HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 03-08-1985N CITY OF
_ PLYMOUTR
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
March 8, 1985
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS......
1. TOWN MEETING - The town meeting for area 6 is scheduled for 7:00
p.m. Monday, March 11. An agenda for the meeting is attached for
information.
2. NEXT COUNCIL MEETING - The City Council will meet on Monday, March
18 for its next regular meeting. The Plymouth forum is scheduled
for 7:00 p.m. A Council/staff dinner meeting is also scheduled for
6:00 p.m. to review the residential survey to pick areas and
tracking questions.
3. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MEMBER JOSEPHINE NUNN - In accordance with
earlier Council direction, Josephine Nunn, the City's Metropolitan
Council representative, will be meeting with the Council on Monday,
April 22, at 7:30 p.m.
4. 1985 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION- The City Council will sit as the 1985
Board of Equalization on Tuesday, May 21, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION....
1. LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES - INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS - The
Local Government Finance Division of the House Tax Committee
considered, on February 25, a League of Minnesota Cities sponsored
bill which would modify several of the technical provisions of the
existing Industrial Development Revenue Bond legislation while
retaining the dual allocation system for frequent and infrequent
Industrial Development Revenue Bond users.
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
March 8, 1985
Representative Schreiber, however, has introduced House file 544 (a
copy is available in my office) which proposes substantial changes
to the current allocation system. The Schreiber bill would
eliminate the entitlement versus non -entitlement system and would
instead allocate funds to Industrial Development Revenue Bond
projects in the following order: 1) manufacturing, 2) pollution
control and waste management, and 3) commercial development. Under
the bill, local governments will no longer receive IDB authority
simply because they issued a large number of IDB's during
1980-1983. All Industrial Development Revenue Bond authority would
be allocated through one pool. It appears likely that the impact of
the Schreiber bill will be to further restrict availability of
Industrial Development Revenue bond financing to municipalities.
Most observers give the Schreiber bill excellent chances for
passage.
2. LAUKKA AND ASSOCIATES VERSUS THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH - Attached is a
petition for writ of mandamu-, writ of mandamus, and memorandum of
law and support of petitioner's request for writ of mandamus
submitted on behalf of Laukka and Associates. Mr. Laukka is
bringing action against the City for the taking of road right-of-way
for the new C.R. 9 without compensation. By these actions the
Laukka representatives are attempting to compel the City of Plymouth
to commence eminent domain proceedings to determine the extent and
amount of damages to the petitioner. (Attach - I-2)
3. MEDICINE LAKE FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT - Attached is a letter dated
March 2, 1985 from Mayor Neal Sorensen of Medicine Lake which
responds to my February 25 letter. In his letter, Mayor Sorensen
repeats his argument that they are seeking only a backup fire
service at a reasonable hourly fee. And I continue to believe that
the only equitable means of -entering into an agreement with Medicine
Lake for fire service is for them to pay a reasonable proportion of
our actual fire service costs. (Attach - I-3)
4. PLYMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY - On Thursday, March 7, legislation was
introduced making revisions to the Plymouth Port Authority. The
legislation, authored by Senators Ramstad and Jude, would eliminate
a technical problem with our current Port Authority. The original
legislation authorized the Plymouth City Council to act as a Port
Authority, but did not allow for the creation of an Authority as a
separate corporate body. The new legislation will resolve this
problem in order that the Port Authority can continue as presently
constituted.
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
March 8, 1985
5. BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT - Attached is a memorandum from Blair
Tremere summarizing the reorganizational efforts which have been
concluded in the Building Inspection division following the
resignation of Al Kleinbeck. Joe Ryan will serve in the capacity as
Building Official, Scott McLellan will be assigned the plan check
responsibilities associated with the position of Assistant Building
Official, and recruitment is underway to fill the Building Inspector
position vacated by Scott. (Attach - I-5)
6. MINUTES - The following minutes are attached:
a. Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals meeting of February 11
7. MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION - Attached is a letter and
attachments from Bob Renner, Jr. transmitting Local Government Aids
information. (Attach - I-7)
8. DEPARTMENT REPORT - The following monthly department activity
reports are attached:
a. Planning applications (Attach - I -8a)
b. Building inspection (Attach - I -8b)
9. CORRESPONDENCE:
a. The attached letter from Congressman Bill Frenzel introduces
Ms. Maureen Shaver as his new representative to community and
local organizations in the Plymouth area. Ms. Shaver, for
Council information, is the wife of State Representative Craig
Shaver. (Attach - C -9a)
b. Attached are letters from Jeff Spartz, Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners, expressing appreciation to Fred Clark and
Mark Eckes for their participation in the Planning Area Advisory
Committee serving the urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant program. The citizen advisory
committees are responsible for reviewing annual Community
Development Block Grant plans for the four to six communities
the advisory committee serve. The work of the committees has
been important in programming nearly $32,000,000 in community
development activities over the past ten years in 44
participating urban Hennepin County communities. (Attach -
C -9b)
C. Attached is a memo from Blair Tremere to the City Manager,
together with other correspondence with respect to a complaint
submitted by Mrs. Claire Sherman about debris on the Mother's
Car Wash property. (Attach - C -9c)
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
March 8, 1985
d. Letters from Fred Moore and Sherm Goldberg in response to
Councilmember Crain's February 25 memo regarding erosion
control. (Attach - C -9d) t
e. The attached correspondence from Betty Threinen indicates that
while she is grateful for her reappointment to the Independent
School District 284 Community Education Committee, there is a
two term maximum and that the School District has asked the City
to appoint a new representatiave. This matter can be scheduled
for the March 18 meeting should the Council desire. (Attach -
C -9e)
f. Attached is a letter from Bob Mueller to Maria Vasiliou
regarding the noise from Fluidyne Engineering and a response to
the letter from Frank Boyles. (Attach - C-90
g. Attached is a memorandum from Fred Moore regarding a meeting he
has scheduled with Westridge Estates homeowners to respond to
their concerns about new C.R. 9. (Attach - C -9g)
James G. Willis
City Manager
TOWN MEETING AGENDA
AREA SIX
March 11, 1985
7:00 p.m.
I. THOROUGHFARES
t
A. County Road 10 improvement between County Road 18 and I-494
B. New County Road 61
C. 53rd Avenue/Nathan Lane Improvements
I. PARKS
A. Pike -Eagle Lake Regional Park
B. Zachary Playfield
C. Future Playfield - Neighborhood Park - west side of Pineview Lane
D. Trails
I. HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT
A. Staged Development Plan
B. Pike Lake Interceptor
C. Bass Lake Estates
V. PUBLIC SAFETY
A. Police/Fire Report
B. Neighborhood Watch Program
V. OTHER ITEMS
A. Public Transportation feedback
B. City Council meetings on cable television channel 7
0
HC 2843 (5-74)
NOTE OF ISSUE
_ HENNEPIN COUNTY
DISTRICT COURT
Fourth Judicial District
SPECIAL
TERM
Write BOTH Attorneys' NAMES:
City attorney
Attorney for Plaintiff
John M. LeFevre, Jr., 61852
Attorney for Defendant
-T-a
No. 85-3617
Write the complete TITLE of the cise:
Larry Laukka andtAssociates, Inc.
Petitioner,
AGAINST
City of Plymouth,
Respondent.
Will the Court please file this NOTE OF ISSUE
and enter the cause on the
Special Term Calendar
on the 27th day of March
1985
iC CONTESTED El DEFAULT
Memorandum and Proposed Order have been filed.
by John M. LeFevre, Jr.
Attorney for Petitioner
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Larry Laukka and Associates, Inc.,
vs.
City of Plymouth,
Petitioner,
Respondent.
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
t
Court File No. aC�3�)
ORDER ALLOWING WRIT
The within alternative Writ of Mandamus is hereby allowed,
returnable at a Special Term of the District Court of Hennepin
County to be held at the Hennepin County Government Center, at a
special term thereof, on the 27th day of March, 1985,
at 9:00 o'clock in the forenoon; service therefore is hereby
directed to ..be made by delivery to and leaving with the City
Manager of Respondent City of Plymouth, a copy of said Writ,
together with a copy of this order and a petition for said Writ.
Dated this �_ day of March, 1985.
By b.xsz:� S� _ PkzlllSL
District Judge
1
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Larry Laukka and Associates, Inc.,
VS.
City of Plymouth,
Petitioner,
Respondent
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
t
Court File No. ?5- 3 j 1
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
TO THE DISTRICT COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, STATE OF
MINNESOTA.
Petitioner for its Petition for Writ of Mandamus
respectively represents and states as follows:
1. Petitioner is a Minnesota corporation with offices at
7101 York Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55435.
2. Respondent is in a City located in the State of
Minnesota, and has the power of eminent domain.
3. Petitioner is the owner, and is beneficially interested
in a tract of land located within the Township of Plymouth upon
which a housing project was developed known as West Ridge
Estates. The land's legal description is attached as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein. The land is hereinafter referred to as
the "Subject Property".
4. That in early 1978, petitioner submitted to the
respondent an RPUD concept plan for the residential development
of the Subject Property.
1
5. That the concept plan went through the traditional
review procedures of respondent's Planning Department, Planning
Commission, and City Council.-+-
6. That the concept plan, as revised, was found to be
consistent with the Plymouth guide plan and was approved by
respondent's City Council on September 5, 1978.
7. That the respondent's City Council approved the
preliminary plat for West Ridge Estates on November 20, 1978. In
reliance on this approval, petitioner closed on the purchase of
the site and thereby incurred substantial liabilities.
8. Based on the City's approval of the preliminary plat,
and with the knowledge and approval of respondent, petitioner
commenced actual construction of West Ridge Estates on the
Subject Property pursuant to building permits approved by
respondent's City Council, including the construction of four (4)
display homes and the grading of 20-25 acres in the first
addition. Furthermore, petitioner closed a development loan with
a lender, paid commitment fees and started to incur substantial
construction and development expense.
9. That petitioner was aware that the proposed County Road
9, if built, would traverse the Subject Property. Petitioner in
its plans therefore reserved land for the proposed County Road 9.
Petitioner assumed that if the County proceeded with plans for
the proposed County Road 9, petitioner would be compensated in
the .normal course for its property, and that if the proposed road
were not constructed, then the Subject Property would be
available for development.
OA
10. That during April, 1979, respondent imposed, for the
first time, a condition on its approval of the final plat of the
Subject Property that petitioner dedicate to the resppndent 5.5
acres, more or less, for proposed County Road 9.
11. That, under protest, and only because of duress and
coercion, and based on the economic need to proceed with the
project, petitioner was forced to agree to the condition that the
said 5.5 acres be dedicated to respondent.
12. That on information and belief, if proposed County Road
9 is built, other land owners who are required to convey land for
the road will be fairly compensated for the value of their
property.
13. That the respondent was without statutory, local
ordinance, or regulatory authority to condition its approval of
the Subject Property's final plat on petitioner's dedication of
5.5 acres, and the imposition of the said condition was therefore
illegal, arbitrary and capricious.
14. That respondent's demand for and receipt of the 5.5
acres as a condition for its approval of the Subject Property's
final plat constitutes a taking of petitioner's property without
just compensation in violation of Minn. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 13.
15. That petitioner has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law.
WHEREFORE, petitioner, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §117.045,
requests that this Court by Writ of Mandamus require respondent
to initiate, within five business days after service of said Writ
of Mandamus, proceedings of eminent domain under Chapter 117,
3
Minnesota Statutes to determine damages suffered by petitioner
and order the payment of compensation, and award to petitioner
its costs herein, including reasonable attorney fees, 4nd direct
such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Dated: `�� `' 01 1985
HOLMES & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
By (��[ A �
4
John M. LeFevre, #61852
Steven T. Hetland, 159141
A/ttorney for Petitioner
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(6 12) 3388-1177
EXHIBIT A
The northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14,
Township 118, Range 22;
Together with that part of the West 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4
of Section 14, Township 118, Range 22, lying North of Rockford
Road;
Together with the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 14, Township 118, Range 22, except the following
described parcels:
(a) Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast 1/4
of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, fronting on state
road and running due North from said road and corner 15
rods; thence running East a little to the North 12
rods; thence run South a little to the East 16 rods;
and from thence due West along said road 14 rods to
said point of beginning;
(b) That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4,
Section 14, Township 118, Range 22, lying South of
Rockford Road (C.S.A.H. No. 9) ;
(c) That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 14, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point
on the West line of said Southeast 1/4 of Northwest
1/4, 247.50 feet (15 rods) North of the Southwest
corner thereof, said West line having an assumed
bearing of North 0 degrees, 05 minutes, 58 seconds
East; thence North 86 degrees, 08 minutes, 46 seconds
East 198.00 feet (12 rods) to the point of beginning;
thence South 7 degrees, 11 minutes, 03 seconds East
264.00 feet (16 rods) to a point- on the South line of
said Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 distant 231.00
feet (14 rods) Easterly of the Southwest corner
thereof, thence South 89 degrees, 43 minutes, 20
seconds East along the South line of said Southeast 1/4
of Northwest 1/4, 547.07 feet to the intersection with
the centerline of said County Road No. 9, thence
Northeasterly along the centerline of said County Road
No. 9 a distance of 365.02 feet; thence North 21
degrees, 56 minutes, 42 seconds West 383 feet; thence
South 68 degrees, 03 minutes, 18 seconds West 350 feet;
thence South 78 degrees, 47 minutes, 51 seconds West
462.01 feet to the point of beginning.
STATE
OF
MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY
OF
HENNEPIN
FOURTH JUDICIAtL DISTRICT
Larry Laukka and Associates, Inc.,
Petitioner
Court File No. 95 -3 1
VS.
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
City of Plymouth,
Respondent
The State of Minnesota to Respondent City of Plymouth.
Greetings:
Whereas it manifestly appears to us by the petition of Larry
Laukka and Associates, Inc. that:
Petitioner for its Petition for Writ of Mandamus
respectively represents and states as follows:
1. Petitioner is a Minnesota corporation with offices at
7101 York Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55435.
2. Respondent is in a City located in the State of
Minnesota, and has the power of eminent domain.
3. Petitioner is the owner, and is beneficially interested
in a tract of land located within the Township of Plymouth upon
which a housing project was developed known as West Ridge
Estates. The land's legal description is attached as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein. The land is hereinafter referred to as
the "Subject Property".
1
4. That in early 1978, petitioner submitted to the
respondent an RPUD concept plan for the residential clevelopment
of the Subject Property.
5. That the concept plan went through the traditional
review procedures of respondent's Planning Department, Planning
Commission, and City Council.
6. That the concept plan, as revised, was found to be
consistent with the Plymouth guide plan and was approved by
respondent's City Council on September 5, 1978.
7. That the respondent's City Council approved the
preliminary plat for West Ridge Estates on November 20, 1978. In
reliance on this approval, petitioner closed on the purchase of
the site and thereby incurred substantial liabilities.
8. Based on the City's approval of the preliminary plat,
and with the knowledge and approval of respondent, petitioner
commenced actual construction- of West Ridge Estates on the
Subject Property pursuant to building permits approved by
respondent's City Council, including the construction of four (4)
display homes and the grading of 20-25 acres in the first
addition. Furthermore, petitioner closed a development loan with
a lender, paid commitment fees and started to incur substantial
construction and development expense.
9. That petitioner was aware that the proposed County Road
9, if built, would traverse the Subject Property. Petitioner in
its plans therefore reserved land for the proposed County Road 9.
Petitioner assumed that if the County proceeded with plans for
the proposed County Road 9, petitioner would be compensated in
the normal course for its property, and that if the proposed road
were not constructed, then the Subject Property would be
available for development.
10. That during April, 1979, respondent imposed, for the
first time, a condition on its approval of the final plat of the
Subject Property that petitioner dedicate to the respondent 5.5
acres, more or less, for proposed County Road 9.
11. That, under protest, and only because of duress and
coercion, and based on the economic need to proceed with the
project, petitioner was forced to and did agree to the condition
that the said 5.5 acres be dedicated to respondent.
12. That on information and belief, if proposed County Road
9 is built, other land owners who are required to convey land for
the road will be fairly compensated for the value of their
property.
13. rhat the respondent was without statutory, local
ordinance, or regulatory authority to condition its approval of
the Subject Property's final plat on petitioner's dedication of
5.5 acres, and the imposition of the said condition was therefore
illegal, arbitrary and capricious.
14. That respondent's receipt of the 5.5 acres as a
condition for its approval of the Subject Property's final plat
constitutes a taking of petitioner's property without just
compensation in violation of Minn. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 13.
15. That petitioner has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law.
r
16. That petitioner is entitled to an absolute Writ of
Mandamus directing respondent to commence emintnt domain
proceedings pursuant to Chapter 117 of the Minnesota Statutes,
and further directing respondent to pay damages as determined in
said proceedings to petitioner for interference with and damage
to the Subject Property.
THEREFORE YOU ARE COMMANDED, within five business days after
the receipt of this Writ, to commence proceedings of eminent
domain pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 117 to determine
the damages to the Subject Property or SHOW CAUSE BEFORE THIS
COURT at a special term thereof to be held at the Courthouse,
t
Hennepin County Government Center, on the a7 - day of March,
1985, at 9:00 o'clock in the forenoon, why you have not done so,
and that you then and there make return of this Writ with your
certificate'on such return of having done as you are commanded.
Witness the Honorable _�yQ�„ �_ �,.� , Judge of
said Court, and a seal thereof the day of
1985.
Seal of Court l
&,F-,Vf Cle
4
The northeast 1/4
Township 118, Range 22;
EXHIBIT A
of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14,
Together with that part of the West 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4
of Section 14, Township 118, Range 22, lying North of Rockford
Road;
Together with the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 14, Township 118, Range 22, except the following
described parcels:
(a) Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast 1/4
of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, fronting on state
road and running due North from said road and corner 15
rods; thence running East a little to the North 12
rods; thence run South a little to the East 16 rods;
and from thence due West along said road 14 rods to
said point of beginning;
(b) That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4,
Section 14, Township 118, Range 22, lying South of
Rockford Road (C.S.A.H. No. 9) ;
(c) That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 14, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point
on the West line of said Southeast 1/4 of Northwest
1/4,, 247.50 feet (15 rods) North of the Southwest
corner thereof, said West line having an assumed
bearing of North 0 degrees, 05 minutes, 58 seconds
East; thence North 86 degrees, 08 minutes, 46 seconds
East 198.00 feet (12 rods) to the point of beginning;
thence South 7 degrees, 11 minutes, 03 seconds East
264.00 feet (16 rods) to a point on the South line of
said Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 distant 231.00
feet (14 rods) Easterly of the Southwest corner
thereof, thence South 89 degrees, 43 minutes, 20
seconds East along the South line of said Southeast 1/4
of Northwest 1/4, 547.07 feet to the intersection with
the centerline of said County Road No. 9, thence
Northeasterly along the centerline of said County Road
No. 9 a distance of 365.02 feet; thence North 21
degrees, 56 minutes, 42 seconds West 383 feet; thence
South 68 degrees, 03 minutes, 18 seconds West 350 feet;
thence South 78 degrees, 47 minutes, 51 seconds West
462.01 feet to the point of beginning.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Larry Laukka and Associates, Inc.,
Petitioner
VS.
City of Plymouth,
Respondent
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
I
Court File No. �� b
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
SUPPORT OF PETITIONER'S REQUEST
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
INTRODUCTION
This is an action by Larry Laukka and Associates, Inc.
("Laukka") as property owner for a writ of mandamus to compel the
City of Plymouth (the "City") to commence proceedings in eminent
domain to determine the extent and amount of damages to
petitioner's,.property.
Laukka owns property located at County Road 9 and Larch Lane
in the City of Plymouth (the "Subject Property"). The legal
description of the Subject Property is attached to the Writ of
Mandamus as Exhibit A.
In early 1978, Laukka submitted to the City a proposed RPUD
concept plan for the development of a housing project on the
Subject Property known as West Ridge Estates. The plan, reviewed
through the City's normal review procedure, was deemed consistent
with the Plymouth Guide Plan, and was approved by the City
Council on September 5, 1978. Subsequently, on November 20,
1
1978, the City Council approved the preliminary plat of West
Ridge Estates.
With knowledge and approval of the City, Laukka commenced
actual construction of the housing project pursuant to building
permits approved by the City, and incurred construction costs by
making loan payments. On or about April 16, 1979, the City
imposed, for the first time, a condition on its approval of the
final plat of West Ridge Estates that petitioner dedicate 5.5
acres for proposed County Road 9. Under protest, as well as
under the economic duress caused by the absolute need to
proceed with the project, which circumstances were known to the
City, Laukka agreed to the dedication of the 5.5 acres. Of
course, if the County proceeds to build the proposed County Road
9, other landowners who are required to convey land for the road
will be fairly compensated for their property.
Laukka claims that the City's demand for the 5.5 acre
dedication, as a condition for its approval of the Subject
Property's final plat constitutes a taxing of private property
without just compensation in violation of the Minnesota
Constitution, Article 1, Section 13. In addition, the
appropriation exceeded the City's statutory authority under Minn.
Stat. Section 3462.358 and under Section 3500 of the Plymouth
City Code. Since there is no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law, Laukka asks the Court to issue a
Writ of Mandamus to direct the City to commence condemnation
proceedings to determine the extent and amount of damages which
must be paid.
2
ARGUMENT
The City's Demand that Petitioner Dedicate 5.5 Acres
for the Proposed County Road 9 as a Condition Precedent
to its Approval of the Subject Property's Final Plat
- Constitutes Taxing of Private Property Without Just
Compensation in Violation of Minnesota Constitution,
Article 1, Section 13.
Article 1, Section 13 of the Minnesota Constitution states:
Private property shall not be taken, destroyed, or
damaged for public use without just compensation
therefore, first paid or secured.
This section clearly applies in the present case where valuable
property was permanently appropriated without compensation to the
owner of the property.
Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court in Spaeth v. The City
of Plymouth, 344 N.W.2d 815 (1984), addressed the application of
Article 1, Section 13 of the Minnesota Constitution in the area
of municipality's regulation of land use. Citing the United
States Supreme Court's decision in Loretto v. Teleprompter
Manhatten C.A.T.V. Corporation, 458 U.S. 419, 102 (S.Ct. 3164
(1982)), the Court stated as a general rule that "where
government action results in a permanent physical appropriation
or occupation of property, there certainly has been a taking".
See also Pumpelly v. Green Bay Company, 80 U.S. 166, 177-79, 20
L.Ed. 557 (1871); Nelson v. Wilson, 239 Minn. 164, 169, 58
N.W.2d 330, 333 (1953); Weaver v. Mississippi River Boom Co, 28
Minn. 534, 539-41, 11 N.W. 104, 115-16 (1881); Arneson v. City of
Farg o, 331 N.W.2d 30, 38 (N.D. 1983); 3 Nichols' Law of Eminent
Domain, §6.05 ( J. Sackman rev. 3d ed. 1983). The Court in
Spaeth emphasized that neither the "enterprise/arbitration test"
3
nor the "physical government activity standard", both adopted by
the Court to define taking in McShane v. City of Faribault, 292
N.W. 2d 253, 257-258 (Minn. 1980), applies when a government
entity permanently appropriates or occupies property. Id., at
821. In other words, the Court in Spaeth held that permanent
physical occupation or appropriation of private property is a
taking per se.
Permanent appropriation of private property encompasses real
estate transferred under duress. Duress exists whenever one, by
the unlawful act of another, is induced to make a contract or to
perform some other act under circumstances which deprive him of
the exercise of free will. Maclett v. Temple, et al., 1 N.W. 2d
415 (Minn. 1941). Similarly, a transfer of property to a
municipality having eminent domain authority is not a "voluntary"
transfer under the common meaning of that term. See, Regents of
University of Minnesota v. Hibbing, 302 Minn. 481, 225 N.W.2d
810, 813 (1975); 4 Nichols, Eminent Domain §21.33; 27 Am. Jur.
2d, Eminent Domain 5430.
It is clear that the present case is controlled by the
Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in Spaeth. The City of
Plymouth's demand, to which Petitioner acceded under protest and
duress, that the petitioner dedicate 5.5 acres as a condition of
its approval of the Subject Property's final plat constitutes
permanent appropriation of the property; and thus, constitutes a
taking per se under the Spaeth decision. Given that the Subject
Property is private property, and that the City of Plymouth has
not compensated the petitioner for the 5.5 acres he was coerced
4
into dedicating, said dedication is unconstitutional under
Article 1, Section 13 of the Minnesota Constitution.
e
II. THE CITY'S DEMAND FOR THE 5.5 ACRE DEDICATION AS A
CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ITS APPROVAL OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY'S FINAL PLAT EXCEEDED THE CITY'S
STATUTORY AUTHORITY.
The unconstitutional taking of Laukka's property by the City
of Plymouth cannot be justified or excused under the City's
statutory municipal planning authority. Minnesota Statutes,
5462.358, Subd. 2(a) states that a municipality may condition its
approval of subdivisions on the reasonable dedication of land for
public uses. In April, 1979, when the City conditioned its plat
approval on the 5.5 acre dedication, "public use" for which land
dedications could be requested, included parks, playgrounds,
public open spaces, storm water holding areas, or ponds.l The
City of Plymouth, under its City Code, could have and did require
such land dedications.
A municipality's authority to request land dedications is,
however, limited by Minn. Stat. 3462.358, Subd. 1(a). Under that
statute, a municipality in 1979 had the authority to adopt
subdivision regulations, the use of which provides for the
1 Minn. Stat. 3462.358, subd. (2) was amended in 1980 to include
streets and roads as public uses for which land dedications could
be required. The 1980 amendment could not in any case justify the
City's 1979 taking. Furthermore, even under the 1980
modification, the City's action here could not be upheld. As
discussed below with regard to Minn. Stat. 3462.358, Subd.
1(a), streets and roads are limited to internal streets of the
subdivision or local streets or roads needed by the citizens of
the municipality. In other words, even if roads and streets
could have been proper public uses for which the City could have
requested a reasonable land dedication from Laukka, the City
could not request the dedication and then turn the land over to
Hennepin County for the proposed County Road 9, as no city
purpose would then be served.
5
orderly, economic, and safe development of land and urban
services and facilities, and regulations which promote the public
e
health, safety, morals, and general welfare.2
.Preceding statutory sections make it clear that the
authority granted municipalities under Minn. Stat. 462.351(1) is
limited to subdivision regulations which promote concerns of the
municipality, not concerns of the county or state at large.
Minn. Stat. §462.351, which explains the policy underlying the
municipal planning statutory sections, states; "it is the purpose
of sections 462.351 to 462.364 to provide municipalities, in a
single body of law, with necessary powers and uniform procedure
for adequately conducting and implementing municipal planning".
Similarly, Minn. Stat. §462.343, subd. (1), which describes the
general authority granted municipality for planning, states
a municipality may carry on comprehensive municipal
planning activities for guiding the future development
and improvement of the municipality, and may prepare,
adopt, and amend a comprehensive municipal plan and
implement such plan by ordinance and other such
official actions in accordance with provisions of
9462.351 to 462.364.
Section 500.01 of the Plymouth City Code, reflecting the
limited municipal authority granted by Minnesota Statutes Section
462.358, subd. 1(a), states:
2 After the taking herein, Minn. Stat. §462.358 (1) was amended
in 1980 to enlarge municipalities' authority to impose
subilivision regulations to facilitate adequate provisions for
transportation and other such public facilities. This change
cannot retroactively condone the City's improper confiscation.
As discussed in footnote 1, such authority is limited to the
facilitation of transportation facilities for the subdivision or
municipality, not facilities for the county or the state as a
whole.
It is the purpose of this section to safeguard the best
interest of the City of Plymouth and to assist
developers and subdividers of land in harmonizing their
interests with those of the City . This section
makes certain regulations and requirements for the
plotting of land in the City pursuant to the authority
contained in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.351 to
462.359, which regulations the City Council deems
necessary for the health, safety, and general welfare
of the citizens of Plymouth.
In the present case, it is clear that the City of Plymouth
exceeded its statutory authority. First of all, the City's
demand of the 5.5 acre dedication for proposed County Road Nine
in April 16, 1979 was before land dedications for streets and
roads were authorized by the 1980 amendment to §462.358 subd.
(2). Furthermore, the required 5.5 acre dedication exceeded the
City's authority under Minn. Stat. §462.351 subd. (1), as a
county concern rather a city concern prompted the requirement of
the dedication. By requesting the dedication of land for the
proposed county road, the City of Plymouth exceeded the authority
granted it under Minnesota Statutes §462.358, as well as the
Plymouth City Code, Section 500.
III. LAUKKA HAS THE RIGHT TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR ITS
REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING
REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED IN COMPELLING
THE CITY TO INITIATE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 117.045.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 117.045, states:
If a person successfully brings an action compelling or
requiring an authority to initiate eminent domain
proceedings relating to his real property, which was
omitted from any current or completed eminent domain
proceeding, such person shall be entitled to petition
the court for reimbursement for his reasonable costs
7
and expenses, including reasonable attorneys,
appraisal, and engineering fees, actually incurred in
bringing such action. . .
t
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the petitioner's
right to receive reimbursement under Minn. Stat. 5117.045 is not
limited to when the petitioner's real estate was omitted from a
current or completed eminent domain proceeding, but extends to
situations when an acquiring authority is required to commence a
condemnation proceeding under a writ of mandamus. In Spaeth v.
City of Plymouth, supra., the court rejected the respondent's
argument that Minn. Stat. §117.045 did not apply because Spaeth's
property was not omitted from a current or completed eminent
domain proceeding. In so holding, the court stated:
A literal reading of the statute tends to support
defendant's position. However, we must construe the
statutory language to avoid reaching such an absurd and
unreasonable result. To adopt defendant's
construction would mean that a landowner could recover
costs and expenses when acquiring authority fails to
acquire enough property, but not when it fails to make
any provision whatsoever for eminent domain
proceedings. We agree with the plaintiff that such a
result is ludicrous. Contrary to defendant's narrow
reading of Section 117.045, we believe that the purpose
of that section is to assure that any landowner who is
forced to take legal action against an acquiring
authority is made whole. 344 N.W.2d 515, 822-823
(Minn. 1984).
CONCLUSION
Based on the above-cited case law and arguments, petitioner
requests that the Court, by Writ of Mandamus, direct the
respondent to commence eminent domain proceedings under Chapter
117 of the Minnesota Statutes in order to determine the damages
9
which the respondent must pay to the petitioner for the
unauthorized and unconstitional taking of its property.e
Dated this 7i day of �w� _, 1985.
HOLMES & GRAVEN, CH R-rERED
By
Joh A4. LeFevre, #61852
Sten T. Hetland, #159141
At orney for Petitioner
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 3388-1177
9
City of Medicine Lake
10609 SOUTN SNORE DRIVE -MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441
P larch 2, 1985 t
132 Peninsula Road
Medicine Lake, Mn. 55441
Mr. James Willis, City Manager
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Mn. 55447
Dear Mr. Willis:
Thank you for your letter of 2-25-85.
I have been concerned that you feel Plymouth wculd be
responsible for PRIMARY FIRE SERVICE for Medicine Lake.
Such is not the case.
We seek only back-up service at a reasonable hourly fee.
'Ne do riot feel that we would have any right to such service
if your city has simultaneous needs.
We also do not need the full fire-power of your gigantic
ladder units. Your smallest unit would more than suffice
for any forseeable fire problem in our community.
I regret that and "interested Plymouth citizen" suggested
that Jim Adams of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune call me.
I recognize your professional position, Jim. You seek the
welfare of Plymouth. My position i� that any reimbursement
to Plymouth through an hourly fee would be income that you
will not enjoy unless we can reach a mutually acceptable
agreement for working together.
very truly yours,
NEAL _,. S02t?P,P:P1
Payor
February 25, 1985
CITY O�
PLYMOUTR
Mr. Neal E. Sorenson
Mayor
City of Medicine Lake
10609 South Shore Drive
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear Mayor Sorenson:
In a telephone conversation today with a reporter for the Minneapolis Star
and Tribune, dim Adams, he suggested that you may be awaiting a response to
a letter which I received from you on February 13. That letter, in my view,
summarized your thoughts on our telephone conversation of February 7.
I concluded following our February 7 phone conversation that your community
was not prepared to enter into an agreement with the City for a fixed cost
fire service contract because it had not been budgeted as part of your 1985
budget. I further understood that you would be considering this matter with
your Council as you prepared your 1986 budget. I noted at that same time
that we were not interested in continuing the present arrangement whereby
our Department would respond to fires for a specific hourly amount even at
$500 - $600 per hour.
We remain willing to meet with you and/or your Council at any convenient
time to develop an agreement which would provide for the resumption of fire
suppression services to Medicine Lake. We believe, however, that any such
agreement should be essentially along the lines of my proposal of November
14.
Yours truly,
Oa is G. Willis
y Manager
JGW: fm
cc: Mayor & City Council
File
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
I
MEMO
DATE: March 6, 1985
TO: City Manager dames G. Willis <*�
FROM: Community Development Director Blair Tremere
SUBJECT ORGANIZATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION PERSONNEL
I have completed a review of the organization of the Building Inspection Division of
the Community Development Department and, I have carefully analyzed the personnel as-
signments since Al Kleinbeck resigned his position to accept a Job with the State of
Minnesota. We were undertaking some re -organization steps when Al left and I have
found it appropriate to modify that re -organization in light of the attrition realized
with Al's leaving.
Joe Ryan has been designated Building Official and in that role, will continue to serve
as the supervisor of the three Building Inspectors. doe had been designated Inspec-
tions Supervisor beginning this year which was a reassignment from his former position
as Assistant Building Official.
Scott McLellan has been performing public informational and office managerial functions
in addition to plans examination for which he is highly qualified and experienced.
Scott was hired last year as a Building Inspector and was the Assistant Building Offic-
ial for the City of Columbia Heights before coming to Plymouth, where he performed plan
checking.
I am confident that doe Ryan and Scott McLellan can continue to provide a high level of
quality plans examination and Code interpretation for the City and for the developers
who work with the City.
Don Kilian will continue as the Plumbing Inspector; and, Dave Krings will continue as
Building Inspector.
Joe, Scott, and Dave are certified as Building Officials by the State of Minnesota;
and, Don Kilian has recently completed his examination for that status as well. Don
Kilian also recently completed a State course in on-site septic systems, and took the
related certification examination.
We will be running an advertisement in the metropolitan newspapers this weekend for the
Building Inspector position formerly occupied by Scott McLellan; this will allow ample
time to receive and evaluate applications prior to the construction season.
I am confident that the professional personnel we have now can work as an effective
team to deliver a high quality protective inspection service which Plymouth citizens
and developers have a right to expect. This will be enhanced in the near future with
the implementation of the data processing system which has been tailored for Plymouth
for the Building Permit issuance and inspection functions.
BT/gw
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
FEBRUARY 11, 1985
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustments and
Appeals was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Marofsky, Commissioners Quass,
Victor, Musatto, and Plufka
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Bigelow and Cornelius
STAFF PRESENT: Building Inspections Supervisor doe
Ryan, Associate Planner Al Cottingham
MINUTES
MOTION was made by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by
Commissioner Mussato to approve the Janurary 14, 1985
Minutes as amended.
VOTE. 4 Ayes. Commissioner Victor abstained. MOTION carried.
NEW BUSINESS
I
MINUTES JANUARY 14,
1985
Chairman Marofsky introduced the request for a variance from MR. WALTER ERICKSON
the front yard height requirement a for fence located at 1615 SHADYVIEW LANE
1615 Shadyview Lane. Chairman Marofsky introduced the Board PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
members and informed the members of the audience of the
duties of the Board.
Mr. Erickson addressed the Board regarding his request and
reviewed the situation at hand and why they are seeking to
locate a six foot high fence in the front yard of this
corner lot. Mr. Erickson stated that with a City park to the
west of this property and this road being the access to the
park, many people have created problems such as littering
and driving on their lawn which creates a hazard to their
property. He explained to the Board members that the
proposed new fence would be located inside of an existing
shrub line that is placed on the front property line of this
lot. He disussed the uniqueness of this lot with the park
being to the west and that 17th Avenue is in only to serve
as an access to the park and one lot which is across the
street from them. He stated that the residents of this home
do not have any problem with the Ericksons constructing a
six foot high fence as proposed.
The Board discussed the concern that if they granted this
variance, that it would be setting a precedent for the
entire City.
Commissioner Plufka stated that he did not believe this to
be true since there are few corner lots in the City that
have a park as their one neighbor and not a private
residence.
Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of a neighbor
across the street, who adjoins the park, deciding to place a
six foot high fence in the front yard.
Page 2
Board of Zoning Minutes
February 11, 1985
Members of the Board felt that this person has an interior
lot and not a corner lot and pointed out that they currently
have a fenced rear yard and the situation is not the same.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Victor to approve of the variance request for Walter and VARIANCE
Nancy Erickson, 1615 Shadyview Lane for the following
reasons and subject to the following conditions:
1. The petitioner
standards.
2. The fence does not
adjoining properties.
3. The fence is to be
existing hedge that is
and, the existing split
4. No other variances
action.
has satisfied the ordinance
cut off light to any of the
located on the inside of the
located along the property line;
rail fence should be removed.
are granted or implied by this
Discussion commenced regarding the time frame as to when the
fence should be constructed.
MOTION was made by Charirman Marofsky, seconded by MOTION TO AMEND
Commissioner Quass to amend the main motion by adding a 5th
addition to read as follows:
5. The fence shall not be constructed until the permit
for the swimming pool has been issued and the fence
must be opaque.
VOTE on the AMENDMENT to the main MOTION 4 to 1.
Commissioner Plufka voted nay.
VOTE -NOTION AS
MOTION carried. AMMENDED
VOTE on the MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED 5 ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE -MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Marofsky introduced the request submitted by Mr. MR. STEVEN HENDRICKS
Steven M. Hendricks for a variance from the front and side 2318 KIRKWOOD LANE
yard setbacks for property at 2318 Kirkwood Lane. PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
Mr. Hendricks reviewed his request and stated that the
existing home was not built specifically for him and since
purchasing this home, Mr. Hendricks has found that there is
a substantial need for having a garage in order to park his
automobiles and for storage. Mr. Hendricks considered
placing a detached structure on the lot but decided that it
would also require a variance due to the setback
requirements. Since he had to seek a variance, he might as
well seek it for the placement of a structure that would
suit his needs. He stated that as shown in his materials,
the roof line of the new structure would not be as high as
the roof line of the existing house and thus from the front
there would be a "step down" look from the one roof to the
other.
Page 3
Board of Zoning Minutes
February 11, 1985
The Board discussed the severity of the elevation change and
understood why the addition wouTd be set -3 nto t e ground
rather than on top of it because of these differences. They
also_ considered the possibility of placing a detached
structre or an attached structure somewhere else on the lot
to reduce the variance and it was determined that it would
be very difficult, since the location of the driveway was
predetermined by the City.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Plufka to approve the
variance request as submitted for the reasons stated in the
draft resolution with the added reasoning that the low
profile of the garage addition makes it more site worthy.
MOTION failed for lack of a second.
e
MOTION was made by Charirman Marofsky, seconded by MOTION TO APPROVE
Commissioner Mussato to approve the variance request for VARIANCE
Steven Hendricks located at 2318 Kirkwood Lane for the
following reasons and subject to the following conditions:
1. The petitioner has satisfied the ordinance standards
for granting variances.
2. The variances are for a three foot encroachment into
the side yard and a 12 foot encroachment into the front
yard.
3. No other variances are granted or implied by this
action.
VOTE. 5 ayes. MOTION carried.
Chairman Marofsky introduced the request submitted by Mr.
Michael W. Karels for a variance from the side yard setback
for property at 1930 Fountain Lane.
Mr. Karels reviewed his request for the Board members
stating that at first he considered placing a detached
structure at some other location on his lot, but due to the
severe topography between the front of the house and the
rear of the house, it was impractical. He went on to state
that currently the rear wall of the garage has a 15 course
block layer in order to bring it up to the same elevation as
the front of the garage and that is why there is no way in
which.to gain access to the rear of this property.
The Board discussed the size of the garage and.why it could
not be a 10 foot wide garage, thus lessening the variance
request. They agreed hat the topography does restrict this
homeowner from locating a detached garage at another
location on this property.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MR. MICHAEL KARELS
1930 FOUNTAIN LANE
PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
Page 4
Board of Zoning Minutes
February 11, 1985
Mr. Karels stated that their family owns three full sized
vehicles nd that it is difficultto ' 04—rk--them and--tu , he
is requesting the 12 foot variance.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Victor, seconded by MOTION TO APPROVE
Commissioner Plufka to approve the variance request as VARIANCE
submitted Michael W. Karels located at 1930 Fountain Lane
for the following reasons and subject to the following
conditions:
1. The petitioner has satisfied the ordinance standards
for granting variances.
2. The approved variances to allow for the construction
of a 12 x 22 foot attached garage with a 4 foot
encroachment into the required 10 foot side yard
setback as shown on the plans in the Staff Report dated
2/8/85.
3. No other variances are granted or implied by this
action.
Discussion ensued as to the feeling that the reasoning
that this request is unique to this parcel.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner
Quass to AMEND the MAIN MOTION by adding the following
finding:
4. The unique physical surroundings, topography, the
soil quality, and lack of other access to this property
do not allow for a detached structure to be built and
used by Mr. Karels.
VOTE on the AMENDMENT 5 ayes. MOTION carried.
VOTE on the MAIN MOTION once AMENDED, 5 ayes. MOTION
carried.
AWICH IRNMFNT
The meeting adjourned at 10 P.M.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Board of Zoning
Adustments and Appeals of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the
day of February 11 . 1985. The following members were present: Chairman Marofsky,
Commissioners Quass, Victor, Mussato, and Plufka. ;
The following members were absent: Commissioners
Bigelow and Cornelius
Commissioner Plufka introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. B 85-01
APPROVING FOR WALTER W. AND NANCY D. ERICKSON 1615 Shadyview Lane (02-01-85)
WHEREAS, Walter W. and Nancy D. Erickson have requested approval of a front yard height
variance, in order to construct a six foot high fence in the required front yard of
their property located at 1615 Shadyview Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals has reviewed said request and
recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALSOF
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for
Walter W. and Nancy D. Erickson for a front yard height variance, in order to construct
a six foot high fence in their front yard of their property located at 1615 Shadyview
Lane, based upon the following reasons and conditions;
1. The petitioner has satisfied the ordinance standards.
2. The fence does not cut off light to any of the adjoining properties.
3. The fence is to be located on the inside of the existing hedge that is
currently located along the property line, and the existing split rail fence
should be removed.
4. No other variances are granted or implied by this action.
5. The fence shall not be constructed until the permit for the swimming pool has
been issued, and the fence must be opaque.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Commissioner Victor , and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: Chairman Marofsky, Commissioners Quass, Mussato
and Plufka
The following voted against or abstained: Commissioner Victor
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Board of Zoning
Adustments and Appeals of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the
day of February 11 ,1985 . The following members were present: Chairman Marofsky,
Commissioners Quass, Victor, Mussato, and Plufka
The following members were abse t: Commissioners
Bigelow and Cornelius
Chairman Marofsky introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. B 85-02
APPROVING VARIANCE FOR STEVEN M. HENDRICKS 2318 Kirkwood Lane(02-02-85)
WHEREAS, Steven M. Hendricks has requested approval of a variance for a 22 x22 foot
attched garage to be located at 2318 Kirkwood Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals has reviewed said request and
recommends approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS OF
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for
Steven M. Hendricksn for a variance for the purpose of constructing a 22 foot attached
garage, for the reasons and subject to the following conditions:
1. The petitioner has satisfied the ordinance standards for granting variances.
2. The variances being granted are for a three foot encroachment into the side
yard and a 12 foot encroachment into the front yard.
3. No.other variances are granted or implied by this action.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Commissioner Mussato , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Chairman Marofsky, Commissioners Quass, Mussato,
Victor and Plufka
_ Ther following voted against or abstained: None
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Board of Zoning
Adustments and Appeals of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the
day of February 11 , 1985. The following members were present: Chairman Marofsky,
Commissioners Quass, Victor, Mussato and Plufka
The following members were abseat: Commissioners
Bigelow and Cornelius
Commissioner Victor introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. B 85-03
APPROVING VARIANCE FOR MICHAEL W. KARELS 1930 Fountain Lane (02-03-85)
WHEREAS, Michael W. Karels has requested approval of a variance in order to construct a
12 x22 foot attached garage to be located at 1930 Fountain Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals has reviewed said request;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS OF
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for
Michael W. Karels for a variance in order to construct a 12 x 22 foot attached garage
to be located at 1930 Fountain Lane, for the reasons and subject to the following
conditions;
1. The petitioner has satisfied the ordinance standards for granting variances.
2. The approved variance is to allow for the construction of a 12 x 22 foot
attached garage with a four foot encroachment into the required ten foot side yard
setback, as shown as plans in report dated 2-8-85.
3. No other variances are granted or implied by this action.
4. The unique physical surroundings, topography, the soil quality and lack of
other access to this property do not allow fo a detached structure to be built and
used by Mr. Karels.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Commissioner Plufka , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Chairman Marofsky, Commissioners Quass, Mussato,
Victor and Plufka
The following voted against or abstained: None
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
(MllNICIPAL
LEGISLATInE
COMMISSION
TO: MLC Board of Directors
FROM: Bob Renner, Jr.
RE: Enclosed Handout
DATE: March 6, 1985
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Suite 1500
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
(612) 338-6610
t
Please find enclosed:
1) A copy of the Resolution on Local Government Aids
which was adopted by the Board on February 21,
1985.
2) An explanation of the MLC policy on distribution
of new local government aid dollars.
3) A one-page handout giving specific examples of
how the MLC's distribution plan works if there
is a 4.5% increased appropriation for 1986 Local
Government Aids.
The above three handouts will be sent to the MLC legis-
lative delegation as well as the House and Senate Tax and Local
and Urban Affairs Committee members.
BR: dl
Enclosures
MUNICIPAL
ISL ���
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Suite 1500
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
(612) 338-6610
Whereas, the Municipal Legislative Commission has adopted
principles for a formula to distribute local government
aid; and
Whereas, the League of Minnesota Cities has adopted a
local government aid formula which meets several of these
principles; and
Whereas, the League of Minnesota Cities' local government
aid formula is a significant improvement over the existinq
local government aid formula;
Now therefore, be it resolved that the Municipal Legislative
Commission endorses and supports the League of Minnesota
Cities local government aid formula distribution if fully
funded; and
Be it further resolved, that distribution of any additional
local government aid funding over 1985 funding levels should
be prorated against the increases due under the fully -funded
League formula.
MUNICIPAL 7900 Xerxes Avenue South
C7 ^►7� Suite 1500
ML( LEGISL.t�l ! V L Bloomington. Minnesota 55431
COMMISSION (612) 338-6610
_-- xp1anation of the t
Municipal Lecislative Cor^!r,ission's
Local Government Aid Distributio.^, Policy
On February 21, 1985, the Board of Directors of The
Municipal Legislative Commission adopted a local government aid
distribution policy based on the League of Minnesota Cities
pure formula. Although the MLC endorses and supports the
League of Minnesota Cities formula it believes that the
distribution of new LGA dollars should be modified to allow
cities which have been penalized under the old LGA formula an
opportunity to reach the "pure formula" at a faster rate of
increase than the League's proposal. This memorandum will'.
explain, using examples, how the MLC's distribution method
would be implemented.
simply stated the MLC believes that the League's pure
formula amount should be the base from which to determine local
government aid increases. Those cities which are furthest from
the pure formula allocation amount should receive
proportionately more new dollars than those cities close to
their pure formula allocation.
EXAMPLE 1
1985 Aid Pure Formula Aid
City A $90,000 $200,000
City B $150,000 $200,000
In Example 1 City A would receive a greater percentage of
new LGA dollars than Citv B under the MLC approach. Linder the
League's plan if loo more dollars were appropriated each city
would receive a loo increase in aids until they reach their
pure formula amount. Only when City B arrives at the pure
t
formula amount will its percentage growth rate slow. (Under
the League's proposal growth rates for cities that are at the
pure formula will only receive a 1° increase in aids each
year.)
Under the Municipal Legislative Commission's implementation
plan the increase in aids will be based on the difference
between what they would receive under the pure formula less
what they received in the current year.
7VLMDT V 7
1985 Aid Pure Formula Aid
Difference
City A $90,000 $200,000 $110,000
City B $150,000 $200,000
$50,000
One further step must be performed to determine the
percentage increase that will be applied to the difference
between the pure formula and the amount of current aid. This
factor is determined as follows:
Dollar Increase in LGA
Appropriation _ Percentage to apply against
Pure Formula Cost Minus difference
Current Year Appropriation
Using 1985 as an example and assuming a loo increase for
1986 aids the formula would be computed as follows:
- 1985 appropriation = $265 million
- 10% increase for 1986 aids = $26.5 million 26.5
- Cost of pure formula = $402 million 137 = 19.3%
- Difference between pure formula and
1985 appropriation (402-265) _ $137 million
2.
If the increase were only 4.5% the formula would be:
- 1985 appropriation = $265 million
- 4.5% increase for 1986 aids = $11.9 million 11.9 _
- Cost of pure formula = $402 million 137 8'7`
- Difference (402-265) _ $137 million
This percentage is then applied against the difference
determined under Example 2. Example 3 illustrates this
procedure.
1985 Aid
Pure Formula Aid
Difference
MLC IMPLEMENTATION EXAMPLE 3
(10% increase in appropriation)
City A
$90,000
$200,000
$110,00
% Factor 19.30
$ Increase (% Factor $21,230
Multiplied by Difference)
% Increase
111,230
23.5%
City B
$150,000
$200,000
$50,000
19.3%
$9,650
159,650
6.4%
If the League of Minnesota Cities implementation were used
the distribution would be as follows:
Pure Formula Aid
Difference
LEAGUE IMPLEMENTATION EXAMPLE 4
(10% increase in appropriation)
City A City B
$90,000 $150,000
$200,000
3.
N/A
$200,000
N/A
Factor 10% 100
$ Increase (% Factor $9,000 $152,000
Multiplied by 1985 Aid)
1986 Aid $99,000 $15,000
° Increase 10% 10%
It is important to understand that all cities will arrive
at their pure formula amount on the same future date whether
the Legislature uses the Municipal Legislative Commission's
implementation or the League's implementation policy. The
difference being that those cities furthest from the pure
formula amount will receive greater percentage increases than
those cities closer to being fully funded. The MLC believes
this is a more equitable method of distributing new LGA dollars
because it reduces the present disparities more expeditiously
than the League's "equal percent" plan.
It must also be mentioned that the MLC has not taken a
position on the appropriation level. Both the League's and the
MLC's distribution formulas can be implemented if there is any
increase in the LGA appropriation.
The factors which will determine when all cities become
"pure formula" cities depends on the amount of future
legislative appropriations for local government aids and the
increase in the cost of funding the pure formula.
4.
MUNICIPAL 7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Suite 1500
IL( LMISLA= Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
COMMISSION (612) 338-6610
1986 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AIDS*
Assumes 4.5% Increase In Appropriation
*These numbers will vary slightly from computer runs due to rounding.
Pure
1986 LGA
Per Cent
1986 LGA
Per Cent
City
1985 LGA
Formula
League
Increase
MLC Plan
Increase
(000)
(000)
(000)
(000)
Austin
$2,666
$4,786
2,766
3.75
$2,850
6.9
Bloomington
2,402
4,738
2,492
3.75
2,605
8.4
Brooklyn Park
1,781
3,172
1,848
3.75
1,902
6.8
Coon Rapids
2,123
3,448
2,203
3.75
2,238
5.4
Crosby
205
495
213
3.75
230
12.2
Detroit Lakes
725
821
752
3.75
733
1.1
Duluth
10,528
25,510
10,923
3.75
11,831
12.4
Edina
551
1,466
1,132
105.5
631
14.5
Eden Prairie
274
966
531
93.8
334
21.9
Ely
516
1,357
535
3.75
589
14.1
Jackson
403
802
418
3.75
438
8.7
Litchfield
502
807
521
3.75
529
5.4
Little Fork
63
197
65
3.75
75
19.0
Mankato
3,512
4,648
3,644
3.75
3,611
2.8
Maplewood
1,277
1,436
1,325
3.75
1,291
1.1
Minneapolis
58,041
76,538
60,218
3.75
59,650
2.8
Minnetonka
1,583
1,847
1,642
3.75
1,606
1.5
Moorhead
2,282
5,180
2,368
3.75
2,534
11.0
Silver Bay
155
909
161
3.75
221
42.6
St. Paul
33,863
45,689
35,133
3.75
34,891
3.0
Tracy
323
737
335
3.75
359
11.1
Walker
148
180
154
3.75
151
2.0
Winona
2,658
4,886
2,758
3.75
2,852
7.3
Woodbury
430
574
446
3.75
443
3.0
*These numbers will vary slightly from computer runs due to rounding.
3 --4
N I I I i I 1 m N h-' On 1 Q1 W V
r+-
C7)
+
a1 I I 1 1 I 00 Ul eo N 1 1 O w l0
N
l0 I 1 1 1 I 1 N ? N 1 -+ m Ul �-
I.TI
kD 11 1 1-- 1 r -+ OO Ul N tD Ql ? N co V m
o s
Io
�
o
CD
o �
rO
as
0
'S O
rl) 0 M
c a
i1'o I.n
o
� N �
m O
t0 � "Ti
co !'+
cn
r•+ r
� b
m z
z
c z
Q
m �a
o r
a
J
0
�• z
n
a c
r+ o
r -
o c
3
N m
v
m -c
A
m -1
m m
a
a
a
s
0
0
CD
N
N
<<
C-+
S
!D
J
J.
tO
v
m
v
a
r+
m
r+
LA
c
r
7O
f)
�
T
T
T
T
N
-i
d
w
mN
-•.
a
o
M
o
c
c
c
�•
'1-�
z
r+
on
v
v
a
f°
A
Q6
n
(D
v
o
o
00
a
n
c
c)
10
10
Do
N
m
-.d
0
c
�
�•
o
o
�
�
�•
-�
�
10
rD
a
a
m
>
>
v+
vl
N
.�
.•.
m
00
a
o
a
L7
N
;
d
C+
.s
fn
rt
4A
�-
m
\
N
CCD'�
!"I
M
N
d
r
d
W
Vf
(D
'0
N
N
pr
J
O
N
m
J
*
O
o
vo
�o
J
r+
n
r+
vl
O
4r+
e+
�
�
m
d
N
C+
O
N
N
3 --4
N I I I i I 1 m N h-' On 1 Q1 W V
r+-
C7)
+
a1 I I 1 1 I 00 Ul eo N 1 1 O w l0
N
l0 I 1 1 1 I 1 N ? N 1 -+ m Ul �-
I.TI
kD 11 1 1-- 1 r -+ OO Ul N tD Ql ? N co V m
o s
Io
�
o
CD
o �
rO
as
0
'S O
rl) 0 M
c a
i1'o I.n
o
� N �
m O
t0 � "Ti
co !'+
cn
r•+ r
� b
m z
z
c z
Q
m �a
o r
a
J
0
�• z
n
a c
r+ o
r -
o c
3
N m
v
m -c
A
m -1
m m
a
a
a
s
0
0
CD
N
N
<<
C-+
S
!D
J
J.
tO
v
m
v
a
r+
m
r+
1
1
1
)
1
1
I
3
1
1
1
MONTHLY PERMIT ISSUANCE
BUILDING PERMITS
Public
Comm/Ind/New
Alteration
Residential
Multi -Family
Remodeling
Foundations
Garage
10111 w"
VALUATION/PERMITS
Public
Comm/Ind/New
Alteration
Residential
Multi -Family
Remodeling
Foundations
Garage
TOTALS
OTHER PERMITS
Plumbing
Mechanical
Signs
Grading
Wells
Moving
Septic/Removal
Demolish
TOTALS
VALUATION/OTHER PERMITS
Plumbing
Mechanical
Signs
Grading
Wells
Moving
Septic/Removal
Demolish
TOTALS
BUILDING PERMIT FEES
PLAN CHI=CK FEES
SAC FEES
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Law
CURRENT Y.T.D.
1984 L . Y . 'T' . D
O
0
0
0
0
0
5
23
3
7
46
71
50
64
0
0
0
0
_._ -_---- 16
28
1.8
33
0
0
O
O
68
1.23
'72
105
0
360000
0
O
0
0
0
0
52700
946626
86250
259250
3928950
6067518
4026487
5356369
O
0
0
0
56523
56523
1.58295
262072
0
0
0
0
3220
3220
5024
5024
4,011,393
7,433,1387
4,276,056
5,882,715
67
1.44
80
193
43
1.21.
54
125
11
1.4
20
2A
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.21
279
154
28c'
3,016
6221
3601
6376
1.61.9
1447
7329
9328
255
DOD
300
360
U
0
O
O
0
30
30
30
0
0
O
0
0
0
U
O
O
O
O
4,890
10,998
11,260
16,094
10,070
10,070
18 , 8'78
9,991
9,991.
9,991
9,991
19,550
19,550
19,550
P9
4:3
22
45
C -L► a
BILL FRENZEL MINNESOTA OFFICE:
THIRD DISTRICT, MINNESOTA - --- -- MAY ETH CHRISTENSEN
Room 445
6120 PENN AVENUE SOUTH
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
1026 LowoWORTN SIN,0111G �oligieg� of theniteb �tateg `IOOMINGTON, MINNNE{OTA 55431
612-89"800202-226-2871
jouge of 3&eprt0tntatibeg
Mobington, M.C. 20515
February 27, 1985
't
i
Mr. James G. Willis
City Manager
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Willis:
I would like to take this opportunity to let you know that I have
asked Ms. Maureen Shaver of my Minnesota office to act as my repre-
sentative to community and local organizations in your area.
Maureen will act as a liaison between local government and elected
officials and my congressional office. She will keep you informed
of federal issues affecting your community and provide information
when requested. It is my hope that you will, in turn, keep her
informed of community activities that may require Congressional
attention.
In the next few months, Maureen will be calling to arrange meetings
with officials from your area. =If, in the meantime, you have any
questions, please contact Maureen in my district office at (612)
881-4600.
BF:js
Yours ver truly,
Bill Frenzel
Member of Congress
THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FISSRS
JEFF SPARTZ co PHONE
CHAtuuN
�uuss�
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 554W
March 1, 1985
Mr. Fred Clark
16125 4th Avenue North
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear Mr. Clark:
The four Citizen Advisory Committees who served the Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant Program are illustrative of
the excellent tradition of citizen interest and participation in
Hennepin County governmental affairs. I know that considerable effort
was expended by each Committee in reviewing, advising, recommending and
watchdogging program development and implementation. The work of the
Committees was instrumental in effectively programming nearly
$32,000,000 in vital community development activities over the past ten
years within the forty-four communities constituting Urban Hennepin
County.
Thank you for your valued personal -.contribution to this important
program of intergovernmental cooperation.
As we progress toward the next decade of community development in
Hennepin County, I am certain that the sound foundation laid by
concerned citizens like you will aid immeasurably.
Sincerely,
Cardiif
artz,en
County Commissioners
ps
cc : Mayor David J. Davenport
JEFF SPARTZ 4 FIN cPHONE
CHAILMAN , G 348-3085
Nkt�O
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487
March 1, 1985
Mr. Mark Eckes
12231 Highway 55
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear Mr. Eckes:
The four Citizen Advisory Committees who served the Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant Program are illustrative of
the excellent tradition of citizen interest and participation in
Hennepin County governmental affairs. I know that considerable effort
was expended by each Committee in reviewing, advising, recommending and
watchdogging program development and implementation. The work of the
Committees was instrumental in effectively programming nearly
$32,000,000 in vital community development activities over the past ten
years within the forty-four communities constituting Urban Hennepin
County.
Thank you for your valued personal contribution to this important
program of intergovernmental cooperation.
As we progress toward the next decade of community development in
Hennepin County, I am certain that the sound foundation laid by
concerned citizens like you will aid immeasurably.
Sincerely,
a,`
4Spartz,
J Chairman
oard of County Commissioners
ps
- rt : - -mayor David J Davenport �� _
C -9 C
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447' j
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO i
DATE: March 6, 1985
TO: City Manager dames G. Willis
1
FROM: Community Development Director Blair Tremere
SUBJECT CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY MRS. CLAIRE SHERMAN, 11009 HIGHWAY 55
This is in response to the February 28, 1985 memorandum you received from Mayor
Davenport regarding a call he received from Mrs. Sherman. Mrs. Sherman correctly notes
that the debris and other material in the ditch has not been cleaned up despite her
calls last fall. I am disappointed that Mr. Kennedy, the owner of the property, did
not follow through as he said he would. When I contacted him late last fall, he noted
that the water had frozen in the ditch and that he would undertake prompt cleanup
efforts when the thaw had occurred. That is Just happening now and, frankly, I had
given him that amount of time to get the Job done.
I had informed Mrs. Sherman of that, but she does not recall the telephone
conversation. In any case, I have again written to Mr. Kennedy and to Mrs. Sherman
regarding this matter.
We have scheduled an inspection of the site at the end of the month, and I will see
that the appropriate Ordinances are enforced if necessary to assure that this
environmental problem is taken care of.-
BT/gw
Attachments
March 6, 1985
Mrs. Claire Sherman
11009 Highway 55
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear Mrs. Sherman:
f
�. CITY OF
PLYMOUTFF
I appreciated the opportunity to talk with you on Tuesday after it came to my attention
that you had a continuing concern about the debris in the ditch on your neighbor's
property adjacent to the carwash. When I wrote you last year I indicated I would be in
touch with the property owner to correct the matters that you had brought to our atten-
tion at that time. I did write to the property owner and I talked with the property
owner about the need to clean up the debris and other matter which apparently has been
left by carwash patrons.
A re -inspection of the site later in the fall had indicated that the cleanup had not
been completed; unfortunately, the water in the ditch had frozen and we concluded that
the cleanup efforts would best be undertaken this spring once the thaw had occurred. I
do recall telling you that; apparently you do not recall our conversation.
In any case, I have again written to the property owner informing him that the ditch
needs to be cleaned and that regular maintenance activity as well as proper trash dis-
posal facilities should keep the problem from re -occurring.
We: appreciate your concern about maintaining the quality of life in your neighborhood
and in the City, and I appreciate your efforts to minimize the opportunities for mos-
quito breeding especially in areas such as this where there is standing water.
I have indicated to the property owner that the cleanup should occur within 30 days,
and I have scheduled a re -inspection of the site at that time.
I will keep you informed as to the status of this matter. Thank you for your efforts
to, bring it to our attention.
Sincerely
Blair Tremere, Director
Comnunit-y Development
BT/gw
cc: City Manager James G. Willis
File
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800
March 6, 1985
Mr. Gerald Kennedy
405 Shelard Plaza West
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
1�i `►
CITY OF
PLYMOUTR
RE Plymouth Shopping Center/Mother's Carwash Site
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
You will recall our correspondence last year regarding activities that were occurring
on your property, specifically the filling operation as well as the carwash operation.
I brought to your attention the debris and trash which apparently is being generated by
the carwash patrons; the trash and debris including bottles, an old tire, and other
matter has been tossed into the ditch which runs across your property adjacent to the
carwash.
A neighbor has recently again complained that little cleanup has occurred; my inspec-
tion of the site confirms this. Please take the necessary steps this spring to clean
out the ditch of all debris and other matter; furthermore you should take steps to see
that proper trash receptacles are provided on the site.
The ongoing operation of the carwash should include regular site cleanup of the immedi-
ate site, as well as of the surrounding property. Neighbors rightfully expect that
this development -- both the carwash and the shopping center -- should be operated and
maintained in accordance with community standards in mind, particularly with respect to
proper trash and refuse disposal.
I realize that portions of the water in the ditch are still frozen and therefore, re-
moval of some of the debris could be difficult until the full thaw has occurred. I be-
lieve it is reasonable to expect that the necessary cleanup of the ditch and surround-
ing site can be completed within 30 days from the date of this letter.
I believe if you personally inspect the property you will observe the problem as
witnessed by your neighbors and by City staff. Should you have questions regarding
this Dlease call me.
Sincerely
Blair Tremere, Director
Community Development
BT/gw
cc: City Manager James G. Willis
File
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE:_ February 25, 1985
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Dave Crain
SUBJECT EROSION CONTROL ON PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
As we move towards implementation of the 1985 public works projects,
I want to express my concern about erosion control. I believe we
are making good progress in improving erosion control on private
developments. However, I beleive we have not "practiced what we
preach" on our own projects. As a specific example, I would cite
the Skyline Hills project. Last falls rains resulted in heavy
silt runoff to the north and south.
I believe we should start enforcing our erosion control policy on
public projects.
HDC/mm
cc: Jim Willis
Fred Moore
S�, e/'^�
FI e -s e. Fr e Parc
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
e
DATE: March 1, 1985 MEMO
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Erosion Control on Public Works Projects
Attached is a memo from Sherm Goldberg, City Engineer, with regard to our erosion
control measures on City public works projects. This memo in particular addresses
the Skyline/Sunrise Hills project and the Northeast Interceptor Sewer. This memo is
in response to a memorandum from Councilmember David Crain dated February 25, 1985.
All of the specifications for our 1984 and 1985 projects include provisions for
erosion control measures. Both Sherm and I will be monitoring our consulting
engineers and our contractors to insure that these measures are installed and
maintained. It is our intent that all of the City contracts will either meet or
exceed the requirements in our erosion control policy.
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
FGM:bw
Attachment: Memo
cc: Sherm Goldberg
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
e
DATE: February P, 1985 MEMO
TO: Fred Moore, Director of Public Works
FROM: Sherman Goldberg, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Erosion Control on Public Works Projects
In response to Councilmember Crain's memo to the Mayor and Council dated
February 25, 1985, I am submitting some information relative to the types of erosion
control used on last year's public works projects.
With respect to the Skyline Hills project, because of the steepness of the terrain
in the area it was very difficult to do an adequate job of controlling the erosion
from the rains last fall, especially during heavy rains. We have placed hay bales
around the catch basins but they have been demolished during the winter snow plowing.
The following are the steps we will be taking to try and control the erosion for
that project:
Replace the hay bales around the catch basins at the intersection of 48th Avenue
North and Wellington Lane. From there the water runs into the marsh area immedi-
ately south of the plat. At the discharge from the storm sewer we have constructed
a sump in order to trap some of the sedimentation. We will also put silt fence
around that northern section, as well as the ditch which drains the marshland to the
south and to the Rolling Hills plat. fde will be able to trap the sedimentation in
that ditch and will be able to contain it by the installation of silt fence and/or
hay bales. Some silt fence was installed last fall in the low areas in order to
contain any of the erosion onto undisturbed properties. Some of that is still up,
but more needs to be placed and will be done. I feel that the silt fence and/or hay
bales, together with the trapping of the sediment in the ditches and existing con-
structed sump should provide for containment of the erosion. It will provide us a
place to trap the sediment, which then can be dug out when it becomes necessary.
Once the concrete curb and gutter and bituminous pavement is in place, together with
the revegetation of the disturbed areas, the majority of the trouble spots should be
taken care of. -
I might point out that sufficient erosion control methods were installed on the
Northeast Sanitary Sewer Project No. 903. This project was semi -monitored by the
DNR and we had no complaints from them.
As you are aware and I am sure Councilmember Crain is aware, it is a difficult task
in trying to implement the erosion control policy. We will take adequate steps to
make sure that we are not providing a double standard when it comes to enforcement
of the erosion control policy.
Sherman L. Goldberg, P.E.
SLG:bw
March ?, 1985 —_
De ar Dai, e ;
0 -CI e-..
Thank you for your letter re -appointing me as a City of Plymouth
representative to Wayzata #284 Community Education Committee.
Hoi,jever, the By -Laws state that no member shall serve more than two
consecutive terms on CEC. Therefore, Jim Brandl requests that the
Cit.;• of Flymouth appoint a new representative as soon as possible. I
might suggest one of my fellow Park Commissioners as being
appropriate, since our activities interface ver;,
closely with the CEC programs.
I have enjoyed the challenge and development of the Community
Education Program within our district.Thank yo.; for al1owirig me to
serve the City of Plymouth in this capacity.
Best wishes to you in this snowy spring Barth and beyond!
Sincerely,
C
i
ROBERT D. MUELLER
4612 ROSEWOOD LANE
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55442
March 1, 1985
Ms. Maria Vasiliou
18325 - 31st Avenue North
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Ms. Vasiliou:
0
C_9�
I am a new Plymouth resident. I live at 4612 Rosewood Lane,
north of Rockford Road, and east of West Medicine Lake Road.
over the past few months I have heard a loud and sustained
noise not unlike an airplane jet engine. My inquiries lead
me to believe it canes from an air or wind tunnel operated
by Fluidyne Engineering Corporation at their lab. The lab
is located just west of Highway 494 and about a mile north
of Rockford Road.
The noise is most noticeable during the quiet nighttime
hours. I have heard it frau time to time later at night
(midnight), or early in the morning (3 a.m. to 5 a.m.). The
people in the Plymouth City offices and the Plymouth Police
Department have been helpful in tracing the noise, and in
efforts to help curb its occurrence.
I am writing this letter to each of you to acquaint you with
this situation if you don't know of it already. I have
reason to believe same "official" contact may have taken
place with Fluidyne people as a result of sane of my
inquiries, as well as frau other citizens. I am not certain
where this all stands at present, however. I would appre-
ciate whatever help you can give to ensure these loud objec-
tionable noises don't occur during nighttime hours.
Sincerely,
MM: je
oc: Mayor David Davenport
Patricia Hoyt -Neils
Virgil Schneider
David Crain
CITYOF
March 7, 1985 PLYMOUTR
Mr. Robert D. Mueller
4612 Rosewood Lane
Minneapolis, MN 55442
Dear Mr. Mueller:
The Council has asked that I respond to your letter of March 1, 1985 with
respect to early morning noise emanating from the wind tunnel operated by
Fluidyne Engineering Corporation. You and I have discussed this matter twice
on the phone and I know that our community service officer, Jane Laurence
Cooper, and Public Safety Director Carlquist have also spoken to you.
As a result of your calls, Public Safety Director Carlquist has discussed the
matter with representatives of Fluidyne, advising them that City ordinance
prohibits excessive noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. In the
subsequent telephone conversation I advised you that Public Safety Director
Carlquist had had this conversation with Fluidyne representatives and that the
only effective way for the City to enforce the ordinance is to observe the
excessive noise actually occurring. Consequently, I provided you with the
Hennepin County dispatch administrative number of 545-9411 and asked that you
telephone them in the event that this noise occurs during the late evening or
early morning hours. Hennepin County would then dispatch a Plymouth car to
the site to verify that excessive noise ws occurring and whether a citation
should be issued.
We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention and encourage you to
contact us promptly in order that we can take the necessary steps to eliminate
the noise problem. Thanks again for your input.
Yours very trul
�^^'f�
Frank Boyles
Assistant City Manager
FB/lh
cc: Mayor and City Council
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
e
DATE: March 6, 1985 MEMO
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: New County 9 within Westridge Estates Addition
I received a telephone call today from Sally Olson (338-7072), who is representing a
committee of residents living within the Westridge Estates Addition and is concerned
with the location of New County Road 9. I believe a portion of their concerns
surfaced at the February 19 Towm Meeting. Several of the residents within the
Westridge Estates Addition have met and formed a committee of ten or twelve people.
This committee is gathering information with regard to the New County Road 9
alignment. It is my understanding that the residents all live on the east side of
Larch Lane and does not include the residents within the manor home area.
I have arranged a meeting with this committee in order to discuss the County Road 9
alignment. I would be presenting the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan and the
platting of the road right-of-way as it occurred with the Westridge Estates
Addition. This meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m. on March 12, 1985 in the Council
Conference Room. I have also requested that a staff member from the Hennepin County
Department of Transportation attend this meeting.
It is my understanding that after this committee gathers their necessary informa-
tion, they will be submitting a letter requesting discussion of the County Road 9
alignment with the City Council.
Please let me know if you wish to attend this meeting or wish any additional
information.
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
FGM:bw