Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 04-18-1986CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM April 18, 1986 UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS..... 1. "GET ACQUAINTED" SESSION V-- Monday, April 21, 4:00 p.m. The final Council "GetAcquainted" session will cover the Public Safety Department. The agenda for this session is enclosed separately. 2. PLYMOUTH FORUM -- Monday, April 21, 7:00 p.m. Plymouth Forum in City Council Chambers. 3. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, April 21, 7:30 p.m. Reqular City Council meeting in My Council Chambers. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION -- Wednesday, April 23, 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission will meet in the City Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-4) c oLvMniITU it-WrA nnurklT %-Vull "L Wednesday, April 23, 7.30 A.M. The PlymoutK Development Council will meet in the City Council conference room. A copy of the agenda and minutes mailed to Development Council members is attached. (M-5) 6. PLYMOUTH POLICE AUCTION -- The 1986 Police Department auction will e held on atur ay, pril 26 at the City Center. Items will be on display at 9:00 a.m., with the auction beginning at 10:00 a.m. 7. TWINWEST CHAMBER "COMMUNITY COFFEE BREAK" -- Friday, April 25. The April Community Coffee Break for t e ymouth area will focus on the "State of the City". The Coffee Break will be at the Plymouth Holiday Inn from 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. FOR YOUR INFORMATION.... 1. BASS LAKE HEIGHTS 4TH ADDITION -- Last month the Council received a request from Mr. Dickman Knut son for concept plan approval for the Bass Lake Heights 4th Addition RPUD. The Council deferred this action in order that the petitioner and the City might work together to resolve the matter of the County Road 61 alignment as it affects 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM April 18, 1986 Page Two the property, as well as to further examine the possibility of modifying the City's sanitary sewer system plan to accommodate sewer service. Fred Moore and I have met twice with Dick Knutson and Greg Frank to discuss these issues. The issue of paramount concern appears to deal with the alignment of County Road 61. Meetings have been held with representatives of Hennepin County to discuss possible alignments. The petitioner has requested an alignment with a four degree curve which would create the least impact on the developable portion of his property. This alignment is currently being reviewed by Hennepin County, as well as the DNR. If those two agencies agree to the four degree curve alignment, as well as mitigation of any impacts on protected wetlands, I am confident that the road alignment issue can be solved. The developer would be required to design the development to accommodate the proposed four degree road alignment. Attached are copies of notes I have made at these two meetings. (I-1) 2. COMMUNICATION WITH LOCAL BUILDERS -- The Building Division has developed the tree attac a terns which have been sent to all persons building in the community. The first deals with the City's Erosion Control Policy and urges the builders to be particularly alert to the need to control erosion on their sites. It further notes that their office will not conduct building inspections at specific sites which are deemed to be in violation of the erosion control policy. The second item affords a series of checklists which have been developed by members of the Community Development Department doe and a committee of the Development Council to assist persons in submitting applications for residential building permits. It is hoped that through using these checklists, builders will be able to make their initial submittals in accordance with the City's ordinances, polices, and State Building Code, and thereby reduce the amount of time required to review plans and subsequently issue permits. The final item is a little "newsletter" developed for the benefit of the building community. It incorporates infor- mation which will be of interest to local builders and facilitate their doing business with the community. All three of these endeavors demonstrates the Building Inspection Division's intention of being able to promptly and effectively service the people developing in our community in an expeditious fashion. (I-2) 3. MINUTES -- The following minutes are attached: a. Planning Commission, April 9, 1986 (I -3a) b. Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit, April 9, 1986 (I -3b) 4. NUISANCE ANIMALS -- Attached is a memorandum from the Dick Carlquist regarding is epartment's policy on the handling of raccoons when they are considered a nuisance animal. In discussing this matter with the DNR, Dick advises that the owner and/or occupant of private W. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM April 18, 1986 Page Three property does have the legal right to destroy or relocate squirrels, woodchucks, rabbits, and raccoons when they are found on their property and causing property damage. However, because raccoons are considered protected, the City may not destroy or relocate such animals found on private property without a special permit from the DNR. A handout prepared by the DNR on this subject has been ordered and will be mailed to residents who are experiencing problems from nuisance animals. (I-4) 5. TOWN MEETING AREA 10 FEEDBACK -- Feedback forms received from individuals attending the—A—PrTr 14 Town Meetinq are attached. As responses are sent to residents, copies will be provided for the Council's information. (I-5) 6. DWAINE JOHNSON DRAINAGE COMPLAINT -- The attached memorandum from Fred Moore provides background information on a call received by Councilmember Vasiliou from Dwaine Johnson concerning a drainage problem north of the Wooddale Addition. (I-6) 7. CORRESPONDENCE: a. Letter to Mr. G. T. Strodthoff, 1420 Juneau Lane, from Mayor Schneider, in response to Mr. Strodthoff's letter of April 2 commenting on the City's recycling program. A copy of Mr. Strodthoff's letter is also attached. (I -7a) b. Letters of appreciation to Representative Bill Schreiber, Craig Shaver, and Senator Ramstad, from Mayor Schneider, for their efforts with the-Infr:structurc rcplacement reserve fund bill. (I -7b) C. Letters from Mayor Schneider to Plymouth police and fire personnel who participated in the March 25 Medicine Lake rescue, inviting them to attend the May 5 Council meeting in order that the Council may publicly recognize their efforts. (I -7c) d. Letter from Charles Thompson, North Ridge Management, to City Manager, indicating that his firm will not be submitting a proposal for the downtown Plymouth senior citizen project. (I -7d) e. Letter from Jo Nunn, Metropolitan Council, to City Manager, regarding the City's recycling program. (I -7e) f. Letter from Katie Leuthner, Administrator, N.W. Suburban Chamber of Commerce, thanking Fred Moore for his presentation before the Chamber on April 8. (I -7f) CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL NENORANDUN April 18, 1986 Page Four V g. Letter from Robert Erickson, NSP General Manager of the Minnetonka Division, to Mayor Schneider, announcing the company's new community safety program entitled "Safety Watch". A fact sheet explaining the program is also attached. The program is scheduled to be operational by May 15, 1986. (I -7g) h. Letter from David Landswerk, new Wayzata School Superintendent, to City Manager. (I -7h) James G. Willis City Manager PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1986 M - 1A WHERE: Plymouth City Center 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 CONSENT AGENDA All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner, citizen or petitioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on the agenda. 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL 3.* APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes, April 9, 1986 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Harstad Companies. Planned Unit Development Concept Plan, Preliminary Plan/Plat, Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit for "Lake Cimarron Estates", west of I-494 and north and south of County Road 47 at Mud Lake (85114) B. dames C. Peterson and Associates, Inc. Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Variance for property east of Vicksburg Lane at 48th and 49th Avenues North; 4830 Vicksburg Lane (86033) C. Lundgren Brothers Construction and City of N :,neapolis. Planned Unit- Development nitDevelopment Amendment for "Parkers Lake Development -the Vicksburg West Property", west of Vicksburg Lane, east of Dunkirk Lane in the northeast quarter of Section 29 (86039) 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Kraus -Anderson Realty Company for Honeywell, Inc. Lot Consolidation, Site Plan and Variances for property southeast of Ninth Avenue and Forestview Lane (86036) * B. Mr. Paul Stormo, Artograph Corporation. Lot Consolidation/Division, Site Plan and Variance at 16th Avenue North and Watertower Circle (86038) * C. Prudential Insurance Company of America. Site Plan for Phase 2 of "Flagship", east of I-494, west of Xenium Lane and north of Campus Drive (86037) 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Craig Scherber. Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit for property east of Fernbrook Lane at Ithaca Lane (85097) 7. OTHER BUSINESS NONE 8. ADJOURNMENT 10:00 P.M. I 'M5. CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: April 11, 1986 TO: Plymouth Development Council Members FROM: Bob Burger, President SUBJECT MEETING NOTICE The next meeting of the Plymouth Development Council will be held on Wednesday morning, April 23 at 7:30 a.m, in the Plymouth City Center Council Conference Room. The followinq items are scheduled for discussion, however, you may wish to bring up other items as well: 1. Update on Development Signaqe Proqram - Blair Tremere 2. Report on progress of County Road 9 and 10 Improvement Projects - Fred Moore 3. Review of Housing Element Update - Blair Tremere 4. Zoning Ordinance Revisions - Blair Tremere 5. Erosion Control Program Efforts - Fred Moore 6. Developer Petitions for Public Improvements - Fred Moore 7. 1986 Sewer and Water Area Charoes - Fred Moore I look forward to seeing you at the April 23 meetinq. BB:dma cc: dames G. Willis, City Manager Blair Tremere, Director of Planning and Community Development Fred Moore, Public Works Director s.F. 411.:19L PLYMOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL M —� January 29, 1986 * PRESENT: Bob Burger, Burger Development Group; Marlin Grant, Mary Anderson Construction Company; Randy Laurent, Laurent Builders; Dale Kennedy, Carlson Properties; Rick Murray, Builders Development and Finance Company; Don Myron, Don Myron Realty; John Mullan, Barton Aschman; Maria Vasiliou, Fred Moore, Blair Tremere, Joe Ryan, Sara McConn, Sherm Goldberg, Jim Willis, and Frank Boyles, City of Plymouth Bob Burger called the meeting to order at 7:35 a.m. I. City Staff Report on Fast Track Plan Review and Permit Issuance Process for Ingle Family Dwelling Permits Blair Tremere summarized the fast track plan review and permit issuance process for single family dwelling permits. A major step in expediting the process is identifying specifically the City's needs, including type of documents as well as the information to be included in each document. In 1986 the City will again hire a temporary plan review person who's sole responsibility will be to complete plan reviews. As a final step, priority review will be given to those applications which are complete and in order from a code perspective. Incomplete applications or petitions not in compliance with the building code will require greater processing time. The fast track process is a mutual effort by the builders and City. II. Review of Automated Permit System for Non -Plan Review Items such as reroof- ing, residing, plumbing, mechanical, etc. Blair Tremere stated that "bugs" had been worked out of the automatic permit issuance system making it responsive to requests for non -plan review permits. Instead of requiring a 24 hour wait, these permits may be received "while you wait" between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. each day. Surprisingly, very few contractors have taken advantage of this service. The City has initiat- ed an invoicing procedure for those permits which do not require plan review. So long as the invoices are paid promptly, the contractor may continue to take advantage of invoicing. The contractor agrees to not commence work prior to permit issuance and to request inspections in a timely manner. III. Sewer Capacity Issue Fred Moore stated that the City has been attempting to convince the Metro- politan Council that their growth projections need correction and that Plymouth will exceed them based upon development projections. There is also some question on which sewer interceptors will be constructed, including Elm Creek and Pike Lake. As part of the capital improvement program, three trunk lines are proposed for extension over the next five years to increase developable area within the MUSA lines. Bob Burger asked about the Pike Lake interceptor. Fred stated that three alignments are being reviewed by Tennant Company. The City's consulting IV. PLYMOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL January 29, 1986 Page 2 engineer has identified the associated costs of each alignment and the City has selected the one it desires. A meeting is scheduled for January 30 with Tennant representatives to discuss this alignment, associated costs and easements necessary for construction to take place. The construction timing of the Pike Lake interceptor will be based upon the results of this meeting. It does not appear at this time that Tennant will be proceeding to develop their property in the near fu/ture, but they have indicated they would not obstruct efforts to bring the sewer line across the property, assuming reasonable easement payments were provided. Council - member Vasiliou stated that she had received a letter from the Peterson's wanting to know when Tennant Company would be moving. Fred stated that the meeting should provide a better idea of Tennant's plans, however, they have no deadline in this matter. To establish a deadline would most likely require that the City condemn construction easements. 1986 Improvements for County Road 9 and County Road 10 Fred Moore stated that Hennepin County moved the development of County Road 10 up to 1987 on their construction schedule. A consulting engineer will be designing this project for the County. County Road 9 is in the final design stage with Hennepin County scheduled to complete plans this spring, and bid letting and the first phase of construc- tion completed in 1986. Full construction will be completed in 1987. The typical highway section will be four -lane divided with curbing and median. The intersections will have left and right turn lanes with signals. V. Other Business Joe Ryan stated that the activity level for the Building Division in 1985 was substantial and distributed a year end report. Total building permits were 1,304 against 1,288 for 1984. Residential permits in 1985 were 633 as compared to 589 in 1984. A total of 16 multi family permits representing 259 units, were issued in 1985 versus 19 permits for 406 units in 1984. Remodeling permits in 1985 at 486 were somewhat less than the 499 issued in 1984. More significant increases were experienced in other permits includ- ing plumbing, mechanical, and septic installation and removal. There were 1,013 plumbing permits in 1985 against 1,070 in 1984. A total of 1,040 mechanical permits were secured in 1985 compared with 1,020 in 1984. Septic permits amounted to 111 over none for 1984. A total of 451 certificates of occupancy were issued in 1985 against 386 in 1984. If interest rates remain stable, it is likely that 1986 will also be a good development year. Blair Tremere stated that to reduce conflicts during the course of construc- tion, the Building Inspection Division has established pre -construction meetings to enhance communications between contractors and the Building Div- ision. Experience to date suggests that pre -construction meetings have reduced delays in the construction process. PLYMOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL January 29 1986 Page 3 Sara McConn reported that 1985 planning applications, amounted to total of 341 in 1985 versus 338 in 1984. This includes 28 conventional preliminary plats, 47 conventional final plats, 10 preliminary PUD's, and 18 final plan PUD's. She stated there have been many inquires for anticipated Spring and Summer construction. Bob Burger reported that he was pleased with the progress Blair, Sara, doe and other members of the Planning and Building Inspection Department have made in solving problems which contractors had identified in permit issuance and plan review. He is pleased with the hard work and tenaciousness which the department has displayed in alleviating these problems. Marlin Grant asked what the deadline was for developers to request the City to construct public improvements within their developments. Fred stated that if the project is 100% developer paid, the deadline is May 1. If any special assessment procedure is involved, the deadline was October 1, 1985. Don Myron asked when the interceptor at Highway 55 would open up land west to the City's western border. Fred Moore stated that the existing inter- ceptor is to Highway 55 and Vicksburg at this point. During the 1986-1990 CIP it is proposed to be extended to Highway 101 to serve the triangular segment between County Road 24, Highway 55 and Brockton Lane. This is projected for 1990. The CUSA line does not currently include this area, but the City will be petitioning the Metropolitan Council to include this in the development area. Jim Willis stated that the City Council at their January 27 meeting discussed enhancing its efforts to notify the public with respect to devel- opment petitions. The Council is considering the desirability of putting up a 4' x 8' sign saying to the effect that, "THIS LAND IS SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT PETITION. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL..." Such a change in policy would actively involve developers. The Council has not determined what criteria would be used - whether it would be limited exclusively to public hearing related items or be more expansive. The Council is looking for input from the Development Council specifically regarding the type of criteria which should be used and the issue of cost and expense. Blair Tremere reported that in Minnetonka, signs are required only for sub- divisions and zoning issues. The signs are posted by the city's street department based upon a work order at least ten days prior to the petition being heard. This practice requires an inventory of at least one dozen of each sign type, together with a number of special purpose signs. They have found that the bulk of calls received were from realtors and not residents. They have also learned that the practice does not absolve them from resident complaints that they were unaware of the petition. Councilmember Vasiliou stated that the use of signage would not be a substitute for current procedures for mailed notification, cable televising of council agendas and mailing of agendas to homeowner association presidents. She stated that the problem in the past has been that neighbor- hood groups close to projects, but not so close as to receive public hearing notification, have felt surprised when issues affecting their neighborhood PLYMOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL January 29, 1986 t � Page 4 have arisen. The installation of signage is intended to reach people circu- lating in the area. Marlin Grant expressed concern about the additional telephone calls such signage would entail. It is likely to tie up the existing limited number of staff persons and there would be question on whether additional personnel would be required. The signage may also provoke overly concerned citizens including those not living in the immediate or general vicinity of the property. He can't see the positive side of the proposal. He believes that "word of mouth" is by far the most effective means of communicating issues of local concern. "I don't know" is simply not an acceptable excuse. Rick Murray stated that the installation of signage would disrupt his devel- opment procedures. Their normal practice is to conduct neighborhood meetings once they have put a package together. The installation of signs would get neighbors involved before he would be prepared to deal with specific questions and issues. Don Myron said he appreciated the City's continued sensitivity to the public, but he believes the installation of signs becomes a big expense which may not significantly help anyone. He believes there are not a sufficient number of countervailing pluses to outweigh the minuses of such a program. He believes that the City has sufficient steps to advertise developments using current practices. Bob Burger stated that the development process is complex enough now without adding yet another element which will incrementally increase developer costs. He is also concerned about the impact which telephone calls will have anon City staff as well as developers. Dale Kennedy believes that the signs are fine for issues of where a public hearing is required, but not for site plans. Rick Murray expressed concern that sign requirements not be discriminatory with respect to one set of developers over another. Councilmember Vasiliou stated that the Council does have the option of placing the responsibility for notification more on the individual and Homeowner Association than on the City. She believes the City should work with the Homeowner Associations to help them remain aware. Jim Willis commented that development issues will continue to be paramount in Plymouth as development occurs in small undeveloped "pockets". These infull developments create greater sensitivity since neighbors are affected by the development and because the land which is left for development, in many cases, is marginal. He stated he would convey the Development Council's comments to the City Council for their consideration on this matter. The meeting adjourned at 8:58 a.m. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO April 18, 1986 File �-1 James G. Willis, City Manager BASS LAKE HEIGHTS 4TH ADDITIONa- MEETING WITH DICKMAN KNUTSON AND GREG FRANK Friday, April 18, Fred and I met with Dickman Knutson and Greq Frank with regard to the alignment of County Road 61 adjacent to the subject development. Both Dick and Greg had previously met with represen- tatives of Hennepin County and proposed to them that they consider a road alignment with a four degree curve. A four degree curve would create less disruption and damage to their property as compared to the County's alternative (B) alignment. They also met with Judy Boudreau of the DNR, who they believe would look favorably on the four degree alignment as it would do less damage to the wetland south of the railroad (approximately .4 acres would be affected). Alternates (C) and (D) would be preferable to Judy. Alternate (C) would go through the middle of the proposed plat, while alternate (D) would meet with Pineview Lane Dick communicated that Hennepin County still favors the three degree curve. Fred noted that he had met with Hennepin County yesterday and that the County wants the DNR to concur on any road alignment, includ- ing mitigation requirements. Dick indicated that the three degree curve would substantially disrupt his plat. He provided us with a copy of a 41 lot traditional (18,500 sq. ft. lots), with the alternate (B) three degree curve alignment overlaid. He noted that this would create a very substantial disrup- tion to the plat, representing something on the order of $350,000 of economic loss. He noted that the proposed four degree curve would not impact the PUD as substantially. He provided us with a sheet indicat- ing three possible layouts reflecting between 37 or 51 lots depending on the size of the public park. He indicated that the right-of-way required for the County Road 61 along this alignment (5.3 acres Including the wetland) would be dedicated as part of the RPUD. Fred noted that the Hennepin County staff was scheduled to meet on May 14, at which time they would be looking at reaching a decision with respect to the alignment. In the meantime, they would be looking at various alignment profiles to determine whether or not a three or four degree curve either with an at grade or grade separation structure would be most desirable. We indicated that, from the City's BASS LAKE HEIGHTS 4TH ADDITION - MEETING WITH DICKMAN KNUTSON AND GREG =� FRANK April 18, 1986 Page two I perspective, we had no objective to the four deqree curve. We did note, however, that we wanted to be assured that both Hennepin County and the DNR agreed as to the preferred alignment and the nature of the crossing of the railroad tracks. Such an agreement would also have deal with any mitigation required by the DNR for impacts on the wetlands. Greg Frank indicated that he would be contacting Judy Boudreau to see if he could expedite a decision from her on the proposed four degree alignment. I indicated that I would be happy to meet with Vern Genzlinger, Associate County Administrator (296-4306), to discuss a need for arriving at a prompt resolution of this matter. Dick indicated that he would like to have a decision as soon as possible as waiting until May 15 would impose severe time constraints on his own time table. We left the meeting with the understanding that Greg would contact us following confirmation from Judy Boudreau on her decision with respect to the alignment issue. JGW:jm -0""% 00 '-7. tra Homes, Inc. 3031` Harbor Lan-, Suite 10' Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 0 3&s. a on � c vvvl, IrI \/1V<'Of --- i °- CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: April 3, 1986 TO: File FROM: James G. Willis, City Manager SUBJECT BASS LAKE HEIGHTS 4TH ADDITION - MEETING WITH DICKMAN KNUTSON REGARDING SANITARY SEWER AVAILABILITY AND COUNTY ROAD 61 ALIGNMENT Wednesday morning, April 2, Fred and I met with Dickman Knutson and Greg Frank with regard to the subject development. Mr. Knutson had appeared before the City Council on Monday evening, March 31, on his request for a concept plan approval for the proposed planned unit development, as well as an amendment to the City's Staqed Growth Plan. The Planning staff had recommended denial of the PUD concept plan and amendment to the Staged Growth Plan. The Plannina Commission unanimously voted to recommend denial following their March 12 public hearing on the proposal. Following discussion, the Council deferred action on the request in order that we might further explore with the petitioner the impact of the change in the sewer district boundaries, as well as the proposed County Road 61 alignment issue. At our meeting we reviewed both matters. Mr. Knutson and Mr. Frank had aerial photographs upon which they had drawn a conceptual align- ment of County Road 61 which would curve around the major wetland, north of the railroad, and presumably, satisfy any concerns the DNR might have with regard to a road going through the wetland. They noted that the alignment might possibly create other concerns as there were two small wetlands to the south which might be impacted, as well as the proximity of the road to Bass Creek. Fred Moore indicated that he had talked with a representative of Hennepin County following receipt of the DNR letter expressing concern on the proposed 61 alignment through the wetland. The County had already undertaken an exploration of four alignments. Two of the alignments would essentially use the West Medicine Lake Boulevard and Pineview Lane street alignments, both were not deemed to be feasible by the County. The other two alignments would skirt the wetland to the east. One of the alternatives was apparently close to that which was drawn by Mr. Knutson. We indicated that we did not have any particular preference as to an alignment for County Road 61, providing that both the County and DNR were also satisfied with the alignment. Mr. Knutson asked if the "straight alignment," through the wetland, would be agreeable to the City if it were agreeable with the DNR. We indicated that it would be, providing that Hennepin County accept the 11_wl l o -r i l nwl 1 1vly - MLL I INN W1 1 N UILKMAN KNU I SUN REGARDINGSANITARYSEWER AVAILABILITY AND COUNTY ROAD 61 ALIGNMENT om— `, April 3, 1986 Page Two alignment and the costs were about the same. It was noted that a road built on that alignment could either be constructed by excavating through the wetland or by bridging the wetland. The latter would obviously be a far more costly option. I noted that I did not anticipate that. the City would be buildinq this segment of County Road 61 and that therefore, the cost would be a consideration that Hennepin County would have to deal with. With regard to the sanitary sewer issue, Fred noted that the City's waste control plan, and specifically the trunk sewer system map (Figure 8), indicated that the majority of the site proposed for development was outside the sanitary sewer area currently serviced by sewers (BL -2). That portion which is in the area not proposed to be serviced until 1990 or after, comprises a majority of the site (NC -10). Fred noted that based upon development proposals by others, for property to the west of the proposed site, he thouqht it would be feasible to have a sanitary sewer constructed to serve the Knutson property as well as the balance of District NC -10. All of NC -10 would have to be included, otherwise the cost of extend- ing sewers to serve the area, less the Knutson parcel, would likely be prohibitive. This would require an amendment to the City's sewer plan. Such an approval would require concurrence of the Metropolitan Council. Fred also noted that the transferring of the flow to the Bass Lake District from the North Central District would create some additional pressure on lift station no. 5, but that would be handled through upgrading, which is contemplated as the area continues to develop. I noted that the transfer of sewage from one sewer district to another, is a policy matter which can only be responded to ultimately by the City Council. While the Council has previously agreed to make changes in the sewer district boundaries to accommodate some develop- ments, they have also denied it in other cases (e.q. the developments proposed mainly to the west of this site). The question is: Where do you stop once you start amending such a plan? I also noted that the Metropolitan Council might require the City to delete an area in the community which is designed to receive sanitary sewer service for 1990 In order to incorporate an area as large as NC -10. I further noted that the Metropolitan Council in written response to previously submitted development proposals, has noted that the City's sanitary sewage flows have exceeded the 1990 allocation. While we recognize that the 1990 metro sewer flow allocation was derived somewhat arbitrarily, it appears that the Metropolitan Council staff Is continuing to flag it as an issue. We agreed to work with the petitioner and Hennepin County to promptly determine if there are one or more alternatives for the alignment of County Road 61 which are satisfactory to all parties concerned. If the petitioner, City, DNR and County can agree to an alignment, and if vJJ innL- nounaJ +t1" NUU111UN - REGARDING SANITARY SEWER AVAILABILITY April 3, 1986 Page Three MEETING WITH DICKMAN KNUTSON AND COUNTY ROAD 61 ALIGNMENT the engineering data to be developed by Fred demonstrate that the City can accommodate all the sewage flow from NC -10 going to BL -2, we would recommend that the Council consider proceeding with a public hearina on an amendment to the City's Staged Development Plan to accommodate the developer's request. We agreed to shoot for a April 21 Council meeting to have this matter addressed. -- No presumptions were made on our part relative to the PUD plan status. It may undergo redesiqn as the result of resolution of the above issues or it might be withdrawn if the sewer issue is not resolved as proposed. The Council will have the opportunity to further consider the PUD plan when the information is developed and presented. JGW:jm =-a NOTICE! I M P 0 R T A N T INF0RMATION CONCERNING EROSION CONTROL Cz April 11, 1986 CITY OF PUMOUTR Dear Builder or Contractor: The purpose of this letter is to explain and clarify the position of the City regarding Erosion Control and street clean-up. Recently there have been many incidents of mud in the City streets caused by new construction. This appears to be the result of builders and/or delivery trucks driving off the paved roadway onto the building sites and then re-entry onto the streets, depositing large amounts of mud onto the pavement. I have attached a copy of the City's Erosion and Siltation Control Policy which establishes guidelines and details enforcement measures relating to this matter. Please be informed that no inspections will be conducted by the Building Division if the Erosion Control guidelines have not been met. Scheduled inspections will not take place, if, upon arrival, the inspector determines that the street has not been properly cleaned. In the event that the City is required to clean the street, the builder will be billed and the payment received prior to any further inspection or occupancy permit issuance. Please see that any persons connected with your job site are made aware of the City's policy and that the appropriate clean-up has taken place prior to inspection requests. Sincerely, qor_ alb, Joe Ryan Building Official 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL POLICY Resolution No. 84-760 October 23, 1984 (Supersedes Res. No. 77-163, March 28, 1977; Res. No. 81-276, April 27, 1981) I. Findings and Declaration of Policy The City Council finds that erosion continues to be a serious problem and that rapid changes in land use from agricultural and rural to non-agricul- tural and urbanizing uses, construction of housing, industrial -commercial development, streets, highways, recreation areas, schools, public utilities and facilities, and other land -disturbing activities have accelerated the process of soil erosion and sediment deposition. The control and manage- ment of surface runoff and erosion and sedimentation benefits both the developer and the public. 2. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan For the purpose of alleviating harmful or damaging effects of on-site ero- sion and siltation on neighboring downhill or downstream lands and waters in the City of Plymouth and adjacent communities during and after develop- ment adequate controls of erosion and sedimentation of both a temporary and permanent nature shall be provided by the developer during all phases of land -disturbing activities. Plans and specifications for such controls shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Said plans and specifications will be a part of the development contract and compliance will be assured by the development bond. No development shall be permitted until said plan is approved by the City Engineer. 3. Required Control Measures The following control measures are required for an erosion and sediment control plan: a. The plan shall be suited to the topography and soils so as to create the least erosion potential. b. The land shall be developed in increments of workable size on which ade- quate controls of erosion and siltation can be provided and maintained during the construction period. Operation shall be staged so that the area being developed is not exposed for long periods of time without stabilization. c. Temporary vegetation and/or mulching shall be used to protect the areas exposed during the development. No area shall be left denuded for a period longer than 5 days on critical erosion areas from initial grading. Such period may be extended if satisfactory control measures are estab- lished and remain in place. This determination will be made by the City Engineer. 9_ d. Sediment basins (debris basins, desilting basins, or silt traps) shall be installed and maintained to remove sediment from runoff waters from the land undergoing development. Storm sewer inlets shall be provided with debris guards and microsilt basins to trap sediment and avoid pos- sible damage from blockage. The silt shall be removed when necessary. e. Permanent vegetation and structures shall be installed within 30 days after completion of initial grading. f. If the control measures required by items 3.a, 3.b, 3.c, 3.d and 3.e are not installed or maintained by the developer, no additional build- ing permits will be issued within the development until the necessary measures are placed in control. g. Erosion control practices shall follow the design criteria as shown in U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Services Urban Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Control -Handbooks. 4. Financial Guarantee Before any grading is started on any site, all control measures as shown on the plan shall be installed. A $2,000 per acre financial guarantee shall be provided to the City to insure compliance during construction. $1,'000 of this amount shall be by cash deposit. The remaining amount shall be by an exclusive letter of credit providing for withdrawal of the funds by the City within one work day. This financial guarantee will not be returned until all the disturbed area has permanent vegetation re-established. The City will use the guarantee for the penalty included in Item 5a and if any invoice for work performed by the City is not paid within 30 days. 5. Enforcement Measures a. Developers will be given a 48 hour telephone notice when an unsatis- factory condition exists that is determined to be a developer's respon- sibility. After said 48 hour notice, the city will proceed to do the work and invoice the developer. In addition to the actual cost incurred by the City, the developer will be charged an additional 100% as a penalty for not having adequate erosion control. If a timely payment is not received, the City will proceed to draw on the financial guarantee. b. Builders will be given a notice at the time of building permit issuance that erosion control on the lot being built upon, and street cleanup of any and all materials originating from the lot being built upon, are their responsibility. No inspections will be approved if the street is not clean and erosion control in place. In the event the City is required to clean the street, the builder will be billed and payment received prior to any further inspection or occupancy permit. 6. Street Cleaning Included within the Development Contract shall be the requirement of a contract for street cleaning within and immediately adjacent to the develop- ment. -9a- IDEAS One Plymouth developer has sent a letter to builders who have acquired lots from him, and the letter is an idea you may want to consider. It informs the builder that there are certain requirements that apply to the development and that the builder should be aware of them before committing to a specific house design or size. One of the most common problems we have seen with respect to new single family homes is the lack of awareness or attention regarding maximum lot coverage. Maximum residential lot coverage for single family residential buildings is 20% of the lot area, and this includes the house, accessory buildings, decks, porches, and other accessory structures. This developer is relating to the builders buying his lots that this requirement applies throughout the development. The problem has been found primarily in Planned Unit Developments where smaller lots are allowed. The intent of the City Council approval is that smaller homes would be built on those lots. The problem of course is that builders are often not the developers and thus you may, as a developer, wish to contact your builders accordingly; likewise, if you are a builder you should make sure you have clarified this point with your developer. MEWS TO USE We have Just mailed to as many builders as we can identify, a package of information that should improve the service level for permit issuance. The package of information includes a number of checklists that you are encouraged to use in preparing your applications for permits. We also use the checklists and they assure you and us that the application is complete. Complete applications are processed first. Incomplete applications not only are processed after the complete applications, but often are returned'to the applicant for additional information or redesign. Please call us if you would like a copy of that information, or if you would like additional copies. The current edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) adopted by the State of Minnesota with the State Building Code is the 1982 edition. While the 1985 edition has been available for some time, the State of Minnesota still has not adopted it. If you have questions about the design, materials, or requirements for structures, please refer to the 1982 UBC. The last word we had from the State is that the 1985 UBC should be adopted "shortly". We will let you know when that happens. GOOD NEVIS! !!!!!! There has been a change in the Energy Code. The Department of Energy and Economic Development, Energy Division, amended the Minnesota Energy Code, by reducing the R -value required for 42 inch deep foundation walls from R-10 to R-5 for one and two-family dwellings. BUILDING INSPECTION NEWSLETTER CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 April, 1986 The purpose of this periodic newsletter is to provide another means of communication among the Building Inspection Division, contractors, and developers who are involved in construction work in the City of Plymouth. The content will be designed to outline topics of general interest as provided not only by the City but also by the development community. We believe that by bringing items to your attention in written form as well as verbally, we will improve the quality of service to provide you, as well as the quality of work you provide the citizens of Plymouth. Let us hear from "you! If you have questions or comments, please call Building Official Joe Ryan at 559-2800, or drop us a note. INSPECTION REQUESTS Please provide the Permit Number when you call to request inspections. The Permit Number is important not only as a reference for the computer, but is also important to verify that a Permit has been issued for the work to be insp=cted. Please inform all personnel that the Permit Number should be provided when inspections are requested. POSTING OF JOB ADDRESS The assigned address for new single family and two-family dwellings, as well as multi - residential, commercial, and industrial projects, should be posted at the street side or entrance to projects. The address should be clearly legible and not obstructed by any other messages or equipment. This is required by City Code and it is necessary to assure that inspectors, as well as public safety personnel can easily find new con- struction sites. INSPECTION RECORD CARDS These are the cards issued with all permits to all contractors of all trades. This card is to be posted on the site and protected and maintained on the site until the job is done. This card contains important information regarding the job and is used to record inspections performed. There apparently has been some question as to the pur- pose of the cards. Please inform your personnel of this requirement. DUPLICATE INSPECTION RECORD CARDS Duplicate Inspection Record Cards are available for $3.00 each. They should not be needed if the original cards are promptly posted on a site and are protected during the life of the project. Cards do get lost occasionally, or they get damaged or mis- placed. The $3.00 charge covers the cost of the card as well as creating the dupli- cate. We try to issue them on demand but encourage you to call ahead indicating the job location and Permit Number. . Cards must be posted on the site before inspections can be completed. RX"TURN OVER FOR FURTHER "NEWS" Page two SITE PLAN AND SURVEY REQUIREMENTS 15. For property adjacent to, or containing any open storm water drainaqe indicate the established high water elevation as approved by the City The lowest floor minimum elevation shall be no less than two (2) feet established high water elevation. facility, Enqineer. above the 16. An "As -Built" survey, certified by a Minnesota Registered Civil Engineer or Surveyor, shall be submitted to the Building Official indicating the elevation of the lowest floor level and the top of the installed foundation wall for those sites which abut lakes, ponds, streams, and/or surface water drainage routes and therefore, are deemed to be subject to flooding and high water damaqe. The survey and certification shall be compared to the established minimum elevations and approved by the Building Official PRIOR TO ANY FURTHER CONSTRUCTION ABOVE THE FOUNDATION WALL. bldg(site/sur)1-2 CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION SITE PLAN AND SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR ONE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS 1. A certified land survey shall indicate that permanent iron monuments are in place at each lot corner. 2. Permanent iron monuments shall also be placed on each side lot a distance from the front lot line equivalent to the building setback line. In the event the distance of the side line is greater than 30 feet, stakes shall be placed on the front building line a distance not to exceed 30 feet from the building side lines. 3. All existing buildings with dimensions of each building and reference dimensions measured perpendicular from the lot lines to the nearest point of each buildino. 4. All proposed buildings with dimensions of each building and reference dimensions measured perpendicular from the front and side lot lines to the nearest point of each building. 5. Elevations to sea level datum of the top of curb or, if no curb, the edge of the pavement of the street at points where the side lot lines of the property intersect said street. 6. Proposed elevations to sea level datum of the top of foundation, garage floor and the lowest most floor. 7. Proposed elevations to sea level datum of grade within five feet of foundation on all sides of proposed buildings. 8. Existing and proposed elevations to sea level datum of grade at each property corner. 9. Elevation to sea level of sanitary sewer main, if existing, at point of connection to said sewers. 10. All existing utilities, easements, drainage ways, water ways and swamp land on or within property. 11. All dimensions of variances that are requested. 12. The location of an attached or detached garage, containing at least on parking stall, which could be build within Ordinance setback standards, in addition to the one or two family dwelling, when no garage is initially proposed. 13. The location of all proposed decks, porches, driveways, curb cuts, and other accessory structures. 14. Indicate with arrows, direction of proposed surface drainage in accordance with the City-wide and/or subdivision grading plan as approved by the City Engineer. OVER PLEASE BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS These plans must include front, rear, left and right sides; be legible; and be drawn to scale indicating the scale size. ITEMS TO BE SHOWN AND DESCRIBED: ❑ Roof pitch. ❑ Roof ventilation (location and quantity). ❑ Roof overhang dimension. ❑ Siding material. ❑ Location and dimensions of all windows and doors. ❑ Location and dimensions of all deck/porches. ❑ Location and height of chimney. ❑ Location of code required four (4) inch high house numbers. ❑ Specification of caulking and flashing at all exterior openings. bldg(elev/draw)1 Z -a CROSS SECTION DRAWINGS These plans must be legible and drawn to scale indicating the scale size. ITEMS TO BE SHOWN AND DESCRIBED: ❑ Footing size (exterior and interior load bearing). ❑ Draintile location. * ❑ Foundation (size of block & number of courses). ❑ Anchor bolts (size and spacing). ❑ Sill material (size and type). ❑ Foundation insulation (thickness and "R" value). ❑ Basement floor thickness. ❑ Stairway (rise/run, handrail height, headroom clearance). ❑ Subfloor/underlayment (type and thickness). ❑ Exterior wall construction (type and thickness of: siding, sheathing, studs, insulation, vapor barrier, and wall bracing). ❑ Tntprinr finich material (type and thickness). ❑ Interior bearing wall location. ❑ Ceiling height. ❑ Roof construction (type and thickness of: roof sheathing, roof covering soffit/fascia, insulation, vapor barrier). ❑ Roof/ceiling framing (size, type and spacing). u Soffit and tunnel ventilation. ❑ Eave flashing: method of (roof/ice build-up). * If wood foundation system, include a copy of the applicable construction details found in "The All -Weather Wood Foundation System" installation manual published by the National Forest Products Association. bldg(cross/plan)l Z a.. FLOOR PLAN These plans must be legible and drawn to scale indicating the scale size. ITEMS TO BE SHOWN AND DESCRIBED: n Exterior wall dimensions. ❑ Interior wall dimensions. ❑ Overall building dimensions. ❑ Decks and porches (including: direction, size, and spacing of rafters, header sizes, and location of stairways). Window and door sizes. ❑ Cantilevers (location, size and method of construction). ❑ Fireplace (location, type, hearth dimensions and required clearances to combustibles). ❑ Brick ledge locations. ❑ Attic access (size and location). ❑ Floor joists (size, spacing and direction). Rafters/trusses (size, spacing and direction). ❑ Location of bathroom fixtures, exhaust fans, kitchen cabinets, smoke detectors, furnace flue and plumbing stack. ❑ Room titles. ❑ Soffit fire stopping measures. ❑ Headers/beams (location, size and type). ❑ Interior stairways (location, size and direction of travel). ❑ Guardrails (height and spacing of intermediate rails). ❑ Garage fire wall (type of construction including self-closing fire door). bldg(floor/plan)l CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION Information Required on Building Plans for One and Two Family Dwellings FOUNDATION PLAN These plans must be legible and drawn to scale indicating the scale size. ITEMS TO BE SHOWN AND DESCRIBED: n Exterior wall dimensions. Interior wall dimensions. l Overall building dimensions. El Decks and porches (location & size including: size and spacinq of footinqs, floor joists and headers). n Exterior footing size. Fireplace footing (location and size). Window and door sizes. Cantilevers (locations, size, and method of construction). Brick ledge locations. Ll Interior wall construction (location, size and spacing of framing). 0 Interior bearing wall footings (location and size). CD Headers/beams (location, size and type). n Pad footings (location and size). n Interior stairways (location, size and direction of travel). Location of furnace, water heater, sump pump, floor drains, plumbing stack, smoke detector, bathroom fixtures, and exhaust fans. 0 Room titles. L---� Unexcavated areas. l—� Crawl space (access size and location; type and thickness of insulation). Floor joist (size and spacing). Treated plate material. bldg(found/plan)1 April 11, 1986 Dear Builder or Contractor: s CITY OF PLYMOUTR Last year, during a meeting with the Plymouth Development Council, a sub -committee was formed to discuss with the City, methods of reducing the turn -around time of the plan review for the issuance of new single family building permits. This sub- committee consisted of Mr. Bob.Burger, the president of the Development Council, two building contractors, the City s Community Development Director, and me. We determined that a major cause for the backlog was the lack of information provided on the building plans and surveys. During the course of our meetings, checklists were developed to identify the required information which constitutes a complete application for a new single family building permit. Enclosed are copies. It is important that you are familiar with this information and distribute the materials tD those individuals who are involved in the preparation and design of your building plans, certificates of survey, and permit applications. We review first those building permit applications which are received in completed form. Incomplete building permit applications are handled next and will delay issuance of permits. They will be returned for the additional information. We use these checklists during the plan review stage. Limited resources do not allow for completion of partial applications or for redesign work by us. We can provide thorough and expedient service to all persons who provide the required information. The checklists are intended to help you help us serve you better. The use of similar checklists has worked well in the Planning Division for several years. I am convinced it is a good approach to improv.ing our service. If you have any questions, or would like additional copies of information, please feel free to contact me at 559-2800. Sincerely, �G-Vr Joe Ryan Building Official JR/ds 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800 CITY OF PLYMOUTH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 9, 1986 The regular Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was called to order at 7:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Steigerwald, Commissioners Wire, Stulberg, Plufka, Mellen, and Pauba Commissioner Magnus arrived later in the meeting. !EMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Coordinator Sara McConn City Engineer Sherm Goldberg Community Development Secretary Grace Wineman *CONSENT AGENDA/MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner Plufka to recommend approval of the Minutes for March 26, 1986 as submitted. VOTE. 3 Ayes. Commissioners Wire, Stulberg, and Mellen 11 T I:.' abstained. %iv i ivii Cdri ieU. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request and an overview of the March 21, 1986 staff report was provided by Coordina- tor McConn. Chairman Steigerwald introduced Jeffrey Laux. Mr. Laux had no comments and stated he would answer any questions. Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Harold Gustafson, 12910 County Road 15, stated his home is next door and east of the proposed subdivision. He is opposed to the development because it does not comply with the Ordinance standards for lot width; that the new home will be constructed with a single car garage; that the front setback at 35 ft. is "non -conforming" in that other homes in the areas are setback 45 ft. or more; and, that the development will cause diminution of property values in the neighborhood. -55- . • 3a.., *MINUTES -MARCH 26, 1986 MOTION TO APPROVE VOTE - MOTION CARRIED JEFFREY LAUX PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE FOR "LAUX ADDITION (86022) Page 56 Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1986 Commissioner Pauba explained to Mr. Gustafson that the plat does conform to minimum Ordinance provisions except in the case of the variance request for lot width. He inquired if Mr. Gustafson knew of covenants requiring two -car garages, as the City does not specify the size for a garage. Mr. Gustafson commented that it is unusual to build a home today without a two -car garage. Mr. Laux explained the variance request is needed because a portion of the property was sold to the owner of the lot to the west when it was found that a driveway for an existing residence encroached on this property. The plans follow the current City guidelines and there should be no reduction in value of other homes in the area. He would consider the two -car garage. Commissioner Mellen inquired if Mr. Laux resides in the home, or if it is a rental property. Mr. Laux stated this property is his former homestead and he is hoping to sell the property. Coordinator McConn confirmed for Commissioner Plufka the lot width is 92 ft at sthe 35 ft. front yard setback; the build- ing pad would be approximately 62' x 35'. Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner Stulberg to recommend approval for the Prelimdlnary Plat and Variance for "Laux Addition" subject to the conditions as listed in the March 21, 1986 staff report. Commissioner Wire stated that the variance is granted on the basis that the Variance Criteria are satisfied given the shape of the parcel and this is similar to other properties in this area. Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Craig Freeman for "Willow Grove Office Park 1st Addition". An overview of the March 26, 1986 staff report was provided by Coordinator McConn. Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mr. Craig Freeman. Mr. Freeman had no questions or comments. Commissioner Mellen inquired if soil testing had been done. Coordinator McConn replied it is not required by the City for platting. Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing, as there was no one to speak on the item, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION TO APPROVE VOTE - MOTION CARRIED CRAIG FREEMAN, FREEMAN'S INC. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND FINAL PLAT (86029) Page 57 Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1986 MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE Pauba to recommend approval for the Revised Preliminary Plat, General Development Plan, and Final Plat for "Willow Grove Office Park 1st Addition" for Craig Freeman, subject to the conditions as listed in the March 26, 1986 staff report. Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. Chairman Steigerwald introduced the Site Plan Application for Welsh Construction Corporation. An overview of the March 26 1986 staff report was provided by Coordinator McConn. Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mr. Dennis Doyle, represent- inq Welsh Construction Company. Mr. Doyle stated he had no comment and would answer any questions. Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing, as there was no one present to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was closed. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED WELSH CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (86030) MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE Pauba to recommend approval for the Site Plan and Con- ditional Use Permit for Welsh Construction Corporation for an approximate 58,000 sq. ft. office building_. Subject to the conditions as listed in the March 26, 1986 staff report. Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. Chairman Steigerwald introduced the application by Tipton Corporation. Reading of the March 21, 1986 staff report was waived. Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mr. Michael Sjeklocha, Tipton Corporation. Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing, as there was no one to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner Wire to recommend approval for the RPUD Final Plan/Plat and PUD Amendment for "Plymouth Creek 5th Addition", subject to the conditions as listed in the March 21, 1986 staff report. The Commission commended this development. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED TIPTON CORPORATION RPUD FINAL PLAN/PLAT AND PUD AMENDMENT FOR "PLYMOUTH CREEK STH ADDITION" (86031) MOTION TO APPROVE Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED Page 58 Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1986 NEW BUSINESS Chairman Steigerwald introduced the application by Graham Development Company and requested an overview of the March 21, 1986 staff report by Coordinator McConn. Coordinator McConn noted that in response to questions from residents who came to City Center today, a building pad will be created for Lot 1, Block 2 as part of the issued permit from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). She also informed the Commission that their initial direction for landscaping along the public roadway was not carried forward and they may wish to make this a point of discussion for inclusion as a condition of approval. Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mr. Thomas Graham. He explained to those in attendance that the Public Hearing has been held on this proposal; those who wish to speak are invited to make brief comments on the proposal. Mr. ferry Coffel, 10225 31st Avenue North, stated there has been a misunderstanding on this wetland. He provided photo- graphs to the Commission depicting the wetland, noting that it extends well beyond the platted roadway; the application graphics show it to be much smaller. He stated that the input to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was also misleading, as they stated there were no viable options to locate the roadway and the residents feel this is not the case. The neighbors want to protect the wetland and assure there will be minimum damage to this area. Chairman Steigerwald inquired if the residents knew where the water line is during dry months in the summer. Mr. Coffel stated he has lived in the area only two years, but the summers he has been there the water line is only 2 to 3 ft. from where it is shown now. Kristal Deavours, 3051 Quaker Lane, deferred to the next speaker. Larry Decker, 2805 Revere Circle, stated they realize this is review of the Final Plat, but the residents want the Com- mission to consider a plan they propose and which he distributed. He commented that they are determined to protect this wetland. He explained that the City was to repair the dyke when City sewer was installed in 1982. As the City failed to do this, the neighborhood has worked to rehabilitate this area. They have drawn wildlife to the area; flood the pond and skate in the winter; and, they want to see that the integrity of the wetland is retained. Z- 3c,. THOMAS GRAHAM GRAHAM DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAT FOR "LAKE PARK HEIGHTS" (85089) Z.- 3o. - Page 59 Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1986 Mr. Decker explained their "Alternative A" showing that traffic can be moved through the area, and the developer could have more lots. He noted that the wildlife will leave the area if the traffic is too close to their habitat. Their plan does shrink the wetland so that the backyards of the lots will be buffer zones to the wetland area. He noted this alternative would take traffic to Trenton Lane, to 29th Avenue, and to Medicine Lake Road. "Alternative B" would require that 30th Avenue be upgraded. Mr. Decker stated there is improper fill in the wetland to- day and at the absolute minimum, this should be removed. He noted that three years ago DNR was strong on this wet- land; one year ago, mediocre; and, the last six months very weak in their stance on the wetland area. They ask that a proper water control device be installed as a minimum requirement of the developer. The wetland is fragile and could drain itself with the pressures that are to be put on it. He stated it is unbelievable that DNR would approve con- structing a home on Lot 1; they ask that the lot be only of sufficient size for a home and that the balance be declared unbuildable and given to the City as an outlot. He stated he would have met with City staff, but he travels extensively. He stated he has spoken with DNR who offered the fact they have "stacks" of plans from the City of Plymouth for review. Chairman Steigerwald recalled from the September hearing, that Mr. Harwood Heggen had commented this is a man-made pondand has been there since 1954. He recalled there was trouble identifying who built the dam. Mr. Decker stated that in 1978 through 1980 and 81, cater- pillers were working in this area and had to be pulled out with winches. He stated he cannot believe it was ever a hayfield, perhaps it was used as pasture land. Coordinator McConn explained the DNR permit includes removal of the fill; that a lot created for a building pad only would be substandard and would not comply with the City's Ordinance requirements. A remnant parcel with no ownership would not be desirable and would require a variance from the Subdivision Code. She explained drainage easements would be required for this lot, and noted previous discussions for landscaping requirements. She stated the DNR reviews dif- ferent types of plans for the City, not only for permits, but also, for example, development plans within the Shore - land Areas. Page 60 Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1986 Chairman Steigerwald asked Mr. Decker if Mr. Graham has a copy of the plans distributed to the Commission. Mr. Decker answered affirmatively. He inquired whether Mr. Graham had an opinion regarding these alternatives. Mr. Graham stated there is no basis for denial of his proposal as their plans comply with the approved preliminary plat and they have complied with all City requirements. He stated they have adhered to the process, and the roadway as proposed, is part of the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan. He feels it is most unusual to have to defend a Final Plat, and he is concerned because a considerable amount of time and money has been spent on this proposal. Chairman Steigerwald inquired if he would care to state his opinion on the alternatives. Mr. Graham stated he does not like the plan. Chairman Steigerwald inquired about the neighborhood concern regarding the building on Lot 1, Block 2, as discussed. Mr. Graham stated the site will be prepared carefully and the DNR has issued a permit for the work. He stated that fewer lots would be economically unfeasible because of the land costs. Keith Friese, 3005 Quaker Lane, presented a letter written by dim LaSalle, having to do with shielding the wetland from the proposed roadway. He read the letter to the Commission and it was made part of the record of these proceedings. Rich Mullenbach, 10215 31st Avenue North, supports the com- ments by Mr. Decker and others. He supports the alternative and noted that this is not the first time these alternatives have been offered, even though Mr. Graham suggests this is the first time he has seen them. He stated they want to protect this area. He inquired about an EIS, and how they could follow through with this. Chairman Steigerwald explained the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Coordinator McConn stated one was not mandatory for this proposal. She further explained that a petition could be presented to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and the City Council would make a finding on whether an EAW would completed. Mr. Graham stated that the first plan presented to the City was not supported because of the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan. He stated he does not agree that his initial plan resembled the alternatives brought in by the neighborhood, but he did feel his first plan was workable. 13c,.- Page 61 Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1986 Mr. Alan Stensrud, 3105 Quaker Lane, stated he developed the land to the east and that the lots were developed at a 300 ft. depth to save the wetlands there. He stated the people have a deep concern for the wildlife in the area and he would hate to see the pond drained. He has lived here since 1971 and there has always been water in the pond. He re- quested the Commission consider sheltering the property from the roadway and he supports the comments made by the other residents. Commissioner Plufka inquired about the pond control. Bob Thene, Engineer, for the petitioner, stated they are meeting with the DNR to finalize the design of the control; stabil- ize the pond; reduce fluctuation; and, install an outlet. Commissioner Plufka inquired if the 936 elevation would be maintained. Mr. Thene stated the original elevation was at 934.4, but as a mitigative measure it was agreed to stabil- ize the elevation at 936. Commissioner Wire inquired what methods or means would be used for control. Mr. Thene stated that a combination of 6 x 6 ties and berming will be considered for stabilization, and, to allow the water to escape, a large pipe could be set at the 936 elevation or perhaps a box culvert. He stated it may take other configurations to gain good control. Kaye Vethe, 10210 31st Avenue North, deferred to Mr. Stensrud. Mr. Alan Stensrud stated that the berm being discussed may not be on the developer's property and there should be clarification of property lines before any work is undertaken. Mr. Thene stated the City staff knows the location of ease- ments and property boundaries. Coordinator McConn stated this is noted in the Engineer's Memorandum. Mr. Decker inquired about maintenance easements on the creek area. Mr. Graham stated the berm holding the water back is next to and west of the property. He noted they will need help to solve this problem. Chairman Steigerwald stated the City and DNR are aware and will help work out these prob- lems. Commissioner Plufka stated that it appears to be a common goal and should have the total cooperation of all parties. City Engineer Goldberg confirmed for Chairman Steigerwald that the pond elevation confirmed today is higher than normal, but should stabilize within 6 to 8 inches. Page 62 Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1986 Commissioner Wire requested an explanation of how close the pond area will be to 29th Avenue. City Engineer Goldberg explained the shifting of the road on the curve to the northwest which will gain 10 ft. additional street easement and there is a 2 ft. difference in elevation from the edge of the wetland to the roadway. He explained there will be back -slope from the curb to the pond and a boulevard area between that and the property line. He noted that B-612 and vertical curb will be used. Pond capacity, grading plans and removal of fill was discussed. Commissioner Wire expressed concern that there is no walkway and without a break, a bicycle could run into the pond. Chairman Steigerwald stated there was direction given re- garding buffering and landscaping during the Commission's initial review of the proposal. Commissioner Plufka confirmed that the City desires to have the pond on private property under private ownership, and that the pond is not part of the City's Storm Water Drainage System. Coordinator McConn and City Engineer Goldberg confirmed for Commissioner Plufka that a property owner will not be allowed to construct into the easement areas on Lot 1, Block 2. Commissioner Wire stated there are problems with ponds too close to roadways where salt and street debris run into them. MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Wire to recommend approval for the Final Plat for "Lake Park Heights", subject to the conditions listed in the March 21, 1986 staff report, with the addition of Condition No. 11 that shrubbery shall be planted on the east side of Revere Lane to provide a buffer/screen from the road to the pond; to be approved by the City Forester. MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner Plufka to AMEND the Motion by adding Condition No. 12., the pond level control structure shall be approved by the City Engineer and Department of Natural Resources (DNR). VOTE on MOTION to AMEND. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE on MAIN MOTION as once AMENDED. 6 Ayes. carried. MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION TO AMEND VOTE ON AMENDMENT - MOTION CARRIED MOTION VOTE ON MAIN MOTION MOTION CARRIED = Page 63 Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1986 Commissioner Wire inquired if particular types of plantings and a form of screening should be outlined. Mr. Graham stated it would be preferable that the plantings not be of excessive height so that the residents of the west side can enjoy the pond and there is still be a buffer from the roadway.It was the consensus not to screen the pond from view, but to recommend the use of low shrubbery and plantings that would provide shelter for area wildlife. Ms. Halett Coffel, 10225 31st Avenue North, stated she had not been called on to speak and she wanted to express her concern that the geese are nesting here now and that work done in the wetland will force them to leave and they won't be back. OTHER BUSINESS Coordinator McConn reviewed the tentative agenda for the next Development Council meeting to be held at 7:30 A.M. on April 23, 1986. The Commission is asked to forward any other items they would like discussed at the meeting. The Commission will advise staff. Coordinator McConn identified the Ordinance Amendments to be discussed at the Public Hearing on April 16, 1986. Chaim an Steiger: a d and Commissioner Stulberg will not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting on April 23, 1986. Coordinator McConn explained the meeting date changes for July because of the conflict with "Music in Plymouth". The meetings will be held the first and fourth Wednesdays. An-IKNMMFNT The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Z 3b MINUTFS PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT April 9, 1986 The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Karen Benon, Ray Lottie, Dale Knutson, Dave Pesch, Frank Boyles ABSENT: Dick Make, Dennis Jacobson, Dave Brownell, LeRoy Mikkelson, Tad Jude I. APPROVAL OF MARCH 5, 1986 MINUTES The minutes of the March 5 meeting were approved as submitted. II. RIDERSHIP STATISTICS The Committee reviewed the ridership statistics for January, February and March of 1986. The commuter and reverse commuter have slipped from 351 in January, to 350 in February, and 338 in March. The internal circulator, on the other hand, has gained ridership from 40 in January, to 47 in February, and 64 in March. Overall, the system has gained ridership from 391 in January, to 394 in February, and 402 in March. Year todate, the system is operatinq at 3% over tarqet for commuter/ reverse commuter, 11% under target for internal circulator, and approx- imately at target for total ridership system -wide. There was discussion about reduced ridership during Easter week and the fact that the system is not experiencing the same major ridership drops overall as were seen in 1985. III. FOLLOW UP FROM MARCH MEETING Committee members indicated that punchcards are now available from drivers. This is condition that must be continued to be monitored to assure that cards are available for customers desirinq to purchase them. The new signs have been placed and are in use in the minicoaches and full-size transits. Dave will continue to monitor driver substi- tution, especially during the summer months. Dave Pesch discussed the driver/rider recognition program. He indicated that both programs will be done in conjunction with the revisions in service which will take place in June. He expects that revised schedules will be distributed between May 19 and 28 to provide sufficient advance notice for riders. Plaques are now being made up for drivers and the copy is under preparation for the rider thank you note and discount card. Dave Pesch reported that requests had been distributed to Metrolink riders asking that they become PACT members on the routes desired. Only one affirmative response was received. Frank Boyles will contact this Individual. Discussion followed about how to proceed. A recommendation was made that a written letter be prepared for driver distribution to select riders to see if this might work. There was a suggestion that some additional incentive to be a PACT member be considered. Dave Pesch and Frank Boyles will review and make recommendations on this proposal at the next PACT meeting. PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT April 9, 1986 Page Two Z 3� Dave Pesch reported on the proposed internal circulator route chanqes. He said that basically, it would simplify the internal circulator route by limiting circulation to one direction only, and starting routes approximately 61 minutes apart to become eligible to the limited off- peak service definition. Minor changes would also be made to Medicine Lake mid-day service to assure compliance with RTB limited off-peak guidelines. IV. IDENTIFICATION OF NEW AREAS OF CONCERNS: OR RECOMMENDATIONS Dave Pesch reviewed the March 25 electrical breakdown with the mini - coach. He stated that the following day, riders were given a free ride because of the 20 minute delay which occurred. There was a recommen- dation that if this occurs in the future, that the trip that day be made free to insure that people who are actually inconvenienced by the delay receive the free trip. Dave Pesch stated that he would post a policy with the dispatcher stating that any delays of 15 minutes or more caused by Medicine Lake bus breakdown, constitutes a free ride for Metrolink passengers. Dave also more thoroughly reviewed the commuter/ reverse commuter and internal circulator route changes. He discussed the scheduling format and asked for PACT input on changes. He indicated that, for convenience, all three services will now be included on a single schedule. The fare policy will be included and improvements will be made to the internal circulator route map. V. 1986 MARKETING PROGRAM Members present agreed that the target for 1986 marketing should focus on internal circulator passengers since they will experience the greatest route change. The intent should be to minimize loss of passengers because of confusion with the new routes. Marketing Instru- ments should be directed to Plymouth residents and to school students through the schools if possible. Presentations should be made to Home- owner Associations to reenforce the fact that the commuter service and Internal circulator service are still available and to refresh their memory on use of the system. Dave Pesch and Frank Boyles agreed that a specific marketing program will be presented at the dune meeting. The next meeting is scheduled fo 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, dune 11, 1986. Frank Boyles is to call PACT members who have not attended in the past to deter- mine whether it would be better to change the meeting date or time to get better attendance. The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m. s-� CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: April 11, 1986 TO: All Community Service Officers FROM: Chief Richard Carlquist SUBJECT Raccoons I have had a lengthy telephone conversation with John Vadnais who is an area supervisor for DNR. Our conversation related specifically to the handling of raccoons when they are considered a nuisance animal. Mr. Vadnais indicated that the raccoon is protected, however, the owner and/or occupant of private property have a legal right to destroy or relocate squirrels, woodchucks, rabbits, and raccoons when they are found on their property and causing property damage. If the City of Plymouth or any of its agents i.e. C.S.O.'s were to destroy the aforementioned animals under the nuisance statute we would need a special permit from DNR. This permit is not difficult to obtain and is given for an annual period, March 1st through the following February 29th. We would only need the special permit if we were the ones destroying or relocating the nuisance animals. Nwners and/or occupants do not need said permit. I have sent for a handout that DNR has prepared which is mailed to citizens who are experiencing problems from nuisance animals and in particular raccoons. At this time it is important that we present a consistent policy state- ment to the citizenry regarding raccoons. First of all, we have live traps that we may loan free of charge to citizens experiencing problems from nuisance animals. Secondly, if they catch a nuisance animal it is their responsibility to either destroy or relocate. We will deviate from this policy only when immediate public safety concerns such as, immediate danger Io -The public. In those cases it may be prudent to request a sworn officer to respond to the call and dispatch the animal immediately (if that action can be taken safely). As soon as the handouts are received from DNR I will see that you have ample copies. RJC:tmb cc: James G. Willis, City Manager Lt. Mel Solberg Sgt. Tom Saba -S7 PLYMOUTH TOWN MEETING FORMAT AREA 10 April 14, 1986 I. INTRODUCTIONS - Mayor Virgil Schneider II. STATUS REPORTS ON ISSUES OF INTEREST - City Department Heads III. QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS IN ATTENDANCE IV. CLOSING COMMENTS - Mayor Virgil Schneider V. ADJOURN RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM Please use this form if you have a question or concern which you would like the City to investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone number, we will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your concern. NATURE OF CONCERN/PROPERTY ADORFSS I"1%in1 %rEn: ACTION YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO TAKE: NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT: ►�Iw� ADDRESS OF RESIDENT: -1 a-� O Q�,J� A a PHONE NUMBER: =-S- PLYMOUTH TOWN MEETING FORMAT AREA 10 April 14, 1986 I. INTRODUCTIONS - Mayor Virgil Schneider II. STATUS REPORTS ON ISSUES OF INTEREST - City Department Heads III. QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS IN ATTENDANCE IV. CLOSING COMMENTS - Mayor Virgil Schneider V. ADJOURN RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM Please use this form if you have a question or concern which you would like the City to investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone number, we will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your concern. ,t',,,,,.� n V NATURE OF CONCERN! PROPERTY ADDRESS INVOLVED: YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO TAKE: j NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT: ADDRESS OF RESIDENT: 2 z -x 0 4:-��/4 PHONE NUMBER: D O 1 (o' L -X5 - 6 a-0 (� ��Y-h PLYMOUTH TOWN MEETING FORMAT AREA 10 April 14, 1986 I. INTRODUCTIONS - Mayor Virgil Schneider II. STATUS REPORTS ON ISSUES OF INTEREST - City Department Heads III. QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS IN ATTENDANCE IV. CLOSING COMMENTS - Mayor Virgil Schneider V. ADJOURN RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM Please use this form if you have a question or concern which you would like the City to investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone number, we will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your concern. NATURE OF CONCERN/PROPERTY ADDRESS INVOLVED! :�r'i/Y1-7- e-: ) .,a - -2 +7 _ c T/` ✓�- /�%'.�l�t� CrK/�s �S �� r�sc= C cc3i0i'i�� ; o r o//a� � ��>iN� L�-�v c�9k� r�/�' , ✓ h'hT /,�/�.y-' o�:«�:�,,s rf,t-c. c��,� ACTION YOU`D SIRE THE CITY TO TAKE: ��- NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT: ADDRESS OF RESIDENT: b ZZ.jo PHONE NUMBER: /7`-.3-0;2 =- S. RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM Please use this form if you have a question or concern which you would like the City to investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone number, we will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your concern. / NATURE OF CONCERN/PROPERTY ADDRESS INVOLVED: �..,�-.�c-t. �=t��.,�� � � %k,.Zi{ : Hr.-�� ?:'1,s-•.��� �`� .�s� �i-4r.o� `��'Lx..y �i ACTION YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO -TAKE: T" v ' WY � ✓w�y s; 1.,� L''r:�.-ter. i �'+.Ca': /�t.[14g, � �l �L'Tr+�,' �[. w�K/l'�UL'Kil Lh1J �{,�.C.,G,a_y ,,, :r�-nsJ,• :..� V7.t;�/,u�, Cnvi-:-•moi, i.; t'� -G,s9,•Z �i'�„ris,:i, C,,. 4� /'/L.Gas.�' . NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT: ..,.�i�;�•za-aim ADDRESS OF RESIDENT: % Sv /9/,,., � /'0 PHONE' NUMBER : -35-3 - Z- S - RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM Please use this form if you have a question or concern which you would like the City to investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone number, we will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your concern. N ATtior..-- nr !`f1Al/`CR11 /DQl1DEC�TV e.DoESS I"lYOLVED :�41 ACTION YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO TAKE: i S.e -'44 zs'42 -+C) e ; NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT: lit ADDRESS OF RESI'DE`NT: PHONE NUMBER: `7 � (: y %S l -t L 1 I -9. t�7 do -tQ � 4 PLYMOUTH TOWN MEETING FORMAT AREA 10 April 14, 1986 I. INTRODUCTIONS - Mayor Virgil Schneider II. STATES REPORTS ON ISSUES OF INTEREST - City Department Heads III. QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS IN ATTENDANCE IV. CLOSING COMMENTS - Mayor Virgil Schneider V. ADJOLRN RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM Please use this form if you have a question or concern which you would like the City to investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone number, we will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your concern. NATURE OF CONCERN/PROPERTY ADDRESS INVOLVED: ACTION YOU DESI rC1 �C,a- at NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT: 22JL4. 4 ADDRESS OF RESIDENT: L' �-^cJ �✓vt�z-- — PHONE NUMBER:`J����5 r W PLYMOUTH TOWN MEETING FORMAT AREA 10 April 14, 1986 I. INTRODUCTIONS - Mayor Virgil Schneider II. STATUS REPORTS ON ISSUES OF INTEREST - City Department Heads III. QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS IN ATTENDANCE IV. CLOSING COMMENTS - Mayor Virgil Schneider V. ADJOURN RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM y— S Please use this form if you have a question or concern which you would like the City to investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone number, we will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your concern. ;,AT�Ann E 1'4 Lr viten^,PERTY ADDRESS INVOLVED: �faao-�< ��✓peg. tis P Irate P ��, o:,� e�-� ls -�-�o oSE P\©tv��✓L ACTION YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO TAKE: f0 VL cl V. D (A 4o t/y\ 4z75 NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT: ? �� �r� C , ?vS 2V--" ADDRESS OF RESIDENT: $ 7 /moi. PHONE NUMBER: L =— J PLYMOUTH TOWN MEETING FORMAT AREA 10 April 14, 1986 I. INTRODUCTIONS - Mayor Virgil Schneider II. STATUS REPORTS ON ISSUES OF INTEREST - City Department Heads III. QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS IN ATTENDANCE IV. CLOSING COMMENTS - Mayor Virgil Schneider V. ADJOURN RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM Please use this form if you have a question or concern which you would like the City to investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone number, we will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your concern. NATURE OF CONCERN/PROPERTY ADDRESS INVOLVED: 040-4 r �'�h►� a� .bow., -4,v, ei%.•C ACTION YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO TAKE: NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT: & ADDRESS OF RESIDENT: PHONE NUMBER: CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: April 18, 1986 TO: James G. Willis, City Manager FROM: Fred Moore, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Johnson Drainage Complaint (Vicksburg Lane — North of Wooddale Addition) It is my understanding that Councilmember Maria Vasiliou has been contacted by Dwaine Johnson concerning a drainage problem North of the Wooddale Addition. The City of Plymouth has been attempting to negotiate an easement with Mr. and Mrs. Johnson for over a year, but have been unsuccessful in the negotiations. For background information I am attaching copies of some of the letters and office memos with regard to the complaint and the negotiations. After the City received the letter dated October 2, 1985 from an attorney retained by Mr. Johnson this matter was referred to the City Attorney's office. There have been several meetings and discussions with either the Johnsons or their attorney since that time. The letter attached dated April 10, 1986 from the City Attornay's office makes the latest proposal to the Johnsons. It has been the City's position that if there are any damages to the Johnson property as a result of the development of the Wooddale Addition, it is the responsibility of that developer to compensate for these damages. The latest proposal to the Johnsons would construct an additional storm sewer in order that all additional water as a result of development from the Wooddale Addition would bypass the Johnson property. I will keep you informed of the response which the City Attorney receives from the Johnsons. Fred G. Moore, P.E. FGM:kh Attachment: Letters and Memos f3 } A r i r n. f 1) i I 6' � .el 'a (5) ar • pr.pe..ty } I - • S I LVERTHO�NE it ue.tV♦4 OUTLOT / F ➢ I 3) IT I SCHMIDT E Y ROAD R .. t x (.i a • I 1 � " 0 DA E,) �, •O `m t rN cl� OUTLOT • 49TH !; ' �, e► '° AK x 0vT4 a OT t so tj 3 gip) • e ,x =.) a 2 OUTLOT E r . tis;, t: 49TH AYflItR c: �. �° ? "• OT t3 SILVERYMO E , • + •- (4 5 tc•,o ATL .� c•) „• ,.'17 _Q OODDALELO' a yl 321 • y f 2 . • ,w.. � �4� • ` i .) a i x ; Lid la "�a pUT1.07 A 47TH :!AV[ 4TTH teU[: �� w. i,5) ,) i� '_•o t O — r n. o auna c f - 'i.` � d. � '•1 IM' : 1 Q` n) I � l0't D • = 2 w 2. , I„ .r ..HURY N� H' µ) (53) W 1a�= y r LeFevere Lef ler KennedN O'Brien 9, DraiN-z A Pooh .ional 2000 First Bank Place West April 10, 1986 Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333-0543 Telecopier (612) 333-0540 Clayton L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler J. Dennis O'Brien John E. Drawz David J. Kennedy John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler 111 James J. Thomson, Jr. Thomas R. Gah Dayle Nolan Brian F. Rice John G. Kressel Lorraine S. Clugg James M. Strommen Ronald H. Batty William P. Jordan Kurt J. Erickson William R. Skallerud Rodney D. Anderson Corrine A. Heine David D, Beaudoin Paul E. Rasmussen Joseph E. Hamilton Steven M. Tallen Ms. Eileen M. Roberts ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON & KAPLAN 1800 International Centre 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-3394 RE: Dwaine and Audrey Johnson Dear Ms. Roberts: A O 1985 x Representatives of the City and the developer of the Wooddale Addition have come up with a proposal to resolve the matter that 1 1JCl.-Lev s?,o,-i;le, 1t- acceptable to all parties. The purpose of this proposal is to amicably resolve the dispute between the parties and is not intended to be an admission on the merits of your clients' claim. The City continues to contend that it is not responsible for any alleged damage to your clients' property. The City's proposal is as follows: 1. An eight inch pipe would be constructed inside the present 27 inch pipe that discharges onto the Johnson property. This eight inch restriction would be constructed downstream from the pipe outletting from the pond in the Wooddale Addition and the storm sewer which provides drainage for Schmidt Lake Road. With this restriction constructed within the outlet pipe, during periods of heavy rain, it would force the water from Schmidt Lake Road to back into the pond within the Wooddale Addition. This restriction would be built into the catch basin manhole between the pond and the Johnson property. =— p Ms. Eileen Roberts April 10, 1986 Page 2 2. An 18 inch bypass storm sewer would be constructed easterly from the existing pond to the intersection of Schmidt Lake Road and Quantico Lane. 3. The City of Plymouth would extend the storm sewer as necessary and construct a drainage ditch in order that the water from the 18 inch bypass line would flow Northerly within the Silverthorne property. 4. Wooddale Ventures would reshape the existing pond to reduce the storage capacity from 20,000 cubic feet to 14,300 cubic feet. This would force .rare water to flow through the 18 inch bypass pipe. Material to reduce this storage would be obtained by lowering the existing pond bottom which would also provide for sedimentation for the water entering the pond. Upon completion of the above items, the result would be that the flow of water onto your clients' property would be the following: 1. For the five year rain storm, the flow would be reduced from a before development condition of 9.5 cubic feet per second (c.f.s.) to a rate of 3.7 c.f.s. after development. The total flow in volume would not change. The volume of flow before and after development is approximately 34,344 cubic feet. 2. For the 100 year storm the flow would equal 16 c.f.s. before development and be reduced to 3.7 c.f.s. after development. The total flow before development would be 57,244 cubic feet and after development would be 35,271 cubic feet. 3. The time that the water would flow across the Johnson parcel for either one of the two proceeding conditions would not be greater than 1.2 hours after the storm stops. This is based on a rain storm which lasts one hour. The ultimate result would be that there would be .less water being discharged across the property than before the development occurred. Therefore, there would be no need to obtain a drainage easement across your clients' property and it would eliminate any potential claim of damages by them. The proposal has been reviewed and approved by the developer's engineer, Dennis Marhula, the City's Director of Public Works, Fred Moore, and the City's consulting engineer, James Olson; all of whom are registered engineers. Ms. Eileen Roberts April 10, 1986 Page 3 Please let me know if the above proposal is acceptable to your clients. Sincerely, LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ nmes Thomson, JJT/kjj cc: James G. Willis Fred Moore Joseph Thompson, Esq. CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: October 7, 1985 TO: James G. Willis, City Manager FROM: Fred Moore, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: October 2, 1985 Letter From Eileen Roberts Dwaine Johnson Request for Compensation Wooddale Addition I have reviewed the letter dated October 2, 1985 received from Eileen Roberts representing Dwaine Johnson with regard to a claim for compensation as a result of the development of the Wooddale Addition. Attached is correspondence which has taken place with regard to this matter since February, 1985. I am in disagreement with several statements made in the letter. The letter states that damage has been caused to the Johnson property in establishing ponding area SC -P3 on their property pursuant to the requirements of the City's 1980 storm drainage plan. This ponding area has not been constructed and is in- cluded in the plan for establishment when this area is urbanized. In fact because of the development of the Wooddale Addition before the establishment of this ponding area, they were required to create an additional ponding area not included within the storm drainage plan. The purpose of this additional ponding area is to insure that the rate of runoff after development is at the same rate as before development. The water from the newly established retention area within the Wooddale Addition discharges by a storm sewer overflow in the same drainageway within the Johnson property as it did before development took place. There is a natural swale and creek that runs through the Johnson property northerly toward the Soo Line Railroad tracks. Even though we were advised by the City Attorney that because we were not altering the drainage pattern, an easement across the Johnson property would probably not be necessary, we took the approach that it would be worth the effort to obtain a temporary flowage easement along with the additional right-of-way for Hamel Road in order to assure no future problems. As can be seen by the letter recently received, we have been unsuccessful in securing these easements. The next statement in the letter is that the City caused or authorized the diversion of storm water from the Wooddale Addition. As previously stated, no storm water has been diverted. Storm water is still discharged to the natural drainageway which has existed within the Johnson property. As can be seen by my latest letter to the Johnsons, September 3, 1985, the developer was pro- posing to improve this drainageway within the Johnson property. =' Memo: James G. Willis October 7, 1985 Page Two Ms. Roberts makes the following statement in her letter: "Flooded conditions on the Johnson property were exacerbated in July, 1985, when the City caused or authorized the excavation of a drainage swale north from the Wooddale North Development directly across Hamel Road and onto the Johnson property." The City did not authorize any such excavation and did not have any knowledge of the excavation prior to receiving a telephone call from the Johnsons. The City, in fact, had required the developer and its contractor to pond the water within the Wooddale Addition. Without the knowledge of the City a contractor working for the developer created an excavation across Hamel Road to drain this ponding area. Immediately upon receiving notice from the Johnsons that this had happened, Sherman Goldberg contacted the developer and informed them that they did not have permission to do this and needed to refill the excavation. The City also had not authorized the developer or any contractor to go onto the Johnson property. After a meeting between Mr. Johnson and the inspector for Westwood Planning and Engineering Company, the consulting engineer for the development, a contractor was authorized by the inspector to go onto the Johnson property. The City had no knowledge of this meeting or authorization by the inspector for the contractor to go onto the Johnson property. After a meeting which I had with Mr. and Mrs. Johnson and this inspector it is my opinion that there was clearly a misunderstanding of the interpretation of the meeting held with Mr. Johnson and the inspector. This inspector was not working for the City of Plymouth, but was working for Westwood Planning and Engineering Company. The letter from Ms. Roberts also refers to the suit of Spaeth versus the City of Plymouth. The land location situation is completely opposite between the Johnson property and the Spaeth property. The Spaeth property was located upstream from construction within a development which altered the creek channel. This alteration of the creek channel raised the water level within the Spaeth property. The Johnson property is located downstream from the Wooddale Development and no alterations were made to the creek channel except in error by the inspector for Westwood Planning and Engineering Company. The alteration which he authorized to be made was an improvement to the channel, which it was his understanding Mr. Johnson was requesting. These were the improvements which were referrenced in the City's letter as part of the easement compensation. My letter to the Johnsons and previous correspondence from Dick Pouliot referred to questions they raised with regard to dividing a parcel of land. The Johnsons are not the fee owner of the land on which the drainage swale is located. They are purchasing this property on a contract for deed along with an adjacent property owner. After their contract for deed is fulfilled, they were inquiring how they could have this parcel of land separated and attached to the land of the two adjoining properties. We were negotiating with the Johnsons for the easements since they insured us that they were representing the fee property owner and also the other contract purchaser. Any other further negotiations should probably directly involve these two other parties. Memo: James G. Willis October 7, 1985 Page Three It would be my recommendation that the City Attorney arrange a meeting between the City, the owner and their attorney for the developer of the Wooddale Addition, the Johnsons and their attorney and the attorney or owner of the other contract purchaser or fee property owner involved with this matter. If this matter cannot be resolved as a result of this meeting, I would further recommend that the City, through our attorney, place the developer on notice in accordance with the development contract that they are responsible for any claims or damages which the City may suffer as a result of this action. If there are any questions with regard to this matter, or the past corres- pondence, please contact me. Fred G. Moore, P.E. FGM:kh ATLANTA, GEORGIA DALLAS, TEXAS MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA WELLESLEY, MASSACHUSETTS ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON a FOUNDED IN 1938 AS ROBINS, DAVIS 6 LYONS �. ATTORNEYS AT LAW INCLUDING THE FORMER FIRM OF STACKER 6 RAVICH 1800 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE 900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-3394 "- - TELEPHONE (612) 349-8500 TELECOPIER (612) 339-4181 TWX 910-576-2737 October 2, 1985 City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Attention: Mr. James G. Willis, City Manager EILEEN M. ROBERTS (612) 349-6724 Re: That part of the East 462 feet of the West one-half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 118, Range 22, which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing_ at the southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence North, assumed bearing, along the West line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of 1071.60 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence East to the East line of said West one-half of the Northwest Quarter and said line there terminating, all such property being located in the City of Plymouth, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Johnson Property") Our Clients: Mr. and Mrs. Dwaine O. Johnson Our File No.: 19894-0000 Dear Mr. Willis: Our law firm represents Dwaine and Audrey Johnson, the owners of the above-described Property. On behalf of the Johnsons, we hereby demand compensation by the City of Plymouth for the portion of the Johnson Property which the City has taken, damaged or destroyed in establishing Ponding Area SC -P3 thereon pursuant to the requirements of its 1980 Storm Drainage Plan. The City caused or authorized the diversion of storm water from Wooddale North, a residential development immediately south of the Johnson Property, onto the south one-half of the Johnson Property in November 1984. Flooded conditions y— L4 City of Plymouth October 2, 1985 Page Two on the Johnson Property were exacerbated in July 1985, when the City caused or authorized the excavation of a drainage swale north from the Wooddale North development directly across Hamel Road and onto the Johnson Property. Preliminary investigations indicate that at all times since the initial diversion of storm water thereon, at least 5 acres of the Johnson Property have been covered with standing water or saturated to a point at which they are unfit for use. These conditions constitute a permanent physical appropriation or occupation of the Johnson Property for a public purpose, and entitle the Johnsons to compensation pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 13, of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. Spaeth v. City of Plymouth, 344 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 1984). On behalf of our clients the Johnsons, we hereby demand compensation in the amount of $120,000 (i.e., $24,000 per acre) for the portion of the Johnson Property which has been taken by the City. This demand is based on the purchase price of approximately $24,000 per acre which the City of Plymouth was forced to pay John Spaeth in 1984 pursuant to an order of the District Court for the more than 41 acres of land the City took from Mr. Spaeth to create Ponding Area GL -P2. If the City fails to compensate the Johnsons pursuant to this demand letter, then we will advise our clients to bring an inverse condemnation action against the City for the portion of their Property which has been taken, damaged or destroyed by the City in creating Ponding Area SC -P3. That action will include a claim under Minnesota Statutes Section 117.045 for reimbursement of all attorney, engineering and appraisal fees which the Johnsons incur in proving this inverse condemnation of their Property. Kindly direct your response to this letter to the undersigned at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, ROBINS, ZELLE RSON & KAPLAN (Ei n M. Robe is EMR/gd cc: Mr. and Mrs. Dwaine 0. Johnson September 3, 1985 Mr. Dwaine 0. Johnson 5110 North Vicksburg Lane Plymouth, Minnesota 55446 Dear Mr. Johnson: CITY OF PLYMOUTFF =_ CP I am sorry that this letter has taken so long in preparation but I have been attempting to negotiate and get the last position of the developer of the Wooddale Addition with regard to this matter. This matter deals with easements that are being requested from you for the construction of the roadway along your south property line and drainage through your property. By previous correspondence the following has been offered by the City in return for the easements as requested: 1. Compensation in the amount of $4,924 for both easements. 2. Hold you harmless against any and all claims resulting from these easements. 3. Grade a drainageway within the easement and provide a crossover area for implements. 4. Maintain the drainageway as a public easement. 5. Reseed all disturbed areas with hay. In order to clarify the above items the following will provide additional details: 1. All material which is excavated as a result of grading the drainageway will be removed from the area adjacent to the drainageway and placed along the embankment for the new road along your south property line. 2. The debris which has previously been placed in the drainageway at the corner of your property will be removed and buried in a location design- ated by you immediately adjacent to the drainageway in the corner of your property. A hole will be excavated adjacent to the area where you previously had a pile of wood. This debris and stumps will then be buried in the hole. 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800 , Dwaine 0. ,)tember 3, ;e Two W Johnson 1985 3. The drainage which goes along the new roadway (Schmidt Lake Road) from Vicksburg Lane will be collected in a pipe at the intersection of Schmidt Lake Road and the street which goes southerly into the new addition. 4. All of the stumps and rocks which are currently in the drainageway at its northerly end will be removed and buried in the area which you designate. 5. All of the area disturbed for the excavation of the drainageway or the burying of the debris will be reseeded with hay. 6. The fence which previously existed along Schmidt Lake Road will be replaced. 7. It was previously stated that a culvert would be installed in the drainageway to provide a crossover area for implements. At your option, before the replacement of the fence, in lieu of installing the culvert, two gates will be placed in the fence along Schmidt Lake Road. One gate would be on either side of the drainageway at a location which you designated. This would allow access into the property on each side of the drainageway for farm implements from Schmidt Lake Road. The developer is not willing to pay any additional amount other than the $4,924 Es previously stated. The developer is incurring considerable expense to do all of the items as previously stated and will not increase the compensation. Because of misunderstandings which have occurred in the past, the developer will not perform any of the agreed to work- :.:.til the City of Plymouth has the signed easement. I can assure you that each of the items as designated in this letter will be completed by the developer. The City has a financial guarantee from this development to insure the completion of the work. In a matter not directly related to the easement you asked a question with re- gard to dividing the parcel of land which you and Douglas and Joanne Schroeder are purchasing on a contract for deed. As you are aware the City of Plymouth does not currently have sewer and water available to this area and because of restrictions placed upon us by the Metropolitan Council sanitary sewer would not be available until some time after 1990. Presently you and the Schroeders each own a parcel of land upon which your house is located. The parcel of ground which you are jointly purchasing under contract for deed is vacant with no dwelling upon the property. It has been the City Council's policy not to divide parcels of land into smaller than 20 acre parcels unless sewer and water is available. It would be my opinion that the City Council would approve a division of the vacant parcel of land if each parcel was attached to the parcel of land upon , Dwaine 0. Johnson )tember 3, 1985 ;e Two z(0 which each of your houses are located. This would be accomplished by you and the Schroeders filing with the City of Plymouth a joint application for lot division/consolidation. The division portion would be that land which you are purchasing under a contract. The consolidation portion of the application would attach each portion of land divided to the parcels on which the house is located. This lot division/consolidation could not be accomplished until the contract for deed is satisfied since neither you or the Schroeders are the fee owner of the property. If there are any questions with regard to this letter or the work which is proposed to be accomplished in return for the easement, please contact me. Sincerely, Fred G. Moore, P.E. Director of Public Works FGM:kh DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2600 April 8, 1985 MEMO Fred Moore, Director of Public Works Sherman Goldbezg, City Engineer Wooddale Addition Johnson Property rj-rw.# This memo is in response to the letter dated March 27, 1985 from the Johnsons to Dick Pouliot relati-re to easements for Hamel Road and drainage across their property from the Wooddale Addition. When the Wooddale Addition first came before the Planning Review Board, we indicated to them that one of the two things had to take place relative to the drainage northerly from their site; 1. Obtain a ponding easement from the Johnson property which is shown on the storm drainage plan, or 2. Be able to store on their own site the difference between the existing runoff and the increase runoff anticipated once development takes place . The developer, Dennis Dirlam, indicated that he had approached the Johnsons about acquiring the ponding easement and they were not receptive. It is my understanding that he offered them $4,000 for same. Because of this, the developer did revise his plat to provide for a ponding easement in the north- east corner of the plat to store the additional storm water. Historically, the storm water is running in the same drainage way as it did before development took place. There is a natural swale and creek that run through the Johnson property northerly towards the Soo Line Railroad tracks. Even though we were advised by the City Attorney that because we were not altering the drainage pattern, an easement across the Johnson property would probably not be necessary, we took the approach that it would be worth the effort to obtain a temporary flowage easement along with the additional right-of-way to Hamel Road in order to -assure'no future problems. In this light, Dick Pouliot has attempted to secure the easements from the Johnsons. He has met with them several times, the latest being in January 1985 with a letter being written to them in February 1985. He had been unsuccessful in securing the easements, although they have indicated that they have no problem with the Hamel Road easement in itself. Memo - Fred Moore April 8, 1985 Page Two We feel that several things have taken place now that the ponding easement is on the Wooddale Addition. We feel that the Johnson property is not being damaged and, in fact, several positive things have developed as outlined below: 1. The Johnson parcel will required less ponding area than anticipated by the storm drainage plan because of the pond created on the Wooddale Addition. 2. This will afford them more usable land. 3. The drainage would be consolidated to a swale or ditch arrangement which will make the rest of the lowland more useful. 4. They now have access for that portion of their property to a city street (Hamel Road). In Dick's negotiations with the Johnsons he feels that the offer he made them for an easement for Hamel Road, together with a temporary flowage easement, is fair and equitable. He feels that the $10,000 that they are asking is unreason- able. Although we do not feel that a temporary flowage easement is required, we do • feel that it would be in everyone's interest if one could be obtained. In reviewing the situation, it appears that there are three alternatives: I I. Satisfy the Johnson request of $10,000. 2. Continue on as we are doing so, assumingthat d we o not need the easement. 3. Condemn for the easement. In reviewing the alternatives, we discussed the alternatives with Mr. Dirlam l and are going to approach the Johnsons with the following offer: Offer them $4,000 for the temporary drainage easement. :8 2. Construct the drainage ditch through their property, including reseeding. 3. Offer them $1,000 for the roadway easement for Hamel Road. ¢ We felt that this was a reasonable offer and will contact them and present it to them. I would be happy to sit down with you and Dick and discuss this prior to the time we meet with the Johnsons. .,ro r' Sherman L. Goldberg, P.E. SLG:bw w .. CITY OF April 14, 1986 PUMOUTR Mr. G. T. Strodthoff, P.E. 1420 Juneau Lane North Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 Subject: Recycling Dear Mr. Strodthoff: Thank you for your letter expressing your views on the City's Recycling Program. I am sorry to hear that you are opposed to and will not be supporting this program. I have enclosed portions of the Hennepin County Solid Waste Master Plan which I hope will further familiarize you with the solid waste disposal problem and the methods proposed to deal with that problem by Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council. If you wish additional information regarding this subject, please feel free to contact Dick Pouliot, Project Coordinator, at 559-2800. I am sure Lhai after reading the enclosed you will agree that the City has little choice in the matter and must support the County in achieving the desired goal of a 16 percent reduction in the Solid Waste Stream by Recycling. I hope you will re-evaluate your position on this subject and join with the many other informed Citizens of Plymouth to make our Recycling Program a success. Thank you. Sincerely, i Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:kh Enclosures 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 1420 Juneau Lane North Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 ` April.7, 1986 _ Virgil A..Schneider, Mayor City of Plymouth, 3400 Plymouth Blvd. �� Plymouth, Mignesota sic" A ��. Dear Mayor: Subject: Recycling I admire your efforts to attempt to reduce the need for sanitary landfill facilities. Unfortunately, programs similar to the one you propose have generally failed across the U.S. Like those, this proposal is lacking in any economic benefit to the Plymouth resident. I agree recycling is a conservative measure we all should be willing to support but we are an affluent society and are comfortable with paying for the convenience of having our garbage picked up without the chore of separation. The program yuu suyyest is..far too late in time to provide any economic benefit for at least two reasons: 1) Hennepin County is in the process of construction of a Refuse Derived Fuel ("RDF") facility which is scheduled for completion in.1988; and 2) your proposal does not eliminate the need for garbage collection. Both of these will ultimately have a negative economic impact on every residential, commercial and industrial constituent of Hennepin County. The need to continue the services of an independent garbage collector and essentially pay the same rate for one container or three, automatically is defeating to your program. The added fees to be paid by such collector for disposal in the Hennepin -County RDF facility will be directly reflected in the rates the collector charges its customers. In addition, your proposal will add yet another cost. Since the City is sponsoring your proposal, it will have added expenses in the form of handling equipment and probably added labor costs. Being familiar with this entire waste disposal problem, I cannot support the program you propose. Further, I oppose having the City appropriating or spending any funds to promote or execute this proposal. Very truly yours, i G.T. Strodthoff, GTS:cls HENNEPIN COUNTY SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN (,^.AFT ) Approved Hennepin County Board of Commissioners (date) Department of Environment and Energy Hennepin County, Minnesota December, 1985 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is Hennepin County's plan for management of solid waste in the planning period between year 1985 and year 2000. This plan is required by Minnesota Statutes. It was prepared with the extensive participation of an advisory committee, and was drafted to be consistent with the Metropolitan Council's Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan (March 14, 1985). This report sets forth existing solid waste facilities and estimates waste quantities in the county. It's estimated approximately 960,000 tons per year of solid waste is generated in Hennepin County, and this amount will increase to approximately 1,000,000 tons per year by year 2000. This report sets forth planned-program.s and facilities to recycle materials which generally are recyclable and to burn those wastes which are not recyclable. This plan also indicates a small amount of waste will be handled by waste reduction programs. Up to 80 percent of the county's waste will be processed in central processing facilities such as waste -to -energy plants. At these plants solid waste would be burned and its energy value recovered in the form of electric power and/or steam for heating buildings or for industrial processes. These facilities include a county -sponsored plant to be built by a qualified private corporation under contract with the county, and three facilities proposed by three local companies. The county -sponsored -waste -to -energy facility (called the Greyhound plant) to be located at the site of the former Greyhound bus maintenance building near downtown Minneapolis, will burn 365,000 tons of solid waste per year. Electric power generated at this plant will be sold to an electric utility, and steam will be used for heating downtown Minneapolis buildings. Hennepin has signed a construction and operating agreement with a limited partnership, of which Blount Energy Resource Corp. is the general partner. Bonds will be sold -by early 1986 to finance construction, which is scheduled to start in mid -1986. Full operation is scheduled for 1989. Four transfer stations - in Bloomington, Hopkins, south Minneapolis and Brooklyn Park, will be built to provide convenient disposal points as part of the waste -to -energy system and to reduce traffic at the Greyhound plant. The county will adopt an ordinance directing that all waste - with several exceptions - be delivered to the transfer stations or the Greyhound plant. The Greyhound plant construction costs will be approximately $70 million, and transfer station construction costs will total approximately $18 million. At the time of start-up, waste haulers will be charged between $32 to $42 per ton to dispose of waste at the transfer stations or the Greyhound plant. Three other energy -recovery facilities proposed to be built by the Reuter Company, Richards Asphalt Company, and Waste Energy Systems combined will handle another 700 tons per day of the county's waste. These facilities are not sponsored by the county but are being developed and financed independently. If, for any reason, any or all of these privately proposed facilities are not built, county contingency plans call for the county to evaluate and sponsor additional waste -to -energy plants, to keep future use of landfill space to a minimum. t.r. The report also specifies plans to recycle approximately 16 percent of the waste generated in the county - the Metropolitan Council's recycling goal for the county. Minnesota Statutes require the county to set specific recycling goals for each city of the first, second, and third class. At the recommendation of the county's advisory committee, the county has set a uniform 16 percent recycling goal for all cities in the county. The main element of the county's recycling plan is a county contract with a single business entity which would have the capacity to provide - in all cities in Hennepin County- - on -route collection (curbside collection) of all recyclables and yard waste at least once • or twice per month. For the forseeable future, such collection would be directed at single-family homes through four-plexes, though apartment buildings could be brought in later. The purpose of the countywide recycling contractor is to preclude the need -for each city in the county to obtain necessary staff and funding; and develop, operate, manage, and publicize a recycling program. It is contemplated the county's recycling contractor would be a single business entity which may be comprised of a number of companies in the Hennepin County area. Most would be garbage -collection companies and, therefore, experienced in providing reliable collection services. The county would fund the cost of this contract - estimated to be.between $6 million and $8 million per year -by through valorem taxes, supplemented by county and state landfill tax proceeds. Cities opting to maintain or start their own curbside recycling program would have their costs reimbursed by the county, as if the county contractor would be providing the services. The county would also establish recycling buy-back centers and evaluate actions to develop more recycling in the commercial/industrial sector. The plan contains strict policies regarding future landfill siting and operations, and favors expansion of existing landfills over start-up of a landfill at a new site. There are now many monitoring and reporting requirements by Minnesota Statutes and the Metropolitan Council, and this report indicates how the county will monitor programs and facilities. The overall goal of this plan'is to end the use of sanitary landfills for unprocessed solid waste by 1990, and at the same time establish, with maximum private industry involvement, safe and effective landfill disposal alternatives. =-'� Page 18 V. SOURCE SEPARATION A. Background, Policies, and Objectives 1. Background Discussion of Source Separation. a. Description. Source separation in this report refers to those activities in which the waste generator sets aside certain items, so these items such as newspapers, glass, cans, office and corrugated papers, and yard wastes can be picked up or collected, and eventually processed for use into new products. In this report, source separation is also called recycling. Recycling programs can be cost effective and flexible, can conserve resources and provide upskilled, skilled and managerial level jobs, and can provide a source of raw material for some businesses. There are many types of recycling or source -separation methods which have proven successful in the United States including the following: 1) Residential waste -recovery programs: Drop-off recycling centers Buy-back centers Residential curbside recycling programs Organic waste -recovery programs Yard waste and leaf composting Recovery of other organic wastes 2) Commercial waste -recovery programs: Office -paper recovery Recovery of corrugated cardboard. 3) Special waste -recovery programs:, Tire recycling Motor -oil recycling Building materials recycling I Plastics recycling b. Metropolitan Council's "Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan". The Metropolitan Council's "Solid Waste Management Development Guide and Policy Plan", adopted by the Council on March 14, 1985, established certain source-separatibn goals for each of the seven metropolitan counties. These goals are similar for each of the metropolitan counties.' Table 4-1 from the Council's Policy Plan indicates Hennepin County should achieve - on an overall county basis - the following levels of waste -disposal abatement by source -separation activities. These goals are expressed as percentages.of the total waste presently being landfilled and as tonnage PI5 Level of source Separation - Percentage of Waste Stream in tons Level of source Separation - (in tons according to Percentage goals) goals. TABLE V-A =-`7c,.., Page 19 Metropolitan Council Source -Separation Goals Tor Hennepin County 1985 86 87 88 89 90 91-95 199_ 20 4; 60/o/ 9V 13% 16% 16% 160 19,161 38,811 58,952 89,531 130,917 163,089 828,795 851,045 The Metropolitan Council's Policy Plan gives the metropolitan counties latitude to establish their own respective mix of source -separation methods to meet objectives and in establishing the responsibilities of all parties in starting and carrying out source -separation activities The Policy Plan does, however, make recommendations regardiriy spec' ., types of source -separation meth.ds which should be used, and recommends specific roles for various parties, including counties, cities, generators, schools, private service providers and the Metropolitan Council. The Council's plan contemplates major use of to a � zalsser �ttonu f of residential and commercial rec clables and, drop-off locatjons for re yq ables. The report also contemplates 700 commercial and residential participation in the local recycling iso contemplates the metropolith_drop off es will programs. The Council a all have a yard -wast composting program em�tln�cig- locations and on -route C011PG1<ion. The Council's plan sets objectives regarding minimum levels of recyclina services for cities in the region. Generally the Council's objective is to have the more built-up areas of the county serviced by mon hlv curbside collection and weekl and -waste is (luring the growing season see Figure 4-1 in the o icy an . For ennep 5 County this 1 to nearly the whole county. For the few level of service would apply rural areas, the goal is to provide convenient drop-off service. The Metropolitan Council has adopted a number of policies (Section I.C.) regarding source-separation. again bf these policies are particularly important and are set forth Page 20 "Separation of identified recyclable materials and ! compostable yard waste is a responsibilityof the waste generator. If, January 1, 1988 voluntary �i efforts on the part t c1t7e` , owns ana counties have not achieved the objectives for waste reduction and source separation set forth in the Council's ' ldt waste-reduction/resource-recovery developmentschedule, Fgenerators of mixed municipal solid waste shall be 1.0 required by July 1, 1988 to separate identified i A recyclables and compostable yard -waste materials from other i!"- mixed wastes. Counties retain primary responsibility p sibility for f ensuring attainment of the objectives, for ensuring that recycling services and facilities are provided, and for coordination of the programs with other local government units." Ii The other policy states that processible mixed municipal solid waste ! shall be prohibited from landfill disposal in the metropolitan area i after 1990. C. Minnesota Statutes. A number of amendments to solid waste legislation have been passed in the last several years that are designed to aid in achieving a higher level of recycling, as well as centralized waste processing, in the region. One such provision grants permissive power to metropolitan counties to enact a mandatory recycling ordinance. 1985 am meets to solid waste legislation require metropolitan counties to set separate recycling goals for each city of the first, second, and third class. d. Source -separation Study. In 1984 the county contracted with a consulting firm, Pope -Reid Associates, for them and two subcontractors - Resource Conservation Consultants and E & A Environme rvtal Consultants - to prepare a comprehensive recycling study to evaluate how recycling and reuse can be maximized in the county. The contract also included a waste -composition study and descriptions of recycling options. The report was accepted by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on September 17, 1985. Copies of the report were distributed to all Hennepin County cities, the Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee members, and to various government agencies and interested parties. Copies are available at all Hennepin County area reference libraries and at the Department of Environment and Energy. The study also contains six recycling scenarios. These scenarios were developed by grouping together various combinations of recycling methods and institutional support mechanisms, to show what levels of recycling could be achieved by the various combinations of recycling methods set forth in each scenario. Scenario One was basically a continuation of existing county recycling and composting activities, and a continuation of the city curbside and other recycling programs in operation when the study was written. The other five scenarios built upon Scenario One to the highest level of recycling, set forth in Scenario Six. Page 21 The estimated cost of imPnemwas1ng a9soeach estgmatedian the study, and each major component of each scenario,to Many of the cost es�ualtcostshowever, be toare implementconsidered recycbengnandthe low side of what ac composting programs. Scenario Four in the study placed a major emphasis on on -route collection (curbside/alleyside collection) oft therefore,includes nearly all dwelling units in the county and, including all single family homes and all multiple dwellings, condominium developments,small unit ScenarporFourtabsolplacedandigh high-rise apartment buildings. of relianceon a separate and weekly collection of yard thec ante (leaves; grass clippings and brush) for mostScenario Four also inclubadkasmall centersrtheccountycontribution establish,a series of recycling buy the county to and also .included a stepped-up campaign by encourage more office -paper and corrugatesseteaperTrecscling by io stores, office buildings listed institutional support mechanisms such as a 1988 e, an l harge, an ban on leaf disposal, a higher county landfill surcd additional staff for recycling promotion, coordination, administration and public education. - In each scenario, f bassumptions ScenarioeFourashetconsultants arrive at estimated levels o recycling. assigned a county -wide 50% participation rate in the waste collection of recyclables, and troximatelyseparate 90%collection yardywaste. waste was assumed to recover app endix V-A of this A summary of Scenario Four is set forth in App plan. Scenario Four, iftcaonrradesuwill bet as dasadassuming he good orbetterthan citizen-participa assumed, would yield annual recycling levels of approximately 160,000 tons per year or 16% of Hennepin's estimated annual waste generation rate. The Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee reviewed Scenario Four at the request of several County Board members. The Advisory Committee's Source Separation special meetings Subcommittee, and the Compost Subcommittee, held to review Scenario Four and made recommendations which were. discussed and amended in several instances, andvien acceptedittby the full Advisory Committee. Generally, the ly,, and further indicated accepted Scenario Four as a concept p also in their recommendations to the County Board some specific approaches to be cernsken trelardeingnting the cost estimatesrio. They they felt were indicated some conn9 perhaps too low. ory tee is The acceptance esourcesepaation policesset.forth f�ristbelow. The • reflected in th policies below enariohFoureandyidentifyss pspecificsroles and Of implementing Sce • actions for cities and counties that were less clear or were not ,I Page 22 mentioned in the recycling study. On September 17, 1985 the County Board adopted a resolution established Scenario Four in hi; the recycling study as a concept Plan and goal for the county, and directed the County Administrator to confer with cities, the Advisory Committee an d private parties regarding implementing Scenario Four, directed and the specific actions to start implementation. V -B is a copy of this resolution. p Appendix The resolution also called for attempting to achieve additional levels of recycling by establishing additional recycling activities and institutional support measures, as set forth Scenario Five in of the recycling study. The primary measures in Scenario Five are the establishment of mandatory, recycling in at least the City of Minneapolis in higher participation. order to achieve { 2. Source -Separation Policies. i Listed below are the county's source -separation . policies. a. Policies regarding recycling objectives: f 1) The minimum recycling goal is 16 percent currently being landfilled, and this goal county as a whole and to each city within 2) of the waste applies to the the county. Convenient recycling opportunities shall be available to all homes and businesses in the county through a variety of residential and commercial recycling programs. However, the county's emphasis shall be on residential on -route recycling collection for recyclables and yard waste. b. Policies regarding on -route collection waste: of recyclables and yard 1) The county, under a contract with a single business entity, shall provide for residential, on -route collection of recyclables and yard waste in all cities in the county. Such collection shall provide a uniform level of service county -wide, and shall be funded by county landfill tax receipts and ad valorem taxes. The preferred contractor shall be a consortium or organization of firms presently providing waste collection and/or recyclable collection in the county, and such contractor may be secured by a negotiated bid. Collection frequency for recyclables and yard waste shal.l be at least one to two times per month, though more frequent yard -waste collections may be carried out during certain parts of the growing season. 2) County shall contract with a single consortium of companies experienced iinscollectiontinoorder to 09 c� Page 23 o> encourage participation in on -route collection programs by � ,�� e , offering reliable service. 3) Cities would be exempt from receiving servicesbythe 16 if a city county's recycling contractor - a city offers percent recycling goal by other means and/or program with a similar a city -sponsored on -route collection level of service, management and publicity. 4) The county will fund city on -route recycling and yard -waste have paid its collection to a level of what the county would to the same level of service in recycling contractor provide the city which it provides in other cities under the countywide contract. 5) Each city shall be requested to evaluate its recycling the city's recycling options and communicate to the county it will participate in the plans as to whether or not county's on -route collection contract. 6) A committee comprised of a representative from each community where the county's recycling contractor provides services regarding the collection shall be formed to advise the county of recyclables and yard wastes. Cities and processing operating their own recycling programs shall also be invited to serve on this committee. 7) The county shall provide recycling processing centers to receive recyclable materials from the county's recycling contractor and, as requested, from city -operated recycling programs. These processing centers shall process the recyclable material and market the material. 8) The county shall provide compost sites around the county to receive yard waste delivered directly by individuals, process yard waste received from county and city collection programs, and sell and/or distribute the compost. 9) Private service providers will be expected to provide most of the source -separation operations, such as on -route collection, operation of processing centers, and buy-back centers. 10) Public education and promotion shall be a major element of the on -route collection of recyclables and yard waste program, and shall be coordinated between the county, the collection contractor, cities, and all school districts. Use of special expertise for public education promotion shall be considered. 11) City and county voluntary programs which provide good service and are well publicized is the preferred method of meeting recycling goals. Page Zv 12) If recycling goals are not being met in the county, the county shall consider and establish a ban on landfill disposal of yard waste once alternative programs, i particularly on -route collection of yard wastes, are available county -wide. 13) Other measures, including a mandatory recycling ordinance, shall be considered 'by the county to be volmetuntary p artipatior does not cause recycling goals 14) A countywide contract on -route single�familyohomeslthrough least initially, apply onlyto four-plexes. Other recycling methods, including expanding the county -wide recycling contract to apartment buildings, shall be evaluated for recycling at apartment buildings, generally of five units or more. Building code changes shall be evaluated to facilitate recycling at apartment buildings, commercial buildings and office buildings. 15) County -wide on -route collection of recyclables and yard wastes for single-family through four-plex dwellings involvement hall be the first priority for the county. County recycling at apartment buildings and commercial/industrial facilities shall be the second priority. c. Policies regarding buy-back and drop-off centers: 1) There will be approximately 14 buy-back centers for recyclables throughout the county operated for the convenience of the residents and to provide a variety of recycling methods. 2) The county shall continue to operate a site(s) to accept anc process tree wastes. 3) The county shall consider the use of its proposed transfer stations for activities including, but not limited to - - drop-off of recyclables by residents- - receiving and transferring recyclable materials; - receiving, processing and transferring recyclable materials; - hand or mechanical separation of materials such as corrugated paper from mixed municipal solid waste delivered to the facility; d. Policies regarding commercial/industrial recycling: The county shall allocate sufficient time and funds to help improve commercial/industrial recycling. Programs will be established to recover more source -separated office paper and corrugated cardboard. Several options shall be evaluated, including direct staff contact with industry and businesses, an public, education and awareness programs. April 10, 1986 Representative Bill Schreiber 10001 Zane Avenue No. Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Dear Bill: wr CITY OF PLYMOUTFF �T The passage of the infrastructural replacement reserve fund bill came as a great relief to I and members of the Plymouth City Council. We have lonq been concerned about the means of financing infrastructural replacement once its productive life is over. Needless to say, other communities in Minnesota, especially the more mature ones, have had an even more pressing concern about this matter. On behalf of myself and members of the City Council, I want to thank you for your efforts in assuring that this legislation was adopted by this year's legislature. I appreciate that there were numerous equally or more pressing issues requiring your attention. Nevertheless, you chose to lend your support to what I believe is one of the most important good government bills to be passed. We appreciate your many efforts on our behalf! Sincerely, 4 I.ALft�k �oa Virgil Schneider yeK �� #Ir Mayor VS:Jm cc: City Council 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800 April 10, 1986 CITY OF PLYMOUTR Representative Craig Shaver 250 Peavy Lane Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Craig: =fib The passage of the infrastructural replacement reserve fund bill came as a great relief to I and members of the Plymouth City Council. We have lonq been concerned about the means of financing infrastructural replacement once its productive life is over. Needless to say, other communities in Minnesota, especially the more mature ones, have had an even more pressinq concern about this matter. On behalf of myself and members of the City Council, I want to thank you for your efforts in assuring that this legislation was adopted by this year's legislature. I appreciate that there were numerous equally or more pressinq issues requiring your attention. Nevertheless, you chose to lend your support to what I believe is one of the most important good government bills to be passed. We appreciate your many efforts on our behalf! Sincerely, Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:jm cc: City Council �' . 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 April 10, 1986 Senator dames Ramstad 2618 Crosby Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear te'la4we/- j CITY OF PLYMOUTR =-`7 b. The passage of the infrastructural replacement reserve fund bill came as a great relief to I and members of the Plymouth City Council. We have lonq been concerned about the means of financing infrastructural replacement once its productive life is over. Needless to say, other communities in Minnesota, especially the more mature ones, have had an even more pressinq concern about this matter. On behalf of myself and members of the City Council, I want to thank you for your efforts in assuring that this legislation was adopted by this year's legislature. I appreciate that there were numerous equally or more pressinq issues requiring your attention. Nevertheless, you chose to lend your support to what I believe is one of the most important good government bills to be passed. We appreciate your many efforts on our behalf! Sincerely, Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:Jm cc: City Council 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800 April 11, 1986 CITY OF PLYMOUTR David Leuer 4225 Brockton Lane No. Hamel, MN 55340 Dear Dave: =--I c... On behalf of myself and members of the City Council, I want to add my accolades to those which you have already received for your heroic efforts In the Medicine Lake incident which occurred on March 25, 1986. We are keenly aware of the excellent services provided through our Public Safety Department. But we are especially proud in acknowledging your special role in this lifesaving endeavor. To further recognize your efforts, I invite you and your family to attend the Plymouth City Council meeting on Monday, May 5, 1986 so that I can publicly proclaim our special gratitude on behalf of the community. The meeting will take place in the Plymouth City Center, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, beginning at 7:30 p.m. Please contact City Clerk Laurie Houk at 559-2800, Ext. 204, if you will be unable to attend this Council meetinq. I look forward to seeing you! Sincerely, Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:jm cc: City Council Dick Carlquist Lyle Robinson James G. Willis 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 April 11, 1986 CITY OF PLYMOUTR Don Welch 12730 Highway 55 Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Don: S` —1 On behalf of myself and members of the City Council, I want to add my accolades to those which you have already received for your heroic efforts in the Medicine Lake incident which occurred on March 25, 1986. We are keenly aware of the excellent services provided through our Public Safety Department. But we are especially proud in acknowledging your special role in this lifesaving endeavor. To further recognize your efforts, I invite you and your family to attend the Plymouth City Council meeting on Monday, May 5, 1986 so that I can publicly proclaim our special gratitude on behalf of the community. The meeting will take place in the Plymouth City Center, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, beginning at 7:30 p.m. Please contact City Clerk Laurie Houk at 559-2800, Ext. 204, if you will be unable to attend this Council meeting= I look forward to seeing you! Sincerely, ,41-4ddul:� Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:jm cc: City Council Dick Carlquist Lyle Robinson James G. Willis 7ikah / 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 April 11, 1986 Stan Scofield 2665 W. Medicine Lake Drive Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Stan: i CITY OF PLYMOUTH+ =—'l C On behalf of myself and members of the City Council, I want to add my accolades to those which you have already received for your heroic efforts in the Medicine Lake incident which occurred on March 25, 1986. We are keenly aware of the excellent services provided throuqh our Public Safety Department. But we are especially proud in acknowledging your special role in this lifesaving endeavor. To further recognize your efforts, I invite you and your family to attend the Plymouth City Council meeting on Monday, May 5, 1986 so that I can publicly proclaim our special gratitude on behalf of the community. The meeting will take place in the Plymouth City Center, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, beginning at 7:30 p.m. Please contact City Clerk Laurie Houk at 559-2800, Ext. 204, if you will be unable to attend this Coo nri..l meeting. I look forward to seeing you! Sincerely, . 0 •,� Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:jm cc: City Council Dick Carlquist Lyle Robinson James G. Willis 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800 April 11, 1986 Dwan Elliott 715-C North Lanewood Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Dwan: rcOF PLYMOUTF+ On behalf of myself and members of the City Council, I want to add my accolades to those which you have already received for your heroic efforts in the Medicine Lake incident which occurred on March 25, 1986. We are keenly aware of the excellent services provided through our Public Safety Department. But we are especially proud in acknowledging your special role in this lifesaving endeavor. To further recognize your efforts, I invite you and your family to attend the Plymouth City Council meeting on Monday, May 5, 1986 so that I can publicly proclaim our special gratitude on behalf of the community. The meeting will take place in the Plymouth City Center, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, beginning at. 7:30 p.m. Please contact City Clerk Laurie Houk at 559-2800; Ext. 204, if you will be unable to attend this Council rreetinq. I look forward to seeing you! Sincerely, Virgil Schneider Mayor VS: f m cc: City Council Dick Carlquist Lyle Robinson James G. Willis ,226ewv•(/016ic - /jXUks I 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 April 11, 1986 Charles Scharlau 16120 - 5th Avenue No. Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Charles: r CITY OF PLYMOUTR On behalf of myself and members of the City Council, I want to add my accolades to those which you have already received for your heroic efforts in the Medicine Lake incident which occurred on March 25, 1986. We are keenly aware of the excellent services provided throuqh our Public Safety Department. But we are especially proud in acknowledging your special role In this lifesaving endeavor. To further recognize your efforts, I invite you and your family to attend the Plymouth City Council meeting on Monday, May 5, 1986 so that I can publicly proclaim our special gratitude on behalf of the community. The meeting will take place in the Plymouth City Center, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, beginning at 7:30 p.m. Please contact City Clerk Laurie Houk at 559-2800; Fxt. 204; if you will be unable to attend this Council meeting. I look forward to seeing you! Sincerely, -A��44 Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:jm cc: City Council Dick Carlquist Lyle Robinson James G. Willis 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 April 11, 1986 CITY OF PLYMOUTFF Charles Veflin 12720 - 27th Avenue No. Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Charles: On behalf of myself and members of the City Council, I want to add my accolades to those which you have already received for your heroic efforts in the Medicine Lake incident which occurred on March 25, 1986. We are keenly aware of the excellent services provided through our Public Safety Department. But we are especially proud in acknowledqinq your special role In this lifesaving endeavor. To further recognize your efforts, I invite you and your family to attend the Plymouth City Council meeting on Monday, May 5, 1986 so that I can publicly proclaim our special gratitude on behalf of the community. The meeting will take place in the Plymouth City Center, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, beginning at 7:30 p.m. Please contact City Clerk Laurie Houk at 559-2800. Ext. 204. if you will be unable to attend this Council meetinq. I look forward to seeing you! Sincerely, Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:jm cc: City Council Dick Carlquist Lyle Robinson James G. Willis 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 April 11, 1986 Joel Franz 8019 - 32nd Avenue No. Crystal, MN 55427 Dear Joel: i CITY ( PLYMOUTH+ 2-`1 C.-- On _ On behalf of myself and members of the City Council, I want to add my accolades to those which you have already received for your heroic efforts in the Medicine Lake incident which occurred on March 25, 1986. We are keenly aware of the excellent services provided throuqh our Public Safety Department. But we are especially proud in acknowledging your special role In this lifesaving endeavor. To further recognize your efforts, I invite you and your family to attend the Plymouth City Council meeting on Monday, May 5, 1986 so that I can publicly proclaim our special gratitude on behalf of the community. The meeting will take place in the Plymouth City Center, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, beginning at 7:30 p.m. Please contact City Clerk Laurie Houk at 559-2mn FYt- 2n4l if ymi will hp iinahlo to attend this Council meetinq. I look forward to seeing you! Sincerely, qJoh 1-,0& ;/,.. Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:jm cc: City Council Dick Carlquist Lyle Robinson James G. Willis W. na4o�_ . 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800 April 11, 1986 Karen Forslund 7601 - 59th Place Crystal, MN 55428 Dear Karen: r / CITY OF PLYMOUTF+ '07 -7 On behalf of myself and members of the City Council, I want to add my accolades to those which you have already received for your heroic efforts in the Medicine Lake incident which occurred on March 25, 1986. We are keenly aware of the excellent services provided through our Public Safety Department. But we are especially proud in acknowledging your special role in this lifesaving endeavor. To further recognize your efforts, I invite you and your family to attend the Plymouth City Council meeting on Monday, May 5, 1986 so that I can publicly proclaim our special gratitude on behalf of the community. The meeting will take place in the Plymouth City Center, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, beginning at 7:30 p.m. Please contact City Clerk Laurie Houk at 559-2800, Ext. 204, if you will be unable to attend this Council meeting. I look forward to seeing you! Sincerely, qiJ4.-4 Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:jm cc: City Council Dick Carlquist Lyle Robinson James G. Willis 476 ot!/a/.m - ;Z4,As . 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 April 11, 1986 CITU OF PLYMOUTI+ Cary Smith 14315 - 18th Avenue No. Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Cary: =—'7 C On behalf of myself and members of the City Council, I want to add my accolades to those which you have already received for your heroic efforts in the Medicine Lake incident which occurred on March 25, 1986. We are keenly aware of the excellent services provided through our Public Safety Department. But we are especially proud in acknowledging your special role in this lifesaving endeavor. To further recognize your efforts, I invite you and your family to attend the Plymouth City Council meeting on Monday, May 5, 1986 so that I can publicly proclaim our special gratitude on behalf of the community. The meeting will take place in the Plymouth City Center, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, beginning at 7:30 p.m. Please contact City Clerk Laurie Houk at. 559-2800, Ext. 204, if you will he unahle to attend this Council meeting, I look forward to seeing you! Sincerely, Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:jm cc: City Council Dick Carlquist Lyle Robinson Dames G. Willis 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 M -44-7r, April 11, 1986 CITY OF PLYMOUTH+ Bill Hebert 14600 - 34th Avenue No. # 119 Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Bill: On behalf of myself and members of the City Council, I want to add my accolades to those which you have already received for your heroic efforts in the Medicine Lake incident which occurred on March 25, 1986. We are keenly aware of the excellent services provided through our Public Safety Department. But we are especially proud in acknowledging your special role in this lifesaving endeavor. To further recognize your efforts, I invite you and your family to attend the Plymouth City Council meeting on Monday, May 5, 1986 so that I can publicly proclaim our special gratitude on behalf of the community. The meeting will take place in the Plymouth City Center, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, beginning at 7:30 p.m. Please contact City Clerk Laurie Houk at 559-2800, Ext. 204, if you will be unable to attend this Council meeting. I look forward to seeing you! Sincerely, _ T 6 � OW 9 -144a" - Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:jm cc: City Council Dick Carlquist Lyle Robinson James G. Willis 1 70J 'asS -a 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 April 10, 1986 Mr. James G. Willis Executive Director Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mr. Willis, We have reviewed your request for proposals for a downtown Plymouth senior housing project. We regret to inform you that we -rill not be submitting a proposal at this time. When .•ie met with you last fall we had not done any formal market survey. Over the last six months we have been studying the northwest area more extensively as it relates to housing. Our market survey indicates it is too early to build a 150 -unit development in the Plymouth area. Thank you for the opportunity to be considered for this development. Sincerely, Charles P. Thompson CPT: jf CC: Blaire Tremere, City of Plymouth Offices Dick Peterson, North Memorial Medical Center _-7 5700 BOONE AVE. NORTH - MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55428 Z..^ -7.e, Metropolitan CoLincil- 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -elephore ;612) 291-6359 -47 �s t OL4 An Equal Opportunih/ Employer Northwest Suburban Chamber of Commerce Box 192 • Hamel, MN 55340 The Northwest Suburban Chamber of Commerce works to advance the commercial, industrial and civic interests of the people in the trade areas of the cities of Corcoran, Loretto, Medina and Plymouth. April 12, 1986 Mr. Fred Moore City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, 11h. 55447 Dear Mr. Moore: NWS Cof C Thank you very much for the excellent presentation you made at our general membership meeting on Tuesday. It was very informative and much appreciated by our members. If our Chamber can ever by of assistance to you, please let us know. Sincerely, Katie Leuthner Administrator r z-� Northern States Power Company Minnetonka Division 5505 County Road 19 P.O. Box 10 Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 Telephone (612) 474-8881 April 14, 1986 17 i9�5 3 �►.�`j','' City of Plymouth Attn: Mayor Virgil Schneider 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Mayor Schneider: Northern States Power Company is please to announce that the NSP "Safety Watch" program will soon be implemented in your community which we serve. We are supporting the local police effort in crime prevention, and we have received support of the Minnesota Crime Prevention Officers' Association. Since our employees are working almost daily in your community, they can easily participate in the Safety Watch program. In the next several weeks we will be training our employees in the "Safety Watch" program, and communicate about our new program to the schools, newspapers and our customers. Our goal is to be operational with our new program by May 15, 1986. If you have any questions about the NSP Minnetonka Division "Safety Watch" program please contact Norbert Gestach, Safety Coordinator 474-8881 or myself. Sincerely, R. J. Erickson General Manager Minnetonka Division Encl. NSP Safety Watch Northern States Power Company Safety Watch Fact Sheet --External Distribution What is the official name of NSP's.new community safety program? Safety Watch. NSP has borrowed this trademarked name with permission from KPL Gas Service, Kansas City. Other participating -utilities have called their programs Crime Watch (New Jersey Power and Light, Ohio Edison), Eyes and Ears (Detroit Edison) and Radio Watch (Delmarva). NSP choose Safety Watch because it suggests watching out for others' safety. What is the purpose of the program? Safety Watch has two purposes: One, it identifies NSP -identified vehicles as a "safe haven" for young children and senior citizens (or anyone, really) in distress. Our employees will be trained to help by using their two-way radios to.relay the problem to NSP dispatchers, who, in turn will contact local police or fire officials. Second, our employees will be extra "eyes and ears" for their local authorities, reporting any unusual events. Many NSP employees do this already. So -why the formal program? By formalizing, and naming, a community service many NSP employees already perform, the public will become aware that NSP employees can assist in an emergency. When will NSP implement the program? By May 15 NSP will complete the new signage on marked vehicles, inform children in grades K-3 and their teachers and principals, inform all employees and the news media, and train crews and dispatchers. Phase Two will begin immediately thereafter, when NSP will direct publicity at senior citizens and build on customer awareness with a June bill insert. IF How is the program being implemented internally? Because Safety Watch is a community program, dependent upon NSP's relations with an individual community's schools and police department, NSP's divisions will administer the program with staff support from, at least initially, the Electric Utility (specifically from Pam Fricke, 330-6525, and Bill Delaney, 330-7641). All divisions have been advised to inform by mid-April all the police departments in their area about Safety Watch and ZY_7(i� , , to invite their participation in our training program. Ideally, NSP would like at least one police officer at each training session to answer any questions employees might have. Depending upon the division and the interest of the police department, they might work on a joint news release, media event, future educational programs --the choice is theirs. So far, what is police reaction to the program? Without exception, Bloomington, Burnsville, Plymouth, Minneapolis and St. Paul police departments want NSP to participate in such a program. In addition, the president of the Minnesota Crime Prevention Officers' Association, an 0,114 cep ,: _tip the Man'katc Police Department, has been ` cry supportive of NSP's program. Officer Reasner will publicize NSP's Safety Watch program to his association's membership. In promoting Safety Watch, NSP will use the National Crime Prevention Council's trademarked character McGruff, "America's number one crime fighting dog." Many metro -area. police departments already use McGruff in their safety programs for young children. How does NSP plan to use McGruff? NSP will use McGruff (in a white hardhat) along with the Safety Watch name on: oPressure-sensitive vehicle decals, which will appear on the compartment doors on each side of white (not orange) NSP trucks and vans. oA 24" x 32" coloring poster for K-3 classrooms. oStickers for the K-3 students upon completion of the poster. oA brochure to be inserted in June customer bills and also used as a handout. April 14, 1986 Owatonna Public Schools Independent District 761 515 WEST BRIDGE • OWATONNA. MINNESOTA 55060 • 507/451-9513 DAVID R. LANDSWERK. SUPERINTENDENT Mr. James G. Willis, City Manager City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Dear Jim, Jeanine and I want to thank you for the hospitality and support you have already shown us. Your nice letter to me and to the Wayzata board complimenting them on my appointment, certainly has not gone unnoticed. we are looking forward to becoming part of the Wayzata school community. We're counting on people like you to help make that transition as smooth as possible. Thanks for your friendship, Jim. Si rely, David R. Landswerk Superintendent of Schools DRL:ba