HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 03-22-19895A
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE March 13, 1989 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: March 22, 1989
FILE NO.: 89006
PETITIONER: Trammell Crow Company/Pizza Hut
REQUEST: Amended MPUD Conditional Use Permit to occupy a portion of
the "Rockford Square" structure with a third Class II
Restaurant
LOCATION: Southwest corner of I-494 and County Road 9
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CS (Service Business)
ZONING: MPUD 78-1
BACKGROUND:
By Resolution No. 87-153 the City Council approved a Site Plan and Conditional
Use Permit for a retail center known as "Clock Tower Square". The approval
action provided for a Conditional Use Permit to be issued for approximately
4,000 square feet of approved Site Plan to include a "fast food restaurant".
No specific fast food restaurant was mentioned, but all parking and related
calculations for the Site Plan were based on a fast food (Class II) restaurant
occupying approximately 4,000 square feet of the building. In addition,
Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch completed a traffic study covering this development that
assumed a fast food restaurant of slightly over 4,000 square feet to be within
the building. All Site Plan approvals on the original Conditional Use Permit
were based on this assumption.
On December 19, 1988, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 88-870 approving
a Class II restaurant for this same structure (now called Rockford Square) to
allow a second restaurant within the original 4,000 square foot area that was
to be "fast food". The result of this action was that two fast food
facilities now occupy the space that was originally intended for a single
facility. In granting the second Conditional Use Permit, the Planning
Commission and City Council determined that the two proposed facilities would
generate impacts no greater than a single facility of the same would have as
anticipated by the original Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified by mail.
Staff Report (89006)
March 13, 1989
Page 2
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The Applicant proposes to occupy 1,280 gross square feet of the Rockford
Square convenience center. The facility proposed is a "Pizza Hut". The
facility would be a carry -out operation, as well as home delivery. There
would be approximately 150 square feet of carry -out waiting area, and the
balance would be service area for the facility. The Petitioner has made
no representations as to the number of employees intended to be on site,
or used in the delivery operation. No hours of operation are prescribed
although the Petitioner, in his narrative in support of the application,
indicates that the period from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. is the peak sales
hours.
2. Review of a Conditional Use Permit application and a subsequent
recommendation to the City Council is guided by provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance with respect to six specific criteria that must be met by the
proposed use before a Conditional Use Permit can be issued. In addition,
since the MPUD Conditional Use Permit requires amendment by this
application, the criteria of the PUD Ordinance (Section 9, Subdivision B,
Paragraph 5 of the Zoning Ordinance) must be addressed. A copy of those
criteria are attached to this Staff Report. Petitioner has responded in
narrative form to the six Conditional Use Permit criteria. A copy of that
response is attached to this Staff Report as well.
3. A key concern in the review of Conditional Use Permit for multi -tenant
retail structures such as this is that of the resulting off street parking
demand and supply. This multi -tenant retail structure was originally
designed responsive to the off street parking formula specified for such
type of structure in the B-3 zone. Consistent with former provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance, even though this is a "shopping center" by Zoning
Ordinance definition, parking was provided based upon 10 spaces per 1,000
square feet of gross floor area, plus an increment in addition covering
the 4,000 square feet of previously approved restaurant space. With the
1988 change in the Zoning Ordinance reducing the off street parking
requirement for the retailing portion of the multi -tenant structure
11,000 gross square feet), the net reduction in parking required by the
Zoning Ordinance is 44 spaces.
The Applicant's plan indicates 150 square feet of customer waiting space
for the carry -out operation, generating a need for 10 off street parking
spaces. Even if the balance of the proposed facility (1,100 square feet)
were measured against the 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet general retail
formula, a total of 16 spaces would be required to support what is applied
for here. Based on Zoning Ordinance standards that now apply to this
structure, the proposed use will not adversely impact off street parking
for the overall multi -tenant structure.
Staff Report (89006)
March 13, 1989
Page 3
4. A second issue is of vehicular traffic generation. The original
Conditional Use Permit for this overall project was based partly on a
traffic report from the consulting traffic engineers to the City, Strgar-
Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. That traffic study made certain assumptions as to the
occupancy of these structures and forecasted traffic generation based on
those assumptions.
Extending the ratios found in that traffic study to the net reduction in
retail space and the net increase in restaurant space that this proposal
generates, we find an increase in average daily traffic assignable to this
proposed use to be a maximum of 700 vehicles per day, or 12% over the
original total traffic generation from the Rockford Square. It should be
understood that traffic generation data for a restaurant use such as
proposed - all carry -out or delivery - may not exactly parallel that of a
typical "fast food restaurant". To the extent there is a difference, the
traffic increase speculations noted above should be considered
conservative estimates.
5. A more basic issue relates to the MPUD Plan that controls the use of this
site. Since only a single Class II restaurant was approved by that plan -
recently expanded to two Class II restaurants in the same building space -
this proposal is not simply a "generic" Class II restaurant Conditional
Use Permit. The MPUD Plan (in the form of an existing Conditional Use
Permit) is proposed to be amended by this application. The entire range
of both permitted and conditional uses of the B-3 zone are allowable under
the MPUD Plan for this site, except Class II restaurants. Only two Class
II restaurants are now permitted by the MPUD Plan Conditional Use Permit.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. We find that the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a Pizza Hut at the
Rockford Square convenience shopping center is responsive to the six
Conditional Use Permit criteria specified by the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Specifically with respect to traffic generation, we do not find the 700
vehicle per day increase in ADT to be statistically significant based on
the projected service level (C) of the Annapolis/County Road 9
intersection with signalization. It might even be said that the
additional ADT will hasten the warrants for signalization of an
intersection the Planning Commission has previously heard as in need.
3. We view the issue of MPUD Plan amendment to increase the number of Class
II restaurants at this location to be a judgment determination. What is
the intent with regard to the use character of this business site?
Staff Report (89006)
March 13, 1989
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend adoption by the Planning Commission of the attached
recommendation for approval of the Conditional Use Permit as applied for.
Submitted by:
Charles E. Dillerud, Community
ATTACHMENTS:
L-
velopment Coordinator
1. Draft Recommendation for Approval for a Conditional Use Permit
2. Location Map
3. Floor Plan
4. Petitioner's Narrative
5. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
6. SRF Traffic Study dated December 10, 1986
7. Resolution No. 87-153
pc/cd/89006:jaw)
APPROVING AN AMENDED MPUD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY FOR
A CLASS II RESTAURANT TO OCCUPY A PORTION OF THE "ROCKFORD SQUARE" STRUCTURE
MPUD 78-1) (89006)
WHEREAS, Trammell Crow Company has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a
Class II Restaurant to operate a 1,250 square foot "Pizza Hut" in a portion of
the Rockford Square structure; and,
WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 87-153 specifies the number of Class II
restaurants allowed in this MPUD; 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 of
Trammell Crow Company for an amended MPUD Conditional Use Permit for a Class
II Restaurant to operate a Pizza Hut located in the Rockford Square structure,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and Ordinances,
and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The permit is issued to Pizza Hut of America, Inc. as operator of the
facility and shall not be transferrable.
3. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
4. Any signage shall conform with the City Ordinance standards and the
approved Master Sign Plan.
5. The permit shall be renewed annually to assure compliance with the
conditions.
6. Compliance with applicable Building and Fire Code requirements shall be
verified by the City prior to Permit issuance.
7. All parking shall be off street in deisgnated areas which comply with the
Zoning Ordinance and the approved Site Plan.
8. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within the structure and no
outside storage is permitted.
pc/cd/89006:jaw)
vn
W
r
1' D
1f10J1> uvo 030NVHN3 HlIM
rncc
r
V
T
O
C4 cl-
d
S C .ge
a `
fLlodtvi om
IINn AU3AI134 M3N W m o T
WCL Q
X10
J
4
U
OL
O
a
5
1
W
CC
H
Z
O
U
1' D
urE
rncc
r
V
I i
C4 cl-
d
em
O
a
5
1
W
CC
H
Z
O
U
Conditional Use Permit Request
Pizza Hut Carry -Out Restaurant
Rockford Square, Plymouth, Minnesota
Trammell Crow Company
Trammell Crow Company requests a Conditional Use Permit to
operate a Class II restaurant in the existing Clocktower Square
Building (commonly referred to as "Rockford Square"). Rockford
Square consists of approximately 16,000 gross square feet of
which 3,400 square feet is currently vacant. Pizza Hut proposes
to occupy 1,280 gross square feet, as indicated on the attached
site plan.
Previous City of Plymouth action granted approval for a
Dairy Queen with a drive thru window and a Subway Sandwich Shop,
both of which are classified as Class II restaurants. A Class I
restaurant is a permitted use within the district and not
subject to Conditional Use Permit approval.
The proposed Pizza Hut will be a carry -out and delivery
unit to conform to their prototypical unit operated nationally.
The store does not provide seating or dining areas. The only
public space is approximately 150 square feet of carry -out
waiting area. Attached is a prototypical floor plan which will
be adapted for Rockford Square. The Pizza Hut carry -out store
does not utilize a drive-thru window. Demands on parking are
minimal, as there is no on -premise dining. Peak sales hours are
from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., which does not concur with p.m.
peak hour traffic periods.
Attached is a description of Pizza Hut's conformance to the
six specific Conditional Use Permit criteria.
lsx-138
Satisfaction of Conditional Use Permit Criteria
Pizza Hut Carry -Out Restaurant
Rockford Square, Plymouth, Minnesota
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan
The proposed Pizza Hut carry -out restaurant will be located
in the space outlined on the attached site plan within the
Rockford Square retail center. The use is in compliance
with the comprehensive plan and does not impact the present
or future goals of the comprehensive plan.
2. Establishment, Maintenance, and Operation of Conditional
Use.
The entire Rockford Square Retail Center is maintained to
high standards by Trammell Crow Company in conjunction with
the adjacent Plymouth Business Center. Maintenance is
performed by professional engineers, consultants, and
contractors on a regular basis. Pizza Hut is recognized as
a very successful national operator with proven standard
operating procedures. In contrast to most national
carry -out and delivery chains, Pizza Hut does not guarantee
delivery within an allotted time (typically 30 minutes). In
this manner, Pizza Hut employees are not hurried in their
service to customers over the counter or by delivery.
Additionally, Pizza Hut employees are compensated by hourly
wages in addition to the industry standard tips from
customers. This insures that the best available employees
are available to Pizza Hut and that their vehicles are
appropriately maintained and insured. All potential drivers
must have good driving records. Extensive research by Pizza
Hut shows that a carry -out and delivery unit is very much in
demand in the immediate vicinity and as such, the store
should provide a needed and desired service to the residents
and business community.
3. Use not Injurious to Use and Enjoyment to Nearby Property.
The unit will be located within a retail center designed for
this type of use and compatible uses. The use does not
adversely impact other tenants in Rockford Square, Plymouth
Business Center, or other nearby property. Customers and
employees of the center must utilize ingress and egress
routes that are clearly defined and designed for the
Rockford Square Retail Center. The design of nearby streets
does not allow for traffic routes which could impact nearby
residential areas. Access patterns will be confined to
County Road 9 and Annapolis Lane. The use will not diminish
or impair nearby property values.
4. Use will Not Impede Normal and Orderly Development of
Surrounding Property.
The use will be located in a retail center designed
specifically for multi -tenant occupancy. The Rockford
Square Retail Center is developed, owned, and managed by
Trammell Crow Company, the developer of the adjacent
Plymouth Business Center.
5. Adequate Ingress, Egress, and Parking.
Existing ingress and egress patterns, which were reviewed
and approved by the City of Plymouth prior to the
development of Rockford Square, will be utilized by Pizza
Hut. No changes to existing traffic patterns will be
required. As the Pizza Hut store will not have any seats or
dining area, parking requirements are minimal. There are
currently 146 parking stalls allocated to Rockford Square,
of which 94 spaces are allocated to the existing uses based
on current City of Plymouth parking standards. This leaves
52 parking stalls for the remaining 3,400 square feet of
vacant space (including the Pizza Hut space), obviously a
very sufficient number of spaces for the remaining vacant
space. Based on city parking standards, the Pizza Hut store
would require between 8 - 12 parking stalls, which is in
conformance with the experience of Pizza Hut.
6. Use to Conform to Applicable Regulations.
The Pizza Hut use is a conforming use in all other respects
within the PUD district, contingent on receipt of the
conditional use permit.
In summary, the proposed Pizza Hut satisfies each of the
conditional use permit criteria.
lsx-135
C
Pe /M
2. Procedure. efore any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the application
therefore, s all be referred to the Planning Commission for purposes of evalua-
tion against the standards of this Section, Public Hearing, and development of a
recommendati n to the City Council, which shall make the final determination as
to approval r denial.
a. The Plann ng Commission shall review the application and consider its con-
formance 1th the following standards:
1 ) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will
pro ote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimen-
tal to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already
per itted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within
the neighborhood.
4) Th establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and
or erly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses
pe mitted in the District.
5) Adquate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress,
an parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion -in the public
st eets.
6) Th conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the appli-
ca le regulations of the district in which it is located.
ST GAR R-ROSCOE FAUSCH, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
0'ItICTURAIENGINEERS a IAN) SlRYtYA{!II I\A+
December 10, 1986
Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Commission No. 0860815
CITY OF PLYMOUTH 1il
3400 Plymouth Boulevard ,
1 1
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Mr. Moore:
SUBJECT: CLOCK TOWER SQUARE DEVELOrMENT TRAFFIC STUDY
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT I-494 & COUNTY ROAD 9
In response to your request of December 4, 1986, a trafficstudyhasbeencompletedfortheproposeddevelopmenttobelocatedinthesouthwestquadrantoftheinterchangeofI- 494 and County Road 9 (see Figure One - Location Map). Thisdevelopmentconsistsof3,000 s.f. of convenience store, 11,200 s.f. of neighborhood retail shopping, and 4,364 s.f. 125 seats) of fast food restaurant (see Figure Two - Proposed Development Plan).
The PM Peak Hour volumes generated by the subject proposalwereestimated, using trip generation rates contained in theInstituteofTransportationEngineersTripGenerationManual.
Trip generation data for the subject proposal is tabulatedasfollows:
CLOCK TOWER SQUARE
Trip Generation Rates Trip Generation Volumes
LAND USEUNIT g•D•T•
P.M.peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
4 ie A.D.T. ZA of
Convenience
Store 3,000 GSF 625.2 23.35 23.35 1,876 70 70
Retail
Shopping 11,200 GSF 117.9 5.77 5.81 1,320 65 65
Fast Food
Restaurant 4,364 GSF 685.7 22.00 19.30 2.992 2& 84
Totals 60188 231 219
630 Twelve Oaks Center, 15500 Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata MN 55391 (612) 475.0010
Mr. Fred
Traffic
other ad
the adja
distribu
populati
Distribu
volumes
P.M. as
design)
I-494, a
P.M. Pea
G. Moore, P.E. - 2 - December 10, 1986
olumes generated by the subject proposal as well as
acent proposed or future development were assigned to
ent roadway system using an assumed directional. trip
ion, estimated from the regional distribution of
n and employment (see Figure Three - Directional Trip
ion). Based on this traffic assignment intersection
are estimated for the P.M. Street Peak Hour (4:30 - 5:30
imed as the most appropriate hour for analysis and
or the intersections of County Road 9 and the ramps at
d, at Annapolis Lane/Berkshire Lane (see Figure Four -
Hour Intersection volumes).
Since the intersections of the I-494 ramps with County Road 9
will be improved and signalized in the near future by Hennepin
Countyin cooperation with the State Department of
Transpor ation, it is assumed that traffic generated by the
subjectproposal will be accommodated in the design and
construc ion of these intersections. Therefore no formal
capacityanalysis at these intersections was carried out in this
study. However, Hennepin County has not included County Road 9
west of I-494 in their 5 year capital improvements plan, and
therefo the intersection at Annapolis Lane/Berkshire Lane and
County oad 9 was analyzed. The results of this analysis are
summarized as follows:
o The oxisting unsignalized intersection of Annapolis Lane and
Coun y Road 9 currently operates at Level of Service D -
appr aching unstable flow or better and is operationally
acce table.
o Addi g the north leg -Berkshire Lane, and traffic generated by
the ubject proposal as well as traffic generated by other
future adjacent development, the unsignalized intersection,
woult operate at Level of Service F - Over Capacity.
o By a ding additional lanes of approach to all legs of the
inta section, and installing a traffic signal at this
inte section traffic operations would be improved to Level of
Sery ce C or Better - Stable Flow (see Figure Five -
Reco mended Intersection Geometrics).
Flo `
68 TOTAL BERKSHIRE LN.'
591 NIS STREET
WD TOTAL
J94. 1 Ch8'
179 1 358 I I
I 1 I I 238
44
1 1 1 1 I
I I ! 1 I C. R. 9
1 1 1 I E/W STREET
l k• I
v k? 1------------------
C.R. C.R.9 1 1 1 1 1
E/W STREET ! I ! I 1 I
I
J 1 1 1 ] 4'
ED TOTAL l
1097 894' 1 I
ANNAPOLIS LN.
NIS STREET NB 70TAI..
t 1 705
y &
STRGAR-HOSCOE.F•AUSCIC INC. CITY OF .PLYMOUTH FIGURE FOURtivtv.Gtw.w[[rsrr[+wtwrvtvta
CLOCK TOWER'SOUARE, PM PEAK HOUR
y*'
ii;'
b tkt[vt OtRf Ctrtt. nw wwt uKvO 4,r *? ,:. INTERSECTION VOLUMES
wr.KtOwu, rwrtfOu W$It TRAEFICbSTUO, COMIttlSSION NO• .. - ..
i"i{T<G'•. f/;t i,.•CJ , . 'fi:r` '?.!.r-bYT",3•k'/''t,
CWWV ?bAV I
Mb 119my"ANta B I
I
STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH. INC. CITY OF PLY.MOUTH.-'" FIGURE FIVE
co.,.,loaw.;"ans 0 6 lbpo "a" vons RECOMMENDED
CLOCK TOWER SQUARE, GEOMETRIC
wom"a low A. Alowl 60TA $$"I
TRAFFIC STUDY' IMPROVEMENTS
Comm WON
I
Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E. 3 - cemuer 10, 1986
Based on these findings it is vocommended that design and
constzuction of the Annapolis Lane leg of the intersection at
County Road 9 be constructed with geometrics thr'• assure LOS C,
and that the intersection be monitored, and when traffic volumes
reach levels to satisfy traffic signal warrants that a traffic
signal justification study Le done and signals installed.
A review of the site circulation and driveway geometrics for the
site indicates that the driveways to Annapolis Lane should be 30
feet in width, and the east drive N1 shovld be moved to the west
to more effectively line up wit:`i the parking isle. Also, the
parking stalls on either side of the isle serving the west
driveway, which would serve as the major access to the retail and
convenience stores, are designed to require parked vehicles to
back into this major access isle. To avoid conflicts between
these backing parked vehicles and traffic entering or exiting the
site it is recommended that these parking spaces be reoriented to
the adjacent isles (see Figure Six - Site Recommendations).
Sincerely yours,
STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
reel
Peter A. Fausch, P.E.
Vice President
PAF:bba
t+1p}
a .,.,.
g,':Gy'l'1 9}'
i ;:4
CITY Of Pl1rM0UTH
Pursuant to due call andotice thereof, a regular meet iq of the City Council of the
City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 2nd — day of March , 1987. The
following members were present: Mayor Schneidec—"touncilmembers ra n s VasTIlou
and Zitur I*e—
following members were absent. none
arr
Councilmember Zitur introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87-153
APPROVING SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL CENTER FOR CROW -PLYMOUTH
LAND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IN CLOCKTOWER SQUARE (86139)
WHEREAS, Crow -Plymouth Land Limited Partnership has requested approval of a Site Plan
and Conditional Use Permit for a Retail Center including a fast food restaurant, on Lot
1, Block 19 Plymouth Business Center 4th Addition, south of County Road 9 and northeast
of Annapolis Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that It should and hereby does approve the request for Crow -Plymouth Lanai
Limited Partnership for a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Clocktower Square
Retail Center which includes a fast food restaurant, on Lot 1, Block 1, Plymouth
Business Center 4th Addition, south of County Road 9 and northeast of Annapolis Lane,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication with appropriate credits in
an amount determined according to verified acreage and paving costs and according
to the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
3. Provisions for a 20 -ft. wide trail outlot along County Road 9 and a 30 ft.
easement along I-494 per Comprehensive Park Plan, as verified by the Parks and
Engineering Departments, with submittal of detailed plans as to construction of
the trail per City standards.
4. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement for
completion of site improvements.
5. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance and sign program for this
development.
6. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals
per Ordinance provisions.
7. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within the structure and no outside
storage is permitted.
PLEASE SEE PAGE TWO
T
Page two
Resolution No. 87-153
7j
8. No Building Permit to be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded with
Hennepin County.
9. Access shall be limited to internal public roads and prohibited from County Road
9.
10. Appropriate legal documents as approved by the City Attorney, shall be recorded on
the property allowing for shared driveways and establishing that 25 required
parking spaces are located on Lot 29 Block 1, Plymouth Business Center 4th
Addition and legally encumbered for this parcel.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Sisk , and upon vote being taken thereon, the fol lowinavotedInfavorereo : _Mayor neider Councilmembers Crain Sisk Vasiliou and
Zitur e o ow nq
voted aga nst or abstained: none hereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
0.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE March 10, 1989 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: March 22, 1989
FILE NO.: 89009
PETITIONER: Paul Rhodes
REQUEST: Amend RPUD Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of
a deck within the prescribed side yard setback
LOCATION: 12200 61st Avenue North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING:
BACKGROUND:
MPUD 85-1
The MPUD Conditional Use Permit was approved by Resolution No. 85-257 on
April 15, 1985. The subject parcel was one of 88 single family lots created
by that action. Also included were 12 duplex lots and 11 commercial lots on a
site of approximately 73.03 acres.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the Official City
Newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The Applicant proposes construction of a deck 18 feet by 10 feet adjacent
to existing patio doors on the west side yard of his home. The proposed
deck would extend to within six feet of the side property line. The MPUD
Conditional Use Permit specifies (for detached dwellings) a 10 foot side
yard setback requirement for the "living area" side of houses and a six
foot side yard setback for the "garage side" of houses. The deck is to be
located on the "living side" of the Applicant's house and will encroach
four feet into the required 10 foot side yard, leaving a six foot side
yard.
2. The home constructed on the lot adjoining to the west has the "living
side" fronting the side yard in which the Applicant proposes to construct
the deck. As such, the setback is at least 10 feet from this home
adjoining to the west. Also, the home adjoining to the west, although the
living side fronts the side yard, does not have any wall openings such as
windows or doors on that portion of the home most impacted by any action
that would result in Applicant constructing his deck.
Staff Report (89009)
March 10, 1989
Page 2
3. An amendment to the MPUD dimensional specifications, such as here
proposed, must be reviewed by the Planning Commission consistent with both
the MPUD Preliminary Plan criteria found in Section 9, Subdivision B of
the Zoning Ordinance; and consistent with the Conditional Use Permit
criteria found in Section 9, Subdivision A, of the Zoning Ordinance.
Copies of both those citations are attached to this Staff Report for
consideration by the Planning Commission.
4. Existing lot coverage excluding the proposed deck is 18% and would rise to
just under 20% with construction of the proposed deck. Lot coverage is
not an issue with this application.
5. Petitioner has submitted a narrative response to the Conditional Use
Permit criteria. The response is attached for consideration of the
Planning Commission.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Based upon our review of the site, we do not find that the proposed deck
construction will result in a direct conflict with the general public
welfare or the use and enjoyment of other property in the district.
Further, we cannot find that the conditional use will in any way impede
the normal and orderly development of surrounding property or have any
great impact on the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Were this application a Zoning variance (as it would be were this not an
MPUD), a true "hardship" other than that imposed by the property owner is
hard to discern. While a finding of uniqueness or hardship is not
required for this Conditional Use Permit, the circumstances that are being
addressed are identical to those requiring such findings were this a
conventional subdivision. As such, the Staff suggests the Planning
Commission keep these circumstances in mind.
3. The parcel that we are dealing with is part of a Planned Unit Development.
As such, the purposes and components of a Planning Unit Development must
be addressed with reference to the opening paragraph of Subdivision B of
Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Here a Planned Unit Development is
described as a process whereby the City grants the developer the
opportunity for flexibility from the prescriptive standards of the Zoning
Ordinance in return for "good design". This relationship is carefully
considered at the time that the PUD plan is reviewed by the City - prior
to the construction of the very first house. The standards established
during the PUD planning process (including structure setbacks from
property lines) are considered to be a direct reflection of the beneficial
aspects that the PUD plan presents to the City. In the case of this MPUD,
sideand setbacks that would otherwise be 15 feet (on both sides of the
housJ were modified to an aggregate of 16 feet with a 10 foot/6 foot
minimum. The side yard concession granted by the PUD
Staff Report (89009)
March 10, 1989
Page 3
Conditional Use Permit was 47% of the Ordinance standard for side yards.
The net effect of the proposed amended CUP would be to increase the
divergence from the Zoning Ordinance side yard setback from the previously
approved 47% to 60% for this particular parcel.
The Staff, as we have in previous similar cases, finds that this proposal
is inconsistent with the stated purposes and intents of the Planned Unit
Development Ordinance. The relationship between the MPUD plan for this
development and the extent to which flexibility from prescribed Zoning
Ordinance standards was to be granted was established at the time of the
original Condtional Use Permit. Unless there has been a change in that
relationship that is applicable to all properties within the PUD, this
parcel should not be granted additional flexibility. One basic precept of
the PUD process (flexibility in return for design) is seriously eroded by
actions such as here proposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
We hereby recommend adoption by the Planning Commission of the first attached
draft Resolution providing for denial of the amended Conditional Use Permit.
Consistent with prior Planning Commission direction, we have also attached a
second Resolution providing for the approval of the Conditional Use Permit
amendment.
Submitted by:
Charles E. Dillerud, Comm
ATTACHMENTS:
nity Development Coordinator
1. Draft Resolution Denying the Conditional Use Permit
2. Draft Resolution Approving the Conditional Use Permit
3. Petitioner's Narrative
4. Location Map
5. Plot Plan
6. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
7. PUD Conditional Use Permit Criteria
pc/cd/89009:jaw)
DENYING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT FOR PAUL RHODES (89009)(MPUD 85-1)
WHEREAS, Paul Rhodes has requested approval for a Residential Planned Unit
Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Amendment to locate a deck within 6
feet of a side lot line where the approved standard is 10 feet, located at
12200 61st Avenue North; arid,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends denial;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby denies the Residential Planned
Unit Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Paul Rhodes located
at 12200 61st Avenue North, based on the following findings:
1. The request is not compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the
Planned Unit Development Subdivision of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance.
The design flexibility requested will not result in a higher quality of
development than might otherwise result under strict application of
previously approved setback standards.
pc/cd/89009:jaw)
P
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT FOR PAUL RHODES (89009)(MPUD 85-1)
WHEREAS, Paul Rhodes has requested a Planned Unit Development Plan Conditional
Use Permit Amendment for property located at 12200 61st Avenue North to locate
a deck within 6 feet of a side lot line where the approved standard is 10
feet; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for
Paul Rhodes for a Residential Planned Unit Development Plan Conditional Use
Permit Amendment to allow a deck within 6 feet of a side lot line, where the
approved standard is 10 feet, at 12200 61st Avenue North, pursuant to the
following findings and conditions:
1. No other amendments or variances are granted or implied.
2. The request is compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the
Planned Unit Development Ordinance; relates affirmatively to the
Comprehensive Plan; and is consistent with design criteria relating to
density, circulation and open space.
3. All applicable requirements of the City and State Building Codes shall be
implemented and enforced; no Code requirements are waived by this
approval.
pc/cd/89009:jaw)
8'700 q
G i Tr s % . 1! ro w4// #1 4, Iv j , I . c ILII/,
c. ,a t 0 01 S)Iv {.4 .fat 4, e 4 % &
7
s j4•,—,/' Z,. -• C..,& ..—
j
1, T\ t C a0. Tr t ... A v t L 'TeJ' n /i T 1 `.L d w Coto " K. f j'
f 1o, TD r -A A :fir 1 K 40 Jr t T -0II_ w, c l H, 7 -
cotc0e r-,..:« t ..r r.v 4, 70 e c... ..- ^AJ t jf . A
3. A cD z c Ic a .v re A t ,"./ /- d 'a., ; & .... _r &tof L, wd I
oft itw -m-- + QKs F .t f% N4 11 wfows f riJ
O w f b% fA ^ I 1 f h o/ l ti l% V a A v C J
I
t.+ / 1P—X rl-. A .f-17 .
t_..r`....9 rti.r.c t ,: rL.ts...-() t d c L.t4,CA-0, v
Art F w fL L w > •t— nse 1, , c, r "/l F ... `t .. f.. . .r . --1 f { c t /I *t&,/
ifs. v„ . L -rft A- t (,
0 rt
lD.
i-
J v !. A. Fit s"', R[ (y r f w t I f I+ O i I +/ / "FM•• f
y1 Z \ ^ 6ti. R/ A%-.qr.P L LL C fl n+ •t . U.P. t
RECEIVED
10 1989
f,L,:
rooc\
fU Y OF P-LYMOUTH
i 't,UTY DEVRI OPWffi DEr.
1G bv'
1r1,'SS'9 4tr.
In to
10
oil rl
m® o ®
AM
r T®or
No
Iii
AmrAm..
a
9
Frear T y
00-43
cpi--)
S IT[ PLAN 10)
NORTH
1112-00 Gf ST AVE A/
o t m () o
I
Ao At, !7,Sq V 2-
Co Xomck se
pe/orn7 Go--fTe- rta
2. Procedure. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the application
therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for purposes of evalua-
tion against the standards of this Section, Public Hearing, and development of a
recommendation to the City Council, which shall make the final determination as
to approval or denial.
a. The Planning, Commission shall review the application and consider its con-
formance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will
promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimen-
tal to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already
permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within
the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use; will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses
permitted in the District.
S) 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 appli-
cable regulations of the district in which it is located.
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDI14ANCE
Section 9, Subdivision B
10) A Natural Resource Analysis containing the existing vegetation areas
consisting of forest and woodlots as well as wetlands and wetland vege-
tation; the geology, slope, soil and ground water characteristics of the
site; existing lakes, streams, ponds, drainage swales, run-off settling
areas, and floodplains must be identified; analysis of the relationship
of the proposed use of the existing natural conditions listed above.
11) Circulation - including vehicular and pedestrian movement throughout the
site, relationship to the City Thoroughfare Guide Plan and the adjoining
land, a descriptive statement of objectives and standards for the var-
ious circulation elements and the proposed jurisdiction of each
component.
12) Densities and distribution for the various residential categories, pro-
jected occupant characteristics and projected market sales price of the
housing units. These tabulations will be used to evaluate the adequacy
of living space, open space, educational facilities, utility systems,
traffic generations and other services both public and private.
13) Mass grading - indicating which areas must be adapted to allow the dev-
elopment proposed and how it will visually and physically affect adjoin-
ing lands, and what soil erosion and sediment controls are to be
employed.
14) Staging plan indicating geographic staging and approximate sequence of
the plan or portions thereof.
i. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing or hearings on the P.U.D.
Preliminary Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat and Zoning Amend-
ment in the manner prescribed in Section 11.
j. The Planning Commission, after holding the public hearing, shall make its
recommendations to the City Council for approval; approval with conditions; or
denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a P.U.D., preliminary plat and rezon-
ing if considered.
The Planning Commission shall forward to the City Council its recommendations
based on and including, but not limited to the following:
1) Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit
Development.
2) Relationship of the proposed plan to the neighborhood in which it is
proposed to be located, to the City's Comprehensive Plan and to other
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
3) Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities; circu-
lation and parking facilities; recreation areas and open spaces.
9-17
5c
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE March 10, 1989 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: March 22, 1989
FILE NO.: 89010
PETITIONER: Edward and Virginia Nordling
REQUEST: Division of platted property and Variance to Subdivision
Regulations to create a new building lot
LOCATION: 12830 11th Avenue North (Northeast quadrant of Windemere
Drive and 11th Avenue North)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: RI -A (Low Density Single Family Residential)
BACKGROUND:
This parcel of property was originally platted as a part of the Glen Echo Lake
Addition. The Community Development Department files contain no historical
information concerning the review and approval of that subdivision. It is
likely that the subdivision took place prior to 1968. The land lying
immediately south of the subject parcel was platted as the Glenloch 2nd
Addition in 1968. Although platted as a "conventional" subdivision, it is
apparent from the minutes of the City Council that the plat was treated in a
PUD fashion that allowed numerous lots to be below the then current Ordinance
standards for width and size. In essence, the City Council granted numerous
Variances to the Zoning Ordinance standards when they approved the Glenloch
2nd Addition.
To the north and west (across the pond from this parcel) lies the Glen Echo
Ponds subdivision. This land was platted in 1984 and is a part of MPUD 84-1.
The minimum lot size is 9,800 square feet and the average lot size is 12,150
square feet.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. Proposed by the Applicant is the division of a platted lot of 26,614
square feet into two lots, one of 12,828 square feet (new) and one of
13,786 (existing structure). The subdivision action is petitioned
responsive to the City Code Section 500.37 with regard to the division of
platted lots. (Copy attached).
Staff Report (89010)
March 10, 1989
Page 2
2. Also applied for are Variances to the Subdivision Ordinance with respect
to lot area and lot width at the front setback line. The proposed lot
sizes are 12,828 square feet and 13,786 square feet where 18,500 square
feet is required for a conventional lot in the Rl-A district. Lot width
proposed at the setback lines are approximately 100 feet where the Zoning
Ordinance specifies 110 feet for parcels in the R1 -A district.
3. The subject parcel is located in a plat of lots created well before the
City of Plymouth had Ordinances that allowed flexibility in lot design.
The lot directly abutting to the west has an area of approximately 20,000
square feet; the lot directly abutting on the east an area of
approximately 20,000 square feet; and, the three lots to the south -
across 11th Avenue North - areas of 16,000 square feet, 15,000 square feet
and 13,500 square feet. Lot frontages east and west of the subject parcel
are 137 to 151 feet, and south of this parcel are 86 to 197 feet. What
results is a field situation with respect to this particular lot, together
with a handful of others in the immediate vicinity where land development
in adjacent plat has been accomplished in response to a different set of
rules, resulting in substantially smaller lots and lesser lot frontages.
4. The Petitioner has submitted a written narrative in support of his
division action and Variances which has been attached for the
consideration of the Planning Commission.
5. Field inspection of the site reveals that the home on a parcel immediately
to the west of the subject parcel is fairly well centered on that large
parcel and therefore exists at least 30 feet from the common property
line. It should be noted, however, that the R1 -A side setback
requirements are 15 feet and, therefore, the parcel immediately to the
west would have a right to, at some point in the future, construct an
addition or accessory structure to within 15 feet of the common property
line. What may appear to be plentiful "open space" in terms of house
placement could change over time.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The division of platted property responsive to Section 500.37 of the City
Code meets all submission requirements and, standing alone, the division
would appear to be responsive to the City Code.
2. We find that there may be some basis to the contention that the owner of a
parcel of 26,000+ square feet (such as is the case here) may be deprived
of the reasonable use of that land when it is his desire to divide that
property into parcels of a size and a design similar to others in a
portion of the adjoining neighborhood.
It should be noted, however, that those lots of similar size and design
within the neighboring Glen Echo Ponds addition were developed as a
Staff Report (89010)
March 10, 1989
Page 3
Planned Unit Development. As such, the flexibility in lot size and
frontage must have been responsive to a developer showing as to enhanced
design and/or other benefits to the City of his subdivision.
2. Staff finds that the Applicant could probably continue to preserve and
enjoy substantial property rights without the granting of these Variances.
It could also be said that his property rights will be enhanced, resulting
in greater enjoyment if the Variances are granted.
3. Staff cannot find that granting the Variances proposed will be detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which
the property is located. However, it is not apparent that the request
satisfies the other Variance criteria in Section 500.41.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend the Variances required for the petitioned land division be
denied. Based on the mechanics of the application, this recommendation for
denial would also extend to the division itself, in that the Ordinance cannot
be followed in dividing this property without the requested Variances. We
have attached a Resolution of denial for consideration of the Planning
Commission. We have attached a second Resolution providing for approval of
the requested action consistent with prior direction of the Planning
Commission.
Submitted by: - ' LV,,L, SC nC . t /.e VV CAiAr -,-'
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution of Denial
2. Draft Resolution of Approval
3. Petitioner's Narrative Statement
4. Location Map
5. Plot Plan
6. Section 500.41 of the City Code
7. Section 500.37 of the City Code
pc/cd/89010:jaw)
DENYING LOT DIVISION FOR EDWARD AND VIRGINIA NORDLING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
12830 11TH AVENUE NORTH WITHIN THE GLEN ECHO LAKE ADDITION (89010)
WHEREAS, Edward and Virginia Nordling have requested a division of Lot 13,
Block 2, Glen Echo Lake for the purpose of constructing a new single family
residence; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends denial;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny a division of Lot 13,
Block 2, Glen Echo Lake, based on the following reasons:
1. There are no special circumstances or conditions affecting this property
such that the strict application of the provisions of Section 500.21 would
deprive the Applicants of reasonable use of this land.
2. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the Applicants.
pc/cd/89010:jaw)
APPROVING LOT DIVISION FOR EDWARD AND VIRGINIA NORDLING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 12830 11TH AVENUE NORTH WITHIN THE GLEN ECHO LAKE ADDITION (89010)
WHEREAS, Edward and Virginia Nordling have requested a division of Lot 13,
Block 2, Glen Echo Lake, for the purpose of constructing a new single family
residence; 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 a division
resulting in parcels described as follows:
PARE A
That part of Lot 13, Block 2, GLEN ECHO LAKE, according to the recorded
plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies southwesterly of the
following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot
13; thence on an assumed bearing of North 63 degrees 52 minutes 00
seconds East along the northwesterly line of said Lot 13 a distance of
24.50 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence
South 28 degrees 31 minutes 44 seconds East a distance of 176.82 feet to
an intersection with the southeasterly line of said Lot 13 and said line
there terminating.
PARCEL B
That part of Lot 13, Block 2, GLEN ECHO LAKE, according to the recorded
plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies northeasterly of the
following described line: Commencing at the no.rthwest corner of said Lot
13; thence on an assumed bearing of North 63 degrees 52 minutes 00
seconds East along the northwesterly line of said Lot 13 a distance of
24.50 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence
South 28 degrees 31 minutes 44 seconds East a distance of 176.82 feet to
an intersection with the southeasterly line of said Lot 13 and said line
there terminating.
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.
pc/cd/89010:jaw)
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING AND REGARDING LOT DIVISION FOR
EDWARD AND VIRGINIA NORDLING (89010)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Lot Division for Edward and Virginia
Nordling for property located at 12830 11th Avenue North, in Glen Echo Lake
under Resolution No. 89- ;
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 Lot Division:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. No yard setback Variances are granted or implied.
3. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79-80 regarding minimum floor
elevations for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing open
storm water drainage facilities.
4. No Building Permit to be issued on Parcel A until the Lot Division is
filed with Hennepin County.
5. Submittal of all necessary utility easements prior to filing the Lot
Division with Hennepin County.
6. Variances are approved from Section 500.21 of the City Code to allow lot
width of 100 feet where 110 feet would otherwise be required and lot sizes
of 12,828 square feet (Parcel A) and 13,786 square feet (Parcel B) where
18,500 square feet is otherwise required. The Variances are based on
findings consistent with Section 500.41 of the City Code regarding special
circumstances depriving the Applicants of. reasonable land use;
preservation of property rights of the Applicants; and the Variances not
being detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property.
pc/cd/89010:jaw)
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: March 16, 1989
FILE NO.: 89010
PETITIONER: Edward Nordling - 12830 11th Avenue North, Plymouth, MN 55441
LOT DIVISION/CONSOLIDATION:LOT 13, BLOCK 2, GLEN ECHO LAKE ADDITION INTO TWO PARCELS
LOCATION: 12830 11TH AVENUE NORTH - P.I.N. 34-118-22-11-0016
N/A Yes No
1. _$__ 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. Additional assessments estimated: The westerly parcel will have
additional sanitary sewer area charges amounting to $440 and
additional watermain area char$es amounting to 5790.
rFGAL/EASEMENTS /PERMIT S:
5. _ _ X Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
ten feet (101) 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.)
6. _ _ 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. A drainage easement for ponding purposes will
be required to an elevation of 931.0 for Pond BC -P25.
N/A Yes No
7. _ _ X Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots: The westerly parcel shall have a minimum basement elevation of
933.0•
8. X All standard utility easements required for construction
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities. The existing sanitary sewer to the easterly parcel
crosses the westerly parcel An easement will be required from the
westerly parcel to the easterly parcel for this service.
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 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.
10. 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.
11. X All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on
12. A. The developer shall be responsible for installation of the new sanitary sewer
and water service for the westerly lot. The developer shall also be
responsible for the restoration of 11th Avenue to City specifications.
y
Submitted by:r"'
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
2
El
Aside from the fact that sub -dividing and selling a portion of
our property would give us the opportunity for financial gain,
some other reasons for our request for a variance are as follows:
Other properties across the street and less than a block from
ours are approximately the same size as our proposed lot. .
As our children were growing up, the portion of our property
involved was a wonderful playground for them. They are all
grown now, so we no longer need this land for that purpose.
There is a lot of upkeep involved in maintaining this land.
It is costly and very time consuming. We would like to get
away from both the time involved and the expense.
There is a great demand for property of this kind in Plymouth,
and not much left in the area on which to build. A nicely
designed house on the land would be an attractive addition to
the neighborhood and increase the value of adjoining properties.
Tax revenue from the property would also benefit the city of
Plymouth.
W141:
0
F,
F-
111-l"
r./ %r
i
MEN
r:•
j.- .rrrr
1/M=1 f T
mm
4
400.
56 )
4) 1 .
6) I (55)
J
8 4 _ 22
21
0.L. A
E (10) I62) I1)
e ¢
6
20
Z2-
51)
t ..
J 10
14 ui
4 1 >IrkA(4 ,t , ( 14V 3 - ;+i 16
v'
y d
16)
1 ` iav (16)
QJ 112• o:` i' •. ,4
16' , 114 0 { Q 3 t ^ 2
t (17) .
h (23)
451 (22) I
6.
110' 1RIto
t
32) 4p (
10) % d (I) _ (
2)
3 '
9
a 4
90
21(29) 12) (2) 2
22 _
143. 03,• aj `
O'
s s s4. w „ . 147.07
26)
13) 112.71
4 (za) ' 1
35), „ 4 26 8 ( 25 A24
6
27 _ (7) w (44)_
8
19 (43)
s (z7to (
14) (8) ^
36) ! -
157.1 t 103 91
18
Ito
SY S'
19 20
17 6 r to { 6)21
5) x. st- (
39) _ (
40 )
110.07
16 OILQ (N) 15 (,
7) 1112.76 W
4 17 (3) 14
Y 1s
t5 13 a 12,0 Is
21) (20) — w II (1S) _ ' _ ,c 51 4 1_ 750
Plymouth City Code 500.39
500.39. Sea Level Elevations Required. All surveys submitted in connection with
applications for waivers of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358,
Subdivision 4. or for division or consolidation of lots or tracts as provided in
Section 500.37 shall show thereon sea level elevations at 50 foot intervals.
500.111. Variances. Subdivision 1. General Conditions. The Planning Commission
may recommend a variance from the provisions of this Section as to specific
properties when, in its judgment, an unusual hardship on the land exists. In
granting a variance, the Commission may prescribe conditions that it deems
necessary or desirable in the public interest. In making its findings, as required
below, the Commission shall consider the nature of the proposed use of the land
and the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside or
work in the proposed subdivision, and the probable effect of the proposed
subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. No variance shall be granted
unless the Commission finds:
a) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
specific property such that the strict application of the provisions
of this Section would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use
of the land.
b) That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right of the applicant.
c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the
property is situated.
The Commission findings in granting or denying a variance shall be in writing and
filed with the City Clerk.
Subd. 2. Application Required. Applications for any variance under this
Subsection shall be submitted in writing by the owner or subdivider at the time
the preliminary plat is filed for consideration by the Planning Commission, and
shall state all facts relied upon by the applicant, and shall be supplemented with
maps, plans or other additional data which may aid the Commission in the analysis
of the proposed project. The plans for such development shall include such
covenants, restrictions or other legal provisions necessary to guarantee the
full achievement of the plan for the proposed project.
500.113. Compliance; Waivers; Building Permits. Subdivision 1. Conveyance of Land.
Any person who conveys land by metes and bounds or by reference to an unapproved
plat or registered land survey in violation of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 162.358, Subdivision 4, is subject to the penalty provisions of that
Section.
Subd. 2. Waiver of Compliance. In any case where compliance with the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subdivision 4 will create an
unnecessary hardship and failure to comply will not interfere with the purpose
of this Section, the City Council may by resolution waive compliance with this
Subsection, provided, however, that the proposed conveyance has been reviewed
by the Planning Commission and the Commission has found that it complies
with all provisions of this Section.
Plymouth City Code 500.35
Subd. 3. Subdivider May Perform Work; Election. The owner or subdivider may
elect to construct the improvements required by this Subsection at his own expense
and without City participation in the expense thereof. In such event, the owner
or subdivider may retain an engineer and contractor to plan, design and install
such services, subject to review and inspection by the City Engineer. The
estimated cost of the improvements, including the administrative charges of the
City Engineer for supervision and inspection, shall be included in the owner or
subdivider's contract with the City, pursuant to Subsection 500.35, and the
appropriate security in the form of cash or bond shall be deposited with the City
as required by that Subsection.
500.35. Subdivision Contract. In order to effectuate the provisions of
500.25 to 00.31, the owner or subdivider shall enter into a subdivision contract
with the City providing for the installation of the improvements required by those
Subsections. The subdivision contract shall provide for, among other things,
security to the City in the form of a surety bond, or cash in lieu thereof, in
such amount as the City Engineer shall deem to be adequate to insure the
satisfactory completion of the improvements. The subdivision contract shall be
satisfactory in form and substance to the City Attorney.
500.37. Division or Consolidation of Platted Lots. Subdivision 1. General Rule.
The division and consolidation of lots which are part of a recorded plat and
tracts which are part of a recorded Registered Land Survey is subject to the provi-
sions of this Subsection.
Subd. 2. Filing; Survey. The owner of lots, or tracts, to be so divided
or consolidated shall file an application for such division or consolidation with
the Building Inspector, together with a proposed survey plat or registered land
survey of the lots or tracts to be divided or consolidated, showing the dimensions
of the lots or tracts as measured upon the recorded plat or survey, and the
proposed division or consolidation thereof. A written description of the
separately described lots or tracts resulting from the proposed division or
consolidation shall be filed with such plat or survey. The plat or survey shall
also show the location of all buildings then existing and all proposed structures
to be built upon the lots or tracts to be divided or consolidated.
Subd. 3. Inspection; Fee. Upon receipt by the Building Inspector of the
application required by Subdivision 2, and upon the payment by the applicant of
the fee set by Chapter X, the Building Inspector shall make a physical inspection
of the lot or lots proposed to be divided or consolidated.
Subd. 4. Council Action. Following the inspection of the lot or lots to
be divided or consolidated, the Building Inspector shall cause the application to
be placed upon the agenda of the City Council for the next regular meeting of the
Council following such inspection. The Building Inspector shall transmit to the
City Council the application and all materials related thereto with his
recommendation with respect to the application.
Subd. 5. Building Permits. No building permit shall be issued for the
construction of a structure on lots or tracts divided or consolidated contrary
to the provisions of this Subsection.
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: March 17, 1989
TO: Plymouth Planning Colission
FROM: Charles E. Dill rmunity Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: REQUEST OF EDWARD NORDLING FOR A LOT DIVISION (89010)
This is to inform you that per Edward Nordling's telephone request this
morning, we have deferred his request for a lot division to the April 12, 1989
Planning Commission meeting. We are enclosing our Staff Report dated
March 10, 1989 in your packets and will be forwarding any new information
received by our department to you prior to the April 12, 1989 meeting.
Enclosure
pc/cd/89010:jaw)