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