Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 12-27-1989A CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: December 18, 1989 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 27, 1989 FILE NO.: 89105 PETITIONER: Lowry Hill Construction REQUEST: RPUD Preliminary Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Final Plan/Plat LOCATION: Southwest Corner of 57th Avenue North & Zachary Lane GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -2 (Low Medium Density Residential) ZONING: RPUD 81-4 BACKGROUND: The RPUD Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit was approved for the Deerhaven" RPUD by Resolution 81-401 in July 1981. The approval called for the construction of 52 attached dwelling units. In November 1981, the City Council by Resolution 81-765, approved a final plan and plat for "Deerhaven" project specifying that a portion of the project at the southwest corner of 57th Avenue North and 250 feet south of 57th Avenue North fronting on Zachary Lane, be platted as Outlots until such time as municipal water and sewer became available (Outlot "A" and "C"). In June 1982, the City Council approved a revised final plat, final plan and development contract. The revisions included adjusting structure footprints and setbacks, but no setbacks of less than the zoning ordinance standards, i.e., 35 feet front yard, were proposed or approved. Notice of this Public Hearing was published in the official City Newspaper and mailed to property owners within 500 feet. PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: 1. The applicant has proposed the final platting of Outlot A of the original Deerhaven 2nd Addition plat. Proposed are the final four townhouse units that would front 57th Avenue North at the extreme southwest corner of 57th Avenue North and Zachary Lane. During initial Development Review Committee consideration of the Final Plat for Outlot A, it was determined see next page) Page Two File 89105 Ii that the building "footprints" proposed provided for a structure setback from the right-of-way line (property line) of 57th Avenue North of approximately 22 feet. This proposal was both inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance Standard of 35 feet and the minimum setback approved with the RPUD Preliminary Plan and Final Plan in 1982 of 35 feet. 2. The applicant contends that the 1982 platting of Outlot A placed a property line between these townhouse units and the common open space at the exact point that they now propose to place a structure. They contend that the approval of the Deerhaven 2nd Addition with Outlot A located to within 22 feet of the right-of-way line effectively modified the earlier approved PUD Plan with respect to setback at this location. The petitioner contends that the full extremities of the outlot should be available for structure location regardless of setback to 57th Avenue North. The petitioner further notes that in about six instances previous construction had been permitted on other townhouse units of this development with setbacks to 57th Avenue North of less than 35 feet without a requirement that the RPUD Plan be amended. Staff has confirmed that this has occurred - in error - because building inspectors had also mistakenly assumed that the edge of the townhouse lot defined the extent of setback to 57th Avenue North. The correct assumption should have been that the setback for 57th Avenue North should be no less than 35 feet regardless of where the edge of the townhouse lot is platted. This situation was detected and verified by building inspectors last spring. 3. To resolve the procedural issue of whether an RPUD Plan amendment was required to permit setback as proposed with this Final Plat/Plan, staff submitted the issue to the City Council at its meeting of December 4, 1989, at the petitioner's request. The City Council concurred with staff that, notwithstanding what had transpired with respect to earlier building permits, it would be necessary to process an Amended RPUD Plan and Conditional Use Permit to consider the proposal to construct units at a setback of less than 35 feet. 4. The applicant is seeking a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow for structures within the third phase of the "Deerhaven" PUD to have a front yard setback, i.e., the distance from the building to the street right-of-way line, of 22 feet versus the original approved minimum setback of 35 feet. 5. 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 relationships to the adjoining neighborhood; compatibility with the purposes of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance; and the internal organization of the site. Section 9 Subdivision D, 3B identifies that building setbacks from all property lines shall conform with the standards of this ordinance except otherwise authorized and shown on the approved final PUD plan. see next page) Page Three File 89105 6. The petitioner has submitted a letter dated November 13, 1989 providing the reasons for the proposed amendment. 7. The 1982 Preliminary and Final Plan for the Deerhaven Project depicted the structure on the site of "Outlot A" dimensioned approximately 90 feet in length from west to east, resulting in a minimum setback to 57th Avenue North right-of-way of approximately 40 feet. The structure now proposed, with the 1989 Final Plat/Plan, is approximately 108 feet in length from west to east, with the majority of the additional length added -on the east end, placing the units closer to 57th Avenue North. PLANNING STAFF COWENTS: 1. Setbacks of less than 35 feet to 57th Avenue North that may now exist within this development are the result of an incorrect interpretation of the setback standards by the petitioner and the building inspection division. These prior actions do not provide a precedent that would be applicable to the setback amendment that is requested by this application. Due to the curvature of 57th Avenue North as it approaches Zachary Lane, we do not find a need to continue a setback of less than 35 feet to maintain an aesthetic harmony within the project. 2. We find that the requested amendment relates directly to the petitioner's desire to construct a structure larger than previously proposed with respect to the dimension from west to east. We find an additional 18 feet of structure length in the 1989 plan over than which was approved in 1982. This added length is the exclusive reason that setbacks now proposed are substantially less than the 35 foot standard that was established in 1982. 3. The location of the proposed structures on a double curve of 57th Avenue North as it approaches Zachary Lane presents a potential public safety problem related to sight distance not found further to the west on 57th Avenue North. If there was one location along 57th Avenue North where a full compliment of street setback is necessary from a public safety perspective it is at this particular location due to the double curvature of the street, and the resulting need for enhanced sight distance. 4. The balance and equities that are the foundation of the PUD provisions of the Zoning Ordinance must be considered as any amendments to a PUD Plan are considered with development of the project substantially complete. The original approval of this project as a PUD involved certain trade-offs between the developer of this property and the City that formed the basis for the Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit. Lot sizing, internal setbacks and lot width were among the R-2 Zoning District Standards that were adjusted through the PUD process to allow the development of this project. There is a "balance" that is a primary foundation for the Planned Unit Development concept that must be addressed with an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, such as proposed. In effect, the City will be tampering with one side of the formula without see next page) Page Four File 89105 having any method of adjusting the other side of the formula in terms of the benefit the City receives, in return for the concession granted by the RPUD amendment approval. An amendment to the RPUD Plan such as proposed will provide a unilateral benefit to the developer without a corresponding design benefit to the City, as the PUD Ordinance anticipates. 5. The petitioner has observed, correctly, that attached units as these often fill" the individual platted lots to the limits of the lots. It is clear here that the final plat originally approved was not amended to "match" the approved PUD Plan to assure that the limits of the individual lots were at least 35 feet from the project's property line, i.e., the street right-of-way line. The City did not detect that problem until last spring and the assumption was made that the platted clusters were at least 35 feet from the street right -of -way --thus, the buildings would be setback that far, too. RECOMMENDATION: We have attached draft resolutions providing for either denial or approval of the petitioned action. Our recommendation for denial is based on the precedent setting nature of this proposal with respect to the mechanics of the PUD section of our Zoning Ordinance, and the potential for reducing sight distance at the double curvature of 57th Avenue North where the reduced setback is proposed. Submitted by: , Charles E. Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Conditions of an Approval 2. Petitioners Correspondence 3. Conditional Use Permit Criteria 4. Blair Tremere Letter of 11/2/89 5. Joe Ryan Letter of 3/1/89 6. Location Map 7. 1982 Approved Preliminary and Final Plan 8. Large plans pc/cd/89105 APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR LOWRY HILL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (89105) WHEREAS, Lowry Hill Construction Company has requested a Planned Unit Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Amendment for property located at the southwest corner of 57th Avenue North and Zachary Lane to allow for a reduced front setback from 35 feet to 22 feet minimum; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request of Lowry Hill Construction Company for a Planned Unit Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow a front setback to the right-of-way line of 57th Avenue North for the structure on Lot 4, Deerhaven Third Addition, to be 22 feet at the northeast corner and 30 feet at the southeast corner of the structure for property located at the southwest corner of 57th Avenue North and Zachary Lane subject to the following findings and conditions: 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. 4. The amendment is applicable to only the area of Outlot A, Deerwood 2nd Addition, also known as Deerwood 3rd Addition, and applies only to the east setback of the structure oriented east to west on the parcel. DENYING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR LOWRY HILL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (89105) WHEREAS, Lowry Hill Construction Company has requested a Planned Unit Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Amendment for property located at the southwest corner of 57th Avenue North and Zachary Lane to allow for a reduced front setback from 35 feet to 22 feet minimum; 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 deny the request of Lowry Hill Construction Company for a Planned Unit Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow a reduced front setback for property located at the southwest corner of 57th Avenue North and Zachary Lane subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. The amendment is not responsive to Residential Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit findings with respect to compliance with the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. Specifically no additional Planned Unit Development attributes have been demonstrated in support of the additional structure setback flexibility now requested. 2. The amendment would establish an undesirable precedent for this and similar developments. 3. The amendment would be inconsistent with the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan with respect to reduction of sight distance along a public street. RRECOMPE Powzy 4-Aff Ifonsttucti.on fo 6150 B HEMLOCK LANE NORTH PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55442 559-0085 DOROTHY M.KREKELBERG BRANCH OFFICE 559-5563 0 559-3652 December 8 1989 3900.85 E. NO. BERNARD BARR BROOKLY ARK 55443 559-4608 4 -5 55 To: Planning Commission of the City of Plymouth Re: Outlot A, Deerhaven Second Addition, to be platted as Lots 1, 2, 3 and 41, Deerhaven Third Addition Dear Commission Members: Along with asking for approval of the final plat for Deerhaven Third Addition, we are requesting a variance for the set back for ONE Lot ... Lot 4. This final plat is for the last 4 lots to be built along 57th St. (which is approximately one block long.. running from Deerwood to Zachary). Because of the curve in 57th Street and how the outlot was positioned on the first plat, we are running into a problem with setbacks for this one lot..Lot 4. As has been indicated to you, several of the townhomes along 57th St. ended up with improper setbacks. This was not done, trying to get away with something. We were under the impression that we could build right up to the lot line. It was not called to our attention until the last group of 4 townhomes were built, and it developed that one did not have the proper setback. As a result, we had to cut off one corner of that townhome. This was sometime approximately in April 1989. Where our problem is, is that we sold a townhome to Dr. Eldore Nash to be built on Lot 4, Deerhaven Third Addition, on January 16, 1989..long before the incident with cutting off the corner of one townhome. We notified Dr. Nash about this problem. We have tried to re -do the plan so as not to have this problem—but the rooms do not end up the proper size for him. We have done that plan over 4 times. We have tried to switch him to another lot. None of this will work for the townhome he wants. If we cannot have this variance, he will cancel his reservation with us. This will work a hardship on him. This will work a hardship on us. It will work a hardship on the other two units which have been sold in that building because we cannot build with only two sold. It is a serious problem. What we are asking is that rather than have the required setback for this building from 57th Avenue be 30 feet rather than 35 feet. We will not be running into this problem with platting Outlot C because of how that is laid out. We sincerely hope you will find it in your power to grant this request. Very truly yours, LOWRY HILL CONSTRUCTION CO. DMK:a Dorothy M. K:ekelberg (Mrs.) P.S. We would request that a copy of this letter be attached Wo the Staff report for submittal to the Planning Commission. P.P.S. We will bring a copy of Dr. Nash's purchase agreement to the meeting. DOROTHY M.KREKELBERG 559-5563 0 559-3652 BERNARD BARR 559-4608 TO: THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ou*zy 4 {-Aff C..onst'Luction Co. 6150 B HEMLOCK LANE NORTH PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55442 559-0085 November 13, 1989 RE: REPLAT OF OUTLOT A DEERHAVEN SECOND ADDITION BRANCH OFFICE 3900 - 8,6TH AVE. NO. BROOKLYN PARK 55443 42' \S 255 The plat which is being presented for Deerhaven Third Addition is in full compliance with the preliminary plat approval previously given by the City - of Plymouth except as stated below. Deerhaven 3rd Addition is a replat of Outlot A Deerhaven 2nd Addition and has the same exterior lot line bearings and distances as shown for Outlot A Deerhaven 2nd Addition final plat. The Deerhaven 2nd Addition final plat was approved by the City of Plymouth on 6-7-82 and any deviation from the preliminary plat would have been addressed at that time. If you will look at the final plat, you will see it shows set backs from the curb. Most of these set backs are less than 35 ft. 40 units have been built at Deerhaven. Only 12 lots are left to build on. 8 of these will be the replat of Outlot C. 4 of them will be the replat of Outlot A. These existing 40 units have been built within the individual platted lots according to the boundaries shown on the final plat without regard to the set backs shown on the site plan. They were built with the zero lot line concept according to the final plat and not according to the old site plan. Where this was allowed before—and this is the last group, we would appreciate being able to follow this concept only for Lot 4 in Deerhaven 3rd Addition, which lot will have a set back less than 35 ft. tom , we--".:. If you want to call it a variance or request for an amendment to the PUD, I suppose that is what we should do. Ve truly yours, e'-P--t OWRY HILL CONSTRUCT NCO. BB:a Bernard Barr President A III SWMCN 9, MWIVISICK A 2. a Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public Hearing, and development of a recamrendation 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 conformance with the following standards: 1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will prorate and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. 3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. 4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and imprvveimment of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. 6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district -in which it is located. forms:o>pl/cup.stnd/s) 10/89 November 2, 1989 Ms. Dorothy Krekelberg 6150 North Hemlock Lane Plymouth, MN 55442 Dear Dorothy: I* CIN OF PLYMOUTF+ I have had an opportunity to rev.e the file information regarding Deerhaven and the matter of building setba s. You identified that a home has been sold that will be part of the cluste developed within Outlot A; the dimensions of Outlot A, with respect to distance from the public street, 57th Avenue North, are less than the building setback required by the Zoning Ordinance and by the site plan approved for Deerhaven in 1982. I have found the following: 1. The dimensions referenced in the approving resolution and on the approved site plan are clear. The minimum building setback from the 57th Avenue North right-of-way is 35 feet. 2. The'final—pla was not revised to match the approved site plan so that the outer limits of the proposed buildings coincided with or were less than the platted lot lines within the development. 3. This became apparent earlier this year relative to Lot 4, Block 2 and, based on research done then, relative to several earlier lots where both the contractor and the City assumed the staked building setbacks complied with the approved dimensions. Building Official Joe Ryan reviewed this matter with Bernie Barr and an adjustment was made for Lot 4, Block 2 per the attached March 1, 1989 letter. Please note the condition cited in that letter to which Bernie Barr agreed. 4. Outlot A and Outlot C need to be final platted before building permits can be issued. The matter of approved site plan building setbacks versus platted lot dimensions can be and often is rectified at that time. The choices are to propose a lesser setback than the ordinance minimum; to adjust the platted lot lines to coincide with the building footprints that meet or exceed the ordinance minimum building setbacks; or, to propose buildings at or in excess of the minimum setbacks even though the platted lots are closer than the minimum. Deerhaven is a Residential Planned Unit Development; the Zoning Ordinance does allow for design flexibility relative to certain dimensional characteristics including yard setbacks. The question of setback disparity was not raised when the original plat and RPUD plan were approved and only came to light as construction proceeded in Blocks 1, 2, and 3. 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 Page Two Platted lot lines in a development of attached dwellings may be closer to street right-of-way than the minimum building setback distance. You are not required to build these homes to the outer limits of the platted lots. Your current approved plans do not allow that where the building setback would be less than the approved minimum. You should submit site plans which exactly match the boundaries of the proposed lots and which exactly indicate the distance from the proposed buildings to the public street right-of-way line. Please note that the building setbacks should be measured from the platted right-of-way line and not from the installed curb. Your application will constitute a request for an RPUD plan amendment to the extent that the distance from the proposed building to the right-of-way is less than the minimum approved to date. Amendment of a Planned Unit Development Plan requires a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission and you should therefore contact Community Development Coordinator Chuck Dillerud as to the information needed for the appropriate application. Thank you for your inquiry. We are prepared to assist you in expediting the application for the final plat and, if you choose, the PUD Plan Amendment. Questions regarding this may be directed to me or to Chuck Dillerud. Sing ely, Blair Tremere Community Development Director cc: Joe Ryan, Building Official Chuck Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator File 81011 Enclosure pl/bt/krekelberg:jw) CITY OF PLYMOUTI+ March 1, 1989 Mr. Bernie Barr Lowry Hi11..Construction 6150 Hemlock Lane North Plymouth, -MN 55442 RE: LOT 4 BLOCK 2 DEERHAVEN SECOND ADDITION (11310 57TH AVENUE NORTH) Dear Mr. Barr: Recently you submitted a building permit application to our office for the proposed construction of an attached single family dwelling located at the property referenced above. During our review process, it was noted that the placement of the proposed dwelling on the property was less than the setbacks referenced on the site plan approved by the Plymouth City Council as part of the final plat amendment for "Deerhaven Second Addition". You have since inquired whether any administrative consideration could be given to approve the proposed location on the lot in question without the need to make formal application for a Planned Unit Development •(PUD) Amendment. The Plymouth Zoning Ordinance permits the Zoning Administrator to authorize minor changes in the location, placement and height of structures after the PUD Final Site Plan has been adopted considering no major change, in use or provisions of open space have occurred. Your request for a reduced setback on Lot 4, Block 2, Deerhaven Second Addition, is approved per the location referenced on the certificate of survey dated February 28, 1989 by Carlson and Carlson Inc., subject to the following: All future construction must be in accordance with the setbacks referenced on the approved site plan for Deerhaven Second Addition, specifically, a 35 foot minimum from the nearest point of each building to 57th Avenue right-of-way line, 50 foot minimum, from nearest point of each building to Deerwood Lane, Zachary Lane and County Road 10 right-of-way lines. Please be informed that our office will not be able to process any building permit applications for units proposed on your platted outlots until such time municipal sewer and water are physically made available, and the outlots are replatted. O ?!_y%1OUl H BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA` .. T' 1 {'i 10'x: (: 12; 5 :_.%Ci The signature line on the bottom of this letter is provided for your co -signature. Please complete the signature block and return to me so that I have confirmation that you fully understand, and will conform with the conditions set forth. - Please contact me at 559-2800, Extension 222 should you have any further questions. Sincerely, Joe Rya Building Official cc: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director File ee... 4e 3,-- 5 -- SignatureSignature Date rA— i oo rA— 1 L0K E oo 1 L0K E m — w o I N w 0 OG+ 3NVI AUVHO' I S:7 i I J6 CV O. cd I tv i 1Sb'3 bE; 61— 02 54 I oZ 11 54.1 O// of or Z7.0 N os•og 22.0 N I 70>> S T s00a 5 2 Z ZZ 1220 11 s P e r r s 0 Z a 0 0 Regular Council Meeting December 4, 1989 Page 346 inclu d with landscaping ('Landscaping Policy') required with site pla approval by the City." Greg Frank\project developer, stated he understood the amendment. Motion to amend carried, five ayes. Main motion as onceamended carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes. \ MOTION was made by Councilmicknbe Zitur, to adopt RESOLUTION\N PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDI JAMES BETHKE FOR CIMARRON PONDS Sisk, seconded by Councilmember 89-771 APPROVING RESIDENTIAL IONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR RPUD 76-3) (89098). Motion carried on a Roll Call vote,",our ayes, Vasiliou absent. MOTION was made by Councilmember\ Zitur, seconded by Councilmember Vasiliou, to adopt RESOLUTI* NO. 89-772 APPROVING LOT DIVISION/LOT CONSOLIDATION FOR ROBERT k`, WALLACE (89091). Motion carried on a Roll Call vite, five ayes. MOTION was made by Councilmember Zitur, \Seconded by Councilmember Vasiliou, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 89 773 SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING AND REG DING LOT DIVISION/LOT CONSOLIDATION AND VARIANCES FOR ROBERT K.WALLACE 091FORPROPERTYLOCATEDAT1792020THAVENUENROTH (89 Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes. Councilmember Vasiliou stated that given the history and circumstances relating to Lowry Hill Construction/Deerhaven Addition, she would support finding the RPUD Final Plan to be in substantial compliance with the approved RPUD Preliminary Plan. MOTION was made by Councilmember Vasiliou to adopt a resolution finding the RPUD Final Plan to be in substantial compliance with the approved RPUD Preliminary Plan of "Deerhaven" (89105). Motion failed for lack of a second. Councilmember Sisk stated an amendment to the RPUD Plan should be considered by the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Mayor Schneider stated that a staff error of several years ago was recognized and the Council now either can approve the new Plan with a waiver or refer it to the Planning Commission for public hearing and a recommendation. RESOLUTION NO. 89-771 APPROVING RPUD PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CIMARRON PONDS 2ND ADDITION 89098) Item *7-C RESOLUTION NO. 89-772 APPROVING LOT DIVISION CONSOLIDATION AND VARIANCE FOR BOB WALLACE (89091) Item 7-D RESOLUTION NO. 89-773 SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING 89091) Item 7-D Request for waiver of RPUD Preliminary Plan Amendment for Deerhaven 3rd Addition Item 7-E Regular Council Meeting December 4, 1989 Page 347 MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by CouncilmemberRicker, to refer the request to the Planning Commission for public hearing, per the Zoning Ordinance. Bernard Barr, 11670 61st Avenue North, stated he believes an amended RPUD Preliminary Plan should not be necessary since the proposed structure setback in Deerhaven Third Addition is consistent with the outside boundaries of the Outlot A created in 1981. He stated that his plat was approved in 1981, regardless of what the structure setback intent may have been in the Preliminary Plan approval. He said it was common to build attached homes to the lot lines and any discrepancies should be administratively handled as is the one case earlier this year. Mr. Barr also stated he was forced to sign a letter from the City against his will; he considered that "blackmail." Director Tremere stated that there have been permits issued in error in the past allowing structures closer than 35 feet to 57th Avenue North. The research showed that the Final Plat that was filed for the Second Addition was not adjusted to match the PUD Plan that was approved. A City building inspector noticed in March, 1989, that a setback was less than the required 351, and brought it the Building Official's attention. Director Tremere found there was no adverse impact, and a change to the PUD Plan for that building was warranted, per the PUD regulations. Mr. Barr signed a letter acknowledging that the City could notissuefurtherbuildingpermitsatasetbacklessthanthe legally required setback. Staff believes that since Mr. Barr wants to have a setback less than the required 351, it constitutes an amendment to the PUD and should go before the Planning Commission for public hearing. Mr. Barr also has the alternative of adjusting the design of the home to comply withthe35' setback, which would comply with the Preliminary Plat and could qualify for Final Plat approval. That option is not acceptable to Mr. Barr because one of the building units has apparently been sold. Councilmember Vasiliou notified Mr. Barr that this item should be considered by the Council by late January if the Commission can hear it in December. Motion carried, five ayes. MOTIOs made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by Councilmember RESOLUTION N0. 89-774Zitur, to t RESOLUTION N0. 89-774 OPUS CORPORATION - BASS EASEMENT AGREEMENTCREEKBUSINESS K- TORM WATER DRAINAGE EASEMENT AGREEMENT. WITH OPUS CORP. FOR BASS LAKE BUSINESSMotioncarriedonaRoll1vote, four ayes, Vasiliou absent. PARK Item *7-F A CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: December 18, 1989 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 27, 1989 FILE NO.: 89113 PETITIONER: City of Plymouth REQUEST: Division of Unplatted Land by Waiver of Subdivision Ordinance LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Pineview Lane and County Road 47 GUIDE PLAN CLASS: CL (Limited Business) ZONING: B-1 (Office Limited Business District) BACKGROUND: On June 27, 1977 the City Council by Resolution 77-320 approved the Site Plan for the Prudential NCPO facility located on the property. No plat was proposed. City of Plymouth Project #416 has been undertaken in order to construct Northwest Boulevard from Pineview Lane to 56th Avenue North. Drainage for this stretch of roadway requires the construction of a pond in the triangle formed by Old County Road 47; the future County Road 61; and Pineview Lane. The pond has already been constructed. As the result of negotiations for an easement the fee property owner (Prudential Insurance Company) has decided, due to potential liability exposure, to provide fee title only to this property, rather than a permanent drainage easement. PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: 1. The City of Plymouth by Richard J. Pouliot, Project Coordinator, proposes the division of unplatted Prudential Site to create the triangular parcel that has been deeded to the City of Plymouth subject to necessary action to divide the property. The triangular parcel is 1.573 acres in size thereby qualifying under the Zoning Ordinance as a minimum size parcel under B-1 (Office Limited) Zoning. 2. Section 500.43, Subdivision 2 of the Plymouth City Code, (see attached the Subdivision Ordinance) provides that where compliance with the provisions of the state law with respect to platting of property creates an unnecessary hardship, and where failure to comply will not interfere with the purposes of this subdivision, the City may waive compliance with the see next page) Page Two File 89113 requirement that land cannot be conveyed by metes and bounds. The City Council may grant the waiver if a finding has been made by the Planning Commission that the request otherwise complies with the Subdivision Code. 3. The City of Plymouth requests a waiver based on a hardship related to the public health, safety, and welfare as reflected in the storm water drainage designed for Northwest Boulevard. 4. The physical constraints analysis identifies this property is within the Shingle Creek Drainage District. The property is now located within a Shoreline Management District but contains some wetlands. The site does contain some major woodlands, however not in this immediate vicinity and does contain slopes in excess of 12%. The soils appear suitable for urban capability with public sewers. 5. The lot division complies with Ordinance Standards for lot dimensions and lot area. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: 1. The staff does not find the public interest best served by requiring the City of Plymouth to proceed through a formal platting process to divide the property for the purposes of Public Improvement Project. We find that a requirement for a formal platting will create an unnecessary hardship to the general public of the City of Plymouth. 2. We find that a failure to comply with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance with respect to formal platting with respect to this division of property will not interfere with the purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the request for a waiver of compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance with respect to a division of unplatted property as proposed by the City of Plymouth be --,approved. Submitted by: CharlesE.-Tillerud, Community Development Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: 1. Recommend Conditions to Approval of Subdivision Waiver 2. Location Map 3. Sketch of Proposed Division 4. Memo dated November 20, 1989 5. Section 500.43 of the Plymouth City Code pc/cd/89113) f APPROVING SUBDIVISION WAIVER FOR THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH (89113) WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth has requested approval for a Subdivision Waiver for property located at the southeast corner of Pineview Lane and County Road 47; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request and recommends approval; 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 Subdivision Waiver for the City of Plymouth for property located at the southeast corner of Pineview Lane and County Road 47 based on the following findings and condition: 1. A hardship has been demonstrated with respect to the drainage requirements for City Project #416 for a holding pond at this location. 2. Approval of a waiver will not interfere with the purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance with respect to creation of the specific parcel for sale to the City is hereby approved. No other platting or development approvals are granted or implied by this action. q Ilion N iiii UMMMEWP w i P 1 •r° • G ^ •ry 41. CY no .i any .a C9 •• K 1 N S r• \, IY Sy. Sv trpt•r 0311, • r. I ` R 17E N Cpp • JJ - u" 8 1S Mi5• w._ - i 1 i'liDS N MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: November 20, 1989 For City Council Meeting of December 4, 1989 TO: James G. Willis, City Manager Through Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works FROM : Richard J. Pouliot, Project Coordinator SUBJECT: NORTHWEST BOULEVARD - PONDING EASEMENT CITY PROJECT NO. 416 ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the attached resolutions waiving the subdivision ordinances, splitting the parcel, authorizing the City Manager to accept fee title to Parcel "A" (attached) at no cost to the City, and allow Prudential Insurance Company to retain development rights on remainder parcel which would have been retained if the City were granted an easement vs. fee title to Parcel "A". BACKGROUND: City Project No. 416 has been undertaken by the City of Plymouth in order to construct Northwest Boulevard from Pineview Lane southwesterly to approximately 56th Avenue North. Drainage for the catch basins on this stretch of roadway required the construction of a pond in the triangle formed by Old County Road 47, the future County Road 61 and Pineview Lane. This triangular shaped area is owned by the Prudential Insurance Company and is combined with a large parcel of land lying north of Highway 47. A permanent easement for ponding purposes was requested of the Prudential Insurance Company, however, they were reluctant to grant the easement because of future liability beyond the City's statutory liability limits. They have agreed to grant the City fee title to the property providing the City takes the actions to sever the parcel needed from the larger parcel and allow Prudential Insurance Company to retain development rights for the larger parcel that would have been retained if the easement were granted vs. fee title. City staff has tentatively agreed with this method pending City Council approval. The attached resolutions would allow the City to split off the small portion by waiving the subdivision ordinance requirements and would authorize the City Manager to accept the deed for this smaller parcel of land and allow the Prudential Insurance Company to retain development rights for the remainder larger parcel which they would have retained had they granted this by easement versus fee title. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: I recommend the City Council approve the resai ions ' T Richard J. Pouliot RJP:kh attachment: Resolution Drawing Plymouth City Code 500.39 00.39. Sea Level Elevations Required. All surveys submitted in connection with applications for waivers of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subdivision 4, or for division or consolidation of lots or tracts as provided in Section 500.37 shall show thereon sea level elevations at 50 foot intervals. 500.41. Variances. Subdivision 1. General Conditions. The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from the provisions of this Section as to specific properties when, in its judgement, an unusual hardship on the land exists. In granting a variance, the Commission may prescribe conditions that It deems necessary or desirable in the public interest. In making its find- ings, as required below, the Commission shall consider the nature of the pro- posed use of the land and the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside or work in the proposed subdivision, and the probable effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. No variance shall be granted unless the Commission finds: a) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the specific property such that the strict application of the provisions of this Section would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land. b) That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is located. The Commission findings in granting or denying a variance shall -be in writing and filed with the City Clerk. Subd. 2. Application Required. Applications for any variance under this Subsection shall be submitted in writing by the owner or subdivider at the time the preliminary plat is filed for consideration by the Planning Commission, and shall state all facts relied upon by the applicant, and shall be supplemented with maps, plans or other additional data which may aid the Commission in the analysis of the proposed project. The plans for such development shall include such covenants, restrictions or other legal provisions necessary to guarantee the full achievement of the plan for the proposed project. 500.43. Compliance; Waivers; Building Permits. Subdivision 1. Conveyance of Land. Any person who conveys land by metes and bounds or by reference to an unapproved plat or registered land survey in violation of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subdivision 4, is subject to the penalty provisions of that Section. Subd. 2. Waiver of Compliance. In any case where compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subdivision 4 will create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply will not interfere with the purpose of this Section, the City Council may by resolution waive compliance with this Subsection, provided, however, that the proposed conveyance has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Commission has found that it complies with all provisions of this Section.