HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 04-19-2005 SpecialAgenda
City of Plymouth
Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Im m ediately following the
Board of Equalization Meeting)
Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Discuss United Properties proposal
3. Discuss Welsh Companies proposal
4. Set future Study Sessions
5. Adjourn
Agenda Number:
TO: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
FROM: Anne Hurlbue, ommunity Development Director
SUBJECT: United Properties Proposal, SW Corner of I-494 & TH 55
DATE: April 14, 2005 for the Special City Council Meeting of April 19, 2005
BACKGROUND:
United Properties requested an opportunity to meet with the City Council to discuss their interest
in pursuing a redevelopment project for an approximately 14.8 acre area located at the southwest
corner of I-494 and Highway 55. Their letter and the accompanying sketches illustrate their
ideas for a possible mixed-use redevelopment of the existing industrial uses. Before they attempt
to assemble the site, they wish to discuss the possibility for redevelopment and what the City's
role might be in their project. Bill Katter will represent Unities Properties as the meeting, and
may present some additional information to the Council at that time.
An aerial photo of the area, showing existing development, is attached as additional background
information. The report on redevelopment issues and opportunities prepared for the March 8,
2005 study session may also be useful for the Council's discussion.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Aerial Photo
2. Letter from United Properties dated January 27, 2005, with attachments
3. Staff Report dated March 1, 2005, "Redevelopment Issues and Opportunities"
r
t t
t
h
Iry
0
r -
7-F-7—
IJi
r
rr
S, i
i
E
s ,
1 }
Ap
i
e t
j
r js ii
1f
5,
x
UNITED PROPERTIES
January 27, 2005
JAN 3 1 2005
ii
Mrs. Anne Hurlburt
Director of Community Development
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Ref: SW corner of 1-494 and Highway 55, Plymouth, MN
Dear Anne:
We are writing as a follow up to our meeting earlier this month, where we presented various ideas
for the redevelopment of this prominent site in Plymouth.
We believe that an area comprised of approximately 14.8 acres of land, as illustrated on the
attached plat map, represents a unique and exciting opportunity for the City and United
Properties to complete a higher density, mixed use redevelopment that will substantially improve
the aesthetics of this important gateway into Plymouth.
With this letter we have enclosed copies of the various ideas that we shared with you during our
visit, which are a combination of multiple uses including office, retail and medical buildings on this
site, replacing the existing collection of older industrial and restaurant uses. We believe that these
current uses represent a substantial underutilization of this site, and should be replaced by uses
that are consistent with freeway development where accessibility, visibility and convenience
translate into substantially higher economic uses.
We spoke with MNDOT regarding their future plans for the 1-494 and Highway 55 reconfiguration.
Although MNDOT may wish to eliminate the stoplight at Fernbrook and Highway 55, their future
work on 1-494 would not appear to require any additional Right of Way that would affect the
subject site. The elimination of access to this site at Fernbrook would be a major issue for all
landowners on Fernbrook and is likely to be too expensive for MNDOT to accomplish.
United Properties is very interested in working with the City of Plymouth to undertake a
redevelopment of this area. The benefits to the City would be a substantial improvement in the
aesthetic and economic picture for this site, including a significant increase in employment. As
discussed, we are also open to including a public benefit component such as a transit hub.
United Properties will undertake the effort to purchase each of the land parcels in this area under
direct negotiations with each landowner. We have the capital resources to accomplish this
assemblage, and redevelopment expertise in all of the likely future uses for this area, including
medical, retail and office. In consideration of our effort to assemble this site,. which may take as
long as 18 months or more, we would ask the City to support our efforts in the following key ways:
3500 American Blvd. W., Minneapolis. MN 55431 • 952.831.1000 • fax 952.893.8293 • www.uproperties.com
The City would designate this area as a targeted redevelopment district, and provide
United Properties with a period of time to act as the exclusive developer for this area —
we would request a 3 year commitment. These actions will let property owners in this
area know of the City's interest in seeing this site redeveloped, and would generally
discourage other developers from purchasing a property in this area and entering into an
adversarial situation with us and the City as a competitive developer
The City would be willing to consider vacating the existing frontage road — Cheshire Lane
at the time the improvements to Fernbrook are completed, and contribute that land to
the overall site's redevelopment at no cost to the developer, since our costs of
assembling the privately -owned parcels will be considerable
As part of establishing a redevelopment district, approve a change as necessary in the
guide plan to allow for a high density, mixed use PUD which could have office, retail,
hotel and medical uses as part of the redevelopment plan
To the extent we are able to acquire a majority but not all properties in the area, the City
would consider the threat of condemnation in order to complete the assemblage and
allow for redevelopment to commence. It would be unlikely that condemnation would
actually be needed, but we have found that the threat. of condemnation typically
encourages holdout property owner(s) to be reasonable sellers. Other Cities we have
worked with have used the threat of condemnation as an effective tool to back a
developer trying to assemble redevelopment sites. Alternatively, the City could provide
some form of special financing for the developer to complete the acquisition of holdout
landowners, with the developer being required to repay this financing secured by the
future tax revenues
We would be very interested in moving forward with our effort to purchase the necessary land
parcels and redevelop this site under a vision we create with the City of Plymouth. We look
forward to receiving your thoughts on our proposal for moving forwards with our efforts here.
Sinc r y
William P. Katter
Vice President
952) 837-8525
cc: Frank Dutke
Tom Noble
Larry Pobuda
27 + f zs+
AVE
a,G
J per.
Tt
of.D RoW_
8—
M1D. ,ccESS
N
RDW
r \ x
24ab hsF ., ,
Y ` F
1 Medi fAf. /
opFICU
C
z 106 CMC t
ci
Va. aG /
L o ACJ
9
rv
10
Foe
50,000 5F i ETkic- CeNtelL _
246 CARO,
S 28
90
x ± LBcr.
TbwER 6ASEAtEiVr?
i
Ny "U 111+/-
c -- .
s
J'_foo. P, re __
r
RNt9.C_
Fry. - O
I
3
3.
2b 20 2c 1-7 _
Lg6
2i
CAkj 13
rdMG 8 302 loo Rap
FLut l63'H -qT6 z - "ESS
uljgEo WOWPI tss
aao Apace 1--7-2zcl.T
I ..............
r
t4
qLD FW-,,)Nqcol< tA
Ke%L- row. UF4#Tep-
CCAS
if
MOX,
FL-YMOUT+t sr m I. 41ff4 + R WY 1156
Et>VAFthFpm wiftar r•7.2 of
TO: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
FROM: Jim Barnes, Housing Programs Manager
Barbara Senness, Planning Manager
Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Redevelopment Issues and Opportunities
DATE: March 1, 2005, for the Special City Council Meeting of March 8, 2005
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the Council's 2004 goals was to study redevelopment strategies. This report is
intended to provide the Council with background on the issues surrounding redevelopment as
well as offer a basic understanding of what options and tools are available to communities to
assist with redevelopment projects.
This topic is especially timely, in that there are several projects on the horizon that may be
requesting City assistance. These include the Plymouth Shopping Center property, the
former Qwest site (AGA Medical) and United Properties proposal to redevelop the southwest
quadrant of I-494 & TH 55. Council direction would be helpful as we work with the
developers of these projects. United Properties has requested an informal meeting with the
Council, soon after the March 8 study session.
2. WHAT IS REDEVELOPMENT?
Redevelopment is the practice of renovating a previously developed parcel of land or
building site in order to allow a new or more -viable use or uses to replace the previous use
that may be obsolete or in disrepair. Potential redevelopment sites are no longer confined to
urban areas. Many suburban communities are in various stages of redevelopment.
Cities undertake the difficult process of redevelopment for many reasons. A revitalized
neighborhood or community brings a better quality of life, increases the tax base, adds jobs
and eliminates blight. Studies have demonstrated that redevelopment generally adds to the
overall positive perception of a community. It presents a picture to the outside that this is a
community that takes pride in maintaining itself and providing amenities people and
businesses are seeking.
3. PLYMOUTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
While Plymouth is thought of as a new, developing community, over the past 10 years the
City has experienced or considered redevelopment projects in various areas. Following is a
list of recent redevelopment projects.
Holiday Stationstore (Highway 55 and South Shore Drive}— Two lots containing closed
gas stations were replatted and cleaned up to construct the new gas station. The City
approved 9 variances and rebuilt the frontage road to allow the project to proceed.
HOM Furniture (I-494 and County Road 9)—A vacant industrial building, formerly used
as a distribution center was remodeled for the furniture store. The City reguided the site
to commercial use and zoned it PUD to ensure that the specific commercial use of the site
would be compatible with the neighborhood.
Plymouth Technology Park (north of Schmidt Lake Road between I-494 and Fembrook
Lane)—This former gravel pit site was redeveloped for light industry with $634,500 in
tax increment financing that was used for site clean-up and grading.
Berkshire Proiect (2300 Berkshire)—This industrial building was vacant and needed
extensive remodeling for a new user. The City provided $900,000 of tax increment
financing, which was used for site improvements. The City also facilitated the
consolidation of ownership of the site, which was necessary to get financing. The current
tenant is Unitron Hearing.
Schneiderman's Furniture (County Road 6 and Annapolis Lane)—Schneiderman's is also
located in a former industrial building that had been vacant for several years. It is located
next to Home Depot and other home -improvement -related uses. The City reguided and
rezoned the site to commercial use and granted one setback variance to accommodate the
new use.
The Shops at Plymouth Creek (Highway 55 and Vicksburg Lane)—The vacant Dana -
Spicer building will be demolished for CSM's development anchored by Lowe's, and to
provide a senior housing site to the HRA. The City has committed $1,370,000 in tax
increment financing for road improvements and to assist the housing project.
The City has also considered its share of redevelopment efforts that have not come to
realization for a number of different reasons. The following are examples of redevelopment
proposals that have not been successful.
Extended Stay Hotel (Highways 55 & 169)— The construction of this project did not
proceed for a number of reasons, but a major factor was the City's refusal of a request to
use eminent domain to obtain the Brown's Market site. The problems of working around
that site took a lengthy period of time, during which the developer ran into financial
difficulty. Other developers have considered the site but this is still a major barrier.
TOLD Development's plan to redevelop Plymouth Shopping Center and adjacent
housing (Highway 55 & County Road 73)—The developer requested tax increment
2
financing for infrastructure improvements (including rebuilding the intersection at the
frontage road and West Medicine Lake Drive) and use of eminent domain to acquire
houses on Cottonwood Lane. The project met with significant neighborhood opposition.
Other developers have since looked at the site, and have all indicated the need for some
City financial assistance.
County Road 73 Corridor Study Highway 55 to the Minnetonka/Plymouth border)—
The study, identified by the Comprehensive Plan, proposed changing the guiding on the
east side of County Road 73 from LA -1 to LA -2 and changing the guiding of the
Plymouth Shopping Center and the properties on Cottonwood Lane from commercial and
residential to mixed use to encourage redevelopment. Changes were met with opposition
and the City Council chose to make no changes to the plan in the absence of actual
redevelopment proposals.
4. ISSUES FOR REDEVELOPMENT
As the above examples demonstrate, redevelopment is not easy and typically requires the
participation of the City at some level to make it successful. The City, the developer and the
surrounding neighborhood may have different goals and perspectives. The following are
some of the key issues for redevelopment.
City commitment – In order for redevelopment to occur, cities must have a vision and the
will to see it through to completion. Without a vision, redevelopment may be fragmented
and the end product may turn out to be less than desirable. The Comprehensive Plan is the
City's picture of what the community should look like in the future. In earlier stages of
development, the picture focuses on the vision for raw land. As a community ages, the
picture should extend to consider reuse. A clear vision will help the City Council to weigh
the costs and the concerns of landowners and neighborhood residents with the overall
benefits of the particular redevelopment project. It will also help staff work with developers
and land owners to prepare proposals that better fit the vision.
Economic issues – While it is important that the City have a clear vision of what it wants to
see, that vision is only practical if it is economically feasible and the private marketplace will
support it. Demolition, pollution cleanup, and upgraded infrastructure make redevelopment
an expensive endeavor. Oftentimes the private market cannot make the project happen alone,
as the costs are too high for investors to risk. Communities may not even become aware of
projects that are not financially feasible because the developer determines the project would
not work before they approach the City with the idea.
Landowner involvement – Landowners are key players in the redevelopment process. They
should be part of the discussions from the beginning of the proposed project.
A landowner who is willing to sell or redevelop her/his property helps spur redevelopment.
However, some landowners see redevelopment as an opportunity to "get rich quick" and may
ask for unreasonable prices for their property or building. A landowner who is unwilling to
sell will make redevelopment more difficult. Either the developer needs to pay a premium
price for the property or the City needs to consider use of eminent domain (the legal taking of
private property for a public purpose) to gain control of the site.
Many redevelopment projects require the assembly of multiple properties, often with a mix
of willing and unwilling sellers. Through careful planning and discussions, developers may
be able to get all of the property owners to sell, but it usually comes at a cost to the
developer, city or both, just as it does with a single unwilling seller.
Comm unity/Neizhborhood concerns — The concerns of adjacent neighbors and the larger
community are always part of a redevelopment project. It is important for community
leaders to listen to these concerns and weigh these concerns against the benefits that may
come with the redevelopment.
Some neighborhoods simply do not want change. Redevelopment is almost always more
intensive than the previous use due to the high costs associated with redevelopment.
Residents probably moved to the area because of what they liked about it at that particular
time, such as open space or low volumes of traffic. More intense use will almost always
mean the loss of open spaces and more traffic.
The larger community may not support public involvement in redevelopment. Some of the
tools available (such as TIF or tax abatements) may be seen as a subsidy for the private
market. The redevelopment project may be seen as having an unfair advantage over
developments already in the community.
5. THE REDEVELOPMENT TOOLBOX
Communities have many "tools" to utilize when considering redevelopment projects. They
range from comprehensive plans and zoning regulations to financial assistance and eminent
domain. Attached is a chart that provides a general overview of the tools commonly
available to cities.
6. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Some questions the Council may want to consider include:
a. Will the City be an active or passive participant in redevelopment?
b. What tools is the Council willing to use to assist developers?
c. Are there tools (such as TIF) that the Council is willing to consider for only certain types
of projects, or in certain locations?
d. Are there some tools (such as eminent domain) that the Council is unwilling to consider
using under any circumstances?
ATTACHMENTS:
1. "The Redevelopment Tool Box"
2. Letter dated January 27, 2005 from United Properties
F
REDEVELOPMENT TOOL BOX
Tool What it does How it can be used
Planning & Zoning Comprehensive Plan Sets the Vision for the City Allows the City to designate areas for
Authority redevelopment and or a change in land
use (example: changing the southwest
quadrant of I-494/Highway 55 from
industrial to office classification resulted
in United Properties interest in
redeveloping this area)
Zoning Translates Comprehensive Plan Use of PUD zoning can allow for
into specific development individual project flexibility; granting
standards variances and ordinance amendments
can facilitate development not currently
permitted.
Non -Conforming use law Allows City to require Changes in the law have dramatically
discontinuance of limited the conditions under which non-
undesirable/incompatible uses conforming uses can be redeveloped
under certain conditions
Detailed Area planning Lays the groundwork for future Lets potential developers know the
projects City's interest up front; provides
potential developers with needed
background information on potential
sites
Infrastructure & Capital Roads, sewer, water, transit, etc. Enhances site desirability The City can provide infrastructure to
Improvements reduce the higher costs developers incur
with redevelopment as opposed to green
field development
Public facilities Enhances site desirability The City can integrate a park, ice center,
community center, library, senior
housing, etc. into a proposed
redevelopment project as a project
incentive.
REDEVELOPMENT TOOL BOX
Tool What it does How it can be used
Eminent Domain Powers Land assembly Allows proposed site(s) to come The City can use this law to acquire (or
under the City's or developer's the threat to acquire) land from
control unwilling sellers that would prevent a
project from moving forward
Easements, Right-of-way Allows needed infrastructure or The City can use this law to acquire
improvements to be completed right-of-ways or easements to allow for
the installation of these improvements to
service a redevelopment project
Local Financing Sources Tax abatement Provides tax breaks to property The City, and/or County and School
owners District can forego property taxes for a
specified period of time (10-15 years).
TIF districts Provides redevelopment funds Cities or HRA's can establish TIF
through property taxes collected districts to provide funding for
redevelopment projects through the
taxes collected on the increase value of
a property.
General funds Provides redevelopment funds The City can use reserves or funds from
from local taxes specific local accounts to assist a project
financially
Enterprise funds Finance basic infrastructure Extend or expand basic public systems
needed for developments
Non -Local Financing Tax exempt bonds Provides a source of financing The City can issue tax-exempt bonds
Sources for redevelopment projects either for a city project or on behalf of a
developer that may offer lower
financing costs and provide a benefit to
a project. The IRS regulates what type
of entity or project can be done under
these bonds, including industrial
buildings, non-profit businesses,
affordable housing, and healthcare
facilities.
REDEVELOPMENT TOOL BOX
Tool What it does How it can be used
State/Metro grants & loans Provides a source of financing The State, Metropolitan Council and
for redevelopment projects Hennepin County offer programs to
assist with redevelopment efforts
including brownfield clean up, pre -
development assistance, planning,
development capital and working
capital.
MSA State allocates share of gas tax City can target road improvements to
revenues for local road redevelopment sites.
improvements
CDBG Provides a source of funding for The City could designate a portion or all
redevelopment projects of its CDBG funding to assist with
redevelopment projects
Tax credits Provides developers with Developers can apply for Historic Tax
funding for redevelopment Credits or Low Income Housing Tax
projects Credits depending on the type of project
proposed. Investors buy these credits
for a percentage that gives the developer
needed cash up -front.
Public Entities Housing & Redevelopment, Provides additional means for These public entities have their own set
Economic Development, and Port Communities to carry out certain of statutory controls beyond the City.
Authorities activities They can be established to assist with
redevelopment activities above and
beyond the City in certain situations.
Plymouth has established a Port
Authority and a Housing and
Redevelopment Authority.
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DATE: April 14, 2005
TO: Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director
FROM: Barbara Senness, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: History of Vacant Waterford Site
The Waterford Park development includes two office towers and a retail commercial
center. One parcel remains vacant. The original PUD plan for the site showed a third
office tower to complement the two existing towers.
The property is guided "CO" Commercial Office and zoned "B -C" Business Campus.
Access to the site is from 8th Avenue on the east and Nathan Lane on the north. The site
is surrounded by existing development, which limits the visibility from either Highway
55 or Highway 169. There is a large pond on the southern boundary of the vacant site.
Bassett's Creek runs along the western boundary. The central portion of the site contains
fill and refuse that would need to be removed before development could take place.
Over the past several years, staff has reviewed a number of informal proposals and one
formal application that was withdrawn before it reached the Planning Commission.
Formal Application
Lincoln Property Company made a formal application for a land use guide plan
amendment and sketch plan in August 2002. They proposed 351 apartment units in three
buildings. Each building was three stories with underground parking. During the initial
review, staff made the following observations about the proposed plan:
The apartment use and layout did not integrate with the existing office, industrial
and retail uses in the area, nor did it provide any transition or screening between
the apartment buildings and the adjacent non-residential uses.
There was no access to transit or any accommodation of transit service on the site.
Tight turning radii would have made it difficult for a bus to pass through the site.
There is almost no vacant land in the CO guiding classification. Conversely,
more than 1,000 apartment units have recently been constructed in the City.
Although the office market is weak currently, prompting proposals for alternative
uses, this is a temporary condition.
The apartment use would not have had a negative impact on the street system,
sanitary sewer or water supply.
The proposal included a request to allow more than 20 units per acre in the MXD
classification. To achieve over 20 units per acre, the applicant covered most of
the area of the site, leaving little green space in the developable portion of the site.
Allowing more than 20 units per acre in the MXD classification could make sense
with a plan that goes up (mid -rise, high-rise) and includes mixed uses and
amenities on a site.
Placing low-rise residential development on the site would create negative off-site
impacts to existing businesses that abut the site, making them non -conforming to
the loading dock setback requirement and affecting their ability to expand in the
future.
There are no parks within '/2 mile of the site, which does not meet the City's
standard for residential uses and there are no other residential uses in the
immediate area.
Other Contacts/Informal Proposals
In early 1998, staff met with a representative of Reliastar Life Insurance Company
regarding access issues. No development proposals were discussed at that time.
In March 1999, representatives from Opus brought in a plan for a third office building for
the vacant site. The site plan showed a building with two separate wings connected by a
central core. Staff had no further contact on this proposal after the initial meeting.
In October 2001, representatives from Lincoln Property Company brought in a plan for
the site that included 11 buildings with a total of 300 apartment units for a total density of
just over 27 units per acre. Staff provided all of the comments cited above for the 2002
Lincoln Property application, focusing particularly on the density and the low-rise unit
type, which varied dramatically in scale from the high rise office buildings to the south
and southeast.
In March 2003, representatives from the Shenehon Company met with staff to discuss the
potential for a headquarters building for a medical manufacturing firm. Uses would
include office, labs, manufacturing and warehousing. The first phase was proposed to be
100,000 square feet and the second phase another 100,000 square feet. The firm
subsequently decided to located elsewhere.
In early March 2005, staff met with Frank Dunbar regarding potential residential
development on the site. Mr. Dunbar proposed three 80 -unit buildings of four stories
each at a density of 18 to 20 units per acre. He indicated that the group he represented
2
was looking at construction in 2007. Staff reiterated the same concerns cited previously
regarding low-rise apartment use on the site.
In March 2005, a representative from Welsh Companies forwarded a concept plan to
staff. This plan showed 200 units of apartments and 50,000 square feet of office. Staff
commented that the low-rise residential use in close proximity to industrial uses does not
meet the City's location standards for residential uses and would have a negative impact
on the abutting industrial uses, as noted in the comments on the Lincoln Property
proposal. In addition, the proposed layout does not take advantage of the site amenities,
notably the pond. The apartment structures face inward on a pool, while parking is
located adjacent to the pond.
Summary of Site Issues/Concerns
From the reviews to date, the following briefly summarize the site issues:
A substantial amount of fill material must be removed from the site prior to
development.
The site does not have great highway visibility, however, the City has few
commercial office sites left.
Whatever develops on the site should take advantage of the site amenities (e.g. the
pond, wetland, creek).
The site is surrounded by office and industrial uses; there are no residential uses
in close proximity.
Residential use on the site would make abutting industrial structures non-
conforming.
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Aerial map
2. Guiding map
3. Zoning map
4. Lincoln Property site plan
5. Welsh Companies site plan
3
f
k
r Ii , ,..:±e,:..
ii' '
c
w +'
r k
Z t
1 - '€ `' t
5 F
k «. iP
td s; . 4.
Sgt : .
x:
rg
y6}
fry
4
X4xt
Y
N
i' i ,
e . .
IVN
VI 3 13A3 1
H
oLL
oo F.
O
N
0
0
0
0
0
N
e .n...ma en_..._•x a.vA . - _ _ : _ . . _ _ _.. ,
ml, A1ErcE wfrM crm ArcxE rami
v.•c, 'orn vaA .v eear > ..e...,. vv..vv _j
Z5C
TT WE
IETMIW wAiy ,
K
oRl ALUM NIXBM
Ew i00 LNYe161 IOPF!((T LitE — 25 FGOT VPiWY 4Y.O,TA SET9ALI( LNE _ 5 PNiaHC t_lLEUC.ROW <TAPIfC wALL— .nr T ME mn eclls '
99U/ED PgOPEriT'! PAV PATH -
L_ ---
N rzi ixm
L •
WPATI
kap . ..• - - ---- - -
AETA}
PXfOiPHif_Y IlE
d ?
TMr1Y HLR PL Ld@ .8
e.l'
r TOEPAMPOW6fM. POOP PATHF%
li
sL
r
tt w
Y
77
l
LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY
FILE NO. 2002102
t
NVI
ah39
4.1
4y
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DATE: April 12, 2005
CO: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager,
through Pat Qvale, Public Services Manager
FROM: Helen LaFave, Communications Manager
SUBJECT: REPLACEMENT SIGNS AT CITY LIMIT BOUNDARIES
A 2004 City Council priority was to enhance our communications efforts. This priority
included building on city branding efforts. Toward that end, we have undertaken several
initiatives. These efforts have included developing a similar look and feel for the
Plymouth News, web site and city guide. We recently extended that branding effort to the
city stationary and adopted the City tagline "Adding Quality to Life."
Tom Vetsch and I have been working on the last major step in this branding effort --
replacing the 30 green signs that say "Plymouth" at our city boundaries with new 36" x
24" signs that reflect our new look and feel. See the attached mock -up -
Our current entrance signs are inconsistent in size and appearance, and they do not
include the city tagline or logo. The signs we are proposing would include both of those
items. The Streets Division will install the signs, some of which are due for replacement.
Rather than replace the signs piecemeal, we are proposing replacing all of the signs this
spring and summer so that we have consistent look.
The estimated cost is $1,400 for the signs and another $1,400 for the posts. The total cost
of $2,800 would be funded from the communications budget with future replacement
coming from the sign budget. The signs should have a 10 to 12 year life.
If you have any questions, please call me at 763-509-5090.
city of 125
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life 15
rd
Agenda Number:
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Laurie Ahrens, City ManagerOSUBJECT: Set Future Study Sessions J
DATE: April 14, 2005, for City Council meeting of April 19, 2005
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Review the pending study session topics list, establish future
study sessions, and 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.
A. The Council had previously expressed an interest in meeting with our federal
representatives, and a meeting was recently held with Congressman Ramstad. Susan
MacDonald, aide to Senator Coleman, has indicated a willingness to meet with the
Council on May 10 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the median barrier funding. If this date works
for the Council, we would also invite a representative of Senator Dayton's office to attend
the meeting.
B. I have talked with Jim Rice, the volunteer consultant on the budget priorities item, and we
have abbreviated the process. It is proposed that the Council would meet with Mr. Rice
once on Tuesday, June 7, at 7:00 p.m. for a discussion of budget priorities. (This was the
date that the Council previously preferred.) This is the only meeting currently proposed.
If additional meetings are desired to provide staff with direction on the budget, there
would be several weeks after June 7 in order to schedule another study session before
work begins on the 2006 budget.
C. The Council established a study session for June 28 at 5:00 p.m. on Street Reconstruction
and Special Assessment Policy. The Finance Director has learned that he will be absent
from that meeting. If the Council wishes to change the date of the meeting, alternatives
could be: May 17 (5:30-7:00), June 21 at 7:00, or prior to a regular Council meeting in
July.
Pending Study Session Topics
at least 3 Council members have approved the following study items on the list)
Discuss development standards (MEMO) (Black, Stein, Johnson)
Other requests for study session topics:
Update with City Manager — quarterly (next mtg. Aug.)
Campaign sign enforcement
Discuss Point of Sale Program (Stein)
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
April 2005
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2Mar2005May2005
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
DAYLIGHT
SAVINGS
7:00 PM BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION, Council
chamber
7:00 PM
PLANNING
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMENCES - COMMISSION, COMMISSION -
set clocks ahead 1 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers Medicine Lake
MEETING (Immed " hour folbwiq ad. of Room
Eqm iaeon): CITY
MANAGER QUARTERLY
UPDATE, Coundl
Chamber
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, Council
6:00 PM SPECIAL
HRA MEETING,
Medicine Lake Room
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUAL fTY COMMITTEE
EOC), Council
Chambers Chambers
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL
MEETING, Council
Chambers
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
e:WAM,):W PM NUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION
STUDENT WORKSHOP,
Ph,,,o,nn k. char
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
7:00 PM HOUSING 8
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room
9:00 AM CITY
AUCTION, CityY
Maintenance Garage,
1490023rd Avenue
7:oo PM BOARD OF Council Chambers
EOUAlVAT10NRECONVENED), CeuncN PASSOVER
BEGINS AT
FOLLOWINGBD OF SUNSET
EQUAUZAU N!) SPECUL
COUNCIL MEETING:
CONSIDER VARIOUS
PROPERTIES PROPO.SAlS,
C --d Clw-
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
6:00 PM YOUTH
SERVICE AWARDS,
7:00 PM
PLYMOUTH
COUNCIL, Council Council Chambers ADVISORY
Chambers COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) -
Medicine Lake
Room
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL
MEETING, Council
Chambers
modified on 4/14/2005
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
May 2005
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6:30 PM SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING-
INTERVIEW YOUTH
APPLICANTS;
DISCUSS EXPANSION
OF PACT MISSION;
DISCUSS ZONING
TEXT CHANGES; Lunchroom
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION -
Medicine Lake
ROOM
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM
REGULAR
COUNCIL
MEETING, Council
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EQC),Council
Chambers
7:00 PM PARK 6
REC ADVISORY
COMMISSION
PRAC), Council
Chambers Chambers
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING 8
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room
9:00 AM -3:30 PM
PLYMOUTH
CLEAN-UP DAY,
Public Works
Maintenance
Facility
7:00 PM SPECIAL
COUNCILMEETING:
DISCUSSPROSECUTION
PHILOSOPHY IN RE:
CITY ATTORNEY
SVCS; USE OF
GAMBLING FUNDS;
USE OF BIO -DIESEL
FUELS; Lunchroom
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
6:45 PM YOUTH rl:esAMPLYMouTH
BUSINESS COUNCIL, S- 7:00 PM
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, Council
MlnwpdbW.a 12]01
RISpW..O ,Nl—w
PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
Chambers COMMITTEE ON
5:00 PM b:90 PM SPECIAL TRANSIT(PACT)-
COUNCIL MEETINO:YOUTH
TOWN FORUM, P,— Medicine Lake
C—C—
7:W PM REGULAR COUNCIL
MEETING, C—iI CI—I—II
Room
29 30 31
Jun 2005Apr2005
MEMORIAL DAY S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
Observed) - City
Offices Closed 1 2 3 412
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30
modified on 4/14/2005
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
June 2005
Sunday I Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
2
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION -
3 4
May 2005
S M T W T F S
Ju12005
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Council Chambers Medicine Lake
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Room
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, COUDCII
Chambers
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EQC), Council
Chambers
7:00 PM PARK &
REC ADVISORY
COMMISSION
PRAC), Council
Chambers
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
8:00 PM SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING:
CONSIDER ZONING
AMENOMENTSTO ALLOW
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
4:30 PM ANNUAL
PARK TOUR, depart
from City Hall
IN INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS; Lunchroom
I:- PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7;00 PM HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room
Council Chemb—
Flag Day
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
6:45 PM YOUTH 7:00 PM
ADVISORY PLYMOUTH
COUNCIL, Council ADVISORY
Chambers COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) -
Medicine Lake
Room
26 27 28 29 30
5:00 PM SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING:
DISCUSS STREET
RECONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM AND
SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT POLICY,
Lunchroom
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
modified on 4/14/2005
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
July 2005
Sunday Monday Tuesday I Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Aug 2005 1 2Jun2005
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
CITY OFFICES 5:15 PM MUSIC 7:00 PM HUMAN
CLOSED IN PLYMOUTH, RIGHTS
INDEPENDENCE
DAY
Hilde
Performance
Center
COMMISSION -
Medicine Lake
Room
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
7:00 PM
REGULAR
COUNCIL
MEETING, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EQC), Council
Chambers
7:00 PM PARK 8
REC ADVISORY
COMMISSION
PRAC), Council
Chambers
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING 8
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
77:0.5 AM PLYMOUTH
BUSINESS COUNCIL,
S...nMinneeWlmwe.t
12201 Rkgedew Dme,
Min—nke
7:00 PM
PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
b0 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
TRANSIT (PACT) -
Medicine Lake
C..n cnemb— Room
31
L ---j
modified on 3/9/2005