HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 06-11-1987CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
June 11, 1987
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS.....
1. JOINT COUNCIL/STAFF DINNER MEETING -- Monday, June 15. A joint
Council/staff dinner meeting is scheduled commencing at 5:30 p.m. to
discuss solid waste issues including organized collection and
mandatory recycling. A light dinner will be served.
2. PLYMOUTH FORUM -- Monday, June 15, 7:00 p.m. Plymouth Forum in the
City Council Chambers.
3. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, June 15, 7:30 p.m. Regular
City Council meeting in the City Council Chambers.
4. CONCERT IN THE PARKS -- Because of inclement weather, the park
concert featuring the " Rockin' Hollywood' scheduled for Wednesday,
June 10 at the City Center Amphitheatre was rescheduled to next
Wednesday, June 17. The concert will begin at the same time, 7:30
p.m., preceded by a 7:00 p.m. performance by the Plymouth Puppet
Playhouse.
5. JUNE & JULY CALENDARS -- Meeting calendars for June and July are
attached. -
FOR YOUR INFORMATION....
1. MR. AMSBAUGH - INQUIRY FROM COUNCILMEMBER VASILIOU -- During the
Council meeting at which the matter of the "fox farni' was discussed,
Mr. Amsbaugh raised questions with respect to how the City handled
that specific item in relationship to his own conditional use permit
for a dog kennel. Councilmember Vasiliou inquired as to the nature
of Mr. Amsbaugh's inquiry with the City through Al Cottingham.
Attached is a memo from Al Cottingham indicating the nature of his
contacts with Mr. Amsbaugh. (I-1)
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
June 11, 1987
Page two
2. PLYMOUTH METROLINK - MAY REPORT -- Shown below is a table displaying
our average daily ridership for the commuter/reverse commuter,
internal circulator and total system for each week of May.
The second table displays the year to date averages in each
service area compared with the target which we must achieve in order
to have a successful project.
MONTHLY
PLYMOUTH METROLINK
DAILY RIDERSHIP AVERAGES BY WEEK BY SERVICE TYPE
MAY 1987
Total
System
SERVICE TYPE
Commuter/
Internal
Total
TARGET
370
Reverse Commuter
Circulator
System
WEEK OF:
- 16%
+ .5%
5/1
321
27
348
5/4 - 5/8
365
37
402
5/11 - 5/15
355
41
396
5/18 - 5/22
346
38
384
5/26 - 5/29
360
34
394
-----------------
MONTH LONG
------------------
-------------
----------------
AVERAGE
350
36
386
YEAR TO DATE
Item
Commuter/
Reverse Commuter
Internal
Circulator
Total
System
YEAR TO DATE
RIDERSHIP AVERAGE
387
47
434
TARGET
370
56
432
% OVER/(UNDER)
TARGET
+ 4.6%
- 16%
+ .5%
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
June 11, 1987
Page three
A number of observations are in order:
1. Internal circulator average ridership dropped in May to 36
passengers per day, as compared to the 49 passengers per day
averaged last month. Ridership for the internal circulator
should improve with the onset of summer vacation for Junior and
senior high school students.
2. Ridership for the commuter/reverse commuter portion of the
service also experienced a decrease in May, dropping from
an average of 365 in April, to 350 persons per day for May.
However, this is still above the 332 average posted in May,
1986.
3. In terms of our system -wide ridership target of 432 passengers
per day, we are still above our goal by two at 434 passengers
per day. Historically, ridership has decreased during the month
of May, only to rebound in dune.
DAILY RIDERSHIP
AVERAGES
BY
MONTH
FOR
CALENDAR YEARS 1984
- 1987
SERVICE TYPE
Commuter/
Internal
Total
Reverse
Commuter
Circulator
System
MONTH:
1984
1985
1986
1987
1984
1985 1986
1987
1984
1985
1986
1987
January
330
307
351
429
21
51
40
47
351
358
391
476
February
310
292
350
394
25
50
47
49
335
342
394
442
March
307
311
338
397
25
56
64
53
332
367
402
450
April
301
295
354
365
27
55
44
49
331
350
398
414
May
295
298
332
350
27
36
35
36
322
334
367
386
June
276
314
349
41
53
64
317
367
413
July
277
297
328
42
52
62
319
349
390
August
266
292
328
47
57
73
313
349
401
September
275
322
354
32
42
33
307
364
387
October
276
312
384
36
55
40
312
367
424
November
271
311
396
35
57
50
306
368
446
December
-----------
265
320
412
39
52
56
304
372
468
YEAR LONG
-----------------------
----------------------
-----------------------
AVERAGE
287
306
356
387
36
51
51
47
321
357
407
434
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
June 11, 1987
Page four
3. AMM 1987 ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY SURVEY -- In accordance with
ouncil direction during the 1987 budget cycle, I am providing a
copy of the 1987 Elected Officials Salary Survey recently completed
by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. (I-3)
4. SOLID WASTE TRANSFER FACILITY SITING PROCESS -- On June 11, Council -
members Crain and Sisk, together with Frank Boyles, spent the morn-
ing at the Hennepin County Government Center awaiting an opportunity
to testify regarding Plymouth's preliminary designation as one of
the solid waste transfer facilities. Other commitments made it
necessary for Councilmembers Crain and Sisk to leave around noon.
At 1:30 p.m., the Public Service Committee met. Attached is a copy
of the comments delivered to the Committee by Frank Boyles on behalf
of the Council. (I-4)
5. MINUTES:
a. Planning Commission, May 27, 1987. (I -5a)
6. DEPARTMENT REPORTS -- The following departmental reports for the
month of May are attached:
a. Police Department (I -6a)
b. Fire Department (I -6b)
7. SUMMARY OF 1987 LEGISLATION -- The Association of Metropolitan
unicipalities has prepared the attached report which summarizes
1987 legislative acts and also items of legislative interest which
did not pass. (I -7a)
8. ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & ENFORCEMENT -- As part of my
performance standards established by the Council, I am to provide a
monthly report to the Council during the construction season on the
status of " complaints received with respect to concerns surrounding
the various environmental development standards and their enforce-
ment:' Attached is a status report from Sherm Goldberg dealing with
environmental concerns in the various areas of construction within
the City. (I-8)
9. DEVELOPMENT SIGNAGE -- On Friday, June 12, a development identifi-
cation sign will be installed on property northwest of County Road
47 and I-494 for an application submitted by Harstad-Todd Construc-
tion for a PUD Preliminary Plat/Plan and Conditional Use Permit for
"Lake Camelot Estate' to replat 28 single family lots to 25 single
family lots; to reduce the number of single family dwelling units
from 189 to 186; and to increase the number of apartment units from
168 to 191, which increases the total number of dwelling units from
505 to 525.
The Planning Commission will consider this application at a public
hearing scheduled for June 24.
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
June 11, 1987
Page five
10. REPORTS FROM HUMAN SERVICES AGENCIES -- To date, two human service
agencies, West Suburban Mediatlon Center and West Hennepin Community
Center, have provided reports on their programs and services
provided to Plymouth residents. Copies of their reports are
attached for the Council's information. As additional reports are
received from the other agencies, they will be provided to the
Council. All copies will be retained for reference during the 1988
budget cycle. (I-10)
11. AREA 7 TOWN MEETING - RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORMS -- Attached are copies
of the resident feedback forms received at the June 8 Town Meeting.
The Council will be provided with cpies of staff responses as they
are completed. (I-11)
12. CONFERENCE/SEMINAR REPORT FORM -- City employees will begin
completing the attached 'Confer nce/Seminar Report' form following
attendance at a seminar or conference. The form and any associated
seminar/conference educational materials will be retained within an
employee's department for not less than 10 working days following
the employee's return to afford other departmental employees an
opportunity to review the materials if desired. In addition, a copy
of the report will also be forwarded to the Administration
Department for filing and future reference. (I-12)
13. CORRESPONDENCE:
a. Letter from Dr. & Mrs. Roy Hoffman, Wayzata, to Mayor Schneider,
stating objections to the plan under consideration by Hennepin
County to locate a solid waste transfer station in Plymouth.
(I -13a)
b. Letter to Mr. Owen Warneke, 945 Zanzibar Lane, from Public
Safety Director, regarding Mr. Warneke's request for the City to
remove geese from properties in the Cimarron Ponds area.
(I -13b)
c. Letter of appreciation to Building Inspection personnel, from
Dean Johnson, President, Dean R. Johnson Construction, Inc.
(I -13c)
d. Letter from James A. Edwards, Branch Manager, Coldwell Banker,
Plymouth, to Mayor Schneider, advising that, in observance of
Flag Day, June 14, Coldwell Banker staff will distribute and
place American flags on some 100,000 lawns in the Twin Cities
area. The Plymouth branch office will begin distributing the
flags in areas of Plymouth on late Saturday evening, June 13 or
early Sunday morning, June 14. (I -13d)
e. Letter of appreciation from Jeff Sweet, President, of Union City
Mission Board of Directors, to Blair Tremere and Milt Dale for
their assistance and support in the organization's efforts to
secure a Community Development Block Grant. (I -13e)
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
June 11, 1987
Page six
f. Letter to Katherine Turnbull, Planning Manager, Regional Transit
Board, from John Anderson, City Administrator, Shakopee,
commenting on the RTB's proposed fare policies and procedures.
(I -13f)
g. Letter from Dennis Hocks, 2955 E. Medicine Lake Blvd., to
Councilmember Crain, concerning a proposed variance request for
the construction of a garage on his property and the City's
variance application fee. Mr. Hocks requests the application
fee be reduced or eliminated for his application. (I -13g)
h. Letter to Ray Anderson, Community Development Coordinator, from:
Herbert & Audrey Myers, 20 Saratoga Lane; Anthony & Josephine
Kilgore, 30 Saratoga Lane; David & Kathy Thomas, 49 Saratoga
Lane; Scott & Cindy Anderson, 110 Saratoga Lane; and Mary Ann
Kellar, 112 Saratoga Lane, urging the Planning Commission to
recommend denial of a lot size variance application by Bruce
Hertzenberg. The variance request is part of an application for
a lot division for two single family residential lots on
property at 115 Quaker Lane. (I -13h)
James G. Willis
City Manager
JGW:jm
attach
M�
W
CN.
r4
M-5+
cz
02 N
c
N
CIA
N�
N N
^Oti
� N N
n n :14 O O
N
W
Oo �-N a
..1
U
z73
00
H N
W U
3 ��2"
W a
P -4
a H
F-
0�
O
6 OM n
9 • O
.-. N M
P-4 r- U
P4
caw
I
Q
a
[�.
�-
oaI
�
C
N
��"
a
Viz^
U
w�H
w o
w
a�
�
U �
H
W
H 0.1
OMw
PO
N
�/�
�i/
O
cn
R:
NU
w
N
M zwc�
E-�
0
P4
p a, H
w> H
O^
U
pG o
M
0 xw
o
0
O o
�
r-1
a
to
x
w
c7
En
x
w
W
w
•a
to
x
w
H 0
U
M
a x
W
U
wu
v
a x
�
U w
p w
U�
o
z
c�
7-
o
E+oz0w1
0zwzo
�O
-0,
0a
�w
oa
O
•• O
�D p
U
OU
c'1
ppU
H O
H S O
H •- U
W r-
v1
O
O••
U O U
M
A' z
l V H
�..,
U o U
c'r1
NZ
z
U oM U
P4
H P4
n H
H U) n
W ^ H
H P4
C n H
A
a
6 n H
A P+
^ F-
u W
�j
Uuu��---
U H IzUjz
U W1114
0
�j Uz
H W
H U
H
H U
OHz
WU0
Cl)
U U 'n
�Y ou
O
oO
WU0
FA OH0PWiU[�O
6
Hg0
1.0
U�+-+
U A U
p4
U
12
U A
U
CY. U
ti U)
�D
En u
h Pa
v) U
cz
g
W
� _/ 5
ct
l<
M
W
d'
w
t
a
ri
^
✓ /
E
Cocz
=
M
W
p
N
N
O
�
CD
U
N
J
U
cz
o
O
�•
��
Q
w
N
M
1-4
w
O LL-
F— a:
w
C) O
W J
WJ
�
N
N
w
w
ri
Cocz
=
M
p
N
�
�
CD
U
N
M
�--- • U
�•
Q
Lu
F— a:
w
W J
WJ
�
W d
U
E U
U O Z
O Z
W
Q M O
Q O O
cl� -• O
O
N
W
w
M
m
e--�U
r
�--+
00
�
N
o U
N
'-d
� �
r--�
CD
Z ' • J
a
^CD
P4
z U
C-- C)
CLO
N
En P4
z w
co
��w
•�"
z
oN
,ct
V)
o a
N
N
a
�--r
o f
H^ F-4
O d U
1.+
Q O
P94
14OU
m r`
V)
Ln
U
J
m
LL r.=N°N°
Uico
dZE
Ca
�F-
d m::
UE Co
Z •
Cd
f p `�. O N
O d Q
M
O
m m
O
0
0 2
a- _
�o�
Nr,o
OUOU
UOU
J U
W �--r
J U
U w
z
C'3C`3O
(7 V) ►i
OV%Z
ZD
wCD
O z
LII CD ZD
to N�
���
CoV)UU
WO=�,OU
�ZOdI--
C) ]�VnIU
O
�Or-
N
Ct
r•
a
r v
N
O r., "t*
In r ry WN
T I
MEMORANDUM
DATE: JUNE 9, 1987
TO: BLAIR TREMERE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
FROM: AL COTTINGHAM, ASSOCIATE PLANNER 4/
SUBJECT: CONVERSATIONS WITH DEAN AMSBAUGH
ON ONE OCCASION ABOUT TWO OR THREE MONTHS AGO DEAN AMSBAUGH
CAME TO THE COUNTER TO SEE ME REGARDING THE CITY ORDINANCE
REGARDING DOG KENNELS IN THE FRD (FUTURE RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT)
DISTRICT.
I INFORMED MR. AMSBAUGH THAT DOG KENNELS WERE ONLY ALLOWED AS A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
HE INQUIRED IF HIS NEIGHBORS WHO WERE RAISING FOXES WOULD NEED TO
COMPLY WITH THIS.
I INFORMED HIM THAT THE ORDINANCE REFERENCED THE KEEPING OF DOGS
AND NOT FOXES BUT THAT THE KEEPING OF FOXES MIGHT BE A VIOLATION
OF THE CITY CODE DEALING WITH WILD ANIMALS. I TOLD MR. AMSBAUGH
THAT I WOULD PASS A COMPLAINT TO OUR ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
SINCE I DID NOT DEAL WITH VIOLATIONS TO THE CITY CODE.
WITH THIS MR. AMSBAUGH THANKED ME FOR MY ASSISTANCE AND LEFT.
I THEN PASSED THE INFORMATION ONTO FRANK BOYLES, ASSISTANT CITY
MANAGER.
LATER ON MR. AMSBAUGH CALLED ME REGARDING THE STATUS OF HIS
COMPLAINT. I INFORMED HIM ONCE AGAIN THAT THIS WAS HANDLED BY THE
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT AND THAT HE SHOULD CONTACT FRANK
BOYLES.
THAT IS THE ONLY CONTACT THAT I HAD WITH MR. AMSBAUGH ON THIS
SUBJECT. I UNDERSTAND THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATED
THE COMPLAINT ABOUT THE FOX OPERATION.
OWN
000
� ► •0
L
Na)D
o E E
C
t0
0
0.
0
�4
41
w
0
C
0
R1
rl
U
0
to
UJ
6
d
V
W
0.
E
0
U
co
o�
-3
i=3
tri
n
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0.
w
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
x
m
v
v
v
v
v
• -i
m
O
w
w
m
O
0
0
v
v'
�r
CO
Z:
-4
,
-j
N
C7
N
N
N
N
N
(T1
-+
-i
C7
(')
t'l
r
N
N
-
U
U}
z
U
0.
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
z
O
t-
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
d)
>-
m
tl-
o
v
0
v'
O
m
v
�
co
0
O
N
0
0
a'
d''
m
¢
N
M
N
r
N
M
N
M
N
-+
C')
C1
(')
m
M
N
N
-+
0
N
..]
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
¢O
n
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
cad
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
z
O
w
O
N
v�
co
v
O
m
m
n
co
-i
0
c0
0
n0
v
v'
w
z
m
,
>
z
-•+
t7
C7
N
�'
N
M
N
v'
N
-•�
'
c7
d'
t'•)
t''l
m
N
N
w
¢
LO
w
x
n
O
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
co
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
m
0
0
o
O
o
O
o
0
0
¢
>
m
tl-
O
O
t0
O
m
t' i
O
v'
O
m
0
vN
1n
0
O
tl-
N
v
m
m
M
N
r
v'
N
ci
Ci
m
N
1
N
L4
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
tx
co
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
w
0
0
¢
m
O
N
O
w
O
n
m
In
O
O
m
0
O
N
0
0
O
m
-1
-4
¢
cl
.1
ri
v'
(7
to
N
--]
¢
t-
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
c0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C7
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
z
m
0
N
O
O
O
to
M
v'
O
O
m
N
O
N
co
c0
O
0
x
O
0
1--
0
O
F
z
o
o
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
v'
N
•1
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
w
a
o
a
w
E-
0 O
O
O
t`
c
O
m
H
z
z
O
O OG
O
--4
O
N
v
to
-4
m
0
m
O
x
In
N
0
O
0
v
O
0C
H w
U
0
In
v
-1
N
-4
v
0
N
-•1
0
m
-+
m
v
-4
M
N
w
F a
N
m
0
N
co
N
to
W
m
N
-+
M
N
N
--4
-4
--i
U)
,
,
.
z
-.-t
o
-+
to
-•+
S
v
v
m
�
N
N
--+
a
-
t7
a
o
tx
-i
-i
-4
N
-4
•-,
--i
-1
.1
-•i
.1
-1
-•,
-1
N
.-1
.-1
,-4
F
O
w
m
¢
a
ie
+J
to
0.
•�
O
a,
- +
a
a)
s
a
a,
ro
>Q�
-1
L.
0.
H
¢
•�
0
w
•+
ro
s
a,
3
0.
G
ro
m
tr
•1
>
+;
b
a)
a!
+)
7.
H
rl
{
0)
m
t,
-4
to
al
m
a!
•1
(a
+)
�4
LO
U
(D
f-+
m
-4�.
c
t1.
>
s
to
:3w
H>
m
a
�+
�.
>
b
C
m
a,
ri
0
a,
--i
H
z
0
X
E
C
+-)
.Y
al
a)
C
+-)
b
m
A
.X
L,
+)
�
F
O
b
0
m
a,
m
0.
>
.x
7
i,
-V
E
.0
m
0
•�
m
0
H
E
c
C
.0
V
ro
0
c
m
0
0
m
m
0
.c
a
a•-)
a)
0
U
¢
¢
U
w
x
x
H
-1
r.
z
0
tX
ix
to
to
to
3
3
6
w
O
O
�
C7 H
m
-i
L"
O
o
0
r)
M
O
N
m
N
N
m
N
O
Il-
N
-i
C7
v
N
N
v
w a
v
m
ro
Ix w
z
ri
iJ
QI
a
�
U
N
m
O w
Is.
0
O
O
0
O
O
c0
O
N
t"
O
m
N
O
v
m
>•
.-r
0
C
H
x
i
fn
3
6
a
0
•ri
a
J
H
c,
m
x
0
U
N
E
H
G
3
3
A
Z
•,i
QI
J
co
V
N
O
O
¢
m
O
O
m
w
O
�
z
z
w ¢
z
H
z
o
w a
000
N
0
0 O
W
O
N
M
O
¢ >-
m
vi
a�
w
O
O
O
0
O
>.
t0
O
N
N
O
X
m
O
N
M
0
a
m
a
U)
J
O
O
m
O
¢
t-
O
N
m
O
D
c0
N
N
z
m
6
x
w
O
O
�
C7 H
m
-i
L"
O
F z
w
r)
i-
N
E O
m
N
N
M
F
N
m
N
-i
C7
v
N
N
v
w a
v
m
ro
Ix w
'•i
ri
iJ
QI
a
�
O
N
m
co J
m H
.-1 U
az
w
O
O
�
z w M
m
-i
L"
O
O 0. O
w
r)
i-
N
H U
s
iri
t
ri
F
N
m
N
-i
¢
v
N
N
v
J O
v
m
ro
r-1
'•i
ri
iJ
QI
0. E-
�
O
N
m
O w
w
a
-1
a,
a)
+J
EO
0
F
ro
+J
0
C
H
x
i
fn
3
a
0
•ri
a
+d
H
c,
m
x
0
U
C
E
H
G
3
3
A
Z
•,i
QI
al
H
0 0 0 0
LO c0 0 O m
O O O O O
N 0 0 N m
In d' () 11 r)
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
N
w
m
N
-i
t
s
iri
t
ri
O
O
O
O
O
0
v
O
o
O
d'
0
m
N
t
s
iri
t
ri
0
0
N
0
N
0
O
O
t-
O
d'
N m
N
N
I
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
n
t�
O
N
N
I
s
n
t-�
N
N N N N -4
-,
0
m
m
0
m
r-
-4
c0
N
�D
Ul
N
O
N
m
m
TV
N
N
I
D1
ro
ro
J
CL
a.
�4
v
v
m
ro
r-1
'•i
ri
iJ
QI
Dl
�
O
N
m
w
a
-1
a,
a)
+J
EO
•-i
0
41
0
C
a
a
u]
fn
3
COMMENTS BY
DEPUTY MAYOR DAVID CRAIN
TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
June 11, 1987
I. The City of Plymouth has taken the position that we wish to be
responsible County citizens.
A. This is demonstrated by the fact that Plymouth is the site of
numerous County facilties or facilities providing County
functions including:
1. Hennepin County Adult Correction Facility - This is the
only such facility in the County and because of its nature
and proximity to residential areas has been the subject of
many community meetings and City/County discussions.
2. Facilities such as the former Pioneer House and Home Free
Shelter also call Plymouth home for treatment of
individuals with chemical use problems and victims of
Intra -family abuse.
3. Plymouth hosts two suburban Hennepin County parks,
including the Park Headquarters.
4. The City is home for a number of decentralized residential
care facilities and is being considered by others.
B. While we desire to remain responsible, Plymouth residents and
the City Council question what burden a single community must
bear on behalf of County residents. Some communities in our
County carry no burden whatsoever from a County perspective
and should be given more thorough consideration by the County.
C. A second issue of equity has to do with the process by which
this site in Plymouth has been selected and how it contrasts
with the process used in selecting other sites. The other
sites were selected afater allowing substantial opportunity
for public input. This site is being designated following a
very short time table with essentially no opportunity for the
public to comment.
D. The final equity question is the fact that one site (the
Hopkins site) has already been dismissed from further
consideration of the basis of its proximity to a food
warehousing operation. The fact of the matter is that the
proposed Plymouth site is immediately adjacent to a food
warehousing and distribution center operated by Log House
Foods. This fact should be given consideration with respect
to the Plymouth site.
Page -wo
—=-
II. If the County does not believe it appropriate to more equitably
spread the County burden to other communities, and desires to
continue with accelerated consideration of the Plymouth I-494 -
County Road 6 site, there are specific concerns which members of
the Council and community have, and which need to be addressed.
We would expect the County to thoroughly investigate and respond
to each.
A. First and foremost, we are concerned about possible adverse
affects to the City's groundwater supply.
1. The City's main wellfield which will ultimately consist of
fourteen wells, lies in immediate proximity to the
proposed site.
2. The City Council has previously enlisted the services of
a hydrologist who's findings indicate that the re -charge
area of the City's wellfield extend into this area.
Moreover, the cone of depression caused by the pumping of
water of the aquifer also includes this area. In other
words, when pumps are in operation, any spill into the
aquifer may be drawn into the City's water system by the
action of the wells.
3. The County must thoroughly investigate the potential for
groundwater contamination to determine what steps, if any,
must be taken to eliminate any threat whatsoever to the
City's ground water system.
4. While the Council has already taken the steps to develop a
second decentralized wellfield, the bulk of our water will
continue to be drawn from the primary wellfield.
B. Traffic Access/Roadway Maintenance and Construction
1. County estimates suggest that 320 trips a day will be made
to and from this site by 5 -to -6 ton garbage packer
vehicles and larger transfer vehicles. To this number
must be added trips of residents or businesses using the
site or employees working at the site.
2. Continuing development in our community has created
capacity problems for County Road 6.
3. County Road 6 congestion has been felt on other area road-
ways once residents seek to use alternative routes to
accomplish their transportation objectives with the least
amount of congestion.
4. Prior to the City becoming aware of its status as a
candidate for the transfer facility, a study was conducted
In connection with our Tax Increment Financing District to
determine the need for roadways improvements in this
Page Lhree
area. The finding of the traffic engineer was that there
Is a distinct lack of capacity on County Road 6, County
Road 61 north of County Road 6 to Highway 55, and that
there was a distinct need for the construction of an
interchange at I-494 and County Road 6.
5. The County Road 6 - I-494 interchange project, to be
funded in part through tax increments financing is not
scheduled for construction before 1989. Additional
funding sources have not yet been identified.
6. If a Hennepin County Facility is to be located at this
site decisions must be made with respect to the timing of
the construction of an interchange at I-494 and County
Road 6 as well as the expansion of roadway capacity on
County Road 6 and County Road 61 north of 6 to Highway 55.
C. Site Management Issues - Noise, Odor, Hours and Days of
Operation, Oversite and Fire/Public Safety Issues.
1. The introduction of a solid waste transfer facility
Introduces a host of issues because of the nature of the
operation.
2. The 320 packer trucks and solid waste transfer vehicles
daily will may create noise problems in adjacent
residential areas. We will expect that the County will
Identify potential noise impacts especially in residential
areas.
3. We would expect that the County will fully mitigate and
eliminate any odor problems associated with operation of
the site. The standard operating procedures for the site
should require total and complete removal of solid waste
daily and not allow for overnight and weekend storage of
solid waste on the site whatsoever.
4. Days and hours of operation are another issue requiring
attention. Current City Code provides that between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., noise is prohibited
that disturbs the peace, quiet and solitude of residences
or businesses in the community. Accordingly, refuse
collectors in Plymouth are limited to hours of collection
after 7:00 a.m. This facility would be subject to the
same conditions.
5. A solid waste transfer facility would require continuous
County oversight to assure that City requirements are
complied with. The City and its residents would expect
that the County would perform this function aggressively
and on a continuing basis.
6. Included in this charge would be costs incurred by the
City's Public Safety Department, that is police and fire,
Page Four —=
to train firefighters and police officers in dealing with
the unique public safety issues which naturally arise with
the existence of a solid waste transfer
facility,especially one containing other sorts of
household wastes.
7. The City Council and residents of the community are
justifiably concerned about mitigating any impact which
such a facility might have upon our community's
environment. Consequently, we would expect the County to
undertake an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EWA), to
identify environmental impacts. The EAW could raise
questions or concerns which may require the preparation of
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
II. I want to emphasize that Plymouth, and it's residents, are
responsible and concerned County citizens. Accordingly, we are
willing to work with the County, with the assurance that our
concerns will be dealt with in a sensitive and responsive manner.
As you are aware of the site under consideration, is zoned for
industrial use and would require a conditional use permit.
Conditional use permits require the review and public hearing by
the City's Planning Commission and ultimate approval by the City
Council.
While we desire to cooperate with the County Board, we must be
reasonably assured that a solid waste transfer facility will be
evaluated sensitively.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 27, 1987
The Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was
called to order at 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Steigerwald. Commissioners
Stulberg, Plufka, Marofsky and Pauba
Commissioner Zylla arrived at 9:10 P.M.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Wire
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Blair Tremere
City Engineer Sherm Goldberg
Planning Secretary Grace Wineman
Community Development Coordinator
Ray Anderson
Chairman Steigerwald introduced and welcomed Commissioner
Larry Marofsky who is replacing Commissioner Mellen.
Director Tremere gave the Oath of Office, swearing in
Commissioner Marofsky.
Director Tremere introduced a new member of the City staff,
Community Development Coordinator Ray Anderson.
*CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner
Pauba to approve the Consent Agenda Item No. 5-A.
Vote. 5 Ayes. Motion carried.
*MINUTES
The following are corrections to the May 13, 1987 Minutes:
1. Commissioner Zylla reported that the statement in the
first paragraph of Page 106 was not his. Chairman
Steigerwald made the statement and the following is
that correction: "Chairman Steigerwald felt that if
the City Council deemed this a priority concern -- the
Commission should study it; and, that a special
committee was not necessary." The record will be cor-
rected as noted.
2. Commissioner Stulberg reported his was not the Nay vote
on page 105. The voice vote was to recommend approval
for the PUD Sign Plan Amendment and Variance submitted
by Trammell Crow Company (87034). The record will be
corrected as noted.
-107-
MOTION TO APPROVE
CONSENT AGENDA
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Page 108
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 1987
3. Page 88, Commissioner Wire, not Commissioner Zylla, re-
quested that Item No. 5-B be removed from the Consent
Agenda for discussion. The record will be corrected as
noted.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner
Pauba to approve the Minutes as corrected.
Vote. 4 Ayes. Commissioner Marofsky abstained.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Quality
Homes. An overview of the May 15, 1987 Planning Staff
Report was provided by Director Tremere. Chairman
Steigerwald introduced Mr. Del Wischmann, Quality Homes, who
stated he had read the staff report and had no questions or
comments.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Michael Langfitt, 10705 45th Avenue North, inquired
about the timetable for construction; if there were plans to
accommodate the increased traffic during the construction of
New County Road 9; and, if a new entrance will be opened
into Sagamore? Mr. Wischmann stated that at this time they
propose to construct the building in the next nine months,
and have it occupied within the year. Engineer Goldberg
confirmed there would be no access to County Road 9.
Director Tremere explained that future County Road 9, now
under construction, was known to the City during the
approval process for the phased development of Sagamore
condominiums. The traffic is generated from the immediate
area and there are no through -traffic problems.
Mr. Langfitt lives adjacent to the development and at night
headlight glare from the road spills onto his property.
Chairman Steigerwald confirmed that this developer would not
be required to make any changes to his site. Mr. Langfitt
inquired about plans for keeping a safe construction site
and making sure that construction refuse is removed. He
stated specifically, that debris remains on Lot 10 that
could lead to pest control problems and be a danger to
neighborhood children. Chairman Steigerwald explained the
Ordinance regulations for financial guarantees and
Development Contracts made with the City that assure
construction sites will be maintained in a safe and sanitary
manner. Director Tremere assured Mr. Langfitt that his
concerns about debris are being heard this evening by the
appropriate staff members as well as by the developer of the
property.
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing.
-2:�-, EC.`/
MOTION TO APPROVE
THE MAY 13, 1987
MINUTES/VOTE MOTION
CARRIED
QUALITY HOMES
REAFFIRMATION OF
APPROVED SITE PLAN
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND VARIANCE
(87037)
Page 109
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 1987
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Chairman NOTION TO APPROVE
Steigerwald to recommend approval for the reaffirmation of
the approved Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance
for Sagamore 8 for Quality Homes, subject to the conditions
as listed in the May 15, 1987 staff report.
Commissioner Marofsky inquired about bonding for landscaping
and specifically that, adequate parking area is committed
for future buildings. Director Tremere stated the other
buildings have had cross easements and that Buildings 9 and
10 must be able to support themselves. Commissioner
Marofsky stated an agreement should be drawn that with
construction, parking and drives shall be installed; and,
that this would be binding on the owner even if the owner-
ship should change.
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Chairman NOTION TO AMEND
Steigerwald to Amend the Main Motion to require appropriate
legal easement agreements for the benefit of Lot 9 to assure
completion of the parking and drivinq areas, particularly on
Lot 10.
Roll Call Vote on the Amendment. 5 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
Roll Call Vote on the Main Motion as once Amended. 5 Ayes.
MOTION carried.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by David
Peterson, Hew-Lyn/FCG Development. He asked Director
Tremere to provide an overview of the May 15, 1987 staff
report and to point out the direction given to the developer
and the developer's response to that direction. He explain-
ed that the Concept Plan had been reviewed at the Public
Hearing held on April 8, 1987, and that the property owners
have been re -noticed for this public informational hearing.
Director Tremere explained the major roadways to be upgraded
and those to be newly constructed per the City's Thorough-
fare Guide Plan. Chairman Steigerwald inquired about Mr.
Tremere's meeting with the Homeowner's Association.
Director Tremere stated he met with the Harrison Hills Town -
home Association; the Homeowner's Association for Harrison
Hills 2nd Addition, to his knowledge, has yet to be
formalized.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired about Item 1-E., open space
and distribution of density. Director Tremere suggested
that the petitioner comment on the private open space for
the residents' use.
Commissioner Pauba asked that the other items which address
access to the future townhomes, and the steps to establish a
viable Homeowner's Association also be discussed.
VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
DAVID PETERSON
HEW-LYN/FGC DEVELOP-
MENT, NPUD CONCEPT
PLAN (87007)
Page 110
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 1987
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mr. Greg Frank, McCombs -
Knutson Association. Mr. Frank explained the open space and
amenities provided. He pointed out the wetlands and the
preservation and conservation of the Bass Creek area; the
private open space; the City owned park; the three tot lots
to be maintained by the Homeowners Association; and, the
Regional Park and trail system. He stated that the single
family units are oriented to the park. The plans conserve
the topography and natural vegetation. The traffic patterns
are improved by the changes made in the roadway system. He
pointed out the commercial area with one access to County
Road 10 and that there would be no through traffic from the
single family residential development to the south and
west. He further explained that the townhomes would access
from the cul-de-sac. Mr. Frank stated that Mr. Peterson
would address the forming of the Homeowner Association for
Harrison Hills 2nd Addition. Mr. Frank said consideration
was given to accessing the north undeveloped phase of Har-
rison Hills from the east via the north part of this devel-
opment, in lieu of the access from 56th Avenue North as
originally approved.
Mr. David Peterson, Hew-Lyn/FCG Development, stated the
legal documents are being drawn; work has stopped on the
amenities; and, in the next two to three weeks he would turn
the development over to the Homeowner Association.
Mr. Robert Langford, Tennant Company, stated concern about
future intersections onto County Road 10. Chairman
Steigerwald explained that detailed plans will be reviewed
at the Preliminary Plat stage for this development; and,
assurance must be gained from Hennepin County as to the
specific location for placing this intersection. Director
Tremere confirmed that the County will need to review the
preliminary plat application before they can respond;
discussions can then take place with Mr. Langford and Mr.
Peterson. Mr. Langford stated that Tennant Co. was
interested in working with the City to get the best access
design possible.
Brian Virgin, 5560 Ximines Lane, stated Mr. Peterson did
call on the homeowners and met with ten people to discuss
the concerns expressed by the property owners at the meeting
in April. They are very happy with the plans. He question-
ed whether 55th Avenue will continue to the east; will the
north/south street connect to 53rd Avenue; and, will 53rd
Avenue be extended to the east? Director Tremere and
Engineer Goldberg confirmed that this would be doubtful be-
cause of problems with poor soils on the east side.
Mr. Virgin stated this may place too much traffic on 55th
Avenue and he would like to see changes made in the traffic
patterns. He stated that plans for berming, seem vague as
to specifications. Chairman Steigerwald and Commissioner
Plufka explained that detailed plans will be reviewed at the
� 5a,
Page 111
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 1987
preliminary plat stage of development; that a public hearing
will be held, and at that time, Mr. Virgin could comment on
those plans.
Mr. Virgin stated the density is still a concern; does there
need to be that many units in the apartment building? He
stated he is concerned about the "walkway", that people from
the apartments would use the trail that another Homeowner
Association will be required to maintain.
Mr. Paul Franke, 5525 Yorktown Lane, inquired if there were
a technique that could be established so that the new
property owners can be informed about the site improvements
for this development (especially in regard to the walks,
trails, and proposed amenities), so that one would not have
to look through City contracts and files?
Chairman Steigerwald stated the City can help up to a cer-
tain point, but it is also the responsibility of the buyer
to secure information that will benefit him in his decision
to buy property. Director Tremere stated at one time the
City considered requiring the developers/builders to provide
brochures and information with purchase agreements, but the
Council did not require it. Realtors may not be knowledge-
able although there is information the buyer should have
prior to closing. Recently the City Council discussed hav-
ing the the developer erect signs at the project showing
the plat and the street systems. There is a question on how
the City could enforce such informational requirements
Mr. Franke stated many residents were shocked when they
found out about the trails, they thought these were nature
preserves and would get little use; now the trail is "open
to everyone". Chairman Steigerwald stated it comes down to
the responsibility of the buyer to look at overall community
plans. Mr. Franke disagreed stating this is not practical
in many cases. Commissioner Plufka concurred with Director
Tremere concerning the City's enforcement of informational
requirements for developers and builders.
Mr. Franke inquired if this development will have its own
Homeowners Association? Mr. Peterson stated it can have its
own but has the option to combine Associations. The play
areas are available to those on the west side and the trails
tie the neighborhoods together.
Mr. Glenn Olander-Quamme, 10750 55th Place North, stated he
appreciated Mr. Peterson's statements about the legal docu-
ments being prepared for the formalization of the Homeowners
Association, as being without an association has handicapped
this neighborhood. He complimented Mr. Peterson's response
to the homeowners' concerns. He is also concerned about the
density and inquired why the City would pressure the
petitioner to plan additional units? Do we need this
density?
��w
Page 112
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 1987
Commissioner Pauba and Chairman Steigerwald explained the
City's Land Use Guide Plan and the highest and best use of
the land within these classifications. Director Tremere
explained the need to formally amend the Land Use Guide Plan
when a concept development plan seeks to change the land use
classification of that property.
Mr. Olander-Quamme inquired about the density for this
development. Director Tremere explained this would be
taken into consideration at the preliminary plat review and
there could be changes to the site design. The density
proposed is within and at the lower end of the LA -2 and LA -3
guidelines.
Mr. Olander-Quamme inquired about the apartment building
which looks to be larger than most being constructed; and,
he asked about height limitations. Chairman Steigerwald
confirmed this would be further reviewed at the preliminary
plan/plat stage of development. Director Tremere explained
the Ordinance standards and PUD design criteria.
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner
NOTION TO APPROVE
Stulberg to recommend approval for the Mixed Planned Unit
Development Concept Plan for David Peterson, Hew-Lyn/FGC
Development, subject to the conditions as listed in the May
15, 1987 staff report.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner
NOTION TO AMEND
Pauba to Amend the Main Motion to change Condition No. 4 to
read: The preliminary plat/plan application shall include
detailed explanation of any requests for reduced side yard
setbacks; and, for lot coverage greater than 20%. No such
lot size or coverage variances are granted or implied."
Roll Call Vote on Amendment. 5 Ayes. MOTION carried.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Plufka and Commissioner Pauba requested that
there be assurance that the townhomes to the west in
Harrison Hills will be served by the northerly east/west
road in this development; and, not from 56th Avenue North as
approved with the Harrison Hills PUD. Director Tremere
stated it was not appropriate to make that a required part
of this development proposal; he explained there may be
topographical problems in this area, but the developer could
seek an amendment to the Harrison Hills RPUD to change the
access as suggested.
MOTION by Chairman Steigerwald, seconded by Commissioner
NOTION TO AMEND
Marofsky to Amend the Main Motion by adding Condition No.
10 as follows: The City and the petitioner shall work with
the County and Tennant Company to discuss and determine the
access to and intersections with County Road 10 during
review of the preliminary plat.
Page 113
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 1987
Roll Call Vote on Amendment. 5 Ayes. MOTION carried.
Roll Call Vote on Main Motion as twice Amended. 5 Ayes.
MOTION carried.
Chairman Steigerwald called a recess at 8:50 P.M.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Alexander
Ritter, Zachary Development Corporation. An overview of the
May 15, 1987 staff report was provided by Director Tremere,
who introduced the graphic showing the intersection of Pine -
view Lane and County Road 61, noting that the road right-of-
way creating the "triangle" will be vacated.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mr. Alexander Ritter,
Zachary Development Corporation, who gave the history of the
development and explained the unique configuration of this
property which has changed even since they purchased the
land. This has been caused by City plans for the realign-
ment of Pineview Lane and County Road 61/Northwest Blvd.
Easements for the roadways have been given to the City by
Prudential Insurance Company. This has posed serious plan-
ning and design problems for the development of this land.
When putting together their proposal they reviewed the
adjacent properties in terms of land use guiding; and, took
into consideration the roads, topography, and natural wooded
areas which led them to the conclusion that a Planned Unit
Development was appropriate.
Mr. Ritter explained that 6.2 acres of the 29.1 acres are
committed for public use (21% of the total). He further
explained the lot size and layout for the single family
units in that a PUD allows different lot sizes to assure the
retention of trees and natural vegetation. He explained
their open space commitment makes the larger lot sizes
feasible. He explained there had been a miscalculation re-
garding open space for the multi -family units and this will
be corrected. They believe they meet the intent of the
Ordinance regarding open space.
Mr. Ritter discussed the density, noting it is slightly
under the units per acre allowed, but is within a reasonable
range. They had not perceived the need to amend the Land
Use Guide Plan for the density when the application was
submitted.
Further discussion ensued regarding the guide plan classifi-
cations for LA -1, 2, and 3. Commissioner Plufka commented
there seems to be an inconsistency on the lots east of pro-
posed County Road 61 in that they are smaller than the
standard lot size in the LA -1 (R -1A) classification. Mr.
Ritter explained that the lot size differential is due to
the hardship caused by the change in road alignment; and,
this is why the PUD was proposed even though the land area
is under 40 acres.
SG --
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
RECESS
ALEXANDER RITTER
ZACHARY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
PUD CONCEPT PLAN,
PRELIMINARY PLAN/PLAT
REZONING AND
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (87042)
Page 114
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 1987
Chairman Steigerwald stated he is uncomfortable with the
plan as a PUD without more adequate open space for the
development, especially on the east side.
Rick Sathre, Sathre-Bergquist, stated that, of the total
PUD, there are 12.6 acres of public and private open space.
He reiterated that the percentage of land taken by roadway
easement does not benefit the property and seriously impacts
the planning for the property. He explained the slight
transfer of density (in LA -1, three lots are proposed; in
the LA -2 triangle 32 dwelling units would be allowed, they
are proposing 22; and, in the multi -family LA -3, 52 units
would be allowed, they are proposing 60 units). He noted
that the lot sizes are larger than required by a small per-
centage. He stated that County Road 61 is a barrier but it
is not fair to regard this as a reason to require additional
open space on the east side.
Chairman Steigerwald does not believe it can be argued that
this plan shows anything better than what the Ordinance
would require of a conventional development; there are no
open space amenities proposed for 22 property owners. Mr.
Sathre noted that the Westminster neighborhood had no park
and nowhere those people could go for a public park. In the
case of Heritage Ridge, the Planning Commission and City
Council were very concerned about people crossing County
Road 61 to get to a public park.
Chairman Steigerwald noted there is no area for active
recreation such as a ball park. Mr. Sathre and Mr. Ritter
commented that the area includes the wooded hillside, a
picnic area, and walking area. They explained there is no
flat ground for a ball field.
Commissioner Plufka stated that the east side of the
development makes the argument for lower density because of
the "land -locked" sense of the area; however, on the west
side with the 60 multiple family dwellings, there is limited
space for any activity.
Discussion ensued regarding the question of Planned Unit
Development status. Director Tremere explained the PUD Plan
versus conventional platting. For example, the PUD flexi-
bility could provide cluster housing on the east side to
gain open space. The Ordinance does not mandate the design
of the project if PUD status is assigned.
Mr. Sathre explained the unique site characteristics that
provide passive rather than active open space; that the
demographics for people living here show they won't be look-
ing for ball fields, as this plan is aesthetically pleasing
to the "empty nester" market. They are protecting the wood-
lands by running the roadways in a curvilinear style. If
the property were zoned R-2 they would achieve the same
Page 115
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 1987
number of lots' however, they would be laid out in a grid -
like manner which would destroy the terrain and they would
remove most of the trees.
Mr. Ritter stated that Plymouth has a good park and trail
system, and as far as open space for these 22 lots, the
families' children will play in the yards and in the parks.
Chairman Steigerwald reiterated the five criteria for a
Planned Unit Development. We said the petitioner elected to
develop a site with constraints on it. It is hard to see
how the proposed plan enhances the site. Mr. Ritter stated
they planned for the total piece of property; the retention
of trees and unique topography was a prime consideration and
they do not see that the open space should be a concern.
Commissioner Stulberg noted that the creation of open space
and the retention of natural terrain are the reasons for PUD
status. Mr. Sathre asked why every lot and block would need
to meet the PUD criteria? Commissioner Stulberg stated it
would not be needed in every block, however, this plan has
22 lots with no open space.
Commissioner Marofsky stated that because County Road 61 is
a major division, it is necessary to treat the property as
two separate areas; and, it is necessary to look at the
attributes on both sides. Many of the trees to be retained
will be on private property. He does not believe this plan
meets the PUD standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Plufka stated that if this plan showed single
family development to the west and multiple family to the
east, residents would not be in favor of the plan. In re-
viewing the attributes, there is problems with the common
open space, but the plan does preserve the site characteris-
tics. The question is where, and what type of common public
uses can be provided for the residents.
Commissioner Pauba stated he prefers the plan as proposed
because it is consistent with the development of property
around it.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing.
Barry Lazzeroni, 5905 Oakview Lane, lives on the east side
of the proposed development and would like to keep all the
trees. He enjoys his view of the natural terrain. He
agrees with the Chairman that there should be open space for
"kids to play". Pineview Lane is a dangerous route for
children to take. He would like to see the density reduced
on the east side.
Rick Breezee, 5815 Oakview Lane, stated his property abuts
Pineview Lane on the east side. He would prefer no develop-
ment, but he definitely wants single family residential
development to occur. He inquired about a stop light at
ZS�-
Page 116
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 1987
Pineview and County 61? He would like to see larger lots
and would not favor cluster housing. He inquired about
storm sewer maintenance.
Engineer Goldberg stated there eventually will be a stop
light installed; and, until it is required, a two-way or
four-way stop would be used.
Chairman Steigerwald explained the density as regulated by
the City's Land Use Guide Plan; that this PUD concept plan
has a mix of uses that determines the density. A certain
number of dwellings are anticipated in these areas and the
plans are reviewed under the present Ordinance standards.
Mr. Breezee stated that this site has many trees and severe
terrain which should control and limit the density. He in-
quired about the City's park dedication fee, and if the
development is paying these fees why can't a park be
developed sooner? Engineer Goldberg responded that the park
is being graded this summer. Rick Sathre explained the
storm drainage plan.
Gayl Stangel, 5735 Rosewood Lane, lives south of the east
side of the proposed development and inquired about the
access for the townhomes. Chairman Steigerwald explained
the need to keep the access away from the main inter-
section. Ms. Stangel stated the trees and terrain should be
retained and she prefers having the single family units on
the east side.
Nancy Stevens, 5725 Rosewood Lane, stated she was informed
that the park on Pineview is not scheduled for completion
until 1990 and is contingent upon development in the area.
She is concerned about density and noted that the single
family units on the east would be the most desired. The
townhomes on the west side would be desirable, if they are
nice. She inquired about the LA -3 guiding. Density guide-
lines were discussed.
Steve McNattin, 12625 58th Avenue North, lives at the inter-
section of Pineview Lane and 58th Avenue North and would be
against increasing the density. He stated that Pineview
Lane carries alot of traffic and is dangerous for children
on bikes and skateboards. He inquired about changes to
Pineview Lane? Rick Sathre showed the graphic with Pineview
Lane and Chairman Steigerwald explained the limited access
to the County Road.
James Crawford, 12980 57th Avenue North, agrees with the
concept of single family on the east side as it is more
consistent with other development in the area. He stated
they have common ground in Bass Lake Heights and it is
unuseable. He would rather see large homes with no common
Page 117
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 1987
area, than to see cluster homes where the open space is not
useable. They want to maintain the value of the property in
this area. He inquired about the value of the townhomes.
Chairman Steigerwald explained that the developer is not re-
quired to provide this information. Mr. Ritter explained
the units for "empty nesters" would tentatively be valued
from $120 to $150,000.
Mr. Crawford stated he would encourage the retention of
trees and natural terrain.
Richard Hassel, Long Lake, MN, representing the petitioner,
stated he has looked at the established neighborhoods and
has talked with Prudential, who had the impression that,
since they had given the City property, the City would "co-
operate" with the development plans for this land, especial-
ly considering the triangular portion of this property. He
requests that this development plan be given support by the
Commission and the City.
Bill Jacobsen, 5710 Quinwood Lane, wants to see the preser-
vation of the trees and is concerned that if they are on
private property, they could be cut down. Chairman
Steigerwald explained that the developer is making the com-
mitment to retain trees, but once the lots are sold, the
trees on the privately owned lots and in the area maintained
by the Homeowners Association could be removed at their
discretion.
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Zylla inquired if there would be a Homeowners
Association for the 22 lots? Mr. Ritter stated there would
be no reason to have an association as the lots will be
individually owned. Further discussion ensued regarding
requirements for open space.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Pauba to recommend approval for the Planned Unit Development
Concept Plan for Alexander Ritter, Zachary Development Corp-
oration, on the basis that the plan meets the PUD criteria.
Chairman Steigerwald stated this would entail an amendment
to the Land Use Guide Plan of the City's Comprehensive
Plan. He finds that the PUD Criteria are not met. Commis-
sioner Plufka disagreed, stating that the petitioner has
made good points with the development plan, specifically
that to develop conventionally would produce a grid which
would be a more intense use with no flexibility of design.
Their plan would not cause the property to be less useable;
Page 118
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 1987
the positive features outweigh a debatable point; and, the
Ordinance gives this option to the Commission. There have
been developers who have misused the PUD by increasing
density and carving out very small lots.
Commissioner Zylla stated he is sympathetic to the developer
because of the significant amount of public dedication; how-
ever, everyone has to live with this in developing communi-
ties and there is concern about the open space especially on
the east side. He would not discourage single family unit
development and would hope that the developer will retain
the natural features on the property. However, an outlot
should be set aside for open space. In comparing the Har-
rison Hills development plan and the open space provided for
their residents; he could not support the Motion to approve
this development plan until some direction is given for
additional useable open space on the east side of County
Road 61.
Commissioner Plufka noted that a Homeowners Assocation may
not maintain one lot because there would be no specified use
for the property and it could turn out to be just a "vacant
lot".
Commissioner Marofsky stated that with this natural barrier
and isolation; with 22 lots at 12,000 sq. ft.; and, two
acres of woods where not much work or maintenance would be
involved; there are ways to comply with the PUD design
criteria.
Rick Sathre stated that the open space is provided west of
County Road 61 and satisfies the intent of the Ordinance.
Kids will play in the back yards of the 12,000 sq. ft. lots.
Commissioner Stulberg stated the Concept Plan does not meet
the PUD attributes, especially open space.
Roll Call Vote. Chairman Steigerwald, Commissioners VOTE - MOTION FAILS
Stulberg, Zylla, and Marofsky, Nay. 2 Ayes. MOTION fails.
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Chairman NOTION TO DEFER
Steigerwald to defer action on the PUD Concept Plan, with
direction for redesign, specifically to provide private
common open space on the east side of County Road 61 and to
provide a design that is responsive to the Ordinance PUD
Criteria.
Roll Call Vote. Commissioners Plufka and Pauba, Nay. 4 VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
Ayes. MOTION carried.
There was further discussion regarding the Land Use Guide
Plan classifications. Mr. Ritter stated he would review the
property as a whole under the LA -1 and LA -2 guiding. He
feels this development plan has merit and the land area has
Page 119
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 1987
legitimate problems. Chairman Steigerwald agreed that this
re-evaluation would be appropriate. Mr. Ritter stated the
Planned Unit Development Concept makes sense, especially to
retain unique site characteristics including topography and
vegetation. Director Tremere stated City staff will work
with the petitioner and assist in resolving the concerns
discussed tonight.
Mr. Ritter noted they have a good relationship with the City
of Plymouth which they want to maintain; but, they also must
have a viable project.
NEN BUSINESS
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner
Pauba to approve the request by Willys Holmquist for Venture
V, subject to the conditions listed in the May 15, 1987
staff report.
VOTE. 5 Ayes. MOTION carried.
OLD BUSINESS
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Opus Corpor-
ation, reading of the April 29, 1987 staff report was
waived.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mark Smith, Tires Plus, 318
Cedar Ave. So., who is representing the application. He was
accompanied by a representative from Opus Corporation. Mr.
Smith had reviewed the staff report and had no questions or
comments.
#NILLYS HOLMQUIST
VENTURE V
LOT CONSOLIDATION/
DIVISION, SITE
PLANS (87047/
87048)
MOTION TO APPROVE
VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
OPUS CORPORATION
SIGN VARIANCE/AMEND-
MENT TO APPROVE SIGN
(86128)
MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO APPROVE
Plufka to recommend approval for the Sign Variance/Amendment
to the approved sign at the southwest corner of Fernbrook
Lane and Highway 55 in the Circle Star Business Center,
subject to the conditions listed in the April 29, 1987 staff
report.
Commissioner Marofsky stated concern about the potential
hazard of the sign being 5 ft. off the ground. He believes
the sign should be raised or readjusted so that it is not
closer than 8 to 10 ft. from the ground.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired if vandalism could be a prob-
lem and would the petitioner accept that risk?
Mr. Smith explained that the sign is totally enclosed and
encased and no part of the electrical system is exposed.
Commissioner Marofsky stated that because the sign is so
low, the lights could be exposed and become a safety hazard.
Page 120
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 1987
Commissioner Stulberg stated this would be a valid concern;
however, there have been no reported problems and the "Happy
Chef" restaurant is open 24 -hours with a well lighted park-
ing lot that would be a deterrent to vandalism. There are
other signs in the City that are low and on the ground.
Director Tremere suggested that a condition could be added
to assure that the sign "boxes" be enclosed, whether the
panels contained commercial messages or not.
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Chairman MOTION TO AMEND
Steigerwald to Amend the Main Motion adding Condition No.
3., that the signs shall be enclosed with a plastic panel
and maintained to assure its appearance and safety features
at all times.
VOTE on Amendment. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried.
VOTE on MAIN MOTION as once AMENDED. 6 Ayes. MOTION
carried.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Metroquip for
a Site Plan Amendment and Variance which had been deferred
by the Commission for redesign at the meeting on March 25,
1987. Reading of the May 21, 1987 staff report was waived.
Mr. Henry Hayden inquired if the Commissioners had visited
the site as he wanted them to understand the truck circula-
tion and the need for the second curb cut. He further
stated that if any of the Commission visited the site, they
did not ask to speak to him.
Chairman Steigerwald stated that the issue in the traffic
study is that the City must review a need for additional
drives onto a public road with regard to the overall City
street system. Commissioner Plufka noted that Director of
Public Works Fred Moore has stated the on-site circulation
of trucks can be accommodated and the situation that exists
now is created by the petitioner with outside storage of
equipment and vehicles.
Director Tremere confirmed that the petitioner has a
Conditional Use Permit for the outside storage. He also
stated that the merit of the second curb cut was question-
able if, as the petitioner's report stated, the benefit was
to relieve on-site pressures.
Mr. Hayden stated the Commission should consider the safety
issue; by providing the second curb cut, there is less
chance of a back-up onto Fernbrook Lane. He quoted Mr.
Moore's May 22, 1987 Memorandum regarding site circulation
and access.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
HENRY B. HAYDEN
METROQUIP
SITE PLAN AMENDMENT
AND VARIANCES (87002)
sem.
Page 121
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 1987
Mr. George Klein, Architect, stated the City brought up the
safety issues and City told them to hire an Engineer to do a
traffic study. He does not believe there is too much stor-
age on-site; nor, does it cause traffic problems or affect
the on-site circulation. He believes the Commission and
City staff should visit the site to ascertain the conflicts
of opinion regarding the need for the second access.
Mr. Klein also noted a typographical error in Mr. Moore's
memo (reference to Vicksburg Lane vs Fernbrook Lane) and he
suggested that their study had not been interpreted
correctly.
Director Tremere stated he has visited the site and it is
apparent that the on-site circulation problems are and would
be affected by outside storage on this site. The back of
the site is full of equipment and the conflicts and pres-
sures on the site are caused by the operation of the
business itself, not from the lack of a second curb cut. He
noted that Director Moore, in his memorandum, is quoting the
traffic report prepared for Metroquip.
Mr. Hayden inquired about City statistics regarding traffic
safety on Fernbrook Lane. Director Tremere stated that
increasing the number of drives on major thoroughfares
throughout the City becomes an overall safety problem; and,
for this reason, curb cuts are kept to a minimum on
collector streets.
Further discussion ensued regarding the safety issues and
on-site circulation of vehicles.
Commissioner Zylla inquired if the drive radius could be
made wider and whether it should be encouraged to provide 36
ft. wide and 45 ft. wide radius? Engineer Goldberg confirm-
ed a longer radius would make it easier for trucks to maneu-
ver on and off-site.
Mr. George Klein stated that when they checked with staff,
it was mentioned that the curb cut was a matter of policy
only, and they took this opportunity to improve the site by
asking for a "minor departure" from policy.
Director Tremere explained the request is to amend the Site
Plan and to secure variances from the Zoning Ordinance. He
read from the Minutes of the Meeting on March 25, 1987 re-
garding the deferral of this item and the direction given.
The policy is based in the Thoroughfare Guide Plan. If a
second curb cut is not allowed, then the proposed Site Plan
is not feasible.
Page 122
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 1987
MOTION by Commissioner Zylla, seconded by Commissioner Pauba MOTION TO DENY
to recommend denial of the Site Plan Amendment and Variances
for Metroquip, based on the staff recommendation, and; that
the Variance Criteria have not been met and the site can
function without ther second curb cut onto Fernbrook Lane.
Commissioner Stulberg stated that the application is not
only for the curb cut, but includes a variance and the Com-
mission must review the total proposal. The fact remains
that the petitioner chose not to follow the Commission's
direction to eliminate the curb cut and go forward with the
variance request for reduced setbacks for the parking and
driving setbacks.
Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
PLYMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT
CLASS I
JANUARY THROUGH MAY
MONTH 1987
1 MURDER I
CSC I ROBBERY
i ASSAULT
I BURGLARY
I THEFT
I AUTO THEFT I ARSON 1
19861 0 I
4 I 3
I 76
I 95
I 370
I 35 1 3 I
19871 0 1
11 1 4
1 82
I 123
I 453
I 61 1 11 1
TOTALS 1986 586
1987 745 +27%
CLASS II
FORGERY EMBEZZEL STOLEN WEAP PROSTI SEX GAME OFFENSES LIQ. DISORDERLY
I COUNTERFEITIFRAUDI MENT IPROPERTYIVANDALISMIOFF.ITUTIONI OFF.INARCILINGIFAM/CHILDID.W.I.1 LAW I CONDUCT I OTHER 1
1986 12 I 49 1 3 1 1 1 183 1 1 1 0 1 12 1 60 1 0 1 6 1 185 I 35 1 22 1 168 1
19871 31 I 55 I 1 I 10 1 335 1 4 1 0 1 15 1 61 1 0 1 15 1174 1 36 I 10 1 216 I
TOTALS 1986 737
1987 963 +31%
CLASS III
FATAL PERSONAL PROPERTY SNOWMOBILE MEDICAL SUICIDE NATURAL ANIMAL
ACCIDENT I INJURY I DAMAGE I ACCIDENT I DROWNING I EMERGENCY I SUICIDE I ATTEMPTS I DEATH I BITES I FIRE_I
19861 2 1 61 1 336 1 0 1 0 1 288 I 2 1 15 1 7 I 22 1 111 1
19871 0 1 70 1 335 1 0 1 0 1 304 1 3 1 6 1 8 1 17 1 152 1
TOTALS 1986 844
1987 895 +6%
CLASS IV
ASSIST
ANIMAL FALSE LOCK OTHER WARRANT TRAFFIC FIREARM SUSPICION MISSING LOST PUBLIC
IDOMESTICIDETAILIALARMSIPROWLERIOUTS IAGENCYISERVED IDETAIL IVIOLATIONIINFORMATIONIPERSON IFOUNDINUISANCEI MISC. 1
19861 91 1 579 1410 I 18 1614 i 166 1 178 I 848 1 6 I 469 I 5 I 62 i 485 1 476 1
19871 133 1 668 1510 I 30 1 648 1168 1144 I 840 i 33 I 586 I 41 I 82 I 472 I 623 I
TOTALS 1986 4,407
CRIMINAL OFFENSES CLEARED 1986 34%
1987 4,978 +13%
1987 29%
HAZARDOUS VIOLATIONS 1986 2,105 1987 2,280 + 8%
TOTAL NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 1986 6,574
NONHAZARDOUS VIOLATIONS 1986 2,660 1987 1,871 -29%
1987 7,581 +1514
PLYMOUTH POLICE nEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT
CLASS I
I MIIRnER I
CSC
I ROBBERY -1
ASSAIILT
I BURGLARY
I THEFT
1 AUTO THEFT 1
ARSON 1
1986 I n 1
4
I 1
I 19
I 28
I 77
I 14
I O I
1987 1 n 1
0
I 2
I 20
1 30
I 77
I 6
I 0 I
TOTALS 1986 143
1987 135 - 6%
CLASS II
MONTH MAY _1987
-u C-�—
FORGERY EMBEZZEL STOLEN WEAP PROSTI SEX GAMB OFFENSES LID. DISORDERLY
1 COUNTERFEIT 1FRAUDI MENT 1PROPERTYIVANDALISMIOFF ITUTIONIOFF.INARCILINGIFAM/CHILDID.W.I.ILAW I CONDUCT I OTHER 1
1986 1 3 1 11 1 0 1 0 1 45 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 10 1 0 1 1 1 37 1 5 1 5 1 36 1
19871 8 1 121 1 1 1 1 32 1 1 1 0 1 21161 01 3 1 34 1 12 1 2 1 51 1
TOTALS 1986 155
1987 175 +13%
CLASS III
FATAL PERSONAL PROPERTY SNOWMOBILE MEnICAL SUICIDE NATURAL ANIMAL
1 ACCIDENT I INJURY 1 DAMAGE I ACCInENT 1 nRnWNING 1 EMERGENCY 1 SUICIDE 1 ATTEMPTS 1 DEATH ( BITES I FIRES(
1986 1 0 1 9 I 50 I n I n I 69 1 1 i 3 1 0 1 11 1 26 1
1987 1 0 1 18 I 56 I 0 I n I 7n I n I 2 1 1 1 4 1 33 i
TOTALS 1986 169
1987 184 + 9%
:LASS IV
ASSIST
ANIMAL FALSE LOCK OTHER WARRANT TRAFFIC FIREARM SUSPICION MISSING LOST PUBLIC
IDOMESTICIDETAILIALARMSIPROWLERI OUTS IAGENCYISERVED (DETAIL IVIOLATIONIINFORMATIONIPERSON IFOUNDINUISANCEI MISC. 1
1986 1 23 1 166 1 82 1 4 I 145 1 41 1 38 1 162 I 2 1 98 1 1 1 18 1 165 1 88 1
1987 25 1 131 1 106 1 5 1 119 1 31 1 26 I 163 1 3 1 124 1 12 1 19 1 137 1 89 1
TOTALS 1986 1,033
1987 .99n -4%
HAZARDOUS VIOLATIONS 1986 516
NONHAZARDOUS VIOLATIONS 1986 518
CRIMINAL OFFENSES CLEARED 1986 40%
1987 35%
1987 438 -15% TOTAL NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 1986 1,50n
1987 379 -27% 1987 1,484 - 1%
DT•YMOUTH FIRE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT
TYPE OF REPORTED INCIDENTS BY TIME OF DAY
�J
MONTH MaY 1987
NUMBER OF
0001 0401 0801 1201 1601 2001 CONFIRMED FALSE PERMITS ESTIMATED
0400 1 0800 1 1200 1 1600 1 2000 1 2400 1 CALLS I ALARMS I -OTAL I ISSU'D
LOcc
PRIVATE DWELLINGS I
l I
1 I
4 I
3 I
2 1
2 1
6
1 7
1 13 1 --
1 $91,0001
APARTMENTS I
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
3 1
5 I
2
I 9
"O'TELS A*TD NO ELS I
I
I
I
I
1 I
I
1
1 0
ALL OTTTF" RESIDENTIAL 1
1
1
I
I
I
I
0
I 0
1 0
P'TBLIC accEl(BLY I
I
I
I
1 I
I
I
1
I 0
I l i --
I 100 1
SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES I
I
I
I
i
1 1
1
0
I
9VF LTH FARE INS'^ITU"IONS
PENaL INSTMTIONS I
I
1
I
I
1 I
1
1
I O
STORES AND nFFIf�Rc I
1 I
I
l I
l I
l I
l I
2
1 3
1 5
INDUSTRY, MFG. I
2 I
1 I
5 1
2 1
4 I
1 I
3
1 12
I 15 I --
I 15,000
STORAGE IN MU TU ES 1
I
I
l I
I
I
I
0
1 1
I 1 I --
I -- 1
SPECIAL STRUCTURES I
i
I
I
I
I
I
0
I 0
I 0
FIRES OUTSIDE OF STRUCTURES 1
1
I
I
I
I
I
0
I 0
I 0
FIRES IN HIGHWAY VEHICLES I
1
1 1
2 1
1 1
1
2 1
5
1 1
1 6 I --
I 12,300 1
FIRES IN OTHER VEHICLES I
I
1
I
1
I
I
0
I 0
I 0
FIRES IN BRUSH, GRASS i
1 1
1 I
I
5 I
4 I
I
10
I 1
I 11
FIRS IN RUBBISH, DUMPSTr;?- i
I
I
1 I
I
I
I
1
I 0
I 1
ALL OT--z'D FTDES (
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I 0
I 0
MEDI:rAL AIn RvcpOracoc 1
1
1
l I
l I
I
I
2
I 0
I 2
e*MALICTnpS FALcr ALARMc i
I
I
I
I
i
I
0
I 0
I 0
-MTT-UAL aID nR aoC.o�,. -._ I
I
I
1
1 1
1 1
I
2
I 0
I 2
ALL nTHE^ URSPONSES 1
1 1
1 I
1 I
I
1 I
1 1
5
I 0
I 5
--
TOTALS 1 6 1 8 1 17 1 18 1 23 1 12 1 41 1 43 1 84 1 -- 1$118,400 1
**INC:LUDED IN FALSE ALARMS TOTALS
MAY 1986
CONFIRMED CALLS
23
FALSE ALARMS
33
TOTAL CALLS
56
ESTIMATED LASS
$21,810
PLYMOUTH FIRE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT
TYPE OF REPORTED INCIDENTS BY TIME OF DAY
MONTHLY JANUARY - MAY 1987
1
0001
0400
0401
1 0800
0801
1 1200_1
1201
1600
1601
1 2000 1
2001
2400 I
CONFIRMED
CALLS
FALSE
1 ALARMS
1 TOTAL 1
PERMITS ESTIMATED
-SUFD 1 LOSS I
PRIVATR DWvLLINGR 1
3
1 1
1 6
1 13
1 13 1
6
1 25
I 17
1 42
1 -- 1 $142,9501
APARTMENTS I
8
I 7
1 15
1 20
I 24 (
15
1 14
1 75
1 89
1 -- 1 5,0001
HOTELS AND MOTELS 1
1
1 2
1
1 1
1 3
1 1
1 4
1 4
1 8
I -- 1 130,0001
ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL 1
1
1
1
1
i
1 0
1 0
( 0
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 1
1
1
1 3
1
1 1
1 2
1 2
1 4
1 -- 1 1001
AND COLLEGES 1
2
1
1
1
1 2
1 1
1 1
1 4
1 5
1 -- I -1
_SCHOOLS
HEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS
1
1 3
1 21
4
1 4
1 1
1 2
1 12
1 14
1 -- 1 251
PENAL INSTITUTIONS
I
i
I 2
I 1
1 1
I
I 2
I 2
1 4
I '' I 201
STORES AND OF -ICES
1 1
1
I 1
1 2
I 2
I 1
I 3
I 4
I 7
I - 1 -1
INDUSTRY, MFG
1 6
1 5
1 7
1 11
1 9
1 5
I 8
1 35
1 43
1 5 1 25,000
STO AGE IN STRUCTURES
1
1 1
1 1
1
2
1 3
1 -- I 1001
SPErIAL S RUCTURFS
I
I
I
I
I
I l
I 1
I 0
I l
I 1
OUTSIDE OF STRU('TURES
1
1
1
1 l
I
1
1 1
1 0
5001
_FIRES
FIRES Iv HIGHW Y V-HIrLF'G
1 2
I 8
1 5
1 1
1 5
1 2
I 18
1 5
1 23
1 -' 1 32,3751
IN OTHER VEHICLES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 0
1 0
_FIRES
FIRES IN BRUSH, GRASS
1 6
1 1
1 5
1 21
I 26
1 12
1 62
I 9
1 71
1 -- 1 2001
FIRES IN RUBBISH, DUMPSTERS
1
1 1
1 1
1 2
1 2
1 1
1 7
1 0
1 7
1 -- I 2,5001
ALL OTHER FIRES
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 -- I 2001
MEDICAL AID RESPONSES
1
1
1 1(
4
1
I
I 5
i 0
1 5
1 -- 1 - -1
*MALICIOUS FALSE ALARMS
1 1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1 2
MUTUAL AID OR ASSISTANCE
I 1
1
1 1
1 2
I 2
I 1
1 7
1 0
1 7
ALL OTL R REQPONSES
1 1
1 1
1 3
1 8
1 5
1 4
1 17
1 5
1 22
1 -- 1 1001
TOTALS
1 32
I 30
I 50
1 94
1 100
1 53
1 182
i 177
1 359
I 5 1 $339,0701
*INCLUDED IN FALSE ALARM TOTALS
JANUARY - MAY 1986
CONFIRMED CALLS
109
FALSE ALARMS
115
TOTAL CALLS
224
ESTIMATED LOSS
$112, 910
SPILL
ts U L L E T
association of
metropolitan
municipalities� (DOC.
June 5, 1987
TO: AMM Member Cities
FROM: Roger Peterson, Director of Legislative Affairs
Vern Peterson, Executive Director
RE: SUMMARY OF 1987 LEGISLTAIVE ACTS - - ACTS OF PARTICULAR
INTEREST TO METROPOLITAN AREA CITIES
THE LEGISLATIVE ACT SUMMARIES CONTAINED HEREIN ARE:
1. Uniform Rate, Structure - MWCC (Chapter 53).
2. Regulating Building Constructiion to attenuate aircraft noise
(Chapter 155).
3. Metropolitan Governance Accountability (Chapter 278).
4. Amendments to the Solid Waste Management Act (Chapter 348).
5. Metropolitan Area Ground Water Protection (Chapter 207).
6. Transit Funding (Chapter 358).
7. Highway Funding (Chapter 358).
8. Omnibus Tax Bill (Chapter 268).
9. Other Miscellaneous Items of Interest: Reprinted from LMC
Bulletin Number 20.
10. Items of Legislative Interest that did not pass.
Please contact either Roger Peterson or Vern Peterson (227-5600)
should you have questions.
DISTRIBUTION NOTE: THIS BULLETIN IS BEING MAILED TO MAYORS,
MANAGERS/ADMINISTRATORS, AND DESIGNATED DELEGATES.
-1-
183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600
1. UNIFORM RATE STRUCTURE - MWCC (HF 499, Laws 1987, Chap. 53)
This act modifies the cost allocations system of the MWCC by
changing the treatment of current value credits and by
requiring a uniform treatment rate throughout the metropolitan
area for current costs. Specifically, the act removes the
requirement that current value credits (current value credits
recognize the equity investment that cities had in waste water
treatment facilities at the time such facilites were taken over
by the MWCC) be treated as a current cost paid only by current
users. It also requires that the current costs of inteceptors,
as well as treatment works. be allocated, uniformerly among cities
on the basis of flow and eliminates the six sewer service areas.
The act allows the MWCC to phase in the new costs allocation
method over a four year transition period (1988-1991) and allows
the MWCC to establish a reserve or contingency fund not to
exceed 7.5% of the commission's total operating budget.
2. REGULATING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TO ATTENUATE AIRCRAFT NOISE
(HF 755, Laws 1987, Chap. 155)
This act authorizes municipalities in the 7 -County
Metropolitan Area which, in part or in whole, are within the
aircraft noise zones designated in the Metropolitan Council's
Aviation Policy Plan to adopt and enforce ordinances and
controls to regulate building construction methods and materials
for the purpose of attenuating aircraft noise in
buildings in and around the noise zone. The ordinance or control
shall not apply to existing residential buildings.
An ordinance adopted must be adequate to implement the Met
Council's guidelines for land use compatability with aircraft
noise.
Effectivity Date: The day following final enactment.
3. METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE ACCOUNTABILITY (HF 1043, Laws 1987, Chap.
278) This act makes some minor adjustments to the
"accountability aspects" of the Metropolitan Governance System.
The main "adjustments" are:
-The Council must inform each legislator of the name,
address,and background of each candidate for appointment to a
regional agency.
-The Council must consider evidence of the Candidates'
commitment to regularly communicate on issues before the agency
with local officials and other interested parties.
-Adds the chair of the MTC to the Metropolitan Financial
Reporting and Management Advisory Committee (MFAC).
-Requires the Council and each Metropolitan Agency to prepare a
summary budget for fiscal year 1988 and each year therafter. The
purpose of the summary budget is to increase public knowledge
-2-
-7C
and agency accountability by providing citizens outside the
agency with a condensed, accessable, and graphic description of
the financial affairs of the agency.
-Requires the Council to report to the Legislature by January
15, 1988 a recommended process for coordinating the planning and
development of transit by regional railroad authorities.
-Directs the Council to publish a consolidated metropolitan
bulletin or register containing official notices, meeting and
hearing schedules for the Council and all Metropolitan Agencies.
-Terminates the opt -out "grandfather" for cities eligible for
op -out unless they have already opted -out or taken financial
action to opt -out by July 1, 1988. However, a city or town has
an additional 12 months extension, if it has notified the RTB
before July 1, 1988 that the city or town is in the process of
completing a transportation evaluation study that includes an
assesment of the local transit needs of the city or town.
-Requires the Governor to consult with affected Legislators
prior to making appointments to the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC).
Effectivity Date: The day following final enactment.
4. AMENDMENTS TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT (HF 794, Laws 1987
Chap. 348)
The 1987 amendments to the solid waste management act have
several provisions which affect Metropolitan Area Cities. One
is a provision that protects cities from federal and state
antitrust actions by giving explicit state authority for cities
to organize solid waste collection as a municipal service or
with one or more haulers by ordinance, franchise, license, or
contract. Cities are also enabled to implement flow control
procedures and regulations to ensure delivery to designated
facilities. Before adoption of any mechanism for organizing
solid waste collection, cities must give 90 days pre -notice,
hold a public hearing, and follow the specific procedures.
Also, cities which "host" solid waste landfills, can increase the
fee from 15 to 25 cents per cubic yard of waste or its
equivalent. Clarifying language was added to make it clear that
the proceeds from the disposal fee can be used for abatement
purposes in addition to compensation and mitigation for the
costs and adverse effects of landfills.
The amendments also prohibit the disposal of lead acid batteries
or used oil in solid waste facilities after January 1, 1988
unless PCA authorizes the disposal.
The bill also alters the grant process for local recycling
programs. By January 1, 1988, the Met Council must develop
performance indicators for local recycling that will measure the
-3-
availability and use of recycling throughout the Metropolitan
area. The household rebate and tonage reimbursement programs
formerly administered by the Council have been repealed.
Instead, the Council will provide grants to counties and the
counties wll be responsible for funding local recycling programs.
The grants to counties are for new activities or to enhance or
increase the effectiveness of existing activities. Another
condition is that counties must provide support to maintain
effective municipal recycling where it is already in place.
(The sum of these two "conditions" should ensure the
subsidy for existing city recycling programs).
Effectivity Date: August 1, 1987
5. METROPOLITAN AREA GROUND WATER PROTECTION (SF 353, Laws 1987,
Chap. 207)
This act authorizes metropolitan counties to adopt ground water
plans. To assure coordination of efforts of all units of
government during the preparation and implementation of ground
water plans, the county must conduct meetings with local units of
government and must also appoint an advisory committee of 15
members. At least seven members of the committee must represent
watershed management organization and cities and towns. The
act also specifies the elements that must be contained in a county
groundwater plan. The plan must be reviewed by the Metropolitan
Council and is approved by the Water Resources Board.
This act also requires that watershed management organization
(WMO) plans must be updated prior to the expiration of the period
covered by the plan. The plan must be reviewed for consistency
with an adopted county ground water plan and revised as
necessary, whenever the watershed plan undergoes substantial
revision or updating.
The time period as specified in the act for compliance with a
county ground water pian is quite confusing but it appears the
earliest date required would not be_before 1992.
6. TRANSIT FUNDING (SF 1516, Laws 19879 Chap. 358).
The Semi States appropriation bill included $40.9 million of
the $46.5 million requested funding for Metropolitan Transit.
This amount is slightly less than current funding and provides
about same level funding for basic services. Metro mobility was
increased about $1.5 million to comply with the 1983 Human
Rights Act requiring service area concidential to the normal
service area. Although $400,000 was provided for Light Rail
Transit planning and $900,000 for new suburban marketing service,
much administrative and planning funding was cut to stay level.
The split on fund source was $29.3 million General Fund and $11.6
million from Transit Assistance. Drivers related testing and
license fees were increased by 50% and 5% MVET was transferred
-4-
to provide the later amount.
7. HIGHWAY FUNDING (SF 1516, Laws 1987 Chap. 358)
The legislature followed the lead of the Governor and ducked the
Highway funding issue. Only 5% of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax
or about $16.5 million was transferred into the highway users
fund in addition to the normal gas tax transfer. Thus, in
essence, no new funding was provided. Several bills were
submitted and various options including per gallon gas tax
increase, 6% sales tax on gas, and automobile registration fee
increases discussed, but in the end the legislature opted for no
tax increase. Significant discussion on this issue is expected
during the 1988 session.
8. OMNIBUS TAX BILL (HF 529, Laws 1987, Chap. 268)
The final provisions of the Omnibus Tax bill for 1987 for cities
in general are not too bad considering what could have been
based on the starting position of the Governor and picked up on
strongly by the Senate. The early on underlying theme of the
Administrative and Legislative thinking was to overcome an $800
million dollar deficit while funding most of the favored
programs without being blamed for a huge state tax increase. To
do this the structure in a sort of slight of hand proposal was
modified to look good on the surface but actually unfund local
government so that significant property tax increases would pick
up the slack, i.e., a six percent sales tax on all local
government purchases does not look like a tax increase to people
but ignores the simple fact that property tax is the ultimate
source of funds and this tax is paid by people. After much
discussion and public testimony it became clear that the slight
of hand was not going to work. However, the final product
reflects strongly the postion of the legislature that property
taxes were not going to be allowed to rise to fill the void
left by increased costs to local government and decreased
state assistance.
A. LEVY LIMITS In payable 1988, all cities, including
cities under 5000 population heretofore exempt from 275.50 levy
limits, will be subject to a tightened 3 percent limit. The
levy limit will be equal to the cities (counties) actual 1987
levy minus debt service and unfunded accrued pension liability
plus 1987 LGA and other state credits increased by the
percentage of growth in population or households for the most
recent 12 month period multiplied by 103 percent and then
reduced by the 1988 LGA and other state credits. Debt service
and pension liabilities plus some county social programs remain
a special levy to be calculated at the actual needed level. For
1989 and beyond the levy limit law reverts to current law except
that the new ceiling will be 3 percent instead of 5 percent.
The major loss for payable 1988 is Federal Revenue Sharing base
increase make up. This will be picked up in 1989.
-5-
B. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID The LGA to cities for 1987 will be
paid almost as certified and the amounts frozen at that level
for 1988. The Governor's and Senate's cuts of 5 and 10 million
respectively were axed. However, the 1987 and 1988 allocations
will each be reduced by about $218,000 to fund the State auditors
government infomation functions and about $206,000 for the
Administration Departments government records program. This
amounts to about a .0013 percent per city per year reduction
from the certified level.
At this time LGA for 1989 is a little murky, since the homestead
credit program is totally changed to look more like LGA and the
property classes are reduced to nine with ratios changing
drastically. There is some new money inserted to provide aid
where class changes cause some shifts.
C. SALES TAX The full blown 6% sales tax on all Government
purchases was not passed. However, as former Sen. Davies once
put it, "the nose of the camel has entered the tent door flap".
All Local Governments will have to pay a Motor Vehicle Excise
Tax (MVET) of 6% on all vehicles purchased after May 31, 1987.
(unless a written contract existed prior to June 1, 1987 calling
for delivery and payment after that date but prior to December
31, 1987.) Based on definition the MVET seems to apply to
everything that has a motor and wheels except possibly golf
carts and riding lawn mowers.
The sales tax was extended to a variety of services, including:
parking services, admissions to recreational areas, dry cleaning
and laundry services, lawn and garden services, meals in
hospital and nursing home cafeterias (for non-residents),
building cleaning and maintenance, security services, and
others. Cities may have to collect the sales tax for certain
services they provide, particularly parking services (whether
contractural, hourly, or on a periodic basis) and admissions to
recreational areas.
D. TAX STUDY COMMISSION The Legislative Tax Study Commission
eliminated some years ago was reinstated to do the following:
-examine the burden of income maintenance and social services on
the property tax levies,
-examine and recommend alternative methods of income adjusted
property tax relief for homeowners and renters,
-examine and recommend alternative property tax classification
systems and the effects of the simplified system;
-examine-the tax structure and revenue needs and resources of the
state an local government,
-make long range tax policy recommendations,
-analyze proposed legislation,
IM
z_�
-examine the property tax burdens on agricultural,
commercial -industrial and employment property; and
-file a report with the legislature at least biennially.
E. SMALL BUSINESS TRANSITION CREDIT For 1988 only,
commercial -industrial property will be eligible to receive a
state paid property tax credit if the 1988 property taxes on the
first $120,000 of market value of the property exceed three
percent. The credit will be equal to 50 percent of the tax
attributable to the first $120,000 of market value that is in
excess of three percent. Only one commercial -industrial parcel
per owner per county will qualify for this credit. The credit
will be the first credit deducted from gross tax, before the
deduction of any other property tax credit. This small business
credit will provide small businesses with an estimated $25.5
million of property tax relief in 1988.
F. HOMESTEAD CLASSIFICATION CHANGE FOR 1988 For payable 1988,
residential homestead classification ratios are changed to 17
percent of the first $68,000 of market value and 27 percent of
the excess over $68,000. In payable 1987, these ratios were
18 percent of the first $66,000 of market value and 28 percent of
the market value in excess of $66,000. For 1988, the homestead
credit will remain at 54 percent up to a maximum credit of $700.
The classificaiton ratios are also changed accordingly on
non-agricultural homestead property owned by the blind,
disabled, and paraplegic veterans and manufactured homes which
are homsteaded. No change is made in the 1988 ratios for
agricultural homesteads.
G. LOCAL GAMBLING TAX A city or county may impose a local
gambling tax on each licensed organization if the tax proceeds
are ncessary to cover the costs of regulation of gambling. The
tax may not exceed three percent of an organization's gross
receipts minus prize costs. This tax is in lieu of all other
local taxes and local investigation fees on lawful gambling.
Tax revenue collections and the uses of the proceeds are
required in an annual report (by March 15 of each year).
H. DEED TAX The exemption from the deed tax for state agencies
and politcal subdivisions is repealed. The tax rate is also
increased to $1.65 for each $500 of value. Unlike current law,
cities will be required to pay this tax whenever lands are
granted, assigned, transferred, or otherwise conveyed by deed.
This tax is applied to transfers by deed after May 31, 1987.
I. PROPERTY TAX REFORM The Senate proposed a significantly
modified tax system which the final compromise adopted beginning
in 1989. The new system reduced the number of property classes
from 68 to theoretically 9. The ratios are increased by about
-7-
c�_
125% to accommodate the reduction which means mill rates will be
reduced to about 45% of current. The Homestead Credit is changed
to a percent of property value exemption and local units will be
given a "homestead and agricultural credit replacement aid." To
adjust for loses or gains due to class changes a special tax
base adjustent aid will be provided. In future years the
homestead credit replacement aid will be adjusted by inflation
and controlled by the legislature to divorce homestead credit
fluctuations from local spending decisions. The cost and
mechanics of the new system are complex. Adoption was delayed to
1989 primarily to give the legislature a year to refine and
tinker with details. Since this program doesn't begin
immediately it gives the various lobby groups time to analyze
and propose appropriate refinements. Thus, what may be
ultimately implemented may be considerably different than what
is currently written. The AMM will look at this carefully through
policy committee process for 1988.
9. OTHER LAWS OF NOTE: Reprinted from LMC Bulletin Number 20.
A. INDEMNIFICATION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (SF 53, Laws 1987,
Chap. 79) Allows any municipality to procure insurance for
punitive damages and requires a municipality to defend and
indemnify any of its officers and employees for damages,
including punitive damages if the officer or employee was: 1)
acting in the performance of the duties of the position; and 2)
not guilty of malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty, or
bad faith
Different effective dates.
B. WAIVER OF GOVERNMENTAL LIMITS (HF 1083, Laws 1987, Chap.
260) A municipalities procurement of insurance waives only
governmental liability limits to the extent of the liability
stated in the policy. A municipality cannot waive any defenses
or immunities through the procurement of .liability insurance.
Effective 8/1/87.
C. PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN GROSS MISDEMEANORS (HF 384, Laws
1987, Chap. 329) Requires cities of the first, second, and third
class to prosecute gross misdemeanor violations of damage to
property, theft, and financial card fraud.
Effective 8/1/87.
D. MINIMUM WAGE (HF 3, Laws 1987, Chap. 324) Raises the state
minimum wage for employees 18 years of age or older of 1)
federally covered employers to $3.55 an hour beginning January
1, 1988; $3.85 an hour beginning January 1, 1989; and $3.95 an
hour beginning January 1, 1990, and 2) state -covered employers
IM
to $3.50 an hour beginning January 1, 1988; $3.65 an hour
beginning January 1, 1989; and $3.80 an hour beginning January
1, 1990. The state minimum wage for employees under 18 years of
age of 1) federally covered employers to $3.20 an hour
beginning January 1, 1988; $3.47 an hour beginning January 1,
1989; and $3.56 and hour beginning January 1, 1990, and 2)
state covered employers $3.15 an hour beginning January 1, 1988;
$3.29 an hour beginning January 1, 1989; and $3.42 an hour
beginning January 1, 1990.
Effective 1/1/88.
E. PARENTAL LEAVE (HF 234, Laws 1987, Chap. 359) Establishes
mandatory unpaid leave of absences up to six weeks, for an
employee who has been employed by an employer (employer means
a person or entity that employs 21 or more employees at a single
site) for at least 12 months and who is the natural or
adoptive parent of a newly born or adopted child. The employer
can adopt reasonable rules governing the timing of requests for
unpaid leave. The employer must make insurance coverage available
to the employee while on leave of absence, however, the employer
does not need to pay the costs of such coverage. The employee
would be entitled to return to work in the employee's former
position or in a position of comparable duties, number of hours,
and pay.
F. OPEN MEETING -- NOTICE REQUIRED (SF 1272, Laws 1987, Chap.
313) Requires a public body to keep a schedule of its regular
meetings on file at its primary offices and if there are any
changes it must give notice as required for a special meeting.
For a special meeting a public body must post written notice of
the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting on the
principal bulletin board of the public body's offices or on the
door of its usual meeting room three days before the special
meeting. The public body must mail notice to each person who
has filed a written request for notice of special meetings or
publish the notice once, at least three days before the meeting.
A public body may establish an expiration date for requests for
notices of special meetings. If the body establishes an
expiration date, it must notify each person who filed a request
for notice 60 days before the date of expiration.
An emergency meeting is a special meeting called because of
circumstances that, in the judgment of the public body, require
immediate consideration by the public body. A public body must
make a good faith effort to provide notice of emergency meetings
to each news medium that has filed a written request for notice
if the request includes the news medium's telephone number. If
the body discusses or acts on matters not directly related to
the emergency at an emergency meeting, the minutes of the
men
1 --7 C -..-
meeting shall include a specific description of the matters.
A recessed or continued meeting does not require additional
notice unless the time and place of the continued meeting was
not announced during the previous meeting. If a person receives
actual notice of a meeting at least 24 hours before the meeting,
all notice requirements are satisfied regardless of the method
of receipt of such notice. No fine or penalty may be imposed on
a member of a public body for violation of these notice
provisions unless such violation was willful and deliberate.
Effective 8/1/87-
G. PIPELINE SAFETY ACT (SF 90, Laws 19879 Chap. 353) Gives
the environmental quality board (EQB) the authority to regulate
the siting of pipelines unless federal law pre-empts this
section. Once the EQB issues a pipeline routing permit, it
pre-empts all local regulations. The act establishes an on-call
excavation notice system to notify owners or operators of
underground facilities of planned excavations. A local
governmental unit that issues excavation permits must display an
excavator's and operator's notice at the location where it
issues the permits and it must give a copy of the notice to each
person obtaining a permit for excavation. The law creates a state
office of pipeline safety to regulate and enforce pipelines
within the state.
Every city, town, and county that has planning and zoning
authority and has a pipeline within its borders, must adopt a
pipeline setback ordinance by August 1, 1989. The pipeline
ordinance must meet or exceed the minimum standards of the
model ordinance. If the local unit doesn't enact an ordinance
the model ordinance will apply.
A local unit of government having a pipeline within its
jurisdiction must prepare a pipeline release emergency
response plan, and review it annually to reflect changes in the
operation of the pipeline or other matters related to pipeline
safety.
Different effective dates.
H. PESTICIDE REGULATION (SF 1516, Sections 43-82, Laws 1987,
Chap. 358) Establishes state regulation of pesticides and
pre-empts local regulation except for pesticide application
warning ordinances. A city would be able to enact an ordinance
containing the information in the statutory sample ordinance,
plus its own licensing, penalty, and enforcement provisions. A
city would not be able enact an ordinance that contains more
restrictive pesticide application warning information than is
contained in the statute.
-10-
Effective 8/1/87.
10. ITEMS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST THAT DID NOT PASS
A. FISCAL DISPARITIES The Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities Fiscal Disparity bill, authored by Rep. Ann Rest
and Sen. Ember Reichgott was referred to the Metropolitan
Affairs Committee in the House and the Tax Committee in the
Senate. The bill passed substantially unchanged from
subcommittee in the House to full committee where it was held by
Chairman Tom Osthoff of St. Paul while he attempted to find a
series of amendments beneficial to St. Paul and acceptable to
the bill's sponsors. None were found. Meanwhile, since the
bill will ultimately be sent to both Tax Committees, the
respective Chairs, Rep. Voss and Sen. Johnson, decided to hold
the issue for interim study and possible 1988 action due to the
heavy tax related activity of the 1987 session.
The basic premise of the AMM position is to moderate the effects
of contribution on the 15 largest contributors and eliminate the
perceived inequities while maintaining the primary purpose of
the law in continuing to augment the tax base of those
communities which cannot attract a reasonable share of the
metropolitan commercial/industrial growth. Although most local
officials of gaining cities in states -person like stances
compromised less future gains to achieve an overall solid program,
legislators from these same areas are going to be much harder to
convince.
B. WINE IN GROCERY STORES Legislation introduced by Rep. Linda
Scheid (HF 1342) and Sen. Darril Wegscheid (SF 1302) would have
mandated that municipalities in the Metropolitan Area only, issue
off sale wine license when requested by any business holding a
3.2 Beer License (Grocery Stores, Convenience Stores, Gas
Stations, etc.). The house bill passed committee early but
remained on the floor on General Orders without further hearing.
Although the vote 22 for and 7 against was one sided in
committee, a floor vote may have been quite different. One Rep.
that should have been against voted yes just to get it to the
floor because he was tired of taking the heat on this issue
from the backers solely at the committee level. The Senate
author asked for an interim study with the promise that he (Sen.
Wegscheid is the chair of the appropriate subcommittee) would
take the show on the road for serious discussion statewide.
Most outstate legislators looked at the metro only provision as
a foot in the door temporary situation. Since this issue is of
great concern, not only to member cities with municipal liquor
but others for enforcement reasons, the AMM will keep members
informed as to future hearings.
-11-
C. TRANSIT PROPERTY TAX FEATHERING The AMM sponsored a bill,SF
304, Tad Jude and HF 1608, Becky Kelso to correct the MTC
propery tax mill reduction from one half and three quarters of a
mill to 25$ and 37% of the adjusted two mill levy as per the
intent of the 1984 RTB legislation. Senate Transportation
passed the bill to the Tax Committee where it remains until
1988. Because of the severe 800 million dollar state budget
shortfall and the Governors lack of interest in transit the
chance for action this year was extremely low and in fact the
extra $2 million dollars was not included. Initial analysis of
the property tax reform legislation for 1989 would indicate that
the problem is corrected because of the classification rate
changes without further legislation. A more thorough study
will be made and appropriate action taken to maintain the
correction through next years session.
D. TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY Rep. Tom Osthoff introduced a major
policy shifting bill (HF 1012) dealing with heretofore property
tax exempt parcels which in part survived significant committee
scrutiny and public testimony to find its way into the final
House Tax Bill package. The final proposal would have
permitted cities to establish a 'fee for service' for basic
services such as public safety and street related items on all
tax exempt property. Although this property tax broadening
issue did not survive the final Tax Bill, the fact that the
House of Representatives did discuss and vote favorably on the
issue is significant. If, as anticipated, the legislators
become involved in a Property Tax Reform discussion in the
interim and during the 1988 session, treatment of Tax Exempt
Property could be a major element.
E. ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINE BALLOTS (COLOR CODING) This much
publicized issue leading to the first filibuster of a bill since
1963 started as a bill sponsored by two Minneapolis legislators
aimed at limiting electronic voting machine use in Minneapolis.
The bill, SF 466, Carl Kroening and, HF 756, John Sarna was then
amended in committee to require row ballots by party and to
apply to all cities. This would have required reprogramming of
machines at $1,000 each, about $4 million statewide, and placed
in doubt their use in the next election due to the time for
shipping and modifying by the machine companies. As a
compromise, color shading by party was suggested. This would be
significantly cheaper and not require machine modification.
From the city viewpoint this would have been an acceptable
alternative. However, the Republicans opposed yellow shading
for them while Democrats took blue and succesfully filbustered
the issue. It will come up again in 1988 but the use of
electronic voting machines without reprogrammiing expense is
assured for this year and probably the future.
-12-
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: June 5, 1987
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager
FR OK Sherman L. Goldberg, City Engineer
SUBJECT • Environmental Concerns
Even though the construction season is in full swing, we have had
relativelv few complaints dealing with Environmental concerns in the
various areas of construction within the Citv. I am sure this is due
to the fact that we have had relativelv little moisture.
Still, we are checking the different construction zones for plans
with the Citv's Erosion Control Policies. We have had to call
several developers in order to have them clean their streets. Also,
we have had the opportunity_ to dredge out several areas on lakes and
ponds and have accumulated silt. The Bass Lake Sedimentation Pond on
the South side of the railroad tracks, North of Schmidt Lake Road and
East of Larch Lane has been cleaned. This will provide storage for
any additional silt coming through that drainageway prior to entering
Bass Lake.
We have had several complaints from the residents adjacent to the
Mission Trails Plat relative to the dirt that has entered the creek
and the pond in that area. I have been working with Lundgren
Brothers in trying to get that area dredged out. We have given them
a time frame in which to complete the work, or indicated that we will
have it done for them at their cost.
SLG:kh
I=- I(D
WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION CENTER
213 Eliot Community Ctr., 6800 Cedar Lake Rd., St. Louis Park, MN 55426 (612) 544-2946
June. S; 1987
Mayor and City Council
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
We wish to take this opportunity to thank you again for your support of the West
Suburban Mediation Center and to provide you with an update on our program.
In the first three months of 1987, our caseload was tbw due to a number of factors.
We spent our energies primarily on replacing our one paid staff and meetings with
Hennepin County to provide funding. We hired a new executive director the 23rd of
February. The contracts for funding from Hennepin County for $15,000 were signed
this week. The Hennepin County grant was given on the basis of 2 for 1 matching
funds from local municipalities and other local grants.
In March, the first joint training session for mediators was held and our program
has five new mediators who completed the 25 hours of initial training and required
observations bringing our total to 14 trained mediators. We held an inservice
training on April 30th on juvenile mediations as part of the required minimum of 8
hours of on-going training for mediators each year. Two additional in -services will be
offered by the end of June.
While the program was in place, fund raising and outreach efforts were needed.
We are in the last year of a three year Bush Foundation allocation and as of June 30th
we will be totally fiscally responsible. Mediation Center had been handling
payroll and other expenses such as insurance through grants they had generated. Your
support has assisted us with program expenses.
In May, our director has been meeting with police departments, city staff, human
service agencies and some school personnel to promote understanding of what mediation
is and how it can be an option for nuisance calls, intra -family problems and first offender
juvenile offenses. We have found a lack of understanding on how we operate and a need
to become more visible as a necessary service organization. We are optimistic that our
efforts to publicize and promote our services will succeed in a dramatic increase in
caseload.
We ask for your support again in 1988 at the same amount as 1987 and are planning
to approach more municipalities in our area for funding for 1988 to meet the projected
increase in service requests.
It is our belief that our program can help alleviate child abuse by relieving stresses
brought on by unresolved conflicts; enable employees to keep their jobs; promote emotional
well-being and stability in neighborhoods and cut down on incidences of crime with our
juvenile mediations. Single parent households have available to them a process to aid
in parent/child communication.
Page 2
The Center has an excellent reputation with professionals who have referred to us
but we do realize we need to become better known and understood.
We would appreciate hearing what procedures you would want us to follow to
apply for continued support.
Thank you.
Si ely,
Sue Nelson
Executive Director
NOTE:
The Plymouth Post published a front page article on mediation, March 26, 1987.
Due to a vacancy in the juvenile police officer position, we could not do an inservice
training with Plymouth police officers until after June 10th.
The following cases were referred to our office:
One couple, the husband disabled, had difficulty in getting an insurance company to
pay the mortgage. We intervened and the payments were made by the insurance company.
A mediation took place between neighbors which was referred by the City Planner.
No agreement was reached and the 'other party" refused a second mediation.
Another city referral, regarding a fence and property line problem, the 'other
party" refused mediation. We feel our case developer opened up communication by
intervening in the dispute.
One neighbor dispute is still pending.
al- t -CD
WHCC
west hennepin community center 1001 state highway 7 hopkins, minnesota 55343 612/933-9105
June 8, 1987
.j
Mr. Frank Boyles
Assistant City Manager
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Boyles,
I am writing in response to your letter requesting information
on services Plymouth residence received from West Hennepin Community
g Center in the year 1986.
Plymouth Park and Recreation is one of the 8 cities funding
the Northwest Adaptive Recreation consortium. This program provides
recreation opportunities for individuals with mental handicaps.
These programs focus on developing educational, social, physical
and independence skills.
During 1986, there were 4 on-going recreation programs offered
to Plymouth residents and to the other 7 participating cities. These
programs included Friday Night Fever, Saturday Sunshine Kids, 2
Bowling Leagues and Teen Action. Enclosed you will find program
schedules describing each programs activities.
Throughout the course of the year, our statistics show that
for the winter session, Plymouth had 23 participants, spring session
20 participants, summer session 27 participants and fall 21 participants.
Through Plymouth's contribution, we are able to provide appropriate
and much needed recreation opportunities to those individuals with
special needs. We hope you will continue to support these programs.
Sincerely,
d'�O
a-lj_
Tracy Wali
Northwest Adaptive Recreation Coordinator
TW: mm
Encl.
April 11
April 18
April 25
May 2
May 9
May 16
May 2 3
May 30
FRIDAY NIGHT FEVER
Pilgrim Lane Elementa
1986 Spring Schedule
9
---\— – \ J0
Movies night and a fun game of
volleyball
Cavanagh School Carnival. Meet at
Cavanagh School, 5400 Corvallis Ave.
No. Crystal
Picture night, bring favorite pictures
to show friends. New photos will be
taken tonight. Also we'll make mini
pizzas for snacks.
Community Safety Night. MTC spokesperson
and issues on Community Survival will
be discussed.
ARC Speaker on Advocacy; Physical Fitness
Mexican Fest. Decorate Mexican style,
make Pinatas so wear your Mexican garb
NO MEETING. Memorial weekend observed
Climb Theater Presentation. Bring
$2.00
June 6 Pot Luck Picnic. Meet at Northport.
5421 Brooklyn Blvd., Brooklyn Center.
i Sign up sheet for food to bring. Also
a fun game of softball so bring your
mitts.
P.S. Please call Tracy at WHCC, 933-9105 before that Friday if you plan on not
attending one of the programs.
NOTE: The summer session for Friday Night Fever will be on Wednesday Nights from
7:00 - 9:00 PM. ONE LOCATION - Brooklyn Center Civic Center, 6301 Shingle
Creek Parkway.
Wednesday Night Fever begins June 25 - August 20. Fee $16.00.
September 26
October 3
October 10
October 17
October 24
October 31
November 7
November 14
November 21
November 28
December 5
L7
FRIDAY NIGHT FEVER
Pilgrim Lane Elementary, Plymouth
Fall 1986
arc���"
WELCOME NIGHT - Group Games/ Outdoor
Activities.
PIZZA PARTY - Don't eat dinner that
night before you come to FNF!!! Meet at
MARCELLO'S - 4112 North Landcaster
Lane, Four Seasons Shopping Center
7:00-9:00 Bring $3.50.
SELF-AWARENESS DAY - ARC Advocate/
Health Department.
NO MEETING - MEA WEEK.
MINNESOTA ZOOMOBILE --Visit with a
Mammel, reptile and birds. Bring $2.00.
HA.LL014EEN PARTY - Wear your favorite
costume.
SURPRISE NIGHT
%L -000T
, 01
ARMSTRONG SENIOR HIGH Presents
"Oliver" Meet at Armstrong/Robbinsdale
High School at 7:001 Bring $2.00.
THANKSGIVING CRAFT NIGHT.
NO MEETING.
CHRISTMAS DANCE, Meet at Northport,
5421 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center.
P.S. Please call Tracy at WHCC, 933-9105 before that Friday if you plan
on not attending one of the programs.
TEEN ACTION
SUMMER, 1986
WEDNESDAY JULY 9
0
TUSEDAY JULY 22
SATURDAY AUGUST 2
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 13
SATURDAY AUGUST 30
PUTT PUTT GOLF
3118 WEST LAKE STREET
6:30 - 8:30 pm
Bring $5.00
PIZZA NIGHT
GODFATHERS PIZZA
8040 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY
GOLDEN VALLEY
6:00 - 8:00 pm
Bring $5.00
THE COMEDY TROUPE
PLAY IN THE PARK
MEET AT LAKE HARRIET
BANDSTAND 6:45 - 8:45pm
r
LO
'9
MOVIE NIGHT
WEST HENNEPIN COMMUNITY CENTER
ROOM 206
6:30 - 8:30 pm
0
PICNIC AT MEDICINE LAKE
MEET AT EAST MEDICINE
LAKE BEACHHOUSE
1:00 - 3:00 pm
BRING $1.00
If you have any questions on the activities call Tracy
or Sue at West Hennepin Community Center at 933-9105.
\O
Saturday, Oct. 11, 1986
Monday, Oct. 20, 1986
Saturday, November 8, 198
TEEN ACTION
Fall, 1986
Wednesday, November 19, 1986
Thursday, December 4, 1986
Saturday, December 20
ROLLERSKATING - 1:00 - 3:30 pm.
Meet At Skateland, 7306 Lakeland
Ave., N, Brooklyn Park. Bring
$3.50 for rental, skating and
treats.
PIZZA NIGHT - 6:00 - 8:00 pm.
Meet at Shakey's, 15600 Hwy. 7,
Mtka. Bring $3.00 for pizza.
CLIFTON FRENCH REGIONAL PARK,
1:00 - 3:00 pm., 12615 Co. Rd. 9,
Plymouth. Meet at the Park for
fall hiking and enjoying nature.
MOVIE NIGHT - 6:30 - 8:30 pm. Meet
at WHCC, Room 206. Bring .50Q
SWIMMING - 7:00 - 9:00 pm. Meet
at Hopkins West Jr. High, 3830
Baker Road, Mtka. Bring .50Q
CHILD'S PLAY THEATER "TWAS THE
NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS" - Meet at
WHCC, Room 203. 1:00 - 3:00 pm.
Bring $2.75.
Any questions, call Sue or Tracy at WHCC, 933-9105.
PLEASE CALL US WHEN YOU PLAN ON ATTENDING ONE OF THE ACTIVITIES.
=—`t
PLYMOUTH TOWN MEETING FORMAT
AREA 7
June 8, 1987
I. INTRODUCTIONS - Mayor Virgil Schneider
II. STATUS REPORTS ON ISSUES OF INTEREST - City Department Heads
III. QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS IN ATTENDANCE
IV. CLOSING COMMENTS - Mayor Virgil Schneider
V. ADJOURN
RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM
Please use this form if you have a question or concern which you would like
the City to investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone
number, we will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your
concern.
NATURE OF CONCERN/PROPERTY ADDRESS INVOLVED : V4 e— co1441C, A 1l 'fit ;1-1,
7K
SS
'�O a✓ �� V�i�! a cy05's &0714 l�Lt f�Qllle l/o r� 101 �6A.j� 3
ACTION YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO TAKE: �P� l'C
�l1'cc,� He,y; � v�q l2 � a -�o Gt e 2r^�/t y
Lim r� f�;s (/`
r
sc2 _zv�--1 hal/e, bee -.1, OxV p0a'8CPw t1A U-AVIe -fetes.
NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT: 1,4 Ct-'VV c� (n �� �C/,to l'
ADDRESS OF RESIDENT : / Cpmyt �1% jPp '�17 xl
PHONE -NUMBER: 55 /0 73
W
�o ve- ' -
a ra.10 o/
!� GItt e -Fo�C ho� 5 i ��t v�eys , I �
A-15 � 6 - 70 1,1s.
�ge4� ,6/
A 2 ve C V6 ..5;
1� l
2 l�
C � j�v�� -r ��
/
#ev- cff fie- / W
/ 14-f; v t-Lc eld O Gt —t e/)Oov
. wzte"l
�.�
��les� �►�,rzl5
1),Ae -ove
-'e4OVS G� ' scra
�1 cC
_
e �� I-a-S Lvo 14 eJ
P-o k
lie 'a 5 J5 kt
n 014
i Gam, av` r- ",I 1 �GOorn
i h2(A k (9 LA
PLYMOUTH TOWN MEETING FORMAT
AREA 7
June 8, 1987
I. INTRODUCTIONS - Mayor Virgil Schneider
II. STATUS REPORTS ON ISSUES OF INTEREST - City Department Heads
III. QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS IN ATTENDANCE
IV. CLOSING COMMENTS - Mayor Virgil Schneider
V. ADJOURN
RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM
Please use this form if you have a question or concern which you would like
the City to investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone
number, we will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your
concern.
NATURE OF CONCERN/PROPERTY ADDRESS INVOLVED:
ACTION YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO TAKE:
NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT:
ADDRESS OF RESIDENT:
PHONE NUMBER:J—
- - ---------------- 1
RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM
Please use this form if you have a question or concern which you would like
the City to investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone
number, we will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your
concei n.
NATURE OF CONCERN/PROPERTY ADDRESS INVOLVED: ex4v-e4 2k:k v
ACTION YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO TAKE: e4.-�
e-x._!/'CK h"A-a - rte,
O
NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT:
ADDRESS OF RESIDENT:
PHONE NUMBER: S S�� _ 5 75-0
RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM
Please use this form if you have a question or concern which you would like
the City to investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone
number, we will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your
concern.
NATURE OF CONCERN/PROPERTY ADDRESS INVOLVED:
TAMP
ACTION YOU
DESIRE THE
CITY TO TAKE )Ec�rg
- /m ,zbs
yie6 i3- (JAa-�
Fo2
NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT: --`� -
ADDRESS OF RESIDENT-
PHONE NUMBER: ���j--`i� �`7S - -- l�/oic� 7 Z—�S ��
PLYMOUTH TOWN MEETING FORMAT
AREA 7
June 8, 1987
I. INTRODUCTIONS - Mayor Virgil Schneider
II. STATUS REPORTS ON ISSUES OF INTEREST - City Department Heads
III. QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS IN ATTENDANCE
IV. CLOSING COMMENTS - Mayor Virgil Schneider
V. ADJOURN
RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM
Please use this form if you have a question or concern which you would like
the City to investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone
number, we will advise you of our actions and findinqs with respect to your
concern.
NATURE OF CONCERN/PROPERTY ADDRESS INVOLVED:, G
ACTION YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO TAKE: '
1�7 — n
NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT:
ADDRESS OF RESIDENT:
PHONE NUMBER: °y %f — ��
PLYMOUTH TOWN MEETING FORMAT
AREA 7
June 8, 1987
I. INTRODUCTIONS - Mayor Virgil Schneider
II. STATUS REPORTS ON ISSUES OF INTEREST - City Department Heads
III. QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS IN ATTENDANCE
IV. CLOSING COMMENTS - Mayor Virgil Schneider
V. ADJOURN
RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM
Please use this form if you have a question or concern which you would like
the City to investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone
number, we will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your
concern.
NATURE OF CONCERN/PROPERTY ADDRESS INVOLVED:
ACTION YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO TAKE:
3 4% .15 •j7
/9 rn `7.'G
NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT:
ADDRESS OF RESIDENT:
PHONE NUMBER: 4 -7
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
CONFERENCE/SEMINAR REPORT
DATE OF SEMINAR/CONFERENCE:
LOCATION:
EMPLOYEE ATTENDING:
SUPERVISOR:
PURPOSE/THEME OF SEMINAR/CONFERENCE:
DESCRIBE BENEFIT TO EMPLOYEE/CITY:
NOTE: A copy of seminar/conference educational materials should be retained
in appropriate department for not less than 10 working days following
the employee's return.
-12-
�J
c'71 .�L.. .G07�Ti�j2tc .�t4. ✓1�-''`f..'.G%�ti.. �/��tn� �Lc.�i
Z \31,Y)
}
� •� t�xf 'At
CITY OF
PLYMOUTR
June 3. 1987
Mr. Owen N. Warneke
945 Zanzibar Lane
Plymouth. Minnesota 55447
Dear Mr. Warneke:
The removal of geese from your property (Cimarron Ponds) is the responsibility of
you and other members of your homeowners association. The City of Plymouth does
not provide that type of service.
If you have a nuisance problem, and it certainly sounds as if you do, the
responsibility for eliminating the cause is the responsibility of the homeowners.
I have no idea why the Department of Natural Resources would refer you to the
City of Plymouth to remedy your problem. Also, I am unaware of any "funds" that
are available for eliminating a problem caused by geese.
Sincerely.
Richard J. Carlguist
Public Safety Director
RJC:gs
cc: James G. Willis - City Manager
May 29, 1987
City of Plymouth
BUILDING 6 INSPECTION
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, Minnesota
Gentlemen:
DEPT.
55447
It is evident to all of us in the construction industry that
this is a very busy time of the year. Sometimes we forget that
we are all in the same boat, "playing beat the clock" to get
our jobs done and make our business run smoothly.
I'd like to express thanks, on behalf of myself, Bill, and my
sub crews to your department for making special efforts to help
us in our jobs by getting those permits out quickly, and doing
inspections as soon as possible. My special thanks to Joe Ryan
and Mike Kulczyk for getting the permit and footing inspection
at 15310 -41st Place North, done on short notice during a very
busy and short handed time for you.
Again, we do appreciate all the extra efforts your department
has made to help us do our jobs. Thank You!
Sincerely,
DEAN R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Dean R. Johnson
President
ORJ/ jcf
3650 ANNAPOLIS LANE PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441 559-6430
A MEMBER OF THE SEARS FINANCIAL NETWORK
- C3 ; a
JUN;
r�
r
�y� G►��` fir �tX�'�k��.J�� -
COLDWELL BANKER
�r RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES
4205 LANCASTER LANE NORTH
Z V PLYMOUTH. MN 55441
(612)553-1810
JUNE 8, 1987
VIRGEL SCHNIEDER, MAYOR
3400 PLYi°iOUTH BLVD.
PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DEAR MAYOR SCHNIEDER.
NO SYMBOL MORE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES PATIOTISM THAN THE
AMERICAN FLAG. IT IS THE PRIDE OF OUR COUNTRY... PRESENT IN
GOOD TIMES AND BAD. IT IS IN THE SPIRIT OF AMERICANISM THAT
THE SALES ASSOCIATES AND STAFF OF COLDWELL BANKER WILL BE
PLACING NEARLY ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND FLAGS ON THE LAWNS OF TWIN
CITIES HOMES IN OBSERVANCE OF FLAG DAY, JUNE 14, 1987.
TO AVOID POSSIBLE PROBLEMS., PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT COLDWELL
BANKER ASSOCIATES AND STAFF WILL BE PLACING FLAGS ON SOME OF
THE LAWNS OF RESIDENTS IN YOUR COMMUNITY SOMETIME LATE
SATURDAY EVENING JUNE 13 OR EARLY SUNDAY MORNING JUNE 14. OUR
DISTRIBUTION WILL BE IN A QUIET AND ORDERLY FASHION AS TO NOT
DISTURB RESIDENTS.
THESE FLAGS REPRESENT COLDWELL BANKER'S COMMITTMENT TO
PRESERVING THE AMERICAN DREAM ... HOME OWNERSHIP.
SINCERELY,
.JAMES A. EDWARDS
BRANCH MANAGER
UNION CITY MISSION
3409 E. MEDICINE LAKE BLVD. / PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441
(612) 559-1883
Mr. Blair Tremere
Director of Planning/
Community Development
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, 111N 55447
Dear P1r. Tremere:
May 27, 1987
49H 1 198,
On behalf of the Union City Mission Board of Directors, I
would like to express our gratitude for your assistance and sup-
port in our organization's recent efforts to secure a City of
Plymouth Community Development Block Grant.
Your timely notification of the available CDBG funds and the
continuous support of your office in the application and review
process has been invaluable. Staff have especially appreciated
Mr. Milt Dale's supportive representation throughout the review
process.
We are confident that the outcome of our planning will be a
project in which the City of Plymouth, as well as Union City
Mission, will take great pride. We very much appreciate your
efforts on our behalf.
Sincer ,
Je f Sw et
esi dent
Board of Directors
JS/rlm
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
INCORPORATED 1870
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650
,lune 5, 19,87,
Katherine Turnbull, Planning Manager
Regional Transit Board
Suite 270
Metro Square Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
RE: RTB's Draft Fare Policies and Procedures
Dear Ms. Turnbull:
-\3�
On behalf of the City of Shakopee, please accept these
comments with regard to the RTB's proposed fare policies and
procedures.
The City of Shakopee is very concerned about the fare box
recovery ratio currently being proposed by the RTB. As an opt -
out community, the City of Shakopee's transit program is funded
100% by local property tax payers and local fares. The opt -out
law allows Shakopee to expend 90% of the local transit tax
dollars generated in our community on our local transit system.
The remaining 10% supports metro area transit systems that are
currently receiving State and Federal transit aid.
Without Federal or State transit aides, our transit system
has not even required the full 90%. (Therefore, Shakopee
property tax payers have contributed more than the 10% minimum.)
The current 1.2 mill levy generates over $200,000. In 1987 our
total transit budget was $155,000. Therefore, approximately
$25,000 in Shakopee property taxes went to support other metro
systems.
Our existing program is operating very effectively and is
meeting the needs of our residents. If we can meet the needs of
residents as we have been doing for the past four years with low
fares and still require less than the full 90% we're allowed to
operate on, why should we be forced to meet a fare box recovery
ratio imposed on transit systems that benefit from State and
Federal subsides?
If the RTB would provide Shakopee with the ratio of Federal
and State aid that other systems in the metro area are receiving
and support legislation to correct the technical flaws in the
transit tax feathering provisions, Shakopee could support a
standardized fare box recovery policy.
The Heart of Progress Valley
We find it quite ironic that the RTB will not extend a fare
share (ratio) of State and Federal transit aid to opt -out cities,
will not support corrections to the transit tax feathering laws,
but would consider extending a standard fare box recovery ratio
to opt -out cities. What a blatant double standard!
Please call me or Barry Stock at 445-3650 if you will not be
incorporating our comments as amendments to the final draft of
the RTB's Fare Policies and Procedures.
S ' ncer ly,
C/� r
ohn K. And son
City Administrator
CC: Senator Robert Schmitz
Representative Becky Kelso
Senator Clarence Purfeerst
Senator Gary Decramer
Representative Henry Kalis
Representative Robert Jenson
RTB Chairman Elliot Perovich
Mayors Chaska
Chanhassen
Eden Prairie
Plymouth
Burnsville
Prior Lake
Savage
JKA:trw
Dennis Hocks
2955 E. Medicine Lake Blvd.
Plymouth, Mn. 55441
June 6, 1987
Councilman David Crain
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth, Blvd.
Plymouth, Mn. 55447
Dear Councilman Crain:
JN,
ECFI4r._
JUN 10 tss�j
s: \3C�5
I am writing concerning our parking problem on east Medicine Lake
Blvd. We have always been short of parking and recently the city
has posted 'no parking' signs on 30th Ave, further aggrevating our
problem. Besides the shortage of parking, the spots we do have left
are directly adjoining the road making them easy targets for
vandalism and theft. In the last year, my vehicles have suffered 2
vandalistic attacks. My neighbors suffer the same predicament, in
fact, my neighbor at 3015 E. Medicine Lake Blvd. has suffered four
such cases of vandalism or theft in the same period of time. The
police are powerless to curb such offenses, the only way for them to
do so would be to become permanent fixtures in the neighborhood,
thus curtailing their needed services in other parts of the city.
The only way we will be safe is to garage our vehicles.
I do have a small garage located a few feet from the road but access
to it is unsafe. Current ordinances will not allow my building of a
larger garage placed in a more useable position. I am aware that my
needs can only be met through obtaining a variance for the
construction of this garage. However, I believe it to be not only
unfair but unethical for the city to charge $75.00 for this right.
One of my neighbors had previously been in a variance hearing for
what seemed to be a reasonable request, but he told me that the
members of this group were very closed minded individuals -that it
was obvious from the start of the meeting that they had already made
their decision. This is despite excessive time and effort he spent
to prepare what appeared to me to be a logical argument that he was
deserving of a variance due to unique circumstances.
What I am asking of you is that the $75.00 fee be either eliminated
or greatly reduced. I would also like to know what recourse I have
should my request of the variance committee be denied. Thank you
for you--7time.
Sii>6ere/ly yqui-s,
s 'no
DH: pt
Mr. Ray Anderson
Cannanity Development Coordinator
City of Plymouth
Plymouth City Center
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Ref File 87017, Pending Request for Variance
a:� \3-�-\.
June 10,
� I 1
It is with all due respect to Mr. Hertzenberg's rights and
liberties as a land owner in the City of Plymouth that the
undersigned contest the subject request for residential lot
variance and urge the planning commission recommend the variance
not be granted. Our objections are based on the reasonable
assumption at the time of purchasing neighboring property, that
the land in question would remain vacant of buildings or
development for the following reasons:
1) The land in question, known as lot 10, block 1, Pheasant
Hills, as amended in 1981 to include land vacated by
City resolution 81-137, was, and is not of sufficient
size to allow division into two residential lots per
zoning regulations in place.
2) Said portion of that land vacated by the City in 1981
was, and is not a practical location for a residential
structure due to soil and drainage characteristics. The
area exists as a major reservoir for drainage water
collection, and the characteristics of the underlying
soil would require radical fill and grade activities
with no assurance of subsequent building stability.
Recognize that the record low snow and rainfall for the
last six months has had significant impact on the area
in question, and thus the perceptions of on-site
evaluations in recent months. It is actually a partial
wetland. An evaluation of the vegetation will verify
this.
3) As witnessed by Hennepin County court order of 4 August
1981 (DOC 1435432), that portion of said land which was
at one time planned to be developed as roadway, was
.
All
titled to the owner of Lot 10, Block 1, Pheasant Hills
as an addition to that residential property, without any
allusion to eventual creation of an additional
residential lot. The undersigned believe it was the
intent of city officials to increase the size of the
existing residential property, and not to create an
additional residential lot.
4) The development of the southern most parcel as proposed
in the request for variance, will aggravate an existing
drainage/run-off problem for the residences on Saratoga
Lane, particularly 20 and 30 North. The city in recent
years has undertaken cursory remedies to the flowage of
run-off from Union and Saratoga Lanes, but has relied on
the good nature and tolerance of past and current
residents of these properties in postponing an ultimate
cure. Should the area which now exists as a reservoir
be developed, the ponding which results on the
properties 20 and 30 N. Saratoga during periods of heavy
rains and/or snow melt will be severely increased. The
hazard and inconvenience created by a 1000 sq ft, 13"
inch pond is undesirable. Any activities which
contribute to an increase in this ponding are
intolerable and irresponsible.
Although the undersigned cannot assume Mr. Hertzenberg is or has
been aware of item 4 above, it assumed that as a capable and
knowledgeable property owner, he was aware of items 1, 2 and 3
at the time he purchased the property; i.e. that the
southernmost portion of this property was, and is not, legally
or practically, a candidate for separate residential
development.
The undersigned would also like to acknowledge the attempts of
city officials to establish a desirable and responsible balance
between development and the environment. Please recognize the
woods and wetland area prised of undeveloped portions of the
neighboring lots and condominium properties, constitutes an
ideal habitat for wildlife. The individual contributions of
Each property aw-ner :has created Collective benefits in quality
of life and value of property, benefits which would be
jeopardized by development of even a small portion. The
wildlife which find this an ideal nesting area and/or habitat,
including pheasants, ducks, raccoons, woodchucks, owls and an
occasional red fox, would likely be driven from the area by
construction activities. Such "neighbors", once driven away,
will be slow to return, if ever.
The undersigned would also like to point out that residences on
Saratoga Lane, originally built in the early 1970's, have
experienced severe settling conditions which have only recently
diminished. Changes to the area's drainage and water table
conditions by development of the area for which variance is
requested, may resurrect the settling activities. It should be
- 2 -
noted that all of these houses were constructed using city
approved drain and grade plans, plans which probably did not
consider the eventuality of a radical change in the property for
which the variance is requested.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue further with
you, your associates in the city offices and other concerned
parties. We share a respect and value for the rights and
privilages of the individual and acknowledge the existence of
the democratic process and legislation to balance them with the
common good. We strongly believe this is a situation in which
variance from the zoning restrictions in place (now and at time
of Mr. Hertzenberg's purchase of the subject land) is not
warranted or desired by the comunity.
We thank you for your attention in reviewing our concerns, and
again urge the planning commission to recommend to the city
council that the request for variance, file 87017 be denied.
Pw /u KI Ll'"Q;
U-1
cc: % Plymouth City
Virgil Schneider
David Crain
Jerry Sisk
Robert Zatur
Maria Vasiliou
Blair Tremere
Paul Steigerwald
Bes r rdsi%'/
i
Audrey L. Myer
Herbert D. Myers
20 Saratoga Lane North
593-9684
Josephine Kilgore
Anthony Kilgore
30 Saratoga Lane North
543-9273
'''f7lW��/
Kathy
David Thomas
1 Saratoga Lane North
541-0393
Center
- 3 -
role rIJ
1/0 da fo'f070" Ja11 ,,2_
Pill