Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 04-24-1987CITY OF PLYMOUTR CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM April 24, 1987 UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS..... 1. COUNCIL/STAFF DINNER MEETING -- Monday, April 27, 6:00 p.m. The Council and City Manager will meet in the City Council conference room. A light dinner will be served. 2. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, April 27, 7:30 p.m. Special City Council meeting in City Council Chambers. 3. FIRE STATION III REFERENDUM -- Tuesday, April 28. 4. CANVASS BOARD -- Wednesday, April 29, 5:15 p.m. The Council will meet to canvass the ballots of the April 28 Special Election. 5. MAY CALENDAR -- The May calendar of meetings and events is attached. M-5) FOR YOUR INFORMATION.... 1. SOLID WASTE TRANSFER FACILITY SITING STUDY -- The consultants to Hennepin County for the siting of solid waste transfer facilities is the firm of HDR Techserv. HDR representative Jeffrey Turner, informs me that they are busily engaged in developing their alter- native site evaluation report for the County. This report will consider additional solid waste transfer sites in Minneapolis, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and Plymouth. The report is expected to be ready for our review within the next two to three weeks. In Plymouth, they are looking at the industrial site on Niagara Lane in the Parkers Lake North development (identified as the "workhouse" industrial site), as well as other sites adjacent to I-494 on the east side of County Road 6 and the southeast and west sides of County Road 15. Mr. Turner also indicates that he is in the process of developing of what might be referred to as a "site plan" for an 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM April 24, 1987 Page two ideally situated transfer station. This "site plan" is not site specific, but is being laid out to represent what would ideal from a functional standpoint. This plan should also be ready for our review within two to three weeks. As soon as they have completed the alternative site evaluation report and site plan, they will contact us in order that we can set up a meeting to review these items. 2. LARRY LAAUKA & ASSOCIATES, INC. VERSUS THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH -- The ity ttorney has prepared and submitted to the District Court a memorandum of law supporting our motion for a Summary Judgment on the issue of whether the developer is precluded from challenging the dedication requirement after having dedicated the right-of-way. We learned today that the court denied our motion, ruling that there are issues of fact which need to be resolved through trial. Attached is a copy of the memorandum for your information. (I-2) 3. DEMOLITION ORDER - COPELAND PROPERTY -- Last September the Council directed that we initiate legal proceedings to have hazardous build- ings located at 13196 County Road 6 demolished. This is the former Sohn Copeland property which the City is acquiring under Contract for Deed for the future interchange of County Road 6 and Interstate 494. The existing frame structure and garage were deemed to be hazardous, unsanitary and unsafe, and accordingly, we undertook action to have them removed. We were unable to locate Mr. Copeland, although other parties with interest in the property were contacted. The Court has now reviewed our request and authorized us to proceed with the demolition of the structures after April 24. The building officials are currently soliciting proposals for having the structures razed, including the appropriate abandonment of the well on the site. There is a possibility that the structure be burned as a fire training exercise. (I-3) 4. MIDDLEMIST VERSUS THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH -- Attached are copies of the trial briefs submitted on behalf of the City and Mr. Middlemist with respect to this litigation. The trial began on Monday and ended on Thursday, April 23. The trial judge has taken the matter under advisement and has indicated that she will contact the prevailing party to prepare the required findings of fact and conclusions of law and order the judgement. (I-4) 5. CITY OF PLYMOUTH V. NEUTGENS -- The City has initiated a formal complaint and related legal action seeking compliance with the Zoning Ordinance for property at 14407 County Road 6, owned by Mr. and Mrs. K. M. Neutgens. This was done after all reasonable administrative efforts over a period of two years were exhausted to eliminate ordinance violations involving the storage, parking and servicing of heavy equipment in the residential yard. Efforts to gain compliance and to have the owner apply for a home occupation conditional use permit for the operation of the business there have been fruitless. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM April 24, 1987 Page three The owner has been represented by an attorney, and earlier legal action was postponed to allow the owner a chance to take care of the problems after a year of notices and complaints from the neighborhood. A "show cause" hearing has been scheduled for May 26; the City will then present the evidence as to why an injunction should be ordered to gain compliance with the ordinance. 6. PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY -- Following Council direction from the meeting of April 20, all incumbent board and commission members were contacted to determine their interest in being considered for the Planning Commission vacancy. Also contacted were the finalists from last January who had not been appointed to a board or commission. Attached is a list of those who have expressed an interest in being considered. Also attached are copies of the applications which are on file. Applications have been sent to the others who are interested to be brought up to date. The Council should decide how it wants to proceed and direct staff accordingly. (I-6) 7. PLYMOUTH CREEK TOWNHOUSES -- Attached is a memorandum on a complaint received by Frank Boyles from Mrs. Glen Ryding, 15376 40th Avenue North, concerning the exterior maintenance of the Plymouth Creek Townhouse. Mrs. Ryding would like the Homeowners' Association to restore the building's exterior cedar to its original wood look, and asked if the City had any code provisions which would require the Homeowner's Association make such a restoration. From a City Code perspective, Joe Ryan inspected the townhouse's exterior and found no evidence of either structural defect or deterioriation of the siding due to inadequate maintenance. Mrs. Ryding has been informed of Joe's findings and advised that she should work directly with the Homeowner's Association for the cedar restoration. 8. OAKWOOD SQUARE DEVELOPMENT (86138) -- On Wednesday, April 22, the Mayor received the attached letter from Dale Simonson, attorney for David Johnson, objecting to the final draft of Resolution 87-188, approving the site plan and variances for the Oakwood Square development. Specifically, Mr. Johnson is objecting to the language contained in Condition No. 13 dealing with the driveway access to Highway 101. Mr. Simonson maintains that the resolution adopted by the Council on March 16 did not contain the last sentence in Condition No. 13, relative to the City extending the median at the developer's expense. In a letter to Mr. Simonson (attached), I provided him with a copy of the March 16 Council minutes which specifically reflect the approved language of Condition No. 13. I further advised Mr. Simonson that the developer should understand that the Council's approval of the site plan and variances for the Oakwood Square development were approved subject to the conditions fully specified in Resolution 87-188. (I-8) CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM April 24, 1987 Page four 9. SKATE BOARDS -- Several weeks ago, I received a call from a resident complaining about the noise coming from a skateboard ramp in an adjacent residential yard. The resident suggested that we contact the City of Minneapolis as she had heard they had recently adopted an ordinance dealing with the regulation of skateboards. Attached are extracts from the Minneapolis City Code which address the matter of skateboards. If you have an interest in seeking to control and/or regulate the use of skateboards or skateboard ramps, the attached extract from the Minneapolis City Code may be of use. (I-9) 10. SPRINKLING RESTRICTIONS -- Press releases on the City's sprinkling restrictions were mailed out on Tuesday to local t.v. and radio stations, and newspapers. In addition, the attached notice will be enclosed with the May water bills. (I-10) 11. MINUTES: a. Planning Commission, April 8, 1987 (I -11a) 12. DEPARTMENT REPORTS -- The following departmental reports for the month of March are attached: a. Planning Applications (I -12a) b. Building Inspection Activity (I -12b) 13. RECYCLING PROGRAM - YEAR ONE REPORT -- Attached is a graph showing tonnage of recyclables collected by month through March 31, which completes the first year of the City's curbside collection recyclinq program. The average is 62.68 tons collected each month. Also attached is a summary of the year's operation which shows that during calendar year 1986, the tons collected amounted to 42% of the County goal, and thus far in 1987, 26% of the goal. The goal for 1986 was 4% of the waste stream, and for 1987 is 6%. (I-13) 14. COMMUNITY AWARDS CEREMONY -- On Tuesday evening eight individuals were recognized for their contributions to the community. Those receiving awards were the following: Carol Brownell - Outstanding Citizen Stephanie Dusk - Outstanding Senior Citizen Dr. Roger Adams - Outstanding Public Service Award Lan! Willis - Outstanding Junior Hiqh Student Sherri Baxter - Outstanding Senior High Student CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM April 24, 1987 Page five James Hoffman - Outstanding Educator Niel Nielsen - Police Officer of the Year Rick Luth - Firefighter of the Year 15. TOWN MEETING - RESIDENT FEEDBACK -- Two additional Resident Feedback forms from the April 13 Town Meeting were received in the mail this week. They are attached for the Council's information. (I-15) 16. COUNCIL FOLLOW UPS: a. 5920 & 5930 Norwood Lane -- In response to a complaint received by Councilmember Zitur on the site conditions at 5920 and 5930 Norwood Lane, doe Ryan met with the property owner, Vern Reynolds, on March 16 to discuss clean up efforts and final grading of the properties. At that time, Mr. Reynolds indicated that clean up of the properties would be accomplished by March 27, with final grading being completed by April 3. On Friday, April 10, doe conducted a site inspection of the properties to determine the status of clean up efforts by Mr. Reynolds. doe reports that the debris has been removed and the properties have been graded in a satisfactory manner. b. 12210 County Road 9 (Ivy's Tavern) -- On April 16, Mayor Schneider contacted Frank Boyles to relate a concern he had received from a resident concerninq the Ivy's Tavern property. The complainant reported that a variety of refuse and debris, including old mattresses, were being stored behind Ivy's Tavern. On April 20, Community Service Officer bane Laurence inspected the property and observed three Junk vehicles and miscellaneous debris and trash, including mattresses and box springs, on the property. The property owner has been notified by certified mail that clean up of the property must be completed by May 12. The public nuisance report completed by Jane Laurence is attached. (I -16b) 17. CORRESPONDENCE: a. Letter from Karen Fox, President, Chelsea Mews Association, requesting information on the County's consideration of a potential site in Plymouth as a solid waste transfer station. Mayor Schneider's response to Ms. Fox is also attached. (I -17a) b. Letter to Marcy Shapiro, West Hennepin Human Services Planninq Board, from Mayor Schneider, advising of the City Council's nomination of Gary Swedborg as Plymouth's representative to the WHHSP Board. Also attached is a letter to Gary Swedborg advising of his appointment. (I -17b) CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM April 24, 1987 Page six c. Letter to Mayor Schneider from R. L. Hickman, 12110 29th Avenue No., expressing various concerns about safety on the 2500 block of West Medicine Lake Drive. The Mayor's response and letters from Dick Carlquist and Eric Blank are also attached. (I -17c) d. Letter to Mr. Pete Gromli, Advertisers Distribution Services, from City Manager, relaying the Council's concern with the Company's current practice of affixing ADS tubes to mailboxes without prior approval from the resident. I have requested Mr. Gromli to advise me by April 29 of the Company's intended plans for future installation of ADS tubes. (I -17d) e. Letter from Roger Clemence, Professor, University of Minnesota School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, concerning a presentation made by Blair Tremere on the PUD planning process. Blair advises he met with a class of architecture students who are "tracking" the Parker's Lake PUD (east part). (I -17e) f. Letter to Hennepin County Department of Environment and Energy, requesting the County's share of costs under the Cost Sharing Agreement for the Recycling Program. (I -17f) g. Letters of appreciation to the New Hope, Minnetonka, Golden Valley, Medicine Lake, and Wayzata Fire Departments, the Depart- ment of Natural Resources, and Hennepin County dispatchers, from Fire Chief Lyle Robinson for their assistance during the April 16 grass fire at County Road 18 and Highway 55. (I -17g) h. Letter to Dick Carlquist, from Debbie Dietz, 5000 Jonquil Lane, complimenting Officer Tom Dahl. (I -17h) i. Letter to Patrick McGuire, Towle Real Estate Company, N.W. Business Campus, from Public Safety Director, providing summary data on the special enforcement detail assigned to the N.W. Business Campus area. (I -17i) J. Letter from Representative Gerry Sikorski, to City Manager, on the Congressional passage of the Surface Transportation Act. (I -17J) k. Letter to Ted Hoffman, Chief Design Engineer, Hennepin County Department of Transportation, from Fred Moore, forwarding a petition from Plymouth residents living around Lost Lake which requests a berm and landscaping be constructed between Old County Road 9 and new County Road 9 between Revere Lane and Zachary Lane. Fred requests the County investigate the feasi- bility of constructing the berm and adding it to the existing construction plans. (I -17k) James G. Willis City Manager cv _ cz ^ 00 -o C N N A W H W x Pacz H wz z H l`- UP4 9 O V !'�q N W lV N .S. P4 E-4 co P., ai a a oa4>� C) c) � P4]4 �j �p �° a V caw w b M Ln I O [�. o a o " Ei z ^ U z ^U )--j r0az0 a P4 c� a H w C `O O H Pr O O•• O L4 ^ V ON Ncn W 0� v' Cd 'b r v N W H p,, O r ri �w H^ P4 a W W �) LC g r N 0\ ono �aH O W U O c*1U I V �� 0 O U 0 O U N H (s, (J] a O o rx.^ Cl) fn t� N O O7 C l 0 w O z ~O z W ` � U H U O H •• U Cn �O W H O PG U cl).�' Q OH p�j z v1 VO [0 PG U [` u. ••1 �^r N N M O oo N N 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333-0543 Telecopier (612) 333-0540 Clayton L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler J. Dennis O'Brien John E. Drawz David J. Kennedy Joseph E. Hamilton John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III James J. Thomson, Jr. Thomas R. Galt Dayle Nolan Brian F. Rice John G. Kressel James M. Strommen Ronald H. Batty William P. Jordan Kurt J. Erickson William R. Skallerud Rodney D. Anderson Corrine A. Heine David D. Beaudoin Paul E. Rasmussen Steven M. Tallen Mary F. Skala Christopher J. Harristhal Timothy J. Pawlenty Rolf A. Sponheim LeTcA crc Lefler kennedN, O'Brien R Drawn a Professional Association April 16, 1987 i Mr. James G. Willis City Manager CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 RE: Larry Laukka and Associates, Inc. V. City of Plymouth Dear Jim: Enclosed is a copy of the memorandum of law which we have submitted to the court in support of our motion for summary judgment. The purpose of the motion is to attempt to have the court order that Mr. Laukka is precluded from challenging the dedication requirements for County Road 9 because he recorded his final plat and accepted the benefits that are associated with the final plat. The only procedural device that can be used to obtain a pretrial ruling on this matter is a summary judgment motion. In order to grant a summary judgment motion, the court needs to conclude that there are no issues of fact that need to be resolved at trial. Mr. Laukka is raising the claim of economic duress for the reason why he did not challenge the dedication requirement until after the final plat was recorded. His reasoning is that he had his financial commitments in place and that he could not delay the recording of the final plat. The enclosed memorandum attempts to refute that argument. If the trial court rules in our favor on the motion then the matter will be ended, subject to Mr. Laukka's appellate rights. If the court does not rule in our favor, the case will be scheduled for trial. We will still be able to raise the same issues during trial. Mr. James G. Willis April 16, 1987 Page 2 The hearing on the motion is currently scheduled for April 17, 1987. Sincerely, LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ Jme . Thomson, r. JJT/kjj Enclosure STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT File No. MX -3617 Larry Laukka and Associates, Inc., V. City of Plymouth, Petitioner, MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Respondent. INTRODUCTION This action is brought pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 117 and 586. Petitioner Larry Laukka and Associates, Inc. petitioned the court for an alternative writ of mandamus against the respondent City of Plymouth ("City"), alleging that the City had exceeded its authority by conditioning its approval of petitioner Is' plat upon the requirement that petitioner dedi- cate the right-of-way for a proposed county road, and further alleging that the requirement amounted to a taking of petitioner's property without just compensation. The City filed an answer, alleging affirmative defenses of laches, waiver and estoppel. By order dated March 27, 1985, the court, the Honorable Henry W. McCarr, ordered that this action proceed to trial in the manner of a civil action. The City now brings this motion for summary judgment. STATEMENT OF FACTS The petitioner is a corporation that in 1978 was involved in real estate development in the City. Lawrence Laukka is peti- tioner's president. (Laukka T., 9). In April 1978, the peti- tioner submitted a concept plan to the City for a proposed residential, development. (Exhibit B) The proposed development included a 102 -acre parcel of land located northeast of the intersection of Larch Lane and existing County Road 9 in the City (the "subject property"). At the time of the application, petitioner held an equitable interest in the subject property, under a contract for deed dated December 23, 1977, between petitioner and the legal owners, Russel and Emma Bendickson. (Exhibit S) Subsequently, in December 1978, petitioner closed the real estate transaction on subject property, atter modifying the purchase terms as an accommodation to the Bendicksons. (Laukka T., 38-39) The subject property is bisected by the proposed right-of-way for new County Road 9, which is depicted on the City's thoroughfare guide plan. The proposed right-of-way contains approximately 5.5 acres. Petitioner was aware of the proposed roadway at the time it purchased the subject property. (Laukka T., 32-33) The 1977 contract for deed between petitioner and the Bendicksons contemplated that Hennepin County or another public authority might require the right-of-way to be conveyed to it, with or without compensation. (Exhibit S at 1 7) At the time petitioner submitted its concept plan proposal, the City had in effect various ordinances that governed petitioner's 2 = Q_ proposed use of the subject property, including subdivision regulations adopted pursuant to state law. (Exhibit Q) The subdivision regulations provide for dedication of all streets in a plat, including major thoroughfares. Id. Petitioner's con- sulting engineer, Mr. Fran Hagen, was familiar with the City's practice in applying those regulations, because. he had formerly served as the City's engineer and as a member'of its planning commission. (Hagen T., 8-9, 38-41) In petitioner's concept plan, it proposed to develop the subject property as a residential planned unit development (R.P.U.D.), with a mix of single family residences, townhomes, and apartments. (Exhibit B) An R.P.U.D. status offers various advantages to a developer over conventional zoning, including a higher density of living units to land area. (Tremere T., 24,37) The petitioner's concept plan included a request that it be given greater than normal density points, in part because of the existence of the proposed right-of-way for new County Road 9. (Exhibit B at 13) The concept plan submission also included a statement that the developer intended to retain the right-of-way for future disposition to Hennepin County or for future develop- ment. Id. at 15. The City planning staff promptly responded to petitioner's concept plan with a memorandum dated April 27, 1978, directed to the City planning commission. (Exhibit C) The staff advised the commission that the "Concept Statement commentary as to retention of the new County Road 9 right-of-way by the developer as an outlot is not acceptable." The staff recommended that the 3 petitioner be required to dedicate the right-of-way instead. Id. at 3. Copies of the staff memorandum were sent to petitioner and to Mr. Hagen. (Exhibit D) The City council approved the peti- tioner's concept plan on September 5, 1978. (Exhibit E) In October 1978 petitioner submitted an application for preliminary plat approval. (Exhibit F): As required by state law, the City submitted a copy of petitioner's proposed plat to Hennepin County for review. By letter dated November 15, 1978, Hennepin County recommended to the City that the petitioner dedicate the right-of-way for new County Road 9. Copies of the letter were sent to petitioner and to Mr. Hagen. (Exhibit G) On November 20, 1978, the City council approved petitioner's prelim- inary plat, subject to several conditions, including that the petitioner dedicate street rights-of-way as approved by the City engineer. (Exhibit H) Despite the comments in the April 27 staff memorandum and the November 15 letter from Hennepin County, petitioner did not ask the City whether the right-of-way for new County Road 9 would need to be dedicated. (Laukka T., 61-63) Mr. Hagen, however, was aware that the City had previously required dedication of a county road right-of-way under its subdivision regulations. (Hagen T., 39-40) Mr. Laukka disregarded the county's letter and operated under the assumption that the City would not require dedication. (Laukka T., 61-63) Following preliminary plat approval, petitioner proceeded to close the real estate transaction and to obtain development and construction loans in an unknown amount. (Laukka T., 93) In 4 —T Q-, March 1979, petitioner applied for final plat approval of the West Ridge Estates First and Second Addition plats. (Exhibit I) Petitioner's plat application came before the City planning commission on April 4, 1979. Mr. Hagen appeared for petitioner and recommended that the City require petitioner to deed the right-of-way, shown in proposed plat as Outlots D and H, to the City rather than designate the outlots as right-of-way in the plat. (Exhibit K; Hagen T., 47-48) It was at approximately that same time that Mr. Laukka claims to have realized the City was requiring dedication of the county road right-of-way. (Laukka T., 68-69) On April 5, 1979, Hennepin County again advised the City and petitioner that the right-of-way for new County Road 9 should be dedicated. (Exhibit J) On April 16, 1979, the City council considered petitioner's proposed final plat. For the first time during the entire process, petitioner objected to the dedication requirement. Mr. Laukka told the council that petitioner would dedicate the right-of-way for the county road, but under.protest. (Laukka T., 75-76) The council approved the final plat for West Ridge Estates First Addition, subject to signing of a development contract. (Exhibit L) Petitioner executed the development contract on May 30, 1979. (Exhibit M) The development contract included a require- ment that petitioner deed Outlots D and H to the City for right-of-way. Id. at 91 14.3. On June 1, 1979, petitioner conveyed the outlots to the City by warranty deed. (Exhibit N) Prior to delivering the deed to the City, Mr. Laukka and an 5 associate considered tendering -the deed with a letter in which petitioner reserved its rights to obtain just compensation. (Exhibit O; Sommers T., 18-22) Although the letter was sent to Hennepin County, it was never sent to the City. Id. Between 1979 and 1985, petitioner filed plats for the West Ridge Estates Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Additions.. (Laukka T., 86-87; Exhibit U) Petitioner improved and sold_ all the lots. Id. Since 1980, petitioner has been relieved of real property taxes on the outlots conveyed to the City. (Exhibit T) Petitioner brought this action in March 1985. See Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Petitioner purposefully delayed bringing suit because Mr. Laukka did not believe it was "smart business" to sue the City while petitioner had projects ongoing in the City. (Laukka T., 87-88) I. STANDARD OF REVIEW ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Respondent moves for summary judgment on the grounds that, by dedicating the right-of-way for County Road 9, petitioner's claim is barred under the theories of laches, waiver and estoppel. Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. The purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to relieve the court system of the burden and expense of unfounded litiga- tion. Cook v. Connolly, 366 N.W.2d 287 (Minn. 1985). Thus, a 0.1 party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the mere averments or denials of his or her pleadings, but must present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Hommerding v. Peterson, 376 N.W.2d 456 (Minn. App. 1985) The record before this court establishes as a matter of law that the petitioner's claim is barred by the doctrines of laches, waiver and estoppel and that no genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. The City is therefore entitled to summary judgment in its favor. II. OVERVIEW OF ISSUES. The petitioner has posed a three -pronged challenge to the City's 1979 requirement that petitioner dedicate the right-of-way for County Road 9 as a condition of final plat approval. First, petitioner claims that the City lacked statutory authority under the 1979 version of Minn. Stat. §462.358 to impose such a condi- tion. In the alternative, petitioner alleges that, even if the City had such authority under §462.358 and its ordinances, the manner in which the City exercised that authority amounted to a taking of petitioner's property without just compensation. Finally, petitioner alleges that it agreed to the City's dedica- tion requirement under economic duress. The City contends that it had authority under 1979 statutes and ordinances to require dedication of streets and that the dedication required in this case was reasonable and did not amount to a taking. Moreover, even if the City lacked or exceed- ed its authority, the petitioner is barred from bringing its claim by the doctrines of laches, estoppel and waiver, because 7 Q_ the petitioner agreed to the condition imposed by the City, entered into a contract to convey the right-of-way to the City, conveyed the right-of-way, and received the benefits of that agreement for nearly six years before bringing suit. The peti- tioner's claim of economic coercion is unsupported by the record and unavailing as a matter of law. A. Statutory Authority. Whether Minn. Stat. §,462.358 and City ordinances authorized the City to require dedication of streets is a legal question, the resolution of which does not depend upon disputed facts. The Court may therefore determine that issue on summary judgment. Rooney vs. Dayton -Hudson Corp., 310 Minn. 256, 246 N.W.2d 170 (1976) . B. Taking Issue. The issue of whether the City's actions in this particular case amounted to a taking is not before the Court, because it rests upon disputed issues of fact. The legal standard for determining the "as applied" constitutionality of a subdivision regulation dedication require- ment is set forth in Collis vs. City of Bloomin ton, 310 Minn. 5, 246 N.W.2d 19 (1976) and Middlemist vs. City of Plymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. App. 1986). At issue in Collis was the facial constitutionality of Minn. Stat. §462.358, subd. 2 (1971), which permitted cities to condition subdivision approval upon the dedication of a reasonable portion of the subdivision for park purposes or, in lieu thereof, the payment of park dedication fees. Ef The plaintiffs in Collis owned approximately 14 acres of land in the City of Bloomington and requested the City's approval to subdivide -the property into single family lots. The City approved the preliminary plat on the condition that the plain- tiffs pay a fee in lieu of park dedication. Later the City granted final plat approval and set the amount of the park dedication fee at $19,200.00. The plaintiffs challenged the statute and the Bloomington subdivision regulations as a taking of property without compensation. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional as a valid exercise of the police power, because it required dedication of only a "reasonable portion" of the subdivider's land. Collis, 246 N.W.2d at 26. As a standard of constitutionality, the Court adopted the "reasonable relation- ship" test, expressly following the lead of Wisconsin, California and New York. Under that test, there must be a reasonable relationship between the approval of the subdivision and the municipality's need for land dedication. Id. In Middlemist, a developer challenged the City's requirement that he dedicate the right-of-way for County Road 9 as a condi- tion of subdivision approval. The trial court granted the developer summary judgment on the grounds that the City's action was a denial of equal protection. On appeal, the court of appeals rejected the developer's equal protection argument and held that neither party was entitled to summary judgment on the question of whether the dedication of the county road right-of- way amounted to a taking. __7__ p)_ The developer argued that because the need for County*Road 9 was not necessitated by his development alone, the dedication requirement was unreasonable. The court of appeals determined that approach was "too restrictive" and pointed out the "diffi- culty of tracing a need for public services to one particular development." Id. at 193-94. Referring to language in Collis, the Middlemist court held that if a group of subdivisions, of which the developer's was one, bore a reasonable relationship to the need for County Road 9, the dedication requirement could be upheld. Id at 194. With respect to the propriety of granting summary judgment in such cases, the Middlemist court stated: Id. The Collis test of reasonable dedication requirements is a facts -and -circum- stances test. We agree with the city that more facts need to be developed or presented as to the relation between the need for the road relocation and local development in general. neither desig- nation as a county road nor Metropolitan Council classification as a minor arterial road is determinative. The reasonable relationship test, by its nature, does not lend itself to a summary judgment motion. A full factual record is necessary to enable the court to determine whether, under the particular circumstances of this case, the dedication requirement imposed by the City upon the petitioner was reasonable. C. Economic Duress. Respondent's motion includes petitioner's claim that it agreed to the City's dedication condition out of economic duress. Petitioner's claim fails as a matter of law because there is no 10 evidence in the record to support it. The evidence, even when read in the light most favorable to petitioner, establishes that petitioner did not act under economic duress as that theory is understood in law. D. Issues Raised by City's Defenses. Regardless of whether the City had statutory authority to require dedication or whether the requirement was reasonable, the petitioner's claims are barred by laches, waiver and estoppel. Based upon the undisputed facts in the record, the City is enti- tled to judgment as a matter of law on those bases. III. THE CITY HAD THE AUTHORITY UNDER STATE STATUTE AND CITY ORDINANCES TO REQUIRE DEDICATION OF COUNTY ROAD 9 AS A CONDITION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. State statutes and the City's ordinances authorized the City to condition its approval of the plat for West Ridge Estates First Addition upon the dedication of the right-of-way for proposed County Road 9. Petitioner erroneously contends that in April 1979 the City had no statutory authority to require street dedication as a condition of subdivision approval. Section 462.358 of Minnesota Statutes governs municipal regulation of subdivision approval. That statute is part of a comprehensive scheme for municipal planning, originally enacted by the legislature in 1965. See 1965 Minn. Laws c. 670, as codified at Minn. Stat. §§462.351 to 462.364. The purpose of that statutory scheme was to provide municipalities with a "means of guiding future development of land so as to ensure a safer, more pleasant and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial and public activities" and to allow municipalities to 11 = "prepare for anticipated changes and by such preparations bring significant savings in both private and public expenditures." Minn. Stat. §462.351 (1978). In 1979, section 462.358 provided, in part: Subdivision 1. To provide for orderly, economic, and safe development of land and urban services and facilities, and to promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, a municipality may adopt subdivision regulations .which include minimum physical standards and design requirements as to such urban services and facilities, and procedures for plat approval, including a procedure for appeals from actions of the platting authori- ty . . . Subd. 2. Subdivision regulations shall require that a proposed subdivision shall be in conformity with the official map if such exists. In establishing requirements for the location and width of streets, the municipal- ity shall take into consideration anticipated traffic needs and the prospective character of the development and make any reasonable requirements therefore . . . (Emphasis added.) The statute expressly authorizes a municipality to make "any reasonable requirements" for establishing the location and width of streets. A street dedication requirement is a "reasonable requirement" within the meaning of the statute. Any contrary interpretation is unsound because it would mean that, prior to 19801, the statute required cities to purchase or condemn the lIn 1980, the legislation amended §462.358 to expressly provide for street dedication conditions in subdivision regulations. 1980 Minn. Laws c. 566, §27, now codified at Minn. Stat. §462.358, Subd. 2b. 12 right-of-way for all streets, including internal access streets, within all plats. Petitioner has, to date, deftly avoided arguing that the City had no authority to require dedication of any streets at all. Instead, petitioner has argued that § 462.358 only author- ized cities to require dedication of streets of concern to the municipality, not those of concern to the county or state. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Petitioner's Request for Writ of Mandamus, at 5-7. Any street, road or highway that transects a city affects local traffic patterns and is necessarily of concern to that city. Further, the Middlemist court implicitly rejected the notion that the mere designation of a street as a county road has any bearing on the city's ability to require dedication of that street. Middlemist, 387 N.W.2d 190. The authority to require dedication of a county road is limited only by constitutional, not statutory, constraints. Section 462.358 authorized the City in 1979 to enact subdivision regulations requiring street dedica- tion as a condition of subdivision approval. Under the authority of that statute, the City did enact subdivision regulations which plainly required the dedication of all streets in Westridge Estates First Addition, including new County Road 9. The City's subdivision regulations are, and in 1979 were, -contained in Chapter V, section 500 of the Plymouth City Code (Exhibit Q). The policies and purpose of those regula- tions are set forth in §500.01: It is in the purpose of this Section...to safeguard the best interests of the City .of 13 Plymouth and to assist developers and subdivi- ders of land in harmonizing their interests with those of the City. Because each new subdivision of land in the the City becomes a permanent unit in the basic structure of the expanding community, to which the community will be forced to adhere, and because piece- meal planning of subdivisions will bring on an undesirable, disconnected patchwork of pattern and poor circulation of traffic unless their design and arrangement is correlated to the comprehensive plan of the City aimed at a unified scheme of community interests, all subdivisions of land hereafter submitted for approval to the Planning Commission shall comply with the regulations hereinafter set forth in this Section. The subdivision regulations, now and in 1979, require dedication of all streets in the final plat: 500.09 Final plats; Data Required. The final plat shall contain the following information and shall be in the form set forth in this subsection: (o) An appropirate [sic] statement dedicating all streets, alleys and other public areas not previously dedicated. Section 500.17 further states: Subd.17 Dedication of Streets. All proposed streets shall be offered for dedica- tion as public streets. . . A minor arterial highway is a "street" within the meaning of the City's subdivision regulations. The Plymouth City Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit R), section 4, subdivision B defines "Street, Thoroughfare" as "[a]n arterial highway or collector street used primarily for heavy traffic and serving as a traffic way between. the various districts of the community or between communities as shown on the Comprehensive Plan." Subsection 500.17, subds. 1 14 and 3 of the subdivision regulations also expressly contemplate the inclusion of major streets and thoroughfares in final plats. The City therefore had the authority, both under state statutes and its ordinances, to require -plaintiff to dedicate the right-of-way for County Road 9 in the West Ridge Estates First Addition plat. IV. AS A MATTER OF LAW, PETITIONER DID NOT ACT UNDER DURESS IN DEDICATING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE CITY. Petitioner alleges that "only because of duress and coer- cion, and based on the economic need to proceed with the project, petitioner was forced to agree" to the dedication condition. Petitioner has the burden of proving the facts necessary to set aside its deed on grounds of duress. Macklett v. Temple, 211 Minn. 434, 1 N.W.2d 415, 417 (1941). The evidence in the record, even when viewed most favorably to the petitioner, is insuffi- cient as a matter of law to support a duress theory. The City is therefore entitled to summary judgment on that claim. Duress is coercion by means of physical force or unlawful threats which destroys the victim's free will and compels him to comply with some demand of the party exerting the coercion. Wise v. Midtown Motors, Inc., 231 Minn. 46, 42 N.W.2d 404, 407 (1950). To constitute duress, the threat must be unlawful. A threat to do something that a party has a legal right to do, or that the party believes in good faith to be lawful, does not constitute duress. Id. The party claiming duress must establish that .it was left with no reasonable alternative but to give in to the other's demand. Lunning v. Land O'Lakes, 303 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 1980); Restatement (2d) of Contracts, S 175(1) (1981). 15 As a matter of law, petitioner was not acting under duress when it signed the deed and development contract, because the dedication requirement imposed by the City was lawful. See discussion, supra. Even if the condition were unlawful, the City had the right to assert in good faith its interpretation of state statutes and its ordinances. Wise, 42 N.W.2d at 407; Republic National Life Ins. Co. v. Rudine, 668 P.2d 905, 908-09 (Ariz. App. 1983). There is no evidence in the record that the City acted out of bad faith in adhering to its interpretation of its ordinances and state statutes. Further, petitioner was not left without alternatives. Petitioner could have challenged the City's requirement in court prior to complying with the dedication condition. Petitioner also could have applied to the City for a variance from the requirements of its ordinance, if petitioner believed that the requirement would cause it undue hardship. (Exhibit Q, S 500.41; Tremere T., 225-26) Petitioner also could have entered into a stipulation with the City similar to that in Middlemist v. City of Plymouth, Henn. Co. Dist. Ct. File No. 84-03988. (Exhibit 11 P /1 ) Petitioner claims, however, that it could not avail itself of those alternatives because of its financial situation. The limitation of alternatives imposed by one's own financial prob- lems does not constitute duress. Bond v. Charlson, 374 N.W.2d 423, 428 (Minn. 1985). To establish duress, petitioner must show that its financial difficulties where attributable to the City. National American Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 448 F. 16 Supp. 622, 644 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) affirmed 597 F.2d 314 (2d Cir. 1979). ("A necessary element . . . is a showing that the victim's financial straits were caused by the other party."); Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Shulman, 526 P.2d 1210, 1216 (Wash. 1974) ("The assertion of duress must be proven by evidence that the duress resulted from defendant's wrongful and oppressive conduct and not be plaintiff's necessities.") In the instant case, any financial constraints under which petitioner labored were of petitioner's own making. In fact, Mr. Laukka was unable to testify, except in general terms, as to just what those constraints might have been. See Laukka T., 90 ("typically" petitioner would have had its financing in place; petitioner "probably" had its mortgage recorded). Mr. Laukka did testify that in April 1979 petitioner had closed on its purchase of the property, and it had secured construction and development loans of possibly $500,000 each. (Laukka T., 93) None of those financial obligations are attribu- table in any way to the City. The petitioner entered into a contract for deed in December 1977 that obligated 'it to purchase the subject property. (Exhibit S) That was four months prior to the date petitioner even submitted its concept plan to the City. That contract for deed was not contingent upon City approval of petitioner's plat. Id. The reason petitioner closed on the property in 1978 was to accommodate the former owners of the subject property (Laukka T., 38-39); the City was not involved in that transaction. With respect to the construction and develop- ment loans, Mr. Laukka testified that those commitments were 17' 7 �— typical of obligations petitioner would undertake in any subdivi- sion development. Id. at 93-94. Any financial pinch that petitioner felt in 1979 was the result of its own eagerness to proceed with development of the subject property, not any actions by the City. According to Mr. Laukka, petitioner entered into those financial obligations after preliminary plat approval because "I thought I knew what I was doing." (Laukka T., 95) The City played no role in petitioner's financial affairs. There is not even evidence that the City was aware of petitioner's claimed financial problems. Moreover, petitioner's claim that financial pressures forced petitioner to agree with the City is inconsistent with petitioner's six-year delay in bringing this action. If the evidence in this record will support a claim of duress, then every so-called "final" plat would be subject to challenge. As a matter of law, petitioner's claim of economic duress must fail, and the City must be granted summary judgment. V. PETITIONER HAS WAIVED ANY RIGHT IT HAD TO CHALLENGE THE CITY'S DEDICATION REQUIREMENT The petitioner has waived any right it had to challenge the validity of the conditions the City imposed during the 1979 plat approval proceedings. Waiver is the intentional, or voluntary, relinquishment of a known right. Adam v. Adam, 358 N.W.2d 487, 489 (Minn. App. 1984). Knowledge and intention are essential elements of waiver; the knowledge may be actual or constructive, and intention may be inferred from conduct. Stephenson v. Martin, 259 N.W.2d 467, 470 (Minn. 1977). 18 Except as limited by public policy, a person may waive any legal right, constitutional or statutory. Martin v. Wolfson, 218 Minn. 557, 16 N.W.2d 884 (1944). Thus, even if the City did exceed its statutory authority or impose an unreasonable dedica- tion requirement, petitioner's right to challenge the dedication requirement is subject to waiver. Waiver is generally a question of fact for the jury, unless only one inference may be drawn from the facts. Engstrom v. Farmers & Bankers Life Ins. Co., 230 Minn. 308, 41 N.W.2d 422, 424 (1950). The uncontroverted facts in the record lead to only one conclusion and establish as a matter of law that petitioner has waived its right to bring this action. Petitioner submitted its application for concept approval of a residential planned unit development (R.P.U.D.) in April 1978. See Exhibit B. The documents supporting petitioner's application indicated that petitioner would retain the land in the path'of new County Road 9 for future development or for disposition to Hennepin County. Id. at 15. The City's staff promptly responded to petitioner's proposal with a memorandum to the planning commission dated April 27, 1978, which stated: "Concept Statement commentary as to reten- tion of the new County Road 9 right-of-way by the developer is not acceptable." (Exhibit C at 3) The staff recommended that the developer be required to dedicate the right-of-way. Id. Copies of the staff report were sent to the petitioner and to its consulting engineer, Mr. Fran Hagen. (Exhibit D) 19 On October 11, 1978, petitioner submitted its application for preliminary plat approval. (Exhibit F) As required by Minn. Stat. S. 505.03, the City submitted a copy of petitioner's pro- posed preliminary plat to the Hennepin County Transportation Department for review. On November 15, 1978, the county notified the City, petitioner, and .Fran Hagen that plaintiff should dedicate the required right-of-way for new County Road 9. (Exhibit G) Both Larry Laukka and Mr. Hagen acknowledge that they were aware of the county's recommendation. (Laukka T., 61; Hagen T., 45) Mr. Hagen has also acknowledged that, based upon his prior experience with the City, he was aware of instances where the City had required dedication of rights-of-way such as for County Road 9. (Hagen T., 38-40) Yet, on November 20, 1978, when the City council approved the preliminary plat subject to "[d]edication of rights-of-way and utility and drainage easements as approved by the City Engineer . . ." (Exhibit H), neither Mr. Laukka nor Mr. Hagen broached the subject with the City. (Laukka T., 62; Hagen T., 47) Mr. Laukka's only explanation was that "no flag went up" after he received the county's letter. (Laukka T., 64) Although the red flag finally did go up for Mr. Laukka as early as April 1, 1978 (Laukka T., 92), Mr. Laukka did not raise the issue with the planning commission on April 4. Instead, Mr. Hagen proposed to the commission that, rather than dedicate the right-of-way in the plat, petitioner deed the right-of-way to the. City. (Hagen T., 47-48; Exhibit K) Later, when the City council 20 ___1___. D -- addressed the issue of final plat approval on April 16, 1978, Mr. Laukka advised the City that petitioner acceded to the require- ment, but under protest. (Laukka T., 76). Despite Mr. Laukka's verbal protest on April 16, he personal- ly executed the development contract on behalf of the petitioner on May 30, 1979. (Exhibit M) Two days later, on June 1, 1979, Mr. Laukka again executed a deed on behalf of petitioner, in which petitioner conveyed the right-of-way for new County Road 9 to the City. (Exhibit N) Although petitioner considered restating its objection to the dedication requirement in a letter transmitting the deed (Exhibit O), Mr. Laukka opted not to do so. (Sommers T., 22) In Mr. Laukka's words: [I]n 1979 I decided that it would do me little good to start that argument while I'm still seven plats into the mission on that project. It's just a practical consideration - Secondly, I had a development on County road 10 as I've suggested that we were taken [sic] through the same process with the same Council, the same staff. And to be quite frank with you, it's not good business. It's not smart business to be fighting with those that you need to accept your work. (Laukka T., 87-88)(emphasis added) In sum, Mr. Laukka made a conscious choice in 1979 not to object to the City's dedication requirements, but to accept the benefits of the plat approval and to seek the benefits of further City cooperation in developing several other plats. Other courts have, in similar circumstances, held that such action constitutes a waiver as a matter of law. In Pfeiffer v. City of La Mesa, 69 Cal. App. 3d 74, 137 Cal. Rptr. 804 (1977), the city required property owners to grant an 21 easement and construct a 54 -inch storm drain across their property as a condition for the issuance of a building permit. The owners complied with the conditions "under protest and without waiving their rights to just compensation." Id.,137 Cal. Rptr. at 805. The trial court granted the city judgment on the pleadings, and the owners appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge, holding that the owners had waived their right to assert the invalidity of the conditions by failing to challenge the condi- tions in a mandamus action prior to issuance of the permit. the court rejected the owners' claim that they had been compelled by a lease agreement to obtain the permit without delay or risk the loss of the lease: If plaintiffs in this instance were "com- pelled" to accept the conditions of the permit and proceed with the construction rather than challenge the conditions in a mandamus proceeding, the compulsion was of their own making. They signed the lease agreement and unilaterally decided it was to their economic advantage to proceed with the construction If every owner who disagrees with the conditions of a permit could unilaterally decide to comply with them under protest, do the work, and file an action in inverse condemnation on the theory of economic coercion, complete chaos would result in the administration of this impor- tant aspect of municipal affairs 137 Cal. Rptr. at 806. (emphasis added) Similarly, in Gary D. Reihart, Inc. v. Township of Carroll, 409 A.2d 1167 (Pa.' 1979), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a landowner who had complied with a dedication requirement in order to obtain subdivision approval could not sue later in 22 inverse condemnation. The trial court had granted the township summary judgment, and the supreme court affirmed. The Reihart court determined that, under state statutes, the owner -should have appealed from the planning commission's deci- sion to impose the condition. "It is thus clear that appellant failed to properly attack the Commission's decision on its subdivision plan, and then voluntarily complied with that deci- sion. We are therefore satisfied that there is no reason to disturb the order of the Commonwealth Court." Id. at 1170. Both the Pfeiffer and Reihart opinions affirmed trial court decisions disposing of the landowners' claims prior to trial. The issues presented by the petition in the instant case are likewise subject to disposition on summary judgment. By Mr. Laukka's own admission, petitioner made a business judgment to comply with the City's conditions for subdivision approval rather than contest those conditions. Petitioner, as a matter of law, has waived any right to challenge those conditions now, nearly eight years after petitioner conveyed the right-of-way to the City. VI. PETITIONER IS ESTOPPED FROM CONTESTING THE VALIDITY OF THE CITY'S CONDITIONS FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. Petitioner is estopped from bringing this action against the City. Estoppel_is an equitable doctrine addressed to the discre- tion of the court and is intended to prevent a party from taking unconscionable advantage of his own wrong by asserting his strict legal rights • M-4-1-- D—+- ---I, l r— c� TT C T. i ro Tn ('n 277 N.W.2d 408, 410 (Minn. 1979). A person who accepts the benefits of a contract, with knowledge of the facts and of his 23 rights, is estopped from avoiding the contract. Bacich v. Northland Transportation Co., 185 Minn. 544, 242 N.W. 379, 387 (1932). See also Suske v. Straka, 229 Minn. 408, 39 N.W.2d 745, 571 (1949)(cannot accept and retain benefits of transaction and simultaneously repudiate it). Other jurisdictions faced with this question have held that a developer who accepts the benefits of a dedication or other requirement is estopped from later challenging that requirement. See Candid Enterprises v. Grossmont Union High School District, 150 Cal. App. 3d 28, 197 Cal. Rptr. 429, 432 (1983), reversed on other grounds and opinion vacated, (39 Cal. 3d 878, 705 P.2d 876) 218 Cal. Rptr. 303 (1985). In Candid, the California Court of Appeal held that a developer who complied under protest with a building permit condition was precluded from bringing a subsequent suit for recovery of the fee paid or for damages. The court stated: "The right to test the validity of a condition being imposed by the District is lost when the developer obtains the benefit offered by complying with the condition under protest and then seeks recovery of his damages." The Candid court distinguished McLain Western #1 v. County of San Diego, 146 Cal. App. 3d 772, 194 Cal. Rptr. 594 (1983). In McLain, the court recognized an exception to the rule in Pfeiffer 'v. City of La Mesa, supra, that a developer waives its right to challenge a condition once it has complied with the condition. The McLain exception covers those situations where, due to the imposition of a new requirement at a late stage of 24 development, the developer cannot wait to resolve the legalities of the new fee condition. The court in Candid noted that the condition had been imposed for the initial phase of the development, rather than a later phase. In addition, the developer had three years between the time it agreed to the condition and the time it had to pay the fees, during which it could have challenged the condition. Likewise, the City's dedication requirement pre-existed petition- er's development. (Exhibit A)(letter to prior owner of petition- er's property indicating that right-of-way would have to be dedicated in any plat). Petitioner was informed as early as April 27, 1978 that dedication would be required. (Exhibit C) Petitioner had until June 1979, when it signed the deed, to challenge the condition. The petitioner is estopped from challenging the conditions of final plat approval, because it has accepted the benefits that derived to it out of plat approval and the subsequent development contract and deed. The City's approval of the plat for West Ridge Estates First Addition enabled the -petitioner to file the plat of record. See Minn. Stat. §§ 505.03, subd. 3 and 505.04 (requiring city approval of final plat). Subsequent to filing the plat, petitioner submitted other plats in the West Ridge Estates development project, and petitioner was able to improve the entire property and sell all the lots. (Laukka T., 87) The economic benefit that petitioner obtained from the sale of the lots is a direct consequence of the City's final plat approval. 25 Petitioner has also received other benefits. In its origi- nal concept plan submission, petitioner requested that it be allowed a higher density ratio, i.e., ratio of living units to land area, due to the right-of-way needs for new County Road 9. (Exhibit B at 13) The City's director of development testified that the existence of the right-of-way positively affected the City's density calculation for petitioner's project. (Tremere T., 254-58) A higher density ratio means more living units to sell, which means greater profits for the developer. Moreover, since 1980 petitioner has been relieved of any tax obligation for the land it conveyed to the City. (Exhibit T) Justice requires that petitioner be estopped from bringing this action, because petitioner has for nearly eight years retained significant benefits from the City's approval of the West Ridge Estates First Addition plat. The doctrine of estoppel is grounded in the thought that, if one is silent when he ought to speak, equity will debar him from speaking when conscience requires him to be silent. Bacich, 242 N.W. at 387. Petitioner has silently reaped the benefits of the City's actions since 1979; it cannot now be heard to complain that those actions are invalid. The City is entitled to summary judgment on the ground of estoppel. VII. PETITIONER IS BARRED BY LACHES FROM BRINGING THIS ACTION Petitioner is barred by'the doctrine of laches from contest- ing the City's 1979 dedication requirement. Laches is such negligence in asserting a right as will bar one from obtaining equitable relief. Young v. Blandin, 215 Minn. 111, 9 N.W.2d 313, 26 — - 7 = Z 318 (1943). Whether delay is culpable depends upon the circum- stances, such as actual or imputable knowledge of the facts, and resulting prejudice from the delay, either to the defendant, or to those who have equities to be protected. Id. It is undisputed that at the time the City granted final plat approval to petitioner on April 16, 1979, petitioner was aware of its possible claim that the dedication condition was invalid. (Laukka T., 75-76) Petitioner nevertheless complied with the condition by deeding the right-of-way to the City in June 1979. (Exhibit N) Despite its admitted knowledge of its potential claim, petitioner did nothing to advance that claim until March 1985, when it filed the petition in this action. Its reason for the lengthy delay? It had "[n]othing to gain" from engaging in a controversy with the City, because until 1985 petitioner was platting, improving, and selling lots in five subsequent plats in the West Ridge Estates development. (Laukka T., 86-88; Exhibit U) Petitioner's intentional six-year delay in bringing this action has prejudiced the City. If, as petitioner claims, the City lacked statutory authority in 1979 to require dedication of the right-of-way, then petitioner's inaction deprived the City of the opportunity to correct that defect. Petitioner has filed -five subsequent plats in*the West Ridge Estates development, each of which abuts the right-of-way dedicated in 1979. (Exhibit U) If petitioner, had immediately challenged the dedication requirment and the court found that the City lacked statutory 27 1 — c�— authority, then the City could have required the dedication in subsequent plats filed after the 1980 amendment to § 462.358. If, however, the court were to determine that the dedication in this case amounts to a taking and could not be required under either 1979 or present statutes, then the City has been preju- diced in another respect. In 1979, the land abutting the right-of-way was undeveloped. At present, all the land is developed. (Laukka T., 87) Assuming .that the City would have been required to purchase or condemn the property, it could have done so at a much lower price. From 1979 to 1985, petitioner sat on its rights and its wallet, silenting waiting and watching the value of the right-of-way increase. The court cannot and should not allow petitioner to profit from such intentional neglect of its rights, to the detriment of the City. Petitioner has intentionally delayed in bringing this action, to the prejudice of the City. As a matter of law, petitioner's claim is barred by laches, and the City is entitled to summary judgment. CONCLUSION The City had statutory authority in 1979 to require dedica- tion of the right-of-way for new County Road 9. Because the dedication requirement was lawful and because the City in no way contributed to petitioner's financial problems in April 1979, the petitioner's claim of economic duress fails as a matter of law. Further, even in the dedication condition were invalid, petitioner's suit is barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and laches. The City is therefore entitled to summary judgment. 28 Dated: % 3 0066me01.g20 �9 LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ a Professional Association By J mes Thomson, Jr. ( tty. g. No. 14530N orrine A. Heine (Atty. Reg. No. 149743) 2000 First Bank Place West 120 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 333-0543 Attorneys for Respondent LeFevere Lefler Kennedy O'Brien Drawz � Pn/le�.ilnial :S1N 1( 1:111 111 2000 First Bank Place West April 17, 1987 Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333-0543 Telecopier (612) 333-0540 Clayton L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler J. Dennis O'Brien John E. Drawz David J. Kennedy John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III James J. Thomson, Jr. Thomas R. Galt Dayle Nolan Brian F. Rice John G. Kressel Lorraine S. Clugg James M. Strommen Ronald H. Batty William P. Jordan Kurt J. Erickson William R. Skallerud Rodney D. Anderson Corrine A. Heine David D. Beaudoin Paul E. Rasmussen Steven M. Tallen Mr. James G. Willis City Manager City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Re: Hazardous Building Plymouth, Minnesota Dear Jim: - 13196 County Road 6 Enclosed is a copy of the Order of Hennepin County District Court authorizing the City of Plymouth to raze and remove the above -referenced structure. This Order is being sent to you as City Manager of the City of Plymouth pursuant to the Court's requirement that the Order be mailed to all owners of record. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours very jr H e ri�ft-i . HPL:np enclosure truly, Lefler III STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENPIEPIN "'7 4F I - At.' 10, 26FOURTF: JUDICIAL DISTRICT ----------------------------------------------------------------- City of Plymouth, a Minne�RB�,; municipal corporation, Petitioner, ) } VS. ) ORDER l John F. Copeland, the U'nit'ed ) File No. 87-3219 States of America, the Small ) _ Business Administration, the ) City of Plymouth, Don D. ) Myron, ) Respondents. 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The foregcing came before the Court on the 10th day of April, 1987 upon. the Petition or the City of Plymouth seeking an Order for Summary Enforcement. The City appeared ex parte and was represented by Herbert P. Lefler, III. Based on all the records and files contained herein the Court find as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT That on September 8, 1986, the City Council- of the City of Plymouth adopted Resolution 86-566 which authorized the mayor and city manager to execute an Order directing the owners of build- ings located upon the parcel of property located at 13196 County Road 6 also legally described as: The South 1/2 of Lots 7 and 8, Parkers Lake Gardens to correct certain hazardous, unsanitary or unsafe conditions. Said Order identified the record owners and encumbrancers as John F. Copeland, the United States of America, the Small - -3 Business Administration, the City of Plymouth and Don D. Myron, the respondents herein and gave them 30 days to abate the hazardous, unsanitary or unsafe conditions. The Order was personally served upon respondent Don D. Myron on October 14, 1986; respondent the United States of America on November 26, 1986; respondent John F. Copeland could not be located and was served by publication; the City of Plymouth waived service of process. No answer was served upon the city clerk or city attorney by respondents or anyone representing respondents. On February 14, 1987, the building cfficial reinspected the premises and found that none of the conditions had been cor- rected. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The City of Plymouth, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §463.16 et seq., lawfully ordered the owners of the subject property to abate the hazardous, unsanitary and unsafe conditions which exist at that parcel of land located at 13196 County Road 6 and legally described as the South 1/2 of Lots 7 and 8, Parkers Lake Gardens. That proper service of the Order was made; and That respondents, due to their failure to either fully abate the conditions or otherwise respond to the Order are in default. NOW IT IS THEREFORE Ordered as follows: 1. That the Order of the mayor and city manager of the City of Plymouth is hereby affirmed; 2 2. That the City of Plymouth may proceed with enforcement of that Order after April 24, 1987; 3. That pursuant to Minn. Stat. §463.21 the costs of such enforcement are to be a lien against the property and may be levied and collected as special assessments. 4. That a copy of this Order be mailed to the record owners no less than 5 days prior to the date of enforcement. Dated: q- - � ? 1 7 FOR THE COU _ 00660R01K22 3 udge o istrict Cour JOHN W BORG ,fudge of District -Col 0 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333-0543 Telecopier (612) 333-0540 Clayton L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler J. Dennis O'Brien John E. Drawz David J. Kennedy Joseph E. Hamilton John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III James J. Thomson, Jr. Thomas R. Galt Dayle Nolan Brian F. Rice John G. Kressel James M. Strommen Ronald H. Batty William P. Jordan Kurt J. Erickson William R. Skallerud Rodney D. Anderson Corrine A. Heine David D. Beaudoin Paul E. Rasmussen Steven M. Tallen Mary F. Skala Christopher J. Harristhal Timothy J. Pawlenty Rolf A. Sponheim LeFevere Lefler kernnedA O'Brie» K, Drawn a Professional .Association "e �LE1 fsF iii.1.t�: Apri 20, 1987 Mr. James G. Willis City Manager CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 Plvmouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 RE: Middlemist v. City of Plymouth Dear Tim: Enclosed is a copy of the Trial Briefs submitted on behalf of the City of Plymouth and Mr. Middlemist. The trial is scheduled to start today at 2:00 p.m. Sincerely, LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ I / J mes . Thomso�r. JJT/kjj Enclosures STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT 'ET APR 15 PM +O H JUDICIAL DISTRICT -------------------------------- File No. 84-03988 Robert E. Middlemist and CGUIRT 4L1,Hii;1S T inti i CF2 Merry J. Middlemist, V. City of Plymouth, Plaintiffs, Defendant. INTRODUCTION DEFENDANT'S TRIAL BRIEF This is an action in mandamus, brought pursuant to Chapter 586 of Minnesota Statutes. Plaintiffs Robert E. Middlemist and Merry J. Middlemist ask the court to compel the defendant City of Plymouth ("City") to commence eminent domain proceedings with respect to a tract of land that lies within the proposed right-of-way for new County Road 9. Plaintiffs allege that the City took plaintiffs' property without just compensation by requiring plaintiffs to deed the right-of-way to the City as a condition of subdivision approval. Plaintiffs also argue that, if successful, they are entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. The City contends that the dedication requirement was not a taking and that, regardless, mandamus is not an appropriate remedy. This brief addresses only the threshold issue of whether the dedication condition was valid. The City reserves its right to brief the issues of the impropriety of mandamus and the unavailability of an attorneys' fee award. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiffs purchased a 10.7 acre tract of land located near the intersection of Zachary Lane North and existing County Road 9 in the City of Plymouth in April 1981. The purchase price was $103,000, and the plaintiffs also agreed to pay special assessments not to exceed $7,000. In July 1981 plaintiffs submitted a preliminary plat application to develop the property to construct thirteen duplex buildings, for a total of twenty-six dwelling units. As part of the preliminary plat application plaintiffs also requested an amendment to the City's land use guide plan, a rezoning, a conditional use permit, and a variance. At the time of plaintiffs' application, the property was guided in the City's comprehensive plan as public/semi-public, which would preclude residential development. By a report dated August 4, 1981 the City staff recommended approval of plaintiffs' application, subject to certain conditions. The staff report indicated that the proposed right-of-way for County Road 9, which was depicted in the plat as Outlot A, should be deeded to the City for new County Road 9. Because the plat bordered a county road, the plat was submitted to Hennepin County for its review. By a letter dated August 14, 1981 the county recommended that Outlot A be dedicated as right-of-way for the proposed County Road 9 relocation. On September 8, 1981 the City Council approved plaintiffs' application. Plaintiffs submitted their application for final plat to the City in November, 1981. On January 15, 1982 the City's community K t development coordinator sent a letter to plaintiff informing him that, among other things, proposed County Road 9 should be dedicated to the City as part of the final plat process. By a letter dated January 8, 1982, plaintiffs objected to that requirement. One of the reasons for the objection was that the value of the land which was the subject of the proposed right-of-way was $100,000. The area of that land is approximately 1.6 acres. The City Council ultimately approved the final plat in May 1983. The reason for the delay in approving the final plat was primarily due to plaintiffs' failure to submit the necessary documentation to complete the review process. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because of the involved procedural background of this case, the City believes that it will be helpful to the Court to briefly summarize the procedural setting of this case. Plaintiffs commenced their action on December 29, 1983 asking for an injunction, or in the alternative, a writ of mandamus compelling the City to approve the final plat without the condition that the right-of-way for proposed County Road 9 be dedicated to the City. Plaintiffs also requested that a writ of mandamus be issued compelling the City to initiate eminent domain proceedings to acquire the right-of-way. In March, 1984 plaintiffs requested the trial court to require the City to immediately approve the final plat and also requested partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on the auestion of whether the dedication was a valid exercise of the 3 City's police power. The Honorable Robert G. Schiefelbein denied both motions on March 20, 1984. On April 12, 1984 plaintiffs and the City entered into a stipulation by which the parties agreed, as a means of allowing plaintiffs to proceed with their development, that plaintiffs would convey to the City the right-of-way for new County Road 9 and that the City would approve the final plat. The stipulation preserved the plaintiffs' right to challenge the dedication requirement. Pursuant to that stipulation, plaintiffs have conveyed the property to the City. On May 9, 1985, plaintiffs again moved for summary judgment on the basis that the City had acted improperly in requiring the dedication for new County Road 9. By an order dated June 13, 1985, the Honorable Lindsay G. Arthur ordered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and ordered the City to pay just compensation for the County Road 9 property. As part of its order, the court found that the need to relocate County Road 9 was made necessary by the growth in the City of Plymouth and that plaintiffs' plat contributed to that growth, but no more so than other plats in the area served by County Road 9. The court also found that the plaintiffs were aware that County Road 9 was proposed to be relocated through their property. The court concluded, however, that plaintiffs were denied equal protection because they were required to dedicate land for County Road 9 while other developers in the area, whose land did not lie in the path of new County Road 9, were not required to dedicate land. Judge Arthur's F11 Order was eventually reversed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the case was remanded to the trial court. ISSUES PRESENTED I. DOES THE CITY HAVE THE AUTHORITY UNDER ITS ORDINANCES AND STATE STATUTES TO REQUIRE THAT PLAINTIFFS DEDICATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE CITY AS A CONDITION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL? II. DID THE CITY ACT REASONABLY IN CONDITIONING THE PLAT APPROVAL UPON THE DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR NEW COUNTY ROAD 9? III. DOES THE DEDICATION REQUIREMENT CONSTITUTE A TAKING OF PLAINTIFFS' PROPERTY FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION? ARGUMENT I. INTRODUCTION A. Standard of Review This court is asked to review the City's decision to condition subdivision approval upon the dedication of a right-of-way. Whether the decision being reviewed is a legislative or quasi-judicial decision, the standard of review in municipal land use and zoning cases is the same; the court must determine whether the municipality's decision was reasonable. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 416-17 (Minn. 1981) . The municipality acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when it considers requests for subdivision approval. See Van Landschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503, 508 (Minn. 1983) (court equated subdivision approval to other quasi-judicial proceedings); accord Odell v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. App. 1984). The reasonableness of the municipality's decision is measured by the standards set out in the local 5 ordinance rather than those contained in the state statute. Van Landschoot, 336 N.W.2d at 508, n. 6. The court's function is limited to ascertaining whether the municipality acted arbitrarily or capriciously, whether the reasons assigned by the municipality for its action have no bearing on the general welfare, or whether the reasons are legally insufficient and have no factual basis. Id. at 508. In deciding this case, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the City. Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 125 N.W.2d 846, 850 (1964). The mere fact that the trial court might have reached a different conclusion had it been a member of the city council will not invalidate the City's decision if the City officials acted in good faith within the broad discretion accorded them by the ordinance itself. White Bear Docking and Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake, 324 N.W.2d 174, 176 (Minn. 1982). If the reasonableness of the City's action is at least doubtful or fairly debatable, it must be upheld. Arcadia, 125 N.W.2d at 850. B. Burden of Proof The plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that the City acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in imposing the dedication condition. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1982)(applicant must show reasons for permit denial are legally insufficient). Similarly, the plaintiffs have the burden of proving that the City's decision amounts to a taking of plaintiffs' property without just compensation. State, Ly Powderly v. Erickson, 285 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. 1979) (burden of 0 ; 1 1 - =\-- L� proof is on the person challenging the governmental action to establish that the owner has been deprived of all reasonable uses of the property). II. THE CITY HAS THE AUTHORITY UNDER ITS ORDINANCE AND STATE STATUTES TO REQUIRE THAT THE PLAINTIFFS DEDICATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE CITY AS A CONDITION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. The City has authority under state statutes and City ordinances to condition its approval of plaintiffs' subdivision upon the dedication of right-of-way for new County Road 9. Section 462.358 of Minnesota Statutes govern municipal regulation of subdivision approval. The statute provides, in part: Subd, la. Authority. To protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic and safe development of land, to preserve agricultural lands, to promote the availability of housing affordable to persons and families of all income levels, and to facilitate adequate provision for transportation, water, sewage, storm drainage, schools, parks, playgrounds, and other public services and facilities, a municipality may by ordinance adopt subdivision regulations establishing standards, requirements, and procedures for the review and approval or disapproval of subdivisions . . . Subd. 2b. Dedication. The regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as streets, roads, sewers, electric, gas, and water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas or ponds and similar utilities and improvements. (Emphasis added.) Under the authority of that section, the City enacted subdivision regulations, contained in Chapter V, Section 500 of the Plymouth City Code. Those regulations provide, in relevant part: 7 r 500.09. Final Plats; Data Required. The final plat shall contain the following information and shall be in the form set forth in this Subsection: (o) An appropirate [sic] statement dedicating all streets, alleys and other public areas not previously dedicated. 500.17. Design Standards: Streets and Alleys. . . Subd. 7. Dedication of Streets. All proposed streets shall be offered for dedication as public streets. No private streets shall be permitted, except as set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance, Appendix I to this Code. The above provisions of the City's subdivision regulations undisputedly required the plaintiffs to dedicate the right-of-way for new County Road 9. New County Road 9 is classified as a "minor arterial" on the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan. The Plymouth City Zoning Ordinance, Section 4, Subdivision B defines "Street, Thoroughfare" as "[a)n arterial highway or collector street used primarily for heavy traffic and serving as a traffic way between the various districts of the community or between communities as shown on the Comprehensive Plan." Subsection 500.17, subds. 1, 3 and 4, expressly contemplate the inclusion of "Major Streets and Thoroughfares" in final plats. Plaintiffs have in the past suggested that §500.17, Subd. 7 exceeds the statutory authority granted in §462.358, subd. 2b, because the ordinance requires that "all streets" be dedicated, while the statute permits dedication of "a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision." See Appellants' Reply Brief, at 2, Middlemist v. City of Plymouth, No. C4-85-1946 (Minn. Ct. App.). The appellate court implicitly rejected that argument by reversing. the trial court's order granting summary judgment and remanding for trial. Middlemist v. City of Plymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. App. 1986). It may be that, in a particular case, the dedication of all streets would not be reasonable. The City's subdivision regulations provide, however, that a variance may be obtained where "an unusual hardship on the land exists." Plymouth City Code, §500.41, subd. 1. That provision cures any potential defect in the broad language of §500.17, subd. 7. Cf. Collis v. City of Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5, 246 N.W.2d 19, 27 (1976) (regulation providing for dedication of 10 percent of land not invalid where amount required could be challenged in judicial review proceedings.) Subsection 500.17, subd. 7 does not exceed its statutory authority on its face, and the dedication requirements at issue here are within the City's authority under its subdivision regulations and state statutes. III. THE CITY ACTED REASONABLY IN CONDITIONING PLAT APPROVAL UPON THE DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR NEW COUNTY ROAD 9. A. The Standard the Court Must Apply Is the "Reasonable Relationship" Test The general standard for determining the validity of conditions for subdivision approval is set forth in Collis v. City of Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5, 246 N.W.2d 19 (1976). At issue in Collis was the facial constitutionality of Minn. Stat. 0 r §462.358, subd. 2 (1971),1 which permitted cities to condition subdivision approval upon the dedication of land for park purposes or, in lieu thereof, the payment of park dedication fees. The plaintiffs in Collis owned approximately 14 acres of land in the City of Bloomington and requested the city's approval to subdivide the property into single family lots. The city approved the preliminary plat on the condition that the plaintiffs pay a fee in lieu of park dedication. Later the city granted final plat approval and set the amount of the park dedication fee at $19,200. The plaintiffs challenged the statute and the Bloomington subdivision regulations as a taking of property without just compensation. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional as a valid exercise of the police power, because it required dedication of only a "reasonable portion" of the subdivider's land. Collis, 246 N.W.2d at 26. As a standard of constitutionality, the court adopted the "reasonable relationship" test, expressly following the lead of Wisconsin, California and New York. Id. Under that test, there must be a reasonable relationship between the approval of the subdivision and the municipality's need for land dedication. Id. In past memoranda to the trial and appellate courts, plaintiffs have failed to recognize the distinctions between the 1 Now codified at Minn. Stat. §462.358, subd. 2b. 10 "reasonable relationship" test followed by Minnesota courts, and the "specifically and uniquely attributable" and "rational nexus" tests followed in other jurisdictions. For a discussion of the three tests, see generally Holmes v. Planning Board of Town of New Castle, 78 App. Div. 2d 1, 433 N.Y.S. 2d 587, 597-599 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980). The "specifically and uniquely attributable" test first appeared in an Illinois case, Pioneer Trust & Savings Bank v. Village of Mount Prospect, 22 Ill. 2d 375, 176 N.E.2d 799 (1961). Under that test, dedication requirements will be upheld only where the need for the dedication is directly and solely attributable to the proposed subdivision. Holmes, 433 N.Y.S. 2d at 597-98. The Collis court expressly rejected that test, characterizing it as an "extreme approach." 246 N.W.2d at 26. The other test, followed in New Jersey and other states, is the "rational nexus" test. See Holmes, 433 N.Y.S.2d at 598; Wald Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 338 So.2d 863 (Fla. App. 1976) cert. denied 348 So.2d 955 (1977). Under that approach, the subdivider may be required to bear only "that portion of the cost which bears a rational nexus to the needs created by, and the benefits conferred upon, the subdivision." Longridge Builders v. Planning Board of Township of Princeton, 52 N.J. 348, 245 A.2d 336, 337 (N.J. 1968). Because both the "specifically and uniquely attributable" test and the "rational nexus" test require a direct relationship between the dedication requirement and a need to which the subdivision contributes, plaintiffs understandably have attempted 11 to persuade the court that such a direct relationship is necessary in all dedication cases. The law in Minnesota, however, is otherwise. The "reasonable relationship" test, adopted in Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York and California, is more flexible than the tests applied in other jurisdictions. See Middlemist v. City of Plymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. App. 1986); Collis v. City of Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5, 246 N.W.2d 19 (1976); Whaler's Village Club v. California Coastal Commission, 173 Cal. App. 3d 240; 220 Cal. Rptr. 2 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) cert. denied and appeal dism. 90 L.Ed.2d 648, 106 S.Ct. 1962 (1986); Remmenga v.California Coastal Commission, 163 Cal. App. 3d 623, 209 Cal. Rptr. 628 (Cal.Ct. App.) appeal dism. 88 L.Ed.2d 250, 106 S.Ct. 241 (1985); Grupe v. California Coastal Commission, 166 Cal. App.3d 148 212 Cal. Rptr. 578 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985); Ayres v. City Council of the City of Los Angeles, 34 Cal.2d 31, 207 P.2d 1 (1949). Under that line of cases, the developer must show that the dedication bears no reasonable relationship to the benefit conferred on the developer or to the burden imposed on the public as a result of the subdivision. Remmenga, 209 Cal. Rptr. at 630. See, e.g., Parks v. Watson, 716 F.2d 646, 653 (9th Cir. 1983) (no rational relationship between exaction of geothermal wells and requested street vacation.) If, however, a rational relationship does exist, the dedication must be upheld. Remmenga, 209 Cal. Rptr. at 630. In analyzing whether a reasonable relationship does exist, two points must be kept in mind. First, the dedication 12 requirement need not be directly attributable to the plaintiffs' particular subdivision, but need only be attributable to a group of subdivisions, of which plaintiffs' is one. Middlemist, 387 N.W.2d at 194; Collis, 246 N.W.2d at 23. Second, the dedication requirement need not benefit the plaintiffs' particular subdivision, either directly or indirectly. Grupe, 212 Cal. Rptr. at 587. B. The Required Dedication Is Valid If the Need for the Road Is Created by a Group of Subdivisions, of Which ainrirrC• is (MAn In the prior appeal of this case, the court of appeals specifically rejected plaintiffs' argument that, because the need for new County Road 9 is not created by the Robert Middlemist Sixth Addition alone, the dedication requirement is unreasonable. Middlemist, 387 N.W.2d at 193-94. The court likened plaintiffs' analysis to the "specifically and uniquely attributable" test followed in Illinois, which the Collis court labeled as an "extreme approach." Id. at 193 (quoting Collis, 246 N.W.2d at 22) . Noting the "difficulty of tracing a need for public services to one particular development," the court of appeals stated that: The proposed County Road 9, . . as a "minor arterial road," is designed primarily to serve short, local trips. Thus, although not attributable to the Middlemist addition alone, the need for the road may have a sufficient relation to local development, of which Middlemist's development is a part, to support a dedication requirement. Id. at 194 (emphasis added.) This language follows the court's decision in Collis, where the supreme court indicated that "a group of subdivisions approved over a period of years" could create a need for public services 13 that would support a land dedication requirement. Collis, 246 N.W.2d at 23 (quoting Jordan v. Village of Menomonee Falls, 28 Wis.2d 608, 617, 137 N.W.2d 4421, 447 (1965)). Accord Remmenga, 209 Cal. Rptr. at 631 (where cumulative impact of similar projects create or increase the need for the public service, condition imposed on particular project would be upheld); Grupe, 212 Cal. Rptr. at 587, 589 (there need only be an indirect relationship between the need to which the subdivision contributes and the required dedication). The evidence at trial will show that the need for new County Road 9 is due to increased traffic on existing County Road 9, caused by the development of subdivisions in the area of, and including, the Robert Middlemist Sixth Addition. In fact, in ruling on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, Judge Arthur found that: 4. The improvement of County Road No. 9, projected to be constructed in June, 1986, is made necessary by the growth of the City of Plymouth. Plaintiff's [sic] plat will contribute to this growth but no more than the other plats in the area served by County Road No. 9, which were developed before and after the decision to improve in 1972. . . Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment, at 2. Plaintiffs have, in the past, consistently relied upon the following facts as the basis for their claim that the dedication condition is invalid: (1) County Road 9 is a county road; (2) County Road 9 is a minor arterial; and (3) the plans for County Road 9 predate the plaintiffs' development plans for the Robert Middlemist Sixth Addition. All of those facts are significant to 14 `A plaintiffs' theory that the road will serve persons other than the residents of plaintiffs' subdivision. That theory and supporting facts, however, are not relevant to the issues raised in this case because the reasonable relationship test recognizes that a dedication requirement may be valid even though members of the public benefit from the improvement. Ayres, 207 P.2d at 7. Designation of a road as a county road or a minor arterial does not preclude a city from requiring a developer to dedicate right-of-way for that road, so long as the need for the road was created by local development, of which the developer's subdivision is a part. See Middlemist, 387 N.W.2d at 194. See also Ayres, 207 P.2d at 3 (dedication of 80 foot right-of-way for street and right-of-way to widen a second major street abutting ,subdivision; subdivision had no direct access to second street); Southern Pacific Company v. City of Los Angeles, 242 Cal. App.2d 38, 51 Cal. Rptr. 197 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966), appeal dism. 385 U.S. 647 (1967) (major trunk route); Newton v. America Sec. Co., 201 Ark. 943, 148 S.W.2d 311 (1941) (county road); Ridgefield Land Co. v. City of Detroit, 241 Mich. 468, 217 N.W. 58 (1928) (major highway). Similarly, the instant dedication requirement is valid, even though the plans for new County Road 9 predated the development plans for plaintiffs' subdivision. See Middlemist, 387 N.W.2d at 193 (labelling plaintiffs' argument as "too restrictive"). See also Collis, 246 N.W.2d at 23 (group of subdivisions approved over a period of years may give rise to condition imposed on only one subdivision); Ayres, 207 P.2d at 7 (use of land for purposes 15 stated had been contemplated for nine years); Wald Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 338 So. 2d 863 (Fla. App. D. 3 1976) cert. denied 348 So. 2d 955 (1977) (improvements planned for more than 15 years.) The relationship between the increased traffic created by the subdivisions in the area of plaintiffs' subdivision and the need for new County Road 9 is determinative in this action. Once that relationship is established, the facts upon which plaintiffs have focussed are nothing more than red herrings. Plaintiffs' reliance on Judge Fitzgerald's Conclusion of Law #3 in the Mendota, Inc. case is misplaced for several reasons. First, Judge Fitzgerald's decision has no precedential value in this case. Second, the Middlemist appellate court decision is binding on the trial court, not only because it has precedential value but also because it is the law of the case. Judge Fitzgerald's Conclusion of Law #3 is inconsistent with the Middlemist appellate decision and therefore cannot be relied upon by the trial court. Third, the evidence that was presented to the trial court in Mendota, Inc. demonstrated that the development that was proposed, by itself, probably generated the need for the proposed road. It is therefore reasonable to assume that in arriving at his conclusion that the City acted reasonably Judge Fitzgerald only went as far as the facts necessitated in reaching his Conclusion of Law #3. C. The Dedication Requirement Is Valid Even If the Road Is of No Benefit to the Plaintiffs' Subdivision. The particular dedication requirement need not benefit the burdened subdivision, either directly or indirectly. Grupe, 212 16 Cal. Rptr. at 587 (ocean access requirement imposed as condition of building permit reduced value of property by 20 percent). Conversely, where the dedication requirement itself or the mere fact of subdivision approval benefits the developer, those benefits weigh in favor of the reasonableness of the requirement. See Ayres, 207 P.2d at 6-7 (developer benefited from fact of subdivision alone and from particular design of street layout); Whaler's Village Club, 173 Cal. App. 3d at 258 (property owner benefited by permit to construct revetment because property was worth more with revetment than without it.) As the court in Collis noted, [t]he basis for upholding a compulsory land -dedication requirement in a platting ordinance in the nature of the instant ordinance is this: The municipality by approval of a proposed subdivision plat enables the subdivider to profit financially by selling the subdivision lots as home-building sites and thus realizing a greater price than could have been obtained if he had sold his property as unplatted lands. In return for this benefit the municipality may require him to dedicate part of his platted land to meet a demand to which the municipality would not have been put but for the influx of people into the community to occupy the subdivision lots. 246 N.W.2d at 24 (emphasis added) (quoting Jordan v. Village of Menomonee Falls, 28 Wis.2d 608, 619, 137 N.W.2d 442, 448 (1965)). Although a particular dedication requirement need not benefit the developer at all, the evidence in this case will show that plaintiffs have benefited from the subdivision approval in general and will benefit from the location of new County Road 9 in particular. The evidence will show that the City's approval enabled plaintiffs to subdivide and develop their property, thereby increasing the value of their land. Indeed, in response 17 to the City's interrogatories, plaintiffs stated that "it is patently obvious that the property is enhanced in value" by platting. Plaintiffs' Answers to Interrogatories, No. 20. Moreover, the location of new County Road 9 has and will directly benefit Plaintiffs and their successors in interest. The City's expert witness, Donn Wiski, will testify that the residents of the Robert Middlemist Sixth Addition can be expected to use new County Road 9, once it is constructed, for approximately 75-800 of their daily trips and that they will directly benefit from the ease of mobility that road will provide them. It is the plaintiffs' burden to demonstrate that there is no reasonable relationship between the need for the exaction and the proposed subdivision. City of College Station v. Turtle Rock Corp., 680 S.W.2d 802 (Tex. 1984). Plaintiffs will be unable to meet that burden at trial. IV. THE DEDICATION REQUIREMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TAKING OF PLAINTIFFS' PROPERTY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT DEPRIVE PLAINTIFFS OF ALL REASONABLE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY. Plaintiffs allege that their property has been taken for public use without just compensation. Plaintiffs will be unable to prove that allegation at trial. As an introductory matter, the issue of whether a taking has occurred must be distinguished from the issue of whether a reasonable relationship exists between the challenged exaction and the needs created by the proposed subdivision. Although language in the Collis and Middlemist decisions seem to imply that the two issues are identical, other decisions, in Minnesota In and elsewhere, clearly indicate that different legal inquiries are needed. Two typical challenges to a zoning or other land use regulation of a municipality are: (1) that the regulation or the authority's action was arbitrary and capricious and (2) that the regulation or the authority's action constitutes a taking without just compensation. The first issue requires a determination of whether the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose or whether the municipality had legally sufficient and factually supported reasons for its action. See Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d at 417 (zoning classification must be reasonably related to promotion of public health, safety and general welfare); Hubbard Broadcasting, 323 N.W.2d at 763 (reasons for denial of special use permit must be legally sufficient and factually supported.) The second issue requires a determination of whether the regulation or action deprived the aggrieved property owner of all reasonable use of his property. See Larson v. County of Washington, 387 N.W.2d 902 (Minn., App. 1986). The result of failing to meet either test is the same - invalidation of the regulation or action. See Curtis Oil v. City of North Branch, 364 N.W.2d 880 (Minn. App. 1985) (remedy for arbitrary denial of conditional use permit was to require issuance of permit); McShane v. City of Faribault, 292 N.W.2d 253, 259 (Minn. 1980) (remedy for taking through land use regulation was to enjoin enforcement of regulation). Nevertheless, the two questions are analytically distinct. 19 The object of the Collis "reasonable relationship" test is to ascertain whether the city exercised its powers reasonably, i.e., not arbitrarily or capriciously. It should therefore be discussed in that framework, rather than mingled with the taking analysis. See Grupe, 212 Cal. Rptr. at 587-90, 592-97, where the reasonable relationship test is addressed as a separate issue from the taking question. See also Holmes 433 N.Y.S.2d at 594-601, 601-604. The test for an unconstitutional taking through government regulation is well settled in Minnesota. In order to establish an unconstitutional taking, a landowner must demonstrate that governmental action deprived him or her of all reasonable use of the property. Larson, 387 N.W.2d at 902. In the context of subdivision exactions, the developer must show that the exaction deprives him or her of all economic use of the property, such that the subdivision fails to render a reasonable return to the developer. Grupe, 212 Cal. Rptr. at 595; Whaler's Village Club, 173 Cal. App. 3d at 258; Holmes, 433 N.Y.S.2d at 603. The determination of whether a taking has occurred must be determined on the facts of the individual case. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 reh. den. 439 U.S. 883 (1978). The restriction of a property interest must be considered in the context of the property as a whole. Id. at 130. That is, the developer must be deprived of all reasonable economic use of the entire subdivision, not just the dedicated land. See Bama Inc. v. Anne Arundel County, 53 Md. App. 14, 451 A.2d 1261, 1269 (1982). 20 ^� LA I In Bama, the court held that the dedication of a 15 -foot right-of-way did not deprive the owner of the value of its total property, including the proposed subdivision. Nor did it deprive the owner of the value of the 15 -foot strip, because the dedication enabled the owner to "realize the ultimate economic value of the remaining land - the approved subdivision into lots." Id. Similarly, in Grupe, supra, and Whaler's Village Club, supra, the courts examined whether the dedication of public beach access deprived the property owners of the value of their entire parcel, not just the dedicated land. See Grupe, 212 Cal. Rptr. at 596 ($150,000 reduction in value of parcel due to dedication did not amount to a taking); Whaler's Village Club, 173 Cal. App.3d at 258 (dedication did not result in loss of all economic use of property; property worth more as a result of government approval than without it.) Plaintiffs will be unable to meet their heavy burden at trial. The City believes that the evidence will show that its approval of plaintiffs' subdivision and its dedication requirement have caused an increase in the value of plaintiffs' property. Under no circumstances will plaintiffs be able to demonstrate that they have been deprived of all reasonable use of the property now known as the Robert Middlemist Sixth Addition. The court must therefore find that no taking has occurred. CONCLUSION The City is authorized by state statutes and City ordinances to require dedication of new County Road 9 as a condition of 21 subdivision approval for the Robert Middlemist Sixth Addition. The dedication in this case is reasonable, because the developing subdivisions in the area, of which plaintiffs' is one, contributed to the need to relocate County Road 9. Plaintiffs will be unable to meet their burden of showing that the dedication requirement deprived them of all reasonable use of their property. For all those reasons, the court should grant judgment in the City's favor. LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ a Professional Association Dated: By a es J homson, Jr. (#1 5 0) 1tojrine Heine (#149 2000 First Bank Place West 120 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-0543 Attorneys for Defendant 22 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Robert E. Middlemist, Jr. ) and Merry Middlemist, ) Plaintiffs, ) VS. ) City of Plymouth, ) Defendant. ) DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT TRIAL BRIEF Court File No. 84-03988 Pursuant to the Order for Trial issued by the Court in the above -matter, Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Trial Brief. Plaintiffs request leave of Court to submit further arguments subsequent to trial, at a time when both Court and Counsel will have benefit of the receipt of all evidence. Plaintiff will therefore restrict argument here to a brief summary of undisputed facts and anticipated evidence. STATEMENT OF FACTS In July 1981 Plaintiffs applied to Defendant City of Plymouth to subdivide a 9.05 acre tract of land in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Zachary Lane and existing County Road 9 in the City of Plymouth. Prior to Plaintiffs plat application, the tract was guided pursuant to the land use element of the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan as "public/semi-public," and was zoned "FRD" (future restricted development). Plaintiffs original application sought a re -guiding of the property from public/semi-public to "LA - 1" (low density single family residential) Plaintiffs further applied for a zoning of the property to a classification of "R-113" (low density residential). Plaintiffs original preliminary plat application sought approval of a residential subdivision consisting of 13 double lots or 26 individual lots in two separate blocks. Long before Plaintiffs plat application, Hennepin County and Defendant City of Plymouth had planned a relocation and improvement of existing County Road 9 in the area of Plaintiffs proposed subdivision. Hennepin County had first considered such an improvement project in 1969. This City of Plymouth Thoroughfare Guide Plans, which are periodically updated, have reflected since 1972 a planned relocation and improvement of County Road 9 in the immediate vicinity of Plaintiff's proposed subdivision, moreover, the right-of-way north a distance of several hundred feet. The relocated right-of-way for proposed new County Road 9 traversed the property Plaintiff sough to develop west to east dividing the tract in two. Conseqently, Plaintiffs proposed preliminary plat identified two residential blocks divided by the proposed right- of-way. The right-of-way was identified on Plaintiffs preliminary plat as "Outlot B". At all times Plaintiff was prepared to reserve land deemed by Defendant City of Plymouth and Hennepin County to be needed for new County Road right of way from development. The preliminary plat graphics submitted by Plaintiffs for the "Robert Middlemist Sixth Addition" identified the proposed new County Road 9 right of way as an outlot reserved from any residential development. Contacts with the City of Plymouth relating to the proposed subdivision prior to January of 1982, although reflecting an anticipation by both parties to this action that the outlot would ultimately be deeded to the City of Plymouth for roadway purposes, were silent with respect to any dedicatory intent on the part of the Plaintiff or any dedicatory requirement on the part of Defendant. With minor revisions, Plaintiff's proposed subdivision of the Robert Middlemist Sixth Addition quickly received preliminary plat approval. Thereafter Plaintiff petitioned for final plat approval. On January 5, 1982 Defendant's Community Development Coordinator wrote to Plaintiff advising him as to a number of items considered by the Plymouth "Development Review Committee". One of the items contained in the January 5, 1982 correspondence was as follows: 6. The engineering department has determined that Outlot H should be dedicated to the City at this time. A reference in this January 2, 1982 correspondence was the first reference to dedication in the platting process. Plaintiff immediately responded in writing objecting to any County Road dedication required as a condition of final plat approval. Plaintiff's objections to the dedication requirement relating to the County Road right of way continued through the final platting process. The minutes of the Plymouth City Council meeting held on May 2, 1983, where the Robert Middlemist Sixth Addition final plat was approved subject to a variety of preconditions (including the right of way dedication), reflect that Plaintiff was present and voiced objections. The minutes state: Robert Middlemist, 4049 Ximines Lane, stated that he will comply with the City's requirements other than the dedication of the outlot. He presented a letter restating his objections. Some months later, the within action was commenced by Plaintiff. The dedication precondition required by Defendant had prevented Plaintiff from filing his final plat and proceeding with actual development. After the action was commenced, however, the parties entered into a written Stipulation whereby Plaintiff agreed to convey the necessary right-of-way Outlot to Defendant reserving all right to contest the dedication requirement. The Court is respectfully referred to the Stipulation executed under oath by Plaintiffs on April 12, 1984 and by the City manager of Defendant on April 9, 1984. LEGAL ARGUMENT The specific legal issues involved in this action are relatively simple. Minnesota Statute §462.358, Subd. la authorizes municipalities to enact subdivision regulation to protect and promote public health and the safety and general welfare. Specifically, Subd. 2b of the cited statute identifies the prmissible scope of a municipality's statutory dedication authority. This statute provides as follows: Subd. 2(b). Dedication. The regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as streets, roads, sewers, electric, gas, and water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas for ponds and similar utilities and improvements. Plymouth's interpretation of Subd.2b is substantially broader thon is permissible by reference to the language of the statute. Plymouth's ordinance relating to the dedication of streets (Plymouth City Code §500.17, Subdivision 7) states: "All proposed streets shall be offered for dedication as public streets". Plymouth has expressly drafted "reasonableness" out of the statutory authorization. Rather than implement an ordinance which sets appropriate parameters for determining when dedication is reasonable or not, Plymouth has arbitrarily determined that dedication is always reasonable. In so doing, Plymouth has perverted the orderly process for the exercise of limited police power authority into an unguarded, and inappropriate, extra -legal procedure for the taking of property. Plaintiff, in this development project, has never objected to the implementation of reasonable subdivision regulations by Defendant. He has financed and installed substantial municipal improvements which are directly related to his residential development. Included among these are the improvement of local residential streets servicing the project; dedication of a right-of-way for these residential streets; the installation of required water, sewer, and electrical utilities to service the individual lots and residences located thereon. The only attempted regulation to which Plaintiff has objected is the unreasonable and unfair imposition of the dedication requirement relating to County Road right-of-way. From past experience, Plaintiffs reasonably anticipate that legal arguments advanced by the Defendant City of Plymouth will contain frequent reference to foreign authority. Indeed, in prior instances, Plaintiff has been called upon to clarify that "beach" cases from California and variance cases from a variety of foreign jurisdictions -7 - are not particularly relevant to the dedication issue involved in this case. Rather than resort to foreign authority, all of the law which is relevant to this action is relatively recent appellate and district cases from courts of this state. Collis vs. City of Bloomington, 246 N.W. 2d 19 (Minn. 1976) considered a constitutional challenge to the portion of Minnesota Statutes §462 which authorizes municipalities to require dedication of land for parks and playgrounds or to require, in the alternative, payment of fees in lieu of dedication of land. Upholding the constitutionality of this park dedication scheme the Collis opinion stated as follows: While in general subdivision regulations are a valid exercise of the police power, made necessary by the problems subdivisions create--i.e., greater needs for municipal services and facilities --,the possibility of arbitrariness and unfairness in their application in none the less substantial: A municipality could use dedication regulations to exact land or fees from the subdivider far out or proportion to the needs created by his subdivision in order to avoid imposing the burden of paying for additional services on all citizens via taxation. To tolerate this situation would be to allow an otherwise acceptable exercise of police power to become grand theft But the enabling statute here prevents this from occurring by authorizing dedication of only a "reasonable portion" of land for the purposes stated. We therefore uphold the statute as constitutional. A "reasonable portion" is construed to mean that portion of land which the evidence reasonably establishes the municipality will need to acquire for thepurposes oses stated as a result of the approval of this subdivision This is, a necessity, a facts and circumstances test, but is the only kind of test that will consider the myriad of factors which may bear on a municipality's needs for certain kinds of facilities and the relationship of a particular subdivision to those needs. 246 NW 2d at 26 (emph. added) The Collis case upheld the statutory park dedication scheme against constitutional attack because by requiring park dedication from all developers, the process was, roughly, fair. It exacts reasonably equal dedications sacrifices from all developers. By contrast, the required "dedication of all streets" regardless of their size or relationship to specific development as implemented by the City of Plymouth's code of ordinances is clearly unfair. The next appellate opinion which is of relevance to this matter is, of course, the Court of Appeals decision in Middlemist vs. City of Plymouth , 387 N.W. 2d 190 (Minn. App. 1986). This opinion, although reversing the grant of summary judgment afforded Plaintiff previously, did not alter the legal standard to be applied to the facts of this case pursuant to Collis. The Court of Appeals opinion reaffirms that Collis "requires an examination of the subdividers contribution to the need for the public use of dedicated land...." (387 N.W. 2d at 193). The opinion reflects that at least with respect to park dedication requirements which are exacted from all subdividers, "a municipality might well be able to establish the group of subdivisions approved over a period of several years had been responsible for bringing into the community a considerable number of people making it necessary that land dedication [be] required..." 387 N.W. 2d at 194, citing Jordan vs. Village of Menomonee Falls, 28 Wis. 2d 608, 137 N.W. 2d 444 (1965) The opinion further notes, however, that when the relationship of the subdivision to municipal needs is "negligible", "dedication may not, as a matter of law, be required of a particular subdivider." (387 N.W. 2d at 194). In the case of City of Plymouth vs. Mendota, Inc., (Hennepin County File No. 85- 15359), Judge Patrick W. Fitzgerald considered issues very similar to those presented in the instant case. Drawing upon authority found in the enabling statue, and the cases above -referenced, Judge Fitzgerald drew the following conclusions of law, inter alia: 2. Municipal dedication requirements which comport with Minn. Stat. §462.358, subdivision 2(b) may be sustained as valid exercises of municipal police power regulations. The imposition of dedication requirements which exceed the dedication requirements which exceed the statutory authority granted pursuant to Minn. Stat. §462.358, subd. 2(b) constitute "takings" for which just compensation is required pursuant to the Minnesota and United States Constitutions and other statutory provisions. 3. Under Minnesota law, dedication requirements are construed to be reasonable and thus proper exercises of the police power regulation under the cited statute, if the evidence establishes that the required dedication is needed as a result of the approval of the subdivision and directly related to increased demands for municipal services created by the particular subdivision. (Feb. 2, 1987 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment, p.11). In this particular case, Plaintiff expects to prove that the dedication of County Road 9 right of way was in no way needed as a result of the approval of his subdivision nor was the relocation and improvement of County Road 9 in any sense directly related to increased demands for municipal services created by this subdivision. It is anticipated that testimony of both experts in this matter, Plaintiff's and Defendant's, will agree that the volume of traffic generated by this subdivision on County Road 9 on a daily basis will approximate 150 vehicles. The evidence will further establish that the volume of the traffic on existing County Road 9 prior to Plaintiff's development already exceeded substantially designed capacities --in other words an urgent need existed pre -development for the relocation and improvement of the road. The evidence will further establish that projected traffic volumes on the newly created relocated four -lane road will range in the future from approximately 23,000 to 44,000 cars per day. In comparison with the system -wide traffic expected to use this roadway, it is evident by any standard that the traffic contribution from the Robert Middlemist Sixth Addition will be exceedingly "negligible" and practically insignificant. REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTORNEYS FEES As Judge Fitzgerald has indicated, the imposition of dedication requirements which exceed the municipal authority granted pursuant to Section 462.358 constitute takings in the constitutional sense. Consequently, and in the event the Court determines that Defendants imposition of the right-of-way dedication requirement was improper, Plaintiffs here seek recovery of their costs, disbursements, attorney and witness fees in this matter. Plaintiff authority in this regard is the text of Minnesota Statute §117.045: If a person successfully brings an action compelling an acquiring authority to initiate eminent domain proceedings relating to his real property which was omitted from any current or completed eminent domain proceeding, such person shall be entitled to petition the Court for reimbursement of his reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal and engineering fees, actually incurred in bringing such action... The above statute is construed liberally. In Spaeth vs. City of Plymouth, 344 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 1984) the plaintiff there brought an action against the City of Plymouth alleging that actions undertaken by the City of Plymouth away from Spaeth's property resulted in the permanent flooding a portion of his property, and that such flooding constituted a taking. The trial court held that in fact, a taking had occured and granted Spaeth's petition for a Writ of Mandamus ordering the City to commence eminent domain proceedings. The trial court further ordered that Spaeth was entitled to attorneys and expert witness fees pursuant to Minnesota Statute §117.045. The City of Plymouth appealed, arguing that since there was no evidence Spaeth's property was omitted from any current or completed eminent domain proceeding, Spaeth was not entitled to fees pursuant to the Statute. In rejecting the technical argument advanced by the City of Plymouth, the Minnesota Supreme Court opined that, "We must construe this statutory language to avoid reaching an absurd or unreasonable result." 344 N.W. 2d at 822. The Supreme Court further held that the trial court's construction of Minn. Stat. §117.045 was correct, and that it applies, "Whenever a landowner successfully brings an action to compel eminent domain proceedings with respect to land which was omitted from a proceeding which should have been commenced." 344 N.W. 2d at 823. The Court also stated, "Contrary to Defendants narrow reading of Section 117.045, we believe that the purpose of that section is to assure that any landowner who is forced to take legal action against an acquiring authority is made whole." Id. (emph. added) In the Spaeth case, the City of Plymouth was ordered to reimburse the Plaintiff for attorney fees, surveyors fees, appraisers fees, and engineering fees in the total amount of $66,158.12. In reaching the April, 1984 Stipulation between the parties, Plaintiffs expressly reserved all claims, including their claim for reimbursement of litigations costs. Notwithstanding the fact that the right of way has been given over to the City of Plymouth, Plaintiff has been required to continue his pursuit of this action to compel Plymouth to compensate him for the right of way. Plaintiff respectfully urges the Court that in light of the Stipulation, and in light of Spaeth vs. City of Plymouth, a determination that the County Road right of way was not a proper object of Defendant's police power dedication authority compels a finding that Plaintiff must be reimbursed for all of his attorney fees, expert fees, costs, and disbursements in the within matter. Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed and stipulated that the matter of the amount of reimbursement required to be paid may be the subject of post -trial motions, and that the evidence in this regard may be submitted by way of Affidavit of counsel. Consequently, it is Plaintiff's present intent to reserve the submission of such evidence until after trial subject to contrary instruction by the Court. CONCLUSION Plaintiff is confident that a careful consideration of applicable law and the application of this law to the facts expected to be proved at trial, will necessitate a determination that the City of Plymouth has exceeded its statutorily limited authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §462 in imposing a requirement that Plaintiff dedicate a substantial portion of Defendant's right-of-way for use in the relocation and improvement of County Road 9. Plaintiff's subdivision ordinances do not, by their terms, adopt the "reasonableness" component required pursuant to the cited statute. The implementation of Defendant's ordinance relative to the Robert Middlemist Sixth Addition has not included considerations of reasonableness; by contrast, Defendant has imposed its dedication requirement with an iron fist. --T'_ L4 Plaintiffs therefore seek the Order and Judgment of this Court requiring Defendant to initiate appropriate condemnation proceedings relating to the County Road right-of- way. Having conceded that the use of Plaintiffs property for a County Road is an appropriate general public purpose, what remains is that appropriate proceedings be commenced to determine the just and fair compensation to be paid. It further follows as a matter of course, and pursuant to Minnesota Statute 5177.045, that Plaintiff should be entitled to the reimbursement of his litigation costs in full since he has been required to initiate an action to compel this result Dated this day of April, 1987. Respectfully Submitted. ESTES PARSINEN do LEVY P.A. . T Rapp Attorney I.D. No. 12171X 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612/333-2111 TR -709 4/22/87 RE: Planning Commission Vacancy Applicants 1) The follow ing persons were contacted and are interested in being considered for the current vacancy on the Planning Commission. They were sent Application Forms 4/22/87: Marilou E. Thibault 990 Xene Lane Plymouth 55447 Robert J. Hallermann 11740 50th Avenue N. Plymouth 55442 Donald Anderson 417 No. Union Terrace Lane Plymouth 55441 Kenneth W. Quass, Jr. 12725 30th Avenue N. Plymouth 55441 Kenneth Anderson 15100 38th Avenue N. Plymouth, MN 55446 473-4404 Not currently serving on any board 559-8349 (h) 559-2795 (o) Not currently serving on any board. 545-3608 (h) 448-4584 (o) Currently on Park $ Rec Comm 559-0578 (h) 593-0696 (o) Currently serving as vice -chair, Board of Zoning 546-2048 (h) 333-9177 (o) Currently serving on Board of Zoning Stephan Ludovissie 559-2128 (o) 12540 54th Avenue Currently serving on HRA Plymouth 55442 2) The following may be interested in being considered. Will call or come in for application if interested in pursuing: Olene Bigelow 11600 37th Place N Plymouth 55441 Jay Naftzger 3335 Niagara Lane Plymouth 55441 559-3106 (h) 333-6655 (o) Currently serving on Board of Zoning 559-8954 (h) 292-8110 (o) 4/24 11:15 a.m. Larry Marofsky called to say he's also interested in being considered. =— � Application Received by City on: Committee(s)/Commission(s) Applied for: 1st Choice Planning 2nd Choice Parks and Recreation CITY OF PLYMOUTH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE Personal Information Name: Marilou E. Thibault Age: 44 Home Phone: 473-4404 Home Address: 990 Xene Lane Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Number of Children: 0 Ages (of those living at home): Lived in Plymouth since: 1978 Property (other than residence) owned in Plymouth: None Occupation , Present employer: AT&T Work Phone: 292-8387 Position Title: Public Relations Manager Education Name of TnstitLotion Univ. of Nebraska Previous Experience Course Work Taken Beyond High School To/From 1960-64 Dearee/Credits B.S. Journalism Area of Emphasis Journalism, PR List other civic experience you have had including name of organizations, dates of participation, name of city, position held and accomplishments: President, Cimarron Ponds Homeowners Association, 1978-80, Plymouth, MN ana uiair, Ppis. Chris' uiun Assn., iyi6u-6j mpis, vuV Trustee, Minnesota Charities Review Council, 1986 -Present, Mpls, MN omni Chair, Leadership Minneapolis, 1980-82, Mpls, MN Director, Zonta Club of Minneapolis, 1985 -Present, Mpls, IIN .JAN I f 1act' List other relevant experience Ten years as a radio/television reporter and broadcaster Fifteen years as a manager in the corporate world Opinion Questions What do you believe you could contribute to the community if appointed to a City commission or committee? Why? one of my strengths is communications skills, both written and verbal; I believe those skills are cruciai to working with co=Tuni y residents. In addition, my experience in the working world has given me knowledge of several important areas: managing resources, decision making, working with others in a team environment, reaching consensus, etc. I know how to create and work within budgetary constraints, as weii as so ve pro ems and toiiow-throughon pro]ec s. Ali ot these s=77,= believe, would be helpful in planning Plymouth's future. How do you believe you would benefit if appointed to a committee or commission? While I have a number of management skills, I don't have a lot of in-depth in orma ion about how my conmIni y wor s. I E7eiieve working on a conTuttee or commission would give me that "inside view" of how things happen in Plymouth. As a commission or committee member, what issue(s) might cause conflict between civic responsibility and personal/professional interests? I don't know of any issues that would cause such a conflict. Date Sig available: Immediately Available for commission/committee meetings the following evenings (circle) hurl' Fri te: January 16, 1987 on arilou E. Thibault, APR 990 Xene Lane North Plymouth. Minnesota 55447 CAREER OBJECTIVE Business: (612) 292-8387 Residence: (612) 473-4404 Attainment of a position from which to effect public relations or related policy. using exceptionally well-developed communications skills. both written and verbal EMPLOYMENT HISTORY AT&T, Minneapolis -St. Paul, Minnesota 1983 -Present: Public Relations Manager for Minnesota, North Dakota Handle all media relations, including acting as corporate spokesperson; direct corporate contributions program: set up speakers' bureaus and train speakers in seven states Northwestern Bell. Minneapolis -St. Paul, Minnesota 1980-83: Business Marketing Account Executive Sold telecommunications products and services to stockbrokers, financial analysts 1978-80: Manager -Creative Services Managed a /v staff: directed internal production of video, 16mm film, slide/tape, etc. Controlled operating expenses of $500.000, payroll of $120,000 1977-78: Safety Supervisor - Non -occupational 1974-77: Installation and Repair Supervisor 1973-74: Annoyance Call Bureau Supervisor Managed five service representatives who handled customers' complaints regarding obscene and nuisance calls: personally handled complaints to the Public Service Commission, calls and letters to upper management 1972-73: Public Relations Writer Handled news media contacts: wrote stories for statewide distribution: coordinated and produced a/v presentations; produced News -Line (a recorded employee news service) Broadcast Media 1968-72: KSTP-TV, Minneapolis -St. Paul 1964-68. WOWT-TV. Omaha, Nebraska 1962-64: KBON Radio, Omaha 1*1014L•If#1QZ XfsiJ11TV0file] Noon News Anchor, Reporter Talk Show Host, Continuity Director All-night Disc Jockey, Writer, Reporter 1960-64: University of Nebraska B.S. in Journalism 1956-60: Omaha North High School General Business Courses Seminars: Women in Management Strategies for Success Numerous Bell System and AT&T training courses and seminars Additional course work: The Pentagonal Brain Conversational French PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Public Relations Society of America (Accredited, 1985) Zonta Club of Minneapolis Guest Lecturer, Journalism Department, University of Nebraska CIVIC/COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES Leadership Minneapolis Executive Committee Alumni Committee Chair Program Committee PERSONAL Birthdate: 9/7/42 Health: Excellent Marital Status: Single References available upon request Minnesota Management Women President Program Committee Charter Member Skyway Singers Interests Charities Review Council of Minnesota Executive Committee Trustee Plymouth Civic League Board of Directors Minneapolis Girls' Club Association Chair Founding Member Public speaking, golf, skiing, reading, singing Application.Received y Aty on: Committee(s)/Commission(s) Applied for: 1st Choice ��—e*1y ►a1 [� ✓ � 2nd Choice_ 'gQ of Ap4✓SYM�\v'Q CITY OF PLYMOUTH r APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT .� TO COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE _ rg VA Personal Information jlj✓v Name: 1�cc3E�T �. �A��ERy.^k)4 4 Age: Z6 Home Phone: SS9- �3r�iq Home Address: Title: 14.lrbtZS�L on15►�t.-f'A1►1�(" S©'L'-L &."— t,4. Education Number of Children: tJ a mr- Ages (of those living at home): Lived in Plymouth since: \�$� Property (other than residence) owned in Plymouth: Occupation Present employer: %j't1ZE�'t"�_Q �ToctE�ticTy2�� Work Phone:���g- Z-IgS Position Title: 14.lrbtZS�L on15►�t.-f'A1►1�(" Education Course Work Taken Beyond High School Name of Institution To/From Degree/Credits Area of Emphasis A 1.1 o K A AN y T'Z ja /y k -_Q �7Z' YI-. e E QT. �R�-N ire k1. HsK.I. COMM COV. C - I 4 QZERKU BJ"ti,QI ME -5 Previous Experience List other civic experience you have had including name of organizations, dates of participation, name of city, position held and accomplishments: N e ram List other relevant experience ��A�[..�._ � o Qocc fl � �T�.•4 S�� _�_.__..�� Tf►. � L.Er2.SY � o YR �-TS MST C.opT�- Ati1e, ��� G �•t�i �t=�� ��r+�Ea.1TS . Opinion Questions What do you believe you could contribute to the community if appointed to a City commission or committee? Why? N How do you believe you would benefit if appointed to a committee or commission? 7M�E0t z 1N1N4r- C%ni woR\e-S% k3tA _rVAIE (:::IF \ t. -L V\O-N.5'- o w) 'TAE G rrl, As a commission or committee member, what issue(s) might cause conflict between civic responsibility and personal/professional interests? o tJ T --- Date available: Available for commission/committee meetings on the following evenings (circle) Mo Tues Wed Thurs Fri Signed: Date: \ - \3. &—k ^�Od � Q� ��.1P�T' �t'tor.� �"C'N►t�xt, A2EAS o'er "C�H� C,OVNTR�/ How do you believe you would benefit if appointed to a committee or commission? 7M�E0t z 1N1N4r- C%ni woR\e-S% k3tA _rVAIE (:::IF \ t. -L V\O-N.5'- o w) 'TAE G rrl, As a commission or committee member, what issue(s) might cause conflict between civic responsibility and personal/professional interests? o tJ T --- Date available: Available for commission/committee meetings on the following evenings (circle) Mo Tues Wed Thurs Fri Signed: Date: \ - \3. &—k i )plicatio Received by City on: Committee(s)/Commission(s) Applied for: Q0 1st Choice Planning Commission _ 2nd Choice_ i'cssinr and Redevelopment Authority CITY OF PLYMOUTH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE Personal Information Name: Stephen A. Ludovissie Age: 34 Home Phone: 553-7995 Home Address: 12540 54th Avenue North Number of Children: 2 Lived in Plymouth since: 1981 Ages (of those living at home): 11. 2 Property (other than residence) owned in Plymouth: None Occupation Present employer: Position Title: Education Name of Institution Southwest State Univ. of Minn. Mankato State Previous Experience Provesco, Inc. President Course Work Taken Beyond High School To/From 9/170 - 6/171 9/171 - 6/'74 9/'76 - 12/'83 Dearee/Credits 45 credits P. A. M. A. Work Phone:559-2128 Area of Emphasis Political Science Public Affairs/ City Mana7ement List other civic experience you have had including name of organizations, dates of participation, name of city, position held and accomplishments: Minnetonka HRA - 1979, 1980 - Commissioner - Assisted in obtaining low income housing developments within the City of Minnetonka. '_ist other relevant experience Vice -President - Real Estate development, syndication and property management firm from 1983 to 1986. Sr. Housing - Minnesota Fousinc, Finance Agency from 1977 to 1983 Mgmt. Officer In addition, I am a licensed real estate broker, and hold the designation of Certified Property Man- ager,iCPM) and Certified Apartment Manager, (CAM). Opinion Questions What do you believe you could contribute to the community If appointed to a City commission or committee? Why? I believe my diverse real estate background with professional ex- perience in development, construction, property and asset manage- ment would be very helpful and beneficial toithe community in dealing. with the variety of issues facing both the Planninr Commission and Housing and Redevelopment authority. How do you believe you would benefit if appointed to a committee or commission? I have an interest in the operations of local government, and derive personal satisfaction as a contributing community member. As a commission or committee member, what issue(s) might cause conflict between civic responsibility and personal/professional interests? None which I can foresee at this time. Date available: 1/15/87 Available for commission/committee meetings on the following evenings (circle) Mon Tues_Wed N ­urs,' Fri Signed:Date: ��� 17 --F CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: April 16, 1987 TO: doe Ryan, Building.Official FROM: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT RESIDENT COMPLAINT This afternoon I received a phone call from a Mrs. Glen Ryding who lives at 15376 40th Avenue North, phone number 559-4206. Her concern is the maintenance of Plymouth Creek Townhouse. Apparently, exterior cedar has been used which is turning black through weathering. She has suggested that the Homeowners' Association use a product to clean up the building and restore its original wood look. Her question is whether or not the City has any code provisions which might assist her In motivating the Homeowners' Association to restore the building exterior. Would you please contact her to get a more precise definition of the problem and to respond to her questions about the ordinance requirements. Let me know your findings. cc: dames G. Willis Blair Tremere S/F 4/23/87 NC� Q4 � N c. 1 V�.� `��V � Q.�-1 Jr\e. � � �l �� . � �1��.0 �j►J i ,�� 1' � � . �.,I d� �oclw l t ► ��oe. h��- � hc��- -f es. wcas t� E,l��de�.�c� cF- A SzRUc-cc�a.a.,l dE� c' o Ap�we EU deuc,� O� C .Zee.tiorA-TkC)►.3 5��� � 'To t�ad�„�„-�. jYIA,.���.�,.�c� . z. �►��oe.M� Ma.sPs{d►►�c� C> �J L Lo I -T�, MQ" e_Vs (JFh - Norr.�, , ►�eRs Ams +�. �o DALE A. SIMONSON ATTORNEY AT LAW OFFICE: (6121884-7152 HOME: (612) 881-5975 April 21, 1987 The Honorable Virgil Schneider Mayor, City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 686 WEST 92ND STREET BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 55420 RE: Site Plan and Variances for Oakwood Square (86138) Dear Mayor Schneider: I am the attorney for David Johnson, the applicant for the above captioned matter. A letter dated April 2, 1987 from Grace E. Wineman, Secretary, Planning Division, to Mr. Johnson enclosed resolution number 87-188. The resolution approved the site plan and established variances for Oakwood Square. Condition number 13 of that resolution deals with the driveway access to Highway 101. At the council meeting, a proposed condition was circulated and we were given a copy. A photocopy of what we received is attached to this letter. In the final resolution, another sentence was added. We did not object to the original condition, but we do object to the apparent ability granted by the final version to permit the City Council to extend the median at the developer's expense. We ask that the City agree not to take any action without consulting with the developer and seeking solutions short of extending the median. We also ask that the records show that the developer did not agree to the last sentence in condition number 13. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dale A. Simo?is n, J.D. , CCIM President (B/DS/SCHNEIDE.DJ) SITE PLAN AND VARIANCE FOR DAVID C. JOHNSON FOR OAKWOOD SQUARE If the drivewav access to Highway 101 opposite 14th Avenue causes vehicles to stack onto Highway 101 when attempting to enter the site, the Developer, at their expense, shall retain a traffic consultant to analyze the problem and propose solutions to eliminate the interference with the traffic on Highway 101. The traffic consultant's recommendation shall be submitted to the City for approval before implementation. The cost of the necessary traffic analysis and any cost to implement a solution will be the responsibility of the Developer. Upon notification from the City that a traffic problem exists, the Developer shall have their traffic consultant complete the analysis and submit it to the City within sixty days. rat April 2, 1987 , CITY OF PLYMOUTR Mr. David Johnson 17435 County Road 6 Plymouth, MN 55447 RE Site Plan and Variances for Oakwood Square (86138) Dear Mr. Johnson: As you know, the City Council approved the the above referenced applications at the meeting on March 16, 1987. Enclosed for your records and information are copies of the Minutes of that meeting and Resolution No. 87-188 that sets the conditions of approval. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Grace E. Wineman Secretary Planning Division /gw cc: File 86138 ENCS G 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 CITY OF PLYMOUTH Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 16th day of March , 1987. The following members were present: Mayor Schnei Councilmembers Crain, Sisk, Vasiliou and Zitur erc� The following members were absent: none Councilmember Zitur introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 87- 188 APPROVING SITE PLAN AND VARIANCES FOR DAVID C. JOHNSON FOR OAKWOOD SQUARE (86138) WHEREAS, David C. Johnson has requested approval of a Site Plan and Variance to con- struct an 18,000 sq. ft. one-story retail building east of State Highway 101 and 14th Avenue North; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MIN- NESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for David C. Johnson for Site Plan and Variances to construct an 18,000 sq. ft. one-story retail building east of State Highway 101 and 14th Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with City Engineer's Memorandum, with the exception that Item 28-B be deleted, and the wording for Item 28-C be clarified regarding the reference to Stop signs at the driveways to Highway 101 and County Road 6. 2. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with the Dedi- cation Policy in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 3. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement for completion of site improvements. 4. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance. 5. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per Ordinance provisions. 6. Approved variances include parking setback of 13 ft. to Highway 101. 7. Appropriate legal documents and covenants, as approved by the City Attorney, shall be recorded on the property identifying shared drive aisles. 8. All existing structures except the convenience shopping center shall be removed as part of initial development, at the developer's expense, provided that the exist- ing service station may remain open during the development of the new station. PLEASE SEE PAGE TWO -T- g Page two Resolution No. 87-188 9. The construction site for Building A shall be fenced on all four sides with snow fence. 10. Relative to the petitioner's construction schedule and continued operation of the service station, the developer's insurance policy shall name the City as additional insured together with a "Hold Harmless" clause, and the insurance policy shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. '11. All landscaping shall be completed prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. 12. In addition to the landscaping, a chain link fence shall be installed on the east property line from where the Kimberly Meadows property line begins, north to County Road 6. 13. If the driveway access to Highway 101 opposite 14th Avenue causes vehicles to stack onto State Highway 101 so as to cause a potential traffic safety hazard and problems, the Developer, at their expense, shall retain a traffic consultant to analyze the problem and proposed solutions. The traffic consultant's recommenda- tion shall be submitted to the City for approval before implementation. The cost of the necessary traffic analysis and any cost to implement a solution, will be the ,responsibility of the Developer. Upon notification from the City that a traf- fic problem exists, the Developer shall have their traffic consultant complete the analysis and submit the report to the City within sixty (60) days. Upon failure of the Developer to submit the traffic analysis within sixty days, or failure to implement the recommendation within the time period specified by the City Council, the median will be extended at the Developers' expense. The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Crain , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers Crain, Sisk and Zitur The following voted against or abstained: Councilmember Vasiliou Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. April 22, 1987 - CITY OF PLYMOUTR Mr. Dale A. Simonson 686 West 92nd Street Bloomington, MN 55420 RE: Oak Wood Square (86138) Dear Mr. Simonson: �g Mayor Schneider has forwarded to me your letter of April 22 dealinq with your concerns with respect to a condition placed upon the Council's approval of the site plan and variances for the Oak Wood Square development. I have reviewed the Minutes of the Council meeting of March 16, specifically the language of condition Number 13. The draft of the lanquage which you received at the Council meeting, a copy of which you enclosed with your letter, is accurate as far as it goes. Mayor Schneider in making the amendment, however, added the additional sentence which you find objectionable. Resolution 87-188, which was forwarded to Mr. Johnson April 2 by Ms. Grace Wineman, accurately reflects the conditions established by the City Council for the Oak Wood Square development. While you may object to the additional sentence of this condition, the fact remains that the Council's approval of the site plan and variances requested by Mr. Johnson for the Oakwood Square development was approved subject to the conditions fully specified in Resolution 87-188. Mr. Johnson should understand that the City Council's approval does set forth the conditions noted and that he is obligated to adhere to them as a condition of proceeding with his development. Yours truly, Is G. Willis Cit Manager JGW:bMk cc: File 86138 Mayor Virgil Schneider City Council 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 = g. MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seco y Councilmember RESOLUTION NO. 87-187 Zitur, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-18 ORIZING REDUCTION OF BOND REDUCTION SITE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR_ GREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION LUNDGREN BROTHERS COMPANY FOR MISSION PONDS ) to $7,000. MISSION PONDS (A-338) Item 8-F* Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes. Dale Simonson, attorney representing Dave Johnson, stated this SITE PLAN & VARIANCE is the plan which was sent back to the Planning Commission for OAKWOOD SQUARE (86138) revision to try and improve the traffic flow and to eliminate Item 8-G some of the variances. Progress has been made and all of the variances have been eliminated with one exception, that of a 7 ft. variance for the parking to front lot line along Highway 101. A change to add a left turn lane for traffic to go behind the building was made. He totally disagrees with the Engineer's recommendation that there be no left turn into the parking lot (via the 14th Avenue access) which would make customers drive around the building to get to the lot. The Planning Commission has deleted this from their recommendations and asked that the Council follow. He doesn't believe the Planning Commission's recommendation that a chain link fence be added was a good one but they can live with it. Councilmember Vasiliou stated the entrance at 14th Avenue with left turns would be a problem because drivers stop to decide which turn to make and the back up will flow onto Highway 101. Discussion followed on access, parking, construction of a median, and traffic flows. MOTION was made by Councilmember Zitur, seconded by Councilmember Crain, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-188 APPROVING SITE PLAN AND VARIANCES FOR DAVID C. JOHNSON FOR OAKWOOD SQUARE (86138) deleting condition #12. MOTION was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by Councilmember Vasiliou, to amend the resolution to add condition #12 back in. Motion carried, four ayes. Councilmember Zitur voted nay. MOTION was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by Councilmember Zitur, to add condition x`13 as follows: "If the driveway access to Highway 101 opposite 14th Avenue causes vehicles to stack onto Highway 101 so as to cause a potential traffic safety hazard and problems, the Developer, at their expense, shall retain a traffic consultant to analyze the problem and propose solutions. The traffic consultant's recommendation shall be submitted to the City for approval before implementation. The cost of the necessary traffic analysis and any cost to implement a solution will be the responsibility of the Developer. Upon notification from the City that a traffic problem exists, the Developer shall have their traffic consultant complete the analysis and submit it to the City within sixty days. Upon failure of the Developer to submit the traffic analysis within the 60 day period or failure to implement the recommendation within the time period specified by the City Council, the median will be extended at the Developer's expense." RESOLUTION NO. 87-188 SITE PLAN & VARIANCES DAVID JOHNSON FOR OAKWOOD SQUARE (86138) Item 8-G Page 81 Councilmember Vasiliou stated her concern that 60 days is too long and who is to determine when a problem exists. Attorney Thomson stated staff shouldn't make that decision, they should tell the Council if they believe there is a problem and the Council should make the final decision. Motion carried, four ayes. Councilmember Vasiliou voted nay. Motion as twice amended carried on a Roll Call vote, four ayes. Councilmember Vasiliou voted nay. ION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by Councilmember RESOLUTION NO. 87-189 Zit to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-189 ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS, ADOPTING ASSESSM NT PROJE NO. 731, SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN AREA, STONE HILL STONE HILL ADDITION ADDITION, OT 1, BLOCK 1 in the amount of $199,342.20. PROJECT 731 Item 8-H Motion carriNon a Roll Call vote, five ayes. MOTION was made\Roll ember Sisk, seconded by Councilmember Zitur, to adoptN NO. 87-190 ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS, PROJECT NO. 7327ASSESSMENTS, PROJECT 205, STONE HILL ADDITION in the 5,959.63. Motion carried o11 vote, five ayes. MOTION was made by Councilme er Sisk, seconded by Councilmember Zitur, to adopt RESOLUTION• 87-191 ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS, PROJECT 733, DEFERRED ASSESSM TS, PROJECT 505, STONE HILL ADDITION in the amount of $23,936X.5. Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, Nve ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 87-190 ADOPTING ASSESSMENT STONE HILL ADDITION PROJECT 732 Item 8-H RESOLUTION NO. 87-191 ADOPTING ASSESSMENT STONE HILL ADDITION PROJECT 733 Item 8-H MOTION was made by Councilmember Crain, seconded by RESOLUTION NO. 87-192 Councilmember Zitur, to adopt RESOLUTION . 87-192 GRANTING OF RAILROAD SPUR EASEMENT AN EASEMENT FOR RAILROAD SPUR CROSSING, 13 AVENUE AND CHICAGO 13TH AVENUE NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD. Item 8-I Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes. MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded b Councilmember RESOLUTION NO. 87-193 Zitur, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-193 REDUCING DEV\OPMENOND WEST WEST MEDICINE LAKE TERRACE (80008) to $1,792.MEDICINE , LAKE TERRACE (80008) Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes.Item 8-3-1* MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by RESOLUTION NO. 87-194 Zitur, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-194 REDUCING DEVE BOND DUCTION, WEST WEST MEDICINE LAKE TERRACE 2ND ADDITION (80008) to MEDICINE LAKE TERRACE 2ND ADDN. (80008) Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes.Item 8-3-2* Z l 244' 1620. Skateboard ramps or structures prohibited. (1) Findings. The city council finds, determines and declares that skateboard ramps or other similar types of structures used for skateboarding or similar or related purposes in residentially zoned areas result in intolerable levels of noise in the neighborhood adjacent to such structure; that the intolerable noise levels result from the use of the skateboard ramp or structure itself and from the gathering of large groups of persons who come to use or observe the use of the skateboard ramp; that such skateboard ramps or structures are aesthetically objectionable in a residen- tial area due to the characteristics inherent in their design; that such structures or their proliferation could depress market val- ues of surrounding properties to the detriment of the various taxing districts; that the use and maintenance of such structures in a residential area endangers the public health and safety, constitutes an unreasonable use and condition to the annoyance, discomfort and repose of a considerable number of the public; that the presence of such structure in a residentially zoned area is detrimental to the public good, and to the common welfare, and renders a considerable number of the public insecure in the use and enjoyment of their property, and thus constitutes a nuisance Croampndition.(2) Notwithstanding any other section of this Code, skateboard s or similar structures used for skateboarding or related purposes are prohibited in residentially zoned areas as constitut- ing a public nuisance. (86 -Or -256, § 1, 11-7-86) 427.300. Rollerskating and skateboarding. (a) No person' shall ride or propel rollerskates or skateboards upon a public street, highway or sidewalk, except in a prudent and careful manner and unless such a person be capable of efficient control and such rollerskates are operated with reasonable regard to the safety of the operator and other persons upon the streets, side walks and other public highways of the city. (b) No person shall ride or propel rollerskates or skateboards upon the Nicollet Mall or any plaza -like area owned by the City of Minneapolis, without first obtaining a permit from the city council pursuant to section 440.20 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances. (80 -Or -303, § 1, 12-29-80; 83 -Or -252, § 1, 10-14-83) J L v (CTYOF PUMOUTR FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR MORE INFORMATION: 559-2800 EXT. 282 THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH HAS IMPOSED SPRINKLING RESTRICTIONS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. THEY REQUIRE RESIDENTS WITH EVEN -NUMBERED ADDRESSES TO WATER THEIR YARDS AND WASH CARS ON EVEN -NUMBERED DAYS. THOSE WITH ODD -NUMBERED ADDRESSES ARE PERMITTED TO WATER ON ODD -NUMBERED DAYS. THE RESTRICTIONS WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30. RESIDENTS WITH QUESTIONS MAY CALL 559-2800, EXTENSION 282. -30- 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 15 CITY OF PLYMOUTH+ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR MORE INFORMATION: 559-2800 Ext. 282 Plymouth City officials have Joined a number of other municipalities in issuing earlier -than -usual sprinkling restrictions. The City Council imposed the restrictions on April 20. Residents with even -numbered addresses may water their yards and wash cars on even -numbered days. Those with odd -numbered addresses are permitted to water on odd -numbered days. The restrictions will remain in effect through September 30. Restricted sprinkling had been slated to go into effect June 1, according to City Manager Jim Willis. He said the unusually dry spring coupled with a high demand for water made the early odd -even ban necessary. Willis stressed that resident cooperation was important in ensuring that Plymouth has sufficient water to meet fire emergencies and household needs. Residents with questions regarding the restrictions may call 559-2800, extenstion 282. -30- 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 --1--T 10 Sprinkling restrictions issued early Because of the dry sprinq weather and a high demand for water, the City Council has issued sprinkling restrictions earlier than usual. M odd -even policy is in effect and will remain in effect through Sept. 30. Residents with even -numbered addresses may water their yards on even - numbered days. People with odd -numbered addresses may water on odd -numbered days. If you have any questions regarding this policy, call 559-2800 ext. 281. Your cooperation will ensure that Plymouth has an adequate water supply to meet household needs and any major fire emergencies throughout the spring and summer months. Thanks for cooperating! Sprinkling restrictions issued early Because of the dry spring weather and a high demand for water, the City Council has issued sprinkling restrictions earlier than usual. M odd -even policy is in effect and will remain in effect through Sept. 30. Residents with even -numbered addresses may water their yards on even - numbered days. People with odd -numbered addresses may water on odd -numbered days. If you have any questions regarding this policy, call 559-2800 ext. 281. Your cooperation will ensure that Plymouth has an adequate water supply to meet household needs and any major fire emergencies throughout the spring and summer months. Thanks for cooperating! Sprinkling restrictions issued early Because of the dry spring weather and a high demand for water, the City Council has issued sprinkling restrictions earlier than usual. M odd -even policy is in effect and will remain in effect through Sept. 30. Residents with even -numbered addresses may water their yards on even - numbered days. People with odd -numbered addresses may water on odd -numbered days. If you have any questions regarding this policy, call 559-2800 ext. 281. Your cooperation will ensure that Plymouth has an adequate water supply to meet household needs and any major fire emergencies throughout the spring and summer months. Thanks for cooperating! CITY OF PLYMOUTH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 8, 1987 The Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Steigerwald, Commissioners Stulberg, Zylla, Plufka, Mellen, and Pauba. Commissioner Wire arrived 7:35 P.M. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Associate Planner Al Cottingham City Engineer Sherm Goldberg Planning Director Blair Tremere Planning Secretary Grace Wineman *MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO APPROVE Plufka to approve the March 25, 1987 Minutes as submitted. 5 Ayes. Chairman Steigerwald abstained. MOTION carried. VOTE - NOTION CARRIED PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Debra Carlson DEBRA CARLSON for a Home Occupation Conditional Use Permit. Associate WOMB OCCUPATION Planner Cottingham provided an overview of the March 27, CONDITIONAL USE 1987 Staff Report. PERMIT (87016) Chairman Steigerwald inquired if Ms. Carlson had questions on the staff report; she had no questions. Commissioner Plufka confirmed that Ms. Carlson would be the only operator/employee. Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing, as there was no one present to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO APPROVE Stulberg to recommend approval of the Home Occupation Conditional Use Permit, subject to the conditions listed in the March 27, 1987 staff report, adding Condition No. 8, that the applicant shall be the only operator/employee. Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. -70- VOTE - MOTION CARRIED Page 71 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1987 Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Mt. Olivet Lutheran Church to expand the church facility. Planner Cottingham presented an overview of the March 27, 1987 staff report. Chairman Steigerwald introduced Tammy Magney, Architect. She had no questions regarding the staff report recommenda- tions. Ms. Magney stated the installation of a catch basin will eliminate one variance, so that only the variance re- quest concerning the fire lane remains. Chairman Steigerwald explained that the fire lane variance will be reviewed and acted upon by the City Council. Commissioner Zylla inquired if the concrete curb and gutter is not an issue, would they install this just in the areas of new construction, or where now, there is bituminous? Ms. Magney answered that the concrete curb and gutter will be installed with the new parking areas; the existing bitum- inous will be re -surfaced during the next 5 years and is part of the church's master plan. Commissioner Plufka inquired about the historical signifi- cance of buildings on this site; Ms. Magney stated she was unaware of any historical significance of any of the buildings. Commissioner Mellen inquired if the addition would be sprinklered? Ms. Magney stated this would not be the case. Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing, as there was no one present to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was closed. MT. OLIVET LUTHERAN CHURCH/SITE PLAN AMENDMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE (87003) MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE Plufka to recommend approval for the Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit for Mt. Olivet Lutheran Church, subject to the conditions listed in the March 27, 1987 staff report. Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried. Chairman Steigerwald introduced the MPUD Concept Plan sub- mitted by David Peterson, Hew -Lyn, Inc./FGC Development. He explained the approval process for this type of development; that if approval is granted, another Public Hearing would be held at the Preliminary Plat stage. He requested an over- view of the March 27, 1987 staff report by Planner Cottingham. Chairman Steigerwald introduced Greg Frank, McCombs -Knutson Associates, representing the petitioner. Mr. Frank gave the background on this development plan; that this concept is a VOTE - MOTION CARRIED DAVID PETERSON HEM-LYN, INC./FGC DEVELOPMENT MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN (87007) Page 72 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1987 continuation of the "Harrison Hills" development. He noted that the plan is predominantly single family residential development; twin homes; higher density multi -family dwel- lings; and, a commercial site. Mr. Frank explained that the twin homes will buffer the single family homes from the higher density residential development. Initially, the single family units will be constructed, and once sewer is available, the multi -family units will be constructed. Commissioner Pauba had concern that the cul-de-sac is too long. Mr. Frank stated the topography necessitated the 900 ft. cul-de-sac to preserve a steep hill; and, because of the City need for access to the parkland. Commissioner Pauba inquired if the owner of the exception parcel had been approached? Commissioner Pauba stated he had spoken to the property owner, Mr. Rod Gove, who said the developer had not contacted him and he was interested in talking about being part of this development. Mr. Frank stated the property owner had been sent one letter; and, that Mr. Peterson would follow through and talk with that property owner. Commissioner Mellen inquired about the lot sizes for Lots 1 through 8 in Block 7. Mr. Frank stated these lots are for twin homes and will be approximately 12,000 to 13,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Plufka requested that Mr. Frank discuss the PUD Attributes, specifically, the ratio of open space for this proposal. Mr. Frank stated that the development includes public parkland, trail, and private open space. Commission- er Plufka inquired if the open space set aside on this plan exceeds the minimum requirements? Mr. Frank explained that the required minimum amount for dedication is based on density and fewer acres are required for the public park and open space needs here than the requirement. He stated he met with the Parks & Recreation staff regarding Outlots C and D. He explained the deduction of the ponding area, and the stated difference between what is proposed and required will be given in cash and through credits for trail paving. The plan meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Park Plan. The request is providing private open space, trail, possible skating rink, tennis court, and pool. There are walking and nature areas around the ponds. Commissioner Plufka inquired if the pool and tennis courts would be for the exclusive use of the apartment/condominium dwellers? Mr. Frank answered affirmatively and reiterated S1\c,--, Page 73 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1987 the additional benefit of preservation of natural areas. Commissioner Plufka noted that in terms of open space, he would prefer to see property around all sides for the bene- fit of all. In reviewing the plan he does not see alot of amenities except for the trails. He believes that a Planned Unit Development should provide a reasonable amount of pri- vate open space that is close to all residents. Mr. Frank explained the physical constraints on the south- west portion of the site; that area of the pond will be own- ed by the Homeowner's Association and they can add amenities if that is their wish. The open space and trails provided are comparable to Harrison Hills. Commissioner Zylla stated the existing residential neighbor- hoods are attractive; he inquired whether these lots will be comparable? Mr. Frank stated the typical lot size in this proposal are larger than those to the west. Commissioner Zylla and Mr. Frank discussed the square footage of existing and proposed homes. Commissioner Zylla inquired about bonus points; staff explained the Planned Unit Development criteria for awarding bonus points. Commissioner Zylla and Mr. Frank discussed the maximum density allowed for this development. Mr. Frank further explained they will be requesting, and future plans will show, access from County Road 10 into this development. Access and street layout were discussed in further detail. Commissioner Zylla inquired about projected traffic volume. City Engineer Goldberg stated they have no projections at this time, but estimated projections could be from 2,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day. Mr. Frank added that this is one reason they will be making their request to Hennepin County for access to County Road 10; and, because of the density at the northwest corner of this site. Commissioner Pauba inquired about the phasing of this devel- opment. Mr. Frank stated the installation of sanitary sewer will dictate the phased construction and the time frame is unknown at this time. Commissioner Plufka pointed out the High Water Elevations on Outlot B and inquired why they are leaving a section of normally dry land inaccessible to anyone? Mr. Frank stated this is not part of the ponding system, but is part of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) protected wetlands. Commissioner Plufka confirmed that this area is to be left in its natural state. Commissioner Plufka inquired about the unbuildable portion of those lots at the ponding areas. Mr. Frank explained that 15 lots go into the ponds, however, he had no informa- tion on lot size. Page 74 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1987 Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Glenn Olander-Quamne, 10750 55th Place North, stated he lives in the Harrison Hills 2nd Addition. They have had a neighborhood meeting and the residents asked him to repre- sent them. They have a number of concerns: Traffic flow, especially when they hear that 2,000 to 3,000 cars is the estimated volume. The traffic will feed through the neighborhood and create traffic problems. Some roadways will become minifreeways. There are many children in these neighborhoods and their safety is at stake. He stated, "who needs a shopping area?" And, even if one were wanted or needed, a 10 acre area is too large. The apartment complex guarantees the increase in traffic in this area. The proximity of the multiple residential area is a very real problem to those who live in Harrison Hills; the residents are concerned about the line of sight from exist- ing homes; and, that these buildings will be close to their pond, which would then become an amenity for the apartment complex. Mr. Olander-Quamne stated the City must attend to the reasonable expectations of the current homeowners in Har- rison Hills. He stated that many promises were made to these property owners by the developer and realtors, who told them that this area would develop with only single family homes. This was the key consideration to buying homes in this area. To describe this plan as a continuation of their development is "farcical". If one drives through Harrison Hills, he will see that it is a good development, with good homes, well maintained properties, and good people. What will this plan do to all those who bought here? Mr. Olander-Quamme questioned the use of twin homes for buf- fering; he stated this buffer is "a Joke". The developer is loading a new development with high density residential units immediately adjacent to a single family residential development. They ask that the developer be required to provide a reasonable buffer; that the plan be designed to lessen the environmental impact and the impacts of traffic and high density. It is the residents opinion that an environemntal review should be conducted. Mr. Olander-Quamme stated even though property values may not be considered a prime factor, it is a concern to the property owners in Harrison Hills. They feel strongly that there ought not to be additional development by Mr. Peterson until he finishes what he started. Mr. Olander-Quamme listed those items not completed within the Harrison Hills RPUD; noting that now, all of a sudden, there are "dozers" everywhere, completing the work. He stated there are major Page 75 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1987 loose ends; inadequate drainage; street layout is poor; there are unbuildable lots and many areas with erosion problems; some areas used as "dumps"; and, the development identification sign requested by the homeowners has not been installed. The Homeowner's Association has not been set up and the project is still controlled by Mr. Peterson. He stated they are willing to work with the developer; however, the concept plan as proposed is not acceptable to the homeowners. Chairman Steigerwald stated he was sorry to hear that Mr. Peterson had not met with the homeowners; he inquired about the Homeowner's Association. Mr. David Peterson stated the development should be turned over to the Homeowner's Association, it was just something that hadn't been done yet. Mr. Frank explained the land uses within the development site; that the concept plan is consistent with the land use guiding and for the development of a Mixed Planned Unit Development. He mentioned the City's concern with "down - zoning"; whereas, their plan conforms to the uses within the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Plymouth. Commissioner Plufka stated that in all fairness, the Land Use Guide Plan consists of blocks of property with suggested uses; and, Mr. Frank is correct about the guiding of this property. However, when you are dealing with smaller parcels for development, lines are redrawn to match the development. This concept plan uses the maximum density for this area. It is not determined that this qualifies as a PUD. Chairman Steigerwald concurred, noting that it was not known what would happen with County Road 10 and according to the letter from the County, there shall be no access onto the County Road. He inquired about the latest layout. Engineer Goldberg stated the County's plans have been set back for two more years, and the City can work with them regarding access as development occurs. Chairman Steigerwald inquired about access to the Tennant Company property. Director Tremere explained the original concept plan submitted by Tennant Company showing an access point at the west end of that property. Director Tremere recommended that this developer contact the County directly; and, Tennant Company should also get involved with this developer to confirm access points and whether there will be a full intersection proposed on a north/south street and County Road 10. He does not believe the County can ignore the need for access. Page 76 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1987 Commissioner Wire inquired if the access from County Road 10 has been established. Engineer Goldberg stated the County cannot deny access unless they acquire the land. James Dattalo, 4700 Goldenrod Lane, stated he sold alot of these properties and thought it would be all single family development in this area. He was never shown a plat depict- ing multiple dwellings. He stated that this much density will produce traffic problems. As a realtor he knows the land values will be diminished with this development as pro- posed and will hurt the original home buyers. He would do anything to see that only single family lots are proposed in this development. Mr. David Peterson, Hew -Lynn, Inc., stated the concept plan is almost identical to the proposal shown to the City, and to other, three to four years ago. Bryan Virgin, 5560 Ximines Lane, stated Mr. Peterson had asked for rezoning for single family, and at that time, made a commitment to these home buyers. He stated he had called the City and was told the Zoning was FRD (future restricted development) and would be developed with single family homes. Mr. Peterson has not worked with the residents to tie these developments together; and now, there will be several Homeowner Associations going in different direc- tions. He urges the Commission to not approve this concept plan and he asks Mr. Peterson to work with the residents. Chairman Steigerwald explained the different stages of development planning and that the Commission and Council will give direction; the preliminary plat will be discussed at a public hearing so there are other opportunities to give input on this development plan. In response to a question from the residents, Engineer Goldberg explained the road connections. Director Tremere explained the construction of the Pike Lake Interceptor which will now open land for development with the availabil- ity of sanitary sewer. He explained the guiding of the area including the Tennant property; and, the Pike Lake Regional Park. Location and access for the twin homes was discussed. Jody Bystrom, 5575 Ximines Lane, stated she moved to Plymouth because the City seemed to be concerned about high quality development; especially the Harrison Hills develop- ment. Developers told her about the single family homes, the lift station; and, that the access road would be re- moved; but not about the twin homes. She was told that the only multiple family dwellings would be at the intersection of Zachary Lane and Bass Lake Road. Page 77 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1987 Cathy Challman, 10705 56th Avenue North, stated she is mak- ing this same point. She talked with a realtor and was told the road would be removed; that it would be only single family development; and, now, they will be looking directly onto twin homes. John Hagen, 5555 Ximines Lane, talked with Planner Cottingham regarding the developer's performance and explained to Mr. Cottingham that the developer had not ful- filled his promises. It is his opinion that Mr. Peterson should talk with the residents in his developments, he needs their good will and assistance. Bruce Hunerberg, 5455 Ximines Lane, stated he has no particular problem with the concept plan but has questions concerning the definition of a minor collector street. He noted that when this many cars drive through these neighbor- hoods, it will be a catastrophe. The issue is the safety of the children in developments where tot lots do not exist. Roger Koch, 10755 55th Place North, stated they are fortun- ate now with no through -streets; he shudders to think about the projected traffic volumes with this development propo- sal. He stated there are no play areas; the open space and recreational areas are needed for all the people who live in Harrison Hills. A resident inquired if the Commission had driven the area of Harrison Hills and the new development. Chairman Steigerwald confirmed that the Commission visits the sites proposed for development before the Commission meetings. Mr. Peterson stated that park and play equipment has been ordered and will be delivered for installation soon. He stated there is a small area south of 55th which will include a picnic area; and, he noted the wooded areas throughout. He stated he would meet with the residents. He explained that the original concept plan for Harrison Hills, because of the projected cost of the homes, was geared for older residents and fewer children. Mr. Frank discussed traffic volumes which are based on the number of trips from each household (10 trips per day). Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Steigerwald stated he is concerned about the north end of this project due to the unknown quantity of County Road 10 access points. Commissioner Wire concurred. Page 78 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1987 MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Chairman Steigerwald to recommend deferral with direction for re- design. There are viable alternatives which can be develop- ed for further review and these include: 1. Access and a roadway system for the northerly portion of the site. 2. Review and evaluation of potential problems with traf- fic volume and circulation. 3. The developer should make a positive effort to communi- cate with the owner of the exception parcel, Mr. Rod Gove, 10405 Bass Lake Rd.; or at least conceptually show how his land could develop. 4. The developer should meet with the residents of Har- rison Hills to assist in resolving the concerns expres- sed by the residents. 5. The developer should assure the legally appropriate transfer of control to a bona fide Homeowner's Associa- tion for Harrison Hills. 6. The developer and City staff shall continue to review and analyze the impact of the 10 -acre commercial site. 7. The residential transition as proposed is inadequate and should be re-evaluated including consideration of the Ordinance Transition Design Criteria. 8. The concept plan as proposed does not meet the PUD Ordinance requirements for open space attributes; and, distribution of density should be reviewed. Commissioner Stulberg concurred with the Motion, but is concerned that the planning for this area could become frag- mented because of timing for road improvements and sewer extension. Commissioner Plufka stated the phasing is impor- tant because of the time needed to establish access to County Road 10, and the need to see the effect on traffic patterns. Chairman Steigerwald requested the City staff analyze that portion of the site from the ponding area over to Revere Lane; and, to consider a street that would allow the CN guided area to put its back to Bass Lake Road; have the LA -3 guided area face north; work with the County regarding an intersection; and, establish what could technically be a service road. Commissioner Mellen stated that from the developer's stand- point, he is providing a buffer; and, the intersection with County Road 10 would force the issue for the property to the north. Chairman Steigerwald stated that the entire northerly sec- tion needs further study. Commissioner Zylla stated the City staff should be aggressive in their contact with Hen- nepin County to provide access to this subdivision, preclud- ing the median in County Road 10. The developer cannot Page 79 Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1987 state one side of the issue and the City another. He agrees with deferring action on this proposal. He is concerned that the developer has not provided adequate information to the homeowners.. Commissioner Stulberg stated it is important to provide cohesive planning for these 70 acres to assure it does not become fragmented sections. Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. Commissioner Mellen, Nay. MOTION carried. Chairman Steigerwald stated the property owners notified of this informational hearing shall be re-notified regarding the re-scheduling and hearing for this proposal. He noted that if a Homeowner's Association has been set up, the City will notify that body. Mr. Peterson expressed concern about being delayed because of the Tennant property. Director Tremere stated this should not be the case; but, this developer; the interests for the Tennant property; Hennepin County; and, the City have common interests in the use of County Road 10 and should meet to resolve these issues. OTHER MSINESS Director Tremere discussed possible revised ordinance language concerning plantings on corner lots. An-WH EMUFUT The meeting adjoured at 9:30 P.M. COMPARISON OF PLANNING APPLICATION VOLUME BY TYPE The following figures represent the number of applications received and in process by the Planning Department for the month of: March 1987 * * Other than Planned Unit Developments **Includes Planned Unit Developments THIS YEAR THIS MONTH LAST YEAR TYPE OF APPLICATION MONTH TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE Site Plan 6 12 6 16 Preliminary Plats*/RLS 2 5 2 7 Final Plats*/RLS 5 9 3 11 PUD Concept Plans 1 2 1 1 PUD Preliminary Plans - 1 - 1 PUD Final Plans 3 6 1 4 Conditional Use Permits 3 6 5 14 Rezonings** 2 4 1 3 Lot Division/Consolidation 4 7 3 11 Variances 4 7 3 14 Sign Plans - 1 - - Site Plan Amendments - - 2 3 Rev General Development Plan - 1 - - Land Use Guide Plan Amendments** 1 2 - - Landscape Plans - - - - Other 1 1 1 3 TOTAL 3T- 64 T8— * * Other than Planned Unit Developments **Includes Planned Unit Developments `aa -- COMPARISON OF PLANNING APPLICATION VOLUME BY TYPE The following figures represent the number of applications received and in process by the Planning Department for the first half of year 1987 TYPE OF APPLICATION fan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May dune Site Plan 4 2 6 Preliminary Plats*/RLS 1 2 2 Final Plats*/RLS 1 3 5 PUD Concept Plans - 1 1 PUD Preliminary Plats 1 - - PUD Final Plats - 3 3 Conditional Use Permits 2 1 3 Rezonings** - 2 2 Lot Division/Consolidation - 3 4 Variances 2 1 4 Sign Plans 1 - - Site Plan Amendments - - - Rev General Development Plans - 1 - Land Use Guide Plan Amendments** - 1 1 Landscape Plans - - - Other - - 1 TOTALS 12 20 T2- * Other than Planned Unit Developments **Includes Planned Unit Developments MONTHLY REPORT OF PERMIT & INSPECTION ACTIVITY MARCH 1987 BUILDING PERMITS CURRENT Y.T.D. 1986 L.Y.T.D Public 1 1 0 0 Comm/Ind/New 3 5 5 11 Alteration 13 36 11 30 Residential 77 173 64 150 Multi -Family 4 6 1 2 Remodeling 57 103 11 41 TOTALS ----- 155 ----- 324 ----- 92 ----- 234 OTHER PERMITS Plumbing 100 336 89 270 Mechanical 96 280 68 217 Signs 3 15 4 18 Grading 3 7 1 2 Wells 5 10 0 2 Moving 0 1 1 3 Sewer/Water 76 164 77 164 ------- TOTALS -------- 283 ------ 813 ------- 240 676 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 41 115 37 100 TOTAL NO. PERMITS CREATED 463 1161 368 975 TOTAL NO. OF INSPECTIONS 1084 3049 706 1972 C14 Lo C) 00 tn 00 I'D �o LO LO r, nt r 71 -------- 47 ...... .... ............. .. ................. .......... T ------- uj .4 ---- Lj_ nt r 71 CA• -------- 47 ...... .... ............. .. ................. .......... T .4 77 Lj_ r4' CA• -------- 47 ...... .... ............. .. ................. .......... ............. ... ----------- ... .. PLYMOUTH RECYCLING PROGRAM A FIRST YEAR ANALYSIS THROUGH MARCH 31, 1987 VOLUME 1986 Goal (4% of Waste Stream) Tons/Month 1987 Goal (6% of Waste Stream) Tons/Month Total Tons Collected Average Tons Per Month Collected % of Goal Achieved 1986 % of Goal Achieved 1987 % of Resident Participation (45 Pounds/Resident/Month) Total Program Expense Metro council paid Hennepin County paid Citv paid Total Cost/Ton = City Net Cost/Ton Net Pickup Cost/Ton Paid to Hauler 42% 26% 28% COST $17,250.98 $19,137.13 $19,137.13 150.6 237.2 752.15 62.68 $55,525.24 $55,525.24 $ 752.15 (ton) _ $ 73.82 $19„137.13 $ 752.15 (ton) _ $ 25.44 _ $27,000.00 $ 752.15 (ton) _ $ 35.90 Paid $5,670.00 332.50 2,100.00 1,165.22 21.08 426.00 104.65 142.20 1,214.69 2,250.00 2,500.00 24,750.00 1,351.49 230.56 15.00 11,462.16 1,789.69 $55,525.24 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RECYCLING PROGRAM COSTS FROM BEGINNING OF PROGRAM THROUGH MARCH, 1987 To For Midwest Refuse Systems Paper containers Midwest Refuse Systems Paper containers Midwest Refuse Svstems Paper containers Hamel Building Center Recycling Dropoff Center Citv of Plymouth/Bldg. Dept Building Permit Rapit-Printing Printed brochures Rapit-Printing Printed brochures & flyer Rapit-Printing Printed Brochures & flyer Rapit-Printing Printed Brochures & flyer Beerman Services Curbside Pickup (one month) Beerman Services Deliver containers & flver WASP/Super Cycle Curbside Pickup (11 months) U.S. Post Office Postage for brochures Boy Scout Troop 584 Waste Management Board Amount Received $ 6,852.00 7,447.50 1,632.56 1.318.92 $17,250.98 $55,525.24 - 17,250.98 $38,274.26 $19,137.13 - 11,717.18 - 2.913.28 $ 4,506.66 Citv of Plymouth Citv of Plymouth Total Paid INCOME Return of tonage rebate Seminar on Composting Staff Coordinator (part-time) (586 hrs. at $19.56/hour) Temp. employees (video production) (311.25 hrs. at $5.75/hour) . From For Metro Council 1985 HH rebate Metro Council 1986 HH rebate Metro Council Tonnage rebate through Sept. 1986 Metro Council Tonnage Rebate through Mar. 1987 Total Received Total Paid Total Received Net Cost x 50% = County Share $19,137.13 Paid by County (Payment No. 1) Paid by County_ (Payment No. 2) Due (Payment No. 3) IL April 21, 1987 CITY OF PLYMOUTR Joan Demeules 12065 48th Ave. Plymouth, MN 55442 Dear Ms. Demeules: Thank you for your thoughtful message on the Resident Feedback form you submitted from the April 13 Town Meeting. Both the City Council and City staff were gratified that the meeting was so well attended. In order to more thoroughly respond to your concerns, we have referred your comments to the Engineering Department for investigation. A member of that department will provide you with additional information on this subject. Once again, thank you for participating in the town meeting and feel free to contact me, City Council members or the City staff at any time if we can be of service to you. Sincerely, Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:lb cc: Fred Moore, Director of Public Works 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 A G E N D A PLYMOUTH TOWN MEETING AREA 6 April 13, 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: 146)5(kD2' �iFel `k' i ic. — i7v ACTION YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO TAKE: �Q�1)5 S Lt cru Id NIPF�%I K / fL�%U S k Lit 1$4 )0 ti' c1 NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT: �I �� (� �� i,l � 1 �E—S ADDRESS OF RESIDENT: (� �, �. _ d" PHONE NUMBER: NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT: �I �� (� �� i,l � 1 �E—S ADDRESS OF RESIDENT: (� �, �. _ d" PHONE NUMBER: April 20, 1987 i� CITY OF PLYMOUTR Denise McNeil 12340 52nd Ave. Plymouth, MN 55442 Dear Ms. McNeil: Thank you for your thoughtful message on the Resident Feedback form you submitted at the April 13 Town Meeting. Both the City Council and City staff were gratified that the meeting was so well attended. In order to more thoroughly respond to your concerns, we have referred your comments to the Engineering Department for investigation. A member of that department will provide you with additional information on this subject. Once again, thank you for participating in the town meeting and feel free to contact me, City Council members or the City staff at any time if we can be of service to you. Sincerely, Virgil Schneider Mayor VS: lb cc: Fred Moore, Director of Public Works 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 A G E N D A PLYMOUTH TOWN MEETING AREA 6 April 13, 1987 I. INTRODUCTIONS - Mayor Virgil Schneider II. STATUS REPORTS ON ISSUES OF INTEREST - City Department Heads III. QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS IN ATTENDANCE IV. CLOSING COMMENTS - Mayor Virgil Schneider V. ADJOURN RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM Please use this form if you have a question or concern which you would like the City to investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone number, we will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your concern. NATURE OF CONCERN/PROPERTY ADDRESS INVOLVED: 411 �1,c� � � �✓�� �� � j u � � � � o% Sd ���D% e_ X01,. ?`- ACTION YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO TAKE: s NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT: ADDRESS OF RESIDENT: /,;I3 PHONE NUMBER: r -. City of Plymouth T)epartnent of Public Safety PUBLIC NUISANCE REPORT DATE 41zot%q Tu Sv�he(IQ �ciega�rd (2 2 10 Co � INSPECTION DATE: 4lzol$-, RE: Property located at: IZZ(O ro I OBSERVATIONS: The following_ v'ol.a/tions were observed: /V 325-lg yX Is -7 L 3 sc rasp a,;Cj..UJ 11-t-tttEr , 4(*,—c � ; � �a c �•���I�ef t NECESSARY CHANGES: The following changes need to be made before the reinspection Jdate in order to abate the nuisance: &e 1 `r -4 r e(�(13 az f Ei l G L`F REINSPECTION DATE: S/z(1`) Thank -you! OFFICER — Community service Ofticer u I Y Ur rLYI"IUUItt PUBIC NUISANCE COMPLAINT CASE NO. Date Reported: ��Zii 51 Time: Report Taken By: Location of Nuisance: Property Owner/Firm/Mgr. i^� [i �zie�;a�„ Phone: Address of Owner/Firm/Mgr. Nature of Complaint/Remarks: Iti�,��`_�c�. ��C��, ��ia =� Phone: Complaintant: Address: (The names of individuals who register complaints concerning the use of property are classified as confidential pursuant to section 15.162 subd. 2a of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 515.1678) Inspection Dates/Findings: Action(s): Investigating Officer: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY - COMMUNITY SERVICE (MAR -82) iELSEA MEWS ASSOCIATION Mayor Virgil Schneider Plymouth City Council 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN. 55441 Dear Mayor Schneider: • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 1860 Zanzibar Lane Plymouth, MN. 55447 April 15, 1987 I just recently learned that the County is quite set on building a Solid Waste Transfer Facility. As I understand it, this facility would be located north of County Road 6 between Vicksburg and Niagara Lanes. (It sounds like it would be right across the road from the new park and the day care center. A great place for something like this!) I would like to be able to tell our homeowners more about what a Solid Waste Transfer Facility is and what, if anything, can be done to fight this installa- tion. What can you tell us about this subject? Thanks for your help. Sincerely, } UC'Fif iu'�, Karen Fox, President Chelsea Mews Association April 21, 1987 CITY OF PLYMOUTFt Ms. Karen Fox President Chelsea Mews Association 1860 Zanzibar Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Ms. Fox: Your April 20, 1987 letter expresses concern about Hennepin County's consideration of the City of Plymouth as a location for a solid waste transfer facility. For your information, I am including a memorandum from our City Manager on this subject. You are correct in that Plymouth is being considered as one of five potential solid waste transfer locations in the County. Today, information on the subject is rather sketchy, but we know that during the next two months, Hennepin County will be preparing a report analyzing the appropriateness of each of the five locations in order to ultimately recommend finalists for construction. If you would like additional information on this subject, I am sure that members of our staff would be happy to attend an upcoming Association meetinq to discuss this subject. Please contact City Manager, Jim Willis, to make final arrangements for a presentation. Once again, thanks for your interest, and let me know if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, L Vi gil Schneider, Mayor VS: bM k Enclosure cc: City Council Members James G. Willis, City Manager Fred Moore, Director of Public Works 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: April 10, 1987 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: James G. Willis, City Manager SUBJECT HENNEPIN COUNTY SOLID WASTE TRANSFER SITE MEETING On April 9, Blair Tremere, Fred Moore, Frank Boyles and I met with Warren Porter and Mark Zaban of Hennepin County, Jeff Turner and Don Krebs of HDR Techniserv, a consultant for the County, and Jerry Corrick, of OSM, an engineering firm workinq on this project. Warren Porter described the steps involved in the County's attempt to locate between two and six solid waste transfer stations in the metropolitan area. He provided the attached implementation schedule, which indicates that each transfer station will involve a three phase study, including predesign/operator selection, design, and finally, construction. He shared Hennepin County Board Resolution 87-3-172, adopted on March 10, 1987, which identifies the vicinity of the Adult Corrections Facility in Plymouth as a potential site for solid waste transfer station. Other sites being considered by the County include Brooklyn Park; an Eden Prairie site along County Road 67; a south Minneapolis site located at 62nd Crosstown and I -35W; a Bloomington site at approx- imately 96th and James; and a Minneapolis site at approximately Lake Street and Hiawatha. As part of the predesign/operator selection phase, a report is beinq prepared which evaluates each of these sites and perhaps more against pre-set criteria. The criteria include zoning and land use, size of site, environmental concerns, and economic costs. We have requested a copy of the specific criteria. This report will make recommendations on the appropriate sites for selection. It is expected that the report will be completed in the next two months. I shared copies of the City's various quide plans and zoninq map with the consultants and the County representatives indicatinq that the Adult Corrections site is R1 -A and would not allow this use. I pointed out the difficulties associated with this site and that the community would not support any rezoning for a facility on this site. I further indicated industrial sites within the community, includign the I-1 land along Niagara Lane, and others in the area of I-494 and 49th Avenue North, and County Road 6 and I-494. nuvrvLrtry I.UUN 1 Y bULIU WA51 t I RAN5F ER SITE MEETING =1� Cju April 10, 1987 Page two County members were provided with a copy of the City's Zoninq Ordinance and were advised of our previous experience with the "Aglite" proposal, as well as the qeneral siting of a hazardous waste transfer facility in the industrial park area. We also advised them that the City has adopted an ordinance regulating hazardous waste facilities and that they should be sensitive to this. We agreed to maintain a high level of communication throughout the process. It is apparent from our discussions that the transfer site, while primarily designed for the transfer of solid wastes, could also be used for the collection of household "hazardous" materials, recycling, and some limited processing. The processing may consistent of separat- ing ferrous and non-ferrous substances prior to transport to ultimate processing locations. County representatives also indicated that it is possible that these facilities may ultimately be used as transfer sites for recyclables as well. They emphasize that only limited processing is contemplated. The meeting confirmed my initial suspicion that the Plymouth site is favored by the County and their consultants. They indicated that the Plymouth site was initially rated highest in terms of economic viability, but lower in terms of access. That was before the construction of the County Road 15 interchange. It is likely that the Plymouth site will be looked on more favorably in light of recent road improvement projects. I will keep the Council advised as the process proceeds. I have attached an article from the April 6, 1987 Wayzata Sailor on this subject. JGW:jm attach April 21, 1987 CITY OF PLYMOUTR Ms. Marcy Shapiro Executive Director West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board 4100 Vernon Avenue South St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Dear Marcy: Thank you for your April 14, 1987 letter advisinq the City Council of Tom Sweeney's resignation from the West Hennepin Human Services Board and your recommendation that this vacancy be filled by Gary Swedborg. The City Council has considered your request at their meeting on April 20, 1987 and unanimously nominated Gary to fill the unexpired term left by Tom's resignation. For our records, I would appreciate your confirmation of Gary's and Anita's terms of appointment to Laurie Brandt, City Clerk, 559-2800, Extension 204. We are confident that Gary will continue to be a positive asset to West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board and the City of Plymouth. Sincerely, VV-gil Schneider Mayor VS:bMk cc: dames G. Willis, City Manager Members of City Council Laurie Brandt, City Clerk 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 April 21, 1987 Mr. Gary Swedborg 1850 Comstock Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mr. Swedborq: CITY OF PLYMOUTR At our April 20, 1987 meeting at the recommendation of Marcy Shapiro, Executive Director of the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, the City Council unanimously appointed you to fill the vacancy on the Board of Directors left by Tom Sweeney's resignation. If you have any questions with respect to this appointment, please feel free to contact me or Laurie Brandt, City Clerk. Congratulations on your appointment, and _thank you for your interest in serving our community. Sincerely, -i-a 4, - Vi it Schneider Mayor VS:bMk cc: James G. Willis, City Manager City Council Members Anita Vogel 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 \-1 b April 13, 1987 Mayor Virgil Schneider City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth MN 55441 Dear Mayor Schneider: S --I c, I am addressing a serious safety condition that I believe exists on West Medicine Lake Drive from the 2500 block to Evergreen Lane. This area has joggers/walkers, bikers, boating, docking of boats, parking of cars, an apparent sailboat club generating more activity, as well as debris and unuseable docks/rafts floating on the shore. In spite of the no parking signs, vehicles continue to stop, park, or launch boats obstructing traffic, and I feel that it will be only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured. Please advise me of the following: 1. Are'the "no parking" signs being enforced? 2. Are there any restrictions on who may install a dock or launch and/or anchor a boat? 3. Is this area treated as private lakeshore and are they appropriately taxed? 4. In the future, will this lakeshore eventually be park area and, if so, would docks and boats be allowed? 5. I am also concerned about the path or trail that runs along West Medicine Lake Drive to County Road 9. These paths are being used as dog runs leaving dog excrements on the walk resulting in unsanitary and undesirable conditions. Also, some dogs are not leashed or controlled by their owner creating additional problems. Clarification and public notification on the use of these trails is urgently needed, as well as policing. I would appreciate your response to the above mentioned items. Respectfully, AR.L. Hickman 12110 29th Avenue North Plymouth MN 55441 cc: Hennepin County Park Reserve District April 21, 1987 Mr. R. L. Hickman 12110 29th Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Mr. Hickman: CITY OF PLYMOUTF+ Thank you for your April 14, 1987 letter expressing concerns about safety on the 2500 block of West Medicine Lake Drive to Evergreen Lane. I have referred your letter to the Park and Recreation Director and to the Public Safety Director. The Park and Recreation Director will respond to your questions about restrictions on dock installation and boat anchoring, private lake shore, the future of this area and the path or trail along West Medicine Lake Drive along County Road 9. The Public Safety Director will respond to your questions about "no parking" enforcement signs in this area. Thank you for your interest, and I will get back to you Just as soon as I receive follow up on these items. Sincerely, - /., J. /-, 4 Vi gil Schneider Mayor VS:bMk cc: Richard Carlquist, Director of Public Safety Eric Blank, Director of Park & Recreation James G. Willis, City Manager City Council Members SF4/27/87 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 Apr i 1 22. 1987 CITY PLYMOUT}+ Ms. Rosemary L. Hickman 12110 29th Avenue North Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 Dear Ms. Hickman: Yes, we do indeed enforce parking violations! Last year we wrote 3,523 citations for illegal parking. I have taken the liberty of sharing the letter that you sent to Mayor Schneider with our Patrol Division. If you should become aware of any violations occurring in the No Parking areas on West Medicine Lake Drive, Please give us a call (if you don't happen to see a police car in the immediate area of the violation already). For your information, West Medicine Lake Drive is one of the heaviest patrolled areas of Plymouth, simply because of the many pedestrian uses made of this roadway. I have also shared your comments concerning the trail that runs along West Medicine Lake Drive with the Community Service Officers. They are the personnel directly responsible for any police actions that pertain to animal control ordinances. It is quite possible that the general public that walk their dogs in this area are not aware of their individual responsibilities under the City ordinance relating to animal control and nuisances. Appropriate signing may be a definite possibility to advise the public of such ordinances. I will discuss this signing proposal with other department heads who have both the responsibi- lity and expertise as to the effectiveness of warning signs. If you should have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 559-2800, extension 350. Sincerely, Richard J.jlquelst Public Safety Director RJC:gs cc: James G. Willis - City Manager Eric Blank - Director of Parks a Recreation April 24,1987 R.L. Hickman 12110 29th Ave N Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Ms. Hickman: r, CITY OF PLYMOUTR The Mayor has forwarded your letter dated April 13 to me for review and comment. My responses are for questions 2 through 5. #2) Currently there are no special rules or regulations proclamated for Medicine Lake. From the City's point of view, only residents living across the street from the lake, whose original land provided the road, should be placing docks on the shoreline immediately across from their residential property. Those same individuals would be free to make arrangements with other people to dock boats at or near their docks. With the opening of French Regional Park, anyone is free to launch a boat on Medicine Lake. #3) The area of shoreline you have questioned is not treated as private shoreline, because of the road interfering and/or separating this shoreline from the residential property. They are appropriately taxed in that they are in close proximity to the lake and have a view of the lake. This is taken into consideration at setting the valuation of their property. #4) There is some discussion at this time of possibly relocating a portion of West Medicine Lake Drive through this general area. If that comes about, it is generally agreed that the existing roadway would become a trail along the shoreline. If this happens, I would expect that the docks and boats would still remain as they now exist along this portion of shore. #5) We have a serious problem at this time throughout the City with unleashed dogs messing up City parks and trails. This, of course, is against City ordinance, which prohibits unleashed dogs, and dogs fouling park property. We are beginning a program right now of trying to appropriately sign those areas where this problem is most prevalent. I will ask our park maintenance division to get a sign on the West Medicine Lake trail to help alleviate this problem. Thank you for your time and interest in this matter. help, you can reach me at 559-2800 x 265. Sincerely, Eric J. Blank, Director Parks and Recreation cc: City Manager Public Safety Director Parks & Environmental Supervisor If I can be of any further 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 April 21, 1987 Mr. Peter Gromli Advertisers Distribution Services 2828 Hedberg Drive Minnetonka, MN 55343 Dear Mr. Gromli: Z �1� CITY OF PLYMOUTF+ This letter is a follow up to our recent telephone conversation. I have been advised of a resident's complaint that one of your ADS tubes had been attached to that individual's mailbox without advance permission. You confirmed that it is your company's current practice to affix the tube to mailboxes without gaining prior permission or approval from the resident. You indicated that you do include within the tube a note that the tube will be removed if the resident desires. This is a change from your past practice wherein you had advised residents in advance of installation that the tubes would be installed unless the resident contacts you to the contrary. I also believe your current practice is somewhat aggressive and urge you to reexamine your practice. I shared our conversation with members of the City Council at their April 20 meeting. They too are concerned with the existing practice and would urge you to return to implementation of your previous practice. In order that I can follow up with the City Council, please let me know by April 29 of your intended plans with respect to installation of the ADS tubes. Thanks for your cooperation. Sincerely, ames G. Willis 'ty Manager JGW:bMk cc: Mayor Virgil Schneider Members of Plymouth City Council SF4/29/87 REF: PHONE NUMBER: 477-3431 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture TWIN CITIES 110 Architecture Building 89 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 r-••, r •. (612)624-7866:,:r;.._� ... f i 2 April 1987 l!PR ;i• .I4R7 Blair Tremere, Director of Planning Plymouth City Hall 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Blair: As I said when you completed your session with us on Wednesday afternoon, the class and instructors appreciated immensely your presentation on the PUD planning process with its special focus on the United Properties MPUD. I watched the group as you talked and was especially impressed by the intensity of their interest and, later, by the quantity and level of questions generated by your message. You did an excellent job! It's clear student interest in this project is running high. We'll look forward to meeting with Larry Laukka and his colleagues next Monday and then to seeing our student teams plunge into their own design and planning efforts as the quarter progresses. You have played a major role in setting the tone for a fine learning experience for our group. For Ardis Hutchinson (Interior Design faculty), Dewey Thorbeck (Architecture faculty) and the 28 students in our studio, many thanks! Best regards, Roger D. Clemence, Professor School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture RDC/cd �-1 April 9, 1987 CITY OF PLYMOU I Ft Mr. Mark Banwart Department of Environment and Energy 822 South 3rd Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Subject: Plymouth/Hennepin County Cost Sharing for Recycling Program Dear Mark: The City of Plymouth hereby applies for Payment No. 3 (Final) of the Hennepin County Contract Agreement' o. 60404. This payment is for the balance due through March 31 of 1486 Total amount requested is $4,506.66 as delineated on the attached Cost Su ary Sheet: The attached information constitutes the final written report and covers all points contained in Section 1.0, D of the Contract Agreement. I certify that the above information is a true and accurate statement of expenditures for the City of Plymouth Recycling Program through March 31, 1987. Sincerely, a 0 4 ) QJJ Richard J. Pouliot Project Coordinator RJP:kh cc: Fred G. Moore Sherman L. Goldberg Frank Boyles Dale Hahn 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 PLYMOUTH RECYCLING PROGRAM A FIRST YEAR ANALYSIS THROUGH MARCH 31, 1987 VOLUME 1986 Goal (4% of Waste Stream) Tons/Month 1987 Goal (6% of Waste Stream) Tons/Month Total Tons Collected Average Tons Per Month Collected % of Goal Achieved 1986 % of Goal Achieved 1987 % of Resident Participation (45 Pounds/Resident/Month) Total Program Expense Metro council paid Hennepin County paid Citv paid Total Cost/Ton = City Net Cost/Ton = Net Pickup Cost/Ton Paid to Hauler 42% 26% 28% COST $17,250.98 $19,137.13 $19,137.13 150.6 237.2 752.15 62.68 $55,525.24 $55,525.24 $ 752.15 (ton) = $ 73.82 $19„137.13 $ 752.15 (ton) = $ 25.44 _ $27,000.00 $ 752.15 (ton) = $ 35.90 Z n -;�, CITY OF PLYMOUTH RECYCLING PROGRAM COSTS FROM BEGINNING OF PROGRAM THROUGH MARCH, 1987 Paid To For $5,670.00 Midwest Refuse Systems Paper containers 332.50 Midwest Refuse Systems Paper containers 2,100.00 Midwest Refuse Svstems Paper containers 1,165.22 Hamel Building Center Recycling Dropoff Center 21.08 City of Plymouth/Bldg. Dept Building Permit 426.00 Rapit-Printing Printed brochures 104.65 Rapit-Printing Printed brochures S flyer 142.20 Rapit-Printing Printed Brochures 6 flyer 1,214.69 Rapit-Printing 2,250.00 Beerman Services 2,500.00 Beerman Services 24,750.00 WASP/Super Cycle 1,351.49 U.S. Post Office 230.56 Bov Scout Troop 584 15.00 Waste Management Board 11,462.16 Citv of Plymouth 1,789.69 City of Plymouth $55,525.24 Total Paid Amount Received $ 6,852.00 7,447.50 1,632.56 1.318.92 $17,250.98 $55,525.24 - 17,250.98 $38,274.26 $19,137.13 - 11,717.18 - 2.913.28 $ 4,506.66 INCOME From Metro Council Metro Council Metro Council Metro Council Printed Brochures & flyer Curbside Pickup (one month) Deliver containers & flyer Curbside Pickup (11 months) Postage for brochures Return of tonage rebate Seminar on Composting Staff Coordinator (part-time) (586 hrs. at $19.56/hour) Temp. employees (video production) (311.25 hrs. at $5.75/hour) For 1985 HH rebate 1986 HH rebate Tonnage rebate through Sept. 1986 Tonnage Rebate through Mar. 1987 Total Received Total Paid Total Received Net Cost x 50% - County Share $19,137.13 Paid by Countv (Payment No. 1) Paid by County (Payment No. 2) Due (Payment No. 3) SECTION 1.0 - D Total Costs: _ $55,525.24 Planning, Publicitv & Admin. Costs: = 16,721.44 Publicity Strategies Used: A combination of articles in the City publication, plus local newspapers, plus video productions aired on Cable channels was used to backup and reinforce the printed brochure which was delivered with the first issue of recycling bags. All were mutually supportive and the effectiveness of any one was unable to be measured. Participation Rate: Average 58% Tonnage of Materials: See graph and attachments - Breakout of types of materials is available from Supercycle, as is market information Other: The following is, in my opinion, the most convenient, acceptable and cost effective method of recycling, and all efforts should aim toward that ultimate goal. 1. Once per week curbside pickup on the same day that garbage is picked up. 2. Mandatory source separation ordinances. 3. Organized collection of all refuse with an ordinance prohibiting the pickup of non source separated items by the hauler. 4. Each area or division of the City would be the responsibility of one manager or hauler for trash, compost material and recycled items, with total tonnage reports made to the City monthly. This would possibly_ require some subcontracting for recycling pickups. 5. The City would bill or tax the residents for service and pay the hauler monthly. April 17, 1987 f SD Fire Chief Smith New Hope Fire Department 4401 Xylon Avenue North Mew Hope, MN 55428 Dear Chief Smith, The Plymouth Fire Department extends their thanks for a job well done. The grasslands fire that occurred near County Road 18 and Highway 55 exceeded our means to cope and your help was greatly needed. Several homes and a mobile home park were endangered by the fire. A large number of vehicles were also endangered on the east side of the area. Our evaluation after the fire was out and the smoke cleared verified that each department that assisted us played an important role in the successful outcome. There was no structural damage to any property and no injuries to any of the personnel involved. Thanks again and we stand ready to return the help. Ve e . Robinson Fire Chief CITY OF PUMOUTR April 17, 1987 Mr. John Nelson, Supervisor Department of Natural Resources Cambridge Area Fire Protection Service 915 South Highway 65 Cambridge, MN 55008 Dear Mr. Nelson, The Plymouth Fire Department extends their thanks for a job well done. The grasslands fire that occurred near County Road 18 and Highway 55 exceeded our means to cope and your help was greatly needed. Several homes and a mobile home park were endangered by the fire. A large number of vehicles were also endangered on the east side of the area. Our evaluation after the fire was out and the smoke cleared verified that each department that assisted us played an important role in the successful outcome. There was no structural damage to any property and no injuries to any of the personnel involved. We appreciate the unique help that your helicopter pilot and his airborne bucket brigade was able to provide. I've heard of your abilities, but this was my first opportunity to see it in action. It is, beyond a doubt, a great asset for all of greater Minnesota. nc e C. Robinson Eire Chief cc: Dennis Gardner, DNR P. CITY OF PLYMOUTH+ April 17, 1987 Captain Don Vodegel Hennepin County Communications Center 9300 Naper Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Don, z --) �3 Please thank your dispatchers that worked so tirelessly with the Plymouth Fire Department on April 16 during our grass fire. Their monitoring and relaying of messages between us and various other agencies was invaluable. The backing we receive is not thanks to all! s iihc e "6. e C. Robin - son e Chief acknowledged often enough. Our • wm.m C6 t,-, � �i ;� ..�.�,-�.�. _mss s ��� @-�-.� s r� April 16, 1987 Mr. Patrick B. McGuire Property Manager Towle Real Estate Company Northwest Business Campus 3033 Campus Drive Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 Dear Pat: 1 arr of PIYMOUTFt As promised, I have enclosed the summary data concerned with the ment detail that we assigned to the industrial area where you are adjacent residential area that we call "Tangle Town". special enforce - located and the After reviewing the statistics involved during the two different time frames we scheduled, I am of the opinion not to continue the special enforcement efforts. That is not to say, however, that we will ignore your area from any type of patrol efforts when we have free time available. Officer Nesbitt has made me aware that a burglary did occur at the Turck Multi Prox business located at 3000 Campus Drive on or about the evening hours of 04/09/87. I understand that entry to this location was easily accomplished via the large gap in the aluminum frames surrounding the outside doors. In any event, a vending machine was broken into on the inside and an undetermined amount of cash was taken. I am not aware of any other crimes that have occurred on the campus property after or during our special patrol. One of our investigators did clear a series of vandalisms to property on the west side of I494, as well as the burglary to the McDonald's restaurant on the campus property. This investigator told me that the suspects involved could easily have been the same ones responsible for the vandalism to the building adjacent to Harland Printing. Hopefully, that is the case as the suspects were arrested and placed in jail (they were over the age of 18). If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sinc y, Richard J. Carlquist Public Safety Director RJC:gs Enclosure cc: Robert Nesbitt - Community Relations Officer Ron Penz - General Manager, Real Estate Investment Office/Prudential Dan McGraw - Plant Manager, John H. Harland Company Charles Haynes - Corporate Security Director, John H. Harland Company Frank Boyles - Assistant City Manager CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: April 1, 1987 TO: Director Carlquist FROM: D. Paulson SUBJECT Special Enforcement Detail West Medicine "Tangle Town" Residential and Adjacent Industrial Areas. Period: March 21 through March 28, 1987 Two officers worked four hours (2130-0130) each night during this period for a total of 32 hours. (Total of 64 "pay" hours) The officers used different unmarked vehicles and used mobile, stationary and foot patrol in this area. Date/Day Tags Issued - Verbal Warnings - *Misc. Contacts 03/21 -Saturday 3 0 3 Two adults tagged for speed, one underage tagged for alcohol violation (in a vehicle). One female juvenile pedestrian ID'd, one motorist assist and one vehicle stopped and checked for registration. (All Tangletown) 03/22 -Sunday 2 0 3 Two juveniles tagged (citation issued) for equipment violations. Three juvenile pedestrians stopped and ID'd prior to curfew. (All Tangletown) 03/23 -Monday 0 0 0 03/24 -Tuesday 0 0 0 03/25 -Wednesday 1 0 0 One adult tagged for speed. (NW Blvd.) 03/26 -Thursday 0 2 4 Two adults stopped for verbal traffic. (One Tangletown, one NW Blvd.) 'Rhee suspicious vehicles stopped -ID'd. (Tangletown). One pedestrian (18) stopped and ID'd (Tangletown). Fl Special $1forcement Detail April 1, 1987 page Two (2) 03/27 -Friday 1 4 0 One adult stopped and tagged for a moving violation. Three vehicles stopped, ID'd and given verbal traffic warnings (All in Tangletown). One vehicle stopped and given a verbal traffic warning (NW Blvd.). 03/28 -Saturday 0 0 2 One suspicious vehicle stopped and ID'd (NW Blvd). Two vehicles stopped and ID'd (Tangletown). 7 6 12 Total mileage for this eight day period: 386 CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: April 13, 1987 TO: Director Carlquist FROM: D. Paulson SUBJECT Special Enforcement Detail Summary West Medicine "Tangle Town- Residential and Adjacent Industrial Areas. Period: March 29th through,April_4th 1987 Two officers worked four hours (2130-0130) each night during this period for a total of 28 hours. (Total of 64 "pay" hours) The officers used different unmarked vehicles and used mobile, stationary and foot patrol in this area. Date/Day Tags, Issued - Verbal Warnings - Misc. Contacts 03/29 -Sunday 1 1 W One adult tagged for fail to stop violation, residential area, one verbal park closing, West Beach. Residential/business patrol without additional contacts. 03/30 -Monday 1 0 3 One parkinq violation. Three vehicles stopped and checked, two in the business area and one residential, all OK. Residential/ business patrol without additional contacts. 03/31 -Tuesday 3 1 1 Three underage males tagged for alcohol violations. Two vehicles stopped and checked, one OK, one warned about park closing times, both in the residential area. Residential/business patrol without additional contacts. 04/01 -Wednesday 0 1P 4 Four vehicles stopped and checked in residential areas, OK. Residential/business patrol without additional contacts. Special Enforcement Detail Summary April 13, 1987 Page Two (2) 04/02 -Thursday J 1 0 One adult stopped and arrested for DWI (on West Med./20th) Juveniles chased out of West Beach park area at 2145 and warned about curfew in 15 minutes. Residential/business patrol without additional contacts. 04/03 -Friday 0 0 1 One parked vehicle checked (lovers -residential). Residential/ business patrol without additional contacts. 04/04 -Saturday 0 0 1 Three juveniles stopped and ID'd-no violations (residential). Residential/business patrol without additional contacts. 6 3 10 Total mileage for this eight day period: 294 GERRY SIKORSKI 6TH DISTRICT, MINNESOTA WHIP AT LARGE ENERGY AND COMMERCE POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE CHAIRMAN, HUMAN RESOURCES SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES Conareoss of the 1ttiteb *tateg J00uge of Reprtantatibeg RaOington, MC 20515 April 16, 1987 Mr. James Willis City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Dear James: WASHINGTON OFFICE: 414 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BLDG. WASHINGTON, DC 20515 (202) 225-2271 DENNIS McGRANN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DISTRICT OFFICE: 8060 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE. FRIDLEY, MN 55432-1862 (612) 780-5801 DAVID BARTHOLOMP.Y DISTRICT DIRECTOR Two weeks ago Congress successfully overrode President Reagan's veto of the Surface Transportation Act, thus freeing funds to the states for road construction, road restoration and, mass transit. These are much needed funds, without which, the whole road construction season could have been lost. This law now authorizes a total of approximately $87.9 billion for highway and mass transit programs in fiscal years 1987 through 1992, $76.4 billion of which would come from federal gasoline tax revenue and other user taxes that go into the Highway Trust Fund. For highway programs it authorizes $13.7 billion in each of fiscal years 1987 through 1989, $13.9 billion in each of FY 1990 and FY 1991 and $1.4 billion in FY 1992. For mass transit programs, the bill authorizes $3.1 billion in fiscal year 1987, gradually increasing up to about $3.5 billion in FY 1991. For Minnesota this breaks down to: * $46.6 million for repair and maintenance of the interstate system. * $43.6 million for repair and maintenance of other highways. * $14.5 million for the repair of rural roads. * $11 million for the repair of city roads. * $20.2 million for bridge replacement and repairs. * $3.5 million for the improvement of hazardous intersections. THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS Mr. James Willis Page 2 April 16, 1987 $4.2 million for the improvement of railroad crossings. $2.8 million for other highway work. Contrary to what President Reagan says, this bill is not a budget buster. In fact, 87% of the total funding authorized by the bill is derived from Highway Trust Fund revenues, which cannot be used for anything but highway or mass transit programs. The remaining funds in the bill are subject to annual Congressional appropriations. In fact, the bill authorizes $1 billion less than the FY 1986 funding level. And the Congressional Budget Office estimates the Highway Trust Fund receipts will actually exceed expenses by $1 billion over the five-year period. Clearly these are much needed funds which will improve our infrastructure and communities. They are much too important to play politics with. That is why I voted for this bill and voted to override the President's veto. Rest assured I will continue to fight for programs which are vitally needed by our corununities. As always, if I can be of help in this or any other matter please feel free to contact me. Si GPIRRY SIK9'RSKI ember of/ Congress GS/dc April 23, 1987 Mr. Theodore J. Hoffman, P.E. Chief Design Engineer Henn. County Dept. of Transp. 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 Subject: New County Road 9 City Project No. 642 Dear Ted: ) 7 2 FROM: FRED REFERRED TO: S/F S/F: 4/8/87 Attached herewith is a copy of a petition which the Citv of Plymouth received from residents living around Lost Lake. Lost Lake is located between Zachary Lane and Nathan Lane, and along the South side of existing County Road 9. This petition is requesting that a berm and landscaping be constructed between old County Road 9 and new Countv Road 9 between Revere Lane and Zachary Lane. I am requesting that you investigate the feasibility of constructing an earthen berm within this area as requested by the petition. If it is feasible to construct a berm within this area, please let me know if you -_will be able to add it to the existing construction plans. If there are any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Fred G. Moore, P.E. Director of Public Works FGM:kh Enclosures cc: James G. Willis Sherm Goldberg 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800 Petition To The City of Plymouth WE THE UNDERSIGNED PEOPLE, residents of the neighborhoods surrounding LOST LAKE, petition the Plymouth City Council, to construct an earthen berm with plantings sufficient to effectively screen noise generated from the new County Road 9 and to reduce the noise pollution in our neighborhood to an acceptable level. The berm should be located between the new and old County Road 9 and should extend east to west from Revere Lane to Zachary Lane. 14. 15., 16l_ 17. _ 18. _ 19. 20. _ <7 NAMEi _ ADDRESS PHONE 6. 2 3. 4. • 14. 15., 16l_ 17. _ 18. _ 19. 20. _ <7 6. • 81 9. l0 • i 12. _ 14. 15., 16l_ 17. _ 18. _ 19. 20. _ <7 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.( 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Petition To The City of Plymouth WE THE UNDERSIGNED PEOPLE, residents of the neighborhoods surrounding LOST LAKE, petition the Plymouth City Council, to construct an earthen berm with plantings sufficient to effectively screen noise generated from the new County Road 9 and to reduce the noise pollution in our neighborhood to an acceptable level. The berm should be located between the new and old County Road 9 and should extend east to west from Revere Lane to Zachary Lane. S AL/e- 13. L/e- 13. 14. - r� J 15. y Ij 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. • i. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. --Z-- \7 K - Petition To The City of Plymouth WE THE UNDERSIGNED PEOPLE, residents of the neighborhoods surrounding LOST LAKE, petition the Plymouth City Council, to construct an earthen berm with plantings sufficient to effectively screen noise generated from the new County Road 9 and to reduce the noise pollution in our neighborhood to an acceptable level. The berm should be located between the new and old County Road 9 and should extend east to west from Revere Lane to Zachary Lane. OUR*$ 17. 18. 19. 20. Petition To The City of Plymouth WE THE UNDERSIGNED PEOPLE, residents of the neighborhoods surrounding LOST LAKE, petition the Plymouth City Council, to construct an earthen berm with plantings sufficient to effectively screen noise generated from the new County Road 9 and to reduce the noise pollution in our neighborhood to an acceptable level. The berm should be located between the new and old County Road 9 and should extend east to west from Revere Lane to Zachary Lane. / 2 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. NAMEi ADDRESS PHONE .��,. %71,i�t�z,LJ�, %/� �; ,_ -c/i• ( Liles,; �r a SSSS/-. zz3. % 'r?l(L�i1 •fes/ ,.! / `�':`l i,�_.,� --� _'� 2.. "�,f'�_ �-T.��i ���C-�;�� _ 4. ZIA— 5. 6. ZZ9. 2 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. yq -14 4-IL1 .��,. %71,i�t�z,LJ�, %/� �; ,_ -c/i• ( Liles,; �r a SSSS/-. yq Petition To The City of Plymouth WE THE UNDERSIGNED PEOPLE, residents of the neighborhoods surrounding LOST LAKE, petition the Plymouth City Council, to construct an earthen berm with plantings sufficient to effectively screen noise generated from the new County Road 9 and to reduce the noise pollution in our neighborhood to an acceptable level. The berm should be located between the new and old County Road 9 and should extend east to west from Revere Lane to Zachary Lane. NAME ADDRESS PHONE l . i•�1 �- •. -• � ( ' Gy/i •t e.L_._.� -/I` l� S '-%�i' •,�,:;w i .'y" ` �` S j�:Z 2. / 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.