HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 08-23-1989CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE August 14, 1989 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 23, 1989
FILE NO.: 89040
PETITIONER: Pump and Meter Service, Inc.
REQUEST: Amended Conditional Use Permit Site Plan to Relocate the
Pump Island Dispensing Diesel Fuel to the West Side of His
Property.
LOCATION: 10910 State Highway 55
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CS (Service Business)
ZONING: B-3 (Service Business)
BACKGROUND:
On May 1, 1972, the Plymouth Village Council approved a Conditional Use Permit
for the installation of car wash equipment at the service station. In 1977,
an application was processed for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
expansion of the service station to a third service bay. A major condition of
the Planning Commission approval recommendation for this third bay was for the
service station to introduce a 15 -foot landscape area on both the south and
west sides of the site. Today, the landscaping area is in place as was
required.
On August 1, 1988, under Resolution 88-438, the City Council denied a
Conditional Use Permit amendment and variance for the installation of a canopy
over the existing pump islands at this location.
A Public Hearing Notice has been published in the official city newspaper, and
property owners within 500 feet have been notified. A development sign was
also placed on this site.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The petitioner seeks approval to relocate the pump island dispensing
diesel fuel to the west side of his property. The previous diesel island
was removed to allow for easier maneuvering of transports which bring fuel
to this service station.
2. The Planning Commission, in its review of the proposal, must consider the
Conditional Use Permit performance standards of Section 9, Subdivision A,
paragraph 2a of the Zoning Ordinance. A copy of the Conditional Use
Permit standards is attached. A copy of the petitioner's May 3, 1989,
letter in support of the proposal is also attached.
see next page)
Page Two
File 89040
3. Roadway improvements and thoroughfare planning that will impact this site
continue to proceed. The 10th Avenue North project is nearly completed.
Future projects in this neighborhood will involve closure of the existing
Highway 55 North Service Drive intersection with South Shore Drive.
Neither the timing of that action nor the exact resulting route of access
to this site have as yet been decided.
STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Issues of the "general public welfare" (Section 9, Subdivision A,
paragraph 2a of the Zoning Ordinance) should be of concern with regard to
the Conditional Use Permit for the extension of this service station use.
That "public welfare" should include thoroughfare improvements that are
underway in this area that will impact the existing service station use
configuration. These improvements are to South Shore Drive and the
service road in conjunction with the 10th Avenue North project, and may
result in reduction or altered access to this site. The property owner is
aware of these improvements and the plans for this area.
2. The stacking plan shows the Ordinance -required number of vehicles. The
first vehicle in the line, however, would not be able to reach the
dispenser. Only five vehicles stacking space will result, and circulation
resulting is not ideal, but acceptable. We observe, however, that
stacking of vehicles at a diesel fuel island is not as likely a site
problem as would be the case at gasoline dispensers due to less demand for
the product.
3. We find this proposal to differ from the prior canopy proposal in that no
new or extended use is suggested. This location has always had a diesel
dispensing facility. A replacement is what is now proposed.
4. The Public Works Director recommends closure of the South Shore Drive
access to this site as a condition of Conditional Use Permit approval. We
concur in that recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend approval of the amended Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan to
include conditioner/are attaped 1 `^^
Submitted by: L Mt S L
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Recommended Conditions for Approval
2. Engineer's Memo
3. Petitioner's Letter of May 3, 1989
4. Location Map
5. Large Plans
pl/ac/89040:dl)
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN FOR PUMP AND METER SERVICE,
INC., FOR LINN, INC., (AMOCO SERVICE STATION) LOCATED AT 10910 OLSON MEMORIAL
HIGHWAY (89040)
I. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and
Ordinances, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
3. Any signage shall conform with the City Ordinance standards.
4. Compliance with applicable Building and Fire Code requirements shall be
verified by the City prior to permit issuance.
5. Closure of the existing access to this site from South Shore Drive.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ENGINEER'S MEMO
to
PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
DATE: August 16, 1989
FILE NO.: 89040
PETITIONER: Mr. Mike Eiker, Pump and Meter Service, 11303 Excelsior Blvd., Hopkins,
Mn. 55343
SITE PLAN/
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: "EXISTING AMOCO STATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF HWY. 55 AND SO.
SHORE DRIVE
LOCATION: 10910 Hwy. 55
ACTION REQUESTED: Require the closing of the existing driveway from South Shore Drive
into the Amoco Station.
BACKGROUND: With the construction of 10th Avenue, traffic at the intersection of Hwy.
55 and South Shore Drive will be increased. This additional traffic will conflict with
existing driveway from South Shore Drive into the Amoco Station.
The City Thoroughfare Guide Plan calls for the elimination of the existing frontage
road connection to South Shore Drive along the south side of the station. When the
connection is eliminated, it is possible that the existing entrance into the Amoco
Station will be used as a short cut.
I therefore recommend that with this application, the existing driveway off South Shore
Drive be closed. The existing two driveways to the frontage road would remain. The
site plan should be redesigned to provide adequate on site circulation without the
driveway to South Shore Drive.
SUBMITTED BY:`
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
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 1st day of August , 198S. The
following members were present: Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers Vasiliou, Ricker,
Zitur and Sisk - -
he following members were absent: None
Councilmember Sisk introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 88-438
DENYING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE FOR PUMP AND METER SERVICE,
INC., FOR LINN, INC. (AMOCO SERVICE STATION, 10910 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY) (88030)
WHEREAS, Pump and Meter Service, Inc. for Linn, Inc., has requested a Conditional Use
Permit Amendment and Variance to extend the canopy over the existing pump islands at
the Amoco service station located at 10910 Olson Memorial Highway; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public
Hearing and recommends denial;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request for Pump and Meter Service,
Inc., for Linn, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Variance for the
extension of the canopy over the existing pump islands at the Amoco service station
located at 10910 Olson Memorial Highway, based on the following with respect to the
variance:
1. The site provides no particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical
conditions that would result in any particular hardship to the owner if the
strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out.
2. The conditions upon which the petition for variance is based, are not unique
to this parcel of land and could be applicable generally to any other property
within this Zoning District classification.
3. The purpose of the variance is partially based upon the petitioner's desire to
increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Ricker . , 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.
A
Pwnp aad Met" geu ce, -low. SERVICE • SALES • INSTALLATION
1800 2ND STREET SO. - (612) 933-4800 - HOPKINS, MN 55343
On Cty. Rd. 3 - Just West of Cty. Rd. 18)
May 3, 1989
City of Plymouth r -_
Attn: Mr. Dillerud
Community Development Coordinator
3400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit (88030) r.4`
Amoco 10910 Olson Memorial Highway z`crl
Mr. Dillerud:
In 1988, formal application was made to the City of Plymouth for consideration
of approval to install a canopy at the above site. This request was denied.
We obtained permits and proceeded to replace the underground tanks, piping and
related dispenser islands. Upon completion, Amoco Oil Co. has informed the
owner that they would not deliver product after January 31, 1989 due to unsafe
transport maneuverability on the site. As a consequence, it was required by
Amoco, that in order to continue being supplied, the side diesel island must
be relocated to an area that would not create a traffic safety hazard for
transport deliveries. I have enclosed drawings that were originally submitted
to the City for approval and you can consider this plan as the "as built"
drawing.
We are submitting application to re -install the side diesel island along the
western curb line as shown on the enclosed drawings. I've been told that this
will require an amendment to the existing conditional use permit.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
fK,
PUMP & METER SERVICE, INC.
ME/jr
YF Me[11
Fueling Systems — Electronic Gauging & CIL' Self Sero Equipment — Compressors
Inventory Controls — Fiberglass Tanks & Pipe ,,,,, Auto Lifts & Parts — Service Station Pumps
E
fz_
46 1
1-1
1p
N
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
therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for purposes of evalua-
tion againmendationhtosthedards of this Sectiong Public
City Council, which shall make the
gg and
fi al
determinationnt
fas
recommends
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.
and
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not
orderly development and improvement of surrounding
impede fpropertyn
for uses
Y
permitted in the District.
5) Adequate measures
desig ed as to minimize ttraffic congestion
aken to provide ginsthee
andparkingsopublic
streets.
5) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the appli-
cable regulations of the district in which it is located.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REPORT DATE
FILE NO.:
PETITIONER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
GUIDE PLAN CLASS:
ZONING:
BACKGROUND:
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
August 10, 1989 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 23, 1989
89055
Donald Trotter
Amended RPUD Plan and Conditional Use Permit to Allow
Retention of Deck Built Without Permit and "Zero Lot Line"
Setback for the Deerwood Estates RPUD (RPUD 81-1)
11205 48th Avenue North
LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
RPUD 78-6
On February 2, 1981, by Resolution 81-88, the City Council approved the
Concept Plan and Preliminary Plan for the development then called "Deerwood
Meadows". During 1981, by Resolution 81-409, the RPUD Final Plan/Plat were
approved for this same RPUD now renamed "Deerwood Estates".
This home was constructed in 1986, including the deck as it now appears. The
house was final inspected and approved for occupancy in error, with respect to
the location of the deck in relation to approved side setback for this RPUD.
The error was identified during an unrelated inspection during 1987. The
property owner was advised of the violation in 1987. In October 1988, the
property owner was again notified of his violation of the Building Code.
There was no follow up to either notification by the City. The property owner
was advised that the deck both violated setback requirements and was located
in the 6 -foot drainage and utility easement.
In June 1989, the City Council approved vacation of the easement subject to
subsequent approval of an adjustment to allow the setback. The Council did
not grant or imply they would grant an adjustment prior to proper review and
hearing. The property owner, with this application, requests an after -the -
fact setback adjustment through PUD Plan amendment, as is proper in RPUD.
Notice of this public hearing was published in the official city newspaper and
mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
see next page)
Page Two
File 89055
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant proposes to retain a deck addition which was constructed
without a permit. We understand the applicant no longer resides in this
home. The existing deck extends into the side yard setback a distance of
approximately 10 feet leaving, 14/100th feet between the deck and the side
property line. The RPUD Plan for Deerwood Estates calls for a minimum
side yard setback of 10 feet to a living area and 6 feet to a non -living
area.
2. Section 9, Subdivision A, paragraph 2a of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance
provides standards upon which the Planning Commission shall review any
application for a Conditional Use Permit. A copy of the subject Ordinance
provisions is attached. The petitioner has provided a written response to
the Conditional Use Permit standards, also attached.
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.
3. 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 on Zoning Ordinance standards
on behalf of the City. One of those concessions was the reduction of the
side yard setback from the Ordinance standard 15 feet in the R -1A Zone to
the 10 foot specified in the Planned Unit Development approval for a
living area. 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
100 percent 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 on several recent petitions of 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 form the basis for the Planned Unit
Development Conditional Use Permit. The lot size, lot width and setbacks
are less than what would be permissible under "conventional" R -IA zoning.
The developer of this subdivision received these concessions for home
construction in return for committing a sizeable parcel of property, and
certain other concessions on the developers part.
see next page)
Page Three
File 89055
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 many other RPUDs
within this community.
2. The foregoing not withstanding, the petitioner here proposes what amounts
to a zero lot line. We find no hardship or unique parcel features that
would support a total elimination of side setback.
3. There clearly was an administrative error in the original final inspection
of this home related to the deck location, compounded by the passage of
time and a lack of follow up on at least two efforts to correct the
violation. It is significant that no plans showing this (or any) deck
were approved by the City. There has also been a recent City Council
action to contingently resolve conflict between the deck and the
drainage/utility easement.
Neither the original administrative error and subsequent enforcement
oversight, nor recent Council actions regarding the easement alone form an
adequate basis for approval of this request. This application should be
considered primarily on the PUD related findings in the same manner as
have the several similar applications that have preceded it.
RECOMMENDATION:
We have attached 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 a draft of recommended conditions that would
accompany a recommendation of approval. Staff recommends denial of the
conditional use permit based on the comments noted above.
Submitted by:? 4CharesE. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Finding 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 Communications
4. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
5. Location
6. Lot Survey
pc/cd/89055:dl)
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED RPUD PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE
DEERWOOD ESTATES RPUD (RPUD 81-1) (89055)
1. The request is not responsive to Residential Planned Unit Development
Conditional 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 AN AMENDED RPUD PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE DEERWOOD
ESTATES RPUD (RPUD 81-1) (89055)
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; and the unique
circumstances related to the actions precedent to this application.
IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF DONALD TROTTER FOR AMENDMENT TO THE
CONDITIONAL USE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 9 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE
TO: THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH
The application of Donald Trotter for Amendment to the
Conditional use is brought in order to enable him to maintain the
existing deck which is attached to his house within the
development. Mr. Trotter purchased this home with the deck
already constructed and approved by the City of Plymouth.
Therefore, we believe the approval of this application will have
no detrimental effect upon the comprehensive plan.
Upon a review of the criteria spelled out in Section 9 of the
Zoning Ordinance, I see no reason why this application should be
denied. In permitting the applicant to keep the deck as is would
be fair and reasonable. The allowance of a deck on residential
property is not detrimental to or endangering to the public
health, safety, morals or comfort. Further, the deck will not be
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor
substantially diminish and impair property values within the
neighborhood. In fact, the deck enhances the property value of
the subject property and is appropriate and normal for
residential purposes.
The approval of this application will have no adverse affect on
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district, and ingress, egress
and parking problems are not a factor.
The applicant has already successfully sought and received a
vacating of the utility easement as a prerequisite to this
action. We would hope that this action will be approved in order
to complete the process of allowing the deck to remain as
constructed. .
Respectfully submitte,
Zr----
Michael C. Mjden, Atty ID# 16057X
8400 Lyndale Avenue So th, Suite 7
Bloomington, MN 55420
612) 888-2400
Attorney for Applicant,
Donald A. Trotter
w6m
s-
Imi
3-
111l=m7l
W01
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. I BOND N0.
LAND SURVEYORS SCALE I" 20
F.
0—DENOTES IRON
REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
7601.73rd Avenue North 660.3093
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 IT
Ourargors larrmtraw
8 fh Rve. /.
0
I
h i
in
V
6.03
Z2.0
m `'h
N N V
4.5 b.o
I
I
Survey of the East line of \
Lot 7. Block 5, DEEIMM ESTATES \
The only easements shown are from plats of record or infomutlon provided by
client.
V* hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of s survey of the
boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and via.
Ible encroachments, If any, from or on said land.
Surveyed by us this_ 5th day of July 19 89
Sued
0 Cle,3r
Corner of desk on /rne,
co
Y)
f\
O
N
Minn. Reg. No. 6743
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 9, Subdivision B
10) A Natural Resource Analysis containing the existing vegetation areas
consisting of forest and woodlots as well as wetlands and wetland vege-
tation; the geology, slope, soil and ground water characteristics of the
site; existing lakes, streams, ponds, drainage swales, run-off settling
areas, and floodplains must be identified; analysis of the relationship
of the proposed use of the existing natural conditions listed above.
11) Circulation - including vehicular and pedestrian movement throughout the
site, relationship to the City Thoroughfare Guide Plan and the adjoining
land, a descriptive statement of objectives and standards for the var-
ious circulation elements and the proposed jurisdiction of each
component.
12) Densities and distribution for the various residential categories, pro-
jected occupant characteristics and projected market sales price of the
housing units. These tabulations will be used to evaluate the adequacy
of living space, open space, educational facilities, utility systems,
traffic generations and other services both public and private.
13) Mass grading - indicating which areas must be adapted to allow the dev-
elopment proposed and how it will visually and physically affect adjoin-
ing lands, and what soil erosion and sediment controls are to be
employed.
14) Staging plan indicating geographic staging and approximate sequence of
the plan or portions thereof.
i. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing or hearings on the P.U.D.
Preliminary Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat and Zoning Amend-
ment in the manner prescribed in Section 11.
j. The Planning Commission, after holding the public hearing, shall make its
recommendations to the City Council for approval; approval with conditions; or
denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a P.U.D., preliminary plat and rezon-
ing if considered.
The Planning Commission shall forward to the City Council its recommendations
based on and including, but not limited to the following:
1) Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit
Development.
2) Relationship of the proposed plan to the neighborhood in which it is
proposed to be located, to the City's Comprehensive Plan and to other
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
3) Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities; circu-
lation and parking facilities; recreation areas and open spaces.
9-17
i
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
therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for purposes of evalua-
tion against the dards of this
City
Councils
which shall
makctiong
Public e the
Hearing,
al
determinationnt
fas
recommendationY
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.
and
4) The establishment of the conditional
impede
propertynormal
uses
orderly development and improvement of surrounding
permitted in the District.
st
5) Adequate ares have been or will be
ng so designed as to minimizett affic congestion
aken to provide ginsthe e
andparkipublic
streets.
5) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the appli-
cable regulations of the district in which it is located.
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: August 16, 1989
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Community Development Coordinator h Dillerud
SUBJECT: A.A.G. BUILDERS. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GARAGE ADDITION
LOCATED AT 3375 ROSEWOOD LANE (89056)
Attached is the Staff Report of August 3, 1989 regarding the above subject.
The Public Hearing for this item was continued at the August 9, 1989 Planning
Commission Meeting until the meeting of August 23, 1989.
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:
BACKGROUND:
RPUD 78-6
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)
A
or
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 COWENTS:
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 Der ft based on the cents 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.
r
a in the Outdo -
Custom built three and four season sunrooms, decks and cabinets
5645 LEAF TRAIL NEW PRAGUE, MN 56071 Dave Skiuzacek (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 11'8"
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,
ayid />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
therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for purposes of evalua-
tion against the standards of this Section, Public Hearing, and development of a
recommendation to the City Council, which shall make the final determination as
to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its con-
formance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will
promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimen-
tal to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already
permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within
the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses
permitted in the District.
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.
s
t
am
I
t `
x`
0
MM
V
Planning Commission Minutes
August 9, 1989
Page 205
issioner Wire asked if more details on the sculpture would
be a table on August 23rd.
Ms. O'Donne tated that if the sculpture plans were expanded,
they would bring a plans back for review.
Commissioner Stulberg s d that he was concerned about the
color, materials, and subje of the sculpture and would like
to review them.
Commissioner Marofsky stated that this uld be considered a
denial of freedom of speech if the Commissi0 ried to regulate
the sculpture.
Roll Call Vote. 4 Ayes, Commissioner Marofsky Nay.TION VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
carried.
Commissioner Pierce stated that he was in favor of the
sculpture but wanted more details before approving it.
Roll Call Vote on Main Motion as amended. 5 Ayes. MOTION VOTE - MOTION TARQ ED
carried.
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced the request of A.A.G.
Builders for a Conditional Use Permit for a garage addition
located at 3375 Rosewood Lane.
The reading of the August 3, 1989 Staff Report was. waived.
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. John Giebenhain, the
property owner.
Vice Chairman Stulberg called a 5 minute recess to allow the
property owner to read the Staff Report of August 3, 1989 as
the report had not been picked up by the petitioner or his
contractor.
The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
Mr. Giebenhain stated 'that he was not aware of other options
available for the garage addition that would not require an
amendment to the RPUD. He stated he would like some time to
look at other options.
Vice Chairman Stulberg opened the Public Hearing.
Vice Chairman Stulberg proposed the Public Hearing be continued
until a further date so that the property owner could consult
with his builder, and look at other options for the garage
addition.
A.A.G. BUILDERS (89056)
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner Wire MOTION TO CONTINUE
to continue the Public Hearing on this petitioner's request to
the meeting of August 23, 1989.
Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
REPORT DATE
FILE NO.:
PETITIONER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
GUIDE PLAN CLASS:
ZONING:
BACKGROUND:
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
August 14, 1989, COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 23, 1989
89063
City of Plymouth
Mixed Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and Conditional
Use Permit Amendment, Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, MPUD Final
Plan, and Final Plat
Southeast Corner of Plymouth Boulevard and 37th Avenue North
CC (Community Shopping Center and Public/Semi-Public)
MPUD 78-2, B-1 (Office Limited Business District), FRD (Future
Restricted Development), and RPUD 84-5
The City Council, under Resolution 77-139, approved the general development plan for
the Plymouth Hills Plat involving this land. The City Council under Resolution 78-
530 approved a revised general development plan for Plymouth Hills Company for
Plymouth Hills Addition.
Since that time, there have been many revisions and some buildings constructed
within the Plymouth Hills Addition (aka Downtown Plymouth). In June 1987, the City
Council, under Resolution 87-333, approved the Mixed Planned Unit Development Plan
amendment for Kenneth Streater, Plymouth Hills Shops, for the site across Plymouth
Boulevard from the City Center. That was not developed.
Under the approved Preliminary Plan, this site was envisioned to have a "theme
center" located on it; the use was contemplated as a retail focal point with
discretionary shopping" such as Bonaventure in Minnetonka.
A Hearing Notice has been published in the official city newspaper, and property
owners within 500 feet have been notified. A development sign was also placed on
this property.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The PUD Preliminary Plan amendment is to change the theme center site of the
Plymouth Hills PUD to a site for the Community Center. The PUD Final Site
Plan is for the Community Center site.
The Preliminary Plat is for the creation of 4 lots, both inside and outside
of the Planned Unit Development. The Final Plat is for the 4 lots.
see next page)
Page Two
File 89063
The rezoning, from FRD (Future Restricted Development) and B-2 (shopping
center) to B-1 (office limited business), involves a portion of the land
which is now outside the MPUD.
The Plymouth Hills MPUD Amendment also includes addition of 20 acres now
outside the original MPUD to the east of the Community Center site (now park
land) and to the south (a portion of the City Hall site). This increases the
size of the Community Center site with no significant impact on the sites
from which the additional area is being removed. All land involved is owned
by the City of Plymouth.
2.- The Zoning Ordinance provides that the Planning Commission, after holding a
Public Hearing, shall make its recommendation to the City Council regarding a
PUD Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit based on, and including the
following:
a. Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit
Development.
b. Relationship of the proposed plan to the neighborhood in which it is
proposed to be located, to the City's Comprehensive Plan and to other
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
C. Internal organization and adequacy of various use or densities;
circulation and parking facilities; recreation areas and open space.
3. The physical constraints analysis identifies this property as located within
the Bassett Creek Drainage District. The site is also located within the
general development classification of the Shoreland area and contains some
wet lands. It does contain some major woodlands and severe slopes. There
are some unsuitable soils for urban capability with public sewers, however,
not within the building site area for the community center.
4. The MPUD Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit are in compliance
with the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The MPUD Final Site Plan presented is responsive to several City Ordinances,
codes and policies that regulate the design of the site. The Final Site Plan
responds affirmatively to the City of Plymouth's codes/ordinances with
respect to landscaping; trash storage (screened enclosure); roof top
equipment (none proposed); and other related features.
The Final Site Plan reflects the petitioner's desire to construct 424
offstreet parking spaces. The Zoning Ordinance formula requires 501 . The
petitioner demonstrates on the MPUD Final Site Plan that 598 spaces can be
constructed on the site, if required. The petitioner proposes deferral of
the construction of 77 spaces (501 less 424) as a PUD design flexibility
element.
6. The architectural design of the structure has been reviewed for compliance
with the "standards and criteria regarding site and building aesthetics in
architectural design." Proposed is wall surfaces of earthtone decorative
see next page)
Page Three
File 89063
block and brick, with painted metal panels and extensive glass. The hip roof
over much of the structure adds distinctive architecture to the proposal not
reflected in many buildings of this size (120,843 square feet on a site of
40.58 acres).
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The amendment to the Plymouth Hills MPUD to substitute the Community Center
for the previously approved "theme center" and integrate the 20 acres of
existing City owned land south and east of the Community site appears
consistent with the purposes and intent of the original PUD Plan. This site
was intended as the location for a unique facility of which only one would be
located in the community. The Community Center proposed clearly fits that
category as well. The plan amendment also reflects a positive relationship
to the surrounding neighborhood and the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Ordinance.
The internal organization and adequacy of the use proposed and the densities
circulations or parking facilities are appropriate.
2. The "conventional" Preliminary Plat and Final Plat, covering the entire area
of public ownership are responsive to the requirements and specifications of
the Subdivision Ordinance. It consolidates the public properties and
provides a "clean" land holding.
3. The MPUD Final Plan/Final Site Plan for the Community Center site is
responsive to the MPUD Preliminary Plan, as proposed for amendment concurrent
with this action. In addition, the Site Plan is responsive to the existing
physical constraints of the site and, except as noted with reference to
parking, meets the requirements of the various codes, policies and ordinances
of the City of Plymouth as to design of facilities of that type.
4. We find the proposal for PUD design flexibility to allow the deferral of
construction of 77 offstreet parking spaces that the Zoning Ordinance would
otherwise require to be reasonable. This finding is based on the
demonstrated ability to construct up to 598 parking spaces (97 more than the
Zoning Ordinance would otherwise require) on this site.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the Amended MPUD Preliminary Plan/Plat/Conditional
Use Permit; the MPUD Final Plan and Site Plan; the Preliminary Plat and the Final
Plat related to/fi-eylymouth Cowgn enter project,.—,
Submitted by:
Charles E. Dillerud, Cbmdunity Development Coordinator
Attachments:
1. Conditions for Approval for Plymouth Community Center Applications
2. Engineer's Memo
3. Letter From the Park Director in Support of Offstreet Parking Design
Flexibility
4. Location Map
5. Approved Plymouth Hills MPUD Plan
6. Large Plans
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO FINAL PLAT FOR
PLYMOUTH CENTER 3RD ADDITION LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PLYMOUTH
BOULEVARD AND 37TH AVENUE NORTH (89063)
1. The Ordinance rezoning the property shall be published upon evidence that
the Final Plat has been filed and recorded with Hennepin County.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's
expense.
3. 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.
4. No yard setback variances are granted or implied.
5. Submittal of required utility and drainage easements as approved by the
City Engineer prior to filing the Final Plat.
6. No Building Permits to be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded
with Hennepin County.
7. The Final Plat mylars shall contain a statement noting that the plat is, in
part, part of the approved MPUD 78-2 and RPUD 84-5 per Section 9 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING AMENDED MPUD PRELIMINARY PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND MPUD FINAL
SITE PLAN FOR PLYMOUTH CENTER 3RD ADDITION (89063) (MPUD 78-3)
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 enclosure, 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.
pc/cd/89063:jw)
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 16, 1989
89063
Mr. Dan Faulkner, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, Mn. 55447
PLYMOUTH CENTER 3rd ADDITION
North of 34th Avenue, east of Plymouth Boulevard, west of
Fernbrook Lane in the south half of Section 16 and the north half
of Section 21.
1. X _ Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. _ X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and
No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of final plat approval.
4. Area assessments: Non .
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None.
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. Twenty foot
drainage and utilities easements shall be provided over Lots 2. 3.
and 4 Block 1 for the existing sanitary sewer and for the control
structure for Pond BC -P8 on Lot 3.
X — Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year
high water elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive
storm water drainage plan.
9. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been
vacated
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-way to
facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process in
conjunction with the platting process. It is the owner's
responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of
easements proposed to be vacated. Existing 10 foot drainage and
utility easement adjacent to vacated 37th Avenue and the existing 6
foot drainage and utility easements along the north line of Lot 1.
Block 1. Plymouth Center 2nd Addition.
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
MnDOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
N
X Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
X 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.
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.
3
N/A Yes No
17. X Preliminary utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements
The developer has submitted the required preliminary plans for the
proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities.
18. X Per developer's request a preliminary report and plan will be
prepared by the City -
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as
part of its Capital Improvements Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1,
of the year preceding construction.
19. _ _ X Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots. The minimum basement elevation shall be 955.0.
20. X The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
21. X The ,preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
4
PRELIMINARY GRADING DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
N/A Yes No
22. X It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility
foreman, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility
connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The
developer shall also be responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the
Public Works Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging
within the City right-of-way. All water connections shall be via
wet tap.
23. _ _ X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted to
the City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if it is in
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All
of their recommendations shall be incorporated in a revised plan.
The grading and drainage plan shall also indicate proposed methods of
erosion control, including the placement of silt fence in strategic
locations. Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary:
Final grading plana shall comply with all agency permits.
Submitted by:
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
5
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: August 16, 1989
FILE NO.: 89063
PETITIONER: Mr. Dan Faulkner, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, west of Fernbrook Lane in
the south half of Section 16 and the north half of Section 21.
FINAL PLAT: PLYMOUTH CENTER 3rd ADDITION
LOCATION: North of 34th Avenue, east of Plymouth Boulevard, west of Fernbrook
Lane in the south half of Section 16 and the north half of Section
21.
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. _ X _
2. — X _
3. —X-
4.
5.
Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
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.
Area assessments: None.
Other additional assessments estimated: None.
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 construction plans and the following
changes are necessary: Twenty foot drainage and utilities
easements shall be Brovided over Lots 2 3 and 4 Block 1 for the
existing sanitary sewer and for the control structure for Pond BC -
P8 on Lot 3.
8. _ X Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100
year high water elevation and conformance with the City's
comprehensive storm water drainage plan.
9. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-way
to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process
in conjunction with the platting process. It is the owner's
responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions
of easements proposed to be vacated. Existing 10 foot drainage
and utility easements adjacent to vacated 37th Avenue and the
existing 6 foot drainage and utility easements along the north
line of Lot 1 Block 1 Plymouth Center 2nd Addition.
10. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to
the City with this application - If it is subsequently determined
that the subiect -property is abstract nrooerty, then this
requirement does not aptly.
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the city
attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the
11. X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following
X DNR
Mn DOT
Hennepin
MPCA
permits must be obtained by the developer:
X Bassett Creek
County
State Health Department
2
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
X Army Corps of Engineers
Other
N/A Yes No
12. X _ Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the
City grid system for street names. The following changes will be
necessary.
13. X Conforms with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's
adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
14. X Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/ deceleration lanes are required at the intersection
of and
15. X All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on
UTILITIES:
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.
W
N/A Yes No
17. X Final utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements -
The developer has submitted the required construction plans for
the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities;
and has also furnished profiles of these utilities as well as the
proposed street system (public and private).
18. X _ Per developer's request final plans will be prepared by the City.
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities
as part of its Capital Improvements Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1
of the year preceding construction, if the developer is paying
100% of the cost.
19. — _ X Minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots. The minimum basement elevation shall be 955.0.
20. X The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
21. X _ _ The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
4
N/A Yes No
22. X It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's public
utility foreman, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed
utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water
systems. The developer shall also be responsible for contacting
Jim Kolstad of the Public Works Department for an excavating
permit prior to any digging within the City right-of-way. All
water connections shall be via wet tap.
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: Final grading plans shall comply with all
agency hermits.
Submitted by:w'.{
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
k,
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: August 16, 1989
FILE NO.: 89063
PETITIONER: Mr. Dan Faulkner, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, Mn., 55447
SITE PLAN: PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY CENTER
LOCATION: North of 34th Avenue, east of Plymouth Boulevard, west of Fernbrook
Lane in the south one half of Section 16 and the north one half of
Section 21.
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. X Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. _ X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and
No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Site Plan approval:
4. Area assessments estimated - None.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None.
LEGAL/EASEMENTS/PERMITS:
6. X Property is one parcel -
The approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot
consolidation be approved by the City Council and the necessary
resolution should be processed at the same time as the site plan
approval. Will comQly with the filing of the final plat of Plymouth
Center 3rd Addition.
N/A Yes No
7. _ _ X Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in
width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required
it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents
executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any
building permits.) See Item 6.
8. _ _ X Complies with ponding requirements - See Item 6.
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100
year high water elevation and conformance with the City's
comprehensive storm water requirements.
9. X All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities. See Item 6.
10. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-way
to facilitate the development. It should be noted that this
vacation is not an automatic process in conjunction with the
platting process. It is entirely dependent upon the City receiving
a petition for the vacation from the property owner; therefore, it
is their responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. The 10 foot
drainage and utility easement adjacent to vacated 37th Avenue and
the 6 foot drainage and utility easements along the north line of
Lot 1, Block 1 Plymouth Center 2nd Addition.
11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
2-
N/A Yes No
12. _ _ X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
X DNR
MN DOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
X Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
X 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: Shall
comply with all agency germits.
14. _ X Necessary fire hydrants provided -
15. — X
16. — X
The City of Plymouth requires that all parts of a building such as
the one proposed be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant. It will be
necessary to locate hydrants in such a manner that the site plan
complies with this section of the City Ordinance.
Size and type of material proposed in utility systems has been
provided
The utility plan shall be revised to indicate the size and type of
material required in the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain services
and storm sewer.
Post indicator valve - fire department connection
It will be necessary to locate the post indicator valve in such a
manner that it will not render any of the existing fire hydrants
inoperable.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. _ X _ Hydrant valves provided -
All new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City
Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W-2. This plate should be
referenced on the site plan.
18. _ X Sanitary sewer clean -outs provided -
It will be necessary to provide clean -outs on the proposed internal
sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot intervals.
19. X _ Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
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.
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. See Items 6 7. 8 9 10 11 12. 13
and 16.
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
27.A The storm sewer outlets shall be lowered to 954.5.
Submitted by:L4 GC lGt 1
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
89o(')3
July 28, 1989 `
CITY OF
PLYMOUTH+
Chuck Dillerud
Community Development Coordinator
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
SUBJECT: PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY CENTER, PRELIMINARY PLAT, FINAL PLAT, SITE PLAN
APPROVAL
Dear Chuck:
With the submittal of our community center project, we wish to call to your
attention two variances that the project owner wishes to request. These
variances are as follows:
1. PARKING
Per city code, the required parking for this building would be 500
spaces. We are proposing to construct initially with the building
415 parking spaces. On our site plan, we have shown proof of parking
for 615 parking spaces, or an additional 200. Our reasons for
requesting this are as follows:
a. An attempt to keep to a minimum the asphalt surfaces within this
park setting.
b. The large number of parking stalls is primarily a factor of the
ice arena component of the building. From analyzing the
attendance at lake conference hockey games, we believe that
seating in the ice arena maximum capacity would be reached less
than eight days per year. Depending on what activities are going
on in the rest of the building during those peak crowd times, we
fully anticipate that our parking lot will meet the needs of all
building visitors. If, for some reason, parking should exceed
the anticipated demand, which would primarily be on Saturday
evenings after 6 p.m., we anticipate that overflow parking would
be available at City Center. If parking were to become a
problem, the City certainly would have the land to make the
necessary additional parking available to correct the situation.
By way of reference, although our arena will seat approximately
950 individuals, during 1989, Armstrong High School averaged 431
spectators per game and Cooper High School averaged 379
spectators per game.
2. FIRE LANE
We are requesting a variance from the fire lane ordinance requiring a
fire lane to be built entirely around the building structure. Our
reasons for requesting this variance are:
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
Chuck Dillerud
PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY CENTER PLAT
Page 2
a. Site conditions such as trees and slope do not lend themselves to
the construction of a fire lane. Much unnecessary destruction of
trees would be required to build the fire lane. This is a park
setting and a park building, and the aesthetics of the fire lane
really are not in keeping with the intended use of the park and
building.
That portion of the building which will not have fire lane is the
south and east portion of the swimming pool. This component of
the building is made up of totally hard surfaces, such as
concrete, tile, glass and block. The likelihood of a fire would
be quite remote.
The entire building, including the swimming pool, will be
sprinkled, thus reducing the chance of major fires.
To the best of our knowledge, we believe that the submittal meets all other
codes, conditions and ordinances of the City of Plymouth.
We appreciate your time and attention to this matter, and we look forward to
working with you and your staff through the development review process.
If I can be of further assistance, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
LF'— _.
Eric J. Blank, Director
Parks and Recreation
EJB/np
cc: James G. Willis, City Manager
Steve Patrick, Architect
Dan Faulkner, Engineer
V'Q(
AIL
pLVGIOOMLNT •L w
PLYMOUTu WILLb
DEC •e as
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE August 10, 1989 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 23, 1989
FILE NO.: 89066
PETITIONER: Howard and Desolyn Olson
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit
Amendment to Cimarron Ponds for a three season porch 10' x
14' to be constructed to the patio home within the Cimarron
Ponds development.
LOCATION: 970 Xene Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -3 (High Medium Density Residential)
ZONING: RPUD 76-3
BACKGROUND:
The Cimarron Ponds RPUD was approved as preliminary plan/plat by City Council
Resolution 76-680 on November 15, 1976. The plat called for 228 patio homes
and 18 single family homes. The project has been constructed basically as
approved in 1976. In 1981, by Resolution 81-761; in 1986, by Resolution 86-
313; and, in 1988, by Resolution 88-545, the City Council has approved
conditional use permit amendments to the RPUD to allow construction of
additions to other patio homes within the project.
Notice of this proposal has been published in the official city newspaper and
notices have been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The three season porch is of the type now becoming common throughout the
community. The porch is similar to those constructed previously within
this development. The porch is designed to be constructed to match the
existing residence to the maximum extent possible.
2. The final plan/plat for the Cimarron Ponds Addition depicted exact
structure footprints within the confines of the platted lots. The plan
approval, in that case, established the setbacks, lot coverage and related
matters based on the plan, rather than on a numeric standard.
A feature of each of the original patio homes is a concrete patio 10' x
15', constructed on the portion of the site now proposed for the three
season porch. Various non -structural -type screen enclosures have been
see next page)
Page Two
File 89066
installed on many of the patio slabs throughout the development. Due to
the nature of those non-structural enclosures, no building permits have
been required.
3. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider a
conditional use permit of this type in terms of the 6 criteria found in
Section 9, Subdivision A, paragraph 2.A. We have attached a copy of the
referenced citation together with a handwritten response to those criteria
from the petitioner.
The Planning Commission must also consider this particular conditional use
permit in terms of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance Preliminary Plan
and Plat Review Criteria found in Section 9, Subdivision B, paragraph 5.C.
of the Zoning Ordinance. We have also attached a copy of this ordinance
citation.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. We find the proposal to construct the three season porch responds
positively to the conditional use permit criteria and the Planned Unit
Development Preliminary Plan/Plat findings with respect to issues
involving general public welfare; orderly development and improvement of
surrounding property and uses; compliance with, and effect upon
Comprehensive Plan Elements; and, impacts upon the community
infrastructure and other sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Our usual
concern in matters such as this with regard to storm water drainage
considerations is mitigated in this case by the existence of the concrete
patios of very similar dimensions to the three season porch that will
replace it. Little, or no change will result.
The primary determination in this matter is that of the impact on the
immediately adjoining property. In this case, the proposed three season
porch will not be closer to the adjoining unit than the previous concrete
patios (with or without the screen enclosures). This project was designed
for a compact layout and the residents of the development purchased their
homes with knowledge that privacy for outdoor activities is limited.
Staff observes that many of the patios that now exist in the area already
occupied by non -structural -screened enclosures, and that the three season
porches, over time, will likely prove to be a more attractive alternative.
see next page)
Page Three
File 89066
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend Planning Commission adoption of the attached draft action
providing for amendment to the Cimarron Ponds RPUD (76-3) to permit
construction of WeN41ree seas=-Dorelt,at 970 Xe T-C&ne.
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
Ch
1. Draft Approval Action
2. Location Map
3. Petitioner's Narrative
4. Petitioner's Plan
5. Resolutions 76-680, 81-761, 86-313 and 88-545
6. Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria
7. PUD Preliminary Plan Review Criteria
pc/ac/89066:jw)
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT FOR HOWARD AND DESOLYN OLSON FOR CIMARRON PONDS (RPUD 76-3) (89066)
1. No other amendments or variances are granted or implied.
2. Submission of written verification that the Cimarron Ponds Homeowner
Association has approved the building addition prior to issuance of
building permits.
3. All applicable requirements of the City and State Building Codes shall be
implemented and enforced; no code requirements are waived by this
approval.
4. A finding is made that the proposed addition is within the ground cover
footprint (structure plus concrete patio) approved with the original RPUD
Plan. As such the degree of RPUD Plan amendment proposed is not of such
scale as to alter the balance of Zoning Ordinance flexibility to PUD
attributes found with the approved RPUD Plan.
U o ffff 9Ir EL 11 IL W `ii O
Fero 6c
4
GOVT LOT 5
2616. :2 RES.
l9,) ^ l91) (.: , , b r•rrrF C ROR
l Ie) -IC - , ,r (99) - (fib) , t S _ uci b -nnr ,-s•- - ,,, '
n.. t, (96) I 161, 4(5),t^ _l6}) R ,rl Ieb -1m1. 16ns ° _1,p1 -b. 'r r' tlw• 1 ; _
Y tl.'r ° - .' o n •' . ro
s a,. x.ai_ psiM 'I0. .ri•b• ,a i+' .t. 1,51 )] _ ,b. X' , •
n °_
auraefH'
3i
g-AO
r
5uF5
C Y 12tH
e.7
buE. W. Y
o tl' ra (
63;
D6)
2t) Y 1 Y ps > 1rtf.r J•.e N ry f• GV
ENEF
Ile
1 ,e,•b •`> , ``i/
ae! '., /
s,
Zv )s1„ ,
e s
o+ `
p. '°tl ,
2.
r. or .q s. a.. r,r'
m
a'
F•_
z 'b \l`Y x ` 2 y n >n 1 e,
2
n m ^' — wi i°
s'
x m'> ..
r3>•
r'(
b
1' 1 A 'w
M
b•,e.
I ap,
OS 5.21 Q • (13)
tF _ (
2e7
2+)
32)5•
a)
u) ;'
g seK; AVE•
J e) ^~ tlt $
17,
d. 8
51 \ 2
I , °$
w
p.,s' 1e) 6 }1Ig rt 129.
M• -
i'I
9lv .
R° j,,F d
W 4 9 a _ s A 1 97 (}
1 b.• Lp _
a 120 L t w •c P.. „ 7. a
i,,,E y. °
P • 7a (6) (23)
61 6i
e• ,
z 1
S
v
i1 ,_, (12`n VVV o
e fsloy (}•)
d AVE.
i ;eY ( a
sc
a = • g, ,27
w7k•
Epi
4 O
I s
f o n , i10)
Y .I y ~ (
N• F i5 -. 26
6. !•`lp I 135. 4.5 t_
r b. ,r • tx ^
ys•ar• zJe.fi" •\ •'1 I -
1.
b n,a b
n`a
t `
a . , 31 a :5) ' •a. •'P
wtsr (
27) (3U
r
i(26i :>• ° _ ,.
s ar 8 • .> la7,s ; ,• .•b. . C' .> nser N n•
8 (.'
337
GOV'T. LOT 6 GOVT. LOT 6
4
STORM SEwEP ::S 3:>UNDAP` .:a;,, — •.
I+E GE
I/A LS NI%® ... _. _. _
SCHOOL D:S r._i &:ONCAP, ..c'v\c'-:'. :..\ .\.._, -
A,— RSHE. ':SIP:-' KUNDAP,
H
3139 12 139 5e e' ,
1 4W) 4ff1 49) it 41F 1) a', 19 1 1 ) t)f) f ( f f " 9 fs V, ( ('
C7o &
IMARRon Ponns Nome owners Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 261
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
July 12, 1989
Howard Olson
970 Xene Lane
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Howard and Des,
The Architectural Control Committee has approved your
request to build a three season porch. Please be advised
that you will be totally responsible for all types of
maintenance on this structure.
The structure looks like it will gratly enhance the area.
Good luck on construction and enjoy!
Sin rely, _
ynne R. Taylor.%'
President
Buildingfbj - y/O Xene Lane
1D
APp o Zo 0
d -O 0Sc7
o uJ , \7
l
T
C
4-
r. i < v,
i 0 -A
N
0
C17
ria
9
4 is Z Q " 3
Z4.3
ka 953 0
S
28.99 .01E'ST-
0 Denot;::> Wood Stake
1000.0) Denotes Proposed Elevation
Denotes Direction of Surface Drainage
Proposed Garage Floor Elevation 952.9
Proposed Lowest Floor Elevation = 953-6
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of:
Lot 63, Block 2, CIMARRON PONDS 2ND ADDITION,
Hennepin County, Minnesota
15; -Q-- /t7-
And of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or
on said land. It also shows the locaton of the stakes as sot for a proposed building. As supveyed
by me this 3 day of rA i 197""_.
Thomas S. Bergc,iiist:
Land Surveyor, Minn. Reg. No. 7725
SCALE -
1"=20E CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYPT',"'
nNADCOK
ASSOCIATES, INC, for
1 CONSULTING (NGIN(LAS IAND SURVIVORS SIT( I(ANN(AS
MINN(AFOLIS-NUTCITINSON and MARSNALL•MINNESOTA 3T70 1 C%r)TU1',101i CONI'T\l!y
er&GBEH -4 A -
mw -n:44 %*f
9._D
r 41" / ,
I
o
I.ceE 1i .I
I I I
I I
I L 1
fzot 14'r. 'P
Cm of PLYMOUTH
su nt to due call and notice theteot,:d Regular meeting of the City Council of
he City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was hold -on the zna day of June . 1986
The following members were present: Mayor Schneider', Councilme ers Crain,
Sisk, Vasilou and Zitur The
folLowu members were absent: none
Councilmember Sisk introduced the following Resotution and moved its
rz; y adoptions
rs
RESOLUTION NO. 86- 313
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR MELVIN H. TESLER FOR THE
RESIDENCE AT 1250 ARCHER LANE (86047) (RPUD 76-3)
1HEREAS9 Melvin H. Tesler has requested a Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Amendment to
allow the construction of a 11 ft. x 20 ft. addition to his residence at 1250 Archer
Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public
Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for Melvin H. Tesler for
a Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Amenment to construct an addition to his residence
at 1250 Archer Lane, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with applicable Building Code requirements shall be verified by the
City prior to Permit issuance.
2. Submission of written verification that the Cimarron Ponds Homeowner Association
has approved the building addition prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. The basis for the approval is that other units in the development are similar to
this residence; and, the exterior will match the others.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by _
Councilmember Vasiliou and upon vote being taken thereon, thafoollowing
voted In favor thereof: or c ne der Councilmembers Crain Sisk
Vasiliou and_Zitur_ _ _ _ he following
voted against or abstainedt none Whereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
r+'µM iS= 'Y . ,i, r• 'r? 4r 5, v.,ti fi;s ". .+
T` . ".t. ,'.
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting oftheCityCounciloftheCityofPlymouth, Minnesota was held on the
2nd day of November 19 81 . The following members were
present:Mar Davenport, Councilmem ers Hoyr eils, Schneider and Threinen.
The folowingmenbers were absent:- none
Councilmember Schneider introduced the following Resolution andmoveditsadoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 81-761
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ROBERT AND DOROTHY
ATKINSON (81060)
WHEREAS, Robert and Dorothy Atkinson has requested approval of a conditional
use permit and site plan amendment to construct a 10' x 14' addition to
their duplex residence located at 1021 Yuma Lane, Lot 3, Block 1, Cimarron
Ponds 2nd Addition; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called
public hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the conditional
use permit and site plan amendment to construct a 10' x 14' addition to
their duplex residence located at 1021 Yuma Lane "Cimarron Ponds 2nd Addition"
subject to the following conditions:
1. This approval shall be contingent upon the partial vacation
of the existing utility and drainage easement along the
south side of Lot 3, Block 1, Cimarron Ponds 2nd Addition.
2. Submission of written verification that the Cimarron Ponds
Homeowners Association has approved the building' adcition
in accordance with the Homeowners agreement and bylaws.
3. That the bases for the approval are that there are units that
are similar to this in the development; the exterior would be
identical to others there and the sight lines are not
significantly altered.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
is
Councilmember Threinen , and upon vote being taken thereon, the0owingvotedtofavorthereof—. _Mayor Davenport, Councilmembers Hoyt,
npiriar and Threinen
The fo low ng votitd against or abstained: none
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF PLYN,00H
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting oftheCityCouncilof .the City of Plymouth, Minnesota was field on the the15thdayofNovember , 1976 . The following members ;,ere
t
present: Mayor R-17d_e,__Co_u_n_c_iTmen Hunt (Veils Seibold and SpaethThefollowingmemberswereabsent: None
Councilman Hunt introduced the following Resolution and moveditsadoption. --
RESOLUTION #76- 680
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR RPUD76-3 FOR CENTURION COMPANY (A-208)
WHEREAS, Centurion Company has requested preliminary plat and conditional use permitforpreliminaryplanapprovalforRPUD76-3 for 246 units, 228 patio home attachedunitsand18singlefamilylots, located at the northwest corner of Vicksburg LaneandtheLuceLineTrail;
AND, WHEREAS, the Plannicg Commission has reviewed said requests and recommendsapprovalthereof;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA that it should and hereby does approve the request of Centurion CompanyforpreliminaryplatandconditionalusepermitforpreliminaryplanapprovalforRPUD76-3 for 246 urits, 228 patio home attached units and 18 single family lotslocatedatthenorthwestcornerofVicksburgLaneandtheLuceLineTrailsubjecttothefollowingconditions:
I. Compliance with provisions of the City Engineer's memorandum of October 26, 1976.
2. Park Dedication shall consist of Outlots $ and C (l.l acres), Storm Water Drainagecredit (1.16 acres) and'fees in the amount nf S15,322.30.
3. Final plat submissions shall incl,ide a p',n for screening the visual impactcftheprr,ject from 9th Avenue North by way of landscaping on the Luce LineTrailright -of -wily in cooperation with the Minnesota Department. of r'atural Resources.
4. sinal plat submissions shall include a complete copy of the perma-leasedocL;ment referred to in petitioner's current subnr-ssions.
The ration for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly secondedby __ Councilman Neils orad upon voto lu i„; t t 11, „
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council of the
City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 13th day of September , 1988. The
following members were present: Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers Vasiliou, Ricker
and Zitur
The following members were absent: Councilmember Sisk
Councilmember Zitur introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 88-545
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMFNDMFNT
FOR BOB HUNTER FOR CIMARRON PONDS (RPUD 76-3) (88093)
WHEREAS, Bob Hunter, Bob's Energy Savings Service, has requested a Planned Unit
Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Amendment for three properties (1025 and 1141
Xene Lane, and 1025 Weston Lane) to allow the construction of three -season porches:
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public
Hearing and recommends approval:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for Bob Hunter for an
Residential Planned Unit Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Amendment for three
properties (1025 and 1141 Xene Lane, and 1031 Weston Lane) within the Cimarron Ponds
PUD to construct three 3 -season porches, pursuant to the following finding and
conditions:
1. No other amendments or variances are granted or implied.
2. Submission of written verification that the Cimarron Ponds Homeowner Association
has approved the building additions prior to issuance of Building Permits.
3. All applicable requirements of the City and State Building Codes shall be
implemented and enforced; no Code requirements are waived by this approval.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Ricker , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof: Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers Vasiliou, Ricker and Zitur
The follow no
voted against or abstained: None Whereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
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
therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for purposes of evalua-
tion against the dards of this Sectiong Public
City Council, which shall make the
Hearing,
determinationnt
fas
recommendationY
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 surroundingproperty for u es
permitted in the District.
or will be5)
andQparkingaso designed as to minimize
taken
ttraffic
congestionginsegress,
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.
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDI14ANCE
Section 9, Subdivision B
10) A Natural Resource Analysis containing the existing vegetation areas
consisting of forest and woodlots as well as wetlands and wetland vege-
tation; the geology, slope, soil and ground water characteristics of the
site; existing lakes, streams, ponds, drainage swales, run-off settling
areas, and floodplains must be identified; analysis of the relationship
of the proposed use of the existing natural conditions listed above.
11) Circulation - including vehicular and pedestrian movement throughout the
site, relationship to the City Thoroughfare Guide Plan and the adjoining
land, a descriptive statement of objectives and standards for the var-
ious circulation elements and the proposed jurisdiction of each
component.
12) Densities and distribution for the various residential categories, pro-
jected occupant characteristics and projected market sales price of the
housing units. These tabulations will be used to evaluate the adequacy
of living space, open space, educational facilities, utility systems,
traffic generations and other services both public and private.
13) Mass grading - indicating which areas must be adapted to allow the dev-
elopment proposed and how it will visually and physically affect adjoin-
ing lands, and what soil erosion and sediment controls are to be
employed.
14) Staging plan indicating geographic staging and approximate sequence of
the plan or portions thereof.
i. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing or hearings on the P.U.D.
Preliminary Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat and Zoning Amend-
ment in the manner prescribed in Section 11.
j. The Planning Commission, after holding the public hearing, shall make its
recommendations to the City Council for approval; approval with conditions; or
denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a P.U.D., preliminary plat and rezon-
ing if considered.
The Planning Commission shall forward to the City Council its recommendations
based on and including, but not limited to the following:
1) Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit
Development.
2) Relationship of the proposed plan to the neighborhood in which it is
proposed to be located, to the City's Comprehensive Plan and to other
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
3) Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities; circu-
lation and parking facilities; recreation areas and open spaces.
9-17
DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 1 `J .
HEARING DATE: August 23, 1989
DESCRIPTION:
Broadening of the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance to permit consideration
of flexibility for the location, number, and types of signs proposed within a
PUD plan. The proposal excludes advertising signs (billboards) from PUD
plans.
Section 9, Subdivision B, paragraph 3
This is intended as an updating of the PUD Ordinance to reflect the increased
utilization of that Ordinance for MPUDs involving commercial and industrial
uses over the past few years. Concurrent with the processing of the master
sign plan for the Parkers Lake North MPUD, the City Attorney advised staff
that the PUD Ordinance does not reference signs as one of those Zoning
Ordinance features that can benefit from the flexibility that a PUD offers
with respect to established numerical standards. This means that a master
sign plan for a PUD must be responsive to the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance with respect to sign size, location, and types. Any proposed
deviation from the Zoning Ordinance standards on signs, even if within a PUD,
must be considered and processed as variances.
To compound the problem that we have observed with signs in PUDs, the
Ordinance also provides that, specifically with respect to signs, no variance
can be granted for a sign that is not otherwise permitted within the Zone that
it is being proposed for. This has presented problems with MPUDs that have
multiple commercial/industrial zoning districts as underlying zoning.
The proposed Ordinance amendment inserts new language in two locations in
Section 9. First, the heading for paragraph 3 of Subdivision B is changed to
insert the word "signage" after the word "height". The effect of this is to
include signage as one of the physical features of a plan that is subject to
the flexibility of the PUD Ordinance.
The second change takes place at the end of paragraph 3 of Subdivision B.
Here we propose to add a new paragraph that specifically references signs
within the PUD. We have drafted it in an exclusionary format whereby signs
must always conform to the standards of the Ordinance, except where
specifically approved by a PUD plan. Also, the language specifically excludes
advertising signs (billboards) from this provision.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS:
Amend Section 9, Subdivision B, paragraph 3 to insert language referring to
signage" in the first paragraph heading; and, to insert a new subparagraph
e" which describes the inclusion of signs as a PUD design component reading
as follows:
e. Sign Requirements
Signs shall conform to the standards of this ordinance except as
otherwise authorized and shown on the approved Final Plan. Advertising
signs, as defined in Section 4. are not covered by this provision.
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 9, Subdivision B
d. The provisions for Planned Unit Developments in this section are applied in
two separate and distinct forms: A Residential Planned Unit Development
R.P.U.D.) and a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (M.P.U.D.). Where provis-
ions are not specifically designated for either the R.P.U.D. or M.P.U.D., they
apply to both types. All property within a R.P.U.D. shall be in one or more R
Districts. Within a M.P.U.D. land shall include one or more non -residence
districts and may or may not include one or more R Districts.
2. Permitted Uses
a. Within a R.P.U.D. no land or buildings shall be used except for one or more of
the following uses:
1) Those uses listed as permitted or conditional uses in the District(s) in
which the development is proposed.
2) A variety of housing types allowable in any one Residence Zoning may be
provid District ed in any of the Residence Zoning Districts within a
R.P.U.D., subject to 3., a., (2), of this Subdivision.
3) Consideration will be given to the integration of small retail conven-
ience centers, medical and professional offices within a R.P.U.D., pro-
vided such uses are designed and intended primarily for use of the resi-
dents in the development and not in conflict with the intent of the
Comprehensive Municipal Plan as to maintaining the integrity of the
neighborhood concept.
b. Within a M.P.U.D. no land or building shall he used except for one or more of
the following uses:
1) Those uses listed as permitted or conditional uses in the Zoning
District(s) in which the development is proposed.
2) Principal uses as allowed in Subparagraph b., (1), above and as uses any
allowable secondary uses in any of the Zoning Districts of this
44Ordinance. =v sar'T "S '.qv *t -4L
3. Area, Density, Setback, HeightVd Lot Coverage Regulations
a. Area and Density Regulations
1) The minimum total land area shall be not less than forty (40)
acres. Lots of less than forty (40) acres may qualify only if the
applicant can show that the minimum area requirement should be waived
because a P.U.D. is in the public interest and that one or both of the
following conditions exist:
i a) Unusual features of the property itself or of the surrounding
neighborhood are such that development under the standard provis-
ions of the normal District would not be appropriate in order to
conserve a feature of importance to the neighborhood or community.
9-7
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 9, Subdivision B
the City of Plymouth due to the classification of Medicine Lake and Schmidt
Lake for seaplane operations. All developments involving structures of a
height governed by these regulations shall be subject to the requirements of
those regulations as if they were part of this Ordinance. (Amended Ord. No.
82-15).
d. Special Protection District Requirements.
Planned Unit Developments involving land within the Flood Plain or Shoreland
Management Overlay Districts shall be subject to applicable regulations set
forth for those Special Protection Districts in Section 6 of this Ordinance.
Section 6, Subdivision B, contains specific regulations for Planned Unit
Developments in the Shoreland Management Overlay District. (Amended Ord. No.
82-33)
It 2. 4. Building and Site Design, Construction, Maintenance, and Transition Regulations
a. More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in any
PUD.
b. Architectural style or type of buildings shall not solely be a basis fordenial
or approval of a plan. However, the overall appearance and compatibility of
individual buildings to other site elements or to surrounding development will
be given primary considerations in the review stages of the Planning Commis-
sion and City Council.
c. No building permit shall be granted for any building on land for which a plan
for a PUD is in the process of review or which does not conform to the approv-
ed final plan or for one phase of the final plan.
d. Staging of Development:
1.) Any P.U.D. Plan proposed to be constructed in stages shall include full
details relative thereto and the Planning Commission and City Council
may approve or modify where necessary any such proposals.
2) The staging shall include the sequence and the proposed time for begin-
ning and completion of each stage. Such sequence and/or schedule may be
modified by the Planning Commission and City Council on the showing of
good cause by the developer.
3) The land owner or developer shall make such easements, covenants and
other arrangements and shall furnish such performance bond or bonds as
may be determined by the City Council to be reasonably required to as-
sure performance and completion of private streets and utilities, land-
scaping and privately owned and maintained recreational facilities in
accordance with the plan and to protect the public interest.
9-11
DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 2
HEARING DATE: August 23, 1989
DESCRIPTION:
This amendment will clarify the Zoning Ordinance to include window signs
within the definition of wall signage so window signs become subject to the 5
percent of wall surface area maximum permitted for signs in business zones.
SECTIONS INVOLVED: Section 4, Subdivision B ("Definitions").
EXPLANATION/PURPOSE:
This amendment is to formally introduce the concept of window signage to the
Zoning Ordinance. The City Council directed staff to research the general
topic of the use of windows for signage and provide a recommendation as to if,
and how, such signage should be regulated.
Staff has reviewed the research of the American Planning Association in this
regard including the approach used by several communities nationwide with
respect to window signage. We have concluded that to specifically address
window signage as a separate class of signs and control the size and duration
of such signage would create a severe administrative burden. A potentially
better approach would be to amend the Zoning Ordinance to clearly define wall
signs (which is not now done), and, within that definition, to include signs
that appear in windows.
The effect of this amendment would be to direct the Zoning Administrator to
consider window signage as wall signage and to limit such window signage in
the same manner that other wall signage is limited - to a percentage of the
wall area on which the signage is located.
It has been the practice in Plymouth to consider window signage that is
proposed as a part of a sign permit application to be wall signage, subject to
the 5 percent limitation of the ordinance for wall signage.
The signage of concern to Councilmembers is that put up periodically over time
as advertising for certain events or retail "specials."
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS:
We recommend an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as an addition to the
definition section adding the following language:
Sign Wall--A sign which is attached to or erected against the vertical wall
of a building or structure with the exposed face of the sign in a plane
approximately parallel to the face of said wall. The term also means
signs attached to or painted on either side of a window which is visible
from the exterior of the building, and signs located inside the window
which are designed and located to be primarily visible from the exterior
of the building.
pc/cd/8-22:jw)
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 4, Subdivision B
Sign, Rotating -- A sign which revolves or rotates on its axis by mechanical means.
Sign, Surface Area of -- The entire area within a single, continuous perimeter en-
closing the extreme limits of the actual sign surface. It does not include any
structural elements outside the limits of such sign and not forming an integral
part of the display. Only one side of a double -face or V -type sign structure
shall be used in computing total surface area.
Sign, Swinging -- Any sign designed to be swayed, rocked, or so moved by wind, other
natural phenomenon, or mechanical means.
Sign, Temporary -- A sign erected or placed on private property for a limited period
of time including signs affixed or attached to vehicles including trailers and
capable of being readily removed; and, including banners, pennants, stringers,
and the like. (Amended Ord. No. 84-24)
Sign, Traffic Control -- Any sign which is erected by a government unit for the pur-
pose of directing or regulating vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
4-15
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 4, Subdivision B
Sign -- Any billboard, notice, poster, display or other device visible to and
primarily intended to advertise and inform or to attract attention, and shall
include any structures erected primarily for use in connection with the display
of any such device and all lighting or other attachments used in connection
therewith.
Sign, Advertising -- A sign which directs attention to a business, commodity,
service, activity or entertainment not necessarily conducted, sold or offered
upon the premises where such sign is located.
Sign, Area Identification -- Any free standing sign located on identified premises,
which identifies the name of a neighborhood, a residential subdivision, a
multiple residential complex or any combination of the above.
Sign, Business -- A sign which directs attention to a business or profession to a
commodity, service or entertainment sold or offered upon the premises where
such a sign is located.
Sign, Directional -- A sign erected on private property for the purpose of directing
traffic to a specific location.
Sign, Flashing -- Any illuminated sign on which such illumination is not kept
Sign, Free Standing -- Any sign which is placed in the ground and not affixed to any
part of a building.
Siqn, Illuminated -- Any sign which has characters, letters, figures, designs or out-
lines illuminated by electric lights or luminous tubes as a part of the sign.
Sign, Institutional -- Any sign or bulletin board which identifies the name and other
characteristics of a public or private institution on the site where the sign
is located.
Sign, Nameplate -- Any sign which states the name or address or both of the business
or occupant of the lot where the sign is placed.
Sign, Nonconforming -- Any sign which existed prior to the adoption of this Ordin-
ance but does not conform to the requirements of this Ordinance.
Sign, Pylon -- A free-standing sign erected upon a single pylon or post which is in
excess of ten (10) feet in height with a sign mounted on top thereof.
Sign, Roof -- A sign erected or attached, in whole or in part, upon the roof of a
building, or a non -freestanding sign which projects above the roofline of the
building to which it is attached. See "roofline". (Amended Ord. 84-24)
4-15
Regular Council Meeting
October 3, 1988
Page 287
MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by Councilmemb
Zitur, to defer consideration of suggestions regarding f'
lanes submitted by Planning Commissioner Dennis Zylla to
next study session.
Motion carried, five ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by C cilmember
Zitur, to accept the Public and Capital Improv ent Project
Status Report.
Motion carried, five ayes.
CORRESPONDENCE FROM
DENNIS ZYLLA REGARDING
FIRE LANES
Item 8 -II
PUBLIC AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROSECT
STATUS
Item 9-A
MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, sec ded by Councilmember REVISED TOWN MEETING
Zitur, to endorse staff recommendation for Town Meetings for SCHEDULE
the remainder of 1988 and 1989 with th change that residents be Item 9-B
allowed to address topics other than ose on the agenda and the
change of dates to the spring of th year.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION was made by ayor Schneider, seconded by
Councilmember Vasiliou, to a orse staff recommendations for
Town Meetings for the remain r of 1988 and 1989 with the change
that residents be allowed address topics other than those on
the agenda, with the dat to remain the same except District 1
and 2 dates to be rever d.
Motion carried/
Thson'
es.
City Attorney stated that there is always a potential
for liabilityething is in the public right-of-way such
as basketball
CouncilmemA Zitur stated concern of aesthetics of allowing
basketba hoops in the public right-of-ways.
The C ncil directed staff to
of rops currently existing,
No tuber 21, with a City A
ecause of aesthetics.
determine the approximate number
and to report back no4noAtnn the
ies and effects on property values
Councilmember Sisk expressed concern and questioned possible
enforcement on banners in windows which are not included in
maximum square footage for signage.
Attorney Thomson and Director Tremere will jointly study and
report back on possible regulation and impact on enforcement.
Councilmember Zitur questioned the status of Schmidt Lake Road.
BASKETBALL HOOPS IN
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
WINDOW BANNERS IN
EXCESS OF MAXIMUM
SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR
SIGNAGE
0066LT40.I34
Enclosure
P '
LeFevere
Lef ler
KennedN
O'Brien R R. Z26
Drawz
a Professionals
Association
2000 First Bank Place West December 13, 1988
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 333-0543
Telecopier (612) 333-0540
Mr. Blair Tremere
J. Dennis O'Brien Community Development Director
John E. Drawz City of PlymouthDavidJ. Kennedy
Joseph E. Hamilton 3400 Plymouth Boulevard
John B. Dean Plymouth, MN 55447
Glenn E. Purdue
Richard J. Schieffer
Charles L. LeFevere Re: Regulation of Window Signs
James J. Thomson, Jr.
Thomas R. Galt Dear Blair: Steven B. Schmidt
John G. Kressel
James M. Strommen Enclosed is a memo from Darcy Hitesman of our office
Ronald H. Batty concerning the regulation of window signs. I am also
William P. Jordan
William R. Skallerud enclosing the entire Richfield sign ordinance so that you
Corrine A. Heine can see how the regulation of window signs fits into
David D. Beaudoin their overall sign regulations. Steven M. Tallen
Mary Frances Skala
Leslie M. Altman Please let me know if you want anything further done.
Timothy J. Pawlenty
Rolf A. Sponheim
Julie A. Bergh Sincerely yours,
Darcy L. Hitesman
David C. Roland LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY,
Karen A. Chamerlik
Paul D. Baertschi 0' BRIEN & DRAWZ
Arden Fritz
Clayton L. LeFevere, Retired
Herbert P. Lefler, Retired
s J. Thomson, Jr.
0066LT40.I34
Enclosure
MEMORANDUM
TO: JJT
FROM: DLH
RE: City's ability to regulate window signs
DATE: 11/11/88
SUMMARY
You asked me to research the constitutionality of regulating
commercial advertisements placed on the insides of windows facing
outside. There was some recollection that this had been dis-
cussed before and it had been determined that such regulation was
not possible. I check@d old correspondence files, the municipal
memo file, and received a 1984 file entitled "City of Plymouth -
Sign Ordinance." Nothing indicated that this question had been
raised or researched before, let alone determined impermissible.
Based on the research I have conducted, "window signs" can be
regulated. Other cities regulate signs, including window signs,
as part of their zoning plans. The regulations, however, are
subject to close scrutiny because signs are a form of expression
recognized as protected by the First Amendment. Like other forms
of protected speech, regulations must be narrowly drawr and
carefully applied.
ANATNATR
I. Constitutional Protection of Commercial Speech.
The First Amendment protection of speech extends to commercial
speech. See Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citi-
zens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976). The state may
not "completely suppress the dissemination of concedely truthful
information about entirely lawful activity." 425 U.S. at 773.
This does not mean, however, that commercial speech cannot be
regulated. Id. at 770.
Speech, commercial or otherwise, can be regulated with respect to
time, place, and manner. Such restrictions pass constitutional
muster if:
1) they are justified without reference to content;
2) they serve a significant government interest; and
3) they leave ample alternative channels for communication of
the information.
Virginia, 425 U.S. at 771. In addition, commercial speech that
is false or misleading can be restricted. "Untruthful speech,
commercial or otherwise, has never been protected for its own
sake." Id. (citations omitted). Restrictions may also be
placed on commercial speech in which the advertisements propose
illegal activity. Id. at 772.
Signs are a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.
Consequently, regulations of signs must be constitutionally
permissible.
II. Window Signs.
The government may regulate and restrict advertising in public
ways and places and on private property within public view,
McQuillan's Municipal Corporations 524.380, (3rd ed.), including
window signs. Window signs are signs "placed inside or upon a
window facing the outside and which is intended to be seen from
the exterior." Orlando Florida Ordinance (quoted in The Mechan-
ics of Sign Control, Planning Advisory Service Report Number
354.)
When the sign concerns lawful activity and is not misleading,
restrictions must:
1) seek to implement a substantial government interest;
2) directly advance that interest; and
3) reach no further than necessary to accomplish that interest.
As long as the restriction meets these criteria, the restriction
is constitutionally permissible. Traffic safety and aesthetics
have been recognized as sufficient government interests to
support restrictions. Ability to regulate should not be
confused, however, with ability to completely prohibit.
III. Examples.
A. Boulder, Colorado. Boulder regulates signs, including
window signs, by zoning classifications. See Exhibit A
attached. Within certain zoning districts, certain classes,
types, areas, numbers, and heights are allowed. For example
in a public district, a window sign for purposes of identi-
fication is a permitted use provided that it is an allowable
size.
B. Richfield, Minnesota. Richfield, like Orlando, defines
various types of signs including "Window Signs." Richfield
City Code ("Code") §416.01, subd. 45 (Rev. 1988); see
Exhibit B attached. Richfield then proceeds to address
specific districts, imposing surface area restrictions. For
example in a neighborhood business district (C-1), the total
sign area of a window sign cannot exceed 30 percent of the
window area. Code 5416.07, subd. 2(c)(5).
2
CONCLUSION
Regulating window signs is permissible provided that constitu-
tional parameters are respected. The language of an ordinance
regulating window signs should reflect those parameters as should
its application and enforcement.
0066ME03K
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: March 16, 1989
TO: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
FROM: Myra Wicklacz, Development Services Technician
SUBJECT: Window Signage Research
In February, 1 received direction from you to look into Council's direction on
possible regulations and their impact on enforcement for window banners
exceeding square footage for signs. I utilized an APA/PAS report entitled
The Mechanics of Sign Control", as well as sign ordinances from the Cities of
Maple Grove, Brooklyn Center, Coon Rapids, Richfield, Woodbury, Maplewood,
Cottage Grove, Bloomington, Burnsville and Eagan.
The definition most commonly used in the zoning ordinances was as follows:
Window sign - A sign affixed to or inside of a window in view of the general
public. This does not include merchandise on display.
The following are some general restrictions from each of the zoning ordinances
I reviewed pertaining to window signs.
Maple Grove - Prohibits temporary window signage.
Brooklyn Center - Permits signs painted on the inside glass portion of
windows or doors in commercial and industrial districts as long as they do
not interfere with egress or ingress of doors. Signs or posters displayed
on the inside of the window are permitted without a permit.
Coon Rapids - Temporary window signs allowed without a permit or fee.
Signs cannot occupy more than 40% of the window area on a building frontage
and are only allowed in the commercial district.
Woodbury - Temporary window signs, not exceeding 1/3 of the window area,
does not require a permit. Shall not be displayed longer than 30 days.
Permanent window signs shall be regulated by the ordinance.
Maplewood - Had no mention of allowing or restricting window signs.
Cottaae Grove - Temporary window signs shall not exceed 1/3 of the total
area of the window where they are displayed. No permit or fee is required
for temporary window signs.
Blair Tremere
March 14, 1989
Page 2
Richfield - Window signs shall not exceed 30% of the total area of a window
and do not require a permit.
Eagan - No mention was made of window signage.
Bloomington - Window signs shall not occupy more than 30% of the window
area.
Burnsville - Window signs shall not exceed 25% of the total area of the
window. Lettering exceeding 3 1/2 inches in height shall be debted against
the total signage permitted.
The PAS report on signage defines window signs as "any sign placed inside or
upon a window facing the outside and which is intended to be seen from the
exterior. (Taken from Orlando City Code)." The PAS report also referenced
what districts window signs would be allowed in per the Boulder, Colorado Sign
Code. It stated that window signs would be regulated by zoning districts and
highly regulated in the residential zoning districts.
Because most window signs do not require a permit, it would be difficult to
enforce the size and time period in which these window sions were up.
pl/mw/windowl:jaw)
DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 3
HEARING DATE: August 23, 1989
fI ' IAB
Amendment of the minimum front yard setback distance standard for attached
garages on corner lots in the R -1A, R -1B, and R-2 Districts where the garage
faces an arterial street thereby allowing a 35 foot setback distance versus 50
feet.
SECTIONS INVOLVED: Section 10, Subdivision C, 7.
110 2 WX RUIN . .UI
This proposal comes from the Board of Zoning Adjustments, with concurrence by
the City Council. The Board of Zoning recently heard a case where the
property owner wanted to construct an attached garage to a single family home
on a corner lot. One of the streets is classified as an arterial street and
the other is a residential street.
The Zoning Ordinance requires a 50 foot, versus 35 foot minimum front yard
setback from the arterial street. The Ordinance also provides that the
setback of the attached garage should be the same as the dwelling. The
minimum front yard setback for dwellings on streets other than arterial
streets is 35 feet.
The Board of Zoning allowed the variance and the 35 foot setback noting that
it was for an accessory building and not for a dwelling.
The additional minimum setback from arterial streets is intended to provide
spatial buffering from the street which typically is busier than a residential
street. The Board of Zoning and City Council found that in the case of
attached garages, the need for the additional spatial buffering is not
necessary.
The amendment would be limited to those properties which have abutment on two
or more streets where one of the streets is an arterial street thus requiring
an extra setback for the dwelling.
Also considered was the fact that access to the dwelling and the garage was
from the non -arterial street and this is included in the proposal.
I. 1. The Planning Commission should recommend the amendment of the Zoning
Ordinance at Section 10, Subdivision C, 7, a. to clarify the front yard
setback provision for attached garages and to provide for the lesser
setback in those cases where an attached garage would abut an arterial
street.
Page Two
2. The Ordinance would be amended by the adoption of the following language
which would be added to Section 10, Subdivision C, 7, a.:
1) The minimum front yard setback for an attached residential accessory
building or structure shall be the same as the main building.
2) An attached residential accessory building or structure on a lot that
has more than one street frontage in the R -1A. R-16, and R-2 District
where the accessory building or structure faces an arterial street but
does not have access to the arterial street, may have a minimum front
yard setback that is no less than the minimum front yard setback
required from a non -arterial street.
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 10, Subdivision C
5) Administration and Enforcement.
a) The Zoning Administrator shall keep a record of applications and
permits.
b) A copy of all permits issued shall be forwarded to the Director of
Public Safety prior to the event.
c) Enforcement of the provisions of this paragraph shall be in accordance
with Section 11 of this Ordinance. Violation of an issued permit or of
the provisions of this Section also shall be grounds for denial of
f,ititrP Prmi t _ aDplications.
7. Accessory Buildings:
a. A residential accessory building or structure attached to the main building
shall be made structurally a part of the main building and shall comply in
all respects with the requirements of this Ordinance applicable to the main
building, except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance.
b. A detached accessory building or structure shall not be located in any re-
quired front or side yard, and shall not be closer than six (6) feet to the
main building, except as specifically provided herein.
c. Detached accessory buildings in the R -1A, R -1B and R-2 Districts shall be per-
mitted as follows:
1) Private garage or a carport not over one (1) story and not exceeding twelve
12) feet in height shall occupy an area of not more than thirty (30) per-
cent of the area of the -required rear yard or 1,000 square feet, whichever
is lesser;
2) A storage shed or utility building not exceeding 120 square feet shall be
allowed in the rear yard no closer to the property line than six (6) feet
or the width of an established public easement, whichever is greater; and,
d. The lot coverage of all accessory buildings and structures shall be included
in the maximum lot coverage of all structures as provided in Section 7,
Subdivision D and in SECTION 8, Subdivision E; except that the area of
unenclosed attached decks, as regulated by this section, and of other
accessory structures attached to the primary building covered only by the roof
overhang of the primary building shall be excluded from the calculation of lot
coverage for single family detached dwellings. (Ord. No. 88-45)
e. Accessory buildings in the BUSINESS and INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS shall be attached
to and be structurally a part of the principal building, and shall comply in
all respects with the requirements of this Ordinance applicable to the main
building. Detached accessory buildings for incidental uses such as guard
houses, utility sheds, and the like may be permitted as part of the approved
site plan for the principal use. (Ord.No. 88-45)
10-41
DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 4
HEARING DATE: August 2
DESCRIPTION:
Provision for limited expansion of schools where the school is a nonconforming
use due to its construction without a conditional use permit because the
development preceded the Zoning Ordinance classification of schools as
conditional uses.
SECTIONS INVOLVED: Section 11, Subdivision A, 8. and Section 12, Subdivision
A.
EXPLANATION/PURPOSE:
The City Council earlier this year directed staff to prepare and Ordinance
amendment which would recognize particular needs of public facilities which
needed to expand but which were originally developed before the Ordinance
classified the facility as conditional uses. The Council's intent is to
address situations where minor additions to such facilities are subject to
formal conditional use permit requirements.
The total action taken by the Council addressed "public facilities" but
occurred within the context of a proposed addition to a public elementary
school.
It would be appropriate to address public and private schools which would fall
into this category.
The consideration has the following features, per City Council direction:
1. The provision would apply to public and private schools which are
nonconforming by reason of being established before the Zoning Ordinance
classified them as conditional uses.
2. The provision applies to only one addition or expansion. The intent is
that the school ownership would then need to apply for and obtain
conditional use permits if any further additions or expansions were
needed.
3. The area of the addition or expansion could not exceed 10 percent of the
floor area.
4. Plans for such expansion may be administratively approved if staff finds
that there are no negative impacts upon any adjacent residential
neighborhood.
see next page)
Page Two
q LCIIIA OR MAIII
1. Amend Section 11, Subdivision A, 8, a. as follows:
a. Site plans may be administratively approved only for sites which meet
the following criteria, except as otherwise expressly provided by this
ordinance:
2. Amend Section 12, Subdivision A by the addition of the following:
3 Public and private schools found to be nonconforming only by reason of
development and construction prior to classification as a conditional
use shall be exempt from the provisions of Paragraph 1 of this
subdivision to the extent of the following and no further:
may be made.
b) The area of the proposed expansion or enlargement shall not
exceed 10 percent of the floor area of the main building_
impact upon any adjacent residential neighborhood.
d) Proposed expansions or enlargements beyond the first one and/or
any expansion or enlargement that does not satisfy the provisions
of this subdivision shall be subject to the requirements of this
Ordinance for conditional uses including the public hearing.
Regular Council Meeting
May 15, 1989
Page 125
Assistant Manager Boyles presented a status report on the Plymou Dial -a -Ride
Plymouth Dial -a -Ride System, noting that ridership is growing. Sy Status Report
He reported on current marketing efforts and future policy em 9-A
Issues.
Mayor Schneider suggested that regular routes to the a' rt be
considered.
The Council received the Public and Capital
101rrovement
Project
Status Reports. Councilmember Vasiliou re sted that a copy of
the City request and County respo be included in the
Manager's Information Memorandum garding the status of
signalization at Annapolis Lane County Road 9. A copy of
the city request was handed o and Director Moore stated that
the County has not yet resp ed.
Manager Willis report that Well No. 10 will not be completed
according to the c ract deadline; completion is estimated in
three weeks. He,aited that rainfall has not been sufficient to
warrant a th week delay. Director Moore stated that the
contract C94ains a provision for liquidated damages.
MOTI was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by Councilmember
Z' r, to direct staff to survey speeding by radar and analyzekerequestforstopsignsat44th/45th and Juneau Lane.
Mayor Schneider discussed the conditional use permit process as
it relates to schools contemplating additions and remodeling.
He stated that since schools require a conditional use permit,
any time there is a building addition or remodeling, the
conditional use permit process is required, sometimes causing
time delays. He suggested that the ordinance be modified to
provide that existing schools be grandfathered and would not be
required to go through the conditional use permit process.
MOTION was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by Councilmember
Ricker, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment which
would state that public facilities existing and in operation are
granted a conditional use permit.
Councilmember Sisk stated that the conditional use permit
process should be followed when building additions are
contemplated. There could be an impact on the neighborhood
which the Council may wish to address, particularly in existing
neighborhoods.
MOTION to amend was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by
Councilmember Zitur, that the conditional use permit process
would not be required for one addition, not to exceed 10% of the
floor area per school.
Public and Capital
Improvement Project
Status Report
Item 9-B
Radar and Signaliza-
tion, 44th/45th and
Juneau Lane
Conditional Use
Permits/School
Buildings
Regular Council Meeting
May 15, 1989
Page 126
Motion carried, Ricker, Zitur, Schneider ayes; Vasiliou and Sisk
nays.
MOTION to amend was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by
Councilmember Zitur, that staff could give administrative
approval if they found that there was no adverse impact to any
residential district that abuts the school.
Motion to amend carried, five ayes.
Main motion as twice amended carried, five ayes.
Downtow th, as well as other agenda items submitted by
Councilmembers to
Attorney Thomson reported on the resu he Holiday Plus Holiday Plus Lawsuit
lawsuit. He stated that if the Council wishe der an
appeal, it should adjourn to executive session.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
City Clerk
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 11, Subdivision A
8. Site plans may be approved by the Community Development Director acting as the
Zoning Administrator or by the Director's designee, in -lieu of Planning Com-
mission review and City Council approval subject to the following:
a. ite plans may be administratively approved only for sites which meet the
ollowing criteria:
1) Sites shall be in non-residential zoning districts, including those
within Planned Unit Developments, and shall not abut any residential
property other than property in the Future Restricted Development
District which the Land Use Guide Plan classifies as non-residential.
2) All sites must be in the Urban Zoning District which corresponds with
the Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan Classification for the property.
3) All sites must be legal parcels of record at the time of application.
4) All applications for site plan approval must be complete and in full
accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance. All applicable
fees shall be paid.
5) All development proposals and site plan layouts must meet or exceed the
standards of all applicable codes, ordinances, and policies and must
be free of any variances from those standards.
6) Only applications for uses explicitly classified as Permitted Uses by
this Ordinance are eligible for administrative approval.
b. Administrative approval of eligible site plans shall be subject to the
following procedural guidelines:
1) Plan review will be in accordance with established procedures includ-
ing the coordinated review by other City departments and divisions.
2) Approvals shall be subject to the applicable requirements of City
Policy, but not limited to, the Park Dedication Policy and the Land-
scape Standards and Criteria Policy.
3) Approvals shall be subject to applicable findings by the Public Safety
Department based upon the City's Fire Codes and Standards including
exceptions which may be made by the Department.
4) Approvals shall be subject to the applicable findings and requirements
of the Public Works Department as contained in a memorandum from the
City Engineer.
5) Approvals shall be subject to the applicable conditions established by
this Ordinance including, but not limited to the requirements of this
Section as to Site Performance Agreements and Financial Guarantees.
11-3
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
SECTIO14 12 - NON -CONFORMING USES
SUBDIVISION A - NON-rONFORMTNG BUILDINGS AND USES
1.
2.
The lawful use of buildings or land existing at the effective date of this
Ordinance which does not conform to the provisions of this Ordinance may be
continued; provided, however, that no such non -conforming use of land shall
be enlarged or increase, nor shall any such non -conforming use be extended
to occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time
of the adoption of this Ordinance; nor shall any such non -conforming use be
moved to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was con-
ducted at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance.
Buildings found to be non -conforming only 6/reason of height, yard or area
requirements shall be exempt from the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Sub-
division.
SUBDIVISION B - NON -CONFORMING SUNK YARDS
No junk yard may continue as a non -conforming use for more than one (1) year
after the effective date of this Ordinance except that a junk yard may continue
as a non -conforming use in an industrial district if within that period it is
completely enclosed within a building, fence, screen planting or other device of
such height so as to screen completely the operations of the junk yard. Plans
of such a building or device shall be approved by the Planning Commission and
the City Council before it is erected or put into place.
SUBDIVISION C - DISCONTINUANCE
In the event that a non -conforming use
tinued or its normal operation stopped
the same shall thereafter conform to the
is located.
SUBDIVISION D - ALTERATIONS
of any building or premises is discon-
for a period of one (1) year, the use of
regulations of the District in which it
The lawful use of a building existing at the time of the adoption of this Ordin-
ance may be continued, although such use does not conform with the provisions
hereof. If no structural alterations are made, a non -conforming use of a build-
ing may be changed to another non -conforming use of the same or more restricted
classification. The foregoing provisions shall also apply to non -conforming
uses in districts hereafter changed. Whenever a non -conforming use of a build-
ing has been changed to a more restricted use or to a conforming use, such use
shall not thereafter be changed to a less restricted use.
12-1
Amended Ord. No. 84-24)
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE August 14, 1989 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 23,
FILE NO.: 89067
PETITIONER: L.A. Laukka Development Company
REQUEST: PUD Final Plan Amendment
LOCATION: Southeast Quadrant of Vicksburg Lane and 18th Avenue
Parkers Lake 3rd Addition)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -2 (Low Medium Density Residential)
ZONING:
BACKGROUND:
MPUD 83-1
The MPUD Concept Plan for the Parkers Lake Development was approved by
City Council on March 21, 1983, through Resolution 83-134, and include
total of 425 acres. The approved Concept Plan consists of resident
neighborhood commercial, and industrial land uses. The MPUD Prelimi
Plan/Plat for Parkers Lake Development -Stage B: Parkers Lake North prop
was approved on May 21, 1984, through Resolution 84-323.
A revised MPUD Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Par
Lake North was approve on March 16, 1987, through Resolution 87-176.
A revised MPUD Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Par
Lake North 3rd Addition was approved on June 1, 1987, through Resolution
337. The PUD Final Plat for Parkers Lake North 3rd Addition was approve
October 5, 1987, through Resolution 87-618.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The petitioner is seeking approval of a revised PUD Final Plan to a
for fences in excess of 6 feet. Some of the fences will be as high
feet. The petitioner's letter of July 21, 1989, describes the prop
attached).
2. The Planning Commission is directed by the Zoning Ordinance to cons
any amendment to a Planned Unit Development within the context of
Planned Unit Development criteria addressing relationship to the adjoi
neighborhood; compatibility with the purposes of the Planned
Development Ordinance; and the internal organization of the site.
see next page)
Page Two
File 89067
W
W
i
e
L.A. LAUKKA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
July 21, 1989
City of Plymouth
Community Development Department
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: Parkers Lake 3rd Addition
Fencing/Screening Plan
Gentlemen:
JUL 2110
CITY OF ^ OU i Ii
4aiT LCPT,
Submitted with our Planning and Zoning Application Form for a PUD Final Plan
Amendment you will find eight (8) copies of the following exhibits:
1. Fencing Plan - Sheet 1
2. Fencing Elevations - Sheet 2
3. Landscaping Plans - Sheets L -1,L -2,L-3, & L-4
4. Front Yard Tree Plan
5. Certificate of Survey - Lot 6, Block 1, 3rd Addition
6. Certificate of Survey - Lot 9, Block 1, 3rd Addition
Fencing is currently in place on Lots 6 & 9, Block 1 and on Lots 20, 21, 22 & 23, Block
4 (model homes). These fences and screens were installed in 1988 and are in excess
of the city's standard six foot height ordinance. We have operated under the assumption
that the fence and screening program was accepted as were a number of the
nonstandard subdivision factors via the PUD process. We accept the fact that this
condition was not clearly set out as a variance and now seek to amend the PUD to
accommodate the program per the attached exhibits.
It is our intention to modify the fencing on Lots 20, 21, 22 & 23 to conform to the
Fencing Plan exhibit once it is ultimately approved. Lot 6, Block 1, is owner occupied
and we are requesting that the fencing be approved as it exists. Lot 9, Block 1, is
also owner occupied and we are requesting that the fence location and height be
approved as modified and depicted on the attached Certificate of Survey.
Sincerely,
LAUKKA-WILLIAMS PARKERS LAKE
By:
Larry Lau ka
Encl.
3300 EDINBOROUGH WAY - SUITE 201 • EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 • TELEPHONE 612/896-1971
Yr' w '-'•? 7 'r - t - q , i
eye(.
j` .. , 4#4-+1 MN1
t CITY OF K" OUTH
4t1;to'•6u4 Call and notice thereot, a -regular meeting of the City Council of the
6 P1yAouth, Minnesota, was held on the3TTi day of October 1987, The
Owlno on vora presents Neyor S^hneider'Zouncilmembers as ou titur Crain
91sk. Me
i f ,: •IFI
Counoilmember Sisk introduced the following Resolution and moved its
aOoptlons
RESOLUTION M0. 87-619
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF ANO RELATED TO THE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAT FOR PARKERS LAKE NORTH 3RD ADDITION FOR L.A. LAUKKA DEVELOPMENT
87036) (MPUD 83-1)
WHEREASp the City Council has approved the PUD Final Plat and Development Contract for
Parkers Lake North 3rd Addition as requested by L.A. Laukka Development
NON9 THEREFORE9 BE IT HEREBY RI',jLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MIN-
NESOTAl that it should and hereby does approve the following to be met, prior to
recording of, and related to said plats
1. Compliance with the City %'0gineo-r's Memorandum.
2. No Building Permits shall be issued until a Contract has been awarded for the con-
struetlon of municipal sewer and water and the MPCA Permit issued.
3. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense.
4. Cospliance with Policy Resolution No. 7980 regarding minimum floor elevations for
new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing any open storm water
drainage facility.
S. The minimum side yjrd building setback and minimum drainage utility easements for
side yards is S ft.i A variance is granted as to the casement width so as to
conform to the building setback width.
6. &bmtttal of required utility and drainage easements as approved by the City
Engineer.
7. No Building Permits to be issued until the Final Plat is tiled and recorded with
Hennepin County. No Building Permit shall be issued for the lots adjoining or
abutting the trails or emergency road until the trails and emergency road are
surfaced.
Appropriate legal documents regarding Homeowner Association covenants and restric-
tions as approved by the City Attorney, shall be tiled with the Final Plat. These
covenants and restrictions shall. include the prohibition from placing snow from
private drives onto all public street rights-ot-way and cul-de-sac islands.
PLEASE SEE PACE TWO
S ` i fy V
nsy t'`Ij 7 F.y 1f'y'-'1 yf't•'i"i'' .'!*ra'N1p's.. .1
r ! - '
a ;il i'ri, . t •. . ... , ,
r _!... -- -•mow r.
e 4 sr
Age`, wa
411
pso Ut No.' Si• 619
transitional screening and berming shall be constructed and maintained along
Vickspurg Line and.County:Road 6.
A '
10. •ihs outlots, including the landscaped berms along both County Road 6 and Vicksburg
Lanet•-shall be: maintained by the Homeowner's Association as provided by the
approved covenants and by laws of that association.
The north/south street shall have a 60 ft. right-of•way with 15 ft. yard setbacks
and a median; and, with islands in the culs-de-sac of the east/west streets. The
median shall be 10 ft@ in widths and, each boulevard area shall be 20 ft. wide
Including the 1.5 ft* setback.
12. The Homeowner's Association shall be responsible for the maintenance and restora-
tion, as needed, of the landscaping in the median divider/islandL, and in the
boulevard and/or easement areas adjacent to the streets. This accounts in part
for the reduced yard setback dimensions due to the street width and desired
arrangements.
13. M emergency vehicle access with appropriate surface approved by the City Engineer
shall be provided as an easement, to be duly dedicated, from the southeast corner
to County Road 6.
14. Landscape islands in cul-de-sacs are approved for Phase I only and approval of
Landscape islands for Phase 11 cul-de-sacs shall be withheld until it is determin-
ed that they are acceptable and appropriate, per experience with Phase 1.
15. A sign approved by the City shall be erected at 18th Avenue North find the north/
south street that will indicate the entire approved lot configuration and the com-
munity playfield conceptual drawing indicating that the playfield is to be light-
ed. The sign shall remain in place until 95% of the project is completed.
16. The front yard setback is approved at 201, the side yard is approved at 5', and
the rear yard is approved at 101. The minimum driveway length on the private land
small be 25'.
17. 0n corner lots that abut Terraceview Lane, the front yard setback shall be 15 ft.
18. Development shall comply with applicable requirements of Resolution Not. 84-14,
84-323, 87-176 and 67-337, and the executed Development Contract for Parkers Lake
Development -Stage 8s Parkers Lake North property.
19. Staging of the development shall be in accordance with utility availability as
approved by the City Engineer.
20. Development shall
lated permits.
comply with the approved Environmental Impact Statement and re -
21. A development ide.4',ificatlon sign shall be placed on the property at the mair,
entrance showing the approved PUD Plan and Staging prior to issoance of Building
t: Permits.
PLEASE SEE PACE THREE
y
J3
1
t3'y`Ff^•y'l,i.;.,.`.:.::e? .: ,.F'r."i•4d'(i'yti:"!J r, ,. r' ..,,' ,
mango= '*
fi r I.$$gion'No; 67-619 K
i. f1Ml plat sylars shall refer to MPW No. 93-1.
13ido" lie atdewalk shall be o•onatructed along the south side of 18th
rAvenue Wrfh, Thi developer is responsible for the cost to construct a S ft. wide
sid"alk and, no credit is applied toward park dedication requirements. The City
will reisrburse the devel open for the cost of the extra one toot of width which is
estimated to be,S3oZOO,
24. The tots 1. ."numer led 1 mid points of the density in all areas must equal 1,147
units. If.a ftnal plat is developed above or below the aid point of a density
range included in this preliminary platy then the density ranges in other areas
must be changed so that the density of the land platted, Flus the mid point of all
other areae, equals the maximum number alloyed -- 1,147 units. with each applica-
tion for residential plan/plat approval, the petitioner shall submit an accounting
of the number of units remaining, by the area, along with ti.e nur.,ber of ur.lts that
have been developed. Any reduction or Increase in the number of units from the
established range and maximum number of units, shall require an Amendment to the
Planned Unit Development. Similarly, each final plat request shall include a
status report stiting the level of sanitary sewer demand for all areas developed
to date, and the balance of capacity remaining in this PUD.
25. Access shall be limited to internal public roads and prohibited from Vicksburg
Lane and County Road 6.
26. A landscape plan atoll be submitted which provides better right lines in and
around the common areas near the dusignatel tot tot; the sight distance shall be
In accordance with the City Ordinance standards for corner lots.
27. The 3rd Addition crosswalks to the tot lot shall be striped on the asphalt street
at the developers expensu and maintained by the Homeowners Associatlon.
The.motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember 7itur , and upon vote being taken thereon, the o owl
fll;+=;; Mad nfavor thereors FGyqr ,neider Councilmemberb Vasiliou, Zitur Crain
w ..` and Sisk fHe TolLowing
n5d against or a s a ne s None Whereupon the
Pesolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
8l`,3`.'.r.Y'.iA'.r
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: August 18, 1989
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Community Development Coordinat r llerud
SUBJECT: LAND USE GUIDE PLAN MAP AMEND S
I have attached the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for the July 26, 1989
meeting regarding the Land Use Guide Plan Map Amendments.
I have assumed that you have kept your Land Use Guide Plan Maps and other
related materials in your notebooks. If you need further information or
copies, please contact me. Thank you.
pc/cd/lugpmap:jw)
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 26, 1989
The Regular Meeting of the City of Plymouth Planning
Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Plufka, Commissioners Joy
Tierney, Larry Marofsky, Michael Stulberg,
Dennis Zylla, Hal Pierce, and John Wire.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Coordinator Charles Dillerud, City Engineer
Dan Faulker, Associate Planner Al
Cottingham, and Senior Clerk/Typist Denise
Lanthier.
Y l
Chairman Plufka stated that the Public Hearing for the
textual amendments to the Zoning Ordinance would not be held
during this Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION by Commission Wire, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Marofsky, to approve the Minutes for the July 11, 1989,
Planning Commission Meeting.
Vote. 5 Ayes. Commissioners Tierney and Stulberg
abstained. MOTION carried.
Chairman Plufka introduced the Land Use Guide Plan Map
Amendments - Areas 31, 32, 34, 35, and 39.
Coordinator Dillerud and Associate Planner Cottingham gave
an overview of the July 19, 1989, staff report.
Chairman Plufka opened the Public Hearing.
Chairman Plufka read the July 14, 1989, letter from Rev.
Jeffrey Miller of the Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod.
Rev. Miller stated in his letter that he would be opposed to
the proposed Guide Plan change for Area 39. He stated he
felt it would be detrimental to the value of the church's
property.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
AREA 39
Planning Commission Minutes
July 26, 1989
Page 193
Chairman Plufka noted the Planning Commission's receipt of AREA 31
the May 24, 1989, letter from Mr. John Johnson of Merila &
Associates, Inc., relating to Area 31.
Chairman Plufka noted the Planning Commission's receipt of
the May 1, 1989, letter from Mr. Kenneth Briggs of Harstad
Companies relating to Area 31.
Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. John Johnson of Merila &
Associates, Inc.
Mr. Johnson stated he was in favor of the proposed Guide
Plan change for Area 31 because the wet lands would have a
constraint on future site plans causing major land use
problems that would not be as significant if the area were
developed residential.
Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. David Davenport of Lindquist
Vennum.
Mr. Davenport stated he had nothing to add regarding Area
31.
Chairman Plufka noted the Planning Commission's receipt of AREA 32
the April 7, 1989, letter from Mr. David Davenport of
Lindquist & Vennum relating to Area 32.
Chairman Plufka noted the Planning Commission's receipt of
the May 25, 1989, letter from Mr. David Davenport of
Lindquist & Vennum relating to Area 32.
Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. David Davenport of Lindquist
Vennum, 740 East Lake Street, Wayzata, Minnesota.
Mr. Davenport stated he was in favor of the proposed Guide
Plan change for Area 32. He stated felt the northwest
quadrant of Highway 55 and I-494, although guided CL, has
developed as CS type uses.
Mr. Davenport stated that CS guiding of this area would
strengthen a service/support pattern for this quadrant of
thE! City. He reminded 'the Commission of an earlier
community survey that indicated a need for retail services.
He noted that the Land Use Guide Plan hearings, to date,
told the Commission that the public did not desire these
increased services to be further dispursed throughout the
City.
Chairman Plufka noted the Planning Commission's receipt of AREA 34
the May 23, 1989, letter from Ms. Linda Fisher of Larkin,
Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., relating to Area 34.
Chairman Plufka noted the Planning Commission's receipt of
the July 18, 1989, letter from Mr. Lowell Turner of 3430
Fernbrook Lane North relating to Area 34.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 26, 1989
Page 194
Chairman Plufka noted the Planning Commission's receipt of
the July 20, 1989, letter from Jean Johnston of 3440
Fernbrook Lane North relating to Area 34.
Chairman Plufka noted the Planning Commission's receipt of
the July 19, 1989, letter from John and Jeanne Starr of 3450
Fernbrook Lane North relating to Area 34.
Chairman Plufka introduced Mr. Lowell Turner of 3430
Fernbrook Lane North.
Mr. Turner chose to withhold comments until further
discussion was completed on Area 34.
Chairman Plufka introduced Ms. Linda Fisher of Larkin,
Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., representing Trammell Crow
Company, and Mr. John Griffith of Trammel Crow Company.
Ms. Fisher requested a recommendation of the Planning
Commission to reguide a portion of Trammel Crow Company's
site located south of 35th Avenue North between Fernbrook
Lane and I-494 from LA -3 to IP. She noted there was a
mixture of land use guiding (CL, IP, and LA -3) and that
their proposal was to shift the alignment of the guiding of
the IP/LA-3 area and to fix the alignment of Annapolis Lane.
She stated their proposal would maximize buildable use of
the area. She stated she felt industrial land use can be
sensitive to retaining existing vegetation.
Mr. Griffith stated that they propose to retain the guiding
of IP and LA -3, but that they propose to use the woodlands
and wet lands as the delineator between the uses.
Commissioner Stulberg asked how many acres of LA -3 would be
buildable and the distance between 35th Avenue North and the
creek.
Mr. Griffith responded that the distance is about 100-200
feet, and about 8-10 acres would be buildable.
Commissioner Pierce questioned staff on the border lines
between LA -3 and IP.
Coordinator Dillerud stated that there were no definite
boundaries and the flexibility is typical for guiding.
Chairman Plufka reintroduced Mr. Lowell Turner of 3430
Fernbrook Lane North.
Mr. Turner stated he would like to keep the existing guiding
boundary as a buffer between his home and the industrial
buildings. He stated the unbuildable land in LA -3 would
hide the residential area from the industrial area. Mr.
Turner also stated that he had received an offer from
Planning Commission Minutes
July 26, 1.989
Page 195
Trammel Crow Company to buy his property, but that the money
offered was not nearly enough to cover his expenses for
relocating.
Commissioner Marofsky questioned staff about the location of
the southerly end of the IP area.
Associate Planner Cottingham explained that LA -3 does not
extend to the creek and that Annapolis Lane, wherever it is
finally 'located, should be the boundary between IP and LA -3.
Chairman Plufka noted the Planning Commission's receipt of AREA 35
the May 23, 1989, letter from Ms. Linda Fisher of Larkin,
Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., relating to Area 35.
Chairman Plufka introduced Ms. Linda Fisher of Larkin,
Hoffman,, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., representing Trammell Crow
Company.
Ms. Fisher requested a recommendation from the Planning
Commission to accept their proposal of reguiding 28 acres of
the northwest corner of County Road 9 and I-494 from CL to
IP. She stated that Trammell Crow Company is proposing a
reclassification that she feels would provide assurance of a
unified, high-quality development which meets the objectives
of the City Ordinance.
Chairman Plufka closed the Public Hearing and explained that
the Land Use Guide Plan amendments would be discussed by the
Planning Commission on August 23, 1989.
Chairman Plufka introduced the request of OPUS Corporation OPUS CORPORATION (89024)
for a, lot consolidation, site plan, and variances located
southwest of Nathan Lane and 54th Avenue North.
Coordinator Dillerud gave an overview of the July 18, 1989,
staff report.
Commissioner Zylla asked staff if there was a provision in
the Zoning Ordinance for expiration of variances.
Coordinator Dillerud responded, "Yes."
Commissioner Marofsky asked staff if the natural trees would
remain.
Coordinator Dillerud responded that the fire lane would come
right up to the line of trees. He stated that no more than
half the trees would be lost.
Chairman Plufka introduced the petitioner, Mr. Bob
Worthington of OPUS Corporation.
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: August 18, 1989
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Community Development Coordina or es Dillerud
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
The Zoning Ordinance Amendments information will be delivered to you in a
separate package at a later time.
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: August 16, 1989
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Community Development Coordinator C ar P. Dillerud
SUBJECT: SIGN CONSULTANTS. AMENDED MPUD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
PRELIMINARY PLAN WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCES TO AMEND THE
MASTER SIGN PLAN" FOR THE NORTHWEST BUSINESS CAMPUS (89046)
Attached is the Staff Report of August 4, 1989 regarding the above subject.
This item was continued from the August 9, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting to
the August 23, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting to be discussed after the
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the Master Sign Plan has been decided.
5C
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
determined that a sculpture or other graphic,
constitutes signage within the intent of the
the sculpture proposed would as an additional
Actual sign area is difficult to determine,
square foot maximum for the I-1 District.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
of Adjustments, it has been
whether or not text appears,
Zoning Ordinance. As such,
project identification sign.
but likely exceeding the 160
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 yCa-ff^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)
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 16 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.
al
00
Q1
ri
D
W
O
d
d
Q
M
00
Ql
0
UJ
O
CL
CL
Q
C
O
t
N N N
N
N
C
4-
i•) Ln N
O N
S- N N N O N
N N N L rt3
U U U U U U
Q Ln Ln
r 4- 4-
N
N
L) O
In .-.
r N
i -o
O O 1 0 1
r-4 00 Z Z O L I
t0 N i N i M LD
L L N CO 4-) Q1
CrN
i—U i—U 4-)
1)
G) 71 Ln O Cr (1) N i
N N j N 4- (V O
004-)4-- 4 -
4 .-q N 1 O I L
LD O O O O. co N I o\o
4 Z OO N LO Z LO —4 Ln L LO N
C
O
t
N N N N N N N
C
C1
O N
S- N N N O N N
L L LLL L
U U U U U U
Q Ln Ln N Ln to N
Ln
N N
In .-.
4-)
Q CT r
O O O L L O O 1 0 1
r-4 00 Z Z O L I 1 Z Z Z 1 Z 1
C
O
t
m m
C
C1
O N
r
4- 4-
4
N
O N
N F i i
4- N N
N N
In .-.
4- Q CT r
O
O
N N
i N
LC i O LC N
b i-) i-) U) Im L
V
i—U i—U 4-)
1) p' N i i LLA
4- N 4- 4- O O
O
0-0 0)
LO O 1 1 1 LD O LO o\o o\o O
4 .-q N 1 O I L 1--1 01 N M LO LO Z
C
O
r C
C1
r
U N
r U
4- N N r—
r .-. In .-. 4-)
O
C rz i b N rt) O
N N Y d N Y N Y C +
0 i U+-) i—U i—U 4-)
N eu L N rt m N rO L O N
L b .a tm i L rG L 0-0 0) f rC .Q
E N +J •r rU E (V +-) 0CEN 4-)•r O E
U i N N 0 O i N r ON N
NZ Q LN S C Z Q V) r Z Q N 2
V a tvO03
i N C
2 N r-+
C)1
00
M
W
N
O
d
O
Q:
d
M
00
M
ri
0
LtJ
C)
CL'
CL
a
Q)
a)
Q) Q) Q) Q) O O O O
r r r r r r r r r r
Y Y Vf Q)
Q) (1) L) Q) Q) Q) L) Q) Q) Q)
L L L L L L
ro L 4-
4-) O L1 Q) 0 U
C 4- 4- 4-> CQ)
RS Q) 1) •r L
C Q) N Q) Vi ro
Q) S r L r M
r L
L
Q
d (1)
O Q) 0 i-) O +•)
S- [T O O Q) Q O O Q)
V) 4- 4- N v4- LO
Cl
L i.
O tO 1.0 O 00
ri ri 4 N M CT N .--4 LO -4
Q)
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) O O O O
r r r r r r r r r r
N C
Q) (1) L) Q) Q) Q) L) Q) Q) Q)
L L L L L L L L L L
U U U U U U U U U U
V1 N V) N N N N 0 N V)
L r
00 0000 0000
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z
r L
L L
d (1)
U U
L Q)
fu eu
to E N
O O
CA •r
L i.
Q)ZV)
Cl M
i.
CL C1
v
r tic
S-
o O
4J r
V
O Q)
r i
rt O R)
Q) U Q)
r U 4J O r
p 41 to R3 Q) 4-)— 4-)
O Q) o O U Q)
r Q) L 4, 4- Q) i, Q)
4- Q) Q) r 4-) 4-
4-) V) Q) r L.
O LLLR) +4-)4- (C U Cl
oN0LOOQL O 7
Q 1)4-4- Vt Q) a Q) tT
Vf Q. Cl 4- V)
Z N i cli M (71 Q 00 q7•
Q)
N C
CL r
V) N
L r
RS iJ O C O
r L C i •r 4-1 O L •r 4-)
d (1) 1) (L) 4-) L r Q) i••t L
L Q) U G M On Q) 4-) M (0 M Q)
to E N C E U •r N U E U— N
CA •r r O O O Q) •r L) O Q) •r
Q)ZV) rrZJ2V) LZJSN
i. flo >1 r
v 4-)D- aIxIx
Ol
00
0)
1-4
w
O
CL
a
Q
M
00
Q1
W
C)
a'
CL
CL
Q
N
1--
Z
Q
H
J
N
Z
C)
U
Z
C7
o--
N
a)
r
a
vi
a) a) a) a) a) a) a) (L)
rr rrr a) rrr a)
4- O 7 4-
c
r N
O
L) a) (L) a) L) (1) a) a)
0 -0 LLL S- LLt S-
4-
U U L) (z U U U eQ
N N V) V) V) = A V) (A =
4-> Y V) a)
Q
1 ••1 4-) +d 4-) V) V)
00 000 000
s` a) .0 v a)
r 4-> C a)
L) (L) =
V) 7 Q) •r S-
U r (L) 0-
j j 4- V) a) r 4- V)
i,
O+J 01.0
ZLf)
Cr
VI) C.)OORtt
b U O1 0 3+ O
N Cr
a) 4- a) LO d' a)
j 4- 4-
o\o O O 00 C O
4 LO Z --4 LO .-i N 00 N
r
a
W (L) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) (L)
rr rrr a) rrr a)
4- O 7 4-
r N
a) a) L) a) (L) a) L) (1) a) a)
0 -0 LLL S- LLt S-
V V U U L) (z U U U eQ
N N V) V) V) = A V) (A =
N -0 a)
Q Q
1 ••1 4-) +d 4-) V) V)
00 000 000
Z Z Z Z Z 00 Z Z Z 00
r
a
C
r r
C n7
a) C •r
C S_
r N
CS r +-) a) +•1 i-)
a) a) a) V) L a)
tTj a)
O 4-) 4 \
i-) a) +J L
N -0 a) 4-3 -0 (z C) a) 0 ra p) ()
a) a) a) a) L) O a)
C L p. S- r i-) S-
U V 04-) M 4- U 4J M
V) o S- a) = L) (L) =
3
CL a) iT U r (L) 0-
j j 4- V) a) r 4- V)
O o\' O+J 01.0
ZLf) ZQ00qd* VI) C.)OORtt
r
C
O
r
4-)
V
V) a) C c
C S- O O
r (L) 9=1 Q) a) 4-) L i-) a) +J L
N -0 a) 4-3 -0 (z C) a) 0 ra p) ()
E N r -- E U -r N V) E U•r N
r •r to N O (L) — O W --
Ln S- Z-JSV) 4-ZJSN
rtf O c 4-
3 c C) O
a)
L.
a)
00
Q1
4
CmW
O
a
Q
M
00
CT
4
m
W
O
a
Cl.
Q
4-)
c.i
Y
rsr
CU N N
U
fC O
eu O
4-) 4--
tn
O
N N L
S-
L .0 4•• 0
Q) Q)
U U N 7
O >
Vf Vf CU Cr
4-) O
4-) 4-J
O A N 4-) N
O O N t.0 00 O O
Z Z -4 0)
4-
O U U 4-
O L L N
O L b tv O L
L 4-A ro C1 d e -1 R3
U O O O
V1 N CT L L O a-
4- N O 04-) N
4-) 4- 4-4-
0 kDONID GN
MZ. -ICN r+N=M
4-)
CU
Y C
CU N N N N N CU
fC O r 4•
4-) 4--
tn
N N L CU N N N
L .0 4•• 0 L L t t
U U N 7 U U U U
Vf Vf CU Cr A Vf V) to
4- Ln
O U O
4••) 4-) +-) +J 4
O O N t.0 00 O O
Z Z -4 0) Z Z Z Z
0
N
r
O C CJS C
r O C O
M L •r 4-) •r L •r 4•)
N N 4.2 t O N 4-) L
a (O Cn CU (O •G cc CJS N
CA E U •r N N E U.— N
C O O O •r J O O CU .—
j = rJ= Cn Z _J S cN
V) C4J
rt 4-)
W r
J N
CU
Y C
U 4-) r
fC O r 4•
4-) 4--
tnLnCU L •C
L CU O N
S-
04-) O O U O
O N a- L V) =
4- 0 a CT
O lD 4-J O
CV 00 M z Z 00
0
N
r
O C CJS C
r O C O
M L •r 4-) •r L •r 4•)
N N 4.2 t O N 4-) L
a (O Cn CU (O •G cc CJS N
CA E U •r N N E U.— N
C O O O •r J O O CU .—
j = rJ= Cn Z _J S cN
V) C4J
rt 4-)
W r
J N
i
utauan i 0dua Wr and notioe'tneibot. 'a lar eeting of the City, Council ofthaCity _ot,Plymoutlii;Minnesota9:_ wai held go'. the 7 JF. . day of May
The;followirg'members mv presents _Manor'Davenaor ouncilmembers, , t ch iider' and Threinen r
the 191lowifl j ewoer3 wer4 aD3CJ1ts none ti7
Counci Moen 'introduced the follows Resolution
tons,
n!. am moved its
RESOLUTION.NO. 83-264
APPROVING REVISED MPUD SIGN PLAN FOR PRUDENTIAL. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, FORr "
NORTHWEST BUSINESS CAMPUS" (MPUD 81-1) (80062)
WHEREAS, Prudential .Life Insurance Company of America, has requested approval of aRevisedMPUDFinalPlanfor "Northwest Business Campus" (MPUD 81-1) which proposesthreeadditionalprojectidentificationsigns; located generally in the northwestquadrantoftheHighway55andInterstate494intersection; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council under Resolution No. 81-846 approved a Final MPUD Plan forPrudentialInsuranceCompanyofAmericaforthedevelopmentknownas "NorthwestBusinessCampus"; and,
WHEREAS, th,. Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called publichearingandrevommendsitsapproval;
SNOW3 THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTHMINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request of Prudential InsuranceCompanyofAmericaforrevisiontotheMPUDFinalPlanfor "Northwest Business Campus" for three additional project identification signs located in the northeast quadrant oftheHighway55andInterstate494intersection, subject to the tollowinq conditions:
I. Compliance with Resolution No. 81-846 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 recorded
easement and right-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 shall
be entered into b y the petitioner and the City prior to issuance of buildingpermitsforthethreesigns.
4. Approved project 'identification, signage for "Northwest Business Campus" F, includes one existing 80 sq. ft. sign located at Highway 55 and NorthwestBoulevardlandthreeadditional31gn39each16sq. ft.9 located as identifiedin :'Manual for Exterior Park Features", dated March, 1983.
h PLEASE SEE SECOND PACE
i
i
1.'"i,'z w
iti.'.d'ti-`'r'-h}' nP'^d/°f'(l r
ti
its 7 !.4 4 • 'SR.' 4 .
And ns and,-.,#treet.-Jc on signs ike4,4 tha-,:,
Plymouth, responsibility: - 3 nodoe' apply -to -,.any,
locatedvt:An,,* reeVr ght-o way:or ea3eent-arC
7 A-11"
additional identification 31ans'shall not be illuminated,
tf
5, rim on 6f,. -, the : foregoinglotionforadoptl Resclut on.wai duly seconded
rf
Aw
ouftilmember. Neils and.uDm:'Vote being ta6n'thercon#,UieD_ -, Nei ls, oted,Iwfavor.thercor
s
aven2drt,-, couh ilmembers Moen
ev*'n& en
Moor
u, chneid Threin 'i
The Aro-Uowlng -voted. a 3 : taIrmw-ndnegaIP3_
ftiollAU" was., dared CRUY
p.
2k
V
d$)C
7_...
m
r-
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: August 4, 1989
TO: Chtyck Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
FROM: Daniel 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
AM 9 1989
CITY OF ; Vvi.s T I r
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
TO: CITY OF PLYMOUTH, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
FROM: SIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY COMPANY
DATE: AUGUST 8, 1989
RE: NORTHWEST BUSINESS CAMPUS
APPLICANTS FINAL COMMENTS
We respectfully request that you consider the following comments on the City
Staff Report regarding the Northwest Business Campus MPUD.
Page 4, Item 2.
The recommended change to 11 zoning, which allows 160 sq. feet of total
sign area, is acceptable. The additional 8 square feet noted in the
original request would not be necessary.
Page 5, Item 4.
In view of the fact that square footage on these signs is being reduced to
53 square feet (replacing standard of 96 sq. ft) and height is being
reduced to 5'-3" ( replacing standard of 36'-0") we request that the
setback be allowed at 15 feet for visibility and readability.
Page 5, Item 7.
The Master Plan was written as a general guideline only and directionals
were documented as consistent entities throughout the entire MPUD. The
plan previously submitted and approved for the Campus Square project
would remain the final proposal on that parcel, and contains less total
signage than that specified in the Master Plan. We request that this
portion of the Master Plan remain intact.
Page 6, Item 8. (continuation)
The applicant concurs that a 10 foot setback is acceptable.
Page 6, Item 9.
Applicant has had conversation with the City Engineer and reviewed the
Uniform Sign Manual in respect to these signs. The engineer agrees that
this system is acceptable for use on the individual properties. He has
noted that all signs on public streets, however, must conform to the
Uniform Sign Manual. We request that consideration be given to allowing
conforming sign faces with custom poles. These would be round poles
painted navy blue to match the system and would still define the
parameters of the MPUD. This request was deemed reasonable by the
City Engineer providing the developer would maintain the signs.
Page 6, Item 10.
Whereas the existing 1983 Masterplan and an approved 1981 variance allow
for 96 square foot leasing signs (81x121 or less) per property and whereas
the existing signs are the same size as those requested (3 signs of 96 sq.
feet exist for MPUD leasing/sales and 1 sign of 32 sq. feet exist for each
property at this date) we request that this item be approved as is stated.
Thank you for your consideration.
Planning Commission Minutes
Au st 9, 1989
Page 02
Mr. Johnson stated that the petitioner was in agreement with
the Staff' Report except for two items. He stated that the
petitioner ould like to reduce the width of some of the
streets in th area from 26 feet to 20 feet, creating more lawn
space and less sphalt in the development. The plan was drawn
on that proposal.
Mr. Johnson said that the fire hydrant requirements of the City
created a situation where there were fire hydrants directly
across the street from Mach other.
Mr. Johnson stated that he anted the Commission to know of his
frustration with the landsca ing done in the first phase of the
development and that the con factor was finally beginning to
complete the required work. \
Commissioner Marofsky questioned tfi \ guest parking shown in the
plan. He asked why some blocks had more than others.
Mr. Johnson stated that the guest parkiet the requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance. \
Commissioner Marofsky asked Mr. Johnson if the guest parking
could be increased. \
Mr. Johnson responded stating that additional areas within the
project were planned for use as a play area. On the\north edge
the open space was placed to keep traffic down in that area.
He said that guest parking planned already exceeds code
requirements. \ \
Vice Chairman Stulberg opened the Public Hearing.
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced Mansoor Alyeshmerni of
Drew Avenue South.
Mr. Alyeshmerni said that he was concerned about the impact on
his property by the proposal. He stated that he no longer had
any concerns after listening to Mr. Johnson.
Vice Chairman Stulberg closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner Marofsky MOTION TO AP OVE
to recommend approval of the petition subject to the conditions
listed in the August 2, 1989 Staff Report.
Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARR
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced the request of Sign SIGN CONSULTA TS (89046)
Consultants for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for
Northwest Business Campus located at the northeast quadrant of
1-494 and Highway 55. _ r
Pl
The reading of the August 4, 1989 Staff Report was waived. ` t
Planning Commission Minutes
August 9, 1989
Page 203
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced Cheryl Long O'Donnell of Sign
Consultants representing the petitioner.
Ms. O'Donnell discussed the new Master Sign Plan submitted to
the City; the Scanticon signage; and the sculpture requested in
the August 4, 1989 Staff Report.
Ms. O'Donnell stated that the signs would be of a high quality
painted aluminum that would be complementary to existing signs
in the Campus area. She said that the Scanticon signage
requested was needed because people coming into the Campus have
a difficult time finding the Scanticon building.
Ms. O'Donnell stated that the sculpture was in the preliminary
process, awaiting a decision before pursuing the final plans.
She stated that the sculpture would have no lettering, would
not be a safety hazard, and would be pleasing to the landscape.
Ms. O'Donnell introduced Mr. Ron Pentz of Prudential Property
Company to answer any questions.
Commissioner Marofsky asked how important the project sign on
Xenium Lane was to the project.
Ms. O'Donnell stated that the sign would increase in importance
as the project grows.
Commissioner Marofsky questioned the mention of just Scanticon
on all project identification signs.
Mr. Pentz stated that Scanticon was a special business for the
City, and the additional directional signage was necessary as
people get lost within the Campus trying to locate Scanticon.
Commissioner Marofsky asked whether the existing property
owners would be required to change their signs to coordinate
with the new signage requested.
Mr. Pentz stated that they would not.
Vice Chairman Stulberg opened the Public Hearing.
There was no one present to speak on the issue.
Vice Chairman Stulberg closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Wire asked if the street signage within the Campus
would be changed.
Ms. O'Donnell stated that private stop signs within the Campus
would be changed but that public street signs would remain as
required by law.
Commissioner Wire asked about the lighting of the signs.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 9, 1989
Page 204
i
Ms. O'Donnell stated that the Scanticon sign would be
illuminated as would others but they would be low light with a
halo effect.
Commissioner Wire asked about what type of material the
sculpture would be made of.
Ms. O'Donnell stated that preliminary plans are for a
polyethylene moldable material. She explained that the colors
would be in navy and silver to coordinate with the rest of the
Campus.
Commissioner Wire asked if Sign Consultants had done any other
sculptures.
Ms. O'Donnell stated that there is one in Roseville.
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky to recommend approval of the
petition subject to the conditions listed in the August 4, 1989
Staff Report and adding the following: 1) correct Condition 5
to read 16 square feet of sign area 2) add a condition for
approval of traffic control signs by the appropriate governing
agency and 3) the petition not go to the City Council until
after August 23, 1989.
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky stating that only 1 secondary
monument be allowed on Northwest Boulevard.
MOTION died for lack of a second.
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner
Tierney to replace Condition 2 of the Staff Report with the
following: Site pylon signs identified in the petition will
be within ordinance setback regulations with a 5 foot variance
allowed by City staff because of topographic or landscape
problems.
MOTION TO APPROVE
MOTION TO AMEND
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF
A SECOND
MOTION TO AMEND
Roll Call Vote. 4 Nays, Commissioner Marofsky Aye. MOTION VOTE - MOTION FAILED
failed.
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO AMEND
Pierce to delete condition 2 from the August 4, 1989 Staff
Report.
Roll Call Vote. 3 Ayes, Commissioners Marofsky and Wire Nay. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTION carried on a 3-2 vote.
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Wire MOTION TO AMEND
to remove the approval of the sculpture from the petition and
have the petitioner resubmit a plan for the sculpture at a
later date so it can be reviewed again.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 9, 1989
Page 205
Commissioner Wire asked if more details on the sculpture would
be available on August 23rd.
Ms. O'Donnell stated that if the sculpture plans were expanded,
they would bring the plans back for review.
Commissioner Stulberg stated that he was concerned about the
color, materials, and subject of the sculpture and would like
to review them.
Commissioner Marofsky stated that this could be considered a
denial of freedom of speech if the Commission tried to regulate
the sculpture.
Roll Call Vote. 4 Ayes, Commissioner Marofsky Nay. MOTION VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
carried.
Commissioner Pierce stated that he was in favor of the
sculpture but wanted more details before approving it.
Roll Call Vote on Main Motion as amended. 5 Ayes. MOTION VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
carried.
Vice, Chairman Stulberg introduced the request of A.A.G.
Builders, for a Conditional Use Permit for a garage addition
located al -,3375 Rosewood Lane.
The reading of' -the August 3, 1989 Staff Report was waived.
Vice Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. John Giebenhain, the
property owner.
Vice Chairman Stulberg called a 5 minute recess to allow the
property owner to read the Staff Report of August 3, 1989 as
the report had not been picked -.up by the petitioner or his
contractor. ` .
The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
Mr. Giebenhain stated that he was not awarf other options
available for the garage addition that
wouldo
Noot require an
amendment to the RPUD. He stated he would like ome time to
look at other options.
Vice Chairman Stulberg opened the Public Hearing.
Vice Chairman Stulberg proposed the Public Hearing be continued
until a further date so that the property owner could consult
with his builder, and look at other options for the garage
addition.
A.A.G. BUILDERS (89056)
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner Wire MOTION T
to continue the Public Hearing on this petitioner's request to
the meeting of August 23, 1989.
INUE
Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
3