116 ` - BASS LAKE COMMUN __ IT Y_
Community Playfield Needs
t 1,. ,t:. ' ; }, • !
KEY:
r -..
r
I'' `' 1. • -•• 1 FUTURE PLAYFIELD NEEDS
T.• ; ! IIW: O w/ 1.5 ml. service radius
EXIST. PLAYFIELQ
a4. w/ 1.5 ml. service radiusii' I— r i I 1:
NOV RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
o•'
S , (per 1989 proposed land use changes)
19 'lying lour Drive, t~.de6 -P ame;lGn 55344 PRIVATE RECREATION USE
612) 941 -16W GRAPHIC #2
Mr. Eric Blank December 21, 1989
Plymouth Park System Final Report B&A 89-40
BASS LAKE & ELM CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEEDS
I have reviewed the Elm Creek and Bass Lake Communities for changes needed in
neighborhood parks brought about by the proposed land use modifications. Land use as
proposed in both communities will redistribute residential use requiring additional
neighborhood parks to service the communities.
Both communities will need additional neighborhood parks, (as shown on Graphics #3
and #4), as the M.U.S.A. line changes.
ELM CREEK
Elm Creek will need one additional neighborhood park before the year 2010, (see
Graphic #3 - Elm Creek Community Neighborhood Park Needs). Area 1 is within
the current M.U.S.A. line and will likely be needed in the near future.
BASS LAKE
The City will need to develop the Mud Lake neighborhood park, (see Graphic #4 -
Bass Lake Community Neighborhood Park Needs). Mud Lake Neighborhood park
does service land within the current M.U.S.A. line and will likely be needed in the
near future.
Sincerely,
BRAUEBo SOCIATES LTD.
5rge Watson
sident, R.L.A.
ch
0
T .. rt _ 0 u•
tar
3 '
f
UIL
E
I
I
PLYMOUTH CREEK ELEMENTARY / `[Tl
y
REMOOD fLEMENTAR
n .l -1
I
I
Mill
LT
ELM CREEK COMMUNITY" MIRIX1111111111Ilil0, Neighborhood Park Needs
L I '! KEY.
t -
EXIST. OR PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD PA
of = {
i -- + w/ .5 mi. service radius.
f FUTURE NEEDS AREA
1 w/ .5 mi. service radius.
1. " I NO RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
per 1989 proposed land use changes)
o -lad _ - _
f1CIOU .,• Dri+e; Aden'' Prairie, fVTri353 4" PRIVATE RECREATION USE
612t ) 941 -1660 GRAPHIC #.
II - I `
r1 —
r- cm
I _I 6 •
iT '
1
LAU
1'• 'i TINKER SHORES
t 1, •', I ::i:: / r ; .... . 1 > ':• NORTHEAST
bus Lhn
4w sot
w: M S.
I I
ROLLI NG 111=5
SWAN IAn
1 ' •• i ... i I . 'r ::
1 .. 7;r ; - • a ' %11.,. i I .
tZIr71
quit
I' [!
1
fir} . ,.... i • . )' O: 1
wi( rte... IL_..... _
F('I ,
BASS LAKE COMMUNITYri' ant :( I, .
Neighborhood Park Needs
sf ..•
i:.i , a . 4
5 r KEY.
4`
f ..::...... EXIST. OR PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
w .5 mi. service radius.
y .. T tail .
10 /
t FUTURE NEEDS AREA
till l w/ .5 mi. service radius.
NON RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
per 1989 proposed land use changes)
7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Aden Prairie, Mn 5544
612) 941 -1660
PRIVATE RECREATION USE
GRAPHIC W
i
PARK FACILITY REPORT FOR BRAUER 6 ASSOCIATES
Tennis Courts Hockey Rinks
Site .9
Zachary Park 4
Plymouth Park 4
Oakwood Park 5
Ridgemount Park 3
Armstrong High School 5
Wayzata High School 1
TOTAL 28
Softball /Baseball Fields (60 75')
SiteSiteI
Zachary Park 4
Plymouth Park 3
Pilgrim Lane Elem. 1
Timbershores Park 1
Lions Park 1
Greenwood Elem. 1
Birchview Elem. 1
Ridgemount Park 2
Oakwood Park 1
Wayzata High School 2
LaCompte Park 2
Plymouth Creek Park 2
Medicine Lake Comm. Club 2.
TOTAL 23
T -Ball /Baseball Fields Age 7--& Under
Mission Park 1
Sunset 2
Greenwood 2
Birchview 1
Oakwood 1
TOTAL 7
Site I
Zachary Park 2
Plymouth Park 2
Plymouth Creek Park 2
Ridgemount Park 2
LaCompte Park 1
Oakwood Park 1
TOTAL 10
Baseball Fields (90')
Site
Zachary Park 1
Plymouth Creek Park 1
Oakwood Park 1
Armstrong High School 1
Wayzata High School 1
TOTAL 5
ccer /Football Fields
Zachary Park 2
Plymouth Middle School 1
Ridgemount 2
Oakwood 3
Plymouth Creek 1
Zachary Elem. 1
Wayzata High School -a
TOTAL 12
Brauer & Associates Ltd
7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Mn 55344
61 Z) 941 -1660 i
fI
GoMMuNr1`f UT1
12.14•
T— Y/ C90044'o5:1
gi4 F( /D i
MIS
P RECD D, • %,O•
AWf 5 Ti
i
GP+tii oPi
v,-
t
Brauer & Associates Ltd
7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Mn 55344
612) 941 -1660
e*W4 UFPKO e
oVMIT-r fE#rz0
L•14•
Ow/www"
16
RC-q'v, • Z -9 AY.,
15;*pO(Ow'
i
pKEJA ' d - 4-, 2 &i -
114 -
Lp.
DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 1
HEARING DATE: March 28. 1990
Clarification of allowable use in the residence district relative to municipal
and public buildings and services and the inclusion of Adult Correctional
Facility.
SECTIONS INVOLVED: Section 7, Subdivision C (Item 18)
EXPLANATION /PURPOSE:
The item needs further clarification as evidenced by inquiries about its
meaning, even since the last amendment under Ordinance 89 -38. The amendments
approved under that ordinance also provided a comprehensive update of the
zoning code relative to a variety of care facilities and correctional
facilities. New and more precise definitions were added to the ordinance and
extensive modifications were made to clarify where these facilities could be
located; however, the amendments inadvertently deleted reference to
institutions" (at Item 18) and, at the same time, failed to insert the term
correctional facility (adult)" which is now defined by the ordinance.
The net-effect is that the Hennepin County Adult Corrections Facility is in a
zoning "limbo" of nonconformity, despite the finding several years ago that it
could legally continue as a conditional use subject to an approved general
development plan.
Whereas, the Planning Commission has discussed on occasion the possibility of
establishing a new zoning district which could include a variety of
institutional facilities and uses, that complex and potentially controversial
step may be some time in the making; in the meantime, provisions should be
made for the existing facility.
The purpose therefore of the amendments is to clarify the ordinance relative
to public uses and to insert appropriate terms that now precisely define
terminology that will continue the zoning status of the Adult Correctional
Facility as an allowable conditional use.
CONCLUSIONS %RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The proposed revisions are necessary for clarification and do not
represent the introduction of new uses or the elimination of old uses
except to the extent that the oversight of Ordinance 89 -38 is rectified.
2. The Planning Commission should conduct a Public Hearing about and make a
recommendation to approve the following changes:
a. Amend item 18 in Section 7, Subdivision C of the Zoning Ordinance to
read as follows:
Municipal administration and service buildings or uses, ineluding
public libraries, museums, post offices, and the like, except
incompatible activity of an industrial characte type -ages; Adult
Corrections Facilities in operation as of November 20, 1989.
NOTE:
Struek Material - indicates deleted text
Underscore - indicates new text
pc /bt /3- 28:jw)
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
DISTRICTS
FRD R -lA R -1B R -2 R -3 R -4
10. P C -- -- -- --
11. C C C C C C
12. P P P P P P
13. C C C C C C
14. -- C C C C C
15. C C C C C C
16. -- C C C C C
17. -- -- -- C C C
18. C C C C C C
Section 7, Subdivision C
M
Agriculture, the keeping of one or
more horses, nurseries,
greenhouses for growing only,
landscape gardening and tree
farms, including
sale of products grown on
premises.
Parks and recreational areas
owned or operated by public
bodies, other than the City of
Plymouth
Golf courses (except club houses,
miniature courses and driving tees
operated for commercial purposes)
Private recreational facilities,
including those for golf, tennis,
and swimming, located on the
premises of clubs, schools, and
Places of Worship. (Amended Ord.
89 -02)
Nursery, elementary and secondary,
public and private schools.
Amended Ord. 89 -02)
Place of Worship, as specifically
regulated in this Ordinance.
Amended Ord. 89 -02)
Day Care Facility operated in a
Place of Worship or in public or
private schools, as regulated in
Section 9. (Amended Ord. 89 -02 &
Ord. 89 -38)
Day Care Facility serving up to 16
persons operated on the premises
of an allowed Multiple Family
Dwelling or Dwellings, as
regulated in Section 9. (Amend.
Ord. 89 -38)
Municipal administrative and
service buildings or uses
including public libraries,
museums, post offices and the like
except industrial type uses.
Amend. Ord. 89 -38)
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 9, Subdivision E
c. A copy of coordination plans with applicable public safety, health
care, and correctional agencies. This includes indication of the
person or persons responsible during emergency including the address
and telephone number where such persons may be reached 24 hours -a -day.
2. Development standards and performance criteria.
a. Facilities shall comply with all applicable codes and regulations and
shall have, current and in effect, the appropriate State licenses.
b. On -site services and treatment at residential facilities and
correctional facilities shall be for residents and inmates of the
facility only, and shall not be for nonresidents or persons outside
the facility.
c. All new buildings or additions to existing buildings shall be
consistent with the scale and character of the buildings in the
neighborhood. Exterior building materials shall also be harmonious
with other buildings in the neighborhood.
d. No residential facility and no day care facility shall be closer than
1,320 feet from another licensed facility.
Ee.No correctio nal facility shall be closer than 1,320 feet from another
ensed correctional facility or from any property designated on the
d Use Guide Plan as residential and /or designated on the approved
ing map as residential.
f. The conditional use permit is only valid as long as a valid State
license is held by the operator of the facility where such license is
required.
g. Appropriate transition to neighboring property shall be provided by
landscaping and site design consistent with the City ordinances and
policies.
h. All facilities are subject to the applicable regulations with respect
to signs, parking, and performance standards for the respective uses
and zoning districts.
3. Enforcement, review and renewal, revocation, permit amendment, and
expiration shall be subject to the procedures and requirements as set
forth in Subdivision A of this section.
9 -32
1
A.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: March 21, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: March 28, 1990
FILE NO.: 90010
PETITIONER: 918 Plymouth Partners
REQUEST: Site Plan Amendment
LOCATION: 9750 County Road 9
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CL (Limited Business)
ZONING: B -1 (Office Limited Business)
BACKGROUND:
On November 3, 1986, the City Council approved a Site Plan for Welsh
Companies, Inc. for a 15,000 square foot office building, which has been
constructed. No variances were approved with the exception of a fire lane
variance on the north side of the structure. This parking lot expansion is
proposed in conjunction with the Site Plan and variance proposed on the vacant
parcel to the west under File 90011.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant proposes expansion of the existing parking lot to the west
to be a shared parking lot with the site to the west. The petitioner
states the additional parking is needed to relieve parking problems at the
site. The existing parking meets the Ordinance minimum requirements for
this type of building.
2. The proposed Site Plan amendment is responsive to the City of Plymouth's
policies, codes, and ordinances that apply to this type of construction.
Specifically, the Site Plan amendment proposes parking lot design and
setbacks consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. In addition the petitioner
proposes that the parking lot be constructed with a temporary "dust- free,"
but not paved, surface at this time until the site to the west is
developed.
3. The petitioner seeks approval of shared parking and drive facilities with
the property to the west, which is consistent with Zoning Ordinance
provisions for business uses, before a principal use is developed on the
adjacent site. Section 10, Subdivision B, 5h (3) addresses this. This is
being proposed in conjunction with the Site Plan and variance under File
90011.
see next page)
f
File 90010
Page Two
4. Reference is made to the petitioner's correspondence explaining the
proposed parking lot construction.
5. The site is located within the New Hope Outlet Drainage District. It is
not located within a Shoreland Management Zone, nor does it contain any
wetlands. The site contains no major woodlands or severe slopes. The
soils appear suitable for urban capability with public sewers.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The Site Plan meets or exceeds the Ordinance requirements with respect to
design.
2. No firm basis for parking lot construction without the City standard hard
surface (7 ton /5 ton) and 8612 curb and gutter has been presented.
Whether the parking is termed "temporary" or not the construction standard
should be met. The new parking area should be constructed consistent with
this approved site plan amendment design -- or not constructed.
3. The duration of the accessory parking without a principal use on the
adjacent site can be detailed with File 90011. However, approval of this
request should include a condition legally linking the duration of this
parking to the terms of File 90011. The possibility that development will
not be realized on the adjacent site - -in the near future and /or as
proposed- -needs to be recognized here. The shared parking MU terminate
if planned events on the adjacent site are not realized.
4. An option has existed and will continue to exist for this property. The
site to the west could be acquired and consolidated. The approval of the
requested situation should reflect that option since it is another
feasible way this petitioner's parking needs can be met.
5. Approval should be conditioned upon approval of the plan and variance
under File 90011.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the requested Site Plan amendment, subject to
the conditions noted _
Submitted by:
Charles E. Dillerud, Cbmmunity Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Recommendations for Approval of Site Plan Amendment
2. Engineer's Memorandum
3. Location Map
4. Petitioner's Correspondence
5. Large Plans
pc /cd /90010:dl)
APPROVING SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 918 PLYMOUTH PARTNERS (90010)
WHEREAS, 918 Plymouth Partners has requested approval for a Site Plan
amendment to expand the existing parking lot at 9750 County Road 9 onto the
property adjacent to the west; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing in conjunction with a companion application, File 90011, for
plan and variance approval regarding the adjacent site, 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 918
Plymouth Partners for a Site Plan amendment to expand the existing parking lot
for property located at 9750 County Road 9 onto the property adjacent to the
west, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum, including asphalt or
concrete surfacing to City standard cross - section and B612 curb.
2. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements.
3. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
4. Recording of cross easements for parking and access over the entire
parking area approved for an between this parcel (13 -11 -0005) and the
parcel to the east (Lot 4, Block 1, Meyer Gonyea Addition) to assure
property functioning of the combined parking facilities.
5. All site alterations shall be consistent with the approved Site Plan
amendment.
6. Submittal of appropriate agreement documents, to be approved by the City
Attorney and recorded as a covenant on the title to the property, relative
to the status of the development and parking availability on the adjacent
site as approved under File 90011. The petitioner shall acknowledge this
could be a temporary situation and that other means of addressing the need
for additional parking may be required.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: March 22, 1990
FILE NO.: 90010
PETITIONER: Mr. Shane Walgamuth, 918 Plymouth Partners, 11200 West 78th Street,
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
SITE PLAN: PARKING LOT EXPANSION - CAMDEN MEDICAL BUILDING
LOCATION: West of 9750 Rockford Road, Plymouth, MN 55442 on Parcel 13- 118 -22-
11 -0005
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. X Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. _ X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and
No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Site Plan approval:
4. Area assessments estimated - Watermain area assessments based on
the difference between residential and commercial rates .97 acres x
S790 /acre = S766-30- Sanitary sewer area based on the difference
between residential and commercial rates .97 acres x 5440 /acre =
S426.80.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None
LEGAL /EASEMENTS /PERMITS:
6. _ _ X Property is one parcel -
The approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot
consolidation be approved by the City Council and the necessary
resolution should be processed at the same time as the site plan
approval. The parking lot will be expanded to the west on adjacent
property with cross easements provided for Parking.
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.) Easements will be required for Parcel No. 13-
118-22-11-0005 where the expanded parking will be constructed.
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.
10. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way
to facilitate the development. It should be noted that this
vacation is not an automatic process in conjunction with the
platting process. It is entirely dependent upon the City receiving
a petition for the vacation from the property owner; therefore, it
is their responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated.
11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
2-
UTTLITTES AND TRAFFIC:
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
MN DOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
X Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
X 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:
14. _ X Necessary fire hydrants provided -
The City of Plymouth requires that all parts of a building such as
the one proposed' be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant. It will be
necessary to locate hydrants in such a manner that the site plan
complies with this section of the City Ordinance.
15. _ X Size and type of material proposed in utility systems has been
provided
The utility plan shall be revised to indicate the size and type of
material required in the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain services
and storm sewer.
16. _ _ X Post indicator valve - fire department connection
It will be necessary to locate the post indicator valve in such a
manner that it will not render any of the existing fire hydrants
inoperable. The post indicator valve cannot be located within the
narking area.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. X _ Hydrant valves provided -
All new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City
Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W -2. This plate should be
referenced on the site plan.
18. X Sanitary sewer clean -outs provided -
It will be necessary to provide clean -outs on the proposed internal
sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 10,0 foot intervals.
19. X — _ Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
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. The site plan shall note the curb and gutter
is B -612.
23. _ X _ Complies with parking lot standards -
The City will require that all traveled areas within the parking
lot, as well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a
7 -ton standard City design with six inches of Class 5 100% crushed
limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one -half inches
of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be
constructed to a standard 5 -ton design consisting of four inches of
Class 5 100% crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. The site
plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with these
requirements.
STANDARD S•
N/A Yes No
24. _ X It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility
foreman,
24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to
the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The developer shall
also be responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the Public Works
Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the
City's right -of -way. All connections to the water system shall be
via wet tap.
25. _ X The City will require reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer,
water service and storm sewer As- Builts for the site prior to
occupancy permits being granted.
26. X The site plan complies with the City of Plymouth's current
Engineering Standards Manual. Note items 6 7, 11, 12, 16, 22, 26,
and Special Conditions.
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
27. A. The expanded parking lot must be paved along with installation of concrete
curb and gutter and all necessary utilities extended at least ten feet beyond
the proposed edge of the parking lot.
Submitted by: L16,1z
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
a Me
22
P
2612.72, RES.
I.
5T.M. AYF. N, . . .....
law
PLACE s r J MORTGOCRY
34) ZDONZ ND ADD. ITI
00 z
KOE CO ci
OUTLOT
D
A
IR GONYEA, (u)
w-f ks- ROCKFORD (7) 2 BER ?NO
2
AD, ION
ADDITION
0)
3
ON
ACE (6)
ms
IRST 45
ITION U E,
4
X
Mir
it HENN. co 8 32
ILawr
An(31) ------------------------ • (
2) ----------
OUAKER LA N •
3) FWA
M M
Z. ru A -----------------
40
as) Ln
t6) V 2 St.,:) = h -- ----------------
114 : L J
o
w
e6 s
da (12) >
AVE. N. b
c .
46)
35) ------------- ------- 24 '4do185) M (•5)
2
a) oo)
70)
4p ip, 9) t
9 3 94
NW 1/4
ACREAGE — — — — — — — — STORM SEWER DISTRICT BOUNDARY
NE 114 — - — - — - — - — SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY SURVEY DIV'
51 bi f IE N * jw NF sf .................. WATERSHED DISTRICT BOUNDARY HENNEPIN Cc
14139.89140.84140.59140,62140.7014().17140.25 .................. INCREMENT BOUNDARY
f) p M_) f? 4f f? ff f), f! f! f,! f)
19) 49) fj f 4f
f AMM AMW AWW AMM AIMM MOON xww oamw Avm w
WelshConstruction
February 8, 1990
Plymouth Planning Commission and City Council
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Welsh Construction Corp.
11200 West 781h Street
den Prairie. Minnesota 55344
612 944 5810
RE: Variance Request to construct an Accessory Parking Lot on a
Parcel Without a Pre - existing Principle Structure
Dear Sirs /Madams:
The 918 Partnership would like to request a variance with respect
to the construction of an accessory parking lot on the one acre
parcel of land to the west of the Camden Medical Building at 9750
Rockford Road owned by the 918 Partnership. We are in the
process of acquiring this particular site for the development of
a second building and the use of the site for temporary parking
to support the existing office clinic. The temporary parking lot
will be transformed into permanent parking once a tenant is found
to occupy the proposed building.
Plymouth's Zoning Ordinance Section 11 Subdivision C . d - 1.
The 918 Partnership is presently experiencing hardships because
the existing building and parking configuration will not allow
any additional parking due to the limits of the building set
backs and set backs from property lines and drive ways. The
request for the variance is to add additional parking that can
not be added to the existing site.
Plvmouth's Zoning Ordinance Section 11 Subdivision C . d - 2.
The conditions upon which this variation is based is unique to
this particular parcel of land because the off street parking
regulations have been met yet a major parking problem still
exists.
Plymouth's Zoning Ordinance Section 11 Subdivision C . d - 3.
The 918 Partnership is not purchasing this property to increase
the value of this parcel of land. We are interested in this
property solely to alleviate the parking problems of the existing
building. If this variance is not granted, this property will
not be purchased.
WelshConstnuction
Plymouth Planning Commission and City Council
February 8, 1990
Page Two
Plymouth's Zoning Ordinance Section 11 Subdivision C . d - 4.
We have followed the ordinance pertaining to the off street
parking to the strict letter of the regulations, but still there
is a major parking problem associated with this Medical Building.
Plymouth's Zoning Ordinance Section 11 Subdivision C . d - 5.
The variation we are requesting is to strictly benefit the
welfare of the public. The additional parking we are proposing
will keep the public from parking on the frontage road and allow
them to park in the designated parking lot. It will also
eliminate the carpooling from the Holiday parking lot across a
busy intersection to the medical facilities.
Plymouth's Zoning Ordinance Section 11 Subdivision C . d - 6.
The proposed parking will not impair an adequate supply of light
or air to the adjacent property because we will not be
constructing any barriers.
Providing an additional parking lot will allow people to park in
the parking lot in lieu of the Frontage Road, which will decrease
the congestion of the public streets and increase public safety.
The development we are proposing will convert a parcel of
property that requires major soils correction into a usable piece
of property which will substantially increase the property tax
base for the City of Plymouth.
The City of Plymouth is aware
associated parking problems.
alleviated without compliance
hope the City of Plymouth will
variance.
Sincerely,
2c
E: Paul Dunn
918 Plymouth Partners
Partner
EPD /jmb
020790.1tr
of the existing building and the
These problems can not be
with this variance request. We
agree with us and grant us this
1
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: March 19, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: March 28, 1990
FILE NO.: 90011
PETITIONER: 918 Plymouth Partners
REQUEST: Site Plan and Variance for a New 7,700 Square Foot Office
Building
LOCATION: North of County Road 9 and west of Highway 169
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CL (Limited Business)
ZONING: B -1 (Office Limited Business)
BACKGROUND:
The City Council, on November 17, 1986, approved a Site Plan for Richard
VanMan, VanCo, Inc., for an 11,800 square foot office building on the
property. The building was never constructed; and the site remains vacant.
The proposed Site Plan and variance are proposed in conjunction with the Site
Plan amendment on the developed parcel to the east under File 90010.
Property owners within 100 feet have been notified of this public meeting.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The proposed Site Plan is responsive to the City of Plymouth's policies,
codes, and ordinances that apply to this type of construction except as
noted below. Specifically, the Site Plan proposes structure and parking
setbacks consistent with the Zoning Ordinance; landscaping consistent with
the Landscape Policy, screened roof top units consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance; on -site lighting to illumination standards established by the
Zoning Ordinance; storage of trash within trash enclosures; and fire
lane /fire protection consistent with the City Fire Code (except as noted).
2. The Ordinance allows for shared parking and drive areas between developed
sites. The combined parking provided exceeds the Ordinance minimums for
the two sites, 137 spaces are provided while only 114 are required.
see next page)
APPROVING SITE PLAN AND VARIANCE FOR 918 PLYMOUTH PARTNERS (90011)
WHEREAS, 918 Plymouth Partners has requestedquesed approvaloaalvafoance to allow the
construct a 7,700 square foot off use for property located
construction of accessory parking without a principal
north of County Road 9 and west of Highway 169; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
OF
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
request
T
918
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve
Plymouth Partners for a Site Plan toconstruction of acce0ssory aparking
wre
foot
building and a variance to allow the c
a principal use for property located north
onsf
County Road 9 and west of
Highway 169, subject to the following cond t
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Payment of park dedication fees-in-lieu
time of
dedication
bui ding permit issuance. the Dedication Policy in effect at
3. Compliance with Policy Resolution
d,aCe n0 regard floo
anyr
open astorm
for new structures on sites
water drainage facility.
uaran
4. Submission of required financial o
emente
and
lud ng
Performance
accessory Agparking
for completion of site imps,
responsive to the variance approval.
5. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance, and the approved
sign plan with this Site Plan.
6. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
7. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and
fire lanes.
8. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within an enclosure, and no
outside storage is permitted.
9. An 8k x 11 inch "As Built" Fire n site improvement
to the release or reduction of any
bonds per
10. Recording of cross easements for parking and access over the entire
d the
parking area approved for and between
1 Meyer Gonyea (Additio)
5
toanassure
parcel to the east (Lot 4, Blo ck,
properly functioning of the combined parking facilities.
see next page)
I
V
Resolution No.
File 90011
Page Two
11. The variance to allow construction and use of accessory parking prior to
construction of the principal structure is based on the following
findings:
a. The variance is temporary in nature in that as soon as a tenant is
found for the building the variance will no longer exist.
12. The variance to allow construction and use of accessory parking prior to
construction of the principal structure is subject to the following
conditions:
a. Construction of the accessory parking consistent with the approved
Site Plan, only.
b. Installation of approved site landscaping, including sod, north and
south of the accessory parking consistent with the approved landscape
plan.
c. Initial installation of parking lot surface and curb consistent with
City standards.
13. Submittal of appropriate agreement documents, to be approved by the City
Attorney and recorded as a covenant on the title to the property, relative
to the status of the development and the fact that if the building is not
constructed within two years the parking lot will be removed or the two
parcels will be combined into one.
a. A condition of approval will assure expiration of the variance if a
principal structure is not constructed within a specified period of
time.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: March 22, 1990
FILE NO.: 90011
PETITIONER: Mr. Shane Walgamuth, 918 Plymouth Partners, 11200 West 78th Street,
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
SITE PLAN: 918 II BUILDING
LOCATION: West of 9750 Rockford Road, Plymouth, MN 55442
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. _ X Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. _ X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and
No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Site Plan approval:
4. Area assessments estimated - Watermain area assessments based on
the difference between residential and commercial rates 97 acres x
X790 /acre = S766-30- Sanitary sewer area based on the difference
between residential and commercial rates .97 acres x 5440 /acre =
426.80.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None
LEGAL /EASEMENTS /PERMITS:
6. _ X _ Property is one parcel -
The approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot
consolidation be approved by the City Council and the necessary
resolution should be processed at the same time as the site plan
approval.
b
t
I
0 N/A Yes No
7. _ _ X Complies with standard utility /drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet W) in
width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required
it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents
executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any
building permits.)
8. X _ _ Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100
year high water elevation and conformance with the City's
comprehensive storm water requirements.
9. X All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities.
10. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way
to facilitate the development. It should be noted that this
vacation is not an automatic process in conjunction with the
platting process. It is entirely dependent upon the City receiving
a petition for the vacation from the property owner; therefore, it
is their responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated.
11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
2-
N/A Yes No
12. _ _ X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR
MN DOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
X Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
X 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:
14. _ X Necessary fire hydrants provided -
15. _ X
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. The Rost indicator valve cannot be located within the
parking area.
3-
I
0
I
i
N/A Yes No
17. X Hydrant valves provided -
All new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City
Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W -2. This plate should be
referenced on the site plan.
18. X _ Sanitary sewer clean -outs provided -
It will be necessary to provide clean -outs on the proposed internal
sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot intervals.
19. X Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
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
I
t
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. The site plan shall note the curb and gutter
is B -612.
23. _ X _ Complies with parking lot standards -
The City will require that all traveled areas within the parking
lot, as well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a
7 -ton standard City design with six inches of Class 5 100% crushed
limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one -half inches
of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be
constructed to a standard 5 -ton design consisting of four inches of
Class 5 100% crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. The site
plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with these
requirements.
STANDARDS:
N/A Yes No
24. X It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility
foreman,
24 hours in advance. of making any proposed utility connections to
the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The developer shall
also be responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the Public Works
Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the
City's right -of -way. All connections to the water system shall be
via wet tap.
25. _ X The City will require reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer,
water service and storm sewer As- Builts for the site prior to
occupancy permits being granted.
26. X The site plan complies with the City of Plymouth's current
Engineering Standards Manual. Note items 6 7 11, 12, 16, 22, 26,
and 27A.
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
27. A. Cross easements shall be provided for the shared parking with Camden Medical
Building.
2 ,
Submitted by: / Lt1 -17 V /iC Cz%'
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
ff o 22 PLVWCUTH-40
R.
Apv
It n &
Ap
PLACE y i
Z C
DMON
w 2ND ADD.
DEKO3
Cooco
311) E OUTLIOT A t
YE GONYEA,—
ROCKFORD (7) 2 1 BER 2ND
2
W ONWN -k ADDITION
7
3 3
ACE (9)
1
IRST (
1) (6)
6 co)
2
ITIONt 2
SOU • E, C) A D.
c,Y) 4
U EUU T
A
VENN. CO. CIZOV 0* D WN t4(04-1 T 32
ap-u--
t . .......
ax
4
56) z ------------------
k k ER LA N --- j (77) 296si
34) 4 t I
ADD. Zm
fADD. .... A - ---------------- Z
40)
W4
w) 0 -------------
A
3) ---
20
T
AVE. N. i uv Ile
22) lin
47)
9) 20
Z-
4) (
24
71 (45)
r.
Q4) 'm
o)
2'2) W"( 5y2,3) 70) .
il. - -
11 '.
6,
m I Ic LA.
7)
r
3), (12
1624. 18• RES.
ACREAGE — — — - — — — — STORM SEWER DISTRICT BOUNDARY
ND 114 HE 114 — - - - — - — — SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY SURVEY Div!
w I s r N f s F S. I — .................. WATERSHED DISTRICT BOUNDARY HENNEPIN CC
14139.89140.84140.%140.62140.70140 1710.25 .................. INCREMENT BOUNDARY
F' f) IF) —0) 0) v -4f/ p f) 4-n f) f) , f? V fl# V f! flo tp r) f!
11 1 , f) r e c or,
VAINAW AW MW mm mom j mmv w mmw mmmw a—w -.w
WelshConstructi0,1 .
February 7, 1990
Plymouth Planning Commission and City Council
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
RE: Variance Request to eliminate fire lane at the proposed
918 II Building
Dear Sirs /Madams:
The 918 Plymouth Partnership is requesting that a variance be
granted by the Plymouth City Council to alleviate a fire lane at
the proposed 918 II Building on the one acre lot to the west of
the Camden Medical Building at 9750 Rockford Road owned by the
918 Partnership. Compliance with this Fire Lane Ordinance will
result in hardship to us as future owners of this property for
the following reasons:
Allowing for all the required set backs and fire lane widths
would dramatically shrink the footage of the proposed building to
approximately 5,000 square feet, giving us an 11% building to
land ratio, making it unfeasible to construct a building and
parking lot of that size. The soil conditions are such that the
building footprint is limited to the western most area of the
site. If the variance is not grated, it is very likely that the
918 partnership will not develop this project and the parking
problems at the existing site will continue.
The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
the neighborhood. We feel that this building will be adequately
protected by the existing fire hydrant located on the south side
of this parcel, a siamese connection at the south face of the
building, a fully automated sprinkler fire extinguishing system
and drive areas for fire trucks on the east and south sides of
this building that will be constructed for a 7 ton capacity. In
addition the proposed building footprint is small enough to allow
firemen and hoses to access all sides of the building.
The City of Plymouth is aware of the parking problems that the
existing structure is experiencing. We are doing everything in
our power to develop the parcel of land to the west of this
existing building to alleviate this problem.
I
WelshConstructloil
I
Plymouth Planning Commission and City Council
February 7, 1990
Page Two
We hope the City of Plymouth will agree with us and grant us
this variance.
sincerely,
E. Paul Dunn
Partner
918 Plymouth Partners
EPD /jmb
020790.lr2
I
11 Z 'e • •I. 1• M.
1. That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or
topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, a
particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished fran a
mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be
carried out.
2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are
unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not
applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning
classification.
3. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire
to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land.
4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Ordinance and
has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the
parcel of land.
5. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in
which the parcel of land is located.
6. That the proposed variation will not inpair an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of
the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public
safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
forms:o >pl /zon.stnd /s) 10/89