The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil Information Memorandum 03-20-2009CITY OF PLYMOUTH rp) COUNCIL INFO MEMO March 20, 2009 UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS PACT Agenda 03/25/09................................................................................................. HRA Agenda 03/26/09........................................................................... March, April, May 2009 Official City Meeting Calendars ..................... Tentative List of Agenda Items for Future City Council Meetings ........ Page l Page 3 Page 4 Page 7 INFORMATION News Articles, Releases, Publications, Etc ... Plymouth First Time Homebuyer Program Can Help Eligible Buyers, News Release ....................... Page 8 Fire Dept. to Host Recruitment Meetings on March 31 & April 4, News Release ............................... Page 9 Metro area taxes won't fall as fast as home values, Article, Star & Trib........................................... Page 11 A stop -and -go future for traffic tickets?, Article, Star & Trib............................................................ Page 15 Ehlers Market Commentary 03/16/09 MEETING MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes 02/04/09 ...................................................................Page 18 ................................ Page 20 STAFF REPORTS Hennepin County Adult Correctional Facility Population Report 03/18/09.......................................Page 23 CORRESPONDENCE Letter from homeowner, RE: Tax assessment at 2530 W Medicine Lake Blvd ................................ Page 24 Letter to Property Owners, RE: Site Plan Amendment for Provident/Waterford, LLC (2009007).... Page 25 Letter to Property Owners, RE: Variance for Columbus Home Association (2009008) ....................Page 26 ATTACHMENTS Proposed Amendments to Rules Governing Environmental Review.................................................Page 27 AGENDA PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT Medicine Lake Room (upper level of City Hall) Wednesday, March 25, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. 1. 7:00 Approval of Agenda 2. 7:05 Approval of February 18, 2009 Minutes (see attached) 3. 7:10 Review Action Items (see below) 4. 7:20 Discuss Quality and predictability of transit 5. 8:00 Review Transit Program Annual Report 2008. (See attached Transit Program Annual Report 2008.) 6. 8:30 Downtown UPA Project Update (See attached Downtown UPA Project Update and City ofLlinneapolis Memorandum.) 7. 8:40 Plymouth Transit Performance Measurements and Ridership (See attached January 2008 and January 2009 Performance Measurements and 2009 Ridership.) 8. 8:45 Issues from February -March, 2009 (See attached log.) 9. 8:50 Identify areas of concern and/or recommendations 10. 8:58 Other Business 11. 9:00 Adjournment Action Items: 1. Route reviews: Due in February to PACT for review (776, NW Plymouth) (Aug). Reviewed at Jan meeting. Special PACT Meeting to discuss routes Thursday, 7:00 to 9:00 p.m., April 2, 2009, City Hall, Medicine Lake Room. 2. Four Seasons name change: Too late for early Sept deadline. (Sept) Next set of route maps deadline March 2009 for distribution June. Reviewed at Jan meeting. 3. Cell Phone Posters: (First Transit): Large cell phone signs not on all buses -not on New Flyers. (Jan) Chair Gustafson stated that the cellphone signs still are not on all buses. Baldwin, 4:27 bus Gillig has no cellphone signs, saver card does not work. 4. Bus Shelter Downtown: (Bernie & Paul) Check on bus shelter at Marquette & Washington (by the ING building and the one by the PO) to see if it they are being rebuilt and when. (Dec) Reviewed at Jan. meeting. URS Consulting will not address bus Page 1 5. Q shelters during construction. Feb meeting: Commissioner Honer asked staff to check on this again and email her as well as notify at the March meeting. Commissioner Kedzuf asked whether a compromise was possible. Due to the project jurisdiction, the Cily of Plymouth has no say as to what happens to these Metro Transit shelters within the Cih) of Minneapolis. They are not interested in repairing the stop during the project. Manager Hellekson will speak to someone at MET Council to see if there are other avenues to address repairs. Paper Hangers: Chair Gustafson has concerns regarding paper hangers on the bus and the inconvenience of them hitting her and other riders in the face. Would like them located in one spot on the bus. (Feb) Fare Boxes: Fare boxes on the Metro Transit buses (Jan). Staff picked urp the cables for the fare boxes this week. Page 2 PLYMOUTH HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AGENDA THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 2009 - 7:00 p.m. WHERE: Medicine Lake Room City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 CONSENT AGENDA All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner, citizen or petitioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on the agenda. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve HRA Meeting Minutes from February 26, 2009. B. Plymouth Towne Square. Accept Monthly Housing Reports. C. Vicksburg Crossing. Accept Monthly Housing Reports. 3. NEW BUSINESS A. Plymouth HRA Rehabilitation Program. Consider request from resident. B. Vicksburg Crossing. Marketing Report. C. Vicksburg Crossing. Consider bids for improvements. 4. ADJOURNMENT Page 3 City of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life March 2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CANCELLED 6:00 PM 9:00 AM -1:00 PLANNING BOARD AND PM COMMISSION COMMISSION RECYCLING MEETING RECOGNITION TOUR Council Chambers EVENT Waste Management Plymouth Creek Facility Center 8 9 10 5:00 PM 11 7:10 STATE AM 12 7:00 PM 13 14 Daylight Sayings SPECIAL COUNCIL OF THE CITY PARK It REC ADVI- Commences MEETING MEETING SORY COMMISSION Set Clocks Ahead 'See Agenda Below Medicine Lake Room (PRAC) MEETING 1 Hour Medicine Lake Room7:00 PM Council Chambers ENVIRONMENTAL 5:30-8:00 PM 7:00 PM QUALITY Environmental REGULAR COUNCIL COMMITTEE (EQC) Quality Fair MEETINGMEETING Birchview Council Chambers Council Chambers 19 15 16 17 18 20 6:00 PM 21 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Parkers Lake Room 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL PLYMOUTH HRA MEETING MEETING ADVISORY Medicine Lake Roam Council Chambers COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT (PACT) MEETING Medicine Lake Room A 29 30 31 '3/10 Meeting: 1. Discuss Highway 16 Corridor 2. Closing of Pilgrim ne Elementary School Modified on 03/10/09 Page 4 City of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life April 2009 Modified on 03/20/09 Page 5 1 2 3 4 7:00 PM 6:00-8:00 PM 9:00 AM— PLANNING Yard 8 Garden 1:00 PM COMMISSION Expo Yard @ Garden MEETING Plymouth Creek Expo Council Chambers Center Fieldhouse Plymouth Creek Center Fieldhouse 5 6 7S 5:30 PM 8 9 10 11 PECIAL COUNCIL 7:00 PM 7:00 PM MEETING' ENVIRONMENTAL PARK a REC Medicine Lake Room QUALITY ADVISORY COM - 7:00 PM COMMITTEE MISSION (PRAC) Board of Equalization (EQC) MEETING MEETING Council Chambers Council Chambers Council Chambers AFTER B.O.E. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING** 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 7:00 PM 7.00 PM Primavera Primavera REGULAR COUNCIL PLANNING Plymouth Arts Plymouth Arts MEETING COMMISSION Council Show Council Show Council Chambers MEETING Plymouth Creek Plymouth Creek Council Chambers Center Center 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Primavera Primavera 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 9:00 AM - Plymouth Arts Plymouth Arts Board of PLYMOUTH HRA MEETING 12:00 PM Council Show Council Show Equalization ADVISORY Medicine Lake Room City Sampler Plymouth Creek Plymouth Creek Reconvened COMMITTEE ON Plymouth City Hall Center Center TRANSIT (PACT) MEETING Medicine Lake Room A 26 27 28 5:00 PM 29 30 6:00-7:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL HUMAN RIGHTS MEETING COMnuSSLON Medicine Lake Room Parkers Lake Room "'Agenda Below 7:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS •4/7 5:30 Discuss 1-494 Third Lane 7:00 PM COMMISSION —4/7 After B.O.E.: Upda te with City Manager REGULAR COUNCIL ESSAY CONTEST MEETING AWARDS "'4/28 Dedication of kat Millenium Council Chambers Council Chambers Garden, and Preliminary Budget Discussion Modified on 03/20/09 Page 5 rp)City of Plymouth �l Adding Quality to Life May 2009 Modified on 03/20/09 Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 10 11 12 5:30 PM 13 14 15 16 SPECIAL COUNCIL 7:00 PM 7:00 PM MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL PARK & REC Medicine Lake Room QUALITY ADVISORY COM- ReviewDial-A-Ride COMMITTEE MISSION (PRAC) (EQC) MEETING MEETING 7:00 PM Medicine Lake Room Council Chambers REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers 17 18 19 20 7t00PM 21 22 23 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 24 25 26 5:30PM 27 7:00 PM,UT 28 7:00 PM 29 30 SPECIAL COUNCIL PLYMOUTH HRA MEETING 8:00 AM -3:30 PM MEETING` ADVISORY Medicine Lake Room SPECIAL MEMORIAL Medicine take Room COMMITTEE ON RECYCLING DROP DAY TRANSIT (PACT) OFF EVENT Observed MEETING Plymouth 7:00 PM Medicine Lake Maintenance Facility 31 CITY OFFICES REGULAR COUNCIL Room A •5/16 Discuss Ham ers Associations and CLOSED MEETING Subdivision of Lots Council Chambers Modified on 03/20/09 Page 6 Tentative Schedule for City Council Agenda Items April 7, Special, 5:30 p.m., Medicine Lake Conference Room • Discuss I-494 Third Lane April 7, Board of Equalization, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers April 7, following Board of Equalization, Council Chambers • Update with City Manager April 14, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Proclaim April 18-25 as the "Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup" • Introduction of SAFER (Search and Find Emergency Responders) • Announcement of City Sampler • GFOAAwards • Engineering Bids Review April 21, Board of Equalization Reconvened, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers April 28, Special, 5:00 p.m., Millennium Garden and Medicine Lake Conference Room • Dedication of artwork at Millennium Garden • Preliminary budget discussion April 28, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers May 12, Special, 5:30 p.m., Medicine Lake Conference Room • Review Dial -a -Ride May 12, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers May 26, Special, 5:30 p.m., Medicine Lake Conference Room • Discuss homeowners associations • Discuss subdivision of lots May 26, Regular, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Note: Special 11eeting topics have been set by Council, all other topics are tentative. Page 7 City of Plymouth News Release For Immediate Release March 19, 2009 Contact: Patty Schaffer, 763-509.5413 Plymouth First Time Homebuyer Program Can Help Eligible Buyers With low mortgage rates and an abundance of homes on the market, now may be the time for renters who have been thinking of buying their first home to take the plunge. The Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) offers programs to help income eligible individuals and families purchase their first home. The HRA is currently accepting applications for the First Time Home Buyer program. The program offers a zero -interest, deferred loan of up to $25,000, with the HRA holding a second mortgage on the property. Financial assistance may be used for a down payment, closing costs and to reduce the mortgage principle. Household income must not exceed program income limits. The income limits are based on gross earnings and all other income, including child support and alimony. Income limits are revised yearly. Current income limits are: • $44,800 for a one person household; • $51,200 for a two person household; • $57,600 for a three person household; and • $64,000 for a four person household. For details on the Plymouth first time home buyer program, call 763-509-5413 or visit the city website at www.ci.plymouth.mn.us. Page 8 Plymouth Fire Department News Release For Immediate Release March 19, 2009 Fire Chief Richard Kline, 763-509-5121 Fire Department to Host Recruitment Meetings on March 31 Et April 4 If you're looking for a part-time job that offers an hourly wage, a chance to be eligible for a pension, extensive training and the satisfaction of providing an essential public service, look no further than the Plymouth Fire Department. The Fire Department, which has openings for paid - on -call firefighters, will host two Firefighter Recruitment Information Meetings. The first meeting is set for Tues., March 31, 7 — 9 p.m. The second is slated for Sat., April 4, 9 — 11 a.m. Both meetings will be at Fire Station III, 3000 Dunkirk Ln., Plymouth. The Plymouth Fire Department is recruiting for its 2009 firefighter recruit class. The department will accept applications through April 17. The meetings will provide a chance for anyone who has ever been curious about working as a paid -on-call firefighter to learn about the job. Current firefighters will discuss job requirements as well as how they blend their job as a firefighter with the rest of their life. It will be a low-key, no pressure event to get your questions answered, according to Deputy Chief Kip Springer. Application materials will also be available. The Plymouth Fire Department is looking to hire people who live within a six -minute response time of a Plymouth fire station. Fire stations are located at 13205 Co. Rd. 6,12000 Old Rockford Rd. and 3300 Dunkirk Ln. Firefighters must be at least 18 years old, a high school graduate and have a valid Minnesota driver's license. Individuals hired as paid -on-call firefighters complete their training as a class. Recruits are mentored through their probationary period by senior department members. Page 9 The Plymouth Fire Department is a paid -on-call department that provides fire suppression, technical rescue, hazardous materials, disaster preparedness and public education programs to the community. Firefighters are compensated with an hourly wage for the time that they go to school, train, respond to calls, provide community education and carry out maintenance activities. They also accrue credit annually toward a tax-deferred pension. If you have questions about becoming a firefighter or the informational meetings, call 763-509-5120. Page 10 StarTribune.com Metro -area taxes won't fall as fast as home values Local governments expect yelps as homeowners find their tax bills are higher than the market would suggest. By DAVID PETERSON and KATIE HUMPHREY, Star Tribune Last update: March 15, 2009 - 7:53 AM Metro area homeowners are about to find out that government's opinion of their home's value has more to do with history than today's reality. Despite a swift and steep downturn in the region's housing market, some homeowners are receiving property assessments that show only slight declines in their home values for tax purposes. "This is ridiculous," said Randy Kirihara, of Bloomington, who recently discovered that the taxable value of his home has been shaved by a mere I percent compared with last year, even as the market tanks. 9 was looking forward to a substantial drop." Reflecting the collapse of the housing Advertisement http://www.startribune.com/templates/fdcp? 1237307364309 7i ❑` m.startribune.com market, all seven metro counties say their assessed residential values will decline; the drop ranges from about 2 percent to 10 percent, depending on the county. But those declines seem rosy when compared with what's happening to sale prices. The median sale price of a metro -area house has fallen by 33 percent since September 2007, the beginning of the period counties used to calculate houses' taxable value, according to the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors. Most counties in the metro area have yet to send out their assessment forms. But in the counties that have, property owners are reporting surprise, dismay and anger. "We bought our house in January for $155,000," said Kate Gens of south Minneapolis. "The taxable value at that moment was $214,000. And now they're saying it's still as high as $189,000? Ridiculous." The main reason for the disconnect, assessors say, is a factor nobody complained about over the many years of rising values: The deliberateness of the process, coupled with the need for as large a sampling of sales as possible to estimate values, causes a s MnB •tan the news you want delivered right to your inbox SIGN UP NOW AT startribune.com/newsletters Print Powered Byri I FormatDynamics } Page 11 I of 3/17/200911:29 AM StarTribune.com six- to 18 -month lag between tax assessments and the churnings of the real- time market. "We're always looking at history," said Angela Johnson, the assessor in Carver County. "We're a year behind on everything." That means the sharpest plunge in values in years has taken place during a period that isn't yet being factored in. The property values being set now will be used to determine a home's 2010 taxes. Tax rates won't be set until the end of the year, but homeowners whose assessed value strikes them as too high can see what's coming: Their taxes will be based on a number that seems out of whack. Minneapolis expects so many appeals this year that it moved up its mailing date for tax statements by four weeks to give homeowners and assessors more time to work on them before the deadline. In Scott County, where statements haven't even been issued, 22 people turned up at one city council meeting when the assessor came to give a report. Some assessors say they are trying to do as much as they can to help. Scott County's auditor, Cindy Geis, says she and her staff Advertisement http://www.startribune.com/templates/fdcp?1237307364309 = r: `�\,`�" mstartribune.com have shaved the ratio of market value to taxable value down as close as they can get to the minimum. And Anoka County's assessor, Mike Sutherland, says he has given, in some cases, a slight break to the more recent developments. "Anyone in our business would have to be under a rock," he said, to miss what's happening in the real world. He knows of a townhouse in another county, once worth $190,000, that sold for $60,000. "So when we set townhouse rates, we took a little more off because we knew that was a weak point." But senior officials ui the Minnesota Department of Revenue caution against tweaking the conventional procedures, saying it can be unfair to others who aren't being treated the same way. Lloyd McCormick, the revenue official who works with counties, calls it "a dangerous game to play." The state doesn't shy away from enforcing the rules. When the Department of Revenue determined that some of the Minneapolis values for 2008 were unintentionally set below the prescribed ratio, they had them bumped back up about 3 percent, said Patrick Todd, city assessor. StarTrlbune the news you want delivered right to your inbox s1GN up NOW AT startribune.com/newsletters Print Powered By Ud I FormatD narrtics" Page 12 2 of 3/17/2009 11:29 AM StarTribune.com "It was a difference of opinion, but because we report to the Department of Revenue, they have the final say," Todd said, noting that the rules keep the formulas fair. Geis, however, believes that those in charge of the system need to think about changing procedures now that circumstances are so drastically different. "We have not seen anything like this since the'40s," she said. "We need to think outside the box." 'Things don't always go up' To be sure, home values didn'tjust start dropping, and assessors are reducing many peoples' values accordingly. Anoka County reports that this year's official valuations represent the first overall decline in residential values in recent memory. "Most of my appraisers under age 40 have no idea," Sutherland said. "They have never seen anything like this. Things don't always go up. One important ingredient in the disconnect, some officials say, is that the average person is reading the headlines but is not aware of the subtleties of the real estate market. Carver County, for instance, is benefitting from new high-speed freeway access, and new building activity remains comparatively Advertisement the news you want http://www.startribune.com/templates/fdcp? 1237307364309 i \ m.startribune coin robust by the standards of some areas, so values are holding up. Residential values will only go down by 2 percent on average. Other parts of the metro area will see much steeper drops and more variation from one community to the next. The more typical overall figure for counties is a drop in the range of 5 to 10 percent for homes. That's the situation in Dakota County, where after double-digit percentage increases earlier this decade, residential values dropped an average of 8 percent this year. "We've never seen the market fall like this before," said Bill Peterson, the county assessor, who has 30 years of experience. In Dakota County, as in many other spots, townhouse and condominium values dropped faster than those of single-family homes, in part because so many stand vacant, hit harder by foreclosures or never purchased after the real estate bubble popped. But even with the lesser values, Peterson said he expects unusually high turnout once the county starts holding "open book" meetings on Monday to give people a chance to discuss their appraisals. The phones have already been ringing. delivered right to your inbox SIGN UP Now AT startribune.com/newsletters Print Powered Byr� I FormatD namics" Page 13 3 of4 3/17/2009 11:29 AM StarTribune.com "There are people that are calling to say 'You've not reduced them enough,"' Peterson said. "We've also had people call concerned that the values are dropping as much as they are." In Washington County, as in most counties, statements to residents will go in the mail later this month. And, as elsewhere, there will be opportunities to contest valuations at public meetings and by phone. But Kevin Corbid, director of property records and taxpayer service, cautioned against assuming that what happens to values happens to next year's tax bill. "The value by itself doesn't mean a thing," Corbid said. "The actual tax bill and how it changes from one year to the next is more reliant on the budget decisions of the county, the city, the school district and whether your value changes differently than most properties." The whole sequence leaves many homeowners confused, upset and suspicious. "I doubt I could sell this place for $228,000 right now," said Amy Fastenau, who lives on Lyndale Avenue in south Minneapolis. the news you want http://www.startribune.com/templates/fdcp? 1237307364309 "There used to be huge difference in our favor; now it's the opposite. It seems like they have to find some way to charge more for taxes. It seems sneaky." David Peterson • 952-882-9023 dapeterson@startribune.com Katie Humphrey • 952-882-9056 katie. humphrev@startribune.com delivered right to your inbox SIGN UP Now AT startribune.com/newsletters Print Powered By A I FormatD namics- Page 14 4 of 3/17/2009 11:29 AM Stariribune.com A stop -and -go future for traffic tickets? Hennepin County cities may lose millions in revenue if court budget cuts pass, so they are looking at filling the legal void. By LAURIE BLAKE, Star Tribune Last update: March 15, 2009 - 11:38 PM An ominous letter from Hennepin County District Court Administrator Mark Thompson has arrived at every city hall in the county. It warns that if the state budget for courts is cut by $6 million, as Gov. Tim Pawlenty proposes, courts would very likely be unable to prosecute parking and traffic offenses, which last year generated more than $16 million in revenue for Hennepin County cities. In Minneapolis alone, the fines brought in more than $8 million to pay police salaries during 2008. Bloomington and Edina each received more than $900,000 from traffic tickets issued in their cities last year. Minnetonka and Brooklyn Park took in more than $500,000 each, and Eden Prairie more Advertisement http://www.startribme.com/templates/fdcp? 1237306964186 than $400,000. m.startribune.com Startled by the potential lost revenue, some cities, including Minneapolis, are exploring options for prosecuting traffic tickets themselves. In his letter, Thompson told cities it would be possible to transfer some enforcement and collection responsibilities from the courts to municipalities in which the violations occurred. But "doing so would require you to establish new administrative mechanisms," he said. "If the courts go out of [the traffic ticket] business, then the municipalities will need to start handling these themselves," said Susan Segal, city attorney for Minneapolis. "This is a big problem. The city and its residents are being caught in a tug of war between the governor and the courts over funding." Other cities also are concerned but waiting for state budget politics to play out. "We are hoping the Legislature and governor understand that justice needs funding," said Minnetonka City Attorney Desyl Peterson. "if people knew the police officers were issuing speeding tickets but there were the news you want delivered right to your inbox SIGN UP NOW AT startribune.com/newsletters Print Powered By .74For nnatDynamies Page 15 1 of 3 3/17/2009 11:22 AM StarTribune.com no consequences, there would be rampant lawlessness." A potential pullback Over the nest two years, the state has been facing a $6.4 billion budget deficit, which has been reduced to $4.6 billion as a result of $1.8 billion in federal stimulus money. In light of the shortfall, Pawlenty has recommended that the courts receive about $6 million less in 2010-11 than the roughly $103 million budgeted for them in 2008-09. Thompson's letter addresses that proposal in the wake of louder warnings from Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson Magnuson has said that if the governor's 5 percent budget cut comes to pass, he will recommend shutting down conciliation court, cutting hours and suspending prosecution of 21 types of cases, including property damage, harassment, probate and more than 1 million traffic and parking cases a year. The League of Minnesota Cities says this potential pullback by the courts has given new urgency to its ongoing campaign to win cities clear legal authority to write "administrative" citations for quality -of -life code violations and for low-level traffic Adm isement Offenses. http://www.startribune.com/templates/fdcp?12373069641 86 m.startribune.com Even though 60 to 100 cities already issue such administrative citations, Minnesota's attorney general and state auditor have maintained they are illegal because the state does not specifically grant localities the authority to write such tickets. Pawlenty has said courts cannot be immune to the economic crisis facing the country, and while he would try to adjust his budget for some of the court concerns, "they're also going to have to be more efficient." Asked whether the governor would favor giving cities authority to prosecute their own tickets, Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said a working group of law enforcement officials and others have been meeting for two years to reach agreement on what ticketing authority cities should have. "We are hopeful they will settle on a compromise that all parties can live with. That's what we want," he said. McClung added that several state laws require the courts to handle disputes and "it's debatable" whether they could stop processing violations, regardless of their funding level. the news you want delivered right to your inbox —� SIGN UP Now AT startribune.com/newsletters Print Powered By �� FormatDynamics" Page 16 2 of 3/17/2009 11:22 AM StarTribune.com Cities mull situation Thompson said given other more pressing legal issues, traffic tickets are a low priority for the Hennepin District Court, and he wants cities to know that it's not mandatory under the state Constitution that the courts handle them. Alan Madsen, city manager of Maple Grove, said the issue concerns him but he sees the discussion as "the normal gnashing of teeth that takes place when potential cuts of budgets are being kicked around. "My sense is this will not take place," Madsen said. "I've got to believe that ways would be found to keep things the way they are now." Eden Prairie City Manager Scott Neal said losing ticket revenue of more than $400,000 would be a problem, but "I think the bigger concern is how we as citizens of this state are going to handle justice issues. "We don't have any municipal structure that is set up right now that could handle the volume of moving and nonmoving violations that are created in our city," Neal said. Brooklyn Park has been considering writing Advertisement htip://www.startribune.com/templates/fdcp? 1237306964186 7)�7m.startribune.com its own parking tickets and would have to consider having officers write city citations rather than state citations for speeding if the courts pull back, said City Manager Jamie Verbrugge. Speed control is an essential part of neighborhood livability, he said. "We are not going to stop writing traffic tickets. If there is going to be a gap in collecting those revenues, then we are going to have to step in and fill the gap." Laurie Blake • 612-673-1711 the news you want delivered right to your inbox —� SIGN UP NOW AT startribune.com/newsletters Print Powered Byr� I FormatD namics- Page 17 3 of3 3/17/2009 11:22 AM i Ehlers Market Commentary March 16, 2009 Interest Rates Slowly Rising We saw rates drop early in 2009 but there is now a solid .5% increase from a month ago on shorter term rates and a .2% increase in longer tern rates. Increased supply is a factor, as many larger entities are releasing that pent-up demand. Underwriters report that the market for bonds is "thinner". This means that investors can be more selective about what types of bonds to buy, which leads to wider variation in rates and numbers of bids. You can see evidence of this in the attached chart. A few refunding bonds were pulled from the calendar and the number of bids was high in some cases (11) down to a low of 2 bids. The increased supply of bank qualified bonds is now evident, as every issue sold competitively last week was BQ. AAA MMD Yields From Feb. to March 5.00% 4.50% 4.00% 3.50% Z�3.00% 250% =12Feb 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year Rate Public Finance Implications of Federal Stimulus Bill There are several new and expanded forms of debt authorized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The Treasury Department has not issued regulations but indicates that guidance could arrive in 30 days. Several components of the ARRA are not just short-term economic fixes but could change the landscape of public finance for the future. Specifically, one major trend includes a movement toward taxable bonds with a direct interest credit back to issuers. IS EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE www.ehlers-inc.com Offices in Minnesota (800) 552-1171 Wisconsin (800) 717-9742 Illinois: (800) 417-1119 Page 18 Ehlers Market Commentary March 16, 2009 Certain sectors of the federal government have opposed tax-exempt bonds because they view the bonds as inefficient or as an unquantifiable revenue loss. Taxable bonds are thought to be more efficient because non -income taxpayers (especially foreign individuals and funds) could buy them, thereby expanding the market for municipal bonds. The inefficiency of tax-exempt bonds is thought to be further exacerbated by the state by state differences in providing tax -exemption (and the associated state by state bond mutual funds). One of the arguments against this radical change in financing local and state government projects is that the municipal market has a century old history with a well-established and liquid market. Municipal taxable bonds are not well-known in the international market and yields on taxable municipal bonds, even AAA rated, have often been much higher than Treasuries. Taxable bonds also generally have longer call dates. A new type of bond, called a Build America Bond (BAB), is one manifestation of the movement toward taxable bonds. A BAB is intended to be used for general governmental purposes, such as city halls, infrastructure, school buildings, etc. The BAB has several options, but the one most industry observers expect to catch on is the direct payment to the issuer. The payment to the issuer is a 35% "share" of the interest cost. Therefore, if the interest rate is 6%, the issuer receives a payment shortly before each payment date equal to 2.1%, making the net cost to the issuer 3.9%. It is still not clear how that payment would mechanically be transferred, how a refunding may work, what happens if the bonds are in default, and how the federal government will build an infrastructure to track and pay on a timely basis the thousands of new issues each year. The BAB has no bond allocation, unlike the other financing options in the ARRA. It is possible that municipal bond issuers could leave open the option to use either a traditional tax-exempt bond or a BAB until the last week before a sale to see if the taxable bond market or the tax-exempt market is more advantageous. Our past market updates have highlighted the variation in the spreads between taxable and tax-exempt debts. The spreads can vary by time of year or even by maturity within a single bond issue. The BAB adds a whole new twist and potentially lower rates, depending upon the market acceptance and issuer acceptance. The BAB still carries most of the restrictions of a tax- exempt bonds, including limits on private use, arbitrage compliance, and spend -down requirements. In addition, the BAB has a 2% limit on financing costs. As stated before, this is an experiment and authority for BAB expires the end of 2010. EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE www.ehiers-inc.com Offices in Minnesota (800) 552-1171 Wisconsin (800) 717-9742 Illinois: (800) 417-1119 Page 19 Approved Minutes City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meeting February 4, 2009 MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chair James Davis, Commissioners Erik Aamoth, Scott Nelson, Gordon Petrash, Terry Jaffoni, Marc Anderson, and Dick Kobussen MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Steve Juetten; Planning Manager Barbara Senness; Senior Planners Shawn Drill, Marie Darling, and Josh Doty; and Associate Planner Kip Berglund 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. OATH OF OFFICE Planning Manager Senness administered the oath of office to Dick Kobussen and Marc Anderson who were sworn in as Planning Commissioners for the City of Plymouth. 4. PUBLIC FORUM 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Petrash, to approve the February 4, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved. 6. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 21, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Jaffoni, seconded by Commissioner Petrash, to approve the January 21, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved. F/�`►i�"J; 7b91`►Mimi A. CITY OF PLYMOUTH (2008 Annual Report and 2009 Annual Work Plan) Planning Manager Barbara Senness gave an overview of the annual report and annual work plan. Commissioner Nelson asked if permit pricing is reviewed and amended annually or if it has remained stable. Page 20 Approved Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2009 Page 2 Planning Manager Senness responded that cities are required to show that building permit revenues are commensurate with the fees charged. The fees are reviewed annually, but do not change annually. Commission Jaffoni asked about the status of the Comprehensive Plan review schedule. Planning Manager Senness responded that in the first quarter of 2009 the City will begin to implement the plan by making the necessary changes to the City Code. The majority of the code changes would be folded into the annual zoning ordinance update, including a new zoning district to be called the RSF-R, additional design standards for attached housing, and expanded tree preservation standards. She also stated that these changes can't happen until the Comprehensive Plan is adopted, but that staff will bring the code changes to the Planning Commission for review prior to holding the public hearing on the changes. She added that the Metropolitan Council may finish their review of the Comprehensive Plan in March. Acting Chair Davis asked if the City had received any comments from neighboring cities. Planning Manager Senness responded that the City did receive comments, but nothing unusual. Those comments and all the applicable changes were forwarded directly to the City Council when they authorized the transmittal of the plan to the Metropolitan Council. MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to accept the 2008 Annual Report and 2009 Annual Work Plan and move the item forward to the City Council. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved. B. CANCEL THE FEBRUARY 18, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Commissioner Jaffoni, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to cancel the February 18, 2009 meeting. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Acting Chair Davis, without objection, to adjourn the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Page 21 Approved Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2009 Page 3 CALL TO ORDER IN THE MEDICINE LAKE ROOM — 7:19 P.M. A. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2009 Acting Chair Davis called for nominations for chair. Commissioner Nelson nominated Commissioner Davis as Chair, Commissioner Anderson seconded the nomination. No other nominations were made. Vote. 7 Ayes. NOMINATION approved. Chair Davis called for nominations for Vice Chair. Commissioner Aamoth nominated Commissioner Jaffoni as Vice -Chair, Chair Davis seconded the nomination. No other nominations were made. Vote. 7 Aves. NOMINATION approved. B. APPOINTMENT OF A PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO SERVE AS A LIAISON TO THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chair Davis called for a volunteer to serve as the liaison to the Park and Recreation Advisory Committee. Commissioner Kobussen volunteered and was thereby appointed. C. PLANNING COMMISSIONER ORIENTATION Planning Manager Senness summarized the Planning Commissioners' statutory responsibilities. She provided background on comprehensive planning and the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Senior Planner Drill summarized the zoning and subdivision application review, ordinance development and updates, and the discretion that each of these types of applications has. Senior Planner Darling summarized the application process. Planning Manager Senness handed out a memo from Bob Moberg, City Engineer, with a summary of issues typically addressed by the Engineering Division. Senior Planner Doty summarized the typical format of the staff reports and presentations. Planning Manager Senness summarized the format of the meetings and gave an overview on the regulations regarding the open meeting law. She also stated that full copies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance would be given to all Commissioners after the documents are adopted in the near future, until then, copies are available online. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Chair Davis, without objection, to adjourn the meeting at 9:17 p.m. Page 22 600 500 U � 0 a 200 100 0 MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 DATE: March 18, 2009 TO: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager cc: Steve Juetten F it, FROM: Barbara Senned, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Hennepin County Adult Correctional Facility (HCACF) Population Report Hennepin County Community Corrections staff has submitted their monthly report on average daily population for the month of February, 2009. The average daily population reported for the Plymouth facility was 573, less than the occupancy limit of 601 set by the Conditional Use Permit. The chart below shows the average monthly population since February of 2002. HCACF Monthly Population Report monmwyear Page 23 .. 3 -, 3 0" o$$ -. 3 0" 8•$ 3 0" o .. 8 3 0" o i �. 8 3 0 0 ,. 3. monmwyear Page 23 To: City of Plymouth public official — aw A� Re: Tax assessment at 2530 West Medicine Lake Blvd, Plymouth Minnesota V From: Gerald Harty, Homeowner This letter protests the overly aggressive policies of the City of Plymouth tax assessment office. For many years, the City of Plymouth has consistently levied double digit assessment increases on my property, this despite the fact that there has been little or no structural changes to the house, and no expansion to the property. This culminated in a 2009 assessment completed in 2008 which included a greater than 20 percent increase in the assessed value of the property, this done in a declining housing market. The justification for the 2008 increase was based upon a new, and creative metric employed by the city assessor's office called a "comparable view". In this case, though my house sits adjacent to Medicine Lake, the city owns the property adjacent to the lake. Thus, the new metric is based upon a hypothetical, "as if' 1 actually owned the property which afforded the view. I applaud the assessor's creativity to squeeze more tax dollar out of a piece of property, but enough is enough. Now, we all know that the housing market was nothing but a bubble, fueled by financiers, builders and developers, and yes, city governments and assessors — all of whom benefit greatly and are rewarded by ever increasing valuations, one result being a greater tax base. Yes, I have faithfully paid my taxes and will continue to do so. But, when told by the city assessor that somehow I benefit from a continually higher assessed value on my property, I feel insulted, knowing full well that the true beneficiary is the city tax coffer. In the 20 years since I purchased my property, my taxes have increasd over 800 percent, again with little structural change to the house or property. Given that housing values are plunging precipitously across the nation, state, and municipalities, I expect the city to reassess the true value of property accordingly. And, if that means that the City of Plymouth needs to scale back its precipitous growth and inexorable expansion due to a shrunken tax base, so be it. All things must come to an end, and the era where the city of Plymouth can continue to expand its scope of activities, based upon an ever increasing flow of tax dollars built upon a bogus property market bubble, has ended. And, the bogus tax valuations based upon some intangible metric such as a "comparable view", which in my mind is symptomatic of the dire straits in which we find ourselves, must also end. Respectfully, Gerald Harty �"A Page 24 rp)Cit, of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life March 20, 2009 SUBJECT: SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND VARIANCE FOR PROVIDENT/WATERFORD, LLC. (2009007) Dear Property Owner: Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this letter is to inform you of a request by Provident/Waterford, LLC, under File Number 2009007, for a site plan amendment, conditional use permit, and variance to allow installation of a drive-through service window for Caribou Coffee located at 10200 60 Avenue North. Hennepin County records indicate your property is within 500 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, April 1, 2009, 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. INFORMATION relating to this request may be examined at the Community Development Information Counter (lower level), 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, FAVCYA,1jjmht. j1 Barbara G. Senness, AICP Planning Manager 2009007propnotice 3400 PlvmoLth Blvd , Pbpmccth. Minnesota 55447-1457 • Tel: 763-509-5000 - rr; — Page 25 Adding Quality to Life March 20, 2009 SUBJECT: VARIANCE FOR COLUMBUS HOME ASSOCIATION (2009008) Dear Property Owner: Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this letter is to inform you of a request by Columbus Home Association, under File Number 2009008, for a variance to maintain an existing non -conforming sign for property located at 10904 South Shore Drive. While a formal Public Hearing is not required, it is the City's policy to inform adjacent property owners/occupants of such applications. Hennepin County records indicate your property is within 200 feet of the site of this proposal. You are hereby notified of and cordially invited to attend a meeting to be held by the Plymouth Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 1, 2009 in the Council Chambers at the Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard. INFORMATION relating to this request may be examined at the Community Development Information Counter, at Plymouth 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. If you have any questions about the specifics of this proposal, please contact the Community Development Department at (763) 509-5450. Sincerely, 1''�o �ffi Zolr' / Barbara G. Senness, AICP Planning Manager 2009008propnotice Esq F S w No SJ. 3400 Ptymouth Blvd • Ptymouth VInnesoca 55=4'-144 > TNi, i Page 26 MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 DATE: March 20, 2009 TO: Plymouth City Council FROM: Joshua Doty, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to Rules Governing Environmental Review BACKGROUND: The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is proposing to adopt new rules governing the Environmental Review Program (proposed rules are attached). If adopted, the changes would affect environmental review in the City of Plymouth. The changes summarized belowwould have the largest impact to the City of Plymouth. MANDITORY EAW's: An EAW would be required for: l) any residential development in a shoreland overlay district that contains 25 or more units, and 2) any residential development in a shoreland overlay district for natural environment lakes (Pomerleau Lake and Lake Camelot) that contains 15 or more units. MANDITORY EIS's: An EIS would be required for: 1) any residential development in a shoreland overlay district that contains 100 or more units and 2) any residential development in a shoreland overlay district for natural environment lakes that contain 50 or more units. Note: The unit thresholds for EAW's and EIS's would be loosened if: 1) over 50 percent of the development is preserved as open space or if 2) more than 85 percent of the total riparian units are developed at the State of Minnesota's minimum lot standards for un-sewered riparian lots. CUMULATIVE REVIEW: The review of an EAW, EIS or AUAR would need to consider the potential effects of future development on nearby properties that might reasonably be expected to affect the same environmental resources. CONCLUSION: If approved, the above regulation would increase the number of EAWs and EISs reviewed through the City. This would impact new developments in northwest Plymouth, specifically for the shoreland areas of Pomerleau Lake, Bass Creek, and Elm Creek as well as redevelopment projects in shoreland districts in the remainder of the city. If you would like to comment on the proposed changes, please contact staff. Comments are due to the Environmental Quality Board on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 by 4:30 p.m. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Permanent Rules Relating to Environmental Review 2. Shoreland Overlay District Map Page 27 05/29/08 REVISOR CKM/PT RD3732 1.1 Environmental Quality Board 1.2 Proposed Permanent Rules Relating to Environmental Review 1.3 4410.0200 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS. 1.4 [For text of subps 1 to 9, see M.R.I 1.5 Subp. 9a. Common open space. "Common open space" means a portion of a 1.6 development permanently set aside to preserve elements of the natural landscape for 1.7 public or private use, which will not be developed or subdivided and is either owned in 1.8 common by the individual owners in the development or by a permanently established 1.9 management entity. Common open space does not include the area within 25 feet of any 1.10 structure, any impervious surface, or the area between buildings within an individual 1.11 cluster of buildings when the development is designed using clustered compact lots or 1.12 clustered units or sites to create and preserve green space, such as in a conservation 1.13 subdivision, planned unit development, or resort. 1.14 Subp. 9&._2b. Compost facility. "Compost facility" means a facility used to compost 1.15 or co -compost solid waste, including: t.16 [For text of items A and B, see M.R.] 1.17 Subp. 9b -_9c. Connected actions. Two projects are "connected actions" if a 1.18 responsible governmental unit determines they are related in any of the following ways: 1.19 fFor text of items A to C, see M.R.] 1.20 Subp. Ila. Cumulative potential effects. "Cumulative potential effects" means the 121 effect on the environment that results from the incremental effects of a project in addition 1.22 to other projects in the environmentally relevant area that might reasonably be expected to 123 affect the same environmental resources, including future projects actually planned or for 1.24 which a basis of expectation has been laid, regardless of what person undertakes the other 1.25 projects or what jurisdictions have authority over the projects. Significant cumulative 4410.0200 I Approved by Revisor CIJII� Page 28 05/29/08 REVISOR CKM/PT RD3732 2.1 potential effects can result from individually minor projects taking place over a period of 2.2 time. In analyzing the contributions of past projects to cumulative potential effects, it is 2.3 sufficient to consider the current aggregate effects of past actions. It is not required to list 2.4 or analyze the impacts of individual past actions, unless such information is necessary 2.5 to describe the cumulative potential effects. In determining if a basis of expectation 2.6 has been laid for a proiect, an RGU must determine whether a proiect is reasonably 2.7 likely to occur and, if so, whether sufficiently detailed information is available about the 2.8 project to contribute to the understanding of cumulative potential effects. In making 2.9 these determinations, the RGU must consider: whether any applications for permits 2.10 have been filed with any units of government; whether detailed plans and specifications 2.11 have been prepared for the proiect; whether future development is indicated by adopted 2.12 comprehensive plans or zoning or other ordinances; whether future development is 2.13 indicated by historic or forecasted trends; and any other relevant factors. 2.14 LFor text of subps 12 to 55, see M.RI 2.15 Subp. 55a. Ordinary high water level. "Ordinary high water level' has the meaning 2.16 given in part 6120.2500, subpart 11. 2.17 Subp. M�. 55b. Organism. "Organism" has the meaning given in part 4420.0010, 2.18 subpart 18. 2.19 (For text of subps 56 to 79, see M.R.1 2.20 Subp. 79a. Sensitive shoreland area. "Sensitive shoreland area" means shoreland 2.21 designated as a special protection district pursuant to part 6120.3200 and shoreland 2.22 riparian to any of the following types of public waters: 2.23 A. lakes or bays of lakes classified as natural environment pursuant to part 2.24 6120.3000; 2.25 B. trout lakes and streams designated pursuant to part 6264.0050; 4410.0200 2 Page 29 05/29/08 REVISOR CKMIPT RD3732 3.1 C. wildlife lakes designated pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 97A.101, 32 subdivision 2; 33 D. migratory waterfowl feeding and resting lakes designated pursuant to 3.4 Minnesota Statutes, section 97A.095, subdivision 2; or 3.5 E. outstanding resource value waters designated pursuant to part 7050.0180. 3.6 ffor text of subp 80, see M.R.1 3.7 Subp. 81. Sewered area. "Sewered area" means an area: 3.8 A. that is serviced by a wastewater treatment facility or a publieip owned; 3.9 operated, ei super t ised centralized septic system servicing the entire development; or 3.10 Wor text of item B, see M.R.1 3.11 Subp. 81a. Shore impact zone. "Shore impact zone" means land located between 3.12 the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at 50 percent of 3.13 the structure setback distance as established by part 6120.3 300, subpart 3, or by local 3.14 ordinance, whichever distance is greater. 3.15 rFor text of subps 82 to 96, see M.R.1 3.16 4410.0400 GENERAL RESPONSIBILMES. 3.17 fFor text of subps 1 to 3, see M.R.1 3.19 Subp. 4. Appeal of final decisions. Decisions by a RGU on the need for an EAW, 3.19 the need for an EIS and,, the adequacy of an EIS, and the adequacy of an alternative urban 320 areawide review document are final decisions and may be reviewed by a declaratory 3.21 judgment action initiated within 30 days of the RGU's decision in the district court of the 3.22 county where the proposed project, or any part thereof, would be undertaken. 3.23 4410.1000 PROJECTS REQUIRING AN EAW. 3.24 IFor text of subps 1 to 4, see M.R.1 4410.1000 3 Page 30 05/29/08 REVISOR CKWPT RD3732 4.1 Subp. 5. Change in proposed project; new EAW. If, after a negative declaration 4.2 has been issued but before the proposed project has received all approvals or been 4.3 implemented, the RGU determines that a substantial change has been made in the 4.4 proposed project or has occurred in the R -G s project's circumstances, which change may 4.5 affect the potential for significant adverse environmental effects that were not addressed in 4.6 the existing EAW, a new EAW is required. 4.7 4410.1100 PETITION PROCESS. 4.8 rF' oI text of subpart 1, see M.R. 4.9 Subp. 2. Content. The petition shall also include: 4.10 LFor text of items A to D, see M.R.I 4.11 E. material evidence indicating that, because of the nature or location of 4.12 the proposed project, there may be potential for significant environmental effects. The 4.13 material evidence must physically accompany the petition. It is not sufficient to merely 4.14 provide a reference or citation to where the evidence may be found. 4.15 FFor text of subps 3 and 4, see M.R1 4.16 Subp. 5. Determination of RGU. The EQB's chair or designee shall determine 4.17 whether the petition complies with the requirements of subparts 1 and 2. If the petition 4.18 complies, the chair or designee shall designate an RGU pursuant to part 4410.0500 4.19 and forward the petition to the RGU within five days of receipt of the petition. If the 4.20 petition fails to comply, the chair or designee shall return the petition to the petitioner's 4.21 renresentative within five days of receipt of the petition with a written explanation of why 4.22 it fails to corn 4.23 (For text of subps 6 to 9, see M.R.1 4.24 4410.1200 EAW CONTENT. 4410.1200 11 Page 31 05/29/08 REVISOR CKM/PT RD3732 5.1 The EAW shall address at least the following major categories in the form provided 5.2 on the worksheet: 5.3 [For text of items A to D, see M.R.1 5.4 E. major issues sections identifying potential environmental impacts and 5.5 issues that may require further investigation before the project is commenced,including 5.6 identification of cumulative potential effects; 5.7 fFor text of items F to H, see M.R.I 5.8 4410.1700 DECISION ON NEED FOR EIS. 5.9 fFor text of subps 1 to 4, see M.R.1 5.10 Subp. 5. Distribution of decision. The RGUs decision shall be provided, within 5.11 five days, to all persons on the EAW distribution list pursuant to part 4410.1500, to all 5.12 persons that commented in writing during the 30 -day review period, and to any person 5.13 upon written request. All persons who submitted timely and substantive comments on 5.14 the EAW shall be sent a copy of the RGUs response to those comments prepared under 5.15 subpart 4. Upon notification, the EQB staff shall publish the RGUs decision in the EQB 5.16 Monitor. if the decision is a positive deelwtt6mr, the RGU s� also indicate in 5.17 deeision the daft, ffirru, and place of the seoping mview meeting. 5.18 [For text of subp 6, see M.R.1 5.19 Subp. 7. Criteria. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant 5.20 environmental effects, the following factors shall be considered: 5.21 [For text of item A, see M.R.] 5.22 B. cumulative potential effects . The 5.23 RGU shall consider the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is 5.24 significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in 5.25 connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to 4410.1700 :7 Page 32 05/29/08 REVISOR CKM/PT RD3732 6.1 which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to 6.2 address the cumulative potential effect,• and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the 6.3 contributions from the project 6.4 C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by 6.5 ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely cull on mitigation measures that 6.6 are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified 6.7 environmental impacts of the project; and 6.8 [For text of item D, see M.R.I 6.9 fFor text of subps 8 and 9, see M.R.I 6.10 4410.2300 CONTENT OF EIS. 6.11 An EIS shall be written in plain and objective language. An RGU shall use a format 6.12 for an EIS that will encourage good analysis and clear presentation of the proposed action 6.13 including alternatives to the project. The standard format shall be: 6.14 f For text of items A to G, see M.R.1 6.15 H. Environmental, economic, employment, and sociological impacts: for the 6.16 proposed project and each major alternative there shall be a thorough but succinct 6.12 discussion of potentially significant direet or mdireek adverse; or beneficial effects 6.18 generated, be they direct, indirect, or cumulative. Data and analyses shall be commensurate 6.19 with the importance of the impact and the relevance of the information to a reasoned choice 620 among alternatives and to the consideration of the need for mitigation measures; the RGU 621 shall consider the relationship between the cost of data and analyses and the relevance 622 and importance of the information in determining the level of detail of information to be 6.23 prepared for the EIS. Less important material may be summarized, consolidated, or simply 6.24 referenced. The EIS shall identify and briefly discuss any major differences of opinion 6.25 concerning significant impacts of the proposed project on the environment. 4410.2300 0 Page 33 05/29/08 REVISOR CRM/PT RD3732 7.1 fFor text of items I and J, see M.R.1 7.2 4410.3100 PROHIBITION ON FINAL GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS. 7.3 jFor text of subps 1 and 2, see M.R.1 7.4 Subp. 2a. Concurrent review of draft permits not prohibited. Subpart 1 does not 7.5 prohibit a governmental unit from issuing notice of and receiving public comments on a 7.6 draft permit prior to completion of environmental review. 7.7 Wor text of subps 3 to 9, see M.R.1 7.8 4410.3610 ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW PROCESS. 7.9 (For text of subpart 1, see M.R.1 7.10 Subp. 2. Relationship to specific development projects. 7.11 A. Upon completion of review under this part, residential, commercial, 7.12 warehousing, and light industrial development projects and associated infrastructure 7.13 within the boundaries established under subpart 3 that are consistent with development 7.14 assumptions established under subpart 3 are exempt from review under parts 4410.1100 to 7.15 4410.1700 and 4410.2100 to 4410.3000 as long as the approval and construction of the 7.16 project complies with the conditions of the plan for mitigation developed under subpart 5. 7.17 B. The prohibitions of part 4410.3 100, subparts 1 and 2, apply to all proiects for 7.18 which review under this part substitutes for review under parts 4410.1100 to 4410.1700 or 7.19 4410.2100 to 4410.3000. These prohibitions terminate upon the adoption by the RGU` of 7.20 the environmental analysis document and plan for mitigation under subpart 5. 7.21 C. If a specific residential, commercial, warehousing, light industrial, or 7.22 associated infrastructure project, that is subject to an EAW or EIS, is proposed within the 7.23 boundaries of an area for which an alternative review under this part is planned or is in 7.24 preparation but has not yet been completed, the RGU may, at its discretion, review the 4410.3610 7 Page 34 05/29/08 REVISOR CKM/PT RD3732 8.1 specific project either through the alternative areawide review procedures or through 8.2 the EAW or EIS procedures. If the project is reviewed through the alternative areawide 8.3 review procedures, at least one set of development assumptions used in the process must 8.4 be consistent with the proposed project, and the project must incorporate the applicable 8.5 mitigation measures developed through the process. 8.6 The y.ohibitiow of paik 4410.3100, subparts 1 to 3, apply to aff projeets fai which 8.7 te view mtder this Miew, twder parts 4419.1180 to 4418.1700 or 8.s 4410.2 106 to 4410.3000. These Frohibitiom terinimie-ap.. the adeption by the RGU a 8.9 8.10 D. The ordering of a review pursuant to subpart 3 does not constitute a finding 8.11 by the RGU that each potential project within the designated boundary has or may have 8.12 the potential for significant environmental effects. After an order for review has been 8.13 adopted under subpart 3 if a specific project for which an EAW or EIS is not mandatory 8.14 is proposed within the boundaries of the review area the RGU may exclude the project 8.15 from the review process and proceed with its approval by using the following process. 8.16 The RGU must provide notice of the intended exclusion and the reasons for the intended 8.17 exclusion in the same manner as for distribution of an EAW pursuant to part 4410.1500. 8.18 Agencies and interested persons shall have ten days from the date of the notice in the EOB 8.19 Monitor to file comments with the RGU about the proposed removal of the project from 8.20 the review. If no adverse comments are received within the comment period, the project 821 is automatically excluded from the review and the prohibitions under part 4410.3100 do 822 not apply to the project without further action by the RGU. If adverse comments are 823 received, the RGU must consider the comments and determine whether to include the 8.24 project in the review or to exclude it within 30 days of the end of the comment period 8.25 based on whether the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, 6.26 taldng into account the comments received and the interaction of the project with other 8.27 anticipated development in its surrounding area. 4410.3610 Page 35 05/29/08 REVISOR CKM/PT RD3732 9.1 E. If a specific project will be reviewed through the procedures of this part rather 92 than through the EAW or EIS procedures and the project itself would otherwise require 9.3 preparation of an EIS pursuant to part 4410.4400 or will comprise at least 50 percent of 9.4 the geographic area to be reviewed, the RGU must follow the additional procedures of 9.5 subpart 5a in the review 9.6 (For text of subp 3, see M.R.1 9.7 Subp. 4. Environmental analysis document; form and content. The content 9.8 and format must be similar to that of the EAW, but must provide for a level of analysis 9.9 comparable to that of an EIS for impaets direct indirect and cumulative potential effects 9.10 typical of urban residential, commercial, warehousing, and light industrial development 9.11 and associated infrastructure. The content and format must provide for a certification by 9.12 the RGU that the comprehensive plan requirements of subpart 1 are met. 9.13 Subp. 5. Procedures for review. The procedures in items A to H must be used 9.14 for review under this part. 9.15 A. The RGU shall prepare a draft environmental analysis document addressing 9.16 each of the development scenarios selected under subpart 3 using the standard content and 9.17 format provided by the EQB under subpart 4. A draft version of the mitigation plan as 9.18 described under item C must be included. The geographic extent of the analyses of direct, 9.19 indirect and cumulative potential effects conducted in preparing the document is not to be 9.20 limited by the boundaries set in the order for review under subpart 3. The draft document 9.21 must be distributed and noticed in accordance with part 4410.1500. 9.22 fFor text of items B to H, see M.R.1 9.23 Subp. 5a. Additional procedures required when certain large specific projects 9.24 reviewed. 4410.3610 9 Page 36 05/29/08 REVISOR CKM/PT RD3732 10.1 A. The procedures of this subpart must be followed in addition to those of 10.2 subpart 5 if a specific project will be reviewed according to this part and the project would 10.3 otherwise require preparation of an EIS pursuant to part 4410.4400 or will comprise at 10.4 least 50 percent of the geographic area to be reviewed. 10.5 B. Prior to final approval of the order for review pursuant to subpart 3, the 10.6 RGU must conduct a public process to receive comments about the scope of the review. 10.7 The RGU shall prepare a draft order for review and distribute and provide notice of its 10.8 availability in the same manner as for an EAW pursuant to part 4410.1500. The draft 10.9 order for review must include the information specified in subpart 3 and a description of lo.io the specific large project or projects to be included in the review comparable to that of a 1o.11 scoping EAW pursuant to part 4410.2100, subpart 2. 10.12 C. Govemment units and interested persons shall participate in the public 10.13 comment process in accordance with part 4410.1600 except that the purpose of the 10.14 comments is to suggest additional development scenarios and relevant issues to be 10.15 analyzed in the review. Comments may suggest additional development scenarios that 10.16 include altematives to the specific large project or projects proposed to be included in the 10.17 review, including development at sites outside of the proposed geographic boundary. The 10.18 comments must provide reasons why a suggested development scenario or altemative to a 10.19 specific proiect is potentially environmentally superior to those identified in the RGUs 10.20 draft order. 10.21 D. The RGU must consider all timely and substantive comments received 10.22 when finalizing the order for review. The RGU shall apply the criteria for excluding 1o.23 an altemative from analysis found under part 4410.2300, item G, in determining if a 10.24 suggested additional scenario or alternative to a specific project should be included or 10.25 excluded and must explain its reasoning in a written record of decision. 4410.3610 10 Page 37 05/29/08 REVISOR CKM/PT RD3732 11.1 E. The RGU shall adopt the final order for review within 15 days of the end of 11.2 the comment period. A copy of the order and the RGU's record of decision must be 11.3 sent within ten days of the decision to the EQB and to anyone who submitted timely 11.4 and substantive comments. 11.5 fFor text of subps 6 to 8, see M.R.1 11.6 4410.4300 MANDATORY EAW CATEGORIES. 11.7 (For text of subps 1 to 11, see M.R.1 11.8 Subp. 12. Nonmetallic mineral mining. Items A and B to C designate the RGU for 11.9 the type of project listed: 11.10 [For text of items A and B, see M.R.] 11.11 C. For development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand, gravel, 11.12 stone, or other nonmetallic minerals, other than peat, which will excavate 20 or more 11.13 acres of forested or other naturally vegetated land in a sensitive shoreland area or 40 11.14 acres of forested or other naturally vegetated Iand in a nonsensitive shoreland area. the 11.15 local governmental unit shall be the RGU 11.16 rFor text of subps 13 to 19, see M.R.1 11.17 Subp. 19a. Residential development in shoreland. 11.18 A. The local governmental unit is the RGU for construction of a permanent or 11.19 potentially permanent residential development located wholly or partially in shoreland of 11.2o a type listed in items B to E. For purposes of this subpart, "riparian unit" means a unit in a 11.21 development that abuts a public water or, in the case of a development where units are not 11.22 allowed to abut the public water, is located in the first tier of the development as provided 11.23 under part 6120.3800, subpart 4, item A 4410.4300 11 Page 38 05/29/08 REVISOR CKM/PT RD3732 12.1 B. A development containing 15 or more unattached or attached units for a 12.2 sensitive shoreland area or 25 or more unattached or attached units for a nonsensitive 12.3 shoreland area, if any of the following conditions is present: 12.4 (1) less than 50 percent of the area in shoreland is common open space; 12.5 (2) the number of riparian units exceeds by at least 15 percent the number 12.6 of riparian lots that would be allowable calculated according to the applicable lot area 12.7 and width standards for riparian unsewered single lots underpart 6120.3 300, subparts 12.8 2a and 2b; or 12.9 (3) if any portion of the project is in an unincorporated area, the number Of 12.10 nonriparian units in shoreland exceeds by at least 15 percent the number of lots that would 12.11 be allowable on the parcel calculated according to the applicable lot area standards for 12.12 nonriparian unsewered single lots under part 6120.3300, subparts 2a and 2b. 12.13 C. A development containing 25 or more unattached or attached units for a 12.14 sensitive shoreland area or 50 or more unattached or attached units for a nonsensitive 12.15 shoreland area, if none of the conditions listed in item B is present. 12.16 D. A development in a sensitive shoreland area that provides permanent mooring 12.17 space for at least one nonriparian unattached or attached unit. 12.18 E. A development containing at least one unattached or attached unit created 12.19 by the conversion of a resort, motel, hotel, recreational vehicle park, or campground if 12.2o either of the following conditions is present: 12.21 (1) the number of nonriparian units in shoreland exceeds by at least 15 12.22 percent the number of lots that would be allowable on the parcel calculated according 12.23 to the applicable lot area standards for nonriparian unsewered single lots under part 12.24 6120.3300, subparts 2a and 2b; or 4410.4300 12 Page 39 05/29/08 REVISOR CKM/PT RD3732 13.1 2) the number of riparian units exceeds by at least 15 percent the number 13.2 of riparian lots that would be allowable calculated according to the applicable lot area 13.3 and width standards for riparian unsewered single lots under part 61203300, subparts 13.4 2a and 2b. 13.5 F. An EAW is required for residential development if the total number of units 13.6 that may ultimately be developed on all contiguous land owned or under an option to 13.7 purchase by the proposer, except land identified by an applicable comprehensive plan, 13.8 ordinance, resolution, or agreement of a local governmental unit for a future use other than 13.9 residential development, equals or exceeds a threshold of this subpart. In counting the 13.10 total number of ultimate units, the RGU shall include the number of units in any plans of 13.11 the proposer. For land for which the proposer has not vet prepared plans, the RGU shall 13.12 use as the number of units the number of acres multiplied by the maximum number of 13.13 units per acre allowable under the applicable zoning ordinance or, if the maximum number 13.14 of units allowable per acre is not specified in an applicable zoning ordinance, by the 13.15 overall average number of units per acre indicated in the plan of the proposer for those 13.16 lands for which plans exist. 13.17 (For text of subp 20, see M.R.1 13.18 Subp. 20a. Resorts, campgrounds, and RV parks in shorelands. The local 13.19 government unit is the RGU for construction or expansion of a resort or other seasonal or 13.20 permanent recreational development located wholly or partially in shoreland, accessible 13.21 by vehicle, of a type listed in item A or B- 13.22 A. construction or addition of 25 or more units or sites in a sensitive shoreland 13.23 area or 50 units or sites in a nonsensitive shoreland area if at least 50 percent of the area in 13.24 shoreland is common open space; or 4410.4300 13 Page 40 05/29/08 REVISOR CKM/PT RD3732 14.1 B. construction or addition of 15 or more units or sites in a sensitive shoreland 14.2 area or 25 or more units or sites in a nonsensitive shoreland area, if less than 50 percent of 14.3 the area in shoreland is common open space. 14.4 [For text of subps 21 to 36, see M.R.1 14.5 Subp. 36a. Land conversions in shoreland. 14.6 A. For a proiect that alters 800 feet of the shoreline in a sensitive shoreland 14.7 area or 1,320 feet of shoreline in a nonsensitive shoreland area, the local governmental 14.8 unit is the RGU. 14.9 B. For a proiect that alters more than 50 percent of the shore impact zone if the 14.10 alteration measures at least 5,000 square feet, the local governmental unit is the RGU. 14.11 C. For a project that permanently converts 20 or more acres of forested or other 14.12 naturally vegetated land in a sensitive shoreland area or 40 or more acres of forested or 14.13 other naturally vegetated land in a nonsensitive shoreland area, the local governmental 14.14 unit is the RGU. 14.15 (For text of Subp 37, see M.R.1 14.16 4410.4400 MANDATORY EIS CATEGORIES. 14.17 fFor text of subps 1 to 8, see M.R.1 14.18 Subp. 9. Nonmetallic mineral mining. Items A and B to C designate the RGU for 14.19 the type of project listed: 14.20 [For text of items A and B, see M.R.] 14.21 C. For development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand, gravel, 14.22 stone, or other nonmetallic minerals, other than peat, which will excavate 40 or more 14.23 acres of forested or other naturally vegetated land in a sensitive shoreland area or 80 or 4410.4400 14 Page 41 05/29/08 REVISOR CKN"T RD3732 15.1 more acres of forested or other naturally vegetated land in a nonsensitive shoreland area, 15.2 the local governmental unit is the RGU. 15.3 (For text ofsubps 10 to 14, see M.R.I 15.4 Subp. 14a. Residential development in shoreland. 15.5 A. The local governmental unit is the RGU for construction of a permanent or 15.6 potentially permanent residential development located wholly or partially in shoreland of 15.7 a type listed in items B to D. For purposes of this subpart "riparian unit" means a unit in a 15.8 development that abuts a public water or, in the case of a development where units are not 15.9 allowed to abut the public water, is located in the first tier of the development as provided 15.10 under part 6120.3800, subpart 4, item A. 15.11 B. A development containing 50 or more unattached or attached units for a 15.12 sensitive shoreland area or 100 or more unattached or attached units for a nonsensitive 15.13 shoreland area, if any of the following conditions is present: 15.14 (1) less than 50 percent of the area in shoreland is common open space; 15.15 (2) the number of riparian units exceeds by at least 15 percent the number 15.16 of riparian lots that would be allowable calculated according to the applicable lot area 15.17 and width standards for riparian unsewered single lots under part 6120.3300, subparts 15.18 2a and 2b; or 15.19 (3) any portion of the project is in an unincorporated area. 15.20 C. A development of 100 or more unattached or attached units for a sensitive 15.21 shoreland area or 200 or more unattached or attached units for a nonsensitive shoreland 15.22 area, if none of the conditions listed in item B is present. 15.23 D. A development creating 20 or more unattached or attached units for a 1524 sensitive shoreland area or 40 or more unattached or attached units for a nonsensitive 01111 SS: I 1 15 Page 42 05/29/08 REVISOR CKNUPT RD3732 16.1 shoreland area by the conversion of a resort, motel, hotel, recreational vehicle park, or 16.2 campground, if either of the following conditions is present: 16.3 (1Z the number of nonriparian units in shoreland exceeds by at least 15 16.4 percent the number of lots that would be allowable on the parcel calculated according to 16.5 the applicable lot area and width standards for nonriparian unsewered single lots under 16.6 part 6120.3300, subparts 2a and 2b; or 16.7 (2) the number of riparian units exceeds by at least 15 percent the number 16.8 of riparian lots that would be allowable calculated according to the applicable lot area 16.9 and width standards for riparian unsewered single lots under Dart 6120.3300. subparts 16.10 2a and 2b. 16.11 E. An EIS is required for residential development if the total number of units 16.12 that the proposer may ultimately develop on all contiguous land owned by the proposer or 16.13 for which the proposer has an option to purchase, except land identified by an applicable 16.14 comprehensive plan, ordinance, resolution, or agreement of a local governmental unit for 16.15 a future use other than residential development, equals or exceeds a threshold of this 16.16 subpart. In counting the total number of ultimate units, the RGU shall include the number 16.17 of units in any plans of the proposer. For land for which the proposer has not vet prepared 16.18 plans, the RGU shall use as the number of units the number of acres multiplied by the 16.19 maximum number of units per acre allowable under the applicable zoning ordinance or, if 16.20 the maximum number of units allowable per acre is not specified in an applicable zoning 16.21 ordinance, by the overall average number of units Der acre indicated in the Dlans of the 16.22 proposer for those lands for which plans exist. 16.23 [For text of subps 15 to 25, see M.R.I 16.24 Subp. 26. Resorts, campgrounds, and RV parks in shorelands. For construction or 16.25 expansion of a resort or other seasonal or permanent recreational development, accessible 4410.4400 16 Page 43 05/29/08 REVISOR CKM/PT RD3732 17.1 by vehicle, adding 100 or more units or sites in a sensitive shoreland area or 200 or more 17.2 units or sites in a nonsensitive shoreland area, the local govemmental unit is the RGU. 17.3 Subp. 27. Land conversion in shorelands. For a project that permanently converts 17.4 40 or more acres of forested or other naturally vegetated land in a sensitive shoreland 17.5 area or 80 or more acres of forested or other naturally vegetated land in a nonsensitive 17.6 shoreland area, the local governmental unit is the RGU. 17.7 Subp. 28. Genetically engineered wild rice. For the release and a permit for a 17.8 release of genetically engineered wild rice for which an EIS is required by Minnesota 17.9 Statutes, section 116C.94, subdivision 1, paragraph (b), the EQB is the RGU. 17.10 4410.4600 EXEMPTIONS. 17.11 Subpart 1. Scope of exemption. Projects within subparts 2 and 2?� 26 are exempt 17.12 from parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500. Projects within subparts 3 to 25 and 27 are exempt 17.13 from parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500, unless they have characteristics which meet or exceed 17.14 any of the thresholds specified in part 4410.4300 or 4410.4400. 17.15 (For text of subps 2 to 6, see M.RI 17.16 Subp. 7. Storage facilities. Construction of a facility designed for or capable of 17.17 storing less than 750 tons of coal or more with an annual throughput of less than 12,500 17.18 tons of coal, or the expansion of an existing facility by these respective amounts, is exempt. 17.19 IFor text of subps 8 to 11, see M.R.1 17.20 Subp. 12. Residential development. The following projects are exempt: 17.21 [For text of item A, see M.R.I 17.22 B. Construction of less than ten residential units located in shoreland, provided 17.23 all land in the development that lies within 300 feet of the ordinary high water level t7.24 of the lake or river, or edge of any wetland adjacent to the lake or river, is preserved 17.25 as common open space. 4410.4600 IVA Page 44 05/29/08 REVISOR CKM/PT RD3732 18.1 C. Construction of a single residence or multiple residence with four dwelling 18.2 units or less and accessory appurtenant structures and utilities is exempt. 18.3 fFor text of suhps 13 to 25, see M.R.1 18.4 Subp. 26. Governmental activities. Proposals and enactments of the legislature, 18.5 rules or orders of governmental units, adoption and amendment of comprehensive and 18.6 other plans, zoning ordinances, or other official controls by local governmental units, 18.7 rezoning actions by a local governmental unit unless the action would be primarily for the 18.8 benefit of a specific proiect or projects, adoption and amendment of plans by state agencies, 18.9 executive orders of the governor or their implementation by governmental units, judicial 18.10 orders, and submissions of proposals to a vote of the people of the state are exempt. 18.11 fFor text of subp 27, see M.R.1 4410.4600 18 Page 45 Shoreland Districts City of Plymouth, Minnesota THIS REPRESENTS A COMPILATNIN OF INFORMATION AND MTP FROM CITY. OOUN . STATE AND OTNFD SOURCES THAT NAS NOT BEEN FIELD VERIFIED. INFORMATION SHOULD BE FIELD VERIFIEDMDOOMPMEO WITNORINGIALSOURCEDOCUMENTS. 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Legend Shoreland Districts General Development Lakes ® Natural Environment Lakes Recreational Develoment Lakes Tributary Streams Parcels Lake