HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 07-08-2011CITY OF PLYMOUTH
rp) COUNCIL INFO MEMO
July 8, 2011
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS
July, August, September 2011 Official City Meeting Calendars......................................................... Page 1
Tentative List of Agenda Items for Future City Council Meetings ..................................................... Page 4
INFORMATION
News Articles, Releases, Publications, Etc ...
CenterPoint Energy Awards the City of Plymouth Community Partnership Grant, News Release .... Page 5
Ehlers Market Commentary 07/05/11................................................................................................. Page 6
MEETING MINUTES
Planning Commission Minutes 06/15/11............................................................................................ Page 8
CORRESPONDENCE
MN Pollution Control Agency, Notice requesting comments on the draft Shingle Creek and
Bass Creek Biota and Dissolved Oxygen Total Maximum Daily Load Report ......................... Page 23
Letter to Resident, RE: Site Plan Amendment for the City of Plymouth 2011045 ........................... Page 27
Letter to Resident, RE: Variance approval for Eckerline 2011049 ................................................... Page 28
Letter to Resident, RE: Rezoning and PUD for Cornerstone Auto Resource 2011037 .................... Page 29
up,,ymouth
Adding Quality to Life
July 2011
Modified on 07108111
CHANGES ARE NOTED IN RED
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6 7:00 PM
7
8
9
PLANNING
COMMISSION
INDEPENDENCE
INDEPENDENCE DAY
MEETING
DAY
OBSERVED
Council Chambers
CITY OFFICES
CLOSED
10
11
12 7:00 PM
13 7:00 PM
14
15
16
REGULAR
SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING
PACT MEETING
Council Chambers
Medicine Lake Room
Metrolink Contigency
Plans
6:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
(EQC) TOUR
Plymouth Creek Center
17
18
19
20 7:00 PM
21
22
2 3
PLANNING
7:00 PM
COMMISSION
HRA MEETING
MEETING
Parkers Lake Room
Council Chambers
24
25
26 5:00 PM
27 7:00 PM
28
29
30
SPECIAL COUNCIL
PLYMOUTH
MEETING
ADVISORY
Budget Study Session
COMMITTEE ON
Medicine Lake Room
TRANSIT (PACT)
MEETING
7:00 PM
Medicine Lake Room
REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING
31
Council Chambers
Modified on 07108111
CHANGES ARE NOTED IN RED
Page 1
r� Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
August 2011
Modified on 07108111
Page 2
1
2 2:30-5:00 PM
3 7:00 PM
4 7:00 PM
5
6
NIGHT TO UNITE
PLANNING
HUMAN RIGHTS
KICKOFF
COMMISSION
COMMITTEE
Plymouth Creek Center
MEETING
MEETING
Council Chambers
Medicine Lake Roam
6:30-9:30 PM
NIGHT TO UNITE
7
8
9 6:00 PM
10 7:00 PM
11
12
13
SPECIAL COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL
MEETING'
QUALITY
Medicine Lake Room
COMMITTEE
7:00 PM
(EQC) MEETING
REGULAR COUNCIL
Council Chambers
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 Roam
Councit Chambers
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
5:30 PM
7:00 PM
SPECIAL COUNCIL
HRA MEETING
MEETING
Parkers Lake Room
2012-2016 CIP
Medicine Lake Room
7:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL
MEETING
Council Chambers
28
29
30
31
" Joint meeting with PACT
to discuss operations
Modified on 07108111
Page 2
Plymouth��
Adding Quality to Life
September 2011
Modified on 07108111
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5 jjj�
6
7
8
9
10
6:00 PM
CANCELLED
7:00 PM
SPECIAL COUNCIL
PLANNING
PARK & REC
MEETING
COMMISSION
ADVISORY
LABOR DAYBudget
Study Session
MEETING
If Necessary
Medicine Lake Roam
(PRAQCOMMISSION
MEETING
CITY OFFICES
Medicine Lake Room
unril
Coouncil Chambers
CLOSED
11
12
13
147:00 PM
15
16
17
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULAR COUNCIL
QUALITY
MEETING
COMMITTEE
Council Chambers
(EQC) MEETING
Parkers Lake Room
18
19
20
217:00 PM
22
23
24 9:OO AM
PLANNING
6:00-9:00 PM
PLYMOUTH
OPEN HOUSE
FIREFIGHTERS SK
COMMISSION
FOUR SEASONS
Fire Station #2
MEETING
MALL STUDY
Medicine Lake Room
Plymouth Creek
11:30 AM
Center
;PLYMOUTH ON
7:00 PM
PARADE
HRA MEETING
CELEBRATION
Parkers Lake Room
City Center Area
25
26
27 7:00 PM
28
29
30
REGULAR COUNCIL
MEETING
Medicine Lake Room
Rosh Hashanah
Begins at Sunset
Modified on 07108111
Page 3
Tentative Schedule for
City Council Agenda Items
July 26, Special, 5:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
• Discuss 2012/2013 Budget
• Set Future Study Sessions
July 26, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Announce "Night to Unite" on August)
• Present Environmental Champions
• Project hearing for Edge and Mill Overlay Project (11012)
August 9, Special, 6:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
• Joint meeting with Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit to discuss operations
• Set Future Study Sessions
August 9, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Presentation by County Commissioner Jeff Johnson
August 16, Special, 6:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
• Discuss 2012/2013 Budget
• Set Future Study Sessions
August 23, Special, 5:30 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
• Discuss 2012-2016 Capital Improvement Program
• Set Future Study Sessions
August 23, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
September 6, Special, 6:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
• Discuss 2012/2013 Budget (ij'needed)
• Set Future Study Sessions
September 13, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Approve 2012/2013 proposed budgets, preliminary tax levies and budget hearing date
September 27, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
October 11, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
October 25, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
November 8, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
November 22, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
December 131 Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Adopt the 2012 Budgets and Tax Levies and 2012-2016 Capital Improvement Program
Note: Special Meeting topics have been set by Council; all other topics are tentative. Page 4
C CenterPoini .
Energy
For Immediate Release
For more information contact
Becca Virden
Phone 612.321.4879
Pager 612.531.1234
CenterPoint Energy Awards the City of Plymouth
Community Partnership Grant
Company awards nearly ,128,000 in grants to 83 coinmunities for safety equipment
MINNEAPOLIS —June 28, 2011 —CenterPoint Energy recently awarded the City
Of Plyn1011th a Coninitinity Partnership Grant in the an1011llt of $650 for an atitolnated external
defibrillator for the lire department that will be used to serve the community.
"We are pleased that our Conirniulity Partnership Grants twill help cities in our service
area leverage local funding to obtain additional tools and safety, egt6pnient, enabling them to
better serve their coniniunit_y," said Tal Centers, division vice president of regional operations
for CenterPoint Energy. "This program allows us to work closely with the cities we serve to
help make our communities better and safer places to live and work,"
In 2011. the prograin awarded grants up to $2,500 for safety cquipinent or safety
related projects to support emergency response or safety for the citizens of the community.
Priority is given to Franchised conlmLill ities that have not received a grant in the last year.
To see what CenterPoint Energy is doing in the coniniunity, please visit
CenterPoitit Ener,v.coni/conirniniity.
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., headquartered in Houston. Texas, is a doniestic energy
delivery company that includes electric transmission and distribution, natural gas distribution.
conipetitive natural gas sales and services, interstate pipelines and field services operations.
The company serves more than five niillion nletcred customers primarily in Arkansas,
1✓01iisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas. Assets total more than $19 billion.
With about 8,900 employees; CenterPoint Energy and its predecessor companies have been in
business for more than 135 years. In Minnesota, CenterPoint Energy is the state's largest
natural gas distribution utility, serving about 800.000 customers in 260 communities. The
utility also operates a nein-regulated business in Minnesota called Home Service Plusaua. For
more information, visit CeiiterPuiiitEnertkv.conl.
###
Page t of 7
Page 5
Ehlers Market Commentary
July 5, 2011
A New Direction for Interest Rates
The past week saw the yield on the bellwether 10 year maturity U.S. Treasury Note reach a low for the
current decade (2.86%), followed by the largest weekly increase in its yield since 2009 to about
3.20%. Several events in the financial markets and world economy may have influenced this dramatic
movement in rates. The event that dominated the financial headlines was the intermediate resolution
of the Greek sovereign debt crisis via a combination of austerity measures by the Greek government
and additional lending by banks in the stronger members of the EU. This reversed the "flight to
safety" movement of investors away from European sovereign bonds and global equities to the
perceived safe haven of U.S. Treasury securities (especially those of shorter maturities).
Other factors were also at play to decrease demand for U.S. Treasury debt. (Normally decreased
demand translates to lower prices and higher yields on fixed-income securities, such as U.S. treasury
notes or bonds and municipal bonds.)
Good nei s for stacks = bad news for bmids. Despite the fact that U.S. unemployment levels
have remained stubbornly high (in the 9% range) and mixed signals have appeared from
various economic indicators, there is a perception that the U.S. economy is headed in a
positive direction. Bloomberg News reported that the Business Barometer complied by the
Institute for Supply Management -Chicago rose to 61.1 instead of the expectation of a fall to
54 (any reading above 50 indicates expansion). The most widely followed U.S. stock market
indices all rose around 5% last week - their best week in 2011.
U.S. Federal Reset-ve completed its U.S. Treasury securities pin -chase program. This $600
Billion program had been designed to increase available capital in the U.S. banking system
and to generally hold interest rates down. The program ended as planned at the end of June
to little fanfare, with no announcement of plans for future purchases. To wit, the various
Treasury auctions that occurred during the period encompassing this update exhibited some
of the poorest subscription levels in recent memory and coincident with the Fed's exit from
the aforementioned program.
The steepness of the yield curve, as measured by the difference between yields on short and long term
U.S. Treasury securities, is at one of the widest spreads in history. The yield on Treasury Inflation
Protected Securities is also high, with the 10 year rate at 2.41% versus the five year average of 2.10%.
These two measures are seen as indicators of inflation expectations and, by extension, interest rates.
EHLERS
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
www,ehlers-inc.com
Offices in Nlinnesota: (800) 552-1171
Wisconsin {800} 7'17-9742
Illinois (800) 417-1119
Page 6
_EM
Ehlers Market Commentary July 5, 2011
Whether this all constitutes a trend toward higher interest rates remains to be seen. U.S. primary
dealers and major institutional investors on the whole are forecasting interest rates rising by as much
as 0.50% by the end of this year. On the other hand, those same players for the most part did not
anticipate the significant decrease in rates earlier this year. That being said, we are now witnessing the
largest purchaser and current largest holder of U.S. Treasury securities (the Fed) take a step back fiom
being the leader in demand, going forward, which will undoubtedly have a major impact on financial
markets, in general and across many different sectors.
Finally, some perspective is in order, Even with a rise to 3.50% in yield, the 10 year U.S. Treasury
would be yielding only about half of the 7.00% which, on average, investors demanded over the last
40 years. In other words, we are still in a historically low interest rate environment.
Municipal Rate Movements Fallow Treasuries Higher
A look at competitive, municipal bond sales in our region in the last two weeks showed some of the
lowest rates in 2011, with a number of issuers realizing True Interest Rates of less than 2% for debt
sold in the five to ten year maturity range. However nearly all of these sales were before the upward
interest rate movements, beginning Tuesday last week.
Municipal bond indices all followed the U.S. Treasury market in terms of upward direction in rates,
albeit with less pronounced movements. As an example. the MMD 10 year AAA rate, as reported by
Thompson Municipal Market Monitor rose from 2.631 o to 2.75% for the week. Similarly the MMD
10 year `A' rate rose from 3.70% to 3.79%.
Again, as with U.S. Treasury rates, it is helpful to look at history. The end -of -month MMD 10 year
AAA index was as low as 2.18% last August and as high as 3.31% in January. A much longer-term
perspective is gained from viewing another index, the 20 year Bond Buyer Index, which finished the
week at 4.45% - more than 1.50% below its 30 year average of around 6.00%u.
What this means for municipal borrowers, is that although rates have increased from their recent,
historic lows, they are currently at much lower rates than most of our lifetimes. If debt is needed to
finance capital projects or to achieve savings through refinancing, there would seem to be little to be
gained by waiting.
- EHLERS
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
www.ehlers-inc.com
Page 7
!Page
Approved Minutes
City of Plymouth
Planning Commission Meeting
June 15, 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: Planning Manager Barbara Thomson, Senior Planner Marie Darling, 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 Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve the June
15, 2011 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 1, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to approve the June
1, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Vote. 6 Ayes (Chair Davis abstained).
MOTION approved.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. WAYZATA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #284 (2011031)
Chair Davis introduced the request by Wayzata Independent School District #284 for a PUD
amendment for a child care center within the Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners PUD
for property located at 1605 County Road 101.
Senior Planner Darling gave an overview of the staff report.
Commissioner Anderson asked why there was additional language in the draft ordinance listing
the City Council resolution number. Senior Planner Darling replied that with each PUD
Page 8
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15, 2011
Page 2
amendment, staff refers to the approving PUD general plan amendment resolution so that they
cross reference each other.
Commissioner Nelson asked if the applicant was already approved for a daycare/child care
facility license. Senior Planner Darling deferred that question to the applicant.
Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Terry Schneider, representing Interfaith Outreach and
Community Partners. Mr. Schneider introduced Marcia Treno, representing Wayzata
Community Education, in charge of child care.
Ms. Treno responded that Wayzata Public Schools already has an early childhood day care/child
care license for their program that is located within the Central Middle School. She said that the
Interfaith would be considered by the State Department of Human Services to be a satellite site.
She said that it would need to be independently licensed and that an application has been
submitted. She said that the license cannot be finalized until inspections are completed. She said
that the facility will need to be in accordance with all the guidelines set forth in licensing
requirements so that there would not be a delay for their July I" deadline.
Commissioner Kobussen stated that the hours of operation listed would be from 9:00 a.m. to
Noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. He asked if they would ever operate through the noon hour
since they would have drop -ins and other people who might want to be there during the noon
hour. Ms. Treno replied that at this point, there is no intent to have a full day program there.
She said that part of the stipulation to have a drop-in, is that the children are there no longer than
three hours.
Chair Davis opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the
item.
MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the
request by Wayzata Independent School District #284 for a PUD amendment for a child care
center within the Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners PUD for property located at 1605
County Road 101. Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously.
Page 9
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15, 2011
Page 3
B. CITY OF PLYMOUTH (2011032)
Chair Davis introduced the request by the City of Plymouth for a preliminary plat and variances
for "Dog Park", a two -lot subdivision for the purpose of acquiring additional land for the
Northwest Greenway and Plymouth Dog Park for property located at 5835 Dunkirk Lane North.
Senior Planner Darling gave an overview of the staff report.
Commissioner Kobussen asked if there was already a variance approved for the current site since
it doesn't meet the requirements for FRD or if it was grandfathered in previous to the zoning.
Senior Planner Darling responded that when the FRD district was put in place with the 20 acre
minimum lot size and the 500 foot frontage requirements, there was another section in the city
code adopted that said that if the lots existed prior to the adoption date of that particular section
of the ordinance, they were considered conforming lots at their present size.
Chair Davis asked if the city had any plans to expand the dog park as a result of the purchase of
this property. Senior Planner Darling replied that there are no plans along those lines right now.
At the request of Commissioner Anderson and Chair Davis, Senior Planner Darling showed how
this site fits into the overall Northwest Greenway corridor plan and where the current dog park is
located using the Parks and Trails Plan page from the city's Comprehensive Plan.
Senior Planner Darling confirmed for Commissioner Oakley the current property boundaries and
where the city will be acquiring more land for neighborhood park facilities and for the Northwest
Greenway trail corridor.
Commissioner Oakley asked if Dunkirk Lane was proposed to have a 66 foot right-of-way
eventually or if that would potentially be a different size. Senior Planner Darling responded that
Dunkirk Lane would be a minor collector and would typically have a 60 foot right-of-way. She
said that the extra three feet on this side of the property related to the fact that there is already a
street easement over that portion of the property.
Commissioner Oakley asked if the proposed development on the other side of Dunkirk Lane
would dedicate a 30 foot easement on that side. City Engineer Moberg replied that on that
particular piece of property, there was a 40 -foot wide roadway easement that was secured across
that piece of property when it was subdivided a number of years ago. He said that in theory,
there could end up being as much as 73 feet of dedicated right-of-way through that area. He said
that in the Spring Meadows development, the city asked the applicant to confirm that, in that
extra 7 feet over 33, there were no private utilities (overhead power lines, gas, telephone, etc.) or
that they could demonstrate that if there were utilities in that 7 -foot wide strip, they would be
willing to relocate them into a narrower right-of-way corridor. He said that in this case when we
are looking at the 33 feet of existing easement, we don't want to necessarily require less right-of-
way and then find out that there are utilities outside the 33 feet that would then be forced to
relocate. He said that could then incur some costs to have that done and we don't want to create
that hardship.
Page 10
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15, 2011
Page 4
Chair Davis opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the
item.
Commissioner Anderson stated that it was nice to see the city making progress on the Northwest
Greenway corridor and being creative in how they are acquiring land, He said that he would
vote in support of this preliminary plat and variance request.
MOTION by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to approve the
request by the City of Plymouth for a preliminary plat and variances for "Dog Park", a two -lot
subdivision for the purpose of acquiring additional land for the Northwest Greenway and
Plymouth Dog Park for property located at 5835 Dunkirk Lane North.
Chair Davis stated that he agreed with Commissioner Anderson that it was good to see the city
moving ahead, especially with the dog park as there have been some complaints from neighbors.
He added that putting a buffer in between the park and the future developments was a good idea.
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved.
C. WAYZATA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #284 (2011034)
Chair Davis introduced the request by Wayzata Independent School District #284 for a zoning
ordinance text amendment to amend the requirements for scoreboards in the P -I
(public/institutional) zoning district.
Senior Planner Darling gave an overview of the staff report.
Commissioner Kobussen asked about the existing condition in the ordinance that there will be no
commercial or non-commercial speech and what that means. Senior Planner Darling responded
that means there would be no advertising on the scoreboard to reflect that it is a scoreboard and
not a sign.
Chair Davis asked why it doesn't just state no advertising. Senior Planner Darling replied that
commercial and non-commercial speech are defined terms, not only in our ordinance, but also in
case law.
Commissioner Oakley asked if the city currently has a policy on commercial or non-commercial
speech on scoreboards. Senior Planner Darling responded that the city currently does not allow
commercial or non-commercial speech, with the exception that they do allow a sponsorship
panel to be located on the scoreboard. She said that language is currently in the P -I zoning
district.
Commissioner Nelson asked if staff was aware of any other scoreboards in the city, other than
the two high schools. Senior Planner Darling replied that staff is not aware of any.
Page 11
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15, 2011
Page 5
Commissioner Anderson asked why they are changing the location of the scoreboard from the
west side of the field to the east side of the field. Senior Planner Darling responded that the
Wayzata School District initially approached staff showing that, with the addition of the extra
size on the scoreboard, they were proposing a location change. She said that the scoreboard is
currently located on the north side of the field and that they propose to change it to the south side
of the field to further protect the residential neighbors to the south and also to protect passersby
on the public rights-of-way so that the information on the scoreboard wouldn't distract drivers or
become a nuisance for the neighborhood to the south.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the proposed location would be visible from future
development, such as if Elm Creek Golf Course gets developed, or if development would be too
far away to really cause a problem in the future. Senior Planner Darling stated that the
scoreboard would face directly into the playfield. She said there is a possibility that if a portion
of the Elm Creek Golf Course would develop residentially, there would be homes within the
vicinity of it; however, there is a landscaped area between the stadium and the ballfield itself.
She said that at the angle that it would be located and with the distance, she didn't think that very
much would be seen.
Commissioner Nelson stated the Armstrong scoreboard is at an angle and asked if anyone
recalled if that scoreboard was located in a comer because of its direction towards the residential
neighborhood. Planning Manager Thomson responded that there was a lot of sensitivity given to
the neighborhood with respect to the location of the scoreboard.
Chair Davis stated that the proposed location would have the golf course on the west side and
homes on the south side and placement of the scoreboard would have its back to the homes so
the current homeowners are taken care of. He said that they could move their current scoreboard
to the new location anyway. Planning Manager Thomson replied that would be correct.
Chair Davis asked if the approved Armstrong scoreboard had been similar to this request and if
they had gotten a variance for it. Senior Planner Darling replied that the numbers are digital on
their scoreboard but they do not have a full electronic panel nor do they have video display. She
said they did receive a variance to allow them to have a 312 %2 square foot scoreboard that is 20
1/ feet tall.
Commissioner Kobussen asked if we would be developing an ordinance that we can't live with
in the future with language against visibility from a home or from public rights-of-way. He said
we would be giving a lot of variances. He asked what the scoreboard situation would be at
Providence Academy. Senior Planner Darling responded that Providence Academy is in a
different zoning district so these regulations wouldn't apply to them. She said they only apply to
the schools that are in the P -I zoning district. She said that the scoreboards are extremely
expensive and we could not put them into very many park facilities and certainly not more than
one at a facility.
Page 12
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15, 2011
Page 6
Commissioner Kobussen asked if the siting restriction would also apply to a small scoreboard.
Planning Manager Thomson replied that it would not because the 150 square feet maximum is
already regulated by code. She said this would be a separate requirement for larger scoreboards.
Chair Davis stated that of the four alternatives listed in the staff report, alternative #1 is basically
anybody in the P -I district could put a big scoreboard up to 950 square feet and all they have to
do is come in to the department and get a building permit and there would be no public
involvement. Senior Planner Darling responded that would be correct. She said staff would look
at their location information again so that they wouldn't be directing the information on the
scoreboard towards residences or public rights-of-way.
Chair Davis stated that each alternative requires more and more public involvement. Senior
Planner Darling replied that is correct.
Chair Davis stated that alternative #4 would basically leave it the way it is. He asked if they
could get a variance for a 950 square foot scoreboard under current ordinance text. Senior
Planner Darling responded that under current regulations, they can request a variance for a
scoreboard of that size; however, that's an enormous variance. She said that staff direction to the
school board was that a variance of that nature would be difficult for staff to support. Planning
Manager Thomson added that when you are looking at a variance situation, you are looking at
demonstrating hardship/practical difficulties. She said one of the major issues here is that size is
a major factor and there is also video display, which is something that is not allowed at all at the
present time. She said it is really a vast departure from current regulations.
Chair Davis asked if the current ordinance prohibits video displays or it doesn't allow video
displays. Senior Planner Darling replied that the current ordinance is silent on video displays.
Planning Manager Thomson added that when the ordinance is silent, it is not allowed. Chair
Davis asked that since they are silent on video displays, does that mean then that they are not
allowed. Senior Planner Darling responded that as written, the ordinances don't specifically
mention electronic panels or video displays and that would have to be added in language that
they would be permitted.
Commissioner Nelson asked that if alternative 42 were to be approved, whether they could go
ahead and make their scoreboard up to 550 square feet without any approvals. Senior Planner
Darling stated that they would have the siting requirements. Planning Manager Thomson added
that if they met those requirements, they could go ahead and put it in with a building permit,
without a public process, up to 550 square feet.
Commissioner Anderson asked if there was the opportunity to put protective restrictions on the
application later on because it's in a conditional use permit. Senior Planner Darling replied that
all the typical conditions on a conditional use permit could be applied to the approvals specific to
an application to make sure to lessen the impact.
Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Dan Carlson, representing the Wayzata Independent
School District #284. Mr. Carlson stated that their current scoreboard is 17 years old. He said
Page 13
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15, 2011
Page 7
that it uses incandescent lightbulbs, which can no longer be ordered. He said that they currently
are taking lights out of the baseball scoreboard for use in the football scoreboard during the
football season and then at the end of the football season, they are taking them out for use in the
baseball scoreboard. He said that Wayzata Schools has proposed that they do a five-year
scoreboard upgrade district -wide. He said that part of this is that the Wayzata's Athletic Booster
Association has approached them and would like to fund that. He said it would be a gift and not
a Wayzata School District purchase. He said that they have a very motivated group of people
and that they would like to see this completed this year. He said that if they currently just
replace it with a football scoreboard, it would be very disheartening to kids in track to not see
their times up there and so, if attending an event there other than football, it is extremely lacking.
He said that this is where athletics are going. He said that there are three other communities in
the west metro area who will probably have these scoreboards (or larger) if not this year, then
next year. He said that the company that they are looking to for the purchase has three proposals
out already and one of which is going to be ordered. He said that it is something that they want
to be prepared for.
Commissioner Kobussen asked if they plan on going to the full, big scoreboard now if they have
the money or if it is a matter of what gets approved through the Planning Commission and City
Council. Mr. Carlson responded that the funding is apparently set aside and they would like to
see the whole project completed yet this fall. He said that they are on track to be able to do that,
if the permission is granted. He said that the scoreboard section is something that is going to
have to happen very soon as he didn't know if they would get through this football season with
what they have. He said it begs the question that they just replace it with a scoreboard like what
they've got in the existing location or make the move and upgrade to get the scoreboard they
really want.
Chair Davis asked if the proposed scoreboard in alternative #2 was bigger than their current
scoreboard. Mr. Carlson replied that the current one is 8 feet tall by 25 feet wide and the one
proposed would be 22 feet wide and with a taller board. He said that the square footage would
not be just the scoreboard, it's the peripheral information as well. He said the restrictions on the
size of the scoreboard were arrived at by what was needed in order for those people that are in
the far bleachers to be able to see some of the information.
Commissioner Anderson asked where high school sports are moving in terms of video display.
Mr. Carlson responded that starting lineups could be seen on the video displays. He said that it
also given them the ability to use that as a curriculum. He said they have students who have
gone into this type of field for video production and with all the scoreboards out there, it is
becoming a trade. He said that video display also gives students some face time up on the
scoreboard. He said they could also highlight some of the other athletic events that people don't
get to where a video is available. He said that there would not be much instant replay as that is
pretty tough to do, especially in a high school setting when it's going to be kids doing that.
Chair Davis opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the
item.
Page 14
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15, 2011
Page 8
Commissioner Nelson stated that the language that's in place now is not sufficient at 150 square
feet. He said that a variance had been granted to one high school and it's very apparent that it's
not sufficient for the other high school. He said that it didn't make any sense to keep that
language in there. He said that he is leaning towards alternative #2. He said that changing the
language from 150 square feet to 550 square feet is pretty sufficient and it would also allow them
to be able to get a conditional use permit to add the video display. He said that getting to the 950
square feet requires a public process and that is important. He said that he does not have an issue
with the school district wanting to put in this type of scoreboard.
Commissioner Oakley stated he agreed with Commissioner Nelson's comments. He said that
alternative #2 would retain public comment to give people an opportunity to come in and
participate in the decision making process. He said that video display would potentially draw a
lot of comment. He said that additional information is needed in alternative 92 regarding video
display. He said that if silence indicates that video display is not acceptable, that is not an
adequate alternative. Planning Manager Thomson responded that language could be added to
alternative #2 that includes video display so that it's very clear that would be part of what would
be allowed.
Commissioner Oakley stated that the language "provided that the information on the scoreboard
is not visible from any adjacent public rights-of-way or adjacent dwellings" is good solid criteria
to add. He said that the existing ordinance goes on to state "no commercial or non-commercial
speech shall be permitted...". He said that if the scoreboard is defined as being something that is
only visible within the activity itself, then the right to dictate what should be on that scoreboard
should be with the school board or the organization that is having the event. Planning Manager
Thomson replied that it is important to have that language whether it can be seen or not. She
said that it is off-site advertising and if allowed here, it would have to be allowed elsewhere. She
said that's a major concern.
Commissioner Oakley said that he didn't believe that the school district was interested in having
advertising but that other local high schools do encourage advertising and it's a good source of
funding for them. Planning Manager Thomson responded that staff has had discussion with the
city attorney on this matter and that if allowed, it would open the city to have to allow it in other
settings. She said that's the reasoning for it being in our current ordinance.
Mr. Carlson confirmed for Commissioner Petrash that the first alternative is the one that they
would like to have.
Commissioner Petrash asked what the benefits or what the differences/trade offs were that made
them prefer alternative #1 versus alternative #2. Mr. Carlson replied that the school district
needs to move ahead with a scoreboard one way or another. He said the difference is whether
there is a video display board or not. Planning Manager Thomson added that with alternative #1,
there is no public process (just a building permit). She said alternative #2 would require the
public process for a conditional use permit.
Commissioner Petrash stated that he would also support alternative #2.
Page 15
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15, 2011
Page 9
Chair Davis stated that he felt alternative #3 is the best one because he loves these ideas for
scoreboards but that they can be controversial when getting this big. He said alternative #3
provides the most opportunity for the citizens of the community to weigh in. He said that
alternative #2 allows them to go up to 550 square feet with just a building permit and then after it
goes up, all the neighbors would be calling the city wanting to know what happened. He said
that it's great to put that scoreboard over there but he wants the most involvement from the
neighborhood to get it done.
Planning Manager Thomson responded to Commissioner Nelson that there are instances where
smaller scoreboards are still going to be 150 square feet. Chair Davis added that there are a lot
of ballfields in the city that have small scoreboards, so 150 square feet has proven over time to
be workable. He said that he is not comfortable with giving the organizations cart blanche to
triple the size without some public involvement.
Chair Davis stated that he was concerned that in all the alternatives it states that information on
the scoreboard would not be visible from any adjacent dwellings. He said that's pretty restrictive
and asked for the meaning of "adjacent". Senior Planner Darling read the definition, "in close
proximity to or neighboring, not necessarily abutting".
Commissioner Nelson stated that a motion recommending alternative #2 to City Council could
be made without agreement by all the Commissioners. Planning Manager Thomson responded
that is correct.
Planning Manager Thomson confirmed for Chair Davis that the phrase regarding visibility from
adjacent dwellings would be an addition to the current ordinance. Chair Davis stated that he
didn't mind it not being visible from public rights-of-way because we don't want to see it from
the street, especially if it is a video display but an adjacent dwelling seems to be too restrictive.
Planning Manager Thomson replied that change could also be included in what is recommended
to the City Council.
Chair Davis asked for a show of hands in support of alternative #2 (Commissioners Oakley,
Petrash, Kobussen, Robinson and Nelson). Chair Davis and Commissioner Anderson indicated
support for alternative #3.
Commissioner Kobussen stated that alternative #2 could be written in a way that if it's a small
sign, then drop that it can't be visible from the street or from an adjacent home and if it goes over
a certain size, then put that certain restriction in that it can't be visible from the street and the
adjacent homes. He said it would have to be a fairly big sign before it becomes an issue. Senior
Planner Darling stated that electronic display panels or video display panels could also be tied in
to the condition and state that it can't be visible to adjacent properties. Planning Manager
Thomson added that another option would be to add the existing language to alternative #2 and
then have an additional section, which addresses the larger scoreboards.
Commissioner Petrash stated that as a Planning Commission, we should choose one alternative.
He said there will be majority and minority votes but that we should try to give the City Council
Page 16
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15, 2011
Page 10
as much direction as we can and not give them our job, which is making a recommendation. He
said that there are a lot of options and that he would support adding amendments to the second
alternative.
Chair Davis stated that was a good idea and he would support amending alternative #2, although
he would vote against it.
Chair Davis stated that the current ordinance does not have the visibility language and that there
hasn't been any problems. Planning Manager Thomson responded that there has not been the
video display and the major digital aspects with scoreboards in the past. Chair Davis stated that
his concern was that if written in there, we would be saying that no scoreboards can be seen from
the rights-of-way. Planning Manager Thomson replied that adding language for smaller
scoreboards, exactly the way it is in the code today, would address that. Chair Davis stated that
he would be more comfortable with that because he wouldn't want to put something in where we
inadvertently put a kibosh on smaller ones that are already in place.
MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve the request
by Wayzata Independent School District #284 to amend the requirements for scoreboards in the
PI district to: 1) maintain the existing requirements for scoreboards not exceeding 16 feet in
height or 150 square feet in area and 2) add (a) a new accessory use allowing scoreboards for
public parks and public or private schools not exceeding 32 feet in height or 550 square feet in
area, provided that the information on the scoreboard is not visible from any adjacent public
rights-of-way and no commercial/non-commercial speech is permitted on the scoreboard and (b)
a new conditional use allowing scoreboards for public parks and public or private schools over
32 feet in height or 550 square feet in area not to exceed 50 feet in height or 950 square feet in
area, which scoreboard may include a video display panel, provided that the information on the
scoreboard is not visible from any adjacent public rights-of-way and no commercial/non-
commercial speech is permitted on the scoreboard.
Commissioner Oakley added a friendly amendment to remove the language regarding
commercial and non-commercial speech. He said there are restrictions listed in other areas that
would govern all the concerns. Amendment failed for lack of a second.
Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved.
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Chair Davis introduced the request by the City of Plymouth to review the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Bass Lake Wetland Drainage Improvement Project
located west of Zachary Lane and south of Bass Lake Road and make recommendations to the
City Council regarding potential environmental impacts that may warrant further investigation.
City Engineer Moberg gave an overview of the staff report.
Page 17
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
June 1S, 2011
Page 11
Commissioner Nelson asked how the risk of flooding was identified. City Engineer Moberg
responded that it was a combination of contacts with residents and with city maintenance staff.
He said that staff has observed issues with the stormsewer outfalls being clogged because of
sediment or vegetation. He said that if the system isn't working well, there will be more water
standing in the streets, yard areas, etc.
Commissioner Petrash asked what the ramifications would be if nothing is done. City Engineer
Moberg replied that from a maintenance perspective, it typically would require more frequent
cleaning of the stormsewer outfalls themselves. He said that a concern is if we get into even
more of a wet cycle than what we currently have, then we have more issues with flooding to deal
with that could potentially get into more than just soggy backyards.
Commissioner Oakley asked if the original contours from decades back were known for this area
and would accumulated materials be removed or would the pond be deepened. City Engineer
Moberg responded that historic information would be a little bit sketchy because these are
wetland areas and it's not easy to get in and do any kind of survey work to really determine
where the bottom may be, especially if you've got a lot of peat or muck. He said the actual work
would be very similar to the Wild Wings Project. He said we did not do any deepening of the
channels there and that was something that we paid very close attention to because of
requirements and restrictions that either the DNR or the Army Corps of Engineers would have
had. He said in that particular project, we went to a depth of about four feet in excavating
material/sediment and we would anticipate going to the same depth with this project.
Commissioner Petrash asked if this would need to be done again at a future date and what that
timeframe would be. City Engineer Moberg replied it quite possibly would need to be done
again but the timeframe is really unknown at this time.
Chair Davis stated that the sediments are going to keep coming and asked if this would be like
routine maintenance to be done every 4 years or so. City Engineer Moberg responded that we
are trying to get away fiom having to do something every year or every two years. He added that
it is important to keep in mind that the city went away fiom the practice several years ago of
using sand for snow and ice control and that historically has been a prime source of sediment in
the ponds and wetlands. He said that by moving away from that practice, it has allowed us to cut
down on the amount of sediment that is generated. He said with that in mind, we would likely
see a longer period before we would have to go back to remove sediment.
Commissioner Anderson asked if there has been any input yet from the various agencies that
received the EAW. City Engineer Moberg replied that the document is out for public comment
and as part of that process, we are required to notify all of the public agencies that would have
some regulatory authority that the document is available for comment. He said that we have not
received a lot of feedback yet but we anticipate that we will by the end of the public comment
period. He added that we are drawing from the experience that we had with the Wild Wings
Project and what the same regulatory agencies were comfortable with in that instance.
Page 18
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
June 1S, 2011
Page 12
Commissioner Anderson stated that here we are being asked to make a recommendation on a
document but we haven't received any input from any of the other agencies. He said that we
don't know what the agencies are thinking and yet we are reacting to a document and asked if
that was the appropriate order of events. Planning Manager Thomson responded that just as
other agencies are commenting, if the Planning Commission has any comments or if any people
in the audience have comments, those would all go to the City Council for them to make a
decision. She said that this time period was selected so that the Commission and residents could
provide their input as well. City Engineer Moberg added that we need to make this part of the
public record and this is a means of being able to generate public comments.
Commissioner Nelson asked if a dredging or rechanneling project of this magnitude in the
proximity to Bass Lake has any potential impact on that lake's levels. City Engineer Moberg
stated that all of this work would be downstream of Bass Lake and there wouldn't be anything
going toward the lake. He said that we would not be doing anything with the control structure of
the lake itself and that is what establishes the lake levels.
Commissioner Kobussen asked if there was a reason why the rest of the pond areas to the
southwest didn't get included with these two larger ones. City Engineer Moberg replied that the
pond area located to the southwest has only one stormsewer outfall and we are not having the
flooding or the maintenance issues there. He said that we confined the project to what's
identified in the larger wetland basin because that is where we are having issues.
Commissioner Petrash asked what the Planning Commission is being asked to do. City Engineer
Moberg stated the Planning Commission is being asked if they have any specific comments that
they would want to pass along to the City Council for their consideration as they make their
determination about whether there's additional environmental review that needs to be done. He
added that if there are questions, comments or concerns by residents that are here tonight, those
would be part of the public record.
Chain' Davis stated that this is the first level, which is the environmental worksheet. He said that
if we were to think that it's not indepth enough to fully describe the environmental impact of this
project, we could recommend that an Environmental Impact Statement be required, which is
more detailed and more involved. He said that it is the recommendation of staff that the
worksheet is sufficient. City Engineer Moberg responded that if the Commission felt that this
document was inadequate and that more indepth environmental review was necessary, the
Commission could make that part of its recommendation and if the Commission believe that this
document is adequate to address the environmental issues, the Commission could act
accordingly.
Commissioner Kobussen recommended that a correction be made to item #25. He said that the
question regarding designated parks, recreation areas or trails be corrected to be checked yes as
this is a part of Timbershores neighborhood park and there is a trail that runs through those
wetlands. City Engineer Moberg replied that may come through with comments received from
other agencies but we will make sure that is a part of the record.
Page 19
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
June 15, 2011
Page 13
Chair Davis introduced Dick Essen, 5610 Evergreen Lane North. Mr. Essen said that along the
west side of the wetland there are four properties that have frontage and two of those properties
are low. He said that his is about six or eight feet higher than those other two properties and that
next to him is part of the Timber Shores neighborhood park. He said that in the 40 years that he
has lived there, there has been one flooding incident and that was one summer when there were
two, 100 -year rains about 10 days apart. He said the only reason it flooded at that time was
because downstream the culverts/driveways collapsed, creating a dam that backed the water up.
He asked if this project was being done for potential flooding of these four properties or are there
other properties downstream.
Mr. Essen said that there is a floating bog that has been meandering all over the pond and unless
you get rid of that floating bog, it's going to park itself in front of your channels and negate your
job.
Chair Davis introduced Tim Bodkin, 5630 Evergreen Lane North. Mr. Bodkin said they have
had water within 10 feet of their house in the past few weeks and fortunately, their basement has
never been flooded.
Mr. Bodkin said that the floating bog there does move around, depending on the level of the
water and the direction of the wind. He presented pictures taken in May 2011 of this floating
bog as it moved around. He said that it could possibly block these channels. He said that it
would be a significant improvement if this island were removed somehow. He said it is affecting
the flow that is going through these channels.
Mr. Bodkin said that the southwest pond does have drainage that is blocked and the level of the
pond is significant. He said that the city might consider unblocking the drainage there.
Mr. Bodkin said that the debris that was excavated on the Wild Wings Project was just left there
in the wetland. He asked if that would be the case here or would excavation be removed from
the site.
City Engineer Moberg stated that we have identified affected properties in a general sense. He
said that they could provide more specific property information if necessary.
City Engineer Moberg stated that we would be willing to take a look at the floating bog. He said
that he is not exactly sure what the reaction would be from the regulatory agencies about that.
He said we are in the footprint of the wetland and we are not certain whether or not we would be
required to mitigate for that alteration. He said with the Wild Wings Project, we were required
to mitigate what was considered to be wetland impact. He said because we did not have any
opportunities to create mitigation areas around that wetland basin, we purchased banking credits
in another part of the county to offset the impacts. He said at this point, we do not know what
the interpretation is going to be by the regulatory agencies but we expect that will come out
during this public comment period. He said that while we certainly would have an interest in
trying to do something with the floating bog, if it gets us into the arena where we are going to
have to do mitigation, that may cause us to back away from trying to do that. He said we will
Page 20
Approved
PIanning Commission Minutes
June 15, 2011
Page 14
explore that as we work our way through this process. He said he understood the residents'
concern about excavating these channels to try and create some positive drainage and then
having it blocked off by the bog moving around.
City Engineer Moberg stated it would be a requirement that excavated materials and debris be
hauled out and taken away and not be left on the site.
City Engineer Moberg stated city maintenance staff would be asked to take a look at the larger
pond located southwest of this project to see if there are any specific issues that need to be
addressed.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the material excavated would be considered hazardous in any
way. City Engineer Moberg responded that one of the steps in the process if we were to move
forward, would be to sample materials at the stormsewer outfalls. He said we would make a
determination of a) whether there is contamination and b) what the magnitude of that might be.
He said it would be in our best interest to do that before preparing bidding documents so the
contractors, who are bidding the project, know if the material is clean or whether it's considered
contaminated.
Commissioner Anderson stated that he could see that the floating bog could potentially be an
environmental issue to remove it because of potential nesting that might be going on. He asked
if it would be possible to protect the outflows in some alternative way rather than removing it.
City Engineer Moberg replied that was something that could be looked at. He said that he got
the impression from the pictures that even though one of the channels could get blocked, it
wouldn't necessarily be blocked for very long. He said that if it's going to keep moving around,
it may be just for a short period of time that blockage actually occurs.
Commissioner Oakley asked if there has ever been a rise in the water levels that seemed to be
related to the position of the bog or are levels more commonly related to the amount of rainfall.
Mr. Essen responded that until this spring, the water was so low he could just about walk across
the pond near his home. He said that there has been a significant difference in the water
elevation and that's what precipitates the movement of the bog. He said that when the water
comes up, it tears the bog loose and then it floats around. He said the problem is that if we get
another dry spell, the bog would settle in some place and it would take root and then it might
block some of the channels.
Mr. Bodkin stated that their property is currently defined to be in a flood zone as defined by
FEMA. He asked if this work would affect that and if the flood zone would be reviewed. He
said they are required to pay flood insurance but if they could be taken out of the flood zone as a
result of this work, that would be great. City Engineer Moberg responded that with this type of
project, we don't anticipate that there would be any change in water levels or flood designations.
He said that perhaps in Mr. Bodkin's case, it's a matter of looking at his property individually to
see what is currently covered and what he is required to have insurance for. He added that
whether there could be any changes made to that would be a separate issue from what is being
considered here.
Page 21
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
June 151 2011
Page 15
MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, finding that the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Bass Lake Wetland Drainage Improvement
Project located west of Zachary Lane and south of Bass Lake Road has disclosed sufficient
information for the City Council to make a negative declaration on the need for an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved.
S. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Chair Davis, with no objection to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Page 22
June, 2011
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Regional Division,
Public Notice of Availability of the Draft Shingle Creek and Bass Creek Biota
and Dissolved Oxygen TIIDL Report and Request for Comment.
Public Comment Period Begins: June 20, 2011
Public Comment Period Ends: July 20, 2011
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) is requesting comments on the draft Shingle
Creek and Bass Creek Biota and Dissolved Oxygen Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Report. The draft Report for Shingle and Bass Creeks is available for review at:
1dtp;//w}vw.pca. state. mn. iss/)vater/t»adlltm,,Il-draft.httnl
Following the comments, the MP CA will revise the draft Report and submit it to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. Comments must be sent to the MPCA
contact person listed below by July 20, 2011.
Required by the federal Clean Water Act, a TMDL is a scientific study that calculates the
maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality
standards for that pollutant. It is a process that identifies all the sources of the pollutant causing
an impairment and allocates necessary reductions among them. This multi-year effort results in a
pollution reduction plan and engages stakeholders and the general public. An approved TMDL is
followed by implementation activities for achieving the necessary reductions.
Shingle and Bass Creeks are located in the Twin Cities Metro Area and Hennepin County. The
creeks are also within the Shingle Creek Watershed which includes the municipalities of
Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Maple Grove, Minneapolis, New Hope, Osseo,
Plymouth, and Robbinsdale. Lower Bass Creek starts at the outlet of Bass Lake in Plymouth and
travels about 2.4 miles before it flows into Shingle Creek, Shingle Creek begins at the junction
of Bass Creek and Eagle Creek in Brooklyn Park, flows easterly, then southerly for about I I
miles through Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis before discharging into the Mississippi River.
The Shingle Creek Watershed is almost entirely developed and the largest land use classification
is single family residential at 44 percent. Shingle Creek was first placed on the State of
Minnesota's 303(d) list of impaired waters in 2004 for low levels of dissolved oxygen impairing
aquatic life. In 2006 it was placed on the 303(d) list for impaired biotic integrity as measured by
Page 23
bioassessment of macroinvcrtcbratcs. Bass Creek was placed on the 303{d} list in 2002 for
impaired biotic integrity as measured by fish bioassessment. The total oxygen demand needs to
be reduced by 86 percent for Upper Shingle Creek and 47 percent for Lower Shingle Creek to
meet water quality standards. Strategies to improve water quality in Shingle and Bass Creeks
include re -aerating wetland outlets, restoring the channel morphology and habitat of the streams,
managing stormwater runoff, and reducing chloride loading.
Agency Contact Person: Written or oral comments, petitions, questions, or requests to receive a
draft of the TMDL Report, and requests for more information should be directed to:
Barb Peichel
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
651-757-2646
Minnesota Toll Free: 1-800-657-3864
Fax: 651-297-8676
E-mail: Barhara.PeichelCstate.m),i.ais
TTY users may call the MPCA teletypewriter at 651-282-5332 or 1-800-657-3864.
Preliminary Determination on the draft TMDL Report: The MPCA Commissioner has made
a preliminary determination to submit this TMDL Report to the EPA for final approval. A draft
TMDL Report is available for review at the MPCA office at the address listed above, and at the
MPCA website: hltp.112vwjv.pemstate.iiia.uvljvaterltnzdlltmdl-draft.htiail
Suggested changes will be considered before the final TMDL Report is sent to the EPA for
approval.
Written Comments: You may submit written comments on the conditions of the draft TMDL
Report or on the Commissioner's preliminary determination. Written comments must include the
following.
1. A statement of your interest in the draft TMDL Report;
2. A statement of the action you wish the MPCA to take, including specific references to
sections of the draft TMDL that you believe should be changed; and
3. The reasons supporting your position, stated with sufficient specificity as to allow the
Commissioner to investigate the merits of your position.
Petition for Public Informational Meeting: You also may request that the MPCA
Commissioner hold a public informational meeting. A public informational meeting is an
informal meeting that the MPCA may hold to solicit public comment and statements on matters
before the NIPCA, and to help clarify and resolve issues.
A petition requesting a public informational meeting must include the following information:
Page 24
1. A statement identifying the matter of concern;
2. The information required under items 1 through 3 of "Written Comments," identified above;
3. A statement of the reasons the MPCA should hold a public informational meeting; and
4. The issues that you would like the MPCA to address at the public informational meeting.
Petition for Contested Case Hearing: You also may submit a petition for a contested case
hearing. A contested case hearing is a formal evidentiary hearing before an administrative law
judge. In accordance with Minn. R. 7000.1900, the MPCA will grant a petition to hold a
contested case hearing if it finds that:
1. There is a material issue of fact in dispute concerning the application or draft TMDL Report;
2. The MPCA has the jurisdiction to make a determination on the disputed material issue of
fact; and
3. There is a reasonable basis underlying the disputed material issue of fact or facts such that
the holding of the contested case hearing would allow the introduction of information that
would aid the MPCA in resolving the disputed facts in making a final decision on the draft
TMDL Report. A material issue of fact means a fact question, as distinguished from a policy
question, whose resolution could have a direct bearing on a final MPCA decision.
A petition for a contested case hearing must include the following information:
1. A statement of reasons or proposed findings supporting the MPCA decision to hold a
contested case hearing according to the criteria in Minn. R. 7000.1900, as discussed above;
and;
2. A statement of the issues proposed to be addressed by a contested case hearing and the
specific relief requested or resolution of the matter.
In addition and to the extent known, a petition for a contested case hearing should also include
the following information:
1. A proposed list of prospective witnesses to be called, including experts, with a brief
description of proposed testimony or summary of evidence to be presented at a contested
case hearing;
2. A proposed list of publications, references, or studies to be introduced and relied upon at a
contested case hearing; and
3. An estimate of time required for you to present the matter at a contested case hearing.
MPCA Decision: You may submit a petition to the Commissioner requesting that the MPCA
Citizens' Board (Board) consider the TMDL Report approval. To be considered timely, the
petition must be received by the MPCA by 4:30 p.m. on the date the public comment period
ends, identified on page 1 of this notice. Under the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 116.02, subd 6(4),
the decision whether to submit the TMDL Report and, if so, under what terms will be presented
to the Board for decision if.
1. The Commissioner grants the petition requesting the matter be presented to the Board;
2. One or more Board members request to hear the matter before the time the Commissioner
Page 25
makes a final decision on the TMDL Report; or
3. A timely request for a contested case hearing is pending. You may participate in the activities
of the MPCA Board as provided in Minn. R. 7000.0650.
The written comments, requests, and petitions submitted on or before the last day of the public
comment period will be considered in the final decision on this TMDL Report. If the MPCA
does not receive written comments, requests, or petitions during the public comment period,
MPCA staff as authorized by the Board, will make the final decision on the draft TMDL Report.
Page 26
Cjty Of
� � 4 $
2
fi'
Adding Quality to Life
July 8, 2011
SUBJECT: SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH AT 3625
FERNBROOK LANE. (2011045)
Dear Resident/Land Owner:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this letter is to inform you of an
application submitted by the City of Plymouth, under File No. 2011045, requesting approval of a
site plan amendment to add a skate park, shade structure, and batting cages at Plymouth Creek
Playfield located at 3625 Fernbrook Lane. A map showing the location of the subject property is
provided below. The new facilities would be located west of the new concrete hockey rink.
Hennepin County records indicate your property is located within 200 feet of the site of this
proposal. You are hereby notified of, and cordially invited to attend two public meetings. The
first is an open house to be held by the park and recreation department staff at 7:00-8:00 p.m, on
Monday, July 18, 2011, in Meeting Room 3 at the Plymouth Creek Center, 14800 30 Avenue.
The second meeting is to be held by the Plymouth Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m., on
Wednesday, July 20, 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 park and recreation department at (763) 509-
5200 or 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.
INFORMATION 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,
p,,. -rKyvm
Barbara G. Thomson, AICP
Planning Manager
notices/2)46 N4M,- L3PL� I# fAGa0 ytTlauth
mn.gov
Page 27
rF
City Ofi
Plymouth
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Adding Quality to Life
July 8, 2011
Dear Resident/ Land Owner:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this letter is to inform you of a
request by Mark and Lynn Eckerline, under File No. 2011049, for approval of a variance to
allow a portion of a patio (roughly 20 square feet) to encroach four feet into the required nine
foot setback from the wetland buffer strip, for property located at 1241 Vagabond Court. A map
showing the location of the subject property is provided below.
Hennepin County records indicate your property is located within 200 feet of the site of this
proposal. You are hereby notified of, and cordially invited to attend a public meeting to be held
by the Plymouth Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m., on Wednesday, July 20, 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.
INFORMATION 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
001an/Notices/P02011f201 1019-propnotice
3400 Plymouth Blvd v Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 a Tel: 763-509-5000 a www.ptyrrouthmn.gov
Page 28
vz'-' Ami
City ofPlymouth
Adding Quality to Life
Jelly S, 2011
Dear Resident/ Land Owner:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this letter is to inform you of a
request by Cornerstone Auto Resource, under File No. 2011037, for approval of the following
two items: 1) a rezoning from C-4 (community commercial) to PUD (planned unit
development); and 2) a PUD general site plan. The PUD proposal would allow C-4 uses and
auto sales at the existing auto sales business located at 3901 Vinewood Lane, and at the former
BP gas station site located at 3955 Vinewood Lane (see proposed site plan on the back of this
sheet). 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, July 20, 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.
INFORMATION 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
5:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Tuesdays from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except holidays.
Sincerely,
f)%M T SA, z
Barbara G. Thomson, AICP
Planning Manager
0:/Plan/Notices/PG2011/201 1037-propnotice
3400 Plymouth Blvd s Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 - Tel 763-509-5000 ® rvww plymouthmn.gov 061
Page 29
,ZoI103-1
Page 30
......
NVId ONHUSAVI
Q /fi M
1-1?�MS38 OInV 3NOiSH3WOZ)
'
ONI 931.VIOC)SSV V
Va —1.
HII)OVUld JO AID
IL
W--. __
MOSM03d AMY00
GWA WOMIMOD
R
maw
7s
v
.
oil 1
j . . . . . . .
7 -, -,J;� . t .......... ......
� r
—xv
!0154 N00yal-
-P-
f
' 61 I 1
man
V 79"IS R;
in W
la Am- -wt A-1
Y
,p "�Tnm Lala
oil
EV I
-------------
V W i - I
PAM z:IF'ffl
?a 3 yrsay
Y
Wk
Ke
VIR
.0
4
.5y
IM o. . . . . .
T�i .
Pri
�.J
X,
W'k
Nor
poll
m IBM A.
= ON
ar
- ------- --
Vow - -- -
- Wsph
gem
'iHM-
43
"--tan—
,ZoI103-1
Page 30