HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 04-11-1990PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WHERE: Plymouth City Center
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 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.
Xmfl- "
I I 1,i ir1
6:45 P.M.
7:00 P.M.
March 28, 1990
A. Hoyt Development Company. Site Plan Amendment /Parking
Deferral /Conditional Use Permit and Variance for office /warehouse
located at the southeast corner of C.R. 6 and C.R. 61 (90002)
B. Vern Reynolds Construction Company. Land Use Guide Plan Amendment
and RPUD Concept Plan for Bass Lake Terrace located northeast of
West Medicine Lake Drive and the Soo Line Railroad (90012)
C. H. I. Enterprises, Inc. Site Plan, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit
and Variance for for a gas /convenience station located at the
southeast corner of Fernbrook Lane and Harbor Lane (90015)
A. Wetlands Protection Task Force
B. Comprehensive Plan Update Status
U 500A
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: March 27, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 11, 1990
FILE NO.: 90002
PETITIONER: Hoyt Development Company
REQUEST: Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: Southeast Corner of County Roads 6 and 61
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: IP (Planned Industrial)
ZONING: I -1 (Planned Industrial)
BACKGROUND:
This land was platted as Plymouth Orchard's Second Addition in 1984. In 1987
the City Council approved a lot division and Site Plan for the construction of
two office /warehouse buildings. These Site Plan approvals expired per the
Zoning Ordinance June 1, 1988, since no building permit had been issued for
these structures by that date. In November 1989, a Site Plan was
administratively approved for a 45,000 square foot office /warehouse facility
with 49 percent office and 51 percent warehouse. This building is currently
under construction.
Notice of the public hearing with regard to the Conditional Use Permit has
been published in the official City newspaper. All property owners within 500
feet have been notified.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant proposes a Site Plan amendment and Conditional Use Permit.
The Conditional Use Permit is to allow for the office portion of the
building to be increased from 49 percent to 65 percent. The Site Plan
amendment is for added parking to accommodate the additional office space.
2. The Zoning Ordinance (Section 8, Subdivision D, paragraph 2d) states that
a Conditional Use Permit may be approved for industrial buildings "...
which contain office uses which occupy more than 50 percent of the gross
floor area of the building and are found to be generally compatible with
the industrial district."
see next page)
File 90002
Page Two
3. Section 9, Subdivision A, paragraph 2a specifies that before any
Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the Planning Commission shall
review the application and consider its conformance to Conditional Use
Permit standards. The applicant has addressed those standards in the
attached narrative.
4. The Physical Constraints Analysis shows this property to be located within
the Basset Creek Drainage District. It does not contain any wetlands or
major woodlands but does have some severe slopes. The soils are very
suitable for urban capability with public sewers. There are scattered
existing mature trees on the site. Many of those trees are scheduled for
preservation by the landscape plan.
5. Parking for the original Site Plan- -the one that has been administratively
approved - -was responsive to the 49 percent office finish then proposed,
resulting in a requirement of 128 off - street parking spaces - -122 to be
constructed, and 6 additional spaces to meet the manufacturing "proof of
parking" standard. Both the 122 spaces proposed for construction and the
additional 6 spaces proof of parking fit within the site without the need
for setback variances of any type.
6. Section 10, Subdivision B, Paragraph 5, h. (4) of the Zoning Ordinance
specifies:
Where a building is designed to accommodate uses that may require
application of two or more differing parking standards based on
potential occupancy, the standard providing the greatest amount of
parking shall be applied exclusively. Office and commercial
buildings and occupancies allowed by Conditional Use Permit are
subject to this requirement. The Planning Commission may recommend,
and the City Council may approve, a proof -of- parking plan which
proposes to initially install only a portion of the required parking,
but demonstrates that the full complement of required parking could
be installed on the property with Ordinance standards at a later date
as determined by the City."
7. The petitioner, once the intended use for office predominates, as it would
by the requested Conditional Use Permit, must increase offstreet parking
to the office standard of 212 spaces. The petitioner proposes to
construct 155 spaces and demonstrate the ability to construct 223 spaces
with a "proof -of- parking" plan calling for a parking structure. The
approval of "proof -of- parking" plans is clearly discretionary by the City
Council on the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
see next page)
File 90002
Page Three
8. The petitioner is also proposing to defer the construction of the parking
ramp to such time as it is needed. The City has approved a similar
approach previously, provided that appropriate legal documents are filed
on the property identifying the possible future construction of the ramp,
when directed by the City, with no further special City actions required;
and the limitations on the use of this property that will result if the
parking demand exceeds the capacity of the site to support the minimum
parking required.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Where the required parking can be provided, the City has, in the past,
approved Conditional Use Permits for office finish in the I -1 District in
excess of 50 percent. Because the Zoning Ordinance provides for such
increased office finish in the I -1 Zone only with a Conditional Use Permit
we find there was legislative intent to consider such high office
occupancy in this district to be sufficiently special as to be reviewed on
a case -by -case basis. We find specifically that the 65 percent office
finish proposed for this location is generally compatible with the
industrial district, as required by the ordinance. This finding is
contingent upon minimum offstreet parking requirements -- including "proof
of parking " - -being executed and /or guaranteed as recommended by staff
herein.
3. We find the proof of parking plan proposed is responsive to the intent of
the Zoning Ordinance on the condition that a covenant be recorded on the
title to this parcel documenting that a parking ramp is approved as the
proof -of- parking plan for office occupancy over 65 percent 2r parking
deficiencies that may occur with respect to this site -- regardless of
cause - -in the future, which will result in restrictions on the use of the
building.
4. We find the Conditional Use Permit does meet the six standards for a
Conditional Use Permit upon the condition noted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the foregoing findings, I hereby recommend approval of the request
for a Conditional Use Permit to increase the office finish at the subject site
from 49 percent to 65 percent and the Site Plan amendment to increase the off -
street parking an44,roof of parking,
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
rles E. Dille
Recommendations for Approval of
Permit
Engineer's Memorandum
Location Map
Petitioner's Narrative
Conditional Use Permit Criteria
ity Development Coordinator
Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use
Administrative Approval Letter of November 9, 1989
Administratively Approved Site Plan of November 9, 1989
Large Plans
APPROVING SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, PROOF OF PARKING PLAN, AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR HOYT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (90002)
WHEREAS, Hoyt Development Company has requested approval for a Site Plan
amendment, deferral of construction of minimum parking, and Conditional Use
Permit to allow for the office portion of the Plymouth Orchard's Second
Addition to be increased from 49 percent to 65 percent and to allow additional
parking for property located at the southeast corner of County Roads 6 and 61;
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
Hoyt Development Company for a Site Plan amendment deferral of construction of
minimum parking, and Conditional Use Permit to allow for the office portion of
the Plymouth Orchard's Second Addition to be increased from 49 percent to 65
percent and to allow for deferral of minimum off - street parking for property
located at the southeast corner of County Roads 6 and 61, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Compliance with the conditions of the administrative approval letter dated
November 9, 1989, related to project 89075.
3. Appropriate legal documents establishing a covenant on the property shall
be approved by the City Attorney and filed at Hennepin County prior to
issuance of the Conditional Use Permit and related building permits,
identifying that the future uses of the building may require the
construction of a parking ramp, as shown on plans on file with the City to
provide the minimum parking for this building and approved uses. Further,
the covenant shall recognize that parking deficiencies identified by City
staff may require construction of the ramp to provide the minimum required
parking and failure to provide the required parking will result in
restrictions on the uses of the buildings. The parking required is
satisfied by lawful on -site parking facilities.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: November 13, 1989, revised February 22, 1990, Revised April 4, 1990
FILE NO.: 90002
PETITIONER: Mr. Brad Hoyt, Hoyt Development Company, 5555 West 78th Street,
Edina, MN 55435
SITE PLAN: HOYT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - WAREHOUSE /OFFICE BUILDING (PARKING RAMP)
LOCATION: South of County Road 6, east of Renium Lane, north of 15th Avenue in
the southeast 1/4 of Section 27
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. X Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and
No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Site Plan approval:
4. Area assessments estimated - None
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None
LEGAL /EASEMENTS /PERMITS:
N/A Yes No
6. _ X Property is one parcel -
The approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot
consolidation be approved by the City Council and the necessary
resolution should be processed at the same time as the site plan
approval.
N/A Yes No
7. X _ Complies with standard utility /drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in
width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required
it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents
executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any
building permits.)
8. X _ _ Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100
year high water elevation and conformance with the City's
comprehensive storm water requirements.
9. X _ All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities.
N/A Yes No
10. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way
to facilitate the development. It should be noted that this
vacation is not an automatic process in conjunction with the
platting process. It is entirely dependent upon the City receiving
a petition for the vacation from the property owner; therefore, it
is their responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated.
11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
2-
UTILITIES 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
X Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Other
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
13. _ X _ Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The site plan will be submitted to the City's consulting engineer
for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations
shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The grading and drainage
plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary:
N/A Yes No
14. _ X Necessary fire hydrants provided -
The City of Plymouth requires that all parts of a building such as
the one proposed be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant. It will be
necessary to locate hydrants in such a manner that the site plan
complies with this section of the City Ordinance.
15. _ X Size and type of material proposed in utility systems has been
provided
The utility plan shall be revised to indicate the size and type of
material required in the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain services
and storm sewer.
16. X _ Post indicator valve - fire department connection
It will be necessary to locate the post indicator valve in such a
manner that it will not render any of the existing fire hydrants
inoperable.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. _ X Hydrant valves provided -
All new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City
Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W -2. This plate should be
referenced on the site plan.
18. X _ Sanitary sewer clean -outs provided -
It will be necessary to provide clean -outs on the proposed internal
sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot intervals.
19. X Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
N/A Yes No
20. _ _ X All existing street right -of -ways are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required on as required by Hennepin
County in the northwest corner of the site.
21. _ X _ Complies with site drainage requirements -
The City will not permit drainage onto a City street from a private
parking lot; therefore, the site plan shall be revised accordingly.
4-
N/A Yes No
22. X Curb and gutter provided -
The City requires B -612 concrete curb and gutter at all entrances
and where drainage must be controlled, Curb Stone may be used where
it is not necessary to control drainage. For traffic control either
B -612 or curb stone is required around the bituminous surfaced
parking lot. The site plan shall be revised to indicate compliance
with this requirement.
23. _ X _ Complies with parking lot standards -
The City will require that all traveled areas within the parking
lot, as well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a
7 -ton standard City design with six inches of Class 5 100% crushed
limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one -half inches
of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be
constructed to a standard 5 -ton design consisting of four inches of
Class 5 100% crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. The site
plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with these
requirements.
STANDARDS:
N/A Yes No
24. X It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility
foreman,
24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to
the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The developer shall
also be responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the Public Works
Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the
City's right -of -way. All connections to the water system shall be
via wet tap.
25. _ X The City will require reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer,
water service and storm sewer As- Builts for the site prior to
occupancy permits being granted.
26. X The site plan complies with the City of Plymouth's current
Engineering Standards Manual. Note Items 12 20 26 27A. 27B. and
27C.
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
27. A. A detail shall be provided for the retaining walls.
B. A professional engineer shall certify that the retaining walls have been
properly constructed before an occupancy permit will be issued.
C. If the parking ramp is constructed, details of the storm drainage shall be
submitted for review.
Submitted by: & —V -'';Vd-, -"
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
I
f
n
1 i " - ' / /// "r r / / /// . , , V/A
da-
Nu'M
Ron 11AINK.0
a
ME
1
Hoyt Development
C O M P A N Y
5555 WEST SEVENTY EIGHTH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 612- 941.8200
January 30, 1990
Mr. Charles E. Dillerud
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
w,rrp
Pi nrir -,
JAN 31 199:1
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- .AfpT.
RE: SITE PLAN AMENDMENT WITH VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL
IT FOR OFFICE FINISH IN THE I -1 ZONE
900(Y2/)89075)
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us at your January 23, 1990
staff review committee. I have directed the responsible parties to
prepare the necessary drawings for our submission.
With regard to the hardships surrounding our request for a variance
and conditional use, I would like to stress the following:
1. The site is a very difficult site to develop due to its
topography, which slopes nearly 40 feet from northeast to
southeast. This necessitated an unusual and creative building
design requiring a lower level. Lower levels present a marketing
problem, in that they are conducive only to office finish and
cannot be provided with dock or warehouse access.
2. The site is restricted by three front yards, County Road 6 on the
north, County Road 61 on the west, and 15th on the south. Our
request is for variance to the front yard setbacks on two of
these sides to allow for an additional row of parking on the
north and west. The presence of this parking is mitigated by the
following:
The grade is such on the north and the west that the parking
is elevated above street level. This parking will be
mitigated also by additional landscaping. Further it is the
desire of Hoyt Development to act responsibly in its design
and occupancy of its buildings. Therefore, when designing
the project, the footprint was reduced from a potential of
56,000 square feet down to slightly over 35,000 square feet.
The rationale behind this design was to allow for a
footprint that could accommodate 100% office level parking
on grade, with no significant alterations to the property
indicated on plan).
DEVELOPMENT # CONSTRUCTION $# MANAGEMENT # INVESTMENT
Mr. Charles E. Dillerud
January 30, 1990
Page i
3. The location of the site is such that it was our desire to
provide a superior product aesthetically to that in the immediate
surrounding area. This type of building, of course, attracts
upper scale clients such as those who have signed leases, i.e,
General Mills Fulfillment Center and Bruce A. Liesch Associates,
one of the midwest's most respected testing companies. Both
companies have a large percentage of office use. They are also
both relatively small traffic generators in that they have little
or no walk -up traffic. Bruce A. Liesch Associates experiences no
truck traffic, while the General Mills office experiences minimal
traffic of only one or two trucks per week. We believe this is
beneficial to the area from a traffic perspect -ive.
4. The market for office showroom product has changed considerably
in the last two years. Where traditional occupancies in office/
warehouse buildings dictated an office percentage of 30% or less,
the new office showroom hybrid typically generates office
finishes in the neighborhood of 60% to 70 %. It is for this
reason that cities all over the Metropolitan area are
experiencing parking problems in older office, warehouse, and
office showroom buildings which were not designed to accommodate
this level of occupancy. We believe it is in everyone's best
interest to provide this parking to eliminate any future problems
the City might conceivably have with the development.
5. The high - quality and upscale nature of the development will
dictate a higher market value and corresponding increase in the
tax base than a traditional industrial product. We feel this is
beneficial to the community.
6. The landscaping plan, as proposed, provides for a very high level
of quality and addresses all screening issues. We do not believe
the granting of our request will result in a development that
will experience an advantage over other competing properties,
rather, it will put our property on a. level playing field. The
small size of lot in conjunction with the three front yard
setbacks and the extremely difficult topography create an
overwhelming argument for the granting of our request.
We appreciate your cooperation and assistance in this matter, and
respectfully request your kind consideration of same.
Respectfully submitted,
Bradley t
Presiden
BAH:klc
IF
AS Z ONVO `1' H' 1 V • 'lI.
FFM S MCN 9, SI A
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a recammendation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its
confonnw -ce with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly develop ment and imp ovement of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to • minimize traffic
congestion in the public streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
fonns:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
u
November 9, 1989
Mr. Brad Hoyt
Hoyt Development
5555West 18th Street
Edina, MN 55435
CIN OF
PLYMOUTFF
My MC
CITY -
COMMUHI j y D. Q -0PIW DEP
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL - SITE PLAN AT COUNTY ROAD 6 AND COUNTY ROAD
61 (89075)
Dear Mr. Hoyt:
This letter is written to inform you that the above referenced application has
been administratively approved per Section 11, Subdivision A, paragraph 8,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance requirements of the
City of Plymouth.
3. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
4. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and
fire lanes.
5. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within the enclosure, and
no outside storage is permitted. The enclosure shall conform to Zoning
Ordinance construction specifications. •
6. An 8 -1/2 x 11 inch "As- Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted
prior to the release or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City
Policy.
7. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning
Ordinance, Section 11, Subdivsion A, paragraph 11, with respect to a Site
Performance Agreement and financial guarantee shall be complied with.
8. Prior to issuance of a Certificant of Occupancy, Hoyt Development Company
shall deliver to the City of Plymouth an easement or quit claim deed for
additional street right -of -way as described by the letter and attachments
of the Hennepin County Department of Public Works dated August 22, 1989.
The administrative approval of your Site Plan shall become complete upon your
acknowledgement of this letter and the return of one executed copy. Please
note this approval is valid for one year from the date of this letter, subject
to the provisions of Section 11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559 -2800
Mr. Brad Hoyt
November 9, 1989
Page 2
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate
to call me.
Sincerely,
0 -
Char es E. illeru
Community Development Coordinator
cc: File 89075
pl/cd/89075.1)
I, A. aavt— AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR HOYT DEVELOPMENT
HEREBY ACKNOWLE GE AND GREE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF THE SITE
PLAN AT COUNTY ROAD 6 AND COUNTY ROAD 61 INCLUDING ALL THE CONDITIONS THEREOF
CONTAINED IN THIS LETTER ND THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CODE.
y Date:
6-43
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: March 30, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 11, 1990
FILE NO.: 90012
PETITIONER: Vern Reynolds Construction Company
REQUEST: Land Use Guide Plan Amendment to Reclassify from LA -2 to
LA -1 and Planned Unit Development Concept Plan
LOCATION: Northeast of West Medicine Lake Drive and the Soo Line
Railroad
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -2 (Low Medium Density Residential)
ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development)
BACKGROUND:
On May 3, 1982, by Resolution 82 -214, the Plymouth City Council denied an RPUD
Concept Plan for this site. The denial was based on the fact that urban
utilities and streets were unavailable at that time and were not part of the
current Capital Improvement Program.
This property was among those parcels which were approved for reclassification
by the City Council on December 18, 1989, upon Commission recommendation. The
reclassification was from LA -3 (High Medium Density) to LA -2 (Low Medium
Density), subject to approval of the Metropolitan Council, which is pending.
The applicant now proposes to reguide a parcel of approximately 78 gross acres
from the approved LA -2 (Low Medium Density Residential) to LA -1 (Low Density
Residential). The applicant also proposes an RPUD Concept Plan for 125 single
family detached units on the 63 acres net of land at or below the 100 -Year
flood elevation.
The Concept Plan proposal includes nearly 16 acres of "Pond" and an additional
10 acres of "Common Open Area." The intent by these proposals is to provide
the "more usable and suitably located recreation facilities than would
otherwise be provided under conventional land development procedures" required
as a PUD attribute by the Zoning Ordinance. The design of the plat is for
lots of 80 foot minimum width and 11,000 square foot minimum area. An average
lot area of 15,000 square feet is proposed.
Notice of this Public Hearing and Public Informational Meeting (Concept Plan)
has been published in the official City newspaper and notice has been mailed
to all property owners within 500 feet. A development sign has also been
placed on the property.
Page Two
File 90012
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant's narrative dated March 12, 1990 and February 15, 1990
describes both the proposed reguiding, and a response to the checklist for
applicants for a Land Use Guide Plan amendment. The narrative also
addresses responses to RPUD Concept Plan information requirements.
2. The approved locational criteria specified in the updated Land Use Guide
Plan Text with respect to LA -2 guiding are less specific and stated in
broader terms than that of LA -1 guiding. It is not difficult for much
land area of Plymouth to respond positively to LA -2 locational criteria.
The area under consideration was found to respond positively to LA -2
locational criteria.
It would appear that the LA -2 guiding that exists at this location (and to
a large measure on both sides of I -494 from the north corporate limits to
County Road 9) may be intended, at least in part, to be a buffer between
single family development and an arterial transportation corridor.
Locational criteria for LA -1 states that LA -1 guiding is suggested for
areas over 1/3 mile from a major collector or arterial; and, generally
lower densities will be required on the interior and higher densities will
be allowed on periphery of walking neighborhoods.
This reguiding proposal introduces LA -1 guiding directly abutting a major
arterial (I -494) on the west and a minor arterial (Northwest Boulevard) on
the east. Also, the west edge of this site coincides with the west
periphery of Walking Neighborhood 9 - -also the right -of -way of I -494.
3. There is no lack of developable property in the LA -1 classification. The
1990 -1994 Plymouth Capital Improvements Program will result in hundreds of
acres of LA -1 classified land receiving trunk water and sewer service, and
thereby that land will be eligible for urban development. The majority of
the large acreage of "new" LA -1 classified land will receive water and
sewer service in 1990 and 1991.
4. When the supply of a certain class of property is substantial - -such is the
case for land in Plymouth suitable for single family detached
development - -an action by a governmental body to increase the supply may
tend to have a depressing effect on the value of the existing supply.
5. The applicant contends that a multifamily development on this site would
be more intrusive and less harmonious with the existing neighborhoods. He
states higher density use would potentially have greater impact on the
natural wetland located on the south edge of the property. These could be
considered examples of merit in the proposal beyond the interests of the
owner. The Land Use Guide Plan and Zoning Ordinance do not require
multifamily development on LA -2 land.
Page Three
File 90012
6. The proposal addresses the issue of highest and best use of the site in
terms of relationship to surrounding development and a lack of natural
site features conducive to the attached housing types which can be
developed in LA -2 guided areas. The implication by the applicant that the
existing LA -2 guiding requires the introduction of "alternate housing
type" (to single family detached) is not accurate. While LA -2 guiding
permits such alternate housing types where site location, adjacent uses,
and natural site features would suggest such to be the best uses, there is
no mandate in the Land Use Guide Plan for alternative housing types in LA-
2 classified areas of the City.
During the past 12 months, at least 2 totally single family detached plats
have been approved in LA -2 guided /R -2 zoned areas of Plymouth (Swan Lake
West and Northfork).
7. The applicant indicates that his RPUD plan will call for a development of
125 units over the entire 63 (net for PUD) acres. This results in a
density of just under 2 dwelling units per acre above the 100 -Year storm
drainage elevation - -or, right at the expected LA -1 density of development.
The LA -2 guiding would result in an expected minimum of 3 units per net
acre, or a minimum 189 units over the 63 acres. The reduced impact on
water distribution, sanitary sewers, parks and trails, and transportation
plans is evident. To the extent that those facilities are not already
constructed, the impact therefore could be considered positive in terms of
reduced development intensity. To the extent those facilities are already
constructed in anticipation of the LA -2 densit in this area, the impact
could be considered negative (at least fiscally.
8. Discussion with respect to the impact on utility charges is contained in
the Engineer's Memorandum that has been attached to this staff report for
reference.
9. Section 9, Subdivision 6 identifies that the Planning Commission should
review the PUD Concept Plan for its relationship to the surrounding
neighborhood and its compliance with City ordinances and the Comprehensive
Plan. The developer has addressed some of the preliminary design issues
with this PUD however he suggests that this is a Concept Plan and more
specific details will be provided with the preliminary plan /plat
submittal.
10. The Physical Constraints Analysis identifies this property to be located
in the Shingle Creek Drainage District. The southern portion is located
within the Shoreland Management Overlay District and also contains some
wetlands. The site contains some major woodlands in the east central
portion along with some severe slopes which run from east to west through
the center of the site. The site contains some soils in the southern
portion of the site that are unsuitable for urban capability even with
with public sewers.
Page Four
File 90012
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The LA -2 guide plan classification locational criteria are more easily
attained than LA -1. Therefore a better question than, "Is this site
better LA -2 or LA -1 based on locational criteria ? ", would be "Does the
site respond to LA -1 locational criteria?
We find the locational criterion of LA -1 related to "transition from major
collector or arterial" to be violated on face by this proposal.
Interstate 494 is a "Principal Arterial" and County Road 61 is a "Minor
Arterial" in the functional classification system of the Plymouth
Transportation Plan Element. We concede that creative use of grade
differentials my provide a physical mitigation to the locational conflict
the Land Use Guide Plan addresses by this criterion.
Further, we do not subscribe to the implied corollary that areas adjacent
to thoroughfare streets are better suited to high density residential
development on AU basis other than the need to locate traffic generators
near thoroughfares. That becomes a reason for locating high density near
thoroughfares but not necessarily against locating LA -1 near
thoroughfares.
2. The LA -1 locational criterion regarding relationship to walking
neighborhood peripheries is not relevant with this site. The westerly
periphery of Walking Neighborhood 9 is the westerly edge of this site, but
the Interstate 494 corridor physically divides this site from Walking
Neighborhood 8 to the west. What is located on the west periphery of this
walking neighborhood will not impact uses in the walking neighborhood to
the west.
3. The Land Use Guide Plan amendment application is in response to financial
issues related to area and other assessment policies rather than to land
use matters.
The potential for 170 fewer persons as a result of the proposed reguiding
would provide a negative impact to the City of Plymouth with respect to
State and Federal aids that are based on per capita calculations. The LA-
2 guiding that exists at low end, could generate 34 percent more per
capita revenues than LA -1 guiding at low end.
4. Clearly, the RPUD Concept Plan application submitted is to develop single
family detached housing of a specific lot size /shape configuration. The
RPUD application is to gain lot sizes below ordinance standards. Few, if
any, physical site resources are preserved by the PUD approach in addition
to those that will be preserved anyway as storm water drainage and /or
DNR /Corps of Engineers designated wetland.
5. With few if any PUD attributes provided, the Concept Plan proposed does
not clearly qualify as a PUD. This project could be designed as a
conventional" R -2 zoned subdivision and appear very similar, except with
slightly larger lots; wider lots; and no common open space.
Page Five
File 90012
6. Private common open space in single family detached PUD's has not been
uniformly successful in Plymouth, and I therefore question it as a PUD
attribute. The intended function of private common open space in a PUD --
usable open space in lieu of private yard area -- does not operate as well
with single family detached lots that are of the size here proposed
11,000 square feet minimum -- 15,000 square feet average) as it does with
attached housing.
The home buyers generally do not perceive the purpose of the private open
space created, and, in fact, have tended to resent the intrusion of those
areas into private lots, and the common responsibilities for the open
space.
7. We find the proposed Land Use Guide Plan reclassification from LA -2 to LA-
1 is not supported by the analysis provided. Specifically, no higher or
better use would result; adequate amounts of LA -1 classified land are
available elsewhere in the City; no specific benefit will be realized by
the City not otherwise realizable; and no significant improvement in
response to locational criteria will result.
8. We find this site could be developed with a similar design responsive to
the existing LA -2 guiding (and resulting R -2 zoning) and a conventional
plat. Lot width at the front setbacks and minimum lot size would increase
to 90 feet and 15,000 square feet respectively.
Where specific design hardship can be shown, on a lot by lot basis, we
would review lot size and /or lot width variance requests proactively.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend the application for Land Use Guide Plan Element to reclassify this
site from LA -2 to LA -1 be denied, based on the findings proposed in the
attached resolution format.
I further recommend the RPUD Concept Plan proposed be denied based on findings
proposed in the attached resolution format.
Consistent with previous Planning Commission direction I have also attached
resolution formats for approval of both the Land Use Guide Plan Element
amendment and the RPUD Concept Plan.
Page Six
File 90012
It should be noted (and has been to the applicant) that the City- initiated
reguiding from LA -3 to LA -2 is still pending review by the Metropolitan
Council. This action (to approve) would be contingent upon final approval of
the LA -2 guiding and might require reconsideration should the guiding not be
changed (not a 1 i lyric event, but Pq, j bl e) . 1
Submitted by:
Char es E. Dilleru Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution Recommending Denial of the Amendment to the Land Use
Guide Plan
2. Draft Resolution Recommending Denial of the RPUD Concept Plan
3. Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of the Amendment to the Land Use
Guide Plan
4. Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of the RPUD Concept Plan
5. Engineer's Memorandum
6. Petitioner's Narrative
7. Petitioner's Checklist
8. Staff Checklist
9. Large Plans
pc /cd /90012:jw)
DENYING LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR VERN REYNOLDS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
TO RECLASSIFY PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF WEST MEDICINE LAKE DRIVE AND THE
SOO LINE RAILROAD FROM LA -2 TO LA -1 (90012)
WHEREAS, Vern Reynolds Construction Company has requested approval for a Land
Use Guide Plan Amendment to reclassify property located northeast of West
Medicine Lake Drive and the Soo Line Railroad, from LA -2 (Low Medium Density
Residential) to LA -1 (Low Density Residential); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the request following a duly
scheduled Public Hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the reclassification
of land use guiding for Vern Reynolds Construction Company for approximately
63 acres located northeast of West Medicine Lake Drive and the Soo Line
Railroad from LA -2 (Low Medium Density Residential) to LA -1 (Low Density
Residential), based on the following findings:
1. The site can be reasonably developed
classification.
2. There is no lack of developable property
classification.
under the current LA -2
in Plymouth of a LA -1
3. No public need or benefit from the proposed reclassification has been
clearly demonstrated.
4. The report of the City Engineer states that a significant reduction will
result in street and utility assessments payable to the City resulting in
a negative impact on infrastructure trunk fiscal planning which
contemplated the approved guiding.
DENYING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR VERN REYNOLDS
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF WEST MEDICINE LAKE
DRIVE AND THE SOO LINE RAILROAD (90012)
WHEREAS, Vern Reynolds Construction Company has requested approval of a
Residential Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for the development of
approximately 63 acres located northeast of West Medicine Lake Drive and the
Soo Line Railroad; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called
Public Informational Hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the Residential
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Vern Reynolds Construction Company
for a development to be known as Bass Lake Terrace consisting of approximately
63 acres located northeast of West Medicine Lake Drive and the Soo Line
Railroad based on the following findings:
1. The Concept Plan does not respond affirmatively to attributes expected in
a PUD, as described in Section 9, Subdivision B, Paragraph 1 of the
Plymouth Zoning Ordinance.
2. The subdivision design neither provides affirmative design efforts to
preserve or enhance desirable site features, nor demonstrates a more
efficient and effective use of public streets, utilities and public
facilities to yield higher quality development at a lesser cost than
conventional subdivision design.
3. The proposed dwelling unit density is below the minimum specified by the
Land Use Guide Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan for development of
the LA -2 land use classification, and therefore the proposed Concept Plan
is inconsistent with the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan.
4. The property could be developed under conventional ordinance standards for
the R -2 district with dwelling styles and lot dimensions similar to those
presented.
APPROVING LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR VERN REYNOLDS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
TO RECLASSIFY PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF WEST MEDICINE LAKE DRIVE AND THE
SOO LINE RAILROAD FROM LA -2 TO LA -1 (90012)
WHEREAS, Vern Reynolds Construction Company has requested approval for a Land
Use Guide Plan amendment to reclassify property located northeast of West
Medicine Lake Drive and the Soo Line Railroad, from LA -2 (Low Medium Density
Residential) to LA -1 (Low Density Residential); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the request following a duly
scheduled Public Hearing and has recommended approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the
reclassification of land use guiding for Vern Reynolds Construction Company
for approximately 63 acres located northeast of West Medicine Lake Drive and
the Soo Line Railroad from LA -2 (Low Medium Density Residential) to LA -1 (Low
Density Residential), subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall gain approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat within
one year of City Council approval of the Land Use Guide Plan amendment.
2. The developer shall submit, along with the Final Plat, a timetable for the
removal of the existing structures, to be approved by the City Council.
3. This action is specifically conditioned on approval by the Metropolitan
Council of an amendment to the Land Use Guide Plan Element of the Plymouth
Comprehensive Plan approved December 18, 1989, by the Plymouth Cit
Council to reclassify this site from LA -3 (High Mid Density Residentia
to LA -2 (Low Mid Density Residential).
FURTHER, approval of the Land Use Guide Plan amendment is contingent upon, and
subject to the required review and response by the Metropolitan Council; the
Development Contract shall be executed and the Final Plat shall be recorded at
Hennepin County with all fees paid prior to July 1, 1991, or this resolution
will be void and the reguiding will not take place;
FURTHER, there shall be no extension of this deadline.
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR VERN REYNOLDS
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF WEST MEDICINE LAKE
DRIVE AND THE S00 LINE RAILROAD (90012)
WHEREAS, Vern Reynolds Construction Company has requested approval of a
Residential Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for the development of 125
single family building lots on approximately 63 acres located northeast of
West Medicine Lake Drive and the Soo Line Railroad; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called
Public Informational Hearing and has recommended approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Residential
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Vern Reynolds Construction Company
for a development to be known as Bass Lake Terrace consisting of 125 single
family building lots on approximately 63 (net) acres located northeast of
West Medicine Lake Drive and the Soo Line Railroad, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Staging of the development shall be in accordance with utility
availability as approved by the City Engineer and based on a City contract
for trunk construction.
3. Draft restrictive covenants for the private open areas (all proposed
outlots) shall be submitted with Preliminary Plat /Plan application.
4. No private drive access shall be permitted to County Road 61; all private
drives shall be provided by internal public streets.
5. The private trails shall be built to City standards and shall be
constructed prior to issuance of building permits for homes on lots
adjacent to the trails.
6. The design of proposed private open space areas shall be specified with
the Preliminary Plan. The approved improvements shall be installed prior
to issuance of building permits for homes on the adjacent lots.
7. Site density is approved at 1.98 units per acre over the 63 acres above
the 100 -Year pond elevation.
8. Approval of this Concept Plan is specifically conditioned on approval by
the City of Plymouth and the Metropolitan Council of an amendment to the
Land Use Guide Plan Element of the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan to change
the land use classification of the subject parcel from LA -2 (Low -Mid
Density Residential) to LA -1 (Low Density Residential). This Concept Plan
approval shall be null and void without LA -2 land use classification
approved for the site.
9. & specific lot dimensions or structure setbacks are hereby approved.
Review of these details will be concurrent with the RPUD Preliminary Plat
and Conditional Use Permit.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
E- N61NEER'S MEMO
to
PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
DATE: April 4, 1990
FILE NO.: 90012
PETITIONER: Mr. Vern Reynolds, Vern Reynolds Construction, 6570 Goldenrod Lane,
Goldenrod Lane, Maple Grove, MN 55369
LAND USE GUIDE
PLAN AMENDMENT/
CONCEPT PLAN: "BASS LAKE TERRACE PROPOSED ON 78.7 ACRES, WEST OF PROPOSED NORTHWEST
BOULEVARD, EAST OF WEST MEDICINE LAKE DRIVE AND NORTH OF THE SOO LINE
RAILROAD TRACKS IN THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 3 AND THE NORTHEAST 1/4
OF SECTION 10"
This memo was prepared in response to the request for Land Use Guide Plan Amendment and
conceptual approval for the above referenced property. Documents in support of the
request were submitted by Midwest Land Surveyors, Inc. and received in this office on
February 16, 1990.
1) Area Assessments, based on 78.7 acres - 15.8 acres of ponding = 62.9 acres x 2
units /acre = 125.8 units (for LA 1 Guiding). 62.9 acres x 4 units per acre =
251.6 units /acre (for LA 2 Guiding).
NOTE: Area charges are subject to change periodically. The rate assessed would
be that in effect at the time of Final Plat approval.
EXISTING LA 2 GUIDING PROPOSED LA 1 GUIDING
4 UNITS AC) (2 UNITS AC)
Sewer Area $110,704 $55,352
Water Area 198,764 99,382
Street, Curb & Gutter & Grading 103,558 -0-
Curb & Gutter Only -0- 12,160
Storm Sewer 31.38$ -0-
444,414 $166,894
Difference $277,520
If the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment changing the area from LA -2 to LA -1 is
approved by the City Council as requested by the developer, it will require
approval by the City Council to reduce the assessment for Northwest Boulevard
from LA -2 Guiding to LA -1 Guiding which is curb and gutter only.
2) The City will require utility and drainage easements 10 feet in width adjoining
all street and six feet in width adjoining the side and rear lot lines.
ENGINEERING MEMO - LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT /CONCEPT PLAN
Page Two
3) The City will require 10 foot drainage and utility easements on each side of the
public utility where these utilities are proposed to be installed.
4) The developer will be responsible for the construction of necessary watermain,
sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and streets to serve the site.
5) The City will require a final plan and profile of proposed sanitary sewer,
watermain, streets, and storm sewers plus an Erosion Control Plan in accordance
with our Engineering Guidelines.
6) The City will require a Storm Drainage Plan showing proposed finished contours
indicating how the proposed plat will ultimately drain. This material must be
submitted in conjunction with proposed storm sewer plans. The City will then
review the proposed storm drainage plans to make sure they are in compliance
with the City's Comprehensive Plan for storm drainage systems.
7) 50 feet of right -of -way which is one half the 100 foot right -of -way will be
required for Northwest Boulevard. 50 feet of right -of -way will be required for
all interior streets.
8) A Storm Water Drainage Map with runoff calculations and pipe capacity
calculations shall be furnished to the City prior to final approval of the storm
sewer system.
9) The City will require a dedication of drainage easements for Pond SC -P8B below
an elevation of 928.0.
10) The developer shall petition the City to construct Northwest Boulevard and
necessary utilities.
11) This plat will not have adequate street access unless County Road 61, Northwest
Boulevard, is constructed.
12) The sanitary sewer must be extended to the north of Outlot A, Bass Lake Heights
4th Addition approximate 300 feet to the southerly proposed street to serve the
southerly portion of the site.
13) A portion of this property was located in Sanitary Sewer District NC -10. This
area was redirected to Sanitary Sewer District BL -2 with the Final Plat approval
of Bass Lake Heights 4th Addition. Approval of the Final Plat of Bass Lake
Terrace shall be subject to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the
Metropolitan Council approving a revision to the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan
redirecting District NC -10 to District BL -2.
14) Temporary access off West Medicine Lake Drive shall be provided through the most
southerly street to Northwest Boulevard. This temporary access must be provided
prior to vacating West Medicine Lake Drive.
15) The storm drainage for Heritage Woods Estates 2nd Addition was directed to the
north. Only the rear portion of the lots adjacent to proposed Bass Lake Terrace
now drains to the south.
SUBMITTED BY:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
March 12, 1990
Mr. Chuck Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
SUBJECT: Vern Reynolds' Requests -
PUD Concept Plan and Land Use Amendment
MFRA #9293
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
9GC12-
Telephone Engineers
612/476 -6010 Planners
612/4 - FA( - —Swveyo
R r
La,k r <; _
MAR
C T`;'"
This letter is written in response to our meeting of February 27, 1990, and
specifically, in regard to the Land Use Amendment request.
Please incorporate this letter and my previous letter and application
transmittal, dated February 15, 1990, with the City's official record and
background file, concerning Mr. Reynolds' property.
Discussion of Land Use Amendment Request
The subject property measures approximately 78.7 acres in area. The
southern 15.8 acres are below the City designated 100 -year flood elevation of
928 feet. Additionally, %+ acres of the site include relatively steep slopes.
These slopes parallel the flood plain and rise to elevation 950 from the 928
contour. This band of slopes is approximately 200 feet in width and extend
across the site generally east -west and to create a transition from the south
lower 30% percent of the site, i.e., wetland and floodplain and the northern
70% upland pastured and cultivated area.
The upland "developable" portion of the site is approximately 55.9 acres.
Overall average dimensions of this 55.9 acre area are 1250 feet x 1600 feet.
This "developable" area gradually ascends to the site's highest elevation of
1016 feet. This prominent high point is centrally located on the west property
line. It is important to note that few other notable site features exist on
the site and it is fair to say, without exaggeration, no significant features
exist which would guide or direct site design decisions.
Site design and site utilization decisions are based partially on a careful
inventory and thoughtful analysis of a site's on -site physical characteristics
and off -site land use context. The site possess minimal physical features
within the developable 55.9 area; no woodland of consequence, upland
depressions or wetlands, dramatic topographic changes, ridges or valleys exist
on this site to accommodate or facilitate a creditable mixed residential design
solution. The dimensions of the site and the relatively "flat" topography
suggest a rather "ordinary" site appearance.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
March 12, 1990
Page Two
In contrast, a site with woodland features, valleys, ridges and topographic
relief possess a land form context and character which provides interesting and
challenging site design opportunities. Sites which are characterized by a
great variety and diversity of stratigically located natural features
accommodate design and site utilization solutions which incorporate these
interesting natural features in a mixed land use scenario of development; for
instance, woodland or drainage revines provide an opportunity for a transition
in land use; ponding areas and steep slopes may facilitate a change in land use
type and intensity.
Mr. Reynolds is desirous of developing this property and appreciates the
City's desire to complete County Road 61 (Northwest Boulevard) north and south
of the subject property. The combination of these desired goals anticipates
plat approval and ultimate development of the site. We believe a single family
lot layout development is the most appropriate and realistic use for this
property, considering the following facts:
1. Mr. Reynolds' desire to proceed with the platting process;
2. The obvious need to access the property via the completion of
Northwest Boulevard;
3. Realization of the site's limited number of amenities; and
4. The existing /planned neighborhood context.
Recently approved development contiguous to the north property line
consists of single family lots and, similarily, land to the northeast and east
consists of single family homes. The exceptions to the single family land use
are a community ballfield and neighborhood park, located to the east of future
Northwest Boulevard. The south property line is adjacent to the Soo Line
Railroad main track, and the substantial wetland and City - designated floodplain
area. Interstate Highway 494 abutts the site's west boundary.
DILEMMA OF CURRENT L.A. 2 DESIGNATION
The property is currently designated for low- medium intensity uses. In the
City's comprehensive plan, the introductory statement for the LA -2 district
notes the intention of the district is to provide for a mix of single family
and low density multiple uses, including two family dwellings, townhomes,
quadraminiums, and apartments. Development considerations for the LA -2
district suggest that "due to the range of housing types, it should be possible
to form a suitable transition from all existing or proposed uses and to relate
the development to natural terrain and features to adequately buffer most
adverse external effects ".
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
March 12, 1990
Page Three
As mentioned earlier, no terrain or other natural features exist within the
buildable portion of this site to accommodate a creditable and marketable mixed
land use design solution. The proposed single - family platting of the site
would, furthermore, demonstrate a compatibility with existing single - family
development to the north and east. The Interstate Highway "edge" will be
screened and buffered similarily to the design solution comtemplated in
development to the north, known as Heritage Estates (Bass Lake Hills).
The introduction of an alternative housing type, merely to increase
density, would be unfortunate and disruptive, particularily considering the
neighborhood context and would also unnecessarily complicate the design
continuity as proposed by Mr. Reynolds.
The single - family plan, however, results in a density of two units per
acre, corresponding to LA -1 density, as compared to the LA -2 density of 3 -5
units per acre: herein lies the dilemma.
LAND USE AMENDMENT REQUEST,
LA -2 to LA -1
The City checklist for proposed Land Use Amendments requires a response to
seven items of inquire. The following addresses each of these items:
1. Are locational criteria for both existing and proposed classifications
satisfied by the specific site?
Proposed LA -1 Existing LA -2
Location Criteria) (Location Criteria)
Only development allowed in non- * Allowed in all areas of
sewered areas. of walking and driving
neighborhoods.
Suggested for areas 1/3 mile from * Higher densities located
major collector or arterial near major access points,
while lower density
generally on the interior
of the site.
Not allowed adjacent to arterial
interchange
Not allowed in areas designated
non - residential or LA -3 or LA -4
districts, except in a PUD.
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
March 12, 1990
Page Four
In PUD's involving LA -2, LA -3,
LA -4 housing types, at least one
tier of single family lots are
required adjacent to developed
single family areas.
Generally lower density is
required on the interior and
higher density is allowed on
the periphery.
The Reynolds' site and proposed single - family development scenario
satisfies all criteria except one, i.e., LA -1 areas are suggested to
be 1/3 mile from a major collector or arterial. Existing
single - family homes and platted lots to the east and north are within
1/3 mile of Interstate 494 and Northwest Boulevard. I conclude that
uniformity of land use, i.e., single - family homes, would add
enormously to the neighborhood context.
2. Demonstrate why the classification should be changed.
A density of 3 -5 units per acre cannot be reasonably developed on this
site without a convoluted or contrived site design solution. To
acheive densities of 3 -5 units per acre, only two alternatives exist:
a mixed residential plan or an attached unit housing plan.
The practical disadvantage of a mixed use plan is the fact that no
suitable natural site features exist to create an effective transition
between housing types; we believe such a site design would have the
appearance of being fabricated crowded and less than optimal.
On the other hand, an attached housing scheme would not be as
compatible with existing area development. The applicant believes
that the proposed single - family plat and the resultant two unit per
acre density is an appropriate use and will contribute favorably to
the existing neighborhood character.
3. Is there a lack of developable property in the City which has the same
classification as that proposed?
There is no evidence which would suggest that a lack of LA -2 property
currently exists. The applicant's reason for pursuing the
re- designation is based on the fact that the resultant density of the
proposed plan falls short of the specific density guideline for the
LA -2 district.
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
March 12, 1990
Page Five
As discussed in the above paragraphs, the site does not lend itself to
a well - designed mixed residential development, due to its physical
dimensions, neighborhood context and the lack of interesting site
characteristics.
We believe the most appropriate use of this property is a single -
family detached development and processed under the provisions of a
Planned Unit Development. While the resultant plan falls short of the
3 unit per acre minimum density of the LA -2 district, the plan does
accommodate the preservation of the prominent high point on the site,
the sloped areas, wetlands and 100 -year flood elevation.
4. As a result of this action, will there be an adverse impact upon:
Other undevelopable property in this classification.
Other developable property in the classification proposed for
this site which may be subject to redevelopment or
rehabilitation.
It cannot be said that the development of this property as proposed
will not adversely impact other property of similar classification.
To make such a statement would be foolish. However, it would appear,
based on recent City actions which reduce the amount of LA -3 land
within the City, there is, at least in part, a greater demand or
desireability for lower density guided property in Plymouth.
The fact remains, this property could be developed exclusively for
single - family detached housing. The use is not the issue, the
neighborhood context and the desireability of preserving the prominent
high point, sloped areas and fringe areas along the wetland and
100 -year floodplain are issues worthy of serious consideration.
Based on the relative "young age" of all area development, it is not
practical to conclude that the development of this property, as
proposed, would have any adverse impact on other similarly classified
properties which may be subject to redevelopment or rehabilitation.
5. Demonstate that the proposal has merit beyond the interests of the
proponent or of the perspective developer of the site.
It is the position of the applicant that completion of County Highway
61 (Northwest Boulevard) is an important arterial link within the City
of Plymouth. The development of the subject property and the
completion of Northwest Boulevard does extend beyond the interest of
the proponent and to the general interest of the City of Plymouth.
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
March 12, 1990
Page Six
Furthermore, it is the applicant's belief that the proposed single -
family development would be beneficial to residents of single family
located to the north, northeast and east.
Development of this property, as single - family home sites, will have
minimal impact on slopes and minimal intrusion or impact on the
wetland. The proposed intensity of development will, furthermore,
have minimal impact on other City public facilities.
The development seeks to preserve the prominent high point at
elevation 1016 for the common good of its residents, and the fact is
that the development, as proposed, will, in all likihood, minimize
long term problems and complications which may be attributable to a
mixed land use solution.
6. Demonstate that the new classification would be the highest and best
use of the site. What is the public need or benefit?
The applicant's position is that the single family develompent of the
property will produce a desireable 125 lot residential plan. A mixed
residential use or attached unit plan as mentioned previously, would
be more intrusive and less harmonous with the existing neighborhood.
A higher density use of the property would potentially have greater
impact on the natural wetland located on the south edge of the
property. The developer is convinced that any negatives associated
with interstate Highway 494 can be effectively mitigated.
Public need or community benefit is derived from the ability to
complete Northwest Boulevard and, in part, from the ultimate
development of a proposal which is deemed desirable and compatible
with the area.
7. What impact will the proposed change have on the following
comprehensive plan elements?
Transportation: The net land area of the site is 62.9 acres. The
proposed plan includes 125 residential units. If one were to
assume the property were developed at 3 units -per acre, the
minimal density allowed under the LA -2 district, an additional 64
units or a total of 189 units could possibly be situated on the
site. The resultant daily traffic generated by the proposed plan
is less by a factor of 64 housing units.
Sanitary sewer has been analyzed and summarized by the Applicant
in a letter dated February 14, 1990.
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
March 12, 1990
Page Seven
Storm sewer runoff rates will be typical for Single - Family
Developments - upland ponding is contemplated to provide primary
detention and sedimentation.
Housing: The proposal includes 125 home sites. This compares
with 189 to 314 units, based on 3 -5% UN /AC and 62.9 net acres.
We continue to maintain that 125 single family lots are an appropriate use
for this site. Single family uses are consistent with the current guiding;
however, density of 3% UN /AC cannot be realistically achieved without
introducing an alternative housing type. This, we believe, would not be
appropriate considering the nature of the site and the existing neighborhood.
I would appreciate your sensitivity toward these opinions and observations,
and seek your concurrence.
Kindest regards,
M6CbMBS FR NK R09S ASSOCIATES, INC.
WLr
Michael Jl.
air
MG:jmj
cc: Vern Reynolds
Rod Halverson
GAIR & ASSOCIATES
Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc.
Site Design and Planning Consultants
February 15, 1990
Chuck Dillerud
City Planner
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: Vern Reynolds Request -
PUD Concept Plan and Land Use Amendment
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
z
c1 P;- %t Qerl.
Accompanying this letter and descriptive narrative is an executed application,
filing fee and Planned Unit Development Concept Plan prepared by Midwest Land
Surveyors and Civil Engineers, Inc. at the request of Mr. Vern Reynolds.
On February 6, 1990, we were provided the opportunity to meet with yourself and
other City Department staff members to review Mr. Reynolds' 125 unit single
family detached plan for the subject 78.7 acre site.
The purpose of that meeting was to review the layout for the property and discuss
key issues of concern, including:
1. Cost of improvements for future County Highway 61.
2. Acquisition of property for County Highway 61 right -of -way.
3. Park land dedication relative to proposed private common land.
4. Review of application procedures and the anticipated requested
actions necessary to process the proposed 125 unit single family
concept plan.
We were provided input from the Park Department representative concerning the
staff's recommendation for cash in lieu of land to meet ordinance requirements.
The Assistant Fire Marshall voiced concern regarding the area of the original
farm site and homestead which will require clean -up. The Engineering Department
representative spoke in regard to both sanitary sewer availability and storm
sewer flow changes subsequent to the development of Bass Lake Hills. We also
reviewed assessment policies and it was suggested that the City Engineer would
provide Mr. Reynolds with a cost estimate for improvements of County Road 61
along the length of the subject property. We also received input from yourself
concerning procedural aspects of the application necessary to ultimately plat
and rezone this property pursuant to the provisions of a planned unit
development.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue • Suite 250 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413
6121331 -8668 TWX: 910 - 576 -3111
C. Dillerud
February 15, 1990
Page 2
Subsequent to our February 6 staff meeting, the applicant has requested Midwest
Land Surveyors and Civil Engineers, Inc. to make refinements in the concept plan
and process an application in accordance with the City required checklists
involving the Planned Unit Development Concept review stage and a Land Use
Amendment. Midwest Land Surveyors and Civil Engineers, Inc. will provide all
graphic background materials as required by the checklists, and Mr. Larry Olson,
Minnesota Registered Civil Engineer, has provided sanitary sewer calculations
under separate cover which are required for evaluating the proposed land use
amendment.
Mr. Reynolds has retained my services as his overall application coordinator and
to function as a liaison between himself, his technical consultants and the City.
All City correspondence should, however, be directed to Rod Halverson of Midwest
Land Surveyors and Civil Engineers, Inc.
The following is a descriptive narrative of the proposed development and attempts
to respond to inquiries regarding the planned unit development and the proposed
land use amendment.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The 78.7 acre site is bounded on the west by Interstate 494, on the east by
future Highway 61, on the north by the approved Bass Lake Hills Planned Unit
Development, and on the south by wetland and the Soo Railroad Main Line Track.
The property is currently guided LA -2 pending Metropolitan Council review of the
City's proposed regaiding. Historically the property had been guided LA -3.
Mr. Reynolds is seeking approval for a single family detached residential
development. The site is somewhat isolated by virtue of future County Highway
61, Interstate 494 and the wetland and railroad on the south. It's northern
property boundary adjoins the single family subdivision component of Bass Lake
Hills Planned Unit Development known as Heritage Wood Estates. Residential
platting, as approved for properties adjoining the site's north boundary, are
typically 80 foot lot widths, 160± depth, and measure generally 13,000± square
feet in area (minimum lot area is 11,000 square feet). Properties to the
northeast, known as Bass Lake Heights, consist of lots typically 80 x 145 feet
in dimension and, as we understand, was approved as a planned residential single
family development. Immediately to the east of future Northwest Boulevard
County Highway 61) is Bass Lake Woods, a subdivision of larger lots, fronting
on 55th Avenue. Although this property has been platted with larger lots, the
lots and road layout responds to the very complicated topography and heavily
wooded character of the site. Immediately south of Bass Lake Woods is a future
City community playfield and a proposed neighborhood park. Further south of
these two important recreational amenities is Bass Lake Addition, a subdivision
which appears to be very similar to Bass Lake Heights and Bass Lake Hills in that
it consists of lots approximately 80 feet in width and varying from 135 to 155
feet in depth, with some lots of greater depth, as much as 170 and 180 feet.
C. Dillerud
February 15, 1990
Page 3
The plats east of future County Road 61 are within an LA -I land use district.
The subject property's physiography is characterized by generally two distinct
descriptions.
A. The southern 30 percent of the site includes some low woodland areas,
a 16 acre pondi ng area (area below the City designated 100 year f 1 ood
elevation 928) and a band of relatively steep slopes, creating the
vertical transition between the pond and the upland area of the site.
B. The remaining 70 percent of the site is generally upland, pastured
and cultivated farm land. This area includes a relatively prominent
point of elevation 1016 located on the western edge of the site
adjoining West Medicine Lake Road. The remainder of this upland area
is generally at ground elevation 990 to 960. It is the intent of
Mr. Reynolds' design concept to protect the high point of elevation
1016 for the enjoyment of the residents of this subdivision by
platting it as common open land. Views from this prominent point
offer panoramic vistas which include the Minneapolis downtown
skyline.
Mr. Reynolds has had this land in his control for some time and has developed
a series of alternative development scenarios which included various types of
housing. These plans were prepared in response to housing industry trends and /or
in response to various land use designations for the property. Earlier plans
were responsive to the LA -3 guiding. More recent plans were prepared in response
to LA -2 guiding in reaction to recent amendments proposed by the City Planning
Commission and ultimately approved by the City Council.
Mr. Reynolds' current plan is to propose a subdivision of the land consisting
of lots with a minimum width of 80 feet, an average lot depth of 140 feet, and
an average lot size of 15,000 square feet (minimum lot area is 11,000 square
feet).
The City of Plymouth has placed a priority on the extension of Northwest
Boulevard (future County Highway 61) south from its current point of termination
in the Bass Lake Hills PUD. Mr. Reynolds is equally anxious to plat and develop
his property.
The need for Northwest Boulevard right -of -way and any future resultant
assessments from the construction of the Boulevard accelerate Mr. Reynolds' need
to develop his property and to aggressively market improved lots in the most
effective and efficient manner. Although previous planning studies have focused
on alternative housing types, no user has come forward to purchase the property
and as a result, Mr. Reynolds' decision is to proceed with a single family
subdivision, not unlike the designs embodied in Bass Lake Addition, Bass Lake
Heights and Heritage Woods Estates.
C. Dillerud
February 15, 1990
Page 4
PUD CONSIDERATIONS
As mentioned above, approximately 113 of the site is land area with limited
development potential because of Army Corp of Engineers jurisdiction, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resource wetland designation and the City's 100 year flood
plain elevation of 928 (flood elevation encumbers 15.8± acres alone). In
addition, the slopes extending down to the 100 year elevation are best left in
their natural state.
The resultant utilization of the property, after setting aside approximately 30
percent of the site, accommodates a development of 125 units at approximately
2 units per acre net density (125 units ,r 78.7 acres - 15.8 acres). The
conservation /preservation of the slopes, wetland and the 100 year ponding area
results in a subdivision of less than the LA -2 density parameters of 3 to 5 units
per acre.
City ordinance states that a planned development's primary function is to
preserve and enhance the worthwhile natural terrain characteristics and not force
intense development to utilize all portions of the site. The intent of this
planned unit development is to accomplish that very purpose and primary mission
by: 1) to set aside the high point elevation of 1016 for common use and enjoyment
of the homeowners, and 2) to protect and conserve the wetland, low woodland, 100
year flood plain and the steep slopes which are all prominent features in the
southern area of the site.
In addition to the above stated primary function of a planned unit development,
Section 9, Subdivision B of the Zoning Ordinance addresses five attributes of
a planned unit development. These are as follows:
1. Because the proposed use of this Planned Unit Development is single
family detached homesites, no new technology, building design,
construction or land development techniques are contemplated. Should
such technologies become available, every opportunity will taken to
incorporate such technologies in the development in the interest of
deriving benefits that may be attributable to the project.
2. The plans have been prepared by experienced, professional engineers
and surveyors. Ultimately landscape architectural design will be
incorporated in later phases of the Planned Unit Development review.
At this stage, the concept plan addresses primarily land use, roadway
circulation,open space, pedestrian walkway systems and the
preservation of various important natural site characteristics.
Landscape design, including areas within the common open space, the
linear park system and along Interstate 494 and future County Road
61 will be prepared by experienced, professional landscape
architects.
C. Dillerud
February 15, 1990
Page 5
3. Increased efficiency and effectiveness of streets and utilities is
possible; in this instance, from the 80 foot lot width versus 90 foot
or greater lot width dimensions. Simply stated, there is small
percentage of increased cost efficiency with the 80 foot lot by less
lineal feet of streets and utilities based on a front foot.
4. As noted in the concept plan, three separate areas of the site are
designated as park /common open space areas. These sites will be
platted as outlots and deeded to the homeowner association. The
ownership and maintenance of these areas will be accomplished by the
association as governed by the association's bylaws and covenants.
The use of these areas is intended solely for the enjoyment of the
future residents of the subdivision. The three individual areas,
approximating 10 acres in land area, will be connected by a linear
walkway system which will ultimately provide pedestrian access to
the City designated Class I Hike and Bike Trail system planned for
the east side of future County Road 61, and an east /west leg running
south and parallel to the Soo Line Railroad corridor. Additionally,
the private interior lineal park system will accommodate pedestrian
access to the proposed community ballfield and neighborhood park
situated directly east of the subject site.
Each of these three open common use areas will offer a distinct
experience to the user. The largest area, approximately 7± acres
along the southern edge of the plat includes the sloped area
contiguous to the wetland. The south facing slopes in this area,
and the east /west orientation of the parcel in proximity to the
wetland will provide a unique natural wetland /upland ecological
setting. The second area of interest will be the common area which
includes elevation 1016 located further north and on the eastern edge
of the property. From this point, distant views of the community
are experienced, including potential views of the Minneapolis
skyline. (I recognize the fact that ultimately housing around this
area may obscure some views. Nonetheless, this location will remain
the highest point of the site and the highest point in the immediate
vicinity.) The third area of common use open space will be more
centrally located and include an upland storm ponding facility. The
pond will, in all likelihood, be designed as a dry pond discharging
to the City designated storm ponding area on the south edge of the
site.
As mentioned, each of these three areas will be connected by public
street right -of -way and lineal walkway links for easy access by
future residents for passive or active recreation enjoyment.
5. The concept plan does preserve and afford the potential for
enhancement of the most important natural site characteristics, i.e.,
wetlands, slopes and the most prominent site elevation. The
combination of these areas results in approximately 15% of the site,
C. Dillerud
February 15, 1990
Page 6
exclusive of the site area which is below the 100 year F.P.
elevation, being platted and dedicated as common open space and the
use and enjoyment of future residents.
As mentioned earlier, a primary function of a Planned Unit Development is to
provide developments which will preserve and enhance natural site characteristics
and not force intense development to utilize all portions of a given site. The
site consists of low wetland areas regulated by State and Federal agencies,
transitional sloped areas and the largest percentage of the site is formerly
cultivated farm land. The highest point, the sloped areas and the low wetland
area are being set aside as "worthwhile natural terrain characteristics" for
preservation and the enjoyment of the homeowners.
LAND USE AMENDMENT
City checklist requirements for a proposed land use amendment seek to consider
various guideline and location criteria of a proposed land use change. These
various guidelines and criteria are enumerated in the comprehensive plan for each
of the land use districts. The developer is seeking a reguiding from the LA -2
land use district to LA -1. The properties to the east of future County Highway
61 are designated LA -1 and although property to the immediate north, Bass Lake
Hills Planned Unit Development, is designated LA -3 in the comprehensive plan,
the provisions of the Planned Unit Development accommodate the land subdivision
and platting of single family lots along the subject property north boundary.
As noted above, the density of the proposed development is 2 units per acre.
This calculation is based on 125 units and a net land area of 62.9 acres. The
basis for the land use amendment request is the fact that the proposed density
is less than 3 units per acre; the minimum density for LA -2. The request,
however, is supported partially by the fact that the site adjoins low residential
single family densities to the north, the northeast, to the east and southeast,
and is isolated from the south by a 16 acre flood plain, the railroad tracks and
the Interstate highway on the west.
The City's comprehensive land use location criteria for LA -1 uses include:
Public utilities be available to serve the site.
LA -I areas be sited more than 113 mile from major collector or
arterials.
LA -1 areas are not allowed adjacent to intermediate or principal
arterial interchanges.
LA -I sites should not be allowed in areas identified on the
comprehensive land use plan as non - residential uses, LA -3 or LA -4
areas, unless as a part of a planned unit development.
C. Dillerud
February 15, 1990
Page 7
In the instance of PUD's proposed within a larger LA -1 context, the
exterior perimeter of the development should include single family
lots equivalent to LA -I district standards with higher LA -2, LA -3
and LA -4 on the interior of the Planned Unit Development.
Generally lower densities will be placed on the interior of walking
neighborhoods, while higher densities will be placed on the periphery
of walking neighborhoods.
The comprehensive plan continues by stating that public facilities in the area
of LA -I districts should include a neighborhood park within 112 mile walking
distance, the LA -1 district should include defined walkway.systems that connect
most homes with within the walking neighborhood area, and shopping facilities
be within a five minute drive.
Of the above listed location criteria, the proposed development is consistent
in some respects and the obvious inconsistency is that the site is adjacent to
a collector and arterial; the site abuts Interstate 494 and County Road 61.
However, the. fact remains that on the basis of other significant planning
considerations, the site lends itself to the provisions of a single family
residential planned unit development. We believe that because of the site's
somewhat isolated nature, and even more importantly, the neighborhood context
to the east and the north, the proposed use of the property and the proposed
platting is not an unreasonable or inconsistent proposal. Furthermore,
historically, single family detached housing is arguably a highly demanded
commodity in the City of Plymouth and, once again considering the isolated nature
of this site, as defined by its western and southern boundary, it seems
appropriate to give favorable consideration to a concept plan as recommended by
this applicant.
It should be pointed out at this juncture, that in all above density calculations
and discussions, no utilization of bonus points are considered. The ordinance
allows LA -1 or LA -2 district densities to be in the range of 2 to 2.2 and 3 to
3.4 units per acre respectively considering 0 to 2 bonus points. The property
would be entitled to two bonus points based solely on parcel size.
It is, of course, anomalous that a development seeks not to increase density,
however, in reality the property can be successfully developed as single family
detached housing providing the "edges" of the plat are carefully dealt with in
terms of landscape design. The proposal demonstrates a compatibility with the
existing neighborhood "urban fabric ".
In conclusion, Mr. Reynolds is seeking City review for two actions; PUD concept
plan and a land use amendment from LA -2 to LA -1. The Planned Unit Development
aspect of the request intends to provide for an appropriate use of the site while
accommodating the preservation of natural terrain characteristics. The Planned
Unit Development further provides an opportunity to set aside private common open
land with a linear pedestrian system for the enjoyment of the residents. The
proposed platting of the property has been designed for single family homesites
C. Dillerud
February 15, 1990
Page 8
of 80 feet in minimum width and lot areas large enough to accommodate respectable
homesites similar to other area plats. Single family homesites are
unquestionably highly demanded and marketable in the City of Plymouth. Because
of the more problematic portions of the site, i.e., slopes, wetlands, flood
plain, high point, and the desire to incorporate these in the plan as private
common open space, the resultant density of the property is less than LA -2
standards. We sincerely feel that to introduce an alternative housing type
ostensibly to increase density would be unfortunately arbitrary and would
unnecessarily convolute the site plan, frustrate marketing strategies and alter
the adjoining neighborhood context.
We respectfully request that you arrive at similar conclusions following your
analysis of this request.
Ki ndeAt regards,
Michael J. G ir
lmt
MIDWEST
Land Surveyors & Civil Engineers, Inc.
199 Coon Rapids Blvd.
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
FEB 16Ph. 612-786-6909 Fax: 612 -786 -9208
Mr. Vern Reynolds
fern Reynolds Construction
6570 Goldenrod Lane
Maple Grove, Mn. 55369
Re: Bass Lake Terrace
Land Use Plan Amendment
Mr. Reynolds:
Ci1Mh`'iPrlil' GEv'EL ivir'tENT DEP-1
February 14, 1990
As part of The City of Plymouth's application for land use amendment, they
are requiring a cc- parison of projected sewage flows for the parcel as now
guided with. that of the parcel if guided as proposed.
The proposed _acs Lake Terrace parcel is currently awaiting Metropolitan
Council review to be _oned as LA -2 which allows a density of 3 to 5 units
per acre. The proposed down zoning to LA -1 decreases this number to a
density- of 2 to 3 ?nits per acre. Your project has a total of 78.7 acres,
of this 15.3 acres make up the wetland at the south end of the project.
This lea-,es _?.° acres of usable land.
The para~_ters fcr the sewage flow comparison will be 4 people per unit
producing an av=raye sewage flow of 100 gallons per day per person. These
numbers are :accepted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for sewage
flOid calculatio ns required on sanitary sewer extension permits.
For the cc•mpariscn 62.9 acres of land is used along with the largest
per -fitted density for each zoning classification. The calculations for
average daily sewage flow are as follows:
LA -2 62.9 ac. X 5 units /acre = 314 units
Average Flow = 314 units X 4 persons X 100 gal /day /person.
125,600 gallons per day
L'• n -1 62.9 ac. ,X 3 units /acre = 188 units
verage Flow = 188 units X 4 persons X 100 gal /day /person
75,200 gallons per day
Due to tcpocrap`:y _imitations the proposed layout for Bass Lake Terrace
contains 125 units, which will further reduce the average sewage flow
computed above.
If you require further assistance with the application, please give me a
call.
Sincerely.
Midwest T n Sul veyors & Civil Engineers, Inc.
Lawrence Olson, PE
LO /hc BLT##44 /letsp -we
Y
i s I i I •• I• 'I:r.l:r I .`I' t 11.' ;4 ;- :r i'
NDTE: The City Council and Planning Con nission require the report for your
application to address the questions and items on the attached list.
The checklist has been developed to identify those matters which need
your response and information. Your input will be incorporated with
the staff report. A copy of the plan is available for examination at
the City Center; copies of sections or pages can be purchased.
Please contact the Community Development Coordinator if you have
questions.
Each item must have a response, including "Not Applicable ", if that should be
the case.
E] Demonstrate whether the locational criteria of both existing and proposed
classifications are satisfied by the specific site.
E] Demonstrate why the classification should be changed. Explain why the
site cannot be reasonably developed under the current classification.
E] Is there a lack of developable property in the City which has the same
classification as that proposed?
If so, demonstrate that the proposed expansion is supported by the
Comprehensive Plan Community Structure Concept.
If not, explain the need for expansion.
As a result of this action, will there be an adverse impact upon:
Other undeveloped property in the classification?
Other developed property in the classification proposed for this site
which may be subject to redevelopment or rehabilitation?
Demonstrate that the proposal has merit beyond the interests of the pro-
ponent or of the prospective developer of the site.
Demonstrate that the new classification would be the highest and best use
of the site. What is the public need or convunity benefit?
E] What impact will the proposed change have on the following Compprehensive
Plan elements?
Transportation (Detail data to be drawn from traffic study conducted
by City, and paid for by applicant)
Sanitary Sewer (Calculate flaw data based upon existing and proposed
uses using base data from the plan)
Storm Sewer (Particularly note on -site storage requirements)
Housing (Particularly the number and type of units that would
be realized or not realized)
foans:o >pl /lugp.list /s) 10/89
17M TO BE AMUMED IN SPAAFF REPOEU5 POR EACH APPLICATION TO AMND
ME COMPOMBIVE IAND USE GUIDE PLAN ELEMENT MP
Each item must have a response, including "Not Applicable ", if that should be
the case.
1. Is the locational criteria of both the existing and proposed
classifications satisfied by the specific site? Explain.
2. Can the site be reasonably developed under the current classification? If
not, explain and demonstrate.
3. Is there a lack of developable property in the same classification as that
which is being proposed? If so, is the proposed expansion supported by
the Comprehensive Plan Cawaudty Structure Concept? If not, explain the
need for expansion.
4. Will other undeveloped property, in the classification proposed for this
site, be adversely affected by this action? Will other developed property
in the proposed classification, which might be subject to
redevelopnent /rehabilitation, be adversely affected by this action?
5. How does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of the owner,
proponent, or prospective developer of the site?
6. How does the proposal demonstrate that the new classification would be the
highest and best use of the site? What is the public need or cc munity
benefit?
7. What impact will the proposed change have upon the several Canprehensive
Plan Elements?
Transportation
Sanitary Sewer
Storm Drainage
ftn cipal Water
Housing
Capital Improvement Program
Official Controls ( Zoning, Subdivision, Environmental)
City Parks and Open Space
8. What would be the likely impact upon area utility charges; current and
future special assessments; current and future property tax assessments;
and, per capita -based municipal aids?
forms:o >pl /lugp.item /s) 10/89
r 5-C
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: March 29, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 11, 1990
FILE NO.: 90015
PETITIONER: H.I. Enterprises, Inc.
REQUEST: Rezoning, Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variance
LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Fernbrook and Harbor Lanes
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CS (Service Business)
ZONING: B -1 (Office Limited Business)
BACKGROUND:
This property is vacant and has been platted for a number of years. The
General Development Plan called for office - service uses. A financial
institution was contemplated on this site.
In 1988 this petitioner appeared before the City proposing to reguide this
property from CL (Limited Business) to CS (Service Business). The request was
denied by the City Council under Resolution 88 -97.
Subsequently, this petitioner appeared before the Planning Commission during
the hearings on the Comprehensive Plan dealing with the Land Use Guide Plan
Element. Upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council
reguided a portion of the northwest quadrant of Interstate 494 and Highway 55
including this site) to CS on December 18, 1989, subject to Metropolitan
Council approval.
The applicant proposes the rezoning of this property from B -1 (Office Limited
Business) to B -3 (Commercial Service).
The applicant proposes a Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and variance for
the construction of a convenience store with gas facilities, a small office
area, ten service bays for automotive services and an automatic car wash
totalling 16,896 square feet in area.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City
newspaper, and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified. A
development sign has been placed on the property.
see next page)
File 90015
Page Two
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The Site Plan for the convenience store /gasoline /auto repair /office and
car wash facility has been reviewed by the Development Review Committee
responsive to the ordinances and policies regarding development within
this zoning classification. The Site Plan is consistent with setback,
parking layout and circulation, and signage provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance. In addition, the Site Plan meets landscape policy
requirements; proposes screening of rooftop equipment; on -site lighting to
lumination standards established in the Zoning Ordinance; storage of trash
within an enclosure; and fire lane /fire protection consistent with the
City Fire Code.
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the Planning Commission
shall review the requested proposal for purposes of evaluation against
these standards set forth in Section 9, Subdivision A, paragraph 2a, and
develop a recommendation to the City Council which shall make a final
determination as to the approval or denial. Attached is a copy of the
Conditional Use Permit criteria from Section 9, Subdivision A, paragraph
2a of the Zoning Ordinance. Also attached is the petitioner's response to
the criteria.
3. The applicant proposes a variance to allow for deferral of ordinance
required parking to be constructed at a later date if determined it is
necessary. The Zoning Ordinance requirement for off - street parking for
the uses proposed is 92 spaces (14 for the service bays; 13 for the office
area; 40 for the convenience store; and 25 for the self- service car wash).
The applicant proposes to construct 59 spaces and defer construction of 34
spaces (93 total proposed on site). The applicant has demonstrated that
kU minimum parking can be constructed on the site.
4. The petitioner has submitted a stacking plan consistent with the City
Ordinance that depicts the ability to retain at least six vehicles on -site
for each lane of service (a total of 24 vehicles). Also a stacking plan
consistent with the City Ordinance has been submitted that depicts the
ability to retain at least ten vehicles on -site for the car wash.
5. Responding to the City policy regarding site and building aesthetics and
architectural design, the architectural appearance of the proposed
structure is of face brick with a cement color fascia around the top of
the structure, on all four sides. A Master Sign Plan -- consistent with B -3
zoning standards- -has been submitted with the Site Plan. No outside
storage or display is proposed.
6. The Physical Constraints Analysis shows this property to be located within
the Bassett Creek Drainage District; does not contain any wetlands, major
woodlands, or severe slopes; and the soils appear suitable for urban
capability with public sewers.
see next page)
File 90015
Page Three
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The Site Plan proposed meets or exceeds all the Zoning Ordinance
requirements, with the exception of the variance for deferred parking, as
well as other City codes and policies related to this type of development.
2. A condition of the approval should be appropriate legal documents being
filed on the property stating the deferred parking will be constructed if
it is ever deemed by the City to be necessary.
3. The Conditional Use Permit as proposed will not have an impact on elements
of the Comprehensive Plan, nor should it have a negative impact on
adjoining properties, or diminish or impair property values in the
immediate vicinity.
4. The architectural appearance of the proposed structure is consistent with
the terms of the City of Plymouth policy regarding building aesthetics and
architectural design. The finding of compatibility relates to existing
structures in all directions.
5. The rezoning of this parcel is consistent with the guide plan
classification. Approval is contingent upon the Metropolitan Council
concurrence with the December 18, 1989, City action reguiding the site
from CL (Limited Business) to CS (Commercial Service).
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the requested rezoning, Site Plan, Conditional
Use Permit and vari subject to t co ion i draft resolution.
Submitted by:
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Recommendations for Approval of Site Plan and Variance
2. Engineer's Memorandum
3. Location Map
4. Petitioner's Narrative Addressing the Conditional Use Permit and Variance
Criteria
5. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
6. Variance Criteria
7. Large Plans
pc /cd /90015:jw)
APPROVING REZONING FROM B -1 TO B -3, SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND
VARIANCE FOR H.I. ENTERPRISES, INC. (90015)
WHEREAS, H. I. Enterprises, Inc. has requested approval for rezoning from B -1
to B -3, Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and variance for property located at
the southeast corner of Fernbrook and Harbor Lanes; 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
H.I. Enterprises, Inc. for rezoning from B -1 to B -3, Site Plan, Conditional
Use Permit and variance for property located at the southeast corner of
Fernbrook and Harbor Lanes, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with
the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing any open storm
water drainage facility.
5. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements.
6. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance and the approved
Master Sign Plan of the Site Plan.
7. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
8. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and
fire lanes.
9. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within the enclosure, and
no outside storage is permitted.
10. An 8k x 11 inch "As Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted prior
to the release or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City Policy.
11. No building permit to be issued until the rezoning is published in the
Official City Newspaper.
12. Approval is contingent upon Metropolitan Council approval of the Land Use
Guide Plan amendment reclassifying this site from CL (Limited Business) to
CS (Commercial Service).
see next page)
Resolution No.
File 90015
Page Two
13. A Zoning Ordinance variance is approved to defer construction of 34 spaces
of the minimum required spaces for off - street parking, as shown on the
approved Site Plan, provided:
a. A covenant, prepared by the petitioner and approved by the City
Attorney, shall document the variance for deferred parking, and the
right of the City, without further City Council action, to direct
immediate construction of the deferred parking on this site. The
covenant shall be recorded on the title to this parcel prior to
issuance of a building permit.
b. The petitioner acknowledges in writing that failure to provide
adequate lawful off - street parking and circulation may be deemed
grounds for revoking the Conditional Use Permit.
Z
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: April 5, 1990
TO P1 ning Commission and City Council
FROM: Wel L. Faulkner City Engineerineer
SUBJECT: MINI MART SITE PLAN ( 90015 )
The Site Plan for the proposed Mini Mart east of Fernbrook Lane and south
of Harbor Lane indicates that a car wash will be constructed at the east
end of the proposed building. Exiting traffic from the car wash would
have immediate access from the site to Empire Lane.
The proximity of the car wash exit to Empire Lane could cause a hazardous
situation on the street due to water dripping and freezing from exiting
vehicles. One example of this problem in Plymouth has been evidenced at
the service station /car wash located at Xenium Lane and Highway 55.
One solution to this winter icing problem is distance from the exit point
to the adjacent public street. A successful example of this solution is
found at the service station /car wash located on the south side of County
Road 9 at Vinewood Lane. At that location, a distance of approximately
250 feet from the car wash exit to Vinewood Lane has proven to be a
sufficient distance to allow water to fall from the exiting vehicles and
not cause a problem on the public street. There is an icing problem on
the private driveway.
It is recommended that the uses within the proposed Mini Mart Site Plan be
reoriented to provide a distance of approximately 250 feet from the car
wash exit to any public street. As an alternative, the applicant must
provide an adequate means of drying exiting vehicles sufficiently to
prevent any possibility of icing problems on the adjacent public street.
DLF:kh
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: April 4, 1990
FILE NO.: 90015
PETITIONER: Ms. Bev Kottas, H.I. Enterprises, Inc., 7925 Wayzata Boulevard,
Golden Valley, MN 55426
SITE PLAN: MINI MART
LOCATION: East of Fernbrook Lane, south of Harbor Lane, in the southwest 1/4 of
Section 22
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. _ X Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. _ X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No 1 and
No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Site Plan approval:
4. Area assessments estimated - None
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None
LEGAL /EASEMENTS /PERMITS:
N/A Yes No
6. _ X Property is one parcel -
The approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot
consolidation be approved by the City Council and the necessary
resolution should be processed at the same time as the site plan
approval.
N/A Yes No
7. X _ Complies with standard utility /drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in
width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required
it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents
executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any
building permits.)
8. X _ _ Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100
year high water elevation and conformance with the City's
comprehensive storm water requirements.
9. X All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities.
N/A Yes No
10. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way
to facilitate the development. It should be noted that this
vacation is not an automatic process in conjunction with the
platting process. It is entirely dependent upon the City receiving
a petition for the vacation from the property owner; therefore, it
is their responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated.
11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
2-
A
ITTTT.TTTES AND TRAFFIC:
N/A Yes No
12. _ XX 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
Army Corps of Engineers
Other
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
13. _ XX _ Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The site plan will be submitted to the City's consulting engineer
for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations
shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The grading and drainage
plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary:
N/A Yes No
14. _ XX 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. _ XX _ Post indicator valve - fire department connection
It will be necessary to locate the post indicator valve in such a
manner that it will not render any of the existing fire hydrants
inoperable.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. _ X _ Hydrant valves provided -
All new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City
Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W -2. This plate should be
referenced on the site plan.
18. _ X Sanitary sewer clean -outs provided -
It will be necessary to provide clean -outs on the proposed internal
sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot intervals.
19. _ _ X Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
See Special Conditions
N/A Yes No
and
20. _ _ X All existing street right -of -ways are required width -
An additional five feet of right -of -way will be required on
Fernbrook Lane along with an additional 10 foot drainage and utility
easement east of the five foot street easement. These shall be
submitted to the City in recordable form.
21. _ X _ Complies with site drainage requirements -
The City will not permit drainage onto a City street from a private
parking lot; therefore, the site plan shall be revised accordingly.
4-
N/A Yes No
22. _ X Curb and gutter provided -
The City requires B -612 concrete curb and gutter at all entrances
and where drainage must be controlled, Curb Stone may be used where
it is not necessary to control drainage. For traffic control either
B -612 or curb stone is required around the bituminous surfaced
parking lot. The site plan shall be revised to indicate compliance
with this requirement.
23. _ X _ Complies with parking lot standards -
The City will require that all traveled areas within the parking
lot, as well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a
7 -ton standard City design with six inches of Class 5 100% crushed
limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one -half inches
of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be
constructed to a standard 5 -ton design consisting of four inches of
Class 5 100% crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. The site
plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with these
requirements.
STANDARDS:
N/A Yes No
24. X It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility
foreman,
24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to
the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The developer shall
also be responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the Public Works
Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the
City's right -of -way. All connections to the water system shall be
via wet tap.
25. _ X The City will require reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer,
water service and storm sewer As- Builts for the site prior to
occupancy permits being granted.
26. X The site plan complies with the City of Plymouth's current
Engineering Standards Manual. Note No's 11. 12 19, 20. 26, and
27.A 27.B. and 27.C.
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REOUIRED:
27. A. Fernbrook Lane shall be widened to 37 feet from centerline of the existing
median along the entire length of the lot. This will be the responsibility of
the developer. Plan and profile sheets along with specifications shall be
submitted to the City for review. The widening shall have a nine ton design.
B. The approximate 1.7 feet to 2.0 feet of cover over the storm sewer is
inadequate. Special design procedures must be presented and approved to
prevent heaving of the parking lot.
C. Existing Empire Lane to the north shall be shown on the Site Plan, Utility
Plan and Grading Plan. The centerline of the new driveway entrance to the
site shall align with the centerline of Empire Lane.
Submitted by:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
NO
r
1
1
1"
fib
d
R
L
1 r.
OMMWN
L., to:
ADDENDUM II TO PLANNING AND ZONING
APPLICATION FORM DATED MARCH 9, 1990
Conditional Use Permit Standards from Section 9, Subdivision A
of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance
1.) We believe that our combined convenience store and auto-
motive service center as proposed will be in complete compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan. Having participated in the Plymouth
Planning Commission and City Council deliberations on the
Comprehensive Plan Ademendments, we agree with those Planning
Commissioners and residents who believe that there is a need
in the City for this type of development but do not want them
located too closely to their neighborhoods.. Since the Comprehensive
Plan Admendments approved in December, 1989 reguides Plymouth
Freeway Center, lst Addition of which this proposal comprises
Block 1, from CL or Limited Business to CS or Service Business,
this proposal is in accordance to the purpose of the CS guiding
which is to provide a district located in close proximity to
an arterial street or highway in order that service types of
land use can be provided. The secondary purpose is to concentrate
service, commercial and retail commercial uses in compact and
convenient locations to better serve the needs of City residents,
employees and the motoringpublic. The proposed convenience store
and auto service center would reinforce the predominant land
use pattern of the northwest and southwest quadrants of the
Interstate 494 /Trunk Highway 55 interchange. Our development
will be an amenity to the existing restaurant, motel and hotel,
day care, financial institution and office uses in the area.
2.) The proposed development would promote and enhance general
public welfare, as outlined above, and will not be determental
to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
3.) Since the property in the immediate vincinity is either
developed or has some type of commercial guiding the conditional
use as proposed 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 the
property values within the neighborhood. The proposed development
should be an amenity to the area, and actually reinforce the
uses developed.
4.) As state above since the property in the immediate vicinity
is either developed or has some type of commercial guiding, the
establishment Of the conditional use permit will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of the surronding
property for uses permitted in the district. Within Plymouth
Freeway Center, 1st Addition other undeveloped property is
actually controlled by us.
5.) Adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress, egress
and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in
public streets.(This has been described in some detail in our
original letter.)
6.) The conditional use as proposed shall, in all other
respects, conform to the applicable regulations.
ADDENDUM III TO PLANNING AND ZONING
APPLICATION FORM DATED MARCH 9, 1990
ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCE STANDARDS
1.) There is no hardship in the granting of the variance
of deferred parking on our proposed convenience store and auto
service center. With our considerable experience in this type
operation, we consider the parking as required to be over
and above the parking that is actually needed. We are willing
however to dedicate the necessary land should the need of
additional parking arise but consider the landscaping of the
deferred parking places to be more desirous than a larger
expanse of asphalt.
2.) The uniqueness of this site as proposed in the
development of convenience store and auto service center is
in the fact that the movement of cars is an integral part of
the design. People are not parking their cars and going into
a retail establishment to shop for extended periods of time,
rather the car is being brought in usually to have something
done to it whether it be filled with gas, washed and /or
serviced. Adequate stacking of cars is provided while these
services are being performed.
3.) This variance will not increase income potential
or value to the property other than to make it more asthetically
pleasing.
4.) There is no harship in the rquest of this variance
to ordinance just a delay of parking sites which are still
being provided.
5.) The granting of the deferred parking variation will
not be determental to the public welfare or injuious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is
located. As long as the parking sites are not needed, the
landscaping is much more positive and if the need for additional
parking does arise, space has been reserved for additional sites
up to the amount required by code.
6.) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially
increase the congestion of public streets, or increase the
danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially
diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
The landscaping of the deffered parking areas should be much
better for surronding parcels than a larger expanse of asphalt.
v• IS I .'1' ;0 :4'. 1 V 1 V ''.
FKX SEMON 9, Si )I MCN A
a v _ i. ail e•Z ; 1.:
2. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a recammendation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will prarote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic
congestion in the public streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district-in which it is located.
forms:o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
1. That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or
topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, a
particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a
mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be
carried out.
2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are
unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not
applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning
classification.
3. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire
to increase the value or inane potential of the parcel of land.
4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Ordinance and
has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the
parcel of land.
5. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or i provestm, in the neighborhood in
which the parcel of land is located.
6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of
the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public
safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
forms:o >pl /zon.stnd /s) 10/89
I
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: May 3, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 9, 1990
FILE NO.: 90022
PETITIONER: Dennis Arne
REQUEST: Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for a Single Family
Conventional Subdivision
LOCATION: West of Vicksburg Lane at 43rd Avenue North (Extended)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -2 (Low -Mid Density Residential)
ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development)
BACKGROUND:
In 1972, the City Council approved a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance to
create two parcels of land, one of which is the subject parcel now being
platted, and the other parcel slightly more than 1 acre, lying immediately to
the northeast of the parcel now being platted. This action was accomplished
by Resolution 72 -133.
In 1975, by Resolutions 75 -106, a "Subdivision variance" was granted to,
basically, restate the 1972 division action involving the same two parcels of
ground by adding approximately a half acre to the 1 acre parcel, and reducing
the larger parcel (here under consideration for platting) by the same amount.
Proposed here is the conventional preliminary platting of the 23.7 -acre parcel
into 35 single family detached building lots together with the rezoning of
this LA -2 guided property to the corresponding R -2 Zoning District.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City
newspaper, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. In addition, a
development sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The site is located in the Bassett Creek Watershed District, contains no
storm water drainage ponding but is crossed diagonally from northeast to
southwest by a storm water conveyance ditch. No DNR Protected or Corps of
Engineers' regulated wetlands are found on the site, but a small fringe of
the site immediately adjacent to Vicksburg Lane is within the "technical"
shoreland Overlay District of Turtle Lake. Since no inconsistencies with
see next page)
File 90022
Page Two
the Shoreland Overlay District provisions of the Zoning Ordinance area
proposed by this platting, the Department of Natural Resources need not be
contacted regarding the Subdivision until such time as the Final Plat is
approved by the City Council.
2. A major site feature is extensive woodland areas located in the natural
drainage ravine running northeast to southwest through the site, and
throughout the western half of the site. These woodlands including many
mature hardwoods. A complete natural resource analysis has been submitted
by the applicant with the Preliminary Plat graphics which identifies the
existing trees in detail. Preservation of this natural site
characteristic to the maximum degree feasible is both responsive to the
Physical Constraints Analysis of the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan and
Section 500.15, Subdivision 5 of the Plymouth City Code regarding
conservation and preservation of natural environment with respect to
Preliminary Subdivision Plats. A copy of the referenced Subdivision Code
Section is attached.
3. A small portion of the site, related to the natural drainage ravine noted
previously, exhibits slopes in excess of 12 percent that are not suitable
for development; and, a small portion of the site, generally related to
the same ravine area and the extreme western portion of the site is not
named suitable for development, due to soil conditions.
4. The design of the 35 proposed single family detached lots is responsive to
the dimensional requirements (lot size, lot width at setback, depth, and
minimum frontage) of the R -2 District of Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. No
variances from the dimensional standards of the Zoning Ordinance or the
Subdivision Ordinance are required concurrent with the approval of this
plat. The primary R -2 standards are 15,000 square foot minimum lot size
and 90 foot lot width.
5. The proposed General Development Plan provides for single family detached
homes to be located within the prescribed setbacks of the R -2 Zoning
Districts and generally avoiding conflict with the Physical Constraints
referred to previously. It should be noted that homes for Lots 1 and 18,
Block 3 will require particularly sensitive siting (and home footprint
selection) to avoid encroachment on the natural drainage ravine that will
remain in place with the development of this plat.
6. The Preliminary Plat proposes creation of " Outlot A" to provide a 40 -foot
access parcel to the existing parcel to the northeast, not a part of this
plat. The Preliminary Plat /General Development Plan also suggests a
method of future division of this property, creating two lots. The
proposed plan would be for each of the two created lots to have driveway
access to the public street created as a function of this plat through the
40 -foot outlot.
see next page)
File 90022
Page Three
Community Development Department records reveal that, in 1972, the right
of access to both the subject parcel and the remaining parcel to the
northeast were deeded to the City of Plymouth. In return the City of
Plymouth granted right of access to the parcel to the northeast until such
time as an alternative with street access were made available. That
availability of alternative access to Vicksburg Lane would appear to be
provided by the provision of Outlot A within this plat.
The extension of public sewer serve this proposed plat will likely result
in sewer being within 100 feet of the parcel to the northeast. Responsive
to City Code provisions, this will require the parcel to the northeast to
connect to the public sewer within 24 months of that sewer being
available. This fact, in addition to the right of access provisions that
were put in place in 1972, combine to strongly suggest that the final
configuration of the parcel immediately to the northeast of the subject
parcel be determined concurrent with the platting of subject parcel.
7. In response to inquiries from the Engineering Division, the applicant
indicates that the design speed of curvatures at the extreme northwest and
southeast corners of the plat are less than the 30 mile per hour standard
of the City of Plymouth for residential streets. The applicant indicates
that the street design (including slope and curvature) is responsive to
the desire to preserve both the existing ravine and the substantial
existing trees of the site.
8. The 44th Avenue North cul -de -sac is proposed to be in access of 800 feet
in length. A variance from the Subdivision standard of a maximum 500 -foot
length cul -de -sac has been requested by the applicant. The basis for that
variance is the special circumstances of the existing wooded areas that
would be preserved by this extended length cul -de -sac as a substitute for
extending 44th Avenue North through to 45th Avenue North.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The proposed Preliminary Plat is responsive to the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance with respect to the layout and dimensions of lots in the
R -2 Zoning District.
2. The proposed Preliminary Plat is responsive to the Subdivision Ordinance
with respect to the design standards except with respect to the length of
the proposed 44th Avenue North cul -de -sac at 800 feet. The variance
requested from the 500 -foot maximum cul -de -sac length standard of the
Subdivision Ordinance meets the standards for Subdivision Ordinance
standards with respect to the unique characteristics of this site that
would be preserved (woodlands); necessity for the variance to retain the
substantial property rights of the applicant; and the fact that the
variance, if granted, will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property.
see next page)
File 90022
Page Four
3. We find the proposed plat and General Development Plan are responsive to
the elements of the Physical Constraints Analysis and the related sections
of the Subdivision Code with respect to the preservation of natural site
features. The recommendations of the City Engineer with respect to
permitting street design at less than a 30 mile per hour standard to
preserve the natural site features is concurred in by planning staff.
4. We find the relationship of the platting of this parcel to the ultimate
development of the parcel directly to the northeast (Guddal) should be
carefully addressed and finalized with the platting of the subject parcel.
Our records indicate that access to the Guddal parcel must be abandoned
once access is provided in an alternative direction, as it would be by the
subject plat.
While we do not believe the City can necessarily compel joint platting
efforts by adjoining property owners, we suggest that the history of this
property, resulting in the current configuration and deed requirements,
relates directly to the applicant for this Preliminary Plat. It was Dr.
Arne that requested the creation of the northeast parcel in 1972, and who
agreed to the deed restrictions involving alternative access for the
northeasterly parcel.
RECOMMENDATION:
The overall plat design will not substantially change regardless of the final
design of the extreme northeast corner. The only probable alternative to the
manner in which the plat is now proposed involving the northeast corner would
be to provide a "bubble" similar to the one shown in the extreme southeast
corner of the plat that would result in three single family detached building
lots from the Guddal parcel served by proposed 45th Avenue North, rather than
the two now suggested. The only lots of the applicant's Subdivision that
could be impacted by such an adjustment would be those directly south and west
of the Guddal parcel.
Based on the foregoing, I recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, General
Development Plan, and rezoning from FRD to R -2 as proposed subject to the
usual conditions of Preliminary Plat approval and a condition that would
direct the applicant to exert his best efforts to adjust design in the extreme
northeast corner of this plat to accommodate most efficient platting of the
Guddal parcel. ^ ,
Submitted by: —-vaa &2:G Q
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Resolution Approving Preliminary Plat
Ordinance Rezoning from FRD to R -2
Resolution Setting Condition Prior to
Engineer's Memorandum
Location Map
Petitioner's Communication
Resolution 75 -106
Resolution 72 -01
Resolution 72 -133
and General Development Plan
Publication of Rezoning Ordinance
James G. Willis' Memorandum of February 23, 1973
Large Plans (pc /cd /90022:dl)
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DENNIS ARNE (90022)
WHEREAS, Dennis Arne has requested approval for a Preliminary Plat and
rezoning from FRD to R -2 for a single family conventional Subdivision of 35
lots and 1 outlot for property located west of Vicksburg Lane at 43rd Avenue
North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Dennis Arne for a Preliminary Plat Subdivision of 35 lots and 1 outlot for
property located west of Vicksburg Lane at 43rd Avenue North, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with
the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
3. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing any open storm
water drainage facility.
4. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and
fire lanes.
5. No building permit to be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded
with Hennepin County.
6. Removal of dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense.
7. No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for
sewer and water.
8. Compliance with City Council resolution 89 -439 regarding preservation of
trees on new development sites.
9. The Final Plat design shall demonstrate best efforts to incorporate
efficient layout of the 1.5 acre parcel to northeast of the site (Guddal).
10. Private driveway access from all existing structures shall be redirected
to streets within the plat, and all access to Vicksburg Lane shall be
eliminated.
11. Rezoning ordinance shall be published when the final plat has been
recorded with Hennepin County.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED
WEST OF VICKSBURG LANE AT 43RD AVENUE NORTH AS FRD (FUTURE RESTRICTED
DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT TO R -2 (LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT
Section 1. Amendment of Ordinance. Ordinance No. 80 -9 of the City of
Plymouth, Minnesota, adopted June 15, 1980 as amended, is hereby amended by
changing the classification on the City of Plymouth Zoning Map from FRD
Future Restricted Development) District to R -2 (Low Density Multiple
Residential) District with respect to the hereinafter described property:
Insert Legal)
Section 2. General Development Plan. This Ordinance authorizes the
development of said tracts only in accordance with the Plan approved for the
File No. 90022.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon filing
the Final Plat with Hennepin County and upon its passage and publication.
Adopted by the City Council day of
Mayor
ATTEST
City Clerk
File 90022
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE REZONING LAND
LOCATED WEST OF VICKSBURG LANE AT 43RD AVENUE NORTH (90022)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved an Ordinance rezoning certain land
located west of Vicksburg Lane at 43rd Avenue North from FRD (Future
Restricted Development) District to R -2 (Low Density Multiple Residential)
District in conjunction with approval of the Preliminary Plat for Dennis Arne.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the Final Plat for
Dennis Arne to be filed with Hennepin County prior to the publication of said
Ordinance.
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 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
May 2, 1990
90022
Mr. Dennis Arne, 4435 Vicksburg Lane N., Plymouth, MN 55446
ARNE ADDITION
West of Vicksburg Lane, north of 43rd Avenue in the northeast 1/4
of Section 17.
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 assessments based on 23.7 acres -
1 93 acres o S = 21.77 acres x $1,580 per acre = $34,396.60.
Sanitary sewer area based on 23.7 acres - 1.93 acres pondine = 21.77
acres x $880 per acre = $19,157.60.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None
N/A Yes No
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
8. — — --I-
9. 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.
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
will be required to the 100 year high water elevation of 968.0 for
Pond BC -P5 along with a drainage easement for the existing drainage
swale.
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.
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:
DNR
MnDOT
Hennepin County
X MPCA
X State Health Department
IL Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
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 as shown on the preliminary
plat.
N/A Yes No
16. _ X Conforms with City standards requiring the developer to construct
utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the developer shall be responsible
for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and
streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional
engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary
sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the
development.
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.
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.
N/A Yes No
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
wet tap.
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:
24. A. The normal design speed for a residential street is 30 m.p.h. In order to
minimize tree loss, the developer's engineer is proposing horizontal curves
with a design speed of 25 m.p.h. for the north curve and 22 m.p.h. for the
southerly curve. Therefore, the developer shall pay for the installation of
curve signs with a warning plaque.
B. The Engineering Department supports the additional 200 feet of length for the
44th Avenue cul -de -sac because of the destruction of a large number of mature
trees if the street were extended to 45th Avenue North.
C. The developer should try to reach an agreement with the owner of Outlot A,
Oxbow Ridge to complete the street and utilities within proposed 46th Avenue.
The completion of this work could provide services for three lots within Outlot
A, Oxbow Ridge. If agreement cannot be reached, this development will have to
construct a temporary cul -de -sac.
D. The preliminary plat shall note the driveway to the existing home on Lot 5,
Block 2 to Vicksburg Lane shall be relocated to Weston Lane.
E. There shall be no access to Vicksburg Lane for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, Block 2.
Submitted by:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
5 -
I tf
i
r----
1/r---
pLYMour* CREEK
SCHOOL
L3
W _
T
April 21, 1990
SATHRE - BERGOUIST, INC.
150 SOUTH BROADWAY
612) 476 -6000
Mr. Charles E. Dillerud
Community Development Coordinator
CITI, OF Pl.:)NOUI'H
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
PI-,-mouth, Minnesota 55447
RE: AR \F ADDITION - Preliminary Plat and Rezoning
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
WAYZATA, MN 55391
FAX 476 -0104
ruV_'; 0 rN
APR 80 1990
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
ooAr a_
In response to your letter dated April 24, 1990 regarding staff review
comments for this project, we submit the following information:
1. The design speeds (based on site distance and side friction
for the inside lane) for the curves located at the north and
south ends of the proposed plat are 25 mph and 22 mph
respectively. It. is the intent of this design to minimize
tree loss, and traffic speed through the neighborhood. The
curve radii (R =165 feet north end, R =115 feet south end) are
consistent with mangy- other minor residential streets
previously constructed within the City.
2. As stated in our original submission data, but not indicated
on the application, the developer is requesting a variance
to the Subdivision Ordinance standards to allow construction
of a' cul -de -sac of approximately 700 feet in length. The
reason for approval of the requested variance is to avoid a
hardship on the land, specifically on the mature trees, that
strict compliance with the ordinance would mandate
destruction of. Mr. Arne will submit the additional $90.00
fee.
3. The intended purpose for Outlot A is to provide a potential
access to the Guddal property in the northeast corner of the
site.
4. The proposed fill slope from 44th Avenue south and north
into the existing drainage ravine will be constructed to a
maximum 3:1 slope and will be promptly revegetated to
prevent erosion problems.
5. The existing and proposed right -of -way and street widths, as
shown on the submitted preliminary plat and plans are as
follows:
STREET STATUS RRW
Weston Vane existing 50 feet
46th Avenue North existing 50 feet
Vicksburg Vane existing 66 feet
Vicksburg Dane proposed 17 feet
Weston Lane proposed 50 feet
44th Avenue North proposed 50 feet
45th Avenue North proposed 50 feet
If you should need any additional information
application, please fee free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
SATHRE- BERGQUIST, INC.
Daniel A. Blake, P.E.
DAB /drn
33 feet
33 feet
24 feet
24 feet
33 feet
33 feet
33 feet
regarding this
S S Uq`
W
z _— _
cI>
T
aMFRSPAP
March 30, 1990
SATHRE - BERGQUIST, INC.
150 SOUTH BROADWAY
612) 476 -6000
Mr. Charles E. Dillerud
Community Development Coordinator
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
RE: ARNE ADDITION
Preliminary Plat
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
WAYZATA, MN 55391
FAX 476 -0104
We hereby request that the City of Plymouth consider the request by
Dennis and Fern Arne for rezoning and preliminary plat of approximately
23.7 acres into 35 single family lots. The property is located west of
Vicksburg Lane, north of the Northfork development in northwestern
Plymouth. There are two existing homes on the property which are owned
by the Arnes. It is the intent of the proposed plan to preserve both
homes in there current locations. The lots have been designed such that
all zoning district requirements will be met for the two existing homes.
As previously discussed with the staff, the proposed 44th Avenue North
cul. -de -sac is approximately 700 feet from center of circle to Weston
Lane. This design was chosen as the best alternative for preservation
of the significant trees on the site. Other alternatives, including
continuing 44th Avenue North on through to 45th Avenue North, were
considered, but resulted in much additional tree loss without benefit to
the plan.
Please note that the underlying fee owner of the southern 5 acre tract
17- 118- 22 -11- 0004), of which the Armes are contract purchasers, have
given the Armes the power to make this application in their behalf. A
letter from the fee owners will be submitted shortly to the City
confirming this authorization.
It is the desire of the applicant to proceed swiftly through the City
approval process to allow for construction of the necessary site
improvements in the fall of 1990. If you have any questions regarding
this project, please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely, ---
SATHRE- BERGW -IST, INC. r
MFG ,
Daniel A. Blake, P.E.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due cal! and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City
Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was he on the 24th day of
February , 19 i5 . The following members were present: Mayor— llilde,
Councilmen Neils and Seibold
The following members were absent: Councilmen 'unt and Spaeth
ter err*
councilman 'Seibold introduced the following Resolution and moved
ti--a-do ption:
RESOLUTION N0. 75 -106
APPROVING LOT DIVISION - DEN-11S E. AP,';E
WHEREAS, Den,,,s E. Arne, owner of Parcel 4060, Plat 43 17, has requested a sut;-
division variance, and
WHEREAS, the City Planntnq Connission has reviewed sai,' ; . -st oriel recnmrands
approval , and
W!4EREAS, the City Council has now determined that the subdivision of said Iarid into
two parcels, one of which would contain less than five (1)) acres, w,,uld not intr r-
fere with the purposes of the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Plymouth and
that a refusal to permt such subdivision would create an unnecessary l,Urdship
on such owner,
10',', fHEREFORI, RE Ii HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIIE_ CITY OF PLVIOUTH
as fol1cws:
1. Compliance % -::h the provisions of Section 462.358, Subdivision 4, Minnesota
Statute., and Section 9.02 of Chapter VII of the City Code relating to convey-
ances by metes and bounds of parcels of land containing an area of land less
than. five (5) acres is hereby waived with respect to the following described
parcels:
oAUrrr n
ThE,, No:-Lh one -half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter
of Section 17, Township 118, Rance 22, Hennepin, County, except the
following:
The North 225 feet of the East 308 feet of the 'lo th one -
half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast q,rarter Of
Section 17, Township 118, Range 2-2, Hennepin County.
PARCEL B
The North 225 feet of the East 308 feet of the North one -half of the
Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 17, lownship 118,
Ran(,e 22, Hennepin County, except the following:
Page Two
The "worth _.19 feet of the East 280 feet of the North
one -half of the Northeast quarter of the northeast
quarter of Section 17, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin
County.
2. The City Clerk is directed to prepare a certified copy of this resolution
for recording purposes.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Councilman ;'ei's, and upon vote being taken thereon, the followin(t voted in favor
thereof: Mayor'+ilde, Councilmen "veils and Seibo'id. The following voted against
or abstained: none. Whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
41
t .
11
M
C
LLj
TJ
N
14
w
M
V U C V y F 4 N• j t 4
7 C G Y O u
ri
M
4
Y1aI
K a 4 p V L
V
w V
I r V L q V .. A a
O O
OGCtri. OC C1 Y
I Y
T
N
4 H L V C 7 u y 4/ V u C y
n
n 4 w
q c
GV
N n N 0 w « w
q
M 7
y 4rg
j y; riwti O ti O H N 4 w q
Ni
O G
4 C` n
0 r
V L
CV
V w 4 w ) 4
O
4 r
A
N
r
r.'..O..0
ti
G. ti
MU .. J
G
r
y
i
7 N C. C
w r0 .. V I 4 C C 41 wO
y F
w y N O u V
0
1.. I N V V C M yl
V V J N OL S7 •
7 - 1. J] • C.
J.
K w O
V V FJL] 4
n o
7 4 y • J l
C7J
N
O
J •
9 L- -' 4 .qi 1 V L•. N N
cl
V
W n L V. O K
V
l a c. N N U
qv
N
r• .. G V L 4 i :+
O
L' i w OO
4
J J
sx a46 7 W G
U.
r 1.' vl Q y r,
G
ca
si Y• v V n Y W v -+ r M j u •
T. V O •O n N
h^ N L41 Q •
1 ..
N
f, f]
p YI
W
a1U
1 V. . V•
d v. ` oO
n
4 OV NO
7 C:
O
i
K
r L
U ^' «
n
7 w
Or.
V
L M M
O - 4 4 4 li 4 w p rQ ti GG Y 4 C V T OA O Y
L H G a O 7 V J C Q U L 4
C A M
V
w
i.: W
LV F I. .. V CC O V C 4 Y
aO v• O r% V n 6 4
to KW Utt O v.
v. c. n
4 w L
L f.4 4
j ac N w
y C V.
a 41
r.
f. W N F J d ry` r, V 7 0 C M L o
a. n
s n Y u L O
7i
n c c
14
y
v. u
i ...
y o
jC i3 fJl N (i f« 1 t N C h W Y
U
C,
kt ^ 'u'
O 4 V « 444
y
Y Y •
c c u O W N t. w n w C O n G tC •
Q.
N
V U C V y F 4 N• j t 4
ri
M
4 9 •
K a 4 p V L t U w V
I r V L q V .. A a
n
q coq y 4rg
V Ni f"• 4 C` n
R 10. O V L
CV
M
A t4 r
y. V, J G y m 7 N C. C w I.V. aJ Y n it
y F
w y N O u V
0
1.. I N V V C M yl ti ..` Lv w
4 O Y O n
I [[••
vi .. w
W n L V. O K
V
V qv Ci O 4 V. L
OH
v
n c u O r1
LL O o 4 C o si Y• v V n Y W v -+ r M j u •
h^ N L41 Q • 4 N p YI H i
to
K 7 C: V p i V V Y u. V C. -. • Or. M Ai'
wJa. u V N V1W aO v• O r% V n 6 4 y OrwjacNw
y C V.
r. S 4 V J 4 J.' w a. L
ppa. n 7i
14 v. u o 4 y o
v p U a••• •' kt ^ 'u' 4 y ty n
q i
Vf : -
M .. J: •t w U O
y OY CI CA RMnf1dW1••
i
V V
N O O O K« n. z:.. J i. u..7 V O V C 0 C
H V W n L I u N W .'. n L" V V t J r O
i i a O w 0.
M4• '.
7 t a n v H aHt-•
tL-
v
C
I1.L.r1GE Jr f '_': "•;Vii I1 i
f,:1-sual.t tc Uuc call and notice thereof, a regular r-.ecting of tl l'illa e
Council of t`,c rllape of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the I -th day of
1pri 1, 11)-2. i"he fol1O:.ing rr.c -.hers were present: Mayor Ili) :< , bone i loran
Spaeth, hurt, .oils and Seibold. The following members ti,ere absent: `;one.
kk*
Cquncilman Scibold introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 72 -133
the Council of the Village of PIMOUth did by Resolution
No. 72 -1 as =ended by Resolution ho. 72 -54 provide for and approve the conhii-
tions under w!lch certain lands in Section 17, Township 118, Rana c 22 helO1W,i11.0
to Dennis F. Arrle and Ferne E. Arne, husband and wife, might he subdivided, and
W11IP.11S, said Village Council has now determined that the subdivision of
said lands into two parcels, one of which would contain less than fire (5)
acres, woul! not interfere with the purp;ses of the sr,hc:ivision regulation, (,'l'
the Village of Pl1 -Mouth and that a refusal to permit such sUI)(JiViSlOf1 Mould
create an unnecessary hardship on such owners,
NOW, T19-RF.I:0111., BI: IT RESOLVED BY T1fE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF 711'1: VILLAC1: OF
pLlUXMI, AS FOLLOWS
Compliance with the prov lions of Section 462,358, Subdivitiion .1,
Minnesota Statutes and Sec ion 9.02 of (1apter VII of the Village
Code relating to conveyances by metes and bounds of parcels of land
containing an area of less than five (5) acres is hereby waived with
respect to the following described parcel:
The Northerly 209 feet of the Easterly 280 feet of the North 1/2
of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17,
Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by Councilman Spaeth, and upon vote being takcn thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof: Mayor Hilde, Cotu.cilrrlan Spaeth, Hunt, Neils and Seibold.
Whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
k *k Akt! *kA
t
T. FU.TECJ
Y•t*YZATA, P'NN«OTA
OFFICE : 473 -4925 TEt„EGrSG.*Z
Ccrtir:C!J of —''Jrv. -y
SITE PLAN 't-TS
Rc.S •
1
I ( I
I
Cd I i
I v
riC11U3 1 11-'20p' I 1
t n rt ot. t`c of a:?} of :::,t of Sec 17- 11f3 -22, Hcr.ncpin Ccwity,
nq folio..!:;:
of thi ::act 2 J' of U.': A of :1. ,. of ::':. of -e c 17 -1
c.; 17 -11R - 2 .o,,,,ty,
d Surv:yor
L1oto: '7•! I:o.: f.ock: Colo:
IL
STATE O1: NI1 FJ)T A 1
VILLAGE OF PI.Y'.n,' Ti')
I, the un'eriigned, being the duly qualified and acting C1erl. of the
Village of Pl--th, !!innesota, hereby certify that I have carefully com;)31'C !
the attached ar: foreenir, -* extract cf the minutes of a regular meetin:r of the
Village-Council of said Village held April 17, 1972, with the original
thereof on file in rr: office and the.same is a full, true and -complete
transcript t!-.er frr^ insofar as the same relates to a Resolution waivini;
suhdivisicn rc.;::irc-,nts on Parcel 4052, Plat 41717.
WITM'S`) ^. h:ar:d officially as such clerk and the corporate seal of the
Village this 1st day of Nhv, 1972.
Seal)
e.
Village Clerk
Village of Pl) 'Mouth, Ninncsota
a+
MEMO
DATE: February 23, 1973
9
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: James G. Willis, Village Manager\
j
SUBJECT: DR. DENNIS E. ARNE, 4465 Vicksburg Lane A_357)
Last April 17 the Village Council adopted Resolution 72 -133 (copy of which
is attached) approving a subdivision variance for Dr. Dennis E. Arne. Tile
Council may recall the adoption of this resolution came followi;-g consider-
able discussion concerning the requirement for the dedication of additional
right -of -way on Vicksburg Lane and access to the Arne parcel. As part of
that agreement, Dr. Arne dedicated to the Village the right -of -way as re-
quired. The Village, in turn, granted a deed to Dr. Arne for the use of
their present access until such time as an additional access might be pro-
vided when the entire parcel was developed. The resolution approving
these matters did not mention the Village granting the deed to the Arnes,
although such a deed was prepared and executed on behalf of the Village.
The failure of the resolution to specifically mention the granting of this
deed to the Arnes has now placed a cloud on the title to that property and
we, therefore, are recommending that the Council adopt the attached reso-
lution in order that the cloud may be removed.
JGW.n
Sqc-
7
I J
J
J
1`
r
WI
O
3`
Lt5 nDntcre,., R t hia ..........._......1. =th ..................d y f __Fe.b_ru.a...r ,
ibetween............. .............. ..............._..............._.......................................................................................................................................... ...............................
municipal
If n fro
o the first art, anda'eorpera ti.n under t1u Igwd of tl r;lsh of .....h,+"" j — —r.. fi P
a ...............
I ................... ...... .................................. ................... .............. _.._._...... .......__..............._....._
of the County of ..............._A'::^ 21.P._. ................................... ..and State of............I`h i 7 SO.t t............., parties of the
second part,
Witnr5,setf"
J
hqt the said, party o the first part in eun-0ideration of the suns of .........:.:.................
One Dolla- r ,.c a,::' u: - - ......= ._............ ......... ..... ..... .......................... DCiLIAn . ^.
rryye r
to it in hand paid by the said parties of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknoteledged, does
hereby Grant, Eargain, Qreit- clai:ni, and Convey unto the said parties of the scco?ul part as joint tenants
and not as tenants in common, their a4si_ws, the survivor of said parties, and the heirs and assigns of the
survivor. Forever,, all the tract ......... or parcel... ...of land lying and being in the County of ........ ........................:......
and State of Alinnesota, described as follows, to-'tit:
The Northerly 200 Feet of the Easterly 280 Feet of the
North 1/2 of t._' Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4,
Section 17, ^-o- :ns!2ip 11P, ?n-e 22, Hennepin County,
subject to an easement for street and utility purposes
retained by grantor herein over, under and across the Easterly
60 feet thereof.
Subject further to the retention by grantor of all rights of
access for purposes of ingress and egress to and from Vicksburg
Lane with respect to the above described property. Provided,
however, that grantees and their successors and assigns shall
be permitted temporary access to and from said Vicksburg Lane
until such time as another public street shall be constructed
and opened for public travel along and contiguous to the
above described property.
C OwDtarr DEZQD
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON---
Ir0 Jbabe anb to Rlalb the irbame. Together with all the hereditanwnts and appurtenances thereunto
belonging or in an ytrise appertaining, to the said part .......- .:.::.__. of the second part, their assigns, the sur-
vivor of said parties and the heirs and assigns of the survivor, Forever, the said parties of the second
part taking as joint tenants and net as,ienants in eorntnon`
7.
mow%
In Pruencepf
In Te5timonp Obereof. The said first party has cautad these
presents to be e"euted in its corporate name by its.... Maynr. ........ _...
x3rAdd=* and its..Vi.' age ... rianageroi4reeryerelesea! to
et above written.
VILLAGE OX PLYMOUTH
r.:.............. ............................... ..............
Mayor
Its .............. ...... ............ 2i3iah
i1 c ..an aJi.r
4:: 5-. B.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REPORT DATE:
FILE NO.:
PETITIONER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
GUIDE PLAN CLASS:
ZONING:
BACKGROUND:
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
May 3, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 9, 1990
90026
Miles Homes, Inc.
Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance Sign Section Regarding
Nameplates in the B -1 (Office Limited Business) Zoning
District
City -wide
CL (Limited Business)
B -1 (Office Limited Business)
On December 12, 1989, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals heard a
request from Miles Homes, Inc. for a variance for the size of directional
signage. During the review of the request and careful reading of the
definition of directional signage, it was determined that what Miles Homes was
proposing was actually a freestanding business sign. Since two freestanding
business signs are clearly not permitted by the Ordinance, a variance is not
allowed.
At its January 24, 1990, meeting, the Planning Commission was presented a
memorandum explaining the situation regarding Miles Homes. The Planning
Commission representative to the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals,
Commissioner Tierney, based on that memorandum, requested the Planning
Commission to consider whether it wished to originate an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance that would address signage in a manner requested by Miles
Homes. The Planning Commission did not take action to initiate such an
amendment.
Miles Homes has now formally applied for a textual amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance to amend signage provisions of the B -1 Zoning District to allow two
freestanding business signs under certain circumstances -- double frontage lots
such as they have.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City
newspaper.
see next page)
File 90026
Page Two
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. A memorandum of former Associate Planner Al Cottingham is attached. That
memorandum basically explains the concern and request of Miles Homes with
respect to signage on their property.
2. Miles Homes has not supplied specific language they would propose to
modify or be included within the Zoning Ordinance to permit more than one
freestanding business sign on a double frontage lot.
3. The concept of multiple business signs for a single parcel is addressed b
the Zoning Ordinance only in Section 10, Subdivision A, paragraph 4b (4
with respect to the number of business signs permitted for shopping
centers located in the B -2 (Shopping Center) District. Here the Zoning
Ordinance permits multiple business signage based on the number of
collector or arterial approaches to the shopping center. Staff has
defined "approach" as a collector or arterial street fronting the site,
and to which the site has direct or nearly direct access. In no other
case does the Zoning Ordinance currently provide for more than a single
business sign in any Zoning District.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The initial consideration must be whether it is in the best interest of
the City of Plymouth to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for multiple
business signs, except those already permitted for shopping centers under
certain circumstances. A question that can be raised is whether the
intended purpose cannot, in most cases, be addressed by a combination of a
single pylon sign and a wall sign that is available to all businesses,
regardless of the zone in which they are located.
In all but the most extreme cases - -such as Miles Homes may be-- careful
consideration of structure placement in harmony with the placement of the
single business identification signs available to all sites, should
accommodate identification directed at both streets of a through lot.
2. If it is determined that it is in the best interest of the City to amend
the Zoning Ordinance to provide for more than a single business sign on a
parcel under certain circumstances, the Planning Commission must then
determine what circumstances should be those that would control situations
for such multiple signage should take place. For example, multiple
signage that is permitted for shopping centers in the B -2 Zoning District
is related to the number of approaches from collector or arterial streets
serving the specific shopping center. Potentially, similar type standards
could be developed with respect to multiple business signs in other
business districts. No specific recommendations have been made to date by
the applicant.
see next page)
File 90026
Page Three
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend that the Planning Commission, upon completion of the Public
Hearing on this matter, consider the testimony at the hearing from the
applicant and others that may chose to testify, and initially determine
whether it is in the best interest of the City of Plymouth to further address
the concept of amending the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate multiple business
signs within business districts, in addition to those already allowed for
shopping centers in the B -2 District.
If it is determined by the Planning Commission that it does not desire to
recommend any such amendment, that position should be articulated in the form
of a motion to be transmitted to the City Council with respect to this
application.
If, on the other hand, the Planning Commission determines that it does desire
to consider such amendments with respect to signage, it should direct staff to
prepare specific language for consideration by the Planning Commission at a
future meeting, i.e, a continued hearing. Such direction should include what
standards or circumstances would be appropriate to define when such multiple
signage would be 1 able.
Submitted by: Xn X,
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 1990
2. Staff Memorandum to the Planning Commission of January 19, 1990
pc /cd /90026:dl)
Planning Commission Minutes
January 24, 1990
Page 19
already approved the street vacation of 49th Ave orth.
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, sec by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Wire, to recommend approval of equest by John DeVries
for a Lot Division /Lot Con ation and Variance for Wild
Wings Addition located 25 Valley Forge Lane, subject to
the condition se rth in the staff report of December 5,
1989.
Commissioner Tierney discussed with the Planning Commission
the staff memorandum that was presented with the agenda
which describes the sign issue related to Miles Homes on
Nathan Lane. She noted that Miles Homes had requested a
second nameplate sign due to the substantial distance
between their "main frontage" on Highway 169 and their
actual entrance on Nathan Lane. It was the consensus of the
Planning Commission that no basis existed to consider
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate a second
nameplate sign for sites with multiple street frontages.
y
Plufka, and Wire to the Task Force Study Committee the
Official Controls Element of the Comprehensiv Plan.
Commissioner Wire was appointed Chairman of the C ittee.
Community Development Director Tremer advised the
Commission that the City Council had fo a Task Force to
study the issue of outdoor storage retail locations,
including gasoline service station Commissioner Marofsky
had been appointed by the r as Chairman of that
Committee, Commissioner P' rce was appointed, and
Commissioner Zylla, as req ted, was the alternate.
Commissioner Zylla dicated that due to business
commitmeZhewou be unable to participate in meetings
of the O ols Committee, but that he would desire
that his h regard to removing any penalty for a
developeide his own property, and to what he
considersive Fire Code requirements by the City
of Plymo ered.
OTHER BUSINESS
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: January 19, 1990
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Al Cottingham, Associate Planner G?z
SUBJECT: SIGNAGE VARIANCE FOR MILES HOMES LOCATED AT 4700 NATHAN LANE
On Tuesday, December 12, 1989, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals
heard a request from Miles Homes, Inc., for a variance for the size of
directional signage. During the review of the request and careful reading of
the definition of directional signage, it was determined that what Miles Homes
was proposing was actually a freestanding business sign. What this meant was
Miles Homes was seeking to have two freestanding business signs on one parcel,
which the Ordinance does not allow even by a variance. The Board felt this
was an unusual case, and there are others like it in Plymouth which have
frontage on a major roadway and access via a secondary or city street. The
parties would like to have signage located along the major thoroughfare so
people can identify the site plus also have signage located near the entrance
of the building.
The Board suggested that the Planning Commission look at possibly amending the
Zoning Ordinance to allow for two freestanding signs on property defined as a
through lot with access being denied to a major street such as Interstate 494,
Highway 169, or Highway 55. An example of this would be the Prudential
Flagship Building located in the Northwest Business Campus PUD which sought
signage a number of years ago for both I -494 and Campus Drive. This was
approved by the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council with the
rationale it being a PUD and would allow for this flexibility.
Attached are definitions from the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to signage, the
pages of the Ordinance dealing with freestanding signage in the B -1 District,
and a copy of the December 12, 1989, Board of Zoning minutes.
Attachments:
1. Section 4, Subdivision B of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance
2. Section 10, Subdivision A of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance
3. Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals Minutes of December 12, 1989
pc /ac /12- 1- 89:dl)
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
adjoining apartments, or at a central
room(s) or area adequate for social,
of the residents. (Amended Ord. No.
Section 4, Subdivision B
location; and, a multipurpose common
meeting, and recreational activities
83 -12 & 89 -38)
Shopping Center -- Neighborhood Center: A retail center designed for the
purpose of retailing "convenience" goods such as foods and drugs and
providing personal services such as barber shops and laundry stations fortheaccommodationofthebasicday -to -day shopping or service needs of
persons living or working within the nearby area. Community Center: A
retail center designed for the purpose of retailing and providing a wide
range of goods and services of both the "convenience" and the "shoppers or
durable" nature such as apparel, furniture and banking and financial
services, for a trade area comprising of several residential neighborhoods.
Regional Center: A retail center designed to serve a trade area of several
communities and to provide a range of "convenience" and "shoppers and
durable" goods and services comparable to that found in the central
business districts of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Shoreland -- Land located within the following distances from public water:
a.) 1,000 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark of a lake, pond, or
flowage; and, (b.) 300 feet from a stream, creek, or water course; or the
landward extent of a flood plain as designated by this Ordinance, whichever
is greater. (Amended Ord. No. 82 -33
Sign -- Any billboard, notice, poster, display or other device visible to
and primarily intended to advertise and inform or to attract attention, and
shall include any structures erected primarily for use in connection with
the display of any such device and all lighting or other attachments used
in connection therewith.
Sign, Advertising - -A sign which directs attention to a business,
commodity, service, activity or entertainment not necessarily conducted,
sold or offered upon the premises where such sign is located.
Sign, Area Identification -- Any free standing sign located on identified
premises, which identifies the name of a neighborhood, a residential
subdivision, a multiple residential complex or any combination of the
above.
Sign, Business - -.,A sign which directs attention to a business or profession to
a commodity, service or entertainment sold or offered upon the premises
where such a sign is located.
Sign, Directional -- A sign erected on private property for the purpose of
directing traffic to a specific location.
Sign, Flashing -- Any illuminated sign on which such illumination is not kept
Sign, Free Standing -- Any sign which is placed in the ground and not affixed
to any part of a building.
Sign, Illuminated -- Any sign which has characters, letters, figures, designs
or outlines illuminated by electric lights or luminous tubes as a part of
the sign.
4 -15
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 4. Subdivision B
Sign, Institutional -- Any sign or bulletin board which identifies the name and
other characteristics of a public or private institution on the site where
the sign is located.
Sign, Nameplate -- Any sign which states the name or address or both of the
business and occupant of the lot where the sign is placed.
Sign, Nonconforming -- Any sign which existed prior to the adoption of this
Ordinance but does not conform to the requirements of this Ordiniance.
Sign, Pylon -- A free - standing sign erected upon a single pylon or post which
iisinexcessoften (10) feet n height with a sign mounted on top thereof.
Sign, Roof -- A sign erected or attached, in whole or in part, upon the roof of
a building, or a non - freestanding sign which projects above the roofline of
the building to which it is attached. See "roofline ". (Amended Ord.
84 -24)
Sign, Rotating -- A sign which revolves or rotates on its axis by mechanical
means.
Sign, Surface Area of -- The entire area within a single, continuous perimeter
enclosing the extreme limits of the actual sign surface. It does not
include any structural elements outside the limits of such sign and not
forming an integral part of the display. Only one side of a double -face or
V -type sign structure shall be used in computing total surface area.
Sign, Swinging -- Any sign designed to be swayed, rocked, or so moved by wind,
other natural phenomenon, or mechanical means.
Sign, Temporary -- A sign erected or placed on private property for a limited
period of time including signs affixed or attached to vehicles including
trailers and capable of being readily removed; and, including banners,
pennants, stringers, and the like. (Amended Ord. No. 84 -24)
Sign, Traffic Control -- Any sign which is erected by a government unit for the
purpose of directing or regulating vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Site Plan -- A map drawn to scale depicting the development of a tract of land,
including but' not limited to the location and relationship of structures,
streets, driveways, recreation areas, parking areas, utilities,
landscaping, and walkways as related to a proposed development.
Story -- That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any
floor and upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost
story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper
surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the
finished floor level directly above a basement, cellar or unused
under -floor space is more than 6 feet above grade as defined herein for
more than 50 percent of the total perimeter or is more than 12 feet above
grade as defined herein at any point, such basement, cellar, or unused
under -floor space shall be considered as a story.
4 -16
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 10, Subdivision A
The owner or manager of the sign, the owner of the land, or the
political candidate shall be equally responsible for the proper
location, maintenance, and ultimate removal of the sign. Setback
requirements may be waived for such signs, provided that they are
located on private property with the express consent of the
property owner, and provided that they do not impede safety by
obstructing vision of pedestrians or motor vehicle operators.
5) Temporary Signs for non - commercial announcements by civic groups
shall be a maximum 32 sq. ft. in surface area, provided that a
maximum of three such signs may exceed 32 sq. ft., to a maximum
300 sq. ft., in surface area provided that the larger signs are
for city -wide and free community events.
Temporary Signs for non - commercial announcements by civic groupsshallberemovedwhentheintendedpurposehasbeenfulfilled.
Signs with a surface area greater than 32 sq. ft. are allowed for
a maximum of ten days. The owner or manager of the sign, the
owner of the land, or the sponsoring civic group shall be equally
responsible for the proper location, maintenance, and ultimate
removal of the sign. (Ord 86 -26)
Setback requirements may be waived for such signs provided that
they are located on private property with the express consent of
the property owner, and provided they do not impede safety by
obstructing vision of pedestrians or motor vehicle operators.
Amended Ord. 86 -26)
6) One temporary sign for transient merchants and transient produce
merchants in the FRD District only. The sign shall not exceed 16
sq. ft. in surface area, and shall not exceed 6 ft. in height.
The sign shall be setback at least 20 ft. from the street
right -of -way line and shall be erected only during the period of
transient sales. (Amended Ord. 86 -01)
3. B -1 (Office- Limited Business) District. Signs are accessory to permitted
and conditional uses in the B -1 District; only the following signs are
permitted in this District, unless otherwise specifically provided in this
Subdivision.
a. Directional Signs. Directional Signs shall be permitted in any
approved off- street parking area, when deemed necessary for the orderly
movement of traffic, provided that such signs shall not be used as
advertising space.
1) Directional Signs shall not exceed 4 sq. ft. of surface area, and
shall not be erected higher than 8 ft. above grade.
2) Directional Signs directed at persons off the site shall be
limited to one such sign per collector or arterial street approach
to the site.
3) Directional Signs shall not be illuminated unless illumination is
deemed by the City as essential to the orderly flow of traffic.
10 -4
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 10, Subdivision A
4) Directional Signs may be located on the private property next to
the street right -of -way line, but shall be so located and designed
so as to not obstruct traffic or vision of drivers and
pedestrians.
5) One off -site directional sign shall be permitted for the
following: church, school, hospital, sanitarium, noncommercial
club, library or similar use provided that the sign is located on
private property which abuts a collector or arterial road leading
to the subject use.
b. Business Signs. Business Signs are specifically intended for use by
allowed commercial enterprises and are used to direct attention to the
business, profession, commodity, or service which is found on the
premises where the sign is located.
1) A freestanding Business Sign shall be permitted and shall be
limited to a maximum surface area of 64 sq. ft., and maximum
height of 16 ft. The sign shall be setback a minimum 20 ft. from
property lines.
2) A flat wall Business Sign shall be permitted and shall be limited
to a maximum surface area of 50 sq. ft., or 5% of the area of the
wall to which the sign is attached, whichever is greater; and,
shall not extend more than 18 inches from the face of the building
except that such signage may extend from the face of the roof over
a covered wall, or from a marquee, providing the signage does not
extend above the roofline of said building. (Ord. No. 87 -16)
c. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs as provided herein are intended to
announce and promote developments and events, and to direct persons to
those activities which are of limited duration.
1) One Temporary Real Estate Sign announcing the development and
availability of lots and /or buildings, and /or one temporary
construction sign identifying architects, engineers, contractors,
or suppliers, not exceeding a total surface area of 96 sq. ft.,
not exceeding more than 16 ft. in height, and not less than 2 ft.
above the ground shall be permitted on the property under
development. Such signs shall be setback at least 20 ft. from
front property lines, and shall not be located in any required
side yard. Such signs shall be allowed for three years from the
date of original Building Permit issuance, or until 85% of the
construction in the development is completed, which ever occurs
first, unless otherwise specifically provided in this Subdivision.
2) One Temporary Real Estate Sign related to the sale, rent, or lease
of land, parcels and lots, of primary buildings, and of areas
within primary buildings shall be less than 8 sq. ft. in surface
area, shall be located on the subject property, and shall be
removed when the intended purpose has been fulfilled. The owner
or manager of the sign and the owner of the land, shall be equally
responsible for the proper location, maintenance, and ultimate
10 -5
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
DECEMBER 12, 1989
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustment and
Appeals was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Anderson, Commissioners Bigelow,
Hoff, Naftzger, Patterson and Tierney
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Porzio
STAFF PRESENT: Associate Planner Al Cottingham
Building Official Joe Ryan
MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Bigelow seconded by Commissioner
Tierney, to approve the October 10, 1989 Minutes.
VOTE. 5 Ayes. Commissioner Naftzger abstained. MOTION
Carried.
Chairman Anderson introduced the Board members and reviewed
the Variance Criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Anderson introduced the request submitted by Kent
Stennes, Miles Homes, Inc. for a variance to allow a 48
square foot directional sign versus the four square feet
allowed for a property located at 4700 Nathan Lane.
Mr. Morry Hartman, Miles Homes, Inc., represented Miles
Homes since Kent Stennes was no longer with Miles Homes.
Mr. Hartman stated that they would be cutting off the top
three feet of the existing sign and planting some ornamental
shrubbery at the base of the new sign which in essence would
cover the lower half of the sign, thus having approximately
a 30 square foot sign that was actually visible. He noted
the proposed sign also included the building number and did
not feel that should be included with the square footage of
the sign. He explained that they wished to relocate their
pylon sign to the east side of the building since a majority
of the building is set into a hill and is not very visible
from Highway 169. He noted that placing a wall sign on this
portion of the building would not be very helpful due to the
earth berm along the Highway 169 side of this site. He
further noted that this is a large site with frontage along
a major highway with access being to a secondary street.
With the proposed arrangement of the sign, you would not be
able to see both signs at the same time nor can you see the
building from Nathan Lane due to its placement on the
property. He pointed out the signs would not appear to
clutter the site since it is so large.
MOTION TO APPROVE
MOTION APPROVED
Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals
Page 1
Chairman Anderson inquired as to the height of the existing
sign.
Mr. Hartman noted the existing sign is approximately 6'10"
tall and they would be cutting off the top 2'10 ".
Commissioner Anderson inquired of staff if the building
address is included in the square feet of the sign.
Building Official Ryan stated that he was just reviewing the
definitions portion of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of the
definition for directional sign and noted that this sign
being proposed is not a directional sign since a directional
sign would not allow for the name or names of companies to
be printed on it. He noted that even with the reduced size
of the lettering, the sign is really a name plate sign by
definition.
Mr. Scott Gruber noted that they were told by the Assistant
Building Official that they would need a Variance for the
size of the directional signage and no one had really looked
at the wording on the sign prior to this to make a
determination that this sign was really a name plate sign.
Mr. Gruber noted they really did not want to spend money and
totally remove this sign, to only replace it with the site
address. They need some type of identification along Nathan
Lane if they are to relocate their name plate sign to the
Highway 169 side of the site and, they were hoping that this
could be defined as a directional sign.
Chairman Anderson noted even if this were a directional
sign, the Board could not grant a variance solely due to an
economic hardship related to the cost of replacing the sign.
Mr. Gruber noted if they did not have the address numbers on
this sign, the sign was only four square feet and thus would
not require a variance. The building numbers are required
by law, and they are just incorporating those numbers into
the same site.
Building Official Ryan discussed the issue of the Ordinance
requirements for building addresses, and noted that as long
as the building numbers were clearly visible from the
street, there was no problem with the law. He again
reiterated the fact that this sign is not a directional sign
and therefore, could not be acted on by the Board since the
Zoning Ordinance clearly prohibits two name plate signs to
be located on one parcel. The option the petitioner would
have would be to seek an amendment to the Sign Ordinance
portion of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for two name plate
signs on a site.
Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals
Page 2
Chairman Anderson explained to the Board that they could not
review this proposal and act on it. It could be taken to
the Planning Commission so they could determine whether they
could consider amending the Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Tierney said that she would discuss this item
with the Planning Commission as to whether the Planning
Commission might be able to support this request, and if the
Planning Commission would be willing to look at when theyreviewtheSignOrdinanceportionoftheZoningOrdinancein
1990. She noted however, this may not be an immediate
solution to the petitioner's problems.
Planner Cottingham explained that if the petitioner wished
to have a solution sooner than what the Planning Commission
may be proposing they can propose the amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance on their own.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M.
N
5-C.
DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 1
HEARING DATE: May 9, 1990
DESCRIPTION:
Provide for certain recycling facilities as essential services and clarify
definition of "waste facility ".
SECTIONS INVOLVED: Section 4, Subdivision B
EXPLANATION /PURPOSE:
The State Legislature in recent years has adopted laws and rules which limit
the use of sanitary land fills by requiring alternate disposal of certain
wastes and recycling of certain wastes. Much of this has been contemplated in
the Plymouth Ordinance for several years but the advent of recycling yard
wastes (compost) has focused on the need to clarify the Ordinance and make
clear provision for the City to authorize operation of necessary facilities.
The proposed amendment clarifies the exclusion sentence in the definition of
waste facility" by providing for yard waste and compost.
The amendment also provides for those activities other than waste facilities
in the definition of "essential services ".
The Ordinance otherwise does not need to be amended relative to the location
or operation of the facilities. All such facilities would require City
approval.
The amendments are necessary to ensure that the Plymouth land use regulations
are consistent with current law and requirements from Hennepin County relative
to recycling activities. I recommend that the Ordinance be amended as
follows:
1. Amend definition of "Essential Services" so that it reads as follows:
Essential Services -- Overhead or underground electrical, gas, steam or
water transmission or distribution systems; collection, communication,
supply, or disposal systems used by public utilities or governmental
agencies as are required for the
protection of the public health, safety, or general welfare, including
facilities other than waste facilities related to recycling such as
drop -off centers which are accessory to allowable uses and which are
individuals: also, towers, poles, wires, substations, mains, drains,
sewers, pipes, conduits, cables, reservoirs, wells, elevated tanks,
fire alarm boxes, police call boxes, and other similar equipment and
accessories in connection therewith, but not including buildings,
except those buildings that are an integral part of the essential
service.
2. Amend the definition of "Waste Facility" so that it reads as follows:
Waste Facility -- All property, real or personal, including negative and
positive easements and water and air rights, which is or may be needed
or useful for the processing, disposal, transfer and /or storage of
hazardous and /or solid wastes, except property used primarily for the
manufacture of scrap metal or paper. Waste facility includes but is
not limited to transfer and storage stations, processing facilities,
and disposal sites and facilities. Waste Facility does not include
drop -off centers which are accessory to allowable uses and which are
operated by a governmental unit, civic organization or similar non-
profit group expressly for the collection of recyclable waste including
paper, clean glass and metal containers, yard waste for composting, and
other eligible household wastes from individuals.
pc /bt /compost)
II PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 4, Subdivision B
Essential Services -- Overhead or underground electrical, gas, steam or water
transmission or distribution systems; collection, communication, supply or
disposal systems used by public utilities or governmental departments or
commissions or as are required for the protection of the public health, .0
safety or general welfare, including towers, poles, wires, substations,
mains, drains, sewers, pipes, conduits, cables, reservoirs, wells, elevated
tanks, fire alarm boxes, police call boxes, and other similar equipment and
accessories in connection therewith, but not including buildings, except
those buildings that are an integral part of the essential service.
Waste Facility -- All property, real or personal, including negative and
positive easements and water and air rights, which is or may be needed or
useful for the processing, disposal, transfer and /or storage of hazardous
and /or solid wastes, except property used primarily for the manufacture of
scrap metal or paper. Waste facility includes but is not limited to
transfer and storage stations, processing facilities, and disposal sites
and facilities. Waste Facility does not include drop -off centers which are
accessory to allowable uses and which are operated by a governmental unit,
civic organization or similar non - profit group expressly for the collection
of recyclable waste including paper, clean glass and metal containers, and
other eligible household wastes from individuals. (Amend. Ord. 81 -31)