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