HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 01-03-2003Dummy
JANUARY 3, 2003
Official Meeting Calendars for January, February, and March 2003 ............................................... Page 3
Tentative list of agenda items for future City Council meetings...................................................... Page 9
NEWSARTICLES, RELEASES, PUBLICATIONS, ETC.
Notice of January 8 Plymouth Aquatic Vegetation Management Group meeting ......................... Page 10
January 7 Government Advisory Council (ISD 28 1) meeting agenda ............................................ Page 11
Agenda packet for January 9 Wayzata Schools Advisory Committee on Wind
Generation of Electricity................................................................................................................ Page 12
Housing Minnesota action list and 2003 legislative priorities list (submitted by
CouncilmemberHewitt)................................................................................................................. Page 20
STAFFREPORTS
Fire—Rescue Incidents of Interest.................................................................................................. Page 25
Plymouth Fire Department November 2002 Report ...................................................................... Page 27
Charitable Gambling Ordinance update......................................................................................... Page 35
MINUTES
Park & Recreation Advisory Commission (FRAC) December 12 meeting .................................. Page 49
CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS POLICY—CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence between Pam Kernisch and Park Director Blank regarding a possible
dogpark in Plymouth..................................................................................................................... Page 54
Summary of 2003 correspondence tracking................................................................................... Page 56
CORRESPONDENCE
U—S Department of Housing and Urban Development Report to Plymouth Housing
Department of the 2001 Program Year Accomplishments.............................................................. Page 57
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMO
January 3, 2003
Page 2
Letter to residents from City Engineer Ron Quanbeck with notice of a public information
meeting to discuss Medicine Lake water quality ponds design and construction ..........................
Page 60
Letter from the Curtis L. Carlson Family Foundation submitting underwriting checks for
the Millennium Garden Project......................................................................................................
Page 61
Notice to residents of a request for site plan, conditional use permit and variances for
Wendy's International (2002118)....................................................................................................
Page 62
Notice to residents of a request for a conditional use permit Sports Training Center (2002161) ..
Page 63
Notice to residents of a request for a site plan and conditional use permit for Bakken
PropertiesLLC (200213 1) ..............................................................................................................
Page 64
Notice to residents of a request for Planned Unit Development (PUD), General Plan
Amendment, and Lot Division for Frauenshuh Companies (2002152) ..........................................
Page 65
Notice to residents of a request for a conditional for Pillar Homes (2002158) ..............................
Page 66
Letter to Bruce Johnson from Planning Manager Barb Senness regarding proposed
changes to Plymouth lighting regulations. A copy of the staff report is also attached ...................
Page 67
Letter from Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission containing responses to
comments on the Second Generation Elm Creek Watershed Management Plan ...........................
Page 81
LEGISLATIVE ITEMS
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities AMMFAX News .......................................................
Page 92
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
January 2003
Sunday I Monday I Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Dec 2002
Feb 2003
S M T W T F S
S M T W T F S
NEW YEAR'S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
DAY - City
Offices Closed
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
29 30 31
23 24 25 26 27 28
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
7:30 PM
YOUTH
ADVISORY
•00 PM
RECEPTION
FOR NEW
COUNCIL, City
7:00 PM
oUENWM t NMEN EE
(EOC), Medicine Lake
Room
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION,
Lunch Room,
COUNCIL,
Hall Lobby
lower level
Council
Chambers00
PM REGULAR
COUNCIL
MEETING, Council
Chambers
:00 PM PARK &
REC ADVISORY
COMMISSION
(PRAC), Council
Chambers
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
7:00 PM HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
7:30 AM -9:15
AM -MLC
LEGISLATIVE
Council Chambers
Medicine Lake Room
BREAKFAST,
Radisson Hotel &
Conference
LEAGUE OF
Center, 3131
MINNESOTA
Campus Drive
CITIES
LEGISLATIVE
CONFERENCE,
St. Paul
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MARTIN
7:00 PM
LUTHER KING
PLYMOUTH
JR. BIRTHDAY
ADVISORY
(Observed) -
COMMITTEE ON
City Offices
TRANSIT (PACT) -
Closed
Medicine Lake
Room
26
27
28
29
30
31
1:45 AM
LYMOUTH-MTKAUSINESS
[PS.'COUNCIL,heraton
Ridgedale
7:00 PM
REGULAR
COUNCIL
MEETING, Council
Chambers
modified on 1/3/2003
3
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
February 2003
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Saturday
Jan 2003
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
Mar 2003
S M T W T F S
1
1
2:00 PM - 7:00
PM FIRE & ICE
FESTIVAL,
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Parkers Lake
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
26 27 28 29 30 31
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
7:30 PM
7:00 PM
7:00 PM HUMAN
YOUTH
PLANNING
RIGHTS
ADVISORY
COUNCIL,
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
COMMISSION -
Council Chambers
Council
Chambers
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
7:00 PM PARK &
REGULAR
ENVIRONMENTAL
REC ADVISORY
COUNCIL
QUALITY
COMMISSION
MEETING, Council
COMMITTEE
(PRAC), Council
Chambers
(EQC), Bass Lake
Chambers
Room
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
PRESIDENTS
DAY - Ci 1Y
Offices Closed
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING a
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room
23
24
25
26
27
28
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
REGULAR
PLYMOUTH
COUNCIL
ADVISORY
MEETING, Council
COMMITTEE ON
Chambers
TRANSIT (PACT) -
Medicine Lake
L- -
I
Room
I I
I
- I
I-
I
modified on 1/3/2003
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
March 2003
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Saturday
Feb 2003
Apr 2003
1
S M T W T F S
S M T W T F S
1
1 2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
23 24 25 26 27 28
27 28 29 30
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5:30 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL TOWN
FORUM, Plymouth
7:00P NG
PLANCOMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION -
Council Chambers
Creek Center
Ash Wednesday
(First Day of
Lent)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
7:00 PM PARK &
REGULAR
ENVIRONMENTAL
REC ADVISORY
COUNCIL
QUALITY
COMMISSION
MEETING, Council
COMMITTEE
(PRAC), Council
Chambers
(EQC), Bass Lake
Chambers
Room
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
7:30 PM
YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL,
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room
Council
Chambers
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
11:45 AM
PLYMOUTH-MTKA
BUSINESS COUNCIL,
Sheraton Ridgedale
7:00 PM
PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL
MEETING, Council
Chambers
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) -
Medicine Lake
Room
30
31
7:30 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL,
Council
Chambers
modified on 1/3/2003
Tentative Schedule for
City Council Agenda Items
January 28
• Public hearing on whether to allow charitable gambling in Plymouth
• Review Ordinances on Weed Mowing, Tree Removal, and related Special
Assessment Procedures
• Public hearing on proposed Revenue Bond Refunding for Parkside Apartments
• Public hearing on Vacation of a permanent easement for public utility purposes and
a temporary easement in Serenity on Hadley Lake
• Schmidt Lake Road bids
• Consider Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment related to the regulation of Exterior
Lighting
February 11
Approve Park Rental fees
February 25
To be scheduled:
• Jake Braking of Trucks
• Control of buckthorn in City -owned spaces
DATE: January 2, 2003
TO: Aquatic Vegetation Management Group (AVM Group)
FROM: Shane Miss esources Engineer
SUBJECT: AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT GROUP MEETING
Dear AVM Group:
Please plan to attend our next meeting on:
Wednesday, January 8, 2003
at 8:30 A.M.
Medicine Lake Room
For your review, enclosed please find:
• Final Draft of the proposed AVM Plan
As always, please feel free to contact me at 509-5527 or e-mail at
smissaghCcD-ci.plymouth.mn.us, if you have any questions.
cc: Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E., Director of Public Works
Ronald Quanbeck, P.E., City Engineer,
IDN:\pw\Engineering\WTRQLTY\AVMG\Mcctingwticc_Jar103_AVMG.doc
Government Advisory Council
January 7, 2003
7:30 — 9:00 a.m.
Education Service Center (Note Location)
4148 Winnetka Avenue North — Room 210
Agenda
s Education Service Center Progress/Tour
• Update on Construction Progress at Cooper and Armstrong
• Summer Construction — City Streets and Highways
• State Legislative Session
9 We Care about Kids Day — February 2, 2003
Once :Around the Tahie
Next meeting: February 4, 7:30 a.m.
Education Service Center Boardroom
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 10, 2002
To: Advisory Committee on Wind Generation of Electricity
From: Alan Hopeman, Jr., Executive Director of Finance and Business
Subject: Meeting Notice — Thursday, January 9, 2003
The next meeting of the Advisory Committee on Wind Generation of Electricity is
scheduled for:
Thursday — January 9, 2003 — 4:00 p.m.
Wayzata High School — Room #B204
Our sincerest apologies for the communication problems that we encountered with our
last meeting that was held on December 5, 2002. We will repeat our presentation on
the cost analysis of the wind turbine project. Please find this information accompanying
this memorandum.
We look forward to seeing you on January 9, 2003. Please contact Judy at
(763) 745-5024 if you will not be attending the meeting.
Dates of future meetings
Thursday, February 6, 2003 — 4:00 p.m., WHS-Room #6204
Thursday, March 6, 2003 — 4:00 p.m., WHS-Room #B204
Thursday, April 3, 2003 — 4:00 p.m., WHS-Room #B204
Thursday, May 1, 2003 — 4:00 p.m., WHS-Room #B204
Thursday, June 5, 2003 — 4:00 p.m., WHS-Room #B204
ARH:jlw UJei
Wayzata Public Schools Wind Turbine Cost Estimates
Capital Costs
NEG-Micon 1.5MW Turbine 1,060,000
Site prep, foundation, etc
100,000
Electrical interconnect
75,000
Installation
150,000
Bid Specs, Legal Fees, etc
15,000
Contingency
50,000
Total Investment
1,450,000
Operational Costs
Property & Liability Ins. 7,500
0 & M cost/KWh $0.0040
I3
12/5/02
Wayzata Public Schools Wind Turbine Revenue Data
Prices Per KWh:
Excel Purchase Price per KWh] $0.0335
Federal Rebate $0.0170
State Rebate $0.0150 ???
Total Income $0.0655
Energy Production:
Hourly Max. Production 1,500 KW
Yearly Max. Production 13,140,000 KW
Wind Efficiency Factor 23%
Net Yearly Production 3,022,200 KW
Gross Annual Income: $197,954.10
12/5/02
1.5MW Turbine
15 -Year Lease Purchase Financing
z.a
#1: Qp4mfe4c Wind, No Grant, State Rebate Available
Dater 12/5/02
Assumptions (inputs)
Annual Cash Flow Model
Total Installed Cost ($):
$1,450,000
Wind Efficiency Factor
20%
Net
Upkeep
Insure.
Net Loan
Annual
Total
Annual Energy Output (kWh):
2,628,000
Year
Energy
Costs
Costs
Payments
Cash Flow
Cash Flow
Electricity Price ($/kWh):
$0.0655
1
$172,134
$0
$7,500
$158,918
$5,716
$5,716
Electricity Inflation Rate (%):
2%
2
$175,577
$0
$7,650
$158,918
$9,008
$14,724
Grant Money Available:
$0
3
$179,088
$0
$7,803
$158,918
$12,367
$27,091
Amount of Loan ($):
$1,450,000
4
$182,670
$0
$7,959
$158,918
$15,793
$42,884
Lease Rate Factor
0.109599
:;: ?�,i. .
$186,323$
0
$ 8 118 E<c
'
''S irv$(i� E;`:
9 28
$1 7
Loan Term (Years):
15
6
$190,050
$11,606
$8,281
$158,918
$22,851
$85,022
O & M Cost ($/kWh):
$0.004
7
$193,851
$11,838
$8,446
$158,918
$26,486
$111,508
O & M Inflation Rate (9c):
2%
8
$197,728
$12,075
$8,615
$158,918
$30,194
$141,702
9
$201,682
$12,316
$8,787
$158,918
$33,977
$175,679
Loan Payments
{
$205,716
$12,5 63
8 963 �?E':E?�'1�5f���3.•'-?-<�
$ ,
;.
3 835
S 7,
Annual Lease Payment
$158,918
11
$209,830
$12,814
$9,142
$158,918
$41,770
$255,283
12
$214,027
$13,070
$9,325
5158,918
$45,783
$301,067
13
$218,308
$13,332
$9,512
$158,918
$49,877
$350,944
14
$222,674
$13,598
$9,702
$158,918
$54,053
$404,997
? iJ •,'•.
$227,127
$13,870
$9,896
$158,918
$58,313
16
$231,670
$14,148
$10,094
$0
$221,576
$684,886
17
$236,303
$14,431
$10,296
$0
$226,007
$910,893
18
$241,029
$14,719
$10,502
$0
$230,527
$1,141,420
19
$245,850
$15,014
$10,712
$0
$235,138
$1,376,558
E?`Eta250
76
$15,314
$10,9 'z'•#I''<#'
`t3``
239 841
21
$255,782
$15,620
$11,145
$0
$244,637
$1,861,036
22
$260,898
$15,933
$11,367
$0
$249,530
$2,110,567
23
$266,116
$16,251
$11,595
$0
$254,521
$2,365,087
24
$271,438
$16,576
$11,827
$0
$259,611
$2,624,699
t'E'tJ''`
6
$27 ,867
6 8
S1 ,90
512, 063 EI......•>.
....<>
•<•:'SQ.:
264 803
S ::
52,1385,3i3<
26
$282,404
$17,246
$12,305
$0
$270,100
$3,159,602
27
$288,052
$17,591
$12,551
$0
$275,502
$3,435,103
28
$293,813
$17,943
$12,802
$0
$281,012
$3,716,115
29
$299,689
$18,302
$13,058
$0
$286,632
$4,002,747
« Q
$305,683
518,668
<z.
3$292,364 3 9 '?
S11 :......... •>:., :.t.
5:4>
Wind Turbine --1.5 MW
12 -Year Lease Purchase Financing
#2: Optimistic Wind, No Grant, State Rebate Available
Date: 12/5/02
Assumptions (Inputs)
Annual Cash Flow Model
Total Installed Cost ($):
$1,450,000
Wind Efficiency Factor
23.5
Net
Upkeep
Insure.
Net Loan
Annual Total
Annual Energy Output (kWh):
3,022,200
Year
Energy
Costs
Costs
Payments
Cash Flow Cash Flow
Electricity Price ($/kWh):
$0.0655
1
$197,954
$0
$7,500
$173,174
$17,280 $17,280
Electricity Inflation Rate (%):
2%
2
$201,913
$0
$7,650
$173,174
$21,089 $38,369
Grant Money Available:
$0
3
$205,951
$0
$7,803
$173,174
$24,974 $63,344
Amount of Loan ($):
$1,450,000
4
$210,070
$0
$7,959
$173,174
$28,937 $92,281
Lease Rate Factor
0.11943
5
$214,272
SO
$8,118
$173,174
�g�s
$32,980 5125, , .?r§0
Loan Term (Years):
12
6
$218,557
$13,347
$8,281
$173,174
$37,103 $162,363
O & M Cost ($/kWh):
$0.004
7
$222,928
$13,614
$8,446
$173,174
$41,308 $203,671
O 6 M Inflation Rate (%):
2%
8
$227,387
$13,886
$8,615
$173,174
$45,598 $249,269
Loan Payments
9
$231,935
$14,164
$8,787
$173,174
$49,973 $299,242
Annual Lease Payment
$173,174
1.
$236,573
$14,447
$8,963
$173,174
$54,436 35
11
$241,305
$14,736
$9,142
$173,174
$58,988 $412,667
12
$246,131
$15,031
$9,325
$173,174
$63,632 $476,299
13
$251,054
$15,332
$9,512
$0
$241,542 $717,841
14
$256,075
$15,638
$9,702
$0
$246,373 $964,213
ss 15
$261,196
$15,951
$9,896
- = 0
$251,300 $i 2155
16
$266,420
$16,270
$10,094
$0
$256,326 $1,471,840
17
$271,749
$16,595
$10,296
$0
$261,453 $1,733,292
18
$277,184
$16,927
$10,502
$0
$266,682 $1,999,974
19
$282,727
$17,266
$10,712
$0
$272,015 $2,271,989
$288,382
$17,611
$10,926 811M
$277,456 ; X7$2,549,445
21
$294,149
$17,963
$11,145
$0
$283,005 $2,832,450
22
$300,032
$18,323
$11,367
$0
$288,665 $3,121,115
23
$306,033
$18,689
$11,595
$0
$294,438 $3,415,553
24
$312,154
$19,063
$11,827
$0
$300,327 $3,715,880
25.
$318,397
$19,444
$12,063 ,,:3
$306,333 4,02Y 253
26
$324,765
$19,833
$12,305
$0
$312,460 $4,334,673
27
$331,260
$20,230
$12,551
$0
$318,709 $4,653,383
28
$337,885
$20,634
$12,802
$0
$325,084 $4,978,466
29
$344,643
$21,047
$13,058
$0
$331,585 $5,310,051
$351,536
$21,468
$13,319 ISM
$338,217� X564$;26, >
( L
1.5MW Turbine
15 -Year Lease Purchase Financing
#3: 20% Wind, No Grant, No State Rebate
Date: 12/5/02
Assumptions (Inputs)
Annual Cash Flow Model
Total Installed Cost ($):
$1,450,000
Wind Efficiency Factor
20%
Net
Upkeep
Insure.
Net Loan
Annual
Total
Annual Energy Output (kWh):
2,628,000
Year
Energy
Costs
Costs
Payments
Cash Flow
Cash Flow
Electricity Price ($/kWh):
$0.0505
1
$132,714
$0
$7,500
$158,918
($33,704)
($33,704)
Electricity Inflation Rate (%):
2%
2
$135,368
$0
$7,650
$158,918
($31,200)
($64,904)
Grant Money Available:
$0
3
$138,076
$0
$7,803
$158,918
($28,646)
($93,550)
Amount of Loan ($):
$1,450,000
4
$140,837
$0
$7,959
$158,918
($26,040)
($119,590)
0
Lease ate Factor
L R
0 109599
>�..
1 3 65
$ 4 4
$ 0
S 8 118 E;>
'
3
Loan Term (Years):
15
6
$146,527
$11,606
$8,281
$158,918
($20,672)
($163,645)
O & M Cost ($/kWh):
$0.004
7
$149,458
$11,838
$8,446
$158,918
($17,907)
($181,552)
O & M Inflation Rate (%):
2%
8
$152,447
$12,075
$8,615
$158,918
($15,087)
($196,638)
9
$155,496
$12,316
$8,787
$158,918
($12,210)
($208,848)
Loan Payments
?%>ii'
58 6
1 06
$12,563
$8,963($9,276),..»><>
:.... ..
Annual Lease Payment
$158,918
11
$161,778
$12,814
$9,142
$158,918
($6,283)
($224,408)
12
$165,013
$13,070
$9,325
$158,918
($3,230)
($227,638)
13
$168,313
$13,332
$9,512
$158,918
($117)
($227,755)
14
$171,680
$13,598
$9,702
$158,918
$3,059
($224,695)
E?ri
$175,113
$13,870
$9,896
$158,918
$6,299 E{$21839
16
$178,616
$14,148
$10,094
$0
$168,522
($49,875)
17
$182,188
$14,431
$10,296
$0
$171,892
$122,017
18
$185,832
$14,719
$10,502
$0
$175,330
$297,347
19
$189,548
$15,014
$10,712
$0
$178,836
$476,184
>(}•`:
S 193 339
15 3
$ 14
$ 10 926
'��`:<
$182413
21
$197,206
$15,620
$11,145
$0
$186,061
$844,658
22
$201,150
$15,933
$11,367
$0
$189,783
$1,034,441
23
$205,173
$16,251
$11,595
$0
$193,578
$1,228,019
24
$209,277
$16,576
$11,827
$0
$197,450
$1,425,469
$213,462
16 908
$12,063
«
20 399
$201,399
26
26
$217,731
$17,246
$12,305
$0
$205,427
$1,832,295
27
$222,086
$17,591
$12,551
$0
$209,535
$2,041,830
28
$226,528
$17,943
$12,802
$0
$213,726
$2,255,556
29
$231,058
$18,302
$13,058
$0
$218,001
$2,473,557
>8(
$ 235 679
$ 18 668
$ 13 319
~.�.....
222 361 >. 2fi51X'
$ ..$...�.
1'4
1.5MW Turbine
15 -Year Lease Purchase Financing
#4: 20% Wind, $500,000 Grant,
No State Rebate
Date:
12/5/02
Assumptions (Inputs)
Annual Cash Flow Model
Total Installed Cost ($):
$1,450,000
Wind Efficiency Factor
20%
Net
Upkeep
Insure.
Net Loan
Annual
Total
Annual Energy Output (kWh):
2,628,000
Year
Energy
Costs
Costs
Payments
Cash Flow
Cash Flow
Electricity Price ($/kWh):
$0.0505
1
$132,714
$0
$7,500
$104,119
$21,095
$21,095
Electricity Inflation Rate (%):
2%
2
$135,368
$0
$7,650
$104,119
$23,599
$44,695
Grant Money Available:
$500,000
3
$138,076
$0
$7,803
$104,119
$26,154
$70,848
Amount of Loan ($):
$950,000
4
$140,837
$0
$7,959
$104,119
$28,759
$99,608
e
L ase Rate Factor
0.109599$143,654
$
5 8,11
S�t?Rt'i:'#5.;:
531,417
Loan Term (Years):
15
6
$146,527
$11,606
$8,281
$104,119
$34,128
$165,152
O 8 M Cost ($/kWh):
$0.004
7
$149,458
$11,838
$8,446
$104,119
$36,892
$202,044
O & M Inflation Rate (%):
2%
8
$152,447
$12,075
$8,615
$104,119
$39,713
$241,757
9
$155,496
$12,316
$8,787
$104,119
$42,589
$284,346
Loan Payments
_
$158,606
S12 563
$8,963.,,i::.rr::r:::!':".,>:•
.$45
,523
Annual Lease Payment
$104,119
11
$161,778
$12,814
$9,142
$104,119
$48,516
$378,386
12
$165,013
$13,070
$9,325
$104,119
$51,569
$429,955
13
$168,313
$13,332
$9,512
$104,119
$54,683
$484,638
14
$171,680
$13,598
$9,702
$104,119
$57,859
$542,496
i�'
$175,113
$13,870
$9,896
$104,119
$61,098
€ 'S6 ?3 v95
.............:......
16
$178,616
$14,148
$10,094
$0
$168,522
$772,116
17
$182,188
$14,431
$10,296
$0
$171,892
$944,008
18
$185,832
$14,719
$10,502
$0
$175,330
$1,119,338
19
$189,548
$15,014
$10,712
$0
$178,836
$1,298,175
...
s
S1 3,339
$15,314
$10,926 E`<$A
$182,413
21
$197,206
$15,620
$11,145
$0
$186,061
$1,666,649
22
$201,150
$15,933
$11,367
$0
$189,783
$1,856,432
23
$205,173
$16,251
$11,595
$0
$193,578
$2,050,010
24
$209,277
$16,576
$11,827
$0
$197,450
$2,247,460
..:��..:.�::.
3
21 46$16,908
$ 2
12 063 ^�??<'�'><;
S � ..........::a;:,�i�..
5201,399
26
$217,731
$17,246
$12,305
$0
$205,427
$2,654,286
27
$222,086
$17,591
$12,551
$0
$209,535
$2,863,821
28
$226,528
$17,943
$12,802
$0
$213,726
$3,077,547
29
$231,058
$18,302
$13,058
$0
$218,001
$3,295,548
>'235
6
$ 79
$18,668
$13,319 ;
:: ': f3E
$222,361
.
1.5MW Turbine
15 -Year Lease Purchase Financing
#5: 20% Wind, $300,000 Grant, No State Rebate
Date: 12/5/02
Assumptions (Inputs)
Annual Cash Flow Model
Total Installed Cost ($):
$1,450,000
Wind Efficiency Factor
20%
Net
Upkeep
Insure.
Net Loan
Annual
Total
Annual Energy Output (kWh):
2,628,000
Year
Energy
Costs
Costs
Payments
Cash Flow
Cash Flow
Electricity Price ($/kWh):
$0.0505
1
$132,714
$0
$7,500
$126,039
($825)
($825)
Electricity Inflation Rate (%):
2%
2
$135,368
$0
$7,650
$126,039
$1,680
$855
Grant Money Available:
$300,000
3
$138,076
$0
$7,803
$126,039
$4,234
$5,089
Amount of Loan ($):
$1,150,000
4
$140,837
$0
$7,959
$126,039
$6,839
$11,928
Lease Rate Factor
0.109599
?':��".>:?
$143,654
$0
$ ,1 ..:
�;1.2�,1?3.5..:'
$ 9 #
Loan Term (Years):
1s
6
$146,527
$11,606
$8,281
$126,039
$12,208
$33,633
O & M Cost ($/kWh):
$0.004
7
$149,458
$11,838
$8,446
$126,039
$14,973
$48,606
O & M Inflation Rate (%):
2%
8
$152,447
$12,075
$8,615
$126,039
$17,793
$66,399
9
$155,496
$12,316
$8,787
$126,039
$20,670
$87,068
Loan Payments
si'
S15s,sos
$12,563
$8,9
12S,t 8y,,
6 <>
$23 04
..,......
Annual Lease Payment
$126,039
11
$161,778
$12,814
$9,142
$126,039
$26,597
$137,269
12
$165,013
$13,070
$9,325
$126,039
$29,649
$166,918
13
$168,313
$13,332
$9,512
$126,039
$32,763
$199,681
14
$171,680
$13,598
$9,702
$126,039
$35,939
$235,620
;#
$175,113
$13,870
$9,896
$126,039
$39,179:;:?''":$2Ti79'
16
$178,616
$14,148
$10,094
$0
$168,522
$443,320
17
$182,188
$14,431
$10,296
$0
$171,892
$615,212
18
$185,832
$14,719
$10,502
$0
$175,330
$790,542
19
$189,548
$15,014
$10,712
$0
$178,836
$969,378
;':#<'w
$193,339
$15,314
$10,9 2L....>3<>»»>»$A>`
$182,413.:.::$..,....:..,........:
21
$197,206
$15,620
$11,145
$0
$186,061
$1,337,853
22
$201,150
$15,933
$11,367
$0
$189,783
$1,527,635
23
$205,173
$16,251
$11,595
$0
$193,578
$1,721,214
24
$209,277
$16,576
$11,827
$0
$197,450
$1,918,664
$213,16,908
$$201,399
_462
$12,063 : #`�1�:
.$0
26
$217,731
$17,246
$12,305
$205,427
$2,325,489
27
$222,086
$17,591
$12,551
$0
$209,535
$2,535,025
28
$226,528
$17,943
$12,802
$0
$213,726
$2,748,751
29
$231,058
$18,302
$13,058
$0
$218,001
$2,966,751
679
$18,668
$13,319
$222,361 36:...............:....2:..
k3l
HousingMinnesota
oviu th& pwm�e, aftk
December 23, 2002
Dear "Homes for All" Delegate:
Greetings and happy holidays from HousingMinnesota! We wish to extend a warm thank you for your participation at our
"Homes for All" Convention on November 15th' Your time and efforts helped make the event a wonderful success!
Convention Results
Over 1300 delegates gathered at the Minneapolis Convention Center to assist in deciding Minnesota's future housing
priorities. Together, we approved a consensus platform to provide safe, decent, and affordable Homes for All
Minnesotans by 2012. The final policy platform is available for download via HousingMinnesota's website at
www.housingminnesota.org.
In addition, we are pleased to report the official results of the Convention Issues Ballot. Sixty of the sixty-four items
presented on the ballot passed by receiving support from at least two-thirds of all voting delegates. Delegates top
priorities were 1.) To expand the supply of affordable housing and 2.) To prevent and address homelessness. With
regards to income targeting for programs, delegates voted to prioritize the needs of those at or below 50% of the median
income ($32,250) for homeownership, and the needs of those at or below 30% of the median income ($19,350) for rental
assistance. Taking into account delegates' recommendations, HousingMinnesota has developed a set of legislative
priorities for 2003 Legislative Session. Enclosed is a copy for your reference.
Next Steps
With a state budget deficit of 4.5 billion dollars, this year's Legislative Session is going to be a challenge. Our successes
will depend not only on our own advocacy work, but also upon the persistent voices of thoughtful and committed citizens
like you. Your local action is a crucial part in this statewide effort to provide safe, decent, and affordable homes for all
Minnesotans,
Please remember to mark your calendar for February 111h-- HousingMinnesota is teaming up with MN Coalition for the
Homeless and NAHRO for a "Homes for All by 2012" housing rally and day of lobbying on Capitol Hill. Detailed
information regarding the event is enclosed; along with a list of other simple action steps you can take to ensure that
affordable housing will remain a top priority for the state of Minnesota.
Like most public issue campaigns, HousingMinnesota also depends on contributions from its supporters to stay strong
and visible. This contribution may come in the form of monetary support or may involve you sharing your time and talents
with us as a volunteer. Enclosed is an envelope for your contribution. This year any funds you wish to contribute to the
HousingMinnesota campaign will be matched dollar for dollar by the McKnight Foundation.
We are excited to have so many new allies as we move forward with our goal of safe, decent, and affordable homes for all
Minnesotans. Please be sure to visit our website at www.housingminnesota.org for up-to-date housing fact sheets, regular
legislative updates, and other related information. With your continued involvement, we will achieve Homes for All by
2012!
Sincerely,
4, "t kteZ — &i ,/
0,
Donald McFarland Rachel Callanan
Lead Organizer Policy Director
1821 University Ave. W • Suite 5-137 • St. Paul, MN 55104-2891
651.649.1710 • 800.728.8916 * 651.649.1725 fax • www.HousingMinnesota.org
HOUSINGMINNESOTA Action Steps for January and February
1. Identify your state and local legislators!
Know your state Senator and Representative! Click on "Take Action" at
www.housingminnesota.org to find out who your legislators are now!
2. Contact your legislators and let them know that affordable housing
is a priority issue for you!
As a voting constituent, your voice matters a great deal! Visit
www.housingminnesota.org and click on "Take Action" for tips on
visiting, calling, and writing your legislators. Tell them why you support
Homes for All by 2012-- they will listen. (Please report your contact
with your legislators to the HousingMinnesota campaign through our
web site's "Take Action" page.)
3. Attend HousingMinnesota's Lobby/Rally Day at the State Capitol!
Date: Tuesday, February 11 th
Time: Lobbying activities begin at 8:30am. Rally starts at 12:30.
Location: State Capitol Rotunda.
To attend: Visit www. housing minnesota.orQ or call 651-649-1710 X121
4. Raise affordable housing awareness in your community!
• Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper
about an affordable housing concern in your area! Enclose a copy of
the HousingMinnesota County Profile/s for your district available at our
website: wwww.housingminnesota.org.
• Invite your neighbors and friends to participate in the
HousingMinnesota campaign!
HAVE QUESTIONS? NEED MORE INFORMATION? WOULD YOU LIKE TO VOLUNTEER?
CONTACT HOUSINGMINNESOTA AT 651-649-1704.
Z1
0
k3l
HousingMinnesota
Homes For All By 2012
Legislative Priorities for the 2003 Session
A. Expand the Supply of Affordable Housing
The Issue: Although the State of Minnesota faces a serious budget crisis, efforts to expand the supply
of affordable housing while preserving our existing affordable housing stock must continue. Housing
Minnesota acknowledges the sobering size of the current budget deficit and believes it necessary
that, in order to have a balanced budget, the state will have to use all three budget -balancing tools
at the state's disposal: principled spending cuts that protect the most vulnerable and do not make
the recession worse for those most in need; use of reserves; and raising revenue to maintain the high
quality of life in Minnesota.
Housing Minnesota will support measures to expand the efficiencies of the current housing programs
by leveraging private funding and strengthening public-private partnerships, and coordinating
among state agencies and other partners. However, given the magnitude of the current affordable
housing shortage, cost cutting and increased efficiencies are not enough. Housing Minnesota will,
therefore, strive to protect and increase existing housing programs while working with the new
administration in support of creative promotion of new resources to spur the development and
preservation of affordable housing.
HousingMinnesota Positions:
1, Maintain or expand current levels of government funding for affordable housing production,
rehabilitation, and preservation currently available through the Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency, the Department of Trade and Economic Development, the Department of Children
Families and Learning, the Department of Human Services, and the Metropolitan Council.
2. Provide additional new resources for housing development in the form of tax credits, tax
incentives and tax exemptions, including exemptions for certain geographic areas, expanding
the sales tax exemption for affordable housing, affordable housing tax credits, limiting tax
assessments on income -restricted rental property, and protecting the renters' credit.
3. Increase the state's bonding resources for development of affordable housing including the
state's general obligation bonds, seeking a constitutional amendment to allow state general
obligation bonds affordable housing that is not publicly owned, and increasing the
percentage of Minnesota's private activity bonds for housing.
B. Prevent and Address Homelessness
The Issue: At a time of economic sluggishness and budget deficits, it is important to care for the most
vulnerable people in the state, including the unemployed or laid off workers, low-wage workers,
people on a fixed income, and people experiencing homelessness. Currently, homeless shelters are
forced to turn away 1,000 people a night for lack of shelter space and resources.
ib'I,
HousingMinnesota Positions:
1. Provide a comprehensive response to homelessness by: offering homeless prevention
programs, shortening the length of stay in emergency shelter by getting people into safe and
secure housing, and offering assistance to prevent repeated periods of homelessness.
2. Ensure that the state, counties, and cities provide enough funding to sheltering programs so
that no one is turned away in a time of crisis.
C. Provide Housing with Support Services
The Issue: Coordination of housing and other important services benefits both the residents and the
state by creating more efficiency in delivering the services and housing many people need.
Coordination of state agencies and programs is an important step to reduce long-term costs to the
state and society.
HousingMinnesota Position:
1, Integrate housing planning with planning for other social service systems.
D. Provide Assistance and Protections for Tenants
The Issue: The disparity between what renters can afford and the cost of housing continues to be a
problem for tenants in Minnesota. A minimum wage worker would need to work 114 hours per week
to afford Minnesota's fair market rent of $762 for a two-bedroom apartment. Given the overall high
rents of the rental market and low vacancy rates for apartments with lower rents, tenants face
obstacles to finding and keeping their apartments. Tenants need additional assistance and
protections when the affordable housing rental market is this tight. Additionally, many studies have
shown that people receiving welfare and housing assistance at the some time are much more likely
to successfully leave welfare. This should be recognized and tenants who are receiving welfare and
federal housing assistance should not be penalized.
HousingMinnesota Positions:
1. Support measures in state law that assist and protect tenants in the tight affordable rental
housing market.
2. Repeal the $100 housing penalty, whereby welfare recipients in federally subsidized
housing have $100 counted as income against their welfare cash grant.
E. Create Non -Monetary Incentives for and Reduce Barriers to Development of
Affordable Housing
The Issue: Local units of government have taken on tremendous leadership in providing affordable
housing in their communities; they should be given the opportunity and incentive to do more. Cutting
the costs of developing affordable housing is a key to reducing the amount of public subsidy needed
for investment in housing. A variety of cost reduction strategies should be researched and supported
through state policy.
HousingMinnesota Positions:
1. Support enabling legislation that authorizes cities, as a local option, to achieve their goal
of including affordable housing in their community.
2. The State of Minnesota should take the lead in developing and encouraging the use of
housing development cost reduction strategies and use of more cost effective building
materials.
For.further information about affordable housing legislation and policy see our web site www.housingminnesota.oor contact Rachel Callanan, Policy
Director Minnesota Housing Partnership, at rcallananna.mhponline.orn orr6651-649-1710 x107.
v
2
JLMinnesota Coalition for the Homeless
Working to ensure everyone has a safe, decent, affordable place to call home
A Report on Homelessness in Minnesota
On May 30, 2002„ the Department of Children, Families, and Learning reported that agencies sheltered 6,974 individuals
in a variety of programs across the state. About half (47%) of this population was children or unaccompanied youth. On
the same night, 1,020 individuals were turned away from shelter (48% children/unaccompanied youth).
Shelter statistics do not completely represent the homeless population. The Wilder Research Center estimates that on
October 26, 2000, the total number of homeless and precariously housed persons in Minnesota numbered 21,329.
Who is homeless? *
• Homeless children today outnumber the states entire homeless population in 1991 (the total estimated number of
homeless or precariously housed children is 11,72 1).
•
41% of homeless adults are employed,
• 72% of homeless adults have children under age 17; one-third (34%) have children with them.
• 34% of mothers reported that they are homeless because of abuse by a partner.
• 16% of homeless adults are veterans.
• 24% of homeless adults have less than a high school education (48% have completed high school or a GED; 28%
have some amount of post -secondary education).
• 72% of homeless adults have lived in Minnesota for at least three years.
• 60% are homeless for the first time in their life.
• 50% have been homeless for 6 months or less.
• 41% of homeless adults were released from an institution, program or treatment center.
• The average age of homeless adults is 36 years.
• On any given night in Minnesota, an estimated 660 unaccompanied youth (persons 17 or younger) are without
permanent shelter; over the course of one year, an estimated 10,000 Minnesota unaccompanied youth experience
at least one episode of homelessness.
• 73% of homeless youth are enrolled in secondary school; 25% of homeless youth receive income from steady
employment.
Why are growing numbers of people experiencing homelessness?
The lack of livable wage jobs coupled with a low vacancy rate means that many people cannot afford rents:
• The fair market rent for a two-bedroom unit in Minnesota is $762; the hourly wage required to afford this rent is
$14.64. (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2002)
• Although 41% are employed, the average monthly income for all homeless adults is $622. (Wilder, 200 1)
• A minimum wage earner (making $5.15 per hour) can afford monthly rent of no more than $268.
• An SSI recipient (receiving $545 monthly) can afford monthly rent of no more than $164.
• In Minnesota, 33% of renter households pay more than 30% of their income for rent. (NLIHC, 2001)
Wilder Research Center. 2001
114-
122 West Franklin Avenue, Suite 306 Minneapolis, MN 55404
Tel: 612-870-7073 Fax: 612-870-9085 e-mail: home0l @isd.net
www.mnhomelesscoalition.org
3 y5
FARE-RESGUE
.� :»-� ;,• a; _sari - `,
PLYMOUTH FIRE x�
DEPARTMENT
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
F 763-509-5120
'� ` `.. *�• •°�.iti. y � 7,:. �k�' :;: f"� y�r ,�y`,,,y vq ��t� �'�`�'k�� t�`��a i�}t�, :(�:,
. , � FIRE -RESCUE INCIDENT OF •INTEREST k , �'.;� .� C -�# ��. .
DATE: 12/23/02 TIME: 1:12 a.m. ADDRESS: 4045 Co. Rd 101
DETAILS: The Department was dispatched to a reported building fire at Len Busch
Rose's. Upon arrival, Captain 1 (Hurr) reported fire showing from several greenhouse
structures. Fire exposures included additional greenhouse structures and a large
maintenance building. First in Ladder 31 (Blake, Ahrens, Peterson, Schloesser) advanced
a two-inch hardline.to begin interior fire attack operations on the maintenance building
exposure. Tower 11,IEvenson, Carlson, Fields, Nordby, Weldon) advanced additional
handlines to the exposure building. Aerial 21 (Scofield, Hendrickson, Baker, Magy,
O'Leary) established a West sector and advanced handlines into the maintenance
building exposure. Two tanker shuttle operations were established (East & West) to
provide a continuous water supply. Maple Grove Tanker 21 established a North sector to
control the northern greenhouse exposure.
The fire was placed under control 33 .minutes following fire department arrival.
Thirty Plymouth fire personnel responded to this incident (on -scene and stand-by). There
were no civilian or firefighter injuries.
RESPONSE TIME: 8 minutes.
FIRE. ORIGIN/CAUSE: Under investigation.
ESTIMATED FIRE LOSS: $1.5 million
P.F.D. RESPONDING UNITS: ASSISTING AGENCIES:
Engine Companies: E-11, E-31
EMS: Yes (x2)
Ladder Companies: L-31, A-21, TW -11
Red Cross: No
Support Unit:
Salvation Army No
Rescue Companies: R-31 t'�
Public Works: No
Chief Officers: C-1, C-31, C-21
State FM: No
Mutual Aid: Tankers (Hamel, Maple Grove, Loretto, Maple Plain)
SECTOR OFFICERS: Chief Kline (Command), District Chief Blake (Operations -East
Sector), Captain Hurr (Operations -West Sector), MG Chief 21 (Operations -North Sector)
Captain Scofield (Investigation)
VX
{n is
PLYMOUTH FIRE
"PP A WrMFNT
1'11<L'I-1\iJ/JV V1J it' VJL 1AUl % 1 Vi' Aa'W 1i JL%JLUA71
DATE: 12/22/02 TIME: 10:51 p.m. ADDRESS: 2610 Holly Lane
DETAILS: The Department was dispatched to a reported garage fire. Upon arrival,
Captain 1 (Hurn) reported fire showing from and attached garage, with possible
extension into the living unit. First in Ladder 31 (Hebert, Ahrens, Altman, Berg,
Branyon; Schloesser) established a water supply and advanced a two-inch handline
to begin interior fire attack operations. Additional handlines were advanced by
Tower 11 (Kuss, Carlson, Evenson, Fields, Weldon) to assist the interior attack and
provide ventilation. The fire was kept where we found it, in the garage.
The fire was placed under control 28 minutes following fire department arrival.
Twenty-nine fire personnel responded to this incident (on -scene and stand-by).
There were no civilian or firefighter injuries.
RESPONSE TIME: 8 minutes.
FIRE ORIGIN/CAUSE: Under investigation.
ESTIMATED FIRE LOSS: $120,000
P.F.D. RESPONDING UNITS:
ASSISTING AGENCIES:
Engine Companies: E-11, E-31
EMS: Yes
Ladder Companies: L-31, A-21, TW -11
Red Cross: No
Support Unit:
Salvation Army: No
Rescue Companies: R-11, R-31, R-21
Public Works: No
Chief Officers: C-1, C-31
State FM: No
Mutual Aid: Wayzata (Engine)
SECTOR OFFICERS: Chief Kline (Command), District Chief Blake (Operations),
Captain Hun & FF Magy (Investigation), FF Ahrens (Accountability)
Y 3 +�
✓���}t'1��«i�,x �; �,i d � aa 4,1�y r!-rr( .t ; Y y+.
w1A
PLMOUTH FIRE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT
NOVEMBER 2002
Monthly Synopsis
Year-to-date (YTD), the Department answered 1317 calls for service. This compares to 1289
calls for service in 2001 (YTD). The highest call volume in November occurred between the
hours of 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Friday was the busiest day of the week. Sixty-four percent of
calls occurring in November were "Duty Crew" calls.
Responses were divided between the fire stations as follows:
Station I (13205 Co. Rd. 6) 35
Station II (12000 Old Rockford Rd.) 35
Station III (3300 Dunkirk Ln.) 32
November 2002 in-service and on -scene (total response) times for emergency events are as
follows. Duty Crew and non -duty crew times, as well as station responses, are noted.
Significant or Unusual Events
In November the following responses are notable:
November 27 Vehicle accident with extraction (11:06)
During the month of November, three calls were paged general alarm. On average twenty
members of the department responded to these general alarm calls.
Training
During the month of November, seven topics were offered during thirteen regularly scheduled
in-house training sessions. These topics included Company Operations, Aerial Operations,
Ladders, EMS Skills, RIT, Rescue Tools, and Live Fire. Additional training opportunities were
offered during Rookie Training and Duty Crew, and for members of the Hazardous Materials
Team.
Sixty members participated in training activities during the month. The total number of hours
spent on in-house and outside training activities was 536.5 — an average of just under nine hours
per participating member.
W
I" Truck
I" Truck
2°d Truck
2nd Truck
DMC
In -Service
On -Scene
In -Service
On -Scene
# Calls
0:56
6:46
N/A
N/A
19
Non -Duty Crew
7:36
11:11
N/A
N/A
4
Station- I
7:12
11:23
N/A
N/A
3
Station II
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
0
Station 111
7:23
10:16
N/A
N/A
1
Significant or Unusual Events
In November the following responses are notable:
November 27 Vehicle accident with extraction (11:06)
During the month of November, three calls were paged general alarm. On average twenty
members of the department responded to these general alarm calls.
Training
During the month of November, seven topics were offered during thirteen regularly scheduled
in-house training sessions. These topics included Company Operations, Aerial Operations,
Ladders, EMS Skills, RIT, Rescue Tools, and Live Fire. Additional training opportunities were
offered during Rookie Training and Duty Crew, and for members of the Hazardous Materials
Team.
Sixty members participated in training activities during the month. The total number of hours
spent on in-house and outside training activities was 536.5 — an average of just under nine hours
per participating member.
W
Recruitment
During the month of November, sixty-six paid -on-call firefighters served the City of Plymouth.
No members of the department left the fire service.
Duty Crew
The Duty Crew Program was in operation on all 21 weekdays during the month, including the
Thanksgiving Day holiday. Tbirty-four members participated in the program.
During November, 69% of .all shifts were fully staffed with 4 firefighters. During our busiest
time period (3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.), forty-eight percent of the shifts were fully staffed. A
staffing summary for the month, by shift, is included below.
Staffing:
0600-0900
0900-1200
1200-1500
1500-1800
1800=2100
5 Firefighters
00/0
5%
5%
90/0
24%
4 Firefighters
71%
90%
76%
48%
62%
3 Firefighters
29%
5%
14%
24%
0%
2 Firefighters
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1 Firefighter
0%
0%
0%
00/0
0%
No Staff
0%
0%
5%
19%
14%
'9
fl. "MOE T11
FM-RESCUE
Plymouth Fire Department
Monthly Fire Prevention and Life Safety Education Report
Type of Program Number
of Programs
Reporting Period:
November 2002
Time Spent Total Monthly
Per Program Program Hours
Station Tour
1
1 Hour
1 Hour
Birthday
1
1 Hour
1 Hour
Party/Station Tour
Pre-school Visits
2
1 Hour
2 Hours
Adopt a Hydrant
Program
Bike Helmet Sales
2
.5 Hour
1 Hour
K-6 Education
5
1 Hour
5 Hours
RiSafety
32 car seat check-
.75 Hour
24 Hours
Fairs/ Community
ups
Events
CPS Certification
4 visits to Fire
1 Hour
4 Hours
Prevention Poster
Contest winner's
classroom
1 Poster Contest
1 Hours
4 Hours
Banquet
1 Adopt a Hydrant
4 Hours
4 Hours
Promotion
Neighborhood
Watch Program
Safe Escape
House
Career Talk
Fire Department
Open House
Smokebusters
Fire Extinguisher
1
1 Hour
1 Hour
Training/EDITH
Misc. Community
2 Mom's Club
1.5 Hours
3 Hours
Presentation
Presentations
30
Misc. Outreach
1 Battery/SD assist
.75 Hour
.75 Hours
Summary
• 53 Monthly
• 29% of 173
Programs
Hour month, 40
• 50.75 Hours of
Hour work
Programming_
week was
.96 Hours Averaged Per
Committed to
Program
Public
Education
* 31
PLYMOUTH FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
12:00
9:36
7:12
4:48
2:24
0:00
Response Time for Emergency Calls
11:11
6:46
Duty Crew
Not Duty Crew
' 11 111 M
-�
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
1/1/01-11/30/01 1/1/02-11/30/02
Total Calls Year -to -Date
1289 1317
1/1/01-11/30/01
12/30/2002
1/1/02-11/30/02
PLYMOUTH FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
Calls by Time of Day
25-
20--
15-
52015 El Nov -01
10 a '' 0 Nov -02
5
0-
0600-0900 0900-1200 1200-1500 1500-1800 1800-2100 2100-0000 0000-0300 0300-0600
Calls by Day of Week
25
20
�5 111 Nov -01
10 ■Nov -02
5 X,w
0
0 �`aa�
4
Events By Category
Fires
19%
Other
54%(4,larms
27%
12/30/2002
33
DUTY CREW STAFFING
November 2002
14%
w A
9%
v�%
® 5 Firefighters
❑ 4 Firefighters
03 Firefighters
®0 Firefighters
CALLS FOR SERVICE
November 2002
36% ####
#####
#####
## Duty Crew
## 64%
® Non -Duty
Crew
-3 !-
DATE: January 3, 2003
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM:' Craig C. Gerdes, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: LAWFUL CHARITABLE GAMBLING ORDINANCE UPDATE
Staff continues to work on and refine elements of a potential lawful charitable gambling
ordinance in preparation of a Public Hearing on the issue at the January 28th City Council
meeting. During the final review of the potential ordinance with the City Attorney's office, a
number of issues have come to light that staff believes it is important to bring to the City
Council's attention at this time.
First, current State Law requires authorization of either all forms of lawful charitable gambling
or the restriction of all forms by the local municipality. This means the Council could not allow
pull tabs and other forms, yet restrict bingo.
Second, we have determined that the City can require both the designated trade area and the ten
percent (10%) contribution to the City. Because this is allowed, the draft ordinance for the
Council reflects both of these requirements.
Third, the City's current ordinance on gambling is no longer compliant with State Statute. The
Council will need to adopt a new ordinance which either allows or prohibits lawful charitable
gambling within the City to replace the old ordinance. Copies of both options are attached for
Council information.
Also, to update the Council, the City's Communications Manager, Helen LaFave, is coordinating
the publicity on this issue requested in preparation for the Public Hearing. The publicity will
include:
• page 1 notice in the new Plymouth News
• formal press release
• display ad in the Sun Sailor
• notice on Cable TV
• notice on City's web site
The staff will complete a detailed agenda item, with the history of the City Council's study of
this issue, for the Public Hearing.
55
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2003 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1105 OF THE
PLYMOUTH CITY CODE CONCERNING LAWFUL GAMBLING.
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 1105 of the Plymouth City Code is amended to read as
follows:
Section 1105 - Lawful Gambling
1105.01. Lawful Gambling. Subdivision 1. Adoption by Reference. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
349 and NICAR D '7860 Minnesota Rules 7861-7865, as amended, relating to lawful gambling, are
adopted by reference.
Subd. 2. General Rule. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 349, Section 349.213, as
amended, binge may be eendueted by organizations lieensed by the State Gambling Contfol
BeaFd ("BeaFd") enly aftef obtaining appfeval by the City of a prernises pef.fflit of a binge hall
lieense ,vhe reqtiifed by state la .only gambling excluded or exempt from state re Tull, ation
under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349, Section 349.166, may be conducted within the City. No
other form of lawful gambling is permitted in the City.
1105.03. No City Permit Required. No City permit or approval is required for organizations
conducting biome lawfula�g that are is excluded or exempt from licensing by the Board.
• • •A.
a.1
♦
j •
-
O-;..
(e) If the applieant fails t6 PFOvide the City with aH), r-elevaflt infOffnatiati requested b�
the Gity.
Pl��eath City Code 1105.07, Sttbd-.2ff)
•
r
•
_
aw.
1mom
MAN
e�
(e) If the applieant fails t6 PFOvide the City with aH), r-elevaflt infOffnatiati requested b�
the Gity.
Pl��eath City Code 1105.07, Sttbd-.2ff)
•
r
•
_
e�
ON
MI
IN 1.11
•
111117
17
1105.21. Premises Licensed to Serve Alcohol. Gambling in liquor -licensed premises shall also
be subject to the provisions of Section 1215.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and publication in
accordance with law.
Adopted this day of , 2003 by the City Council of the City of
Plymouth, Minnesota.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH.
Judy Johnson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandy Paulson, City Clerk]
M
INS • •
• • .1111141 Wr.
rMIRT7MV
OWN
i2s2i
1105.21. Premises Licensed to Serve Alcohol. Gambling in liquor -licensed premises shall also
be subject to the provisions of Section 1215.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and publication in
accordance with law.
Adopted this day of , 2003 by the City Council of the City of
Plymouth, Minnesota.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH.
Judy Johnson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandy Paulson, City Clerk]
M
[CITY OF PLYMOUTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2003 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1105 OF THE
PLYMOUTH CITY CODE CONCERNING LAWFUL GAMBLING AND SECTION 1211
OF THE PLYMOUTH CODE CONCERNING LIQUOR LICENSES.
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 1105.01 of the Plymouth City Code is amended to read:
1105.01 Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to regulate and control the conduct of
gambling, to insure integrity of operations, and to provide for the use of net profits only for
lawful purposes.
SECTION 2. The Plymouth City Code is amended by adding Section 1105.02 to
read:
1105.02 Provisions of State Law Adopted. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter
349 are hereby adopted and made a part of this Ordinance as if set out in full.
SECTION 3. Section 1105.03 of the Plymouth City Code is amended to read:
1105.03. Lawful Gambling. There shall be no gambling in the City except as authorized
pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 349, and the rules adopted
pursuant to the authority contained in the statutes. Gambling shall be operated in
accordance with the terms and conditions specified in this division, other applicable
Plymouth City Ordinances and state and federal laws and regulations.
SECTION 4. The Plymouth City Code is amended by adding Section 1105.04 to
read:
1105.04. City Permit Required. Except for an organization licensed by the Board, no
person may conduct a gambling event which would otherwise be allowed pursuant to the
exclusions and exemptions set forth in Minnesota Statutes §349.166, without first securing
a permit from the City and paying a permit fee in the amount of $100.00.
SECTION 5. Section 1105.05 of the Plymouth City Code is amended to read:
1105.05. City Approval Required.
Subd. 1. Premises Permit. No person may conduct a gambling event within
the City of Plymouth, without first securing a premises permit from the
Board, with a resolution from the City Council approving the premises
37
permit. The Owner of the premises for which a premises permit is issued
must comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes §349.18 in renting
or using the premises for lawful gambling.
Subd. 2. Bingo Hall License. No person may lease a facility to more than one
organization to conduct bingo without the City Council first approving by
resolution, a current and valid bingo hall license issued by the Board.
SECTION 6. The Plymouth City Code is amended by adding Section 1105.06 to
read:
1105.06. Application/Reuortin2 Regulations/Investigation.
Subd. 1. Each organization licensed to conduct lawful gambling in the
City of Plymouth shall complete the City's investigation form, submit
copies of all state gambling application forms, all records and reports
required to be filed within the State Gambling Control Board pursuant
to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 349, and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder, and submit any additional information required by
the City.
Subd. 2. Any organization leasing premises for the conduct of lawful
gambling shall, upon request from the City, file with the City a copy of the
lease within one (1) week after execution of the lease. The lease shall not
provide for rental payments based on a percentage of receipts or profits
from lawful gambling.
Subd. 3. Upon receipt of an application for a premises permit or bingo hall
license or renewal thereof, the Police Chief shall review the application and
make a recommendation to the City Council. As part of the investigation,
the Police Chief shall obtain from the applicant or the board the data and
background information submitted by the applicant as part of the state
licensing and premises permit application. The Police Chief shall also obtain
other information received by the board pertaining to the eligibility and
qualifications of the licensed organization to conduct or continue to conduct
lawful gambling at the premises specified in the application.
Subd. 4. Every gambling event in the City of Plymouth conducted by an
organization under state license shall be open to inspection by the City
and the County Sheriffs Department.
Subd. 5. The City may inspect, at any reasonable time without notice or
search warrant, all records of a licensed organization required to be
maintained by the State Gambling Control Board.
SECTION 7. Section 1105.07 of the Plymouth City Code is amended to read:
M
1105.07. Local Gambling Tax.
Subd.1. A local gambling tax of three (3) percent per year is imposed on the
gross receipts of a licensed organization from all lawful gambling less prizes
actually paid out by the organization.
Subd. 2. The tax shall be paid by the organization on a monthly basis and
shall be reported on a copy of the monthly gambling activity summary and
tax return filed with the Minnesota Department of Revenue. The report
shall be an exact duplicate of the report filed with the Department, without
deletions or additions, and must contain the signatures of organization
officials as required on the report form.
Subd. 3. The tax return and payment of the tax due must be postmarked, or,
if hand delivered, received in the office of the City Clerk, on or before the
last business day of the month following the month for which the report is
made.
Subd. 4. An incomplete tax return will not be considered timely filed unless
corrected and returned by the due date for filing.
SECTION 8. The Plymouth City Code is amended by adding Section 1105.08 to
read:
1105.08. Notice, Approval or Disapproval of Premises Permits.
Subd. 1. Notice. The Board shall notify the City Council pending
application or renewal for a premises permit or bingo hall license. The
applicant shall cooperate fully with the City in supplying all information
provided for in this ordinance. The City Council shall determine whether
the organization meets all the criteria provided for in this Ordinance
necessary to approve a premises permit or bingo hall license.
Subd. 2. Approval or Disapproval. Each pending application for a premises
permit or bingo hall license shall be approved or disapproved by resolution
of the City Council within 60 days or receipt of a complete application.
SECTION 9. Section 1105.9 of the Plymouth City Code is amended to read:
1105.9. Authorized Organizations. An organization shall not be eligible to conduct lawful
gambling in the City of Plymouth unless it meets the qualifications in Minnesota §349.16
Subd. 2, and also meets at least one of the following conditions:
Subd. 1. The organization has at least fifteen (15) members that are residents
of the City; or
`� I
Subd. 2. The physical site for the organization's headquarters or the
registered business office of the organization is located within the City or a
municipality contiguous to the City and has been located with the City or a
municipality contiguous to the City for at least two (2) years immediately
preceding application for a license; or
Subd. 3. The organization owns real property within the City and the lawful
gambling is conducted on the property owned by the organization within the
City; or
Subd. 4. The physical site where the organization regularly holds its meetings
and conducts its activities, other than lawful gambling and fund raising, is
within the City and has been located within the City for at least two (2) years
immediately preceding application for a license.
Subd. 5. The organization is a fire relief organization that provides fire
protection services to the City.
SECTION 10. The Plymouth City Code is amended by adding Section 1105.10 to
read:
1105.10. Oualifications. The City Council shall not adopt a resolution approving a
premises permit or bingo hall license from any applicant:
Subd. 1. Which has an officer, director, or other person in a supervisory or
management position, who:
(i) has ever been convicted of a felony;
(ii) has ever been convicted of a crime involving gambling;
(iii) is not of good moral character and repute;
(iv) has ever been convicted of (i) assault, (ii) a criminal
violation involving the use of a firearm, or (iii) making
terroristic threats; or
Subd. 2. Which owes or which has an officer, director, or other person in a
supervisory or management position, who owes delinquent local, state or
federal taxes, or is delinquent on any other City bill.
SECTION 11. Section 1105.11 of the Plymouth City Code is amended to read:
1105.11. Location Criteria for Premises Permits and Bingo Hall Licenses. All
organizations applying for a premises permit or bingo hall license must meet criteria set
forth herein relating to location of lawful gambling activities.
Subd. 1. An organization may conduct lawful gambling only on premises it
Owns or leases, except as authorized by Minnesota Statutes §349.18.
Subd. 2. Gambling in the City of Plymouth may be conducted only at the
following locations:
(i) In the licensed organization's hall where it has its regular
meetings;
(ii) In licensed on -sale liquor, wine and beer establishments;
(iii) No location shall be approved unless it complies with the
applicable zoning, building, fire and health codes of the City
of Plymouth and other regulations contained in this
Ordinance.
Subd. 3. Area Prohibited.
(i) No premises permit shall be issued for any location within 350
feet of any dwelling (residence), school or place of worship.
(ii) The distance imposed in subsection (i) above may be waived at
the discretion of the Council provided a notice of the time and
place of the Council meeting at which the application will be
considered shall be mailed at least 10 days before the date of
the Council meeting to all property owners or record located
wholly or partly within the 350 feet of the site where the
lawful gambling is proposed. The applicant shall supply
mailing labels obtained from the Hennepin County Auditor's
office listing the names/addresses of owners within said 350
feet and the cost of mailing the notices shall be paid by the
applicant. This notice and the list of owners to whom it was
sent will be made a part of the record of the proceedings.
this notice will advise the owners they may file any objections
with the City Clerk prior to the Council meeting or they may
attend the meeting and be heard.
(iii) In no event shall the distance between a premises and a
residence, place of worship or school be fewer than 200 feet.
SECTION 12. The Plymouth City Code is amended by adding Section 1105.12 to
read:
1105.12. Distribution of Proceeds.
Subd. 1. Each organization licensed to conduct gambling within the City
shall contribute to a fund administered and regulated by the City, for
distribution by the City for purposes authorized under Minnesota Statute
§349.213, Subd. 1, an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the
organization's net profits derived from lawful gambling. For purposes of
this Section, net profits are profits less amounts expended for allowable
expenses. Payments to the fund shall be calculated for quarterly periods
ending on the last days of March, June, September and December of each
year. Quarterly installment payments shall be submitted together with
verifiable supporting documentation, not later than the twentieth day of the
month following the end of the quarterly period.
Subd. 2. Each organization conducting lawful gambling within the City must
expend 100% of its lawful purpose expenditures on lawful purposes
conducted or located within the trade area of the City, which shall be limited
to the corporate limits of the City or any municipality contiguous to the City.
This section applies only to lawful purpose expenditures of gross profits
derived from lawful gambling conducted at premises within the City.
Annually, each organization must file with the City a report prepared by an
independent certified public accountant documenting compliance with this
Section. In addition, each organization must submit a report to the City each
January listing all lawful purpose expenditures from January 1 through
December 31 of the preceding year. The report shall identify the name of the
entity to whom the check was written, the City location of the recipient and
the amount of the donation.
SECTION 13. Section 1105.13 of the Plymouth City Code is amended to read:
1105.13. Penalties.
Subd. 1. Violation. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall be a
misdemeanor. Nothing in this Ordinance shall preclude the City from
enforcing this Ordinance by means of any appropriate legal action.
additionally, a violation of this Chapter shall be reported to the Board
and a recommendation shall be made for suspension, revocation or
cancellation of an organization's license.
Subd. 2. Suspension and Revocation. Any permit may be suspended or
revoked for any violation of this Ordinance. A permit shall not be
suspended or revoked until the procedural requirements of subsection (C)
have been complied with, provided, that, in cases where probable cause
exists as to an ordinance violation, the City may temporarily suspend
upon service of notice of the hearing provided for in subsection (C). Such
temporary suspension shall not extend for more than two (2) weeks.
Subd. 3. Procedure. A permit shall not be revoked until notice and an
opportunity for a hearing have first been given to the permittee. The notice
shall be personally served and shall state the ordinance provision reasonably
believed to be violated. The notice shall also state that the permittee may
demand a hearing on the matter, in which case the permit will not be
suspended until after the hearing is held. If the permittee requests a hearing,
one shall be held on the matter by the Council at least one week after the date
on which the request is made. If, as a result of the hearing, the Council finds
that an ordinance violation exists, then the Council may suspend or
terminate the permit.
SECTION 14. The Plymouth City Code is amended by adding Section 1105.14 to
read:
1105.14 Enforcement Responsibility. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to
require the City to undertake any responsibility for enforcing compliance with Minnesota
Statutes Ch. 349 other than those provisions related to the issuance of premises permits as
required in Minnesota. Statute §349.213 as may be amended from time to time.
. .
�..��
MAN
..I
;V....
1AZII.1-1,
..
.�J�:::.
•7Rn:
�.:�.: l�sA.�'
or T
�..��
1
NO.R.. 0-1 . 01-00
;V....
1AZII.1-1,
Pir
WIN
NOW
WON
•
•.
SECTION 15. Section 1010.01 of the Plymouth City Code is amended to read:]
Section
Requiring
1010.01 Subd.2. Amusements and Entertainment License Fee Schedule
SECTION 16. Section 1211.09 of the Plymouth City Code is amended to read:]
1211.09. Prohibited Conditions.
C. Gambling. Gambling and gambling devices are not permitted on licensed
premises [except for premises licensed for on -sale intoxicating liquor]. State lottery tickets
may be purchased and sold within licensed premises as authorized by the director of the State
Lottery.
A"4,-
•
Off
•TOW
FORM.
21MMMMO
1.
SECTION 15. Section 1010.01 of the Plymouth City Code is amended to read:]
Section
Requiring
1010.01 Subd.2. Amusements and Entertainment License Fee Schedule
SECTION 16. Section 1211.09 of the Plymouth City Code is amended to read:]
1211.09. Prohibited Conditions.
C. Gambling. Gambling and gambling devices are not permitted on licensed
premises [except for premises licensed for on -sale intoxicating liquor]. State lottery tickets
may be purchased and sold within licensed premises as authorized by the director of the State
Lottery.
A"4,-
[SECTION 17. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and
publication in accordance with law.
Adopted this day of , 2003 by the City Council of the City of
Plymouth, Minnesota.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH.
Judy Johnson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandy Paulson, City Clerk]
INS
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
December 12, 2002
Page 45
Present: Chair Anderson, Commissioners Fiemann, Krahulec, Meyer, Musliner,
Rezabek, staff Blank, Busch, Evans, and Pederson, Councilmember
Hewitt
Absent: Commissioner Singer
1. Call to Order
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
2. Approval of Minutes
Meyer moved, Rezabek seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the
last meeting. The motion carried with all ayes.
3. Visitor Presentations
a. Athletic Associations. None were present.
b. Staff. Evans updated the commissioners on Old Fashioned Christmas. It
was held Sunday, December 2nd. She estimated that 300 people
attended. Santa and Mrs. Claus were there. Hayrides were a popular part
of the afternoon. Culvers from Plymouth donated cookies for the event.
The final special event of 2002 is New Years Eve Around the World at the
Ice Center and LifeTime. This event is geared for families. Activities will take
place in the pool, gym, and at the Ice Center. Volunteers are needed to
help. The Leisure Times came out for winter/spring 2003. It has a new look.
Evans complimented Pederson for her efforts on the Leisure Times. The
new website has been launched. Park and Recreation has an extensive
area on the website, Evans said. Several of our facilities are highlighted.
There are links to our on-line registration. Other things we are working on
include the annual report, rental policies and procedures for our facilities,
including the Hilde Performance Center. Events coming up in 2003
include: Fire and Ice, the Yard and Garden Expo, Primavera Fine Arts
Show, History Fest, etc. Evans announced that Karol Greupner received
the Dorothea Nelson award from MRPA. Our department has been very
busy working on the party for Mayor Tierney next Tuesday, December 17th,
at the Plymouth Creek Center, beginning at 4:30 pm. We will be giving her
a print signed by the artist, Nancy Patrick Carney, who is from Plymouth.
The painting is a collage of Plymouth scenery. Seventeen additional
copies of the print were purchased that will be made available to sell at
$125 each. A total of 300 prints can be available to sell at a later date, the
e+9
PRAC Minutes/November 2002
Page 46
proceeds of which will go to the Millennium Garden. Copies of the
painting will be on display at the Plymouth Creek Center, City Hall, the Ice
Center, and it will be featured on the City's website.
c. Others. No report.
4. Report on Past Council Action
a. There was no past Council action regarding Park and Recreation items.
5. Unfinished Business
a. 2003-2007 CIP - approve plan. The CIP includes a change to the 2003
year figures, Blank explained. The cost of the maintenance garage at the
Plymouth Creek Center was increased from $40,000 to $45,000. The CIP is
showing a number of $5.5 million for the third sheet of ice and parking
upgrades at the Ice Center. Blank said that this would take multiple
partnerships to make it a reality. Those mutual partners may be the school
districts, Providence Academy, and the Wayzata Hockey Association.
Money from Plymouth may come from a revenue bond at $1.1 million,
and then the City would contribute another $1 to $1.5 million. The
playground at the amphitheater area was removed as requested by
PRAC. It may be added again in a later year, after staff has had time to
evaluate if it's needed or not. Zachary ball field repair will take place
within five years, maybe in 2005, Blank stated. LifeTime Fitness is still working
on putting in a spray pool, Blank explained to Councilmember Hewitt.
There is no definite timetable for this. Musliner asked about the money
earmarked for the l Oth playfield. Blank said that the property owner might
want the money over a five-year period. Most of the money is in the
community improvement fund. We will structure whatever deal we get
with them to meet their needs as well as our needs. Rezabek wanted to
know what happens to the balance of the money if the hockey rink costs
only $4.8 million? Blank said it would depend on how the deal is
structured. Blank assured Rezabek the architect would not be off by much
with his estimate. ANDERSON MOVED AND FIEMANN SECONDED A
MOTION TO APPROVE THE 2003-2007 CIP. MOTION CARRED WITH ALL AYES.
6. New Business
a. Millennium Garden rental policies and fees. Rick Busch, manager of the
Plymouth Creek Center, gave a presentation on the proposed fees and
policies for using the Millennium Garden. Rick said a number of garden
facilities were surveyed, but there are not a lot of them in the metro area.
Noerenberg was contacted, as well as Minneapolis and Brooklyn Park,
along with several privately owned gardens. He explained that the price
proposed for residents will be $250 and non-residents will be $350. If renters
use the Plymouth Creek Center also, the price for the garden would be
PRAC Minutes/November 2002
Page 47
reduced by $100. He explained the resident requirements, priority for
renting, how long reservations will be held before payment is due, how
wedding rehearsals will work, the cancellation policy, food and beverage
regulations, liquor restrictions, dressing rooms/bathrooms, decorating
policies, how canopies, chairs and tents should be handled and where
they can be located, how photography charges will be determined, and
parking plans. Rick said he has a long list of people interested in using the
garden this summer. He is hoping for approval soon. Krahulec asked
about the rental time. Busch said it's basically a day -long rental period.
Meyer thinks that the number of hours the rental covers should be spelled
out somewhere in the document. Staff discussed a few different options
for how long the rental period would be, Busch said, but it was decided
that it should cover an entire day. Busch said he would try to make that
more clear in the final document. Blank said we decided to allow just one
event per day, as part of the learning process. There may be occasions
where more than one event could take place. Busch said that when staff
met to discuss the policies, an all -liquor policy was considered, but then it
was changed to allow just wine and champagne. Rezabek asked what
happens if they are renting inside and have beer there. Blank said he
thought in that case, it would be okay to bring the beer down to the
garden area, if they are also renting that facility. Meyer suggested
labeling that area of the document "alcoholic beverages," instead of
liquor. A police officer is required to be present whenever any liquor is
served. A lengthy discussion Ensued over who is considered a resident
when it comes to charging resident fees. Busch said anyone living in
Plymouth at the time of the rental is considered a resident, along with
businesses and churches physically located in Plymouth. Busch also said
that residents of Plymouth could reserve the garden at resident rates if
they are hosting events for their children, grandchildren, parents, or
grandparents. Events for extended family members, such as cousins,
aunts, or uncles, etc., would incur non-resident fees if they live outside
Plymouth, even if the host is a resident. This was a concern for
Councilmember Hewitt and some commissioners, because it sounded like
a Plymouth resident hosting a family reunion could be charged non-
resident fees. It was decided that the resident requirements portion of the
document needed more consideration before finalizing. Krahulec thinks
the fee for a Plymouth business is not really addressed in the policy. Busch
said he would explain that more clearly in the final document. Fiemann
asked about a wedding being held inside that wants to take pictures
outside. Busch said they could use the garden for free in that case.
Musliner asked if people are charged to take pictures at Noerenberg or
Parkers Lake. Busch said Noerenberg charges, but there is no charge at
Parkers Lake. For the Millennium Garden, photo shoots would be charged
by the hour. Krahulec asked if the residency policy is hard to enforce.
5-1
FRAC Minutes/November 2002
Page 48
Busch said it can be difficult at times. Krahulec said the document looks
very nice, but there is a typo in the photography paragraph. The word my
should be may. Blank asked if PRAC is comfortable with wine and
champagne being served in the garden. They indicated they were fine
with it, but Musliner thinks beer should be included, especially for
corporate groups that want to hold an event, because they may want to
serve beer. Blank stated that a trail runs alongside the garden, so it would
be impossible to keep the public from passing by the garden. There will be
signs alerting people as they approach the garden that a private party is
in session and asking people to respect that. The renting party would be
told that the serving of the champagne and wine must be confined to a
certain area. Meyer thinks the charges are reasonable and fair. Musliner
was surprised that Suzanne's Cuisine is not required to be the caterer for
outside events. If they had to move inside due to weather, how would
Suzanne's feel about that? Busch said he did not discuss this with
Suzanne's. Blank said any outside caterer would be providing all utensils,
dishes, etc., so if they moved inside, they would bring all that with them.
Fiemann asked about tents that don't require stakes. Blank said they are
weighted. When asked if we would give out names of equipment rental
companies, Busch said that we don't want to get into the business of
endorsements. A question was raised about the criteria that would be
used to approve caterers. We just need to verify that they are licensed,
Blank explained. Rezabek asked if we would be sending this flyer to
groups planning to have weddings inside the Plymouth Creek Center.
Busch said that we haven't needed a lot of advertising for this area, but
we would make it available at wedding fairs, etc.
7. Commission Presentation
There was no Commission presentation.
8. Staff Communication
Blank explained that Don Anderson received the MRPA Parks and Recreation
Board and Commission Award. There will be a luncheon on January 16th to
honor him, as well as Karol and other individuals that received awards at the
MRPA Conference in November. Blank has been planning to nominate Don
for this award for the past year. Blank thinks he has a wonderful rapport with
the audience and a great relationship with the City Council. He invited the
Commission to attend the luncheon. Both Karol and Don will be invited to
attend a future Council meeting where they each will be presented with a
plaque.
The next meeting will be on January 9th.
�Z
PRAC Minutes/November 2002
Page 49
Councilmember Hewitt said that she would not be our liaison next year, but
that Kelly Slavik would be.
9. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Pam Kermisch
4860 Harbor Lane N
Plymouth, MN 55446
Dear Pam:
Thank you for your letter regarding a possible dog park in the City of Plymouth. I'm
happy to inform you that the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission has recently
completed their five year capital improvement budget which does include funding for a
dog park in 2003. In the months ahead this project will be brought forward for City
Council review and approval. Your letter has been forwarded to both the City Council
and the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission for their information. If the Council
approves this project, I anticipate that we would have the dog park open by early June.
Our proposed location for the park is on County Road 47, just west of Dunkirk Lane, in
Egan Park.
Pam, thanks for taking the time to write. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free
to give me a call at 509-5201.
Sincerely,
9& L, - ,
Eric Blank, Director
Parks and Recreation
EB/np
cc: Mayor and Council
PRAC
Mark Peterson
Kurt Hoffman
PLYMOUTH A BeautifufPface to Live
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447-1482 • TELEPHONE (763) 509-5000
®ox�. -•� wwwd.plymouth.mn.us
December 30, 2002
Director of Plymouth Parks and Recreation
Parks & Recreation Department
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447-1482
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a Plymouth resident and am very proud to live in this community. One of the reasons I love the
Plymouth area is because there is really something for everyone — beautiful walking paths, great playgrounds
for kids, terrific sports fields/ facilities, etc. I am writing to you to lend support to an initiative I heard you
may be considering, an off -leash dog park. As an animal lover and owner of two dogs, I would absolutely
love having an off -leash dog park in Plymouth.
While it is certainly nice to have clean sidewalks to walk my dogs on, it doesn't compare to being able to allow
dogs to run, exercise and socialize with other dogs. Off -leash parks give dogs/owners an opportunity to meet
other community residents, exercise in a less restrictive/more humane and fun manner and enjoy the outdoor
environment. They are a real pleasure and would certainly add to our community. Currently, if I want to go
exercise my dogs off -leash, I have to drive to one of the Minneapolis parks (the closest one is near Lake of
the Isles) and pay a considerable annual fee since I am a non -Minneapolis city resident.
From what I can see, Plymouth seems to have a strong community of pet owners and I believe this would be
a very exciting city amenity. I live on the corner of Fernbrook and Schmidt Lake Road and see many people
walking their dogs. Not only do I think an off -leash dog park would benefit these pet owners, but I also
believe it would be a benefit to non -pet homeowners who have land that touches a city sidewalk. I am sad to
say how many times I have found animal feces in my yard or on the city property that meets the sidewalk.
This does not demonstrate appropriate responsibility on behalf of pet owners and I believe if we had an off -
leash park where people could bring their dogs, this behavior would happen less often. At the dog park I go
to, there is a large bin of baggies for animal waste and a garbage can close by. Not only does this make it
"easy" for people to clean up after their pets (they can't say they forgot to bring a baggie or couldn't find a
garbage can), but there is also a substantial amount of "peer pressure" from other dog owners who frequent
the park. Those people (myself included) want to be able to enjoy the dog park for a long time to come and
make it clear to new people that the clean up is their responsibility. Finally, this could be an opportunity to
enforce dog license laws and generate revenue for the city (at the entrance of the dog park, there could be an
area for pet owners to pick up the license/off-leash permit forms, making it an easy way to get the forms.
If there is anything I can do to lend my support to this initiative, please let me know. I am willing to
volunteer my time to help drive this initiative and would love your support in making it a reality.
Sincerely,
r
Pam Kermisch ! '�
4860 Harbor Lane "North — Plymouth, MN 55446
Home: 763-478-6111
Work. 763-764-3207
to
E-mail: okermisch0a attbi.com
cc: Plymouth City Council .�
R
-S-6
o
ami
on
"
biO
a
C
X
x
ca
0
cl
C
d
C
�~bA
G
CIS C
`06 �
cacc
O
'O
o ° �
cd
y a
°
co
o
d
co
o
m
5
w
rs
on
.: ab a
ami
v Otc
"
w
y
�
• �
w
to c
v
so,
y
.-.
m a
°
b
w
>
a
°
_
o
o
ami
o o
co
b
ca
o
>i
A
C*O 0
.
4 U
�
O
.' 1-
�C�j
0
O O 4
4
V
A
y a�
20
CD
N
o
40.
b o
b°
U
d
b_
b❑
0
0
adD
'pc3
p
v
e
>
0U
wCEcCS
rL
p
S
yC
vN
0
.y
.}CNa.
y,
U`•�
'yA
Ix
OD
'O
b
.�O
UQ
°y
n6
C
0.
'o
co
-t)
A
cn
En
°rx
0. .1.
3vn
ocnw05
=�acn
3.=
44)
G6
z
a
�
�i
O
oo
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
U
n
a
ca
a
a
a
C
C
o
Q
M
'
>
Z
U
(�
Q
OM
N
M
h
M
N
7
N
M
00
N
O
M
"„
n
a
a
Q
z°
Q
M
Q
O
b
c
E
4
o a
41
�
v
v
v
x
p
a
00
.m
o
v
w
U
P. aCi
8
v
x
o G s°
b
a
:9
°
co
"e bp
o
9
al
o
J p
o
bo
:n^
E
3 �
�
'cc
a E
'�
�
g
•U
� o
U
'c
;,
c' •�
4 �
a
cn
.c
w cn
Q
a
Q
. E:
C
CO
ti
C
O
N
y
c7
O
O
'a
•O
bbo
0
r.
_4
_
d
q
U
Qr.CG
CO
Q
r 7
cn
a.
Q
(�
°ti'
F
Con
a>i
a'
a
o
H
°
�
v
`v
lu
0
w
a
3
a
s
a
a
w
w
x
w
x
C7
w
CA
w
x
C7
w
w
w
w
CO
-S-6
Honorable Joy Tierney
Mayor of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447-1482
Dear Mayor Tierney:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Minneapolis Field Office
920 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402(�VEC
http://www.hud.govAocal/minindex.DEC `+X02 2 zvr�,
SUBJECT: Consolidated Plan End -of -Year Review — 2001 Program Year
HUD is required to conduct an annual review of performance by grant recipients. This is to
report to you the results of our review. Additionally, the Secretary must determine that the grant
recipient is in compliance with the statutes and has the continuing capacity to implement and
administer the programs for which assistance is received.
Report
We congratulate you on your many accomplishments during this past year on the achievement of
Department Objectives. In addition to the accomplishments below, the City's required audit
under OMB Circular A-133 contained no findings.
When conducting the required timeliness test for the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program, the City had 1.18 years of grant funds in its line of credit. This is below the
required 1.5 years. Other accomplishments for the program year were included in the City's
CAPER and are being reiterated:
* 8 low-income families received assistance to purchase a home;,
* 11 existing homeowners had CDBG funded rehabilitation work completed on their
homes;
* Public service activities funded with CDBG provided assistance through CASH,
Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association, the YMCA, and job counseling to over
300 people; and
* The City participated in an area -wide Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
choice.
"Hauling for AIt Through Justice for A!!"
Background Information
HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development has sought to establish partnerships
with State and local governments. The focus of our partnership has been to work with
communities to ensure that our joint efforts result in housing and community development
programs and policies that benefit and serve low and moderate income persons. These efforts
occur within the framework of the statutes we administer and the regulations and emerging
policies that are designed to improve program performance.
The provisions of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the
National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, require the annual submission of performance reports
by grant recipients receiving federal assistance through programs covered under these Acts.
Additionally, these Acts require that a determination be made by the Secretary, that the grant
recipient is in compliance with the statutes and has the continuing capacity to implement and
administer the programs for which assistance is received.
Traditionally, these determinations were made through the review of annual reports submitted by
grantees for each individual program receiving assistance. With the implementation of the
Consolidated Planning Regulations of January 5, 1995, the Department will be making a
comprehensive performance review of your overall progress at least annually, as required by the
statues and section 91.525 of the regulations. The review consists of analyzing your
consolidated planning process; reviewing management of funds; determining the progress made
in carrying out your policies and programs; determining the compliance of funded activities with
statutory and regulatory requirements; determining the accuracy of required performance reports;
as well as evaluating your accomplishments in meeting key Departmental objectives.
This assessment not only meets the mandates of the statutes, but it also provides a basis for
working together collaboratively to help you achieve housing and community development
goals. One critical outcome of this collaboration should be the development of a more
comprehensive, effective, and concise Consolidated Plan and improved performance in
achieving specific goals that correspond to the activities outlined in your forthcoming Action
Plan.
Public Access
This Report must be made readily available to the public within 30 days of receipt of your
comments. There are several ways the report can be made available to the public. You can assist
us in this regard by sharing HUD's report with the media; with a mailing list of interested
persons; with members of your advisory committee; or with those who attended hearings or
meetings. HUD will make this information available to the public upon request and may provide
copies of future reports to interested citizens and groups.
�6
"Housing for All Through lustier for All
Conclusion
As a result of our analysis, we have determined that your overall progress is satisfactory and that
the City has the continuing capacity to implement these programs.
If there are any questions please do not hesitate to contact Elizabeth Wise, CPD Representative
at (612) 370-3019, ext. 2285.
Sincerely Yours,
1 n L. Joles, Director, Office of
Co munity Planning and Development
cc: Mr. Jim Barnes, Housing Manager t
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
59
"Housing fir All Through Justice jar All "
December 30, 2002
CITY OF
PLYMOUTF+
SUBJECT: PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
MEDICINE LAKE WATER QUALITY PONDS
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
CITY PROJECT NO. 2037
Dear Sir/Madam:
The City of Plymouth is beginning to design projects to improve the quality of runoff discharging into
Medicine Lake from 2 large storm systems. One discharges through the City's East Medicine Lake Park.
The other flows under East Medicine Lake Boulevard at Nathan Lane. Both storm sewers drain large
areas on the east side of Medicine Lake that do not have treatment prior to discharge. The improvements
will likely include open water ponds or constructed wetlands.
In 2000 a group of citizens appointed by the Plymouth City Council reviewed and evaluated all available
information on Medicine Lake which includes studies by several organizations and developed the
Medicine Lake Watershed Implementation and Management Plan. The Management Plan was approved
by the Plymouth City Council in October of 2001. The Management Plan identifies several actions to
improve the water quality of Medicine Lake including construction of facilities at these 2 storm sewer
outfalls.
The City of Plymouth has scheduled a public information meeting to seek input on this project. The
public information meeting will be held at:
7:00 PM, January 6, 2003
Plymouth Creek Center
14800 30 Avenue
The meeting will only address these 2 storm sewer outfalls. If you have questions regarding other aspects
of the Medicine Lake Watershed Implementation and Management Plan, please contact Shane Missaghi
at 763-509-5527.
We look forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas on this project. If you have any questions regarding
the meeting, please contact Shane Missaghi at 763-509-5527 or me at 763-509-5525.
Sincerely,
Ronald S. Quanbeck, P.E.
City Engineer
enclosure: Location Map 6C)
cc: Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E., Director of Public Works
Shane Missaghi, Water Resources Engk%OUTH A Beautiful P(ace To Live
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESq,-6QnUZg1 •S\2I�§9k&aR1§e0%-4P0
®p."w, www.d.plymouth.mmus
THE
CURTIS L. CARLSON FAMILY FOUNDATION
December 30, 2002
Joy Tierney
Mayor City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447-1482
Dear Mayor Tierney:
y,
Enclosed please find two checks, each in the amount of $12,500, for a
total of $25,000, representing payments 2 and 3 for The Millennium Garden
located next to Plymouth Creek Activity Center. This completes our
December 27, 2001 pledge of $37,500.00.
We are pleased to underwrite this project as the "CARLSON
FAMILY OF FAMILIES" and look forward to receiving project reports on
the Garden's development and the dedication of this site.
Sincerely,
Yam -
Donna D. Snyder
Executive Director
dds
Enclosure: Check #6366 $12,500
Check #6368 $125500
301 CARLSON PARKWAY • SUITE 102 • MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55305
(952) 404.5604 • FAX (952) 404-5601
M—. --
January 3, 2003
SUBJECT: SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR
WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL (2002118)
Dear Property Owner:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this is to inform you of a
request by Wendy's International, under file 2002118, for a site plan, conditional use
permit for a 3,100 square foot drive-through restaurant, variance for drive -aisle setback,
and a sign variance for property located at 14370-28`x' Place North.
Hennepin County records indicate your property is within 500 feet of the site of this
proposal. You are hereby notified of, and cordially invited to attend a Public Hearing to
be held by the Plymouth Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m., on Wednesday, January 15,
2003, in the City Council Chambers at the Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth
Boulevard. The public will be invited to offer questions and comments concerning this
application at that time, or feel free to call the City Planning Department at (763) 509-
5450 for more information.
INFORMATION relating to this request may be examined at the Community
Development Information Counter (lower level), on Mondays and Wednesday through
Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Tuesdays from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except
holidays.
Sincerely,
fA�,
Barbara G. Senness, AICP
Planning Manager
2002118propnoiice
z
LI.
PLYMOUTH A BeautifufPface To Live
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD - PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447-1482 - TELEPHONE (763) 509-5000
r:
January 3, 2003
CITY OF
PLYMOU?I-F
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SPORTS TRAINING CENTER,
INC. (2002161)
Dear Property Owner:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this is to inform you of a
request by Sports Training Center, Inc., under file 2002161, for a conditional use permit
to allow a multi -sport training facility in the I-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District for
property located at 3555 Holly Lane North.
Hennepin County records indicate your property is within 500 feet of the site of this
proposal. You are hereby notified of, and cordially invited to attend a Public Hearing to
be held by the Plymouth Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m., on Wednesday, January 15,
2003 in the City Council Chambers at the Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth
Boulevard. The public will be invited to offer questions and comments concerning this
application at that time, or feel free to call the City Planning Department at (763) 509-
5450 for more information.
INFORMATION relating
Development Information
Friday from 8:00 a.m. to
holidays.
Sincerely,
Barbara G. Senness, AICP
Planning Manager
2002161propnotice
to this request may be examined at the Community
Counter (lower level), on Mondays and Wednesday through
4:30 p.m., and Tuesdays from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD
b �
PLYMOUTH A Beautiful Place To Live
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447-1482
1AAARnr ni MIA/Mnnth Mn i IC
• TELEPHONE (763) 509-5000
January 3, 2003
SUBJECT: SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BAKKEN
PROPERTIES LLC (2002131)
Dear Property Owner:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this is to inform you of a
request by Bakken Properties LLC, under file 2002131, for a site plan for two 12,500
square foot office buildings and a conditional use permit for two buildings on one lot for
property located at the southwest corner of 37`h Avenue North and Plymouth Boulevard.
Hennepin County records indicate your property is within 500 feet of the site of this
proposal. You are hereby notified of, and cordially invited to attend a Public Hearing to
be held by the Plymouth Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m., on Wednesday, January 15,
2003, in the City Council Chambers at the Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth
Boulevard. The public will be invited to offer questions and comments concerning this
application at that time, or feel free to call the City Planning Department at (763) 509-
5450 for more information.
INFORMATION relating to this request may be examined at the Community
Development Information Counter (lower level), on Mondays and Wednesday through
Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Tuesdays from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except
holidays.
Sincerely,
4:.
i`
Barbara G. Senness, AICP
Planning Manager
2002131 propnotice
77
Ln
Crr
m
C
36th Ave. N.
1111111111111111111111 1111ill 1111111111M
6Lk-1
PLYMOUTH A BeautifufPface?o Live
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447-1482 • TELEPHONE (763) 509-5000
January 3, 2003
CITY OF
PLYMOUTFt
SUBJECT: PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
AND LOT DIVISION FOR FRAUENSHUH COMPANIES (2002152)
Dear Property Owner:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this letter is to inform you of a
request by Frauenshuh Companies, under file 2002152, for a PUD (Planned Unit Development)
General Plan Amendment and Lot Division to subdivide an existing lot into two parcels for the
development of two restaurant buildings at the northeast corner of State Highway 55 and
Northwest Boulevard.
Hennepin County records indicate your property is within 750 feet of the site of this proposal.
You are hereby notified of, and cordially invited to attend a Public Hearing to be held by the
Plymouth Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m., on Wednesday, January 15, 2003, in the Council
Chambers at the Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard. The public will be invited to
offer questions and comments concerning this application at that time, or feel free to call the City
Planning Department at (763) 509-5450 for more information.
INFORMATION relating to this request may be examined at the Community Development
Information Counter (lower level), on Mondays and Wednesday through Friday from 8:00 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., and Tuesdays from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except holidays.
Sincerely,
dNXW '�-e viy"I"
Barbara G. Senness, AICP
Planning Manager
2002152propnotice
®tea —
PLYMOUTH ABeautifulPlace?o Live
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447-1482 • TELEPHONE (763) 509-5000
jok
January 3, 2003
10
CITY OF
PLYMOUTFF
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PILLAR HOMES (2002158)
Dear Property Owner:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this is to inform you of a
request by Pillar Homes, under file 2002158, for conditional use permits to 1) exceed
1,000 square feet for a four -car garage and 2) construct a caretaker apartment over the
garage for a new home to be constructed on property located on the southernmost lot on
future Shadyview Lane south of 8`h Avenue North.
Hennepin County records indicate your property is within 500 feet of the site of this
proposal. You are hereby notified of, and cordially invited to attend a Public Hearing to
be held by the Plymouth Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m., on Wednesday, January 15,
2003, in the City Council Chambers at the Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth
Boulevard. The public will be invited to offer questions and comments concerning this
application at that time, or feel free to call the City Planning Department at (763) 509-
5450 for more information.
INFORMATION relating to this request may be examined at the Community
Development Information. Counter (lower level), on Mondays and Wednesday through
Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Tuesdays from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except
holidays.
Sincerely,
wv� `Lt,VIV`�
Barbara G. Senness, AICP
Planning Manager
2002158propnotice
L�
PLYMOUTH A Beautifu[Place ?o Live
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447-1482 • TELEPHONE (763) 509-5000
CITV OF
December 31, 2002 PUMOUTR
Bruce Johnson
16405 36`h Place North
Plymouth, MN 55446
SUBJECT: Changes to Lighting Regulations
Dear Bruce:
Thank you for all the research and suggestions you provided regarding potential changes
to the City's lighting regulations. We have found that many of your suggestions are good
ones and have incorporated them into the proposed ordinance changes. In light of your
suggestions, we have taken additional time to examine the staff proposal and do
additional research of our own. We have also hired a professional lighting consultant to
provide us assistance and advice. As part of this work, we have prepared a detailed
response to each of the changes you have proposed. The point -by -point response is
attached.
I understand you may have continued your research on lighting regulation, and I would
be happy to consider any additional suggestions you may have. The City Council is
tentatively scheduled to review proposed changes to the lighting regulations on January
28. In order to fully consider any additional research you may have prior to that meeting,
I would appreciate receiving it before January 20.
Thank you again for all of your input. It has helped us prepare a better set of regulations
to guide the future development of lighting within the City.
Sincerely,
MV4 ^ qViroc^
Barbara G. Senness, AICP
Planning Manager.
cc: Plymouth City Council
Enclosure
PLYMOUTH A BeautifufPface 7o Live
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447-1482 • TELEPHONE (763) 509-5000
®F-^ww www.d.oivmoiith.mmus
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DATE: December 31, 2002
TO: Bruce Johnson
FROM: Barbara Senness
SUBJECT: Staff Response to Proposed Changes to Lighting Regulations
The following is a point -by -point response to changes in the City's lighting regulations
you proposed in a November 13, 2002 letter.
Definitions
Height
Your Proposal: Height "means the distance from finished grade to the top most portion
of any light emitting source, i.e. lamp, surface or lens."
Original Staff Proposal and Response: Staff did not include a separate definition of
height in the draft ordinance reviewed by the Planning Commission. The revised lighting
regulations presented to the Planning Commission tied maximum height to the height of a
luminaire, which includes the complete lighting unit. This would generally be slightly
more restrictive than your proposal as the top of the housing of a luminaire is generally
located above the lamp, surface or lens. In addition, the top of the luminaire is more
easily measurable.
Recommended Chances to Ordinance Draft: Place all the lighting -related definitions
together, as is done with several other categories, such as fences, flood, shoreland and
signs. Add a definition of height as follows: "The distance from the finished grade to the
topmost portion of the luminaire." These changes are reflected in the proposed
ordinance.
Full Cutoff
Your Proposal: Full cutoff "means outdoor light fixtures shielded or constructed so that
all of the light rays emitted by the fixture are projected below a horizontal plane passing
Ld
through the lowest point on the fixture from which light is emitted. Drop or sag lens type
fixtures shall not be allowed."
Note: Technical Definition: "A luminaire light distribution is designated as a full -cutoff
when the candlepower per 1000 lumens does not numerically exceed 0 (0%) at a vertical
angle of 90 degrees or greater above nadir and 100 (10%) at a vertical angle of 80
degrees above nadir. This applies to any lateral angle around the luminaire." This
definition does not supersede the above restriction on drop or sag lens type luminaires.
Original Staff Proposal and Response: The staff originally included the following
definition of full cutoff—"A light fixture that cuts off all upward transmission of light."
However, staff had also originally proposed using a 90 -degree cutoff to regulate light
pollution as opposed to full cutoff.
Staff has since learned through additional research that there is a lot of confusion
surrounding the terms used to describe the way luminaires restrict the light emanating
from the lamps contained within them (source: Outdoor Lighting Code Handbook,
International Dark -Sky Association, 2000). The terms "full cutoff' and "90 -degree
cutoff' are similar and represent a numerical description of light output and are
technically defined by IESNA (Illuminating Engineering Society of North America). The
term "fully shielded" eliminates the potential for uplight, although as stated in the
Handbook, it is somewhat less restrictive than full cutoff. As also stated in the
Handbook, lighting professionals have both the need and the training to describe the light
intensity of a luminaire in detailed technical terms, while those administering local codes
generally do not. In addition, staff finds that local regulations should be easy for
residents and those affiliated with the development community to understand as well. To
achieve that objective, the Handbook recommends using the term "fully shielded" rather
than "full cutoff' in local lighting regulations.
Recommended Changes to Ordinance Draft: Following additional research, staff does
not recommend use of the term full cutoff in the regulations. Instead, we are
recommending that the regulations include the term fully shielded defined to mean
"constructed in such a manner that all light emitted by the fixture, either directly from
the lamp or a dosing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of
the luminaire, is projected below the horizontal. In addition, the light emitting,
distributing, reflecting and refracting components of the light fixture, i.e. lamp, lens,
reflective surface, etc., shall not extend beyond the shielding of the fixture. " This change
is reflected in the proposed ordinance.
Light Trespass
Your Proposal: Light trespass "means any artificial light that causes unwanted light on
adjacent properties or undesirable or nuisance glare in the normal field of view."
Original Staff Proposal and Response: Light trespass means "the shining of light
produced by a luminaire beyond the boundaries of the property on which it is located."
0
2
The City's current regulations do not contain a definition of light trespass. Staff selected
the proposed definition because it is straightforward and simple to interpret. The
definition you have proposed includes several terms—unwanted light, undesirable or
nuisance glare, normal field of view—that are open to wide differences in interpretation,
which would make enforcement difficult.
Recommended Changes to Ordinance Draft: Use the light trespass definition as
currently proposed by staff.
Prohibited Exterior Lighting Fixtures
Your Proposal: The following would be prohibitied:
1) Mercury vapor and low or high pressure sodium fixtures and lamps except when
used for landscape lighting accent purposes.
2) Halide light fixtures.
3) Drop or sag lens type fixtures.
4) Searchlights, laser lights or similar high intensity outdoor lights.
5) Lighting fixtures mounted in such a way as to illuminate a roof or an awning.
6) Lighting fixtures mounted to aim light only towards a property line.
7) Lighting fixtures mounted in a way that is distracting to motorists or in a way that
interferes with the safe operation of a motor vehicle, as may be determined by the
City by the Engineer.
8) Lighting that is blinking, moving or which changes in intensity.
Original Staff Proposal and Response: The proposed changes as reviewed by the
Planning Commission did not contain any prohibitions such as those you have
recommended. However, assuming the City Council requires that all non -decorative
luminaires outside the public right-of-way are fully shielded, drop or sag lens fixtures
would not be allowed in these instances.
The lamps commonly used in outdoor lighting include incandescent, mercury vapor,
metal halide, high pressure sodium, fluorescent and low pressure sodium. Incandescent
is the most common type of lamp used in homes, indoors and outdoors. It is by far the
least energy efficient of the common lamp types. Some lighting codes prohibit mercury
vapor lamps. This type of lamp is no longer specified for extensive use in outdoor
lighting as the technology is outdated and mercury vapor lamps have a relatively low
lighting efficiency. Metal halide and fluorescent lamps are roughly twice as efficient as
mercury vapor and equal in popularity when it is necessary to have colors appear close to
their daytime appearance. However, a major disadvantage of fluorescent lamps is that
light output is diminished at low temperatures and a lamp may not even start at very low
temperatures. Consequently, they are little used in Minnesota for exterior lighting. High
pressure sodium is typically used for street lighting (both Xcel and Wright Hennepin use
this type of lamp), parking lot lighting and other similar applications. It is generally more
energy efficient than metal halide and is used when true color is not critical. Low
q0
3
pressure sodium is the most efficient light source. It is used for street lighting, parking
lots and security lighting. There is no color rendering with this type of lamp, but
adequate color rendering is possible with system designs that also use a few metal halide
fixtures to add some white light.
Several of the items you are recommending (specifically, nos. 4 through 8) are addressed
in the City's sign regulations as discussed below.
4) The City's sign regulations do not allow spotlights, skytrackers or similar
devices, unless they are approved by the Zoning Administrator as part of a
temporary promotional event.
5) The sign regulations would allow illumination of a roof or an awning in
conjunction with a building sign if the light source is not directly visible and is
arranged to reflect away from adjoining properties.
6) The sign regulations state that a light source shall be arranged to reflect away
from adjoining properties.
7) The sign regulations do not allow an illumination source to be placed so as to
cause confusion or hazard to traffic or to conflict with traffic control signs or
lights.
8) The sign regulations do not allow illumination involving movement, by reason
of the lighting arrangement, the lighting source or other devices. This
includes blinking, flashing, and rotating, except that signs alternatively
displaying time and temperature may be allowed. Staff finds that lighting of
this type occurs in conjunction with elements that are defined as part of
signage and therefore, that additional prohibitions on this type of lighting are
not required.
For those elements that occur only as part of a sign, staff finds that adequate regulation is
already in place. For those elements that could exist in relation to other exterior lighting
applications, staff finds that the requirements from the sign regulations bear repeating in
the lighting regulations.
Recommended Changes to Ordinance Draft: Add a new section to the lighting
regulations addressing lighting fixtures that are prohibited. Prohibited fixtures would
include:
■ Mercury vapor lamps (as they are an outdated, low efficiency lighting source)
■ Lighting fixtures mounted to aim light only toward a property line
■ Lighting fixtures mounted in a way so as to cause confusion or hazard to traffic or
to conflict with traffic control signs or lights
These changes are reflected in the proposed ordinance.
4
Section 21105.06. Exterior Lighting
Your Proposal: Subdivision 4(a) of the general performance standards would state "All
luminaires shall be full -cutoff type and shall be mounted horizontal, i.e., no tilt shall be
allowed."
Original Staff Proposal and Response: The proposed language as reviewed by the
Planning Commission stated "All luminaires must have a cutoff angle equal to or less
than ninety (90) degrees." As discussed above, after completing additional research, staff
finds that different terminology would be more appropriate in addressing light pollution
or uplight. The International Dark Sky Association Outdoor Lighting Code Handbook
recommends that lighting codes use the term "fully shielded" in regulation of uplight
rather than referring to cutoffs. The Handbook states the following:
"Simple elimination of uplight, conforming to the definition of fully shielded but no
further, has been found to give quite good results, certainly for uplight elimination,
but even in the reduction of glare. Though the term is somewhat less restrictive than
full cutoff, it has practical advantages. You can almost always tell if a luminaire is
fully shielded, just by looking at the luminaire as it is installed or at a picture of how
it is meant to be installed. This is a great advantage for the administration of a
lighting code. You cannot tell by looking if a luminaire is semicutoff, cutoff, or full
cutoff. For this you must obtain, and be able to evaluate, reliable technical
photometric specifications." (IDA Handbook, Section 9.16)
The Handbook goes on to state that lighting codes should be written to avoid technical
specification if at all possible. The reasoning behind this recommendation is that
technical photometric data is often lacking in completeness and accuracy and recognizing
when this might be the case is also difficult, requiring outside expertise. Staff finds that it
is preferable to develop regulations that can be easily administered, yet still achieve the
objective of reducing light pollution.
A number of communities with extensive lighting regulations use the term fully shielded
versus full cutoff. They include the City of Davis and San Diego County in California
and the Cities of Flagstaff, Tempe and Tucson and Pima County in Arizona.
Recommended Changes to Ordinance Draft: As discussed in the Definitions section
above, after completing additional research, staff recommends the following language for
Subd. 4(a)(1): "All luminaires must be fully shielded and shall be mounted horizontally,
i.e., no tilt shall be allowed. Any fixtures within 300 feet of a residential property line
shall be equipped with or modified to incorporate a house side shield to limit direct or
reflected glare observed from the residential property. " This change is reflected in the
proposed ordinance.
'SI—
Luminaires Adjacent to Residential Properties
Your Proposal: The height and shield restrictions must 1) be expanded to 500 feet; 2)
include all parking lot light where the fixtures have a line of sight into a residential area;
3) include contiguous lots to a commercial development that have a line of sight into an
adjacent residential area.
Original Staff Proposal and Response: Both the existing and proposed lighting
regulations include greater restrictions for luminaires within 300 feet of residential
property. This same distance is used elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance to identify the
need for greater restrictions on development. Other instances where the 300 feet is used
relate to loading docks and drive through businesses.
The proposed regulations reviewed by the Planning Commission stated that when a
luminaire is located within 300 feet of a residential property, the height shall not exceed
25 feet. Under the current regulations, the greater height restriction extends to all of the
luminaires on a lot within 300 feet of a residential property line. That was also the intent
with the revised regulations, but we recognize that further clarification is needed in the
proposed language to maintain the same intent.
To better address light trespass when luminaires are located adjacent to residential
development, staff supports further revision to the shielding requirements as reviewed by
the Planning Commission. Staff concurs that the concern about light trespass you have
raised is a potential concern for luminaires within 300 feet of a residential property line.
For such fixtures, the addition of a house side shield will reduce the amount of light
emitted from the side of the fixture facing the residential area. We do not find that such
shielding is required for luminaires beyond 300 feet as light from the residential side of
these fully shielded fixtures would have limited potential for glare as observed from the
residential property.
Recommended Changes to Ordinance Draft. Revise the section of the proposed
regulations regarding height of luminaires adjacent to residential property to clarify that
the regulations affect all luminaires located on a lot within 300 feet of a residential
property line. In addition, revise the section regarding shielding of luminaires to require
a house side shield on all luminaires within 300 feet of a residential property line. These
changes are reflected in the proposed ordinance.
Submission of Plans and Evidence of Compliance
Your Proposal: You have suggested the following language be added to the ordinance to
regulate information submitted with planning applications.
A. The application for any required city approval involving nonexempt outdoor light
fixtures shall include evidence that the proposed work will comply with this
J3
6
chapter. The submission shall contain, but not limited to, four complete sets of
the following:
1. The location of the site where the outdoor light fixtures will be installed;
2. Plans showing the location and type of all fixtures, both existing and
proposed, on the premises, including point -by -point lighting level
printouts with the calculation areas delineated where required;
3. A description of the outdoor light fixtures including, but not limited to,
manufacturer's catalog cuts, photometric report with candela distribution,
drawings, and shielding information;
4. Justification for light loss factors (LLF) less than eight percent.
B. The above required plans and descriptions shall be sufficiently complete to enable
the city to readily determine wither compliance with the requirements of this
chapter will be secured. If such plans and descriptions cannot enable this ready
determination by reason of the nature or configuration of the devices, fixtures or
lamps proposed, the applicant shall submit further evidence of compliance
enabling such determination.
C. Submittal and drawings shall be signed by a licensed professional engineer or by
the licensed electrical contractor that is performing the work. This engineer or
contractor shall be held responsible for the content and accuracy of the submitted
design. Submittal must contain the name of the company that prepared the
drawings and the name, title and telephone number of the person that performed
the design work.
D. All projects resubmitted for approval shall include a written description of all
changes and comments keyed and attached to the plan check comments.
Original Staff Proposal and Response: The proposed ordinance changes as reviewed by
the Planning Commission included the following additions to the City's site plan
requirements.
Lighting Plan. The plan shall depict all exterior lighting as to its location,
orientation and configuration for the development. This must include:
(1) Luminaire height.
(2) Luminaire and standard technical specifications.
(3) Intensity of illumination measured at the least point of illumination
and the greatest point of illumination when measured from ground level.
(4) Type of light source (Metal Hailde, High Pressure Sodium, etc.).
(5) Hours of illumination.
7
(6) Photometric plan for each classification of lighting with points no
greater than 30 feet apart.
The specific requirements proposed by staff are very similar to what you are proposing,
with the exception of the proposed requirement for justification of light loss factors less
than 80 percent. The intent of the requirements staff is proposing is to make them
straightforward and simple to understand in order to make them easy to enforce.
You are proposing language regarding the number of plans that need to be submitted and
the fact that plans must be complete. The City already requires ten sets of all plans, as
opposed to the four sets you have proposed. In addition, staff reviews all development
applications for completeness and does not commence review until an applicant provides
all the required material. Staff reviews all submittals, including plan revisions and plans
submitted .for building permits, according to the same standards. The additional specific
requirements proposed by staff will facilitate the determination of completeness for
lighting plans.
Light loss factor projects lighting system performance after a given period of time under
certain conditions, taking into account variations in temperature and voltage, dirt build
up, lamp depreciation and maintenance. Staff finds that addressing light loss factors may
have merit, but it is not often addressed in regulations as it is a very subjective matter.
Staff found only two ordinances (Palm Desert, CA and the Pennsylvania Outdoor
Lighting Code) that addressed light loss factors. Palm Desert requires justification for a
factor of 80 percent and the Pennsylvania code requires the same for a factor of 70
percent or greater. Staff found another source that discussed light loss factors that
suggested a factor of 60 percent. The consultant from Schuler and Shook also indicated
that light loss factors are not generally addressed in lighting ordinances, but he indicated
that including a light loss factor requirement was not a bad idea. He suggested if the City
did add this requirement, that a factor of 70 percent be used. Given the subjective nature
of light loss factor and the fact that it is not commonly used, even in the ordinances that
are held up as models, staff does not see an urgent need to add this requirement. On the
other hand, it could offer an additional tool in prohibiting inappropriate light sources.
Consequently, staff finds no harm in adding a requirement for justifying a light loss
factor of 70 percent or greater.
You have proposed that the City require lighting plans be signed by a competent
professional. The City requires that most of the plans associated with development
applications be so signed. Staff finds that it is reasonable to extend this requirement to
lighting plans. In discussions with the consultant, staff learned that there is currently no
widely accepted certification for lighting professionals. There is an emerging standard of
"lighting certified" professional that may come into wider acceptance in the future. For
the time being, staff finds requiring that either an engineer or lighting professional sign
the plans is the most reasonable alternative.
Recommended Changes to Ordinance Draft: Add requirements to the lighting plan for 1)
justification for light loss factors of 70 percent or greater and 2) all plans associated with
alighting plan to be signed by an engineer or alighting professional. These changes are
reflected in the proposed ordinance.
Existing Lighting Prior to New Regulations
Your Proposal: All outdoor light fixtures existing and legally installed prior to the
effective date of this ordinance are exempt from the requirements of this ordinance,
except that when existing luminaires are reconstructed or replaced, such reconstruction or
replacement shall be in compliance with this ordinance.
Original Staff Proposal and Response: Staff is not recommending any change to this
portion of the current regulations as it conforms with State law. Currently, the City can
only require conformance with the ordinance when a property owner proposes to replace
50 percent of the existing exterior fixtures in any one year period. Staff initially looked
at expanding the current requirement, but after discussion with the City Attorney,
determined that any expansion of this requirement would be in violation of the State law
governing nonconforming uses.
Recommended Chan-aes to Ordinance Draft: Staff is not recommending any change in
the current Zoning Ordinance language.
Violations and Penalties: Violations Constitute Public Nuisance
Your Proposal: You have proposed a separate violations and penalties section for the
lighting regulations as well as language related to violation of the regulations as a public
nuisance.
Original Staff Proposal and Response: Staff did not address this area in the proposed
ordinance as the Zoning Ordinance already contains a section on violations and penalties
that is consistent with State law.
Recommended Changes to Ordinance Draft: Staff is not recommending any change in
the current Zoning Ordinance language.
� C�'
9
wz• 44i i
c�
74
Bruce Johnson
16045,36h Place North
Plymouth, MN 55446
November 13, 2002
Barbara G. Senness, Planning Manager
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447-1482
SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to Lighting Regulations
Dear Barbara,
Please look to amend the proposed exterior lighting regulations as follows:
Definitions
Height: means the distance from finished grade to the top most portion of any light emitting
source, i.e.; lamp, surface or lens.
Full -cutoff: means outdoor light fixtures shielded or construct so that all of the light rays emitted
by the fixture are projected below a horizontal plane passing through the lowest point on the
fixture from which light is emitted. Drop or sag lens type fixtures shall not be allowed.
Note: Technical Definition: "A luminaire light distribution is designated as a full -cutoff when the
candlepower per 1000 lamp lumens does not numerically exceed 0 (0%) at a vertical angle of 90
degrees or greater above nadir and 100 (10%) at a vertical angle of 80 degrees above nadir. The
applies to any lateral angle around the luminaire." This definition does not supersede the above
restriction on drop or sag lens type luminaries.
Light trespass: means any artificial light that causes unwanted light on adjacent properties or
undesirable or nuisance glare in the normal field of view.
Prohibited Exterior Lighting Fixtures
1) Mercury vapor and low or high pressure sodium fixtures and lamps except when used
for landscape lighting accent purposes.
2) Halide light fixtures.
3) Drop or sag lens type fixtures.
4) Searchlights, laser lights, or similar high intensity outdoor lights.
5) Lighting fixtures mounted in such a way as to illuminate a roof or an awning.
6) Lighting fixtures mounted to aim light only towards a property line.
7) Lighting fixtures mounted in a way that is distracting to motorists or in a way that
interferes with the safe operation of a motor vehicle, as may be determined by the City
Engineer.
8) Lighting that is blinking, moving, or which changes in intensity.
R
Section 21105.06. Exterior Lighting
Subd. 4. General Performance Standards:
(a) All luminaries shall be full -cutoff type and shall be mounted horizontal, i.e., no tilt shall
be allowed. (Replaces: All f min luminaries must have a cutoff angle equal to or less than ninety
(90) degrees)
Luminaries Adjacent to Residential Properties
As proposed, when a luminaire is located within three hundred (300) feet of a residential
property, the height of the fixture shall not exceed twenty-five feet and fixtures shall be equipped
with shielding devices.
This means it would be possible to have a brightly lighted parking lot adjacent to a residential
area and have only one freestanding luminaire restricted to 25 foot and be equipped with a
shielding device. The rest of the fixtures beyond 300 feet could be at 30 feet and without any
shielding devices. This is not acceptable.
A good example is the Cub store at Vicksburg and 36`h Avenue. The light glare from that
parking lot is excessively bright and modifying one or two fixtures within 300 feet of Sugar Hills
would be meaningless ... actually silly.
The height and shield restrictions must 1) be expanded to 500 feet; 2) include all parking lot lights
where the.fixtures have a line of sight into a residential area; 3) include contiguous lots to a
commercial development that have a line of sight into an adjacent residential area.
Submission of plans and evidence of compliance
To be effective the new regulations must include a mechanism to assure compliance.
Unfortunately, the current review/approval process through Community Development, Planning
Commission, City Council and building inspection has proven inadequate to assure compliance.
A good case in point is Plymouth Marketplace. A large number of violations went through the
entire review/approval process completely undetected. This included parking lot lighting,
decorative fixtures at front of the two retail buildings, wall fixtures at Noodles/Chipotle, wall
fixtures at the rear of the two retail buildings, vertical wall fixtures at Ruby Tuesdays, outdoor
seating lighting at Old Chicago and sign lighting at Chipotle. Only the parking lot lighting could
be excused as a matter.of interpretation. All other violations were straightforward.
There have been several other instances of non-compliance cases subsequent to passage of the
February 2000 regulations. These include the revised parking lot lights at Cub and the new
commercial developments along Highway 55. Installed but non-compliant. Something's wrong.
To remedy this situation the new regulations must require the following:
A. The application for any required city approval involving nonexempt outdoor light fixtures
shall include ev,.dence that the proposed work will comply with this chapter. The
submission shall contain, but not be limited to, four complete sets of the following:
J�
1., The location of the site where the outdoor light fixtures will be installed;
2. Plans showing the location and type of all fixtures, both `existing and proposed, on
the premises, including point -by -point lighting level printouts with calculation areas
delineated where required;
3. A description of the outdoor light fixtures including, but not limited to,
manufacturer's catalog cuts, photometric report with candela distribution,
drawings, and shielding information;
4. Justification for light loss factors (LLF) less than eighty percent.
B. The above required plans and descriptions shall be sufficiently complete to enable the city
to readily determine whether compliance with the requirements of this chapter will be
secured. If such plans and descriptions cannot enable this ready determination by reason of
the nature or configuration of the devices, fixtures or lamps proposed, the applicant shall
submit further evidence of compliance enabling such determination.
C. Submittal and drawings shall be signed by a licensed professional engineer or by the
licensed electrical contractor that is performing the work. This engineer or contractor shall
be held responsible for the content and accuracy of the submitted design. Submittal must
contain the name of the company that prepared the drawings and the name, title and
telephone number of the person that performed the design work.
D. All projects resubmitted for approval shall include a written description of all changes and
comments keyed and attached to the plan check comments.
Existing Lighting Prior to New Regulations
All outdoor light fixtures existing and legally installed prior to the effective date of this ordinance
are exempt from the requirements of this ordinance, except that when existing luminaries are
reconstructed or replaced, such reconstruction or replacement shall be in compliance with this
ordinance.
As proposed: "Any lighting in existence before the effective date of this ordinance that does not comply
with the requirements shall be considered legally non -conforming. However, if a property owner
proposes to replace fifty (50) percent or more of the existing exterior light fixtures or standards in any one
(1) year period, the fixtures or standards must be replaced in conformance with this Chapter." The as
proposed, opens the door for a property owner to skirt around meeting new regulations by replacing
49.5% on December 3151 and 49.5% on January 151. It also allows the property owner to grandfather
lighting fixtures that were not legally conforming under the previous ordinance. That's ridiculous.
1. Copies of the new lighting regulations must be sent out to all existing commercial / retail
establishments in Plymouth. A cover letter should explain the requirement to conform
and procedures to be followed if a property owner proposes to replace existing exterior
light fixtures.
2. A mechanism must be in place to identify existing non -conforming conditions and
formally notify owners of that condition.
Violations and Penalties
It shall be unlawful for any individual to operate, erect, construct, enlarge, alter, replace, move,
improve, or convert any lighting structure, or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation
. of any provision of this Chapter. Any individual violating any provision of this Chapter shall be
deemed guilty of an infraction or misdemeanor as hereinafter specified. Such individual shall be
17
F of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any
ny of the provisions of this Chapter is committed, continued, or permitted.
al convicted of a violation of this Chapter shall be 1 r
P ()guilty of an infraction offense -"
by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation; (2) guilty of
offense and punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for a
on on the same site and perpetrated by the same individual shall constitute a
offense and shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000)
the in jail, or both. Payment of any penalty herein shall not relieve any individual
Dnsibility for correcting the violation.
:onstitute Public Nuisance.
tructure erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, replaced, moved, improved, or
trary to the provisions of this Chapter shall be, and the same is hereby declared to be,
a public nuisance and subject to abatement in the manner provided by law. Any
I or neglect to obtain a permit as required by this Chapter shall be prima facia
fact that a public nuisance has been committed in connection with the erection,
!nlargement, alteration, replacement, improvement, or conversion of alighting
:ed, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, improved, or converted contrary
as of this Chapter.
the above in the proposed regulations to be brought forth to the City Council.
Bruce Johnson
cc: Mayor & City Council
.A
WSB
& Associates, Inc.
.lemoria( Highway
.jite 300
Ainneapoiis � 'J;
• i-:ZT=
,Ainnesota '-
,3422
•53541.4800�' `�
"53.541.1700 FAX
Memorandum
To: Sandra Vargas, Hennepin County
Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council
Judy Sventek, Metropolitan Council
Charlotte Cohn, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - OAIBS
Tom Hovey, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources — Waters
Wayne Barstad, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources — Ecological Services
Keith Cherryholmes, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Mark Zabel, Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Phil Belfiori, Board of Water and Soil Resources
Terry Bovee, Minnesota Department of Health - Mankato District
John Barten, Three Rivers Park District
Gary Morrison, Hassan Township
Bret Heitkamp, City of Champlin
Sue Verb in, City of Corcoran
Shirley Slater, City of Dayton
Alan Madsen, City of Maple Grove
Paul Robinson, City of Medina
Dwight Johnson, City of Plymouth
Gary Eitel, City of Rogers
C. Judie Anderson, JASS�,� 004,( S
Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission �� . T S
Ali Durgunoglu, Hennepin Conservation District
From: Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission
Andi Moffatt, WSB & Associates, Inc -
t•
Date: December 23, 2002
Be: Responses to Comments - Elm Creek Watershed Management Plan
WSB Project No. 1334-00
As part of the development of the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission's Second
Generation Watershed Management Plan, the draft Plan was submitted to State review agencies
and the member communities within the Commission's boundaries on June 19, 2002. The
required 60 -day comment period ended August 23, 2002. Comments were received before this
date from: Department of Natural Resources, City of Maple Grove, and the City of Plymouth.
The Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, October 9, 2002 at 7:00pm. No members
of the public were present at the hearing. The meeting minutes are attached. The Commission
subsequently discussed the Plan and made revisions. The Commission met again on November
13, 2002 to further discuss and revise the Plan. Additionally, they made an second request to the
member communities to review the Plan and provide comments by November 20, 2002.
Additional comments were received from the City of Corcoran and the Three Rivers Park
District. These comments and responses to comments are included in this memo.
The revisions made to the Plan based on comments received and Commission changes are
attached for your review and information. The revisions have been highlighted for ease in
reviewing. With this submittal, the revised draft Plan is being transmitted to
you for the second and final required 45 -day review period This review will
end February 10, 2003. All comments should be forwarded to WSB by 4:30
,3/
Minneapolis - St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer
December 23, 2002
Page 2
on this date. Once this final 45 -day review is complete, the Commission will consider the
comments and determine if further revisions are needed. The Plan will then be submitted to
BWSR for their final review and approval.
Outlined below, please find responses to the comments received as part of the first comment
period:
Comments from the City of Maple Grove
Comment #1: In referring to the Elm Creek Watershed Management Plan, there are numerous
"study limits" of the flood hazard areas. I am familiar in one case in particular, and I suspect that
there are more, whereas parcels, or portions thereof, lie outside the study area and are lower than
the cross-section elevation of the flood hazard area.
From a reasonable water management perspective,it would be the City of Maple Grove's
intention to require building elevations such that the free board begins at the flood elevation. This
would require fill which may or may not be problematic What is the Commission's position on
critical upland storage areas outside the study limit?
Response: Standard A.I.1 requires a plan review by the local permitting authority if a
project is within a 100 -year floodplain or upland flood storage area. The floodplain is
defined as "that floodplain associated with an event that has a 1 percent chance of being I
equaled or exceeded during any year..." as outlined in Appendix C. Therefore, projects
that are outside the floodplain "study limits" but impact 100 -year storage areas will be
reviewed by the local permitting authority. The position of the Commission is to
minimize property damage through water resource management and manage public
expenditures to control and correct flooding problems (Section III). Low floor elevations
would be required to be a minimum of 2 -feet above the 100 -year high water elevation
(Standard A.I.9) regardless of whether or not the area is within a defined "study area".
This 100 -year high water elevation would be determined by a site specific
hydraulic/hydrologic analysis that would be completed as part of the development plans.
The definition of 100 -year floodplain has been added to Standards A.I.I and A.I.7 for '
clarification.
Comments from the Department of Natural Resources
Comment #1: Land and Water Resources Inventory (Section II) - General Comments
This section identifies where detailed information about fish and wildlife habitat and unique
natural resources can be obtained. We recommend that the following additional information
sources for this detailed information also be included.
The Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) is a vegetation oriented '
classification system designed to identify natural and cultural land cover types using
a standardized methodology. The MLCCS provides the ability to identify all lands in
true land cover terms, regardless of ecological quality or function. Built-up areas are
classified according to type and amount of vegetation, as well as the percentage of
the area that consists of impervious surfaces. We encourage watershed management
organizations to engage in the process of classifying land use within their boundaries
using the MLCCS. '
D 1 . F.•IWPW/N11334-001122302CRMemoFinaLdoc I
December 23, 2002
Page 11
Comment #18: Appendices
The DNR commends the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission for the documents
included in the Appendices. These are useful documents and appropriate resources of
information for this Watershed Management Plan.
Response: No response is necessary.
Comments from the City of Plymouth
Comment #1: Section II — The MUSA boundary shown in Figure II -3 should be updated.
Response: Figure U-3 has been updated with recently available information from the
Met Council.
Comment #2: Section III. Policy No. [A]6 states "The Commission shall develop standards to
prevent the change in conveyance and timing of flood waters." The word "prevent" should be
changed to "manage". On a subwatershed basis, it will be very difficult to prevent and change,
but on a broader watershed basis, they can be managed.
Response: This policy has been revised as suggested.
Comment #3: Policy No. [A]9 states "Relevant floodplain management costs shall be bome by
all the communities in the watershed in an equitable manner, as determined by the Commission."
The meaning of this policy is unclear. It is our belief that the policies for management for the
floodplain should be set by the Commission, but each community should then be responsible for
the management within their community.
Response: The Commission agrees that it is the Commission's responsibility to establish
policies and then have the policies implemented by the local community. This policy
was added in response to a concern about who would pay for projects. This policy has
been revised to state the following:
Policy A.9: Costs associated with floodplain management studies or projects shall be
borne by all the commu'hities in the watershed in an equitable manner, as determined by
the Commission and the Joint Powers Agreement.
Comment #4: Water Quality. Policy No.[B] 1 states "The Commission adopts the DNB's
shoreland ordinance." The Commission does not adopt ordinances, it is requested that this be
changed to "encourages adoption of'.
Response: The following changes have been made to the plan:
Section III - Policy B.1: The Commission encourages adoption of the DNR's model
shoreland ordinance.
Standard B.4: The Commission encourages member communities to adopt a shoreland
ordinance in conformance with the Department of Natural Resources. If the community
does not have a shoreland ordinance, the Commission shall enforce the DNR sample
shoreland ordinance. A sample ordinance is included in Appendix H.
7
F.1WPWliVl1334-001121301CRLlemoFinal.doc
J
k
December 23, 2002
Page 12
e
Section VI — A.S: Adoption of a shoreland ordinance in compliance with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (encouraged).
Comment #5: Recreation, Fish, and Wildlife. Policy No's. [C] 1 and 3. These policies address
fish and wildlife habitat and protection of water based recreation activities. Policy No. 2 and 4
also address the same issue. It is recommended that Policy No's. 1 and 3 be deleted.
Response: Policy No.1 allows the Commission to establish standards for fish and
wildlife habitat protection. One of these policies is to encourage habitat protection
through surface and groundwater management practices (No. 2). Policy No. 3 allows the
Commission to establish standards for the protection of water based recreation while
Policy No. 4 officially states that the Commission will work with and support a variety of
agencies towards the protection of these resources. No change is -necessary.
Comment #6: Enhancement of Public Participation, Information, and Education. Policy No.
[D] 2 states, "The Commission encourages member cities to develop water resource public
education programs." It is recommended that this policy be revised to state as follows:
"The Commission encourages member cities to develop coordinated water resources
public education programs to avoid duplication of effort and costs."
Response: Policy D.2 has been revised as stated above.
Comment #7: Public Ditch Systems. Policy [E].2 states "The Commission shall work towards
resolving the issues associated with lack of management of public ditch systems in the
watershed." As stated elsewhere in the plan, Hennepin County is responsible for the public ditch
system. It is recommended that this policy be revised to the following:
"The Commission shall work with Hennepin County in resolving any issues associated
with management of the public ditch system in the watershed."
Response: Policy E.2 has been revised as stated above.
Comment #8: Wetlands. Policy No. [G]4 should be deleted since it is a duplication of Policy
No. 2.
Response: Policy GA has been deleted as it is a requirement of the Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) and G.2 states that the Commission will manage wetlands in
conformance with the WCA.
Comment #9: Erosion. It is unclear what benefit would result from the Commission adopting
the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) standards for cropland erosion unless a
regulatory program for cropland is established. It appears the intent is to encourage landowners
to use the NRCS standards. This should be clarified.
Response: This policy has been clarified to state the following:
F: I WPWIM 1334-001122302CRMemoFinaLdoc
k..
December 23, 2002
Page 13
Policy GA: The Commission encourages the implementation of the NRCS standards for
cropland erosion control."
Comment #10: Several policies state that the Commission will develop standards. Appendix F
contains standards addressing the policies so it is unclear why additional standards need to be
developed. The standards should be clearly outlined in the proposed plan and not left for future
adoption by the Commission and then require implementation by the cities.
Response: This language was based on input and follow up from the Task Force since
the Task Force stated that the policies and standards be separated. This allowed the
policies to be more general and the standards to be more technical. Further, some
standards have not yet been developed, such as manure management and livestock
setbacks. Since there were widely differing views on this issue raised at the public input
meetings and Task Force meetings, it was determined that developing a standard for
these issues at this time would impede the progress of the Plan development. Therefore,
these standards will be developed at a later date, likely with input from a number of
interested stakeholders. Also, it was determined that specific water quality goals for
different water bodies would be developed. HCD indicated that additional information
would need to be gathered in order to accomplish this task, so future standards associated
with meeting water quality goals for water bodies may be created. No change has been
made to the plan.
Comment #11: Elm Creek should be listed as a water body of concern in Plymouth on page IV -
1.
Response: This adjustment has been made to the Plan.
Comment #12: Page IV -9 I.1 states that "...existing programs are adequate to limit soil
erosion...". If this is correct than why if the first corrective action listed to require cities to
develop additional programs? It appears that this action is unnecessary.
Response: The intent of this section was that if the programs/policies outlined within the
Plan were implemented by the member communities, there would be adequate programs
to limit erosion. Section IV.I.1 has been revised to state the following:
Section IV.I.1: It is the position of the Commission that upon implementation of the
Policies and programs outlined within this Planthe programs are adequate to limit soil
erosion and corresponding water quality degradation, provided that enforcement of these
programs is expanded.
Comment #13: Section V. This section contains a proposed Capital Improvement Program
which could have an estimated cost of $2,915,000. It also indicates that the program would be
implemented over a ten year period (2002 — 2011). Based upon anticipated funding for a Capital
Improvement Program, we believe this is too aggressive a schedule to implement these projects
in a ten year period. It is recommended that the Capital Improvement Program be divided into
projects which would be implemented in each of the first five years (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,
and 2007); the next category would define projects for the next five to ten years without defining
an individual year; and the last portion of the program would define projects that would be
�7 S F.•IWPWIM1334-001122302CRMemoFinal.doc
December 23, 2002
Page 14
implemented beyond the ten year program.
T
r
Response: Changes to Section V — Implementation have been made based on this
comment and the comments received from the Commission at the October 9, 2002
meeting. These changes reflect the desire of the Commission to focus their resources on
a limited number of major items.
Comment #14: Item SMP -1 in Table V-2 refers to review of projects by the Commission.
Many locations in the standards also refer to the review of projects. The State Law anticipates
watersheds delegating the review of individual projects to the local communities when a local
plan that conforms with the watershed plan is in place. There does not seem to be provision for
this in the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission's 2' Generation Plan. This should
be clearly indicated in the plan. In addition, if the Commission is not required to review projects
because a city has taken that role the city should not have to pay for the service being provided
by the Commission to others. Provision for this should be included in the Plan.
Response: As required by State Law, each member community is required to develop a
local storm water management plan that is in conformance with the Commission's Plan
within two years of the Commission adopting their Plan. Section VI.A.1 states that
communities can either develop their own plan or adopt the Commission's plan by
reference. Once a local storm water plan is in conformance and it is adopted, if the
community so chooses, they can be the permitting authority, as is the case with many of
the communities within the Commission's area. As in many communities, when the
local city is the permitting authority, there can still be a review (not approval) of a plan.
The Commission will not "permit" any projects (unless they are the authorized LGU for
the Wetland Conservation Act), but provide review for the local community. The
policies and standards outlined in the Plan indicate that the Commission will review
projects when certain conditions are met (i.e. projects transcend municipal boundaries,
projects are of a certain size). This is not intended to take away authority from the local
community, just provide a review.
In regard to the financial aspect of paying for review services, the Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA) defines the level of cost participation by each community. Therefore,
the financing of the Commission is a function of the JPA and not the Plan and therefore
should be addressed either through the JPA and/or based on a fee schedule. No change
has been made to the Plan.
Comment #15: Item SMP -5 in Table V-2 has the ECWMC undertaking LGU responsibility.
This should be at the option of the individual cities. Several cities currently act as the LGU to
ensure consistent application of the Act across the city when the city includes multiple
watersheds. In addition the local governments taking advantage of this service should pay for it
rather than the Commission as a whole.
Response: SMP -5 has been revised to state that this applies to those cities that choose to
use this service. In regard to the cost issue, see the response to Comment #14.
Comment #16: Item SMP -11 in Table V-2 requires local communities to sweep streets at a
designated frequency. Many roadways are not under the jurisdiction of the local communities. It
3� F.•IWPWlNI1334-001122302CPMemoFinal.doc
December 23, 2002
Page 15
appears this requires cities to sweep streets that are not their responsibility. This item should be
modified to either not require sweeping of streets under other jurisdictions or designate the
responsibility of those jurisdictions.
Response: SMP -11 has been revised to clarify that this is for city owned streets. This
has also been revised in the Standards section.
Comment #17: Item SMS -2 in Table V-3 is to develop buffer width standards for water quality
ponds. Are buffers around water quality ponds beneficial? Will they improve the water quality
discharged from the pond as opposed to runoff entering the pond? This item should be removed
from the plan.
Response: SMS -2 has been removed from the Plan and Standard B.12 has been
revised to state the following:
Standard B.12: Buffer width requirements on storm ponds will be left to the discretion
of the local community.
Comment #18: Item SMS -21 in Table V-3 appears to require the city fund a water quality study
for Mud Lake. The purpose and scope of the study should be clearly defined to the City can
evaluate whether we agree on this item.
Response: The water quality of Mud Lake was presented to the Commission as a
concern, whether perceived or real, as part of the public input process. As part of the
development of the Plan, all issues (real or perceived) presented to the Commission as
part of the public input process were included in the Plan. Since the water body is within
the City of Plymouth's boundaries, it is an issue to be addressed at the local community
level. Therefore, the scope of the study that is needed can be determined by the City.
The cost estimates that have been included are simply included for planning purposes
and do not constitute any implication associated with scope.
Comment #19: Section VI.A. Tfiis section contains several regulatory programs that the
Commission is requiring the member communities to adopt and implement. Many of these
regulatory programs state that they must be "in conformance with the Commission policies and
standards". These standards should be clearly outlined in the proposed plan and not left to future
adoption by the Commission and then required implementation by the cities.
Response: See response to Plymouth Comment #10.
Comment #20: Section VI -A. Requirement No. 16 specifies the use of Low Impact
Development, infiltration and additional rate and volume control to maintain predevelopment
flow rates in certain creeks. This Plan should set the standards not specify how they are to be
met. The references to how to maintain flow rates should be removed from the Plan. It
Appendix M is included, it should be clear that it is for reference only.
Response: Based on this comment and extensive discussions that have occurred in the past
regarding this requirement (see also Plymouth Comment # 30), this standard and its associated
references in the Policies and Standards section that require the specific quantification of the
�I F.•IWPWINI1334-001122302CRMemoFinaLdoc
December 23, 2002
Page 16
timing of runoff in a subwatershed and the maintenance of pre -development flow rates within
Elm, Diamond, and Rush Creek have been revised. This has resulted in the revision of.
Standard A.II.9 and the removal of Standard A.II.10. Appendix L has been adjusted where
these requirements were listed. See response to Three Rivers Park District Comment #1.
Comment #21: Section VI.A. Requirement No. 19 states "Maintenance or reduction of existing
phosphorus levels upon development or redevelopment." If this is applied to each individual
development, it is unlikely that this can be achieved in all cases. If it is applied on a more
regional drainage area basis, it may be practical. The requirement should be revised to reference
implementation on a regional drainage area and provide flexibility.
Response: Standard B.9 and Section VI.A.19 have been revised to reflect the
flexibility outlined within this comment as follows:
Section VI.A.19 : Maintenance or reduction of existing phosphorus levels upon
development or redevelopment. This can be implemented on a regional/drainage area
basis if this standard is deemed im ra Aical on a site -b -site basis.
A sentence at the end of Standard B.9 has been added to state: "The Commission can
consider the implementation of this standard on a regional/drainage area basis if the
standard is deemed unpractical on a site-bv site basis
Comment #22: Section VI.A. Requirement No. 21 states that local communities will be
responsible for developing buffer widths and policies. Several other locations in the plan's
standards specify buffer widths for various applications. These are contradictory and should be
removed.
Response: There is a policy that encourages a 20' buffers around water bodies that
currently have adjacent development, but does not require these buffers. There is also a
policy that requires a 50' buffer width for new adjacent to Elm, Rush, N. Fork Rush, and
Diamond Creeks. Finally, there is a policy that the local community can develop their
own buffer width standards. Item 21 has been clarified to state the following:
Section VI.A.21: The local community shall be responsible for developing buffer widths
and policies for development around wetlands, watercourses. lakes and storm ponds.
The buffer policy will need to include at a minimum a 50' buffer requirement adjacent to
Elm Rush North Fork Rush and Diamond Creeks if a licable for new. The policy
will also at i minimum need to encourage existin Property owners to establish a 20'
buffer around lakes streams and wetlands for areas that are currently develo ed.
Comment #23: Section VI.A. Requirement No. 22 addresses implementation of the Capital
Improvement Program. The word "required" is used in this item. This would make is appear
that cities will be required to finance any project as determined by the Commission. It further
states that the cities can implement a storm water utility or trunk fee if they so choose to provide
financing. This requirement needs to be more general in nature that each project's financing is
determined on a case-by-case basis.
Response: Section VI.A.22 has been revised to state the following:
Ca F." WPWINI1334-001122302CRMemoFinal.doc
December 23, 2002
Page 17
Section VI.A.22: Communities will implement to the extent defined by the Commission
in this Plan and to the extent directed by the local government unit's City Council the
capital improvement plans, programs, and studies to achieve the goals of the
Commission....
Comment #24: Section VII. This section defines an amendment procedure for major changes
and for minor changes. If further states the definition of minor changes. Once of the items
considered a minor change is "revisions to the standards outlined in Appendix F." These are the
standards that each community is required to implement. Changes in these standards should not
be considered a minor change to the plan.
Response: Based on discussions with the Task Force throughout the development of this
Plan, there has been a concern about the Standards. Some Task Force members wanted
more strict standards and others did not. To compromise, it was determined by the Task
Force that some "middle ground" standards would be developed and if it were
determined during the implementation process that these standards were not working out
well, that they could then be more easily changed if they were considered a minor
revision than going through a major plan revision. This ides was also suggested by Doug
Snyder of the Board of Water and Soil Resources as a possible solution. No change has
been made to the Plan.
Comment #25: Section VII. This section does not define what constitutes a major change to the
plan. The definition of major change needs to be included.
Response: A sentence has been added to this section that states the following:
Any change not listed here is considered a major revision and requires a full plan update
as per Minnesota Statute 103B.231."
Comment #26: Appendix F. This section includes proposed standards for implementing the
previous policies. The comments previously stated would also refer to these standards. In
addition the Commission must be careful that the standards are enforceable in both urban and
rural settings.
Response: Revisions and adjustments have been made based on the City of Plymouth's
comments provided within this memo.
Comment #27: Standard A.I.7 appears to refer to activities that impact the storage volume of
the floodplain as opposed to simply activities. This should be clarified.
Response: Standard A.I.7 has been revised to state the following:
Standard A.I.7: The Commission prohibits activities that impact the storage volume
within the 100 -year floodplain...
Comment #28: Standard A.II.3 appears to contradict Standard 11. 1. This must be clarified.
Response: Standard A.II.3 has been moved to be included with Standard A.II.1 to
�? 7 F:1WPW1NI1334-001111302CRMemoFinaLdoc
t
December 23, 2002
Page 18
provide clarification as follows:
Standard AMA: A development plan review by the Commission is required for the
following projects:
a. Projects that transcend the boundaries of an adjoining community and will affect
the communities.' approved stormwater management plan, or
b. Residential development or redevelopment on sites 8 acres or more, or
C. Residential development or redevelopment on sites 5 acres or more with a
density of more than 2 units per acre, or
d. Commercial and industrial development or redevelopment on sites of one acre or
more, or
e. Road projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface area of one acre
or more.
Comment #29: Standard A.II.8 does not make provision for the use of regional facilities. It
should be clear that this does not strictly apply to individual sites if other provisions are made.
Response: Standard A.II.8 has been revised to state the following:
Standard A.II.8: Unless regional storm water management facilities are available to
accommodate the development, future discharge rates from new and redevelopment shall
not exceed the existing discharge rates during the 2-, 10-, and 100 -year storm events.
Comment #30: Standard A.II.10 refers to the timing of runoff. It is unclear how this will be
implemented. Any alteration including changing the type of crop being farmed will have this
effect. It appears that every project of any size or type must model the entire watershed to
determine if it has an impact. Depending on how this requirement is applied it could be very
onerous. In addition, as noted above the method to achieve standards such as Low Impact
Development should not be specified.
Response: See response to Plymouth Comment #20 and Three Rivers Park District
Comment # 1.
Comment #31: Standard B.9. "Phosphorus loadings from new or redeveloped sites shall not
exceed predevelopment phosphorus levels." This would be extremely difficult to achieve with
existing techniques. It may place such great restrictions on the use of property as to create a
taking which would require compensation to the landowner. The City does not feel this extreme
measure is warranted.
Response: See response to Plymouth Comment #21.
Comment #32: Standard B.11. "The Commission shall require a 60% phosphorus removal
efficiency for storm water pretreatment system." This standard should be incorporated into
Standard B. 10, which covers the same thing.
Response: Standard B.10 outlines the specific NURP guidelines, of which 60%
removal of phosphorus is not one of the guidelines. The Commission does recognize that
F.IWPWINI1334-001122302CRMemoFinaLdoc`
0
I December 23 2002
Page 19
a NURP pond in most cases will remove at least 60% of the phosphorus based on its
design. Therefore, since the 60% removal is not a specific guideline for NURP, it has
been left as its own standard.
The flexibility language outlined in Plymouth Comment # 19 has been added to
Standard B.11.
Comment #33: Standard B.12 requires buffer width standards for water quality ponds. Are
buffers around water quality ponds beneficial? Will they improve the water quality discharged
from the pond as opposed to runoff entering the pond? This item should be removed form the
plan.
Response: See response to Plymouth Comment #17.
Comment #34: Standard G.1 and 2 seem to assume the Commission will always be the LGU.
They should be modified to exempt the areas where a city if the LGU.
Response: These standards have been revised as follows:
Standard G.1: The Commission or designated Local Government Unit (LGU) shall
protect and manage wetlands..."
Standard G.2: The Commission or designated Local Government Unit (LGU) requires
developers to complete a wetland delineation..."
Comments from the Three Rivers Park District
Comment #1: Three Rivers Park District reviewed the revised Elm Creek Watershed
Management Plan and offers the following comments:
Removal of Section VI.A.16, Standard A.II.9, Standard A.H.10 and revisions to Appendix
L. Three Rivers Park District is strongly opposed to the removal of Section 16 and the
associated Standards. During the initial plan development, there was an acknowledgement that
urban development in the watershed was causing increasing flow rates in Elm, Diamond and
Rush Creeks. The increased flow rates were in turn causing bank erosion, loss of trees, and
threatening bridges and trails. For instance, during the past summer Three Rivers Park District
expended approximately $100,000 to armor a reach of the Elm Creek stream bank to correct an
erosion problem that was undercutting a section of our regional trail. We are currently in the
process of installing riprap around a bridge over Elm Creek in Elm Creek Park Reserve to correct
an erosion problem, again at a significant cost. All of the science regarding stream morphology
indicates that the erosion problems are caused by increased flows in the stream resulting from the
construction of impervious surfaces in the watershed. Removing the above referenced section
and standards from the plan will allow continued degradation of the Elm, Diamond and Rush
Creek stream channels as development in the watershed occurs.
Three Rivers Park District recommends revising Section VI.A.16 to read "Maintain pre -
development flow rates within Elm, Diamond, and Rush Creek stream channels for the 2, 10, and
100 year events." This would set the standard but allow the municipalities and development
community to determine how the standard will be met. The Park District believes this
91 F.IWPWfNi1334-001122302CRMemoFinaLdoc
Dec 31 ZOO? 19:1Z:9B Via Fax -> 763+569+5960 Dwight Johnson Page BB AOf,893
AMM FAX partnershlps in pro ng
NEWSsePA0san
d soldons
December 30, 2002 - January 3, 2003 page 1 of 2
Governor Elect Announces Metropolitan Council
Appointment Process
Governor elect Pawlenty has announced
the makeup of the nominating commit-
tee and schedule for applicants. Tom
Weaver of Anoka will chair the seven
member nominating committee, which
also includes.-
Sherry
ncludes:Sherry Broecker--Ms. Broecker is
a former legislator and resident of
Vadnais Heights.
• John Pacheco—Mr. Pacheo is a
resident of Minneapolis and is em-
ployed by Excel Energy.
• Michael Burton—Mr. Burton is a
resident of Minnetonka and is em-
ployed by Lundgren Brothers.
• Mark Shiffman--Mr. Shiffman is a
member of the Waconia City Coun-
cil.
• Cyndee Fields—Ms. Fields is a
member of the Eagan City Council.
• Bill Pulkrabek—Mr. Pulkabek is
former mayor of Oakdale and is cur-
rently chair of the Washington
County Board of Commissioners.
Applications for the Metropolitan Council
can be obtained from the Secretary of
State's Office at www.sos.state. mn. us or
by calling 651-295-2603. The completed
applications must be submitted to the
Secretary of State's Office by 4:30 p.m.
January 10, 2003.
Local governments located throughout
the region will receive a written notice
describing the process. The notioe should
be mailed to all local governments this
week. A public notice as required by stat-
ute will also be published in several news-
papers.
The nominating committee will review all
applicants. Those applicants selected by
the committee, as potential nominees will
be notified by January 17, 2003 of the
need to be present at the public meeting
scheduled for the district in which the
applicant resides. The nominating com-
mittee will conduct public hearings to
accept statements from or on behalf of
persons who have been nominated or
applied and to obtain advice and endorse-
ment from the public as well as local
elected officials.
Following the public meetings the com-
mittee will submit a final list of nominees
to the Governor, The Governor must con-
sult with legislators from the district re-
garding the potential appointments. The
governor however is not required to ap-
point from the list of nominees. The Sen-
ate must confirm all appointments to the
Metropolitan Council.
State law requires that the 16 Council
districts be redrawn, based on the 2000
Census, sometime prior to the end of the
2003 legislative session. Depending on
the outcome of the redistricting legisla-
tion, appointments made in the next few
months might have to be adjusted at a
later date.
LOCATIONS AND TIMES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Date
District
County
Location
Address
Dearing Times
Tuesday,
11-12-13-14
Ramsey/
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centrc
6:30 p.m. District 11
January 21
Washington
Chambers, St_ Paul
230 East FiBh St.
7:30 p.m. District 12
(651.602.1000)
St. Paul
8:30 p.m. District 13
9:30 p.m. District 14
Wednesday,
1-2-9 10
AnoktdN Hennepin
Coon Rapids City Hall,
11155 Robinson Drive NW,
6:30 p.m. District I
January 22
/NW Ramsey
Council Chambers
Coon Rapids
7:30 p.m. District 2
(763.755.2880)
8:30 p.m. District 9
9:30 p.m. District 10
Tuesday,
3-6-74
Central and
Ediva City Hall,
4801 W 50 st., Edina
6:30 p,m. District 3
January 28
West Hennepin
Council Chambers
7:30 p.m. District 6
(952.927.8861)
8:30 p.m. District 7
9:30 p.m. District 8
Wednesday,
4-5-15-16
Dakota/Scott/
Burnsville City Hall,
100 Civic Centcr P79:30
6:30 p.m. District 5
January 29
So. Hennepin
Council Chambers
Burnsville7:30
p.m. District 15
(952.895.4400)
8:30 p.m. District 16
p.m. District 4
Questions may be directed to Governor -elect Pawlenty's transition office at. Governor -elect Tim Pawlenty
B46 State Capitol, 75 Constitution Ave., St. Paul, MN 55155 Tel. (651) 282-5134 Email: gov.elect@state,mn.us
o/2"
Dec 31 ZBBZ 10:1345 Via. �a > 763+589+50ac Wti8�34,4UWnJanua Y�JdB3g§J2 ME
Association of Metropoln Municipa'�ities Fax News Association
AMM to Co -host Discussion with Fannie Mae
Regarding Development Tools for Cities
and Developers
AMM along with the Builders Association of the Twin Cites (BATC) will co -host a
presentation by Fannie Mae regarding its development tools. National and regional
staff to discuss the agency's housing and community development financing options
will join Fannie Mae's Minnesota office staff. Among the speakers are Carl Riedy,
Vice President (Fannie Mae – Washington DC) and Cindy Holler (Director, Fannie
Mae, Chicago). The presentation will highlight Minnesota projects such as develop-
ments in Minneapolis, Northfield and St. Paul. The discussion is scheduled for:
Thursday—January 9, 2003
4:00 p.m. – 5:15 p.m.
League of Minnesota Cities Building
St. Croix Room, first floor
145 University Avenue West
St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
Light refreshments will be served. If you wish to attend please contact Laurie at 651-
215-4000 or laurie@amml45.org-
Association of
14S University Avenue West
& Pout, MN 55103-1044
Phone: (651) 213-4000
AMM Fax News is faxed to all AMM CIO,
nanagersand adpninb*wors,legislative con -
tacts and Board members. Please share this
Metropolitan
Fax. (651) 281-1399
fax with your mayors, councllmembers and
Municipalities
E-mail: om►n a@aMM145. ors
stat to, keep them n6renst of important metro
city Issues.
T f1T!'11 I'9 f'i�
tJI.IV rA v\& n
DATE: January 3, 2003
TO: Mayor, City Council, and Department Directors
FROM: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: City Attorney Evaluation
Attached are the cumulative ratings and comments for evaluation of City Attorney
services. The summary separately reflects Council and Staff ratings.
Overall Summary
EVALUATION OF CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES
DECEMBER, 2002
(circle an answer and provide any comments)
1. Please rate the overall quality of advice and work provided by the City Attorney
Excellent Good Fair Needs Improvement Poor
Council: 2.5 4.5
Staff. 6 1
2. Please rate the timeliness of the advice or work.
Excellent Good Fair Needs Improvement Poor
Council: 3 4
Staff: 3 4
3. Please rate how well the City Attorney's office helps prevent law suits against the City
Excellent Good Fair Needs Improvement Poor
Council: 3 1 3
Staff. 6 1
4. Please rate the performance of the City Attorney during official Council meetings
Excellent Good Fair Needs Improvement Poor
Council: 3 4
Staff: 5 2
5. Please rate your overall satisfaction with your communication with the City Attorney
Excellent Good Fair Needs Improvement Poor
Council: 4 3
Staff. 6 1
6. Please rate your overall satisfaction with the cost for City Attorney services
Excellent Good Fair Needs Improvement Poor
Council: 2 5
Staff. 3 3
7. Please rate your overall confidence in the integrity and ethics of the City Attorney
Excellent Good Fair Needs Improvement Poor
Council: 5 1 1
Staff. 7
8. Please rate your general satisfaction with the City's prosecution service
Excellent Good Fair Needs Improvement Poor
Council: 1 4
Staff. 2
` City Attorney 2002 Evaluation Summary Comments
_ 1. Overall Quality-
council..
ualityCouncil:
r "I have always appreciated the work and advice.by our city attorney. It is straight and to
the point."
Staff
(none)
2. Timeliness.
Council:
"Roger is easy to work with and has always been available to me when needed."
Staff
"When Roger is directly involved the timeliness is excellent. It is sometimes slow from
others."
3. Prevents law suits.
Council:
"I was uncomfortable with the "hearing process" regarding the 2 101 homes. I feel like
we (the council) should have been better prepared. I also feel the atty's office should
have been more involved from the start to avoid the problem to begin with."
"I wish that we would have had better advice on the 101 home sales. Handled the fire
personnel complaint investigation well. Over all very good work."
"Relocation benefits suits." (explaining a "fair" rating)
Staff
"Could be more proactive in noting areas where we could get in trouble."
4. Performance at Council meetings.
Council:
"Roger should `jump in' as he feels necessary."
"Does a fine job when we need his assistance and offers good advice."
Staff
(none)
5. Communication with Attorney.
Council:
"Whenever I have contacted their office, the calls are promptly returned."
Staff:
"Call backs are slower on the prosecution side, it may be volume based."
6. Cost of services. t
Council:
"I am assuming that the rates are comparable to other attorneys' fees in this field of
work.,,
Staff:
"Increases seem reasonable. Performs within budget."
7. Integrity and Ethics.
Council:
(none)
Staff.-
(none)
taff(none)
8. Prosecution service.
Council:
"I don't have any first [hand] knowledge of this item."
Staff.-
"We
taff"We send a high volume of work to the prosecution service, some turn -a -round is slow.
Clerical staff has a good working relationship with Attorney's clerical staff."
"Very little contact on this."
Overall Comments:
Council:
"The city attorney has an excellent reputation and expertise in city government legal
issues."
"Sorry, I find no fault. Only possible ? is the settlement of the 101 homes."
"My overall satisfaction is fair to good based on the purchase of the 101 houses and the
relocation claims that resulted. Since I wasn't involved in the original purchase a lot of
my thoughts are based on hind sight, but it would appear to me that good representation
should have avoided most of the resulting problems stemming from the original purchase.
I also think that the relocation claims hearing in front of the Council was poorly handled
and that the Council was ill prepared for it."
"I have concerns about how the 101 house purchase and moving costs were handled.
Some of the difficulties fall squarely on the City, but the relocation issues seem to be an
overlooked legal issue."
Staff.-
"It's
taff"It's really a pleasure working with our City Attorney's office, particularly Roger and
Tom Scott. One concern. There were some occasions this past year where Andrea
Poehler's advice was somewhat different than Roger's, after he got involved."
"I still find that Elliott requires a lot of reminding/prodding on our code enforcement
cases (more than I'd like) but our monthly meetings do help."