HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 11-29-1989CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: October 25, 1989 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 29, 1989
FILE NO.: 89096
PETITIONER: Kingsview Heights Homeowner Association, Randy Nord
REQUEST: RPUD Amendment to Permit Two Project Identification Signs
LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Juneau Lane and County Road 9;
Southwest Corner of 44th Avenue North and Fernbrook Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING:
BACKGROUND:
RPUD 85-1
The City Council on December 17, 1984, under Resolution 84-869, approved the
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Harstad-Todd Construction Company
for Kingsview Heights.
On March 4, 1985, under Resolution 85-155, the City Council approved the
Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for
Harstad-Todd Construction Company for Kingsview Heights. The PUD Plan
contemplated a possible project sign located at the northwest corner of Juneau
Lane and County Road 9, subject to detailed plans to be submitted with the
Final Plat. No plans were ever submitted with subsequent Final Plats.
On April 15, 1985, under Resolution 85-252, the City Council approved the PUD
Final Plat for Kingsview Heights.
On July 1, 1985, under Resolution 85-478, the City Council approved the Final
Plat for Kingsview Heights second addition.
Notice of this Public Hearing has been published in the official City
newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. Proposed is the installation of two area identification signs of 16 square
feet each; one at the northwest corner of Juneau Lane and County Road 9,
and the other at the southwest corner of Fernbrook Lane and 44th Avenue
North. Both signs would be owned and maintained by the Homeowner
Association as provided for in the Association documents.
see next page)
Page Two
File 89096
2. The sign at the Northwest corner of Juneau Lane and County Road 9 is
proposed to be set back 20 feet from Juneau Lane and approximately 17.256
feet from County Road 9 on an outlot owned by the Kingsview Heights
Homeowners Association. This will place the sign approximately 2.75 feet
from the north property line of this outlot. This sign location is
similar to the one depicted on the 1985 Preliminary Plan.
3. The sign proposed to be located at the southwest corner of 44th Avenue
North and Fernbrook Lane would be set back 20 feet from 44th Avenue North
and 36 feet from the right-of-way of Fernbrook Lane. However, the
easterly 30 feet between the sign and Fernbrook Lane is an outlot owned by
the City for trail purposes. Setback is measured with City -owned outlots
considered part of the street right-of-way. The sign is therefore
proposed to be set back 6 feet versus the Ordinance minimum of 20 feet.
This sign location would be on private property by means of an easement
from the property owner to the Association.
4. Section 10, Subdivision A -2c-3 of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance,
identifies that area identification signs shall be located at least 20
feet from the front property lines, but in no case shall it be located in
any side yard.
5. Section 9, Subdivision A -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 provision
is attached. The petitioner has, in his narrative, addressed the six
standards provided by the Ordinance and provided response as to how their
application meets those standards.
The Planning Commission is charged by the Zoning Ordinance to additionally
consider any amendment to a Planned Unit Development within the context of
the criteria found in Section 9, Subdivision B -5c of the Plymouth Zoning
Ordinance. The Commission must address the relationship of the proposal
to the surrounding neighborhoods and compliance with City Ordinance and
the Comprehensive Plan.
6. Recent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance provide that signage is a
physical design feature of a PUD that is eligible for the flexibility of
the PUD Ordinance that is afforded other dimensional standards, such as
structure setback and height. With this Ordinance amendment, the
applicant's proposal to locate area identification signage closer than the
Ordinance standard can be addressed within the context of the PUD Plan.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The concept of project or area identification signage was addressed at the
time of the PUD Preliminary Plan for this RPUD. No specific plans were
submitted or approved, with all design deferred until the time of Final
see next page)
Page Three
File 89096
Plat. The developer chose not to address project signage in any manner at
the time of the Final Plats for this project.
2. Staff finds that concept of two project identification signs for this RPUD
is not, in itself, an amendment to the PUD Plan. The location of the
signs does constitute a PUD amendment in that such location was not
specified by the Preliminary Plan and is less than the Ordinance standard
specified for the setback of project identification signage (20 feet).
Were this not a PUD this request would constitute a Zoning Ordinance
variance.
3. We find the proposals to locate project identification signs at the corner
of County Road 9 and Juneau Lane and at the corner of 44th Avenue North
and Fernbrook Lane to be consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan; consistent with the signage concept embodied in the
approved RPUD Preliminary Plan; and consistent with related elements of
the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Specifically, we find the sign at 44th Avenue North and Fernbrook Lane to
maintain the spirit of the setback provision by its location 36 feet from
the street right-of-way line on Fernbrook Lane. The trail already has
been constructed within the 30 -foot outlot along Fernbrook Lane and is
physically located to the eastern extremity of the outlot. Therefore, no
potential conflict exists with location of the project identification sign
within 6 feet of the west line of Outlot D. Typically, trails are located
near the center of outlots. Therefore, this becomes a unique set of
circumstances.
5. The location of the sign at County Road 9 (Rockford Road) and Juneau Lane
at a point of 17.25 feet from the County Road 9 right-of-way is consistent
with the logic of retaining the sign within the common open space owned by
the Homeowners Association.
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend adoption of action approving an amendment to the Kingsview
Heights RPUD Plan to provide for project identification signage at 44th Avenue
North and Fernbr Lane and atRoc ford Road and Juneau Lane as proposed.
Submitted by:C P
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution of Approval
2. Location Map
3. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
4. Planned Unit Development Criteria
5. Petitioner's Narrative
6. Survey Graphics
7. Resolution 85-155 Approving RPUD Preliminary Plan
pc/cd/89096:dl)
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR KINGSVIEW
HEIGHTS HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION (89096)
WHEREAS, Kingsview Heights Homeowner Association has requested a Residential
Planned Unit Development Plan amendment to permit project identification signs
of 16 square feet area to be located at the southwest corner of 44th Avenue
North and Fernbrook Lane and at the northwest corner of Rockford Road and
Juneau 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
Kingsview Heights Homeowner Association for a Residential Planned Unit
Development Plan amendment to provide for project identification signage at
44th Avenue North and Fernbrook Lane and at Rockford Road and Juneau Lane,
pursuant to the following findings and conditions:
1. All applicable requirements of the City and State Building Codes shall be
implemented and enforced; no code requirements are waived by this
approval.
2. Sign setbacks shall be: 20 feet from 44th Avenue North; 6 feet from the
west line of outlot adjacent to Fernbrook Lane; 20 feet from Juneau Lane;
and 17.75 feet from Rockford Road.
3. The provisions of City Council Resolutions 85-155 (RPUD Preliminary
Plan/Plat) and 85-252/85-478 (RPUD Final Plats) shall apply as applicable.
4. Prior to issuance of sign permits the easement, and Homeowners Association
documents providing for sign location in the outlot and sign maintenance
in perpetuity, shall be reviewed by the City Attorney and recorded against
property, as applicable.
16
mwwj-==MdFlp MEN mI—WTi
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
dedesigned 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.
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 9, Subdivision B
s
consisting of forest and woo lots as well as wetlands and wetland vege-
tation; the geology, slope, oil and ground water characteristics of the
site; existing lakes, stre s, ponds, drainage swales, run-off settling
areas, and floodplains mu be identified; analysis of the relationship
of the proposed use of th existing natural conditions listed above.
11) Circulation - including vehicular and pedestrian movement throughout the
site, relationship to he City Thoroughfare Guide Plan and the adjoining
land, a descriptive atement of objectives and standards for the var-
ious circulation ements and the proposed jurisdiction of each
component.
12) Densiti/nddi ribution for the various residential categories, pro-
jected haracteristics and projected market sales price of the
housingThese tabulations will be used to evaluate the adequacy
of livi, open space, educational facilities, utility systems,
trafficons and other services both public and private.
13) Massgrindicating which areas must be adapted to allow the dev-
elopmend and how it will visually and physically affect adjoin-
ing Iawhat soil erosion and sediment controls are to be
employe
14) Stagi g plan indicating geographic staging and approximate sequence of
the an or portions thereof.
i. The Plan ing Commission will hold a public hearing or hearings on the P.U.D.
Prelimi ry Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat and Zoning Amend-
ment i the manner prescribed in Section 11.
j. The
rec
der,
Manning Commission, after holding the public hearing, shall make its
mendations to the City Council for approval; approval with conditions; or
1 of the Conditional Use Permit for a P.U.D., preliminary plat and rezon-
Planning Commission shall forward to the City Council its recommendations
ed on and including, but not limited to the following:
Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit
Development.
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.
Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities; circu-
lation and parking facilities; recreation areas and open spaces.
9-17
C l 07 --
no u.c, Mru ss y -
I E-• D L Lt'rt. 0 I
I TZ#,L jA(i.- 1 r2liy
V
Z0 1-(64Z ;>612- L(U'
S.S v vz
kTir
t1 `'tiMt o rL
Ties 40LLOU32 < <P 04 -tE QVJ OP 71AS ftki l X46 - Yc1A&Z:y2E
ilii
m4 nq- r r .-,rC rn i fin,] L I a/ Z:7/Sl Li --r7)---1 . M4 li=t Qorti`st3
IN T7"tv 6P -WL (jp -L"L L li l I tST.S
aS
RLOCt< A PL)2-'u6A
t kufn s u 2 Wk's ?'v 4Jn U &t/ 0110 oA- Ohl,
J P c f c -71") < () s g- f 61M T _ S -t G7- 7,
eT C wILL_
beE- iN Gt3 1,P[.,1 U' `5 r, am,42-1'JS 1 t
P 'JCp BIZ T'qF—
1fK4-JyAkg> Nti'li
Fal
CLA-O / tSPZc-77 VTi.Y , (it If- ow— /c lr1.sT i -7 D%' K
SELL t c
nlC-1 cOJKlC L,
t •J i LL`s N N1A,Cr /S
eta sA- air. < < .,
i ]!,an I mah.A!1 J= 4,1in(4- AJll_ f*r,Vkd L Pb6D fFi lTS
0 INS
o C a l It C1Yh? 11 1 r t1T /?tA /liTBL i9(1/c
L,Mffi hrS J j ftYL7'f Jas P1 /DOCEP v'A'
LA C14-- dwL (9— u -7-
A Ss tSAi-:Y T cC,cL£C-7)6AJ e J ts , C cr '
U btr 34? C 1.. ' ' r'
A,117--Y---r1, c
Ali
PLAhGt_ TANS U4
J sw
fC lY S'F viz cern N '7a 11'f U11 C. g.
AA
TA? W 1 LL t AJD - .r4F<T7 O/U 13-DJc / -
nw u - 'tom U (I Ie ,
fr S No--rero o/; ?'4 SLIGko a w i"D--
CVS—
Cd I
0
PT --ca74
Pr 4) ttr -7 UC-srTFC) M& N`v
J
rn PPcGT dfl -DE11 iY1 eyyr -!l C C .- %
Prau S 1 r* -u D PrY}u* ,, nit sc gni s ,Lv
i v rsL)n. -ri--A i&
4-.o ALLGUJ PtIL 711 ISIs &Aj
i s mete r Pt-ull/Ilt 2_ s b P"L
t,AyL}'
u; H U
1t 6 u.2 c,f,'L; c,. - 4 O a k
F g/L HI Al 72;> o o
aT A -J- P 666 14, ti's
PAD -L ( t-il . I T (S FtZ- 6 QfL S 1 G of S
r
mPEr-r- ALL aEZ O (L c t-4VTs' (r- i 'P (V,iC L
lo
dn.bw'r c)2'I-
nt WPV rA 6L)APPS I G7 dPJ.
h'AAV T J
t' , jyry S dF ; a Pc.,m a c% y r N - &1z .
170'"1 T Pewy7i l - t' I -rU v 2
PT 0 6 A:s WDT- DNZD (A -f-wf F
coli)L a
PLYmdlll 9 AAJ
6 vii F4+ -Y2. w
it
IF -
P -r 2) —i R,) n st vn s 4r>E- lmA)S I -c.7arJ–j OJ /734
Win,ME mw!
i /ifi 'j AW",iAWA V4
P 1 3J 4 C nl n17 z-ft21 t PO < <', I G ! CJK -,-a6 Ls *a- t
ln/ 60176 -ice' A(Cr SS SM I - L.L G72QlU
r•y vJA,/l C 07'011, l5 11, (Qy`£J'5 ff.S lLZJA f -T- -7
P2ft i /V f7-G2.t /4T7 AP L/ C. ft c? Lam,
C L Y AYl me'0 s :7'S t L- I UsTs,
A-PP roc( k-?BD1
tl4SVT , 7 1 I. lL --
O
A L LO cel Cf7 dA-CfC
r(Yl G l I l T2 (L dJML 6 T 72 A L L o LA'
S -fi 8,*, ctc A "`( . s= 4)v LlW- J -E- BI V Q ' 6Al ,
P u-P1" C fiLL . L b w1l &(L d 2 y 1p. &-r
cLbe;L; z64 ck" BgLcr u1 1-617 Z""ILS,
ga6 dk-
T1+AP1 K You 2Y M kH 113o h kw -, CU's l -1) 61.
1 A C
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
A:rsuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the —nth d+y of March 198_,,5•
TAe following members were present: Mayor Oayenort ouncilmembersCrain,
Schneider and Vasiliou
0 enowgmemberswereabst: unc er Ne s
eM
s
e+•
r
Councilmember Crain introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 85- 155
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN/PLAT T
USE PERMIT FORHARSTAD-TODD COSRUCON COMPANFORCSVIEWHEIGHTS (RPUO 85-1)
84100)
WHEREAS, Harstad-Todd Construction Company has requested approval for a Residential
Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plak,/Plax, Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit
for Kingsview heights for 224 single family residential lots located northwest of
County Road 9 and Ouneau Lane and northeast of 44th Avenue and Ouneau Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Pul,,Ac
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 Residential Planned Unit Devel-
opment Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Harstad-Todd ConstructionCompanyforKingsviewHeightslocatednorthwestofCountyRoad9andOuneauLaneand
northeast of 44th Avenue and Ouneau Lane, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense.
j. Maximum density shall be 2.2 units per acre for the land at or above 'he estab-
lished high water elevation per the adopted City Storm Water Drainage Plan as
verified by the City Engineer. Two density bonus points are assigned for size
of project, and in consideration of the increase in lot size in Block 8 and
Block 19. The maximum number of units approved is 214.
4. No Building Permits shall be issued until a Contract has been awarded for sewer
and water.
S. Payment of park dedication tees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with the
Dedication Policy in effect at the time of filing the Final Plat.
6. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System.
7. 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.
8. Rezoning shall be finalized with filing of the Final Plat.
PLEASE SEE PACE TWO
Page two
Resolution No. 85- 155
0
9. Development shall be consistent with the Turtle Lake Area Environmental
Assesswent. _
10. No Building Permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded
with Hennepin County.
11. Yard setbacks shall be 30 ft. front yard, except for those lots along County
Road 9 which shall be 50 ft. front yard; 10 ft. side yard and 25 ft. rear yard,
with the exception of Lots specified in Condition Number 23 which shall have 35
ft. front yard setbacks.
12. Access shall be limited to internal public roads and restricted from: County
Road 9 and Fernbrook Lane.
13. Transitional screening and berming shall be provided along: County Road 9 and
Fernbrook Lane with final plans to be provided on the final grading plan.
14. Appropriate legal documents regarding Homeowner Association documents, covenants
and restrictions as approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the Final
Plat.
15. Sign construction details shall be provided with the Final Plan/Plat applica-
tion. There shall be a property covenant for monument sign maintenance over the
entire subdivision, as approved by the City Attorney; such covenants to be filed
prier to issuance of a Sign Permit. Appropriate easements for the location of
the signs on the property shall be filed prior to issuance of a Sign Permit.
16. Construction details of development plans for the common open area shall be pro-
vided on the final grading plan.
17. All existing structures, except those on Lot 4, Block 12 and Lot 19 Block 10
shall be removed with the initial development.
18. Maximum lot coverage by structures shall be 20 percent, except that up to 22
lots may have up to 30 percent coverage by structures. These potential lots
shall be identified by the developer with the Final Plan/Plat. This requirement
and allowance shall be reflected in the covenants filed on this plat. The ap-
proval of 30% lot coverage for up to 22 lots will not take effect until prelim-
tnary grading is:completed and approved by the City Council,
19. A model unit may be constructed on Lot 149 Block 8 In accordance with Section 79
Subdivision F of the toning Ordinance. The Final Plan/Plat application shall
Identify location and construction plans for access and parking associated to
the use of a model unit.
20. Any existing wells shall be filled and capped in accordance with State Health
Department regulations.
21. DevMr. 31mHart (PIN 16-118-
22nt
Plans shall -
12-0019) from Ouneau Lane and 46th
s the right of access to the property
Avenue Northowned by
22. A requirement for minimum 50 ft. setbacks for Lot 29 Block 14, and Lot 19 Block
18 for transition.
i
Page three
Resolution No. 85- 155
23. Lot site and lot width shall heLcoruW9At.w1Jh R:1A District standards for Lots
1 through 39 Block 16= Lots 1 through 6, Block 151 and, and Lots 14 through 239
Block 8.
24: *Submission of a pian outlining the uses for the common open space such as, pas-
Irsive or active use; type of recreational equipment and their locations and, that
this plan shall be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
PRAC), and City Council before a grading permit is issued.
25. Prior to City Council approval of a Final Plan/Plat the petitioner shall submitwrittenverificationthattheSchoolDistrictboundaryforDistricts281and284
has been adjusted per State statutes in such a manner, so as not to bisect any
lots.
26. Staff shall verity that, prior to submittal of the Final Plan/Plat, Mr. D. M.
Schmidt who owns the adjacent substandard land locked parcel (PIN 16-118-22-14-
0007) has been informed of this development proposal by the petitioner and has
had the opportunity to discuss the status of the parcel with the petitioner in
light of these plans.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Vasiliou , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
J'allowliq voted n f avor thereo mayor IMenporto Councilmembers Crain,
Schneider and Vasiliou
The 0 ow ng voted against or absta Weds Rone
hereupon the Resolution was declared duly -pasFma and • opt .
Q5 G.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: October 30, 1989 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 29, 1989
FILE NO.: 89098
PETITIONER: James Bethke
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit
Amendment to Cimarron Ponds RPUD for a Three Season Porch
of 14' x 18' to be Constructed to the Patio Home.
LOCATION: 1071 Weston 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; in 1988, by Resolution 88-545; and in 1989, by Resolution 89- 503, 89-
610, and 89-611, the City Council has approved Conditional Use Permit
amendments to the RPUD to allow construction of additions to other pario 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.
see next page)
Page Two
File 89098
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
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 2a. 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 5c
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 89098
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 tjie, Oree season porcIL-At 1071 WesIAM-)Lane.
Submitted by:
Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Recommended Conditions of Approval
2. Location Map
3. Petitioner's Narrative
4. Petitioner's Plan
5. Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria
6. PUD Preliminary Plan Review Criteria
pc/cd/89098:dl)
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT FOR JAMES BETHKE FOR CIMARRON PONDS (RPUD 76-3) (89081)
WHEREAS, James Bethke has requested a Planned Unit Development Plan and
Conditional Use Permit amendment for property at 1071 Weston Lane to allow the
construction of a three season porch; 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
James Bethke for a Residential Planned Unit Development Plan and Conditional
Use Permit amendment for property at 1071 Weston Lane within the Cimarron
Ponds PUD to construct a three season porch, pursuant to the following
findings 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 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.
Y IS Y AA v\ Y Y Y r v
S' 8'
k
GOVT LOT 5
1616,11 RES. 1
551 ( w (' a
ISs
1 ) - - ' .n• Ee.v n.oa• eo.lc• no.w• 1+0.
I 1 l o• EE.m• p. .a• I
S 4 6 l!E'ST tSE
3
t17flM) (
6Wr '
lA)e ln)E1721 ?
p3)
12 (99) (
61) - (
66) , (5;,)u'. - I. a 7if)' Iss) 1667. (67)3 ° 7 •r.1 - I — v. Is 3 n' 6e. •r'
iyy
i
96) - I .
5e w I
w 8 1 Y - (6.)
w. O q' - . 1 . N' y.6r _ roIS1
011TLpif`•' (4) 12 1 (Y
le• fi •
S (
64
S\T•°
A lAl Ift q (IT)
n2
rmoolilaw (3)
I iu
pal •
1r(6) 1
64) J 3
fi <
07)
lrYl
7.73 wEl 1 llSt /ut
11I1 ° e In tQ .• (rl ' !61701
v
lr7 °.) t IS CI
OI..
N• IS 17 „ 10 n0 lrl - t (
l»7 p b 11
111 )t tll
a_ lrt (
17t •S lnt (•t) (r)2'' K tIl
I
Ss Y (m cm
2,0( p6tc5 a (fu r.
ro s lttf( AVE. 760. tt
2' n M t0 trt ! (rt . i0•
PA tY7 w s n
u I - (r)ls (1.7 ri 2• 23 p N
t91 (63) tm a t2Y '
Is Ail n u in) (nt _ (st7 Q (1ft '
n
i s0 trl .W I
106) ¢ t»t le p
1 (olt A y? ®
1
tm y 1
l.B 170, (t S
IT (22) (46) w S117 •+ T
P 49) 1170et n (wl I!t lsl . Sir) e
i7'a E
ri Hot p IN
1
Yl p lift lrt R N '
l91 /Y, 31 p fSll 6 Irl a foe/fIl t• R (
Syl
ss (33)
N , 7. lAl p1t ( it lm
INI `
I
163
63
RSt
IA) P •
I I.i
l' 4 (^) 63
trt =
w (IV 2O lfY p ITH OvE. NO- Q
x
pY
Y) 3 w7
J (
128)
Is (
rt
N
15
j
I• .E l7)
31 •0 A Is
i lKl I!
17
tY 31 lbt) (Ir 4S °e
79 IY f! Q IS lr) IY (
n
lI» •1
pet (ut K O. 1 lW j ( v
1011
trot (f1 J- >
1. ft•t K lf11 (Yt °Dirft
fII
1
6
1!i'711t lMt
p
rtv
111!1 04,. ISIY) 2 SS(IY) H (Ir .
TIP, • '
EMT 6 1l S. 610. 10 21 . (
IL Z M b•! IIOY S E) 50 l Ifl I
tl R 1Yt 22 A, (rl ts1 l97 flirt J •3
7
fs(uSt `
Yt wl,
1 w7 y 6, 1616,
11n \ 31 (Irl °tl
In
1 IYl z3 ` 1: 1N7' 9f :f.°°.p• 3 cI»7 '00 Si 1 s ..
1 (rt flet B art z (sl Jwa.• ' ('r,
b (I„7
w on i° q II
f n.11 •6 S • °i m 9 ......
Q' °° m
a
1 O Yl lS 19110 l91 N (u17 . Z lltn S6 Sf
i° Y
Ir01 2 6e t,t't l A7 ('rt I o
lYl 26 Z E (Yl 6(171, H •p llrl 69 11Y7 r
1 / p 61 3 e'i
1
tten
N p
tM, (169) 33 tr1 W °
t( ..»r.wn.es• ...
1 It11 ]
b S• lr)t 6S lWl
p I.31 f»t SS - Y 3. .Ir7 t!1 5! 9 llrl NY °• E'•o'1••
1 Inl (3071 31 R ltf (n) I I>tit l lm NY 119tC 1
1 .. IS•o.r IeE•n••rr ., ;.....
r R11 \ (1) A ^ IS
F II
IN
13
12 'J
a \
Il I _ •
32) - V Jp•
f A• ..'Y = 7 J!!•z9, S. w £
a , tp.23 °E'Is• e. 1 I
lae.v ' AVE• 7 ' s9) •' 0 112.0 '• '1, eo - (2) (3) (43)
6 S
lee. I
10)
too.
C`R. Ks Im,
I (
5) (7) '\o \ v - (15) (t7) I(1••
1 2 - !1_
tnt
I 3, 30'
6. '
16J ti°\
2 \ 10 so
o a R (6) .. :
3.0• (13) (23) ~ .
b (
30) .\ 1.1 DI MIT I
20) .\ ». s. t •' . %y- , 9 g ° ' •g m-,3• SIT. (
35)
10y.
St ,. ' $ R P.' 'bJ (22)
ilk' £ '? i.. S , A B t`(36) ,.,t •-_.•
a14)4- a
e' 7`
st _
13s \IA '' I +.,Io
r '•I 6 d ' B e yrpy , ° (37) (
33) 4C
Jj J3
O
JJ
1.
AVE. .
E }
I ^ •( L4. F
rfJ.
iJ
p- _.fin
h1 •
a' i \ 16o
qD'
to
s u (
38i
71. '•L s. trp z
s3:Ss'
7e;(. -°7 •-
f1_ef .
1..
n nzI ((.1)
D°'` 2(
424)
ILg- . (° E •' (
27)
tp"
S
s
a (40)-
a.. •.
00.' _
4.
psi
25) (26)
t0)
49'
19\(2:) 11P
I6,.
ft
6. a-
6- _. Z.L. vL _c i- _ _ _ Ices___ _ LL _-_- -
Building 54 - 1071 We. -)n Lane
t I
1DI'
S9
Q J
404• _
N
243 \\
f
l-4Lo EAST- - 1 `
rted..,sed
PrivacyFence
We hereby certify that the information shown on this survey is true and correct
this 16th day of November, 1989.
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. aL
Paul A. Johnson
Land Surveyor, inn. Reg. No. 10938
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of:
Lot 49, Block 1, CIMARRON PONDS 2ND ADDITION, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
And of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on
said land. This survey is made only in connection with a mortgage loan now being placed on the
property and no liability is assumed except to the holder of such mortgage or any other interest
acquired by the reason of such mortgage. It is understood and agreed no monuments have been
placed for the purpose of establishing lot lines or boundary corners. As surveyed by me this 3 0 t h
day of November 19 7$
Revised //-/6-89 P/Aj% Thomas S. Bergquist
3v•7B
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Ave. N. Engineers
Plymouth, MN 55447 Planners
612/476-6010 Surveyors
Land Surveyor, Minn. Reg. No. / / z!)
S CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
BOOK PAGE for
I/5 7/
LE NM MR. & MRS. JAMES BETHK
920 /
M
w
bILL.. !rTun
F I
I •k••1i.N.rS
Y1CTX +pb4 "'fYT.
Nhj
J
n'J
wll-mvq, .4wt.
011" M -Ir
yl" rj,,,,o. 6+Tz,
Zxb R
2=0
Ir,
tea. a .&J. A skits— /i ..&
I
156% lkmaT
Fx4L
T
li:-f 6LO,D
r3p
a.t _ FTC-,
c, ,37A.
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.
V
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 99 Subdivision B
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
s e; existing lakes, streams, ponds, drainage swales, run-off settling
are , and floodplains must be identified; analysis of the relationship
of th roposed use of the existing natural conditions listed above.
11) Circulatio - including vehicular and pedestrian movement throughout the
site, relati ship to the City Thoroughfare Guide Plan and the adjoining
land, a descr tive statement of objectives and standards for the var-
ious cit. latio elements and the proposed jurisdiction of each
component.
12) Densities and distrib Non for the various residential categories, pro-
jected occupant charactelskstics and projected market sales price of the
housing units. These tabu tions will be used to evaluate the adequacy
of living space, open space, educational facilities, utility systems,
traffic generations and other s vices both public and private.
13) Mass grading - indicating which are must be adapted to allow the dev-
elopment proposed and how it will visu ly and physically affect adjoin-
ing lands, and what soil erosion an sediment controls are to be
employed.
14) Staging plan indicating geographic staging and proximate sequence of
the plan or portions thereof.
i. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing or hearin on the P.U.D.
Preliminary Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat and oning Amend-
ment in the manner prescribed in Section 11. —
j. The Planning Commission, after hold in public hearing, shall make its
recommendations to the City Counor approval; approval with conditions; or
denial of the Conditional ermit for a P.U.D., preliminary plat and rezon-
ing if considered.
The P ing Commission shall forward to the City Council its recommendations
Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit
Development.
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.
Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities; circu-
lation and parking facilities; recreation areas and open spaces.
9-17
6 A.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: November 8, 1989 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 29, 1989
FILE NO.: 89099
PETITIONER: Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company
REQUEST: Lot Consolidation, Lot Division, and Variance from the
Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to the Lot Width and Area.
LOCATION: Southwest Corner of 47th Avenue North and Ithaca Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: R -1B (Low Density Residential)
BACKGROUND:
The City Council, under Resolution 87-274, approved the Preliminary Plat and
variance for Mary Anderson Construction Company for "Fernbrook Woods". The
variance was to allow for these two lots to have lot sizes of 13,720 square
feet and 13,775 square feet.
Property owners within 100 feet have been notified of this application as a
courtesy.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The petitioner proposes to divide/consolidate with respect to the two
adjacent lots that will effectively move the property line between the two
lots 20 feet southerly. Lot 2 (the corner lot) will increase in size from
13,775 square feet to 16,254 square feet and lot width from 82 feet to 102
feet, while Lot 1 will decrease in size from 13,720 square feet to 10,795
square feet and width from 99 feet to 79 feet. The proposed configuration
for the corner lot will result in a size that exceeds the Zoning Ordinance
minimum (16,254 square feet proposed versus a 15,000 square foot Ordinance
minimum) and lot width (proposed to be 102 feet versus the Ordinance
minimum of 90 feet). The resulting southerly lot would reduce in size to
10,795 square feet and in lot width to 79 front feet. The southerly
parcel now exists substandard (with a variance) as to lot area, but it now
exists as standard with respect to lot width.
2. The variances requested are to lot area (10,795 square feet versus an
Ordinance standard of 15,000 square feet) and lot width (79 feet versus an
Ordinance standard of 90 feet) with respect to the southerly lot (Parcel
B) .
see next page)
Page Two
File 89099
3. The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from the provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance as to specific properties when, in its judgement, an
unusual hardship on the land exists. We have attached a letter dated
October 30, 1989, from the petitioner which addresses the six Zoning
Ordinance standards that must be met for the Planning Commission to
recommend approval of a variance. We have also attached a copy of those
Zoning Ordinance standards.
4. The properties are located within the Basset Creek Drainage District. The
site is not located within a Shoreland Management Area nor does it contain
any wetlands. The site does not contain any major woodlands or severe
slopes. The soils appear suitable for urban capability with public
sewers.
5. Immediately west of the subject site is the Tyrell RPUD. The minimum lot
size specified for the Tyrell RPUD is 10,000 square feet, although no
existing platted lots in close proximity to the subject site are actually
10,000 square feet in size. Most adjoining Tyrell lots are 12,000 to
13,000 square feet.
6. This Fernbrook Woods project is a conventional R-2 plat, not a PUD. No
PUD flexibility is available.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The division of platted property responsive to Section 500.37 of the City
Code meets all submission requirements and standing alone, the division
would appear to be responsive to the City Code.
2. The hardship stated by the petitioner relates to his inability to
construct a house of a specific size within the setbacks now established
for the northerly lot (the corner lot). By implication, the hardship then
becomes the fact that there is a double front setback applicable to a
corner lot. There is no requirement that a house constructed on the
corner lot be designed to front Ithaca Lane. Assuming the south setback
for the corner lot would be considered "side yard" due to the most narrow
width of the lot being on Ithaca Lane, the house, as proposed, would fit
within the setbacks of the existing Lot 2 (corner lot) without variance if
oriented to 47th Avenue North.
3. Even though the provisions of the Tyrell RPUD plan provide for lots as
small as 10,000 square feet, no lots of this size are in the immediate
vicinity of the subject site and therefore the proposed "new" Lot 2 (south
lot) would be significantly smaller than most other lots in the vicinity,
which range 13,000 to 15,000 square feet in size.
see next page)
Page Three
File 89099
RECOMMENDATION:
We do not find substantial basis exists for a variance consistent with the
standards established by the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, no
demonstrated hardship is found, other than self-imposed by the petitioner. We
hereby recommend denial of the requested variance based on noncompliance with
Zoning Ordinance variance standards. While we have no objection to the lot
division/consolidation, we suggest the petitioner may not wish to proceed with
that action if the setback variance is not approved as well. Consistent with
previous Planning Commission direction, we have included draft resolutions of
approval and deniaJ,.,fgr consideratio¢.qy the Plug Commission.
Submitted by:
Cha Ts E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Recommend Findings for Denial of Variances
3. Recommended Conditions for Approval of Lot Division/Consolidation and
Variances
2. Setting Conditions to be Met Prior to Recording
2. Engineer's Memorandum
3. Location Map
4. Variance Criteria
5. Petitioner's Correspondence
6. Division Graphics
pc/cd/89099:dl)
DENIAL OF VARIANCES FOR MARVIN H. ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (89099)
WHEREAS, Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company has requested approval for
variances to lot area and lot width of a proposed parcel located at the
southwest corner of 47th Avenue North and Ithaca Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request 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
variances for Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company for property located at
the southwest corner of 47th Avenue North and Ithaca Lane, based on the
following findings:
1. There are no particular physical characteristics of this parcel creating a
hardship as distinguished from an inconvenience if the strict regulations
of the district are carried out.
2. The conditions upon which this petition for variances are based are not
unique to this parcel. Numerous parcels throughout the City are "corner
lots" requiring specific house designs to fit the special setback
requirements.
APPROVING LOT DIVISION/CONSOLIDATION AND VARIANCES FOR MARVIN H. ANDERSON
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (89099)
WHEREAS, Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company has requested approval for a
lot division/consolidation and variances for the creation of two lots, located
at the southwest corner of 47th Avenue North and Ithaca Lane; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the lot
division/consolidation and variances for Marvin H. Anderson for property
located at the southwest corner of 47th Avenue North and Ithaca Lane.
XISTING LE
PARCEL A
Lot 2, Block 4, Fernbrook Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota
PARCEL B
Lot 1, Block 4, Fernbrook Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota
To be divided and consolidated as follows:
PARCEL A
All of Lot 2, Block 4, Fernbrook Woods and the north 20 feet of Lot 1,
Block 4, Fernbrook Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the
record plat thereof.
PARCEL B
All of Lot 1, Block 4, Fernbrook Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
except the north 20 feet, according to the record plat thereof.
FURTHER, that the City Manager be authorized to make the necessary special
assessment corrections based upon City Policy when the division/consolidation
is approved by Hennepin County.
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING AND REGARDING LOT DIVISION/LOT
CONSOLIDATION AND VARIANCES FOR MARVIN H. ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
89099)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a lot division/lot consolidation for
Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company for property located at the southwest
corner of 47th Avenue North and Ithaca Lane;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the following
conditions to be met prior to filing of the lot division/lot consolidation and
variances for Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company for property located at
the southwest corner of 47th Avenue North and Ithaca Lane, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79-80 regarding minimum floor
elevations for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing open
storm water drainage facilities.
3. No Building Permit to be issued until the division/consolidation is
filed with Hennepin County.
4. Submittal of all necessary utility easements prior to filing with
Hennepin County.
5. Variances with respect to Parcel B are approved to permit a lot size of
10,795 square feet versus an Ordinance standard of 15,000; and to permit
a width at the front setback of 79 feet versus the Ordinance standard of
90 feet, based on compliance with the standards for a Zoning Ordinance
variance.
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: November 20, 1989
FILE NO.: 89099
PETITIONER: Mr. Fred Haas, Mary Anderson Homes, 88901 Lyndale Avenue South,
Bloomington, MN 55420
LOT DIVISION/CONSOLIDATION:LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 4, FERNBROOK WOODS ADDITION
LOCATION: South of 47th Avenue, west of Ithaca Lane in the southeast 1/4 of
Section 9.
N/A Yes No
1. X Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. _X._ Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed
use.
3. _ X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of Lot Division/Consolidation approval:
4.. Area assessments: None
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None
LEGAL/EASEMENTS/PERMITS:
6. X Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements
ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in
width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required,
it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents
executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any building
permits.)
N/A Yes No
7. X Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year
high water elevation and conformance with the City's Comprehensive
Storm Drainage Plan.
8. _2L _ _ Conforms with City policy regarding minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following
lots:
9. All standard utility easements required for construction
The following easements will be required for construction of
utilities
10. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been
vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-way to
facilitate the development. This vacation is not an automatic
process in conjunction with the platting process. It is entirely
dependent upon the City receiving a petition for the vacation from
the property owner; therefore, it is their responsibility to submit a
petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be
vacated. The developer has petitioned to have the existing drainage
and utility easements vacated along the existing common property
tine_ The easement shall be vacated before the Lot
Division/Consolidation _s_filed.
11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order
that he may file the required easements referred to above.
12. _ X _ All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
t'3 . A.
Additional right-of-way will be required on
Submitted by:
I
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
2
I
In
AWINURST 2ND ADD
Ao (A (b
cl (09 9
PLUOUTH -40
UI
STORM SEWER DISTRICT EIOUNCARY
SCHOOL DIS'RICT KL,%,Ay
WAIERS40 DISTRIc, 3:jNNR
1. That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or
topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, a
particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished fran a
mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be
carried out.
2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are
unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not
applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning
classification.
3. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire
to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land.
4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Ordinance and
has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the
parcel of land.
5. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in
which the parcel of land is located.
6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of
the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public
safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
fonns:o>pl/zon.stnd/s) 10/89
I
mare Anderson
BETTER HOMES FOR BETTER LIVING
MARVIN H. ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
6901 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55420
October 30, 1989
Members of:
City Planning Staff
Planning Commission
City Council
Dear Members:
TELEPHONE 661-2661
37th
Anniversary
11-F
OCT go 1989
CITY C= .`c-jrH
COMMUNITY DEPT.
We are requesting a variance for Lot 1, Block 4, Fernbrook Woods
to allow said lot to be 10,795 square feet instead of the required
15,000 square foot minimum.
In September of 1987, City Council approved the plat of Fernbrook
Woods with Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 4, less than the 15,000 square
foot minimum.
As you recall, 47th Avenue North had to align with the platting
to the west and Kings North set the south boundary. This created
two undersized lots.
Lot 2, Block 4, we found very difficult to design a home with
the 35 foot setbacks from two sides.
We now have a signed contract to build a home on Lot 2, Block
4 if we are able to move the south lot line 20 feet to the south.
This will enable us to construct a home with standard setbacks, with
the lot size to be 16,388 square feet.
Lot 1, Block 4 will be reduced in size to 10,795 square feet.
With standard setbacks we have a home which we will be building as
a spec model as shown on the plan.
We feel that the realignment of the lot line will enable us to
construct two homes which will be compatable with the neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
FEH:Iw
Sincerely,
MARVIN DERSON ON T CO.
reder is E . Haas `
Vice Pres. Land Development
r
W W '
SIV
i 1 S89' 46' 33' E 01.97
o I
a PARCEL' ----yICU
Ln
AREA -162' 5 s q. f t— a
2 0
II NG SETBACK' BUILD o
cus9
ILA N ® `8
X4.0
EXISTING EASEMENT
t o ( 1 /I
1.
CIV
m
LN -- ---! yt
i*) —' — o
to S880 43 _
J
CD
cin ---------_ --- 6-1
POSED EA
CD
t REA j ' 1 q
IPA+RCEL B ci / lyCD
L 1_ 25.,7
22-01PROPOSED
2 -STORY 9y 35.1 c
kd I o cd 2 ( en 1
c
am"'
5
l
ICl q IINS
Iq Ln \
20
A. L8' 44' 02' M 135.O o
I
EXISTING
I 1 HOUSE
35.0 yI IaK1
I I I1
I I1
75-Z
Prepared by SRF, Inc.
December 1, 1989
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF ROADWAYS
The Metropolitan Council requires that local comprehensive plans
be consistent with the Transportation Development Guide/Policy
plan. This includes recognizing the interrelationship between
land use and transportation facilities. The transportation guide
plan is that component of the Comprehensive. Plan of the City of
Plymouth which insures that land use and intensity is compatible
with the proposed transportation system.
Part of the process of developing a transportation guide plan is
determining the function of the components of the system.
Functional classification involves determining what role each
roadway should perform. Functional classification ensures that
non -transportation factors, such as land use and development, are
taken into account in the planning and design of streets and
highways.
The Metropolitan Council has defined four classes of roadways:
1. Principal arterials
Interstate freeways
Other principal arterials
2. Minor arterials
3. Collector streets
4. Local streets
Principal arterials include all interstate freeways and those
other roadways which provide for the longest trips. The emphasis
is on mobility rather than land access. In the fully developed
area, spacing will vary from two to three miles. The
Metropolitan Council defines the metropolitan highway system as
made up of the principal arterials in the region. In Plymouth,
these include I-494, T.H. 169 (old C.S.A.H. 18) and T.H. 55.
The minor arterial system serves medium to short trips and
provide access to the principal arterials. They interconnect
concentrations of commercial or industrial land uses and connect
cities and towns of the region to each other and to similar
places outside the region. The emphasis is still on mobility
rather than land access. In fully developed areas, spacing
ranges from 1/2 mile to one mile. In developing areas, one to
two mile spacing is adequate.
2 -
Collector streets provide connection between neighborhoods and
from neighborhoods to minor business concentrations. Mobility
and land access are equally important. Collectors serve short
trips and are spaced 1/4 to 3/4 miles apart.
Local streets are those that remain, serving the shortest trips
and providing access to adjacent property. They are spaced as
necessary.
In the City of Plymouth, this functional classification has been
adapted as follows:
Interstate freeways are called principal arterials.
other principal arterials are called intermediate arterials.
Minor arterials are the same.
Collector streets are broken into two categories, major
collectors and minor collectors.
Local streets are the same.
Prepared by SRF, Inc.
December 1, 1989
ISSUES THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED IN RESPONSE TO THE
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S SYSTEMS STATEMENT
1. HIGHWAYS
a. Develop plan for ensuring success of existing or planned
HOV lanes, metering and bypass ramps on sections of the
metropolitan highway system within Plymouth.
b. Reflect strategies to manage the impacts of queuing of
vehicles at meters and bypass ramps, as well as land use
and travel demand management strategies.
C. Include a minor arterial and collector system that is
adequate to handle local traffic, take short trips off
the metropolitan highway system and provide continuous
travel through adjacent communities.
2. LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION RELATIONSHIPS
a. Evaluate the potential impact of planned land use on the
metropolitan highway system.
b. Develop land use strategies in conjunction with travel
demand management and highway system management
strategies to insure that locally generated traffic does
not exceed the metropolitan highway system capacity.
c. Develop land use strategies that reflect Plymouth's
plans to coordinate new development with the staging of
transportation improvements.
d. Review the TAZ level forecasts and, if necessary, submit
suggested revisions to Metropolitan Council.
e. Identify the maximum amount of development by land use
type that is allowable for vacant property or property
planned for redevelopment.
3. TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT
a. Reflect a commitment to work with employers and
developers to create conditions and services that
encourage employees to ride together and/or travel in
off-peak hours.
2 -
b. Consider land use strategies, such as reducing land use
intensity, encouraging an appropriate mix of land uses
and using site -planning techniques that encourage use of
carpools, vanpools and buses.
c. Work with the RTB and the Metropolitan Council in
developing and implementing the TDM component of its
comprehensive plan.
4. TRANSIT
a. Work with the RTB and transit operators to create an
environment that encourage use of all types of transit.
b. Reflect a significant commitment to transit.
c. Address, if appropriate, the preservation of linear
rights-of-way, such as abandoned railroad lines and
surface roadway rights-of-way, for future public use,
including LRT.
Met Council(MC)
Zone
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
TOTAL
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE
2010 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE
Households
MC Plymouth
1,075 2,512
1,777 3,579
955 2,494
3,708 6,484
4,837 3,291
2,158 2,424
3,106 2,265
2,372 1,465
2,116 2,362
1,322 550
1,438 1,534
2,136 1,888
27,000 31,107
Prepared by SRF, Inc.
December 1, 1989
Population
8,158
MC Plymouth
2,825 6,581
4,672 9,377
2,514 6,534
9,752 16,988
12,719 8,622
5,676 6,351
8,167 5,934
6,237 3,838
5,565 6,188
3,477 1,441
3,782 4,019
5,614 4,947
71,000 80,820
Employment
MC Plymouth
2,200 8,158
1,320 4,477
2,264 7,853
2,340 5,099
1,190 850
440 88
7,040 12,496
880 734
10,310 7,644
9,870 6,089
1,306 1,560
4,840 4,623
44,000 59,721
Prepared by SRF, Inc.
December 1, 1989
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE
SUMMARY OF LAND USE GUIDE PLAN CHANGES
The proposed changes to the City of Plymouth Land Use Guide Plan
will result in a reduction of households and employment.
Overall, the land use changes would result in approximately 3,900
fewer households and 2,100 fewer employees.
The attached table map shows how these changes are distributed.
The areas around I-494 and Schmidt Lake Road are proposed to be
less intensively developed, with 2,200 fewer households and 1,200
fewer employees. In the vicinity of T.H. 55, west of Vicksburg,
there are 1,700 fewer households and 900 fewer jobs. The
employment level proposed for this area has shifted from the area
north of C.S.A.H. 9 to an area south of T.H. 55, as well as to an
area north of T.H. 55 and west of Dunkirk.
Overall, the reduction in households is due to proposed changes
that reduce the density of residential development or transfer
land from developable status to a rural classification. The
reduction in employment is due to shifts from commercial and
business to industrial uses.
The reduction of households and employment reduces the number of
trips generated in Plymouth. In turn, this reduces the amount of
traffic on the transportation system. The benefits of this
reduction will be felt particularly in streets and highways
adjacent to the parcels affected by the changes.
Prepared by SRF, Inc.
December 1, 1989
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE
SUMMARY OF LAND USE GUIDE PLAN CHANGES
TOTAL
Change In Change In
Area Households
1) West of I-494
132 366
North of Schmidt Lk. Rd.
2) West of I-494
162
South of Schmidt Lk. Rd.
3) East of I-494
868
208
North of Schmidt Lk. Rd.
4) East of I-494
South of Schmidt Lk. Rd.
5) West of I-494
North of T.H. 55
6) South of T.H. 55
West of Vicksburg
7) North of T.H. 55
East of Dunkirk
8) North of T.H. 55
West of Dunkirk
9) North of C.S.A.H. 9
East of Peony
10) North of C.S.A.H. 9
West of Peony
TOTAL 1,530 -3,862 -2,114
Change In Change In
Acres Households Employment
292 1,034 1,409
132 366 243
124 434
93 326
13 162
235 777 1,967
131 105 661
220 687 868
208 1 2,099
82 134 861
1,530 -3,862 -2,114
IT
I D t -_GS 83SS 8 -WE HS tlMe A X. SFeeIoboIF
MI01 1' h - . ___
mr t wxE.. `aE
i
cr _ yyy
j ---+ --_ _ _
1
y
t
1 1 t
AT FIT n.E
1 1.. ® ___ 'I3-4 Flo ri 1 W
Y- VI'1 6 i
L#Seppobcls IL
rn Icy' bwI IWe1so,r
w 7 d c S "r dII'i i - aP Iq a R. iii
VE. p _ @ITTills —.—— t ;4 1raEt
1 w
i
It IT
13E
Ho ! fi `
I
us h®Id s - `
e Em p;oye s +pHouseholds
dsAVE
1`.
1 rMt
AIM
w E
q/ ®/ ,
J k20 .ai' '6:° li "fid) 0. 4 Y y.
Ye I pILIJIE,Ela IMI
IF p;';
SIA 1 `
136 I, L f
p^?
mn E '
1
Ar 5.
d I
F
ase -o-,I®
11116
I ELA1 e+r
6 Ho hcidse 1 WIN*'
dt sh,°
E to a LL. Ifyees
Hocehol feel r: t
IT
E
ef,
VIJ I
FIE I7ees WE,
e
dl
1 + E '
31 '
ITILI
LEE P
g
Ir
7:
Jy + _
t f ioUJIL
t
t"
If, ,
II o r
19If
I \
7 k 1III
AAV14
Yon,{/
1
J
f LE" ,
s %a
d4 L s FJ
F
YI
Fee' - 149
ISI ion
1'.a 4 I i i= ,
E.. a
8 E - r I1 + +WE v;!
FIT, d _.
m
r ,
ti
dtEVE VT I
ITTFr %E f , —. I— , I d
Te WE Wen f — a , -
N 4nFUTHWE.,
P T' kr I 'A TAP AVE
LPA P "
1ME T a ,."' jy ri @
I 7 s
We
i ,: r & F..0 _ T
TH AVE
E IN evE
Y 9 ! F^ G
E5 r
i
d
5 3 1, 1 e ,Sjl
E
1 41 31
Teepee—
WE —94IIA
WE
f - $ ' 9 Ef
TY,r r " ,
l y b ;,.
ell
i '
I AVE
o,.
EYEer {
ero F1Wei6 r 1 III `K f`I .I ` '.„
rk
A,yy '+ 7
3'' „w"Yrt TE In I IIA + A
r...
MEY7
n 1R
IT t r i
YET
EYEALMWe
E
ti n IT
16
1 _ e } :e W ',. y i t Hyl i! gyp, 1/ F.<. , ^ii r ,
s , y ;
li
l "We IW
E — —_—J ",.i' t I—iy + . .i r + ' 9 I+ ., ..
rE.
ocEvrux. ..'_•__• ..
g'
y ,r 1 ' , 1 q F)
I 'T -m'-- y 4j, 4T .{
Zr r r` e
Lefp '
IF
F- MeM
i ? i orF.or..AVC
1 a r
gLI
t
r^J^
11
peer— y 9
Thoroughfare
ty Of Plymouth
Gulde Plan Up a
U OF SSE Z
LAN CRAGS
11
A38
A_ Baa
It,eAER f e
al
It AE i 0
a
Iree'llu Ire,
u...s[..cw w ,__— _ J_t _____L_— _
r ___ eLI^.
1 ,1, ".+.
yG' .
E.d r* 4f11
COLLAIf , .fI. . f: EVl
E6
P
cnE"wE.
Pr
I
r
el
VVJI
RL - a u ..L... n t" . f
a
I55
11 11 C `'
a
IL j_
r—:4
p 4
L
s
A. a 4 _ E .
L y`w^
el ll
ihhel A xa,
r
P
Pi
forAA
i P 1L 3 r1 9.
y
h
r b
i i I1A _
mix n.
r..
i h
a.
q.. pp ,.r .. :,.,, e ,
rw i
dl` ,.
d
ppr
@v
ol i S2_9 ML RI
Lie, elle, N i
All
Vr
f% a_ '" T F 9 ' i a - ..
r 6
yEl' Vo
30 rr,E li It,it r ., i,, i -b .L "'Ely
F K1
9ALL
Ire
11 IV ` 1 a
1
Ae <<tli +
r "
11Aa —
i(6 L„ r „._
eV11 ` f
z
II.A f
r IL _
iPII
AA
m , P IITnT l
p
d F
t
i l --. &{{yI
r X41 1041% f dAp
9
AVE10THYn ,e 6 "
AAA,
L I pp
Ili L .
yy
95f•{
ee
ih a h b• EVA
VILL
6,. rrE P .i.ro .qleL•
9ISe, J
p Pr
II
a A —
A
P i
P
W'", d P I, I e
w to
W
v f (
Iy '' .-.._
3-r7J_T`Y_ #
E, ___ ._.
r Esln .
LL
I
a noun. _ ! " wnrz Y 1 " ,1 1 abTM . Iet r
ee_
1
AVE
OIL`.
n'
w q _ y y , . "" jr
i
q :
F
pYR
P
Ptld
5 ,
r
Fa
r
11
0• v iEi1tl $ P
t
City of Plymouth
Thoroughfare Guide Plan Update
W1 rli (1
w2 •i ; Y
W Ul ` n w
tzJ O rA N z - 1 of T l r v ,._ j A tr h S) y F. U W 2 _. tl ( U O W 6 3 n t V m
rt t$ ) F <r u t• R: InZ fp O R •i Tr D W r f tj m
XVxtlO21RIzW > W '^ 6 ill r g F W Q' m t9 Itl O Ir C ... m x rA O UQ Ik w IY. W
rytt_-lr
F•
fUS-., rryi_
Rl0.) r[v'.,
rr•'
r1f
nW
r
r.
rs, rI1.rr
tu_
t6.
l!r ,
WI_¢
rIl .
rn•
u',_. r.
0!
O. ),
QIrI -¢rt• rv.:1+. .} IxU +I2or
my. -
Y).•
r
b_V1
VpIH'
rrIr
vw_
At
r¢
tV2nl
yph26r M_
h(xVi
p¢
f.
1.)_
r, v_<
fV:lv
v_
S!;..
J'
l.
4wV_
1 •"r,
1'': <_
W?
WFVV •_
mu!
l:
dt."
j..'
tlLLOZ..
l
VaW
jµ.[_
tJod
KwHa'
D
TN_
xtn#
uU U U m (( ^Y In a_
7
tIffC;
V)
rJ iCWw$VSJ niwVS
f J
U W t A
Wi1 N¢
tUt,) Nft•
V-
Y]9
NQeI tNRt.-:rl NnUz'
J
NnW->
O-
SI.
rj [
1
mUxJ')
Ar_
I..'
r a
wwxs
Iwr_
Ot_
Dt)
n.
FfL3JJ
v,
or2S`
n1 N(
UOpo
pUN2T)
y
UU>
123Y'
UmZ 1phU27J1I +
WWJ'
Jt ViQrFaJ UIz(
z
nfVU•;
r
lUWi
nUZN
m[
Ji
tx-
AS iO y - rt u V W
J
uoO
a U Z Q uUJ 2 U7 2UJxalwZZC,
IU 2 2 Y
UW
t'1-phUpnJUOOqrtU > !f)i ,h f j t Lj p p CU i UOp1 -1 > ;U rJ
rt9 :
D N UI i' p Nv 0 0 00 OOo '
1p
Nn npNr
U O SJ Cun
mUZ
III, All m
I
i
ADD
w.V.-.F'llr. AN __ CITY
RTII '.
r GOTH AVE. A
CHANGE RbM I
MAJo OPLL TO
55TH AVE MINJr
1 1 " w ei1 11
rl d I
A,
I1v
I
OF
CITY 'I__. _L"^-•.__ __—._...._ "
w„+y__ _M AP__ tINOVF
Ya rclA l llll e
Jj
i P 19P II IIIA_
Y9
utm E LrG a I
1 1AJ* LULL.
AF.
Y l Y!NF+•11 FArr r ", rr
I'•
kNeM IS
aakk qpJ
p 14 lo
50TH AVE, r,
ILII
V
mpn
A6D E L
1, ADD ..
45TH AVE I
1M0hlGDLLII.
w J r 11 1 ..+r
xNAallREAUG N i
I
I uI rMAJ40THAVE
IAl
li AD'b'(
rY -
I + iiI'1
n:If lFyae
rT; , ADD
q
II:Mfk- COL
MINS i
it
IIr
el I FJ 'a,l
i
r f
r
COLL3STHAVF r J •Y
T . !
i) „
I II1 l ,, \ m 1
I
L.I IMIr y1Jt I'1a',rvr :eR i4I ETE
I 1 slfi'ti
d'V.-
r#'
i
n< ¢ I ,.
r •
trn +
V01 }
I•a q.hi{t n:
rY '
30 TH AVE
Y
V'-. I d4
Igo h .-
1 r b
i
V D T
1 arr rl•arr :
rr, ",1L,
TII .mv
1.• m. r n .1n q qn w rP /•
pl r1 ') Ali M
j
9. COLL.-
2526 TH AVE,
L1
I p bmRtA JO .' '.uw, j 1•_ ISL' . wy*
IAI
I ,,,yn I. m ,r s ' h n' R' 77
I. 'Mc NA`M If b.A r vi awe^
s le„ rIIn'
70 TH A VF ) 1 a 4
M
f./w'2'' - fl i nhr h ,I{.e • • 'hy U. .} K !I 1 Ar .
Iq 61
I •
1
1 f I
I ..,''• : , „,„l
TPI
III , .,eu
1. '- .'1 .., nov rJ f
15TH AVE, t o ,rrOW wnvl r
AAA
A a
S
J/ J,•v1 YI T VIII he Nrc FaS ^
0. I
I
n
I +
IO TH AVE -. iv „Y;ly. '' h .,, I
11 !, W,''
II
I
I
r o,
I •' n )7"'TY'('i n5 LL11m,
F n I *X. U P A.1 I
M1 •ur I .ail ,,+
n:u. DEL Y+'r. u,
ITM .
r.
r hl 1 ^ •” 7 y u Ir
5TH AVE 1 1^
ld.f 1
1 '
lYr,(? li) r •. 1.( /
r, ,
v +.-m , .
rv' ` )
IJ /i/' 3
l
YJJ• L r.
ru •k,. I LTVr
I.
1
ppyyy U,i'
14'M J ro LL
tlBlr
I
RIII GEMO UNT [
1F ,w„_,. WAY/ATA
Is
AVE, 111 ?I an , )
i ,d I Of
in If0 I I;
I I
GOTH AVF.
tiT;ar4 ,PiIA y,,
F Y
65TH Ave,
i
50TI-I AVE,
It
a
T 45 rH AVE.
ey'
r
I
I
A0 Try AVE.
r
55 TH AVE
50111 AVE
25TH AVE
20TH AVE.
15TH AVE,
IO TH AVE.
L.
STH AVE.
10GEMOUNT AVE,
i
1
11111101111110 RNA HIM 011
THOROUGHFARE GUIDE PLAIN
rpCity of Plymouth, Minnesota
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION NOTICE TO USERS
Principal Arterials Major Collectors 1. The City Council may authorize
amendments to this plan/map. A
Intermediate Arterials 1111141 w Minor Collectors record of amendments is
maintained by the Community
Minor Arterials 0 Existing Interchanges es Development Department.
2. Refer to Comprehensive Plan for
Planned Interchanges explanation of thoroughfare guide
plan.
1/4
V M MILE
1/?
NOVEMBER 1985 THOROUGHFARE GUIDE PLAIN
rpCity of Plymouth, Minnesota
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION NOTICE TO USERS
Principal Arterials Major Collectors 1. The City Council may authorize
amendments to this plan/map. A
Intermediate Arterials 1111141 w Minor Collectors record of amendments is
maintained by the Community
Minor Arterials 0 Existing Interchangeses Development Department.
2. Refer to Comprehensive Plan for
Planned Interchanges explanation of thoroughfare guide
plan.
I_._........
d 1/4 1/2
4 b
1
li
rpCity of Plymol Minnesota
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Principal Arterials
Intermediate Arterials
rr Minor Arterials
Maor Collectors
I'M ,,,° °, °11. - -1. Minor Collectors
aExisting Interchanges
0 Planned Interchanges
NOTICE TO USERS
1. The City Council may authorize
amendments to this plan/map. A
record of amendments is
maintained by the Community
Development Department.
2. Refer to Comprehensive Plan for
explanation of thoroughfare guide
plan.
II ilii
11
1
l !pr rtcxmirN r pplIlII
us,• uuri—.-rrllunMl
cG)
Ij
1
2//I33
NIN, P7
C78)
94 I'
1C91)
g
I 1T
p4lJF17
iB4)
r- j ....
2, (
63)
r
I/F ,
74)
Lif! Station(
No.6
H
C31)
wf
fi/5„
ld' Ln" S!alirw INo. 4
C30) (29 I.
C
111; 1-.7
r~
U
Lift Station IN
No !6
City of PLYMOUTH
TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM
Figure No. ` 1
Existing Sewer Lateral
Existing Sewer Trunk Point Designations Ca5)
Proposed Sewer Trunk -- ---- M.U,S.A. Boundary
Existing Force Main District Boundary
Proposed Force Main Subdistrict Boundary
Lift Station Subdistrict Number
200010(X) G
i-
2000'
0
4000' (i000'
3/4 1 mile 60(X)'
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOC. INC.
CONSULTING FNGINFFWS
St. Paul, Mlnneaula
RAS. iePl tlrawn by RA
27"' 5"
12,
No.
B27
15
B' NOISigllon14 ...
87"
04)
2/" Cas)
RZ"
015 0
53
43)
49)
35)
2 •' 49"
L/f! S!allon
P/'P,PPSEf/o No, /
9Slq!%
Un
Lj
Slgfirn Llfi Siaiion if1 StgllPn
80. 13jNo. l7 Na' /f
L/fi Stat/on No 12
Glfl Station No l0
City of PLYMOUTH
TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM
Figure No. ` 1
Existing Sewer Lateral
Existing Sewer Trunk Point Designations Ca5)
Proposed Sewer Trunk -- ---- M.U,S.A. Boundary
Existing Force Main District Boundary
Proposed Force Main Subdistrict Boundary
Lift Station Subdistrict Number
200010(X) G
i-
2000'
0
4000' (i000'
3/4 1 mile 60(X)'
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOC. INC.
CONSULTING FNGINFFWS
St. Paul, Mlnneaula
RAS. iePl tlrawn by RA
rlymouth
Comprehenaiva Sewer Policy Plan
Executive Summary
City of Plymouth
December, 1989
File No. 70271
J"
Bones t roo
0 Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
St. Paul, Minnesota
Bones t roo
Rosene
0 Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
December 1, 1989
Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. Keith A. Gordon, P.E.
Robert W Rosene, PE. Richard W. Foster, P.E.
Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. Donald C. Burgardt, PE.
Richard E. Turner, P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E.
James C. Olson, P.E. Mark A. Hanson, P.E.
Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Ted K. Field, P.E.
Thomas E. Noyes, P.E. Michael T Rautmann, P.E.
Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E.
Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. David O. Loskota, P.E.
Thomas W Peterson, P.E.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Re: Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan
Executive Summary
File No. 70271
Gentlemen:
Michael C. Lynch, P.E.
James R. Maland. P.E.
Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E.
Mark R. Rolfs, P.E.
Robert C. Russek, A.I.A.
Thomas E. Angus, P.E.
Howard A. Sanford, P.E.
Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E.
Mark A. Seip, P.E.
Philip J. Caswell, P.E.
Mark D. Wallis, - .:.
Thomas R. Anderson, A.I.A.
Gary F Rylander, P.E.
Miles B. Jensen, P.E.
L. Phillip Gravel III, P.E.
Charles A. Erickson
Leo M. Pawelsky
Harlan M. Olson
Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A.
Transmitted herewith is the Executive Summary of the Comprehensive Sewer
Policy Plan for the City of Plymouth. Following City review, the final report
will be prepared for submittal to the lipt ropolitan Council in early January.
The Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan provides a guide for the completion of
Plymouth's trunk sanitary sewer system and is intended to be a component of
Plymouth's Comprehensive Plan. The final report will be prepared in accor-
dance with the latest Metropolitan Council guidelines as presented in its 1988
Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan.
Included with the Executive Summary are maps showing the 1980 Trunk Sewer
System Plan and the updated Trunk Sewer System Plan, with changes from 1980
highlighted in yellow. Also included are three appendices containing detailed
information on land use areas, average sewer flows, and design sewer flows.
We would be pleased to discuss the contents of this Executive Summary with the
City Council and Staff or other interested parties at any mutually convenient
time.
Respectfully submitted,
BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
400W
Daniel J. Edgerto
DJE:li
I hereby certify that this report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
C%
Rober G. Schunicht
Date: December 1, 1989 Reg. No. /210V
29
2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600
COMPREHENSIVE SEWER POLICY PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The following is a summary of the work performed in the preparation of the Comprehen-
sive Sewer Policy Plan (CSPP) for the City of Plymouth, along with the preliminary results
of the plan. This plan updates the City's 1980 Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan (1980
Plan).
The Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan is intended to serve as an inventory of Plymouth's
existing sanitary sewer trunk facilities as well as a guide to completing the remaining sec-
tions of the trunk system. The document also serves to meet the sewer planning require-
ments for both the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
MWCC).
The trunk sewer system for the City of Plymouth is shown on Figure No. 1. This map, taken
from the 1980 Plan, shows major district and subdistrict boundaries, existing trunk sanitary
sewers, lift stations, and forcemains. The City is divided into nine major sewer districts:
Bass Lake, Elm Creek, Minnetonka, North Central, Northeast, Northwest, Pike Lake,
South, and Wayzata.
The Elm Creek District is planned to drain to the north, to the future Elm Creek Intercep-
tor in Maple Grove. The Minnetonka and Wayzata Districts drain to Minnetonka and
Wayzata, respectively. The rest of the districts, which include the majority of developed
area in the City, drain southeast to the Plymouth Lift Station (Lift Station No. 1 on Figure
No. 1), which is operated by the MWCC. The Plymouth Lift Station pumps the wastewater
into the MWCC interceptor system, where it is eventually carried to the Metro Wastewater
Treatment Plant in St. Paul.
The majority of the City's trunk sewer system is built, with small pieces remaining in the
North Central and Northwest Districts, as well as the entire Elm Creek District. The Elm
Creek District is currently outside the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary
and is not served by the MWCC system.
LAND USE, POPULATION AND WASTEWATER FLOWS
The 1980 Plan, as presented in Figure No. 1, was based on existing development in the
City, along with the City's Land Use Guide Plan at that time. The entire sewer system has
been reanalyzed in preparing the updated CSPP, using the latest development information
available, as well as the City's currently proposed Land Use Guide Plan and population
projections.
The resulting projections of population and wastewater flows are tabulated below. The
1990 flow estimate is extrapolated from 1989 flow records. The 2010 population and flow
projections are based on the assumption of full development inside the MUSA line.
Detailed land use and flow data for each subdistrict are presented in Appendices A, B,
and C.
CSPP POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS
1990 2000 2010
Sewered population 58,600 71,000 83,300
Wastewater flow, MGD 6.65 10.13 13.61
The Metropolitan Council has developed its own estimates of population and wastewater
flows, which are published in its 1988 Systems Information Statement. The Met Council es-
timates are tabulated below.
MET COUNCIL POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS
1990 2000 2010
Sewered population 47,500 56,700 71,000
Wastewater flow, MGD 7.22-7.35 8.74-8.99 10.85-11.79
As can be seen from the numbers above, the City's projections for the years 2000 and 2010
for both population and wastewater flows are larger than the Met Council's by approximate-
ly 15-25%. Therefore, the City will have to reconcile the differences in these projections
with the Met Council at some point in the future.
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Based on the City's revised Land Use Guide Plan, the trunk sewer system has been entirely
reanalyzed. The updated trunk sewer system plan is shown on Figure No. 2. Differences
from the 1980 Plan are highlighted in yellow. The changes, and the reasons for them, are as
follows:
1. Trunk sewers which have been built since 1980 are shown as existing on the updated
plan map. These include sewer lines in the Pike Lake District (point 34 to point 31),
the Northeast District (point 9 to point 8), the North Central District (point 18 to point
16), and the Northwest District (point 70 to point 68 and point 69 to point 68).
2. Wastewater from the Pike Lake and Bass Lake Districts is to be carried permanently
to the North Central Trunk. In the 1980 Plan, these flows were to be carried to the
North Central Trunk only on a temporary basis, pending the construction of the Elm
Creek Interceptor. Now, however, it appears that the Pike Lake and Bass Lake
Districts will be completely developed before the Elm Creek Interceptor is completed.
Therefore, sanitary sewers and lift station capacity will be provided to convey the
wastewater from these districts to the North Central Trunk on a permanent basis.
3. Some proposed sewer lines in the Northwest District have been downsized. The reason
for this is that land uses under the proposed Land Use Guide Plan have been lowered
in density from the previous Guide Plan in the western portion of this district. These
lower densities result in lower wastewater flows in this area.
4. Some proposed sewer lines in the North Central District have been downsized. The
reason for this is that development and sewer construction since the 1980 Plan have
resulted in the diversion of some wastewater flow out of this district. In the 1980 Plan,
subdistrict NC -10 drained to the North Central Trunk. Under existing conditions, it
drains to Lift Station No. 5 in the Bass Lake District and has been redesignated
subdistrict BL -6. This diversion has resulted in a decrease of flow in the northern
portion of the North Central Trunk, which has allowed for the downsizing of the sewer
lines.
5. Some proposed sewer lines in the Elm Creek District have been increased in size. The
reason for this is that the design land use in this district has been changed from LA -1 to
LA -2 since the 1980 Plan. It is believed that this is a more conservative and reasonable
basis upon which to design the sewer lines. The increase in density of the land use
results in an increase in wastewater flows, and therefore the increase in size of some of
the sewer lines. It is anticipated that definitive land use plans will be available in the
Elm Creek District at the time the sewers are installed and that the sewer design will be
based on that land use.
It should be noted that, although the Pike and Bass Lake Districts are now being serviced
by the North Central Trunk on a permanent basis, the existing North Central Trunk sewer
lines have not been increased in size. Hydraulic analysis of this trunk has shown that it can
carry the increased design flows with some surcharging.
Surcharging means that the water level in a manhole rises above the top of the sewer. This
increases the hydraulic head in the sewer downstream of this manhole. The increase in
head increases the effective slope of the sewer, thus increasing the capacity and allowing
the peak flow to pass through without causing any damage.
Although surcharging is an effective means of increasing pipe capacity, it should be kept to
a minimum. The analysis of the North Central Trunk has shown that the increased design
flows can be conveyed with a marginally acceptable amount of surcharging. However, it is
recommended that sewer flows and water levels in this trunk be monitored on a regular
basis. If actual development in the future should result in higher wastewater flows than are
currently planned for, the surcharging in this trunk could reach unacceptable levels.
If the surcharging does become unacceptable, an alternative would be to increase the size
of Lift Station No. 2 and construct a forcemain from the lift station to point 3 in Figure No.
2. This forcemain could divert a portion of the wastewater around the section of sewer
along the eastern edge of Medicine Lake. This section has been determined to be the most
susceptible to excess surcharging. Diverting the flows through the forcemain would
decrease the flows and the surcharging in the susceptible section. The City's trunk sanitary
sewer charges should provide funds for the expansion of the lift station and construction of
the forcemain to point 3.
No other changes in the City's trunk sewer system are currently being proposed, although
one section of pipe in the Northwest District is currently being monitored for surcharging
and will be reanalyzed in the near future. The City's sewer system overall is well-designed
and well-maintained and should serve the City's needs as it continues to grow and develop
in the future.
NA4 A "Mi8 q
0,
to
C., C.% C -I C-- I-- oC--
4=1 C=l 4=1 1=0 C, C• C, I- -- 1=1 <> It> o Cl C-1 Cl Cl 'C' <-- I-_. o C> C. C, C, C,
0,
to
0- oC-1 C> I-- C> C> Ic, =1 C• C=l 4:1 C=l Cs
I C> cz., 9=1 4=, M. I--- C-- I-- cc o
e r.
a.
r ooc wo C- It.% r-% co C•I.-- C•4 C> C- C--
I
ulInt<
15
fu
C. C> C,
CV
c 115
zSJJ
J N m -+ N C E tf? .+
C —
M
F`+N..NN pfp
r n .•' N7 C 01
000 04 a^ o a C+a O b oC.-A a o a a N 8
O 06 .i+u+I p 4OO000NNC ago 1 a NONOIOaOO
aC oC, U,'0000ao
Cryan
X06
ro
bboo O 4000 bObMOOObO 0000N""o Z! LL
a b c-,
co oa abv u-.C:,1f7Obb aoOw ou'N Q
6 VA
1
tim,
CV -+ C7
C•
s•,
YR
o000 0 bboaooboobo aoogQ vb ux
C • T
b a Oy1 OO
O..
i oaoo o COOQ OOOa bo+oaobobou 98O
tY r
rt1
a I C -J
r. ga.
O 9 8Oas OOON o C6OoOooOa OIaOoo
O N O OHO
4-04?
ti ;12b O a O
f1 ~
uCry'}
M O
rye
I
to
Oo oo&+9o nb000
ON
caro `2c``i o cin
t3v
i a ov....o R vv+.,rr a i u4i vcv i. n n"1 i
To on
no o
ea
Q I S
Ln
Z Z 2 2 p
yN
S! '
WV
T y 1Z 19-1 Z
Z
N A M
I b
M
A
c•+N l0 t 1JJ? 1yyy 4 NCN..l.•+d'
cp
r+pQy
4'r
M C C O C C C C d o d o 0 o C d d C o d C. o d M c o o t <:-
n u-, -t a, o o c, 'nu-,U,vdmooc+
r r wy
ood Q uNJ c^a c> +f 000c c,'c=oo ALIISM.
C C d C d C C. C C O d d C d O C O C C C C Co C c C o d C C
d d CO d 0 0 OD d o d C d d o dd o o d d d R d d C TM Cc+
N
C000dN V MCM QCM CNMC C?,Cd CCC
A I M CCA fJ CCJJ !
oocodvveyooc coa c+rd r000 vI
I O C Cd d N o 0.}d O d o d dd ddd d o CG• d o d
CJ
Z C 1c ..•
r
ooddN c c doo cn odododdd rte+ dooC c
a
O C d 0 d C d C d 0 d C O O o C C d O C d U'l LO
o c o o d d d o d o d o m o c d o d d d o d o
ua a+ uy o d d u+ w
I
p 4 0 •J oO d 0 4 u C d C C C 1 d p d 0 cry p
I CJ
d
8 .r 9pyy M yyq N f• a,j tn, MM01 ('? N .r 7 --+ ? N [7 I.f] M r'+'e M CJ
V
QUI 444*444411
2 U
0C. 0. C> C> ce). W a,. 4C. O Cb P- t- C> 4 C> 'D
P C> " a 4O- r M 4=, " o <> c =- O O o c 8U'l tn —
S3 $ - U')
C>
0
C, M a c,
a.ar c, c, 000
C> u C, C> 0 c
c- <-- mc> oocaaaa 000400a r>
0, Im, <> -CS C> -C I=% caac c oz. ;,w C-- :> a, c,
ro
oocc, c, c, c,
C> C, <> oaocs^o Cp o 9=0 <-- C-- c- tI- t-- 10- <> <> cp
c"I
C> F14
F4 n lc*-, r- IF:4 11=1 tf' b :z0*1 w 71 P. S a S3 m
I — — — A
C> gjU3 $Q a, r M sj C. c, —
C.I.
sic
U. w r - T -
1 Cb oll IT, T I T. 1 6 47 fJ}
co
60 cn
6 6
O C>
4.
CZ4 is. Rill I I
A 'f lye
T c",
IF!
AI
t;
Ir -
CR g &, Ln
UIR
C.3 co
C; C=;
6 C. -
o AF " 9 i{ u w 11 M 11
6 6 C; 6 C=: C%, C; C:
8t
uc'
II11PS U--
c.
rN
v.
Ln umtnfI' — — —
w4?. W, ? §1 !Iti 1
C" P--. cp Ln
t
CS
CN uj ; rl- rel r" a 041.1 w f-. w O t v,
444---
0, U
C -N Cr ccccc C., C-% C=l e_l c
ooc C-% C-% C> o C=, C-1 C> Cs
cc;cccccccccc cc c6,6 6c cc:
in
is Ad
C.4
g3;
04
C-%* e_l C- C-% C=- CN c
ON r21. 1 ,
4--- CL% C C, C C
C= -Cl <- CN C• C—% C CN C-- C> C• C 11 6 C=; G 6
etl
CL.
LL:"•omag F
C-1 CZ., -- t--- C=m C= <—, C-- Cl <-- ::N- C —_. c- —_. C-- C= -
t
CS
CN uj ; rl- rel r" a 041.1 w f-. w O t v,
444---
0, U
ri,
C.0 r-. a, I_
cq
C' oil Qg 811111 11119.11 0" izi1
6 6 O 6 6 C; 6 6 6 O 6 6 6 6 6 lz•
03
66
gil Jill 1111111104111
C, 4--- 4=. d C> 4 C; 6 6 6 C=; 6 6
C _: 11g
C" 4=1 C2. C>
C—N O C-1 G C? 6 G 6
cr,
CL
on
CJ1
tol. C-4 L':' r— 00 a-, C.
WA U'A W_.. WA
CL — x — — , 2 ' 2 -. I I
1.0
101
Ln 9=1
APPENDIX C - DESIGN FLM.
Total
From To Area Flow Average Design Existing Calc.
Point Point Added Added Flu* PFF Flow Capacity PFF
PIKE LAKE DISTRICT
34 33 PL -4 0.2823 0.2823 3.7 1.0447 1.81 6.4
33 32 PL -3 0.2728 0.5551 3.4 1.8873 2.33 4.2
32 31 FL -2 0.0408 0.5959 3.4 2.0260 2.33 3.9
31 29 PH 0.1059 0.7028 3.3 2.3193 0.00 0.0
PASS LAKE DISTRICT
V 29 EL -5 0.3177 0.1177 3.6 1.1438 1.05 3.3
29 27 BL -4 0.0318 1.0524 3.1 3.116IZ3 5.10 4.8
28 27 EL -3 0.1670 0.1670 3.9 0. 6,512 1.00 6.0
27 26 0.0000 1.2193 3.0 3.6580 5.50 4.5
26 25 8L-1, 0.3275 1.5468 2.9 4.4857 0.00 0.0
2,6
ELM CREEK DISTRICT (INCLUDES FUTURE FL0 5 FRn-M ttE:DIVI)
92 91 ENS 0.08 3 0.0898 4.0 0.3590
9t 90 EC -13 0.1357 0.2254 3.8 0.8566
94 93 EC -17,18 0.4039 0.4039 3.5 1.4137
93 90 EC -16 0.1081 0.5120 3.4 1.7409
90 88 EC -14 0.0510 0.7°35 3.3 2.6019
89 88 EC -12 0.1754 0.1754 3.9 0.6842
88 V EC -11 0.1795 1.1434 3.1 3.5446
87 M.G. EC -10 0.1397 1.2932 3.0 3.849.5
85 84 EC -8,9, 3.3641 3.3641 2.6 8.7461
Medina
84 83 EC -7 0.1622 3.5263 2.5 8.8157
83 81 EC -5 0.10? 3.6283 2.5 9.0707
81 78 EC -6 0.1836 3.8119 2.5 9.5297
80 79 EC -4, 0.5024 0.5024 3.4 1.7080
Medina
79 78 EC -3 0.1061 0.6084 3.4 2.0681
78 77 EC -2 0.1432 4.SF;3b 2.4 10.9525
77 M.G. EC -1 0.17:34 4.7?k.9 2.4 11.?637
APPENDIX C - DESIGN FLOWS
Total
From To Area Flow Average Design Existing Calc.
Point Point ACJ Added Flow PFF Flow Capacity PFF
NORTHWEST DISTRICT
76 75 NW -23 0.2201 0.2201 3.8 0.8,363
75 74 NW -21,22 0.3947 0.6147 3.4 2.0901
74 72 NW -20 0.0£33 0.M. 3.3 2.X"IS
73 72 NW -19 0.3567 0.3.561 3.6 1.2841
72 70 NW -18 0.1926 1.2473 3.0 3.7420
71 70 NW -17 0.1£63 0.1863 3.9 0.7267
70 68 NW -16 0.10 1.5520 2.9 4.5007 5.8,1 3.7
69 68 NW -15 0.3372 0.3372 3.6 1.2138 1.29 3.8
68 67 NW -13 0.2449 2.1341 2.8 5.9754 7.80 3.7
67 64 NW -14 0.0577 2.2018 2.8 6.1650 8.00 3.6
65 64 NW -11,12 0.3ER£7 0.3687 3.6 1.3271 1.55 4.2
64 63 NW -10 0.0875 2.65£0 2.7 7.1765 9.10 3.4
6.3 62 N'IJ-£,9 0.5239 3.1£1£ 2.6 2728 7.60 2.4
62 61 NW -7 0.2643 3.4461 2.5 8.6153 8.10 2.4
61 58 W-6 0.1119 3.5 nn 2.5 8.6949 9.00 2.5
60 59 NW -5 0.5457 0.5451 3.4 1.D554 1.05 1.9
59 58 NW -4 0.4350 0.98,07 3.2 3. 138,2 1.58 1.6
58 57 0.0000 4.5387 2.4 10.892£ 15.10 3.3
57 39 NW -1,2,3 0.1982 4.7368 2.4 11.3684 13.20 2.8
W)TH DISTRICT
56 55 5-30,31,32 0.2033 0.2033 3.8 0.7727 1.12 5.5
55 53 S-29 0.0769 0.2802 3.7 1.03F 3 1.65 5.9
54 53 S-26,27 0.1996 0.1996 3.8 0.7586 1.05 5.3
53 51 S-28 0.0782 0.5580 3.4 1.£974 2.68 4.8
52 51 S-25 0.1197 0.1197 4.0 0.470 1.05 8.8
St 46 S-23,24 0.3688 1.0466 3.1 3.2443 2.75 2.6
50 49 S-21,22 0.2049 0.2049 3.8 0.7787 1.81 8.8
49 48 S-20 0.0655 0.2704 3.7 1.0005 1.81 6.7
48 47 S-19 0.0699 0.3403 3.6 1. 152 1.F15 4.8
47 46 S-17,18 0.046.5 0.3£68 3.6 1. -MS 1.65 4.3
46 45 S-16 0.1218 1.5551 2.9 4.5099 3.90 2.5
45 43 S-15 0.1648 1.7200 2.9 4.9879 4.33 2.5
44 43 S-14 0.4.500 0.4500 3.5 1.5752 1.05 2.3
43 42 S-12 0.2003 2.3703 2.7 6.399£ 6.40 2.7
42 40 S-11 0.2865 2.65ER£ 2.7 7.1733 6.40 2.4
41 40 S-8,9 0.1713 0.1713 3.9 0.6681 1.55 9.0
40 39 S-7 0.2082 3.03Ft 2.6 1.8944 80 2.9
39 38 0.0000 7.7732 2.2 17.1009 20.70 2.7
38 35 S-6 0.1281 7.9013 2.2 17.3828 20.70 2.6
37 36 S-4 0.1187 0.1187 4.0 0.4748 1.05 8.8
36 35 S-2,3,5 0.4156 8.4355 2.1 17.7146 22.80 2.7
35 1 S-1 0.2042 8.6398 2.1 18.1435 22.80 2.6
APPENDIX C - DESI6N FLOPS
Total
From To Area Flow Average Design Existing Calc.
Point Point Added ftied Flow FFF Flow Capacity FFF
NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT
22 20 NC -11 0.2180 0.2180 3.8 m2-1
84 83
20 19 NC -9 0.0849 0. 3010 3.6 1.0907
EC -5 0.1020
19 18 NC -8 0.1344 0.4377 3.5 1.4321
0.9119 3.2
18 17 NC -7 0.0875 0.5252 3.4 1.7856 5.81 11.1
17 16 NC -4,6 0.2210 0.7462 3.3 2.4623 8.40 11.3
25 24
3.0
0.0000 1.5468 2.9 4.44.57 2.58 1.7
24 73 NC -13,14 0.1752 1. 722,20 2.9 4.9939 4.80 2.8
23 16 NC -12 0.1826 1.8046 2.9 5.4654 5.10 2.7
16 15 0.0000 2.6 378 2.7 7.1031 7.00 2.7
15 14 NC -5 0.1220 2.7527 2.7 7.4324 7.00 2.5
14 13 NC -3 0.1093 2.8621 2.7 7.1276 6.30 2.2
13 12 NC -2 0.1474 3.0094 2.6 7.8245
12 4 NC -1 0.1072 3.1IEE 2.6 8.1033 6.30 2.0
NORTHEAST DISTRICT
It 10 NE -9 0.2917 0.2911 3.7 1.0791 1.05 3.6
10 8 NE -6 0.2505 0.5422 3.4 1.8434 1.80 3.3
9 8 NE -7 0.0788 0.0788 4.0 0.3151 0.58 7.4
8 7 0.0000 0.F209 3.4 2.1112 3.40 5.5
7 6 NE -5 0.4761 1.0970 3.1 3.4004 0.00 0.0
6 5 NE -4 0.1538 1.2508 3.0 3.7524 3.15 2.5
5 4 NE -3 0.0492 1.3000 3.0 3.8999 3.25 2.5
4 3 0.0000 4.4166 2.4 10.5998 8.90 2.0
3 2 NE -2, 0.1928 4.6094 2.4 11.0625 10.90 2.4
Med. Lk.
2 1 ME -1 0.19E5 4.8059 2.4 11.5341 10.90 2.3
1 MPLS. 0.0000 13.4456 2.0 26.8913
ELM CREEK DISTRICT (DOES NOT INCLUDE FlIT(.RE FLNS FROM MEDINA)
85 84 EC -8,9 0.4641 0.4641 3.5 1.6244
84 83 EC -7 0.1522 0.6263 3.4 2.1294
83 81 EC -5 0.1020 0.7283 3.3 2.40'
81 78 EC -6 0.1836 0.9119 3.2 2.9130
80 79 EC -4 0.2724 0.2224 3.8 0.8450
79 78 EC -3 0.1061 0.3284 3.6 1.1824
78 77 EC -2 0.1432 1.3835 3.0 4.1536
77 M.6. EC -1 0.1734 1.5559 2.9 4.5151