HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 07-11-1990A
As
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: July 2, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 11, 1990
FILE NO.: 90040
PETITIONER: Bradley H. White
REQUEST: Amended Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan, Lot
Division /Consolidation and Zoning Ordinance Variance
LOCATION: Southeast Corner of 13th Avenue North and Black Oaks Lane
1271 and 1273 Black Oaks Court)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -3 (High Medium Density Residential)
ZONING: R -3 (Medium Density Multiple Residence)
BACKGROUND:
An amended Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan, and Preliminary Plat for the
Gleason Northshore Condominiums" was approved by City Council Resolution 81-
718 in July, 1981. It was this amendment of the "Gleason Northshore" project
that created the two unit site that is the subject of this application.
Proposed is a Division /Consolidation of platted property to increase the size
of the two lots created for the duplex structure to allow the construction of
a combination deck and three - season porch on the easterly side of the
structure. Also requested is a Variance from the Zoning Ordinance standards
to permit a 15 foot side yard versus the Ordinance standards of a 20 foot side
yard in the R -3 Zoning District. The application includes an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. In addition, a
development sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The proposal is to adjust property lines between the two lots upon which
the duplex structure now is situated, and the adjoining common area, that
will result in the reduction in size to the common area of 1,176 square
feet, represented by a 14 foot by 84 foot strip of land adjacent to the
duplex lots. Each of the duplex lots will increase in size by 588 square
feet represented by 14 x 42 foot sections of the land that is to be
subtracted from the common open space. The result will be additions to
the duplex pads sufficient to accommodate the proposed deck /porch
construction.
Page Two
File 90040
With the exception of a narrow strip adjacent to the garages on the west
side and an extremely narrow strip adjoining the west side of the duplex
units themselves the actual structures occupy all of the lots that were
created without space for the construction of decks and /or porches in any
direction.
2. Concurrence in the proposed action by the Homeowners Association is
evidenced by a previously submitted easement running from the Association
to the applicant. Staff questions the form but not the intent of this.
See comments.
3. From the Physical Constraints Analysis we find the site to be located in
the Gleason Lake Drainage District; to not include hydrological features,
including State or Federally designated wetlands; to be located in the
Gleason Lake Shoreland Overlay District but not within any designated
Flood Plain area; it does contain significant woodland areas, but not
related to the specific site for which amendment is requested; and does
not contain any slopes of greater than 12 percent.
The site remains generally suitable for urban development with municipal
utilities available. No changes of consequence with respect to the
relationship to the Physical Constraints of the site will result from the
actions here under consideration.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has been notified of this
application and has not responded, to date.
4. The application for amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan
to permit the construction of the deck /porch structures proposes the
easterly extent of those structures to a point within 15 feet of the
easterly property line of the project. The standards of the R -3 Zoning
District call for side yards to be 20 feet in width for two family
dwellings. While the east property line of the "Gleason Northshore"
project may appear to be the rear of the specific dwelling units, it has
properly been considered the side yard for the project since the initial
project reviews of 1977. This is based on the public street frontage of
the project being to 13th Avenue North. A copy of the variance standards
of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance is attached for consideration. The
applicant has been requested to address the standards but has not
responded.
5. The amendment to the Conditional Use Permit must respond to the same
Conditional Use Permit criteria that were applied to the original
Conditional Use Permit. The six criteria are contained in Section 9 of
the Zoning Ordinance and attached to this report for the consideration of
the Planning Commission. In addition, the applicant's April 29, 1990
letter which addresses those criteria briefly is attached for the
consideration of the Planning Commission.
A
Page Three
File 90040
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The proposed division /consolidation of platted property is responsive to
the rovisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Section 500.37 of the City
Code with regard to the division /consolidation of platted property. No
specific Zoning Ordinance variance is created by the
division /consolidation alone. The division /consolidation should subject
to the condition that the appropriate title transfer takes place between
the Homeowner's Association and the owners of the respective dwelling
units on Lots 13 and 14. This is more appropriate than an easement given
the magnitude of the encroachment and the proposed use. This shall be the
responsibility of the applicant`to obtain. No building permit should be
issued until evidence of this transaction is provided the City of
Plymouth.
2. We find that the standards of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the deck /porch additions to these
dwelling units are met in the same manner as with original Conditional Use
Permit. The addition of the decks does not significantly alter the
relationship of this project to those standards.
3. Because of the lot configuration that currently exists in relationship to
the dwelling units that have been constructed, no reasonable alternative
exists for the addition of a deck /porch to the existing duplex dwelling
units. If it is determined that inability to provide those features
constitutes a "hardship ", the six standards that must be met prior to
issuance of a Zoning Ordinance variance are complied with.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend adoption of the attached draft resolutions providing for
the approval of the Amended Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit; the division
of platted property; and, the approval of conditions prior to recording of the
division action, j Iuding a Z on in.g.Ardinance for a side yard setback.
Submitted by:
rles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Draft Resolution Approving Amended Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan
2. Draft Resolution Approving Lot Consolidation /Division
3. Resolution Setting Conditions Prior to Recording and Approving Zoning
Ordinance Variance
4. Location Map
5. Site Graphics
6. City Council Resolution 81 -718
APPROVING LOT DIVISION /CONSOLIDATION FOR BRADLEY H. WHITE FOR "GLEASON
NORTHSHORE" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1271 AND 1273 BLACK OAKS COURT (90040)
WHEREAS, Bradley H. White has requested approval for a lot
division /consolidation for the creation of two lots located at 1271 and 1273
Black Oaks Court;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the lot
division /consolidation for Bradley H. White for "Gleason Northshore" for
property located 1271 and 1273 Black Oaks Court.
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
PARCEL A
Lot 13, Block 1, Gleason Northshore Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
PARCEL B
Lot 14, Block 1, Gleason Northshore Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
PARCEL C
Lot 15, Block 1, Gleason Northshore Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
To be divided and consolidated as follows:
PARCEL A
The west 14.00 feet of that part of Lot 15,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Hem
east of the east line of Lot 13, Block 1,
lying between the easterly extension of the
the easterly extension of the south line of
Lot 13.
PARCEL B
The west 14.00 feet of that part of Lot 15,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Heni
east of the east line of Lot 14, Block 1,
lying between the easterly extension of the
the easterly extension of the north line of
Lot 14.
PARCEL C
Block 1, Gleason Northshore,
iepin County, Minnesota, lying
said Gleason Northshore and
north line of said Lot 13 and
the north 42.00 feet of said
Block 1, Gleason Northshore,
iepin County, Minnesota, lying
said Gleason Northshore and
south line of said Lot 14 and
the south 42.00 feet of said
Lot 15, Block 1, Gleason Northshore, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPT the west 14.00 feet of that
part of said Lot 15, lying east of the east line of Lots 13 and 14, Block
1, said Gleason Northshore and lying between easterly extension of the
south line of the north 42.00 feet of said Lot 13 and the easterly
extension of the north line of the south 42.00 feet of said Lot 14.
FURTHER, that the City Manager be authorized to make the necessary special
assessment corrections based upon City Policy when the division /consolidation
is approved by Hennepin County.
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO LOT
DIVISION /CONSOLIDATION FOR BRADLEY H. WHITE FOR "GLEASON NORTHSHORE" FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1271 AND 1273 BLACK OAKS COURT (90040)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Lot Division /Consolidation for
Bradley H. White for "Gleason Northshore" located at 1271 and 1273 Black Oaks
Court;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the following
conditions to be met prior to recording of, and related to said lot
division /consolidation:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Lot division /consolidation is filed with Hennepin County.
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR BRADLEY H. WHITE FOR
GLEASON NORTHSHORE" LOCATED AT 1271 AND 1273 BLACK OAKS COURT (90040)
WHEREAS, Bradley H. White has requested approval for a Conditional Use Permit
and Variance for property located 1271 and 1273 Black Oaks Court; 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
Bradley H. White for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for "Gleason
Northshore" for property located at 1271 and 1273 Black Oaks Court, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
3. No building permit to be issued until the lot division /consolidation is
filed and recorded with Hennepin County.
4. Building permits for the deck /porch additions shall be issued only after
evidence of title to the underlying land is provided.
5. Compliance with applicable conditions of resolutions 81 -718.
S Uo UUU UUolsls
LC)CATION MAP a
Q 0040 s
a:. GOVT LOT 5
2615.68 RES
r' 13 (55)
I (93) 13 13 (
t 0 e n
e94)
12Le92) a ( ( 5
29) (
18) -
117 3 1.91 t2 (99) - • 5 (66) -
196 274.21 (96) ., (61)
8• (
31.22
o 'b ( 1
r i
o_ (
19) _ 964) 8 x'2
1 te0.01
95 I
t00 100 100 100 I10 $ 0.
164.41 NQq• •2YE _
96 117.11,
1 o N69.31.06•E n ~ •
APT am No 112 °
1 2 3 , (
7),
GLEASON NOR7N W"IN(w _ R (3) - (4) - (5) (6) d ,
160 41 10 100 100 100
2) _ 2 A `
e.
107) ~ 7 e
2 ^ - (80) 47.73 109) 1 (14) (12) y a te) (e) 43
1
3) ( i 3 : q 21 ( 13 12 11
1° (
n) (t0) • t
n
n (1)
ISO ` ^ 2 _ (16) (171 n
e1 3 =
iJ " 5 6 u (
A(X OAKS
105) a ,1 1 - (16)16 (24)
VAC n IT 22 ttb) (Z) -
N (106) o (16) 1
18 20 -~
4 (
82) a e (
20) (29) (::) (48)
cM
49) 26
1 4( 33 134) (33) r+
3 170= (44) 43 (46)
170- N 36 41 42
N69.31 .E ^ (
x(
43)
is
f +r+a ..ri. _
3p (42) leo) 16 (y)
a (31)
1401 I41) (ee)
t _c Na7.30•r
Ie4) G1
p mm
PART Of LIT 5 ELK 1 21 1
22 Q (se) Ism 3
l0T 6 S e I (!s) 13
2-3
2. m (
54
1
1j
41171)
M-1 v' 69 (
631 25 -1 (33) 10 °
l7
5(1771
N 13i)
Q J • • (69) 26 p (Y) 6(1lwpt'
70 69
28
7 hs1
3 -
36
31172) 30 32 33 34 (171
o
k
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of
the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Winnesota was he-TT on the
7th day of July , 19 81 . The following members were
present. M or Davenport, Councilme m ers Neils, Schneider. and Threinen
The following men ers were absent: ounce mem er o
rrr rrr rwr
Councilmember Neils introduced the following Resolution and
move is adoption: "
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -718
APPROVING AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
MAURICE MCCAFFREY FOR "GLEASON NORTHSHORE CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED EAST OF
DUNKIRK LANE AND NORTH OF GLEASON LAKE (A -752)
WHEREAS, the City Council under Resolutions 77 -577, -578, and -579 approved
the Final Plat and Conditional Use Site Plan for the "Gleason North Condominium
Project" for Maurice McCaffrey consisting of 18 condominium units; and,
WHEREAS, Maurice McCaffrey has requested approval of an amended site plan
and preliminary plat related to a redesign of the fourteen condominium units
which remain to be developed on the site located north of Gleason Lake and
east of Dunkirk Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called
public hearing and has recommended approval
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the amended site plan and
preliminary plat for Maurice McCaffrey for "Gleason Northshore Condominiums"
consisting of fourteen condominium units subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. No building permits to be issued until the final plat is
filed and recorded with Hennepin County.
3. The development is subject to previous approvals of
site plans and Development Contracts per Council Resolution
No. 77 -577, 77 -578, and 77 -579.
4. The amended Homeowners Association bylaws shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
5. Any landscaping materials displaced shall be relocated and /or
replaced on the site in kind.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Schneider , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: _Mayor Davenport, Councilmembers Neils,
Schneider, and Threinen
The following voted against or abstained: none
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly-passed and adopted.
rrr •rr rrr
5'6 60
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: July 6, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 11, 1990
FILE NO.: 90052
PETITIONER: Ryan Construction Company
REQUEST: Land Use Guide Plan Amendment, Amended Mixed Planned Unit
Development Preliminary Plan /Plat /Conditional Use Permit,
Rezoning and MPUD Final Site Plan /Plat.
LOCATION: Northeast quadrant of 6th Avenue North (Highway 55 North
Service Drive) and Revere Lane (the former "DeVac" site)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CL (Limited business)
ZONING: MPUD 86 -1
BACKGROUND:
In June of 1988, by Resolution 88 -308, the City Council approved a Planned
Unit Development Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Ryan
Construction Company for "Waterford Park Plaza," including this site. In
August of 1988 the City Council by Resolution 88 -508 approved a Planned Unit
Development Final Plat and Development Contract which included this site as an
Outlot, and therefore subject to future replatting.
The foregoing MPUD plan approvals were responsive to an MPUD Concept Plan
including this site that was approved in August of 1987, to include an amended
Land Use Guide Plan for this vicinity. The Land Use Guide Plan amendment
changed a portion of this area from IP (Planned Industrial) to CS (Service
Business) and a portion from IP (Planned Industrial) to CL (Limited Business).
This series of applications proposes to reclassify 1.2 acres of the CL guided
property to CS; amend the MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use
Permit to create a 1.2 acre restaurant site (Class II) on the reguided area of
the PUD plan; change the underlying zoning for this site to substitute B -3 for
the existing B -1; and a MPUD Final Plat /Final Site Plan for a Class II
restaurant of 3,490 square feet.
Notice of this Public Hearing was published in the Official City Newspaper and
mailed to all property owners within five hundred feet. A development sign
has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
I. Land Use Guide Plan
K
A. The application materials for an amendment to the Land Use Guide Plan
provide for the applicant to respond to a series of issues related to the
request. The applicant has responded to those issues in his "Development
Narrative" dated June, 1990, received by the City of Plymouth June 14,
1990.
B. The application checklist also specifies eight items to be addressed in
Staff Reports for each application to amend the Comprehensive Land Use
Guide Plan Element Map, as follows:
1. Is the locational criteria of both the existing and proposed
classifications satisfied by the specific site?
A key element of the CL locational criteria is the "Gateway"
component. This site continues to function as one of the premier
Gateways" to the city of.Plymouth. This factor is acknowledged by
the petitioner in his narrative with respect to the locational
criteria. Primarily on the "Gateway" basis the existing CL guiding
of the site better responds to the development locational criteria
than the proposed CS classification.
2. Can the site be reasonably developed under the current
classification?
The applicant states that the current CL classification does not
allow a Class II restaurant. The CL classification does, however,
permit Class I restaurants as Conditional Uses and a variety of
other uses are permitted or conditional. The site can reasonably be
developed under the current classification, but the development that
would be permitted under that classification may not fit the
specific use that the developer currently has for the site.
3. Is there a lack of developable property in the same classification
as that which is being proposed? If so, is the proposed expansion
supported by the Comprehensive Planned Community Structure Concept?
There is undeveloped or underdeveloped property within the CS
classification existing north of Highway 55 between South Shore
Drive and West Medicine Lake Boulevard. In addition, there is
undeveloped property in the CS classification at the northwest
corner of State Highway 55 and Interstate 494. Finally, there are
substantial areas of undeveloped land of CS classification within
the 1,600 acre area of the City of Plymouth lying west of Vicksburg
Lane and north of County Road 24 that has recently become eligible
for development by planned extension of Trunk Sanitary Sewer.
The need for areas of CS guiding is best addressed on a community -
wide basis, and therefore the current availability of undeveloped
land in that category can be addressed on that community -wide basis
as well.
4. Will other undeveloped property, in the classification proposed for
this site, be adversely affected by this action? Will other
developed property in the proposed classification, which might be
subject to redevelopment /rehabilitation, be adversely affected by
this action?
A significant area of undeveloped /underdeveloped property in this
classification exists between South Shore Drive and West Medicine
Lake Boulevard. The redevelopment of this general area could be
adversely affected by the creation of additional CS guided property
as proposed by this application. In addition, the proposed Class II
restaurant use for the site proposed for reclassification is an
eligible use within the CR Land Use Classification. CR guided and
B -2 zoned parcels, both candidates for redevelopment and
undeveloped, exist throughout the community, and specifically south
of Highway 55 between County Road 73 and West Medicine Lake Drive.
5. How does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of the
owner, proponent, or prospective developer of the site?
The applicant states that the proposed restaurant would provide a
service to this neighborhood not adequately provided. There is
presently vacant commercial space in the adjoining shopping center,
as well as existing restaurants in the area between this site and
West Medicine Lake Drive. It is difficult to measure the "adequacy"
of such restaurant facilities for the neighborhood. There is no
apparent community demand for additional facilities.
6. How does the proposal demonstrate that the new classification would
be the highest and best use of the site? What is the public need or
community benefit?
The applicant states that the public need and highest and best use
for this site relates to the relative lack of restaurant facilities
in this area of the community. The applicant also states that the
introduction of another CS -type use is a positive element in a
Gateway" concept of the community. The point at which community
response in terms of Land Use Reclassification is appropriate based
on a perceived need for a nonessential use such as restaurant
facilities is not clear. There have been no complaints directed at
the City of which we are aware with respect to a lack of Class II
restaurant facilities in the southeast quadrant of the community.
The Land Use Guide Plan text specifies CL (Limited Business) as the
most appropriate Land Use Guiding at "Gateway" points of our
community. This application proposes changing existing CL to the
proposed CS contrary to that Guide Plan finding.
7. What impact will the proposed change have upon the several
Comprehensive Plan elements?
a. Transportation. In a report from the City Traffic Consultant
dated June 26, 1990, it is found that the traffic that would
result from the Land Use Guide Plan change proposed would be
approximately four percent greater than from the Land Use Guide
Plan Classification that now exists on the site. The four
percent change is not considered to be significant.
b. Sanitary Sewer. As noted in the applicant's narrative sanitary
sewer flow for the CS use will be less than that which would
result from CL of the same site.
c. Storm Drainage, Municipal Water, Housing, Capital Permits
Program, Official Controls, City Parks and Open Spaces. No
significant changes from the reguiding from CL to CS are
expected with these Comprehensive Plan elements.
II. Amended MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat /Conditional Use Permit
A. The Zoning Ordinance Planned Unit Development section specifies that the
Planning Commission make its recommendation with respect to a new or
amended PUD Preliminary Plan based on the compatibility with the purposes
and intent of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance; the relationship of
the plan to the neighborhood in which it is proposed, to the City's
Comprehensive Plan, and to other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; and,
the internal organization and adequacy of various uses and densities,
circulation and parking facilities, and recreational areas /open space.
1. The applicant, in his narrative, does discuss the relationship of the
plan amendment to the PUD attributes. Of significance in that
discussion is the statement that the "same brick will be used on Arby's
as on the existing retail center." In addition to this finding the
applicant makes no statements with respect to additional response of
the PUD plan to the PUD attributes as a result of the proposed
amendment.
2. The proposed MPUD amended Preliminary Plan includes the following
proposals for modifying the dimensional standards of the B -3 Zoning
District to accommodate the restaurant facility proposed in the plan
amendment:
a. Parking setback to the east side property line proposed to be five
feet versus the Ordinance standard of twenty feet.
b. Drive aisle setback to the east property line proposed at a minimum
of two feet versus the Ordinance standard of fifteen feet.
c. Drive aisle setback to the west property line of ten feet versus the
Ordinance standard of fifteen feet.
These setback issues are most appropriate for Final Site Plan review
stages. They are addressed here to suggest the Preliminary Plat /Plan may
propose a site that is too small for the proposed use.
B. The proposed PUD plan amendment parallels the Land Use Guide Plan
amendment discussed above. The applicant proposes changing a portion of
the plan from one hundred percent office utilization to a combination
restaurant (1.2 acres) and reduced scale office use (4.79 acres).
C. The applicant, in his narrative, provides response to the six Conditional
Use Permit standards found in Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance and which
are to form the basis for the issuance of any Conditional Use Permit.
D. The relationship of the proposed Preliminary Plan to the development and
circulation of the existing Waterford Park Plaza Shopping Facility is
discussed in detail in the memorandum of the City Engineer. To avoid
traffic circulation conflicts, careful attention must be paid to the
specific geometric design of roadway and access improvement related to
this proposed plan amendment. Additional detail in that regard is
addressed in the review of the MPUD Final Site Plan.
E. The Preliminary Plat proposed divides the existing Outlot A of "Waterford
Park Plaza" into two lots, each with public street frontage and of
sufficient size to qualify as either B -1 (Limited Business) or B -3
Service Business) lots by dimensional characteristics.
III.MPUD Final Plat and Site Plan
A. Except as noted above with respect to requested MPUD Preliminary Plan
dimensional modifications, the proposed MPUD Final Site Plan meets City
Ordinance and Policy requirements with respect to site design features.
Specifically (except as noted above) structure and parking setbacks and
design are consistent with requirements, including vehicle stacking for
the drive -up window; the landscape plan meets the standards of the
Plymouth Landscape Policy; trash will be stored both within the principal
structure and in an enclosure constructed consistent with Zoning Ordinance
specifications; rooftop mechanical equipment will be fully screened by the
parapet extension; and all signage is consistent with the specifications
of the Zoning Ordinance. Denial of the requested site modification would
result in a need to resign the Site Plan.
B. Applicant states that the exterior will be of primarily brick in a color
and style identical to the existing Waterford Park Shopping Center located
adjacent to the site. The architectural design, including roof detail, is
also similar to the existing center. The proposed Site Plan meets the
standards of the City Council Resolution regarding architectural design
and site aesthetics.
C. The City Engineer, together with the City's Consulting Traffic Engineer,
make a series of recommendations with respect to Site Plan modifications
involving access and circulation. We understand that it may be the
intention of the applicant to modify his Site Plan to relocate the primary
access to the site to 6th Avenue North consistent with one of the
suggestions made by the City Engineer. No amended Site Plans have been
submitted as of the date of this Staff Report reflecting such changes.
The petitioner understood that the traffic study would dictate changes to
Site Plans and possibly the Environmental Assessment Workseet (see
letter). The petitioner has been advised that new revised plans should
not be presented to the City other than through the prescribed plan review
process.
D. The PUD Final Plan and Plat propose no changes from the proposed MPUD
Preliminary Plan and Plat.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. No clear public purpose has been presented by the petitioner or can be
found by staff to support a need to reclassify the subject site from CL
Limited Business) to CS (Service Business) other than the applicant's
contention that a need exists for additional restaurant facilities in this
quadrant of the community -- specifically Class II restaurants. While we
cannot quantitatively dispute the contention of need, we can observe that
we have not received comments or complaints from residents or employees of
the community that service business, specifically Class II restaurants,
are in short supply, and that our comprehensive plan should be amended to
rectify that situation.
During the original Land Use Guide Plan amendment process involving the
Waterford Park Plaza site discussion included consideration of this area
as a "Gateway" to the City of Plymouth because of its high visibility
location at State Highway 55 and State Highway 169. The Land Use Guide
Plan text specifically mentions a positive relationship between CL
Limited Business) guiding and "Gateway" locations within our community.
The CL guiding that exists is more appropriate.
2. Other parcels exist within reasonable proximity of this site -- both
developed and undeveloped -- that could be negatively affected by the
creation of additional CS guiding. In addition, with a specific PUD plan
depicting use of the CS guided site as a Class II restaurant location we
observe that CR sites in this area of the community could also be impacted
by the reclassification proposed. We do not find a lack of developable
property within this quadrant of the community that would support the use
that is proposed responsive to the Guide Plan reclassification applied
for.
3. The applications for an MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat /Conditional Use Permit
and an MPUD Final Plat and Site Plan were submitted concurrent with the
application for the Land Use Guide Plan amendment for this site. These
actions were taken by the applicant with full realization that, should the
Land Use Guide Plan amendment not be successful, the other two application
steps would be without purpose.
Should the Planning Commission and City Council concur in staff findings
with respect to the Land Use Guide Plan amendment, no further action is
necessary or should be taken with respect to the MPUD Preliminary
Plan /Plat /Conditional Use Permit and MPUD Final Plat /Plan applications.
4. Should the Planning Commission find the proposed Land Use Guide Plan
amendment appropriate and recommend approval, we find the proposed MPUD
amended Preliminary Plan /Plat /Conditional Use Permit to be responsive to
the Zoning Ordinance and related City Code standards except with respect
to those Zoning Ordinance dimensional modifications that have been
requested We note that parking and /or drive aisle setback modification is
requested on both the east and west sides of the proposed site. With the
entire Outlot A of "Waterford Park Plaza" available from which to carve a
site to locate this Class II restaurant, we can observe little purpose for
the setback flexibility that is being requested.
This is a new site and there is sufficient adjacent land to fully
accommodate the anticipated use by enlarging this one. The dimensional
modifications are not warranted.
5. Related to the design of the site, the Fire Chief has recommended that
variances requested to eliminate a fire lane along the south and east
sides of the proposed structure be denied. If that denial is sustained by
the City Council the service lane to the drive -up window will be required
to function as a fire lane as well. Both the inside turning radius and
the width of this lane will be required to be increased if it is to serve
as a fire lane. This would further negatively impact the Site Plan with
respect to setback deviations from the Zoning Ordinance standard.
6 An agreement entered into between Ryan Construction Company and the City
of Plymouth provides that the access to the "Waterford Park Plaza Shopping
Center" shall be moved easterly at such time as traffic warrants that
relocation to allow the extension of the existing median in 6th Avenue
North further easterly by approximately one hundred feet.
This relocation can be accomplished without encroachment upon the
restaurant site, but will likely result in the relocated driveway being in
very close proximity to the restaurant site property line. We find that
this future design feature will result in parallel but opposite direction
traffic lane in very close proximity, and little landscaping to separate
asphalt areas and traffic movements. The full setback for parking or
drive areas should be provided along the west property line of the
restaurant site to mitigate this future proximity problem.
7 Subject to our comments noted above and the traffic engineering concerns,
the MPUD Final Site Plan will require modification as well. With the
modifications suggested above, the MPUD Final Site Plan would be
responsive to the amended MPUD Preliminary Plan and the applicable
provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance and City Code with respect to
the type plan designed.
If no changes are made in the Site Plan with respect to the direction of
the primary access to the site, the City Engineer's recommendations with
respect to modifications to the existing access point should be included
in any approval recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend denial of the Land Use Guide Plan amendment requested based on
findings noted in the Draft Resolution for denial which is attached.
Consistent with prior practice we have also included a Resolution of approval
for the Land Use Guide Plan amendment subject to the usual conditions,
including concurrence by the Metropolitan Council.
Should the Staff Recommendation for denial of the Land Use Guide Plan
amendment be concurred on by the Planning Commission, no action with respect
to the MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat /Conditional Use Permit and MPUD Final Site
Plan will be taken. The applications, on their face, are inappropriate
because a Land Use Guiding of the site will not support the Plan amendment and
Site Plan proposed.
Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Land Use Guide Plan
amendment proposed, consideration of the rezoning and MPUD Preliminary
Plan /Plat /Conditional Use Permit are appropriate. We recommend that the
Preliminary and Final Plans /Plats and Conditional Use Permits be approved
subject to access adjustments recommended by the City Engineer and the
movement of the easterly property line sufficient to provide the Ordinance
standard parking and /or drive aisle setbacks on the east and west sides of the
site. We find no basis for the Zoning Ordinance dimensional modifications.
If a reommendation is made for approval of the Preliminary Plan, consideration
of the MPUD Final Site Plan is appropriate.
Resolutions are attached providing for denial of the Land Use Guide Plan
amendment, approval of the Land Use Guide Plan amendment, approval of the MPUD
Preliminary Plan /Plat /Conditional Use Permit, and approval of the MPUD Final
Plat /Final Site
Submitted by:
s L. umeY-w;,uommunity ueveiopment worainator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution denying Land Use Guide Plan amendment
2 Resolution approving Land Use Guide Plan amendment
3. Resolution approving amended MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat /Conditional Use
Permit
4. Resolution approving MPUD Final Site Plan /Plat
5. Engineer's memo
6. Petitioner's narrative
7. City Council Resolution 88 -308 approving MPUD Preliminary
Plan /Plat /Conditional Use Permit
8. Planning Commission Minutes of May 25, 1988.
9. Location map
10. Approved MPUD Preliminary Plans and Plat
pc /cd /90052:rcr)
DENYING LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR
WATERFORD PARK PLAZA" LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF 6TH AVENUE NORTH
AND REVERE LANE (90052)
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company has requested approval for a Land Use Guide
Plan Amendment to reclassify 1.2 acres of property, a portion of Outlot A,
Waterford Park Plaza, located at the northeast quadrant of 6th Avenue North
and Revere Lane, from CL (Limited Business) to CS (Service Business); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the request following a duly
scheduled public hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the reclassification
of land use guiding for Ryan Construction Company for "Waterford Park Plaza"
for approximately 1.2 acres located,at the northeast quadrant of 6th Avenue
North and Revere Lane, from CL (Limited Business) to CS (Service Business),
for the following reasons:
1. The existing classification (CL) is more responsive than the proposed
classification (CS) to the locational characteristics of the site,
specifically the "gateway" characteristic.
2. No lack of developed or undeveloped land of the CS classification has been
demonstrated.
3. Existing developed and undeveloped land in the CS and CR classification
will be negatively affected by this reclassification.
APPROVING LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR
WATERFORD PARK PLAZA" LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF 6TH AVENUE NORTH
AND REVERE LANE (90052) (MPUD 86 -1)
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company has requested approval for a Land Use Guide
Plan Amendment to reclassify property located at the northeast uadrant of 6th
Avenue North and Revere Lane, from CL (Limited Business) to CS ?Service
Business); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the request following a duly
scheduled public hearing and has recommended approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the
reclassification of land use guiding for Ryan Construction Company for
Waterford Park Plaza" for approximately 1.2 acres located at the northeast
quadrant of 6th Avenue North and Revere Lane, from CL (Limited Business) to CS
Service Business), subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall gain approval of landscape and site plans within
one year of City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan and Land
Use Guide Plan Amendment.
2. Concurrence of the Metropolitan Council.
3. Development shall take place consistent with plans approved for this
site as MPUD 86 -1.
APPROVING AMENDED MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN /PLAT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR "WATERFORD PARK
PLAZA" LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF 6TH AVENUE NORTH AND REVERE LANE
90052)
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company has re uested approval for an Amended Mixed
Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Plat and Conditional Use Permit for
Waterford Park Plaza" to change 1.2 acres of Outlot H from office use to
Class II restaurant use, located at the northeast quadrant of 6th Avenue North
and Revere Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the 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 Amended Mixed Planned Unit Development
Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit for "Waterford Park Plaza"
located at the northeast quadrant of 6th Avenue North and Revere Lane, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Rezoning shall be finalized with the filing of the Final Plat.
3. No building permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
4. Compliance with the applicable conditions of Resolutions 88 -308 and 88-
508.
5. Final Plat mylars shall refer to MPUD 86 -1.
6. Cross easements for access shall be submitted and recorded with Lot 1,
Block 1, Waterford Park Plaza.
APPROVING MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN /PLAT FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY FOR "WATERFORD PARK PLAZA "LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF 6TH
AVENUE NORTH AND REVERE LANE (90052)
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company has requested approval for a Mixed Planned
Unit Development Final Plan /Plat for "Waterford Park Plaza" located at the
northeast quadrant of 6th Avenue North and Revere Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the 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 a Mixed Planned Unit Development Final Plan /Plat
for "Waterford Park Plaza" located at the northeast quadrant of 6th Avenue
North and Revere Lane.
FURTHER, that the Development Contract for said plat be approved, and that the
Mayor and City Manager be authorized to execute the Development Contract on
behalf of the City.
pc /res /90052.fp)
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO MIXED PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAT /PLAN FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR "WATERFORD
PARK PLAZA "LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF 6TH AVENUE NORTH AND REVERE
LANE (90052)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Mixed Planned Unit Development
Final Plat /Plan and Development Contract for Ryan Construction Company for
Waterford Park Plaza" located at the northeast quadrant of 6th Avenue North
and Revere Lane;
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
conditions 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. Submittal of required utility and drainage easements as approved by the
City Engineer prior to filing the Final Plat.
4. No building permits to be issued until the Final Plat is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
5. The Final Plat mylars shall contain a statement noting that the plat is
part of the approved MPUD 86 -1 per Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
6. The Development Contract, as approved by the City Council, shall be fully
executed prior to release of the Final Plat.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: July 5, 1990
FILE NO.: 90052
PETITIONER: Mr. Bill McHale, Ryan Const. Co. of MN., Inc., 700 International
Centre, 900 2nd Ave. So., Minneapolis, MN 55402
SITE PLAN: ARBY'S
LOCATION: North of 6th Ave., east of Revere Lane, in the southeast 1/4 of
Section 36
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. _ X _ Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. _ X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and
No. 2•
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Site Plan approval:
4. Area assessments estimated - None
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None
LEGAL /EASEMENTS /PERMITS:
N/A Yes No
6. _ _ X Property is one parcel -
The approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot
consolidation be approved by the City Council and the necessary
resolution should be processed at the same time as the site plan
approval. Will comply with the filing of the final plat of
Waterford Park Plaza 2nd Additio
N/A Yes No
7. _ _ X Complies with standard utility /drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in
width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required
it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents
executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any
building permits.) See Item No. 6
8. X _ _ Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100
year high water elevation and conformance with the City's
comprehensive storm water requirements.
9. X All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities.
N/A Yes No
10. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way
to facilitate the development. It should be noted that this
vacation is not an automatic process in conjunction with the
platting process. It is entirely dependent upon the City receiving
a petition for the vacation from the property owner; therefore, it
is their responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated.
11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
2-
UTILITIES AND TRAFFIC:
N/A Yes No
12. _ _ X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR X Bassett Creek
MN DOT Minnehaha Creek
Hennepin County Elm Creek
X MPCA Shingle Creek
State Health Department Army Corps of Engineers
Other
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
13. _ _ X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The site plan will be submitted to the City's consulting engineer
for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations
shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The grading and drainage
plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary: The storm
sewer system shall be redesigned so that it drains toward the
shopping center as shown on previous plans. The system at 6th Ave.
N. is not sized to handle the runoff from this site. This will also
eliminate the flat slopes of the storm sewer pipes 0.25. R -3067
Catch basin casting assemblies shall be used for the storm sewer in
the parking lot.
N/A Yes No
14. _ X _ Necessary fire hydrants provided -
The City of Plymouth requires that all parts of a building such as
the one proposed be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant. It will be
necessary to locate hydrants in such a manner that the site plan
complies with this section of the City Ordinance.
15. _ X Size and type of material proposed in utility systems has been
provided
The utility plan shall be revised to indicate the size and type of
material required in the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain services
and storm sewer.
16. _ X Post indicator valve - fire department connection
It will be necessary to locate the post indicator valve in such a
manner that it will not render any of the existing fire hydrants
inoperable.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. _ X Hydrant valves provided -
All new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City
Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W -2. This plate should be
referenced on the site plan.
18. X _ Sanitary sewer clean -outs provided -
It will be necessary to provide clean -outs on the proposed internal
sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot intervals.
19. X _ Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
N/A Yes No
20. _ X All existing street right -of -ways are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required on
21. _ X _ Complies with site drainage requirements -
The City will not permit drainage onto a City street from a private
parking lot; therefore, the site plan shall be revised accordingly.
4-
N/A Yes No
22. _ X Curb and gutter provided -
The City requires B -612 concrete curb and gutter at all entrances
and where drainage must be controlled, Curb Stone may be used where
it is not necessary to control drainage. For traffic control either
B -612 or curb stone is required around the bituminous surfaced
parking lot. The site plan shall be revised to indicate compliance
with this requirement.
23. _ X _ Complies with parking lot standards -
The City will require that all traveled areas within the parking
lot, as well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a
7 -ton standard City design with six inches of Class 5 100% crushed
limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one -half inches
of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be
constructed to a standard 5 -ton design consisting of four inches of
Class 5 100% crushed base and two inch bituminous mat. The site
plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with these
requirements.
STANDARDS:
N/A Yes No
24. _ X It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility
foreman,
24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to
the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The developer shall
also be responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the Public Works
Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the
City's right -of -way. All connections to the water system shall be
via wet tap.
25. _ X The City will require reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer,
water service and storm sewer As- Builts for the site prior to
occupancy permits being granted.
26. X The site plan complies with the City of Plymouth's current
Engineering Standards Manual. Note Item No's 6. 7. 12, 13, and 26.
5-
um i zloimiI
27. A. The following modifications shall be made to the main driveway entrance into
this site (see attached drawing):
1. Move the entrance approximately 30 feet further from 6th Ave.
2. Provide a right turn de- acceleration lane from the main driveway into the
shopping center for the driveway entrance into Arby's site.
3. Construct concrete curb and gutter and close the drive isle entrance from
the existing parking lot opposite the new access to Arby's.
B. The Site Plan shall include all existing utilities by size and type on the
strip shopping center site.
C. The watermain shall be considered private and will not be maintained by the
City.
D. Cross easements will be required for utilities and driveways.
E. The drainage and utility easements shall be 20 feet wide over the sanitary
sewer only.
Submitted by:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
N .a cn V' o.
O
IM
C W I
I
Q M
is ` .•
I w
v
d cm
M r 1•
c
o
J
s- 61 of
NJI
a --
0
f -
1;
i
W1
3 { ;
I
r _
1 r
f _ isv ....__.
Y f
L
l
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: July 2, 1990
FILE NO.: 90052
PETITIONER: Mr. Bill McHale, Ryan Const. Co. of MN., Inc., 700 International
Centre, 900 2nd Ave. So., Minneapolis, MN 55402
FINAL PLAT: WATERFORD PARK PLAZA 2ND ADDITION
LOCATION: East of Revere Lane, north of 6th Ave. in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 36
N/A Yes No
1. _ X _ Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. _ X _ Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits
are issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No
1 and No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are
reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that
in effect at the time of final plat approval.
4. Area assessments: Hone
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None
N/A Yes No
6. _ X _ Complies with standard utility /drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet
10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width
adjoining side and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
T
7. X All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The City will require twenty foot (201)
utility and drainage
easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines where these
utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been
reviewed with the final construction plans and the following
changes are necessary:
8. X _ _ Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100
year high water elevation and conformance with the City's
comprehensive storm water drainage plan.
9. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights -of -way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements /right -of -way
to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process
in conjunction with the platting process. It is the owner's
responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions
of easements proposed to be vacated.
10. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to
the City with this application - If it is subsequently determined
that the subiect property is abstract property, then this
requirement does not apply.
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the city
attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the
11. _ _ X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR X Bassett Creek
Mn DOT Minnehaha Creek
Hennepin County Elm Creek
X MPCA Shingle Creek
State Health Department Army Corps of Engineers
Other
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
2 -
N/A Yes No
12. X
13. X
14. X_
Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the
City grid system for street names. The following changes will be
necessary.
Conforms with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's
adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/ deceleration lanes are required at the intersection
of and
15. _ X _ All existing street rights -of -way are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required on
UTILITIES:
N/A Yes No
16. _ X Conforms with City standards requiring the developer to construct
utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the developer shall be
responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water,
storm sewer and streets needed to serve this plat. A registered
professional engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the
proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and
streets to serve the development.
3 -
N/A Yes No
17. _ X _ Final utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements -
The developer has submitted the required construction plans for
the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities;
and has also furnished profiles of these utilities as well as the
proposed street system (public and private).
18. x _ _ Per developer's request final plans will be prepared by the City.
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities
as part of its Capital Improvements Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1
of the year preceding construction, if the developer is paying
100% of the cost.
19. x _ _ Minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots.
20. X The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
21. x _ _ The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
4 -
N/A Yes No
22. _ x It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's public
utility foreman, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed
utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water
systems. The developer shall also be responsible for contacting
Jim Kolstad of the Public Works Department for an excavating
permit prior to any digging within the City right -of -way. All
water connections shall be via wet tap.
N/A Yes No
23. _ _ X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted
to the City's consulting engineer for review to see if it is in
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan.
All of their recommendations shall be incorporated in a revised
plan. The grading and drainage plan shall also indicate proposed
methods of erosion control, including the placement of silt fence
in strategic locations. Additionally, the following revisions
will be necessary: Shall comply with Bassett Creek permit
24. A. A curb cut relocation agreement was signed by RNWNL on August 16, 1988. This
Final Plat shall comply with the conditions noted in the agreement.
B. The cost estimate for the sanitary sewer and watermain shall be submitted.
C. The watermain shall be considered private and will not be maintained by the
City.
D. Cross easements will be required for utilities and driveways.
E. The drainage and utility easements shall be 20 feet wide over the sanitary
sewer only.
Submitted by:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
5 -
M0 —
uN 1
lggo
VAY OF avIOPME
O Pt.
MUwv
Development Narrative
Waterford Park Plaza 2nd Addition
Arby's
Plymouth, Minnesota
Developer /Applicants
Ryan Construction Company
Arby's
June, 1990
Introduction
Waterford Park Plaza was approved as a M.P.U.D. (Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development) in 1988. It was an expansion of the Waterford Park /Groves Office
Park M.P.U.D. adjacent to the east. The Waterford Park Plaza involved a
reguiding /rezoning from Industrial Park to a mix of Service Business (CS /B -3
Retail Zoning) and Limited Business (CL /B -1 Office Zoning). Initial
construction consisted of the retail /CS on the undeveloped portion of the site
and the existing Devac Company remained in operation on the office -CL site.
Recently, Devac moved and the building was raized thereby opening the site for
development.
The proposal is for development of an Arby's restaurant (3,490 sq. ft.) on 1.2
acres of the 4.79 acre CL- office site (currently approved for an 80,000 sq.
ft. office building). The remaining 3.59 acre site would remain as a limited
business (CL /B -1) parcel and with approximately 60,000 sq. ft. of office space
anticipated to be developed.
1
Land Use Guide Plan Amendment
1. Demonstrate that locational criteria of both the existing and proposed
classifications are satisfied by the specific site.
A. Existing CL- Limited Business Classification
1. The site is adjacent to the T.H. 55 (Intermediate Arterial)
frontage road and near the signalized intersection of T.H.
55 and Revere /Quaker Lanes. Revere Lane and the frontage
road are defined as major collectors and provide alternate
access routes to intersections at 13th Ave. /T.H. 169 and
Southshore Drive /T.H. 55 (via 10th Ave.). Therefore the site
has both access and exposure.
2. Industrial property is north of the Waterford M.P.U.D.
across Bassetts Creek. High density residential is nearby
but not adjacent, lying south across T.H. 55 and to the
northwest across 10th Avenue.
3. The site is within the Waterford M.P.U.D. and adjacent to
the Prime West project - both major commercial (office and
retail) centers.
4. The site is located at a major gateway intersection to
Plymouth (T.H. 55 & T.H. 169).
B. Proposed CS - Service Business Classification
1. The site is near the intersection of Revere Lane and T.H. 55
providing excellent access and exposure as required by a
retail use of this type.
2. The use is adjacent to the existing Waterford Park Plaza
Retail Center (CS Building) and Waterford Park Office
Center. Industrial land is to the north.
3. Residential land is nearby but not adjacent to the site
lying both south of T.H. 55 and to the northwest.
2. Can the site by reasonably developed under the current classification
and why should it change?
The current CL classification does not allow a class II
restaurant. The proposed use is allowed as a conditional use
within the CS classification. The change would be compatible with
and a logical extension of the adjacent CS retail center.
2
3. Is there lack of developable property in the same classification as that
proposed?
There is some other CS land (other than Waterford Park Plaza
Retail Center) in the southeast portion of the City but it is
limited and essentially developed. The nearest similar uses are at
T.H. 55/494, T.H. 169 /Medicine Lake Rd. (Golden Valley) and T.H.
55 /Winnetka Ave. (Golden Valley). The proposed use is supported by
the community structure concept.
It would provide service to adjacent retail /office parks with ease
of access by the private trail system (Waterford Park) or auto.
The location adjacent to the existing retail center would also
provide convenient access to people within the Bassett Creek
walking /driving neighborhood, adjacent portions of the West
Medicine Lake neighborhood, parts of Golden Valley and
destination /through trips on Highway 55.
4. Will other underdeveloped property in this classification proposed for
this site be adversely affected by this action?
There is a small 1 acre CS site within Waterford Park Place which
has been identified as a future branch bank facility. There would
be no adverse affect.
Is there other developed property in the classification proposed
for this site which may be subject to redevelopment or
rehabilitation?
There should be no adverse affects. Additional development may
stimulate redevelopment activity for other CS land in the acre
near Shoreline Drive and T.H. 55. It will also compliment and
provide additional exposure for the uses in the existing retail
center.
5. Demonstrate that this proposal has merits beyond the owner, proponent or
prospective developer of the site.
The proposed restaurant would have benefit to the
residential /commercial /industrial uses in the area by providing
convenience and access to this type of use. The neighborhood has
very limited access to this type of use in the area.
3
6. Demonstrate that the new classification would be the highest and best
use of the site. What is the public need or community benefit?
Restaurant uses are limited in this area. This proposed use would
help fill that void. This is especially true given the large
amount of office, retail and industrial space in the area and need
to provide these uses with convenient lunch restaurant access. The
use will provide a needed mixed use diversification element to
this gateway area of the City which is compatible with the
adjacent existing uses.
7. What impact will the proposed change has upon various Comprehensive Plan
Elements?
A. Transportation - The peak use time for the proposed restaurant is
during the noon hour. There will be a slight increase in the p.m.
peak traffic hour volume (compared to the existing office
classification use) but impact is minimal especially when compared
to the overall traffic. See the attached memorandum.
B. Sanitary Sewer - Sanitary sewer flow for the proposed use is
expected to be less than one -half than for the proportional share
of office space that may have been built. See the attached memo.
C. Storm Drainage - Storm water storage and in -place storm sewer have
been designed to accommodate site runoff.
D. Municipal Water - An existing 12 inch watermain is adjacent to the
site. Water service to the site will loop with other watermain in
the area. Water service should be more than adequate.
E. Housing - No impact anticipated.
F. Capital improvement Program - No impact anticipated.
G. Parks and open space - No impact anticipated.
H. Official Controls (zoning, conditional use permit, P.U.D.
amendment, variances, subdivision, environmental).
1. The site will require a rezoning to B -3 to be compatible
with the proposed land use change. This has been requested
with this proposal.
Ll
2. The proposed use will require a conditional use permit under
the B -3 zoning. The conformance with standards in Section 9
of the zoning ordinance is as follows:
A. Compliance with the comprehensive plan - The site is
proposed to be reguided from CL to CS to allow the
intended use. Discussion regarding the Land Use
Amendment occurs elsewhere in this narrative.
B. Impact on general public welfare and the public
health, safety, morals or comfort - The proposed use
will enhance the general public welfare by providing a
needed type of use in the area. The proposed
restaurant is also regulated by other governmental
agencies such as the Department of Health. This type
of use would not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, morals or comfort.
C. Will the use be injurious or impact property values in
the area? - No. The proposed use will be compatible
and complimentary with adjacent uses. It will provide
a desirable service to uses within the area. Providing
compatible architectural detail (same brick as the
retail center), tasteful signage, appropriate
landscaping and other controls within the P.U.D. will
assure a compatible appearance with the adjacent
Waterford Park Plaza Retail Center and not impair
property values within the area.
D. Impact on orderly development - There is little to no
undeveloped B -3 land in the area. The proposed use
will not impede other development permitted within the
district.
E. Access - Primary site access will come from within the
Waterford Park Plaza Retail Center site. Its location
along the main entry to the Retail Center will allow
ease of site access while minimizing impact on and
maintaining appropriate ingress /egress to other uses
within the Center. A secondary site access will be
provided from /to the adjacent future office site when
that is developed.
F. Conformance to applicable regulations of the district
The site is within the Waterford Park M.P.U.D. The
proposed use will confirm with the various regulations
of the zoning ordinance or M.P.U.D. as appropriate.
5
3. P.U.D. Amendment
The proposed use will require an amendment to the existing
M.P.U.D. The P.U.D. is intended to provide flexibility in
development and design. Review of the expected attributes of
the P.U.D. as it relates to the proposed amended use is as
follows:
A. Benefits from new technology - The building design and
materials are intended to be compatible with the
adjacent retail center. The same brick will be used on
Arby's as on the existing retail center. The proposed
use is compatible with and a desirable supplement to
the adjacent area land uses and the Waterford M.P.U.D.
B. Registered architects, engineers, landscape architects
and trained site planners have prepared and reviewed
plans for the proposed restaurant use to assure
compatibility with the adjacent Retail Center.
C. Efficient use of infrastructure - The proposed site
development uses existing utilities and access. There
would be no additional cost for new public
improvements.
D. Recreational Facilities - There would be no need for
additional public or private recreational facilities.
The original M.P.U.D. provided for trails and common
open space within the area.
E. Preserve desirable site characteristics - There are
none to preserve. The proposed development will
improve the image and character of the previous land
use.
4. Variances
Two variances are requested as follows:
A. A variance to the standard parking /drive lane setbacks
is requested as part of the M.P.U.D. design
flexibility. Adjacent existing and proposed green
space will provide appropriate separation, transition
and buffering of uses within the M.P.U.D. Refer to the
proposed site plan for specific dimensions.
6
B. A variance is requested to a required fire lane
surrounding the proposed use. Fire access is available
to the north and west of the building through the
proposed parking lot on site. The fire department
connection is located on the north face of the
building along a posted fire lane and near a proposed
hydrant. Fire access from the south will be from
adjacent 6th Avenue where there is an existing
hydrant. Fire access to the east will be from a future
parking lot for the anticipated adjacent office
development.
The building is about 102 feet in length. Parking and
a drive -thru lane will surround the building giving
ease of access to the entire building from the
hydrants.
5. The site will require subdivision of the existing 4.79
outlot into 2 lots of 1.2 acres (for the proposed restaurant
and CS guiding and 3.59 acres (for office and existing CL
guiding).
6. There will be no environmental impact. The site was
previously used by the Devac Company. It does not have any
wetlands or other sensitive or desirable features.
7
Memorandum from Westwood Professional Services
Subject: Trip Generation Comparison Waterford Park Plaza
Date: June 14, 1990
Prepared By: Bruce Boje
The following table compares trip generation forecasts for the original
Waterford Plaza configuration and a modified Waterford Plaza. The modified
Waterford Plaza reduces an office building size from 80,000 square feet to
60,000 square feet and adds a 3,490 square foot Arby's Fast Food Restaurant.
The trip generation forecasts were based on the 4th Edition of the I.T.E. Trip
Generation report. The Arby's was assumed to have a drive -thru window.
TABLE 1
TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON -- WATERFORD PARK PLAZA
Based on I.T.E. Trip Generation Rates)
ORIGINAL PLAN
Rates - - -- - -- Trips - --
Land Use UNITS A.D.T. P.M. A.D.T. P.M.
Office 80.00 14.500 2.050 1160 164
Totals 1160 164
PROPOSED MODIFICATION
Rates - - -- - -- Trips - --
Land Use UNITS A.D.T. P.M. A.D.T. P.M.
Office 60.00 15.583 2.15 935 129
Restaurant (Drive thru) 3.49 632.125 33.257 2206 116
Totals 3141 245
A.D.T. - Average Daily Traffic Volume
P.M. - Peak Traffic Hour Volume
Increase in A.D.T. - Average Daily Traffic Volume - 1981
Increase in P.M. - Peak Traffic Hour Volume 81
Based on a study provided by Arby's and performed by Benshoof and Associates
in June of 1984, the average I.T.E. trip generation rate for fast -food
restaurants is greater than that of a typical Arby's. Trip data was collected
by Benshoof and Associates for two 2,900 square foot Arby's with drive -thru
windows located in the metropolitan area. The trip generation rate of the
collected data does fall within the I.T.E. trip generation rate range. The
results of the collected data indicated that an average of 50 inbound and 38
outbound trips were counted during the p.m. peak hour (4:45 - 5:45 p.m.). The
following table compares the collected data with the I.T.E. trip generation
data.
TABLE 2
Comparison of Trip Generation Data Collected by Benshoof & Assoc.
IN OUT TOTAL
Average of two 2900 square foot Arby's 50 38 88
Adjustment for Square Footage (3490/2900) 60 46 106
Collected Trip Generation Rates 17.19 13.18 30.37
I.T.E. Trip Generation Rates 33.26
Trip Reduction Factor
Arby's vs. Typical Fast Food .09
Arby's noted that the size of their restaurants does not affect the number of
transactions, and therefore does not affect trip generation. Arby's indicated
that the differences between 3,490 square foot and 2,900 square foot
restaurants are in the size of the kitchen and storage areas and that the
number of seats does not change. They did not expect that the number of
customers would change between these sizes. If the size change is not
considered, the trip reduction factor would be increased from .09 to .11. The
following analysis will use a .10 trip reduction factor.
Arby's also provided current data (May 1990) indicating the number of
transactions for a typical Plymouth restaurant. The data provided by Arby's
indicated that the average number of hourly transactions on a typical weekday
between 4 - 6 p.m. was 42. A worst -case assumption would assume that each
transaction generated an inbound and an outbound trip. It is reasonable to
assume that the number of trips that would occur during the peak hour would be
84, which compares closely with and further validates the data collected by
Benshoof and Associates.
As a result, a 10% trip reduction factor should be applied to the I.T.E. Trip
Generation Rates for Arby's versus a typical fast food restaurant.
TABLE 3
PROPOSED MODIFICATION ADJUSTED TRIP GENERATION RATE **
Rates - - -- - -- Trips - --
Land Use UNITS A.D.T. P.M. A.D.T. P.M.
Office 60.00 15.583 2.15 935 129
Restaurant (Drive thru) 3.49 568.91 29.93 1985 104
Totals 2920 233
Trip Generation Rate for Arby's reduced by 10%
from I.T.E. fast -food restaurant rate
Increase in A.D.T. - Average Daily Traffic Volume - 1760
Increase in P.M. - peak traffic hour volume 69
2
A sizable portion of traffic generated by fast -food restaurants is already on
the adjacent street and merely stops at the establishment in passing by (i.e.,
passer -by traffic). Research compiled by the Traffic Institute of
Northwestern Institute indicates that 45% of fast -food restaurant traffic is
already on the roadway. Although this factor won't decrease driveway counts,
the effect on the adjacent street is significantly less than would be expected
based purely on the trip generation forecasts.
A portion of the proposed Arby's trips will be generated within Waterford Park
Plaza development. To account for this type of phenomenon, SRF had applied a
15% trip reduction factor to the drive -in bank forecasts in their 1987 Traffic
Impact Study for Proposed Ryan Shopping Center /Office Development. A similar
trip reduction factor for Arby's seems appropriate. If a 154 trip reduction
factor is applied to Arby's, the increase in daily trips expected for the
modification is reduced from 1,760 to 1,463 and the increase in p.m. peak hour
trips is reduced from 69 to 53.
In their 1987 Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Ryan Shopping Center /Office
Development, SRF had forecast 30,215 daily trips and 3,829 p.m. peak hour
trips. The additional 1,463 daily trips amounts to a 4.8% daily increase and
the additional 53 p.m. peak hour trips amounts to an increase of 1.3 %.
3
June 13,1990
Memo
From: Dwight Jelle, P.E.
Re: Sanitary Sewer Flow Comparison for Plymouth Development
Waterford Park Plaza 2nd - Arby's
I have reviewed the proposed impact that the addition of a fast
food restaurant (Arby's) in lieu of anticipated 20,000 sq.ft.
reduction of general office space.
The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission estimates sewer flows
based on an equivalent number of SAC units. One SAC unit
represents 274 Gallons Per Day (GPD) of waste water.
The following information represents the data and information that
is proposed and contained in the 1983 version of MWCC's document.
General Office = 274 GPD /2,400 sq.ft.
20,000 sq.ft. /2,400 sq.ft. x 274 GPD = 2,283 GPD
Fast Food Restaurant = 274 GPD /22 seats
90 seats /22 seats x 274 GPD = 1121 GPD
As you can see, the flow comparison for the fast food restaurant is
less than that of the office space.
M
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 6th day of June , 1988. The
following members were present: Deputy Mayor slTc, Councilmem ers as ou,
Ricker and Zitur
The o ow ng members were absent: Mayor c ne der
r
Councilmember Vasillou introduced 'the following Resolution and moved its
a opt on:
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -308
APPROVING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN /PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA FOR WATERFORD PARK PLAZA (MPUD 86 -1) (87027)
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction "ompany of Minnesota has requested approval for a Rezoning,
Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Waterford
Park Plaza, for three commercial /office lots on 21.34 acres located in the northeast
quadrant of State Highway 55 and Revere Lane (extended); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public Hear-
ing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MIN-
NESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Planned Unit Development Preliminary
Plan /Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Ryan Construction of Minnesota for property
located in the northeast quadrant of State Highway 55 and Revere Lane (extended),
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum as amended, and the Traffic
Engineering consultant's recommendations.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense.
3. No Building Permits shall be issued until a Contract has been awarded for sewer
and water.
4. Payment of park dedication tees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with the
Dedication Policy in effect at the time of issuance of Building Permit.
5. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79 -80 regarding minimum flaor elevations for
new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing any open storm water
drainage facility.
6. Rezoning shall be finalized with filing of the Final Plat.
7. No Building Permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded
with Hennepin County.
8. Approval of PUD Preliminary Plan /Plat includes no Variances from Zoning Ordinance
specifications, specifically off- street parking and structure parking setbacks.
CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO
Wes. < J'a,: V' . _ 1:i;; .w.Y a w4 .¢G..
CITY OF PLYMOUTH '
PLANrNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 259 1988
The Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was
called to order at 7 :30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Plufka, Commissioners
Stulberg, Zylla, Marofsky and Tierney.
Commissioner Wire arrived at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS AB'ZMT Chairman Pauba
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Coordinator
Chuck Dillerud
Community Development Director
Blair Tremere
City Engineer Chet Harrison
Planning Secretary Tammy Ward
MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner
Tierney to approve the Minutes for May 11, 1988 as
submitted.
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. Motion Carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Plufka introduced the request. Coordinator
Dillerud provided an overview of the May 17, 1988 staff
report. Coordinator Dillerud noted a response by the
petitioner regarding the inclusion of the Devac building as
an office.
Chairman Pauba opened the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Marofsky inquired as to what area would be
rezoned to B -3 and questioned if this would include the
outlot. Coordinator Dillerud explained that it would show
as an extension of the MPUD zoning of the property located
next door and would not have distinct lines on the map.
Director Tremere stated that if the IP is changed to CL upon
Council approval, the ultimate underlying zoning for
purposes of the record will be B -3 where it indicates CS and
B -1 where it indicates CL. By virtue of the Planned Unit
Development plan, then the location of the uses would be
what the Council approves. He added that this would be
similar to the NW Business Campus-
109-
MOTION TO APPROVE
VOTE - MOTION CARRIVO
RYAN CONSTRUCTION
CO. REZONING,
M.P.U.D. PRELIMINARY
PLAT, SITE PLAN AND
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO MEND
PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT PLAN AND
UNDERTAKE NORK IN
FLOODWAY. (88033)
raga
Pruning Co nissiones
d T ti :May 25, .1988 •
Commissioner Marofsky noted that the Engineer's Report
Indicated that the access road should be moved further to
the east (Phase I access be moved to the east to match the
proposed access to the Phase II). He inquired what this
would do with respect to the outlot. Engineer Harrison
Indicated that this Item has been addressed between staff
and the developer and is willing to accept the interim
design (access road) out onto the frontage road. The owner
will provide financial guarantees that the road can be
relocated to where the City selects, at the time the City
selects, based or the capacity of the Intersection and
improvements needed to meet capacity needs.
Commissioner Marofsky inquired if there was an assurance as
to when the Devac outlot would be developed. Coordinator
Dillerud confirmed that there were no assurances, however,
the acquisition is proposed for late 1989. Commissioner
Marofsky inquired about ownership of the property.
Coordinator Dillerud advised that the petitioner did not
currently own the property, however, they did have a
purchase agreement with a time line for the possession.
Director Tremere added that the property owner has
authorized the approval of Ryan's plans and this will hold,
from the City's prospective, iviless the plans are amended.
Commissioner Zylla was concerned with the Devac site and
wanted to have some type of assurance that the approved
concept plan would be developed. Director Tremere advised
that the City has no control over the timing regarding the
non - conforming use, however, another- party could not
redevelop the site without the City's prior scrutiny.
Chairman Plufka advised that the Commission's responsibility
was to makt recommendations to the City Council with
stipulations, and the questions should be directed to the
petitioner.
Chairman Plufka introduced the petitioner, Alan Schackman,
of Ryan Construction. Mr. Schackman stated that the staff
had done an excellent job summarizing the proposal, and
discussed the access issue and the Devac site issue. Mr.
Schackman responded to Commissioner Zylla's questions
regarding "high- tech" and advised that there would be
compliance with the guiding for office use at a future
time. He indicated that what Ryan proposes is an upgrade
from the existing conditions and that is what the City
Council was looking for. Mr. Schackman advised that Ryan
does not currently own the property, however, they intend to
have ownership by October 1989. Regarding access concerns,
he said Ryan can post the necessary financial guarantees.
Commissioner Marofsky inquired if there was a binding
agreement with the owners of the Devac site, or if there
were any contingencies regarding the sale of the property,
where either o' the parties could back out. Mr. Schackman
Va l r, e"t.t i` iii ` v .. C.v j,i;. .` .,'{ •s, -. a:.:
ERR'
Planning Commission Mies
May 25, 1988
Indicated that Ryan could not default on the agreement. He
added that the seller could deliver possession prior to
c October 1989. This would be unlikely.
Chairman Plufka opened the Public Hearing. Thera was no one
present to speak on this proposal. Chairman Plufka closed
the Public Hearing.
Chairman Plufka confirmed with Mr. Schat;kman that the future
bank site would be plattid as an outlot since the proposed
site has not been fully acquired.
Commissioner Iylla indicated that he was not opposed to the
concept; however, he did want to make sure that the City
gets what it is supposed to get and did not want to be left
with only part of a plan. He expressed his concern that
some type of assurance be set by the City Attorney that the
Devac site would indeed be changed to conform to the guiding
Director Trenere indicated that there are no absolute
guarantees and that this was a unique situation. He stated
that it was better to have the land Included In a Planned
nit Development Plan, with the existing building, than to
not have the :and included. The site would still have a
building on It, with a non - conforming use. This proposal has
the best options with gooe Intentions.
Mr. Schackman advised the Commission that Ryan takes pride
In what they develop, and they have never done any less than
what they were committed to do.
Commissioner Tierney inquired if the Devac site is used for
office, will there need to be a change in the parking
requirements. Mr. Scha.;k,p,n stated that any plan for the
outlot must stand on its ow Commissioner Tierney inquired
f the Conditional Use Permit was due to the encroachment on
the the floodplain and questioned if this would be an
encroachment regardless of the parking requirements. Mr.
Schackman advised that the Engineer's Study indicates that
the encroachment is minute and does not affect. the flowage
of water.
Commissioner Marofsky inquired about the foot bridge having
no connection with the SJ Groves site. He also mentioned the
soil in the back area was the worst available soil.
Mr. Schackman stated that the trail was designed to be a
foot trail, used by pedestrian traffic. He added that t;ie
Intent is to connect the system with the S3 Groves site
during Phase III of the development. Mr. Schackman also
Indicated that the impact on the Bassett Creek Flood plain
Is minimal. With regard to the soil, Mr. Schackman indicat-
ed that Ryan does not build on bad soil and measures would
be taker to Improve the soil.
planing Commission M es
Mali 25, 1988 s
Coordinator Dillerud noted that Item 24 of the Engineer's
Report needed to be modified to reflect the agreement status
to mot:!fy the cure cuts and be consistent with ..he
explanations.
Motion by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner Zylla
to recommend approval of the preliminary plat /plans
rezoning, Condit(onal Use Permit and Planned Unit MOTION T^ APPROV
Development subject to the Ist Condition being revised to be
In compliance with the City Engineer's Memo as amended and
Conditions 2 -7 as stated.
Commissioner Wire moved to amend the main motion by adding a MOTION TO AMEND MAP.
Condition 8 to allow a parking variance if they have B -2 MOTION
uses, rather than the B -3 uses in the center.
No second, the motion fails. VOTE - MOTION FAILS
Motion by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Cimmissioner MOTION TO AMEND
Wire that a new Condition 8 shall show the Lot 1, Block 2
4 acres) as an outlot. Director Tremere inquired if the
reason, w.js to assure packaging of the laid to create a
buiidahle site. Commissioner Marofsky indicated the reason
was it is a non- hui'dable site at .4.
Roll Call Vute. 6 Ayes. Motion Carried. VOTE - MOTION eARRIEV
Commissioner Zylla moved, seconded by Commissioner Marofsky
to ,mend the main motion by idding a Condition 9 that the MOTION TO AMEND
City Ct uri,;ll gzin assurance from the developer, now, that
the non - conforming use on the Devac property be eliminated
by a specific date so the proposed Planned Unit Development
Plan can be fully implementer!.
Commissioner Marofsky clarified the motion for Commissioner
Tierney: this developer should be responsible for any
economic considerat'.ons regarding displacement of the Devac
plant and jobs.
Roll Call Vote. 3.Ayes. Commissioners Stulberg, Tierney and VOTE - MOTI(Yi FAILS
Chairman Plufka hays. Motion fails on the tie.
Discussion ensued; Commissioner said he disagrees with the
condition, but he understood the intent - to realize the
proposed use.
Commissioner Marofsky said the key issue is that. Ryan is
creating the non- conform'ng use with their proposed zoning,
and they should be held accountable for implemenitinq the
plasis that were deemed a basis for changing the gliding and
zoning.
w Page,123
Planning Commission Mies
May 25, 1988 n
Notion by Chairman Plufka, seconded by Commissioner 11arofsky MOTION TO AME N:
for an amendment to restore Condition 8 as a new Condition
9.
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. VOTE - NOTION CARRI11
Chairman Plufka introduced the request. The reading of the METROPOLITAN WASh
y 16, 1988 Staff Repast was waived. Chairman Plufka CONTROL. COIMISS10t•
In roduced the oetitioner's representative, Harold Voth, PRCLIMINAHV PLAT,
Met politan Wake Control Commission, 350 Metro Square, SITE PLAN,
St. ul, W. Mr. Voth gave an overview of the project CONDITIONAL
along th a .iistory of the site. Mr. Voth stated that the USE PERMIT AND
lift st ion IF currently at or near capacity. Mr. Voth VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCI
Indicate two ±tents on the staff report which did not A SANITARY LIFT
receive r ommendations by staff. The first being the STATION AND TO ALLOW
setback be een the roadway and the buildings, and the CONSTUCTION WITF!IN
second item s the variance for two principal buildings on THE FLOOOWAY
accompli3hed, owever, they would be restricted on the west 88J33)
side by the exi ting station. The new station would have to
be moved further o the east which would be further in the
floodway of Basse Creek. The current proposal compresses
the facility and m Imizes impact on Bassett Creek. Mr.
Voth indicated that a reason for the two structures is an
effort to coordinate the aesthetics with the adjacent
property owners.
Commissioner Stulberg st.a, d that items 6,5 and 3 of the
variance findings were dequatcly addressed by the
petitioner. However, regar ng item A, he felt that no
physical hardships were indica ed by the petitioner. Mr.
Voth concurred that there were o physical constraints or
ordinance standards toey could s w caused the need for a
variance.
Commissioner Wire asked if the redes n to one structure,
would be, from an engineering standpoi , a better design.
Mr. Voth indicated that both options w e comparable, yet
there were some advantages. Commissione Wire osked what
the cost would be to redesign the project. Mr. Voth stated
that he would estimate the cost to be approx tely $30,000
and there would be a `::nificant time delay the project
was to be redesigned Lcc-use they have proceede to schedule
the work an to solicit bids based upon their plans.
Commissioner Wire inquired if the added cost would be
charged to the Citizens of Plymouth. Mr. Voth indicated
that the revenues from the seven county Metro area would be
assessed for the additional amount.
Commissioner Marofsky inquired if the proposed site would be
adequate to handle sewer use projections 'arough the year
2030. Mr. Voth indicated that it would and the only change
that would need to be made is the pumps, which are internal,
M N _
AIWA..._
yi
1l _:
1
1 11111 ON
PA
C93:M:j:,
IM=
i
O01W
t
4f
tb-
pow
we
iICIk, I
lift
4114,5, C 6
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: July 3, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 11, 1990
FILE NO.: 90054 (RPUD 88 -5)
PETITIONER: CSM Corporation
REQUEST: Amended RPUD Preliminary Plan /Conditional Use Permit and
Final Site Plan for "Bass Lake Hills"
LOCATION: Southeast quadrant of County Road 47 and I -494
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -3 (High medium density residential)
LA -2 (Low medium density residential)
LA -1 (Low density residential)
ZONING: R -1A (Low density single - family residential)
R -2 (Low density multiple residence)
R -3 (Medium density multiple residence)
BACKGROUND:
On June 5, 1989, the City Council by Resolution 89 -291 approved the RPUD Final
Site Plan and Development Contract for the 292 unit attached housing portion
of the "Bass Lake Hills" RPUD. Also approved on that date was a resolution
setting conditions consisting of sixteen conditions to the recording of the
Final Plat.
The RPUD Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit covering 292 townhouses
and 85 single - family detached lots as the "Bass Lake Hills" RPUD was approved
on January 23, 1989 by City Council Resolution 89 -35.
This application proposes an amendment to the RPUD Final Site Plan and RPUD
Preliminary Plan /Conditional Use Permit to introduce construction of a tennis
court facility at the western extremity of the project as an additional active
recreational element. Such facility was not included in the approved
Preliminary Plan at any location within the project.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official city
newspaper and mailed to all property owners within five hundred feet.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. On June 18, 1990, the City Council adopted a resolution declaring property
underlying existing West Medicine Lake Drive surplus from County Road 47
southerly 1,950 feet. This action was consistent with an assumption made
with the approval of the "Bass Lake Hills" project that the West Medicine
Page Two
File 90054
Lake right of way would become available for incorporation within the
project area in the near future.
The approved RPUD Plan for this project specified the grading of a berm
within the vacated right -of -way of West Medicine Lake Drive to provide
visual and noise screening to the project units that were to be located
adjacent to I -494.
2. The proposed amendment to the PUD Plan provides for a different grading
plan for the extreme northwest corner of the townhouse portion of the
Bass Lake Hills" project to create a level area and the installation of a
tennis court of 120 feet by 60 feet on the level area that has been
created. The tennis court structure would lie adjacent to a space between
the most northerly two structures that face I -494. It would be at an
elevation approximately four feet lower than the southerly adjoining
structure and eleven feet higher than the northerly adjoining structure.
The berm protecting the southerly structure would be reshaped but remain
effective, and the grading following installation of the tennis court
would still provide at least an eight foot berm to protect the northerly
structure.
3. An amendment to a PUD Preliminary Plan must respond to the attributes of
the PUD Ordinance and the six standards of the Zoning Ordinance with
respect to any Conditional Use Permit. Copies of both criteria and
standards are attached for consideration by the Planning Commission.
4. No outside lighting is proposed; two existing off - street parking spaces
are proposed to be designated to serve the tennis court facility; and a
path is proposed from the two parking spaces to the tennis court facility.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. We find the amendment to the RPUD Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use
Permit to provide an additional recreational amenity is both consistent
with the PUD attributes and the six standards for Conditional Use Permit
as specified by the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance.
2. We find the Preliminary Plan
grading related to the tennis
intent of the plan in this
screening between the townhouse
and the thoroughfare corridor
landscape plan for this section
minimal relocation required to
tennis court.
Amendment for the location and resulting
court to be consistent with the original
area of the site -- provision of adequate
units on the west periphery of the site
of I -494. All elements of the approved
of the site shall remain valid with only
accommodate the adjusted grading plan and
Page Three
File 90054
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the amendment to the RPUD Preliminary
Plan /Conditional Use Permit and Final Site Plan to include the additional
recreational faci at the west p ry of the site as proposed.
Submitted by:
C es E. DiIlerud ommunity Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution for approval of amended RPUD Preliminary Plan /Conditional
Use Permit and Final Site Plan
2. Engineer's Memo
3. Petitioner's Narrative
4. Conditional Use Permit Standards
5. PUD Attributes
6. Location Map
7. Resolution 89 -292
8. Large Plans
pc /cd /90054:rcr)
APPROVING AMENDED RPUD PRELIMINARY PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND FINAL SITE
PLAN FOR CSM CORPORATION FOR "BASS LAKE HILLS" LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
QUADRANT OF COUNTY ROAD 47 AND I -494 (90054) (RPUD 88 -5)
WHEREAS, CSM Corporation has requested approval for an Amended Preliminary
Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Final Site Plan to add a tennis court at the
northwest corner of the townhouse site for "Bass Lake Hills" for property
located at the southeast quadrant of County Road 47 and I -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 CSM
Corporation for an Amended Preliminary Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Final
Site Plan for "Bass Lake Hills" for,property located at the southeast quadrant
of County Road 47 and I -494, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements.
3. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
4. No building permit to be issued until the lot consolidation is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County, and the vacated right -of -way of West
Medicine Lake Boulevard is deeded to CSM Corporation.
5. Compliance with applicable conditions of Resolution 89 -35 (Preliminary
Plan) and Resolution 89 -291 (Final Plan).
6. The "path" from the parking area to the tennis court shall be asphalt
surfaced consistent with the trail construction standard of the City of
Plymouth.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ENGINEER'S MEMO
to
PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
DATE: July 5, 1990
FILE NO.: 90054
PETITIONER: Mr. Charles Schatz, CSM Corp., 680 Kasota Ave., Minneapolis, MN 55414
PUD AMENDMENT/
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT: TO ALLOW A TENNIS COURT IN THE RIGHT -OF -WAY OF WEST MEDICINE LAKE ROAD
BASS LAKE HILLS ADDITION
The developer of Bass Lake Hills Addition has submitted an application for a PUD
Amendment and Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction in that portion of the
West Medicine Lake right -of -way proposed to be deeded to the CSM Corporation. The PUD
Amendment and Conditional Use Permit, if approved by the City Council, shall include the
following conditions:
1) Silt fence and /or other erosion control methods must be shown on the grading
plan.
2) Slopes shall not exceed three -to -one.
3) Shall comply with Shingle Creek requirements.
4) Tennis court cannot be constructed prior to that portion of West Medicine Lake
Drive right -of -way being deeded to the CSM Corporation.
5) The parking lot shall include B6 -12 curb and gutter.
6) The grades for the path shall be shown on a revised grading plan.
7) The elevations for the proposed tennis court shall be noted on the revised
grading plan.
8) The grading plan shall be revised to show the existing culvert under County Road
47 and how the drainage will be handled when West Medicine Lake Road is closed
and regarded at County Road 47.
9) The approved grading plan, including all revisions, shall be used for the tennis
court grading plan.
w
SUBMITTED BY:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
FR M S MON 9, StIDDMSICN A
2. Procedure. Before any Conditional Use Penmi.t may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Cccmiission for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a recommendation to the City Council, which
shall make the final determination as to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Cmudssion shall review the application and consider its
conformance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will pranote and enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and impiovetment of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic
congestion in the public streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
forms :o >pl /cup.stnd /s) 10/89
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 9, Subdivision B
SUBDIVISION B - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
1. Purpose
a. The provisions of this section of the Zoning Ordinance are intended to
provide areas which can be developed with some modification of the
strict application of regulations of the normal zoning districts in
accordance with the provisions and regulations contained herein, the
intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan, the general
intent of the districts in which the development is proposed, and
generally in accordance with the "Community Structure Concept" of the
Comprehensive Plan.
b. The provisions of this section of the Zoning Ordinance provide design
flexibility for the development of larger parcels under single
ownership or control, in order to obtain a higher quality of
development than might otherwise be possible should development occur
under strict application of the zoning ordinance regulations for a
particular district.
c. The benefit to the developer is one of design and development
flexibility; in order to utilize this flexibility, the developer has
the responsibility to demonstrate that its utilization does indeed
provide a development which has substantial attributes to enhance the
particular area or the City in total. Expected attributes are:
1) Benefits from new technology in building design, construction and
land development.
2) Higher standards of site and building design through use of
trained and experienced professionals in Land Planning,
Architecture and Landscaping to prepare plans for Planned Unit
Developments.
3) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities and public
facilities to yield high quality development at a lesser cost.
4) More usable and suitably located recreation facilities and other
public and common facilities than would otherwise be provided
under conventional land development procedures.
5) Demonstration of affirmative design efforts toward the
preservation and enhancement of desirable natural site
characteristics. (Amended Ord. No. 82 -15)
d. The provisions for Planned Unit Developments in this section are
applied in two separate and distinct forms: A Residential Planned Unit
Development (R.P.U.D.) and a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
M.P.U.D.). Where provisions are not specifically designated for
either the R.P.U.D. or M.P.U.D., they apply to both types. All
property within a R.P.U.D. shall be in one or more R Districts. Within
a M.P.U.D. land shall include one or more non - residence districts and
may or may not include one or more R Districts.
9 -5
c oo54
SPA CORPORATION
680 Kasota Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 (612) 623 -3311
Telecopier (612) 623 -0615
July 3, 1990
Mr. Charles E. Dillerud
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
UP r dH
Jul 5 1990
CITY Cr
Re: CSM Corporation, RPUD Amended Conditional Use Permit and Plan to
Allow a Tennis Court in the Vacated Right -of -Way of West Medicine
Lake Road (90054)
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
Having received your letter of July 2, 1990 of staff comments and
observations, the following addresses staff concerns:
1. No outdoor lighting will be used to illuminate the tennis
court.
2. CSM Corporation will not construct the tennis court until the
vacation of West Medicine Lake Road is complete and the deed
to the surplus portion of West Medicine Lake Road is
provided.
3. The proposed regrading for the tennis court has been
designed to stay clear of the standpipe area on the west side
of existing townhouse structures. That west side area will
remain as originally planned with standpipe remaining
uncovered.
I hope this covers the points raised by staff members and that this
letter, along with the submission of required reductions and
transparencies, will hold our place on the July 11 meeting agenda.
Please let me know if anything else is required.
Sinc ely,
UY;
Charles Schatz
for CSM Corporation
Enclosures
CS /vb
kVAr
VAT
are
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 5th day
of June , 19 89 The following members were present:
Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers Vasiliou, Ricker, Zitur and Sisk
The following members were absent: None
Councilmember Sisk
moved its adoption:
introduced the following Resolution and
RESOLUTION 89 -292
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING RPUD FINAL PLAT /SITE PLAN FOR CSM
CORPORATION /GRAHAM DEVELOPMENT FOR BASS LAKE HILLS (RPUD 88- 5)(88060)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved an RPUD Final Plat /Site Plan for Bass
Lake Hills as requested by CSM Corporation /Graham Development;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the following
conditions to be met prior to filing of and regarding said RPUD Final
Plat /Site Plan for Bass Lake Hills:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. No Building Permit to be issued until a Contract has been awarded for
the construction of municipal sewer and water.
3. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
4. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79 -80 regarding minimum floor
elevations for new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing
open storm water drainage facilities.
5. Yard setbacks shall be as follows:
a. Parking to property line - 20 feet;
b. Drive lanes to property line - 10 feet.
No modification to off street parking and drive lane setback from public
streets is approved. The Final Site Plan shall be amended and re-
submitted to the Community Development Department showing all off street
parking and drive lane setback in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
6. Submittal of required utility and drainage easements as approved by the
City Engineer prior to filing the Final Plat.
see next page)
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -292
SETTING CONDITIONS - Cont.
Page Two
7. No Building Permits to be issued until the Final Plat is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
8. The Final Plat mylars shall contain a statement noting that the plat is
part of the approved RPUD 88 -5 per Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. Access shall be limited to internal public roads and prohibited from
County Road 47, Northwest Boulevard (County Road 61) and West Medicine
Lake Drive.
10. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance
Agreement for completion of site improvements.
11. N6 occupancy shall occur for the four structures fronting West Medicine
Lake Drive until it has been officially vacated as a public street; and,
a hold harmless agreement or letter of understanding, approved by the
City Attorney, shall be supplied to the effect that occupancy cannot
occur until that time.
12. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication with appropriate
credits in an amount determined according to verified acreage dedicated
according to the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of filing of
the Final Plat. Transfer of fee title of Outlot B to the City of
Plymouth with credit toward park dedication requirements.
13. The Development Contract as approved by the City Council shall be fully
executed prior to release of the Final Plat.
14. The Site Plan shall be amended to add 8 off street parking spaces to
serve the southerly area of 32 dwelling units.
15. The sign plan for the Townhouse area of the PUD is approved for 2
subdivision identification monuments for a total of 60 square feet sign
area. Four subdivision identification monuments totalling 36 square
feet of surface area in aggregate are available, but not hereby
specifically approved.
16. The developer shall submit plans for the reconstruction of County Road
47 for approval by the County and City Engineer. The Development
Contract shall be revised to include the cost of this reconstruction.
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: Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers Vasiliou,
Ricker. Zitur and Sisk
The following voted against or abstained None
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
5004
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: July 3, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 11, 1990
PETITIONER: Community Development Department on behalf of the City of
Plymouth
REQUEST: Land Use Guide Plan Amendment to reclassify.twenty acres
from existing CL to proposed LA -1.
LOCATION: North of State Highway 55 and east of the 41st Avenue North
cul -de -sac at approximately Kimberly Lane (extended).
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CL (Limited business)
ZONING: FRD (Future restricted development)
BACKGROUND:
On June 4, 1990, the City Council took action approving a Site Plan,
Conditional Use Permit for an elementary school, and rezoning from FRD to R -1A
on a land parcel that is included within the area that is here proposed for
Land Use Reclassification. A condition of that approval action was that the
owner of the parcel, Independent School District 284, enter written
concurrence with the Land Use Classification of the entire parcel from CL to
LA -1. The condition was consistent with a recommendation of the Planning
Commission from its meeting of May 23, 1990.
During 1989 the Planning Commission and City Council considered Land Use
Classifications throughout the community as a portion of the overall update of
the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan. Following the required Public Hearings the
City Council adopted action reclassifying this general area from a previous
LA -3 (Medium density residential) to CL (Limited business) and LA -1 (Low
density residential).
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the official City
newspaper. In addition, property owners directly impacted by the proposed
reclassification have been notified by mail.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The proposed LA -1 reclassification from CL includes the entire parcel
owned by School District 284 together with two parcels lying south and
east of the 284 parcel, consistent with the Planning Commission and City
Council direction during consideration of the Site Plan and Conditional
Use Permit, and to reflect the extensive wetland corridor that was viewed
a
I ,
Page Two
File LUGP
during the 1989 reclassification of this area to serve as the division
between CL (Limited Business) classification to the west and CS (Service
Business) classification to the east.
2. With the exception of a small area immediately adjacent to State Highway
55 the Plymouth Physical Constraints Analysis shows the southerly one -
third of Parcel 17 -23 -0001 (owned by District 284); Parcel 17 -32 -0001
directly to the south); and that portion of Parcel 17 -32 -0002 that lies
northerly of State Highway 55 to be in "wetlands ". In addition, a
significant portion of these parcels is located in a Minnesota DNR
Protected Wetland and within wetland regulated by the Corps of Engineers.
3. No principal structures exist on any of the area proposed for
reclassification, but scattered out buildings appear together with
evidence of prior filling of wetlands on Parcel 17 -32 -0001. The parcels
proposed for reclassification do not respond well to the locational
criteria for the CL classification. They are not at or near intersections
of arterial, nor are they in conjunction with major commercial centers.
The less specific locational criteria of the LA -1 Land Use Classification
better relates to these parcels.
4. Due to the extreme physical constraints of the sites involved it is
doubtful that the area could be developed under the current CL
classification. Even development under a LA -1 classification would be
difficult, but possible.
5. While there is no lack of developable property in the LA -1 classification,
the general structure of the Land Use Classification for the City of
Plymouth does not suggest a negative finding in such cases -- where LA -1
property is proposed.
6. Due to the nature of the physical constraints affecting this site and the
size of the parcel, no other undeveloped property or developed property
within this classification will be adversely affected by this action.
7. The proposal demonstrates merits well beyond the interest of the owner,
proponent, or prospective developer of this site in that an alignment of
Land Use Classification as proposed by staff reflects the physical
constraints that have been clearly identified for the site from the
Plymouth Physical Constraints Analysis, the National Wetlands Inventory
published by the United States Department of the Interior) and the
Plymouth Storm Water Drainage Plan.
8. It has become an identified public need to, through policy, ordinances and
appropriate community planning efforts, preserve natural physical
attributes of the community -- primarily wetlands, slopes and natural
forestation. The proposed reclassification to LA -1 represents the best
land use technique to insure maximum preservation of those identified
resources in the area of consideration.
r
Page Three
File LUGP
9. Due to the heavily constrained nature of the site impacts on the
Comprehensive Plan elements in addition to the Land Use Guide Plan will be
minimal or nonexistent.
10. Due to the physically constrained nature of the site little impact will be
realized with respect to utility charges; current and future special
assessments; current and future property tax assessments; and per capita
based municipal aids.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. We find the proposed reclassification to be appropriate based on the
established responses required for any application to amend the
Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan Element Map. Specifically we find no
asignificant negative impact on municipal plans or infrastructure from the
amendment.
2. We find the proposed reclassification be responsive to the Plymouth
Physical Constraints Analysis; the National Wetlands Inventory; and the
Protected Wetlands' designations by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources. Maximum protection of the extensive natural resources found in
this area will be realized through a reclassification from CL to LA -1.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend adoption of the attached draft resolution providing for the
reclassification of the identified parcel from CL (Limited business) to LA -1
Low density resi ial).
Submitted by: . Qd&p
Char es E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution for Land Use Guide Plan Reclassification
2. Location map
3. Site graphics
pc /cd /lugp:rcr)
APPROVING LAND USE GUIDE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT TO RECLASSIFY LAND LOCATED NORTH
OF STATE HIGHWAY 55 AND EAST OF THE 41ST AVENUE NORTH CUL -DE -SAC AT
APPROXIMATELY KIMBERLY LANE EXTENDED FROM CL (LIMITED BUSINESS) TO LA -1 (LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
WHEREAS, Independent School District 284 has requested approval for a Land
Use Guide Plan Amendment to reclassify parcels identified as 17 -23 -0001, 27-
32 -0001 and 17 -32 -0001, located north of State Highway 55 and east of the 41st
Avenue North cul -de -sac at approximately Kimberly Lane extended from CL
Limited Business) to LA -1 (Low Density Residential); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the request following a duly
scheduled public hearing and has recommended approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should,and hereby does approve the
reclassification of land use guiding for property located north of State
Highway 55 and east of the 41st Avenue North cul -de -sac at approximately
Kimberly Lane extended from CL (Limited Business) to LA -1 (Low Density
Residential).
FURTHER, Approval of the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment is contingent upon, and
subject to the required review and response by the Metropolitan Council.
pc /res /lugp:jw)
A96
t
ji
rte ,
be
0wlz
A
Ap
40
4
60 A*
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: July 5, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 11, 1990
FILE NO.: 90048
PETITIONER: Richard Chouinard
REQUEST: Division of private property within Medicine Lake Park
Third Addition
LOCATION: Northeast quadrant of 21st Avenue North and Lancaster Lane
2120 Lancaster Lane North)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low density residential)
ZONING: R -1A (Single - family residence district)
BACKGROUND:
On June 6, 1977, the City Council, by Resolution 77 -273, approved a lot
consolidation of two pre- existing substandard lots and the vacated right of
way of 22nd Avenue North that existed between those two lots into a single
parcel of 32,000 square feet. This action was taken at the application of a
previous property owner, Mary LaSart.
Proposed by this application is the division of this now existing 32,000
square foot parcel into two parcels, one of which will contain the existing
home and two accessory garage structures.
Application is also made for dimensional variances from the Zoning Ordinance
for lots in the R -1A Zoning District to permit lot widths of 71.6 feet and 80
feet versus the Ordinance standard of 110 feet; lot area of 14,360 square feet
and 17,065 square feet versus the Ordinance standard of 18,500 square feet;
set back of an accessory structure from the front property line (garage
structure to 22nd Avenue North) of 21 feet versus the Ordinance standard of 35
feet; set back of the accessory garage structure from the front property line
Lancaster Lane) of 12 feet versus the Ordinance standard of 35 feet; and, lot
coverage by accessory structures on proposed Parcel 2 of 632 square feet
versus the Ordinance standard of 600 square feet.
Notice of this application has been provided, as a courtesy, to all property
owners within one hundred feet.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. Section 500.37 of the Plymouth City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) provides
that division or consolidation of lots which are part of a recorded plat
may be approved based on a survey depicting proposed division.
2. The 1977 action consolidating two existing lots and a vacated street right
of way was based on the applicant's statement that it was her desire to
construct a new home centered on the consolidated parcel.
3. The Physical Constraints Analysis reveals this site to be heavily wooded
and possessing steep slopes. The site is considered to be developable
with municipal sewers. No wetlands, drainage areas, flood plains found on
the site, but the site is within the Shoreland Overlay District of
Medicine Lake.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has been notified of these
proposed variances from the underlying Zoning District dimensional
standards, as well as the Variance from the Shoreland Overlay District
standard for a lot width of 71.6 feet versus the Shoreland Overlay
District minimum lot width of 75 feet. No comments from the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.have been received as of the date of this
staff report.
4. Lot widths for properties adjoining this site are between 43 and 50 feet
and lot areas generally are less than 10,000 square feet. There are some
instances of consolidation of the substandard lots to create larger
parcels within the immediate neighborhood. The prevalent development
pattern, however, is the historic small frontage /small lot arrangement
that formed the original plat of the Medicine Lake Park Third Addition and
many other subdivisions in the Medicine Lake area.
5. The applicant has responded to the variance standards in the attached
narrative.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. We find the proposed division of platted property to be consistent with
the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance with regard to such actions.
2. We find the proposed Dimensional Variances to the Zoning Ordinances,
although many in number, to result in parcels that are significantly
larger in size and width than the majority of parcels within the immediate
neighborhood.
3. We find the Setback Variances and accessory coverage variance requested to
accommodate the two existing accessory garage structures to be excessive,
and out of character with the adjoining neighborhood. One of the
accessory garage structures should be removed as a condition of this
Variance action. The garage adjacent to Lancaster Lane is the best
candidate for removal due to age and degree of setback encroachment.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the attached draft resolutions providing for
the division of platted property and the setting of conditions prior to
recording of the Division Resolution.
a,
N
Submitted by:
arles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution approving the division of platted property
2. Resolution setting conditions prior to recording
3. Engineer's memo
4. Staff memo to the City Manager, June 2, 1977
5. City Council Resolution 77 -273
6. Location map
7. Large plans
pc /cd /90048 :rcr)
APPROVING LOT DIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR RICHARD CHOUINARD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 2120 LANCASTER LANE NORTH (90048)
WHEREAS, Richard Chouinard has requested approval for a lot division and
variance for the creation of two lots located at 2120 Lancaster Lane North;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the lot division
and variance for Richard Chouinard for property located 2120 Lancaster Lane
North.
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
Lot 14, Block 14, Rearrangement in Medicine Lake Park Third Division
Lot 23, Block 14, Medicine Lake Park Third Division
That part of vacated 22nd Avenue North per Document No. 3709318
To be divided and consolidated as follows:
PARCEL 1
Lot 14, Block 14, Rearrangement in medicine Lake Park Third Division and
the Northerly 30.00 feet of vacated 22nd Avenue North per Document No.
3709318.
PARCEL 2
Lot 23, Block 14, Medicine Lake Park Third Division and the Southerly
30.00 feet of vacated 22nd Avenue North per Document No. 3709318.
FURTHER, that the City Manager be authorized to make the necessary special
assessment corrections based upon City Policy when the division is approved by
Hennepin County.
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO LOT DIVISION
AND VARIANCE FOR RICHARD CHOUINARD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2120 LANCASTER LANE
NORTH (90048)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Lot Division and Variance for Richard
Chouinard for property located 2120 Lancaster Lane;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the following
conditions to be met prior to recording of, and related to said lot division:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing open storm water
drainage facilities.
3. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication on both lots prior
to recording of the lot division in accordance with City Policy in
effect at the time of recording of the lot division.
4. No building permit is to be issued until the lot division is filed with
Hennepin County.
5. Submittal of all necessary utility easements prior to filing with
Hennepin County.
6. Approved variances are:
a. Lot widths of 71.6 feet and 80 feet versus the Ordinance standard of
110 feet.
b. Lot area of 14,360 square feet and 17,065 square feet versus the
Ordinance standard of 18,500 square feet.
c. Setback of an accessory garage structure to 22nd Avenue North of 21
feet versus the Ordinance standard of 35 feet.
7. Removal of the resolution approving the division of the accessory garage
structure adjacent to Lancaster Lane at petitioner's expense prior to
recording.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: July 5, 1990
FILE NO.: 90048
PETITIONER: Mr. Richard Chouinard, 2121 Lancaster Lane N., Plymouth, MN 55441
LOT DIVISION /CONSOLIDATION: LOT 14, BLOCK 14, AND LOT 23, BLOCK 15, REARRANGEMENT IN
MEDICINE LAKE PARK 3RD DIVISION AND THAT PART OF VACATED
22ND AVE. N.
LOCATION: 2120 LANCASTER LANE N. IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 25
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.
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 Lot Division /Consolidation approval:
4. Area assessments: R=
5. Other additional assessments estimated: Project 001, widening and
curb and gutter, Lancastser Lane, estimated cost $1,580, north parcel
1,760 south parcel. Reconstruction per lot estimated cost $860.53
North parcel 860.53 south parcel.
6. _ _ 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.)
A,
N/A Yes No
7. 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 Drainage Plan.
8. X _ _ Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots:
9. X _ _ All standard utility easements required for construction
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. 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.
12. _ X _ All existing street rights -of -way are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required on
13. A. Show the existing sewer and water on the Certificate of Survey.
Submitted by:
0Gf "`^
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
6
J;
w.
k_. CITY OF. PLYMOUTH
3025 HARBOR LANE, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441
TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800
DATE: June 2, 1977 MEMO
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Charles E. Dillerud, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Lot Consolidation
Mary LaSart !A -738)
Location: NW Corner of 22nd Avenue North and Kilmer Lane
Petitioner proposes consolidation of two tax parcels now made up of two substandard
lots of ancient platting and 60 ft. of \ .cated street right -of -way (22nd Avenue
North). Petitioner desires both parcels to be Aed as her homestead.
The only structures involved are located on the southerly 50 ft. Petitioner states
she would some day desir? to build a new home more centered on the consolidated parcel
of >2,000 sq. ft.
Staff recommends approval of the subject petition consistent with the attached
resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Location Map
3. Division Map
a
y OF LYMDtTIii
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a. regular meeting of
f: the City Council of the City of Plymouth, esota was el on the
6th day of June - 1, 19 77. Tile following members were
present: Mayor Hilde Counci men Neils Seibold and Spaeth
The Jollowing members were absent: Councilman Hunt
RRR RRt RRfM
Counciman.feils introduced the following Resolution and moved
its a option:
RESOLUTION 077 -273
APPROVING LOT CONSOLIDATION FOR MARY LASART (A -738)
WHEREAS, Mary LaSart, 2120 Lancaster Lane, Plymouth, has requested a consolidation
of existing platted parcels within the City of Plymouth;
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 consolidation and that
the City Manager be authorized to make the necessa , special assessment corrections
based upon City policy when the consolidation is .oroved by Hennepin County:
Plat Parcel Lot Bi,,ck Addition
44520 5300 14 and 14 Rearrangement in Medicine
vacated )S of 22nd, Lake Park 3rd Addition
Avenue North
44430 4600 23 nd 15 Medicine Lake Park 3rd
vacLied I 221.j Addition
Avenues North
To be consolidated into one new parce'i as follows:
Lot 14, Block 14, Rea -angement in Medicine Lake Park 3rd Addition and Lot 23, block
15, Medicine Lake Park 3rd Addition and vacated 22nd Avenue North between Kilmer
Lake and Lancaster ane.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Councilman Spaeth , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Fiayor Hilde, Councilmen Neils, Seibold
and 5naeth
Thefollowing voted against or abstained: one .
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and a pte .
RRA RRR RRR
t1
Ll o 11 UU UUolsL!f!7
MAPLOCATIO
9 40
3
GOVT LOT 5
2615.68 RES
1"' 13 13 (
55)
r..o*v4
t9e 1111 ...j to (93) 1 (
94)
1ssA9etT3 (
92) t S
A 11 2.
18) -
117 1S6.9t 12 (99) - (66)
198 ri . 21 (96) _
6I) (Sii 22 (
95) 1189.38'2 .
19) =
313.84 lie. 36 I - - - - V
18•.•1 )00 100 100 100 Ito $ j Q A
N69' '25PE ((>4
117.5 °- (
79)
1(89'31'08'
1 2 3 4 5 • ,•
oft( No
w / S( (3) (4) (5) (6) (T) .'
iy til NORTH pptQpllNIW i - _ a1
180 01 ' 10 SS 1 loo to0
2) _ 2 A 107) 7 8
80) ' " 47.73 109)
1 t14 ) (12) 9 e (f) (s) n
24 (113 12 11 10 (11) Xa)
1)
Ie0
4 = (
u) (q) n
5 14
6 'e y (
m 15 46 (
pLACK OAKS ;( An
1
P' (toe) ' e ti 11 - (18) t6 (24) (23 2• 25 . S!
VAC OOC IT 22 (26) an . -
N $ 634123 • e (i, o (19)
1a 20
21 -"
t
4 (
82)y i
a 21) (
20) (21 (22)
48)
t«
49)
22) " <' (34) r (a)
do 31
Y % 33 ( W33)
Y' 34
36) A N
n E
23) W (A1 46 `P` (1S) 44 •
s
3 170: ` •t `ii '3 (46) (.,)
Na 36
9.311''Db E (x) (43)
x IS
A , X141 (.n (•
z) )et.i
p' 11 (63)
r , 1
Ne7*3011 (
Nl G1
A corn
PART OF LbT 8LK 1
0
21
a,
r5; 22 Q` 1361 (37) 3
LOT 8 /ar
r
Ism 13 (IfI
rte
l67)
C= (56,
11 )
l
4(1>IIl
169 (
63) 25 N X91 10 (I) (74)
Sl 77)
691 26 ZZ 9 (32) X8(134),
d
wtI (70 69 `
2e
71)
29 X71 (7S)
3
33 '54IIX72) (303) 31 32 (76 T% 1X7)
O
Ire. 22
PLVNCUTH -40
WEDIICIINE LAKE -79
VT LOT 7
G T 77
2468.07 RES
MIME
60
25
c
9
Evis ON $ s
50 19) 68 7 7 (36) n(35) (36) ; (3S) 7 , / b
C
T /y.
i Olt ';
460.01 wr54'OP6 166.72
r .T1
16 (
7) (6)
11 1 137 111
2
1
t2 11 (
53) `: Q
Yr »•lrE
26) 15 •: NOTE• fo 96C Of &0015. 6RE. JIe ILLETS IN NO lR f66R J - ', i6) 3 i
169 $ TNIeO ory ee REMIT IN LEO LR Pm Mom OIV. SEE ' 1
Q 25 Q ----------- JIe6L1EW ee OE01EE Of 4- 15-1909 IN OOOR 122 NISC. 1 P
7AO
I u 16) ,
A 7 1
A.. fb 10029425
ri 22 l0T IN R 1
21»
g . 256 (27 256 .n'
1.
106 s 55 ' .
19 •
1 t1
e ,E. : }9 AVE N
tip e s 25TH ?
1
22) -le (
30
tz
Cc j ,.1 . 5• 11 ,a
n
1
Q1 1/ y.x IC
36 i 7r
Ek 0 6 <
J • Y, Iz
NYLfTOIV
GD
6 't91• ,+ ' i S A
0) .
1.•- (
2):_ %%
e 6T'p. 49r' (a) 5 15:7
12)
7) 4 (5) - (6)
45,
p fl
Ns _.- 0 , 16 iO
NOT OEOIGITEO TO THE
Q
C N r•': 1
ft It IN T1E fL.1) $ .
T v
AV T"
i5 Al 6 • 1 1 1 )
2 ,
PAN 7 _ ' ,
7' 1 9D Si .
26)
6 ` L 7 6
1 I
12 .o r
lom N +
MEDICINE to R
LAKM 31
IA( tA Is
20
Sl
n >
1,93 6 b21ST AVE N
1 + (189)
y (5611 - (187) $
58 i ' .......... w
r1
62 (
186)
1
19) r (ley)
ei
1J
l '
t --- a clew s
5 r-'- --- -, eat
21 b -1J Y 1 IZ
I
@Be
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: July 5, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 11, 1990
FILE NO.: 90055
PETITIONER: Joanne Schuler
REQUEST: Division of platted property and Zoning Ordinance
Dimensional Standards to create two lots for existing homes
within the Elmhurst Addition.
LOCATION: North of 21st Avenue North between Hemlock Lane and Ives
Lane (2355 Hemlock Lane and 2356 Ives Lane)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low density single - family residential)
ZONING: R -1A (Single - family residence district)
BACKGROUND:
No specific community development applications are on file with respect to
this parcel. The original Elmhurst addition substantially predates the
records now available within the Community Development Department.
This application proposes the division of an existing platted lot which
contains two principal dwelling units into two lots, each of which would be
6,184 square feet, and contain one of the existing dwelling units. Also
requested are Variances for lot size.
Notice of Planning Commission consideration of this application has been
mailed, as a courtesy, to all property owners within one hundred feet. In
addition, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has been notified of
this proposed property division of variances within the Shoreland Overlay
District. No response has been received to date.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. Proposed is the division of an existing parcel with the specific intent of
the applicant to eliminate the nonconforming status of the existing parcel
regarding two principal structures on a single parcel of record.
A building permit to make an addition to one of
been denied because such an addition (as opposed
currently underway) would constitute the extension
as long as two principal structures remain on the
the division of platted property and Zoning
Variances which have been applied for are approved
the existing homes has
to remodeling which is
of a nonconforming use
same parcel of land. If
Ordinance Dimensional
nonconforming status of
Page Two
File 90055
the site with respect to principal structures will be eliminated and
additions to the structures, within the limits of the Zoning Ordinance
Dimensional Standards, will be possible. Without the division of the
property as requested no additions to the structures or new structures may
be permitted on the parcel and the loss of either structure by greater
than fifty percent for any cause would extinguish the nonconforming use
status. The balance of the damaged structure would be required to be
removed and no second principal structure would thereafter be permitted on
the parcel.
2. Existing structures on the parcel include the two principal dwelling units
and a foundation on which an accessory garage structure had been located
for the principal dwelling unit at 2355 Hemlock Lane. All existing
structures and the foundation noted are nonconforming as to setbacks as
well as the issue of two principal structures on the same parcel. No
variance action with respect to the nonconforming setbacks is applied for
nor addressed by this action. The setbacks will remain nonconforming, and
therefore the structures are subject to compliance to Ordinance standards
should the nonconforming structures cease to exist under the terms of the
Zoning Ordinance.
3. The lot configuration (double frontage with narrow street frontage on both
sides) is common within the Elmhurst and neighboring subdivisions, both
east and west of Medicine Lake. There have been instances of lot
combinations to create larger parcels as well as lot divisions to create
parcels of a size similar to that proposed by this application. Also,
there are other instances of more than a single principal structure
located on a "through" lot in this neighborhood. There are no current
examples of applications to divide a property in a manner similar to this
in the files of the Community Development Department.
4. Remodeling improvements have already been undertaken to the dwelling at
2355 Hemlock Lane. As a result of a lot division, as here proposed, a
garage addition will likely result to this structure.
5. The lot division application is responsive to the provisions of Section
500.37 of the City Code (the Subdivision Ordinance) where the City Council
may approve the division of platted property based on a survey without the
benefit of a full subdivision plat.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The application meets the requirements of Section 500.37 with respect to
the division of platted property, provided the Zoning dimensional
Variances that are approved to support such division.
2. Generally staff is not in support of the creation of individual parcels of
the size here proposed. A unique situation presents itself here, however,
since principal structures already exist on both of the lots proposed to
be created by nature of two houses being formerly constructed on a single
parcel. No change would result in the residential density of the
Page Three
File 90055
immediate neighborhood as a result of the division action proposed.
With a clear understanding that any future redevelopment of either of the
parcels created by this action would be consistent with the dimensional
standards of the Zoning Ordinance, without exception, staff can support
the action requested. A memorial on the title of each of the newly
created lots to this effect would advise all future purchasers of the
property of the intent of the City with this division action.
3. The Variance to create parcels of 6,184 square feet versus the Ordinance
standard of 18,500 square feet is responsive to the Variance Standards.
This finding is based on the unique nature of the property created by the
historic action of permitting two principal structures to be constructed
on the same parcel of land. A hardship would result by not dividing the
property as requested because the nonconforming status that exists
precludes substantial improvement to the property. No negative impact
results to the surrounding neighborhood or the public welfare as a result
of the division action requested.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend that adoption of the attached resolution providing for the
division of platted property, and the resolution providing for the setting of
conditions prior to recording, including a_2za449, Variance to permit a
creation of lots of—loss than tba mia44w area in the lA District.
Submitted by:
arles E. Dillerud,-Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution approving division of platted property
2. Resolution setting conditions prior to recording and approving a Zoning
Variance
3. Engineer's memo
4. Location map
5. Site graphics
pc /cd /90055:rcr)
APPROVING LOT DIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR JOANNE SCHULER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2355 HEMLOCK LANE AND 2356 IVES LANE (90055) '
WHEREAS, Joanne Schuler has requested approval for a lot division and variance
for the creation of two lots located at 2355 Hemlock Lane and 2356 Ives Lane;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the lot division
and variance for Joanne Schuler for property located at 2355 Hemlock Lane and
2356 Ives Lane.
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
Lot 6, Block 2, Elmhurst, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
To be divided and consolidated as follows:
PARCEL 1
The East 116.00 feet, as measured at right angles, or Lot 6, Block 2,
Elmhurst, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
PARCEL 2
That part of Lot 6, Block 2, Elmhurst which lies West of the East 116.00
feet, as measured at right angles, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
FURTHER, that the City Manager be authorized to make the necessary special
assessment corrections based upon City Policy when the division is approved by
Hennepin County.
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO LOT DIVISION
AND VARIANCE FOR JOANNE SCHULER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2355 HEMLOCK LANE AND
2356 IVES LANE (90055)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Lot Division and Variance for Joanne
Schuler for property located at 2355 Hemlock Lane and 2356 Ives Lane;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the following
conditions to be met prior to recording of, and related to said lot division:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79 -80 regarding minimum floor elevations
for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing open storm water
drainage facilities.
3. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication on both lots prior
to recording of the lot division in accordance with City Policy in
effect at the time of recording of the lot division.
4. No building permit for addition to structures is to be issued until the
lot division is filed with Hennepin County.
5. Submittal of all necessary utility easements prior to filing with
Hennepin County.
6. Approved variances are:
a. Lot widths of 37.5 feet and 58.0 feet versus the Ordinance standard
of 110 feet.
b. Lot area of 6,184 square feet and 6,184 square feet versus the
Ordinance standard of 18,500 square feet.
7. Submission by the petitioner and approval /recording by the City Attorney
of a memorial on the title of each parcel that future development of the
parcels will not require dimensional variances from the Zoning
Ordinance.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: July 5, 1990
FILE NO.: 90055
PETITIONER: Joanne Schuler, P.O. Box 42102, Plymouth, MN 55442
LOT DIVISION /CONSOLIDATION: LOT 6, BLOCK 2, ELMHURST ADDITION
LOCATION: 2355 HEMLOCK LANE IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 26
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.
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 Lot Division /Consolidation approval:
4. Area assessments: None
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None
6. _ _ 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.)
N/A Yes No
7. 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 Drainage Plan.
8. X _ _ Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots:
9. X _ _ All standard utility easements required f.or construction
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. 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.
12. X _ _ All existing street rights -of -way are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required on
O-
Submitted by:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
2
A112 5iLFC. 2(07 F.
9 Q OD 55
XA I
2620.35 RES ......
GOVT LOT I
439.69 RES
7) (10) x17 11
VALLEY a ST H lea Is arE s
11 21 20 Is 17
5' FM (V (29)
66-11 0; - f (10 125t2fi- s Im 9 IT4.0 21. t4445 2)
W= NODOE WAYE OF 12
m !M .3D ;M W M
o so so 6D 80 P - Ip fal 2
30
MWE LAKESHORE
13) 3D (12) (11) 10 (1 17) (7) (6 (2) (1) 2 ADOW116)
DOC No
26 26 m m 11 UJ 73Z,t IGS —4
1
31) (32) M j
9D) 2 5) so so I(f .. < 2011 it
AVE N
21
42
3 2 ) (38)
46)
so 23 10go
11 ... 24 65) Im ..
21
so m 8.0
is
210 M.6 .1Z
74) 0
73) 26 it
70) (71) g
2
8 75)
72)
n
100
zm 0 0
j, IF i, ...........................
60
Z 10
0.)
10 0a) 2,
M
11 4
12)
21)
i a. /g 211.m
6)
R L S
4)
24*) No 17 (5)
422.42
5) (3) X
466.7 (7)
r
4)
W4.6
466.7
0)
5) 8
10)
466.7 (9)
7) (
6)
c!
s)..6
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: July 5, 1990 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 11, 1990
FILE NO.: 90057
PETITIONER: Super Valu Stores, Inc.
REQUEST: Mixed Planned Unit Development Final Site Plan.
LOCATION: Southeast corner'of 36th Avenue North and Vicksburg Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CC (Community Shopping Center)
ZONING:
BACKGROUND:
MPUD 78 -2
The City Council, under Resolution 77 -139, approved the General Development
Plan for the "Plymouth Hills" Mixed Planned Unit Development involving this
land. The City Council, under Resolution 78 -530, approved a revised General
Development Plan for the Plymouth Hills Companies for the "Plymouth Hills
Addition ".
Since 1978 there have been several revisions, and a small retail- service
building, drive -up bank, cable television hub facility and full service bank
have been constructed within the Plymouth Hills Addition (also known as
Downtown Plymouth "). In June, 1987, the City Council, under Resolution 87-
333, approved the Mixed Planned Unit Development Plan Amendment for Kenneth
Streeter, for "Plymouth Hills Shops" on the site south of this location at the
southwest corner of 35th Avenue North and 34th Avenue North. No development
has taken place responsive to that approved plan. It should be noted however
that the plan for "Plymouth Hills Shops" amended the original General
Development Plan for this site to substitute a retail shopping facility for a
series of restaurant sites that had been approved in the original MPUD plan.
This application proposes the construction of a 67,600 square foot first phase
of the "Shopping Mall" previously approved on the 15.6 acre site bounded by
Vicksburg Lane, 36th Avenue North, Plymouth Boulevard and the 35th Avenue
North cul -de -sac which the petitioner purchased several years ago. This first
phase will be a "Cub Foods" store. The PUD final plan shows future expansions
of 12,600 square feet and 24,300 square feet for retail use.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The Final Site Plan has been reviewed by the Development Review Committee
and found to comply with Zoning Ordinance standards with respect to
parking (765 proposed, and 406 required for the first phase of
construction with 627 required for all three phases of construction
depicted); structure and parking setbacks; landscaping including the
proper number of traffic island delineators; free standing signage (one at
120 square feet on the southwest corner of the site); traffic circulation
and design (with several improvements made during the DRC review process);
engineering details with respect to utilities, drainage and paving; and
other related City Policy codes or ordinances not specifically referred to
below.
2. The approved development plan for "Plymouth Hills" specifies the
installation of concrete sidewalks along the entire periphery of this
site, including from the end of the 35th Avenue cul -de -sac to Vicksburg
Lane. The approved development plan specifies that no credit for park
dedication requirements shall be available to the developer for the
installation of this required concrete sidewalk.
The petitioner proposes to install the concrete sidewalk as required along
Vicksburg Lane and 36th Avenue North between Vicksburg Lane and Plymouth
Boulevard. The petitioner requests deferral of sidewalk construction
along Plymouth Boulevard until possible future development of the easterly
portion of this site, and elimination of sidewalk construction along 35th
Avenue North and at the property line between the west end of 35th Avenue
North and Vicksburg Lane.
3. The plan proposes wall signage inconsistent with the standards of the
Zoning Ordinance. The signage proposed is within the B -2 Zoning District
standards for area (five percent of the wall area on which the sign is to
be located) but extends to a maximum of ten feet above the horizontal roof
level of the structure. Section 10, Subdivision A, Paragraph 7e specifies
that no wall sign attached to a building shall project above the roof line
of the building to which it is attached. Since this project is within a
planned unit development any modifications to that standard require an
amendment to the PUD Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit. The
Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit amendment process requires
notification of property owners within five hundred feet and Public
Hearing before the Planning Commission. No such notice or Public Hearing
has been established with this application.
4. The site plan depicts two trash compactor locations on the east side of
the supermarket structure. The applicant has provided no plans for the
screening of these trash facilities within an approved accessory building
or enclosure consistent with Section 8, Subdivision G, Paragraph 2e of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The Grading Plan for the site proposes retention of the high ground that
exists fronting Plymouth Boulevard. This site feature will result in a
topographic screening of both of the compactor locations from public view
in a manner similar to that found with the Target Site Plan approved by
the City Council recently. In this case there is no assurance that the
area east of the proposed compactor locations will remain graded in the
future in the same manner that it is now proposed. Also, no application
has been made for an Amended Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit,
and therefore no vehicle is available to permit a solution such as the
City Council adopted with the Target Final Site Plan.
In the case of Target the City Council amended the PUD Preliminary Plan to
allow the location of a waste compactor without an enclosure structure
subject to the continued cleanliness of the area of the site with respect
to refuse and trash. The elimination of the enclosure was based on the
topographic screening of the area of the site on which the trash compactor
was proposed to be located. The plan amendment also specified that should
a verified complaint be received regarding cleanliness of the area with
respect to refuse and trash the matter would be reviewed immediately
thereafter by the City Council to determine compliance with the intent of
the Ordinance standard. An approach such as this might be viable for this
Cub" Site Plan with the additional assurance of enclosures being
constructed in the future should the grading of the eastern site remove
the topographic screening that exists.
A solution such as suggested with respect to trash compactor screening is
not available, however, at this time because no MPUD Preliminary Plan and
Conditional Use Permit Amendment has been applied for, and therefore no
Public Notice or Hearing is being held, as required for the amendment of a
PUD plan.
5. No specific treatment of rooftop mechanical units has been proposed by the
Site Plan Application. The Ordinance does, however, specify that rooftop
units be aesthetically compatible with the proposed building. A
photograph submitted with the application materials suggests that at at
least one previous location the "Cub Foods" rooftop units are not treated
for aesthetic appearance in any manner. Since these units may be visible
from public streets, aesthetic treatment to assure the appearance of the
units complement the structure may be advisable.
6. The landscape plan submitted requests credit for existing trees located in
the easterly portion of the site adjoining Plymouth Boulevard. Credit for
those existing trees, consistent with the terms of the Plymouth Tree
Preservation Policy, is permitted by the Landscape Policy as long as those
existing trees remain following grading operations, and are not physically
separated by the site by a future platting or lot division action. At
such time as "future expansion" or "future retail" additions are made to
the proposed structure additional landscaping will be required for the
site consistent with the landscape policy.
7. The Site Plan responds to the City Council Policy and Standards and
Criteria regarding Site and Building Aesthetics and Architectural Design
by an exterior treatment of red brick over the lower 15 feet (except main
wall sign area); a 1k foot teal green accent strip; and a 5 foot
cream /stucco band on top. The sign would be red letters on a gray /stucco
background.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The Final Site Plan Proposal is generally consistent with the approved
Mixed Plan Unit Development Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit
for this site, except as noted. The exterior finish proposed is
consistent with the Architectural Appearance Policy.
2. Either the Site Plan should be amended at this time to modify the proposed
wall signage so as to be located below the roof level, or all reference to
wall signage should be removed from this approval action, and the
petitioner should immediately file an application for an amended PUD Plan
to address his wall signage specifically.
3. The Site Plan Proposal to locate trash compactors outside the principal
building without an enclosure or accessory structure is inconsistent with
the Zoning Ordinance and the approved Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use
Permit for this site. Provision of those enclosures should either become
a condition of this Site Plan approval action, or the plan should be
amended to eliminate trash compactors external to the structure. The
substitution of existing topographic screening for the structural
screening could be considered through an application to amend the MPUD
Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit at a later date.
4. Public sidewalk construction proposed by the Site Plan is incomplete per
the approved MPUD Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit for
Plymouth Hills ". Construction of public sidewalks consistent with the
approved "Plymouth Hills" plan should be a condition of approval of this
Final Site Plan. No modification of that requirement can be made without
an application for amendment to the MPUD Preliminary Plan and Conditional
Use Permit for the "Plymouth Hills" Plan Unit Development.
5. The ordinance standard for rooftop mechanical units is a performance
standard relative to noise; we do not presume noise will be a problem.
However, the plans (picture) are not responsive to the ordinance relative
to aesthetics and this should be addressed in the approval action.
Equipment can be painted as well as screened.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend the MPUD Final Site Plan for Lot 1, Block 3 of "Plymouth
Hills" be approved subject to conditions normally associated with such action
and related to the stkffcomments noted,,&bQve.
Submitted by:
arses t. ui"-erua, community uevelopment uoorainator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution approving MPUD Final Site Plan
2. Engineer's memo
3. Location map
4. Approved MPUD Preliminary Plan for "Plymouth Hills"
5. Large plans
pc /cd /90057:rcr)9
APPROVING MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL SITE PLAN FOR SUPER VALU
STORES, INC. (90057) (MPUD 78 -2)
WHEREAS, Super Valu, Inc. has requested approval for a Mixed Planned Unit
Development Final Site Plan for a retail store of 67,600 square feet for a
Cub Foods" on Lot 1, Block 3 "Plymouth Hills" at the southeast corner of 36th
Avenue North and Vicksburg Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Super Valu, Inc. for a Mixed Planned Unit Development Final Site Plan for a
67,600 square foot retail store for "Cub Foods" on Lot 1, Block 3 "Plymouth
Hills" at the southeast corner of 36th Avenue North and Vicksburg Lane,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements.
3. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. No roof
signage is approved.
4. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
5. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and
fire lanes.
6. All exterior waste facilities shall be enclosed consistent with Zoning
Ordinance specifications.
7. 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.
8. The roof top units shall be painted or screened to match the walls of the
structure.
9. Compliance with the applicable rovisions of City Council Resolutions 78-
530 (MPUD Preliminary Plan /Plat .
10. No outside storage, display, or sales of merchandise is approved by this
action.
11. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner and positive measures
shall be taken to effectively keep and manage the carts on the site.
12. Revised plans shall be submitted to reflect the sidewalks per the approved
plan for this MPUD and the walks shall be constructed per City standards.
13. Park dedication requirements have been met by prior actions involving this
parcel.
14. Prior to issuance of a building permit the petitioner shall submit a
memorial to the property title establishing the understanding that
additional landscaping will be required with future additions to the
structure above the 67,600 square foot supermarket.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: July 5, 1990
FILE NO.: 90057
PETITIONER: Ms. Pat Moen, SuperValu Stores, Inc., P.O. Box 1451, Minneapolis, MN
55440
SITE PLAN: CUB FOODS
LOCATION: North of Highway 55, east of Vicksburg Lane, south of 36th Ave., west
of Plymouth, Blvd., in the northwest 1/4 of Section 21
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. _ X _ Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. _ X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and
No. 2
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Site Plan approval:
4. Area assessments estimated - None
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None
LEGAL /EASEMENTS /PERMITS:
N/A Yes No
6. _ X Property is one parcel -
The approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot
consolidation be approved by the City Council and the necessary
resolution should be processed at the same time as the site plan
approval.
7.
N/A Yes No
X
8. X --
9. X --
N/A Yes No
10. X — —
11. — — 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.) Along the south FroDerty line, east of Vicksburg
Lane, west of 35th Ave. Easements shall be submitted in recordable
form.
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.
All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities.
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 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
The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit.
13. _ _ X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The site plan will be submitted to the City's consulting engineer
for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations
shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The grading and drainage
plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary: .5-U
Special Conditions.
N/A Yes No
14. _ X _ Necessary fire hydrants provided -
The City of Plymouth requires that all parts of a building such as
the one proposed be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant. It will be
necessary to locate hydrants in such a manner that the site plan
complies with this section of the City Ordinance.
15. X Size and type of material proposed in utility systems has been
provided
The utility plan shall be revised to indicate the size and type of
material required in the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain services
and storm sewer.
16. _ X _ Post indicator valve - fire department connection
It will be necessary to locate the post indicator valve in such a
manner that it will not render any of the existing fire hydrants
inoperable.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. _ X Hydrant valves provided -
All new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City
Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W -2. This plate should be
referenced on the site plan.
18. X _ _ Sanitary sewer clean -outs provided -
It will be necessary to provide clean -outs on the proposed internal
sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot intervals.
19. _ X _ Acceleration /deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration /deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
As shown on the Site Plan
N/A Yes No
and
20. _ X _ All existing street right -of -ways are required width -
Additional right -of -way will be required on
21. _ X _ Complies with site drainage requirements -
The City will not permit drainage onto a City street from a private
parking lot; therefore, the site plan shall be revised accordingly.
4-
N/A Yes No
22. _ XX 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.
STANDARD S•
N/A Yes No
24. _ X It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility
foreman,
24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to
the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The developer shall
also be responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the Public Works
Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the
City's right -of -way. All connections to the water system shall be
via wet tap.
25. _ X The City will require reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer,
water service and storm sewer As- Builts for the site prior to
occupancy permits being granted.
26. X The site plan complies with the City of Plymouth's current
Engineering Standards Manual. See Item No's 7, 11, 12, 13, 26 and
Special Conditions
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
27. A. There is inadequate cover over the storm sewer near Catch Basin 14 - 1.5 feet,
Catch Basin Manhole 13 - 2.2 feet, Catch Basin 19 - 2.2 feet. Special
backfilling will be required to eliminate heaving.
B. The storm sewer pipe slope from Manhole 13 to Manhole 12 computes to 0.6%, not
0.7% based on invert and length. The following pipe sizes are inadequate and
shall be increased in size. Catch Basin 14 to Manhole 8 shall be 21 inch, not
18 inch. Manhole 8 to Manhole 3 shall be 27 inch, not 24 inch. Manhole 5 to
Manhole 3 shall be 21 inch, not 18 inch. Manhole 3 to Manhole 2 shall be 30
inch, not 27 inch. Manhole 2 to existing manhole shall be 33 inch, not 30
inch.
C. Plan and profile sheets along with specifications shall be provided for the.
lane widening on Vicksburg Lane and the median reconstruction on 36th Ave.
The estimated cost for these improvements shall be included in the Site
Improvement Performance Agreement.
D. The ductile iron watermain shall be Class 52.
E. A detail of the sidewalk shall be provided on the detail sheet.
F. A typical section for the pavement shall be provided for the Vicksburg Lane
turn lane and the 36th Avenue N. turn lanes.
G. The west driveway site on 36th Ave. shall be east and west closing the first
median opening.
H. Traffic signs shall be installed according to the Uniform Traffic Manual.
Signs will be required at all driveway entrances to public streets and at the
main intersections of the private driveways. A sign plan shall be submitted
for review.
Submitted by: &" 7VAZ- ZIL .
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
6-
o",
i
1
W-1
ilk
0
Ap
I" i m;•
s\ Amm 02 A,
l/r
W,
Apo c)
jR
gir'sa
c
jy
pr-I. IP
14
TV
lip
4
l
sa
ns
14
40-
4
P1YMOQrM'kft..l'SHOPS
Taw
tf"ll
sa
ns
14
40-
a
ti
q iij
Iry
lIj
Z04
4
P1YMOQrM'kft..l'SHOPS
Taw
a
ti
q iij
Iry
lIj
Z04
QWO
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: July 6, 1990
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chuck Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTED DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
REGARDING FREESTANDING SIGNS IN THE B -1 ZONING DISTRICT
Attached please find a draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment in the format we use
for such actions responsive to the direction given by the Planning Commission
at its May 9, 1990 meeting.
Also attached is a copy of the May 9, 1990 Planning Commission minutes
reflecting the direction on this matter.
pc /cd /7.A:jw)
DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 1
HEARING DATE: May 9, 1990
DESCRIPTION:
Provide for a second freestanding identification sign for parcels in the B -1
Zoning District based on certain restrictions and as a replacement for
otherwise permitted wall signage.
SECTIONS INVOLVED: Section 10, Subdivision A, Paragraph 3. b (Business
Signs - -B -1 District).
EXPLANATION /PURPOSE:
A property owner (Miles Homes, Inc.) located in the B -1 Zoning District has
made application for an amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance to allow
a second site identification sign in the B -1 District under certain
circumstances. The specific circumstances of Miles Homes, Inc. is frontage on
two thoroughfare streets with large site area.
Following a Public Hearing May 9, 1990, the Planning Commission directed staff
to prepare draft language to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit the exchange
of wall signage for a freestanding sign in the B -1 District where the parcel
exceeds 20 acres; and has no access to an adjoining major thoroughfare.
The purpose of this amendment is to accomplish the direction specified by the
Planning Commission in their May 9, 1990 action.
CONCLUSIONS /RECOMMENDATIONS:
We recommend the Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows:
Add a new item to Section 10, Subdivision A, Paragraph 3. b, which would read
as follows:
A second freestanding Business Sign shall be permitted where the
parcel on which the sign is located exceeds 20 acres and the parcel
has no private drive access to an adjoining principal arterial or
intermediate arterial street. The second freestanding Business Sign
shall be in lieu of flat wall Business Signs otherwise permitted.
The second freestanding Business Sign shall be limited to a maximum
surface area of 50 square feet and a maximum height of 16 feet. The
sign shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from all property lines.
Underscore - indicates new text
pc /cd /7 -11)
Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 1990
Page 70
MOTION to amend by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Chairman
Plufka to add a condition to those listed in the May 3, 1990
Staff Report stating that access be provided to Ordinance
standards for subdivisions for up to three parcels that may be
created in the northeast corner belonging to Jim Guddal.
Commissioner Tierney stated that the Commissioners should look
at the street bubble possibility.
Commissioner Marofsky stated that there may be a more efficient
way to lay out the division of the Guddal property.
Roll Call Vote on Motion to Amend. 3 Ayes, Commissioner VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Stulberg and Chairman Plufka, Nay. MOTION carried.
Roll Call Vote on Main Motion as once amended. 4 Ayes, VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Tierney, Nay. MOTION carried.
Chairman Plufka introduced the request of Miles Homes, Inc. for MILES HOMES, INC.
a Zoning Ordinance Amendment for signage for property located (90026)
in the B -1 Zoning District.
Coordinator Dillerud reviewed the May 3, 1990 Staff Report.
Chairman Plufka opened the Public Hearing.
Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. Morris Hartman representing the
petitioner.
Mr. Hartman stated that the site for Miles Homes, Inc. was 36.2
acres and that their building was barely visible from Nathan
Lane and Highway 169. He said that a wall sign on the building
was not appropriate or effective and his request for a change
in the ordinance would not be precedent setting if the
ordinance change was restrictive. Mr. Hartman showed the
Commissioners a diagram of the existing sign and site.
Chairman Plufka closed the Public Hearing.
The Commissioners 'discussed signs relative to location, size,
identification, effectiveness and the possibility of trade -offs
allowing one type of sign for another.
MOTION by Chairman Plufka, seconded by Commissioner Tierney to
direct staff to draft language to amend the Ordinance to permit
the exchange of wall signage for a freestanding sign in the B -1
District where the parcel exceeds 20 acres, and has no access
to an adjoining major thoroughfare and that the amendment be
brought back to the Planning Commission for recommendation.
Roll Call Vote. 4 Ayes, Commissioner Marofsky; Nay. MOTION VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
carried.