HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 06-03-2011rp
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
COUNCIL INFO MEMO
June 3, 2011
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS
2011 Legislative Policy Committee........................................................................................ Page 1
May, June, July 2011 Official City Meeting Calendars.......................................................... Page 2
Tentative List of Agenda Items for Future City Council Meetings ....................................... Page 5
INFORMATION
News Articles, Releases, Publications, Etc ...
Senior Driving Program Recognized...................................................................................... Page 6
If State Constitution is Enforced, Minn Post. com .................................................................. Page 7
MEETING MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, May 18, 2011 ..................................................... Page 12
STAFF REPORTS
Revised Engineering Active and Pending Capital Improvement Projects ............................ Page 21
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter from residents Cimarron Ponds construction project ................................................. Page 24
Letterfrom PRISM............................................................................................................... Page 25
Letter to residents PUD Amendment for Wayzata School District ...................................... Page 26
Letter to residents Preliminary Plat with Variances.............................................................. Page 27
Letter to residents Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Bass Lake Wetland ............. Page 28
METRO
CITIES
tlopon pe
Name:
Title:
City:
(Street Address or P. 0. Box)
(Daytime Phone, please list type ofphone e.g. city, home, cell)
(E-mail)
Committee Choices:
Transportation & General Govt. (Mondays)
July 18th 11:00-1:30 pm
Aug. 29th 11:00-1:30 pm
Sept. 26th 11:00-1:30 pm
Municipal Revenue and Taxation ('Tuesdays)
July 19th 11:00-1:30 pm
Aug. 30th 11:00-1:30 pm
Sept. 27th 11:00-1:30 pm
Issues which should be studied:
(ZIP code)
0ax)
Metropolitan Agencies (Wednesdays)
July 20th 11:00-1:30 pm
Aug. 31 st 11:00-1:30 pm
Sept. 28th 11:00-1:30 pm
Housing & Economic .Level. (Thursdays)
July 28th 11:00-1:30 pm
Sept. 1st 11:00-1:30 pm
Sept. 29th 11:00-1:30 pm
Please mail, fax or email completed form to:
ATTN: Laurie Jennings, Metro Cities
145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, AI7V 55103-2044
Laurie@,MetroCitiesA47V.org I Fax: 651-281-1299 I Phone: 651-215-4000
S:'PolicXomm70e es20ll l SignUpForm-20!!
Page 1
City of
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
June 2011
Modified on 05127111
Page 2
1
2
3
4
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
Council Chambers
S
6
7
$
9
E 10
11
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
PARI( a REG
I
QUALITY
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
COMMISSION
(EQC) MEETING
(PRAC) MEETING
Council Chambers
Plymouth Creek
Center
s
12
13
14
15 7:00
16
18
5:30 PM
PM
117
SPECIAL COUNCIL
PLANNING
MEETING'
COMMISSION
i
Medicine Lake Room
MEETING
Council Chambers
7:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL
MEETING
Council Chambers
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 s:oo
7:00 PM
AM
HRA MEETING
MUSIC IN
Parkers Lake Room
PLYMOUTH
5K RUN
Hilde Performance
Center
26
27
28
129
30
7:00 PM
5:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL
MUSIC IN
MEETING
PLYMOUTH
Council Chambers
Hilde Performance
Center
Review Budge,
Council Expectations
and Update
with City Manager
Modified on 05127111
Page 2
r�P�ymouth
Adding Quality to Life
July 2011
Modified on 05117111
Page 3
1
'1
2
3
4
5
6 7:00 PM
8
9
17
PLANNING
COMMISSION
INDEPENDENCE
INDEPENDENCE DAY
MEETING
DAY
OBSERVED
Council Chambers
CITY OFFICES
CLOSED
1
10
11
12 7:00 PM
13 7:00 PM
14
15
16
REGULAR
ENVIRONMENTAL
COUNCIL MEETING
QUALITY
Council Chambers
COMMITTEE
(EQC)
MEETING
Council Chambers
17
18
19
20 7:00 PM
21
22
23
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
Council Chambers
24
25
26 5:00 PM
27 7:00 PM
28 7:00 PM
29
30
SPECIAL COUNCIL
PLYMOUTH
HRA MEETING
MEETING
ADVISORY
Parkers Lake Room
Budget Study Session
COMMITTEE ON
Medicine Lake Room
TRANSIT (PACT)
MEETING
7:00 PM
Medicine Lake Room
REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING
I
1
Council Chambers
Modified on 05117111
Page 3
r�
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
August 2011
Modified on 11105110
Page 4
2:30-5:00 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
NIGHT TO UNITE
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
KICKOFF
PLANNING
HUMAN RIGHTS
Plymouth Creek Center
COMMISSION
COMMITTEE
6:00 PM
MEETING
MEETING
SPECIAL COUNCIL
Council Chambers
Medicine Lake Room
MEETING
2012-2016 CIP
Medicine Lake Room
6:30-9:30 PM
NIGHT TO UNITE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL
MEETING
QUALITY
Council Chambers
COMMITTEE
(EQC) MEETING
Council Chambers
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
SPECIAL COUNCIL
PLANNING
MEETING
COMMISSION
Budget Study Session
MEETING
Medicine Lake Room
Council Chambers
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
7:O0 PM
7:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL
HRA MEETING
MEETING
Parkers Lake Room
Council Chambers
28
29
30
31
I
Modified on 11105110
Page 4
Tentative Schedule for
City Council Agenda Items
June 14, Special, 5:30 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
• Review 2012/2013 Budget and Council Expectations
• Update with City Manager
June 14, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Announce 5K Run on June 25 and Music in Plymouth on June 29
• Assessment hearing for 2010 Street Reconstruction Project (1000 1)
• Adopt Ordinance amending Section 805 of the City Code regarding operation of gas-powcred
model aircraft in City parks
• Discuss accepting credit card payments for City fees
• Present Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting
• Approve Change Orders for the Zachary Hockey Rink Replacement
• Approve assignment of election equipment contract with Hemiepin County
June 28, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Receive and accept the 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
• Receive Administrative Service Department's Annual Report
• Approve bid for the Council Chambers reconstruction project
• Accept donation from CenterPoint Energy for purchase of equipment for the Fire Department
July 12, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
July 26, Special, 5:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
• Discuss 2012/2013 Budget
July 26, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Announce "Night to Unite" on August 2
• Project hearing for Edge and Mill Overlay Project (11012)
August 2, Special, 6:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
• Discuss 2012-2016 Capital Improvement Program
August 9, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
August 16, Special, 6:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
Discuss 2012/2013 Budget
August 23, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
September 6, Special, 6:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
• Discuss 2012/2013 Budget (if needed)
September 13, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
• Approve 2012/2013 proposed budgets, preliminary tax levies and budget hearing date
Note: Special Meeting topics have been set by Council; all other topics are tentative. Page 5
Plymouth Parks &t Recreation
Adding Quality to Life
SENIOR DRIVING PROGRAM RECOGNIZED
Plymouth Creek Center and Plymouth Senior Services was recently recognized for their
long-term commitment to driver and traffic safety by the MN Highway Safety and
Research Center. Plymouth resident, Gene Kuehn has been serving the senior
community in Plymouth and surrounding areas as an instructor for the Senior Driving
program for 17 years. As an instructor for MN Hwy Safety & Research Center Driving
Classes (previously AAA Driving), Gene has taught 740 classes with over 22,000 students.
The Driver Improvement Program is taught in cities all over the state and has attributed
to a decrease in traffic fatalities in Minnesota.
In the Photo: Larry Nadeau, Director of Outreach, MN Highway Safety and Research
Center, Gene Kuehn, Sara Mittelstaedt and Rick Busch.
3400 Plymouth Boulevard + Plymouth + MN + 55447
Ph: 763-509-5200 + Fax: 763-504-5207
www. d. plymouth. mn. us
Plymouth parks are tobacco -free!
roil
CCO - FRi[R[CRFA7Fn.erg
MinnPostcom
A THo1, GN—rFUL APPRO tCA YC: NEWS
If state constitution is enforced, this shutdown could be
1 horrible
By Eric Black I Published Thu, Jun 2 201110:04 am
CORUIS
Fist of two articles.
Fact 1: The Minnesota Constitution contains a strong, clear provision
that state money cannot be spent without an appropriation.
Here's the actual constitutional language from Article XI (Appropriations
and Finances) Section 1 (Money paid from state Treasury):
"No money shall be pald out of the treasury of this state except in
pursuance of an appropriation by law."
That makes perfect sense. That's how government spending is supposed
to work. In some ways, It is the essence of the separation of powers. On
the other hand...
Fact 2: Recent experience suggests that when the government is forced
to "shut down" because —well, because the money to keep it running
has not been appropriated by law — a great many stale government
functions and a great deal of spending continue, without benefit of
appropriations, while the governor and the Legislature work on a deal to
put things hack on the normal basis.
For various reasons, Including Fact 1, It's possible that the expected
state government shutdown of 2011 will not follow the familiar pattern
and that a far larger portion of the state government could shut down in
July 2011 than shut down in July 2005.
"if you took that [constitutional] language at all seriously, you couldn't
spend anything" after July 1, said state Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL -Golden
Valley. And Winkler, who is a lawyer, was taking it seriously, at least
when I spoke to him last week.
i Winkler was aware of how then -Gov. Tim Pawlenty, then-Ai#orney
General Mike Hatch and Ramsey County District Chief Judge Gregg
Johnson found a path around the constitutional language in 2005. Judge
Johnson ruled that — for various reasons — the "core functions" of the
Page 7
executive branch had to continue. The judge appointed a "special
master," empowered to decide what functions were "core" enough to
qualify.
Because of that arrangement — and also because in 2005 a lot of big
appropriations bill had actually been signed into law (by contrast, this
time, only the Agriculture budget has been signed) —the public was
relatively undisturbed by the shutdown. Also, the shutdown lasted only
two weeks and, as part of the final settlement, the Legislature
retroactively ratified the spending that had occurred under the special
master's supervision.
So, a happy ending, sorta, except for a brief period during which the
constitutional requirement that no money be spent without an
appropriation was — what should we say — suspended? Ignored? How
about circumnavigated?
"I've looked at what was done in 2005, and it was completely
unconstitutional," said Winkler.
Is that so? And if it is so, how and why did it happen? And will it be done
differently in the next shutdown, possibly as soon as one month from
now?
Here's what happened in 2005
Attorney General Hatch did not try to hide the Fact 1 constitutional
provision. He quoted it in his brief, but then went ahead providing the
court with three different rationales for circumnavigation.
1. Hatch argued that the failure to pass a budget that funds the "core
functions" of the executive branch was itself a violation of the
constitutional separation of powers because it amounted to the
Legislature defunding the executive branch. (Kind of a stretch, if you ask
me, since the legislature had, indeed passed the bills that would have
funded the executive branch, but the governor had vetoed the bills.)
2. He argued that rights established by the state and federal constitutions
could not be guaranteed without a budget. For example, the state
consfitution guarantees a "general and uniform system of public schools."
This would be hard to maintain without state education aid to public
schools. (One weak spot in this argument is that public education is one
of a few state functions covered by a permanent appropriation that
could — I haven't seen this argued out — provide state K-12 funding
even during a shutdown. But I'm over my head here.)
3. Lastly, Hatch argued that Minnesota has chosen to participate In
several federal programs that benefit Minnesotans but require state
matching funds to operate. (Medicaid would probably be the biggest of
these.) But they would be jeopardized if state funding dried up. And, the
Hatch brief mentioned, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution
means that the state must fulfill its obligations under these federal laws,
even if there Is no appropriation with which to do so.
Replied Winkler on argument No. 3: If the Supremacy Clause problem Is
a serious, the federal government can get its own court order, from a
federal court, ordering Minnesota to do something. But it doesn't require
Minnesota to voluntarily violate its own constitution.
But Professor Mary Jane Morrison of Hamline Law School, author of a Page 8
book on the Minnesota Constitution, read the Hatch brief at my request
and called his arguments "exquisite" and "convincing."
If the Minnesota court decided that the "care functions must
continue" argument was valid In 2005, why wouldn't It decide the
same In 2011?
It could. But bear this in mind. The ruling was made by a single district
judge in 2005, and at the time the court was hearing only from Hatch and
Pawlenty, both of whom (even as they prepared to run against one
another for governor in 2008) wanted a limited, short-term shutdown. No
one even presented the contrary no -appropriations -means -no -
expenditures argument at the time. At least not right away.
Judge Johnson's order gave them just three weeks to operate under the
special master. The alternative was fairly unthinkable. Right away, one's
mind goes to crazy things like the state prisons shutting down (with the
prisoners locked in or out?) and state police unable to patrol. Those
unthinkables would still be around if the constitutional argument was
taken seriously this time. The state constitution, at least, does not provide
a clear way around this and, curiously, the prisons and state troopers are
not covered by one of those permanent appropriations like the schools
are,
But, in 2005, two weeks into that interim, Pawlenly and the Legislature
reached a budget deal for the biennium and retroactively approved
everything that had been spent without appropriations.
Judge Johnson's short-term ruling did not have the precedential weight of
a state Supreme Court decision.
If no -appropriations -means -no -appropriations is a serious
I argument, why didn't anyone make it at the time?
r
Well, someone did, albeit a little late. A group of legislators — at first only
House Republicans (led by then -House Speaker Steve Sviggum) but
ultimately members of both houses and both parties (still mostly
Repubs) — filed suit after the 2005 budget had been settled arguing that
the spending of money without appropriations violated the state
Constitution.
The attorney In that case, Erick Kaardal of Minnea osis, argued that what
happened amounted to the executive and judicial branches ganging up to
usurp constitutional powers that are explicitly reserved for the legislative
branch, namely the power of the purse.
In an interview this week. Kaardal summarized the argument this way:
'Appointing a special master to determine core functions and to pay for
those functions without an appropriation Is far removed from what our
system is supposed to be, which is that the people elect a Legislature to
decide how its money will be spent."
The argument didn't fare well, but it was never decided on its merits by
anyone other than Judge Johnson. Kaardal first asked the state Supreme
Court to hear the case, but they told him to start over with Johnson.
Johnson affirmed his original actions. Kaardal appealed.
A three-judge panel of the Minnesota Court ofAppeals did consider the
case but rejected it an technical grounds, essentially that it should have
been filed when the shutdown was still under way and the
unappropriated money was still being spent. Since the Legislature had
Page 9
already ratified what was done, the court wasn't going to get invoiveo. ur,
in legalese:
"A controversy that has been resolved by the legislature in the exercise
of its constitutional powers is nonjusticiable because it fails to present a
redressable injury that is capable of resolution through the judicial
process."
Kaardal argued ,publicly at the time, and ever since, that the court left
open the question of how it would have ruled if the issue had been raised
when Hatch and Pawlenty first sought the "special master" order, or while
the shutdown (and the spending of unappropriated funds) was still
occurring.
In fact, the Appeals Court almost invited the legislators to try again — but
to do it earlier in the government shutdown process. Wrote the three-
judge panel:
"We recognize the legislators` compelling argument that the
commissioner's court -approved disbursements interfered with their
appropriations power and improperly affected the dynamics of the
legislative process during the special session. If so — and we do not
decide the issue — then the damage has already been done, and it is
not subject to judicial redress or remedy at this point in time...
'?f the events of 2005 repeat themselves, the legislators can raise a
timely challenge to seek a judicial remedy for their asserted
injury." (Emphasis added.)
Kaardal told me this week that he has been in touch with some of his
clients from the previous round, and he seemed to think it is highly likely
that, if the process continues to point toward a shutdown, and if the
governor and attorney general seep a court order on "core functions,"
that there will be a timely challenge. He noted that in the 2005 round, that
governorlattomey general court petition was filed on June 15, which is
less than two weeks away.
Making shutdowns easier and more common
Did you catch the reference that the Appeals Court made two paragraphs
up about how the special master/core functions arrangement may have
"Improperly affected the dynamics of the legislative process?"
That, apparently, means this: If the governor and the Legislature are:
facing down the barrel of the chaos that might ensue if the state truly
shuts down — not knowing how crazy things could get nor whom the
public would blame for it -- they have an extra Incentive to compromise
their differences and make a deal.
If, an the other hand, there. is a court order in place to allow money to
flow from the treasury and core functions to continue, the urgency of
compromise may decline.
Winkler alluded to this when t spoke to him the other day. If a "shutdown"
means a few functions, like access to state parks and the ability to take
drivers' license exams, if the main people inconvenienced by a shutdown
are state employees who go on furlough, then shutdowns will become
more frequent and longer.
"We shouldn't come to get comfortable with government shutdowns," Page 10
Winkler said. "That's really, truly dysfunction. A shutdown should be seen
as thermonuclear." That will make them shorter and less frequent.
I
i
Peter Wattson, who worked for the Legislature for almost 50 years and
was counsel to the Minnesota Senate in 2005, wrote a 2007 "
ane
tracing the history of Minnesota's "power of the purse," but much of it
seems to be a reaction against the 2005 shutdown, and parts of it read
like a brief against the idea that the courts are authorized to step in as
the appropriator of last resort In the event of a shutdown. One of his
chapters is titled "The Judicial Branch Is Not Authorized to Exercise this
Legislative Power."
i
Another section is tilled "What Constitutes a 'Core Function' is a
Nonjusticiable Political Question," which certainly seems to argue that
i
Judge Johnson should not have accepted supervision of the "core
function" question but left it up to the political branches, the Legislature
and the executive, to work that out in the normal interplay of legislative
l power and veto power,
E
Wattson also endorsed the idea that the 2005 shutdown lasted longer
because the "core functions" approach made it easier on everyone. "With
the court's order to fund 'core functions' in place, the Governor and
legislative leaders knew that the adverse consequences of failing to
reach an agreement would be limited," Wattson wrote. 'They could afford
to hold out a while longer, and they did."
j
Interestingly, Wattson finally left the Legislature in December and is now
general counsel to Gov. Mark Doon, So if we reach that point, the
constitutional argument against what happened in 2005 will certainty be
available within Dayton's inner circle.
Friday: Will either party press the issue this time?
Like what you just read? Support high:gualfty Journalism in Minnesota
by becoming a member of MlnnPost.
AC€vertisenlent-
No Community Resources and
is n.iliheinq Voifes to Reduce Poverty
Cl
9 Comments: Bide/Show Comments
E-mail address
Pessward
r-' Remember me far two weeks.
Log In
Page 11
Approved Minutes
City of PIymouth
PIanning Commission Meeting
May 18, 2011
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair James Davis, Commissioners Dick Kobussen, Nathan
Robinson, Gordon Petrash, Scott Nelson, Bryan Oakley and Marc Anderson
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Steve Juetten, Planning Manager
Barbara Thomson, Senior Planner Joshua Doty, City Engineer Bob Moberg and Office Support
Specialist Laurie Lokken
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PUBLIC FORUM
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Commissioner Kobussen, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve the May
18, 2011 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 20, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Robinson, to approve the
April 20, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BAUER DESIGN BUILD, LLC (2011015)
Chair Davis introduced the request by Bauer Design Build, LLC for a site plan amendment and
conditional use permits for Twin City Fan Companies for property located at 5959 Trenton Lane
North.
Senior Planner Doty gave an overview of the staff report. Senior Planner Doty noted that a letter
had been received and added to the public record.
Commissioner Anderson asked if separate lots for two buildings aren't usually required. Senior
Planner Doty replied that was correct; however, the zoning ordinance does, through approval of
Page 12
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
May 1S, 2011
Page 2
conditional use permit, allow two principal buildings to be on one property. Commissioner
Anderson stated that was apparently the applicant's choice on the matter and that perhaps there
was not enough setback if they were to make it two lots, so this works.
Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Josh Gallus, Bauer Design Build, LLC. Mr. Gallus stated
that Twin City Fan Companies was looking to expand their current function and was very
excited about this project.
Commissioner Nelson asked how long Twin City Fan had been at this location and how long the
company had been in existence. Mr. Gallus responded that they have been at this location since
1993 and that they have been doing this type of product since the 1960's.
Chair Davis opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the
item.
Commissioner Nelson stated that in the early 1990's, this site was divided into two parcels and
then it was brought back into one parcel. He said that his concern was that if Twin City Fan
leaves, that there would be a piece of property with two separate buildings that could not now be
divided into two separate parcels for the purpose of selling to someone else. He said it would
have to be somebody who could use two buildings on one parcel going forward. He asked that if
this building was constructed, would the parcel be able to be divided again. Senior Planner Doty
replied that subdivision requirements would have to be met but it looks like the property could be
subdivided.
Senior Planner Doty confirmed for Chair Davis that the owner of the property could rent one
building to one tenant and the other building to a different tenant.
MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to approve the
request by Bauer Design Build, LLC for a site plan amendment and conditional use permits for
Twin City Fan Companies for property located at 5959 Trenton Lane North.
Chair Davis stated that it was good to get expanded businesses in Plymouth and that he would
vote in support of this request.
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously.
B. CITY OF PLYMOUTH (2011021)
Chair Davis introduced the request by the City of Plymouth for conditional use permits to allow
additional playfield lighting at Elm Creek Playfield (located west of the Wayzata High School)
and at Zachary Playfield (located north of Rockford Road and west of Zachary Lane North).
Senior Planner Doty gave an overview of the staff report.
Page 13
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2011
Page 3
Commissioner Anderson asked if there was a set time that these lights have to be turned off.
Senior Planner Doty replied that there is and he deferred the question to Superintendent of
Recreation Diane Evans. Superintendent of Recreation Evans responded that the lights are
typically out at playfields at 10:30 p.m.; however, they will let an inning complete prior to
turning the lights off but they should be off by 11:00 p.m.
Chair Davis opened the public hearing.
Chair Davis introduced Rod Shilkrot and Cheryl Levy-Shilkrot, 11545 43rd Ave N. Ms. Levy-
Shilkrot stated that they are the last house at the end of the cul-de-sac next to Zachary Park. She
said that they love it and that they don't necessarily mind the lights at night but they don't shut
off until quite late and they do shine into an upstairs bedroom. She said that they have talked to
the city. She said that when the playfields were built, they cut down all the trees. She said that
they are no longer blocked from Zachary and from County Road 9. She said that they have no
privacy at their lot anymore. She said that they begged the city to do something. She said that
the city planted four small trees. She said that they asked for a fence because the balls come into
their driveway and have hit their car once. She said that the fence looks like they took the
neighbors fence, chopped it down and pieced it back together. She said it is so little and very
thin so they are fully exposed. She said that with the new lighting, they are worried that they
will have even more light and they just want a buffer. She said that they want something done so
that they are not right out there in the open and have some kind of privacy fence or trees or
something that shields them.
Mr. Shilkrot added that the city did plant pine trees and that they are growing, so eventually they
will be higher and thicker. He said that he did not think that they planted enough. He said that
the trees that they took down were actually on city property and that they were removed in order
to build a retaining wall and an improved fence in the outfield of this playfield. He said that it is
a split -rail fence that is not going to block anything and that it is basically a cosmetic fence.
Mr. Shilkrot confirmed for Chair Davis that this is the property line fence that is located outside
of the outfield fence. Mr. Shilkrot said that they are very concerned about increased lighting and
what it will do to their privacy at that end of the cul-de-sac.
Chair Davis closed the public hearing.
Planning Manager Thomson stated that the good news is that the light that spills off the field
right now will change with the new lights. She said that with the fully cut-off fixture, the light
should stay on the field itself and that they should see an improvement in that regard.
Superintendent of Recreation Evans said that they have been working with the Shilkrot's for
years. She said that she was not as versed in that particular issue but that they can certainly go
back and look at the trees. She said that she thought that the split -rail fence was put in place to
designate the Shilkrot's lot line so that park users didn't go onto their property. She said that it
was never really intended to stop balls as the outfield fence would provide that. She added that
staff was certainly willing to go take another look at it.
Page 14
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2011.
Page 4
Commissioner Petrash asked why the trees that were there in the first place were removed.
Superintendent of Recreation Evans responded that four or five years ago, this whole park was
redesigned. She said that to change the field configuration and for drainage, the whole area was
reworked and that was why the trees were removed.
Chair Davis added that took place while he was on the Park Board. He said that there used to be
four fields and that the trees were removed to squeeze a fifth field in.
Commissioner Oakley asked what type of trees are there. Superintendent of Recreation Evans
replied that without looking at it, they probably are pine trees that were planted there as they
provide the best privacy. She said that she did not have the information regarding what trees had
been there.
Commissioner Petrash stated that he felt that if this were a private owner who was asking for
new lighting and neighbors raised concerns, he would be very supportive of the neighbors
having some sort of barrier with less intrusion of light and noise. He said that the city should be
sensitive to the surrounding neighbors with accommodating a fence or trees. He said that in his
opinion, the city should consider putting a fence and additional trees in to accommodate these
homeowners.
Commissioner Kobussen said that he felt that the new lighting that they would be putting in
would be going to shield the lighting in such a way that the homeowner should have less lighting
in his area. He said the idea of putting the new lights in is to increase the light on the field while
at the same time eliminating all the light that spreads out and to try to keep that area dark and to
not interfere with the other neighbors around the side. He said that additionally it cuts the
operating cost for the city and makes it more flexible for the city to maintain the lighting and
keep the fields in better shape. He said that what happened five years ago should have been
addressed then when that grading was done. He said the idea is to try to work with the
homeowner and to try to keep the light out of his home from the new lighting that goes in and to
try to make an improvement for that homeowner and for all the homeowners around all the
different sites.
Planning Manager Thomson stated that he was correct that the issue with the trees and the fence
dated to when the field was changed. She said that the Park Department has indicated that the
city will take a look at this again and see what can be done for these particular homeowners.
Commissioner Petrash asked if the lighting expert would address whether there would be more
or less light on that property. Craig Gallop, representing Musco Lighting, responded that the
lighting that they would be putting on the field would reduce unwanted spill and glare light by
about 90% compared to what is there right now. He said that they would be adding two
additional fields so there would be additional light from those new poles but overall, the light
going on to that property would be less than what there is now.
Commissioner Petrash asked if he was referring specifically to this piece of property. Mr.
Gallop replied that it would be for all the residential properties that adjoin the park.
Page 15
Approved
Planning Comm fission Minutes
May 18, 2011
Page 5
Commissioner Anderson stated that condition number three in the proposed resolution is a pretty
strong condition that supports what is being asked here.
Chair Davis asked to whom this verification would be submitted. Planning Manager Thomson
responded that the lighting engineers would be submitting that to the city. She said that the
major point is that the lights that are out there now are unshielded and the light spills off the park
site and that will dramatically be improved.
Superintendent of Recreation Evans added that the city did hire an electrical consultant and an
electrical engineer to manage the project. She said that we have two experts that are working on
this project to ensure that the neighborhoods are receiving less light spill and that it is more
comfortable for them to live on the park.
Commissioner Petrash asked what the typical barriers are around this field and the residences
behind. He asked if it was similar to this property or if it was different all the way around.
Superintendent of Recreation Evans stated that any home abutting a park property typically has
trees or bushes as barriers as well as their own fence that they may put on their property. She
said that other parks have similar issues. She said that other homes have similar setbacks from
park property. She said that the city works hard when developing parks to provide to the
community for sports but also to try to do as much buffering and shielding where we can. She
said it is a difficult task but we work hard and try to preplan so that buffering is provided and
work with our neighbors to make them safe and comfortable and to not be too intrusive.
Commissioner Petrash asked if there was a procedure in place for resolving issues with
neighbors. Superintendent of Recreation Evans responded that the city is always communicating
with the community and the neighbors. She said that there are always calls with questions and
the city works hard to do what they can, within reason, to take care of issues and to work
together with the neighborhood.
MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to approve the
request by the City of Plymouth for conditional use permits to allow additional playfield lighting
at Elm Creek Playfield (located west of the Wayzata High School) and at Zachary Playfield
(located north of Rockford Road and west of Zachary Lane North).
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Petrash,
to add an additional condition (# 6) to the resolution directing the Park Department to work with
this particular homeowner to develop an appropriate resolution to the visual privacy issues and
the stray ball issues. Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes (Nays by Commissioner Kobussen and Chair
Davis). MOTION approved.
Roll Call Vote on Motion as amended. 6 Ayes (Nay by Commissioner Kobussen). MOTION
approved.
Page 16
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2011
Page G
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. CITY OF PLYMOUTH (2010101)
Chair Davis introduced the request by the City of Plymouth for review of the Four Seasons Mall
Market Study,
Community Development Director Juetten opened the presentation of the Four Seasons Mall
Market Study to the Planning Commission.
Jay Demma and Paul Bilotta, representatives of Bonestroo, gave a presentation of the purpose,
site analysis, demographics and conclusions of the study.
Planning Manager Thomsen gave an overview of the staff report and next steps in the overall
Four Seasons Mall study.
Commissioner Petrash stated that there is no mention of the property owner being a participant
of this study and asked if they are not going to be a part of this at all. Community Development
Director Juetten responded that from our point of view with what has happened to date, the
owner is somewhat taking a backseat and watching the process. He said that as far as
participation, it is a public process and if they want to participate and provide comments and
suggestions, they are capable of doing that. He said that we have had a couple of brief
conversations as far as what's happening but they have not elected to provide any input at this
point. He said that it is really up to them if they want to comment on what comes up but to a
certain extent it is somewhat of an independent study for the city to take a look at what the city
would like to see on the property and then turning around and showing what the city wants to the
landowner and letting the landowner then decide on how they want to proceed.
Commissioner Petrash asked about the use of three terms used in the study: neighborhood based
retail, neighborhood retail and neighborhood orientated retail. Mr. Bilotta confirmed that they all
mean the same thing.
Commissioner Petrash stated that it was conspicuous that big box retail was not prominently
mentioned in the study and that he could infer by the absence of it is the implication that a big
box store should not be considered for this site. Mr. Bilotta responded that the big box concept
falls under the community retail area. He said that their analysis is not with the ownership at all.
He said in the community retail is where most of the big box uses come into play. He said that
the market doesn't show a need for a large big box on the site.
Commissioner Robinson asked when designs are complete, if they would include road changes
to Lancaster or would it be specific to the lot itself. Planning Manager Thomson responded that
the traffic part of the study will look at the layouts that are presented for the site design. She said
that if there are any traffic/roadway improvements that need to be made in order for those to
occur, they will be identified.
Page 17
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2011
Page 7
Commissioner Nelson asked if redoing Lancaster had ever been brought up before. City
Engineer Moberg responded that Wal-Mart did pay the city to have a traffic study done for an
early concept proposal (not an actual application). He said that as these other alternatives are
considered as well, there will be a need for an additional traffic study to be done. He said that
from his perspective, there are capacity issues on Rockford Road at its intersection with
Lancaster and the need for additional turn lanes but that road is the county's jurisdiction.
Commissioner Petrash asked if the existing road system would accommodate a parking lot full of
cars. Community Development Director Juetten responded that early this past fall, Wal-Mart
had provided funding to the city to commission a traffic study. He said that the traffic study
looked at a big box community retail versus a fall Four Seasons, which is a large neighborhood
commercial development. He said for neighborhood commercial, the traffic comes from
different areas at different times throughout the day. He said that for big box, the traffic
consultant's analysis shows that they have substantially different peak times and those peak
times are what causes problems at the major intersections. He said that in preliminary discussion
with our traffic consultant, a big box is dramatically different and causes more problems with the
intersection than if we had a full Four Seasons Mall. He said that there would be concerns with
that but not to the extent as with a big box.
Commissioner Anderson stated that having some traffic information available in the next steps of
the process to make sure that they are not designing something that absolutely is not going to
work traffic -wise would be a smart thing to do but it sounds like that from that study, there is
some general information in terms of problem areas that may occur. Community Development
Director Juetten stated that was a fair statement. He added that he does not see the process
happening in step order but rather that it will be a blended process.
Commissioner Anderson stated that this is a very thorough report and it gives a lot of good
information on a lot of different and full spectrum product types. He said that he also first saw
the absence of big box but in discussing it with staff, realized that community retail responded to
that. He asked if we have the zoning instruments, comp plan instruments, etc. to require a mixed
use type of site. He asked if we can create out of this process, a new multi -zoning category that
is going to accommodate all these kinds of things. Planning Manager Thomson responded that
the comprehensive plan does have a mixed use classification that is available. She said that at
the time the comprehensive plan update was completed, there wasn't enough known about this
site. She said that without this study being done, the step of making a land use change was
premature. She said the comprehensive plan suggested PUD zoning would be associated with a
mixed use guiding.
Commissioner Anderson stated that the PUD becomes the instrument then to move this kind of
concept forward. Planning Manager Thomson responded that it would have to start with guiding
as you can't really establish a PUD without a project.
Commissioner Anderson asked how we could put our teeth into some of the things wanted at this
site when an owner comes along and throws a building out and says here it is. Community
Development Director Juetten responded that as we go through the process, it will be something
Page 18
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
May 1 S, 2011
Page 8
that we will continue to develop and that when we bring the final package back to you and to the
City Council, that's the type of question that we hope to answer for you.
Commissioner Nelson stated that the market study is great, with lots of good information and
that he likes the path we are going down. He said that the steps that are in place are going to be
great. He said that the end game is still a little cloudy as somebody else owns the property, the
city doesn't. He said that it's going to be interesting to see where this ends up and what the
owner decides to do.
Commissioner Kobussen stated that the need is not immediate for all these different uses but we
might have a need in 2013-2015. He asked if we can hold the property empty waiting for
something to happen. He asked who would coordinate all the mixed use and if there was a
developer in this economy right now who would be willing to take on a piece of property that big
and develop something mixed use and make it worthwhile. He asked how all the funding gets
done and what the city's effort will be to make that happen. Community Development Director
Juetten responded that we do not have all of the answers tonight. He said that one of the parts of
the study will be a real preliminary market analysis and part of the team includes a developer that
has done mixed use projects. He said that the economy is going to play into what happens out
here, what could happen or how quickly something could happen. He said that these are
questions that will be looked at over the next couple months.
Chair Davis asked if there will be a final package for consideration. Community Development
Director Juetten replied that there will be a final package that wraps it up. He said that the open
house is scheduled for September 22nd and then the final package will come back to the Planning
Commission and to the City Council for completion by December 14"'.
Chair Davis stated that these studies will be done, recommendations/suggestions made and asked
if the property owner can suggest what they want. He asked if the owner can come to the
Planning Commission and City Council with their plan that may bear no resemblance to what
these studies think is the best plan. Community Development Director Juetten responded that
any property owner has the right to propose whatever they want to but the city still has the right
to make decisions based on their comprehensive plan and whether or not the zoning of the
property is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Community Development Director Juetten confirmed for Chair Davis that if the zoning that is
tied to the property is consistent with the comprehensive plan, we have some controls on how
much of something could happen at the property.
Commissioner Petrash asked if we, as a community, have a responsibility to other communities
about cannibalization and suggested that is why someone is here from the county. Community
Development Director Juetten responded that we care and should care in making sure that what
we do and what the other communities do so that we don't saturate the market to the point where
we have empty spaces. He said that the county involvement with the project is specific to the
stormwater and creek and not market area or to try to coordinate how the different city's deal
with each other.
Page 19
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
May 18,2011
Page 9
Commissioner Petrash stated that the report was great as far as demographics and projections
ahead. He asked how current development enters into our thinking. Planning Manager Thomson
responded to keep in mind that the information provided was for the portion of Plymouth around
the Four Seasons Mall. She said that demographics are changing overall and that is a factor here
as well. Commissioner Petrash said that builders are worried about what they can build and sell
over the next two years and he asked if we should be thinking about what happens 10 to 15 years
from now and what we could do about it. Planning Manager Thomson replied that we should be
thinking about it. She said that the northwest area of Plymouth does not have the highway
system and the commercial areas the rest of the city has. She said that it is not suited for higher
density and there are a lot of wetlands. She said that development going in is more suited to the
land that is there.
Commissioner Oakley asked if the site design will be looking exclusively at mixed use
developments or will there be a variety of solutions proposed. Community Development
Director Juetten responded that we have not sat down with the design consultants yet as they are
waiting for the market study to be finished first. He said that Commissioner Oakley could ask
that they look at different uses.
Commissioner Oakley stated that the community retail comments in the report had detailed
numbers on the square footage available and what will be needed. He said that his calculation
would be slightly less than one big box over on our 2020 projection. He said that one thing not
considered is the age of the existing retail facilities and whether those will remain viable in the
future. He said that those are considerations as we took at upgrading senior housing and the
same type of consideration could be applied to upgrading retail. He said that he believes that it is
very important when a city undertakes a project like this to take an even handed look at all viable
solutions and he thinks that we have a very viable solution in big box retail because they own the
site. He said that he would like to see a fair evaluation given to both sides.
Commissioner Anderson stated that there are three alternatives listed in the market study. He
said that the only thing that makes sense to him is having medical adjacent to senior housing
because those folks need the medical more so than the rest of us. He said that he also saw in the
report a market need for rental housing. He said that he agrees that with the rental that is
available south of the site that is appropriate to not study that anymore and want to provide some
other needs for the area.
MOTION by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to forward all
comments received on the Four Seasons Mall Market Study to the City Council. Vote. 7 Ayes.
MOTION approved.
8. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Chair Davis, without objection, to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Page 20
Revised: June 2, 2011
City of Plymouth Engineering Department
Active and Pending Capital Improvement Projects
.. :.3� ,t .,,E.,,,.,,F.,.,,,
.. . t..:.,,: { .: i; ,,.FF ;�+ 4 .. }, —,.. ; - F E4^ - EE e=^E2i=i.+°ivS>=d , =e<9v,E,=E, •, E•=FF ,I==,4` ,tEF•=e4<,FF='.'FE FE==,F Fe!S t
�}�. �j p , > , , : , , _ ,_,< ,,.{• <, x .,f, ,., � 7# _:E lE € < =S E< >de•>><..,7.=>..,€€ F _ .
„ t i ,: _ _.? . .,.f., . ,..:, <€:., { •f, +.f
a.�1 �G�tV _, _. .,i., .=. .1:t .. ., , t . ., �„ ,... F4 .,.., _, - .,.. ,.: ,.:.,: _ . .
,<...<. ... .. ..... . . 3, .+., t... ,E€ €.: ,$ .€, ,$ . _,} .1<.
„ ..+,'>'.,.. _€>,_. >, ,s E ..{„ , E, € €
°=iY y }
- ;E , €- {
- �,
,.{ ,.•P. }. >FSt-=•:EKI€='€€- t€Eev4E'fml', . .tl,t t.t € s
?. �•_
WT =,�=;i� '.f;
S 3 E E€ E € €iE== y $—�
Ct.P Na �T a :,Des ri do Mana erE ; des
p
.. .{3,€{ ,I ,.Consult .otal }. ,�.t ;� , € .Qurcent-.N , .f t ,?
t.t .. ,t , uE i
5102
S
CR 101, CR 6 to
DC/BM
Henn.
$17,000,000
The road was opened to traffic on Friday October 29th. Work has been suspended for the year. Restoration of the boulevard
CR 24
Co.
areas, landscaping, and the final layer of blacktop will be completed in the spring of 2011. Tree planting in selected areas will
begin in April. Landscaping and utility punch list work is underway.
7111
WR
Mooney Lake
BM
Wenck
$250,000
Construction has been completed and reimbursement request submitted to MCWD 1213108. Partial payment was received from
Pump Project
MCW D on 12/22108.
7135
WR
Wild Wings
DA
$375,000
This project is substantially complete. Restoration has been completed and ready for staff review. Final payment is
Wetland Cleaning
anticipated for the June 14, 2011 City Council agenda.
8101
S
2008 Street
JP
$8,100,000
Work has been substantially completed. Miscellaneous punch list items and warranty work are still being completed.
Reconstruction
8128
WR
Plymouth Creek
DA
$1,200,000
This project is substantially complete. Repair of eroded areas from recent heavy rain and completion of live stake
Restoration (26th
installation are only remaining items. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission will tour this site in the summer.
Ave/ W Med Lk
9113
S
Cimarron Ponds
JP
$2,200,000
All subcutting work has been completed on this project. Curb and gutter installation is scheduled to begin June 2. This
Reconstruction
promect is scheduled to be completed bV August 15th of this year.
9122
WR
South Parkers Lk
DA
$50,000
Project is substantially complete. Project closeout is anticipated by June 30, 2011.
Channel
Restoration
9126
WR
Ranchview 1
DA
$125,000
This project will relieve flooding and constricted water flow near the intersection of Ranchview Lane and Medina Road. Plans,
Medina Road
specifications, and permit applications are being prepared.
Wetland
9127
WR
Bass Lake Outlet
DA
$225,000
This project will relieve constricted water flow near the outlet of Bass Lake. Plans and permit applications are being prepared
including preparation of an Enviornmental Assessment Worksheet. EAW is expected to be published in EQB Monitor in
June 2011.
10001
S
2010 Str Recon (E
JP
$7,380,000
The project has been completed, with minor punch list items remaining. The Assessment Hearing is scheduled for June 14.
Parkers Lk,
Notices have been mailed and published in accordance with State Statute.
25th/Polaris
10002
S
S Shore Dr Street
JR
$885,000
The project has been completed except for minor punchlist items.
Pro'ect
10005
S
2010 Mill &
DC
$810,000
All contract items have been completed, pending final payment.
Overlay
10014
SS
Imperial Hills Lift
SN
AE2S
$740,000
Plans and specs were approved by Council on January 25, 2011. Bids will be opened on February 17, 2011. Bids have been
Station
opened and a contract award is anticipated for March 8, 2011. Contract was awarded to Minger Construction.
10017
WR
Parkers Lk Storm
SN
SRF
$800,000
Plans and specs will be considered for approval by Council on February 8, 2011. Bids to be opened on March 17, 2011. A
—p
Sewer Lift Station
contract award to Northwest Asphalt is anticipated on April 12, 2011.
020
S
2010 Temporary
JR
$420,000
Knife River has completed the project.
Overla
021
W
MIP Tower
SN
$550,000
Project has been modified to also include Zachary tower and CR 101 tower for inspections. Once inspections have been
I
Painting
125,
completed by consultant, a determination of which tower to paint will be made. A final inspection report will be completed June
2010. Repairs, upgrades and painting will be done in 2011.
Page 1 Q\Documents and Settings\dtiegs1ocal SettingslTemporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook11E2BNUPH\Active_Pending_CIP_060211
Revised: June 2, 2011
City of Plymouth Engineering Department
Active and Pending Capital Improvement Projects
,,
6
.... -.[ „•-r:•-r: rx•,,
ro
}} ,,, .J..,..,,. ,[ F }E ,,,,€
„s ,,: , ,,., ,>,.{,E-„,-,>„.,
r,
� '.,.
.., 4> 1
<,
P>t. ,.f. ',
4 }.,.,.,.r,.x
' °:
>,3
., ,,.,'?,. :-
f t ,; t } ,-; -{ i,;:`<€s t°t s • €, { }', ,>sr°t€}"r.§i.ti':' ;'i.t ,°ia'"' ; 3 ,
4 i-- 3. >}E,} is ''s{4t- <.€{<.€{ ,�E,e .f. f. t€• t:{'r F:.. -.}. ..
<, .> i, .:; y , E ,, t € , f`< <.i'<°£•< I: {
t .{ t !- �
•, . •r` tgat,,.
,CIP,,Na.l•... e
g,. , - , - >a}il:i
> ° , cry
, .},.
Ma r'.:
gr...r,.
,..
srrt
�..
, .$}v , • - . ,;9 u}di
al Cos..,
.I •. ,r v, r t is. ¢
,;;°E., ,E'„ :,{' .....
......:.............r.:s. J,Y..: f.Er..t..F»..,
..,,, :,e„�r,.,,,?.9.3�...If..r..,...,...,..,
,... . ,...v.s.......r,.:
.... .. .,. r :
..
s..H .......r.,.,.. .} :s.. '-� i . { ..,F i . iz.<
10024
W
Well No. 17 (5A)
SN
Bonestr
$700,000
Consultant has been selected. Kickoff meeting has been held and preliminary design is underway. Drilling of first test well is
underway. First and second test wells failed. Drilling of third test well is pending.
10026
S
Vicksburg Lane
JR
$350,000
Project has been completed
Overlay
10030
S
Rail Crossing
JR
$272,500
Project constructs improvements at the Canadian Pacific Railroad crossing at Nathan Lane by likely installing 2 additional
Improvements-
crossing gates
Nathan Lane
11001
W
Zachary Water
SN
$60,000
Tower to be power washed this year. Repainting to be done in 2014.
Tower
11002
S
Annapolis Lane
JR
$2,740,000
GMH Asphalt began construction on May 31. Heavy construction will be completed by the end of July, with restoration
Reconstruction
and the last lift of asphalt completed by the end of August.
11003
W
Refurbish Wells
SN
$220,000
Well Nos. 6, 9, & 13 to be refurbished. Well No. 9 work is completed. Pump has been replaced on Well No. 13.
11006
S
Suncourt
JP
On April 26th, the City Council awarded this project to Rum River Contracting. The project is scheduled to begin in early July.
Reconstruction
11007
S
Peony Lane Mill &
DC
$420,000
Council scheduled to receive the Preliminary Engineering Report on February 22, 2011. A Public Hearing was held on March 22,
Overlay
2011. Council will be asked to approve plans and order bids on April 12, 2011, with bids to be opened on May 10, 2011.
11010
S
Lancaster Lane
DC
$2,275,000
Council will be asked to receive Preliminary Engineering Report on April 12, 2011 and to schedule Public Improvement Hearing
Reconstruction
for May 10, 2011.
11012
S
2011 Edge Mill
JR
$1,100,000
City Council approved plans and specifications, and ordered the advertisement for bids on May 24. Bid opening
and Overlay
scheduled for June 22.
11013
SS
2011 Sanitary
JR
$500,000
Insituform Tech. has completed cleaning the lines. The lining began on May 31 and will likely take 1-2 months to
Sewer Lining
complete.
11014
S
Niagara Lane
JR
$120,000
Design is underway
Retaining Wall
-v
ua
rD
N
N
Page 2 C:IDocuments and Settingsldtiegs1ocal Settings7emporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook11E2BNUPHIActive—Pending_CIP 060211
Revised: June 2, 2011
City of Plymouth Engineering Department
Active and Pendina Capital Improvement Proiects
.-..
}_.� '1}' }i d-
=>t3�u_.r,.r
„ C >9 .i .3• _ ;�i, {E ' i;:f::;. e.i3 . t s
�.•� =n,a t= } f
�1.
Notes.,t }
4- -"E 1'.'E�_:.} , f 1E ,
19 .f .< , � ,{ i -{
...
pp::.� ......
5122
S
CR 24, Olive Ln
DC/BM
Henn.
$2,500,000Prelimina
Preliminary layout approved by City Council 611:4: 05:. Hennepin County has included this project in its CIP for 2013.Hennepin
to 32nd Ave.
Co.
County has now moved the project back to 2014. Hennepin County has moved the project to 2015.
11 -ST -9
S
Replace Concrete
*
$80,000
Replace the existing concrete intersection at Cheshire Lane and 53rd Ave in the Reserve. Design is underway.
Intersection- The
Reserve
11 -ST-
S
Concrete
$50,000
Replace concrete sidewalk as necessary throughout the city. Design is underway.
10
Sidewalk
lReplacement
9-W-1
W
Watermain -
$370,000
Dependent on development. Construction is anticipated to be started in 2011.
Cheshire Ln. -
Glacier Vista to
CR 47
8-W-3
W
Trunk Water Main
$710,000
Dependent on development. Trunk water main installation has been completed in the Spring Meadows, Taylor Creek, and
Oversizing
Hampton Hills developments. Trunk water main installation has been completed in the Arbor Grove development (no City cost).
8 -SS -2
SS
Trunk Sanitary
$300,000
Dependent on development. Trunk sewer installation has been completed in the Spring Meadows, Taylor Creek, and Hampton
Sewer Oversizin
Hills developments. Trunk sewer installation is complete in the Arbor Grove development.
10 -WR -2
WR
2010 Drainage
$200,000
Drainage work at 26th and Shadyview was completed last fall. Design of erosion repair project in Nature Canyon Park is
Improvements
scheduled for this winter.
6 -WR -2
WR
Water Quality
$90,000
Sediment delta in pond at 19th and Dunkirk was removed last summer_ Sediment removal of ponds in l'orsters Preserve and
Pond Maint
Orchards of Plymouth is scheduled for this winter. Bids for this work were rejected and the work will be rebid for 2011-12.
11019
1 WR
Erosion Repair -
DA
$275,000
A neighborhood meeting was held on April 19, 2011. Comments from the neighborhood and several site visits have taken
Conor Meadows
place. Draft plans are antici ated by the end of-MaV, 2011.
8 -WR -6
WR
Turtle Lake Outlet
DA
$35,000
A neighborhood meeting was held on April 25, 2011. Comments were received from residents on water levels in Turtle Lake.
Staff isreviewing comments and researching if issues regarding water levels in Turtle Lake can be addressed -
11 -SS -2
SS
Conor Meadows
*
$200,000
Project will abandon existing lift station and is dependent on sanitary sewer installation in Elm Creek Highlands 3rd Addition
Lift Station
(anticipated in 2011 and in Elm Creek Highlands East(pending final plat submittal and approval) developments.
Page 3 C:Oocuments and Settingsldtiegs\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\IE2BNUPH1Active_Pending_C1P_060211
n i II
- s�int,
r C May 26, 2011
Doran Cote, Director of Public Works
City of Plymouth
3400Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Doran:
We are writing to express our appreciation of Joe Paumen and Barry Sullivan regarding
the Cimarron Ponds road construction project. The project is a complex one, indeed.
Not only are there many facets to the construction process itself, but your engineering
department is dealing with multiple situations of the residents at Cimmaron Ponds.
I have spoken to Joe Paumen on many occasions to alert him to our unique needs. My
husband had abdominal surgery in late April. Just prior to surgery, he fell and broke his
leg. This has complicated his recovery, as well as extending his stay in a medical
facility. It was important to me to be able to get him to the hospital and to be available
at all hours should he require attention. Joe has been most congenial and has
effectively addressed our situation.
Daily management of our situation has been carried out by Barry Sullivan. His help and
guidance has been invaluable. For example, on May 24 h we had to be able to exit our
garage at 10 a.m., having packed necessary items to be away for a week. We talked
briefly the day before to confirm the plans. Unbeknownst to Mr. Sullivan, the evening
before our departure I severely injured my knee. The next challenge he faced was the
contractor crew started working on our street (instead of the specified one) at 7:30 the
morning of the 2e. Mr. Sullivan contacted us immediately and assured us he would
get us out the driveway. In the meantime, I was trying to contact my physician to see
what my options were. So there we were phoning and getting last minute items out
toward the vehicle in a haphazard way as my husband was on a walker and I was on
crutches (in a fair amount of pain). Mr. Sullivan graciously offered to help us pack the
vehicle and supervised us leaving the driveway. His help and understanding could not
have been more welcomed. This is the sign of a truly dedicated and proficient worker
who goes far beyond the job description to do much more than satisfactory work.
We hope this letter serves as a point of recognition for both Mr. Sullivan and Mr.
Paumen. They represent the Public Works Department well and serve the public with
exemplary skill.
With sincere appreciation,
j
ancy C ac en and Ron nderson
1014 Yuma Laic North
Cc: Joe Paumen, City Engineering Department
Barry Sullivan, City Engineering Department
Laurie Ahrens, City Manager, City of Plymouth Minnesota
� (Kelly Slavik, Mayor, City of Plymouth Minnesota
Page 24
May 10, 2011
MAY 3 1 2011
City of Plymouth
Laurie Ahrens
City Manager
Plymouth, MN 55447-1482
730 Florida Avenue South
Golden Valley, Mfg 55426
www.prismmpis.org
Thank you so much for your generous contribution to PRISM. It is only through
community support such as yours that we are able to continue this vital work with local
families.
763.529.1350
763.529.1454
In these difficult times, more and more people are looking to PRISM for help. More and
more PRISM is looking to you and other compassionate people like you for help to
enable us to be there when the crisis hits families.
Thank you for your part in making PRISM a place of hope in this community! l
Sincerely and grateful y,
_1
Eli a eth Johns
Executive Director PRISM Board Member
r 1A-
74 ,
S�1 j e ! Vrl
4�tl
Page 25
City '
4 9,3�
Pilyant6cut'h
ridding Quality to Life
June 3, 2011
SUBJECT: PUD AMENDMENT FOR WAYZATA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
AT 1605 COUNTY ROAD 101. (201103 1)
Dear Resident/Land Owner:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this letter is to inform you of an
application submitted by Wayzata Independent School District 4284, under File No. 2011031,
requesting approval of a PUD amendment for property located at 1605 County Road 101. A
map showing the location of the subject property is provided below. The applicant proposes to
add a drop-in child care center as a permitted use. The child care center would be located within
the Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners building. No new construction is proposed in
conjunction with this request.
Hennepin County records indicate your property is located within 750 feet of the site of this
proposal. You are hereby notified of, and cordially invited to attend a public hearing to be held
by the Plymouth Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m., on Wednesday, June 15, 2011, in the
Council Chambers at the Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard. The public will be
invited to offer questions and comments concerning this application at that time, or feel free to
call the city planning department at (763) 509-5450 for more information. You may submit
comments in writing. All written comments will become part of the public record.
INFORMATION relating to this request may be examined at the community development
information counter (lower level of City HaIl), on Mondays and Wednesday through Friday from
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Tuesdays from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except holidays.
Sincerely,
Barbara G. Thomson, AICP
Planning Manager
notices/2011/2011031 propnotice
3400 ply :OUth Btvd s Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 � Tet: 763-509-5000 'VVWw ptyrnouthrnn.gov
Page 26
/.O,'„�
ounty Road6
notices/2011/2011031 propnotice
3400 ply :OUth Btvd s Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 � Tet: 763-509-5000 'VVWw ptyrnouthrnn.gov
Page 26
Adding Quality to Life
June 3, 2011
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH.
(2011032)
Dear Resident/ Land Owner:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this letter is to inform you of a
request by the City of Plymouth, under File No. 2011032, for approval of a preliminary plat to be
called "Dog Park" for the roughly 7.7 -acre site located at 5835 Dunkirk Lane with variances for
lot area, lot width and access to a public right-of-way. The city would purchase Lot 1 to become
part of the Egan Dog Park. Lot 2 would be retained by the existing property owner. No
construction is proposed at this time. A map showing the location of the subject property is
provided below.
Hennepin County records indicate your property is located within 750 feet of the site of this
proposal. You are hereby notified of, and cordially invited to attend a public hearing to be held
by the Plymouth Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m., on Wednesday, June 15, 2011, in the
Council Chambers at Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard. The public will be invited
to offer questions and comments concerning this application at that time, or feel free to call the
city planning department at (763) 509-5450 for more information. You may also submit
comments in writing. All written comments will become part of the public record.
NFOR1-MATION relating to this request may be examined at the community development
information counter (lower level of City Hall), on Mondays and Wednesday through Friday from
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Tuesdays from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except holidays,
Sincerely,
"
Barbara G. Thomson, AICP
Planning Manager
0 Man,No[iee- 0201112011032 prepeetice
3400 PlyrirIouth Blvd - Plymouth; Minnesota 55.147-14082 a Tel 763-509-5000 - www.plymouthnin.gov Al
Page 27
City of
mouthP1
Adding Quality to Life
June 2, 2011
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR BASS LAKE
WETLAND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT
Dear Property Owner:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this Ietter is to inform you of a
required Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) to assess the potential envirornnental
impacts related to the proposed Bass Lake Wetland Drainage Improvement project. The project
is located east of Bass Lake and west of Zachary Lane. The City of Plymouth proposes to
excavate channels in public water 96W to relieve the potential for flooding of private properties.
You are hereby notified of, and cordially invited to attend a Public Meeting to be held by the
Plymouth PIanning Commission at 7:00 p.m., on Wednesday, June 15, 2011, in the Council
Chambers at the Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard. The public will be invited to
offer questions and comments concerning this application at that time, of feel free to call the City
Engineering Department at (763) 509-5500 for more information.
INFORMATION relating to this request may be examined at the Engineering Information
Counter (lower level), Mondays through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 430 p.m., except holidays.
Sincerely,
Barbara G. Thomson, AICP
Planning Manager
3400 Plymouth Blvd e P[ymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 - TeL: 763-509-5000 www.pLymouthmn.gov
Page 28