HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 08-09-1989CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE August 2, 1989, COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 9, 1989
FILE NO.: 89014
PETITIONER: Ryan Construction Company
REQUEST: MPUD Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for a
Retail Commercial Development "Rockford Road Plaza"
LOCATION: Northeast Quadrant of County Road 9 and I-494
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CN (Neighborhood Shopping Center)
ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development)
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting June 5, 1989, by Resolutions 89-299, 89-300, and 89-301, the
City Council approved an amendment to the Staged Growth Plan to include the
entire 52 -acre site upon which the MPUD Plan is proposed within the Urban
Service District; approved a Land Use Guide Plan amendment for the northerly
10 acres of the site from LA -3 (high medium density residential) to CN
neighborhood shopping center); and approved an MPUD Concept Plan for a
development of 8 commercial lots into 372,000 square feet of retail commercial
structures.
Notice of this public hearing has
newspaper and mailed to all property
sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
been published in the official city
owners within 500 feet. A development
1. The applicant proposes an MPUD Preliminary Plat/Plan and Conditional Use
Permit for the same 52 acres upon which the referenced Concept Plan was
proposed. The preliminary plan, quantitatively, is slightly different
from the approved Concept Plan, in that 338,139 square feet structure is
now proposed on 11 lots. The preliminary plan submitted is, in other
respects, very similar to the PUD Concept Plan previously approved.
2. The applicant has submitted, together with the graphics required by the
Ordinance, a narrative dated June 23, 1989. Therein, the applicant
discusses the project in greater detail including an analysis of existing
site features; a listing of what the applicant views as "PUD attributes";
see next page)
Page Two
File 89014
and a review of flexibility the applicant seeks from Zoning Ordinance
standards as a function of his PUD Plan.
It has been the practice of the City to not grant final approval for site
details such as setbacks, parking, landscaping, and circulation concurrent
with the approval of the MPUD Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit.
Consistency with that practice would preclude reference to setback for
structures and parking to the extent that such setbacks vary from existing
Ordinance standards. There are relevant design issues in the context of
spatial relationships and interface with public systems and other
properties.
3. Resolution 89-301 provided specific direction to the applicant with
respect to features or exhibits expected with the MPUD Preliminary
Plan/Plat/Conditional Use Permit. These conditions of Concept Plan
approval were as follows:
a. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum including
transportation -related recommendation of Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch.
b. Submission of cross -through sections with the preliminary plan/plat.
c. No private drive access shall be permitted to County Road 9 and West
Medicine Lake Drive.
d. The preliminary plat/plan shall include a detailed inventory of
natural site features and demonstrate efforts to preserve those site
features.
The submitted MPUD Preliminary Plat/Plan/Conditional Use Permit
documentation does provide cross-sections and the detailed inventory of
natural site features that were required. The applicant, in his letter of
July 14, 1989, further addresses the issue of natural resource and site
feature preservation.
4. The Zoning Ordinance provides that the Planning Commission, after holding
a Public Hearing, shall make its recommendations to the City Council
regarding a PUD Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit based on, and
including the following:
a.
Development. In addition to those attributes suggested. by the
petitioner in his narrative submissions, the Ordinance provides a list
of 5 expected attributes within paragraph 1 of Section 9, Subdivision
B. The applicant, clearly, is using trained and experienced
professionals in the development related to assist him in the design
of this project, thereby meeting one attribute of the Ordinance. The
provision of Outlot A as a "buffer strip", whether it is preserved by
common ownership or by some form of easement, responds to the
attribute of suitable common facilities to serve purposes of the
Planned Unit Development. Another Ordinance specified attribute that
can be applied to a commercial development such as this is that of the
affirmative design efforts toward the preservation and enhancement of
natural site characteristics.
see next page)
Page Three
File 89014
b. Relationship of the proposed plan to the neighborhood in which it is
n1. —A aw w+L.w.n
c.
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. A significant concern during the
review of the Concept Plan for this site was the potential for impact
on neighboring properties from this project. Partially from the
preliminary structure elevations, and partly from the four site cross-
sections provided, the applicant has depicted what the relationship of
the development would be to the neighboring properties adjoining on
the north, east and to I-494 on the west. The elevations presented
addressed the internal (parking lot) view of the proposed structures,
but not the "back door" of the structures that would face West
Medicine Lake Road and the north property line.
The site cross-section depicts a site grading and retaining wall
scheme that will substantially reduce the exposure of any proposed
buildings to the I-494 corridor. Any reduction of impact from those
building surfaces to the south, east and north must be realized, by
landscape features. No finding with respect to the actual appearance
of the structures from the south, east and north is possible from the
information that has been provided by the applicant specific aesthetic
concerns would be addressed with site plan review.
Based on actions taken by the City Council, referenced previously, the
MPUD Preliminary Plan and Plat presented is consistent with the Land
Use Guide Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The
preliminary plan is generally responsive to the area system plans of
the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan as well.
It should be noted, however, that consistency with the Thoroughfare
Guide Plan will be maintained only to the degree that roadway
improvements are constructed consistent with the recommendations of
the City Engineer as to actual improvements as well as staging. The
applicant continues to propose "right turn -in" access from County Road
9 directly to the site. This proposal is in direct conflict with
Condition No. 5 of City Council Resolution 89-301, approving the MPUD
Concept Plan.
Design of the internal circulation and parking facilities, to the
degree represented in an MPUD Preliminary Plan, is generally adequate.
The applicant addresses the issue of offstreet parking quantities in
his June 23, 1989, letter. The applicant makes reference to 88
parking stalls as "proof of parking." While the MPUD Preliminary Plan
does not address specific parking count, it should be noted that the
88 -space parking compliment proposed to not be constructed amounts to
a deferral of the construction of a certain amount of minimum parking
spaces rather than a "proof of parking" consideration as provided by
Ordinance for multiple use buildings. The 88 spaces are not the
see next page)
Page Four
File 89014
result of applying the greater of multiple parking ratios to the
structure, but rather represent a proposal to not construct parking that
would fall within the 6 spaces per 1,000 square foot regular parking
formula that would cover the entire project. The net result of the
proposal to defer construction of the 88 parking spaces would be to
initially provide parking at a formula of 5.68 spaces per 1,000 square
feet.
6. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet is being prepared for this proposal,
as a mandatory requirement due to scale, and is under review by the City
staff. Recent changes in State Environmental Regulations may impact have
this EAW should be processed in terms of this application. Whereas, City
practice has been to submit an EAW after City council approval of the
preliminary plat, the State rules provide that preliminary plat approval
is a "final act" that should It occur before the EAW review process is
done. An alternative is to conditionalize the Council approval in a
specific manner so that the proposal could be revisited if the EAW review
warranted changes.
We will be reviewing this matter with the City Council on August 7, and we
will advise the Commission as to o an appropriate action at the meeting.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The proposed MPUD Preliminary Plat/Plan and Conditional Use Permit is
generally responsive to the approved Concept Plan approval except with
regard to the County Road 9 access.
2. The combination of the site cross-sections, architectural elevations, and
preliminary landscape plan do not appear to completely address the issue
of the appearance of the structure to adjoining properties to the
southeast and north. Due to the elevated nature of the site with respect
to adjoining terrain, and the apparent difficulty in softening the impact
of a major structure by landscaping due to topography, the appearance of
this east elevation is of particular concern to staff.
Due to a large existing wet land area and a lesser degree of building
mass, staff's concern with the appearance of the north elevation is
proportionally less. Our concern centers on the probability that the
east, south and north elevations of the structure to be located on Block
1, Lots 2 and 3 will be the "rear" of the structure with all the attendant
service activity. We see no preliminary architectural elevations that
would suggest otherwise, nor do we see any effective method to screen the
south, north and east sides of the structure.
If the south, north and east elevations are intended to be as attractive
as the preliminary elevations for the west and south, our concerns would
be mitigated less. If, however, these elevations (north, south and east)
will be the "service entry" for the structures, as we suspect, we cannot
see next page)
Page Five
File 89014
see methods available to effectively screen those appearances, and
activities from major roadways, in terms of the east and south elevation
and a residential area in terms of the north elevation.
3. Deferral of parking construction (as opposed to "proof of parking" plans)
is a matter of Zoning Ordinance variance with conventional development,
and, potentially a consideration of Ordinance flexibility in the approval
of an MPUD. Generally, staff has been supportive of such deferrals where
the acquired parking could be easily constructed, should a need arise, as
determined by the City, and when a single owner occupant is involved that
can demonstrate a need for parking less than the Ordinance prescribes,
based on his specific operations.
The concept of deferred parking for this PUD neither provides an easy way
of constructing the parking (the applicant states a retaining wall would
be required), nor do we have a singular owner occupant that can provide us
a clear basis for a reduction in the parking standard from what the
Ordinance prescribes. In fact, a parking study concerning shopping center
retail use was recently been completed by the City at this developer's
request. That study supports the minimum ratio of 6 spaces per 1,000
square feet of floor area.
4. References by the applicant to specific setback and other site planning
features which are "inconsistent with B-2 requirements" are not issues
that have been conclusively addressed at the preliminary plat/plan stage
for an MPUD. The MPUD Final Site Plan stage is the appropriate forum for
consideration of these matters.
5. The approval resolution for the MPUD Concept Plan specifically called
forth a requirement that no private drive access be permitted to County
Road 9. The submitted MPUD Preliminary Plan/Plat continues to provide for
access to the site from County Road 9 directly via a "right in only"
configuration. Staff does not concur in this design feature. Compliance
with City Council direction in this design issue will not impact overall
PUD design.
RECOMMENDATION:
Our recommendation is for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of
this MPUD Preliminary Plat/Plan and Conditional Use Permit together with the
rezoning from FRD to B-2. Our draft conditions to that approval contain
references to the items noted with which we have concern.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Conditions of MPUD Preliminary Plan Approval.
2. Engineer's Memo
3. City Council Resolution 89-299
4. City Council Resolution 89-300
5. City Council Resolution 89-301
6. Petitioner's Narrative Submission of June 23, 1989
7. Petitioner's Letter of July 14, 1989
8. Approved MPUD Concept Plan
pc/cd/89014:dl)
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN/PLAT FOR UNITED
PROPERTIES FOR ROCKFORD ROAD PLAZA (89014)
1. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
2. No Building Permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for
sewer and water.
3. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with
the Dedication Policy in effect at the time of filing the final plat with
Hennepin County.
4. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System, specifically
Vinewood Lane North to the south line of Outlot A and 42nd Place North
from that point easterly to West Medicine Lake Drive.
5. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79-80 regarding minimum floor
elevations for new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing
any open storm water drainage facility.
6. No Building Permits shall be issued until the final plat is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
7. No final approval is given or implied for individual site details such as
setbacks, parking, landscaping, aesthetics and circulation; these will be
addressed with the final plat and plan.
8. Completion of the environmental review process consistent with the rules
of the Environmental Quality Board and policies of the City of Plymouth.
9. Each final site plan shall specifically address efforts to create and
maintain the appearance of site and structures in the north, east, and
south sides of the site consistent with the high visibility of the site.
10. Ownership and perpetual maintenance of outlots shall be private, and
covenants implementing ownership and maintenance approved by the City
Attorney shall be recorded with the initial final plat.
DATE:
FILE NO.:
PETITIONER:
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
LOCATION:
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
August 3, 1989
89014
Mr. William McHale, Vice President, Ryan Construction Co., 700
International Center, 900 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, Mn.
55402
ROCKFORD ROAD PLAZA
East of Hwy. 494, north of County Rd. 9, nest of W. Medicine Lake
Drive in the east one half of Section 15.
N/A Yes No
JL_ Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. _ _ X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. 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. Areaassessments: Watermain area assessments based on 51.9 acres x
237 per acre - S123,003 Sanitary sewer area asses ents based on
51-9 acres x $1-120 per acre equals S68.508.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: Project 905 water lateral
assessment 2,650 25 x S25.84 per foot - $68,482.46.
T.FGAL/EASEMENTS /PERMTTS :
6. _ _ -2L Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10')
in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width adjoining
side and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
7. _ _ X All standard utility easements required for construction are provided
The City will require twenty foot (20') utility and drainage
easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines where these
utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed
with the final plat and final construction plans.
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. Drainage easements for ponding imposes
shall be shown on the final plat for Pond RC -P14 to the 100 Year High
Water Elevation of 92R.0 and for the pond within proposed Outlot B to
a 100 Year High Water Elevation of 92R.O. The 100 Year High Water
Elevation for the pond in the southwest corner of the site east of
may. 494, north of County Rd. 9 shall be established by the
Developers Engineer,
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 subject property is abstract property, then this requirement does
not apply.
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
11. _ _ X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
X DNR X Bassett Creek
X MnDOT Minnehaha Creek
X Hennepin County Elm Creek
X MPCA Shingle Creek
X State Health Department X Army Corps of Engineers
Other
7
N/A Yes No
12. _ _ X Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the
City grid system for street names. The following changes will be
necessary. Th east/vest street shall be 42nd Avenue North.
13. _ _ X Conforms with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's
adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan. Seespecial conditions.
14. _ _ X Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
15. _. _ X All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on- County Rd. 9 from the
west plat line easterly Approximately 720 feet 20 feet wide. This
shall be confirmedbyHennepin County. Also &long W Medicine Lake
Ra on the north plat line southerly 840 feet 15 feet wide. lb"
hall also be confirmed with Hennepin County.
16. _ _ X Conforms with City standards requiring the developer to construct
utilities necessary to serve this plat - .
In accordance with City standards, the developer shall be responsible
for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and
streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional
engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary
sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the
development. See special conditions.
3
N/A Yes No
17. X Preliminary utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements
The developer has submitted the required preliminary plans for the
proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities. Sre
Bgp.&I conditions.
18. ___2_ Per developer's request a preliminary report and plan will be
prepared by the City -
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as
part of its Capital Improvements Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1,
of the year preceding construction.
19. _ _ X Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots. A minimum basement elevation for buildings adjacent to Outlots
A and B shall be 930 Lots adjacent to the gond in the southwest
corner of the site. Lots 1, 2 3. 4 and 5, Block 5 shall be 2 feet
Above the 100 Year High Water Elevation established by the developers
engineer.
20. _ X _ The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
21. X The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
4
N/A Yes No
22. _ X _ It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility
foreman, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility
connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The
developer shall also be responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the
Public Works Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging
within the City right-of-way. All water connections shall be via
23. _ _ X Complies with Storm Drainage .Plan
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted to
the City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if it is in
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All
of their recommendations shall be incorporated in a revised plan.
The grading and drainage plan shall also indicate proposed methods of
erosion control, including the placement of silt fence in strategic
locations. Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary:
Shall comply with all agency permits.
24. A. The storm sewer located at the northeast corner of the site has a very awkward
geometry. The proposed angles approximately 25 degrees.
B. The proposed location of the sanitary sewer trunk along the north plat line is
acceptable. The developer shall petition for the extension of the trunk
sanitary sewer.
C. The following items are conditions of Hennepin County Department of Public
Works. These comments are based on original Hennepin County letter dated April
13, 1989. Since we have not received comments as yet from the County on the
Preliminary Plat information. The developer must coordinate the design of this
plat with the Preliminary Design Section of Hennepin County to insure adequate
right-of-way for County Rd. 61.
The proposed access to future County Rd. 61 at the north boundary of this
development is acceptable to Hennepin County. No other direct access from this
development to County Rd. 61 will be permitted.
To limit the number of traffic conflict points on heavily traveled County Rd. 9
to prevent the weave movement to the left turn into Cottonwood Center and to
direct internal traffic to controlled intersections; the right in access onto
County Rd. 9 approximately 650 feet west of County Rd. 61 shall be removed.
The location of Vinewood Lane directly opposite existing Vinewood
Lane/Cottonwood Center entrance is acceptable to Hennepin County.
5
D. A traffic study was prepared on April 20, 1989 and reviewed by Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch, Inc. on July 11, 1989. This traffic review is attached.
The developer shall revise the Site Plan for the development to eliminate therightinaccessfromCountyRd. 9 east of Vinewood Lane.
The plat and Site Plan for the subject development shall provide additionalright-of-way for future widening of County Rd. 9 from I-494 to County Rd. 61.
County Rd. 61 shall be extended from County Rd. 9 to County Rd. 10 as a fourlane52footsectionconcurrentwiththedevelopment. Additional turn lanesshallberequiredatmajorintersections.
Provisions shall be made for a future dual left turn lane eastbound on CountyRd. 9 at Vinewood Lane into the site. When this is constructed, the cost willbetheresponsibilityofthedeveloper.
April 20 Traffic Study is attached which includes future traffic requirementswhichwillneedtobeundertakenbytheCity/MnDOT or the Countyrecommendationnumbers1, 9, 10 and 11 pages 5 and 6).
E. This area is the post 1990 urban service area of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Revisions to the stage growth area are now in process.
F. Fire flow calculations shall be provided to show that the 8" loop through thesiteonVinewoodLaneissufficientforfireprotection.
G. West Medicine Lake Drive, adjacent to the site, must be improved before any ofthebuildingswithinthedevelopmentareoccupied. This would also include thenewstreetintersectionfromWestMedicineLakeDrivewhichprovidesaccessintotheplat. The developer is responsible for one half the cost of a 52 footwide, nine ton roadway in accordance with the City's Assessment Policy. Also,
this development is responsible for the cost of the left turn and right turnlanesintothepublicstreetservingtheplat.
H. The right turn lane from westbound County Road 9 to Vinewood Lane shall be
provided previous to any occupancy of any buildings within the plat.
I. As part of the development contract with the Final Plat, there shall beincludedprovisionsforaTaxIncrementFinancingAgreementbetweentheCityandthedeveloperfortheextensionofWestMedicineLakeDrivenortherlytoCountyRoad10:
J. The developer is responsible to construct West Medicine Lake Drive from CountyRoad9northerlythroughthenewstreetintersectionservingtheplat, theadditionalrightturnlaneonCountyRoad9andtheextensionofthetrunksanitarysewer. If the developer is requesting that the City undertake theseimprovementsontheirbehalf, they shall submit a petition to the Cityrequestingtheimprovementsandwaivingtheirrightstospecialassessments. The assessments would be in accordance with the City's Assessment Policy.
Submitted by: -4 -6Zvz!?,J 1
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
6 City Engineer
i
SRFSTRGAR-ROSCOE-FAOSCH, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TRANSPORTATION CIVIL STRUCTURAL PARKING LAND SURVEYORS
July 11, 1989 Commission No. 0891187
QtiQ
F.
ti -
Mr. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. r IL E
City Engineer , g
CITY OF PLYMOUTH 6 " c
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447c'2l2G` `
RE: TRAFFIC REVIEW
ROCKFORD ROAD PLAZA, REVISED SITE/GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC REPORT
BY WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
Dear Dan:
As you requested on June 27, 1989 we have completed a review of
the revised site plan and supplemental traffic report for the
proposed Rockford Road Plaza. Based on this review, we offer the
following comments and recommendations:
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
o Generally, the revised site/general development plan for the
proposed development (see Figure 1) is acceptable. However,
we do have some reservations concerning the proposed "right -
in" access from County Road 9 to the site. The concerns
relative to this access involve the proximity of the access to
the intersections of County Road 9 at Vinewood Lane and County
Road 61, the queues developing on westbound County Road 9 from
Vinewood Lane, a potential increase in conflicting movements
at the County Road 9 and County Road 61 intersection
northbound throughs without "right -in" versus northbound to
westbound left turns with the "right -in") and the potential
misuse of the access (motorists using this in -only as an out)
and the associated accident hazard.
Suite 150, One Carlson Parkway North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447
612/475-0010 FAX 612/475-2429
Mr. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. - 2 - July 11, 1989
REVIEW OF COMMENTS IN THE WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC REPORT
Eliminate the Right Turn In/Out Access to County Road 9 --SRF
WPS--Agree in part. We understand and share SRF's views on the
right turn out from the site. However, the right turn in from #9
will actually enhance the capacity of the County Road 9 and
Vinewood Lane intersection and give better accessibility to the
shopping center without hindering other traffic. WPS will
coordinate this design detail with the Hennepin County Officials.
o Hennepin County Public Works is currently reviewing this
right -in" access as well as the overall plan for the proposed
development. Based on this. review, the County will be
commenting on this "right -in" access as well as future right-
of-way needs and other County traffic operations and
maintenance concerns.
at Revised to Provide Additional R/Wfor _Countv_Road 9 --SRF
WPS--Based upon the immediate needs of the center through 1993,
there is not an apparent need for additional R/W.
o It is likely that additional right-of-way will be required for
future County Road 9 reconstruction/widening in the vicinity
of the subject site. It is in the public's best interest that
this additional right-of-way be obtained at the earliest
opportunity. The City's platting process (which the subject
development is going through at this time) offers the best
opportunity to obtain this additional required right-of-way.
Extension of County Road 61 to County Road 10 --SRF
WPS--We do agree that County Road 61 has to be extended, but the
question is when. It is WPS finding that'thru 1993 (an estimated
build -out of the shopping center), geometric improvements .can be
made to County Road 9 instead of extending County Road 61 and the
County Road 9 bridge over I-494.
o The development of the subject proposal will require either
improvements to the ramp intersections at the County Road 9
and I-494 interchange or the extension of County Road 61 north
to County Road 10. Since the interchange at County Road 9 and
I-494 will,need to be reconstructed sometime in the short
range future, any investment in improvements made to the
existing conditions will be of only short term benefit. The
extension of County Road 61 north to County Road 10 on the
other hand will provide a long term benefit to the City's
transportation system.
Mr. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. 3 - July 11, 1989
Provision for a Future Dual Left Turn into the Site --SRF
WPS--Agree that it will ultimately be needed, but not until
beyond 1993.
County Road 9 and I-494 Improvements --SRF
WPS--Agree that improved geometrics and bridge widening will be
needed. However, through 1993 the improvements shown on the WPS
sketch will provide acceptable traffic movement, together with
the proper design of the signal system. Ultimately, by 2010,
bridge widening and other improvements will have to be made.
o Because the design life of a -major facility such as County
Road 9 is 20 years or more, a 20 year traffic forecast should
be used when considering major development or reconstruction
of a major facility.
Based on the above findings, the recommendations made in the
original Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. Traffic Study (April 20,
1989) for this subject development remain unchanged.
Should you have any questions or comments concerning this review,
please call.
Sincerely,
STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
Ile 4 K
Dennis R. Eyler, P.E.
Principal
QfrleyeR. 4
Bednar
Senior Traffic Specialist
DRE/JRB/jal
Mf AMM UVI"1AM1
EA
r u
z
G
i
Z
a
vzE
Z
i z d
C
S
z
W
d
O
C o
J
W
o
O W d
o
d a ccO9
W
Z
O
W
a o
ham-
W 1
W
N v
G
Ul
L
IL
AL
s
W
GU
z
r u
z
G
z
GDawes
vzE o
0
zo_
O
STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TRANSPORTATION • CIVIL • STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS m LAND SURVEYORS
Apr
Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
File No. 0891187
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY - SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT
NORTHEAST QUADRANT, COUNTY ROAD 9 AND I-494
CITY PROJECT NO. 930
Dear Fred:
As you requested on March 23, 1989, a traffic study has bcen
completed for the above referenced shopping censer proposal. The
development is located in the northeast quadrant of the interchange
at County Road 9 and I-494 (see Figure 1). The findings of this
traffic study are summarized in the following comments and
recommendations:
PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC FORECAST
The proposed development consists of a 114,300 s.f. Target
Discount Store, a 65,000 s.f. supermarket grocery store and
189,400 s.f. of other retail/commercial space (see Figure 2).
Traffic generated by this proposed development is estimated at
approximately 25,000 trip ends per day, and about 1,000 in -trips
and 1,000 out -trips during the afternoon peak hour (see Table 1).
In order to determine the directional trip distribution for the
subject site, a market area for the proposal was assured based on
the location of other competing shopping centers (see Figure 3).
Note that due to the location of other competing centers, the
market area for the subject site extends north and west a
significant distance and not as far to the south and east.
Based on the regional distribution of population and employment
within this assumed market area, the directional trip
distribution for the subject site was developed for two roadway
system conditions, with and without the extension cf County
Road 61 north to County Road 10 (see Figure 4).
From these directional trip distributions, P.M. peak hour traffic
assignments were completed. The traffic assignments and peak
hour capacity analysis at the six key intersections serving the
subject site are included in Appendix A.
Suite 150, One Carlson Parkway North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447
612) 475-0010 • FAX No. (612) 475-2429
TABLE 1
SITE DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION
1) Trip generation rates used were average rates by land use type
from the 1987 Institute of Transportation Engineers' "Trip
Generation" Report, 4th Edition.
2) The 10% trip reduction factor applies to multi-purpose trips,
transit use, intercepted trips and all other trip reduction
factors.
3) These are estimated trips for the subject development using
Ridgehaven Mall (near Ridgedale) trip rates taken from "Urban
Travel Analysis Notes/Procedures 84-5, December, 1984" by
Metropolitan'Council and BRW, Inc.
s
i
TRAFFIC VOLUMES GENERATED(l)
PM Peak Hour
ADT Volume
Land Use Type giza Volume In out
Supermarket 65,000 s.f. 8,160 295 280
Target Discount Store 114,300 s.f. 8,135 365 335
Other Retail Shopping Center 189.400 s.f. 11,255 410 460
Subtotals 368,700 s.f. 27,550 1,070 1,075
Minus 10% Trip Reduction Factor(2) 24.795 965 970
Comparative Trip Generation Estimate 25,485(3) 1,090(3) 1,100(3)
1) Trip generation rates used were average rates by land use type
from the 1987 Institute of Transportation Engineers' "Trip
Generation" Report, 4th Edition.
2) The 10% trip reduction factor applies to multi-purpose trips,
transit use, intercepted trips and all other trip reduction
factors.
3) These are estimated trips for the subject development using
Ridgehaven Mall (near Ridgedale) trip rates taken from "Urban
Travel Analysis Notes/Procedures 84-5, December, 1984" by
Metropolitan'Council and BRW, Inc.
s
i
Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E. - 2 - April 20, 1989
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
o A summary of the traffic operations analysis for each of the
various conditions is shown in Table 2 and is described briefly
as follows:
1. Existing Traffic Volumes, Geometries and Traffic Control - No
Subject Site Development
Most of the existing key intersections operate at acceptable
levels of service except for the northbound to westbound left
turn from Vinewood Lane to County Road 9. This intersection
experiences a poor level of service during the afternoon peak
hour. Installation of a traffic signal at this intersecLtion
will improve operational levels of service.
2. Existing Traffic Volumes and Geometries - No Extension of
County Road 61 North to County Road 10 - Full Subject Site
Development
Without the extension of County Road 61 north to County Road
10, considering the heavier traffic demand from the north and
west, site traffic would be more dependent on the interchange
of County Road 9 and I-494. When the subject site traffic is
added to existing background traffic, the result is poor P.M.
peak hour levels of service at the County Road 9 ramp
intersections.
The internal site intersection of the site access road
Vinewood Lane) and the main driveway serving the shopping
center (just west of the proposed Target Store) would operate
at poor levels of service during the afternoon peak hour.
The problem movement at this intersection would be the
westbound to southbound left turn. To improve levels of
service at this intersection, it is recommended that a multi -
way stop control be installed when and if warrants are met.
3. Existing Traffic Volumes and Geometries - County Road 61
Extended North to County Road 10 - Full subject Site
1 Development
Assuming a traffic signal is installed at Vinewood Lane and
County Road 9, most of the key intersections serving the site
would operate at acceptable levels of service, except the
internal site intersection of the site access road (Vinewood
Lane) and the main driveway serving the shopping center just
west of the proposed Target Store. During the afternoon peak
hour the westbound to southbound left turns at this
intersection would experience poor levels of service unless
or until a multi -way stop control is installed.
TABLE 2 • TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANAYSIS / C.R. 9 & 1-494 SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STWY
KEY INTERSECTIONS/TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS/LEVELS OF SERVICE*
1) Unsignalized side street stop control.
2) Future traffic signal assumed, warrants will be met.
3) Additional lanes of approach to increase capacity assumed.
4) Multi -way stop control assumed.
Site
C.R. 9 I-494 C.R. 61 Ace. Rd.
C.R. 9 & C.R. 9 & & Site Main
Analysis Conditions I West Ramps I East Rasps I Vinewood Ln. I C.R. 61 I Access Rd.
I.......... I------------
I Site Dr. I
I -----------I
1. Existing traffic volumes,
I------------
I C
I------------ I--------------
I C I F(1) I C I •- I •- i
geometries and traffic I I I I I I
control, no subject site
development.
I------------ I._ ------...I
2. Existing traffic volumes,
I------------
I E
i------------ I--------------
I E I D(2)
I..........
I C ( C(1) I F(1)/D(4) I
geometries, no County Road I I I I ( I
61 extension to county I I I I I I
Road 10, with full subject I I
site development.
I............ I --.--------I
3. Existing traffic volumes,
I............
I 0
I------------ I..............
I D I C(2)
I----------
I C I D(1) I F(1)/D(4) I
geometries with county Road I I 1 I I I I
61 extension to County Road
10, with full subject site I I I I I I I
development. I I I I (
I---------- I---------- :_I...........
I I
I
4. Future (2010) traffic
I............
I E
I------------ I--------------
I F I C(2) I C
volumes, existing geometries,
with County Road 61 extension,
no subject site development.
I............ I........... I
5. Future (2010) traffic
I------------
I F
I............ I--------------
I F I E(2)
I..........
I D I F(1) I D(4) I
volumes, existing geometries I I I I I
with County Road 61 extension, I I I I I
with full subject site I I I I I 1
development. I I I I I I I
I--•-------- i
6. Future (2010) traffic
I............
I D(3)
I............
I 0(3) I 0(293)
I---------- I------------
I D I C(2) i D(4) I
volumes, improved geometries
and traffic control, with
County Road 61 extension,
with full subject site
development.
I-------------- I. ----•-----I
Descriptions of the levels of
i............ I------------
service can be found in Appendix S.
I.......... I------------
1) Unsignalized side street stop control.
2) Future traffic signal assumed, warrants will be met.
3) Additional lanes of approach to increase capacity assumed.
4) Multi -way stop control assumed.
Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E. - 3 - April 20, 1989
The extension of County Road 61 would allow additional site
traffic coming from or going to the north to enter or exit
the site on County Road 61, thereby reducing the impact on
the County Road 9 and I-494 interchange. While the extension
of County Road 61 north to County Road 10 will be needed
regardless of how or when the subject site is developed, it
is recommended that the City and County consider completing
this extension within the near future as development of the
study area occurs.
4. Future (2010) Background Traffic Volumes(1), Existing
Geometries - County Road 61 Extended North to County Road 10
No Subject Site Development (No Build)
Even without additional subject site generated traffic and
with the extension of County Road 61 north of County Road 10,
future background traffic will increase to a point where the
I-494 ramp intersections with County Road 9 will operate at
poor levels of service during peak hours. Future bridge
widening and additional lanes of approach on County Road 9
and the I-494 ramps will be required regardless of how or
when the subject site is developed.
5. Future (2010) Background Traffic Volumes, Existing Geometries
County Road 61 Extended North to County Road 10 - Full
Subject Site Development
Adding the subject site generated traffic to the future
background traffic volumes and existing geometries results in
further reduced levels of service at the ramp intersections
of County Road 9 and I-494.
The afternoon peak hour levels of service at County Road 9
and Vinewood Lane are reduced to poor levels. An additional
eastbound to northbound left turn lane would be required to
improve the operation at this intersection to acceptable
levels.
The unsignalIzed intersection of the site access road
Vinewood Lane) and County Road 61 would operate at poor
levels of service during the afternoon peak hour. Traffic
signal control would improve this intersection's operation to
acceptable levels.
1) Future Background Traffic - Hennepin County Traffic Forecasts,
September, 1988) less the subject site generated traffic.
Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E. - 4 - April 20, 1989
6. Future (2010) Background Traffic Volumes, Improved Geometries
and Traffic Control - County Road 61 Extended North to County
Road 10 - Full Subject Site Development
The recommended future improvements listed below will improve
intersection operations to acceptable levels of service for
all key intersections serving the subject site (see Figures 5
and 6 - Recommended Geometric and Traffic Control
Improvements).
e Future traffic signal control at County Road 9 and
Vinewood Lane (check existing warrants).
o .cult -way stop control at the site access road? (Vi:.e::cc::
Lane) intersection with the main access drive serving the
shopping center when and if warrants are met.
e Future dual left turn geometries eastbound to northbound
at County Road 9, and Vinewood Lane and a right turn lane
westbound to northbound into the site.
e Future traffic signal control at the County Road 61
intersection with the site access road (Vinewood Lane).
e Future bridge widening and additional lanes of approach on
County Road 9 and the I-494 ramps to provide; dual left
turns eastbound and westbound on County Road 9, and the
southbound off -ramp, dual right turns on the northbound
off -ramp, and two through lanes in each direction
eastbound and westbound across the Bridge on County
Road 9.
In developing the level of recommended improvements listed abova, it
was assumed that County Road 61 would be emended north to County
Road 10 and Schmidt Lake Road would be extended west to I-494. A
future interchange would be constructed at Schmidt Lake Road and
I-494. Should 'either of these two future transportation system
improvements not be made, the recommended level of improvements
listed above would need re-evaluation.
SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
A review of the site specific access and circulation system from the
sketch plan provided indicated that generally the site access and
circulation is acceptable. However, of particular concern is the
proposed "right-in/right-out" access to westbound County Road 9
between Vinewood Lane and County Road 61.
1. Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E. - 5 - April 20; 1909
In discussions with Hennepin County it was revealed that this access
as proposed would not be approved. The primary concern regarding
this access is its proximity to the required left and right turn
lanes on the westbound County Road 9 approach to Vinewood Lane, the
peak hour queues that would develop on westbound County Road 9 from
Vinewood Lane and in general its proximity to both County Road 61
and Vinewood Lane.
I Based on this information, the traffic assignments completed for the
subject site did not include this "right-in/right-out" access. It
is recommended that the developer consider a revision of the
site/circulation plan which eliminates this access. It is also
1 recommended that a follow-up review of the site access/ c j rcul at ion
be com-yo_eted schen a more detailed site plan becomes avai? ab? c.
STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings and conclusions of this traffic study, the
following recommendations are offered for your consideration (see
Figures 5 and 6):
1. Provisions should be made for installation of a traffic control
signal at the intersection of County Road 9 and Vinewood Lane.
A Signal Justification Report should be prepared and submitted
for review as soon as possible. Design and construction of the
signal system should be done as soon as construction funding
and priorities are identified and plan approvals are given.
V2. The developer should revise the site plan for the development
to eliminate the "right-in/right-out" access to westbound
County Road 9 between Vinewood Lane and County Road 1-1.
The plat: and site plan iter the subject development shoul.: he
revised to provide additional right of way for future widening
of County Road 9 from I-494 to County Road 61.
4. At a minimum, Vinewood Lane through the site should be
constructed as a four -lane facility except at County Road 9
where there should be three southbound lanes of approach to
County Road 9 and two northbound through lanes with a westbound
right turn lane in to the site from County Road 9.
5. Based on the current site plan/access and circulation, internal
site traffic control should be provided as shown on Figure 5.
Should the site plan and internal access and circulation be
revised, a follow-up review of this recommended traffic control
should be done.
6. County Road 61 should be extended north to County Road 10 as a
four -lane 52 foot section as soon as possible.
11
S
Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E. - 6 - April 20, 1989
7. Provisions should be made for a future dual left turn lane
eastbound on County Road 9 at Vinewood Lane into the site.
S. The County Road 61 and site access road (Vinewood Lane)
intersection should be designed and constructed to include a
northbound to westbound left turn from County Road 61 into the
site.
9. Provisions should be made for the future installation of a
traffic control signal at County Road 61 and the site access
road (Vinewood Lane).
10. The City and County should consider future bridge widening and
additional lanes cf approac!, on Cca ty Road 9 and the T-4:4
ramps to provide (see Figure 6):
dual left turns eastbound to northbound and westbound to
southbound on County Road 9 at the ramp intersections
dual left turn on the southbound off -ramp to eastbound
County Road 9
dual right turns on the northbound off -ramp to eastbound
County Road 9
two through lanes in each direction eastbound and westbound
across the bridge on County Road .9
11. The City should consider the future extension of Schmidt Lake
road to I-494 and the construction of a future interchange at
I-494 and Schmidt Lake Road.
Should you have any questions or comments concerning this traffic
study, its findings or reconmendations, please call.
Sincerely,
STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
a A? n44 1 4
Dennis R. Eyler, P.E.
Principal
Je frey R. Bednar
Senior Traffic Specialist
DRE/JRB/jal
D
STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
tt~WATI M. MIL -9ML IAL tMGMtttt
COMMISSION NO. 0891187
CITY OF PLYMOUTH FIGURE
PROJECT LOCATION 1
TRAFFIC STUDY -SHOPPING CENTER-C.R.9 'S 1-494
LO AL•
ANCHMG
Y s» wlus
1
8
D STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. CITY OF PLYMOUTH FIGURE
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TEMSPO TATWN• CML. CMUCTML C"lr#C t6.
L"D w9ftwom PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT/ SITE PLAN
COMMISSION NO. 0891187 TRAFFIC STUDY -SHOPPING CENTER-C.R.9 do 1-49.4
111111J
MAJOR SHOPPING CENTERS
In The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area,
Pre -1959,1959-1968,1969-1983
w.ew low."" n.t ntu
Osavor Rryiorlr const:
C] R.Po w c.rntet.
Asllra.miottel cross,
Ocatteamwcm.
O Imo- «- o cannon
c >cwnm
O M+.b.W. o...krnw
0 obwola consr,
onr,iw vww center.
OOtMr O..q.tlrq Target
Stems
D STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. CITY 'OF PLYMOUTH FIGURE
CONSULTING ENGINEERS ASSUMED SITE DEVELOPMENT7\ANrfMIiIATON CIVIL . tRilY-R iAL LNGIM6LiM
MDe"V"°'"
MARKET AREA 3
COMMISSION NO. 0891187
TRAFFIC STUDY—SHOPPING CENTER—C.R.9 & 1-494
S36%(46%)
p,l
18%(6%)
s6%
1:20%
D STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TIANN WATOM •CML • VMLTT "t"GINU M
IANDAWVR" tt
6%
XX% WITH C.R. 61 EXTENSION_TOC.R.10
XX%) WITHOUT C.R. 61 EXTENSION TO C.R. 10
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
DIRECTIONAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION
COMMISSIONNO.089118T I TRAFFIC STUDY -SHOPPING CENTER-C.R.9 111-494
FIGURE
0
SIDE STREET STOP-
IZ
I..f11T1
I.7 K
M
kOur AT 1
I.w AO.
avrror
4•a4 .w \ • Tyrer;
FUTURE MULTI -WAY• /=--
STOP
w"
f
FUTURE
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
1
11
1.8 A&. 11 1
NO 'RIGHT 1N/
RIGHT OUT" AT THIS
LOCATION
FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL
STRGAR•ROSCOE•FAUSCH, INC. CITY OF PLYMOUTH FIGURE
D CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ATION•CM, •m• RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CONTROL
1Rt2fO"
IMPROVEMENTS 5
COMMISSIONNO.089118T
TRAFFIC STUDY -SHOPPING CENTER-C.R.9 A 1-494
ZOO TA
EXISTING CURB
COUNTY RD. 9
a
os
D
O
O
2
STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. CITY OF PLYMOUTH FIGURE
CONSULTINGWRDW-ENGINEERS RECOMMENDED GEOMETRICnAnwnarAna+. avu•aeua'rt.. a+c Nccax.
4NDWa eyom IMPROVEMENTS 6
COMMISSIONNO.0891187 TRAFFIC STUDY—SHOPPING CENTER—C.R.9 S 1-484
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_.§9 The following members were present:
Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers Vasiliou Ricker Zitur and Sisk
The following members were absent: None
Councilmember Vasiliou introduced the following Resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 89- 299
APPROVING AMENDMENT TO STAGED GROWTH ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (89014)
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company has requested approval of an Amendment to
the Staged Growth Element of the Comprehensive Plan to allow the development
of property located in the northeast corner of County Road #9 and I-494 (PIN
15-118-22-13-0003 and part of 0004); and,
WHEREAS, the request would divert approximately 52 acres from the Post -1990
Urban Service Area to the current Urban Service Area; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered this request at 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 request for an
amendment to the Staged Growth Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan based
on a finding that the area to be moved to Urban Service from Post -1990 is
designated for 1989 trunk sanitary sewer service in the adopted City of
Plymouth Capital Improvements Program 1989-1993; and,
FURTHER, approval of the Comprehensive Plan Staged Growth Amendment is
contingent upon, and subject to the required review and response by the
Metropolitan Council, and the Final Plat which shall be approved by the City
Council prior to finalization of the amendment.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Councilmember Zitur 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.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a rpgij ar meeting of the
City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the sth day
of June , 19_2_ The following members were present:
Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers Vasiliou, Ricker, Zitur and Sisk
The following members were absent: None
mune lmember Vasiliou introduced the following Resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 89- 300
APPROVING LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (89014)
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company has requested reclassification of Land Use
Guiding, from LA -3 (High Medium Density Residential) to CN (Neighborhood
Shopping Center) for property located in the northeast corner of County Road
9 and I-494; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered this request at 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
property located at the northeast corner of County Road f9 and I-494 from LA -3
High Medium Density Residential) to CN (Neighborhood Shopping Center)
classification in accordance with the MPUD Concept Plan of File 89014.
FURTHER, approval of the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment is contingent upon, and
subject to the required review and response by the Metropolitan Council, and
the Final Plat which shall be approved by the City Council prior to
finalization of the Amendment.
FURTHER, all required approvals shall be completed, the Development Contract
executed and the Building Permit for the structure of largest floor area shall
be issued with all fees paid by July 1, 1990 or this Resolution will be void,
and the reguiding will'not take place.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Councilmember Zitur , and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: _ Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers
Vasiliou. R;cker, Zitur and Sisk
The following voted against or abstained None
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the
Cit Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 5th day
of une , 19 89 The following members were present:
Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers Vasiliou, Ricker, Zitur and Sisk
The following members were absent: None
Councilmember Vasiliou introduced the following Resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 89- 301
APPROVING MULTIPLE USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR RYAN
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (89014)
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company has requested approval of d Residential
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for the development of 8 commercial lots
with 372,000 square feet on approximately 52 acres for property located in the
northeast corner of County Road #E9 and I-494; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered this request at a duly
scheduled Public Informational Hearing and has recommended approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Mixed Use
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Ryan Construction Company for a
development to be known as Rockford Road Plaza consisting of 8 commercial lots
with 372,000 square feet on approximately 52 acres for property located at the
northeast corner of County Road #9 and I-494 based on the following findings:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum including transportation
related recommendation of Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch.
2. Staging of the development shall be in accordance with utility
availability as approved by the City Engineer.
3. Draft restrictive covenants for the private open areas shall be submitted
with preliminary plat/plan application.
4. Petitioner will submit cross through -sections with preliminary plan/plat.
5. No private drive access shall be permitted to County Road f9 and West
Medicine Lake Drive; all private drives shall be provided by internal
public streets.
see next page)
RESOLUTION NO. 89-301
Page Two
File 89014
6. The Preliminary Plan/Plat shall include a detailed inventory of natural
site features and demonstrate efforts to preserve those site features.
1. Approval is subject to Metropolitan Council concurrence with a Staged
Growth Element Amendment; completion of the Environmental Review Process
EQB) and receipt of an Indirect Source Permit.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Councilmember Vasiliou , and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Schneider Councilmembers
Vasiliou Ricker Zitur and Sisk
The following voted against or abstained None
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Westwood Professional Serviues, Inc.
PROJECT NARRATIVE (PRELIMINARY PLAT/M.P.U.D. SUBMISSION)
ROCKFORD ROAD PLAZA
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA
FOR:
RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
BY:
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
June 23, 1989
SUPPORTIVE PLAN SHEETS
to,
L!F,7 _ .
JUN 2? 1,089
CO'I;rr":"tT- DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Sheet No. Description
1 Existing Conditions - Existing Topography
2 General Development/Site Plan
3 Preliminary Plan
4 Preliminary Grading Plan
5 Preliminary Utilities Plan
6 Architectural Studies
7 Preliminary Planting Plan
8 Natural Conditions Analysis
9 Tree Survey
10 Circulation and Staging Plan
11 Certificate of Survey and Legal Description
IN,
7101 York Avenue South
Edina, Minnesota 55435
612-921.3303
Brooklyn Park, 612-424-8862
ROCKFORD ROAD PLAZA
INTRODUCTION...................................................... 1
OVERVIEWOF THE DEVELOPER ......................................... 2
DEVELOPMENTTEAM .................................................. 2
FINANCIAL COMMITMENT .............................................. 3
Exhibit A...................Location Map)...................... 4
Exhibit B...................Site Location)..................... 5
LANDUSE .......................................................... 6
Existing Land Use ............................................... 6
Proposed Land Use ............................................... 6
PARKDEDICATION FEES .............................................. 6
Exhibit C...................Existing Zoning Map)............... 7
EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS ............................................ 49-e
Description of Existing Site....................................4$
Soil Conditions ................................................. 4-6
Hydrological Features ........................................... 9-6- 8
PRELIMINARYPLAT...................................................4$
M.P.U.D...........................................................4-t
PROPOSEDSITE PLAN ................................................ a-3'10
SitePlan .......................................................4310
Building Plans..................................................A-310
Parking.........................................................I()
Plantings.......................................................1I
General Contractor..............................................4.311
STAGING.............................................. ............. 4-612
SITEUTILITIES....................................................9.6 2
Sanitary Sewer... ................................................
WaterMain.....................................................'F1511
Storm Sewer.....................................................L
TRAFFIC........................................................... 13
LEGALDESCRIPTION OF THE SITE.....................................4$1'4
Exhibit D...................Half Section Map) .................. 20
APPENDIX
Traffic Impact Supplement
ROCKFORD ROAD PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER
INTRODUCTION
Ryan Construction Company is proposing a retail/shopping complex on a 52 -acre
site in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate Highway No.
494 and County Road No. 9. The development will fill a noticeable void in the
area of Plymouth for a full-service shopping and recreation center. Prior to
beginning construction, significant planning and design activities will be
consummated. Exhibit A is the location map indicating the regional context of
the 52 -acre site.
This proposal includes a Preliminary Plat and Mixed Planned Unit Development
M.P.U.D.), hereinafter called Rockford Road Plaza. The property is zoned
FRD, Future Restricted Development District, which means the site is actually
considered Agricultural. With the M.P.U.D. approval will be the Conditional
Use Permit and B-2 rezoning.
The property is currently guided CN, Neighborhood Shopping Center, and LA3,
High Medium Density Residential. The developer has proposed to re -guide the
LA3 portion of the property (approximately 10 acres) to CN in order to form a
cohesive, well-designed development. The Concept Plan and Guide Plan
Amendment were approved at the June 5, 1989,V ouncil meeting.
C,
Included in the proposed Site Plan for the,development of Rockford Road Plaza
is a mixture of commercial/retail, restaurants, professional offices, garden
center, savings and banking facilities. However, the exact use for each lot
is not determined at this time. The following table is a summary of the
development proposal on the 52 -acre tract of land.
Land Use Building Area
Supermarket 65,000 S.F.
Gen. Merchandise Dept. Store 116,200 S.F.
Drugstore 25,000 S.F.
Other Shops in Retail Center 67.145 S.F.
Subtotal for Retail Center 273,345 S.F.
Block 1 lots 1 & 2 9,006 S.F.
Block 2 lots 1 - 6 26,788 S.F.
Garden Center 29,000 S.F.
Total 338,139 S.F.
This development plan for Rockford Road Plaza combines all the proposed
facilities functionally and esthetically. Most importantly, the development
takes into consideration the overall guiding concept of the City in this area
by providing a much-needed shopping center. Roadways, ponding, lighting and
landscaping will all make for an easily accessible and attractive development
for this neighborhood in Plymouth.
OVERVIEW OF THE DEVELOPER
Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc., began in Hibbing, Minnesota, in
1938. Originally a residential builder, Ryan has, during its 51 years in
business, expanded into the corporate office, manufacturing, high tech, retail
and commercial marketplace. From an early staff of only two, Ryan has grown
to one hundred construction specialists generating over $60,000,000 of
construction annually. These Ryan professionals have developed a construction
process that can respond to virtually every conceivable financial, planning,
design and management requirement a client may have.
Throughout this growth and evolution, the bedrock of the company has not
deviated from its initial inception in 1938. Quality is the driving force
behind the Ryan Construction Company. Ryan, as a full-service company,
develops, owns and manages many of its projects. As a result, the driving
force of quality has set the direction of efforts toward projects of highest
construction techniques, materials and standards. The proposed Rockford Road
Plaza development would be governed by the same driving force, providing a
high quality, energy-efficient complex.
DEVELOPMENT TEAM
The following professionals
technical services for the
building plans required to
center on the 52 -acre site:
General Contractors
Ryan Construction Company
700 International Centre
900 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Architects
Ryan Construction Company
700 International Centre
900 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402
have been retained by the developer to provide
planning applications, engineering plans and
construct the proposed commercial/retail shopping
Consulting Design Architect
Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson Architects
300 First Avenue North
Suite 500
Minneapolis, MN 55401
ite Planners, Civil & Traffic Engineers, Land Surveyors
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
7101 York Avenue South
Edina, MN 55435
Consulting Soils Engineers
G.M.E., Inc., Consulting Engineers
2083 E. Center Circle
Minneapolis, MN 55441
FINANCIAL COMMITMENT
The proposed site is a quarry for granular materials. Years of mining have
resulted in a distressed site with a very irregular topography. The site
preparation costs to establish usable grades for development of infrastructure
and buildings will exceed those of most any other typical (unmined) site. The
developer has received City Council approval of Tax Increment Financing for
portions of the project subject to the future Developers Agreement. The
balance of project construction will be privately financed.
3
i a 1 \
t 'ri 77 3.
A7 C
A
i
I= - 47
Mudl
e
a ake
Pomerleau;
Lake
3 _ C
1 I a
J
1 s
4 f• { 5 • 1O
I J 7
ee+re•Q
I 11 Q
I
t•
6
Plymouth
I
1e I 24
at
I
ao 22
101 = • rI
II
1 Bey
o 94 6
Ike se = 2a ar
6 arkers
ake
Z 1 •t
J1ey LM• • • •a ? 'Aw M• !
Lake ..• • - - I
leason • ,e,l^
j ,Iake5 =
a
I L
I ti•1Wil;ila ilvd. Ir
40
e r
oraetc
16
I •
1iwer .t1• v
awata Bay
1
i
I
EagleX. t.
s, Lake .I • s. a: • `
I Y ,
ike N swa I •.. I M 1
s •
I
ake `
Gt to Aires
a
a.++I
10
lett• 110 • '
t
8
1 Bass 7 ' S 1 {L..Nla+s
Lake ' mss--•
t •
1
See
m
a •Ea
41•1A4 NI• Ave, N iarr.1 Av• N
1 tt - to ••1 r 136 • 169
SCA alke New ;:= 102
Soa .1.
9 i • I
Aec+te.• AQ r.
eet"
e Ost = I =
r
13 ILake14
3
a{tw Ave. N v'1 {tom Av• N .•il //
K J s II'
18A.01 •
7 wf lve N I•I
Medicine a• _ ;Q a•
as :
l • 10 0If ! •
Lake
lnIreM.1S4 {tl. Ave• Yedidiw•
70
L e
Sr i d S
Me icine`' `
A Golden 102
ake
3=;t
s• : to I ae r. • .
36 Valle
O I ; plyw.•.a St
r
Ir• .Ivw.wlll A.e < ra
55
M•
I
i + 8w r•++ `\ 169
A
d. • _ 31 K G•1 7 i ii I••
as a•
itl. M .avwtry
Clus
I•o
C Aidevw.evwl Ave. etty
36 "' '
neo:
wavasto
c ,
3 3 ', •
1 r3 t=
Ih$fa ( iI • I A7 .I
nlda.e.te
18 a 1 6Pk. t NJI•.ar *d• ..d1+.d• U. • s ' '+
tI
M.
61) vi 7 .. !`. C
METRO SITE LOCATION
WVAH construction company
OF MINNESOTA Mr -000310P TE0
t
Exhibit A
pcOVERL EAI I < _
8q S4
rLAKEd
54 rM E
32
1
v J O
O 5 tr '
1 >
G ,
MARI12Eo ; w
1ANO I SAULT.
SAINT
SI 5'
49 TM A E NO
l WTtST
48 T Hr
48TH - i48sp
1 C. TN
1 SCHM/OT ' .
CU T/S1 46r <
A IF
C i a LJ z V
i a C = • TNN 'N
o i _ 1 _
C V
J I I s l UNITED CUR I METIIOOIST
H #, CM.
AVE $ t J k
ROCKFORD ,
j JLI5-
9 — 40TH L. CO. 9
I MT.OIIVET
1 3l TN .
0•w :v •^ a0• i LOTH. CH. ., •
3 ,
CO F0 m » CN JOSEPH I •
F
38TH AV SST" a r,TM
iTTM L
37TH AV
Ctv0ufM
PL •."
2
4 .
7 1 TTM .v I. t N Pon )t `b
38TH ; 1 •• ° - —•
1
o 35TH AVE NO. a + TM s 361h AVE. <
s Y
X34 TM Ave NO iCITYNAILtrJ494ItZ
p < H p r 6
8j
zz 4
32 NO AVE N ! )
3
Mp
J i
TRyf ' 23-
2 MAR R K Z
LACI
C Z p
C ,
NO T
W
m• e1• I
28TH AVE t J t A
Z 28 TN Irte,
EIE
6TH AV :
S <o0
2T TM -AVE. NOZTTMt `
t reno" a t:
T*" r ='; i 3iuju Tt MEO/CINE
CITY SITE LOCATION
WYAN cor pany
OF
MtNNE30TAcocs
ructioo
INCOQvOAATED
Exhibit B
LAND USE
Existincr Land Use:
The 52 -acre subject parcel is presently guided CN, Shopping Center, and LA3,
High Medium Density Residential, and zoned FRD, Future Restricted Development
District. Much of the site is presently vacant land. There exists one small
office building in the very southwest corner of the site. Interstate Highway
No. 494 borders the property on the west; County Road No. 9 (Rockford Road)
borders the site on the south; and the property is bordered by West Medicine
Lake Road on the east. The property to the north of the site is presently
guided High Medium Density Residential and zoned FRD, Future Restricted
Development District.
Directly across Interstate Highway No. 494 from the site is property guided
and zoned Limited Business. Further to the north on the west side of
Interstate Highway No. 494 is land guided High Medium Density Residential.
Further to the south on the same side of the highway is property guided IP,
Planned Industrial.
The land to the south of the subject parcel across Rockford Road is guided CS,
Service Business. Currently there is a car dealership and Cottonwood Plaza,
which contains a gas station, bank and other retail shops located on this
property. The property further to the south along Interstate Highway No. 494
is guided High Density Residential. This land has been developed as an
apartment complex.
The properties to the east and north of the site are guided High Medium
Density Residential and zoned FRD, Future Restricted Development District, and
are currently vacant. Exhibit C and Exhibit D are existing Zoning and Guiding
Maps respectively for the area of the site.
Proposed Land Use:
The proposed use for this 52 -acre site is a retail/shopping center
development. As mentioned before, this development will accommodate the
immediate and future retail/shopping needs for the inhabitants of the Plymouth
Creek area of the City. Detailed site and building plans with accompanying
text, found later in this report, will further describe the developer's intent
to integrate this development into the existing site conditions and
surrounding neighborhood. The project shall be an M.P.U.D. project with B-2
zoning.
PARK DEDICATION FEES
In accordance with Section 500.25 of the City Code, Ryan Construction Company
understands a Parkland dedication fee will be requested in cash at the rate in
effect at the time the building permits are issued.
6
rKu R-lAq —JA
FRD
R.P D'
RPUD
77-2 by
83-2
r
84-3 r 17
RPUD ffp D
10 _-rill
pq`2
t RPUD FRPUD
RPUD 85-1 85-2 1. 1.jRAl
7R-DFR------ r -
F,
85-5
1 7
J,
0
FR
MPUD'
W
EXISTING ZONING
construction company
OF MINNESOTA INCORPORATED
ts
A A
IT.7
fN
Exhibit C
CIRYAN
R-1
FRD...
u D r
RPUD
MCI,
17j78-2 BI RPUD R-2
84-5
0
FR
MPUD'
W
EXISTING ZONING
construction company
OF MINNESOTA INCORPORATED
ts
A A
IT.7
fN
Exhibit C
CIRYAN
EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
Description of Existing Site:
The subject parcel of land encompasses 52 acres lying north of County Road No.
9, east of Interstate Highway No. 494, and west of West Medicine Lake Road.
The property to the north of the site is undeveloped and vacant.
The great variation found in the topography (see accompanying topography map)
is due to the mining of existing soils by the previous owner. The undisturbed
portion of the site is gently to moderately rolling in nature. A considerable
amount of regrading and reshaping of the land will need to be done along with
the razing of one existing house and outbuildings to accommodate the proposed
development. Current boundary survey and topographic maps are provided.
There is tree cover consisting mainly of sapling and mature bur oaks and aspen
along the west, north and east boundaries of the property. Many of these
trees will be removed during the soil excavation and grading process. Those
existing trees of significance that are at or very near proposed final grades
will try to be saved and incorporated into the final site design. As
requested by the Planning Commission and Council, a detailed tree inventory
was performed and it is submitted. Illustrated on the Natural Conditions
Analysis are cross-sections which demonstrate the difficulty in saving trees.
Fortunately, it is expected that several existing trees can be preserved in
Outlot A.
oil Conditions:
Generally the soils range from clayey in some parts of the site to rather
coarse sand and gravel in others. The property has been mined to large extent
for the coarse aggregates. A soils report and borings are currently being
prepared and at the time that information is complete we will have a better
understanding of water table levels and more specific soil types will be
distinguished. This information will be presented when available.
Hydrological Features:
The site lies within the Bassett Creek Watershed District. It appears there
are no D.N.A.-protected wetlands on the property. The Army Corps of Engineers
may have jurisdiction over a wetland located on the north property line. The
proper channels will be followed to ensure correct handling of the ponding
area. Currently, a portion of the site drains into the existing pond on the
north property line. Another part drains into the Mn/DOT pond located to the
southwest of the site and the remaining portion drains to the southeast corner
of the site where existing ditches and pipes convey it to Medicine Lake.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The proposed plat will create two blocks (one on either side of Vinewood
Lane), Right-of-way for Vinewood, Outlot A which is the north buffering strip
and Outlot B which is the stormwater ponding area. All lots shall have
frontage on a dedicated street but cross easements shall be provided for
vehicular access between roads and lots.
The following lot size summary is proposed in this preliminary plat:
Block 1
Lot 1 10.8 acres
Lot 2 17.1 acres
Lot 3 1.0 acres
Lot 4 1.4 acres
Outlot A 2.1 acres
Outlot B 1.6 acres
Block 2
Lot 1 1.6 acres
Lot 2 9 acres
Lot 3 8 acres
Lot 4.9 acres
Lot 5 1.5 acres
Lot 6 2.0 acres
Lot 7 5.1 acres
Vinewood Lane R.O.W. 5.1 acres
TOTAL 51.9 acres
M.P.U.D.
Inherent in this M.P.U.D. are some site planning features which are
inconsistent with B-2 requirements. These include: lot areas and dimensions
for the "freestanding" lots which are smaller than otherwise required in a
non-P.U.D. situation and parking and drive setbacks which in some
circumstances are slightly smaller than otherwise required in a non-P.U.D.
situation. Parking setbacks from front property lines are proposed to be 20'
except Block 2 lot 7). Parking setbacks from internal lot lines are proposed
to be 10' except in Block 2 where less is used. Building setbacks exceed 35'
from the Vinewood right-of-way. These P.U.D. site features will allow an
improved efficiency in several lots which become necessary to achieve other
common goals.
The common goals which the City and Developer share on this project (which may
be viewed as P.U.D. attributes) are:
1. Work with the extreme topography (80' difference from northwest to
southeast).to preserve as much relief as possible while making
usable sites.
2. Establishment of an extension of Vinewood Lane into the site which
aligns with the platted Vinewood (south of CR 9). This goal makes
the southernmost lots west of Vinewood "shallow" and lots just
north of the Mn/DOT pond "deep." Use of these unusually shaped
sites requires some flexibility.
0
3. Preservation of existing quality vegetation on-site whenever it
appears feasible.
4. Establishment of a buffer system on the north and east portion of
the site.
5. Minimizing openings onto Vinewood Lane.
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
Site Plan:
The site plan for the subject property entails a mix of commercial service
uses and a shopping center complex that utilizes shared facilities to as large
a degree as is possible. In this way, the site plan for the development
begins to convey an integration of building locations and road alignments that
make a strong, unified design statement.
The only thoroughfare proposed for the site is the extension of Vinewood Lane
north across County Road No. 9. It winds its way north and eventually curves
to the east where a connection with West Medicine Lake Road is proposed along
the property's north boundary. All other roads are private internal roads to
serve the needs of the proposed buildings and their accompanying parking.
Cross easements will be provided.
The main shopping center complex is situated on the easterly portion of the
site. The complex will house a large supermarket, a general merchandise
department store, drugstore, liquor store and clothing store, as well as other
services and retail.
Smaller, free-standing retail/service uses will occupy the westerly portion.
A garden center, restaurants, bank, and professional offices are some of the
proposed uses for these sites. Parking and service areas for each building
and use are shown on the site plan. As the use of these sites becomes
certain, their site plan may change. There will be pylon signage along
Interstate Highway No. 494, County Road No. 9 and the Vinewood Lane extension.
There will also be monument signage along Vinewood Lane only.
Building Plans:
The shopping center complex and all other buildings will be generally as
illustrated. All building facilities will feature state-of-the-art design and
materials and will be architecturally attractive as well as blend nicely into
one cohesive development. The development on the whole will favorably
complement the Cottonwood Plaza found directly across County Road No. 9 to the
south.
Parking:
Parking has been calculated on the basis of 6 spaces per 1,000 s.f. of retail
space. The site plans for the freestanding lots are tentative but intended to
comply with the 6/1000 ratio. The retail center on Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1,
10
include 273,345 s.f. of retail; requiring 1,640 parking stalls. 1552 parking
stalls are illustrated, with the balance (88) shown as "proof of parking"
behind the center (on the north and east site). Installation of these spaces
which will be designated as employee parking) may require a retaining and
adjustment of plant materials.
Plantings
A preliminary planting plan is provided which has the following characteris-
tics.
1. Emphasis on buffering of the east and north portion of the site.
2. Preservation of existing trees on outlot A.
3. Boulevard type plantings along Vinewood Lane on private property.
4. Use of a plant palette featuring the 3 types of plant association
originally there: lowland (ash, silver maple, willow, etc.),
Maple Linden Association (Norway, red and sugar maple, American
and Littleleaf Linden) and Oak Savannah Association (Swamp White
and Pin Oak, Hackberry, Ironwood, Hawthorn).
f
5. Ornamental plantings to provide seasonal color and interest
crab-apple, quaking aspen, amur maple, etc.)
6. Accent plantings using evergreen trees, shrubs and deciduous
ornamental plantings at major entry points.
7. At the center of the shopping center parking lot special plant
compositions using large rocks and boulders are proposed to set a
theme and recall the mining character of the site.
8. Use of plant materials in combination with retaining walls to
feature plants and preserve land forms.
General Contractor:
Utilizing over half a century of experience in construction, Ryan has evolved
a construction process that can respond to virtually every conceivable
financial, planning, design and management requirement that may occur. The
Ryan construction process if directed by the Ryan Project Manager, in concert
with the Construction Superintendent and Project Engineer. The Ryan
professionals manage and control the budget, schedule, trade contractors and
pay requests to resolve any construction issue that may arise.
To ensure tenant occupancy in a timely fashion, and to properly respond to
requirements, construction expertise in key areas is demanded. In order to
meet these difficult time deadlines, careful consideration must be given to
the construction schedule and the experience, commitment and ability to
accurately project an occupancy date.
11
STAGING
The Developer is proposing a municipal approval process (assuming favorable
city processing) which would allow construction grading beginning late in
1989. The initial construction would be rough site grading to establish
roads, ponding and approximate building pads. Phase I Building Construction
would be lot 7 Block 2 and lots 1 and 2 of Block 1. Phase II Building
Construction would be lots 1, 2 and 3 of Block 2 and lots 3 and 4 of Block 1.
Phase III Building Construction would be lots 4, 5 and 6 of Block 2. Total
buildout would be 1992.
SITE UTILITIES
anitarv_Sewer:
The proposed development is located in Sewer District NC -7 of Plymouth's
Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan. There are currently no existing sanitary
sewer lines which service this property. However, according to the City's
Comprehensive Plan, they are proposing an extension of the trunk interceptor
system with a 24" sewer along West Medicine Lake Road with the 1989
construction season. This being the case, the property could tie into and be
adequately served by this system. Further study is currently being done to
ensure the feasibility of this consideration.
Water main:
Currently there is an 8" D.I.P. stub located by the southern entrance to the
site at County Road No. 9 and Vinewood Lane. Furthermore, the City's guide
plan calls for the extension of a 20" water main along the east side of the
property along West Medicine Lake Road during the 1989 construction season.
The site water system provides sufficient supply for firefighting, provided
the 20" water main is constructed.
Storm Sewer:
The site has approximate 37.755 acres in Basin BC -30. An additional 1.516
acres of offsite boulevard area is also tributary to the outfall.
Approximately 13.9 acres of the site is in Basin BC -31. Pond P-14 is in Basin
BC -31.
The proposed development produces runoff that exceeds the maximum flow rate
permitted. A detention pond is proposed to reduce the peak flow of the design
storm to 47 cubic feet per second. An additional 1.79 acre feet of capacity
has been added to compensate for the encroachment of Vinewood Lane grading
into Pond P-14 north of the site.
Bassett Creek Watershed requires a pond to trap sediment during construction.
The proposed pond has been located where it can be used to provide required
treatment during construction. A special outlet will be installed to obtain
the required detention time.
12
Runoff calculations used Soil Conservation Service Publication TR55. A sample
of those calculations and the runoff hydrograph is attached in Appendix.
TRAFFIC
Traffic studies have been undertaken by both the developer and the City.
Attached is the Traffic Impact Supplement (dated May 1989 by Westwood
Professional Services). It is a response to the April 20, 1989,
Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc., report. Additionally, submitted with the exhibits
is a Traffic Circulation Plan on which all street and right-of-way, width and
curb types are stated.
13
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
East 340.27 feet to beginning:
Jerome P. Begin and Betty A. Begin, husband and wife, as joint tenants,
as to balance of Parcel 1;
AND
Jerome P. Begin and Betty A. Begin, husband and wife, as to Parcel 2.
4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1:
All of the SW1/4 of NE1/4 of Section 15, Township 118, Range 22 and all
of the NW1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 15, Township 118, Range 22 lying
north of the north line of Hennepin County Road No. 9, as per Lis
Pendens Document No. 5157722, except:
that part which lies southwesterly of a line run parallel with and
distant 88.00 feet northeasterly of the first following described line
and its southeasterly extension and southwesterly of the second
following described line;
Line 1. From a point on the south line of said Section 15, distant
728.9 feet West of the South Quarter corner thereof, run northeasterly
at an angle of 75 degrees, 30 minutes 45 seconds with said south section
line for 2101.12 feet; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 17
degrees 16 minutes 10 seconds for 328.65 feet; thence deflect to the
right at an angle of 114 degrees 48 minutes for 239.08 feet to the point
of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflect to the left at
an angle of 129 degrees 30 minutes for 600 feet and there terminating;
Line 2. From a point on Line 1 described above, distant 57.49 feet
northwesterly of its point of beginning, run northeasterly at right
angles with said Line 1 for 88 feet to the point of beginning of Line 2
to be described; thence run southeasterly to the point of intersection
of the northerly boundary of said County Road No. 9 with a line run a
right angles northerly from the point of termination of Line A described
below and there terminating;
Line A. From a point on the south line of said Section 15, distant
728.9 feet West of the south quarter corner thereof, run northeasterly
at an angle of 75 degrees 30 minutes 45 seconds with said South section
line for 2101.12 feet; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 17
degrees 16 minutes 10 seconds for 328.65 feet to the point of beginning
of Line A, to be described; thence deflect to the right at an angle of
114 degrees 48 minutes for 245.46 feet; thence deflect to the left on a
5 degree 00 minutes curve (delta angle 40 degrees 47 minutes), having a
length of 615.67 feet for 534.5 feet and there terminating.
14
Abstract Property.
PARCEL 2:
All that part of the East 268.74 feet of the East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of
the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 118, Range 22, lying North
of the North line of County State Aid Highway No. 9, and the East 268.74
feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15,
Township 118, Range 22, except that part of said tracts which lies
Westerly of a line run parallel with a distant 100 feet Easterly of the
following described line: Beginning at a point on the South line of
said Section 15, distant 728.9 feet West of the South Quarter corner
thereof; thence run Northeasterly at an angle of 75 degrees 30 minutes
45 seconds with said South Section line for 360.98 feet; thence deflect
to the left on a 0 degree 30 minute curve (delta angle 17 degrees 16
minutes 10 seconds) for 3453.89 feet; thence on tangent to said curve
for 300 feet and there terminating; and except all that part of the
above described tract which lies Easterly of the above described strip
and Southwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 88 feet
Northeasterly of the following described line: From a point on the
South line of said Section 15, distant 728.9 feet West of the South
Quarter corner thereof, run Northeasterly at an angle of 75 degrees 30
minutes 45 seconds with a said South Section line for 2101.12 feet;
thence deflect to the left at an angle of 17 degrees 16 minutes 10
seconds for 328.65 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 114
degrees 48 minutes for 239.08 feet to the point of beginning of the line
to be described; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 129 degrees
30 minutes for 691.16 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 6 degree 00
minute curve (delta angle 13 degrees 28 minutes 30 seconds) for 224.58
feet and there terminating; and except all that part of the above
described tract which lies Easterly of the first above described strip,
Northerly of the last above described strip and Westerly of the
following described line: From a point on the first above described
line, distant 784.47 feet Southerly of its point of termination, run
Easterly at right angles with the first above described line for 100
feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence run
Southerly to the point of termination of the above described 88 foot
parallel line and there terminating.
Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No.
724744.
INFORMATION NOTE: The office of the Registrar of Titles advises that
the Owner's Duplicate Certificate is at the Torrens Office.
15
rll lot 401 -5torm Sewer
still
is
LLJ
3)
4)
cwC=611
r -M
Ja
in
coa
14. AAM
fit
4* -;-
fit kr
it
lin uan IM/ Jos
POND
bill
smammmu4mwwmwmm
LLI
3)
4)
cwC=611
r -M
Ja
in
coa
14. AAM
fit
4* -;-
fit kr
it
lin uan IM/ Jos
POND
ROCKFORD ROAD PLAZA
TRAFFIC IMPACT SUPPLEMENTARY FINDINGS
MAY 1989
SUBMITTED TO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PREPARED FOR:
RYAN CONSTRUCTION
PREPARED BY:
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
7101 YORK AVENUE SOUTH
EDINA, MN 55435
921-3303
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
Rockford Road Plaza
Traffic Impact Supplementary Findings
Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. (SRF) prepared a traffic study on the
Rockford Road Plaza project dated April 20, 1989. This material
uses this study as a basis to develop and analyze the traffic
impacts of the Rockford Road Plaza for 1993, one year after the
proposed build -out of the development.
The scope of the supplemental study includes a discussion of the
SRF findings and analysis of the traffic impacts for the
development for 1993.
Discussion of SRF findings contained in the SRF report on Pages 5
and 6.
1) INSTALL A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT VINEWOOD LANE AND CR 9 -- SRF.
WPS -- Agree. It is recommended that a signal interconnection
system be reviewed for this area because of the signal spacing
and numbers. The LOS numbers will be calculated using an
interconnection assumption and the Highway Capacity Manual
computerized modeling process. This process will yield the
most accurate results that are possible and will be used for
the Indirect Source Permit submittal.
2) ELIMINATE THE RIGHT TURN IN/OUT ACCESS TO CR 9 -- SRF.
WPS -- Agree in part. We understand and share SRF's views on
the right turn out from the site. However, the right turn in
from #9 will actually enhance the capacity of the CR 9 and
Vinewood Lane intersection and give better accessibility to
the shopping center without hindering other traffic. WPS will
coordinate this design detail with the Hennepin County
officials.
3) PLAT REVISED TO PROVIDE ADD'T. R/W FOR CR 9 -- SRF.
WPS -- Based upon the immediate needs of the center thru 1993,
there is not an apparent need for additional R/W.
Rockford Road Plaza Traffic Impact Supplementary Findings
May 1989 Page 1
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
4) VINEWOOD LANE THRU THE SITE - 4/5 LANE DESIGN -- SRF.
WPS -- Agree except that we believe the five lane design
should extend north of the Target entrance far enough to allow
a left turn lane. At the CR approach, four lanes plus a small
island should be adequate.
5) SITE CONTROL SHOULD BE AS ON FIGURE 5 -- SRF.
WPS -- Agree except that a traffic signal may be necessary for
the primary internal street intersection allowing access to
the shopping center on the east side of Vinewood.
6) EXTENSION OF COUNTY RD 61 TO COUNTY RD 10 -- SRF.
WPS -- We do agree that CR 61 has to be extended, but the
question is when. It is WPS finding that thru 1993 (an
estimated build -out of the shopping center), geometric
improvements can be made to Cr 9 instead of extending CR 61
and the CR 9 bridge over I 494. We have added several
attachments to this memorandum demonstrating our findings.
One of our basic assumptions to allow the center to be build
immediately without significant hold-ups due to the CR 61
improvements or CR 9 bridge widening is to divide the improvements
into a two phase operation. Phase One includes the core center
including the food store, the Target store and the retail area.
Phase Two includes the outlets with restaurants, health club, etc.
Phase One would be opened in 1990. Phase Two would be built out by
1992. We have analyzed the center's traffic impact for 1993 to be
in accordance with ISP rules of analyzing a development at a period
of one year after completion of build -out.
7) PROVISION FOR A FUTURE DUAL LEFT TURN INTO THE SITE -- SRF.
WPS -- We agree that it will ultimately be needed, but not
until beyond 1993.
8) COUNTY 61 AND VINEWOOD LAND GEOMETRICS -- SRF.
WPS -- Agree, during the period that CR 61 is being designed.
9) COUNTY 61 AND VINEWOOD LANE SIGNALIZATION -- SRF.
WPS -- Agree, during the period that CR 61 is being designed.
Rockford Road Plaza Traffic Impact Supplementary Findings
May 1989 Page 2
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
10) COUNTY 9 AND I 494 IMPROVEMENTS -- SRF.
WPS -- Agree that improved geometrics and bridge widening will
be needed. However, through 1993 the improvements shown on
the WPS sketch will provide acceptable traffic movement,
together with the proper design of the signal system.
Ultimately, by 2010, bridge widening and other improvements
will have to be made.
11) IMPROVE SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD AND AN INTERCHANGE -- SRF.
WPS -- Agree. This improvement will definitely be warranted as t
development of this area of Plymouth progresses.
Analysis of Traffic Impacts 1993 - One Year after Build -out
This scenario analyzed considers full development without extending
CR 61 and without widening the CR 9/I-494 bridge. The scope of the
analysis for 1993 includes traffic volume forecasts, geometric
roadway review, and p.m. peak hour capacity analysis. Various
geometric upgrades were reviewed to develop level of service 'D' or
better results.
Traffic forecasts were prepared, using as a basis traffic volume
data from the SRF report, for 1993. The site traffic for the
proposed development was added to a 3% annual growth in background
traffic volumes for all routes to develop the forecasts. The
3%growth rate was obtained from the Hennepin County Traffic
Forecast report prepared by BRW for County Road 9 at the site.
The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual software was used to perform to
analyze anticipated intersection performance and to develop levels
of service. During the analysis, capacity limitations resulting in
poor levels of service were identified at several intersections.
The following geometric changes of the existing geometry were
developed, analyzed and are recommended to improve the level of
service to acceptable levels for study area intersections :
1. The:I-494 west ramp should have a dual south bound left
turn lane rather than a single south bound left turn
lane.
2. The I-494 east ramp should have a chanelized northbound
right turn lane which should extend easterly to
Vinewood. This results in an additional lane on County
Road 9 between the ramp and Vinewood.
3. The south bound right turn lane at Vinewood should be a
free movement. This lane should extend westerly to the
I-494 east ramp as a free right turn lane.
Rockford Road Plaza Traffic Impact Supplementary Findings
May 1989 Page 3
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
The table presented below summarized the results of the capacity
analysis for the p.m. peak hour, 1993 full development scenario.
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
1993 BUILD -OUT SCENARIO
sss=ssssmsssxss=ssssa=ssxsss=sx=sscs=ss=ssssssss
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
County Road 9/West I-494 Ramp C
County Road 9/East I-494 Ramp C
County Road 9/Vinewood C
County Road 9/Medicine Lake Rd. C
Access Drive/Medicine Lake Rd. C
The results presented here consider 1993 as the study year.
Westwood has also analyzed the year 1995, with the proposed
geometry and expected traffic volume growth, resulting in
acceptable levels of service for all study area intersections.
These items follow in support of this report:
Traffic volume forecasts figure for 1993 full development
Recommended (short term) roadway geometric configuration, and
Highway Capacity Analysis output reports
Rockford Road Plaza Traffic Impact Supplementary Findings
May 1989 . Page 4
4-96
r OOZ
cs-+'1r'
s£z U -)o
no
N
i
t6b-1
t9EPEPold
0
z
CO
evh
arc
m
1 • a yeli
zaM
sssJ tr'
EASTBOUND 494 RAMP
WESTBOUND 494 RAMP
1 `
o
t1 t,
I
O
II
1; t,
I
1 I
I
i t
I
1
i
j
1
J
I
n
y
d
E
CD
O
L
0-
LL, u
a
C
C
CD
E
E'
O
v
d
w
z
W
V
Z
CL
CL
N
49N
J
0
Q
O
o
O
LLY
O
r'
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
INTERSECTION..COUNTY ROAD 9/WEST 494 RAMP
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
ANALYST....... BFB
DATE.......... 04/28/89
TIME.......... PM PEAK
COMMENT....... 1993 - FULL DEVELOPMENT - NO CR 61 EXTENSION
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB
LT 0 414 0 586 : T 13.0 L 13.0 12.0 L 13.0
TH 1174 679 0 0 : T 13.0 T 13.0 12.0 L 13.0
RT 96 0 0 236 : R 13.0 12.0 12.0 R 13.0
RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
M M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T
EB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 12.1 3
WB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 12.1 4
NB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 18.6 3
SB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 18.6 3
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 100.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 . PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X NB LT
TH X TH
RT X RT
PD X PD
WB LT X X SB LT X
TH X X TH X
RT X X RT X
PD X X PD X
GREEN 39.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C- G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB T 0.924 0.410 24.3 C 23.4 C
R 0.170 0.410 12.1 B
WB L 0.941 0.650 33.7 D 16.7 C
T 0.642 0.650 6.3 B
SB L 0.869 0.290 32.9 D 29.6 D
R 0.590 0.290 20.9 C
INTERSECTION: Delay = 22.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.912 LOS = C
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
INTERSECTION..COUNTY ROAD 9/EAST I-494 RAMP
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
ANALYST....... BFB
DATE.......... 05/23/89
TIME.......... PM
COMMENT....... 1993 - FULL DEVELOPMENT - NO CR 61 EXTENSION
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB
LT 568 0 146 0 : L 13.0 T 13.0 L 13.0 12.0
TH 1192 947 0 0 : T 13.0 T 13.0 R 13.0 12.0
RT 0 534 746 0 : 12.0 R 13.0 12.0 12.0
RR 0 534 746 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
M M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T
EB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 8.9 4
WB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 8.9 4
NB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 18.6 3
SB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 18.6 3
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 100.0
PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4
EB LT X X NB LT X
TH X X TH X
RT X X RT X
PD X X PD X
WB IT X SB LT
TH X TH
RT X RT
PD X PD
GREEN 31.0 44.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C- G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.61.4 0.820 3.4 A 6.3 B
T 0.894 0.820 7.7 B
WB T 0.926 0.330 26.1 D 26.1 D
R 0.001 0.330 10.6 B
NB L 0.882 0.120 57.6 E 57.6 E
R 0.000 0.120 0.0 A
INTERSECTION: Delay = 15.7 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.892 LOS = C
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
INTERSECTION..COUNTY ROAD 9/VINEWOOD
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
ANALYST....... BFB
DATE.......... 05/24/89
TIME.......... PM
COMMENT....... 1993 - FULL DEVELOPMENT - NO CR 61 EXTENSION
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB
LT 595 28 135 125 : L 13.0 L 13.0 L 13.0 L 13.0
TH 1247 747 20 20 : T 13.0 T 13.0 LT 13.0 LT 13.0
RT 305 125 39 600 : T 13.0 T 13.0 R 13.0 R 13.0
RR 305 125 39 600 : R 13.0 R 13.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
M M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T
EB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 21.9 4
WB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 21.9 4
NB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 28.4 3
SB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 28.4 3
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 100.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X X NB LT X
TH X X TH X
RT X X RT X
PD X X PD X
WB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PD X PD X
GREEN 5.0 29.0 25.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.939 0.410 36.3 D 17.1 C
T 0.660 0.610 8.4 B
R 0.000 0.610 0.0 A
WB L 0.259 0.070 33.7 D 30.9 D
T 0.893 0.270 30.8 D
R 0.000 0.270 12.3 B
NB L 0.873 0.100 58.2 E 54.7 E
LT 0.123 0.100 31.2 D
R 0.002 0.100 30.8 D
SB L 0.809 0.100 49.7 E 47.2 E
LT 0.123 0.100 31.2 D
R 0.000 0.100 0.0 A
INTERSECTION: Delay = 24.2 (sec/veh) V/C 0.903 LOS = C
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
INTERSECTION..COUNTY ROAD 9/MEDICINE LAKE RD.
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
ANALYST....... BFB
DATE.......... 05/24/89
TIME.......... PM
COMMENT....... 1993 - FULL DEVELOPEMENT - NO CR 61 EXTENSION
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB
LT 144 135 125 98 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0
TH 1194 648 53 47 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0
RT 74 98 602 127 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0
RR 74 98 602 127 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
M M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T
EB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 26.5 4
WB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 26.5 3
NB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 26.5 3
SB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 26.5 3
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 100.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X NB LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PD X PD X
WB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PD X PD X
GREEN 12.0 43.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 10.0 15.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.685 0.140 36.6 D 22.8 C
T 0.882 0.450 21.2 C
R 0.000 0.570 5.1 B
WB L 0.643 0.140 35.0 D 18.2 C
T 0.479 0.450 14.8 B
R 0.000 0.570 17.1 C
NB L 0.694 0.120 38.8 D 35.1 D
T 0.104 0.170 26.7 D
R 0.000 0.310 30.8 D
SB L 0.544 0.120 33.8 D 31.4 D
T 0.092 0.170 26.6 D
R 0.000 0.310 18.1 C
INTERSECTION: Delay = 22.7 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.675 LOS = C
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
INTERSECTION..ACCESS DRIVE/MEDICINE LAKE RD.
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
ANALYST....... BFB
DATE.......... 05/24/89
TIME.......... PM
COMMENT....... 1993 - FULL DEVELOPMENT - NO CR 61 EXTENSION
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB
LT 35 0 200 0 : L 12.0 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0
TH 0 0 95 67 : R 12.0 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0
RT 205 0 0 35 : 12.0 12.0 T 12.0 12.0
RR 51 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
M M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T
EB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 22.8 3
WB 0.00 0.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 22.8 3
NB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 11.3 4
SB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 11.3 3
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 100.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X NB LT X
TH X TH X X
RT X RT X X
PD X PD X X
WB LT SB LT
TH TH X
RT RT X
PD PD X
GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 45.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.119 0.220 23.7 C 23.3 C
R 0.522 0.220 23.2 C
NB L 0.606 0.220 28.7 D 19.8 C
T 0.044 0.720 1.9 A
SB TR 0.076 0.470 9.4 B 9.4 B
INTERSECTION: Delay = 19.0 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.312 LOS = C
R"•c." RCCKFORD ROAC SHOPPING CENTER
TR 55 DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
TR 55 DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
Area No Area CN Area*CA:•'
Recurrence Year = 0.245 Al 6.4::9 97 621.79
24 Hr reinfa-'l ('n) = 1.23 A2 1_?00 9C 98.53
ea (acres) = 53.1711 A3 3.740 9_ 356.45
CN _ 6 A-' 2.474 9F 242.46
S = 0.532 AS 1.501 96 143.53
Run;ori (inchesl 0.672 6' 3 312 98 324.53
y e: 6''
95 207.8~
3 5.3
7O-
Avg W;:rshG S1 _pe •r, - o.cCp 8? 3.954 SC 345.3=
Lag (OOL r ) = i . 422 6C. 1.1356 92
Hyd length !c:.; L-ec. _ V WCV C' 2.576 96 247 a^
p-"
L 152
2.3 08 g 1
110.53
32.S. S
Tine o r;_:c (w•) = C.7C; v.
012 2.357 S1 214.; 1r _
Bac ,c PC..s (c,} _ ic 4 '
DJ 4.252 95 4CS.4_+
Hyd Lenoth Mod Adj = 1.0n
D4 1.325
96 27.27
Impervious P. ea A^j = 1.00
1.00
D4
D5
325
7-323 96 703.62
Poi -I S: Swamp Ad,; =
cfs) = 22.759 E? 2.296 92 21"_20
Peak 04srhange
feet) = 2.9784. E2 0.569
74
42-13
Runcff (Acre
ru,ic feet) = i2S,738 r1 2.599 74 152.:
0.0C
TR 55 DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
Area= No Area- P.rea*C{
Re^urrence Year = 5 Ai 6_r3S•
100
97
90
621.70
9E.53
24 Hr rainfall (in) = 3.61 A2
Area (acres) = 53.171 A3 3.740 98 366.45
CN = 94 A4 2.474
931 242.45
S = 0.632 A5 1.501 96 143.53
o --f Cinches) _ 2.944 81 3.312 93 324.53
Hydr Length (ft) - 2,600 82 2.12? 95 207.8~
3 5.3
313 Wtrs.-id Slope ("0 = 0.S0-0 83 3.854 9^
18?.8S
Lac (hour) = 0.422 84 1.856 98
Hyd length Modified = 0.00 C1 2.576 95 247.43
Impervious Area = 0.00 C2 1.152 96 110.58
Time of Conc (hr) = 0.70 D' 2.306 91, 209.39
214.91
Basic Peak DIS (cfs) = 408 D2
03
2.367
4.252
91
SS 409.49
Hyd Length Mod Adj = 1.00
D4 1.325 96 127.2%
Impervious Area Ad,; _ 1.00
1.00 CS 7.323 96 03.52
on:d & Swamp Adj =
E1 2.296 92 211 .2C
Peak Discharge. (cfs) = 99.740
13.0469 E2 0.559 74 42.13
Runoff (Acre feet) =
Cubic feet) = 568,325 F-11 11 ^^152.3i7474
fel
cle
7
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
July 14, 1989
Mr. Charles Dillerud
Community Development Coordinator
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
8525 Edinbrook Crossing 1101 York Avenue South
Brooklyn Park. Minnesota 55443 Edina, Minnesota 55435
612-424.8862 612.921-3303
EAI. IRg L 0 W M2-111-3293
JUL 14 1989
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
The following document is written in response to the City of Plymouth staff
letter dated July 12, 1989. Also included in this package is a revised set of
preliminary plan sheets signed by a registered Engineer in the State of
Minnesota. The information contained herein and on the plan sheets is meant
to be in conformance to the comments received from the City staff review of
the Rezoning, PUD Preliminary Plan/Plat/Conditional Use Permit for Rockford
Road Plaza (89014) application.
The responses in this letter follow the format of the July 12 City letter.
Item #1: It is acknowledged that the developer is responsible for the
Vinewood Lane improvements. The developer wishes to initiate a public
improvement for the roadway and have the costs assessed to the areas of the
developable property in proportion to the benefit assigned on an area basis.
Item N2: There are no direct connections to the trunk sanitary sewer that
is referred to in the City letter. Therefore, the trunk sanitary sewer will
be installed at the expense of the City.
Item #3: An easement will be provided throughout the shopping center on the
east side of Vinewood Lane to allow the sanitary sewer line, in total, to be a
public utility. This will allow the sanitary sewer line as shown on the
original preliminary plan sheets.
Item #4: The preliminary plan sheet for the storm sewer design has been
revised.
Item #5: The catch basins on Vinewood Lane have been revised to allow the
roadway water to flow into the pond on Outlot B. However, the storm water
from the site to the north, which will be direct outflow from Another ponding
area, has not been allowed to flow into the pond on Outlot B. It is the
developer's intention to not pond the water twice and to separate the northerly
development area's stormwater from the Rockford Plaza storm water. The
important issue is that all stormwater will pass through a detention and
treatment ponding system.
Mr. Charles Dilleruc
July 14, 1989
Page 2
Item 6: Westwood has revised the plan sheet accordingly.
Item 7: Westwood has revised the plan sheet accordingly.
Item 8: Westwood has revised the plan sheet accordingly.
Item #9: Westwood feels the design shown on the preliminary plan sheet
submittal is an acceptable design and encourages the City Engineering
Department to use this design as the preliminary layout for the sanitary sewer.
Westwood's engineers would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this matter
further with the decision makers on the City of Plymouth staff.
Item #10: Acknowledged. Design criteria will be appropriately utilized.
Item #11: Westwood has revised the plan sheets to hopefully meet the
requirements of the Public Safety Department.
Item #12: The plan sheets have been revised not add the fire lane and the
west side of the structure shown on lot 6, block 2.
Item #13: The developer respectfully requests the City to continue the
designation of Vinewood Lane to the intersection of West Medicine Lake Drive.
Because the street through Rockford Plaza flows continuously without
interruption (such as a tee intersection), the developer would prefer the
designation for conformity and ease of address identification.
Item #14: The developer agrees that no private drive access to County Road 9
shall be allowed. The detail shown on the preliminary submittal plan sheets
demonstrates access into the site from County Road 9. Hennepin County has
indicated that if a continuous right turn lane is constructed from just before
the right turn into the site to the intersection of Vinewood Lane, the County
staff would be more amenable to this design feature. At the time of the
printing of this document, the County had not given the developer their final
position on this ingress point.
Item #15: The developer agrees to provide the restrictive convenants after
they have met with the City to clarify exactly the areas that are referred to
in the City letter of July 12.
Item #16: Sheet 8 (Natural Conditions Analysis) and Sheet 9 (Tree Survey)
were provided to'document resources which perhaps could be work into the
amenity character of the Rockford Plaza Shopping Center. The site lanning
process benefited from the inventory tasks. The City Planning Commission and
City Council encouraged us to preserve existing ground form and vegetation as
much as possible. The following changes have been made:
Changing the stormwater pond location from the northwest corner is more
in character with the "lay of the land".
Mr. Charles DillerudE
July 14, 1989
Page 3
It
The high area in the northwest was preserved in outlot A and lot 7 of
block 2 using retaining walls.
Numerous larger tress and many more small tress are preserved in outlet A.
The development of this project on a site with such a rugged terrain precluded
extensive preservation of plant materials. The cross sections on sheet 8
illustrate how in several wooded areas the preservation of existing vegetation
does not match proposed grades.
Section A illustrates a key area where the emergency overflow for the major
parking lot drains around the buildings to outlot A. This must occur at an
elevation lower than shopping center buildings which are 10' lower than
existing ground grade at that location. Raising the proposed building
elevations 10' puts the buildings at an unnaturally high elevation (See
Sections B&C).
Section B shows the irregularity of existing grades and that the shaping of
a pond with a containment embankment are not compatible with the shrub
vegetation.
Section C shows how the returning from proposed building elevation to existing
grades at West Medicine Lake Road would involve massive retaining walls to
preserve trees.
Section D. like section B, shows how installing a retail use on this rugged
landform provided slight opportunity for tree preservation.
Item X117: Acknowledged and completed.
Item #18: Acknowledged.
Item #19: The developer fully believes that providing insufficient parking
is not in anyone's interest. The demonstrated (but not initially constructed)
parking has the character of "proof of parking". The multiple tenant
characteristics of the retail center also takes on the "mixed use" character
alluded to in the ordinance. We suggest that the parking proposal is
reasonable when viewed from this perspective.
Clarification of any of these items can be made by contacting Dick Koppy or
Tim Erkkila of Westwood Professional Services, Inc. The City review comments
are appreciated for review at the earliest possible Planning Commission
meeting. Thank you.
Sincerely,
WOOD PROFEESSIONAL ICES, INC.
i and L. Koppy, P.E.
President
CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT* PLAN.
PLYMOUTHS MINNESOTA
IWAH c Ia acImoa
AMCIIOM i i
tltrtllru at 1
trrN •
gra r
4Aoot11
Clinch
tA,tltr N
Qac%
0
I
Alf AtIAA f/
ROCKFORD
ROAD
PLAZA
PYLMOUTH, MINNESOTA
o
AMCtt011
ttRtN M
t
Ir- i
r m%.im 1 (1)
low
CURRENT ZONING
PROPOSED ZONING
FRD
B -PUD
CAKE z J SqM
A se /N J SIE• f
O t
i) SA/NT MARJE • ~S I S
AND S'T. \ 2 L
I `
11 TN A NO — — — — — — —
PLYMOUTH
1 WTI ST
CMM
a 41 4ITM
47 TN
f
T/S A. c <4si
LAKE :
A4TLE
3 J
uuILQRAM
METHEWIs
AVE $
CH.
W
W
a..
aa.aa SI V ti 6Kf a
i V W i• •
6 a
H L. Co. - .;:' No. 14=x, ti ,.
MT. OLIVET `
a _
CO. »c. .IDSErN
WTI. CN.
4
w «
1 I I1
t \
34TH AV E E
3T TH AV
rm
77«
1 111
3i TH
1
TH AVE NO. S tN .340 AVE
13TH = !
J •
it
CITYMALI H 34 TN A No. i
1rh • 11 c+
c
8c
9
Y ACc .}
E No
t
N
4 T M II AV ZOTM
a t J 4
4 TH A T
ate„ 7 TN `AVE. NO. 3 7
w w at MED/C/N
WYANconstruction company
F
Ms,,
tr,,
OTOA NNCOgOOAATED
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE August 2, 1989, COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 9, 1989
FILE NO.: 89044
PETITIONER: Harstad Companies
REQUEST: Amended RPUD Preliminary Plat/Plan/Conditional Use Permit
and RPUD Final Site Plan and Final Plat for a Portion of
Lake Camelot Estates"
LOCATION: Northwest Quadrant of County Road 47 and I-494
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -2 (Low Medium Density Residential)
ZONING:
BACKGROUND:
RPUD 86-1
On May 5, 1986, by Resolution 86-256, the Plymouth City Council approved an
RPUD Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Harstad Companies
encompassing 168 acres, of which this parcel is a portion.
On November 3, 1986, the City Council by Resolutions 86-737 and 86-738
approved the RPUD Final Plan/Plat and development contract for the Camelot
Estates designated 189 single family lots and 9 outlots.
On July 10, 1989, the City Council by Resolution 89-364 approved the Land Use
Guide Plan amendment for the Harstad Companies covering a portion of the
overall Lake Camelot RPUD to reguide approximately 74 acres from LA -3 (high
medium density residential) to LA -2 (low medium density residential). This
parcel is a portion of that 74 acres that has been reguided.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official city
newspaper, and notices have been mailed to adjoining property owners within
500 feet. In addition, a development sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant proposes to amend the RPUD Preliminary Plan and Conditional
Use Permit for Lake Camelot to change the unit count, unit type, and
density of that portion of the overall RPUD that lies north of County Road
47 and east of Yucca Lane. The land area impacted by the PUD Plan change
totals approximately 28 acres.
see next page)
Page Two
File 89044
The amendment would result in the increase in the number of single family
detached lots from previously approved 186, to the now proposed 201; a
reduction in the number of townhomes from the previously approved 148, to
the now proposed 42 (none of which are now located on the subject
but only in the "townhouse area" south of County Road 47
arcel,
the
introduction of 12 -unit condominium structures containing a total of 156
condominium units, where no such units were previously approved; and the
elimination of 191 apartment units approved for 24 -unit structures. In
addition, a row of single family detached lots has been introduced
fronting Yucca Lane. The impact of the plan change is a reduction of 126
dwelling units over the previously approved plan for Lake Camelot. The
entire reduction takes place in the area north of County Road 47 and east
of Yucca Lane.
2. An RPUD Final Site Plan is also presented for the area of the RPUD located
north of County Road 47 and east of Yucca Lane. No prior RPUD Final Plan
had been approved for this area, nor was the area previously platted
except into outlots. The PUD Preliminary Plat and Final Plat presented
provides for replatting of the property from outlots to the final
configuration to undertake the development proposed.
3. The area of the RPUD under consideration is located in the Mud Lake
Watershed District and the Shingle Creek Watershed District, and contains
no flood plain or storm water holding facilities; is not located within a
Shoreland Management District; contains a very small portion of protected
wet lands in the extreme northwest corner; contains no woodlands of
significance; contains no slopes of over 12 percent, except those related
to drainage corridors; and does contain some soils considered unsuitable
for urban development without corrections. The site is generally capable
of urban development with public sewers with some adjustment in soil, and
recognition of the wet land area in the extreme northwest corner. The
preliminary plan and site plans proposed are of designs that both
recognize the constraints of the site and make adjustments for those
constraints.
4. The Zoning Ordinance provides the Planning Commission criteria upon which
to analyze and .make a recommendation concerning an RPUD Preliminary
Plat/Plan. Those same criteria are equally applicable to a revised
preliminary plan/plat such as here under consideration. Those criteria
are as follows:
a. Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit
Development. The applicant states in his narrative submission of May
1989 that the proposed substitute of condominium units for townhouses
and apartments "could be considered an enhancement" over the
previously approved PUD Plan. The proposed PUD Plan amendment --
resulting in a reduction and overall project density and dwelling unit
count --does not present the design features that would diminish the
see next page)
Page Three
File 89044
responsiveness of the project to the PUD attributes listed in
Subdivision B of the Zoning Ordinance. The demonstrated professional
design assistance, proficient use of streets and facilities, usable
suitably located active recreational facility and affirmative design
efforts towards the preservation of desirable natural site
characteristics are retained with this amended plan. Active
recreational facilities for children are now planned for location
within the condominium section of the site. Inclusion of this type of
recreational facility was not proposed by their earlier proposed plan.
b. Relationship with 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. The present plan for this site is
responsive to the Land Use Guide Plan with respect to project density
and structure type based on the recent Land Use Guide Plan amendment
to reclassify this general vicinity from LA -3 to LA -2. Consistency
with the system's plan elements of the Comprehensive Plan was
carefully addressed, and found affirmative, during the consideration
of the Land Use Guide Plan amendment recently completed. The proposed
amended PUD Plan continues to reflect the consistency with the system
plan element found during the Land Use Guide Plan amendment process.
The relationship to the surrounding neighborhood is altered from the
previous plan by the inclusion of a tier of single family detached
home sites on the east side of Yucca Lane, facing the existing single
family detached home sites constructed or platted on the west side of
Yucca Lane. Relationship to neighboring properties of the amended PUD
Plan remains the same as the positive relationship found with the
original PUD Plan for this area.
c. Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or density_
circulation and Darkina facilities: recreation areas and oxen saaces.
The design of the internal circulation and dwelling unit types is
proposed to be changed with this amended plan. Also, private "tot
lot" type recreational facilities are proposed for the condominium
area in the amended plan. The overall dwelling unit count for the
area east of Yucca Lane is proposed by the amended plan to be reduced
by 126 dwelling units over the previously approved plan.
5. The RPUD Final Site Plan presented is responsive to the several City
ordinances, codes, and policies that regulate the design of sites for
dwelling unit types such as now proposed. The setbacks and other
dimensional specifications approved with the original RPUD
Plan/Conditional Use Permit are retained with this proposed amendment. It
is proposed that an additional PUD flexibility be included in the approved
plan to allow specific zero side and rear setbacks for driveways to allow
private common driveway to serve the individual condominium units.
see next page)
Page Four
File 89044
The RPUD Final Site Plan responds affirmatively to City of Plymouth
codes/ordinances with respect to landscaping; fire protection; trash
storage (interior to the individual units with respect to the townhouse
structures); roof top equipment (none proposed); offstreet parking (3.2
stalls per unit); and other related design features.
6. The condominium structures are proposed to be 2 bedroom, 2 story units of
wood construction and face brick to trim the lower elevation. The
architectural design of the structures has been reviewed for compliance
with the "standards and criteria regarding site and building aesthetics in
architectural design."
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The amended RPUD Preliminary Plan/Plat/Conditional Use Permit is
compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit
Development Ordinance; continues and enhances the relationship of the plan
to the neighborhood in which it is located, to the City's Comprehensive
Plan, and to other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; and provides a
responsible design for the internal organization and adequacy of various
uses, circulation, parking facilities, recreation areas, and open spaces.
2. The RPUD Final Site Plan proposed is responsive to the dimensional
specifications of the Zoning Ordinance for the approved RPUD
Plan/Conditional Use Permit as applicable. The proposal to introduce a
zero setback for common driveway within the condominium portion of the
plan is reasonable for inclusion as a PUD element of design flexibility.
3. The RPUD Preliminary Plan and Final Plat proposed for the existing "Outlot
H" of the Lake Camelot Estates plan is both consistent with the amended
RPUD Plan and the provisions of the Plymouth Subdivision Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the amended RPUD Preliminary Plan and
Conditional Use Permit together with the RPUD Preliminary and Final Plat and
RPUD Final Site P an
Submitted by:
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Conditions for Approval of the Amended RPUD Plan/Conditional Use
Permit, Preliminary Plat/Final Plat, and RPUD Final Site Plan
2. Engineer's Memo
3. Resolution 89-364 Approving the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment
4. Resolutions 86-737 and 86-738 Approving the RPUD Final Plan/Plat for
Camelot Estates
5. Resolution 86-256 Approving the RPUD Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional
Use Permit for Lake Camelot Estates.
6. Approved RPUD Preliminary Plan/Plat - 1986
7. Project Booklet and Large Plans
pc/cd/89O44:dl)
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING AMENDED RPUD PRELIMINARY PLAN/PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND
RPUD FINAL SITE PLAN
1. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79-80 regarding minimum floor
elevations for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing any open
storm water drainage facility.
2. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement
for completion of site improvements.
3. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance.
4. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
5. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within the structures, and
no outside storage is permitted.
6. No Building Permit to be issued until the final plat is filed and recorded
with Hennepin County.
7. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
8. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System.
9. Incorporation of tree protection policy provisions in the final plat and
development contract approval.
10. Compliance with those conditions of City Council resolutions 86-256
Preliminary Plat/Plan/CUP) and 86-738 (Conditions Prior to Filing of
Final Plat) that continue to be applicable.
11. Structure setbacks are: front (street) 35 feet; rear 25 feet and side 10
feet except as specifically provided for herein or by Resolution 86-256.
12. Maximum lot coverage shall be 20% consistent with the Zoning Ordinance
definition of lot coverage.
DATE:
FILE NO.:
PETITIONER:
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
LOCATION:
N/A Yes No
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
August 3, 1989
89044
Mr. Kenneth Briggs, Harstad Companies, 1900 Silver Lake Road, New
Brighton, Mn. 55112
LAKE CAMELOT VILLAS
West of 494 north of County Rd. 47 in the north half of section 3.
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. 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: Watermai:, area assessment based on 213 units --z
790 a unit - X168,270 Sanitary Sewer area assessment on 213 units
x $440 a unit - $93,720.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: Non -
6. _ _ X Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10')
in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width adjoining
side and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
7. X All standard utility easements required for construction are provided
The City will require twenty foot (20') utility and drainage
easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines where these
utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed
with the final plat and final construction plans.
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. Dralnape easements for ponding Purposes
shall be placed on the final plat to the 100 Year High Water
Elevation for each Fond.
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. The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application - If it is subsequently determined that
the subject property is abstract property, then this requirement does
not apply.
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
11. X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR
MnDOT
X Hennepin County
X MPCA
2L State Health Department
2
Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
X Elm Creek
X Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Other
TRANSPORTATION:
N/A Yes No
12. X Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the
City grid system for street names. The following changes will be
necessary. The north- south street to be constructed within the
nro. rt area should be named Wedpewood Lane not xpnium Lane.
13. _ X Conforms with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's
adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
14. X _ Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
15. — X All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on
16. X Conforms with City standards requiring the developer to construct
utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the developer shall be responsible
for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and
streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional
engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary
sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the
development. See special conditions.
3
N/A Yes No
17. — X Preliminary utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements
The developer has submitted the required preliminary plans for the
proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities. lip&
nPc;0 conditions.
18. X Per developer's request a preliminary report and plan will be
prepared by the City -
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as
part of its Capital Improvements Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1,
of the year preceding construction.
19. _ _ X Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots. The developer's engineer shall furnish the 100 Year High Water
Fleva ;on for each pond in the project. the minimum basement
elevations shall be 2 feet abdve the 100 Year Elevation.
20. _ X The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
21. _ X The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
L
PRELIMINARY GRADING DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
N/A Yes No
22. X It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility
foreman, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility
connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The
developer shall also be responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the
Public Works Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging
within the City right-of-way. All water connections shall be via
wettan.
23. _ _ X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted to
the City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if it is in
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All
of their recommendations shall be incorporated in a revised plan.
The grading and drainage plan shall also indicate proposed methods of
erosion control, including the placement of silt fence in strategic
locations. Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary:
Shall comply with all agency permits.
24. A. Double catchbasins shall be provided at the intersections of 61st Avenue and
Yucca Lane.
B. A note shall be placed on the Preliminary Utility Plan showing where the
services are going to be cut into Yucca Lane, that the curb and gutter and one
half the street will be replaced, and the remainder of the street shall be
milled and overlayed.
C. A copy of the soil borings along with the R -Value and street section design
shall be submitted with the final plat for review and approval.
D. Any water and sewer services that will not be used shall be abandoned.
E. The width and type of material shall be shown for existing streets on the
preliminary plat.
F. The intersection of the private streets at 61st Avenue and Xenium Lane shall
not exceed a 3% grade.
G. The width and type of material for the new streets shall be shown on the
preliminary plat.
H. B618 concrete curb and gutter shall be used on Wedgewood Lane and 61st Avenue
North.
Submitted by:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: August 3, 1989
FILE NO.: 89044
PETITIONER: Mr. Kenneth Briggs, Harstad Companies, 1900 Silver Lake Road, New
Brighton, Mn. 55112
SITE PLAN: LAKE CAMELOT VILLAS
LOCATION: West of Hwy. 494 north of County Rd. 47 in the north one half of
Section 3.
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
The approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot
consolidation be approved by the City Council and the necessary
resolution should be processed at the same time as the site plan
approval.
N/A Yes No
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 &o the assessments shown in No. 1 and
No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Site Plan approval:
4. Area assessments estimated - Watermain area assessments based on
213 units x S790 per unit - S168,270, Sanitary Sewer area
assessments based on 213 units x S440 per unit - S93.720.
5. Other additional assessments estimated:
LEGAL/EASEMENTS/PERMITS:
6. X _ Property is one parcel -
The approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot
consolidation be approved by the City Council and the necessary
resolution should be processed at the same time as the site plan
approval.
N/A Yes No
7. X Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in
width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required
it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents
executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any
building permits.)
8. _ _ A 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. Drainage easements for
Aonding shall be provided over each pond to the 100 Year High Water
RiffeW VLz=ILINlid:1 1114A4M:I-.is=3:-Pt-iA_%
9. X All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities.
10. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-way
to facilitate the development. It should be noted that this
vacation is not an automatic process in conjunction with the
platting process. It is entirely dependent upon the City receiving
a petition for the vacation from the property owner; therefore, it
is their responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated.
11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
2-
UTILITIES AND TRAFFIC:
N/A Yes No
12. _ _ X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR
MN DOT
X Hennepin County
X MPCA
X State Health Department
Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
X Elm Creek
X Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Other
13. _ _ X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The site plan will be submitted to the City's consulting engineer
for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations
shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The grading and drainage
plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary: Storm
sewer calculations are in the Rrocess of being reviewed. Shall
comRly with all agency permits.
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. An additional
fire hydrant will be required on the east side of building 4.
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. The size and type of material. along with invert
elevations shall be shown on the grading Flan.
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
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. A detail of a B612 curb shall be shown on
the detail sheet The private street and parking areas shall have
B-612 curb and gutter.
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. S e Items 1 2 7 8 12, 13, 14, 15.
22 and including sRecial conditions.
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
27. A. A final grading plan for the site plan shall be provided for review.
B. The private streets throughout the project shall be posted "No Parking Fire
Lane".
C. All private streets shall be 26 feet wide face to face of curb. B612 curb
shall be used for all the private streets and parking areas.
D. All private trails shall be 2" of 2341 bituminous and 4" of Class 5 100%
crushed gravel.
E. The storm sewer calculations are now being reviewed.
F. The intersection of the private streets at 61st Avenue and Xenium Lane shall
not exceed a 3% grade.
G. The site plans for the utilities shall note that all sanitary sewer and water
services are to be maintained by the Homeowners Association from the main.
H. All sanitary sewer and watermain, with the exception of the utilities located
within 61st Avenue North and Wedgewood Lane shall be considered private
utilities and maintained by the Homeowners Association.
I. Cross easements shall be required for the private streets, sanitary sewer,
watermain, and storm sewer.
Submitted by: /t
Daniel L. Faulkner
City Engineer
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 10th day
of may, 1989 The following members were present:
Mayor Schneider Councilmembers Vasiliou, Ricker, Zitur and Sisk
The following members were absent: None
rnunrilmember Sisk introduced the following Resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 89-364
APPROVING LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR HARSTAD COMPANIES FOR A LAND USE
GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT (89030) (RPUD 86-1)
WHEREAS, Harstad Companies has requested reclassification of Land Use Guiding,
from LA -3 (High Medium Density Residential) to LA -2 (Low Medium Density
Residential) for 74 acres located west of I-494, north and south of County
Road 47; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered this request at 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 81 acres located west of I-494, north
and south of County Road 47, subject to the following:
1. Specific development shall be responsive to an approved amended RPUD Plan
for the area.
2. Approval of the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment is contingent upon, and
subject to the required review and response by the Metropolitan Council,
and the Final Plat which shall be approved by the City Council prior to
finalization of the Amendment.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Mayor Schneider , and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Schneider, Council -members
Vacilinn_ Ricker. Zitur and Sisk
The following voted against or abstained None
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
4•
CITY OF PL1MOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the r day of November . 1986. The
following members were present: Ma r Schneider Z'ouncilm m,bers Crain, 51skpVasZliou
and Zitur The
following member* were a sen :none
ass frr
Councilmember Sisk introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 86-737
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN/PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
FOR LAKE CAMELOT ESTATES FOR HARSTAD COMPANIES (85114) (RPUD 86-1)
WHEREAS, Harstad Companies has requested approval for Residential Planned unit
Development Final Plan/Plat for Lake Camelot Estates (RPUD 86-1), a plat for 189 single
family lots and 9 outlots on property north and south of County Road 47, west of I-494:
and,
WHEREAS, the City staff Inas prepared a Uevelopment Contract coverin, the improvements
related to said plat;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Final Plat and Development
Contract for Harstad Companies for Lake Camelot Estates located north and south of
County Road 47, west of I-494; and,
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.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Zitur , and upon vote being taken thereon, theFo ow ng
oted In favor thereof: ayor neider, Councilmembers Crain Sisk Vasiliou and
Zitur e follow- g
voEed agalnsE or a s a ne s none Whereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a, reguul arr meeting of the City Council of the
City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 3rd day of November . 1986. The
following members were present: Mayor Schneider ouncilmembersra n, s , VasTliou,
and Zitur the
following mem ers were absent: none
Councilmember Sisk introduced the following Resolution and moved its
a opt on:
RESOLUTION NO. 86-738
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO FINAL PLAT FOR LAKE
CAMELOT ESTATES FOR HARSTAD COMPANIES (85114)) (RPUD 86-1)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Final Plat and Development Contract for
Lake Camelot Estates as requested by Harstad Companies;
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 following to be .net, prior to re-
cording 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 Hznnepin County.
3. Park dedicaton requirements are satisfied 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 filing the Final Plat. Deeds for Out -
lots D, E, and a trail outlot between Lot 3, Block 9 and Lot 1, Block 10 shall be
provided prior to filing the Final Plat.
4. Submittal of required utility and drainage easements as approved by the City
Engineer prior to filing the Final Plat.
5. The Final Plat mylars shall contain a statement noting that the plat is part of
the approved RPUD 86-1 per Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
6. The following lots shall have a minimum front yard setback of 25 ft.: Block 2,
Lots 18 - 25; Block 3, Lots 3 - 10; from Cheshire Lane only, Block 2, Lots 17 and
21; from Berkshire Lane only, Block 3, Lots 2 and 11. These last four lots shall
have a minimum yard setback of 35 ft. from 61st Avenue North.
7. Appropriate legal documents regarding Homeowner Association covenants and restric-
tions as approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the Final Plat.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Zitur , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted In favor thereof: a or Schneiderg Councilmembers Crain, Sisk, Vasiliou, and
Zitur The fo owing
voted against or abstained: none Whereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopte
Page two iResolutionNo. 86- 256
8. Requirements for review of mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet shall be
satisfied prior to submittal of the Final Plat application.
9. No Building Permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded
10. Approved variances are length of Dallas Lane (800 ft.), Cheshire Lane (550 ft.),
59th Avenue (700 ft.) and Xenium Lane (1600 ft.) cul-de-sacs over 500 ft. on the
basis of the topography and retention of existing site features.
11. Private drive access shall be limited to internal public roads and prohibited from
County Road 47; all private drives shall be a maximum distance from County Road
47.
12. Transitional screening and berming shall be provided along County Road 47; final
details to be submitted with the Final Plan/Plat.
13. Final Plat mylars shall refer to RPUD No. 86-1 .
14. Appropriate legal documents regarding Homeowner Association documents, covenants
and restrictions as approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the Final
Plat.
15. Building front yard setbacks shall be 35 ft.; rear yard shall he 25 ft. and side
yard shall be 10 ft. All building setbacks to County Road 47 shall be a minimum
of 50 ft.
16. The Final Plan/Plat shall identify specific lots on Cheshire and Berkshire Lane to
have reduced front yard setback of 25 ft.
17. The Final Plan/Plat shall include an explanation of the request for 25% lot cover-
age for up to 20 lots, and shall specify which lots are to be included; no in-
crease is granted or implied. Approval shall not be granted until after rough
grading has been completed.
18. Detailed development plans for the private open areas shall be provided with the
Final Plan/Plat.
19. Development of the attached housing areas is subject to Ordinance required site
plan review and submission of financial guarantees for completion of site
improvements.
20. There may be acceleration and deceleration lanes required for County Road 47.
21. The number of trails between homes shall be minimized, and the width of the ease-
ments of the remaining trails shall be maximized.
22. Berkshire Lane cul-de-sac shall be moved at least 50 ft. to the east to protect
and save trees on the west side.
The notion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Zitur . and upon vote being taken thereon the following
voted in favor thereof: ayorc Heider, Councilmembers Crain, Sisk, lasiliou
and Zitur The following
voted against or abstained: none Whereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
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 May 1986.
The following members were present: Mayor Schnei er, ouncilmembers Crain
Sisk Vasiliou and Zitur The
following members were absent: none
Councilmember Vasiliou introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 86- 256
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN/PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR HARSTAD COMPANIES (RPUD 86-1) (85114)
WHEREAS, Harstad Companies has requested approval for a Residential Planned Unit
Development Preliminary Plan/Plat, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances
for 196 single family detached homes, 148 multi -family attached dwellings, and 168
apartment units on approximately 168 acres west of I-494 and north and south of County
Road 47 at Mud Lake; 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 ..tnd hereby does approve the Residential Planned Unit Development
Preliminary Plan/Plat, Conditional Use Permit and Variances for Harstad Companies
located west of I-494 and north and south of County Road 47 at Mud Lake, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense.
3. No Building Permits shall be issued until Contracts have been awarded for sewer
and water.
4. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication with appropriate credits in
an amount determined according to verified acreage and according to the Dedication
Policy in effect at the time of filing the Final Plat with Hennepin County. Dedi-
cation requirements includes the dedication of approximately 34.55 acres as pro-
posed by the petitioner and for trail along the western boundary for Regional
Trail purposes.
5. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System.
6. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79-80 regarding minimum floor elevations for
new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing any open storm water
drainage facility.
7. Rezoning shall be finalized with filing of the Final Plat.
PLEASE SEE PAGE TWO
V.
AL. Ofta"Ay—
Mom a
Tit
42WIT-
t .t k e . t t
ar
a
c` - :.-,-s-rr. t, } ! . I •
7A T
I . .. t !—,' ' ., ,;,, ', , Jam! , ! 3, - =-1 mtl
Ot
fill•' ' , _
r , `
ti:"!+
ter..
Y
sir;
Nl: b$=07iffiliE1
5-(2
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE August 4, 1989, COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 9, 1989
FILE NO.: 89046
PETITIONER: Sign Consultants for Prudential Property Company
REQUEST: Amended MPUD Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plan
with the Zoning Ordinance Variances to Amend the "Master
Sign Plan" for the Northwest Business Campus
LOCATION: Northeast Quadrant of I-494 and Highway 55
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: IP (Planned Industrial) and CL (Limited Business)
ZONING: I-1 (Planned Industrial) and B-1 (Limited Business); MPUD
81-1
BACKGROUND:
The MPUD Final Plan for the Northwest Business Campus was approved on December
21, 1981. On May 16, 1983, the City Council, by Resolution 83-264, approved a
revised MPUD Sign Plan for the Northwest Business Campus. There have been
several subsequent site plan and/or MPUD Plan actions within the Northwest
Business Campus development. The most significant, affecting the Master Sign
Plan, is that of the approval of the "Campus Square" neighborhood retail
facility by Resolution 89-289 on June 5, 1989. The MPUD Final Site Plan
covering this project makes specific reference to signage.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official city
newspaper, and all property owners within 500 feet have been notified. In
addition, a project sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant proposes a substantially revised Master Sign Plan covering
the entire Northwest Business Campus MPUD. The proposal covers several
levels of signage. The signage proposals, to the extent that they exceed
or differ from the original Northwest Business Campus Sign Plan or the
1983 amendment to the Northwest Business Campus Sign Plan, are subject to
an amendment to the Northwest Business Campus MPUD Preliminary Plan and
Conditional Use Permit. In addition, to the extent the sign proposals of
this amended Master Sign Plan exceed or differ from the Plymouth Zoning
Ordinance sign provisions, a variance must be applied, for consistent with
an opinion rendered by the City Attorney in a recent application for sign
considerations.
see next page)
Page Two
File 89046
2. To assist the commission in "sorting out" what the relationship is between
the Master Sign Plan now proposed; the existing City Zoning Ordinance; and
the Master Sign Plan already approved for Northwest Business Campus, we
have prepared an attached tabular layout (Exhibit 1). It should be
further noted that the issue of what is permitted by the Plymouth Zoning
Ordinance for signage in the Northwest Business Campus is further
complicated by the fact that both I-1 and B-1 zoning underlay the MPUD;
and signage for the neighborhood retail center was handled by the site
plan consistent with the B-2 provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The
Zoning Ordinance does present somewhat different standards for signage
between the three zoning districts that are addressed.
The Zoning Ordinance specifically prohibits the granting of a variance
to permit signs in districts or places where such signs are
prohibited or not allowed..." (Section 11, Subdivision C, paragraph 2a-2).
Therefore, the Zoning Ordinance places an absolute constraint on the
amount of PUD flexibility that is available for the City to exercise with
respect to signage.
3. The following amendments to the Master Sign Plan are applied for, and are
eligible for consideration as variances:
a. Increase in the size of the primary monument sign located at Northwest
Boulevard and Highway 55 from the existing 80 square feet to a
proposed 168 square feet. The proposed variance would be from the
Ordinance requirement that an area identification sign for a project
of over 20 acres in the I-1 District can be a maximum of 160 square
feet in size.
b. To reduce the setback for individual site pylon signs from the
Ordinance prescribed 20 feet to 15 feet.
c. To adopt the I-1 standard of 96 square feet or 5 percent for wall
mount signs instead of complying with the B-1 standard of 50 square
feet or 5 percent for signs in the B-1 section of the MPUD.
d. Wall mounted address plaques of 11 square feet instead of the
Ordinance standard of 2 square feet.
e. On site directional signage of 18.5 square feet each rather than the
Ordinance standard of 4 square feet.
f. Off site directional signage for uses other than those specified in
the Ordinance. In addition, the applicant proposes these signs to be
20 square feet in size rather than the Ordinance specified 4 square
feet.
g. Individual site sales/leasing signs of 32 square feet where the
Ordinance prescribes 8 square feet.
see next page)
Page Three
File 89046
4. The applicant proposes the following Master Sign Plan features that would
not appear eligible to be approved as variances due to the Ordinance
prohibition on granting variances to permit signs in districts or places
where such signs are prohibited or not allowed:
a. The applicant proposes two project identification signs of 50 square
feet in area. The 1983 MPUD amendment allowed three project
identification signs of 16 square feet in area in addition to the
primary project identification sign at the intersection of Highway 55
and Northwest Boulevard. That 1983 approval for the three additional
project identification signs appears to have been invalid, and the now
proposed two additional project identification signs would not be
eligible for variances.
b. The applicant proposes allowing a second individual site pylon
identification sign on all project sites that have more than a single
street frontage. The Ordinance specifies only a single site pylon in
B-1 or I-1 Zones.
c. The applicant proposes two directional signs for the retail center
site (Campus Square). The Ordinance provides for one directional sign
per collector/arterial street approach to the site. None of the
streets that approach the Campus Square site are collectors or
arterials.
d. The applicant proposes three project sales/leasing signs where the
Ordinance allows one for the project. The additional two signs would
not appear to be eligible for variances.
5. The applicant proposes a specific design feature for traffic control and
regulatory signage within the project. While the Zoning Ordinance does
not specifically address such signage, the City Engineer has indicated
that all such signage would be subject to the standards of the Minnesota
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
6. The applicant proposes a second wall sign for the Scanticon facility.
This wall sign of 63 square feet would be located at the southeast corner
of the structure facing Xenium Lane. Since this site is located in the B-
1 Zone, the Zoning Ordinance allows only a single wall sign with a maximum
of 50 square feet, or 5 percent of the wall area, whichever is larger.
The wall on which the sign is proposed to be located is of sufficient size
to support a sign of 63 square feet. The sole issue is whether a second
wall sign will be permissible on a structure in the B-1 Zone.
7. The applicant proposes to locate a sculpture at the Northwest corner of
the intersection of Northwest Boulevard and Highway 55. The sculpture
will be three-dimensional with the base approximately 15 feet square with
the height from the ground level to the top of the sculpture approximately
seenextpage)
Page Four
File 89046
20 feet. In a recent case before the Board of Adjustments, it has been
determined that a sculpture or other graphic, whether or not text appears,
constitutes signage within the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. As such,
the sculpture proposed would as an additional project identification sign.
Actual sign area is difficult to determine, but likely exceeding the 160
square foot maximum for the I-1 District.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The ability of the City to address the Master Sign Plan proposed for this
Planned Unit Development is severely impacted by the ruling by the City
Attorney that signage must be addressed strictly in terms of the Ordinance
provisions with regard to signs, thereby requiring any proposed deviation
from those regulations to be considered as a variance to the Zoning
Ordinance. When coupled with the provision of Section 11, Subdivision C
that prohibits variances to permit signs in districts or places where such
signs are prohibited or not allowed, this virtually eliminates all
flexibility that is inherent with the PUD project planning approach --and
which had been the basis for PUD Master Sign Plan approvals for this, and
other PUDs within the community.
On August 23, 1989, the Planning Commission will be holding a hearing on a
number of "housekeeping" textural amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
Among those, staff is proposing at the hearing adjustments to both the PUD
and Board of Adjustments sections of the Zoning Ordinance that would
permit the City to address signage within the Planned Unit Development
with the same flexibility inherent in the consideration of other specific
Zoning Ordinance provisions. The effect of the proposed Ordinance
amendment will be to allow the Planning Commission and City Council to
address Master Sign Plans within PUDs.
Staff recommends final action on this application be deferred until such
time as the Planning Commission has considered the Ordinance amendments
that would impact what is here proposed. Should the Zoning Ordinance
amendment be recommended for approval, the Master Sign Plan here proposed
for the Northwest Business Campus MPUD can be considered purely on its
merits as a design feature of a PUD, rather than responsive to three
different subdivisions of the Sign Section of the Zoning Ordinance as well
as specific rules of the Board of Zoning Adjustments.
2. The proposed increase in sign size for the primary entrance monument at
the northeast corner of Northwest Boulevard and Highway 55 appears in
order. It should be noted that this specific site is located in a B-1
Zoning District. Staff believes that since the sign is intended to serve
a development area that is partly zoned I-1 that the I-1 District
standards could be applied and therefore the variance is only for 8 square
feet of sign area.
see next page)
Page Five
File 89046
3. Staff has taken the proposal to construct two "secondary" project signs of
50 square feet each to be a replacement proposal for the existing approval
to construct three of this type of sign of 16 square feet each. On that
basis, the difference in sign area is only 2 square feet, and we find that
two larger signs may very well be more effective that the three smaller.
It should be noted that this is a sign plan element that is not allowable
as a variance without the changes in the Ordinance noted above.
4. The proposal to allow a second freestanding sign on sites with a second
street frontage appears reasonable based on the related proposal to limit
the size of such signs to 53 square feet and the height of such signs to 5
feet 3 inches. In those cases where two signs would be allowable, should
this provision be approved, only 7 square feet more sign area would appear
on the site and is allowable under the existing Ordinance, and in a
majority of situations where only a single street frontage is involve, the
size of the one sign permitted would be substantially less than the
Ordinance maximum.
Staff can find no basis for the proposal to reduce the setback of such
freestanding site identification signs from 20 feet to 15 feet, except on
a case-by-case basis where existing site features --such as freestand--
would dictate such an adjustment to provide the site adequate exposure for
its sign, while preserving the trees at the same time.
5. Staff concurs in the proposal to use the I-1 District square footage
maximum for wall sign of 96 square feet in all cases rather than using the
50 square foot provision of the B-1 District.
6. Staff finds the proposal to increase the address identification plaque
from 2 square feet to 11 square feet reasonable.
7. The proposals for signage of the "Campus Square" retail center are partly
inconsistent with the MPUD Final Site Plan that was recently approved for
that site. The directional signage proposed (2) both exceeds the
limitations of the Zoning Ordinance (which a variance would be allowable)
and is inconsistent with the approved sign plan of the "Campus Square"
final MPUD Plan.
Based on the applicant's proposal to setback on site directional signs 10
feet and limit the height of such signs to 5 feet 3 inches, staff finds
the proposal to increase the size of such signs from the sign plan
specified 4 square feet to a proposed 18.5 square feet to be reasonable.
8. Given the overall size of the Northwest Business Campus PUD and the
natural/introduced site features found on substantial percentage of the
site, staff concurs with the concept of need for off site directional
signs. Two such signs are proposed, at the intersection of Northwest
Boulevard and Campus Drive and at the intersection of Northwest Boulevard
see next page)
Page Six
File 89046
and Xenium Lane. These appear to be the appropriate locations for such
signs. Staff does not concur in the applicant's proposal to locate such
signs within the right-of-way. At a minimum, these signs should be
located with a 10 -foot setback so as to be outside the normal utility
easement area. On that basis, staff finds the proposal to have the sign
contain 20 square feet of copy area rather than the 4 square feet allowed
by Ordinance, and the 8 square feet previously approved, to be reasonable.
It should be noted that these signs would not be permitted without
Ordinance amendments noted previously. The Zoning Ordinance only provides
for signs such as this for specified uses, none of which are located
within the Northwest Business Campus.
9. To the extent the applicant's proposals for design of traffic
control/regulatory signage are consistent with the Minnesota Uniform
Traffic Control devise, and we find such proposals to be reasonable.
10. Site and PUD signage regarding sales/leasing is viewed by staff from a
different prospective than "permanent" signage for the PUD. The Master
Sign Plan proposal to assure all of this signage to be uniform in
appearance has substantial merit, and should serve as the basis for some
concessions as to the number of such signs permissible, and the size of
the permissible signs. Based partly on the proposal (and Ordinance
provisions) to permit individual site sales/leasing signage to be located
at the property line, staff does not concur with increasing the size of
such individual site signage from 8 square feet to 32 square feet. Staff
also has concern with the proposal to increase the number of PUD
sales/leasing signs from the Ordinance prescribed 1 to a proposed 3.
We find that sales/leasing signage is an issue that transcends PUD
boundaries. We are, with this issue, dealing with an advertising issue
where business competition exists between parcels within this PUD and
parcels within other PUDs and conventional sites throughout the City. To
grant this PUD business "advantage" by allowing larger sales/leasing
signage than permitted elsewhere, would not be consistent with the
purposes of a PUD.
Staff would support somewhat larger individual site sales/leasing sign
based on the uniformity from site -to -site that is proposed by the Master
Sign Plan. We could justify an increase from 8 square feet to 16 square
feet on that basis, but not to 32 square feet as proposed. That then
could be considered a reasonable standard that would be applicable to any
other similar proposal where sales/leasing signs proposed to be uniform
from site -to -site.
With respect to PUD sales/leasing signs, the size proposed is consistent
with Ordinance standards, but the proposal to construct three is
inconsistent with the Ordinance standard of one. Consistent with the PUD
concept, staff finds the scale of this project to be well in excess of the
see next page)
Page Seven
File 89046
normal" B-1 or I-1 development. As such, it is reasonable to assume that
additional PUD sales/leasing signage to be in order. Staff suggests that
there are two major approaches to the PUD --Highway 55 from the south and
Northwest Boulevard from the north. One PUD sales/leasing sign covering
each approach would be a reasonable affirmative to a single such sign for
the entire project, given the scale.
11. Staff finds the proposal for additional wall signage for Scanticon both
consistent with the needs of the location due to the substantial
environmental features that are preserved --but which with such
preservation limit the ability for the public to see the facility --and
consistent with our recommendations with regard to the Master Sign
provisions for individual site wall signage.
12. Consistent with earlier Board of Adjustment's finding, staff finds the
proposed sculpture to qualify and be defined as a sign. On that basis,
the sculpture becomes a fourth project identification sign and not
permitted by variance. Should the variance issue be resolved via an
Ordinance change, staff would only condition its concurrence with the
sculpture that the location proposed no create a sight distance problem.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission clearly and consider all of the many
aspects proposed by the Master Sign Plan for the Northwest Business Campus,
regardless of the difficulties that result from the way the Zoning Ordinance
currently reads with respect to sign relationship to PUDs. There is no
question that a PUD Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit amendment is
required for this Master Sign Plan to be executed. To the extent that
variances are going to be required as allowable, staff will structure the
proper variance procedure consistent with the Planning Commission's
recommendation with regard to the specific sign plan elements. Should the
Ordinance not be amended with regard to signs in PUDs, we have identified
those signs which will not be permitted under any circumstances. We recommend
approval of the amendment to the Northwest Business Campus PUD Preliminary
Plan and Conditional Use Permit consistent with the Master Sign Plan that has
been submitted, but based on conditions of specific design concern listed and
attached to this gaff^ report.
Submitted by:
arles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Conditions of MPUD Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit Approval
2. Petitioner's Letter and Attachments in Application
3. City Council Resolution 83-264 Approving Revised MPUD Sign Plan for
Northwest Business Campus
4. City Engineer's Memorandum
5. Location Map.
pc/cd/89046:dl)
rn
co
C)l
r--1
Cl
W
O
a
CL
Q
M
00
tT
W
O
CL
CL
Q
C
t
O
t
a) a) a)
a)
a)
4- r r r r r
a)
T
4-
L) W
S- CD (L) a) a)
ai 4-)4-)a
LLL
s°'-
a) -0 a) -a a) L ro
4- a) a) (1) a) U O
r 4- r 4- C tS
O O O r N
42=ZZ 1 Z I
N tt3 i•J O
ra a) S - a) S- M tO
U +-)
ruCUtTtV
U +) O U 0 (1) +-
VI 4- 4-
VI N O S N O Cr a) a) L
V) 0 4- a) O
1 OlNM LO LO ;m
r O S- (L) () r L O
too D O CLCO LO I o\o
4Z00 NLOZ DLO_-tLLQ i LON
C
O
t
a) a) a) a) a) (1) a)
4- r r r r r r
T
L) W
S- CD (L) a) a) a)
R7 L L LLL L
O D U U U U U
tS VI VI N V) V1 VI
VI
a) a)
r7 n
4- Q• Cr—
C) O O I I 000 1 0 1
400ZZ O I I 42=ZZ 1 Z I
C
O
t
mm
C
4J 4-J
T
L) W
4-4-
N
r V
s -
W to (0104- a) a)
r7 n
4- Q• Cr—
D
O
VI Vt O
C 1 i f- b N tt3 i•J O
W a)
i CO +J +J LO C1 L
U +-) f- `i U r L— U +-)
tS a) a) s` Vt
4- VI 4- 4- O O
O
7 L tC .a Qt
0C) I I I t0C)tO 0\00\o O
r-IN I C) I 1 1 OlNM LO LO ;m
C
O
r C
T
U N
r V
4- O Q) r
r n r7 n
t O
C 1 i f- b N tt3 i•J O
W a) Cl- (1) ,C a) _e C +A
U +-) f- `i U r L— U +-) O S-
a) to L 1 a) tC a) (a L O a)
L tC L cn S- L rC L 7 L tC .a Qt 2: t6 L
E a) +•t •r CO E a) 4-) v C E a) +J •r a) E
U= L- a) a) t O L a) r O S- (L) () r L O
a) Z Q vi 2 C Z Q N r Z Q N 2 r¢ Z
r7 O r >> tC
O U d 3
Cl. N
Ch
00
W
N
O
LL
O
Q:
CL
M
00
m
ri
LLJ
i
O
CL'
CL
Of.
Q
N
H
Z
Q
I--
V)
Z
O
U
Z
N
N
W
O O O O N O O N
rr rrr r-rr-r
N C
0) W W W W (U Qi (1) Q) 0)
N o O e0 L 4-
U U U U U U U V U U
C 4- i-) 4- 4J C N
ra ai G) •r s_
C O i•• N O N U
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
i-)
L L
0 4J O O O i-) O i-) Q
N U .0 R3 em N 0 (O CA N
N Q 4- + 4 Q 4- O LO
N O •r
L L
r O k0 %0 O 00
4 14 4 N M Q1 N I-# LLQ —4
N
O O O O O O N O O N
rr rrr r-rr-r
N C
0) W W W W (U Qi (1) Q) 0)
L L L L L L L L L L
U U U U U U U V U U
N N VL N N N N1 N N N
r
00 0000 0000
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
r- i
L L
CL O
V U
N U .0 R3 em N 0 (O CA N
N E N
O O
N O •r
L L
a) Z V)
C1 d
f_
CL d
RS Rf
r
Q
o R3
t r
U
O O
r 4-) S-
o rts
N U N
Y L- C
r U 4-) 0.- r'
00 +-) rt rt N r- 4->
N N r.0 O U N
r- O L 4J 4- N N
4- N (D r i•J 4-
4-) N O f-
4) i4-)4-> r0 U d
LU/
f O L O O Cr L 0 0
Q N 4- 4- N O C1 0 Q
N Q CL 4- N
2M cli M cn Q 00 -:1,
N
CA
N C
t Cn
m r
N V)
N
r
6 O C O
r- i C L •r 4-) O L •r +-)
CL O N N 4J L r O }J L
N U .0 R3 em N 0 (O CA N
N E N C E U— N U E U •r N
N O •r r- O O O N •r N 0 0 --
a) Z V) rr— Z J S N f- Z J S N
f_ fC >) r
i) CL D
O
Q 0:
ON
00
tT
G
W
O
CL
a
Q
M
00
Ql
G
W
O
lY
CL
11
Q
a
Cr
b
C
O
L
4-
4-) 4-)
00
Z Z
Y to tv
Utvw
0 M=4 -
N -0 U
r 4-) C O
lL •r L
v N rt
N M O
L +-) Cr
U O +-) N
to O N
4- N t1)
i•J 4-
O O 00
Z -4 LO -4
D•fl-0 4-)
O O 4) N
r r r tv
O 4--
O N tU N
U U U t0
LA N N =
Cr
O 00
Z Z Z 00
O
C
o r 4-)
N O
4-) 4-
L
O O N
t G- L-
UU O ++ M
N L N =
CL N Cr
4-) 4- to
O +-)
Z000lqr
b
C
O
N
L
fu
3 +) O
O O CT
fY O to
4-
C O
N — 00 CV
00 '0 4-J
N O O N
r r r O
4-
C
N N N O
t L t L
U U U tC
N t/) (n
CT
4-) }t 4-) to
000
Z Z Z 00
C b
O •r
L
N N
O 4-) 4-1
N L O
O
4-
C L
O O O
4- U +-) t0
r- ci ai
Ur N Cr
Or 4- N
tZ O
NO00mr
C
O
O i •r 4-)
N 4-) L
r .G R) CM N
N E U ••- N
O O -r
4-Z-i=V)
4-
O
0)
00
m
1
0
W
O
O-
il.
Q
M
co
0
0
W
i
O
11
Cl.
Q
U
C C
O O N
U
ro O
Vf
4-
O
a) ai S_
S-
N
1) N
L
O >
VI V1 N C•
O
4- N
O U rti
C1 N N V) +-) N
O O N tp 0000
r O O O 4 --
O O
NC00)
LL) N S- t0 r0 O
t +j e0 a a -q r0
U N 0 O
V1 O LT S- O C-
4- N O 04-) N
4-4--
0 N t0 a N
MZ. -i0) N=DM
N
C C
O O N O N O N
N
Vf
4- 1r O
a) ai S_ a, a) w w
N
r f_•r+.1
L O N N
VI V1 N C• VI VI V1 0
4- N
O U rti
O N Cr Sr N 0
O O N tp 0000
40) Z ZZZ
N
C C
U 4.3 r
N
Vf
4- 1r O
r O
4-
N
r f_•r+.1
L O N N
G r0 Q1 O Rf -0 t0 N
O +) O O U rti
O N Cr Sr N 0
4- N Ln T
4- X4-1 V1
O O
NC00) Q Z00
Vf
O
r
N
Vf
O C L71 C
r O C O
R3 i•.N r f_•r+.1
N O 4-) t V1 N 4-1 L
G r0 Q1 O Rf -0 t0 N
01 E U •r N N E U •r N
C 0 a)-- J O N -- rJSV) j = V) Z_!SfN
V1 N
tv 4-)
N r
J N
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING AMENDED MPUD PRELIMINARY PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
MASTER SIGN PLAN (89046)
1. To the extent that specific standards are not addressed by the master
plan, or as conditions to approval, the standards of the Zoning
Ordinance shall apply.
2. The setback for freestanding site identification signs shall be 20 feet
consistent with Zoning Ordinance Standards.
3. All directional signage, off site and on site, shall maintain a 10 foot
setback from the property line.
4. PUD related sales/leasing signage shall be limited to two (2) signs of
dimensions consistent with the master signage plan.
5. Individual site leasing/sales signs shall be limited to 8 square feet
of sign area.
6. The covenants regarding the ownership and perpetual maintenance of
common facilities within the MPUD shall be reviewed by the City
Attorney and amended by the applicant where required to assure the
common ownership and perpetual maintenance responsibility for the
signage and sculpture not site specific herein approved.
Lie call'andnoticc thei*ot, a ler-iiieetinp of the city.Coincil of , lyioutl Minnesota, eas eld :oR , o day of Ma , ,118
webers ar.M.Presents o ouncilmember , , "' I
Threinen, :., .. .: ,- ---.
Q oN rs "Fe sen :
r
VUe
S4uncilmember Moen. introduced the following Resolution and moved itsadoptons
RESOLUTION. NO. 83-264
APPROVING REVISED MPUD.SIGN PLAN FOR PRUDENTIAL. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, FORNORTHWESTBUSINESSCAWUS" (MPUD 81-1) (80062)
WHEREAS, Prudential •Life Insurance Company of America, has ,requested approval of aRevisedMPUDFinalPlanforOfBusinessCampus" (MPUD 81-1) which proposesthreeadditionalprojectIdentification* signs; located generally in the northwestquadrantoftheHighway55andInterstate494intersection; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council under Resolution
Prudential Insurance Company of America
Business Campus"; and,
No. 81-846 approved a Final MPUD Plan for
for the development known as "Northwest
WHEREAS, th,- Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called publichearingandrevxmmendsitsapproval;
SNON,? TFEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLMINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request of Prudential InsuranceCompanyof :f.erica for revision to the MPUD Final Plan for "Northwest Business Campus" for three additional project identification signs located in the northeast quadrant oftheHighway55andInterstate494intersection, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Resolution No. 81-646 and associated Development Contract forNorthwestBusinessCampus".
2. Any plantings located within the recorded easement and right-of-way areasshallbe30inchesorlessinheight.
3. Should any improvements and/or repairs need to be made within the recordedeasementandright-of-way areas, the plantings shall be removed by the City. Cost. of replacing the plantings is the responsibility of the developer. Anagreement, approved by the City Attorney, establishing these conditions shallbeenteredintobythepetitionerandtheCit
permits for the three signs. Y prior to issuance of building
4. Approved, project 'identification, sidnage for "Northwest Business Campus" includes one existing 80 sq. ft. `sign located at Highway SS and Northwests..:
Boulevard, and three additional signs, each 16 sq. ft -9 located as identified7in "Manual for Exterior Park Features" dated March, 1983. i.•
yyyy
1. i+
PLEASE SEE SECOND PACE
o "
t . s t.
YV Y if .• .,t
t"
h-•X f .ffiri _ GTi.i. fa 4 i. 1.. i -M
a
w
i t 'rte *;t•a a ..;. is w y r+
i Y.. y -. ;2riwa
f %` ra•t"'' J.,,, J y t y? 'n} N C Y` .!•w' . '.7t. `,i1r- 4 1 ~ : t- "fN. ,•*,F, t`i* .%..a •... fi rF 'C!l•i, r id i'iw rF` .TT 7^+,. L° 'S; , . F , _al.,M.r>: k F `r t •-`e3`•'• 'L ai C { e . ,r'• ..
L •\..._.
7 t Y .wl Y ? , . . _
MM "• .
µ7hi 4 ,.r.,'.,ti , •f i # tilt 5 t a Y?{g S - F
26C,
r..{
y x a t Jrrt' xv r Gl
ylt '} . '{
1 .K t , a Y• i h ,, M+11 G'Y 1 {y
li `"
iLt. ,
L i K J _ '- { .. t p L •; n •
2) j+
yC:,J1
y'1 "'e L Acr .r 'r. 4>T J`.y' ~ .t+jvr .1 .. E..f r t:; , .
yt.
r ^
r••
iT!
C s y i "P
S j 1 11J :;street std traffic lssigns,and, #treet, .identification, signs
t
areyR th 4M
esponsibllity 'ot _ {City ot,`Plyiaouth, r:This approval does nota 1 it an
type of ai ns4 `;{ 1`+,_. •
gns Ahall be located Mitten at eet ri ht -of -way `or a e aenxti .t ` 9 e s t areas.
three additiopal identification signs'shall ;not be? illuainated
3
ri
Yy
k. the _iiotion::for,Tadoption ofi the forego
4
Resalotion dulCouncilmemberNeils5gasy sedonded
and upon: vote being . tAen t neonAoowvonavorereo ;, ven ort `-Counci 1 members Moen ' f- Nei IsSchneider'nd- Threiner`.1'T-4. .a.'w...`I YCi YiM'.., H .s, :w...'1. , ,..: .{{ 'A •!
mAT.';
tel- qo ng vo . a9 ns wor s : -none
ResolutIo' n f• Aed are dU
y i•F{k rya•:-}1pt N. { fj$.. rp, r. w F,
t
R +y-
J cY
4-,,,•+,
Lt
f J.
K_ '-sV•:'L
tryt .k >s, .'. • 2 K , r t .1 I - >_ . a 1 y r ;
J
i '
VI
U.`1 t„
tttCE 1,k ' i stt ,•{ k n t< 1 * .
t t . 7 •f' -Y
LGA:ff`w ':w t , 2C - , t2 ,.r.. tli ,., it ,yt' "Y _ n1 z•
t,t s/ '7 x 1..,cl, 3c h t, t Kit i s - .
e. , a V y tt r+., r
sa
r - -s•l `Y: . , . t .`
Tr:
r..w h.. 9t"l•_ ( tir,^#'..Q1 k..Y{:3..? e t,iG,.ti_ti'_r. .t?t... ...: i -S• ..}.5..:.i.: .''..t:s. a 6;N fa?'IM yC a:
v • i.:!f:sa.+kr..r_.'('i-•-r,,y;,•}•S'-•k'.•;tR...o .[ i:a. Sr'- ?#R..
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: August 4, 1989
TO:
4,aniel
k Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
FROM: L. Faulkner, City Engineer
SUBJECT: NORTHWEST BUSINESS CAMPUS
SIGNAGE MASTER PLAN (89046)
The sign plan prepared by Sign Consultants, Inc. is not acceptable. All
signs on and off site must be in accordance with the Uniform Sign Manual.
DLF:rcj:kh
14
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE August 3, 1989, COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 9, 1989
FILE NO.: 89056
PETITIONER: A.A.G. Builders
REQUEST: Amended RPUD Plan and Conditional Use Permit to the
Heritage Estates RPUD (RPUD 78-6)
LOCATION: 3375 Rosewood Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1
ZONING: RPUD 78-6
BACKGROUND:
On June 19, 1978, by Resolution 78-363, the City Council approved the Concept
Plan and Preliminary Plan for the development then called "Blossom Wood
Hills." During 1979, by Resolution 78-363, the RPUD Final Plan/Plat were
approved for this same RPUD, now renamed "Heritage Estates."
Notice of this Public Hearing was published in the official city newspaper and
mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the home that will be a
third garage stall, 11 feet 8 inches by 23 feet 4 inches. The proposed
addition will extend into the north side yard of the existing home to a
point within 7 feet of the north property line. The RPUD Plan for
Heritage Estates calls for a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet on both
sides.
2. Section 9, Subdivision A, paragraph 2a of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance
provides standards upon which the Planning Commission shall review any
application for Conditional Use Permit. A copy of the subject Ordinance
provision is attached. The petitioner has provided a handwritten response
to the Conditional Use Permit standards, also attached.
3. The Planning Commission is directed by the Zoning Ordinance to consider
any amendment to a Planned Unit Development within the context of the
Planned Unit Development criteria addressing relationship to the adjoining
neighborhood; compatibility with the purposes of the Planned Unit
Development Ordinance; and the internal organization of the site.
see next page)
Page Two
File 89056
4. Were this lot not located in a Planned Unit Development that was subject
to a Conditional Use Permit, and the resulting concessions in terms of lot
size and setbacks, the proposal would be a variance rather than an amended
Conditional Use Permit. This distinction is important in that the
original design for this plat involved a series of commitments on behalf
of the developer in return for concessions Zoning Ordinance standards on
behalf of the City. One of those concessions was the reduction of side
yard setbacks from the Ordinance standard of 15 feet in the R -1A Zone to
the 10 feet specified in the Planned Unit Development approval. The
Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit provided a 33 percent
reduction in side yard setbacks over the Ordinance standard. The
applicant now proposes to further reduce that setback to approximately
half of the R -1A side yard setback standard.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Concern of the staff in regard to the application under consideration
extends beyond the specific matters that relate to this particular lot.
As we have seen in several recent petitions of a similar description,
caution must be observed to carefully consider the consequences of the
requested action. In terms of the original Conditional Use Permit for the
Planned Unit Development, there were trade-offs between the developer of
this property and the City that formed the basis for the Planned Unit
Development Conditional Use Permit. The lot size, lot width, and setbacks
are less than would be permissible under "conventional" R -1A Zoning. The
developer of this subdivision received these concessions for home
construction in return for committing a sizable parcel of property, and
certain other concessions on the developer's part.
By approving this amended Conditional Use Permit, the City would be
tampering with one side of a formula without having any method of
adjusting the other side of the formula in terms of benefit the City
receives in return for the concessions granted to the RPUD. If the
proposed reduction and side yard setback were to be approved in this case,
as an amendment to the Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit,
precedent could be extended throughout this RPUD and the many other RPUDs
within this community.
see next page)
Page Three
File 89056
RECOMMENDATION:
We have attached adjusted findings in support of a denial recommendation for
this proposed amendment to the RPUD Conditional Use Permit. Consistent with
prior direction, we have also included draft of recommended conditions that
would accompany a recommendation of approval. Staff recommends denial of the
Conditional Use Beroft based on the cQmmwts note
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
1. Draft Findings in Support of a Denial of the Conditional Use Permit
2. Draft Conditions in Support of an Approval of the Conditional Use Permit
3. Petitioner's Communication
4. Conditional Use Permit Criteria.
5. Location Map
6. Sketch Plan
pc/cd/89056:dl)
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT FOR A.A.G. BUILDERS (89056) (RPUD 78-6)
1. The request is not responsive to Residential Planned Unit Development
Conditional Use Permit findings with respect to compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood.
2. The amendment would establish an undesirable precedent for this and
similar developments.
3. The applicant has options available for deck construction not requiring
this amendment.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT FOR A.A.G. BUILDERS (89056) (RPUD 78-6)
1. No other amendments or variances are granted or implied.
2. All applicable requirements of the City and State Building Codes shall be
implemented and enforced; no Code requirements are waived by this
approval.
3. The granting of the permit is responsive to criteria of the Zoning
Ordinance for Conditional Use Permits and PUD Plans.
tr .
a irs the Outdo_
AUG
U L0CEH0
Custom built three and four season sunrooms, decks and cabinets
5645 LEAF TRAIL NEW PRAGUE, MN 56071 Dave Skluzacek (612) 890-3739 • (507) 744-2273
August 3, 1989
Subject: John & Elaine Giebenhoin
3375 Rosewood Lane
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Charles E. Dillerud
City of Plymouth
Community Development Coordinator
Dear Mr. Dillerud,
In regard to the application for a conditional use permit for a 1118"
X 23'4" addition on the garage for the above subject.
The garage addition will follow all rules and regulations effective under
the comprehensive plan.
In no way will the garage addition endanger public health, safty, morels
or comfort to anyone. The addition will be beneficial to the general
public by keeping cars and childrens toys off the lawn and streets.
The addition will not be injurious or block the view or be in the way
of neighbors. It will not diminish the property values of the neighborhood.
It will enchant the neighborhood.
Measures will be taken to provide adequate entry and exiting from the
garage addition. Because the addition is to the garage it will minimize
congestion on the streets.
The use of the garage will conform to regulations in this district.
Sincerely,
id Skluzace
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS
FROM SECTION 9, SUBDIVISION A
OF THE PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
2. Procedure. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the application
the— refore, 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.
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.
5) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the appli-
cable regulations of the district in which it is located.
r
t
TAa.
y
r',
rb
n
uX
W vk,
u
0
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE July 31, 1989, COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 9, 1989
FILE NO.: 89059
PETITIONER: U.S. Home Corporation/Thompson Land Development Division
REQUEST: Sketch Plan for the Proposed Development of Land Not Yet
Served by Public Services (Mitchell -Pearson Property)
LOCATION: South of Medina Road Between Walnut Grove Lane and the West
City Limits (Brockton Lane)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development)
BACKGROUND:
By Resolution 89-91, the City Council, on February 6, 1989, adopted the
Policy on Review and Approval of Sketch Plans for Proposed Development
Involving Land Not Yet Served by Public Services." The staff is directed to
review the sketch plan and report to the Planning Commission with respect to
the relationship of the proposal to the surrounding neighborhood; compliance
with the City Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan; and to make a
recommendation.
No prior development actions concerning this parcel appear in the records of
the Community Development Department.
A notice of this public informational meeting has been published in the
official city newspaper, and all property owners within 500 feet have been
notified. In addition, a development sign has been placed on the property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The gross site area proposed for development is 116.5 acres. The site is
included in the current City of Plymouth Capital Improvements Program to
receive municipal water and sewer services during 1990. The site meets
the two primary criteria for eligibility for sketch plan review, as
established by the policy.
2. The sketch plan proposes development of the 116.5 -acre site into a single
family detached subdivision of 248 lots. No public or private open space
facilities are proposed. The proposed density of development is 2.42
see next page)
Page Two
File 89059
units per net acre above the 100 Year Flood Elevation of the adjoining
storm water holding ponds.
3. The site is partly located in the Bassetts Creek, Minnehaha Creek, and Elm
Creek Watershed Districts and contains an area of storm water holding and
flood plain in the extreme southeast corner; is not located in any shore
land management area; contains some wet lands related to the storm water
holding area as noted above; contains a limited amount of woodlands in the
south center and southwest portions of the site; contains no slopes of
over 12 percent; and is generally "marginally" suited for urban
development with respect to soils with public sewers installed. The area
of marginally suited soils extends along the southerly portion of the
site, and is related to the storm water holding area in that same portion
of the site. The development sketch plan proposed generally recognizes
the areas of the site subject to the constraints noted, and the
development plan accommodates avoidance and/or preservation of those
constraints.
4. Review of the sketch plan for conformance with the various elements of the
Comprehensive Plan results in findings as follow:
a. The sketch plan is generally in conformance with the Land Use Guide
Plan with respect to the overall range of density of development
proposed. It should be noted that the sketch plan proposes a density
of development obtainable in the LA -1 classification only with the
application of the PUD section of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. The
plan, however, does not propose public or private common open space,
one of the attributes expected in a plan proposed under the RPUD
Ordinance. It should be noted that the project density proposed is
slightly above that which would be available for this site based on
bonus points available due to the size of the site (four bonus points
available).
b. No park and trail system plan elements are shown for inclusion within
the property. Based on the current Park and Trail System Plan, no
public dedication is anticipated for park or trail purposes.
c. The sketch plan is generally responsive to storm water drainage,
sanitary sewer, and water distribution plans of the City, as those
plans are applicable to this stage of design.
d. Medina Road borders the north portion of the site. This road is
designated in the Thoroughfare Guide Plan as a major collector. The
City Engineer indicates that improvement of this road from its
intersection with County Road 101 will be required prior to or
concurrent with the development of this site.
see next page)
Page Three
File 89059
Those improvements to Medina Road will be consistent with its major
collector status in the Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
5. The proposed sketch plan for this 116.5 acre site generally presents a
positive relationship to the surrounding property. The single family
detached proposal of the sketch plan is consistent in character with the
existing Amber Woods Development to the south; the proposed "Leuer
Property" single family sketch plan to the south; and the school facility
Greenwood Elementary) to the east.
The City of Medina has been notified of this sketch plan proposal and has
been asked to comment. As of the date of the drafting of the staff
report, no comment has been forthcoming from the City of Medina. It would
appear that the single family character of the lots that are proposed to
back up to the Plymouth/Medina border, would be consistent with
development that would be proposed on the Medina side of the line.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The sketch plan proposed generally relates well to surrounding properties.
2. The sketch plan residential development density exceeds that which would
be available with a maximum four bonus points (project size) for an RPUD
development on LA -1 classified property.
3. The residential density proposed is attainable g-rLly through the RPUD
section of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. A significant attribute of an
RPUD plan is the provision of common open space (either public or
private). This common open space is intended to provide the portion of
the open space otherwise "lost" with the conversion of lot sizes from the
18,500 square foot City "standard" to a lesser amount --as this plan does
propose.
This plan, however, does not propose any private or public common open
space whatsoever. As such, it is doubtful that the plan would qualify as
an RPUD through the existing Plymouth Zoning Ordinance.
4. The lot sizes also are based upon a presumed RPUD status whereby the City
can approve dimensions and areas less than conventional platting
standards.
see next page)
Page Four
File 89059
RECOMMENDATION:
We find a basic contradiction between the sketch plan proposed and the
existing Zoning Ordinance with respect to the provision of common open space
within a PUD. The plan clearly requires a PUD process for execution, but just
as clearly does not provide common open space.
We recommend the sketch plan be either denied as proposed, or that the
petitioner request continuation of consideration of the plan for redesign to
incorporate common open space.
The petitioner has been advised of the position the staff would take with
regard to the open space issue during the Development Review Committee
consideration of the sketch plan.
The Commission should consider that this is a special preliminary opportunity
for feedback to a prospective developer --precedent even to an RPUD concept
plan.
Submitted by: c C)X
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution for Denial of a Sketch Plan
2. Draft Resolution for Approval of a Sketch Plan
3. Engineer's Memo
4. Petitioner's Narrative of June 1989 Five Large Plans
pc/cd/89059:dl)
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING SKETCH PLAN FOR U.S. HOME CORPORTION - THOMPSON LAND DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION FOR THE "MITCHELL - PEARSON PROPERTY" (89059)
I. The proposed development is not consistent with the Land Use Guide Plan
Element of the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the Plymouth
Zoning Ordinance. The plan cannot be executed at the density proposed or
with the lot dimensions shown without use of the PUD section of the Zoning
Ordinance. No common and minimal private open space is proposed, thereby
disqualifying the project for PUD status.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING SKETCH PLAN FOR U.S. HOME CORPORTION - THOMPSON LAND DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION FOR THE "MITCHELL - PEARSON PROPERTY" (89059)
1. Staging of the development shall be in accordance with utility
availability as approved by the City Engineer.
2. No additional development applications will be processed until the
contract for municipal sewer and water to serve this property is awarded.
3. Future plat/plan design shall provide for private common open space equal
to at least 10 percent of net project area.
4. This approval is for a sketch plan only, consistent with City Council
Policy 89-91. No approval or substitute for any portion of RPUD concept
plan for these parcels is intended or implied by this action. The City
Council acceptance of this sketch plan shall not be deemed to constitute
approval of formal variances or modifications, including residential
development density.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ENGINEER'S MEMO
to
PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
DATE: August 3, 1989
FILE NO.: 89059
PETITIONER: Mr. William Pritchard, U. S. Home/Thompson Land Development, 300 S.
County Rd. 18, Suite 870, St. Louis Park, Mn. 55426
SKETCH PLAN: "MITCHELL PEARSON PROPERTY" SUBMITTED BY U.S. HOMES
LOCATION: South of Medina Road, east of the City of Medina in the southwest one
quarter of Section 18.
This memo was prepared in response to the request for sketch plan review submitted byU. S. Homes and received in this office on June 23, 1989.
1) Sanitary sewer area assessments and watermain area assessments will be levied
with final plat approval and will be based on a minimum of two units per acre.
2) A drainage easement for ponding purposes shall be required for pond BC-Pl to the
100 Year High Water Elevation of 1002.5.
3) A storm sewer outlet has not been provided as yet for Pond BC -P1. This must be
constructed before development of this property.
4) The comprehensive water distribution plan shows a 12 inch watermain along the
east side of this property.
5) The rate of run off from the proposed plat shall not exceed the existing runoff.
6) The northwest trunk sewer for District 21, 22, and 23 is not proposed for
construction until 1990.
7) The proposed plat is located in NW -23.
8) This proposed plat fronts on Medina Road classified as a major collector street
on the Thoroughfare Guide PLan. Before a final plat is approved for this
development, the City Council must have ordered an improvement project for
Medina Road to Hwy. 101.
ENGINEERING MEMO - CONCEPT PLAN
Page Two
1.
9) This property lies in three storm sewer districts: Bassett Creek, Minnehaha
Creek (Mooney Lake through the City of Medina), Elm Creek.
10) The City of Medina shall review future development submittals.
11) An additional 7 feet of right-of-way for Medina Road will be required making a
total distance from centerline 40 feet.
6SUBMITTEDBY: 42'
n 'XaL--1
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE July 31, 1989 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 9, 1989
FILE NO.: 89061
PETITIONER: OPUS Corporation
REQUEST: Amended MPUD Concept Plan
LOCATION: Northwest corner of State Highway 169 and County Road 10
Bass Lake Road)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: IP (Planned Industrial) and CL (Limited Business)
ZONING: IP (Planned Industrial) and FRD (Future Restricted
Development District)
BACKGROUND:
By Resolution 81-339, an MPUD Concept Plan was approved on the subject parcel
for the Tennant Company in 1981. Concurrent with that action, by Resolution
81-340, the Land Use Guide Plan was also amended, resulting inuiding of the
property to CL (the eastern portion) and IP (the western portioX
On February 27, 1989, the City Council approved Resolutions 89-105 and 89-106
approving an amended MPUD Concept Plan and an MPUD Preliminary
Plat/Plan/Conditional Use Permit for this parcel. At its meeting May 1, 1989,
the City Council approved an MPUD Final Plan and Final Plat for a 25 -acre
portion of this PUD for the 200,000 square foot Schneider U.S.A. building.
The final plat covered the entire 210 -acre parcel with all but the Schneider
U.S.A. site becoming an outlot.
Notice of this public informational meeting was 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 calls for an amended MPUD Concept Plan covering the entire
210 -acre site. The amendment provides a new development concept for that
portion of the site not included within the Schneider proposal referenced
above. The 1988 MPUD Concept Plan amendment generally addressed only the
Schneider site, leaving the balance of the PUD design consistent with the
1981 Tennant plan. This 1989 Concept Plan amendment retains the same
basic overall project scale (approximately 1.8 million square feet of
see next page)
Page Two
File 89061
buildings), but changes the concept from single user campus approach that
Tennant had brought forth, to a multiple user/multiple structure business
park. The applicant has presented with his letter of June 26, 1988, a
review of the project concept together with a review by the applicant's
consultant of the differences between the 1981/1988 concept plans and the
concept plan amendment proposed by this application.
2. The site is located in the Shingle Creek Watershed District and contains a
flood plain and water retention basin of substantial significance in the
northeast corner; contains Shoreland Management areas; contains a limited
amount of woodland in the central and northwest corners; contains a
significant wet land area directly related and a part of the flood plain
area noted previously; contains some slopes of greater than 12 percent
adjacent to the wet land area) and is generally suitable for urban
development with public sewers, except for the flood plain/wet land area
noted above. The primary physical constraint of this site is located in
the northeast corner of the site and contains over 25 acres. As with
previous concept plans for this site, this design precludes interference
with the storm water drainage and protected wetland in this area.
The balance of the site is generally free of constraints but does contain
areas of substantial topographic relief that must be accommodated with any
site design.
3. The Zoning Ordinance provides that review of an MPUD Concept Plan and, by
implication, amendments to an MPUD Concept Plan, such as this is, shall
the address the following:
a. Relationship of the proposal for the surrounding neighborhood
The relationship between the concept plan proposed in 1989 and that
which was proposed in 1988 and 1981 has not changed significantly. To
the east and the south lie major 4 -lane thoroughfares where direct
impact on neighboring property is not a major factor. To the north
lies residential properties in the City of Maple Grove. The 1981/1988
Concept Plan called for a single "research and development" structure
to be located within 100 feet of the north property line and the rear
or side property lines of the Maple Grove homes. The 1989 Concept
Plan calls for three "office warehouse manufacturing" structures
ranging from 58,000 square feet to 130,000 square feet to be located
adjoining the Maple Grove homes with the closest structure 175 feet
from the north property line. Parking for two of these structures
comes to within 100 feet of the property line.
The applicant has submitted a cross-section and conceptual
berming/landscape plans that address the relationship between the 1989
Concept Plan and the properties to the north. To the west of the site
lies portions of the Hennepin County Park Reserve District "Pike Lake
Regional Park". The 1981/1988 Concept Plan called for a 510,000
square foot manufacturing facility to be located within 40 feet of
this west property line. The 1989 Concept Plan depicts up to 3
office/showroom structures ranging from 94,000 square feet to 64,000
see next page)
Page Three
File 89061
square feet adjoining this property line, with no structure closer to
the property line than approximately 75 feet.
b. Compliance with City Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan
As a function of the 1981 action on this parcel, the Land Use Guide
Plan was amended so the entire parcel is guided Planned Industrial and
Limited Commercial. The 1989 Concept Plan proposes a mix of office
and manufacturing. Approximately 32 percent of the site is
conceptually designed for either office or office/showroom type uses,
with 62 percent of the site depicted for office warehouse
manufacturing use, and 6 percent of the site designed for
hotel/daycare/restaurant use.
The Zoning Ordinance provides for uses in an MPUD to be those as
permitted or conditional in the underlying zoning districts. The
present ordinance provides for motels, class I restaurants, and
daycare facilities as conditional uses in the B-1 zone, which would
stom form the CL guiding currently existing for the east portion of
the site. The balance of the site is generally proposed by the
concept plan for uses consistent with either I-1 or B-1 guide plan
classifications that exist for the site in a proportion that roughly
approximates guiding proportion of IP to CL on the site. Consistent
with the current guiding of the site, all pure office uses are
oriented to the eastern portion and all manufacturing/warehousing uses
are oriented to the western portion of the site.
The 1989 amended MPUD Concept Plan appears consistent with the Land
Use Guide Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Plymouth. Compatibility with the Thoroughfare Guide Plan was
confirmed in the 1988 Concept Plan Amendment. The 1989 Concept Plan
also continues to depict the potential for a portion of the site to
become a component of the Hennepin County Regional Park immediately to
the west.
4. The amended MPUD Concept Plan has been submitted to the State of Minnesota
Department of Transportation, the Hennepin County Park Reserve District,
the Hennepin County Highway Department, the Department of Natural
Resources, and the City of Maple Grove. Comments have been received from
Hennepin County Highway Department indicating their concurrence with the
plan, and from the Hennepin County Park Reserve District indicating their
interest in the northwesterly portion of the site for addition to the
regional park. No other response has been received from governmental
agencies that have been contacted.
The transfer of a 10 -acre portion of this site in the northwest corner to
Hennepin County Regional Park is still desired by the Park District. No
it park or trail land dedication is required from this parcel.
5. The concept plan depicts a separate parcel of land covering the storm
water drainage and flood plain area in the northeast portion of the site,
in addition to the parcel of land in the northwest portion of the site
see next page)
Page Four
File 89061
that is proposed for sale to the Hennepin County Regional Park. It has
not been the policy of the City of Plymouth to accept dedication of storm
water drainage areas in fee title. Rather, easements across private land
have been required. In no case has park dedication credit been granted
for such storm water drainage area under the current policy.
6. A concept plan depicts a "public trail" extending from the far southeast
corner of the site northerly to the north boundary of the site and then
westerly to the area of the regional park. The City of Plymouth Parks and
Trails System Plan does not reflect a need for public trails to be located
anywhere within this 210 -acre site. It is the policy of the City of
Plymouth to not accept maintenance responsibilities for, or grant park
dedication credits for trail segments that are not a portion of the City
of Plymouth Park and Trail System Plan.
7. This MPUD Concept Plan amendment is of a scale that requires completion of
an Environmental Impact Statement consistent with the rules of the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. This environmental process will
include the preparation of an Environment Assessment "Scoping Document";
preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement; and the preparation
of a final Environmental Impact Statement. Numerous opportunities for
public comment on the environmental documents will be available during the
environmental review process. No final approval of a preliminary
plat/plan for this project can be completed by the City of Plymouth until
the final Environmental Impact Statement has been approved.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. We find the amended MPUD Concept Plan to be responsive to the Zoning
Ordinance requirements with respect to the relationship to the surrounding
neighborhood.
2. We find the proposed concept plan to be consistent with the Land Use Guide
Plan and System Plan Elements of the Comprehensive Plan with the exception
of the Parks and Trail System Plan Element.
We find the proposed development of "public trails" to be inconsistent
with the Park and Trails System Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan in
that no public parks or trails are in the adopted plan element for this
area of the City. There is no objection on our part to a private
pedestrian circulation system.
3. We find the proposal to design the storm water holding area in the
northeast portion of the site as a separate lot to be deeded to the City
to be inconsistent with the manner with which such storm water holding
areas are addressed by the City. We recommend that the lot lines of the
adjoining properties be extended through the storm water holding area and
that a public storm water drainage easement be provided covering that
portion below the elevation required for protection.
see next page)
Page Five
File 89061
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the concept plan for Bass Creek Business Park
as reflected in the attached draft resolution of approval. Note that the
related conditions of the recommended approval resolution concerning issues
raised for staff comments v . 7Submittedb Y • 00,
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Deve opment Coordinator
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution for Approval of a Concept Plan
2. Engineer's Memo
3. Petitioner's Letter of July 26, 1989 with Attachments
4. Location Map
5. Resolution 89-105
6. Resolution 89-106
7. 1988 Concept Plan
8. 1988 Final Plan for Schneider U.S.A.
9. Large Plans
pc/cd/89061:jw)
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING AMENDED MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR OPUS
CORPORATION (89061)
I. Staging of the development shall be in accordance with utility
availability as approved by the City Engineer.
2. The Preliminary Plat/Plan application shall address the Flood Plain and
Shoreland Management Ordinance standards.
3. "Touchdown Points" for public street access to Bass Lake Road shall be
limited to Nathan Lane and Trenton Lane.
4. The rezoning of this parcel shall reflect the relationship between CL and
IP land use as depicted by this plan amendment.
5. All public street right-of-way shall be dedicated.
6. The portion of the site designated "...identified for Hennepin County Park
Reserve District..." is not an element of the City Park and Trail System
Plan, and therefore not eligible as credit for park dedication
requirements. Future platting of this portion of the site may reflect
Park Reserve District acquisition of that portion of the site.
7. All trails constructed within the development shall be constructed to City
of Plymouth trail specifications but will be private, with ownership and
perpetual maintenance the responsibility of the property owner
association. No park dedication credit will be available for this trail
construction, per City policy.
8. The storm water drainage area located in the northeast corner of the site
shall be owned privately, subject to drainage and utility easements. Lot
lines shall be extended through the area or appropriate common ownership
documents shall be drawn which place the fee ownership and responsiblity
with an owner's association.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ENGINEER'S MEMO
to
PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
DATE: August 3, 1989
FILE NO.: 89061
PETITIONER: Mr. Robert A. Worthington, Executive Director, Governmental Affairs,
Opus Corporation, 800 Opus Center, 9900 Bren Road East, Minnetonka, MN
55343
CONCEPT PLAN: "Tennant Property Corporate Center developed by Opus Corporation on
approximately 180.8 acres of land located generally at the northwest
quadrant of intersection of County Road 10 and County Road 18"
This memo was prepared in response to the request for conceptual approval for the above
referenced property. Documents in support of the request were submitted on behalf of
the developer by BRW and Associates and received in this office on June 26, 1989.
1) Our assessment records indicate that this property has not been assessed for
sanitary sewer area charges and watermain area charges. There will be SAC and
REC charges that will be payable at the time building permits are issued.
2) The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet in width adjoining
all streets and six feet in width adjoining side and rear lot lines.
3) The City will require ten foot utility and drainage easements for a proposed
watermain and storm sewer utilities along the lot lines where these utilities
are proposed. Drainage and utility easements for the sanitary sewer in extra
depth zones shall be 20 feet on each side of centerline.
4) There are approximately 28.5 acres below elevation 882.0 which is a 100 year
high water contour on the site. Drainage easements for ponding purposes shall
be provided over all of this area.
5) The developer will be responsible for the construction of the necessary
watermain, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and streets that service this site.
6) The City will require a final plan and profile of proposed sanitary sewer,
streets, and storm sewer, plus an Erosion Control Plan in accordance with the
Engineering Guidelines.
ENGINEERING MEMO - CONCEPT PLAN
Page Two
7) The City will require a storm drainage plan showing proposed finished contours
and/or arrows indicating how the proposed plat will ultimately drain. This
material must be submitted in conjunction with proposed storm sewer plans. The
City will then have the City's consulting engineer review the proposed storm
drainage plan to make sure they are in compliance with the City's Comprehensive
Plan for the storm drainage system.
8) All traffic studies will be completed with the EIS.
9) Driveway access to the public streets will be reviewed with a detailed site
plan.
ifir`
SUBMITTED BY: y i.d,t 1 L
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
1 OPUS CORPORAMA
DESIGNERS • BUILDERS • DEVELOPERS
800 Opus Center
9900 Bren Road East
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
612) 936-4444
June 26, 1989
Mr. Blair Tremere
Community Development Director
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 150
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440
RE: Revised Concept Plan - Tennant Corporate Center (#81-339)
Dear Mr. Tremere:
Opus Corporation is pleased to submit the enclosed PUD concept plan for
the Bass Creek Business Park which revises and supersedes the existing
RPUD concept plan for Tennant Corporate Center approved by the City
Resolution #81-339) for the subject property in 1981. The subject
property covered by the revised PUD concept plan is the 210 acres of land
in the north corner of County Roads 10 and 169.
The proposed plan, which includes the recently approved site of the
Schneider USA headquarters which is currently under construction,
envisions development of a mixed use business center which will become the
home base for the next generation of new businesses wishing to relocate
their operations to this area of Plymouth. Bass Creek Business Park will
upon completion contain about 1.8 million square feet of
office -warehouse -manufacturing and a limited amount of retail space within
its parklike campus.
We are requesting Planning Commission and Council approval of the new Bass
Creek Business Park PUD concept plan as the first step in what could be a
nine (9) month governmental approval process involving the preparation of
a Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (Scoping EAW) as well as an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Indirect Source Permit (ISP) for
the Park. Approval of the concept plan will ensure that all of the
assumptions and studies undertaken as a part of the EIS and ISP process
are consistent and compatible with Plymouth's development goals and
objectives for the subject property. Once we have successfully cleared
the most important requirements of these major environmental oversight
processes as well as any imposed by the City through approval of the
concept plan, it is our intent to purchase the subject property, excluding
the Schneider USA site which we already control, from the Tennant Company
making the Bass Creek Business Park a permanent and prestigious part of
our land development portfolio.
Opus and Affiliates in Minneapolis • Chicago • Phoenix • Milwaukee • Tampa • Pensacola
Mr. Blair Tremere
June 26, 1989
Page -2-
The Tennant Corporate Center concept plan envisioned development of the
subject property as the headquarters campus for Tennant. All of the
various administrative, manufacturing, research and development operations
of the company, which were decentralized and operating from a number of
locations in 1981, were to have been consolidated and regrouped on the
property. The Corporate Center, which was to have been highlighted by a
free standing high image administrative office complex overlooking the
major entry to the Center from County Road 18 at Bass Lake Road, was
planned to take on a college campus type appearance. The plan, which was
to be initiated in the early eighties, would have taken 8-10 years to
implement and upon completion would have had 1,850,000 square feet of
office -manufacturing, research and development space grouped in four or
five separate major buildings on the property. Access to each of the
buildings was to have been provided through a major internal "looped"
boulevard lake road which would internalize all on site access create a
sense of privacy and prestige for the center as well as ensure tenants and
users of the Park of no through traffic.
The revised concept plan for Bass Creek Business Park preserves and
retains many of the environmental features as well as the same internal
curvelinear looped street concept planned for the Tennant Corporate
Center. The total square footage proposed for Bass Creek, (1,810,000
square feet), is very comparable to the Tennant Corporate Center Plan.
The major difference is that Bass Creek is being planned for use by
multiple business interest as opposed to a single user. This means the
plan must provide opportunity for a wide range of choices in terms of use,
architectural style, and size of building as compared to the Tennant
concept which had more predictability in those areas of concern. However,
through covenants and a disciplined marketing program, the same type of
natural environmental charm and ambience promised in the Tennant plan can
be achieved at Bass Creek without compromise.
I have attached a memorandum from BRW, Inc., our planning consultant for
Bass Creek Business Park, which compares some of the common features of
Bass Creek with the original Tennant Corporate Center plan. It is our
conclusion and belief, considering the differences already alluded to,
that the two plans are very comparable to one another. BRW agrees with
that conclusion, stating the difference between the two concepts is one of
degree" and is a result that can be expected when a development's
philosophy is shifted from a single user corporate campus to a
contemporary multi -use business park such as the current (Bass Creek
Business Park) proposal".
Mr. Blair Tremere
June 26, 1989
Page -3-
I am asking that you accept the enclosed application for concept plan
review for the Bass Creek Business Center, for processing and scheduling
for consideration on the July 12 or 27 Planning Commission Agenda.
We have retained the law firm of Faegre & Benson to assist us in managing
the environmental review/regulatory process which by law must be complied
with before final approval for Bass Creek can be granted. Mr. Walter
Rockenstein of that firm will be submitting the Scoping EAW, which is the
first step of that regulatory process, for the enclosed concept plan to
you through a separate letter. We would appreciate having City
coordination of the concept plan and Scoping EAW so that the City's review
and approval process would consider both those items at the same time.
Call me if you have questions or require any additional information
regarding our concept plan approval request. Thanks for your attention
and cooperation.
Sincerely,
A11I
Robert A. Worthington, AICP
Executive Director
Governmental Affairs
RAW/kk
cc: Chuck Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
Fred Moore, Public Works Director
Walter Rockenstein, Faegre & Benson
Miles Lindberg, BRW
BRW, INC. THRESHER SQUARE
DATE: June 23, 1989
700 THIRD STREET SOUTH - • MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55415
TO: Mr. Robert Worthington
Director of Governmental Affairs
Opus Corporation
800 Opus Center
9900 Bren Road East
Minnetonka, MN 55343
FROM: Miles Lindberg A4-A.L.
SUBJECT: Bass Creek Business Park
Concept Plan
PLANNING
TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERING
URBAN DESIGN
PHONE: 612/370-0700 FAX: 612/370-1378
MEMORANDUM
As you requested, I am preparing this brief overview comparing elements of the
proposed Bass Creek Business Park Concept Plan with the goals, objectives, and
PUD attributes of the Tennant Company Corporate Headquarters plan as approved
in 1981 and amended for the Schneider USA development.
Key attributes of 1981 PUD concept plan included the following elements which
were incorporated into the original planning for the Tennant Company Corporate
Headquarters:
1. Provision of an internal loop roadway to limit intersections with Bass Lake
Road, and to internalize site access.
2.- Provision of secondary cut de sac roadways on-site to limit traffic impacts
on adjoining properties, and to maintain the integrity of the site's natural
features.
3. Preservation of the marsh/bluff complex at the east end of the site
including major vegetation.
4. Preservation of major vegetation along the northern property line and along
the ridge adjoining the future Eagle Lake Park acquisition area to buffer
the park and the residential uses in Maple Grove.
MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST. PETERSBURG
Mr. Robert Worthington
June 23, 1989
Page 2
5. Preservation of wetlands in the west central part of the site.
The basic elements of the previously approved concept plan are all still
present in the current proposal. Each of the nine elements listed above is
provided for. The principal difference between the plans is not a change in
the basic concepts upon which the plan was and is based, but rather one of
degree to which the concepts are carried out. This is best illustrated by
comparing some of the basic site data which quantifies and measures certain
impacts of development on the site.
1. Gross floor area
2. Building footprint area
3. Lineal feet of roadway
o 4 -lane
o 2 -lane
4. Parking spaces provided
5. Parking spaces required
1981 Tennant
Corporate
Headquarters
1989 Bass Creek
Business Park
1,850,000 S.F. 1,810,000 S.F.
1,420,000 S.F. 1,282,000 S.F.
3,750 Ft.
2,750 Ft.
3,988
5,620*
3,750 Ft.
2,500 Ft.
6,265
6,186
Based on 700,000 square feet of office at 1/300 square feet and 1,150,000
square feet manufacturing and research and development at 1/350 square feet.
It can be seen from these comparisons that the two plans are similar in all
respects except parking spaces provided (illustrated) on the plans. The
resulting impact of this dramatic difference is an obvious reduction in the
apparent amount of open space and increase in hard surface coverage when
visually comparing the two plans. This impact is a direct result of two
important factors which accompany the shift in development philosophy from a
corporate campus such as the Tennant proposal, to a contemporary multi -use
business park such as the current proposal.
1. The multiple lots and individual building development of a business park
tend to segment the open space and concentrate it in smaller areas while
reducing the scale of individual buildings. Much of the open space is
maintained in individual setback areas. Conversely, the limited number of
very large building areas in the corporate headquarters plan allows
consolidation of open space with massive buildings as a consequence.
Mr. Robert Worthington
June 23, 1989
Page 3
2. The single user in the corporate headquarters plan allows for extensivd
proof -of -parking because of the known characteristics and requirements of
the user. The business park, on the other hand, requires the ability to
maximize parking provided in order to maximize flexibility in accommodating
a variety of possible users with a variety of parking requirements. It
would be reasonable to expect that specific development proposals would
allow some reduction of parking actually constructed as compared to that
illustrated in the business park plan.
ML/1a
cc: File 60-8870
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, areular meeting of theCityCounciloftheCityofPlymouth,
Minnesotg
a, was held on the _21_tb_ dayOfFebmav19$3 _ The following members were present:
ncilmemb rs Vasiliou Ricker, Zitur and 4,akThefollowingmemberswereabsent. None
Oouncilmember Sisk introduced the following Resolution andmoveditsadoption:
RESOLUTION 89- 105
APPROVING AMENDED MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR OPUSCORPORATION (88146)
WHEREAS, Opus Corporation has requested approval of an Amended Mixed UsePlannedUnitDevelopmentConceptPlanforthedevelopmentofonelotandoneoutlotonapproximately210acreslocatedatthenorthwestcornerofCountyRoad #18 (Highway 169) and County Road 10.
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 81-339 approved an RPUD ConceptPlanforthissiteforTennantCorporation; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reveiwed the request at a duly calledPublicInformationalHearingandhasrecommendedapproval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Amended MixedUsePlannedUnitDevelopmentConceptPlanforOpusCorporationforadevelopmenttobeknownasTennantCorporateCenterconsistingofonelotandoneoutlotonapproximately210acreslocatedatthenorthwestcornerofCountyRoad #18 (Highway 169) and County Road 10, subject to the followingconditions:
I. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Staging of the development shall be in accordance with utilityavailabilityasapprovedbytheCityEngineer.
3. The Preliminary Plat/Plan application shall address the Flood Plain andShorelandManagementOrdinancestandards.
4. "Touchdown Points" for public street access to Bass Lake Road shall belimitedtoNathanLaneandTrentonLane.
5. The rezoning of this parcel shall reflect the relationship between CL andIPlanduseasdepictedbythisplanamendment.
see next page)
Resolution No.89-105
Page Two
6. All public street right-of-way shall be dedicated.
1. The portion of the site designated "...identified for Hennepin County
Park Reserve District..." is not an element of the City Park and Trail
System Plan, and therefore not eligible as credit for park dedication
requirements. Future platting of this portion of the site may reflect
Park Reserve District acquisition of that portion of the site.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Councilmember Zitur , and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Schneider Councilmemhers
Vasiliou. Ricker, Zitur and Sisk
The following voted against or abstained None
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
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 27th day
of February 1989 The following members were present:
Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers Vasiliou, Ricker, Zitur and Sisk
The following members were absent: None
Councilmember Sisk introduced the following Resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 89-106
APPROVING MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN/PLAT AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR OPUS COPORATION FOR TENNANT CORPORATE CENTER (88146)
WHEREAS, Opus Corporation has requested approval for a Mixed Planned Unit
Development Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Tennant
Corporate Center for one lot and one outlot on approximately 210 gross acres
located at the northwest corner of County Road #18 (Highway 169) and County
Road 10; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called
Public Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HERBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Mixed Planned
Unit Development Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Opus
Corporation for the Tennant Corporate Center for one lot and one outlot
located at the northwest corner of County Road #18 (Highway 169) and County
Road 10, subject to the following:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
3. No Building Permits shall be issued until a Contract has been awarded for
water and sewer.
4. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System.
5. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79-80 regarding minimum floor
elevations for new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing
any open storm water drainage facility_
6. No Building Permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and
recorded with Hennepin County.
7. Park dedication requirements shall be met through payment of fees in lieu
consistent with the Park Dedication Policy and fees in effect at the time
of Building Permit issuance.
see next page)
F]
Resolution No. 89-106
Page Two
8. The approved Development Contract shall be fully executed prior to release
of the Final Plat for filing at Hennepin County.
9. All existing structures shall be removed at the owners expense prior to
issuance of a Building Permit; this includes proper disconnection and
termination of water and sewer services and on site systems.
10. Any underground storage tanks or reservoirs shall be properly removed and
terminated.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Counrilmember Zitur , 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.
I
n o' Om
rte f. / '.v;^
a-•
i I r11NIINNI NI
p i ,Illllllllllllllllllllh.,p^rpe IIIIIIIN
e 11111111111111111111111 `
6dbis
I;
X1.9
I
a I,
00
rte f. / '.v;^
a-•
i I r11NIINNI NI
p i ,Illllllllllllllllllllh.,p^rpe IIIIIIIN
e 11111111111111111111111 `
6dbis
I;
X1.9
NONE
IN
SIMM
rte f. / '.v;^
a-•
i I r11NIINNI NI
p i ,Illllllllllllllllllllh.,p^rpe IIIIIIIN
e 11111111111111111111111 `
6dbis
I;
X1.9
I
i i
C o
7p
NATHAN LANE
Ilan€
O I
lit
SCHNEIDER —U.S.A., INC. MPUD
gd.._A Oa.vb
SRE PLAN ...,
Z'
o
F 9i
y
x E Re eA 9 R' ill
x
a
OPUS CORPORATION
IM Su AV PS . NUI [MPS - q VI10%PS