Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 05-09-1986t r` " CITY OF PUMOUTR CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM May 9, 1986 UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS..... 1. PARKS TOUR -- Saturday, May 10. A tour of Plymouth parks for City Council and Park and Recreation Advisory Commission members will leave the City Center at 8:30 a.m. 2. TOWN MEETING -- Monday, May 12, 7:30 p.m. The Town Meetinq for Area 1 wilT-be held in the City Council Chambers. A copy of the invitation and agenda is attached. (M-2) 3. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Monday, May 12, 6:00 p.m. The PTA--willmeet in the City --Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-3) 4. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS -- Tuesday, May 13, 7:30 p.m. The Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals will meet in the Council Chambers. Ayendd dLLdChed. Oil - 41 5. PLANNING COMMISSION -- Wednesday, May 14. The Planninq Commission Forum is scheduled for 7:15 p.m. with the Planning Commission meeting following at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-5) FOR YOUR INFORMATION.... 1. COMMUNITY AWARDS CEREMONY -- On Tuesday evening seven citizens were recognized for their contributions to the community. Those receiving awards were the following: Christine A. Christensen - Junior High Youth Barbara Pagnucco - Senior High Youth Larry Holzerland - Police Officer of the Year Darrell Evenson - Firefighter of the Year Kay Baumen - Outstanding Senior Citizen Ron Billings - Outstanding Educator David J. Davenport - Outstanding Citizen 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM May 9, 1986 Page two 2. LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW -- The City Council will be meeting_ as the local Board of Review on Tuesday, May 20 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Center. The City Assessor's office has sent out today approximately 14,000 valuation notices to property owners in Plymouth. These notices should be received in the mail on Saturday or Monday. The valuation notices convey the City Assessor's 1986 estimated market value and further notify the property owner that the local Board of Review will be meeting on May 20. 3. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT REMINDER -- Enclosed separately with this memorandum is a pad of ommunity Improvement Reminder cards for use by City Council members. The Community Improvement Reminder Card is intended to provide a formalized means through which potholes, drainage problems, parking violations, or similiar problems can be reported quickly and remedied before they cause a problem. This is a means of minimizing the City's liability exposure while con- currently maintaining public resources which are usable and in good repair. Your community improvement card should be forwarded to Laurie Houk who will distribute them to the appropriate department for attention and report back to you on the steps which have been taken to resolve the matter. 4. MINUTES -- The following minutes are attached: a. Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals, April 8. (I -4a) b. Plymouth Development Council, April 23. (I -4b) 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS -- The following department activity reports for the month of Apri-1 are attached: a. Planning Applications (I -5a) b. Building Inspection Permit Issuance (I -5b) 6. CITY CENTER TELEPHONE NIGHT NUMBERS -- Attached is a wallet card for your use showing City Center night telephone numbers and Department and Division Heads home phone numbers. 7. SPRINGSTED LETTER -- The attached newsletter from Sprinqsted ncorporated provides information on the status of tax reform and its impact on tax exempt bonds. (I-7) 8. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT -- The City's proposed use of its 107,257 Year XII planning al ion from the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant was reviewed by the Urban Hennepin County Citizens Advisory Committee on April 8 and April 22. In the attached letter from Mr. Marty Elstrom, Committee Chair, the Committee has approved the City's proposed projects and will recommend to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners that the projects be included in the County's Year XII Statement of Projected Use of Funds. (I-8) CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM May 9, 1986 Page three 9. DEVELOPMENT SIGNAGE -- A letter to Plymouth Development Council members was mailed today advising of the City's development signage program. A copy of the letter is attached. (I-9) 10. CORRESPONDENCE: a. Letter from Mrs. Adeline Schmidt, 14210 - 40th Avenue North, concerning the conditions and repair of 40th Avenue. A response from Fred Moore to Ms. Schmidt is also attached. (I -10a) b. Letter to Timothy McCarthy, from Public Safety Director, responding to the resident feedback form submitted by Mr. McCarthy from the April 14 Town Meeting. (I -10b) James. G. Willis City Manager OGW:jm attach - D - May 2, 1986 CITY O� PUMOUTR Dear Plymouth Resident: SUBJECT: TOWN MEETING, MAY 12 Because Plymouth is a developing community, there are many actions underway or in the planning stage which could impact upon you. In order to maintain open communication channels with residents of the community, the City Council has scheduled a Town Meeting for Monday, May 12 for residents of your area. In order to keep the meetings on an informal basis while dealing with specific topics of interest to you, the Town Meeting will be for the area shown on the map below including residents living south of County Road 6, east of Dunkirk Lane extended southerly through Gleason Lake to our southern boundary, west of I-494 and north of our southern boundary. The Town Meeting is scheduled to begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Plymouth City Center. On the reverse side of this letter is a list of topics for discussion at the Town Meeting. If you have other matters of interest we will seek to address them also. I encourage you to Join Councilmembers Crair,, Vasiliou, Sisk, Zitur and myself at 7:30 p.m., Monday, May 12 at the Plymouth City Center. We are anxious to meet you and look forward to this opportunity to meeting informally to discuss matters of mutual interest. If you have any questions about the Town Meeting, please feel free to call your City Clerk, Ms. Laurie Houk at 559-2800, ext. 204. Sincerely, Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:Jm 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 M - ;L TOWNMEETING AGENDA AREA ONE May 12, 1986 7:30 p.m. I. THOROUGHFARES A. Carlson Center Addition - Interchange of I-494 and County Road 15, County Road 61. B. County Road 15 - Vicksburg Lane to I-494 C. Interchange of I-494 and County Road 6 II. PARKS A. Circle Park B. Parkers Lake C. Lion's Park D. Luce Line Trail III. HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT A. Parkers Lake planned development B. Welsh Shopping Center C. Carlson Center development IV. PUBLIC SAFETY A. Police/Fire Report B. Neighborhood Watch Program V. OTHER ITEMS A. Public Transportation feedback - Plymouth Metrolink B. Local Government Access Cable Channel 7 C. Solid Waste Recycling Program D. Transient Merchant Ordinance Changes E. Sprinkling Restrictions F. Storm Water Drainage/Sewer Back-up Issues A G E N D A PLYMOUTH HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY May 12, 1986 6:00 P.M. I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes for March 10, 1986 Meeting III. Elderly Housing Site, Report on RFP Submittals IV. Scattered Site Home Ownership Project, Progress Report V. Section 8 Program Update VI. Housing Rehabilitation Program Update VII. Other Business VIII. Adjournement AGENDA Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals Tuesday, May 13, 1986 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. NEW BUSINESS WHERE: Plymouth City Center Council Chambers 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, Minnesota 7:30 P.M. April 8, 1986 A. Plymouth Civic League. Variance from the maximum square footage for promotional signs. (05-01-86) B. Lynn J. Robertson and William Hardie. Variance from the maximum height of fences in the front yard for property located at 1115 Evergree Lane North. (05-02-86) C. Scott Linnell. Variance from the minimum building side and rear yard setbacks for property located at 9960 26th Avenue North. (05-03-86) D. Gary Peterson. Variance from the minimum building side yard setback for property located at 12115 26th Avenue North. (05-05-86) 5. OTHER BUSINESS 6. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MAY 149 1986 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. PUBLIC FORUM 7:15 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL 3.* APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes, April 16 and 23, 1986 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Craig Freeman, Freeman's, Inc. Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Site Plan and Variances for one industrial parcel and the construction of a 31,050 sq. ft. office/warehouse building on property north of Highway 55 and Quaker Lane. (86010) B. Peter Bih. Conditional Use Permit for a Chinese restaurant with carryout services at 30 Nathan Lane, Willow Grove Shopping Center. (86035) C. Pilgrim United Methodist Church. Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for expansion of the existing church at 4325 Zachary Lane. (86042) D. Melvin Tesler. Conditional Use Permit/Site Plan Amendment for an addition to a dwelling at 1250 Archer Lane within Cimarron Ponds RPUD. (86047) 5. NEW BUSINESS A. John Duffy. Site Plan and Variances for construction of an approximate 8,000 sq. ft. office building south of Highway 55 and northeast of County Road 15. (86045) 6. OLD BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT 10:00 P.M. C'- NOTION ` THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS April 8, 1986 The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Marofsky, Commissioners Bigelow, Mellen, Anderson, and Musatto MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Quass and Cornelius STAFF PRESENT: Associate Planner Al Cottingham and Building Official Joe Ryan MINUTES MOTION was made by Commissioner Musatto, seconded by Commissioner Bigelow to approve the February 11, 1986 Minutes as amended. VOTE. 3 Ayes. Commissioners Mellen and Anderson abstained. NEW BUSINESS: Chairman Marofskv introduced the Board Members and reviewed the variance criteria as contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The request submitted by Peter Mesher was introduced for a variance from the minimum side yard setback for property located at 18040 33rd Avenue North as described in the April 4, 1986 staff report. Mr. Mesher reviewed his request and submitted three letters from neighbors all of which stated that they had no objections to Mr. Mesher expanding his garage. He stated he is not expanding the garage for purposes of his home occupation but for the purpose of being able to park his vehicles inside. MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 1986 PETER MESHER, 18040 33rd AVENUE NORTH. VARIANCE FOR MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK Motion was made by Chairman Marofsky, seconded by MOTION TO APPROVE Commissioner Musatto to approve the variance from the side yard setback for property located at 18040 33rd Avenue North allowing for an 8 foot encroachment, leaving a 7 foot setback. Commissioner Musatto stated that he had a concern with the wood shed. He questioned why the addition could not be placed onto the rear of the home. The proposed location would make it the closest structure to the street in this area. Mr. Mesher stated the proposed location looks better architecturally and is a better area for it. He stated he agrees with Mr. Musatto that the garage would sit closer to the front property line than other homes in the area; but, the rest of the house sits back further than the garage. Page two Board of Zoning Minutes April 8, 1986 Commissioner Bigelow inquired of staff what the front yard setbacks for this subdivision are. Associate Planner Cottingham stated that the front yard setbacks are 35 feet. Commissioner Bigelow inquired of Mr. Mesher if the shed could be relocated to another part of the lot. Also what types of items are stored in this shed. Mr. Mesher responded that the shed could not be moved easily since it is located on a permanent foundation. He stated that items such as lawn furniture, bikes, snow blower and other lawn equipment are stored in the building. Commissioner Bigelow inquired of Mr. Mesher how much he would be decreasing the size of the shop area. Mr. Mesher responded that the shop would be smaller because of the way the equipment is spaced during the day, when his vehicles are not in the garage. In the evening the equipment is moved to the sides of the garage, so he can park his vehicle there. Commissioner Bigelow inquired why Mr. Mesher could not relocate his shop area. Mr. Mesher responded that landscaping is behind the house, he would have to re -wire the shop area, add fire walls and bring it up -to -code. This would be a much greater expense than what he is proposing to do. Commissioner Mellen inquired if with the expansion of the garage, could the shed be removed. Mr. Mesher stated that because of the size of the vehicles he owns, there would not be enough room to add the items stored in the shed. Commissioner Mellen expressed concerns with the number of vehicles at this home. Mr. Mesher explained he has three vehicles. He knows the type of vehicles he needs for his business; they would fit in his proposed garage. Commissioner Anderson inquired what the future use of the overhang walkway was. Mr. Mesher responded it would be enclosed for use as part of the shop. Commissioner Anderson wondered if Mr. Mesher knew cost estimates for this, including the walkway changes. Mr. Mesher stated he would only be cutting door way entrances into the outside wall, rather than removing the whole wall. Page three Board of Zoning Minutes April 8, 1986 Commissioner Anderson stated it appeared Mr. Mesher received his Conditional Use Permit due to him stating the vehicle would be parked inside. Mr. Mesher stated the truck could never fit inside the garage. When the Conditional Use Permit was granted, his other vehicle was a Volkswagen, and was small enough to fit in his garage. Since that time, he has bought new vehicles and is having a problem fitting them into the garage. Commissioner Musatto inquired, when the last time was he parked a vehicle in the garage. Mr. Mesher stated his car was parked in the garage last night. Chairman Marofsky stated he had concerns with potential changes to the Conditional Use Permit. Associate Planner Cottingham stated staff reviewed the request and determined that the proposal did not warrant an amendment because the size of the work area was being decreased. This request for a variance can be considered by the Board of Zoning. However, if the Board determines it is a change to the Conditional Use Permit, they can direct the Planning Commission liaison to have this issue reviewed by the Planning Commission. Chairman Marofsky inquired about the possibilities of locating a detached garage on the site. Mr. Mesher stated he would not want to build a detached structure due to the length of the driveway encroachment into his backyard. He described a drainage problem in the backyard and how it might effect a detached structure. Chairman Marofsky inquired if this home was built specifically for Mr. Mesher or someone else. Mr. Mesher responded that he built this home with the aid of a builder and has been the sole owner. Chairman Marofsky inquired as to the possibility of relocating a detached structure where the shed is now. Mr. Mesher stated he was not sure that the neighbor to the west would like looking at it, since he has a deck in the rear of his yard . Chairman Marofsky stated he believed Mr. Mesher created his own problem and he could not support the request. Commissioner Bigelow inquired as to where the drainage problem occurred on this lot. Mr. Mesher showed the Board, on the lot survey, where the drainage problem occurs. Chairman Marofsky stated he has a problem with this request meeting the variance criteria and he can not find anything unique about this lot. Page four Board of Zoning Minutes April 8, 1986 Commissioner Musatto stated he agreed with the Chairman and he also does not see this lot as a unique situation. Commissioner Bigelow stated that she could see Mr. Mesher's reasoning, but it is truely for aesthetic purposes only and not for anything unique about this lot. Chairman Marofsky stated, if Mr. Mesher were to build a detached garage it would be difficult to expand his business into that garage. Mr. Mesher inquired what would stop him from moving his shop into a detached garage. Chairman Marofsky stated that the Conditional Use Permit would have to be amended; otherwise, annual review of Conditional Use Permits by staff would stop it. Mr. Mesher stated that he could build a detached garage at this same location. This would be assuming that it was 3 feet from the house (which would require a variance), and 6 feet from the side property line. Staff discussed with the Board the possibility of the Planning Commission representative requesting that this matter be tabled until the Planning Commission could discuss the Conditional Use Permit. The Board decided that this was not necessary. The Board decided they had enough discussion on this matter. VOTE 0-5. MOTION fails. VOTE - MOTION FAILS MOTION was made by Commissioner Musatto, seconded by Commissioner Bigelow to deny the variance from the side yard setback for property located at 18040 33rd Avneue North for Peter Mesher, for an 8 foot encroachment, for the reasons stated in the draft resolution. VOTE 5 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED Chairman Marofsky reviewed the appeals procedure for Mr. Mesher and informed him that he has 20 days in which to submit an appeal in writing to staff, if he chose to do so. The Board discussed the study items that had been assembled at the February 11, 1986 meeting and the possibility of putting together a flyer on how the Board Zoning Adjustments and Appeals operates, along with the items which met the variance criteria. Commissioners Bigelow and Musatto volunteered to work with staff in putting together the flyer to use as a handout for people considering seeking a variance. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:28 P.M. ` .LA C� CITY OF PLYMOUTH Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Adustments and Appeals of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 8thr day of April . 1986. The following members were present: Chairman Maofsky, Commissioners Bigelow, Mellen, Anderson and Musatto The following members were absent: Commissioner Musatto introduced adoption: the following Resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. B 86-07 DENYING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PETER O. MESHER 18040 33RD AVENUE NORTH (03-01-86) WHEREAS, Peter J. Mesher has requested approval of an 8 ft. encroachment into the Ordinance side yard setback of 15 feet in order to construct a 22 x 38 foot garage onto his existing home; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals has reviewed said request; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request for Peter J. Mesher, for an 8 ft, variance to allow a 7 ft. side yard setback for property located at 18040 33rd Avenue North for the following reasons: 1. The variance criteria have not been met. 2. The proposal could be constructed within the Ordinance standards. The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Bigelow , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chairman Marofsky, Commissioners Bigelow, Mellen, Anderson, and Musatto The following voted against or abstained:None Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PLYMOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL April 23, 1986 PRESENT: Bob Burger, Burger Development Group Inc.; Niel McMillin, Wright - Hennepin Cooperative Electric Assoc.; Roger Janikowski, First Bank Plymouth; David Peterson, Hewitt Peterson Associates; Marlin Grant, Marvin Anderson Construction Company; Peter Pflaum, Lundgren Brothers Construction Company; Dale Kennedy, Carlson Properties, Inc.; Al Schackman, Ryan Construction Company; Craig Freeman, Freeman's Inc.; Blair Tremere, Joe Ryan, Fred Moore, Sara McConn, Jim Willis, and Frank Boyles, City of Plymouth Bob Burger called the meeting to order at 7:40 a.m. I. Update on Development Signage Program Blair Tremere stated that in accordance with Council direction, the staff is initiating a Development Signage Program. The signs have been designed and are on order with delivery expected in May. The program is expected to start on June 1, 1986. For example, where a Conditional Permit or Variance is required, the signage will be used. The signs will be in addition to any legally required public notice. All signs will have space for an additional plate to advise of the specific type of petition and will refer inquiries to a specific staff person. II. Report on Progress of County Road 9 and 10 Improvement Projects Fred Moore stated that in mid-July, the County will receive bids and construction is expected to begin in September on County Road 9 from County Road 18 to Interstate 494. Improvement includes, widening to a four -lane roadway with median including left-hand turn lanes. Although the road is to be opened during construction, the most difficult portion will be the slope just east of Interstate 494. The project is funded by Hennepin County and is expected to require two seasons to complete. Signals will be installed at the intersections of County Road 9 and Interstate 494, West Medicine Lake Drive, Larch and Zachary Lanes. County Road 10 is in the preliminary design phase. The County has retained the consulting firm of Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. to complete the design work. County Road 10 is included in the Hennepin County 1987 CIP, although, the actual construction date is unknown. It is anticipated that the bridqe over Interstate 494 on County Road 10 is likely to be replaced as a result of the improvements. County Road 10 improvements will be an upgrade to a four -lane roadway with median and left turn lanes. III. Review of Housing Element Update Bob Burger stated that developers should obtain a copy of the Housing Element Update given the excellent demographic information it contains. He stated that these materials are particularly useful for private developers from a marketing perspective. Blair Tremere stated that once this element is finalized, that a copy will be sent to each Development Council member. Blair explained the process of updating this comprehensive plan element and implementing it. The revised housing element must now be submitted to Metropolitan Council for comment. PLYMOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL April 23, 1986 Page Two Joe Ryan brought the group up to date on the priority builder permit issuance concept. He also stated that a letter has been sent to all Plymouth contractors with respect to their responsibilities under the City Council's Erosion Control Policy. IV. Zoning Ordinance Revisions Blair Tremere stated that the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on various proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance; including open space; churches in the FRD District; calculation of ground coverage requirements for park dedication purposes; and, bonus crittera for PUD's. It is anticipated that these revisions will be heard by the Council on May 5. Bob Burger stated that the twenty -percent residential maximum lot coverage requirement in Plymouth, has caused a great deal of concern. He suggested that developers be sure to advise their builders of the maximum size house allowable on lots they purchase to avoid problems between the City, Contractor and lot owner later. It is his experience that many contractors and developers are not aware of the twenty -percent maximum. He said that much of the problem results from the fact that the houses this year, because of interest rates, are much bigger than in previous years, in response to market demands. Discussion ensued on whether garages, decks or porches should be included in the ground coverage calculation. Bob Burger stated that he would do research to determine on how other communities calculate the lot coverage for residential structures. Blair Tremere recommended that the focus be on decks intially. A MOTION was made by Marlin Grant, then SECONDED by Dave Peterson, that the City Council consider eliminating decks from calculation of lot coverages, with the understanding that a survey is underway of other communities which may help provide a final recommendation to this issue. V. Erosion Control Program Fred Moore distributed a letter explaining the Erosion Control Policy. He stated that the letter has been sent to contractors and that developers are responsible for assuring that builders keep mud out of the streets. He explained the policy, it's penalties and financial requirements. Sherm Goldberg suggested a number of steps that developers can take to reduce the likelihood of erosion and consequent financial penalty: A. Talk to builders and have them park in the streets so that they are not dragging mud off the lot. B. Do not deposit soil from utility excavations on the curb and gutter line. If no other alternative exists, install siltation fences. C. Install gravel driveways as early as possible to minimize mud carry over to the street. PLYMOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL April 23, 1986 Page Three D. Advise contractors of the overall grading plan of the subdivision so that they understand how their lot fits in. Often times, the City finds the contractors have absolutely no idea how their lot is to integrate with the remaining development. The result is the City being required to act as an arbitrator between the builder, contractor and residents, once drainage problems occur. Bob Burger suggested that developers have the contractor sign off that they have seen the overall plan and are familiar with it. He also suggested that the developer rather than individual contractors, be responsible for place- ment of light poles, transformer pads, etc., to minimize confusion during construction. VI. Developer Petitions for Public Improvements Fred Moore stated that the deadline for petitions for inclusion in the CIP project is May 1, 1986. This covers all projects involving'special assess- ments. The deadline for petitions on projects in which the developer is paying 100% of the costs is October 1, 1986. If either of these deadlines is missed, the project cannot be included in the City's capital improvement budget and construction programs for 1987. VII. 1986 Sewer and Water Area Charges Fred Moore stated that the city sewer and water area rates have been indexed to a construction cost index. No adjustment will be made to area charges in 1986. VIII. Other Business Marlin Grant stated that he had written a letter requesting that developers who maintain their taxes and assessments up to date, receive some form of credit in the required security guarantees. He suggests that the twenty- five percent requirement be cut in half for those developers who pay their bills; this would provide motivation to those who do not. dim Willis stated that this is a big problem in that it is his belief the developers should approach their public obligations just as they do private ones. This subject is being researched and will be addressed by the City. Jim Willis stated that the Metropolitan Council is, for the first time, updating it's Development Framework since it was first approved five years ago. Plymouth was required to develop a City Urban Service Area Line as well as a Municipal Urban Service Area Line, because it was felt there was sufficient land inventory in Plymouth for development until 1990. The new framework says that there continues to be sufficient land available for development in Plymouth and therefore, no additional land outside the CUSA or MUSA lines may be sewered and watered before the year 2000. The previous date for the CUSA was 1990. The Metropolitan Council will be conducting a public hearing on this item on May 19. Interested developers are encouraged to attend and express their position. The meeting adjourned at 8:47 a.m. c� COMPARISON OF PLANNING APPLICATION VOLUME BY TYPE The following figures represent the number of applications received and in process by the Planning Department for the first half of year 1986 TYPE OF APPLICATION fan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May dune Site Plan 5 5 6 5 Preliminary Plats*/RLS 2 3 2 2 Final Plats*/RLS 2 6 3 3 PUD Concept Plans - - 1 1 PUD Preliminary Plats - 1 - 1 PUD Final Plats - 3 1 2 Conditional Use Permits 1 8 5 9 Rezonings** - 2 1 1 Lot Division/Consolidation 7 1 3 2 Variances 6 5 3 5 Sign Plans - - - - Site Plan Amendments - 1 2 - Rev General Development Plans - - - - Land Use Guide Plan Amendments** - - - - Landscape Plans - - Other 1 1 1 - TOTALS 24 36 28 31 * Other than Planned Unit Developments **Includes Planned Unit Developments COMPARISON OF PLANNING APPLICATION VOLUME BY TYPE The following figures represent the number of applications received and in process by the Planning Department for the month of: April 1986 * Other than Planned Unit Developments **Includes Planned Unit Developments THIS YEAR THIS MONTH LAST YEAR TYPE OF APPLICATION MONTH TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE Site Plan 5 21 7 18 Preliminary Plats*/RLS 2 9 6 11 Final Plats*/RLS 3 14 4 16 PUD Concept Plans 1 2 1 1 PUD Preliminary Plats 1 2 3 3 PUD Final Plats 2 6 2 5 Conditional Use Permits 9 23 8 17 Rezonings** 1 4 1 4 Lot Division/Consolidation 2 13 4 10 Variances 5 19 6 17 Sign Plans - - - Site Plan Amendments - 3 - Rev General Development Plan - - - 1 Land Use Guide Plan Amendments** - - 1 3 Landscape Plans - - - Other - 3 - TOTAL 31 119 43 106 * Other than Planned Unit Developments **Includes Planned Unit Developments BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION MONTHLY REPORT OF PERMIT & INSPECTION ACTIVITY APRIL 1986 BUILDING PERMITS CURRENT Y.T.D. 1985 L.Y.T.D Public 0 0 0 1 Comm/Ind/New 2 13 1 2 Alteration 9 9 8 40 Residential 103 253 54 174 Multi -Family 0 2 4 10 Remodeling 65 106 58 107 Foundations 0 0 1 1 Garage 0 0 0 1 TOTALS ----- 179 ----- 383 -------- 126 ----- 336 OTHER PERMITS Plumbing 130 400 92 321 Mechanical 97 314 72 266 Signs 8 26 14 44 Grading 2 4 1 4 Wells 1 3 0 0 Moving 0 3 0 0 Sewer/Water 98 262 151 315 TOTALS -------- 336 ------ 1012 ------- 330 ------ 950 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 36 136 23 84 TOTAL NO. PERMITS CREATED 588 1563 320 998 TOTAL NO. OF INSPECTIONS 991 2963 N/A N/A SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED Fu.�!c Fin nce Ads^sore Re ettel STATUS OF TAX REFORM - IMPACT ON TAX-EXEMPT BONDS MN Municipality Volume 3, Issue 2 Spring, 1986 Our last "Letter" was devoted entirely to the impact of HR 3838, the U.S. House of Representatives Tax Reform Act of 1985. Since that time several developments have occurred which have direct influence on HR 3838's impact on tax-exempt bonds. The most significant development was delay of certain provisions of HR 3838 from January I, 1986 to September I, 1986, or such .earlier date as tax reform legislation is actually enacted. On March 14, leaders of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees, with the concurrence of Secretary of the Treasury, James Baker, endorsed the postponement. Bond counsel are treating this endorsement as an effective roll back of the effective date. With respect to tax-exempt bonding, the postponement is applicable only to essential purpose bonds (those obligations generally considered to be traditional public purpose bonds). The postponement is permitting governmental units to proceed with issuing essential purpose bonds under the same rules as existed prior to January I of this year. This means: I. it will not be necessary to expend at least 5% of net bond proceeds within 30 days of issuance; 2. it will not be necessary to make an annual report to the IRS of arbitrage profits; 3. developers of tax increment projects will not be limited to a maximum 5% "loan" or 10% "use" test, but instead may proceed under the pre -January I, 1986 25% interest test; and 4. bondholders will not be exposed to the risk of retroactive loss of tax exemption in the event bonds are determined to be arbitrage bonds subsequent to issuance. The second major development was the start of deliberation by the Senate Finance Committee of its tax reform program. Tax-exempt bonds are scheduled for far different treatment under the Senate bill than under the House of Representatives proposal, thanks in part to an aggressive position taken by Senator Durenberger to protect a number of bond purposes. Senator Packwood, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, joined Senator Durenberger in a compromise measure on tax -exempts which has survived several early tests in Committee, and appears headed for inclusion in the final Senate bi 11. It appears certain that if the Senate passes any Tax Reform Act, a House -Senate Conference Committee will have to resolve significant differences between the respective pieces of legislation. Based on these developments, it seems clear that if you need to issue bonds in 1986 you should proceed as quickly as possible, certainly so as to permit settlement before September I, 1986, or earlier in the event a final Tax Bill is enacted before that date. In addition to avoiding some of the more onerous provisions of HR 3838, your early action should permit you to enjoy the benefit of the lowest interest rates we have experienced in the past eight years. PACKAGING MULTI-YEAR BOND PROGRAMS You may have been approached by people urging you to package up to three years of anticipated bond requirements into a single issue to be sold before tax reform becomes effective. The general pitch is to (i) negotiate the bonds as variable rate obligations, 00 place the proceeds in an invested escrow, account until needed, and (iii) reissue the bonds as new variable or fixed rate obligations in issues?.� sized to meet periodic construction requirements. 85 East Seventh Place. Suite 100 250 North Sunnyslope Road Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101.2143 Brookfield, Wisconsin 530056218 r 612-223.3000 414.782.8222 There may be merit in this concept in some cases. However, you should be aware of several potential pitfalls: I. The long-term fixed rate market is so good at present that short-term variables would not have to increase much over the next year or so to reduce substantially any real interest savings. 2. As you know, with interest rates at their current level, reinvestment opportunities also are limited to the lowest rates experienced in nearly a decade. Therefore, available arbitrage profits may not be enough to offset your double issuance costs, since the escrow bonds would have to be marketed a second time when the proceeds are needed. 3. There is no guarantee the bonds, once initially sold and escrowed, can be remarketed and retain their tax exemption or exemption from need of an IDB allocation under future federal law. In the event someone approaches you with this concept, we advise you ask who they are proposing to serve as bond counsel. You should then ask that bond counsel if his firm will give you a written guarantee it will give you a future opinion on the tax exemption of the remarketed bonds. If the firm will not, you will be at risk that the remarketed bonds will not be tax-exempt. We urge you to contact us to review any proposal you receive of this kind, if you think it has merit. Any proposal which will work to your benefit should receive careful scrutiny, particularly during this uncertain time. STATE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES The 1986 legislature passed less legislation affecting municipalities than has been the norm in recent years. However, two pieces of legislation which were passed may impact your community. One of those changes eliminated the current maximum rate of interest on bonds issued after April I, 1986 and before July I, 1987. This elimination of a maximum rate of interest has been overdue for some time, and we hope the change becomes permanent next session. Cities are facing enough uncertainties in the area of public finance without being concerned about whether they will be able to refund debt in the future because of peaks and valleys in the maximum permitted interest rate. The legislature also authorized cities to establish a Infrastucture Replacement Reserve Fund, with authority to levy a special property tax within the meaning of MSA 275.50, subdivision 5, for support of the fund. Prior to levy of such a tax, the city must publish an initial resolution which is subject to a reverse referendum. The reserve fund may be used only for replacement of streets, bridges, curbs, gutters, and storm sewers. TAXABLE BONDS The elimination of maximum permitted interest rates may improve the feasibility of a taxable bond option for certain types of projects, particularly when you need a high level of comfort from developer guarantees. Taxables would eliminate the current 25% maximum guarantee limitation, any arbitrage restrictions on issuance size and reinvestment restrictions, and any restrictions on how quickly you must spend bond proceeds. It would also eliminate any need for an IDB allocation for any bonds which, after a Tax Reform Act is adopted, would require an allocation. We believe taxable bonds can be sold through competitive sale; indeed, we have received a number of calls in recent months from prospective purchasers inquiring about the possible use of taxables by our clients. These calls have included several foreign-based investment institutions. Competitive public_ sales still provide the greatest possible assurance that an issuer has received the best possible results on the day of sale. Citizens Advisory Committee URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGR April 30, 1986 k;,4 7 . Mayor David Davenport �. City of Plymouth �- 3400 Plymouth Boulevard ` Plymouth; MN 55447 " Dear Mayor Davenport: Consistent with the responsibilities assigned in the Urban Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan, the Citizens Advisory Committee, at its April 8 and April 22; 1986 meetings; reviewed the project proposals submitted by each Urban County participant for the use of the individual planning allocation from the Year XII Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant. The Committee in its review of each project proposal consider how the activity addressed the program's three national objectives and the appropriateness of each activity based on the local need as presented in the project description. With respect to the City of Plymouth's proposed use of its $107;257 Year XII planning allocation, the Committee will recommend to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners that the following projects be included in the Urban Hennepin County Year XII Statement of Projected Use of Funds as submitted by the city. Housing Rehabilitation Grants $80;000 Child Care 20,000 Site Planning/Elderly Housing 7,257 The Committee wishes to thank the City of Plymouth for its cooperation in the project proposal review process, and offers its assistance to the city in expediting the implementation of the recommended Year XII program. Sincerely, Marty E1 rom- Chair Urban Hennepin County Citizens Advisory Committee cc: Mr. Milt Dale, City of Plymouth 2353 Court Tower Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 348-6418 May 9, 1986 RE Development Signage 6` ft(/ C CITY & PLYMDUTR The City is initiating a program of installing a sign (oft. X 8ft.) on property in- volved with certain planning applications to increase neighborhood notification of pro- posed development. The signs have been purchased by the City. We will install the signs ten (10) days prior to Planning Commission consideration and remove the signs the day after the Plan- ning Commission meeting. Signs will be used for applications consisting of: * Comprehensive Plan Amendments * Rezonings • Planned Unit Development Concept Plans * Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plats * Preliminary Plats * Non-residential Conditional Use Permits and Variances, if the property under review is within 500 ft. of any residential property The City Council adopted a revised fee schedule with an administrative fee of $150.00, which will be added to the established fees for those applications listed above. It covers the basic costs of erecting, removing and maintaining the signs. Please determine if the sign fee applies prior to submitting your next application. The signs do contain the City Center phone number for questions. We will provide a general description of the application which is being processed and invite people to visit the City Center to review the application materials. For detailed questions or requests for copies of materials, we will refer the person calling to you. We urge you to share this information with your consultants. Many times the consultant is responsible for submission of the new application. They should use the new applica- tion form and be prepared to submit the additional fee. The City Council anticipates reviewing and evaluating the use of these signs after one year. Your cooperation and feedback (in writing) during this time would be greatly appreciated. Community Development Department 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 �w� Lv`1�ry ,rG-rev .tom �i►z-Yr�� -mow � - J L�✓L/✓ � i.�:� � �z.� (�-�'3^i !}-'-=LL" -y ' fT7'.J ,^7'�Q/ 5 !✓ (_? ,�L2� a G t-�-• ✓�vCG� e �{_-�t-�Lj �c.�-�iJ �L�Kic�C-fi�`tov Z tiLe� titha a- --k- �Z y(� V a,4.lfl _ems •✓La l' 2L�i - CJ-GLv �.�:;y�'✓��G✓. 'G�d-L� �'Yl -�.c,.�-i� _ � �-e�..►�,"�` �,..��..�'�.-Cry .�a� �-Cu� May 2, 1986 Ms. Adeline Schmidt 14210 40th Avenue North Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 Dear Ms. Schmidt: QTY OF PLYMOUTR I wish to apologize for any inconvenience which you have been caused because of the street breakup on 40th Avenue in the area which you live. As you are aware, this damage was caused to the street by the contractor developing the lots at the end of 40th Avenue. The lots which are now being developed were approved for development by the City of Plymouth at the same time the lot on which your house is located was approved. Because of the 'extensive costs involved to make these last four lots into buildable sites, development has not occurred until this year. No new approvals were required by the City of Plymouth since the lots have been in existence for many years. As you have been informed, the damaged street will be repaired by the contractor doing the damage. The City has a financial guarantee from this contractor to assure that the work will be completed. Because of the wet ground conditions it is unlikely that the street can be completely repaired until the latter part of June. The contractor will be required to keep the existing street in a useable condition by replacing rock and regrading the street as necessary. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again let me apologize for any inconvenience which you have been caused. Sincerely, Fred G. Moore, P.E. Director of Public Works FGM:kh cc: James G. Willis - City Manager (86-17) 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800 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 findinqs with respect to your concern. NATURE OF CONCERN/PROPERTY ADDRESS INVOLVED: Inadequate manpower in the Plymouth Police Department which creates potential hazardous situations for both the citizen and the police officers. ACTION YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO TAKE: For the City Council to adequately staff the ranks of the police department. My understanding is that more manpower has been requested by Chief Carlquist but turned down by Council. NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT: Timothy McCarthy ADDRESS OF RESIDENT: 16920 11th'Ave. N PHONE NUMBER: 473-5464 _ On April 14th, I attended the Town Meeting for Area 10. At that meeting I inquired about the shorthandedness of the police department. My concern was met with a quip by the Mayor about being the Chief's son and then Chief Carlquist spoke about a study stating that the City of Plymouth does not fall into a normal policy of one police officer per 1000 inhabitants. I found it odd that no Councilpersons addressed my concerns, rather the task to respond was left to Chief Carlquist who has been asking for more manpower and has been turned down by the Council. I suggest the Council spend a little time with the police department this summer and see if there are enough officers to handle the workload completely. All requests for service and complaints should be handled quickly, efficiently, and completely. No citizen of Plymouth should be turned away, delayed, or given partial police services because the City Council fails to take note of the inadequate staffing of the police department. Most people don't take notice of inadequate staffing until its their turn to call upon the services of the police department. They still don't fully realized the service could have been fuller or faster because of the nature of police departments and the general public's lack of knowledge on how they function. I do understand how police departments operate and also how shorthanded the Plymouth Police Department is. I will not accept the reason as being from a study that states Plymouth needs no more that 1 officer per 1700 inhabitants. I see now the police officers scrambling to keep up with the demand especially in the summer months when officers would like to take some of their earned vacation time leaving the department pressed even more. I see some information not followed up on; some investigations not given a full attention; and some area's of the City not patrolled adequately because of this shortage of police officers. Please don't try and pacify me by telling me that more officers are projected by 1987. Chief Carlquist said at the meeting that he will ask for more officers for 1987. This does not mean that there will be more police officers in 1987. I for one would like my tax dollar spent on one of the most visible services the City of Plymouth provides; that being the police department. I consider most of the other endeavors the City partakes in secondary, when.,my family's safety is compromised on the steets and in the neighborhoods of Plymouth because of the inadequate number of police officers in the City of Plymouth. 16b 4� CITY OF April 30, 1986 PLYMOUTR Timothy McCarthy 16920 11th Avenue North Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Dear Mr. McCarthy, Thank you for attending the recent Town Meeting and participating in the feedback part of this forum. The issue of what represents and "adequate" number of police officers for a community is one that I have personally wrestled with for the past 27 years. Basing the total number of sworn officers on a per/population basis, is the method used by both suburban and central cities alike. Admittedly, the numbers increase in the core cities; but, so does the incidence of violent crime. At the Town Meeting I mentioned briefly the Tischler Report. This was originally completed for the City of Plymouth in 1984 and later revised in 1985. With that report in mind, I made the statement that for each additional 1700 residents in Plymouth, a police officer is recommended to be -hired. I need to amplify this last statement with the following: 1. For each additional 3400 residents a community service officer is recommended to be hired; 2. For each additional 8500 residents both an investigator and a clerical employee should be hired; 3. And, both a volunteer coordinator and an administrative aide is recommended to be hired when the population increases 3,000 and 7,000 respectively from the base year of the report, e.g. 1984. Our population is increasing dramatically. By the year 1990, the Metropolitan Council has forecast a population of 49,000 for the City of Plymouth. This will mean, at the very minimum, I will be requesting 13 new employees. Eight of these requested positions will be sworn and the other five will be civilian. In all fairness to past and present City councils in Plymouth, I must say that they have always given the highest priority to the Public Safety Department. This means that other Departments that compete for City funds receive less than their requests year after year. (And, obviously I do too!) But, the lion's share of the budget as well as the prioritizing by life safety criteria consistently falls on my side of the ledger. In the final analysis, I am sure that you are aware that the police by their mere presence or their traditional reactive mode have been powerless to stem rising crime rates. Increasing personnel by shear 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 554:7. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 numbers without a long range plan such as we have in place in Plymouth is, in my opinion, providing a disservice to the citizens that ultimate- ly employ me. In closing, my own personal philosophy on crime prevention and crime control more than likely differs significantly from the traditional Police Chief. Our crime prevention efforts have been directed towards some of the factors believed to cause crime in any community. While on the other hand, our crime control, which deals with reducing the opportunity to commit crime, has also occupied a significant part of our available proactive time. The Neighborhood Watch Program in place in Plymouth is an excellent example of crime control. Whereas, the Youth Service Officer, Community Relations Officer, the Domestic Abuse Program and the Park Program (yes I said Parks!) are all examples of Crime Prevention. We are trying to use community-based initiatives that socially and politically attack some of the negative psychological forces at work in families and neighborhoods. These programs will require long-term commitment to make any lasting changes in deviant behavior. Again, thank you for taking the time to write and participate in our recent Town Meeting. Sincerely, Richard J. C quist Public SaT:et Director PLYMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT RJC:tmb cc: James G. Willis, City Manager CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: May 9, 1986 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: dames G. Willis, City Manager SUBJECT INFORMATION ITEMS I received the attached two memorandums regarding utility service to Holy Name Church and landscape architect for neighborhood park projects after the Council information was prepared. They are enclosed for your information. JGW:jm attach CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: May 9, 1986 TO: James G. Willis, C'ty Manager FROM: Fred G. Moore,' --D7 rector of Public Works SUBJECT' Utility Service to Holy Name Church Councilmember Maria Vasiliou noted that the Holy Name Church in Medina is proposing an expansion. As you are aware by a joint agreement the City of Plymouth has agreed to provide sewer and water service to this facility within the City of Medina. I have also received telephone calls from representatives of the Church regarding whether their expansion would have an effect on the City sewer and water system. I was unable to obtain a rapid answer of the effect on our utility system since this property, within the City of Medina, is not accounted for in either our sanitary sewer or our water Distribution Comprehensive Plan. This property has been served by Plymouth since 1977. Our Comprehensive Plans which were updated in 1979 by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. overlooked this area which was being served by the City at the time the plans were updated. For this reason I had to request that Jim Olson prepare an analysis of our sanitary sewer system. Attached is a copy of a letter which I received from Jim Olson dated May 6, 1986 stating that we have adequate capacity in our sanitary sewer and water system for the proposed Church expansion. The agreement between the City of Plymouth and the City of Medina entered into in 1977 provides the following: 1. Both City Councils approve the connection to the Plymouth sewer and water system by the parcels owned by the Holy Name Church. 2. The Church is to pay the City of Plymouth assessments and area charges for the hookup. 3. The Church is to pay to the City of Plymouth the standard monthly user charge imposed on other Plymouth connections. The agreement states that Plymouth is to provide service to all of the Church property which is 28.06 acres. It did not include a limitation on the volume which could be discharged to the City sewer system. In 1977 10.83 acres of the Church property was considered undeveloped and they did not pay to Plymouth the area charges for that property. They also paid to the City our REC charges for the facilities which were located on the property at that time. Memo: James G. Willis, • May 9, 1986 Page Two With their proposed current expansion, they will need to pay the City of Plymouth the additional area charges on the 10.83 acres. The City of Medina is requiring that the entire Church property be combined into one parcel since it is needed for their development proposal. We will also have additional REC charges to collect for the new facilities. The proposed expansion at the Church will involve the following: 1. Increasing the seating capacity in the main sanctuary from 750 to 1,000. 2. Expanding the existing parking lot from the present 235 spaces to 430 spaces. 3. No expansion of the school is taking place. At the present time the Church has two parking lots, one parking lot is on the West side of the Church and has direct access to County Road 24. The other parking lot is on the East side of the Church and accesses Brockton Lane, which connects to County Road 24. Brockton Lane is on the City limit boundary between Plymouth and Medina. With the proposed expansion of the parking lot a driveway connection will be constructed between the East and West parking lot. This will allow the traffic to use either Brockton Lane or the direct connection to County Road 24 to obtain ingress and egress out of their parking facilities. The parking lot on the East side of their property, which only has access to Brockton Lane, was gpaF 'Tucted in 1982. At that time the City of Plymouth received concerns :'-from residents within the Greentree West Addition that the traffic would circulate through their addition when leaving the site. Their concerns were based on congestion which could occur at the intersection of Brockton Lane and County Road 24. If this congestion occurred, they anticipated that traffic would go through the addition on 30th Avenue to Xanthus Lane and then access County Road 24. In analyzing the traffic flow in 1982 it was our opinion that this would not occur. A traffic problem has not occurred in the last four year's operation of the parking lot. Presently Brockton Lane is only a two lane street; one lane for Northbound traffic and one lane for Southbound traffic. A majority of the traffic leaving the Church parking lot turns right or Eastbound on County Road 24. There are a few vehicles that do turn left or Westbound and these vehicles have a potential for delaying the Eastbound traffic. It would be my recommendation that the Church be required to widen Brockton Lane to provide three lanes at its intersection with County Road 24; one lane would be for Southbound traffic and the other two lanes would be for Northbound Traffic. This would require a 36 foot wide street and the present street is 28 feet wide. The present street is not centered within the right-of-way, but more of the pavement exists within the City of Plymouth. I would recommend that the entire eight feet of widening take place on the West or Medina side of the right-of-way which is adjacent to the Church property. By widening this street it will ensure that the major traffic movement, right turn, is not delayed by vehicles wishing to turn left. Memo: James G. Willis, May 9, 1986 Page Three In summary, I cannot see a problem with the proposed expansion of the Holy Name Church. It would be my recommendation that before the expansion be approved that the following be required: 1. The Church agrees to widen Brockton Lane to provide for a three lane approach to County Road 24. These plans and specifications must be submitted to the City of Plymouth, Engineering Department, for approval. 2. The Church pay to the City of Plymouth the additional sewer and water area charges for the 10.83 acres which have not been previously assessed. 3. The Church pay to the City of Plymouth the additional sewer and water REC charges for the additional useage of our utility system. 4. The Church pay to the City of Medina the additional SAC charges for the proposed expansion. I do have a large scale site plan of their proposed revisions if you wish to review it. With your concurrence, I will inform the City of Medina that they can approve the site plan subject to the above conditions. If any additional information is needed, please contact me. FGM:kh Attachment: Letter Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. 2335 W. Trunk Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 612.6364600 May 6, 1986 City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 Engineers & Architects Attn: Mr. Fred G. Moore Director of Public Works Re: Holy Name Church, Medina Sanitary Sewer Capacity Our File No. 70, Plan Review Dear Fred, Otto G. Bonestruu, P.E. Robert K. Rusene, P.L. J.,eph C. Anderlik, P.L. Bradford A. Lemberg, P.E. Rtehard E. Turner, P.E. lames C. Olson, P.E. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Aeoh A. Gordon, P.E. 7homus L Nuye,, P.E. RJrnurd H. foster, P.E. Robert G. Sehumeht, P.E. Marvin L. Survalu, P.E. Donald C. Burgardt, P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Mark A. Hanson, P.E. Ted K. Field, P.E. Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. Ruben R. PJrllerle, P.L. Duvid O. Luskuiu, P.E. Thomas K'. Peterson, P.E. Michael C. Lynch, P.E. Karen L. Willis, P.E. James R. Maland, P.E. Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E. Keith A. Bachmann, P.E. Murk R. Rolfs, P.E. Robert C. Russek, A.I.A. Thomas E. Angus. P.E. Stott L. Young, P.L. Charles A. Erickson Leo M. Paseelsky Harlan M. Olson Susan M. Eberltn The proposed expansion of Holy Name Church in Medina will not adversely affect the City's sewer system in the Greentree West area. We understand from Mr. Jeff Welter of Michaud, Cooley, Erickson & Associates, Inc. that the proposed expansion involves only the church seating area and that no class rooms will be added. The Greentree West lift station was installed in 1976. It has a design capac- ity of 150 gallons per minute (gpm) at a TDH of 33 feet. A recent test on the station indicates the pumps have an actual capacity of 158 gpm. We reviewed the pumping records of the lift station for 1985. Both pumps ran a total of 1583 hours in 1985 for an average daily rate of 4.34 hours per day. This re- sults in an average daily sewage discharge of 41,143 gals. per day. There are 129 lots within the Greentree West ARea connected to the lift sta- tion. Using the rate of 315 gallons per lot per day, the total flow to the lift station, exclusive of the church, is estimated at 40,635 gals. per day or an average rate of 28.2 gpm. When a peak flow factor of 4 is multiplied by the average daily rate, the design flow from the single family homes is 112 gpm. The difference between the design flow from the homes and the pump ca- pacity is the surplus or extra capacity available to the Holy Name Church in Medina. This excess capacity is estimated at 46 gpm. There is a reasonable correlation between the amount of sewage pumped (41,143 gpd) and the estimated design flow from the 129 lots (40,035 gpd). From this, we can conclude that either 1) the flow from the church site is rather low or 2) the actual flow from the homes is somewhat less than the design flow used in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. In either event, the lift station has ade- quate capacity to handle the flow. Page 1. 4910d 30 Year Anniversary City of Plymouth Plymouth, MN Re: File No. 70, Plan Review May 6, 1986 There are 150 students at the church complex. The expansion of the church will allow seating for 1000 worshipers. Both of these conditions results in low sewage flows. The City's billing department indicated winter water sales of 98,000 gals. for Jan. -April. This amounts to only 816 gals. per day aver- age. In summary, it is our opinion that the existing sewer system in Plymouth, in- cluding the lift station, has adequate capacity to handle the flow from the Holy Name Church expansion, which we believe to be only a slight increase in total discharge. Yours ver truly, BONESTROO, ROSEN 7AERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. James C. Ols JCO:li L Page 2. 4910d MICHAUD COOLEY ERICKSON & Associates, Inc, SUITE 1325 625 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH May 7, 198E Consulting Engineers MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55415-1698 TELEPHONE (612)339-4941 Mr. Jim Olson bonestroo and Associates 2335 West Highway 36 Roseville, t4innesoto 55113 Re: Addition to Holy Name of Jesus Church 155 County Road 24 Medina, Minnesota Dear Mr. Olson: This letter is in response to our phone conversation regarding estimated sanitary sewage flow. As discussed, a letter was previously sent to Mr. Sherman Goldberg, City of Plymouth's Engineer, stating the estimated sanitary sewage flow. This amount was based on a cumulative total of fixture units, which is a very conservative amount. A more accurate amount would be based on the number of people at the church. At the present time, there are 158 students who attend school and this number will remain the same after construction. The present number of Sunday worshipers is buu and this number will increase to IUUU after construction. I hope this information will assist you in estimating a more realistic sanitary sewage flow. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, MICHAUD, COOLEY, ERICKSON' & ASSOCIATES, INC. Jeff Welter JW:pn cc: Sherman Goldberg, City of Plymouth �G�6?�`'��� h Douglas C. Cooley, MCE C4 « U n. city C' F -z' 1 r C`, PRINCIPALS ROBERT L. MICHAUD SHERMAN J. COOLEY ROBERT E. ERICKSON DEAN A. RAFFERTY MONTY L. TALBERT, JR. MICHAUD COOLEY ERICKSON & Associates, Inc, SUITE 1325 625 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH April 8, 1966 MINNEAPOLIS Mr. Sherman Goldberg City Engineer Plymouth City Engineer's Department 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 o2; �77 Consulting Engineers MINNESOTA 554154698 TELEPHONE (612)339-4941 Re: Addition to Holy Name of Jesus Church 155 County Road 24 Medina, Minnesota Dear Mr. Goldberg: This letter is to inform you of the upcoming construction to the above- named project. Sanitary sewer and domestic water service are presently provided by the City of Plymouth. With the remodeling and new addition, the existing calculated loads will increase from 80 gpm sanitary sewar to 100 gpm and 65 gpm domestic water to 86 gpm. Reconnection to the sanitary sewer system will be made at an existing on-site manhole. Reconnection to the domestic water will be from an on-site existing 6" water main. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, MICHAUD, COOL Y, ERICKSON 8 A CTAT 11 C. L_ Donald Heckmann DH:pn PRINCIPALS: ROBERT L. MICHAUD SHERMAN J. COOLEY ROBERT E. ERICKSON DEAN A. RAFFERTY MONTY L. TALBERT, JR. CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: May 8, 1986 TO: James G. Willis, City Manager C� fir FROM: Eric Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation C, % ,- SUBJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT - PHYLLIS HANSON - NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROJECTS This memo is in response to your question asking me to check Phyllis Hanson's status with regard to the policy on selection of consultants. On the attached Exhibit A, highlighted in blue, is the section dealing with "disqualification of consultants." In this case, Mrs. Hanson is not responsible for any review of any plans submitted to the City by any agency or developer. Her only responsibility has to do with providing drawings of play equipment installations at Imperial Hills and Queensland parks. Attached Exhibit B is a memo to the City Council dated January 23, 1986. In this memo, I explain to the Council that we did not wish to hire a full consultant firm to work on the Imperial Hills and Queensland projects, because we did not feel we received full value for our investment. In 1985, the consultant firm on the Green Oaks and Circle park projects received approximately $4,600 in compensation. The hourly rate for landscape architects through that contract was $45 an hour. We have contracted with Mrs. Hanson to provide drawings for us at the rate of $30 per hour. She is not contracted to do a "project," but rather to work on an hourly basis assigned by me. /np POLICY RELATING TO THE SELECTION OF CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT A ` (1) An evaluation of the consultant's technical qualifications and work experience. (2) Reputation of the consultant with existing clients. (3) The size and diversity of the consultant's organization. (4) Previous city experience with the consultant firm. (5) Proximity of the firms offices to the Twin City Metropolitan Area. (6) Actual or potential conflict with other clients doing business with the City. b. Selection of Specific Firms. Selection of a specific firm for a specific project should be based upon a consideration of the following: (1) The consultant's experience with projects or activities similar to the one under consideration. (2) The consultant's knowledge of particular equipment and services required. (3) The consultant's ability to mobilize and make sufficient time available for completion of the project or activity within a speci- fied schedule. (4) The appropriateness of the consultant's fees in relationship to the industry and the scope of services to be provided. (5) The performance of the consultant with regard to existing projects or activities with the city. (6) The current work load of the consultant. 6. Disqualification. A regular or occasional consultant representing any client submitting a project or activity to the City shall not represent or review the project or activity on behalf of the City. The purpose of this disqualifier is to remove any potential or actual conflict of interest. A retained consultant shall not provide services to any client if those ser- vices may require referral by the City to the retained consultant for eval- uation and comment. The purpose of this disqualifier is to remove the obvious conflict of interest which would result if the consultant were asked to comment or evaluate his own work. -21b- EXHIBIT B CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: January 23, 1986, for January 27 Council Meeting TO: James G. Willis, City Manager FROM: Eric Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS - APPROVAL TO PROCEED WITH IMPROVEMENTS AT QUEENSI,AND AND IMPERIAL HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS SUMMARY: The attached resolution authorizes the Director of Parks and Recreation and the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission to proceed with making improvements at Queensland and Imperial Hills neighborhood Parks durins 1986. BACKGROUND: The approved 1986 CIP allocates $160,000 for neighborhood park improvements. Of that amount, approximately $100,000 has been set aside for the development of one new neighborhood park tentatively scheduled for the County Road 61 site. The remaining $60,000 has been allocated to Queensland and Imperial Hills neighborhood park re -develop- ment. In order to get this work completed in a timely manner, it is necessary to proceed during February and March with the planning of these projects. These projects take a little additional time because of meetings involving neighborhood residents to allow for local input. In past years, we have used an outside consultant firm to work on these particular projects. Because city staff is so much involved in these design projects, we believe that we can save money by doing more of the design work in-house with existing staff. On these two projects, we would only need the services of a landscape architect to prepare the actual drawings necessary for citizen, park commission and Council review. Therefore, we are recommending that we not use an outside consultant on this project, but rather, that we contract on an hourly basis with a landscape architect to provide the technical support when necessary. I believe this will result in a cost savings of $2,000 to $3,000. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission reviewed this matter at their meeting of Thursday, January 9, 1986. They recommended that the City Council authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to proceed with the steps necessary to implement park improvement projects at these two parks during 1986. I, therefore, recommend that the City Council authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to proceed with the steps necessary to implement these two park projects. This will involve meetings with neighborhood residents and development of concept plans which will be reviewed by the neighborhoods and PRAC, and subsequently the Council. I also