The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil Information Memorandum 08-15-1986c x CITY OF PLYMOUTR CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM August 15, 1986 UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS..... 1. COUNCIL DINNER MEETING -- Monday, August 18, 6:00 p.m. A Council dinner meeting will be held in City Council conference room. 2. PLYMOUTH FORUM -- Monday, August 18, 7:00 p.m. Plymouth Forum in the City Council conference room. 3. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, August 18, 7:30 p.m. Regular City Council meeting in the Council Chambers. 4. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Monday, August 18, 6:00 p.m. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority will meet in the City Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-4) 5. PLYMOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL -- Wednesday, August 20, 7:30 A.M. A meeting of the Plymouth Development Council will be held in the City Council conference room. Agenda attached. (M-5) 6. CONCERT IN THE PARKS -- The final summer concert sponsored by the Park Department and Wayzata Bank will be held Wednesday, August 20 at 7:00 p.m. at the Plymouth City Center Amphitheatre. The concert will feature "The Rock-A-Fellas", playing 50's and 60's rock. 7. SEPTEMBER CALENDAR -- A copy of the September calendar of meetings and events is attached. (M-7) FOR YOUR INFORMATION..... 1. ATTORNEY FEES -- I recently had meetings with dim Thomson and Herb Lefler regarding attorney fees. The purpose for our discussions was to explore means by which we might be able to better project and manage our legal expenditures. As a result of these discussions, I asked the attorneys to submit to us a proposal which would provide for a basic retainer for the firm to cover basic legal services. I have now received the attorney's proposal which is attached. 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM August 15, 1986 Page two The attorney's proposal would provide for an annual retainer of $72,000 or $6,000 per month. When comparing this amount against the same category of services provided the City in 1985, it has been determined that $68,000 was billed. This proposal does not include a number of legal services, the most of which are generated by factors beyond our control. These items are more specifically set forth in the letter. It is in these latter areas where it is particularly difficult to make budgetary projections. I believe it will be in the City's best interest to proceed with the retainer as proposed for 1987. Both we and the law firm can track the costs incurred versus the retainer fee and evaluate the results. Whether or not it will be to our mutual advantage to continue the retainer beyond 1987, will have to evaluated at a later date. (I-1) 2. ADVERTISING FOR COMMUNITY INFORMATION BOOKLET -- The City Council has directed that the staff solicit advertising to assist in supporting the community information booklet. Letters were sent to over 285 businesses in Plymouth asking whether they desire to take out a full, half or quarter page advertisement in the booklet. To date, five full page, three half -page, and five one-quarter page ads have been purchased, for a total gross revenue of $4,050. During the next week we will be telephoning those businesses who originally received the letter, but have not requested an ad to convince them not to miss out on this great opportunity. 3. TRANSIENT MERCHANT/TRANSIENT PRODUCE MERCHANT ORDINANCE -- On August 15, amendments to the City's Transient erc ant and Transient Produce Merchant ordinance went into effect. For information purposes, I have attached a copy of the new ordinance provisions. To advise the public of the ordinance, we have published two articles in the Plymouth on Parade newsletter, and an information piece on cable television. An information piece about the ordinance revisions has been prepared for training purposes for police officers who will be primarily responsible for ordinance enforce- ment. The Public Safety Department will be experimenting with "tab charging" to enforce these ordinance provisions. Under a tab charge, the violator is in effect, arrested in the field, given a court date and time, and if the individual does not appear in court, a Bench Warrant is automatically issued. If or when that same Individual decides to engage in transient merchant activities in the community or in any other Minnesota community, the Bench Warrant will appear as a basis for arrest. Attached is a map which shows where transient merchants and transient produce merchants may legally conduct business with prior registration from the City. Such uses are permitted in the FRD, B-2, and B-3 zones. (I-3) CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM August 15, 1986 Page three 4. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS -- The following departmental reports for the month of July are attached: a. Police Department (I -4a) b. Fire Department (I -4b) 5. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD NOMINATIONS -- The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities is soliciting recommendations from its members for the appointment of ten municipal elected officials to its Transportation Advisory Board. The terms would run for two years beginning October 1, 1986. Functions of the Transportation Advisory Board include providing general transportation advice and counsel to the Metropolitan Council, Regional Transit Board, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and to annually determine FAU project funding priorities. The AMM Board of Directors will be considering nominations at its September Board Meeting and is therefore requesting that nominations be submitted prior to Wednesday, August 27. Attached is a copy of the AMM memorandum. If Council members desire to submit a nomination for these positions, please contact me by August 25. (I-5) 6. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT REMINDER CARDS: The following City staff responses to Community Improvement Reminder cards submitted by Councilmembers are attached: a. Weeds on City boulevard property between 45th & 47th Avenue on Lisch Lane - Bob Zitur (I -6a) b. Installation of "Dead End" sign between 12085 and 12095 - 48th Avenue - Bob Zitur (I -6b) 7. CORRESPONDENCE: a. Copy of letter to Bill Crawford, MnDOT District Engineer, from Merrilee Riley, President, Heritage Highlands Homeowners Association, requesting the construction of a sound barrier along the east side of I-494 from 32nd Avenue North to County Road 9. (I -7a) b. Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Edward T. Johnston, from Blair Tremere, providing notification that their application for the Deerwood Trail preliminary PUD plat/plan has expired, and further advising of traffic related conditions in the area resulting from proposed development. (I -7b) c. Letter to the Editor, Minneapolis/St. Paul CityBusiness, from Blair Tremere, commenting on the August 6 editorial by Frederick Zimmerman, "Considering the Greater Good". A copy of the editorial is also attached. (I -7c) d. Letter of appreciation from Rosanne Everson, on the Park and Recreation's Day Camp program. (I -7d) James G. Willis A G E N D A PLYMOUTH HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Regular Meeting August 18, 1986 6:00 P.M. I. Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes for dune 16, 1986 Meeting III. Elderly Housing Site Update IV. Scattered Site Home Ownership Program A. Glacier Meadows Project Status B. Other Possible Sites for Future Development V. Other Business A. Establish a Pre -termination Hearing Date for Section 8 Tenants B. Suburban House Doctor Program VI. Adjournment �r 5— CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: August 4, 1986 TO: Plymouth Development Council Members FROM: Bob Burger, President SUBJECT MEETING NOTICE The next meeting of the Plymouth Development Council will be held on Wednesday morning, August 20 at 7:30 a.m. in the Plymouth City Center Council Conference Room. The following items are scheduled for discussion, however, you may wish to bring up other items as well: 1. Policy revisions regarding petitioned capital improvements 2. Policy regarding deferred special assessments on residential property in commercial and industrial guided areas. 3. Connection of sumps to sanitary sewer 4. Review proposed 1987-1991 Capital Improvement Program 5. Metropolitan Council Development Framework 6. Erosion control efforts 7. MDA Consulting Group "Survey Regarding Attitudes Toward Development: A second follow-up study" 8. The Plymouth Market Focus section of the Minnesota Real Estate Journal scheduled for December 8th. Although the above agenda is somewhat lengthy, the information being provided is of importance to all concerned. Therefore, I would appreciate your attendance at this meeting. BB:jm cc: Dames G. Willis, City Manager Blair Tremere, Director of Planning & Community Development Fred Moore, Public Works Director S/F 8/19/86 p,\ --I i L\L) .� O IC m o n cn G7tro=i n om w CrnMOS 0 OG n0 [O[ troiy n H z co n z C n t, Z � Z n H n H V> n H (] hj W H V n H --j 9 H H C''•• r HO CrJ 7d °o r•• 77� r•• r n Cx no n �Hjy n w nono ro o c, non oo� dna F--' H�C7 >< n • r ty :� M n� PO txj • r n :v lLxj • rrt cn eC cn En Z) 00 • I ro V O O 7y H V n td O rd C M tzv >n rC rozy t"D o �n z n ro I ioP-3ro ori an z z c C') zn I I� vZ El ifl nrooCd Ln ra � j C) i zon 1►—] H ro r• � r W �+ I 00 a CTrQ G)GNGN`r rlJOWO ��rl) c- Cc— �� im I Qc L :D NCT WJ -n a) �I (� N, NJ�CON:n I I CNicDNcn 0 I i 40Wa' NN -+v co —2 OWOCDN� I Wavocz I� I p,\ --I 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333-0543 Telecopier (612) 333-0540 Clayton L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler J. Dennis O'Brien John E. Drawz David J. Kennedy Joseph E. Hamilton John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III James J. Thomson, Jr. Thomas R. Galt Dayle Nolan Brian F. Rice John G. Kressel Lorraine S. Clugg James M. Strommen Ronald H. Batty William P. Jordan Kurt J. Erickson William R. Skallerud Rodney D. Anderson Corrine A. Heine David D. Beaudoin Paul E. Rasmussen Steven M. Tallen LeFevere Lefler Kenned-v O'Brien R Draivz 1 Professional 1sm)t iation August 6, 1986 Mr. James G. Willis City Manager CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 RE: Attorney's Fees for 1987 Dear Mr. Willis: At your request we are submitting this proposal for furnishing legal services to the City of Plymouth for 1987. You have asked us to consider using a retainer for a portion of the City's legal work in 1987 in order to assist you in preparation of the budget and to provide more cost effective legal services to the City. We have fully reviewed your request and we have concluded that it is possible for us to provide a portion of the required legal services on a retainer basis for 1987. We propose to do the City's general civil legal work for a monthly retainer of $6,000. The retainer would cover items such as preparation for and attendance at regular and special City Council meetings, preparation of resolutions and ordinances, responding to staff inquiries, routine correspondence, drafting of documents, attendance at staff meetings when required, and all other items that are general in nature. Items that would not be included in the retainer would be litigation matters, arbitration matters, ordinance codification, eminent domain matters, bond work, labor negotiations, matters that are billed directly to public works projects, HRA and Port Authority matters, and any items of major significance requiring an extraordinary amount of attorney time of a non -routine nature. The latter items, if any, would be identified mutually between us on a case-by-case basis. We arrived at the monthly figure of $6,000 by reviewing the 1985 billings for legal services. In 1985 approximately $68,000 was billed to the City for general Mr. James G. Willis August 6, 1986 Page 2 legal work. Since 1985 there has been a 7% increase in our hourly rate. We expect that the amount of time that will be necessary to perform the general legal work for the City in 1987 will exceed the time spent in 1985 and 1986 and therefore the City will in all probability be paying less for those legal services in 1987 under the proposed retainer. We propose to do the criminal work at an hourly rate of $65, which is an increase of $5 over our current rate. The current rate has been in effect since January, 1983. Since that time, the amount of fines that the City has derived from prosecution -related work and the number of cases handled by our office have increased substantially. The new rate is consistent with the rate that is charged to other municipalities that we represent. It is also competitive with the rates that other firms charge for similar work, and it reflects the increased costs associated with prosecution -related work since 1983. The hourly attorney rate includes the services performed by our excellent legal assistants who play a significant role in reducing the amount of attorney time needed for prosecution matters. We hope that this proposal is responsive to your needs. We greatly appreciate the close working relationship that we have had with the City of Plymouth over the past twenty-five years, and we want to assure you that we will do whatever is reasonable to continue that relationship. Sincerely, LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ i J mes homson, Jr JJT/kjj 0066LT07.134 pirir 41" YOF H/P _ PLYMOUTH -SCALE OF MILES r:g IEgxp€g€sg@88$gggg@gQ# c 6g>sggg:sez4>?o�s;'s�s.€€ c.. STREET MAP.. �'.at •I K CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDINANCE NO. 86-08 AN ORDINA14CE AMENDI14G THE CITY CODE SECTION 1140 RELATIVE TO SOLICITORS, PEDDLARS, AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. 1140.01 Definitions is hereby amended by the deletion of Subdivision 4 in its entirety and the addition of the following: Subd. 4. Transient Merchant -- Any person, individual, co -partnership, incorporation, both as principal and agent, who engages in, does, or transacts any temporary and transient business selling goods, wares, and merchandise; and, who for the purpose of carrying on such business, has complied with the licensing requirements of the City Code, and hires, leases, occupies, or uses a building, structure, vacant lot, motor vehicle, trailer, or railroad car in a zoning district where it is allowed by this Ordinance. Subd. 5. Transient Produce Merchant -- Any person who engages in pr transacts in an temporary and transient business within the City. se ling the roducts of the farm. or garden occupied and cultivated by that erson• and who for the purposes of carrying on such business hires leases occu ies or uses a building,structure vacant lot, motor vehicle trailer, or railroad car, on a site other than the property on which the produce is grown and cultivated, in a zoning district where it is allowed by this Ordinance. Section 2. 1140.03 Registration Required is hereby amended by the addition of the following: No transient produce merchant shall engage in or transact in any temporary and transient business within the City, selling the products of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by that person without first securing registration, as provided in this Section. Section 3. 1140.05. Conditions Governing Registration is hereby amended by the addition of the following: ( Written statement of permission from fee owner of property where transient sales are to be held. Section 4. 1140.07 Exemptions is hereby amended by deleting (c.) in its entirety and the addition of the following: (c) Selling products of the farm or garden on the property on which the products are grown and cultivated. Page two Ordinance No. 86-08 Section 5. Add Section as follows: 1140.21 Compliance with Zoning. Transient Merchants and Transient Produce Merchants shall comply with provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect after its passage and publication on August 15, 1986. Adopted by the City Council the .S7T-i day of 14aj , 19 •11 --Vj7rqIl Schneider, Mayor ATTEST Laurie Houk, City Clerk ord/amend(codeord)1.1/2.1 CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDINANCE NO. 86 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 80-9, ADOPTED JUNE 16, 1980 AS AMENDED, AND KNOWN AS THE PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE, RELATIVE TO TEXTUAL AMENDMENTS CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Se on 1. Amendment of Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 4, Subdivision B, D nitions is herebNkmended by the addition of the following: Churches al Community -- Churches which b Conditional Use Pgafrit, are located in the FICure Restricted Development (FRD) District and wjoEh have a maximum sanctuary tin capacity of 275 seats located on prowhich is classified LA 2 LA 3 LA 4 CL by the Cit 's om rehensive Land Use Guide Plan as L-A - 9 - 9 - CN or CC. RuraNgCommunity churches do not have acc ory commercial activities including but not 'mited to day care centers, r3Wsery schools or primary and/ or secondary school but may have activities ch as religious instruction and guidance. Section 2. SECTION 7, Subdi 'sion C, addition of the following: .10 DISTRICTS FRD R -1A R -1B R-2 R-3 tricts, Uses is hereby amended by the C __ Churches 400 Section 3. SECT 8, Subdivision B, is hereby the following: TRICTS B-2 B-3 Frf ice Limited Retail Service USES ural Communit, d in part by the addition of USES C C -- - Religious or philanthropic instituti and churches. Section 4. SECTION 4, Subdivision B, is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Transient Merchant -- Any person, individual, co -partnership, incorporation, both as principal and agent, who engages in, does, or transacts any temporary and transient business selling goods, wares, and merchandise; and, who for the purpose of carry- ing on such business, has complied with the licensing requirements of the City Code, and hires, leases, occupies, or uses a building, structure, vacant lot, motor vehicle. trailer, or railroad car in a zoning district where it is allowed by this Ordinance. _s___3 Page two Ordinance No. 86 - Transient Produce Merchant -- Any person who engages in or transacts in any temporary and transient business within the City, selling the products of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by that person; and, who for the purposes of carrying on such business, hires, leases, occupies, or uses, a building, structure, vacant lot, motor vehicle trailer, or railroad car, on a site other than the property on which the produce is grown and cultivated in a zoning district where it is allowed by this Ordinance. Section 5. SECTION 7, Subdivision C., is hereby amended by the addition of the following: DISTRICTS USES FRO R -1A R-18 R-2 R-3 R-4 P-- -- -- -- -- P-- -- -- -- -- - Transient merchants as regulated in Section 10 - Transient produce merchant as regulated in Section 10 Section 6. SECTION 8, Subdivision B., is hereby amended by the addition of the following• B-1 Office Limited DISTRICTS B-2 B-3 Retail Service P P P P USES - Transient Merchants as regulated in Section 10 - Transient produce merchant as regulated in Section 10 Section 7. SECTION 10, Subdivision A., 2., D., is hereby amended by addition of the following: One temporary sign for transient merchants and transient produce merchants in the FRD District only. The sign shall not exceed 16 sq. ft. in surface area, and shall not exceed 6 ft. in height. The sign shall be setback at least 20 ft. from the street right-of-way line and shall be erected only during the period of transient sales. Section 8. SECTION 10, Subdivision A., 4., C., and 5., D., is hereby amended by the addition of the following: One temporary sign for transient merchants and transient produce merchants. The sign shall not exceed 16 sq. ft. in surface area, and shall not exceed 6 ft. in height. The sign shall be setback at least 20 ft. from the street right-of-way line and shall be erected only during the period of transient sales. Ordinance No. 86 - Section 9. SECTION 10, Subdivision B., 5., g., 1), is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Authorized sites for transient merchants, transient produce merchants, and for any person that sells products of the garden or farm on the property on which the products are grown and cultivated are exempt from this requirement. Section 10. SECTION 10, Subdivision B., 5., g., 3), is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Authorized unimproved sites for transient merchants, transient produce merchants, and for any person that sells products of the garden or farm on the property on which the products are grown and cultivated are exempt from this requirement. Section 11. SECTION 10, Subdivision B., 5., h., is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Transient Merchant and Transient Produce Merchant Sites Authorized sites for transient merchant. transient produce merchant sales. and an person that sells products of the garden or farm on the property on which the products are grown and cultivated, shall provide off-street parking areas of suf- ficient size to provide parking for patrons, customers, and employees. All parking and circulation shall be on the site. and in no case shall encroach upon the public right-of-way or adjacent properties. Section 12. SECTION 10, Subdivision B., 2., is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Transient merchants, transient produce merchants, and any person that sells products of the garden or farm on the property on which the products are grown and cultivated, shall submit a plot plan drawn to scale and dimensioned showing off street parking and circulation and the plan shall show the access to the public street and if the site is a corner lot, or is an interior lot within 50 ft.of a corner lot, the plan shall show the distance to the street intersection. The plan shall be approved prior to any sales. No site shall be located within any public right-of-way. Section 13. SECTION 10., Subdivision C., is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Transient merchants and transient produce merchants Transient merchants and transient produce merchants shall comply with the require- ments of this Ordinance unless specifically provided otherwise and shall comply with the following prior to any sales: Written permission from the owner of the property where the sales are to be conducted shall be submitted. A written affidavit from the transient produce merchant shall be submitted indicating that the produce to be sold by the merchant was grown by the mer- chant on property that is occupied and cultivated by him. The affidavit shall list the produce to be sold and the place where the produce was drown. Transient merchants shall show evidence of compliance with City licensing requirements. PLYMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT MONTH CLASS I MURDER RAPE ROBBERY ASSAULT BURGLARY THEFT AUTO THEFT ARSON 1985 0 I 0 1 2 I 20 25 125 7 0 1986 I 0 I 0 2 15 33 90 I 10 0 TOTALS 1985 179 1986 150 -16.2%- CLASS II JULY 1986 FORGERY EMBEZZEL STOLEN WEAP PROSTI SEX GAMB OFFENSES - LIQ DISORDERLY COUNTERFEITIFRAUDI MENT 1PROPERTYlVANDALISMIOFF ITUTIONIOFFINARCILINGLFAM/CHILDID.W.I.1 LAW I CONDUCT I OTHER 1985 1 1 26 0 1 56 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 9 0 0 1 31 5 6 1 23 1986 2 1-.8 0 0 79 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 6 0 3 29 14 4 1 62 TOTALS 1985 159 1986 210 +32.1% CLASS III FAIAL PERSONAL PR U PERlY SNOWMOBILE MEDICAL SUICIDE NATURAL ANIMAL ACCIDENT I INJURY DAMAGE ACCIDENT DROWNING EMERGENCY SUICIDE ATTEMPTS I DEATH BITES AFIRE 1985 1 I 17 I 55 0 0 I 61 0 I 0 4 I 1 35 1986 I_ 0 I 18 I 65 0 0 70 0 4 2 6 26 TOTALS 1985 174 1986 191 + 9.8% CLASS IV ASSIST ANIMAL FALSE LOCK OTHER WARRANT TRAFFIC FIREARM SUSPICION MISSING LOST PUBLIC IDOMESTICIDETAILIALARMSIPROWLERIOUTS JAGENCYISERVED IDETAIL IVIOLATIONJINFORMATIONIPERSON IFOUNDINUISANCE1 MISC 1 1985 1 32 1 164 83 1 17 1 119 1 23 12 1 118 1 5 1 125 3 1 26 150 170 1986 33 142 110 9 146 1 51 24 1 154 1 5 1 136 5 1 32 212 115 TOTALS 1985 1,047 1986 1,174 +12.1% CRIMINAL OFFENSES CLEARED 1985 24.0% HAZARDOUS VIOLATIONS 1985 375 1986 329 -12.3% 1986 24.5% NONHAZARDOUS VIOLATIONS 1985 524 1986 293 -44.1% TOTAL NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 1985 1,559 1986 1,725 +10.6% --, = A L PLYMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT MONTH JANUARY - JULY 1986 CLASS I MURDER RAPE ROBBERY ASSAULT BURGLARY THEFT AUTO THEFT ARSON 1985 0 0 3 75 136 586 46 3 1986 0 4 6 111 147 541 55 3 TOTALS 1985 849 1986 867 + 2.1% CLASS II COUNTERFEIT IFRAUDI MENT 1PROPERTYlVANDALISMIOFF ITUTIONIOFFINARCILINGIFAM/CHILDID.W.I.ILAWI . DISORDERLY CONDUCT I OTHER 1985 3 115 0 3 264 1 1 1 0 1 131 47 1 0 1 3 1 211 1 12 1 23 1 200 1 1986 16 63 3 2 349 1 4 1 0 1 151 67 1 0 1 9 1 248 1 66 1 36 1 275 1 TOTALS 1985 895 1986 1,153 +28.8% CLASS III FATAL PERSONAL PROPERTY SNOWMOBILE MEDICAL SUICIDE NATURAL ANIMAL ACCIDENT INJURY DAMAGE ACCIDENT DROWNING EMERGENCY SUICIDE ATTEMPTS I DEATH I BITES I FIRES 1985 2 98 375 0 0 409 1 6 14 17 144 1986 2 95 462 0 0 417 2 22 10 34 162 TOTALS 1985 1,066 1986 1,206 +13.1% CLASS IV ASSISI ANIMAL FALSE LOCK OTHER WARRANT TRAFFIC FIREARM SUSPICION MISSING LOST PUBLIC IDOMESTICIDETAILIALARMSIPROWLERI OUTS JAGENCYISERVED IDETAIL IVIOLATIONJINFORMATIONIPERSON IFOUNDINUISANCEI MISC. 1 1985 127 891 603 48 1 708 1 219 1 140 1 840 1 17 1 764 13 109 1 711 974 1986 153 I 862 I 616 34 1 894 1 257 1 223 1 1174 1 17 1 716 13 120 1 908 680 TOTALS 1985 6,164 CRIMINAL OFFENSES CLEARED 1985 32.1% 1986 6,667 + 8.2% 1986 31.9% HAZARDOUS VIOLATIONS 1985 2,310 1986 2,870 +24.2% TOTAL NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 1985 8,974 NONHAZARDOUS VIOLATIONS 1985 3,932 1986 4,143 + 5.3% 1986 9,893 +10.2% PLYMOUTH FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT TYPE OF REPORTED INCIDENTS BY TIME OF DAY MONTH JULY 1986 0001 0401 0801 1201 1601 2001 CONFIRMED FALSE PERMITS ESTIMATED 0400 1 0800 1 1200 1 1600 1 2000 1 2400 I CALLS I ALARMS I TOTAL I ISSUED I LOSS PRIVATE DWELLINGS I I 1 1 1 2 i 6 1 1 4 I 5 1 9 I -- I $1,900 APARTMENTS I 1 1 1 1 3 I 5 I 5 1 8 I 3 I 20 I 23 I -- I 300 HOTELS,AND MOTELS I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 0 I 2 I 2 I -- I -- I ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL I I I I I I I 0 I 0 I 0 PUBLIC ASSEMBLY I I I I I I I 0 1 0 1 0 SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES 1 I I I I I I 0 I 0 I 0 HEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS I 1 1 i 1 1 I I I 0 I 2 I 2 PENAL INSTITUTIONS I I 1 I 1 1 1 0 I 0 1 D STORES ANU OFFICES I I 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 I 0 I 4 i 4 1 -- I -- INDUSTRY, MFG. ! I 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 6 I -- I 450 1 STORAGE IN STRUCTURES I 1 1 I I I I 0 I 0 I 0 1 -- I -- I SPECIAL STRUCTURES 1 I I I I I I 0 1 0 I 0 FIRES OUTSIDE OF STRUCTURES I I I I I I 1 0 1 0 I 0 FIRES IN HIGHWAY VEHICLES I I 2 1 1 I 3 I 2 I I 8 1 0 I 8 i -- I 10,450 I FIRES IN OTHER VEHICLES 1 I I I I I I 0 1 0 1 0 1 I -- I FIRES IN BRUSH, GRASS I I l I l I 1 I 3 I 1 1 5 I 2 I 7 FIRES IN RUBBISH, DUMPSTERS I _1 I I I 1 1 I I 2 I 0 I 2 ALL OTHER FIRES I ( I I I 1 1 1 I 2 I 0 I 2 MEDICAL AID RESPONSES 1 I I I I I I 0 I 0 ( 0 "MALICIOUS FALSE ALARMS I I I I I 1 1 0 I 0 I 0 MUTUAL AID OR ASSISTANCE I I I I I I i 0 1 0 1 0 ALL OTHER RESPONSES I ( I I 1 1 2 I 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 TOTALS 1 4 1 6 1 9 1 16 1 22 1 12 1 29 1 40 1 69 1 0 1 $13,100 I "INCLUDED IN FALSE ALARMS TOTALS JULY 1985 CONFIRMED CALLS 44 FALSE ALARMS 24 TOTAL CALLS 68 ESTIMATED LOSS $32,625 PLYMOUTH FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT TYPE OF REPORTED INCIDENTS BY TIME OF DAY MONTHLY JANUARY - JULY 1986 1 0001 0400 10800 0401 0801 1 1200 1201 1 1600 1601 1 2000 1 2001 2400 CONFIRMED 1 CALLS FALSE 1 ALARMS I NUMBER OF PERMITS TOTAL I ISSUED I ESITMATED LOSS 1 PRIVATE DWELLINGS 1 2 1 6 1 9 1 13 1 22 I 14 I 43 1 23 1 66 1 -- I $12812001 I 11 i 18 I 15 1 20 1 21 1 23 1 15 1 93 1 108 1 - - 1 4,3001 _APARTMENTS HOTELS AND MOTELS 1 2 I 1 I l 2 1 1 0 I 6 1 6 ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL 1 I I 2 I I 1 1 1 0 1 3 1 3 PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 1 I 1 2 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 4 1 1 1 5 SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 I 5 1 -- I 2001 HEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS I 1 1 1 1 4 1 7 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 17 I 19 I 1 1 - -1 INSTITUTIONS I I I I 1 1 I I 0 I 1 1 1 -- I 1001 _PENAL STORES AND OFFICES I I 2 1 4 1 2 1 5 1 2 1 2 1 13 1 15 1 -- I - -1 INDUSTRY, MFG 1 3 1 8 1 6 I 8 1 3 1 8 1 20 1 28 1 -- 1 31,9501 STORAGE IN STRUCTURES I 1 1 I i I I I 1 1 0 ( 1 1 -- 1 11,6001 SPECIAL STRUCTURES I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 0 I 1 OUTSIDE OF STRUCTURES 1 I i I I 1 1 I 1 I 0 I 1 _FIRES FIRES IN HIGHWAY VEHICLES 1 3 1 4 1 6 1 9 1 5 1 1 1 22 I 6 1 28 1 -- 1 38,3601 FIRES IN OTHER VEHICLES 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I 0 I 1 I -- 1 1,0001 FIRES IN BRUSH, GRASS 1 1 2 1 1 I 7 I 12 1 2 I 22 1 3 I 25 FIRES IN RUBBISH, DUMPSTERS 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 4 1 1 6 1 0 I 6 ALL OTHER FIRES 1 I 1 I 1 1 2 1 6 1 9 1 0 1 9 1 -- I 1,0001 MEDICAL AID RESPONSES 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 3 1 0 1 3 *MALICIOUS FALSE ALARMS I 1 1 1 I I I 0 1 0 I 0 MUTUAL AID OR ASSISTANCE I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 2 I 0 1 2 ALL OTHER RESPONSES 1 1 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 6 1 6 1 17 1 6 1 23 TOTALS 23 1 42 I 54 I 77 1 95 1 65 1 163 1 193 I 356 1 1 1 $216,7101 *INCLUDED IN FALSE ALARM TOTALS JANUARY - JULY 1985 CONFIRMED CALLS 173 FALSE ALARMS 155 TOTAL CALLS 328 ESTIMATED LOSS $289,225 association of metropolitan municipalities BULLETIN August 11, 1986 TO: AMM Member Cities FROM: Bob Thistle, AMM President RE: TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD NOMINATIONS Ten positions on the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) are reserved for municipal elected officials. The TAB By -Laws specifies that the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) has the responsibility for nominating these 10 officials. The terms are for two years and commence on October 1, 1986 and run through September 30, 1988. The AMM Board of Directors will be making these nominations at its September Board Meeting. The TAB is a very important body and provides general transportation advice and counsel to the Metropolitan Council, Regional Transporation Board and the Minnesota Department of Transportation, etc. One of its most important functions is to annually determine the FAU project funding priorities. The TAB normally meet the third Wednesday afternoon of each month in the Metropolitan Council Chambers. RECOMMENDATIONS WANTED: The AMM Board is soliciting recommendations for these positions via this Bulletin. Recommendations must be in writing and should be submitted to the AMM Office, to the attention of Vern Peterson, by no later than Wednesday, August 27, 1986 Distribution Note: This Bulletin has been mailed to Mayors, Managers/Administrators, and Directed Delegates 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600 1 Community Improvement Reminde I have noticed a problem with: J�c Resident has noticed a problem with. Street/Potholes Watermain/Hydrant Brush/Weeds/Trees Filling/Excavating Drainage dunk Cars Traffic arking Violation Garbage/Demos Traffic/Street Sign/Signal— Erosion/Dirty streets Dead Animals In street Broken/Damaged Equipment " Sign Str etli ht Other No WralgWif t Ih v / • ' , �, . c -f u e s b'%1 t/PG . F YX. A L�+�ly CITY OF PLYMOUTH c°°�• ��e 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 fes- LJ4ke_ .� MEMO DATE: August 4, 1986 TO: Fred Moore, Public Works Director FROM: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT REMINDER CARD Attached is a copy of a Community Improvement Reminder Card submitted by Bob Zitur regarding cutting weeds on City boulevard property between 45th Avenue and 47th Avenue on Larch Lane. Would you please investigate this matter and provide me with a report of your findings. I would appreciate a response by Friday, August 8 so it may be included in the Council Information Memorandum. Thank you. FB:u.-..a attach. cc: dames G. Willis, City Manager S/F - 8/8/86 (TomV We have received a Community Improvement Reminder Card submitted by Council Member Bob Zitur regarding the noxious weeds along the East side of Larch Lane, between 45th Avenue and 47th Avenue. This is the Boulevard area lying between Larch Lane and Schmidt Lake. All of the adjacent property is owned by the City of Plymouth and therefore, we are responsible for cutting the weeds. Would you please see that these weeds are cut as soon as possible. Would you please return a copy of this memo to Frank Boyles stating the date that the weeds were cut. If there are any questions, please.conta me. 1 PP Community Improvement Reminder S I have notic m with: Resident h �e bleml'-th: _ Street/P Watermain/Hydrant Brush/W s e Filling/Excavating Drainag Dunk Cars . Traffic rking.;Viofation 4 Garbage/Debris Traffic/5Lt�eeEign/Signal— Erosion/Dirtyt� reets Dead Animafs/;in street Broken/Damaged Equipment Sign Streetlight Other Description Z Location Your name zei�– 7-u„_, Dat– Resident's Name We -- Address Phone 4b CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: August 12, 1986 TO: Fred Moore, Public Works Director + FROM: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manage SUBJECT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT REMINDER CARD 7Frw,K LOS Attached is a copy of a Community Improvement Reminder Card submitted by Bob Zitur on behalf of Mrs. Wes Hayne, 12085 - 48th Avenue who is interested in having a "Dead End" sign placed on her street. Would you please investigate this matter and provide me with a report of your findings. I would appreciate a response by this Friday, August 15 so it may be included in the Council Information Memorandum. Thank you. FB:dma attach. cc: dames G. Willis, City Manager S/F - 8/15/86 TC) ,., SQL+ , , 0 e . j E.,a— S;a- o^ t>%f- St$ - CC+ Pett 4- }►.e C0$S 0.-1 ►"Z091.5 y S ave. . P e•,S.- Cc. P c + S i^^+C++o �.,, e. tk;3 $-13-8C HERITAGE HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 August 10, 1986 Mr. Bill Crawford District Engineer MNDOT - District V 2055 Lilac Drive Golden Valley, MN 55422 Dear Mr. Crawford: I am writing to you concerning the noise problem caused by the proximity of Highway 494 to our neighborhood. Because the noise level seems to be increasing, we would like to request the construction of a sound barrier along the east side of 494 from 32nd Avenue North to County Road 9 in Plymouth. Our association represents about 170 single family homes in the area bounded by Highway 494, County Road 9, County Road 61 and Plymouth Creek (32nd Ave. N.). In addition to the existing homes in our area, several developments are underway that will add more homes adjacent to the highway. Cates Plymouth Creekside Estates and Westwood Ridge will add 18 and 34 homes respectively along Xenium Lane. Heritage West II will add at least 36 units also along Xenium Lane. Also, Plymouth Parkview will add 60 units between Xenium and County Road 61. We strongly believe that these developments along with increasing traffic levels on 494 will further worsen the noise problem while exposing more residents to the noise. We are concerned that the an- noyance due to noise will disrupt outdoor activities and ultimately threaten the quality of life in our neighborhood. We would appreciate your consideration of our request as soon as possible. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, f)ta4u�*A Merrilee Riley President 13010 - 37th Avenue North 559-4736 CC: Fred Moore Engineer, City of Plymouth G�940 August 11, 1986 Mr. and Mrs. Edward T. Johnston ~ 2501 Blaisdell Ave. So. CITY OF Minneapolis, MN 55404 PLYMOUTR RE Deerwood Trail (A-823) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Johnston: Mr. Fran Hagen of Westwood Planning & Engineering, requested, on your behalf, that the Planning Commission defer consideration of the Final Plat for this project, on Novem- ber 1, 1978. The Commission passed a Motion to that effect and we have had no further contact. The application has been effectively considered withdrawn and we have had no inquiries about the property nor have alternative plans been submitted for any other development. This letter is prompted by direction from the City Council, who recently discussed traffic circulation in this general area due to neighborhood concerns expressed as a result of a development proposal on nearby property. The Council directed specifically that we inform you that it appears alternate street design will be necessary on your land, at such time that a new development proposal is submitted for review and approval. The City Council directed also that a traffic analysis be prepared for this area and the results of that study will be available for public review. You should have your engineer or surveyor contact the Public Works Department at such time that you might choose to pursue the development of your property. The pertinent traffic information can be provided so that your plat can be properly designed to be consistent with the situation as it exists today. I would also appreciate hearing from you as to your intentions for this development since the project is technically without standing under the terms of the Zoning Ordin- ance. The Planning Commission did take action to defer the plans indefinitely at the request of your consultant. The expired time and the extensive development of this area since 1978 mandate that development plans for this property would be subject to the current design review and public hearing requirements of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Developments. Thank you for your attention. You may contact me or Public Works Director Fred Moore regarding this letter. Sincerely, Blair Tremere, Director Community Development BT/gw cc: City Manager James G. Willis Public Works Director Fred Moore Fran Hagen, Westwood Planning & Engineering File A-823 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800 August 12, 1986 Editor Minneapolis/St. Paul CityBusiness 600 1st Avenue North Suite #600 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Dear Sir: r. R, CITY OF PLYMOUTH+ 8c, J: n, ,-, ; L L.s Frederick M. Zimmerman's August 6, '1986, editorial "Considering the Greater Good" relates his "concern" about "the increasing tendency for local governments to place severe restrictions on businesses in response to minor complaints from local resi- dents." He calls for citizens of Minnesota to "take a more proactive and cooperative attitude toward businesses in their communities" so to "not create problems by adopt- ing overly restrictive local ordinances that are harmful to society as a whole." It is easy to agree that we should avoid being overly restrictive but it is not quite as simple as Mr. Zimmerman suggests, to write off concerns and complaints from local residents as being "minor" or based upon "short sighted and fallacious" assumptions. Most local ordinances and regulations have roots in the health, welfare, and safety provisions of the Statutes and the Constitution. Most ordinances are adopted in res- ponse to actual experiences, not to theoretical models, by our elected officials who we also expect to enforce the laws. Our expectation is that regulations will prevent or mitigate the disagreeable and unsafe condition at which the legislative action is directed. Just as Mr. Zimmerman seeks to establish that businesses, like society, are comprised of people too, it is important to establish that neighbors are often the same people who run and are employed by the businesses. Businesses are part of society and it is that aspect of our lives that we seek to regulate when business creates conditions and problems that are not resolved by other means. Mr. Zimmerman cites the "Airport Issue" dismissing it with the worn out platitude that the airport "was there before most of the residents." The fact is also that today's airport is not the airport that was there when many of the homes were built. The businesses that comprise the airport have stimulated the issue by operating in a far different manner and degree than in the beginning. Society, to date, has sought general relief by regulatory means rather than by relocating the airport and/or re- locating all the residents. He also cites a case in Bloomington as his prime example. The editorial would lead one to believe that "some people in the neighborhood got together" and, by signing a petition and turning out "in force at three separate City Council meetings", blocked a development proposal through the eventual defeat at the City Council "by a small 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 5594800 Page two Letter to the Editor August 12, 1986 margin." It is difficult to believe that the City Council ignored the societal and economic benefits of the development, if they were as overwhelming as Zimmerman states. City Councils do not operate in a vacuum as a rule, and there is much about Mr. Zimmerman's case example that we don't know. Finally, he gets to what may be the heart of the matter: A controversy involving parking problems caused by an "important employer in the community" which happens to be his employer. An alternative solution would be for that corporate citizen to meet its needs as a responsibility by providing for adequate off-street parking rather than by expecting that the residential neighborhoods tolerate the increasing traffic and vehicle parking caused by its growth. Perhaps innovative engineering efforts by the business itself could design parking facilities on the site. Parking bans can also serve as a stimulus for the customers to use mass transit and programs such as "Share -a -Ride", which Minnesota seems to hold out as a goal for us all. Mr. Zimmerman correctly notes what is called the "NIMBY" ("Not In My Backyard") syndrome. However, as long as voters express high expectations to elected representatives for controls and regulations as a solution for all problems, there will be ordinances deemed restrictive to particular elements of society. Business, as part of that society, should not expect to be immune. Rather, it should consider steps which would avoid or mitigate the problems that result in the regulations in the first place. Sincerely, Blair Tremere, Director Community Development BT/gw Considering the greater good . ' By Frederick M. Ammerman FOR SOME time, I have been concerned about the increasing tendency for local gov- ernments to place severe restrictions on busi- nesses in response to minor complaints from local residents. Whether the issue happens to be the airport (which was there before most of the residents), or business traffic in the City of Bloomington, or parking near the College of St. Thomas in St. Paul, the effect is the same: the subordination of the job -producing economy to the specialized comfort of local residents. This isn't to say that businesses should not behave responsibly. They should. But there are times when the political pressure of local residents prevails over the welfare of the so- ciety as a whole. We have to recognize that such actions are part of the business climate, too. Everyone seems to want.a job, but no- body wants the factory to be loLaLed next to them.' A case in Bloomington two years ago-pro- vides gopro- vides a good example. A businessman want- ed to manufacture locally some of the products his company (Company A) sold that were shipped in from out of state. In order to implement the plan, it would be necessary to sell the current building, a premium piece of real estate along Interstate 494, and invest the proceeds by combining with another busi- ness (Company B) in a more suitable location. It was a good program. It would have made Company A more profitable, created local em- ployment, and provided better products and better service to consumers, since the ship- pjng damage on these products was sub- stantial- The program was financible, but financing required getting the equity out of the old building first. A well-regarded local automobile dealership (Company C) agreed to purchase the proper- ty. The dealership proceeded to spend a con- siderable sum of money on plans to improve the property. The plans involved building aes- thetic fences to surround the property, de- veloping a communication system that would not involve a loudspeaker, and providing for the orderly flow of the limited amount of traf- fic expected. (The property itself is already separated from the residential areas by a green strip nearly a city block wide.) The proposal was well received by the Bloo- mington planning commission and received its OK But some people'in the neighborhood got together, signed a petition that they didn't want a car dealership along that area of I.494, and turned out in force at three separate city council meetings. Finally, the proposal was defeated by a small margin. We can appreciate the concerns of the neighbors, but we would like to make this point The question as to whether Minneso- ta has a good business climate is not just a question of taxes. The business people in- volved in this episode (the seller, the real es- tate people,. and others) are the honest, dedicated, self-sacrificing, and hard-working people of the type we would like to see suc- ceed. Company As intent was to reinvest the proceeds from the sale of the building in building a better operation, creating more em- ployment, and providing better products and services to its customers. Just recently, Company B, which was to have received the new investment, ceased operation; over 50 people who were employed by Company B have been laid off; the build- ing is still unsold; and the products that were to have been assembled here continue to be shipped in from out of state. Companies A and C are out an estimated $70,000 because of lost time, wasted expenditures on planning, and other expenses associated with the long, drawn-out process that kept everyone involved for six months. The total community losses resulting from the situation probably amount to several thousand dollars per name on the objection petition. I'm sure the residents would not like to lose that kind of money, but they do not seem to mind if other people do. The purpose of this editorial is to make peo- ple aware of the extensive impact on business- es, employment levels, and personal lives that results from city actions in response to neigh- borhood complaints. We respect neighbors, and we respect complaints. But often the as- sumptions seem to be made that a business has plenty of money, or that there are no real people involved with it, or that no other peo- ple will be affected if actions are taken in re- sponse to local complaints. Such reasoning is short-sighted and fallacious. Instances like the one cited are not uncom- mon. I believe that it is necessary to cultivate a more mature attitude toward business. We are all part of the community. We need to work together to provide a healthy economy' for this region. Business has ifs responsibili- ties toward the community, but the commu- nity needs to be Wpportive of business as well. Empty buildings and vacant lots are not going to create any jobs, provide a good sur- rounding for the neighborhood, reflect favora- bly on the city as a fruitful place for investment, or be good for property values. The parking situation near the College of St Thomas is really no different from the first situation. In addition to being a provider of respected educational programs, the college is an important employer in the community. (St. Thomas employs nearly a thousand peo- ple.) The proposed 100 percent ban on non- resident parking on side streets and frontal streets allows no provision for customer park- ing. The ban represents an unfortunate, coun- terproductive attitude toward the economy that supports us all. Citizens of Minnesota should take a more proactive and cooperative attitude toward businesses in their communities. The repu- tation of the state of Minnesota as a place to do business needs to be preserved. Let's not create problems by adopting overly restric- tive local ordinances that are harmful to the society as a whole. ■ Frederick M. Zimmerman is director of graduate programs in engineering at the College of St. Thomas and a member of the boards of directors of several companies. M IJ AB:. To / MY int V cmaiNt } P ---, il'nI —� PUVWX M=M sin D WMR ` tS Utji l AZWAW PAN CMNMSMN ,CM XTOW 8-7-86 Dear Counselors of Session II Day Camp: I would like to extend my thanks to you for putting on such a wonderful camp this year. My son, Jason, did not want to go this year and put up a big fuss when I insisted. The first day he came home so enthusiastic and excited for the next day - I knew you were doing something right. I would like to recommend having this camp last a full two weeks - I truly believe people would pay the money for such a great experience for their children. I know I would. Thanks for doing a great job. Sincerely,