HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 02-06-1987IN
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
February 6, 1987
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS.....
1. JOINT COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION DINNER MEETING -- Monday, February
9, 5:00 p.m. A Joint dinner meeting of the City Council and
Planning Commission will be held in the Council Conference Room.
2. PLYMOUTH FORUM -- Monday, February 9, 7:00 p.m. Plymouth Forum in
the Council Conference Room.
3. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, February 9, 7:30 p.m. Special
City Council meeting in the City Council Chambers.
4. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS -- Tuesday, February 10,
7:30 p.m. The Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals will meet in
the City Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-4)
5. PLANNING COMMISSION -- Wednesday, February 11. The Planning
Commission Forum will begin at 7:15 p.m., with the regular Planning
Commission meeting following at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-5)
6. PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION -- Thursday, February 12,
7:30 p.m. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission will meet in
the City Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-6)
7. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Thursday, February 19, 6:30
p.m. The Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority will meet in
the City Council Chambers.
8. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, February 23, 7:30 p.m. Special
City Council meeting in the City Council Chambers.
9. PLANNING COMMISSION -- Wednesday, February 25, 7:30 p.m. The
Planning Commission will meet in the City Council Chambers.
10. FEBRUARY & MARCH CALENDARS -- Meeting calendars for February and
March are attached. M-10
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
February 6, 1987
Page two
11. SPECIAL STUDY COMMITTEE -- Chairman Davenport and the members of the
Committee will be meeting on the following three Thursday evenings
all beginning at 7:00 p.m.: March 12, April 9, and April 23.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION.....
1. 1986 PLYMOUTH ACCIDENT STATISTICS -- To enhance Plymouth's employee
safety efforts, we retain records of both vehicular and personal
injury accidents involving City employees for each calendar year.
Attached are tables assembled for the Plymouth Safety Program. The
first table provides a profile of vehicular accidents which occurred
during calendar year 1986. A total of 25 vehicular accidents were
reported amounting to an estimated $9,238 in damage. This compares
with 1985 estimated vehicular damage amounts of $5,897. These
figures are based upon the damage estimates contained in the
accident reports. Thirteen of the accidents involved collisions with
other vehicles. Ice, snow, and obstructed views, i.e. trees at the
intersection, were contributing factors for five accidents. Five of
the accidents occurred during the day. Four accidents occurred
while City vehicles were snow plowing, one, while a police squad was
protecting an accident scene and three others when police employees
were responding to a medical emergency vehicular pursuit or
roadblock. Divisions recording zero preventable accidents for 1986
include City Center (office), Street Division, Sewer and Water
Division, Equipment Center Division, and Park Maintenance Division
- permanent full-time employees only.
The second table shows on-the-job personal injury accidents for
calendar year 1986. A total of 38 accidents were reported. Of
those, 11 were OSHA recordable. Eight of those involved lost work
days. Accidents involving lost work time occurred in the Police
Department, Park Maintenance Division, Sewer and Water Division, and
Recreation Division. Four of the accidents resulted in back -related
injuries. Temporary employees were involved in eight accidents,
six in Park Maintenance and two in Recreation.
The final three tables supplied reflect the dollar and cents losses
associated with these accidents for each year since 1980. On a
division by division basis, personal injury has been most expensive
in the Police Department at $60,300, followed closely by the Fire
Department at $47,559. On a year by year basis, accident costs vary
precipitously. For example, a single accident occurrinq in 1984
resulted in total accident costs for that year of $50,619. By
contrast, personal injury accidents in 1986 have resulted in costs
of only $930.
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
February 6, 1987
Page three
Records are also maintained regarding the cost of personal injury
accidents by body part injured. Over the last six years, the most
expensive accidents have resulted from back injuries for a total of
$59,634. The second most expensive accident type, based on data
from the last six years, is leg/foot injuries for a total of $52,940
in losses. $44,500 of this loss is attributable to one accident.
The final table displays lost work days as a result of Worker's
Compensation related accidents. The City has experienced three bad
years in this respect: 1981 involved 82 lost work days; 1984; 224
lost work days; and 1985, 152 lost work days. By contrast, 1986
entailed eight lost work days and a total insurance company cost of
$1,330.
Based upon this data, our 1987 Safety Training Program will
concentrate on snow plowing and Public Safety vehicle usage.
We will also concentrate on temporary employee usage of City
vehicles and possible personal injury which they could be involved
in. Finally, training will be provided on safe lifting in hopes of
reducing costs associated with back -related injuries.
On a day-to-day basis, the Safety Committee reviews both personal
injury and vehicular accidents and makes recommendations to
appropriate supervisors regarding revisions in procedures,
equipment, or personnel protective equipment to reduce future
similar accidents. The City is blessed with employees who exercise
care and concern in their daily work operations. This fact,
together with our aggressive Safety Program, combine to make
Plymouth's Accident Program one of the most effective on the
municipal level based upon the comments received by our Worker's
Compensation and liability insurance company Loss Control
Technicians. (I-1)
2. COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR SELECTION PROCESS -- Some 286
applications were received for the position of Communications
Coordinator. We have completed "two passes" of the applications and
are in the process of sending letters to those individuals who will
not be considered further. We first narrowed candidates to some 50
for additional review and we have that completed, narrowing that
group to 10 candidates for interview. To provide for a
comprehensive review of candidate qualifications, we have developed
a multi -faceted selection approach as follows:
1. Each candidate will be asked to submit their best work product
in the area of print, audio, and audio visual for City review.
2. Orally interview each by a team of three individuals, one of
whom will be from outside the City organization.
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
February 6, 1987
Page four
3. Each candldate will prepare an impromptu speech on a subject of
our selection and will deliver the speech to a panel of
"concerned residents" complete with television cameras.
Questions will be tendered from the audience.
4. Each candidate will prepare and type a press release regarding a
subject of our selection.
5. After paring the finalists down to a maximum of five, each will
complete a battery of psychological and skill exams administered
by MDA Consulting.
We hope to have the successful candidate hired by early March.
3. COMPLAINT OF MR. MICHAEL JAGODKA, 4355 ITHACA LANE -- On Monday,
January 19, Mr. Jagodka came to the City enter and raised
complaints with respect to the City's police emergency services.
The incident occurred on Friday, January 16 and he called Mayor
Schneider at midnight that night and, subsequently, called
Councilmember Crain the next day. He did not follow up on either of
those calls to the best of my knowledge. The problem, as he related
it to me, dealt with his allegation that a City Police Officer
refused to escort a car driven by a relative and occupied by his
wife and small child to the hospital for an emergency. He indicated
that he felt it was the City's responsibility to provide such
service and that we were not truly committed to effective public
safety service if we failed to render such service when requested.
As he explained the incident, his young daughter apparently had a
pencil or some other object stuck in her throat. His wife and an
in-law were not able to dislodge it, and because the telephone was
not working, did not call 911 but departed immediately for St.
Mary's Hospital. They encountered a City Police Officer who, when
requested to escort them to the hospital, refused. The family then
continued to the hospital where the problem was attended to. In
following up on this matter, I found that the Officer involved was
Field Supervisor John Ward. A copy of his report is attached. In
his report, he notes that he did offer to radio 911 in order that an
ambulance could be called to render first aid. According to John
Ward, they indicated they could get to the hospital more promptly
and departed.
Upon receiving the report from Field Supervisor Ward, I contacted
Mr. Jagodka and scheduled a meeting to review his concerns. Mr.
Jagodka, following the scheduling of that meeting and a reminder of
it, did not keep his appointment.
Neither the Public Safety Director nor I are aware of any
municipalities which provide either escort service or rides to
emergency medical facilities. Our area is very fortunate to be
served by well-trained medical personnel immediately accessable via
911. Persons encountering a medical emergency are best served by
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
February 6, 1987
Page five
contacting 911. Not only will a Plymouth Police Officer respond to
such calls but also a North Memorial medical team. Our average
response time to such calls is less than four minutes and North
Memorial less than eight. With response times such as these,
persons requiring emergency medical service are able to receive
emergency response promptly. (I-3)
4. LITIGATION - CHARLES P. BELGARDE VERSUS THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH -- Mr.
Belgarde was the developer of the Fox Meadows First Addition and
also at one time owned approximately 80 acres of land which is now
developed by the Park Place apartment project as well as a portion
of Plymouth Creek Park. He is bringing an action against the City
for breach of contract with respect to the City's alleged failure to
acquire easements pursuant to an agreement between the parties in
1979. This matter has been referred to the City Attorney's office
for defense. We believe the action is without merit. The easements
in question were acquired by the City after Mr. Belgarde sold the
property to the developers of Park Place - The Tipton Corporation.
Attached is a copy of the summons and complaint. (I-4)
5. TENNANT COMPANY EASEMENT -- Friday morning, representatives of
Harlan Peterson and the Tennant Company met to resolve certain title
problems dealing with the conveyance of property to Tennant from
Peterson. This is the last impediment to clearing the title in
order that Tennant can provide us with the necessary easements for
the construction of the sanitary sewer across their property.
Attached is a memo from Fred Moore who attended the meeting. We
anticipate receiving the easement from the Tennant Company very
shortly. I called Mr. Langford after receiving Fred's report on the
meeting. I assured him of our continued interest to cooperate with
Tennant in every possible way to insure the appropriate development
of their property in accordance with their previous planning efforts
as well as our understanding with respect to the conveyance of the
easement. He assured me that the easement would be conveyed very
shortly. He also noted that a representative of his office was, at
that time, trying to have the revised deed recorded with Hennepin
County in order that the further conveyance of the easement could be
made. (I-5)
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
February 6, 1987
Page six
6. PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM AT HIGHWAY 101 AND HIGHWAY
55 -- The Minnesota Department of Transportation has proposed
replacing the present temporary flashing signal at this location
with a permanent five -phased traffic actuated system. While the
estimated cost of this system is approximately $80,000, 90% of it
will be funded by the Federal Government with the balance shared
between MnDot and the City. The City's share will be 2.5% of the
total project or approximately $2,000. In addition, the City would
be responsible for the painting, re-lamping, cleaning of the signal
system, and the power cost to operate the signal and street light
system. These are standard requirements of MnDot. A contract for
this work is proposed to be let in May by MnDot.
7. 1987 MUNICIPAL STATE AID (MSA) -- Fred Moore has received
notification from MnDot that the City will be receiving $695,285 in
MSA apportionment for 1987. This is a decrease from the $754,993
allocated in 1986. Fred's memorandum of January 30, attached, notes
that the reason for the reduction is that the State Legislature is,
in effect, recouping money paid out in 1986 because of a decision
which postponed the diversion of excise tax monies to the Hiqhway
Fund. (I-7)
8. WE GOOFED! OR, COMPUTERS DO NOT MAKE MISTAKES -- Last week it was
discovered, to our embarrassment, that the Buildinq Permit fees
charged since January 1 were based on the schedule to go into effect
in 1988 as compared to that to go into effect this year. A
customer, who was not aware of the revised buildinq fees, questioned
why they seemed so high as compared to the last time they had taken
out a permit. When the individual components of the fee were broken
down and manually calculated, based upon the adopted 1987 schedule,
it did not yield the total derived via the computer printout.
Further checking noted the source of the error. The error was
corrected by the Data Processing Supervisor who entered the 1987 fee
schedule on the same day. We discovered that a total of 74 buildinq
permits had been issued since January 2, based upon the 1988 fee
schedule. We are calculating the difference between appropriate fee
and the fee collected. Refund checks along with a letter of
explanation will be sent to all those who had been overcharged. The
computer worked fine; the error was in the human data entry.
9. EMINENT DOMAIN APPEAL OF LONKE/CARROLL (PROJECT 404) -- I have been
informed by the City Attorney's office, through Fred Moore, that the
subject eminent domain appeal has been resolved. This action
resulted from a City taking of street and utility right-of-way for
48th Avenue and Valley Forge Lane in 1984. Condemnation
Commissioners had previously made an award of $30,000 which was
appealed by the property owner. As a result of the settlement,
which was negotiated between the parties before trial, the
Plaintiff's will receive a payment of $25,403.04 representing, in
part, compensation for the right-of-way taken for the project
including accumulated interest as well as a reduction in special
assessments levied for the improvements amounting to $14,774.32.
The original amounts assessed to the Lonke/Carroll property were
$15,637.80 and $44,876.67.
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
February 6, 1987
Page seven
10. MINUTES:
a. Planning Commission, January 28, 1987 (I -10a)
11. COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION FORM -- Attached is a revised copy
of the Application for Appointment to Commission or Committee.
(I-11)
12. CHELSEA WOODS UPDATE -- Attached is a summary report by Building
Official Joe Ryan of action that the Building Division has performed
since the January 30 non-structural plan review report was
prepared. (I-12)
13. CORRESPONDENCE:
a. Memorandum by Blair Tremere, Director of Planning and Community
Development, regarding the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Guide
Plan Amendments resulting from proposed reductions of density.
A copy of Blair's January 27 memorandum is attached. (I -13a)
b. Letter by Blair Tremere, Director of Planning and Community
Development, to Mr. Bob Burger of the Bass Lake Development
Company regarding a new committee to study City requirements as
to leased office space in the industrial district and
"proof -of -parking" requirements. A copy of Blair's January 28
letter is attached. (I -13b)
c. Letter to Mayor Schneider from Ms. Sherri L. Baxter, Plymouth's
Junior Miss, regarding her participation in the Minnesota's
Junior Miss competition. Mayor Schneider's February 3 response
is attached. (I -13c)
d. Fred Moore, Director of Public Works, response to the three
Community Improvement Reminder Cards submitted by Mayor
Schneider. Attached are copies of the CIR memorandum from
Assistant City Manager Frank Boyles, Community Improvement
Reminder Cards, and Fred's response for each. (I -13d)
e. A copy of the Transit Service Needs Assessment Executive Summary
by the Regional Transit Board is available for review in the
Administration Office for those interested. Attached is a copy
of the January 26 cover memorandum from Katherine Turnbull,
Planning Manager of the Regional Transit Board. (I -13e)
James G. Willis
City Manager
JGW:dma
attach.
AGENDA
Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals
Tuesday, February 10, 1987
�. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. NEW BUSINESS
WHERE: Plymouth City Center
Council Chambers
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, Minnesota
7:30 P.M.
January 13, 1987
M -q .
A. Gerald Davis. Variance from the minimum building front and side yard setbacks
for property located at 12400 26th Avenue North. (02-01-87).
5. OLD BUSINESS
A. William ''Williams, Jr. Variance from the minimum building side yard setback for
property located at 1325 Peony Lane North. (01-01-87')-
6. OTHER BUSINESS
7. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1987
M_s
WHERE: Plymouth City Center
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine by the Planning
Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Commissioner, citizen or petitioner so requests, in which event
the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on
the agenda.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3.* APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7:30 P.M.
Planning Commission Minutes, January 28, 1987
A. Craig Scherber, Kings North Corporation. Preliminary Plat and Variances for
"Pine Ridge" for 28 single family residential lots northeast of Pineview Lane
and Soo Line RR Track Intersection. (86147)
B. Ron Clark, Clark Construction Company. Revised Site Plan and Conditional Use
Permit for redesign of the approved layout for a 224 unit apartment complex
east of I-494 and west of Xenium Lane at 34th Avenue North. (87004)
5. NEW BUSINESS
* A. Ryan Construction Company. Site Plan for construction of a 48,420 sq. ft.
office/warehouse building on Lot 2, Block 1 Ryan Business Center; northeast of
51st Avenue North and south of Minneapolis -St. Paul and St. Sault Marie
Railroad. (87005)
B. Carlson Properties, Inc. Site Plan and Variances for expansion of the parking
facilities at the Carlson Headquarters building at 12755 Highway 55, southwest
of County Road 6 and Highway 55. (86134)
6. OLD BUSINESS
NONE
7. OTHER BUSINESS
NONE
8. ADJOURNMENT
9:00 P.M.
M-4
Plymouth Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
Regular Meeting of February 12, 1987
City Center Council Chambers
AGENDA
Neighborhood park meeting, 7:00-8:30 p.m., County Road 61 site.
1. Call to Order (8:30 p.m.)
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Visitor Presentations
a. Athletic Associations
b. Staff
c. Other
4. Report on Past Council Action
a. Bathhouse - Parkers Lake
b. Approved Neighborhood Park Standards
C. Plymouth Creek Plan - Update
d. Accepted Annual Report
5. Unfinished Business
a. Parkers Lake - Report by George Watson
b. Trails: West Medicine Lake Drive (Review reports from Strgar-Roscoe)
County Road 61
c. Neighborhood Park Plans - Barry Warner
d. Zachary Park Project - Update
e. Community Center - Sub -committee Report
f.
9.
6. New Business
a. Parkers Lake North Replatting_Update
b.
c.
7. Commission Presentation
8. Staff Communication (Review future meeting dates)
9. Adjourn
i
7312
r-+
00
,I-
Ncz
N
cn
>
coCIO
LL N N
.M. O
N M
N O
� .-. 00 N N
N M
00
„71
/►
r
-- N N
00
-":aha
U o
M
6
v v °a N
p�
U)
n
' t
[ra
W
o0
y
o a
x
W)
o a
N
C
r,..�
c
r+
o U
r..�
N
o U
0 cn
U
w
H n H
H n H
7�
U
U
F"4
D
U O
H O
W
O�
W
W U
r�-1
En
H
z
co
'b
O
o
M
oda
N
P4 U
A
�o
o•• o
GO t- U
H W
Es HPs:
H
H W
. W
U
H W
WT
o A O
U W
Pq
cz
z
0
A
Qom
.
a
0
N
UOU
0C)
oUOU
o>4a
N
o
L) C)
H
o
U
^
H
x U
H
6 n
F+
t�
H
-C4 n
U
H
H U
U
H U
•
oo
HaC)
owe'
aoo
U
" P+ u,
v,
cd
lM
W
rq
^�
rl
00
E-.""
cn
LL N1 0 .r N
Cd
M
O
N
H Nco n N O
w -f
^ 00 n N N
OD
N
W
n
OD
cl, N N
w�1
73
�..� wa
M
W O
914 nU
c!1
�
cz
r-�
0 04�
0 Pw4
UOU
.�-iUOU
r,
N
CJ
nzM'�
5z
^U
zMa
^U
z
�
z
�aHo
oc5
w
104 U
w
z
H CU
z
o
�--1
M
o
N
M
E --i
a
O•• O
W n U
cn
P4
1�
a nP4
F-4 w
a a
rr
a x
U wr4
W W
00
U
H
z z CD
�w�
z 0
wH
z
0aa
coc
'd
a
Ho
z o�oU
MUx
Jaz
�oU
O oU)
uCC--
r
N UOU
`.'•a
H ••U
..
NUHa
M
w
M
O
^���
w i a
r-4 ,�G`:'s-.4
6 1� H
Q g
..a
d
a�n
H a
a .. P--:
w n F-
rz�
U
z�o�
U
n
UA oc~i
n�:) O
•z
W C
Co U U
W
p
0 C7
H N C)
W C7
OU
w O
0, 0
W0
w
P: OU
pq "D
E O
�D
tali L
71
00
N
N
VEHICULAR ACCIDENT PROFILE
1986 CALENDAR YEAR
1986 1985
TOTAL VEHICULAR ACCIDENTS REVIEWED BY SAFETY COMMITTEE: 25 15
Total Accidents Determined Preventable: 5 6
Total Accidents Determined Non -Preventable: 18 9
Total Accidents Undeterminable: 2 0
1. Three accidents occurred while backing up a City vehicle. (1985 - 2)
2. Thirteen of the accidents involved collisions with other vehicles. (1985 - 6)
Three of these accidents were considered preventable. (1985 - 2)
3. The following were contributing factors in five accidents:
a. Snow and Ice - Four accidents (1985 - 3)
b. Obstructed view trees) at intersection - One accident (1985 - 0)
4. Five preventable accidents occurred during the daytime.
5. There were zero preventable accidents occurring durinq evening hours.
6. Two accidents occurred when city vehicles collided with parked vehicles.
1985 - 2)
7. Four accidents occurred while plowing snow. (1985 - 2) Two of these
accidents occurred as the result of city plows improperly tripping. (1985 - 0)
8. One accident involved a police squad protecting an accident scene. (1985- 2)
9. Three city vehicles were involved in non -preventable accidents while
accomplishing Public Safety objectives (responding to medical emergency, vehicle
pursuit, roadblock). (1985 - 0)
10. Four of the preventable accidents involved temporary City employees. (Park
Maintenance - 3; Sewer & Water - 1)
11. One preventable accident involved a Fire Department employee. (1985
preventable accidents: Police - 3; Environmental - 1: City Center - 1; Streets
- 1)
12. City Center (office), Public Works Streets, Sewer and Water, Equipment Center,
and Park Maintenance (permanent full time employees) had a record of ZERO
preventable accidents.
13. Vehicular accidents resulted in an estimated $9,238 damaqe to City vehicles.
(1985 - $5,897)
T-
ON THE SOB ACCIDENT PROFILE
1986 CALENDAR YEAR
ACCIDENTS REVIEWED BY SAFETY COMMITTEE: 31
Accidents determined non -preventable - 28
Accidents determined preventable - 2
Accidents Undetermined - 1
ACCIDENTS NOT REVIEWED BY SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7
TOTAL: 38
1. In 1986 there were 38 Worker's Compensation injuries, of which 11 were OSHA
recordable injuries.
2. The 11 OSHA recordable injuries resulted in 8 lost work days and 11 work
restricted activity days.
3. Lost time accidents involved: Police - 2; Park Maintenance - 1; Sewer & Water
- 1; Recreation (temporary employee) - 1.
4. Four lost time accidents were the result of back -related injuries.
5. The two preventable accidents involved: 1 - Fire employee and 1 - Park
Maintenance temporary employee.
6. Temporary employees were involved in 8 injuries (Park Maintenance - 6;
Recreation - 2)
DIVISION
YEAR
# Accidents
costs
19801
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
TOTAL
3
2
2-
1
4
6
3
21
Sewer & Water
258.00
415.20
185.87
24.00
264.40
5074.86
0
6222.33
1
3
2
0
0
3
11
20
Park Maintenance
28.00
196.00
0
76.35
0
2500.00
114.00
2914.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Environmental
0
0
0
0
0,
0
0
0
3
5
4
8
6
7
8
41
Police
155.70
17,191.80
153.30
21,122.56
2,374.64
19,280.45
0
60,278.45
2
1
2
1
1
1
5
13
Streets
41.00
22.00
44,49
25.00
21.00
200.00
0
353.49
4
17
3
2
4
4
25
Fire
271.27
12.00
1,268.63
659.90
44,546.31
484.10
316.81
47,559.02
3
3
1
2
0
1
1
11
Equip. Maint.
65.40
89.80
99.00
70.00
0
30.00
0
354.20
2
1
2
0
0
2
3
10
Office
230.00
292.67
17.00
0
0
58.00
415.40
1013.07
1
3
2
0
1
1
2
10
Recreation
66.00
89.00
128.55
0
21.00
19.00
83.94
407.49
Not Attributable
19.81
122.56
400.50
49.30
3,392.43
6,221.41
0
10,206.01
19
22
15
14
25
38
152
TOT/ COSTS19
1,135.18
18,431.03
2,297.34
22,027.11
50,619.78
33,867.82
930.15
129,306.41
1 4/1/80 - 1/1/81
q
q
K
k
CO
q
R
n
_
m
N
g
4
o
C)
-
_
o
-
LA
fn/
ON
�
k
�
LL.
r
m
n
^
m
$
n
~
00
LLJ
\
R
2
n
w6
00
�
«
a
o
c
n
/
E
�
/
/
�
#
r
%
m
m00
»
~
r
2
w
A
R
f
&
E
J
\
7 f
7
p
_
n
3
3
#
¢
?
k
A
�
$
~
4.r>
0\
3
\
R
2
r
�
�
7
/
/
/
/
ƒ
k
/
k
.M
-L -(
$
3
/
&
F
2
&
/
E
E
-
�
7
R
R
?
$
�
C�
/
d
k
C4,
@
�
n
s
^
a\
»
�
-
�
cp�
G
E
&
¢
S
%
/
ƒ
ƒ
C",V)
%
k
CQ
q
2
&
®
c�
2
m
n
m
r
_
e
2
\
d�
2
2
o
m
c
m
»
w
r
»
x
�
C)
m
c
n
m
m
c
k$
2
$
�
3
\0
»
/
R
2
$
&
%
R
�
-co
/
n
/
U-\
/
7/
k
/
-L -(
PLYMOUTH POLICE DEPT.
VICTIM
E OR INCIDE
T- 3
SUPPLEMENTARY/CONTINUATION REPORT, -
DATE & TIME OCCURRED
DATE OF INCIDENT: 1/16/87
LOCATION: HIGHWAY 55 AND SOUTH SHORE DRIVE
CASE NO.
On 1/20/87 I was advised by Lieutenant Solberg, that an
individual had complained regarding a situation on Friday night,
1/16/87. The subject matter on this incident was escort to
Fairview Southdale Hospital.
I had been eastbound on Highway 55 in the left hand turn lane for
South Shore Drive, waiting for a green arrow to complete a left
hand turn. I was en route to a domestic situation at 10890 South
Shore Drive, Officer Lindman was already on the scene awaiting my
arrival. At this time I knew that Officer Lindman had not
committed himself to the domestic situation and that an immediate
response was not of vital importance. As I sat at the red arrow,
I observed a vehicle come across Highway 55 from what appeared to
be behind myself. This vehicle was coming at approximately a 45
to 90 degree angle to the squad car. In so doing was blocking
the left lane of traffic which was eastbound on Highway 55. This
was during the hours of darkness and approximately 1800-1830
hours. At this time I became immediately concerned for the
safety of the people in the vehicle as well as other eastbound
traffic. The driver of the vehicle, a white male, approximately
60-65 years of age, rolled down his window at which time I did
likewise. In speaking through the passenger window of the squad
car, I heard the operator ask if I would escort him to Fairview
Southdale Hospital. In looking in the vehicle I observed the
driver and a female passenger and a child five to eight years of
age, sitting on the passenger's lap. I immediately responded that
I was not able to escort to the hospital but I could get him an
ambulance right away. At this the operator asked if I would take
him to the hospital. I indicated that I could not do that, that
I could get an ambulance and with this response, the operator was
driving in the reverse position so as to redirect his movement
eastbound on Highway 55. At the same time he indicated to this
officer that he could get there quicker himself and at that time
drove off. Officer did not observe any violations of any speed
laws and it was uncertain to officer whether or not there was a
passenger in the vehicle that needed medical assistance or if
there had been an emergency at the hospital at which they were
trying to get to as soon as possible. I at that time continued to
the domestic situation.
Later on that same evening, this Officer was at the police
department at which time I answered a telephone call which was
apparently the father of the small child which was in the
vehicle. It was disclosed at this time that the child had
PLYMOUTH POLICE DEPT.
FFENSE OR INCIDENT
VICTIM
T 3
SUPPLEMENTARY/CONTINUATION REPORT
E NO.
DATE & TIME OCCURRED
apparently had half of a pencil lodged in her throat. The caller
being the father, was quite emotionally upset, however, at no
time was rude to officer. The father basically wanted an
explanation why this officer did not transport or escort the
injured party to the hospital. Officer explained that escort
process is extremely dangerous for the second vehicle, even if
both vehicles are equipped with emergency equipment, let alone a
civilian vehicle. I indicated to the father that the 911 system
has been designed and designated for medical emergency situations
such as this. That for privately transporting emergency medical
situations creates an extreme danger to the victim as
communications to emergency services once under way may be
extremely difficult and time consuming to find. Should the
stabilized victim become unstable. Again, the victim was
extremely upset and would not accept any of the explanations
given by this officer.
I was also informed later on in the evening that Hennepin County
Sheriff's radio requested that I contact them by land line which
I did. At this time, a Deputy had wanted nothing more but to
vent his frustrations in dealing with subject father. The deputy
indicated that he explained everything that he possibly could as
to why I may have done what I chose to do, however, felt that the
father was not listening to reason. At that the father had
apparently requested the phone number for the State patrol to
find out what they would do.
I learned that on Saturday 1/17/87, that the father had come into
the police department and did speak with Field Supervisor
Holzerland regarding the situation.
There is nothing further to add at this time, for any further
questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
J WARD
(TW)
PREC.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Charles P. Belgarde,
Plaintiff,
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No.
V.
SUMMONS
City of Plymouth, a municipal corporation,
Defendant.
TO: The City of Plymouth, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth,
Minnesota 55427.
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon
plaintiffs' undersigned attorneys an answer to the complaint
which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service
of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If
you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you
for the relief demanded in the complaint.
DATED this jJ(o day of January, 1987.
HILLSTRCI4 & BALE, LTD.
Robert A. Hillstrom #45214
Attorneys for Plaintiff
607 Marquette Avenue, Ste. 10
RECE�vE� � Minneapolis, MN 55402
JAM 16 1987 (612) 332-8063
CITY 6f PIYMOU �
N.
T ` I
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Charles P. Belgarde,
Plaintiff,
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No.
V.
City of Plymouth, a Municipal corporation, COMPLAINT
Defendant.
For his Complaint against Defendant, Plaintiff states as
follows:
I. Count I (Breach of Contract --Damages)
1. At all material times herein, Plaintiff was the owner of
certain real estate (hereinafter the "Land"), situated in
Plymouth, Minnesota, and described more particularly in the
Construction Permit, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2. On or about February 14, 1979, Defendant filed a
petition instituting proceedings under Minnesota Statutes chapter
117 for the purpose of obtaining, through the exercise of
Defendant's powers of eminent domain, certain specified easements
on the Land, to wit, two permanent easements for utility
purposes, one permanent easement for bridge and walkway purposes,
and one temporary easement for construction purposes.
3. In July 1979, the parties entered into an agreement
whereby Plaintiff would grant the easements described in the
second paragraph, together with a third easement for utility
purposes, in return for Defendant's promise to justly compensate
Plaintiff for the easements, said just compensation to be
mutually agreed upon following negotiations carried out by
Defendant in good faith or, failing such concurrence, determined
by court-appointed commissioners of appraisal, it being
Defendant's responsibility to take all necessary steps to effect
said concurrence or determination. The parties entered into this
agreement at the request of Defendant, whose construction
schedules for the utilities and bridgework in question mandated
that Defendant somehow obtain immediate access to Plaintiff's
property. The parties' agreement was memorialized and carried
into effect by Plaintiff's execution on July 26, 1979 of the
Construction Permit attached hereto as Exhibit A and Defendant's
execution on July 17, 1979 of the "Acceptance" attached hereto as
Exhibit B.
4. Pursuant to said agreement, Defendant dismissed, without
prejudice, the condemnation proceedings described in paragraph
two.
5. Between August 1979 and March 1980, Defendant engaged,
intermittently and only upon Plaintiff's prompting, in
negotiations with Plaintiff regarding the appropriate amount of
just compensation to be paid by Defendant to Plaintiff for the
easements. On March 20, 1980, with the negotiations not
completed, Defendant notified Plaintiff that it did not wish to
negotiate further and that it planned to reinstitute condemnation
proceedings. Plaintiff waited for further word for Defendant,
but none came.
Page 2
6. Finally, in 1986, Plaintiff advised Defendant, through
its attorneys, that Plaintiff still awaited appropriate payment
for the easements which Defendant had induced Plaintiff to turn
over in 1979 and which Defendants had made use of ever since.
Defendant, through its attorneys, promised to attend to this long
overdue matter. But, despite subsequent attempts by Plaintiff to
get Defendant to act, Defendant has to date made no meaningful
response to Plaintiff's demands for just compensation, leaving
Plaintiff with no recourse other than to bring the present
action.
7. The fair market value of the easements granted was, as
of July 1979, not less than $39,700.00. Plaintiff is entitled,
as per Defendant's agreement, to a sum not less than $39,700.00,
plus interest thereon from and after July 26, 1979 at fair market
rates since prevailing, plus attorneys' fees and costs and
disbursements expended herein.
Count II. (Breach of Contract --Specific Enforcement)
8. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs one through six.
9. Plaintiff is entitled to have Defendant's agreement
specifically enforced through the issuance of a writ of mandamus,
compelling Defendant to reinstitute condemnation proceedings
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes chapter 117 towards the end that
court-appointed commissioners determine the appropriate amount of
compensation due Plaintiff for the easements.
Count III. (Unjust Enrichment)
10. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs one through nine.
Page 3
T-4
11. Defendant has been unjustly enriched in an amount not
less than the sum described in paragraph seven.
Count IV. (Fraud)
12. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs one through eleven.
13. To induce Plaintiff to make an immediate grant of the
easements described, Defendant promised to make a good faith
effort to determine the appropriate amount due Plaintiff, but had
no intent then or at any other time of carry through with its
promise. Plaintiff relied on this fraudulent inducement, to its
detriment.
14. On information and belief, Defendant's intent all along
was to acquire Plaintiff's property at no immediate cost and to
forstall paying any compensation for as long as it could,
preferably indefinitely.
15. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant's fraud in an
amount not less than the amount described in paragraph seven.
Count V. (Attorneys' Fees)
16. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs one through fifteen.
17. Defendant's conduct, as heretofore described,
constitutes bad faith within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes
section 549.21, entitling Plaintiff to an award of attorneys'
fees pursuant to that statute.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter (a) an order
awarding it judgment against Defendant in an amount not less than
$39,700.00, plus interest from and after July 26, 1979, or
alternatively (b) a writ compelling Defendant to institute
condemnation proceedings pursuant to Minnesota Statutes chapter
Page 4
117, and further prays that in either case the Court award
Plaintiff his reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and
disbursements.
Dated this day of
. 1987.
HILLSTROM & BALE, LTD.
By
Robrt A. Hillstrom #45214
Neil Polstein #135446
607 Marquette Avenue
Suite 10
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 332-8063
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disburse-
ments and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §549.21, Subd. 2, to the party
against whom the allegations in this _31plead' are asserted.
Robert A. Hillstrom
Page 5
i ",
February 5, 1987 CITY OF
PLYMOUTR
Mr. James J. Thomson, Jr., City Attorney
LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Subject: Charles P. Belgarde Versus City of Plymouth
Dear Jim:
A suit has been filed against the City of Plymouth by Charles P. Belgarde.
This letter will provide information in order that you can answer the
complaint.
As background information, I am attaching a map showing the location of the
property which was formerly owned by Belgarde. He is no longer the owner
of this property and it has been platted as the Park Place Addition.
Belgarde no longer has any interest in the property.
In 1977 the City of Plymouth undertook a construction project which would
provide sanitary sewer to serve the downtown Plymouth area. Also in 1979
the City had a construction project to improve Fernbrook Lane from 34th
Avenue to County Road 9. Both of these construction projects required
easements for the necessary improvements on the Belgarde property. The
City began negotiations with Belgarde for the necessary easements and
received the right to construct the improvements without permanent
easements. We did enter into a formal agreement that the negotiations
would continue and if we could not reach an agreement, the City would
undertake condemnation for the easements.
Negotiations continued into 1980, and when we could not reach an agreement
the City undertook the required condemnation procedure. At the request of
Mr. Belgarde this condemnation procedure was dropped, since in 1982 he
undertook to plat and develop the land. The City considered the
negotiations for the necessary easements as part of the required platting
procedure under our Subdivision Code.
In August 1982 Belgarde filed an application with the City for the approval
of a PUD Concept Plan and Reguiding of the property. The proposed plan for
the property was not in accordance with the adopted City Guide Plan. After
considerable negotiations and discussions with the Staff, Planning
Commission and City Council the PUD Concept Plan and Reguiding was approved
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
r -y
Mr. James J. Thomson, Jr.
February 5, 1987
Page Two
in February 1983. This was also concurred with by the Metropolitan Council
to change our Guide Plan. The easements that were necessary for the
construction projects undertaken by the City in 1977 and 1979 were all
considered as part of the Land Use Guide Plan change.
Belgarde did not proceed with the Preliminary Platting and Final Platting
of the property, but sold the entire tract of land to the Tipton
Corporation. In June 1984 the Tipton Corporation filed an application with
the City for a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat approval. Their application
was basically in accordance with the Concept Plan approved for Belgarde.
The Final Plat was approved by the City Council in November 1984. The
Final Plat included all of the necessary easements for the construction
projects which had previously been undertaken by the City of Plymouth.
Compensation, as required by our Agreement back in 1979, was included as
part of the City's approval of the Final Platting of this property.
It is my understanding that all of the rights that Belgarde had under our
1979 Agreement were transferred to the Tipton Corporation when they
purchased the property in 1984. I have requested information with regard
to this from the Tipton Corporation.
The following are my comments with regard to the statements as contained
within the complaint filed with the District Court. They are numbered the
same as the items within the complaint:
1. Deny. Belgarde was not the owner of the property at the
time of Final Platting.
2. Admit.
3. Admit.
4. Admit, but the dismissal was at the request of the
Plaintiff.
5. Deny.
6. Deny. Plaintiff no longer has any interest in the property
and compensation has been made through the Platting
process.
7. Deny since Plaintiff has no interest in the property.
8. Same answers as 1 through 6.
9. Deny.
10. Same answers as 1 through 9.
11. Deny.
12. Same answers as 1 through 11.
Mr. James J. Thomson, Jr.
February 5, 1987
Page Three
13. Deny.
14. Deny.
15, Deny.
16. Same answers as 1 through 15.
17. Deny.
If any additional information is needed, please contact me. When I receive
the information from the current landowner, the Tipton Corporation, I will
send it to you.
Sincerely,
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh
Enclosures
cc: James G. Willis
Dale Hahn
Id
23
A f12 SEC. 2 F. f f 9 R. 22
T -Y
PLMOU'N-40
13elle,rAc Property
tiff&
z=s
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: February 6, 1987
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Pike Lake Interceptor Sewer, Phase II
Tennant Easement
City Project No. 008-001
This morning at 9:00 I attended a meeting with Ron Groth, the Attorney
for Harlan Peterson, and Bob Langford, the Corporate Counsel for Tennant
Company. My attendance at the meeting was at the invitation of Ron
Groth. The purpose of the meeting was a closing between Harlan Peterson
and the Tennant Company to resolve a title problem on the property North
of County Road 10.
In November 1986 the City reached agreement with the Tennant Company on
the granting of the necessary easements for the construction of the Pike
Lake Interceptor Sewer. During the City's research in preparing the
necessary easement documents it was discovered that the Tennant Company
had never received full title to the property which was formerly owned by
Harlan Peterson. There were purchase options between Harlan Peterson and
Laukka and Associates, the owner previous to the Tennant Company, but
deeds had never been executed and recorded. The Tennant Company
purchased all of the property from Laukka and Associates.
I had been assured by the Tennant Company in November that the easements
would be granted as soon as the title problem was resolved and Tennant
Company had clear title to the property. The agreement between the City
and the Tennant Company was outlined in a letter from me dated November
21, 1986 to Tom Larson of the Tennant Company.
I arrived for the meeting at the Tennant Company shortly before 9:00.
The next person to arrive was Dave Peterson. It was my understanding
that the meeting was to be between Ron Groth, Bob Langford and myself.
The receptionist informed Bob Langford that Fred Moore and Dave Peterson
were there for the meeting, but Ron Groth had not yet arrived. Bob
Langford came into the lobby and asked Dave Peterson what he was here
for. Dave informed Bob that he was there to see that the Tennant Company
granted the easements to the City in exchange for the deeds from Harlan
Peterson. He also stated that in addition to Ron Groth he was waiting
for two members of the press which he had invited to the meeting. Dave
Peterson also made statements about the Tennant Company speculating on
the property at the detriment to other property owners.
Z-- 5i
James G. Willis, City Manager
February 6, 1987
Page Two
Bob Langford commented that he was having no meetings with the press and
he and I went back to his office to discuss the easement with the City
and wait for Ron Groth.
Bob Langford assured me that the Tennant Company will be granting the
easements to the City in accordance with our agreement as soon as they
have the clear title to the property. Ron Groth arrived and Bob Langford
also called in Janet Dolan, who is another attorney with Tennant and had
been handling the title problem. They discussed the various items which
needed to be done at the closing and the documents which he had to give
the Tennant Company. Ron Groth stated that he had advised his client,
Harlan Peterson, that although there were some legal technicalities,
since the Peterson agreement was with Laukka and Associates, that they
could execute the documents and transfer them directly to the Tennant
Company.
Ron Groth then left the room and I again discussed the easements between
Tennant and the City with Bob Langford and Janet Dolan. Bob again
assured me that as soon as they had the clear title to the property, they
would be granting the easements to the City. Janet stated that if their
closing took place this morning, she would record the documents from
Peterson today. They would then go to Title Insurance Company to receive
the final Title Binder, Bob Langford stated that if this happened today,
he would expect that the easements could be signed by the end of next
week.
I then left Bob Langford and informed Ron Groth and Dave Peterson, who
were waiting in the Lobby, that I had been assured that the City would
receive the easements if their closing took place and Tennant had title
to the property. I informed Ron Groth that if the only reason he was not
proceeding with the closing was the fact that the City would not receive
a signed easement document at the closing, that he should continue with
his closing. We would not be able to get our signed easement until the
closing took place and the documents were recorded. Ron then went back
in to meet with Bob Langford and Janet Dolan to complete the closing.
Ron called me at 10:45 and informed me the closing had taken place and
Tennant has all the necessary documents.
Attached is a copy of a letter which I am sending to Bob Langford today
confirming our meeting and understanding.
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
FGM: kh
Attachment: Letter
T -S-
February
s
Subject: Pike Lake Interceptor Sewer, Phase II
City Project No. 008-001
Dear Bob:
I wish to apologize for any misunderstanding which occurred at the beginning
of our meeting today at your closing on the Harlan Peterson property. As I
stated to you, I was as shocked as you were when Dave Peterson was there and
he made the statements about the press.
I was in attendance at the meeting at the request of Ron Groth, the Attorney
for Harlan Peterson. Dave Peterson had previously stated to me that Harlan
would not close on the property unless the City of Plymouth had the easements
for the sanitary sewer from the Tennant Company. Although these are two
separate matters, I wanted to make sure that the easements were not a reason
to not have the closing.
Through my previous conversations with Tom Larson I have been assured that as
soon as the title problem with the Petersons was cleared, the easements would
be granted to the City in accordance with our agreement defined in my letter
of November 21, 1986. At our meeting today you again assured me that this
was the agreement, and as soon as the closing with the Petersons took place,
the documents recorded and the opinion from Title Insurance received, the
easements would be granted to the City.
Would you please have Tom Larson or Janet Dolan let me know if there are any
inconsistencies between our agreement and the easement documents you have
been given for execution. Again I wish to thank you and the Tennant Company
for your cooperation in resolving this matter.
Sincerely,
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh
cc: James G. Willis, City Manager
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
February 6, 1987
"
CITY O�
PLYMOUTR
Mr. Robert Langford
Corporate Counsel
Tennant Companies
701 North Lilac Drive
P.O. Box 1452
Minneapolis, Minnesota
55440
Subject: Pike Lake Interceptor Sewer, Phase II
City Project No. 008-001
Dear Bob:
I wish to apologize for any misunderstanding which occurred at the beginning
of our meeting today at your closing on the Harlan Peterson property. As I
stated to you, I was as shocked as you were when Dave Peterson was there and
he made the statements about the press.
I was in attendance at the meeting at the request of Ron Groth, the Attorney
for Harlan Peterson. Dave Peterson had previously stated to me that Harlan
would not close on the property unless the City of Plymouth had the easements
for the sanitary sewer from the Tennant Company. Although these are two
separate matters, I wanted to make sure that the easements were not a reason
to not have the closing.
Through my previous conversations with Tom Larson I have been assured that as
soon as the title problem with the Petersons was cleared, the easements would
be granted to the City in accordance with our agreement defined in my letter
of November 21, 1986. At our meeting today you again assured me that this
was the agreement, and as soon as the closing with the Petersons took place,
the documents recorded and the opinion from Title Insurance received, the
easements would be granted to the City.
Would you please have Tom Larson or Janet Dolan let me know if there are any
inconsistencies between our agreement and the easement documents you have
been given for execution. Again I wish to thank you and the Tennant Company
for your cooperation in resolving this matter.
Sincerely,
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh
cc: James G. Willis, City Manager
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
January 30, 1987
James G. Willis, City Manager
Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
1987 Municipal State Aid Apportionment
We have received notification from MnDOT
Apportionment (MSA). Our allotment for
allotment for maintenance is $44,700 for
This is a decrease over our 1986 allotment
60
of our 1987 Municipal State Aid
construction is $650,585 and the
a total allotment of $695,285.
which was $754,993.
The decrease in allotment is the result of the State Legislature not
appropriating the Excise Tax to the Road User Fund. We are actually
paying double in 1987 for the lack of Excise Tax going to the Road Fund.
When the allotments were made in January 1986, there were revenues
included which were to be obtained from the Excise Tax. After the
allotments were made the Legislature eliminated the contribution from the
Excise Tax to the Road User Fund. Since this was done after the
allotments were made it could not be reduced in 1986. Therefore, the
Legislature determined that not only would there be no contribution from
the Excise Tax in 1987, but also the Road User Fund must pay back the
Excise Tax which was used as part of the allotment in 1986.
Our $44,700 allotment for maintenance is received automatically from
MnDOT. 50% is received in January, 40% in July and the remaining 10% in
December.
The $650,585 allotment for construction can only be received after the
City awards a construction contract on a designated MSA Roadway. All of
the plans and specifications must be approved by MnDOT previous to the
City awarding the contract. Because of the numerous construction
projects we have undertaken on MSA Roadways within the past few years we
have been able to keep our construction balance at the minimum amount of
$1. We will be able to apply for our 1987 allotment immediately based
upon the contract which was awarded in December for Project 544,
Fernbrook Lane North of County Road 9.
If there are any questions with regard to our MSA allocation, please
contact me.
FGM:kh
L_/Ca.,
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 28, 1987
The Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was
called to order at 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Steigerwald, Commissioners
Wire, Stulberg, Magnus, Mellen and
Pauba
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Plufka
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Coordinator
Sara McConn
City Engineer Sherm Goldberg
Planning Secretary Grace Wineman
*CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Pauba to adopt the Consent Agenda as submitted.
VOTE. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
*MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Pauba to approve the January 14, 1987 Minutes as submitted.
Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Lundgren
Brothers Construction Company and requested an overview of
the January 15, 1987 Planning Staff Report by Coordinator
McConn.
Commissioner Magnus inquired about the concept plan and if
the development review was split between the east and west
side of Vicksburg Lane? Coordinator McConn stated the Con-
cept Plan was for the entire development; the petitioner
then requested that development reviews be split for Stages
A and B. She explained the concept that included a variety
of housing styles. She confirmed for Commissioner Wire that
there is a neighborhood shopping area planned for the con-
venience of those residents in the PUD, as described in
Ordinance provisions for PUD's.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mr. Peter Pflaum, Lundgren
Brothers Construction Company. Mr. Pflaum gave the history
of the project, stating they have never had to fight for
downzoning; and at this time, it is important to present
-19-
LUNDGREN BROTHERS
CONSTRUCTION CO.
LAND USE GUIDE PLAN
AMENDMENT AND REVISED
PUD CONCEPT PLAN AND
PRELIMINARY PLAN/PLAT
FOR PARKERS LAKE
DEVELOPMENT/VICKSBURG
WEST (86130)
Page 20
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
the perspective they have from their knowledge of Plymouth.
They have been building homes in Plymouth for 18 years; have
developed 20 to 30 subdivisions from small developments like
Willow Ponds to large RPUD's such as the Mission
development; they have worked with four different Mayors;
three different City planners; three engineers; and, many
Commission and Council members, which gives their company
better continuity than the City. They have developed in
seven different communities.
Mr. Pflaum stated they have spent alot of time on this
project, starting with plans in 1981. Their firm had sought
obtain land for development in southwest Plymouth and went
to the City of Minneapolis to obtain land for single family
residential development. The City of Minneapolis hired
Lundgren Brothers Co. to zone the land. The company spent
two years processing the applications. He explained their
desire to expedite the Environmental studies and emphasized
that it was always maintained as one Planned Unit
Development. He explained that working out a plan for an
absentee owner has been difficult. Their initial plans were
their best attempt for effective land use, knowing that
others would be coming before the City as subsequent owners
of the property.
This property was greatly affected by the 16% interest rates
in 1981-82; it was unknown what the tax laws would be; and
subsequent planning needs to reflect the current market.
Mr. Pflaum challenges the City that this is not one Planned
Unit Development. There is not another PUD in the City of
Plymouth that has this spectrum of housing. He listed out
the unit numbers and types; the amount of park and trail;
the playfield and neighborhood park contained within the
PUD Plan.
He explained the difference between this proposal and what
was originally approved; they are reducing the density for
two styles of single family detached dwellings. They are
aiming at two markets, small lot single family detached;
and, large lot single family detached. They are eliminating
113 units. The public open space remains identical as
originally planned; there is some difference in the street
configuration. He noted that the Ordinance relates to
private open space for multi -family but does not consider
private open space - for single family residential
neighborhoods. This plan has 17.84 acres of open space
available for the residents. The original plan left out the
residents who did not live in the multi -family residential
units. There will be a trail corridor to link with the
Page 21
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
parkland to the north and meanders through the streets to
Parker's Lake. The residents will have access to the ponds
and the plan supports two different styles of neighborhoods
where all residents will have the benefit of the planned
open areas.
Rick Sathre, Sathre Bergquist, explained the overhead
graphics that showed the density range, open space and,
number of units.
Mr. Peter Pflaum stated they far exceed the requirements for
parkland throughout the entire project. Mr. Sathre provided
the graphics showing street changes and the creation of col-
lector roadways.
Mr. Pflaum stated that staff had concern with transition.
Mr. Sathre provided the graphics and explained the four
through sections, noting the distances to Vicksburg Lane;
spatial parameters; setbacks; and, the provision for land-
scaped berms to provide a buffer and reduce noise.
Mr. Pflaum stated he does not agree with the idea of devel-
oping multi -family units next to Vicksburg Lane as it would
put more people onto a high volume street; and, their exper-
ience shows that they can berm and shelter single family
residences from traffic sight and sound. He noted there is
orderly transition on all sides. He stated that other
developments are on collector streets without the same berm-
ing and transition; he does not understand these present
concerns. Staff questions the problem of noise from Vicks-
burg Lane, and the noise can be handled better by this pro-
posal than on the original plan.
Mr. Pflaum stated that the City, for years, has set a prece-
dent of down zoning. He listed Maple Creek 2nd, Heritage
East, Heritage West, and 'Medicine Lake Highlands as
examples. Now, as this proposal is being reviewed a
petition for a Land Use Guide Plan Amendment; this was not
brought out by the Development Review Committee and was only
recently brought up by the City. He gave examples of devel-
opments not required to apply for a Land Use Guide Plan
including Cedar Hills, Chelsea Woods, Fox Glen, Drakeland,
and West Ridge Estates. He noted there have been changes to
the PUD Plan, but it was never suggested that they would
need to amend the Land Use Guide Plan. He noted that Heri-
tage Ridge is a current proposal with the same issue, where
single family detached residences are allowed under LA -2
guiding. He noted that staff made the point that they are
reducing the housing stock; this was not picked up in the
Heritage Ridge report. He noted their density is identical
to that of Heritage Ridge and where County Road 61 was a
concern with that development proposal, the concern here is
with Vicksburg Lane.
Page 22
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
Mr. Pflaum stated the City expressed concern about the
eventual scarcity of land for multi -family residential
development. It is common sense to note the obvious
shortage of single family residential lots today, and other
developers will attest to this fact. Their development,
"Windridge on Bass Lake" was marginal residential property,
but because of the need, they were forced to develop it.
Mr. Pflaum quoted the staff report on the inventory in each
land use designation, noting that the numbers include
undeveloped land and land with no utilities available, so
that the numbers are meaningless. He explained a consultant
was hired by his firm to examine the housing stock in
Plymouth, something the staff should be required to know.
He introduced Mr. Roger Conhaim.
Roger Conhaim, 2655 W. Lake of the Isles, stated he prepared
a study for Lundgren Brothers on the supply and demand for
residential units. He spent time with City staff and evalu-
ated the materials supplied. He also spent time in the
field, going into the larger developments noting the supply
of lots that have not been sold. He stated he is basically
concerned about the amount of land available for residential
demand. He offered data he received from the Building
Division. He stated there is a huge supply of multi -family
residential land and an under -supply for single family
residences. There is a strong demand for single family by
the 25 to 44 year old home buyer. The multi -family
residential units will be impacted by the new tax laws, and
there will be an incentive for renters to go into home
ownership. His information shows there is, at this time,
only a 2.8 year supply of single family residential land;
the City does not have a date certain for that land which
will remain undeveloped until trunk sewer is available and
this could be 4 to 5 years away. The available single
family residential land in Plymouth could dry up by 1989 if
more land is not made available. He stated there is a 12.2
year supply of multi -family residential land. He noted in
his report to Lundgren Brothers that there is indeed a
problem finding single family residential land, and other
developers he has contacted agree.
Mr. Peter Pflaum stated the City has made the point that his
firm is hurting the City by depriving the City of
multi -family units. However, as established by Mr.
Conhaim's report, Plymouth has serious problems with only a
three year supply of single family residential land, and
with the land remaining undeveloped because of the sewer
capacity. It is his opinion that people will go somewhere
else to buy homes and Plymouth won't get them back. There
is a real crisis down the pike, and even if staff doesn't
Page 23
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
doesn't understand the situation, many others in the
development community will tell you the same thing. He
stated his sympathy for the residents in light of this
negative staff report. He presented the petitions signed by
residents who live in the areas of 24th Avenue North; Black
Oaks Lane; Comstock Lane; 22nd Avenue North; Archer Lane;
21st Avenue North; Weston Lane; 26th and 27th Avenues North;
and, Chelsea Woods and Chelsea Mews. The residents favor
this development proposal. The petitions have been made
part of the public record.
Mr. Pflaum reiterated his points concerning this development
proposal; that it reduces the number of dwelling units by
113; there is more parkland per resident; there is no
transitional problem to Vicksburg Lane or to adjacent land
uses; there is no noise problem; that there are inconsis-
tencies by staff relating to the fact that no other Resi-
dential Planned Unit Development has had to apply for a Land
Use Guide Plan Amendment; and, the serious shortage of
single family residential land available now, and in the
future.
Chairman Steigerwald explained that the City maintains the
Comprehensive Plan approved by the Metropolitan Council.
Changes in land use must be tracked to allow the City to be
consistent in maintaining the development level to coincide
with the sewer capacity and utility availability. He
explained the Rural Service Area and Post -1990 Urban Service
Area. He stated that Lundgren Brothers Construction Company
is an exemplary builder and he has been impressed with what
they have done. In turn, the City is trying to help by
adhering to an overall community development plan.
Coordinator McConn stated that though historically it has
not been required that a formal request be made to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to lower density , approval of requests
for lower densities is changing the land use. The City has
the legal responsibility to review residential land uses
proposed for a lower density than originally anticipated
and, to report these and other changes to the Metropolitan
Council so they have current information regarding the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Steigerwald noted the recent decision by the City
to develop an efficient process to maintain a current,
up-to-date inventory of land.
Coordinator McConn stated that the Heritage Ridge
development plan has not been approved by the City Council.
The proposal has been reviewed by the Planning Commission
and the City Council remanded it back to the Planning
Commission with direction. It will be reviewed once again
by the City Council on February 2nd. The concerns regarding
Page 24
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
County Road 61 have been brought out during all discussions
on this development proposal. She also noted that approval
of that plan would include an Amendment to the Land Use
Guide Plan. Mr. Pflaum noted he did not see any discussion
presented in the Minutes of that meeting and had not read
the report.
Chairman Steigerwald stated that the development proposal
does suit the area, however, the City has to look at the
housing stock and needs to provide low to moderate income
families with options for housing. Where is the City going
to provide homes for the workers in Plymouth? He agrees
with the statements made regarding the impact of tax laws,
the decrease in interest rates and the market trends, but
the fact remains that the City's role is to provide a
variety of housing options.
Peter Pflaum stated Laukka Company and United Properties own
land east of Vicksburg in the Parkers Lake MPUD, and there
are multi -family developments proposed by them. Coordinator
McConn stated these companies do not own the land in fee
title. She explained this petitioner is requesting benefit
from the approved MPUD Plan on the east side of Vicksburg
Lane for attached housing; this petitioner has no control
over the design or consideration of amendments for that
land.
Chairman Steigerwald stated he understands the situation and
empathizes with the difficulty in planning this huge piece
of property. It has been many years since beginning plan-
ning for this property and many changes and demands have
been made on those who have been part of that planning
process. However, the Commission cannot consider that
multi -family may come in across the street when there are no
plans for their review at this time. Mr. Pflaum stated he
talked with the City of Minneapolis and they have a Purchase
Agreement with United Properties with certain contingencies.
Chairman Steigerwald stated they cannot go on hearsay, it is
hoped that such a development proposal will tie in with the
PUD Plan.
Commissioner Wire inquired about the information used by
Mr. Conhaim. Mr. Conhaim stated it is based on 688 Building
Permits per year for four years, projecting 1,909 available
units.
Commissioner Magnus inquired about townhomes in Areas B and
E. Mr. Sathre responded these are townhome/condominiums on
the approved PUD Plan.
Peter Pflaum reiterated the importance of recognizing the
demand for single family homes which makes this an appropri-
ate development proposal. There is not a demand for multi-
Page 25
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
family residential units, and, with a 12 year supply, there
is no shortage. The City will face a serious problem if
there is not enough single family residential properties on
the market.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing.
Chairman Steigerwald read a letter from Steven R. Bretton,
2200 Comstock Lane, who requested consideration of the
extension of 22nd Avenue to Vicksburg Lane before construc-
tion begins. His stated concerns were on noise and traffic
congestion.
Peter Pflaum stated they will try to see if there is a way
to diminish the impact to their residents. There are many
factors to consider.
Coordinator McConn stated an original condition of approval
was to provide street access to Vicksburg Lane through the
phases of development; and, that a request was made by the
petitioner to release them from this condition which was
approved.
Karen Fox, 1860 Zanzibar Lane, stated she is the President
of the Chelsea Mews Homeowners Association. She has written
a letter and has petitions signed by the homeowners. They
request that the zoning be changed to single family residen-
tial; 96% of the homeowners are in favor of the development
proposal.
She stated that in 1984, the plans for multi -story condo-
minium/apartment buildings in the southeast corner of the
property raised the concern about high-rise buildings in
close proximity because of the lack of trees to soften the
effect. There is berming and trees now, but it would not be
adequate to buffer a high building. The value of the homes
in the area will increase with the development of single
family homes. It is their opinion that Lundgren Brothers
has an excellent reputation as developers, they have always
been in touch with the residents; and, have provided all
information requested of them.
Peggy Oondahl, 2731 Black Oaks Lane, stated she is the
President of the Homeowners Assocation for Mapledell and
they are in favor of the development plan and the lower
density.
Mary Nordstrom, 16630 21st Avenue North, stated she lives in
Steeplechase, close to Dunkirk Lane. They have no noise
problem and their home is as close as those homes proposed
for development. They did live in Shenandoah, and because
they wanted to buy a home in the Wayzata School District,
Page 26
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
they had to wait a long time to find the right home in the
area of their choice. She is in favor of more single family
residences.
Don Smith, 16400 15th Avenue North, stated he is on the
Board of the Chelsea Homeowners Association and they are
neighbors of Lundgren Brothers developments. They have good
relations with their neighbors. They have signed the
petitions and are in favor of lower density development. He
agreed with the premise that there is a large demand for
single family homes, whereas many townhomes are for sale
including those in Chelsea. He stated he has been thinking
of returning to a single family home.
Barry Winston, 16005 26th Avenue North, presented signed
petitions noting he is in favor of developing single family
homes, and it is obvious why it took no great effort to get
these signatures.
Peter Pflaum submitted petitions signed by residents in
Steeplechase and Fox Run.
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO APPROVE
Stulberg to recommend approval for the Land Use Guide Plan
Amendment and Revised PUD Concept Plan, Preliminary Plan/
Plat for Parkers Lake Development/Vicksburg West, subject to
the conditions as listed in the January 15, 1987 Planning
Staff Report.
Commissioner Wire stated he understands the situations re-
garding the change of density and land use; and, staff
concern regarding these amendments. However, the informa-
tion regarding the potential scarcity of land for develop-
ment of single family homes, also seems an important
consideration.
Commissioner Stulberg stated he does not have a problem with
the proposal, and it is apparent there would be no problem
obtaining signatures of those who probably want to see only
single family homes on the east side as well. He recalled
the residents concern regarding the proposal for condo-
minium/apartment buildings.
Chairman Steigerwald stated he is in favor of the Motion.
This is a quality builder who is experienced in the market.
The points made by Mr. Pflaum are very good ones.
Commissioner Pauba stated he is opposed to the Motion. It
is important, as always, to look at the highest and best use
for the land, and downzoning is not necessarily the best
option. The City needs a good mix of housing for now and in
the future.
Page 27
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
Commissioner Mellen stated he supports the Motion This
represents quality development and, the fact is, many
multi -family units cannot be construed as affordable
housing. He is concerned about the lot size.
Commissioner Wire agreed with the concern about the small
lots, but the development plan is good.
Coordinator McConn stated concern regarding the basis for
the Motion which indicates market demand, the basis should
be made on the highest and best use for that property.
Commissioner Wire stated that obviously the market is the
underlying reason. Coordinator McConn stated it is impor-
tant to specify the reasons to base the recommendation for
approval. Commissioner Wire stated that the contiguous open
space has considerable merit.
Commissioner Magnus stated his opposition to the Motion.
This is a complete Planned Unit Development and has an
impact on other areas of the City. It will have an effect
on the development of areas within the PUD itself. There
are not a large number of multi -family units in south
Plymouth and he is hesitant to down guide an area in res-
ponse to market demands. He stated concern about further
amendments on the east side.
Chairman Steigerwald stated that 114 acres could provide 4
different Planned Unit Developments on this property. The
development has been of high quality and he is hopeful it
will be built out with a mix of housing and pricing. Four
different Planned Unit Developments would not flow as this
development does. It is his opinion that the roadway system
and traffic flow will be better served with less density.
Roll Call Vote. 4 Ayes. Commissioners Magnus .and Pauba,
Nay. '
Chairman Steigerwald called a Recess at 9:25 P.M.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Crow -Plymouth
Land Limited Partnership and requested an overview of the
January 20, 1987 Planning Staff Report by Coordinator
McConn.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Gary O'Brien, Trammell Crow
Company. Mr. O'Brien introduced the Architect Bob Vanney
and Engineer Steve Pellinen. Mr. O'Brien stated the pro-
posed development plan will be an enhancement for the resi-
dents and those employees in the business park. This is
Trammell Crow's first free-standing retail project and they
want it to be a signature project. The building material is
brick and will be compatible with construction in the other
phases.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
CROW -PLYMOUTH LAND
LTD PARTNERSHIP
PUD PRELIMINARY PLAN/
PLAT, FINAL PLAN/PLAT
AMENDMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (86139)
Page 28
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
Mr. O'Brien stated he was surprised by the final recommenda-
tions in the staff report; although they did know about the
concerns. An adjustment to the lot line could be done, but
shifting the lot line impacts the parking. They would like
stay with the .93 acres. The staff concern is that this is
not an optimum design, however, the building does meet the
setbacks and stacking provisions. In the gas pump design,
motorists have the choice of three product types which will
reduce any stacking problems. He believes the Ordinance
provisions are based on having only one product. They have
reviewed the lot coverage and the setbacks which are not at
the minimum, around the entire site; they exceed the land-
scaping requirements; their building materials are high
grade; and, they meet the height requirements of the
Ordinance.
Commissioner Mellen inquired about the landscaping on the
eastern edge, the plan does not show any plantings and he is
concerned about headlight glare. Mr. O'Brien explained this
is a trail easement and plantings are not allowed within
it. They would provide a landscape treatment if it were
allowed. Coordinator McConn confirmed that the policy is
not to allow plantings in a trail easement because of
considerations on safety, liability, and maintenance costs
to the City. Commissioner Mellen stated that headlight
glare could be a safety problem.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing.
Donna Maus, 14130 40th Avenue North, stated her concern with
traffic in that County Road 9 will not be upgraded in this
area and there is no left turn lane onto Annapolis Lane.
She believes there could be a traffic hazard with this
convenience center. The service is needed, but some traffic
and roadway improvements are also necessary.
Engineer Goldberg stated there are no plans at this time to
require turn lanes. Traffic signalization is not warranted
now, but continued development will become the impetus for
considering signals.
Chairman Steigerwald confirmed that the 24% increase in
traffic projected for the proposed development north of
County Road 9 did not include this project.
Tom Leverenz, 14005 Rockford Rd., stated his concerns with
the traffic, noting that the deceleration lane provided is
worse than no lane at all. Getting the mail is a dangerous
situation for them. Making a right turn at Fernbrook to
Page 29
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
I-494 is not easy and rear end collisions are bound to
happen. An easement at the back of his property could be
used as a road to direct through the neighborhood. It
would turn southerly and connect with 40th Avenue North.
This could be considered and would take the pressure off the
residents who have to exit County Road 9.
Mr. Leverenz also had concern regarding the land east of his
property line which has been neglected and not maintained.
He stated it is not part of his property and he asked the
City to clean it up. It is a weedy, sloped area which is
difficult to maintain. He inquired if the developer would
be required to maintain it.
Chairman Steigerwald stated that it does not appear this
developer would be responsible. He confirmed with staff
that the City would maintain the right-of-way.
Mr. Leverenz stated that Mr. O'Brien invited him and his
wife to his office to review the plans and it is an
improvement over the last proposal. He is confident in the
Trammell Crow Company as experienced developers. However,
County Road 9 and the inherent traffic problems are a big
concern. Traffic lights are needed, or limited access for
the benefit of the residents. He understands this is a
County Road, but requests the City's help in this matter.
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Stulberg stated that the staff issue is not the
number of cars in the stacking lanes, but the circulation
around and between the convenience store and the vehicles at
the gas pumps.
Chairman Steigerwald confirmed that a previous plan showed
the gas pumps on the south side.
Commissioner Mellen stated the plan shows adequate room for
traffic circulation.
Commissioner Stulberg stated that the stacking gets
congested by the building because there is not a by-pass
lane. Mr. dim Shelton, PDQ Stores, stated this is true on
only one island, the outside lanes have room to maneuver.
His experience with designing other stores shows that more
pumps serving more vehicles reduce the stacking problem.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired about the length of time a
customer would spend on the site? Mr. Shelton stated the
average time for a customer in the store is 5 minutes,
purchasing only gas would require less time.
Page 30
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
Commissioner Wire stated that this situation has come up in
the past and the important features are the circulation and
parking. It may be necessary to reduce the size of the
structure to provide necessary parking spaces. This site
will have more traffic than other small centers. A smaller
building may be necessary to decrease the variances.
Gary O'Brien stated they are requesting two variances; and,
in regard to traffic flow, the site layout provides the
ability for a vehicle to drive around the building to access
the gas pumps. The circulation is improved compared to the
previous plan. He explained the circulation with egress and
ingress at each end of the site providing good traffic move-
ment. The relationship between the building area to the
green space is visually appealing and the landscape features
exceed the Ordinance requirements.
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner Pauba MOTION TO APPROVE
to recommend approval for the Planned Unit Development Pre-
liminary Plan/Plat, Final Plan/Plat Amendment and Condition-
al Use Permit for Crow -Plymouth Land Limited Partnership,
subject to the conditions listed in the January 20, 1987
staff report.
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried.
Chairman Steigerwald stated he understands staff concern re-
garding overbuilding the site; however, it is a workable
plan and it is preferable to see the development occur and
be complete.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Trammell Crow
Company for Carlson Center 7th Addition and requested an
overview of the January 20, 1987 Planning Staff Report by
Coordinator McConn.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Ms. Linda Fisher, Attorney,
representing Trammell Crow Company. Ms. Fisher introduced
the development team. She stated she has reviewed the staff
report and the conditions are acceptable. On January 16th,
they met with the neighbors and reviewed the plans. She
gave the history of the Mixed Planned Unit Development that
borders the Cities of Plymouth and Minnetonka, and explained
the General Development Plan. Carlson Companies decided not
to proceed with their development plans and selected Tram-
mell Crow to develop and own the property. She discussed
the present and proposed land use. She noted the develop-
ment request is not as large as that originally approved.
She discussed the existing characteristics of the site, the
retention of trees and natural vegetation.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
LAND USE GUIDE PLAN
AMENDMENT, REZONING
PRELIMINARY PLAT,
FINAL PLAT AND SITE
PLAN FOR CARLSON
CENTER 7TH ADDITION
(86145)
Page 31
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
She explained the building construction and design; the
buffering and screening used for transition to the
residential. properties, including new plantings. She
further explained that there will be little night time or
weekend activity from the building. The lighting is
shielded to prevent glare onto adjoining properties.
Ms. Fisher and the project architect explained the site lay-
out and reviewed site through sections. Distances to
neighboring properties were described. They explained the
topographical changes, showing that the building will not be
visible although there is some filtered view during the
winter months; the visual impact is minimized.
Ms. Fisher discussed the traffic analysis, noting there are
no changes to the initial report and the project is within
the capacity of the roadway system.
In response to the staff report, Ms. Fisher stated the re-
quested reguiding is appropriate; the project provides bet-
ter transition than what was originally proposed; the
Location Criteria of the Comprehensive Plan have been met;
there is no impact on the City's Water and Sewer systems or
the Storm Water Drainage System; there is less density; no
variances are requested; and, all City criteria are met for
this development.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing.
Oliver Anderson, 14715 Gleason Lake Drive, inquired about
the height of the building. The project architect stated
the building is two -stories, 28 ft. in height with each end
of the building somewhat higher at approximately 30 to 32
ft. The roof top equipment is at each end of the building
and is screened from view.
Further discussion ensued about building setbacks and Mr.
Anderson inquired about any proposed fill on the property.
Mr. Anderson stated there have been drainage problems on his
property. The project architect stated they will not fill
in this low area; they will connect to the public storm
system.
Mr. Anderson stated he has spoken to the City regarding the
drainage problem; however, the City needed an easement and
he did not want this encumbrance on his property. He stated
he fixed it himself.
Page 32
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
Susan Gustner, 14611 Gleason Lake Dr., stated she purchased
property from Carlson Companies. She said the City's
Engineering Department told her a one-story building was
proposed on this site to be developed by Carlson Companies,
and Carlson Companies confirmed this. She was also told
this would be the last area to develop. These development
plans seem to be misleading because the building will be 75
ft. from her property line. Ms. Gustner stated the eleva-
tion of the swamp/low land area is 870, and the building is
at 880. She believes the filling and grading will produce
more drainage problems from those which exist now. She is
concerned there has been no consideration of the reflected
glare from the building.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired if she was referring to sun
reflection from the building? Ms. Gustner said yes, and she
is concerned about the lighting at night as well. The only
buffer in this area are trees that are 10 ft. apart which
will not be adequate screening. She believes that tree
retention may not be possible because of the proximity of
the building. It is her opinion the building is too high
and should be lowered.
Alan Gustner, 14611 Gleason Lake Drive, stated his resi-
dence, at the furthest point, is 160 ft. from the proposed
building. It is his opinion the building and parking area
should be moved to decrease the impact to the residential
homes and he suggested a "flip-flop" of the building/parking
layout, moving the building closer to Carlson Parkway. He
believes it is designed opposite of what it should be.
Chairman Steigerwald confirmed typical building height for
an office/warehouse. Coordinator McConn responded that the
typical height is in the range of 25 - 30 ft.
Mr. Gustner stated he visited City Center last year and
talked with the Engineering Department who verified the
building would be one-story. Chairman Steigerwald explained
that one-story office/warehouse buildings were shown on the
General Development Plan, but a guarantee could not be given
that proposed changes to that plan would not occur.
Mr. Gustner discussed his thoughts of fill and excavation
needed; and, that the development plans leave no buffer to
the residential neighborhood. He reiterated the need to
change the location of the building.
Chairman Steigerwald and Commissioner Mellen noted that re-
locating the parking area could produce headlight glare.
Linda Fisher and the project architect stated they believe
the site layout is accurate as far as setback of the build-
ing and parking to the residences. Trees to be saved will
Page 33
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
be protected by using snow fence. The building's windows
will be tinted to reduce glare; and, there will be minimal
activity in the building at night. The soil conditions on
this site limits building location. Steve Pellinen,
Engineer, explained that the drainage direction; the low
area in the northwest portion contains trees and topography
to be preserved.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired if the current drainage
situation could be improved now? Mr. Pellinen stated this
is a flat,grassy, hillocky area which does not flow
quickly. Reference was made to the Engineer's Memorandum
which requires improvement to the current drainage pattern.
Brian Koosmann, 14619 Gleason Lake Dr., inquired about the
buffering, stating that trees are very sparse in this area.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired if there are plans to fill in
the treeline to the west?
Linda Fisher and the project architect stated Spruce trees
will be added, and there will be another row of Evergreens
to the northwest to continue the buffer line.
Gin Weedenfeller, 14509 Gleason Lake Dr., was concerned
about the parking lot lighting. She doesn't believe the
trees will screen the parking adequately. She inquired if
there could be a fence or wall installed?
The project architect stated the parking is skewed toward
Gleason Lake Drive. Chairman Steigerwald inquired about the
elevation of the parking to the residential lots. Coordin-
ator McConn stated there is a 6 ft. difference in elevation
between the parking lot and the residences to the north.
Ms. Weedenfeller inquired about the FRD zoning designation
which was explained by Coordinator McConn.
Vi Ulrich, 14717 Gleason Lake Dr., stated she is concerned
about the additional traffic and congestion in the area.
She reiterated the drainage problems on residential
properties; water stands for several weeks; and, the
addition of fill will add to the run off. She noted the
trees on the plans are depicted as what they will look like
in 20 years, but with initial construction, her residence
will lose its privacy.
Chairman Steigerwald and City Engineer Goldberg discussed
the drainage issue. Engineer Goldberg stated he will check
into the residents comments, but noted the development will
not impact or worsen the drainage situation. The Engineer's
Memorandum addresses the storm drainage work required.
Chairman Steigerwald read that portion of the memorandum.
Page 34
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
Mr. Gustner reiterated his concerns about the building
location and that it should be setback at least 265 ft.
Linda Fisher and the project architect discussed the
site sections where the distances vary; and, that the
building is to be located away from the marsh land. She
explained the traffic study findings for this project which
will reduce the number of peak hour trips projected from the
previous development plan.
Chairman Steigerwald and Mr. Gustner discussed the
explanation given by the petitioner on the building
setbacks. Ms. Gustner feels the Commission is apathetic to
the problem and she is disturbed that the City and Carlson
Companies both stated a one-story building would be
constructed on this property.
Coordinator McConn explained the difference between general
development plans and detailed site plans. She explained
that the intent of the Landscape Policy is to provide
transition and buffering, but does not necessarily mean the
building will be totally out of sight.
It was Ms. Gustner's feeling they have been mislead by the
City. Mr. Gustner reiterated his opinion that the building
should be moved; that the low land can be improved for
building construction; and, adequate storm sewer should be
installed to the south.
Chairman Steigerwald confirmed the work to be accomplished
as stated in the Engineer's Memorandum.
Ms. Weedenfeller inquired if the car lights from the parking
areas are a problem, will the City correct the problem?
Chairman Steigerwald stated the City reviews the plans to
assist the developer in placing landscaping and screening to
soften the impact the parking area may have on residential
property near by.
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing
MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Magnus to recommend approval for the Land Use Guide Plan LUGPA, REZONING,
Amendment, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat for Trammell Crow PRELIMINARY PLAT
Company, subject to the conditions of approval listed in the
January 20, 1987 staff report.
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Page 35
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO APPROVE
Pauba to recommend approval for the Final Plat for Trammell FINAL PLAT
Crow Company for Carlson Center 7th Addition, subject to the
conditions of approval listed in the January 20, 1987 staff
report.
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Wire stated his interpretation of the Site Plan
and site sections. He did not f ind a section showing the
back of the building.
The Commission was shown and discussed the site sections.
Commissioner Wire reiterated his concern that there should
be a better rendering of the site to show the actual areas
of vegetation, existing and proposed. Commissioner Wire
inquired about the accent lighting for the building. The
project architect explained the exterior building lights are
at the corners of the building. Commissioner Wire noted he
would not want to see a flood light that would wash the
building. Steve Stender, Trammell Crow, stated the accent
lights are directed downward and will not glare onto the
building. The parking lot lighting will produce no glare
beyond the property boundary.
Commissioner Wire expressed concern about the height of the
building and its proximity to the residential neighborhood.
Further discussion ensued regarding the general development
plan and the present site plan.
Commissioner Wire made a Motion to recommend denial of the
Site Plan, the Motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO APPROVE
Mellen to recommend approval of the Site Plan for Trammell
Crow Company for Carlson Center 7th Addition, subject to the
conditions as listed in the January 20, 1987 staff report.
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner Pauba MOTION TO AMEND
to Amend the Motion by adding a condition requiring
additional screening and buffering on the Landscape Plan.
Further discussion ensued, and it was the consensus that
further direction should be given if a revised landscape
plan is required, and should include the type and size of
plantings. Commissioner Wire stated that his concern is
that a better landscape treatment be provided for this
interface to the residential properties.
Chairman Steigerwald suggested that the City Forester and
Community Development Coordinator review the plans with the
petitioner; that the petitioner consider revising the land-
Page 36
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
scape plan, within reason, with vegetation of good
survivability to be concentrated on the north and northwest
side of the building. Commissioner Wire stated he would
like to see any revised plans.
Linda Fisher stated they would provide the Site Plan as
directed, but they would like to move forward to the City
Council with a recommendation for approval.
Commissioner Wire agreed that Coordinator McConn and the
City Forester can review the plans to assure compliance with
the Commission direction.
Roll Call Vote on the Motion to Amend. 4 Ayes. Commis-
sioners Stulberg and Mellen, Nay. Motion carried.
Roll Call Vote on Main Motion as once Amended. 6 Ayes.
MOTION carried.
NEN BUSINESS
VOTE - AMENDMENT
MOTION CARRIED
VOTE - MAIN NOTION
ONCE AMENDED NOTION
CARRIED
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner *GREG REIN, OEROME
Pauba to recommend approval for the Site Plan for Greg BEGIN CONTRACTING
Begin, Jerome Begin Contracting Co. for the construction of SITE PLAN (86124)
a retail center southeast of future Vinewood Lane and County NOTION TO APPROVE
Road 6, subject to the conditions listed in the January 15,
1987 Planning Staff Report.
Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Boemer BOEMER BUILDERS
Builders for Allied Plastics, Inc. Reading of the January ALLIED PLASTICS, INC.
20, 1987 Planning Staff Report was waived. SITE PLAN AND
VARIANCE (86137)
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mr. Tom Feaski, representing
the petitioner. Mr. Feaski stated the variance is requested
to provide an efficient layout for the building; and,
because of the problem of erosion on this site. The earth
sheltering option for the building, suggested by City staff,
would be the only feasible option. He further explained the
erosion problems and the need for an effective Swale. Mr.
Feaski believes the parking lot should be approved as
proposed since the overall plan complies with all other
requirements of the City.
Commissioner Mellen inquired about the possibility of ter-
racing the grade. Mr. Feaski stated there is not enough
room for terracing and keep an effective plan.
Page 37
Planning Commission Minutes
January 28, 1987
Commissioner Wire confirmed with Coordinator McConn that the
variance request is for 7 ft. (43 ft. versus 50 ft.) for the
parking setback to Ranchview Lane; and 0 ft. (vs 10 ft.)
setback for the parking and building on the north side.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired about the additional informa-
tion requested by the Engineering Department in its
memorandum. Engineer Goldberg stated that storm drainage
calculations are needed for the proper sizing of storm
sewer. He confirmed the elevations.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired if Mr. Feaski was concerned
about the possibility of a vehicle hitting the building?
Mr. Feaski stated this is not a big concern, the parking
proposed for the north side will be used for employees.
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO APPROVE
Wire recommending approval for the Site Plan and Variance
for Boemer Builders for Allied Plastics, Inc., subject to
the conditions as listed in the January 20, 1987 staff
report and based on the topographical conditions of this
site.
Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried.
VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner *HAPPY CHEF OF
Pauba to recommend approval for the Plan Amendment for Sign- PLYMOUTH - PLAN
age for Happy Chef of Plymouth at 14370 28th Place, subject AMENDMENT FOR
to the conditions as listed in the January 21, 1987 staff SIGNAGE (87001)
report. NOTION TO APPROVE
Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman Steigerwald thanked Commissioner Clark Magnus for
his years of service on the Planning Commission.
Coordinator McConn noted the point Planning Commission/City
Council meeting will start at 5:00 P.M. on February 9, 1987
and will be a dinner meeting.
Mayor Schneider added his thanks to Commissioner Magnus for
a job well done.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:25 A.M.
VOTE -NOTION CARRIED
Application Received by City on:
Personal Information
Committee(s)/Commission(s) Applied for.
1st Choice
2nd Choice
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT
TO COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE
Name: Age: Home Phone:
Home Address:
Number of Children:
Lived in Plymouth since:
Ages (of those living at home):
Property (other than residence) owned in Plymouth:
Occupation
Present employer:
Position Title:
Education
Course Work Taken Beyond High School
Name of Institution To/From Degree/Credits
Previous Experience
Work Phone:
Area of Emphasis
List other civic experience you have had including name of organizations, dates of
participation, name of city, position held and accomplishments:
List other relevant experience
Opinion Questions
What do you believe you could contribute to the community if appointed to a City
commission or committee? Why?
Now do you believe you would benefit if appointed to a committee or commission?
As a commission or committee member, what issue(s) might cause conflict between
civic responsibility and personal/professional interests?
Would your employer object to your involvement on a commission or board? If yes,
explain.
Date available: Available for commission/committee meetings on
the following evenings (circle)
Signed:
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri
Dat e:
The selection process will vary according to the number of applicants and openings
and may not include interviews with all candidates.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE:: February 5, 1986
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager through Blair Tremere, Community
Development Director
FROM:
SUBJECT Joe Rvan, Building Official
CHELSEA WOODS UPDATE
Referenced below is a summary of action that the Building Inspection Division has
performed since the January 30th date the non-structural pian review report was
prepared.
1. On Friday afternoon, January 30, 1987, I met with Tom Barker to discuss the plan
review comments referenced on each of the four plans submitted to our office by
the Chelsea Woods Homeowner's Association.
Each item listed on the plan review comments was covered in detail. I shared with
Mx. Barker the specific reason why each item was marked, as noted on each report.
I requested Mr. Barker provide me with any additional plans the Homeowner's
Association may have for our Division to review.
I also requested that Mr. Barker contact me to schedule a meeting in order that
our office could provide members of their Association; with copies of related code
provisions, and to discuss with them various code interpretation issues.
On February 2, 1987 Mr. Barker contacted me, to schedule a meeting for Wednesday,
February 4th at 10:00 A.M. in the Plymouth City Center. J
2. Or; February 4, 1987, Scott McLellan and I met with Tom Barker and Merrill Birch
representing the Chelsea Woods Homeowner's Association, and Greg Newtson
representing the Girtsen Company. The pupose of the meeting was to provide
various code related documents to those in attendance, to discuss interpretative
code issues and to answer questions (see attached letter dated February 5, 1987).
As of this date, each of the four items outlined by the Cita Council Directive
have been completed.
I am not certain whether any additional plans will be forwarded to our office by
the Chelsea Woods Homeowner's Association, however, if so, they will be reviewed
in an expedious fashion by our Division.
Please colitact me if you have further questions regarding this ...atter.
viz:' 7ew,R'fraDY:.�
'w�tT
tti _i k
y.fl
February 5, 1987 CITY OFPLYMOUTH-
Mr. Tom Barker
President Chelsea Woods Townhouse Association
1505 Yuma Lane North
Plymouth, Mn 55447
Dear Mr. Barker:
Referenced below is a summary of our meeting which took place on February 4, 1987 at
the Plymouth City Center. The purpose of the meeting was to provide members of your
Association with various code related documents and to discuss interpretive code
issues as outlined in Item #1 of the City -Council directive dated January 12, 1987.
Those in attendance: Tom Barker, Association President; Merrill Birch, Association
member; Greg Newtson, Girtsen Company; Scott McLellan; and Joe Ryan.
The following are pertinent excerpts which were discussed in the meeting.
Initially, Mr. Barker questioned staff as to whether staff had changed their
interpretation of the findings relating to the last paragraph in Mr. Ryan's December
17, 1986 Memo to the City Manager; in which he stated "The construction of the
exterior separation walls did not comply with the requirements of Table 43-B..." Mr.
Ryan went on to clarify that we have not changed our interpretation of the related
code section as we understand it today; only, that there may have been a different
understanding of these provisions by the Building Official at the time these units
were initially constructed.
Mr. Birch, referring to the third paragraph on the second page of Mr. Ryan's Memo to
the City Manager of December 26, 1986, inquired of Mr. Ryan as to whether fiberborard
as installed as attic separations between the units, complied with this section as an
approved firestopping material. Mr. Ryan responded that the last sentence of this
section states "...or other approved non-combustible material adequately supported."
Mr. Ryan also stated that although the fiberboard is considered combustible, it may
have been the determination of the Building Official at the time of construction of
these units, that two (2) layers of 1/2 inch fiberboard, would be considered an
equivalent to one (1) inch nominal thickness tight fitting wood or 3/8th's inch thick
plywood as permitted by this section.
Mr. Ryan clarified the point that as we understand the code today, two 1 -hour fire
resistive constructed walls are required by the code when they are less than three
(3) feet from a property line. The distinction was made between this requirement and
it's terminology versus a "2 -hour wall". Mr. Birch indicated that by adding a layer
of 5/8th's inch thick "Type V gypsum board to the inside of each dwelling unit, that
a 2 -hour fire resistive wall assembly between the two units would then exist. Mr.
Ryan concurred, if separation wall construction was identical to that inspected in
the fire damaged units.
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
L-12
Page two
Mr. Tom Barker
February 5, 1987
Mr. Birch inquired as to whether horizontal firestops are required by the code. Mr.
Ryan responded that horizontal firestops within a combustible wood chase located on
the exterior side of a dwelling unit, are not required by the building code unless
the listing and/or manufacture's installation guide for a specific fireplace, would
regjire the installation of such firestops.
Mr. Birch inquired as to whether their Association should consider installing
horizontal firestops in the fireplace chase of existing dwellings which would
include surrounding the inside of the fireplace chase directly below the firestop,
adjacent to the fireplace, with gypsum wallboard material. Mr. Barker understood that
providing gypsum wallboard along a dwelling unit side of a fireplace chase would help
protect a dwelling unit from a fireplace or chimney fire.
Mr. McLellan responded by illustrating on the chalkboard, his recommendation as to
the most effective location where gypsum wallboard material could be installed within
a fireplace chase. According to Mr. McLellan, this would be a a point where the chase
of the fireplace chimney abuts an attic space. Based on Mr. McLellan's experience on
the inspection of chimney fires, this appears to be the area where a fire will
typically enter an attic space. Both Mr. Barker and Mr. Birch seemed to feel
comfortable that this type of proposal could provide additional protection to homes
in their Association at a reasonable cost. Mr. Newtson of Girtsen Company felt that
this could be accomplished relatively easily by removing only the cap on the top of
each fireplace chase.
Mr. Barker wondered if this type of work would provide 95 percent protection from
fire occurring in the attics between one unit and another. Mr. Ryan responded that
this could not be determined as a fireplace is not the only cause of fires within
dwellings.
Mr. Birch, recognizing that the code requires walls less than three (3) feet from a
property line to be not less than 1 -hour fire resistive construction, with no
openings, inquired as to whether a wall perpendicular but within three (3) feet of
the property line, is also required to be of such construction. Mr. McLellan pointed
out that the code specifically exempts that portion of the wall which is
perpendicular to the property line under Section 504 (b) of the 1973 UBC.
Mr. Barker inquired as to whether permits would be required for sheetrocking the
interior walls of existing fireplace chases. Mr. Ryan responded that a permit would
not be required.
Mr. Newtson had a few technical questions which Mr. Ryan answered at the end of the
meeting.
Sincerely,
Joe Rya S
Building Official
JR: ds
FOR
► , 6 moi. o , t51
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
`. v Ifb ,
MEMO
DATE: January 27, 1987
TO: Community Development Coordinator Sara McConn
FROM: Community Development Director Blair Tremere t .
SUBJECT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENTS RESULTING FROM PROPOSED
REDUCTIONS OF DENSITY
A pending application includes an amendment to the Land Use Guide Plan. This amendment
is necessary because the proposal would alter the possible and approved density to a
point where it is less than the minimum of the density range for the established
district. The proposed density is distinctly characteristic of the next lower Guide
Plan classification.
The purpose of this memo is not to discuss the merits of a specific application which
can and should be considered on its own merits. The purpose of the memo is to set
forth my observations about why a Land Use Guide Plan Amendment is involved. I am
prompted by questions from the petitioner who has asked for the reasons, and who has
suggested that this is a new requirement which perhaps is being applied to only their
case.
I have informed the petitioner that the latter point is not the case, although this may
represent the first formal consideration of a proposal to reduce density and change the
guiding from a higher category to a lower category. The application may be indicative
of a trend or of potential applications from other land owners.
The reason for the Guide Plan Amendment is to keep an accurate accounting of our Land
Use Guide Plan as it is subject to the change and modifications which come with a
developing community. Proper tracking of changes authorized by the City Council is
vital to the long term integrity of the City's planning. This is a matter of legal
responsibility, given the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and Metro-
politan Council policies.
When a developer proposes a new development or an amendment to an approved development
and the result is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan -- particularly with the
Land Use Guide Plan Element -- then the appropriate amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
should be considered first. This should include Planned Unit Developments where this
aspect perhaps has been overlooked in the past, due to the inherent design and density
flexibility built into Planned Unit Developments.
Some items to consider:
1. The comprehensive planning of the City is integrated among the various systems.
The Land Use Guide Plan classification of a given piece of property inter -relates
with the land around it, the utilities that serve it, the roads that access it,
and the other systems which are governed by the comprehensive planning.
T-/La-
Page
`/3a_
Page two
Community Development Coordinator
January 27, 1987
2. To approve development which is not consistent with the established guiding,with-
out first considering the impacts of that amendment upon the planning of the
entire area and perhaps of the City, is to ignore the purpose of the Plan and the
requirements of the Land Planning Act.
3. A pattern of such development approval without concurrent modifications of the
Guide Plan and/or Zoning, lead to the circumstance we faced several years ago when
the City undertook a comprehensive reconciliation of the guiding and zoning
throughout the community. Admittedly, many of the conflicts resulted from zoning
established before the City even had a Comprehensive Plan; nevertheless, the
principle is the same.
4. Adjacent land owners and the people who have purchased property and homes in the
area are entitled to know when the City is considering the approval of development
that is not consistent with the plan they may have expected to depend upon.
5. Prospective buyers and residents in the subject development should have the accur-
ate information available to them that the City considered the development in
terms of the Comprehensive Plan, taking, if necessary, adjustments to that plan to
accommodate the development.
6. It is not appropriate, in my view, to represent the Comprehensive Plan as a formal
accurate statement of the City's development intentions on the one hand, and to
allow development which is contrary to that plan, through other means such as re-
zoning or Planned Unit Development Amendments.
7. Our awareness of the particular need to track this matter has developed gradually,
over time, with specific attention recently given to developments which had sig-
nificant attributes or results. We are able to better account for the net effect
changes have, with electronic data processing, and the updating of the Comprehen-
sive Plan (including the reconciliation several years ago) which help create a
more current base line.
8. The City has a stake in assuring that development is consistent with the Compre-
hensive Plan because we will be again confronting the matter of the Staged Growth
Plan adopted several years ago as the result of requirements imposed by the Metro-
politan Council. It is important that the City demonstrate that development has
been regulated in accordance with the adopted Plan -- as amended -- so that the
information is used to paint an accurate picture of development demand and related
land and resource supply.
9. There will be no benefit to the City to have to defend development approvals that
were not first considered in terms of the Comprehensive Plan. If nothing else,
that circumstance would reinforce the argument of those who contend that cities
are unable to manage growth and to direct the development in the metropolitan area
without close guidance and direction from regional and state agencies.
In summary, we need to be as attentive to amendments to the Land Use Guide Plan in the
case of "down guiding" as we are in the cases of "up guiding". The key indicator is
whether a development results in physical characteristics that are inconsistent with
the established plan. If so, then the proposal should be evaluated as an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan. If the Plan is amended then the specific development can be
Page three
Community Development Coordinator
January 27, 1987
evaluated accordingly and, presumably, approved. If the development does not warrant a
change to the plan, then it should not be amended and only development consistent with
the Plan should be considered.
You have developed a list of generic questions to assist the Planning Commission and
City Council in evaluating any reguiding proposal. We should continue to provide the
Commission and Council with that list.
I
0
January 28, 1987
Mr. Bob Burger
Bass Lake Development Company
12800 Industrial Park Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear Bob:
CITY OF
PLYMOUTH
-
b cc: James Willis
L- / 3b
At the last meeting of the Plymouth Development Council, you designated a committee
consisting of you, Sohn Griffith, Trammell Crow Company; and, Al Schachtman, Ryan
Construction Company. The purpose of the committee is to study City requirements as to
leased office space in the industrial district and "proof -of -parking" requirements.
There was some discussion at the meeting, particularly by Mr. Griffith and Mr.
Schactman, that the City Ordinance did not afford a level of flexibility that they
would prefer.
I am enclosing the following materials which I think will help the committee gain an
understanding of the City requirements:
1. Pages from the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Guide Plan Element which describes the
CL (service office) and IP (planned industrial) classification. These classifica-
tions correspond to the B-1 and I-1 Zoning Districts.
2. Pages from the Zoning Ordinance which describe the purpose and intent of the B-1
and other commercial districts, as well as the I-1 District.
3. Pages from the Zoning Ordinance which indicate the basic parking standards of the
City, particularly with respect to the obligation of each site to support its own
parking.
These materials will also reflect the obligation to provide a "proof -of -parking"
plan for a site if the developer chooses not to provide the entire complement re-
quired by the minimum Ordinance standards.
4. Pages from the Ordinance regarding the interpretation of proposed building plans
as to the amount of office space; and, the determination of when a building be-
comes primarily an office building for purposes of zoning classification and park-
ing calculation.
I think these materials will help express in a formal sense, the guidelines the City
has established over the years regarding the subjects to be addressed by this
committee.
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
Page two
Mr. Bob Burger
January 28, 1987
On a less formal basis I would like to offer the following comments and would be glad
to discuss these with the committee if the committee so desires:
1. Plymouth has adopted land use regulations which often are referred to as exclusive
or exclusionary zoning. This means that distinct districts or classifications are
established which may have some common characteristics, but usually provide for
very distinct land uses in respective categories. Cross over or blending is typi-
cally not found except that a Planned Unit Development might permit a mixing of
uses in accordance with an adopted PUD Plan.
Otherwise, it is a deliberate act by the community to preserve certain districts
say for office uses, whereas another district is preserved primarily for those
uses classified as industrial.
2. Plymouth has realized in recent years that the percentage of office use in
industrial/distribution buildings has increased substantially. In earlier years,
the percentage of office space was clearly incidental to the industrial or dis-
tribution activity. Gradually, with the phenomenon of "office/ showrooms" and
"high tech" buildings, more and more space was devoted to office use.
The Plymouth Ordinance has for many years classified offices such as corporate
headquarters and the like, as a conditional use, requiring a Conditional Use
Permit in the I-1 District. However, the phenomenon described above was happening
without the benefit of review through the Conditional Use Permit process.
3. Some of the problems that became evident were on -street parking, parking in fire
lanes, parking on landscaped areas, and even parking on neighboring properties.
This was because the original building was approved as a low intensity use
industrial building, whereas the actual occupancy had changed over time to a more
intense and more populated use consisting of offices.
4. Effective use of the "proof -of -parking" provisions has helped, but nevertheless it
became apparent that a use -type, office buildings, (where the predominant use was
leased office space) was becoming more and more prevalent in the I-1 District.
The City Planning Commission and City Council determined that that was not approp-
riate because it is the B-1 District which is to be the predominant office
district. Some land owners even indicated to the Planning Commission and Council
that they felt they were not realizing development on their property (B-1) because
potential customers were being attracted to office space in the I-1 District.
5. One problem the City had with the Ordinance was that there was not an explicit
definition of how one calculated the space in a building by use, therefore, deter-
mining how much of the floor area was devoted to office use.
The City has now adopted such language.
6. The matter of parking, I think, is less subjective. The City very firmly and
clearly has said for many years that it is the obligation of the private land
owner to provide adequate parking for the uses approved for the site. The City
realizes that in some cases, particular uses do not need the full complement of
minimum required parking initially, but over time, may realize the need as the
business grows or expands.
Mr. Bob Burger
January 28, 1987
7. There is also the important consideration that once a building is built and is
allowed in the zoning district, essentially that property is eligible for the
variety of land uses allowed in that district. Thus, if a certain use is initial-
ly found in a building, a totally different use permitted in that district may
become established which requires a higher level of parking.
8. The City has adopted minimum parking standards (versus "ideal" or "peak" stand-
ards), and in generally we have found that they are valid and realistic. The
"proof -of -parking" approach has worked well in Plymouth and it does require that a
developer, in exchange for not paving the full parking area, landscape the area
and preserve it for possible future use for parking.
9. The suggestion was made at the last meeting that this was an "economic waste" and
that the available land should actually be used for building. This is not consis-
tent with the intent of the Ordinance because more building would mean even more
parking would be required and the intent of the reserve land was to provide the
full parking for the initial development.
10. The City cannot concur with the proposition that it becomes a "public" problem
later on if a particular land use can't support itself with respect to parking on
a given site. The City of Plymouth has traditionally placed that burden on the
initial developer as much as possible, so that there are not situations later on
that become problems for the public to solve due to the lack of good planning.
I share these observations with you as an informal way of expressing the reason for the
approach and the regulations used by the City. There may be other approaches and other
means of achieving the same ends. We welcome the opportunity to consider those
options.
Please let me know if there is additional information you would like, or if you would
like me to meet with the committee.
Sincerely
actor
Blair Trem irector
Community Development
BT/gw
cc: File/PDC
ENCS
4E-!�C
17835 6th Ave No
Plymouth, MN 55447
January 27, 1987
Mayor Virgil Schneider
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mayor Schneider
I am writing this to tell you about some news that you may
be unaware of. Last October, I entered a competition and
was chosen as one of three finalists to continue on to the
next level. That competition is a part of the Junior Miss
scholarship program where I am judged on poise and persona-
lity, talent, physical fitness, interview, and scholastic
achievement. I shall now be heading to Burnsville to com-
pete for the title of Minnesota's Junior Miss the week of
February 7-15.
However, because our area dces not have a community spon-
sored program, I attended the "At -Large" competition. In
turn, I now adopt my hometown name and carry the title of
Plymouth's Junior Miss going into state.
Thank you for your time. I just wanted you to know that
Plymouth will be represented at, the competition for Min-
nesota's Junior Miss.
Sincerely
60_R;�7,k,
Sherri L. Baxter
Plymouth's Junior Miss
February 3, 1987
Ms. Sherri L. Baxter
17835 - 6th Avenue N.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Ms. Baxter:
CITY OF
PLYMOUTI+
Thank you for your January 29 letter explaining the Minnesota Junior Miss
Competition and your title of Plymouth Junior Miss. I am sharing your
letter and this response with members of the City Council.
As I understand from your letter, your are one of the three finalists who
will be competing for the title of Minnesota Junior Miss the week of
February 7 through February 15. I am pleased that you have adopted the
title of Plymouth's Junior Miss going into the State competition. Like you,
we are proud of our community's many accomplishments. But most important,
we take pride in Plymouth's greatest resource: its residents, and, in
particular, the youth of our community which you so ably represent.
On behalf of the City Council, and our community, I wish you the best of
luck in the Minnesota Junior Miss Competition. You can be assured that
throughout the competition, we will be "pulling for you" all the way.
Because you are "Plymouth's Junior Miss entry" in the State competition, I
am enclosing a lapel pin which depicts the logo of the City of Plymouth. I
have also included a description of the meaning of our logo. I hope that
you will be able to proudly wear the pin throughout the competition.
I know how proud and delighted your parents must be with you. We too, are
proud, and I hope you will share the results of the competition with us as
soon as they are available. Once again, we wish you the best of luck in the
Minnesota Junior Miss Competition as Plymouth's Junior Miss and in all other
endeavors in which you participate.
Sincerely,
Vi gil Schneider
Mayor
VS:dma
encl.
cc: Councilmembers
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
.z- / 3 d:
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: January 30, 1987
TO: Fred Moore, Director of Public Works 2
FROM: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager ��/
SUBJECT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT REMINDER CARD
Attached are copies of three Community Improvement Reminder Cards
submitted by Mayor Schneider regarding the following:
1. The Information Counter wood ledge needs refinishing.
2. The City Center front doors need to be re -painted.
3. The City Center flag is ripped and needs to be replaced.
Would you please investigate the above matters and provide me with a
report of your findings. I would appreciate a response by Thursday,
February 5 so it may be included in the Council Information Memorandum.
Thank you.
FB:dma
attach.
cc: James G. Willis, City Manager
S/F - 2/5/87
Community Improvement Reminder S'7 -c2 -
I have noticed a problem with: C ��y�oa� c1oo�S
Resident has noticed a problem wit
Street/Potholes Watermain/Hydrant
Brush/Weeds/Trees Filling/Excavating
Drainage dunk Cars
Traffic[Parking Violation Garbage/Demos
Traffic/Street Sign/Signa— Erosion/Dirty treets
Dead Animals in street Broken/Damaged Equipment
Sign Streetlight
%,ummunsty improvement Reminder $7-a(
Other
rr-Fw:�r
I have noticed a problem with:
Resident has noticed a problem with:
Street/Potholes
Watermain/Hydrant
.c.: {�,.t
Brush/Weeds/Trees
Filling/Excavating
Drainage
dunk Cars
Traffic ar ing Violation
Garbage/Debris
Location
Traffic/Street Sign/Signal—
Erosion/Dirty meets
C
Dead Animals in street
Broken/Damaged Equipment
Sign
Streetlight
L
ilu
Otherupad
Descriptionyp,rN �woc.+J
.033, - Nee�as
pvso..� t,,:ll rc��;54
Resident's Name
ir
Address
""'s
Location
o+ lnl 7/j
� R�cFivF� .fes
Your namer
JAW 29
ni VW1
Resident's Name
U11 I U1 I
ti
Address
S s
a
Community Improvement Reminder S'7 -c2 -
I have noticed a problem with: C ��y�oa� c1oo�S
Resident has noticed a problem wit
Street/Potholes Watermain/Hydrant
Brush/Weeds/Trees Filling/Excavating
Drainage dunk Cars
Traffic[Parking Violation Garbage/Demos
Traffic/Street Sign/Signa— Erosion/Dirty treets
Dead Animals in street Broken/Damaged Equipment
Sign Streetlight
Other
rr-Fw:�r
Description ooer� uee
\,_..'`t
Jfi
bots ?Pew
.c.: {�,.t
<, O' SVM {n
N
�' `..
+�-Q
r,ccJs t�
Location
�7C q iJaV (,
C
Your name
ilu
Resident's Name
ir
Address
Phone
o-� F, �S*
Community Improvement Reminderff7_03
I have noticed a problem with:
Resident has noticed a problem wit
Street/Potholes
Brush/Weeds/Trees
Drainage
Traffic ar ing Violation
Traffic/Street Sign/SignaT—
Dead Animals in street
Sign
Watermain/Hydrant
Filling/Excavating
Junk Cars
Garbage/Der s
Erosion/Dirtyt�reets
Broken/Damaged Equipment
Streetlight
Other V7NO,
c.ck
C.A,4
te0k*--Q -
Description
F\ 0.
.s
r 0 oe,L — e p Ictc�
Location
0�
Your name
Resident's Name
Address {Y�UUl�
Phon e
Date 1g7
e
REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD
Suite 270 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55
-� !V
DATE: January 26, 1987
TO: Transit Service Needs Assessment Project Management
FROM: Katherine Turnbull, Planning Manager'
SUBJECT: Final Executive Summary
Enclosed is a copy of the final printing of the Transit Service Needs
Assessment Executive Summary. The complete Final Report and the Subarea
Analysis will be printed in the next few weeks.
With the rush of activities last fall, primarily taking the results of the
Transit Service Needs Assessment and incorporating them into the Implementation
and Financial Plan, I don't think I ever formally thanked you for serving on
the Project Management Team. I greatly appreciate the time and effort you put
into assisting the Regional Transit Board with the Transit Service Needs
Assessment. I think the quality of the process and the results reflect your
participation.
Please let me know if you would like additional copies of the Executive
Summary or copies of the Final Report and Subarea Analysis when they become
available.
Thank you again for all your time and effort! I hope you will continue your
interest and involvement as the Regional Transit Board implements the
strategies recommended in the Transit Service Needs Assessment.
DBMEMO/2