HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 01-06-1989CITY C)"
PLYMOUTH+
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
January 6, 1989
RECYCLING CASH DRAWING
January 5: No Winner
Next Week: $300 Cash Award
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS.....
1. BOARD OF ZONING -- Tuesday, January 10, 7:30 p.m. The Board of
Zoning Adjustments and Appeals will meet in the City Council
Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-1)
2. PLANNING COMMISSION -- Wednesday, January 11, 7:30 p.m. The
Planning Commission will meet in the City Council Chambers. Agenda
attached. (M-2)
3. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION -- Thursday, January 12, 7:30 p.m.
The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission will meet in the City
Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-3)
4. COMMUNITY CENTER INFORMATION MEETING -- Thursday, January 19, 7:30
p.m. The public information meeting on the proposed Community
Center will be held in the City Council chambers.
5. NEXT COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, January 23, 7:30 p.m. Regular City
Council meeting in City Council chambers.
6. LEGISLATIVE BREAKFAST MEETING -- Saturday, January 14, 8:00 a.m. A
legislative breakfast meeting with local officials and legislators
from Districts 45, 46, 47 and 48 will be held at the Brooklyn Center
Civic Center. A copy of the meeting notice is attached. (M-6)
7. MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION (MLC) ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE DINNER -
The MLC annually hosts a dinner for area legislators and other
legislative leaders. This year the dinner will be held on Thursday,
February 2, commencing at 6:30 p.m, at the Decathelon Club. Each of
our legislators will be invited to this event. If you are
interested in attending, please let Laurie know not later than
Monday, January 23.
8. MEETING CALENDAR -- The January meeting calendar is attached. (M-8)
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH MINNESOTA 554471, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
January 6, 1989
Page 2
FOR YOUR INFORMATION....
1. NEW RESIDENT PACKETS -- At the January 3 meeting the Council
requested a cost breakdown of items included in the new resident
packet bags.
Park Brochure:
$ 1.13*
Comprehensive Plan Booklet:
.60
Community Info. Booklet:
.60
Plymouth on Parade:
.30
Recycling Brochure:
.15
New Resident Bag:
.11
Alarm Ordinance Flyer:
.01
Voter Registration Cards:
(supplied by County)
Metrolink Schedules:
(supplied by Metrolink)
TOTAL COST: $ 2.90
* First printing of document. Reprinting expected to be 65¢ each.
Staff began distributing the new resident packet bags in December.
Prior to that the same materials were distributed, but residents had
to go to three different locations in the City Center to pick them
up.
2. CITY ATTORNEY'S OPINION ON HOLDING A SPECIAL ELECTION ON THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER TO BUILD A COMMUNITY CENTER - The question has
been raised as to whether or not the City Council could hold a
special advisory election to consider whether or not the citizens
desire a community center. The Attorney's opinion concludes that
there is no provision under state law for such advisory elections to
be held by the City Council. (I-2)
3. HENNEPIN COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY TRANSFER STATION -- A copy of the
Mayor's remarks and information submitted at the January 5 public
meeting on the draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statement are
attached. (I-3)
4. BOARD & COMMISSION VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT -- Attached is a copy of the
news release announcing city board and commission vacancies which
will appear in the local papers for the next two weeks. A sample
letter being sent to individuals requesting board and commission
applications is also attached for the Council's information. (I-4)
5. RESIGNATION OF CITY ENGINEER - Fred Moore has informed me that he
has received the resignation of City Engineer Chet Harrison, to be
effective February 7. Chet will be joining the consulting civil
engineering firm of J.R. Hill and Associates, with an opportunity to
purchase the firm. Chet joined the City on January 11, 1988 and his
resignation is going to leave a significant position temporarily
vacant.
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
January 6, 1989
Page 3
6. DISTRICT 281 GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL -- The December 16 minutes
from the December 16 Government Advisory Council meeting is
attached. (I-6)
7. PLYMOUTH RECYCLING -- An article on Plymouth's Recycling program has
been submitted to the Minnesota Cities magazine for publication. A
copy is attached. (I-7)
8. ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM -- The Suburban Hennepin Energy
Assistance Program has released it's Annual Report for 1987-88
The report is on file in the Manager's office for Council review.
9. CORRESPONDENCE:
a. Letter responding to Pastor Wayne Peterson, St. Barnabas
Lutheran Church, from Blair Tremere, concerning notice to church
and religious institutions on draft amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance. (I-9)
b. Letter to Mark Kieffer, 4875 Saratoga Lane, from City Manager,
on Mr. Kieffer's inquiry of the paving of the trail connection
through Wild Wings Addition to Rolling Hills Park. (I -9b)
c. Letter from Ralph Blattner, to Mayor and Council, commenting on
the community center. (I -9c)
d. Letter from Hennepin County Commisioner Sam Sivanich, to Mayor
Schneider, advising of the Board's approval of additional
reimbursement to the City for recycling containers in 1987 and
1988. (I -9d)
e. Letter from Beverly Kottas, Heritage Highlands Homeowners
Association, asking for Council and staff written comments on
the community Center. (I -9e)
f. Notes/letters from Plymouth residents that have been attached to
alarm permit applications. (I -9f)
g. Letter of appreciation from Marl Ramsey, Superintendent of Osseo
Schools, for the City's donation of $500 to the Osseo Junior
High chemical abuse prevention program. This donation is the
result of a fine against Colony Liquor for selling to minor
violation which occured last May. (I -9g)
h. Letter of appreciation from Marge Hegland for assistance
provided by Plymouth police in response to a medical emergency.
(I -9h)
James G. Willis
City Manager
AGENDA
Board of Zoning Adjustments
and Appeals
Tuesday, January 10, 1989
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. None
OLD BUSINESS
WHERE: Plymouth City Center
Council Chambers
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
7:30 P.M.
November 29, 1988
A. Eugene Sullivan. Variances from the Shoreland Management and side yard
setbacks for the construction of a deck onto his home at 9920 Southshore
Drive. (11-01-88)
5. ADJOURNMENT
AGEND
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WHERE: Plymouth City Center
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1989 3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine by the
Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner, citizen or
petitioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the
consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on the agenda.
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
3.* CONSENT AGENDA
4.* APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 28, 1988
5. OLD BUSINESS
A. Continued Consideration of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
(Places of Worship)
6. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Comprehensive Plan Update
1. Goals, Objectives and Criteria
2. Land Use Guide Plan
7. ADJOURNMENT 10:00 P.M.
(agendas:pc/1-11)
Regular Meeting of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
January 12, 1989, 7:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Visitor Presentations
a. Athletic Associations
b. Staff
c. Others
4. Report on Past Council Action
a. Selection of Three Architect Finalists - Community Center
b.
5. Unfinished Business
a. West Medicine Lake Drive Trail - Public Meeting
b. Parkers Lake Update
c. Plymouth Creek Park - Parking Lot Improvements
d. Comprehensive Plan Update
e. Community Center Update
f.
6. New Business
a. New Plats
b.
C.
d.
7. Commission Presentation
B. Staff Communication
9. Adjournment
Next Regular PRAC Meeting Feb. 9, 1989
City of Golden Valley
DATE: December 21, 1988
TO: City Officials and Legislators
FROH: Mary E. Anderson, Golden Valley Mayor
RE: January 14, 1989 Legislative Breakfast Meeting
DEC
Charles Darth, Director of Intergovernmental Relations for Brooklyn
Park, and I have arranged for a meeting of local officials and
legislators from Districts 45, 46, 47 and 48. The meeting will be in
Constitution Hall in the Brooklyn Center Civic Center at 8:00 All on
Saturday, January 14, 1989. Orange juice, coffee and rolls will be
available.
These meetings usually last about two hours. As in the past, we are
asking particular legislators to make introductory remarks on several
issues and then open it for discussion and questions.
This memo is being sent to Mayors and Managers. Please notify any
others interested.
AGENDA
1. Introductions.
2. Property Tax Reform.
3. Tax Increment Financing.
4. MVET Transfer.
5. Other.
6. Next fleeting ?
Qa+ W6 ---
Civic
- -
Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427, (612) 593-8000
a � �2 M
N
O r a
co S N
cn ~
YW OD
r N
S 3
Q
cc
S W n 00
to N
W
W
O O N N
f
j U9 r N
N
a - F N M
Q N Qf tD C.) O
LL N Pf
co
O N N
OOi ~
cc a
n "t N N
m
Wj
O N N
W
O
z N N
z a m N
N
Q
Q
r
M
W
Q
I
U-
M
O
Cfl
r--
N
N
w
QZ
w
Cc�
F-
z o
to
F -
w •
W cn
CC
z Cl-
LLI� d
U
D
U O
O
~
_
CU
N
�
O')
Ln
Q�a
� w
�
o
L-) C)
WC�
M
U
z
.Z-, r
Z n
0
Z
��
LL
Z
Z
a�
N ¢~
LD
J
Z
v�
Z
�Z
o
OO
Li M::(n
M
O
W
p
--�
olf O
(`M
LIJ F-
r-
m
T
N
M
Lel
w
LLI
W
U
C7
i-QLiZa>-
< LL-O
a"O
U- LLJ
W
r-+
M
i
LLN
r -. O O
O 0
W Cl) d
z
O (n
J J
w
J o
CD >-
Ea 0
..
ME w
O
O=HU
a] W
O
W
af . .
�oo�
0,9<
N
a)
r-
N
C�7-
0
}
Q
N
[C
a
3z
Z
D
Ln
N
a)
00
T-
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 333-0543
Telecopier (612) 333-0540
J. Dennis O'Brien
John E. Drawz
David J. Kennedy
Joseph E. Hamilton
John B. Dean
Glenn E. Purdue
Richard J. Schieffer
Charles L. LeFevere
James J. Thomson, Jr.
Thomas R. Galt
Steven B. Schmidt
John G. Kressel
James M. Strommen
Ronald H. Batty
William P. Jordan
William R. Skallerud
Corrine A. Heine
David D. Beaudoin
Steven M. Tallen
Mary Frances Skala
Leslie M. Altman
Timothy J. Pawlenty
Rolf A. Sponheim
Julie A. Bergh
Darcy L. Hitesman
David C. Roland
Karen A. Chamerlik
Paul D. Baertschi
Arden Fritz
Mark J. Gergen
Julie A. Lawler
Janet J. Coleman
Stephen J. Bubul
Clayton L. LeFevere, Retired
Herbert P. Lefler, Retired
LeFeNe►r
Leper
tienne(1N
( *1'6(cn !�
Dul[N� i
a Profc.sional
Aa,ocia[ion
January 3, 1989
Mr. James G. Willis
City Manager
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Re: Proposed Community Center - Special Election
Dear Jim:
You have asked for an opinion on whether it wouldd be
proper for the City to hold a special election to allow
voters to express their opinion on whether to build a
community center. For the reasons set forth below, it is
my opinion that the City does not have the authority to
hold a. special election on that issue, even if the
election is advisory, and that any expenditure of public
funds for such an election could be challenged as being
unlawful.
The authority for municipalities to hold special elec-
tions is governed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 205.10,
which states that a special election may be held "on a
question on which the voters are authorized by law or
charter to pass judgment." Statutory cities, such as
Plymouth, are authorized to hold elections on issues such
as the issuance of certain types of bonds (Minn. Stat. §
475.58), some issues relating to intoxicating liquor
licenses (Minn. Stat. § 340A.416), or whether to join a
special district having taxing authority in the City
(Minn. Stat. § 412.221, Subd. 33 (1988)). There is no
statutory authority authorizing a special election on the
issue of whether a public facility should be built.
The leading case in Minnesota on the authority of a
governmental entity to hold special elections is Muehring
V. School District No. 31, 28 N.w.2d 655 (1947). The
issue in that case was whether a school district had the
authority to submit to the voters the question of whether
to provide bus transportation for students in part of the
district. The court concluded that the school district
did not have the authority to conduct such an election.
The rationale for the court's decision was that a local
Mr. James G. Willis
January 3, 1989
Page 2
governmental entity that has been delegated authority by
the state cannot redelegate that authority to the voters.
The Attorney General has been asked on numerous occasions
to give opinions on the authority of governmental
entities to submit advisory questions to the voters.
Without exception, the Attorney General has concluded
that a governmental entity is not authorized to conduct a
special election unless there is specific statutory
authority authorizing the issue to be put to the voters.
For example, the Attorney General has concluded that a
city does not have the authority to submit the question
of fluoridation of the City's water supply to the voters
regardless of who would pay the expenses of the election
(Ops. Atty. Gen. 472o, May 3, 1967). Another example is
that a city does not have the authority to hold an
election on the question of whether to allow Sunday
movies, even if the election is held at the same time as
a primary election (Ops. Atty. Gen. 472o, May 13, 1932).
Other situations in which the Attorney General has ruled
that there is no authority to hold advisory elections
include: whether to build an addition to city hall (Ops.
Atty. Gen. 185b-2, June 9, 1932); whether to annex
property to the City (Ops. Atty. Gen. 4720 July 31,
1959); whether to acquire and establish a waterworks
system (Ops. Atty. Gen. 185b-2, Aug. 22, 1961); whether
to issue private liquor licenses (Ops. Atty. Gen.
185b-2, Oct. 23, 1964); whether to participate in a
federal urban renewal program (Ops. Atty. Gen. 185b-2,
July 22, 1969); whether to establish an on -sale liquor
store (Ops. Atty. Gen. 185b-2, June 28, 1962); and
whether to establish a game refuge (Ops. Atty. Gen.
185b-2, April 6, 1962).
In summary, the City does not have the authority to hold
a special election on the question of whether to build a
community center even if the election is only intended to
be advisory. This, of course, does not mean that the
City Council cannot solicit and receive the opinions of
residents on whether it is desirable to build a community
center.
Mr. James G. Willis
January 3, 1989
Page 3
I would be happy to answer any further questions that you
or the City Council may have concerning this issue.
Sincerely yours,
LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY,
0' BRIEN & DRAWZ
James 7 Thomson, Jr.
0066LT15.I34
REMARKS BY CITY OF PLYMOUTH MAYOR VIRGIL SCHNEIDER
FOR THE JANUARY 5, 1989 PUBLIC MEETING
REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY TRANSFER STATION PROJECT
I am Mayor Virgil Schneider from the City of Plymouth. The City Council
and I have reviewed the draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. We
continue to have grave concerns about the proposed Resource Recovery Transfer
Station in the City of Plymouth. We previously expressed our concerns to the
Hennepin County Board on June 11, 1987, and to a Metropolitan Council panel on
February 29, 1988, at the scoping hearing for this Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement. Copies of our remarks and background information were
submitted at those times. We welcome this opportunity to comment further and
I have provided you with copies of the detailed response.
The SEIS raises a variety of questions which must be publicly and
thoroughly discussed and resolved before Any environmental approvals and
permits are granted. The City of Plymouth cannot accept being a testing
laboratory for the citizen household hazardous waste and recycling dropoff
functions that have been added to the transfer station. If there is a lack of
knowledge about these operations, then they should be explicitly excluded from
any proposed transfer station and not started until such time that they can be
fully resolved.
We question the accuracy of the SEIS data and its analysis. The Impact
Statement gives only cursory consideration to the following facts that the
City Plymouth previously presented:
1) The proposed site is within the City's water well field;
2) There 1,a high likelihood of anonymous, illegal citizen drops "at the
-1-
gate" and "along the road" near the site; and
3) The City's zoning restrictions on all land uses in the Planned
Industrial District are designed to minimize exactly the kind of
public activity and traffic that will be generated by the citizen
dropoff functions proposed for the station.
A member of the Metropolitan Council staff was quoted in the local media
as saying, "There is some litter. There is some odor, there is some traffic."
The City of Plymouth has high standards for all uses in the Planned Industrial
District, especially regarding external impacts such as litter, storage,
traffic, and odor. We expect Any new facility to meet or exceed those
standards, including a transfer station built by the County.
The City found the SEIS weak on critical issues. These are detailed in
the material I have handed out. The document has many references to things
the County has yQt to do, and the things the County lacks in the way of
programs, policies, and experience to handle the operations proposed for the
transfer station.
Nevertheless, the City of Plymouth is being asked to trust the County to
build and operate a multipurpose facility on the faith that it "should" have
minimal impact upon our City and "should" be compatible with established uses
in the area. The SEIS is not reassuring.
We are also very concerned about equity and the burden the City of
Plymouth is being asked to bear, in addition to existing County sponsored
and/or owned facilities located in our City. The SEIS identifies two other
"potential" sites in Plymouth as "alternatives." This begs the question we
have raised before: What is the equitable burden any City in the County must
bear for County sponsored and/or owned facilities? That burden j -a part of our
environment; increasing the burden is an impact.
-2-
The information we submitted earlier to the County and to the
Metropolitan Council states that the City has been and shall remain a
responsible member of the Hennepin County community. However, the SEIS fails
to even mention that the City already is home to the following County -owned
and related facilities: the 70 acre Adult Correctional Facility; the 280 acre
Clifton E. French Regional Park; the 160 acre Pike Lake/Eagle Lake Regional
Park; and the 65 acre Regional Trail Corridor.
The true required "no build alternative" that should have been explicitly
addressed in the SEIS is that other alternative sites in Hennepin County, not
just within the City of Plymouth, might be available. Furthermore, it does
seem reasonable to conclude that this facility, especially with the household
hazardous waste dropoff and recycling operations, might very well be
inappropriate, hazardous, and environmentally unsound for this developing
urban area.
Plymouth residents are responsible and concerned citizens. We have an
excellent track record as to our recycling efforts. We are willing to work
with the County and with the Metropolitan Council to ensure that the concerns
expressed here are dealt with in a sensitive and responsible manner. We are a
highly planned community and have specific controls regarding all land uses
including waste facilities. We understand the State law with respect to local
zoning decisions regarding transfer stations.
However, the issue before us here is whether the required Environmental
Impact Statement has been prepared in a thorough manner to serve as a
meaningful tool as spelled out in the State law. We have concluded that the
statement is incomplete and only superficially addresses the concerns raised
by the City of Plymouth.
-3-
I believe that you will reach the same conclusion once you have reviewed
the detailed information. Both the County and the Metropolitan Council need
to do more research and work before any environmental approvals are granted
for the facility as proposed.
The addition of the household hazardous waste dropoff and recycling
functions distort the perceptions the public has had regarding the need for,
and operation of, a transfer station. The environmental analysis reflects the
apparent haste with which those features were added.
Please review the detailed information I have provided and consider it
carefully before you render a final decision on this Environment Impact
Statement. The citizens of Plymouth and of Hennepin County expect and deserve
a planning and environmental review effort which is thorough and equitable.
That has yet to be achieved.
Thank you for your attention and continued cooperation.
(speech)
-4-
INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF
REMARKS BY CITY OF PLYMOUTH MAYOR VIRGIL SCHNEIDER
FOR THE JANUARY 5, 1989 PUBLIC MEETING
REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY TRANSFER STATION PROJECT
I. The City of Plymouth continues to have grave concerns regarding the
proposed location of a resource recovery transfer station in the City.
The City has expressed concerns previously to the Hennepin County Board
on June 11, 1987 and before a Metropolitan Council Panel on February 29,
1988, at the Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Hearing. Copies of
the City remarks and background information were submitted at those
times.
The true "no -build alternative" that should have been explicitly
addressed in this document is that other alternative sites in Hennepin
Count , not just within Plymouth, might be available and that placing
such a facility in a developing/developed urban area might very well be
inappropriate, hazardous, and environmentally unsound.
A. The City has reviewed the December, 1988, draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and finds that significant
issues remain which either have not been fully addressed or which are
not addressed at all, apparently due to the lack of information
regarding the construction and operation of such facilities.
B. It contains inaccurate or incomplete information which can
significantly alter one's perception of the proposed facility and, in
this case, tends to minimize features which in fact can be reasonably
expected to present ongoing environmental problems and to foster
1
continued anxiety by the residents of the area and of the entire
community.
C. The contention that alternate sites and the "no build option" have
been adequately addressed is not valid. The stated reasons for
considering the site which the County has already purchased as an
"alternative" to the previously selected site on land the County
already owned in Hopkins have stronger contradictions than the
reasons the Hopkins site was rejected. The proximity to a food
distribution facility in Hopkins pales against the proximity to the
major Plymouth municipal water well field and food distribution
facility in Plymouth.
D. The suggestion in the SEIS that the proposed transfer station would
have minimal impact due to its tax exempt status is incredible, given
the existing facilities this City has, versus other communities in
the County with similar transportation system access who have no
facilities whatsoever.
E. The proposal to add additional functions to the originally proposed
transfer station may have a rational philosophical basis but has not
had the attention or analysis it deserves because of potential
problems. Dropoff areas for citizens as well as for waste haulers
and municipal recyclers for delivery of recyclable materials and yard
waste, and a dropoff area for County residents for delivery of
household hazardous waste present a whole spectrum of management and
environmental problems that, at best, receive cursory treatment in
the SEIS, apparently due to the lack of knowledge of how these
functions will work.
The external impacts of this facility upon the community are
significantly heightened due to these additional proposed functions,
whereas, the transfer stations alone were to have been self-contained
and enclosed except for the entry and exit of commercial vehicles.
II. The SEIS raises a variety of questions which should be publicly and
thoroughly addressed before a_ny environmental approvals and permits are
granted. Where there is a lack of knowledge and/or information then
those operations should be explicitly excluded from the proposal until
such time they can be addressed in an acceptable manner. It is not
acceptable to expect the City of Plymouth to be a testing laboratory for
the functions other than the transfer operations based upon current data.
(Note: The page numbers refer to the December, 1988 draft SEIS.)
A. Page 4. What does the statement, "obviously unacceptable material
will be rejected" mean, exactly? Does it suggest that it will be
rejected from the immediate premises but perhaps left elsewhere in
the vicinity because the person bringing it did not realize it would
be rejected?
What exactly are the controls for the unwanted/illegal items? What
are the measures that will assure no arbitrary/improper dropoffs will
be made "at the gate"?
B. Page 10. What actual experience has there been relative to the
expected percentage of improper hazardous waste? Much emphasis seems
to be placed upon the estimates of five to ten percent expectation
based on a previous Environmental Impact Statement for other
facilities. This would not be a problem if the site were only
identified as a transfer station not available to the general public
or recyclers.
3
C. Page 11. The SEIS states the County "will attempt to separate and
remove loads of waste that can be visually identified as containing
unacceptable or hazardous waste, but will not separate small
quantities of household hazardous waste or less obvious commercial or
industrial waste." Is this to be exclusively defined by the County,
and, more probably by personnel on the site? Are guidelines
established by the Pollution Control Agency or by Federal
authorities? The resolution of this problem is not treated directly
by the SEIS.
D. Page 13. The County at this time has not specified details regarding
the design and layout of the Household Hazardous Waste Facility. The
County at this time has not developed guidelines for determining
acceptability of the various types of household hazardous waste that
may be encountered. Exactly when will those be accomplished? Does
it not make sense that those should be available for review now and
not, perhaps, at some indefinite time after the facility is under
construction or even under operation?
E. Page 14. The County has no formal waste diversion plan and there is
thus only speculation as to what might happen as a contingency if
other facilities in the County broke down or were unable to legally
handle materials. Is this not an environmental concern and problem?
The SEIS treads lightly on this.
F. Page 32. The purposes of an Environmental Impact Statement in support
of government approvals are outlined. If the SEIS is to be truly
meaningful should it not be more detailed and demanding of the
proponent? How can the SEIS effectively serve as a guide to sound
decisionmaking at Any level of government, if key elements about
4
matters such as hazardous waste handling are circumspect, at best?
The demands that government at all levels place upon the private
sector for performance and compliance should be fully expected and
required of public agencies. The SETS repeatedly suggests that what
can't be answered now will "probably" be addressed later. This is
not acceptable.
A similar proposal from the private sector would be tabled to allow
additional data and analysis to be submitted. That should be the
case here.
III. There are numerous specific questions about accuracy of the data and of
the analysis of technical data and these require careful scrutiny.
Cursor analyses and environmental assurances are found in response to
these facts: the site is within the City's water well field; there is a
high likelihood of anonymous, illegal citizen drops "at the gate" and
"along the road" off of the site; and the City's restrictions on all land
uses in the Planned Industrial district which are designed to minimize
public activities of retail service nature, e.g., the dropoff recycling
functions that were added to the transfer station use.
A. Page 38 and Page v. One of the main environmental issues, ground
water contamination, has only been addressed in a cursory manner.
The City has previously demonstrated that the proposed transfer site
is within the City's municipal well field. The statement is made
that the study has concluded that releases of contaminants could pose
the same risk to the area ground water supplies regardless of the
location of the transfer stations.
The SEIS cites the EAW: "that, 'This option (relocation of the
facility to another area) would not reduce the potential impact to
6i
the regional ground water in that the entire Minneapolis -St. Paul
area has similar hydrogeologic characteristics. The same potential
water resource threats would exist at any site selected in this area'
(Metropolitan Council -1987)."
The soil borings presented in figure 4.1 - 9 and 10 indicate that the
Plymouth site is underlaid by a "clay sand and silty clay." General
conclusions cannot and should not be made for the entire Minneapolis -
St. Paul area and applied to the proposed Plymouth site.
The Plymouth site is directly within the City's municipal well field,
and therefore, requires more detailed, specific analysis for minimum
measures on ground water impact.
B. Page 51. The SEIS indicates that the proposed site possibly features
a creek bed or drainage way based upon the borings that were taken.
The City has been aware of and has expressed concern about the
potential problems that could result with the City's municipal water
well field in the area; this heightens that concern.
C. Page 55 - 57. The ground water levels are such that well points will
probably be required at least to lower the water table during
construction. The observations about ground water apparently deal
with the transfer station and do not deal with the depository
functions that have been added that include household hazardous waste
(legal and illegal).
D. Page 58. The discussion of the so-called alternative site does not
address the location of the City's municipal water well fields which
are clearly identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan and which
have been identified in all previous submittals regarding the
Environment Impact Statement for this project.
101
E. Pages 61 and 62. The discussion of storm water drainage from the
site does not address the municipal water well fields and possible
impacts.
F. Page 69 (and Pages v and iii, 19, and 26). Plymouth has high
development standards for all industrial buildings and it is expected
of all development that standards regarding external impacts such as
litter, odor, noise, outside storage, and traffic are met or
exceeded. This includes a County transfer station.
The City planning has produced a planned industrial district which
intentionally discourages public retail/service activities. Citizen
dropoff and recycling functions are of a public retail/service
character. It is not appropriate to assume that all aspects of the
transfer stations including these functions, would be consistent with
City plans and ordinances. The inquiries made to the City that
resulted in the responses in the SEIS were about a totally self-
contained transfer station.
G. Page 135. Hennepin County has not developed estimates of
participation rates, or estimates of waste volumes or characteristics
to be expected for the transfer station, household hazardous waste
dropoff sites. The suggestion that "rough estimates" should be used
based upon the "one -day special collection projects" is highly
indicative of the shallow analysis of this SEIS as to what could be
one of the most significant problems of the operation. The study is
actually guessing and estimating based on meager experience while at
the same time suggesting that the use of the facility should be
promoted to citizens throughout the County to use it. Interestingly,
the SEIS notes the Bloomington facility will not have these
functions.
7
H. Page 136 and 137. The information about expected quantity of
household hazardous waste and the definition of those wastes is
contradictory relative to used motor oils. These substances which
are identified as ones likely to represent the highest volume of any
single item are typically inclusive of gasoline. The implication (by
omission) that they are not a problem, is further evidence of the
shallow analysis. One only needs to compare the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency data on Page 136 to the tables on Pages 137 and 138.
I. Page 138. Little substantive information is provided relative to the
possibility of other facilities breaking down or otherwise failing to
handle the household hazardous wastes. Even if one accepts the
artificially low projected figures (in barrels), the physical
quantity is significant, especially when it is not clear where the
materials will be stored and how they will be disposed of on a
regular and dependable basis.
J. Pages 143, 144. It is difficult to conclude that the discussion of
the "potential effects of system modifications" and presumably the
"no build option" is realistic and meaningful. Exactly what does
this discussion mean with respect to the environmental impact of this
program and of this facility? Neither the original EIS nor this
supplement deals specifically with the impact of not building this
transfer station. Is that not a requirement? The reference here is
to the entire transfer station system. One can easily conclude from
the analysis that there are so many problems the system should
probably not be built until more answers and policies can be
resolved.
K. Page 149. There are several inaccuracies and problems with data
here. Our remarks earlier stated the amount of already acquired
County land in the City of Plymouth. It is not an accurate
conclusion, at least for the City of Plymouth, that "no serious or
long term adverse impacts on property tax revenues are anticipated
for any of the proposed site taxing authorities."
Further, the discussion about the potential cost of acquisition, is
misleading. The facts are that Hennepin County purchased this prime
industrial land for $1,900,000 about one year ago for the express
purpose of developing a transfer station. This followed the
political decision by the County Board to forego the already selected
and owned Hopkins site. The purchase preceded the preparation of this
report.
The analysis in the SEIS that the potential cost of acquisition
should be based on the "assessed market value of the parcels
involved" is nonsensical. Have you actually experienced or are you
aware of a purchase of prime industrial land for the assessed market
value? Incidentally, the County purchased this property at a
substantial premium over what the seller bought it for about one year
earlier. The suggestion that there is no financial impact upon the
citizens of Plymouth and the County is inaccurate.
The suggestion that this EIS is technically accurate because the land
has already been acquired, for the most part, and therefore can
ignore the actual cost to the County (and to the City and to the
school district) is improper and suspect.
The City is not impressed with the suggestion on Page 149 that the
transfer station may bring a higher level of commercial activity and
0
therefore a "beneficial impact to ancillary businesses". Is the SEIS
seriously suggesting that the additional business realized by "gas
stations and fast food restaurants" would counterbalance the
potential adverse social, economic, and environmental impacts of this
operation?
L. Page 156. City policy governs more than only landscape transition
and litter control. Structures as well as sites must be compatible
with the surroundings. Outside storage and activity, especially
those related to the "new" functions involving citizen dropoff are
not analyzed in detail.
The litter control comments do not indicated how often the site,
versus the pit inside of the building, would be policed for litter.
M. The control of site access by means of a fence does not address the
issue of potential dropoff by citizens and others "outside the gate."
How exactly will that be controlled?
N. Pages 168 to 169. Will at least one person be on the premises at all
time, every day? What exactly will be done to control "anonymous"
dumping of high risk materials? Exactly how will citizen access be
restricted especially when the facility is "closed"?
0. Page 169. The SEIS talks about good intentions but does not deal
head-on with the handling of materials that are rejected or refused
or accepted if there is "no convenient alternative." The comment
that one should avoid having a citizen return later with illegal
material packaged "in an opaque plastic trash bag" does not deal with
the probable situation of finding the illegal material in the ditch
just down the street or freeway from the facility.
10
P. Pages 170, 171. The statements on facility design and "outreach" are
part of the picture but do not effectively grasp the potential severe
consequences of mishandling or inappropriate management techniques.
They suggest instead that best guesses will guide and that, based on
limited experience and knowledge, these prototype activities should
be undertaken.
IV. The City of Plymouth is concerned about equity and the burden it is asked
to bear in addition to existing County sponsored and/or owned facilities.
The identification of two other potential sites in Plymouth as
alternatives begs the question we have raised before: What is the
appropriate equitable burden any given city must bear for county sponsored
and/or owned facilities? The City's position statement originally
adopted in September, 1987, and submitted with earlier testimony, states
that the City has been and shall remain a responsible member of the
Hennepin County community. This SEIS fails to even mention that the City
currently features the following County -owned and related facilities:
Adult Correctional Facility (70 acres); Clifton E. French Regional Park
(280 acres); Pike Lake/Eagle Lake Regional Park (160 acres); and regional
trail corridor (65 acres). The burden of these facilities is part of the
City of Plymouth environment. Adding to this burden is an impact upon the
environment.
V. The City finds the SEIS Statement to be lacking in substance on critical
issues. The document has many references to the things the County has xet
to do, and the things the County lacks in the way of programs, policies,
and experience. Yet the City of Plymouth is being asked to trust the
County to build and operate a multipurpose facility on the faith that it
"should" have minimal impact upon the community and "should" be compatible
11
with established uses in this area. The City cannot share that
conclusion, based upon the review of the Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement.
VI. Plymouth residents are responsible and concerned county citizens. We are
willing to work with the County and with the Metropolitan Council to
ensure that the concerns expressed herein will be dealt with in a
sensitive and responsible manner. The City has specific zoning
requirements for waste facilities and we understand the statutory
limitations on local zoning prerogatives, relative to facilities such as
transfer stations.
The issue here is whether the required Environmental Impact Statement has
been prepared in a thorough manner to serve as the meaningful tool that
the law requires. We have not reached that conclusion and we suggest that
neither can you. Further research and work is needed by both the County
and Metropolitan Council before any approvals should be granted for the
facility as proposed.
The addition of the dropoff functions and recycling functions distort the
earlier perceptions of the need for and operation of a transfer station.
The haste with which those additional features were added and analyzed is
apparent. This should be rectified before any permits are issued and
development is undertaken.
1/5/89
12
NEWS RELEASE
NOTICE OF VACANCIES
ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
The Plymouth City Council will receive applications from residents interested
in serving on City boards and commissions until Noon, Friday, January 20,
1989.
Current vacancies exist on the Planning Commission, Board of Zoning
Adjustments and Appeals, Park and Recreation Advisory Commission, and Housing
and Redevelopment Authority.
To receive further information contact Laurie Rauenhorst, City Clerk at
559-2800 (ext. 204),
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Publish: January 11 and January 18, 1989
r
CITY OF
January 4, 1989 PLYMOUTR
Mr. Jim Beaton
3000 Pilgrim Lane
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear Mr. Beaton:
Thank you for your interest in serving on a City of Plymouth board or
commission. There are current vacancies on the Planning Commission, Board of
Zoning Adjustments and Appeals, Park and Recreation Advisory Commission, and
Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Enclosed for your information is the
following:
1. Board and commission application form,
2. Information for Applicants to Plymouth's Advisory Commissions,
3. The policy establishing a Code of Ethics for the Plymouth City Council
board and commission members and disclosure form, and
4. The Community Information Booklet.
Please complete and return both the application form and the Code of Ethics
Disclosure form to me no later than 12:00 Noon, Friday, January 20, 1989. The
Council will review the applications received by this deadline and select
applicants to be interviewed. Interview dates have been tentatively scheduled
for the, evening of Tuesday, January 24, or the morning of Saturday, January
28. We hope that you are able to keep these dates open on your calendar.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at
559-2800 (x-204).
Sincerely, /
Laurie Rauenhorst
City Clerk
cc: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
Independent School District 281 Robbinsdale Area Schools
GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL
Friday, December 16, 1988
7:30 a.m.
Present: Mary Anderson (Golden Valley), Frank Broyles (Plymouth), Robert
Cameron (281), Charles Darth (Brooklyn Park), Gary DeFrance (281),
Dan Donahue (New Hope), Linda Powell (281), Carroll Vomhof (281), Bob
Zitur (Plymouth)
BUDGET PROJECTIONS: Mr. Gary DeFrance, executive director of business,
presented an overview of District 281's budget projections. The general fund
accounts for 82% of the total district budget and is responsible for major
operations of the school district. The food service fund is self supporting
from the revenue it receives and federal aid. The transportation fund is
subsidized from the general fund. The capital outlay fund and debt redemption
fund stand alone. Community education also is self supporting. The main source
of revenue for the 1988-89 school year has shifted from state sources to local
property taxes. Budget reductions need to be made or the district will be
operating with a deficit budget by the 1990-91 school year. The school board
has asked the administration to come up with a plan for budget reductions for
next year. The administration will present budget recommendations to the board
at the next district school board meeting. Ms. Powell will keep the Government
Advisory Council updated on the possibility of a referendum.
UPDATE ON SUPERINTENDENT SEARCH: Dr. Cameron, director of curriculum, research
and development, gave an update on the school board's search for a new
superintendent. The board made a decision that the district would be able
to operate with an interim superintendent for the present school year while
they conducted a search for a new superintendent. On December 12 the board
hired the consulting firm of Plath, Nelson and Rodgers to conduct a nation-wide
search for candidates for the position. The board will seek extensive public
input in selecting a new superintendent. A date of April 1 has been set as a
deadline for hiring a superintendent.
INTERDISTRICT PLANNING: Ms. Powell decided to hold this topic for a future
augenda because the meeting times ;•;as almost up. She did share with the council
that she had developed a proposal for an interdistrict multicultural
cooperative system. She will share the proposal at the next meeting.
OPEN DISCUSSION: Mr.Broyles informed the group that the city of Plymouth is
seriously considering a community center. They are looking for input from all
areas and will be holding a public information hearing at the city center on
January 19.
Mr. Darth wanted to know if new students moving into the district were from one
particular area. Ms. Powell did not know the answer.
Mr. Donahue would like to have Whitey Johnson at the next meeting to speak on
the direction sports will be taking in our district for the coming year.
The next meeting will be January 27, 1989.
Plymouth Recycling
Minnesota Cities Magazine
From: Helen LaFave, Communications Coordinator
City of Plymouth
559-2800 ext. 230
1131$9 +DL--`- --
M nnF�o+d C1+i3 MI'lZA,
When the City of Plymouth introduced a revamped recycling program in
February 1988 it did what the previous versions hadn't been able to
accomplish -- motivate residents to recycle enough to meet and exceed Hennepin
County and Metropolitan Council mandated goals. The new program combines
simplicity, convenience and a "fun" incentive.
Before the new program about 16 percent of Plymouth residents had
recycled about 2 percent of the waste stream. Now about 65 percent are
recycling once a week and 85 to 90 percent recycle at least once a month.
They divert an average of 300 tons of solid waste from landfills each month or
approximately 20 percent of the waste stream.
Hitting the right combination of program elements along with planning and
publicity inspired non-recyclers to recycle, according to Plymouth Recycling
Coordinator Dick Pouliot. Vital to the success of the program are bright
colored plastic containers, weekly collections on the same day for the entire
city and a weekly cash drawing.
"Ultimately I attribute the program's success to the residents and the
fact that we hit upon the combination that they like," Pouliot said. "The
container made it convenient. Weekly collections for the whole city every
Thursday made it easy to remember. And we added some enthusiasm and pizzazz
with the cash drawing," he added.
Plymouth offers curbside recycling collections each Thursday for
metal/aluminum cans, glass containers, newspaper and cardboard. Collections
are made to all single family through fourplex homes.
Residents in multifamily housing can use a recycling drop-off center at
the Plymouth public works building.
RECYCLING CONTAINERS
City maintenance crews distributed a bright blue, plastic recycling box
to all participating dwellings in January 1988 along with a brochure
explaining the basics of the new program.
The box holds two grocery bags so residents can separate metal and glass.
Residents may set out additional grocery bags for newspapers and cardboard
along with their recycling box as necessary.
The blue boxes have served as a valuable publicity tool. Each is
emblazoned with the words "We Recycle" as well as with the logos of the city
and the county. On recycling day they serve as a reminder to city residents
to recycle and that their neighbors are recycling. "It has become a friendly
competition between neighbors," said Mayor Virgil Schneider.
RECYCLING CASH DRAWING
The weekly "That's Not Trash, It's Cash" drawing allowed Plymouth to add
an incentive without going to an organized refuse system. An organized system
would have permitted rebates or volume based pricing but the City Council
nixed the proposal after residents expressed a strong preference to keep the
open system. Instead they opted for the cash drawing.
Each week a randomly selected address is checked to see if recyclables
are at the curb by 8 a.m. If so, the household wins $100 or the amount
accumulated from previous weeks. If not, the $100 is added to the next week's
prize money.
To be eligible for the drawing residents need only recycle. The cash
drawing was set up to be both easy to participate in and easy to administer.
The only administrative time involved has been to check the address each week
and publicize the results.
The drawing also provides a weekly shot of publicity for the program when
the city announces the results of the drawing to local newspapers --
eliminating the need for direct mailings to plug the program. The drawing
also has the advantage of drawing more media coverage as the prize money
builds. Thus far the largest prize awarded has been $1,200.
"Although the drawing costs the city and county $100 a week, it also has
a big return in terms of free publicity. Our local newspapers give it front
page coverage almost weekly," Schneider said.
The cash drawing as well as the recycling participation rates are also
regularly publicized in a bimonthly city publication and on the municipal
cable television channel.
WEEKLY COLLECTIONS
Because Plymouth has an open refuse collection system, city officials
could not mandate that recycling collection days coincide with refuse
collections. The answer they came up with was to offer a weekly collection on
one day for the entire city. It made it easy for residents to remember and
made publicity efforts more effective by simplifying the message being sent to
residents.
Refuse haulers have lent their cooperation by experimentally collecting
recyclable yard wastes for six weeks last spring and fall. An evaluation is
underway to determine whether this practice will be continued.
-30-
January 4, 1989
Pastor Wayne B. Peterson
St. Barnabas Lutheran Church
15600 County Road 9
Plymouth, MN 55446
Dear Pastor Peterson:
CITY OF
PLYMOUTFF
I have your letter of January 4, 1989 and I have had an opportunity to
investigate the matters you conveyed.
You were correctly informed that the Planning Commission Subcommittee meeting
planned for the week of December 19, 1988 had been postponed until
December 27, 1988 and that, therefore, the final report from the subcommittee
to the Planning Commission was not available.
The item had not been pulled from the agenda; rather, it was our expectation
that since the Commission would just be getting the subcommittee report at the
hearing, it was likely the Commission would not act until a later date.
The Planning Commission Hearing was held as scheduled and as duly noticed.
There were several persons who, like yourself, had seen the notice in the
legal newspaper which is the extent of the formal notice required by law for
textual amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Commission, as we anticipated, did not take action on the
possible amendments to the Zoning Ordinance; while they closed the Public
Hearing officially, they continued the matter for further consideration at
their next meeting which is on January 11, 1989. I do not know at this time
whettier the Chairman and Commission will formally reopen the hearing but as I
indicated to you in my recent letter, there is a sensitivity that churches in
particular be aware of the potential regulations.
There is no "snow job" involved. I respect that you have serious doubts about
the constitutionality of any attempt to regulate places of worship; the City
is charged with land use regulation which includes all land uses which include
places of worship. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City
Council and one of their functions is to conduct public hearings. The other
is to consider all of the information available to them on a particular matter
and to develop their best recommendation.
I have no expectation at this point that any regulations will be challenged in
court although any regulation that any city has can be challenged by anyone.
Input from any interested party including the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union
is welcome.
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
Pastor Wayne B. Peterson
January 4, 1989
Page Two
I urge you to consider conveying specific thoughts
in writing since you will not be able to attend the
I am sending copies of your January 4, 1989 letter
Commission desires to have all meaningful input so
direction from the City Council in a timely manner
to whether the Zoning Ordinance should be amended.
Thank you for your letter.
Si erely
2
Blair Tremere
Community Development Director
cc: City Manager Jim Willis
Planning Commission
b:peterson/St. Barnabas:jw
to the Planning Commission
January 11, 1989 meeting.
to the Commission. The
they can respond to the
by way of recommendation as
Saint Bainabw
lutharan Church
15600 County Rood 9
Plymouth, MN 55446
(612) 553-1239
Wayne B Peterson, Pastor
January 4, 1989
Blair Tremere
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Tremere,
EP._
:IAN 4 19M
CITY OF rPILMC;�tx�
Ca?t1d�ldt:�"(.i�' Dekii-L11; ' Lerl.
Unlike most of the other Plymouth pastors with whom I have spoken, I saw the
notice of the December 28 Planning Commission hearing in the Plymouth Post. I
went to City Hall on Tuesday, December 22 to pick up a copy of the proposed
changes. I spoke with a woman I was referred to by the receptionist. I did
not get her name but assumed she was your secretary or someone in your
department. She informed me that because the subcommittee was not satisfied
with the language in the proposed changes that this item had been pulled from
the agenda for the 28th and would be addressed at a later time.
Now I receive your letter of December 30 and am informed that the public
hearing was held as scheduled. Furthermore, you tell us that at the Planning
Commission meeting on January 11, public debate will be "discretionary".
What kind of a snow job is this! It is commendable that you have mailed the
proposed zoning changes to all of the churches, but the fact that you waited
until after the public hearing to do so raises questions about the integrity
of the process.
I have serious doubts about the constitutionality of any attempt to, in your
own words, "regulate places of worship." You must certainly be aware that if
these regulations are put in the zoning ordinance they will at some point be
challenged in court, costing the people of Plymouth a considerable sum of
money in litigation costs. I am forwarding a copy of your letter and the
proposed changes to. the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union for their opinion, on
the matter.
I am unable to attend the meeting on January 11 because of prior commitments,
but I will make sure someone from my congregation is in attendance. Please
continue to keep us informed -- hopefully before the fact instead of after the
fact as you did this time.
Sincerely,
Wayne . Peterson
Pastor
cc: Mayor Virgil Schneider
City Council Members
FO R Y(---',,
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: December 30, 1988
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
REGARDING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
I have sent the attached letter and information to all the religious
institutions identified on the list prepared by staff earlier this year. A
representative of the Wayzata Free Church indicated that they were concerned
that they had not received advance notice (beyond the legal publication in the
official newspaper). I concluded that as a practical matter, since the
subject of the changes is religious institutions, it would be appropriate to
send a copy of the proposed changes to representatives of the religious
institutions in the community.
I reviewed this matter with Chairman Pauba and he concurs. It will remain a
matter of discretion for the Commission and the Chairman as to whether the
official public hearing should be reopened.
I will also be in touch with the City Attorney as to the draft that you
received at your meeting under cover of the December 28, 1988, memorandum from
Myra Wicklacz. I will share with you prior to the meeting any specific
comments or changes he would advise to that draft.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Attachment
PC/zo/churches
December 30, 1988
TICE TO CHURCH AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION REPRESENTAT
A copy of a draft amendment to the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance is attached; it
represents possible changes through the Zoning Ordinance and the adoption of
standards which, among other things, would regulate places of worship as one
of the many land uses found in a growing community like Plymouth.
The Planning Commission, through a subcommittee, has devoted substantial time
to drafting these, following City Council direction earlier this year. The
subcommittee presented these in a report to the full Commission on
December 28, 1988. The official public hearing was held that evening
following publication of a notice of that hearing in the official legal
newspaper two weeks earlier.
The Planning Commission did not take action to develop a recommendation for
the City Council; the Commission will further discuss this draft ordinance at
its next meeting on January 11, 1989.
The meeting is scheduled to start at 7:00 p.m. in the City Center Council
Chambers, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard.
This is not notice of a public hearing but rather is to provide represen-
tatives of the various religious institutions in Plymouth with the information
being considered by the Commission. If you wish to comment on these possible
changes, it would be appropriate to submit written comments to the Community
Development Department on or before Friday, January 6, 1989. All information
received by that date will be submitted to the Commission. The meeting on
January 11, 1989 is a public meeting but the degree to which time is devoted
for public hearing purposes will be discretionary with the Commission and the
Chairman.
You may direct questions regarding this to me or to Community Development
Coordinator Chuck Dillerud at 559-2800.
The material contained within square brackets [ ] is material that would be
deleted from the current ordinance; material that is underscored is material
which would be added to the ordinance.
Sincerely,
Blair Tremere
Community Development Director
December 30, 1988
Mr. Mark Kieffer
4875 Saratoga Lane
Plymouth, MN 55442
Dear Mr. Kieffer:
CITY OF
PLYMOUTFF
Councilmember Zitur asked me to look into the matter of the paving of the
trail connection through the Wild Wings Addition to the Rolling Hills Park.
I have discussed this matter with the City's Park Director, Eric Blank, who
informs me that the developer of the Wild Wings Addition was not able to
complete the work during the 1988 construction season, but will complete it
during the upcoming construction season. When the trail is completed, you
and your neighbors should have vastly improved access to the City's new
neighborhood park which serves you.
I trust this responds to you
require additional information
Blank at 559-2800, ext. 265.
Yours truly,
�9—
es G. Willis
Ci y Manager
r inquiry to Councilmember Zitur. If you
regarding this, I invite you to contact Eric
JW:kec
cc: Mayor & City Council
Eric Blank, Director of Park and Recreation
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
1 `cid;
Meeting Management, Inc.
1421 East Wayzata Blvd.. Wayzata, MN. 55391 • (612) 473-0318
December 29 1988
Mayor and Council
City of Plymouth
Re: Community Center,
Dear fellow citizens:
I was delighted to hear that the community center was again being studied
and hopefully implemented. I served on the original task force and recall
how exited we all were with the project. It's good for the community, for
the youth and, selfishly, for those of us over 60.
About the only exercise you can safely do in our winters is swim! The "Y"
is to cold, the schools too infrequent, so the proposed center is the
answer. I do hope the 'Wave Pool' concept is included in your plans. The
task force checked out this feature quite thoroughly and it not only
increased pool usage tremendously but provided extra fun and excitement
for young and old.
I'm sorry I will be out of town on the 19th. but I did want to add Dorothy
and my endorsement. It is a privilege to live in Plymouth, and be part of
such an aggressive, progressive community.
Yours very truly
ph Blattner
RB/me
Domestic and International Meeting Planners
SAM S. SIVANICH < PHONE
COMMISSIONER �^'�'' 348-3082
t � .
\ '
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487
December 29, 1988
Mayor Virgil Schneider
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mayor Schneider:
I am pleased to inform you that the Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners, at our December 20 meeting, approved additional
reimbursement to the City of Plymouth and others that purchased
recycling containers in 1987 and 1988 under the old formula.
County staff will be contacting your Recycling Coordinator in the
next few weeks to explain the reimbursement procedure.
Unfortunately, the County Board did not take action on the question
of cash incentive drawings at the meeting on December 20. However,
Commissioner Randy Johnson is preparing a policy on this matter and
is expected to bring it to the Board in January.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance on this
matter.
Sincerely,
2at�
Sam S. Sivanich
SSS: 1mh _
HERITAGE HIGHLANDS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
PLYMOUTH, MN 55441
January 5, 1989
Plymouth Council Memebers
Mr. Jim Willis, City Manager
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Willis and Council Members:
As Heritage Highlands Homeowners Association
president I have been invited to attend the upcoming public
meeting concerning the proposed Plymouth Community Center.
In trying to get a representative sampling of opinions
from the neighborhood, I have decided to do a survey.
I would like to invite all council and staff members
written comments on the community center and to propose
questions they think should be asked. If you could
please mail these to me so that I would receive them
prior to January 14, 1988, I will include them in the
survey. I appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Yours truly,
Beverly Kottas
Heritage Highlands
Homeowners Association
P.S. I have personally urged as many homeowners as
possible to attend the meeting but have found that many will
be unable to do so.
CENTER LIQUORS
11331 HIGHWAY 55
PLYMOUTH, MN. 55441
JANUARY 4, 1988
MR. VIRGIL A. SCHNEIDER
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 -PLYMOUTH- BOULEVARD
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA55447
D EAR SMR •:_ MAYOR
RE: NEW BURBLER ALARM ORDINANCE
AFTER FIVE ATTEMPTS TO CALL THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO FIND
OUT IF IT'S TRUE THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH -IS NOW THE FIRST CITY
TO HAVE A FEE FOR;PROTECTION POLICE DEPARTMENT, I GAVE UP.
COULDN'T GET BY THE HIGH.TECH, AND I'M SURE QUITE._EXPENSIVE,
TELEPHONE'SYSTEM. HOPE YOU CAN PAY FOR IT OUT OF YOUR FALSE
ALARM FINES. I, FOR ONE,.WILL NOT BE CONTRIBUTING TO EITHER
EXPERIMENT IN CIVIC WRONGHEADEDNESS. IN CASE OF BURGLERY,
MY ALARM COMPANY WILL.CALL ME AND I WILL RESPOND FOR FREE.
IF IT IS A BURGLER, I'LL BE SURE TO CONTACT -YOU AS:-ITO -K
EXACTLY HOW I DISPOSE OF THE -SITUATION; BY MAIL OF COURSE.
FAILING THAT, I COULD PUT BURBLER ALARM RESPONSE OUT ON BIDS
TO FIND ARMED RESPONSE FOR LESS THAN $50.00 PER POP (AS IT
WERE).
YOU MIGHT TAKE TIME TO CONSULT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AS TO
THE CITY'S_POTENT.IALLIABILI.T_Y IN THE EVENT AN --EMPLOYEE IS
HARMED IN A "FORCE BACK" SITUATION, OR ANY OF A NUMBER OF
OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE AN ENTERPRISING TRIAL ATTORNEY COULD
BE LOOKING FOR A DEEP MUNICIPAL POCKET TO FLEECE.
PERHAPS THE CITY MIGHT REMEMBER THAT ITS FUNCTION IS TO
PROTECT AND SERVE ITS POPULATION, NOT TO GENERATE FEE
INCOME TO PAY FOR HIGH TECH TOYS.
SINLY YOU
WARD . WHEELER ,[
L
L
7
E LlP
P E NS
77 E "rLiC r -
E
P
77
E`
C7
0 P A
�51
Z7 T A-T'�DFIIEY
EMPLZI-'EE
HE `_1 L L. 7ri E E-,IEN7 A'
HA' -.:MEQ- It' --J t`_ 'tFC;;;.-E CK" S_T';AT'0t'-J 0;;., OF A NUMBER OF
TRIAL ATTORNEY 0-01"
BE LOO.Tl C- FC:R H DEEP MUNICIFAL POCKET TO FLEECE.
PERHAPS THE C17y I MIGHT REMEMBER: THAT ITS FUW_-:71011-J TO
PROTEL-7i r ItG SERVE iT POFULk'TION, t --40T TO GEt---lER"TE FEE
INCOME TO PAY FOR HIGH TECH, TO"I'S.
�/� � y' rte f �� � �
E F,
z,
ta��sl�a
b L
0 IG
• . 4, r.rV
fi • •9 l 5� 'mob �e 1 sem'`
•dui""`X �b ��
••'s--
••t
• (Z
�1
• •
••
a • (i
s1
404"..,
=(
1 oc
I
q�
0 4
0 of,
04 a 4
(D 0 3of
04 a,
0 0 s o r
A 161(l ?'Ie�
e
0 ft
0
0
000
00,
0
)DOO
0
SO
to 66,47-
)SO
00
0
so
-0 oc'"194. 1!' 0 7 1
1)00
3)00
s
00
o
a's 0 a 0 1
)TOO
P
0 0 a
I
00
)DOO
so"
- - 0 0
Doe
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
POLICE ALARM USER PERMIT APPLICATION
'Please print or type all information"
PROPERTY TYPE: Residential: X Commercial:
USER NAME: olj
USER ADDRESS: 5 Z� �r tQ
USER PHONE: 551 — 125 T
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: &.LS5
(Example: House. Gas Station, School)
HOW MANY SEPARATE ALARM SYSTEMS WILL BE USED?
TYPE OF ALARM SYSTEM: Burglary: X Medical: X Robbery:
Others:
INSTALLATION COMPANY/PERSON: BRINKS HOME SECURITY
PHONE: 6t2-559-0091 '
MONITORING COMPANY, IF ANY: BRINKS HOME SECURITY
PHONE: 1-800-445-0872
CONTACT COMPANY/PERSON IF ALARM IS ACTIVATED: j oFrr3 W [G CSIKn-VO --
P5)c:n�t 60rz-
NAME: f
ADDRESS:
PHONE: �<�59 —54 71
USER PERMIT FEE INVOICE INFORMATION:
MAIL INVOICE TO:
STREET ADDRESS:
CITY:
PHONE:
.� PLA -T,
__ _ _ _ �✓ -�--n Dnp-z�I_�
TO WHOSE ATTENTION. IF ANY?
c
FA
" ••• NOT IC v"
• FALSE POLICE ALARM FEES:
First False Alarm. . . . . . . . . . . . $ 50.00
Second False Alarm . . . . . . . . . . . $ 75.00
Third False Alarm. . . . . . . . . . . . $100.00
Fourth False Alarm . . . . . . . $125.00
Fifth False Alarm. . . . . . . . . . . . $150.00
Sixth False Alarm. . . . . . . . . . . . $175.00
Subsequent False Alarms. . . . . . . . . $200.00
70
• If there is a change in application information, a new application must be
filed.
• I have received a copy of the Alarm Ordinance.
Date S i +t irp '
es No—K-
District
0
OSSEO AREA SCHOOLS
January 5, 1989
Mr. Jim Willis, City Manager
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Willis:
=N -- I ZA' 1�
DR. MARL RAMSEY
Superintendent of Schools
Telephone: (612)425-4131
On behalf of the school district, and especially the students at
Osseo Junior High School, thank you for your gift of $500.00 to
support the chemical abuse prevention program at that school.
Junior high students today have a more difficult time growing up,
and the threat of chemical abuse is just one of many complexities
their lives. Your recognition that this program needs extra
upport is much appreciated.
Sincerely
1J i i
r
arl Ramse Ph4fSchools
Superinten nt
MR/hn
c: Dick Carter, Principal
Osseo Junior High School
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 279
Educational Service Center, 11200 93rd Avenue North
P.O. Box 327, Maple Grove, MN 55369
940 Zanzibar Lane
Plymouth, MN 55447
December 29, 1988
Mr. Richard Carlquist
Chief of Police
h City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Chief Carlquist:
This is a note of appreciation for your
personnel who have responded so quickly
and efficiently to my 911 calls.
My husband has many health problems and has
fallen four times. It is at those times I
have had to call 911 and they have responded
.�. so promptly. I can't begin to tell you what
a comforting feeling it is for both my
husband and myself to know there is help close
by.
The only officer I knew by name is Bob Levens,
but all of them have been courteous and helpful.
Thank you so much, Please pass along my thanks
to your staff.
Sincerely,
Marge Hegland