Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 08-03-1989CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM August 3, 1989 RECYCLING CASH DRAWING August 3: No Winner (1300 block of Urbandale) Next Week: $1,000 Cash Award UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS..... 1. COUNCIL STUDY SESSION -- Monday, August 7, 5:00 p.m., Council conference room. Council study session to continue review of proposed Land Use Guide Plan changes. A table reflecting the exist- ing, Planning Commission proposed changes and areas of City Council concern is attached. Dinner will be provided at the meeting. (M-1) 2. COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, August 7, 7:30 p.m. Regular City Council meeting in City Council Chambers. 3. BOARD OF ZONING -- Tuesday, August 8, 7:30 p.m. The Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals will meet in the City Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-3) 4. PLANNING COMMISSION -- Wednesday, August 9, Council Chambers. The Planning Commission Forum will begin at 7:15 p.m., with the regular Planning Commission meeting following at 7:30 p.m. Agenda attached. (M-4) 5. MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION (MLC) REGIONAL BREAKFAST - The MLC regional breakfast, Plymouth Place, Wednesday, August 16, 7:30 a.m. Breakfast for elected officials from Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka, Plymouth, Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove, along with the appropriate legislators. This meeting will be held shortly after the Governor presents his proposed 1989 tax bill to the Legislature, but prior to legislative action on it. Councilmembers should let Laurie know if they plan to attend this 7:30 a.m. breakfast meeting. 6. AUGUST CALENDAR-- The meeting calendar August is attached. (M-6) 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM August 3, 1989 Page 2 FOR YOUR INFORMATION.... 1. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CENSUS ESTIMATES - I have received the Metropolitan Council's "official" April 1, 1989 population and household estimates for Plymouth. The numbers are slightly different than those which were originally presented to me over the telephone. The 1989 population is estimated at 51,390, an increase of 20 over the previous number. They estimate that we have 18,867 households, 345 greater than the estimate provided me last week. This represents an increase of 7.5 percent in population over the 1988 forecast and a household increase of 6.9 percent. 2. FIRE STATION NO. 1 FEASIBILITY STUDY - REIMBURSEABLE EXPENSES -- The Council requested additional informaion with respect to the items under reimburseable expenses as contained in the Trossen-Wright proposal. Michael Trossen has indicated to me that those expenses will include photography, blueprints, photocopying and travel. In any event, he indicates that the reimburseable expenses will not exceed $300 as directed by the Council. 3. BARRELS IN MEDICINE LAKE -- Robert Cross of the MPCA informs me that they expect to have reports on water samples taken at Medicine Lake by Monday at the latest. He also expects that an analysis of the photographs of the various barrels will also be completed by that time. Once that information is in hand, he will contact us with the results as well as information regarding future steps, if any, which the EPA and PCA will take to remove barrels. At this point, I remain reasonably confident that the barrels will be found to pose no environmental threat and may best be left in place. 4. PROTECTING TREES FROM CONSTRUCTION DAMAGE -- Attached is a brief article on protecting trees from construction damage through the use of snow fence barriers. This article appeared in the duly -August issue of "Lasting Woodlands," published by Lasting Woodlands, Inc., a non-profit corporation. (I-4) 5. STATUTORY CHANGES AFFECTING PERSONNEL - Attached is a ten -page newsletter from the law firm of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren which describes 1989 legislative revisions which affect municipal personnel operations. The changes in the legislation are numerous. Some will require our evaluation of our recruitment and selection procedures. (I-5) 6. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS - Dick Carlquist has informed me that the Department of Human Rights has dismissed charges filed against the City by Friday Matthews and Nelda Holland. The Council may recall that this issue arose from allegations on the part of the complaintants that City police officers discriminated against them when responding to a call. The complaintants still have 45 days in which to pursue civil action against the City in this matter if they so choose. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM August 3, 1989 Page 3 7. KENNISON DRAINAGE PROBLEM - 105 BALSAM LANE -- Earlier this year, Councilmember Sisk and Fred Moore met with Richard Kennison who lives at 105 Balsam Lane to discuss a drainage problem at his home. The house is built below the roadway and also the walkout level of the house is at the same elevation as the large wetland at the rear of the property. The City has had discussions and correspondence with Mr. Kennison since 1981. Attached is a letter Fred sent to Mr. Kennison on the City's latest review of the problem. If Mr. Kennison agrees, Fred has proposed that the City will construct a small drainage swale adjacent to the front of his property to direct the runoff from the street to the existing drainage Swale along the south side of his property. Unless concrete curb and gutter, along with a storm sewer system is provided on the street, there is no other solution to this drainage problem. (I-7) 8. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR 1990 METROLINK SERVICE -- Attached is a letter to Medicine Lake Lines advising them of the City's intent to request proposals for Plymouth Metrolink service commencing April 1, 1990. The reason for the notification is to afford Medicine Lake Lines the opportunity to utilize the Metropolitan Council's dispute resolution process should they elect. Medicine Lake Lines has periodically alluded to the fact that they believe they have a franchise right to all routes within the City of Plymouth including Metrolink. By advising them of the dispute resolution process, we are encouraging Medicine Lake Lines to place this matter before the Mertropolitan Council in order that it can be resolved once and for all. In any event, it is our intent to proceed with requests for proposals. (I-8) 9. MINUTES a. Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit, July 26, 1989. (I -9a) b. Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals, June 13, 27 and July 11, 1989 minutes. (I -9b) c. Park and Recreation Advisory Commission, July 13, 1989. (I -9c) 10. CITY CENTER TELEPHONE/IN-PERSON CUSTOMER COUNT -- A count of City Center incoming telephone calls and in-person counter traffic for the week July 10 - 14, 1989 is attached. Also included is a comparison of phone calls and customer traffic for a similar period In 1988. Incoming telephone activity shows a 6 percent increase over 1988. Because 1988 figures were not available for the Finance Department, a comparison of in-person customer traffic cannot be made. (I-10) CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM August 3, 1989 Page 4 11. NOTICE OF CANDIDATE FILING -- Attached is a copy of the Notice of Mayor and City Council candidate filing. The notice will appear in next week's Plymouth Post. (I-11) 12. DUNKIRK LANE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEALS -- The City Attorney has forwarded the attached copy of a July 28 memorandum from Judge Michael Davis to Chief Judge Roberta Levy concerning the status of the Dunkirk Lane Special Assessment Appeal cases. (I-12) 13. CITY OF PLYMOUTH V. GREG BEGIN -- Attached is the Court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order on the City's motion for an injunction. According to Jim Thomson, the Order is clear that Begin can allow no fill and do no grading on any of the property of this lawsuit until he gets the necessary permits from the City. (I-13) 14. CORRESPONDENCE: a. Letter to Peter Bih, The Tea House, 88 Nathan Lane, from Laurie Rauenhorst, concerning matters relating to his on -sale intoxicating liquor license. (I -14a) b. Letter of appreciation from Mayor Schneider sent to participants on the City's Special Drug Abuse Task Force. (I -14b) c. Letter responding to concerned property owner on Queensland Lane, from Mayor Schneider, regarding a sight obstruction at 3rd Avenue and Highway 101. (I -14c) d. Letter to Joseph and Nancy Stein, 4535 Arrowood Lane, from Eric Blank, in response to their letter regarding a parking problem on Arrowood Lane. Also attached is a letter to Mary Fritts, 4545 Arrowood Lane, supplying her with 100 parking notices to place on vehicles not parking in the park parking lot. (I -14d) e. Letter and petition from residents of 23rd Avenue, 24th Avenue and Troy Lane, requesting additional police patrol for their area. (I -14e) f. Letter to Mayor Tom Anderson, City of Medina, from Fred Moore, on Hennepin County's review of the access to County Road 24, which encourages Plymouth and Medina to coordinate on a street entrance on the municipal boundary at Brockton Lane. (I -14f) g. Letter from Ginny Mezera, West Suburban Mediation Center, to Frank Boyles, on a mediation agreement reached between Dave Johnson, Herb's Service Center, and Mary Schlender. (I -14g) CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM August 3, 1989 Page 5 h. Letter thanking Mark Hendricks, Superior Roofing, Inc., for his comments on a Public Service Counter Customer Comment Card. (I -14h) i. Memorandums from City Assessor Scott Hovet regarding: 1) industrial vs. residential development property tax yields; and 2) his presentation at a Edina Realty sales meeting. (I -14i) James G. Willis City Manager MVS P.C. C.C. AREAS AREA GENERAL LOCATION EXISTING PROPOSED GUIDING OF CONCERN 1 South of 56th Ave, East of 1-494 LA3 LA2 West of C.R. 61, North of Henn County Trail 2 East of C.R. 61, North of C.R. 9 LA3 LA2 3 South of C.R. 47, West of 1-494, LA3 LA2 North of M.U.S.A. Boundary 4 South of M.U.S.A. Boundary, West LA3 LAR of 1-494 5 South of Mud Lake, West of 1-494, LA2 LAR East of Fernbrook Lane extended 6 North of Soo Line R.R., East of IP LAR Fernbrook Lane extended 7 North of Soo Line R.R., West of IP LAR 1-494 8 South of Soo Line R.R., West of IP LA2 X I-494, East of Fernbrook extended 9 South of Schmidt Lake Rd extended, IP CR -1 X East of Fernbrook Lane extended 10 East of Fernbrook Lane, West of LA3 LA2 1-494, North of C.R. 9 11 West of Vicksburg Lane, East of LA3 LA2 Dunkirk Lane, North of New C.R. 9 extended 12 West of Vicksburg Lane, North of CS LA2 36th Ave N extended 13 South of New C.R. 9.extended, CS LA2 West of Vicksburg Lane 14 East & West of Dunkirk Lane, CL CS North of Hwy 55 15 South of Hwy 55, East of C.R. 24, CL CS X North of future Medina Rd 16 South of Hwy 55, West of C.R. 24, CS, LA2, IP X North of Medina Rd, East of LA3 C.R. 101 P.C. C.C. AREAS AREA GENERAL LOCATION EXISTING PROPOSED GUIDING OF CONCERN 17 West of C.R. 24, East of C.R. 101, LA2 LA1 South of Medina Rd 18 East of C.R. 101, North of C.R. 24 No Change 19 North of Medina Rd, West of the LA1 LA2 M.U.S.A. Boundary 20 South of Hwy 55, West of C.R. 101 No Change 21 South of C.R. 9, West of Peony No Change Lane, North of Hwy 55 22 North of Soo Line R.R., West of IP LAR X Peony Lane, South of M.U.S.A. Boundary 23 North of Soo Line R.R., LA2 LAR X East & West of Peony Lane 24 North of C.R. 9, West of Holly LA2 & IP LA1 X Lane, East of Peony Lane, South of Soo Line R.R. 25 North of C.R. 9, East of Peony IP LA1 X Lane 26 South of C.R. 9, East of Peony CS CL Lane 27 North of Hwy 55, 1/4 mile West LA3 CS X of Dunkirk Lane 28 North & South of C.R. 9, West LA2 LA1 of Dunkirk Lane 29 Hollydale Golf'Course No Change 30 West of Vicksburg Lane, South No Change of Schmidt Lake Rd extended 31 North of C.R. 9, West of Peony Under Consideration Lane 32 North of Hwy 55, West of I-494, Under Consideration East of Fernbrook Lane, South of Harbor Lane 33 South of C.R. 9, East of Dunkirk Not Considered r\` (reports:pl/ac/lugp:jw) P.C. C.C. AREAS AREA GENERAL LOCATION EXISTING PROPOSED GUIDING OF CONCERN 34 East of Fernbrook Lane, South of Under Consideration 36th Ave N, West of I-494, North of 34th Ave N extended 35 North of C.R. 9, West of I-494 Under Consideration 36 South of Schmidt Lake Rd, Not Considered West of Hwy 169 37 North & South of C.R. 47, West Not Considered of I-494 38 North of Hwy 55, West of Not Considered Vicksburg Lane 39 North of C.R. 9 & Hwy 55, East Under Consideration and West of M.U.S.A. boundary, South of Soo Line R.R. (reports:pl/ac/lugp:jw) BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Tuesday, August 8, 1989 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. NEW BUSINESS 5. AGENDA WHERE: Plymouth City Center Council Chambers 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 7:30 P.M. June 13, 1989 June 27, 1989 July 11, 1989 A. Timothy Mullaney. Variance to allow a 7.5 high foot fence versus the Ordinance maximum of 6 feet within the side and rear yards for property located at 13015 12th Avenue North. ADJOURNMENT 8:30 P.M. �A3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WHERE: Plymouth City Center WEDNESDAY, August 9, 1989 3400 Plymouth Boulevard CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 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. PUBLIC FORUM 7:15 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL 3.* CONSENT AGENDA 4.* APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 26, 1989 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Ryan Construction Company. Rezoning, PUD Preliminary Plan/Plat, and Conditional Use Permit for Rockford Road Plaza located northeast of County Road 9 and I-494 (89014) B. Harstad Companies. Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat/Preliminary Plan/Conditional Use Permit/Site Plan and Variance for Lake Camelot Villas located west of I-494, north and south of County Road 47 (89044) C. Sign Consultants. Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Northwest Business Campus located at the northeast quadrant of I-494 and Highway 55 (89046) D. A.A.G. Builders. Conditional Use Permit for garage addition located at 3375 Rosewood Lane (89056) E. U.S. Home Corporation. Sketch Plan for Mitchell -Pearson Property located south of Medina Road and East of Brockton Lane (89059) F. OPUS Corporation/Tennant Corporation. Amended MPUD Concept Plan located at the northwest corner of Highway 169 and County Road 10 (89061) 6. ADJOURNMENT a N T (D M O H N Cl) Q r 00 A N T LL N N M i n, N 0 N W W m 3 ' N N N N Of �F � O W N fn J z a oo in O '' � N i 0, lh z N N 00 N N _ H N N Of Q � O 1p N Qf tD J 0 f N 0, O N M f 00 Q ' M 0 0, Q W 7 LO N Q LL 00 LO �— Q o z L D I C. = H o M _� N M p C) Cl).-+ moa w 0 CD zn •CDM CDM 0 Z .. P-. Z .. -� n LU E Z Z < (0 MQ O N d) U-a� Nam M Z Qo LL- M:LU Lo LU o� =o o ".? In N d) T- 00 m N N o O CD CD zP. E, J C.CD J m Lr C.• �' r � CD CD 00 I� �� N��X N Q D z D U) V- ON (0 N -1-.' LA Snow Fence Barriers: Finding That Fine Line The single most effective way to preserve trees on the construction site is with the use of a protective barrier such as a section of snow fence. These barriers are meant to protect trees from construction site dangers even when you can't be on the site 100% of the time. That sounds simple enough, but in reality the correct placement of protective barriers is an extremely complex process. It involves many decisions that require extensive knowledge of plant ecology and physiology. However, we don't want to scare you; construction site tree preservation is possible and worth the effort -'or homeowners and for builders. In this piece we hope to: 1) Give readers a simplified and idealized introduction to the process of barrier placement. 2) Impress upon individual homeowners the importance of retaining professional guidance and to encourage builders to develop a working relationship with a qualified consultant. We hope the end result of this series of articles will be a tree preservation system that can be integrated into every building project. We are currently working on a snow fence barrier sign that will be available to builders very soon. It will state that you are working to preserve trees in cooperation with Lasting Woodlands, and it will be available at cost. Call Christian Siems for details. The Fundamentals Here is a list of the basic fundamentals that professional consultants use when deciding where to place snow fence barriers. Some of them may contradict what you previously believed about trees and their roots. 1. The roots are the most important part of the tree. A tree's roots perform many functions, not the least of which is to exchange gases with the air. This exchange can be hindered or ceased when soil is compacted by construction vehicles within the root zone. Because the vast majority of a tree's (yes, even an oak's) roots lie in the top 6" of soil, grade changes of only a few inches can cause serious long term damage or even death. Trenching to install utilities severer roots, which also harms trees. 2. The roots of a tree extend beyond the dripline. The most active roots in terms of water and nutrient uptake often extend far beyond a tree's dripline. For mature oaks this may mean a distance of 50 feet or more from the trunk! 3. Snow fence barriers are meant to protect the roots—not the trunk. Too often snow fence barriers are used to protect the trunks of trees while fatal damage is being inflicted upon their roots. Actually, snow fence barriers are not meant to protect the parts of the tree that we can see, but the parts that we can't—the roots. They can protect tree roots from the kinds of damage listed above. 4. Wherever possible, snowfence barriers should be placed at the dripline. Again, the barrier's purpose is to protect the roots, not the trunk or crown, of the tree. Wherever it is remotely feasible, the barrier line should be placed at the dripline. While this does not guarantee that all the trees will survive, it at least gives them a fighting chance with some careful after-care. 5. The purpose of the barrier should be explicitly communicated. If one person or contractor breaches the barrier, all previous efforts may be in vain. Everyone should know exactly why that barrier is there. Signs should be placed on it that state there is to be no traffic, trenching, or grading beyond that point. If homebuyers and builders are serious about preserving trees, they shouldn't allow the builder or the next contractor down the line to "bully" them. They must make sure lesser environmentalists follow their lead. The Variables Unfortunately, the dripline is not a scientific absolute. Some trees have died as the result of root damage outside the dripline, while others have survived significant damage within the dripline. There really is no magic way to detennine an individual tree's or tree block's tolerance of root damage. Professional consultants can make educated guesses pertaining to the tolerance of individual trees. Good ones are right (or at least "right enough") a good percent of the time. The dripline rule works well as a general guideline, but it doesn't take into account other common variables encountered by builders and homeowners. We can't lose sight of why there are construction vehicles and materials on the site in the fust place, and that is to build a house as quickly and efficiently as possible. If barriers are placed at the dripline of every tree the buyer wishes to preserve, construction site traffic would slow to a standstill, and the cost of the project would escalate. Among other variables that result from normal building procedures are the distribution of excava- tion fill and the storage of construction materials. As you can see, the dripline rule is nice in theory, but r sometimes construction site realities make it difficult to follow to the letter. "Snow Fence Barriers" continued on page 7 Ow "Snow Fence Barriers" continued from page 3 n How does a person reconcile the theory and the reality? Two words: Planning an prioritizing. Before any construction begins, the site should be evaluated. The homebuyer, builder, and consultant should work together during this process so that everyone is on the same wavelength. The builder will know what the buyer wants and how to go about providing it, and the homebuyer will not have unrealistic expectations. First, "keepsake" trees should be identified. These trees should be given as much room as possible. Second, natural stands should be preserved as a whole wherever possible. Not only is "tree block" preservation the best way to preserve trees, it is also the best way to preserve the character of native woodlands. Access routes should be marked, and adjacent trees should be protected as well as possible. Finally, a map should be made of the site that shows the trees to be preserved and the line to be followed by the snow fence. The map helps everyone visualize the spatial relationships involved and is a great way to clarify intent. As a compromise solution to the problem of theory vs. reality, one area consultant advocates placement of the barriers behind the ring of trees closest to the home. This insures the survival of a majority of the trees while giving the trees closest to the home at least a chance by letting them live through construction. It also gives builders and contractors room to move. Using snow fence barriers to protect the root zones of trees is the most effective way to preserve trees on the construction site. However, both builders and homebuyers must know what the barriers are meant to accomplish. They must also take into account the realities of construction site activity and communicate their objectives explicitly. Tree preservation does not occur by accident; it requires a unified effort between homebuyers, builders, and professional consultants. It requires concerned and caring individuals, accurate information, and some additional time and effort. But it's worth doing, and it's worth doing right. Note: Special thanks to Steve Kunde for his insight and input. His knowledge and experience made the previous article possible. M E M O R A N D U M TO: CLIENTS AND FRIENDS OF LARKIN, HOFFMAN, LINDGREN, LTD. FROM: LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW DEPARTMENT DATE: July 1989 RE: 1989 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE As a service to our clients, we have prepared the fol memorandum which summarizes employment-related legislatic was passed during the 1989 legislative session. Ezcept otherwise noted within this memo, all of the 1989 legislation becomes effective August 1, 1989. If you have questions or would like further information regarding this memorandum, please contact the Labor and Employment Law Department at (612) 338-6610. -t S DALY & I. MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT AMENDMENTS - 1989 Minn. Laws 280. The Minnesota Human Rights Act (the MHRA) prohibits discrimina"Lon based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual harassment, pregnancy, marital status, status regarding public assistance, membership activity in any local commission, disability, age, and disability relating to pregnancy or child birth. Minn. Stat. § 363.01 et. seq. The MHRA was recently amended in the following manner: A. Burden of Proof of Any Qualified Disabled Person Case. The MHRA prohibits discrimination in employment based on an individual's disability. Employers must hire a "qualified disabled person" if that person, with a reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions required of all applicants for the job. Previously, the MHRA did not state whether an applicant was required to prove that he/she was a qualified disabled person or whether the employer was required to prove that an applicant for a job was not a qualified disabled person. During the 1989 legislative session, an amendment was added to the MHRA which resolves that issue. The amendment provides that the employer has the burden of proving that an applicant is not a qualified disabled person. Minn. Stat. §363.01 Subd. 25a (1989). The effect of this amendment on employers is that whenever a disabled person applies for a job and the employer does not hire the disabled person, it is up to the employer to show that it was reasonable to conclude that the disabled person, with reasonable accommodation, could not have met the requirements of the job and that the person actually selected for the job was demonstrably better able to perform the job. In order to meet the requirements of this amendment, employers will want to document every step that was followed when considering disabled job applicants. By fully documenting the process, it will be easier for employers to meet their burden of proof in showing that the decision not to hire a disabled person was because the person was not a "qualified disabled person" and that the employer was reasonable in reaching that conclusion. The requirement that a "reasonable accommodation" be made to a qualified disabled person arises only in employers with fifty '(50) or more permanent, full-time employees. "Reasonable accommodation" is defined by the MHRA as "steps which must be taken to accommodate the known physical or mental limitations of a qualified disabled person." "Reasonable accommodation" may include but is not limited to, nor does it necessarily require (This language was added by the 1989 Legislature.): (a) Making facilities readily accessible to and usable by disabled person; and (b) Job restructuring, modified work schedules, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, and the provision of aides on a temporary or periodic basis. Minn. Stat. §363.03, Subd. 1(6). An employer need not make a reasonable accommodation if to do so imposes an undue hardship on the employer. Factors used to determine whether a reasonable accommodation imposes an undue hardship includes: (1) The size of the business, the number of employees, and the number of facilities; (2) The type of operation and the number of employees where the employment of the qualified disabled person would occur; (3) The cost of the accommodation and the employer's ability to finance the accommodation; (4) Documented good faith efforts to explore less expensive or restrictive alternatives. Of course, the legislature did not address the question of how to reconcile its requirements to hire qualified disabled individuals and the placement of burden on businesses to prove lack of qualifications or disability with its increasing restrictions on businesses' abilities to get information regarding a prospective employee's disability. Certainly not all disabilities are apparent nor are all conditions considered 2. �s disabilities. Businesses must be cognizant of these discrepancies and proceed carefully. B. Employer Limits on the Procurement and Use of Information Regarding Job Applicants. Prior to the 1989 legislative session, the MHRA made it illegal for an employer to require an individual before hire, to furnish information regarding his or her race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, or disability. An employer could require an individual to furnish that information if it was for national security purposes, for compliance with a public contracts act or any rule, regulation, or law of the United States or the State of Minnesota. The 1989 legislature amended the MHRA to increase restrictions on employers who seek information about prospective employees. First, the Minnesota Human Rights Act was amended so that information about age is now one of the categories of information about which an employer may not require a prospective employee to provide. Second, the MHRA was amended so that employers not only may not require prospective employees to furnish prohibited information but also, employers may not seek information regarding an individual's race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, or age, from any other source unless the information sought is for contract compliance or to comply with any rule, regulation, or law of the United States or the State of Minnesota which requires the information. Third, the MHRA was amended to prohibit an employer from requiring or requesting a prospective employee to undergo a physical examination unless it is for the purpose of compliance with the public contracts act or any rule, regulation or law of the United States or the State of Minnesota. This provision is limited somewhat by another portion of the MHRA Section 363.02, Subd. 1(f)(i) which allows employers under circumstances, other than those in the amendment, to legally request that an individual undergo a physical examination. An employer may request a physical exam only if (1) a job offer has been extended to the individual with the job offer conditioned upon whether the individual meets the physical and/or mental requirements of the job; (2) the exam tests only essential job- related abilities; and (3) the exam is required for all persons conditionally offered employment for the same position. The 1989 amendments to the MHRA regarding information gathering about prospective employees will affect employers in several ways. As a result employers will have to tailor their job applications and procedures for investigating prospective 3. �s employees to make certain that they are in compliance with the changes in the law. C. Disclosure of Medical Information. Another 1989 amendment to the MHRA requires employers who make an adverse employment decision based on medical information to notify the affected individual of that information. Minn. Stat. § 363.03, subd. la (1989) provides: "If any health care records or medical information adversely affects any hiring, firing, or promotional decisions concerning an applicant or employee, the employer must notify the affected party of that information within ten days of the final decision." The effect of this law on employers is that it places an affirmative duty on them to provide the medical information used in making an adverse employment decision. The notification requirement is not triggered by an employee or applicants request for the information. Rather, any adverse employment decision based upon medical information places a duty upon the employer to provide the information. II. LUNCH BREAK LAW - 1989 Minn. Laws 167. During the 1988 legislative session, legislation was enacted requiring employers to allow employees adequate time to use the nearest restroom. During the 1989 legislative session, the toilet break legislation was supplemented with legislation requiring employers, in certain situations, to provide their employees with time for lunch breaks. The statute provides: "[a]n employer must permit each employee who is working for eight or more consecutive hours sufficient time to eat a meal." Minn. Stat. § 177.254 (1989). The statute does not require the employer to pay the employee during the meal break. In addition, the lunch break law provides that employers and employees may, pursuant to a Collective Bargaining Agreement, work out meal periods which differ from the requirements of the statute. III. EMPLOYEE RIGHT -TO -KNOW ACT - 1989 Minn. Laws 249. The 1989 legislature has enacted amendments to the Employee Right -To -Know Act, Minn. Stat. §182.65 et. seq. which governs employee safety and heath. A. Definition of "Employer" Modified. The 1989 amendments to the Right -To -Know Act have modified the definition of an employer for purposes of the act as "a 4. a: - person who employs one or more employees and includes any person who has the power to hire, fire, or transfer, or who acts in the interest of or as a representative of an employer and includes a corporation, partnership, association, group of persons, and the state and all of its political subdivisions." Minn. Stat. § 182.651, subd. 7 (1989). Under the old law an employer was defined as a "person who has one or more employees." The amendment clarifies the term employer by providing factors to be used when determining whether a person or business is an employer. Also note that the term "employer" includes all employers, both public and private. B. Penalties for Discrimination or Discharge. The Right -To -Know Act prohibits employers from discriminating against or discharging employees who pursue their rights under the act. Examples of employee rights under the Act include refusing to work when that refusal is based on a good faith belief that an unhealthy or unsafe situation exists which may cause imminent death or serious harm or filing a complaint relating to violations of the Act. Penalties for discriminating against an employee or exercising his/her rights under the Act include rehiring and/or reinstatement of the employee, fringe benefits, seniority rights, back pay, compensatory damages, and reasonable attorney fees, or other appropriate relief. The 1989 amendment to § 182.669, subd. 1 increases the types of penalties for discharge or discrimination of an employee exercising his or her rights under the Right -To -Know Act. The additional penalties include payment to the Commissioner of Labor and Industry or to the employee, costs, disbursements, and witness fees. In addition, the amendment provides that interest will accrue on, and be added to any unpaid balance of an award when it is found that an employee has been discharged or discriminated against for exercising his or her rights under the Right -To -Know Act. IV. CONCILIATION COURT JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT - 1989 Minn. Laws 344. The 1989 legislature increased the conciliation court jurisdictional amount from $2,000 to $3,500. The limit increases to $4,000 on July 1, 1990. The increased conciliation court limit is significant for employers because employees and former employees will now be able to bring conciliation court claims for greater amounts of wages than had been previously possible. V. ANTI -HARASSMENT POLICY - 1989 Minn. Laws 96. The 1989 legislature has enacted a statute which prohibits public employees from harassing any other public employees due to that person's disability, race, creed, color, or national origin. The statute provides: 5. "It is the policy of this state that each public employee has the right to work in an environment free from harassment based on race or disability and that any public employee who harasses another public employee because of disability, race, creed, color, or national origin will be subject to disciplinary action, including discharge." Minn. Stat. § 15.85 (1989). This bill places a burden on public employers to police their employees and discipline employees who engage in race or disability harassment. It is also probably in a public employer's best interest to make certain that employees engaging in racial or disability harassment are disciplined. A failure to discipline could give rise to a claim against the employer for discrimination because a failure to discipline could be classified as discrimination with respect to a term or condition of employment. VI. JOB EVALUATION SYSTEMS AS DISCRIMINATION EVIDENCE - 1989 Minn. Laws 223. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 471.994 of the Public Employee Pay Equity Statute, and Minn. Stat. § 43A.05, which controls the State Department of Employee Relations, political subdivisions and the State Department of Employee Relations must conduct job evaluations for purposes of comparable worth or pay equity. Prior to August 1, 1987, the Commissioner of Human Rights and the state courts were prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 471.994 from using or considering the results of job evaluations conducted by political subdivisions in any proceeding or action alleging discrimination. Minn. Stat. Chap. 43A neither prohibited nor allowed the use of the results of job evaluations in discrimination proceedings. During the 1989 legislative session, a statute was passed which permits the Department of Human Rights or any state court to use the results of a job evaluation conducted by either a political subdivision or the Department of Employee Relations, as evidence in any discrimination action or proceeding. This new legislation will result in one more line of attack an employee may use to support a discrimination claim. Conversely, the use of the results of job evaluation as evidence may also be helpful to employers in defending discrimination claims brought against them by employees and former employees. The statute does not place restrictions upon who and who may not use the results of a job evaluation. Therefore, an employer with job evaluation results which clearly shows that there in no discrimination for pay equity purposes may be able to effectively use the results in defending a discrimination action. VII. DATA PRACTICES ACT - 1989 Minn. Laws 351. go The 1989 legislature amended the Data Practices Act by limiting the types of kin who are designated "representatives of the decedent for data practices purposes". Pursuant to the new legislation, a representative of the decedent means the personal representative of the estate of the decedent during the period of administration. If no personal representative has been appointed, the personal representative of the decedent is the decedent's surviving spouse or any child of the decedent. If there is no surviving spouse or children, the parents of the decedent become representatives of the decedent. Minn. Stat. §13, 10, Subd. i(c)(1989). This new legislation restricts the number of persons who can become a representative of the decedent for data practices purposes. Previously if there was no surviving spouse or children, the representative of the decedent could have been any other of the decedent's living next of kin. Under the Data Practices Act the representative of the decedent takes the place of a decedent who is a subject of private or confidential data and exercises the same rights the decedent would have over the data had he/she been alive. VIII. CLOSED MEETINGS IN PUBLIC HOSPITALS - 1989 Minn. Laws 351. Pursuaht to the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 144.581 subd. 4, pub is hospitals are subject to the State Open Meeting Law, Minn. St t. § 471.705. The open meeting requirement in public hospita was changed by the 1989 legislature so that now a public hos ital may hold a closed meeting in order to discuss specific rketing activity and contracts that might be entered into pursua t to marketing activity, (e.g. consulting contracts), where th public hospital is in competition with health care providers ho offer similar goods or services. The purpose of allowing losed meetings when they pertain to marketing related activi ies is to prevent the disclosure of marketing information whi h would cause harm to the competitive position of the hospital. meeting may not be closed if the goods or services offered b the public hospital require a tax levy in order to compete wit health care providers. In order to enter into a contract whi h pertains to marketing activity the public hospital must wai fifteen (15) days after the proposed contract has been de cribed at a public meeting. Contracts for consulting servi es or with individuals for personal services are exempt f m this fifteen (15) day requirement. A closed meeting to discuss mar ting may be held only after the following procedures have een followed. First, there must be a majority vote of the publ'c hospital's board of directors in favor of the closed meeting. This vote must take place at a public meeting. Second, the ti and place of the closed meeting must be announced at the public meeting. Third, a written roll of the members present at th closed meeting 7. =--!9, must be vailable to the public after the closed meeting. Fourth, th proceedings of a closed meetings must be tape- recorded and reserved by the board of directors for two (2) years. Pursu t to the Data Practices Act, the data on the tape is nonpubl'c data. Two (2) years after the meeting, or when the organiz ion takes action on the matters discussed at the meeting, the to on the tape becomes public data. There are, however, two ( exceptions to this rule. One, in the case of personal se vices contract, the data on the tape becomes public when he contract is signed. For public hospitals which are su ect to Minn. Stat. § 471.345, the Uniform Municipal cont �acting law, the provisions and procedures of that law must\pe followed before the hospital may enter into a marketing related contract. This new legislation does not appear to be designed to keep the activities of a public hospitaals board of directors out of public scrutiny. This is evidenced by the procedural requirements for entering contracts and the fact that tax levys may not be discussed at a closed meeting. The purpose of the new law appears to be to allow public hospitals to remain competitive without disclosing their plana for remaining competitive. IX. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE LABOR RELATIONS - 1989 Minn. Laws 255. A. Procedure in Unfair Labor Practice Actions. Minn. Stat. S 179.13, subd. 1 allows any employee, employer, employee or employer organization, exclusive representative, or any other person or organization aggrieved by an unfair labor practice to bring an action for injunctive relief and for damages caused by the unfair labor practice in the district court of the county in which the practice is alleged to have occurred. An amendment to this provision was passed by the 1989 legislature which provides additional procedures to be followed when bringing an action for injunctive relief and for damages in district court. The amendment provides that "a copy of any complaint alleging an unfair labor practice must be filed with the commissioner [of the Bureau of Mediation Services) at the time it is brought in district court. The party bringing an unfair labor practice action in district court shall also transmit to the commissioner any orders or judgments of the court within ten (10) days of the order or judgment." Minn. Stat. § 179.13, subd. 1 (1989). B. Initiation of Negotiation. Previously, the Public Employee Relations Act provided that if an exclusive representative of the employees desired to meet and negotiate an initial agreement with the employer, it was required that written notice be given to the employer and the Commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services. The employer ES then had ten (10) days to either: 1) object; 2) refuse to recognize the employees' personal representative; or 3) refuse to recognize the employees as an appropriate bargaining unit. A failure by the employer to object within ten (10) days of the request to meet and negotiate resulted in the employer being required to recognize the employees' representatives for purposes of reaching an agreement. If the employer did object to the request to meet and negotiate with the employer or the employees'representative was allowed to petition the Commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services to take jurisdiction of the matter and investigate. In 1989, legislature amended this section and made small changes in the provisions regarding initiation of negotiation. } irs if _the__employees_'exclusive representative has been certified by the Commissioner through_ a proper certification e e on, e e7oyer_may _riot= object to - he notice given t"o __tom% e_emplo��r_.and--t-he._�nmmis�.iszzier_ Secon -if tie exclusive representative has not been certified, the employer may object commissioner acid --asking_ the__commissioner to investigate either t�h_e ap�ropriatene��—Qf.-t —unit, -the_quer-tion�o. -reps s'_entation Qr both. Failure to object within ten 10) days results in the ��employer being require to meet an ne oti.a The statute no o contains provisions a owing the employees' representative to petition the commissioner. C. Interest Arbitration Procedure for Nonessential Employees. Previously, in order for employers and nonessential employees to be subject to binding interest arbitration, it was required that an impasse exist and that the party subject to the request for binding arbitration agree to accept the request for binding arbitration. A 1989 amendment to the Public Employment Labor Relations Act streamlines this procedure. Under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act, nonessential employees are those employees not categorized as "essential employees." Some examples of essential employees includes fire fighters, peace officers, guards at correctional facilities, confidential employees, supervisory employees, principals, assistant principals. Under the 1989 amendments to the Public Employment Labor Relations Act, the exclusive representative of non-essential employees or an employer of nonessential employees may request interest arbitration by written notice of the request for interest arbitration. This written request must be made to the other party and to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services. The request must state the type of interest arbitration desired, either conventional, final -offer total -package, or final -offer item - by -item arbitration. In addition, the items to be submitted to interest arbitration (e.g. wages, benefits, etc.) must be stated as well. The nonrequesting party must then agree to the 0 5 . terms of the request for interest arbitration in order for interest arbitration to occur. The nonresponding party's failure to respond, or the failure to reach an agreement on the items or form of arbitration, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the request constitutes a rejection of the request. The effect of this streamlined procedure for interest `arbitration between an employer and nonessential employees now means that it is no longer necessary for the commissioner to determine whether further mediation is appropriate or whether an impasse exists before interest arbitration can occur. D. Effective Date The 1989 Amendments to the Public Employment Labor Relations Act became effective May 27, 1989. JKM:AF9s 10. July 31, 1989 Mr. Richard A. Kennison 105 Balsam Lane Plymouth, Mn. 55441 Dear Mr. Kennison: L--7 (COPY This spring you, Council Member Jerry Sisk and I met to discuss the drainage on your property at 105 Balsam Lane. The City had previous correspondence with you on this drainage situation in 1981. At the end of our meeting it was concluded that nothing could be done immediately since there was snow on the surface of the ground and frost in the ground, but I would again review the situation this spring and summer. You have copies of the previous correspondence from the City of Plymouth. In summary, that correspondence stated that you could do regrading in front and along side your house in order to solve the runoff going onto your property from Balsam Lane. Another letter stated that the only permanent solution was to improve Balsam Lane with concrete curb and gutter and a storm sewer. If you wanted to proceed with this type of improvement you were to get the signatures of at least 50% of the potential properties involved in this improvement project. As of this time you have not submitted a petition or done any grading work on your own property. I have again reviewed the drainage at various times during periods of rain this spring/summer. Since your driveway and yard is lower than the street, the water is not retained within the street right-of-way. There is a drainage swale along your south property line which goes westerly from Balsam Lane to the rear of your property. In order to direct the water from the street into this drainage swale I am proposing that the City would do the following: 1. Grade a drainage swale from your southerly driveway entrance to Balsam Lane to the existing drainage swale on your south property line. This grading would be done within the 23 feet of City owned boulevard area between the paved portion of Balsam Lane and your front property line. 2. Place an asphalt overlay on your southerly driveway entrance to Balsam Lane. This work would also be done within the first 23 feet of the driveway. The purpose of this asphalt overlay would be to raise the driveway in order that the water would be directed southerly into the drainage swale. 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 --T- 7 Mr. Richard Kennison July 31, 1989 Page Two As part of constructing the drainage swale, the City would resod the area. It would be your responsibility to water and maintain the sod. The City's work schedule would permit us to do the grading of the swale and the asphalt overlay on the driveway during the first two weeks of September. This is also one of the best times to install sod since we are beyond the hot weather and likely to receive rain. Please confirm to me in writing if you are requesting that the City proceed with the work as I have outlined. The only permanent solution to the drainage within this area, as you have previously been informed, is the construction of storm sewers and the installation of concrete curb and gutter along Balsam Lane. What I am proposing will give a temporary solution to the drainage problem. If you would like to meet to review the construction details of the swale or asphalt overlay on the driveway, please contact me. Sincerely, Fred G. Moore, P. E. Director of Public Works FGM:sm cc: Mayor Schneider City Council —1fK Rev. August 2, 1989 Mr. Jim Johnson, President Medicine Lake Lines 835 Decatur Avenue Golden Valley, MN 55427 CITY OF PLYMOUTI+ SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR 1990 SERVICE Dear Mr. Johnson: This letter is to formally advise you that the City of Plymouth will be discontinuing Plymouth Metrolink's services and all Medicine Lake Lines services within the City of Plymouth effective at 12 midnight, March 31, 1990. The purpose of this discontin- uation is to allow the City to prepare and solicit requests for proposals from public transit vendors to provide this service for the next three years. The City of Maple Grove will be included in the request for proposals and will be bid as either part of, or a separate public transportation system. I am providing you with this information for planning purposes. Because of your company's experience in providing services both to Plymouth and Maple Grove, I would expect that your company would be one of those submitting a proposal for the service. As you know, the Metropolitan Council has established a dispute resoluiton process which is available to you to protest this decision. The dispute process contains timelines which you must comply with. Failure to do so would result in a waiver of your right to appeal this decision under the dispute resolution process. Jim, I want you to know that my action is in no way, shape or form, intended malevolently against you or Medicine Lake Lines. On the contrary, your operation of Plymouth Metrolink has been satisfactory over these past five years. I would expect to see a proposal from you for the next three years. Nonetheless, I believe it is the City of Plymouth's responsibility to determine whether the City is receiving the best value for the public dollar expended in the transit area. This is my sole reason for soliciting transit proposals. If you would lik to discuss this matter further, I would be glad to meet with you at your convenien nc a y, F n o e As nt City Manager cc: James G. Willis, City Manager Regional Transit Board City Attorney Metropolitan Council 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MINUTES PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT JULY 26, 1989 PRESENT: Barbara Roberts, Nancy Holter, Peggy Galarneault, Sylvia Gustafson, Mike Severson, Joe Morley, Frank Boyles I. APPROVAL OF JUNE 28. 1989 MINUTES The Committee approved the June 28, 1989 minutes as submitted. II. REVIEW OF JUNE RIDERSHIP STATISTICS A. Plymouth Metrolink - Frank Boyles reviewed the May and June statistics for Plymouth Metrolink with the Committee. With or without transfers, the system continues to grow. By 7.3 and 3.9% for May and June without transfers respectively, or by 36.5 and 32% respectively if transfers are considered. B. Dial -A -Ride - Similarly, the Dial -A -Ride system continues to grow, increasing in average passengers per day to a total of 74 per day on weekdays in June and 15 per day on weekends. The total average passengers per hour were 2.6 in June and total miles per passenger was 7.5. Weekday peak hour ridership is so heavy that 5% of the callers are being refused rides. Attempts will be made to add a vehicle during these times to accommodate ridership growth. III. FOLLOW UP ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS A. New Schedules - The Committee reviewed the new schedules. Peggy suggested that the schedules be provided in the Plymouth Metrolink vehicles. Mike said he would follow-up on that. Frank asked that Joe be sure to include the new schedules in the Dail -A -Ride vehicles. B. Marketing - 1) Plymouth Metrolink - Consideration was given to holding another champagne flight, but Mike stated that the liability laws have changed providing that the bus company, and specifically the drivers, are considered liable if a passenger injures himself or others after drinking on the vehicle. The suggestion was made that instead, the promotion for Metrolink be a continental breakfast. The continental breakfast is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, September 19, or Wednesday, September 20. 2) Dial -A -Ride - The promotion for Dial -A -Ride is different as it must be able to be provided all day. Suggestions for the Dial -A -Ride promotion were reduced fare, or free coupon, newspaper on the vehicle, or some other form of coupon gift. Joe Morley and Frank Boyles will work out the details. MINUTES - PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT July 26, 1989 Page 2 C. Progress on Park and Ride Lot at Glory of Christ Lutheran Church - Frank Boyles stated that the church is concerned about the integrity of their parking lot, given the weight of the Plymouth Metrolink vehicle to be used. They have also asked that the entire parking lot be plowed on weekdays if it is to be used as a park and ride lot. Frank Boyles will explore further options. D. Safety in the Park and Ride Lot - The City's Engineer has been asked to provide input on this issue as has a representative of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. No response has yet been provided. E. Report on Third Avenue Distributor System - Paul Buharin was not present and therefore there was no report on this item. IV. IDENTIFICATION OF NEW AREA CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Nancy Holter stated that in some cases new drivers on the 4:35 express buses back to Plymouth fail to use the sane lane. Mike stated he would remind them. Peggy, Barb and Sylvia expressed concern about the fact that the 7:55 a.m. express bus is late leaving the Park and Ride lot because of delays it is experiencing on its return trip from Downtown. The Committee discussed possible alternatives including the addition of a bus and the revision of all route schedules. Both options were not considered attractive. It was recommended that the buses experiment with using Plymouth Road to access the sane lane further west. This might avoid the long wait that has occurred to get on the sane lane when the Boone route is used. Mike will report back on his findings. V. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. The next PACT meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 30 at 7 p.m. FB:kec Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals June 13, 1989 Page 1 CITY OF PLYMOUTH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS JUNE 13, 1989 The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Anderson, Commissioners Bigelow, Naftzger, Patterson, Porzio and Tierney MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Hoff STAFF PRESENT: Associate Planner Al Cottingham Building Official Joe Ryan [YIIitil�_41 MOTION by Commissioner Patterson, seconded by MOTION TO APPROVE Commissioner Bigelow, to approve the Minutes for the May 9, 1989 Meeting as amended. VOTE. 6 Ayes. MOTION Carried. MOTION CARRIED MOTION by Commissioner Tierney, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE Porzio to approve the Minutes for the May 23, 1989 Meeting as amended. VOTE. 5 Ayes. Commissioner Patterson abstained. MOTION CARRIED Chairman Anderson introduced the Board members and reviewed the Variance Criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The request submitted by Ray Paulson for a variance from RAY PAULSON, 16905 the minimum front yard setback for a property located at 29TH AVENUE NORTH (06- 15905 29th Avenue North was introduced. 01-89) Mr. Paulson gave a summation of the events leading up to his submittal of a variance, noting the City had issued him a building permit for the garage, and then approximately one month later, placed a Stop Work Order on the project. He was required to seek a variance in order to allow for the garage to remain at this location. He noted the dollars that had been spent to date on the project: was over $3500 in materials for the entire project, with over $2000 of that already in place. He stated that it would be Board of Zoning Adjustrnent and Appeals June 13, 1989 Page 2 difficult to relocate the garage to a different area on the site since there was the concrete slab already poured, and the framing was just about completed. Chairman Anderson noted the monetary value of the work completed to date could not be looked at in granting a variance. Commissioner Tierney inquired if Mr. Paulson had any idea as to these problems when the permit was issued. Mr. Paulson responded negatively, pointing out the City issued a permit with no conditions. Commissioner Porzio inquired as to how this matter was discovered by the City. Mr. Paulson noted that a person had stopped by while he was working on the garage and wondered how he was able to build at this setback since the Board had just denied his request for a garage addition on his home further south on Vicksburg Lane. Chairman Anderson noted this would have been Mr. Speikers. Commissioner Bigelow inquired as to what staff meant by having the Planning Commission look at reducing the setbacks for property along minor arterials. Planner Cottingham explained that this was the second variance request in as many months, and perhapsthe Board would like to have the Planning Commission review the Zoning Ordinance to see if a modification to the Ordinance was in line to allow for a reduced setback along minor arterials for certain types of structures. Commissioner Bigelow stated she felt this is a good conceptto have the Planning Commission look at. Chairman Anderson explained how this process would proceed and the time delay would result to this petitioner. Commissioner Porzio inquired if this property was allowed access onto Vicksburg Lane. Planner Cottingham responded negatively, noting the City did not wish to have private drive accesses onto minor arterials such as Vicksburg Lane. Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals June 13, 1989 Page 3 Chairman Anderson stated that he had a difficult time in approving this request, however, he does sympathize with Mr. Paulson due to the staff error. If there was not a garage under construction he could not approve this request. Commissioner Naftzger agreed that if there wasn't a garage under construction at this location he would have a difficult time approving the request. However, this is an administrative error and he did not believe it would be setting a precedent for the error, in that errors such as this are not an every day occurrence and thus there is no precedent. He noted the hardship that would be placed upon the petitioner by requiring him to remove the portion of the garage already constructed and relocating it on the property. Commissioner Tierney agreed with Commissioner Naftzger, noting the City error and that the request for an attached garage is more appealing than a detached structure, especially along a Thoroughfare such as Vicksburg Lane. Chairman Anderson noted the Board should not take the fact that the garage is already under construction into account in granting the variance, and the petitioner does have other options. MOTION was made by Commissioner Naftzger, seconded by Commissioner Tierney to approve the request for a variance from the minimum front yard setback for a property located at 15905 29th Avenue North for the reasons stated in the draft Resolution. VOTE. 4 Ayes. Chairman Anderson and Commissioner Porzio MOTION TO APPROVE voted nay. MOTION Carried. MOTION CARRIED The request submitted by Jerome Begin for a Variance to JEROME BEGIN allow a 192 square foot freestanding business sign versus 3900 VINEWOOD LANE the 96 square foot Ordinance maximum for a property located (06-02-89) at 3900 Vinewood Lane was introduced. Mr. Sherman Goldberg representing the Begins gave an overview of the request, noting that they were seeking to expand the size of the freestanding sign to allow other tenants within the Cottonwood Plaza an identification area on this sign. ab Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals June 13, 1989 Page 4 Commissioner Naftzger inquired if there was an agreement between the Begins and the Big Wheel Auto Stores for the total square footage of this sign. Mr. Goldberg responded affirmatively noting the Big Wheel Store was having business problems. He also pointed out the Ordinance Parking Standards had changed since the center was initially constructed, and this would allow for a different configuration of the center. Chairman Anderson asked Staff how the Ordinance had changed regarding parking. Planner Cottingham noted the Ordinance had changed from a parking ratio of 10 stalls per 1000 square feet of floor area to 6 stalls per 1000 square feet of floor area. This reduces the required number of stalls for this particular center by approximately 160 spaces. He pointed out that he did not believe this would have allowed a much different configuration, since a number of the Ordinance required parking stalls were located along the back side of this center. Mr. Goldberg noted the owner was also lead to believe that Vinewood Lane would be extended south from this project into the residential area further to the south. Chairman Anderson inquired as to the status of Vinewood Lane and its extension. Planner Cottingham noted it is currently in the Capitol Improvements Program as a 1993 project. Chairman Anderson inquired as to the possibility of wall signage on the building. Planner Cottingham noted that the Ordinance does allow 5% of the wall area along the north end of the center to have wall signage. Commissioner Bigelow asked Staff to review the history of this site. Planner Cottingham noted the property was final platted by the Begins, including the land on the west side of Vinewood Lane where Powell Lincoln Mercury exists. The lot for the bank was approved with the final plat of this development, not necessarily showing a bank, but showing a building of some sort on that property in front of this center. He pointed out the Begins had created their own problem as far as visibility of the center. =--G -b Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals June 13, 1989 Page 5 Commissioner Tierney inquired as to the size of the sign at the bank. Planner Cottingham responded it would be allowed to be 96 square feet, however, he was not sure if it was constructed to that size. Mr. Goldberg pointed out that if this property were zoned B- 2, (Neighborhood Shopping Center) rather than B-3 (Service Business) then they could have two signs under the current Ordinance, one for each arterial or collector. Planner Cottingham responded the Ordinance does allow for that within the B-2 District, however, as Mr. Goldberg noted, one sign per each arterial is allowed of 96 square feet, not combining the signs along one arterial. Commissioner Bigelow stated she did not believe the increased signage would solve the problems of the center. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Big Wheel Sign could be reduced. Mr. Goldberg responded negatively since there was a contract between the Begins and Big Wheel to have this sign. Commissioner Naftzger reviewed a request that was looked at by the Board approximately one year ago by Crown Auto and Wash Me Car Wash. They were looking at additional signage for the same reasons. He noted no additional signage was allowed and the petitioner in that case had dedicated all of his signage to the one tenant just like this. He stated he believed the Begins had created their own hardship. MOTION by Commissioner Porzio, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO DENY Bigelow to deny the request for a variance to allow a 192 square foot freestanding business sign versus the 96 square foot Ordinance maximum for a property located at 3900 Vinewood Lane for the reasons stated in the draft Resolution. VOTE. 6 Ayes. MOTION Carried. MOTION CARRIED Chairman Anderson reviewed the right to appeal the Board's denial for Mr. Goldberg. The request submitted by Dennis Craswell for a Variance from DENNIS CRASWELL the minimum front yard setback for a property located at 2305 LARCH LANE 2305 Larch Lane was introduced. (06-03-89) Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals June 13, 1989 Page 6 Mr. Craswell stated that he would be moving the house to the south approximately 8 feet in order to save a few more of the trees on the site. Commissioner Bigelow inquired as to the length of the driveway for this property. Mr. Craswell noted that it would be 15 feet. Commissioner Bigelow stated it was not much of a driveway to park a car in, to keep it out of the street. Mr. Craswell noted there is a small plateau where he is proposing to put the home and that is why he is looking at this setback. He could construct a parking area along side of the garage but he did not feel that it would be needed since he is proposing a two car garage. Commissioner Tierney asked if Mr. Craswell could move the structure to the rear 5 feet in order to have a 20 foot driveway. Mr. Craswell pointed out that this would move the structure off the plateau and would require a substantial amount of earth work. Chairman Anderson inquired as to the status of the lot to the north, and the precedent which might be set by having this setback. Planner Cottingham noted only a small portion of this lot abutted Larch Lane and that a home on that site would only need to maintain a 35 foot setback for that small portion of the lot abutting Larch Lane.He did not believe the granting of this variance would set a precedence for that particular lot; Chairman Anderson noted the Board usually desires a driveway to be long enough to park a car in and would like to see a parking area constructed in order to keep cars off of the City streets. Mr. Craswell noted that he would be happy to do this if it would make the Board more comfortable. Commissioner Bigelow inquired as to where the snow would be placed during the winter months when these streets are plowed. Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals June 13, 1989 Page 7 Planner Cottingham identified on the maps where the snow plows quit plowing, east of the proposed house by approximately 100 feet. He also noted the City uses a 1 ton truck in order to plow this neighborhood due to the narrowness of the streets. Commissioner Naftzger inquired as to if this Variance was being requested for the entire length of the property along Larch Lane. Planner Cottingham noted it was only for the length of the house and if this petitioner or a future owner chose to add on to the north or south of the home, they would need to request a variance. MOTION by Commissioner Tierney, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE Patterson to approve the request for a Variance from the minimum front yard setback for a property located at 2305 Larch Lane for the reasons stated in the draft Resolution, with the addition of a third condition as follows: 3. The survey shall provide for an additional off-street parking area so as to not interfere with snow removal, and to keep vehicles from parking on the public street. VOTE. 6 Ayes. MOTION Carried. MOTION CARRIED The request submitted by David Izek for a Variance to allow DAVID IZEK, 3980 a 6 foot high fence versus the Ordinance Standard of 3 feet ARROWOOD LANE (06-04-89) within the front yard for a property located at 3980 Arrowood Lane was introduced. Mr. Izek stated he was having problems with people driving over his lawn, and throwing debris onto the lawn along 40th Avenue North. He stated a 3 foot fence would not stop this. He pointed out that since the construction of the 6 foot high fence along Zachary Lane, they have not had the problem with debris being thrown on their lawn along this road. He further pointed out that he had found six other fences in the immediate area that were located within the front yard. Mrs. Marcia Siedschlag, 3975 Arrowood Lane was present and stated that she had no concerns since the fence was being proposed along 40th Avenue North and not along Arrowood Lane. She noted her agreement with the petitioner regarding the problem he has been having with vehicles and debris along 40th Avenue North. Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals June 13, 1989 Page 8 Commissioner Bigelow agreed that snowmobiles are a problem in the area and she wished the City would enforce the snowmobile ordinance better. She lives in the area and has snowmobiles driving over her lawn, and can see the need for a fence. Commissioner Porzio inquired if the fence would be located to the house side of the utility boxes on the corner. Mr. Izek responded affirmatively so that the utility companies would have easy access to these. Chairman Anderson asked how the fence along Zachary Lane was allowed. Planner Cottingham noted that under ordinance definition Zachary Lane is defined as an equivalent rear yard and thus, the Ordinance allows for a 6 foot high fence along this street. Chairman Anderson inquired why this lot had a 30 foot front yard setback. Planner Cottingham noted this is part of a Planned Unit Development and the approved plan provided for the 30 foot front yard setback rather than the standard 35 foot. Chairman Anderson expressed his concern with the proximity of the fence to 40th Avenue North, noting that it appeared it would be only about 7 feet beyond the edge of the pavement. Commissioner Porzio stated that he could see how the cars and snowmobiles would cut across this yard, but did not know if a 6 foot fence was the solution to the problem. MOTION was made by Commissioner Patterson, seconded by Commissioner Tierney to approve the request for a Variance to allow a 6 foot high fence versus the Ordinance Standard of 3 feet high fence within the front yard for a property located at 3980 Arrowood Lane North for the reasons stated in the draft Resolution. Commissioner Tierney noted this lot is unusual in that it has three front yards and thus is difficult to have any usable yard. She also noted having the fence extend out along 40th Avenue North is more aesthetically appealing to her. Chairman Anderson expressed his disagreement with the request noting the proximity of the fence to 40th Avenue and the fact that he did not believe it was aesthetically pleasing. MOTION TO APPROVE --��' C -I �N Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals June 13, 1989 Page 9 Commissioner Bigelow expressed concern with allowing the fence within the utility easement and its proximity to 40th Avenue North. Commissioner Porzio stated that he sees the need for a fence to keep the vehicles off the lawn, however, he knows this same problem exists within his neighborhood, and is concerned with the precedent which would be set. Mr. Izek pointed out to the Board that he could put a 3 foot fence at the same location as this fence without the need for a Variance. Commissioner Naftzger asked if this statement was accurate. Building Official Ryan responded affirmatively. Commissioner Naftzger inquired if this concern of the proximity of the fence to 40th Avenue would take care of Commissioner Porzio's concern. Commissioner Porzio noted that he wanted to be sure the Variance Criteria is met and be sure that the safety problem is taken care of for the residence. He does not know that the 6 foot high fence would resolve this. Chairman Anderson did not see how the Variance Criteria had been met and did not believe this was a hardship but a mere inconvenience for the property owner. He noted the safety of persons travelling along 40th Avenue North was a major concern with a 6 foot high fence along it. Commissioner Naftzger explained he felt this was a unique situation with 3 front yards, the fact that vehicles and debris had been placed on the lot and the petitioner is being denied reasonable use of his land. He noted that the petitioner was not trying to increase the value of his property. Commissioner Tierney inquired if a 3 foot fence could be placed along 40th Avenue North with a hedge growing along that 3 foot fence to a height of 6 feet. Planner Cottingham responded affirmatively. The Board discussed other options to the 6 foot fence and possible location of it. '7-q b Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals June 13, 1989 Page 10 VOTE. 3 Ayes. Chairman Anderson, Commissioners Porzio and MOTION FAILS Bigelow voted nay. MOTION Fails. The Board further discussed alternative locations for the fence, and whether to leave it located further away from 40th Avenue North would change any of the Commissioner's votes. Chairman Anderson stated that he did not see where a 6 foot fence should be allowed in this front yard, and he could not support a Variance to do so. Commissioner Bigelow noted the distance from 40th Avenue was a concern to her. The ordinance was amended a few years ago to allow for fences in equivalent yards, and she did not feel this was a unique lot, or there was a hardship placed on the petitioner. Commissioner Porzio noted that he felt a 3 foot fence would eliminate the issue of vehicles and snowmobiles crossing the property and that he could not support a 6 foot fence in this area either. Mr. Izek noted his concern with personal liability if he constructed a 3 foot fence based on the impacts during the winter when snowmobiles might cut across the lawn and not see the 3 foot fence. He stated that he would not even think about constructing a 3 foot fence in this area. Commissioner Naftzger reviewed the options to the Board. This was a tie vote and the Board could either hold this over until the July Meeting, or look at holding a special meeting in order to resolve this issue. MOTION was made by Commissioner Patterson, seconded by MOTION TO DEFER Commissioner Bigelow to hold a special Board Meeting on June 27, 1988 to continue discussion on this Variance. VOTE. 6 Ayes. MOTION Carried. MOTION APPROVED Building Official Ryan stated that staff would ask the Public Safety Department for their input on this request. ADJOURNMENT: 10:40 P.M. CITY OF PLYNDLITH BOARD OF ZONING A LISTWNTS AND APPEALS JUNE 27, 1989 The Special Meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Anderson, Ccnmissioners Bigelow, Naftzger, Patterson and Tierney MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Hoff and Porzio STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Coordinator Chuck Dillerud Building Official Joe Ryan Chairman Anderson waived the reading of the Variance Criteria from the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. He then summarized the proceedings of the meeting of June 13, 1989 concerning the petition of David Izek. He noted that the Board was one member short at the June 13, 1989 meeting and that motions to approve and deny this petition both failed on a 3 to 3 vote. The Board voted unanimously to defer the item for a special meeting on June 27, 1989. Joe Ryan then reviewed with the Board the reccnnnendations of the Director of Public Safety concerning the Izek petition. He noted that Public Safety Director Carlquist has no public safety related concerns with the proposal to construct a six foot fence at the location requested. Mr. Izek, the petitioner, submitted a petition signed by seven adjoining property owners indicating support for his variance petition. He stated that the three foot fence that would be permissible under the Zoning Ordinance would prove to be more of a danger in the winter than the six foot fence he was requesting because it will often be covered with snow and will be hit by snowmobiles attempting to cut across his yard. Chairman Anderson asked if he was correct in his observation that the fence would be one foot from the existing street on 40th Avenue North, and if staff knew of any plans to widen 40th Avenue North in the future. Coordinator Dillerud responded that streets of recent design in the City of Plymouth, such as 40th Avenue North, typically had an eight to ten foot "boulevard" between the back of the curb line and the actual property line. He stated that he knew of no plans to upgrade the width of 40th Avenue North in the future. MOTION by Commissioner Tierney, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE Patterson to approve the request for a Variance to allow a six foot high fence versus the Ordinance Standards of three feet within a front yard for a property located at 3980 Arrowood Lane North for the reasons stated in the draft Resolution. Commissioner Bigelow indicated that the petition did not meet the Variance criteria and would also set an undesirable precedent. Chairman Anderson stated that he agreed with Commissioner Bigelow with regard to this petition not meeting the Variance Criteria. VOTE. 3 Ayes. Chairman Anderson and Commissioner Bigelow VOTE - MOTION CARRIED voted Nay. Commissioner Tierney reported to the Board that the Planning Commission had discussed the recommendation of the Board with regard to secondary setbacks along Thoroughfare Streets. She indicated the Planning Commission requested the Board prepare a written recc mendation as to what Zoning Ordinance Amendment may be in order in this regard. Chairman Anderson requested Staff to prepare a draft of potential Board recommendation that could be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Naftzger requested the Board consider adjustment to the time of day at which the Board of Adjustment and Appeals convenes its meetings. He suggested that an earlier time, such as 7:00 may prove more convenient for the commissioners. He suggested that the topic of alternative meeting times be discussed at the next meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Patterson, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO ADJOURN Bigelow to adjourn meeting at 7:55 p.m.. CITY OF PLYNDUIH BOARD OF ZCNDU ADJUSTMENTS AMID APPEAL JULY 11, 1989 The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustment and. Appeals was called to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: chairman Anderson, Commissioners Bigelow, Hoff, Naftzger, Patterson and Porzio NIERS ABSENT: Commissioner Tierney STAFF PRESENT: Associate Planner Al Cottingham Building Official Joe Ryan Chairman Anderson introduced the Board menbers and reviewed the Variance Criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Anderson introduced the request of Thomas Balkins for a variance frau the minimum Shoreland Management setback for property located at 2870 Evergreen Lane. Mr. Balkins explained he had planned on expanding the hone for a number of years, due to the fact that it is a small hone with a living area of approximately 600 square feet. He said he tried to maintain the same setback as the concrete slab which held the old garage, but on the west side of the property based on the survey, he was within approximately 2 feet of the ordinary high water mark. He had met with the Department of Natural Resources the day before and he showed them pictures of the lot. He said DNR represented that due to the settling of the soils in the area, the ordinary high water elevation on the west side of the property was maybe not accurate. He stated that the Department of Natural Resources did not have a problem with this variance. He pointed out this site was created in order to create this building area a number of years ago, and the soils have settled over time. He stated there is an existing shed located close to the lake, and he would be willing to remove that shed as a condition of this approval. He noted he would also be willing to plant additional trees in order to screen the building from the water. Mr. Balkins; Tib explained he has lived at this property a number of years and knew the previous owners for a number of years. He said they have yet to have water encroaching onto the property, even two years ago with what was defined as the "storm of the century". Chairman Anderson inquired of Staff as to any conversations they had with the Department of Natural Resources based on Mr. Balkins meeting. Planner Cottingham noted that he had a conversation with Mr. John Stein of the Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Stein explained the situation with respects to the ordinary high water mark on the west side of this property. he stated a true ordinary high water mark was 15 - 20 feet further west than what was shown on the survey based on pictures that were presented to them. Mr. Stein suggested Plymouth should not look at a three foot setback for this side but, more realistically, a 20 foot setback to the shoreland area. Commissioner Bigelow inquired as to what the specific variance was based on with this latest information from the Department of Natural Resources. Planner Cottingham noted that it was for a 32 foot encroachment to allow for an 18 foot setback. Cha?*r►on Anderson inquired if the outlet on the south end of the lake had any impacts on the lake elevation. Planner Cottingham noted that it was a stationary outlet which actually does not regulate the elevations except in a dry year, when the water would not be leaving the lake until it exceeded the top elevation of the dam. Chairman Anderson inquired if this were a unique situation because the site is located on a peninsula. Planner Cottingham stated this is somewhat of a unique situation. Staff feels this would be setting a precedent with the amount of encroachment being sought. Commissioner Porzio inquired if the survey was showing the house that was being proposed. Mr. Balkins responded affirmatively. Commissioner Naftzger inquired if Mr. Balkins had looked at different options in designing the hone which would not require as great of an extension into the setbacks. \ -CAS Mr. Balkins noted that he did not want to expand the dwelling upwards and felt the house would look awkward if he did. Commissioner Naftzger inquired if Mr. Balkins had looked at other options such as angling the house differently on the lot to reduce the encroachment. Mr. Balkins responded affirmatively, but other options did not suit his needs. Commissioner Bigelow noted that the proposed design has two stories in some areas, and what the height of the structure is. Planner Cottingham noted that based on the plans that were submitted, the top of the house was 32 feet. Commissioner Naftzger inquired if Mr. Balkins had thought about placing the garage on the south side of the existing home. Mr. Balkins responded that if he expanded it to the south, it would also require a variance since it would encroach into the side yard setbacks. Chai_nnn Anderson inquired as to the size of the existing home. Mr. Balkins noted that it was 840 square feet. Commissioner Hoff inquired as what the new concerns of the Department of Natural Resources were. Planner Cottingham noted that the DNR was letting the City know that rather than having a 2 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation on the west side, this setback was 20 feet and, thus, the closest point of encroachment would be the northwest corner of the structure being approximately 18 feet from the ordinary high water elevation. Commissioner Patterson noted that this is a unique situation in that this lot does have water on three sides requiring a greater setback fran all property lines. The petitioner really has no other options for expanding his home. Commissioner Naftzger inquired if a 22 x 27 foot garage was an oversized garage. Building Official Ryan noted a standard garage to be 22 x 22 feet. Mr. Balkins noted that the garage was not that large. There is to be a mudrocm located on the east end of the garage, and the size of the garage is approximately 22 x 20. Commissioner Naftzger expressed his concern with the turret on the east side of the home encroaching further into the setbacks and the existing structure. He did not feel it should encroach any further than the existing setback. He stated he could support this request with the exception of the turret encroachment on the east side. Mr. Balkins noted they have a very small eating area and the turret would allow a larger eating area along with a bathroom located on the second floor. Commissioner Bigelow inquired if the turret were removed, what space would be left for the kitchen. Mr. Balkins noted there would be no problem with an eating area since they do have a dining area on the main floor, but there would be more of a problem with the elimination of the bathroom upstairs. Commissioner Naftzger noted he could not agree with the 10 foot encroachment to the east side of the home and would be concerned with the precedent which might be set. Mr. Balkins noted all of the ceilings were to be vaulted which cuts down on the size of the rooms in the upper level. With the elimination of the turret, it would be very difficult to have a bathroom in the upper level. Commissioner Bigelow inquired as to the size of the southerly bedroom on the second floor. Building Official Ryan responded approximately 400 square feet. Commissioner Bigelow noted this seamed to be ample roan in which to locate a bathroom if the turret were removed. K)TION by Commissioner Hoff, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO APPROVE Patterson to approve the request for a variance from the minimum Shoreland Management Setbacks for property located at 2870 Evergreen Lane for the reasons stated in the Draft Resolution. VOTE. 3 Ayes. Chairman Anderson, Commissioners Naftzger MDTION FAILED and Porzio voted nay. Cha;,?nan Anderson reviewed the right to appeal the Board's ruling to the City Council. Commissioner Naftzger reiterated that he could support a request which had no further encroachment on the east side of the home. The Board discussed the possibility of eliminating the turret with Mr. Balkins . Commissioner Bigelow stated this was a unique situation, with water on three sides and that he was not expanding any closer to the water on the east side than he would be with other areas of this addition. Chairman Anderson noted that this was true, however, a majority of the expansion to the west was for a 2 car garage which he felt was warranted. Chairman Anderson inquired of Building Official Ryan if the structure could work with the turret removed. Building Official Ryan responded affirmatively, however the plans would need to be designed appropriately in order to accomodate this. Mr. Balkins stated he would amend his request to eliminate the turret on the east side of the home. MXION by Chairman Anderson, seconded by Ccnmissioner Naftzger to approve the amended request for a variance for a minimum Shoreland Management Setback for property located at 2870 Evergreen Lane for the reasons stated in the Draft Resolution. The amended request deletes the additional encroachment on the east side of the structure. This appruval is to be contingent upon the City receiving a revised letter from the DNR noting their concerns with the Shoreland elevation; and removal of the existing shed be removed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. VUM. 6 Ayes. Chairman Anderson introduced the request of Ned Delk for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow a 96 square foot free-standing sign 50 feet high for property located at 3000 Harbor Lane. Mr. Delk reviewed the request noting they would be moving the sign from the southwest corner of the property to the southeast corner of the property and going from a ground mount sign to a pylon sign. Chairman Anderson inquired if Mr. Delk was aware of the room remaining on the sign board located by Perkins. NOTION TO APPROVE M3TION CARRIED NED DEL.K, 3000 HARBOR L -4 1W, Mr. Delk responded negatively and that this was brought to his attention after reading the Staff report. Planner Cottingham suggested Delk contact Mr. Frank Harris with BW & Leo Harris Company regarding the sign board. Commissioner Hoff inquired if the petitioner could still have site signage even if they took roan on the pylon sign by Perkins. Planner Cottingham responded affirmatively. Chairman Anderson inquired if the petitioner could place wall signage on the east side of the building. Planner Cottingham responded that the Ordinance allowed for wall signage of 50 square feet or 5% of the gall area, but there is to be no other wall signs on the building. Mr. Delk noted that he would like the Board to table this item until he had an opportunity to talk with BW & Leo Harris Company regarding the pylon sign by Perkins and other representatives from his company. MOTION by Commissioner Patterson, seconded by Conmissioner Hoff to table the request until a future meeting date. VOTE. 6 Ayes. Chairman Anderson introduced the request of Daniel Miles for a variance from the minimum Shoreland Management Setback for property located at 10210 South Shore Drive. Mr. Miles noted they wanted a deck on the lake side of their home and that this deck would not encroach any further into the Shoreland Setback than decks on surrounding lots. Chairman Anderson noted the plans did not show stairs going down from the deck and wondered when these would be constructed. Mr. Miles noted that he was not really sure when they would be putting on the staircase due the age of his children. Chairman Anderson inquired how access would be gained to the deck. Mr. Miles stated they were not sure whether they would use a sliding door or a french door in place of the existing living room window. MOTION TO TABLE MOTION CARRIED DANIEL MILES, 10210 SOUTH SHORE DRIVE The Board discussed a time frame of one year which the Ordinance allows for construction of variances and the possibility of putting an extension in the approving resolution for the stairs. Commissioner Porzio noted his concern with the extended time frame. KION by Commissioner Bigelow, seconded by Commissioner Patterson to approve the request for a variance from the mininnim Shoreland Management Setbacks for property located at 10210 South Shore Drive for the reasons stated in the Draft Resolution, and adding another condition granting a 5 year extension of the constriction of the stairs. Commissioner Naftzger stated this request was not the same issue as that which the Board had reviewed a few months ago next door to this property for Mr. Goodzy. His request was for a garage expansion, and it did not encroach into the Shoreland Setback. VOTE. 5 Ayes. Commissioner Porzio voted nay. Chariman Anderson introduced the request of Albert Malachowski, Jr. for a variance from the maximum size of detached accessory structures for property located at 16930 - 11th Avenue North. Mr. Malachowski noted that he purchased this lot 3 years ago and contacted the City approximately 6 months ago to find out if there were restrictions as to the size of a garage which was allowed. He was informed that the City regulations were a 20% lot coverage and, as long as he did not exceed that, the garage could be any size. He did not ask whether this was for an attached or detached structure. He did not know that there was a problem with this detached garage until he called to find out the status of the building permit and was informed that the permit could be issued only for the house and not for the garage due to the size. He noted he only wants to store personal goods inside the structure and the false information given to him by the City created his hardship, and not him. He pointed out that the garage does meet the required setbacks. Commissioner Naftzger inquired what Mr. Malachowski would have done if he knew he could not construct a detached garage of this size earlier. Mr. Malachowski noted he probably would have sold the lot. Commissioner Naftzger asked Mr. Malachowski why he did not change his house plans in order to have an attached garage. -3--- 1:\ b NOTION TO APPROVE NOTION CARRIED ALBERT MALAC.HMKI, JR., 19930 11TH AVENUE NORTH Mr. Malachowski noted that he is currently renting a home and that he needs to be out of this hcme by the end of September which did not allow him time to revise his plans. Chairman Anderson asked Staff to explain their comments that the petitioner was creating this hardship. Planner Cottingham stated the petitioner could have redesigned the home to have an attached garage which would not have required a variance. He has chosen not to do that, thus creating his own hardship. Commissioner Porzio inquired as to how much larger the proposed garage was over what the Ordinance would allow. Planner Cottingham noted approximately 900 square feet. Commissioner Porzio stated the City apparently gave the petitioner the wrong information, and this is the issue at hand. Chairman Anderson reminded Commissioner Porzio that the issue is the variance for the size of the structure and not the misinformation. There has not been an error made on this request since there was not a building permit issued for the garage. Ccmnissioner Bigelow inquired if Mr. Malachowski had considered other alternatives to resolve this issue. Mr. Malachowski responded negatively. Mr. Malachowski inquired as to why you could not have this size of a detached garage since if it were attached to the home it could be this size. Planner Cottingham noted the City was concerned with the aesthetics. They did not wish to see large masses of detached garages in yards. Chairman Anderson inquired as to a typical 4 car garage size. Building Offical Joe Ryan noted that he had not seen a garage of this size in his years of working for the City. He has seen garages as large as 1,000 square feet. Mr. Malachowski stated that he needs this size of structure for the storage of things since the structure will have a flat roof, and he will not have room to store items in the rafters. MOTION by Commissioner Hoff, seconded by Commissioner Patterson to deny the request for a variance frcan the maximmn size of detached accessory structures for property located at 16930 - 11th Avenue North for the reasons stated in the Draft Resolution. VOTE ., 6 Ayes. Char n n Anderson reviewed the the right to appeal the Board's denial to the City Council. Chairman Anderson introduced the request of Yashvinkumar Patel for a variance from the minismun sideyard setback for property located at 15535 Gleason Lake Drive. Mr. Patel noted that he has three vehicles and needs to have roan to keep them inside. He noted that one was a van that he uses for deliveries of groceries with his business in Minneapolis. His delivery is strictly to the elderly. If the van is not kept inside during the winter, he has a difficult time starting and, thus, cannot get groceries delivered to the elderly. Chariman Anderson inquired if Mr. Patel would be paving the gravel driveway. Mr. Patel responded that he would pave his side of the driveway as much as he could. Cha;rn„n Anderson inquired what the garage would be used for. Mr. Patel reiterated that he would be storing his 3 vehicles which consist of a 1969 Cadillac, a Ford Bronco and his delivery van. Commissioner Porzio inquired as to why these lots had a shared driveway. Planner Cottingham stated that due to the classification of this road. The City and County tried to limit access as much as possible. Commissioner Porzio asked what impacts on the shared driveway would result from Mr. Patel paving the driveway on his property. Planner Cottingham responded the could pave the driveway as long as he maintained the 3 foot setback from the side property line. BION TO DENY YASHVINKUMAR PATEL, 15535 GLEASON LAKE DRI\E Chairman Anderson inquired if Mr. Patel had looked at other options such as a detached garage or expanding to the front or the rear of the existing garage to accomodate his needs. Mr. Patel stated that he had not really looked at alternatives and that he does need a 3 car garage. Planner Cottingham noted that Mr. Patel could expand 18 feet to the front of the existing garage, thus having a double loaded garage with no variances. Mr. Patel asked if the Board would table this action until a later date so he could review alternatives that would not require a variance. MOTION by Commissioner Naftzger, seconded Commissioner Hoff to table this item to allow the petitioner to look at alternatives which would not require a variance. VOTE. 6 Ayes. Chairman Anderson inttroduced the request of Tony Eiden, Eiden Construction for a variance from the minimum front and side yard setbacks for property located at 510 Cottonwood Lane. Mr. Eiden reviewed his request compared to his earlier variance request noting he had made the house narrower from front to back, but wider from side to side. Thus, they were now requesting side yard setback variance and a reduced front yard setback variance. He noted the severe topography of the lot, and the fact that they were trying to maintain the integrity of this neighborhood. He reiterated to the Board that when he purchased this lot, he was not aware of the severe topography problem. Commissioner Patterson inquired as to the price range of this home. Mr. Eiden explained it would be approximately $250-260,000. Commissioner Patterson inquired if Mr. Eiden could construct an oversized double garage to eliminate the side yard variances. Mr. Eiden responded he would only have a 22 foot wide garage if he eliminated the side yard variances. Commissioner Bigelow asked why there was going to be a room under the garage. --T-fib TONY EIDEN, EIDEN CONSTRUCTION, 510 COTTONWOOD LANE Mr. Eiden explained that with the amount of block needed on the rear of the hone due to the topography, they might as well use the area under the main garage. Commissioner Naftzger inquired what would happen to this hone i_f there were no side yard setback variance granted. Mr. Eiden noted he would reduce the garage to a double car garage and would not reduce the living area since this is smaller than he likes to build to begin with. MOTION by Commissioner Naftzger, seconded by CcRuLi.ssioner NOTION TO DENY Porzio to deny the request for a variance frcm the minimum front and side yard setbacks for property located at 510 Cottonwood Lane for the reasons stated in the Draft Resolution. Commissioner Naftzger noted it is the petitioner's economic concern to build this type of hone and he personally does not agree with the side yard setback variances. VOTE. 5 Ayes. Commissioner Patterson voted nay. NOTION CARRIED Chairman Anderson reviewed the right to appeal this decision to the City Council. The Board discussed the possibility of starting their meetings at 7:00 rather than 7:30 and inquired if there was a reason for the 7:30 start. Planner Cottingham noted that to his knowledge there was no reason why the meeting could not begin at 7:00. NOTION by Ccmmissioner Hoff, seconded by Ccdmtmmissioner NOTION TO APPROVE Bigelow to move the starting times for the Board of Zoning meetings from 7:30 to 7:00. 6 Ayes. NOTION CARRIED ADJOURNMENT 10:55 p.m. Minutes of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting July 13, 1989 Page 27 Present: Chair Edwards, Commissioners Beach, Anderson, Freels, Rosen, Hanson, staff Blank, Anderson, and Sankey Absent: Commissioner LaTour 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Edwards called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Rosen and seconded by Commissioner Freels to approve the minutes of the June meeting as presented. The motion carried with all ayes. 3. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS a. Athletic Associations. None were present at this meeting. b. Staff. Cindy Anderson spoke on the status of some of the summer programs. Registration is going well and is higher in most areas. We have arranged for the services of a program integration specialist to help integrate participants with disabilities into the classes. The integration specialist has an extensive background in this type of programming. We have several participants taking advantage of this service this year. The new full day day camp is going very well. We had anticipated that working parents would use the camp as an alternative for day care, but the prevailing registration seems to be from people just using the camp as a recreational opportunity. The new art program response was so high that we expanded into more sessions. The puppet wagon and playground program participation is up. The swimming classes are going well. We have had approximately 925 participants so far, and are expecting about 340 more in the fourth session.. Our lifeguards will be participating in a lifeguard competition. We are starting to gear up for fall. c. Others. Henry Willegalle (1525 Juneau Lane) spoke on his proposal that the northeast bay of Parkers Lake be dredged out. He had written a letter to the mayor on this subject, and the mayor suggested that he present his proposal to the Park Commission. Mr. Willegalle feels that the way the bay is right now is aesthetically ugly, it hampers use of the lake by the people who live on it, and it certainly detracts from the value of his property. He feels that with the expansion project for County Road 6, now would be the opportune time to complete a dredging project because the area will be torn up anyway. Chair Edwards wondered if the lake's outlet could be adjusted to raise the level of the water at less expense to the city. Director Blank stated that he wasn't sure if this could be done because the July 1989 PRAC Minutes Page 28 outlet is tied into the water flow management system for the whole area. Commissioner Rosen asked if the neighbors would be willing to contribute to the cost of the project. Mr. Willegalle indicated that that would be possible, but he didn't feel they should bear the entire cost, since the city caused the problem in the first place when the outlet was installed to prevent flooding several years ago. He feels the project would benefit the entire city because it would create more water surface for water skiing, fishing, and for park beautification. Chair Edwards recommended that the proposal go back to staff for study and communication with the city engineer and planning departments. Mr. Willegale will be kept informed. 4. REPORT ON PAST COUNCIL ACTION a. Swan Lake Plat. Director Blank explained how the agreement was reached on the Swan Lake Plat and approved by the Council. b. Community Center. The schematic plans were approved by the Council. C. West Medicine Lake Drive Trail. The project will probably go out for bid in September. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. _Comprehensive Park & Trail Plan - Public Hearing. Director Blank explained that the city is working on updating all comprehensive plans, and that PRAC has been working on updating the Master Park and Trail Plan adopted in 1981. Seven parcels have been identified as desirable for park land. This designation does not affect the zoning or guiding on the property. When the land is developed in the future, the city would acquire it through purchase or park dedication. The outlines of the proposed park land are just approximate at this time. The final boundaries would be determined at the time of development. Parcel 1-A Northeast of County Road 9 and Fernbrook. Owned by Harold Hytjan. Bordered by 494 on east and existing parkland on west, surrounding the north side of a pond area. Designated as a neighborhood park with a main intent of preserving trees. There were no citizen comments on this parcel. Parcel 2-A Southern side of the pond. Owned by Harold Hytjan. Tree preservation important. There were no citizen comments on this parcel. Parcel 1-C West of 1-A and 1-B and south of the existing parkland. Owned by Robert Sevy. Liv Horneland (8804 Knollwood Dr., Eden Prairie) with Coldwall Banker, spoke for Mr. Sevy. Mr. Sevy has a purchase agreement in place with a developer at the present time. He is concerned with the size and shape of the proposed park, since it takes up a considerable portion of his land. Since the developer is purchasing land from two different owners for this development, Mr. Sevy is concerned that if the agreement falls through, the large parkland proposal on his property would adversely affect the value of his property in the future. The developer is aware of park dedication requirements. July 1989 PRAC Minutes Page 29 Parcel 2 Located north of Plymouth Creek Park. Preservation of the hillside is a prime consideration. Owned by the Thornton's. Attorney Wade Anderson represented the Thornton's. They have a purchase agreement with a developer, and hope to have the final plat approval and closing in September. Director Blank stated that he has been in contact with the developer, and the developer has agreed to the park dedication as shown. However, this parcel still needs to be approved in the Comprehensive Plan in case this purchase agreemnt falls through. Parcel 3A East of County Road 101 and north of County Road 24. Owned by Richfield Bank & Trust. Parcel is east of previously designated parkland. Would add to the flexibility of this neighborhood park. Preservation of trees and marshland would be important. There were no citizen comments on this parcel. Parcel 3B West of Parcel 3A. Owned by Clinton Stromseth. Preservation of trees and marshland also important. There were no citizen comments on this parcel. Parcel 4 Southeast of Old County Rd 9 and Dunkirk Lane, by Plymouth Creek Elementary School. Owned by Anna Jordan. Would be designated as a Playfield. Bill Pritchard with Orrin Thompson Homes spoke against this park site. Orrin Thompson has a purchase agreement on this land. The site contains 118 acres, and 50 acres would go toward the park. When they first approached the city about the Comprehensive Park Plan, an area to the west of this parcel was designated as park. The land on which they have a purchase agreement is zoned as semi- public. They felt the parkland was workable as originally shown. They are not opposed to having a neighborhood park in this area, but are opposed to the size and type of park the city is proposing, a playfield. He feels it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood and on housing value. He would like to work with the Planning Commission and Council to re -guide this land to LA -2 and would prefer to dedicate about $217,000 in lieu of land. He would like the park to remain on the west side of the development. Mr. Pritchard stated that he is going to the Planning Commission meeting on August 9. Parcel 5 Southeast of County Road 44 and Juneau Lane. Owned by Sanford Williams. The Comprehensive Plan had showed a playfield by Pomerleau Lake, however there is a house there now. An alternative was sought. Mr. Williams has sold the eastern 200 feet to Hennepin Parks for a trail corridor, which would bisect our park lands and provide good public access. The 25 acres in this parcel would be good for a playfield. No sewer is available, and the land would probably not be developed in the foreseeable future. Sanford Williams (14511 County Road 47) stated that there is no wetland or trees to preserve on this piece of property; it is farmland. He objects to the park because it would not leave him with enough land to develop. Parcel 6 South of Mud Lake, connecting to current park land around the lake. Tree preservation and development of neighborhood park key goals. Owned by Greg Begin. Mr. Begin (5525 Xenium Lane) stated that July 1989 PRAC Minutes Page 30 he was against the park because the city already has him tied up in court, and now they are trying to take his home. His home is on the property. Jerome Begin (5635 Vicksburg Lane) also owns part of this property. He stated that there is no way the city can take this land unless they pay him $10 million. Parcel 7 West of Zachary Playfield and north of County Road 9. Owned by the Forster's. It would create a buffer zone between housing and the playfield. Tom Forster (11420 County Road 9) stated that he was unhappy with the condemnation of his land for the water treatment plant, and he probably won't get fair value for this land. He disagrees with the size, not the idea of the buffer zone. Commissioner Freels asked about the idea of a trade for some land owned by the city south of County Road 9. Mr. Forster felt that the value of that land was not as great. He doesn't feel that a buffer is really very necessary because houses do abutt the park in other portions of the park. He has had some layouts done by potential developers, but none of them contain a buffer zone. The commissioners discussed what their next step should be. Commissioner Rosen requested that Director Blank set up a working meeting, perhaps with Planning Department staff or the City attorney, to better clarify their role. They would like to meet at 5:30, sometime soon. Director Blank stated that a September or October joint meeting with the Planning Commission had been discussed. Chair Edwards said the Commission should hold back action at the present time so that the commissioners can think over the citizens' objections and come back to the next meeting with some ideas. b. Plymouth Creek Parking Lot Expansion Update. The parking lot is nearly done. It still needs a one inch wear layer, lights, and landscaping. C. CIP 1990-94. Director Blank pointed out that we are $210,000 short for 1990 in account 218 (Community Parks, Playfields & Trails) because we spent $500,000 on land this year. Account 219 (Neighborhood Parks) is OK in all the years. The commissioners discussed what should be cut for 1990. Commissioner Hanson moved to approve the CIP with the transfer of the Plymouth Creek Tennis Courts to 1991 and Parkers Lake Playfield to 1992. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. Commissioner Beach felt that the Parkers Lake Playfield would serve more Plymouth residents than the Bass Lake Playfield. She ammended the motion to transfer Bass Lake Playfield to 1991 and Parkers Lake Playfield to 1990. Ammendment was seconded by Commissioner Rosen. Director Blank pointed out that he felt the need was greater for Bass Lake Playfield because the people in the Osseo School District have no playfield at all to use in the city. The ammendment was defeated 5 nays to 1 aye. The original motion was passed 5 ayes to 1 nay. d. Community Center Update. Director Blank shared the newest drawings with with Commission and pointed out changes. For budget purposes, the metal roof has been changed to shingles, and the wooden beams in the pool and gym have been changed to steel. The cupola has been deleted. These features may be bid as add alternates. Director Blank July 1989 PRAC Minutes Page 31 explained how McGoff is planning to grade the site in November and December and then let the land sit until February when the weather is more favorable. All of the materials would be on the site by this time, and the construction could resume. City Manager Willis is planning to meet with home owners associations and local elected officials to present the project and answer questions. 6. NEW BUSINESS a. New Plat. None. b. August Meeting. Would be called by the chair if needed. 7. COMMISSION PRESENTATION None. 8. STAFF COMMUNICATION Director Blank presented a petition from citizens living near Gleanloch Park. They would like the city to purchase some land to expand the park. There is a permanent easement on it already. Commission will discuss this at the next meeting. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. O d �•-LN LNmC4 �aD%O f�1 NOC�f% N H •-� E O p� N rn 00 0.1 � 00�.-1 Ntn� SO 0% 61% (NJ Z1-4 Z P-4 1 LU i 4 .-i r-1 f It 4 9 LU LAJ i 1.4 Z J 0% NO LA 4 en 1- 4 N W% 00 4 m d WN r-1 r- H 0% N %0 1- O Lf% N •-L N .--1 -4 -4 � F- -4 N 1- -I N Lr% 0-4 Q Q H W W Li LL O d �•-LN LNmC4 �aD%O f�1 NOC�f% N H •-� E Z O p� N 00 0.1 � 00�.-1 Ntn� SO 61% (NJ Z1-4 Z P-4 1 LU i 4 .-i r-1 f LU LAJ 1.4 Z Z � O uJ J ►-i H Q LLf � p tN O Z Z 0-4 Q Q Cfl W W Li LL 1 C �0Pn I� N�4 m 4v 4^4 SP11�m L.tL^ -4N - 4 -4 w } <p ---L -4 O n LM 0\ -d- O N %0 %0 m Pn 1l- N -4 M M (n N r-1 -4 ,..L .-1 -4 rl tv 4 >s A ry-1 A >b -4 >b T .-4 is 1s '--L N N •-1 N N .-1 N N .-1 N N '--1 N N '--Lto < Um Ca C)to co ucaco uco V mm CJmm ucoM �4 1- .� 4 �.4 OMS r400� p N P-4 Z O Q Z1-4 Z LU LU LAJ 1.4 Z Z � H uJ J ►-i H Q LLf � p tN O Z Z 0-4 Q Q Cfl W W Li LL --L-v0 �� k -D 7bP be O M �O O 00 ON H 41 C t0 rp L U OD SOD L N U N 7 C .V L O N L N N0 m O C1 H tf� N O n O O M C f1 -4O b �0 +i U U N C a% 0% ~ CL n^N 30 R7 N f.i U O U � N 3 O � U � p� p to VIA � to tri O O N t� .--I M %40 -4 N N (14 (n N -q -1 1-I „Ci ,44 E U rics r -I i0 r--1 m Rr U U > .4) ) w O ..� 41 4-� 3 > S-40 U 41 b 0% CN t- 00 %D %D O VA -4 n%0 1�I •4 Oa N Q L^ (N 'A co 1f1 O N p $4 >, - 7 O � .-1 L -Ni U N O o v ami a) +i L U 0 L «.4 N W O &4 4) H -.4 H< fi M en 0% —4 O Go I 9 WW O O ry/f s.+ .. "� • C O N O "i r -I r -I ri -I V N 41 t N X 0.ct 1-4 N N .-i N N 1-1 N N r-1 N N .--1 C dCcCO UCaC1] Umm UCO CO V +1 CL M N Q N M-4 \0 1� �0 r-+ O �0 t� ON O U t4 L C ; u1 O% ( N N LUa 3 C.04-) .-1 U +> >% O r1 +1 C N +- U C � U C p - 4 --1 M - -i W Y Y -4 -4 4J --I ^ b -4 IV U U LeuLLJ U N 3 U Q C Rf Z O m tOi z v ,�., ¢ (n Y O O ig --1 � N O U CL 2 CL d O U D 0 �� k -D \ r) INCOMING TELEPHONE CALLS JULY 10 - 14, 1989 % OF % NOT AVERAGE TOTAL TOTAL BUSY PER DAY ADMINISTRATION 199 4 97% 40 ASSESSING 225 4 98% 45 BUILDING 763 14 77% 153 ENGINEERING 557 11 96% 111 ENVIRONMENTAL 223 4 92% 45 FINANCE 419 8 92% 84 FIRE 191 4 94% 38 PARK & REC 859 16 80% 172 PLANNING 424 8 93% 85 POLICE 782 15 96% 156 PUBLIC WORKS 186 4 90% 37 OPERATOR 407 8 81 TOTAL 5,235 1,047 JUNE 27 - JULY 19 1988 % OF % NOT AVERAGE TOTAL TOTAL BUSY PER DAY ADMINISTRATION 140 3 96% 28 ASSESSING 211 4 94% 42 BUILDING 1,012 21 69% 202 ENGINEERING 653 13 96% 131 ENVIRONMENTAL 98 2 91% 20 FINANCE 457 9 87% 91 FIRE 184 4 92% 37 PARK & REC 705 14 76% 141 PLANNING 313 6 96% 63 POLICE 624 13 96% 125 PUBLIC WORKS 213 4 96% 43 OPERATOR 332 7 66 TOTAL 4,942 988 * No survey taken due to trial installation of voice message system TOTAL TELEPHONE CALLS FOR ONE WEEK PERIOD 1986 2nd quarter 4,534 3rd quarter 3,848 4th quarter 3,391 1987 1st quarter 4,311 2nd quarter 4,648 3rd quarter 4,069 4th quarter 3,315 1988 1st quarter 3,639 2nd quarter 4,942 3rd quarter 4,156 4th quarter 1989 1st quarter 4,901 2nd quarter 5,235 * No survey taken due to trial installation of voice message system �| bR s � ® K K S;2 2 6M m c ¥ � � R � ~ .� q 2 P-4 ® E| S � 2 7 cr- o m A $ 2 7 cr- o m A � �| n ~ z � . 0 � � K � , ¢ S � E Lu c � o o 6ON 6"A n o _ �| m ■ ¥ § u � � v � V ro W o B � L � ~ g / 00 q � 0% g ~ k § V t � § � « k q S $ W| &M k ». q k � 2 % « 2 c w U. b le K $ a @ b U. ¥ 0 ) IN PERSON CUSTOMER COUNT JULY 10-14 JUNE 27 -JULY 1 1989 TOTAL 1988 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 9 8 ASSESSING 34 49 BUILDING 94 112 ENGINEERING 89 69 FINANCE 240 - PARK & REC. 199 166 PLANNING 56 39 PUBLIC SAFETY 89 113 PUBLIC WORKS 58 26 RECEPTIONISTS 538 592 TOTAL 1,406 1,180 NOTE: 1988 figures not available for Finance NOTICE OF FILING Affidavits of Candidacy for election of the office of Mayor and two Councilmembers of the City of Plymouth may be filed with the City Clerk commencing on Tuesday, August 29, 1989 through Tuesday, September 12, 1989, at the City Center, 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Filings may be made weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The City Election will be held on Tuesday, November 7, 1989. Laurie Rauenhorst City Clerk City of Plymouth LeFeyere Lcfler Kennedy ('Brien & Drawz a Professional Association 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis August 1 1989 Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333-0543 Telecopier (612) 333-0540 J. Dennis O'Brien John E. Drawz David J. Kennedy Mr. James G. Willis Joseph E. Hamilton City Manager Glenn E. Purdue City of Plymouth Richard J. Schieffer James J. Thomson, Jr. 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Thomas R. Galt Plymouth, MN 55447 Steven B. Schmidt James M. Strommen Corrine A. Heine Re: Dunkirk Lane Special Assessment Appeals Leslie M. Altman William P. Jordan Dear Jim William R. Skallerud David D. Beaudoin Steven M. Tallen Enclosed for your information is a copy of a July 28, Mary Frances Skala 1989 memorandum from Judge Davis to Judge Levy concerning Timothy J. Pawlenty Rolf A. Sponheim the status of the Dunkirk Lane Special Assessment Appeal Julie A. Bergh cases. As you can see, Judge Davis is upset at the way Paul D. Baertsc that the property owners' attorney is handling the case. Paul D. Baertschi Mark J. Gergen Julie A. Lawler Sincerely yours, Stephen J. Bubul Clayton L. LeFevere, Retired LeFEVERE , LEFLER , KENNEDY, Herbert P. Lefler, Retired 0' BRIEN & DRAWZ es J. Thomson, Jr. 0066LT15,.I34 Enclosure STATE OF MINNESOTA FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT MICHAEL J. DAVIS JUDGE HENNEPIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55467 16121 346-3677 July 28, 1989 TO: Chief Judge Roberta K. Levy FROM: Judge Michael J. Davis Re4 0�• 31-84 RE: Fourteen (14) consolidated civil cases need reassignment to individual judges. Fourteen (14) civil cases involving suits by Plymouth property owners against the City of Plymouth for an allegedly excessive special assessment need reassignment. I was forced to remove myself from the cases for the reasons explained below. A brief recitation of the history of this matter helps to clarify my position. Back in 1985, approximately seventeen (17) cases were filed by Plymouth property owners against the City of Plymouth for an allegedly excessive special assessment. The special assessment was levied for construction and reconstruction of Dunkirk Lane in Plymouth. Approximately three (3) property owners were pro se and the remaining Plaintiffs were represented by Mr. Ronald A. Johnson, Esq.; Mr. John E. Drawz, Esq., was counsel for the City of Plymouth. The cases were initially distributed among the judges as usual, but on Mr. Johnson's motion they were consolidated on October 18, 1985, and assigned to me. Because of the similarity of the cases and expense of trial, it was agreed by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Drawz, and the understanding of this Court, that the attorneys would select a test case for trial that would determine the resolution of the other cases. This was the most logical and expeditious way to handle the cases, and this Court beleived it was the request and understanding of the Plaintiffs as a group since it was the representation of their counsel, Mr. Johnson. Furthermore, it has come to this Court's attention that the group of Plaintiffs represented by Mr. Johnson pooled their money to fund the trial and appeal of the test case. Pursuant to this agreement, the attorneys agreed on a test case, geered up for trial, and tried the Novy v City of Plymouth case before this Court on March 15, 1988. The other sixteen (16) cases laid dormant pending the outcome of the Novy test case. Based on the file and evidence and testimony adduced at trial, this Court found that the special assessment was lawfully levied and not arbitrary and capricious. Plain- tiffs appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed my decision using rather strong language in support of it. Consistent with the agreement, Mr. Drawz and this Court expected Mr. Johnson to file voluntary dismissals on behalf of the remaining Plaintiffs under his representation. However, to my disgust and dismay, Mr. Johnson broke his agreement with Mr. Drawz'and this Court. The remaining cases were reassigned to an associate in Mr. Johnson's firm, a Mr. Paul J. Deshotels, Esq., who is now requesting that each of the remaining Plaintiffs receive a trial on their individual claims. Although this Court realizes that the Plaintiffs filed separate civil actions and are entitled to pursue their individual cases, this Court is angered and disturbed by Mr. Johnson's actions. Mr. Johnson represented to this Court and defense counsel on behalf of his clients, Plaintiffs in approximately thirteen (13) cases, that there would be one trial on a test case that would determine the resolution of the remaining cases in his control. As a result, the other cases sat dormant for approximately four years pending the outcome of the Novy case while they could have been resolved a long time ago. In my opinion, this was a disservice to Mr. Johnson's clients and an abuse of the Court system. Mr. Johnson did not even have the courtesy or professionalism to appear before this Court in person to explain his reason for reneging and to apologize to the Court for the delay in processing the remaining cases. My strong feelings about this matter render me incapable of being fair and impartial as to the remaining cases before me and therefore I must remove myself. Accordingly, these cases must be reassigned. As for reassignment of these cases, I strongly suggest that each of the remaining fourteen (14) cases to be distributed to a different judge. Due to the similarities of the claims and defenses in these cases, it will be extremely difficult for any judge to decide any of these cases differently. Also, there is no reason to consolidate the cases where each Plaintiff intends to pursue individual claims. I should note that a Note of Issue has not been filed on these cases and it may be appropriate to require the Plaintiffs to submit the requisite filing fee for their individual cases. For your convenience, I have attached my decision on the Novy case, the Court of Appeals decision affirming the Novy case, the Order dismissing two of the cases for a Plaintiffs' failure to appear at the pre-trial conference, and the transcript from the pre-trial conference in which a record established by defense counsel as to the history of the case and my myself explaining the reasons I removed myself. MJD:mw cc: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Sincerely, P -r �ju ................. V Michael J. Davis Ronald A. Johnson, Esq. Paul J. Deshotels, Esq. John E. Drawz, Esq. Patrick L. Brezonik, Pro Se Therese M. Schieffer, Pro Se LeFevere V �� Lefler � � -�- Kennedy O'Brien & J: 31 1999 Dra-wz CITY OF PLYMOUTH a Professional COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Association July 28, 1989 2000 First Bank Place west Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Mr. Blair Tremere Telephone (612) 333-0543 Community Development Director Telecopier (612) 333.0540 City of Plymouth 3400 P1ymouth Blvd. J Dennis O'Brien John E. Dmwz Plymouth, MN 55447 David J. Kennedy Joseph E.Hamihon Re: City of Plymouth v. Greg Begin Glenn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer James J. Thomson, Jr. Dear Blair: Thomas R. Galt StevJohn B Enclosed is the Court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of resseSchmldt John G. Kressel James M. Strommen Law and Order in the above matter granting the City's William P. Jordan motion for an injunction. The Order speaks for itself, William R.lerud A.Heine Corrine A. Heine but it is clear that Begin can allow no fill and do no Devid D. Beaudoin grading on any of the property of this lawsuit until he Steven M.Tallen gets the necessary permits from the City. Because the Mary F .Aft Skala temporary restraining order was not vacated, the City Timothy��wianty would have access to the property if it believes fill RotfA.Sponheim material has been deposited. In short, Begin is prohib- Davidergh ulie A. Rola David C. Roland ited from doingan filling or grading for an indefinite y Paul D.Beertschi period. He is in contempt of court if he does. Arden Fritz Mark J.Gergen Julie A. Lawler It is possible that Begin will appeal this case. That Janet J. Coleman will not change the status quo. His best chance to Stephen J. Bubul recover anything under his contract is to follow the EDavid Reyes City's permit process. There is nothing in the Court's Clayton L. LeFevere, Retired Order that requires the City to follow any type of Herbert P. Lefler, Retired expedited procedure. The City is allowed to follow its normal review process. I will inform you as to any further updates on this matter. Very truly yours, LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY O'BRIEN RND DRAWZ James M. Strommen Enclosure cc: Chuck Dillerud Joe Ryan 0066lt03.h37 13 ' STATE OF MINNESOTA __:.� DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ,.!FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gregory Begin, Plaintiff, V. City of Plymouth, a municipal corporation, FINDINGS OF FACT, Defendant. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - City of Plymouth, Court File No. 89-9398 a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, V. Gregory Begin, Defendant.. The above matters came on for hearing before Judge Isabel Gomez, Hennepin County District Court, at the Hennepin County Government Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and at the Division 3 Courthouse at Minnetonka, Minnesota, on July 3 and July 13, 1989, respectively. James M. Strommen appeared on behalf of the City of Plymouth and James T. Martin appeared on behalf of Gregory Begin. The Court having heard the testimony, arguments of counsel, reviewed the pleadings, affidavits, exhibits and other filings, makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Gregory Begin is the lessee and operator of 180 acres of land located within the City of Plymouth at 5525 Xenium Lane; the land historically has been devoted to agricultural uses. 2. Begin entered into a contract with Ames Construction to take up to 500,000 cubic yards of "muck" being excavated by Ames from the I-394 project currently being built under the supervision of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 3. Begin's agreement with Ames is dated June 78 1989, although the parties began discussions on the contract in January of 1989, and Begin inquired into the necessity of obtaining city permits in March of 1989. 4. Begin seeks to deposit up to 500,000 cubic yards of the excavated material over 172 acres of the subject property at 5525 Xenium Lane. 5. Begin's contract with Ames provides that he will be paid i 0.50 for each cubic yard of "muck" he receives from Ames. 6. The land in question is zoned Future Restricted Development ("FRD") District. 7. Section 7, Subd. C, No. 32 of the City Zoning Ordinances requires a conditional use permit for land reclamation carried out in an FRD. 8. Land reclamation is defined in City zoning ordinance Section 4, Subd. B as "depositing fifty (50) cubic yards or more of material so as to elevate the grade." Begin has testified that he intends to elevate the grade approximately two feet - 2 - from the present elevation. 9. Section 400 of the Plymouth City Code incorporates the State Uniform Building Code, 1985 ed., which provides in Section 7003 that no person shall do any grading without first having a grading permit from the building official unless the permitee falls within one of nine specific exceptions. 10. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3595,gives express' authority to the City to require and issue conditional use permits for "certain land development activities." 11. Section 462.3595. Subd. 2, requires that public hearings be held "in the manner provided in Section 462.357, Subd. 3, Minnesota Statutes, providing for notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing published in an official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days prior to the date of hearing." 12. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.361, Subd. 2 provides that a person aggrieved by Sections 462.351 to 462.364 must exhaust his administrative remedies, unless the Court finds that such remedies would serve no useful purpose under the circumstances of the case. 13. Section 6 of the City Zoning Ordinances requires the City to conform to Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") shoreland management statutes and regulations under Minn. -Stat. Section 105.485 and Minnesota Rules 6120.2500 et. seg. 14. The City informed Begin on March 29, 1989 that Begin needed to obtain a grading and conditional use permit before the City would allow him to deposit fill material on the property. - 3 - =-13 15. On or about June 8, 1989, truck loads of excavated dirt were delivered to the subject land and deposited there, whereupon the City issued stop -work orders to the truck drivers and to Begin. i 16. Begin did not submit an application for either a grading or conditional use permit ("CUP") until July 6, 1989, after this Court granted Plymouth a temporary order restraining Begin from accepting any deliveries of fill to his property. 17. On July 6, 1989, Begin submitted partially completed grading and CUP applications to the City. 18. Begin's partially completed CUP application demonstrates that the proposed fill area falls partially within the boundaries of two DNR -protected shoreland areas. 19. There is no evidence that the fill material Begin contracted to receive from Ames is unique or irreplaceable. 20. Ames Construction, Inc. has informed Begin that it will cancel its contract with him as of August 1, 1989, unless he is able to resume accepting excavated material at the subject property by that date. 21. A substantial portion of the subject property is leased by Begin and is contractually available to him only through March 31, 1990. 22. The Minnesota department of Transportation will not pay Ames Construction for hauling fill material to sites which do not have the necessary approvals from governing authorities. - 4 - \3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Begin's use of the property is not a nonconforming use. 2. The City's requirement for a conditional use permit for "land reclamation' applies to agricultural uses. 3. The City's requirement for a grading permit applies to the hauling of fill material contemplated by Begin. 4.. The City has demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm if Begin is allowed to haul the fill material prior to the completion of the City permit process. 5. Begin has not shown that he will suffer irreparable harm if the temporary injunction issues. Furthermore, any harm that Begin may suffer was avoidable. 6. It appears that the City has a strong chance of prevailing on the merits of its claim that Begin must apply for grading and conditional use permits before fill material in excess of 50 cubic yards can be lawfully hauled into his property. 7. There is demonstrable potential adverse impact upon = matters affecting the public interest if Begin is allowed to haul fill material prior to the granting of City permits. S. There will be no unreasonable administrative burdens imposed on the City if the temporary injunction issues._ ORDER 1. The temporary restraining order is not vacated and Begin shall be temporarily enjoined from accepting or allowing any fill material or grading on the property that - 5 - 21C is the subject matter of this dispute, until a final decision following a trial on the merits or until the City grants the necessary permits. BY THE COURT: la --O�4 Judge Isabel Gomez Dated: July 2 6 , 1989 - 6 - August 1, 1989 Mr. Peter Bih The Tea House 88 Nathan Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Peter: CITY OF PLYMOUTFF `i - � 40". Thank you for stopping in yesterday to discuss several matters relating to your on -sale intoxicating liquor license. This letter should answer your questions. 1. Can I remain open until 1:00 a.m.? As we discussed, the state law now allows you to remain open seven days a week until 1:00 a.m. (You are allowed to remain open on Sunday because you hold a Sunday liquor license.) However, because you are located in a shopping center, you can only be open if you are serving food from your restaurant. 2. Do I have to keep the entire restaurant open? Yes. The City Council policy, a copy of which I provided you, is to require a minimum of 150 seats for dining in any restaurant. As a practical matter you may encourage patrons to use only a portion of the dining area, but the restaurant must be open. 3. Can I remodel to have a separate area that I can leave open while closing the rest of the restaurant? No. See Item 2 above. You must obtain a permit prior to any remodeling. If you decide to proceed to make application for a permit, Mike Kulczyk, Assistant Building Official, will be able to assist you. He can be reached at 559-2800 extension 225. There will some time between when you submit your application for a permit and when you receive your permit to proceed with the work. In addition to City approval, your plans must be approved by the Hennepin County Health Department before your permit is issued and you can begin work. I wanted you to be aware of it now so you are prepared for that time delay. If you have any further questions, please stop in and see me. Sincerely, Laurie Rauenhorst City Clerk cc: City Council Mike Kulczyk, Assistant Building Official 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 POLICY RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSES Resolution No_ 89-90 (Supersedes Res. No. 66-105, duly 11, 1966; Res. No. 73-306, February 6, 1989 August 6, 1973; Res. No. 79-775, November 19, 1979; Res. No. 80-935, December 15, 1980; Res. No. 81-802, November 23, 1981; Res. No. 82-201, April 19, 1982; Res. No. 85-180, March 4, 1985; Res. 87-717, October 26, 1987). I. Data requirements for consideration of license requests: a. Prior to staff acceptance of each application for a new "on -sale" intoxicating liquor license, the applicant shall submit: (1) Complete application and other supporting materials required by the City Clerk. (2) Survey plat plan of the proposed site of the establishment showing location, size, shape, construction, site landscaping and off-street parking drawn to scale and prepared by a registered surveyor or engineer. The survey plat plan must also show all parcels within 750 feet of the property line of the proposed establishment indicating the zoning and guiding of each and whether the property is developed. (3) Sketches of the proposed structure showing front, rear and side elevations, which sketches shall indicate the material to be used in the exterior facings of the structure. The suggested floor plan of the proposed establishment shall also be submitted together with the information regarding the anticipated volume of liquor to food, type of entertainment provided (if any), and any other relevant information requested. (4) Signed release forms and supporting data required by the Plymouth Police Department to complete the background investigation. Each applicant and application for on sale liquor license will be thoroughly investigated by the Plymouth Police Department in accordance with the then prevailing department procedures governing such investigations. A summary report and recommendations of the Police Department investigation findings shall be forwarded to the City Council through the City Clerk's office for consideration at the time of public hearing. (5) The appropriate license fee as provided in Section 1010.01, Subd. 5 of the Plymouth City Code. (6) Investigation fee to cover the costs associated with a comprehensive investigation of the applicant as follows: (a) $500 if investigation is limited to within the State of Minnesota; or (b) $2500 minimum for investigation required outside the State. (c) The $500 or $2500 investigation fee shall be non-refundable and due whether the license is ultimately approved or denied. Actual costs incurred by the City for out of state investigations only, in excess of $2500, but less than $10,000, shall be invoiced to and paid by the applicant prior to the public hearing for consideration of the license. -1- II. Criteria for various types of on sale licenses. The City Council will consider on sale liquor requests from restaurant facilities properly located in accordance with the zoning ordinance which are free standing (including hotels and motels), located in an office building or located within a shopping center. For the purposes of this policy free standing means a single building located on a single parcel. The criteria for new and renewal licenses for each type of facility are as set forth below by an "X" for the type of structure proposed: Free Office Shopping Criteria for new license issuance: Standing Building Center 1. Building (exclusive of land) must have a minimum valuation of $1,250,000*. X 2. Property line for building shall not be within 500 feet of the property line of a church or school. X X X 3. If the property line of proposed facility is within 750 feet of property line of resident- ially zoned or guided property, the Council may require special conditions including, but not limited to: landscaping, berming, light- ing, hours of operation, security guard, traffic control or other special mitigating efforts at the Council's sole option. X X X 4. Licensee may only be a restaurant. X X X 5. Liquor bar(s) prohibited in facility. X 6. Live music or dancing prohibited. X 7. Facility must have a minimum 150 seats for dining. X X Additional criteria for renewal license requests: 1. Provide a certified Public Accountant's state- ment showing total sales, food sales, liquor sales and percentage of total sales for each for previous year. The Council shall not normally renew the license unless at least forty (40) percent of the establishment's annual gross sales is in the serving of prepared food. X X X 2. The City Council shall annually review the oper- ation of all establishments possessing on -sale liquor licenses prior to the expiration date. The Council will not normally issue a license for a business which is not established, or is closed for business as of January 31 of any given year. In such cases, the Council shall make a determination as to whether or not the license should be renewed based upon a report presented by the Manager together with supporting material obtained through the Police Department investigation. X X X -1a- Criteria also required for renewal: Free Office Standing Building --I:- l L1 c.,_ Shopping Center 3. Applicants requesting license renewal shall be responsible for submitting all items required for new application in the format designated by the City Clerk and Police Department with the exception of items No. 1.a.(2), 1.a.(3) and 1.a.W . X X X III. City Council criteria for licensing approval (new or renewal) all facilities (1) It shall be the policy of the City of Plymouth to consider the following criteria in addition to applicant conformity with state statute, city ordinance and this policy in determining whether a new or renewal license shall be granted: (a) The investigative and staff report submitted by the Police Department and City Clerk. (b) Input received through the public hearing process. (c) A showing by the applicant that: (1) Adequate vehicular transportation facilities, in accordance with city comprehensive plans, are available to serve the site. (2) Adequate buffering and distance is in place or to be provided by the licensee to assure adequate buffering to adjacent residential neighborhoods. (3) The petitioners has or will take affirmative action to minimize public safety type problems commonly associated with on -sale liquor establishments (including, but not limited to D.W.I. drivers, disturbing the peace, etc.). Such affirmative action may include, but not be limited to, the following programs and/or indicators: a. Purchase of Dram Shop insurance. b. Posting of local alcohol treatment resources for bartender/waitress use. It shall be the policy of the City Council to issue or deny on -sale liquor licenses as soon as practical following the public hearing for such a license. The Council shall not issue on -sale liquor licenses to be effective at a future date; rather it shall require the licensee to take immediate possession of the license. *Method of calculating building value: Annually, this figure shall be automatically revised based upon the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index for masonary bearing wall commercial buildings (Jan/Feb 1989 Index, 1485.2). The revised figures shall be based upon the ratio of the current index to previous year's index as described below. The Marshall and Swift building index for masonary bearing wall commercial buildings is secured for the same time period for the current year. The percentage increase between the old and the new index plus 100% is multiplied times the old dollar value for structure, etc., to yield the new dollar value. -1b- July 26, 1989 C. K. Ornburg 16405 - 5th Ave. N. Plymouth, MN 55447 SUBJECT: COMMENDATION FOR PARTICIPATION ON SPECIAL Dear Mr. Ornburg: DRUG ABUSE TASK FORCE \fib Thank you for your recent participation assembled to determine the City'sinvol ement IneCial educationalTaskr dr uthat was programs. Your contribution of time and energy will make Plymouth a better Place to live. In the past, we have directed our resources within our Police Department toward the supply side of the narcotics problem. This new approachp h Your committee recommended, deals with the side ofthis, that social problem. By addressing both sides of this human equation, we will make better use of our available resources. The wide City Council applauds your commitment to contributing strategies dealing with preventative drug and alcohol Thanks for getting involved! Sincerely, i gll Schneider Mayor VS:kec cc: City Council toward community - abuse programs. 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 C. K. Ornburg Judy Witebsky 16405 - 5th Ave. N. 10705 Union Terrace Way Plymouth, MN 55447 Plymouth, MN 55441 Wayne Rau Bill Nelson 3725 Pilgrim Lane 1869 Zanzibar Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 Plymouth, MN 55447 Loren Schiebe Gwen Martinson 13405 - 34th Ave. N. 4148 Winnetka Ave. N. Plymouth, MN 55441 New Hope, MN 55427 Gary Swedberg Carol Rhode 305 Vicksburg Lane 3000 Fernbrook Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 Plymouth, MN 55447 Jack MacBean Sandy Cooper 3685 Sycamore Lane 4105 Lancaster Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 Plymouth, MN 55441 Susan Ferris Karen Peters 4505 Nathan Lane 19020 - 26th Ave. N. Plymouth, MN 55441 Plymouth, MN 55447 Cindy Twes Mary Schroeder 4630 Forestview Lane 12825 - 30th Ave. N. Plymouth, MN 55442 Plymouth, MN 55441 Kim Bown Steve Root 4845 Yorktown Lane 2000 Archer Lane Plymouth, MN 55442 Plymouth, MN 55447 Lois O'Neill 11420 - 39th Ave. N. Plymouth, MN 55441 -=- NLA c.. a CITY C� July 28, 1989 PLYMOUTR eens and Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 SUBJECT: YOUR JULY 25, 1989 LETTER Dear Mr. & Mrs. Dubbelde: Your July 25, 1989 letter expresses concern about a sight obstruction consisting of weeds, brush, etc., on the north side of 3rd Avenue from Highway 101, west for about 200 feet. The City has implemented a site obstruction program. Myra Wicklacz in our Planning Department is responsible for administration of that program. By copy of this letter, I am referring your concern to Myra, requesting that she keep both you and I apprised of her progress. Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention. Sincerely, 4/ Zealz.� irgil Schneider Mayor VS:kec cc: Myra Wicklacz, Development Services Technician S.F. 8/4/89 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 a:L-kyQ-1 bcc: �12lANK BuYLES �y C.. MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: August 1, 1989 TO: Glen Upton, Weed Inspector FROM: Myra Wicklacz, Development Services Technician SUBJECT: JULY 28, 1989 LETTER FROM VIRGIL SCHNEIDER Please find attached a letter from Virgil Schneider t Last year Don Kissinger removed weeds, brush and small trees from this area. The homeowner(s) have not made any effort to keep the brush and weeds trimmed in the right-of-way in the rear of their yard. I am forwarding this complaint to you because it falls within your jurisdiction and is not considered an intersection sight obstruction. Please keep me informed as to when this has been completed. I suggest using the policy involved in Section 810 of City Code, if possible. If you have additional questions in regard to this, please contact me at Extension 252. cc: Don Kissinger (nu/mw/upton:tw) CITY OF OF PLYMOUTR August 2, 1989 Joseph and Nancy Stein 4535 Arrowood Lane Plymouth, MN 55442 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stein: I am in receipt of your letter dated July 26, 1989, with regard to the parking problem on Arrowood Lane. I concur 100% with your letter that Arrowood Lane is not designed for park parking. We have provided parking for the park off Zachary Lane, with overflow parking available at both the Zachary Elementary School and Pilgrim United Methodist Church. Unfortunately, some park visitors continue to look for the shortcut, rather than using the proper entrance and exit from the park. I have attached for your information two letters, one from Dick Carlquist and one from me, to Mary Kay Fritts at 4545 Arrowood Lane addressing this same subject. After you have had an opportunity to look this letter over, and perhaps discuss the situation with Mrs. Fritts, I would be pleased to meet with you to further discuss this matter. The summer soccer and baseball season is coming to an end this week, thus, I hope that the problem will, for the short term, quickly improve. Therefore, we will work toward a more permanent and long term solution, which could be implemented prior to next summer's active season. Thank you for your time and interest in this matter. Sincerely, Eric J. Blank, Director Parks and Recreation EJB/np cc: City Manager Public Safety Director Superintendent of Parks 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 CITY OF PLYMOUTR July 28, 1989 Mary Kay Fritts 4545 Arrowood Lane Plymouth, MN 55442 SUBJECT: PARKING NOTICES Dear Ms. Fritts: Enclosed are approximately 100 parking notices for you and your neighbors to use. They are being sent as requested and referred to in the letter you received a few days ago from Richard Carlquist, Public Safety Director. Hopefully, these notices will alleviate some of the problems you have experienced with park visitors using the residential street near your home. If you need more notices, please contact me. Sincerely, Eric J. Blank, Director Parks and Recreation EJB/np cc: Richard J. Carlquist 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800 LIJ U :Z: -; �y C0 ~ d W cc Q W O V5 W LLJ W F- CO > Q Ca LU V Y U X Q CL m a Q D a. oc 0 O �. W _ O U. J Q ~W c � C W in z D � w W In a. z cn J .j- D o W z(1) z = J aW O W� Mv Q W C.) Z W .J z< W z W CL J O 00 a o0 a. _-' a�coc >? � aW oc z � O u�� a.W a cn� � =a moo. � Q� =W OmQ z 0 a. l✓�0� S Coe, I \_ AUG 2 1989 IF /i,`E'.1 To the Chief of Police: Attached you will find a petition from all of the homeowners, with the exception of one family on vacation, who live on 24th and 25th Ave. N. We want the City of Plymouth to provide us with police protection. �A`k-P'— apprehend these criminals.., With the current road construction of the above streets, we are being required to remove our automobiles from the safety of our property and park them, unattended, on a city street away from our homes. We want the City of Plymouth to provide extra police protection for our automobiles. cc: Mayor Virgil Schneider All Council Members Name Address 5. 8 . . �h,a. ? F ai S- ay k, n1. 1 o . ��oC. lyfl{-� MOO 12 13 14 15 Page 1 of Petition We the residents of 23rd Ave. N., 24th Ave. N. and Troy are%`,�)- concerned about the substantial increase in crime in our neighborhood. Within the last two weeks, we have had five AUG 2 X83 r cars broken into, one car theft, and one burglary. -- t' ;yid _ �. ..,Viitx We feel that the City of Plymouth is not providing our s�� ui-r�`'"°`c��< neighborhood with adequate police protection. We want f\ additional police patrols during the night, when these \_ crimes are being committed, and a concerted effort to ' r apprehend these criminals.., With the current road construction of the above streets, we are being required to remove our automobiles from the safety of our property and park them, unattended, on a city street away from our homes. We want the City of Plymouth to provide extra police protection for our automobiles. cc: Mayor Virgil Schneider All Council Members Name Address 5. 8 . . �h,a. ? F ai S- ay k, n1. 1 o . ��oC. lyfl{-� MOO 12 13 14 15 11 Page I of Petition We the residents of 23rd Ave. N., 24th Ave. N. and Troy are concerned about the substantial increase in crime in our neighborhood. Within the last two weeks, we have had five cars broken into, one car theft, and one burglary. We feel that the City of Plymouth is not providing our neighborhood with adequate police protection. We want additional police patrols during the night, when these crimes are being committed, and a concerted effort to apprehend these criminals— With the current road construction of the above streets, we are being required to remove our automobiles from the safety of our property and park them, unattended, on a city street away from our homes. We want the City of Plymouth to provide extra police protection for our automobiles. cc: Mayor Virgil Schneider All Council Members ,,-)r, 1 1 Name Address 2. 3. 4.4 5� 6.� 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. d 13. 14. 15. CITY OF August 1, 1989 PLYMOUTR Mr. Tom Anderson, Mayor City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Hamel, MN 55340 SUBJECT: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY NORTHEAST CORNER, COUNTY ROAD 24 AND BROCKTON LANE Dear Mayor Anderson: I wish to thank you and other Medina officials for meeting with the City of Plymouth to discuss the proposed development by Lundgren Brothers Construction Company, immediately adjacent to the Medina/Plymouth City boundary and north of County Road 24. Our discussions were on street access along our common boundary between County Road 24 and Medina Road. The City of Medina has reviewed the development proposed by Lundgren Brothers Construction Company and submitted comments to the City of Plymouth in letters dated June 1 and June 9, 1989. The City of Medina is requesting that right-of-way be provided for the extension of Brockton Lane to 200 feet north of the centerline of County Road 24. In order to do this, a portion of the right-of-way would be from property within the City of Medina and the other portion from within the proposed development. The development proposal currently before the City of Plymouth does not provide for the extension of Brockton Lane. A new street is proposed approximately midway between Brockton Lane and Xanthus Lane to provide access to the development. I am attaching a copy of a letter which we received from the Hennepin County Department of Public Works reviewing the access to County Road 24. That letter states that although the County would approve the access as proposed, they strongly recommend that street entrances opposite Brockton and/or Xanthus Lane be pursued. The letter further states that Hennepin County strongly encourages the Cities of Plymouth and Medina to coordinate on a street entrance on the municipal boundary at Brockton Lane. -00 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD.. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 Mr. Tom Anderson, Mayor August 1, 1989 Page Two If the extension of Brockton Lane is to be developed at this time in order to provide access to the Lundgren Brothers development, the City of Medina would need to make a commitment on providing the necessary right-of-way that is within the City of Medina. Also, our City Council is interested in whether Medina would pay a portion of the street construction costs since it will also serve your community. This extension of Brockton Lane would provide access for future development in Medina. I am requesting that street access at Brockton Lane be brought before the Medina City Council in order that the two questions raised by our City Council can be answered. Please let me know if you would like me to attend a meeting with the Medina City Council. Sincerely, Fred G. Moore, P.E. Director of Public Works FGM:kh enclosure cc: Terry Forbord, Lundgren Brothers Dan Faulkner, City Engineer - Plymouth Chuck Dillerud, Development Coodinator - Plymouth James G. Willis, City Manager - Plymouth Loren Kohmen, City of Medina DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Operations Division .,g�� �a'`•' NNEPIN 320 Washington Ave. South � �J HE Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468�,� C-.,LFU Phone: (612) 935-3381 - July 27, 1989 Fred Moore City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Re: Lundgren Bros. Sketch Plan, CSAH 24 Fred: At your request Hennepin County has done a detailed review of the access possibilities to the above site at the northeast quadrant of Brockton Lane and County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 24. Although the proposed access would be acceptable if it were the only viable location, we strongly recommend that street entrances opposite Brockton and/or Xanthus Lanes be pursued. Normal cross intersections are always preferable to a series of "T's" in order to limit the conflict areas and the total number of conflicting turning movements. Moreover, an entrance near the middle of the property frontage could well become right turns only when median islands are installed for left turns at the Brockton/Xanthus intersections. Since the Xanthus Lane alignment apparently is not part of the plat proposal, Hennepin County strongly encourages the cities of Plymouth and Medina to cooperate on a street entrance on the municipal boundary at Brockton Lane. This location would very satisfactorily serve both the Lundgren Bros. site and the area east of Holy Name Drive in Medina. Now that a more detailed proposal is available this review supercedes the one done last July, where the concepts were sketchy and no formal action had begun. Thanks for the opportunity to review this sketch plan. Please call with any further questions. Sincerely, David K. Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator DKZ:pl cc: Terry Forbord, Lundgren Bros. Dan Faulkner, Plymouth Chuck Dillerud, Plymouth Loren Kohmen, Medina HENNEPIN COUNTY an equol opportunity employer WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION CENTER 32 Tenth Avenue South, Suite 211, Hopkins, MN 55343 (612) 933-0005 July 28,1989 Frank Boyles Assistant City Manager City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Dear Mr. Boyles, A mediation with an agreement took place yesterday at the Plymouth Civic Center with Mary Schiender,17387 County Road 06, another party, and Dave Johnson from Herb's Service Center. Dave Johnson will write up a disciplinary policy covering the noise problem within a maximum of 30 days. He also will write regarding the loitering on the premises and muffle the driveway bell "ding." They also agreed to discuss any future problems with each other. We will be checking on compliance with the agreement and have sent evaluations of the service to the parties involved. Thank you for this referral. Sincerely, Ginny Mezera Case Developer by Sue Nelson Executive Director CITY OF PLYMOUTR July 31, 1989 Mr. Mark Hendricks Superior Roofing Inc. 2717 East 32nd St. Mpls., MN 55407 Dear Mr. Hendricks: Thank you for taking the time to submit a Public Service Counter Customer Comment Card. I am pleased to learn that Building Senior Clerk Tammy Ward and Receptionist Val Krisko have provided you with excellent service. Our objective continues to be to provide the best possible service to the residents of our community and those conducting business with the city. Thanks again for your comments on our performance. Sincerely, Helen LaFave Communications Coordinator cc: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager 34nG PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 — v-0", MEMO DATE: July 31, 1989 TO: Joe Ryan & Laurie Rauenhorst FROM: Helen LaFave, Communications Coordinator SUBJECT: CUSTOMER COMMENT CARD The attached Public Service Counter Customer Comment Card was received on July 24. Mark Hendricks from Superior Roofing commented on the excellent service that he received from Val Krisko and Tammy Ward. Please share his comments with them. CITY OF PLYMOUTH PUBLIC SERVICE COUNTERS CUSTOMER COMMENT CARD We value your opinion about the service you receive at the Public Service Counters! Please complete this card and drop It in a Customer Comment Box. Date �Time Aid -- jQ With which department(s) did yo deal lc Name of person you saw Did you have an appointment? Yes No"' ' Was service prompt? Yes l-- No Was service courteous? Yes 1./ No Is there information you still require? W Your name would be appreciated; however, if you should prefer to remain anonvmcosA we,still*alO your observations. Name Address 11 1 r,,l, Phone MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMDUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMXM, MIN SOTA 55447 DATE: August 2, 1989 TO: James G. Willis, City Manager through Blair Trenere, Commmnity Development Director FROM: Scott L. Hovet, City Assessor JA To my knowledge I have never been contacted by the Harstad Companies or Chuck Leer and Associates in regard to the property tax ramifications of rezoning land in Plymouth from I -P (I-1) to LA1 (R-lA). Further, the Assessing Division has not ever developed computer "modeling" as an analytical tool for the private sector or anyone else. It would be a waste of manpower, public funds, and our computer system to do this type modeling. Our new computer system is being totally designed for the benefit of speedily arriving at reasonable, logical, and equalized market value conclusions for mass appraisal purposes. The only "modeling" which is yet to be developed, is for sales ratio analysis by neighborhood to more accurately measure our "quality" of assessment across neighborhood lines. In the past, I have quoted, and it has been proven, that residential vs industrial development will generate somewhat similar market value if the residential development is of high enough caliber. The property tax yield generated from industrial vs residential single family land is much greater and can be demonstrated by using the following scenario: Example: 2 acres of residential land will produce 2 upscaled single family homes per acre or 4 homes using an average sale price of $325,000. Total market value: $1,300,000. A "typical" industrial lot would encompass the same 2 acres with the assumption that a building could be constructed not to exceed 35 percent lot coverage. (30,000 sq. ft.) Total market value: $1,500,000. The real estate tax yield for these 2 example lots with different land uses are as follows: INDUSTRIAL VS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY TAX YIELDS August 2, 1989 Page 2 RESIDENTIAL DEVELrOPMENT (R-lA) 2 acres zoned Residential: 4 singlefamily homes with market values of $325,000. $325,000 x 4 $1,300,000. (market value) Each $325,000. hems would generate an annual property tax bill (payable 1989) of $ 8,722. x 4 yield from 2 acres of R -1A land. i�l�. ���._.4.__ �1�� _� • Liar . -. slot Current land market values of $1.75 per. sq. ft. equals an improved land value of $150,000. Up to a 30,000 sq. ft. indust- rial building could be built. 30,000 sq. ft. x S 45, per sq. ft. $ 1,350,000. +S 150,000. land value $ 1,500,000. (market value) property tax yield from 2 acres of I-1 land = 578.750. For property tax yield purposes, ideally, if every parcel in the city were developed as commercial or retail (B-2 or B-3 zone) it would generate the maximum amount of property tax since it is the highest price land and would support the most expensive type buildings that could be constructed. Typically, residential land sells for, and is valued between, a $1.00 to a $1.50 per. sq. ft. Industrial land sells for between $1.50 and $2.50 per. sq. ft. Conr ercial/retail land sells between $3.50 and $10.00 per. sq. ft. In the above realistic example, the "property tax yield" from industrial developrnent is better than double that of residential development considering the same amount of land area and 2 different land uses. Even if fiscal disparities were deducted, the industrial tax yield is still over 50% higher than residential. cc: Dale Hahn, Finance Director Assessing Staff MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMDUM BOULEVARD, PLYMDUIH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: August 1, 1989 ZOO: James G. Willis, City Manager FROM: Scott L. Hovet, City Assessor SUBJECT: SPEAKER AT EDINA REALTY SALES MEETING This morning, I conducted some public relations by speaking in front of the sales force of Edina Realty in the Wayzata office, There was about 75 realtors in attendance and I was greeted very warmly JW my presentation. I furnished than with several handouts with regard to property taxes in Plymouth. Those included, the Property Tax Puzzle, pre -calculated property taxes by range of market values within school districts, and an article that. will be published in a future Plymouth on Parade entitled "Sale Price vs Market Value". I also informed them of some of the limitations and the reasoning behind information we give out over the telephone. I think they also found it very interesting as to how we arrive at market value on a mass scale and the property tax system in general. For their benefit, I also informed then that we have approximately 2200 new residents moving into Plymouth each year and that we have on the average 1,500 hones sell each year in Plymouth. I also stressed the fact, virtually unknown to then, that we have the second lowest tax rate of any major city in the metropolitan area. They felt this would be very helpful in the selling of houses in Plymouth. I also told them they could not be in business without us nor could we be in business without them. cc: Dale Hahn, Finance Director Assessing Staff