HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 01-10-1989CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: December 29, 1989 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: January 10, 1990
FILE NO.: 89110
PETITIONER: Builders Development, Inc. and James Development Company
REQUEST: Sketch Plan for the Proposed Development of Land Not Yet
Served by Public Sewers
LOCATION: West of County Road 101, Approximately 1 Quarter Mile North
of County Road 24
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING: FRD (Future Restricted Development)
BACKGROUND:
By Resolution 89-91, the City Council, on February 6, 1989, adopted the
Policy of Review and Approval of Sketch Plans for Proposed Development
Involving Land Not Yet Served by Public Services". We have attached a
complete copy of that policy resolution in that this is the third application
responsive to it. The policy provides for the Planning Commission to hold a
public informational meeting following notification of property owners within
500 feet, and, following the public informational meeting to make a
recommendation on the Sketch Plan to the City Council within 30 days. The
staff is directed to review the Sketch Plan and report to the Planning
Commission with respect to the relationship of the proposal to the surrounding
neighborhood; compliance with City ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan; and
to make a recommendation.
It should be noted that it is clearly stated that in Resolution 89-91 that the
City's review of Sketch Plans will be broad and, while it may include the
identification of design standards and dimensions that are less than ordinance
or policy standards, it will not presume any variances from or modifications
to City standards. The acceptance of the Sketch Plan will not be deemed to
constitute approval of formal variances or modifications. The purpose of the
Sketch Plan is to give land owners a general reaction as to the compatibility
of his proposals for property within existing City policies, plans and
ordinances.
Notice of the public informational meeting concerning the Sketch Plan has been
published in the official City newspaper, and all property owners within 500
feet have been notified.
see next page)
File 89110
Page Two
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. Sketch Plan submission requirements are very similar to the RPUD Concept
Plan, but provides for two very specific requirements as to the status of
the land for which the Sketch Plan approval is sought. First, the
property must be of at least 20 acres; and second, the land must be
scheduled for trunk sanitary sewer and water services during the first 3
years of the current 5 -Year Capital Improvements Program. This site is 30
acres in size and is scheduled for sanitary sewer and water services
during the 1990 year of the current 5 -Year Capital Improvements Program.
Therefore, the site qualifies for consideration as a Sketch Plan.
The applicant, in their Sketch Plan, proposes that development of the 30 -
acre site into a single family detached subdivision of 47 lots. The
Sketch Plan contemplates lots of a size that is consistent with the RSA
Zoning standard. No public open space is indicated for dedication as a
part of the overall development.
2. The site is located within the Bassett Creek Watershed District. The site
is not located within a Shoreland Management Area, nor does it contain any
DNR wetlands. It contains no major woodlands or severe slopes, there are
some unsuitable soils located in the north central portion of this site;
however, a majority of the site has suitable soils for urban capability
with public sewers.
3 Review of the Sketch Plan for conformance with the various elements of the
Comprehensive Plan results in findings as follows:
a. The Sketch Plan is in conformance with the Land Use Guide Plan, with
development proposed at a gross density of 1.6 units per acre in a LA -
1 guided area. It should be noted that at such time as area
assessments are levied, the rate of assessment will be no less than 2
units per acre.
b. No Park and Trail System Plan Elements are shown for inclusion within
the property. Based on the current Park and Trail System Plan, no
public dedication is anticipated for park or trail purposes.
c. The Sketch Plan is generally responsive to storm water drainage,
sanitary sewer and water distribution plans of the City as those plans
are applicable at this conceptual stage of design.
d. The Sketch Plan includes provisions for the minor collector street
designated in the Thoroughfare Guide Plan to extend from County Road
101 to the west City limits at the approximate alignment of 34th
see next page)
File 89110
Page Three
Avenue North. The Thoroughfare Guide Plan also designates County Road
101, at the east periphery of this site as a minor arterial. A
function of the Thoroughfare Guide Plan is to preserve the operating
characteristics of arterials by careful control over access points to
those thoroughfares. The Sketch Plan presented depicts an access
point to County Road 101 from the parcel at a point approximately
1,700 feet north of the intersection with County Road 24.
Hennepin County has reviewed this Sketch Plan and indicates that this
proposed location is acceptable.
4. The proposed Sketch Plan for this 30 -acre parcel generally presents a
positive relationship to the surrounding properties. The property
immediately to the west is the Amber Woods Residential Development. The
single family detached proposal of the Sketch Plan is consistent in
character with the existing single family character of the Amber Woods
Development. The lot specifications proposed in the Sketch Plan would
appear to be larger than the lot specifications existing in Amber Woods.
Amber Woods was designed to a lot size standard less than the existing R-
AA conventional lot design specifications.
The proposed development is also consistent with the existing Hughes
Second Addition located immediately to the south, an R -1A conventional
plat; and with the future development probabilities for the area
immediately to the north. That area is guided LA -1 and will likely
develop in a manner similar to what is proposed by this Sketch Plan.
The land directly to the east (across County Road 101) is guided LA -1 and
will likely develop in a manner similar to what is proposed by this Sketch
Plan.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The overall Sketch Plan concept of development (single family detached
with overall density proposed) is consistent with the Land Use Guide Plan
and compatible with uses that currently exist for our plan for the
surrounding neighborhood. Relationship of this plan to the surrounding
neighborhood, therefore, is positive.
2. We note the constrained building pads on lots adjoining pond areas. We
also note the desirability for future design to include positive
transistion to County Road 101. These items will be reviewed in further
detail when a Preliminary Plan is submitted.
see next page)
File 89110
Page Four
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the Sketch Plan for James Development Company
and Builders Development, Inc., consistent with the staff comments noted
above. A resoluti eflectin this recommendation is attached.
e n (ri ---) Submitted by:
Charles E. Diller u Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Sketch Plan
2. Engineer's Memorandum
3. Location Map
4. City Council Resolution 89-91
5. Hennepin County Public Works Review Letter Dated December 15, 1989
6. Petitioner's Narrative
7. Large Plans
pc/cd/89110:dl)
APPROVING SKETCH PLAN FOR BUILDERS DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND JAMES DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF LAND NOT YET SERVED BY PUBLIC SEWERS
89110)
WHEREAS, Builders Development, Inc. and James Development Company have
requested approval of a Sketch Plan for the proposed development of land not
yet served by public sewers located west of County Road 101, approximately 1
quarter mile north of County Road 24; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called
Public Hearing and has recommended approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Sketch Plan
for Builders Development, Inc. and James Development Company for the proposed
development of land not yet served by public sewers located west of County
Road 101, approximately 1 quarter mile north of County Road 24, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Staging of the development shall be in accordance with utility
availability as approved by the City Engineer.
2. This approval is for a Sketch Plan only, consistent with City Council
Policy 89-91. The City Council's acceptance of this Sketch Plan shall not
be deemed to constitute approval of formal variances or modifications,
including residential development density.
3. This resolution shall become effective only upon the recording of this
resolution as a covenant to the title of land included in this Sketch
Plan.
4. This resolution shall become null and void if complete application for a
Preliminary Plat for all of this site has not been made within 9 months of
City Council adoption of the 5 -Year Capital Improvements Program that
identifies the subject property in the current program year.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ENGINEER'S MEMO
to
PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
DATE: January 2, 1990
FILE NO.: 89110
PETITIONER: Mr. James Ostenson, James Development Company, 7808 Creekridge Circle
200, Bloomington, MN. 55435
SKETCH PLAN: Builders Development/James Development
LOCATION: North of 33rd Avenue North, west of County Rd. 101 in the northeast
quarter of Section 19.
This memo was prepared in response to the request for sketch plan review submitted by
James Development Company and received in this office on Dec. 1, 1989.
1) Sanitary sewer area assessments and watermain area assessments will be levied
with the final plat approval and will be based on a minimum of two units per
acre.
2) An additional 17 feet of right-of-way will be required for County Rd. 101 making
a total distance from centerline, 50 feet.
3) 34th Avenue is a collector street, the width of the street shall be 36 feet
wide.
4) A 12 inch watermain will be required on 34th Avenue from the west plat line to
County Rd. 101.
5) A 12 inch watermain is required on County Rd. 101.
6) A 12 inch watermain is required from 34th Avenue to the northwest corner of the
proposed plat.
7) A storm sewer is required along the north line of the proposed plat to provide
an outlet for Pond BC -P1.
8) A 12 inch sanitary sewer is required along the north plat line.
ENGINEERING MEMO - SKETCH PLAN
Page Two
9) 34th Avenue shall be designed to the maximum curvature allowed by 30 mph design
speed.
10) The storm sewer outlet for this property must be constructed east of Co. Rd. 101
before final plat approval.
11) Easements will be required for the sanitary sewer and storm sewer.
12) The 100 Year elevation for Pond BC-Pl is 1002.5 and easements must be provided.
13) The minimum floor elevation for lots 32, 33 and 34 is 1004.5.
14) The northwest trunk sewer for District 21, 22 and 23 is not proposed for
construction until 1990. The trunk sewer must be constructed before final plat
approval.
15) Hennepin County Permit is required (See attached letter).
SUBMITTED BY: L
Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E.
City Engineer
F
r
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Fff] Engineering Division
HENNEPIN
320 Washington Ave. South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468Li [j Phone: (612) 935-3381
Mr. Charles Dillerud If December 15, 1989
Community Development Coordinator
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
RE: Proposed Concept - Builders Dev. Inc./James Dev. Co.
CSAH 101, West side, approximately 1360 feet north of CSAH 24
Section 19, Township 118, Range 22
Hennepin County No. 1799
Review and Recommendations
We reviewed the above concept plan and make the following comments:
For future improvements to CSAH 101 the developer should dedicate an additional
17 feet of right of way making the right of way 50 feet from the center of CSAH
101. Also, outside the new permanent right of way the developer should provide
a 5 foot utility easement.
The location of the proposed steet access to CSAH 101, approximately 425 feet
north of the southeast corner of the plat, is acceptable to Hennepin County.
All access to CSAH 101 must be via the proposed street. No additional direct
acceess from this plat to CSAH 101 will be permitted by Hennepin County.
The developer must construct the right turn lane and the by-pass lane shown on
Attachments 1 and 2.
Any new access to a county road requires an approved Hennepin County entrance
permit before beginning any construction. Contact our Operations Division for
entrance permit forms.
All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved
utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not
limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and
landscaping. Contact our Operations Division for utility permit forms.
The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County
right of way.
Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt.
S' cerely,
David W. Schmidt, P.E.
Transportation Planning HENNEPIN COUNTY
OWS/LOW:Iw
an equal opportunity employer
W
Z
0
Z U3
Q
J W
r
z o
O
W
0
Z
W
Ur O
U
W
cr
Q
I.
E --
Z
O_
N
V
o
U.
LL.
cr-
a
Z
a
O
U
Z
Z
W
trl.ilw
Ppir
vp
r
quillompa:
r
SAO
4
POLICY ON REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SKETCH PLANS
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING LAND
NOT YET SERVED BY PUBLIC SERVICES
Resolution No. 89-91
February 6, 1989
1. The purpose of the process for review and acceptance of sketch plans by
the City Council is to formally inform the City of the applicant's
Intentions and to inform the applicant as to the general acceptability
of the proposal and of the scheduling for development in consideration
of the pending necessary capital improvements, before extensive costs
are expended by the applicant.
2. The property must be at least 20 acres.
3. The land must be scheduled for trunk sanitary sewer and water services
in the first three years of the current 5 -year Capital Improvement
Program.
4. The application for review and acceptance of a sketch plan must be made
by the fee owner(s) of the property, except that an agent or option
holder may apply provided the application is accompanied by a written
authorization from the fee owner(s).
The fee owner(s) shall notify the City in writing of all changes and
applicant status.
The applicant will agree to the requirements of this Sketch Plan Review
Process policy.
5. All applications for review and acceptance of sketch plans, including
amendments thereto, shall be accompanied by the fee required in the City
Code.
6. The development proposed by the sketch plan shall be consistent with all
elements of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of the
application.
7. A separate application for an amendment to a Comprehensive Plan element
may be submitted in conjunction with the sketch plan, but the review and
action process for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will
precede formal acceptance of the development sketch plan. The sketch
plan will be considered unacceptable if the -proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. request is denied.
8. Any amendment to the Land Use Guide Plan which may be approved in
conjunction with a sketch plan shall be effective only upon approval of
the final plat of the subject property, execution of a development
contract, and filing of the final plat of the subject property with the
County.
25-
Resolution No. 89-91 (continued)
February 6, 1989
9. The applicant shall provide a written statement with the application
acknowledging that the City Council is not obligated to include the
subject property in the current Capital Improvement Program year or by
any certain date in any context other than the normal annual Capital
Improvement Program review and public hearing cycle.
10. The following represents the minimum informational requirement for the
Sketch Plan Review Application:
a. Location map showing the location within the City and more detailed
locations on half -section plat maps showing all perimeter property
lines.
b. Names and addresses on self-adhesive mailing labels of all of the
owners of parcel under consideration and of all owners within 500
feet, as the same appear on the records of the Hennepin County
auditor at the time of the application.
c. A written statement of consent of all owners of property included
within the sketch plan.
d. A general statement outlining the relationship of the sketch plan to
the Comprehensive Plan regarding the following:
1) Land Use Guide Plan/residential density/nonresidential use
characteristics.
2) Sanitary sewer system.
3) Municipal water system.
4) Storm water ponding/flood plain districts/shoreland management
districts/site drainage.
5) Transportation system including all provisions for
connections with streets identified in the City plan.
6) City parks and trail plans and provision for any other public
use lands.
7) Anticipated availability and timing of public utility
Installation per adopted Capital Improvement Program.
e. A sketch plan layout containing the following:
1) Accurate topographic data in 2 feet intervals.
25a-
Resolution No. 89-91 (continued)
February 6, 1989
2) Identification of housing types and location: nonresidential use
structures and locations including support facilities such as
parking; local and residential street circulation as well as
streets and thoroughfares shown on the adopted transportation
plan map.
3) All ponding areas including those required and not required by
the City's storm water management plan; all land included in a
flood plain and/or shoreland management area.
4) City park/private open space/public and private trails/and
Indication of whether trail corridors would be conveyed by
easement or by platted outlots.
5) Tentative staging of development.
6) Other exhibits relating to land characteristics that could be
expected to affect the development within the sketch plan area,
including but not limited to tree stands, wetlands, marshes, and
natural amenities.
11. The City review will be broad and, while it may include the
identification of design standards and dimensions that are less than
ordinance or policy standards, it will not presume any variances from or
modifications to City standards. The City Council acceptance of the
sketch plan will not be deemed to constitute approval of formal
variances or modifications.
12. The Planning staff shall submit a written review along with the sketch
plan to the Planning Commission which shall hold a Public Information
Meeting of all interested parties. Property owners within 500 feet of
the proposal area shall be notified in writing, although failure of any
such owner to receive notice shall not invalidate the proceedings. The
applicants shall be present to discuss the proposal and answer questions
concerning the proposal.
The written staff review shall contain a report as to the relationship
of the proposal to the surrounding neighborhood; compliance with City
ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan; and shall contain a
recommendation.
The Planning Commission shall make its recommendation on the sketch plan
to the City Council within 30 days of the informational meeting.
13. The City Council will review the sketch plan and Council acceptance of
the sketch plan shall be limited to the general acceptability of the
land uses proposed and their interrelationship. The Council's action
shall in no way bind the Council to subsequent approval of more detailed
plans.
25b-
Resolution No. 89-91 (continued)
February 6, 1989
14. The City Council resolution approving the sketch plan shall be filed as
a memorial on the title of the land. The approval shall be effective
until: 1) a preliminary plat of the subject property has been approved
by the City Council; 2) the end of the Capital Improvement Program year
that includes the subject property; or 3) the fee owner informs the
City in writing that the sketch plan is null and void, whichever occurs
first.
15. The City Council acceptance of a sketch plan shall become null and void
unless a complete application for preliminary plat of the subject
property has been submitted within nine months after the City Council
adoption of the 5 -year Capital Improvement Program that identifies the
subject property in the current program year.
16. Applications for preliminary plats/planned unit development
plans/rezonings may be made only when the subject property is identified
in the current year of the adopted 5 -year Capital Improvement Program,
relative to municipal sanitary sewer and water.
17. Mass grading, utility construction, and related preparatory activities
will be permitted only upon approval of a preliminary plat and, if
applicable, upon completion of environmental review requirements.
18. Real estate and development signage allowed by the Zoning Ordinance sign
regulations shall refrain from any reference to specific plan approvals
until a preliminary plat or site plan has been approved for the
property.
25c-
t
i
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Engineering Division
I
ENNEPIN
320 Washington Ave. South
MHopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
Phone: (612) 935-3381
Mr. Charles Dillerud
Community Development Coordinator
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
DT,. .
December 15, 1989
RE: Proposed Concept - Builders Dev. Inc./James Dev. Co.
CSAH 101, West side, approximately 1360 feet north of CSAR 24
Section 19, Township 118, Range 22
Hennepin County No. 1799
Review and Recommendations
We reviewed the above concept plan and make the following comments:
For future improvements to CSAH 101 the developer should dedicate an additional
17 feet of right of way making the right of way 50 feet from the center of CSAH
101. Also, outside the new permanent right of way the developer should provide
a 5 foot utility easement.
The location of the proposed steet access to CSAH 101, approximately 425 feet
north of the southeast corner of the plat, is acceptable to Hennepin County.
All access to CSAH 101 must be via the proposed street. No additional direct
acceess from this plat to CSAH 101 will be permitted by Hennepin County.
The developer must construct the right turn lane and the by-pass lane shown on
Attachments 1 and 2.
Any new access to a county road requires an approved Hennepin County entrance
permit before beginning any construction. Contact our Operations Division for
entrance permit forms.
All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved
utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not
limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and
landscaping. Contact our Operations Division for utility permit forms.
The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County
right of way.
Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt.
S' cerely,
f
David W. Schmidt, P.E.
Transportation Planning
DWS/LDW:lw
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
t
CO
Ld
z
o.
Z N
Q z
J W
r
Z
r -
o
w
0
z
w
00
U
W
v
t
w
a
r -
s
t
z
O
W z
Z W
Q
J
D
Cn W
G
Q z
C
W
I
i- U
m W
cr
v
O
N
z
O
c
U
WW
a
z
v
z
z
W
November 27, 1989
MIM
SATHRE - BERGQUIST, INC.
150 SOUTH BROADWAY
612) 476-6000
Mr. Charles Dillerud
Community Development Coordinator
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, Minnesota 55477
WAYZATA, MN 55391
FAX 476-0104
SUBJECT: Builders Development and James Development Property
Plymouth, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
Builders Development, Inc., of Wayzata, Minnesota, is purchasing
approximately 20 acres lying westerly of County Road #101 and easterly
of the Amber woods subdivision.
James Development Company of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, has purchased
approximately 10 acres immediately north of the Builders Development,
Inc. land.
These two owners are proposing to cooperatively plan and develop their
sites.
The purpose of our letter is to present, for City review and approval, a
sketch plan for the residential development of these two properties.
Please refer to the Location and Vicinity Map for identification of
parcel boundaries.
The comprehensive plan indicates that the properties should be used for
low density residential housing. Both properties are shown within the
LA -1 gu lan district.
Current zoning of the properties is FRD, Future Restricted Development.
These two properties are currently outside of the urban services area.
The proposed 1990-1994 capital improvement plan shows these sites served
by urban services in 1990. The comprehensive plan suggests that the
trunk sewer to eliminate the Amber Woods lift station would cross
through this land.
Watermains to serve the property currently exist in neighboring
developments. In the 1990 capital improvements plan, it is anticipated
that a major watermain loop will be completed along Highway #101.
Storm drainage from the property currently flows three directions. The
southwesterly portion of the site flows to a small wetland basin at the
southwest corner of the property. Overflow from this wetland is
conveyed by storm sewer through the Amber Woods development to the
City's storm water pond, BC -P1.
The southeasterly portion of the site's drainage flows to the southeast
corner of property, where a culvert exists under Highway #101. Flow off
site is to the east. The northerly portion of the property is directly
tributary to BC -P1 and its eventual overflow channel. The City's Storm
Drainage Planindicates a proposed storm sewer system, exiting BC -P1 and
running generally easterly along the northerly border of the James
Development Company's holdings. It is the City's desire that a
permanent system of pipes and channels should convey the runoff from
this area to Plymouth Creek and thence to Medicine Lake. The 1990
proposed Capital Improvements Program indicates a desire to construct an
outlet system for the storm water from BC -P1.
The transportation system to serve the subject properties is in place
with the exception of the internal roadways which would be necessary for
development of the property. The site adjoins County Road #101, which
forms its easterly border. To the west, is the Amber Woods subdivision
and a stub of 34th Avenue North. A minor residential street is
available for access from the south in the Robert L. Johnson's 1st
Addition. The transportation element of the comprehensive plan calls
for the collector roadway= (34th Avenue North) to traverse the Builders
Development Inc. site. Our sketch plan shows this extension. In
response to the City Council's direction during review of the sketch
plan for the Leuer Property to the west, we have made the 34th Avenue
worth roadway alignment circuitous with the intention of reducing speed
on this roadway.
The park and trail component of the comprehensive plan indicates no park
or trailway needs on this property.
Specifically in explanation of the proposed plan; we show the
subdivision of the 30 acre site into 47 detached single family lots.
The intent is to develop under the provisions of the zoning ordinance
and it's R -1A district. Minimum lot size is proposed to be 18,500
square feet with lot width of 110 feet (minimum) at the 35 foot front
yard setback.
The plan identifies four wetland basins on the property. At the
northwest corner of the property a corner of BC -P1 intrudes a small
amount. This is a required storm water pond under the City of
Plymouth's storm drainage system. The fringe area around BC -P1 and the
other wetland areas on site are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corp of Engineers. We have visually located the edge of the Reed Canary -
Grass boundary of the wetland and depicted them on the plan. It is our
intent to receive a confirmation that the alteration work necessary for
site development will be covered under the Nationwide Permit of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. As mitigation for the impacts on the
southwesterly wetland necessary to construct 34th Avenue North, we
propose to enhance the quality of the wetland by excavating an open
water lagoon within the wetland basin.
We have shown the existing tree areas, wetlands and topography of the
site on the Existing Conditions Plan for your review. In general, this
property has been agriculturally cropped and is still under cultivation
in part.
There have been no decisions made at this point whether the development
of these properties would be staged or developed as one.
Please process this request for sketch plan approval through the
Planning Commission and City Council. It is the land owners intent to
proceed with preliminary platting, final platting and actual development
as soon as it is allowed under City of Plymouth ordinance.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.
Richard W. Sathre, P.E.
RWS/dm
cc: Mr. Rick Murray, Builders Development, Inc.
Mr. James Ostenson, James Development Company
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: December 29, 1989 COMMISSION MEETING DATE: January 10, 1990
FILE NO.: 89111
PETITIONER: Hennepin County
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Amendment
LOCATION: 2455 Fernbrook Lane
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: IP (Planned Industrial)
ZONING: I-1 (Planned Industrial)
BACKGROUND:
A property was purchased by the State in the late 1960s. The property was
rezoned to the Industrial District in 1970, and the maintenance building was
constructed the same year. In 1972, the Driver's Examination Station was
constructed. In 1985, the State received administrative approval for the
construction of an accessory structure for the storage of sand and salt
materials. On September 25, 1989, under Resolution 89-554, the City Council
approved a Conditional Use Permit for Hennepin County to operate a temporary
garbage truck routing station.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the official City
newspaper, and notices have been mailed to adjoining property owners within
500 feet.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The proposal calls for an amendment to the approved Conditional Use Permit
to allow for the volume of trucks being routed through this site be
increased from 20 trucks per day to 30 trucks per day. Also, the
amendment proposes to allow for the routing station to be open Monday
through Saturday rather than Monday through Friday.
2. The proposal retains a temporary trailer to be located on the property in
order to route the garbage trucks to an appropriate location to dispose of
their materials, either to a burn plant or a landfill. The petitioner has
resubmitted a detailed description of the proposed use. The temporary
trailer will be used by a single person to record and dispatch up to 30
trucks per day.
see next page)
File 89111
Page Two
3. Before any Conditional Use Permit amendment may be granted, the Planning
Commission shall review the requested proposal for purposes of evaluation
against these standards set forth in Section 9, Subdivision A, paragraph
2a, and develop a recommendation to the City Council which shall make a
final determination as to the approval or denial. Attached is a copy of
the Conditional Use Permit criteria from Section 9, Subdivision A,
paragraph 2a of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. A physical constraints analysis identifies this property to be located
within the Bassett Creek Drainage District. The site is not located
within a Shoreland Management District, no does it contain any wetlands.
There are no major woodlands or severe slopes on the property. The soils
appear suitable for urban capability with public sewers.
5. The Site Plan submitted, along with the Conditional Use Permit narrative,
continues to show that the on-site circulation will not be affected due to
the placement of the temporary trailer.
6. No problems have been reported with the current operation at the site by
the City Departments of Public Works or Public Safety.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The proposed change will not have an impact on elements of the
Comprehensive Plan nor should it have direct impact on adjoining
properties. It should not diminish or impair property values in the
immediate vicinity.
2. Based on the projected increase level of activity, it appears that
adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress, egress, and parking
so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The
only circumstances upon which this may not prove true would be if all 30
trucks arrived at the same time. We do not foresee this as a likely
occurrence.
3. If adequate and reasonable safety and sanitation is observed, the
maintenance and operation of this conditional use should not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health safety morals or comfort.
If, on the other hand, the garbage factors that will daily visit the site
are operated unsafely or in an unsanitary manner, the public health and
safety may be impacted.
see next page)
File 89111
Page Three
RECOMMENDATION:
I hereby recommend approval of the application for a Conditional Use Permit
amendment to the approved temporary truck routing station at the Minnesota
Department of Transportation Truck Station at 2455 Fernbrook Lane North. I
recommend the Conditional Use Permit be renewable at six month intervals to
monitor the impact Af the use and thxomplian the conditions.
Submitted by:
Charles E. Dilleru , Community Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Recommended Conditional Use Permit Approval
2. Location Map
3. Engineer's Memorandum
4. Resolution 89-554
5. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
6. Petitioner's Correspondence
pc/cd/89111:dl)
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR A
TEMPORARY TRUCK ROUTING STATION (89111)
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has requested approval for a Conditional Use Permit
amendment for a temporary truck routing station to allow for the volume of
trucks being routed at the site be increased from 20 trucks per day to 30
trucks per day and to permit Saturday operations; and,
WHEREAS, a Conditional Use Permit was granted by the City Council under
Resolution 89-554 for a temporary truck routing station at 2455 Fernbrook
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
Hennepin County for a Conditional Use Permit amendment for a temporary truck
routing station to allow for the volume of trucks being routed at the site be
increased from 20 trucks per day to 30 trucks per day and to permit Saturday
operations located at 2455 Fernbrook Lane, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Use of the site for truck routing purposes shall be limited to no more
than 30 trucks per day.
2. The site shall be open for garbage trucks from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday only.
3. All trucks using the site shall be single or double axle waste collection
trucks. No tractor/trailer rigs shall use the site.
4. There shall be no dumping or transferring of waste from one truck to
another at this site.
5. No truck shall be stored at this site or allowed to stop for repairs,
phone calls, or for any other reason other than routing.
6. Trucks visiting the site shall have normal mixed municipal solid waste.
There shall be no trucks with hazardous waste loads of any type.
7. The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed six months from the original
date of issuance for compliance with the Conditional Use Permit standards
of the Zoning Ordinance and the conditions of approval.
8. The Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to compliance with all
applicable rules and regulations governing this activity administered by
other governmental agencies.
9. No permanent signage of any type is approved related to this Conditional
Use Permit.
10. The site shall be kept clear of all debris and deposits.
see next page)
Resolution
File 89111
Page Two
11. Permit revocation based on noncompliance with the Zoning Ordinance or
conditions of the Permit not withstanding, this permit will expire on July
1, 1991. An application for a new Conditional Use Permit for continued
operation after July 1, 1991, will be required.
12. City Council Resolution 89-554 is hereby superceded and rescinded.
d:VJ W
C
1
K -.gooOM .oma'
Pa.
W\L W,
7
Ar
RdM +Mmmwmm:
41-2/.1./ =='
t: =. i
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: January 4, 1990
TO: Cck Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
FROM: `" Daniel L. Faulkner, City Engineer
SUBJECT: INTERIM TRUCK ROUTING STATION (89111)
At the MnDOT Truck Station located at 2455 Fernbrook Lane, Hennepin
County's estimate of approximately 30 garbage trucks per day will not
adversely affect the traffic patterns along Fernbrook Lane. The
street was designed as a nine ton street and is capable of handling
the proposed loads. While this is an increase of 10 trucks per day
over the original estimate of 20 trucks per day, there have been no
apparent traffic problems and none are anticipated since the trucks
arrive at random throughout the day.
RCJ:kh
cc: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
r
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 25th day
of$e2tembeT 19$3_ The following members were present:
Mayor Schneider Councilmembers Vasiliou, Ricker, Zitur and Sisk
The following members were absent: None
Councilmember zitur introduced the following Resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 89-554
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY TO OPERATE A TEMPORARY
GARBAGE TRUCK ROUTING STATION (89074)
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has requested approval for a Conditional Use Permit
for a temporary garbage truck routing station on property located at 2455
Fernbrook 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 hereby does approve the request of Hennepin
County for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a temporary garbage truck
routing station for property located at 2455 Fernbrook Lane, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Use of the site for truck routing purposes shall be limited to no more
than 20 trucks per day.
2. The site shall be open for garbage trucks from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday only.
3. All trucks using the site shall be single or double axle waste collection
trucks. No tractor/trailer rigs shall use the site.
4. There shall be no dumping or transferring of waste from one truck to
another at this site.
5. No truck shall be stored at this site or allowed to stop for repairs,
phone calls, or for any other reason other than routing.
6. Trucks visiting the site shall have normal mixed municipal solid waste.
There shall be no trucks with hazardous waste loads of any type.
7. The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed six months from the date of
issuance for compliance with the Conditional Use Permit standards of the
Zoning Ordinance and the conditions of approval.
see next page)
RESOLUTION NO. 89-554
File 89074
Page Two
8. The Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to compliance with all
applicable rules and regulations governing this activity administered by
other governmental agencies.
9., No permanent signage of any type is approved related to this Conditional
Use Permit.
10. The site shall be kept clear of all debris and deposits.
11. Permit revocation based on noncompliance with the Zoning Ordinance or
Conditions of the Permit not withstanding, this permit will expire on July
1, 1991. An application for a new Conditional Use Permit for continued
operation after July 1, 1991, will be required.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Councilmember Sisk , and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers Vasiliou,
Ricker Zitur and Sisk
The following voted against or abstained None
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
IRO14 SEMON 9, 1 [NISI( A
2. Prcred„v,e Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the
application therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Camdssion for
purposes of evaluation against the standards of this section, Public
Hearing, and development of a recatu endation 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 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.
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
Description of Interim Truck Routinq Stations
Hennepin County requests a new conditional use permit for its interim truck
routing station at the MNDot truck station located at 2455 Fernbrook Lane North
in the city of Plymouth. The new conditions are for an increase from 20 to 30
trucks per day and operation Monday through Saturday.
Hennepin County is establishing a network of interim truck routing stations as
part of its system of waste burning plants. There will be about 10 truck routing
stations including the routing station proposed for the MNDoT truck station in
Plymouth. They will be located around the County in order to be convenient to
all waste haulers in the County.
At these interim truck routing stations garbage trucks in the County will check
in with their loads. There they will be quickly recorded and dispatched to where
the waste can best be disposed of on that particular day - most likely to a waste
burning plant. If the burn plants have received all the waste they can handle
for a particular day, the garbage trucks will be routed to a remote landfill.
Without these interim truck routing stations, too many garbage collection trucks
will show up at the burn plants and will then have to be turned away. This will
cause unacceptable additional driving time by waste collection trucks and
unacceptable traffic problems, particularly at the burn plant in downtown
Minneapolis.
Eight of the interim truck routing stations started operating in mid -1989, the
time one of the waste burning plants started operating. Hennepin County's solid
waste designation ordinance went into effect at that time and requires that all
solid waste generated in the County be delivered by garbage collectors to
locations specified by the County so it can be routed to the waste burning plants
built for that purpose. Since then, two additional routing stations were
established to serve haulers in the western suburbs. One site is in Plymouth and
one site is in Mound.
When the County's four permanent transfer stations are built in the next two
years, the interim truck routing stations will be phased out. At the permanent
transfer stations the garbage collection trucks will be able to tip their loads
rather than be rerouted to another location. At these transfer stations the
waste will then be transferred to semi trucks for hauling to one of the burn
plants or possibly to a landfill. (By the time the permanent transfer stations
are operating the burn plants should be operating at full capacity. Solid waste
will then be landfilled only during periods of high waste generation - spring and
fall, and during times when the burn plants are down for plant maintenance and
repair.)
Most of the interim truck routing stations in Hennepin could be phased out in
mid-1990 when the Bloomington and Brooklyn Park transfer stations are completed
and operating. The remaining interim truck routing stations should be phased out
when the permanent transfer station in the western suburbs and in South
Minneapolis are built.
It should be emphasized that at the interim truck routing stations waste
collection trucks will not dump their loads of waste. They will only report to
these stations where their loads will be recorded and then dispatched to a
disposal site.
11
Because of certain legal and other requirements a network of truck routing
stations is a necessary short term need. The main purpose of the truck routing
stations is to have places where waste collection trucks can enter the County
system; where the County can take possession of the waste; and then route it to
the final disposal point - burn plant or landfill - best able to handle the load
of waste on any particular day.
The Key elements of an interim truck routing station at the MNDoT Truck Station
in the City of Plymouth are as follows:
A County employee will be located in a small portable trailer on the site
see site plan). When a garbage collection truck enters the site the
employee will issue the truck driver a routing slip directing the garbage
truck to specific destination.
The site will be open for garbage trucks from approximately 7:30 AM to
3:30 PM, Monday through Saturday.
Ongoing operations of the MNOoT truck station would continue as normal.
Hennepin estimates approximately up to thirty garbage trucks per day will
visit the site and will probably be well spaced throughout the eight hour
period. With this low traffic volume and the fact that each truck routing
transaction only takes one minute, there will seldom, if ever, be more than
one truck at the site at any time. Most of the trucks visiting the site
will come from T.H 55 and proceed south on Fernbrook Lane to the site.
After receiving a routing slip, trucks will go north on Fernbrook Lane to
T.H. 55. Since the site opened October 8, there have been 3 days when the
number of trucks exceeded 20 trucks per day. Daily truck traffic has ranged
from 2 to 26.
All trucks will be single or double -axle waste collection trucks. No
tractor/trailer rigs will visit the site.
There will not be any dumping or transferring of waste from one truck to
another at this site, only truck recording and routing.
Trucks visiting the site will have normal mixed municipal solid waste.
There will be no trucks with hazardous waste loads of any type.
No trucks will be stored at the site or allowed to stop for minor repairs,
phone calls, or for any reason.
Conformance with Standards
Set Forth in Section 9 of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance
Conditional Use Permit
1. Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed site is zoned industrial and the routing of approximately 30
garbage trucks per day would not be incompatible with existing truck
operations at the MNDoT truck station.
2. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will
promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental
to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
The routing station is temporary, and will facilitate disposal of solid
waste in the area and will involve only approximately 30 trucks per day.
The site will be open between approximately 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM, Monday
through Saturday. Other routing stations in operation in the County caused
no concerns whatsoever with noise, odor or spillage.
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.
The truck routing will take place in a well screened area. The City Public
Works area is to the west, the drivers examination station is north, and
there is considerable site screening to the East and West. Properties on
the East and South are also separated by Fernbrook Lane to the East and
23rd Avenue to the South.
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.
The truck routing will take place in a well screened area. The City Public
Works area is to the west, the drivers examination station is north, and
there is considerable site screening to the East and South. Properties on
the East and South are also separated by Fernbrook Lane to the East and
23rd Avenue to the South.
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.
The use is temporary and the estimated waste collection trucks per day
entering and leaving the site will not cause traffic congestion in the
surrounding public streets.
6. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable
cable regulations of the district in which it is located.
The temporary use should be able to conform to the applicable regulations of
the district in which it is located.
3NV-1 NOOMONN3d
I
O
r
rN
zO
r
z
Q '
xe
W y
WNzW ° u
J
KW
C
C
i
1
DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. 1
HEARING DATE: January 10, 1990
DESCRIPTION:
Amendment of Zoning Ordinance Standards for Business Districts relative to
shopping centers.
SECTIONS INVOLVED: Section 4, Subdivision B; and Section 8, Subdivision A and
E.
EXPLANATION/PURPOSE:
r
The City Council approved the revised Land Use Guide Plan Element of the
Comprehensive Plan on December 18, 1989.
That revision included modifications of the former CN (Neighborhood Shopping
Center) classification; the new classification, CR (Commercial Retail) has
been established to provide for a shopping center classification that has two
parts or types. The types of shopping centers are distinguished by size of
site and size of the development.
The purpose of this amendment is to make basic modifications to the Zoning
Ordinance so that the Ordinance implements the provisions of the Land Use
Guide Plan Shopping Center Classification. The Planning Commission and
Council have not identified specific changes to the allowable uses in the B-2
District and this action does not contemplate such changes. This action does
not contemplate the rezoning of any land, i.e., the B-2 District would remain
and additional text would be provided to clarify the distinction between
shopping center types as contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan.
I have reviewed this matter with the City Attorney and we have concluded that
these basic textual changes will accomplish the implementation necessary at
this time for the potential development of properties that are now classified
CR (1 or 2) and which are or can be (with provision of public utilities) zoned
B-2. It is not necessary to create a new zoning district as we had originally
contemplated (unless the Planning Commission finds that desirable) because the
distinction between shopping center types is one of physical design and size.
The Commission and staff to -date have not identified the need to have uses in
one category and not the other.
This action does not preclude further review of the Table of Allowable Use in
this or any other category; it is designed however to accomplish basic
implementation provisions.
I recommend adoption of the amendments identified herein.
1. Amend Section 4, Subdivision B by deleting the existing definition of the
term "Shopping Center" and substituting it with the following:
2. Amend Section 8, Subdivision A, 2, b to read as follows:
The B-2 (SHOPPING CENTER BUSINESS DISTRICT) is intended to provide a
district which may be applied—to typically involves land in a single
ownership or unified and organized arrangement of buildings
des at key locations which are suitable for such use, which are
conveniently located to the residential area neighborhoods or geobase they
are intended to serve, generally within the areas indicated for such use
in the Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan. The type and location of
Shopping Centers shall be governed by the size and development criteria in
the "Community Structure Concept" in the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Amend Section 8, Subdivision E, as follows:
1. Minimum Lot Area in Acres
a. Place of Worship
b. Shopping Centers Classified CR -1
c. Sh000ina Centers Classified CR -2
Other Uses
5. Maximum Lot Coverage by all Structures
a. Shopping Centers Classified CR -1
b. Shopping Centers Classified CR -2
c. All Other Uses
L. Maximum Lot Area
a. Shopping Centers Classified CR -1
pc/bt/#1)
B-2
40.000 sq. ft
05,000 sq. ft.
25%
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 4, Subdivision B
adjoining apartments, or at a central location; and, a multipurpose common
room(s) or area adequate for social, meeting, and recreational activities
of the residents. (Amended Ord. No. 83-12 &_19-38)
Shopping Center -- Neighborhood Center: A retail center designed for the
purpose of retailing "convenience" goods such as foods and drugs and
providing personal services such as barber shops and laundry stations for
the accommodation of the basic day-to-day shopping or service needs of
persons living or working within the nearby area. Community Center: A
retail center designed for the purpose of retailing and providing a wide
range of goods and services of both the "convenience" and the "shoppers or
durable" nature such as apparel, furniture and banking and financial
services, for a trade area comprising of several residential neighborhoods.
Regional Center: A retail center designed to serve a trade area of several
communities and to provide a range of "convenience" and "shoppers and
durable" goods and services comparable to that found in the central
business districts of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Shoreland -- Land located within the following distances from public water:
a.) 1,000 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark of a lake, pond, or
flowage; and, (b.) 300 feet from a stream, creek, or water course; or the
landward extent of a flood plain as designated by this Ordinance, whichever
is greater. (Amended Ord. No. 82-33
Sign -- Any billboard, notice, poster, display or other device visible to
and primarily intended to advertise and inform or to attract attention, and
shall include any structures erected primarily for use in connection with
the display of any such device and all lighting or other attachments used
in connection therewith.
Sign, Advertising -- A sign which directs attention to a business,
commodity, service, activity or entertainment not necessarily conducted,
sold or offered upon the premises where such sign is located.
Sign, Area Identification -- Any free standing sign located on identified
premises, which identifies the name of a neighborhood, a residential
subdivision, a multiple residential complex or any combination of the
above.
Sign, Business -- 'A sign which directs attention to a business or profession to
a commodity, service or entertainment sold or offered upon the premises
where such a sign is located.
Sign, Directional -- A sign erected on private property for the purpose of
directing traffic to a specific location.
Sign, Flashing -- Any illuminated sign on which such illumination is not kept
Sign, Free Standing -- Any sign which is placed in the ground and not affixed
to any part of a building.
Sign, Illuminated -- Any sign which has characters, letters, figures, designs
or outlines illuminated by electric lights or luminous tubes as a part of
the sign.
4-15
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 8, Subdivision A
i G A [$Is 116.11,111 to
SUBDIVISION A - PURPOSE AND INTENT: BUSINESS DISTRICTS
1. The Business Districts are established to accomplish the general purpose of
the Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and for the following specific
reasons:
a. To group compatible uses which will tend to draw trade that is naturally
interchangeable and so promotes the business prosperity and public
convenience.
b. To provide an adequate supply of businesses and professional services to
meet the needs of the residents.
c. To promote a high quality of total commercial design and development
that produces a positive visual image and minimizes the effects of
traffic congestion, noise, odor, glare and similar safety problems.
d. To allow business development that meets the size, locational and
development criteria established in the "Community Structure Concept" of
the Comprehensive City Plan.
2. The specific intent of each Business District is as follows:
a. The B-1 (OFFICE -LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT) is intended to provide a
district which is related to and may reasonably adjoin high density or
other residential districts for the location and development of
administrative office buildings and related office uses which are
subject to more restrictive controls. The office uses allowed in this
district are those in which there is limited contact with the public and
no exterior display or selling of merchandise to the general public.
Such districts will generally be located within the areas indicated for
such use on the Comprehensive Plan,
The B-2 (SHOPPING CENTER BUSINESS DISTRICT) is intended to provide a
district which may be applied to land in a single ownership or unified
and organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities at key
locations which are suitable for such use, which are conveniently
located to the residential area they are intended to serve, generally
within the areas indicated for such use in the Comprehensive Plan. The
type and location of shopping centers shall be governed by criteria in
Jhe "Community Structure Concept" in the Comprehensive Plan. _/
c. The B-3 (SERVICE BUSINESS DISTRICT) is designed to furnish areas served
by other business districts with wide range of services and goods which
might otherwise be incompatible with the uses permitted in the shopping
center business district. This district is intended as a business
district which may be located in separate areas adjacent to shopping
centers and thus help to keep the basic retail areas compact and
convenient, and in other separate areas to provide a district which may
8-1
E PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 8, Subdivision E
SUBDIVISION E - SCHEDULE OF NON -RESIDENCE DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT AREA,
DEPTH, WIDTH, COVERAGE, SETBACKS, HEIGHT
NOTE: Lots in the Flood Plain or Shoreland Management Overlay Districts
are subject to the Special Protection District requirements as set
forth in Section 6 of this Ordinance. (Amended Ord. No. 82-33)
B-1 B-2 B-3 I-1
1. Minimum Lot Area in Acres 1 1 1 2
a. Place of Worship 5 5
b. Other Uses 1 1 1 2
Amended Ord. 89-02)
2. Minimum District Area in Acres 5 5 5 20
may be waived if expansion of
present district)
3. Minimum Lot Depth in Feet 150 200 150 150
4. Minimum Lot Width in Feet 150 200 150 150
5. Maximum Lot Coverage by all 25% 25% 35% 35% ***
Structures
6. Minimum Front Yard Setback 50 50 50 50
in Feet*
7. Minimum Front Yard Setback 75 75 75 75
if across Collector or
Minor Street from any
Residence District*
8. Minimum Side Yard Setback 15 35 15 25
in feet
9. Minimum Side Yard Setback if 75 75 75 75
adjacent to any Residence District
10. Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 35 25 35
in feet
11. Minimum Rear Yard Setback if 75 75 75 75
adjacent to any Residence District
12. Maximum Building Height 4 2 2 4
in feet** stories stories stories stories
or 45 or 45 or 45 or 45
13. Additional Regulations and
Exceptions (See Section 10)
All street frontages shall provide full front yard setback
See Section 10, Subdivision C for further height regulations and
modifications
See Section 10, Subdivision C for special provision for expansion in the
I-1 District and for calculation of maximum lot coverage in the
non-residential zoning districts. (Amended Ord. No. 86-07)
8-12
1,, 5, , D/,
DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. --2
HEARING DATE: January 10, 1990
This amendment will update the R-2 section of the Zoning Ordinance to correct
an oversight with respect to setback dimensions that resulted from a previous
amendment to the District specifications related to the setback of accessory
structures.
SECTIONS INVOLVED: Section 7, Subdivision D, Paragraph 8, e. and f.
This amendment is to complete amendment action initiated late in 1989 with
respect to side yard provisions of the R-2 Zoning District. The preexisting
Ordinance language and specifications provided for a PUD like approach to side
yard setbacks in the R-2 District. Ordinance 89-37 (adopted November 20,
1989) adjusted the principal structure setbacks in the R-2 Zone to a specified
10 feet on each side.
At the same time the side yard setback provisions for accessory uses should
have been modified in the same manner. That companion action is proposed to
be accomplished by this amendment.
We recommend an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to modify the language of
the residential zoning section as follows:
FRD R -1A R -1B R-2* R-3* R-4*
8. Minimum Side Yard in Feet**
a. Dwellings, one family 15 15 10 10
b. Dwellings, two family 15 15 10 10 20 20
c. Other Uses 30 30 30 30 30 30
d. Other Uses abutting
residences 50 50 50 50 50 50
e. Detached accessory uses 15 6 6 20 10 20 20
f. Attached accessory uses 15 15 10 29 12 20 20
Items 8 a. & b. Amend. Ord. 89-37)
pc/cd/zo.amend:jw)
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ORDINANCE NO. 89-37
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE 80-9 ADOPTED JUNE 16, 1980, AS
AMENDED, AND KNOWN AS THE PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE, RELATIVE TO THE SIDE YARD
SETBACK PROVISIONS OF THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT WITH RESPECT TO SINGLE FAMILY
AND TWO FAMILY DWELLING UNITS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 7, Subdivision D, Item 8.a., b. is hereby amended as
follows:
FRD R -1A R -1B R-2 R-3 R-4
8. Minimum Side Yard in Feet**
a. Dwellings, one family 15 15 10 26**'t1Q -- --
b. Dwellings, two family 15 15 10 a 1Q 20 20
Section 2. Section 7, Subdivision D, Footnotes are hereby amended as
follows:
Mr,
I a
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its
passage and publication.
Adopted by the City Council this 20th day of November, 1989.
Mayor
ATTEST
City Clerk
Strue'- Material - indicates deleted text
Underscore - indicates new text (cc/bt/Sec.7:jw)