Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Council Information Memorandum 06-30-2006
CITY OF PLYMOUT rib COUNCIL INFO MEMu June 30, 2006 UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS Planning Commission July 5 meeting agenda................................................................ July, August, and September 2006 Official City Meeting Calendars ............................ Tentative list of agenda items for future City Council meetings ................................... INFORMATION News Articles, Releases, Publications, etc ... Star Tribune "West Edition" articles: Report on new Hennepin County rules regarding property rights along abandoned rail lines owned by the County ....................................................... "Hot Property" profile of Plymouth Crossroads Station .................................. Dummy ....................Page 2 ....................Page 3 ...................Page 9 ................... Page 11 ................... Page 12 Comcastmonthly newsletter.............................................................................................................. Page 13 Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission 2007 operating budget ........................................ Page 14 Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission 2007 operating budget .................................. Page 17 Community Mediation Services Annual Report ............................................................................... Page 23 American Planning Association model ordinance for residential cluster development (submitted by Councilmember Black)........................................................................ Page 28 STAFF REPORTS Amended proposal for redevelopment of the Plymouth Community Library ...................................Page 40 Engineering Department active and pending public improvement projects update ......................... Page 58 MINUTES Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit (PACT) April 26 meeting .............................................. Page 61 Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit (PACT) May 24 meeting ............................................... Page 69 CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Mayor Johnson to Senator Norm Coleman regarding concerns about proposed changes to the Community Development Block Grant Program(CDBG).............................................................................................................................. Page 74 Letter from Minnesota Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer certifying Plymouth's Municipal Electronic Voting System Plan........................................................................................ Page 75 Thank—you letter to the Plymouth Fire Department from the homeowners of Bass Lake Villas Townhomes for work in putting out a fire in one of their buildings.......................................................................................................................................... Page 76 Correspondence between Community Development Director Anne Hurlburt and Stephen Weld regarding a request for a change in land use designation .................................... Page 77 w PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 2006 WHERE: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Plymouth City Hall 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 CONSENT AGENDA All items listed on the consent agenda* are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner, citizen or petitioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on the agenda. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC FORUM 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. CONSENT AGENDA* A. Approve the June 21, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. B. Minneapolis Garage Construction. Approve a variance to allow construction of a detached garage in a front yard for property located at 2615 Sycamore Lane North. (2006043) 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. City of Plymouth. Comprehensive plan amendment to reguide two properties located at 710 Cottonwood Lane North and 800 Cottonwood Lane North from C (Commercial) to LA -1 (Living Area 1). (2006037) B. Bujold Hobbies, Inc. Conditional use permit to allow 4.2 percent accessory retail in the I-2 (General Industrial) zoning district for Hobby Zone located at 2415 Annapolis Lane North. (2006040) 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Harbor Place HOA. Pre -application sketch review of a potential seven lot subdivision for property located near 7`h Avenue and Harbor Lane. (2006045) 8. ADJOURNMENT Z OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS July 2006 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Jun 2006 Aug 2006 1 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 25 26 27 28 29 30 27 28 29 30 31 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 INDEPENDENCE DAY XPLANNIN 5:15 PM MUSIC IN PLYMOUTH, Hide Performance Cemer C 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 7:00 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Medicine Lake Room A 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE (EQC),Council Chembere 7:00 PM PARK & REC ADVISORY COMMISSION (PRAC), Council Chambers 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 7:00 PM HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(HRA), Medicine Lake Room A 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 11:45 AM PLYMOUTH BUSINESS COUNCIL, 12201 Ridgedele Drive, Minnetonka 7:00 PM PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT (PACT), Medicine Lake Room A 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 30 31 modified on 6/30/2006 3 OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS August 2006 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 5:30 PM NATIONAL NIGHT OUT 2 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, 3 4 5 Ju12006 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Council Chambers 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Courcy Chembera 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE (EQC), Councg Chambers 7:00 PM PARK 8 REC ADVISORY COMMISSION (PRAC), Council Chambers 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 7:00 PM YOUTH COUNCIL, Lake Room A 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers [7:00 PM HOUSING &ADVISORY REDEVELOPMENTMedicine edicine Lake AUTHORITY Rwm)A 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 11:45 AM PLYMouTH BUSINESS COUNCIL, 12201 Rklgedale Dnre, Mi'"ewft 51.00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING: BUDGET STUDY SESSION, Median Lake Roan. A & B 7:00 PM PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT(PACT), Medicine Lake Room A 7:10 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Canc1 Chambers 27 28 7:00 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, MedkJne Lake Room A 29 0:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING: BUDGET STUDY SESSION, Public Safety Trainig Room 30 31 Sep 2006 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Cm COUNCIL CANDIDATE FILING PERIOD OPENS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 modified on 6/30/2006 S' OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS September 2006 Sunday Monday Tuesday I Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Aug 2006 Oct 2006 1 2 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 31 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LABOR DAY - City Offices Closed 7:00 PM SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING: BUDGET STUDY SESSION (IF NEEDED), Medicine Lake Rooms A &a 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 7:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION -Parkers Lake Room 9'0,0,A M -3:00 PM CITY OICES OPEN FOR ABSENTEE VOTING 0:00 AM -3:30 PM PLYMOUTH CLEAN-UP DAY, Public Works Mekkanance Facility 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 7:00 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Medicine Lake Room A CITY OFFICES OPEN UNTIL 7:00 PM FOR ABSENTEE VOTING 5:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE FILINGS CLOSE 8:00 P.M. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Councll Chambers STATEPRIMARv ELECTION; Polls open 7:00 A.M. - 8:00 P.M. 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE (EQC), Council Chambers 5:00 PM DEADLINE FOR CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES TO WITHDRAW 7;00 PM PARK $ REC ADVISORY COMMISSION (PRAC), Council Chambers Autumn Art Fair 10:00 AM - 5:00 PM and Plymouth on Parade 1:00 PM 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 7:00 PM HOUSING 8 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ed inneeLakeRoom)A ROSH HASHANAH BEGINS AT SUNSET 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 7:00 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Medicine Lake Room A 11:45 AM PLYMOUTH BUSINESS COUNCIL, 12201 Rldgedale Drive, Minnetonka 7:00 PM PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT (PACT), Medicine Lake Room A 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Count Chambers modified on 6/30/2006 7 Tentative Schedule for City Council Agenda Items July 11, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Announcement of "National Night Out' on August 1 • Award bid for Zachary Playfield • Conduct hearing on default of settlement agreement concerning code enforcement issues for 520 Queensland Lane (Vicki Ann Linden) • Conduct hearing for Off—Sale Liquor Application for Umbria Pizzeria, LLC d/b/a Gourmet Market Specialty Foods and Fine Wines, 3195 Vicksburg Lane • Approve site plan amendment to allow a parking lot expansion at Plymouth Creek Christian Church located at 16000 41s` Avenue North. The parking expansion would be used as a joint parking area for Plymouth Creek Christian Church and Plymouth Creek Elementary School. Wayzata Public Schools. (2006033) • Approve conditional use permit to construct a 100 -foot monopole tower for telecommunication antennas and related equipment at 15605 32'd Avenue North. T -Mobile USA. (2006036) • Preliminary plat and final plat to create two lots to be called "Jirehel Addition" for property located at 755 Windemere Drive. Dmitri Smirnov and Maria Kouznetsova. (2006029) • Approve certificate of correction for a surveying error on the plat for "Serenity on Hadley Lake". Schoell & Madson, Inc. (2002055F) • Hearing on City Charter amendment that would prohibit members of the governing body from serving on the Charter Commission • Approve a variance to construct a detached garage in a front yard for property located at 2615 Sycamore Lane North. Minneapolis Garage Construction. (2006043) • Approve Change Order No. 2, Vicksburg Ln Pumping Station (3108 ) • Approve Change Order No. 1 for County Road 6 Water Tower Rehabilitation (5124) • Termination of Water Quality Pond Maintenance Agreement for Orchards of Plymouth (94050) • Final Release of Financial Guarantee Plum Tree 2nd Addition (96103) • Final Release of Financial Guarantee Plum Tree Addition (94162) • Accept Utilities for Continual Maintenance Bridgeport (2003046) • Amend 2005 Budget for funds 501, 502, and 505 for Utilities Superintendent position • Vacation of a segment of a drainage and utility easement within Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Epiphany Second Addition • Hearing on compliance check violation for Pizza Hut, 1415 Highway 101 North July 25, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Discuss Dial -a -Ride system • Oath of Office to Firefighters David Hanson and Eric Watt • Approve Deer Management Program for 2006 August 8, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers August 22, Special, 5:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Rooms A and B • Budget I Note: Special Meeting topics have been set by Council; all other topics are tentative. August 22, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers August 29, Special, 6:00 p.m., Public Safety Training Room • Budget September 5, Special (If needed), 7:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Rooms A and B • Budget )0 Last update: June 27, 2006 —10:10 AM New rules will shrink some'back yards' NEW RULES NEW RULES The Hennepin County Board last week approved new rules aimed at restricting what residents can do with county land, specifically 57 miles of abandoned rail line that the county owns. AT ISSUE The rail corridors, 100 feet wide in many spots, have in many cases been converted to trails leased to the Three Rivers Park District. Many owners of adjacent property have used county property as an extension of their own back yards -- as a place to store boats and equipment, to plant gardens, or to mow and landscape as they see fit. ENFORCEMENT Under the new rules, the county will start enforcing its property rights consistently. Residents now must get permission to mow or landscape county property. All uses of county property must somehow benefit the general public. The county has banned "fences, sheds, or playground equipment" and ruled out . any parking or storage of equipment. The full ordinance can be found at www.hennepin.us. REASONS FOR RULES The new rules should better protect the county from legal liability, officials say. Often it was unclear to residents where county property began, but in 2004 and 2005, the county placed signs along the corridors marking property lines. Officials say use of county property had become contagious: Residents who saw others using rail corridors for storage or gardens often did so, too. BEN STEVERMAN ©2006 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. bUROnCOM I M OS -ST. ' MINNE Last update: June 25, 2006 — 5:22 PM Hot Property: Plymouth Crossroads Station PLYMOUTH CROSSROADS STATION PLYMOUTH CROSSROADS STATIONSW. corner, Hwy. 55 and County Road 73, Plymouth Type: Retail Area: 62,500 square feet Developer: Dove Capital Details: It might not be the most important crossroads in Plymouth's history, but Plymouth Crossroads Station appears well on its way to overcoming the obstacles to redeveloping a difficult piece of that city's real estate puzzle. Developer Dove Capital hopes to break ground in July, pending Plymouth city leaders' approval of about $2.5 million in tax increment financing, on a 62,500 -square -foot retail project at the junction of Hwy. 55 and County Road 73 that would replace a 50 -year-old strip mall. The area historically has experienced issues involving traffic flow, drainage and parking. Given the city's enthusiastic May approval of a planned unit development general plan, Plymouth Crossroads Station seems likely to pass its final hurdles before long. "I think both the Planning Commission and the City Council are very excited about the project," said Plymouth Senior Planner Shawn Drill, describing the current 30,000 -square -foot Plymouth Shopping Center as "an early 1950s type of shopping mall." "What's there now is due for redevelopment," he said. "This proposal will solve some problems and do some interesting things that give more of an urban -edge feeling along Hwy. 55 that should serve both the immediate area and people passing by." Dean Dovolis of DJR Architecture is a partner in the project. He said he sees the development as sort of a "middle ground" between a small neighborhood node and a larger regional attraction. "It's going to be a community -type center. We think there will be a very quick response to a need there," said Dovolis of the shopping plaza, which will house seven buildings built in two phases, including a 16,000 -square -foot building with multiple tenants and an 11,000 -square -foot bank with drive-through. His optimism stems from the resolution of site problems including traffic flow, drainage and parking. Dovolis credits the assistance of city officials, Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation for resolving many potentially difficult issues, including moving a frontage road. Working out drainage and occasional flooding issues on the site also required working with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure proper wetland construction. JON KERR 02006 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. IL Leaders and Achievers Scholarship Awards — On June 20, 25 local high school seniors from across the Metro area were presented with the Comcast Leaders and Achievers Scholarships. The presentation was held at the new Neighborhood House facility on St. Paul's west side. Presenting the awards was Comcast Regional Vice President Bill Wright and David Gaither, Chief of Staff to Governor Tim Pawlenty. This year's recipients are from Anoka, Arlington, Centennial, Champlin -Park, Columbia Heights, Visitation, Cretin -Durham Hall, Eagan, Sibley, Mahtomedi, Maple Grove, Mounds Park, Osseo, Park, Robbinsdale Armstrong, Robbinsdale Cooper, Roseville, Simley, South St. Paul, St. Thomas, Central, Harding, Stillwater, Wayzata, Prescott and White Bear High Schools. Nominated by their high school principals, these students were selected on the basis of community service, leadership skills, positive attitude and academic achievement. Movies In The Park — Comcast is pleased to partner with the Parks and Recreation Department in St. Paul to bring movies to different parks starting in July. Everyone is invited to bring a lawn chair or a blanket and spend an evening watching movies on a large screen outdoors. A great family event! Schedules and locations will be posted on the city's web site in the coming weeks. More details will be provided in the July issue of this newsletter. New Channel Launches — Just in time for the broadcast of the World Cup Tournament, Comcast is pleased to announce that ESPN2 was launched in HD on Thursday, June 8. With the addition of ESPN2 HD to Comcast's lineup, viewers will be able to watch HD coverage of the 2006 FIFA World Cup tournament. ESPN HD, ABC HD and ESPN2 HD will combine to present live coverage of all 64 matches of the 2006 FIFA World Cup in high definition. ESPN2 HD can be found on channel 203 for subscribers who have digital service. Watch for information next month, on the October launch of The Horror Channel on Comcast's On Demand. Northeast Technical Operation Center Opens in Mahtomedi — Comcast's service area in the Metro extends from Oak Grove to the North, Burnsville to the South, River Falls, WI to the East and Hanover to the West. With an area that large, Comcast has three operations center across the area from which we dispatch our service andinstallation technicians. Previously, the Northeast Tech Ops Center was located in Roseville. As we are always looking for ways to better serve our customers, we looked for a site with better freeway access. This month these 200+ employees moved to Mahtomedi. The new location is close to the major freeway network and allows us to better serve the customers in the suburbs which include Stillwater, White Bear Lake, Roseville, Blaine, etc. An Open House event will take place on July 12 from 4:00 pm to 6:30 pm if you would like to check out our new "digs". The address is 3050 Echo Lake Avenue in Mahtomedi. Newsmakers June Studio Guests — We hope you are able to catch these local "newsmakers" on CNN Headline News during the month of June. Our guests were: David LaPorte — Great River Energy Bike Festival; Murray Schmidt — Luekemia & Lymphoma Society; Sheila Bland — COMPAS; Kay Christianson and Paul Persike — Children's Cancer Research Fund; Sandy Martin — Executive Director, Urban Tennis; and Matt Reinartz — Comcast Movies in the Park (St. Paul Parks and Rec Dept). Taping is also complete for the July Newsmakers and you will see: Jeff Heegaard — Envision Minnesota; Mike Cofrin and Marilyn Franzen — St. Paul Inline Marathon; Mark Scally — MN Business for Early Learning; Maria Flynn Conway — Irish Fair; Joe Cavanaugh — Youth Frontiers; and Hussein Sumatar — Lake St. Cultural Center. Remember to catch these newsmakers at the top of the hour and 25 minutes after the hour. Between the Lines — Comcast is helping Charter Communications create a program series called "Between the Lines". This new program series is sponsored in part by the Minnesota Cable Communications Association and invites guests to discuss issues of regional importance. In Comcast communities, you can watch the program Sunday mornings at 9:30 on Channel 13. The program is now seen in most of the communities across the state. Feel free to contact us at anytime if you have questions about any of our services. Kathi Donnelly -Cohen — 651-493-5281 kathi donnelly-coheno-)cable.comcast.com Emmett V. Coleman - 651-493-5828 emmett Coleman cable.comcast.com 13 elm creek Watershed Management Commission ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 3235 Fernbrook Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 PH: 763.553.1144 FAX: 763.553.9326 E-mail: ]udie(cDdass.biz June 28, 2006 City/Town Clerks Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission Hennepin County Minnesota Re: 2007 Operating Budget Dear Clerks: TECHNICAL OFFICE Hennepin County, DES 417 North 5t' Street Minneapolis, MN 55401-1397 PH: 612.596.1171 FAX: 612.348.8532 E-mail: Ali. DurpunopluCDco.hennepin.mn.us (via USPS and email) At its June 14, 2006 regular meeting, the Ehn Creek Watershed Management Commission approved a 2007 operating budget of $358,700. Assessments to the member communities total $170,000. Last year, a contract with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. totaling $111,435 was approved by the Commission to undertake the Elm Creek Channel Study -- the first project identified under its second generation Watershed Management Plan. Funding to complete this project was authorized under the 2004-2006 budgets. In 2007, the Commission has budgeted $10,000 to begin replenishing depleted reserves for future capital projects. In addition, the Commission will introduce a new education initiative - the funding of Water Quality Education Grants for watershed residents and students. Attached is a copy of the 2007 budget. Tab A outlines the budgeted revenue and expenses while Tab 2 shows your communities' share of the member assessments. Questions may be directed to your representative or my office. Sincerely, Judie A. Anderson Administrator JAA:tim Attachment Cc: (via email) City/Town Managers Commissioners Commission Staff 14- CHAMPLIN - CORCORAN - DAYTON - HASSAN - MAPLE GROVE - MEDINA - PLYMOUTH - ROGERS t Q U E W 7 o I i m � A z — i ttq a a w a L) a $ 0 o 0000$$oom �tNDooEobFiSoo�oo�000$ A N tJ t7 V O VI N O N e O �- Q N tD N O N N N' N p N tt) O VD y• 6 m O pp N tri N` I a 8 O 0 0$$ O O 0 0 0 O N O A 0 0 g o O 0 0 0 N N$ m 0 0 NI 0 0 0 0 -18 mo g 0 g $ 0 0 0 0 m 0 66 t$ m $ O $ o o $ o� o ry m $i m o m 0 o m Q A r o N m N 9 p 8 O 0 0 ppop N O O O 88 O N C f00 O8S O 8 O O O O 0 88 0 �p+0 O 0 O 0 O pp V 8 ppO O N p O S p O O NIN O 10 O O IOND m O t8� N 00 O s N p O u h N N tD .6 ,5 V N N G m N ON'1 M O OND M O N n M M O Nay I� 'O ry��py m 8 b p O S O 8 8 O m Q — ♦a U (ymVO_ N N C O tG A I O O N til O a N H n .6a N } g m S S S m a o 0 o g o N O H Q a q � N J Y Q •` �rc U ' 8' y 3 J C'C N W @ 8 C C 9 U $$Y �' y U o Caw 4 W ..a.5 {S �y 5 E J Q) CL m 3 €Cy �g 8gyi o ? a "E w m=Aa�� e 3 b y LL . O~ °y' - E i"@ C •C 4 m O;;' C .� IL m_ ID O co m y} >> N C N E O A u $a. �E c We t7 �� ��a =-�`U� oaa m•�rQ E m = 10� ��� •� c ma EW 5� W p UU $ a�2'c mvLL•o m .6 �m �_UUU_III c Ws€ms>> o .e 'DSU E Qf' '^5 c to �aQ3�� �iarain TLD y c��m333 m tooNw U w N3U ELf NU o y c c u u M N LO N tO Lo Q 10 tO tO n IO tO Q U E W 7 N rn v m fl - C) O N Ti C CU N Cn CU CU a N .0 N P� L IT m a X 0 N O 0 CL Ca. ml N LO LO M LO CD co O co —N 00 r CO LO O) 0) N LO CO N O 0 W r tl) LO M 00 CO V: In LO I O O N 00 h 0 V; 0 M tO N N (l M M O O L m �n 00 M N h d'OCO(OOv ti O r CM N C> O) 6— rO M MMNOrO N O N M h O N C O O 4) LO O N 00 N co v 0) 0/ L N r M N LO O fl ti 00 d m N O Cfl 0 CO cc r M r - 00 } N- O N CD } N r r �- N r LO CG fo i t i > Q E!o r > p Eo r IL a a CD O O O O O O O O O 104) L > O O O O O O -.0- O O O O O L > O O O O O O O O O t0 M h O r O r LO O� O M LO O 0 h 00 y y N N N —00 r- CO O I- 00 W M r LO 0 O O 0) y O 1` M O P- CO It 0 O M It h O r c0 O O) M y M0) M m v r- 0 V' V w CO m m ' I` N M r 6 M N r N r O r 6 N O r N d i N M N r 0C) N CO N O I N CO N N t` CM O r C cM M N LO N O M O O CO O I� tb O CO M M O LO LO N M O m M O O O r r m O r N O 00 V N V M O N co V r- O O •- O LO O LO r w O M v O O O 41 r 00 M 00 Vr N O O d M O O CA r h CC) O 0) N CO CO O CUD V' r O 000(OLOC,rI- OV' _ P O COOmM1-m I -6 O� 00�a)000 ti O t r 0) p) d C1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O 0 o 0 � o 0 o 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 e � � 0 � 0 o o 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o o e e m N r M co LO CO r Ih LO O r M O N O O O m O I� O V O M M O v O N M O O O O m ti LO ti M CO N —0 N v h O IT I- LO CO N O O O O 0 ti m v V O 00 t-- O O O V CO M r 6 Lp 600 00 � LO CO l[) V In 4 6 6- G N N L6 CO r N e r e e 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 00000000 O V' 0 0 0 0 0 0 O V' 0) 0) N 00 r V M CO M O 00 y y I� M O O M O O r t0 y y V_ O N CO M Ln O O ti 7 O eF ti CO LO N r r OD co Z2 CA r r V V O h M Cb N to V r It CO N CO 3 m O M O O O M N V 0 M CO N 0 r O X O M N O R O M O at m X r r 0 0 M LO r 0 N X r CO 00 O O h O O O 01 m w F- t0 00 O N N h h LO V' r M O N CO r 0 LO 00 r -H m r t0 r CO LO N N N O h O OD N r LL) 00 h CO IT M m w 1- y N CO n O O r V d' N 4O O 00 CO V Y LO LO M M O V r CO N O L V10 'It M 00 LO V' to CO CO ` LO V V' CO LO r N 00d 00 00 tti LO Of O N Ln -7O N N N rL y y y p r p O F O 0 > p tU > O O N C C. 0L.. N C C 0 L O C C 0 L Q c c 0 m rn a c c m w a c c m y O U O y C 0 T ° O U O m y N C 0) 0 T IN ° L O U O S, y N N Q ,C O O O s 010 O N CII m m m d p 12 L 0 O 0 0 C4 2 m S!5; dry 0 0 O 0 m 0 m 2 m 2 CU 2 ?' a O m a X 0 N O 0 CL Ca. ml Shin - r' DATE: June 29, 2006 reek Watershed Management Commission 3235 Fernbrook Lane N - Plymouth, MN 55447 Phone (763) 553-1144 - Fax (763) 553-9326 www.shinglecreek.org TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Administrators of Member Cities of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission FROM: Judie A. Anderson, Administrator RE: Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission 2007 Operating Budget At its last meeting, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission ("Commission") adopted its general fund budget for calendar year 2007. A copy of the budget and of the proposed assessment against each member city are attached. Article VIII, Subdivision 4 of the Joint Powers Agreement that established the Commission provides that a member city may object to the budget by giving written notice to the Commission before August 1, 2006. If any objection is received, the Commission will hear the objections and may modify the budget. A recently adopted amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement also sets an "assessment cap" on the Commission's administrative budget. The budget cap can only be exceeded if the city councils of a majority of the Commission members adopt resolutions approving the higher assessment prior to September 1, 2006. If a majority of the cities do not approve the higher levy, the Commission's budget will be limited to the cap. The amount of the cap for 2007 will 'be $285,900. The amount of the proposed administrative budget levy is $299,000. Therefore, consent of a majority of the member cities is required. The amount by which the proposed administrative levy exceeds the cap is recommended by the Commission for some of the activities on the following list. In the list of potential budget items below, the first item is a required TMDL implementation activity. The remaining items were recommended in the Water Quality Plan (WQP) and are part of the Commission's ongoing efforts to monitor and improve water quality and implement TMDLs. These directly relate to cities' NPDES permits and nondegradation requirements. Chloride TMDL Implementation Activities. At the April 2006 TAC meeting, the TAC recommended that the Commission include in the 2007 budget two activities: 1) additional funding to complete data analysis and to include in the annual water quality report an assessment of chloride application and in -stream data ($5,000); and 2) an annual workshop for city staff involved in salt application activities ($1,000). Education Grants. With the expansion of this program to associations, nonprofits, scouting groups, etc., we are seeing more interest in the grant program. It is recommended that the size of the program be increased to double the number of grants from 6 to 12 ($3,000 each in Shingle Creek and West Mississippi). Wetland Monitoring. The Commission has to date performed no wetland monitoring. Hennepin County Environmental Services manages a program called the Wetland Health Evaluation Program (WHEP) that trains volunteers to monitor wetland vegetation and other indicators. It is I_T Brooklyn Center - Brooklyn Park Crystal Maple Grove -- Minneapolis New Hope - Osseo - Plymouth - Robbinsdale Shin - .,reek proposed that two key sites in Shingle Creek and two sites in West Mississippi be monitored, with emphasis given to finding sites that may be impacted by excess chloride. The cost would be $2,000 for each Commission, which includes $800 per site for HCES services and staff time to evaluate results.. Aquatic Plant Monitoring. It is proposed that the Commission budget funds to offer a workshop providing training by University Extension staff for lake association members and other volunteers who wish to perform aquatic plant monitoring in lakes in the watershed. The estimated cost for these workshops is $2,000. This is more cost-effective than engaging the services of a water specialist to conduct a professional plant survey. The Commission has approved the proposed budget and requests approval of the member cities to exceed the cap for calendar year 2007 in the amount stated above. Your cooperation in continuing the important work of the Commission is greatly appreciated. A draft form of resolution approving the assessment above the cap is attached for your convenience. Questions may be directed to this office or to your representative. JAA:tim Enclosures Cc: Commissioners / via email Commission Staff / vi email JAShingle Creek\Financials\Financials07\letter to citiesSC.doc Brooklyn Center • Brooklyn Park • Crystal • Maple Grove • Minneapolis • New Hope • Osseo Plymouth • Robbinsdale CITY OF COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO EXCEED THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET LEVY CAP WHEREAS, the City of is a member of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, a Minnesota joint powers organization, organized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 and Section 103B.211 (the "Commission"); and WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement establishing the Commission provides that the Commission's annual levy to the cities for its administrative budget may not exceed a cap, which, for calendar year 2007, is in the amount of $285,900 without the consent of a majority of the city members; and WHEREAS, the Commission has requested the approval by the member cities of a levy for its administrative budget which exceeds the cap by the amount of $13,100, for a total assessment of $299,000; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is reasonable, appropriate, and in the best interests of the public to approve the proposed levy for the administrative budget requested by the Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of as follows: 1. The City Council approves the total levy by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission for calendar year 2007 for its administrative budget in the amount of $299,000. 2. The City Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the recording secretary of the Commission. Adopted by the City Council of the City of this day of .2006. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 1� JAShingle CreeklFinancials\Financiais07\Res_SCNArMC_re_budget_lew—cap.DOC Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission Member Assessments 2007 Budoet A B C D E F G H 1 54 2006 55 56 Community 57 Acreage 2005 Tax Capacity Cost Allocation Based on Area %a a Dollars Cost Based on Tax Capacity %a a Dollars Total Cost %a a Dollars 58 59 Brooklyn Center 3,720 15,643,282 13.07% 18,070.63 12.75% 17,624.57 12.91% 35,695 60 Brooklyn Park 7,080 31,273,475 24.88% 34,392.48 25.49% 35,234.39 25.18% 69,627 61 Crystal 2,480 11,576,309 8.71%1 12,047.08 9.43% 13,042.50 9.07% 25,090 62 Maple Grove 5,020 19,139,598 17.64%1 24,385.63 15.60% 21,563.71 16.62% 45,949 63 Minneapolis 1,950 8,841,550 6.85%1 9,472.51 7.21% 9,961.37 7.03% 19,434 64 1 New Hoe 2,070 8,717,351 7.27%1 10,055.43 7.10% 9,821.44 7.19% 19,877 65 Osseo 300 2,180,173 1.05% 1,457.31 1.78% 2,456.30 1.42% 3,914 66 Plymouth 4,380 18,181,639 15.39% 21,276.70 14.82% 20,484.42 15.10% 41,761 67 Robbinsdale 1,460 7,155,096 5.13% 7,092.23 5.83% 8,061.32 5.48% 15,154 68 69 Totals 28,460 122,708,473 100.00% 138,250.00 100.00% 138,250.00 100.00% 276,500 70 71 72 2007 Administrative Budget 73 74 Community 75 Acreage 2006 Tax Capacity Cost Allocation Based on Area %a a Dollars Cost Based on Tax Capacity %a a Dollars Total Cost %a a Dollars 76 77 lBrooklyn Center 3,720 16,184,222 13.07% 18,684.96 11.85% 16,942.93 12.46% 35,628 Brookl n Park 7,080 33,467,807 24.88% 35,561.70 24.51% 35,036.77 24.69% 70,598 C stal 2,480 12,536,941 8.71% 12,456.64 9.18% 13,124.67 8.95% 25,581 Ma le Grove E818�2 5,020 24,145,535 17.64% 25,214.65 17.68% 25,277.47 17.66%Minnea olis 1,950 10,091,366 6.85% 9,794.54 7.39% 10,564.45 7.12% 20,359 New Hoe 2,070 9,479,187 7.27% 10,397.28 6.94% 9,923.57 7.11% 20,321 83 1 Osseo 300 2,208,888 1.05% 1,506.85 1.62% 2,312.44 1.34% 3,819 84 Plymouth 4,380 20,313,844 15.39% 22,000.04 14.88% 21,266.15 15.13%1 43,266 85 Robbinsdale 1,460 8,120,841 5.13% 7,333.35 5.95% 8,501.54 5.54% 15,835 86 87 Totals 28,460 136,548,631 100.00% 142,950.00 100.00% 142,950.00 100.00% 285,900 88 89 90 2007 Additional Items 91 92 Community 93 Acreage 2006 Tax Capacity Cost Allocation Based on Area %a a Dollars Cost Based on Tax Capacity %a a Dollars Total Cost %a a Dollars 94 95 1 Brooklyn Center 3,720 16,184,222 13.07% 856.15 11.85% 776.33 12.46% 1,632 96 Brooklyn Park 7,080 33,467,807 24.88% 1,629.44 24.51% 1,605.39 24.69% 3,235 97 Crystal 2,480 12,536,941 8.71%1 570.77 9.18% 601.38 8.95% 1,172 98 Maple Grove 5,020 24,145,535 17.64% 1,155.34 17.68% 1,158.22 17.66% 2,314 99 Minneapolis 1,950 10,091,366 6.85% 448.79 7.39% 484.07 7.12% 933 100 New Hoe 2,070 9,479,187 7.27% 476.41 6.94% 454.70 7.11% 931 101 Osseo 300 2,208,888 1.05% 69.04 1.62% 105.96 1.34% 175 102 Plymouth 4,380 20,313,844 15.39% 1,008.05 14.88% 974.42 15.13% 1,982 103 Robbinsdale 1,460 8,120,841 5.13% 336.02 5.95%1 389.54 5.54% 726 104 105 Totals 28,460 136,548,631 100.00% 6,550.00 100.00% 6,550.00 100.00% 13,100 106 107 108 lb J:\Shingle Creek\Financials\Financials07\SC 2007 Member Assessments.xis /•i J,JV,Lmr, --F.- - -- SUBTOTAL OPERATIONS $172,000 $171,690 $178,700 $183,700 $0 ApprovedAdditional MONITORING AND I14RO Shingle Creek Watershed Approved Approved Approved Approved GATHERING Management Commission Budget 2004 2005 2006 2007 Items 2007 INCOME 1 Application fees $12,000_ __.__...._.......___ _$.__1-2,000 �. $12,000 _------___--_ ._----_.._._...-.--•--.___._.. $12,000 _____ ......._ 2 _..._... Wetland reviews 0 0 3 Interest income 1,000 1,00 500 1,000 4 Contribution to Reserve -__-•- -----___._.---.___...__......_ _.__-_ 3,000 _ _.._...... 5 Chloride TMDL grant 20,000 5,00 __._.._.___....__._._._..�..�____� 31 - -- ----.. 6 Lake TMDL grant 85,339 2,100 65,000 SUBTOTAL MONITORING $40,000 $44,500 ...----.............._.._....._.__ 7 Corridor stud rant 20,000 ___ .__ _.__..............__.......-__-._ ..._-.---. _ -_ -- _...._-____..___.... _......-.--.--_.__..__.__...___._ g __._._...._._.....__.._.........._._...___....._...___-.--•__-._._-_-___ DO/Biotic integrity 200,000 _ 9 _- -- _ _ -- Assessment- _ 262,750 _268,190 276,500 285,900 _ 13,100 - 10 - y Ad valorem 75,000- TOTAL INCOME $401,089 $286,190 .1 $429,000 ;$.498,900 $13,100 EXPENSES OPERATIONS Administration: ........ ... _ ... _.__ _. t0 Administrative Services -__ $45,000 $45;900 -$54,500 -� $56,900 _ I 1 _............_.._...___.__._-_.__._._---`-- Engineering Support --_ 7,000 7,140 0 0 Engineering: : .._..___.._.___..___.-•- --.-._.--._ __� _ _..___�_._ ... _....___. __._..__........ 12 2..__...... - T___.- ^-.------._ Administration 45,000 45,900 47,000 39,900 13 Management Plan 5,000 5,100 5,100 5,000 14 Grant Writing 7,500 _�-- 7,650 7,700 - 6,000 15 TMDUCIP Engineering _ 0 > 0 -_-_ 0 8,000 16 Field Inspection 2,500 0 0 0 Legal: ---- ----17 Legal Services 12,500 12,750 - 13,000 ��;13,000 Project Reviews: AL 28,000 __ 28,560 _ 29,000 32,000 18 Engineering - - 19 Administration- 4,000 - - 4,080 -- 4,200 4,30 - -- - - - Miscellaneous: _.__.....___..____._.._._._-......... 20 _..__ _.__ ..----__..__--__ __. _ Bookkeeping 2,800 2,860 2,900 3,00 21Audit 1,500 1,500 5,000 5,000 .............._._..__ 22 ......:_.....____..._._..._._..____...___-_.__.___.__.__..______.._....._._._...._ ...... Contingency ._.._.._....__..___ ^6,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 23 Insurance & Bonding 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,800 2 750 2.800 2,800 /•i J,JV,Lmr, --F.- - -- SUBTOTAL OPERATIONS $172,000 $171,690 $178,700 $183,700 $0 MONITORING AND I14RO GATHERING 25Commission stream monitorii $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $38,800 -... 26 USGS=site monitoring 2,800 3,200 27 Chloride TMDL annual report $5,000 28 Volunteer lake monitoring 7,000 6,500 - - 6,500 6,50 29 Volunteer stream monitoring 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 _ _ _ - - V_olunteer wetland monitoring - _ _ 2,000_ 31 - _ Volunteer aquatic plant monitoring 2,100 SUBTOTAL MONITORING $40,000 $44,500 $47,300 r $51,500 $9,100 .I:\Shingle Creek\Financials\Financials07\Approved 2007 Budgtte7t.doc L TOTAL OPERATING $401,089 $286,190 $429,000 $498,900 $13,100 + CAPITAL EXPENSE ME ApprovedAdditional Shingle Creek Watershed Approved Approved Approved Approved Management Commission Budget 2004 2005 2006 2007 Items 2007 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC 32 OUTREACH Education Program ...._...._.__ -- ---.._ .. 15,000 _..._._-_..._ _.._....-- 17,000 ...__._..........._.__.._.._.._ 25,000 _ 25,700 ......................._....................._...._....._..._...-..-.........---..._._... 33 ....... - Web site 3,750 3,000 34 NPDES 2,500 2,500 --- 35 Education and Impl Grants 2,500 _...____..__._....�._ 2,500 ___.-__. 3,000- -_- 3,000 ` _-_ 3,000 .._..-___ 36 _.._ ._.-----------_..._._.__._...._......._.---._._._. Chloride TMDL annual workshop 1,000 SUBTOTAL EDUCATION $23,750 $25,000 $28,000 $28,700 $4,000 MANAGEMENT PLANS 37 Shin le Cr Chloride ....._..- _. _.__ - 20,000 _ ___.�_..� > 000 _----.-..__�._...-- -_.._.._..._._.............._.._..-_ .._._............ _.__._...-_-..__..__........._....._ 38 ...._...---___.._........_..._........_.._.._...__......_.__. Lakes Phase 1 85,339 ---- _.__..___._-..__ 39 Lakes Phase II - 65,000 -_._ _ _.. _ _ �___.-.._.-_ _ -- - -•- -.------___ 40 --._._..._---..._..._._._---.-••__-- Shingle Cr DO/Biotic Integrity 200,000 Management plans.: _ _ _._._ .._.__.... 41 _.............___-_._...___._._ Shingle Creek corridor study 40,000 ----•---- - u- Chloride/lake phase I TMDL impl 20,000 42 ...__.__...__....._._.._.._.._._ 4 .. Stream assessment phase II _- 15,0003 -_----•-•••- -- _---____-_ 4411 TMDL impl planL ZLake 15,000 MGMT PLANS $145,339 $25,000 $80,000 $215,000 $0 45 Contribution to constr/grant match 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 TOTAL OPERATING $401,089 $286,190 $3.54,000 $498,900 $13,100 EXPENSE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 46 Brooklyn Park Stream Restoration 75,000 _......_..__.47_.._....__... __...._. =.... ._..... ..... 49 SUBTOTAL CIP $0 $0 $75,000 $0 $0 TOTAL OPERATING $401,089 $286,190 $429,000 $498,900 $13,100 + CAPITAL EXPENSE ME Community Mediation Services, Inc. Helping People Resolve Disputes 6/25/2006 Laurie Ahrens, City Manager City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd Plymouth MN 55447-1482 Dear City Manager Ahrens, Community Mediation Services, Inc. (formerly North Hennepin Mediation Program Inc.) often experiences an increase in requests for mediation services between neighbors (e.g noise, tree branches, barking dogs, etc.) and between victims and juvenile offenders (property damage, theft) in the summer months. We also see a slight increase in the number of business -consumer cases (e.g. builder/contractor-homeowner, landlord -tenant). As you encounter residents faced with some kind of dispute, or talk with staff who receive inquiries about such disputes, please remember mediation services are available to residents of Plymouth. A city referral form is enclosed, and is also available on our website: www.mediationprogram. I'm also enclosing a copy of our Annual Report and a pie chart depicting community cases and mediation statistics involving Plymouth residents. Hopefully it will give you a sense of how Community Mediation Services brings together those who could benefit from mediation services with those community volunteers willing to provide mediation services. If the City Council would like someone from Community Mediation Services, Inc. to make a brief presentation at an upcoming Council meeting, or participate in Neighborhood Night Out activities, please feel free to contact Michelle Lewis at outreach@mediationprogram.com. She'd be happy to make those arrangements. Finally, Michelle will be stopping by the City Hall soon to restock brochures. In partnership, deBailey-Allen Executive Director Enclosures: Annual Report, Referral form, Mediation brochures, Pie chart �_3 9220 Bass Lake Road, Suite 270 • New Hope, MN 55428 (763) 561-0033 • Fax: (763) 561-0266 www.mediationprogram.com CMS CASE NO:' CITY OF PLYMOUTH REFERRAL FORM (TO: Community Mediation Services Inc.) Referring/contactPerson: Phone: file # Fax: ❑ Human Relations ❑ City Council ❑ Police Department ❑ City Staff ❑ Other Are the parties aware of the referral to mediation? ❑ Yes ❑ No Have they agreed to mediate? ❑ Yes ❑ No rL+ VrE IN V VLVED: PARTY 1: Name Address Phone PARTY 3: Name Address Phone PARTY 2: Name Address Phone PARTY 4: Name Address Phone TYPE OF DISPUTE: ❑ Merchant/Consumer ❑ Family ❑ Neighbor to Neighbor ❑ Human Rights ❑ School ❑ Property Issue ❑ Juvenile Offenders ❑ Harassmemt ❑ Victim -Offender ❑ Other ❑ Landlord -tenant Please use back of form for any additional parties and/or information. MAIL TO: Community Mediation Services, Inc. (formerly NHMP) 9220 Bass Lakip Road, Ste 270 New Hope MN 55428 (763)561-0033 FAX TO: (763)561-0266 Police officers: Please include police report. Providing opportunities to resolve conflicts effectively and respectfully Revised 8/04 W o ■_ oC ) Y , O O n N C 1 4w s = a•+ O O E Ea a O V � U (u o Q Ln Y L 76 O L CL L Q� c H oly L E� (nLn C N O U -a O O LIR O o L 0) z L E� (nLn C N O U CD N p y W V C') �o 0 0 a; o v e ,c (Z 3 = v �z� O LO v N V O aJ ti p N cu o � > O a) 75 CD N p y W V C') �o 0 0 a; o v e ,c (Z 3 = v �z� o � � to c N d 'y„ •_ LO •fl � T N 7 N o r v O M 0 v s a c •> :01 U N @ _L O O o W L N t C p 12 O O p u O m 7 L L Q a .io w c co @ 2 cX O U E Q LU o a`i v U M v @ 3 a.° @ y =_ = E " L y 'Z .o o -, U o E? ro J O p h w° — E y Z 'O E O N o �� 3 nU °a o v.E a 0.Y.= E°° 0 L c E 0.2 y L a ' /?'••�V L � 1' O U y �cd �- 0 v o v L6 ° °c° `o �CN• cd mas m '@=' N U y t m @ E d qOpC A p N ca G L y= ..0 = L o E o DC7—jo—cr u C @aU o o � � to c N d 'y„ •_ LO •fl � T N 7 y .0 O M 0 42 0 y i O O@ E ontw O O o W L N t C Q = H c N C 12 O O p u O m 7 L L Q a .io w c .£ d •@ v i- v 0 = Q N ac•o d v L oma° �g H w° — E E ° is > ° ° @'c c E E ._ u 3 „ �, °a o v.E a 0.Y.= E°° 0 L c E 0.2 y L 4@ vi CU ' 'O cd C N p O y �cd �- 0 v o v L6 ° °c° `o Y`o `o E o a EEo°' O 01c-ot0= '@=' N U c>>0 0 0° N o 6 o c N"0 0 °U °,U °a�Ua¢U C U 7Ui E O N U 4.7 MODEL RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Residential cluster development is a form of land development in which principal buildings and structures are grouped together on a site, thus saving the remaining land area for common open space, conservation, agriculture, recreation, and public and semipublic uses (Whyte 1964; Unterman and Small 1977; Arendt 1996; Sanders 1980). In many respects, cluster development dates back to one of the earliest town forms. In primitive early settlements, dwelling units were often organized to form a common area or enclosure that residents could use together and readily defend if necessary. In the United States, the development of Radburn, New Jersey, in 1928 represented the first formal introduction of the cluster development concept. It drew on English town planning principles, notably those of the Garden Cities movement. In Radburn, single-family homes and garden apartments are sited in "superblocks" of 35 to 50 acres (Stein 1957, 34-37). The superblocks have no through traffic and are interspersed with parks and related green spaces on which the residences face. Clustering also became the basic site design concept in such contemporary new towns as Reston, Virginia, and Columbia, Maryland. Cluster development has a number of distinct advantages over conventional subdivision development. A well-planned cluster development concentrates dwelling units on the most buildable portion of the site and preserves natural drainage systems, vegetation, open space, and other significant natural features that help control stormwater runoff and soil erosion. The common areas function as a trap for nutrients dissolved or suspended in stormwater runoff (Arendt 1994, 278, 281). Cost savings during construction are achieved by the reduction in street lengths and utility installations. Later savings can be realized in street and utility maintenance (less surface area that needs repaving and fewer feet of water and sewer line to maintain). Because dwelling units are placed closer together, refuse and other service vehicles do not have to negotiate over as much street mileage, thus reducing travel time. Where clustering is accompanied by higher -density residential land uses and the provision of pedestrian pathways and bikeways, especially those that link to off-site activity centers, residents of the cluster development may walk and exercise more. Clustering also enhances the sense of community, allowing parents better supervision of children playing in, common areas and promoting social interaction among neighbors. This model ordinance is intended to encourage developers to use cluster development as an alternative to conventional lot -by -lot development and authorizes cluster development as -of - right either in all residential districts or in selected residential districts. Section l 10 of the ordinance also offers density bonuses of up to 25 percent when a developer: (a) provides affordable housing as part of the cluster development (thereby helping the local government achieve housing goals that may have been established by the state) and/or (b) conveys land for open space, recreation, or other purposes that is accessible to the public. Under Section 107 of the model, the local planning commission has the primary responsibility for reviewing and approving a cluster development, although such a function could also be assigned to a hearing examiner. The model ordinance sets forth criteria for the commission to apply in deciding whether to approve the cluster development. (Remember that the responsibilities of the local planning commission vary from state to state.) The model does not include a severability clause because it assumed this ordinance will be incorporated into a zoning code that will have one already. G�•r This model is based on a sample ordinance appearing in Nonpoint Source Pollution: A Handbook for Local Governments by Sanjay Jeer, Megan Lewis, Stuart Meek, Jon Witten, and Michelle Zimet, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 476 (Chicago: American Planning Association, 1997), 81-90. Primary Smart Growth Principle Addressed: Preserve open space and farmland Secondary Smart Growth Principle Addressed: Distinctive and attractive places 101. Purpose (1) It is the purpose of this ordinance to permit residential cluster development in order to: (a) encourage creative and flexible site design that is sensitive to the land's natural features and adapts to the natural topography; (b) protect environmentally sensitive areas of a development site and preserve on a permanent basis open space, natural features, and prime agricultural lands; (c) decrease or minimize nonpoint source pollution impacts by reducing the amount of impervious surfaces in site development; (d) promote cost savings in infrastructure installation and maintenance by such techniques as reducing the distance over which utilities, such as water and sewer lines, need to be extended or by reducing the width or length of streets; and (e) provide opportunities for social interaction and walking and hiking in open space areas. 102. Definitions As used in this ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meanings specified herein: Comment. Please remember to consult your state statutes to employ definitions that are consistent with those statutes. These definitions were drawn from different sources and, while useful, may differ from those already established by your state legislation. "Affordable" means either a sales price that is within the means of a moderate -income household or a rental amount for housing that is within the means of a low-income household, as those terms are defined in this Section. In the case of dwelling units for sale, housing that is affordable is housing for which the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and fees are no more than [30] percent of the adjusted income for a household whose gross annual income is at or below [80] percent of the median for the area based on household size. In the case of rental housing, housing that is affordable is housing for which the monthly rental amount plus utility costs do not exceed [30] percent of the adjusted income for a household whose gross income is [50] percent of the area median household income adjusted for household size. Section 4.7 Model Residential Cluster Development Ordinance 2 Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report 0 American Planning Association, March 2006 NO, Comment. Definitions of "affordable, " "low-income household,. " and "moderate -income household" may need to be changed here and below. The definitions should comply with current requirements of the applicable federal or state construction or rehabilitation program. In particular, the bracketed percentages tnay be modified to affect the scope of the definition. "Buffer" means land maintained in either a natural or landscaped state and used to screen and/or mitigate the impacts of development on surrounding areas, properties, or rights-of-way. "Building" means any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy. "Cluster" or "Clustering" means a site -planning technique that concentrates buildings and structures in specific areas on a lot, site, or parcel to allow the remaining land to be used for recreation, open space, and/or preservation of features and/or structures with environmental, historical, cultural, or other significance. The techniques used to concentrate buildings may include, but shall not be limited to, reduction in lot areas, setback requirements, and/or bulk requirements, with the resultant open space being devoted by deed restrictions for one or more uses. "Cluster development, residential" means a land development project in which the site planning technique of clustering dwelling units is employed. "Common open space" means the portion of the site set aside in perpetuity as open space. This area may include coastal and freshwater wetlands, floodplains or flood -hazard areas, stream corridors, prime agricultural lands, habitats of endangered wildlife, as identified on applicable federal or state lists, scenic views, historical or cultural features, archaeological sites, or other elements to be protected from development, .as well as easements for public utilities. "Development" means the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alternation, relocation, or enlargement of any structure; any mine, excavation, landfill or land disturbance; and/or any change in use, or alteration or extension of the use, of land. "Gross area" means the total area of the site, including the net buildable area and public rights- of-way. "infrastructure" means the facilities and services needed to sustain residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and other activities. "Land development project" means a project in which one or more lots, tracts, or parcels of land are to be developed or redeveloped as a coordinated site for a complex of uses, units, or structures, including, but not limited to, planned development and/or cluster development for residential, commercial, institutional, recreational, open space, and or/mixed uses as are provided for in the zoning ordinance. Section 4.7 Model Residential Cluster Development Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report © American Planning Association, March 2006 30 "Lot" means either: (a) the basic development unit for determination of area, depth, and other dimensional variations; or (b) a parcel of land whose boundaries have been established by some legal instrument, such as a recorded deed or recorded map, and recognized as a separate legal entity for purposes of transfer of title. "Low-income household" means a household whose gross annual income does not exceed [50] percent of the area median as adjusted for household size. "Moderate -income household" means a household whose gross annual income is less than [80] percent of the area median as adjusted for household size. "Net buildable area" means the portion of the cluster development that may be developed or used for common open space, whether publicly dedicated or private, but excluding private streets, public streets, and other publicly dedicated improvements. "Site plan" means the development plan for one or more lots on which is shown the existing and/or the proposed conditions of the lot. "Street, private" means a local roadway serving only abutting lots, not publicly dedicated or maintained by the [local government] but meeting specific municipal improvement standards, and providing access for service and emergency vehicles. "Street, public" means all public property reserved or dedicated for street traffic. "Structure" means anything constructed or erected that requires location on the ground or attached to something having location on the ground. 103. Applicability; General Provisions (1) A residential cluster development shall be permitted [as of right in any residential zoning district pursuant to this ordinance or as of right in the following zoning districts: list district names]: (a) All principal and accessory uses authorized in the applicable residential zoning district(s) shall be allowed in the cluster development. In addition, multifamily dwellings, duplexes, and townhouses may be permitted for a cluster development located in a residential zoning district that does not otherwise allow attached dwelling units. (b) Maximum lot coverage, floor area ratios, building height, and parking requirements for the applicable zoning district shall apply to the cluster development. Maximum lot coverage, floor area ratios, and parking requirements, however, shall be applied to the entire site rather than to any individual lot. Section 4.7 Model Residential Cluster Development Ordinance 4 Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report © American Planning Association, March 2006 31 (2) The following provisions shall apply to any residential cluster development, regardless of the general requirements of the applicable residential zoning district: (a) The minimum area of the cluster development shall be [two to five] acres. Comment. There is a fair degree gf'debate about whether the area of a cluster development should be limited. Because cluster development is fundamentally a design review process, in theory, the approach should be applicable to a site of any size. However, it may be that, fbr smaller sites, a cluster development ruay not yield any appreciable benefits over conventional subdivisions. Consequently, the decision to authorize cluster development will depend on the policy preferences of the individual local government. (b) No minimum width or depth of a lot shall apply. (c) A minimum separation of [10] feet shall be provided between all principal buildings and structures. (d) A minimum yard or common open space of a least [25] feet in depth shall be provided, as measured from all public streets and from the side and rear lot lines of the entire cluster development. (e) Each lot shall have a minimum access of [12] feet to a public or private street. Such access may be shared with other lots. (f) More than one principal building or structure may be placed on a lot. (g) Not less than [25] percent of the site shall be conveyed as common open space in the manner provided for in Section [I 10] below. [Where the site contains floodplains and/or coastal or freshwater wetlands, not less than [50] percent of such floodplains and/or wetlands shall be included in calculating the common open space.] Comment. In some states, the identification gffloodplains and coastal or freshwater wetlands occurs routinely as part of the land development and subdivision review process. Optional language in Section 103(2)(8) above requires that at least 50 percent gf the floodplains and/or wetlands must be included as purl of'the common open space. By including the land designated as common open space, the calculation of net buildable area gives credit for the land area in which floodplains and wetlands that meet state criteria are located. This is intended to serve as an incentive to employ clustering by allowing the area represented by lands in floodplains and wetlands to be used in determining the maximum number of dwelling units. Section 4.7 Model Residential Cluster Development Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report © American Planning Association, March 2006 3L 104. Contents of Site Plan (l) The preliminary and final site plan for a residential cluster development shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following information: (a) The maximum number and type of dwelling units proposed (b) The areas of the site on which the dwelling units are to be constructed or are currently located and their size (this may take the form of the footprint of the dwelling unit or a building envelope showing the general area in which the dwelling unit is to be located) (c) The calculations for the permitted number of dwelling units, derived pursuant to Section [105] below (d) The areas, of the site on which other proposed principal and accessory uses may be located and their size Comment. Uves other than residences may be located on the site. For example, the cluster development may include storage facilities, garages, and recreational buildings. Conceivably, a very large cluster development could also include sites for schools. (e) The areas of the site designated for common open space and their size (f) The areas of the site designated for parking and loading and the size of individual spaces (g) The number and percentage of dwelling units, if any, that are proposed to be affordable (h) The location of sidewalks, trails, and bike paths. Comment: This model assumes the local government will require sidewalks as part of the public improvements required for subdivision. (i) The number of acres that are proposed to be conveyed as common open space 0) [Cite any other plans or information otherwise required by the local government for a major land development or subdivision in its land development or subdivision regulations, such as a plan for landscaping and screening.] 105. Calculation of Permitted Number of Dwelling Units; Density Bonuses Section 4.7 Model Residential Cluster Development Ordinance 6 Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ® American Planning Association, March 2006 3-3 (1) Except as provided in paragraph (3) below, the maximum numbers of dwelling units proposed for a residential cluster development shall not exceed the number of dwelling units otherwise permitted for the residential zoning district in which the parcel is located. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3) below, the number of permitted dwelling units on a site shall be calculated in the following manner. Comment. The calculations in paragraph (2) are intended to mirror those that a local government would normally, employ for determining the maximun7 numher gf'dwelling units pernritted. for nonclustered development. Some communities may subtract from the gross area of the cluster development land area in wetlands and/or floodplain, which will reduce the maximum number ofdwelling units in the development. (a) Measure the gross area of the proposed cluster development site in acres and tenths of an acre. (b) Subtract from the gross area determined in subparagraph (a) the area of public and private streets and other publicly dedicated improvements, measured in acres and tenths of an acre, excluding common open space (whether or not it is conveyed pursuant to Section [I 10] below). The remainder shall be the net buildable area; (c) Convert the net buildable area from acres to square feet (SF), using the equivalency of 43,560 SF = 1 acre; and (d) Divide the net buildable area by the smallest minimum lot size (in square feet) per unit for a dwelling unit permitted in the zoning district. This figure shall be rounded to the nearest lower number to establish the maximum number of dwelling units to be permitted in the cluster development. (3) The [local planning commission] may approve an increase of up to [25] percent of the maximum number of dwelling units in the cluster development, as calculated in paragraph (2) above, if. Comment. The homes provisions in paragraph (3) are a means by which a local government can ensure that new housing will benefit low- and moderate -income households and implement state goals for q#6rdable housing. Indeed, should a local government decide it wants to more aggressively provide for affordable housing through cluster development (cis well as open space conveyance), it might increase the density bonus from the suggested figure of 25 percent. (a) the percent of density bonus is no greater than the percent of dwelling units in the cluster development that are affordable units; and/or Section 4.7 Model Residential Cluster Development Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report m American Planning Association, March 2006 ✓4- (b) the percent of density bonus is no greater than the percent of the gross area of the cluster development that is both: 1. set aside as and conveyed as common open space pursuant to Section [I 10] below; and 2. accessible to the public. Comment. Note that only when the common open space is both conveyed and is accessible to the public is u density bonus justified If the common open space was simply conveyed to a private entitv (as opposed to the local government), but there was no public access, a density, bonus could not be approved. 106. Procedures for Review (1) The [local planning commission] shall review and approve a residential cluster development and any amendments thereto as a land development project in the manner provided for in [cite applicable state statute], together with any ordinances and regulations adopted pursuant thereto and appearing in [cite applicable local land development regulations]. 107. Review Criteria (1) In reviewing a residential cluster development, the [local planning commission shall determine whether: (a) the site plan satisfies the requirements of Sections [103], [104], and [105] above; (b) buildings and structures are adequately grouped so at least [25] percent of the total area of the site is set aside as common open space. To the greatest degree practicable, common open space shall be designated as a single block and not divided into unconnected small parcels located in various parts of the development; (c) pedestrians can easily access common open space; (d) the site plan establishes, where applicable, an upland buffer of vegetation of at least [50] feet in depth adjacent to wetlands and surface waters, including creeks, streams, springs, lakes, and ponds; (e) individual lots, buildings, structures, streets, and parking areas are situated to minimize the alteration of natural features, natural vegetation, and topography; (f) existing scenic views or vistas are permitted to remain unobstructed, especially from public streets; Section 4.7 Model Residential Cluster Development Ordinance 8 Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report m American Planning Association, March 2006 135, (g) the site plan accommodates and preserves any features of historic, cultural, or archaeological value; (h) floodplains, wetlands, and areas with slopes in excess of [25] percent are protected from development; (i) the cluster development advances the purposes of this ordinance as stated in Section [10 1 ] above; and 0) [other, such as contiguity requirement for common open space]. (2) The [local planning commission] may, in its opinion, apply such special conditions or stipulations to its approval of a residential cluster development as may be required to maintain harmony with neighboring uses and to promote the objectives and purposes of the comprehensive plan and the zoning and subdivision ordinances. (3) If the [local planning commission] finds that the requirements of paragraph (1) above are satisfied, it shall approve the residential cluster development, subject to any special conditions or stipulations pursuant to paragraph (2) above, any density bonus pursuant to Section [105] above, and any reductions [and/or waivers] pursuant to Section [108] below. Comment. While these review criteria are intended to guide the planning commission in the evaluation of'the proposed cluster development, they cannot replace a sensitive and creative site planner who has the responsibility of designing cluster development or an experienced professional planner whose responsibility it is to review the proposal and advise the planning-- commission lanningcommission on necessary design changes. 108. Reduction [and/or Waiver] of Certain Physical Design Requirements (1) In approving a residential cluster development, the [local planning commission] may reduce the pavement width of any public or private streets that would otherwise be required by the [subdivision regulations or other design specifications for roads] to [22] feet. (2) An applicant who wants the reduction of pavement width of public or private streets as provided for in paragraph (1) above, shall submit a statement of justification for the reduction [and/or waiver] along with the final site plan. Comment. Most local governments have adopted standard design specifications for streets. This Section allows the planning commission to reduce street pavement widths in order to minimize impervious surfaces on the site as well as limit the portions of the site that must be regraded to accommodate wider streets. If a street proposed in a cluster development is to be used as a connector from an adjoining development or as a through street, it is probably not a candidate for a reduction in width. There is no firm rule, however, on when a reduction or waiver should be allowed and determinations should be made on a case-by-case basis. Section 4.7 Model Residential Cluster Development Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report © American Planning Association, March 2006 3 The 22 fbot pavement width shown in brackets assumes a 15 -foot travel lane and a seven -foot parking area. If parking were desir,don both sides of the street, a 28 foot pavement would accvnznaodate two seven -foot parking lanes and a 14 foot wide travel lane (Southworth and Ben- .Ioseph 1997; Livable Oregon n.d.; Ewing 19.96, 69-72). 109. Controls on Resale and Re -rental of Affordable Housing Units Used as Basis for Density Bonus (1) Affordable dwelling units used as the basis for approving a density bonus in Section [105] above shall be subject to a deed restriction and a mortgage lien to ensure that newly constructed low- and moderate -income sales and rental units remain affordable to low- and moderate -income households for a period of not less than [30] years, which period may be renewed. Section 4.7 Model Residential Cluster Development Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report © American Planning Association, March 2006 31 10 (2) The deed restriction and mortgage lien shall be approved by the [local government] law director and shall be enforceable by the [local government] through legal and equitable remedies. Comment, f the density bonus is to he given on the basis of a guarantee of the provision of affordable housing, there must be a mechanism that ensures the housing, whether it is for sale or for rent, will remain affordable for a reasonable period of time. This is done through a deed restriction and mortgage lien approved by the local government's law director (New Jersey n. d.). 110. Conveyance of Open Space (1) Common open space provided by a residential cluster development shall be conveyed as follows: (a) To the [local government] and accepted by it for park, open space, agricultural, or other specified use or uses, provided that the conveyance is approved by the [local planning commission] and is in a form approved by the [local government] law director; or (b) To a nonprofit organization whose principal purpose is the conservation of open space, to a corporation or trust owned or to be owned by the owners of lots or dwelling units within the residential cluster development, or to owners of shares within a cooperative development. If such a corporation or trust is used, ownership shall pass with the conveyances of the lots or dwelling units. The conveyance shall be approved by the [local planning commission] and shall be in a form approved by the [local government's] law director (see Diehl et al. 1988 for model language for easements). (2) In any case, where the common open space in a residential cluster development is conveyed pursuant to subparagraph (1)(b) above, a deed restriction enforceable by the [local government] shall be recorded that provides that the common open space shall. (a) be kept in the authorized conditions(s); and (b) not be developed for principal uses, accessory uses (e.g., parking), or roadways. References for Section 4.7, Model Residential Cluster Development Ordinance Arendt, Randall G. 1996. Conservation Design for Subdivisions: A Practical Guide to Creating Open Space Networks. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Arendt, Randall G. et al. 1994. Rural by Design. Chicago: APA Planners Press. Diehl, Janet, et al. 1988. The Conservation Easement Handbook: Managing Land Conservation and Historic Preservation Easement Programs. Washington, D.C.: Trust for Public Land and Land Trust Alliance. Section 4.7 Model Residential Cluster Development Ordinance 11 Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report © American Planning Association, March 2006 A Ewing, Reid. 1996. Best Development Practices. Chicago: APA Planners Press, 69-72. Jeer, Sanjay, et al. 1997. Nonpoint Source Pollution: A Handbook for Local Governments. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 476. Chicago: American Planning Association, 81-90. Livable Oregon, Inc. n.d. Skinny Streets: Better Streets for Livable Communities. Portland, Ore: Livable Oregon. New Jersey, State of. n.d. New Jersey Administrative Code, Vol. 5, Ch. 93, Appendix I. Sanders, Welford G. 1980. The Cluster Subdivision: A Cost -Effective Approach. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 356. Chicago: American Planning Association. Southworth, Michael, and Eran Ben -Joseph. 1997. Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities. New York: McGraw-Hill. Stein, Clarence S. 1957. Toward New Towns for America. New York: Reinhold Publishing Co, 37-34. Unterman, Richard, and Robert Small. 1977. Site Planning for Cluster Housing. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Whyte, William H. 1964. Cluster Development. New York: American Conservation Association. Section 4.7 Model Residential Cluster Development Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ® American Planning Association, March 2006 3q 12 CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 DATE: June 29, 2006 TO: Plymouth City Council FROM: Barbara Senness, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Plymouth Library On Tuesday, June 27, 2006, the General Government Committee of the Hennepin County Board unanimously recommended amending its 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Program for the Plymouth Library project. The amendment would modify the project scope, changing from a remodel/expansion approach to an all-new building replacement of the library. The amendment will go before the County Board on July 11 where it likely will be on the Consent Agenda. Attached is a copy of the staff report from the committee meeting and the study that supports the replacement approach. The recommended option is Option C. At this time, County staff estimate that the Plymouth Library will remain in operation until late summer 2007. Once construction begins, the library will be closed for approximately two years. ME Request for Board Action ( 06-389 ) Original Request 06/22/06 Referred to the General Government Committee meeting scheduled for 06/27/06 County Administrators Recommendation: RBA Type: Recommend Approval Discussion/Action Reason: amend capital project/award design contract Originating Department: Property Services Is your department composing this RBA on Originating Division: behalf of another department? No Immediate Approval? • No O Yes Item: Authorization to amend the 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Program for the Plymouth Library Expansion & Renovation (Capital Project 0030305) to modify the project scope, changing from a remodel/expansion approach to an all-new building replacement of the library and increase the project budget by $3,949,000; award of architectural/engineering contract to Benz/Thompson/Rietow, Inc. as recommended by the Designer Selection Committee. Distribution: Judy Hollander/PS/Hennepin; Adam D Sobiech/PS/Hennepin; Priscilla A Parshall/PS/Hennepin; Prashant M. Kharkar/PS/Hennepin; Greg Karr/PS/Hennepin; Amy E Ryan/LI/Hennepin; Janet Leick/LI/Hennepin Are Certified Copies Required? No Quantity: Board Action Requested: BE IT RESOLVED, That the following actions be approved for the Plymouth Library Expansion & Renovation (Capital Project 0030305): approval to amend the 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Program to allow for total replacement of the library in place of an expansion to the existing building and authorization to amend the 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Program to increase the project budget by $3,949,000, from $10,051,000 to $14,000,000 with the additional required funding being provided from County Library bonds in 2007 and 2008; approval of Contract No. A060074 with Bentz/Thompson/Rietow, Inc., in the amount of $976,000 for the period July 11, 2006 through December 31, 2009 as recommended by the Hennepin County Designer Selection Committee for architectural/engineering services, and that the Chair of the Board be authorized to sign the contract on behalf of the County and that the Controller be authorized to disburse funds as directed. Background: History The Plymouth Library service area has experienced substantial population growth since the present library was opened in 1995. As a result, the existing facility is not capable of accommodating the increased circulation activity, program requirements, operation needs and general library usage demands. There is a need for a much larger "customer- friendly" library consistent with projected population growth figures and the planning principles outlined in the "Framework for the Future" report, the HCL Administration's long-range development plan was recently approved by the County Board. The Plymouth Library Expansion & Renovation (Capital Project 0030305), as approved in the 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Program, was initially conceived of as a combination remodeling/expansion of the existing library facility. An in-depth Feasibility Study was completed in early 2006, which established criteria and requirements for the new library facility and compared four expansion options in terms of size, cost and customer services. The Feasibility Study focused on consideration of customer service and customer experience aspects, soliciting community input on the desired features of the new library facility. Of the four options presented in the Feasibility Study, two options were identified for further consideration. While both options included a library facility of 30,000 GSF and expanded parking accommodations, one option called for remodeling and expansion of the existing, while the other option replaced the existing library with a new building. Although the overall building size of 30,000 GSF is the same for both options, the feasibility study identified several significant features that could be implemented with the all-new building option, but which would not be feasible with the remodel/ expansion approach, due to constraints inherent in the existing building structure and layout. These include: increased capacity for library collections (about 10,000 items); ability to improve public street presence/image; flexibility in placement of library and customer service functions; increased space efficiency; space for a new Senior Resource Area; adequate area to install a full AMH system; ability to incorporate energy efficient HVAC systems and controls. It was also determined that the all-new building option would result in lower increased annual operating costs for the facility ($601,000 in 2006 dollars). The total project cost for the Plymouth Library Expansion & Renovation (Capital Project 0030305), as approved in the 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Program was $10,051,000. Based on the more detailed development of project scope that was outlined in the Feasibility Study, a comparison of estimated costs was prepared for each option. The probable cost for building an all-new building is estimated at $14,000,000; $700,000 more than the remodel/ expansion approach, estimated at $13,300,000. Based on the findings of the feasibility study and the community input received, HCL Administration and Property Services recommend proceeding with the option to replace the existing facility with an all-new building and approval to increase the capital project budget by $3,949,000, from $10,051,000 to $14,000,000. The proposed project budget includes funds for construction, furnishings, equipment, library collection and consulting, contingency and other items. In accordance with the approved designer selection process (pursuant to Board Resolution No. 02-659R2), the Hennepin County Designer Selection Committee (DSC) recommends Bentz/Thompson/Rietow, Inc. for contract award for architectural/engineering services for the Plymouth Library Expansion & Renovation capital project. This project was included as part of the designer selection process completed by the DSC in Spring 2005. The respective selection process is summarized in the "Report on the Selection of Architectural/Engineering Consultants for Major 2005 Capital Improvement Projects," dated April 2005 which is on file with the Clerk of the Board. The DSC recommended consultant, Bentz/Thompson/Rietow, Inc., has previously worked for the county - via both DSC recommendation and by the 2 -year consultant services authorization process. The total fee amount includes basic services by Bentz/Thompson/Rietow, Inc. and their subconsultants for architecture, engineering, interior design and landscape design as well as for completion of programming and usual reimbursable expenditures. Current Request: The current request is as follows: • Approval to amend the project scope, changing from a remodel/expansion approach to an all-new building replacement of the library, as outlined in the Feasibility Study; • Increase the project budget by $3,949,000, from $10,051,000 to $14,000,000; • In 2005 the Designer Selection Board recommended Bentz/Thompson/Rietow, Inc. for architectural and engineering services for the Plymouth Library Expansion project. Approval of Contract No. A060074 with Bentz/Thompson/Rietow, Inc., in the amount of $976,000 for the period July 11, 2006 through December 31, 2009 for architectural/engineering services is requested. Impact/Outcomes: This project will include the planning, design and construction of a new library of 30,000 GSF, roughly doubling the present size. At the completion of this project, the new library facility will include the following T� improved services, features and capacity: • Increased library collection size from 82,000 to 100,000 • Expanded surface parking for cars — from 85 to 175 spaces • New building entrance, improving public access, street presence and image • Improved space efficiency and flexibility for future needs • Appropriately sized work spaces for staff and equipment • Intuitive design for customer access and wayfinding, self check-out machines • Improved security, sightlines and access control • Space for a new Senior Resource Area and Plymouth History Collection • New Automated Material Handling system • New high-performance energy efficient air handling systems and controls • Implementation of sustainable design methods and materials, interior and exterior, including a rain garden to provide both a public amenity and enhanced stormwater management capability to reduce run-off into the city's stormwater drains. Background Data: Comments: Budget and Accounting Information New Contract(s): No. Contract Contractor Name Vendor AA Code Begin Date End Date Fund Acct. Center Project Contract Amount $3,949,000.00 Number Number Total: $3,949,000.00 Number 1 A060074 Bentz/Thompson/Ristow, 7/11/2006 12/31/2009 52 52120 740044 0030305 $976,000.00 Inc. Total: $976,000.00 OWN Funding source: Other Click here for help ---> QZYb Funds included in budget? * Yes O No Funds to be encumbered? • Yes O No Approved Affirmative Action Plan? O Yes • No(Explain in background) O Does not apply This is a receivable? O Yes 0 No ❑ This is a receivable with no budget implications. Outcome measures included? O Yes O No(Explain in background) • Does not apply Standard Contract Language? • Yes O No Supplemental Appropriations)/Additional Positions: Revenue(s): Explain other: No. Department/Center Name Fund Account Center Project Number Amount FTE(s) 1 County Library Bonds 52 49990 740044 0030305 $3,949,000.00 Total: $3,949,000.00 `i 5 Expenditure(s): No. Department/Center Fund Account Center Project Amount FTE(s) Name Number 1 Plymouth Library 52 58900 740044 0030305 $3,949,000.00 Expansion & Renovation Total: $3,949,000.00 Budget Year: 2006 Adequate space plan for position(s)? O Yes O No (explain in background) • Does not apply Technology budgeted for position(s)?O Yes O No (explain in background) • Does not apply Department County Administration Administration/Clerk County Board History 06/22/06 - RBA status was changed from Communication to Referred to Committee by Devonna L Pittman 06/19/2006 - RBA forwarded with County Administrators Approval by Sandy L. Vargas with a status of Communication 06/19/2006 - Advanced to Sandy L. Vargas - County Administrator with a status of New 06/19/2006 - Request Approved/Forwarded to County Admin. ( Melissa Booth ) by Alanna S. Tyler 06/19/2006 - Request Approved/Forwarded to County Admin. ( Richard P Johnson ) by Judy Hollander 06/15/2006 - Request Submitted For Approval by Michael P. Natysin 06/14/2006 - New Request Created by Michael P. Natysin Additional Readers: June 2006 Update BUILDING LIBRARIES OF THE FUTURE A Popular From the moment the new Plymouth Library opened in 1995, people of all ages have relied on the Destination for library for books and magazines, CDs and videos, storytimes and author programs, and for computers People of All Ages and wireless access—making Plymouth Library one of the most popular libraries in the metro area. Over 800,000 books, CDs and DVDs were checked out in 2005—an average of 10 books per person for every resident of Plymouth, Corcoran and Medina. Add in the library's inviting role as a community gathering place, and it's apparent that the existing 16,000 square foot library is too small to keep up with the community's demand for new books, additional computers, meeting space for book clubs, a teen area, study tables and an expanded children's room. People are using the library in record-breaking numbers and as Plymouth and surrounding communities continue to gain population, the building, as it is, is hard pressed to meet customer expectations for a 21st century library. County Support Hennepin County Board of Commissioners support strong libraries throughout the County and Keeps Pace with recognize the need for expanded state-of-the-art facilities to keep pace with public demand and Community Demand contribute to the County's quality of life. Plymouth Library will be improved and services expanded, thanks to the County Board, which has approved funding for capital improvements to the building. As the scope of the project takes shape, the design team, made up of Library and County staff, and architects, will use information gathered from customers, Friends and others as a touchstone for planning. Residents' Ideas Residents have voiced these preferences for improvements in a family -friendly setting: for Enhanced • A greater selection of books, DVDs and CDs for people of all ages Library Services • Comfortable rooms for small gatherings such as book clubs, tutoring and study groups • A new local history area developed in partnership with the Friends, the local historical society and others featuring photographs, histories and materials that foster community roots and interest • An ample teen -friendly area with magazines, books, computers and comfortable seating • Additional computers with enhanced software for personal, academic and business use • An inviting area for seniors with computers, focused resources, and space for information sessions and programs • Sensible and roomy layout that eases crowded conditions and enhances ease of use • A larger children's area that is fun, inviting and educational in an inspiring book setting • Drive-through book drop that flows safely and logically for customer convenience Next Steps Plymouth Library will remain open through 2006 and into 2007. Once the timetable for construction has been established, additional information will be available. With the leadership of Commissioners Mark Stenglein and Penny Steele, Library and County staff are working with architects to explore options for expansion, remodeling or new construction. The existing location of the library can accommodate an expanded building and parking lot according to a recent feasibility study. Once the scope of the project has progressed, anticipated to be this summer, Library staff will further update the community. Ideas are Always Hennepin County Library contacts: Welcome Joann Frankena, Library Manager, Plymouth, jfrankena0a hclib.org, 952-847-5828 Sarajo Wending, Capital Projects Coordinator, swentlingOa hclib.org, 952-847-8832 Janet Leick, Division Manager, Operations, jleickOa hclib.org, 952-847-8606 HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Gail Dorfman I Randy Johnson I Linda Koblick I Peter McLaughlin I Mike Opat I Penny Steele I Mark Stenglein LIBRARY BOARD John Gibbs I Holly Guncheon I Patricia Izek I Jeffrey Lunde ( David Pratt I Cynthia Steinke I Therese VanBlarcom DIRECTOR Amy E. Ryan ` A Service of Hennepin County ` 05/06 HENNEPIN COUNTY LIBRARY PLYMOUTH LIBRARY CAPITAL PROJECT Compelling Reasons to Expand Plymouth Library to 30,000 Square Feet Plymouth Library requires expansion to meet -the needs of a rapidly growing and increasingly diverse community. Much has changed in the years since the library opened to the public. Additional space is needed for an expanded technology area, teen area, space for families and children, space to serve seniors, and space for an inviting -community gathering place. • The public demand for technology has increased exponentially. When the Plymouth Library opened its doors in 1995 there were only 2 public computers; today there are 38 computers with a waiting list. An expanded library would contain 85 computers including a computer lab. • The Children's Area is congested with inadequate space and finnishings for children, families, and groups. It currently only has 6 computers and seating for 16. An expanded library would offer approximately 16 computers and seating for 60 as well as a unique early literacy area with learning features. • The Teen Area is currently less than 400 square feet and contains only 3 computers and seating for 8. An expanded library would offer approximately 16 computers with seating for 30. Homework help space and a group study room would be included in the area. •. Seniors do not have their own space in the current library. An expanded library would introduce a specially designed space with targeted collections and displays, 6 computers (est.), and senior friendly lounge furniture and table space for approximately 20. • The current meeting room is awkwardly shaped and does not allow the multi -use flexibility that our customers have come to expect. An expanded library would have a more flexible shape and would be designed to be opened into the children's area to expand the space to facilitate early literacy activities and group study use. Usage of the Plymouth Library confirms the need to expand. Circulation has increased 56.2% from 1996 to 2005 making it one of the top six busiest libraries in suburban Hennepin County. About 807,378 books and audio-visual items were checked out in 2005. Plymouth residents checked out 75% of the total. In 1995, Plymouth's population was approximately 58,000. The 2000 Census reported that Plymouth had 65,894 residents. In 2004, the Metropolitan Council estimated that the population had grown to 70,682. The population of the city of Plymouth and surrounding cities is projected by the Metropolitan Council to grow substantially by 2030. Population projection change from 2000 to 2030: Plymouth 19% Medina 217% Corcoran 337% People are using the library in record-breaking numbers and as Plymouth and surrounding areas continue to gain population, the building, as it is, is hard pressed to meet customer needs for a 21St century library. An expanded Plymouth Library will position the library to meet the eight principles outlined in the Frameworkfor the Future. ■ HCL services and facilities respond to a changing and growing suburban population. ■ HCL facilities are gathering places. ■ HCL is committed to children, teens and families. ■ HCL engages and serves seniors in accessible settings. ■ HCL leads in technology. ■ HCL facilities are designed and constructed to be flexible and sustainable. ■ HCL is a judicious steward of the public's financial investment. ■ HCL values partnerships that contribute to County and Library goals. Operations Division 3/29/06 *1 �y:���t1:�ia�i" exp.`: .f � . ..;' ,b, ' •' �:.' :a ... ^. . ', . r - �t"ss�'hV 4A,�3` ' ,r' ��Mk;��. HENNEPIN CouNTY LIBRARY PLYMOUTH LIBRARY CAPITAL PROJECT Historical Facts and Figures * Not Available Operations Division 3/29/06 CIRCULATION INFORMATION CONTACTS CUSTOMERS REGISTERED PROGRAM ATTENDANCE 1996 516,813 38,699 2,978 1997 634,716 50,742 2,527 1998 722,229 61,491 3,740 1999 670,151 56,243 3,499 2000 596,163 43,423 3,020 9,050 2001 663,508 47,710 3,159 11,815 2002 759,724 54,355 3,329 8,767 2003 767,864 47,129 2,908 5,863 2004 771,552 44,501 2,860 9,446 2005 807,378 44,375 2,695 8,634 Percentage Average Average Average Increase from 48,867 3,072 8,929 1996-2005 is 56.2% * Not Available Operations Division 3/29/06 HENNEPIN COUNTY LIBRARY PLYMOUTH LIBRARY IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Expanding the size of Plymouth Library is under discussion. This summary outlines estimated totals, based on past library projects and projected space allocations. These approximate figures will be honed with further study and as a design progresses. Note: *Potential translates into a trade off of space, to be determined once project progresses. Amy Ryan 5/17/06 41 S:\Admini=tion\Capital Projects\Capital Projects Only\Plymouth\PyLiblmprvOptExeSum 03-17-061.doc Existing Option Ai Option B I Option C I Option D Description: 15,000 GSF building on 4 acre site. Total Parking. 85 5,000 GSF addition to existing bldg. Total Parking. 85 Demo 2,500 SF remodel remain. 12,500 SF, add 17,500 SF new TotaL• 30,000 SF Total Parking: 175 Demo existing, build new 30,000 GSF library in its place. Total Parking. 175 Demo existing, build new 45,000 GSF library + 2 level parking ramp Total Parking. 265 Total Building Size (GSF) 15,000 20,000 30,000 30,000 45,000 Existing (GSF) 15,000 15,000 12,500 0 0 New (GSF) 0 5,000 17,500 30,000 45,000 Usable Customer Space (USF) 8,500 12,500 16,000 18,000 28,000 Books & A/V (est.) 82,000 82,000 90,000 100,000 100,000 Public Computers (est.) 38 44 75 85 110 Study & Lounge Seating 72 1 85 140 170 255 Meeting/Study Rooms 2 2 3 4 8 Special Features Senior Resource Area No No Potential* Yes Yes Plymouth History Collection (space) No No Potential* Yes Yes Drive-through Bookdrop No No Yes Yes Yes Early Literacy Area No No Yes Yes Yes Homework Helper Space No No Potential* Yes Yes Teen Area Small Small Ok Large Large Pro'ect Costs (estimate only) NA $2,000,000± $13,300,000± $14,000,000± $22,900,000± Increase in Annual OperatiCosts (est.) NA $26,000 $607,000 $541,000 $937,000 Note: *Potential translates into a trade off of space, to be determined once project progresses. Amy Ryan 5/17/06 41 S:\Admini=tion\Capital Projects\Capital Projects Only\Plymouth\PyLiblmprvOptExeSum 03-17-061.doc HENNEPIN CouNTY LIBRARY PLYMOUTH LIBRARY CAPITAL PROJECT Discussion of Ongoing Operating Costs in an Expanded Plymouth: in 2006 dollars Project Description Expanding the size of the existing Plymouth Library is under discussion. Existing building: 15,650 square feet Under discussion: • Option B: Demolish 2,500 square feet of existing building, remodel the remaining 12,500 square feet, and add 17,500 square feet of new space. 30,000 square feet total. • Option C: Demolish existing building and build a new 30,000 square foot building in its place. Estimated Impact to Operating Costs (preliminary) Increased customer popularity and public activity as a result of successful remodeling & expansion projects have held true in such recent Hennepin libraries as Rogers, Eden Prairie and Brookdale. Based on these projects and other libraries, the proposed expansion of Plymouth Library is preliminarily estimated to translate into a considerable increase in business—computer use, number of books checked out and returned, questions answered, use of meeting areas, and general public activity. An increase in business of 35-40% is anticipated. 2006 Operating Costs EXISTING; 15,650 SF $25,000 Technology $82,000 Building operations/utilities $770,000 Staff $230,000 Collection $877,000 Total annual operating costs Estimated additional operating costs for expanded Plymouth Library options OPTION B; 30,000 SF (ADDITION) $26,000 Technology $75,000 Building operations/utilities $506,000 Staff Collection, no $ increase $607,000 Estimated increase in annual operating costs $1,484,000 Estimated total annual operating costs OPTION C; 30,000 SF (NEW) $30,000 Technology $75,000 Building operations/utilities $436,000 Staff Collection, no $ increase $541,000 Estimated increase in annual operating costs $1,418,000 Estimated total annual operating cost Option C will cost approximately $66,000 less in annual operating costs than Option B due to these factors: • Efficient design of support space contributes to lower materials handling staff costs. • Potential for merged customer service point maximizes staff capacity. • Clear and intuitive design enhances easy-to-use public space without staff assistance. • Thoughtfully arranged spaces and furnishings promote a secure and safe environment. Operations Division 5/17/06 5"' V POINTS TO CONSIDER FOR POTENTIAL INCREASES IN ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS • Public computer increase (hardware and software direct costs) Option B: from 38 to 75 computers: +$16,000 (est.) Option C: from 38 to 85 computers: +$20,000 (est.) • Staff computer increase (hardware and software direct costs) Option B: from 18 to 22 computers: +$10,000 (est.) Option C: from 18 to 22 computers: +$10,000 (est.) • Collection increase • Option B: Increase of 10%, from 82,000 to approximately 90,000 books and a/v • Option C: Increase of 20%, from 82,000 to approximately 100,000 books and a/v • No additional annual operating cost • Building operating and utility costs increase* • Option B: $75,000 increase (est.) • Option C: $75,000 increase (est.) • Public service staff increase based on 7 day schedule • Covers additional services and computer assistance, materials handling and shelving, reference, card registrations and other customer -related responsibilities. • Option B: $506,000 (est.) for increase of 10 FTE • Option C: $436,000 (est.) for increase of 8 FTE All costs are in 2006 dollars. *Based on average operation and utility costs of $5.22 per square foot for Hennepin County libraries in 2006 dollars. Operations Division 5/17/06 C 1 S� k rp W A�e_�� �(� f � •.o°^ ,.� $ � •g '� �1 � � � � 2N �•�� .g � �' sNJ .z` ga' sN� a g �� � g y� Pe' 5 '� � �i� G• �.�� u y �� .9 $d q� 6 la io Q� Q U Y � g N ,d � �� � p�qp .y Q• L �� •9 m O N g$ppµ w C� � T T f$ �' � V 5 m S i9 a � � � m � � � (j � a3 eO0 .� � � � W Iq�] f7/p�(� •' � �lJQ$1.5p� ''� Q ,7, ma. F �'s v °a � � d� `y'9dpfF�Sj �GR' � � � � .wpb •F Yi T � �o S 3 W 0 a .� p s 8 q 9pp � Q �F rh'i •O y:69 `-'� � � � � YrYnf$ {��y ] O tiGe � O t�� S V N 'a V pqj E q 96 SN O pp G Q B p0 L �p1 Tv a Y'A '� S } a1 qT T77n 8 � � N �` � °� '� •� Zl '� ? �8z Pp• gra '9 Z .Yn a � m qT � � $ ��pp$1 .,} S a •�Ci JI8wph pal a° Q IH 9 ii m ONO pQN �' O w A op S `4 N N O e rC] � G e � aJigm�' yN Y F m tr � 27. a � m ��� q � �. � � �•a �� •app a 2g y9 C N- •�� ��� � C7 S � U• o Y gpnp� Go U � CE'S� ta�. � _. � $Uv V, � .9 w� � 3 g � �g � � a. o I'M 0 :Qz ;D�1� zo z 0 a YQ ki 6 � u•O «r qW Z °� a W R'i o S� k 9 a G A 8 O O S O S i S 8 p S 0 s � ° q v A 0 o h o g M ren M ri b N w O U •� a o �a ° yy 9 a G A 8 O O S O S i S 8 p S 0 T � ° q v A 0 o h o g M ren M ri b N �+ 9 a G A 8 O O S O S i S 8 p S .p T ° q M U •� U I S5 O o � � T ° q M S5 + n y " 3 5 � �� �•o °� h O r7 ii O o s �� �� U F, 0 A .c .. .� r p� 8 A9 IR 0. Z Pi o c o, g 3 o •d tr a S yy� � G� 0 � .9 8 88888g'3� '� �•� a. o 6 8 A.n�s- `a � � � a g ��� Oa�u c��i � z a'�1 4�v �qc� � �• �� � B tr � �: � .Yn S•° F 3 M a baa a aMV I ow 91 as g I I qpi w pp E e Q Ti E Ui � c an 50 r�i,� a •� a .5 � � '� � �, n9 o pp qq ag 999q a y}�u�, gq i. a •o o k o 0 0 0 '� 6 5 a w�aQ u SSP. z L).1 �" N$ 9 LD gid, G cn W �^ a� '�•a a w It x ° � o a �° � CD 155' s s c o g o Y1 H N O A ?i F1 p g� 8 m Q figgg� m s z 4-1 e F m in [4 O U G o � r N S S m oo O H N I'J G V H H1 H � H N N f9 • N O 0 0 � U H •3 o r p sN oR� US N a N N O S S S S 9 C Mry�i a�M as� M z LL G a p aGy c". pu 8 C 0 HDU � E•SE gr •� O� Vi M 09 C H N K H O �I• ��L '� fi19 4 88d.. LEo' Sv�z� yy' p a a � o� �o � w U OQ rA w 8 a e CA u a u u 155' H1NON 3W OBHBSNM 5C 4 O 2 O O LL LL FQ-W O w w r+ rL I zi LU ® >- 0 0: w 0 � � m J � 00 Z2 D ® Z m P 0r0Z G W C Z u- w O a= H1NON 3W OBHBSNM 5C 4 O 2 O O LL LL FQ-W O w w r+ rL I o Co N M N K im m W LL • Z O_ O m 0w m = Z ZI (n OU U 2 0 0 ®z = �w VJ _ ZZ 4CLLU = m LL Z �9 UU � I m t W a m — -- — (n ILLLL — p t U) w t ~ I � a J t CIO Wo C i? O U 2 1 w W _ .. .. _. .. .. .. .. __ ED U J p J O MON W 8NMADIA � -.- 5�- o Co N M N K im m W LL City of Plymouth Engineering Department Active and Pending Public Improvement Projects r�va �'r. p�i�la�:ir;r>E ..c►..emc # . 1013 S Fernbrook Ln. - 27th to 34th - DC/DMC SRF $3,500,000 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. designated as engineer. Design & ROW Engineering Agreement approved. Begin Preliminary Design. Public Information meeting held 4/27/06. Representatives of four properties in attendance. Staff exploring watermain replacement. Approval from Bassett Creek Watershed being requested. 4141 S Petition Project - 47th Ave DC/BB SRF $215,000 City Council awarded contract to R.P. Utilities, Inc. Street & Utilities 8/9/05. Preconstruction meeting was held 8/10/05. Utilities are installed. Street to be built in Spring 2006. Contractor has begun street installation. 4143 S City Center Street Lighting - RB SEH $175,000 Light poles have been installed, awaiting Xcel Vicksburg Lane / 36th Ave. Energy to energize them, which could take weeks. 5101 S 2005 Street Reconstruction - JR N/A $3,133,000 Project has been completed. Sod establishment Dist 73 & 68 & Carlson and punchlist items remain. Parkway Overlay 5102 S CR 101, CR 6 to CR 24 DC Henn. $17,000,000 Preliminary layout of CR 101 approved by City Co. Council on 10/11/05. 30% plan received. Met with Hennepin County 4/4/06. City staff will do engineering for watermain replacement. Meeting with Oakwood Elementary school 6/1/06. EAW comments being received by Hennepin County. 5122 S CR 24, Olive Ln. to 32nd DC Henn. $2,500,000 Avenue Co. Preliminary layout approved by City Council 6/14/05. Construction scheduled for 2007. Design in progress. Received Draft Layout 2/21/06. Met with Hennepin County design staff on 5/2/06. City staff will do design engineering for watermain replacement. Met with utility companies on 5/24/06. Received draft plan on 5/23/06. 5126 S EVP Project RB SEH $129,000 Contract was awarded to Collins Electric. Project will include replacing signal bulbs with LED bulbs. Hardware has been ordered and construction to begin in late July. 6101 S 2006 Reconstruction Project - JR N/A $4,370,000 Storm sewer installation is complete in the South Bass Lake, Lost Lake, and Bass Lake area. Subcut expected to begin the week Hemlock Lane of 7/2/06 in the South Bass Lake area. The streets in the Lost Lake area are currently being milled. 6104 S Replace Retaining Wall RB URS $140,000 Construction underway, should be completed by 7/3/06. 6105 S Railroad Crossing Imp. - RB/JR $50,000 Awarded to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. on 5/23/06. Pineview Ln. Work to begin mid to late July. 6106 S Pineview Ln., and Schmidt RB/JR $440,000 Awarded to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. on 5/23/06. Lake Road - Overlay Work to begin mid to late July. 6108 S Intersection Imp. - CR 47 & CR RB $1,000,000 Howard R. Green is currently surveying the site. 61 6109 S Temporary Overlay Program RB/CA $300,000 Work complete. eve r. 5111 SS Sewer Capacity Imp. RB/SN HRG $450,000 Public Works is currently televising upstream pipes Downstream from Lancaster for I & I prior to finalizing Preliminary Engineering Lift Sta. Report. 6121 SS Line Sanitary Sewer Main - RB/SN $300,000 Annual Program I 1 I Preconstruction meeting 6/29/06. Updated 6/30/2006 8:08 AM Page 1 � Aa aoa g_P L`R 6 29( HORTFORM�ss City of Plymouth Engineering Department Active and Pending Public Improvement Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . .... ... . . . ......... ... , !I:U : 1111 111 .... . . . . . . . . . is . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 1 1i1 i .. . ............... . . ............ ...... .... . .......... ............ .... -P,1111.. Iif Hill .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . M11 . . . . . . . . . . . M P. Q0 0. N 1 . . I 6133 SS 2006 Sanitary Sewer Lining RB Project - Phase 2 Awarded to Veit 6/27/06. 3108 W Vicksburg Reservoir & DC BRA $5,600,000 Reservoir complete except for testing. Pumping Pumping Station Station 99% complete. Pumping station and reservoir in operation. 4147 W MIP Well Upgrade DC/GC BRA $75,000 Engineer submitted Supplemental Agreement for engineering services. Repairs proceeding on a time and materials basis. 5110 W Water System Pressure RB HRG $100,000 per HRG working on Preliminary Engineering Report. Enhancements year for 5 years 5124 W Paint CR 6 Standpipe DC SEH $250,000 Inspection and cleaning completed by Liquid Engineering 5/28/05. Awarded contract 4/11/06. Preconstruction held on 5/1/06. Contractor began work 5/15/06. Work 70% complete. 1004 WR Channel Stabilization - Parkers DT $100,000 Plans and Specifications approved at the 5/23/06 Lake City Council meeting, and sent out for bids. 3105 WR Plymouth Creek Channel SM/DT $325,000 Survey and soil testing completed. Water quality model to evaluate options. Barr Engineering finished Feasibility Study. Discussed at recent watershed commission meeting. Preliminary Design will be next phase. 4135 WR CR 61/CR 9 Erosion Site DC BRA $350,000 Options and estimated costs received 10/27/05. Met with Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County to discuss options 11/21/05. Three options considered. Draft report reviewed and revised. Additional concerns raised by Three Rivers staff. Consultant directed to investigate drainage concerns south of County Road 9. Engineering proposal being reviewed by Three Rivers staff. Three Rivers requesting City to proceed with additional investigations south of County Road 9. Cost sharing and future maintenance agreement being discussed. 5115E WR Circle Park Pond Imp. DT/JR Project on hold. Will coordinate with Street Reconstruction Project. 6103 WR Repair Erosion - Wood Crk. DT/JR $100,000 Newsletter sent to area residents. Survey has been completed and preliminary design in progress. Site to be inspected by consulting engineers for competitive quote. 6113 WR Repair Erosion - Conor DT $45,000 Preliminary site inspections conducted. Work to Meadows (Design Only) start with improvement north of Schmidt Lake Road. Survey has been completed and preliminary design is in progress. Meeting to be set-up with residents. 6114 WR Stream Bank Repair - DT/SN $75,000 Minnehaha Watershed 6115 WR Drainage Imp. - Between 38th SN $100,000 Work is 66% complete. Limited restoration will take & 39th - W of Harbor Ln. place this year and we will re -budget to finish in the 8019 WR Mooney Lake Pump Project DT/SM $15,742 Emergency pumping plan for 2006 is in place. ........... ...... ........ ............ t: tb eb ........ ...... ............... .......... ............... ... ....... ... ........ W-5 W Watermain - CR 47/Cheshire Dependent on development. to Vicksburg W-6 W Watermain - CR 47/Cheshire Dependent on development. Watermain, Vicksburg CR 47 to Schmidt Lk Rd WRA WR Lost Lake Outlet JR N/A $10,000 Included with 2006 Street Reconstruction. Engineering%Praj etAftjoct Tracking=M Updated 6/30/2006 8:08 AM Page 2 Ac� w 57 _Pndng_ProLR;_��_29(SHORTFORM).)ds City of Plymouth Engineering Department Active and Pending Public Improvement Projects Updated 6/30/2006 8:08 AM Page 3 AcLP dng_P9 LRP. g 4 s ( HORORM ds MINUTES PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT April 26, 2006 PRESENT: Chair Terry Cheng, Commissioners Carmen Pehler, Vivian Honer, Patty Doten, Sylvia Gustafson, Mary Paprocki and Terry Bliss OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Baldwin, Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc. STAFF PRESENT: Councilmember Sandy Hewitt, Pat Qvale, Transit Administrator, Bernie Maciej, Transit Coordinator and Patty Hillstrom, Office Support Representative Chair Cheng opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. PACT introduced themselves to those in attendance at the public hearing. 1. QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED DIAL -A - RIDE CHANGES Transit Administrator Qvale explained that the number of rides to North Memorial Hospital, Oakdale Clinic, Methodist Hospital and the Courage Center have been reviewed and it has been determined that one person uses Dial -A -Ride four times per week to and from North Memorial and another to the Courage Center. She said there are occasional riders to the other destinations. She stated that the denial rate for Dial -A -Ride is 6% and recommended eliminating service to North Memorial Hospital, Oakdale Clinic, Methodist Hospital and the Courage Center allowing the bus to be utilized transporting riders to more frequented places to reduce the denial rate. Jerry Kloss, 14930 —18th Avenue North, thanked the City for the privilege of using Dial - A -Ride over the years. He challenged the decision to deny the medical stops in favor of the shopping complexes. He said he is discouraged but understands and thanked PACT for allowing him to speak. Chair Cheng asked Mr. Kloss about other alternatives available. Mr. Kloss replied that his daily route could be changed to downtown but he does not feel safe in Minneapolis anymore. He added that he is researching Metro Mobility but said the service is iffy and west of I-494 is as far as the service goes. He has never been able to drive and asked PACT to appreciate being able to reach in their pockets for their car keys. G, MINUTES - PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT April 26, 2006 Page 2 Jill Hatcher, 14325 — 17th Avenue North, stated that she has been using the Dial -A -Ride service to North Memorial Hospital four days per week for six years. Jill Hatcher's sister, Penny Hatcher, thanked PACT for the opportunity to speak and stated that Jill has used Metro Mobility in the past and it is not as reliable as Dial -A -Ride. She suggested increasing the fare for Dial -A -Ride trips outside the City of Plymouth. Transit Administrator Qvale thanked Jerry Kloss, Jill Hatcher and Penny Hatcher for their comments and stated that staff would look at the alternatives. She stated that this item is currently scheduled for the May 23rd City Council meeting and that the Council would make the final decision. She added that the service would continue until action is taken by the City Council. 2. QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS REGARDING THE DISCONTINUATION OF ROUTE 770 Transit Administrator Qvale stated that ridership is low on Route 770 and recommends discontinuation of the route. There were no comments on this item. 3. QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED DISCONTINUATION OF SERVICE FROM PLYMOUTH ROAD TRANSIT CENTER Transit Administrator Qvale asked if the proposal to discontinue service from Plymouth Road Transit Center would adversely affect any riders. Commissioner Honer replied that there are three riders on the reverse commute. Transit Administrator Qvale stated that she received a phone call from one of the reverse commute riders who indicated that he was willing to go through downtown if the timing was right. Transit Administrator Qvale added that she is willing to accommodate his timing request. Commissioner Honer asked if there would still be a shuttle at Plymouth Road Transit Center at 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. Transit Administrator Qvale stated that it would be taken into consideration. 4. QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED ROUTE ON SUNSET TRAIL Transit Administrator Qvale explained that letters informing residents of the proposed bus route on Sunset Trail was sent to addresses within 500' of the abutting area. She said that 200 letters were sent out and emphasized that the flyer that was distributed did not C M:)ocuments and SettingsWhoffinan\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Fi1es\0LK8E\042606.doc MINUTES - PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT April 26, 2006 Page 3 come from the City. With the construction of Station 73, she indicated that the shuttle service would be restructured from the Plymouth Road Transit Center to Station 73, located at County Road 73 and Highway 55. Transit Administrator Qvale explained that Sunset Trail was chosen because it is a minor collector. She said that buses would be off the road one hour prior to the start of elementary school and the first evening run would be at 4:00 p.m. with a total of 20 runs. In the past, she said there have been runs on a portion of Sunset Trail that included the elementary school and there have been no complaints, issues or calls. Transit Administrator Qvale explained that alternative routes include I-394 frontage road and, Ridgemount Avenue which introduces another school and is less efficient because it is a longer distance. Another alternative is Highway 55 to County Road 6. She said the later alternative would eliminate a segment servicing businesses and residents. Transit Administrator Qvale pointed out that the shuttle buses that run in neighborhoods throughout Plymouth travel on minor collectors and residential streets. She spoke on behalf of Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc., stating that their safety record has been excellent and that there have not been any incidents with the neighborhood shuttles that she is aware of. She explained that Plymouth Metrolink has a flag system allowing riders to be picked up anywhere on the route. She said the drivers are always looking for riders and would not be zooming to the bus stop. George Tuszkiewicz, 12512 Sunset Trail, stated that he has lived at his current address for 13 years and is deeply concerned for the safety of children and pedestrians with the proposed routes on Sunset Trail. He feels he is taking a risk walking on Sunset Trail already and cannot imagine a 10 foot bus barreling down the road. Transit Administrator Qvale reported that some residents are in favor of the proposed routes on Sunset Trail because they would have access to public transportation. Commissioner Honer stated that she has been riding the bus since 1980 and that the Medicine Lake Line route went through Sunset Trail. She added that her grandchildren attend Sunset Hill Elementary School. Mr. Tuszkiewicz asked for an explanation of a minor collector. Transit Administrator Qvale replied that a minor collector is a road that is built to stand a higher load of traffic and is one step up from a residential street. Mr. Tuszkiewicz stated that he read about the proposed changes in the Plymouth News. He spoke with Councilmember Stein about communication between the City and residents when there are proposed changes that affect property owners. C3 CADocurnents and Settings\khoffman\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK811042606.doc MINUTES - PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT April 26, 2006 Page 4 Commissioner Gustafson asked how the proposed route on Sunset Trail was communicated to the public. Transit Administrator Qvale replied that a public notice was sent to residents within 500' of the proposed route and that the information is on the City's website. Mr. Tuszkiewicz said he sees Sunset Trail becoming a collision course and thinks there are alternatives. Lisa Tusckiewicz, 12512 Sunset Trail, stated that she strongly opposes the use of Sunset Trail for bus routes because Sunset Trail is already used as a cut through for a faster route, safety of pedestrians, safety of students walking to and from Sunset Hill Elementary School and two other schools and a visibility concern with the many curves and blindspots on a road with no sidewalks. Sue Roeder, 13010 Sunset Trail, said Sunset Trail has a bike lane but pointed out that in some areas the bike lane is only 3.5 feet wide. She feels the buses present a safety issue for people using the Luce Line, Tender Leaning Daycare, Sunset Hill Nature Center, St. Mary's Park, Plymouth Lutheran Church and teachers taking kids out for walks. She said Sunset Trail is 1.7 miles long and has only nine streetlights. She added that with the curves there has been four deaths on Sunset Trail. Commissioner Pehler asked how to address the lack of streetlighting and sidewalks. Transit Administrator Qvale replied that it would be the City's Engineering Division. Councilmember Hewitt asked those in attendance at the public hearing if they wanted sidewalks. The reply was no. Ms. Roeder stated that the safety of the Wayzata East Middle School students should also be considered. She said students from her neighborhood cross Sunset Trail and walk down Sunset Trail to school. Jill Lahti, 12411 Sunset Trail, said she lives at the peak of Sunset Trail and is concerned for the safety of school children. She said some of the school activities begin at 8:00 a.m. or 8:15 a.m. and it is hard to see children walking to school. She is doubtful of the safety of running buses along Sunset Trail, especially in the winter when buses are getting stuck and have difficulty trying to get up an icy hill. Scott Schoolmeesters, 310 Magnolia Lane, expressed his appreciation of the volunteer efforts of the PACT members and suggested Ridgemount Avenue as an alternative bus route. He is concerned about non-scheduled stops at the crown of Sunset Trail and added that he has had communication with the Engineering Division in the past about poor visibility at the crown of the hill. A— CADocuments and SettinpWhoffman\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK8E\042606.d0c MINUTES - PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT April 26, 2006 Page 5 Jon Marquette, 445 Vinewood Lane, thanked Transit Administrator Qvale for clarification of the proposed bus routes on Sunset Trail. He has one child attending Sunset Hill Elementary School and another one coming up. He is concerned about the roadway width and agreed with Mr. Schoolmeester's suggestion of using Ridgemount Avenue as an alternative. He indicated that he is not happy with the additional buses and would like some alternatives. Dan Witkowski, 405 Cottonwood Lane, thanked PACT and asked if any alternate or multiple routes have been considered. He also asked the "real" number of bus runs and if there is a cap on buses. Transit Administrator Qvale stated that a discussion of alternate routes would take place after the public hearing when all public testimony has been heard. She feels that the only viable alternative being considered at this time is County Road 6, but this alternative would take out a segment of service to businesses. She added that it may be a way to compromise. Mr. Witkowski replied that it is a puzzle to him why ingress and egress were not looked at first. Commissioner Gustafson said that Sunset Trail has been used in the past for bus routes and that a lot of thought has gone into restructuring of bus routes in conjunction with the opening of Station 73. Mr. Witkowski would like to see the pros and cons of all alternatives and projections for the future. Commissioner Honer stated that she been riding the bus since 1980 and Sunset Trail has been an established Medicine Lake Line route. Chair Cheng stated that he has encouraged the Station 73 project and that there are many unknowns that could not be forecasted such as funding. He assured those in attendance at the public hearing that PACT members are professional and fair people who are concerned with the best interests of the public. Kurt Mareck, 520 Jonquil Lane, reported that he has done some investigating and has found that Sunset Trail is 1.7 miles in length and has 13 curves, half of which he considers to be blind or unsafe. Mr. Mareck referenced Transit Administrator Qvale's comment that Sunset Trail was made for buses and stated that he did not understand this considering the outlay of Sunset Trail. Chair Cheng asked Mr. Mareck what speed he was traveling when he did his investigation. Mr. Mareck replied the speed limit. Chair Cheng confessed that he easily C 57 CADocuments and Settings\khotTman\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK8E\042606.doc MINUTES - PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT April 26, 2006 Page 6 accidentally drove 40 miles per hour on Sunset Trail. Mr. Mareck felt Chair Cheng's comment was a great argument for not having buses on the road. Mr. Mareck could not think of a worse intersection than County Road 73 and Sunset Trail to make a left hand turn. He is concerned about the passengers on the bus and the driver of the bus. He said County Road 73 and Sunset Trail is an extremely dangerous intersection. Renee Kroeten and Samantha (safety patrol at Sunset Hill Elementary School), 12307 Sunset Trail. Ms. Kroeten stated that she grew up in the area and knows how treacherous it can be. She moved back to Sunset Trail three years ago and has taught her daughter and son where to be careful and stay safe. She instructed her daughter to ride her bike on Ridgemount Avenue and indicated that you cannot go a quarter of a mile without hitting a blind spot. She also stated that there is a 10 minute wait at the intersection of Sunset Trail and County Road 73. She thanked PACT for listening and said she wants to keep the front of her home safe for children and local residents. Dotti Long, 11390 — 5ch Avenue North, stated that she is a strong believer in public transportation but encourages the City to look at different alternatives. She said her husband and her have lived in the area for 17 years and she says a little prayer every time she gets on Sunset Trail. She said it is dangerous to walk on Sunset Trail. She waited 12 minutes this morning at County Road 73 and Sunset Trail and she is concerned about safety at the intersection. Don Jones, 11720 Sunset Trail, stated that he has lived at his current address for 45 years. He reported that Sunset Trail started out as a wagon trail and then turned into a county road. He said it was paved in the 30's and has not been upgraded since and the road has no base under it. He said maintenance has been terrible since Hennepin County turned Sunset Trail over to the City. He is also concerned about traffic back-up at the intersection of County Road 73 and Sunset Trail. Marcia Witkowski, 405 Cottonwood Lane, questioned the efficiency of busing through County Road 73 and Sunset Trail considering the traffic back-up. Her car has been hit at the intersection and she does not use it in the winter. She has requested a traffic signal. She takes her children to St. Mary's Park because it is unsafe for them to use Sunset Trail. Ms. Witkowski asked if there will be a cap on the number of buses and felt that sidewalks and streetlighting should be considered. She would be interested in any feedback regarding other alternatives. Chair Cheng stated that the next step would be a discussion of alternative routes by PACT and a recommendation to the City Council. He closed the public hearing. Transit Administrator Qvale asked for Mr. Baldwin's opinion on buses leaving Sunset Trail to County Road 73. Mr. Baldwin said it would be a challenge but could be done. RN CADocuments and Settings\khofTman\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK8E\042606.doc MINUTES - PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT April 26, 2006 Page 7 Transit Administrator Qvale would like to do some runs through the intersection during peak hours for timing purposes. Transit Administrator Qvale felt that a reasonable proposal would be for Route 771 to cross at County Road 6. She said this would eliminate 12 runs on Sunset Trail. Mr. Baldwin added that with the construction of Station 73, the buses could potentially be off Sunset Trail by 7:55 a.m. before school starts. Transit Administrator Qvale said she would be prepared to take that recommendation to the City Council on May 23, 2006. Commissioner Honer pointed out that the County Road 6 alternate would eliminate a part of the residential service that includes four riders. Transit Administrator Qvale replied that there is a trade-off and by keeping half of the buses on Sunset Trail the business area would still be serviced. Commissioner Gustafson expressed a concern about encouraging Plymouth residents to ride the bus and she does not support a recommendation that would take service away. Commissioner Bliss inquired about the suggested alternate route on Ridgemount Avenue. Transit Administrator Qvale replied that there are two schools on Ridgemount Avenue that provide bus service to students and there would be a timing issue because it is a longer distance. Commissioner Bliss personally believes that safety should be discussed before making a recommendation to the City Council. Chair Cheng stated that he is not comfortable making a recommendation to the City Council today with comments received at the public hearing. He agreed with Commissioner Gustafson that service should not be taken away and was not in favor of the alternate route on County Road 6. Commissioner Bliss stated that traffic controls need to be in place. Commissioner Paprocki indicated that timing during peak hours needs to be done before determining if the Sunset Trail route is feasible. Chair Cheng asked what winter conditions are like in the Sunset Trail area. Mr. Baldwin replied that the Pineview Lane piece is the worst part. Commissioner Gustafson suggested taking each of the four public hearing items and making a recommendation about what the next step would be for each one. Proposed changes to Dial A Ride service — Councilmember Hewitt requested that staff try and negotiate a cost sharing arrangement with North Memorial Hospital and the Courage Center. She wants to be respectful of the current riders' needs. C7 CADocuments and SettingAkhofGnan\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Fi1es\0LK8E\042606.doc MINUTES - PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT April 26, 2006 Page 8 A motion was made by Commissioner Gustafson, seconded by Commissioner Doten to delay discussion of the proposed changes to the Dial -A -Ride service until the June PACT meeting when the committee will address children riding the bus. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Proposed discontinuation of Route 770 — A motion was made by Commissioner Pehler, seconded by Commissioner Paprocki recommending discontinuing Route 770. 6 Ayes. 1 Abstained. 3. Proposed discontinuation of service from Plymouth Road Transit Center — A motion was made by Commissioner Bliss, seconded by Commissioner Doten recommending the discontinuation of service from Plymouth Road Transit Center and adjusting the timing downtown to accommodate current - riders. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Proposed route on Sunset Trail — Commissioner Gustafson asked if there were controlled crosswalks on Sunset Trail. Those in attendance replied that there were not. Councilmember Hewitt warned everyone that traffic does not stop at pedestrian crosswalks. Transit Administrator Qvale explained that the construction of sidewalks would require a petition from the neighborhood with 35% of homeowners in favor and homeowners would be assessed 100% for the construction. She said homeowners would also be responsible for maintenance of the sidewalks. A motion was made by Commissioner Pehler, seconded by Commissioner Paprocki to consider feedback from the public hearing and alternatives to the proposed route on Sunset Trail at the May 24, 2006, PACT meeting and forward a recommendation to the Council at the June 13, 2006, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. 5. ADJOURNMENT The PACT meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. The next PACT meeting will be held on May 24, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in Meeting Room A at Plymouth City Hall. W. C.WD xuments and Setting\Ithof mmn\Local Settingffemporary Intemet Fi1es\0LK8E\042606.doc MINUTES PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT May 24, 2006 PRESENT: Chair Terry Cheng, Commissioners Carmen Pehler, Vivian Honer and Mary Paprocki STAFF PRESENT: Councilmember Sandy Hewitt; Pat Qvale, Transit Administrator; Bernie Maciej, Transit Coordinator and Patty Hillstrom, Office Support Representative OTHERS PRESENT: Plymouth residents George Tuszkiewicz and Jon Marquette; Mark Johnson, Metro Transit and Paul Buharin with two trainees from Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Due to the lack of a quorum, no action was taken on this item. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 22, 2006 AND APRIL 26, 2006, PACT MEETING Due to the lack of a quorum, no action was taken on his item. 3. UPDATE ON RESTRUCTURING ROUTES FOR STATION 73 Transit Administrator Qvale stated that an important issue that came out of input from the public hearing on April 26, 2006, was with buses turning from Sunset Trail onto County Road 73 at the stop sign. She and Councilmember Hewitt took a close look at the intersection issue and Transit Administrator Qvale said other alternatives were also considered with a focus on the I-394 frontage road. Transit Administrator Qvale reported that Laidlaw Transit conducted ridership counts in the area between County Road 6 and Xenium Lane and found that there were an average of 40 riders per day on the reverse commute routes. She said if the I-394 frontage road option" were implemented, there would be no change in service for the reverse commuters, although, the residential area between County Road 6 and Plymouth Road Transit Center would not be serviced. She said there is no other way to service this area other than adding another bus. She said riders in that area would have to drive to Station 73. Transit Administrator Qvale estimated that there would be four or five riders affected. Mr. Tuszkiewicz stated that he feels privileged to represent the Sunset Trail community. He said it is a challenge to come to a consensus that works for everyone. He said looking at the diligent task of trying to figure out what is the best for everyone is very challenging now MINUTES - PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT May 24, 2006 Page 2 and he appreciates the effort that went into trying to find some alternative routes. The position he comes from is focused on the safety of the residents and children that walk to and from school. He encouraged the group to keep safety as the forefront. Commissioner Pehler inquired about Ridgemount Avenue as an alternative route. Transit Administrator Qvale replied that if Ridgemount Avenue were considered, it would be a matter of choosing one neighborhood against another. Chair Cheng stated that he did not want to lose the income from the reverse commute routes. He added that there are many employees of the businesses that really depend on the bus. Transit Administrator Qvale replied that the reverse commute riders are a critical segment to serve because as the Plymouth Metrolink survey indicated, its not only a ride for them, it's a job, because they are transit dependent. Commissioner Honer is absolutely opposed to the I-394 frontage road alternate. She noted that Sunset Trail has been used in the past for bus routes with never an accident or problem. She added that PACT has been working to promote public transportation and questioned that an alternate would be considered that would take service away. She asked if the reverse commute riders would make it to work on time. Transit Administrator Qvale reported that staff has done the timings and she is as confident as she can be, without running actual operations, that it is workable. Commissioner Honer questioned the safety issue when residents are not in favor of sidewalks. Transit Administrator Qvale addressed the safety concern stating that Plymouth Metrolink has run buses in neighborhood streets throughout Plymouth and that the service provided by Laidlaw Transit has been incident free. She felt that the number of bus runs impacted the neighborhood reaction. Transit Administrator Qvale said Sunset Trail was chosen because it was the path of least resistance from an operations standpoint and that it had been used for bus routes in the past. Commissioner Paprocki stated that she has not driven either of the routes and felt she did not have a good perspective. Her concern is doing the best possible for the most people. Councilmember Hewitt suggested a van pool if a large group of reverse commuters are employed by the same business. Mr. Marquette stated that as a resident of Sunset Trail, safety of children and residents is his paramount interest. He felt that sidewalks would be problematic, not a solution. Transit Administrator Qvale added that the Assistant City Engineer estimated that the construction of sidewalks on Sunset Trail would cost approximately $100,000 per parcel. Mr. Marquette stated that he and his wife looked at Ridgemount Avenue and stated that going straight down Sunset Trail from Xenium Lane to Station 73 was 2.0 miles and going from Sunset Trail to Vinewood Lane to Ridgemount Avenue it is 2.4 miles. He said from an efficiency standpoint it really is not a lot of distance. He said the advantage of Ridgemount Avenue is the fact that they have a sidewalk system, and a stop sign and 6 C:\Documents and Settings\khoffman\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLUM052406.doc MINUTES - PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT May 24, 2006 Page 3 crosswalk by the school for the kids. He said there are only two blind spots on Ridgemount Avenue. He said there is already bus congestion with school buses entering the school parking lot from Sunset Trail and then coming back out onto Sunset Trail. Chair Cheng explained that PACT consists of bus riders concerned about comfort and safety on the bus, but on the other side, they need to think about what the City can do with the resources that are available and find a balance. Chair Cheng felt that the I-394 frontage road was the better option if the timing can be adjusted to deliver the riders to work. Transit Administrator Qvale referenced Councilmember Hewitt's comment about van pooling and felt that working with businesses and Commuter Services to look for alternative transportation for reverse commuters could be explored. Transit Administrator Qvale will take a draft copy of the minutes from the public hearing and tonight's meeting and a staff recommendation to the City Council at the June 13, 2006, City Council meeting. Commissioner Pehler agreed with a lot of what had been said but with the amount of opposition to the use of Sunset Trail she feels it is unrealistic. She supported. the alternative option using the I-394 frontage road stating that it is not perfect but is viable. Transit Administrator Qvale stated that PACT members and the transit providers have put a lot of time and effort into making Station 73 work and said that is the ultimate goal. She said it needs to be good for the neighborhood and the business community. She agreed with Commissioner Pehler that the I-394 frontage road option would not have been her first choice but it is where we are at today. Commissioner Honer wanted to make it clear that not everyone at the public hearing was opposed to using Sunset Trail. She said there were bus riders that did not speak up and there were people that didn't know that there was going to be any opposition and did not come. Transit Administrator Qvale will include the emails which include four in favor of the use of Sunset Trail. Commissioner Pehler pointed out that it seemed like some of the emails were in favor of mass transit in general, not specifically the use of Sunset Trail. 4. DIAL -A -RIDE DISCUSSION Transit Administrator Qvale stated that the City Manager, Laurie Ahrens, recommended that the Dial -A -Ride report be presented to the City Council at the July Council meeting because of Comprehensive Plan issues that will take place at the June meetings. She said the City Council would like to look at a couple of Dial -A -Ride issues including transporting school children (servicing schools) and ridership for all destinations outside of Plymouth. She said Laidlaw is currently collecting ridership data on all the schools including English as a Second Language for preparation of a report for the City Council. IC \Documents and SettingsUthof man\Local Settingffemporary Internet Fi1es\0LK8E\052406.doc MINUTES - PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT May 24, 2006 Page 4 She said ridership data is also being collected for all Dial -A -Ride destinations outside of Plymouth. Councilmember Hewitt stated that part of the policy decision for the City Council will be to determine the goal of the Dial -A -Ride system. She said the Council will have to decide whether the Dial -A -Ride system should be profitable or help those with transportation needs. Transit Administrator Qvale stated that Mr. Kloss and Ms. Hatcher have inquired when any proposed changes to Dial -A -Ride will be discussed by the City Council. She said they both plan on attending the meeting and will address the Council. Councilmember Hewitt stated that Dial -A -Ride is expensive. She said the City of Eden Prairie does not have a Dial -A -Ride system anymore because of the cost. Transit Administrator Qvale added that the subsidy per passenger is approximately $17.00 per ride each way. Commissioner Pehler asked what Mr. Kloss meant when said that the Metro Mobility service is iffy west of I-494. Transit Administrator Qvale explained that by Federal regulations Metro Mobility does not have to service Plymouth, but from a regional standpoint they are servicing Plymouth. She said Metro Mobility is trying to serve a large area and are not as dependable as Dial -A -Ride. Commissioner Honer asked if the riders being transported to Ridgedale by Dial -A -Ride could use a fixed route service. Mr. Buharin replied that the Dial -A -Ride buses are going hither and thro and that it would be impossible to design a fixed route. He will obtain a printout of ridership to Ridgedale. Commissioner Paprocki felt that the fare would have to be increased for the Dial -A -Ride service to continue. Transit Administrator Qvale agreed and said that the fare would probably continue to increase. She felt that some of the seniors could afford a fare increase, although, the school district is concerned because they pay the fare for their English as a Second Language students. Chair Cheng said he did not want the service to go away but he felt that the scope of service could be narrowed down. He said the service is so reputable and perhaps some are taking advantage of it. He said the service is basically for the senior folks and he felt the City needs to provide the service for the seniors that need it. He said he is opposed to school children riding the bus to school. Commissioner Paprocki said she does not have a problem with school children on the bus if they are not creating a problem on the bus. Councilmember Hewitt stated that public and private schools are advertising use of the Dial -A -Ride system instead of residents or the school transportation system paying for transportation of students to school. W' C Documents and Smingslldhoffman\Local Settings\Tempormy Interna Fi1es\0LK8E\052406.doc ('.upPlymouth Adding Quality to Life June 26, 2006 The Honorable Norm Coleman Senator 320 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Coleman: I am writing to express concerns about the proposed changes to the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). The Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing two significant changes to the CDBG program that would significantly reduce the City of Plymouth's ability to address affordable housing and other community needs. The first change is the formula change that would reduce funding even further for Plymouth as well as Minnesota. We have already experienced large reductions in our allocation. Over the past three years we have gone from a high of $324,000 in 2003 to $272,208 in 2006. The additional proposed funding cuts will further reduce our ability to provide a wide range of housing options in our community. The second change relating to the increased minimum grant threshold would eliminate the City of Plymouth, along with most current entitlement cities in Minnesota, from administering the CDBG program at the local level. The local level administration of the CDBG program is critical to meeting the needs of our community. At this level we are the closest to the needs of our residents and have the ability to react as the community needs change. We would greatly appreciate your support in rejecting HUD's proposed changes. The Community Development Block Grant Program has been a highly successful program for Plymouth and I hope through partnerships like ours we can continue to bring needed resources to communities like Plymouth and around the state. Sincerely, halpwwK./ Judy A. Johnson, Mayor City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd • Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 • Tel: 763-509-5000 • www.ci.plymouth.mn.us i MINUTES - PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT May 24, 2006 Page 5 Chair Cheng strongly supports the use of the Dial -A -Ride system for seniors with medical needs. 5. STATION 73 UPDATE Transit Administrator Qvale reported that the substantial completion date for Station 73 is scheduled for August 25, 2006, with service starting in September. She said that initially, Routes 772 and 777 will be going through Station 73 and the shuttle changes would not occur until the December pick date, December 2, 2006. 6. RIDERSHIP INFORMATION AND REVIEW Transit Coordinator Maciej reviewed the ridership statistics through April, 2006. 7. INDENTIFICATION OF AREAS OF CONCERN AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS Terry Cheng's Comments a Chair Cheng reported for Commissioner Bliss, that there are so many potholes in the parking area at the Four Seasons Mall Park & Ride that he cannot dodge them anymore. Transit Administrator Qvale will take a look at the parking area and review the contract. Commissioner Honer asked if the potholes are responsible for flat tires on the bus. Vivian Honer's Comments • Commissioner Honer stated that her husband tried to take the 6:40 p.m. from downtown and the bus was half an hour late. The driver said it was due to construction. 8. COMMENTS OR CONCERNS ON COMPLAINT LOG There were no comments on the complaint log. 9. ADJOURNMENT The PACT meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next PACT meeting will be held on June 28, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Medicine Lake Room A at Plymouth City Hall. 13 CADocuments and SettingfthofTman\Local Settings\Temporary lntemet Fi1es\0LK8E\052406.doc MINNESOTA SECRETARY OF STATE OFFICE Mary Kiffineyer, Secretary of State June 19, 2006 Sandra R. Paulson Clerk, City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Ms. Paulson: JNA 4. Thank you for submitting your Municipal Electronic Voting System Plan, which was received by our Office on June 13, 2006. In accordance with the requirements set forth in Minnesota Statutes §206.82, subdivision 2, the City of Plymouth plan submitted was reviewed for sufficiency. To meet the requirements of the aforementioned statute, the municipal electronic voting system plan must indicate the acquisition of sufficient facilities, computer time, and professional services, as well as describe the proposed manner of complying with Minnesota Statute §206.80. Furthermore, the plan must be signed, notarized, and submitted to the Secretary of State, more than 60 days before the first election at which the municipality uses an electronic voting system, or before July 1 of subsequent election years when changes are made to the plan. Our Office finds that the plan submitted by the City of Plymouth is sufficient, and in accordance with the requirements set forth in Minnesota Statutes §206.82. Thank you for all of your hard work in helping to achieve the State of Minnesota's goal of ensuring privacy and independence for all voters. Sincerely, Mary Kiffineyer MN Secretary of State cc: Pat O'Connor, Hennepin County Auditor 180 State Office Building * 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd * St. Paul, MN 55155-1299 651- 296-2079 * 1-877-600-8683 * TTY: MNRglayService 1-800-627-3529 * Fax: 651-215-0682 * Web site www.sos.state.mn.us * E-mail secretary. state@state.mn.us TO: The Plymouth Fire Department DATE: 6/22/06 The homeowners of Bass Lake Villas Townhomes on Trenton Lane in Plymouth wish to extend their thanks to all of the men and women of the Plymouth Fire Department who assisted in putting out the fire in one of our buildings. Help came very quickly on Friday, 6/16, after lightening struck the roof. We are very grateful for the extraordinary job you performed! Sincerely, Susan Gross, V' a President Bass Lk. Villas Townhome Association OA- " �I (a r I W J(0 1,2P City of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life June 29, 2006 Stephen D. Weld 5605 Juneau Lane Plymouth, MN 55446 Dear Mr. Weld: Thank you for your letter of June 28, 2006 regarding the preliminary land use plan that was approved by the City Council on June 27. You expressed your disappointment that the City Council did not act on your request to designation your property "LA -R2" instead of "LA -RT". Due to the timing of your previous letter, your property was not included in some changes recommended by staff on June 13. Your June 16 letter regarding the designation of your property was forwarded to the Council for the June 27 City Council meeting. The Council did discuss your property and additional parcels in the same area, and a motion to reclassify them failed. As was discussed at the Council meeting, the land use plan is still preliminary. There is much work to come to update the other parts of the Comprehensive plan. Any development applications based on the preliminary plan will be premature until the update is complete, and that is at least 1 to V/z years in the future. Even after the plan is completed and adopted, there will be changes in the course of implementing it and reviewing development applications. As I explained to Mrs. Weld on the phone, if and when a development application is submitted for adjacent property, or if there are other changes in the area that would make sewer and water service available to your property, an amendment to the plan could be requested. In their discussions about the land use plan, the Council recognized that the plan is a "living document" that is subject to change as development occurs. If it makes sense for the planning and development of the area to include your property in a project in the future, the City is open to evaluating that request. I hope that this helps clarify what options may be available to you. Please feel free to call me at 763 509-5401 if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Anne W. Hurlburt, AICP Community Development Director cc: Mayor and Council 3400 Plymouth Blvd • Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 • Tel: 763-509-5000 • www.ci.plymouth.mn.us June 28, 2006 Anne Hurlburt Community Development Director Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Ms. Hurlburt, "Timing is everything" certainly seemed to be appropriate based on the outcome of the City Council meeting Tuesday evening. It is my belief that if our property had been included in both of the Landowner Requests and Potential Changes Identified by Staff maps displayed at the June 13'k' Council meeting, we would have been included in the final LA -R2 designation afforded the golf course and the railroad group. What seemed to be a logical extension of the LA -R2 designation through our property to the marsh, disappeared in a few council member exchanges at the Tuesday meeting. The entire length of our property on the west now abuts a developer with a property designation of LA -R2; the eastern side of the property runs into a marsh, the north end of the property is a private road and the south end is our driveway; we are an island. The developer does not have an interest in our property due to the restrictive land designation and the prospective home buyer is not interested as a result of the proximity to future development. It has been our intent to move and the Councils recent decision to not change our property designation severely limits our ability to sell our property. If the City Council is so determined to restrict development of our property, they may want to consider buying it; the property is right across the road from a city park. We have written letters for each one of the planning meetings and asked to be considered for similar property designations along with the golf course and the railroad group. They now have their LA -R2 designation in spite of all of the trees on their property and will develop as the plan is approved and implemented. I feel that we have done what others have done and yet the outcome is different. What should we do at this point? Sincerely, D. $ eWeld 5605 Juneau Lane Plymouth, MN cc: City Council DATE: June 30, 2006 TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Staff Team SUBJECT: Preliminary Land Use Plan for Northwest Plymouth Approved at June 27, 2006 City Council Meeting Attached is the preliminary land use plan map approved by the City Council at the June 27, 2006 City Council meeting. Along with the map, you will find a table comparing it with the previous versions of the plan. Staff is currently working to compile,the additional information needed for us to meet informally with the Metropolitan Council staff, to determine whether or not there might be the potential for finding a significant departure from or impact on the regional sewer system plan. As explained at the June 27 meeting, the Metropolitan Council's measurement of density is different than that used by the City of Plymouth in our planning. The minimum density in the approved plan would be 2.74 units per acre by the City's measurements. However, Metropolitan Council staff has indicated that they would deduct some areas including wetland buffers, additional park land and some road rights-of-way in their approach to calculating density. This will result in a higher density number than the City's approach. We will inform the Council of the results of this exercise and whether it appears there is the potential for regional policy concerns as soon as the information is available. Attachments: 1. Table comparing seven land use plan maps 2. Preliminary Land Use Plan, June 27 2006 0 C m a d CD U) N N C d � C J � 'a C n N d t0 ` (0 R CL a Q o. w C d U d d C* Q o 0 0 0 0 0 O O O LO �- O O N O M O ONO O CO O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 1- O O V O- N M V N N N V N O co O O CD CO O (O LO M O U) N V V CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 NLO C O rLO CO (O O 1- N N) C7 (D CO .- M I- CO O 1- M M I� V O Il -0 00 M N O coON 0 o 0 o O O O 6 O u7 O N N O CO OD 0) CO 'O C^ .° J N d ` R to a C a a f�A d L d L U� Q D �- � E z V 0 N N CO O O Ow M (O 'O C A ,° m N d co O CO R a C a Q E w= O= L a ++ C d n. L E z 0 0 0 0 V r V) COO O N O OVD N M w C 1 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o d 0 0 �• o 0 C d O O O C CO M N M O 0 N U) O O L C U 0 LO C C N C O (O O N Cp ` U) O r O O tD O - CO COO 1� 0 O O R (p Q N U) (0 CO U N CL 0 a O N O •- N N U) N N N Cl) Cl) CO � M r co U) O In O a 0 FL O L d to co N N C - N C (9 C M D C M 7 r ° m U) U CO O V MI - n 6)1- LOO)1. N N 7 r c M 7 r v C L ONO7 U)O)1-O M -: V r7 � O U d ONO U c d CCD Q O(nOO NM1OMUNOCDN NCO V U)- M - I-- COCO N cqOD 3 E U) 0) v (p -0 E 04 C14 V U7 N Cl)N 0 = Z Z �+ C O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 ` M O� C o 0 d - U •' O 0 U) 00 O 0 O O N O V O M I-, O N O 1- O O I` M U) O O O U0 O U - Q N V O) - m U .0 Cl) Cl) tD d O O N O N I- O N O N(0 O O co d MM o a C O G U N GO N U C O N U - N M .- O V O 1- CD O to � V M O M N - L V O) - L V• co M` O) f� O CO O U) O O V CO CO O O O CO O �, C M O O co O �, C M ) o 0 co (O O U U w Q O O O O O O O O O V 04 N O 1- O V I� N N O O U° E CV U) U° E M °, N M V N V N O (O C C 3 O 0 Z O Z ++ C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 C i O w. C I 0 O d M O O N O N 1- O CO0 CO0 O CO O O M O O COD 0) C w` O .- O O 0 0 0 N O Cf) O 00 O C w Q O O C w L CD O O0 d ro ° C� CV O C 1 O M (D I- N � O n N CY) O IT 'p O) O O CD C C N C N a EE y E` O O NOCDO00t o O V O I- CO 0 C14 N ME E E E dco r E E d V ODE a O E a O- a O r - O U U Cf) U) O � O O O N N N LO C) U) O CD O CV LO co ( 0) V) 0 N 0 co 0 0 U u E C!) `' (fl O O U 3 n CO u) aria N N M V r <- N CO O to ) Z Z ++ C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IO CO N C o_ o M d O) O CO O CD N V Cl)O V O C` U) 7 O I� O CO U) U) I� O O O 1� O C a M 0 C U N O (0 0) 0 04 O N O (D CD - V N N 00 O N O (6 FL a N .- N to O -a..4 d a aN i M O O N O V O O 1` N .-- O (D Cl) V to (D N O V V (O N r M N CM O d -6. F'- Q 0) O N CD co N L C. N V N (O Cl) RU Q O O O U) O _O (�D N N O I� (� OND A E V n E O N CO U) N N N V N CV V O (O Q � Z (n Z J ++ C o 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0000_0 0 0 0 0 0 00000_ 0 0 0 ►+ (_, i C o 0 N d U)OO V OO V CO OOOO O N C4 0 LO co C` CO 17 9 CO O O O U) M O 1� O V C Q N V C E O co (0 d 04 O M O I� •"' N LO CO N O O X (0 (0 (y U) M FL (NO W a= a s N O N O CO O N ti V N 1-- O Cl) N U)L Q C) N N 4) L co U) E N O O O I� V V CD V7 CO O M O = E '00 r- V 0 Q d a (O M CLj (O a h U) O N O N O q co (O M CC) .-- N v co O CO O O U) 0 0 U7 N U7 co O (Ct E CV U7 E CO E r M Ui N N N M N M V O CO - (n U) Z Z ++ C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N .' C o 0 d (O O LO CO O V O V CO 1- CO O O ra) C` (D OM 00 O OOO O 1` CD O Or- O O l0 d COO N N t0 O c V U7 a a.N a E s 4)d-1 O_ N d __ N I- N V V V N O O M CO O V O U) 0 0 () 0 N CO V (O O M N M O +:+ Q L d co V a L CO Lo I- U) U) co • CO co O O O Cn O O U) 04 E= M L E CO N Q N N N N O V- M Cl) N O N E N V N E r N M coO 1-7 'IrN Z O Z W 75 cc2 a Q _ o 'O 'o L C ♦+ Q m y I N U1 e c C Ci 8J o m s m ~ C d d C € y d m Z -0 Q — c C — n t;) c (a G1 to m A IL O H O N w 'C d ."_U' N a) '� c 3 .h w_ �� N 'c'cj�cn ..N_. d r O d»>� �� Z d p v �' Z 0) 0 o O U •U C C � N U N V CO �O p -p 0� U� O � y - N ,� N M CO O o O O O p N Co O° O° N E- C O O O N V N cn �+ E E 'y+ H m E E E 7 CCp U d � E' F- N M N C O C y� 7 = Q N M Q' f0 '4' Ci( ��"( m y X � CL fL Q�