HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 03-01-1990CITY OF
PLYMOUTH+
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
March 1, 1990
RECYCLING CASH DRAWING
March 1: NO WINNER
NEXT WEEK: $600
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS.....
1. COMMUNITY CENTER TOURS -- Saturday, March 3, 9 a.m. At the request
of Mayor Bergman, ric Blank has scheduled a tour for interested
Councilmembers to visit four community centers in the metropolitan
area. The group is meeting at the Plymouth City Center and will
depart promptly at 9 a.m. The tour is expected to last until about
1:30 p.m. The facilities to be visited are as follows:
Apple Valley
Edinborough Park - Edina
Eden Prairie Community Center
Brooklyn Park Community Center
2. COUNCIL STUDY SESSION -- Monday, March 5, 4:30 p.m., Council
con erence room. Study meeting with Lloyd Bergquist, BWBR
Architects, regarding the proposed Plymouth community center. This
meeting will provide an opportunity for the Council to review with
Lloyd the status of the community center when it was placed on
"hold," as well as raise any questions with respect to the planning
concepts which have been involved with the project.
3. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, March 5, 7:00 p.m. Regular City
Council meeting in ,ty Council chambers.
4. COUNCIL STUDY MEETING -- Tuesday, March 6, 9:00 A.M., The City
Council will meet with the City Attorney in the City Council
conference room.
5. PARK & RECREATION ADVISORY ,COMMISSION -- Thursday, March 8, 7:30
p.m. a —Parkan ecreation visory Commission will meet in the
City Council chambers. Agenda attached. (M-5)
6. MEETING CALENDARS -- Meeting calendars for March and April are
attached. -
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
March 1, 1990
Page 2
7. MEETING REMINDERS:
(1) Metro Council - State of the Region -- Wednesday, March 7,
p.m. - 7 p.m., ya t egency inneapoliS. The annual
"State of the Region" meeting. Notice attached.
(2) Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Breakfast Meetings --
Monday, Marcha.m., Sheraton ,- oklyn ar otice
attached.
(3) League of Minnesota Cities - 1990 Legislative Conference --
Wednesday, arch --14, Raclisson Hotel, St. Paul.o ice a ac ed.
(4) Twin West Annual "State of the City" Coffee Break Meeting --
Tuesday, March- 9 a.m., Plymouth City enter, The City
will host a meeting of local business people to review current
development trends in the community.
8. PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE -
published in t e tar
information. (M-8)
FOR YOUR INFORMATION.....
- A copy of Plymouth public meetings
Tribune is attached for the Council's
1. WETLAND ISSUES -- Councilmember Helliwell has requested that I share
wit t e ounci1 the attached information dealing with the
preservation of wetlands. The first item is an editorial which
appeared in Monday's Star Tribune; the second, a copy of an
ordinance recently adopted by the City of Blaine; and third, a copy
of wetland ordinance from Mound. I am also including, at her
request, a copy of the City's Mission Statement which, as you know,
speaks to our desire to ensure that "residential developments are to
harmoniously integrate with the natural environmental qualities of
the community to provide for an impression of rural living in an
urban city." (I-1)
2. DEVELOPMENT SIGNAGE -- On Friday, March 2, development signs will be
placed at the o owing locations:
a. Northeast of Brockton Lane and County Road 24 (19010 County Road
24) -- Lundgren Bros. Construction is proposing a Planned Unit
envelopment Concept Plan, Preliminary Plan, Preliminary Plat,
Rezoning, and Conditional Use Permit. The PUD Concept Plan,
Preliminary Plan, and Preliminary Plat is for the development of
113 single family detached lots and numerous outlots around many
of the wetland areas on this 68.5 acre site. The rezoning is
from FRD (Future Restricted Development) to R -1A (Low Density
Single Family Residential). The Conditional Use Permit is for
the Planned Unit Development. (90009)
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
March 1, 1990
Page 3
b. 10100 County Road 9 (Holiday Station Stores). Jerry Jenson for
Holiday Station Stores, Inc. is requesting approval of a
Conditional Use Permit amendment in order to expand the hours of
operation for the Holiday Station Store from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.,
7 days a week to a 24 hour operation. (90013)
Both requests will be heard by the Planning Commission at their
Wednesday, March 14 meeting.
3. COUNCILMEMBERS' PHONE NUMBERS FOR TOWN MEETINGS -- The information
listed below will be prepared as an overhead for our next Town
Meeting indicating councilmember preferred daytime phone numbers as
well as their City Center message center phone number. I would
appreciate your verifying the accuracy of your number. If you find
an error, please let me know.
HAVE A QUESTION?
IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION
PLEASE GIVE US A CALL
AT THE CITY CENTER
550-5000
MORE My
OR OR= rESUM COM
MAYOR BERGMAN 557-7030 550-5065
COUNCILMEMBER HELLIWELL 557-1530 550-5066
COUNCILMEMBER RICKER 473-6416 550-5067
COUNCILMEMBER VASILIOU 473-2316 550-5068
COUNCILMEMBER ZITUR 559-3728 550-5069
Hl1I %PUUn61L 1NrUKM 11UN MEMORANDUM
March 1, 1990
Page 4
4. PLYMOUTH METROLINK - JANUARY REPORT -- Shown below is a table for ,
January 1990 disp aying our average daily ridership for the
commuter/reverse commuter service for each week. Also is a table on
the year to date average compared with the target to be achieved.
The "Total System" column includes transfer passengers. To compare
with previous years, the column "Without Transfers" should be used.
Actual ridership is reflected under the "With Transfers" column.
MONTHLY
PLYMOUTH METROLINK
DAILY RIDERSHIP AVERAGES BY WEEK BY SERVICE TYPE
JANUARY 1990
551
SERVICE TYPE
_ 2,4%
Reverse
Commuter
Commuter
Transfers
TOTAL SYSTEM
WEEK OF:
1/2 - 1/5
399
43
105
563
1/8 - 1/12
369
43
117
528
1/15 - 1/195
379
52
112
543
1/22 - 1/262
381
38
107
526
1/29 - 1/31
397
46
87
529
-
MONTH LONG
-----------
----------
---------
-----------------
AVERAGE
385
44
106
538
YEAR TO DATE - JANUARY
YEAR TO DATE
RIDERSHIP AVERAGE
538
TARGET
551
% OVER/(UNDER)
TARGET
_ 2,4%
The 1990 target for Plymouth Metrolink was calculated at 5 percent over the
1989 year-end "commuter/reverse commuter with transfers" average of 525
passengers per day for a 1990 target of 551 passengers per day.
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
March 1, 1990
Page 5
5. SAFE SUPERVISOR'S BREAKFAST -- On Thursday, March 1, the City
sponsored a Safe upervisor s breakfast at Scanticon to recognize
the contributions which Plymouth supervisors have made in the
development of the Plymouth Safety Program. As part of the
breakfast, supervisors were thanked for their efforts in developing
an excellent safety program, advised that Bob Pemberton, Risk
Management Coordinator, will now assume the role of Safety
Coordinator, and asked to continue to aggressively support the
Program. Each supervisor attending was provided with the enclosed
mug as a token of appreciation and momento of the event.
6. MEDICINE LAKE LINES APPEAL TO UTMA REGARDING MARGINAL COST PROPOSALS
-- Attached is a copy of the appeal made by Medicine Lake Ines to
the Urban Mass Transportation Administration regarding the Southwest
Metropolitan Commission award of contract to the MTC based upon
their marginal cost proposal. UTMA has requested a response from
the' MTC regarding the appeal by March 14, 1990. Thereafter it is
expected that an UTMA decision would be rendered by May of this
year. One of the Council's reasons for rejecting all bids and
extending the MLL contract for one year was because of the
uncertainty surrounding this issue. (I-6)
DAILY RIDERSHIP AVERAGES BY MONTH
FOR CALENDAR YEARS 1984 - 1990
Commuter/
Commuter/
Reverse
Commuter
Reverse Commuter
(Without
Transfers)
(With Transfers).
MONTH:
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1989 1990
January
330
307
351
429
433
496
--- 538
February
310
292
350
394
426
461
---
March
307
311
338
397
418
467
---
April
301
295
354
365
408
405
---
May
295
298
332
350
392
388
564
June
276
314
349
358
409
362
525
July
277
297
328
345
361
356
515
August
266
292
328
345
377
376
534
September
275
322
354
348
396
383
495
October
276
312
384
365
430
441
541
November
271
311
396
398
437
433
537
December
265
320
412
391
409
398
490
----------
YEAR LONG
------------------------------------
------------------
AVERAGE
287
306
356
374
408
414
525 538
5. SAFE SUPERVISOR'S BREAKFAST -- On Thursday, March 1, the City
sponsored a Safe upervisor s breakfast at Scanticon to recognize
the contributions which Plymouth supervisors have made in the
development of the Plymouth Safety Program. As part of the
breakfast, supervisors were thanked for their efforts in developing
an excellent safety program, advised that Bob Pemberton, Risk
Management Coordinator, will now assume the role of Safety
Coordinator, and asked to continue to aggressively support the
Program. Each supervisor attending was provided with the enclosed
mug as a token of appreciation and momento of the event.
6. MEDICINE LAKE LINES APPEAL TO UTMA REGARDING MARGINAL COST PROPOSALS
-- Attached is a copy of the appeal made by Medicine Lake Ines to
the Urban Mass Transportation Administration regarding the Southwest
Metropolitan Commission award of contract to the MTC based upon
their marginal cost proposal. UTMA has requested a response from
the' MTC regarding the appeal by March 14, 1990. Thereafter it is
expected that an UTMA decision would be rendered by May of this
year. One of the Council's reasons for rejecting all bids and
extending the MLL contract for one year was because of the
uncertainty surrounding this issue. (I-6)
UAIT 6VUR61L INrUKRA11UN MEMORANDUM
March 1, 1990
Page 6
7. PLYMOUTH DOG ORDINANCE -- Attached are materials provided by Sally
and Bernie strom of Chelsea Woods. Because of a complaint
directed against their dog, the Edstroms have become involved in
meeting with other dog owners in the Chelsea Woods area. Attached
are minutes from a Chelsea Woods dog owner meeting which took place
on Thursday, January 11, 1990. Also attached is a model dog
ordinance from the Minnesota Pure Breed Dog Breeder's Association.
The Edstrom's suggest that the City Council consider adopting
portions of the model ordinance in lieu of our existing code.
Specifically, they suggest that the current definition of
"restraint" be revised to allow a dog to be controlled by leash or
by a competent person and immediately obedient to that person's
command anywhere in the City. Under the existing code, a dog must
be controlled by a fence, a leash, or under the owner's command,
within the confines of the owner's property, or by a leash or within
a vehicle. The strom s wou like to see the code allow dogs to
be under the owner's voice command on all types of property. The
problem this presents is one of enforcement for the Public Safety
Department.
The second revision suggested by the Edstrom's is that the nuisance
dog provisions be revised so that it would take four people to file
a complaint that a dog is causing excessive noise or disturbance in
an area rather than two persons as in the existing code. The
Edstrom's believe that this provision would reduce the number of
complaints, eliminate the complaints by persons who have no evidence
or just don't like dogs, or even those who don't live in the same
area.
The City Council should provide direction to the staff on whether or
not it wishes to further consider these proposals. I will
communicate the Council's desires to the Edstroms. (I-7)
8. PROPOSED NEW POST OFFICE -- Attached is a letter informing the City
that the postal service is proposing to develop a second post office
in Plymouth. This post office would serve that portion of the City
east of I-494. The site the Postal Service is considering as
identified on the attached map. (I-8)
9. FIRE DEPARTMENT VIDEO -- A new 10 minute program on the Plymouth
Fire Department was recently produced by city video producers. The
program, "On the Line: Plymouth Firefighters," provides an overview
of the department's activities. In addition, it also includes
interviews with several firefighters on what it takes to be a
firefighter as well as why people choose to work as volunteer
firefighters. "On the Line" will be shown on channel 37 on: Tues.,
March 6 at 7:30 p.m.; Tuesday, March 13 at 7:30 p.m.; and Thursday,
March 22 at 5:30 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
March 1, 1990
Page 7
10. STREET RECONSTRUCTION VIDEO -- A videotape outlining the street
reconstruction process was recently completed. The program explains
what residents can expect when the streets are reconstructed in
their neighborhood. The tape will be shown at neighborhood meetings
on street reconstruction and on cable television channel 37. It is
also available for checkout to homeowner associations.
11. METRO LAKE WATER QUALITY -- Attached is an article from the February
23 issue of the tar ribune on a Metropolitan Council proposal to
the legislature which would grant the Metropolitan Council authority
to protect lake areas. Used as an example in the article of
potential lake water quality concern because of future developments
are Pike and Eagle lakes in Plymouth and Maple Grove. (I-11)
12. BASS LAKE BOTTLE SHOP -- In accordance with the conditions set by
the Council, the City -Clerk has received the attached identification
carding program and check for $500 from Bass Lake Bottle Shop. The
check has been placed in the City's drug education account for use
in the D.A.R.E. Program as directed by the Council. (I-12)
13. CAT CONTROL -- Occasionally the Council is confronted with the issue
as to w et er or not we should seek to try and control cats. Along
that line I thought you would be somewhat amused by an editorial
which appeared in the Honolulu Advertiser a couple weeks ago. I
believe the manner in which former Illionis Governor Adlai Stevenson
dealt with it was perhaps the best approach. (I-13)
14. MINUTES:
a. Plymouth Safety Committee, February 21, 1990 (I -14a)
b. Outside Storage Task Force, Summary Notes, February 14, 1990
(I -14b)
15. DEPARTMENT REPORTS -- Monthly activity reports for the Policy and
ire Divisions are attached. (I-15)
16. CITY ATTORNEY MONTHLY BILLING -- The City Attorney's monthly client
summary for January is attached. (I-16)
17. TOWN MEETING FOLLOW UP -- The Police Department has followed up on
two resident inquiries from the January 29 Town Meeting involving
parking concerns at the Parkside Apartments and speeding traffic
along Xenium Lane from 37th to Scanticon. Reports from the Sergeant
Larry Holzerland on both inquiries are attached. (I-17)
18. WASTE TRANSFER STATION -- A status report on Hennepin County's
application fora aste ransfer Station is attached. (I-18)
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
March 1, 1990
Page 8
19. RICHARD WHITING AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNA -- Councilmembers have
received correspondence romo n e lows, Jr., an attorney
representing Mr. Whiting concerning this matter. Mr. Whiting and
his neighborhoods are scheduled to further mediate this matter
Monday, March 5. We hope that this process will result in a
resolution of the neighbor's concerns in order that we can place
this matter back on the City Council agenda for action March 19.
20. PLYMOUTH DIAL -A -RIDE -- Attached is a memorandum which will be
istribute to is -A-Ride passengers during the first week of
March. The memorandum describes service enhancements which are
planned to be implemented on April 1, 1990. At the same time, the
memorandum solicits input from riders with respect to proposals to:
1) discontinue Sunday service since ridership does not justify its
continuance; 2) raise fares from $1.00 and $1.50 to $1.50 and $2.00;
and 2) discontinue service in in -town Maple Grove and New Hope
K -Mart. Riders are offered the opportunity to supply their written
response to these proposals and/or to attend the March 28, 1990
Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit meeting at which this issue
will be addressed. While the addition of a vehicle will add
approximately $31,400 to the subsidy required to operate the
Dial -A -Ride system for 1990, I expect the elimination of Sunday
service estimated to reduce subsidy costs by $8,500 annually,
coupled with the fare increase, will reduce the increase necessary
to operate the service.
We have received notification that Morley Bus Company has been sold
to National School Bus Service. We are investigating to see how
this sale affects our existing contract with Morley, if at all.
Morley will operate as a subsidiary of National School Bus. (I-20)
21. BZ CORRESPONDENCE -- The following correspondence on City
departments or emp oyees has been received:
a. Letter of appreciation to Scott Hovet, Assessor, and Mike
Carroll, Appraiser, for their presentation at a Plymouth Creek
Homeowners' Association meeting. (I -21a)
22. CORRESPONDENCE:
a. Letter to U.S. West Direct from Frank Boyles concerning
recyclability of telephone directories. (I -22a)
b. Letter from Ellis Olson, resident, to Dick Carlquist, on a false
alarm permit fee. Dick Carlquist's response to Mr. Olson is
also attached. (I -22b)
c. Letter from Patti Richardson, resident, to Helen LaFave,
commenting on the change of Plymouth on Parade to a bimonthly
newsletter. A response from Helen is also attached. (I -22c)
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
March 1, 1990
Page 9
d. Letter to Dave Schwain, Medicine Lake Sailing Club, from Eric
Blank, on the issuance of a permit by the Hennepin County
Sheriff for the Club to hold sailing races during the summer of
1990. (I -22d)
e. Memorandum from Marvin Nelson, Police Officer, to Dick
Carlquist, on the deer problem in Plymouth. (I -22e)
f. Letter from David Davenport to Mayor and Councilmembers
concerning the Boisclair Corporation's senior housing proposal.
(I -22f)
g. Letter to Mrs. Mark DeVinny from Eric Blank in response to
request for new new equipment at Gleanloch Park. (I -22g)
h. Letter to Mr. Brian Cederlind from Dick Pouliot on the City
recycling program cash drawing. (I -22h)
i. Letters of appreciation to Plymouth State representatives who
attended the February 26 Council study session. (I -22i)
j. Letter from Mary Negri, District 281 Coordinator, Adult Academic
Program, on a March 6 meeting with human service providers to
discuss the District's proposal for a federal "Even Start"
program. (I -22j)
k. Letter from Peter Rysdal, 3051 East Medicine Lake Blvd., to
Mayor Bergman, requesting information on the trail system as it
would affect his property. (I -22k)
1. Letter from Tom Stenoien to Mayor Bergman, providing information
regarding Schmidt Lake Road. (I-221)
m. Letter to a Plymouth couple from Dick Carlquist, regarding the
parental response to the handling of a damage to property
complaint. (I -22m)
n. Memorandum from Fred Moore concerning his discussions with Mr.
Bill Kiversky, 5095 Ives Lane regarding Schmidt Lake Road.
(I -22n)
James G. Willis
City Manager
JGW:jm
attachments
Regular Meeting of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission -
March 8, 1990, 7:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order - introduction of new commissioner Marlene Waage
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Visitor Presentations
a. Athletic Associations
b. Staff
c. Others
4. Report on Past Council Action
a. 1990 park projects - approved
b. 1990 fee schedules/rental policies - approved
5. Unfinished Business
a. Swan Lake neighborhood park timetable
b. Playfields - Bass Lake/Parkers Lake
C. Trails - West Medicine/46th Ave
d. Comprehensive plan - update (Planning Commission hearing date)
e.
6. New Business
a. New plats
b. Annual park tour (date?)
C.
d.
7. Commission Presentation
8. Staff Communication
9. Adjournment
Next regular PRAC meeting April 12, 1990
cnona
i •- •- N
S N Cf 0 M
z - N
_cc a N
a'a n .-e- N N
3
coo
W O N N
LL
ztef N m co
o
0 N
v w Lo
w N
- LO
n r N N
D
N N
LL
U) N w W
^ N
O
U
a
V M n
c
wo r N
J
3
D
= " O
Q
-
- N
N
Q
O N M
U
N N
N
cnona
i •- •- N
S N Cf 0 M
z - N
_cc a N
a'a n .-e- N N
3
coo
W O N N
LL
ztef N m co
o
0 N
v w Lo
w N
- LO
D
y
Y
Q
0
U
a
c
N
D
Q
U
M
N
M
Q
cr
LL
N
N
M
p
�
U)cc
W
_z
F—
W
W
D
g a
ua
~
<M
LO
N
00
00
V-
Q
moan
LO C
CD
N
O
WgcDm
O
Z
C9 M
W
3
�QC'3
cf•
00 ¢C.3
o��
N
N
Cl- X:
CD
N
Z
F�1
Z
QC!)
H O
O
Z
O
m
z
~
LL
LLIU)
U ?.
O
F-
0 co
ce O
O
CflDo
r (=> r-
N
N
_j
~
Cl.im
�- U�
Ui
CD
Q
I—M
OUO
O
V)
M�O
Z
O
.. p
-Jp
�v GCs
N
a) �c=�C�
C0
Co W
Ln U� ��
r-
V- o�c�
N
Q
0
Z
LO
�-
V-
r0
N
Q� O N to t0
�
y N
oaC)0-
LL aD N
fA
LO L.)
C) a,
}
O
Z
^zM
a
cm
N
N O Ncn
M
W
LL X:
O
T-- O J F—
MM
W
z
LO Z
N W m
LL- dM:
N
N M
Q
W
0-m
�
Q
r-
w �O' N N
f�
M
N
N
O ^ r e
F.
• !N N
�
G
2 tD M O t`
LL
c
y •' N N
}
o
m
Q
�
CM
0
LL
N
,.
J
�
(0
e—
N
N
}
CD
Q
z
CD
z
w �
GSC
LU
O
D
M a
Li d
~a
0
`
^
Q
cfl
O
W^
0) _ �
N
1..
M O r� N M
lO d'
O
Q^
M
N
�
oaC)0-
fA
LO L.)
C) a,
W
O
Z
^zM
a
cm
�
W
LL X:
T-- O J F—
MM
W
z
LO Z
oc
LL- dM:
N
•
W
0-m
M
N
z
a
a
N
�
LL X:
LU
O
•
W
�
D
F.
w O
O
m
CM
N
,.
J
�
J
�
`
Q
O
W^
M� O
1..
M O r� N M
lO d'
O
Q^
� C"
^
C
J
J
C
LL N t7s N M
C
V3 C4
3 W
Q' C.'3 C7
LO
N
O
H N Na)
z
W
^
i
N N
j
y
W
LU to r N N
Q
it
Z
N
0 ^
D
y a�o�oN
e-00
L
N
M
N
THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL INVITES YOU
TO ITS STATE OF THE REGION 1990
HOUSING... REBUILDING OUR VISION FOR THE '90s
March 7, 1990
Hyatt Regency Minneapolis • 1300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis
^00- 0. 4 0 0 W
i
The 1990s promise major change for the in the Twin Cities
Area. Slowed population growth, the aging of the population and our
housing stock all signal the coming change. What will happen in a weakened
market for rental units and starter homes? How can we best meet the growing
housing needs of low-income people? Will we be able to preserve
aging neighborhoods? It's time to challenge our assumptions about housing
and develop a new vision for the 1990s.
Please inquire about continuing education credits for real estate agents and appraisers.
Parking is available at:
Loring Ramp (entrance on 13th St./Nicollet Av.)
Convention Center Plaza underground Ramp (entrances on 12th St. and 2nd Av.)
Orchestra Hall Ramp (entrances on lith St. and Marquette Av.)
REGISTRATION FORM
To register, please send this form and a check for $40 payable to
"State of the Region" by Feb. 28 to:
Bernadine Scott, Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre. 230 East Fifth St.
St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: 291-6500
I plan to attend the State of the Region on March 7, 1990.
Name
Organization .
Street Address
City/State/Zip.
Phone
PROGRAM
12:30 REGISTRATION
1:30 WELCOME: Steve Keefe. Chair
Metropolitan Council
1:45 KEYNOTE ADDRESS:
A NEW NATIONAL HOUSING AGENDA
Jack Kemp. U.S. Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development
2:45 STATE OF THE REGION ADDRESS:
A NEW FOUNDATION FOR REGIONAL
HOUSING POLICY
Steve Keefe
3:30 BREAK
3:45 GENERAL SESSION:
ASSESSING A NEW HOUSING STRATEGY•
CAN IT WORK?
Moderator.
Barbara Lukermann, Research Associate.
Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
Panel Members:
Lyn Burton, President,
Development Connections
Representative Richard Jefferson. Minnesota
House of Representatives. District 57B
Peggy Lucas. Vice President.
Brighton Development Corp.
Neil Peterson, Mayor. City of Bloomington
Jim Solem. Commissioner. Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency
5:15 SOCIAL HOUR
6:00 DINNER
6:30 AWARDS PRESENTATION
7:00 CLOSING SESSION
Speech by Regional Citizen of the Year
Mary Anderson. Mayor
The registration fee covers the cost of the program, dinner and the State of I City of Golden Valley
the Region report. The fee is nonrefundable. Advance registration is required.
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street. St. Paul. IvPinneso-191
February 16, 1990
To Municipal Users of the Metropolitan
Commission's System:
�.+ O 1
Waste CY3 tOrol
The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) as
scheduled pre -budget breakfast meetings for elected officials
and staff of municipalities who are users of the MWCC system.
This meeting is to seek input from you prior to establishing
the MWCC's 1991 Draft Budget..
Three March meetings have been scheduled in various locations
around the metro area. We hope that you will be able to
attend one of the scheduled meetings. Meeting dates and
locations are:
March 9 - 7:30-9:00 a.m. -
March 12
- 7:30-9:00 a.m. -
Ramada Inn
I-94 and White Bear Ave.
St. Paul
(reservations due by
March 6 )
Sheraton Northwest
I-94 and Co. Rd. 81
(exit #31)
Brooklyn Park
(reservations due
March 9 )
March 16 - 7:30-9:00 a.m. - Radisson South
7800 Normandale Blvd.
Hwy 100 near Hwy 494
Bloomington
(reservations due by
March 13)
In mid-to-late May the MWCC will schedule budget breakfast
meetings to present the 1991 MWCC Draft Budget. Comments
from both the March and May meetings will be taken into
consideration in drafting the the 1991 MWCC Operating and
Capital Budget. This 'budget is presently scheduled for a
public hearing at the MWCC Board Meeting on June 19, 1990.
The operating and capital budgets for 1991 are scheduled to
appear for approval on the July 17, 1990 meeting agenda of
the MWCC Board of Commissioners.
To place your reservation for a pre -budget breakfast meeting,
call harry Struck at 229-2100.
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
}A--1-3
League of Minnesota Cities
1990 1 1 --
Legislative Conference
Wednesday, March 14,1990
Radisson Hotel, St. Paul
Agenda
9:30-9:45 a.m. Challenges for Cities in the 1990 Legislative Session
Millie MacLeod, LMC President
(Councilmember, Moorhead)
9:45-10:45 a.m. Property'Tax Issues
The architects of Minnesota's property tax laws will comment on
what future property tax changes may be in store for cities.
Senator Doug Johnson. Chair, Senate Committee on Taxes
Representative Paul Anders Ogren, Chair, House Committee
on Taxes
10:45.11:00 a.m. Break
11:00 -Noon Major Pending Legislation Issues
Representative Robert Vanasek, Speaker of the House*
Representative William Schreiber, House Minority Leader
Noon -1:20 p.m. Luncheon
Senator Roger Moe, Senate Majority Leader
Senator Duane Benson, Senate Minority Leader
1:30.2:15 p.m. Concurrent Sessions
Pay Equity
Senator Linda BergUn*
Nina Rothchild, Commissioner. Department of Employee
Relations*
Consolidated Election Day
Representative Linda Scheid*
2:15-2:30 pm. Break
2:30-3:30 p.m. Concurrent Sessions
Solid Waste
Senator gene Merriam*
Mike Robertson, Director, Office of Waste Management
Tax increment financing
Senator Donald Frank
Representative Ann Rest
3:30.5:30 pm. City Day on the Hill
City officials should contact their legislatots to make
appointments.
5:30-7:30 p.m. Reception for City Officials and Legislators
LMC will invite all legislators. We ask that your city also issue an
invitation to attend. 11
*invited to speak
1rst seven days of the ban as part
of a • new city policy aimed at
Jsaid the programming is designed to'
overcome American students' lack of
' interest in politics, geography ana
current events.— to make them "cul-
turally literate." .
'Notices of public community and govern-
mental meetings of widespread interest
should be sent to City Desk, Stu Trib-
une, 425 Portland Av. S., Minneapolis,
Minn. 55488, by noon Thursdays.
Today, Feb. 26
Minneapolis City Council — Board of
Estimate and Taxation, 3:45 p.m.,
Room 327M, City Hall.
Public Housing Authority — 5 p.m., 217
S. 3rd St., Minneapolis.
Minneapolis Board of Education — Fu-
tures Committee, 6 p.m., Assembly
Room,' Educational Service Center,
807 NE Broadway, Minneapolis
Plymouth City Council — Senior citizen
housing, 4:30 p.m., Council Confer-
ence Room, Plymouth City Center,
3400 Plymouth Blvd., Plymouth.
Plymouth Forum, • 6:30 p.m., Council
Conference .Room, Plymouth City
Center_
City Council "meeting, 7 p.m., Council
Chambers, Plymouth City Center•
Metropolitan Council — Airport Search
Area Task Force Discussion Group,7h3
p.m.,' Room 2A, Mears Park Centre,
230 E. 5th SL, St. Paul.
'Metropolitan Parks and. Open Space
.Commission, 4 p.m., Chambers, '
Mears Park Centre.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency —
Hazardous and Special Wastes Com-
mittee, 9 a.m., Board Room, 520 N.
Lafayette Rd., St. Paul.
Ground Water and Solid Waste Commit-
tee, 9:30 a.m., Board Room, 520 N.
Lafayette Rd., St. Paul-
Environmental Policy and Procedures
Committee, 1 p.m., Board Room, 520
N. Lafayette Rd., St. Paul.
Water Quality Committee, 2 p.m., Board
Room, 520 N. Lafayette Rd., St. Paul.
Air Quality Committee, 3 p.m., Board
'Room, 520 N. Lafayette Rd., St. Paul.
Air Quality/Ground Water and Solid
Waste Committee, 3:30 p.m., Board
Room, 520 N. Lafayette Rd ; St. Paul.
Tuesday
Minneapolis City Connc� = No com-
mittee meetings.
Minneapolis Board of Education - 4'
p.m., Assembly Room, Educational
Service Center, 807. NE. Broadway,
Minneapolis.
Hennepin County Board — 10 a.m.;
Board Room, Hennepin County Gov-
ernment Center, 300 S. 6th St., Minne-
apolis.
Regional Railroad Authority, following
County Board meeting,'Board Room,
Hennepin County Government Cen-
ter.
ilennepin County. -Joint committee on
Community Corrections, 8 a.m., Gov-
ernment Center Conference Room C-
14.
14. ,Metro Metropolitan
Metropolitan • Council= l po
Waste Management Advisory Com-
mittee, 2 p.m, Chambers, Mears Park
Centre, 230 E. 5th St.; St. Paul -
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission—
p.m, R000mc A
1A, Mnea s 3
Park Centre.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency —
Board meeting, 9 am, Board Room,
520 N. Lafayette Rd-, St. Paul.
Special board meeting, 230 p.m.,' Board
Room, 520 N. Lafayette Rd., St. Paul -
"What we find is that the isolation of .
students and what they don't know is '
much more threatening than the two
minutes of commercials:'s�Winter
said. "The gain fochoolswill
than be worth it. It's. a solution, not a
problem."
The Winona school board voted in
December to accept the Program-
ming, but unanimously reversed
course Tuesday in response to a pub-
lic outcry. -
youthtut, tast-pace
flair. Its 11 sponse
$150,000 for one (
ad spots in each, 12
include Nike and C
1991).
Some other big -r
such as Procter &
Motor Co., which
who sponsored d
last year, haven't d
'to sign up for the
ing-gum magnate
Jr. and Co. and
backed out altoget
"It's classy. Believe me, it's good," The Partnership
said Fred Orr, parent of a Winona America, a none
middle school student who would 'that seeks free me
have watched Channel One in her antidrug message,
classroom. "But there's never been a;: access Channel O.
corporation that has stepped across audience it most
:the bounds the school has set, up and '• teens who haven
drugs, according
forced a • student to watch commer-
„ of that group.
Minneapolis Council - Executive •e required exposure of teenagers to Winter anticipate
Committee, canceled. "suggestive, seductive' advertising will be seen in
Plymouth Planning Commission — 7:30 ..can be very devastating,” he added- million,teenagers
p.m, Council Cumbers, Plymouth
City Center, 3400 Plymouth Blvd., .
L,. Plymouth.
Metropolitan Council - Airport' h gteger group is within
Area Task Force Discussion Group,
8:30 a m.,' Room 2A, Mears Park
Centre, 230 E. 5th St., St. PauL f finishing Antarctica
Thursday
Minneapolis City Council — Adjourned
council meeting, 9:30 a -m., Room 317,
City Hall.
Hennepin County Board — Board com-
mittees, to am, Board Room, Henne-
pin County Goverment Center, 300
S. 6th St., Minneapolis. . • '
Hennepin County Housing and Redevel-
opment Authority, following county
board meetings, which begin at 10 am.
Suburban Hennepin Regional Park Dis-
trict — Board of Commissioners, 5
p.m., Board Room, 12615 County Rd.
9, Plymouth.
Metropolitan Council — Metropolitan
and Community Development Com-
mittee, 2 p.m.,Chambers, Mears Park
Centre, 230 E. 5th St., St. Paul.,
Minority Issues Advisory Committee,
• 4 p.m., Chambers, Mears Park Centre.
Friday `
Minneapolis City Council — DFL Cau-
cus Study Group, canceled -
Hennepin County Board — Corrections
Advisory Board, t p.m., Government
Center Conference Room C-23.
World population can be
stabilized9 report says
out over the century, and you would
New York Times not slow population growth," Potts
W2shington, D.C. said
In a country -by -country report made
A.- ,,.._..,.,.:..., rrkic He said the report is important "be -
Associated Press
Polar explorer Will Steger is less than
one week and a little more than 100
miles from doing what he said he
would do: crossing Antarctica's 3,600
miles by ski and dog sled
trail.
Besides Steger a
dition's mer
Boyarsky from
Geoff Somers
Keizo Funatsu
Dahe from Chi:
"We're on the home stretch," Steger,.
45, of Ely, said Friday on the trail in
a brief interview published in Sun-
day's St. Paul Pioneer Press Dis-
patch. "Unless we fall into a cre-
vasse, we should be OK."
Welcoming banners• have been read-
ied for Saturday, and snow has been
plowed flat at the finish line at Mir-
nyy, the Soviet science station over-
looking the icebergs and penguin col-
onies of the Indian Ocean. Scientists
will converge in the station's kitchen
this week to make miniature Russian
dumplings as a treat for members of
the expedition, which has its head-
quarters to St. Paul.
U.S. scientists celebrated with
Stegees group when it reached the
South Pole on Dec. 11, the first dog
sled trek to the bottom of the world
since Roald Amundsen arrived there-
on Dec. 14, 1911. Steger made histo-
ry four years ago when he led a'
similar journey to the North Pole.
The men were in high spirits and
excellent health Friday.
"We are very strong. It is 80 percent
i.---- ...,:a tri nrh nhvsician Jean -
Star Tribune
Established 1867 Roger'Parkinson Publisher and President
Joel R. Kramer Executive Editor
Tim J. McGuire Managing Editor
T Robert J. White Editorial Editor
10A Monday/February 26/1990
Preserving wetlands is a ducky idea
Mention wetland preservation, and the ducks vs.
food battle lines are drawn.. Farmers blast urban
hunters for wanting to conscript good cropland to
breed ducks for their autumn shoot. Hunters'at-
tack farmers for plowing up wildlife habitat to
produce crops already in oversupply. Conserva-
tionists take aim at both, and are accused in turn
of wanting to preserve nature at all costs, even at
the expense of the food, fiber and energy needs of a
growing population.
They're all right, in a• way. They're also wrong for
fighting each other when the real enemy is the loss
of.wetlands and the ecological chores they per-
form. That resource is so valuable that all Minne-
sotans should welcome a plan before the Legisla-
ture to preserve the state's remaining wetlands.
The multiple value of wetlands
Wetlands do provide essential wildlife habitat,•and
some do get in farmers' way. Hence ducks vs.
food. But wetlands of all sorts — from marshes to
mudholes — also act as sponges that provide flood
control, as filters that clean pollutants out of
groundwater, and as siphons that help recharge
underground aquifers. On all counts, wetlands are
a public resource that serve the interests of farmer,
hunter, conservationist, city d%reller and country
cousin. '
Millions of acres of wetlands were drained in the
last two decades, particularly during the '70s when
farmers were urged to plant fencepost-to-fencepost
to feed a hungry world. Minnesota lost 80 percent
of 'its prairie potholes alone. Despite state and
federal efforts to protect them, wetlands continue
to be drained and they may be lost in some areas
Without preemptive action. The best place for that
action is at the state level, where the wetland
resource can be weighed against other.needs and a
firm, but flexible conservation plan developed.
Make Minnesota the leader
The bill before the Legislature this year is com-
mendably. firm, sensibly flexible. It provides for
"no net loss" of wetlands, meaning that any wet-
lands lost to -farming, mining, timber harvesting or
urban development would have to be offset by
restoring or creating new wetlands elsewhere in the
same area. In return, wetlands would be exempt
from property taxes. State taxpayers would make
up* the losses, roughly estimated at $3 million a
year, to local units of government.
The legislation would put Minnesota out in front
of federal efforts to protect wetlands, and should.
The swampbuster provision in the 1985 farm bill,
intended to deny federal benefits to farmers who
cultivate wetlands, has proven difficult to under-
stand and enforce. At least four federal agencies
have a hand in wetland regulation. Minnesota's
plan would simplify the rules, make enforcement
surer and provide flexibility for local needs.
Unlike a wetland bill that withered away lastlear,
this legislation is the result of collaboration by 19
organizations representing farmers, conservation-
ists, drainage contractors, and local and state gov-
ernment. Nonetheless, sticking points remain over
certain types and sizes of wetlands, and the bill
faces a tough sell in rural areas. It also faces hard
going at the Legislature, where budget cuts, not
new spending programs, are the rule.
How to pay
But the Environmental Trust Fund will soon re-
ceive its first lottery revenues, and the $7 million
needed to launch the wetland -preservation pro=
gram should be a top candidate for a share. Cou-
pled with. the state's Reinvest in Minnesota and
the federal Conservation Reserve programs, which
pay farmers to retire erodible lands including wet-
lands for 10 years or more, that investment would
not only stop the loss of wetlands, but begin to
restore some wetlands lost to development.
Figure that flooding costs the state more than 10
times as much. Figure. what Minnesota would be
like without its prairie potholes, and the plants and
animals they harbor. Figure what would happen to
Minnesota if its wetland sponge were squeezed
dry. The wetland plan recognizes that people need
to eat and earn a living. But it puts food and ducks
on the same side in the fight to protect a precious
resource. It should pass.
A recent trend has been to require fixed compensation ratios
in recognition that created wetlands are often unproductive
compared to the systems they replace.
There may be some outstanding questions concerning the
legal defensibility of setting fixed ratios larger than 1:1 unless
it can be clearly shown that such ratios must be used to
equate the loss. High fixed ratios have also been used in an
attempt to meet a goal of no further net loss of wetlands in
a given area. From political and scientific perspectives, this
is one of the most controversial aspects of wetlands manage-
ment. Wetland creation projects can be extremely costly,
complex, and time consuming. Nevertheless, the prestigious
National Wetlands Policy Forum has recommended a na-
tional goal of no net loss of wetland area and function. It is
strongly advised that the issue of wetland creation, restora-
tion, monetary compensation, and the degree of local gov-
ernment hands-on involvement be addressed in a way that
takes into account specific local needs.
The model ordinance specifies that creation or restoration
of wetlands shall not be used as a means of circumventing
or ignoring the basic concept of preventing avoidable losses
and minimizing unavoidable impacts. This concept is fun-
damental to current wetland management practices. The or-
dinance provides for the replacement of a wetland with the
same type of wetland as close as possible to the location in
which the loss occurred. If certain conditions are met, the ap-
plicant can propose an alternative wetland type or location,
or monetary compensation. The local government can ac-
cept or require monetary compensation in lieu of direct ac-
tion by the applicant, but only for the purpose of carrying
out wetland creation or restoration.
This section also provides the authority to suspend or
revoke a permit for noncompliance.
Section 7. Nonconforming Activities
To avoid potentially strong political opposition in the
adoption of the ordinance, existing uses are allowed under
a "grandfather' clause. The enlargement of existing uses,
major alterations, additions exceeding SO percent of the
value or size of the use, and reestablishment of discontinued
or destroyed uses are regulated. A stronger approach that
local governments may wish to consider is the gradual
elimination of nonconforming uses over a specified period
of time.
Section 8. Judicial Review
The ordinance provides a special judicial review pro-
cedure for the granting or denial of *special permits. Often,
zoning and other land -use control enabling acts specify the
court to which appeals of regulations must be made. This or-
dinance authorizes the regulatory authority to purchase or
condemn an interest in lands, based on a decision of the
fb I I -L:-
641n ?.., V_et�4LY pw>��-
court, or to approve a permit with lesser restrictions. Local
governments may wish to provide for an administrative ap-
peals process to a zoning board of appeals or a similar
authority of the local government. This ordinance does not
provide such language, as circumstances may vary greatly
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Section 9. Amendments
Circumstances under which ordinances can be amended
are normally contained in zoning enabling acts or other
enabling statutes. This section supplements such standards
by authorizing changes when new maps or other informa-
tion become available.
Section 10. Assessment Relief
This section of the ordinance directs tax assessors to con-
sider wetland regulations in determining the fair market.
value of land.
MODEL NONTIDAL WETLAND
PROTECTION ORDINANCE
Section 1. Findings of Fact and Purpose
1.1. Findings of Fact
The nontidal wetlands of local unit of government are
indispensible and fragile natural resources with significant
development constraints due to flooding, erosion, and soil
limitations. In their natural state, nontidal wetlands serve
man and nature. They provide habitat areas for fish,
wildlife, and vegetation; water -quality maintenance and
pollution control; flood control; shoreline erosion control;
natural resource education; scientific study; open space; and
recreation opportunities.
A considerable number of these important natural resources
have been lost or impaired by draining, dredging, filling, ex-
cavating, building, pollution, and other acts. Piecemeal or
cumulative losses may, over time, destroy remaining
wetlands. Damaging or destroying nontidal wetlands
threatens public safety and the general welfare.
It is therefore necessary for local unit of government to
ensure maximum protection for nontidal wetlands by
discouraging development activities in nontidal wetlands
and those activities at adjacent upland sites that may
adversely affect nontidal wetlands and to encourage restora-
tion of already degraded or destroyed systems.
1.2. Purpose
It is the policy of local unit of government to encourage or
require planning to avoid or minimize damage to nontidal
65
u y� � ►�--y`1
. { 11 •4,y :ice .�.� s4,.4zj�; ,
wetlands wherever prudent or feasible; to require that ac-
tivities not dependent upon a nontidal wetland location be
located at upland sites; to allow nontidal wetland losses only
where all practicable measures have been applied to reduce
those losses that are unavoidable and in the public interest;
to provide for compensation in the form of nontidal wetland
restoration or creation to offset further losses; and to pro- f
vide for the protection of wetlands under additional or-
dinances already adopted by local unit of government,
including building codes pollution and sediment control
ordinances groundwater management regulations, storm -
water management regulations floodplain zoning, and
other pertinent regulations.
Furthermore, such activities must not threaten public safety
or cause nuisances by:
1) Blocking flood flows, destroying flood storage areas,
or destroying storm barriers, thereby raising flood
heights or velocities on other land and increasing flood
damages;
2) Causing water pollution through any means, in-
cluding location of wastewater disposal systems in wet
soils; unauthorized application of pesticides, her-
bicides, and algacides; disposal of solid wastes or
stormwater runoff at inappropriate sites; or the crea-
tion of unstabilized fills;
3 ) Increasing erosion; or
4) Increasing runoff of sediment and stormwater.
In addition, it is the policy of local unit of government
that activities in or affecting nontidal wetlands do not de-
stroy natural wetland functions important to the general
welfare by:
1) Decreasing breeding, spawning, nesting, wintering,
feeding, or other critical habitat for fish and wildlife,
including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and
animal species and commercially and recreationally
important wildlife;
2) Interfering with the exchange of nutrients needed by
fish and other forms of wildlife;
3 ) Decreasing groundwater recharge;
4) Destroying sites needed for education and scientific re-
search as outdoor biophysical. laboratories, living
classrooms, and training areas;
5 ) Interfering with public rights in waters and the recrea-
tion opportunities for hunting, fishing, boating, hik-
ing, birdwatching, photography, camping, and other
activities in nontidal wetlands; or
6) Destroying aesthetic and property values.
Section 2. Definitions
Words and phrases used in this ordinance shall be inter-
preted as defined below, and, where ambiguity exists, words
or phrases shall be interpreted so as to give this ordinance
its most reasonable application in carrying out its regulatory
purpose.
"Buffer" means a naturally vegetated area or vegetated area
established or managed to protect nontidal wetlands from
human disturbances.
"Creation" means a human activity bringing a wetland into
existence at a site in which it did not formerly exist.
"Functions" means the beneficial roles nontidal wetlands
serve, including storage, conveyance, and attenuation of
floodwaters and stormwaters; groundwater recharge and
discharge; protection of water quality and reduction of sedi-
ment and erosion; production of waterfowl, game and
nongame birds, mammals, and other living resources; pro-
tection of habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered
species; food chain support for a broad range of wildlife and
fisheries; educational, historical, and archeological value
protection; and scenic, aesthetic, and recreational amenities.
"Hydrophytic vegetation" means macrophytic plant life
growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically
deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content.
"In-kind" means the restoration or creation of a wetland
with vegetation and other characteristics closely approx-
imating those of a specified wetland.
' Nontidal wetland" means an area that is inundated or
saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, com-
monly known as hydrophytic vegetation.
"Off site" means restoration or creation of a wetland at a
location not adjacent to (or within feet of) a
previous, specified wetland.
"On site" means restoration or creation of a wetland adja-
cent to (or within feet of) a previous, specified
wetland.
66
"Out -of -kind" means the restoration or creation of a wetland
with vegetation or other characteristics not resembling those
of a specified wetland.
"Practicable alternative" means an alternative to the pro-
posed project that would accomplish the basic purpose of the
project and avoid or have less adverse impact on a nontidal
wetland.
"Regulated activity" means an activity with a significant im-
pact Dn nontidal wetlands, including:
1) The removal, excavation, or dredging of soil, sand,
gravel, minerals, organic matter, or materials of any
kind;
2) The changing of existing drainage characteristics,
sedimentation patterns, flow patterns, or flood reten-
tion characteristics;
3) The disturbance of the nontidal wetland water level
or water table by drainage, impoundment, or other
means;
4) The dumping or discharging of material, or the filling
of a nontidal wetland with material;
5) The placing of fill or the grading or removal of mate-
rial that would alter existing topography;
6) The driving of piles, placement of obstructions, and
erection or repair of buildings or structures of any
kind;
7) The destruction or removal of plant life that would
alter the character of a nontidal wetland; and
8) The conduct of an activity that results in a significant
change of water temperature, a significant change of
physical or chemical characteristics of nontidal
wetland water sources, or the introduction of
pollutants.
"Restoration" means a human activity that returns a wetland
or former wetland from a disturbed or altered condition with
lesser acreage or functions to a previous condition with
greater wetland acreage or functions.
Section 3. Lands to Which This Ordinance Applies
3.1. Wetland District
This ordinance shall apply to all lands in or within 25 feet of
a nontidal wetland located within the jurisdiction of local
unit of government. Areas shown on the Official Zoning
Map as being located within the Wetland District are
presumed to be nontidal wetlands consistent with the defini-
tion thereof. Nontidal wetlands not shown in the Wetland
District are presumed to exist in local unit of government
and are hereby designated to be within the Wetland District
and protected under all of the terms and provisions of this
ordinance. The Official Zoning Map (Wetland District)
shows only the general location of nontidal wetlands and
should be consulted by persons contemplating activities in
or near nontidal wetlands before engaging in a regulated ac-
tivity. The Official Zoning Map, together with all ex-
planatory matter thereon and attached thereto, is hereby
adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this or-
dinance. The Official Zoning Map shall be on file in the of-
fice of the county/city clerk.
3.2. Rules for Interpretation of Wetland District Boundaries
The boundaries of the Wetland District shall ordinarily be
determined by the applicant through the performance of a
field survey applying the nontidal wetland definition. The
Official Zoning Map is to be used as a guide to the general
location of nontidal wetlands. The applicant is required
under Section 6.2 of this ordinance to show a Wetland
District boundary on a scaled drawing submitted as part of
the permit application. Nontidal wetland delineations shall
be performed in accordance with the procedures specified in
the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdic-
tional Wetlands and any subsequent amendments thereto.
Evidence documenting the results of the boundary survey
may be required by the Office of Planning and
Zoning.
The Office of Planning and Zoning, when requested by
the applicant, may waive the delineation and, in lieu of di-
rect action by the applicant, perform the delineation. The
Office of Planning and Zoning may use remote sensing,
hydrology, soils, plant species, and other data, and consult
with biologists, hydrologists, soil scientists, or other experts
as needed to perform the delineation. The applicant may be
charged for costs incurred in accordance with the provisions
of Section 6.2 of this ordinance.
Where the Office of Planning and Zoning performs
a Wetland District determination at the request of the appli-
cant, it shall be considered a final determination.
Where the applicant has provided a determination of the
Wetland District boundary, the Office of Planning and
Zoning shall verify the accuracy of, and may render
adjustments to, the boundary delineation. In the event the
adjusted boundary delineation is contested by the applicant,
the Office of Planning and Zoning may attempt to set
mutually agreeable boundaries; or, when such an attempt
67
is unsuccessful, shall, at the applicant's expense, obtain com-
petent expert services to render a final delineation.
Section 4. Permit Requirements, Enforcement
4.1. Permit Requirements, Compliance
No regulated activity in or within 25 feet of a nontidal
wetland may be conducted without a permit from the Zon$'
ing Administrator and full compliance with the terms
of this ordinance and other applicable regulations. All ac-
tivities that are not permitted as of right or as special permit
uses shall be prohibited.
4.2 Temporary Emergency Permit
Notwithstanding the provisions of this ordinance or any
other law to the contrary, the Office of Planning and Zon-
ing may issue a temporary nontidal wetlands permit
through oral or written authorization, provided a written
permit is accomplished within five days, if it deems that an
unacceptable threat to life or severe loss of property will
occur if an emergency permit is not granted. The emergency
permit may be terminated at any time without process upon
a determination by the Office of Planning and Zoning
that the action was not or is no longer necessary to protect
human health or the environment. The Office of Planning
and Zoning may, within 90 days of the emergency per-
mit, require that the action be reconsidered as an after -the -
fact permit, subject to any or all of the terms and provisions
of this ordinance.
4.3. Enforcement
The Office of Planning and Zoning, its agents, officers,
and employees shall have authority to enter upon privately
owned land for the purpose of performing their duties under
this ordinance and may take or cause to be made such ex-
aminations, surveys, or sampling as the Office
of Planning and Zoning deems necessary.
The Office of Planning and Zoning shall have authority
to enforce this ordinance; a permit issued thereto; and a
violation or threatened violation thereof by violation
notices, administrative orders, and civil and criminal ac-
tions. All costs, fees, and expenses in connection with such
actions may be recovered as damages against the violator.
Law enforcement officials or other officials having police
powers shall have authority to assist the Office of Planning
and Zoning in enforcement.
Any person who commits, takes part in, or assists in any
violation of any provision of this ordinance is guilty of a
misdemeanor and may be fined not more than $20,000 for
each offense. Each violation of this act shall be a separate of -
fense, and, in the case of a continuing violation, each day's
continuance shall be deemed to be separate and distinct of-
fense.
In the event of a violation, the governing body shall have the
power to order nontidal wetland restoration and creation
measures for the damaged or destroyed nontidal wetland
area by the person or agent responsible for the violation. If
the responsible person or agent does not complete such
measures within a reasonable time following -the order, the
local unit of government may restore the affected wetland
to its prior condition and create or restore other wetlands for
the purpose of offsetting losses sustained as a result of the
violation. The person or agent responsible for the original
violation shall be liable to the local unit of government for
the cost of such actions.
To guide restoration and creation actions, the Office of
Planning and Zoning shall have the power to order the
violator to develop a plan as described in Section 6.5.2 of this
ordinance for the approval of the Office of Planning and
Zonin .
4.4. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions
It is not intended that this ordinance repeal, abrogate, or im-
pair any existing regulations, easements, covenants, or deed
restrictions. However, where this ordinance imposes greater
restrictions, the provisions of this ordinance shall prevail.
4.5. Interpretation
The provisions of this ordinance shall be held to be
minimum requirements in their interpretation and applica-
tion and shall be liberally construed to serve the purposes of
this ordinance.
Section 5. Uses by Right and Special Permit Uses in a Non -
tidal Wetland
5.1. Uses by Right
The following uses shall be allowed as a right within a non -
tidal wetland to the extent that they are not prohibited by
any other ordinance or law and provided they do not require
structures, grading, fill, draining, or dredging except as pro-
vided herein or authorized by special permit:
1) Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegeta-
tion, fish, shellfish, and other wildlife;
2) Outdoor recreational activities, including hunting,
fishing, trapping, birdwatching, hiking, boating,
horseback riding, swimming, canoeing, skeet and trap
shooting;
3) The harvesting of wild crops, such as marsh hay,
68
ferns, moss, wild rice, berries, tree fruits, and seeds in
a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction
of such crops and provided the harvesting does not re-
quire alteration of the nontidal wetland by changing
existing nontidal wetland water conditions or sources,
tilling of soil, or planting of crops;
4) Forestry practices limited to the thinning and
harvesting of native timber in accordance with a for-
est management plan that incorporates best manage-
ment practices approved by the State For-
ester or local unit of government pursuant to re u
tions or guidelines.
5) The continued cultivation of agricultural crops, pro-
vided no nontidal wetlands are subject to cultivation
where no such use existed five years prior to the effec-
tive date of application;
6) The occasional pasturing of livestock;
7) Commercial fishing, shellfishing, and trapping; and
5) Education, scientific research, and nature trails;
9) Uses by right that do not require a special permit and
that may involve filling, flooding, draining, dredging,
ditching, or excavating to the extent specifically pro-
vided below:
a) Maintenance or repair of lawfully located roads
or structures and of facilities used in the service of
the public to provide transportation, electric, gas,
water, telephone, telegraph, telecommunication,
or other services, provided that such roads, struc-
tures, or facilities are not materially changed or
enlarged and written notice prior to the com-
mencement of work has been given to the Office
of Planning and Zoning and provided that the
work is conducted using best management prac-
tices to ensure that flow and circulation patterns,
and chemical and biological characteristics of the
wetland, are not impaired and that any adverse ef-
fect on the aquatic environment will be
minimized;
b) Temporary water -level stabilization measures
associated with silvicultural operations, provided
a complete reversion to previous hydrological
conditions is accomplished subsequent to com-
pleted operations;
c) Limited ditching, tiling, dredging, excavating, or
filling done solely for the purpose of maintaining
or repairing existing drainage systems necessary
for the cultivation of agricultural crops, provided
that the maintenance or repair activity does not
result in the impairment, alteration, or loss of
nontidal wetlands not previously subject to
agricultural use under the terms and provisions of
Section 5.1.5;
d) Limited excavating and filling necessary for the re-
pair and maintenance of piers, walkways, obser-
vation decks, duck blinds, wildlife management
shelters, boathouses, and other similar water -
related structures, provided that they are built on
pilings to allow unobstructed flow of water and
preserve the natural contour of the nontidal
wetland, except as authorized by special permit.
5.2. Special Permit Uses
Regulated activities other than those specified in Section 5.1
may not be conducted except upon application to the
Office of Planning and Zoning and issuance of a special
permit.
Section 6. Standards and Procedures for Special Use Permits
6.1. Special Permits
Application for a special permit to conduct a regulated ac-
tivity shall be made in duplicate to the Office of Planning
and Zoning on forms furnished by that office. Permits shall
ordinarily be valid for a period of three years from the date
of issue and shall expire at the end of that time unless a longer
period is specified by the Office of Planning and Zoning
upon issuance of the permit. An extension of an original per-
mit may be granted upon written request to the Office of
Planning and Zoning by the original permit holder or the
successor in title. The Zoning Administrator may require
additional hearings if, in its judgment, the original intent of
the permit is altered or extended by the renewal or if the ap-
plicant failed to abide by the terms of the original permit.
The request for renewal of a permit shall follow the same
form and procedure as the original application except that
the Zoning Administrator shall have the option of not
holding a hearing if the original intent of the permit is not
altered or extended in any significant way.
6.2. Permit Applications
Unless the Office of Planning and Zoning waives one or
more of the following information requirements, applica-
tions for a special permit for a regulated activity shall in-
clude:
1) The purposes of the project and an explanation of why
the proposed activity requires a wetland location or
access to wetlands, or cannot be located at other sites;
2) A site plan drawn to scale showing the Wetland
District Boundary and the nontidal wetland boundary
69
as determined by field survey; the width, depth, and
length of all existing and proposed structures, roads,
watercourses, and drainageways; water, wastewater,
and stormwater facilities; utility installations within
200 feet of a nontidal wetland; and the relationship of
the proposed activity and any potentially affected;
nontidal wetland to the entire parcel of land owned by'
the applicant;
3) A description of the wetland or wetlands that will be
affected by the regulated activity, including a sketch
plan at the scale of for the entire wetland;
the area that may be filled or impacted; vegetation
type; wetland water sources; and a general
characterization of the habitat, wildlife, and common
plants;
4) Soil types on the site and the exact locations and
specifications for all proposed draining, filling,
grading, dredging, and vegetation removal, including
the amounts and methods;
5) Adjacent land use; and
6) Elevations of the site and adjacent lands within 200 feet
of the site at contour intervals of no greater than five
feet.
The Office of Planning and Zoning may require additional
information, including, but not limited to, documentation
and evidence of a wetland boundary determination by field
survey; an assessment of wetland functional characteristics;
documentation of the ecological, aesthetic, economic, or
other values of a wetland; a study of flood, erosion, or other
hazards at the site; evidence of any protective measures that
might be taken to reduce such hazards; and any other infor-
mation deemed necessary to verify compliance with the pro-
visions of this ordinance or to evaluate the proposed use in
terms of the purposes of this ordinance.
Any person who wants to know whether a proposed activity
or an area is subject to this ordinance may request in writing
a determination from the Office of Planning and Zoning.
Such a request for determination shall contain plans, data,
and other information as may be specified by the Office of
Planning and Zoning.
At the time of an application or request for determination,
the applicant shall pay a filing fee specified by the Office of
Planning and Zoning. Filing fees of up to a maximum of
$2,500 may be required to evaluate the application or re-
quest for determination. These fees may be used to retain ex=
pert consultants who will provide services pertaining to
wetland boundary determinations, functional assessment,
and mitigation measures, as deemed necessary by the
Office of Planning and Zoning.
Upon receipt of the completed application, the Office of
Planning and Zoning shall notify the individuals and agen-
cies, including federal and state agencies, having jurisdiction
over or an interest in the matter to provide such individuals
and agencies an opportunity to comment.
The Office of Planning and Zoning shall establish a mailing
list of all interested persons and agencies who wish to be
notified of such applications.
6.3. Public Hearing and Recommendations
No later than 60 days after receipt of the permit application
and after at least 15 days advance notice that the application
has been published in one newspaper having general circula-
tion in the area, the Zoning Administrator shall hold a pub-
lic hearing on the application, unless the Office of Planning
and Zoning finds that the activity is so minor as to not
affect the nontidal wetland and the Zoning Administrator
concurs.
All hearings shall be open to the public. A record of the hear-
ing shall be made. The Office of Planning and Zoning shall
make recommendations to the Zoning Administrator on
all special permit applications.
Any person may present evidence and testimony at the hear-
ing. At the hearing, the applicant shall have the burden of
demonstrating that the proposed activity will be in accor-
dance with the purposes of this ordinance and the standards
set forth below.
6.4. Standards for Special Permits
6.4.1. Zoning Administrator
The Zoning Administrator, after according consideration
to the comments of the general public, other affected
municipalities and counties, and federal and state agencies
with jurisdiction over the area in question, shall issue a non -
tidal wetland permit only if it is found that the regulated ac-
tivity is determined to be in the public interest in accordance
with Section 6.4.3 below and that the applicant has demon-
strated by a preponderance of the evidence that the regulated
activity:
1) Is water -dependent or requires access to the nontidal
wetland as a central element of its basic function, or
is not water -dependent but has no practicable alter-
native;
FT1
2) Will result in minimum feasible alteration or impair-
ment to the nontidal wetland's functional
characteristics and its existing contour, vegetation,
fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological condi-
tions;
3) Will not jeopardize the continued existence of species
that appear on federal or state endangered species lists;
4) Will not cause significant degradation of groundwater
or surface -water quality;
5) Complies with all applicable state, local, and federal
laws, including those related to sediment control,
pollution control, floodplain zoning, and on-site
wastewater disposal;
6) Will provide a nontidal wetland buffer area of not less
than 25 feet between the nontidal wetland and upland
activities for those portions of a regulated activity that
need not be conducted in the wetland; and
7) Complies with other standards contained in this or-
dinance, including those pertaining to nontidal
wetland creation and restoration as required.
6.4.2. Practicable Alternative Test
For all permit applications, an alternative site for the pro-
posed activity shall be considered practicable if it is available
and the proposed activity can be carried out on that site after
taking into consideration costs, existing technology, in-
frastructure, and logistics, in light of overall project pur-
poses.
There is no practicable alternative if the applicant
demonstrates all of the following to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator:
1) The basic purpose of the project cannot reasonably be
accomplished using one or more other sites in the
general region that would avoid or result in less
adverse impact on a nontidal wetland;
2) The basic purpose of the project cannot be ac-
complished by a reduction in the size, scope, con-
figuration, or density of the project as proposed or by
changing the design of the project in a way that would
avoid or result in fewer adverse effects on the nontidal
wetland; and
3) In cases where the applicant has rejected alternatives
to the project as proposed due to constraints such as
inadequate zoning, infrastructure, or parcel size, the
applicant has made reasonable attempts to remove or
accommodate such constraints.
6.4.3. Public Interest Test
In determining whether a proposed regulated activity in any
wetland is in the public interest, the Zoning Administrator
shall consider the following:
1) The extent of the public need for the proposed activity;
2) The extent and permanence of the beneficial or
detrimental effects that the proposed regulated activity
may have on the public and private uses for which the
property is suited;
3) The quality of the wetland that may be affected and
the amount of wetland to be disturbed;
4) The economic value of the proposed regulated activity
to the general area; and
5) The ecological value of the wetland and probable im-
pact on public health and safety, fish, plants, and
wildlife.
6.5. Acting on the Application
6.5.1. Special Use Permit Conditions
The Zoning Hearing Officer may attach such conditions to
the granting of a special use permit as deemed necessary to
carry out the purposes of this ordinance. Such conditions
may include but are not limited to:
1) Limitations on minimum lot size for any regulated
activity;
2) Requirements that structures be elevated on piles and
otherwise protected against natural hazards;
3) Modification of waste disposal and water supply
facilities;
4) Imposition of operational control, sureties, and deed
restrictions concerning future use and subdivision of
lands, such as flood warnings, preservation of unde-
veloped areas in open space use, and limitation of
vegetation removal;
5) Dedication of easements to protect wetlands;
6) Establishment of vegetated buffer zones separating
and protecting the nontidal wetland from proposed
activities;
7) Erosion control and stormwater management
measures;
8) Setbacks for structures and restrictions on fill, de-
posit of soil, and other activities in the nontidal
wetland;
9) Modification in project design to ensure continued
1 L A _i
71
water supply to the nontidal wetland and circulation'
of water;
10) Creation or restoration of an area of nontidal
wetland; and
11) Development of a plan to guide actions involving the
creation of a new wetland or the restoration of a
damaged or degraded wetland.
The Office of Planning and Zoning may require a bond in an
amount and with surety and conditions sufficient to secure
compliance with the conditions and limitations set forth in
the permit. The particular amount and the conditions of the
bond shall be consistent with the purposes of this ordinance.
In the event of a breach of any condition of any such bond,
the Office of Planning and Zoning may institute an action
in a court of competent jurisdiction upon such bond and pro-
secute the same to judgment and execution.
6.5.2. Nontidal Wetland Restoration and Creation
As a condition of a permit issued or as an enforcement ac-
tion under this ordinance, the Office of Planing and Zoning
may require that the applicant engage in the restoration or
creation of nontidal wetlands in order to offset, in whole or
in part, the losses resulting from an applicant's or violator's
actions. In making a determination of whether such a re-
quirement will be imposed, and, if so, the degree to which
it would be required, the Office of Planning and Zoning
will consider the following:
1) The long- and short-term effects of the action upon
the nontidal wetland and associated aquatic eco-
system, and the reversible or irreversible nature of the
impairment or loss;
2) The type and benefit of the wetland functions and
associated resources lost;
3) The type, size, and location of the wetland altered,
and the effect it may have upon the remaining system
or watershed of which the wetland is a part;
4) Observed or predicted trends with regard to the gains
or losses of this type of wetland in the watershed, in
light of natural and human processes;
5) The cost and likely success of the possible compensa-
tion measures in relation to the magnitude of the pro-
posed project or violation; and
6) The degree to which the applicant has demonstrated
a good -faith effort to incorporate measures to mini-
mize and avoid wetland impacts within the proposed
project.
1
The applicant or violator may prepare or be required by the
Office of Planning and Zoning to develop a nontidal wet-
land restoration or creation plan for review and approval of
the Office of Planning and Zoning. The creation or restora-
tion of wetlands shall not be an alternative to the standards
set forth in Section 6.4.1 but shall be used only to compen-
sate for unavoidable losses.
The plan should state the location, by metes and bounds
description, of the proposed site; ownership; size, type, and
complete ecological assessment (flora, fauna, hydrology,
wetland functions, etc.) of the wetland being restored or the
area where a new wetland will be created; and the natural
suitability of the proposed site for establishing the replace-
ment wetland (i.e., water source and drainage patterns,
topographic position, wildlife habitat opportunities, value
of the existing area to be converted, etc.). In addition, plane
view and cross-sectional, scaled drawings; topographic
survey data, including slope percentage and final grade
elevations; and other technical information are required in
sufficient detail to explain, illustrate, and provide for:
1) Soil and substrate conditions; topographic elevations;
grading and excavation; erosion and sediment control
needed for wetland construction and long-term sur-
vival;
2) Planting plans specifying plant species types, quan-
tities, locations, size, spacing, or density; source of
plant materials, propagules, or seeds; timing, season,
water, and nutrient requirements for planting; and,
where appropriate, measures to protect plants from
predation;
3) Water -quality parameters, water source, water
depths, water -control structures, and water -level
maintenance practices needed to achieve the necessary
ambient water conditions and hydrocy-
cle/hydroperiod characteristics;
4) Mid -course corrections and a three-year monitoring
and replacement plan establishing responsibility for
removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation and perma-
nent establishment of the wetland system and all its
component parts; and
5) A demonstration of fiscal, administrative, and
technical competence of sufficient standing to suc-
cessfully execute the overall project.
6.5.3. Wetland Restoration and Creation Alternatives
Ordinarily, the applicant or violator shall undertake restora-
tion or creation efforts on or adjacent to the site where per-
manent losses have been sustained or where restoration of
72
a former wetland is possible. Replication "in-kind" of the im-
pacted wetland will be the preferred alternative for creation
or restoration efforts. Where the applicant has demonstrated
to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that this
approach is infeasible due to technical constraints, such as
parcel or wetland size or wetland type, or that a nontidal
wetland of a different type or location is strongly justified
based on regional needs or the functional value of the im-
pacted wetland, the Zoning Administrator may accept or
recommend an alternative proposal. Such proposal may in-
volve monetary compensation as provided for in this section
or the creation or restoration "out of kind" and "off site."
The Office of Planning and Zoning shall set reasonable fees
for compensation of wetland losses based upon the amount
that would be required to perform on-site, in-kind restora-
tion or creation. Where the Zoning Administrator deter-
mines that the public interest is better served, the Zoning Ad-
ministrator may require a fee in lieu of direct action on be-
half of the applicant or violator to initiate restoration or
creation projects. Such fees shall be held in escrow for the
express use of wetland creation and restoration projects and
shall not be commingled with other funds.
6.5.4. Suspension, Revocation
The Office of Planning and Zoning may suspend or revoke
a permit if it finds that the applicant has not complied
with the conditions or limitations set forth in the permit or
has exceeded the scope of the work set forth in the permit.
The Office of Planning and Zoning shall cause notice of its
denial, issuance, conditional issuance, revocation, or
suspension of a permit to be published in a daily newspaper
having a broad circulation in the area wherein the wetland
lies.
Section 7. Nonconforming Activities
A regulated activity that was lawful before the passage of
this ordinance, but which is not in conformity with the pro-
visions of this ordinance, may be continued subject to the
following:
1) No such activity shall be expanded, changed,
enlarged, or altered in any way that increases its value
at the time of its becoming a nonconforming structure,
unless the structure is permanently changed to a con-
forming use.
2) No structural alteration or addition to any nonconfor-
ming structure over the life of the structure shall exceed
50 percent of all its value at the time of its becoming a
nonconforming structure, unless the structure is per-
manently changed to a conforming use.
.1\
3) If a nonconforming use or activity is discontinued for
12 consecutive months, any resumption of the activity
shall conform to this ordinance.
4) If any nonconforming use or activity is destroyed by
human activity or an act of God, it shall not be
resumed except in conformity with the provisions of
the ordinance.
5) Activities or adjuncts thereof that are or become
nuisances shall be not entitled to continue as noncon-
forming activities.
Section 8. Judicial Review
All final decisions of the Zoning Administrator concerning
denial, approval, or conditional approval of a special per-
mit shall be reviewable in the Circuit Court.
Based on these proceedings and the decision of the court, the
Zoning Administrator may, within the time specified by
the court, elect to:
1) Institute negotiated purchase or condemnation pro-
ceedings to acquire an easement or fee interest in the
applicant's land;
2 ) Approve the permit application with lesser restrictions
or conditions; or
3) Institute other appropriate actions ordered by the
court that fall within the jurisdiction of the Zoning
Administrator.
Section 9. Amendments
These regulations and the Official Zoning Map may from
time to time be amended in accordance with procedures and
requirements in the general statutes and as new information
concerning wetland locations, soils, hydrology, flooding, or
botanical species peculiar to wetlands become available.
Section 10. Assessment Relief
Assessors and boards of assessors shall consider wetland
regulations in determining the fair market value of land.
Any owner of an undeveloped wetland who has dedicated
an easement or entered into a perpetual conservation restric-
tion with the Office of Planning and Zoning or a nonprofit
organization to permanently control some or all regulated
activities in the wetland shall have that portion of land
assessed consistent with those restrictions. Such landowner
shall also be exempted from special assessment on the con-
trolled wetland to defray the cost of municipal im-
provements such as sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and
water mains.
73
RECENT PLANNING ADVISORY SERVICE REPORTS
':3 Linking Plans and Regulations: Local Responses to
Consistency Laws in California and Florida.
September 1981. 26 pp. $16; PAS subscribers $8.
,A Reducing Earthquake Risks: A Planner's Guide.
October 1981. 82 pp. $18; PAS subscribers $9.
Accessory Apartments: Using Surplus Space in
Single -Family Houses. December 1981. 24 pp. $16;
PAS subscribers S8.
Planners' Salaries and Employment Trends, 1981.
January 1982. 22 pp. $16 (photocopy).
Zero Lot Line Development. March 1982.22 pp. $16;
PAS subscribers S8.
Designing Effective Pedestrian Improvements in Busi-
ness Districts. May 1982.60 pp. $16; PAS subscribers
=3.
k Planner's Guide to Low -Level Radioactive Waste
')isposal. August 1982.53 pp. $16; PAS subscribers
:3.
'Regulating Videogames. September 1982.30 pp. $16;
?AS subscribers S8.
Changing Development Standards for Affordable
Housing. October 1982. 30 pp. 520; PAS subscrib-
ers S10.
Using Microcomputers in Urban Planning.
November 1982.22 pp. S8 (photocopy).
Water Conservation in Residential Development:
Land -Use Techniques. December 1982. 34 pp. $16
photocopy).
t Preparing a Historic Preservation Ordinance.
February 1983. 46 pp. $16; PAS subscribers $8.
Planning for Underground Space. April 1983.54 pp.
S16; PAS subscribers $8.
Improving Street Climate Through Urban Design.
June 1983. 34 pp. $16; PAS subscribers $8.
77 Flexible Parking Requirements. August 1983.38 pp.
S16; PAS subscribers S8.
378 Working With Consultants. October 1983. 33 pp.
S16; PAS subscribers $8.
379 Appearance Codes for Small Communities. October
1983. 26 pp. S16; PAS subscribers $8.
380 Analyzing the Economic Feasibility of a Development
Project: A Guide for Planners. November 1983. 38
pp. S16; PAS subscribers 58.
381 Increasing Housing Opportunities for the Elderly.
December 1983. 16 pp. $16; PAS subscribers $8.
382 Planners' Salaries and Employment Trends, 1983.
February 1984. 18 pp. $16 (photocopy).
383 How To Set Up a Planning Agency Library. April
1984. 38 pp. S16; PAS subscribers $8.
384 Regulating Radio and TV Towers. June 1984.38 pp.
S16: PAS subscribers $8.
385 Affordable Single -Family Housing: A Review of
Development Standards. August 1984.117 pp. $24;
PAS subscribers $12.
386 State and Local Regulations for Reducing Agri-
cultural Erosion. September 1984. 42 pp. $16;
PAS subscribers S8.
i
387 Traffic Impact Analysis. October 1984.34 pp. $16;
PAS'subscribers $8.
388 Planning Software Survey. November 1984.
32 pp. $16; PAS subscribers $8.
389 Tax Increment Financing: Part 1. What Is TIF? Part
2. Determining Potential Gains and Losses of TIF.
December 1984. 19 pp. $16; PAS subscribers $8.
390 Infrastructure Support for Economic Development.
September 1985. 38 pp. $16; PAS subscribers $8.
391 Home Occupation Ordinances. October 1985.38 pp.
$16; PAS subscribers $8.
392 Innovative Capital Financing. December 1985.
38 pp. $16; PAS subscribers $8.
'393 Managing Municipal Information Needs Using
Microcomputers. April 1986.22 pp. PAS subscribers
$8.
394 Regulating Satellite Dish Antennas. May 1986.30 pp.
'$16; PAS subscribers $8.
'395 Planners' Salaries and Employment Trends, 1985.
June 1986. 18 pp. PAS subscribers $8.
'3% Standards for Self -Service Storage Facilities.
September 1986. 22 pp. PAS subscribers $8.
397 Siting Group Homes for Developmentally Disabled
Persons. October 1986.46 pp. $16; PAS subscribers
$8.
398 Regulating Manufactured Housing. December 1986.
38 pp. $16; PAS subscribers $8.
399 Aesthetics and Land -Use Controls. December 1986.
46 pp. $16; PAS subscribers $8.
`400 The Planning Commission: Its Composition and
Function, 1987. May 1987. 11 pp. PAS subscribers
$8.
'401 Transferable Development Rights Programs: TDRs
and the Real Estate Marketplace. May 1987.38 pp.
$16; PAS subscribers $8.
'402 Seven Methods for Calculating Land Capability/
Suitability. July 1987. 22 pp. PAS subscribers $10.
403 Computer Applications in Economic Development.
August 1987. 38 pp. $20; PAS subscribers $10.
'404 How to Conduct a Citizen Survey. November 1987.
24 pp. PAS subscribers $10.
405 New Standards for Nonresidential Uses. December
1987. 26 pp. $20; PAS subscribers $10.
406 Housing Trust Funds. December 1987. 25 pp. $20;
PAS subscribers $10.
'407 Planners' Salaries and Employment Trends, 1987.
December 1987. 15 pp. PAS subscribers $10.
408 The Calculation of Proportionate -Share Impact Fees.
July 1988. 38 pp. $20; PAS subscribers $10.
'409 Enforcing Zoning and Land -Use Controls. August
1988. 30 pp. PAS subscribers $10.
'410 Zoning Bonuses in Central Cities. September 1988.
30 pp. PAS subscribers $10.
411 The Aesthetics of Parking. November 1988. 34 pp.
$20; PAS subscribers $10.
412/413 Protecting Nontidal Wetlands. December 1988.
76 pp. $36; PAS subscribers $18.
'Available only to subscribers of Planning Advisory Service.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Littoral Society. Protecting Wetlands: What You
Should Know. Highlands, N.J.: American Littoral
Societv, 1981.
Bishop, R. A. "Iowa's Wetlands." Proceedings of the Iowa
Academy of Sciences 88, no. 1 (1981): 11-16.
Bunker, S. 'The Maryland Critical Area Program: A Com-
prehensive Land Management Approach." National
Wetlands Newsletter 9, no. 1(January/February 1987).
Carpenter, J. M., and G. T. Farmer. Peat Mining: An Initial
Assessment of Wetland Impacts and Measures to Mitigate
Adverse Effects. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, 1981.
Council on Environmental Quality. Our Wetland Heritage.
Washington, D.C.: The Council, 1979.
Cowardin, L.M., et al. Classification of Wetlands and Deep-
water Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79-31.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979.
Farrar, J. The Rainwater Basin: Nebraska's Vanishing
Wetlands. Lincoln: Nebraska Games and Park Commis-
sion, 1982.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation.
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdic-
tional Wetlands, 1989. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Washington,
D.C.: GPO, in Press.
Feierabend, J.S., and J. M. Zelazny. Status Report on Our
Nation's Wetlands. Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife
Federation, 1987.
Ferrigno, F., et al. Marsh Destruction. Pittman -Robertson
Report, Proj. W -53-R-1, Job I -G. Trenton: New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of
Fish, Game, and Wildlife, 1973.
Frayer, W. E., et al. Status and Trends of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats in the Coterminous United States,
1950s to 1970s. Fort Collins, Colo.: Colorado State
University, Department of Forest and Wood Sciences,
1983.
Fruge, D. W. "Effects of Wetland Deterioration on the Fish
and Wildlife Resources of Coastal Louisiana." In Pro-
ceedings of the Conference on Coastal Erosion and
Wetland Modification in Louisiana: Causes, Conse-
quences, and Options, edited by D.G. Boesch.
FWS/OBS-82%59. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1982, 99-107.
Gaskell, R. "Wetlands Protection Through Regulatory Stan-
dards and State/Local Cooperation: A Manager's View."
In Wetland Protection: Strengthening the Role of the
States, edited by Jon Kusler and Richard Hamann.
Gainesville, Fla.: Association of State Wetland Man-
agers/Center for Governmental Responsibility, Univer-
sity of Florida College of Law, 1985.
Good, R.E., D.F. Whighams, and R.L. Simpson. eds.
Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Manage-
ment Potential. New York: Academic Press, 1978.
Great Lakes River Basin Commission. "Wetlands." Great
Lakes Communicator 11, no. 9 (June 1981).
L
Greeson, P. E., et al. eds. Wetland Functions and Values
The State of Our Understanding. (The Proceedings of the
National Symposium on Wetlands, November 7-10,
1978, Lake Buena Vista, Fla.). Bethesda, Md.: American
Water Resources Association, 1979.
Haddock, J.L., and L.W. DeBates. Report on Drainage
Trends in the Prairie Pothole Region of Minnesota, North
Dakota, and South Dakota. Minneapolis, Minn.: U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1969.
Hardisky, M.A., and V. Klemas. 'Tidal Wetlands Natural
and Human -Made Changes from 1973 to 1979 in
Delaware: Mapping Techniques and Results." Environ-
mental Management 7, no. 4 (1983): 1-6.
Henderson, T.R., W. Smith, and D.G. Burke. Non -Tidal
Wetlands Protection: A Handbook for Maryland Local
Governments. Annapolis, Md.: Maryland Department
of Natural Resources, March 1983.
Hoose, P. Building An Ark: Tools for Preserving Natural
Diversity Through Land Protection. Cevelo, Calif.:
Island Press, 1981.
JACA Corp. A Case Study of New Jersey Wetlands: Trends
and Factors Influencing Wetland Use. Prepared for Office
of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. 1982.
Kadlec, J.A., and W.A. Wentz. State-of-the-art Survey and
Evaluation of Marsh Plant Establishment Techniques: In-
duced and Natural. vol. 1. Technical Report D-74-9.
Vicksburg, Miss.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water-
ways Experiment Station, 1974.
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. Let-
ter from Department Commissioner to B. Wilen, U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, February 23, 1983.
Klein, S. Select State Inland Wetland Protection Laws: A Re-
view of State Programs and Their Natural Resource Data
Requirements. Washington, D.C.: National Conference
of State Legislatures, 1980.
Klopatek, J. M. 'Nutrient Dynamics of Freshwater Riverine
Marshes and the Role of Emergent Macrophytes." In
Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Manage-
ment Potential, edited by R.E. Good et al. New York:
Academic Press, 1978, 195-216.
Kusler, J.A. Our National Wetland Heritage: A Protection
Guidebook. Washington, D.C.: The Environmental Law
Institute, 1983.
Strengthening State Wetland Regulations. Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979.
, and Richard Hamann. eds. Wetland Protection:
Strengthening the Role of the States. Gainesville, Fla.:
Association of State Wetland Managers/Center for Gov-
ernmental Responsibility, University of Florida College
of Law, 1985.
MacDonald, P.O. et al. Documentation, Chronology, and
Future Projections of Bottomland Hardwood Habitat
Loss in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain. vol. 1.
Vicksburg, Miss.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecolog-
ical Services, 1979.
Magee, D.W. Freshwater Wetlands. Amherst, Mass.:
University of Massachusetts Press, 1981.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Michigan's
75
Wetlands. Lansing: Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, 1982.
Niering, W.A. Statement before the House Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries, August 10, 1982.
Novitsky, R.P. Hydrology of the Nevin Wetland Near
Madison, Wisconsin. Water Resources Investigations
78-48. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey, 1978.
O'Connor, R., and O.W. Terry. The Marine Wetlands of
Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York. Stony Brook:
State University of New York, Marine Sciences Research
Center, 1972.
Redelfs, A. E. Wetlands Values and Losses in the United
States. M.S. Thesis. Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, 1980.
Richardson, C. J., et al. "Pocosins: An Ecosystem in Tran-
sition." In Pocosin Wetlands, edited by C. J. Richardson.
Stroudsburg, Penn: Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co.,
1981,3-19.
Roe, H. B., and Q.C. Ayres. Engineering for Agricultural
Drainage. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.
Sigafoos, R.S. "Botanical Evidence of Floods and Floodplain
Deposition, Vegation, and Hydrologic Phenomena."
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 485-A. Wash-
ington, D.C.: USGS, 1964.
Sloey, W. E., et al. "Management of Freshwater Wetlands
for Nutrient Assimilation." In Freshwater Wetlands,
edited by R. E. Good et al. New York: Academic Press,
1978,321-40.
Tabachnik, J. The Protection of Inland Wetlands. Mend -
ham, N.J.: The Association of New Jersey Environmen-
tal Commissions, 1980.
Thibodeau, F.R., and B.D. Ostro. "Economic Analysis of
Wetland Protection." Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment 12 (1981): 19-30.
Thurow, C., W. Toner, and D. Erley. Performance Con-
trols for Sensitive Lands. PAS Report Nos. 307-308.
Chicago: American Planning Association, July 1975.
Tiner, R.W., Jr. Field Guide to Nontidal Wetland Identifica-
tion. Annapolis: Maryland Department of Natural
Resources; Newton Comer, Mass.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Region 5, 1988.
A Field Guide to Coastal Wetland Plants of the North-
eastern United States. Amherst: University of Massachu-
setts Press, 1987.
Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Re-
cent Trends. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, March 1984.
and P.L.M. Veneman. Hydric Soils of New England.
Bulletin C-183. Amherst: University of Massachusetts,
Cooperative Extension, May 1987.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Mitigation
Symposium: A National Workshop on Mitigating Loss of
76
Fish and Wildlife Habitats. Proceedings of the workshop,
July 16-20,1979, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colo. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office,
1979.
U.S. Department of the Interior. "The Value of Wetlands to
Modern Society." In Proceedings of Project MAR Con-
ference, November 12-16,1962. International Union for
the Conservancy of Nature Publication, New Series No.
3,57-63.
and Department of Commerce. 1980 National Survey
of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife -Associated Recreation.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bu-
reau of the Census, 1982.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Concept Plan for Waterfowl
Wintering Habitat Preservation. Central Valley Califor-
nia. Portland, Ore.: The Service, Region 1, 1977.
Agricultural Resources and Wetland Changes, 1972-
1980, Palm Beach County, Florida. National Wetlands In-
ventory, St. Petersburg, Florida. 1982. Unpublished
mimeo.
Report of the Waterfowl Habitat Strategy Team.
Draft, 1984.
U.S. Water Resources Council. The Nation's Water
Resources, I975-2000. vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Water Resources Council, 1978.
"Nationwide Analysis Report." In Estimated Flood
Damages. Washington, D.C.: Water Resources Council,
1977, Appendix B.
University of Massachusetts. Ecological Effects of Highway
Fills on Wetlands. Washington, D.C.: National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, National
Academy of Science, Transportation Research Board,
1980.
University of Minnesota, Center for Urban and Regional Af-
fairs. Thematic Maps: Presettlement Wetlands of Min-
nesota and Available Wetlands for Bioenergy Purposes.
Prepared for Minnesota Energy Agency. 1981.
Weller, M. W. Freshwater Marshes: Ecology and Wildlife
Management. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1981.
and C. E. Spatcher. Role of Habitat in the Distribu-
tion and Abundance of Marsh Birds. Species Report No.
43. Ames: Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station, 1965.
Winter, T.C., and M.R. Carr. Hydrologic Setting of
Wetlands in the Cottonwood Lake Area, Stutsman
County, North Dakota. Water Resources Investigations
80-99. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey, 1980.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Wetland Use
in Wisconsin: Historical Perspective and Present Picture.
Madison, Wisc.: Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Standards, Water
Quality Planning Section, 1976.
.I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Section 23.1100. Wetlands - Purpose and Definition. The City Council
of Mound finds that there are wetlands within the City—wh—le-97 as part of the
4 ecosystem, are critical to the health, safety and welfare of the land, animals
and people within the City. Definition for wetlands, "Areas with water standing
within 18 inches below, at or above the soil surface for significant portions
of most years, with soils identified on soil maps and reports as organic, alluvial,
marsh, muck, peat, water or very poorly drained, or with aquatic or semi -aquatic
vegetation dominant". These wetlands, if preserved and maintained, constitute
important physical, aesthetic, recreational and economic assets for existing and
future residents of the City. Therefore, the purposes of this district are:
1. To provide for the protection, preservation, proper maintenance
and use of specified wetlands. -
2. To minimize the disturbance to them as to present damage from
excessive sedimentation, eutrophication or poilution.
3. To prevent loss of fish and other aquatic organisms, wildlife
and vegetation and the habitats of the same.
4. To provide for the protection of the City's fresh water supplies
from the dangers of drought, overdraft, pollution or mismanagement.
5. To reduce the financial burdens imposed upon the community through
rescue and relief efforts occasioned by the occupancy or use of
areas subject to periodic flooding and prevent loss of life,
property damage and the loses and risks associated with flood
conditions. -
6. To preserve the location, character and extent of natural drainage
courses.
Section -23.1105. Authority. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 462:357, 459.20, 378-31, , Subd. i1, and Chapter 105, the City of Mound
does adopt district boundaries and a map showing said wetland boundaries; and
regulations and controls for all designated wetlands within the City.
Section 23.1110. Wetlands Boundaries. The wetlands as hereinafter
defined shall apply to wetland areas which are specifically delineated on the
Official Wetlands Map of.the City of Mound which is attached hereto and adopted
as a part of this ordinance. For the purposes of -determining the application
of this wetlands ordinance to any particular parcel of land or water, the above
referenced map and accompanying table listing the Ordinary High Water mark and
water elevation shall be on file in the office of the City Manager and shall be
available for inspection and copying. (ORD. 469. 10-9-84)
Section 23.1115. Wetland Permit. Except as hereinafter provided in
this ordinance, no person shall perform any development in a wetland without
first having obtained a wetland permit (hereinafter referred to as "Permit")
from the City of Mound. Development shall include the construction, installation
or alteration of any structure; the clearing or altering of vegetation or land
and the division of land into two or more parcels.
Section 23.1120. Exceptions. The permit requirement established by
this ordinance shall not apply to:
A. Emergency work necessary to preserve life or property. When
emergency work is performed under this section the person
performing it shall report the pertinent facts relating to
the work to the City Manager prior to the commencement of
work. The City Manager shall review the facts and -determine
whether an emergency exists and shall, by written memorandum,
-65-
i•aai'.tl is�HlF !':';:w'v;ahic'sdt Appendix B
authorize the commencement of the emergency exception. A
person commenciog emergency work shall, within.ten days
following the commencement of that activity, apply -for the
issuance of a Permit. The issuance 'thereof, may require the
permittee to perform such work as is determined to be
reasonably necessary to correct any impairment to the wetland
occasioned by such work.
B. The repair or maintenance of any lawful. use -of land existing on
the date of adoption.of this ordinance.
Section 23.1125.. Application for Processing of Permit.
A. A separate application for a Permit shall be made to the City
of Mound for each development activity fcr•which a Permit is
required: Only one application need be made for two or more
such acts which are to be done simultaneously on the same parcel.
'The application shall include a map of the site, a plan of the
proposed development and the estimated cost•of development.
Other engineering data•such as surveys and other descriptive
information are also required. In order to determine the effects
of such development of the wetland the City Council may require
additional information including•but not limited to the following:
1. A specific description of the type, amount and location of
the development.
2. A description of the ecological characteristics of the wetland.
3. A conservation plan describing actions to be taken to
mitigate any detrimental effects.of development.
4. Maps and data on soils, water table and flood capacity of the
wetland.
When the proposed development includes the construction or
alterations'of a structure, two sets of plans thereof shall be
submitted with the application.
B. The permit application shall be processed according to the
procedures specified in Section 23.505 of the Zoning Ordinance
which pertains -to processing of conditional use permits. The
Permit may be processed at the same time and in connection with
the processing of -an application for a building permit or any
other permit required by ordinance of the City of Mound.
Section 23.1130. Permit Standards. No -permit shall be issued unless
the City of Mound finds and determines that the proposed development complies
with the following standards:
A. Filling.. A minimum amount of -filling may be allowed when
.necessary but in no case shall the following restrictions on
-total amount of filling be exceeded. Since the total amount
of filling which can be permitted is limited, the City, when
considering Permit applications, shall consider the equal
apportionment of fill opportunity.to riparian land owners.
-66-
•r`
Appendix B \ _ l
1. Total filling shall .not cause the -total natural flood
' storage capacity -of. the wetland to fall below the projected -
vol'ume of runoff -from the .whole developed wet land .watershed
-generated by.a si'x (6) inch rainfall in twenty-four (24)
hours.
2. Only fill free of.chemical pollutants'and.organic wastes
may be used.
3. Wetlands• -shall not be used-Jor solid waste di"sposal.'
B. •-Dredging:. Dredging may be-aliowed only when a boat channel Is
i
.
required for access •to •a: ,navi.gable lake; for a marina or when It
-will not have a substantial or significantly adverse effect upon
the ecological• and hydrological characteristics -of the wetland.
Dredging; when allowed, shall be limited as follows:
.1. tt shall be located.so•as to maximize.the activity in the
areas of -lowest vegetation density. .
2; It sliall. not significantly change the water flow characteristics.
-3. The s.i•ze of .the• dredged area s_hail be limited to the absolute
minimum.• ..
4. Disposal.of•the dredged'materiai shall not result In a
-si gni f i.cant -change.-In the current flow,. or- In. a substandi•al l
-destruction of --vegetation, fish spawning areas'or water.
pollution.
5.
-Work-In -the *Wetland •wi l 1. not' be perforated duting the breeding
season•ofieater-fowl or fish spawning season: ,
6-. Only one boat: -channel or marina shall be allowed per large-.
• 'scale development.
7.. In other residential' -developments, dredging shall be located•
so as -to .provide .for. the use of boat channels and marinas by
two or more adjacent property owners.
8. The width of the.boat channel -to be dredged shall be no more
than the minimum required for the safe operation of boats
• at minimum operating speed.
C. Discharges.
1. No -part of any .sewage disposal system - requiring ort -land or
In -ground disposal -of waste'shall be located closer than'
150 feet from the normal high water mark unless It Is proven
by the appl.1cant that no effluent will immediately or
gradually -reach -the wetland because of existing characteristics
of the site or system.
2. Organic waste which would normally -be disposed of at a solid
waste disposal site or which would normally be discharged into
a sewage disposal system or sewer shall not be directly or
Indirectly discharged to the wetland.
3. Stormwater runoff from -construction sites may be directed to
the wetland only when substantially free of silt, debris and
chemical pollutants and only at rates which will not
disturb vegetation or increase turbidity.
D. Building constraints.
1. The lowest floor level or basement
least three feet above the ordinary
wetlands. (ORD. 469 10-9-84)
-67-
elevation shall be at
high water mark of the
�. t.,.# ,�• "�t.. rr,Y ;I•iM.{Y1..F Appendix B
2. Development which';will result in unusual road maintenance
costs 'or -utility 1 i ne breakages due to said limitations,
• including' high frost action shall not be permitted. (ORD1.0 964)
E. Vegetation. No wetland vegetation may be removed or altered
except that reasonable required for the placement of structures
and use of property. ,
Section 23.1135• Conditions:• A Permit may br-.approved subject to
compliance with reasonable conditions which are specifically set forth in the
Permit -and are necessary to insure compliance with the requirements contaified
In this district. Such conditions may include butare not limited to the
following:
1. Uinitation'of the size, kind or character of the proposed work.
2. Require the construction of other'structures.
3; Require replacement of -vegetation.
4. Establish required monitoring procedures and maintenance activity.
5. Stage the work beer time.
6. Require the alteration of the site design to ensure buffering.
7. Require the.provision of'a performance bond.
8. Require the conveyance to the City of Mound or another public
entity of certain -lands or interest therein.
The dimensional requirements of -the underlying zoning district(s) may be
modified in furtherance of the purpose of this ordinance by express condition
contained in the Permit.. .
Section 23.1140. Time -of Permit. A'permittee shall begin the work
authorized by the Permit within sixty 0 days from the date of issuance of
the Permit unless a different. -date for the commencement of work is set forth
In the Permit. The- permittee shall complete the work authorized by the
Permit within the time limits. specified in.the Permit which in -no event shall
exceed more than twelve (12) months from the date of issuance. The permittee
shall notify the Building Official at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to
commencement of work.
Should the work not be commenced as specified herein, the Permit shall become
void.
A. Extensions.. if, prior to the date established for commencement
of work, -the permittee makes written request to the City Manager
or his disignated agent for an extension -of time to commence the
work, setting forth the reasons for -the required extension, the
administrator may grant such extension.
B. Renewals. A permit which -has become void may be renewed at the,
discretion of the City Council upon payment of a renewal fee.
If the City Council does -not grant such renewal a Permit for
such work maybe granted -only upon compliance with the.
procedures herein established •for•an original application.
C. Notice .of comp-letion.' A permittee shall notify the City Manager
or his designated agent in writing when he has finished the work.
No work.shall be deemed to have been completed until approved in
writing by the City -Manager or his designated agent following.
such written notification.
-68-
Appendix B —I
D. Inspection. .The City may require inspections of the work to be
• made. periodically during the course thereof by a member- of the • -
City of Mound staff and -shall cause a final inspection to be**
made following 'the completion.of the work. .The permittee shall.
assist the administrator in making such inspections.
Section 23.1'145. Responsibility: Effect. -
A. Responsibility. Neither the issuance of a Permit nor compliance
with the condttions thereof, nor -compliance with' this provisions of
this ordInance•she 11 relieve any -persons from•any responsibility
otherwise 'Imposed by law for damage to persons or, property. The
Issuance of any. permit hereunder shal F not serve to impose any
1 i ab i i i ty on the City of Mound or Its officers -or employees for...
injury or damage to persons or property.` A. Permit Issued' .
.pursuant - to this -ordinance shall not relieve -the . permittee .of
the responsibility -of complying with any other requirements .
established by law, regulation or ordinance.
B.. •Special assessment. The land within a designated -wetlands district
.area for- which a- development. or other restrictive easement is
conveyed to the City shall not be subject to special assessments
levied'by.the City to pay, the costs -or puslic water, .sewer,
.curb, gutter or other public municipal' Improvements 'for which
such assessments a re. authorized•.pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 429. -
C. Variance.- The City Council may,.authorize In specific cases
�. fol lowing .appeal -and hearing- a variance from the provisions of
this ordinance where the literal application of the ordinance
would.result -In substantial inequitable hardship .to an applicant
property owner. kn-assessing hardship the City Council'shall•
balance the severity of the physical, social and economic effects
.of the literal- application against- the .interests of the City in
effecting the purposes of this ordinance as expressed above.
Economic considerations.alone shall not constitute a hardship if
a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the
ordinance. ' No variance may be granted which would allow any.use'
that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject
property Is. -located.: A -variance shall be granted in writing
accompanied by specific findings of fact as. to -the necessity for
the grant of the -variance and its specific provisions. A variance
request shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 23.506 of the Mound -City Zoning Ordinance.
Section 23.1150. fees. The City -Council may establish by '
resolution fees for-rezonings, variances, permits,. conditional use permits,
special permits or other actions requiring administrative time or public
expenditures under any section of the zoning ordinance. (Ord. #429 - 8-16-82)
-69-
MISSIOM.STATEMEMT
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Plymouth - "a city in a country setting" - represents a unique, complementary
blend of residential, business, industrial and open space. Comprising nearly 36
square miles, Plymouth is a growing second tier suburban community of almost
52,000 persons. Our natural amenities feature numerous lakes, marshes, ponds,
woodlands and hills. The community boasts a strategic geographic location in the
metropolitan area and is served by a well developed regional transportation
system.
To enhance our desirable natural environment, the government of Plymouth provides
an appropriate level of services to its residents, business community and visitors
at comparatively.reasonable costs. The City operates on a "lean staff philosophy"
promoting performance principles coupled with merit compensation and retention of
the best qualified performers. To complement personnel resources the City has
adopted a philosophy of acquiring and maintaining modern, up-to-date date tools
and capital equipment to accomplish city work objectives.
The following objectives constitute the mission of the City of Plymouth:
I. Suitable Housing and Environment - The City will promote the development of
a variety of quality affordable housing for various income levels through
the development approval process and through Housing and Redevelopment
Authority activity. In addition to meeting the above criteria, residential
developments are to harmoniously integrate with the natural environmental
qualities of the community to provide for an impression of rural living in
an urban setting.
II. Economic Vitality - With the assistance of periodic analysis, the City will
encourage the economic vitality through a diversified economic base,
balanced commerce, industry and residential population, and the availability
of a broad range of employment opportunities for residents and non-residents
alike. In accomplishing this goal the City will promote efficient land use
and the continued development and maintenance of a solid property tax base.
III. Security - The City will enact, maintain and administer policies and
ordinances which assure the safety and health of the individual and
preservation of property consistent with maintaining quality of life in the
community and protecting the natural living environment of Plymouth.
IV. Access through Municipal Infrastructure - The City will promote orderly
development through advanced planning for municipal water and sewer exten-
sions, storm water drainage improvements and street roadway systems. This
planning will be supplemented by fiscal analysis to assess and plan for the
impact of extending new while replacing existing facilities.
V. Human Development - A broad range of educational and learning, leisure time
opportunities and experiences will be offered for residents in cooperation
with other area agencies in utilizing available municipal buildings and
recreation facilities.
VI. Fiscal Resources - Long range fiscal planning, as well as monitoring of
current fiscal activity, will be a continuing high priority. The careful
management of fiscal resources will facilitate the City's ability to attain
its objectives.
ROBERT I. LANG
ROGER A. PAULY
DAVID H. GREGERSON*
RICHARD F. ROSOW
MARK J. JOHNSON
JOSEPH A. NILAN
JOHN W. LANG, CPA
LEA M. De SOUZA
JEFFREY C. APPELQUIST•
JUDITH K. DUTCHER
BARBARA M. ROSS
WILLIAM R. MILLER
LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4400 IDS CENTER
80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE: (612) 338-0755
FAX: (612) 349-6718
February 27, 1990
•Aho Amhmimd to
F.ut= U. is wamsin
Mr. Frank Boyles
Assistant City Manager
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
EDEN PRAIRIE OFFICE
SUITE 370
250 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE; MINNESOTA 55344
(612) 829-735$ ; `; f�
RE: Appeal of Medicine Lake Bus Company to UTMA
Dear Mr. Boyles:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Appeal of Medicine Lake
Bus Company along with the letter sent to the MTC by UMTA. I
was informed by MTC's attorney that the deadline for responses
is March 14, 1990.
. Southwest Metro Transit Commission intends to file a state-
ment in support of the MTC's position that it is permitted to
bid both its marginal and fully allocated costs. We feel that
requiring the MTC to bid only fully allocated costs would arti-
ficially inflate the costs of providing the service by the MTC
and may eliminate them from competition with private providers.
Our concern is that the lack of competition from the MTC could
result in higher costs by private providers.
I have been in contact with the City of Maple Grove and was
advised they will file a statement in support of the MTC's posi-
tion. As the decision by UMTA could have long term consequences
for cities in the metropolitan area, and the City of Plymouth
was mentioned in Medicine Lake's appeal, we felt you should be
given an opportunity to respond. If you have any comments or
questions, please, let me know.
Sincerely,
LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD.
BY
BMR/krj Barbara M. Ross
Enclosure
cc Beverley Miller
f b2-27
Q
US. Department
of Transportation
Urban Mass
Transportation
Administration
Headquarters
John Capell, Chief Administrator
Metropolitan Transit Commission
560 Sixth Avenue North
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411-4398
Dear Mr. Capell:
400 7th Street S.W.
Washington. D.C. 20590
Re: Medicine Lake Bus Company v.
Metropolitan Transit Commission,
MN -01/01/90
Please find enclosed a copy of a complaint filed with the Urban
Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) by the Medicine Lake Bus
Company (Medicine Lake). The complaint alleges that the
Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) has violated the private
sector provisions of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as
amended (UMT Act), and the implementing guidance.
The complaint specifically alleges that the MTC bid both its
marginal and its fully allocated cost on a potential contract to
provide service for the Southwest Metro Transit Commission (SMTC),
and that the MTC was awarded the contract on a marginal cost
basis. Medicine Lake contends that the MTC's entry into this
contract on a marginal cost basis constitutes a use of its Federal
subsidy to compete unfairly with private operators, in violation
of Sections 3(e) and 8(e) of the UMT Act.
UMTA finds that Medicine Lake's allegations state a complaint
under UMTA's private sector policy. Under the procedure set out
in UMTA's Private Sector Policy Notice, 49 Fed. Req. 41310
(October 22, 1984), and in UMTA Circular 7005.1, "Guidance on
Documentation of Private Sector Participation in the Urban Mass
Transportation Program," January 24, 1986, a complainant must
exhaust his local dispute resolution process before filing a
complaint with UMTA. Medicine Lake indicates that it has
exhausted its local remedies.
You will have thirty (30) days from receipt of this letter to file
a response. The complainant will then have thirty (30) days to
submit a rebuttal. UMTA will endeavor to issue a decision within
thirty (30) days thereafter.
0
If both parties so request in writing, UMTA will shorten the time
periods specified above in order to expedite this proceeding.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, you may
address them to Rita Daguillard at 202/366-1936.
Sincerely,
Steven A. Diaz
Chief Counsel
Enclosure .
cc: Edward U. Pluimer, Esq.
Linda Hart, URO -5
030 PARK AVENUE
NEW YOIIZ. NEW TORE 10022
('--12).113-9200
1030 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. N. W.
WABHCIGTON, D. C. 20036
(202)537-0700
0 GRACECIIURCH STREET
LONDON EC3V OAT, ENGLAND
01-929-3334
36. RUE TRONCNET
73009 PARIS, FRANCE
01-42-66- 59-49
FAR EAST FINANCE CE%TER
Zolfo KONG
852-3-66122533
DORSEY & WHITNEY
A PA -ma HIP ["CLODS" Pscr 9OK" CMMISATwss
2-000 FIRST BANK PLACE EAST
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402
(612) 340-2600
TELEX 29-0603
fAX (612)340-2868
EDWARD J. PLUIMER
(612)340-2973
January 12, 1990
Steven A. Diaz
_ Chief Counsel
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
Room 9316
400 7th Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
17167 "j . UCS' - 4
3410 FIRST NATIONAL EANX HUILDINO
ROCHESTER, XINNE80TA 33903
(307)288-3156
313 FIRST NATIONAL HAYX HUILDINO
WAYZATA, XINNEBOTA 33391
(612)473-0.773
WOO FIRST INTERSTATE CE\TER
EILLINOS. XONTANA 39103
(406)252-3800
201 DAVIDSON BUILDING
OREAT FALL8. XONTANA 39401
(406)727-3832
127 EAST FRONT STREET
x188oULL,XON=NA 39802
(4061721-6025
Re: Medicine Lake Bus Company v. Metropolitan Transit
Commission, and Southwest Metro Transit Commission
Dear Mr. Diaz:
Enclosed please find Medicine Lake Bus Company's Private Sector
Appeal on the award of the Southwest Metro Transit Commission's Route 53
Express Transit Service contract to the Metropolitan Transit Commission.
Although we were advised by Rita Daguillard that Medicine Lake Bus
Company did not need to serve the Metropolitan Transit Commission and the
Southwest Metro Transit Commission, we will forward - to counsel for the
Respondents courtesy copies of Medicine Lake Bus Company's Appeal Brief without
Exhibits. Ms. Daguillard indicated that UMTA will formally notify the Respondents
of this Appeal and provide them with copies of Medicine Lake Bus Company's
Appeal Brief and Exhibits.
Very truly yours,
Edward J. Pluimer
EJP:cas
Enclosure
CC Michael D. Christenson, Esq.
Roger Pauly, Esq.
t
In the Matter of:
Medicine Lake Bus Company,
Appellant,
VS.
• mj- j m
Metropolitan Transit Commission;
and Southwest Metro Transit
Commission,
Respondents.
File No.
APPEAL OF
MEDICINE LAKE
BUS COMPANY
TO: Steven A. Diaz
Chief Counsel
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
Room 9316
400 7th Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
Medicine Lake Bus Company, for its Private Sector Appeal before the
Urban Mass Transportation Administration, alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
This dispute implicates the fundamental policies of the Urban Mass
Transportation Act ("Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, and of the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration C UMTA" ). UMTA's decision in this case will play a pivotal role in
defining the extent of private enterprise participation in the mass transportation
market.
The Regional Transit Board ("RTB" ), the agency empowered with final
authority over mass transportation matters in Minnesota, has interpreted UMTA
policy to permit the award of mass transit contracts to federal funds recipients on a
- =F CP
marginal cost basis. This interpretation is untenable. It erodes the very
underpinnings of the Act, which prohibits the use of federal funds to hinder the
t,
maximum participation of private enterprise in the mass transportation
procurement process. - UMTA must send a clear message to federal funds recipients
that they must bid, and enter into, mass transportation contracts only on a fully -
allocated cost basis. This message will steer the RTB, as well as its sister agencies in
other states, into adopting mass transportation procurement guidelines which are
consistent with and will further federal policy. It will also dispose of the purported
ambiguities currently relied on by federal funds recipients in their efforts to
circumvent the mandates of UMTA guidance and to gain an unfair competitive
advantage over private enterprise. For these reasons, Medicine Lake requests that
�- UMTA review this dispute.
In particular, Medicine Lake requests that UMTA:
(1) find that according to UMTA policy, the Metropolitan Transit
Commission ("MTC") should have bid only its fully -allocated costs when
competing against private transit companies for the Southwest Metro Transit
Commission ("SMTC") Route 53 service;
(2) find that according to UMTA policy, the MTC can contract for the
SMTC Route 53 service only on a fully -allocated cost basis;
(3) find that according to UMTA policy, the MTC must disclose to
Medicine Lake, or a neutral third -party, the financial information necessary to verify
the accuracy of the MTC's fully -allocated cost bids for the SMTC Route 53 service;
2
(4) order this dispute remanded to the RTB for further proceedings _
consistent with these findings;
(5) withhold UMTA funds from the MTC or, take such other action
as may be necessary to ensure compliance with this order;
(6) alternatively, if UMTA finds, for any reason, it lacks jurisdiction
over this dispute, that UMTA treat this Appeal as a request for an advisory opinion
on the issues raised by questions (1), (2) and (3); and
(7) provide any further relief UMTA may deem just and equitable.
Attached as Exhibits to and made part of this appeal are Medicine Lake
Bus Company' submissions to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission, the
Transit Dispute Resolution Board and the Regional Transit Board, relating to these
t issues. Medicine Lake Bus Company incorporates in this Appeal the arguments and
contentions made previously and reflected in the Exhibits.
BACKGROUND
On April 20, 1989, the Southwest Metro Transit Commission ("SMTC")
initiated the procurement process for the Route 53 Express Transit Service for the
cities of Eden Prairie, Chaska and Chanhassen, Minnesota.. See Exhibit B at p. 2. The
terms of the bidding and award of the Route 53 contract are the subject of this
Appeal. All parties involved in this dispute, except Medicine Lake Bus Company
("Medicine Lake"), are direct or indirect UMTA beneficiaries. The MTC receives
substantial funding from UMTA for operating and capital costs. UMTA funds are
used to subsidize the MTC's buses and facilities. The RTB is also a significant
3
recipient of UMTA funds. And the SMTC is an indirect UMTA recipient because
the SMTC currently receives UMTA-subsidized service (through the MTC) for the
Route 53 service, and because the SMTC will undoubtedly benefit from the UMTA
funds received by the MTC if permitted to contract with the MTC at a marginal cost
basis. See Exhibit G at p. 1; May 6, 1988 letter from Alfred A. DelliBovi, UMTA
Administrator to Elliot Perovich, RTB Chairperson, attached at Exhibit D, tab 9
(stating that UMTA considers the SMTC service to be federally subsidized); Exhibit F
at p. 4.
On August 7, 1989, the SMTC received proposals from Medicine Lake
and the MTC. The MTC submitted both fully -allocated and marginal cost proposals.
On August 17, 1989, the SMTC awarded the Route 53 contract to the MTC pursuant
r to the MTC's marginal cost bid. See Exhibit B at pp. 4-6.
On August 24, 1989, Medicine Lake filed a formal protest with the
SMTC, as required by the RTB's local transit dispute resolution process. See
Exhibit A. On October 2, 1989, the SMTC affirmed the award of the Route 53 contract
to the MTC at its marginal cost. The SMTC's opinion is attached as Exhibit B.
On October 12, 1989, Medicine Lake requested a hearing before the
Transit Dispute Resolution Board ("Board") to appeal the SMTC's decision. See
Exhibit C. The Board renders recommendations to the RTB on transit dispute
matters. Medicine Lake argued that the bidding and award of the Route 53 contract
on a marginal cost basis violated the Urban Mass Transportation Act and UMTA .
guidance. Medicine Lake also disputed the accuracy of the MTC's bids and requested
4
that the Board remand that question to the SMTC, and require the MTC to disclose
to Medicine Lake, or a neutral third -party, the financial information necessary to
verify whether the MTC's bids reflected the MTC's true costs.l On November 6,
1989, the Board heard Medicine Lake's appeal. On that date, Medicine Lake
submitted the materials attached as Exhibits D and E. The Board allowed the parties
to submit supplemental materials. Medicine Lake's supplemental submission is
attached as Exhibit F. On November 28,1989, the Board recommended that the RTB
affirm the SMTC's decision to award the Route 53 contract on a marginal cost basis.
See Exhibit G. The Board agreed not to consider, at that time, Medicine Lake's
factual dispute (the accuracy of the MTC bids), but failed to remand the question to
the SMTC.
On November 30, 1989, the RTB Policy Committee recommended
adoption of the Board's decision. See Exhibit H. On December 18, 1989, the RTB
formally affirmed the decision of the SMTC to award the Route 53 contract to the
MTC on a marginal cost basis. The minutes of the meeting, certified on January 2,
1990, are attached as Exhibit I. The RTB's decision exhausted Medicine Lake's
1 Medicine Lake also argued that the SMTC's actions violated RTB
Guidelines. See Exhibits D, E and F. This issue is not directly before UMTA. It
should be noted, however, that it is the RTB's apparent purpose to make its
Guidelines consistent with UMTA policy. See Exhibit D at tab 7. In this regard, the
Transit Dispute Resolution Board's recommendation for more specific RTB
Guidelines and the current contemplated revision by the RTB of the Guidelines
further underscore the necessity of Medicine Lake's Appeal and of UMTA's
expedited intervention in this matter. See Exhibit G at pp. 4-5.
5
administrative remedies, prior to this request that UMTA review and set aside the
challenged action.
REQUEST FOR AN EXPEDITED
UMTA REVIEW
Medicine Lake requests that UMTA review this appeal on an expedited
basis for the following reasons: First, the Route 53 service was to commence on
January 2, 1990, the expiration date of the SMTC's current contract with the MTC.2
Secondly, the RTB is about to revise the marginal/fully-allocated cost provisions of
its Guidelines for the Competitive Procurement of Transit Service (excerpts attached
at Exhibit D, tab 7), pursuant to the Board's recommendation that these need to be
defined more specifically. Third, the SMTC's decision to accept alternative marginal
cost bids and award a contract on a marginal cost basis was not an isolated event.
The question continues to arise in a number of other situations, resulting in further
violations of federal policy. For example, on December 18, 1989, the City of Maple
Grove, Minnesota, decided to contract with the MTC, based on the MTC's marginal
cost proposal, to provide transit services to commence on April 1, 1990. The MTC's
marginal cost proposal was the lowest bid. However, Medicine Lake submitted two
proposals which were both lower than the MTC's fully -allocated cost proposal.
Medicine Lake is currently appealing through the local process the City of Maple
Grove's acceptance of the MTC's marginal cost bid. See Exhibit J. Likewise, the staff
2 Because of the bid verification question, Medicine Lake suggested that
the current SMTC-MTC contract for Route 53 service be extended for a period long
enough to permit bid verification. See Exhibit F at pp. 5-6. This request was denied.
6
of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, has recommended awarding a transit contract
to the MTC based on a marginal cost bid. In response to Medicine Lake's objection
that such an award would violate the Urban Mass Transportation Act and UMTA
guidance, the City of Plymouth staff specifically noted:
The Dispute Resolution Board, and advisory body of the
RTB, has found that marginal cost proposals may be
considered. Southwest Metro [the SMTC] has recently
awarded a contract [to the] MTC on the basis of the
marginal cost proposal.
Service under the City of Plymouth contract is also due to begin on April 1, 1990.
See Exhibit J. The snowball effect of the Board's decision warrants expedited UMTA
review.
ARGUMENT
L According to UMTA policy, the MTC should have bid only its fully -
allocated costs when comPetine for the SMTC Route 3 ervice.
The MTC submitted alternative and independent marginal cost bids
and fully -allocated cost bids to the SMTC for the Route 53 service. Medicine Lake
argued that the submission of marginal cost bids, taking advantage of federal
subsidies, created an unfair competitive advantage in favor of the MTC. See Exhibit
D at tab 1; Exhibit E at pp. 1-6. The MTC's position, adopted by the Board, was that
while the MTC was required to submit a fully -allocated cost proposal, it was not
precluded from also submitting marginal cost proposals, and it was not precluded
from entering into a contract on a marginal cost basis. The Board's decision notes
that "UMTA rules require 'fully -allocated cost' bids" (emphasis added). However,
the Board, rather inconsistently, also stated, immediately thereafter:
7
In this case, the MTC did disclose its fully -allocated costs
.r• - and, under the circumstances, the [Board] finds that this
satisfies the spirit of the fully -allocated cost proposal and
"bid" requirements.
See Exhibit G at p. 2 (emphasis added).- It is one thing to say that all proposals must
be fully -allocated. It is quite another to say that some proposals must be fully -
allocated and that other alternative proposals may be submitted on a marginal cost
basis. In the second instance, the bid -requesting party is given the alternative of
choosing between marginal cost bids and fully -allocated cost bids. This alternative
does not exist in the first instance. It is this ability to chose between marginal and
fully -allocated costs that taints the whole bidding process, is unfair to private
enterprise, and is contrary to federal policy. Under UMTA guidance, the MTC
should have submitted only fully -allocated proposals to the SMTC, and can enter
l . into a transit contract only on a fully -allocated cost basis.
Common sense instructs that an UMTA recipient's submission of a
marginal cost proposal precludes any serious consideration of the UMTA recipient's
higher, fully -allocated cost proposal by the party requesting proposals. It is
unrealistic to think that a bidder's real bid -- and the one considered most carefully --
is anything other than its low bid. For the Route 53 service, the MTC's marginal
cost proposal for Option 2 was $651,721 for the first year, and its alternative fully -
allocated cost proposal was $856,452. Over the 3 -year term of the contract, the
difference between the MTC's marginal and fully -allocated cost proposals was
almost $615,000. The existence of the alternative marginal cost bid makes the
consideration of the fully -allocated cost proposal merely illusory.
Chi
The Respondents attempted to dispose of the problem by stating that
both the MTC's marginal cost and fully -allocated cost bids were lower than Medicine
Lake's bids.3 The Respondents' position does not avoid, but instead merely delayed
the issue. As noted above, this problem has re=surfaced in the current City of Maple
Grove and City of Plymouth bid procurement. To illustrate, the MTC and Medicine
Lake proposals for combined service are as follows (for the three year period);
MTC Marginal Cost ....................... $4,247254
Medicine Lake Option #1 .................. $4,495,246
Medicine Lake Option #2 .................. $4,567,746
MTC Fully -allocated Cost ................... $5,337,660
In light of the MTC's marginal cosf proposal, there is no reason why the City of
Maple Grove and ' the City of Plymouth should seriously consider MTC's fully -
allocated cost proposal. Further, the City of Maple Grove admits that it "cannot
afford" the MTC's fully -allocated cost bid. See Exhibit J. If the MTC were to follow
UMTA policy and not submit a marginal cost bid, it is clear that Medicine Lake's
proposals would be accepted.
Under federal law and UMTA policy, the MTC should have submitted,
and entered into contracts based upon, only fully -allocated cost proposals when in
competition with a private provider. Section 3(e) of the Urban Mass Transportation
3 This argument fails because the inclusion of MTC's marginal cost bid
tainted the entire process envisioned by federal policy. The Board cannot by
postcript attempt to correct the unfair competitive environment into which
Medicine Lake was forced by the MTC's submission of an alternative marginal cost
bid. Moreover, this argument assumes the accuracy of the figures submitted by the
MTC. Medicine Lake's challenge to the accuracy of the MTC's proposals and the
need for verification was conveniently rejected.
9
= (P
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, prohibits the use of federal funds to hinder the maximum
participation of private enterprise in the mass transportation bidding market. See
Exhibit D at tab 5. This prohibition reflects the federal policy that local
decisionmakers should "fully and fairly consider the private sector's capacity to
provide needed transportation services." See 49 Federal Register, No. 205, p. 41311
(1984), Exhibit D at tab 6. Medicine Lake's competing proposals cannot be fully and
fairly considered when juxtaposed with bids from the MTC that take unfair
advantage of federal funds to underbid Medicine Lake.
The UMTA decision in In the Matter of Yellow Cab Co. v. TAUNT, Inc.,
dated June 30, 1988, specifically states at page 9:
UMTA holds that when an [UMTA] recipient bids on
service requested by third parties, the recipient must bid
its fully -allocated costs if the provision of that service will
involve the use of UMTA assistance.
See Exhibit D at tab 4; see also letter from A. DelliBovi, -UMTA Administrator, to
Philip A. McGuire, Director of Transit Marketing, Laidlaw Transit, Inc. dated,
January 3, 1989, Exhibit D at tab 3. In this case, the MTC had ample notice of
UMTA's policy, and deliberately chose to ignore it. After learning that the MTC had
submitted marginal cost proposals to the SMTC, Joel P. Ettinger, UMTA Chief
Director, wrote to John Capell, MTC Chief Administrator, on October 13, 1989, and
reiterated earlier advice to the MTC that UMTA's policy is that "grantees must bid
only their fully -allocated costs when competing to provide services to third parties."
See Exhibit D at tab 2 (emphasis added). Alfred A. DelliBovi, had written earlier to
Elliot Perovich, RTB Chairman, on May 6, 1988, and stated:
10
Since the MTC's equipment and facilities are funded by UMTA,
we consider the SMTC service to be federally subsidized. By being
federally subsidized and not showing fully allocated costs in their bids,
the MTC has an unfair advantage over the private sector, is in direct
competition with the private sector and violates UMTA Private Sector
Policy.
See Exhibit D at tab 9. On December 9, 1986, Elliot Perovich, RTB Chairman,
admitted in a letter to Joel P. Ettinger, UMTA administrator, that "the MTC, as a
federal grant recipient, should have been aware of UMTA Private Sector Policy and
should have represented its fully allocated costs to [the SMTC]. The
MTC acknowledges that it did not count the 80 -percent federal share cost for
vehicles and facilities in its bids." See Exhibit F (emphasis added). Mr. DelliBovi did
not instruct Mr. Perovich that the MTC needed to show fully -allocated costs in only
some of its bids. Nevertheless, the Board's decision concludes that the "real
t. problem in this area is the vagueness" of UMTA policies. See Exhibit G at p. 3.
UMTA must again indicate that the MTC's submission of marginal cost bids
violated UMTA policy and dispose of this purported "vagueness", which is nothing
but an attempt to utilize federal subsidies to keep private providers out of the local
mass transportation market.
L According to UMTA policy, the MTC can contract for the SMTC Route
rvice only on afully-allocated cost bac is
Medicine Lake also disputed the award of the Route 53 contract to the
MTC on a marginal cost basis, as contrary to UMTA policy. The requirement that
the MTC bid only its fully -allocated costs necessarily implies that the MTC also be
required to contract on a fully -allocated basis. The Board held that "UMTA has sent
11
out mixed signals on this issue, never really clarifying its position." See Exhibit G at
p. 3. The Board's decision was based on the Board's finding that there "apparently"
=4
is no written UMTA policy on this point. Id. This focus was initially raised in the
MTC brief to the Board, dated November 3, 1989, and later by the MTC *at the
hearing. The MTC stated that on November 1, 1989, its counsel had contacted Rita
Daguillard, an UMTA attorney -advisor based at Washington, D.C., and the MTC
alleged that she stated: "We [UMTA] don't have, at this point, a specific written
policy on the issue of whether a grantee which bids fully -allocated costs must also
contract on the basis of fully -allocated costs".
However, the MTC misled the Board through selective disclosure. On
November 3, 1989, Medicine Lake's counsel also contacted Ms. Daguillard. She
.e
indicated that she told MTC's counsel that UMTA did not have a specific written
policy on the issue. However, in all fairness to Ms. Daguillard, MTC's counsel
should have also mentioned that Ms. Daguillard further told MTC's counsel that it
was UMTA's policy that the grantee's contract be awarded only on a fully -allocated
cost basis. The full substance of Ms. Daguillard's conversation was described to the
Board by Medicine Lake counsel, see Exhibit E at p. 6, but to no avail. The Board
subsequently limited the discussion of this issue to a discussion regarding the
wisdom of UMTA's policy, which is irrelevant at the local level. 5ee Exhibit G at pp.
2-4. The Board completely failed to realize that as a matter of law, it must defer to
UMTA's interpretation of the Urban Mass Transportation Act. See Chevron v.
National Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837,843-845 (1984). The Respondents
12
cannot be permitted to use the local process to challenge and judge the wisdom of
UMTA policy. See, Exhibit F at pp. 3-4.
Nevertheless, even if UMTA policy is now re-examined pursuant to
this Appeal, Medicine Lake's interpretation must still prevail. The requirements
that UMTA recipients bid only fully -allocated costs and enter only into fully -
allocated cost contracts are necessarily intertwined, and cannot be separated. As a
practical matter, it would make no sense to find that UMTA recipients must bid
only their fully -allocated costs but can enter into contracts on a marginal cost basis.
If the breakdown of the fully -allocated cost bid discloses the amount of the federal
subsidy, as the Board suggested, see Exhibit G at p. 3, then it potentially permits a
forecast of the marginal cost of the bid. If the bid -requesting party knows that it can
award the contract on a marginal cost basis, then the private enterprise competitor is
necessarily confronted with an unfair bid -procurement situation: the bid -requesting
party could "accept" the fund recipient's fully -allocated cost bid, but then contract on
the lower forecasted marginal cost, practically ignoring the fully -allocated bid. On
the other hand, if the UMTA recipient can only contract on a fully -allocated cost
basis, the bid -requesting party's forecast of the marginal cost bid becomes completely
irrelevant -- because the option to contract on a marginal cost basis simply does not
exist. The requirement that the UMTA reipient contract only on a fully -allocated
cost basis is necessary for the full and fair consideration of private enterprise
participation by local decisionmakers.
13
-
The Board also reasoned that requiring the MTC to contract on a fully -
allocated basis would permit the MTC to "squander" federal subsidies, because "a
number of the fully -allocated costs contained in the bid' will already have been
funded and need not be recovered under the service contract." See Exhibit G at pp. 3-
4. The Board's fears that the MTC would somehow realize undue "profits" are
unfounded. The MTC's operating costs are not fixed, and hence the amounts of
federal and state subsidies need to be periodically reconsidered. The revenue, which
the Board would consider a "profit", would be factored into subsidy calculations and
serve to decrease future funding assistance. In addition, this is not a situation where
federal funds could be readily converted to MTC "profits". UMTA funding to the
MTC consists of more than operating dollars. The MTC's buses and facilities are
funded by UMTA. UMTA retains an 80% security on their liquidation value. See,
letter from Elliot Perovich, RTB Chairperson, to Joel P. Ettinger, UMTA Regional
Administrator, dated December 9, 1986, attached at Exhibit F. Because UMTA
subsidy dollars are disseminated throughout the MTC's operation, it becomes
particularly important that the MTC contract only on a fully -allocated basis.
Otherwise, the MTC, and like agencies with large core operations, would have
considerable potential for keeping proposals low when competing with private
providers for peripheral operations, and masking their higher true costs in their
core operations budget. See Exhibit K. This permits UMTA grantees to use federal
funds as an unfair competitive weapon against private enterprise. Requiring
UMTA grantees to contract only on a fully -allocated basis is needed to assure that
14
=-
UMTA funds are not used to hinder the maximum participation of private
enterprise in the mass transit market.
III The MTC must disclose to Medicine Lake, or a neutral third -party, the
financial information necessary to verify the accuracy of the MTC's
lly-allocated cost bids for the SMTC Route S3 SPTyice
Medicine Lake requested that the MTC disclose to Medicine Lake, or to
a neutral third -party, the financial information necessary to verify the accuracy of
the MTC's fully -allocated bids. Because of the MTC's refusal to release this
information, Medicine Lake argued before the Board that the issue was not ready for
Board review at that time, but that the question should be remanded to the SMTC
and that a fair process for the verification of MTC's bids needed to be established.
See Exhibit G at pp. 9-10; Exhibit F at p. 1. The Board agreed that the verification
i issue was not ready for the Board's review, but otherwise ignored it. It is within the
Power of UMTA to aid Medicine Lake in requesting MTC bid verification. UMTA is
the agency "obligated to ensure that local decisionmakers fully and fairly consider
the private sector's capacity to provide needed transportation services." Federal
Register, No. 205, p. 41311 (1984) (emphasis added). And pursuant to JAUNT this
constitutes a situation where UMTA must consider .the specifics of the local process
and ensure that UMTA guidance is correctly articulated and applied. See TAUNT at
p. 6, Exhibit D at tab 4. A fair verification process is crucial, because verification
permits evaluation of the UMTA grantee's actual compliance with the Urban Mass
Transportation Act.
15
U
Complying with the statutory mandate of full and fair consideration of
private enterprise in the mass transportation market requires that federal subsidies
not be used to oust private providers from the market. UMTA has already made it
clear that UMTA recipients must compete with private providers only on the basis
of fully -allocated costs. Where, as in this case, the UMTA recipient submits
marginal cost bids and is permitted to enter into transit contracts on a marginal cost
basis, both the Urban Mass Transportation Act and UMTA guidance have been
disregarded. UMTA should not permit what has occurred in this case. Moreover, a
fair method of verifying the UMTA recipient's bid must be established, to evaluate
both the accuracy of the numbers submitted and the extent of the UMTA recipient's
.compliance with federal fully -allocated cost policy. Medicine Lake Bus Company
c
hereby respectfully requests that the Urban Mass Transportation Administration
make the findings and grant the relief requested in this Appeal.
Dated: January 12, 1990.
16
DORSEY & WHITNE
By
Edward J. Pluimer
And 1ZW e'
uan C. Baso�io
First Bank Place East
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone: (612) 340-2600
Attorneys for Appellant
Medicine Lake Bus Company
• _ AL1.:_��� �_
A. Letter from James A. Johnson, V.P. Sales and Marketing, Medicine Lake Bus
Company, to Beverly Miller, Administrator, Southwest Metro Transit
Commission, dated August 24, 1989.
B. Decision by the Southwest'Metro Transit Commission on the formal protest
by Medicine Lake Bus Company of the award of the Route 53 Express Transit
Service to the Metropolitan Transit Commission, dated October 2, 1989.
C. Letter from James A. Johnson, V.P. Sales and Marketing, Medicine Lake Bus
Company, to Natalio Diaz, Metropolitan Council, dated October 12,1989.
D. Submission of Medicine Lake Bus Company to the Transit Dispute
Resolution Board for the November 6, 1989 hearing, with exhibits.
E. Medicine Lake Bus Company's Memorandum of Position submitted to the
Transit Dispute Resolution Board, at the November 6,.1989 hearing.
F. Medicine Lake Bus Company's Supplemental Memorandum, with
correspondence attachments submitted to the Transit Dispute Resolution
Board, pursuant to the Board's instructions at the November 6, 1989 hearing
permitting supplemental submission by the parties.
G. Decision of the Transit Dispute Resolution Board in the Appeal by Medicine
Lake Bus Company regarding the Southwest Metro Transit Commission's
award of the Route 53 contract to the Metropolitan Transit Commission,
dated November 28, 1989.
H. Recommendation of the Regional Transit Board Policy Committee, on the
Transit Dispute Resolution Board's decision, to the Regional Transit Board,
dated November 30,1989.
1. Letter from Mary Fitzgerald, Secretary of the Board, Regional Transit Board, to
Juan Basombrio, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney, Medicine Lake Bus Company's
Counsel, dated January 3, 1990; with attached certified minutes of the
Regional Transit Board's December 18, 1989 meeting, dated January 2, 1990.
J. Letter from Diane Dolan, Transportation Coordinator, City of Maple Grove to
James A. Johnson, V.P. Sales and Marketing, Medicine Lake Bus Company,
dated December 14, 1989; with City of Maple Grove's Request for Council
Action, dated December 18,1989.
Letter from Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager, City of Plymouth, to James
A. Johnson, V.P. Sales and Marketing, Medicine Lake Bus Company, dated
December 7, 1989; with Memorandum from Frank Boyles to James G. Willis,
Q.� 1a � Ri,�•yF 'fin '41' +"r^ya :,tn .," Ir4.
City Manager, City of Plymouth, dated December 7, 1989, with selected
attachment: -Combined service bid proposals for the cities of Maple Grove and
Plymouth.
K. Article from the Plymouth Post, Plymouth, Minnesota published the week of
December 18,1989.
2
February 28, 1990
Sally and Bernie Edstrom
17215 27th Avenue No.
Plymouth, MN 55447
SUBJECT: DOG ORDINANCE
Dear Mr. & Mrs.' Edstrom:
Thank you for providing me with a copy of the model dog ordinance and
the minutes from your Chelsea Woods meetings. I have forwarded these
materials to the City Council so that they can consider whether or not they
wish to consider revisions to the Plymouth City Code. I will be providing
the City Council with the information you supplied on Friday, March 2. They
may discuss this matter informally at the March 5 meeting, or may wish to
receive additional input from you at the March 19 forum or meeting. I will
let you know their plans the week of March 5.
For your information, I am attaching paragraphs which the
received with your material introducing them to your proposal.
if you have questions, my telephone number is 550-5013.
?r
FB: jm
cc: 'Mayor & City Council
City Council
Let me know
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
CHELSEA WOODS DOG OWNERS MEETING:
THURSDAY JAN. 11, 1990
PLACE; WAKEFIELD RESIDENCE
INTRODUCTIONS:
JUDY MEYERAAN - CHELSEA WOODS BOARD MEMBER
LIBBY FAIRCHILD
MARILYN HUNTER
BETTE DAWN MORROW
CAROLYN DAHL
JEFFERY MARTIN
ROBIN MARTIN
ROSEMARY HAUGE
BRUCE ENSTAD
BERNIE JACOBSON
DAWN JACOBSON
JOE TAYLOR
MARY LINDGREN
SALLY EDSTROM - ORGANIZER
BERNIE EDSTROM
HOOTIE WAKEFIELD - ORGANIZER
SAM WAI--'EF'I ELD
DOG OWNERS CONCERNS: GENERAL DISCUSSION
1. FECES: _..
. DROPPINGS ON THE TRAILS SEEM TO HAVE INCREASED. BUT
PROBABLY DUE TO MELTING SNOW. ALL AGREE THAT DOG OWNERS
SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PICKING UP AFTER THEIR DOGS,
RECEPTACLES PLACED BY TRAILS WAS DISCUSSED BUT THIS COULD BE
A MAINTENANCE PROBLEM. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS COULD BE NON -
CHELSEA RESIDENTS WALKING THEIR DOGS, PERHAPS SIGNS AT THE
ENTRANCE TO CHELSEA WOODS AND TO TRAILS COULD HELP ALLEVIATE
THIS PROBLEM.
. JUDY WILL CHECK WITH THE BOARD AS TO WHAT OTHER
COMMUNITIES HAVE DONE TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
2. DOGS RUNNING LOOSE:
. DOGS HAVE BEEN SEEN'RUNNING LOOSE WITH NO OWNERS IN
SIGHT. WHILE SOME OF THESE ARE KNOWN CHELSEA WOODS OFFENDERS,
OTHERS SEEM TO BE COMING FROM OUTSIDE CHELSEA WOODS.
3. DOG OWNERS:
. DOG COMPLAINTS ARE CERTAINLY JUSTIFIED IN SOME CASES,
JUDY SAID THAT UPON RECEIVING COMPLAINTS AND TALKING TO SOME
OF THE DOG OWNERS IT HAS NOT ALWAYS ACCOMPLISHED OR SOLVED
ANYTHING.
. IT WAS FELT THAT A FEW NEGLIGENT DOG OWNERS CAN CREATE
PROBLEMS AND SET A NEGATIVE IMAGE FOR THE REST OF THE'DOG
OWNERS WHO TRY TO BE RESPONSIBLE.
._A
DOG OWNERS NOT FAIRLY REPRESENTED:
. IT WAS FELT THAT COMPLAINTS AND COMMENTS BY NON -DOG OWNERS
ARE OFTEN NOT JUSTIFIED, MANY FELT THAT THE SITUATION WAS SAD
ENOUGH THAT THEY WANTED TO MOVE'OUT OF CHELSEA WOODS.
. ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT FORM WAS DISCUSSED. IT WAS FELT THAT
THE PROPER WAY TO HANDLE ANY DOG COMPLAINTS WAS NEIGHBOR TO
NEIGHBOR. IN FACT WHEN CONTACTING THE DOG OWNERS BY PHONE,
MANY STATED THAT WHEN THEIR NEIGHBORS TOLD THEM THERE WAS A
PROBLEM THEY CORRECTED IT, WHEREAS THE ONES THAT HAD BEEN
REPORTED ANONYMOUSLY WERE ANGRY WITH THE METHOD USED.
CONSENSUS WAS THAI' THE ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT FORM DISCOURAGES
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN NEIGHBORS, AND THAT NEIGHBORS NEED TO
LEARN TO APPROACH EACH OTHER IN A FAIR AND POSITIVE MANNER.
. IT WAS AGREED THAT THE DOG OWNERS SHOULD BE MORE ACTIVE IN
THE ASSOCIATION, A GOOD START WOULD BE BY ATTENDING THE BOARD
MEETINGS THE THIRD TUESDAY OF EACH MONTH, CALLING JUDY BEFORE_
HAND IF THEY WISHED TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA, AND ALSO
CONSIDER SERVING AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD.
. STUDIES DONE ON THE POSITIVE INTERACTION BETWEEN PEOPLE AND
DOGS DISTRIBUTED BY THE ANIMAL HUMANE SOCIETY WAS PASSED OUT.
IT WAS AGREED THAT THIS TYPE OF GOOD PUBLICITY WAS NEEDED IN
THE CHELSEA WOODS NEWSLETTER.
CHELSEA WOODS REGULATIONS/PLYMOUTH ORDINANCE:
. CHELSEA WOODS QUOTES CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDINANCE STAND ON
ANIMALS IN THEIR RULES AND REGULATIONS BUT THE WORDING IS
DIFFERENT IN REGARD TO DOGS UNDER CONTROL ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY. JUDY WILL BRING THIS TO THE BOARDS ATTENTION.
. THERE SHOULD BE AN AREA IN THE COMMON GROUNDS WHERE DOGS
COULD BE OFF THEIR LEASH BUT UNDER THE OWNERS COMMAND FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PRACTICING DOG OBEDIENCE.
. A MODEL DOG ORDINANCE PUT OUT BY THE MINNESOTA BREEDERS
ASSOCIATION THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY OTHER COMMUNITIES WAS
PASSED AROUND ALONG WITH THE PLYMOUTH DOG ORDINANCE FOR
COMPARISON. A COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE WILL BE SENT TO THE
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OF PLYMOUTH WHO EXPRESSED AN INTEREST
IN SEEING IT.
POSSIBLE FUTURE OBJECTIVES:
. NEIGHBORS COMPLAINING ABOUT NEIGHBORS ANONYMOUSLY DOES NOT
PROMOTE GOODWILL IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, OTHER WAYS SHOULD BE
t_OOt-*'ED INTO.
. SOME EXPRESSED INTEREST IN HELPING TO TRY TO REVISE AND
UPDATE THE PLYMOUTH DOG ORDINANCE.
. IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT AN ANNUAL MEETING OF THE CHELSEA
WOODS DOG OWNERS BE PLANNED FOR PRIOR TO THE ANNUAL MEETING
OF THE ASSOCIATION.
I - i Kev.. May .l9z
. D MINNESOTA •PUREBRED .DOG -BREEDERS ASSOCIATION.:
MODEL DOG ORDINANCE ' . .
DEFINITIONS -- -The .following ;terms.,shall mean:.
A. r . OWNER = The term ."owner" shall ' mean any person, grow of
persons or corporation owning,. keeping, harboring, having
charge or control.of, or permitting any dog or habitually be -Jet.
or remain on or be lodged or fed within such person s house,
yard or premises for a period of five days or longer. This `~
term shall not apply to veterinarians or kennel operators
temporarily maintaining. .on.their premises.dogs•owned by
others.
B: OWN -term-."own" j
The unless .otherwise specified shall be
deemed to mean keep, harbor, have control, charge or custody
of a dog for a period of five days or longer. This 'term
shall not % apply to veterinar. ans---or kennel owners tem-
porarily maintaining on their.premises dogs owned by others.
C. DOG - The term "dog" shall apply to a canine animal, male or
female, altered or. unaltered.,:.
.D.. STRAY - Any unlicensed dog,the owner of *which is unknown
which is at large. , .., : ,
E..•• AT LARGE - a dog is ."at large" when it .is off the property
of his owner and not under .restraint.
F. RESTRAINT - A dog is under "restraint" within the meaning of
this ordinance if he is controlled by a leash Dx by a
petent•.so and immediately obedient to tha
man or within. -a vehicle being driven* or parked .on the
streets or. within.the property limits.of its owner..
G.. NUISANCE DOG - Any dog .which -by frequent' and habitual howl-
ing,. yelping,,:barking,:or .other, shall cause seftotis an= 4e�.
noyance or disturbance to•.persons or to a neighborhood, P --t
provided -that the provisions of this ordinance shall not
apply to'duly authdrized. ihospitals or clinics conducted for
.the treatment of small ..animals.,. No person shall be con-
victed under,, the provisions of the ordinance except upon
eyevidence of Cfouurr or more persons, each of a different
�.o household,. and no warrant shall -be issued except after writ-.
-ten notice has been* mailed or: delivered to the occupant of
the premises where such a dog is kept, or harbored, advising
that a complaint has been made about such a dog and calling
attention to the provisions of this ordinance.
1
H. DANGEROUSDOG - Any dog which constitutes a"physical. threat,
to human beings or other'domestic animals by virtue of a.
known his.tory to ,endanger life by an unprovoked assault or
bite so as to cause - 'serious bodily harm. A dog,
.
trained, owned or harbored for the purpose, primarily or.in.'"
part, of dog fighting. EXCEPTIONS: A dog ' shall not be
deemed dangerous if: 1)*' it bites,' -attacks or menaces (a)
anyone assaulting the .owner, or (b) a trespasser on the c-
ro or (c) any person or other animal who
has tormented or abused it, or. 2) it is otherwise acting in
defense of an attack from a person or other animal upon the
owner.or other person or 3) it is protecting.or-defending
Its young or other.animal. _
I. ABUSED DOG = 1) Any dog which is mistreated, beaten, tor-
mented -or teased, or 2) is deprived . of potable Mater' or,
food or;' shelter, or 3) is kept under unhealthy condi-
tions, or 4) is abandoned, or -5)t is trained -for fighting
other dogs. '
J. . GUARD DOG -'Any dog which has,been tr.ained.to attack persons
independently or upon command*
CN 63 • '
K. PROPER ENCLOSURE - Means a.fence or structure of suitable
height, forming or causing an enclosure suitable to prevent
the entry of. any young children. Such enclosure shall be
locked and shall be designed with secure sides to prevent
the dog from escaping from the enclosure.
L. RESIDENTIAL'/ -INDIVIDUAL KENNEL - The term "individual"
means a place where no more than three dogs over -six months
of age are kept on the premised which are zoned and occupied {
for residential purposes.
M. RESIDENTIAL / HOBBY KENNEL'- The term "residential/hobby
kennel" -means a place where more than three dogs over six(,
months of age are kept on the premises which are zoned and �l
occupied for residential purposes; and where the keeping,
breeding and selling of such animals is incidental to' the
t occupancy of the premises for residential purposes, and is
not the primary source of income.
N. PRIVATE KENNEL - *The term "private kennel" means a place
where more than three dogs over the age of six months are
kept'and•where the business .of selling,. boarding, breeding,
grooming or training dogs is conducted, and where the keep-
ing of such animals is incidental to the occupancy of the
premises for residential purposes, and is not the primary. ¢t--te.rh«i&-
source of income. ,
h
0, COMMERCIAL BREEDER KENNEL - The term -"commercial breeder
kennel" means a. corporate/owner/lessor/breeder of'dogs who
breeds and/or' sells' animals for resale - individually or in
litter lots - whether any of these animals are also kept for
personal use and where the.. business• may be the primary
source of income. "Commerolel or Agricultural -zoning is
necessary.
P. CITY - The term "city" as used in this Ordinance shall mean
any municipality, city, town3h4p, et cetera.
Q. ANIMAL SHELTER - Any premises designated by action of the
City for the purposes of impounding and caring for all.
animals found in violation of this Ordinance, and shall bef.
under the direction and control of the Shelter Director.
R. ANIMAL WARDEN - The person or persons employed by or desig-
nated by the city, county or state as the enforcement of-
ficer of this Ordinance. Such term to include humane
society officers duly appointed and qualified to perform
such duties*under•the laws of the state.
S. HEALTH OFFICER - The health officer designated by the city
or county, where applicable..-
RESTRAINT
pplicable..
RESTRAINT
The owner shall keep his dog under restraint at -all times.
LICENSING
No person shall own any dog within the city limits unless such
dog is licensed, except as provided under "exemptions": Written
application shall be made to such person or persons as designated
by the City and shall include all pertinent documentation as re-
quired for such license.
A. Exceptions
1•. Hospitals, clinics and other premises operated by
licensed veterinarians exclusively for the care and
treatment of animals are .exempt from the provisions of
this Ordinance, except where such duties are expressly
stated.
2, The licensing requirement of this Ordinance shall not 4�-�-�-�-
apply to any dog belonging to a non-resident and kept
����
within the city for not longer than 30 days, provided
that *all such dogs shall at all times be kept under
restraint.
3
3. Any dog owned, .kept or harbored -by an individual'. or
corporation holding either a Residential/Hobby, Private
or Commercial Breeder Kennel License. need- not be iri-
dividually..license.
B.. There shall be four types,�*of licenses' issued: Individual' "
dog,'Residential/Hobby Kennel, Private Kennel and Commercia1'01''
Breeder Kennel and no person shall operate a Kennel without/
first obtaining a kennel license as herein provided. All
kennel licenses shall be issued for one year. Application
for licenses may be made 60 days prior to the start of the -
licensing year; and thereafter, during the licensing year.
1. INDIVIDUAL DOG - Written -application shall include the
name and address of the .owner .and .the breed,' color,
birth date and sex/sexes of the dog/dogs. As a condi-
tion for the issuance of said license, the owner shall
submit a current certificate of rabies vaccination for
the -dog/dogs. At the time of application a numbered
durable tag/tags shall be issued to the owner. The in-
dividual annual licensed' fee shall be $5.00 for each
dog over the age of six months, except for spayed or
neutered animals, which fee will be 3.00. The
lifetime license fee, where offered, shall be $25.00
for each .dog over the age of six months, except for
spayed or neutered animals,'which fee shall be $15.00.
a. Any person who secures.a dog shall be allowed 30
days to obtain a- license. Any dog owner upon
first becoming a resident of this city shall be
allowed 30 days from such time within which to ob-
tain a dog license. Any dog which may be im-
pounded for not -being properly licensed within
such a 30 day period may be.reclaimed by the owner
without paying tjhe impounding fees but such owner
shall -be responsible for paying for the keeping of
such dog.during its impounding.
b. All applications made more than 30 ;days after the
dog reaches six months of age or more that 30 days
after the dog owner 'moved into the city -or more
that 30 days after the applicant acquired the dog,
Whichever is the latter date, shall be assessed a
penalty of $1.00, which amount shall be added to
and collected with the -regular license fee.
c. Any dog owner having a valid dog license from
another municipality may within.30 days after be-
coming a resident secure an annual dog license for
which the owner pay a'fee of $1.00 upon surrender
of the valid license from the previous licens-
ing municipality.
I
IL
d. Upon complying with'the provisions of this Or-
dinance, there shall be issued to the owner a
durable tag, designating whether annual or
lifetime, stamped with a number and the year for
when issued. The'shape and design of such annual
tags shall be changed from year.to year. t
e. Every owner is required to keep a valid tag
securely fastened to. the dog's collar or harness,
which must be 'worn by the dog at all - times, ex-
cept when the dog for which the license is issued
is indoors or on the premises of the owner or
'covered by an exception.
f. ; In the event that the durable license tag issued
for a dog shall be lost' the owner may obtain a
duplicate tag for $1.00.
g. If the dog dies within the license' year and a dog
is•secured to replace the dtig so dying, the annual
license for deceased dog may be transferred to the
replacement dog for the remainder of the year upon
payment of a transfer fee of $1.00.
h. If there Is* 'a change of ownership of a dog' the
new owner must within 30 days apply for a license
therefor and pay the fee prescribed .by this Or-
dinance as for a new license.
2. RESIDENTIAL/HOBBY KENNEL - A Residential/Hobby, Kennel
License shall not be issued unless the application for
such license is accompanied by the written approval
thereof by the occupants of -all privately owned real
estate abutting the premises on which such.kennel is to
be located or unless the applicant's property is 300
feet or more from any -structure used as a home.' Ap-
proval of abutting. property owners is necessary only
for the initial licensing. The' fee for a
Residential/Hobby Kennel License is $25.00 per year or
any fraction thereof.
3. PRIVATE KENNEL --A Private Kennel License shall not be
issued unless the application for such license is ac-
companied by the .written approval thereof by -the oc-
cupants of all privately owned real estate abutting the
premises on which such kennel is to be located or' un-
less the applicant's property 'is 300 feet or more from
any structure used as a home. Approval of abutting
property owners is necessary only for the initial
licensing. The fee for a Private Kennel License is
$50.00 per year or any fraction thereof.
5
4. COMMERCIAL BREEDER KENNEL - A Commercial Breeder Kennel
License shall not -be issued unless the application for
such license -is accompanied by - the written approval
thereof by the occupants of all privately owned real
estate abutting the premises on which such kennel is to
be located or unless the applicants property is 300
feet or more from any structure used as a home. Ap-
proval of -abutting property owners is necessary only
for the initial licensing. The fee for a Commercial
Breeder Kennel License is $300.00 per year or any frac-
tion thereof. .
C.- Any kennal license may be revoked by reason of any violation
of the ordinance or by reason of the violation of any health
or nuisance ordinance, order,'law or regulation. Before
revoking a kennel license .the licensee shall be given notice
of the meeting at which such revocation shall be considered,
and if, the licensee is present at such meeting, he shall be
first given an opportunity to be heard. Notice of such meet-
.ing shall be given to the licensee in writing, mailed to the
address of the licensee as set forth in the. licensee's ap-
plication for kennel license and mailed at least ten working
days prior to the date of the meeting.
D. All kennels shall be kept. in a clean and healthful condition
at all times and at all reasonable times shall be open to
inspection by any health officer, animal control officer or
other person or persons charged with the enforcement of this
ordinance or any health or sanitary regulation of this City.
IMPOUNDMENT AND REDEMPTION
A. Any dog found in violation. of this ordinance may be taken up
by the animal warden and impounded in the animal shelter.and
there confined in a humane,manner for a period of not less
than five working days if not .claimed prior thereto by its
owner, and it shall thereafter become the property of the
City and may be disposed of in a humane manner, sold to an
individual. desiring to purchase the dog as a pet (after
signing an agreement to*spay or neuter subsequent to the two
month, period as covered in "B"). If a dog is destroyed pur-
suant to this ordinance, the license for ,such dog shall ex-
pire.
B. Any purchaser of any impounded animal sold by the Shelter
Director, other than the owner, shall keep the -same at least
two months,. during which time the owner may redeem such
animal by paying all costs and charges of keeping, and the
amount paid therefor at the sale, with interest thereon at
12 percent per annum.
6
C. Immediately upon the impounding. of a dog wearing a current
license or other identification, the Animal Warden must make
every reasonable effort to notify the owner of such dog of
the impoundment and of the conditions whereby the owner may
regain custody of the dog. Any verbal notices must Im-
mediately be confirmed.in writing by -the Animal Warden..
D. Not withstanding anything contained herein to the contrary,
if a critically injured dog, is impounded pursuant, to this
ordinance, it may be destroyed by the Animal'Warden but only
after reasonable efforts have been made to contact its
owner.
E. For the purpose of identification by the owner, any animal
critically injured and impounded which has been destroyed
pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance shall be main-
tained in refrigerated storage to retain in a,frozen condi-
tion for a.period of not less than five working days from
the date of.destruction.
F. Any dog impounded hereunder being held for suspected disease
(except rabies) may be reclaimed by the owner within five
working days upon payment by the owner to the City the sum
of $10.00 together with the sum of 2.50 per day or fraction
thereof for keeping such .an animal during the impoundment,
providing that the licensing requirements of this ordinance
are complied with.
G. When"a dog is impounded more than one time within a one-year
period, the owner shall pay the sum of $20.00 in order to
reclaim the dog on the second -occasion and $40.00 for each
subsequent time within the one-year period. All monies col-
lected under any of the terms. of this ordinance shall be
deposited with the City Treasurer.
RECORDS
A. It shall be the duty of the Animal Warden to keep, -or cause
to be kept,. accurate and detailed records of the licensing,
impoundment. and disposition of all animals coming into the
owner of the dog upon proof of ownership.
B. It shall -be the duty of the Health Officer to keep, or cause
to be kept, accurate and detailed records of all bite -cases
reported to him and his investigation of the same.'
C. It shall be the duty of the Animal Warden to keep, or cause
to be kept, accurate and detailed records of all monies
belonging to the City, which records shall be .open to in-
spection at reasonable times.by such persons responsible for
7
sideration without further foundation. After considering
• all evidence the Health Officer shall make a determination
as -to whether or not the animal is found to be dangerous and
the Health Officer shall make such order'as he deems proper.
If he orders the Animal Warden to take the animal into cus-
tody for destruction, the owner shall make the animal im-
mediately available to the Animal Warden.
CONFINEMENT OF CERTAIN DOGS
A. Each owner shall .confine within a building or proper
enclosure any dangerous dog and not take such dog out of the
enclosure unless the dog is securely muzzled.
B. Every female dog in heat shall be maintained in such a man-
ner that such female dog cannot come in contact with another
dog except for intentional breeding purposes. A $25.00
fine shall be imposed .on any owner or any animal in heat
which is allowed to run loose. -
INVESTIGATION
For the purposes of discharging the duties imposed by this or-
dinance and to enforce "its •provisions, the Animal Warden or
police officer is empowered to enter upon the premises in com-
pliance with Minnesota Statutes upon which a dog is kept or har-
bored and to demand the 'exhibition by the owner of such dog
and/or the license -for such dog.
In communities where there is no humane organization to enforce
the state anti -cruelty laws, the•addition of the following provi-
sion is recommended: It is further provided that the Animal War-
den or police officer may enter the premises where any animal is
kept" in a reportedly cruel or inhumane manner and demand to ex-
amine such animal and to take possession of such animal when, in
his opinion, it requires humane treatment; however, only'in such
cases may the animal be removed from the premises.
INTERFERENCE
No person shall interfere with, hinder or molest the Animal War-
den in the performance of the duties of his office or seek to
release any animal in the custody of the Animal Warden except as
herein provided..
D
ORGANIZED ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITED'
No dog -fighting, cock -fighting, bull -baiting, bear -baiting or
other pitting of one animal against another shall be permitted as
pursuant to Minnesota State•Law on cruelty to •animals, Chapter
346, Paragraph 346.29. .
DUTY OF ALL DOG OWNERS TO•BE RESPONSIBLE OWNERS;
It shall be the duty of every owner of any dog, or anyone having
any dog in thei'r possession or custody, to exercise reasonable
care and to take all necessary steps and precautions to protect
other people, property, and animals from injuries or damage which
might result from their animal•Is behavior, regardless of whether
such behavior. is motivated by mischievousness, playfulness, or
ferocity.
DUTY TO KEEP DOGS UNDER RESTRAINT WHILE ON PROPERTY
It shall be the duty of every owner of'any dog, or anyone having
any dog in their possession or custody, to ensure that, the dog
is kept under restraint and that reasonable care and precautions
are taken to prevent the dog from leaving, while unattended, the
real property limits of its owner, possessor or custodian.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY OWNERS OF
DANGEROUS DOGS
Whenever outside of its enclosure as provided for in section K.
but is on the owners property, a dangerous dog must be attended
by its owner and restrained by a secure collar and leash of suf-
ficient strength to prevent escape.
No dangerous dog shall be chained, tethered, or otherwise tied to
any inanimate object such as a tree, post, or building, outside
of.its own enclosure as provided for in section K.
In addition to the requirements in section K. for owners of dan-
gerous dogs who maintain the dog out-of-doors, a -portion of their
property shall be fenced with a perimeter or area fence. 'Within
this perimeter fence, the dangerous dog must 'be humanely con-
fined inside a pen or kennel of adequate size. The pen or kennel
may not share common fencing with the' area or perimeter fence.
The kennel or pen must have secure sides; a secure top attached
to all sides; the sides must .either be buried two feet into the
ground, sunken into a concrete pad, or securely attached to a
wire bottom. The gate -to the kennel must be locked.
10
Failure to keep any, dog' confined or under restraint as provided'
for in this section shall be unlawful and shall be punishable as
hereinafter provided.
DUTY TO KEEP DOGS UNDER RESTRAINT WHILE OFF PROPERTY.
It shall be the duty of the owner of any dog or anyone having a
dog in their possession to keep the dog under restraint and con-
trol at all times while the dog is off the real property limits
of the owners, possessor or custodian.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY OWNERS OF
DANGEROUS DOGS.
Except when being transported in, and securely confined within a
vehicle, no dangerous dog shall be permitted off the property of
its owner except when it is (A).attended by its owner or desig-
nated custodian, and (B) is restrained by secure collar and
leash (not to exceed six .feet in length); -r both collar and leash
must be of sufficient strength to prevent escape, and (C)
muzzled by any means sufficient to prevent biting -other persons
or domestic animals. Failure to .keep any dangerous -dog under
restraint or control as provided for in this section shall be un-
lawful and shall be punishable as hereinafter provided.
ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS ON DANGEROUS DOGS.
In the event that a law enforcement agent has received Informa-
tion that a dangerous dog is being harbored in violation of this
ordinance he may; (A) Order the violation immediately corrected
and cite the owner or keeper to appear in court for the viola-
tion, or (B) If the violation cannot be immediately corrected
and the dog is posing an imminent serious threat to human beings
or other domestic animals, the dog may be seized and impounded,
in which case the owner or keeper will be cited to appear in
court for the violation. At the owners request and expense, such
impoundment may be at a veterinarian or licensed kennel of the
owners choosing. If the owner or keeper of the dangerous dog
fails to either provide proof that the dog will now be kept
restrained or confined in compliance with the.provisions of this
ordinance, or. fails to reclaim it from Animal Control after im-
poundment, and if it cannot be adopted by someone providing proof
that it will be kept restrained or confined as specified in this
ordinance, it will be humanely euthanized. ,
11
` -7
WARNING SIGNS — GUARD DOGS AND DANGEROUS DOGS
All owners, keepers, or harborers of any guard *or dangerous
dog shall display in a prominent place on •their premises, and at
each entrance or exit to the area where such a dog is confined, a
sign easily readable by the public using the words "beware of
dog".
ABANDONMENT OR ABUSE OF DOGS
-It shall be unlawful for anyone to knowingly abandon or abuse any
dog. Each person who does. abandon or abuse knowingly, or will-
ingly permits this abandonment or abuse or aids in the abandon-
ment or abuse of any dog shall be in violation of the law and
shall be punished as hereinafter provided. Each offense shall be
punished with`a fine of the maximum allowable by law.
PENALTIES
Any person who violated any provisions of this Ordinance may be
subject to a fine of $ or imprisonment of days
or both.
Any person who violated the regulations set regarding DANGEROUS
DOGS shall be punished in.- accord with the Minnesota State
Statutes.
12
z
similar records of the City, and shall be audited by the
City annually in the same manner as other City records are
audited.
QUARANTINE
Any dog that has bitten a person shall immediately be impounded
for at least ten days and kept apart from other animals, under
the supervision of a veterinarian, until it is determined whether
such dog had or has a disease which might have been transmitted
by such bite. Such impounding, may be done by the owner, and need
not be at the City pound, but if it is not at the City pound, the
owner shall notify the Shelter' Director immediately and shall
furnish proof in. writing that such a.dog has been so impounded.
Upon the expiration of ten days, if it is determined the dog does
not. have a disease, he may be released and the Shelter Director
shall be'notified: If the dog was impounded within the pound, it
may be reclaimed in ten days if it is determined the dog does not
have a disease.
Any dog which has been bitten by a rabid or suspected rabid
animal shall be impounded and kept in. the same manner for a
period of six months, unless the dog has been vaccinated for
rabies within the previous year, then the impoundment period
would be forty days. The owner of a dog which has been bitten by
a rabid animal shall notify the City Shelter Director in the
event of the dog's illness or death during quarantine.
DESTRUCTION OF DANGEROUS ANIMALS
The Health Officer or his appointee, after having been advised of
the existence of such animal, shall proceed as -follows.
A. The owner of the offending dog shall be notified in writing
as to the dates, times, places and persons bitten and shall
be given ten working days to request a hearing before the
Health Officer or his appointee for a determination as to
the dangerous nature of the dog. If the owner does not re-
quest a hearing within ten working days of said notice, the
Health Officer or his appointee shall make such order as he
deems proper. He may order the Animal Warden to take the
animal into custody for destruction. If the animal is or=
dered into custody for destruction, the owner shall im-
mediately make the animal available to the Animal Warden.
B. If the owner requests a hearing for determination as to the
dangerous nature of the dog, the hearing shall be held
before the. Health Officer or his appointee at a date not
more than three weeks. after demand for such hearing. The
records .of the Animal Warden shall be admissible for con -
8
=
FS0102:SGM:Muyskens:jaf
Virgil Schneider
Mayor of Plymouth
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
,*TES P05T4
O YN
W T
1a �
T
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Facilities Service Office
2051 Killebrew Drive, Suite 620
Bloomington, MN 554%5eWuary 23, 1990
RE: Proposed Postal Facility
Minneapolis, MN 55441-9998
Medicine Lake Branch (G27)
Site Approval
Dear Mayor Schneider:
In compliance with the requirements contained in Executive Order 12372,
"Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs" and Section .401 of the
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, this letter is submitted to
determine if there are any conflicts with planning of other government
agencies with the United States Postal Service's intention to relocate the
above referenced postal facility to other quarters in Plymouth, MN.
The proposed site is located at or legally described as follows:
The north 494.72 of the East 44 ft. of Lot 1, Block 1 and the North 494.72
feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Meyer Gonyea Addition to the City of Plymouth.
Comments regarding this project should be sent to this office as soon as
possible, as we would like to proceed with this project immediately. Please
sign the statement at the bottom of this letter and return to this office if
you feel this site would be suitable for the proposed new Postal facility.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the
address above or at 612-851-1141.
Sincerely,
STEP N G. MUYSKENS
Real Estate Specialist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel that the above subject site would be suitable for the proposed postal
facility at Plymouth, MN.
Signature
Date
FEB 26 '90 10:18 DORGLPSS INC.1 612 546 1540
lakewlter
quality
at issue
Power sought to
protect y&ers
8y [iak alike
StafCWriler
Pike•aed 1:agk lakes arc the anter•
plece what will someday be a 218 -
acro regional park offering swim•
ming basins. (thins and resident
loons in the northwestern suburbs of
Minneapolis.
Hph haat month a ty oCPlymouth
is apeeted to aptxogtnmerc
industrial devel*ment pthat will
slithtly donate theft water quality.
If that impsei ig multiplied by funher
dcvclopmeat. the [wo lakes may lose
their appeal for recreat)pnal use even
beforethe Dark is fully developed.
said David Waver, dirwor ornatu-
ral resources management for Hen -
won Parks.
In an effort to halt that molt)ply1%
impact on the quality of those lakes
and other in the metro gra, the
Metropolitan Council is asking the
Legislature for power to protect lake
arca.
Current law mikes developer, po-
IiSed by chits ager for development.
primarily responsible for protoWns
metro take watgr quality. They aro
suldbo mershed district au -
Ili pkhtics say arc better at
preventing floods than keeping lake
water pure.
The result has been declining water
quatily in so or the metropolitan ar-
ea's 1200 iorsat recreational lakes, ac•
cording to the eounell.
Should legislator Iran! the Metro
Council the authority it seeks, the
council would requires developing
ies and watershed districts to provide -
large areas for "storm water storage."
Thal mans that more wetlands and 1
o Aland would be Set aside fo►
'ng runoff from land as it is
eloppeed. 1n some cases, eitiet
' t bt required to build pipes or
hes to carry norm water away ,
from sensitive lakes.
The L.egislatum may not act on the
proposal in this. Its even year short
session. But if it does not, the council
says. it wii) make it a major issue in
1991.
The two lakes are eiamples of water$
threatened by development, despite
developers' good intentions about
keep)ng them pure.
Developer Opus Corp. plans to take
citensive and expensive precautions
to contain storm water runoff from
its proposed Eau Creek Business
Park at Bass Lake Rd. and Hwy. 169
in Plymouth.
Itpians a holding pond to catch
runoff and allow nutrients to settle,
before The water is released for more
filtering into a wetland basin border -
Ins Pike Lake. (Pike Lake, which
borders the proposed development.
is partly in Plymouth and partly in
Maple Grove. Eagle Lake is dust
north of it in Maple Grove.)
Holding -pond plans won't prevdnt all
degradation of lake water quality.
P.2
Sr Tribune
e ,y .
�®tYivatry 23/1990
B •1 Q w
l
V
a•• 3. t?k, V s• 3v,a ;�
' $ 8 %
r 0
di
au4
N4
a a.�
_OyC
BASS LAKE BOTTLE SHOP
11540 COUNTY ROAD 10
PLYMOUTH, MN 55442 `
February 27, 1990
Mayor
City Council Members
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
To the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Plymouth:
I have discussed the potential problems of liquor violations due to persons
carrying false identification cards and drivers licenses with all of my
employees. We have accepted the following policy:
1. We will card all customers appearing to be under the age of
24 years.
2. We will not accept I.D. cards sanctioned by the State of Minnesota
as they are easily reproduced with false information.
3. We are refusing to sell liquor to adults who may be tempted to buy
for minors.
I have posted signs on all doors that read:
"Stop! It is illegal to enter this store unless you are 21 years
of age."
Every employee is instructed to use this guide when checking identification.
A Minnesota Drivers License is the only form we will accept. No other form
of I.D. or out state drivers license will be accepted.
Thank you.
,
,/Ronald Libby, Own
BASS LAKE BOTTLE HOP
=__ \3
-HonowW,-FebruM IS, 1990 The Sunday Star-SWetin & Advertiser
;:
Cat.o coitr :.
l:. "
messageAd1a On't
State ,Senator Ron Menor haSertain
amount of unescorted
c
-wisely. Put aside for fiftther -
to controUand,
roaming- to ' ake.*-
-I• doubt if we want . in.
study-bill.
inn_ats.*
confine -baire*
' idea may not
tjiiefr' every brief *foray an
opportunity f6r A small game
I
While this
nine lives; it' may be,-back.jn, 1
f6rm., "Among prq0osq4.,
hunt by. zealous -citizens his
bill coul1-only*.create discord,
some
beirg pondered: inserting "a
�.
icense =der1the - -,.
recrimination and enmity.
. "Also consider the owner's di
microchip
f registered cats:
regi!
lemma: a. to escort a cat *abroad
-the
.9kinio
t6tild'catch. the 1�4 officials..
catch.
on. a leash -is against nature'
'-pefinit
could the PhiP.with, a,
c
and: kfiO'W--'it'S iiOVA:-- -
t.
of -the cat', and'to it 0
venture ji foie5ceicise'.unat,
:scanner
can -A cat scanner bf, a.neW
stray.
tended into a night of new - dan-.
the nature bUthe
:sOyt, ifjbu-,Vhll.
io��mend- to
any event., --We C.
gers: is. against
owner: :
1!
..-Jn.
-Menor.--a celebrated .19-49*,
message from then -Governor.
rmMse-
-.14 cats-.jp&f6
oreqvqrg
-ful service, particularly in rural
---
Adjai Stevenson when he_.._meas;ift,rombatting
—vet&cT—a C,;j-VT&is-jj-TjW-jW§§-e-a-
rodents —
work they necessarily perform
by the Illinois legislature- It
alone and without regard for
reads . in part',
q -cannot - agree that- it- -should
property lines."
Stevenson said government in
be 'the declared public '-policY-PU
'
: 1111inois had enough to do with-
visiting a
Illinois`that A cat vrossing the
neighbor's yard or c
out trying to control feline de-.
So does government
is a public nuisance. It
• highway -
nature `Of catsto do --a
linquency.
. in Hawaii.
is in the
--T--- \-,AcA,-, .
MINUTES
PLYMOUTH SAFETY COMMITTEE
February 21, 1990
PRESENT: Tom Nelson, Bob Fasching, John Ward, Joel Franz,
Craig Bechtold, Ken Johnson, Dave Johnson, Andy Jordan,
Kevin Leuer, Bob Pemberton
ALSO PRESENT: Dave Drugg, North Star Risk Services, Dave Volker,
Employee Benefit Administration; Judy McMillin
ABSENT: Don Kissinger, Don Kilian
I. OLD BUSINESS
A. Approval of January 10, 1990 minutes -- The Committee approved the
minutes as submittea.
B. Report on Safety Activities:
1. Fire Station III Fitness Facility -- Bob Pemberton advised that
lock changes to the fire station including the push button coded
access, should be completed in early March. He reported that 36
employees had signed and returned the release form to use the
fitness facility. Training sessions for employees on proper use
of the fitness equipment will be scheduled after the completion
of the lock changes.
2. Deer Warning Devices -- Bob Pemberton reported that the deer
warning devices installed on the front bumpers of four police
squads and CSO vehicles had been knocked off when the vehicles
went through a car wash. He stated that if the devices cannot
be relocated to an equally effective area of the vehicle, he
would recommend the program be discontinued. Bob asked Tom
Nelson to investigate if the devices could be relocated to
another location on the vehicles which would still allow them to
be effective.
3. Rear Window Protective Devices -- Bob Pemberton advised that
our test rear window protective devices had been fabricated and
installed. Two of the devices are permanent and two are
portable. Feedback from Public Wo►hks employees on the devices
has been favorable.
4. Gun Range at Fire Station III -- Bob Pemberton reported on the
status of the gun range. —Re—stated that the traps are in place
and the locking system is being worked on. Dave Volker stated
his interest in reviewing the specifications on the range's
ventilation system and also the clean up procedure for lead
dust. Bob Pemberton will make arrangements for Dave Volker's
review.
Plymouth Safety Committee
February 21, 1990
Page 2
II. ACCIDENT REVIEW
A. Consent Agenda -- The Committee approved the consent agenda for
vehicular and personal injury accidents. One personal injury
accident was determined preventable and one non -preventable. The
vehicular accident was determined non -preventable.
B. Review of Vehicular Accident -- The committee reviewed a vehicular
accident involving two city vehicles. Because the accident involved
two city drivers, the committee reviewed and voted separately on
each driver. One driver's actions were determined non -preventable
and one driver's preventable. A report on the Safety Committee's
findings and recommendations will be forwarded to the City Manager.
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Calendar Year 1989 Accident Statistics
1989 accident statistics with a ety
calendar year, the accident records for
injury are tabulated in order to help
program requiring additional efforts.
additional efforts will be focused on
prevention training.
•- Bob Pemberton reviewed the
Committee members. Each
both vehicular and personal
identify areas in the safety
Bob stated that for 1990,
temporary employee accident
B. Safety Training for 1990 -- The following Safety Training schedule
or 1990 was approved.--
Temporary
pprove :
Temporary Workers - Parks 4/90
CPR 5/90
Fire Extinguisher Training 8/90
Safe Driving 11/90
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
Kevin Leuer asked that Committee review the City policy on allowing
emergency warning lights on the fire inspector vehicles. Kevin
stated that for the majority of fire calls, the fire inspectors respond
directly with the inspector vehicles. For this reason, and to also
help in identifying the vehicle when it parked along the road at a fire
scene, he would recommend some type of warning light(s) be installed.
Bob Pemberton stated he would work with Kevin on this request and report
back to the Committee at the March meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 a.m.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Jim Willis
m
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
February 16, 1990
Members of Outside Storage Task Force
Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: SUMMARY NOTES FOR THE FEBRUARY 14, 1990 MEETING
Members Present: Dave Johnson, Craig Solarz, Jack Wenner, Larry Mellum
Larry Marofsky, Hal Pierce
Staff present: Laurie Rauenhorst, Myra Wicklacz, Blair Tremere
Chairman Marofsky called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. and the Summary
Notes for the February 6, 1990 meeting were approved.
Myra Wicklacz handed out a research summary regarding ordinances in other
cities and she explained the findings. She noted particularly the aspects of
enforcement in the use of Conditional Use Permits.
Larry Mellum noted experiences of the Rainbow Foods Stores in Brooklyn Park in
Eden Prairie and in at least one community, a pop machine had to be placed
inside the store; they were not allowed outside.
Blair Tremere indicated that enforcement activity varied from community to
community and that there is no ideal city in the sense that there is a model
that can be followed. The Task Force should analyze what the situation is in
Plymouth and determine what are the best standards for this community.
Larry Marofsky reviewed the matrix that is contained in the summary minutes
for the February 6 meeting and an extensive discussion ensued about temporary
and permanent storage, display and sales.
Tremere indicated the "temporary" often can be related to seasonal but the
problem can become one of distinguishing between storage and display. There
appear to be many gray areas, although temporary display with respect to gas
stations once meant displays that could be literally put inside the building
at the end of the business day and then brought outside the next day.
Dave Johnson commented about storage needs and stated that perhaps standards
could be tied to where the storage occurred, i.e. in the side yards or the
rear dards verses the front.
Page Two
Minutes for Outside Storage Task Force
Extensive discussion ensued about the needs for storage.
Craig Solarz noted again his concern that ordinance standards for transient
merchants varied from the standards that would apply to the property owner who
sought to have commercial sales.
Marofsky inquired whether the City needs to distinguish "temporary displays"
and said the main issue seems to be whether the display is visible or not.
Hal Pierce stated that if merchandise was visible it could be considered a
display, but if it was not visible, then it would represent storage.
Extensive discussion ensued about that topic and Johnson discussed the
feasibility of using the license mechanism for certain amounts of storage
rather than zoning standards.
Tremere discussed the possibility of establishing performance criteria which
would set certain limits or parameters that be met and could be easily
verified on an annual basis.
Further discussion ensued about the idea raised by Johnson on the location of
storage. The distinction of temporary and permanent storage is not clear at
this time.
Jack Wenner discussed the screening of storage for both security purposes as
well as aesthetic purposes. He stated he could not support point of sales out
of doors but he did note that there are seasonal outside displays that relate
to sales (actually conducted indoors) such as plants at various times of the
year. He suggested that perhaps those activities could be allowed on a
limited basis but that no permanent sale activities would be allowed outside.
Solarz stated that a distinction should be made between temporary and
permanent display and sale.
Johnson stated it was important to consider the aesthetics and that's why he
indicated perhaps some allowance could be made for storage but limited to
certain areas of the Site. Tremere commented that zoning would govern
location and perhaps aesthetics whereas a license could govern operations.
Marofsky indicated that a good deal of material had been covered and that the
next meeting should be set for early to mid-March. There was a consensus to
have the next meeting 7:30 a.m., March 8. Tremere indicated that the research
data would be summarized to better reflect the differing standards in various
communities. He also indicated that staff would attempt to get more
information from neighboring cities and also some photographs of different
types of storage, display, and sales activities.
Marofsky suggested that members come to the next meeting prepared to discuss
recommendations for changes to the present ordinance and/or the adoption of
new standards on the subject.
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 a.m.
(pl/bt/Task2-14:cm)
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: February 5, 1990 (UPDATED FEBRUARY 26, 1990)
TO: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director, through Chuck
Dillerud, Community Development Coordinator
FROM: Myra Wicklacz, Development Services Technician
SUBJECT: OUTDOOR STORAGE AND DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE
In January, a letter was sent to the following cities requesting copies of
information or ordinances relating to outdoor storage and display of
merchandise:
Blaine, Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Burnsville, Champlin,
Chanhassen, Chaska, Eagan, Eden Prairie,,Edina,.Golden Valley, Hopkins, Maple
Grove, Minnetonka, New Hope, and St. Louis Park.
In addition, the American Planning Association (APA) Planning Advisory Service
(PAS) was contacted and the same information was requested of them. That
information is included.
The following is a summary of regulations pertaining to outdoor storage and
display from the cities in which we received information from:
Blaine
No outdoor storage of any materials is permitted in the neighborhood
business (B-1), community commercial (B-2), regional shopping center (B-
3), office research park (B-4), commercial (PC), and light industrial (I-
1 districts. The heavy industrial (I-2) district allows outdoor storage
through a conditional use permit, but requires that the storage be in the
rear yard. There was no specific mention of storage or display of
merchandise for sale.
Bloomington
In business districts, displays of merchandise extended more than 5 feet
into the setback area or more than 5 feet in front of the existing
building, if such building abuts against or extends into the required
setback area, shall be construed to be an encroachment on the setback
requirements and is unlawful for the owner or occupant to permit such
encroachments, except: merchandise may be displayed on service station
pump islands and where motor vehicles, new or used, are lawfully sold on
the premises, they may be stored or displayed in off-site parking areas.
Displays of merchandise shall not reduce the off-street parking area
required by this chapter.
In the C-1 and C -1A (service/office) districts all storage, display,
service, repair, or processing shall be conducted wholly within an
enclosed building. In the C-2 (commercial) district all storage,
display, service, repair, or processing shall be conducted wholly within
an enclosed building or behind an opaque fence or wall not less than 6
feet in height, or high enough to completely screen other activities from
view of the abutting property at ground level. Semi -trailers may not be
used for outdoor storage. The outdoor storage of merchandise during
business hours on a private pedestrian walkway located contiguous to the
primary building is not prohibited. This requirement shall apply to the
outdoor storage and display of new and used motor vehicles or marine
crafts for which a special use permit has been issued. This section also
does not apply to the out-of-door retail sale of food at drive-in eating
establishments for which especially a use permit has been issued.
Temporary outdoor storage and display of merchandise may be allowed, by
permit. In the I-1 district, all production, storage, servicing, or
merchandising, except off-street parking and off-street loading, shall be
conducted completely within enclosed buildings. Special requirements for
automobile service stations states that no merchandise may be displayed
for sale outside the principal building except within 4 feet of the
building or in pump islands unless enclosed by a structure compatible
with the building. No discarded trash, parts, or tires may be stored
outside the building unless enclosed by a durable structure compatible
with the design of the principal building.
Me.a Ulm'
In all zoning districts, outdoor display or storage of items, including
but not limited to, ice or vending machines, fire wood, plants, flowers,
tools, food dispensing machines, or food sold from stationary vehicles or
portable containers or the like, shall be prohibited unless authorized as
a specific condition within an approved conditional use permit as
established in each zoning district, or unless permitted specifically by
some other provision of this ordinance. For permitted uses, a sight
proof enclosure, totally containing the item, shall be constructed of the
same or similar materials as the primary building. All building setbacks
shall be maintained. No. signs shall be allowed on this storage area.
Where sidewalks are present, a minimum sidewalk access width of 4 feet
shall be provided.
Burnsville
In Business Districts, all goods for sale by a motor fuel station
convenience store, other than pertroleum based products required for the
operation and maintenance of motor vehicles, shall be displayed within
the fuel station building. Motor fuel stations require a Conditional Use
Permit. All storage and display in the Business District requires a
Conditional Use Permit.
Champlin
All materials, supplies, merchandise or other similar matter shall be
stored within a completely enclosed building within the Commercial
Districts or within the confines of a 100% opaque wall or fence not less
than 5 feet in height. Merchandise which is offered for sale may not be
displayed beyond the confines of a building, unless such merchandise is
of a type customarily displayed outdoors, such as garden supplies. No
storage, of any type, shall be permitted within the required front or
side street setback.
Coon Rapids
The Neighborhood Commercial District does not allow exterior storage of
goods or equipment except motor vehicles and trash enclosures. Ice sales
from vending machines are permitted with a Special Use Permit. In the
General Commercial District, outdoor sales of household or garden
equipment is permitted and rental businesses with exterior storage are
permitted with a Special Use Permit. In the Community Comercial
District, no exterior storage is allowed. Outdoor sales of household
equipment and ice vending machines are permitted with a Special Use
Permit.
Eden Prairie
In the following districts of N -COM (neighborhood commercial), C -COM
(community commercial), C -REG (regional commercial), and I -GEN, all
materials, supplies, merchandise, or other similar matter, 112 on display
for direct sale, rental or lease to the ultimate consumer or user, shall
be stored within a completely enclosed building within all commercial
districts, and within the confines of screening as required by the
performance standards of this chapter. Merchandise which is offered for
sale as described heretofore may be displayed beyond the confines of the
building in any commercial district, but the area occupied by such
outdoor displays shall not constitute a greater number of square feet
than 10 percent of the ground floor area of the building housing the
principal use. No storageor display of any type shall be permitted
within one-half of the required front or side street setback nearest the
street, nor within any required interior side or rear setback.
Fridley
In the C-2 and C-3 Commercial Districts, uses that require a Special Use
Permit include Gas Stations, exterior storage, and Garden Centers amongst
others. Gas Stations shall not allow outdoor operation of lubrication
equipment and the like; or the outdoor display of merchandise. The
display of petroleum products between pumps; or the temporary display of
merchandise within 4 feet of the station building is permitted with a
Special Use Permit. Garden Centers require Special Use Permits to allow
outside storage and display of merchandise.
The gasoline filling station section references the rental, selling, or
storage or commodities shalVm be conducted in conformance with the
requirements of the zoning code for the particular zoning district in
which the gasoline service station is located. In Commercial Districts,
no premises shall be used wholly or in part for the storage of any
material whatsoever except where such materials are stored in a building
and where the character of such building conforms to the general
development of the commercial district. Outside storage and sales of
horticultural and nursery stock is allowed outdoors when it cannot be
grown in a building. The storage and sales of other commodities such as,
but not limited to, firewood, sand, or sod shall be conducted within a
building or similar enclosure which shall completely screen this activity
from public streets and adjacent property. The outside storage or sales
of nursery stock shall be conducted at the side or rear of the building
in an area completely screened from the public street. Outside storage
and sale of nursery stock shall be permitted only as an accessory to the
principal building on the property not as the sole use of the property.
In the light industrial zoning district, no materials or equipment shall
be stored outside, unless screened in such a manner as not to be visible
to adjacent properties or streets. Only those materials or equipment
directly related to the principal use may be stored outside. No storage
is permitted within the required landscaped area.
All Commercial and Industrial uses must be conducted completely within a
building including greenhouse sales and storage. "Open sales lots" are
allowed with specific conditions.
�..
The B -2V (Village Center Business District) permits, as an accessory use,
outdoor sales and display, incidental and accessory to a permitted
principal use, in areas designed to accommodate such activity under the
following condition: outdoor sales and display shall be screened from
any adjacent property and from any adjacent right-of-way; items which may
be sold or displayed out of doors shall be limited to the following: 1.
any product -sold in a vending machine; 2. Plants; 3. Propane or any
other bottled gas fuel; and 4. Any items which, because of large volume
or weight is more easily housed out of doors and is more convenient to
the purchaser in an outdoor location, such as salt, fertilizer, peat moss
and cement, but not including items such as motor oil, fuel additives,
cartons or cases of soft drinks or battery. -
., T
In the B-2 and B-3 districts, outside storage, display, sales and
servicing is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit provided each of the
following is met: shall be allowed for periods not exceeding 20 days per
year and shall include only items sold on the premises; screening shall
be provided from residential and office property; no public speaker
system shall be audible from any residential property; site shall be kept
in a neat and orderly fashion; no uses shall be permitted in required
parking or building setback areas; and shall not be permitted within 100'
of any residential parcel.
No outside storage or display is allowed in any district. Conditional
Use•Permits have been granted to allow storage of vehicles but never for
display of merchandise. New tire displays on racks are allowed during
the daytime hours, but can not be left out 24 hours. Gas stations which
are not open 24 hours may have vending machines and ice machines outside,
however, there is nothing in the ordinance that states this.
St. Louis Park
In the business district, temporary outdoor storage or display of goods
in conjunction with the permitted use and on the same site of the
permitted use is allowed provided; the goods are not stored outdoors over
night, the area of the storage site does not exceed 100 square feet, and
no storage or display shall occur within the required front yard setback
areas, or within any required side yard setback areas when a side yard
abuts a street. In the same district, motor fuel stations outside sales
or displays except gasoline or other goods consumed in the normal
operation of a car and limited to the following kinds of products: oil,
gasoline, and oil additives, windshield cleaner, windshield wipers, tires
and batteries, which sales or display shall not be permitted within the
setback area, nor shall the total display area occupy more than a 150
square feet in area or more than 5 feet in height, including any
combination of such products. No other vehicular parts and non -
automobile oriented goods shall be displayed or sold outside, nor shall
any motor service station site be used for the storage and sale or rental
of automobiles, trucks, campers, boats, trailers, and snowmobiles,
unlicensed or partially dismantled vehicles, or similar vehicles and
products, unless a permit is approved.
K-MRIT-TITIM0"
The community commercial district allows the following list of
merchandise to the sold or rented on the premises out of doors without
screening walls or fences except along common property lines of abutting
residentially zoned lots: 1. Flowers and plants; 2. Food products; 3.
Hand crafted products and goods; 4. Artwork and pottery; and any other
merchandise which the Planning Director or Planning Commission, on
appeal, has set forth in this ordinance may find to be similar in
character, type, or nature by the merchandise listed in the
aforementioned paragraph. All other merchandise sold on the premises may
be displayed outdoors during ours of operation provided that the display
area is complete enclosed by walls, fences, buildings, or landscape
materials or a combination thereof.
Farmington. New Mexico
Outside display of goods and merchandise shall be limited to the C-1, C-
2, C-3, and C-4 commercial districts. The display area shall not
encroach upon a public street, alley, sidewalk, or other public property
unless a permit for any such encroachment has been obtained from the
city. The display area shall, at all times, be kept neat, clean, and
free of litter and debries -' All goods, merchandise, vehicles, or
implements which remain on display shall be properly watched or secured
against vandalism or damage. Screening, fencing, or landscaping may be
installed around the display areas. A special use permit for outside
display will not be required for temporary outside display during special
events such as annual street merchant sales, parades, or festivities for
which permission has otherwise been obtained from the city. Special use
permit shall not be required for the outside display of vehicles or motor
homes held for sale including recreational vehicles, farm implements,
travel trailers, or mobile homes.
(zo/mw/osd:dl)
PLYMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT
MONTH January 1990
CLASS I
MURDER
CSC
ROBBERY
ASSAULT
BURGLARY
THEFT
AUTO THEFT
ARSON
0
5
0
25
29
106
20
1
95
0
4
2
33
65
23
1 0 -
TOTALS
TOTALS 1989 186
1990 148 -20%
CLASS II
1989
1990
FORGERY
COUNTERFEIT
- FRAUD
HAR.
COMM.
STOLEN
PROPERTY
VANDALISM
SEX
OFF.
NARC.
OFFENSES
FAM/CHILD
D.W.I.
LIQ.
LAW
DISORDERLY
CONDUCT
OTHER
10
1
12
0
95
0
4
2
2
32
0
10
5
10
17
0
35
0
5
1
36
8'
3
36
TOTALS -L2-8-9 159
1990 156 -2%
CLASS III
FATAL
ACCIDENT
PERSONAL
INJURY
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
SNOWMOBILE
ACCIDENT
DROWNING
MEDICAL
EMERGENCY
SUICIDE
SUICIDE
ATTEMPTS
NATURAL
DEATH
ANIMAL
BITES
FIRE
0
10
93
0
0
95
0
4
2
2
32
0
10
61
0
0
93
1 0
1
0
1 2 1
21
TOTALS 1989- 238
1990 188 -21%
CLASS IV
TOTALS 1989 1038
1990 1036 --
HAZARDOUS VIOLATIONS 1989- 313 1990 310 --
NONHAZARDOUS VIOLATIONS 19 8 9 627 1990 416 -34%
CRIMINAL OFFENSES CLEARED 19 8 9
28%
1990
20%
ASSIST
1621
1990
1528 -6%
ANIMAL
FALSE
LOCK
OTHER
WARRANT
TRAFFIC
SUSPICION
MISSING
LOST
PUBLIC
DOMESTIC
DETAIL
ALARMS
OUTS
AGENCY
SERVED
DETAIL
INFORMATION
PERSON
FOUND
NUISANCE
MISC
34
100
116
156
51
35
165
140
7
13
48
173
37
95
112
152
48
37
105
155
2
13
106
174
TOTALS 1989 1038
1990 1036 --
HAZARDOUS VIOLATIONS 1989- 313 1990 310 --
NONHAZARDOUS VIOLATIONS 19 8 9 627 1990 416 -34%
CRIMINAL OFFENSES CLEARED 19 8 9
28%
1990
20%
TOTAL NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 19 8 9
1621
1990
1528 -6%
PLYMOUTH PUBLIC SAFETY
ALARM REPORT JANUARY 1990
MONTH
POLICE
FALSE ALARMS
PERMITS
1989
88
62
1940
89
7
CHANGE
+ 1 %
- 88
FIRE
FALSE ALARMS i
PERMITS
1.989_
40
11
1999
32
15
CHANGE
�y s `'
36.
A
C) C> O o
II o
W
o O O O
II o
11 Ln
LnL Ln
H (n
<a to
II r -i
w44
II
O U)
I, r -I N Ln
II In
Ei A
II -4
II
D1
wHO
��'
II
ON
Ill U)
11
04
aa
44loHOrilnoovv0r-Ir-iM00M000M
11 to
i `n
E-4
a
O
n
h
Ei
u
(!]
t'N r -I M M N r -i
VC',
IfN
II M
H
WH
z
a�
II
II
[4 <
Ei
A
O V r -I r -I r -I r -I r -I N M
II d'
z
r-{
II N
ii
u� a
E'H
0
ao
oU
Ww
U
II
A
a
r -I o
�r
rn
H
I
a
N N
II
W
Exi
ri O
Ln M M N N H r -I
11
x z
O O
El
II
r1 O
?�
O O
II r -I
a
A
rI,`°�
r-+ o
a co
a% r o o
r%4
00
II
coNV�%D0
O
Co N
II
a% m
O r -I
II
r -I M
r -I
r -IO
M N
H
O OV
11
co
Co O
II
�q
r -I O
.--I N r -I r-)
II to
v N
O V N %D O
00
11
mNM1no
cn
O IV
11
01 Ln
H
o 0
11
If
W
�
~
H o
cn a w z H W P 0 ED z
cn
A
0 Q UPOcn UxUUw wcnwzo
Wwo
••
w
z MH>4wmHW pxoHa4U) cnwa
cnU<
cn • ..
a cn
Ei
H aPaazE10 •aEiIZxOcn w7cn
0WE1
Iz
a WZM0H�3H0EgUPWH<AHC4HW
4x0
a •• cn
cn••o
o
a E1W2:0 Eiwr�cnocn>xx w0
w P
a
A
OAWUWHw w Wo -D
IZP0
A
U cna
a
ww
� ZHU) zEiw�> x HA
cnHW
Iz
.Hu)O4 cnaG►-Ia
s�C
7
AaaA
ztzW4 UzLai H �ax►-aw �w
o o
Haoo
40E1
w
a U)w H xwaw wcoPQ 0 x
w
U 4
a
o
P� (n U a x
4 E -A 0OGH0P0WcnPWZ:)0U40
a
H.'7
HWa
w
�r�wwaoa�axaUcntif."O(YiR', H,=j
<
64E4Z
NU)<H
a
AEia
H
o0PP
�
WP40P�UWWE ZPP4�ZZZZ0 a
O
Ei
a�xoacnxacnHWM0HHHH< a
E1
*
UNE -HW
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone 012/337-9300
__1.= 1 to
FEB 26 I
CLI ENT SUMMARY CITY OrPLhviji3;,.
Plymouth, City of Februaru 22, 1. j
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
E
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'
FED. 1. D.
41-i2'25694
Matter
Services
Disb.
To `.al
9
Guist Preceeding Subsequent-
79.00
136.72
11
Prosecution Office Time
4,001.00
276. 50
$4, 277..
__)
12
Prosecution Court Time
4,6.48.00
74. 95
1,4, 7*2'.
e5
13
Project 912 Eminent Domain
446.50
12.06
$456.56
*24
Play; Opinions
450.50
0.00
$450.
SCI
25
PPOW v Joseph Alexander
114.00
0.00
$1114.00
27
Met-po1ink
1,187.50
0.00
t-1, i87.
_C
26
Benin Special Assessm2n: Appeal
256. 50
1. 30
$237.
E.0
Project 544
*32
General
7,841.50
2:6E. 58
$8, 11O.
C8
37
County Road 6 Eminent Domain
104.50
4.00
f-0
Project 250
38
Courcy Road 18 Condemnation. 032
266.00
13.15
$279.
'_5
42
Codification
88.00
0.00
$82.1-20
44
v J Begin Injunction
1,559.90
12. 65
$1, 572.
=`
45
v Lectin (Cottonwood Pla.'_e)
209.00
1.40
$21G
`t:
47
Dauer v City
47. 50
0.00
$47.
_,-D
50
H�,enue Eminent Lona_n Project
139.50
0.00
.548
51
v LaT•rg Begin
47. 50
0.00
HOLMES &GRAVEN
CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone 612/337-9300
CL I ENT SUMMARY
Plymouth. City of February 22, 1990
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plumouth, MN 55447
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FELE. I. D.
Ti -1225694
54
Bonds — Special Matters
28.50
0.IC, 0
$28. 50
55
Leoin Nuisance Abatement and
1579.50
0.00
X57?. 50
!assessment Appeal
65
Complaint Draft
21 090. =0
0. 00
$2,090, =0
67
Grunwald Appeal1,
J51. 0
0.00
$1, 351.. 00
71
Schmidt Lake Road Eminent Domain —
95.00
0.00
$9:r.:=�'
Project 705
73
Plymouth Landina Housing revenue
10. 00
0.00
$1.{�. �°C3
Bonds
Client, PLIOO Totals: $25. 640. 90 $001. 81 $26, 44.2— 71
Retainer Credit: $1,292.00
Total: $25,150.71
1 declare, under penalty of law
-That this account, claim or demand
Is just and correct and that no part
tDf it h?x be=an paid.
c\
ai n"ure oivJmard
N-7
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: January 30, 1990
TO: Lieutenant Dennis Paulson
FROM: Chief Richard J. Carlquist
SUBJECT: TOWN MEETING COMMENTS FROM JANUARY 29, 1990
I received requests from residents who attended the Town Meeting
this past evening relative to two different locations that should
be checked. The locations are: Parkside Apartments and Xenium
Lane from 37th to Scanticon.
E711concern at Parkside is twofold. The first is that there is
egal parking on 41st Avenue adjacent to the apartment
Afrbuildings. The second is that there may be fire lane violations
on the property itself. With respect to Xenium Lane, the resident was concerned about
southbound traffic at about 8 a.m. Monday -Friday. He was
i concerned that, in particular, from approximately.�3.7th Avenue
7 North (which is approximately where the gravel road ends
southbound) to about 34th Avenue, where the stop sign is, that
the cars are speeding. He also felt that from the stop sign to
approximately Scanticon that the cars were driving considerably
above the 30 m.p.h. speed limit.
Please see that assignments are made through roll call to attend
to both of the areas mentioned. The officers should file a
report concerning their observations so that I may share them
with the City Council.
RJC:sb
cc: James G. Willis.- City Manager
V ` f
�-7
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: February 26, 1990
TO: Chief Richard J. Carlquist
FROM: Sergeant Larry Holzerland
SUBJECT: PARKSIDE APARTMENTS PARKING COMPLAINT
Since the first of the year there have been six fire lane tags
issued at this location. There have been no tags issued to any
vehicles parked on the street.
In the past, vehicles have parked on 41st diagonally on the east
side boulevard as overflow from the apartments. This practice
has discontinued - probably due to the winter weather. We will
monitor this situation to prevent it from reoccurring. Parking
spots are very limited here, especially during summer months when
fewer tenants use the underground parking.
The patrol officers have been advised to check this location
frequently for fire lane violations.
LH/sb
CITY OF'PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD.. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO -
DATE: 2/26/90
TO: Director Carlquist
FROM: Sgt. Holzerland
SUBJECT S.E.A. #90-2 Xenium Ln. between 34th. and 37th. Ave.
Six radar surveys have been completed at this location in response to
citizen's complaints of speeding during the morning rush hour. Twenty-four
citations were issued. The results are as follows:
SPEED #
20 or -less 2 0
20/25 17 6
26/30 35 14
31/35 62 24
36/40 68 27
41/45 19 7
46/50 1 0
*30 MPH POSTED SPEED LIMIT
0
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: March 1, 1990
TO: James G. Wa;i)
ity
FROM: Charles d,
Manager
Community Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: HENNEPI UNTY APPLICATION FOR WASTE TRANSFER STATION (89057)
On July 23, 1989 Hennepin County made application for a Conditional Use Permit
to construct a solid waste transfer station at the northeast corner of County
Road 6 and I-494, pursuant to Section 9, Subdivision D. of the Zoning
Ordinance (Hazardous Waste Facilities Conditional Uses).
Development Review Committee review of the application commenced immediately
together with activity to retain a qualified consultant to review the
application on behalf of the City of Plymouth, as the Ordinance specifies. It
should be noted that the review by the outside consultant is at the expense of
the project applicant.
On August 29, 1989, we drafted a letter to Hennepin County reviewing 35 items
that are in need of modification; additional clarification; or additional
information. These review comments were only the result of review by the City
of Plymouth staff and usual retained utilities and traffic consultants.
On July 24, 1989, we advised Hennepin County that the City of Plymouth had
selected Black and Veatch, Kansas City, to be the consultant that would review
technical aspects of their application on our behalf. On August 4, 1989,
Hennepin County delivered the necessary financial deposit and authorization to
proceed with the review of the application by the outside consultant. On
August 10, 1989,.we instructed Black and Veatch to proceed with their review.
Black and Veatch completed their review and on October 18, 1989, we
transmitted a copy of the Black and Veatch report, together with a list of 34
additional design -related items requiring additions, modifications of
clarifications related to plans that had been submitted by Hennepin County for
this facility. These additional design review items were generated from the
report presented by Black and Veatch.
To date, neither our design review letter of August 29, 1989, nor our design
review letter of October 18, 1989 has been responded to by Hennepin County.
The project remains in Stage 2 of the development review process, and cannot
proceed until the applicant has provided responses we have requested.
(pl/cd/trans.sta:jw)
-T- 0
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
MEMO
DATE: February 28, 1990
TO: Dial -A -Ride Passengers
FROM: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGES FOR APRIL 1, 0
For distribution to passengers March 5-9, 1990.
Dial -A -Ride ridership has grown to the point where it exceeds our ability to
provide service with the existing vehicles during peak hours. For example,
during January, Morley Bus Company had to deny 276 rides because of
insufficient bus capacity. Most of the denials were during the peak hours
of 6 a.m. - 9 a.m., and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. To provide dependable Dial -A-Ride
services and increase ridership capacity, we are contemplating a number of
changes scheduled to become effective April 1, 1990.
These changes are:
1. Add one additional 13 -passenger van between the hours of 6 a.m. to 9
a.m., and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. daily. This brings our peak hour fleet
from three to four vehicles. This action will cost about $31,400.
2. To pay the additional costs for this equipment we will:
a. Raise fares from $1.00 and $1.50 to $1.50 and $2.00; and
b. Discontinue all Sunday service and all service to in -town
Maple Grove and New Hope K -Mart since ridership has not
justified continuance.
Prior to taking these actions, I want to hear from our riders on the affect
these proposed revisions would have on you. I would appreciate receiving
your reactions to this proposal, in writing if possible, by Friday, March
23. You may simply write your reaction on this notice and give it to your
driver, or send your comments to me at 3400 Plymouth Boulevard. A third
option is to call 24 hours a day to our message center at 550-5062 and leave
a recorded message about your reaction.
At their March 28 meeting, the Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit will
be discussing this issue to decide whether or not there the revisions should
be implemented. You are invited to attend this meeting to share your
views. Any comments received by March 24 will be provided to the committee
for information.
PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGES FOR APRIL 1, 1990
February 28, 1990
Page 2 -
Please let me know if you have questions by calling 550-5013.
FB:kec
cc: Joe Morley, Morley Bus Company
Mayor & City Council
Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit
Regional Transit Board
5v,: 31%.31g0
COMMENTS
Return to Driver. Thanks!
PLYMOUTH CREEK HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
P.O. BOX 41633 PLYMOUTH MN 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 557-1758
February 22, 1990
Mr. Scott Hovet, CAE
Office of Tax Assessment
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.,
Plymouth, MN., 55447
Dear Scott,
I.
Just a word of appreciation for yourself and your able assistant, Mike
Carroll, for the time you both gave to owners of Plymouth Creek townhomes
last Thursday explaining the assessment basis for property tax valuation
purposes.
Your presentation clearly outlined the two objectives of that process,
namely (1) - the determination of proper market valuation and (2) -equity
between owners of similar townhome units. And the fact that this process
is done annually based on actual sales of the previous year highlighted
the currency of the process and its striving for fairness. Your candor,
supplemented by Mike's amazing recall of specific situations, added to the
credibility of the presentation.
Again, on behalf of Board members and residents of Plymouth Creek, a well-
deserved "thank you," and "well done."
Sincerely,
William E. Jac , Manager
cc: James Willis, City Manager
Board of Directors, Plymouth Creek H.O. Association
,yy jb 1f,
FEB 27 t99J
Ci Cf PLYMINTH
February 26, 1990
U.S. West Direct
2500 South Havana
Aurora, Colorado 80014
SUBJECT: RECYCLABILITY OF TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES
Dear Sir/Madam:
At the City of Plymouth we have worked hard to promote resident involvement
In recycling of solid waste. Our residents have responded with over 50% of
our residents participating in our weekly recycling program.
Within the recent month, we have received a substantial number of phone
calls from residents asking whether your white or yellow page directories
are recyclable. Our Recycling Contractor advises us that they are not
because of the gum binding used. Given the fact that the directories are
large, distributed annually, and distributed to a large number of people, it
would be ideal if they were recyclable. Over the next year I hope that you
will be able to make the necessary revisions to the white and yellow page
directories to make them a renewable resource as another step in reducing
our solid waste landfill problems.
I would appreciates it if you would share your plans in this matter when you
get a chance. /
Fi' hfikWyles
Assistant City Manger
FB:kec
cc: Mayor and City Council
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
aa�
-T- - aab
February 19, 1990
Mr. Richard J. Carlquist,
Public Safety Director
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Carlquist:
This is in reference to your letter of February 9 which I received by
registered letter at the Plymouth post office on February 17.
Enclosed is my check for $50.00 in payment of your alarm permit fee. This
payment is being made "under protest" for the following reasons:
1. 1 was informed that the Plymouth City Council restored
the provision for one "free" false alarm per year, beginning
1990. Since my alleged "false alarm" occurred on
December 7, 1989, would it not be possible to carry
that over into 1990 since it was so close to the end of
the year and that we had had no other "false alarms"
during the year?
2. The "false alarm" which you cited was due to a mechanical
or electrical malfunction which was totally beyond our
control. As a matter of fact, I didn't even know that we
had had a "false alarm" until receiving your letter. As I
explained to Mr. Darrell Anderson of your staff, I still have
no idea what caused it, but I believe it was a result of a very
momentary electrical fluctuation. We should not be charged
for something that was beyond our control.
3. It has always been my impression that homes which have
alarm systems enhance the ability of your police and fire
personnel to protect private property. In this instance
Mr. Richard J. Carlquist
February 19, 1990
Page 2
we are being penalized for providing a system designed to
assist your staff, for which we have incurred sub-
stantial installation expense and annual fees for
monitoring. It seems a bit much to also be required to
purchase a "security alarm permit"!
4. The substantial property taxes which we pay each year should
be sufficient to expect your department .to provide the
necessary police coverage to protect our property, including
a rare "false alarm". I
We will appreciate receiving your response to these concerns at your
earliest convenience. Although payment is being made to preclude your
revoking our "privileges" to operate our alarm system, we will expect a
refund of the $50.00 payment upon your final determination of whether we
really owe it.
Sincerely,
Ellis A. Olson
5995 Vicksburg Lane N.
Plymouth, MN 55446
EAO:ks
Encl.
cc: Kim Bergman, Mayor
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
February 23, 1990
Ellis A. Olson
5995 Vicksburg Lane
Plymouth, MN 55446
North
CIN OF
PLYMOUTR
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO FALSE ALARM PERMIT FEE LETTER
Dear Mr. Olson:
Thank you for your letter concerning your displeasure with the
false alarm ordinance. The police department actually invites
criticism of the services that we provide in order to better
reflect on the effectiveness and efficiency of our organization.
You have asked that I respond specifically to four different
areas as covered in your letter:
1. I was informed that the Plymouth City Council restored the
provision for one "free" false alarm per year, beginning 1990.
Since my alleged "false alarm" occurred on December 7, 1989,
would it not be possible to carry that over into 1990 since it
was so close to the end of the year and that we had no other
"false alarms" during the year?
Answer: No. A line has to be drawn somewhere. In this case it
was January 1, 1990.
2. The "false alarm" which you cited was due to mechanical or
electrical malfunction which was totally beyond our control. As
a matter of fact, I didn't even know that we had a "false alarm"
until receiving your letter. As I explained to Mr. Darrel
Anderson of your staff, I still have no idea what caused it, but
I believe it was the result of a very momentary electrical
fluctuation. We should not be charged for something that was
beyond our control.
Answer: You should not be charged for false alarms that are
considered acts of God, such as storms involving high winds and
lightening or other instances of power outages. In this case,
the burden of proof is on the alarm user. Absent an act of God
or an attempted entry into your home, an alarm permit fee is
required.
3. It has always been my impression that homes which have alarm
systems enhance the ability of your police and fhe fire personnel
to protect private property. In this instance, we are being
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
Ellis A. Olson
Page 2
penalized for providing a system designed to assist your staff,
for which we have occurred substantial installation expense and
annual fees for monitoring. It seems a bit much to also be
required to purchase a "security alarm permit"!
Answer: We encourage property owners to protect their property
with alarm systems. We do this in hopes of preventing crime.
Not to raise revenue via alarm permit fees! Last year we had a
total of 1,314 false intrusion alarms. The majority of alarms
the police answer are located in the commercial sector rather
than the residential. Approximately 5% of our residential
properties are alarmed. In order to diminish the two sword
effect of advocating alarm systems and yet being responsible to
respond to false alarms, a security alarm permit system was
implemented. Admittedly, the permit system may not be all that
effective; but, it could be much worse! Less than one-half of
one percent of alarm calls are valid. It is my understanding
that some out-of-state city police forces are not responding to
intrusion alarms - only private security firms.
4. The substantial property taxes which we pay each year should
be sufficient to expect your department to provide the necessary
police coverage to protect our property, including a rare "false
alarm."
Answer: Last year your property taxes were $3,657.04. That is
substantial in anybody's book! The share of your property taxes
that went to the City of Plymouth was $548.00. The resulting
portion that helped fund the Police Department budget in 1989 was
$152.43. Generally speaking, public safety services financed by
the general fund property taxes are to equip the department to
respond to incidents when needed. It is not a pay -for -service
type of arrangement. That is why a false alarm permit fee system
was established to cover some expenses via a users fee concept.
A refund of your $50.00 payment can be made by Council
resolution. I hope that I have been able to answer your.
questions fully. Again, thank you for taking the time to
register your complaint.
Sincerely,
Richard J. C rlqui
Public Safety Director
Plymouth Police Department
cc: James G. Willis - City Manager
Plymouth City Council
P
a /
etz4l--X� OL &x, A,
/0 4&ct, N&f zl� hil
IV 4'Wo� `(<2
;,'f:��:`:Z�h,''k�t,'' l � �{/[� WVVW G.�C �i �V� Y !9 `���//�/j/✓`7"�f%..� T�C;:;C�•2if`�Ls:=Ki,
&U,4,�o 40ut AU IV P-1111 —btc/ty
(71
February 28, 1990
Ms. Patti Richardson
17030 - 30th Avenue N.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Ms. Richardson:
I - a ac�
Thank you for your letter about the City Council's decision to replace
Plymouth on Parade with a bimonthly newsletter. I am pleased to learn that
you found Plymouth on Parade to be both a good source of information and a
handy format. I have passed your letter on to the City Council.
The City Council considered many options when deciding to replace Plymouth on
Parade. They opted for the newsletter format in order to provide more
visibility to city news and less of the detailed articles on routine city
activities. The newsletter will focus on shorter, quicker reading articles
which we hope readers will find informative and interesting.
I'm sure that you will find the new newsletter to be just as helpful as the
you found Plymouth on Parade.
Thanks for taking the time to voice your opinion.
Sincerely,
Helen LaFave
Communications Coordinator
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
CITY OF
PLYMOUTH -
February 26, 1990
David G. Schwain
Medicine Lake Sailing Club
PO Box 27536
Golden Valley, MN 55427-0536
Dear Mr. Schwain:
The City of Plymouth has no objection to the issuance of a permit by the
Hennepin County Sheriff for the Medicine Lake Sailing Club to hold sailing
races during the summer of 1990.
The City appreciates your commitment to safety and your willingness to help
anyone on the lake who may need assistance.
I wish you, and the other members of the Medicine Lake Sailing Club, good
winds for an exciting season of sailing races.
Sincerely,
E4.-, 6�6AZ
Eric Blank
Director of Parks and Recreation
EB/np
cc: City Manager
Director of Public Safety
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
February 26, 1990
To: Richard Carlquist, Chief of Police
From: Marvin Nelson, Patrolman
Re: Deer in the metopolitan area
Qa
Jif V'T - I
i
During the past few years we have had several very mild
winters with light snow cover. This along with our farming
and natural areas has provided an abundance of food readily
available to wildlife. These conditions are ideal for the
growth of the deer herd.
This past summer and fall, even at Crystal Airport, we
enjoyed watching three deer browsing in the lush grass just
off of the approach end of one runway.
When it comes to animals, there are very few people who are
as compassionate as I am. It is a very undesirable log
entry to dispatch a deer on the roadside after being hit by
a car. However, the thought of these creatures dying from
their injuries and/or starving to death in a field is even
less desirable.
What I am trying to say, with clarification, is that I am
strongly in favor of a controlled harvest of the deer in the
Plymouth area.
The idea of hunting in a metropolitan area such as ours
gives rise to a multitude of concerns for citizens' safety.
The thought of an individual roaming about our city with a
high-powered rifle looking for something to shoot is nothing
short of terrifying.
To provide you with a potential solution to this dilema I
propose that Plymouth be established as a primitive hunting
area or an archery area. To eliminate those who would still
be classed as a hazard, I propose the City host a
Rendezvous. This is a term used in identifying a gathering
of individuals who live in the woods (i.e. mountain men).
At these Rendezvous they traded for supplies and competed in
various sporting events for prizes they all donated, drank
and swapped stories.
A Rendezvous enables the City to legitimately qualify the
potential hunters without concern about discrimination
charges. It assures that only the best and most qualified
would be in the fields. An entry fee defrays the costs.
The top prizes are permits to hunt deer in the City of
Plymouth during the time period coinciding with the state
season.
LAURESS V.ACKMAN
GERALD E. MAGNUSON
EDWARD M.GLENNON
MELVIN I.OREI/STEIN
ROBERT,J.SHERAN
ISRASL E. KRAWETZ
EUGENE KEATING
JAMES P.MARTINEAU
RICHARD J. FITZGERALD
JOHN A.FORREST
WILLIAM E. FOX
JOHN J. CONNELLY
JERROLD F.EERGFALK
DAVID M.LESEDOFF
JOHN H.STROTHMAN
DAVID G. NEWHALL
KURTIS A. GREENLEY
ROBERT V. ATMORE
PATRICK DELANEY
RONALD G. VANTINE
JOHN B.WINSTON
LAURANCC R. WALOOCH
THOMAS H.GARRETT 111
DARYLE L. UPHOFF
DAVID J. DAVENPORT
MARK R.JOHNSON
RICHARD A. PRIMUTH
R. WALTER EACH MAN
THOMAS L. FASEL
JEFFREY R. SCHMIDT
TIMOTHY H. BUTLER
ROBERT G. MITCHELL.JR.
J. MICHAEL DADY
J. KEVIN COSTLEY
ROBERTJ.HARTMAN
JOSEPH G. KOHLER
RICHARD O.MCNEIL
DONALD C. SWENSON
BRUCE A. BONJOUR
JAMES P.MCCARTHY
STEVEN J.JOHNSON
RICHARD IHRIG
CAROL T. RIEGER
RODERICK I.MACKENZIE
WILLIAM E. FLYNN
JAMES W. REUTER
MICHAEL S. MARGULIES
THOMAS G. LOVETT IV
THOMAS E.GLENNON
JOHN R. HOUSTON
DENNIS M.O'MALLEY
EDWARD J.WEGERSON
February 27, 1990
LINDQUIST & VENNUM
4200 IDS CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-220S
TELEPHONE 16121371-3211
FAX: 16121 371-3207
CABLE: LINLAW MINNEAPOLIS
WAYZATA OFFICE
740 EAST LAKE STREET
WAYZATA,MINNESOTA SS391
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
Mayor and Councilmembers
City of Plymouth
8400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
(612)473-4208
DANIELJ.SHERAN
DAVID A. ALLGEYER
TERRENCE J. FLEMING
ROLF ENGH
RICHARD T.OSTLUND
DEBORAH M. REGAN
MARTIN R. ROSENBAUM
ELINOR C. ROSENSTEIN
ROSANNE H. WIRTH
DEBRA K. PAGE
MICHAEL D. OLAFSON
JOEL H. GREEN
DAVID L. HALLETT
CHARLES R.WEAVER,JR.
DAVID L. SASSEVI LLE
DAVID A. DONNA
JONATHAN M. BYE
MARY P. MCCONNELL
SALLY S.GROSSMAN
TIMOTHY R. BAER
TIMOTHY S. MCINTEE
JOSEPH A. THOMSON
ANN L. IIJIMA
ELIZABETH G. ABY
SALLY J. WHITESIDE
KATHARINE N. HELMS
WALLACE G. HILKE
CHARLES P. MOORSE
PATI JO POFAHL
LUKE H. TERHAAR
KAREN L. SCHREIBER
CHARLES J. LLOYD
JAMES A. LODOEN
SUSAN R. MONKMEYER
JON G.TRANGSRUO
TIMOTHY Y. WONG
RANDY G. GULLICKSON
SARAH DUFF HALVORSON
SANDRA KIM
WILLIAM R. MIKOS
ROBERT E.TUNHEIM
ANSI$ V. VIKSNINS
LAURA L. DALY
OF COUNSEL
LEONARD E.LINDOUIST
NORMAN L. NEWHALL
RETIRED
THOMAS VENNUM
Dear Mayor Bergman and Councilmembers Vasiliou, Ricker, Zitur
and Helliwell:
Thank you for meeting with me and Bob Boisclair of to review
Boisclair Corporation's proposals for affordable senior housing
in Plymouth.
We would be pleased to provide you with any additional
information that you might need to evaluate financing
alternatives for Plymouth Landing.
It is our understanding that the Council now desires to consider
different financing options and, depending,on what consensus
might emerge from the Council, ask Boisclair Corporation to
respond to the Council's preferred financing method.
While we are awaiting further City Council direction, Boisclair
Corporation will proceed with the application process required
for approval of the townhouse project since the option on this
property has been previously extended on two other occasions and
it is not likely that an extension beyond the current June 1st
exercise date can be obtained from the land owners.
Thank you again for your time and attention on Monday and we will
look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience as
LI,NOIQUIST & VENNUM
Mayor and Councilmembers
City of Plymouth
February 27, 1990
Page 2
to what Boisclair Corporation might do in association with the
City to make Plymouth Landing a reality.
Sincerely
LINDQU T EN
David J. Da v nport
DJD: cap
cc: Mr Robert Boisclair
Mr. Jim Willis
= - IQI:_:;� Z�l
ham',.•..• :,
CITY OF
PLYMOUTH -
February 27, 1990
Mrs. Mark DeVinny
1255 Sycamore Lane
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear Mrs. DeVinny:
Thank you for sending me the letter with your request for new equipment at
Gleanloch Park. For your information, I have forwarded copies of your letter
to both the City Council and the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. I
have also sent a copy of your letter to Mark Peterson, Superintendent of
Parks, for -his information. I have asked Mr. Peterson to look into the issue
of new sand at Gleanloch Park. I'm sure this is an area where we can make
immediate improvements.
In response to your question about new playground equipment, the City has a
five-year capital improvement program, which allocates funding for these types
of improvements. The current capital improvement program calls for total
replacement with new equipment at Gleanloch Park in 1993. With your input, it
is possible that the City Council could choose to expedite the proposed
replacement program. I would like to schedule a time when I could meet with
you at the park, so that I can get a better understanding of exactly what your
desires and concerns are. If you would call me at 550-5131, we could schedule
a meeting when the weather gets a little warmer.
Thank you for your time and interest in this matter.
Sincerely,
Eric Blank
Director of Parks and Recreation
EB/np
cc: City Manager=..Q
Superintendent of Parks
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
TO: City Of Plymouth, J'ark and Recreation Dept. = .
We, the residents .near Gleanloch Park would like to
see some changes in our park. There is a great need for
some new equipment and improved maintainence of park area.
We would like new sand,more swings and some large muscle
activities since the number of children in this area has _
increased dramatically.
1# Sincerely,
;low ,
-�,;i �c L ft ,
Ire
- v
CITY OF
PLYMOUTH -
February 26, 1990
Mr. Brian Cederlind
16730 - 32nd Avenue North
Plymouth, Mn. 55447
SUBJECT: CITY RECYCLING PROGRAM CASH DRAWING
Dear Mr. Cederlind:
This is to acknowledge the note from you written on the notification for the
February 21, 1990 Cash Drawing. You state that the understanding you had was
that the recyclables had to be out at the curb by 8:00 A.M. Prior to June 1,
1989 the recycling contractor employed by the City started pickups by 8:00
A.M. and therefore we were able to use that time. Beginning June 1st,
however, the old contractor went out of business and the City had to scramble
and find a new contractor to haul the recyclables. The City was only able to
locate one contractor and he insisted on starting at 7:00 A.M. In order to
continue the Cash Drawing it was necessary to change the time for which
recyclables had to be at the curb because the City has no idea in which
location the hauler will start his pickups. The City, therefore, sent out a
First Class Notification to all residents of the City notifying them of the
changes made necessary by the new contractor. I am enclosing a copy of that
letter for your information. I am also enclosing a copy of the City's
Recycling Brochure which was sent out to all homes. In addition to these two
notifications, several articles have appeared in the Plymouth on Parade, the
Plymouth Post, Wayzata Sailor, and Wayzata Weekly News all stating that in
order to be eligible your recyclables must be at the curb by 7:00 A.M. This
information is also on the City Cable Channel 37.
While I can understand your disappointment and I am sorry that you were unable
to claim the $400.00 prize, I am sure you can see by the enclosed material
that your understanding about having it out by 8:00 A.M. was incorrect. The
City appreciates the efforts which you are making in the recycling program and
it is my sincere desire that your address will be drawn again very soon. I
would ask that you please place your items at the curb by 7:00 A.M. in order
to remain eligible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Pouliot
Project Coordinator
RJP:sm
cc: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
ro.
CITY OF
PLYMOUTR
Date: Feb. 21, 1990
Mr./Mrs. Brian Cederlind
1673(1 3?nrl Ave
Plymouth, MN
SUBJECT: CITY RECYCLING PROGRAM
CASH DRAWING
Dear Mr./Mrs. Brian Cederlind:
This letter is to let you know that your address was drawn for the
weekly cash drawing. Unfortunately there were no Recyclables at your
curb when I checked at 7:05 this morning. The amount that you would
have won had your Recyclables been at the curb by 7:00 a.m., properly
separated, was $ ggn.nn I am sorry that you were unable to
claim the prize today, but you continue to remain eligible for future
drawings and I hope that your address will again be selected by the City
Council very soon.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Pouliot
Project Coordinator
RJP:sm
�—�- -1 1'� e. ti,.CLU-e a \ IU��S ,Pu,-� ova Ou v�
r f}IY� Ij'l a,(1 o 07v 4v�
�C
/iZt, l�vu dcw s �-e� vt C� w e �` 4wAS
i�
-.�--12o v,c� �n.�' d'� ! � �� � (.c �-� �'►�J C' -S
Cl v'-+
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
C> -� dam►
ey L(71 %A- VY% f -4 -
Al
' � u l� G�.Y1-
February 28, 1990
Senator Patrick McGowan
132B State Office Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Pat:
Thanks for taking time from your very hectic schedule to meet with us Monday
evening. The Mayor and Council appreciated your sharing with them your
observations on various matters currently before the Legislature. Meetings
such as this provide a good opportunity to not only become better acquainted
but to gain a better understanding of some of the issues which you confront
day in and day out.
We appreciate your commitment to public service and want to continue working
closely with you on the issues which affect Plymouth and its fine citizens
and businesses.
Best regards,
ame Willis
ity Manager
JW:kec
cc: Mayor & City Council
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
February 28, 1990 CIN C
PLYMOUTR
Senator James Ramstad
123 State Office Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Jim:
Thanks for taking time from your very hectic schedule to meet with us Monday
evening. The Mayor and Council appreciated your sharing with them your
observations on various matters currently before the Legislature. Meetings
such as this provide a good opportunity to not only become better acquainted
but to gain a better understanding of some of the issues which you confront
day in and day out.
We appreciate your commitment to public service and want to continue working
closely with you on the issues which affect*Plymouth and its fine citizens
and businesses.
Best regards,
4ames . Willis
C y M nager
JW:kec
cc: Mayor & City Council
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
February 28, 1990
Representative Ron Abrams
Room 211 State Office Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Ron:
Thanks for taking time from your very hectic schedule to meet with us Monday
evening. The Mayor and Council appreciated your sharing with them your
observations on various matters currently before the Legislature. Meetings
such as this provide a good opportunity to not only become better acquainted
but to gain a better understanding of some of the issues which you confront
day in and day out.
We appreciate your commitment to public service and want to continue working
closely with you on the issues which affect Plymouth and its fine citizens
and businesses.
Best regards,
es G. Willis
Ci Manager
JW:kec
cc: Mayor & City Council
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
February 28, 1990
Representative Warren Limmer
Room 327 State Office Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Warren:
CIN OF
PLYMOUTFF
Thanks for taking time from your very hectic schedule to meet with us Monday
evening. The Mayor and Council appreciated your sharing with them your
observations on various matters currently before the Legislature. Meetings
such as this provide a good opportunity to not only become better acquainted
but to gain a better understanding of some of the issues which you confront
day in and day out.
We appreciate your commitment to public service and want to continue working
closely with you on the issues which affect Plymouth and its fine citizens
and businesses.
Best regards,
4k.mesG.Willis
ager
JW:kec
cc: Mayor & City Council
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH; MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
i aa�
ROBBINSDALE AREA COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER
4139 Regent Avenue North
Robbinsdale, Minnesota 55422
(612) 535-1790
February 14, 1990
OPEN MEETING
March 6, 1990 - 3:00 to 4:30 p.m.
Robbinsdale Area Community Education Center
Room 010
City of Plymouth
Mayor Kim Bergman
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN
55447
The Robbinsdale Area Schools is preparing an application for
federal Even Start monies. Even Start Is a special
family -centered program that combines adult literacy, parent
education and early childhood education into a unified
program.
We wish to review with you the elements of the proposal and
obtain your Input on the needs of young families living In
Independent School District #281. An Informal meeting of
human service providers from the northwest suburban area has
been set for March 6, 1990 from 3:00 to 4:30 p.m. at the
Robbinsdale Area Community Education Center, room 010.
Please come and share your expertise.
Yours truly,
Mary Negr Coordinat
Adult Academic Program
6
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 281
Robbinsdale Area Schools
Learning for a lifetime of growing
Linda Powell
Superintendent
Peter Tysdal
3015 East Medicine Lake Blvd.
Plymouth, Mn. 55441
February 23, 1990
Kim M. Bergman
Mayor, City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, Mn. 55447
Dear Mayor Bergman:
I received the 1/8 letter regarding the 1/29 town meeting
while I was out of town and having my mail forwarded to me. I
was unable to attend such meeting because I did not return until
2/10. Upon my return, I had asked around the neighborhood but
was unable to find anyone who had attended this meeting. I am
particularly interested in what was discussed regarding the parks
and trail system as the last I heard the county wished to put a
trail through my kitchen and the living room of my house next
door.
Through the limited information I have received to date
regarding you, I have received the impression that you are a more
fiscally responsible politician than your predecessor. You may
already know that tearing down my homes is an unnecessary and a
blatant waste of public funds. I would like to know your
position on these trail plans.
Yours truly,
i
Peter Tysdal
February 26, 1990
Mr. Kim Bergman
Mayor
City of Plymouth
3400 P1ymouyh Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Mr. Bergman:
l 19g�
�•, .rte ..
As promised in our recent telephone conservation, enclosed
is the material that serves as the basis of our claim that
there is not a need for Schmidt Lake Road. Please review
carefully the figures presented by Strgar that present
current traffic patterns and the carrying capacity of these
roads.
Some important paints for consideration:
(1)The fact that the DNR granted Plymouth the
permit is not prima facie evidence that the
Road is needed. The DNR routinely grants 90%-95%
of all permit requests involving protected waters.
(Source: Tom Dixon, DNR).
(:)There has been no irreparible damage to the wetlnds
from construction. The construction to date can be
made into upland and added to the Plymouth trail system.
(3)There is a movement, bath locally and nationwide,
that recognizes the important functions that wetlands
and open space serve. T have spoken before bath the
Plymouth City Council and the Planning Commission ,
encouraging both bodies to take a more visionary and
proactive stance in this area. Plymouth should assume a
leadership role in this important area.
(4)By delaying any further construction of Schmidt
Lake Road through the wetland, you will contribute
to the neighborhoods on either side of Schmidt Lake
Road as it warAders through much of northern Plymouth.
Many residents remain concerned about the impacts of
this Road on the character and safety of their
neighborhoods.
(5)Until County Road #10 and Zachary Lane
are upgraded, the need for Schmidt Lake Road
cannot be determined. The only evidence is a traffic
study that extrapolated a 3.5% traffic growth rate
(when the historic growth rate for this traffic
region, according to Strgar, is only 2.9%) into
the future. Shouldn't a project that impacts so
many residents not to mention a diminishing
resource be put off until a meed is demonstrated
by actual, and not projected, trends?
Kiwi, thank you for the time you spent with me on the
telephone. I look forward to your comments following your
review of the enclosed material. Please be mindful of the
important role you can play in the area of resource
protection. As Harry Drabrk said, "And each time we will
have to call � �n such as you to rise with us in defense of
the splendid, y4lent Earth, which has no defenders, save us.''
Sii%W'ere�y
Thoman/W. Stenoien
September 4, 1989
As one of the co-founders of Plymouth's Protcztors of
Wetlands, Inc. (PPOW), I have studied the material that
purportedly demonstrates the meed for the construction of
Schmidt Lake Road through an unnamed wetland in northern
Plymouth, and which is the subject of our lawsuit against
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
In order to build this road through a DNR pv'`Lactrd `^etland,
the City of Plymouth was required to obtain a permit issued
by the DNR. To obtain the necessary permit, the City was
required to demonstrate a current need for tho road , and
hired the consulting firm of Strgar-Roscoe-Faundh,Inr'
(hereafter Strgar) to conduct the traffic studies. lhe
'
original Strgar study served as the basis for Plymoxth's
contention in its Environmental Assessment Worksheet that
Schmidt Lake Road was needed. This is an essential point--
'
the original Strgar study failed to demor/strato a cul -rent
�
need for the road, even though the study uscd growt|,
cti that unrealistica1ly high and capacity
projections � were
- �
estimates that were excessively low. To remedy this, the
City commissioned a new study (Strgar 2) that purportedly
demonstrated the current need that previously had hoen found
lacking. The Department of Natural Resourcer (DNR)
determined that this study was more persuasive, and granted
'
i� t build the road But Strgar 2
Plymouth � perm o ~
'
demonstrates a current need only if certain facts are
ignored.
The first fact is that County Road #10 is due for cxpansion
in 1990.(Source� Mr. Bruce Polactyk, Preliminary Dosign
Engineer, Hennepin County Public Works). currently, County
Road 410 is predominantly a two lane road botween County
Road #18 and #494, the traffic corridor that would he served
by the Schmidt Lake Road extension through the wetland. By
expanding County Road #10, much of the east/west traffic
would be handled by a Road that is currently only a two lane
r9a6. Strgar 2 asserts thai even with an expanded County
Road #10, the traffic corridor served by 59 and #10 would be
\hovercapacity. This contradicts the original Strgar
�r
study,which shows (Figure 21 "Exsisting*daily Traffic (1986)
and Screenlines") that current traffic levels (1986) was
County Road
about 29600 vehicles per day (14200 vehicles on
010 and 15400 vehicles per day on County Mad h 9). Yet
Strgar also asserts that the capacity of each road is
between 25000 and 3000(} vehicles per day, for a combined
capacitl, of 50000 to 60000 vehicles per day. Using the
figures presented by Strgary County Roads 09 and #10 are ~
'
under capacity � b some 20000 to 30000 vehicles pun day.
aa�
Acceleration of the "need" for Schmidt Lake Noad from
sometime before 2010 to 1989 is simply not b, -.sed on the
facts.
The other fact that was conveniently ignored by the City of
Plymouth was the City's own plan to expand Zachary Lane so
as to act as a north/south feeder to County Roads 49 and
#10. With Zachary Lane expanded to four lanQ s (currently
two), the need for another east/west read to serve this
corridor is obviously diminished. Zachary Lane will be able
to efficiently deliver greater numbers of vehicles to the
two County Roads that I have already demonstrated aced leave the
capacity to handle. This will also relieve some of the
congestion on neighborhood streets (most notedly, 18th
Avenue North) noted in Strgar 2.
Strgar 2 did not evaluate feasible and practiQa l
alternatives to the build scenario. The study detailed the
queuing at #9 and Saratoga Lane without mentioning that the
intersection lacks a left turn only signal,which would
surely alleviate much of the traffic. Strgar 8 mentioned
the traffic problems along 48th Avenue North without
exploring alternatives such as traffic signs on this street
that would reduce the attractiveness of this sti-•ent as a
throughfare. Nor did it comment on the p� �s nibi l ity that 45th
Avenue North, a four lane road also allignod to carry
east/west traffic, could more aedequately hai"dle the traffic
than 48th Avenue does currently.
Thus, Strgar 2, no more than the original Strgar stud.y', does
not demonstrate a current need for the extrnrion of '.=c:hmi.dt
Lake Road through this previously protected -cat l and. and if
the facts that (1) County Road #10 is planned .for, Qxpransion,
(2) Zachary Lane is planned for expansion, and (3)
alternatives such as traffic signals and expanded usr of
exsisting streets are considered, then the City did not
present feasible alternatives to the build decision. That
the DNR did -not insist on a more thorough evaluation Of
-alternatives is nothing less than a dereliction of duty.
The DNR saw through the inaedequacies of the original. Strgar
study. Even though the authors used a exce 5ivul.y ►-iii h
growth rate of 3.5% (when the historical growth rata rot-
this
arthis region was 2.907 the authors could come up with little
more than the statement' that before the year 2010 Schmidt
Lake Road would be needed. The authors also u ed ra capacity
figure that was purposely low (25,000 to 30,000 vchic-les per
day) . Mr Christensen of the Minnesota Department � �f'
VLSI � Transportation, in correspondance attached, estimated that
the capacity of a four lane road should be '.S0x:00
vehicles per day. The use of these lower capacity
estimates obviously made the need for the road
1S correspondingly higher. An evaluation of tl•rc--�
presented as an attachment to these pages dc::c� or,n -i :}!:r: thzt;,
depending oA the growth rate and capacity ras"comph i..,n s hold,
the read may never be needed. Please also rc•viow they .letter
from Mr. Christensen of the Department of Transport -=,I: i _•n on
the capacity of four lane roadways that demonstrates the
Strgar study's use of excessively low capacity estimates.
Last, common sense should come into play when evaluating the
need for this road. Where Schmidt Lake Road is proposed to
be built, the distance between County Road A `a and it 10 is
slightly greater than a mile. Where else in this state are
there three four -lane roads within about a mile that carries
vehicles in the same direction.?
The City of Plymouth has not demonstrated a current, need for
the extension of Schmidt Lake Road. Nor has it whoc. n that
feasible alternatives to the build decision +•Jr..re sFzi-•iously
considered. We think that the DNR's approval of a pOrmit
should be reversed until the City of Plymouth call
demonstrate a current need and can prove thM thcur are no
practical and' feasible alternatives to the c_onnt:ruct ion Of
this road.
Thomas W. Stenoien
President
PPOW, Inc.
Table E When is the road really needed?
Assumption of 13.5%/yr.
carrying !
capacity of I
Pi-nad 1
-----------------------------
2501-10 Vehicles/day 1 2001
3000C) Vehicles/day 1 2007
35000 Vehicles/day 1 2010
Growth l=ate Assumptions
1 2.9%/yr 1 3.5%/5yrs 1 3.5%/10yr
! 1 2.9%/21►yr I 2.9%/15yr
!
I ! l
1
! 2005
S
! -2010
1
1 beyond
1 2010
I
1 2003
1 21!! r2
I
I 20117
!
s
!
1 beyond
I beyond
1 2010
1
1 2010
1
a
i
N
3.5%'/1Ciyrs
I. 2.5 /-'/ 15yr s
1
1
1 'i 03.
! 2( 1()
1
1 bey6nd
! 2010
I i
Kim : �I . .S
q �- aQZD
Sg�
a� �qto Ch,Ct 4.
- y� p Y'o a.c�lil0.,� C.�P a.G t�tt�o �f'a.rv�lL' `��•o'�w1 a� S oo D .
j "5-4�
veuzd-m /aSir a� `�CKZ—i-11WI� ?
Aa
d�i 000
X50 000 d�Giti✓�Xb
,
v C7
r
G 3.5%
foo I, �T G),
46,1c,04 IZAP
L:G�r
Put
210 o"
Table 1 3.5% growth assumption
END OF YR
YEAR
TRAFFIC
RATE
TRAFFIC
;
1986
F1 2 j5 296OO
SAS'
1.0350
1.0350
3� 1636
31708
1987
30636
1988
31708
1.0350
32818
1989
32818
1.0350
33967
1990
33967
1.0350
35156
1991
35156
1.0350
36386
1992
36386
1.0350
37659
1993
37659
1.0350
38978
1994
38978
1.0350
40342
1995
40342
1.0350
41754
1996
41754
1.0350
43215
1997
43215
1.0350
44728
1998
44728
1.0350
46293
1999
46293
1.0350
47913
' 2000
47913
1.035O
•49590
2001
49590
1.0350
51326
2002
51326
1.0350
53122
2003
53122
1.0350
54982
20014
54982
1.0350
56906
2005
56906
1.0350
58898
20016
58898
1.0350
60959
2� X07
60959
1.0350
63093
20108
63093
1.03501
65301
201.)9
65301
1.0350
67587
2111()
67587
1.0350
69952
Table 2 2.9%
growth assumption
END OF YR
YEAR
TRAFFIC
RATE
TRAFFIC
�.
1986
29600
1.0290
30458
1987
30458
1.0290
31342
1988
31342
1.0290
32251
1989
32251
1.0290
33186
1990
33186
1.0290
34148
1991
34148
1.0290
35139
1992
35139
1.0290
36158
1993
36158
1.0290
37206
1994
37206
1.0290
38285
1995
38285
1.0290
39395
1996
39395
1.0290
40538
1997
40538
1.0290
41713
1998
41713
1.0290
42923
1999
42923
1.0290
44168
2000
44168
1.0290
45449
2001
45449
1.0290
46767
2002
46767
1.0290
48123
2003
48123
1.0290
49519
2004
49519
1.0290
50955
2005
50955
1.0290
52432
2� X06
52432
1.0290
53953
•2007
53953
1.0290
55518
2008
55518
1.0290
57128
2009
57128
1.0290
58784
2t � 10
58784
1.0290
60489
YEAR
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Table 3 Variable rate growth assumption
Peg. of YF,
END OF YR
TRAFFIC
FATE
TRAFFIC
29600
1.0350
30636
30636
1.0350
31708
31708
1.0350
32818
32818
1.0350
33967
33967
1.0350
35156
35156
1.0290
36175
36175
1.0290
37224
37224
1.0290
38304
38304
1.0290
39414
39414
1.0290
40557
40557
1.0290
41734
41734
1.0290
42944
42944
1.0290
44189
44189
1.0290
45471
45471
1.0290
46789
46789
1.0290
48146
48146
1.0290
49543
49543
1.0290
50979
50979
1.0290
52458
52458
1.0290
53979
53979
1.0290
55544
55544
1.0290
57155
57155
1.0290
58813
58813
1.0290
•60518
60518
1.0290
62273
Assumes 3.5% growth rate
for the 1986-
1991 period, followed by
the historical
2.9% growth rate
cited in
the city's
traffic study.
J
Table.4 Variable
rate growth assumption
Beg. of YR
END OF YE
YEAR.
TRAFFIC
FATE
TRAFFIC
1986
29600
1.0350
30636
1987
30636
1.0350
31708
1988
31708
1.0350
32818
1989
32818
1.0350
33967
1990
33967
1.0350
35156
1991
35156
1.0350
36386
1992
36386
1.0350
37659
1993
37659
1.0350
38978
1994
38978
1.0350
40342
1995
40342
1.0350
41754
1996
41754
1.0290
42965
1997
42965
1.0290
44211
1998
44211
1.0290•
45493
1999
45493
1.0290
46812
2000
46812
1.0290
48169
2001
48169
1.0290
49566
2002
49566
1.0290
51004
2003
51004
1.0290
52483
2004
52483
1.0290
54005
2005
54005
1.0290
55571
2006
55571
1.0290
57183
2007
57183
1.0290
•58841
2008
58841
1.0290
60547
209
60547
1.0290
62303
2010
62303
1.0290
64110
Assumes 3.5% growth rate
for the 1986-
1995 period, followed by
the historical
2.9% growth rate
cited in
the city's
traffic study.
!•
Table 5 Variable
rate growth
assumption
Beg. of YR
END OF YF
YEAR
TRAFFIC
FATE
TRAFFIC
1986
29600
1.0350
30636
1987
30636
1.0350
31708
1988
31708
1.0350
32818
1989
32818
1.0350
33967
1990
33967
1.0350
35156
1991
35156
1.0350
36386
1992
36386
1.0350
37659
1993
37659
1.0350
38978
1994
38978
1.0350
40342
1995
40342
1.0350
41754
1996
41754
1.0250
42798
1997
42798
1.0250
43868
1998
43868
1.0250
44964
1999
44964
1.0250
46088
2000
46088
1.0250
47241
2001
47241
1.0250
48422
2002
48422
1.0250
49632
2003
49632
1.0250
50873
2004
50873
1.0250
52145
2005
52145
1.0250
53448
2006
53448
1.0250
.54785
2007
54785
1.0250
56154
2008
56154
1.0250
57558
2009
57558
1.0250
58997
2010
58997
1.0250
60472
Assumes 3.5% growth
rate
for the 1986-
1995 period, followed
by
a 2.5%
growth rate.
June 22, 1988
Pred Moore
Director of Public Works
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL* ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD FROM SARATOGA LANE TO ZACHARY LANE
IN PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA.
The City of Plymouth has presented its case for the extension of
Schmidt Lake Road through the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
protected wetland 579W. While addressing many of the environmental
concerns associated with the construction of this road, the central
issue --has the City demonstrated that this road is needed? --remains.
I hope to show that, indeed, the City has not demonstrated a. current
need for the road, and that, using the City's own study, the road may
never be needed.
In order for the City to build this road, it must be able to
demonstrate a convincing need because the road will encroach upon DNR
protected wetlands. Therefore, the City contracted with the
engineering firm of Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. (hereafter Strgar) to
conduct an Alternative Feasibility Study "to identify, document and
evaluate the technical feasibility of possible alternative alignments
for the proposed street." As part of this study, a Traffic Needs
Analysis was undertaken. The conclusion, quoted from page 4 of file
No. 080708651. dated June 26, 1987, presented something considerably
less than a convincing current need:
"The results of this analysis clearly indicate Schmidt Lake Road
a+ill be needed by the year 2010 to provide an appropriate
facility to maintain an acceptable level of service on C.S.A.H.
9 and C.S.A.H. 10"
Why the City is proposing the destruction of DNR protected wetland in
order to build a road that will not be needed for many years is
puzzling. Perhaps their engineers and planners feel as I do; that is,
that the traffic study's assumption of a 3.5% compounded growth rate
of traffic is not a reliable and accurate estimate, and so they had
better get this road contructed before actual counts prove their
assumptions false.
As mentioned, the major assumption in the Strgar study was that the
,b.5Y. growth rate that this area has experienced in the past decade
.would continue for the next 25 years. Extrapolating this rate to the
year 20109 *the study projects that some 70,000 vehicles per day will
travel on County -Roads 09 and #10. This far exceeds the carrying
capacity of these roads, even assuming County Road #10's expansion to
four lanes. I have presented in Table 1 the projected traffic levels
that will result if the 3.5% growth rate holds true until the year
2010.
. 4 .
Table 21 using a constant 2.9% growth rate through the year 2010
results in a projected 609000 vehicles per day. The 2.9% growth rate _
is the historical growth rate for the entire metropolitan area for the
years 1971 - 1986.
Table 3 presents a variable growth rate assumption. For the years
1986 - 1990 a 3.5% rate is assumed, followed by a 2.9% rate for the
years 1991 - 2010. By 2010, under these assumptions, some 62,000
vehicles will travel in this corridor.
Table 4 assumes a variable growth rate of 3.5% for the years 1985 -
1995, followed by the historical rate of 2.97. for the years 1996 -
2010. This assumption results in some 649000 vehicles per day.
The last assumed growth rate, presented in Table 5, uses 3.5% for the
,i: i rst ten years, followed by a 2.5% growth rate for the years 1996 -
2010. This results in some 60,000 vehicles per day.
Depending upon the growth rate selected, by the year 2010 the corridor
served by County Roads #9 and #10 will have to accomodate between
60,000 (Table 2) and 70,000 (Table 1) vehicles per day. The Strgar
study states that the capacity of a four lane road is 25,000 - 309000
vehicles per day, and for planning purposes uses the lower figure
throughout the study. The use of this lower figure, of course, makes
the City's argument for the extension of Schmidt Lake Road that much
more compelling, but is it accurate?
The carrying capacity of a road is influenced by a number of factors,
Including grade, curvature, shoulders, restrictions, the number of
intersections, the percentage of use by trucks, and so on. In fact,
according to the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the
Transportation Research Board, Washington D.G. (1985), the theoretical
capacity of a one -lane road is some 29000 vehicles per hour, or 48,000
vehicl.es per day per lane. The unique characteristics of a road will
determine what the acutual capacity of the road is, but the study's
use of the 25,000 figure is just an estimate, and a conservative
estimate at that.
Table 6 uses the data presented in Tables 1 through 5 and, depending
upon the assumption of a capacity of the existing roadways adopted,
displays when the road will be needed. If the capacity of Roads 09
and #10 is each assumed to be 25,000 vehicles per day, then between
them the capacity is 509000 vehicles. From Table 1, the 509000
vehicles per day level is not reached until the beginning of the year
2001. But under a 2.9% growth rate assumption (Table 2), the 50,000
.vehicle per day level is not reached until the beginning of the year
2005. Now assume that County Roads #9 and #10 can, between them,
handle 605000 vehicles per day. If the growth rate persists at a 2.97.
rate, then the 60,000 level will not be reached until the year 2010.
The significance of Table 6 can be summed up as follows:
— Under whatever assumptions held, the earliest that this road is
truly needed from a traffic needs standpoint is the year 2001.
—
This holds true only if all the assumptions most favorable to the
City are accepted.
— Since the City cannot document a current need from Strgar's study,
the DNR should deny the permit needed to build the Schmidt Lake Road
extension across the DNR protected wetland 579W until such a time that
the City can prove•a need. That, I submit, will not be for at least a
decade.
Tom and Mary Jo Stenoien
10510 49th Avenue N.
Plymouth, MN 55442
June 22, 1988
ADDITIONAL RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD
ZACHARY LANE IN PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA.
ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW)
FROM SARATOGA LAI1r TO
The numbers before my responses refer to the numbers in the EAW
as submitted.by the City of Plymouth.'
#18b. The delineated 100 year flood plain will be affected by
any construction. There is only a temporary, wooden control at
the location where the wetlands drain. How accurate have the
City's calculations .been as to the correct level of these wetlands?
What impact will the removal of peat soils (#19) called for under
the project have on the ability of these wetlands to absorb and hold
water in abnormally wet seasons? Will the City be able to ensure
that the wetlands south of the proposed roads will continue to receive
aedequate water, thereby avoiding the drying out as is evidenced
by the wetlands separated by County Road #9 at Larch lane in Plymouth
Minnesota? These issues are not aedequately addressed in this EAW.
#22b. Stormwater runoff will be discharged into holding ponds in these
wetlands. Oil, gasoline, salt, and chemicals will therefore flow
into the DNR protected wetlands. This has the capacity to damage
the vegitation and the wildlife of this wetland. No estimate of the
environmental impact of this runoff has been presented.
#23a. The EAW asserts that there will be no net increase in air pol-
lution. There: will, however, be a new,distribution of air
pollution. Many neighborhoods not previously exposed to high levels
of air pollution will now face increased levels of this pollution=
these. neighborhoods tend to be closer to the source of the future
pollution (the expanded Schmidt Lake Road) than are those neighbor-
hoods around County Roads #9,#10, and #18. The homes around these
roads tend to be farther from the source of the pollution than are the
homes around the expanded Schmidt Lake Road.
#27c. &e. This is an ecologically sensitive area. It is teeming
with an assortment of wildlife and serves a vital function of
water storage and -purification. A wetland this size within an urban
setting is a rare and unique thing. This is especially true in cities
such as Plymouth, where the develop -at-breakneck-speed ethic is
alive and flourishing. If it was not a valuable and unique area,
why did it have DNR protection in the first place?
In the addendum, the city freely admits that the road will not be
needed until the year 2010 under the assumption listed in its
traffic study. There are a numbertof assumptions in the traffic study
that should be questioned: (1) the City's use of a 3.5% growth
rate for the next 25 years when the historical growth for this
entire region for the period 1971-1986 was only 2.9%;(2) the
use "for planning purposes" of the 25000 vehicles for both
County Road #9 and the upgraded #10 when, by the study's own
admission, the range on these roads is 25000-30000 vehicles per
roadway= (3) the assumption that some 3000 vehicles per day will
detour from Highway #55 to further congest #9. Even if these
assumptions are accepted, the DNR should deny a permit since the
City cannot demonstrate a current need.
Additionally, the 'C1ty-.did• not1 assess :the impact of noise , and
air pollution,congestion, and ;-*.other effects that this road
will likely have on 49th Avenue North east of County Road #18
in the City of New Hope.
Nowhere in the EAW did the study quantify or analyze the value
of these wetlands. A roadway through them, even the least in-
trusive, will bring in noise, air, and runoff pollution that
is simply incompatible with this urban wetland. And since the
City has failed to demonstrate a current need for the roadway,
the conclusion must be that the DNR denies a permit for the
construction of this road.
Thomas and ,i7yJ4d'-SteAoiidn
10510 49th Avenue North
Plymouth, Mn. 55442
.
J 10 -M
IM 700
MAPLE GROVE
Ae
x.
494
ksl— 00
Une
So
Lo
2,400(a
21,400
PL
"Go PW
EOK'Mf LAKE
1.400
4,170 1
10
29,600
N 00
EXISTING DAILY
TRAFFIC (1986)
AND SCREENL FIGURE 2
INES
COMMISSION oq� r%
��NNesor4 Minnesota
yo Department of Transportation
ja District 5
2055 No. Lilac Drive
,eA(- P'�
"'OF TV Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
June 28, 1988
Tom StenoienGU
10510 49th Avenue North
Plymouth, Minnesota 55442
Dear Mr. Stenoien:
(612, ✓,3- 8404
As you requested several days ago, I am furnishing to you
information as to what I feel is the traffic capacity for a
four -lane divided roadway.
On June 28th, I furnished you that information by telephone along
with a number of cautions as to the actual application of the
information. This letter is a follow-up to the information I
gave you by phone and to clarify some of the points that I
discussed.
The actual capacity of any roadway facility is difficult to
identify without specific information regarding each particular
intersection along that segment of road. It is the number of
intersections along a segment of roadway and the design of each
of them which govern the capacity of a road.
Following is a list of variables which must be identified and
analyized prior to identifying the capacity or level of service
for a particular segment of road. Available literature has
general boundaries with which to assume a "rough" capacity of a
given segment of road given some general design configurations,
but without the following information, a specific capacity
analysis cannot be conducted for a given road, road segment or
intersection..
The information necessary to complete the -analysis is as
follows:
1) Predict the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for the roadway
for some future year (usually 20 years in the future).
2) Identification of directional distribution_ of trips
(i.e. are the majority of trips inbound in the morning
and outbound in the p.m. This is usually expressed
as percentage of total ADT and can range from a
50/50 percent to a 80/20 percent split).
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Tom Stenoien
Page 2
June 29, 1988
3) The number of trips
percent of the ADT.
to 18 percent).
in the peak hour, identified as a
(This value can range from 7.
4) The number through traffic lanes approaching the
intersection from all directions.
5) The number of left turn lanes on all approach roadways.
6) The number of right turn lanes on all approach roadways.
7) Is the right turn lane designed as a free right
(channelized island at intersection)?
Rather than attempt to develop a theoretical capacity of an
intersection, I have reviewed the current daily traffic counts at
three intersections in Hennepin County, on Trunk Highway 252 at
Brookdale Drive, 85th Avenue North, and 93rd Avenue North. Based
on our experience, we feel these intersections are running near
or probably over capacity. Ideally, we would like to see the
traffic volumes at these intersections significantly lower than
what we are experiencing, as these volumes are causing delays to
the motoring public during the peak hours. The total daily
traffic counts at these intersections range from 53,000 to
55,000 vehicles per day (Please note upper limit changes, as we
found an error in our traffic count). These values were the
summation of all the traffic approaching the intersections. (See
attachment "A"). .
Again I must caution you against using these figures as absolute
criteria for any analysis. As I mentioned earlier in this
letter, the actual capacity of an intersection and associated
roadways are dependent upon a number of variables, most of which
were listed above.
I hope I have, been able to answered your questions to your
satisfaction.
S rncer y,
kie —.Christensen
Assistant District Engineer
MMC: mjj
k rrAe-R 1K EIJT •A.
lohlit
G 0?-- CS G) Q e N
�-
`�-H =,nrt-E �SCGT t o iJ Fro ALL '7 2cc_T �o NS
CLe3`t P_icjl^7t-rov'%AS -fLOS I-Ilsvoul11- TPAFr-IC)
A LL. G A'$eS 5 1 r E � , 'h -ti -e -t'o t A �- � � n T'
�ev RdoTEM Y-lnc�.v.
.401(0007 -qe_kiL`q-S
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
STATE OF MINNESO-TA
DATE: 10/18/88
Z"O Sandy recht &
Judy Souareaau
Area Hydro i oci st- (Henneoi n Couhty )
(J
h./)
Area ri•i id l ife Manager
Svi!JECT: i:'=.ty OrP'!ymouth - Sc:,m'idt Leake Road pro:ect. ?erm4t
. Aootication J#89-5137 (27-579Vi)
'h 9 s resband> to DNRProtectedWaterspe rmi t Ao:7'i : ca _'i on 89-o 137
reaueat from the City of Plymouth. dated Sootembar` 13.1988 to construct•
Sc�,midt Lake . Road :^rough DINR Protected Wet :and ii 27-5791-4.
field 'insuected this orobosed we., tand devt•:lOa!^C?:l'
invo•iv•inc, orotected wet-itand 27-579W and sound to be as L':;:r it e
emergent wetland which provides imoortant feeding and nectlng :^.aU'i : tlt ; or` a
7'lt. i`d `Une`OUsmieasans. 1
Var ety OF V':at'Te =nc Uding ra''ayds,
nonaame wetland wildlife a'aaecie-; Due! ::o continued iosseS f."Om Cr'ralnaiue arc
deve1obment act'iv'it':e�s 0'f wet*iOnde--wit
t^e mcL.^O :'E':-;'1C:n. tl`.G'E+C? !'Ga:11aa'i:�'ing
wetlands are of vital imoortance to wildlife.
:n addition LO -,ieit critical w i'id'i -1-e Va !ue. tiie:;c� wE�.'iaal:ci
areas oerform .many hydroiocic functions that: are bene?{•':cial he oub: is
at n0 Cost. "hey orOV'1 de ntltUl'ca 1 prULeCt'i On S rJm . ! Oc:d5 aa!`.d :'E`dUCE! t e
severity of f%,00ding within the watershed and drainage basin by temoor'ar i ly
retaining- surTaace water runOTT during heavy ra i:�s. -hey as i ;u Tu:�c: iah v:s
important buffer` areas which filter and absorb nuz:rients ; roT ad.sracrn:
U'D 1 ands and *-je l o to protect tne water aua'i i tV OT t:Ur : a Kt':S , river aIn❑
streams -
7r, ...^.e a't
ob'lcavion for his permit c! .. U noI er-. ! ; e city oT
Plymouth has C lear IV demonstrated that there is na othc-3r' ;`(!a';ibie
.a`:C
Itc
0te01,0jectiat wou eL_,sL1`
�'tC::Cti alternative tl
im.0ac1: or` •:hat th,e t)UbIiC neE:d a"Ur' the proecr`u les Uu."' r,e r1O-VUI I
ti lterniat':ve (Mn. Rules 6115.0190 :subo..B ). The EAW •1nd'iCelt 0-S a •^Utad wou'd
not be necessary until 2010, over twenty years from now.
zn add-ition :fly ot-Frice r'laas rece''.VG'd numerous�C?ttGl`:3 !al`.a Cat !3
Voicina concern and opposition to this Or'U,jE:Ct (:sE:e attached 1 -etre":;;
1-etre":;;
t:`e :i
(2)
As oresentiy or000sed alignment V! wowed i'? ..3 acres 04 -
Bret iand habitat -in the deve ioamen:: Of` "'Schmidt Lake Road. However. this;
rddressed only the direct 'loss of wetland acreage ar.o aces no: -actor In at
tl i the indirect neaative imoaczs of- a road bisect•ina west iar• d -,7-579W. it
Iddit•ion. the associated •imoacts to wetlands 27-585i4 and 27--534'x' by having
t major thoroughfare within feet o!' their, shore i •fines w•i i . fur•tner• OQct1e!2:r;e
:he: value of these wetlands to w•i ldl ite.
It is unfortunate that our, wetland crotection or•o :r•a:ris al iow
.or the develooment 8f wetlands in a segmented fashion. In tills, oarticular
:ase we al iow the filiina of 4.5 acres in the Wild 'minas Ii De:veioument
ender the Jurisdiction of U.S. Army Coros 404 oerm•it wit..l m•itiya:.ioil. and
iow receive aooiication by -the City of Plymouth to construe:: a road to
:ervi ce this devel ooment .
.n my ooinion. all orimary and secondary wetl-i
and mcac :5=:nnu'id
ac. considered at one time rather than in a seamented fashion. 1':►:a:: way the
:umulative negative affects of a develooment oro••rect can be inore accurately
ISSessed.
Because of the cumulative, adverse imoac:t: on :ands and
ai ld i ife. 1 be i ieve it i:; -in the oub l ic's beat in -teres: ::o con ;e-rve: and
3rotect our state's rema•in•inq wetland resource. For ::hese reasons.
•ecomme±nd that the Division of Water's permit for this or'o.ject be denied.
:c: Doug Norri..
Joan G'a 'l I.1
Roger .johnsor'.
-" STATE OF ..
IM[rteCESOUZ&
DEPARTMENT
PHONE NO.
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
FILE NO.
Au t
For Immediate Release
Subject: DNR FORMS PARTNERSHIP TO SAVE METRO WETLANDS
For More Information: CONTACT PAUL BURKE, U.S. FISH &
WILDLIFE SERVICE BIOLOGIST, 290,3131; JOHN STINE, DNR
METRO AREA HYDROLC-GIST, 296-7523; FRANK SVOBODA, BRW
CORPORATION ENGINEER, 370-0700.
In a new initiative to preserve wetlands in the metro
region, the DNR, BRW Corporation and U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service have organized a task force that will help
developers and government agencies better address the
impact of urban growth on wetland areas.
The task force, to be known as "The Wetlands Group,"
will be comprised of developers, engineering firms
and public agencies involved in wetland conservation. The
group will work to avoid the loss of valuable wetlands and
to facilitate wetland mitigation, which is the creation of
new wetlands to offset losses where development impact is
unavoidable.
The need for better coordination among interested -
parties was highlighted at last year's'Urban Natural
Resources conference co-sponsored by the DNR in St. Paul.
Paul B-ur•k-e, -Biologi-st for the U.S. Fis-h & Wi1dli-f=
Se.rvi ce, said. the group's inai-n ob ja�c.t.i ve will be to provide
timely wetland information to business groups and city
Planners that can be used to promote both economic growth
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
and environmental health Tn metropolitan communities. He
said the Fish & Wildlife Service is in the process of
inventorying metropolitan wetlands and calculating the
rate of loss for this purpose.
Burke said The Wetlands Group will not be a bureaucracy
or regulatory body but rather an advisory group and a
clearinghouse for information on the location and status
of wetlands. "We're still getting organized," he said,
"but we envision an executive body comprised of land
developers, conservation groups and agencies such
as the DNR, Met Council and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
"We intend to serve municipal planners, watershed
management agencies or any individual in need of help
in wetland mitigation."
The Wetlands Group will concern itself with balancing
the relative values of wetlands and development. Questions
they will look at include how to avoid wetland impact in
the first place; how best to quantify the values of wetlands
(agencies with regulatory -authority
over wetland resources currently use criteria such as
as wi-ldlife habitat value, ground water recharge value, food
chain support value and others); should the co-nstruction of
storm water retention ponds qualify as wetland mitigation?
Should mitigation occur on-site, or should it be allowed
some distance from the construction project? if so, how far?
The Wetlands Group hopes to heighten the awareness of
local officials as to the value of wetlands, and to
r
streamline the permitting process for developers who seek
to,work in wetland areas. Anyone needing more
information should call Paul Burke at the u . S . Fish &
Wildlife Service at 290-3131-
11
90-3131.
Vq
r"E.d.itor,
t�a'i. .iL•'S9�a�ii�tj ::?` ° + t`�• - •�{St.:ij'•:�t{.('"�:(. '12 �,'.'a•
t I..n:ds:����
.i ..;}•ra,+::;.:.. •.• i (1„+..`1y1?r{.,i'L'}}'io;.j`: ,•..... ?{.1)z1
Wetlands may be our most underrated natural resource.: ;;;.{,
. .t{'i:? .. .•�: •.:: ..: is /($; ti• .
At tuiies,:farmers,!and,developers have regarded.wetlands.,
' as a nuisance that,robbed them of usable,land,* an'obstacle to%
be removed: As : a result; ::millions : `of 'acres,v of?':wetlands•; ►
sometimesf.referred' to':.as: swamps; `bogs; :fens'sor' sloughs;:
W11 dTedged and filled in favor^of civilization Between 1950.:
y and the mid 'los, 11:million:acres'of marshes.?and swamps;,
were destroyed in the �United States'i: ; _'�';•: '., '_� `K '::
.r t a':L '• '.,•..♦ t:y ."•ay�`ti.:}'J�L�M1'e.:�,.�tilf:•�{'�}�r`•a :: :ll�.tr,:
x 7i9 1 t
Today.scientists;;and-goavernment.regulatory agencies, re :
aline.that,wetlands;;aM-*orie.of•our.:most-valuableand•produc-Y -
tive ecological:'system �haiboring' unique soils?'and plants"*.
,that'are�ivital, to 1o&.; World-AThe. fine for ,capiiciously_ wiping
out a?wetland without:authority: is steep, $125,000 plus resto,:: :
ration .'costs,: -but once;a;i wetland;is :gone,;;it' is'�almost; im-' '
ppsgblevt♦oget tback'."`
RNIr
7,�psT lt'i:S .Q i:'}..1�.. 1Y.}z:e.: ,•." Y;:.. .. ,•
And when •a•.*ietland:is one `'you've••losV4—.loV tlands'
........ _. g :.
f defiged;Aas transitional zones between open water''and
t land+ are�uniq le 4bitats fora, variety of fish and wildl�fet +^
abut the are important fo other relsons.�, i x `�f
,��,-,'i`., Y,`•• •...,.+•.:�,�j�'�'•.; j+: •'� (.acid•.F♦.,A•kvY3:h"Y+4t�7't'�`w.+::wl`iYit,�.
According to': data' f rom'�the ... nvironmental ;:Protection :, - .
Agency, wetlands ,contribute"to .flood•:and erosion,,control;
•waten-purification;••sediment control, 'and:breeding; spawn-
ing;-. nursery
pawn-ing;nursery and feeding areas for'fish and wildlife:The, EPA
staies at:wetlands .also can •serve as,rechar e.,areas„for , -
r: , under, bund sources of drinking water. , • ,:: �;;;; t , a • :; ,;_
' `00an'intangibl 'no t wetlands.are beautiful. neighbors;
Z . !.-f..
} roviding educational eational; and -.",research: oppor- :;”
� ,unities• �� ' . .:,• • ,.' .4: L..; . :s a
..\ ... •'.,f,h.f�' .. c` „ .ter x�C,�{,c����ya-♦•,.:;,: ••..
.Yet more than halfiofourfwetlands tiavedisappeared
.:and are being destroyted.at th"er-ate ofy458 00,0•acres' a year.:.PZ,!
{: our; own.communities,46 frequently;see.battles�tietween:the,l�
interests of development, versusa:•wetland; and Wtoo'often
the wetland loses in favor.of ex enc
. .•, ....•' ,,: ,;•.; �•�.. ... -F,, �.i.=:::� �'_;a. a,1y.af�,• °1 :`�i=a�'Si!n';"j'ltni:
'It usually takes twice'as long, a`year versus six months "to,
build a road through a wetlands. EPA data indicates that it
can cost up to 300 percent more to•fill a wetland for.a,project;'
compared to building�;the'same �roject. at`'an''upland =site:?
When we lose a wetland',' though, the.community's, loss,can-I •
not be measured in dollars::-_ ;:.
MORE
`` r �,l`•;`AMERIC
��' ��`��� ��•�.TURNIN�
ADDICT
J.
.. :,,; ice?•.
D.05011
ayton's is about to
build brand nevy and bigger
department stores at
1`$outhdale and Rosedale l ; •
r That's good news, of.
course, for shoppers. -.
1
CIN OF
PLYMOUTH -
February 28, 1990
1111
1W mom
SUBJECT: PARENTAL RESPONSE TO HANDLING OF DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
COMPLAINT
Dear Mr. & Mrs. S
Officer Tim Oie shared with me the letters that you were
responsible for sending. I was impressed with the response by
your son and his friends to this incident.
I was most impressed with the cover letter that the two of you
sent. Both of you are terrific! Too many times in my 31 year
career I have had occasion to deal with over protective parents
who refuse to allow their children to learn and suffer the
consequences of their actions. The result can be disastrous when
the child is ultimately on their own.
My hat's off to you, the other parents that you met with, and all
of the boys involved. Your comment, "they, (the boys) realize
that their parents love them and care about their behavior", is
the underlying thesis of all good parenthood. Congratulations on
a job well done!
Sincerely,
Q
Richard J. arlqu'
Public Safety Director
RJC:lk
cc: Officer Tim Oie
James G. Willis, City Manager
♦0
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
a
E J AAA
t4
aj�-kx� CSI. -q4A
cU wT,
!�Px'
Dear Officer,
I am really sorry that I inconvenienced you lost night
and I hope I can make it up to you in this letter. I am really glad that you
can understand the stupid thing that a kid like me can do and I appreciate
you being kind to us. I hope that you understand ghat I arra saying and
accept my apology.
J
. W
=. as ",\J
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: March 1, 1990
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: BILL KIVERSKY, 5095 IVES LANE
Tuesday evening, February 26th I spoke with Bill Kiversky who lives at 5095
Ives Lane. Mayor Bergman gave you a note for me to call him regarding Schmidt
Lake Road. Mr. Kiversky's property is immediately north of existing Schmidt
Lake Road between Larch Lane and Zachary Lane.
I discussed the future of Schmidt Lake Road in accordance with the City's
adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan. When Schmidt Lake Road was constructed in
1977 it was constructed to the proper width (four lane) to carry the future
projected traffic as the northern part of Plymouth continues to develop.
Currently, since there are low traffic volumes on this roadway, a portion of
the road is being used for a bike lane. As traffic increases, the roadway
will have to be marked for four traffic lanes and the bike lane reconstructed
to the boulevard area. Even without remarking the roadway, as traffic
increases and the existing traffic lane is blocked by a vehicle waiting to
turn left, traffic will bypass these vehicles on the right and cause a hazard
to the use of the bike lane.
I also discussed with Mr. Kiversky the entire planning process which has taken
place on Schmidt Lake Road since 1972.
FGM: sm
attachment