Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 03-03-1988CI1`Gr- PLYMOU CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM March 3, 1988 UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS..... 1. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, March 7, 7:30 p.m. Regular City Council meeting in City Council Chambers. 2. BOARD OF ZONING -- Tuesday, March 8, 7:30 p.m. The Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals will meet in the City Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-2) 3. PLANNING COMMISSION -- Wednesday, March 9. The Planning Commission Forum will begin at 7:15 p.m., with the regular Planning Commission meeting following at 7:30 p.m. Agenda attached. (M-3) 4. PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION -- Thursday, March 10, 7:30 p.m. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission will meet in the City Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-4) 5. MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION (MLC) -- Thursday, March 10, 7:00 p.m., Minnetonka Community Center. A copy of the meeting notice dealing with the property tax proposal of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities is attached. (M-5) 6. TOWN MEETING - AREA 9 -- Monday, March 14, 7:00 p.m. Town Meeting or Area 9 residents will be held in the City Council Chambers. Meeting notice and agenda attached. (M-6) 7. N.W. SUBURBS LEGISLATIVE BREAKFAST MEETING -- Saturday, March 26, 8:00 a.m. A second legislative breakfast meeting for city officials and legislators is being planned for March 26. Attached is a copy of the meeting notification from Golden Valley Mayor, Mary Anderson. (M-7) 8. MEETING CALENDARS -- March and April meeting calendars are attached. M-8 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM March 3, 1988 Page two FOR YOUR INFORMATION.... 1. TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ANNUAL STATE OF CITY COFFEE BREAK - This year the Plymouth State of the City Coffee Break is scheduled for Thursday, March 24 from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. in the City Center Council Chambers. The coffee break is an opportunity for Twin West businesses to hear a status report on City activities for 1988. Attached is a draft agenda for Council review. I would like to know of any desired changes at the Monday, March 7 meeting. (I-1) 2. HOLIDAY INN - The City Attorney informs me that the stipulation entered into between himself, on behalf of the City, and attorneys for the Holiday Inn (Minnesota Hotel Ventures, Inc.) has been approved by the court. This stipulation provides that the owners will have until April 1 to pay the delinquent taxes. If the taxes are not paid by that date, the temporary restraining order previously issued by the court will be dissolved and the City will thereafter be able to enforce its liquor ordinance. If the taxes have not been paid by April 1, we will thereafter cite the Holiday Inn should they seek to operate their bar. 3. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S STATE OF THE REGION 1988 MEETING - Councilmember Zitur attended the Metropolitan Council's 1988 State of the Region meeting on March 2. The main topic of the meeting dealt with transportation options for the twin cities. Copies of the materials Bob picked up at the meeting are on file in my office for your review. 4. 1988 EMPLOYEE SUGGESTIONS -- It looks like 1988 is going to be a record year for employee suggestions. To date we've received 10. Of those, three have been accepted, two have been rejected, five have been deferred, one until August for further review, and the others for more information from the suggestor or from an affected department. Of those accepted, one suggester was awarded $50 for suggesting a time saving method of printing out memos which also saves in printing costs. Another suggester was awarded $500 for working out a contract with the Corcoran Pet Center for impounding of animals. And the third was awarded half of the savings from a new Plymouth on Parade mailing procedure. This could amount to $1,000 for the year but, because the Post Office may discontinue the procedure and eliminate our savings, it will be awarded in installments of $200 for each of the five remaining issues. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM March 3, 1988 Page three 5. COMMUNICATIONS ACTIVITIES -- During January and February the following communications projects were completed: Cable Television: aired and videotaped six City Council meetings completed "Recycling: The Plymouth Way" updated "Meet Your Mayor and Council" and the Council Meeting Prologue to include Councilmember Ricker produced a promotional spot for "Old -Fashioned Christmas In Plymouth" for use next year produced a "City Special" featuring information on the residential survey results Publications: - published Jan./Feb. issue of Plymouth on Parade - wrote two Rock Reports, the employee newsletter - produced a recycling brochure - submitted two articles to the Twin West newsletter - submitted two "Reports" columns to the Wayzata Weekly News - submitted news releases on recycling advertisement contest winners, the City's award for financial. reporting and snowplowing reminders Other Communications Activities: - organized the recycling advertisement contest - developed specifications for printing Plymouth on Parade - assembled two recycling displays for the City Center - held two follow up sessions for employees who participated in the November Business Writing Seminar - held a special writing session for employees who write for Plymouth on Parade - developed a Sty -e-- uide for the City's internal and external correspondence 6. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: a. Police Department, January 1989. (I -6a) 7. MINUTES: a. Plymouth Development Council, February 10, 1988 (I -7a) b. Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit, February 24, 1988 (I -7b) CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM March 3, 1988 Page four S. HENNEPIN COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECT TRANSFER STATION - EIS SCOPING MEETING -- On Monday, February 29, Blair Tremere attended the public scoping meeting and presented the attached letter and statement to the Metropolitan Council's Environmental Resources Committee. (I-8) 9. RECYCLING REQUEST BY WAYZATA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT COUNCIL -- The Wayzata Student Council has requested 100 of the City recycling boxes for a school paper recycling project. Attached is a letter from Dick Pouliot approving their request, as well as advising them that the City would expect the boxes to be returned if the program is discontinued. (I-9) 10. METRO AREA SINGLE & MULTI -FAMILY CONSTRUCTION -- The attached articles appeared in the February 29 issue of the Real Estate Journal. (I-10) 11. CITY STYLE GUIDE -- A City Style Guide has been developed for city communications as a result of a four-part Business Writing seminar in which 46 Plymouth employees participated. The guide outlines the correct format for letters, memos, Council reports, Planning reports and Engineer's memos. It will help to ensure consistency in capitalization, punctuation, dictation -style, word use and format. The guide was developed with input from office support staff, department supervisors and writing experts. A copy of the quide is attached. Both the Business Writing seminar and the Style Guide are part of our continuing effort to enhance our services to the public. The Guide doubles as a reference document for existing employees and training manual for new ones. 12. CORRESPONDENCE: a. Letter from Leo Wasescha, 12210 60th Avenue North, to Mayor Schneider, commenting on proposed improvements to County Road 10. (I -12a) b. Letter from Bella Braverman, 14848 - 18th Avenue North, to Mayor and City Council, concerning the proposed Hennepin County waste transfer site. (I -12b) c. Letter from JoAnn Flemming, 490 Harbor Lane, on allowing smoking during Council meetings. (I -12c) d. Note of appreciation from Helen Blomgren, Plymouth Garden Club. (I -12d) James G. Willis City Manager AGENDA Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals Tuesday, March 8, 1988 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. NEW BUSINESS WHERE: Plymouth City Center Council Chambers 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 7:30 P.M. February 9, 1988 A. Todd Hrlde. Variances free: side yard setback for the construction of a new home and driveway fol };Tope?L incated at 16915 32nd Avenue North. (03-01-88). 5. OTHER BUSINESS 6. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 1998 WHERE: Plvmouth City Center 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. PUBLIC FORUM 7:15 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL 3.* CONSENT AGENDA 4.* APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 24, 1989 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Plymouth Bible Chapel. Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit Amendment for a church vestibule at 10605 36th Avenue North (88014) B. Variance from Policy Resolution No. 75-664 (Urban Development Policy) and Preliminary and Final Registered Land Survey for Martin and Joan Leeper, for division of property at 5525 Juneau Lane North (87095) C. Vantage Companies. Land Use Guide Plan Amendment for land located in the northwest quadrant of County Road 9 and I-494 (88002) D. Possible Revisions to Zoning Ordinance Parkinq Standards for Shopping Centers and Retail Uses. 6. NEW BUSINESS None 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Dave Peterson, Hew -Lyn, Inc./FGC Corporation. Rezoning, Planned Unit Develop- ment Concept Plan, Preliminary Plan/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for "Harrison Hills Ponds" (87109) 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Community -Based Residential Facilities Report B. Future Meeting Dates. 9. ADJOURNMENT 10:30 P.M. Regular Meeting of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission March 10, 1988, 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. Parkers Lake Pavilion - Award of Bid b. Annual Report c. St. Mary's Master Plan 5. Unfinished Business a. Park Usage/Cost Study Report Discussion b. Parkers Lake Update c. Plymouth Creek Site Planning Update - George Watson d. St. Mary's Neighborhood Park Update e. f. 6. New Business a. New Plats - Review Neighborhood Park County Road 9 & 494 b. Report on Plymouth Creek Park Soccer Field c. Joint Meeting with Council April 4 d. e. 7. Commission Presentation 8. Staff Communication 9. Adjournment Next Meeting - April 14 I Tn [iTL 1flL7fl1( 100 �ul February 23, 1988 Dear Mayor and City Manager: You are invited to a meeting on March 10, 1988, at 7:00 P.M. in the Minnetonka Community Center (map on reverse side) to discuss an issue of critical importance to your community. As you are undoubtedly aware, property tax reform is again a controversial issue with the Legislature. While several proposals will be considered, one in particular is especially damaging to metropolitan area suburbs. The cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have joined with the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities (the larger outstate cities) and hired Briggs and Morgan to develop a property tax proposal to, in their opinion, "equalize" tax rates. Without going into details, the proposal favors those communities with residential values. of under $68,000 per unit and lower commercial and industrial values. The proposal would eliminate the Homestead Credit and Local Government Aid Programs and use that funding for a new "Equalization" Aid Program. Generally, the more valuation your community adds above $68,000 from residences or from commercial and industrial development, the less relative (and in some cases, absolute) aid your City will receive. The proposal clearly works to the detriment of suburbs. Even triose cities that don't immediately lose would ultimately because of the proposal's bias against higher valuations found in suburbs. This proposal must be taken seriously. Its proponents are lobbying hard and unless there is some effective counterbalance, at least part of the proposal. may be adopted. Therefore, the Municipal Legislative Commission is suggesting that all suburbs join to defeat this proposal. This is not a request to join the M.L.C. or to form another ongoing group. Rather, the meeting will concern how we may cooperatively work to defeat this proposal. Please share this invitation with other members on your City Council and join us on March 10, 1988 to review the proposal in more detail and plan our lobbying strategy. Sincerely, F. Miller James FEB 26 'JJ1V v City Manager CITYUfj'��IV�tl�iiEl the city offices are located, at 14300 minneionka bouievard n1innetoni:a, minnesota 55345-1597 9133-2511 WN MIT w -M , S-U� LA 77 A z5o� kaw 'D id - am, March 1, 1988 Dear Plymouth Resident: SUBJECT: TOWN MEETING, MARCH 14 Because Plymouth is a developing community, there are many actions underway or in the planning stage which could impact upon you. In order to maintain open communication channels with residents of the community, the City Council has scheduled a Town Meeting for Monday, March 14 for residents of your area. In order to keep the meetings on an informal basis while dealing with specific topics of interest to .you, the Town Meeting will be for the area shown on the map below including residents living south of 36th Avenue and north of C.R. 6, between Highway 101 on the west and Vicksburg Lane on the east. The Town Meeting is scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. in the Plymouth City Center. On the reverse side of this letter is a list of topics for discussion at the Town Meeting. If you have other matters of interest we will seek to address them also. I encourage you to Join Councilmembers Sisk, Vasiliou, Ricker, Zitur and myself at 7:00 p.m., Monday, March 14 at the Plymouth City Center. We are anxious to meet you and look forward to this opportunity to meeting informally to discuss matters of mutual interest. If you have any questions about the Town Meeting, please feel free to call your City Clerk, Ms. Laurie Brandt at 559-2800, ext. 204. Sincerely, Virgil Schneider Mayor i TO;Nl h-ETIW,. AGENDA AREA NINE March 14, 1988 7:00 p.m. i. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS A. Interchange at I-494 and County Road 6 B. Medina Road C. Trunk sanitary sewer extension D. Highway 101 water tower I. PARKS A. Parkers Lake City Park and Playfield B. Trails I. HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT A. Parkers Lake Planned Unit Development B. Oakwood Square C. Dunkirk Meadows V. PUBLIC SAFETY A. Police/Fire Report B. Neighborhood Watch Program C. Fire Station No. 3 Update D. Animal Control V. OTHER ITEMS A. Public Transportation feedback - Plymouth Metrolink B. Plymouth Recycling Program C. Local Government Access Cable Channel 37 D. The Property Tax Pie V DATE: February 26, 1988 TO: City Officials and Legislators FROM: Mary E. Anderson, Golden Valley Mayor RE: Second Meeting with City Officials and Legislators Charlie Darth, Director of Intergovernmental Relations for Brooklyn Park, and I have discussed the need for a second meeting. Even though it is after the tine that bills nay be introduced, we feel it is important to meet before the end of the session. We are setting Saturday, March 26th at 8:00 AM. I will send addi- tional information regarding place and agenda. Please reserve Saturday, March 26th at 8:00 At% MEA:pb 99 LflrG�t'ir,zll �1Jih` c3 i I I 1 I 00 m U) Ci. ... N (T r00ppc W N N(tF -- co P1 W N N pq r CL ¢ ,G °� N - N O v N ------- - ct H c3 i I I 1 I 00 m U) Ci. ... N (T r00ppc W N N(tF -- co P1 W N N pq r CL ¢ ,G °� N - N O v N c3 i I I 1 I 00 m I U) CIO W H P1 W pq a U O U a z o H t� - -- --- -- - ---------- ------- - I U) CIO W H P1 W pq a U O U z o H t� M z z 1¢z W Nc CL' U H <OU P., U rN C I I r�i I W ai Lr) � I M O H R H H W H z U Z o z, U O J C M a�� I H P4 F-+ r4 o z �t M O • O CQ t\ U 9 a P4 a ou o U Cl) HI woo U N I W H P1 W pq a U O U z o H t� M z 1¢z W CL' U H <OU I I 9 a P4 a ou o U Cl) HI woo U N AGENDA PLYMOUTH TWINWEST STATE OF THE CITY COFFEE BREAK March 24, 1988 8:00 a.m. - Continental Breakfast 8:05 a.m. - Welcome - dames G. Willis/David Olson 8:15 a.m. - "Plymouth from a Resident's Perspective - Virgil Schneider 8:25 a.m. - "Capital Improvement for 1988" - Fred Moore 8:35 a.m. - Development Trends - Blair Tremere 8:45 a.m. - Questions/Answers 9:00 a.m. - Adjourn cz w Lr z CD Cn :D oc u cz 'U' wb'Ia PO 0 a. Lr) C) 0 z en H r, F__J F z U I H 1� H z P4 pq 0 PC) r� LO Cn r.,. ZP-W w P41 �X4 C:) P4 rM4 04 0 Z ct u of UW Z E- �-4 r4 H-1 u F -I Cc 0 L) ZU I>= 4: u u"U 0 W o! 5 5 z U CD F, 0 L) 00 LL. (x cz U rn U1, Z -con 001 00 CZ) w CLASS I MURDER I CSC ROBBERY ASSAULT 1987 0 1 0 1 18 1988 I 0 1 0- l 3_8 - TOTALS 1987 156 1988 104 -33% CLASS II PLYMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT BURGLARY I THEFT i AUTO THEFT ARSON 28 94 1 12 3 19 52 1 12 0 MONTH JANUARY 1988 FORGERY EMBEZZEL STOLEN WEAP PROSTI SEX GAMB OFFENSES LIQ. DISORDERLY 1 COUNTERFEIT FRAUUI MENT 1PROPERTYIVANDALISM TOFF 1TUTION10FF.[NARCILINGIFAM/CHILDID.W.I.ILAW CONDUCT I OTHER 1981 I 3 I 14 I �-_l-- ,L._..._43 I l _L0 ._L .S j- 1 3 0 3 I 42 I 6 1 I 30 1988 1 a _L- i i �_ 0 0_ 1 16 2 1 U 1 1 1 9 1 O 1 -_ 1 1 29 I 7 0 j 50 TOTALS 1987 161 1988 130 -19% CLASS III FATAL PERSONAL PROPERTY SNOWMOBILE MEDICAL SUICIDE NATURAL ANIMAL I ACCIDENT�_ INJURY _ I DAMAGE l ACCIDENT DROWNING EMERGENCY SUICIDE 1 ATTEMPTS 1___DEATH I BITES_ FIRES 1987 1 0 1 18 85 0 .. _L_ _ . 60 L_ --°- -1-- -- 1---1 - I 1 I 18 1 1988 1 0 1 21 117 I _-� _- °- ---- 7$ 1 �.l 2 1 2 1 O 1 19 1 TOTALS 1987 184 1988 240 +30% CLASS IV ASSIST ANIMAL FALSE LOCK OTHER WARRANT TRAFFIC FIREARM SUSPICION MISSING LOST PUBLIC IDOMESTICIDETAIL ALARMSIPROWLERI OUTS IAGENCY SERVED JUETAIL IVIOLATIONJINFORMATIONIPERSON IFOUNDINUISANCEI MISC. I 1987 31 1__89 _88 l 5 145 1_28 33� 149- L-6 100 1 4 14 1 94 I 98 J 1988 1 30 1 107 1 1 49__L 3 I 149 1 31 20_-L 264 _L _ 0 ^L 83i_ 5 7 -0114 84 1 TOTALS 1987 884 CRIMINAL OFFENSES CLEARED 1987 22% 1988 1037 +17% 1988 32% HAZARDOUS VIOLATIONS 1987 390 1988 317 -19% TOTAL NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 1987 1,385 NONHAZARDOUS VIOLATIONS 1987 367 1988 469 +28% 1988 1,511 + 9% MINUTES PLYMOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL February 10, 1988 PRESENT: Bob Burger, Burger Development Group - Chair; Marlin Grant, Marvin Anderson Contruction Co.; Del Wischmann, Quality Homes; Peter Pflaum, Lundgren Bros. Construction; Sherm Goldberg; Greg Frank, McCombs, Frank & Roos, Joy Tierney, Planning Commission; Scott McLellan, Al Cottingham, Chet Harrison, Stan Scofield, Kevin Leuer, Lyle Robinson, Fred Moore, Blair Tremere and Frank Boyles, Plymouth City Staff I. FINAL REPORT ON AESTHETIC STANDARDS RECOMMENDATIONS -- Blair Tremere provided a copy of a report from the Aesthetics Task Force to the City Council. The Council has approved the development of a policy by the City staff emphasizing a heightened sense of awareness of aesthetics. Specifically, for multi -family and nonresidential, the policy is to assure building compatibility to surrounding development and natural features. The thrust has been to stay away from specific detailed ordinance criteria. The policy will be implemented by an aesthetics commentary in the planning staff report to the Planning Commission and City Council. The staff is to provide assistance through the Development Review Committee for developers and contractors in this regard. II. FIRE LANE AND FIRE SPRINKLER ORDINANCE REVISIONS -- Lyle Robinson reported that fire lanes have been revised from the previous 12 foot to 15 foot width to accommodate the larger equipment now being used by the City. Sprinkler requirements were also revised for multi -residential facilities requiring sprinkling in areas where the hose lay exceeds 150 feet from the hydrant. The Minneapolis Builders' Association provided input to the ordinance revisions and the subcommittee of Marlin Grant and Bob Burger from the Development Council concurred that they could live with these revisions. Bob Burger and Marlin Grant stated that this was an excellent example of cooperation between the development community and the City. III. FINAL REPORT ON ENGINEERING GUIDELINE REVISIONS FOR STREET CONSTRUCTION - Fred Moore indicated that, a comprehensive analysis of city streets revealed that streets were not surviving the originally predicted life span. The primary finding was that the sub -base was deficient orwaterlogged. They also found that because of water collection around storm sewers, that problems eventually occurred on the surface. The new guidelines which are now in effect provide that soils must be tested. Where unstable soils are found, the soil consultant must recommend corrective measures and/or street design changes. There are numerous options available. Additional testinq includes test rolling both of the sub -base and bituminous base to assess its performance. The storm sewers must also conform for buckling and frost, including new sub -base requirement and drain tiling where appropriate. PLYMOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL February 10, 1988 Page two Bob Burger stated that the City implemented a solution for storm sewer that the state had recently discovered. IV. FEE REVISIONS -- Fred Moore explained that the sewer and water charges and fees have been revised approximately 2.3% higher, based upon increases in the construction cost index. The new fees are shown below: Nater Sewer Residential Area 5 685 Unit 380 Unit All Other Zones (area) $2060/Acre $1145/Acre Connection Charges $ 550/Unit $ 320/Unit V. Blair Tremere stated that Myra Wicklacz has begun work as Community Development Technician in the Planning Division. Her primary role will be in dealing with the public at the front counter. The City is in the process of selecting a Community Development Coordinator. Blair hopes that by the end of the month a replacement will have been named. Fred Moore introduced Chet Harrison, the new City Engineer. VI. OTHER BUSINESS -- Bob Burger asked if there were proposed revisions to the MUSA Line. Fred Moore and Blair Tremere stated none were contemplated and that the Metropolitan Council may be reluctant to totally delete Plymouth's city urban service ("staged growth") area line; the City will pursue efforts to clarify that by 1990. The Metropolitan Council is promotive of the staged growth area concept because there are other areas in the metropolitan area within the urban service area which provide sufficient capacity for development. Revision of the MUSA in Plymouth will require the extension of a major interceptor from Brooklyn Park through Maple Grove. Bob Burger asked about the Council's position on reguiding land from higher to lower density. Blair Tremere stated that there is some reluctance to entertain such proposals without careful analysis. The Council has established a ten to fifteen item checklist for assessing the impact of such reguiding requirements, especially on system wide financial support, including sewer, water, streets and parks. Blair stated that the Planning Commission would be reviewing the comprehensive plan over the next year or two and that would be the appropriate point for possible general revisions to the guide plan. Blair Tremere recommended that developers obtain a copy of the bill which proposes major changes in the state land use regulations. The bill repeals the Municipal Planning Act and in its place, develops a single set of requirements for all "local governments" across the state. The new guidelines provide for limited local variance authority and they diminish policy flexibility from a local government perspective. PLYMOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL February 10, 1988 Page three Bob Burger asked about the 20% residential lot coverage requirement. Marlin Grant presented information he acquired from the Builder's Association. Blair Tremere, Marlin Grant and Bob Burqer will meet to discuss this issue after Blair has collected additional information from comparable communities. Bob Burger stated that the source of the problem is that decks are included in the ground coverage calculation and are growing larger while lots are getting smaller. A report will be provided to the Development Council at a future meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:41. MIHUTCS PLYtIOUTH ADVISORY COHIIITTEF ON TRAt,SIT FEBRUARY 24, 19'SQ PRESENT: Nancy Holter, Barbara Roberts, Dale Knutson, Dennis Jacobson, Peggy Galarneault, Paul Buharin, Frank Boyles I. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 6. 1988 MINUTES The Committee approved the January 6, 1988 minutes as submitted. I. REVIEW OF YEAR END RIDERSHIP STATISTICS Frank Boyles stated that the ridership increases in 1987 were not as substantial as in previous years. The overall system increase was more like 3% over the 1986 ridership. The internal circulator continued to lose ridership, while the commuter/reverse commuter continued to be the strength of the system. There is no question that the ridership statistics indicate that improvement is needed in the internal circulator system. I. FOLLOW UP ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS MFETINCS A. Driver Problems 1. Pineview Lane. Committee members indicated that since the driver have been changed on Pineview Lane, no problems have been noted. 2. Fare Card Availability and Fare Card Punchinq. Paul Buharin reported that while the ultimate intent is to get the drivers out of the business of selling fare cards, in the short run they will be required as part of their responsibilities to carry punches and fare cards for sale. PACT members will monitor the progress on this item. B. PACT Members Representing C.R. 6/101 and Fernbrook Routes Peggy Galarneault introduced herself. She is currently considering purchasing a home in Plymouth and is interested in serving on the Committee, at least in the short term. She currently takes the Fernbrook bus. Committee members welcomed Peggy to the PACT Committee. PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE Ok' TRANSIT February 24, 1985 Page two IV. IDENTIFICATION OF NEN AREAS OF CONCERN OR RECOMMENDATION Paul Buharin stated that people are again parking in the turnaround. Frank Boyles said that he would ask the CSO's to provide one more warning. Following that, cars will be tagged and towed. When the lot is restriped, a full education effort will be initiated to assure that people do not block the turnaround areas. PACT members indicated that the morning transfer is again becoming disjointed. The first bus is not leaving when full as it should. Paul Buharin will once again remind drivers to leave the lot once the vehicle is full. PACT members expressed concern that more communications are again needed during the evening so that people know whether two or three buses will be outbound from downtown. Paul stated he would remind the drivers on this subject as well. V. PARK AND RIDE LOT REVISIOtIS Dennis Johnson stated that service has been provided to the Medina Ballroom since 1974. Some 25 people use the service in this area with an average of 8 to 9 people per dad. He stated that while he could understand the City's position about serving Plymouth residents with Plymouth tax dollars, he does not believe there is an existing problem and perhaps changes could be delayed until a problem actually exists. Ms. Galarneault suggested that a full-size outbound vehicle might be used at 4:35 to bypass the Park and Ride lot and provide service to Fernbrook passengers and Medina Ballroom passengers. This would eliminate the timing problem currently experienced. Frank Boyles stated that he is concerned about the equity of Plymouth residents subsidizing through tax dollars, routes which primarily benefit non-residents. PACT members suggested that a rate hike would be necessary to reflect the difference in tax support if the above alternative proves feasible. Frank Boyles and Paul Buharin will investigate this possibility and report back at the next meeting. PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COM1,11TTEt 011 TRAI1S11 F February 24, 1955 Page three VI. RESIDENTIAL SURVEY RESULTS Frank Boyles stated that the residential survey had three questions dealing with transportation. The survey found that 27% of the households had three or more cars, 86% two or more cars and 99% at least one car. Sixty-nine percent of the respondents said that public transportation was adequate in the community, while 21% said it was not. Of those wanting better service, 11% wanted more buses, 4% wanted better downtown service and 2% wanted light rail transportation. Of those asked, 80% said they do not and would not use the Park and Ride lot services under any circumstances. Eight percent indicated they are currently using the service and an additional 10% said that they would use it if a lot were more convenient to them. The Committee discussed these responses, as well as the demographics of the City which revealed an average household income of $50,000, an average age of 46, and an average number in the household of Just over two persons. VII. PROGRESS OF PLANNING/MARKETING PROGR4' Paul Buharin introduced the "All You Can Ride" card. He stated that 16 had been sold in the first month and only nine in the last month. Committee members suggested that some sort of discount may be necessary. A first time discount of say 25% with a continuing 10% discount for those who use them regularly was also suggested. Information should be shared with riders on how and where they can obtain the various forms of fare cards, etc. Plymouth on Parade will be used as well. Paul Buharin stated that he is identifyinq corporations to send bus schedules to. There was some discussion on renewing the counter cards. Paul Buharin stated that options have been brainstormed for improvement of the internal circulator. The options include: 1. Revision of the schedule so that it hooks up with the Golden Valley Civic Center, allowing Plymouth residents in the northeast served by Medicine Lake Lines to also go downtown during the mid-day. 2. Fine tuning of the existing route would delete non-productive and add potentially productive areas, as well as save time and mileage. PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMIIITTEF 0H TRAHSIT February 24, 19SS Page four 3. Add another bus on a second route configuration. 4. Add a second bus on still another configuration. Paul Buharin stated that he would be providinq a cost-effectiveness evaluation of each option, together with more precise information on the route times for committee review at the next meeting. Peggy Galarneault suggested that on Friday niqhts, shuttles run until 5:15 p.m. to Ridgedale for those who must work later during the evening. In addition, between Thanksgiving and Christmas, this run could be extended to 8 or 9 p.m., perhaps with some additional financial assistance from Ridqedale. The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: March 1, 1989 TO: City Manager lames G. Willis FROM: Community Devlopment Director Blair Tr.emere I SUBJECT EIS SCOPING FOR COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PR03FCT TRANSFER STATION I attended the public scoping meeting Monday evening and presented the attached letter and statement, as well as a Zoning Ordinance. The hearing was conducted by the Metropolitan Council committee headed by Councilmember Jo Nunn who also represents Plymouth. Other Metropolitan Councilmembers present were: Dirk DeVries, Dottie Rietow, Gertrude Ulrichs, Marcie Waritz, and Carol Flynn. County and Metropolitan Council staff members also were present. Plymouth residents, Tom Dirks, LeRoy Reinke, Kenneth Neutgens, and ;lames Sentman were present; Plymouth Business Action Association was represented by Hickok Associates President, and Brian Marks; representative of Satellite Industries was also present. There were several other persons who spoke relative to the general subject of waste transfer and recycling, as well as the proposed expansion of the Minneapolis facility. I have attached the background material which has been available to date. Attachments February 29, 1985 Mr. Wayne Nelson Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Bldg. 7th & Robert Sts. St. Paul, MN 55101 P�C�'E ��� ! i L) . SUBJECT SCOPING MEETING FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECT TRANSFER STATION - PLYMOOTH SITE Dear Mr. Nelson: The City of Plymouth appreciates the opportunity to submit information at the February 29, 1988 Scoping Meeting. 1. We are submitting an updated statement based upon the remarks made last spring by our former deputy Mayor to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Public Service Committee. It identifies several concerns that should be considered in defining the Scope of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). One of the major concerns expressed in that document is the potential impact of this facility upon nearby City well fields. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet MAW) provided us as part of the preliminary draft Scoping Decision document suggests that there would be minimal impact. This is a critical matter for the City of Plvmouth and should he included in the Scoping document. 2. A copy of the current Plymouth Zoning Ordinance is provided in that it con- tains information relative to Items in., 11., and 12., as well as an Attach- ment (4d?). This is the information sent to Mr. Warren Porter of Hennepin County Department of Environment and Energy last December with copies to you in response to the preliminary EAW. There is no question that this facility is subject to the requirements of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance including the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit. The Zoning Ordinance contains very specific informational requirements and these should be reviewed in the preparation of the Final Scoping document since they represent basic environmental impact concerns. 3. The scope of the updated EIS should be at least as complete and no less detailed than the original EIS. The City of Plymouth looks forward to receiving a copy of the Scoping Decision and draft Supplemental EIS. We may submit additional information during this comment period which we understand is open through March 8, 1988. Thank you for your consideration. S' ely, Blair Tremere, Director Community Development 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH MINNEgOTt' 55 = T: E'_EPHON= 1612 559-280J FEBRUARY 29, 19SS C01.1M IdTS B) C 1 I OF PLYMOUTH REGARDING, UPDATED FHS IR01Vb1F1!TAL Tfl-1ACT STATEMENTS, BASED UPON REMARKS BY FORIILR DEPUTI MAYOR DAVID CRAW TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMlSSIONERS ON JUNE 11, 1957 I. The City of Plymouth has taken the position that we wish to be responsible Countv citizens. A. This is demonstrated by the fact that Plymouth is the site of numerous County facilities or facilities providing County functions including: 1. Hennepin County Adult Corrections Facility - This is the only such facility in the County and because of its nature and proximity to residential areas has been the subject of many community meetinqs and City/County discussions. 2. Facilities such as the formrr Pioneer House. and Home Free Shelter also called Plvmouth home for treatment of individuals with chemical use problems and victims of intra -family abuse. 3. Plymouth hosts two suburban Hennepin County parks, includinq the Park Headquarters. 4. The City is home for a number of decentralized residential care facilities and is being considered by others. B. While we desire to remain responsible, Plymouth residents and the City Council question what burden a single community must bear on behalf of County residents. Some communities in our County carry no burden whatsoever from a County perspective and should be given more thorough consideration b� the County. C. A second issue of equity has to do with the process by which this site in Plymouth has been selected and how it contrasts with the process used in selecting other sites. The other sites were selected after allowing substantial opportunity for public input. This site is being designated following a very short time table with essentially no opportunity for the public to comment. D. The final equity question is the fact that one site (the Hopkins site) has already been dismissed from further consideration of the basis of its proximity to a food warehousing operation. The fact of the matter is that the proposed Plymouth site is comparably proximate to a food warehousing and distribution center operated by Log House Foods. This fact should be given consideration with respect to the Plymouth site. Page 2 II. If the County does not believe it appropriate to more equitably spread the Countv burden to other communities, and desires to continue with accelerated consideration of the Plymouth I-494 - County Road 6 site, there are specific concerns which members of the Council and community have, and which need to be addressed. Ne would expect the County to thoroughly investigate and respond to each. A. First and foremost, we are concerned about possible adverse affects to the City's groundwater supply. 1. The City's main wellfield which will ultimately consist of fourteen wells, lies in immediate proximity to the proposed site. 2. The City Council has previously enlisted the services of a hydrologist who's findinqs indicate that the re -charge area of the City's wellfield extended into this area. Moreover, the cone of depression caused by the pumping of water of the aouifer also includes this area. In other words, when pumps are in operation, any spill into the aouifer mai be drawn into the City's water system by the action of the wells. 3. The County must thoroughly investigate the potential for groundwater contamination to determine what steps, if any, must be taken to eliminate any threat whatsoever to the City's ground water system. 4. While the Council has already taken the steps to develop a second decentralized wellfield, the bulk of our water will continue to be drawn from the primary wellfield. B. Traffic Access/Roadway Maintenance and Construction. 1. County estimates suggest that 32.0 trips a day will be made to and from this site by five to six ton garbage packer vehicles and larger transfer vehicles. To this number must be added trips of residents or businesses using the site or employees working at the site. 2. Continuing development in our community has created capacity problems for County Road 6 3. County Road 6 congestion has been felt on other area roadways once residents seek to use alternative routes to accomplish their transportation objectives with the least amount of congestion. 4. Prior to the City becoming aware of its status as a candidate for the transfer facility, a study was conducted in connection with our Tax Increment Financing District to determine the need Pao(- 3 for roadways improvements in this area. The finding of the traffic eneineer Has that there is a distinct lack of capacity on County Road 6, County Road 61 north of County Road 6 to High- way 55, and that there was a distinct need for the construction of an interchange at I-494 and County Road 6. 5. The County Road 6 - I-494 interchange project, to be funded in part through tax increment financinq is not scheduled for construction before 1999. Additional funding sources have not yet been identified. 6. If a Hennepin County Facility is to be located at this site, decisio!is must be made with respect to the timinq of the construction of an interchange at I-494 and County Road 6 as well as the expansion of roadwav capacity on County Road 6 and County Road 61 north of 6 to Highway 55. C. Site Management Issues - Noise, Odor, Hours and Days of Operation, Oversight and Fire/Public Safety Issues. 1. The introduction of a solid waste transfer facility introduces a host of issues because of the nature of the operation. 2. The 320 packer trucks and solid waste transfer vehicles daily will create noise problems in adjacent residential areas. We expect that the County will identify potential noise impacts especially in residential areas. 3. We would expect that the Countv will fully mitigate and elimin- ate any odor problems associated with operation of the site. The standard operating procedures for the site should require total and complete removal of solid waste daily and not allow for overnight and weekend storage of solid waste on the site whatsoever. 4. Days and hours of operation are another issue requiring attention. Current City Code provides that between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., noise is prohibited that disturbs the peace, quiet and solitude of residences or businesses in the community. Accordingly, refuse collectors in Plymouth are limited to hours of collection after 7:00 a.m. This facility would be subject to the same conditions. 5. A solid waste transfer facility would require continuous County oversight to assure that City requirements are complied with. The City and its residents would expect that the County would perform this function aggressively and on a continuing basis. 6. Included in this charge would be costs incurred by the City's Public Safety Department, that is police and fire, to train Page 4 firefighters and police officers if dealna with the unique public safety issues which, naturall\ arise with the existence of a solid waste transfer facility, especially one containing other sorts of household wastes. 7. The City Council and residents of the community are ,-justifiably concerned about mitigating any impact which such a facility might have upon our community's environment. Consequently, we expect the potential environmental impacts raised should be fully covered in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). III. Plymouth residents are responsible and concerned County residents. Accordingly, we are willing to %ori: the County with the assurance that our concerns %ill be dealt pith in a sensitive and responsive manner. As you are a%are, the site under consideration is Zoned for industrial use and would require a Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permits require the revie% and public hearing by the City's Planning Commission and ultimate approval by the City Council. While we desire to cooperate with the County Board, we must be reasonably assured that a solid waste transfer facility will be evaluated sensitively. NOTICE OF METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING HENNEPIN COUNTY RESOURCE -RECOVERY PROJECT TRANSFER STATIONS SCOPING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET The Metropolitan Council's Environmental Resources Committee will hold a public meeting to receive public comments regarding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and draft Scoping Decision Document for proposed changes in Hennepin County Is planned solid waste transfer station network. You are encouraged to participate in this meeting and provide input. The project as proposed in 1985 consisted of a municipal solid waste mass -burn resource -recovery facility and four transfer stations. The county has decided to replace the Hopkins transfer station site with one at I-494 and County Rd. 6 in Plymouth, and to expand the Minneapolis site from 1.3 to about 7.6 acres on the east side of the existing south Minneapolis transfer station. Each facility will be designed to transfer 400-700 tons per day of solid waste from packer trucks to enclosed trailer trucks which will haul the solid waste to resource -recovery facilities. Citizen drop-off sites will be provided for yard waste, recyclables, and household hazardous wastes, as well as a municipal recycling unit for recyclable materials from cities and contract haulers. After the public meeting, Council staff will prepare a response to comments concerning the EAW. This report will be considered by the Council's Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee and its Environmental Resources Committee, which will make recommendations to the full Council. The Council will then determine the scope of study for the supplemental environmental impact statement required for the project. PUBLIC MEETING LN'FORMATION When: Monday, Feb. 29, 7:30 p.m. Where: Hennepin County Government Center Auditorium 300 S. 6th St., Mpls. Who Will Local officials Be Notified: Nearby residents and business officials -over How To 1. You may attend the meeting and offer oral or written comments. Participate: To register in advance to speak, call Jane Larson at 291-6500. 2. You may send a letter, by March 9, 1988, with comments to: Wayne Nelson Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Bldg., 7th and Robert Sts. St. Paul, MN 55101 Questions: Call the Council's Solid Waste Division and speak to Wayne Nelson (291-6406). To receive a copy of the draft environmental assessment worksheet, call the Council's Data Center at 291-6464. z � d IIENNEPIN COUNTY RESOURCE -RECOVERY PROJECT TRANSFER STATIONS SCOPING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSNIENT WORKSHEET SUMMARY o The original EIS addressed the mass -burn incinerator under construction in Minneapolis and four transfer stations. Nine alternative transfer station sites were studied. o The Metropolitan Council has determined a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) is necessary to study proposed changes in the transfer station network. The changes are the substitution of a site in Plymouth for the original Hopkins location and development of a larger south Minneapolis site. The SEIS would address the topics for transfer station sites considered in the original EIS. Two additional alternative locations would be included. Additional study would address waste system changes since the original study, hazardous waste management, and mitigation measures. SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF THE SEIS SCOPING PROCESS ?ublic scoping meeting - Feb. 29, 1988. o Comment period ends - March 9, 1988. o Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee reviews draft scoping decision document - March 8, 1988. o Environmental Resources Committee reviews draft scoping decision document - March 17, 1988. o Metropolitan Council approves final scoping decision - March 24, 1988. .P.�7�1"V'ie*'IR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING HENNEPI14 COUNTY RESOURCE -RECOVERY PROJECT TRANSFER STATIONS SCOPING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Monday, February 29, 1988 Hennepin County Government Center Auditorium A G E N D A I. Opening Remarks Josephine Nunn, Metropolitan Council Member, District 9 II. Project Description Warren. Porter, Hennepin County Solid Waste Division III. Preliminary Scoping Plans Wayne Nelson, Metropolitan Council Solid Waste Division IV. Public Comments V. Adjourn PRELIMINARY DRAFT SCOPING DECISION DOCUMENT HENNEPIN RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS FOR TRANSFER STATIONS BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Council is requiring a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for changes in the transfer station network of the Hennepin County Resource Recovery Project. The EIS for this project was determined adequate by the Council on July 10, 1986. The county has decided to replace the -Hopkins site studied in the EIS with o,ne at I-494 and County Rd. 6 in Plymouth and add approximately ten acres to the 1.3 acre Minneapolis site for a more comprehensive operation at that location. The Council determined on Nov. 5, 1987 that an SEIS is necessary regarding the project changes. Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules require that the preparation, circulation and filing of an SEIS be in the same manner as an EIS. PURPOSE EQB rules require a public scoping process for any EIS (MN Rules Ch. 4410.2100). This process narrows the scope and bulk of the EIS by identifying those issues relevant to the proposed project which require detailed analysis and by restricting studies in the EIS to those discussed in the scoping decision document. The Council has prepared a supplemental EAW for the Hennepin Resource Recovery Project as the basis of the scoping process in accordance with EQB rules. A public scoping meeting is expected to be conducted on Feb. 29, 1988, in the Hennepin County Government Center in Minneapolis. The comment period will be open from Feb. 8 through March 8, 1988. The final scoping document will represent the Council's decision on what issues should be addressed to complete an adequate SEIS for the project. The scoping decision is to be the basis for preparin;; the EIS and evaluating its adequacy. The purpose of the EIS is to function as a means for disclosing information about the significant environmental issues associated with a proposed action. The analysis is not intended to justify either a positive or negative decision on the project. It should serve as a resource to public officials responsible for permit decisions and other approvals of the project. It should identify measures necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse environmental effects. PREPARERS It is expected that the SEIS will be prepared by Metropolitan Council staff based upon consultant research of issues identified in scoping. CALENDAR An SEIS preparation notice for the project must be published in the EQB Monitor within 45 days of the adoption of the scoping decision. A draft and final SEIS must be prepared and released for public review. PROJECTED TIMETABLE: Scoping Decision March 24, 1988 Release of Draft SEIS June 1983 Final SEIS Adequacy Deterr.�_nat_on Sept. 1988 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The SEIS will contain a description of the proposed project as outlined below: a) Purpose of the transfer station network; b) Location and existing characteristics of the Plymouth and expanded Minneapolis transfer station sites; c) Site layouts identifying roads, buildings, tipping, storage and buffer areas; d) Design parameters for the buildings and exterior surface drainage; e) Facility operating procedures; f) Solid Waste handling capacity of both facilities and any changes this represents in the proposed transfer system; g) Changes in the waste generation system since the completion of the original EIS that may affect the need for transfer facilities; and h) List of household wastes anticipated to be collected along with household hazardous waste handling procedures and contingency plans for spills or accidents. ALTERNATIVES The alternatives section of the SEIS must evaluate reasonably available options for implementing the proposed project as well as assessing the consequences of a "no action" situation. Typical alternatives include design modifications, different technologies, variations in size and other potential sites. The original EIS adequately addressed alternatives to the mass burn approach and ten alternative sites for transfer stations. No reasonable alternatives to the South Minneapolis site were identified from aerial photographic and land use plans, previous Hennepin County siting reports, reports from the MPCA and the Minnesota Waste Management Board, or any comments regarding the proposed facility. Three alternatives considered and rejected by Hennepin County were discussed. It was determined that no alternatives to the South Minneapolis site would be evaluated in the EIS and none will be evaluated in the SEIS. The SEIS will evaluate the alternatives to the Plymouth site listed below. The locations were selected to reflect alternatives considered most likely by Hennepin County solid waste staff to replace the proposed site in the event that it is deemed unsuitable for transfer station development in the future. Alternatives considered and rejected by Hennepin County will also be discussed. The results of the alternatives analysis will be compared with the summary data about the other alternative site locations evaluated in the original EIS. Workhouse Industrial Site - approximately 13 acres north of the Hennepin County Adult Corrections facility in Plymouth, west of Niagara Lane and north of 23rd Ave. N. Carlson Interchange Site - approximately 9 acres at the northeast corner of the Carlson Parkway (Co. Rd. 15) and I-494 interchange. GOVERI,RCPNTAL APPROVALS The SEIS will list all known governmental permits and/or approvals required for the project along with the unit of government responsible for each decision. Information will be provided on the purpose, cost and timeframe of each approval. The SEIS will not be prepared with the intent to supply all necessary data for any particular permit application. A record of decision should be prepared for the following governmental approvals showing how the SEIS was considered in reaching the decision. Agency MPC A Metropolitan Council Hennepin County IMPACT ANALYSIS Decision Solid Waste Facility Permit Solid Waste Facility Permit Facility Operating License The SEIS must discuss environmental, economic, employment and sociological impacts for the new proposed transfer station components of the project and the alternative sites that will be studied. The topics that will be evaluated are discussed below with emphasis given to the issues that appear to be most significant. The analysis of alternative sites will be similar to the analysis of the proposed facilities in Plymouth and South Minneapolis. Site specific research on the alternative locations will not be performed when information about general conditions in the alternative site vicinity is available. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The primary environmental concerns associated with solid waste transfer stations relate to traffic, noise, and odor. The generic air quality and odor analysis in the original EIS is applicable to new or larger sites and will not be supplemented. The air quality analysis was conservative in that it evaluated the potential emissions from the highest volume transfer station against the background carbon monoxide level in downtown Minneapolis. The SEIS will analyze impacts on geology and soils, surface water and noise levels. Geology and soils will be evaluated in terms of the surficial geology, bedrock and ground water characteristics and risks. Abandoned well records will be verified and the status of the identified wells will be evaluated for risk implications. Surface water will be studied in terms of hydrology, wetlands and water quality. Noise will be projected from construction, facility operation and truck traffic in comparison with existing levels and state and local standards. Impacts on flora and fauna will be predicted. ECONOMIC AND E14PLOYIAENT IMPACTS The SEIS will describe the proposed solid waste system in Hennepin County. The description will include the capacity and utilization of the transfer station network and resource recovery projects it may support inside and outside the county. Diversion of waste when pro,3essing or transfer facilities are not fully operational will also be studied. The adequacy of local utilities will be evaluated by comparing local utility services and capacities with transfer station requirements. The impact on the local cor=Unity will be evaluated in terms of population, housing, employment, property value, taxes, operating cost burden including debt service, community service demands and other potential costs. Soil borings to determine construction limitations will be analyzed. SOCIOLOGIC IMPACTS The SEIS will indicate the land use and zoning for both sites and the alternatives and describe nearby land uses. The consistency of a transfer station with the comprehensive plan and the local zoning designation will be analyzed. Transportation issues will be evaluated in terms of a level of service projection for 1989 with a,id without a transfer station at each site location. Vehicle operating safety, accessibility and land use compatability with the increase in truck traffic will be considered. Traffic impacts will be projected for existing road networks and any new interchanges or roadways anticipated prior to 1995. Aesthetics and cultural resources will be studied it terms of historic resource impacts and visual impacts. Drawings of the proposed site configurations of the two proposed transfer stations will be included. Litter implications will be analyzed. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures for, the two proposed transfer sites under consideration will be identified. The d,_scuss-on will include the concerns addressed in the original EIS. These covered: - Transportation considerations, - Zoning ordinance amendments that may be desirable to identify transfer stations as conditional or permitted uses, and - Potential runoff control measures. Any other measures that should be considered to reduce or avoid identified adverse impacts will be present-sd. Considerations for hazardous waste spill avoidance, containment and cleanup will also be discussed. WN5000-PROTx4e5 P ART I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) 1. Project Name Hennepin County Transfer Station - Plymouth Site 2. Proposer Hennepin County Department of Environment and Ener gy Contact Person Warren Porter Address 822 South 3rd Street, Suite 300. Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone (612) 348-6848 3. RGU Metropolitan Council Contact Person Wayne Nelson Address 300 Metro Square Building - 7th and Robert Street St. Paul, MN 55101 phone (612) 29 1- 640 6 4. Project Location: a. NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 27, Township 118N, Range 22W, in the City of Plymouth, Hennepin County. b. Attachments: 4a. County Map 4b. U.S.G.S. Map 4c. Air Photo/Plat Map 4d. Site Plan 4e. Land Use Map 4f. Zoning Map 5. Describe the proposed project (what will be done and 'now long it will take) . Attachment 5 lists transfer station design and operating characteristics. Hennepin County intends to construct a solid waste transfer station and recycling facility on this site which will be one of four transfer stations in the County to serve resource recovery plants currently under construction. The Plymouth transfer station's primary function will be to transfer 400-700 tons per day (TPD) of solid waste from packer trucks to enclosed trailer trucks which will haul the solid waste to the resource recovery facilities. As a convenience to citizens and cities, and to aid in achieving the 1990 recycling goals, the project will also include citizen drop-off facilities for yard waste, recyclables, and household hazardous wastes. A municipal recycling unit will be provided for the cities or contracted haulers of recyclable materials. Source separated recyclables will be transported, or processed on-site, and sold to available markets. Yard wastes will be hauled to county compost facilities. Household hazardous wastes will be hauled to recycling or permitted disposal facilities as appropriate for the specific materials. It is anticipated that the entire site will, be disturbed during construction of the facility buildings and roadways. Construction of this transfer station and recycling facility should 'begin in February 1989 and last approximately 10 months. The project will be in operation in late 1989 and will operate as long as the resource recovery facilities are operable, at least 25-30 years. 6. Reason for EAW preparation: Supplemental E,IS Scoping MEQB Rule # 4410.2100 and 4410.3000 7. Estimated construciton cost $8,500,000 8. Total project are (acres) 14 or length (miles) Not Applicable (N/A) 9. Number of residential units N/A or commercial, industrial, or institutional square footage Industrial 71,360 ft2 10. Number of proposed parking spaces 11 11. List all known local, state and federal permits/approvals/funding required: Refer to Attachment 11 12. Is the proposed project inconsistent with any: a. Adopted land use ordinances? b. Adopted comprehensive land use plans? X No Yes X No Yes C. Local, state or federal resource managemnent plans? X No Yes The proposed project appears to be consistent with all zoning ordinances and land use plans. A potential conflict may occur in that the local zoning ordinance does not specifically addn.ss solid waste transfer stations as allowable, not allowable, or as a conditional use. It is the responsibility of the City of Plymouth to determine if the proposed project is consistent with local zoning requirements, and if a conditional use permit is needed. The site is currently vacant land in a zoned industrial area. The zoning classification is I-1. The Plymouth Land Use Guide Pian specifies the area as "planned industrial,"(iP). A transfer station at this site should be compatible with existing zoning ordinance and the land use plan. Refer to the '_?nd use map and zoning map, Attachments 4e and 4f, respectively. 13. Desc e current and recent past land use and development on and near the site The ...ce is located in an industrial area and is presently urban vacant land n-nich the owner is subdividing as commercial/industrial lots. Five ress.,!ences formerly occupied the sourthern part of the site along C.S.A.H. 6; however, these homes have been removed. -2- The site is bordered by streets and highways on all sides. Surrounding land uses are light industrial, manufacturing, warehouses and offices. The site is in a large industrial park which is zoned as an industrial district (I-1) and the Plymouth Guide Plan specifies the site and surrounding area as planned industrial (iP). Immediately west of I-494 and south of C.S.A.H. 6 is the north end of a narrow strip along the west side of I-494 that is planned for high density residential (LA4) land use; however, the northern part of this area will be used for the southwest ramp of the proposed diamond interchange on I-494 and C.S.A.H. 6. Refer to the land use map, Attachment 4e and the zoning map, Attachment 4F. 14. Approximately how many acres of the site are in each of the following categories? (Acreages should add up to total project area before and after construction) Before After Before After Forest/Wooded 0 0 Wetland (types 3-8) 0 0 Cropland 0 0 Impervious Surface 0 5.2 Brush/Grassland 0 0 Buildings/Landscape 0 8.8 Urban Vacant 14 0 15. Describe the soils on site, giving the SCS soil classification types, if known. Soils on site are: Cut and fill (Cu), Glencoe silty clay loam (Gc), Hamel (Ha), Hayden loam (HbB), and Esterville sandy loam (EtB). See site plan, Attachment 4d. 16. Does the site contain peat soils, steep slopes, sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, abandoned wells, or any geologic hazards? Explain: No X Yes Abandoned wells are on the site. Minnesota Department of Health have records that three wells on-site and one on an adjacent parcel have been abandoned according to state rules. The abondoned wells are listed below by street address with their date of abandonment, company that did the work, and location: 13710 County Road 6 9-11-86 by E.H. Renner & Sons, Inc. 55 feet north of south line, 103 feet west of east line 13810 County Road 6 9-11-86 by Robert E. Stodola Well Company No location on record with Minnesota Department of Health; location shown as approximate on site plan, Attachment 4d 13814 County Road 6 10-1-84 by E.H. Renner & Sons, Inc. 90 feet north of south line, 35 feet west of east line -3- 13820 County Road 6 10-1-84 by E.H. Renner & Sons, Inc. 90 feet north of south line, 30 feet west of east line Refer to Attachment 4d for location Homes were also located at 13500 County Road 6 and 13720 County Road 6; however, the Minnesota Department of Health has no records of wells on these properties. Refer also to Attachment 16b, Hydrogeologic Study 17. What is the approximate depth (in feet) to: a. Groundwater - 27 feet minimum, 76 feet average b. Bedrock - 114 feet minimum, 165 feet average Taken from wells logs in the site vicinity. Refer also to Attachment 16b, Hydrogeologic Study. 18. Does any part of the project area involve: a. Shoreland zoning district? X No Yes b. Delineated 100 -year flood plain? X No Yes c. State or federally designated river land use district? X No Yes 19. Describe any physical alteration (e.g., excavation, fill, stream diversion) of any drainage system, lake, stream, and/or wetland. Estimate quantity of material to be dredged and indicate where spoils will be deposited. No drainage system, lake, stream or wetland will be altered. 20. a. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water? Explain (indicate quantity and source): X No Yes b. Will the project affect groundwater levels in any wells (on or off the site)? X No Yes 21. Describe the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after construction of the project. Construction of the transfer station is not expected to affect water quality on or off the site. Surface water runoff during construction can be contained by stabilizing slopes and constructing temporary detention basins per the best practices available. A site map is included as Attachment 4d. At this time, detailed information on the site grading plans has not been developed. However, it is anticipated that all surface water runoff will be contained on-site and discharged to storm sewers. -4- 22. a. Will the project generate: 1. surface and stormwater runoff? No X Yes 2. sanitary wastewater? No X Yes 3. industrial wastewater? X No Yes 4. cooling water (contact and noncontact)? X No Yes If yes, identify sources, volumes, quality (if other than normal domestic sewage), and treatment methods. Give the basis or methodology of estimates. After construction, stormwater runoff will be contained in a settlement pond equipped with devices for skimming oil and floatable materials, and discharged through drains into storm sewers. Volumes of runoff generated by this site for a one year return frequency 24 hour duration rainfall event and a 100 year return frequency 24 hour rainfall event is estimated at .75 and 3.12 acre-feet respectively. The peak discharge rate from this site for a one year event, and a 100 year event are 12 and 26 cubic feet per second respectively. Solid waste transfer is essentially a "dry process", so water usage and wastewater discharge are minimal. Water will be used for employee drinking and sanitary facilities. Approximately 450 gallons per day of wastewater from each transfer station will be discharged into the municipal systems from employee and visitor sanitary use. It is anticipated that the sewer extensions will connect the facilities to the existing systems. All wastewater will be discharged to the municipal system. No impacts to groundwater or surface water are anticipated. 23• Will the project generate (either during construction or after construction): a. Air pollution? b. Dust? C. Noise? d. Odors? _ No X Yes _ No X Yes _ No X Yes _ No X Yes Explain both during and after construction, identify distances to noise sensitive land uses, and quantity and type of air pollutants. Transfer stations are used only for the transfer of raw solid waste from short haul collection vehicles to larger transfer trailers. Since no processing of waste occurs, these facilities do not generate air pollutants other than some dust from waste handling and emissions from traffic in and out of the facility. Traffic emissions are not expected to be significant considering the traffic volume increases estimated in question 28. No data is presently available to estimate traffic emissions. Dust may result during construction; however, this can be minimized by the use of standard construction practices. Some noise will be generated by trucks and equipment at the facility, however, all operations will occur inside buildings which will keep noise levels to a minimum. The nearest residences are approximately 1,400 feet to the west across I-494. Transfer stations are "through -put" facilities and are not used for storage of refuse; this minimizes the generation of objectionable odors. The potential for odor will be further reduced by enclosing all portions of the facility in which refuse 'is handled and by covering all refuse vehicles which enter or leave the facility. No known complaints have been filed concerning odors associated with the existing north and south Minneapolis transfer stations. 24. Describe the type and amount of solid waste and/or hazardous waste that will be generated and the method and location of disposal: Solid and hazardous waste will not be generated by the facility; however, 400-700 TPD of municipal solid waste (MSW) will be collected at the facility and transported to resource recovery facilities and recycling centers. Known resource recovery facilities are being constructed in Minneapolis and Elk River. Recycling centers have not been identified. Recyclable materials and household hazardous waste will be provided separate drop-off and transfer areas. These materials are a part of the total 400-700 TPD range. Specific quantities have not been determined. 25. Will the project affect: a. Fish or wildlife habitat, or movement of animals? X No Yes b. Any native species that are officially listed as state endangered, threatened, or of special concern (animals and/or plants)? X No Yes Refer to letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Attachment 26. 26. Do any historical, archaeological or architectural resources exist on or near the project site? X No Yes Explain (show resources on a site map and describe impact): Refer to letter from the Minnesota Historical Society, Attachment 27. 27. Will the project cause the impairment or destruction of: a. designated park or recreation areas? X No Yes b. prime or unique farmlands? X No Yes c. ecologically sensitive areas? X No Yes d. scenic views and vistas? X No Yes e. other unique resources (specify)? X No Yes -6- 28. For each affected road indicate the current average daily traffic (ADT), increase in ADT contributed by the project and the directional distributions of traffic. The main access routes to the site are C.S.A.H. 6 and I-494. According to the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation, total average daily traffic (ADT) for these routes were 13,000 and 45,500 vehicle trips per day, respectively for the year 1986, the most recent data available. Indirect access to the site will be from Water Tower Circle and Annapolis Lane, however, no traffic data is available for these streets. A preliminary site plan is included (Figure 4d). The project would generate at maximum "through -put" capacity an estimated 140 packer truck vehicle trips, 44 transfer trailer vehicle trips, 20 employee vehicle trips or 204 vehicle trips per day. The round trip traffic from the project could potentially increase traffic on C.S.A.H. 6 by 3.4 percent and on I-494 by 0.9 percent if all project generated traffic used both these roadways. An unknown number of trucks hauling source separated recyclables and citizen automobile traffic would be generated. The former would be a relatively low percentage of the total. For example, if 16 percent (112 TPD) of the total solid waste expected at the transfer station is recycled through source separation programs and hauled to the transfer station in trucks carrying 3 tons per truck, 37 trucks per day would haul recyclables to the transfer station. Since the 112 TPD is part of the 700 TPD of MSW delivered to the transfer station 22 less packer trucks would use the facility. Therefore, 15 truck trips would be added due to recycling drop-off for a total of 219 vehicle trips per day. Citizen traffic volumes are not available. Citizen traffic would be primarily automobiles, automobiles with trailers and pickup trucks. It is anticipated that citizens would primarily use the drop-off facilities on Saturdays or late in the day during the week, which would be low traffic volume periods for packer trucks and transfer trailers. 29. Are adequate utilities and public service; now available to service the project? If not, what additional utilities will be required? No X Yes Refer to site plan, Attachment 4d. Summary of issues Potential issues include abandoned wells on-site, possible air pollution and noise from vehicle traffic, increased traffic, and odor during operations. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) will discuss alternatives and mitigative measures. CERTIFICATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is true and correct to ther best of my knowledge and that copies of the completed EAW have been made available to all points on the official EQB distribution list. Signature Title WN5003/PROTY4@6 S Date HENNEPIN COUNTY TRANSFER STATION - PLYMOUTH SITE N 0 � WIN 7 \ v� HENNEFINI Source: HDR Techserv, Inc. �J �J I Plymouth project location At':achmeni 4 ----7 I was. JO.t OT♦ scorn `l KEY MAP HENNEPIN COUNTY TRr;NSFER STATION - PLYMOUTH S!TE Missi 2 2- 211 23 - �I' - - - - ! 961 - �'• - '� ' -• • �� � \. 21 ■ V- ./ WI MINNEA� l� /!Q !' ^NOUSTR!/"y�GRK �. : Gr e1.', �t••',.._T•ti .J _ !i °"` � �ti1 ,� �: amu.. '•`3=-•r!<� _ • ti •_ _ i los �� $ ! 0 ■ A I • ' $ .i� 26* �` �� y �•�( ;-_ �. c s rja1 Palk; =�/\�• i P�1 - • . _ ° •Nater \� �� �,•• _ Gravel PSt X- J`'`'`1: Tank • site P. } �la a� �` jl. 9J /^ _•w ESTER T. 926 ` I t\ ' '^\ �.•' •..� Ouse \' _ ND g -'- .- •`•=a.:1. U iz J• - ��: �.'�. _ it\.. - - _ 11 L 956 ` . /ice•- I _. zL St M rY o! the Lemke sch Sw t Hi1111. u .. - If _ i seh Of U.S.G.S. map showing project site Attachment b HENNEPIN COUNTY TRANSFER STAT ION - PLYMOUTH SITE r �' p `: f - ' - - - ,� - • Vii. Z CL 'z^L'I� 11 -- ¢ �. al Source: HDR Techserv, Inc. Air Photo/Plat Map showing project site Attachment 4c .0 cry, u v u V ` :,K , mow..—. •f}!t .•O{ ` C7[' 1 t 16)�� PJ T a Source: HDR Techserv, Inc. Air Photo/Plat Map showing project site Attachment 4c I ; o o 0 o• _ .. o••✓ i I I• V I I I • r J i l e i :• i i'.: j t I I � ° • • t m IIIIQea= I II •,o z IL 11 I! I 9 LLLL LLQ ' o LLLLLLI, LL I I L'j it I, Z I li j i I LIL LLLLLUL LLLLLL>' LLLLLL LLLLLLLI LLLLLIL LLLLLL!j, e cy ou c HENNEPIN COUNTY TRANSFER STATION - PLYMOUTH SITE (' AV 4.: . _ IP _-�- if PAW Sources: Plymouth Comprehensive Plan HDR Techserv, Inc. Plymouth protect area land use map At`ac`• - HENNEPIN COUNTY TR.P%NSFER STATION - PLYMOUTH SITE 1 - _ + M PUD? , -T8-� ; i RPUu -� R -2% — ,78-2 --=-- 1 ____ �! 84_4 1RPUD�% �' -t' �f.-1, B -I ; RPUD f 7 R- 2 178. 6 84-5 RD �•��;'_ . ►. '-s=- !,.' • 1 _J �� /�.� iii iii:: _M PUD ---- 8-1 MPUD ----------- - . 83 RPUD WPUD �-,J �_+ - - 4---� __--_ R-2 i i---f=.r=- r -i t --J { 11 7 z E7 FRD Sources: Plymouth Zoning Ordinance HDR Techserv, Inc. Plymouth project area zoning map Attachment 4-, CD a c O Q v T OC0- cdS- a a y C e mC7, G O m CL y c rcy C 'n o upiq n LAO IV L a L p O.O O C y CF- L O L ' ,0 a v o i U cii L co co O v ^ •- v(10 O 01 i= O N N ♦+ ON N O a0 Cn C a N q A C C C C C C Z C C C N ♦.J -r ro 'O C Z Ln N pL c 0 L m _ cu 410 L a� IT EE E C v ^ i q 41 y = C e O T v N H ate+ u N v N ^ z W A a E •- i p a) 3c w > q O N y N t - +-� fid N L cu 4- C— O y < _ O 0— v .- q O o C >� ro u E� v U L C d a C O b u w Ur- `7cc; -�c�a� Q N O O y 7 O C C O r.+ Q7 N H U O C E � a v N F- q C > U Z L' cu H q^ O C My^ L ^ N y r >> u O y CU O. O CN.1 Q L Z L V S-ep L L ^ a y (CS O < a u "� a �, 2>�O y O a q U a C n v A i Z o> O E a� N C Z }- O ^ aai � C i C O .G C O a C u q L O a 0 .�- L c c >+ O r4 d +"' O N Y �+ d ,� �+ d v a ca q o. q 'o W Z .E f L d < Z O W Ln � J N C O W rt a a y N p C• y C E Z ^ L C q D q € 0. p 0 O a d A p O U C U W L N an q u COL G c y •r o v�. a O C .a N ti LnG C ^ LTJ E cu I- s o U N U C C a C € W v L oa Dau Nb- �- • r a Qi L O a .— L C r y CU d eEEp y L v v X . a L °: y Z3 i N .tva CL a c O Q v T OC0- cdS- a a y C e mC7, G O m CL y c rcy C 'n o upiq n LAO IV L a L p O.O O C y CF- L O L ' ,0 a v o i U cii L Hennepin County Transfer Station Design/Operation The following outline indicates the general design and operating character- istics of transfer stations proposed by Hennepin County. o Waste will be unloaded from packer trucks directly into a pit area. o The pit storage areas will not contain a drains and will be designed to direct all waste into the transfer trucks. o Packer trucks will be prohibited from loosening gate turnbuckles until inside the buildings. o Packer trucks must be secured and completely closed before leaving the buildings. o The loadout area of the buildings will be fully enclosed and provided with automatic doors at each end that will be closed except when trucks are entering or leaving. o All waste will normally be removed from the pits, loadout floors, and maneuvering floors at the end of each working day. o The buildings will have poured concrete floors containing hardening materials to minimize wear. The floors and walls where solid waste will be stored will also be poured concrete. o Some natural lighting will be provided by means of skylights and glass block. o Floor drainage from the vehicle maneuvering areas and loadout floors will go through grease/grit traps prior to dicharge into the sanitary sewer systems. o Exterior stormwater will be directed to retention and treatment basins equipped with devices for skimming oil and floatable materials prior to dicharge. o Landscaping will be provided to screen and buffer the sites from surrounding land uses. o Sites will be surrounded by small mesh chain-link fences with security gates. o Buildings and sites will be secured at the end of each working day. o Litter will be manually collected from the sites each working day and off-site as determined necessary by city/County inspections. o The Hennepin County Designation Ordinance Section IV, Subsection 5 allows the county to charge a hauler for cleanup of waste littering roadways if the hauler was responsible for the litter. o Fire hydrants will be provided exterior to the buildings; interiors will each contain an automatic sprinkler system and several fire hose stations. o Household hazardous waste storage areas will be inside the buildings on impermeable surfaces that will not react with any spilled waste. o The household hazardous waste floor slabs will be depressed, curbed, and contain no drains. in the evert of a spill, the waste will be contained without Nnteriig the ground, or discharging into the sanitary or stormwater systems. PART II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) 1. Project Name Hennepin County Transfer Station - Minneapolis South Site 2. Proposer Hennepin County Department of Environment and Ener gy Contact Person Warren Porter Address 822 South 3rd Street, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55415 3. RGU Metropolitan. Council Contact Person Wayne Nelson Phone (612) 348-6848 Address 300 Metro Square Building - 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, MN 55 101 4. Project Location: Phone (612) 291-6406 a. E 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and the W 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 36, Township 29N, Range 24W, in the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County. b. Attachments: 4a. County Map 4b. U.S.G.S. Map 4c. Air Photo/Plat Map 4d. Site Plan 4e. Land Use Map 4f. Zoning Map 5. Describe the proposed project (what will be done and how long it will take). Hennepin County intends to construct a solid waste transfer station and recycling facility on this site which will be one of four transfer stations in the County to serve resource recovery plants currently under construction. The Minneapolis South transfer station's primary function will be to transfer 400-700 tons per day (TPD) of solid waste from packer trucks to enclosed trailer trucks which will haul the solid waste to the resource recovery facilities. As a convenience to citizens and cities, and to aid in achieving the 1990 recycling goals, the project will also include citizen drop-off facilities for yard waste, recyclables, and household hazardous wastes. A municipal recycling unit will be provided for the cities or contracted haulers of recyclable materials. Source separated recyclables will be transported and sold to available markets. Yard wastes will be hauled to County compost facilities. Household hazardous waste will be hauled to recycling or permitted disposal facilities as appropriate for the specific materials. It is anticipated that the entire site will be disturbed during construction of the facility buildings and roadways. Construction of this transfer station and recycling facility should begin in February 1989 and last approximately 10 months. The project will be in operation in late 1989 and will operate as long as the resource recovery facilities are operable, at least 25-30 years. 6. Reason for EAW preparation: Supplemental EIS Scoping MEQB Rule # 4410.2100 and 4410.3000 7. Estimated construction cost $9,653,000 8. Total project area (acres; 7.6 or length (miles) Not Applicable (N/A) 9. Number of residential unit: ``/A or commercial, industrial, or institutional square 1footagt Industrial and Office 66.547 10. Number of proposed parking spaces 18 11. List all known local, state and federal permits/approvals/funding required: Refer to Attachment 11 12. Is the proposed project inconsistent with any: a. Adopted land use ordinances? X No Yes b. Adopted comprehensive land use plans? X No Yes C. Local, state or federal rdsource management plans? X No Yes The proposed project appears to be consistent with all land use plans and local zoning ordinances (Attachments 4e and 4f). A potential conflict may occur in that the local zoning ordinance does not specifically address the siting of solid waste transfer stations. Therefore, a conditional use permit may be required. It is the responsibility of the City of Minneapolis to determine if the proposed project is consistent with all local zoning requirements. Currently the proposed site is classfied as general industrial by the Minneapolis Planning Department (Attachment 4e) and zoned as heavy manufacutr ing (M3-2) . 13. Describe current and recen, past land use and development on and near the site. The proposed site will be I -sated in an industrial/residential area and is bordered by East 28th Stree_ on the north, 22nd Avenue South on the east, East 29th Street on the south, and 20th Avenue South on the west. The existing transfer station and roofiong business between this site and the cemetery may be included as part of this project. Four businesses and 27 -2- residences are located within the area needed for the proposed site. Homes and businesses will have to be purchased and removed. Land use classifications for the area surrounding the proposed site are: i) general to the south; ii) cemetery to the south and west; iii) general industrial to the north; and iv) light industrial to the east (Attachment 4e). 14. Approximately how many acres of the site are in each of the following categories? (Acreages should add up to project area before and after construction) Before After Forest/Wooded 0 0 Cropland 0 0 Brush/Grassland 0 0 Urban Vacant .8 0 Before Wetland (types 3-8) 0 Impervious Surface 2.3 Buildings/Industrial 2.0 Landscape! ,sass 0 Urban Residential 2.5 After 2.4 1.5 3.7 0 15. Describe the soils on the site, giving the SCS soil classification types, if known. The Hennepin County Soil Survey, conducted by the Soil Conservation Service, presents no information about the soil types for the proposed site because it is located in the Minneapolis urban area. The only soils information available is from the EIS completed in July 1986, Part 1 Section 3.3.6.2 for the 1.3 acre site adjacent to the now proposed site which states that approximately 5 feet of fill is present. The fill is underlain by fine and medium grain sands containing varying amounts of silt and gravel. 16. Does the site contain peat soils, steep slopes, sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, abandoned wells, or any geologic hazards? Explain: X No Yes Minnesota Geological Survey records indicate one well in Section 36 of Hennepin County. The well, drilled in June 1949 by Lane Minnesota Compan,, is located at Lake Street and Hiawatha and is not on the proposed site. The boring log for the well indicated the following materials: Material Drift, Sandstone, Rocks Platteville Limestone St. Peter Limestone Shakopee Limestone St. Lawrence Shale Approximate Depth (feet) 17. What is the approximate depth (in feet) to: a. Groundwater -- 100 b. Bedrock -- 48 - 3 - 0-48 48-81 81-248 148-365 365-425 Taken from log for well at Lake Street and Hiawatha in the site vicinity. 18. Does any part of the project area involve: a. Shoreland zoning district? X No Yes b. Delineated 100 -year flood plain? X No Yes C. State of federally designated rive land use district? X No Yes 19. Describe any physical alteration (e.g., excavation, fill, stream diversion) of any drainage system, lake, stream, and/or wetland. Estimate quantity of material to be dredged and indicate where spoils will be deposited. No drainage system, lake, stream or wetland will be altered. 20. a. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water? Explain (indicate quantity and source); X No Yes All water requirements for the transfer station can be met by the existing municipal system. b. Will the project affect groundwater levels in any wells (on or off the site)? X No Yes 21. Describe the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after construction of the project. Construction of the transfer station is not expected to affect water quality on or off the site. Surface water runoff during construction can be contained by stabilizing slopes and constructing temporary detention basins per the best practices available. A site map is included as Attachment 4d. At this time, detailed information on the site grading plans has not been developed. However, it is anticipated that all surface water runoff will be contained on-site and discharged to storm sewers. 22. a. Will the project generate: 1. surface water and stormwater runnoff? No X Yes 2. sanitary wastewater? No X Yes 3. industrial wastewater? X No Yes 4. cooling water (contact and noncontact)? X No Yes If yes, identify sources, volumes, quality (if other than normal domestic sewage), and treatment methods. Give basis or methodology of estimates. After construction, stormwater runoff will be contained and discharged through drains into storm sewers. The total runoff generated from this site for a one year return f'rquency 24 hour event and a 100 year return frequency 24 hour event is estimated at .69 and 2.84 acre-feet respectively. The peak runoff from this site for a one year, and 100 year event is 10 and 24 cubic feet per second respectively. Solid waste transfer is essentially a "dry process", so water usage and wastewater discharge are minimal. Water will be used for employee drinking and sanitary facilities. Approximately 450 gallons per day of wastewater from the transfer station will be discharged into the municipal system from employee and visitor sanitary use. It is anticipated that the sewer extensions will connect the facility to the existing municipal system. All wastewater will be discharged to the municipal system. No impacts to groundwater or surface water are anticipated. 23. Will the project generate (either during construction or after construction) : a. Air pollution? No X Yes b. Dust? No X Yes C. Noise? No X Yes d. Odors? No X Yes Explain both during and after construction, identify distances to noise, sensitive land uses, and quantity and type of air pollutants. Transfer stations are used for the transfer of raw solid waste from short haul collection vehicles to larger transfer trailers. Since no processing of waste occurs, these facilities do not generate air pollutants other than some dust from waste handling and emissions from traffic in and out of the facility. Traffic emissions are not expected to be significant considering the traffic volume increases estimated in question 28. No data is presently available to estimate traffic emissions. Dust may result during construction; however, this can be minimized by the use of standard construction practices. Some noise will be generated by trucks and equipment at the facility, however, all operations will occur inside buildings which will keep noise levels to a minimum. The nearest residences are approximately 500 feet to the northwest. Transfer stations are "through -put" facilities and are not used for storage of refuse; this minimizes the generation of objectionable odors. The potential for odor will be further reduced by enclosing all portions of the facility in which refuse is handled and by covering all refuse vehicles which enter or leave the facility. No known complaints have been filed concerning odors associated with the existing north and south Minneapolis transfer stations. 24. Describe the type and amount of solid waste and/or hazardous waste that will be generated and the method and location of disposal: Solid and hazardous waste will not be generated by the facility; however, 400-700 TPD of municipal solid waste (MSW) will be collected at the facility and transported to resource recovery facil_.ies and recycling centers. Known resource recovery facilities are being constructed in -5- Minneapolis and Elk River. Recycling centers have not been identified. Recyclable materials and household hazardous waste will be provided separat-= drop-off and transfer areas. These materials are a part of the total 400-700 TPD range. Specific quantities have not been determined. 25. Will the project affect: a. Fish or wildlife habitat, or movemn-:�fit 4)c animals? X No Yes b. Any native species that are officially listed as state endangered, threatened, or of special X No Yes concarn (animals and/or plants)? 26. Do any historical, archaeological or architectural resources exist on or near the project site? If yes, explain (show resources on a site map and describe impact): No Yes The Minnesota Historical Society has been contacted but a determination has not been received. The likelyhood of discovering previously unreported archaeological artifacts is slight because essentially all of the site has been previously disturbed by urban development. 27. Will the project cause the impairment or destruction of: a. Designated park or recreation areas? X No Yes b. Prime or unique farmlands? X No Yes C. Ecologically sensitive areas? X No Yes d. Scenic views and vistas? X No Yes e. Other unique resources (specify)? X No Yes 28. For each affected road indicate the current average daily traffic (ADT), increase in ADT contributed by the project and the directional distributions of traffic. The proposed Minneapolis South Transfer Station will result in a number of changes in existing roadways. They are: a. A section of East 28th Street between 20th Avenue South and Hiawatha to the north will be realigned (already planned by Minnesota DOT), and b. Elimination of East 29th Street from 20th Avenue South to 21st Avenue South, and C. Elimination of 213t Avenue South and La- Avenue South between East 28th and 29th Streets, and d. Rerouting of 22nd Avenue South between mast 28th Street and East 29th Street, and e. 20th Avenue South will dead end at East 29th Street. M No data is available from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on 20th Avenue South, 22nd Avenue South and Layman Avenue. The 1986 ADT was 2,540 for 21st Avenue South between East Lake Street and East 28th Street, a roadway which would be eliminated by the proposed site. ADT's for other roads surrounding the proposed site are shown in Attachment 29. The majority of the traffic using 20th and 21st Avenues South and Layman Avenue, is presumably local traffic which originated from Cedar Avenue, Hiawatha Avenue or local businesses or residences. Therefore, the closing of local roads should not result in an additional traffic burden. The 21st Avenue access from Lake Street must be sufficient to handle the facility traffic and through traffic connecting with 28th Street. The proposed transfer station, operating at the design capacity of 700 TPD, would result in an estimated 140 packer truck vehicle trips, 44 transfer trailer vehicle trips and 20 employee vehicle trips or a total of 204 additional vehicle trips per day. Assuming 100 percent of the additional traffic uses 21st Avenue South, this would be an 8 percent increase over current levels. If all project traffic were to use East 28th Street there would be less than a 4 percent increase over existing 28th Street levels. If all of the additional traffic came down Hiawatha Avenue, Hiawatha Avenue would experience less than a 1 percent increase in traffic. These represent a worst case scenario, since actual traffic will not all use a single route. Also, the proposed site's design capacity of 700 TPD will result in 26 fewer vehicle trips than the 800 TPD originally evaluated in the initial Environmental Impact Statement. An unknown number of trucks hauling source -separated recyclables and citizen automobile traffic would be generated. The former would be a relatively low percentage of the total. For example, if 16 percent ( 112 TPD) of the total solid waste expected at the transfer station is recycled through source separation programs and hauled to the transfer station in trucks carrying 3 tons per truck, 37 trucks per day would haul recyclables to the transfer station. Since the 112 TPD is part of the 700 TPD of MSW delivered to the transfer station 22 less packer trucks would use the facility. Therefore, 15 truck trips would be added due to recycling drop- off for a total of 219 vehicle trips per day. Citizen traffic volumes are not available. Citizen traffic would be primarily automobiles, automobiles with trailers and pickup trucks. It is anticipated that citizens would primarily use the drop-off facilities on Saturdays or late in the day during the week, which would be low traffic volume periods for packer trucks and transfer trailers. 29. Are adequate utilities and public services now availa'ble to service the project? If not, what additional utilities will be required? _ No X Yes Refer to site plan, Attachment 4d. Summary of Issues Potential issues include increased traffic, removal of homes and businesses, possible air pollution and noise from vehicle traffic, and odor during operations. -7- The Supplemental Envirorunental Impact Statement (SEIS) will discuss alternatives and mitigative measures. CERTIFICATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that copies of the completed EAW have been made available to all points on the official EQB distribution list. ture Title WN5004 - 8 - Date MCNIVcrlly (,UUtN I Y I HANSt-!=H STATION — MINNEHAPOL15 5UU1 H s -- Source: HDR Techserv, Inc. South Minneapolis project location Attachment 4a Iv I• !Y{ I I Y I N C^ rV L- l a.% Vvv . .4 U.S.G.S. map showing project site Attachment 41.b 1 diff` L III_.IMIIN ,vuly 1 Y I HANSFER STATION - MINNEAPOLIS SOUTH 13 1 2- Q' r'._ :i�a�'_"\ 1 �"R.2=� `--•_a F-177 -' - _...� ;�--►.-r1•'J _y �"I a\1 1- - _� fir I �;� J f� RSI jig M2-2 a:.=.iij- . I::� R, I' F 1 :: I o.J 04 Q$u1�&3sP 2. •'I I r' G�.tCin` iB3S • : T.�C.1.± JI � 1 11 I Lg-.3 Cl 2 r— I I 71 ,C6 J• _ IRZ,� — I R3 ,RZB� s�` �:r i I LJ T7 I i6 ��IRS �•j j ; �I , �83s� s . SSS I f R �a of�r _e l 1 ( ! ' ��]� rt?RS 93s - — j RA R 2 9 R:5 =11az LI ;�� j i I• . � I_j I - I - 8_ - I,i� � 31-•c is - -! Its I jB2- 1Z7 - - .1 a RS t ' •�aK 17.7 ::7I1;..� CIA IR ' RS' _ cam-- '� Rid I�� II p� \. fir`_- ��tR2'JLi'h�RR IJ � Q . • , I � �^-' 'ter---� - I� \ ' 77 IT IR13 ! R R- 21 B7i11 1 , �' 'n R4 f_-__.�i�`� � _., �__ I . J , �_ `J� - I I L�: 11. L �S''� I ff< j I . \ � 1 w_^\\ \\•. v2 a•e2s_3 3s MINNEAPOLIS ZONING _::..._.. 12 ORDINANCE Source: HDR Techserv, Inc. Minneapoiis South project zoning map Attachment 4f 11, v vvi. 1 1 1 11 r11v`7r E J I fA I IV 1V - IV111,4 IV C/--' r- L/LI V V V V 1 1 1 cn 0 C --i T N O C M EAST 29th EAST LAKE STREET 24,960 —1 F ---7 Source: HDR Techserv, Inc. Attachment 29 r cn � o 3 —1 D = Z N C N m a D M w 0 CD -r y o v v _C N C _ L p N O M ^ — cz C i `I Lli v` C ro G q (O O ^^ O C p N c _a L !— O L O W = C C co Qcu �: 7 v Ln N CO 4.1 j rz � � N H i O 7 V O O C ri C C C C C C© T C C N C O y L N v > " q C LUo a r=^ — O L > A O V) •� d �' d G. L O •r E Z y 1 O N O U V ro 0 y _ a 7 CE L N a u E'er- JC oo cV r Q ��uoV- f- ro N u o a V) N 3 G L N c c cp 7 o N p y L •%I U C v O q i C i ^� LL v r O Z ro L ro 1 L g L G i m O �' L +- p ^' C! `u r U Q a O, y 2>0 v >. U L N v n v CU > OL n> E�v� L C i O O V) CL 0 c, o^ t c, CL z CL � z O w to C J O L' C v q c 0 < ^ N E O N w w Z 0 " o C z N y O .� E �+ Ouj p a a^ d o +O _ u N Q A .�+ p W x a V y i a d i c O = o= N L-) 0 >.v W C i .q- _ C y .-- C M— d 6/ a L v o ct ., N z' =: o^ o Q• Ccv u a V C 6l y L O f L Gi > N N ; i € d u f..cr 61 Q. v q at C1 a C.L i p N U O—^ r- p = v y y o v v N C L O N O ^ C `I y v` C ro G q (O O ^^ O C p N c _a L !— O L O W = C C v Hennepin County Transfer Station Design/Operation The following outline indicates the genera= design and operating character- istics of transfer stations proposed by Hennepin County. o Waste will be unloaded from packer trucks directly into a pit area. o The pit storage areas will not contain a drains and will be designed to direct all waste into the transfer trucks. o Packer trucks will be prohibited from loosening gate turnbuckles until inside the buildings. o Packer trucks must be secured and completely closed before leaving the buildings. o The loadout area of the buildings will.be fully enclosed ang provided with automatic doors at each end that will be closed except, when trucks are entering or leaving. o All waste will normally be removed from the pits, loadout floors, and maneuvering floors at the end of each working day. o The buildings will have poured concrete floors containing hardening materials to minimize wear. The floors and walls where solid waste will be stored will also be poured concrete. o Some natural lighting will be provided by means of skylights and glass block. o Floor drainage from the vehicle maneuvering areas and loadout floors will go through grease/grit traps prior to dicharge into the sanitary sewer systems. o Exterior stormwater will be directed to retention and treatment basins equipped with devices for skimming oil and floatable materials prior to dicharge. o Landscaping will be provided to screen and buffer the sites from surrounding land uses. o Sites will be surrounded by small mesh chain-link fences with security gates. o Buildings and sites will be secured at the end of each working day. o Litter will be manually collected from the sites each working day and off-site as determined necessary by city/County inspections. o The Hennepin County Designation Ordinance Section IV, Subsection 5 allows the county to charge a hauler for cleanup of waste littering roadways if the hauler was responsible for the litter. o Fire hydrants will be provided exterior to the buildings; interiors will each contain an automatic sprinkler system and several fire hose stations. o Household hazardous waste storage areas will be inside the buildings on impermeable surfaces that will not react with any spilled waste. o The household hazardous waste floor slabs will be depressed, curbed, and contain no drains. In the event of a spill, the waste will be contained without entering the ground, or discharging into the sanitary or stormwater systems. C(Dune{ l February 24, 19£8 Plymouth City 3400 Plymouth Blvd Plymouth, ID; 55447 The Student Council at Wayzata High School is requesting 100 of the City of Plymouth "we recycle" blue boxes. We plan to run a paper re- cycling project with the boxes. The boxes will be located in each classroom for students to put their waste paper in. The paper only boxes will be collected on Wednesday afternoons after school by members of the Wayzata High School Student Council. The paper will be put into 30 gallon barrels and put in a designated spot for Thursday pick up. Thank you for your cooperation. � � r I Matt Lichty Paper Only Committee Chairperson February 25, 1988 PILE M OU I -H Mr. Matt Lichty Student Council Wayzata High School 305 Vicksburg Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 SUBJECT: RECYCLING BLUE BOXES Dear Matt: Thank you for your letter of February 24, 1988, indicating that the Wayzata High School wishes to participate in the City's Recycling program and requesting 100 blue boxes for the class rooms. I will notify the recycling contractor that you will be participating and wish to have the items picked up on Thursday morning starting March 3. I will also arrange for our Street Department to deliver 100 blue boxes to the school for your use in this program. We ask, just as in our residential program, that reasonable care be exercised as to the security and handling of the containers so as to obtain maximum life expectancy. Also, if you should decide to discontinue the program for any reason, please let us know so that the containers can be placed in service elsewhere. Members of the Student Council, as well as all students who participate, are to be commended for their efforts in helping to preserve our environment for future generations. Thank you. Sincerely, i Richard J. Pouliot Project Coordinator RJP:kh cc: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works 3�7: PLYN',TJTH B3ULEVL,-_ . Pi -Y', ;.,' t.'I -i?26�0 Minnesota Real Estate Journal ENTIAL CONT. Single-family building PACE SLOWS, VALUES RISE MRetro homebuilding slowed in 1987, with permits for new sin- gle-family homes dropping 1.8 percent in the seven -county Twin Cities area. New home prices increased, however. 'Be average valuation for a single-family home in- creased 14.6 percent, from $85,513 in 1986 to $97,960 in 1987. Hennepin County had the highest average valuation — $112,127 — and the biggest in- crease, 20 percent. But the number of single- family permits in the county dropped 13.4 percent from 4,803 permits in 1986 to 4,156 in 1987. Average Valuation New Single Family Home Twin Cines Metropolitan Area 1987 $97,960 1986 $85,513 change +14.6% SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL In Ramsey County, permits dropped 7.8 percent, from 1,431 in 1986 to 1,319 in 1987. The average valuation increased from $90,146 to $106,141. Dakota and Anoka counties each saw about a 2 percent drop in new single-family homes. A total of 3,550 permits were issued in Dakota, 2,381 in Anoka. Valuations varied, though. The Dakota County average was $93,802, up 17 percent, and Anoka was $84,418, up 6 percent. Washington County had the largest permit increase for single-family homes, up 27 per- cent from 1,629 to 2,070. Its average new - home valuation rose 7.4 percent to $90,338. Carver County also did well. It experienc- ed a 4.2 percent increase to 585 single -f unify permits. Its average valuation, however, jumped 16.7 percent to $95,726, making it the third highest in the metro area. Scott County was the only other metro - area county with an increase in single-family permits, going from 725 to 737 permits. The average evaluation jumped 17.6 percent, Page 15 however, to $82,767. Four counties included in the Statistical Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), but not the metro area, all had slight increases in single-family permits. Chisago County went from 229 permits to 271; Isanti, 117 to 152; Wright, 440 to 571, and St. Croix, 330 to 401. With those increases, the ll -county SMSA total for single-family permits fell only 0.8 percent from 16,328 to 16,193. The statistics are compiled by the Metropolitan Council from data supplied by the U.S. Commerce Department. —Karen Pb&ey Geister Top Ten Metro Cities Single Family Building Permits 1987 1986 1 Eagan 793 Eagan 1,215 2 Eden Prairie 785- Maple Grove 849 3 Apple Valley 766 Plymouth 843 4 Maple Grove 689 Coon Rapids 800 5 Coon Rapids 668 Eden Prairie 780 6 Burnsville 642 Burnsville 654 7 Plymouth 619 Champlin 653 _ 8 _ Woodbury 609 Apple Valley 565 9 Lakeville 592 Brooklyn Park 494 10 Oakdale 421 Lakeville 487 TOTALS 6,584 7,340 of metro total 44c;b 48% SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MULTI -FAMILY Little change 0 in pernuts MULTI -FAMILY UNITS HOLD THEIR OWN WEI he construction of apartments, condominiums and other multi- family units slowed only slightly in the Twin Cities metro area during 1987. According to statistics compiled by the Metropolitan Council, multi -family building permits in the the seven -county area were off only 0.4 percent from 1986 levels. Single- family homes were off 2.7 percent. The value of those units also increased. The average valuation on a multi -family per- mit was $51,047 in 1987, up 15 percent from $44,408 the previous year. The averages, however, mask some changes. Two cities, Minnetonka and Bloom- ington, accounted for almost 29 percent of all new multi -family units in the metro area. Several changes among the various coun- ties occurred. Four of the seven metro area counties saw increases but three — Ramsey, Dakota and Scott counties — had declines. Ramsey had permits pulled for 1,330 in 1987, down from 1,781 in 1986, Dakota drop- ped from 2,347 units to 1,775 and Scott went from 390 to 144. Hennepin went from 5,204 to 5,594 units: Anoka from 460 to 861 uniu; Washington from 124 to 4LS units; and Carver from 38 to 180 units. Most of the larger counties, however, had valuation increases. Hennepin County saw its average valuation increase 20 percent from $49,577 in 1986 to $59,671. Ramsey County had a more modest in- crease of 2 percent, with the average valua- tion rising from $44,413 to $45,263, and Dakota County was up 5.6 percent from $35,833 to $37,859. Anoka showed little change at $40,301 compared with $40,434 the previous year. In four counties that neighbor the metro area, the picture was not as rosy. Multi -family permits dropped almost 39 percent in Chisago, Wright and Isanti coun- ties in Minnesota and St. Croix County in Wisconsin. The average valuation in those four counties fell from $35,134 to $29,561. As a result, the U -county Statistical Metro- politan Service Area (SMSA) had a 2.6 per- cent decrease in multi -family permits from 10,953 to 10,673. The report is compiled by the Metropolitan Council using data provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce. _Kasen thdley Geister Top Ten Metro Cities l\4ulti-Family Building Permits 1987 1986 1 Minnetonka 1,583 Eden Prairie 975 2 Bloomington 1,384 Eagan 885 3 St. Paul 689 Bloomington 858 4 Burnsville 569 Burnsville 833 5 St. Louis Park 467 St. Paul 610 6 Eagan 436 St. Louis Park 608 7 Eden Prairie 411 Minneapolis 451 8 Fridley 358 Minnetonka 413 9 Inver Grove Heights 308 .,Plymouth 411 10 White Bear Lake 292 Inver Grove Heights 350 TOTALS 6,497 6,394 of metro total 63% 62% SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 180 units. Most of the larger counties, however, had valuation increases. Hennepin County saw its average valuation increase 20 percent from $49,577 in 1986 to $59,671. Ramsey County had a more modest in- crease of 2 percent, with the average valua- tion rising from $44,413 to $45,263, and Dakota County was up 5.6 percent from $35,833 to $37,859. Anoka showed little change at $40,301 compared with $40,434 the previous year. In four counties that neighbor the metro area, the picture was not as rosy. Multi -family permits dropped almost 39 percent in Chisago, Wright and Isanti coun- ties in Minnesota and St. Croix County in Wisconsin. The average valuation in those four counties fell from $35,134 to $29,561. As a result, the U -county Statistical Metro- politan Service Area (SMSA) had a 2.6 per- cent decrease in multi -family permits from 10,953 to 10,673. The report is compiled by the Metropolitan Council using data provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce. _Kasen thdley Geister ' VIRGIL SCHNEIDER 2/25/88 MAYOR, CITY OF PLYMOUTH 5400 PLYMOUTH BLVD PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 DEAR MAYOR SCHNEIDER, PURSUANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF 2/22/88 DURING WHICH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNTY ROAD 10 WERE DISCUSSED, I ASK THAT THE FOLLOWING BE CONSIDERED BEFORE THE CITY GIVES APPROVAL TO THE PRELIMlNARY PLANS. ELEVATION OF THE GRADE THE PROPOSED PLAN CALLS FOR 7HE ELEVATION OF THE GRADE OF THE ROAD TO BE INCREASED BY 5 FEET IN ]HE AREA OF 12210 60TH AVE NORTH (BASS L*KE HIGHLANDS). CURRENT GRADE IS APPROXIMATELY 6 FEE[ HlGHER THAN PROPERTY GRADE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY. PROPOSED NEW GRwDE WOULD BE OVER 10 FEET ABOVE GRADE. ELEVATION OF THE ROADWAY ANY FURTHER WILL INCREASE AN ALREA/)Y BAD NUlKE PQ|]'UT]ON PROBLEM. IDEALLY THE QUAL[7Y OF SU��O��DlN� |0MES WOULD �E IMPROVED IF THE G�ADE WERL LOWER THAN FX[ST1No, AT A MINIMUM, STATUS QUO WOU.0 RESULT I/ EXIAlIN6 GRADE IS MAINTAINED. SPEED LIMIT PREVAILING SPEED ON COUNTY ROAD 10 IS EXCESSIVE, BY UP6RADING THE RUADWAY, it IS FEARED ]HAT SPEEDS WILL IMAEASE' ON& OF THE REASONS THAT THE COUNTY IS GOING TO BE SPENDING OVER $8M11 Ulm Two PROJECT [S TO {NCREASE SAFE!!. US11.16 RU*D 10 D"lLY, l CAN ;OUCH THA7 CONGESTION IS NO[ A PROBLEM DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ROAD CARRIES A HEAVY AMOUNT UF TK�FFIC. A3 A CONCERNED TAXPAYER, WOULD NOT THE PRUIDE�T COURSE OF ACTION TO IMPHOVE SAFETY 6E FOR THE CITY OF PLYMOUlH TU PEI 1TlUN M1103 TO LOWER SPEEDLlMITS TO ADDRESS THE SAFETY lSSUE AND SAVE COUNTY TAXPAYERS $yMM° OR ALLOCATE THE MON1E5 lUW*RDS NDV}WG ANOTHER LANE ON COUNTY ROAD 18 WHERE THERE IS A SAFETY AND CONGESTION PROBLEM. ELIMINATION OF MEDIUM FENCES AND EARTH BERMS C}TY OF PLYHOUT; SHL'ULb KEQlilbi11E0000N CUENTY lNSlALL FENCES AND EART|� THE CITY OTT1lUDE THAT ^ IT 15 A DOES NOT MATTER OF NEGOTIATION RECOGNIZE BETWEEN THA[ LANDOWNER DOES COUNTY AND LANDOWNER NOT HAVE THE LEVERAGE TO NEG011A[L TRUE IN THE LOSS LFFEC7lVELY THE MATTER OF MATURE OF ADEQUATELY TREES BY HIMSELF. DUE COMPENSATING TO LONSTHUCTlON., JHIS IS PARTICULARLY LANDOWNERS FOR TAX ASSESSMENT ASSESSING ADjACENT LANDOWNERS FOR SEWER AND CURB IS UNFAIR. SUBJECT ROAD lS A MAJOR COUNTY THOROUGHFARE. ACCESS FROM THE ROAD TO PROPERTY OWNERS lS LIMITED. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A CURB OR SEWER SYSTEM DUE TO DRAINAGE FROM LANDOWNERS PROPERTY. THE ONLY REASON FOR THE CURB AND SEWER SYSTEM IS TO ALLOW FOR DRAINAGE FROM THE ROADWAY ITSELF, AS ALL HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYERS WHO USE THE ROAD BENEFIT FROM THE CURB AND SEWER AND NOT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, ALL HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYERS SHOULD SHARE IN THE COST --NOT JUSl THE ADJACENT LANDOWNER. IS THE $8 PER LINEAR FOOT CHARGE FOR CURB AN ARBITRARY NUMBER OR IS Il ARRIVED BY THE ACTUAL CHARGE OF THE LOWEST BIDDING CONTRACTOR' INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 47 IF THE PRIME KEASON FDR lMPROVlNG COUNTY ROAD 10 IS SAFETY RELATEO, WHY MAINTAIN A CURVE IN THE ROAD AT THE PROPOSLD lN[ERSECTION oT COUNTY ROAD 4/' [HERE IS AMPLE:: UNPLATlED LAND TO THE NORTH TO ALLOW FOR A STRAIGHT ROAD, HOPEFULLY WE ARE PLANNING FOR THE LONGTERM --WHY NOT DO IF RIGHT THE FIRST TIME? LOWERING OF APPRAISED VALUE CONSTRUCTION OF,A 4 LANE HIGHWAY ADJACEhl TO ��M�UWNERS ALONG COUNTY ROAD 10 WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE V*LIJ[ OF THEIR PRDPERlInS. VALUE OF kEALEC\ATE WILL DROP. RESALE OF PROPERTIES WILL BE MORE DIFFICULT' kS SUCH, THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH SHOULD InMEDlA|ELY REASSES DOWNWARD THE VALUATION OF HOMES ALONG COUNTY ROAD 10, THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DOWNWARD VALUATION SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY CONSULTING lNDEPENCENT THIRD PARTY REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS. l MSK 14411 111 Cl[Y OF PLYMOdTH ACT ON EACH OF THESL I3SUES PRIOR TO GRANTING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY PLANS TO UPGR�D� �O��TY RO�D 10' S�NcFqto­_ CC:BOu ZIiuR CUUNClLMEh50C ^^`' ~r/~^~���''" 12210�60TH Am»E N. PLYMUUlH` MN 55442 14845 - 13th Avenue North Plvrnouth, K\1 55447 February 26, 1988 Mayor Virgil Schneider, and City Council of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, KN 55447 Dear Sirs: I am very concerned about the proposed Hennepin County garbage waste -transfer station in Plymouth on County Road 6 in the vicinity of the water tower. It matters not that it will be a nice looking building. What does matter is the 320 trips per day by unsightly garbage trucks on County Road 6 causing traffic congestion, and lowering property values for the many residential homes in the neighborhood. Can you imagine the smell in the stuTunertime? I live in Cimmaron East, an association of 92 homes, just off Fernbrook Avenue. There are also some very expensive homes in the nearby single family area. If this plan goes through, residential property will devaluate immediately.People will have to sell at depreciated prices, just so Hennepin County can have a place to dump its gargage, Why cannot the County select a spot far out and away from residential areas? A waste -transfer station is very dangerous near a water tower. If a situation should arise as it did last summer, with torrential rains and flooding, there is no way that seepage of toxic chemical waste can be prevented. True, the proposed site is zoned Industrial. These industrial buildings are all of warehouse or manufacturing type, very clean, well set back with wide lawns and shrubbery. This proposed site is on the outskirts of the industrial area, bordering on residential areas, not far from Parker's Lake, where the City of plymouth has recently built a very fine park and playground. County Road 6 is the main thoroughfare through which many homeowners travel, all the way to State Highway 101 and beyond. Who wants to have to follow an unsightly garbage truck along Highway 55 and County Road 6 on his way home from work - let alone 320 garbage trucks per day? To me, this is a plan that has not been thought through very carefully. It is most inconsiderate to the citizens of Plymouth who live in the area under consideration. It also bothers me that the City Council is willing to bend over backwards to cooperate in this waste -disposal venture. Sincerely, Bella w. Braverman A t FEB ,fig 17 / �, �`AL & ibL �.gip, pYrWO