HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 08-03-1987Z
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
A G E N D A
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 3, 1987
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine by the
City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in
which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered
in normal sequence on the agenda.
1. CALL TO ORDER M&IRMTTO
2. INVOCATION
3. ROLL CALL
4. CONSENT AGENDA
5. MINUTES - Approval of Minutes of the Special Council
meeting of July 27, 1987
6. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Vacation of street right-of-way, East Medicine
Lake Boulevard adjacent to Jevne's Addition
B. Revocation or suspension of off -sale intoxicating
liquor license for Jack Wenner dba Party Mart
Liquor Store
7. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. R. Brokke/Power Industries. Powell Lincoln
Mercury, Variances at southeast corner of I-494
and C.R. 9 (87049)
B. U-Do-Carwash. Reduction of Site Performance
Agreement and Financial Guarantee, 14440 28th
Place (85109)
C. Wagner Spray Tech, Wagner Addition. Rezoning and
Preliminary Plat at 1770 Fernbrook Lane (87030)
D. Declaring cost and setting public hearing for 1987
removal and destruction of diseased trees for
August 17, 1987
E 7. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
E. AmeriData Systems, Inc. Conditional Use Permit
for daycare at their facility at 10200 51st Ave.
8705 5 )
F. Harstad Companies, Lake Camelot Estates 2nd
Addition. PUD Final Plan/Plat north of C.R. 47
and Annapolis Lane (87056)
G. Peace Lutheran Church. Rezoning, Conditional Use
Permit and Site Plan for church addition at 3695
Highway 101 (87061)
H. Greenland Investments, Midwest Brick and Supply.
Preliminary Plat, Site Plan and Conditional Use
Permit at 5205 C.R. 18 (87064)
I. Kathleen Strnad. Home Occupation Conditional Use
Permit for Word Processing Service at 1750 Ranier
Lane (87072)
J. Bond Reductions:
1) Fox Run 2nd Addition (85066)
2) Heritage West 2nd Addition (86048)
3) Deerwood Glen Plat Two (86084)
K. Award contract, Tyrell 5th Addition, Project 737
8. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. Results of EAW on Schmidt Lake Road, Project 705
B. Fence Violations
C. Receive status report on clean up at 5140 Zachary
Lane
D. 1988 Budget - Levy Limit Calculations
9. ADJOURNMENT
0a4
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: July 29, 1987 For Council Meeting of August 3, 1987
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager, through Fred G. Moore Director of
Public Works
FROM: Sherman L. Goldberg, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Vacate Street Right -of -Way
East Medicine Lake Boulevard
Adjacent to Lots 4, 5 and 6 of
Jevne's Subdivision of Block 17
Medicine Lake Park Addition
Public Hearing
We are in receipt of a petition from Richard V. Vanman, requesting
that the City vacate a portion of the street right-of-way on East
Medicine Lake Boulevard, adjacent to his Lots 4, 5 and 6 of Jevne's
Subdivision. His intention is to combine the vacated street
right-of-way with the existing lots adjacent to said right-of-way and
obtain building sites for residential homes. The lots are adjacent
to Medicine Lake. As he pointed out in his letter, the traveled
roadway is to the far North of the platted right-of-way.
We do not recommend that the right-of-way be vacated. The lots are
marginal in size. We also have to reserve space for a proposed
regional trail as well as future utilities.
I recommend that the Council adopt the attached resolution denying
the vacation request.
Sherman L. Goldberg, P.E.
SLG:kh
Attachments: Resolution
Petition
Map
CITY OF PLYMOUTH 4.;
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City
Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota was held on the day
of 1987. The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
introduced the following Resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
DENYING THE VACATION OF STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
EAST MEDICINE LAKE BOULEVARD ADJACENT TO LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 OF
JEVNE'S SUBDIVISION, BLOCK 17
MEDICINE LAKE PARK ADDITION
WHEREAS, a petition was received to vacate a portion of East Medicine Lake
Boulevard lying adjacent to Lots 4, 5 and 6 of Jevne's Subdivision of Block 17,
Medicine Lake Park Addition, by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, The City Council established a public hearing date of August 3, 1987,
and a notification of publication of said hearing was published and posted two
weeks prior to the meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Council did hold a public hearing August 3, 1987, to inform any
and all interested parties relevant to the vacation of said street in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes 412.851 as amended; and
WHEREAS, it was determined by the City Council that the street right-of-way is
needed for public purposes which include space for future trail and utility
location;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA that the following street right-of-way not be vacated:
The Southerly 55' of East Medicine Lake Boulevard 450' along the
Northerly line of Lots 4, 5 and 6 of Jevne's Subdivision of Block 17,
Medicine Lake Park.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against or abstained:
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
t :rrCr • .LLI _---.11Y-_iV J ++^ Mr
P '._.
C- - - - - - i • ,M ', ` •• - -- . "T, ..::. - d sem'""'' r ., ,,,r '
2 I •,,,• , Q o _ . .. 1 :S p.' »
AT,e
rrz
Ni
J•
8 Vt I
3
1
S
M I N U T E S
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 27, 1987
A special meeting of the Plymouth City Council was called to
order by Mayor Schneider at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Cham-
bers of the City Center at 3400 Plymouth Boulevard on July 27,
1987.
PRESENT: Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers Crain (who arrived at
7:43 p.m.), Vasiliou, Zitur, and Sisk, Manager Willis,
Planning Director Tremere, Public Works Director
Moore, Park Director Blank, Finance Director Hahn,
Director Carlquist, City Attorney Thomson, and City
Clerk Brandt
ABSENT: None
CONSENT AGENDA
Motion was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by Councilmember CONSENT AGENDA
Zitur, to adopt the consent agenda with modifications to the Item 4
minutes of the July 20 meeting.
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, four ayes.
MINUTES
MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by Councilmember MINUTES - REGULAR
Zitur, to approve the minutes of the Regular Council meeting of COUNCIL MEETING JULY
July 20, 1987 with modifications reflecting Councilmember's Sisk 20, 1987
questions and comments regarding the organized collection and Item 5*
recycling proposals.
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, four ayes.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor Schneider opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING -
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE
Jan Bloom, 3223 Flag Court, stated she is taking care of the Item 6-A
cleanup at 5140 Zachary Lane. She has the property owner's
power of attorney.
Attorney Thomson stated power of attorney means she has the pro-
perty owner's permission to sign documents and take care of the
situation. The property owner still has the responsibility of
getting the nuisance problem resolved. The proposed resolution
finds that this is a public nuisance and orders that the pro-
perty owner remove these items by August 10.
Special Council Meeting
July 27, 1987
Page 215
Ms. Bloom stated a lot of the cars have been removed and they
are in the process of removing the hay and weeds and taking care
of the lawn; this will be a total clean up.
Attorney Thomson stated that on August 11, if the property were
not cleaned up, the City would order the Job completed and
assess the costs against the property.
Manager Willis stated he will provide the Council with a status
report on August 3. There appears to be a good faith effort
being made to clean the property.
Ms. Bloom stated it is her intention to do a complete clean up
so they can rent the property until it is sold.
Councilmember Crain Joined the meeting at 7:43 p.m.
Director Carlquist stated the report lists 11 nuisances still on
the property which should give Ms. Bloom something to work on byAugust10.
Mayor Schneider closed the hearing at 7:47 p.m.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Zitur, seconded by Councilmem-
ber Sisk, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-492 DIRECTING AND ORDERING
THE ABATEMENT OF A NUISANCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY
HAZARD BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO
COMPLETE REQUIRED CLEANUP AND ASSESS COSTS INCUDING EXPENSES
AGAINST THE PROPERTY PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 2010 adding
the following to the eighth paragraph: "and all other items
identified in the police department's report which has been fur-
nished to the property owner's representative at the July 27,
1987 Council meeting."
Attorney Thomson stated the Council, by approving the resolu-
tion, gives the City the authority to clean up the property if
the property owner doesn't.
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, four ayes. Councilmember
Crain abstained.
PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Manager Willis stated that this item was referred to this meet-
ing because of a question on the park easement at the July 20
meeting. Director Blank has proposed a 30 ft. trail to the
north of the cul-de-sac which has been included in the resolu-
tion as condition #14.
Director Blank stated he is recommending an easement at this
time and, if the property to the north is developed as indus-
trial and the easement isn't needed, it can be vacated.
RESOLUTION NO. 87-492
ABATEMENT F NUISW-NTF
HEALTH & SAFETY HAZARD
Item 6-A
4
Special Council Meeting
July 27, 1987
Page 216
MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by Councilmember ORDINANCE NO. 87-15
Zitur, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 87-15 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDI- AMENDING ZONING E
NANCE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED AT 54TH AVENUE AND REZONING LAND
NATHAN LANE TO R-3 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENCE) DISTRICT PONDS NORTH
AND I-1 (PLANNED INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT. 87058)
Item 7-A
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by Councilmember RESOLUTION NO. 87-493
Zitur, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-493 SETTING CONDITION TO BE SETTING CONDITION
MET PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE REZONING LAND LOCATED AT REZONING LAND
54TH AVENUE AND NATHAN LANE FOR DENNIS BACKES, NORTHWOOD HOMES, PONDS NORTH
INC. (87058). 87058)
Item 7-A
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by Councilmember RESOLUTION NO. 87-494
Zitur, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-494 APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT &
AND VARIANCE FOR DENNIS BACKES, NORTHWOOD HOMES, INC. FOR PONDS VARIANCE, PONDS NORTH
NORTH (87058). 87058)
Item 7-A
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by Councilmember RESOLUTION NO. 87-495
Zitur, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-495 REDUCING DEVELOPMENT BOND, BOND REDUCTION
GLEN ECHO PONDS 2ND ADDITION (84066) to $0. GLEN ECHO PONDS 2ND
84066)
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, four ayes. Item 7-B*
MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by Councilmember RESOLUTION NO. 87-496
Zitur, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-496 ACCEPTING BID, HIGHWAY 101 ACCEPTING BID
AND FERNBROOK LANE TRAILS, PROJECT NO. 724 from Hardrives, inc. HWY 101 & FERNBROOK
in the amount of $124,160.25. TRAILS, PROD. 724
Item 7-C*
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, four ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by Councilmember RESOLUTION NO. 87-497
Zitur, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-497 APPROVING TEMPORARY ON- TEMPORARY MALT LIQUOIT
SALE MALT LIQUOR LICENSE. LICENSE
Item 7-D*
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, four ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by Councilmember RESOLUTION NO. 87-498
Zitur, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-498 DECLARING SURPLUS PRO- RECONVEYANCE OF TAX
PERTY, RECONVEYING AND CONVEYING PORTIONS OF SAID PROPERTY AND FORFEIT LAND
APPROVING SALE OF SAME TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER THROUGH Item 7-E*
PRIVATE SALE.
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, four ayes.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Director Moore stated the Fernbrook project is slighty delayed PROJECT STATUS REPORT
because the surcharging wasn't completed, however, grading did Item 8-A
start today. The storm of last week set back work on the water
treatment plant by three to four days.
Special Council Meeting
July 27, 1987
Page 217
Mayor Schneider stated the proposal is to put cats under the
same control as dogs.
Councilmember Vasiliou noted that Minneapolis history is that
only 1 to 2% of cat owners retrieve their animals from the pound
after they have been picked up which leaves the City to pay all
the charges. She stated she doesn't know where Plymouth would
get the personnel to handle the situation.
Councilmember Sisk agreed but stated that the CSO's have told
residents calling with cat complaints that they cannot do any-
thing because the City doesn't have an ordinance against cats.
Mayor Schneider stated the City can address the problem under
its nuisance ordinance.
Councilmember Vasiliou stated it would be helpful if the home-
owners associations could police their own members. She isn't
sure any Council can address the "war" between responsible and
irresponsible pet owners.
Councilmember Zitur stated the City needs to educate residents
concerning nuisances and make use of the live traps. Plymouth
on Parade should be used as well as in person visits to home-
owners association meetings.
Mayor Schneider suggested that CSO's tell residents when they
complain that there is no cat control ordinance but the nuisance
ordinance will cover the problem.
It was the concensus of the Council that the nuisance ordinance
could cover the problem along with increased public education
and CSO use of the ordinance.
Councilmember Sisk stated that he can see the rationale with the
pooper scooper" law, however, enforcement would be very diffi-
cult and costly.
Councilmember Crain stated these activities are a nuisance but
enforcement will be difficult and expensive and the nuisance
ordinance should address this along with public education of the
problem and the law.
Councilmember Sisk suggested that, if the nuisance ordinance
doesn't cover this, the language should be changed.
Councilmember Zitur stated most of his calls are about dogs run-
ning loose and believes educating the public to the law is the
first step in the solution.
Mayor Schneider pointed out that, if the "pooper scooper" ordi-
nance were adopted, a level of service would be expected by the
public and the City cannot afford personnel to enforce it.
CAT CONTROL ORDINANCE
Item 8-B
Special Council Meeting
July 27, 1987
Page 218
Director Carlquist stated the nuisance ordinance already covers
any unhealthy activities.
Councilmember Crain suggested that signs be posted in the parks
stating what the leash law is.
Councilmember Vasiliou stated it isn't right that dogs run free.
Councilmember Sisk suggested having an officer patrol areas dur-
ing heavy use to stop and educate people to the law.
Discussion continued on enforcement, level of enforcement, and
how to educate the public.
Director Blank stated Section 915 of the City Code covers con-
trol of animals in public areas stating that they must be leash-
ed and are not allowed to defacate.
Director Carlquist stated he will begin selective enforcement in
the parks.
Councilmember Vasiliou stated she would categorize this as an
awareness issue for the police department to re -enforce the
ordinance with residents before beginning the fining process.
Councilmember Crain stated the offenders are probably chronic
and a period of enforcement might get the word around.
Mayor Schneider suggested giving warnings to people when they
are caught violating the ordinance and told that the City will
begin enforcing it in a short time.
Director Blank stated they have begun putting signs up on the
trails with the leash law on them because of the number of com-
plaints being received.
The Council agreed to the warning process beginning in the
parks with the ordinance being enforced after September 1.
Councilmember Vasiliou stated it appeared that erosion control EROSION CONTROL
works well, however, the policy doesn't seem to be working. She Item 8-C
noted that the same developers have to be called over and over
to make them comply.
Discussion followed on the problem of how to get developers to
be more proactive and how the City can enforce the policy.
Director Tremere stated this is not a Code enforcement matter
but, rather, is a policy administration matter.
Director Moore stated one of the problems is that the developers
are not monitoring builders in the development areas well
enough, however, the situation is much improved over other
years. He suggested one phone call to remind the developer of
the policy, then the fine.
Special Council Meeting
July 27, 1987
Page 219
Councilmember Sisk asked for a report of previous erosion con-
trol compliance when a developer comes to the Council with a new
development proposal.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Zitur, seconded by Councilmem-
ber Vasiliou, that the Mayor write a letter to the developers
and builders stating the Council's concerns.
Motion failed, one aye. Mayor Schneider and Councilmembers
Sisk, Vasiliou and Crain voted nay.
Attorney Thomson stated a policy cannot carry a court imposed
penalty such as a fine, however, a policy can be enforced and
can charge penalty fees.
Director Moore stated this is part of the development contract
and the money is taken out of the financial guarantee if the
developer doesn't pay the clean up costs.
Discussion followed about possible policy changes which would
establish penalty fees.
Attorney Thomson stated he believed the draft of the policy
change should be sent to the developers for their information.
Manager Willis stated the City should go after the individual
builders unless they cannot be determined, in which case we
would go after the developer.
Director Moore suggested a moratorium on all building in a
development until the streets are cleaned.
MOTION was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by Councilmember
Zitur, that a warning letter be sent to developers stating that
the policy is to be strictly enforced and, on August 3, the
Council will take this under consideration again; the Council
may direct that building inspections will cease unless erosion
control is in place and streets are clean. Penalties after
August 3 may be raised subject to the City Attorney's opinion.
Motion carried, five ayes.
Director Moore stated that the Pavement Management Study was PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
begun last year when the City retained Short -Elliott -Hendrickson STUDY
to conduct the study with the goal of protecting the City's in- Item 8-D
vestment in its streets. The study is now completed.
Dick Moore, Short -Elliott -Hendrickson, stated their study
nc udes all the streets in the City of which there are 206
miles. 25% show severe distress, 62% need routine maintenance,
and 13% are in poor condition requiring either partial or total
reconstruction. He recommended a two year program for the main-
tenance of streets be undertaken at a total estimated cost for
the improvements of approximately $3,000,000.
Special Council Meeting
July 27, 1987
Page 220
Director Moore summarized the study and the three proposed pro-
grams with their estimated costs and the split between the
City's cost and that which is recommended to be assessed to the
homeowners. He is recommending that the consultants submit a
proposal and the Council consider an infrastructure replacement
program.
Councilmember Sisk stated this is an issue which must be addres-
sed and believes the Council should get started on it. He would
not like to see the streets deteriorate any further.
Discussion followed on the priority areas and the cost of handl-
ing each.
Mayor Schneider stated he would like to see the yellow areas,
those requiring resurfacing, completed first before they deteri-
orate further.
Councilmember Sisk asked if the reconstruction would be to the
standards being used by the City today.
Director Moore answered that this wouldn't be an upgrading,
simply replacement of existing streets.
Councilmember Sisk asked how some reconstruction areas can be so
low in priority.
Director Moore answered that, when streets are reconstructed,
they would be to twenty year life at a 7 ton level and, if there
is no curb and gutter now, they would be without curb and
gutter.
MOTION was made by Councilmember
Vasiliou, to accept the report
contract with S.E.H.
Motion carried, five ayes.
Sisk, seconded by Councilmember
and direct staff to negotiate a
Mayor Schneider stated his concern is with putting the City's
priority on stopping the loss.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by CouncilmemberZitur, that the City Engineer revise the "Engineering Standards"
to include the recommendations in the Pavement Management Study,
present the revisions to the Development Council, and bring
these revisions back to the City Council for consideration.
Councilmember Sisk stated there are 206 miles of street and the
growth of the City could double this. The survey results show
that some roads have deteriorated prematurely because of subsoil
conditions. If the City could require that road construction in
certain areas reflect the soil conditions, the City wouldn't be
put in a position of having to replace roads prematurely and
absorb the costs because the road wasn't constructed right.
Special Council Meeting
July 27, 1987
Page 221
Director Moore stated there are engineering guidelines which he
can revise to incorporate the standards. These will be present-
ed to the development council and then the Council for action.
Mayor Schneider added he would like to see a recommendation on
the implementation of the new specifications; who falls under
the new standards and who falls under the old.
Motion carried, five ayes.
Director Moore stated these proposed office revisions should CITY CENTER OFFICE
provide enough space for office personnel for the next ten REVISIONS
years. The overall estimate is $120,000-$150,000. He summariz- Item 8-E
ed the plans.
Discussion followed on cost, colors, and equipment needed.
Councilmember Zitur stated his concern with the signage in the
lobby and how to attract customers to the right counter for
assistance. He would like to see additional furniture in the
lobby.
Councilmember Vasiliou stated her concer that none of the items
were bid.
Manager Willis stated it will be necessary to get bids if the
item exceeds $15,000, however, specifications have not yet been
established.
Director Moore pointed out that no contractors have been awarded
bids.
Attorney Thomson stated he would like to take a closer look at
the bidding requirements for this project with staff. He beli-
eves the appropriate approach is to comply with the bidding law
if applicable.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by Councilmember
Crain, to accept the recommendation of staff to revise the City
Center office building and instruct the City Attorney to work
with staff on putting together those items which are needed for
bidding.
Motion carried, four ayes. Councilmember Vasiliou abstained.
The Council reviewed the status of claims against the City. INSURANCE CLAIMS
Item 8-F
Director Blank reported on what other cities do and that most do PRIVATE DOCKS ON
not allow private docks on public property. He summarized the PUBLIC PROPERTY
four options. Item 8-G
Special Council Meeting
July 27, 1987
Page 222
Attorney Thomson addressed the options and the City's exposure
under each. There is one case in another city he is aware of
where a private dock on public property is an issue.
Mayor Schneider noted that, if the property owner provides
insurance, the liability would have to be at $600,000 to cover
the City's exposure.
Attorney Thomson stated additional measures should be taken,
such as requiring signs on the dock stating that it is a private
dock and warning about diving.
Lawrence Marofsky, who owns a dock on public park property onMedicineLake, stated this park land isn't used as park at all
and he would be willing to put up signs and a chain to keep
people off the dock. He would increase his homeowners insurance
or get an umbrella policy to cover himself to the $600,000
level.
Councilmember Sisk stated he preferred option four which would
permit the residents to keep existing docks if they insured the
City.
Councilmember Zitur stated he favored putting a stop to adding
any more docks but would allow the standing docks to stay.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Zitur, seconded by Councilmem-
ber Crain, that the three to five docks in question be allowed
to stay until such time the property is sold by these owners and
removed at that time. They will provide insurance and will mark
the dock private and take appropriate precautions to let people
know this is private and prohibit all public use of the dock.
Councilmember Zitur stated that when the property is sold this
permission is over with.
Mayor Schneider stated he preferred an annual review or permit
basis and not grandfather in these docks in case the City needed
the land at some time. The City should be reimbursed for its
time with the permit fee.
Councilmember Crain stated he would not want to allow any more
docks on active park property.
Mr. Marofsky stated he wanted the City to address the difference
between park and City owned property.
Councilmember Crain stated the purpose for limiting the permits
to these owners is to, over time, eliminate or correct the situ-
ation.
Councilmember Vasiliou stated she also favored option four, how-
ever, by limiting this to these existing docks it would exclude
others who may be in the same situation in the future.
Special Council Meeting
July 27, 1987
Page 223
Manager Willis asked if the Council was concerned with the num-
ber of boats which could be docked.
Director Blank stated most of the docks have two boats. He has
more research to do to determine the exact number of docks on
public park land.
Mayor Schneider suggested two boats be the limit and a boat in-
cludes anything licensed by the Department of Natural Resources.
Attorney Thomson stated the City would be part of any lawsuit
involving the docks. The main concern should be with liability.
Mayor Schneider stated he doesn't want the docks to be expanded
in any way.
Attorney Thomson stated this would have to be in an ordinance
form and he was reluctant to draft it tonight.
MOTION to amend was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by Coun-
cilmember Zitur, that ordinance language be drafted to indicate
that the Council is referring to those docks existing on July 1,
1987, for property owners across the street from park land and
that some kind of chain or security device be used to preclude
entrance onto the dock, and limiting the size and configuration
of the dock to that existing on July 1, 1987.
Motion carried, five ayes.
MOTION to amend was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by Coun-
cilmember Zitur, that this be an annual renewal showing evidence
of all the foregoing and an annual fee be established.
Attorney Thomson stated that since the Council is only address-
ing existing docks, they have the legal basis to ask the owners
to remove them at any time.
MOTION was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by Councilmember
Zitur, to amend the proposed amendment and the annual fee be
25.00.
Motion to amend the amendment carried, five ayes.
Motion as once amended carried, five ayes.
Main motion as twice amended carried, five ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Vasiliou, seconded by Council -
member Crain, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-499 RESCINDING POLICY
RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS TO HUNT DEER.
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes.
RESOLUTION NO. 87-499
RESCINDING POLICY
RELATING TO DEER HUNT
Item 8-H
Special Council Meeting
July 27, 1987
Page 224
MOTION was made by Councilmember Vasiliou, seconded by Council- RESOLUTION NO. 87-500
member Crain, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-500 REVISING CITY COUN- REVISING COUNCIL
CIL POLICY MANUAL. POLICY MANUAL
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes.
Item 8-H
Attorney Thomson summarized the case on which the Supreme Court REPORT ON SUPREME
decision regarding development moratoriums was based, the dif- COURT DECISION
ference between how a government entity takes the property, the DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM
significance of these to Plymouth, how the City could use around Item 8-I
the ruling, and the difference between staged growth and a mora-
torium.
Director Tremere showed examples of how the present ordinance
affects the height and location of fences, the effects of the
1985 amendment, and a proposed change which the Planning Commis-
sion did not recommend.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Crain, seconded by Councilmem- ORDINANCE NO. 87-16
ber Sisk, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 87-16 AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE AMENDIRTIZIMM
ORDINANCE NO. 80-9 ADOPTED DUNE 16, 1980 AS AMENDED, AND KNOWN ORDINANCE
AS THE PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE. Item 8-3
MOTION was made by Councilmember Zitur, seconded by Mayor
Schneider, to amend to add the following: "That corner lot
front yard be defined as the side of the lot toward which the
house faces the street and/or the side of the lot which the
driveway exits onto the street; the alternative yard may have a
6 ft. high fence as in a side or rear yard, provided the fence
does not obstruct vision for pedestrians and motor vehicle oper-
ators."
Councilmember Zitur stated he wanted this discussed by the Coun-
cil as the Planning Commission had reviewed it.
Director Tremere pointed out that this amendment would allow 6
ft. high fences within 10 ft. to 15 ft. of a neighbor's side
yard. It does address a concern of some corner lot owners who
seek privacy fencing.
Motion to amend failed, five nays.
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Crain, seconded by Councilmem- ORDINANCE NO. 87-17
ber Sisk, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 87-17 AMENDING PORTIONS OF AMENDING- PORTIONS ?Tr
CHAPTER V, PLANNING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS, OF THE PLYMOUTH PLANNING & LAND USE
CITY CODE SECTION 500, SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING OF LAND. GUIDE REGULATIONS
Item 8-O
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes.
Special Council Meeting
July 27, 1987
Page 225
MOTION was made by Councilmember Crain, seconded by Councilmem-
ber Sisk, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-501 APPROVING TEXTUAL
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE GUIDE PLAN ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COM-
PREHENSIVE PLAN.
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes.
Councilmember Zitur reported on the meetings he has attended in
the past month.
The meeting adjourned at 12:55 a.m.
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 87-501
TEXTOAL AMENDMENTS TO'
LAND USE GUIDE PLAN
ELEMENT
Item 8-3
CCR REPORTS
Item 8-K
It
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
July 30, 1987
James G. Willis, City Manager
Laurie Brandt, Clerk
PUBLIC HEARING - LIQUOR VIOLATION AT PARTY MART LIQUORS
SUMMARY: Plmouth City Code Section 1005 provides that "a license
issued, or to be issued, may be denied, suspended or revoked by the
Council for any of the following causes: (b) conviction of any crime or
misdemeanor pertaining to a license held or applied for, subject to the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 364." The Hennepin County
Court has accepted a guilty plea from a clerk at Party Mart for selling
liquor to a minor. The Council must now determine whether or not to
impose a civil penalty and the extent of that penalty.
At its duly 20 meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution ordering a
public hearing for August 3 to consider whether to revoke or suspend the
liquor license of hack Wenner dba Party Mart Liquor, 4130 Highway 101,
in accordance with the City Code provisions as a result of a liquor code
violation.
On May 15 a clerk at Party Mart sold 30 cans of beer to a person under
21 years of age (police report attached). The clerk has since pled
guilty to the charge and was convicted, see attached letter from Steve
Tallen. According to City Code 1215.03 Subd. 2, Civil Penalties, "The
City Council may either (i) impose a civil fine up to $2,000 or (ii)
suspend for a period not to exceed 60 days or revoke any license upon a
finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an
applicable......."
The Council should hear input from Mr. Wenner on the charge. Attached
is a report from Sgt. Larry Rogers along with his recommendation that a
warning, suspension, fine, or combination be levied against Party Mart.
Since this is the second violation within a seventeen month period, it
is recommended the Council take some action against the liquor store. A
resolution is attached which could be modified to suite the Council's
determination in this matter.
Att.
1
I
AGENDA FOR PUBLIC HEARING
LIQUOR ORDINANCE VIOLATION
AUGUST 3, 1987 - 7:30 P.M.
1. Call to Order - Mayor Schneider presiding, 7:30 p.m. at the City Council
Chambers
2. Introduce Councilmembers and staff - Mayor Schneider
3. Purpose of meeting - Mayor Schneider
A. The Council is to consider the suspension, revocation, or imposition of a
civil fine against hack Wenner dba Party Mart Liquor, 4130 Highway 101
B. The Police Department conducted an investigation of the charges and a copy
of the report is attached along with a letter from the City Attorney's
office on the outcome of the case.
4. The procedure for the hearing will be as follows:
A. Write name and address on blue card.
B. Pass card to person collecting them or give them to the Mayor.
C. When your name is called, come up to the microphone.
D. Please speak clearly into the microphone so that all may benefit from your
remarks.
E. No one may speak twice until all others who wish to have done so.
5. The meeting was carefully and thoroughly announced:
A. Notice was published in the Plymouth Post as required.
6. Open Hearing
7. Close Hearing
8. Determination of Council
Pursuant to
City Council
day of
present:
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the
of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the
19 The following members were
The following members were absent:
introduced the following Resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE
SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF OFF -SALE INTOXICATING LICENSE
JACK WENNER DBA PARTY MART LIQUOR
WHEREAS, Plymouth City Code provides that an off -sale liquor license issued by
the City Council may be denied, suspended or revoked by the Council for
conviction of any crime or misdemeanor pertaining to a license held or applied
for, subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 364; and
WHEREAS, Plymouth City Code Section 1005.23 provides that no license may be
suspended or revoked until after a hearing is held; and
WHEREAS, the Public Safety Department has reported that agents for the licensee
have been convicted for the sale of intoxicating liquor to a minor on May 15,
1987; and
WHEREAS, prior to this incident, on December 21, 1985, another liquor violation
was discovered involving this location; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Code a hearing was held on August 3, 1987
to determine whether the license should be suspended or revoked;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that is should and hereby does impose a
to Mr. Jack Wenner dba Party Mart Liquor Store, 4130 H10r- ighwayI
ymout , innesota.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
and upon vote being taken thereon, the
0 owing vote in avor t ereo
e o owing
vote against or a staine
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
S-6
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTHTE (
BLVD., DONEPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
MEMO
DATE: July 16 1987
TO:
James G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT LIQUOR ORDINANCE VIOLATION
SUMMARY: Plymouth City Code section 1005 provides that "a license
issued, or to be issued, may be denied, suspended or revoked by the
Council for any of the following causes: (b) conviction of any crime
or misdemeanor pertaining to a license held or applied for, subject to
the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 364." Attached is a
report from Sergeant Rogers, indicating that one of the clerks at
Plymouth Liquor Store, owned by Jack Wenner, has been prosecuted for
the illegal sales of intoxicating beverages to a minor. In accordance
with the City Code, we are advising the Council of this matter to
receive clarification on whether a public hearing should be held to
consider whether revocation, denial or suspension of this license is
appropriate. The City Code provides "no license may be suspended or
revoked until after a hearing is granted to the licensee. Such
hearing to be held before the City Council, upon due notice to the
licensee, stating the time and place for such hearing, together with a
Statement of Violation alleged to be cause for the revocation or
suspension of the license. The Public Safety Department recommends
that a hearing be held and a resolution is attached establishinq a
hearing date of August 3, 1987 for the Council to consider suspension
or revocation of the license. I expect that Mr. Wenner, or his
representative, will be present at the Council meeting in the event
that the Council desires to make inquiries prior to determining
whether a public hearing should be held.
FB:kec
Attachment
Plymouth City Code 1005.21
1005.21. Revocation; Denial; Suspension. A license issued or to be issued by the
City may be denied, suspended or revoked by the Council for any of the following
causes:
a) Fraud, misrepresentation, or incorrect statement contained in the
application for license, or made in carrying on the licensed activity.
b) Conviction of any crime, or misdemeanor, pertaining to license held
or applied for, subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 364.
c) Conducting such licensed activity in such manner as to constitute a breach
of the peace, or a menace to the health, safety and welfare of the public,
or a disturbance of the peace or comfort of the residents of the City,
upon recommendation of the City health authorities or other appropriate
City official.
d) Expiration or cancellation of any required bond or insurance, or failure
to notify the City within a reasonable time of changes ii. the terms of the
insurance or the carriers.
e) Actions unauthorized or beyond the scope of the license granted.
f) Violation of any regulation or provision of this Code applicable to the
activity for which the license has been granted, or aixy regulation or law
of the state so applicable.
g) Failure to continuously comply with all conditions required as precedent
to the approval of the license.
1005.23• Hearing. No license may be suspended or revoked until after a hearing
is granted to the licensee. Such hearing to be held before the City Council upon
due notice to the licensee stating the time and place of such hearing, together
with a statement of the violation alleged to be the cause for the revocation or
suspension of the license.
100.25. Temporary Suspensions. The City Council may temporarily suspend a
license pending a hearing on revocation or suspension when in its judgment the
public health, safety and welfare is endangered by the continuance of the
licensed activity.
1005.27• Inspections. The City health authorities and other appropriate City
officials may enter upon the premises where any licensed activity is being
conducted for the purpose of inspection at any reasonable hour.
DATE: 7/15/87
TO: Richard Carlquist, Director of Public Safety
FROM: Sgt. Rogers, Investigations Supervisor
SUBJ: Administrative Hearing Advisory - PARTY MART LIQUORS
C T 1T,I0 75: Pursuant to provisions of MN Chaprter 340A and Section 1215.03 of the
City Ordinance, violations of the liquor licensee shall be reported to the City
Council for administrative review. Under Section 1211.01, the licensee is res-
ponsible for the conduct of employees who sell alcoholic beverages. Section
1215.03 provides the penalty options that may be imposed by the Council. These
penalties provide the imposition of a fine up to $2000, a license suspension of
up to 60 days, or revocation. Finally, Section 1215.03 provides that none of the
aforementioned sanctions may be invoked until the licensee has been afforded a
public hearing.
VIOLATION, SYNOPSIS: It has been affirmed that on 5/15/87 at 9:50PM Mr. Jesse
Edward BELLEFEUILLE, while employed as a clerk for the licensee, John Roman
WENNER at the Party Mart Liquor store, 4130 Hwy #101, Plymouth, MN., sold 30
cans of strong Miller beer to a person under 21 year of age. Plymouth Police
case 87-6518 is attached for further information.
COn 6/4/87, 19 year old pled guilty to
purchasing alcoholic beverages by an underaged person. On 6/25/87 Mr. BELLE-
FEUILLE pled guilty to selling alcoholic beverages to a person underage. Both
individuals were fined $100 in court costs. Sentencing was stayed if no similar
violations were committed within a year of their court dates.
AY: The licensee has had an off sale intoxicating liquor license
at this location since 1978. During this time only one other liquor violation
was discovered, that being on 12/21/85. A reprimand and probationary disposi-
tion was assessed by the City Council at that time. On 9/13/85 a clerk employed
by the licensee assisted in apprehending of a minor attempting to purchase liquor,
using the drivers license of another. Additionally, police have responded to 24
service and crime related calls at the Party Mart since 1985. These have included,
medicals, vehicle lock outs, animal complaints, accidents, found property, thefts
by check, other property thefts and damage to property.
Administrative Hearing Advisory
Party Mart Liquors
Page 2.
RECOMMENDATION: The licensee shows no history of felony related liquor violations.
For the most part, the licensee has complied with statute and ordinance provisions
with the exception of those incidents cited above. Therefore, revocation of the
license would seem inappropriate. However, I do believe that the council should
consider the facts of this matter at a public hearing in order to effectively
address the interests of the community. In my opinion, this forum would be an
appropriate course of action considering the fact 'there has been one previous
violation within a seventeen month period. Any sanction less than revocation
warning, suspension, fine, or combination) would be advisable considerations
that are within the perview of the ordinance.
cc: Frank Boyles
Laurie Brandt
Lt. Solberg
LER
PLYMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT
CJNTROL NUM E C CONT AGENCY' NCI
E C 1 - i8 7 , 0 , 0 a IM N; 0 2 7 1 7 0 0
i
L NB R
L=1 /
DATE REPORTED RPD TIME RPO TRP LOCATION GRID NLiR
LATE TIME REPORT MADE
5/15/87 2200 hours
r 0( 5 1 1 5 8_L7 _/ 2 1 1 5 0 /1 8 i 4130 Righway 101
PLATE .'C1'A1!TTE0 'rt
O LNBR HRD SQUAD OR BADGE ISBN)
PL3 j/ FV / [—) ( a/
TIME ASIG. (TAS) TIME ARRR_TAR) TIME CLR. (TCL)
2 1 5 1 0/ 2 1 1 5 I 0 I 2, 2 3 0% 1 HRD
P-
C
Phone
T R - Radio
A Alarm
LNBR ISN UOC OFFICER ASSIGNED
J. Larson
ASSISTED PV i
v
in Person
v sual
IS_ N U C SUPR. APPROVED IDETEC71vE M Mall
rJ / il( (-J.-171L
1T-
T Other j
0FCF-NSEW eatwIV' ta`fonSINTp I DATE 6 TIME OCCURRED
iquo5/15/87 2150 hours
VICTIM (IF FIRM, NAME OF FIRM & NAME OF PROP.) BUSINESS ADDRESS BUSINESS PHONE
City of Plymouth O HOME ADDPESS !HOME PHONE
IF VICTIM IS
A PERSON
SON REPORTING OFFENSE TO POLICE
SC l
IF
JUVENILE
BUSINESS ADORESS
GRACE PARENT'S NAMES
BUSINESS PHONE
JPL #16 I HOME ADDRESS i HOME PHONE
FINDIINNGS, DISPOSITION OR LOSS
V
SUSPECT #1: PLYMOUTH, MN 55441,
559-4914,
SUSPECT #1'S VEHICLE: 1986 CAMARO, BLUE IN COLOR, LICENSE RIBO82,
SUSPECT #2: JESSE EDWARD BELLEFEUILLE, DOB/l/5/67, 16815 32ND AVENUE NORTH, 476-1356
BUS ADDRESS 4130 HIGHWAY 101, BUS NAME "THE PARTY MART LIQUOR STORE"
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES INVOLVED: ONE SUITCASE OF 24 12 OUNCE CANS OF MILLER LITE STRONG BEER,
ONE SIX ?ACK OF 12 OUNCE CANS OF MILLER STRONG BEER
PERSONS MENTIONED:
FUNDINGS: On 05/15/87 at approximately 2150 hours I was driving into the parking lot of the
Tom Thumb store at 4130 Highway 101 in the City of Plymouth. I observed a male walking out of t
Party Mart liquor store next door. Tie person appeared to me to be under the legal age for buyin
liquor amd he looked familiar, being that he used to work at the grocery store where my wife
works. The individual got into the blue Chevy Camaro, MN license RIB082 and left the parking to
at a high rate of speed, eastbound on Highway 55. I proceeded after the vehicle and observed it
change from the right lane to the left lane without signalling. I clocked the speeds between
63 and 65 MPH in a posted 55 MPH zone. I stopped the vehicle as it turned off of Highway 55 on
NB NW Blvd. I approached the driver and informed him what I had observed reference his driving
conduct and asked him for his DL. On the floor in the back seat in plain view was the above
mentioned beer. The suspect #1, produced his MN picture DL which had a birthday c
6/30/68. I placed him in the squad and informed him thane would be charged with purchasing alcc
beverages while under age. I asked him forthe identification he used for purchasing the alcohol
that he did not use any at all. We then drove back to the Party Mart liquor store
P _ U UMOl,+sea _ A - CLRD; Arrest Adult A sSb.Ad. sea ^ -
TN TE SEC :Ju
l:i _ D. .. ,. .. __ Rel. Oth Ager
jTH POLICE DEPT.
JR INCIDENT
i;M
SUPPLEMENTARY/CONTINUATION REPORT
II'A I I & TIME OCCURRED
CA
PREC.NO
where the clerk was in the process of closing up. The same clerk that I had talked to
approximately 45 minutes previous, reference an urlderage person leaving the store. The clerk wa!
identified as Jesse Edward Bellefeuille, DOB/01/05/67. He looked at who was in
the back seat of the squad and he stated that yes, he had sold him the beer. Jesse stated that
he did not ask for any identification because had been in the store several times
previous and had been buying beer from other clerks in the store.
I issued citation 4387 045334 1 to tor purchasing alcoholic beverage while under
legal age. I informed Jesse that we would be chariling him by formal complaint for selling to an
under aged individual.
The beer was placed in the police property room.
at 2415 Quinwood Lane, was a passenger 1n the vehicle driven byNeith(
of the two individuals in the car had consumed any ,alcoholic beverages nor had they opened any o'.
the containers of the alcoholic beverages that tidy had purchased.
End of report.
CC: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR ISSUING A FORMAL t'0M1'LAINT AGAINST JESSE EDWARD BELLEFEUILLE,
DOB/01/05/67 FOR SELLING INTOXICATING BEVERAGES TO AN UNDEPiGED INDIVIDUAL.
END OF REPORT.
JPL #16
TW)
z
LeFe%erc
Lefler
KennedN
O'Brien K.
Draw z
a Professional
Association
2000 First Bank Place West June 4, 1987
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 333-0543
Telecopier (612) 333-0540
Sgt. Larry Rogers
Clayton L. LeFevere Plymouth Police Department
Herbert P. Lefler 3400 Plymouth Boulevard
J. Dennis O'Brien
John E. Drawz Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
David J. Kennedy
Joseph E. Hamilton Re: Sale of Alcoholic Beverage to a Minor at Party Mart
John B. Dean
Glenn E. Purdue Liquors
Richard J. Schieffer
Charles L. LeFevere Dear Larry: Herbert P. Lefler III
James J. Thomson, Jr.
Thomas R. Galt On June 3, 1987, appeared in Hennepin
Dayle Nolan County District Court at Ridgedale and pled guilty to a
John G. Kressel
Steven B. Schmidt charge of purchasing an alcoholic beverage by a minor.
James M.Strommen The court, the Honorable Pamela G. Alexander presiding,
Ronald H. Batty accepted Mr. plea and sentenced him pursuant to
William P. Jordan
William R.Skallerud Minn. Stat. §609.135 with a Stay of Imposition of the
Rodney D. Anderson sentence. The conditions on the Stay of the Imposition
Corrine A. Heine of Sentence were that Mr. 41@RjjNW would cooperate with
David D. Beaudoin
Paul E. Rasmussen the prosecution of Jesse Bellefeuille, the clerk who sold
Steven M.Tallen the alcohol to him. In addition, Mr. 1411 may not
Mary Frances Skala have any alcohol-related offenses during the next year
Christopher J. Harristhal
Timothy J.Pawlenty and was ordered to pay $100 in court costs. At the
Rolf A. Sponheim present time Mr. Bellefeuille has not made an appearance
Julie A. Bergh in court on his charges of selling an alcoholic beverage
to a minor. I will keep you informed of the disposition
of that case.
Sincerely,
Steve M. Tal en
Assistant City Attorney
City of Plymouth
0
LeFc%crc
U-1Icr
kenne(IN
YRricn ,k
DumI
a Pmfes.,iunal
ks oiiatiun
2000 First Bank Place West July 15 , 1987
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 333-0543
Teleccpier (612) 333-05-:0
Sgt. Larry Rogers
Clavion L. LeFevere Plymouth Police Department
Herbert P. Lefler 3400 Plymouth BoulevardJ. Dennis O'Brien
John E. Dravvz Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dav,c J. Kennedy
Joseph E. Hamilton Re: State of Minnesota, City of PlymouthJohnB. Dean
Glenn E. Purdue v. Jesse E. Bellefeuille/Illecal Sale of Alcoholic
Richard J. Schieffer Beveraqe
Charles L. LeFevere
r
Herbert P. Lefler III
James J. Thomson, Jr. Dear Larry:
Thomas R. Galt
Davie No:an Enclosed please find a certified copy of the HennepinJohnKresselp
Steen B Schmidt County Court record of conviction in Mr. Bellefeuille's
James Strommen recent case. As you can see, the defendant pled quilts
Ronald H Batty on June 25, 1987. One of the conditions of the agreementWilliamPJordan
Wiliam R. Skellerud was t a e conviction would be vacated and dismissed on
Rodney D. Anderson Qu—' if Mr. Bellefeuille dops__nQt have any
Comr-eA Heine similar types of charges during that period. David D. Beaudoin
Pau: E. Rasmussen
Steven M. Tallen If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a
Mary Frances Skala call. Christopl^er J. Harristha•
Timothy J. Pawlenty
Rolf A Soonheim Sincerely,
Juke A Bergh
Steven M. Tallen
Assistant City Attorney
City of Plymouth
Enclosure
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: duly 30, 1987 for City Council Meeting August 3, 1987
TO: dames G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
SUBJECT POWELL LINCOLN MERCURY. SITE PLAN, VARIANCES, AND LIGHTING PLAN (87049)
SUMMARY: The City Council approved the Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit
and certain Variances under Resolution No. 87-449 on duly 6,
1987. At the petitioner's request, the Council deferred consideration of several of
the variances. The Council also specified that the lighting plan was not approved
until further analysis by the petitioner's lighting consultant. Direction was given to
the petitioner regarding the analysis of the lighting plan.
The items requiring Council action at this time, then, are Site Plan Variances, Sign
Variances, and the Lighting Plan.
1. Two Site Plan Variances are for parking space to the front lot line (0 ft. versus
the Ordinance required 20 ft.) in the northwest corner of the site. This area is
proposed to be used for the display of vehicles only and not for customer park-
ing. The other related variance would leave the above area unpaved (parking on
sod), whereas, the Ordinance requires parking and driving areas to be paved.
The Planning Commission recommendation was:
Approval of the variance request to allow 0 ft. versus the Ordinance required
20 ft. in the northwest corner of the site; and, to allow display vehicles to
be parked on an unpaved surface using precast "paver block" strips upon which
the vehicles can be moved and parked and through which grass can grow and give
the appearance of green space.
The petitioner has explored ways to acquire or to gain use of the public land
beyond this area which, to the petitioner, presents an obstruction to the site.
The property is not controlled by the City and its status is tied to the freeway
right-of-way and the existing (Xenium Lane) road configuration which will change
eventually as this area fully develops.
2. The Sign Variances include one for directional signage which was partially granted
in the Resolution, consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation.
The petitioner also requests two additional sign variances:
Page two
Memorandum to City Manager
City Council Meeting August 3, 1987
July 30, 1987
2. (cont'd)
a. Variance for a free standing pylon sign of 155 sq. ft. versus the Ordinance
maximum of 96 sq. ft.; and, a height of 38 ft. versus 36 ft.
The Planning Commission recommended a height variance to allow the 38 ft.
height. The Planning Commission did not recommend the variance for area.
b. The petitioner requests a variance to allow a second free standing pylon
sign of 75 sq. ft. versus the Ordinance allowance of one pylon (not to
exceed 96 sq. ft.). This sign was needed to "advertise" the Used Car
portion of the business.
The Planning Commission did not recommend approval of that variance for a
second pylon sign.
The petitioner has submitted written material regarding the signage.
The new materials submitted by the applicant regarding signage essentially points
out that other dealerships in the Twin Cities have common signage which is design-
ed and produced at the direction of Ford Motor Company. The petitioner made the
observation at the Planning Commission hearing that the other two car dealerships
in Plymouth have signage in excess of current Ordinance standards. The latter
observation is true in that both dealerships have signage approved under a wholly
different Ordinance; the signage at those dealerships was considered when the
Planning Commission and City Council, several years ago, updated and amended the
sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. There is not, in our view, a precedent
established by the other car dealerships. Nor, in our view, is there a precedent
set for or a burden placed upon the City to necessarily allow signage that is com-
mon to certain businesses in other communities.
Consideration of the sign regulation variance requests should be on the merits of
this proposed for this site. Finding for a variance should include specific
reference to uniqueness and hardship; and, not just economic convenience (common
industry signage).
The Council may find it helpful to consider the distinction between signage
intended for identification of a site versus the desire to advertise and promote a
product or service.
The Plymouth Ordinance does not provide specifically for a free -way zone; business
signage for businesses that happen to be near a free -way or which abut a free -way
are the same as for businesses further removed.
3. The City Council required a lighting plan which addressed concerns that came up at
the Council meeting. The Council directed that additional information should
address adequate lighting for security, impact of all lighting upon the property
to the south, and to the southeast; and, the impact of existing area lighting on
the site.
The petitioner has submitted narrative materials regarding the lighting and has
submitted a revised luminnaire plan. The plan indicates that the lighting would
be concentrated on the property and there is not evidence of glare which would
extend beyond the limits of the site.
Ll
Page three
Memorandum to City Manager
City Council Meeting August 3, 1987
July 30, 1987
The Council should adopt the attached Resolution which would approve the lighting plan.
I have also included in the Resolution, language regarding the Site Plan Variance and
the Signage Variance which were recommended by the Planning Commission. The language I
have used is exactly the language that was in the draft Resolution considered by the
City Council on duly 6, 1987.
If the Council wishes to modify the Commission's recommendation or to approve the
signage variance not recommended by the Commission, that can be incorporated into this
Resolution at the meeting.
Attachments
1. Resolution
2. duly 6, 1987 City Council Minutes
3. Resolution No. 87-449
4. Petitioner's Correspondence Staff Dated duly 29, 1987 and
Narrative Materials submitted by Petitioner to Planning Commission
5. dune 10, 1987 Planning Commission Minutes
6. Ordinance Variance Criteria
7. Large Scale Site Graphics and Lumennaire Plan
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the
City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day of , 19_ The
following members were present: _
The
following members were absent:
adoption:
introduced the following Resolution and moved its
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
APPROVING LIGHTING PLAN AND VARIANCES RELATED TO SITE PLAN AND SIGNAGE FOR RICHARD
BROKKE FOR POWELL LINCOLN MERCURY (87049)
WHEREAS, Richard Brokke, Powell Lincoln Mercury, received approval of a Site Plan,
Conditional Use Permit, and certain Variances for a car dealerships to be located
southeast of County Road 9 and Xenium Lane under City Council Resolution No. 87-449;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council directed the submittal of a revised Lighting Plan which has
been submitted and reviewed; and,
WHEREAS, the petitioner also sought variances related to the Site Plan and to the Sign-
age for the site; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the requested variances on dune 10, 1987 and
the City Council reviewed the variances on duly 6, 1987;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MIN-
NESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the following for Richard Brokke, Powell
Lincoln Mercury, which is to be located southeast of County Road 9 and Xenium Lane:
1. The Lighting Plan for the site is the plan described in correspondence staff dated
July 29, 1987 and represented on a lumennaire plan dated duly 29, 1987.
2. A Site Plan Variance is approved to allow 0 ft. versus the Ordinance required 20
ft. in the northwest corner of the site; and, to allow display vehicles to be
parked on an unpaved surface using precast "paver block" strips upon which the
vehicles can be moved and parked and through which grass can grow and give the
appearance of greenspace.
3. The Variance is approved for one 38 ft. high pylon sign versus the Ordinance re-
quired 36 ft. height. The pylon area shall not exceed the Ordinance maximum of 96
sq. ft. Only one pylon sign is approved.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by _
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
The following
voted against or abstained: hereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Regular Council Meeting
July 6, 1987
Page 190
MOTION was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by Councilmember
Sisk, that the plan of action include: 1) the timing of -
moval of the vehicles and solid waste, 2) how t 1 be re-
moved, 3) how much will be removed in 30 , , etc. days, 4)
that no other materials of any kin rought onto the site, 5)
any "classic" cars be addr in the plan as to how they will
be stored accordin ity ordinance, and 6) reasonable inspec-
tion schedule access for the City to monitor the situation.
n carried, five ayes.
PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Director Tremere stated the Planning Commission considered this
request on dune 10 and recommended approval including some, but
not all, the -variances requested. Rather than a variance, a
conditional use permit could include outside display of new
cars near the building. The developer is anxious to move for-
ward because of a time deadline in moving out of an existing
facility. Their attorney is requesting that matter of the yard
setback and freestanding sign area variances not be approved at
this time but be considered at the duly 20 meeting because of
efforts the petitioner is making to acquire the piece of land to
the north which is owned by the State.
Councilmember Crain asked why no deposit is required for erosion
control in the development contract.
Director Moore answered that the site performance guarantee
covers erosion control.
Councilmember Sisk asked why two different plans were submitted.
Director Tremere answered that one plan shows what the Planning
Commission considered and one was submitted by the petitioner
after the Commission meeting and illustrates the petitioner's
view of the proposed and recommended variances. The main
difference is the representation of the number of cars for dis-
play in the north area.
Richard Brokke, Powell Lincoln Mercury, stated that, in order to
make this work, a number of different designs were proposed. He
explained the variance requested and those approved by the Plan-
ning Commission.
Director Tremere pointed out that the Planning Commission didn't
limit the number of cars, but did express concern about conges-
tion in the display areas.
Mr. Brokke stated the ,joint access easement on the lot was
addressed by reducing the land required from Amoco from 15 ft.
to 9 ft.
REZONING, PRELIMINARY
PLAT, SITE PLAN,
C.U.P., VARIANCE &
FINAL PLAT, POWELL
LINCOLN MERCURY
87049)
Item 7-A
Regular Council Meeting
July 6, 1987
Page 192
MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded by Councilmember
Crain, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-449 APPROVING SITE PLAN, CON-
DITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND VARIANCES FOR RICHARD BROKKE FOR POWELL
LINCOLN MERCURY (87049).
MOTION was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by Councilmember
Zitur, to amend the main motion so item 13b is withdrawn and re-
placed with the following: "The paved area in front of the
building may be used for the display of new vehicles as indica-
ted on the approved plans as part of the Conditional Use Permit;
provided that the area will not be expanded beyond that shown on
the plans and provided that only new cars be displayed in this
area."
Motion carried, five ayes.
MOTION was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by Councilmember
Zitur, to amend the main motion by deleting item 13d.
Councilmember Sisk stated that a compromise was worked out with
the Planning Commission and urged the Council to leave this con-
dition in and let it stand.
Councilmember Crain stated he would like to table the matter to
give the petitioner the right to discuss this with the Council
at a later meeting.
Councilmember Vasiliou stated the request deferral of variances
was acceptable for allowing later discussion; it should not be
interpreted as a commitment to approve the variances.
Motion carried, four ayes. Councilmember Sisk voted nay.
MOTION was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by Councilmember
Sisk, to amend the main motion by adding condition #15 as fol-
lows: "The lighting plan has not been approved until further
analysis by the petitioner's lighting consultant. The addition-
al information shall address adequate lighting for security,
impact of all lighting on property to the south and southeast,
and the impact of existing area lighting on the site."
Motion carried, five ayes.
Main motion as amended carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Sisk, seconded
Crain, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-450 ADOPTING
OECT NO. 749, SANITARY SEWER AND WATERM
ADDITION in the amount of $
Motion carrjod oonn a Roll Call vote, five ayes.
RESOLUTION NO. 87-449
SITE PLAN, C.U.P. &
VARIANCES, POWELL
LINCOLN MERCURY
87049)
Item 7-A
by Councilmember RESOL . 87-450
ASSESSMENTS
FIRST SEWER & WATERMAIN
POWELLS FIRST ADDN.
PROSECT 749
Item 7-A
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 6th day of Jul , 1987. The
following members were present: Mayor Schneer, Councilmen ers Crain, _
Sisk, Zitur and Vasiliou The
following members were absent: none
Councilmember Sisk
adoption:
introduced the following Resolution and moved its
RESOLUTION NO. 87- 449
APPROVING SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND VARIANCES FOR RICHARD BROKKE FOR
POWELL LINCOLN MERCURY (87049)
WHEREAS, Richard Brokke, Powell Lincoln Mercury, has requested approval of a Site Plan,
Conditional Use Permit, and Variances for a car dealership to be located southeast of
County Road 9 and Xenium Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public
Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MIN-
NESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for Richard Brokke, Powell
Lincoln Mercury, for a Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variances for the car
dealership to be located southeast of County Road 9 and Xenium Lane, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with the
Dedication Policy in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
3. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79-80 regarding minimum floor elevations for
new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing any open storm water drainage
facility.
4. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement for
completion of site improvements.
5. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals
per Ordinance provisions.
6. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants and fire
lanes.
7. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within the enclosure and no outside
storage is permitted.
PLEASE SEE PAGE TWO
Page two
Resolution No. 87- 449
8. An 8 112 x 11 inch "As -Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted prior to the
release or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City Policy.
9. No Building Permit to be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded with
Hennepin County.
10. Appropriate legal documents for the shared drive shall be submitted for review and
approved by the City Attorney and filed with the final plat.
11. The outdoor advertising sign shall be removed prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
12. The temporary bituminous curb shall be replaced with 8612 curb and gutter two
years from issuance of the building permit unless, the site is expanded to the
south per plans approved by the City.
13. Revised plans shall be submitted showing the elimination of variances prior to the
issuance of a building permit, with the exception of the following:
a.) Approval of the variance request for the drive -aisle setback to the building
of 0 ft. versus the Ordinance required 10 ft. located on the south side of the
building, based on the unique shape of this parcel and the poor soils
conditions which are physical constraints for the development of the site.
b.) Tha paved area in front of the building may be used for the display of new
vehicles as indicated on the approved plans as part of the Conditional Use
Permit; provided that the area will not be expanded beyond that shown on the
plans and provided that only new cars be displayed in this area.
c.) Approval for the variance request for an 8 sq. ft. directional sign located at
the southerly entrance identifying the location of "Parts and Service"; all
other directional signs shall not exceed the Ordinance maximum 4 sq. ft.
14. The landscape plan shall be revised increasing the number of trees by adding Black
Hills Spruce trees on the west and south sides so that screening is consistent
with the treatment on the southeast side of the site.
15. The lighting plan has not been approved until further analysis by the petitioner's
lighting consultant. The additional information shall address adequate lighting
for security, impact of all lighting upon property to the south and to the south-
east; and, the impact of existing area lighting upon the site.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by _
CniincilmPmhar Crain , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof: Mavnr SchnPidpr_ CnuncilmPmhPrS Crain Sitk,
7ittir and Vacilinii The following
voted against or abstained: nnnP _ Whereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Powell
Lincoln-Mercury
Honorable Council Members
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Mn. 55447
Dear Council Members:
f
JUL k^ 1987
The following revisions have been made under condition 4115
regarding site lighting. Please review the new Photometric
plan to understand the revisions made.
1. On the Southerly property line area, the security light
poles have been reduced from 30 feet to 25 feet.
2. The fixtures on the same poles have been changed from
1000 watts to 400 watts.
3. The two fixtures on the East property line have been
moved into the property 80 feet and rotated to direct light
into the site to eliminate glare on Amoco site and property
immediately south.
4. To clearify light levels, the candle power values have
been documented at each Photometric division.
5. An additional fixture was added along the south line
to provide adequate security lighting. This was necessary
to eliminate a "Dark Spot" created by the modifications listed
above. Without the addition of this fixture, the light level
would be less than .5 foot candles for a distance along the
south parking curb of 200 feet.
By reviewing the revised plan, it should become evident that
the revisions have greatly reduced the light intensity, glare
and spillage onto the southern properties. As indicated
by the light graduation rings, vertually all spillage of
light is less than .1 foot candle with the modifications
to the fixture and the use of existing light sheilds.
800 West Broadway - Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411 - (612) 588-0561
I urge the council to accept this lighting plan since it
is well within the cities standard requirements and we have
made a substantial effort to satisfy the councils concerns
for the properties to the south.
ZResct ul ,
Richard Bro e
The moon provides approximately .25 foot candles*
Lincoln-Mercury Division
Ford Motor Company
Mr. Richard Brokke
POWELL LINCOLN -MERCURY
800 West Broadway
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Brokke:
i
JUL IG57
Co<<;;;UNI'TY DEY L1PNIEN'i DEPT.
June 19, 1987 Chicago District sales office
2225 W. North Avenue
Melrose Park, Illinois 80180
7o q
55411
This is in reference to your request for additional information regarding
the Ford Motor Company Dealership Identification Program. The Ford Motor
Dealership Identification Program, which was the first in the automotive
industry, was established over twenty years ago. The purpose of the
Dealership Identification was to provide uniform signs for all Ford and
Lincoln-Mercury dealers. The Program is available to all Ford Motor
Company dealers provided they meet the company facilities size and
appearance standards and other critieria as may be specified by the
Company.
The signage program has been well accepted over the last twenty years by
both the dealers and local governmental units because it eliminated a
hodgepodge of old signs" with coordinated signs.
During our discussions you indicated that the City of Plymouth had some
questions regarding the Lincoln-Mercury Brand signs (B-2-20-155 ML)
which is the sign recommended and authorized for the new facility being
planned for Powell Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.
Factors such as, normal visual acuity, reaction distance, and the speed
of traffic on I-494 and Rockford Road indicate that the authorized
B-2-20-lSS ML) Lincoln-Mercury sign is necessary to provide proper
identification.
We also feel proper identification is necessary to make Powell Lincoln-
Mercury competitive with other dealers in your market place. The two
other dealers in Plymouth have signs larger then the proposed Lincoln-
Mercury Brand sign.
In addition, all of the Lincoln-Mercury dealers in the Twin Cities metro
area have the authorized (B-2-20-155 ML) Brand sign. These include Coon
2 -
Rapid Lincoln-Mercury, which opened in October, 1986, and Burnsville
Lincoln-Mercury, which will open this fall. The following Lincoln-
Mercury dealerships all have the (B-2-20-155 ML) Brand sign.
Prestige Lincoln-Mercury St. Louis Park, MN
Quality Lincoln-Mercury Minneapolis, MN
White Bear Lincoln-Mercury St. Paul, MN
Wilkins Lincoln-Mercury St. Paul, MN
Burnsville Lincoln-Mercury Burnsville, MN
Coon Rapids Lincoln-Mercury Coon Rapids, MN
Enclosed is some additional information regarding the Ford Dealership
Identification Program. We will be happy to provide you and the City of
Plymouth with any additional information that is necessary.
We feel that the (B-2-20-155 ML) Brand sign is necessary for Powell
Lincoln-Mercury to he a viable and competitive Lincoln-Mercury dealership
in Plymouth.
Sincerely,
JO,
rt C. Van Meter
Retail Management Manager
SCVM/br
Enclosures
3851b
JUL 2 1987
MY
COMI'MUNITY GEMLOPMEMI DEPT.
Dual Franchise Brand Signs
IMERCURY
NELINC_OLN
OVEPIM — No!
B -2-20-1554L
4 BULDING SIDE
JUL 29 1987
B -2 -13 -73 -FM
STREET SIDE
Annual Pv
Sam SignLength
Sign Box Dimensions
Column
Designations
Overall
Height
EbcbkW
ftq*"M*
Height Approx.
Approx.
111. Area
Over'. pre- Mh* Total
Number
Of is
Range code
I
Sq. FL Sq. FL) hang ferred* mum Preferred)
I
An" Aw*
Ckaft
Over 350 B2-20-155 19'9' 82' 155 122.3 12'9# P-30 P-25 1
3716ff 19.3 2
0.350 1 B2-13-73 13'11 1 517- 73 1 56.0 1
8161Y
1 P-20 P-16 25141 9.3 1
PV--1M11PI -WWIPP@WWMArea DIMr=T0rOrrMO5vw.
5
VARIANCE REQUESTS
SIGNAGE:
DIREC'TI OVAL :
Due to the topography of the Westerly parcel and the soil conditions
of the Easterly parcel, the building facility will be designed with
a multi-level access and set back several hundred feet from Vinewood
Lane. Consequently, two individual accesses are required and should
be clearly defined to eliminate unnecessary traffic conjestion and
potential accidents on Vinewood Lane. We feel it would be in the best
interest of the public to clearly identify the "Sales" entrance and the
Parts/Service entrance with illuminated signs shown and located on the
site plan. We therefore request a variance for the maximum allowable
directional signage to be increased from 4 square feet to 42 square feet.
PILON:
RE: Ordinance allowance one 96 square foot Pilon sign.
As an automobile sales organization, selling new and used automobiles,
we request a variance to the signage ordinance allowing the installation
of one 155 square foot brand sign to be located as shown on the site plan.
The (B2-20-155), brand sign is the best alternative and complies with
Ford Motor Company standards. Since the majority of the exposure will
occur from 494, it's vital that the sign be readable at such distance.
Since an auto dealership also relies on used vehicle sales, it is
essential that a used car sign be posted on the frontage to indicate
used car availability. The ordinance does not allow for more than one
pilon sign. We therefore request a variance to allow the display of a
75 square foot used car sign as described in the site plan. From an
economic standpoint, at lease sixty percent of our present auto sales are
in used vehicles. Since we are a new car franchise, many potential
customers may be passing us by, assuming we sell new cars only. The
display of the used car sign is an integral part of our economic success
and therefore a "must".
7.
RIANCE REQUEST SUPPLEMENT %1
DISPLAY PARKING SETBACK: MAY ? r 1937
CITY dr
Powell Industries, Inc. , hereby requests a variance Mlc},I!Iji D,};i
temporary curbing and display parking at the property line or at "0"
setback along the north and east property lines which are connecting
with or common to the west property line of American Oil Companies
property. The purpose of this request is to obtain maximum utilization
of the available land for display parking and traffic circulation.
Future expansion identified on site plan will allow parking within
requirements at such time.
Poor soil conditions on the east portion of the property have dictated
the location of the building to be on the west parcel. However, the
unusual topography and the restrictive southern boundary line crowds
the site on the North and South boundary lines. The original proposed
site plan only allowed for display parking at the building front,
which is one hundred and forty feet from County Road 9. This distance
is excessive and ineffective for display purposes. With a "0" setback
variance, display vehicles could be effectively displayed within eighty
feet of County Road 9 along the north boundary line.
Allowing this variance should not impose upon future development of
the adjoining property since the parcel it effects is now state owned
and future development is not planned. During recent conversations
with Mr. Ken Cloek of the Department of Right of Ways, it was indicated
that Powell Industries, Inc., would be the recipient of the tract
lying between County Road 9 and the north property line of the pro-
posed site in accordance with Lis Pendens #3518880 and State Statute
161-44, Sub. Div.3. Powell Industries, Inc., is actively seeking
ownership of the same tract for future landscaping and display parking
designed to comply with the 20' setback ordinance. Unfortunately,
acquisition of the parcel will require in excess of one years time due
to the reconstruction of County Road 9.
We urge that the honorable members of the City Council will review the
site plans and identify the necessity of our requested variance.
See attached information.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DUNE 10, 1987
The Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was
called to order at 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Pauba, Commissioners
Wire, Zylla, Plufka and Marofsky
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Steigerwald and Commissioner
Stulberg
STAFF PRESENT. Associate Planner Al Cottingham
Planning Director Blair Tremere
City Engineer Sherm Goldberg
anning Secretary Grace Wineman
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION by Commissioner Plufk seconded by issioner
Zylla to approve the Consent Agen Item No. 5
Vote. 5 Ayes. Motion carried.
HINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka s 06nded by Commissi er Zylla
to approve the Minutes of May,/7, 1987 as submitted.
Vote. 4 Ayes. Commioner Wire, abstained. Mot
carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
MOTION TO APPROVE
CONSENT AGENDA
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTION TO APPROVE
Vice Chairmo#rPauba announced that the petitioner has re- RYAN TRUCTION CO.
quested Conditional Use Permit application for Ryan CONiDITI!—
T HWE
USE
Constr ion Company for AmeriData Systems, Inc, be removed PERMIT TA
from the agenda. A letter was received from Ryan (87055)
Co trurecord.
Vice Chairman Pauba introduced the request by Powell Lincoln
Mercury (auto dealership). Commissioner Marofsky stated he
would abstain from the discussion and the vote on this
item. He stepped down.
Discussion ensued regarding parliamentary procedure and it
was confirmed that a Commissioner would not be required to
state his reasons for abstention. The Commission members
accepted Commissioner Marofsky's decision.
Vice Chairman Pauba requested that Planner Cottingham
provide an overview of the dune 1, 1987 staff report.
123-
PETITIONER'S
RICHARD BROKKE
POWELL LINCOLN
MERCURY REZONING,
PRELIMINARY PLAT,
SITE PLAN,
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND VARIANCE
87049)
Page 124
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1987
Commissioner Plufka requested that staff discuss the situa-
tion with Xenium Lane; the vacation of land; and, the
development of other properties in this area.
Planner Cottingham pointed out on the graphic that Xenium
Lane will curve in an east/west direction and intersect with
Northwest Blvd. (County Road 61), but the exact alignment is
not known at this time.
Commissioner Plufka inquired about the Vinewood cul-de-sac
and confirmed that as development occurs Vinewood Lane will
be extended:
Commissioner Zylla inquired about the development east of
this site. Planner Cottingham explained the development of
Cottonwood Plaza. The plat contains another commercial lot
which has not received development consideration. He also
explained the work being accomplished for utility extension,
and development of the service road.
Vice Chairman Pauba introduced Mr. Rick Brokke, Powell
Lincoln Mercury, and his attorney, Mr. David Davenport.
Mr. Davenport introduced Mr. Fran Hagen, Jr., Westwood Plan-
ning, and Mr. Russell J. Saulon, R.J. Saulon Architects.
Mr. Davenport explained the request and advised that his
presentation would be focused on the variance requests. He
noted that the plan exceeds the Ordinance parking require-
ments and that lot coverage would be only 11%. He stated
the request for variances is important to the development of
the site and operation of the business. He inquired if the
Commission had visited the site; they answered
affirmatively.
Mr. Davenport explained the topography which includes severe
slopes; most of the easterly portion of the site has poor
soil conditions and the fill materials consist of broken
concrete and other material which would be cost prohibitive
to remove and replace. The site configuration is
irregular.
The developer had attempted to acquire the property to the
south, however, the property is held in trust; the owners
do not wish to sell the land. He stated that the southerly
boundary has severe slopes and contains a drainage swale;
these constraints have dictated the building layout and
design. The developer would have proposed a larger struc-
ture if the land area were less constrained. They will not
be able to have a full-service dealership as there is no
room for a body shop.
Page 125
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1987
Mr. Davenport stated he would discuss each variance request
separately. The first would be for the drive aisle setback
of 0 ft. vs. the Ordinance required 10 ft. He pointed out
the loading dock and the problem with the requirement for
green space and the need for space to maneuver semi -trailer
trucks. To move the structure 10 ft. to the south could
have been accomplished with a plan which called for access
to Xenium Lane; however, this is no longer possible. Moving
the structure to the north cannot be accomplished because of
the severe slope and would negate the ramp necessary for
handicap accessibility required for the facility. To move
the structure to the south would place it in close proximity
to the drainage swale.
Commissioner Plufka stated that in reviewing the plans, it
appears there would be no other entrances or any reason for
anyone, other than employees, to be back of the building.
Mr. Saulon, Architect, stated this area is planned for
servicing new cars. Commissioner Plufka noted the reason
for the setback is to provide adequate space for pedestrians
and he inquired if this would be the case and would people
be safe from moving vehicles? Mr. Davenport stated this
would not be intended by this design, customers would not be
walking here. Mr. Saulon stated the showroom is elevated
from this area and would have a customer entrance at the
front.
Commissioner Plufka stated he assumed that with semi -trailer
trucks at the dock and the cars there for service, this
would not constitute a blockage to the balance of the site.
Mr. Saulon stated there would be adequate space for vehicles
and he explained the access aisle would be open even with
the truck at the dock.
Commissioner Zylla inquired about the loss of parking
spaces. Mr. Davenport explained that the plan exceeds the
Ordinance requirement by 29 spaces; the variance request is
made because of the physical constraints previously stated.
Commissioner Zylla commented that staff had indicated alter-
nate designs were possible to eliminate the variances, and
inquired if alternate plans had been considered? Mr. Saulon
stated some alternate plans were done but none were present-
ed to staff because of the poor soil conditions; prohibitive
costs concerning the fill; and, the detriment to the struc-
ture. Commissioner Zylla inquired how far to the north
would the building need to be moved to eliminate any
variances? Mr Saulon responded, 12 ft.; however, there is
the constraint of the dock location and the need to maintain
an open drive aisle for emergency vehicles.
Commissioner Wire inquired about the street vacation and the
remnant parcel and, would the parcel to the north be large
enough to build on? Planner Cottingham stated it would be
consolidated as it cannot stand alone. Commissioner Wire
Page 126
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1987
inquired about the right-of-way taken from the west. Plan-
ner Cottingham stated it would most likely go back to the
property owners who gave up the right-of-way, and may come
back as part of this property. Commissioner Zylla stated
that property turned back to the State is appraised and can
be sold, it may be offered to those from whom it was taken
but it would not be given to them. Mr. Davenport concur-
red. He noted the State would need to see what transpires
once County Road 9 is completed and the land would not be
declared "surplus" for quite some time.
Commissioner Wire inquired if the dock area could be moved
to provide better truck maneuverability? Mr. Saulon stated
the location is a given because of the plan guide issued by
Ford and the developer is required to use it in the design
of a Ford dealership. Also, there is little room to the
south and during the study of the site and circulation, this
was the best solution. Commissioner Wire commented this
seemed to be the worst area to bring in trucks. Mr. Saulon
pointed out the problems created by the site configuration
and the need to maximize efficiency on the site. He sug-
gested that if they could have planned the site using the
State-owned land from the start they could have worked this
out; but in fact it is not part of their site and could not
be used for their plans.
Commissioner Plufka inquired how frequently semi -trailer
trucks will enter the site? Mr. Davenport stated it would
be 3 times a week.
Commissioner Wire inquired about the area on the east side
where there will no longer be an entrance. Mr. Saulon
stated the plan is the best to create and maintain clean
circulation on the site.
Mr. Davenport stated the next variance for discussion is the
request to allow parking display vehicles in the patio area
in front of the building (0 ft. versus the Ordinance re-
quired 20 ft.). He stated the parking is on paved and
curbed areas on the apron which is an outdoor "extension" of
the showroom and on the island delineator. He believes this
is a preview area that will be used by many new dealerships.
Commissioner Plufka stated that cars should not be parked on
sodded areas. Mr. Davenport and Commissioner Plufka discus-
sed the area which borders the State-owned land; that the
petitioner wishes to park vehicles along this boundary as
they cannot obtain the State land. Mr. Brokke stated that
an alternative could be the use of two parallel lines of
precast "paver blocks" which would prevent tire contact with
the sod and turf, yet would retain the appearance of a green
area.
Page 127
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1987
Mr. Saulon explained the material is used for emergency
vehicle access lanes.
Mr. Davenport stated the next variance request is for
directional signage. He explained that the Ordinance maxi-
mum is 4 ft.; however, Ford's specifications call for signs,
each being 21 sq. ft. If the petitioner is required to have
signage specially designed it will be at his own expense,
rather than being able to use the signs provided by Ford.
However, the expense to the petitioner is not the problem,
but the importance of the variance request is to be able to
give clear direction to the customers and visitors for
Sales" and "Parts & Service" locations. It is equally
important that the customer driving to the site have good
direction into the site to maintain the optimum circula-
tion. He explained the distances and visual problems.
Commissioner Plufka felt the first sign reading "Sales"
would be adequate at 4 sq. ft., but the sign which would be
200 ft. to the south would be a concern. 21 sq. ft. may not
be needed, but perhaps 8 sq. ft. would be appropriate.
Mr. Davenport explained the two access points and the
distance. He stated they want 2 pylon signs, one of which
would be two feet higher than the Ordinance maximum, because
as drivers approach the I-494 and County Road 9 ramp, the
building will not be visible. Mr. Fran Hagen, Jr., further
explained the ramp elevations and natural berms over which
they have no control. Mr. Davenport stated the proposed
signage would give customers a good opportunity to react to
get on the ramp, rather than missing the exit and having to
double back.
Commissioner Plufka inquired if anything would be gained by
moving the first pylon sign southerly along the east
border. Mr. Hagen stated this would be of little benefit
because of the land mass.
Mr. Davenport stated the second pylon would identify that
Ford Lincoln Mercury has "Used Cars", and again visbility is
important. He noted that the Superior Ford and Walser
Chevrolet dealerships were allowed their signage under
previous Ordinance standards, and thus, were allowed more
square footage and better visibility. Mr. Davenport said
the signs at the other dealerships should be considered in
the evaluation of the proposed signs.
Planner Cottingham confirmed the number of signs and
variances that amended the original sign plans at the other
dealerships.
Page 128
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1987
Mr. Davenport stated that a City condition for development
would be removal of the advertising sign (billboard). He
noted the large size of the billboard and explained the pro-
posed signage is less offensive and much smaller.
Vice Chairman Pauba stated his concern in approving this re-
quest would be setting a precedent where future petitioners
could in good faith ask for the same variance. Mr.
Davenport stated there is only a few other sites in Plymouth
that would accommodate a car dealership and there are no
utilities on some of the sites at this time. Vice Chairman
Pauba noted it is not only car dealerships that concern him,
but other businesses who feel they need the visibility
gained from large signs. Mr. Davenport stated each request
must be reviewed on its own merits.
Commissioner Wire inquired if the petitioner could request
permission for additional banners, search lights, and other
special event materials that eventually go along with these
dealerships? Planner Cottingham stated that under the cur-
rent Zoning Ordinance this would not be allowed with the
exception of "Special Event" Conditional Use Permits such
as those for "Grand Openings", which are reviewed by staff,
are limited in scope and, must meet certain criteria.
Commissioner Plufka concurred with Vice Chairman Pauba, that
other cities and Plymouth are exposed to those national
businesses which have "canned sign programs" that come in
large, larger, and hugemongous!" -- which is important to
keep in mind.
Mr. Davenport emphasized their request is not based on an
economic hardship, but that there would be difficulty in
purchasing and designing custom-made signs.
Mr. Davenport stated the next variance request is for a 0
ft. setback versus the Ordinance required 20 ft. for parking
to the front lot line. This area would be used for display
vehicles only. He explained that, if the State owned land
became available they would diligently pursue acquiring that
land so the variance could be negated in the future. He
suggested this could be a condition of approval. Without
the variance they would only be able to display 15 new cars,
with the variance they can display 42 vehicles.
He explained that it would be more than just an operational
Inconvenience to be restricted by 65% of the number of
desired display cars and, if the display areas are remote
from the customer area, this would create a problem during
inclement weather.
Page 129
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1987
He suggested they could provide a covenant for control,
maintenance and aesthetic problems between the development
site and County Road 9. He explained the softening effect
of the proposed greenspace.
Mr. Davenport summarized the reasons for the variance re-
quests which would provide the petitioner reasonable use of
his land: Slopes; soil conditions; display versus parking;
signage similar to other 'dealerships; signs smaller than
existing billboard; and, directional sign needs to
facilitate traffic.
Commissioner Plufka stated he takes exception to the last
variance request; that he has visited comparable dealerships
to look at new cars and this proposal looks very much like
new car storage, not a display area; and, he does not
believe vehicle storage is appropriate for the front of the
building. Mr. Brokke stated the graphic distorts this issue
because of the size and proportion of the used car area. He
stated that vehicles would be circulating with people driv-
ing demos; and, that the area will change routinely so that
it always looks attractive to the customers.
Commissioner Zylla inquired about the exterior building
materials; and, plans for the property to the east.
Mr. Saulon stated they would use masonry block (a burnished
block that can be different color variations). This would
be natural tones, the block is autoclaved and is similar to
tile construction as the color goes through the block. The
top of the building will have an architectural metal
canopy. The canopy is anodized bronze, it weathers well and
blends naturally with its surroundings. Mr. Saulon noted
that stucco and glass will also be used and that "Cottonwood
Plaza" will also utilize burnished block so there will be a
continuity of style and color.
Vice Chairman Pauba opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. R. Theodore Anderson, 5520 Halifax Avenue North, stated
he is trustee of the property to the south and is opposed to
a parking lot adjacent to his property. He is also worried
about drainage. City Engineer Goldberg stated there will be
a temporary holding pond constructed for water storage and
internal runoff. Mr. Anderson stated he has requested that
a drainage easement be required.
Vice Chairman Pauba closed the Public Hearing.
Page 130
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1987
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Vice Chairman
Pauba to recommend approval for Rezoning the property for
Richard Brokke, Powell Lincoln Mercury.
Roll Call Vote 4 Ayes. MOTION carried.
In response to the question of rezoning Planner Cottingham
explained rezoning would not be finalized until City Council
approval of the Final Plat.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner Wire
to recommend approval for the Preliminary Plat for Richard
Brokke, Powell Lincoln Mercury, subject to the conditions
listed in the June 1, 1987 staff report.
Roll Call Vote. 4 Ayes. MOTION carried.
MOTION TO APPROVE
REZONING
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTION TO APPROVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Zylla to recommend approval for the Site Plan and Condition- SITE PLAN AND
al Use Permit for Richard Brokke, Powell Lincoln Mercury, CONDITIONAL USE
subject to the conditions listed in the June 1, 1987 staff PERMIT
report.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Vice Chairman
Pauba to Amend the Main Motion by adding an exception to
Condition No. 13 to recommend approval of the Variance
request for the drive -aisle setback to the building of 0
ft. versus the Ordinance required 10 ft. based on the unique
shape of this parcel and the poor soils conditions which are
physical constraints for development of the site.
Commissioner Wire stated concern about the issue of semi-
trailer truck maneuverability and, Mr. Anderson's concern
with a parking lot being adjacent to his property. He
believes there should be space given for a buffer to Mr.
Anderson's property. He believes the State land will become
available and the plans should be revised to shift the
building to the north.
Commissioner Zylla stated concern because, a site this
large should be designed to minimize the need for any vari-
ances for new construction. However, he understands that
the building can only be constructed on a certain portion of
the site and there are problems with site configuration. He
could support those variances which are clearly based on the
uniqueness of the site, its configuration and physical
constraints.
Commissioner Plufka reiterated the physical constraints of
this site noting that it is not known or assured that the
State-owned land would be available to assist the petitioner
in correcting any of these problems.
MOTION TO AMEND
Page 131
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1987
Roll Call Vote. 3 Ayes. Commissioner Wire, Nay. MOTION
carried.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner Wire
to Amend the Main Motion by adding an exception to Condition
No. 13 to recommend approval of the Variance request to
allow display vehicles to be parked on an unpaved surface
using precast "paver block" strips upon which the vehicles
can be moved and parked; and, through which grass can grow
and give the appearance of green space.
Roll Call Vote. 4 Ayes. MOTION carried.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTION TO AMEND
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner Wire MOTION TO AMEND
to Amend the Main Motion by adding an exception to Condition
No. 13 to recommend approval for a variance for an 8 sq.
ft. directional sign identifying the entrance to "Parts and
Service", all other directional signage shall meet the
Ordinance maximum 4 sq. ft.
Commissioner Plufka based the recommendation on giving bet-
ter site circulation and enhancing traffic safety
considerations.
Commissioner Zylla stated this could become an emotional
issue by denying similar requests for signage that would
exceed the Ordinance maximums. He is concerned about set-
ting a dangerous precedent. He can only support the vari-
ance request if there is justification by past practices and
approvals by the City.
Commissioner Plufka stated this would be no different than
the directional signage approved for Trammell Crow's
Plymouth Business Center. The signage must be sized for
aesthetics but also must function for traffic circulation
and safety.
Planner Cottingham explained the variance approved for
Trammell Crow Company for Plymouth Business Center to exceed
the Ordinance maximum for directional signage on their site.
Commissioner Zylla confirmed that the variance is granted to
accomplish workable site circulation; and, the signage is
unique to this site for those reasons.
Roll Call Vote. 4 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Plufka stated that the potential for a "mass"
of signage is a concern. He inquired if the petitioner
would move the pylon sign from the corner; this would take
it from County Road 9 to some degree, but would still be
visible to I-494. Mr. Brokke stated he would have no
problem having this done.
Page 132
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1987
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Vice Chairman
Pauba to Amend the Main Motion by adding an exception to
Condition 13. to recommend approval for a pylon sign of 155
sq. ft. versus the Ordinance maximum 96 sq. ft. and a height
of 38 ft. versus 36 ft., based on the fact that this vari-
ance is fair and uniform in terms of this type of business
operation and, that it meets the Variance Criteria.
Commissioner Plufka further noted that larger signs adver-
tising businesses on the freeways are also a safety factor
because of the fast moving traffic on the interstates. It
may be that the City should review Ordinance sign regula-
tions for areas along freeways.
Commissioner Wire concurred, but does not believe anyone
will have trouble seeing this sign. He confirmed the size
of the billboard. Mr. Brokke stated their concern was the
timing to enable a driver to turn at the appropriate ramp
from the freeway to the dealership. Commissioner Wire
stated this corner will change to some degree with develop-
ment. He stated the 2 ft. variance in height is not a
problem, but the square footage of the sign is a concern.
Commissioner Plufka stated there is again the element of
safety by having total recognizability by this sign; and
that the sign built expressly for the dealership is best.
Commissioner Zylla stated the
for approval are within the
ards and are unique to the
departing in a major way from
support the variance request.
earlier variances recommended
scope of the Ordinance stand -
site, however, this would be
the Zoning Code and he cannot
Vice Chairman Pauba agreed. It is his opinion that the
sign regulations of the Ordinance should be reviewed and, if
there are flaws, the Ordinance should be amended; however,
he cannot support this variance request.
Commissioner Wire stated he understands that other car
dealerships in Plymouth have obtained larger signage through
previous Ordinance standards and by variance request. He
believes it would make more sense, and he would be able to
support having one over -size sign, rather than two under-
sized pylon signs.
Mr. Brokke discussed the need to inform their customers
through one sign that they have "used cars", noting that
dealerships in the metro area display similar signs.
Commissioner Plufka inquired about the signs at the car
dealerships in Plymouth. Planner Cottingham stated that
original approvals in the 1970's were given for several
pylon signs. The signs were later removed at one dealer
MOTION TO AMEND
Page 133
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1987
after the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals approved a
variance for one pylon sign 47 ft. in height and 225 sq.
ft., which reduced the overall square footage. Commissioner
Plufka stated that because of the setback to County Road 18
for these dealerships, it would not be inappropriate to
grant a variance that would give this petitioner similar
visibility from a major roadway and because the facility
would be constructed in a depression below the roadway.
Further discussion ensued on area signage and the rationale
on how much a moving vehicle can identify from roadway sign-
age; and, whether the advertising on television, radio, and
mail distribution would have more impact.
Roll Call Vote. Commissioners Wire and Plufka, Aye. Com- VOTE - TIE
missioners Zylla and Vice Chairman Pauba, Nay. Tie Vote. MOTION FAILS
MOTION fails.
Further discussion ensued regarding area signage. Commis-
sioner Wire inquired about the signage for "Cottonwood
Plaza". Planner Cottingham explained the signage program
for this retail development and that no variances were
granted. He pointed out all the signage proposed for this
area.
Mr. David Davenport stated that Ford Company is not dictat-
ing that the proposed signage shall be used and custom signs
can be done; however, it looks as though other dealerships
have been dealt with more favorably through previous Ordin-
ance regulations and variances the City has granted. He
noted the seeming incongruity of the existing billboard
which is allowed by Ordinance; and, which must be removed by
this petitioner. However, this petitioner would not be
allowed to replace this large billboard with signage of
their own that would be less square footage.
Commissioner Plufka stated Mr. Davenport's statements may
stimulate the City to further review the sign regulations;
however, it would not be realistic to discuss changing the
Ordinance now. The current Ordinance reflects the policy
determination to not allow the type of signs permitted by
earlier ordinances.
Director Tremere explained the Ordinance Conditional Use
Permit standard which permits advertising signs in this zon-
ing district. Such advertising signs are to be removed upon
development. That was the consideration and requirement of
the permit for the large sign on this site. Also, auto
dealerships are not distinguished from other businesses for
sign purposes.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Vice Chairman MOTION TO AMEND
Pauba to Amend the Main Motion by adding an exception to
Page 134
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1987
Condition No. 13. to recommend approval for the variance
request for one 38 ft. high pylon sign, versus the Ordinance
required 36 ft. The pylon sign area shall not exceed the
Ordinance maximum 96 sq. ft.
Roll Call Vote. 4 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Plufka moved to amend the main motion by adding MOTION TO AMEND
an exception to Condition No. 13 to recommend approval of
the variance request for the second pylon sign of 75 sq. ft;
and, that a condition of approval be that the 38 ft. high,
96 sq. ft. pylon sign be located south of the northwest
corner of the site to orient that sign to I-494; and that
the 75 sq. ft. pylon sign be permitted at County Road 9.
The Motion died for lack of second.
Commissioner Plufka moved to amend the main motion by adding
an exception to Condition No. 13 to recommend approval of
the variance request for parking to the building of 0 ft.
versus the Ordinance minimum of 10 ft. to allow display
vehicles next to the building and that no more than 10
vehicles be parked in this area.
The Motion died for lack of second.
Planner Cottingham explained the setback variance is for
only one tier of cars, and pointed out the locations on the
graphic.
Further discussion ensued.
Commissioner Plufka moved to amend the main motionby adding
an exception to Condition No. 13 to recommend approval of
the variance request for parking to the building of 0 ft.
Motion died for lack of second.
Commissioner Wire inquired about possible revisions to the
landscape plan as proposed. He believes Black Hills Spruce
should be added on the southwest side of the site. Planner
Cottingham stated this could be possible, however, there may
be problems with the severe slopes. Director Tremere said
that specific direction should be given so that the Site
Improvement Performance Agreement reflects the specific
landscape requirements.
Mr. Davenport explained that the retaining wall would make
it physically impossible to place trees in this area.
Further discussion ensued regarding topography and the
location of the retaining wall. Mr. Saulon confirmed the
area of concern on the west side, down the triangle.
Page 135
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1987
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Vice Chairman Pauba
to Amend the Main Motion to add Condition No. 14 to revise
the Landscape Plan, increasing the number of trees by adding
Black Hills Spruce trees on the west and south sides so that
the screening is consistent with the treatment on the
southeast side.
Roll Call Vote. 4 Ayes. MOTION carried.
Roll Call Vote on Main Motion as five times Amended.
4 Ayes. MOTION carried.
Vice Chairman Pauba called a 5 minute Recess at 9:50 P.M. RECESS
NEW BUSINESS
MOTI
Zy a to recommend approval for the Site Plan for Otto Bock 70RTHOPED>ICTRIES
Orth edic Industries, Inc., for the construction of a ware- E PL)
house/ nufacturing/office building, southeast of Campus I E
Drive an Xenium Lane, subject to the conditions as listed
in the JuneN, 1987 staff report.
VOTE. 4 Ayes. TION carried.
Vice Chairman Paub introduced the request y Bruce
Hertzenberg for a Lot vision and Variance fo property at
115 Quaker Lane North. ding of the Apri 9, 1987 staff
report was waived.
Vice Chairman Pauba introduced J h Stockman, Attorney,
representing Mr. Hertzenberg. M Stockton discussed the
issue of the variance request. a oted that the circum-
stance is unique in that Mr. He zenber 's property plus the
land he acquired thatwas va ted for Qua r Lane, leaves a
parcel to be divided into o lots which ar only 3% under
the Zoning Ordinance s dard for lot size ' the R -1A
Zoning District. T second lot will be ed for
residential construct n and, development of the p erty
removes an attract a nuisance and enhances the sa y
factor for the n ghborhood. Granting the variance wil
allow Mr. Hertze erg reasonable use of the land.
Mr. Stockton Vated that across Quaker Lane is a lot which
is less th 18,500 sq. ft. and, the lot behind the
petitioner' property is less than current standards. The
proposedt division would create lots which would be
larger ttuIsome other lots in the area. He believes the
variance meets the ordinance variance criteria and the
division is consistent with the neighborhood plan. He noted
there is only one other vacant lot in the vicinity and this
is approximately 20,000 sq. ft.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
BRUCE HERTZENBERG
LOT DIVISION AND
VARIANCE (87017)
Z
I
G v RIN N
VAK1 Nt4L 67Nw D ARDS
1) That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or
topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, a
particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from
a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to
be carried out.
2) That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based
are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and
are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zon-
ing classification.
3) That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a
desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of
land.
4) That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Ordinance
and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest
In the parcel of land.
5) That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or, injurious to other land or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
6) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the con-
gestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair
property values within the neighborhood.
7E
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: duly 15, 1987 for City Council Meeting August 3, 1987
TO: dames G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Associate Planner Al Cottingham through Blair Tremere, Community
SUBJECT
Development Director
RECOMMENDATION FOR REDUCTION OF SITE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR U-DO-CARWASH
85109 )
SUMMARY: The attached Resolution authorizes the reduction of the Site
Site Performance Guarantee for U-DO-Carwash located at 14440
28th Place North.
Planning staff has verified that the following deficiencies and requirements remain:
1. Winter Survivability of four Colorado Spruce
This item was scheduled for the duly 20, 1987 City Council meeting and the petitioner
requested that it be deferred to the meeting of August 3, 1987.
The City Council considered release of the guarantee at the dune 15, 1987 meeting and
denied the request and directed staff to investigate the status of all landscaping.
There was a question of winter survivablity.
The developer initially planted more landscaping than that originally approved by the
City Council. Some of these plantings died and were either removed or replaced; they
were above and beyond the number and varieties on the approved plan; the only plantings
which need to demonstrate survival through another winter growing season are the
plantings listed above.
The petitioner has indicated concern with the Council's direction and interpretation
ofd the Policy.
Attachments
1. Resolution
2. duly 15, 1987 Memorandum
3. dune 15, 1987 City Council Minutes
4. Location Map
5. Resolution No. 85-974
LINLS'
PROPERTIES. INCORPORATED
July 20, 1987
City of Plymouth
Attn: Blair Tremier
HAND DELIVERED FILE
Cuo"'
PY
RE: U -DO Car Wash on consent agenda.
Dear Sirs:
r r- n
r
D 79- Y
We would like to remove our item from the consent agenda
on the U -DO Car Wash for the July 20th, 1987 meeting,
We further request that you move our item to the regular
agenda before the city council at the August 3rd, 1987,
meeting. Thane, you for your assistance.
Please send me a copy of the August 3rd agenda when it
is assembled.
Sincerely,
L fdsi/
Robert WFie
SUITE 310, 15612 HIGHWAY 7, MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55345 PHONE AREA CODE (612) 938-1982
nayulal LVUI1C;11 nuu L,lIIg
June 15, 1987
Page 169
The Johnsons stated the City or its consultants have their per-
mission to go onto their property. Ms. Roberts gave written
permission.
MOTION was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by CouncilffAber
Zitur, to amend that the special assessment committee ,bye the
negotiating arm representing the Council and the developer be a
part of that as would the City Manager and the ,3ohnsons or
their representative.
Motion carried, five ayes.
Motion as amended carried, five ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Crain, seconded by Councilmem- RESOLUTION NO. 87-402
ber Vasiliou, to adopt RESOLUTION' NO. 87-402 APPROVING PLANS ORDERING
AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, DEEP DEEP WELLS NO. 8 & 9
WELLS NOS. 8 AND 9 PUMPING ,FACILITIES, REVISED, PROJECT NO. PROJECT 625
625. Item 8-J
Motion carried on a Roel Call vote, five ayes.
MOTION was made by ouncilmember Sisk, seconded by Councilmem- RESOLUTION NO. 87-403
ber Zitur, to ado RESOLUTION NO. 87-403 AUTHORIZING RELEASE BOND RELEASE
OF SITE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR CENTURION COMPANY FOR FOX FOX FOREST 2ND ADDN.
FOREST 2ND ADDITION (80045). (80045)
Item 8-K-1*
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes.
Councilmember Sisk stated that some shrubs at the carwash did
not survive the winter and had to be replaced. Some portion of
the bond should be withheld until they have survived a winter.
Director Tremere stated the developer stated the landscaping
was done. and in checking his staff found all the required
shrubs alive. Evidently the developer replaced some and the
staff was not aware of this. He cannot recommend a specific
amount of money at this time because he doesn't know how much
was replaced.
Councilmember Sisk stated that not all dead plants were
replaced and wants the initial plans checked.
MOTION was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by Councilmember RESOLUTION NO. 87-404
Crain, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 87-404 DENYING RELEASE OF SITE BOND RELEASr—
PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FOR U-DO-CARWASH (85109). U-DO-CARWASH (85109)
Item 8-K-2
Motion carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes.
MOTION was made by Mayor Schneider, seconded by Councilmember
Sisk, to have the developer to identify the plants which were
replaced at the U-Do-Carwash.
Motion carried, five ayes.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 16th day of December . 1985.
The following members were present: Mayor Davenport ounci]members Crain, Neils
and Schneider
The following members were absent: ounce member Vasiliou
Councilmember Schneider
adoption:
introduced the following Resolution and moved its
RESOLUTION NO. 85-974
APPROVING GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
VARIANCE FOR "U-DO-CARWASH" (85109)
WHEREAS, Bob Fields and Brian Zeubert have requested approval of a General Develop-
ment Plan Amendment, Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance for a carwash to
be located at 28th Place and Glacier Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by Bob Fields and Brian
Zeubert for a General Development Plan Amendment, Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit
and Variance for a carwash to be located at 28th Place and Glacier Lane, subject to
the following:
1. Compliance with City Engineer's Memorandum
2. Payment of park dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in accordance with the
Dedication Policy in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
3. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement for
completion of site improvements.
4. The Conditional Use Permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and
Ordinances and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
5. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
6. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within approved areas.
7. There shall be no outside display, sales, or storage of merchandise or related
materials.
8. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance.
9. The Conditional Use Permit for the car wash shall be subject to review one year
after issuance.
10. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approv-
als per Ordinance provisions.
PLEASE SEE PAGE TWO
Page two
Resolution No. 85- 974
11. No stacking or parking on the public road is allowed; policing of this shall be
the responsibility of the car wash management.
12. An employee will be present at the carwash during all hours of operation.
13. Approval includes the proof -of -parking plans for the carwash and alternate use
dated November 18, 1985.
14. Should this use no longer function in this building, the best alternate use
shall be an office, and that use shall be reflected on the General Development
Plan in that event.
15. Appropriate legal documents as approved by the City Attorney shall be filed on
the property limiting alternate use of the building to an office, based upon
installation of Ordinance required parking per proof -of -parking plan prior to
issuance of a Building and/or Occupancy Permit.
16. Variances include drive aisle setback (1 ft. vs. 15 ft.) and number of parking
spaces (3 vs. 25).
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Neils , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Davenport. Councilmembers Crain
Neils and Schneider
The following voted against or abstained: none
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: July 29, 1987 for City Council Meeting August 3, 1987
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
SUBJECT WAGNER SPRAY TECH. REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR "WAGNER ADDITION"
87030)
SUMMARY: Attached is the Draft Ordinance rezoning property from FRD
future restricted development) District to IP (planned indus-
trial) District and the Resolution setting the condition for rezoning. Also attached
is the Resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for three industrial parcels on 24.09
acres northwest of County Road 6 and I-494 (1770 Fernbrook Lane).
The Planning Commission reviewed the request at the Public Hearing held July 22, 1987
and recommended approval by unanimous vote.
A 4/5 vote is required for a rezoning action.
Atr-h., t-
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Resolution setting condition for rezoning
3. Resolution approving Preliminary Plat
4. July 22, 1987 Planning Commission Minutes
5. July 15, 1987 Planning Staff Report
6. Large Plans
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ORDINANCE NO. 87 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED NORTHWEST
OF COUNTY ROAD 6 AND I-494 (1770 FERNBROOK LANE) TO IP (PLANNED INDUSTRIAL) (87030)
Section 1. Amendment of Ordinance. Ordinance 80-9 of the City of Plymouth,
Minnesota, adopted dune 15, 1980 as amended, is hereby amended by changing the
classification on the City of Plymouth Zoning Map with respect to the hereinafter
described property:
INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
Section 2. General Development Plan. This Ordinance authorizes the development
of said property only in accordance with File 87030 subject to the plat and plan
approvals.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon filing the
Final Plat at Hennepin County.
Adopted by the City Council day of
ATTEST
Laurie Brandt, City Clerk
cc: File 87030
19 _
Virgil Schneider, Mayor
S
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the
City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day of , 19 The
following members were present: _
The
following members were absent:
adoption:
introduced the following Resolution and moved its
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
SETTING CONDITION TO BE MET PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE REZONING LAND LOCATED
NORTHWEST OF COUNTY ROAD 6 AND 1-494 (1770 FERNBROOK LANE) (87030)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved an Ordinance rezoning certain land located
northwest of County Road 6 and I-494 (1770 Fernbrook Lane) from FRD (future restricted
development) District to IP (planned industrial) District in conjunction with approval
of Final Plat for Wagner Addition for Wagner Spray Tech;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the Final Plat for Wagner Addition to
be filed with Hennepin County prior to the publication of said Ordinance.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by _
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
The following
voted against or abstained: Whereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
U
s
CITY OF PLYMOUTH ,
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the
City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day of , 19 The
following members were present: _
The
following members were absent:
introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WAGNER SPRAY TECH FOR WAGNER ADDITION (87030)
WHEREAS, Wagner Spray Tech has requested approval for a Rezoning and Preliminary Plat
for Wagner Addition for three industrial lots northwest of County Road 6 and I-494
1770 Fernbrook Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public Hear-
ing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MIN-
NESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Preliminary Plat for Wagner Spray
Tech for Wagner Addition for three industrial lots located northwest of County Road 6
and I-494 (1770 Fernbrook Lane), subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense.
3. No Building Permits shall be issued until a Contract has been awarded for sewer
and water.
4. Payment of park dedication fees in -lieu -of dedication in accordance with the
Dedication Policy in effect at the time of issuance of Building Permit.
5. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System.
6. Rezoning shall be finalized with filing of the Final Plat.
7. No Building Permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded
with Hennepin County.
8. In conjunction with, or prior to, the submittal of a final plat application, a
site plan for the existing industrial buildings must be submitted to reflect the
revised parking layout.
9. Easement documents for shared drives between the existing Wagner building on Lot 1
and the property to the north; also, between Lots 2 and 3, shall be submitted for
review by the City Attorney.
PLEASE SEE PAGE TWO
Page two
Resolution No. 87-
10. Legal descriptions of the vacation of existing road easements and a petition for
the extension of watermain to County Road 6 will be required prior to approval of
the final plat.
11. No yard setback variances are granted or implied.
12. Private drive access shall be limited to internal public roads and prohibited from
Fernbrook Lane.
13. The existing house, barn and garage located on proposed Lot 3 shall be removed
from the site prior to October 3, 1987; appropriate financial guarantee and
agreement shall be submitted to assure this. All structures shall be kept secure
until removed.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
The following
voted against or abstained: Whereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Page 163
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1987
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Wagner Spray
Tech and an overview of the duly 15, 1987 staff report was
provided by Coordinator Anderson.
Commissioner Marofsky confirmed with Coordinator Anderson
that they are proposing a shared drive between Lots 2 and 3,
as well as Lot 1.
Engineer Goldberg stated that Condition No. 9 relative to
shared drive easements could be expanded to reflect this
proposal.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mr. Kenneth Ester, Wagner
Spray Tech. Mr. Ester had no questions or comments. Chair-
man Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing.
Lawrence McGowan, 14300 County Road 6, stated he is most
likely the source of information circulating in the neigh-
borhood regarding retail businesses going on this property.
He stated he heard from a reliable source that a "PDQ Store"
was going in on this corner, along with a service station.
He is concerned about the glare of lights from these
businesses into his home; and, about the access on 17th
Avenue. He wants to know what types of businesses will be
going on this property.
Mr. Ester stated the plans are for a showroom/ warehouse/
office facility, it will be light industrial similar to
other areas of Fernbrook Lane; however, the site is too
small for a large scale factory.
Mr. McGowan stated he advised other people in the neighbor-
hood about what he had heard regarding development of this
property. He lives on the corner and semitrailer trucks
moving through here cannot make the turn. There is a light
pole on the corner which has been hit; drivers who are
familiar with the corner do alright; but outsiders don't
maneuver well and have shot the median and have taken the
sign down on several occasions.
Engineer Goldberg stated the City is aware of the problem
and is working on resolving it.
LeRoy Reinke, 1411 County Road 6, stated he is concerned
about possible redevelopment on the other side of County
Road 6. He noted that the City has bought one home and
inquired if the other house, which is empty now, is City
owned? Director Tremere confirmed this and further explain-
ed that, on the south side of County Road 6, the zoning is
R -1A (single family residential); the other side is zoned
for industrial use.
Mr. Reinke asked if this is an expansion of the Industrial
Zone? Chairman Steigerwald explained that the area is
WAGNER SPRAY TECH
REZONING, PRELIMINARY
87030)
Page 164
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1987
guided for industrial use and the platting includes the re-
zoning of the property to I-1 (planned industrial), which is
appropriate.
Mr. Reinke inquired about the City's plans. Director
Tremere explained and showed the plans for the construction
of the interchange; and, the drainage area for Parkers Lake.
Mr. Reinke inquired about Conditional Use Permits that can
be issued for industrial property; and, for what type of
business could it be used? Chairman Steigerwald and
Director Tremere explained that a Conditional Use Permit
could be considered for retail and service businesses which
would be essential to the Industrial District, and only for
the use of those persons in that District. A Conditional
Use Permit must be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council. However, this is not being
considered tonight.
Mr. Reinke inquired about the businesses that might go
here. Mr. Ester stated their use is strictly industrial,
they may sell lots for development, but these would be
industrially zoned. Mr. Reinke stated he is concerned about
any stores that would have late hours.
Chairman Steigerwald noted that property owners within 500
ft. are notified regarding the public hearing for review of
a Conditional Use Permit.
Dennis Evenson, 1711 Fernbrook Lane, inquired about the
access and drives to the property. Mr. Ester explained the
parking would be on the north side of the building and will
have a common access.
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION by -Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner
Stulberg to recommend approval for the Rezoning and Prelim-
inary Plat for Wagner Spray Tech, subject to the conditions
listed in the duly 15, 1987 staff report, with the expansion
of Condition No. 9 to read: Easement documents for shared
drives between the existing Wagner building on Lot 1 and the
property to the north; also, between Lots 2 and 3, shall be
submitted for review by the City Attorney.
Mr. Evenson expressed
between 18th and 17th
interconnection between
explained the plans to
between the sites.
concern about the existing access
Avenues North and the possible
two of the sites. Mr. Ester
install green space and curbing
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT DATE: July 15, 1987 MEETING DATE: July 22, 1987
FILE NO.: 87030
PETITIONER: Kenneth Ester, Wagner Spray Tech
REQUEST: Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for Wagner Addition
LOCATION: Northwest of County Road 6 and I-494 (1770 Fernbrook Lane)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: IP (planned industrial) ZONING: FRD (future restricted
development and I-1 (planned industrial)
BACKGROUND:
The petitioner requests approval of a Rezoning and Preliminary Plat application to plat
approximately 24.09 acres into three industrial parcels, and rezone approximately 2.5
acres of the property from FRD (future restricted development) District to I-1 (planned
industrial) District.
In February 1984, the City Council approved Resolution No. 84-88 for a Lot Division and
Variance for Robert Sevey for two parcels located at 14100 County Road 6.
Mr. Sevey then transferred ownership of one of these parcels, one acre in size, to
Wagner Spray Tech. This is parcel No. 11 as shown on the property ownership map.
In July 1984, the City Council authorized the purchase of the Sevey property located at
the northwest corner of I-494 and County Road 6.
In October 1984, the City Council approved Resolution No. 84-718 for a Lot Division and
Variance for the City of Plymouth for two parcels located at 14100 County Road 6.
These are referenced as parcels No. 13 and No. 14 on the property ownership map.
A public hearing notice has been published in the legal newspaper, and property owners
within 500 ft. have been notified. A Development Sign was placed on the property.
ANALYSIS:
1. The property is guided IP on the Land Use Guide Plan which contemplates the devel-
opment of the office/warehouse land uses indicated on the proposal. Utilities are
available for extension for the development of this property.
2. The Preliminary Plat consists of three lots which meet and/or exceed the lot size
and dimension requirements for the I-1 District. Street access would be provided
via a shared drive which will intersect with Fernbrook Lane. Lots 2 and 3 will
share a drive access.
Staff Report for Wagner Spray Tech
Ouly 22, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting
Page two
3. The proposed type of land uses for the three lots is consistent with the I-1 Zoning
District.
4. The house, barn and garage which presently exist near the intersection of Fernbrook
Lane and County Road 6 will be removed from the site prior to October 3, 1987.
5. The City presently owns the existing 5,000 sq. ft. concrete building shown on Lot 2
Parcel 13) and leases this building to Wagner Spray Tech.
6. Ownership of Parcel No. 13 (including the existing building) and Parcel No. 14 (see
property ownership map) will be transferred from the City to Wagner Spray Tech
prior to filing of the final plat. Wagner Spray Tech will in turn then dedicate
all of Parcel 14 and a portion of Parcel 8 to the City for the proposed
right-of-way at the intersection of County Road 6 and I-494.
7. Development of the new parcels, upon a final plat being recorded with Hennepin
County, is contingent upon ordinance required plan reviews.
8. The undeveloped lots are subject to cash fees in -lieu -of park dedication. The park
dedication fees are payable subsequent to City Council approval of a site plan, arid
prior to issuance of a building permit.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Staff finds the proposal consistent with IP guiding of the property, and with the
I-1 zoning.
2. In conjunction with, or prior to, the submittal of a final plat application, a site
plan for the existing building must be provided, as well as, shared drive documents
for the existing building and the property to the north. This parking is presently
located south of the building. Platting of this property will locate their
existing parking on Lot 2. The site plan is required to construct the parking for
the existing Wagner Spray Tech building on their own site (Lot 1).
3. Legal descriptions of the vacation of existing road easements and a petition for
the extension of watermain to County Road 6 will be required prior to approval of
the final plat.
RECOMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Rezoning and Preliminary Plat applications
subject to those conditions reflected in the draft recommendation.
Attachments:
1. Draft recommendation
2. Location map
3. Boundary Survey
4. Petitioner's correspondence
5. Engineer's memorandum
6. Large plans
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR DULY 22, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR KENNETH ESTER,
WAGNER SPRAY TECH (87030)
APPROVING REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR KENNETH ESTER, WAGNER SPRAY TECH TO WAGNER
ADDITION (87030)
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense.
3. No Building Permits shall be issued until a Contract has been awarded for sewer
and water.
4. Payment of park dedication fees in -lieu -of dedication in accordance with the
Dedication Policy in effect at the time of issuance of Building Permit.
5. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System.
6. Rezoning shall be finalized with filing of the Final Plat.
7. No Building Permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded
with Hennepin County.
8. In conjunction with, or prior to, the submittal of a final plat application, a
site plans for the existing industrial buildings must be submitted to reflect the
revised parking layout.
9. Shared drive easement documents for the existing Wagner building and the property
to the north, shall be submitted.
10. Legal descriptions of the vacation of existing road easements and a petition for
the extension of watermain to County Road 6 will be required prior to approval of
the final plat.
11. No yard setback variances are granted or implied.
12. Private drive access shall be limited to internal public roads and prohibited from
Fernbrook Lane.
13. The existing house, barn and garage located on proposed Lot 3 shall be removed
from the site prior to October 3, 1987; appropriate financial guarantee and
agreement shall be submitted to assure this. All structures shall be kept secure
until removed.
res/july(wagner)1
7 1'• i
Sim fili—Naow AZZ.mob
C
r
rmQ Nei
Illw -
ff
I ;q ' ,fwfo - *
460 ut) d qe sur ve y
n B9°sz '0-5- -z- Y /
87749-- . 11i7e o/NJv A4 0/"
Sw% c,` Sec. 27-)
706.00 ---
318.
61 -
7 '-Z174B
M , 't I r• I
N I % S1'/oPf ESP!nP7f Per
r r -to• " Doc. No. 934587 h
i UTt L1T 1 ; DRAINAGE ` 3
EASE ME N -T Ph, 7- Ocr_ p
o
ti I I p
WW
I h1
Z
CN
Wi
2
C I.
O O CC,LK SIGN °. I h L
C. [ANf tv 59. 57' OS' E p A 7
I O
GATE -• " .- -
3z a.11o -- La-,i, `C
n
c
M V' rmC'AR F@uC,E^; TD. 1', .`• LMAtN.NK ,V • _`((
Z= GATE O LY A
t2' wooD cEn•C.E C> .v 4 A c
N I ST Rt: T UTI LITV EASE AEt•T %P4FAL Q ,C W I
PER uo. 42Q 49510 , N-89°S:'
s05-
F !
SO. NOR O6 : S liqur •. ? aV
MOTOR EN/CL! TwC NORrN
h`25 FT.
i CASEMENT PFR Doc No.!46!)76_Q y 1.14 S
24 F
f' -
N
V
ir
P11-
33 Es ENT PE.• c .•. o I Q/ c , \ S I;nc N. '771f
ti. 1 n.10 t oC eH .
N
Scree 9rf 'ntn I•: : 6
Po_
SemPn141 _
ice' _ 1. •jnf Lb.. Me,59POS4+
3 Lo+ o o PlllllARALLEL J
VB9°52'05'E /332.50-- IyI.19i
l3.cgr.•` 'g9•sz'o6' F Q—'e're
Nor7h 299.50 , 3 /oe•. e*5.1 Easemt,71 -7 2 r : 0 r CI
9b —` per pe c. M. vL N ' m
41 17- I ,, p_- f j - 14 0•
rcEAOEtJEw-t'T PER -
IS
E -
is •.a tizt
s
V
WARN .9 „ O
C N S h " /1P a 2 I r =C
Ll
W iII iTIC-) FaerA/a `
Z
Fe
3005,0
zB w
HEN".
COUNTY STATE AID HWY.:I ••3sot NO. V
333
6603 - f re su-/e 1lne o/ Co. Rd /'o. (o
V88°i/ P6 f P. r page f , Book 3 of 14iyhway Pla
h Counly Recorder'
i SW Co" e{ Sec/'o. 27, T/!B, RIL --- - — Q {lite of { G
39soo--
McCombs -Knutson Associates, Inc.
12800 Industrial Park Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55441
612/559-3700
1-800-328-8322 Ext. 784
Mr. Scott D. McLellan
Assistant Building Official
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55441
SUBJECT: Wagner Spray Tech
Fernbrook Lane Site
Plymouth, Minnesota
MKA 43181
Dear Mr. McLellan:
June 11, 1987 Ena,nee,s
Planners
Surveyors
t
In response to your April 2 and April 17, 1987 review correspondences
regarding Wagner Spray Tech's rezoning and Preliminary Plat Application, please
note the following:
1. The revised development plan (enclosed) identifies the existing
building area of the existing structures.
2. The revised development plan also shows the shared drive proposed
between Lots 2 and 3. This drive does line up with 17th Avenue.
3. Legal descriptions for the vacation of existing road easements will be
submitted with the final plat application. Additionally, the petition
for the extension of the watermain to County Road 6 will be submitted
with the final plat application. In conjunction with the watermain
extension, we understand that Wagner Spray Tech will be submitting,
under separate cover, their position relative to any proposed
assessments.
4. We understand that, at the time of final platting, a site plan for the
existing building will need to be processed, and also the shared
driveway documents for the existing building and property to the north
will have to be submitted.
5. The preliminary plat has been modified to reflect the additional
right-of-way required for County Road 6, per the attachment included
in your April 17, 1987 review correspondence.
We trust that the responses contained herein adequately address your
concerns. However, if you have any questions, or need any additional
information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Paul A. Johnson, R.L.S.
PAJ:jmj
cc: Kenneth Esther, Wagner Spray Tech
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: JuZy Z7, Z987
FILE NO.: 87030
PETITIONER: Mr. Kenneth Ester - Wagner Spray Tech - Z770 Fernbrook Lane, PZymouth,
Mn., 55442
PRELIMINARY PLAT: Wagner Addition
LOCATION: East of Fernbrook Lane, North of County Road 6, West of Highway 494
in the Southwest Z/4 of Section 2Z.
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. - y Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
3. _ X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and
No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of final plat approval.
4. Area assessments: Nnnp
5. Other additional assessments estimated: In accordance with the City
Assessment PoZicy the deveZoper is response Ze for the cost of a
Z2" watermain aZong Highway 494. The deveZoper shaZZ petition the
City, to construct the required Z6" watermain The deveZoper wiZZ be
required to paz/ for the cost of a Z2" watermain as part of the
deveZopment contract.
Legal/Easements/Permits:
6. X Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in
width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width adjoining side
and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
El
7. X All standard utility easements required for construction are provided -
The City will require twenty foot (20') utility and drainage easements
for proposed utilities along the lot lines where these utilities are
proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed with the final
plat and final construction plans.
8. X Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for ponding
purposes on all property lying below the stablished 100 year high water
elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive storm water
drainage plan.
9. X All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been vacated
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-way to
facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process in con-
junction with the platting process. It is the owner's responsibility
to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements
proposed to be vacated.
10. _y_ The Owner's Duplicate,Certificate of Title has been submitted to the
City with this application - If it is subsequently determined that the
subject property is abstract property, then this requirement does not
apply.
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that
he may file the required easements referred to above.
11. _X- All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR X Bassett Creek
Mn DOT Minnehaha Creek
y_ Hennepin County Elm Creek
X_ MPCA Shingle Creek
State Health Department Army Corps of Engineers
Other
2-
TRANSPORTATION:
N/A Yes No
12. X Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the City
grid system for street names. The following changes will be necessary.
13. X Conforms with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Cuide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's adopted
Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
14. X Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
15. X All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on Fernbrook Lane, County Rd.
6 and Highway 494 shaZZ be dedicated on the f'inaZ pZat as shown on the
Preliminaru PZat
UTILITIES:
16. X Conforms with City standards requiring the developer to construct
utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the developer shall be responsibile
for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and
streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional engineer
must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer,
watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the development.
See item Z7 Z8 and 20.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. X Preliminary utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements -
The developer has submitted the required preliminary plans for the
proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities;
The new sanitary sewer aZonq Fernbrook Lane shaZZ be moved to the
east to ensure the oonstmeat,nn w,777nn-t -7(=,7 e the, r+urh and gztto»
18. X Per developer's request a preliminary report and plan will be prepared by
the City -
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as part
of its Capital Improvements Program, a petition must be submitted to the
City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1, of the year preceding
construction. The deyeZo_! er sYaZZ notetion tLe (-oto to rnnstm t
the 76" watermain aZo= 494
19. Minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following lots.
20. X The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Water
Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required: tke re ziirad ZR" waJLormn'_),?
shaZZ be shown on the PrPZim nar; PZat
21. X The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
4-
PRELMNARY GRADING DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
N/A Yes No
22. X It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility foreman,
24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to the
City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The developer shall also be
responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the Public Works Department for
an excavating permit prior to any digging within the City right-of-way.
All water connections shall be via wet tap.
23. X_ Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted to the
City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if it is in conformance with
the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommen-
dations shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The grading and
drainage plan shall also indicate proposed methods--o-f--erosion control,
the placement o slIt ence in strategic locations.Addition-
includinga y, t e following revisions will be necessary: Storm draina„ae
lairicuiat onS shaZZ be provided with each siteZn an app?iaation -
U,adinanZans wiZZ be reviewed with the site pZan aappZications.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
24A. No access shaZZ be permitted to County Road 6.
B. The existing access to County Road 6 shaZZ be removed.
C. In accordance with the GeneraZ
shared access to Fernbrook Lane
of Z7th Avenue.
DeveZopment Plan, there wiZZ be one
for Lots 2 and 3 immediateZy opposite
Submitted by:
City Eng' eer)
5-
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: July 31, 1987
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Dale E. Hahn, Finance Director
SUBJECT DECLARING COST AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1987 REMOVAL
AND DESTRUCTION OF DISEASED TREES
Attached are resolutions declaring the cost to be assessed and ordering the
preparation of the assessment roll and the necessary resolutions setting
August 17, 1987 for the public hearings. The total 1987 removal and
destruction of diseased trees is $2,731.25. It is recommended that the City
Council adopt the attached resolutions.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH 0,
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City
Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota was held on the day of
1987. The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
RESOLUTION FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
1987 REMOVAL AND DESTRUCTION OF DISEASED TREES
WHEREAS, by a resolution -passed by the Council on August 3, 1987 the City
Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment for the total cost for the
destruction and removal of diseased trees on certain lands within the City as
provided by law; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk has notified the Council that such proposed assessment has
been completed and filed in the office of the City Clerk for public
inspection;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA:
1. A public hearing shall be held on the 17th day of August, 1987 in
the City Council Chambers of the Plymouth City Center, 3400
Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, Minnesota at 7:30 p.m. to pass upon
such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons
owning property affected by such improvement will be given an
opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing
on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official
newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and shall state
in the notice the total amount of the assessment. The Clerk shall
also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel
described in the assessment roll.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against or abstained:
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
ACX iClCX C YX
F `
y
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the
City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota was held on the day of
1987. The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
YX XXX
adoption:
introduced the following Resolution and moved its
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING
PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR
1987 REMOVAL AND DESTRUCTION OF DISEASED TREES
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provision of Section 18.271 M.S.A., the City Forester
of the City of Plymouth has caused the destruction and removal of diseased
trees on certain lands within said City, and a determination has been made
that certain charges thereto have not been paid as provided by law, and the
total amount of such work amounts to $2,731.25.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA:
1. The cost of such assessment to be specially assessed is hereby
declared to be $2,731.25.
2. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Forester, shall
forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for
such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of
land within the district affected without regard to cash
valuation, as provided by law, and the Clerk shall file a copy of
such proposed assessment in the office of the City Clerk for
public inspections.
3. The Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment,
notify the Council thereof.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof:
The following voted against or abstained:
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
4 -1 7 E ----
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: duly 29, 1987 for City Council Meeting August 3, 1987
TO: dames G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
SUBJECT AMERIDATA SYSTEMS, INC. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (87055)
SUMMARY: Attached is the Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit
for AmeriData Systems, Inc. for "Plymouth Learning Center", to
operate a day care service at 10200 51st Avenue North for AmeriData employees as well
as other employees in this industrial park.
The Planning Commission reviewed the request at the Public Hearing held duly 22, 1987
and recommended approval by unanimous vote.
1. Resolution
2. duly 22, 1987 Planning Commission Minutes
3. duly 15, 1987 Planning Staff Report
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the
City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day of , 19_ The
following members were present: _
The
following members were absent:
introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AMERIDATA SYSTEMS, INC. FOR "PLYMOUTH LEARNING
CENTER" (87055)
WHEREAS, AmeriData Systems, Inc. has requested a Conditional Use Permit for "Plymouth
Learning Center" to operate a day care service at 10200 51st Avenue North for AmeriData
employees as well as other employees in this industrial park; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public
Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MIN-
NESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for AmeriData Systems, Inc.
for a Conditional Use Permit for "Plymouth Learning Center" to operate a day care
service at 10200 51st Avenue North for AmeriData employees as well as employees in this
industrial park, subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and Ordinances, and
violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The permit is issued to AmeriData Systems Inc. as operator of the facility and
shall not be transferable.
3. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
4. There shall be no signage allowed on the property relative to the use.
5. A copy of the current State license shall be provided prior to issuance of the
Permit and shall be kept on file with the City.
6. Compliance with applicable Building and Fire Code requirements shall be verified
by the City prior to Permit issuance.
7. The facility shall only be available for people who are employed in the industrial
park. The industrial park is bound by County Road 18 on the east, the Soo Line
Railroad on the north, Schmidt Lake Road on the south and the western edge of Ryan
Business Center on the west.
Page two
Resolution No. 87-
8. The permit shall be renewed in one year to assure compliance with the approval.
At the time of the renewal, a list of parents, whose children use the daycare
service, including their place of employment shall be provided. The address of
each place of employment must be submitted with a statement verifying that each
place of employment is located within the boundaries of the industrial park
described by Condition No. 7.
9. The daycare service will occupy no more than 2,000 sq. ft. of the building.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by _
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
The following
voted against or abstained: Whereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Page 161
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1987
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by AmeriData
Systems, Inc. and requested an overview of the July 15, 1987
staff report by Coordinator Anderson.
Commissioner Marofsky inquired if the City would recommend a
limitation to the amount of square footage within the
building to be used for this service? Coordinator Anderson
stated the petitioner has stated that 1,800 sq. ft. will be
used, however, the City has not placed a limitation on the
space to be used for this purpose.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced John Strittmatter, Ryan
Construction Company, representing the petitioner. Mr.
Strittmatter introduced Sherry Anderson; and, Linda Stuart,
who will be operating the daycare service. Mr. Strittmatter
explained that the State License requires the square footage
proposed, and the building will meet all codes required for
licensing the daycare.
Commissioners Wire and Plufka inquired about the number of
children. Ms. Stuart stated the license will be for 34
children.
Commissioner Zylla inquired about the requirements for the
Permit overlapping the State requirements; and was concerned
that the City not be considered a licensor. Coordinator
Anderson explained that daycare is a conditional use in a
building which is operating as the permitted use in this
Zoning District. The Conditional Use Permit is granted only
upon notification that the daycare operation is properly
licensed by Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota.
Director Tremere further explained that the State of
Minnesota calls upon Plymouth's Fire Marshal and Building
Division to inspect the premises and confirm that the
building meets applicable Fire Code and Building Code
requirements; the City is not otherwise involved with the
licensing requirements of the County.
Commissioner Plufka inquired if the license would be taken
in the name of AmeriData? Ms. Stuart stated the day care
license would be for "Plymouth Learning Center" who is
contracting with AmeriData to operate the service.
Commissioner Plufka commended AmeriData for providing child
care in the workplace.
Chairman Steigerwald confirmed that the Conditional Use
Permit would be issued to AmeriData Systems, Inc.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing, as there was
no one present to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was
closed.
AhERIDATA SYSTEMS,
INC. CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR
DAYCARE SERVICE
87055)
Page "162
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1987
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Stulberg to recommend approval for the Conditional Use
Permit for AmeriData Systems, Inc., subject to the
conditions listed in the July 15, 1987 staff report.
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO AMEND
Wire to Amend the Main Motion, adding Condition No. 9 that
the daycare service will occupy no more than 2,000 sq. ft.
of the principal building. .r
Director Tremere explained that any increase in the number
of children would necessitate increasing the amount of
square footage used and, would require review of the license
by the County; and, an Amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit by the City.
Commissioner Marofsky stated that the application shows that
approximately 1,800 sq. ft." would be used for the daycare;
and, believes the condition of approval should be specific
to limit the floor space to be used for this purpose. He
stated the Commission should review the Permit again if
there would be any future expansion.
Further discussion ensued regarding the parameters for the
Permit.
Director Tremere explained that if the Commission sets a
limit, it should be referred to generically, not as hard
numbers.
Ms. Stuart explained that the 1,800 sq. ft. is appropriate
for the number of children approved for this license, and
even adding one child would require review of her license
and approval for any expansion.
Commissioner Marofsky believes that giving leeway of 2,000
sq. ft. would be appropriate.
Roll Call Vote on the Motion as Amended. Commissioners VOTE ON AMENDMENT
Stulberg, Plufka, and Chairman Steigerwald, Nay. 4 Ayes. MOTION CARRIED
MOTION carried.
Roll Call Vote on Main Motion as once Amended. 7 Ayes. VOTE ON MAIN MOTION
MOTION carried. MOTION CARRIED
y6
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT DATE: duly 15, 1987
FILE NO.: 87055
PETITIONER: AmeriData Systems, Inc.
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 10200 51st Avenue North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: IP (planned industrial)
BACKGROUND:
MEETING DATE: duly 22, 1987
ZONING: I-1 (planned industrial)
The petitioner requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a
daycare service for the AmeriData employees as well as other employees of this indus-
trial park. This industrial park is bound by County Road 18 on the east, the Soo Line
Railroad on the north, Schmidt Lake Road on the south and the western edge of Ryan
Business Center on the west.
The site plan for the building was approved by the City Council on March 2, 1987 under
Resolution No. 87-144.
A public hearing notice has been published in the legal newspaper, and property owners
within 500 ft. have been notified.
ANALYSIS:
1. The Zoning Ordinance states that service/business uses are allowed as a conditional
use in the Industrial District provided that they are primarily for the use of
persons employed in the district. The daycare is a service business which is
provided for employees who work at this facility and in this industrial park.
2. The Conditional Use Permit is being requested so that approximately 1,800 sq. ft.
of the 48,420 sq. ft. office/warehouse building could be used.
3. There would be no signage or advertising of the daycare facility.
4. The daycare facility is required to be licensed by the State of Minnesota.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The Conditional Use Permit request responds to the ordinance provisions.
2. Restriction as to the customer base is important. The facility should not be open
to the general public.
3. This is a good example of a private company providing daycare services for its own
exployees without interfering with private daycare centers.
Staff Report for AmeriData Systems, Inc.
July 22, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting
Page two
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to those conditions as
reflected in the draft recommendation.
Attachments:
1. Recommendation
2. Location map
3. Petitioner's correspondence
4. Conditional Use Permit criteria
t
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR DULY 22, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR AMERIDATA
SYSTEMS, INC. (87055)
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AMERIDATA SYSTEMS, INC. FOR A DAYCARE AT THEIR
FACILITY AT 10200 51ST AVENUE NORTH (87055)
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and Ordinances, and
violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The permit is issued to AmeriData Systems Inc. as operator of the facility and
shall not be transferable.
3. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
4. There shall be no signage allowed on the property relative to the use.
5. A copy of the current State license shall be provided prior to issuance of the
Permit and shall be kept on file with the City.
6. Compliance with applicable Building and Fire Code requirements shall be verified
by the City prior to Permit issuance.
7. The facility shall only be available for people who are employed in the industrial
park. The industrial park is bound by County Road 18 on the east, the Soo Line
Railroad on the north, Schmidt Lake Road on the south and the western edge of Ryan
Business Center on the west.
8. The permit shall be renewed in one year to assure compliance with the approval.
At the time of the renewal, a list of parents, whose children use the daycare
service, including their place of employment shall be provided. The address of
each place of employment must be submitted with a statement verifying that each
place of employment is located within the boundaries of the industrial park
described by Condition No. 7.
res/June (ameridata)1
ff. 22
F21
I
n
L9ltgM191S.1M M M ...........
u w e.1.c.oe!.c .c » .o.ot .c mi
it !1 1? h { ( i - .1 (P Or • 1 1 1 1 it ( IT 1 t 11 41' 41 Q ( (T 1 l AV 0 , 4/ l
1/ a f2 Fa f f 9 R. 22 Ir ILUIIy®VYfi`il®
m I Lo J
STORM SEWER DISTRICT BOUNDARY
L w dA
SNESCNDDL
DISTRICT BOUNDARY
WAIERD DISTRICT BOUNDARY
INCREMENT BDUNDAR1
F
SURVE,
NENNEFI
04)4)q)4P4NC414141(14 Itl4r%1,401IR 0 411)ql1)q)4 4tA)ki11%11,0%vlip IV41IV17gvgp'- IT 11
a
m I Lo J
STORM SEWER DISTRICT BOUNDARY
L w dA
SNESCNDDL
DISTRICT BOUNDARY
WAIERD DISTRICT BOUNDARY
INCREMENT BDUNDAR1
F
SURVE,
NENNEFI
04)4)q)4P4NC414141(14 Itl4r%1,401IR 0 411)ql1)q)4 4tA)ki11%11,0%vlip IV41IV17gvgp'- IT 11
7008 Northland Drive
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428
Phone (612) 536-6000
June 29, 1987
John Strittmatter
Ryan Construction Company
700 International Center
900 - 2nd Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
RE: Conditional Use Permit:
Dear Mr. Strittmatter:
7„
Sr3tcrrrsGrr:
I would like to respond to the letter directed to you from the City of
Plymouth regarding our application for a Conditional Use Permit. We would
be happy to comply with the City's request to have steps in place to
verify the employers of the parents whose children are enrolled in the Day
Care.
The Center will have on file monthly reports of all children, their
parents and the parents' place of employment. Dates of enrollment will
also be listed. These reports can be sent to the City of Plymouth monthly
or quarterly or kept on file until they are asked to be reviewed. Reports
would be kept on file for five years.
John, if you have any additional suggestions please don't hesitate to call
me.
Thanks for your time in this matter.
Sincerely,
Sherry Hanson
Personnel Representative
SH/ck
cc: City of Plymouth
Planning Commission
i
d 7c JT$'
It
Mr. Ray Anderson
Community Development Coordinator
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: AMERIDATA SYSTEMS, INC.
Conditional Use Permit (87055)
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Enclosed please find a letter form Ms. Sherry Hanson of AmeriData
Systems, Inc. outlining a suggested monthly or quarterly reporting
system designed to regularly inform the City as to the operations of the
daycare facility.
Should you have any additional comments, please contact me at 339-9847.
Sincerely,
RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
ohn L. Strittmatter
Director of Marketing
JLS/dm
Enc.
cc: Sherry Hanson
Marie McCallum
V
700 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE, 900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE 612/339-9847
AmeriData Systems, Inc. would like to utilize 1,800 square feet of their new
facility to provide Daycare services for AmeriData employees. This service
is for AmeriData employees only and would not be open to the general public.
In addition:
1. This request is in compliance with and will have no effect on the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The establishment and operation of the conditional use will promote
and enhance the general welfare of AmeriData employees and will not
pose a danger to public health, safety, morals or comfort.
3. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already per-
mitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within
the neighborhood.
4. The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly develop-
ment and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in
the district.
5. Since the conditional use is for employees only there will be no
additional impact on ingress, engress and parking other than required
for normal business operations.
6. The conditional use shall in all other respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
Se c-
r,ot, d (77o P, c &4
perm,7- Ge-,7(_se-,a
2. Procedure. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the application
therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for purposes of evalua-
tion against the standards of this Section, Public Hearing, and development of a
recommendation to the City Council, which shall make the final determination as
to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its con-
formance with the follo%ing standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will
promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimen-
tal to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already
permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within
the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses
permitted in the District.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress,
and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public
streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the appli-
cable regulations of the district in which it is located.
9!S;r
III A ---$ 118 s 88g 8 988ggp
SLS
John D. McEnany
17135 11th Avenue North
Plymouth, IIN 55447
32-118-22-22-0064 $175.00
John N. Swanson
17345 9th Avenue North
Plymouth, PN 55447
32-118-22-23-0026 $1,025.00
Louise M. Holter
213 County Road 73
Plymouth, NN 55441
35-118-22-44-0047 $287.50
Donald E. Maki
17335 County Road 24
Plymouth, MN 55447
20-118-22-23-0015 $437.50
Scott B. Hagberg
12306 Sunset Trail North
Plymouth, MN 55441
35-118-22-32-0008 $56.25
Chicago N.W. Railroad
Mr. Van Derlease
2000 Elm Street S.E.
Minneapolis, M 55414
26-118-22-43-0001 $750.00
i
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: duly 29, 1987 for City Council Meeting August 3, 1987
TO: dames G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
SUBJECT HARSTAD COMPANIES. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN/PLAT FOR LAKE
CAMELOT ESTATES 2ND ADDITION (87061) (RPUD 86-1)
SUMMARY: The attached Resolutions approve the PUD Final Plan/Plat for
Lake Camelot Estates 2nd Addition and establish conditions to
be met prior to filing the Final Plat with Hennepin County.
The petitioner requests approval of a Final Plat for 25 single family residential lots
located north of Annapolis Lane and 61st Avenue North.
The Preliminary Plat was approved by Resolution No. 87-446 by the City Council on duly
6, 1987.
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the proposal and finds it in substantial
compliance with the approved preliminary plat and Resolution No. 83-125.
1. Resolution Approving Final Plat
2. Resolution Setting Conditions for Filing Final Plat
3. Location Map
4. Engineer's Memorandum
5. Final Plat
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the
City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day of , 19_ The
following members were present: _
The
following members were absent:
introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN/PLAT FOR HARSTAD COMPANIES
FOR LAKE CAMELOT ESTATES 2ND ADDITION (87056) (RPUD 86-1)
WHEREAS, Harstad Companies has requested approval for RPUD Final Plan/Plat for Lake
Camelot Estates 2nd Addition(RPUD 86-1), a plat for 25 single family residential lots
located north of Annapolis Lane and 61st Avenue North;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the RPUD Final Plan/Plat for Harstad
Companies for Lake Camelot Estates 2nd Addition located north of Annapolis Lane and
61st Avenue North.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by —
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
The following
voted against or abstained: Whereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
11
d CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the
City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day of , 19 The
following members were present: _
The
following members were absent:
introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUUTI0N NO. 87 -
SETTING CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATED TO FINAL PLAT FOR LAKE
CAMELOT ESTATES 2ND ADDITION FOR HARSTAD COMPANIES (87056) (RPUD 86-1)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the RPUD Final Plan/Plat for Lake Camelot
Estates 2nd Addition, as requested by Harstad Companies;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MIN-
NESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the following to be met, prior to
recording of, and related to said plat:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. No Building Permits shall be issued until a Contract has been awarded for the con-
struction of municipal sewer and water.
3. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense.
4. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79-80 regarding minimum floor elevations for
new structures in subdivisions adjacent to, or containing any open storm water
drainage facility.
5. Submittal of required utility and drainage easements as approved by the City
Engineer prior to filing the Final Plat.
6. No Building Permits to be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded with
Hennepin County.
7. Appropriate legal documents regarding Homeowner Association covenants and restric-
tions as approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the Final Plat.
8. The Final Plat mylars shall contain a statement noting that the plat is part of
the approved RPUD 86-1 per Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. All development shall comply with Resolution Nos. 86-256 and 86-738, and the
Development Contract for Lake Camelot Estates.
10. The following lots shall have a minimum front yard setback of 25 ft.: Block 1,
Lots 2 - 8; Block 2, Lots 3 - 9; from Cheshire Lane only, Block 1, Lots 1 and 9;
from Berkshire Lane only, Block 2, Lots 2 and 10. These last four lots shall have
a minimum yard setback of 35 ft. from 61st Avenue North.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by _
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
The following
voted against or abstained: Whereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
OF
f
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: July 29, Z987
87056
FILE VO.:
Mr. Ken Briggs - Harstad Companies - 219Z Silver Lake Road, New Brighton,
PETITIONER: Mn, , 55112
FINAL PLAT: Lake Camelot Estates 2nd Addition
LOCATION: West of I-494, north and south of County Road No. 47, adjacent to Maple
Grove, in the northwest Z/4 of Section 3.
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
H/A Yes No
x Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. X_ Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
3. — SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and No.
2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at the
time of final plat approval.
4. Area assessments: Watermain Assessments were nreviousZe levied with
the f,nnZ , T.7.ke Cam of Estates based on 189 units x 5645.00/unit
7L, 905. .Sani,tar; Sewer Ar . Assessments were levied based on Z89
units .r. 4360.00/u i. = 468.040. Area Assessments fir OutZots F and H will
be determined when final platted and credit will be given for the difference
between the 189 units originally levied and the 186 units now proposed as
single family.
5. QtheT additional assessments est,imatQd: The cost associated with the drain-
ravpmonts within the Ci.tg n4 Maple C,rov . are estimated to be L,5,737.
Ae developer is responsible for paying this cost.
Legal/Easements/Permits:
6. Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in
width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width adjoining side and
rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
7. X All standard utility easements require( for construction are provided -
The City will require twenty foot (20') utility and drainage easements
for proposed utilities along the lot lines where these utilities are
proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed with the final
construction plans and the following changes are necessary: A ZO font.
the City in recordable form for the reZocation of the storm sewer.
8. Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for ponding
purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year high water
elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive storm water
drainage plan.
9. - y All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-way to
facilitate the development... This is not an automatic process in con-
junction with the platting process. It is the owner's responsibility to
submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to
be vacated. f-1„ 7.;-, T--v „-p opo+ irvii 1-7»1-y-»1-71ro nvlri
10. - The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the City
with this application - If it is subsequently determined that the subject
property is abstract property, then this requirement does not apply.
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the city attorney
with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that he may file
the required easements referred to above.
11. _y All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be
DNR (Permit 87-6044)
Mn DOT
Hennepin County (Z5765
MPCA (Z4494)
State Health Departmen
70543)
2-
obtained by the developer:
Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek (Letter 7-9-86)
Shingle Creek (Letter 6-Z2-86)
t Army Corps of Engineers(Letter 10-1-f
Other
B
Transportation:
N/A Yes No
12. X Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the City
grid system for street names. The following changes will be necessary.
13. X Conforms with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's adopted
Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
14. _ Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
15. _ All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on
UTILITIES:
16. _ Conforms with City standards requiring the developer to construct
utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the developer shall be responsibile
for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and
streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional engineer
must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer,
watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the development.
3-
N/A Yes No
17.
18. y
19.
y
20. x
21. _x
F
Final utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements
The developer has submitted the required construction plans for the
proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities; and has
also furnished profiles of these utilities as well as the proposed street
system (public and private).
Per developer's request final plans will be prepared by the City.
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as part
of its Capital Improvements Program, a petition must be submitted to the
City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1 of the year preceding
construction, if the developer is paying 100% of the cost.
Minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following lots.
Lots adjacent to OutZot A 966.4, Lots adjacent to OutZot B 959.9 North
970.0 South. Lots adjacent o Out of G 955.0 West - 967.7 East. Lots
q,djacent to OutZnt T 95R Tnt.s R e2nr7 9 R7A,-7k P, 9.5.9 R T,ni-c 7.P- LZ.,
Z4, BZock 2, 955.6. Lots 4 & 5 BZock Z, proposed Lake CameZot Estates 2nd
Addition 955.6. Lots adjacent to Mud Lake 969.5. Lots adjacent to DNR
WetZand No. 538 W 946.8.
The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Water
Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
4-
11
N/A Yes No
22. ,y It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's public utility
foreman, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to
the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The developer shall also be
responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the Public Works Department for
an excavating permit prior to any digging within the City right-of-way.
All water connections shall be via wet tat).
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
23. x_ Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted to the
City's consulting engineer for review to see if it is in conformance with
the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommenda-
tions shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The grading and drainage
plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control, including
the placement of silt fence in strategic locations. Additionally, the
following revisions will be necessary: The Grading and Drainage PZan
shaZl compZy with aZZ of the ShiwZe Creek, EZm Creek DNR and Corps
of Fnaineers reQ2irements.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
24A. All deveZopment shaZZ compZy with Resolution Nos. 86-256 and 86-738, and the
DeveZopment Contract for Lake CameZot Estates.
B. in order to buiZd a house type other than what is shown on the Grading and
Erosion PZan, the deveZoper and home buiZder shaZZ obtain written permission
from the City Engineer and BuiZding Official to change the type of house
and basement eZevation.
Submitted by: J !/
City Engineer
5-
0
6'1 9.Y 91 SS \'
60
xg p0. rya ,`,.•,.
a•. p0•E ,63 •, a8
0o z•.. o gni, , ,,
S Si'r9? r j
m4o. os
V.00 ,E+ SON
o•.
D4
Y~ •`
N vIti4Q
II '•S
u
Oi i
CFH , ,g 0 i
i a•00. 00 •2 '±o`.
4
w
h J. rFN / ?ti '
mn °O
t
a
ao
3 s
I oo, .' Y •r o.
g
b
Se01
a
J y •. 1 c c
E6 'o'+ •0 \ ``
SC.
4 1''g r\
Vim`.
uu
e
F9 / °Z 2i'M• .:y i0
S
r •
InL
co
v
a sl, 8,y>'7 ca191.Y99cet
6'1 9.Y 91 SS \'
60
xg p0. rya ,`,.•,.
a•. p0•E ,63 •, a8
0o z•.. o gni, , ,,
S Si'r9? r j
m4o. os
V.00 ,E+ SON
o•.
D4
Y~ •`
N vIti4Q
II '•S
u
Oi i
CFH , ,g 0 i
i a•00. 00 •2 '±o`.
4
w
h J. rFN / ?ti '
mn °O
t
a
G
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: duly 29, 1987 for City Council Meeting August 3, 1987
TO: dames G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
SUBJECT PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH. SITE PLAN, REZONING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND
VARIANCE 187060
SUMMARY: Attached is the Draft Ordinance rezoning property from FRD
future restricted development) District to R -1A (low density
single family residential) District and the Resolution approving the Site Plan,
Conditional Use Permit, and Variance to allow the expansion of the church at 3695
Highway 101.
The Planning Commission reviewed the request at the Public Hearing held duly 22, 1987
and recommended approval by unanimous vote.
A 4/5 vote is required for a rezoning action.
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Approving Resolution
3. duly 22, 1987 Planning Commission Minutes
4. duly 10, 1987 Planning Staff Report
5. Large Plans
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ORDINANCE NO. 87 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED AT 3695
HIGHWAY 101 TO R -1A (LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT (87061)
Section 1. Amendment of Ordinance. Ordinance 80-9 of the City of Plymouth,
Minnesota, adopted dune 15, 1980 as amended, is hereby amended by changing the
classification on the City of Plymouth Zoning Map with respect to the hereinafter
described property:
That part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Sec. 18, Township 118,
Range 22 described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4;
thence North along the East line thereof 290.67 feet to the point of beginning;
thence continuing North 413.33 feet to the centerline of Medina Road; thence
deflecting left 55 degrees 50 minutes along said centerline a distance of 577.60
feet; thence deflecting left 90 degrees a distance of 342 feet; thence deflecting
left to the point of beginning; except the northeasterly 33 feet of said property
subject to an easement for highway over the East 33 feet of said property.
Section 2. General Development Plan. This Ordinance authorizes the development
of said property only in accordance with File 87061 subject to plan approvals.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption and
publication.
Adopted by the City Council
ATTEST
Laurie Brandt, City Clerk
cc: File 87061
day of 19
Virgil Schneider, Mayor
It
0 CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the
City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day of , 19 The
following members were present:
The
following members were absent:
introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
APPROVING SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH
87061)
WHEREAS, Peace Lutheran Church has requested approval of Rezoning, Site Plan,
Conditional Use Permit, and Variance to allow the expansion of the church at 3695 High-
way 101; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public
Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MIN-
NESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for Peace Lutheran Church
for a Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance for the expansion of the church
at 3695 Highway 101, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement for
completion of site improvements.
3. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance.
4. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals
per Ordinance provisions.
5. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within the structure.
6. An 8 1/2 x 11 inch "As -Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted prior to the
release or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City Policy.
7. Approved variance includes the waiving of fire lanes on the south and east sides
of the building per the Fire Chief.
8. Compliance with Policy Resolution No. 79-80 regarding minimum floor elevations for
new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing any open storm water drainage
facility.
9. Easement documents for shared drive access for the church and the Wayzata School
District shall be prepared and reviewed for approval by the City Attorney.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by _
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
The following
voted against or abstained: Whereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Page 165
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1987
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Peace
Lutheran Church and an overview of the July 10, 1987 staff
report was provided by Coordinator Ray Anderson. He also
advised the Commission that the minimum requirement for
overstory trees has been satisfied and this condition should
be deleted from the recommended conditions of approval.
Commissioner Marofsky inquired about the shared access with
the School District for the property to the south. Direc-
tor Tremere stated he was not sure about shared drive docu-
ments, this may have been worked out with the 1979 church
construction. Mark Hooper, Vice President of the Congrega-
tion for Peace Lutheran Church was not aware of any docu-
ments. Commissioner Marofsky stated it appears that the
southerly exit of the parking lot is on school property and
stated an agreement should be prepared. Director Tremere
stated this could be required and verified. Such documents
are filed with Hennepin County. Mr. Hooper stated this
would not be an issue.
Commissioner Zylla inquired about the Variance request.
Director Tremere stated the variance is from the City Fire
Code which may be granted by the Fire Chief and is subject
to approval by the City Council. Chairman Steigerwald
explained that staff informs the Planning Commission when
these variances are requested by a petitioner.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing, as there was
no one present to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was
closed.
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner
Plufka to recommend approval for the Site Plan, Rezoning,
Conditional Use Permit, and Variance for Peace Lutheran
Church deleting Condition No. 9 that requires the minimum of
5 additional trees as discussed above, and adding a new
Condition No. 9 that documents shall be submitted providing
easements for the shared driveway access for the church and
the School District and, upon approval by the City, shall be
filed with Hennepin County.
PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH
SITE PLAN, REZONING,
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND VARIANCE
87061)
MOTION TO APPROVE
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
rman Steigerwald introduced the request by Midwest Brick MIDWEST BRICK
and re of the July 15, 1987 staff report was waived. PRELIMINARY PLAT,
SITE PLAN AND
Chairman Steigerwal troduced Mr. Dan O'Brien, Architect, CONDITIONAL USE
representing the petitio Mr. O'Brien stated he would PERMIT (87064)
answer any questions.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Publ-11464earing.
Mr. O'Brien explained the outside storage A proposed.
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing.
0
VD,
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT DATE: July 10, 1987 MEETING DATE: July 22, 1987
FILE NO.: 87061
PETITIONER: Peace Lutheran Church
REQUEST: Site Plan, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance
LOCATION: 3695 Highway 101
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 ZONING: FRD
fm i; @r1-i ij
The petitioner requests approval of a Site Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use
Permit and Variance application.
The proposal involves a rezoning from FRD (future restricted development) District to
R -1A (low density single family residential) District. A Conditional Use Permit is
required for a church in the R -1A District; and, the Site Plan Amendment proposes an
expansion to the existing facility. A Variance is requested from the fire lane
requirements.
On July 10, 1978 the City Council under Resolution No. 78-405 approved the Conditional
Use Permit for Peace Lutheran Church at this location within the former R-0 Zoning
District (now FRD).
On October 1, 1979 the City Council under Resolution No. 79-635 approved the Site Plan
for Peace Lutheran Church at this location.
On June 1, 1981 the City Council under Resolution No. 81-350 approved the Conditional
Use Permit for a detached accessory building on this property.
A public hearing notice has been published in the legal newspaper and property owners
within 500 ft. have been notified. A Development Sign was placed on the property.
ANALYSIS:
1. The property is guided LA -1 on the Land Use Guide Plan which contemplates the
development of churches, consistent with this proposal. Utilities are available
for extension for the development of this property.
Sanitary sewer has been extended to serve this site. Water service will be extend-
ed to the site in the year 1990 according to the Capital Improvements Program.
R -1A zoning is appropriate now that the site is served with sanitary sewer.
2. Reference is made to the standards for granting Conditional Use Permits in Section
9 of the ordinance (attached).
Staff Report for Peace Lutheran Church
July 22, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting
Page two
3. The proposed site plan complies with the parking, setbacks, and trash facilities.
A minimum of five additional overstory trees must be shown on the landscape plan to
comply with the minimum requirements of the Landscape Policy.
4. The proposal calls for a variance from the fire lane requirements. No fire lane
will be installed on the east and south sides of the building. The Fire Marshall
has determined the proposal provides adequate protection.
5. No additional signage is proposed.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The proposal is consistent with the LA -1 guiding of the property, and with the R -IA
zoning.
2. The proposed site plan and Conditional Use Permit comply with the Zoning Ordinance
provisions with the exception of fire lanes for which a variance has been granted.
3. The landscape plan should be revised to include five additional overstory
plantings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit
and Variance applications subject to those conditions as reflected in the draft
recommendation.
Attachments:
1. Recommendation
2. Location map
3. Ordinance definition of R -1A District
4. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
5. Petitioner's correspondence
6. Engineer's Memorandum
7. Large plans
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR DULY 22, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR PEACE LUTHERAN
CHURCH (87061)
APPROVING SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE APPLICATION (87061)
1. Compliance with City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement for
completion of site improvements.
3. Any signage shall be in compliance with the Ordinance.
4. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approv-
als per Ordinance provisions.
5. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within the structure.
6. An 8 112 x 11 inch "As -Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted prior to the
release or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City Policy.
7. Approved variance includes the waiving of fire lanes on the south and east sides
of the building per the Fire Chief.
8. A minimum of five additional overstory trees are required to comply with the
minimum requirements of the Landscape Policy.
res/july(peace)l
g?o6l
Puce L r
GhW c'1
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 7, Subdivision B
2. R -1A (Low Density -Single Family Residence) District
This District is intended to preserve, create, and enhance areas for low density
single family dwelling development as an extension of existing residential
areas and to allow low density development at about two dwelling units per acre
within the areas indicated as low density residential in the Comprehensive Plan.
A full range of public services and facilities must be made available to thesedevelopments.
R -1B (Low Density Residence) District
Thi District is intended to provide areas that will allow a mixing two- family omes with areas of predominantly small lot, single fami characteratadensrangeof2to3dwellingunitslocatedonthefries es of walkingneighborhoowithintheLowDensityResidentialareasffidicatedintheComprehensivePnandservedwithpublicservicesandfacies.
4. R-2 (Low Density Mul ' le Family Residence) District
This District is inten d to create low density ar as at about 3 to 5 dwellinqunitsperacrewithabroarangeofhousingtypeinthoseareaswithintheLowMediumDensityResidentialeasintheCompensivePlanandwhereproperlyrelatedtootherlandusesathoroughfasandwherepublicservicesandfacilitiesareavailable.
5. R-3 (Medium Density Multiple Family
his istrict is intended to allow
other types of low density multi -f
acre within the High Medium Dens y
public services and facilitie .
Re ence) District
Ke de lopment of townhouses, rowhouses, and
ily unit at about 5 to 10 dwelling units per
areas in th Comprehensive Plan and served by
6. R-4 (High Density Multipl Family Residential) Distric
This District is intend to create, preserve, and enhanc areas for multi -family
use at higher dei, sit es at about 10 to 18 dwelling uni per acre for both'
permanent and more ansient families. It is appropriate only n areas served bypublicutilitieswithgoodaccessibilitytothoroughfares, blic communitycenters, librar' s, and shopping centers, and where such develo nt is withintheHighDensy
and
areas in the Comprehensive Plan.
SUBDIVISION C/- ALLOWABLE USES
Within a Residence Districts, no building or land shall be used except for
one or ore of the following uses. Letter designations shall be interpreted
as nwy4ning:
P - Permitted Uses
C - Uses by Conditional Use Permit
A - Accessory Uses
7-2
Sec-ToA 9
C o,yd7romca ( (.,,?S e
PerMT G/17 rlor
2. Procedure. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the application
therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for purposes of ev
reforealua-
tion against the standards of this Section, Public Hearing, and development of a
recommendation to the City Council, which shall make the final determination as
to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its con-
formance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will
promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimen-
tal to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already
permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within
the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses
permitted in the District.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress,
and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public
streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the appli-
cable regulations of the district in which it is located.
May 29, 1987
Al Cottingham
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Re: Addition to Peace Lutheran Church
comm. no. 8615
Dear Mr. Cottingham:
L _ANO ERICKSON ARCHITECTS
7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
t MINNEAPOLIS MN 55426
612 - 544-8370
U,7
Juts 1
Enclosed herewith are eight (8) sets of plans; Survey, Site Plan with
grading, landscape, sign, and trash , Utility Plan, Building floor
plan and Exterior elevations. One additional set of survey, siteplan,
and utility plan are enclosed for highway. The vicinity map, list,
and mailing labels as prepared by Hennepin County along with the signed
application forms are also enclosed.
This application for zoning change and conditional use permit will
allow the Church to add classroom and multi—use area of approx. 5000 s.f.
to the existing church of approx. 7000 s.f. and to expand the existing
sanctuary seating capacity of 260 seats in the future.
The foregoing is in response to our review with you and your letter of
May 4, 1987. We are request a variance to the fire lane requirement
based on the close proximity of existing roads and driveways on all
four sides of the property. We have discussed this with the fire chief.
Please contact me with any questions. The church would appreciate
expediting the process, plans are being prepared for construction
beginning this summer if possible.
very truly yours,
DELANO ERICKSON ARCHITECTS
Del Erickson AIA
DDE/se
enclosures
cc: Bill Rova
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: JuZy Z6, Z987
FILE NO.: 8706Z
PETITIONER: SheryZ Jacobsen - Congregation President - Peace Lutheran Church,
3695 Highway 101, PZymouth, Mn. 55446
SITE PLAN: Addition to Peace Lutheran Church
LOCATION: South of Medina Road, West of Highway 101 in the Southeast Z/4 of Section Z8.
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. ,y Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
3. X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. I and No.
2. -
4. Area assessments estimated -
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at the
time of Site Plan approval: Watermain area assessments wiZZ be
Zevied when water is available to the site.
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None
LEGAL/EASEMENTS/PERMITS:
6. _yam Property is one parcel -
The approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot consolida-
tion be approved by the City Council and the necessary resolution should
be processed at the same time as the site plan approval.
N/A Yes No
7. Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements ten
feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width
adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required it is
necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents executed
and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any building permits.)
8. - Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for ponding
purposes on all property lying below the stablished 100 year high water
elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive storm water
requirements.
9. y_ All standard utility easements required for construction are provided -
The following easements will be required for construction of utilities.
10. _y All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-way to
facilitate the development. It should be noted that this vacation is not
an automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It is
entirely dependent upon the City receiving a petition for the vacation
from the property owner; therefore, it is their responsibility to submit
a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be
vacated.
11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the City
with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City Attorney
with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that he may file
the required easements referred to above.
2-
UTILITIES AND TRAFFIC•
N/A Yes No
12. X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
13.
14. y
15. y
16. _
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR
X Mn DOT
Hennepin County
MPCA
State Health Department
X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
X Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Other
The site plan will be submitted to the City's consulting engineer for
review to see if it is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm
Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations shall be incorporated in a
revised plan. The grading and drainage plan shall also indicate proposed
methods of erosion control, including the placement of silt fence in
strategic locations. Additionally, the following revisions will be
necessary:
Necessary fire hydrants provided -
The City of Plymouth requires that all parts of a building such as the
one proposed be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant. It will be necessary
to locate hydrants in such a manner that the site plan complies with this
section of the City Ordinance.
Size and type of material proposed in utility systems has been provided -
The utility plan shall be revised to indicate the size and type of
material required in the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain services and
storm sewer.
Post indicator valve - fire department connection -
It will be necessary to locate the post indicator valve in such a manner
that it will not render any of the existing fire hydrants inoperable.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. X Hydrant valves provided -
All new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City
Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W-2. This plate should be
referenced on the site plan.
18. X Fire lane provided -
It will be necessary to construct a fire lane surrounding the building
that can be utilized for fire protection purposes. The fire lane shall
be constructed to current City Standards. A variance for the fire
Zane has been requested.
19. X Sanitary sewer cleanouts provided -
It will be necessary to provide cleanouts on the proposed internal
sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot intervals.
20. X Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
21. X All existing street right-of-ways are required width -
27 Feet of additional right-of-way will be required on Highway 101
making the totaZ distance from centerZine 60 feet. 7 feet of addi-t-so-n-a-F-
rLht-o-L-way wiZZ be re fired on Medina Road ma 2 t e tota istance
centerZine 40 feet. Easements for the required rights-of-way shaTT—
be given to the City prior to the issuance of a buiZding permst.
22. _ Complies with site drainage requirements -
The City will not permit drainage onto a City street from a private
parking lot; therefore, the site plan shall be revised accordingly.
4-
N/A Yes No ,
23. X Curb and gutter provided -
24. X
STANDARDS:
N/A Yes No
25. X
The City requires B-612 concrete curb and gutter at all entrances and
where drainage must be controlled, Curb Stone may be used where it is not
necessary to control drainage. For traffic control either B-612 or curb
stone is required around the bituminous surfaced parking lot. The site
plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with this requirement.
Complies with parking lot standards -
The City will require that all traveled areas within the parking lot, as
well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a 7 -ton standard
City design with six inches of Class 5 100% crushed limestone and three
inches of 2341 wear or five and one-half inches of 2331 base and two
inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be constructed to a standard
5 -ton design consisting of four inches of Class 5 100% crushed base and
two inch bituminous mat. The site plan shall be revised to indicate
compliance with these requirements.
It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility foreman,
24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to the
City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The developer shall also be
responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the Public Works Department for
an excavating permit prior to any digging within the City's right-of-way.
All connections to the water system shall be via wet tap.
26. X The City will require reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer, water
service and storm sewer as-builts for the site prior to occupancy permits
being granted.
27. X The site plan complies with the City of Plymouth's Engineering Standards
Manual dated 1985.
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
28.
kA4- Submitted by:
City Engineer
4
as\
CL
41
lap
I /
1 _
r I
k.
4
I
ro
f A I m
tt• / /" ,.,rl H'(ff y
r ' ,,
q • j 1 0 D
r
uTU
1i
1JJ••J• iii
A
0 _ b---moi ,
g i
1 I
S2
m
1 04
Fo
z _
m C) o
g
it
r z 3 i !o P Ig U
1\ I\ ' / / /
i m N 1 D Ztptr-yri
m
n
m
m
a
O
z
z
0
m
r
m
a
O
z
PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH ADDITION nrevldato, date
MEDINA ROAD & HWY 101 4 nfi
PLYMOUTH MN
m
ON
V
C
0
CY ZF cJG7
V
rn o
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: duly 29, 1987 for City Council Meeting August 3, 1987
TO: dames G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
SUBJECT MIDWEST BRICK. PRELIMINARY PLAT, SITE PLAN, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
87064)
SUMMARY: Attached are the approving Resolutions for Midwest Brick for a
preliminary plat for two industrial parcels; and, a Site Plan and
Conditional Use Permit for a multi -tenant office/warehouse at 5205 County Road 18.
The Planning Commission reviewed the request at the Public Hearing held duly 22, 1987
and recommended approval by unanimous vote.
Art nhn,n ntc
1. Resolution Approving Preliminary Plat
2. Resolutions Approving Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit
3. duly 22, 1987 Planning Commission Minutes
4. duly 15, 1987 Planning Staff Report
5. Large Plans
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the
City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day of , 19 The
following members were present: _
The
following members were absent:
introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MIDWEST BRICK (87064)
WHEREAS, Midwest Brick has requested approval for a Preliminary Plat for two industrial
lots north of 51st Avenue North and west of Highway 18 (5205 County Road 18 North);
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public Hear-
ing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MIN-
NESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the Preliminary Plat for Midwest Brick
for two industrial lots north of 51st Avenue North and west of Highway 18 (5205 County
Road 18 North), subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense.
3. No yard setback variances are granted or implied.
4. Access shall be limited to 51st Avenue No.
5. Park dedication requirements will apply to Lot 2, Block 1 at the time this lot is
developed.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by _
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
The following
voted against or abstained: Whereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the
City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day of , 19 The
following members were present: _
The
following members were absent:
adoption:
introduced the following Resolution and moved its
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
APPROVING SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIDWEST BRICK (87064)
WHEREAS, Midwest Brick has requested approval for a Site Plan and Conditional Use
Permit for the use and new occupancy of an existing 97,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse
building at 5205 County Road 18 North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public
Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MIN-
NESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for Midwest Brick for a Site
Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the use and new occupancy of an existing 97,000
sq. ft. office/ warehouse building at 5205 County Road 18 North, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement for
completion of site improvements.
3. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals
per Ordinance provisions.
4. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within an enclosure that meets City
standards.
5. An 8 1/2 x 11 inch "As -Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted prior to the
release or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City Policy.
6. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and Ordinances, and
violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
7. The permit is issued to Midwest Brick and Supply as operator of the facility and
shall not be transferable.
8. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
9. The permit shall be renewed in one year to assure compliance with the conditions.
PLEASE SEE PAGE TWO
Page two
Resolution No. 87-
10. Compliance with applicable Building and Fire Code requirements shall be verified
by the City prior to Permit issuance.
11. All parking shall be off-street in designated areas which comply with the Zoning
Ordinance.
12. One of the two freestanding signs will be removed to meet the ordinance
requirements and wall signage will comply with ordinance standards. All signage
shall be in compliance with the ordinance.
13. Two additional fire hydrants are required on the west side of the building on the
outside of the fire lane. The exact location of the hydrants shall be verified
with the Fire Chief. Compliance with the ordinance regarding the location of fire
hydrants and fire lanes is required.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by _
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
The following
voted against or abstained: Whereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Page 165
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1987
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Peace
Lutheran Church and an overview of the duly 10, 1987 staff
report was provided by Coordinator Ray Anderson. He also
advised the Commission that the minimum requirement for
overstory trees has been satisfied and this condition should
be deleted from the recommended conditions of approval.
Commissioner Marofsky inquired about the shared access with
the School District for the property to the south. Direc-
tor Tremere stated he was not sure about shared drive docu
ments, this may have been worked out with the 1979 chu h
construction. Mark Hooper, Vice President of the Cone ga-
tion for Peace Lutheran Church was not aware of an 'docu-
ments. Commissioner Marofsky stated it appears at the
southerly exit of the parking lot is on school p`perty and
stated an agreement should be prepared. Dire(tor Tremere
stated this could be required and verified. ;Such documents
are filed with Hennepin County. Mr. Hoa15er stated this
would not be an issue.
Commissioner Zylla inquired about tW6 Variance request.
Director Tremere stated the variancf, );, is from the City Fire
Code which may be granted by the VIre Chief and is subject
to approval by the City Counc"
X.
Chairman Steigerwald
explained that staff informs e Planning Commission when
these variances are requested y a petitioner.
Chairman Steigerwald openeethe Public Hearing, as there was
no one present to speakthis item, the Public Hearing was
closed.
MOTION by Commissi er Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner
Plufka to recomm d approval for the Site Plan, Rezoning,
Conditional Us Permit, and Variance for Peace Lutheran
Church/
for
Condition No. 9 that requires the minimum of
5 addiees as discussed above, and adding a new
Conditthat documents shall be submitted providing
easemee shared driveway access for the church and
the Scict and, upon approval by the City, shall be
filed with Hennepin County.
PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH
SITE PLAN, REZONING,
CONDITIONJC USE
PERMIT, VARIANCE
870
MOTION TO APPROVE
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Midwest Brick MIDWEST BRICK
and reading of the duly 15, 1987 staff report was waived. PRELIMINARY PLAT,
SITE PLAN AND
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mr. Dan O'Brien, Architect, CONDITIONAL USE
representing the petitioner. Mr. O'Brien stated he would PERMIT (87064)
answer any questions.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. O'Brien explained the outside storage as proposed.
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing.
Page '166
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1987
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner Pauba MOTION TO APPROVE
recommending approval for the Preliminary Plat, Site Plan,
and Conditional Use Permit for Midwest Brick, subject to the
conditions as listed in the July 15, 1987 staff report. The
Commission commended the petitioner on the proposed
improvements.
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried.
Commissioner Zylla inquired about the process for bringing
a building into compliance with current codes and
ordinances? Director Tremere stated that new use and
occupancy, and, in this case the subdivision of the land
required the building and site to be brought into compliance
with present standards.
In response to Commissioner Marofsky, Director Tremere
explained if the building would have been proposed for
exactly the same use with no lot division, there would be
less bases for requiring site upgradin.
BUSINESS
Chair an Steigerwald discussed the upcoming meeting with the
Specia Committee regarding Community Residential
faciliti S. The Commission was reminded this will be a
dinner me ting beginning at 5:30 P.M., on Tuesday, August 4,
1987 in the City Center Council Conference Room.
The Commission also discussed the upcoming meetings for
August 12, and ust 26, 1987. Director Tremere explained
that the Public earings for the Capital Improvements
Program (CIP) and t second round of Ordinance Amendments
will be heard at the m eting on August 26, 1987.
Commissioners stated tha they appreciated having a map
showing the locations of th e agenda items to be discussed
at each meeting. These maps should be included with each
agenda.
Mil NOWNT
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
REPORT DATE:
FILE NO.:
PETITIONER:
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
July 15, 1987
87064
Midwest Brick
MEETING DATE: July 22, 1987
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat, Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 5205 County Road 18 North (north of 51st Ave. No. and west of Hwy 18)
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: IP (planned industrial) ZONING: I-1 (planned industrial)
BACKGROUND:
The petitioner requests approval of a Preliminary Plat, Site Plan and Conditional Use
Permit for the use and new occupancy of an existing 97,000 sq. ft. office/ warehouse
building. The reuse of the building will be as a multi -tenant office/warehouse space
with Midwest Brick occupying approximately 40% of the building and a maximum of 4
tenants in the remainder of the building. Approximately 23% of the building is to be
devoted to office functions with the remaining 77% to be devoted to warehousing func-
tions. The Conditional Use Permit is required for the outdoor storage of pallets of
brick.
The initial building, Kulberg-White, was built in a series of phases starting in the
1950s. In December, 1977, a site plan was approved for a 22,151 sq. ft. addition.
A public hearing notice has been published in the legal newspaper and property owners
within 500 ft. have been notified. A Development Sign was placed on the property.
ANALYSIS:
1. The Preliminary Plat calls for two parcels which comply with the ordinance provi-
sions and requirements relating to minimum lot size and dimensions.
The petitioner has submitted conceptual drawings for future development of Lot 2,
Block 1. This meets ordinance standards. They have shown that a building and
parking can be placed on the site within required setbacks.
2. The site plan for Lot 1, Block 1 complies with the ordinance provisions and
requirements relating to building setbacks; number of parking spaces and design of
parking lot; proof -of -parking requirements; lot coverage by structure (29 percent
vs. a maximum of 35 percent) as allowed by ordinance. Two additional fire hydrants
are required by the Fire Marshall on the west side of the building.
All parking will be constructed per ordinance requirments. No parking will be
deferred.
3. The proposed outdoor storage includes pallets of brick which are typically 4 ft.
wide, 4 ft. long, and 3 and 1/2 ft. tall. They would be stored to a maximum height
of 4 pallets with an overall height in any given section of 14 ft. The bricks
Staff Report for Midwest Brick
July 22, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting
Page two
would be stored on a dust -free, Class V gravel surface with paved driving aisles in
between the pallets and bricks for use by forklifts. The outside storage area will
be secured by an 8 ft. high chain link fence with gates near the front and rear of
the building.
A berm which varies in height from 9 - 16 ft., and landscaping will be added along
51st Avenue North to serve as screening for the outdoor storage of bricks. The
Landscape Policy allows a maximum grade of 3:1. The grade proposed meets this
requirement. Existing vegetation in place along County Road 18 will serve as
screening for the storage of bricks as viewed from County Road 18. The berm will
effectively screen the outside storage with the landscaping proposed. The
transition provided between 51st Avenue North and County Road 18 meets the required
90% opacity requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The Physical Constraints Analysis identifies that this property is located in the
New Hope Drainage District. It does not contain any wetlands and has no major
woodlands or severe slopes. The soils appear suitable for urban compatibility with
public sewers.
5. There are no park dedication requirements for the existing site, but dedication
requirements will apply to the new site at the time of development.
6. Two additional fire hydrants must be installed on the west side of the building on
the outside of the fire lane, to comply with Fire Code requirements.
7. Presently, there are two freestanding signs on the site. One of these will be
removed to meet the ordinance requirement of one freestanding sign allowed per
lot. Wall signage would comply with City ordinance standards for a multi -tenant
building.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
The proposed Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit respond
to the ordinance provisions and comply with the minimum development standards, except
as noted.
RECON ENDATION:
Staff recommends approval subject to those conditions as reflected in the draft
recommendation.
Attachments:
1. Draft recommendation
2. Location map
3. Petitioner's correspondence
4. Engineer's memorandum
5. General Development Plan for Lot 2
6. Large plans
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR DULY 22, 1987 PLAN14ING COMMISSION MEETING FOR MIDWEST BRICK
87064)
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MIDWEST BRICK (87064)
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. . Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property at the owner's expense.
3. No yard setback variances are granted or implied.
4. Access shall be limited to 51st Avenue No.
5. Park dedication requirements will apply to Lot 2, Block 1 at the time this lot is
developed.
res/july(midwest)1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR DULY 22, 1987 PLAN14ING COMMISSION MEETING FOR MIDWEST BRICK
87064)
APPROVING SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIDWEST BRICK (87064)
1. Compliance with City Engineer's Memorandum.
2. Submission of required financial guarantee and Site Performance Agreement for
completion of site improvements.
3. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals
per Ordinance provisions.
4. All waste and waste containers shall be stored within an enclosure that meets City
standards.
5. An 8 1/2 x 11 inch "As -Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted prior to the
release or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City Policy.
6. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and Ordinances, and
violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
7. The permit is issued to Midwest Brick and Supply as operator of the facility and
shall not be transferable.
8. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
9. The permit shall be renewed in one year to assure compliance with the conditions.
10. Compliance with applicable Building and Fire Code requirements shall be verified
by the City prior to Permit issuance.
11. All parking shall be off-street in designated areas which comply with the Zoning
Ordinance.
12. One of the two freestanding signs will be removed to meet the ordinance
requirements and wall signage will comply with ordinance standards. All signage
shall be in compliance with the ordinance.
13. Two additional fire hydrants are required on the west side of the building on the
outside of the fire lane. The exact location of the hydrants shall be verified
with the Fire Chief. Compliance with the ordinance regarding the location of fire
hydrants and fire lanes is required.
res/july(midwest)2
NO
1 \ lit
706 Y
i
N, dw e S -r 8r, c K
1!T AV[ III W
i Sl ST,4
i
S
a
opt
Co o r ona SE
2. Procedure. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the application
therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for purposes of evalua-
tion against the standards of this Section, Public Hearing, and development of a
recommendation to the City Council, which shall make the final determination as
to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its con-
formance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will
promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimen-
tal to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already
permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within
the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses
permitted in the District.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress,
and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public
streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the appli-
cable regulations of the district in which it is located.
vby
June 5, 1987
Members of the City Council
Planning Commission and Staff
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55441
Ladies and Gentlemen:
CMOs
OBrien
Strother
IDCHITECT(S
On behalf of Greenland Investments and Midwest Brick & Supply, we would
like to express our appreciation for your consideration of the following
land development application. Our client has purchased an existing one
story building formally owned by Kulberg-White at 5205 County Road 18
Nor" -h. W:e are seeking 3 things:
I. A conditional use permit for outdoor storage
II. Preliminary platting of the existing parcel into 2 lots
III. Site plan approval for the adaptive reuse of the building
We look forward to your comments and to working with you toward the
completion of a successful project.
Best Regards,
CLUrS, O' BRIEN, SPRXHER ARCII=S
Daniel S. O'Brien, A.I.A.
moi.• --.:
JUIN e 1991
7520 Market Place Drive • Eden Prairie • Minnesota 55344 • Phone: 612/941-4822
I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE
A. Storage Requirements
Midwest Brick requires outdoor storage for pallets of brick. These
pallets are typically 4 feet wide, 4 feet long, and 3-1/2 feet
tall. They are stored to a maximum height of 4 pallets with an
overall height in any given section of 14 feet. Because of the
modular nature of the material being stored, the yard is generally
very orderly. It is necessary that the bricks not be stacked on
asphalt since the asphalt can discolor the bricks. We are
therefore proposing a dust -free, class 5 surface with paved driving
aisles for forklifts.
B. Location
We are proposing to locate the outdoor storage on the east side of
the existing building between the frontage road of county road 18
and the existing building. Minimum setback from the frontage road
of county road 18 is 50 feet. Minimum set back from 51st Street
North is also 50 feet. An 8 foot high chain link fence will be
installed for security and to assure the limits of the storage
area.
C. Screening
We will achieve 90% opacity in the screening of our outdoor storage
by the use of a combination of the following:
1. Existing vegetation in place along county road 18.
2. Supplemental vegetation per landscape plan.
3. Berming along 51st :Street North.
D. Grading and Drainage
The outdoor storage will slope toward the east. Storm water will
be gathered in an existing ditch along the frontage road for county
road 18 and will flow into the existing storm drainage system.
II. PRELIMINARY PLAT
A. Description
The present property is unplatted. We will divide the existing
parcel into 2 lots. One lot containing the existing building will
be approximately 7.6 net acres. A second lot, the westerly portion
of the site bordered.by 51st Street North and. Nathan Lane, will be
approximately 3 acres.
III. Site Plan Approval for the Adaptive Reuse of the Building
A. Existing Use
The Kulberg-White building was built in a series of phases starting
in the 1950's and is approximately 97,000 s.f. of mixed
construction types: concrete pan & joist with concrete beams and
columns in the older areas, steel joist with metal deck in the far
east and far west wings. The previous use of the building was a
millwork and woodworking shop. The existing parking lot is on the
south side of the building between the building and 51st Street
North. Loading docks flank the main entrance. The parking lot
edge has no curb. The setbacks are unclear and less than current
City standards.
B. Proposed Use
The reuse of the building will be as a multi tenant office
warehouse space. Midwest Brick and their subsidiary companies will
occupy the eastern portion of the building (approximately 40%) with
8,000 s.f. of office and the balance as warehouse. We propose to
add a corridor with a skylit atrium to provide an access to a
maximum of 4 tenants in the remainder of the building. The offices
for these tenants will be located adjacent to the atrium and .
corridor. We will be creating new loading areas on the west side
of the building for both dock high doors and drive in -doors. Four
loading docks west of the main entrance, on the south face of the
building, will be eliminated and -replaced with windows.
C.' Site Improvements
1. Parking and Vehicular Traffic
We will be re -defining the existing parking -lot and providing
additional parking to the west of the building bringing the
total count to 1 3 cars. This exceeds the City zoning
requirement for the building with 22,000 s.f. of office and
75,000 s.f. of warehouse.
A*
As requested by Planning Staff, we have eliminated 2 curb cuts
at 51st Street North. The Fire Marshall requested that we
maintain one curb cut that is adjacent to an existing fire
hydrant. For the new parking on the west side of the building
we have added an additional curb onto 51st Street North. We
feel the 3 curb cuts are necessary for adequate traffic flow
onto the site. We have spread them out along 51st Street North
with a minimum distance center -to -center between curb cuts of
180 feet.
2. Landscape
We propose to soften the impact of the building and the parking
by expanding the present boulevard along 51st Street to
approximate current zoning requirements and to reduce the
amount of existing paving by the insertion of landscape areas
within that existing parking lot. These landscape areas have
been placed to enhance the feeling of arrival as you drive into
the project and to screen the 3 existing loading docks that
will remain on the southeast corner of the building.
3. Utilities
We will be bringing sanitary sewer from Nathan Lane to the
building along the north property line. This will be a public
sewer so it can serve the proposed second lot. As requested by
the Fire Marshall, we are providing fire lanes on both the east
and west side of the building. The existing septic drain field
area will be abandoned prior to any construction for outdoor
storage on the property.
1
w•-.r+,,........r-----...
i :,y....p .Z.... V,"T •'• .f.... ..pj.. .p t..3. .t.. ..
d 7i
ILL
NEW TRI
DUS -F E g
t
CLAS V SE
i
W H IG H C H A
GO
n0: /
r ?
q+y.y.w...,...... ... ............... ... _._. .. .,,.._- ....__.. ........ 1 j.......
VAiI._.. ,
oop, ! ,
4
d
G
At
Nk
PROEM
mol
Nk
r
I
l
I 1
1 1 I
II
I
I
I l`/
I
I
I
Chits
Cbrricn
btrothcr
nQcrn'rrx 8
wlw.nl M'Y
111= 5500
51 ST• Av Et.l u E
ve
SITE STUDY LOT 2 MIDWEST BRICK ADDITIOI
r i
i
K41-=(A
r
I
l
I 1
1 1 I
II
I
I
I l`/
I
I
I
Chits
Cbrricn
btrothcr
nQcrn'rrx 8
wlw.nl M'Y
111= 5500
51 ST• Av Et.l u E
ve
SITE STUDY LOT 2 MIDWEST BRICK ADDITIOI
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M O
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: July Z6, Z987
FILE NO.: 87064
PETITIONER: Mr. DanieZ O'Brien, A.I.A. - CZuts, O'Brien, Strother Architects
7520 Market PZace Drive, Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344
PRELIMINARY PLAT: Midwest Brick Addition
IACATION: East of Nathan Lane, North of 51st Ave., West of County Road Z8
in the Northeast Z/4 of Section Z2.
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None
Legal/Easements/Permits:
6. X Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in
width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width adjoining side
and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
1. y Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed use. y
3. SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits arey-
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and
No. 2.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at
the time of final plat approval.
4. Area assessments: None
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None
Legal/Easements/Permits:
6. X Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in
width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width adjoining side
and rear lot lines.
N/A Yes No
7. X All standard utility easements required for construction are provided -
The City will require twenty foot (20') utility and drainage easements
for proposed utilities along the lot lines where these utilities are
proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed with the final
plat and final construction plans. For the sanitary on the north side
o E int 2 andf4v the atarm Rojor n the Northeast corner of Lot Z
8. y Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for ponding
purposes on all property lying below the stablished 100 year high water
elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive storm water
drainage plan.
9. _ All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been vacated
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-way to
facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process in con-
junction with the platting process. It is the owner's responsibility
to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements
proposed to be vacated.
10. - X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate or Title has been submitted to the
City with this application - If it is subsequently determined that the
subject property is abstract property, then this requirement does not
apply.
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that
he may file the required easements for the required Nathan Lane
right-of-wajd.
11. _ X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR Bassett Creek
Mn DOT Minnehaha Creek
y Hennepin County Elm Creek
y MPCA X Shingle Creek
State Health Department Army Corps of Engineers
Other
2-
TRANSPORTATION:
N/A Yes No
12. X Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the City
grid system for street names. The following changes will be necessary.
13. X _ _ Conforms with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan_ -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's adopted
Thoroughfare Guide Plan. Nathan Zane mazy be extended north from
51st Ave. at some time in the future.
14. X Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
15. X All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
40 feet of additional right-of-way will be required on Nathan Zane the
right -o f-wau mazy be bzy easement.
UTILITIES:
16. X Conforms with City standards requiring the developer to construct
utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the developer shall be responsibile
for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and
streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional engineer
must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer,
watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the development.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. X Preliminary utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements -
The developer has submitted the required preliminary plans for the
proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities;
18. X Per developer's request a preliminary report and plan will be prepared by
the City -
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as part
of its Capital Improvements Program, a petition must be submitted to the
City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1, of the year preceding
construction.
19. Minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following lots.
20. X The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Water
Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
21. X The preliminary plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
QC
PRELIMINARY GRADING DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
N/A Yes No
22. X It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility foreman,
24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to the
City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The developer shall also be
responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the Public Works Department for
an excavating permit prior to any digging within the City right-of-way.
All water connections shall be via wet tap.
23. X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted to the
City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if it is in conformance with
the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommen-
dations shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The grading and
drainage plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations. Addition-
ally, the following revisions will be necessary:
The Lradina 12Zan wiZZ be reviewed with the site plan.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
Submitted by: `—
City Engineer)
5-
City of Plymouth
E N G I N E E R' S M E M 0
to
Planning Commission & City Council
DATE: JuZy Z6, Z987
FILE NO.: 87064
PETITIONER: Mr. DanieZ O'Brien - A. I. A. - CZuts, O'Brien, Strother Architects,
7520 Market PZace Drive, Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344
SITE PLAN: Midwest Brick
LOCATION: East of Nathan Lane, North of 51st Avenue, West of County Road Z8,
in the Northeast Z/4 of Section Z2.
N/A Yes No
1. x Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
2. X Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed use.
3. X SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are
issued. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and No.
2.
4. Area assessments estimated -
Area charges are subject to changa periodically as they are reviewed
annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at the
time of Site Plan approval: None
5. Other additional assessments estimated: None
LEGAL/EASEMENTS/PERMITS:
6." g Property is one parcel -
The approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot consolida-
tion be approved by the City Council and the necessary resolution should
be processed at the same time as the site plan approval.
N/A Yes No
y Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements ten
feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width
adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required it is
necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents executed
and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any building permits.)
WiZZ comgZL when the finaZ plat for Midwest Brick Addition is filed.
8. X Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for ponding
purposes on all property lying below the stablished 100 year high water
elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive storm water
requirements.
9. X All standard utility easements required for construction are provided -
The following easements will be required for construction of utilities.
See Item 7.
10. _X All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have been vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-way to
facilitate the development. It should be noted that this vacation is not
an automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It is
entirely dependent upon the City receiving a petition for the vacation
from the property owner; therefore, it is their responsibility to submit
a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be
vacated.
11. X The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the City
with this application -
It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City Attorney
with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that he may file
the required easements referred to above.
Wz
UTILITIES AND TRAFFIC:
NIA Yes No
12. X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the developer:
DNR
Mn DOT
X Hennepin County
X MPCA
State Health Department
13. X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
Bassett Creek
Minnehaha Creek
Elm Creek
y_ Shingle Creek
Army Corps of Engineers
Other
The site plan will be submitted to the City's consulting engineer for
review to see if it is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm
Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations shall be incorporated in a
revised plan. The grading and drainage plan shall also indicate proposed
methods of eros' u ing the placement ot silt fence in
Addtrionalty, tHe foilowing revisions will e
ale;; eefflp;y ;lath rgJ4 -4Ze L42eok int, -rim gtrz.ndards.
14. X Necessary fire hydrants provided -
15. X
16. X
The City of Plymouth requires that all parts of a building such as the
one proposed be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant_. It will be necessary
to locate hydrants in such a manner that the site plan complies with this
section of the City Ordinance.
Size and type of material proposed in utility systems has been provided
The utility plan shall be revised to indicate the size and type of
material required in the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain services and
storm sewer.
Post indicator valve - fire department connection -
It will be necessary to locate the post indicator valve in such a manner
that it will not render any of the existing fire hydrants inoperable.
3-
N/A Yes No
17. X Hydrant valves provided -
All new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City
Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W-2. This plate should be
referenced on the site plan.
18. X Fire lane provided -
It will be necessary to construct a fire lane surrounding the building
that can be utilized for fire protection purposes. The fire lane shall
be constructed to current City Standards.
19. X Sanitary sewer cleanouts provided -
It will be necessary to provide cleanouts on the proposed internal
sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot intervals.
20. X Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of
and
21. X All existing street right-of-ways are required width -
40 Feet of Additional right-of-way will be required on Nathan Lane.
This nht._nf-7,n ma be easement
22. X Complies with site drainage requirements -
The City will not permit drainage onto a City street from a private
parking lot; therefore, the site t1an shall be revised ac di ly. Storm sever shaZZ be extendedlto he west from County Roac rl8 W
intercept the drainage from the parking -Lot. Prasnag
shaZZ be submitted for review.
4-
N/A Yes No
23. X Curb and gutter provided -
The City requires B-612 concrete curb and gutter at all entrances and
where drainage must be controlled, Curb Stone may be used where it is not
necessary to control drainage. For traffic control either B-612 or curb
stone is required around the bituminous surfaced parking lot. The site
plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with this requirement.
The site pZan shaZZ be revised to cZearZy indicate the concrete curb
and gutter shaZZ be used around hire par Zng tot ana arzveway.
24. X Complies with parking lot standards -
The City will require that all traveled areas within the parking lot, as
well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a 7 -ton standard
City design with six inches of Class 5 100% crushed limestone and three
inches of 2341 wear or five and one-half inches of 2331 base and two
inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be constructed to a standard
5 -ton design consisting of four inches of Class 5 100% crushed base and
two inch bituminous mat. The site plan shall be revised to indicate
compliance with these requirements. _A detaiZ shaZZ be noted on the
sate plan
STANDARDS:
N/A Yes No
25. X It will be necessary to contact Bob Fasching, the City's utility foreman,
24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to the
City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The developer shall also be
responsible for contacting Jim Kolstad of the Public Works Department for
an excavating permit prior to any digging within the City's right-of-way.
All connections to the water system shall be via wet tap.
26. X The City will require reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer, water
service and storm sewer as-builts for the site prior to occupancy permits
being granted.
27. X The site plan complies with the City of Plymouth's Engineering Standards
Manual dated 1985. _ See item 7. 9, 12, Z3 Z9, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28A and. B.
5-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
28. A. The most easterZy driveway shaZZ be
900
to 51st Ave.
B. Note Z shaZZ be revised as foZZows:
Remove existing curb cut and construct B618 curb and ,gutter.
Submitted by:
City Engineer
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: duly 28, 1987 for City Council Meeting August 3, 1987
TO: dames G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
SUBJECT KATHLEEN P. STRNAD. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOME OCCUPATION (87072)
SUMMARY: Attached is the Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit
for Kathleen P. Strnad for a Home Occupation to operate a word
processing service in her residence at 1750 Ranier Lane North.
The Planning Commission reviewed the request at the Public Hearing held duly 22, 1987
and recommended approval by unanimous vote.
1. Resolution
2. duly 22, 1987 Planning Commission Minutes
3. duly 15, 1987 Planning Staff Report
ti
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the
City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day of , 19 The
following members were present: _
The
following members were absent:
introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR KATHLEEN P. STRNAD FOR A HOME OCCUPATION AT 1750
RANIER LANE NORTH (87072)
WHEREAS, Kathleen P. Strnad has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupa-
tion to operate a word processing service in her home at 1750 Ranier Lane North; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public
Hearing and recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MIN-
NESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for Kathleen P. Strnad for a
Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation to operate a word processinq service in
her home at 1750 Ranier Lane North, subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and Ordinances, and
violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The permit is issued to Kathleen P. Strnad as operator of the facility and shall
not be transferable.
3. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
4. There shall be no signage related to the home occupation.
5. There shall be no outside display, sales, or storage of merchandise or related
materials.
6. The permit shall be renewed in one year to assure compliance with the conditions.
7. Compliance with applicable Building and Fire Code requirements shall be verified
by the City prior to Permit issuance.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
The following
voted against or abstained: Whereupon the
Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
t
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DULY 22, 1987
The Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commissi was
called to order at 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Steigerwald and Co missioners
Wire, Stulberg, Zylla, Plu a, Marofsky
and Pauba
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
MINUTES
None
Planning Directo
Community DeveL
Ray Anderson//
lair Tremere
nt Coordinator
City Engine9" Sherm Goldberg
Planning Secretary Grace Wineman
MOTION by Commissioner,JMarofsky, seconded by Chairman
Steigerwald to approvee Minutes of July 7, 1987 with the14
following corrections:,/
Commissioner Wire n ted the correction to page 153 in the
first paragraph t read: " provide for R -1B in the LA -2
rather than in t LA -1 areas."
Commissioner vrofsky noted the correction to page 154 in
the third p agraph under the MOTION TO APPROVE to read:
will allow a mixing of two family homes and/or single
family hom on smaller minimum lots with standard size lots
at a dens y range "
These corrections will be made in the record.
NOTION TO APPROVE
Vote. 6 Ayes. Commission Zylla abstained. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the application by Kathleen
Strnad for a Home Occupation Conditional Use Permit to
operate a word processing service in her home. Reading of
the July 15, 1987 staff report was waived.
Ms. Strnad had no questions or comments. Chairman
Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing, as there was no one
present to speak on the item, the Public Hearing was closed.
MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner Wire
to recommend approval subject to the conditions listed in
the July 15, 1987 staff report.
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. Motion carried.
Off -92
KATHLLEN P. STRNAD
HOME OCCUPATION
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (87072)
NOTION TO APPROVE
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT DATE: duly 15, 1987 MEETING DATE: duly 22, 1987
FILE NO.: 87072
PETITIONER: Kathleen P. Strnad
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit (Home Occupation)
LOCATION: 1750 Ranier Lane North
GUIDE PLAN CLASS: LA -1 ZONING: R -1A
BACKGROUND:
I
The petitioner requests approval of a Home Occupation Conditional Use Permit to operate
a word processing service at 1750 Ranier Lane North. The property is guided and zoned
for residential purposes.
A public hearing notice has been published in the legal newspaper and property owners
within 500 ft. have been notified.
ANALYSIS:
1. Attached for the Commission's reference is a copy of the Ordinance criteria for
granting Conditional Use Permits, and the petitioner's correspondence explaining
the request. Also included is a copy of the Ordinance definition for home occupa-
tions.
2. The petitioner proposes that the word processing service be available by
appointment only. There will be no walk-ins and appointments will be scheduled
generally between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. On the average, the
petitioner anticipates two appointments per week. She will offer a pick-up and
delivery service to her customers. No structural additions are anticipated to the
residence and no signage is proposed. The word processing service will not employ
persons outside of the family members currently residing at this location.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
The proposed home occupation complies with the Ordinance requirements in that no
structural additions or special entrances are needed. It does not appear, that this
business will effect the normal traffic flow in this residential neighborhood. There
will be no perceivable impact upon surrounding properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the home occupation Conditional Use Permit, subject to the
conditions and requirements reflected in the draft recommendation.
Attachments:
1. Recommendation 4. Conditional Use Permit Criteria
2. Location map 5. Home Occupation Definition
3. Petitioner's correspondence and plan
W
RECOMMENDED CONDITONS FOR DULY 221 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR KATHLEEN P.
STRNAD (87072)
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR KATHLEEN P. STRNAD FOR A HOME OCCUPATION AT
1750 RANIER AVENUE NORTH (87072)
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and Ordinances, and
violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The permit is issued to Kathleen P. Strnad as operator of the facility and shall
not be transferable.
3. The site shall be maintained in a sanitary manner.
4. There shall be no signage related to the home occupation.
5. There shall be no outside display, sales, or storage of merchandise or related
materials.
6. The permit shall be renewed in one year to assure compliance with the conditions.
7. Compliance with applicable Building and Fire Code requirements shall be verified
by the City prior to Permit issuance.
res/july(strnad)
w
i
F70 *7
GOV' T. LOT 3 Kc, orA IeeA •STrnA cd
10.5' It0 110 5s4Y. I I Ief•.
Jly \ ,y• o 130• b' 67 01' S' Ic
e)•31174• i3. >d' a w S.
73 li too. M' we 5406"C '7YC
Ifs (37) (]5) (67) Y R C)
3 l40): (39) z ' } (37) q G 1 05'
15. 67 _. (4 1) 9 , to0' tom. n 147. y ` 6 a..
107. ).'
3 Pv L' ice. •A t 5A) i R 7
57) ' '
b•
o(13)
10) 7 - 117. W • q' —"': '-
1`,
4r5}o n in. 7e o e (63) R 4 _
7
n ®
r
a (52) (
1)
3c cc
IAL I L S
3..
167 0
V
tat
B (65) (64)
i0 A. s: {x.45.5 (
56)
x\ (
53) ro. f, { 14) 3
2)
ttr
reo71•• (
62) e (367. a 21.21
37) A ev.4, F 9 (
42)
3 5
t I ; (61) -.
X6}1 ( - (
30)
7 R R- 1 g g 70 00
q. I elee•5•'f v r• =
z. ., 3 7 - yo. o6 (4)
7d. e6 ti
to
40) - (39 )ti A /`re. , (
41) •Sa 6 ( 17)
II) I (41)7 ~
S
3 - a ?. (
5) _
0°il0i a ,
a (
31)
e" .
e §
2p
5 •1`'VC • (6)
14T,
LLJ
leis f. ilt
n n Is I
10) , (16) (17) - ^} (8)'7344 } " _1
s)lookIi P RI" PIN 7
u t
f >4
l jr
27) : .7 (21) no (19)
ro l 121 3 s. 7 , (21) (20) - 21.67, ,
R P A (9) -
r3 (
IS) 2135
8(26)
P f 7' t r z• 1 66.p — y • Is Pt IS
u IO I R (10)
4*. (
25) _
114)34. (9) e 4 i'r
J
41 b
414_ g Al P.' , , { 10)
1 ll 7 166. 2 (1 )
I _It -
8) - ( 51) -
I)P- (2) Sot _ = (
4) t5)1 6 R (50) I (53)
w xe
127 3D
a
so•a• Ire .e a f
63• (
b) (
2; s Q
n2) _
440 (
5) ((
3) = Y. - _
I 11 " - _ _ _ - - .
77i,
as
7)
8) t6Alt
6)
c
r
J
vow .0
1 1 W
404
Oe'
14, • N• •b- J
31. r• _ (2z) ~ +,
a ` `
4 ,.
or
25) ,S;
35)%
40.
w I v iWi k1 .i (26'
atC (
27)M (8)
bl C*0 >
ate! 36)
N ...F n 1
12) (
18)
to
A' ,,// • Q $ 565'73. 14•r .M
Ci ( 17) -
f0.01' _ )'b 76• Vv• W
37):Cti 4 a
1567' (
19)x^•• ® 190. 00
r2ciG-
KATHLEEN P. STRNAD
1750 Ranier Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55447
476-1979
Mr. Ray Anderson
Community Development Coordinator
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
RE: Conditional Use Permit Application (87072)
Dear Mr. Anderson:
In response to your phone request of July 8, 1987, I am hereby addressing
questions regarding the above referenced application.
1. Hours of operation: 9 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday
2. Number of clients visiting the residence: Since my business will
be on a contract basis and will offer pick up and delivery service,
I anticipate only 1 or 2 clients per week would come to the residence.
The safety and privacy of my family and neighborhood is myrp imary
concern. Therefore, clients will be carefully screened before any
appointments would be made. I anticipate no walk-in trade.
I trust that the above answers the questions you had. Please enclose a copy
of this correspondence in File 87072. Please feel free to call with any
further questions.
Sincerely,
Kate Strnad
June 22, 1987
WRITTEN DESCRIPTION FOR:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - HOME OCCUPATION
Applicant plans to offer word processing service as a home based
occupation. Owner will be engaged in producing typewritten documents,
for fee. Documents and/or services shall be produced on a home compu-
ter system and typewriter, requiring standard electrical power.
As a service business, it will conform to all standards as set
forth in Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Parking, ingress and
egress will not be a factor, since most work will be picked up and
delivered. Any clients seen at the property will be by appointment
only. No signage is requested or required. No alterations will be
made to the exterior of the residence. The word processing service
will employ no persons outside of those family members currently re-
siding at the property location.
Kathleen P. Strnad
1750 Ranier Lane North
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Ile
77,
SURVEVORS
7C ' IINNfAPOL15, MINNESOTAAISWAYZATA5L
t
For
0
O Indicates proposed s•ade
Top Of Block ?.
Base=ent floor elev.
a
D=SCIR7, 10"1"
Lot 6, Block 4, 11,TZRr 'r "r
1
we hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey 01
the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all building!
if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land.
Dated this 14th. day of,
1976 EGAN, ,FIELD t NOWAK, trrG
Surveyors(
F i le No.( 5945 Book No
S
d ,
a
S
S
s
9
t, J
1
M +
tl
l
V
3
N
r
e C-71 0 t, 9
O tlops t77o r, A(
perm,7- Ge-i7eor-,a
2. Procedure. Before any Conditional Use Permit may be granted, the application
therefore, shall be referred to the Planning Commission for purposes of evalua-
tion against the standards of this Section, Public Hearing, and development of a
recommendation to the City Council, which shall make the final determination as
to approval or denial.
a. The Planning Commission shall review the application and consider its con-
formance with the following standards:
1) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will
promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimen-
tal to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already
permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within
the neighborhood.
4) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses
permitted in the District.
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress,
and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public
streets.
6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the appli-
cable regulations of the district in which it is located.
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 4, Subdivision B
Hazar ste Facility -- all property, real or personal, includinq negative and
positive s and water and air rights, which is or may be needed or
useful for the proce disposal, and/or transfer/storage of hazardous waste,
except property used primar or the manufacture of scrap metal or paper.
Hazardous waste facility includes- is not limited to transfer/storage
stations, processing facilities, and disposa es and facilities.
Amended by Ord. No. 82-19)
Height of Building -- The vertical distance from the "Grade" to the t point of
the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof o the
Home Occupation -- An occupation or profession of a service character which is
clearly secondary to the main use of the premises as a dwelling and does not
change the character thereof. Any activity resulting in noise, fumes, traffic,
light and odors, fabrication of materials, mechanical repair, or mechanical
testing, to such an extent that it is noticeable that the property is beinq used
for non-residential purposes shall not constitute a home occupation. Any
activity requiring or resulting in the construction of any special structures or
any special entrances into the main building which are visable from the exterior
of the premises or any parking facilities, special lighting, antennae, or
special fuel storage tanks (such as those required for butane or LP gas) shall
not constitute a home occupation. Provided further that such occupation shall
be carried on only by members of a family residing in the dwelling, that not
over twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of any one story is used
fcr horne occupation or professional purposes. There shall be no sale of
products from the site, other than products clearly incidental to the allowed
service or occupation.
l
transient guests for compensation and in which there are more than thre 3)
sleeping rooms, with no cooking facilities in an individual room or apaLkofnt.
Junk Yard -- Land or buildings where waste, discarded or salvaged opffterials are
brought, sold, exchanged, stored, cleaned, packed, dis assemOWFd or handled,
including, but not limited to scrap metal, rags, paper, rSpWUer products, glass
products, lumber products and products resulting from t recking or salvage of
automobiles or other vehicles.
Land Reclamation -- Depositing fifty (50)cubic Tds or more of material so as to
elevate the grade.
Limited Access Highway -- A trafficway cluding toll roads, for through traffic, in
respect to which owners
is
o pants of abutting property or lands and other
persons have no legal righ access to or from the same, except at such points
only and in such.manne - may be determined by the public authority having
jurisdiction over th afficway.
Loading Space - T portion of a lot or plot designed to serve the purpose of
loading or oading for all types of vehicles.
4-7
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
4 7 3
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: July 29, 1987 for Council Meeting of August 3, 1987
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager, through Fred G. Moore, Director of
Public Works
FROM: Sherman L. Goldberg, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Bond Reductions
We have received a request from the developer for a bond reduction to
reflect completed work in their development. The City has made
inspections of the work and I recommend that the attached resolutions
be adopted. These developments are:
1. Fox Run 2nd Addition 85066)
2. Heritage West 2nd Addition 86048)
3. Deerwood Glen Plat Two 86084)
Sherman L. Goldberg, P.E.
SLG:kh
Attachments: Resolutions
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City
Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota was held on the day
of , 1987. The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
REDUCING DEVELOPMENT BOND
FOX RUN 2ND ADDITION (85066)
WHEREAS, in accordance with the development contract dated August 6, 1985,
Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc.,developer of Fox Run 2nd Addition (85066),
has agreed to install certain improvements for said development; and
WHEREAS, the developer has completed a portion of the street, utility and site
grading as noted below; and
WHEREAS, the developer has requested a reduction of the development bond to
reflect the completed work;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH
that the bonding requirements are reduced as follows:
ITEM ORIGINAL AMOUNT NEW AMOUNT
Street Construction $ 57,000 $ -0-
Sanitary Sewer 32,000 -0-
Watermain 30,000 -0-
Storm Sewer 27,000 -0-
Boulevard and Drainage Swale Sod 3,600 2,000
Pond or Ditch Construction -0- -0-
Street Signs 150 150
Site Grading and Drainage Improvements 40,000 -0-
Park and Trail Improvements -0- -0-
Design, Administration, Inspection, As-Builts 22,770 258
TOTAL 212,520 $ 2,408
That the letter of credit required for the above items be reduced as detailed
above from $17,640 to $2,408 to reflect the completed work.
Resolution No. 87 -
Page Two
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the bonding requirements for the following items per
Section 8.1 of the approved development contract be reduced as follows:
ITEM ORIGINAL AMOUNT NEW AMOUNT
Maintenance of Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan,
Street Sweeping and Storm
Sewer Cleaning Cash: $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Letter of Credit: $ 17,560 $ 3,512
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the street construction and concrete curb and gutter
is accepted for continual maintenance as of August 3, 1987 subject to the One
Year Guarantee by the developer.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against or abstained:
Whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City
Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota was held on the day
of , 1987. The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
its adoption:
introduced the following Resolution and moved
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
REDUCING DEVELOPMENT BOND
HERITAGE WEST 2ND ADDITION (86048)
WHEREAS, in accordance with the development contract dated April 6, 1987,
Heritage West, Inc., Builders Finance, Inc., developer of Heritage West 2nd
Addition (86048) , has agreed to install certain improvements for said
development; and
WHEREAS, the developer has completed a portion of the street, utility and site
grading as noted below; and
WHEREAS, the developer has requested a reduction of the development bond to
reflect the completed work;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH that the bonding requirements are reduced as follows:
ITEM ORIGINAL AMOUNT NEW AMOUNT
Street Construction $ 54,000 $ 10,800
Sanitary Sewer 43,000 8,600
Watermain 39,000 7,800
Storm Sewer 41,000 8,200
Boulevard and Drainage Swale Sod 4,000 4,000
Pond or Ditch Construction -0- -0-
Street Signs 300 300
Site Grading and Drainage Improvements 10,000 1,000
Park and Trail Improvements -0- -0-
Design, Administration, Inspection, As-Builts 22,956 43884
TOTAL $ 214,256 $ 45,584
That the letter of credit required for the above items be reduced as detailed
above from $95,088 to $45,584 to reflect the completed work.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against or abstained:
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City
Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota was held on the day
of , 1987. The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
REDUCING DEVELOPMENT BOND
DEERWOOD GLEN PLAT TWO (87010 FKA 86084)
WHEREAS, in accordance with the development contract dated March 16, 1987,
Wiswell Estates, Inc., and International Development, Inc., developer of Deerwood
Glen Plat Two (87010 FKA 86084), has agreed to install certain improvements for
said development; and
WHEREAS, the developer has completed a portion of the street, utility and site
grading as noted below; and
WHEREAS, the developer has requested a reduction of the development bond to
reflect the completed work;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH
that the bonding requirements are reduced as follows:
ITEM ORIGINAL AMOUNT NEW AMOUNT
Street Construction
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
Storm Sewer
Boulevard and Drainage Swale Sod
Pond or Ditch Construction
Street Signs
Site Grading and Drainage Improvements
Park and Trail Improvements
Design, Administration, Inspection, As-Builts
TOTAL
77,200 37,713
42,900 4,290
43,400 4,340
15,500 1,550
6,800 6,800
0- 0-
300 300
See Grading Permit #4474
0- 0-
22,332 6,599
208,432 $ 61,592
That the letter of credit required for the above items be reduced as detailed
above from $208,432 to $61,592 to reflect the completed work.
a
Resolution No. 87 -
Page Two
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the bonding requirements for the following items per
Section 8.1 of the approved development contract be reduced as follows:
ITEM ORIGINAL AMOUNT NEW AMOUNT
Maintenance of Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan,
Street Sweeping and Storm
Sewer Cleaning * Cash: $ -0- $ -0-
Letter of Credit: $ -0- $ -0-
See Grading Permit No. 4474
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against or abstained:
Whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: July 30, 1987 For Council Meeting of August 3, 1987
T O: James G. Willis, City Manager, through Fred G. Moore, Director of
Public Works
FROM: Sherman L. Goldberg, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Award of Contract
Tyrell 5th Addition - Street and Utilities
City Project No. 737
On Thursday, July 30, 1987, we received bids from sixteen contractors
for the Tyrell 5th Addition Improvement Project No. 737. The
apparent low bidder was Machtemes Construction in the amount of
102,280.20.
Due to the lateness of the bid opening, our Consulting Engineer,
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc., will tabulate the
bids received, and we will present an oral report of the actual
findings and recommendation at the Council meeting on Monday evening,
August 3, 1987.
Sherman L. Goldberg, P.E.
SLG:kh
Attachment: Bids Received
Our File No. 70241
CYRFLL 5'r FI ADDI CION
UrILI,CY AND STREF.C_PIPR_OVE'MEN"CS
PROJECT NO. 747
PLYMOUTH, 'IN
CONTRACTORS
1. Annandale Cont.
2. Richard Kn1itson, Inc.
3. S. J. Louis Constr.
4. Nodlnnd Assocs.
5. Bonine Excavating
6. Latour Constr.
7. Albrecht
8. 'lachtemes Const.
9. N b M Sewer 6 1411 -.Pr
10. Northdale Constr. Co.
11. Widmer, Inc.
12. B.& D. Underground, Inc.
13. QRS
11+. G. L. Contr.
15. F. F. .Jedlicki, Inc.
16. Old is Gold Const.
17. Ro-So Contracting
18. Orfei Cont., Inc.
1.9. 0 h P Contracting
20. Btirschvi.11P
21.
22.
ENGINEF,R'S ESTIMATE, ------------
5407P
BID 'CHF: 10:00 A.-M.,-C_D_S.T.
BID DATE: _Chars,, July 30, 1987
TOTAL BASE BID
5% 106, 327.70
5%
5% 113.163.77
Certified Check 124,316.80 13)
5% 102,280.20
5% 107,602.02 5)
5% 119,344.10 10)
5% 118,514.50 9)
5% 139,810.33 ` 16)
5% 105,572.00 3)
5% 122,107.10 11)
5% 115,088.20 7)
5% 129,338.43 14)
5% 139,314.22 15)
5% 124,2 80. 13 (12)
5% 104,844.52 (2)
CITY OF PLYMOUTH PA -
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: July 30, 1987 For Council Meeting of August 3, 1987
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: EAW on Schmidt Lake Road
City Project No. 705
Attached herewith is the draft copy of the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for the extension of Schmidt Lake Road between Nathan
Lane and Zachary Lane. The Engineering Staff has reviewed this
document and only has minor corrections which we will be requesting the
consultant to make before finalizing the document.
I am requesting that you and the City Council review this document for
any suggestions or comments. The City Council does not need to take
formal action on the document since their formal action is taken after
we go through the required review process with the Environmental
Quality Board.
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
FGM:kh
Attachment: Draft Copy - EAW
STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TRANSPORTATION CIVIL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS
July 14, 1987
Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Work
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Fred:
RE: SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
File No. 0870865
Submitted herewith for your review are three draft copies of
the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Schmidt Lake
Road. Please review and advise of any appropriate revisions
so that we may finalize for distribution.
We will add the "no build" alternative to Table 2 of the
noise analysis at that time.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
5er
Robert B. Roscoe, P.E.
Senior Vice President
RBR/jal
Enclosures
630 Twelve Oaks Center, 15500 Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata MN 55391 (612) 475-0010
f
4 6:m. srr:
E.R.# (filled in by EQB)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW)
MARK APPROPRIATE BOX:
X REGULAR EAW
4-1-74-1 J77 `
SCOPING EAW
NOTE TO REVIEWERS: FOR REGULAR EAWS, WRITTEN COMMENTS SHOULDADDRESSTHEACCURACYANDCOMPLETENESSOFTHEEAWINFORMATION, POTENTIAL IMPACTS THAT MAY WARRANT INVESTIGATION AND/OR THE NEEDFORANEIS. FOR SCOPING EAWS, WRITTEN COMMENTS SHOULD ADDRESS THEACCURACYANDCOMPLETENESSOFTHEINFORMATIONANDSUGGESTISSUESFORINVESTIGATIONINTHEEIS. SUCH COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THERESPONSIBLEGOVERNMENTUNIT (RGU) DURING THE 30 -DAY PERIODFOLLOWINGNOTICEOFTHEEAW'S AVAILABILITY IN THE EQB MONITOR. CONTACT THE EQB (METRO: 612/296-8253; NON -METRO: 1-800-652-9747, ASK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGRAM) OR THE RGU TO FIND OUT WHENTHE30 -DAY COMMENT PERIOD ENDS.
1. PROJECT NAME: Construction of Schmidt Lake Road from
Saratoga Lane to Zachary Lane in Plymouth, Minnesota
2. PROPOSER: City of Plymouth
CONTACT PERSON: Fred Moore
ADDRESS: 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, MN 55447PHONE: 559-2800
3. RGU: City of Plymouth
CONTACT PERSON: Fred Moore
AND TITLE: Director of Public Works
ADDRESS: 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, MN 55447PHONE: 559-2800
4. PROJECT LOCATION: NW 1/4, Section 12, T118, R22
a. COUNTY NAME: Hennepin
CITY/TOWNSHIP NAME: Plymouth
1
Jam'
P
1
SCOPING EAW
NOTE TO REVIEWERS: FOR REGULAR EAWS, WRITTEN COMMENTS SHOULDADDRESSTHEACCURACYANDCOMPLETENESSOFTHEEAWINFORMATION, POTENTIAL IMPACTS THAT MAY WARRANT INVESTIGATION AND/OR THE NEEDFORANEIS. FOR SCOPING EAWS, WRITTEN COMMENTS SHOULD ADDRESS THEACCURACYANDCOMPLETENESSOFTHEINFORMATIONANDSUGGESTISSUESFORINVESTIGATIONINTHEEIS. SUCH COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THERESPONSIBLEGOVERNMENTUNIT (RGU) DURING THE 30 -DAY PERIODFOLLOWINGNOTICEOFTHEEAW'S AVAILABILITY IN THE EQB MONITOR. CONTACT THE EQB (METRO: 612/296-8253; NON -METRO: 1-800-652-9747, ASK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGRAM) OR THE RGU TO FIND OUT WHENTHE30 -DAY COMMENT PERIOD ENDS.
1. PROJECT NAME: Construction of Schmidt Lake Road from
Saratoga Lane to Zachary Lane in Plymouth, Minnesota
2. PROPOSER: City of Plymouth
CONTACT PERSON: Fred Moore
ADDRESS: 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, MN 55447PHONE: 559-2800
3. RGU: City of Plymouth
CONTACT PERSON: Fred Moore
AND TITLE: Director of Public Works
ADDRESS: 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, MN 55447PHONE: 559-2800
4. PROJECT LOCATION: NW 1/4, Section 12, T118, R22
a. COUNTY NAME: Hennepin
CITY/TOWNSHIP NAME: Plymouth
1
b. ATTACH COPIES OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING TO THE EAW:
1. A county map showing the general area of the project.
See Exhibit A in addendum)
2. A copy(ies) of USGS 7-1/2 minute, 1:24,000 scale map. See Exhibit B in addendum)
3. A site plan showing the location of significant
features such as proposed structures, roads, extent of
floodplain, wetlands, wells, etc. (See Exhibit C in
addendum)
4. An existing land use map and a zoning map of the
immediate area, if available. (See Exhibit D in
addendum)
S. DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLETELY (ATTACH ADDITIONAL
SHEETS AS NECESSARY).
The proposed project consists of the construction of SchmidtLakeRoadfromSaratogaLanetoZacharyLane. The proposed
roadway would be a 4 lane, 52 foot wide bituminous urban
section with concrete curb and gutter. Also included would be
construction of storm sewer as required, and installation oftrunkwatermainandsanitarysewertoserveadjacentdevelopment.
6. REASON FOR EAW PREPARATION:
Construction of roadway through wetland areas.
LIST ALL MANDATORY CATEGORY RULE #'S WHICH APPLY:
6MCAR S 3.038 Z.1
7. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST:
Does not include right-of-way)
Alternate No. 1 - $1,640,000.00
Alternate No. 2 - $1,661,000.00
Alternate No. 3 - $1,743,000.00
8. TOTAL PROJECT AREA (ACRES): N/A OR LENGTH IN (MILES):
Alternate No. 1 - 0.58 Miles
Alternate No. 2 - 0.63 Miles
Alternate No. 3 - 0.72 Miles
2
9. NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS: N/A OR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL,
OR INSTITUTIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE: N/A
10. NUMBER OF PROPOSED PARKING SPACES: N/A
11. LIST ALL KNOWN LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS/APPROVALS/
FUNDING REQUIRED:
Level of Government
Federal: Army Corp
of Engineers
State: Dept. of Natural
Resources
Mn PCA
Local: City of Plymouth
Type of
Application Status
Section 404 Permit Application to be
submitted
Wetland Permit Application to be
submitted
Indirect Source Permit may be required
Plan Approval
Shingle Creek Project Review
Watershed Management
Commission
To be submitted
To be submitted
12. IS THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL ADOPTED
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN OR ANY OTHER ADOPTED PLANS?
X NO YES IF YES, EXPLAIN:
13. DESCRIBE CURRENT AND RECENT PAST LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ON
AND NEAR THE SITE.
The proposed roadway alignment is located on vacant land,
partially wetland and partially upland. Current land use in
the vicinity is primarily low-density residential development. Future land use is guided for residential development andindustrialuses. Refer to Exhibit D in the addendum for the
Land Use Guide Plan for the project area.
3
14. APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY ACRES OF THE SITE ARE IN EACH OF THE
FOLLOWING CATEGORIES? (ACREAGES SHOULD ADD UP TO TOTAL
PROJECT AREA BEFORE AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION.)
Alternate No. 1
Before After Before After
Forest/Wooded 0.2 Wetland (types 3-8) 1.9
Cropland Impervious Surface 3.6
Brush/grassland 4.9 3.4 Other (Specify)
Alternate No. 2
Before After Before After
Forest/Wooded 0.4 Wetland (types 3-8) 2.9
Cropland Impervious Surface 3.9
Brush/grassland 4.3 3.7 Other (Specify)
Alternate No. 3
Before After Before After
Forest/Wooded 1.0 Wetland (types 3-8) 2.6
Cropland Impervious Surface 4.5
Brush/grassland 5.1 4.2 Other (Specify)
15. DESCRIBE THE SOILS ON THE SITE, GIVING THE SCS SOIL
CLASSIFICATION TYPES, IF KNOWN.
SCS soil types on the site are as follows:
Marsh Hamel Loam
Hayden Clay Loam Braham Loamy Fine Sand
Heyder Sandy Loam
Refer to Exhibit F in the addendum for the SCS map.
16. DOES THE SITE CONTAIN PEAT SOILS, HIGHLY ERODIBLE SOILS, STEEP
SLOPES, SINKHOLES, SHALLOW LIMESTONE FORMATIONS, ABANDONED
WELLS, OR ANY GEOLOGIC HAZARDS? IF YES, SHOW ON SITE MAP AND
EXPLAIN:
YES
Peat soils will be removed and replaced with suitable
foundation material.
17. WHAT IS THE APPROXIMATE DEPTH (IN FEET) TO:
a. groundwater 0' min. avg.
b. bedrock min. avg. over 100'
4
A
18. DOES ANY PART OF THE PROJECT AREA INVOLVE:
a. shoreland zoning district? X NO _ b. delineated 100 -year flood plain? X NO _ c. state or federally designated river land use district? X NO
IF YES, IDENTIFY WATER BODY AND APPLICABLE STATECLASSIFICATION(S), AND DESCRIBE MEASURES TO PROTECT WATER ANDRELATEDLANDRESOURCES:
19. DESCRIBE ANY PHYSICAL ALTERATION (E.G., DIKES, EXCAVATION, FILL, STREAM DIVERSION) OF ANY DRAINAGE SYSTEM, LAKE, STREAM, AND/OR WETLAND. DESCRIBE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE IMPAIRMENT OFTHEWATER -RELATED RESOURCES. ESTIMATE QUANTITY OF MATERIAL TOBEDREDGEDANDINDICATEWHERESPOILSWILLBEDEPOSITED.
Roadway embankment construction in DNR Wetland Nos. 579W, 584Wand585Wwillrequireremovalofpeatsoilsandreplacementwithsuitablematerial. Approximate amounts are as follows:
Alternate No. 1 65,000 Cu. Yds.
Alternate No. 2 75,000 Cu. Yds.
Alternate No. 3 - 65,000 Cu. Yds.
Some peat soils will be replaced on embankment slopes; thebalancewillbedepositedawayfromwetlandareas. The DNRWillprovideinputonmitigationmeasuresandpermitrequirements. The Corps of Engineers will review the projectandtheneedforaSection404Permit. The Shingle CreekWatershedManagementCommissionwillreviewtheprojectfor
compliance with their interim management standards.
20. a. WILL THE PROJECT REQUIRE AN APPROPRIATION OF GROUND ORSURFACEWATER? IF YES, EXPLAIN (INDICATE QUANTITY ANDSOURCE): X NO YES
b. WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT GROUNDWATER LEVELS IN ANY WELLSONOROFFTHESITE)? IF YES, EXPLAIN: X NO YES
21. DESCRIBE THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES TO BEUSEDDURINGANDAFTERCONSTRUCTIONOFTHEPROJECT.
Siltation fences, sediment basins, and hay bales will be used
as necessary to control erosion during construction. Soddingandseedingofslopeswillbeprovidedafterconstructioniscomplete.
9
YES
YES
YES
22. a. WILL THE PROJECT GENERATE:
1. surface and stormwater runoff? NO X YES
2. sanitary wastewater? X NO YES
3. industrial wastewater? X NO YES
4. cooling water (contact and noncontact)? X NO YES
IF YES, IDENTIFY SOURCES, VOLUMES, QUALITY (IF OTHER THAN
NORMAL DOMESTIC SEWAGE), AND TREATMENT METHODS. GIVE THE
BASIS OR METHODOLOGY OF ESTIMATES.
Additional pavement surface will increase the volume of
stormwater runoff. Runoff will be accommodated by a
storm sewer system which will be constructed with the
roadway, which will minimize impacts to adjacent areas.
b. IDENTIFY RECEIVING WATER, INCLUDING GROUNDWATER, AND
EVALUATE THE IMPACTS OF THE DISCHARGES LISTED ABOVE. IF
DISCHARGES TO GROUNDWATER ARE ANTICIPATED, PROVIDE
PERCOLATION/ PERMEABILITY AND OTHER HYDROGEOLOGICAL TEST
DATA, IF AVAILABLE.
Stormwater runoff will be discharged into the City's
storage ponds as set forth in the Plymouth storm drainage
plan.
23. WILL THE PROJECT GENERATE (EITHER DURING OR AFTER
CONSTRUCTION):
a. AIR POLLUTION? X NO YES
b. DUST? NO X YES
C. NOISE? NO X YES
d. ODORS? X NO YES
IF YES, EXPLAIN, INCLUDING AS APPROPRIATE: DISTANCES TO
SENSITIVE LAND USES; EXPECTED LEVELS AND DURATION OF NOISE;
TYPES AND QUANTITIES OF AIR POLLUTANTS FROM STACKS, MOBILE
SOURCES, AND FUGITIVE EMISSIONS (DUST); ODOR SOURCES; AND
MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR ANY IMPACTS. GIVE THE BASIS OR
METHODOLOGY OF ESTIMATES.
a. Air Pollution: The area served by Schmidt Lake Road is a
rapidly developing area with steadily increasing traffic
volumes. These volumes are expected to grow regardless
of improvements to Schmidt Lake Road. As such, the
project itself will not cause any increase in trips but
will prevent diversion of trips to parallel routes, such
as C.S.A.H. 9 and C.S.A.H. 10. Therefore, the project
will create no net increase in air pollution.
b. Dust: Dust from construction will be temporary and will
be controlled by watering.
C. Noise: See Noise Study in addendum.
N.
24. DESCRIBE THE TYPE AND AMOUNT OF SOLID AND/OR HAZARDOUS WASTE
INCLUDING SLUDGES AND ASHES THAT WILL BE GENERATED AND THE
METHOD AND LOCATION OF DISPOSAL: N/A
25. WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT:
a. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, OR MOVEMENT OF ANIMALS?
NO X YES
b. ANY NATIVE SPECIES THAT ARE OFFICIALLY LISTED AS STATE
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR OF SPECIAL CONCERN (ANIMALS
AND/OR PLANTS)?
X NO YES
IF YES, EXPLAIN (IDENTIFY SPECIES AND DESCRIBE IMPACT):
Roadway embankment construction will displace wetland
wildlife habitat. Approximate amounts would be as
follows:
Alternate No. 1 - 1.9 Acres
Alternate No. 2 - 2.9 Acres
Alternate No. 3 - 2.6 Acres
Mitigative measures will be implemented at the direction
of the DNR and the Corps of Engineers/Fish and Wildlife
Service to replace this habitat area.
26. DO ANY HISTORICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
EXIST ON OR NEAR THE PROJECT SITE? IF YES, EXPLAIN (SHOW
RESOURCES ON A SITE MAP AND DESCRIBE IMPACT):
X NO YES
The State Historic Preservation Officer has been contacted and
an official determination on this matter has been requested.
A copy of the correspondence is attached in the addendum.
27. WILL THE PROJECT CAUSE THE IMPAIRMENT OR DESTRUCTION OF:
a. DESIGNATED PARR OR RECREATION AREAS? X NO YES
b. PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLANDS? X NO YES
C. ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS? X NO YES
d. SCENIC VIEWS AND VISTAS? X NO YES
e. OTHER UNIQUE RESOURCES (SPECIFY)?
IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7
28. FOR EACH AFFECTED ROAD INDICATE THE CURRENT AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC (ADT), INCREASE IN ADT CONTRIBUTED BY THE PROJECT AND
THE DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF TRAFFIC.
See Traffic Analysis included in addendum.
29. ARE ADEQUATE UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICE NOW AVAILABLE TO
SERVICE THE PROJECT? IF NOT, WHAT ADDITIONAL UTILITIES AND/OR
SERVICES WILL BE REQUIRED?
NO X YES
9
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
FOR REGULAR EAWS, LIST THE ISSUES AS IDENTIFIED BY "YES" ANSWERS ABOVE,
DISCUSS ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THESE ISSUES. FOR
SCOPING EAWS, LIST KNOWN ISSUES, ALTERNATIVES, AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES
TO BE ADDRESSED IN EIS.
lb. The alternative to complete removal of peat soils is a combination
of surcharging techniques to minimize future settlement and place-
ment of geotextile fabrics. Since the proposed project includes
underground utilities which will not tolerate settlements (i.e.,
sanitary sewer) such techniques are not appropriate in this case.
19. The roadway construction will encroach on DNR protected wetlands;
no alternative alignment exists which meets geometric requirements
without wetland encroachment. Construction in wetlands will be
minimized by choice of alignment. The DNR, Corps of Engineers and
the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission will be reviewing
the project and providing input on design modifications, mitigation
measures and any permit requirements.
22. Storm water runoff will be accommodated in accordance with the
City's storm drainage plan.
23. b. Dust: Impacts from dust during construction will be minimized
by watering when necessary.
C. Noise: The Noise Study completed for the proposed project is
included in the addendum to the EAW.
25. Roadway embankment construction will displace 2-3 acres of wetland
wildlife habitat. No alternative alignment for the roadway exists
which meets geometric standards without such habitat displacement.
Mitigative measures to offset this habitat displacement will be
taken by the City as directed by the DNR.
CERTIFICATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS TRUE
AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND THAT COPIES OF THE COMPLETE
EAW HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL POINTS ON THE OFFICIAL EQB
DISTRIBUTION LIST.
SIGNATURE
TITLE
2
DATE
ADDENDUM
EAW Graphics
Noise Study
Traffic Analysis
Correspondence
10
i ,,,,r,
l i:;,r,'•, , Brooklyn
Inv
Maple (grove
ao'
r is jf Laka l
a '
if { i' i Pr101n . fir..•-...
f
of
i
j
tF; .......
r30
52
i , 1.
1 1
Inc t t'-iKG \ j •. i
New
Hope Crystal
PI j{ ii•l o u t h c
24` i
r a - •t
100
got s
Golden
c t
I
a
t.
i
r. , ...... 12
1G, is Miles i
3. -
t
STRGAR-ROSCO&t?AUSCH, CITY OF PLYMOUTHCO,aSlr.T,nG E,v(:ME,tS . ,.AND w cvEVORSro.s EXHIBIT- A
SCHMIDT.-LAKE ROAD LOCATION MAP
JO TWELVE OAKS CENTER tSf00 WAVLTA KVp.
MMMETOM,(A. ww,EsoT. su„
Kttl at,-AOlc CITY PROJECT NO. 705 COMMISSION NO.O$iO$ss
eee C
Sf,
I
N-O
900900
c:..Ne.Aow• 1 kY u Pk: ' V —-1 — (— C6;„
j - ciaomea
Sch ,
I g
n
e
AV
0 t: I Irn •
rn
Park
tl •:Q•': 19JC..•
g00 ! YII • .
0
LAKE = 1 ROAO `
939 .`-
ter.. --z -
1 ;,• off' % Z
s R
h Jisores -- AVE
v.. o
SOO 8ht 923 II L/ £ ® -
fl o PROP;
9 Grerel Pit.. STREET
Al
927 •w W I 91, ,'t .• SOTM
00 Qv„
0
u /
qt:
in i _ ; • ••:Q 01. Coop
W
a =..
t
o Ch '
Nigh
W;;i ;•
o r
G
1
o
FZIP 3 u ALIT
Sch f ,1
9Sp0 i
a
it
Cem,
I s U ParkuI' p o a u • y r
lo
ii , it r
b •'• I f
VII s—_ w h
GETHS 4
0 11
i1 S 9 a. , z w / J 1 i C£METI
Mt otnet ch ' 1
Je
e . • 1
q v ' '' 18 -
1
li pwr 4
KQ••raret Pit o • y.
so
t 0
3eh
iQ- 50
36TN• AVENUE•
STRGAR-ROSCOE,FAUSCH.INC CITY OF PLYMOUTH
1.1\.Ir.Tt.1:.:.1:1,.:•:Ic EXHIBIT B
T
SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD OSSEO QUADRANGLE
AY111'NrH-r IId.1-rMK, 1:MMl N'y.-e.t• 111.•1
Ail "'" ,W ' t::atlll CITY PROJECT NO. 705IwluCOMMISSION NO. 0870865
UZ
F"' JQ
1- M a o
iUJ
i zZ Z W ~ o
z
OO
LO
Z cc
CC
Q 119
tf
W p
s
i
t
V V, Y ' S Z W Z
2•
f - t..c.. . W
w J W
C#) O O
p
t
ON = x' Jf -- Q
ui
W
ccWj .....' W
LLI
0 Wa
zoc
U o
0
a
i j f•- O
CC
UJ
moi • % - .. %...._........ 4i N N H O
i
W N Ozrr
oz
Wy-1 l8 HJ Z i F o =
v,• s
LLJ
i
J t 4) C. L`
v
E
c _ u E '
H c U-)_
c o Lryt scnJ
F
OZ
m U U U U= a G2 `
F+ti
N t0 "Q
n
I
t -
I W
711 4p
O Smi
N `.
1 —_ k.. { !' .a. %
r• `tel
6 = `
s. ..
t v+. ' :CJS {. ;; __
l
1.' ! - tea. , f f {
Y : { ` ..'O ; _ ..
O ' r` '
r
ts.i • r,,,,,- .tom.: <:
w
L,)
ltD
co
O
co
O
6
z
z
0
o L
O
U
i
Z
0
U .n
W m
Go
o
J
j Q m
U
o
0
LU a Z
o
m ~ N_
t" x O
W U
J
a
CC
W
p Q
O N J Q o
cr I
O O ti
W Z to D O
Y I p 0 w z
aa a ,c
J— - - - cc: W J Q V
F- 0 a. a J ui
p ( W U o
J Z
CL
a
I
m
f- H }
cUn N H (f)
I O S X N v
n W
W
i B 8
Z
p
r-
Z
Occ
ir
t
OU) I N
c <•_
W
F ;
v;s '
frr
WpiledFN
Mp YO
w:
Ito,
o
4 .1,1, A V
TV
t
It
t4 101
RRk. k*
21
vm
kI.
IW_
C!:qr7!_VI'Z-0P 77311-
Na T.
CR
ag 0('.
try;
e7h
inl.,!f i r.- Ej^nd t _ .`: ti„ •'yy,r°T'
s'lq y'z.,
i G-'
i..!,*)„• :
cawn-
11Kul,
3k, 04
411
ALI
r t; . w. S- '
Yet
t + . Lel t '#! .
4.1W&Mt
IVA)
5A 2M
I 1
File No. 0870865
MEMORANDUM
TO: Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Plymouth
FROM: Timothy D. Phenow, P.E.
James M. Kranig, P.E.
DATE: July 9, 1987
SUBJECT: NOISE ANALYSIS
SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD
CITY PROJECT NO. 904
INTRODUCTION
A detailed analysis of traffic -generated noise levels was
performed for receptor sites in the Schmidt Lake Road project
area (see Figure 1). This report summarizes the results of this
analysis.
METHODOLOGY
Two receptor sites adjacent to the south right of way of the
proposed Schmidt Lake Road were selected (see Figure 2). Receptor Site 1 is located at an existing residence in the
southwest corner of the intersection of Nathan Lane and SchmidtLakeRoad. Receptor Site 2 is located further west on SchmidtLakeRoadadjacenttothealternativealignment1todetermine
the impact of the three potential alignments.
Existing noise levels were monitored for both peak day and
nighttime hours at Receptor Site 1. Noise levels were modeled at
both sites for three alternative alignments during peak hours for1990 (one year after completion) and 1990 (ten years after
completion).
1
GOR.R.
191 1 i C
i 6Orn
J
dLNa
Al • 4:1 AV . _ i 60m
z
10
AVE. N.
C.S.A.H. 10
i Z : u
Sbm al
NS6.n AVE. N• i
i
i' " PROJECT
T FLOCATION
AVE. ILSIj o
Sfrn AVE.
Z
t+E S7na •7. ,
7
i l
d u 0m P SOm
ifi I`pfn PL.
SCf•` a
w. m ¢ rhl!SO•n AVE. %.
vE. q•.V a9•n f9rn
I I( / aa SCNMID La,
avf.I a 1 ag LrJ [e' pq AVf.
LA
P.t
pvE, ..,\
Nef VE. w. iERp _ N.
J tea Tfl
NJI<6 Ii / 2 /a a I 3 Pl
J L_1, P
Schmidt /
f
oaE'w Ic - _< eTtn
OJE•
r^, 1
Ic4'...1': NC I .i<E•^ tvE. n.
i /
IUO pal
J'
a G ('
V! «•^ Cv
L "
t. c 6
I <`'J C AVE. \---
I. c fS . ,i v . 977•
Ilz 1 _,
i42 AWE.
off: :e c ., •• .n
s`.
SIJ ,
j:c`" ; //,,///\ y _•; JII
t:' _
Q"0 <i. 'a \ •
7^e avE'/.= '. D.: \LGtt' Q i i :I YI' 9^'
sF„acC k 0^ c __11(
f„`(,\. --J
I`
i Sem [rl_
58— AVE. af 104-
o;i 1. _ u 3
tDRCST C • hl.•: c .n C 1, m r o'J6•n 1
Vi. %.. +J! a
1: i ti's :.. Ali
1 Q 5..00 \[ 1[Cs y c !a^r•i •C. ,i
1.. AVE ZI•`J' -
va
9PROJSTRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH FIGURE NO. 1
LYINNULTINI: /:NI:INt:6as NOISE ANALYSIS ECTT4.Mnf.f.M •.rill • (f.If11 a.l. t.%uM((u • L.wlr M'(r(\•.(s
COO T-1—fl.k.(:~-. ISSW N•.y(.ta HNd. SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD LOCATION
N'.y(at. MN S5.791
16121 47SIN1111 CITY PROJECT NO. 904 1 COMMISSION NO. 0870865
JJ _%
p 7.nN•
D
56rn11 N
1•L'
pv
3 n 14 f.
J E. SSfn!I VE.
li ? lftn
II t
f
II
II
moi
I II ills a77, a'I
Sero
J
Qo AV!
1
I:
IIII
bi
61 1; 5p— '
7f
n
aJE
rte
I .
Y Ij
Ic•-. •V•.. .;..: 1 Z1
Z;k
ail;
1W1,.
e- fy
ae •. `z1 a yE
i..., lv
G
1 •:
L^uRt I •• OI: C" TrI it
a ' 7! IQI!
I:`.;
C.S.A
AVE. N.
C.S.A.H. 10
i Z : u
Sbm al
NS6.n AVE. N• i
i
i' " PROJECT
T FLOCATION
AVE. ILSIj o
Sfrn AVE.
Z
t+E S7na •7. ,
7
i l
d u 0m P SOm
ifi I`pfn PL.
SCf•` a
w. m ¢ rhl!SO•n AVE. %.
vE. q•.V a9•n f9rn
I I( / aa SCNMID La,
avf.I a 1 ag LrJ [e' pq AVf.
LA
P.t
pvE, ..,\
Nef VE. w. iERp _ N.
J tea Tfl
NJI<6 Ii / 2 /a a I 3 Pl
J L_1, P
Schmidt /
f
oaE'w Ic - _< eTtn
OJE•
r^, 1
Ic4'...1': NC I .i<E•^ tvE. n.
i /
IUO pal
J'
a G ('
V! «•^ Cv
L "
t. c 6
I <`'J C AVE. \---
I. c fS . ,i v . 977•
Ilz 1 _,
i42 AWE.
off: :e c ., •• .n
s`.
SIJ ,
j:c`" ; //,,///\ y _•; JII
t:' _
Q"0 <i. 'a \ •
7^e avE'/.= '. D.: \LGtt' Q i i :I YI' 9^'
sF„acC k 0^ c __11(
f„`(,\. --J
I`
i Sem [rl_
58— AVE. af 104-
o;i 1. _ u 3
tDRCST C • hl.•: c .n C 1, m r o'J6•n 1
Vi. %.. +J! a
1: i ti's :.. Ali
1 Q 5..00 \[ 1[Cs y c !a^r•i •C. ,i
1.. AVE ZI•`J' -
va
9PROJSTRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH FIGURE NO. 1
LYINNULTINI: /:NI:INt:6as NOISE ANALYSIS ECTT4.Mnf.f.M •.rill • (f.If11 a.l. t.%uM((u • L.wlr M'(r(\•.(s
COO T-1—fl.k.(:~-. ISSW N•.y(.ta HNd. SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD LOCATION
N'.y(at. MN S5.791
16121 47SIN1111 CITY PROJECT NO. 904 1 COMMISSION NO. 0870865
it
1•L'
AVE. N.
C.S.A.H. 10
i Z : u
Sbm al
NS6.n AVE. N• i
i
i' " PROJECT
T FLOCATION
AVE. ILSIj o
Sfrn AVE.
Z
t+E S7na •7. ,
7
i l
d u 0m P SOm
ifi I`pfn PL.
SCf•` a
w. m ¢ rhl!SO•n AVE. %.
vE. q•.V a9•n f9rn
I I( / aa SCNMID La,
avf.I a 1 ag LrJ [e' pq AVf.
LA
P.t
pvE, ..,\
Nef VE. w. iERp _ N.
J tea Tfl
NJI<6 Ii / 2 /a a I 3 Pl
J L_1, P
Schmidt /
f
oaE'w Ic - _< eTtn
OJE•
r^, 1
Ic4'...1': NC I .i<E•^ tvE. n.
i /
IUO pal
J'
a G ('
V! «•^ Cv
L "
t. c 6
I <`'J C AVE. \---
I. c fS . ,i v . 977•
Ilz 1 _,
i42 AWE.
off: :e c ., •• .n
s`.
SIJ ,
j:c`" ; //,,///\ y _•; JII
t:' _
Q"0 <i. 'a \ •
7^e avE'/.= '. D.: \LGtt' Q i i :I YI' 9^'
sF„acC k 0^ c __11(
f„`(,\. --J
I`
i Sem [rl_
58— AVE. af 104-
o;i 1. _ u 3
tDRCST C • hl.•: c .n C 1, m r o'J6•n 1
Vi. %.. +J! a
1: i ti's :.. Ali
1 Q 5..00 \[ 1[Cs y c !a^r•i •C. ,i
1.. AVE ZI•`J' -
va
9PROJSTRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH FIGURE NO. 1
LYINNULTINI: /:NI:INt:6as NOISE ANALYSIS ECTT4.Mnf.f.M •.rill • (f.If11 a.l. t.%uM((u • L.wlr M'(r(\•.(s
COO T-1—fl.k.(:~-. ISSW N•.y(.ta HNd. SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD LOCATION
N'.y(at. MN S5.791
16121 47SIN1111 CITY PROJECT NO. 904 1 COMMISSION NO. 0870865
co
E...
W
Z
W
zN
V
W
a Q m
U _ •-•^ QW WS
W Z Z N >
E '4
O2
3NV-` NVHIVN-
gi
SW Q ; p a ~a =
4,h::uz<xsx Z W o
QQ w OCU U)
z i i W W
J C7 0 J Q i
W Z O ti Q as v
d W N W Q
cr. Y Or
X a Q
Wto
cc
w Q
i' ^ }
J Z Q U
W j l a / z Q tLSzU3O W H O
U) C) CC
LL > n.
t --
J >
cc
S
LLI cc
W
LU
W
0 cc
m
a Q
CO
LU
LUc
w y Z
j U O: O
0.
cc x
a W
wY
W.
1e1
i € owo
K.:.:vw, a''\,vH.fiY]k'` 'C ...v...v..........vti...
3NV-1 ,IaVHJV[ 3
Traffic volumes utilized in this analysis were based on existing
peak period counts, annual growth factor for area roadways, and
estimates of traffic diversion due to completion of the proposed
roadway in 1989. The resultant traffic volumes are summarized in
Table 1.
Traffic noise was estimated using the Federal Highway Noise
Prediction Model, STAMINA 2.0. The estimated noise levels are
summarized in Table 2.
NOISE IMPACTS
The existing 'noise levels at Receptor Site 1 are within state
standards for daytime noise. However, the existing nighttime
noise levels exceed the state standards by up to 4.7 decibels.
This is due to the relatively high traffic volumes on Schmidt
Dake Road which turn onto Nathan Lane.
The 1990 noise levels at Receptor Site 1 will increase due tot he
growth in traffic volumes due to continued development as well as
due to the diversion of traffic to Schmidt Lake Road from
C.S.A.H. 9 and C.S.A.H. 10. The 1990 daytime noise levels will
be within the state standards. The 1990 nighttime noise levels
will increase by up to 4.1 decibels and will continue to be above
the standards. The 1999 daytime noise levels will increase up to
1.4 decibels and will be up to 1.3 decibels over state standards.
The 19999 nighttime noise levels will increase by up to 1.5
decibels and will be up to 7.0 decibels over state standards. In
each case the alignment alternatives will have no discernible
noise impact on Receptor Site 1.
The 1990 and 1999 noise levels at Receptor Site 2 will be within
state standards for daytime and nighttime conditions. The
alternative alignments do have a localized impact based on how
close Schmidt Lake Road is to each receptor. However, the
general impact is negligible and in each case is within state
standards.
NOISE ABATEMENT
The exceedance of state noise standards currently exists at
Receptor Site 1 due to the proximity to both Nathan Lane and
Schmidt Lake Road. The completion of Schmidt Lake Road to the
west and future traffic growth due to development will increase
these noise levels. Any noise abatement measures considered
could be confined to the residential areas in the immediate
vicinity of the Nathan Lane and Schmidt Lake Road intersection.
3
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EXISTING
HOURLY
ROADWAY VOLUMES
SCHMIDT LK. RD.
OF NATHAN LANE
DAY 570
NIGHT 242
NATHAN LANE
N OF SCHMIDT LK. RD.
DAY 140
NIGHT 80
SCHMIDT LK. RD.
NATHAN TO ZACHARY LN.
DAY 65
NIGHT 10
NATHAN LANE
S OF SCHMIDT LK. RD.
DAY 485
NIGHT 205
1990 1999
HOURLY HOURLY
VOLUMES VOLUMES
695 905
365 475
155
105
230
170
520
280
200
135
300
220
675
365
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF NOISE LEVELS
SITE #2
SOUTH RIGHT-
OF-WAY WEST
OF SCHMIDT
LAKE ROAD
STATE STANDARDS
1990 ALT. 1
1990 ALT. 2
DAYTIME NIGHTTIME
RECEPTOR SITE CONDITION L10 L50 L10 L50
SITE #1
48.5
42.4 41.2 38.2
SW CORNER OF EXISTING 63.5 58.1 59.7 52.9
NATHAN LANE ( 1990 ALT. 1 64.9 59.9 63.0 57.0
AND SCHMIDT ( 1990 ALT. 2 64.9 59.9 63.0 57.0
LAKE ROAD 1990 ALT. 3 64.9 59.9 63.0 57.0
1999 ALT. 1 65.9 61.3 ( 64.0 58.5
1999 ALT. 2 ( 65.9 61.3 64.0 58.5
1999 ALT. 3 65.9 61.3 64.0 58.5
SITE #2
SOUTH RIGHT-
OF-WAY WEST
OF SCHMIDT
LAKE ROAD
STATE STANDARDS
1990 ALT. 1
1990 ALT. 2
1990 ALT. 3
1999 ALT. 1
1999 ALT. 2
1999 ALT. 3
48.7 44.3 47.5 42.6
41.5 38.6 40.3 37.0
37.9 35.8 36.6 34.2
49.7 45.7 48.5 44.0
42.4 39.9 41.2 38.2
38.9 37.1 ( 38.5 36.8
65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0
STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TRANSPORTATION CIVIL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS
June 15, 1987 DRAFT
Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Mr. Moore:
RE: TRAFFIC NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD
File No. 0870865
As part of our overall traffic, feasibility and environment
studies for the proposed Schmidt Lake Road from Nathan Lane to
Zachary Lane, we have prepared a Traffic Needs. Analysis
addressing the proposed alignment of Schmidt Lake Road,
particularly in the segment from C.S.A.H. 18 to Vicksburg Lane, including the consideration for a future 'interchange with
Interstate 494. The purpose of this memorandum is to documentthemethodologyusedin. this analysis and to -summarize the
conclusions relative to the need for Schmidt Lake Road as well as
the interchange with I-494.
STUDY AREA
In order to:`completely analyze the impact of proposed,: SchmidtLakeRoad, a study area was . developed that."'.= -included the x; areabounded,: by, .C. S. A. H 18 ; on the : east, Vicksburg Lane on - he west,
the'... north and `'C.S.A.H.` 9<. -on the 'south`--,'.1'.-(see
Figure ;1) . The study'; area included cons ideration.::of:."the.'adequacyof;, the interchanges ,on I-94 at C.S.A.H. 10 -and--C.S.A.H. 9. :.--: The
purpose of the study area was to focus analysis-of°travel in the
east -west .and north -south corridors that ..include'C.S.A.H._.10,
proposed Schmidt Lake Road, C.S.A.H. 9, as well-as-C.S:A.H:` 18,
I-494 and Vicksburg Lane. ;.;.
00 Twelve Oaks Center, 15500 Wayzata Blvd_ Wayzata Atli 55391 (612) 47&-0010
L.=
D STRGAR•ROSCOE•FAUSCH.INC.
1t 1 fl 17101•
PRIMARY CORRIDOR
AND MAJOR
ROADWAYS
FIGURE 1
commiss+-'y No. 08708 S
Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E. - 2 - June 15, 1987
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The basic analysis methodology was to look at historical corridorgrowthratesandthegrowthindevelopmentinthestudyarea. Aregressionanalysisofhistorictrafficcountsinthestudyareafrom1977to1986) indicates that traffic has grown at a rate ofbetween2.4% and 7.8% depending on the facility. Overall, theeast -west corridor has been growing at a rate of 3.5% per year. This rate is typical of areas which are experiencing moderate tohighlevelsofdevelopment. The entire metropolitan area has hada2.9% annual growth rate during the period 1971-1986.
The main east -west routes in the study area are C.S.A.H. 9, C.S.A.H. 10, C.S.A.H. 47, and the proposed Schmidt Lake Road. Four screenlines (shown on Figure 2), which are lines drawn foranalysispurposesacrossseveralroadwaysthatformacorridor, were identified west of C.S.A.H. 18, midway between C.S.A.H. 18andI-494, east of I-494, and west of I-494.
A screenline midway between C.S.A.H. 18 and I-494 was used forbaselineforecastpurposes. The current volume at thisscreenlineis29,600 vehicle trips per day (see Figure 2). ThelevelofcurrenttraveldesireacrossthisscreenlineisconstrainedbecausebothC.S.A.H. 9 and C.S.A.H. 10 are two-laneroadwaysoflimitedcapacity. Both routes are scheduled to:,beupgradedtofour -lane roadways in the near future. Assuming a3.5% annual growth rate, the future (year 2010) daily corridorvolumeisprojectedtobe67,600. In addition, Highway 55 isexpectedtoreachcapacityduringthisforecastperiod. 3,000tripsareforecasttodivertto<_C.S.A.H. 9 as Highway 55reaches.
mcapacity. Thus, this screenline volume..would be 70,000 vehiclesperdayin2010. Figure-3.showstthe-year;2010 screenline volumesassuming.no additional roadways.:` -
The forecast volumes were then'-,-; compared to corridor capacity. The daily capacity of a four lane roadway is 25,000 to 30,000vehiclesperday. Thus, the combined capacity of C.S.A.H. 9 andC.S.A.H. 10 (when improved to four lanes each) will be 50,000 to60,000 vehicles per day. Given -the anticipated demand of 70,000tripsperday, both of these roadways would be over capacity bytheyear2010 (see Figure 3).
MAPLE 6RQVE
Iwo ro. ro.sts % „ •
Y
r t
17.,50014,200
Y h O I
M
c)'
21,400. _
2,400 -
15,400+ •• -. ' `.,
12,900 12,400
PLYMOVT
moo Pop w
n0.•i:iF
LL Y o > {
i •cm"L r•Ac
18,400
X24,700'
Mrvcvl t
NAM i , •[ 10
t ..[. •. I. DONE LAKE
E \ It to .
29,600 _ } im
co
36,4001
STRCAR^ROSCOE-FAUSCH. INC.
L w.itlrl: I"•:I ft.R% EXISTING DAILY
TRAFFIC (1966) FIGURE 2
U.1 i_A.• 11.1• l•wlw, IS.LM W •„J• MI.'.[
AND SCREENI_INES '
COMMISSION kO. 0 6 7 0 8 6
STRGAR-ROSCOE.FAUSCt(. INC.
M'•y..l. 4\ itl l
KILT .Rwlu
PROJECTED 2010
DAILY TRAFFIC
WITHOUT SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD
FIGURE 3
COMMISSION NO. 0870665
Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E. - 3 _ June 15, 2987
CONCLUSIONS
In order for the corridor to have an adequate level of service, additional capacity must be added. To the north, I-694 alreadyhascapacityproblemswhichlimitsdiversionoftraffictothisarea. As previously mentioned, Highway 55 is expected to reachcapacityduringtheforecastperiodandthereforeisnotavailablefortrafficdiversion. Medicine Lake prevents theadditionofthroughroadwaysintheareabetweenHighway55andC.S.A.H. 9.
The addition of the proposed Schmidt Lake Road would meet theexpectedincreaseincorridortrafficbecauseofitswellspacedlocationbetweenC.S.A.H. 9 and C.S.A.H. 10. In addition, thegradeseparationat49thAvenueNorthandC.S.A.H. 18 provides anappropriateinterchangepointfortheeastendofthecorridor. Based on this analysis, a four lane roadway is justified in theSchmidtLakeRoadcorridortomeetthedemandofapproximately20,000 vehicles per day and maintain an adequate level of serviceonthestudyarearoadsystem. (Total demand is 70,000 vehiclesperdayandcapacityonC.S.A.H. 9 and C.S.A.H. 10 for planningPurposesis50,000 vehicles per day.)
According to current traffic counts, approximately 50$ of thetrafficinthecorridorleavesC.S.A.H. 9 and C.S.A.H. 10 atI-494. Currently, this high level of turning volumes is beinghandledbythediamondinterchangesatC.S.A.H. 9 andC.S.A.H. 10. These I-494 intersections are some of the mostcongestedinthecorridorand, therefore, critical to I-494operation. Other signalized intersections in the corridoroperateata. higher level of service because they have lowercrossstreettraffic.
If Schmidt Lake Road were constructed with only a gradeseparationatI-494, Schmidt Lake Road would only carry an ADT of10,000 vehicles (a 50% reduction with respect to the amount oftrafficdesiringtouseit) while the traffic on both C.S.A.H. 9andC.S.A.H. 10 would increase to 30,000 vehicles per day (seeFigure4). These traffic levels would cause the intersections attheI-494 interchanges of C.S.A.H. 9 and C.S.A.H. 10 to be overcapacityduringpeakhours.
24,000
r.APLC GROVE
o_ 24500
la
j38,00030,000 - _
000
a— aw
u
I • •
s.»
ml m
r
Wo 10,00 .11,000
PROPOSED
SCHMI LA E OA •- -
41,000 •;
30,000
24,500
259000PLYMOUTHcl
i,, - • .
tet. wocfK Lax(
5 Irll Y = RiCWMaI PaAa i a
STA
I
O
WDIC*k LAKE
tti
D STRCAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH• INC. PROJECTED 2010
DAILY TRAFFIC FIGURE 4
w T- •••...•
Ml.x 6U(LO SCNAl1OT LAKE ROAD/
wY i.•1
NO RfWRC'HAMnF
j2 000
MAPLE GROVE /
o ro. ro.sn - 12000 A
IQ
11
11) 1
i
N `
2534,000 r400 _
17.000 '°
of
nnn 17Q00
1( 1{
25,000 •.. .,\ •
p
21,000 :219000
S •. i 4
l •^.•
PLYMOUTH •,. ` ;
1 `•
r
4 - ro. 3d.43
l . i Rt(GIOM. 1u1K 1 dirt
y .
c'/oor ..• !.
E' 011 vE r • ,.. S , j ' / ....:. c..r -
CRW Ate•
STA
W CMCINE LAKE \ yfro- •»
j
p STRGAR-Roscoe-FAUSCII.INC. PROJECTED 20101:1..:1..:!.1.
DAILY TRAFFIC FIGURE 5WT..-•.•/1-1. 1'•`+•.. IiV1p W„•.1. N1.A
BUILD SCHMIDT LAKE P4)AD
1cln lri•pw ANO WT£RCHANG _ .. .... .. _.
0
Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E. - 4 - June 15, 1987
With the addition of Schmidt Lake Road from C.S.A.H. 18 to
Vicksburg Lane, including ramps at I-494, C.S.A.H. 9 and C.S.A.H.
10 would each have an ADT of 25,000 vehicles per day and SchmidtLakeRoadwouldhaveanADTof20,000 vehicles per day (see
Figure 5). Under these conditions, all intersections at the I-
494 interchanges would operate at adequate level of service (C orbetter) during the peak hours of traffic.
The results of this analysis clearly indicate Schmidt Lake Road
will be needed by year 2010 to provide an appropriate facility tcmaintainanacceptablelevelofserviceonC.S.A.H. 9 andC.S.A.H. 10. Without Schmidt Lake Road, C.S.A.H. 9 and C.S.A.H. 10 will be overloaded based on the assumptions in this traffic
analysis. If development occurs at a more rapid rate, or ifindividualintersectionsonC.S.A.H. 9 and C.S.A.H. 10 grow more
rapidly in terms of their travel demand, the volumes on SchmidtLakeRoadcouldincrease. It is clear from this analysis that
without Schmidt Lake Road the travel time delays and level of
services at major intersections on C.S.A.H. 9 and C.S.A.H. 10
will be unacceptable from a transportation planning perspective. Without the construction of this road there are significant user
costs in terms of circuity of travel, travel time, air qualityimpactsandadditionalgasolineconsumption.
Detailed estimates of user cost/benefits created by circuity oftravelonC.S.A.H. 9 and C.S.A.H. 10 can be provided ifdesirable. Further analysis is needed to identify keyintersectionsalongproposedSchmidtLakeRoad. Signal warrantsandgeometricrequirementsshouldbeaddressedfortheseintersections. Detailed forecasted traffic volumes could then be
generated to address detailed design questions.
Please let us know if we can furnish you withinformation.
Very truly yours,
STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
Pe, & - —7ztU
Peter A. Fausch, P.E.
Vice President
PAF/jal
additional
Commission No. 0870865
June 23, 1987
Mr. Dennis Gimmestad
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
Fort Snelling History Center
St. Paul, Minnesota 55111
Dear Mr. Gimmestad:
RE: SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD
PLYMOUTH PROJECT NO. 904
The City of Plymouth is considering the construction of Schmidt
Lake Road from just west of Nathan Lane to Zachary Lane. As the
consulting engineers for the project, we are preparing anEnvironmentalAssessmentWorksheet (EAW). We would like torequestaStateHistoricPreservationOfficer (SHPO) determination as to the existence of historic or archaeologic
sites within the roadway corridor. The attached maps show the
location of three alternative alignments being considered for theproposedproject, which includes construction of a 4 -lane, urbansectionroadwaywithcurbandgutterandstormsewer. The
approximate width of the right-of-way would be 80 feet.
We anticipate completion of the EAW in July, 1987 with
publication in the EQB Monitor shortly thereafter. Therefore, we
would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.
If you have any questions or need further information, pleasefeelfreetocontactusat475-0010. Your assistance is greatlyappreciated.
Very truly yours,
STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
Timothy D. Phenow, P.E.
Senior Associate
TDP/SRB:bba
cc: Fred Moore, City of Plymouth
Sherm Goldberg, City of Plymouth
Dan Campbell, City of Plymouth
t sC
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: duly 30, 1987 for City Council Meeting August 3, 1987
TO: dames G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director &000
SUBJECT VIOLATIONS OF PLYMOUTH FENCE ORDINANCE REGULATIONS
SUMMARY: The City Council directed on March 30, 1987, that letters be
written for property owners who had fences which allegedly were
in violation with the Zoning Ordinance fence regulations. The City's attention was
drawn to these four properties by the attorney for an individual who then was contest-
ing through litigation the City's refusal to grant a variance for a fence that exceeded
the Ordinance location and height requirements. That attorney cited the four proper-
ties as instances where "comparable" fences had been built, with or without variance
action.
The litigation was subsequently settled between the plaintiff and the City, out of
court.
We sent the attached letter to the four property owners upon our findings that none had
received variances for the fences and that the fences were in violation of the Ordin-
ance height and location requirements.
We are providing you with copies of the responses we solicited and we recommend direc-
tion from the Council as to disposition of the cases.
The matter at hand was held aside while the Planning Commission and City Council
considered whether the City's fence regulations should be amended with respect to
corner lots. At the meeting on duly 27, 1987, the City Council determined that the
fence regulation should remain as is and not treat corner lots any differently than
current regulations.
The four instances contained in the information are not unique and there are probably
others throughout the City. The City does not require permits for fences and, conse-
quently, fences have been erected without the benefit of any scrutiny by the City be-
fore the construction.
We often do not have an awareness of illegal fences until they are brought to our
fences by neighbors or others who are concerned, including attorneys for persons who
have been contacted by the City upon discovery by the City that the particular fence is
in violation.
Y
1
Page two
Memorandum to City Manager
City Council Meeting August 3, 1987
July 30, 1987
That is what happened in this case.
The next normal step for staff would be to advise all four owners that their fences
must be brought into conformance with City fence regulations which were in effect when
the fences were built.
A possible alternative action is that the property owners could seek a post facto vari-
ance. I do not know what legitimate grounds for such a variance would be other than
the information presented by the four owners. The party that was initiating litigation
contended that the information he received from the City receptionists was less than
complete and thus the City was partially responsible for the erection of the fence in
violation of the Ordinance standards.
The City Council did approve language that clarified the Ordinance standards and the
settlement of the litigation effectively found that in that case, the information pro-
vided by the City had not been complete (the information given was accurate, it was not
the total information).
Whether that contention would apply in any of these four cases remains to be seen.
It is staff's intent to continue a diligent program of notifying owners of properties
where fences have been erected in violation of the standards and, where necessary, to
initiate appropriate legal action to gain conformance.
We have implemented a variety of steps to provide property owners with information
about fence regulations; the ultimate responsibility however rests with the property
owner who cannot be required to submit plans for proposed fences in advance of
construction.
I present this to the Council for further discussion since, as of last spring, the
Council seemed to be concerned that the Ordinance standards for corner lots might need
revision. That issue has now been addressed and, subject to the comments I offer
below, will proceed to enforce the Ordinance.
I have deleted the names and addresses of the four property owners since at this time
each is a pending case based upon a complaint and discovery that there is a violation.
Information is available but is protected by State law until the cases are resolved or
unless they are litigated.
For clarity, I will refer to the cases as one, two, three, and four.
Case No. 1
Contrary to the owner's observations, we have verified that the 6 ft. fence is closer
to the front property line than 35 ft. The edge of street is not the property line.
The owner has been informed of this but does not agree with the intent of the Ordin-
ance. This owner feels that corner lots should have a provision for a privacy fence.
This property also had a rail fence in the public right-of-way on the corner, though it
was not that fence that was referred to in the complaint. I brought that situation to
this owner's attention also.
Page three
Memorandum to City Manager
City Council Meeting August 3, 1987
July 30, 1987
Case No. 2
This property owner contends that verbal information was provided over the telephone
about fence standards prior to the erection of the fence. It appears that there was a
clear understanding about the Ordinance classification of yards that abut streets. All
such yards are considered front yards unless the City has prohibited access to one of
the streets. Ths particular lot does not have such a restriction and thus, both yards
abutting the street are front yards and thus, the fence should have been 35 ft. minimum
from the property line.
The fence that was constructed is in violation of the Ordinance and a variance was not
granted. The information conveyed was not documented (since last spring, however, any
telephone inquiry about fence standards is handled in such a way that the Community
Development Department personnel will send the caller a copy of the written Ordinance
standards that have been available at the Public Service Counter for some time). This
owner did not have the benefit of written information, but operated instead on the
basis of the telephone conversation.
rasp Nn_ 3
The fence on this property is in violation of the Ordinance standards including those
standards which were in effect when the fence was constructed some time ago. This is a
case where the owner, last spring, did not construct the fence and where, subsequent to
last spring, that owner sold it to a new owner. The new owner apparently would like to
retain the fence. The fence nevertheless, is in violation of the Ordinance standards
and has not been addressed as a variance item. The previous owner indicates that there
would be possible reasons to consider a variance.
Case No. 4
This property owner recalled when the fence was built and indicates that it was built
after a Public Works Project in the neighborhood which involved water and street
improvements. The owner indicates that at a neighborhood meeting involving the then
City Engineer and City Councilmembers, his fence was discussed because of concerns in
that area about the elevation of certain properties and the need for a retaining wall.
He states that he agreed to move his fence and place it at a lower area in -lieu of a
retaining wall. He indicates that there is no recollection of a discussion about fence
height regulations. There was not a variance granted for the fence. The owner has
submitted photographic data that would suggest that the fence is not creating a
problem.
I recommend that the Council discuss these four cases but caution that they are not,
collectively, a special class. They happen to be four cases which were brought to our
attention at the same time by the same individual who had a vested interest in the
issue. Individually, these cases would normally be handled by a requirement that the
fences be brought into compliance. The next legal step would be to file a legal action
through the City Attorney seeking compliance and/or penalty as provided for by the
Zoning Ordinance.
Caution is also in order as to the local or political treatment of these since, as
indicated above, they are not unique. The City does not require permits for fences and
Page four
Memorandum to City Manager
City Council Meeting August 3, 1987
July 30, 1987
I am not in a position at this time to recommend that that be adopted to limitations of
staff resources. The advantage of requiring permits, of course, would be that the
violation at hand would be erection of a fence without a permit. Permits would only be
granted for those fences that met Ordinance standards.
The City Public Safety Department and Inspection Division over the years have not had a
high priority of covering the entire City looking for fence violations. They do come
to our attention on a regular basis from neighbors and other sources who file
complaints.
Many citizens do in fact contact us before they construct a fence and we have taken
steps to improve the communications with those persons.
Also, I am not suggesting that the City has an undue amount of cases where fences are
in violation of the Ordinance; it is difficult some times, incidentally, to determine
when the fences were built, although that does not necessarily render the fence any
more legal unless it can be clearly shown that the construction occurred before any
fence regulations existed. Plymouth has had fence regulations for many years.
SUMMARY
It seems to me that there are the following options available to the Council at this
time:
1. Do nothing. The Ordinance provisions will be enforce following normal established
legal procedures. Residents will be given a reasonable time to bring the fences
into conformance with the standards. If conformance is not obtained, legal action
will initiated, and that may or may not result in action favorable to the City.
2. Reconsider Ordinance language that would allow 6 -ft. fence in a front yard of a
corner lot even if that front yard was not classified as an equivalent yard
because of restrictions on access. If such language were adopted, provision could
be amde to include previously constructed fences. The City Council did discuss
this matter on duly 6, 1987, and unanimously determined that such language would
not be appropriate.
3. Direct that, in lieu of the legal action cited in No. 1, applications for post
facto variances be accepted to determine whether variances might be in order. The
trouble with this approach is that first of all, it does not change the fact that
an Ordinance violation exists; also, if variances were not granted then nothing
has been achieved except more time has passed before normal compliance action was
Initiated.
AttanhmPnts
April 7, 1987
Plymouth, MN 55442
L
CITY OF
PLYMOUTFt
RE Violation of City Ordinance Fence Regulations at Lane North
Dear Mr. Sandberg:
There is a fence located on the above property which is not in conformance with Citystandardswithrespecttoheightandlocation. The City Zoning Ordinance contains
standards which, among other things, specify the maximum height of fences on residen-
tial lots, and particularly on corner residential lots.
The maximum height of a fence in a yard defined by the Ordinance as a "front yard", is
3 ft. if it is within the minimum setback area which normally is 35 ft. from the
property line. All yards which abut a street are defined as "front yards"; thus,
corner lots typically have two front yards.
The fence on your property is higher than the Ordinance standard. City records do not
indicate that a variance was granted to permit this fence. The fence is in violation
of the City ordinances and we would appreciate your efforts in correcting this problem.
Enclosed for your information is a pamphlet we distribute regarding fences and fencelocations. Many residents use this form to assure that their fences are properlylocatedandareoftheappropriateheight.
Questions regarding this may be directed to me at 559-2800.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Blair Tremere, Director
Community Development
BT/gw
cc: File
ENC
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
1he
Mr. Blair Tremere, Director
Community Development
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Tremere:
A REGIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOT, PHONE
an
Conference Superintendent
Assistant to the Superintendent
Director of Christian Education
O til 20, 1987
I am writing you in response to your letter of April 7, 1987
regarding the backyard fence located on the property at 41M
No.
Needless to say, werwere totally surprised to receive your word
that the fence is not in compliance with city ordinances. ,The
fence was installed over ten years ago by the original owners and
builders of the home. We purchased the home almost six years ago
from the original owners and have sold the home as of March 26, 1987,
prior to your letter. The new owner would of course desire to retain
the fence as is.
May I call to your attention the fact that the fence is placed on
the top of a bank that is already some five feet above street level.
It therefore offers no visual barriers of any sort. It is also
located appropriately to provide some privacy and to discourage
undue foot traffic on the grass bank which is already abused by
automobiles that are driven off the street and onto the bank.
We would sincerely request of you that the fence be allowed to
remain as it has through these years. It would create a very awkward
situation for us to have to make changes inasmuch as it was sold as
it is without any knowledge on anyone's part of noncompliance or
even question as to propriety.
Thank you
from you.
my office
for your consideration. I will look forward to hearing
Should you desire to talk personally, I may be reached at
or at home @p0holoo.
Sincerely,
MIDDLE AND UPPER SCHOOLS;
C;4kSF.
1 .`,i . JUN
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Attn: Blair Tremere
RE:
Dear Mr. Tremere,
June 1, 1987
Fencing Ordinance
In response to your letter dated April 7, 1987, on the issue of a
fence located on the property at not being
within the guide lines of the present ordinance regulations deal-
ing with corner lots.
The fence in mentioned here runs in a East/West direction along410ftStreetNorth. It is set back approximately 35 feet from the
edge of the street and is over 70 feet from the corner edge of
the lot.
It provides privacy to my backyard and affords security for the
swimming pool, which is also located in the backyard.
The presence of this fence in no way offers interference with the
sight -triangle" picture for traffic on the corner intersection
of thus not causing a safety problem with its
presence.
I believe that I should be given an equal opportunity in provid-
ing privacy to my backyard as is the property owner in the middle
of a block or other culdesac area lots.
I do feel that this ordinance is very prejusidary to corner lot
property owners, does not address the issue of sight -triangle for
safety, and should be amended to consider the individual circum-
stances and neighborhoods to which it applies.
I appreciate your time in this matter and look forward to hearingfromyou.
Sincerely,
P ko,,L cvr4 5-15 ; 5/Z(
CASE Z-
Je ur' fyA Y . -T e vv\-ev e
IM-ROMD
yr t-LLYMOLITH' i;i1M1y N{jy pEy I.OPMEf+t (2F'.
ii) ale 40
w Ca, -Lo .., d v Cvn,4,,...z C c
l
Ly n1:..,. .: 0. F. O A..y N c . Yc. `i1"u c , '-c S 2 0 , ; . c o ,. cQ H u.ti,.r
E Iti+•A \ 5.5/ - Z CJ Q,ll •Y -O r i•`9. P ? v j .' t*1 c i'-yam+- X S I d +' t J i /
t ('Tov vK E7V1 L/ il"`t + GV (C 1+10.iY1'C.Pa.r 1, TYs... S'• t¢ 7'0 G [.l (O iJl`
J
J f n ``
G
nAQpc,,4
J
Wulu-L ak%\eg. A-. ve., sS/ctiti 50CAvtc -'--p l % l(-t4p•
t ti\ n a •+. oT aTj -/' 0
n
P a %°e v b`' : c ' ck s v
Lc
p.., ..,. ,,, o alL, ` i t l 4,-o 1 to c _ S ea, c Q
Ak a .:-.c16uP 0 -to, V e c
S`t r1 ! w -y num a."olea) "i C6 Scu ; IDA tij V„ :, PALA, d, o a ,, I t r
Z eve' -4 C" fi v,Pev ,
1 w U 43 A 'pv . Jcc zc.6 ztcco c a1e-c L, -j 6 -4 - u.i y k ,
toCu.% t,ll, a" y c•7.c, C•vw
a bti.. (v•.:,f , a I v S e.ti.. -o`k
Uwi.t W 1,:c
41 i.c-CLO".
t Cl •4 w ,
C-W `l l`C•k c Lr.tt
o ,
h
V
s+. e . w -lu - h a i•o 10
I
C? a S c wee• c,ry iL- t : QA L.,,at w •t o•,..
P-,.A oj lll j P J zti -
vti •'
iJ ' %`"'c7. Sic expVlu_,j :,.
S"Jp r, 1•W(A. `
I-J`'`'0t` Qd
W-CIAL -Pk,; 1 eKo
v.
o'F P C arc C:•.> '•4L c-' F ctivM ^ f'Cz'' ..%i. n1.«.tc 1 a. -u
c sE3
i /
Lt J GLb (G(
V114 U{
r-
U /c0 L .(f +'r ' ` li'.0 L /IC GLS-c.-t il/ ""F"
w uti w , c c v-cam c1^ C C'rivst tJC
C C-c,„ .., o v ,c..•4.cx v cc`t U`'` d Gcr-LC.F "/
ommow—
1 y m.r ,, j
April 15, 1987
Blair Tremere, Director
Community Development
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Tremere:
Plymouth, MN 55441
In response to your letter of April 7, 1987 regarding the violation of City
Ordinance Fence Regulations, I submit the following information:
The fence was built on my property in May of 1977.
In 1978 the water and street improvement project for our neighbor-
hood was proposed and started. In this proposal was the widening
of the street and whenever the street was raised or property was
cut at a higher elevation, retaining walls were to be constructed.
It was almost unanimous by the citizens that no retaining walls be
constructed in our area.
At neighborhood "coffee clutches" with the Engineer and Council
Members my fence was discussed. I agreed to move the fence and
place it in the lower sloped area (in lieu of a retaining wall) on
the IWM Avenue side of my property. At that time no mention
was made as to the height of the fence.
It has been ten years since the fence was erected/moved and I feel it does
not impede safety by obstructing vision of the traffic.
I am enclosing pictures of the fence taken at various angles.
S*ncerely,
4. i
Enclosures
C -;T
GASE4
B
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: July 30, 1987
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: James G. Willis, City Manager
SUBJECT 1988 BUDGET - LEVY LIMIT CALC ATIONS
Dale Hahn and I have been working to determine the impact to the Cityasaresultofthelegislature's tampering with levy limitations.
Based upon our understanding of the law, and relying upon data
supplied to us by the Commissioner of Revenue, I believe that the
following table accurately represents the City's capacity to generate
property tax dollars in 1988. It is too soon to know for certain the
assessed value of property, however, Scott Hovet and Dale believe that
it will be around $475,500,000. This represents an increase of nearly47millioninJustoneyear.
The legislature established a 3% increase in levy limits. They did, however, take two other actions with respect to levy limits which do
impact the City. The first of these is that they reduced for 1988
only, the City's levy limit base to the amount levied in 1986 for
taxes payable in 1987. Second, they have severely limited those items
which were considered "special levies"and therefore outside of levylimits. The law now requires that we include the infrastructure
reserve, our tort liability, and our forestry levies within the levysubjecttolevylimitations. In 1986, the Council levied $646,000 for
these three items. In 1987, I am projecting that these same three
items will total approximately $678,461.
Because of the City's continued growth both in population and house-
holds, our growth will provide us a good deal of additional funding
capacity. The Metropolitan Council indicated that our population grew
by 2,627 to 43,834 as of April 1. This represents an increase of 6.4
percent. Our households, however, increased by even an greater rate,
from 14,895 to 16,275 for an increase of 9.4 percent. Under the law,
the levy limit of a municipality is calculated on the higher of those
two pieces of data, therefore, our levy limit capacity will be
increased by 9.4 percent, plus the three percent inflation factor.
Based upon our calculations, the total amount which could be levied in
1987 for taxes payable in 1988 will be $7,914,509 as compared to
6,903,556 for taxes payable in 1987. One new item in 1987 is, of
course, the Fire Station 3 bond. Debt service for these bonds will be
approximately $108,000.
1988 BUDGET - LEVY LIMIT CALCULATIONS
July 30, 1987
Page two
For taxes payable in 1988, for General Fund purposes, we must first back
out all authorized special levies. Based upon our current projections,
these special levies will amount to $1,158,113. When this sum is sub-
tracted from the total levy limit, we have a balance available for the
General Fund of $6,756,396. BUT... we must now include the levies for
infrastructure, tort liability, and forestry in the General Fund levy.
In 1987 these three items amounted to $646,000.
1988 PROJECTED GENERAL FUND LEVY LIMITATION $ 6,756,396
ADD SPECIAL LEVIES:
1967 Park Bonds $ 5,420
1980 Park Bonds 339,475
1980 Storm Sewer Bonds 44,628
1987 Fire Station Bonds 107,833
Storm Sewer Tax Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 475,500
City Special Assessments 156,234
HRA 29,023
TOTAL SPECIAL LEVIES: $ 1,158,113
TOTAL OF ALL PROJECTED 1988 LEVIES: $ 7,914,509
MAXIMUM PROJECTED MILLAGE: 16.645 Mills
1987 1988
ACTUAL PROJECTED
GENERAL FUND 5,309,200 6;,756,396
SPECIAL LEVIES:
1967 Park Bonds 5,640 5,420
1980 Park Bonds 325,613 339,475
1980 Storm Sewer Bonds 46,343 44,628
1987 Fire Station Bonds 0- 107,833
Storm Sewer Tax Districts 440,140 475,500
City Special Assessments 103,177 156,234
H.R.A. 27,443 29,023
Infrastructure 220,000 0- 1
Tort Liability 200,000 0- 1
Forestry 226,000 0- 1
1,594,356 1,158,113
TOTAL ALL LEVIES: 6,903,556 7,914,509
1 These three levies must be included within the General Fund levy -
subject to levy limits.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH (
S L
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: July 30, 1987
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Laurie Brandt, Clerk
SUBJECT STATUS REPORT - 5140 ZACHARY LANE
The Council will be supplied with a status report on Monday,
August 3. The Community Service Officer will be inspecting
the property over the weekend.