HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 05-09-1990CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: May 1, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 9, 1990
FILE NO.: 89014
PETITIONER: Ryan Construction Company
REQUEST: Approve MPUD Final Plan (Master Sign Plan) for "Rockford
Road Plaza"
LOCATION: Northeast Corner of County Road 9 and Interstate 494
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CR -2 (Retail Shopping)
ZONING:
BACKGROUND:
MPUD 89 -2
On November 6, 1989, the City Council, by Resolution 89 -689, approved an
amended Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan /Plat and
Conditional Use Permit to develop slightly over 400,000 square feet of retail
commercial structures on a site of 52 acres, subject to 17 conditions of
approval. On October 16, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution 89 -649,
finding "no need" for an Environmental Impact Statement based on the review of
the Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
On April 2, 1990, the City Council, by Resolution 90 -233, approved a Final
Plat and MPUD Final Plan (Final Plan only with respect to the outlots) for
the entire 52 -acre site.
An application for Site Plan approval covering the west side of Vinewood Lane
within this site is being processed concurrent with this application for a
Master Sign Plan.
This application is for a PUD Master Sign Plan, covering the entire 52 -acre
PUD - -both wall signs and pylons. Proposed are seven free - standing signs, two
of which would identify the project and five of which would be on each of five
sites. Also proposed are wall signs for each of the six structures that are
approved in the Preliminary PUD Plan.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. Two of the proposed free - standing signs (one to be located adjacent to I-
494 on the Target site; and one to be located at the intersection of
Vinewood Lane and County Road 9) are 675 square feet in size each, per the
Ordinance sign area definition. The applicant, measuring these two signs
in a different manner, contends that only 300 square feet of sign area is
proposed in each case.
see next page)
File 89014
Page Two
The applicant also proposes five free - standing signs of 200 plus square
feet each. One of these would be located at the intersection of 41st Avenue
North and West Medicine Lake Drive of 360 square feet (for project
identification), and the other four would be located on each of four free-
standing sites, not including the Target site Qr the main shopping center on
the east side of Vinewood Lane.
The amount of signs (seven) is consistent with the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance for a neighborhood shopping center with two major
entrances /approaches and five commercial sites. The Ordinance would
permit signs no larger than 96 square feet for any of the seven signs
proposed based on the use of the Neighborhood Shopping Center standard of
the Zoning Ordinance. The Community Shopping Center standard of 120
square feet is specified by the applicant. In addition, the applicant
proposes an overall sign height of 45 feet for the two larger signs. This
would be in excess of the maximum of 36 feet permitted for signs in this
Zoning District. Sign height for the remaining 5 signs is proposed to not
exceed building height. The Zoning Ordinance specified maximum height is
36 feet.
2. The applicant is proposing wall signage of either 5 percent or 10 percent
of the wall surface area of the six structures that are a part of the PUD
Plan. The applicant proposes that multiple walls of the structures will
receive signage and that signage not used on one wall area be transferable
to other wall areas within the project, without limitation except from the
Target store. The applicant's narrative proposes that an aggregate 5,800
square feet of wall signage be permitted for the overall development
Without the benefit of Final Site Plans for
Target, staff cannot ascertain the accuracy
suggested by the applicant in his narrative.
of the structures can be ascertained from the
no specific elevations are available for rr
ascertain the actual area of the walls.
structures other than the
of the aggregate signage
While the lineal dimension
approved Preliminary Plan,
ost of the structures to
3. Section 9, Subdivision B, paragraph 3e provides that all signs within a
PUD must conform with a Master Sign Plan that shall be considered and
approved with the Final Plan. With a staged PUD such as this is, staff
has interpreted the stage at which a Master Sign Plan must be provided to
be the initial Final Plan /Final Site Plan.
Ordinance 89 -26 provided for amendments to the Planned Unit Development
Section to include signage within the design features of a PUD that were
eligible for consideration as to flexibility available from the standards
of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Site Plan /Final Plan for the "Target" site of this MPUD is presented
elsewhere on this Planning Commission agenda, and therefore this Master
Sign Plan is processed concurrent with this initial Final Plan.
4. An issue is presented with respect to the method used to calculate the
area of pylon signage. The extent of deviation proposed from the
see next page)
t
File 89014
Page Three
standards of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to pylon signage is
difficult to ascertain without determining the method by which that area
is measured. The Zoning Ordinance provides that the sign surface area is
defined as "...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
form an integral part of the display." Using that definition, the Chief
Building Official indicates that the applicant's proposed "typical pylon
sign" qualifies in its entirety as sign surface area and therefore is 675
square feet. Also, the applicant's proposed "typical monument sign" would
be the product of multiplying the 10 -foot width times the proposed height.
The proposed height for these five "typical monument signs" is not to
exceed 36 feet with respect to the sign proposed for Outlot B, and not to
exceed the height of the building which the sign serves with respect to
the other four. In the case of the Outlot B sign, the total sign area
would be calculated at 360 square feet, and the total sign area of the
other five signs would likely be approximately 200 square feet, based on a
presumed 20 -foot building height.
A substantial difference results from measuring the sign areas in a manner
that the applicant proposes compared to the method of measurement used by
the Zoning Ordinance definition: over 2,500 square feet of pylon sign
surface area proposed overall versus while the applicant's total of 1,200
square feet versus the Zoning Ordinance maximum standard of 672 square
feet of pylon sign surface area (7 free - standing signs at 96 square feet
each).
5. The applicant proposes calculation of wall signage on multiple walls of
the structures. There is no Zoning Ordinance prohibition to signage on
multiple walls as long as the signage is no greater than 5 percent of the
wall area (for shopping center structures) or 20 percent of the wall area
for free - standing structures in the B -2 zone). An element of
flexibility" proposed by the applicant, not anticipated by the Zoning
Ordinance, is the ability to "move" wall signage "credits" generated by
applying the appropriate percentages to the multiple walls and, actually
only install the signage on selected walls -- resulting in actual sign
coverage on those selected walls that would exceed the Ordinance maximums.
The concept proposed amounts to "borrowing" of wall signage area from one
wall surface to another.
To a limited degree, the Planning Commission addressed such a concept in
the approval of the Town Center at Parkers Lake Master Sign Plan. Here
the Commission precluded otherwise permissible signage on the ends of the
shopping center structure, but permitted the applicant to increase the
percentage of wall area allowed as wall signage from 5 percent to 8.27
percent as a measure of flexibility.
see next page)
File 89014
Page Four
it
There are two major differences between the posture taken by the Planning
Commission (and ultimately the City Council) on the Town Center at Parkers
Lake PUD and what is proposed by the applicant by this PUD Master Sign
Plan:
1. The applicant here is already proposing wall signage in excess of the
5 percent permitted under the Zoning Ordinance on the shopping center
building (except the Rainbow Food portion).
2. The applicant, in this case is not prescribing a specific formula for
the "movement" of "excess wall signage" from one portion of the
building to another as was the case with Town Center at Parkers Lake.
The issues are both whether such movement of wall sign area is reasonable
and proper within a Planned Unit Development, and the degree of
specificity to be applied to such movement, if it is deemed proper.
6. Staff has, at Development Review Committee meetings, reviewed with this
petitioner the direction of its recommendations on a Master Sign Plan
proposed for this or other similar Planned Unit Development Master Sign
Plan applications. We have indicated that our focus would be compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance dimensional standards from an aggregate (over
the entire PUD) perspective.
This means that the multiple sites within the PUD individually gain
certain "rights" with respect to signage by the Zoning Ordinance. The PUD
flexibility would be that certain sites may require additional signage due
to sight line and other characteristics. This additional signage (over
and above Ordinance standards) would be permissible as an element of
flexibility in the PUD in return for a reduction in signage at some other
site within the PUD.
For instance, related to this specific application, we have determined
that seven free - standing signs with an aggregate 672 square feet would be
permissible under the Zoning Ordinance. If one or more signs were
proposed to be in excess of 96 square feet, we would expect one or more
signs would be proposed at an amount somewhat less than the 96 square
feet. The aggregate of the signs would still be in the range of 670
square feet.
In general, staff has indicated to this and other petitioners in cases
where signage is an issue within a PUD, that the aggregate of what they
propose for signage should be at or close to what would be permissible
with a conventional application of the Zoning Ordinance, but that specific
sign applications within that aggregate could be greater than the
Ordinance maximums on a case -by -case basis if corresponding adjustments
were made on other signs within the development.
see next page)
r
File 89014
Page Five
7. One important factor that enters into Zoning Ordinance standards with
respect to free - standing sign area is the degree to which such signage
imposes upon the natural sight lines. Regardless of whether or not a
specific message is provided, a portion of a sign with 100 percent opacity
should, under our Zoning Ordinance, be counted as signage. Free - standing
pylon signs are designed in response to this sight line factor by
providing a surface area with message supported by a post. The sight
lines are not significantly disturbed by the post. The proposed free-
standing signs are 100 percent opaque over the entire height - -there are no
pDs U, i.e., these are not "pylon" signs; they are free - standing signs.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Staff finds the free - standing signage proposed by the applicant to be
nearly four times the area for such signage prescribed by the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant should be directed to either redesign the
signage to better fit the definition of our Zoning Ordinance as to actual
sign surface area, or to reduce the physical size of all free - standing
signage to more closely correspond with the Zoning Ordinance standard.
We do not object to the concept of certain signs being in excess of the
Ordinance standards if other signs within the project are correspondingly
less than the Ordinance standard in size.
For example, signage along I -494 and County Road 9 may be required to be
somewhat larger due to the relatively higher speed of vehicles, while
signage along Vinewood Lane (internal to the project) need not be as large
due to the relatively slow moving traffic such signage is intended to
serve.
2. Staff finds the applicant's proposal with respect to wall signage to be
generally acceptable except with respect to the proposal to relocate
unused excess wall signage from one wall to another" without limitations.
Due to the extreme elevation difference between what signage would appear
on the east side of the shopping center structure and the traveling
surface of West Medicine Lake Road we question the value of that signage
except to the extent that it may serve as "credits" to be transferred to
other areas of this structure or other structures within the PUD (except
Target).
We find the flexibility suggested by substituting 10 percent wall signage
for the 20 percent available for the freestanding buildings as exchange
for 10 percent wall signage where 5 percent is the standard for the
shopping center structure (except the Rainbow Foods and Target structures
which remains at 5 percent) constitutes sufficient flexibility within the
intent of a Planned Unit Development ordinance. To potentially allow
shopping center signage in excess of 10 percent by way of relocating sign
area "credits" from the east side of the building would be excessive.
see next page)
File 89014
Page Six
Also, the long -term administration or tracking of the credits is a burden
neither the City or the owner(s) should have to bear. The final approval
should set the maximum amount of wall signage allowed on the wall(s)
supporting the sign. Thus, the issue is how much should be allowed, and
we recommend that the proposal be approved per the language in the draft
resolution.
3. Deferral of this sign plan by the
Commission concur the sign area
determine what alternative best
redesign the sign structures or
The issue is not how the area
signage that should be allowed,
Ordinance needs modification then
RECOMMENDATION:
Commission may be appropriate should the
is excessive. The applicant may wish to
would serve his purposes in that case- -
reduce the size of the sign structures.
is calculated as much as the amount of
given Ordinance definitions. If the
that should be dealt with separately.
Should the Planning Commission determine that deferral for redesign by the
applicant not be an appropriate action, I recommend approval only on the
conditions that aggregate free - standing signage not exceed 7 signs and 672
square feet; and that wall signage be limited to the approved percentage of
wall area without the right to transfer allowable signage area from wall to
wall or building tg- building.
Submitted by:
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
Attachments:
1. Draft Recommendation for Approval
2.
3. App icant Narrative
4. Resolutions 89 -689 and 90 -233
5. Large Plans
pc /cd/89014.1:dl)
APPROVING MPUD FINAL SITE PLAN (MASTER SIGN PLAN) FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY FOR "ROCKFORD ROAD PLAZA" (89014)
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company has requested approval for an MPUD Final
Site Plan (Master Sign Plan) for Rockford Road Plaza for property located at
the northeast corner of County Road 9 and Interstate 494; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Ryan Construction Company for an MPUD Final Site Plan Master Sign Plan) for
Rockford Road Plaza for property located at the northeast corner of County
Road 9 and Interstate 494, subject to the following conditions:
1. Free - standing signage is limited to 672 square feet in aggregate for up to
7 signs. Specific signs may exceed 96 square feet in area, but the total
combined surface area of all free - standing signs shall not exceed 672
square feet.
2. All free - standing signage must be set back from any public street right -
of -way at least 20 feet.
3. Wall signage shall be limited to 10 percent of the wall surface area to
which the sign is attached except as follows:
a. The structure on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be limited to signage of 5
percent of wall surface area on which the sign is attached.
b.;. The 65,000 square foot most northerly tenant space (Rainbow Foods) on
Lot 1, Block 2 shall be limited to signage of 5 percent of wall
surface area on which the sign is attached.
4. All wall signage shall be located only on the specific wall used to
calculate the allowable sign surface area. Transfer of allowable sign
surface area from one wall to another or one building to another is not
permitted.
5. Compliance with applicable terms and conditions of City Council Resolution
89 -689 (MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat) and 90 -234 (Conditions to MPUD Final
Plan /Plat).
WYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
OF MINNESOTA, INC.
April 19, 1990 N@EOWN
APR 20 1990
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
City Planner CI "Y OF PL'`h410 TH
City of Plymouth COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: ROCKFORD ROAD PLAZA -- PUD COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN
Dear Chuck:
The following points are in response to your comments at the April 17,
1990, DRC review meeting at City Hall.
1. Target's wall sign will be lowered (approximately 4 ") to not exceed
the roof line.
2. Per the General Notes of the Signage Summary on the Comprehensive
Sign Plan Submittal, the developer shall regulate the design and
appearance of all monument and pylon sign in an attempt to
uniformity and continuity in the overall signage concept. Enclosed
please find general design criteria for typical pylons and
monuments for the overall PUD.
3. Per our interpretation of City code, at five percent of building
face we are allowed approximately 5,500 s.f, of wall signage for
the overall development. Per our comprehensive sign plan
submittal, we are requesting approximately 5,800 s.f, of wall
signage (the two previous calculations pertained to Lot 1, Block 1;
Lot 1 and 2, Block 2 only).
4. Per our interpretation of City code, we are allowed seven pylon
signs at 120 s.f. each, for a total of 840 s.f. of pylon signage.
Per the comprehensive sign plan submittal, we are requesting five
monuments at 120 s.f, and two pylons at 300 s.f., for a total
pylon and monument signage of 1,200 s.f.
5. I would like to re- emphasize the high quality and aesthetically
pleasing nature of the signage required at all Ryan shopping center
projects. We require individually constructed and neon
illuminated, white acrylic, translucent letters. This provides
signage uniformity at the center. (I draw your attention to the
700 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE, 900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE 6121339.9847 FAX 6121337 -5552
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
Page Two
April 19, 1990
sign criteria submitted with the original comprehensive sign plan
submittal). The material used in the construction of the pylon and
monument signage will be primarily brick. The brick selected will
be consistent and complementary with the architectural design of
the overall center, providing an aesthetically pleasing visual
environment for pedestrians and shopping customers of the PUD.
6. We would like to re- emphasize that small shop retail tenants
florist, video, dry cleaner, sandwich shop, etc.) live or die
based on their signage. These are small retailers who need
identity. Their business and customer base is not destination
driven, such as a larger, more prominent retailer and /or industrial
or service business (I draw your attention to my letter of April
17, 1990).
7. The locating of signage on the eastern face of the shopping center
will enhance the appearance of the shopping center from Medicine
Lake Road, as well as visually breaking up the long wall (a
previously stated Staff concern).
8. We would like to re- emphasize our suggestion that the method for
measuring the higher quality, individually constructed letter signs
be done by measuring the individual letters, not by measuring the
sign in aggregate, as with the cheaper box /canned signs (see point
No. 4 in my April 17, 1990, letter addressed to you).
9. Finally, as you explained in the 4/17/90 DRC meeting, we would like
to encourage the relocation of unused excess wall signage from one
wall to another, while maintaining design and quality consistency
throughout the overall P.U.D. Under this concept, it is understood
that Target (Lot 1, Block 1) would stand on its own from the
remainder of the P.U.D.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 336 -1204.
Sincerely,
Will am J. McHale
Vice President
VJD6 /80 /sl
Enclosure
c: Dick Brooks (w /enc.)
Vince Driessen
Don Laukka (w /enc.)
Steve Marlette
VIA MESSENGER
Rockford Road Plaza
Plymouth, Minnesota
April 6, 1990
SIGN CRITERIA - CITY APPROVAL PROCESS
I. GENERAL
A.) Only the area above the Tenant's premises shall be identified by a
sign (except in the end cap spaces, where they may sign on the end cap
per code). The furnishing and installation of a sign and the costs
incurred shall be the responsibility of the Tenant.
B.) It is intented that the signing of the retail stores on the center
shall be developed in an imaginative and varied manner, and although
previous and current signing practices of the Tenant will be
considered they will not govern signs to be installed on the retail
stores.
C.) Each Tenant will be required to identify its premises by a sign.
D.) Service doors will be provided with uniform signs identifying stores
by the Landlord. Tenant shall not post any other additional signs.
II. SIGN CRITERIA
A.) The wording of the signs shall be limited to the store name only, and
such name shall not include any items sold therein.
B.) The use of corporate shields, crests, logos, or insignias will be
permitted (subject to Landlord's approval), provided such corporate
shields, crests, logos, or insignias shall not exceed the average
height for sign letters.
C.) Multiple or repetitive signing will be allowed only with the approval
of the Landlord provided the area of such signing conforms to the
limitations set forth herein.
D.) All signs and identifying marks shall be within the limitations of the
sign facia as set forth hereinafter, and not to exceed 10% of the
front elevation of the building.
E.) The average height of sign letters or components shall not exceed
30 ". Capital letters shall not exceed 36 ".
F.) Sign length shall be determined by centering in lease frontage area,
holding back a minimum of 2' from lease line on each end for 20'
fronts, 3' for 30' fronts and 4' for 40' fronts and larger.
Example: 40' wide space could have a 32' max. length.
20' wide space could have a 16' max. length.
0
Rockford Road Plaza
Page 2
II. SIGN CRITERIA (Continued)
G.) White sign letters to be constructed with internally illuminated
letters.
H.) Letters shall not project beyond the brick face more than five (5)
inches.
I.) The following design standards will be adhered to:
1.) Letters to be fabricated from aluminum medium bronze finish, trim
cap edge with white acrylic face.
2.) Illumination to be supplied by neon tubing powered by 60 M.A.
transformers.
III. PROHIBITED TYPES OF SIGNS OR SIGN COMPONENTS
A.) Moving or rotating signs.
B.) Back - illuminated signs.
C.) Signs employing moving or flashing lights.
D.) Signs employing exposed raceways, ballasts boxes or transformers.
E.) Signs employing painted and /or non - illuminated letters.
F.) Signs of box or cabinet type employing transparents, translucent or
luminous plastic background panels.
G.) Cloth, wood, paper or cardboard signs, stickers, decals or painted
signs around or on exterior surfaces (including interior and exterior
surfaces of doors and /or windows) of the premises.
H.) Signs employing noise making devices and components.
I.) Signs, letters, symbols or identification of any nature painted
directly on surfaces exterior to the premises.
J.) Free - standing signs.
K.) Roof -top or exterior signs.
Rockford Road Plaza
Page 3
IV. PROCEDURE FOR SIGN DRAWINGS
A.) Tenant shall submit three (3) sets of blueline prints of the drawings
and specifications, including samples of materials and colors, for all
its proposed sign work. The drawings shall clearly show location of
sign on storefront elevation drawing, graphics, color and construction
and attachment details. Full information regarding electrical load
requirements and brightness in footlambers i-s to also be included.
B.) As soon as possible after receipt of the sign drawings, Landlord shall
return to Tenant one (1) set of such sign drawings with its suggested
modification and /or approval. All sign plans must have written
Landlord approval.
FORMSI /09 /sl
w
Z
J
w
O
Q
0
Z_
10
Z
O
J
a
U_
d
E-
Z
0
Z
W
Z
SO
J
Q
U
a:
z
z c
oZ
NQ
p (
W
a a .zp
L W
U.p
z
z
U m ti
cc`J Z
O .Q F_-
Cl) .N
Z p.
Z O W
W -Z
Ul
Q -A .CC
z:.< o
w
F-
0
0UZ
J f– W QQQ ("
Z Z Q f-
w E) Y
Z
Z JN U U
U
Q
D
o
W
a
o o
C4 Z '
T
w
Z
J
w
O
Q
0
Z_
10
Z
O
J
a
U_
d
E-
Z
0
Z
W
Z
SO
J
Q
U
a:
z
z c
oZ
NQ
p (
W
a a .zp
L W
U.p
z
z
U m ti
cc`J Z
O .Q F_-
Cl) .N
Z p.
Z O W
W -Z
Ul
Q -A .CC
z:.< o
w
F-
0
y
IDVAN CO
OF MI NNESO AO INC.
NY
April 17, 1990
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
City Planner
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: ROCKFORD ROAD PLAZA --
PUD COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN SUBMITTAL
Dear Chuck:
APR 17 1g-%
CITY 0F
ji-
L''F,i -- RUTH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Please fired enclosed eight revised copies of the PUD Comprehensive Sign
Plan submitted to the City of Plymouth on April 6, 1990. We neglected
to outline signage locations on the Block 1, Lot 2 & 3, and Block 2, Lot
3 & 4 buildings and on the rear side of the shopping center fronting
Medicine Lake Road. Other than those two modifications, the enclosed
plan agrees with the original submittal.
Additionally, after a detailed review of the Plymouth zoning ordinance
sign regulations, we would like to make the following comments.
1. Small shop retail tenants (florist, video, dry cleaners, sandwich
shop, etc.) live or die based on their signage. These are small
retailers who need identity. Their business and customer base is
not destination driven, such as a larger, more prominent retailer.
2. The fact that individual businesses and tenants in multi- tenant
retail buildings (i.e., shopping centers) are permitted the same 5%
of wall area signage that individual businesses and tenants in
multi- tenant industrial buildings are allowed seems out of line.
Retailers require signage to generate their customer base, where
industrial users are definitely destination oriented, and have
completely different signage requirements.
3. Under the B -3 Service Business Zoning District, single user
buildings are allowed 20% of the wall area for signage. Again,
this seems inconsistent with the required needs of retail users and
tenants in multi- tenant retail buildings who are limited to 5% of
building space in the B -2 shopping center zoning district.
700 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE, 900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE 612/339.9847 FAX 612/337 -5552
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
Page Two
April 17, 1990
4. The procedure for measuring individually constructed letter signs
in a similar fashion as measuring box /canned signs, encourages
landlords and retailers to provide the cheaper, less aesthetically
pleasing box /canned signs. Individually constructed letter signs
have higher quality, higher cost, and increased aesthetic appeal,
yet are restricted by the manner the City calculates the area of
the sign. If the letters were measured for their area
individually, as opposed to in aggregate like a box /canned sign,
retailers who provide individually constructed letter signs would
be allowed increased signage area. Note that in all newly
constructed Ryan retail centers, the tenants are required to
provide individually lettered signs (see sign criteria with
original submittal).
Should you have any questions, please feel
In the meantime, we look forward to working
site plan and comprehensive sign plan final
Plaza.
Sincerely,
DA-
Willi m J. McHale
Vice President
VJD6 /71 /sl
Enclosure
c: Dick Brooks
Vince Driessen
Don Laukka
Steve Marlette
free to call me at 339 -9847.
with the City staff in the
approvals for Rockford Road
MH-tRIMII T
Rockford Road Plaza
Plymouth, Minnesota APR 6 ].990
April 6, 1990
CITY G< L r",CUTH
SIGN CRITERIA - CITY APPROVAL PROCESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
I. GENERAL
A.) Only the area above the Tenant's premises shall be identified by a
sign (except in the end cap spaces, where they may sign on the end cap
per code). The furnishing and installation of a sign and the costs
incurred shall be the responsibility of the Tenant.
B.) It is intented that the signing of the retail stores on the center
shall be developed in an imaginative and varied manner, and although
previous and current signing practices of the Tenant will be
considered they will not govern signs to be installed on the retail
stores.
C.) Each Tenant will be required to identify its premises by a sign.
D. Service doors will be provided with uniform signs identifying stores
by the Landlord. Tenant shall not post any other additional signs.
II. SIGN CRITERIA
A.) The wording of the signs shall be limited to the store name only, and
such name shall not include any items sold therein.
B.) The use of corporate shields, crests, logos, or insignias will be
permitted (subject. to Landlord's approval), provided such corporate
shields, crests, logos, or insignias shall not exceed the average
height for sign letters.
C.) Multiple or repetitive signing will be allowed only with the approval
of the Landlord provided the area of such signing conforms to the
limitations set forth herein.
D.) All signs and identifying marks shall be within the limitations of the
sign facia as set forth hereinafter, and not to exceed 10% of the
front elevation of the building.
E.) The average height of sign letters or components shall not exceed
30 ". Capital letters shall not exceed 36 ".
F.) Sign length shall be determined by centering in lease frontage area,
holding back a minimum of 2' from lease line on each end for 20'
fronts, 3' for 30' fronts and 4' for 40' fronts and larger.
Example: 40' wide space could have a 32' max. length.
20' wide space could have a 16' max. length.
Rockford Road Plaza
Page 2
II. SIGN CRITERIA (Continued)
G.) White sign letters to be constructed with internally illuminated
letters.
H.) Letters shall not project beyond the brick face more than five (5)
inches.
I.) The following design standards will be adhered to:
1.) Letters to be fabricated from aluminum medium bronze finish, trim
cap edge with white acrylic face.
2.) Illumination to be supplied by neon tubing powered by 60 M.A.
transformers.
III. PROHIBITED TYPES OF SIGNS OR SIGN COMPONENTS
A.) Moving or rotating signs.
B.) Back - illuminated signs.
C.) Signs employing moving or flashing lights.
D.) Signs employing exposed raceways, ballasts boxes or transformers.
E.) Signs employing painted and /or non - illuminated letters.
F.) Signs of box or cabinet type employing transparents, translucent or
luminous plastic background panels.
G.) Cloth, wood, paper or cardboard signs, stickers, decals or painted
signs around or on exterior surfaces (including interior and exterior
surfaces of doors and /or windows) of the premises.
H.) Signs employing noise making devices and components.
I.) Signs, letters, symbols or identification of any nature painted
directly on surfaces exterior to the premises.
J.) Free - standing signs.
K.) Roof -top or exterior signs.
Rockford Road Plaza
Page 3
IV. PROCEDURE FOR SIGN DRAWINGS
A.) Tenant shall submit three (3) sets of blueline prints of the drawings
and specifications, including samples of materials and colors, for all
its proposed sign work. The drawings shall clearly show location of
sign on storefront elevation drawing, graphics, color and construction
and attachment details. Full information regarding electrical load
requirements and brightness in footlambers i -s to also be included.
B.) As soon as possible after receipt of the sign drawings, Landlord shall
return to Tenant one (1) set of such sign drawings with its suggested
modification and /or approval. All sign plans must have written
Landlord approval.
FORMSI /09 /sl
k 5 '90 09:45
r• --
t
r0 O
O
O
r
tl=
TARGET
IA
0
r
r
O
N 1
pore
A boo s
Wo yt0N
cAIrI WITA
INTE
tu.urltNATION
NEON WN
M-V--te-
46Lt'sN T
TAK&ET PYI-ON GN
mr/6w 4-4-i°
3
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 2nd day
of April , 19_!O The following members were present:
Helliwell Zitur, Ricker Vasillou
The following members were absent: Bergman
Councilmember Zitur introduced the following Resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 90 -234
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO MPUD FINAL
PLAT /PLAN FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION OF MINNESOTA, INC. FOR ROCKFORD ROAD PLAZA
89014)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the MPUD Final Plat /Plan and
Development Contract for Ryan Construction of Minnesota, Inc. for Rockford
Road Plaza located at the northeast quadrant of County Road 9 (Rockford.Road)
and Interstate 494;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the following to
be met, prior to recording of, and related to said plat:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. The Ordinance rezoning the property shall be published upon evidence that
the Final Plat has been filed and recorded with Hennepin County.
3. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with
City Policy in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit.
4. No Building Permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for
the construction of municipal sewer and water.
5. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
6. Removal of existing structures at the developer's expense and
removal /capping of all private wells /septic systems per ordinance
provisions.
7. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing any open
storm water drainage facility.
8. No yard setback variances are granted or implied.
see next page)
r
y
Resolution No.
File 89014
Page Two
9. Submittal of required utility and drainage easements as approved by the
City Engineer prior to filing the Final Plat.
10. No building permits to be issued until the Final Plat is filed And
recorded with Hennepin County. -. -.
11. Appropriate legal documents regarding Property Owner Association covenants
and restrictions as approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the
Final Plat.
12. The Final Plat mylars shall contain a statement noting that the plat is
part of the approved MPUD 89 -2 per Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
13. Access shall be limited to internal public roads and prohibited from
County Road 9 (Rockford Road) and West Medicine Lake Drive (Northwest
Boulevard /County Road 61).
14. The Development Contract as approved by the City Council shall be fully
executed prior to release of the Final Plat.
15. Outlots A and B shall be common open space, the private ownership and
perpetual maintenance of which shall be specifically provided for by the
Property Owner documents. All improvements to Outlot A and Outlot B per
the approved Grading and Landscape Plans shall be completed prior to
issuance of the initial Certificate of Occupancy for any site within the
PUD.
16. No grading or building permits shall be issued nor should work of any type
commence on this site prior to receipt of and acknowledgement by all
parties of the Indirect Source Permit.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Councilmember Vasiliou , and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: Helliwell. Ricker. Zitur. Vasiliou
The following voted against or abstained Non
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: May 4, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 9, 1990
FILE NO.: 90025
PETITIONER: Target Stores, Inc.
REQUEST: Mixed Planned Unit Development Final Site Plan for Lot 1,
Block 1 "Rockford Road Plaza"
LOCATION: Northwest Quadrant of I -494 and County Road 9 (West of
Vinewood Lane)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CR -2 (Retail Shopping)
ZONING:
BACKGROUND:
MPUD 89 -2
On November 6, 1989, the City Council, by Resolution 89 -689, approved an
amended Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan /Plat and
Conditional Use Permit to develop slightly over 400,000 square feet of retail
commercial structures on a site of 52 acres, subject to 17 conditions of
approval. On October 16, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution 89 -649,
finding "no need" for an Environmental Impact Statement, based on the review
of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
On April 2, 1990, the City Council, by Resolution 90 -233, approved a Final
Plat and MPUD Final Plan (Final per was only with respect to the Outlots) for
the entire 52 -acre site.
An application for the Master Sign Plan element of the Final MPUD Plan
covering this entire 52 -acre site is being processed concurrent with this
application for a Final Site Plan with respect to Lot 1, Block 1.
Proposed by this application is an MPUD Final Site Plan for the construction
of a 140,500 square foot retail facility including a small on -site restaurant
facility within the principal structure. The site on which the structure is
proposed to be constructed is 17.25 acres in size.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The Site Plan proposed meets or exceeds Ordinance and /or City Policy
standards with respect to all structure, parking, and drive aisle
setbacks; off - street parking (847 spaces proposed with 843 spaces
required); and landscaping.
2. An issue remaining following review of this proposal by the Development
Review Committee concerns the screening of roof top mechanical equipment.
Section 8, Subdivision G, paragraph 2g states, "Screening of the equipment
may be required where the design, color, and location of the equipment are
found to not effectively buffer noise or provide aesthetic harmony or
compatibility. Screening shall be constructed of durable materials which
are aesthetically compatible with the structure and which may be an
integral part of the structure."
The applicant maintains that a combination of natural features of the site
and building parapet extensions will effectively screen the sight lines to
the numerous roof top mechanical units that are proposed. The Ordinance
provision has traditionally been interpreted to mean that if such
mechanical equipment will be visible, it must be screened at the unit or
units as opposed to use of secondary sight line features to accomplish
such screening.
3. The applicant proposes a trash compactor to be located on the north side
of the building near the northwest corner. They contend that since this
is a side of the structure that is not intended for the public and, due to
retaining wall construction immediately to the north, no screening of the
trash compactor should be required. The Zoning Ordinance Section 8,
Subdivision G, paragraph 2e (3) -(4) provides that any form of outdoor
trash container storage shall be screened, without reference to whether it
can or cannot be easily seen by the general public due to site design or
natural site features.
4. The floor plan that has been submitted together with the Site Plan for the
proposed structure states that an area of the building of approximately
1,200 square feet is intended for "snack bar seating ". We have indicated
to the applicant that in our experience, snack bars within department
stores have carry out facilities as an integral component, and therefore
would be classified as a Class II restaurant.
In a letter dated May 2, 1990, the applicant
facility, presenting arguments that would
facility as a Class I restaurant. Class I re!
in the B -2 zone within which this facility
restaurants are a conditional use. An issue
restaurant is being proposed.
addresses the proposed food
support definition of the
taurants are a permitted use
is located, while Class II
remains as to what class of
A Conditional Use Permit was issued in 1984 to Holiday Plus for a
comparable eating facility which was interpreted to be a Class II
restaurant.
5. This structure will set the tone for the aesthetic and architectural
appearance of this overall 52 -acre Commercial District. The brick
treatment of all four walls of the structure, with intervening horizontal
metal accent stripes, provides both consistency with the City Council
Policy with respect to aesthetic appearance and architectural
compatibility, and an excellent point of departure for setting the
architectural tone of the Planned Unit Development.
P
6. Site signage is proposed with the concurrent application for a PUD Master
Sign Plan being processed as File 89014. The components of that Master
Sign Plan directly related to this Site Plan are as follow:
a. One free - standing business identification sign, oriented to I -494, of
675 square feet.
b. Wall signage totalling 280 square feet -- approximately 4 percent of the
surface area of the proposed south wall.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. We find it difficult to accept that roof top mechanical units can be
adequately screened by extension of parapets and existing natural foliage.
The effect of a parapet extension or natural foliage is variable depending
on the point of viewing. Also, natural foliage varies with the potential
for loss due to natural causes outside of the control of the applicant.
Staff recommends the applicant be required to provide constructed screens
for all roof top mechanical equipment, painted to match the existing
structure.
2. The screening of the trash compactor proposed for location at the
northwest corner of the building is and datory within the terms of the
Zoning Ordinance. Should the Planning Commission concur in this
interpretation of the Ordinance, we recommend a prohibition be placed on
the introduction of any outdoor trash facilities without the proper
screening facilities being constructed consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance. The screening /enclosure is not just an aesthetic matter; the
enclosure contains the debris and other items that are generated- -
especially at a high volume operation. Our position is that this is not a
PUD design item and should be formally treated as a formal variance.
Thus, have the variance standards been met? We find they have not.
3. A Conditional Use Permit should be applied for to operate the snack shop
with its carry -out food and the operation should not be allowed until a
permit has been issued.
4. Except as noted above, we find the MPUD Final Site Plan for the Target
facility on Lot 1, Block 1 "Rockford Road Plaza" to be consistent with the
Zoning Ordinance and the related policies and standards of the City of
Plymouth.
3
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend adoption of the
Site Plan consistent with the usual
conditions as requi^c to be respons
attached approval recommendation for the
terms and conditions and such additional
4 to thf comments noted above.
111n
Submitted by:
Char es E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution Approving Site Plan
2. Engineer's Memorandum
3. Location Map
4. Approved MPUD Preliminary Plan
5. Applicant's Communication Concerning Restaurant Facilities of May 2, 1990
6. Large Plans
pc /cd /90025:dl)
9
APPROVING MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL SITE PLAN FOR TARGET STORES,
INC. (90025) (MPUD 89 -2)
WHEREAS, Target Stores, Inc. has requested approval for a Mixed Planned Unit
Development Final Site Plan for a retail store on Lot 1, Block 1 "Rockford
Road Plaza" at the northwest quadrant of I -494 and County Road 9 (west of
Vinewood Lane); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Target Stores, Inc. for a Mixed Planned Unit Development Final Site Plan for a
140,500 square foot retail store for property at the northwest quadrant of I-
494 and County Road 9 (Lot 1, Block 1 "Rockford Road Plaza ") (west of Vinewood
Lane), 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. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements.
5. Any signage shall be in compliance with the approved Master Sign Plan for
the MPUD.
6. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
7. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and
fire lanes.
8. All outdoor waste and waste containers shall be contained within an
enclosure, consistent with Ordinance standards.
9. An 8h x 11 inch "As Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted prior
to the release or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City Policy.
10. Roof top mechanical equipment shall be screened on all sides with material
colored to blend aesthetically with the structure appearance.
11. Compliance with the applicable provisions of City Council Resolutions 89-
689 (MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat) and 90 -234 (conditions to MPUD Final
Plat)
see next page)
Resolution No.
File 90025
Page Two
12. Compliance with the provisions of City Council Resolution 89 -439 regarding
tree preservation.
13. No outside storage or display of merchandise is approved by this action.
14. The snack shop indicated on the plans constitutes a Class II restaurant
and requires a Conditional Use Permit.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: May 2, 1990
FILE NO.: 90025
PETITIONER: Raquel Rudquist, Target Stores, 33 South 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN
55440
SITE PLAN: TARGET /GREATLAND STORE
LOCATION: East of Highway 494, north of County Road 10, west of West Medicine
Lake Road in the east half of Section 15
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 - Levied under City Project No. 030
5. Other additional assessments estimated: Assessment for City Pro yect
905 is 535,621.34. The estimated assessment for City Project 948 is
S456,430.20.
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. Will comply when the final plat of Rockford Road Plaza is
filed at Hennepin Count
N/A Yes No
7. _ _ X Complies with standard utility /drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in
width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required
it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents
executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any
building permits.) See Item No. 6
X Complies with ponding requirements - See Item No. 6
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. See Item No. 6
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 -
13. _ X _
N/A Yes No
14. _ X
15. _ X _
16. _X-
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR
X MN DOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
X Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Other
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
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:
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.
Size and type of material proposed in utility systems has been
provided
The utility plan shall be revised to indicate the size and type of
material required in the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain services
and storm sewer.
Post indicator valve - fire department connection
It will be necessary to locate the post indicator valve in such a
manner that it will not render any of the existing fire hydrants
inoperable.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. _ X _ Hydrant valves provided -
All new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City
Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W -2. This plate should be
referenced on the site plan.
18. _ 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 -
N/A Yes No
20. _ _ X
21. _ X _
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
All existing street right -of -ways are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required on the additional right -of-
way for County Road 9 and West Medicine Lake Drive will be dedicated
from the final plat of Rockford Road Plaza.
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 Item No's 6. 7. 8, 9. 12. 20 and
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
26. A. A traffic installation sign plan complying with the Uniform Sign Manual shall
be submitted and approved.
Submitted by: Nm( alct2
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
p
Fell
7
m
PM
I N
z
W
0 IL •
y is LL Q °I t : ii
L%QQ 0 W Z%Zj ;WJ (ljl'lYi'
w
e e 7Se
h h Y < Y CIA
O6
53 (/` O
V
3N17103'N 1.. V
Otl
i
L
t
I'
C
1111111111111111111 •• -
as.aa w C
IllIH111!I11 I .-1 w OS C
i o 0 0 0 O CS o — 1 1111 .1
RV C:)_ :
III Ililiui:
yS v IIIIIIIIi111111; '.`1
nI lu 1II1 1111 ,11r 111.11'
I;i1;L11 '
U-(II i1fI11U 111 Ii.:liG ilIIII IIIIU ,.I IIn ' II':1 1'111'11!:1
111 1i 111 I 11.1 II :111111111 -- \\
t
111 1111 11111 Iltllillt,1111:1111! v ..
i 1 1111 1' n III -
ru -!
I —_--
1 1111 11 1 I (! : IttIN1t 1111" ` I'.•
1ny11n " .r ,r.IIn1 1'..tntl lii
1 If1i '1 I II 11 11111' 111 II 11 11'1 t..aa 1a I II'1 fit
3Ntl1000M3NIA Y
I \
z
I
Al 6 \
Exhibit D
r / / / / / / / /rJ / / /r• /1 / /: /•! / //i
1\t4
II 11111111111 1 111 11
f6> AMH 31Y1Stl31N1
I
Al 6 \
Exhibit D
Target Stores
33 South Sixth Stree,
P.O. Box 1392
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 -1392
Telex No. 205812
May 2, 1990
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: TARGET /GREATLAND STORE
FOOD FACILITY CLASSIFICATION
AT ROCKFORD ROAD PLAZA
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
gooz"
a
f D
e
RAY
go 1990
cot4MOF
v; Dfiv
PEPT
As a follow up to the Development Review Committee meetings of April 17,
1990, and April 24, 1990, regarding the Target /Greatland site plan
submittal, the following are detailed characteristics of the food facility.
1. The intent of the food facility is to provide customer
convenience for on -site Target /Greatland customers.
2. The sales volume of the food facility will be a minimal part of
the overall sales volume of the Target /Greatland store.
3. Historically, take out has been a virtually non - existent portion
of the business.
4. Virtually all of Target /Greatland customers who utilize the
food facility will consume the food while seated at a counter
and /or table, and /or while shopping within the Target /Greatland
store.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (612)
370 -5925.
Raquel Rudquist, A.I.A.
Target Project Architect
RMR:bkb
cc: Burt Shacter
Dick Brooks
Bill McHale
Al Hodges
Vince Driessen
A Division of the Dayton Hudson Corporation
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 2nd day
of April , 19_!0 The following members were present:
Helliwell Zitur, Ricker Vasiliou
The following members were absent: Bergman -
ittkyk
k **
Councilmember Zitur introduced the following Resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 90- 234
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO MPUD FINAL
PLAT /PLAN FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION OF MINNESOTA, INC. FOR ROCKFORD ROAD PLAZA
89014)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the MPUD Final Plat /Plan and
Development Contract for Ryan Construction of Minnesota, Inc. for Rockford
Road Plaza located at the northeast quadrant of County Road 9 (Rockford.Road)
and Interstate 494;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the following to
be met, prior to recording of, and related to said plat:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. The Ordinance rezoning the property shall be published upon evidence that
the Final Plat has been filed and recorded with Hennepin County.
3. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with
City Policy in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit.
4. No Building Permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for
the construction of municipal sewer and water.
5. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
6. Removal of existing structures
removal /capping of all private
provisions.
at the developer's expense and
wells /septic systems per ordinance
7. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing any open
storm water drainage facility.
8. No yard setback variances are granted or implied.
see next page)
Resolution No.
File 89014
Page Two
9. Submittal of required utility and drainage easements as approved by the
City Engineer prior to filing the Final Plat.
10. No building permits to be issued until the Final Plat is filed Ind
recorded with Hennepin County.
11. Appropriate legal documents regarding Property Owner Association covenants
and restrictions as approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the
Final Plat.
12. The Final Plat mylars shall contain a statement noting that the plat is
part of the approved MPUD 89 -2 per Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
13. Access shall be limited to internal public roads and prohibited from
County Road 9 (Rockford Road) and West Medicine Lake Drive (Northwest
Boulevard /County Road 61).
14. The Development Contract as approved by the City Council shall be fully
executed prior to release of the Final Plat.
15. Outlots A and B shall be common open space, the private ownership and
perpetual maintenance of which shall be specifically provided for by the
Property Owner documents. All improvements to Outlot A and Outlot B per
the approved Grading and Landscape Plans shall be completed prior to
issuance of the initial Certificate of Occupancy for any site within the
PUD.
16. No grading or building permits shall be issued nor should work of any type
commence on this site prior to receipt of and acknowledgement by all
parties of the Indirect Source Permit.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Councilmember Vasiliou , and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof:. Helliwell Ricker, Zitur. Vasiliou
The following voted against or abstained None
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
74.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: May 2, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 9, 1990
FILE NO.: 89086
PETITIONER: Medicine Lake Lutheran Church
REQUEST: Rezoning, Site Plan, Conditional Use Permits, and Variance
to Construct a Place of Worship and Day School
LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Zachary Lane and Old Rockford Road
1115 Old Rockford Road)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development)
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission held the required Public Hearing on this matter at its
November 29, 1989 meeting. With the concurrence of the petitioner the matter
was deferred to the allow the petitioner opportunity to respond to condition
number 3 of the Conditional Use Permit standards related to the design and
landscaping being adequate to reduce the impact on neighboring properties.
On January 24, 1990 the matter was again considered by the Planning Commission
following staff notification of those that had spoken at the original Public
Hearing. Following discussion by the Planning Commission on January 24, 1990,
a motion to recommend approval subject to several conditions failed on a vote
of 3 -3 (Commissioner Wire abstained). The matter was then forwarded to the
City Council with no formal recommendation from the Planning Commission based
on a finding by the Chairman that a tie (3 -3) would result from any motion for
action that would be considered by the Planning Commission.
On February 5, 1990 the City Council considered these applications with the
benefit of the Planning Commission minutes for deliberation, but without the
benefit of a Planning Commission recommendation. Following substantial
discussion, the City Council acted to defer consideration of the applications,
and refer them back to the Planning Commission with direction to the applicant
and the neighborhood representatives to attempt to resolve the questions and
concerns prior to Council reconsideration of their requests in light of the
issues cited and the information presented to the Council.
By memorandum from its architect dated April 20, 1990 Medicine Lake Lutheran
Church has requested this matter be again brought to the Planning Commission.
see next page)
File 89086
Page Two
It is our understanding that there have been discussions between the
petitioner, and at least some of the neighbors to the site under
consideration. Staff has not monitored those discussions nor have we
regularly attended any such discussions except for the Director attending a
meeting with a member of the City Council held here at City Hall several weeks
ago. We have a notice for and minutes of a meeting held March 17, 1990; and
notice and minutes of a meeting held March 24, 1990. Those are attached to
this report.
Consistent with usual practice with deferrals or referrals following a Public
Hearing, and where no substantial changes in use or use intensity have been
introduced staff has notified those speaking at the original Public Hearing of
the reconsideration scheduled for May 9, 1990.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. Site Plan graphics submitted during April, 1990 for consideration of the
Planning Commission include a modified roof design. The portion of the
proposed structure that is designated for classroom usage, and which
extends westerly to the closest proximity with the existing homes west of
the site now has a roof of less pitch and a roof peak nine feet lower than
the plans submitted during December and January, and last reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
2. The grading plan of the site has now been modified to extend the berm
parallel and adjacent to the west property line the remaining 120 feet
from where the original plan had the berm ending, to the north property
line of the site. In addition, approximately 100 feet of berm has been
added beginning near the west property line and extending easterly with
the intent of screening the most southerly portion of the future parking.
This berm ranges from zero to 4 feet in height measured from the grade
existing immediately south of where the berm would be located.
3. The landscape plan has been amended as follows:
a. Removal of six Colorado Blue Spruce along the south end of the
property .and three Colorado Blue Spruce on the west line near the
southwest corner of the property and a substitution of the above
mentioned berm and most of the 30 large trees added to the landscape
plan.
b. The addition of 14 Austrian Pine trees along the north half of the
west property line.
c. The elimination of all but 27 of the 110 hedge -type plantings along
the west property line.
d. A wooden 8 -foot high privacy fence of staggered panels is proposed on
the crown of the proposed berm along the center 520 feet of the west
site boundary. The south 115 feet and the north 105 feet are not
see next page)
File 89086
Page Three
proposed to be fenced. Fence panels would be 20 feet to 25 feet in length
each.
4. Issues of neighborhood compatibility raised at the Public Hearing and by
the Planning Commission include:
a. Structure height
b. Structure orientation
c. Spire height
d. Play area location
e. Transition to residential properties to the south
The applicant, by the amended plans and his memorandum of April 11, 1990,
has addressed each of these concerns.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. We find that the applicant, with the amended landscaping /grading plans,
has responded to the ordinance provisions regarding screening of offstreet
parking "near or adjacent to" residence districts to both the west and
south.
2. We find the changes to the roof design of the classroom portion, resulting
in a nine foot lower peak and a flatter pitch to the roof, represent an
improvement in that portion of the structure that most directly impacts
the adjoining neighborhood to the west.
3. The Planning Commission, and later the City Council, have raised concerns
with respect to impact of this proposed use upon adjoining properties
beyond those raised by the staff. Those concerns related to the "impact"
on the adjoining neighborhood. We find those concerns to now be addressed
with the amended plans.
RECOMMENDATION:
I have presented draft resolutions providing for both the approval and denial
of the applications under consideration. The specific staff concerns with
respect to the screening of offstreet parking areas have been resolved and
therefore I remove/mv ,,ob.iection to the aulicatioe on that basis.
Submitted by: \"- " L \,A /
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance
2. Resolution Denying Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance
3. Engineer's Memorandum
4. Applicant's Memorandum of April 11, 1990
5. City Council Minutes of February 5, 1990
6. Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 1990
7. Planning Commission Minutes of November 29, 1989
8. Previous Staff Memorandums
9. Large Plans
pc /cd/89086.1:jw)
APPROVING SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AND VARIANCE FOR MEDICINE LAKE
LUTHERAN CHURCH (89086)
WHEREAS, Medicine Lake Lutheran has requested approval of a Site Plan and
Conditional Use Permits for a place of worship, church spire, and private
school; and variance to defer off - street parking for property located at the
southwest corner of Zachary Lane and Old Rockford Road (1115 Old Rockford
Road); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it hereby does approve the request for Medicine Lake
Lutheran Church for a Site Plan, Conditional Use Permits, and variance to
defer off - street parking for property located at the southwest corner of
Zachary Lane and Old Rockford Road (1115 Old Rockford Road), based on the
following findings:
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. Provisions for a 30 -foot wide trail per Comprehensive Park Plan, as
verified by the Parks and Engineering Departments, with submittal of
detailed plans as to construction of the trail per City standards.
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 approved Site
Plan.
7. Any and all subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required
reviews and approvals as to Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan per
Ordinance provisions. Plans submitted for building permit review shall
delete all reference to future additions or expansions.
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 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.
see next page)
Resolution No.
File 89086
Page Two
11. A variance to the Zoning Ordinance minimum standards for offstreet parking
is hereby approved only with respect to deferral of construction for 74 of
the 189 spaces required by Ordinance for the currently proposed structure.
A condition of the variance is recording a covenant upon the property,
prepared by the petitioner and to be approved by the City Attorney,
providing for construction of the 74 deferred parking spaces by the
petitioner when directed by the City of Plymouth.
12. The petitioner shall submit evidence of a valid and current state
license /certificate prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit
related to the school.
13. Day school enrollment shall be limited to 225 students, grades K -8.
DENYING SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AND VARIANCE FOR MEDICINE LAKE
LUTHERAN CHURCH (89086)
WHEREAS, Medicine Lake Lutheran has requested approval of a Site Plan and
Conditional Use Permits for a place of worship, church spire, and private
school; and variance to defer off - street parking for property located at the
southwest corner of Zachary Lane and Old Rockford Road (1115 Old Rockford
Road); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it hereby does deny the request for Medicine Lake
Lutheran Church for a Site Plan, Conditional Use Permits, and variance to
defer off - street parking for property located at the southwest corner of
Zachary Lane and Old Rockford Road (1115 Old Rockford Road).
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ZACHARY LANE AND OLD ROCKFORD ROAD (1115 OLD
ROCKFORD ROAD) (89086)
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 -1 ((Low Density Single Family
Residential District) for property located at the southwest corner of Zachary
Lane and Old Rockford Road (1115 Old Rockford Road) with respect to the
hereinafter described property:
Insert Legal Description)
Section 2. General Development Plan. This Ordinance authorizes the
development of said tracts only in accordance with the Plan approved for the
File No. 89086.
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 the day of 1990.
Mayor
ATTEST
City Clerk
File 89086
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: November 20, 1989 Revised January 18, 1990
FILE NO.: 89086
PETITIONER: Mr. John Rieschl, President of Congregation, 3110 Medicine Lake
Boulevard, Plymouth, MN 55441
SITE PLAN: MEDICINE LAKE LUTHERAN CHURCH AND ACADEMY
LOCATION: South of Old County Road 9, west of Zachary Lane, in the northeast
1/4 of Section 14
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. X Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. _ X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and
No. .
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Site Plan approval:
4. Area assessments estimated - None
5. Other additional assessments estimated: Watermain Lateral
Assessment based on 280 feet - 165 feet previously assessed = 115
feet x $18.63 a foot = $2,142.45. Sanitary sewer lateral based on
280 feet times S22.93 a foot = S6,420.40. The lateral assessments
shall be paid with a building permit or the Medicine Lake Lutheran
Church and Academy may sign a Waiver of Assessment Hearing and
assessments will be spread over five years at 8% interest.
LEGAL /EASEMENTS /PERMITS:
6. _ X _ Property is one parcel -
The approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot
consolidation be approved by the City Council and the necessary
resolution should be processed at the same time as' the site plan
approval.
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.
10. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way
to facilitate the development. It should be noted that this
vacation is not an automatic process in conjunction with the
platting process. It is entirely dependent upon the City receiving
a petition for the vacation from the property owner; therefore, it
is their responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. The existing
storm sewer easement along the north plat line.
11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
2-
N/A Yes No
12. X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR
MN DOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
X Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Other
13. _ X _ Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The site plan will be submitted to the City's consulting engineer
for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations
shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The grading and drainage
plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary:
14. _ X ,_ Necessary fire hydrants provided -
The City of Plymouth requires that all parts of a building such as
the one proposed be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant. It will be
necessary to locate hydrants in such a manner that the site plan
complies with this section of the City Ordinance.
15. _ X Size and type of material proposed in utility systems has been
provided
The utility plan shall be revised to indicate the size and type of
material required in the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain services
and storm sewer.
16. _ X _ Post indicator valve - fire department connection
It will be necessary to locate the post indicator valve in such a
manner that it will not render any of the existing fire hydrants
inoperable.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. X _
18. _ X
19. X _ _
Hydrant valves provided -
All new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City
Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W -2. This plate should be
referenced on the site plan.
Sanitary sewer clean -outs provided -
It will be necessary to provide clean -outs on the proposed internal
sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot intervals.
Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
20. _ X All existing street right -of -ways are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required. An additional ten feet of
right-of-way will be required along the east property line for
Zachary Lane making the total distance from centerline 40 feet.
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. Item No's 7. 11, 12, 20, 23, and 27A.
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
27. A. Special care shall be taken where the sanitary sewer passes above the existing
watermain along Zachary Lane.
B. A 30 foot wide trail easement shall be provided in recordable form along
Zachary Lane.
C. The driveway culvert shall be relocated to the centerline of the drainage
ditch adjacent to Zachary Lane.
D. No trees shall be placed in the street right -of -way of Zachary Lane.
E. Silt fence shall be placed in the drainage ditch along Zachary Lane at the
storm sewer outlet south of the parking lot.
F. The existing ditch along Old County Road 9 shall be regraded from the plugged
storm sewer to the new 24" storm sewer.
G. Plug existing storm sewer crossing under Old County Road 9 with concrete.
H. A permanent drainage and utility easement shall be provided along the south
side of the parking lot for the drainage ditch.
I. The storm sewer will have to be extended to the west plat line when the future
parking lot is constructed, this will be a public storm sewer.
J. Contact Tom Vetsch at 550 -5093 for a permit to construct the storm sewer in
Old County Road 9 and sanitary sewer and storm sewer in Zachary Lane.
K. The revised grading plan moves the berm closer to the west property line.
Special care shall be taken to ensure a swale is provided within the 6 foot
drainage and utility easement to maintain drainage to the south.
L. The 15" storm sewer at Zachary Lane shall be increased to 18" RCP to handle
the 6 CFS flow. The 15" storm sewer proposed has a capacity of only 4.1 CFS.
M. The roof drainage shall be directed to the parking lot and not to the
playground area to minimize the drainage to the west.
N. Because of the shallow depth of the sanitary sewer across the parking lot,
insulation shall be provided.
Submitted by: L144,1e-W 1-\4, 4Ze I 04U-1
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
MAY 1990
CHANGES TO ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL, MEDICINE LAKE LUTHERA90CiitIRCH:
Based on comments from Staff, Planning and Zoning Commission and
the Homeowners, the following changes were made to the design.
SITE PLANS (including grading, civil, landscape and site plan
sheets).
A vision screen fence was added to the top of the berm. The concern
of visually blocking the view of the parking lot from the west
was handled by additional conifer and planting as revised by the
landscape architect. In addition, three trees are shown to be paid
for by the church and planted by the neighbors to screen one house
from looking between two homes at the new vision screen fence.
The view of the church building on the west side was a concern.
In order to give added screening, we raised the grade of the berm
and the fence by adding a retaining wall for the lower level exit.
The grade could then be raised giving 4 feet more of screening
on the northwest corner, adding screening. The building was staked
on the corners giving the neighbors an idea of the footprint loca-
tion on site.
The landscape architect added planting and a berm on the south
side of the property to enhance the natural planting screen per
staff comments.
For safety reasons, the playground could not be moved. Sound and
screening of the playground were of concern. This was handled by
additional planting of conifers on the west side of the playground
area to reduce the noise. Bus location plus parking on site will
be only during the day. Parking at night will be at other locations.
Size of the operation was a concern; structure and building size
meet all city ordinances, setbacks, except for the height of the
spire. The church school has set a maximum on the school enrollment
size. The on -site parking will support the church and school per
the zoning code. No additions are planned, including buying addi-
tional property. Restrictions on the title are not possible since
the project lender is not selected and the title must remain clear.
BUILDING DESIGN:
The west roof covering the school was thought to be too massive
with a gable roof and a 7:12 pitch. The pitch was dropped 9' to
a 4:12 pitch and the gable end changed to a hip roof minimizing
the west wall.
Spire height was thought to be too tall, but after a review of
the minimal mass of the cross /spire adjacent to Zachery, the church
felt it is in character with other churches in the community; height
to remain same.
J/
T1
City of Plymouth
Planning Commission
City Council
Plymouth, MN 55441
Mebicine Kake luotran Q:4urc4 & Acabemg
3110 East Medicine Lake Blvo.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
Laurel M. Udden, Pastor
Phone (612) 544.9778
Ac6Detng 6300 Walker St.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Phone (612) 922.8276
May 1, 1990
MAY ' J )
C I
LNT DEPT.
To Planning Commission and City Council;
In response to the directive of the City Council at their meeting on February
5th, the following meetings with the homeowners by members of the Development
Oxrmittee of Medicine Lake Lutheran Church have been held:
Saturday, March 17, 10:00 a.m.
Saturday, March 24, 10:00 a.m.
Monday, March 26, 6:00 p.m.
Monday, April 16, 7:30 p.m.
Plymouth City Hall
Plymouth City Hall
In two of the homes near property
Medicine Lake Lutheran Church
Attached is an explanation of changes that have been made to the design based
on comments from Staff, Planning and Zoning Commission and the Homeowners.
LMU /mjd
enc.
Sincerely,
Pastor Laurel M. Udden
On behalf of the d3 e ccmdttee
Affiliated with the Association of Free Lutheran Congregations
Meb -trine lake Kut4tran C..,,=4 & ArttbemU
3110 East Medicine Lake Blvd.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
Laurel M. Udden, Pastor
Phone (612) 544.9778
s1rabemg 6300 Walker St.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Phone (612) 922.8276
APR 16 1990
CITY OF
April 11, 1990 D -1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLYMOUTH
DEPT
Dear Homeowner:
Enclosed is a letter from Architect, Jack Ovick, explaining changes
to our original submittal. Also enclosed are minutes of the meeting
held at the City Hall on Saturday, March 24, 1990.
We have scheduled one last meeting with the Homeowners on Monday,
April 16, 7:30 p.m., at Medicine Lake Lutheran Church, lower level.
Please attend if you have further concerns.
Sincerely,
Building Committee
Medicine Lake Lutheran Church Academy
Enclosures: 4/11/90 Jack Ovick letter
Minutes of 3/24/90 meeting
Affiliated with the Association of Free Lutheran Congregations
MEDICINE LAKE DEVELOPV 'T COMMITTEE MEETING WITH HOMEOWP' ^RS ADJACENT TO PROPERTY
PLYMOUTH CITY HALL, Mr_ _H 24, 1990, 10:00 a.m.
ATTENDEES: John Rieschl, Elden Nelson, John Schlenk, Pastor L. Udden,
Sam Dyrud, Aini Myking, Architect Jack Ovick
HOMEOWNERS:John Maas, Debbie Bodin, Duane Cramer, Linda Cramer, Mark Beltrand,
Bob Kauffman, Melonie Flessner, Gerry Woessner
John Rieschl presided. Homeowners introduced themselves.
Sheets listing "Issues Addressed" were distributed. John Rieschl reviewed items on
list, one by one (copy attached).
No. 5 regarding stakes -- request for more stakes to mark parking lot and exits.
Linda Cramer brought us issue regarding a legal document to assure the neighborhood
there would be no further development /additions in the future.
Elden responded explaining requirements by City regarding further development on
property; entire process would be repeated, same as for original structure.
Discussion regarding possible expansions, setbacks, what would be available as to
additional building. Issue regarding legal document to be further addressed by the
Committee.
Zachery Lane expansion /traffic issues came up again. These to be addressed by City.
Referred to in minutes of previous meeting.
Bob Kauffman concerned over construction process (noise, dirt, etc.). Would prefer
having no construction taking place but also realizes something will eventually be
built on the property.
Elden commented on meeting a gentlemen who stopped by property when they were putting
in the stakes. He questioned use of the property; stated he was interested in buying
the property for a strip mall. This information was shared with Homeowners for
consideration as to other possibilities on the property.
Mark Beltrand shared extensively, quote. "I am trying to find a way, as best I can, to
want this church in there. No. 1, they're going to be done in one summer. No matter
what else you put in there, if you want to go to homes, townhouses, or low rentals,
they're going to be 'lding for a couple of years. They're not going to put up five
homes and try t se them. They'll be done one at a time, try to sell it, get
financing, build--the next one. I want this to work. I don't want the biggest berm
possible, the biggest trees, because I can think of a lot worse stuff going in there.
They will be done in one summer. They've already said it in the letter this week, they
will put the berming in as soon as possible before they start getting into the deep
part of the structure. I would rather have this church than a lot of stuff. No matter
what happens, if we keep fighting and fighting and fighting them and don't get things
our way (we'll try to get the things as much as we can), I don't want th m to go and
sell the property to someone else and we'll start all over and with who. Dempsey
Construction could come in there and build $80,000 homes or $50,000 mes, one at a
time. I want to live there for awhile, I can't afford to move. Otherwise I'd start to
pick up now before all of this. I want to find a way for this to work. If you'd list
five things to go on this strip of property and if the church goes along and does
everything we'd like to have done, where is this church on your list of what you would
want next door? It's No. 1 to me, not No. 2. Well, No. 1 would be for the City to buy
the property and leave it forever. Let's write them a letter and see if they will do
it -- that's a big jok 2 this church if I don't have to look at this huge
structure out of my lass windo which is larger than I thought it would be. I'm not
afraid of any possible addition in the future."
Development Committee P ting
March 24, 1990
Page 2
Comments continued as to additional property, when construction would begin, etc.
Sam commented that after all approvals are completed a conservative timetable for
construction is five months. /
Discussion as to when we would be on the agenda for the Planning Commission again. It V
would not be until April, as early as possible.
Melanie expressed her feeling that the issues addressed and the minutes of the
previous meeting were conciliatory and p.r. oriented for the church.
Further questions on parking area, number of stalls, etc. Jack Ovick responded.
Linda again brought up issue of a legal document as to further development of the
property. Elden responded that when it is brought up at the Planning Commission
meeting, the Commission will determine whether or not it is a just request and if it
is, then obviously we will have to comply. Duane Cramer stated it would probably
come up at the Council meeting because the City Attorney would be there; he does not
attend the Planning Commission meetings.
Further discussion continued on landscaping, using conifers, trees on the property of
the homeowners, etc. Landscape architect was not able to attend meeting due to a
family emergency. He would be available next week.
Melanie feels there is a hardening tenure at this meeting. Felt the meeting
previously was more conciliatory with everyone. Feels we have taken a very harsh
position.
John Rieschl commented on desiring to keep our operation in Plymouth and that we have
made an honest effort to please the neighborhood as to what is reasonable and within
means; it might come to the point where we would simply have to sell the property.
We have gone above and beyond what is actually required, including the model.
Linda Cramer stated the bottom line would be that without some kind of legal written
agreement or document she wouldn't feel comfortable and intends to go to the City
Planning Commission and express that this is not a very friendly arrangement.
Elden questioned Melanie and Linda regarding this legal document: "If we as a
congregation would go ahead and say, 'Yes, we'll enter into some kind of legal
agreement that we will not pursue purchase of adjacent property in the future,'
would that bring you to the point then that you would go to the City Council and
say, 'Yes, we are in favor of project.' Or are we going to come back to the point of
many of the subjective questions we had last week about noise, traffic and everything
else. Very frankly, we are at a point where if we take many more steps backward,
we're going to go off the end of the high board and that's the basic concern as to
what we're really talking about. If that is the thing that you are so concerned with
at this point and we were to sign saying, 'Yes, we will not pursue further purchase
of property adjacent to what we already own.' would you then be in favor of the
project."
Linda responded, "From my perspective, I would drop opposition. I'm getting just
tired of this battle. If the roof line is lowered, if there is adequate screening and
that goes in, it is getting to be just too much effort on my part to continue this
battle. I would drop opposition."
Development Committee Meeting Page 3
March 24, 1990
Melanie stated, "From my perspective, Linda is further down the road than from where
I'm at. It's hard to tell because my property is not properly placed on there. If
there was screening in there, especially on the hill, so that if I,didn't have to
spend my days overlooking the whole development, I mean parking lot, and by the same
token the same thing on Balsam Lane. I would be concerned about some expansion taking
place above, directly across the street from me, than I wouldn't have a problem. So,
in other words, you have to agree that 'Yes, we're not going to further expand,' and
I'm talking about the property of that elderly lady who lives there now or whoever
owns it, but if we sit there in front of her house and rock there most of the time in
the summer and didn't have to look at the parking lot of a huge building from the
back, than I would be fine."
Elden commented, "You're talking about screening off site, off our site onto the
backyards of your property."
Jack questioned if the neighbors could get together and get an ok from one another to
plant trees on other people's lots for screening.
Discussion on value of property, people fear the unknown.
Mark wants a brief meeting with the landscape architect as soom as possible and said
they could meet at his home.
Jack will contact landscape architect and plan to meet at Mark's home on Monday,
March 26, 6:00 p.m. Phone numbers were listed and people will be contacted.
Debbie Bodin stated in representing neighbors in her area who could not attend that
they feel the church is a better option than some of the other things they have
thought of. They would be amicable towards that.
Meeting will continue as soon as arrangements can be made with the landscape
architect.
Monday, March 26, 1990,6 :00 p.m.
Elden Nelson, John Rieschl, Sam Dyrud, Jack Ovick, and Landscape Architect, Don
Obernolte, met at the home of Mark Beltrand and also visited the home of Melanie
Flessner to study the views from the west side of the property. Views from the home.
of John Maas who lives on the southeast corner of the property were also studied.
Studying /reviewing the views from various locations will give the architect a better
picture of what can be done for adequate screening.
Respectfully submitted,
Aini D. Myking -
17
March 20, 1990
Dear Homeowner:
mebirine Knke Kut4ernn Ti,trr4 & ArabzmU
3110 East Medicine Lake Blvd.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
Laurel M. Udden, Pastor
Phone (612) 544.9778
ArabetnV 6300 Walker St.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Phone (612) 922.8276
HHOWN
APR 16 1990
CITY OF PL`- i.?MOUTH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Enclosed are minutes of a meeting held Saturday, March 17, where
concerns of adjacent neighbors were shared and discussed.
This coming Saturday, March 24, the church will respond to the
neighborhood concerns. Please plan to attend if you have any issues
overlooked or you were unable to attend the meeting on March 17th.
This meeting will be held at the same location, City of Plymouth
Lunch Room, beginning at 10:00 a.m.
Sincerely,
Building Committee
Medicine Lake Lutheran Church and Academy
Enclosures: First meeting notice
Minutes of first meeting
Affiliated with the Association of Free Lutheran Congregations
ISSUES ADDRESSED
1. ROOF LINE ON ACADEMY SECTION
Will be lowered; concept would cut massing from west.
2. LANDSCAPING /SCREENING
Extra conifers on west side of playground area to reduce noise.
3. BUILDING ON NORTH SIDE OF OLD COUNTY ROAD 9
Doesn't appear there would be enough property for our needs.
4. CHURCH AND ACADEMY AS ONE UNIT
Practice is to have one operation.
5. STAKES FOR STRUCTURE LOCATION
The stakes are in place.
6. BUS PARKING
Will not be parked on site.
7. MOVING PLAYGROUND TO EAST SIDE OF PROPERTY
For safety reasons it will not be moved.
8. SIZE OF OPERATION ON PROPERTY
Structure and building size meet all city ordinances, setbacks,
except height of spire.
9. SPIRE HEIGHT
Feel it is'characteristic of church building and other churches
in community.
10. THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY MEDICINE LAKE LUTHERAN CHURCH.
MEDICINE LAKE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING WITH HOMEOWNERS ADJACENT TO PROPERTY
PLYMOUTH CITY HALL, MARCH 17, 1990, 10:00 a.m.
ATTENDEES: John Rieschl, Elden Nelson, John Wire, Dennis Holmquist, Pastor Udden,
Aini Myking, Architect Jack Ovick
HOMEOWNERS: Duane and Linda Cramer, Gerald and Lynn Woessner, Mark Beltrand,
Melanie Flessner, Veryl Chihak
CITY PLANNER: Blair Tremere
CITY COUNCIL: Carole Helliwell
John Rieschl, Dennis, Elden and Aini arrived early to set up and spend time in prayer.
John Rieschl presided and asked homeowners present to introduce themselves and point
out location of their residence on the model.
John stated purpose of meeting as stated in letter and called on Duane Cramer, Chairman
of their group, for presentation /comments.
Duane said they had a meeting after receiving a copy of the plans. Stated concerns as to
original roof /reviewed alternative for lowering roof; that concept would cut the impact,
the massing as viewed from the west. Also expressed concerns on views. Mark used a 14'
staff with a red flag to check views from distance as to the parking area. Melanie viewed
it from Balsam Lane; they could see over half of the field area which would be the parking
area. Mark stated they realize it would be impossible to totally screen it but just wanted
to check it out.
Jack explained reasons for berm, fence, trees, etc., - -to soften view and screen as much as
is reasonably possible. City also has concerns for types of trees by the bike path to
assure their survival with plowing and use of chloride during winter season.
Jack suggested a plan to compromise with the landowners as to areas devoid of trees to
plant trees in certain strategic spots on the hill to help with screening.
Mark stated he personally didn't have a problem with the view realizing we are doing all
that is reasonably possible to screen it.
Linda Cramer stated that when people from the church called on them three years ago they
did not mention a school along with the church. Said they didn't know about the school
until last fall. Pastor Udden stated he visited the neighborhood three years ago and did
mention the church /school. He remembered calling on Melanie and she even commented she
might send her children there; Melanie couldn't recall she said that. Linda commented she
had no problem with a church but is opposed to the school on same property.
Jack suggested they visit our school in St. Louis Park to observe discipline, recess, etc.,
to see for themselves.. Stated it isn't like a typical public school; was very impressed
with the control teachers had over the students. Comments from board members as to number
on playground at one time, teacher in supervision, etc.
Linda expressed concern with activity all week long, additional traffic - -it will be a
major operation and their neighborhood will not be the same quiet neighborhood as now.
Veryl Chihak again encouraged visiting our school to observe the discipline.
Melanie and Linda wanted to know why we don't move the church to where the school is
currently. John Rieschl responded regarding feasibility of situation. Linda wanted to
know why we couldn't have the school in a different location and have just the church on
this piece of property. Duane asked how many school families live in Plymouth. Elden
responded - -about 30 families in Plymouth and after doing a study this location is the most
centrally located for all families with children in the academy.
Page 2.
Linda asked about distance from property line to homes. Jack responded with figures and
referring to drawings. Jack explained a study which was done in another school area where
they ran tests as to decibels of noise level. This could be done at current school.
Linda wanted to know if the school couldn't be built on the north side of old County
Road #9. It would take the school out of their backyards. John Rieschl responded - -would
involve switching of property with city - -is this feasible?
Gerald Woessner questioned status of church as to financial means to build and properly
maintain a church /school. Wanted to know how long we've been in existance, why we haven't
built before, etc. Also questioned growth potential and how we could survive if we don't
grow. Questions responded to by John Rieschl and Dennis. Jack reviewed calculations
regarding parking and meeting zoning codes with allowable growth potential. Gerald also
questioned capacity for students - -Jack responded. Back to further questions on financing
with responses from Elden, Jack and John Rieschl.
Gerald once again stated concerns about noise and that noone wants to live next to a school.
Feels the project is too massive for the size of the property; can't understand why we would
even consider this large a project on this property. Also concerned about traffic.
Melanie brought up noise from playground area again. Jack suggested the possibility of
moving playground area closer to Zachary Lane and putting up a fence to keep the children
safe in that area. Will be studied and considered.
Linda questioned an addition which was proposed in the original plan. Jack explained what
intentions were at that particular time. The plan has been completely dropped. Linda
wants to see something in writing, a legal document, to protect the neighbors so there
would be no further development /additions in the future. Agreed this is feasible and
can be done. Pastor Udden mentioned the trend today is to have multipurpose areas in
churches to better facilitate property /space; this is what we are doing.
Mark requested having stakes placed on the property marking exact location of building.
Jack said this can be done and explained further how the building would be built with
only one story visible on the north side, etc.
Linda once again brought up issue of building north of Old Country Road #9. Would have
to be reviewed with City as to their plans for that property.
Questions steered to Blair Tremere, City Planner, regarding traffic, availability of
property, what city owns, what they plan to do, etc. Blair explained current situation
and will have more complete answers for the next meeting.
Question on planning of bike path - -why not executed earlier instead of waiting until
church is built. Blair answered question.
Melanie questioned contingencies /safeguards if church runs out of funds before landscaping
is completed. Jack explained city regulations -- cannot occupy building or property until
everything is completed. Mark questioned length of construction period. Jack responded
that physical building would take about 6 -8 months. After rough grading is done the
planting is established as quickly as possible.
Melanie questioned variance regarding parking. Jack answered her question.
John Rieschl explained drainage for runoff.
Linda questioned excavation.
what needs to be done.
Blair Tremere explained plan
long before our church /school
school areas. Blair said this
Jack explained procedure, how it will be handled, and
to widen /upgrade Zachary Lane and said this has been planned
came into the picture. Linda asked about reduced speeds for
should be brought to the City.
L
Page 3.
Number of busses questioned and where are they parked? John Rieschl responded, explaining
parking arrangement with the Bible School.
Blair Tremere commented on trees sharing his experience from 17 years in his business.
Emphasized using evergreens which are better for screening year round. If looking for
function from landscaping regarding noise and view, evergreens are the best. Also said
not to ignore use of vertical board fencing to plug in areas - -very effective for neighbors
faced with parking lots. A combination of these suggestions will gain a lot of the
buffering we're looking for. Mentioned berming is good also. Evergreen and vertical
board fencing go a long way in providing communication.
Jack suggested having a landscape architect attend our next meeting to give advice.
Duane referred to drawing with only 5 existing trees to remain. Error in drawing and
Jack said it will be corrected.
Melanie suggested families on the east side of Zachary should be invited to the next
meeting. These families were notified as requested by city when first public meeting
was held with the Planning Commission. Agreed to send letter or deliver personally
regarding next meeting on Saturday, March 24th.
Duane suggested we go to the city and tell them as long as they're upgrading Zachary Lane
to put in a piping system as part of the storm sewer system and get it out of everybody's
eyesight. They should put their water into their pipe. Politically the city would make
impact on entire neighborhood. /
Gerald brought up the steeple as to meeting code. It is slightly over code and would _/
require a variance. Cramer suggested we could lower it but at the same time the peak VVV
would have to be lowered a few feet to make it look right. Agreed to study this.
Meeting to continue on Saturday, March 24, 10:00 a.m., Plymouth City Hall Lunchroom.
Respectfully Submitted,
Aini Myking,, Recorder
a aa.a
a won= MoMfa..aai
am
aam
iii "
aa a ®a
uie u° .a a aoo
ao now
no _ aa
as u.
aa : ao
im I Cia
viii ° _ i ai
ii iiia an
a.aa.aa aa.a a
MUUZW EUEE 1.
a a aa.a
February 28, 1990
Dear Neighbors:
i lebirine Inke Kuthernn 0. „,arc# & ArnbemU
3110 East Medicine Lake Blvd.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
Laurel M. Udden, Pastor
Phone (612) 544.9778
ACabemg 6300 Walker St. "
T' EMT
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Phone (612) 922.8276
MAR i 19901
q ; I LYMOUTH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
i
City of Plymouth Councilmemoers suggested we "get together” and resolve
questions and problems you have concerning our proposed Church /Academy
in your neighborhood. Please plan on attending a meeting from 10:00 to
12:00 a.m. on Saturday, March 17, in the City of Plymouth Lunch Room,
located on the lower level of the building.
The purpose of the meeting will be to look at site changes you feel would
make the present Church /Academy design more compatible with your neighbor-
hood. The model and drawings of the site and structure that were presented
at the recent Council meeting will be available for your inspection. The
Building Committee and the architect, Jack Ovick, will answer questions.
The meeting objective will be the compilation of a list of your proposed
changes for the Building Committee and the architect to study. Responses
to the proposed changes will be made at a follow -up meeting the following
Saturday (the 24th), at the same time and place.
If you cannot attend these meetings, please submit your changes in writing
and let someone in your neighborhood bring them, or mail them to:
Medicine Lake Lutheran Church
Attention: Building Committee
3110 East Medicine Lake Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55441
Or, express your changes verbally to someone who will be attending.
We earnestly seek your input.
Sincerely,
Building Committee
Medicine Lake Lutheran Church and Academy
P.S. Bring your City Councilmember and /or Planning Commissioner to the
meeting.
Affiliated with the Association of Free Lutheran Congregations
egu ar Council meeting
oqgd g
February 5, 1990
Page 33
Ronald Libby, representative of Bass Lake Liquor, appeared with
As attorney Steve Sondrall. Mr. Sondrall requested that the
Council impose no penalty and take no further action on this
incident. He stated that a former employee of Bass Lake Liquor
did enter a guilty plea to selling liquor to an underaged
person; however, the plea was made pursuant to a plea bargain.
The plea and charges will be dismissed if no further liquor law
Incidents occur in the next 10 months. Mr. Sondrall stated that
the establishment does not have strict liability in this
incident because, as the police incident report notes, the minor
admits using a false identification to purchase liquor on a
number of previous occasions at this establishment. He stated
that no further action should be taken since the criminal charge
that initiated the hearing may be dismissed.
Mayor Bergman closed the hearing at 7:20 p.m.
Attorney Thomson stated that the clerk did not ask for
identification in this particular instance. There was a guilty
plea in the case and it is not accurate to say that the criminal
charge solely initiated the hearing. Then Council holds a
hearing to consider a civil penalty based on the original
Incident, not necessarily the outcome. He stated it is his
opinion there is sufficient basis to impose a civil penalty in
this case, if it is the Council's desire.
Councilmember Ricker asked if charges were brought against the
minor who purchased the liquor.
Attorney Thomson stated that a citation was issued.
Councilmember Ricker stated he feels some sympathy for the
establishment because of the situation; however, there is some
degree of guilt and irresponsibility in not at Ing for
identification for this particular sale.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Ricker, seconde'. by RESOLUTION NO. 90 -71
Councilmember Vasiliou, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 90 -71 IMPO NG IMPOSING PENALTY FOR
PENALTY FOR LIQUOR LAW VIOLATION AGAINST BASS LAKE INC. LIQUOR LAW VIOLATION
reducing the penalty from $1,000 to $500 due to the AGAINST BASS LAKE INC.
circumstances in this case. Item 7 -A
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes.
PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Bergman introduced the request of Medicine Lake Lutheran Medicine Lake Lutheran
Church for approval of Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Church (89086)
Rezoning, and Variance for property located at the southwest Item 8 -A
corner of Zachary Lane and Old Rockford Road (1115 Old Rockford
Road) (89086).
Regular Council Meeting
February S, 1990
Page 34
John Rieschl, 2416 Kewanee Way, appeared on behalf of the
church. Mr. Rieschl stated that Medicine Lake Lutheran Church
has been located at 3110 E. Medicine Lake Blvd., for 25 years.
The school was started in 1980 and after three years was moved
to St. Louis Park. The proposed location at Zachary Lane and
Old Rockford Road would be for a church building, which would
include the academy.
Mr. Rieschl stated church representatives notified neighborhood
residents of the proposal in September, 1989. Seventeen
residents attended an informational meeting where an informal
site plan was presented. He stated that at the Planning
Commission hearing several residents stated a fear of reduced
property values due to the construction of the church. Chairman
Plufka requested that those persons should provide statistics to
support their claim. Mr. Rieschl stated that letters submitted
by realtors are not sufficient to validate a possible loss in
property values. He stated that this project will address the
water run -off problems that currently exist from this site and
major landscaping is proposed to buffer the abutting residences.
Jack Ovkk, architect for the project, presented a model of the
proposed church structure and the site. He stated the proposed
building provides multiple use of space for church, nursery,
school, and storage. Mr. Ovkk explained the proposed drainage
improvements. He stated that the proposed location of the
playground is the safest, and there is an adequate buffer
between the playground and abutting homes. Mr. Ovkk explained
the two roof options that are proposed; one is lower to minimize
the roof mass. He said the proposal meets City standards and
the objections have been "abstract ".
Gerry Woessner, 4200 Cottonwood Lane, requested that the Council
deny the requests. He noted the areas of concern contained in
the staff report and stated that the petitioner has not
responded to all requests for information from staff and the
Planning Commission. Mr. Woessner stated the proposed project
Is too large for the limited space and there is an adverse
relationship between the proposed use and the abutting
residential area. Mr. Woessner stated the project would depress
abutting residential property values, create noise and
congestion due to the seven day a week operation, and create
traffic hazards due to inadequate parking. Attempts to provide
a buffer to the adjacent properties is inadequate.
Mr. Woessner stated the neighbors are not opposed to a church or
school, but the proposed facility is too aggressive for this
site. The petitioner has not adequately addressed the concerns
of the neighborhood.
Regular Council Meeting
February 5, 1990
Page 35
Duane Cramer, 11210 42nd Avenue North, stated that the proposed
structure is equivalent to 4 112 stories high. This is not
consistent with adjacent 1 -2 story homes. The impact of the
building size is magnified because it is on a small lot. Mr.
Cramer expressed concern of overflow parking and increased
traffic on Zachary Lane, particularly at Old Rockford Road. He
stated the intersection should be studied to determine if it can
adequately handle the amount of additional traffic which would
be generated by the proposed church and school.
Mr. Cramer stated the church anticipates a 50% membership growth
in the next five years. He asked where the space will be for
parking and building expansion if the growth occurs. Future
growth area is very limited, other than a minor expansion area
for the parking lot. Mr. Cramer stated the project should be
deferred until the neighbors' questions are answered. He stated
the neighbors have not had sufficient input.
Councilmember Vasiliou asked if the architect's model had been
shown to the neighbors and to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cramer responded that the model has not been seen by the
neighbors.
Councilmember Vasiliou asked why the church purchased the
property before receiving necessary approvals from the City.
Mr. Rieschl stated that after the property was purchased in 1986
for a church, the decision was made later to incorporate the
school facility as well.
Councilmember Vasiliou stated she could not support the
request because many questions remain unanswered. The church
needs to work with the neighbors to address adequate buffers,
and needs to address how it will expand in the future. It is
unacceptable that the model has not yet been shared with the
neighbors.
At Councilmember Zitur's request, Community Development Tremere
presented a brief staff report on the request. He stated the
Planning Commission vote was 3 recommending approval; 3
recommending denial; and 1 abstaining.
Commissioners voting against the motion to approve indicated
their votes were not in opposition to the concept of a
church /school at this location, but rather with specific
reference to deficiencies in site design resulting in a project
that did not respond to the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the
screening of parking from residences to the south, nor to the
relationship to other property in the immediate vicinity.
Regular
February
Page 36
Council Meeting
5, 1990
Richard Plufka, Planning Commission Chairperson, stated that the
following concerns were raised at the Planning Commission
hearing: Screening on the east and south property lines to
respond to the Zoning Ordinance requirement that off - street
parking areas be screened from adjacent residences and the
standard of the Conditional Use. Permit that requires
compatibility with permitted uses in the surrounding
neighborhood; Considering reduction in height /mass for the
church structure; Relocating the playground area from the west
side immediately adjacent to the existing residences;
Considering a reorientation of the building to create a better
aesthetic appearance; and reducing the height of the proposed
spire. Another concern was that the bulk of the screening was
proposed as deciduous rather than evergreen trees.
Councilmember Helliwell asked if a traffic study has been done
In this area for this project.
Public Works Director Moore stated a study has not been
conducted. A study is not normally done when a permitted use is
proposed.
Councilmember Helliwell suggested that the matter be referred
back to the church and neighborhood to try to negotiate an
agreement.
MOTION was made by
Councilmember Zitur, to
Lutheran Church (89086)
Commission, with directi
representatives to attempt
prior to Council reconsid
issues cited and the information
Councilmember
defer the re
and refer th
on to the
to resolve t
eration of the
Motion carried, five ayes.
Ricker, seconded by
quests of Medicine Lake
em back to the Planning
church and neighborhood
he questions and concerns
requests in light of the
presented to the Council.
Defer Requests of
Medicine Lake Lutheran
Church (89086)
Item 8-A
Coun lmember Helliwell asked why a separate resolution is Lowry Hill Const.
needed o set conditions for filing of the final plat. Deerhaven 3rd Addn.
89105)
Director Tr ere stated that Hennepin County has indicated that Item 8 -B
the approving resolution for a final plat should not be
encumbered by co itions. Therefore, a separate resolution is
provided that sets'r onditions to be met by the developer in
order for filing to ocoyr.
MOTION was made by Counci%iember Vasiliou, seconded by Mayor
Bergman, to adopt RESOLUT NO. 90 -72 APPROVING AMENDED
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DE OPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LO HILL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
89105) (RPUD 81 -4).
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes.
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -72
APPROVING AMENDED RPUD
PREL. PLAN AND CUP FOR
LOWRY HILL CONST. CO.
89105)
Item 8 -B
Planning Commission Minut
January 24, 1990
Page 12
Chairman Plufka introduced the request by Medicine Lake
Lutheran Church for a Rezoning, Site Plan, Conditional Use
Permits, and Variance to construct a place of worship and
day school located at the southwest corner of Zachary Lane
and Old Rockford Road.
Coordinator Dillerud gave an overview of the January 16,
1990, staff report.
Chairman Plufka stated to the public that those who wish to
speak should speak to the amendments made by Medicine Lake
Lutheran Church since their deferral, and refrain from
repeating comments made at the last Planning Commission
Meeting.
Coordinator Dillerud showed a color /texture sample of the
proposed fence to the Commissioners.
Commissioner Marofsky asked staff how high the proposed
fence would be.
Coordinator Dillerud responded 8 feet plus the berm height.
Chairman Plufka introduced John Rieschl, representing the
petitioner.
Mr. Rieschl stated that he is the Chairman of Medicine Lake
Lutheran Church. He stated that Medicine Lake Lutheran
Church is currently renting property in St. Louis Park and
that they do not own it.
Mr. Rieschl addressed two concerns brought up at the last
Planning Commission Meeting. The first issue was the
playground location. Mr. Rieschl stated that the reason
they plan to locate the playground at the northwest corner
of the site is mainly due to safety reasons. He stated that
they wanted it behind the school off of Zachary Lane where
the teachers would more easily have control of the children.
The second issue was the screening on the south end of the
site. Mr. Rieschl stated that they have taken out about 25-
30 trees due to Dutch Elm Disease. He stated that their
plans are to clean out the dead trees and replace them with
more new trees.
Chairman Plufka introduced Mark Baker of 4600 Forestview
Lane.
Mr. Baker stated he was in favor of the proposed plan. He
stated he felt the church would be a positive influence on
the neighborhood.
Chairman Plufka introduced Lannie Beltrand of 4120 Balsam
Lane North.
MEDICINE LAKE LUTHERAN
CHURCH (89086)
2"Ne
Planning Commission Minut
January 24, 1990
Page 13
Ms. Beltrand stated that she was concerned about the
drainage ditch located in her back yard; that the screening
from the parking lot was inadequate; and, that the
landscaping would be insufficient. Ms. Beltrand then asked
if there would be a guarantee that the landscaping will be
completed as proposed.
Commissioner Marofsky explained that the City holds a bond
for all developers to assure completion of landscaping, and
that if they do not do the landscaping as required, the City
will take from that bond money to complete the work for
them.
Ms. Beltrand asked what was going to be done with the
drainage ditch.
City Engineer Faulkner explained that a new culvert will be
put in under Old Rockford Road, and the drainage will be
diverted back to the east to the Zachary Lane ditch.
Ms. Beltrand stated she was also concerned about her
property value decreasing, and asked if the City can
restrict the church from any other uses besides what is
proposed.
Coordinator Dillerud explained that all other uses besides
what is proposed will require a Conditional Use Permit.
Chairman Plufka introduced Veryl Chihak of 4130 Balsam Lane
North.
Mr. Chihak did not comment.
Chairman Plufka introduced Linda Cramer of 11210 42nd Avenue
North.
Ms. Cramer submitted a petition to the Commission opposing
the proposed plan, and Chairman Plufka noted for the record
that a petition was received by the Commission.
Ms. Cramer stated she was in opposition to the proposed
plan, and expressed her concern about an increase in
traffic; the size of the structure is incompatible with the
neighborhood; and, the property value and market value of
her home will decrease.
Chairman Plufka introduced Duane Cramer of 11210 42nd Avenue
North.
Mr. Cramer stated that he was in opposition to the proposed
plan. He stated he had spoken with four prominent realtors,
and they have all given their opinion that his property
value will decrease significantly. He pointed out that the
residents across Balsam Lane will also be visually impacted
Planning Commission Minut
January 24, 1990
Page 14
by the proposed structure due to the offset placement of
their homes.
Chairman Plufka asked Mr. Cramer if he had any statistical
proof that his home will depreciate in value.
Mr. Cramer stated that he did not have any written facts.
Chairman Plufka introduced Rod Dallin of 12400 50th Avenue
North.
Mr. Dallin stated he was in favor of the proposed plan, and
he would like to see the project expedited.
Chairman Plufka introduced Joan Denis of 5105 Norwood.
Ms. Denis stated she was in favor of the proposed plan, and
supports Medicine Lake Lutheran Church. She stated she
would also like to see the project expedited.
Chairman Plufka introduced Eugene Enderlein of 4600 Hemlock
Lane.
Mr. Enderlein did not comment.
Chairman Plufka introduced Bruce Flessner of 4115 Balsam
Lane.
Mr. Flessner did not comment.
Chairman Plufka introduced Melanie Flessner of 4115 Balsam
Lane.
Ms. Flessner did not comment.
Chairman Plufka introduced Paul Jasper of 11140 40th Avenue
North.
Mr. Jasper expressed his concern about the landscaping and
lighting. He asked what kind of lighting is being proposed.
Coordinator Dillerud responded that per City practice, no
light should leave the site in excess of the .5 -foot candle
contour.
Mr. Rieschl stated that the low profile lights will remain
on until 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. for safety reasons.
Chairman Plufka introduced Jo Ann Kraft of 4345 Oakview
Lane.
Ms. Kraft stated that she was in favor of the proposed plan
and would also like to see it expedited.
Planning Commission Minul
January 24, 1990
Page 15
Chairman Plufka introduced Len Riley of 11340 47th Avenue
North.
Mr. Riley did not comment.
Chairman Plufka introduced John Schlenk of 6640 Brunswick
Avenue North.
Mr. Schlenk did not comment.
Chairman Plufka introduced Carol Wehrman of 11625 40th
Avenue North.
Ms. Wehrman did not comment.
Chairman Plufka introduced Gerald Woessner of 4200
Cottonwood Lane North.
Mr. Woessner stated he was in opposition to the proposed
plan. He stated he felt his property value would decrease.
Mr. Woessner stated that the screening on the west side is
inadequate and that there is 115 feet of no screening on the
southwest corner. He stated that the proposed berm would
allow run -off water onto the residents' properties. He
added that the staggered fence would not provide security to
the site or neighboring properties. Mr. Woessner summarized
that the proposed plan and specific structure is not
compatible with the neighborhood.
Chairman Plufka introduced Veryl Chihak of 4130 Balsam Lane
North.
Mr. Chihak stated he was in favor of the proposed plan. He
stated he had talked with six prominent realtors, and five
of them gave their opinion that the proposed plan would not
decrease the value of his home. He stated that the proposed
school only goes from grade K to grade 8; therefore, no wild
high school students will disrupt the neighborhood. He
further stated that there are other accesses to the
residents' homes, and
I
added that no matter what is built,
their homes will always be at a higher elevation, looking
down.
Chairman Plufka introduced Bruce Flessner of 4115 Balsam
Lane.
Mr. Flessner stated he was in opposition to the proposed
plan. He stated it was too large a project to put on such a
small parcel of land.
Chairman Plufka introduced Melanie Flessner of 4115 Balsam
Lane.
Planning Commission Minut.
January 24, 1990
Page 16
Ms. Flessner stated she agreed with her husband's
statements, and added that they will be visually impacted by
this proposal.
Chairman Plufka introduced Len Riley of 11340 47th Avenue
North.
Mr. Riley did not comment.
Chairman Plufka introduced John Schlenk of 6640 Brunswick
Avenue North.
Mr. Schlenk did not comment.
Chairman Plufka introduced Carol Wehrman of 11625 40th
Avenue North.
Ms. Wehrman did not comment.
Mr. Ovick, the architect, and Mr. Rieschl presented pictures
to the Commission of their selective cutting.of trees on the
south end of the property.
Chairman Plufka introduced Beverly Enderlein, the
administrator of the proposed day school.
Ms. Enderlein stated that their endeavor is to be good
neighbors. She stated that the boys and girls and their
families have made many sacrifices to get this project
underway. She stated Medicine Lake Lutheran Church has gone
to great lengths to have adequate landscaping. She further
stated that the proposed plan does not allow for growth,
which Medicine Lake Lutheran Church realizes. Since there
will only be 9 classrooms, Ms. Enderlein stated there will
minimal noise on the playground.
Chairman Plufka introduced Dennis Holmquist of 12648 73rd
Avenue North.
Mr. Holmquist stated ' -he is a member of Medicine Lake
Lutheran Church, and h is in favor of the proposed plan.
Chairman Plufka introduced Stan Nathanson of 11600 41st
Avenue North.
Mr. Nathanson stated he is the president of the Mission
Hills Homeowners Association, and he is in opposition to the
proposed plan. He suggested the association continue to
work with the church until they reach agreement on the plan.
Commissioner Marofsky asked Mr. Rieschl why they have not
changed the roof slope on their Site Plan as suggested at
the last Planning Commission Meeting.
Planning Commission Minut
January 24, 1990
Page 17
Mr. Rieschl stated that they have looked into other options,
but their Building Committee has determined that the sharply
angled roof would be in character with the neighborhood. He
further stated that turning the building, as suggested at
the last Planning Commission Meeting, would provide greater
visual impact for the residents to the west than it does as
now proposed.
Commissioner Marofsky asked staff if there was any kind of
provision for maintenance of the fence, trees, and berm.
Coordinator Dillerud responded that there is no provision
beyond perservation of the the actual screening to comply
with the Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Marofsky stated his concern that the fence,
trees, and berm could become an eyesore if not maintained.
Coordinator Dillerud responded that it would be possible to
require continued maintenance of these items as a condition
of the Conditional Use Permit, but that it would be very
difficult to administer.
MOTION by Commissioner
to recommend approval
Lutheran Church for a
Permits, and Variance
day school located at
and Old Rockford Road,
in the staff report of
Zylla, seconded by Chairman Plufka,
of the request by Medicine Lake
Rezoning, Site Plan, Conditional Use
to construct a place of worship and
the southwest corner of Zachary Lane
subject to the conditions set forth
January 16, 1990.
MOTION by Commissioner Zylla, seconded by Chairman Plufka to
amend the main motion by adding a condition that the
petitioner must conform with the Zoning Ordinance as to
screening at the south side of the proposed site.
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. Commissioner Wire abstained.
MOTION carried.
MOTION by Commissioner Zylla, seconded by Commissioner
Marofsky, to amend the main motion by adding a condition
that limits the day school enrollment to 175 students,
grades K - 8.
Chairman Plufka stated that he was concerned that the
Planning Commission would be stepping into State Law if they
approved such an amendment. He stated that he does not see
the necessity of such a limitation.
Commissioner Tierney asked the petitioner what would be the
maximum number of students proposed.
Ms. Enderlein responded that Medicine Lake Lutheran Church
has a resolution stating that they shall not exceed 225
MOTION TO APPROVE
MOTION TO AMEND
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTION TO AMEND
Planning Commission Minu'
January 24, 1990
Page 18
students for enrollment. She further stated that they
presently have 198 students enrolled.
Roll Call Vote. 1 Aye. Commissioners Pierce, Tierney,
Marofsky, Stulberg, and Chairman Plufka Nay. Commissioner
Wire abstained. MOTION failed.
MOTION by Commissioner Zylla, seconded by Chairman Plufka,
to amend the main motion by adding a condition that limits
the day school enrollment to 225 students, grades K - 8.
Roll Call Vote. 4 Ayes. Commissioner Stulberg and Chairman
Plufka Nay. Commissioner Wire abstained. MOTION carried.
Commissioner Stulberg stated he will vote in opposition to
the proposed plan because he felt the petitioner has not
fulfilled the requirements of Standard No. 3 of the
Conditional Use Permit standards because of the massive roof
height and the poor landscape plan.
Commissioner Zylla expressed his concern with the roof
structure. He stated it serves no purpose except for form,
and that the roof line should be broken and lowered.
Commissioner Marofsky stated he was in agreement with
Commissioner Zylla, and will therefore vote in opposition to
the proposed plan.
Roll Call Vote on main motion. 3 Ayes. Commissioners
Pierce, Marofsky, and Stulberg Nay. Commissioner Wire
abstained. MOTION failed.
Chairman Plufka stated that he felt the proposal does not
violate the Zoning Ordinance, and he does not disagree with
its use.
Commissioner Marofsky stated that his vote was not against
the use, but he felt the site was inappropriate for the
building structure.
Commissioner Pierce stated he was in agreement with
Commissioner Marofsky, and stated he felt there was too much
roof mass.
Chairman Plufka called a 5 minute recess at 9:55 p.m.
Chairman Plufka resumed the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
VOTE - MOTION FAILED
MOTION TO AMEND
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
VOTE - MAIN MOTION
FAILED
Chairman Plufka introduced the request by John DeVries for a J WILD WINGS
Lot Division /Lot Consolidation and Variance for Wild"""" (89101)
Addition located at 4925 Valley Forge La
Chairman Plu a overview of the January 18, 1990,
morandum.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 29, 1989
The Regular Meeting of the City of Plymouth Planning
Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners John Wire, Hal Pierce
Dennis Zylla, Joy Tierney, Larry Marof ,
and Michael Stulberg.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Richard Plufka.
STAFF PRESENT: Coordinator Charles Pfl Ierud, City
Engineer Dan FaulAer, and Sr.
Clerk /Typist Denise nthier.
MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner T' ney, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Wire, to approve the utes for the November 8, 1989,
Planning Commission eeting subject to the following
changes:
On page 251, Kragraph 10, in the MOTION by Commissioner
Marofsky, t words "on Sundays" should be deleted at the
end of the.Aentence.
On pa 254, paragraph 8, in the first sentence, the words
an ,SKthe MOTION to approve" should be inserted before the
ds "on the table"
Vote. 5 A, Commissioner Zylla abstained.
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced the request of Medicine
Lake Lutheran Church for a Rezoning, Site Plan, Conditional
Use Permits, and variance to construct a place of worship
and day school on property located at the southwest corner
of Zachary Lane and Old Rockford Road (1115 Old Rockford
Road) .
Coordinator Dillerud gave an overview of the November 1,
1989, staff report.
Commissioner Marofsky noted that the Site Plan shows the
roof height to be 45 feet, and the Zoning Ordinance standard
for the R -1A District is 35 feet.
MOTION CARRIED
MEDICINE LAKE LUTHERAN
CHURCH (89086)
Planning Commission Meeti
November 29, 1989
Page 259
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced Jack Ovick, the architect
representing the petitioner.
Mr. Ovick stated that the church structure was to be placed
on the north end of the site because of the quality of the
soils. He stated that the building was designed with slope
roofs and shingles in order to be in, character with the
residential neighborhood. He stated that there would be no
summer school, and the traffic would be at a minimum because
of their busing system. He further stated that they spoke
with the neighbors to the west, and most of them said they
did not want buffering, but rather to leave the west
property line open for easy access by neighboring children
to the playground.
Commissioner Stulberg asked Mr. Ovick if he agrees with the
conditions set forth by staff in their report.
Mr. Ovick responded affirmatively except with respect to
conditions related to drainage found in the Engineer's
Memorandum.
Commissioner Marofsky asked Mr. Ovick if he had discussed
the matter of a fire lane with staff in regard to the future
addition.
Mr. Ovick responded affirmatively.
Coordinator Dillerud stated that a fire code variance has
been requested and recommended for approval by the Fire
Chief to not construct fire lanes on the east, west, and
north sides of the structure upon conditions related to
additional fire fighting features to be added to the
structure.
Commissioner Zylla asked Mr. Ovick if they have prepared a
colored rendering.
Mr. Ovick responded negatively, and stated that they will
address the building appearance in greater detail after
their Conditional Use Permit is approved.
Commissioner Zylla asked Mr. Ovick if he realized that staff
still does not find the buffering consistent with Zoning
Ordinance standards.
Mr. Ovick responded that they have hired a landscape
architect to address the situation.
Commissioner Pierce asked staff how many parking spaces are
required by the Ordinance if the addition is built later.
Coordinator Dillerud responded that future additions have
not been considered in staff review, and future additions
are specifically not recommended for approval.
Planning Commission Meeti
November 29, 1989
Page 260
Mr. Ovick stated that the addition would be used as a
kitchen or storage area; therefore, he thought no additional
parking would be required.
Vice Chairman Stulberg opened the Public Hearing.
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced Linda,Cramer of 11210 42nd
Avenue North.
Ms. Cramer did not have comments at that time.
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced Joan Denis of 5105 Norwood
Avenue North.
Ms. Denis stated that she is in support of this proposal.
She stated it will be a good addition to their neighborhood,
and she expressed her desire to enroll her children in a
Bible -based school near her home.
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced Lou Hermanek of 11160 40th
Avenue North.
Mr. Hermanek stated he resides on the southwest tip of the
proposed site, and he is in opposition of this proposal. He
stated that one of the reasons he purchased his home was
because of the heavily wooded area in his rear yard. He
expressed his concern of losing most of the woodlands and
having a parking lot for his view. He asked how much of the
woodland and bike trail would be preserved and if the
proposed parking lot would be 30 feet from his property
line.
Coordinator Dillerud responded that the grading plan shows
most of the trees being preserved, but the landscape plan
shows some of the trees being cut down and replaced with new
ones. He further stated that the bike trail would not be
impacted, and that 30 feet would be the closest the proposed
parking lot could come to Mr. Hermanek's property line
because of the 30 -foot setback requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. Ovick stated that it is their intention to selectively
cut old, damaged trees and replace them with new ones.
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced JoAnn Kraft of 4345
Oakview Lane North.
Ms. Kraft stated she is in support of this proposal. She
expressed her desire to have her child enrolled in a
Christian education school in a suburb rather than busing to
Minneapolis. She stated that the children enrolled in this
school will be well- behaved and well- supervised by the
staff. She stated that residents of Plymouth cannot expect
the City to stay as a reserve for wildlife forever.
Planning Commission Meeti
November 29, 1989
Page 261
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced Len Riley of 11340 47th
Avenue North.
Mr. Riley stated he has been a resident of Plymouth for 4
years, and he is in support of this proposal. He stated the
school will be an asset to the community, and he expressed
his desire to enroll his children in a, private school such
as this. He stated Medicine Lake Lutheran Church chose a
very nice location to build. He further stated he was in
support of the height of the church spire. He stated the
spire gives a sense of security.
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced David Wehrman of 11625
40th Avenue North.
Mr. Wehrman stated he has been a resident of Plymouth for 9
years, and he is in support of this proposal. He stated he
was excited to have Medicine Lake Lutheran Church a part of
the community, and stated he felt it will blend in well with
the neighborhood. He also expressed his desire to have a
private school in the suburbs so parents would not have to
bus their children all the way to Minneapolis to attend a
private school.
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced Gerald Woessner of 4200
Cottonwood Lane North.
Mr. Woessner stated that he moved to Plymouth from New Hope
about one month ago, and his reasons for moving were to get
away from a school that was adjacent to his property. He
stated he was in opposition of this proposal. He stated the
proposed development is being built in a mature neighborhood
and that it is too large of a development to fit in such a
small area. He stated that the church will be in operation
7 days and nights a week, creating much traffic and noise.
He stated that there is no way to shelter the west side of
the site because the church is on a much higher elevation
than the homes to the west. He noted that trees and bushes
will take many years to grow before becoming a buffer to
those homes, and a fence is too unsightly. He further
stated that the property values of their homes will decrease
tremendously, and noted Medicine Lake Lutheran Church owns
other land in the City that would be suitable for a church
building of this size.
Vice Chairman Stulberg stated to Mr. Woessner that property
value is an item to be addressed with the City Council and
that neither the City Council nor the Planning Commission
has the authority to tell a petitioner where else to build.
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced Duane Cramer of 11210 42nd
Avenue North.
Planning Commission Meeti
November 29, 1989
Page 262
Mr. Cramer stated he resides across the street from the
proposed development, and indicated he was in opposition to
this proposal. He stated he is concerned about the
screening, sound, and light. He stated that because of the
height of the proposed structure, it would be impossible to
screen effectively. He stated he likes the woodlands across
the street because they currently act,as a buffer to the
traffic noise from Zachary Lane.
Mr. Cramer indicated he had spoken with the president of
Mission Hill Homeowners Association who asked Mr. Cramer to
speak for him at this meeting since he was not able to
attend. Mr. Cramer stated that he is also in opposition of
this proposal and that no notice was given to the Homeowners
Association regarding this.
Mr. Cramer further stated that Medicine Lake Lutheran Church
is proposing too large a project for the site.
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced Linda Cramer of 11210 42nd
Avenue North.
Ms. Cramer stated that she is in opposition of this proposal
also. She indicated that it would be disruptive for the
residents and that Medicine Lake Lutheran Church should
develop in a commercial district. She stated that most of
the neighbors immediately impacted by this proposal are
opposed of it.
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced Mark Beltrand of 4120
Balsam Lane North.
Mr. Beltrand indicated that his property adjoins the
proposed site and stated that he does not oppose to the
church or private school but rather the drainage ditch and
the proposed buffering of the site. He indicated that the
drainage ditch is an eyesore and a safety factor for his
younger child. He indicated a desire to have buffering from
his property to the site.
City Engineer Faulkner stated that it is a requirement of
the Engineer's Memorandum to move the drainage east to
Zachary Lane.
Commissioner Pierce asked City Engineer Faulkner if there
was any water presently in the ditch.
City Engineer Faulkner responded negatively.
Vice Chairman Stulberg closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Wire informed Chairman Stulberg that he will
step down from discussion and voting on the application.
Planning Commission Meeti.
November 29, 1989
Page 263
Commissioner Marofsky asked staff why the parking plan shows
16 feet east to west with a 2h -foot overhang when the
Ordinance requires 18 feet without an overhang.
Coordinator Dillerud responded that it has been past policy
that when a parking lot abuts a structure, the full 18 feet
is required; therefore, the parking plan is acceptable
because does not abut a structure.
Commissioner Marofsky asked staff if the developer is
allowed to pave the additional 2h -foot overhang.
Coordinator Dillerud responded affirmatively, assuming
proper setbacks are maintained.
Commissioner Marofsky asked staff how the building height
was measured.
Coordinator Dillerud responded that the building has two
elevations and that the front is considered the guiding
elevation. Since Old Rockford Road is the most narrow
street frontage, that is considered "front" and that grade
is controlling in determining building height.
Commissioner Pierce asked staff if they have consulted with
the City Forester regarding this proposal.
Coordinator Dillerud responded that where no plat is
proposed, the forester is not involved until just before the
developer applies for a building permit.
Commissioner Zylla asked staff if the imperious coverage
calculated and shown is based on parking deferred by the
plan.
Coordinator Dillerud responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Marofsky asked staff if the developer could
turn the building 90 degrees and face Zachary Lane to
provide a better buffer.
Coordinator Dillerud responded that that would create more
of a structure bulk to be viewed from the west. He also
stated that a fence is not a very good buffer because they
tend to get run -down.
Commissioner Pierce stated that the proposed plan shows the
hedges to be below the berm level and that they should be
placed on the berm top.
Commissioner Tierney stated that the proposed playground
could create a noisy environment and it should be moved away
from the west property line.
Planning Commission Meeti.
November 29, 1989
Page 264
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE REZONING
Tierney, to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning from
FRD to R -1A, subject to the conditions set forth by staff.
Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. Motion Carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO DEFER
Zylla, to defer the proposal due to it not meeting Condition
No. 3 of the Conditional Use Permit standards related to the
design and landscaping being inadequate to reduce the impact
on neighboring properties.
Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. Motion Carried.
Commissioner Zylla suggested the petitioner meet with the
neighborhood to attempt to have more of a consensus at the
next meeting. He further stated that it would be helpful to
have a colored pencil sketch of the Site Plan.
Commissioner Tierney requested staff to provide additional
analysis on the grade and spire.
Vice Chairman Stulberg requested staff to send out another
one -week notice to those that spoke at the Public Hearing.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Kingsview KINGSVIEW HEIGHTS —F
Heights Homeowner Association for an RPUD amendment to ASSOCIATION (89096)
permit project identification signs at the northwest corner
of Juneau Lane and County Road 9 and at the southwest corner /
of 44th Avenue North and Fernbrook Lane.
Vice Chairman Stulberg waived the overview of the October
25, 1989, staff report.
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced Randy Nord, represent
the petitioner.
Mr. Nord noted an error on the approving reso ion. In
Condition No. 2, the sign setback from Rockf Road should
be 17.25 feet and not 17.75 feet.
Coordinator Dillerud stated he wouldo4ake that change.
Vice Chairman Stulberg opened a Public Hearing. There was
no one to speak on the issu .
Vice Chairman Stulber osed the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Comm' Toner Wire, seconded by Vice Chairman MOTION TO APPROVE
Stulberg, to ecommend approval of the RPUD amendment
requested the Kingsview Heights Homeowner Association to
permit o project identification signs at the northwest
corn of Juneau Lane and County Road 9 and at the southwest
er of 44th Avenue North and Fernbrook Lane, subject to
0. A. -
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: January 16, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: January 24, 1990
FILE NO.: 89086
PETITIONER: Medicine Lake Lutheran Church
REQUEST: Rezoning, Site Plan, Conditional Use Permits, and Variance
to Construct a Place of Worship and Day School
LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Zachary Lane and Old Rockford Road
1115 Old Rockford Road)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development)
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission held the required Public Hearing on this item at its
November 29, 1989, meeting and requested staff to notify those people who
spoke at the Public Hearing when this item would be placed back on the agenda.
It was also suggested to the petitioner that they meet with the neighborhood
prior to this item coming back before the Planning Commission to attempt to
have more of a consensus of the neighborhood at the next Planning Commission
meeting.
The item was specifically deferred due to the proposal not meeting Condition 3
of the Conditional Use Permit Standards related to the design and landscaping
being inadequate to reduce the impact on the neighboring properties.
As directed, all persons who spoke at the November 29, 1989, Public Hearing
have been notified by mail of the January 24, 1990, continued consideration of
this application by the Planning Commission.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The petitioner invited the residents to an open meeting on January 10,
1990, to review the revised plans for this proposal.
2. By a memo of January 9, 1990, the architect for the applicant has
requested placement on the Planning Commission agenda of January 24, 1990.
3. The petitioner has revised the grading and landscape plans to provide a
higher berm, more landscaping, and a fence along the westerly property
line to provide a more efficient transition to the residents to the west.
see next page)
File 89086
Page Two
4. The applicant has not addressed changes responsive to the following issues
discussed at the November 29, 1989, Planning Commission meeting:
a. Structure height
b. Structure orientation
c. Spire height
d. Play area location
e. Transition to residential properties south and east for parking or use
5. As directed by the Planning Commission, the height calculations are as
follows:
a. North (Rockford Road) grade to hip roof midpoint - 22.5 feet
b. South (parking lot) rade to hip roof midpoint - 33.5 feet
c. North (Rockford Road grade to top of cross on spire - 54 feet
d. South (parking lot) grade to top of cross on spire - 66 feet
The midpoint of a hip or gable roof is the point of height measurement per
the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. The maximum height of structure from L
grade is 33.5 feet, and the Zoning Ordinance maximum is 35 feet.
PLANNING STAFF COMENTS:
1. We find the applicant with the amended landscape /grading plans has
responded reasonably to Ordinance provisions regarding screening of off -
street parking "near or adjacent to" residence districts to the west.
We find that additional screening is required from proposed and future
parking to the south (to provide 90 percent year -round capacity), and that
residential properties to the east do not qualify as "near or adjacent to"
in this case.
2. Conditional Use Permit issues of neighborhood compatibility raised by the
November 1, 1989, staff report relate primarily to parking lot screening,
and therefore our comments noted above apply to the Conditional Use Permit
as well.
3. Issues of neighborhood compatibility raised at the Public Hearing and by
the Planning Commission have not all been addressed with the revised
plans. These include:
a. Structure height
b. Structure orientation
c. Spire height
d. Play area location
e. Transition to residential properties to the south
We understand that the applicant does not intend to address those issues
by way of plan modifications, and desires continued consideration of the
applications on that basis.
see next page)
File 89086
Page Three
RECOMMENDATION:
I cannot recommend approval of the Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and
variance for Medicine Lake Lutheran Church, without the plan complying with
parking lot screening requirements with respect to residences south of the
site. We also have noted that issues related to the Conditional Use Permit
standard regarding compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood raised at the
Public Hearing and by the Planning Commission have not been addressed by the
applicant. Has the compatibility standard been met by this plan without
modifications related to those noted issues? We have provided both resolution
drafts for approval and for denial of the applications based on Ordinance
noncompliance and failure to meet Conditional Use Permit standards.
Should the Planning Commission concur that additional plan modification is
required, and if the applicant states his intention to make such
modifications, I recommend the applications be again deferred for redesign and
resubmission rather than redesigned "at the table" or by verbal conditions of
approval.
Submitted by: .
Charles E. Dilleru , Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Site Plan, Conditional Use Permits, and Variance
2. Resolution Denying Site Plan, Conditional Use Permits, and Variance
3. Engineer's Memorandum
4. Location Map
5. November 29, 1989, Planning Commission Minutes
6. November 1, 1989, Staff Report
7. Large Plans
pc /cd/89086:dl)
A.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: November 1, 1989 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 29, 1989
FILE NO.: 89086
PETITIONER: Medicine Lake Lutheran Church
REQUEST: Rezoning, Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance
to Construct a Place of Worship and Day School
LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Zachary Lane and Old Rockford Road
1115 Old Rockford Road)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development)
BACKGROUND:
There have been no previous planning applications for this particular
property. There is a single family dwelling and accessory structure.
Notice of the Public Hearing for the rezoning and Conditional Use Permit has
been published in the official City newspaper, and all property owners within
500 feet have been notified. A development sign was also placed on the
property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The petitioner proposes a rezoning from FRD (Future Restricted
Development) District to R -1A (Low Density Single Family Residential)
District which is consistent with the Land Use Guide Plan for this
property. They propose a Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and variance
for the construction of a place of worship.
2. The Conditional Use Permit is for the operation of the place of worship to
be used for worship services on Sunday and Wednesday evenings along with
Christian Education School to be operated weekdays from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. with some extracurricular activities in the evenings and weekends,
and for the structure to exceed the 35 -foot height requirements in the R-
1A District. The steeple of the church is proposed to be approximately
66.5 feet above grade. A Conditional Use Permit is required for spires
that exceed the Zoning District height maximum of 35 feet.
see next page)
Page Two
File 89086
3. The variance is from the minimum parking requirements to construct 115 of
the required 189 spaces for this facility - -a deferral of 74 spaces.The
petitioner has demonstrated on the Site Plan that sufficient site area
exists to construct all 189 parking spaces.
4. The Conditional Use Permit is requested responsive to Section 7,
Subdivision C, paragraph 15, where places of worship are allowed uses in
the R -1A Zoning District by Conditional Use Permit. A secondary
Conditional Use Permit is responsive to Section 10, Subdivision C,
paragraph lc, where height limitations set forth in the Ordinance may be
increased by Conditional Use Permit when applied to church spires. A
third Conditional Use Permit is required responsive to Section 7,
Subdivision C, paragraph 14, to permit a private school (dam school as
distinguished from Sunday school, which is an accessory use to a church)
facility. The applicant proposes the day school for 150 to 175 children
in grades kindergarten through eight.
5 The Planning Commission recommendation with respect to the Conditional Use
Permits must be responsive to the provisions of Section 9 of the Zoning
Ordinance wherein six specific standards must be used as the basis for the
Planning Commission recommendation. The petitioner has provided, by his
letters of September 11 and 14, 1989, responses to the six Conditional Use
Permit findings.
6. The variance from the provisions of Section 10, Subdivision 6, Table 2, of
the Zoning Ordinance has been applied for to allow deferred parking where
a total of 189 spaces are required, and the petitioner proposes to
construct 115 spaces. The Planning Commission recommendation with respect
to the variance criteria must be responsive to the provisions of Section
11, Subdivision C, paragraph 2d, of the Zoning Ordinance wherein six
specific standards must be used as the basis for the Planning Commission
recommendation. The petitioner has provided, by his letter of September
11, 1989, responses to the six variance standards.
It should be noted that the variance does not deal with the parking
standard as much as the timing of construction. Over - building of the site
vis -a -vis off - street parking is not proposed.
7. The Site Plan review is responsive to Section 11, Subdivision A, of the
Zoning Ordinance. The plan is responsive to building and parking setback
requirements, lot area (5.87 acres versus 30 acres), lot coverage by
structures (6.6 percent versus 20 percent), impervious surface coverage
45.3 percent versus 50 percent), landscaping requirements, signage, trash
containment (enclosure), and screening of roof top units (no R.T.U.s
proposed).
see next page)
Page Three
File 89086
8. The physical constraints analysis identifies this property to be located
within the Basset Creek Drainage District. The site does not contain any
wetlands nor is it within a Shoreland Management or Flood Plain Area. The
site does not contain any major woodlands but does have some slopes of
greater than 12 percent located approximately 100 feet south of Old County
Road 9. The site contains some unsuitable soils for urban capability with
public sewers.
9. The entire structure is proposed to be clad in lap siding. Paint color
would be a shade of white. With the hip roof design and lap siding finish
the structure would appear to be responsive to the finish of other
structures in the neighborhood, as is intended by the City of Plymouth's
standards and criteria regarding site and building aesthetics and
architectural design.
10. The Zoning Ordinance (Section 10, Subdivision B, paragraph 5d) provides
that off - street parking "near or adjacent to" residence districts shall be
screened by fence or landscape buffer. The Zoning Ordinance defines a
landscape buffer as providing 90 percent capacity throughout the year.
The applicant proposes landscape screening of the proposed off - street
parking with a combination of coniferous /deciduous trees and a 4 -foot
hedge along the west property line adjacent to parking to be constructed;
deciduous trees and the 4 -foot hedge along the west property line, where
deferred parking (by variance) is proposed; the 4 -foot hedge only on the
south property line adjacent to deferred parking; and, deciduous trees
only along the east property line (Zachary Lane).
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The rezoning is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and the
surrounding R -1A Zoning.
2. The application has been reviewed for compliance with the physical
constraints analysis as required by the provisions of City Council
Resolution 79 -429. The application is found to be consistent with both
physical constraints and preservation areas of the constraints analysis.
3. The Site Plan has been reviewed by the Development Review Committee
responsive to the various City Ordinances and codes that impact such
development, and the Site Plan is found to be consistent with those codes
and policies, except as noted elsewhere. Specifically, the proposed Site
Plan provides the code required landscaping, structural setbacks, parking
and drive areas surfacing, trash enclosure detail, treatment of rooftop
equipment, and site drainage detail.
see next page)
Page Four
File 89086
4. Based on the demonstrated availability of site area upon which to
construct additional parking, we find the deferral of off - street parking
construction responsive to the criteria for a variance provided by the
Zoning Ordinance nj,y upon the condition that the balance of the parking
required by Zoning Ordinance formula be constructed as determined to be
necessary by the City of Pl,myouthuponadministrativefinding.
5. The compatibility of the place of worship and private school proposed with
other property in the immediate vicinity relies substantially on the
ability of the petition to mitigate the "nonresidential" impacts of the
proposed uses with respect to adjoining properties that are directly
impacted. The design of the proposed Site Plan with respect to meeting
Ordinance requirements as to the buffering of off - street parking would
appear to be most critical with this site. Particularly with respect to
existing homes located immediately west of the site which were situated at
a higher elevation than the site, additional screening becomes a critical
design function.
We do not find that the existing plan responds to the Ordinance with
regard to screening on the Conditional Use Standards with respect to
neighborhood compatibility.
Options available to enhance the degree of screening over that which is
now proposed would be to increase the height and number of coniferous
plantings; redesign the grading plan to provide additional elevation upon
which plantings can be located to increase.the immediate impact; and /or
consider use of a fence.
6. SubJ ect to the findings of No. 5 above, we find the Conditional Use Permit
application for a place of worship in the R -1A Zone to respond to the
standards of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional uses. We
find also that the Conditional Use Permit to permit a spire in excess of
the Ordinance standard for height in the R -1A District is responsive to
the Conditional Use Permit standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Finally, we
find the Conditional Use Permit application for a private school within
the R -1A District responsive to the standards for a Conditional Use
Permit.
With respect to the Conditional Use Permit for the place of worship and
the private school, our finding as to consistency with the standards of
the Zoning Ordinance extends only to the area related to the initial
construction proposed by the Site Plan. The "area of possible future
addition" as shown on the Site Plan is specifically excluded with our
findings with respect to Conditional Use Permit consistency with the
standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
see next page)
Page Five
File 89086
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff does not believe the landscape /grading /Site Plans now proposed
adequately address the issue of buffering of the off - street parking from
existing residences to the west and south. We recommend deferral of approval
recommendations with direction to the petitioner to submit amended plans that
better address buffering of the proposed parking areas. We find the need for
such additional screening /buffering responsive to the Conditional Use Permit
Ordinance standard related to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted in addition to specific
Ordinance standards for parking lot screening and buffering.
Attached are draft actions providing for
Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and variance
should our deferrM*__We2ommendatian netbe
Submitted by:
Charles E. Dillerud,
ATTACHMENTS:
the approval of the rezoning, Site
for consideration by the Commission
conc ith.
ity Development Coordinator
1. Draft Action for Approval of the Rezoning, Site Plan, Conditional Use
Permit and Variance
2. Engineer's Memorandum
3. Location Map
4. Petitioner's Narrative of September 11 and September 14
5. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
6. Variance Criteria
7. Large Plans
pc /cd/89086:dl)
I Wwwww
n
rAn
1- 4771,
21
y
2 =f6.
i
I
1111 //y
r.
Alm
W
WE
D:W!'