HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 06-21-1996w
JUNE 219 1996
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS
1. COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE:
JUNE 26 7:30 P.M. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
City Council Chambers
JULY 10 7:00 P.M. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
City Council Chambers
2. PLANNING COMMISSION, TUESDAY, JUNE 25, City Council Chambers. Agenda is attached.
(M-2)
3. PACT, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, Hadley Lake Room. Note: the Plymouth Advisory Commission on
Transit will meet on the 4th Wednesday of each month. Agenda is attached. (M-3)
4. MUSIC IN PLYMOUTH, TUESDAY, JULY 2, City Center Amphitheater.
5. INDEPENDENCE DAY, THURSDAY, JULY 4; City offices closed.
6. MEETING CALENDARS The June, July, and August meeting calendars are attached. (M-6)
f.:.•; f??:.}}:?: }:.....n.::.....t •:»�?:::?:ij+::ir:: :}.:'::vi+ir. / : Y{?'r? 4:?}.
v.:..,A...:::. �.uw:.:-.: ..::... }.v:::::3iAA�:...:... /.�..::.:?>+fisi.?:i...::nff.:v�:-..:::}n n':ftiv..:,isri:::i::isisi:•v::}:•}:?hb:.':/i�tl%{�fbvf:+•}3i+%}1��4s::.:::t i.�..•+.•�f.4:t:i
1. MINUTES
a. May 28, 1996 Planning Commission. (I -la)
2. NEWS ARTICLES, RELEASES PUBLICATIONS ETC
a. Notice from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency of petroleum storage tank release
investigation at the Plymouth Middle School and request for corrective action. (1-2a)
b. Hennepin County Community Health Department news release announcing a community
prevention forum on prevention of the sale of tobacco to minors. The free June 25 event will be
held at the Plymouth Department of Public Safety. Public Safety Director Craig Gerdes is one
of the scheduled panelists. (I -2b)
3. CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS POLI - CORRESPONDENCE
A status report on correspondence is attached. (I-3)
m -i
rp)
PLANNING COMIIUSSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 25t 1996
WHERE: Plymouth City Center,
MW Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be
enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner, citizen or
petitioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in
normal sequence on the agenda.
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M.
2. PUBLIC FORUM
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
S. *CONSENT AGENDA
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. C.G. Rein. Amendment to the Land Use Guide Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan to
reguide 5.76 acres from CL (Limited Business) to CS (Service Business), Rezoning from B-1
(Office Limited Business District) to B-3 (Service Business District), Preliminary Plat to create
three lots, Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances for property located at the
southwest quadrant of Highway 169 and Schmidt Lake Road. (96044)
B. Roger Schluessel. Planned Unit Development Amendment and Conditional Use Permit
Amendment for an addition that would encroach four feet into the required side yard setback
for property located at 11400 -39th Avenue North. The Amendment would allow construction
of an addition onto the rear portion of the garage on the east side of the home. (96074)
C. City of Plymouth. Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing antenna regulations, including
definitions, allowable uses and performance standards. (96078)
I%,
D. On -Belay of Minnesota, Inc. Conditional Use Permit Amendment to increase the number of
beds from 15 to 20 for an existing Juvenile Treatment Program located at 105 Forestview Lane
North. (96079)
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Zoning Ordinance Update.
m-3
DATE: June 20, 1996
TO: Members of the Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit
FROM: John Sweeney, Transit Administrator
SUBJECT: June 26 MEETING
The Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit is scheduled to hold its monthly meeting on
Wednesday, June 26 at 7:00 p.m. in the Engineering Conference Room (Hadley Lake
Room) on the lower level of Plymouth City Hall.
The agenda for the meeting is as follows: Please note all materials will be distributed at the
meeting.
I. Approval of minutes of the meetings on May 22, 1996.
11. Ridership Information 1992 - 1996 and Review of Ridership Statistics for May 1996
(information from George Bentley, will be distributed at the meeting, if available).
• Dial -A -Ride
• Plymouth Metrolink - Route 91
• Plymouth Metrolink - Route 92
• Plymouth Metrolink - Route 93
• System Cost Summary Reports -April and May 1996
III. Discussion Re: status of consolidation and renumbering on Route 92D and Route 93
for statistical and reporting purposes.
G: ENG\TRANSMPACTMEMOSUUNE-MTG. DOC
m-3
SUBJECT: June 26 MEETING
Page Two
IV. Identification of areas of concern and/or recommendations.
V. Discussion Re: Status of integrating new mini -coaches for Metrolink and Dial -A -Ride
into the system.
VI. Discussion Re: Detour due to construction on County Road 9 from I-494 to Vicksburg
Lane. Also discuss interim bus schedule for the affected area and ridership if
available.
VII. Discuss customer surveys for Plymouth Metrolink and Dial -A -Ride.
VIII. Discuss courtesy bus benches.
IX. Discuss Dial -A -Ride summer marketing program.
X. Other Comments
cc: Paul Colton, Metropolitan Council
John Mathews, National. School Bus Company
Steve Mahowald/Steve Jaeger, MCTO
George Bentley, Consultant
S.F. 6/26/96
G: ENMTRANSInPACTM EMOSUU NE-MTG. DOC
m�6
N ON b M O
~
M
N
N
cd
ai
C/]
'r
N
N
N ON b M O
•�F«.4nA
CIS
GCN110
O
a d�
N
1jy�/�
a pp'�
a
• .Nr
a
ti
op
C7
F
^ANA
z
Mei
w
o
1
y� A
v
aNi
PPro
a
o�
g�
oUU
•6^
r
O
M
O
n
a
N
N ON b M O
m.0c
�� 1- |q
Cd
-m■■
e--:,■
.
t■
_;_
Cd.
b
�
-nun \PA■
—
mg
�
.,tz■
|
9
.-m;.
§
§
)
§
101
Cd
�
�
�■
.
_/
c
,n
\
m�
! !
§
'E
.
s
k
b
\
§I§
7
s¥?
!:
\( J
a
S§
§oma
§
k
\^
CD
CD
.2z
f
saw
w
w
loo
I
q
I
iz,,.
�� 1- |q
v
V1
col
r
y Mn«
b
V1
�
_.
00
d'
ti
0000
« 78
W
=
w�
a
o
a
83
o o
v
ell
r
y Mn«
d'
ti
0000
« 78
N
2 -la
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 28,1996
PRESENT: Chairman Mike Stulberg, Commissioners Allen Ribbe, John
Stoebner, Roger Berkowitz, Jeff Thompson, Tim Bildsoe,
and Saundra Spigner
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Director Anne Hurlburt, Planning Supervisor Barbara
Senness, Senior Planner John Keho, Planner Shawn Drill, "
City Engineer Dan Faulkner, and Clerical Supervisor Denise
Hutt
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. PUBLIC FORUM:
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MOTION by Commissioner Ribbe, seconded by Commissioner Spigner to recommend
approval of the May 14, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes.
Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously.
5. CONSENT AGENDA: No items.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. JEROME & BETTY BEGIN (96033)
Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Jerome and Betty Begin for a Variance to
increase the size of the existing pylon sign for Cottonwood Plaza located at 3900
Vinewood Lane North.
Senior Planner Keho gave an overview of the May 14, 1996 staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page #124
Commissioner Bildsoe asked if there have been any variances granted previously for signs
in excess of 96 feet. Senior Planner Keho replied that most variances approved prior to a
year ago went through a separate procedure, but he does not remember any variances
granted for signs that exceed 96 feet.
Commissioner Ribbe questioned what in staffs' opinion would be the detrimental side of
approving a larger sign. Senior Planner Keho responded that if we feel a larger sign is
reasonable on this, then maybe we should change the Zoning Ordinance. The regulations
state that a variance can be granted only if there is a particular hardship related to the
physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel.
Commissioner Thompson asked if Rockford Road Plaza's larger sign causes a hardship to
Cottonwood Plaza since their sign is smaller. Senior Planner Keho stated that this
situation is not unique, there are similar circumstances throughout Plymouth. Rockford
Road Plaza is part of a Mixed Planned Unit Development and received City Council
approval for wall and freestanding signage in excess of ordinance standards in return for
other concessions which warrant the basis of their approval.
Commissioner Berkowitz commented that he can understand the applicant's perspective,
as their sign is obscured by the auto dealer, gas.station and the bank. He asked if there is
any difference in zoning for the properties on the same side of Rockford Road as the
applicant. Senior Planner Keho replied that the property to the west is zoned for B-3
uses, the same as the applicant's site. Commissioner Berkowitz stated that Cottonwood
Plaza should have a more prominent sign.
Commissioner Thompson asked that with the existence of the close properties on both
sides and the giant sign for Rockford Road Plaza across the street if that would be a
sufficient distinguishing characteristic. Senior Planner Keho responded that is not
something that staff would support.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Barb Demars, representing the petitioner.
Ms. DeMars stated that the tenants at Cottonwood Plaza need more prominent signage as
they are set back further from the road. There is an urgent care practice in the center that
most people do not know about, as they can not see their sign. The previous approval by
the City Council for 10 percent signage did not significantly help the tenants. She stated
that Cottonwood Plaza's sign is blocked by the existing bank building. She added that a
precedent has already been set by -Rockford Road Plaza's sign and that they should be
allowed an increase in their signage.
Chairman Stulberg asked why the applicant abandoned the increased wall signage that was
approved by the City Council. Ms. DeMars replied that they changed the existing sign by
removing `Cottonwood Plaza" and replacing it with four of their largest tenants. The
tenants did not want additional wall signage and only MGM Liquors took advantage of it.
Planning Commission Minutes f�f
May 28, 1996
Page 1125
Chairman Stulberg asked the applicant that if the request was approved, would they be
willing to go back to the five percent wall signage. Ms. DeMars replied that they could
not require their tenants to change the signage as that would be an added expense for
them.
Commissioner Berkowitz asked if the applicant would you be willing to go back to the
five percent wall signage for those that do not have the 10 percent already. Ms. DeMars
replied that it would be a possibility, if they were granted the variance for the 200 foot
sign.
Chairman Stulberg opened the public hearing.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Virginia Berney of 3900 Vinewood Lane North.
Ms. Berney, a representative of Plymouth Convenience Care Center, stated that people do
not even know that .their facility is located in Cottonwood Plaza because they can not see
their sign. The business is providing a service to the community and should have more
visible signage.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Ed Olson of 3900 Vinewood Lane North.
Mr. Olson, Plymouth Convenience Care Center Administrator, stated that their business
sign is not visible. They are trying to provide a community service and the sign should be
larger.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Tom Evans, 3900 Vinewood Lane North.
Mr. Evans, Medical Director of Plymouth Convenience Care Center, stated that people
are not aware of their signage. They have to give directions over the phone and people
still have difficulty finding the location.
Chairman Stulberg closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Spigner asked if staff considered the uniqueness of the proposal since there
is an urgent care facility involved. Senior Planner Keho replied that staff has to base their
recommendation on the Zoning Ordinance and not the businesses, as businesses will come
and go, but the size -of the sign would remain the same.
Commissioner Spigner wanted to know what constitutes unique. Senior Planner Keho
explained that there has to be a reason that they can not place a sign along the road. Staff
feels that although the sign is not the best, it is visible.
Planning Commission Minutes 1 a►
May 28, 1996
Page #126
Commissioner Spigner asked if the bank blocks the sign and why is this application not
unique. Senior Planner Keho replied that depending on which way you are coming from,
the bank may block the view of the sign. He stated that the Preliminary Plat and General
Development Plan for Cottonwood Plaza was approved in 1986, which anticipated the
construction of a retail shopping center and Wayzata Bank. This situation is not unique,
there are other centers that also have portions of a sign obscured by freestanding
businesses.
Director Hurlburt asked if the applicant intends to move the location of the sign. Ms.
DeMars replied that their intention is to increase the height of the sign from 20 feet to 30
feet, but leave it in the same location. The sign could be moved elsewhere on the site, but
traffic coming from the west would already be past the entrance no matter where the sign
is placed on the site.
Director Hurlburt asked if increasing the height of the sign will make it more visible. Vis.
DeMars responded that the sign company indicated that increasing the height and width of
the sign should solve their problem of visibility.
Commissioner Berkowitz asked since the bank recently changed ownership, did they also
change the location of their sign. Senior Planner Keho replied that their name changed,
but not the location of the sign. Ms. DeMars commented that the bank was constructed in
1988 and Cottonwood Plaza Shopping Center went in later.
MOTION by Commissioner Ribbe, seconded by Commissioner Stoebner recommending
approval of the Variance for Jerome and Betty Begin for property located at 3900
Vinewood Lane North (Cottonwood Plaza Shopping Center).
Commissioner Ribbe commented that this application is a unique situation due to the road
and view for traffic coming from the west on Rockford Road. He added that no interest
could be damaged by granting a larger sign and that a precedent has already been set by
Rockford Road Plaza's sign.
Commissioner Spigner concurred.
Roll Call Vote. 4 Ayes. MOTION carried on a 4-3 Vote. (Commissioners Bildsoe and
Thompson, and Chairman Stulberg voted Nay.)
Chairman Stulberg stated that while he may think the sign is appropriate, the application
does not meet the Variance standards for approval. The applicant's previous request was
denied by the City Council because it did not meet the standards.
Commissioner Thompson concurred.
Planning Commission Minutes -r — I a
May 28, 1996
Page #127
B. RICHARD BLOOM (96056)
Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Richard Bloom for Rezoning from FRD
(Future Restricted Development) to R-1 A (Low Density Single Family Residential),
Preliminary Plat for five single -family detached lots, and two Variances - one for cul-de-
sac length and one for lot width - for property located at 16440 Old Rockford Road.
Planning Supervisor Senness gave an overview of the May 23, 1996 staff report.
Commissioner Spigner asked if the development sign was placed in the appropriate spot
and if not, would that affect the public hearing procedure.
Director Hurlburt replied that the development sign was placed further west than the
actual site, but would not affect the public hearing procedures, as the City is not required
to place a development sign on the site. The sign encourages the public to call the City for
further information pertaining to what is proposed for the site.
Commissioner Berkowitz asked for clarification as to whether the homeowner is
responsible for keeping the fire lane clear, including snow removal. He added that if so,
are there other situations like this in the City. Planning Supervisor Senness replied that the
owner of Lot 3 will be required to maintain the fire lane, which does include snow -
removal. Planning Supervisor Senness added that there are other situations in the City
that require maintenance of a fire lane.
Commissioner Thomspon asked if in those situations, is it an individual homeowner, or the
homeowners association that is responsible for the maintenance. Planning Supervisor
Senness replied that it is normally a homeowners association.
Commissioner Stoebner asked how the fire lane would be marked. Planning Supervisor
Senness replied that it will be marked with the standard fire lane signage and have a chain
across the road. Director Hurlburt added that it is highly unlikely that the access road
would be used.
Chairman introduced Richard Bloom, the petitioner.
Mr. Bloom stated that they sent a notice to everyone within 500 feet of the proposal to
explain the various alternatives. The buyer for Lot 3 is aware that they will be required to
maintain the fire Ian't as part of their driveway. Mr. Bloom stated that they requested a
surveyor to stripe where the new street will be configured and invited the neighbors to
stop by and look at it. Several alternatives and plans were looked at, and the proposed
alternative is the best to fit in with Golfview Estates. Mr. Bloom stated that there is
adequate land to put in more than five lots. The reason this proposed plan was selected
was because of the location of the existing home. Moving the home would be virtually
impossible. This plan also represents the least environmental impact, with only nine trees
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page #128
to be removed, and minimal site grading. Mr. Bloom stated that he has potential buyers
for four of the five lots. Mr. Bloom stated that he would be willing to adopt Golfview
Estates' covenants and would also be willing to consider incorporating the lots into the
Golfview Estates' homeowners association.
Director Hurlburt asked if the potential buyer of Lot 3 is aware that they can not use the
fire lane as a driveway. Director Hurlburt also asked for a clarification of how many trees
would be removed. Mr. Bloom replied that the owner may not be aware of the intent that
the fire lane can not be used as a driveway. Mr. Bloom stated that nine significant trees
(eight inch or larger) would be removed or replanted elsewhere.
Chairman Stulberg opened the public hearing.
Chairman Stulberg introduced a letter dated May 28, 1996, from Susan and David Gaither
of 16500 -45th Avenue North objecting to the proposal. Chairman Stulberg stated since
Ms. Gaither is in attendance for the public hearing, she can speak for herself.
Chairman Stulberg introduced a letter dated May 28, 1996, from David R. Witte of 4470
Comstock Lane North. Mr. Witte's letter indicated he hates to see the parcel subdivided
and sold in parcels because it is a beautiful large parcel with a variety of trees in a park-
like setting. His letter stated his objection to any plan that would make 45th Street a
through street. He would prefer to see the property developed with a cul-de-sac access
off of Old Rockford Road east of the existing house or an extension of the existing cul-de-
sac on 45th Street. If the Planning Commission approves a plan that involves an extension
of 45th Street, then he would request that it require the developer to remove the ears of
the existing cul-de-sac and restore the adjoining property owners' yards as a condition for
approval. He would request that the developer be required to develop a sump water
draining plan for each of the proposed lots as part of the preliminary plat.
Chairman Stulberg introduced a letter dated May 28, 1996, from Steve Farnsworth of
4475 Fountain Lane. Mr. Farnsworth's letter stated that he received propaganda from one
of his neighbors, and from the developer of Golfview Woods. Neither has canvassed the
residents of Golfview Estates, and neither speaks for the residents of Golfview Estates.
Mr. Farnsworth is vitally interested in the development of Golfview Woods, and believes
that the development should proceed through construction of an independent cul-de-sac
extending northward from Old Rockford Road toward 45th Avenue North, but not
connecting to 45th Avenue North. His reasons are: construction could proceed in a
timely manner with 'disruption of the fewest households; Golfview Woods would have
adequate year-round emergency access as opposed to the seasonal access granted by the
fire lane in the developer's current preferable plan; and, the Golfview Estates homeowners
Association should be allowed to maintain its common areas and enforce building
restriction in their development without the resident s Golfview Woods taking advantage
of them without any of the associated responsibilities. In the alternative, Golfview Woods
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page #129
residents should be required to join the homeowners association if 45th Avenue is
extended.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Susan Gaither of 16500 -45th Avenue North.
Ms. Gaither stated that she received the property notice from the City on Monday and was
disappointed that residents are not notified sooner. She received a letter from the
developer stating the City Engineer wants a through street. Ms. Gaither commented that
she has letters from 38 out of the 49 residents of Golfview Estates stating their objection
to the extension of 45th Avenue North to Old Rockford Road. If the road is extended it
would have a detrimental affect on the neighborhood, increasing traffic and non-residents
would severely compromise the peaceful environment that she purchased, and foremost,
affect the safety of the children. Ms. Gaither stated that anything would be better than a
through street. Ms. Gaither stated that Golfview Estates is subject to covenants that
include cedar shake roofs, and brick or stucco siding and would not like to see asphalt
roofs on the proposed homes. Based on what she has seen so far, it appears that the
development plan proposed has one objective - to minimize the developer's cost - with
little regard for the privacy, safety and esthetic consistency of Golfview Estates. As a
homeowner, taxpayer, and mother, Ms. Gaither finds it unequitable and unnecessary that
her family has to provide a developer a superior return.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Lori Biagini of 1646545th Avenue North.
Ms. Biagini stated that the reason they chose to build in Golfview Estates was because of
the serenity and beauty. She stated there is no logic, practicality or reason for the
proposed development. Ms. Biagini commented that there is no advantage for the
residents of Golfview Estates for the development. She finds it difficult to understand the
proposal is environmentally prudent when there will be tree removal and grading. Ms.
Biagini stated the proposed development is only two blocks off of Dunkirk Lane and
questioned the need for a fire lane. Ms. Biagini could not support any proposed
development that diminishes what she values.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Terri Hyduke of 16300 Old Rockford Road.
Ms. Hyduke stated that she has been a resident for 10 years and is in favor of the proposal.
She commented that she received a letter from the developer and thought it was refreshing
to be informed of the proposal up front. She stated that the developer is taking an
approach to minirflizethe environmental impact and that he could propose to build more
than five homes.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Colette Riethmiller of 16490 -45th Avenue North.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page 1#130
Ms. Reithmiller stated her objection to the proposal. When she bought her home she
thought the cul-de-sac was permanent. She stated that the road does curve as it comes
into the cul-de-sac and it is hard to see, and is already a safety hazard.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Ed Sachs of 16935 -45th Avenue North.
Mr. Sachs stated that he lives at the west end of the proposed development and is opposed
to extending 45th Avenue, even as a fire lane, as it would open it up to noise and decrease
the attractiveness of the neighborhood. Mr. Sachs stated he prefers to leave it
undeveloped.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Marty Sagan of 16800 -45th Avenue North.
Ms. Sagan stated that she realizes you can not stop progress, but is opposed to five more
homes which creates more traffic. Ms. Sagan commented that Mr. Bloom's letter should
not have been stuffed in her Sunday newspaper. Ms. Sagan asked if the new owners
would be required to follow the rules of the Golfview Estates homeowners association.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mike Schroeder of 13405 -32nd Avenue North.
Mr. Schroeder stated that he is a builder and thinks it is funny that after someone builds
their home, they then want a moratorium on new homes being built near them. Mr.
Schroeder commented that Mr. Bloom did a nice job of taking a five acre tract and turning
it into a plan. He stated that the owner, Mary Weinzierl has been sensitive to the site with
large lots that equal more expensive lots and homes which will in turn benefit the residents
of Golfview Estates. Mr. Schroeder's client does not want 45th Avenue to go through,
rather they prefer a cul-de-sac. He stated that he does not see the need for a fire lane.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Jeff Stolt of 4490 Fountain Lane North.
Mr. Stolt stated that he is the treasurer for the Golfview Estates Homeowners
Association. He pointed out that their covenants prohibit fencing, so the residents can not
screen from GolMew Woods or traffic. He stated that Golfview Estates is a very unified
community and they are even trying to coordinate one refuse company for the entire
development to cut down on traffic. He thought the community would stay as is, and did
not know that the proposed development would change their structure by extending the
cul-de-sac.
Its I
Chairman Stulberg introduced Tom Carl of 16440 Old Rockford Road.
Mr. Carl stated that he is the current owner of the proposed site. He commented that the
site will be developed one way or another. He stated that most of the trees that will be
removed are evergreens that are four to six feet tall. Mr. Carl commented that 100 year
Planning Commission Minutes 00000
May 28, 1996 1 a
Page #131 y
old oak trees were removed for the construction of Golfview Estates, and that he lived
through three years of construction of that development.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Mary Zejdlik of 16480 -45th Avenue North.
Ms. Zejdlik stated that when she bought her home, it was with the intention of being at the
end of the cul-de-sac. She asked why the land can't be subdivided for two or three homes
instead of five. She stated it makes sense to come off Old Rockford Road from the
existing driveway.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Rick Twiford of 16500 43rd Avenue North.
Mr. Twiford asked what the speed limit would be for any potential cul-de-sac coming off
from Old Rockford Road and when Old Rockford Road would be turned over to the City.
Mr. Twiford stated that he supports the proposal.
Chairman Stulberg introduced John Gray of 4460 Comstock Lane.
Mr. Gray stated that he owns the lot that borders Old Rockford Road and has agreed to
buy the proposed lot that adjoins his property. He stated that he is not convinced that
every option for different plats have been exhausted, and that this proposal has the lowest
impact on the neighborhood. He added that the Commission needs to chose the best
option for everyone involved.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Marybeth Voves of 16475 -45th Avenue.
Ms. Voves stated that there is already traffic issues with the current neighbors and is
concerned with extra traffic that the development would bring. She stated that she is
opposed to adding any extension on to the existing cul-de-sac.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Paul Bakken of 16610 -45th Avenue North.
Mr. Bakken asked if there would be any potential assessment impact to the residents of
Golfview Estates. He stated that the developer's plan incorporates Golfview Estates into
Golfview Woods and asked if there will be any detrimental affect to Golfview Estates in
doing so.
Chairman Stulberg it toduced Wayne Riethmiller of 16490 -45th Avenue North.
Mr. Riethmiller commented that the proposed development would not help Golfview
Estates. He objects to 45th Avenue going through to County Road 9.
Chairman Stulberg closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page #132
Chairman Stulberg explained that the duty of the Planning Commission is to act on
proposals as they relate to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and that
everyone has rights.
Ms. Gaither asked if 45th Avenue shows as a through street on the Comprehensive Plan.
Director Hurlburt responded negatively.
In response to questions, City Engineer Faulkner stated that the ears from the current cul-
de-sac would be removed and reconstructed. The City has recently passed a more
restrictive sump pump drainage plan and are putting in drain tile in the street system and
people can connect to that. He stated that the City anticipates taking over County Road 9
within the next year. The speed limit is governed by the State Department of
Transportation. The City can petitioner the State by City resolution, but it was petitioned
approximately five years ago. City Engineer Faulkner stated the original intent was to
have 45th Avenue go through, but there was not an acceptable way to make the road go
through without taking the existing home. The cul-de-sac is already extended beyond the
norm. There is more of a concern with adding an additional access off of Rockford Road
than adding to the existing access off of Dunkirk Lane.
In response to questions/comments, Mr. Bloom replied that all lots and agreements are
contingent upon approval of the application. If approved, he expects it would take one
month for the site work which would include eliminating the existing bubble on 45th
Avenue, and house construction of 120 days and beyond for these larger homes. Mr.
Bloom indicated that the letter he sent was mailed from the Wayzata Post Office on May
20, 1996. Mr. Bloom stated that the residents seem to prefer running a cul-de-sac up
from Old Rockford Road, but they objected to the alternative because of the sight
distance. This plan would also remove the existing home. If this plan is wanted, why not
just connect the road and make it go through. The cul-de-sac would be restored so there
would not be two cul-de-sacs. Mr. Bloom stated that he has no objections to removing
the fire lane, but staff is requiring it and the looping of utilities because of the requested
variance. Mr. Bloom commented that they are willing to entertain the idea of using the
covenants from the Golfview Estates Homeowners Association, as they would like the
development to look like it belongs to the existing neighborhood. There would not be any
special assessment to Golfview Estates and the new homes would not be detrimental or
devaluate property values in Golfview Estates.
Chairman Stulberg asked Mr. Bloom to comment on why they are proposing five lots
instead of two orV r'& lots. Mr. Bloom replied that the owner is not being greedy, as they
could have requested more than five lots. The proposed average lot size of 37,000 square
feet exceeds the lot sizes in Golfview Estates.
Chairman Stulberg asked where the construction access would be. Mr. Bloom stated that
the fire lane would be the best choice for construction traffic, if that were possible.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page #133
Planning Supervisor Senness explained that the fire lane is an important aspect of the
proposal for access according to the fire inspector for emergency access because of the
cul-de-sac length.
Director Hurlburt stated that when Golfview Estates was initially platted, there was an
emergency access that was to be put in on Comstock Lane. Because it was anticipated
that 45th Avenue would go through, the City Council removed the condition from
Golfview Estates for the Comstock Lane access.
Planning Supervisor Senness stated that when Westbranch was constructed, they did have
special construction access off of County Road 9, so it is a possibility for this
development.
Commissioner Berkowitz asked if any lots at the end of the existing cul-de-sac would have
to be reconfigured due to removing the bubble (ears). Mr. Bloom replied that Lot 22 may
have to be reconfigured and conversations have begun with the owner of that lot.
Commissioner Berkowitz asked if people paid a higher price for the cul-de-sac lots that
were sold as such. Director Hurlburt replied that staff does not have that information.
Chairman Stulberg added that the Planning Commission can not address that issue.
Commissioner Spigner asked if the fire lane would have a chain across it. Planning
Supervisor Senness replied affirmatively. The chain keeps out the casual use, but does not
pose a problem to emergency vehicles. Director Hurlburt added that staff can not
remember ever having to use an emergency access road. The only possibility of use for
this fire lane is if Dunkirk Lane would be blocked for some reason.
Commissioner Spigner asked if the County requires the emergency access. Director
Hurlburt replied that the fire inspector from Community Development requires the
emergency access.
Commissioner Spigner commented that there were previous discussions by the City
Council relating to cul-de-sac length and asked if this proposal would bring up the same
debate. Director Hurlburt explained that there was "a debate because of a change in the
Subdivision regulations regarding utility looping and emergency accesses. This proposal
meets most all of the standards for a long cul-de-sac except for the trips. She added that
when you have small parcels that are remnants of what is left over, you tend to have
longer cul-de-sacs. The existing cul-de-sac is already a little longer than normal.
Commissioner Spigner asked if the owner for Lot 3 would use the emergency access as a
driveway. Director Hurlburt replied that there is a condition in the resolution prohibiting
that.
Planning Commission Minutes I
May 28, 1996
Page #134
Commissioner Thompson wanted to know if there was any way of removing the burden of
the fire lane from the owner of that lot. Planning Supervisor Senness responded that the
only person that will be there over time is the owner of that lot. If it is not maintained, the
City would deal directly with the owner to ensure the maintenance takes place.
Commissioner Berkowitz asked if it was possible for the City to maintain the fire lane
access. Planning Supervisor Senness replied negatively. Director Hurlburt added that the
City does not want to maintain private drives on private property.
Commissioner Berkowitz asked if the Comprehensive Plan indicates 45th Avenue as a
through street. Director Hurlburt replied negatively.
MOTION by Commissioner Spigner, seconded by Commissioner Ribbe to recommend
approval of the Preliminary Plat and Variances for Richard Bloom for GolMew Woods
located at 16440 Old Rockford Road.
MOTION to Amend by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Spigner to
add a condition requiring the developer to incorporate the covenants of Golfview Estates
into their development.
Director Hurlburt commented that the City may not be allowed to require the developer to
do so without some reasoning.
Commissioner Thompson replied that if they did not incorporate the convents, it could
injurious to other homeowners. He added that the applicant has already said he would be
willing to do so.
Commissioner Spigner stated she would like the amendment tied to the Variance as all
homes should be consistent.
Commissioner Bildsoe questioned if the existing home would be tied to the amendment
also. Mr. Bloom replied that only the new homes would be consistent with the covenants
from Golfview Estates. Mr. Bloom added that he would get a copy of Golfview Estates'
convents and prepare the documentation for Golfview Woods for staff to review.
Roll Call Vote on Motion to Amend. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried on a 6-1 Vote.
(Chairman Stulberg voted Nay.)
Commissioner Berkowitz stated his concern for extending the cul-de-sac, as it doesn't
seem right since the residents of Golfview Estates bought with the intent of being on a cul-
de-sac.
Commissioner Spigner stated that although there will be a major debate from the City
Council on the cul-de-sac issue, she is supporting the request.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1996 la
Page #135
Commissioner Ribbe commented that he is supporting the proposal, as you can not stop
development. He stated that five large lots should not add a lot of additional traffic. He
commented that Golfview Woods should be brought into Golfview Estates' homeowners
association.
Chairman Stulberg stated that a cul-de-sac will not be built off of Rockford Road to serve
five homes. If the cul-de-sac is not extended, then it is likely that 45th Avenue will go
through. He voted against requiring the covenants, as they aren't automatically in the
homeowners association.
Roll Call Vote on Main Motion. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously.
Chairman Stulberg called a recess called at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:24
p.m.
C. CITY OF PLYMOUTH - HOUSING PLAN AMENDMENT (96077)
Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by the City of Plymouth for a Housing Plan
Amendment.
Housing Supervisor Goldsmith gave an overview of the May 22, 1996 staff report
including an overview of Program and Financial Support and of the Housing Plan and
Housing Implementation Program.
Chairman Stulberg opened the public hearing.
Chairman Stulberg introduced David Crain of 13200 38th Avenue North.
Mr. Crain, Chairman of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HILA) Board, stated
that the HRA did review the plan and gives it their strong endorsement. He commented
that this is a marvelous plan for the City of Plymouth and that it is doable. If the City can
pull it off, the City should be healthy for a long time.
Chairman Stulberg closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ribbe commented that the plan states the City is committed to more
compact, denser homes; committed to keep up older homes; and a goal of creating more
senior housing and life cycle housing. The plan should meet the requirements of the
Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Act.
Housing Supervisor Goldsmith replied affirmatively.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page #136
MOTION by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Bildsoe recommending the
City Council adopt a revised Housing Plan and Housing Implementation Program to the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously.
D. CITY OF PLYMOUTH - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (96078)
Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by the City of Plymouth for a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment establishing antenna regulations, including definitions, allowable uses and
performance standards.
Planning Supervisor Senness gave an overview of the May 23, 1996 memo and handed
out information from the consultant David Licht, regarding ham radios as it relates to
height in areas. "
Mr. Licht stated staff is undertaking a total revision of the entire ordinance. Requests in
the cellular phone area make it imperative to make modifications to this section of the
ordinance now. They are amending several sections or the Ordinance pertaining to
antenna regulations. The definition section is where most antennas are regulated
currently. Under the current regulations, you can have a 70 -foot antenna in residential
areas and a 90 -foot potential in commercial areas. In Section 11, it can go higher by
Conditional Use Permit, although there has to be a demonstration of need for height.
Antennas are treated as a secondary or accessory use. Staff took the advice from the City
Attorney and the FCC as it pertains to ham radios regarding they must reasonably
accommodate them. It would be the City's responsibility to prove it does not need a
Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Licht explained that the first section deals with elimination of two definitions -
antenna and essential services. Mr. Licht gave an overview of the districts and uses,
noting on Page 5 of Section 11, a Conditional Use Permit can exceed the height limitation
for cellular. Mr. Licht stated that the public has concerns pertaining to Subdivision F.,
Item 2c. - structural design, mounting and installation of the antenna shall be verified and
approved by a professional engineer and item 2f. - the height of the antenna shall be the
minimum necessary to function satisfactorily, as verified by a professional engineer. Mr.
Licht stated that perhaps item 2c. should reference an electrical engineer rather than a
professional engineer.
Chairman Stulberg asked if ham radio antennas that are purchased that contain
instructions would satisfy the requirement. Mr. Licht responded that it would be up to the
zoning administrator, and that the applicant does have the right of appeal. Director
Hurlburt stated that if there is a company that will certify to the suitability to the tower
that should satisfy it. If the radio or antenna was homemade, it would be a different issue.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page #137
Z - la
Mr. Licht stated there are instances where the professional certification might be
necessary.
Commissioner Berkowitz asked if Item 2C could be amended to include wording `as may
be necessary as deemed by the Zoning Ordinance Administrator".
Commissioner Bildsoe asked where antennas on top of water towers would be addressed.
Mr. Licht replied that they encourage placement on public structures to keep out of
residential areas.
Chairman Stulberg opened the public hearing.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Hans Brakob of 1610 Weston Lane.
Mr. Brakob stated that he is an amateur radio operator. He commented that it may not be
the best route to lump ham radio operators in with antenna uses. He stated that some of
the burdens are substantial to amateur radio operators. He takes exception to item 2c. and
reducing the standard for height, and is not sure of the rationale of doing so.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Eric Foss of 11246 -49th Avenue North.
Mr. Foss stated that one of primary purposes of the FCC to give them frequencies is to
experiment for emergency uses. Their primary purpose is to serve the community. He
stated that reducing the height from 70 feet to 50 feet is very restrictive. He added that
ham radio operators should be separated out from other uses, and suggested they be put
under a separate section. Mr. Foss offered a group of people would be willing to
volunteer to work with City staff on revisions.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Russel Hughes of 12314 Sunset Trail.
Mr. Hughes stated that he handles back up communication for the Air Force and the
antenna height should be greater.
Chairman Stulberg introduced James Maas of 4850 Evergreen Lane.
Mr. Maas stated that he works with the Courage Center. People at Courage Center work
on ham radios, and to restrict that, you restrict their life. Mr. Maas stated that ham radio
operators provide communications for emergency situations and are vital for the
community. Many operators can not afford to hire an engineer as would be required
under items 2c. and 2f of the proposed regulations. Ham radio operators provide their
service free and should be exempt from the regulation height.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Richard O'Brien of 14304 -17th Avenue North.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page #138
Mr. O'Brien suggested that a committee of operators work with City staff to revise the
Ordinance that meet the needs of the ham radio operators. He stated that an antenna
design is not always a manufactured antenna, and it is too costly to get an engineer's
approval. Mr. O'Brien thought the application fee of $200.00 for a Conditional Use
Permit is excessive since radio operators do not get paid to provide their service. Mr.
O'Brien stated he would like the height to remain at 70 feet.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Tom Collen of 12720 -54th Avenue North.
Mr. Collen stated that the wording under the General Standards may be flawed as it
pertains to ham radio operators. W. Collen stated that the antenna height should not be
reduced. He recommended delaying the Ordinance until a committee has been established
and issues worked out.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Tom Kutz of 5510 Underwood Lane North.
Mr. Kutz stated that there should be a distinction between ham radio operators and the
rest pertaining to height of antennas.
Mr. Maas commented that homemade antennas allow communication within minutes, and
sometimes commercial antennas do not. Ham radio operators need to be allowed to
experiment with radios and antennas.
Planning Supervisor Senness commented that staff would like to recommend leaving the
public hearing open for the possibility of restructuring the ordinance and working with the
group of ham radio operators to resolve questions/issues.
Chairman Stulberg stated that ham radio operators should not be exempt altogether from
the regulations, as this would also protect the rights of the operators.
Commissioner Spigner stated her concern for the Conditional Use Permit fee being
excessive. As staff reviews the Ordinance, they should look at exempting ham radio
operators from the Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Ribbe stated that he is not ready to vote on proposed changes to the
regulations.
MOTION by Commissioner Ribbe, seconded by Commissioner Bildsoe to leave the public
hearing open and postpone action until the June 25, 1996 Planning Commission_ Meeting
to enable staff to meet with representatives from the ham radio group.
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously.
7. OLD BUSINESS
r
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1996 ? I
Page #139
A. LAURENT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. (96017)
Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Laurent Development Company, Inc. for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment including a Land Use Guide Plan Amendment to reguide
approximately 61 acres of land from LAR (Rural Agriculture) to LA -1 (Low Density
Single Family Residential) and to add the area to the urban service area for property
located north of Schmidt Lake Road, and east of Fembrook Lane North.
Senior Planner Keho gave an overview of the May 23, 1996 staff report. He indicated
that the Park Plan shows a neighborhood park might be needed for the Silverthorne area.
Commissioner Berkowitz asked how the City procures land for a park. Senior Planner
Keho replied that it is a combination of things. It could be through the Development
Review Committee process, if land is available at that time, it would have to be dedicated •
by the owner, or they provide cash -in -lieu of dedication of land.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Gary Laurent, the petitioner.
Mr. Laurent stated he concurs with the staff report.
Chairman Stulberg continued the pubic hearing.
Chairman Stulberg introduced Art Hogan of 4865 Orchid Lane.
Mr. Hogan asked what happens to the existing right-of-way when Schmidt Lake Road
changes.
Chairman Stulberg closed the public hearing.
In response to Mr. Hogan's question, Senior Planner Keho stated that the developer
would dedicate the old right-of-way and then the land reverts back to the previous owner.
Mr. Laurent stated that they .have not determined what would happen with that yet, but it
will be part of the plans submitted with Preliminary Plan/Plat stage.
Director Hurlburt added that there will be another public hearing to address that issue.
MOTION by Commissioner Ribbe, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to recommend
approval of the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment and Sewer Policy Plan Amendment for
Laurent Development Co., for property located north of Schmidt Lake Road and east of
Vicksburg Lane.
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. (Commissioner Berkowitz abstained.)
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1996
Page #140
B. ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - SIDE YARD SETBACKS.
Planning Supervisor Senness suggested waiting until the next Planning Commission
meeting to discuss the issue.
MOTION by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Bildsoe to adjourn.
Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:57 p.m.
M
June 17, 1996
-2a
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Mr. Brian Constans
Robbinsdale School Dis
4148 Winnetka Avenue
New Hope, Minnesota 55427
RE: Petroleum Storage Tank Release Investigation and Corrective Action
Site: Plymouth Middle School 10011 36th Avenue North, Plymouth
Site ID#: LEAK00009363
Dear Mr. Constans:
Notice of Release
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has been informed that a release of petroleum
has occurred from storage tank facilities which you own and/or operate. We appreciate your
timely notification so this site can be handled in an efficient manner.
Legal Obligations
Federal and state laws require that persons legally responsible for storage tank releases notify the
MPCA of the release, investigate the release and, if necessary, clean up the release. A person is
considered legally responsible for a tank release if the person owned or operated the tank either
during or after the release, unless specifically exempted under the law. If you believe that you
are not legally responsible for this storage tank release, please contact the project manager listed
below.
520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (612) 296-6300 (voice); (612) 282-5332 (TTY)
Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on recycled paper containing at least 10% fibers from paper recycled by consumers.
I- Za
Mr. Brian Constans
Page 2
June 17, 1996
If you are not legally responsible for the release, but hold legal or equitable title to the property
where the release occurred, you may volunteer to take corrective action. Responsible persons
and volunteers who take corrective action may be eligible for reimbursement for a major portion
of the costs of corrective action. The legislature has established the Petroleum Tank Release
Cleanup Account to reimburse responsible persons and volunteers. The account is administered
by the Petro Board which is part of the Minnesota Department of Commerce. Final decisions
regarding the amount of reimbursement are made by the Petro Board. All questions about
eligibility and reimbursement should be directed to the Petrofund staff at 612/297-1119 or
612/297-4203.
Request to Take Corrective Action
The MPCA staff requests that you take steps to investigate and, if necessary, clean up the release
in accordance with the enclosed MPCA fact sheets. The site investigation must fully define the
extent and magnitude of the soil and/or ground water contamination caused by the release. A
report (Excavation Report and/or Remedial Investigation/Corrective Action Design (RI/CAD))
which details the results of the investigation or concludes that excavation was sufficient to clean
up the release must be submitted to this office within 10 months of the date of this letter. Please
refer to MPCA fact sheets for information pertaining to the amount of work needed at the
petroleum release site(s).
Sites with free product (free-floating petroleum), drinking water supply impacts, surface water
impacts, indoor vapor impacts, fire or explosion hazards, or ground water impacts which pose a
significant threat to public health or the environment, are considered high priority for staff
review. If one or more of these situations apply to your site, an RI/CAD report must be
submitted within 90 days. In addition, if you know or discover that there is free -product from a
well, excavation, or borehole, you must notify the MPCA within 24 hours and IMMEDIATELY
begin interim free product recovery.
If you have not already done so, the MPCA recommends that you hire a qualified consulting firm
registered with the Petrofund staff that has experience in conducting petroleum release site
investigations and in proposing and implementing appropriate corrective actions. A list of
registered contractors and consultants is available from the Petrofund staff. The MPCA reserves
the right to reject proposed corrective actions if the requirements of the site investigation have
not been fulfilled. Please note that, under Minn. R. 2890.0075, subp. 2, you must solicit a
minimum of two competitive proposals on a form prescribed by the Petro Board to ensure that
the consulting costs are reasonable. Questions about bidding requirements should be directed to
Petrofund staff.
Mr. Brian Constans
Page 3
June 17, 1996
Required Response
I --Z a
MPCA staff requests a response to this letter within 30 days. Please tell us whether you intend to
proceed with the requested work. If you do not respond within this time frame, the MPCA staff
will assume that you do not intend to comply, in which case the MPCA Commissioner may order
you to take corrective action. Failure to cooperate with the MPCA in a timely manner may result
in reduced reimbursement from the Petro Board. See Minn. R. 2890.0065, subp. 1, item C. The
enclosed fact sheets will provide you with the information necessary to complete a successful
investigation and cleanup. If you have any questions concerning this letter or need additional
information, please contact me at 612/297-8591. Please reference the above LEAK # in all
correspondence.
Si cerely,
7
Laura Hysjulien
Project Manager
Cleanup Unit III
Tanks and Emergency Response Section
LLH:dms
Enclosures
cc: Laurie Ahrens, City Clerk, Plymouth
Richard Kline, Fire Chief, Plymouth
Greg Lie, Hennepin County Solid Waste Officer
Rich Hanson, Braun Intertec Corporation, Mendota Heights
1.- 7, �
Hennepl"n ouEqual Opportunity ployer `•_ t
Dear Elected Official:
June 17, 1996
ty
Tobacco use by our children has increased dramatically in the past three � er Sre many
reasons, including the easy access—through licensed tobacco retailers—that kids have to
cigarettes and chewing tobacco. Recent checks of vendors in 200 stores in 7 Hennepin County
communities found that in 4 out of 10 attempts, underage teens were able to buy their own
cigarettes.
Tobacco use by our young people is a serious public health concern. Tobacco kills more than
400,000 people each year. It is by far the number one cause of preventable deaths in the United
States. Studies show that 9 out of 10 regular smokers began using tobacco before they turned
18—the age that people can purchase cigarettes legally.
In a recent statewide survey of city council members, including 111 in Hennepin County, a
majority of council members identified teenage tobacco use as a serious problem in their
community. In addition, 3 out of 4 council members believe their community supports strong
tobacco control policies. In the past two years, a number of Hennepin County communities,
including Bloomington, Plymouth, Eden Prairie, and Edina have acted to strengthen their tobacco
ordinances. In cities with strong youth access ordinances, underage kids were three times less
Likely to buy cigarettes than in cities without solid ordinances.
What can cities do to reduce this threat to our young people? There are a number of effective
steps that communities can take. I have enclosed a flyer that describes a free noon program on
June 25th that the Community Prevention Coalition is sponsoring which features a panel
discussion on this topic, and I encourage you or other city officials to consider attending.
If you would like to receive a model ordinance or samples from other communities, please call the
Community Prevention Coalition offices (348-6122) at the Community Health Department. Staff
can also refer you to other organizations who can provide technical assistance, include the League
of Minnesota Cities, Association for Non -Smokers (ANSR), the Smoke -Free 2000 Coalition, and
the Minnesota Department of Health/American Cancer Society's ASSIST Project.
Thank you for your concern about the health of our young people!
Sincerely,
Sue Z` dema
Director
Community Health Department
Health Services Building - Level 3 Recycled Paper
525 Portland Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1569'
000
63696a �11111664
1'ItEVENTION
Giff• •
Reducing Aleoho4 Tobacco and Other Drag Problems in Hennepin County
Cigarette Use by Hennepin County Youth is Increasing
➢ More than 1 in 4 high school seniors in
Hennepin County smokes cigarettes daily.
➢ Smoking rates increased dramatically in
Hennepin County between 1992 and 1995:
• nearly 30% more 12th grade students
are smoking
• approximately 40% more 9th graders
report smoking
• daily smoking rates doubled for 12th
grade males between 1992 and 1995
(13% to 26%)
➢ However, a greater percentage of high
school seniors in Hennepin County. and
Minnesota smoke than'in the U.S.
Weekly Cigarette
Use by
Hennepin County
Students
171989
01992
■ 1995
26% 27% +
21%
17%
12% 12%
Grade 9
Grade 12
• 39% of Hennepin County and Minnesota 12th graders have used cigarettes in the past 30 days
compared to 34% of U.S. students in grade 12
In 1995, the average age of first use of cigarettes was 12.7 years for 9th graders, and 14.7 years for
12th graders (unchanged from 1992).
Cigarettes are Easy for Kids to Buy in Hennepin County
➢ In seven communities in Hennepin
Count;, stores sell tobacco to minors
about 41% of the time.
➢ 75% of ninth grade students who are
regular smokers buy their own cigarettes.
➢ It is illegal to sell 0 ons
under the age 8 tdte�, luding
Minnesota. c)
Ci
Cigarette Sales to Minors in 7
Hennepin County Communities
Able to Not Able
Buy to Buy
41% 59%
'Compliance checks in 200 stores in Hennepin County,
October 1995 to April 1996.
do Hennepin County Prevention Center • oom 810, 525 Portland Avenue • Minneapolis, MN 55415.612/348-6122 • FAX 612/3484841
HOWEVER—Strong City Ordinances DO Make it Tougher for
Kids to Get Cigarettes
➢ In Hennepin County communities
without youth access ordinances, stores
were over three times more likely to sell
tobacco to minors.
Where strong ordinances are enacted,
compliance with the law increases. For
example, with a strong ordinance,
St. Paul's violation rate went from 80% in
1993 to 8% in 1995.
A recent national survey funded by the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found
that adults overwhelmingly support
specific actions to make tobacco less
accessible to minors:
94% support I.D. verification by
vendors selling to anyone appearing
underage
- 78% support keeping tobacco products
behind counters to prevent shoplifting
by minors
- 74% support banning all cigarette
vending machines
Data Sources: 4 m%,
The Effect of Youth Access Ordinances on
Cigarette Sales to Minors in Hennepin County
a
0
E 70%
60%
260% --
o50% --
40%
0%o50%40%
0 30% s
0 20% 18%
010%
0%
IL No Youth
Ordinance Access
In Place Ordinance
In Place
200 stores in Hennepin County were checked from October
1995 through April 1996.
To qualify as a community with a youth access ordinance, at
least two of the following criteria had to be in the ordinance:
(1) tobacco vendors are licensed, (2) periodic compliance checks
are conducted, or (3) fines and/or penalties in place for non-
compliant stores. The ordinance had to be in effect when the
compliance checks. were conducted.
Cummings, K. Michael, et al. Where teenagers get their cigarettes: a survey of the purchasing habits
of 13-16 year olds in 12 U.S. communities. Tobacco Control 1:264-267
Hennepin County Community Health Department
Minnesota ASSIST Project, Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Student Survey -1989, 1992, 1995
Monitoring the Future Study, University of Michigan, 1996
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
6/18/96
■ ■ ■ of THF
H
G�
FWn COMMUNITYMINNESOTA
C O A L I T I O N minnesota prevention resource center •IMPlEfflumlem
It's Too Easy for Kids to Buy
Tobacco in Hennepin County—
Results of Compliance Checks in Seven Cities
• •
obacco use by youth has risen dramatically across the United States,
Tincluding Minnesota and Hennepin County. Recent data from the
Jan Bernards
Minnesota Student Survey shows that nearly 40% of Hennepin County 12th
ASSIST Project
graders have smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days, with one in four students
Facilitator,
reporting daily use.
Bloomington Divison
Where do Hennepin County students get cigarettes? Studies show that
of Public Health
nationwide 75% of ninth grade students who smoke regularly buy their own
cigarettes. Recent checks of licensed tobacco vendors in seven Hennepin
Craig Gerdes
County cities verify that it is all too easy for minors to buy their own
cigarettes—recent compliance checks in 200 stores found that 41% of the time
Director of Public
underage youth were able to purchase cigarettes.
Safety,
City of Plymouth
What can cities do to prevent the sale of tobacco to minors? Findings from
the compliance checks indicate that cities can successfully reduce tobacco
Erica Hertz
sales by enacting comprehensive youth access ordinances that- include regular
compliance checks. In the three Hennepin County communities with strong
Compliance Checker,
youth access ordinances, stores were three times less likely to sell to minors
Recent Graduate of
than in the other four cities with weaker tobacco licensing ordinances.
Wayzata High School
At this Prevention Forum, panelists will discuss how compliance checks are
conducted, the results of the checks, and how cities and store owners have
Jeanne Weigum
responded to the findings. In addition, elements of an effective youth access
Preside l".
ordinance will be described.
AN �A, ,ssociati6n' fair,
N -Smokers—MN)
When: Tuesday, June 25,1996
Where: City of Plymouth Dept. of Public Safety*
1 r✓'� "�
t: 3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Time: 12 noon — 1:30 pm
-
COSt: FREE — no need to pre -register
.. IN
Ny
'
Lunch: Bring your lunch, or call ahead (348-6122)
.%"
Community
to request a box lunch
9 nch ($6.00).
Preven3;6h�ition
of Hennepin County
Beverages will be provided at no charge.
525 Portland Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55415 No��o d * Directions to the City of Plymouth Dept. of Public Safety
0
3400 Plymouth
612/348-6122
�Sse Boulevard, 509-5160
FAX: 612/348-4841
Plymouth Boulevard is 2 blocks west of the intersection of I-494
and Hwy. 55. The Department of Public Safety is 1-1/2 blocks
north of Hwy. 55 on Plymouth Boulevard. The Forum will be
held in the second floor training room.
ao �o �o �c �D �D `c `D .D ON �c �D �c •D •D �D �o �D �o �D �D 'o �D
O� a. O� O� O� O� O� O� O, o. O� v. oS o� O� O�
00 M M N �--� N � � •••� N � � .-+
N N N N M en cn� N N N
M M M M t% � � d\' � �\t 4� 1 h � 1 h V�1 h
"0 "0 "0 "0 'o"0"0"0"c *,o "c 1'�o
O, O� O� O�T CZ
N SO O N •• h l� M N N OM N N N N N M N M
N N M r+ N N ••� ••� N
N N M M M h 1 1 Vel 1 1 h N 1 Y\1 v\1 �c �O �c
o 1
0 1
N %c M M h "O• � 0
\0 'D ' N O�� O N 1 Q O� O� 0\0 0\0 - M M h � h O �••� �
"0 1
'0 1
o I
o I
�--� N N N M 4� N Ion
N��••�N•••-N�moN N N M M M M d\' h h h �% j V�1 h$I k I'Dih V�1
O, O� O% Ion
O,zzzz'011zzO\'I'l �DO% ON ONON O,N �o M M h�O- l- O N %c O� O� N O O et eh ONN N .-+ �- ZN NM M M h1 4,1 h h 11,4V\1 1 V\1 h 1 V�1
b d p
`°" � � � a� o ° � � ani � c°j °2i ,Z3 •� �,'
° .fig>•.,� °�a
'0 cc��P�
ii ^' 'LS 4U••� ,�' ;py Ge�L �., � •y „F"'' "," 'C��+' ° �••� � � � 'O � U 4�'
e3 WOL
46
«°^1 �:°, 'p�J °� 'p�jb o viC• N
Sl: au
as
� OZOZ Al
UO [iF-���a�.�nO1 Gv�iinwwE-�0.UE-�aE-'r UxJ-
U
d
rA
W � Fvi� eye �ti opq�, ate; 5 iz
n, y
n �aoi�D�J°Gorv��iCad� �UZ�a°'2ma ��� �� �dgPq
T-3
two
N
M
�J
h
�O
l�
00
O�
O
--
N
M
et
"�
h
•••�
%D
l-
00
�--�
ON
O
N
1•
N
N
N
M
N
N
h
N
%D
N
N
N
N
O
M
�--i
M
N
M
T-3
two