HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 03-06-2007 SpecialAgenda
City of Plymouth
Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Listening Session on Hollydale Golf Course
3. Adjourn
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DATE: March .1, 2007
TO: Plymouth City Council
FROM: Barbara Senness, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Hollydale Golf Course Listening Session
In March of 2006, the City received a letter from the owner of Hollydale Golf Course, requesting
that the City guide the course for residential use. (The golf course is currently guided and zoned
public/institutional.) This request came during the time that the Planning Commission and City
Council were working on a land use plan for Northwest Plymouth. Since Hollydale is located
outside of Northwest Plymouth, the Council delayed any discussion of the Hollydale request
until they completed work on the Northwest Plymouth plan.
In the interim, the Council asked staff to monitor and subsequently, keep them informed about
the golf course issue in other communities. Staff has also had contact with residents near
Hollydale and provided them with background information from other communities.
At the beginning of 2007, the City resumed work on the update to the Comprehensive Plan,
focusing first on land use within the current urban service area. In January, the Council set the
March 6 date for a session to hear from residents and property owners regarding the future of the
land that is currently used for the Hollydale Golf Course.
Attachments:
1. March 7, 2006 letter from Richard Deziel
2. - Correspondence from residents
F
March 7, 2006
Ann Hurlburt, Community Development Director
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482
JreLiMWh
pp ldllt TY yE QPNEdT DEPARTMENT
RE: HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSE & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS
Dear Ann:
Purpose of this correspondence is to advise the City of Plymouth of our desire to have the future use of
our property Guided Residential. We have attended the various Comprehensive Plan Update meetings
and have orally expressed our interest in pursuing a future Zoning and Guiding status that better
reflects our family's future intentions and plans for the property. Please consider this letter our formal
written notification to the City of our future intentions and plans for the property.
While we plan to continue operating the Hollydale Golf Course in the near term, we want the City to
know that our future plans for the property include pursuing residential development of the Hollydale
Golf Course and the adjacent or nearby Deziel related property. Please consider this letter our formal
written notification to the City of our future intentions and plans for the property. The attached
Exhibit A identifies the property. Hopefully, this notice will help City Staff,.as you move forward
with the Comprehensive Plan Update process.
Thank you for your assistance in updating the Comprehensive Plan to reflect our family's desire to
have the future use of our property Guided Residential. Please contact me at (763) 559-4409 if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Deziel
16100 46`h Avenue North
Plyinouth, Minnesota 55446
cc: Hollydale Golf Course -File
FEBRUARY 28, 2007
PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL
PLYMOUTH PLANNING COMMISSION
RE: HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSE
WE ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MARCH 6, 2007 PUBLIC LISTENING SESSION ON THE LAND USE GUIDING HOLLYDALE
GOLF COURSE. WE LIVE AT 16817 497H PLACE N., WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE NORTHERN PROPERTY
BORDER OF HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSE. WHEN WE PURCHASED OUR HOME IN 2001 WE HADAND CONTINUE TO HAVE
CERTAIN EXPECTATIONS BEARDING THE LAND USE OF HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSE. THESE EXPECTATIONS ARE
REASSURED TO US IN THE CITY OF PLYMOUTHS ORIGINAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND STATES "Should the City
determine the need to preserve public golf in Plymouth, first priority would be given to preserving the
Hollydale Golf Course"; and "The following policies will guide future actions with respect to golf courses:
the City will avoid policies, regulatory actions or economic pressures {such as assessments for public
improvements} that would encourage redevelopment of the courses for other uses."
THERE ARE SEVERAL SOLID REASONS WHY THE HOLLYDALL GOLF COURSE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE LEGAL AND OTHER PRECEDENTS IN
EAGAN, MN, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN AND EDEN PRAIRIE, MN. OF WHICH WE ARE SURE THE COUNCIL IS AWARE.
OPt=N S e PR s?aTlor .— . .r.F n
j:R--. .:...a..._x.3is- s
A. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT. DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSE AS RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT. WE VALUE THE CITY'S OPEN SPACES,
PARKS, TRAILS, GOLF COURSES AND THE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT CURRENTLY EXIST IN OUR COMMUNITY
AND HAVE BUILTA LIFE AROUND THE HISTORICAL COMPREHENSIVE AND ZONING PLANS.
13. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT. DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSEAS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WOULD
HAVEA DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, ALL OF
WHICH WERE DEVELOPED BASED ON PARK, GOLF COURSE OR PROTECTED OPEN SPACE ZONING.
SG4109 ANb ROAD CONG STIOM r M.
r
C. SCHOOL IMPACT. DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSEAS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WOULD INCREASE
CONGESTION AT OUR ALREADY OVERCROWDED SCHOOLS. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OVER 150 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND
WOULD LIKELY RESULT IN ANOTHER SCHOOL BOUNDARY CHANGE AND ANOTHER RESHUFFLING OF OUR CHILDREN TO
DIFFERENT SCHOOLS.
D. TRAFFIC IMPACT. DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSE AS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WOULD FURTHER
INCREASE ROAD CONGESTION AND ESCALATE SAFETY RISKS. FURTHERMORE, IT WILL REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION OF
NEW ACCESS ROADS TO THE HOLLYDALE SITE. THESE ROADS WILL LIKELY NEED TO GO THROUGH EXISTING
NEIGHBORHOODS.
M
GITYOF`xPhYMgUTHH1STQRY-.... _ x ::.
d,_
E. VALIDITY OF EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSEAS
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE
LONGTERM HISTORICAL USE ASA GOLF COURSE.
F. THE CITY'S EXISTING POLICY ON THIS MATTER. DEVELOPMENT of THE HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSE AS
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE CITY'S PARKS, TRAILS, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL
PLAN. IN AUGUST, 2000 THE CITY ISSUED POLICY 8.2.6.2 "GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING NEED FOR GOLF COURSES"
THE CITY WILL AVOID POLICIES, REGULATORY ACTIONS OR ECONOMIC PRESSURES (SUCH AS
ASSESSMENTS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS) THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE
COURSES (HAMPTON HILLS, ELM CREEK, HOLLYDALE) FOR OTHER USES.
AT LEAST ONE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE 18 -HOLE GOLF COURSE SHOULD BE PRESERVED WITHIN THE CITY.
IF THE AVAILABILITY OF A PUBLIC COURSE IS THREATENED, THE CITY WILL CONSIDER ACTING TO ENSURE
CONTINUED ACCESS BY THE PUBLIC. POSSIBLE CITY ACTIONS MAY INCLUDE CREATING A PUBLIC-PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP, PURCHASING AND OPERATING AN EXISTING COURSE, OR SEEKING OTHER PUBLIC
AGENCIES TO PURCHASE AND OPERATE COURSE,
SHOULD THE CITY OETERMINE THE NEED TO ACTTO PRESERVE PUBLIC GOLF IN PLYMOUTH, FIRST
PRIORITY WOULD BE GIVEN TO PRESERVING THE HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSE.
F. THE CITY'S EXISTING POLICY ON THIS MATTER. DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSE AS
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WOULD GO AGAINST THE MAJORITY OPINION OF PLYMOUTH RESIDENCE, THE CITY'S 1999
RESIDENTS SURVEY (DECISION SOURCES, INC.) INCLUDED THE QUESTION:
SHOULD THE CITY TAKE STEPS TO ASSURE AT LEAST ONE OF THESE COURSES REMAINS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC?" 79%
RESPONDED YES]
E'SI.UESYr r r5's F 9` $ate _,,x 3Fis 3
G. REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE PROPERTY OWNERS. THE
REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF THE NEIGHBORING
LAND OWNERS AT THE TIME OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY WAS THAT THE HOLLYDALF GOLF COURSE PROPERTY
WOULD CONTINUE IN USE AS A GOLF COURSE. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY HAS ALWAYS
CLEARLY AND CONSISTENTLY PROHIBITED RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE, SUCH ZONING CHANGES WOULD
BE UNFAIR TO THOSE THAT RELIED UPON THEM.
H. REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF HOLLYDALE PROPERTY OWNER FOR CHANGE IN LAND USE. THE
PROPERTY OWNER HAS NO REASONABLE INVESTMENT EXPECTATIONS THATTHE PROPERTY WOULD BE RE-ZONEDTO
ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTY WAS GUIDEDAS PARK, GOLF COURSE OR
PROTECTED OPEN SPACE WHEN THE OWNER RECEIVED THE PROPERTY, AND THE PROPERTY WAS IN USE AS A GOLF
COURSE. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN CONTINUALLY USED AS THE GOLF COURSE FOR OVER 40 YEARS, AND THROUGHOUT
THAT TIME HAS BEEN GUIDED AS STATED ABOVE. WHEN THE CURRENT OWNER RECEIVED THE PROPERTY THERE WAS
NOTHING IN THE CITY'S GUIDING AND/OR ZONING OF THE PROPERTY TO LEAD A PERSON TO HAVE REASONABLE
INVESTMENT EXPECTATION THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE REZONED TO ALLOW A MORE INTENSIVE USE.
IN SUMMARY THE IMPACTS ON OPEN SPACE, SCHOOLS, ROADS AND PROPERTY VALUES AS WELL AS THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH'S HISTORY AND EXISTING POLICY CREATE A SOLID LOGIC FOR MAINTAINING HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSE AND
IT'S PRESENT GUIDANCE AND ZONING.
IN CONCLUSION, WE ASK THAT THE HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSE PROPERTY BE RETAINED AND NO CONSIDERATION GIVEN
TO RE -ZONING THIS PARCEL TO RESIDENTIAL, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE,
THANK YOU,
SINCERELY,
IS
ROBERTW. BURMASTER
PATRICIAA. BURMASTER
From: Rod Jordan[mailto:RJordan@ticcompanies.com)
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:46 AM
To: Steve Juetten
Cc: Kelli Slavik; Sandy Hewitt
Subject; Hollydale Golf Course
Steve,
I have been a resident of Plymouth since 1994. 1 have appreciated the manner in which the City
has accommodated commercial and residential growth.
I have also appreciated that within the city limits we can boast French Park, our wonderful library,
the Lifetime Fitness complex with ICE Arena and Sports Dome, Hollydale and Elm Creek Golf
Courses and of course Cold Stone. Kudos and applause to your team of planners and
developers, the Mayor and City Council.
I recently learned that there is a possibility that Hollydale Golf Course may be targeted for
development. I would strongly urge the planners to take the steps necessary to preserve
Hollydale as an open space and Golf Course. Having the golf course within the city limits
provides and excellent balance to the increased residential and commercial density we have seen
in the city. The grade and rating of the course makes it an attractive venue for youth, seniors,
women and high handicappers (90% of golfers). Elm Creek Golf Course, on the other hand is
less accommodating and less enjoyable for the high handicappers.
We recently lost the micro B&V golf course and driving range which most of us expected. But the
prospect of losing Hollydale is very troubling as it would tip the City in a density direction that
would significantly degrade the quality of life. The traffic levels which come through that corridor
have already reached uncomfortable volume levels with the high density development in Medina
and along Hwy 55. 1 can't imagine not being able to enjoy an early Saturday morning round of
golf at Hollydale with its deer, birds, joggers, water hazards and yes, geese and train whistles.
I attended the City Council meeting last night and I listened in amazement when the council
members approved a Cleaning Service business that could operate out of a residence. The
cleaning business has 5 trucks, 3 of which are parked at the residence. Workers arrive in the
morning and evening, creating unacceptable noise levels and loitering for the nearby residents.
The residents felt that approving the business license to operate in a home was a breach of trust.
They invested in their homes with an expectation that would have quiet enjoyment from
commercial business activity and intrusion. There is no doubt that the current homeowners who
have homes around Hollydale Golf Course, paid a premium for their homes based on the
presence of the golf course. Developing that wonderful open space into a housing development
would be a breach of trust to these homeowners as well as the residents like me who have
access to this wonderful resource.
I would urge you to support preserving Hollyda[e Golf Course as an important dimension of the
Plymouth Community.
Best Regards,
Rodney Jordan
Boulder Crest
From: Suzyrahm@aol.com [mailto;Suzyrahm@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12.:05 PM
To: Steve Juetten
Cc: Council Members; Web Contact Planning
Subject: Guiding of Hollydale Golf Course
16810 451h Avenue N.
Plymouth, MN 55446
February 22, 2007
Dear Mr. Juetten,
It's our understanding that the owners of Hollydale Golf Course have requested the city
of Plymouth to review the status of their property and align it as residential use in the
updated Comprehensive Pian. We, as homeowners, in Golf View Estates are saddened
and concerned about the news. We have been residents of the Golf View
neighborhood for over 13 years. Our home is situated on an elevated lot with sweeping
views of the wetlands and the golf course. Not only have we been blessed with the
lovely scenery that the course provides, but also we have been blessed with the natural
treasure of wildlife that dwells in the wetlands that surround the course. Year after year,
we have enjoyed the off spring of pheasants, ducks, cranes, deer, fox and owls, as well
as, a variety of birds. It would be a shame to lose this community green space and the
many habitats of wildlife.
We are against further housing development on this land. We feel it's of utmost
importance to preserve trees, animal habitats and our communities green space. Mass
produced housing will not add to the qualify of life of Plymouth residents. We need to
protect the natural heritage in a way that allows for future generations to enjoy the
livability of this area. Overbuilt areas will drag down our house values, place further
pressure on our already overcrowded schools and increase traffic problems in and
around our neighborhoods. We deeply believe this land needs to be protected and
preserved. Please limit any unnecessary developments.
We ask you and the council, to thoughtfully consider the plan for this beautiful space.
Sincerely,
Sue and Jeff Rahm
L.[L114A U UVG1V1J111G11L ill l LYLLIVL1L11
Barb Senness
From: -Steve Juetten
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 2:23 PM
To: - Barb Senness
Subject: FW: Land development in Plymouth
Please place in the record.
From: Gibbs, Cindy M.[mailto:Cindy.Gibbs@ParkNico[let.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 2:22 PM
To: Steve Juetten
Subject: Land development in Plymouth
1 LLE\ . - 1
I received a notice that there will be a public listening session regarding future plans for the Hollydale golf course.
It would be a great disappointment if this land was developed for residential use. As a Plymouth resident it
concerns me that we continue to lose what little green space we have left for development.
Please consider leaving this land as a golf course.
Thank you for your time.
Cindy Gibbs
Plymouth Resident
763-478-9758
2/26/2007
rngu i ui 1
Steve Juetten
From: Helen LaFave
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 5:03 PM
To: Kelli Slavik; Laurie Ahrens; Steve Juetten
Cc: Jared Noelting; Barb Senness
Subject: Phone Call Re: HollydalelCity Web Site
FYI. I just had a call today from Maureen Modrack. She wanted to know "why parts of the City web site," namely
the Facilities/Parks section had been changed recently to remove information about area golf courses. She
specified Hollyda[e Golf Course as the golf course she was interested in.
I told Ms. Modrack that the City web site had not been changed in that regard, and that it currently and since its
inception has only listed city facilities -- not private facilities. I told her we do not have any city -owned golf
courses so I was certain that they had never been listed. I further specified that the City web site is a local
government web site and as such we focus exclusively on municipal operations, facilities and programs.
We never have had information about area golf courses on our site. I assured Ms. Modrack that I was the person
who had developed the information for that area of the site and that I only included that city facilities -- and none
of it had been changed recently.
Helen
Helen LaFave
Communications Manager
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
763.509.5090 - office
763.509.5060 - fax
hlafave@ci.plymouth.mn.us
2/26/2007
rage i o>i i
Jared Noelting
From: Jared Noelting
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:16 PM
To: 'modrax@msn.com'
Subject: Hollydale Inquiry
Attachments: Hollyda[e Inquiry (2-23-07).pdf
Maureen,
1 have done the best to answer your questions in the attached memo. Please let me know if you have any
questions or comments.
Regards,
Jared Noelting
Associate Planner
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth, MN 55447
763,509.5463 p
763.509.5407 f
jno_eltin ci.plVmouth.mn,us
2/23/2007
DATE: February 23, 2007
TO: Maureen Modrack
FROM: Jared Noelting, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Hollydale Golf Course Inquiry
The following memorandum addresses the questions you have raised about Hollydale Golf
Course.
Who owns Hollydale?
Hollydale Golf Course has three different owners identified for the roughly 155 acres that are part
of, or contain a portion of, the course: Hollydale Golf Inc., Hollydale Land L.L.C., and William
and Mary Deziel.
Sewer History?
In reviewing the current and previous sewer plans, it appears the City designed its sewer system
with capacity to serve Hollydale Golf Course in the event it was developed. The most recent
comprehensive plan completed in 2000 assumed that Hollydale, part of sewer sub -district NW -
17, may develop with an LA -1 (living area 1) or LA -2 (living area 2) land use guiding. The 1990
Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan also appears to have assumed an LA -1 or LA -2 guiding for the
sewer sub -district containing Hollydale Golf course.
How long has Plymouth had a comp plan?
The City has records of a comprehensive plan dating as far back as 1965, and a zoning ordinance
as early as 1919.
How long has Hollydale been a golf course?
It appears that Hollydale began operation between 1965 and 1973, based on the comprehensive
plans for each -year. In 1973, Hollydale, Hampton Hills, and Elm Creek Golf Courses were
identified on the land use map, where they previously were not identified in 1965.
How far of an area were the letters sent out?
Notices regarding the March 6 Special Council Meeting Listening Session were sent to all
properties within a distance of 750 feet of Hollydale Golf Course. Additionally, there were some
properties that were included as part of the mailed notice beyond 750 feet. Notice of the meeting
was placed on the City's website. The City also did a press release regarding the meeting.
Steve Juetten
From: Steve Juetten
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2047 8:18 PM
To: 'bhigginson@comcast.net'
Subject: Re: March 6th listening session
Brad,
The night has been set up as listening session. Staff will not be making a presentation.
The only way that I can answer the second question is to say that typically for public
hearings, each speaker is asked to keep comments to five minutes. The Mayor may allow
more, but I wouldn't plan on it at this point.
If I find out anything different I will let you know. Keep sending questions if you have
them.
Steve
Original Message ------
From: bhigginson@comcast.net <bhigginson@comcast.net>
To: Steve Juetten
Sent: Fri Feb 23 20:02:07 2001
Subject: RE: March 6th listening session
Dear Steve,
Thanks for your quick response. I didn't get to my personal e-mails till much later in
the day.
A couple additional questions;
1) Are we the only presenters at this session?
2) Are there any time limits applied?
Sincerely, Brad
Original message --------------
From: "Steve Juetten" <sjuetten@ci.plymouth.mn.us>
Mr. Higginson,
Thank you for your question on process. The meeting has been scheduled by the City
Council to listen to comments from the residents. With this in mind the process for the
meeti-ng is as follows:
1) Blue cards will be placed at the entrance of the meeting room for residents who
what to speak. These cards need to be filled out so we have the names and addresses of
the residents that speak at the meeting. Once completed, the cards will be collected and
given to the Mayor.
2) The Mayor will, individually, invite each person that completed a card to step
forward to make comments.
I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have additional questions before the
meeting.
Steve
From: bhigginson@comcast.net [mailto:bhigginson@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 10:21 AM
1
To: Steve Juetten
Cc: kraemers@comcast.net
Subject: March 6th listening session
Dear Mr. Juetten,
I am writing on behalf of a collective group of Plymouth residents to determine the
general format for the upcoming listening session. (see attached)
If you could provide some rules of engagement that should be considered it will
certainly insure best use of everyone's time.
I look forward to your reply,
Sincerely,
Brad Higginson
612) 308-0587
2
1-QIIU UGVUIVj]111UI1L Ili l IYIIIULLUI
1 Cl6LJ A kil 1
Steve J uetten
From: Gibbs, Cindy M. [Cindy. Gibbs@ParkNicollet.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 2:22 PM
To: Steve Juetten
Subject: Land development in Plymouth
I received a notice that there will be a public listening session regarding future plans for the Hollydale golf course.
It would be a great disappointment if this land was developed for residential use. As a Plymouth resident it
concerns me that we continue to lose what little green space we have left for development.
Please consider leaving this land as a golf course.
Thank you for your time.
Cindy Gibbs
Plymouth Resident
763-478-9758
212612007
Yage 1 of 1
Steve Juetten
From: Riethmille@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 5:49 PM
To: Steve Juetten
Subject: Re: Hollydale Golf Course
I am opposed to re -zoning Hollydale. I like to play there and would like to see it remain a golf course. Plymouth
could buy it or help 3 Rivers to. They might want to make part of it into a park and bike paths.
We need all of the green space we can get. We have enough houses. We can't get the green back if houses are
there. Thankyou for considering my letter.
Colette Riethmiller 16490 45th Ave N. Plymouth Mn. 44446
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http:llwww.aol.com,
2/23/2007
Gt-egoly J. Pulles
4625 Xene Lane North
PIymoatth, MIF 55446
13tasiness Phone: (952) 475-7910 Fax: (952) 475-7975
Home Phone: (76.3) 577-0907 Fax: (763) 559-1036
February M, 2007
Steve Juetten
Comnituuty Development Director
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Mimlesota 55447-1482
Dear Mr. Juetten:
I
We are submitting these comments in opposition to the request to guide
the Hollydale Golf Course for residential use in the updated comprehensive plan. We are
adjacent property owners.
Hollydale Golf Course is a great asset to the Plymouth community; it is a
wonderful course. I am a golfer of some 40 years and I can tell you that the Hollydale
Golf Course is the best, most user friendly, pleasanfplace to play golf in the western
suburbs. It is accessible, easy to get on, the owners are friendly — it is a full 18 -hole golf
course, but it has an extra par 3 and its length makes it very enj oyable for average
players. The layout is excellent. It is just a wonderful golf course and it would be a great
loss to the community.
I also believe that placing an additional residential development adjacent
to what has to be 200 properties, in their backyards, would be unfair to them. We have
been good neighbors, we have a wonderful neighborhood, and the loss of Hollydale
would be detrimental to the four residential communities that abut the course.
GJP:l'rnl
GJP957
EEhk
City of
ptymouth
Adding Quality to Life
December 1, 2006
Gregory J. Pulles
4625 Xene Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55446
Subject. Golf Courses
Dear Mr. Pulles:
Thank you for your letter. It will be made part of the public record on this matter.
You are correct that nothing further has happened on the golf course issue. We anticipate
that the City Council will look at the issue in the first quarter of 2007. You can expect to
be notified before any meeting takes place on this issue.
Please contact me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Barbara G. Senness, AICP
Planning Manager
cc: Plymouth City Council
340D Plymouth Blvd • Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 • Tel: 763-509-5000 • www.ci.plymouth.mn.us
Gregory I Pulles
4625 Xene Law North
Plymouth, MN 55446
Business Phone: (952) 475-7910 Fax: (952) 475-7975
Hone Pholne: (763) 577-0907 Fax: (763) 559-1036
November 28, 2006
Anne W. Hurlburt
Barbara G. Senness
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Ms. Hurlburt and Ms. Senness:
I have not received anything further from the City relative to the future
guidance of Hollydale. I assume that this means that nothing is happening and that there
are no developments. I do want to make sure that the City understands that adjacent
landowners oppose any change in the guidance and that the City should not do anything
that prejudices that position without notice to the adjoining landowners. Further, the
owner of Hollydale should not be led to believe by the City that the guidance change
would be permitted.
I would appreciate it if this letter could be made a part of the record.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Very t ly yours,
4regory J. VIlcs
GJP:kml
GJP941
Septemb,pr 2006
Planning Division
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447-1482
To The City of Plymouth,
It has come to our attention that a letter of intent was given to the city of Plymouth by Richard J.
Deziel, owner of the property known as Hollydale Golf Course. The letter was apparently
concerning the City of Plymouth's Comprehensive Plan update process and a `declaration' of
their future intentions for the use of their property.
We are opposed to any changes to the Comprehensive Plan concerning Hollydale Golf Course.
Our wishes are for you to uphold the Comprehensive Plan and to continue with your policies
which are as follows: Section 8.2.6.3 titled Policies Related to Golf Courses:
The following policies will guide future actions with respect to golf courses: The City will
avoid policies, regulatory actions or economic pressures (such as assessments for public
improvements) that would encourage redevelopment of the course for other uses.
At least one publicly accessible 18 -hole golf course should be preserved within the City. If
the availability of a public course is threatened, the City will consider action to ensure continued
access by the public. Possible City actions may include creating a public-private partnership,
purchasing and operating an existing course, or seeking other public agencies to purchase and
operate a course.
Should the City determine the need to act to preserve public golf in Plymouth, first priority
would be. given to preserving the Hollydale Golf Course."
It is our desire that the City maintain the Comprehensive Plan's current zoning for the Hollydale
property and that the City will follow through with the published policies when it goes through
its Comprehensive Plan update process. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
41z'&
Tim & Paula Hays`
16709 49th Place N.
Plymouth, MN 55446
September 18, 2006
Planning Division
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447-1482
To The City of Plymouth,
ri
SEP 2 7 2006. :
ii i t OF PL WOUTH
COUNTY DEVELOPMENT DPPARTMfNT
A letter of intent was given to the city of Plymouth by Richard J. Deziel concerning the City of
Plymouth's Comprehensive Plan update process for Hollydale Golf Course. Mr. Deziel requested
that the "future use of our property Guided Residential".
We are against any changes to the Comprehensive Plan concerning Hollydale Golf Course. Our
wishes are for you to uphold the Comprehensive Plan and to continue with your policies which are
as follows: Section 5:2.6.3 Policies Related To Golf Courses
The following policies will guide future actions with respect to golf courses: The City
will avoid policies, regulatory actions or economic pressures (such as assessments for public
improvements) that would encourage redevelopment of the course for other uses.
At least one publicly accessible I8 -hole golf course should be preserved within the City. If
the availability of a public course is threatened, the City will consider action to ensure continued
access by the public. Possible City actions may include creating a public-private partnership,
purchasing and operating an existing course, or seeking other public agencies to purchase and
operate a course.
Should the City determine the need to act to preserve public golf in Plymouth, fust priority
would be given to preserving the Hollydale Golf Course."
We expect the City to uphold the Comprehensive Plan's zoning and to follow through with their
policies with respect to Hollydale Golf Course when it goes through it's Comprehensive Plan
update process.
SL2cPrely
i
Ma reen & Gregg Modrack
4950 Comstock Ln. N.
Plymouth, Mn. 55446
City of
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
September 8, 2006
Gregory J. Pulles
4625 Xene Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55446
SUBJECT: Hollydale Golf Course
Dear Mr. Pulles:
Thank you for your letter. I apologize that you did not receive a response to your June 20
letter. It is likely that it was lost in the mail as I could not find it in our files. In any case,
you are on the mailing list to receive any notices regarding potential changes in the
guiding of Hollydale golf course.
To date, we have not received an application from the owners. Staff will not undertake
any other work on golf course guiding until directed by the City Council. We do notexpecttheCounciltocontinueworkontheComprehensivePlanupdateuntillatethis
year. If the City should receive an application for a guide plan change and when the
Council discusses golf course guiding, you will receive written notice in advance.
If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact me at 763-509-5452.
Sincerely,
Barbara G. Senness, AICP
Planning Manager
3400 Plymouth Blvd • Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-14B2 • Tel: 763-509-5000 • www.ci.Plymouth.mn.us
Gregory I Pulles
4625 Xene Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55446
BusinessPhone: (952)475-791Y Fax: (952) 475-7975
Home Phone: (763) 577--0907 Fax: (763) 559-1036
September 5, 2006
DIE
Anne W. Hurlburt u SEP 7 — 2006 l
Community Development Director
City of Plymouth'
IY
3400 Plymouth
Boulevard1NITYOEV LC€_'
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482
Dear Ms. Hurlburt:
I haven't received a response to my 6120106 letter.
I haven't received any notice that an application to change guiding has
been filed by Hollydale.
I would like to be assured that I will receive notice when an application to
change guiding is received by the City, and have an opportunity to be heard at that time.
Very duly yours,
Gregtorypulles
GJP:lanl
g4j,j 6 / 2-0 / j C .,& -
GJP924
Gregory I Pulles
4625 Xene Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55446
Business Phone: (952) 475-7910 Fax: (952) 475-7975
Home Phone: (763) 577-0907 Fax: (763) 559-1036
June 20, 2006
Anne W. Hurlburt
Community Development Director
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482
Dear Ms. Hurlburt:
Thank you for your letter of June 16, 2006, attached. If I understand it,
then, I will receive notice as an adjoining landowner when and if Hollydale Golf Club
makes an application to change guiding and will be given an opportunity to be heard at
that time.
Thank you much.
GJP:kml
Encl.
GJP912
City of
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
June 16, 2006
Gregory J. Pulles
4625 Xene Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55446
Dear Mr. Pulles:
In your letter of June 5, you asked what right owners have to "guide" their property, and -what-
right adjoining owners have to object.
Guiding" refers to the designation of land on the City's future land use plan map, which is partoftheCity's Comprehensive Plan. Landowners may request that the City amend theComprehensivePlan. In Plymouth, when applications are made to change guiding, all property
owners within 750 feet are notified when the application is received. They are notified again
when the required public hearing is scheduled before the Planning Commission. All citizens
have the right to attend the hearing and give their input. ' The Planning Commission makesrecommendationstotheCityCouncil. I am enclosing a copy of the procedures for land use plan
amendments which was adopted as part of the plan.
The decision on whether or not to make a change to the Comprehensive Plan is solely up to theCityCouncil, who must balance the overall good of the community with the rights and desires of
the landowner. A super -majority (517) vote of the City Council is required. In the Metro area,
review by the Metropolitan Council for consistency with regional system plans is also required
before the plan or an amendment can be placed into effect.
Cities cannot use planning and zoning restrictions in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or to takealleconomicuseofthelandfromtheowner. Landowners have rights to use their property in amannerconsistentwiththeplan, and with the zoning regulations that are enacted to implement
the plan. The legal standards that apply to planning and zoning_are constantly evolving, as
specific decisions are reviewed by the courts.
1 hope that this answers your questions. Please feel free to contact me at 763 509-5401, or e-mail
met at ahurlbur@ci.nlymouth.mn.us if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
lZ ul1x-
Anne W. Hurlburt, AICP
Community Development Director
3400 Plymouth Blvd • Plymouth, Minnesota 55147-1482 • Tel: 763-509-5000 e www.ci.plymouth.mn.us
Comprehensive Plan EIements
Policy Plan (Community Goals)
e Land Use Plan
Transportation Plan
r Water Resoumes Plan
Sanitary Sewer Plan
Surface Water Management Plan
s Water Supply and Distribution Plan
Parks, Trails, Open Space and. Recreation Plan
tr housing Plan
Public Facilities Plan
Implementation Plan
Why Ate We Here?
Comprehensive Plan Update Process (ongoing since
2005).
Preliminary Land Use Plan For the Northwest Area
Qune 27, 2006).
March 7, 2006 letter from the Plollydale GC owner.
I-Iollydale GC is not included in the Northwest Area.
City Council is now reviewing land use guiding for the
rem;underof the City.
City Council wants to hear from the residents and
property owners.
What is the Comprehensive Plan?
Long—range vision, guide and design for the community's
Future.
Legal Foundation for rules and regulations adopted by the
community, such as the zoning ordinance and subdivision
regulations.
An active working document/guide for decision malting -
w Elected Officials, Citizens, City Smtt, Devetopen, and other Bwa ness
Uvners.
Cities are required by the 1976 Land Pluming Act to update
their Comprehensive Plans every ten years (by the cud of 2008).
Current Land Use Guide Plan
OIe L.W6 aeE
ii .
Yiis:•,,
oeu
ii;yr'Ee,.Y i .. E=j? .`F o.,.....t...
1C:YCGC lCfa :•' ___
i YniiiElfl::i:&i.
x ......iiiii"i
P -I (Public/Serpi-Public/Institutional)
The P -I guiding designation allows a variety of uses
including public parks and open space, private
recreation facilities and public buildings.
Packs and Open Spaces —mini -parks, neighborhood parks,
community playfields, city parks, special use packs and
regional parks.
Private Recreation Uses —Mir courses, riding stables,
snowmobile courses, ski hills, etc.
Institutional Uses — Schools, libraries, fire stations,
community centers, public administrative offices and
mnintcnanee shops, places ofcvorship, eorrectinuai facilities,
nursing care and hospital facilities and the like.
Preliminary Time Line
March 6, 2007
MUSK Laid use Werk Session
Golf Course Listening Session
µNSA' Land use Wolk Saedon R2
Werk 5esskna v PC -4CC (a r ded)
pubr, MeeuN, m Proposed Land use Plan Chargee
Prepare Ckmenti of the Plan [wrae draft plan]
Wow sear wBh PC andbr CC
PWio Naadng by Plar drg C.—..-
Condltlanal Approval by Cay Counull
subm7t Plen to Neighboring C-
01 -Submit Plan m Met Connell for Revlow
anal Plan AdopHan Slate 20021
Steve Juetten
From: Robyn Bakken [rlbakken@gwest.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 4:43 PM
To: Steve Juetten
Subject: Hollydale Golf Course
We are very disappointed with the possibility of Hollydale Golf Course
becoming just another neighborhood. We have lived in Golfview Estates since
1993. In the past 14 years, we have moved our business to the city of
Plymouth, as well as built two office buildings in the city. We've enjoyed
living and working in this city and want future residents to feel the same
way.
We feel this change in land use guiding would be an unwise choice for the
city of Plymouth. Plymouth needs more open spaces, it needs more green
spaces, -it does not need more residential development in place of a
beautiful golf course. The schools in this part of town are bulging at the
seams, and the streets are overcrowded.
The future success of the city of Plymouth depends on decisions made today.
Please do not allow the Hollydale Golf Course land use guiding to change to
residential!
Paul and Robyn Bakken
16610 45th Ave. N.
Plymouth, MN 55446
1
Page 1 of 1
Barb Senness
From: Steve Juetten
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:26 PM
To: Barb Senness
Subject: FW: March 6107 Listening Session - Hollydale Golf Course
Please make part of the record.
From: Terry Daily [mailto:terrydaily@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:24 PM
To: Council Members
Cc: Steve Juetten; Web Contact Planning; Web Contact Administration
Subject: March 6/07 Listening Session - Hollydale Golf Course
Dear Council Members,
A group of homeowners have formed a committee to speak on behalf of those concerned with future development
plans of the Hollydale Golf Course. We support open space and maintaining the property as is. Our concerns with
future development include potential overcrowding of schools, increased traffic, decreased property values, and
property owners reliance on the existing Comprehensive Plan for purchasing and improvement decisions.
Several local cities (Mendota Heights, Eagan, Eden Prairie) have recently dealt with very similar issues and in
each -case City Council voted with their citizens for maintaining open space, and against golf course owners
wishing to develop the land. In two of the three cases, the golf course owners took legal action, and in both cases
the courts (Minnesota Supreme Court and Minnesota Court of Appeals) ruled in favor of the city maintaining open
space and against the golf course owners.
We respectfully submit the attached document for your review and consideration
Warmest regards,
Terry Daily
4905 Yuma Lane N.
Plymouth, MN 55446
3/2/2007
DATE: February, 2007
TO: Plymouth City Council
FROM: Concerned Citizens of Plymouth
RE: Hollydale Golf Course
A group of homeowners living in the vicinity of the Hollydale Golf Course have formed acommitteeinordertospeakonbehalfofthoseconcernedwithfuturedevelopmentplans for this
property. The petitions now being circulated, in addition to resident turnout for the upcoming
City Council Meeting on March b, will give an indication as to the number of residents counting
themselves among those who support this group's position on the matter.
We assert that there are several solid reasons why the Hollydale Golf Course should not be
considered for residential development, now or in the future. In addition, there are precedents,
many of them local, that we would call to the Council's attention regarding this matter. They are
as follows:
A. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT. Development of the Hollydale Golf Course as
residential property will have an adverse effect on the physical environment. Plymouth residentsvaluetheCity's open spaces, parks, trails, golf courses and the recreational opportunities that
currently exist in our community. Residents have built a life around the long term composition of
our comprehensive and zoning plans.
B. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT. Development of the Hollydale Golf Course as residential
property would have a detrimental effect on the existing single family and multifamily residentialneighborhood, all of which were developed based on park, golf course or protected open space
zoning.
C. SCHOOL IMPACT. Development of the Hollydale Golf Course as -residential property would
increase congestion at our already crowded schools. The development the over 150 acre parcel
of land would. likely result in another school boundary change and another reshuffling of our
children to different schools.
D. TRAFFIC IMPACT. Development of the Hollydale Golf Course as residential property would
further increase road congestion and escalate safety risks.
E. INTEGRITY OF EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Development of the Hollydale Golf
Course as residential property would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Ordinance and the long-term historical use as a golf course.
i
F. THE CITY'S EXISTING POLICY ON THIS MATTER. Development of the Hollydale Golf
Course as residential property would be in conflict with the City's Parks, Trails, Open Space and
Recreational Plan. In August, 2000 the City issued Policy 8.2.6.2 "Guidelines for Assessing
Need for Golf Courses"
The City will avoid policies, regulatory actions or economic pressures (such as
assessments for public improvements) that would encourage redevelopment of the
courses (Hampton Hills, Elm Creek, Hollydale) for other uses.
At least one publicly accessible 18 -hole golf course should be preserved within the City.
If the availability of a public course is threatened, the City will consider acting to ensure
continued access by the public. Possible City actions may include creating a public-
private partnership, purchasing and operating an existing course, or seeking other public
agencies to purchase and operate a course.
Should the City determine the need to act to preserve public golf in Plymouth, first priority
would be given to preserving the Hollydale Golf Course.
G. -THE CITY'S EXISTING POLICY ON THIS MATTER. Development of the Hollydale Golf
Course as residential property would go against the majority opinion of Plymouth residence. The
City's 1999 residents survey (Decision Sources, Inc.) included the question:
Should the City take steps to assure at least one of these courses remains open to the public?"
79% responded YES!
ss_.;L-,..a...a..w,'..,=..N___.._...,:.:;:' „._.--;.-:rn.n-..-=-.•-.-„-.:x.^.... x, .=.wi_....%._._,_.......t._,d...'„':....L a* n,.... ,..,......`i"Rnl.a:
H. REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE PROPERTY
OWNERS. The reasonable expectations of the property owners and the reasonable
expectations of the neighboring land owners at the time of acquisition of the property was that
the Hollydale Golf Course property would continue in use as a golf course. To the extent that the
zoning for the property has always clearly and consistently prohibited residential redevelopment
of the site, such zoning changes would be unfair to those that relied upon them.
I. REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF HOLLYDALE PROPERTY OWNER FOR CHANGE IN
LAND USE. The property owner has no reasonable investment expectations that the property
would be re -zoned to allow single family residential development. The property was guided as
Park, Golf Course or Protected Open Space when the owner received the properly, and the
property was in use as a golf course. The property has been continually used as the golf course
for over 40 years, and throughout that time has been guided as stated above. When the current
owner received the property there was nothing in the City's guiding and/or zoning of the property
to lead a person to have reasonable investment expectation that the property would be rezoned
to allow a more intensive use.
2
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
Mendota Golf vs. City of Mendota Heights
State of Minnesota Supreme Court, January 10, 2006
The court ruled "a city has a rational basis to deny a proposed amendment to its comprehensive
plan with respect to property currently used as a golf course when the city has a legitimate
interest in reaffirming a historical comprehensive plan designation and in protecting open and
recreational space".
Decision for City of Mendota Heights
EAGAN, M N
Wensmann Realty vs. City of Eagan
State of Minnesota Court of Appeals, May 23, 2006
Excerpts from the decision include:
Mendota Golf addresses similar arguments. The historic use of the property as a golf course,
the recent update of the comprehensive plan, and the public hearing comments indicating that
citizens valued the open space and recreational opportunities provided by a golf course
supported the conclusion that a municipality had legitimate interests in protecting open and
recreational space, as well as reaffirming historical land use designations.
The legitimate interests recognized in the Mendota Golf are nearly identical to the reasons
stated here. The property has been used as a golf course since 1967; the city plan had recently
been updated in 2001, and the records indicate that Eagan citizens value the city's open space.
The city also cites concerns about traffic and overcrowded schools as a rational basis of
denying the amendment.
The school district's own projection of enrollment statistics and the "capacity" for each school
indicate that the schools have an ongoing problem with overcapacity. Therefore, the city had a
rational basis for its denial of the application to amend the plan.
Derision for the City -of Eagan
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN
City Council, January, 2007Thecityrefusedtoallowresidential development of the Bent Creek Golf course. At its Jan 16, 2007 meeting, the council unanimously approved creating a "golf course" category in the city'scomprehensiveplan. The change allows only golf courses on property now used for golfing. The
city is confident that if there is litigation, they will win based on the solid legal precedence above.
Decision for the Residents of Eden Prairie!
In conclusion, we ask that the Hollydale Golf Course property be retained and no consideration
given to re -zoning this parcel to residential, now or in the future.
Thank you.
Steve Juetten 2128107
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Juetten,
Re: Hollydale Golf Course Public Hearin
Our family moved to Plymouth about 1 '/2 years ago from the Chicago area and we have
truly enjoyed the Plymouth area. We find it to be similar to the North suburbs of Chicago
where we carte from with a large population but enough space to give it a nice
community feel.
I ain very disappointed to hear, though, that there are thoughts of zoning Hollydale for
yet another housing development. It's just this type of thing that can take PIymouth from
one way of life to another. I would hate to see this for the long term negative impact on
the community and future generations. There has to be some conunon sense used to see
that there is a great risk of turning Plymouth into an over -populated area with a lack of
green space.
I can't imagine a city the size of Plymouth not having the resources to have 1 public golf
course for a population of over 60,000 people. If you look out 5-10 years, how could the
average person in Plymouth not want to see this unnecessary development prevented?
We're just a family of 4; hoping to live in Plymouth for a long time. We would ask that
our voices be heard and that consideration be given to have Hollydale be purchased for a
community golf course rather than zoned for even more homes and over -population of
the area.
There is a chance to give Plymouth that close "community" feeling for many generations
to come with a positive look -into what is just the right thing.to do here --- find a way to
keep Hollydale as a Plymouth -owned Golf Course.
I regret that I will be out of the country for business travel on March 6"', but will plan to
join the next meeting.
Yours trigv.
f
c
Thomas M. Philbin (Diane, Ryan and Chyls)
4620 Weston Lane
Plymouth, MN 55446
DATE: March 6, 2007 for meeting of Tuesday, March 13'' 6:00p.m.
TO: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
FROM:' Eric J. Blank, Director, Parks and Recreation Z"-5
SUBJECT: Study Session — Open Space, Park Land Aquistion.
Attached for Council review are some of the staff reports and background material that the
Council reviewed in 2006 leading up to the November Open Space referendum. I have also
included the decision resource questions that were used for the survey and the city open space
parks referendum information brochure that was mailed to all households in the community prior
to the election.
EB/np
Agenda Number.
TO: Laurie Ahrens'.City Manager
FROM: Mike KAir7 n ffieial Analyst and Eric Blank, Park & Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Potential.Park System'Projects and Financing
DATE: March 8, 2006
1. ACTION REQUESTED:
Evaluate this report and place the issue of future park system projects and financing on a future
City Council study session agenda for further consideration.
2. BACKGROUND:
The Park and Recreation department has prepared a list of projects that they would like to
accomplish to finish off the park system for the City of Plymouth (see Attachment I). Some of
these items may change, be added to, or be eliminated as part of the Comprehensive Plan
process. However, they currently represent the best menu of potential projects available.
In addition, the Park and Recreation and Administrative Services departments have attempted to
estimate revenues that may be available to pay for these projects (see Attachment II). Once
again, these revenue estimates may change significantly based on decisions made in the
Comprehensive Plan process. These projections can be compared in total to see if the list of
projects is reasonable in total. These projections must also be compared from a timing
perspective to see if the projects can be adequately cashflowed.
The figures developed for this report rely heavily on a great number of assumptions regarding
land costs, land donation vs. fee collection, park dedication fee amounts, inflation, ultimate land
use, comma-mity needs and others. In general we feel the report is fairly accurate with the
understanding that the margin of error is potentially in the $1,000,000 plus range. .
3. DISCUSSION:
Expenditures
The list of potential projects (Attachment I) includes items already contained in the CIa (bold., as
well as items which were omitted from the CIP due to tuning or cost considerations. The items
contained in the CIP are projected to cost approximately S5,150,000 and it is projected that these-.:
items can be adequately financed with funds on hand, plus projected park dedication fees
received in the next five year period.
The other projects on the list include: development costs for six neighborhood parks (the
assumption is that the land — approximately 40 acres - will be donated); additional cost for
acquisition of the 10`x'
playfield due to rising land prices; possible acquisition of an additional 20
acres for the 10"' playfield; development of 15 miles of trails; acquisition of approximately 23
acres of land for the Northwest Greenway Corridor (it is assumed that. about 30 acres of trail
corridor will be donated); development of the Northwest Greenway Corridor; 10"' playfield
development; West Med Park building; Parker's Lake pavilion upgrade; Zachary Park program
building; skate park; and tennis dome. In total, this list represents projects with a cumulative
total cost of $38 million.
Revenues
Attachment II, which projects park dedication fee revenues, consists of three separate tables
illustrating three separate scenarios. The first scenario is based on the Metropolitan Cotmcil's
estimates on household growth for the City of Plymouth. The .Met Council projects that
Plymouth will add 6,000 households between 2005 and 2030 with specific targets in 2010 and
2020. Based on this information, a computation of land donation vs. fee revenues, and a
projection of fee increases, the first scenario estimates revenues of $5.3 million by 2010, $22.5
million by 2020 and $45.6 million by 2030. If this scenario is correct the City would receive
more than enough revenue from the Park Dedication Fund to eventually pay for all the items in
the. Potential Parks Projects list.
The second scenario reflects what could potentially happen if the City of Plymouth chooses to
develop at a lower density than desired by the Met Council. This scenario projects a total of
5,000 new households by 2030. Based on this, information, the second scenario estimates
revenues of $33 million by 2010, $17.8 million by 2020, and $36.8 million by 2030. If this
scenario is correct the City would receive just about enough revenue from the Pari: Dedication.
Fund to pay for all the items in the Potential Park Projects list.
The third scenario reflects what could happen if the City of Plymouth chooses to develop at an
even lower density. This scenario projects a total of 4,000 new households by 2030. Based on
this information, the third scenario estimates revenues of $2.3 million by 2010, $14 million by
2020, and $26.4 million by 2030, if this scenario is correct, the City would not receive enough
revenue from the Park Dedication Fund to pay for all theitems on the Potential Park Projects list..
All of these scenarios are greatly affected by a number of assumptions. One of the primary
assumptions is the park dedication fee. Currently, the fee is $4,000 per unit for residential
property. Several other communities have fees that are considerably higher than $4,000. In
addition, a model based on land costs of $150,000 per acre and 6.,000 new units suggests that a
fee of up to $6,400 could be justi:Ged. when the model is nun based on land costs of $200,000
per acre and 4,000 new units it suggests that a fee of up to $9,300 could be justified. The
Council may wish to become more aggressive in raising park dedication fees which would
greatly impact the amount of revenues that would be received.
Cashflows
For the most part; development costs are assumed to increase at the rate of inflation (3%). Land
costs are quite another matter. Raw land prices in Plymouth have increased dramatically over the
years. The attached table (Attachment III) shows the escalation of land prices since 1969. From
1969 to 2005 land prices have gone up an average of 13% per year. However, there has been a
recent spike in land prices both inside and outside the MUSA area, and in adjacent areas such as
Maple Grove. Land speculation by developers who believe that development will be allowed in
NW Plymouth, as a result of Comprehensive Plan modifications, is well underway. Any actual
change in the Comprehensive Plan may cause land values to shoot even higher. -To provide some
perspective, land is currently going for over $300,000 per. acre in Maple Grove for property that
is served by sewer and water. Other areas of Plymouth are seeing % acre lots served by streets
and utilities going for nearly $500,000.
Given the rapidly increasing price of land, it is clear that land acquisition should be a priority, if
the City does desire to add a 10th Playfield and create a Northwest Greenway Corridor. On the
bottom of Attachment I there is a breakout. entitled "Select Land Acquisition". This breaks out
the cost of land acquisition for the 10th Playfield (40 acres only) plus the N orth.west Greenway.
The cost per acre for the 10th Playfield has been held at $200,000 per acre since negotiations are
currently underway. The cost of land for the Northwest Greenway has been inflated from the
current price of $200,000 per acre by 15% per year and is projected to be acquired in 2007, 2008,
and 2009. In total, it is estimated that it will cost approximately $14,000,000 to acquire the 10th
Playfield and Northwest Greenway. Of this amount, $4,000,000 is already programmed into the
CIP and is funded by monies currently in the Capital Improvement Fund; Commuulity
Improvement Fund, and Park Dedication Fund, as well as park dedication proceeds that will
hopefully be received over the next 5 years. This leaves a shortfall of approximately
10,000,000 if only land, and the other items contained in the CIP, are done in the 2006-2010
timeframe.
Alternatives
To solve this cashflow issue the City has only a few alternatives. Mostavailable reserves have
already been spoken for which leads to the conclusion that some form of debt must be utilized.
There are two reasonable debt alternatives for the acquisition of the l Oil' Playfield and Northwest
Greenway: 1) General Obligation debt ba.cked by a tax levy on the taxable market value of the
City (requires referendum), and 2) Annual Appropriation Lease Revenue Bonds backed by future
parl< dedication fees (does not require a referendum).
The single most important consideration when evaluating these two alternatives is to answer the
question of who should be paying to support the debt service (and ultimately the land purchase).
There are several items to consider including: who will use the facilities.. historical precedents,
and the purpose of fees being collected.
When evah.iating the
10th Playfield we would argue that this facility is primarily required to serve
the new residents who will be moving into NW Plymouth as it develops. Consequently, it would
seem reasonable that the new residents should pay for that facility with the park dedication fees
that they generate vs. usage of a general tax levy paid for by all residents, including those who
have .flready paid for playfields located in ntl.-i.er areas of the community. Parl< dedication fees are
authorized for the acquisition, development and expansion of park facilities necessary to serve
new development. Therefore, use of these fees to acquire the 10`i' Playfield would seern to be a
good fit.
When evaluating the NW Greenway we would. argue that this is primarily open space that
benefits the community as a whole. Consequently, the acquisition of this property should be paid
for by the City as a whole. This has been the City's past practice. The last time the City acquired
open space it was paid for by $2,235,000 of GO bonds issued in 1995.
When making the decision to issue debt, the City must remain cognizant that this will likely not
be the only debt that will be issued by the City in the not too distant future. It is likely that the
City may have to issue some debt for future street reconstruction projects, a fourth fire station,
and reconstruction/expansion of streets such as Vicksburg Lane, CR 47, and possibly others.
Summary
If the City desires to acquire land for a
10th
Playfield and NW Greenway in the near future it may
make sense to issue two separate bond issues. The first would be an Annual Appropriation Lease
Revenue Bond for the 10th Playfield. This would enable the City to use future park dedication
fees to pay for the purchase of the property. If a portion of the funds currently earmarked for use
in the purchase of the 10th playfield were used, the bond issue could be bought down to
approximately $6,000,000. The remainder of the proceeds could* be transferred into the Park
Dedication Fund. to cashflow debt service and other park dedication funded projects, Two
examples of cashflows are attached (see Attachment IV).
If this option. is acceptable it could be done fairly quickly without waiting for a referendum in
November of this year. This could result in snore favorable sales terms.
The second bond issue would be a General Obligation bond issue for purchase of the. portion of
the NW Greenway not likely to be acquired through land dedication. It has been the City's past
practice to purchase open space with GO issues which results in the spreading of the cost on -all
taxable market value in the City. If a GO bond is pursued, it would require that the item be
placed on the ballot as a referendum question at either the November, 2006 or 2007 general
elections. The date for notification of the County for intent to place an item on the ballot is
September 1.5 of each year.
If a GO bond were issued for the approximately $6,000,000 cost of acquiring the NW Greenway
Corridor, it would result in an annual levy of $23.14 for an average valued home of $356,200
see Attachment V). This would be at least partially offset by the maturity of the current open
space bond which matures in 2010. This maturity will free tip approximately $10.77 of levy
from the average. valued home for other uses (which may not be parks related).
4. BUDGET Ilr41'A.CT:
Any action taken to increase the authorized costs or change funding sources for acquisition of the
10th Playfi.el.d and J IW Greenway will require an amendmerit to the 2006-2010 CIP.
4
5. RECOMMENDATION:
The scope and funding of fixture park system projects is a complex issue with potential long -terra
ramifications. Due to market conditions, and deadlines for submission of ballot referendum
questions, it is important that staff receive some timely direction on which course(s) of action to
pursue to ensure the future that the City Council desires. Consequently, staff would recommend
that the City Council place the issue of future park projects and financing on a future study
session agenda for more detailed analysis and consideration.
DATE: April 7, 2006
TO: Mayor &Council
FROM: Eric Blank, Director of Parks & Recreation (
moi
SUBJECT: Follow-up Information from March 21 Council Work Session on
Parks.
Mike Kohn has put together a packet of information answering many of the questions
that were raised at the study session on parks two weeks ago. One of the questions had to
do with the number of teams and percentage of players participating in youth athletic
associations. Those statistics are attached in the report. When reviewing this
inforination, please keep in mind that Plymouth both imports players to our community
and exports players to surrounding communities. All of the athletic associations that are
parent -run use their school district boundary, ie. Wayzata, Hopkins, or Robbinsdale, as
the official attendance boundary for their athletic associations. Thus, you have many
cities in each of these districts supplying children to each of the athletic associations..
You also have a number of cities providing facilities to. these athletic assocations, not just
Plymouth. Keep in mind that we allocate our facilities based on the number of Plymouth
kids to each athletic association, not the total number of kids playing.
I was also asked to talk to the Wayzata School District about the plans at their elementary
school site on County Road 47. I spoke by phone with their business manager, Alan
Hopeman. Alan indicated that the disctrict has no plans at this time to build another
elementary school. However, their planning only goes out about five years, and he
certainly would leave the door open for something to change that they are not anticipating
at this time. He felt confident that as we have at other locations, we could work out some
type of a lease/use agreement of their property as long as we understood that they may
still need it for district needs some time in the future. A very quick review of their site,
then, would indicate that of the 20 acres they own, it might be possible for us to use -in a
range of 8-12 acres of this site for athletics. He did not feel at this time that they would
be in a position to sell the site to the city. It was also brought up at the meeting about the
property owned by Speak the Word Church. After a recent council meeting, their facility
and property manager, Reginald Cammon, and I briefly discussed this. I told Mr.
Cammon what our needs and our interests were and gave him a business card. He
indicated that they would think about this issue and get back to me as soon as possible.
The last issue was the possibility of purchasing property in another community. Because
I was on vacation this past week, I have not had a lot opportunity to pursue this issue. I
will follow up on this issue as time.permits. I think Medina is probably a more likely
joint powers candidate than the City of Corcoran. If there is any other information the
Council would like us to research, please send us an e-mail, and Mike and I would be
nappy to provide any additional inlorraedon in which you would be interested.
EB/ds
enclosures
Park Dedication Fees Sample - March 2006
Maple Grove (Single -Family)
Eden Prairie (Single -Family)
Apple Valley (Single -Family)
Bloomington (Single -Family)
Plymouth (Max Per Unit)
Prior Lake (Single -Family)
Brooklyn Park (Single -Family)
Medina (Single Family)
Burnsville (Single -Family)
Woodbury (Single -Family)
Wayzata (Single -Family)
Minnetonka (Single -Family)
New Hope (Single -Family)
Golden Valley (Single -Family)
2005 2006
4,000 5,500
3,400 5,000
4,584 4,584
4,800 5,400
3,400 4,000
3,750 3,750
3,400 3,600
3,500 to $8,000
2,288 2,860
2,000 2,500
2,500
2,375 2,375
1,500
1,000
Based on 8% of land value
O:\Accounting\WRKSHTS\Mkohn\Comp Plan\[Park Dedication Fees Sample - March 2006.x1s]Sheet1
2005 Field Usage
Numbers of Teams & Players
Oraanization Teams Plavers Plvmouth Player %
Summer Soccer
PSA 200 2,552 75%
Wings 104 1,575 48%
SC 30 300 70%
Adult 4 77 43%
Fall Soccer
PSA 33 450 75%
Ings 32 437 44%
WSC 11 160 69%
Park & Rec 91 874 77%
Arxei:<4' ti Ji. zr.':iw:zi:..e yd&HN ma ''kaa5a?AdY:^N
Fall Football
Wayzata Youth Football 38 697 71%
Armstrong/Cooper 20 320 27%
OMGFA Flag 12 140 18%
Park & Rec Flag 12 124 70%
Adult 4 -Man 12 96 48%',
xi01 f .2
Summer Baseball
PWYBA 120 1,400 85%
RAYB 26 350 22%
P N H LL 26 334 65%
OMGBA 7 84 23%
Park & Rec Evening 6 96 88%
AAU 1 12 58%
Adult 1 12 50%
III WSKSVI'MM0"ZIN&RIN210I'D"
Fall Baseball
PWYBA 17 204 83%
RAYB 1 13 57%
PNHLL 6 72 66%
Summer Softball
PWYSB 25 295 75%
Cooper/Armstrong 1 14 57%
OMGSB 3 40 30%
Adaptive 4 52 48%
Adult 96 1,381 52%
1222-r—A&WE MIR
Fall Softball
Cooper/Armstrong 1 13 38%
PWYSB 8 104 73%
Osseo/Maple Grove 3 40 30%
Adult 46 557 57%
Sprinq Ru b
Armstrong Boys Club
Armstrong Girls Club 1 21 62%
Wayzata Boys Club 2 47 66%
Wayzata Girls Club 2 81 75%
a't.. ,xx s.a tuz•{i, 'fl9" k4 ." M
x ..
L<
sY'
3xzau?uwt yq s"9',•!'']•i.',F :2''' 7
m'%br I .,n z+a R:fl ik'.'a V error R5i is ....Ei'rr. iY, #b.} .... u?
v °x.4. %"g3i'. ."-dllv.X..•' 3_Y. ..:..
Spring Lacrosse
Armstrong Boys Club 3 65 50%
Armstrong Girls Club/ Var. 2 35 48%
Wayzata Boys Club 3 66 61%
Wayzata Youth Girls 3 23 83%
Wayzata Girls Club/Var. 1 23 65%
4 _M' S, Yk1s:us'+Nk'3i`;ti';.t.,..,.i C:w}7' i,x,YnVxrte....x.F}.i a..Siw..rvR'';1.?si
Summer Lacrosse
Armstrong/Cooper Boys 3 56 50%
Armstrong/Cooper Girls
Wayzata Youth Boys 6 145 74%
Park & Rec Leagues 4 48 86%
ggs,.M.....w.aE..', a•;",ufa.rty Mx.Mu.:''ry»1,.>...,,"X...«''i:S: e.aM:.aS;.b.6zr..,z...v..3a>'P`,,::c'r;Sx'r+, sad.;x..i:•»,M.c`'....u'.S`^.d,:%Ah,..:eae..:.:..,,
Spring Ultimate Frisbee
1 25 44% Armstrong Boys Club
Wayzata Boys Club 1 21 73%
se. ac u..:..«.. , 3:ri.:a...r.
TOTALS 1,029 13,531 64%
DATE: March 24, 2006
TO: Eric Blank, Park and Recreation Director
FROM: Mike Kohn; financial Analyst
SUBJECT: Increase in Park Dedication Fees
Per the information contained on the attached "Park Dedication Fee Fact Sheet" it
appears that the City of Plymouth could justify a higher maximum per-unit park
dedication fee. Land values of $200,000 per acre could justify as maximum fee of
11,346 per unit for single-family detached housing units. In addition, several other
communities are leading the way in terms of setting the standard for fees acceptable to
the market. Maple Grove currently has their fee set at $5,500. Eden Prairie has its fee set
at $5,000.
While Plymouth would have a hard time gaining acceptance of a fee of $11,000, it is not
unreasonable to join the ranks of other similar communities by raising our fee from
4,000 to $5,000. This could be done by ordinance at anytime this year. However, a
logical break would be to make it effective for the last 6 months of the year. Per state
statute the mid -year increase would not apply to applications for final approval that have
been submitted to the City.
If the City were to adopt a fee increase to be effective 7/1/06 it would have to be placed
on the Council agenda for the meeting of June 27t" at the latest.
Park Dedicati®n Fee Fact Sheet
By statute, cities "...may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the
public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, recreation
facilities... playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space...". Statute also states that a ..."municipality may
choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to
be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land...".
In order to follow the statute, the City of Plymouth developed a formula for park dedication fees based on
a benchmark of land per capita and market value for the land. Based on the 2000 Comprehensive Plan,
the City determined that existing parkland and open space amounted to .0183 acres per capita. This
amount was adopted as the standard for future park land need, and has since been utilized to determine the
amount of land that should be required for donation, or the required cash fee in lieu of land.
The park dedication fee (currently $4,000 maximum per dwelling unit) paid in each development may
vary. Different housing types have different average household sizes. Single family detached dwellings
are estimated to average 3.1 persons per unit. Duplexes and townhomes are estimated to average 2
persons per unit. Multi -family dwellings are estimated to average 1.9 persons per unit. The total
expected population in each development is multiplied by the per capita share (.0183) to determine how
much land is required. The resulting number - the acres of land required for that development - is then
multiplied by the current land value to determine the maximum cash donation in lieu of land, up to the
maximum amount per unit established by the City (currently $4,000). The following table shows several
examples of the maximum per unit fee for various housing types and land values if the $4,000 maximum
were not in existence:
Maximum Potential Fee
5,673
3,477
11,346
6,954
17,019
10,431
Since land prices are now in the $200,000 to $300,000 range, it is clear that the City can justify a higher
rate than $4,000 based on the need for park land. created by residential development. However, there is
the practical consideration of how much the market will consider generally acceptable. The following is a
list of park dedication fees for Plymouth and other cities:
Land Value
Single Family 100,000 per acre
Multi -Family 100,000 per acre
Single Family 200,000 per acre
Multi -Family 200,000 per acre
Single Family 300,000 per acre
Multi -Family 300,000 per acre
Maximum Potential Fee
5,673
3,477
11,346
6,954
17,019
10,431
Since land prices are now in the $200,000 to $300,000 range, it is clear that the City can justify a higher
rate than $4,000 based on the need for park land. created by residential development. However, there is
the practical consideration of how much the market will consider generally acceptable. The following is a
list of park dedication fees for Plymouth and other cities:
2005 2006
Maple Grove (Single -Family) 4,000 5,500
Eden Prairie (Single -Family) 3,400 5,000
Apple Valley (Single -Family) 4,584 44,584
Bloomington (Single -Family) 4,800 5,400
Plymouth (Max Per Unit) 3,400 4,000
Prior Lake (Single -Family) 3,750 3,750
Brooklyn Park (Single -Family) 3,400 3,600
Burnsville (Single -Family) 2,288 2,860
Woodbury (Single -Family) 2,000 2,500
DATE: March 24, 2006
TO: Eric Blank, Park and Recreation Director
FROM: Mike Kohn, Financial Analyst
SUBJECT: Community Improvement Fund
The Community Improvement Fund was created from the arbitrage, and other surplus
monies, from various special assessment bond funds. In the past it has been used to
finance items such as the following:
Development of the Bass Lake playfield
Development of the Parker's Lake playfield
Construction of the public safety building
Public safety building expansion
PW building expansion
Currently, the Community Improvement Fund has a cash balance of approximately
6,950,000. The 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Plan anticipates the expenditure of an
additional $2,323,000 for acquisition of a 10th
playfield and small portions of railroad
crossing improvements. If all projects are done as planned, this would bring the cash
balance down to around $5,500,000 by 2008. It has been the policy of the City to
maintain a cash balance of at least $5,000,000 in the Community Improvement Fund for
emergencies or other unique opportunities that may arise. There are other potential
projects which could be funded from this source, such as a 4th fire station.
Use of funds from the Community Improvement Fund is regulated by the City Charter
and. is reflected in the City Code. A copy of the code is attached for your review.
Section 321 - Community Improvement Fund Page 1 of 2
Section 321 - Community Improvement Fund
321.01. Establishment of Fund. Pursuant to City Charter Chapter 7, Section 7.14, there is
established a fund to be known as "Community Improvement Fund."
321.03. Allocation of Monies to. Fund. There shall be accumulated in such Community
Improvement Fund (1) surplus money from the various special assessment funds that remain after the
costs of each improvement project have been fully funded and bonds issued for the project paid or
defeased, and which money has not been transferred to another separate improvement fund, (2)
collections of special assessments received after an improvement project has been fully funded and
bonds issued for the project paid or defeased, (3) investment earnings generated by the money in the
fund, (4) any other money appropriated by the Council or donated to the City for the purposes of the
fund.
321.05. Use of Fund. Subdivision 1. Generally_. The Community Improvement Fund shall be
used only when all of the following are met:
a) The project has sufficient community wide benefit as determined by its intended uses,
addresses a community need or problem, and is consistent with other City goals,
programs and policies.
b) The expenditure for the project is for an item of a capital nature.
c) The Council has conducted a public hearing on the project.
d) There has been an estimate prepared outlining the operating expenses and proposed
funding sources for the project for a five year period.
e) Expenditures for a project in excess of three million dollars have been approved. by a
majority of the votes cast in a regular or special election.
Subd. 2. Expenditures requiring 5/7ths Council Approval. Upon meeting the requirements of
Subdivision 1, expenditures from the Community Improvement Fund shall require at least five
affirmative votes of the Council, but shall not require voter approval, if the expenditure is for a project
that has been included in the Capital Improvement Program for at least the current year or is declared to
be an emergency, e.g., an "Act of God" as that term is defined by generally accepted business general
liability insurance policies, and does not exceed three million dollars for any site or project location.
Subd. 3. Expenditures requiring MaioritCouncil Approval. Upon meeting the requirements of
Subdivision 1, expenditures from the Community Improvement Fund shall require a simple majority
votes of the Council, but shall not require voter approval, if the expenditure:
a) is for a project that has been included in the Capital Improvement Program for at least
two years;
1-ittp://www2.ci.plymouth.mn.us/pls/cop/docs/`FOLDER/CITY' GOV/CG CODE/CODE ... 3/24/2006
Section '521 - Community Improvement Fund Page 2 of 2
Plymouth City Code 321.05, Subd. 3(b)
b) is a loan from the Community Improvement Fund and must be repaid or is made with the
condition that no farther expenditures from the Community Improvement Fund shall be
made until the principal is repaid plus ten percent of the investment earnings that would
have been generated on the principal at the previous amount; and
c) expends a total amount of principal not to exceed an amount equal to the Community
Improvement Fund's investment earnings from the previous two calendar years prior to
the expenditure, not to exceed three million dollars for any site or project location.
Ord. 94-9, 5116194)
http://www2.ci.plymouth.mn.us/pls/cop/docs/FOLDER/CITY_GOV/CG_CODE/CODE ... 3/24/2006
MAP PROP ID # SELLER BUYER SALE SALE GROSS ACRE
DATE PRICE ACRES
1 04-22-0001 Seaburg Lundgren Bros. 12/3/2004 3,000,000 20.47 146,556
2 04-23-0001 Scherber Lundgren Bros. 5/4/2005 5,014,162 32.25 155,478
Part of)
3 04-31-0007 Lavedure Plymouth 12/29/2005 1,700,000 4.98 341,365
Development
4 04-34-0001 Hampton Hills Hampton Hills 12/31/2004 9,000,000 146.42 61,467
04-43-0003 Development
09-11-0001
09-21-0001
5 04-43-0010 Leeper Hampton Hills 1/6/2006 300,840 5.20 57,854
Investment
6 04-43-0011 Leeper Hampton Hills 1/4/2005 1,446,600 12.05 120,050
Development
7 06-13-0005 Lundgren Bros. Scherber Investment 5/4/2005 2,864,048 51.27 55,862
8 06-22-0003 Smith Estate MCM Rand 12/8/2004 2,600,000 27.25 95,413
9 07-22-0003 Bendickson Charles Cudd 7/15/2005 1,637,437 21.54 76,018
10 07-22-0003 Charles Cudd Scherber Investment 7/15/2005 2,478,200 21.54 115,051
11 04-31-0008 Brown Plymouth 10/14/05 1,1,50,000 5.00 230,000
Development
DATE: March 24, 2006
TO: Eric Blank, Park and Recreation Director
1
FROM: Mike Kohn, Financial Analyst
SUBJECT: I Referendum Dates and Considerations
The City could place an item on the ballot authorizing issuance of general obligation debt
at either the November, 2006 or November,. 2007 general elections. The date for
notification of the County for intent to place an item on the ballot is September 15th
of
each year.
The November 2006 general election ballot will include elections for federal, state and
local offices. It is expected that turnout will be about 80% or about 40,000 voters. The
2007 general election is for school district seats. It is expected that turnout will vary
between 5% and 30%, by school district, depending on whether each school district
places a bond levy referendum on the ballot. This would mean that between 2,500 and
15,000 voters will likely be going to the polls in November of 2007. Staff has been
informed that Robbinsdale and Osseo do plan on placing referendum questions on the
ballot in 2007. Wayzata and Hopkins may still choose to do so as well. This means that
voter turnout will likely be toward the top end of the range.
The following are considerations relating to election date:
November 2006
The November 2006 referendum date is only 7 months away. This limits the
inflationary increase in the price of land compared to waiting 19 months.
The November 2006 referendum date is only 7 months away. This limits the
amount of preparation time available for education of voters on the issue.
The November 2006 ballot will include federal,.state, and local elections as well
as a constitutional amendment question. Any City referendum question could get
lost amongst the other items on the ballot.
The November 2006 referendum date would.ensure the largest voter turnout and
broadest community input.
November 2007
The November 2007 referendum date is 19 months away. This may result in
significantly greater land acquisition cost due to inflation.
The November 2007 referendtun date is 19 months away. This would allow more
preparation time for education of voters on the issue.
The November 2007 ballot will have fewer offices and other questions. A City
bond referendum will be less likely to be lost amongst the other items on the
ballot.
The November 2007 referendum would likely experience lower voter turnout.
Voter makeup may also be targeted to those persons most interested in school
elections.
The City would experience additional costs for sharing the schools ballot. The
cost could vary significantly depending on whether the City would need to take
over or share in the costs of the election.
DATE: March 16, 2006
TO: Laurie Ahrens
FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director, Parks and Recreation .y
SUBJECT: Study Session — Land Acquisition Northwest Plymouth
Attached for Council review is some of the technical information we'll be presenting at the
Tuesday night Special Study session regarding land acquisition in northwest Plymouth.
Information in the packet relates to what we currently own and operate as our playfield system
and why we see the need for future expansion. Because of our limited time on Tuesday night, we
will need to move very quickly through this data to allow the Council time to ask questions and
give direction to staff on how to proceed. Because we are just in the beginning process of
updating the comprehensive plan, there is some technical data that we won't be able to review.
until the land use guiding has been determined by the City Council
EB/np
COMMUNITY PLAYFIELDS
Bass Lake
Elm Creek
La Compte Green
Oakwood
Parkers Lake
Plymouth
Plymouth Creek * Cz,5-1
Ridgemount
Zachary.
ACTIVE RECREATION: 173.4 acres ** L AG vri-
PASSIVE RECREATION: 9 acres
TOTAL AREA: 182.4 acres
Refer to Plymouth Creek City Park, page 8-A-5
Acreage of Plymouth Creek Playfield included in Plymouth Creek City Park
8-A-7
EXHIBIT 1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
COMMUNITY PLAYFIELD
Size and Function
Service area: 1 community (driving neighborhood)
approximately 1 to 1.5 mile radius)
Spatial standard: 2.5 developed ac./1,000 population (ultimate)
Size.- minimum 20 developed acres; maximum 65 developed acres
Type of usp: intensive, active, formal, programmed
Clientele: : primary emphasis. on ages 8-50
Functional characteristics: almost entirely recreation.
3, OGO 2066 r- OptATI vA' a
dc)0 /3
7X A C l , C j ,G3j 1j (56'ArmN LAAO
ACQUISITION DATA
Bass Lake 19 1983 $130.,000 $6,842 Park Dedication
Elm Creek . 37 1994 $1,216,000 $32,864 Park Dedication
La Compte 7 1960-1965 NA NA NA
Oakwood 19 1980 $0 $0 Lease
Parkers Lake 26 1983 $0 $0 Park Dedication
Plymouth 19 1980 $0. $0 Lease
Plymouth Creek 18 1975-1980 NA NA State & Federal
Grants w/Local match
Ridgemount 15 1980 $0 $0 Lease
Zachary 30 1980 $277,004 .$9,100 Park Dedication
Greenwood 20 2000 $0 $0 Lease
YEAR 2005
YOUTH ASSOCIATIONS NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
Baseball – Summer & Fall 2,469
Football 1,157
Lacrosse – Spring & Summer 413
Rugby 149
Soccer – Summer & Fall 5,474
Softball – Summer & Fall 558
Ultimate Frisbee 46
TOTALS–T-10,266
YEAR 2004
YOUTH ASSOCIATIONS NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
Baseball – Summer & Fall 2,300
Football 1,132
Lacrosse – Spring & Summer 373
Rugby 111
Soccer – Summer & Fall 5,863
Softball – Summer & Fall 502
Ultimate Frisbee 0
TOTALS -T-10,281
YEAR 2003
YOUTH ASSOCIATIONS NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
Baseball – Summer & Fall 1,986
Football 1,170
Lacrosse – Spring & Summer 141
Rugby 73
Soccer – Summer & Fall 5,205
Softball – Summer & Fall 448
Ultimate Frisbee 0
TOTALS 9,023
YEAR 2000
YOUTH ASSOCIATIONS NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
Baseball – Summer & Fall 1,621
Football 1,185
Lacrosse – Spring & Summer 0
Rugby 77
Soccer– Summer & Fall 4,772
Softball – Summer & Fall 400
Ultimate Frisbee 0
TOTALS1 8,055
Youth Associations - Number of Participants
2005
Ft
1
Y 4 <;;i, i. f'. :'' +F nn ,.9 <..0 ..0 "'.^F. S.G.. I+¢tr? ' S`'n'FY :,.Y r. (h3,i)4'N _`('Sa,'y'$ 4p'! 1.').i '''di< ,/a.. " 'ir.f+5.. tkr
2004
2003
2000
0 2,000 41000 6,000 89000 10,000 125000
GAMES PER FIELD
Year All City & School District Fields ON Field Only
1995 5,111 4,801
2005 7,057 5,734
School Distribution K-12 Population
District 281 & District 284
Year Population
1995 21,980
1998 22,560
2001 22,945
2004 23,206
2006 22,945
2009 22,519.
Decision Resources, Ltd.
3128 Dean Court
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
City of Plymouth
Park Bond Study
REVISED 2.0 JUNE 2006
Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a polling firm
located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of
Plymouth to speak with a random sample of residents about issues
facing the city. This survey is being taken because your city
representatives and staff are interested in your opinions and
suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses.
will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire
sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE)'
1. Approximately how many years have
you lived in City of Plymouth?
Turning to parks and recreation....
LESS THAN TWO YEARS ..... 1
TWO TO FIVE YEARS ........ 2
SIX TO TEN YEARS ........ 3
11 TO 20 YEARS ........... 4
21 TO 30 YEARS .......... 5
OVER THIRTY YEARS ....... 6
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......?
I would like to read you a list of parks and recreation facilities
in the City of Plymouth. First, please tell me if you or members
of your household use that facility. Then for each one used,
please rate that facility as excellent, good, only fair, or poor.
NOT VIS VIS VIS VIS DK/
VIS EXC GOO FAI POO REF
2. Small neighborhood parks? 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. Large community parks? 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. Community ballfields? 1 2 3 4 5 6
S. Trails? 1 2 3 4 5 6
As you may know, the northwest corner of the city is the last
portion of Plymouth to be developed. As the area is developed the
City will need to provide parks and recreation facilities for new
residents.
In order to provide these facilities, the City of Plymouth is
considering a park referendum to fund acquisition of open space
for the city's Greenway corridor. The Greenway would consist of
a 2.5 mile corridor that preserves Plymouth's natural areas, trees
and wetlands. The Greenway corridor will include a public trail
that extends between Cheshire Lane on the east and Peony Lane on
the west. It would also include a trail around the.wetland complex
east of Wayzata High School.
6. Do you support or oppose the pur- STRONGLY SUPPORT ........ 1
chase of open spaces and natural SUPPORT.................2
areas to complete the City's OPPOSE..................3
Greenway? WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do STRONGLY OPPOSE ......... 4
you feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ...... 5
7. How much would you be willing to NOTHING.................0
see your property taxes increase 1.00 ...................1
in order to fund the acquisition 2.00 .............. ....2
of open space and natural areas? 3.00 ....................3
Would you be willing to pay $ 4.00 ...................4
per.month? CHOOSE RANDOM START- 5.00 ...................5
ING POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPEND- 6.00 ...................6
ING ON ANSWER) How about $ per 7.00 ...................7
month REPEAT PROCESS) 8.00 ...................8
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ...... 9
The City would also need funds to purchase land and develop parks
and communty ballfields as part of the referendum proposal. The
new facilities would include additional athletic fields for
baseball, soccer, lacrosse and other activities.
8., Do you support or oppose the land STRONGLY SUPPORT ........ 1
purchase and development of parks SUPPORT.................2
and community ballfields? (WAIT OPPOSE..................3
FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel STRONGLY OPPOSE ......... 4
strongly.that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ...... 5
9. How much would you be willing to
see your property taxes increase
in order to fund the land purchase
and development of parks and com-
munity ballfields? Would you be
willing to pay $ per month?
CHOOSE RANDOM STARTING POINT.;
MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON
ANSWER) How about $ _per month?
REPEAT PROCESS)
NOTHING.................0
1.00 ...................1
2.00 ...................2
3.00.......... .......3
4.00 ...................4
5.00 ...................5
6.00 ...................6
7.00 ...................7
8.00....................8
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ...... 9
The City of Plymouth is considering a $7 million bond referendum
to fund both the acquisition of open spaces and natural areas to
complete the city's greenway, as well as purchase land and develop
parks and community ballfields.
If the referendum were successful, the. owner of a $350,000 home
would see a property tax increase of $2.25 per month, or $27.00
per year. And, the owner of a $500,000 home would have a tax
increase of $3.15 per month or $37.90 per year.
10. If the election were held today, STRONGLY SUPPORT ........ 1
would you support or oppose this SUPPORT.................2
ABOUT AVERAGE ........... 3
referendum proposal? WAIT FOR OPPOSE..................3
average, somewhat low; or very
RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly STRONGLY OPPOSE ......... 4
that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ...... 5
IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK:
11. Why do you feel that way?
12. In comparison with neighboring VERY HIGH...............1
areas, do you consider total pro- SOMEWHAT HIGH ........... 2
perty taxes in your community to ABOUT AVERAGE ........... 3
be very high, somewhat high, about SOMEWHAT LOW ............ 4
average, somewhat low; or very VERY LOW................5
low? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ...... 6
Changing topics....
13. Do you currently use the Internet
at home? (IF "YES," ASK:) How do
you connect to the internet -- on
a dial-up modem at 28K, on a dial-
up modem at 56K, DSL, Comcast High
Speed Internet, or some other way?
IF "OTHER, " ASK) How?
NO......................1
YES/DIAL-UP AT 28K......2
YES/DIAL-UP AT 56K......3
YES/DSL.................4
YES/COMCAST HIGH SPEED..5
YES/OTHER...............6
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ...... 7
Now just a few more questions for demographic purposes....
14. How interested are you in the up- EXTREMELY INTERESTED .... 1
coming November election - ex- VERY INTERESTED ......... 2
tremely interested, very interest- INTERESTED..............3
ed, interested, not very interest- NOT VERY INTERESTED ..... 4
ed, or not at all interested? NOT AT ALL INTERESTED...5
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ...... 6
15. What is your likelihood of voting ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN ...... 1
this November - absolutely certain,VERY LIKELY.............2
very likely, about half and half, ABOUT HALF AND HALF ..... 3
not too likely, or definitely will NOT TOO LIKELY .......... 4
not vote? DEFINITELY WILL NOT ..... 5
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ...... 6
From time to time, cities and school districts ask voters to
approve referendum proposals...
16. Thinking about past city and
school district referendum elec
tions, would you say you always
vote, often vote, sometimes vote,
rarely vote or never vote?
ALWAYS VOTE.............1
OFTEN VOTE..............2
SOMETIMES VOTE .......... 3
RARELY VOTE.............4
NEVER VOTE..............5
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...... 6
Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following
age groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to
youngest, and be sure to include yourself....
17. First; persons 65 or over?
18. Adults under 65?
19. School -aged or pre-school
children?
NONE....................0
ONE.....................1
TWO OR MORE ............. 2
REFUSED.................3
NONE....................0
ONE.....................1
TWO.....................2
THREE OR MORE ........... 3
REFUSED.................4
NONE............ ......0
ONE.....................1
TWO.....................2
THREE OR MORE ........... 3
REFUSED.................4
20. Do you own or rent your present RENT....................1
residence? SIF "OWN," ASK:) Which OWN/UNDER $250,000......2
of the following categories con- OWN/$250,000-$350,000...3
tains the approximate value of OWN/$350,001-$450,000...4
your residential property -- under OWN/$450,001-$550,000...5
250,000, $250,000-$350,000, OWN/OVER $550,000.......6
350,001-$450,000, $450,001- DON'T KNOW..............7
550,000 or over $550,000? REFUSED.................8
21. What is your age, please? 18-24 ...................1
25-34 ...................2
35-44 ...................3
45-54 ...................4
55-64 ...................5
65 AND OVER.............6
REFUSED.................7
Thank you very.much for your time. Good-bye.
22. Gender. (DO NOT ASK) MALE....................1
FEMALE..................2
23. REGION OF CITY
LIST:
PHONER:
DATE: PHONE #:
Article from Nov./Dec. 2006 Plymouth News
Open space, greenway, parks question to be on ballot
When Plymouth voters cast their .ballots on Nov. 7, they will see a ballot question asking
them to decide whether the City should issue $9 million in general obligation bonds to
buy land for open space preservation and parks.
If a majority of people vote yes, it will authorize the City to issue bonds to purchase land
for future open space, a community piayfield, the Northwest Greenway and parks. A no
vote is a vote against the bond issue.
Plymouth has a tradition of acquiring land and setting it aside before development occurs.
This has allowed the City to build an extensive park and trail system to serve the
developed areas of Plymouth. In citizen surveys, residents cite Plymouth's parks and
trails as one of the community assets they value most.
The City is asking for authorization to issue bonds now because Northwest Plymouth, the
last largely rural area of the city, is at a pivotal point as land buyers and sellers anticipate
future development. A regional planning agency, the Metropolitan Council, has extended
sanitary sewer to the area, making it feasible for significant development to occur in the
area. In addition, the City recently adopted a preliminary land use plan for Northwest
Plymouth as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. The Metropolitan Council mandates
that cities periodically review and, if necessary, update their'plans.
As undeveloped land becomes increasingly scarce, land prices will continue to increase.
By asking voters to consider a bond issue now, the City will maximize the amount of
land it can purchase for the greenway, open space, community playfield and parks.
Northwest Greenway
In 2000, the City Council approved a long-range plan for Northwest Plymouth that
included the concept of the Northwest Greenway. The idea is to acquire trees and open
space in the corridor and maintain it as public land
As planned, the Northwest Greenway is a corridor of land that is about 2 1/2miles long,
and varies in width from 50' to 300'. The land, which is currently privately owned by
multiple owners, runs between the large, high quality wetland complex near Wayzata
High School on the west to the Lake Camelot area on the east where it will connect to the
Three Rivers Regional Trail Corridor.
This greenway will preserve trees and open space, enhance wildlife corridors and provide
long distance recreational opportunities for people throughout Plymouth as trails are
developed and linked to regional trails.
Community Playfield
If approved, the City will use a portion of the funds from the bond issue to buy land for
the City's 10th community playfield. Another playfield will be needed in the future to
meet increased demand for youth athletics facilities as Northwest Plymouth develops.
Land Acquisition & Timing
If voters approve the bond issue, it will improve the City's ability to acquire substantial
tracks of land for the Northwest Greenway, community playfield and parks as appropriate
sites become available from willing sellers.
Effect on Property Taxes
The chart below explains how much more would be collected from Plymouth property
owners if voters approve the ballot question. The amounts below reflect the maximum
annual and monthly cost to homeowners for the life of 15 year bonds. The amounts below
also assume that the City will issue the entire $9 million in bonds at one time. However,
it is likely the City will make two separate bond issues rather than one so that the bond
issues coincide with land availability. If the City makes two separate bond issues, it will
have the effect of phasing in the costs outlined below. As the City continues to grow, the
cost will be spread among a larger number of taxpayers than the calculations below
reflect.
Bond Issue Effect on
Residential Homestead Propert
Taxable Market Value Annual Increase
for Bond Issue
Monthly Increase
for Bond Issue
150,000 16 1.33
200,000 21 1.75
250,000. 26 2.17
300,000 31 2.58
350,000 36 3.00
400,000 42 3.50
500,000 52 4.33
To learn more about the ballot question, please refer to the publication that was mailed to
all homes in early October or visit the City web site.
Guest Column for the Plymouth Sun -Sailor
City to have open space, greenway question on November ballot
By Eric Blank
Plymouth Parks and Recreation Director
When Plymouth voters cast their ballots on Nov. 7, they should be sure to turn
over their ballot so they can vote on the City of Plymouth's ballot question on open
space, parks and greenways. (The question will be on the same side of the ballot as
judicial offices.)
The question will ask voters whether the City should issue $9 million in general
obligation bonds to buy land for open space preservation and parks. If a majority of
people vote yes, it will authorize the City to issue bonds to purchase land for future open
space, a community playfield, the Northwest Greenway and parks. A no vote is a vote
against the bond issue.
Plymouth has a tradition of acquiring land and setting it aside before development
occurs. This has allowed the City to build an extensive park and trail system to serve the
developed areas of Plymouth.
The City is asking for authorization to issue bonds now because Northwest
Plymouth, the last largely rural area of the city, is at a pivotal point as land buyers and
sellers anticipate future development. As land becomes increasingly scarce, prices will
increase. If voters approve the bond issue, the City will be able to buy land as it becomes
available from willing sellers, maximizing the amount of land the City can purchase at
today's cost.
Greenway: The Northwest Greenway Plan adopted in 2000 calls for the City to
acquire trees and open space in a 2 % mile long corridor that runs from the wetland
complex near Wayzata High School on the west to Lake Camelot on the east. The
Greenway's width would vary from 50' to 300'. The greenway will preserve trees and
open space, enhance wildlife corridors and provide long distance recreational
opportunities for residents as trails are developed and linked to regional trails.
Playfield: The City would also use a portion of the funds from the bond issue to
buy land for the City's 10th community playfield. This playfield will be needed in the
future to meet increased demand for youth athletics facilities as Northwest Plymouth
develops.
Open Space: The City would also use funds to purchase environmentally
significant pieces of land as they become available from willing sellers.
The Cost: The cost to a residential homeowner for a 15 -year bond issue is
roughly $1 a month for 15 years for each $100,000 of taxable market value of his/her
home. For example, the owner of a $250,000 home would pay $26 a year or $2.17 a
month in increased property taxes. The owner of a $400,000 home would pay $42 a year
or $3.50 a month.
To learn more, I encourage Plymouth voters to read the publication which the
City mailed in early October, read the City newsletter that was mailed the week of Oct.
23 or visit the City web site at www.ci.plymouth.mn.us.
CITT, OF PLY.M,O.UTH,,,,
r nn.,.: nf
i
ns..
4 ,f;, "° is ,r r
U t
rhether to issue
lace, parks -and ureenways
The ballot question will read: „
Shall the' City Council of the Cary of
Plymouth, Mhpwota he .authorized to issue
itsgeneral obligation bonds in an amount
not to e ceed,$9,000,000 for the purpose of
acquiringlaid o7 o 'en ace eenwa .sandfp.; y
Ayes vote authorizes "tTie City to issue ;bonds
to .purchase land for future open space,
community playfield, parks and the Northwest
Why Now?
Historically, the City of Plymouth has
acquired land and set it aside before
development occurs. This has permitted
the City to develop a well-planned and
extensive park and trail system to serve
people and neighborhoods throughout
Plymouth. In citizen surveys, residents
cite Plymouth's parks and trails as one of
the community assets they value most.
In a 2006 survey, 72% of Plymouth
residents said that they -supported the
City acquiring more open space. The
telephone survey has a margin of error
of plus or minus 5 percent.
Maximizing Investment. Northwest
Plymouth is at a pivotal point as land
buyers and sellers anticipate future
playfield is yet to be determined.
Plymouth. This makes significant
development possible in this largely
rural area when it previously was not.
In addition, the City Council recently
adopted a preliminary land use plan
for Northwest Plymouth as part of the
Comprehensive Plan update, a process
mandated by the Metropolitan Council
The City is placing this question on
the ballot now in anticipation of future
development that will occur in light
of these changes. As undeveloped land
becomes increasingly scarce, land prices
will continue to increase. By purchasing
land sooner rather than later, the City
will maximize the investment of taxpayer
dollars.
1 . UM .__._:...
Published by the City of Plymouth ® www.ci.plymouth.mn.us o page 2
and investing in greenways, parks and
open space. By putting this question to
the voters now, the City is asking voters
to consider preserving land for future
generations before it is developed or
becomes too costly.
Serving the Entire Community.
The City is asking voters to vote on
this issue now to ensure that the last
undeveloped area of Plymouth includes
parks, greenways and open space similar
to the rest of the city. In addition, the
Northwest Greenway will be a unique
recreational feature drawing people from
throughout Plymouth. Like our current
community playfields, the planned 10th
playfield will serve recreation enthusiasts
a corridor for wildlife.
What is the
Northwest Greenway?
As planned, the Northwest Greenway is a
corridor of land that is about 2 1/2 miles long,
and varies in width from 50' to 300'. The
land, which is currently privately owned by
multiple owners, runs between the large, high
quality wetland complex near Wayzata High
School on the west to the Lake Camelot area
on the east where it will connect to the Three
Rivers Regional Trail Corridor. (See aerial
photo at left).
In 2000, the City Council approved a long-
range plan for Northwest Plymouth that
included the concept of the Northwest
Greenway. The idea is to acquire trees and
open space in the corridor and maintain it as
public land. This will allow the corridor to be
preserved as open space even as Northwest
Plymouth develops. Over time, the City
will construct recreational trails along the
Northwest Greenway.
The Northwest Greenway, which includes
emdronnmentally-signnifncant sites, will:
Preserve trees and wetlands;
Enhance wildlife corridors and
connections;
Link City -owned parks, trails, open
spaces, schools and other public
amenities; and
Provide long-distance recreational
opportunities as trails are developed and
linked to other City and regional trails.
Effect on Property Taxes
The chart below explains how much more would be collected fi-om Plymouth
property owners if voters approve the ballot question.
Bond Issue Effect ®n
Residential Homestead Property
such as Three Ponds Park (pictured).
City Finances
The City of Plymouth has achieved t4ie highest bond rating possible from Moody's
Investor Services. Nationally, thousands of jurisdictions are rated, but only about 75
have achieved the Aaa bond rating. In Minnesota, 6 cities have earned the top rating.
Plynnouth's Aaa bond rating. permits the Citv to borrow money at the lowest rates to
finance major capital projects and land acquisition.
The Citi of Plymouth maintains low debt per capita. Plymouth currently carries a
property tax -supported debt of $184 per capita. The average amount of debt per capita
among Plynnouth's peer communities of Brooklyn Park, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Lakeville,
Maple Grove and Minnetonka is $429.
Published by the City of Plymouth P www ci.plymouth.mn.us 0 page 3
Land Acquisition & Timing
The City has worked over the years to acquire land as it has been available. If voters
approve the bond issue, it will improve the City's ability to acquire substantial tracks`of
land for the Northwest Greenway, community playfield and parks as appropriate sites
become available from willing sellers. Significant pieces of open space — those with high
quality wetlands and tree cover —will be acquired as feasible for preservation.
undeveloped land in Northwest Plymouth as the area develops.
Poll Locations
Polls will be open for the General Election on Tues., Nov. 7, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. If you need to
d WOUId find out where to vote, visit the City web site, www.ci.plymouth.mn.us, or call 763-509-5000.
multiple sports. The Plymouth News, which will be mailed prior to the election, will include poll locations.
City of
south
ity to Life
Blvd,
55447-1482
PRSRT STD
US POSTAGE PAID
Minneapolis, Minn.
Permit No. 1889
ECRWSS**
Postal Customer
Agenda Number:
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Laurie Ahrens, City Managerxt—/
SUBJECT: Set Future Study Sessions
DATE: March 8, 2007, for Council study session of March 13, 2007
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Review the pending study session topics list and set study
sessions or amend the topics list if desired.
2. BACKGROUND: Attached is the list of pending study session topics, as well as calendars
to assist in scheduling.
Pending Study Session Topics
at least 3 Council members have approved the following study items on the list)
Discuss Metro Transit Planning (GB, BS, SH)
Street sweeping — purpose and service levels (Council)
Special Assessment Policy (Council)
Consider organized garbage collection (BS, JW, TB)
Other requests for study session topics:
Possible ordinance on feeding of wildlife (Black)
Discuss sign enforcement (Slavik)
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
March 2007
Sunday Monday Tuesday I Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Apr 2007
1 2 3
Feb 2007
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
25 26 27 28 29 30
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
6:30 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY COUNCIL,
Parkers Lake
6:00 PM SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING:
LISTENING SESSION
ON HOLLYDALE GOLF
COURSE, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
4:00 PM PLYMOUTH
FIRE RECOGNITION
EVENT, Plymouth Creek
Center
1.1 12 13 14 15 16 17
DAYLIGHT
SAVINGS
COMMENCES-
Set clocks ahead
one hour
6:00 PM CITY
COUNCIL STUDY
SESSION - PARK -
REFERENDUMAND
USE OF FUNDS,
Medicine Lake
Conference Room
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALfrY COMMITTEE
EQC), Council
Chambers
6:00 PM BOARD &
COMMISSION
RECOGNITION EVENT
Plymouth Creek
Center
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
6:00 PM CITY
COUNCIL STUDY
SESSION ON LAND
USE PLAN, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING &
EDEVELOPMENT
UTHORT-Y(HRA),
dicine Lake Room A
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
6:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY FAIR, Pilgrim
Elementary
7:00 PM PLYMOUTHADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) ,
Medicine Lake Room A
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
modified on 3/8/2007
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
Anri1. 2007
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PASSOVER BEGINS
AT SUNSET
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
GOOD FRIDAY
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
EASTER SUNDAY 5:30 PM BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM Charter
Comission Mlg
MedicinemLk Rm
7:00 PM PARK & REC
ADVISORY
COMMISSION (PRAC),
Council Chambers
PRIMAVERAPLYMOUTHARTS
COUNCIL SHOW,
Plymouth Creek Center
PRIMAVERA
PLYMOUTH FINE ARTS
COUNCIL SHOW
Plymouth Creek Center
REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING, OUCouncil Chambers
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EQC), Council
Chambers
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
6:30 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY COUNCIL,
Parkers Lake
PRIMAVERA
PLYMOUTH FINE
ARTS COUNCIL
SHOW, Plymouth Creek
1 7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING 8
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room A
6:00 PM YARD AND
GARDEN EVENT,
Plymouth Creek Center
8:00 AM YARD AND
GARDEN EVENT,
Plymouth Creek Center
PRIMAVERAPLYMOUTHFINE
ARTS COUNCIL
SHOW, Plymouth Creek
Center
Center
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
5:30 PIA BOARD OF
EQUALIZATIONRECONVENED), Council
Chambers
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) ,
Medicine Lake Room A
29 30
AMtEm
layeeL3oPMal
Fsployee Wncheon
Mar 2007
S M T W T F S
May 2007
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 31 27 28 29 30 31
modified on 3/8/2007
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
1/lav 2007
F777Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Apr 2007
S M T W T F S
1 2
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
3
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION,
Parkers Lake Room
4 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EQC), Council
Chambers
7:00 PM PARK & REC
ADVISORY
COMMISSION (PRAC),
Council Chambers
10:30 AM PLYMOUTH
HISTORY FEST,
Parkers Lake Park
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY(HRA),
Medicine Lake Room A
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
6:30 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY COUNCIL,
Parkers Lake Room
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORYCOMMITTEEON
TRANSIT (PACT) ,
Medicine Lake Room A
27 28 29 30 31
Jun 2007
MEMORIAL DAY
Observed) - City
Offices Closed
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
modified on 3/8/2007
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
Tune 2007
Sunday Monday I Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Ju12007
1 2
May 2007
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
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
6:30 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY COUNCIL,
Parkers Lake Room
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMriTEE
EOC), Council
Chambers
7:00 PM PARK & REC
ADVISORY
COMMISSION (PRAC),
Council Chambers
Flag Day
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING 8
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORriY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room A
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
6:30 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY COUNCIL,
Packers Lake Room
700 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT(PACT) ,
Medicine Lake Room A
modified on 3/8/2007