HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 08-23-1985CITY O�
PLYMOUTR
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
August 23, 1985
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS.....
1. COUNCIL/STAFF DINNER MEETING -- Monday, August 26. The Council will
meet with Public Works Department staff members at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council conference room.
2. CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSIONN -- Monday, August 26, 6:45 p.m. The
Council will meet in Executive Session with the City Attorney in the
Council conference room.
3. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, August 26, 7:30 p.m. Special
City Council meeting in City Council Chambers.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION -- Wednesday, August 28, 7:30 p.m. The Planning
ommission will meet in the City Council Chambers. Agenda
attached. (M-4)
5. CLIFTON E. FRENCH REGIONAL PARK - NAME DEDICATION -- Thursday,
August 29 scheduled for p.m. at Clifton E. French Regional
Park. A copy of the invitation is attached. (M-5)
6. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES REGIONAL MEETING -- Attached is an
invitation from the City of Rush City on the League of Minnesota
Cities Regional Meeting to be held Wednesday, September 11 at the
VFW Post #6692 in Rush City. An afternoon meeting will begin at
2:30 p.m., at which League staff will lead discussions on risk
management and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The evening portion of
the meeting begins with social hour at 5:30 p.m., and dinner at 6:30
p.m. If Councilmembers would like to attend, they should contact
Laurie no later than Friday, August 30 so that she can finalize
reservations. (M-6)
7. REVISED SEPTEMBER CALENDAR -- The attached revised September meeting
calendar reflects the addition of the September 24 Council meeting
on Special Assessment issues. (M-7)
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
August 23, 1985
Page 2
FOR YOUR INFORMATION.....
1. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION MEETING RULES -- At the August 19 meeting the
City Council discussed the most appropriate means of informing the
public of the rules of order used by commissions and the Council for
public hearings, public informational meetings and non-public
hearing items. Attached is a memorandum from the Mayor to
chairpersons of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and
Planning Commission requesting that they announce at the beginning
and end of each public hearing/public informational meeting that the
purpose of the meeting is to obtain public input from all parties.
In addition, the public is to be informed that when the Council
considers such issues, that it will normally limit input to two
individuals representing each "side" of the issue. Also attached is
a draft of the Mayor's letter to the public attending Council
meetings. A paragraph has been added dealing with public hearings,
public information meetings and non-public hearings to clarify the
Council's standard operating procedures with respect to each. If
the Council concurs with these draft revisions, we will proceed to
implement them. (I-1)
2. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE SECURITY DEPOSIT -- In accordance
with previous Council direction the attached letter of intent,
together with a check in the amount of $17,350, will be forwarded to
the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development on
August 28 in order that the City may retain the remaining $1,735,000
of its industrial development revenue bond allocation. Allocations
retained in this manner may be cancelled by the City until October
31 with full reimbursement of the 1% deposit. The City Council will
be taking action with respect to this issue at their September 9
meeting in the course of considering pending applications from
Nathan Lane & Associates, and Turck Multiprox. (I-2)
3. BEACON HEIGHTS TASK FORCE -- The Beacon Heights Task Force met on
Monday, August 19. In attendance were Mr. Lester Nielsen, Mr. and
Mrs. Bill Redick, Stan Tikkanen, Greg Miller, Roger Adams, and Frank
Boyles. Stan Tikkanen explained that the District had received
three unsolicited bids for the Beacon Heights School. The School
Board decided to reject all three offers under the assumption that
open marketing through sealed bids would identify the best buyer for
the property. This was a recommendation which had been provided to
the School Board by the Citizens Finance Advisory Commission. The
Board directed that 0. J. Janski conduct an appraisal of the Beacon
Heights property. An earlier appraisal done in 1982, established
the building value at $700,000. That appraisal assumed that the
building could be sold as commercial/industrial. The 0. O. Oanski
appraisal received on August 5, 1985 suggests that a market value of
the building, assuming continued use as a school or other permitted
or conditional use under City zoning ordinance, would be $400,000.
Assuming that the building was razed and the property used for
subdivision development, a value of $70,000 was assigned.
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
August 23, 1985
Page 3
Stan Tikkanen distributed a timeline for the marketing of Beacon
Heights (attached). Because of the special legislation received by
the District, the sale of the property during 1985 is of high
priority.
He also addressed the question of selling the current administration
building and using Beacon Heights as a new administrative facility.
Copies of an appraisal conducted in 1984 of the administration
building and surrounding land was distributed. Under the assump-
tion that a $1 million investment would be required to restore the
Beacon Heights structure for administrative purposes, the sales
revenues for the administrative offices and adjacent 15 acres would
not provide sufficient revenues to cover these costs. The District
has therefore discontinued consideration of this option.
I indicated to the Task Force, that approval of a planning
application by the City would normally require 45 to 60 days,
assuming the proposed use is permitted or conditional under the
ordinance. I also suggested that their request for proposal
documents contain excerpts from the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance
clearly identifying the permitted and conditional uses in the R1 -A
district.
The School District will proceed with solicitation of bids and will
reconvene the Task Force following their receipt. If they fail to
sell the property by sealed bids they will employ a realtor to
market the property. (I-3)
4. FEDERAL TAX REFORM -- Attached is a memorandum from Mary Anderson,
Mayor of olden Valley and Co-chair of the League of Minnesota
Cities Task Force on Federal Tax Reform. The memorandum encourages
municipal officials of cities in the Third Congressional District to
sign a letter to Representative Frenzel encouraging his opposition
to eliminate state and local tax deductibility. Enclosed together
with the Anderson memorandum is a background paper on federal tax
reform proposals, and a list of cities included in the Third
District. Should the Council desire to endorse the position recom-
mended by Mayor Anderson, a common signature sheet will be distri-
buted Monday for a form letter which the League will send to Repre-
sentative Frenzel. The Mayor's signature is requested on the
signature sheet. (I-4)
5. PLYMOUTH POST PUBLICATIONS -- Mr. Bob Christensen advises that this
week a letter would be going to 94 homes in northwest Plymouth
(i.e. west of Vicksburg and north of County Road 9) advising them
that Post Publications will be installing mail tubes. Mr.
Christensen states that letters will be sent to property owners
prior to the installation of the mail tubes. A self-addressed
stamped envelope will be sent with the letter. If residents do not
wish to have the tube installed, they may indicate this position by
returning the letter to Post Publishing. Normally, Post Publishing
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
August 23, 1985
Page 4
distributes it Shopper's Guide and newspaper by carrier. With
development areas of 50 households and less, it is more economical
to use the third class mail. Unlike, ADS they will be providing
their own post for the mail tubes. Post Publishing will be
providing us with a copy of the letter they distribute.
6. MINUTES:
a. Planning Commission, August 14, 1985 (I-6)
7. PLYMOUTH HISTORICAL SOCIETY -- Attached is a letter from Bea Gordan,
President, and Alivc—F-7elen, Vice President of the Plymouth
Historical Society requesting a meeting with the City Council to
discuss a project the Historical Society currently has underway and
proposed projects they wish to undertake.
The Plymouth Historical Society is in the process of identifying all
buildings built in Plymouth before 1920 for inclusion in a pictorial
history of Plymouth. To date, the Society has photographed and
cataloged approximately 140 buildings. They are now attempting to
establish criteria for considering if a building is historically
significant, and determine what the appropriate actions and
following steps should be and wish to discuss this further with the
Council.
The Society also desires to discuss with the Council the City's
plans for street renaming of those streets which may revert to city
control, and plans for a storage building behind the Old Town Hall
property. (I-7)
8. ACCIDENT REDUCTION PROJECTS -- Two Accident Reduction Projects will
be conducted by the Police Department this fall. This program'was
initiated last year in an effort to reduce accidents in areas
identified as having a high incidence of accidents or in areas where
the level of enforcement is out of proportion to the number of
accidents.
A school zone project involving the Armstrong/Plymouth Junior
High/Pilgrim elementary areas will begin with the opening of school
and run for 3 to 4 weeks. The target area will be "U" shape
geographically and includes all of 36th Avenue along with Pilgrim to
28th Avenue, and East Medicine Lake Road and Medicine Ridge Road to
26th Avenue.
The second project area will be County Road 9, with emphasis placed
on the area east of I-494. This project will begin on October 1 and
is scheduled to last from 5 to 6 weeks.
Prior to the start of either project, efforts will be made to
publicize the accident reduction projects through the Post Newspaper
and cable access channel along with the posting of warning signs.
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
August 23, 1985
Page 5
9. SEMAPHORE ENFORCEMENT -- The Public Safety Department conducted
special assignment for semaphore violations on State Highway 55 and
South Shore Drive on August 8, 13 and 15. A total of five citations
were issued.
10. PROPOSED BILL BY HENNEPIN COUNTY TO AMEND MUNICIPAL COURT LAW -- The
Hennepin County Board o ommissioners is considering proposing
legislation to amend a provision of the Hennepin County municipal
court law. If adopted, the amendment would permit Hennepin County
to retain a greater portion of the fine revenue generated by
violations issued by the Hennepin County Sheriff. It is proposed
that revenues from the fines would be used to increase Sheriff's
patrols on County highways, primarily County Roads 18 and 62.
An informational meeting was held by the County on August 16 at
which Dick Carlquist attended. Attached is a memorandum from Dick
providing comments on the proposed legislation. A copy of the
proposed bill is also included. (I-10)
11. MIDDLEMIST V. CITY OF PLYMOUTH -- The City Attorney's office has
provided the attached copy of Memorandum of Law in support of the
City's motion to modify the previous order entered by fudge Arthur
on the issues of equal protection and attorney's fees. (I-11)
12. PARKERS LAKE CITY PARK QUESTIONNAIRE -- Attached is a report on
resident response to the ParkersLake- City Park questionnaire. Of
the 3,477 questionnaires mailed, 566 have been returned by area
residents. The report includes a tally of the facilities/
activities proposed and the number of residents who would use them.
Also attached is a listing of additional comments made by residents
on the questionnaire. (I-12)
13. COUNCIL FOLLOW UPS:
a. Dorothy Krekelbe
-- ,Attached is
concerning the
associated with
against property
14. CORRESPONDENCE:
- Removal of Penalty on Special Assessments
a report and correspondence from Fred Moore
removal of interest and penalty amounts
the special assessments previously removed
owned by Dorothy Krekelberg. (I-13)
a. Letter from Fred Moore describing safety improvements to be made
along the lakeside of East Medicine Lake Boulevard between 18th
Avenue and 26th Avenue to residents who had spoken at the duly 1
informational meeting concerning East Medicine Lake Boulevard.
(I -14a)
b. Letter from Fred Moore to Louis Oberhauser, attorney
representing Al Fazendin, requesting how the petitioner wishes
to proceed with the options regarding the land use guide plan
classification for the "Rambush" RPUD concept plan. (I -14b)
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
August 23, 1985
Page 6
c. Letter to Don Gordan, Trammel Crow Company, from Sara McConn,
concerning Mr. Jordan's comments at the August Development
Council meeting on the processing of planning applications.
(I -14c)
d. Letter to Sara McConn from ferry Luther, Wickes Companies, Inc.
concerning the disposition of their property located at the
southwest corner of Highway 101 and County Road 6. Wickes
Companies has reached agreement to sell this property to Welsh
Construction Company, who is in the process of preparing
shopping center development plans for the property. (I -14d)
e. Letters of appreciation from Gene Holderness thanking the
Council and City staff for assistance with the Parkside at
Medicine Lake apartment project. (I -14e)
f. Letter of appreciation to Plymouth Housing and Revelopment
Authority and Milt Dale from HRA grant recipient. (I -14f)
James G. Willis
City Manager
JGW:jm
attach
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1985
WHERE: Plymouth City Center
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine by the Planning
Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Commissioner, citizen or petitioner so requests, in which event
the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on
the agenda.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
7:00 P.M.
*3. CONSENT AGENDA/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
See *5. B
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Bert Bisbee, Plymouth C. W. for Learning Tree Daycare Center. Lot
Consolidation, Site Plan, Variance and Conditional Use Permit for property
southwest of Highway 55 and Xenium Lane. (85068)
B. Arthur and Marilyn Zenzen. Conditional Use Permit for Setback Encroachment at
3975 Balsam Lane. (95079)
C. Prudential Insurance Company. Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Revisions
to the MPUD Plan for "Northwest Business Campus" at the northeast corner of
I-494 and Highway 55. (85080)
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Theresa and William Hill. Lot Division/Variance and Rezoning at 5415 Pineview
Lane. (85069)
*B. Woodbridge Properties for Scoville Press. Re -affirm Site Plan Approval for
property at 14505 27th Avenue North. (82062)
6. PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M.
A. Capital Improvement Program
7. OTHER BUSINESS
8. ADJOURNMENT 10:00 P.M.
M-5
O
4 a 14
O OX'
> r, w 4-1
ro a
o ao
o a� >, ro� bU It
as y Orn a 0 M
1-4 --4
rr� °
d' 0
a
O 0-4 p U� U~ ° .4
,4.4 o •- a�
° U � .4;X4
b�0-0 ro� H
o
°� ,°�°°ro
ro .1.4,o � 0 O cn
HxA DUH U. a
a>
�
0
x
U
0"-
'"O-0
'
a)
0
�
ro
O 4
.,p,�
O.
b
0�,
Lzj
o
0,0bya,a'
w
v�Q'r°ororoH''o+
o
a.roya�ro
>o
•--�
i
0�a�°ro
°>
�3
�
O
^' O
0-4 c
a)
�.O
a*;;r
O
O
O
��°p,Ha�'�(1)0
ro
y
.4(1)
rop�aoW
M -- L
pity Of IuS4.6ity
Box 556 • Rush Citv, Minnesota 55065 • Phone 358-4744
To: Mayottz, Counci membetv,, A,?t Othe)L City 0jj.ic as and Spou,6ez' — -
F)Lom: Mauo)L James R. Frt z, Councitmembeu, and City Adminizt)Lato)L
Joa R. Han✓so):
Rb: League o6 Minrezota Citi.v- Regionae Meeting, Septembet 11, 1985
We wish to extend to you ar invitation to attend the League o6 Minnuota
Cities Reg.ionat Meeting to be head at the VFW Po.6t #6692, Nottth Highway
361, Rush City on Septembe 71 71, 1985.
Beginning at 2:30 p.m. , thuc. watt be a )Lound table d.i scuzz ion jot aU
Loeat Govetenment 066iciaes lead by a League Sta66 membet. The subject
matfett planned Gott the a'tetznoon hound table d,iscus.6ion iz Risk Manage-
ment and the Fedetz.at Fait Labors Standanda .
The evening w.itt con zist o6 a cash bar zoe iat hour beginning at 5:30 p. m.
with d.innet ze)Lved at 6:30 p.m. The ptt.ice o6 the d.inne)L tickets ane $8.75.
Ptea,se )Letutn the enc.ias ed )Leh e)Lvat:ion 6otrm jots the dinnetc to the City o c
Rutsh City, Box 556, Koh City, MN 55069 by Septembett 4, 1985. you may
pay .in advance with ttetiwun ol� the ttezenvation 6ourn o)L you may pay at the
doott.
Pieaze note that .i you make )Letsertvationz 6o)L moue petvsonz than aetuaUy
attend, you wZU be pitied jo l- those who do not come untezz we ate not.i-
6ied by Septemb et 4th o6 thus e chang eta .
A6te)L d.innett thette wilt be a panel dizcuzzion by League Stajj and boattd
membeu )Legattd.ing questions oU eonce)Ln to attending cities. Leg -i statou
have been invited to attend a,6 wett ate )Lep)Lezentat.ivea atom those estate
agenci.ez who come .into ¢ttequent contact with cLti.eb. Adjouttnment zhoutd
be no tate)L than 9:30 p.m.
Again, we extend you out .invitation and out wattmat wetcome to attend
the Reg.ionat Meeting .in Rush City.
Jam, u E
Mayon
Fnceozutte
a
Jo.t R. Hanson
City Adm,inistttato)L
Q
C)
}
G
W
G
W
`i
Q
W
Q
z
O
►c
C�v:
x
W
as
Q
z
H
� U
U O
C
�
U
a
z a
co
z a
H a
E
z o z
< M �
�
N
G OM �
L�.
r� UO
H • • O
a r- U
__
O
G +-J
4J
4-+
G G
W
w z
w�
cC 0-H
c m FZ
C�7 H
Q rC t�
p W
fl L+-
U
a
Ln E
Lr
::D v; G
w U
-
u
-W a�
ro
.�
W
a� w o
E<.. O
0
7
N Q+
OU
,
O
•ra
•ri (C U
cE- 0
���
Q
U)
�� >
N�aw�c
GM
G u w
����
U�^
.1-4 00
0U�
�U
W
x
c
P4
>
U
OC C
U W
U PG
U FQ
fJ, G
C
Q V
rl U
`D W
p
A W
H U
G
O
O x
U O U
O
O
O
U O U
O x
U O U
H C
E
p
c
ra H
o
LV
p
M
..
^
M
M
Q I� H
H
O
N
C:,
N
U
U W
McA�
H
o
0w
a0
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: August 21, 1985
TO: Paul Steigerwald, Chair, Planning Commission; Betty Threinen, Chair,
Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
FROM: David 3. Davenport, Mayor
SUBJECT PUBLIC HEARINGS, PUBLIC INFORMATION, AND PUBLIC INPUT
The Council is especially concerned that every possible effort be
made to advise the public of the nature and amount of public input
that will be allowed during City Commission hearings. At public hear-
ings and public informational meetings, the opportunity for public
comment should be unlimited, with every individual allowed to speak at
least once. Since the public hearing or public informational meeting
is the formal "data gathering" phase of the City's deliberations, it
is crucial that the individual chairing the meeting remind the public,
both at the onset and at the end of the meeting, that the Council will
not be conducting a public hearing or informational meeting on the
issue and that the Commission hearing or informational meeting is the
appropriate time for the city to receive public input.
It would also be appropriate for the commission chairs to advise the
public immediately following the public hearing or public information
meeting that upon consideration of the issue, the Council will
normally ask for input from a maximum of two persons representing each
side of the issue. The public should not expect that the Council
will reconduct the public hearing or public informational meeting.
The Council does have the benefit of the meeting minutes which
indicate the position of interested parties.
I acknowledge that each of you has adopted this procedure which has
greatly facilitated the Council's efforts in this regard. This
memorandum represents a formalization of this procedure as desired by
the City Council to insure the most effective use of meeting time and
to eliminate the perception that the Council will reconduct the public
hearing.
DJD:jm
cc: City Council
Press
Dear Fellow Citizens:
The City Council and staff extend to you a warm
meeting. We sincerely hope that we perform the work
that is in the best interest of our entire community
you will generally approve.
=" 1
welcome to tonight's
before us in a manner
and in a manner that
1=e��-Ce�fle��-�eat3�►g�-ar-�-seA�dsb ed-��ar�1-i�►g-�-�I�g-�'t►px'.iaie_-�u.lesr...o.f
eipEler-r Your Councilmembers have received a packet of data related to
tonight's agenda and have prepared themselves for tonight's decision-making
process through hours of study.
City Council meetings are conducted according to generally accepted rules of
order. To expedite our meetings we have adopted procedures for public
input. In many cases, matters coming before the Council have been the
subject of a public hearing or public informational meeting before one of
the City's Commissions. Public hearings, whether held by the Council or
City Commissions, provide the opportunity for any resident to present his or
her position on the issue. The City Council has the benefit of the minutes
of public hearings and public informational meetings and is cognizant of
concerns which have been expressed. Consequently, when the ouncil
considers issues which have been the subject of public input, it does not
conduct another public hearing. The Council, however, may allow two
individuals to speak representing each "side" of the issue.
Persons wishing to be heard on items related to tonight's agenda should fill
out a blue agenda card and forward it to the Mayor to be recognized at such
time as that item is introduced. Please step forward to the microphone when
you are introduced.
May we wish you a pleasant and informative meeting.
Sincerely,
David J. Davenport
Mayor
PLYMOUTH FORUM - At 7:00 p.m. on the third Monday of each month the Plymouth
City Council holds the Plymouth Forum ,ire-be_Ceuacil_Ceraerence_8oan. This
informal Forum is for citizens to speak -up share with the Council ca any
subject of concern. Plan to attend!
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION
LETTER OF INTENT
(For use by an Entitlement Issuer who wishes to retain all or a
portion of its allocation for the period September 1, to October 31)
Pursuant to Minn. Laws 1984, ch. 582 s15, subd. 3,to be codified
as sect. 474.18, Entitlement Issuers who wish to retain all, or a
portion of, its entitlement allocation for the period September 1,
to October 31, must submit to the Department on or before Septemberl,
a letter of intent stating its intention to issue obligations pursuant
to its allocation, or a portion of it, before the end of the calendar
year or within the time period permitted by a federal limitation
act.
THIS FORM MAY BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE
NAME OF ISSUER:
AMOUNT OF ALLOCATION TO BE RETAINED: $ 13 S. O O O - O O
1% APPLICATION DEPOSIT OF ISSUER ENCLOSED: $ 1 '1T 3YO. O O
Entitlement allocations not retained by a letter of intent sub-
mitted to the Department by September 1, will be transfered to the
Competitive Pool for reallocation.
Allocations retained may be cancelled by the issuer, until
October 31, by submitting a letter to the Department, by that date,
stating its cancellation of the allocation or a portion of it. The
1% application deposit relating to the portion cancelled will be
refunded within 30 days.
Direct this letter and future correspondence to:
Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development
Business Financial Management Division
Room 900
150 E. Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55101
ATTN: Richard Nadeau
Date: $ 7-2- s
�j
Authorized S gnature
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 284
Wayzata, Minnesota
Dr. Roger M. Adams, Interim Superintendent
Stan Tikkanen, Executive Director
Finance and Business Services
August 12, 1985
Marketing of Beacon Heights
Based on the Citizens Financial Advisory Council's recommendation and the
appraisal completed by O.J.Janski & Associates, we believe the District should
proceed to sell Beacon Heights. The administration should advertise the
property for sale by sealed bids in legal newspapers and selected industrial
publications. The actual bid opening could occur in late September 1985.
Our marketing strategy would include:
-Using the appraisal of facility for establishing the minimum value
- Developing a market analysis for substantiating the value
- Scheduling meeting with Beacon Heights Task Force to review
process (Scheduled for August 19, 1985, 4:30 PM)
- Placing "For Sale" sign on property (Accomplished August 7, 1985)
- Preparing bid specifications for distribution to prospective
bidders
- Placing notices of bid in appropriate publications
- Securing legal review of purchase agreement
SAT:nly
4:24-6
August 5, 1985
Mr. Stanley A. Tikkanen
Executive Director of Finance & Business Services
Independent School District #284
210 State Highway 101 North
Post Office Box 660
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
RE: MARKET VALUE APPRAISAL OF THE BEACON HEIGHTS SCHOOL
LOCATED AT 12315 HIGHWAY 55, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA
Dear Mr. Tikkanen:
In accordance with your request, we have completed an appraisal of
the above -referenced property for the purpose of estimating the
market value of the fee simple interest. The following written
report presents the findings, analyses, and conclusions of this
appraisal. We have made a complete inspection of the subject
property and have fully identified the real estate in our written
report.
After careful consideration of the many factors influencing value,
it is our opinion that the subject property has a market value, as
of July 26, 1985 as follows:
1. Continued Use of Building as School or Other Use: $400,000.00
2. Subdivision Development Method (Building Razed): $ 70,000.00
We have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject
matter of this appraisal report or the parties involved. The
appraisal is made subject to certain assumptions and limiting
conditions which are listed in this report. It conforms with
accepted professional, ethical and performance standards of the
real estate appraisal practice. If you have any questions or
comments after reading this appraisal, please contact us.
SUMMARY OF SALIENT DATA
Type of Property:
Location:
Land Size:
Zoning:
Date of Inspection:
Property Rights Appraised:
Total 1985 Real Estate Taxes:
Gross Building Size:
Age of Improvements:
Value Estimated By:
Beacon Heights Elementary School
12315 Highway 55, Plymouth, MN
236,555 sq. ft. or 5.43 acres
R-lA, Low Density Single Family
Residential District
July 26 and 29, 1985
Fee Simple Interest
Tax exempt status
31,200 sq. ft.
Built in 1940; additions in
1949 and 1954
Scenario #1: Market Value
of the real estate utilizing
the building improvements as
a school or an alternate use:
Scenario #2: Market Value
of the real estate by the
Subdivision Development Method:
$400,000.00
$ 70,000.00
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 284
Wayzata, Minnesota
PUBLISHED IN THE PLYMOUTH POST
(Official Publication)
NOTICE FOR BIDS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the School Board of INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
NO. 284, Hennepin County, located at Wayzata, Minnesota, that it will receive
sealed bids on sale of surplus property:
BEACON HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY BUILDING AND SITE
until 10 A.M., September , 1985, at the School District Administration
Offices located at 210 North State Highway 101, Wayzata, Minnesota.
Specifications and additional information will be available from the Office of
the Executive Director of Finance and Business Services.
The Board of Education of Independent School District No. 284 of Hennepin
County reserves the right to reject any or all bids and to waive any
informality in bidding.
A CERTIFIED CHECK or acceptable BIDDERS BOND, payable to the Independent
School District No. 284, of Hennepin County, in the amount not less than five
(5) percent of the bid shall be submitted with each bid. Successful bidder
will be required to furnish satisfactory performance bond.
Mary Smith
Clerk
- F 0 R S A L E -
SCHOOL BUILDING AND SITE
KNOWN AS BEACON HEIGHTS
ELEMENTARY
LOCATION
12315 HIGHWAY 55, Plymouth, Minnesota. This is the south side of State
Highway No. 55 between County Road 18 -and Interstate 494, southwest of
Medicine Lake. Served by a 2 -lane frontage road.
ZONING
Property is zoned R I A, low density single family residential district.
BUILDING
31,200 square feet, two story brick building. Construction dates from
1940, 1949 and 1959.
LAND
5.43 acres gently rolling with two slopes. City sewer and water system is
available. Minnegasco service is available.
PRICE
$ minimum.
TERMS
Cash (Alternate: )
For further information contact:
Stan Tikkanen, Executive Director,
Finance and Business Services
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 284
P.O.Box 660
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Telephone: 475-4539
0
May 18, 1984
Shenehon-Goodlund-Taylor, Inc.-�
REAL ESTATE ANALYSTS
612/544-9860 • 2525 NEVADA AVE. N., SUITE 103, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55427
Mr. Frank Winzenberg
Independent School District 284
P.O. Boz 660
310 North State Highway 101
Wayzata, Minnesota 55319
RE: MARKET VALUE APPRAISAL OF 210 NORTH STATE HIGHWAY 101,
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, WAYZATA DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION OFFICES
PLUS 2.3 ACRES--OF-LAND
Dear Mr. Winzenberg:
We have completed an appraisal of the above captioned property as you
requested. The attached report presents the findings, analyses and
conclusions of this appraisal and fully identifies the property.
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the most probable market
value of the fee simple interest in this property. The appraisal is made
subject to certain assumptions and limiting conditions which are listed
in this report.
In our opinion, the subject property had a most probable market value on
May 2, 1984 of:
As a Commercial Office Building 1520,000
As a Municipal Office Building $305,000
050,000
Day Care Center 1335,000
Church Sponsored Use 1300,000
The value conclusion of this report is our estimate based on accepted
real estate appraisal practice. If you have any questions or comments
after reading the appraisal report, please contact our firm.
Very truly yours,
HOF-GOODL R,- 'INC*
De Taylor, MAi, SRPA
GERALD R. GOODLUND • DENNIS E TAYLOR
SUMMARY OF PERTINENT DATA
^
Z
`�"'
Type of Property and Description:
Office building
Address:
210 Forth State Highway 101,
Plymouth, Minnesota
Owner/Client:
Wayzata Public Schools
x
Valuation Date:
May 2, 1984
Site Size:
2.3 acres, or 101,660 square
feet
Zoning:
Single Family Residential
Building Size:
8,691.5 square feet
--Building Age: -
1969
Value Estimated By:
Cost Approach:
*540,000
Income Approach:
$545,000
Market Approach:
i
*520,000
Reconciled Value Estimate:
Land Value:
$173,000
Building Value: :.-
*347,000
Total Value:
*520,000*
* This estimate represents the value of the office if sold as a
commercial office building.
Shenehon-Goodlund-Taylor, Inc.
Page 1 -
May 16, 1984
_-7---
Shenehon-Goodlund-Taylor, Inc.
REAL ESTATE ANALYSTS
612/544-9860 • 2525 NEVADA AVE. N., SUITE 103, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55427
Mr. Frank Winzenberg
Independent School District 284
P.O.- Boz 660
210 North Highway 101
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
RE: MARKET VALUE APPRAISAL OF _15 ACRES ZONED R1A LOCATED -TO THE
EAST OF 210 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, WAYZATA, MINNESOTA
Dear Mr. Winzenberg:
We have completed an appraisal of the above captioned property as you
requested. The attached report presents the findings, analyses and
conclusions of this appraisal and fully identifies the property.
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the most probable market
value of the fee simple interest in this property. The appraisal is made
subject to certain assumptions and limiting conditions which are listed
in this report.
In our opinion, the subject property had a most probable market value on
May 2, 1984 of:
Zoned As R1A (Current Zoning) $200,000
Zoned For Townhouses (Re -zoned 3 Units Per Acre) $120,000
The value conclusion of this report is our estimate based on accepted
real estate appraisal practice. If you have any questions or comments
after reading the appraisal report, please contact our firm.
Very truly yours,
/LL
N -G00 -TA R, INC.
E. Taylor, MAI, SR.PA
GERALD R. GOODLUND • DENNIS E TAYLOR
SUMMARY OF PERTINENT DATA —t a
Type of Property and Description: 15 acres of undeveloped land
Address: To the east of 210 North Highway
101, Wayzata, Minnesota
Owner/Client: Wayzata School District 284
Valuation Date: May 2, 1984
Site Size: 15 acres (Appraiser's Estimate)
Zoning: R1A - Single Family Detached
Value Estimated By:
Market Approach: Single Family Residential Detached
Acknowledgements:
Housing (2 Units Per Acre) - *200,000
Townhouse Attached Housing (3 Ur -its
Per Acre) - 3120,000
Sara L. McConn - Community
Development Coordinator City of
Plymouth; Al Cottingham - Zoning
Department City of Plymouth; Mike
}. Carroll - Tax Department City of
Plymouth
Shenehon-Goodlund-Taylor, Inc.
ieC-3L!U E. n-linnesote
MEMORANDUM August 21, 1985
TO: Cities in the Third Congressional District
FROM: Mary Anderson, Mayor, Golden Valley
Co -Chair, Task Force on Federal Tax Reform
Attached please find a copy of a letter to Congressman Frenzel
prepared for signature by the mayors (or their representatives) of
cities in the Tnird Congressional District. The subject of the
letter is the proposed tax reform legislation to be considered by
Congress after the current recess (which ends September 4).
I urge and encourage the mayor of every city in the district to sign
a copy of the letter which is to be made available for that purpose
by designating a city in your area as one at which the official
signature sheet will be available until Tuesday, August 28, when it
will be returned to the LMC office. The letter will be hand delivered
to Congressman Frenzel before his departure for Washington at the end
of August.
of August. The letter will be available for signatures until Tuesday,
A list of cities that have agreed to coordinate the signing of the
letter is enclosed. Please contact the administrator or clerk to
arrange to sign the signature page available with that copy of the
letter. Tne letter and the attached signatures will be mailed back
to LMC next week.
in the letter, deductibility of state and local taxes and the tax -
This is a most urgent request. The matters discussed in the letter,
deductibility and tax-exempt status of municipal bonds, are vital to
the well being and development of local communities. It is imperative
that Congressman Frenzel understand the importance of these concerns
among cities in the Third Congressional District. That is why we are
going to the additional work of asking you to personally sign the
letter to be delivered to him.
We would have preferred to arrange a meeting with Congressman Frenzel
in the district to talk about these concerns while he is away from
Washington. Unfortunately, he is on a trade delegation trip and may
not be back long enough for us to get that opportunity prior to the
reconvening of Congress.
Also enclosed please find a copy of information on the deductibility
of state and local taxes and restrictions on the tax-exempt status of
municipal bonds. This will give you some background on the status of
a,Vr the
� 1�snpalen�r���s���a�1rU�er(6x)-�C�O
- over -
damaging impact these tax proposals will have for cities in Minnesota.
I also encourage your city to send an individual letter concerning
this matter to Congressman Frenzel. Be as specific as possible about
the effects of these proposals on your city, especially with regard to
the potential loss of state -local tax deductibility and elimination of
the tax-exempt status of many municipal bonds.
Congressman Frenzel has made arrangements to meet with city officials
on September 24. At that time, however, it is felt that many of the
decisions about tax reform legislation will have already been made.
Thank you for your efforts in this matter. If you have further
questions about these issues or about the letter, please contact
Ann Higgins at the LMC office.
attachments
enclosure
T
BACKGROUND PAPER ON FEDERAL TAX REFORM PROPOSALS
The National League of Cities has issued a number of articles
and position papers on proposed federal tax reforms affecting cities.
This paper will summarize key points of those presentations and
present information specific to Minnesota cities. The objective of
this discussion will be the formation of viewpoints leading to the
development of LMC policy on tax reform issues.
Tax reform was introduced as a goal of the Reagan Administration
early last year, but its formal and official presentation of policy
objectives and legislative proposals is only now reaching a formative
point at which Congress now has the opportunity to examine and
deliberate specific tax code changes and restructuring of the federal
tax system (and along with it, a reordering of intergovernmental
fiscal relations).
Key tax reform proposals most seriously affecting cities are
those dealing with deductibility of state and local taxes; tax-exempt
financing; mortgage interest deductions; as well as changes in
individual and corporate income tax rates and relative tax burdens.
Tax reform threatens two growth areas of local revenues: state aids
and tax-exempt bonds.
Deductibility of State and Local Taxes
Both NLC and the League of Minnesota Cities currently support the
continuation of the deduction for state and local taxes on federal
income tax returns. Four major tax revenues sources for local
government are currently eligible: individual income, retail sales,
real estate, and personal property. (Other state and local taxes such
as motor vehicle license fees and excise taxes have been eliminated.)
It is clear that state aid to cities is among the few local
sources of revenue that has been increasing in recent years and
that state tax revenues provide a subtantial and growing segment of
funds to aid in the plans presented by the Reagan Admininistration to
simplify and restructure the federal tax system for individuals and
business. In exchange for reducing the number of federal income tax
brackets and permitting some to enjoy a lower rate of federal income
tax liability in the future, the Reagan Administration, in Treasury II,
has proposed to use the $32 billion available from this source in 1985
to reduce marginal tax rates, benefitting taxpayers but failing to
compensate state and local government which will face the impact of
the loss of the value of deductibility on the local level.
Because NLC and the League are concerned about maintaining equity
and the revenue -raising ability of state and local government, support
for deductibility is a top priority. Key to that position is the
recognition that in our intergovernmental fiscal relations, a central
long-standing principal has prevailed, namely that individuals should
not be taxed on a tax. Taxes, as an obligation of citizens to support
their government, are to be derived from and directly relate to income
and an ability to pay. Since individuals are obligated to make state
and local tax payments, those obligations are not strictly a matter of
personal choice but rather the outcome of local decisions about needs
and the level of services required in each municipality and state.
In Minnesota, the average value of state -local deductibility is
$871.58, for 42 percent of Minnesota taxpayers who itemize (using 1982
figures). That places Minnesotans in the unenviable position of
anticipating greater potential for increased tax burdens than
taxpayers in 34 other states as well as for increased fiscal
disparities among cities and states. (Minnesota ranked 16th in the
distribution of benefits of deductibility, according to a report
issued by the National League of Cities, The Deductibility of State
and Local Taxes, by Dr. Robert Dilger, Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy, March, 1985.)
The value of deductibility in Minnesota totals over $600 million
(using 1982 figures). The average value on a per capita basis for
Minnesota ias $150.31, using those same figures. Minnesota ranks
8th in the per capita dollar value of deductibility among the 50
states. Among states, the uneven impact of the elimination of
deductibility would clearly place Minnesota as a revenue loser in
a tax reform program that is "revenue neutral."
Deductibility's dollar value to taxpayers in the metro area
was 17 percent more than for the state as a whole (average metro
area dollar value of $181, compared with $150). The disparity
between the metro area and a city such as Duluth is more marked.
The dollar value to Duluth area taxpayers of deductibility was
$129, using 1982 IRS figures.
Another important point to keep in mind is the fact that the same
factors that determine the value of deductibility to itemizers of a
particular city are the same ones that determine its value to those of
a specific state: the amont of eligible state and local taxes to be
deducted and their federal marginal tax rates. Therefore, cities with
both above average per capita income levels and combined state and
local tax burdens receive a larger share of the value of deductibility
that cities with relatively low per capita income levels and tax
burdens.
To illustrate this point rather dramatically, studies done for
the National League of Cities point out that when comparing the
distribution of deductibility's value among cities on a per capita
basis (discounting the influence of extremely wealthy taxpayers
within a particular city), St. Paul ranks #1 among 25 cities
selected to be studied with regard to the impact of deductibility.
The study suggests that this results from the fact that many local
taxpayers in the St. Paul metro area (which included Eagan and
Mendota Heights in the calculation) are in the middle income brackets
while Los Angeles, for instance, which ranked #3 on the dollar value
per itemized return and #18 on a per capita basis, has some very
wealthy itemizers and a very large number of nonitemizers.
The frustration expressed over this proposal stems, in large
measure, from the realization that state and local government are
being required to provide services and functions previously
carried out at the federal level while receiving significantly fewer
federal dollars to aid in that effort. Neither Minnesota taxpayers
nor state or local government are compensated for the adverse impact
on the capacity of state and local government to raise revenues.
While state aid to cities is estimated to have increased by 10
percent since 1984; federal aid has declined to only 5.7 percent of
city revenues nationally, according to the Joint Economic Committee
of Congress (compared with 11 percent in 1979)•
A final perspective on this issue is the fact that since larger
cities tend to raise a greater proportion of revenue from non -eligible
sources (for deductibility) and from businesses (also non -eligible)
than do smaller cities, the per capita cost to those smaller cities of
the loss or reduction of deductibility will actually be greater.
A truly revenue neutral tax reform plan would include some form
of compensation to state and local government as well as to individual
taxpayers.
Restrictions on the Use of Tax -Exempt Financin
Provisions of tax reform legislation would eliminate as much as
80 percent of all municipal bonds issued by state and local government,
if Congress adopts restrictions on "private purpose" bonds. Estimates
of revenue gains to the Treasury are still under debate while Congress
heads toward consideration of proposals that could preclude cities
from issuing bonds, including those now considered general obligation
and traditional revenue bonds.
Some private analysis indicates that gains to the Treasury from
elimination of private purpose municipal bonds would total $2 billion
between 1986-90. Treasury figures show revenues of $13 billion. The
problem with projections is, of course, the assumptions on which they
are based. The U.S. Treasury, for instance, assumed that the entire
volume of tax-exempt bonds would be issued as fully taxable and that
interest rates and the allocation of capital would remain unchanged.
Estimates of increased borrowing costs to cities project 30%
increases, with additional borrowing costs of up to $39 billion for
state and local government, based on 1984 volumes projected to 1990.
Specific provisions under consideration include:
1. Interest on obligations issued by a state or local government
would be taxable if more than 1 percent of the proceeds were used
directly or indirectly by any person other than a state or local
government;
2. Issuers of all tax-exempt bonds would be required to rebate to the
U.S. Treasury all arbitrage on acquired non -purpose obligations
and advance refundings would be prohibited for all tax-exempt
bonds unless the proceeds are used immediately to retire the prior
bond issue.
3. Early issuance of bonds for a project would be prohibited.
Issuers would be required to spend a significant part of the bond
proceeds within one month and spend all bond proceeds within 3
years.
4. Extension of IDB reporting requirements for all tax-exempt bonds.
5. Deductibility of carrying costs for bank purchases of municipal
bonds would be eliminated.
6. Reduction of maximum individual federal tax rates to 35 percent.
7. Modification of accelerated depreciation.
The first proposal would effectively eliminate tax exemption for
multi -family and single family housing bonds; student loan bonds;
small issue IDBs; tax increment financing; pollution control bonds an-
not-for-profit hospital and education bonds. Most bonds issued for
sewer and waste disposal facilities; local electric and gas service;
air and water pollution control facilities; water supply and hydro-
electric generating facilities; airports; docks and wharves; mass
transit facilities; convention and trade show facilities; sports
arenas; and most economic development projects would no longer be
tax-exempt.
Further, the one percent limitation would potentially affect
G.O. bonds and traditional revenue bonds in which some private sector
participation or benefit is involved. Changes proposed would
substantially increase the cost at which state and local government
finance capital improvements and increase the cost of borrowing
by $41 billion by 1990, according to a study by Coopers and Lybrand.
Cash flow obstacles and impairment of the ability of issuers to
float bonds at optimum times to minimize interest rates would be
the result of other proposals listed above.
Elimination of deductibility of interest paid to purchase or
carry tax-exempt obligations could eliminate virtually all bank
purchases of municipal bonds.
Reduction of the maximum individual tax rate would make tax-
exempt bonds less attractive in comparison with taxable rates; and
changes in corporate tax rates and the impact on accelerated
depreciation could change the market and interest in tax-exempt issues.
The Government Finance Research Center prepared a study for
Congress that demonstrated that with regard to city economic
development activities, IDBs are the most popular form of incentive
used to strength the local tax base. Between 1981-83, 64 percent of
cities used IDBs (twice as many as using property tax abatements or
other assistance).
Another critical area is that of low-cost rental housing.
Treasury proposals could eliminate nearly all tax incentives for
such investment and construction and could result in average rent
increases of 25-30 percent (that, from a HUD staff report to
Secretary Peirce and from studies done by Harvard and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
What is needed is : zareful examination of the loss of
substantial numbers of economic development tools, credits, and other
tax benefits (including historic and rehabilitation tax credits);
changes in accelerated depreciation; capital gains; and the loss of
tax-exempt financing before tax reform proposals are enacted.
The loss to Minnesota of rental housing bonds, based on 1984
volume, would total $123 million ($78,500,000 of which would be
lost in the Third Congressional District). These are issued by
the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.
Since 1980, the number of municipal housing bond programs for
multi -family rental developments has produced the following results
in the Third District:
Total Value of Projects Total Number of Projects Number of Units
$447,800,000 53 9,442
Cities that have used such tax-exempt financing for housing are:
Apple Valley Eden Prairie Minnetonka
Bloomington Edina New Hope
Burnsville Hopkins Plymouth
Eagan Mendota Heights St. Louis Park
In 1985 alone, 5400 units are being constructed in the Third District,
at a value of $273 million.
With respect to mortgage assistance financing provided by N,HFA
for individual housing units in the Third District, $137.4 million
in such financing has been made available for 5200 units. In the
homeownership program another $52 million in financing has aided
residents to obtain mortgages for 1100 units. And finally, financing
under the MHFA Home Improvement Program, $6.9 million in financing
has been provided for nearly 1600 units.
Total housing investment, using tax-exempt bonds that would be
eliminated under Treasury II proposals, for all programs listed above
is $722.7 million, since 1980, providing financing for 19,856 units
of low cost rental, multi -family and single family housing in the
Third Congressional District.
Policy Recommendations
In view of the adverse impact of the elimination or restriction
of deductibility of state and local taxes on the fiscal capacity of
local government, LMC should strongly support continuation of
deductibility in order to provide recognition and fair treatment of
the diverse needs of local government and to permit cities to raise
local revenues to meet needs determined by local elected officials.
Neither should the federal government look to further restricting
cities' ability to use tax-exempt financing for maintaining or
improving infrastructure, engaging in needed economic development
activities or providing needed services to residents and businesses.
Members of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation are strongly
urged to resist all efforts to weaken the intergovernmental fiscal
relationship that now permits local officials and citizens to make the
determination of levels of service and the levying of local taxes to
pay for those in a manner that encourages the use of progressive tax
structures and accountability to those directly affected by such
policies.
1. Support continuation of the deductibility of state and local taxE3.
2. Support current authority for the use of tax-exempt financing for
traditional revenue and G.O. bonds as well as for economic
development activities and housing.
POLICY ALTERNATIVES TO THE ELIMINATION 0. STATE -LOCAL
DEDUCTIBILITY
There are indications that sufficient support exists for maintaining
deductibility in some restricted form. If that is the case, cities
and LMC need to assess the alternatives available and determine
whether to support some limitation on the current deductibility of
state income, sales, real estate and personal property taxes.
Key proposals already under consideration (in addition to Treasury
II) are:
1. Permit federal tax
itemizers
fromtthededuct
ir deductible state lopalcent
of adjusted gross income
taxes.
The analysis produced for NLC stated that deductibility would be
reduced invalue by 15 percent as a result of such a restriction
and would permit a reduction of federal marginal income tax rates
of about 1 percent.
Of benefit to Minnesota is the fact that its impact on cities is
fairly evenly divided, with the current share of benefits left
relatively unchanged.
2. The Bradley-Gephart proposal that would limit a percentage (14.5)
of all currently eligible deductions, reducing deductibility[s
value by 15.6 percent and reducing marginal tax rates by about
1 percent.
haretofibenefits mpact uamong states andld be fairly ncaties woulderemzups,
and the s
in
essentially unchanged.
3. Other proposals would either repeal deductibility of real estate
and personal property taxes; repeal deductibilitreal Of salesestatataxes
personal property; retain deductibility of only
(would particularly damage Minnesota); limit all deductions to a
maximum of 6.5 percent of adjusted gross income, impacting
wealthy itemizers and states, such as Minnesota, with progressive
tax systems.
If our goal is to maintain equity among taxpayers - that being the
taxation of only disposable income - deductibility should be retained.
If progressivity is important in the federal tax system, then a
ceiling or limit on deductibility[s value to the wealthiest should be
considered. Another alternative with a similar philosophic base
is the replacement of deductibility with a tax credit allowing all
taxpayers to benefit but limiting its availability.
On the other hand, if our 9061 is maintaining deductibility's value
to state and local government, retention of the current system is
imperative
pending program directed atr at the very sstatesandplocalent by a direct
government.
spending p g
THIRD DISTRICT CITIES - ROUTING PATTERN AND SCHEDULE
Minnetonka
Plymouth
Medicine Lake
Hopkins
St. Louis Park
Crystal
New Hope
Edina
Golden Valley
Chaska
Carver
Chanhassen
Eden Prairie
Shakopee
Savage
Prior Lake
Jordan
Waconia
Cologne
Hamburg
Young America
Norwood
New Germany
Mayer
Watertown
*tentative - to oe arranged
Burnsville
Apple Valley
Eagan
Rosemount
Bloomington
Lakeville
Coates
Hastings
Northfield
Inver Grove Heights
S. St. Paul
Vermillion
New Trier
Randolph
August 28, 1985
The Honorable William Frenzel
8120 Penn Avenue South, Suite 445
Bloomington, MN 55431
Dear Representative Frenzel:
611
CITY OF
PUMOUTR
As elected officials serving cities in the Third Congressional District, we strongly
urge your continued support for the deductibility of state and local taxes. Serious
concern over efforts to eliminate deductibility causes us to urgently request you to
resist such proposals offered as a key feature of federal tax reform. We also urge
you to oppose elimination of the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds that threatens
to reduce cities' ability to finance traditional services and improvements.
Third District cities are also aware of and apprehensive about proposals to further
restrict the authority to use industrial development bonds. The paramount concern
shared by cities is to urge policy that avoids any increase in competition among
cities and states. Any policy should be uniform in its affects on cities.
Our prime and immediate concern is to urge the retention of state - local tax
deductibility. Minnesota cities, and especially those in the Third Congressional
District, will be hurt by its elimination. The average value of deductibility for
Minnesota taxpayers is $871.58 (1982 IRS figures). State taxpayers will lose over
$600 million per year from such a fundamental change in federal tax policy. For
cities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, the impact of its elimination is
especially severe. Above average per capita income and service levels for metro
area cities means that the dollar value of deductibility is actually greater than
for the state as a whole.
City officials from the Third Congressional District have already contacted Diane
Oberhelman, Tax Legislative Assistant in your office, to indicate our interest in
working with you to assist your efforts to press our concerns before the House Ways
and Means Committee. Please keep us informed of committee deliberations on these
important issues. It is imperative that Congress work with cities on matters that
so directly affect the conduct of government and the future of intergovernmental
fiscal relations.
Sincerely,
er
r
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 14, 1985
The regular Meeting of the Plymouth planning Commission was
called to order at 7:30 P.11.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Steigerwald, Commissioners
Wire, Stulberg, Plufka, Mellen and
Pauha
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Magnus
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Coordinator
Sara McConn
City Engineer Sherm Goldberg
Community Development Secretary
Grace 1%ineman
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Wire requested that No. 5-A, RPUD Final Plan/
Plat and Site Plan Re -affirmation be removed from the
Consent. Agenda.
MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner *MINUTES - DULY 24,
Wire to recommend approval for the July 24, 1935 Planning 1985
Commission Minutes. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the item and requested an CARLSON PROPERTIES
overview of the Planning Staff Report from Coordinator FINAL PLAT AND
McConn. Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mr. Dale Kennedy CONDITIONAL USE
representing Carlson Companies. Mr. Kennedy stated he would PERMIT FOR CARLSON
add no other information and was available to answer CENTER 6TH ADDITION
questions. (85031)
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. James P. Bremer, 302-B Zinnia Lane, inquired about the
variance and the net square footage of the lots without
easement areas. Chairman Steigerwald confirmed he is
requesting the square footage of each lot. Commissioner
Stulberg noted that the lots meet or exceed the Ordinance
standards and that the single family lots are 15,000 sq.
ft., and the duplex lots are 18,500 sq. ft.
-174-
Page 175
Planninq Commission tl.inutes
Auqust 14, 1965
Mr. Bremer asked the size of the largest lot to the size of
the smallest lot. Coordinator McConn responded that. the
largest is 33,443 sq. ft., and the smallest is 15,000 sq.
ft.; and, the gross square footage in the R -1A District is
18,500 sq. ft. She explained that the Ordinance minimum re-
quirements include the standard utility and drainage
easements.
James Sentman, 13510 County Road 15, stated he is represent-
ing Ms. Marion Bohnsack and other neighbors who object be-
cause of the contiguous land that will include industrial
development. He stated the Planning Commission should re-
view the total development proposal because of its impact on
the neighbors. He stated this development will "close the
loop" to the existing neighborhood and they will be bounded
by industrial development . It is the neighborhood's per-
ception that the City is not taking this into consideration.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired how the neighborhood would
see these concerns resolved. Mr. Sentman stated the neigh-
bors have not received adequate notice, especially regarding
the streets under construction. He commented that recently
they have not received their mail or newspapers. He stated
they also have concerns about the increased density with
this proposal.
Chairman Steigerwald explained that the lot sizes in the R-2
(low density multiple residence) District are smaller than
those in the R -1A District; that the LA -2 guiding allows the
15,000 sq. ft. lots as stated in the Planning Report and by
Coordinator McConn.
Mr. Sentman stated that this neighborhood had been zoned for
1/2 acre lots and that the density for this proposal would
be much higher than that allowed in the original neighbor-
hood. He stated the proposal is too dense. Chairman
Steigerwald explained that the City, as standard policy, re-
quires buffering and transition between the residential and
commercial/industrial areas and this will be accomplished at
the time of commercial/industrial development.
Mr. Sentman reiterated that the density is too high and the
neighbors will suffer from property de -valuation. He in-
quired if the neighbors will be allowed to review the addi-
tions in the industrial area. Coordinator McConn stated
that with a Final Plat application there is no requirement
for a Public Hearing and if the application is in order, it
will go directly to City Council for final Action. She
stated that this proposal has come before the Planning Com-
mission because it requires a Conditional Use Permit to
allow the development of the R-2 zoned property with resi-
dential land uses, therefore, public notice was required.
Also, because the proposal added more land and two units.
e
Page 176
Pianninq Commission Minutes
Auqust 14, 1955
t1r. Sentman stated they are concerned because this is a
change from the original plans, and that the neighborhood
had been assured they would be able to attend and hear dis-
cussion on all the development proposals for Carlson
Center. Chairman Steigerwald inquired who made this state-
ment and Mr. Sentmen stated the City Council had given them
this assurance. Chairman Steigerwald suggested that Mr.
Sentman speak with the Council about these concerns. Co-
ordinator McConn invited Mr. Sentman to call the City
periodically to check on development proposals and she
explained that all plans being reviewed are of public record
and available for review. She noted that the City Council
meetinqs are public meetings, but the required public hear-
ings are held at the Planning Commission level.
Mr. Sentman stated his concern regarding the "blanket
approval" for the 23 lots and that the density is too high.
He stated thev are also concerned about the possibility of
low-income housinq for this area. He stated that he is con-
cerned about the setbacks being changed from 50 ft. to 30
ft. Chairman Steigerwald explained the setbacks required in
the R-2 Zoninq_ District. Mr. Sentman reiterated that the
density should be reduced by 5 to 6 units. He commented on
the increase of school age children, and increased traffic
in the area. He stated they are especially concerned about
safety of public access to the parks and they have not re-
ceived a clear response on askinq the City to put in traffic
lights. He also noted the neighborhood will not have a left
turn out of their area and this affects safe access to I-494
and Highway 55. He is concerned about the school bus routes
(especially County Road 15) and the problems that will arise
from this development. He inquired about the possibility
that addresses may be changed along County Road 15 which
will become 3rd Avenue North; and, which would beexpensive
for the homeowners. Coordinator McConn stated that as far
as it is known now, County Road 15 will remain as addressed
and that 3rd Avenue North is within the Carlson development.
Mr. Sentman asked for assurance that there would be berming
and transition from the residential to the planned indus-
trial area.
Fred Moore responded that the intersection Mr. Sentman dis-
cussed may have signals installed in the future, however,
traffic volumes do not show that it is warranted at this
time. The road will carry residential traffic in the
future. He stated the City, County, and State would need to
decide on whether traffic lights would be warranted in
accordance with established standards. He stated that the
6th Avenue North intersection has conduits, but signals will
not be installed at this time. He noted that this roadway
will connect for access to I-494 in the future. Mr. Moore
7=i
Page 177
Planning Commission Minutes
August 141 1955
further explained that the right -in, right -out turn from
this neighborhood was a compromise with the neighborhood as
they did not want more traffic in front of their houses. He
noted that County Road 15 will he a residential street and
the City Council will name the street, however, it is not
known at this time what name will be selected.
Chairman Steigerwald stated that he had no recollection that
the neighbors had major concerns at the time this develop-
ment was initially reviewed. Mr. Sentman stated they did
not perceive that the density would increase this much.
Mr. Sentman inquired about storm drainage and utilities.
Coordinator McConn confirmed there would be standard utility
easements, and Director Moore noted that they will coneect
with the storm sewer previously constructed at Highway 61
and Xenium Lane. 11r. Sentman inquired about the ponding.
Director Moore noted the pond is required for the industrial
area to the south.
David Kelley, 13421 County Road 15, stated he wants assur-
ance there will be adequate road screening and that cyclone
fence will not be used on the berms. He stated his home is
next to the church, and the existing residential area will
be impacted by the semi -truck traffic from the Carlson
Center. Mr. Kelley inquired about the roadway plans.
Chairman Steigerwald advised Mr. Kelley that plans for this
entire area are available for review at City Center.
Earl Hebeisen, 107 Vinewood Lane North, inquired about 1st
Avenue which is a dead-end at the corner of the proposed
development, and whether the street would be retained as a
dead-end street. Director Moore confirmed the street would
not change, that Cheshire Lane would be the new street.
Gordon Nelson, 408 Berkshire Lane North, stated he has lived
in his home since 1948, that he moved there to get away from
the City. He stated he does not need the improvements being
constructed and cannot afford the tax increase. Chairman
Steigerwald explained that Mr. Nelson should discuss this
matter with the City Council. Mr. Nelson stated that the
Commission does the planning, and he wants the record to
show that he wants "relief from this." Mr. Nelson was
especially concered about the inconvenience of access to his
home durinq road construction. He does not want "the city
brought to him"; and, feels that the developer should buy
him out.
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing.
Paae 1i`-
Plannino Commission Hinuttfs
Auqust 14, 19b5
MOTIOH by Commissioner Stulherg, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Plufka to recommend approval for the Final Plat and Con-
ditional Use Permit for "Carlson Center 6th Addition" sub-
ject to the conditions in the August 5, 1985 Planning Staff
Report.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired about the berming for the east
side of the project. Coordinator McConn stated there are no
requirements for duplexes and detached housing, therefore
there are no development plans for Lot 12. Director Moore
stated that with road construction, berming will be instal-
led, however, fencing is not included in the construction
plans.
Roll Call Vote. 6 ,Ayes. MOTIOIJ carried.
Chairman Steigerwald noted this proposal is tentatively
scheduled for the City Council meeting of August 26th, and
that those who are interested should contact the City for
confirmation of this date.
Commissioner Wire stated those who have concerns at this
time with access to their homes during road construction
should contact the City. Director Moore explained that
heavy rains had caused some problems, and during construc-
tion 100% access cannot be maintained; however, the City
will try to lessen the inconvenience as much as possible.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the next item and requested
an overview of the August 6, 1985 Planning Staff Report by
Coordinator McConn.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired if there had been any com-
plaints from the neighbors reqarding the truck traffic. Co-
ordinator McConn answered there had been none. Chairman
Steigerwald inquired about the "dead storage". Coordinator
McConn explained this would be an area for semi -trailers
that would be moved in and out on a less frequent basis,
such as that proposal reviewed by the Commission for
C.O.M.B. Company.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired about the Permit being issued
to land in the FRD Zoning District. Coordinator McConn
explained that the Conditional Use Permit is reviewed on an
annual basis, if there are complaints generated, or if the
use changes or is modified without City approval, the Permit
can be reviewed by Commission and Council for consideration
of revocation. She further explained that additional re-
quirements and restrictions can be added to the conditions
of approval.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
ALBER CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC.
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND VARIANCES
(85034)
Page 179
Planninq Commission Minutes
August 14, 1965
Commissioner Plufka inquired if the wordino for the Resolu-
tion should not contain a comment that when urban develop-
ment occurs this use may be inappropriate. Coordinator
McConn responded that this could be added and explained that
a Conditional Use Permit must be renewed annually for
compliance.
Chairman Steigerwald asked about the use of the property
without an approved Permit. Mr. Alber stated that the City
had told him he could move into the building, but no equip-
ment was to be stored there until the Permit was approved.
However, there were problems of litigation with another
party which made it necessary for him to move his equipment
from another site.
Commissioner 'lire inquired as to the types of vehicles on
the site. Mr. Alber stated he has four tandem/dump trucks;
three semi -transports; and, two belly/dump trucks. Commis-
sioner Hire inquired if they were ferried or loaded; Mr.
Alber stated they are ferried and the transport brings the
equipment back to the yard. Commissioner Wire inquired
about the hours of operation and if there would be problems
with the 6:00 A.M. to S:15 P.M. Commissioner Wire inquired
about the truck route. Mr. Alber stated they go south on
West Medicine Lake Drive at County Road 9. Commissioner
hire stated his concern about the truck traffic combined
with the rush hour traffic in this area. He inquired about
the traffic lights for this intersection. Engineer Goldberg
stated the construction signs are out and it will be 30 to
60 days for installation of the traffic lights.
Mr. Alber stated they shut down their operations from
Thanksgiving to April and would have only four people in the
building during the winter months.
Commissioner Wire inquired if they could route the trucks to
the north. Engineer Goldberg stated that this is a gravel
road and there is less direct access to I-494.
Commissioner Plufka inquired about the paving. Mr. Alber
stated that the parking area for visitors is paved. Co-
ordinator McConn inquired if his employees use this area for
parking. Mr. Alber stated his employees are parking on the
unpaved areas. Coordinator McConn reminded Mr. Alber that
all automobiles are to be parked on the paved surface and
only trucks and equipment are to be stored on the unpaved
area.
Page 1SO
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1955
Commissioner lkire inquired about the empty weight of the
vehicles. Mr. Alber stated the tandems are 19,000 to
21,000 lbs. Engineer Goldberg and Coordinator McConn noted
that heavier equipment was used by Aglite. Commissioner
Plufka inquired if West Medicine Lake Drive can support this
weight. Engineer Goldberg stated early spring could cause
some problems, but it would support truck traffic the rest
of the year.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired if Mr. Alber understands all
the conditions of approval. Mr. Alber stated he does, and
that he would not want to operate the business from this
location when development occurs on this land. He stated
also that he understood the City's concerns of his use when
adjoining land develops.
Commissioner Plufka inquired about specific hours of opera-
tion which should be changed or modified with this approv-
al. Mr. Alber noted that 6:00 A.M. to 7:30 P.M. would be
better hours, as the trucks and equipment could move out be-
fore the rush hour traffic.
Commissioner Stulberg inquired if Mr. Alber contracts for
snow plowing. Mr. Alber stated he does not.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing, as there was
no one present to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was
closed.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner Wire
to recommend approval for the Conditional Use Permit and
Variances for Alber Construction Company, Inc. subject to
the conditions with the following changes; Condition No. 5
that the hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 A.M. to
8:00 P.M.; and Condition No. 6 to read that the Permit shall
be renewed annually to assure compliance; and that it is re-
viewed to assure the use is appropriate in the Zoning
District.
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the next item for review and
requested that Coordinator McConn provide an overview of the
July 29, 1985 Planning Staff Report.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mr. Fran Hagen, Westwood
Planning & Engineering, representing this petition. Mr.
Hagen introduced Mr. Guy Hobman, President of Parklands Dev-
elopment. Mr. Hagen stated their only concern is a question
on park dedication which they will discuss with Parks and
Recreation Director Eric Blank; and, that it can be clari-
MOTION TO -APPROVE
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
PARKLANDS DEVELOPMENT
RPUD PRELIMINARY
PLAN/PLAT, REZONING,
AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR DEERWOOD
ESTATES 5TH ADDITION
(85050)
Page. 1 S 1
Plannino Commission Minutes
August 14, 19, 5
fied in the Development Contract. This relates to the trail
and easement in Outlot A. Coordinator McConn agreed that
this would be resolved b) discussion between staff and the
developer.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired if they could be comfortable
with the 10 ft. setback in their present layout. Mr. Hagen
stated they hate to see the extra 4 ft.; that 10 ft. is not
much better than 6 ft.; but, it won't affect this plat.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing.
Randy Hartman, 4705 Quaker Lane, inquired what will be in
the park and asked if this would be done by the City or the
developer. Coordinator McConn stated the City will develop
the park, and that Mr. Hartman could speak to the Director
Of Parks and Recreation, Eric Blank, about the plans for the
park.
Mr. Hartman inquired about the ponding. Coordinator McConn
stated that the pond is part of the City's Storm Water
Drainage System, and there are Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) protected wetlands which restricts changes
to the pond. Mr. Hartman inquired about maintenance.
Chairman Steigerwald stated the City would maintain the
areas away from the pond, but there would be no maintenance
of the wetland area. Mr. Hartman inquired about access to
the park. Chairman Steigerwald noted the trail would be on
the east, side of the development. Coordinator McConn
pointed out the public and private trail system in this
area.
Patrick Kraft, 4715 Quaker Lane, stated that he wanted to be
assured that this would be dedicated for public park.
The Commission discussed the problems with lot coverage and
reduced setbacks. Al Stobbe stated that Deerwood Estates
had 6 ft. sideyard setbacks and there were no problems. He
stated that the home buyers today want small lots. Mr.
Hagen commented that part of the problem is the requirements
that decks are counted with the dwelling for lot coverage.
Commissioner Plufka and Chairman Steiq_erwald stated that the
problems arise when decks turn into three -season porches.
Chairman Steigerwald noted that this is an ongoing concern
for the Planning Commission and City Council and they are
open to suggestions and discussion.
Mr. Stobbe stated the concern is for the first time home
buyer who cannot afford a large lot and house. Commissioner
Plufka stated that the 20% coverage with 10 ft. sideyard
setbacks is moving toward what the developers want; and, he
Page 1S2
Planning Commission Hinutes
August 14, 1955
noted that recently it seems that the small lots are not re-
tained for first time home buyers, but that developers want
to construct expensive larger homes on the smaller lots. He
further noted that an 1,800 sq. ft. home on a 9,000 sq. ft.
lot promotes problems for the future in providing amenities
the home owner may want to add, such as decks and porches.
There was further discussion regarding housing types and
PUD standards.
Brian Karsjens, 4815 Trenton Lane, stated many of his ques-
tions have been answered, and inquired if one builder has
been selected for this development. Mr. Hagen stated no, it
could be multiple builders.
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Plufka stated his concern with the number of
small lots which could bring about many requests to exceed
the lot coverage.
Commissioner Stulberg stated that the conditions of approval
make it very clear that it is approved for 20% lot coverage.
Mr. Hagen stated that the Development Council had requested
that the developer be allowed to ask for a lot coverage var-
iance at the beginning; however, the Council does agree.
Commissioner Stulberg stated that not one developer/builder
said anything at the Development Council meeting where this
issue was discussed. Mr. Hagen commented that the developer
would have less to say on this issue and only the builder
would know what will go on these lots. Coordinator McConn
agreed that it is part of the problem in that the developer
is no longer the builder; the builder is unaware of the
overall design and minimum standards.
MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner Wire
to recommend approval for the RPUD Preliminary Plan/Plat, NOTION TO APPROVE
Rezoning, and Conditional Use Permit for Deerwood Estates
5th Addition for Parklands Development, subject to the con-
ditions as stated in the July 29, 1985 staff report.
Roll Call Vote. 6 A_ves. MOTION carried.
NOTION CARRIED
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the next item, reading of
the July 29, 1985 Staff Report was waived. SWRMAN-BOOSALIS
COMPANIES
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mr. Nick Boosalis, repre- CONDITIONAL USE
senting the petition. PERMIT AND SITE
PLAN (85056)
Commissioner Wire inquired about the height of the fence.
Coordinator McConn noted it is 8 ft. in height.
--F—
Paae- 153
Piannino Commission 11inutes
Auoust 14, 1955
Commissioner Plufka inquired about retail sales. Mr.
Boosalis explained that "Crown ,Auto" will he going into the
retail and service center.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired about noise from the vacuum
hose units. Mr. Boosalis stated there has never been a
problem. Commissioner Wire commented that he was concerned
as the original proposal did not include these units and the
site is close to a residential area. Mr. Boosalis stated
they are one horsepower, and will be screened by 8 ft.
Spruce trees and the 8 ft. fence that should provide a good
noise buffer. Commissioner Wire stated that if there are
complaints the petitioner may be required to remove the
vacuum units. Mr. Boosalis stated he understands this.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing, as there was
no one present to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was
closed.
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO APPROVE
Pauba to recommend approval for the Conditional Use Permit
and Site Plan for '%ash-lle-Car-k1ash" for Sherman-Boosalis
Companies, subject to the conditions as stated in the Julv
29, 1985 staff report.
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the next item, reading of
the July 30, 1965 staff report was waived.
Dave Broesder, KKE Architects, representinq the petitioner
introduced Mr. George Jackson of Aequitron Medical. Mr.
Broesder stated they would answer any questions from the
Commission, and they would like to discuss the signage pro-
posal. Mr. Broesder reviewed their signage proposal stating
that because this will be the Aequitron corporate head-
quarters, they want to have good identification for their
facility.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired about the message on the sign
facing County Road 6. Mr. Broesder stated it would be the
corporate name on two sides. Mr. Broesder added that it is
their opinion they need to identify the building to County
Road 6 and I-494. Commissioner Plufka inquired if the sign
on Annapolis would be two-sided. Mr. Broeder answered no.
Commissioner Wire inquired if it would be possible to put
the sign on the building. Mr. Broesder stated he wasn't
sure how this could occur. Chairman Steigerwald stated he
cannot see where they are establishing a hardship for the
variance request.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
PRELIMINARY PLAT,
FINAL PLAT, SITE PLAN
AND VARIANCE FOR
AEQUITRON MEDICAL
(85065/85072)
Page 184
Plannino Commission Minutes
August 14, 1945
Mr. Broesder stated it would be a distinct hardship and in-
convenience for clients, prospective employees, and others
to find and drive into the building area without good
identification.
Commissioner Plufka stated that he sees some logic in their
signage proposal, but cannot see why these signs should be
the same size. He stated there are some grounds for the
smaller two-sided sign on Annapolis Lane, and a larger size
sign on County Road 6. He stated this would give good
identification and the variance would not be as onorous as
it would then be under the 96 sq. ft. Ordinance requirement.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired what the street address would
be. Mr. Jackson stated it would be Annapolis Lane. Chair-
man Steigerwald inquired if a pylon or corner sign on
Annapolis and County Road 6, with a small entrance sign
would serve their purpose. Mr. Broesder stated they do not
have a problem downscaling the Annapolis Lane signage, but
they do want to have something larder than 4 sq. ft. Mr.
Jackson explained that they are a small corporation which
started in Plymouth and they would like to grow in Plym-
outh. He stated they looked extensively for sites and that
their corporate identity is very important. He stated he
agrees with the Commission regarding the entrance signage,
but that it is important for them to have signage from I-494
and County Road 6.
After further discussion, Coordinator McConn requested con-
firmation on the size of the signs. It was noted that the
entrance sign would be 12 sq. ft. Mr. Jackson noted it
would be beneficial to have a lighted sign.
Commissioner Mellen inquired about the product manufactured
by Aequitron. Mr. Jackson stated they have designed and
manufacture monitors for S.I.D.S. (Sudden Infant Death Syn-
drome) and other medical equipment.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing, as there was
no one present to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was
closed.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner Wire MOTION TO APPROVE
to recommend approval for the Preliminary Plat, Final Plat,
Site Plan, and Variance for Aequitron Medical, Inc., subject
to the conditions as stated in the July 30, 1985 staff re-
port with the following change to Condition No. 8 of the
recommendation to approve the Site Plan and Variances to
read: Signage shall include the wall sign as proposed; a
two-sided illuminated sign perpendicular to County Road 6
not to exceed 48 ft. and 5 ft. in height; and, a locational
sign on Annapolis not to exceed 12 sq. ft.
=_ 4-
Paoe 155
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1955
After further discussion Chairman Steigerwald made the MOTION TO AMEND
MOTION to AMEND, seconded by Commissioner Pauba to allow
internal illumination for the 12 sq. ft. entrance sign that
will have a two ft. base and will he a maximum 5 ft. in
height (total of 7 ft.).
Roll Call Vote on the Amendment. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried.
Roll Call on Main MOTION as once .Amended. 6 Ayes. MOTION
carried.
NEW BUSINESS
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the item that was removed
from the Consent Agenda by Commissioner Wire. Reading of
the August 1, 1985 Staff Report was waived.
Commissioner Wire inquired about the landscaping on the west
side and stated that the transition and screening to the
building face is not adequate. Rick Sathre, Sathre-
Bergquist, stated that five 20 ft. Colorado Spruce trees
will be provided to soften the building front to the resi-
dential area, and they are committed to providing this
screening. Coordinator McConn verified that this was direc-
tion given at the time of approval for the Preliminary Plat.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT
VOTE ON MAIN MOTION
MOTIONS CARRIED
RPUD FINAL PLAN/PLAT
SITE PLAN APPROVAL
REAFFIRMATION FOR
PARKSIDE AT MEDICINE
LAKE (A-338)
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Plufka to recommend approval for the RPUD Final Plan/Plat
and Site Plan Re -affirmation for Parkside at Medicine Lake,
subject to the conditions as stated in the August 1, 1985
staff report.
VOTE. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the next item. Reading of
the duly 29, 1985 staff report was waived.
Commissioner Wire inquired about the buildable area on Lots
6 and 7. The setbacks were discussed for Lots 6, 7, and 8,
and that Lots 6 and 7 would have a shared drive. Commis-
sioner Wire inquired about soil borings.
Mike Pflaum, Lundgren Brothers Construction Company stated
that he did not realize the yard setback standards in a SUP
were different from the present Ordinance standards. He re-
quested that they be able to establish the rear yard areas
for Lots 6 and 7 so there is no confusion when they apply
for Building Permits.
VOTE -MOTION CARRIED
LUNDGREN BROTHERS
CONSTRUCTION CO.
FINAL PLAT FOR
WINDRIDGE AT BASS
LAKE 6TH ADDITION
(85049)
Page 186
Planning Commission Ftinutes
August 14, 1955
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO APPROVE
Plufka to recommend approval for the Final Plat for "14ind
Ridge at Bass Lake 6th Addition" subject to the conditions
as stated in the staff report changing Condition No. 6 to
read: "No yard setback variances are granted or implied
with the exception of Lot 6 for a 25 ft. rear yard setback
to be measured from the easterly lot line.
Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION Carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Commission discussed upcoming business items and the HRA
Site Plan.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
—r- ---I
1
1
-\IUSELAf: 300; Fernbronk LanL
\fAILIV'G: 3400 Pl-mouth Blvd, F%Tnouth, ,,&"� ii44
August 16,
Mayor David Davenport
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Dear Mayor Davenport
The Plymouth Historical Society is alive and well and
wants to spread the news of its ongoing programs and hopes for
the future.
To document the history of older homes in Plymouth before
the bulldozer hits and memories fade,a project was started nine
months ago by two Board members, Alice Mellen and Bea Jordan. We
have undertaken the task of trying to identify all buildings in
Plymouth built before 1920.
After driving almost every street in Plymouth, talking to
many present homeowners and relatives of original homeowers,
approximately 140 buildings have been identified as being built
within this time frame. Most of the buildings have been
photographed, mapped and dated, and this information placed in
notebooks.
Our dream is to take this data, plus the history of many
of the businesses and churches that have helped Plymouth grow,
and put together a pictorial history of Plymouth, complete with
family histories and such. We would also like to make the public
aware of the history of these buildings, so some that some
thought might be taken if and when changes or demolition are
contemplated.
So far this has been a labor of love, but we do have the
blessings and guidance of Susan Roth of the State Historical
Society.
The next step is to establish criteria for considering a
building historically significant, and determining what the
appropriate action and following steps are to be.
However, we are to the point of needing additional
guidance and support beyond the resources of the Plymouth
Historical Society. We would like an opportunity to share our
findings with city officials to help make them aware of
Plymouth's rich history and to ask for advise on this and other
projects we are considering.
"Our Past Is Present... Help Us Keep It"
The Society would also like an opportunity to discuss
with you the City's plans for names of streets that may revert tc
city control, such as County Road 15. This could be another way
to recapture some of Plymouth's history.
Another item of concern to us is the recent donation of
a buggy to the Society. We accepted it only because one of our
Board members would allow us to store it in his barn -
temporatily. A storage building at the rear of the Old Town Hall
property for the buggy and other artifacts we have accumulated is
our goal. This building might be a soon-to-be demolished barn or
garage from an older property in town. The Society would like to
explore this idea with you further, and see if possibly this
could be a joint venture with the City - both physically and
financially.
We would also like to invite all of the officers and
staff to the Centennial Celebration of Old Town Hall on Sunday
September 15 from 2 to 5. More detailed information will be sent
later, but we do hope you can join us.
Thanks for your past cooperation and support of the
Society in its formative years and undertakings, and we look
forward to meeting with you soon to explore our future.
Sincerly yours,
Bea Jorda , President Alice Mellen, Vice -President
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
DATE: August 16, 1985
MEMO
T0: James G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Richard J. Carlquist, Public Safety Director
SUBJECT: Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Proposali'to Amend Municipal Court Law
Please refer to the attached enclosures for more detail concerning the
subject of this memo.
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners is considering a proposal
to amend the Municipal Court Law in Hennepin County in order to provide
a greater portion of fine revenue generated by violations issued by
the Hennepin County Sheriff to the County Sheriff. This is being
considered to offset the cost of increase Sheriff Patrols on County
highways. Primarily- I am referring to County roads 18 and 62. As of
the date of this memo I am not sure what costs are involved for the
City of Plymouth, i.e. the violations written in our community and sub-
sequently the fines going to us. At first blush I have no problem with
the proposal if the County is willing to also assume the workhouse costs
associated with enforcement on County roads.
However, I am concerned from a larger perspective. This appears to be
an enhancement proposal by the County Commissioners for adding more
personnel to the County payroll. This means more taxes for all of us
in Hennepin County. As it stands right now we and other communities
that abut the primary County roads under consideration, e.g. 18 and 6L
are responsible for responding to calls that fall within our City boundaries.
Most of the calls fall within a high priority and thus response is usually
immediate. I do not believe that this would change if the County Sheriff
were responsible for patrol on these roads. In fact, it would be very
similar to the situation we have with the Minnesota Highway Patrol. We
are usually in the position to respond and arrive first to serious calls
on 494. By the time the Highway Patrol arrives they take over the investi-
gation of the accident and write the report. But, we have usually tended
to the injured, ordered an ambulance, and have tow trucks on the way.
If trade offs were involved whereby the need for Plymouth Officers could
be offset by Deputies who would be supplementing services on our County
roads I would not take great issue with the proposal. Enhancement maybe
necessary for County roads 18 and 62 but I would reserve judgement pending
a review of an overall program that would be proposed. It just may be that
saturation patrol and selective enforcement techniques would save endless
lives and injuries from related traffic accidents. However, at the very
minimum we should be able to review a program with set goals and objectives
= — ,` C,
so that to mai- be able to decide whether the enhancement is realistic and
obtainable or one that is neither cost effective or well thought out.
RJC.tmb
A bill for an act
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 488A.03, subdivision 6, is amended as follows:
Subd. 6. Disposition of fines, fees and other moneys; accounts.
(a) Except as otherwise provided herein and except as otherwise provided
by law, the clerk of court shall pay to the Hennepin county treaurer all fines
and penalties collected by him, all fees collected by him for services of
himself, all sums forfeited to the court as hereinafter provided, and all
other moneys received by the clerk.
(b) The clerk of court shall provide the county treasurer with the name
of the municipality or other subdivision of government where the offense was
committed and the name and official position of the officer who prosecuted the
offense for each fine or penalty, and the total amount of fines or penalties
collected for each such municipality or other subdivision of government or for
the county.
(c) At the beginning of the first day of any month the amount awing to
any municipality or county in the hands of the clerk shall not exceed $5,000.
(d) On or before the last day of each month the county treasurer shall
pay over to the treasurer of each municipality or subdivision of government in
Hennepin county all fines or penalties collected during the previous month for
offenses committed within such municipality or subdivision of government,
except that all such fines and penalties attributable to cases in which the
county attorney had charge of the prosecution and all fines and penalties
attributed to persnos arrested or issued citations by officers ermloved by_ the
Hennepin co my sheriff shall be retained by the county treasurer and credited
to the county general revenue fund.
(e) Amounts represented by checks issued by the clerk or received by the
clerk which have not been cleared by the end of the month may be shown on the
monthly accounts.
(f) The clerk may receive negotiable instruments in payment of fines,
penalties, fees or other obligations as conditional payments, and is not held
accountable therefor until collection in cash is made and then only to the
extent of the net collection after deduction of the necessary expense of
collection.
8/1/85
- 2 -
August 16, 1985
Mr. James G. Willis
City Manager
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
RE: Middlemist v. City of Plymouth
Dear Jim,
Enclosed is a copy of our memorandum of law in support
of our motion to modify the previous order entered by
Judge Arthur. we will let you know as soon as we hear
anything.
Sincerely,
J me . Thomson
JJT:jdn
Enclosure
-,
LC ;
S.,
August 16, 1985
Mr. James G. Willis
City Manager
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
RE: Middlemist v. City of Plymouth
Dear Jim,
Enclosed is a copy of our memorandum of law in support
of our motion to modify the previous order entered by
Judge Arthur. we will let you know as soon as we hear
anything.
Sincerely,
J me . Thomson
JJT:jdn
Enclosure
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Robert E. Middlemist, Jr., and
Merry J. Middlemist,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
City of Plymouth,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTARY
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT TO MOTION
TO MODIFY ORDER
File No. 84-03988
INTRODUCTION
This Memorandum of Law is respectfully submitted on behalf
of the
City of Plymouth ("City")
in response
to
the
Court's
request
for Memoranda of Law
in its
Order dated
July
26,
1985 on
the issues of Equal Protection and attorney's fees.
ARGUMENT
A.
THE DEDICATION REQUIREMENT DOES NOT VIOLATE PLAINTIFFS'
RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LATA'. .
The City's requirement that Plaintiffs dedicate Outlot A
does not violate the Equal Protection clauses of the Minnesota
and United States Constitutions. The Equal Protection clause of
the Minnesota Constitution imposes no greater restraint than the
Equal Protection clause of the federal constitution. Contos v.
Herbst, 278 N.W.2d 732, 736 (Minn. 1980). In order to show that
the dedication requirement violates Equal Protection, Plaintiffs
must show either that they were treated differently than other
similarly situated persons or that the requirement operates as a
classification that is clearly arbitrary and without reasonable
basis. Wood Product Company v. City of Minneapolis, 35 F.2d 657
(8th Cir. 1929); In re McCannel, 301 N.W.2d 910 (Minn. 1980).
The classification is presumed to have a rational basis and the
burden of proving that the legislative classification is arbi-
trary rests upon Plaintiffs. Williams v. Rolfe, 262 Minn. 284,
114 N.W.2d 671 (1962).
Plaintiff's burden to show that the classification is
arbitrary is a heavy one. Courts that have dealt with this
question have held that a classification will not be set aside if
any set of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.
Mainster v. Township of West Bloomfield, 68 Mich. App. 319, 242
N.W.2d 570 (1976); Green v. Board of Elections of Citv of New
York, 380 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1967) cert. der.. 389 U.S. 1048; Evans
v. Idaho State Tax Commission, 95 Idaho 54, 501 P.2d 1054 (1972).
In its order dated June 13, 1985, the Court made the follow-
ing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pertaining to the
issue of Equal Protection;
4. The improvement of County Road
No. 9, projected to be constructed in June,
1986, is made necessary by the growth of the
City of Plymouth. Plaintiff's plat will
contribute to this growth of the City of
Plymouth. Plaintiff's plat will contribute
to this growth but no more than the other
plats in the area served by County Road
No. 9, which were developed before and after
the decision to improve in 1972. Most of the
other plats neither straddle nor abut the
projected right-of-way. Most have not been
E
and will not be required to contribute land
to the countv road.
7. The requirement of free land is only
made for plats containing some part of the
right-of-way, not for all plats. It cannot
therefore be justified as a fee for gaining
approval since it would be an unconstitution-
al denial of equal protection.
10. Plaintiff's benefit from the
roadway does not flow from the fact that the
plat straddles the roadway, the proximity to
a noisy highway may be in fact a detriment.
The only benefit flows from greater ease of
transportation to the residents of the plat.
But the residents of the next plats to the
north and to the south and of the next plats
north and south and east and west of these
will enjoy the same greater ease and their
developers will have paid nothing for it. To
require only those developers whose plats
happen to contain part of the right-of-way to
pay the entire cost of the land for the
right-of-way is an unconstitutional denial of
equal protection.
The City interprets those findings to mean that the Court
has initially concluded that Plaintiffs were denied Equal Pro-
tection because Plaintiffs' development is not benefitted by
County Road 9 any more than other developments for which no
dedication for County Road 9 has been required. The City re-
spectfully submits that the Court has erroneously concluded that
"benefit to the developer" is the test that should be used in
determining whether Plaintiffs have been denied Equal Protection.
The Minnesota Supreme Court in Collis v. City of Bloomington, 296
N.W.2d 19 (1976) stated that benefit to the developer is not the
appropriate test. The test is whether there is "a reasonable
3
relationship between the approval of the subdivision and the
municipality's need for [the) land." Id. at 26. The Court noted
that the developer benefits by financially profitting from the
subdivision process. Id. at 24. In return for providing this
benefit, the municipality may require the developer to dedicate a
"reasonable portion" of his property. Id. at 26. The City has
demonstrated in the affidavit of Fred Moore that the City has not
required Plaintiffs to dedicate more property than, other
developers in the City.
In Ayres v. CitY Council of Los Angeles, 34 Cal.2d 31, 207
P.2d (1949) the Court concluded that benefit to the developer is
not the test to be used in deciding whether a dedication require-
ment is reasonable. The issue in A res was whether the city
could require the developer to dedicate a strip of land abutting
a major thoroughfare that bordered on the subdivision even though
there was no access from the subdivision to the thoroughfare.
The Court concluded that the dedication was reasonable. "It is
no defense to the conditions imposed in a subdivision map
proceeding that their fulfillment will incidentally also benefit
the city as a whole." 207 P.2d at 7.
The City in this case is well within the rational basis
requirement. The City is not arbitrarily choosing developers of
whom it will demand dedication of real estate. The City is
making this demand of any developer who seeks to develop land
containing proposed public facilities. The proposed County Road
9 is not the only plan for which the City has dedication require-
ments. Developers whose property includes planned sewer
►,1
facilities, drainage facilities, holding ponds and electric
facilities are all required to make dedications. The reasonable
basis in all of these cases is the municipality's plans for
necessary public facilities. The dedication requirements are,
therefore, not arbitrary but have a rational basis.
The fact that all developers are not affected in an identi-
cal fashion is irrelevant. The legislature need not extend a
statute to all cases which might possibly be reached. Board of
Education of the City of Los Angeles v. Watson, 48 Cal. Rpt. 481,
409 P.2d 481 (1966). The legislature is free to confine its
regulation to those classes of cases in which the need is deemed
to be the most evident. Id. The City Council in this case has
determined that the need for dedication was very evident because
Plaintiffs owned Outlot A through which runs the proposed County
Road 9. Plaintiffs were not required to dedicate property for
other facilities, even though their development increased the
need for those facilities.
Similar Equal Protection arguments have been raised by
landowners receiving disparate treatment under zoning regula-
tions. Courts that have dealt with this question have held that
no Ec_ual Protection violation occurred. In Archdiocese of
Portland v. County of Washington, 458 P.2d 682 (Ore. 1969), the
Oregon Supreme Court held that decisions by a board granting
zoning permits to applicants in more favorable circumstances than
the plaintiff's did not prevent the Board from refusing the
permit to the Plaintiff under the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The California Supreme Court reached a
5
similar ccrclusion when it held that it was not a denial of Equal
Protection for the City of Los Angeles to discriminate against
plaintiffs by granting variances to some property owners an-,,
refusing a variance grant to plaintiffs in the same district.
Minney v. City of Azusa, 330 P.2d 255 (Cal. 1958).
The holdings of Archdiocese of Portland and Mi•nney demon-
strate that prior land use decisions that were more favorable to
other developers do not guarantee the same treatment for subse-
quent developers when the needs of the community dictate other-
wise. In the immediate case the needs of the community dictate
that Outlot A be dedicated for the proposed street. Other
subdivision projects in Plymouth, however, have been required to
dedicate substantial portions of their property to public use.
Plaintiffs have not been singled out for dedication requirements.
Other plats have involved dedication requirements of between
19.05 and 70.48 percent. See Aff, of Fred G. Moore, p. 2.
Discrepancies in the dedication requirements of the various
subdividers clearly do not rise to the level of a constitutional
deprivation. There is no "constitutional requirement of uniform
treatment". Norsco Enterprises v. City of Fremont, 54 C. A. 3d
488, 126 Cal. Rpt. 659 (1976).
In Norsco the plaintiff claimed it had been denied Equal
Protection because the City imposed a park fee upon the conver-
sion of an apartment house into condominiums, but not upon the
identical structure as an apartment house. The court held that
there was no Equal Protection violation because "there is no
constitutional requirement that a regulation, in other respects
R
permissible, must reach ever; class to which it might be ap-
plied." All developers therefore need not be reached by the
dedication requirement for the proposed thoroughfare.
The Illinois Supreme Court found no Equal Protection de-
privation where developers within a municipality's planning
jurisdiction were required to dedicate land for a school while
developers outside the municipality's planning jurisdiction but
within the school district were not required to make such dedica-
tion. Krughoff v. Citv of Naperville, 369 N.W.2d 892 (Ill.
1977). The boundary of the municipality's planning jurisdiction
provided a rational basis justifying disparate treatment just as
the location of proposed County Road 9 provides a basis in this
case.
A dedication requirement was upheld following an Equal
Protection attack in Associated Home Builders v. City of Walnut
Creek, 94 Cal. Rpt. 630, 484 P.28 606 (1971). The subdivision
requirement impacted more harshly upon subdividers than it did
upon apartment building owners. Both groups equally increased
the need for recreational facilities. The court found no Equal
Protection violation and noted that it need not be shown that the
need for additional park and recreational facilities is attribut-
able to the increase in population stimulated by the new subdivi-
sion alone.
In deciding whether there is an Equal Protection violation
in cases similar to this one, courts have also considered whether
the developer was aware of the municipality's plan which reduced
the profitability of the venture through land use regulation.
7
The Supreme Court of Colorado held that any hardship to a
developer was incurred voluntarily and was self inflicted because
the developer purchased the land with knowledge of a minimum lot
size requirement. Nopro Co. v. Town of Cherry Hills Village, 504
P.2d 344 (Col. 1972). The California Supreme Court reached a
similar conclusion in Minney v. City of Azusa, 330 P.2d 255 (Cal.
1958). The court held that one who purchases property in
anticipation of procuring a variance cannot complain of hardship
ensuing from a denial of the desired variance. These cases are
similar to Plaintiffs' situation. The Plymouth City Council
adopted Resolution No. 72-80 or. February 28, 1972. The
resolution established the County Road 9 right-of-way and the
thoroughfare guide plan portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Plaintiffs purchased Outlot A pursuant to a contract for deed
dated January 14, 198-2, ten years after the plan for County
Road 9 became public knowledge. The Comprehensive Plan depicting
the location of County Road 9 undoubtedly had an impact on the
price of the property. Plaintiffs have attempted to capitalize
on a reduced purchase price at the time they purchased the
property by bringing this action. Any hardship endured by
Plaintiffs as a result of their unsuccessful gambit is not a cost
that should be borne by the City.
Assuming, arguendo, that benefit to Plaintiffs is a factor
to be considered in determining whether there has been a denial
of Equal Protection, the City has demonstrated through the
affidavit of Fred Moore that a triable issue of fact exists. The
future owners of the lots created by Plaintiffs' development will
8
use new County Road 9. The fact that other developments will
also benefit is irrelevant. Ayres, supra.
B.
PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT EP.TITLED TO ATTORNEY'S FEES.
Payment of the Plaintiff's attorney's fees and expenses by
the defendant would be inappropriate in this case even if the
Plaintiffs were to prevail on the merits. The court has chosen
not to issue a writ of mandamus and therefore attorney's fees are
not appropriate under Minn. Stat. Chapter 11717. The Court has
characterized this action as a civil dispute and therefore attor-
ney's fees are not recoverable. Furthermore, the Court's order
only orders payment of costs and disbursements. No reference is
made to attorney's fees. The Plaintiff is, therefore, not
entitled to such a recovery.
CONCLliSION
Plaintiffs have not suffered a denial of Equal Protection.
The City's need for the parcels containing the proposed County
Road 9 provide a rational basis for the dedication requirements.
The fact that all developers are not affected in an identical
fashion does not constitute an Equal Protection violation.
Numerous other subdividers have made similar dedications. Any
hardship suffered by the Plaintiffs is self- inflicted because
they knew or should have known of the City's plan for
development.
9
Based on the forecoing, the Cite contends that triable
issues of fact exist and respectfully requests the Court to
vacate its order of June 13, 1965, and to deny the Plaintif-fs'
Motion for Summary Judgment.
DATED: OV'' i-,� '� ,zl�
Respectfully submitted,
LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY,
O'BRIEN & DRAWZ
BY
He,.rbertI%. Lefler, II?, 061888
ales J��homson, Jr.;, -t 5300
Atr�ornevs for Defendant
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, r:innesota 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-0543
10
RESULTS OF PARKERS LAKE CITY PARK QUESTIONNAIRE
Below is a tally of the facilities/activities proposed for Parkers Lake Cite Park
and the number of residents who would use them. A total of 3,477 questionnaires
were mailed to area residents. To date, 566 have been returned and compiled.
The activities/facilities are listed in order of popularity.
1.
Walking
487
2.
Picnic grounds
450
3.
Swimming and Biking - tied for 3rd
421
4.
Concerts
390
5.
Flower gardens
349
6.
Sunbathing
345
7.
Cross-country skiing
315
8.
Fishing from shore
307
9.
Ice skating
303
10.
Fishing from dock
283
11.
Renting canoe, boat, etc.
271
12.
Play equipment
258
13.
Field games
240
14.
Jogging
209
15.
Waterslide
203
16.
Fishing from boat
186
17.
Concessions
182
18.
Bird watching
169
19.
Pitching horseshoe
124
20.
Diving
113
21.
Water skiing
93
22.
Sailboating
83
23.
Windsurfing
80
24.
Archery
74
25.
Bike rental
44
Residents were also asked to add items to the list. The numbers in parentheses
indicate how many times an item was mentioned.
Volleyball (11), Pavillion or building of some kind (5), Tennis courts (5),
Nature trails (7), Snowmobiling (3), Golf putting green (2) Exercise stations (2),
Dog exercise area (2), BMX dirt bike track (2), Roller skating (2), Skateboard-
ing (2), Bleachers (1), Scoreboards (1), Public phones (1), PITS programs (1),
Paddleboat rental (1), Target shooting (1), Innertube slide into lake (1),
Croquet (1)
COMMENTS FROM PARKERS LAKE QUESTIONNAIRES
1. Happy to see part of the lake saved for a park.
2.. Sounds very good - it's a nice lake - should be used more.
3. Boat and canoe rental should be limited; lake is too small for too much boat
traffic or water skiing. A beach and picnicing would be most important!
4. Boat launching ramp.
5. I think Gleason Lake should also be developed.
6. I hope the park will be accessible to everyone including the handicapped.
7. A traffic light for children to cross County Road 6 safely at Niagara Lane.
8. Consider the seniors. Will there be a building for senior meetings or
dances?
9. Great proposal.
10. Should be restricted to non -motorized boats. Also curfew on hours.
11. Would be nice to have a park of this kind closer to where I live.
12. Limit power boats and water skiing.
13. The sooner, the better. We'll need safer access across County Road 6.
14. No water skiing - the lake is too small. Only small fishing motors if
anything.
15. With the recreational opportunities that already exist within a 10 -mile
radius, please be realistic in this venture. Do not try to keep up with
the Jones'.
16. Please keep it very simple - natural - quiet. Parkers Lake is very beautiful
and peaceful. Don't ruin that.
17. We're happy to hear that the City of Plymouth is ready to proceed with this
park. We certainly plan to use it.
18. Love it. Do it.
19. Leave the land undeveloped.
20. Would enjoy tennis courts.
21. I think it should be set up with the needs of the youth of our community -
special summer programs.
22. Good idea - looking forward to its completion.
23. Great - Plymouth really needs a large park!
24. Is the Luce Line trail going to connect from the west? Is there any property
west of 494 near new County Road 15 interchange available for hiking and bird
watching?
25. Would it be possible to extend Luce Line trail to the east? It would make
getting to the lake easier.
26. Will this park be used? Baker Park and other outstate parks seem most likely
used by people in this area; also their own lake homes. Why start something
to increase our taxes? Whatever gave you people the idea the public wanted
this area made into a park?
27. If development is to occur, please control all traffic, vandalism, loitering
and all late-night activities.
28. Suggest Luce Line trail be improved/expanded east of Vicksburg Lane to
accommodate walkers and bikers coming from the west.
29. Good idea - the sooner, the better.
30. We would love to see the development of Parkers Lake.
31. We can't wait til you're done.
32. Please have a sand beach area, some picnic tables and grills if possible.
33. Would there be room for a BMX dirt bike track like in Maple Plain? Also,
would need good bike access from Vicksburg Lane.
34. Terrific!
35. Would not like to see power boats and water skiing on a small lake such as
Parkers.
36. This area greatly needs a local park.
37. No alcoholic beverages.
Comments (con't.)
Page 2
38. Good for Plymouth! Thank you for not selling this to a real estate developer
to pack some more condominiums into!
39. No boats with motors.
40. Fantastic!
41. A wildflower garden would be nice - the whole thing.
42. As a "local" park, it should serve the immediate neighborhood and not plan
to accommodate constant and large traffic to this area.
43. Parkers Lake is not big enough to support speed boating and water skiing.
It needs to be stocked regularly to support a fishing activity.
44. I don't know if this is the place for it, but while walking along Lake
Michigan in Chicago, there was a nice 3 -tiered, canopied thing with built
in checker boards. Older folks would bring along their chess pieces
or checkers and enjoy the lake and a game of chess. Access to proposed
park from the north would be difficult without a foot bridge.
45. Why not make this park a more pleasant place by prohibiting all motorized
activities including motorboats and water skiing.
46. Please leave the area around the lake alone. We get away from our office
at lunch and go to Parkers Lake and relax. If you put a beach or a park in,
you will scare away the little bit of wildlife that is left in this area.
It is also a pretty nice place to drive to at lunch and eat in our cars.
It's peaceful (except for the traffic on County Road 6). We also feed a
couple of gophers out there daily. The only suggestion I would like to make
is to put in some picnic tables. When we first built our building out here,
it was so nice because of the wildlife. But now so many buildings have been
put up and so much traffic is out here that you see very little wildlife.
Parkers Lake is just fine the way it is. Why don't you just leave it alone.
47. Sounds great.
48. I think a volleyball court should be part of the recreational opportunities
in the park.
49. We're very enthusiastic about it. A swimming beach would be particularly nice.
Provision for family recreational skating would be a good idea too.
50. Just hope it goes through.
51. No motorized boats or vehicles - no horseback riding - no dogs in park.
52. Walk -way path and bike path around the lake like Lake of the Isles.
53. Exciting news - don't we get awfully close to the workhouse on the west
side of the lake?
54. Limit boat motor size.
55. Big deal - this way the Minneapolis workhouse people won't have any upkeep
such as mowing, etc. Who'd want a park by the workhouse anyway? We feel
we do not need it - the city money can be spent more wisely on Dunkirk Lane
project and other streets.
56. After paying for Vicksburg Lane, Dunkirk Lane, Wayzata schools, etc., it is
about time for Plymouth to forget about some way to spend more tax money.
57. Develop a nice sandy beach.
58. We are concerned that because of the proximity of the workhouse, the park
could be over run by troublemakers and/or become run down.
59. It would be nice to have a well -kept park so close.
60. Keep it screened from residences with trees and shrubs or leave as much
natural as possible.
61. Sounds great!
62. Would use trail for wheelchair distance training for racing. Accessibility
to all areas is important. Would advise as to the practicality of your plan.
63. We are already able to use Parkers Lake for on -water activities as we live on
the lake.
Comments (con't.)
Page 3
64. Control usage - no charge to Plymouth residents. Please complete Luce Line
to 494 to prevent people from cutting through private property to get to park.
65. We would hope the south shore Luce Line would be made to link up with the
Luce Line road on the other side of Vicksburg Lane.
66. Golf course??
67. Don't attempt to include everything possible - pick and choose and make those
activities great! It would be wonderful to have a round -the -lake path for
bikes and another for walkers.
68. Hopefully this park will be more accessible to the local public, rather than
like Plymouth Creek can/will be due to over population of area to park
facilities.
69. Making good use of this parcel of land.
70. Keep noisy activity like game fields, beach area and playground on north,
and northwest open area; leave natural areas as they are other than walking,
jogging or bike paths.
71. If it means that I have to pay additional taxes, I don't want anything done
at all to improve this site.
72. Sounds great!
73. No motor boats to keep pleasant for surrounding residents. We would like
access to park from Kingsview Lane.
74. The park will be an added plus to our area. We have hoped it would be utilized
in this way.
75. We suggest that the Luce Line trail be connected to a trail around the lake
within the new city park thereby enhancing the access to and appeal of the
new park.
76. If the swimming isn't any good, the attraction to the park would be low.
77. I would love to see a swimming pool as part of this park. We need a city
pool. Beaches are fine, but pools are fun, too.
78. Good idea!
79. Just trying to find another way to spend taxpayers money.
80. I'm 70, and there's nothing I'd like better than to have a park nearby.
This is very exciting. Hopefully that means the tracks will become a trail.
81. Plan to retire in three or four years - park would not be beneficial to us,
especially if you have to raise taxes.
82. Great - I can hardly wait. Thanks.
83. Lighted family ice skating would be nice - so often the hockey players take
over the ice rinks.
84. In the past, there have been parties in the woods near the lake where police
were needed. I think some kind of monitoring will definitely be needed.
Also, I hope they enforce the "no motorcycles" on Luce Line.
85. No motorized boats. The lake is too small and it would be dangerous for the
rest of the participants at the lake.
86. We would enjoy bringing grown children and grandchildren to the park.
87. Keep all trees that are standing. Park should not become over -developed,
but a quiet, peaceful place. There is simply not room for boating (beyond
current residents).
88. We hope this project goes through.
89. Additional parking will be needed.
90. This will be a big plus for our area! What we would like to see is a trail
for jogging/biking to link up with the Luce Line. We live on the east side
of the Lake and the only way to reach it now is to go on County Road 6, and
we feel that is too dangerous on bikes. A link -up that bypasses the heavy
traffic would be great.
91. Hope taxes don't go up too much.
Comments (con't.)
Page 4
92. Prohibit public launching of motorized boats (emphasize canoes and row boats)
like Lake Calhoun or Harriet. No concessions.
93. Projects such as this contribute to the quality of living in a community.
It is overdue in Plymouth and we heartily support development of park space.
94. Walking trails would be very welcome.
95. Try to preserve the wildflowers, habitat of animals, and bring in a sense of
history as to Parker and his relation to the settlers of the area.
96. This is a wonderful idea. We are anxious to see the results and to use the
facilities upon completion. Good luck!
97. Please make the lake a no -motor lake. Give the canoeists and row boaters a
chance - we have many lakes for motor boats around.
98. Please keep this park as natural as possible and don't over develop the land.
99. Make it similar to Zachary playfields.
100. Build it fast so we can use it!
101. A sticker for the cars, but only for Plymouth residents.
102. Great idea! Please be sure that there will be bike trails.
103. It would be fantastic if we could build a berm around the workhouse and
plant trees and shrubs on it. This would help hide the ugly monster.
104. Bike trail along County Road 6 east to Xenium or Highway 55.
105. A park similar to the one on Starring Lake in Eden Prairie would be great!
Connect bike path to the Luce Line.
106. I would like to see no power boats.
107. Sounds expensive - is it really necessary?
108. Wonderful - great!
109. Link bike path to Luce Line. No power boats.
110. I have been enjoying the ballroom dancing at the Lake Como Pavilion and would
like to see it in our area. This is something that all ages can participate
in. I have also noticed the large number of handicapped people attending
and participating in this which would coordinate well with the two handicapped
homes and one senior high rise. The only other ballroom dancing in the area
is at Medina which doesn't have an appealing atmosphere for the above crowds.
111. No power boats, please.
112. We would like easy access to park via bike and jogging trails. No motor boats.
113. Keep it as natural as possible.
114. Dock in shallow water for children. Also no pets.
115. Keep the boating, game fields, beach, gardens, biking, bird watching, etc.,
separate areas but accessible. Try to limit concessions and commercial
operations to a minimum, if at all.
116. We are concerned that the intensity of the planned activities will be so great
as to curtail the water skiing which is important to residents living on the
lake.
117. Great idea!
118. No motor boats please. It seems too small for a softball field.
119. I propose to allow snowmobiles in the park on designated trails like they
have at Baker Park and Crow Hassen Park. I propose access to Parkers Lake
from Shenandoah Lane and Niagara Lane for snowmobiles and also access from
County Road 6 to Highway 55.
120. I like the idea of the park.
121. Make it a non -motorized lake.
122. I think it's an excellent idea.
123. Allow dogs to swim and exercise here. Don't clear out the woods - it's
an important remaining natural area in this neighborhood. Don't commer-
cialize and don't exclude dogs. There aren't many places we can take them
to swim as it is!
Comments (con't.)
Page 5
Z- \ Q_
124. Go first class. It will ensure a higher usage rate.
125. Please keep the setting as natural as possible - not too commercial. Our
idea of a class act is Morris T. Baker at Lake Independence.
126. Great idea.
127. Great! Thought should be given to access to park - path, walkway, bike
trail, etc. Let's make this a "no pets" park.
128. Sounds like an excellent development for the Plymouth area.
129. We would enjoy swimming if the water condition improved.
130. Top priority should be bike path to east of 494 and to Luce Line.
131. This is a great idea.
132. I think it's a great idea - can't wait until it's done.
133. We think this is a great idea.
134. Should be connected to Luce Line trail which needs improvement between
Vicksburg Lane and Parkers Lake Road.
135. I think it's great. Please include a walking/biking path.
136. Have a few picnic tables, and leave the park as it is now.
137. Would like to see no motors allowed.
138. Will it connect with the present Luce Line trail?
139. Good bike path and good restrooms.
140. Sounds great!
141. Driving access should be from County Road 6 only.
142. Plant more trees, plenty of parking space, handicapped parking.
143. Sounds great. Please keep alcohol use to a minimum. Keep park family
oriented.
144. I feel this lake is too small for water skiing. Too dangerous with many_
power boats on a small lake.
145. Sounds like a very good idea.
146. We do not want the Parkers Lake City Park. We have many nice parks in
Plymouth and surrounding area. Parkers Lake park will only bring a lot
of riff-raff from Minneapolis.
147. Water skiing and speed boats should not be allowed.
148. Our concern is about traffic on 9th Avenue - or will this be a dead-end
street?
149. Should be closed after 10 p.m., so it doesn't become a hangout for teenagers.
150. We are against it.
151. Don't take any of my tax money.
152. Great idea!
153. Sounds like a good idea.
154. Please make the beach area nice and sandy - and have a place for dogs to
swim.
155. Great idea - we're excited.
156. Will there be an additional charge per year to use the park - like Wayzata
Beach? Ok with us.
157. Looking forward to this for a long time.
158. We would love to have a park like this so close and would use it often. My
children would love the waterslide.
159. Where is Parkers Lake City Park to be located? What is its projected cost?
How extensively developed?
160. We recently moved here from out of state and are extremely excited about
a recreation area we can use almost daily.
161. We're very much in favor of it!
162. Would like to see as much natural habitat preserved as possible.
163. The lake should be left as it is. It is too small to support the heavy
usage a park would bring.
Comments (con't.)
Page 6
164. Would be nice to have separate areas for those who like quiet (flowers, bird
watching) from those who like active sports.
165. It will be an asset to the area.
166. Do it! Build it! We need it!
167. Not needed. There is no need for any additional parks or monuments built
to your administrations. If I don't receive an answer, I will know that
once again, a voter's opinion has fallen on deaf ears.
168. Welcome the addition of proposed park. I've used this area already when
other path was made but wasn't kept up. I work right by this area.
169. Sounds like a good idea for this part of Plymouth.
170. I think motorized boats, etc., would be a hazard to the environmental beauty
of the lake and its surroundings because of its size.
171. A sandy, well maintained, clean beach would be welcome.
172. Lake should be limited to non -motorized boats only.
173. I don't think the park should be developed. Our taxes are already excessive.
174. Plymouth needs places where families can be together in the outdoors.
175. How about storytelling for family audiences?
176. We need a safe way to get to Parkers Lake from across County Road 6. At
present it is very dangerous.
177. Hooray! I prefer easy access with stop lights, paths or bridge. I recommend
good lighting for safety during evening activities.
178. No water skiing. Limit size of motors to 10 horsepower.
179. The Luce Line east from Vicksburg to the park should be cleared and made
accessible for those of us west of the park.
180. Please avoid power boats and motorized vehicle activity in the park and
lake.
181. Make it safe from deviates and "flashers." We used to enjoy biking, walking
and fishing on the Luce Line. Now we don't go anymore. A few bad incidents
have removed the fun and safety.
182. We think this is great! Try to include the old log cabin if possible (located
500 feet west of lake on County Road 6).
183. Great idea!
184. Have a swimming area for small children and a large swim area for those who
swim.
185. I hope the abandoned railroad tracks between Parkers Lake Road and Fernbrook
could be made passable for bikes.
186. This is wonderful! We are very excited about the park. Could the Luce Line
be extended to the park? A community group could help with planting flowers
and trees.
187. This lake is relatively small - it will not support too much water skiing, etc.,
if boat access improved. While I own a power boat capable of water skiing,
I find it almost impossible to use in the metro area due to congestion of
lakes.
188. It will be nice to have something close by that we can walk to.
189. Make a nice walkway with flowers.
190. Prefer natural park with no commercialism.
191. Can't wait.
192. I'd like to see it (the lake) closed to most motor boats - and be a very
environmentally conservative area.
193. Emphasis should be on improving the water quality and the shoreline
(which is unsightly and unattractive on the north side).
194. Sounds wonderful.
195. We do not spend much time in this area as we go away up north for the
summer.
Comments (con't.)
Page 7
196. Water skiing on weekends should be limited to certain hours so others
can enjoy canoeing or small boating activities.
197. Think this is great! The beach itself is the most important.
198. Keep it family oriented and somewhat quiet, i.e., no water skiing or boat
racing.
199. Great idea.
200. Please keep it controlled so we don't have teenage drinking and pot parties.
201. Great idea.
202. Too close to the workhouse - would never allow my children to go alone -
especially since sex offenders are allowed out during the day and even
without supervision!
203. Love the idea.
204. Good location for people south of County Road 6 and west of Vicksburg.
205. Dog walking should be allowed.
206. Great project - please move ahead.
207. Is it possible to build a biking/walking trail from Ranchview Lane to the
southwest corner of Parkers Lake? There is currently a field there.
208. We would like it kept as natural as possible.
209. Return the matching funds I paid to the state and federal government and
put this project on hold. The city has just imposed a $10,000 assessment
on my property, and I am unemployed.
210. It sounds like a wonderful idea!
211. Please do not cut down any of the hand planted pine trees on the west side.
Also, we would like a reasonably priced, not outlandish, community center
which would have a pool and indoor ice arena.
212. We feel boating and fishing would end up a line of cars and trailers. Let's
have a lovely family park. Minnesota has plenty of lakes to fish or boat
on that offer a lot more room.
213. Would love to see more tennis courts in this area.
214. We think it's a great project.
215. It would be a great idea. I greatly encourage it. Emphasize four seasonal
use.
216. Due to the small size of the lake, I would not like to see it used by
motor boats. Suggest no boat launch available.
217. Wonderful idea.
218. It seems to me Parkers Lake is too small for any motor boats.
219. Trees and/or shrubs should be used to create a screen to block the view
of the county workhouse.
220. No power boats - if you allow power boats, I will not use this park; lake
too small.
221. Keep it simple and clean.
222. Very excited and happy to hear of park plans.
223. We hope that leashed dogs will be allowed on the walking trails. Let's make
this a people's park for all - not just a few. There are courts and ball
diamonds already. Best of luck on your new venture. Plymouth needs some
good outdoor areas for all.
224. With the taxes Plymouth collects from its residents and the grant mentioned
in your attached letter, there should be no reason for not having a first
class park.
225. Politically, the proximity of the workhouse to the park would need to be
addressed in your communications.
226. Please hurry! We've been waiting for this one.
227. One person in our household is in a wheelchair and still enjoys the outdoors.
It would be wonderful if the handicapped and their needs were considered when
the planning starts.
228. This questionnaire is flawed - due to no consideration of roller skating. I'm
all for park - little is available in Plymouth.
Comments (con't.)
Page 8
229. Medicine Lake park is beautiful and fortunately designed to meet the needs
of the family. The only areas of this recreational center to criticize
are the shallowness of the swimming area and distance of parking spaces
from beach.
230. I think its really a good idea. The sooner the better. I also think you
should consider making changes where 9th Avenue and Shenandoah meet (the
road in front of the workhouse). Possibly a dead end or stop signs. The
flow and speed of traffic is already a danger to our children.
231. It sounds like it could be a great park. Good luck.
232. Please make biking and hiking paths accessible from Luce Line trail.
233. Great idea.
234. We think this is no place for a city park where children will be so close
to two correction facilities. Think about it.
235. I'm really excited about it.
236. Will this affect taxes on all Plymouth residents or just general area? Will
schools use facilities as a group?
237. The lake is too small for power boats - other than owned by people who own
property on shoreline. Allowing power boats would be a disaster for the
welfare of the lake.
238. Fantastic idea - all for it.
239. Make it happen. We would use a small sailboat for the children on this
lake.
240. Avoid making a park area attractive for rock concerts or late night "beer
parties."
241. We don't need it. Our taxes are high enough.
242. Limit boats to 10 hp and have a free boat landing.
243. I would not use the park.
244. Why can't it just stay as is? Does every piece of land need to be developed?
All it will do is cost to put in and run.
245. I think it's a wonderful idea.
246. The whole plan will cause too many problems. Don't try to be a hero spending
the taxpayers money.
247. I think this idea is wonderful and would be a great asset to our side of
the city.
248. We don't need a park near a corrections facility. Plymouth has spent enough
money on parks. We are constantly being forced to pay for things in this
city that are not needed. I do not allow my children to even ride their
bikes near the workhouse. Plymouth has built parks even though they were
voted down by the people. The same was true with the new city hall.
249. I've had a lake place for 47 years. I would not wish my taxes to go any
higher than they are now. I am 76 years old and would not care for the
traffic and noise it will create.
250. Allow for ample parking and more than one access and exit.
251. No large outboard motors on boats. Canoes and rowboats only.
252. Though we might use the park now and then, I feel the lake should be left
the tranquil, lovely spot it is. I don't care to support this park with
my taxes.
253. I do not feel the park is necessary or needed. As a taxpayer, I do not
wish to spend my money there. The lake is small, the area already too
heavily travelled (County Road 6).
254. What about traffic control on County Road 6? Will the city or DNR control
the lake? Will the storm sewer continue to feed into the lake? Will there be
restrictions on lake residents dockage and powerboats?
255. Since the lake is small, feel only non -motorized boats should be allowed.
The bird watching was much better before so many motor boats started using
the lake. Would love an area to swim dogs. Hope that you understand hunting
__7'`oZ
Comments (con't.)
dogs that like to swim will not harm wildlife without owner's carrying a gun
and giving command "to find."
256. We like the natural setting and hope that not many trees would need to be
cut down.
257. It would please us to see the wildlife left undisturbed and the water
quality improved. The lake should be stocked regularly with northerns to
balance the pan fish population. It must be a quiet, controlled park for
all involved to enjoy.
258. Have the park open during the winter for snowmobiling for people to park their
cars and trailers.
259. Include a boat access, but limit trailer parking so the lake is not overcrowded.
260. Limit size of boat motors to 25-35 hp.
261. Please keep the motors (boats & snowmobiles) off!
262. Would like the lake to be non -motorized.
263. Parkers Lake is too small for motorized boats over 10 mph. There should
not be a boat launch, possibly a canoe launch.
264. Baker Park play area is our favorite - would like to see something like this
in Circle Park or Parkers Lake. Keep motor bikes off trail around lake so
little ones can fish. Clean up trail. We'd like to see a motor free lake.
265. Wow! Could that old log cabin on County Road 6 be moved to the park?
266. There should be some way to attempt to restrict the use of the park to
Plymouth residents - parking permits, etc.
267. Don't spend money and raise taxes - reduce taxes. Charge admissions to all
users.
268. Please limit lake use to low hp or manual watercraft. Prefer a number of
small secluded beaches rather than one large one.
—L �CD,
Mr. & Mrs. David R. Anderson
1555 Juneau Lane N
Plymouth, MN 55441
August 20, 1985
Mr. Eric Blank
Plymouth Parks &
Recreation Dept.
Our response to the Discussion Questions from the Parker's
Lake City Park Seminar of August 15, 1985:
1. Our interpretation of a City Park is a neighborhood source
of relaxation in the out-of-doors. This would be different
than a recreational and sports park.
2i3.Activities in order of priority:
A. Fishing - which will require considerable improvement
in water quality and stocking.
B. Walking and Nature trails. Every attempt should be
made to improve on the wildlife habitat and plant life.
The lake at present has a wide range of wildlife that
we personally have observed. This is a partial list:
Deer, raccoon, squirrels, rabbits, mink, muskrat,
chipmunks, bull snakes, night herons, egrets, blue herons,
crows, owls, cardinals, goldfinch, ducks(many species
depending on the season), Canadian geese, Gulls, shorebirds,
bitterns, turtles, fish(Sunfish, Blue Gills, Crappie,
L.M. Bass, Bullheads, Shad and a few Northern). The
panf ish are very stunted.
C. Picnic area - this should include a shelter and tables.
D. Swimming Beach - We feel that this should be held to a
limited size so as not to over impact the Park. This
should include a bathhouse with rest rooms. This
building should be designed for ice skating in the winter.
E. Water Skiing
F. Snomobiling
G. Cross -Country Skiing
H. Biking - access to the Luce Line Trail will be needed.
I. Skating Rink
4. A. All
B. Often, we live on the lake.
C. Lake residents should have a priority
D. Some type of fee system should be instituted, even a small
fee insures people using facility care about it.
August 20, 1985
Page 2
5. Concerns:
A. A canoe and waterbike rental would not be desirable.
The peace and atmosphere of the park would be disrupted.
B. Storm sewers - the two sewers are bringing in chemicals
(i.e. oil), styrofoam, warm water (which is a pollutant),
and soil and sand (which is filling in the lake).
C. Noise and party control.
D. Boat traffic - with parking limitations and the size
of the lake, this should be pretty well self-limiting.
B. Concerts - disruptive and not necessary.
F. Work house - the park will need security. This should
be a major concern.
Sincerely,
/Dave and Jackie Anderson
and family
476-1814 - home
537-0239 - work
Mr. Eric Blank
Parks and Recreation Department
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Mr. Blank:
1420 Juneau Lane North
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
August 15, 1985
Subject: Parkers Lake Park
We have been following the development of the City's proposal
for a recreational facilities on Parkers Lake and we are surprised at the
apparent accelerated schedule. Approximately a year ago, this planning
was to take place over a five year period with ample time for local tax
payers input. The recent schedule appears to preclude much public
involvement.
The existing level of fishing appears to afford the fish popula-
tion to naturally propagate in proportion with the number of fish being
taken. With added potential from more fisherman, substantial artificial
planting of fish will be required at added expense to the already over-
burden taxpayer. The upkeep and surveillance of grounds, facilities,
landings and boats will incur additional costs which do not exist now.
Parkers Lake is not large enough to support the level of
development proposed by the City. Too many dollars will be expended for
development and future operation -maintenance compared to the recreation
benefits derived. This development would also add to the existing
traffic congestion along County Road 6.
Finally, the argument of receiving Federal and state grants to
develop this proosal is a direct disguise to confuse people into believ-
ing we are not paying for the improvement. Grants from governments are
taxes. In addition, there is no way a development of the magnitude
described can be self sustaining from a operation -maintenance stand-
point. Consequently, this burden would necessarily be added to property
taxes which are already a considerable burden.
Parkers Lake now has reasonable access for those who truely
appreciate natural beauty and do not need governmentally provided recrea-
tion. I am opposed to any more development and the added tax burden
which would be created.
Very truly yours,
G. T. Strodthoff, P.E.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: August 16, 1985
TO: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Virgil Schneider, Councilmember
SUBJECT DOROTHY KREKELBERG - PENALTY ON ASSESSMENTS
In a recent discussion with Maria Vasiliou concerning the Dorothv
Krekelberg special assessments, it seems the City has relieved
the assessments from her home on Hemlock, but that the penalty was
not. Maria and I would appreciate an explanation of the rationale of
not relieving the penalty. Please have Fred Moore respond in writing
to Maria, providing me with a copy.
VS:Jm
cc: Maria Vasiliou
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVG.. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: August 19, 1985
TO.- Councilmembers Maria Vasiliou and Virgil Schneider
FROM: Fred Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT Dorothy Krekelberg - Penalty on Assessments
It is my understanding that either or both Councilmembers Maria Vasiliou or
Virgil Schneider have been contacted by Dorothy Krekelberg with regard to the
reduction in her special assessment for her property on Hemlock Lane. She is
questioning whether she will receive relief of the penalty on the assessment
which has been removed.
Attached is a copy of a letter which I sent to Dorothy Krekelberg on July 15,
1985. By that letter T requested from her information indicating any portion
of the original assessment that had been paid. I further stated that after I
received that information I would process a refund on any amount that had been
paid.
Although not specifically indicated in my letter, any refund due would also in-
clude any penalty or interest on the amount of the assessment that was reduced.
As of this date, I have not been contacted by Dorothy Krekelberg with any
information as requested by my July 15th letter.
Since I have not been contacted by Dorothy Krekelberg and because of the in-
quiry from the Councilmembers, I have sent the attached letter to her re-
questing this additional information and hopefully to clarify the interest or
penalty situation.
If any additional information is needed, please contact me.
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
FGM: kh
cc: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager
-�_ -T--
F ~
T
C1 1 y '-
July 15, 1985 PN ' IOUT�+
Ms. Dorothy M. Krekelberg
6150 Hemlock Lane
Plymouth, Minnesota 55- 42
Dear Mrs. Krekelberg:
On July 1, 1985 the Plymouth City Council adopted a resolution deleting a
portion of the special assessments against your property at 6150 Hemlock Lane.
The portion of special assessments that were removed were associated with the
sanitary sewer. The total assessment against your property was reduced from
$14,215.25 to $6,824.0`.. The portion of the assessment associated with the
sanitary sewer which was removed is $7,39:.20.
The City Council also authorized a refund of any portion of the sanitary sewer
assessment that has been paid. Wc.;ld you please provide to me information
indicating any portion of the original $14,215.25 assessment that has been
paid. After I receive this information, I can process payment of any refund
which you are due.
If there are any questi„ns witn regard tc this matter, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
August 19, 1985
Ms. Dorothy M. Krekelberg
6150 Hemlock Lane
Plymouth, Minnesota, 55442
Dear Ms. Krekelberg:
On July 15, 1985 I sent you a letter with regard to the reduction in the
special assessment on your property at 6150 Hemlock Lane. By that letter I
requested that you provide me information indicating any portion of the
original assessment that had been paid. The purpose of this request was that I
would have the necessary information to prepare any refund which you were due.
Although my July 15th letter did not specifically state that the refund would
include interest or penalty, you will be refunded any principal amount paid on
the assessment that was reduced, any interest on this amount and any penalty.
Since the City does not have specific information on assessments which you have
paid to Hennepin County, would you please provide me with this information. As
I previously stated, after I receive this information, I will process a payment
of any refund due you including interest, principal or penalty.
If there are any questions with regard to this matter, please contact me.
I will be awaiting your reply before any refund can be processed.
Sincerely,
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOU7h. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800
August 16, 1985 CITY or-
PUMOUTR
Subject: East Medicine Lake Boulevard
Dear Resident:
On July 1, 1985 the Plymouth City Council held a Public Informational meeting
on whether to make a portion of East Medicine Lake Boulevard into a one-way
street. You spoke at this Informational meeting. At the conclusion of the
Informational meeting the City Council determined that East Medicine Lake
Boulevard would remain a two-way street. The Council also directed that the
City staff review safety improvements which could be made along the current
roadway. The purpose of the improvements would be to enhance the safety of
pedestrians/bicyclists on the street.
The City Council has now directed that a six foot wide gravel shoulder be
installed along the lakeside of East Medicine Lake Boulevard between 18th
Avenue and 26th Avenue. This work will be performed by our street maintenance
employees and will be completed before winter weather this year.
The only work which will be performed along East Medicine Lake Boulevard,
northerly of 26th Avenue, is the mowing of the grass along the traveled roadway
and the trimming of some overhanging tree branches. In 1986 the City Council
will be considering whether an improvement should be made to East Medicine Lake
Boulevard between Medicine Ridge Road and 36th Avenue. A consulting engineer
will be making a report to the City Council and after this report is received a
Public Hearing will be held with the adjacent property owners. All property
owners adjacent to the roadway will receive notice of this hearing.
If there are any questions with regard to the shouldering work which will be
taking place in the near future, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh
Enclosures
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
One-way traffic request on East Medicine Lake Boulevard
Attached letter sent to the following:
Richard Martin
2650 East Medicine Lake Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55441
Don and Shirley Maxwell
2630 East Medicine Lake Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55441
Roger Rydberg
3225 Wellington Lane
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Ms. Audrey Friedman
2500 E. Medicine Lake Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Mr. Jim Moncrieff
4020 Trenton Lane
Plymouth, MN 55441
Mr. Jerry Harty
1920 East Medicine Lake Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55441
Ms. Mary Harty
2900 East Medicine Lake Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Randy and Warren Rudrud
2840 East Medicine Lake Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55441
M.E. Haseltine
2680 East Medicine Lake Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
\-'Ack_ .
Ms. Rosella Sowers
2760 Nathan Lane
Plymouth, MN 55441
Harvey and Marie Weiss
2845 Medicine Ridge Road
Plymouth, MN 55441
Mr. Paul Liberty
2300 East Medicine Lake Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55441
Mr. Bob Manley
3035 East Medicine Lake Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Ms. Florence Larson
2930 Medicine Ridge Road
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Mr. Larry Marofsky
2835 Medicine Ridge Road
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Mr. Dan Flaherty
9535 18th Avenue
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
1 -tib,
August 19, 1985 \:
Mr. Louis Oberhauser `l
Grathwol, Oberhauser & Randall, LTD ��TT
Attorneys and Counselors at Law DIVMOUT 4
1421 East Wayzata Boulevard
Suite 210
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Subject: RPUD Concept Plan for Al Fazendin for "Rambush" (85052)
Dear Mr. Oberhauser:
As you are aware, the Plymouth City Council deferred action on the proposed
RPUD Concept Plan for Al Fazendin at the July 22nd Council meeting. They
deferred action as a result of your July 19th letter raising objections to the
requirement that the developer would be required to improve Harbor Lane to a
"collector" street standard. The City Council referred the matter to the
Special Assessment Committee for recommendation.
You were in attendance at the Special Assessment Committee meeting which was
held on July 29th. Attached is a copy of a memorandum dated August 7, 1985
which the City Council received as a result of that Special Assessment
Committee. The City Council received this memorandum at their August 12th
Council meeting.
The City Council concurred that if the development is to take place as re-
quested in accordance with LA -2 Guiding, the "collector" street is needed and
must be provided by the developer. The Council did state that the standard
width of a "collector" street would be reduced from 36 feet to 32 feet wide.
The City Council concurred with the traffic study that if this property
developed in accordance with LA -1 Guiding, the "collector" street would not be
necessary. Another option open for the developer is to reconsider their
proposal and resubmit a Development Plan in accordance with the LA -1 Guiding.
Would you please let me know how the developer wishes to proceed with their
current application which was before the City Council. Do they wish to have
the City Council consider the application which was deferred at the July 22nd
meeting or will the developer be submitting an amended application.
If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh
Enclosure
cc: File 85052
Frank Boyles
Blair Tremere
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
August 20, 1985
Mr. Don Gordan
Trammell Crow Company
8300 Norman Center Drive
Suite 270
Bloomington, MN 55434
bcc: James Willis -1.4 C__ .
CITY OF
PLYMOUTH+
RE PUD Preliminary Plan/Plat, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan (85044)
Dear Mr. Gordan:
I noticed the comments of your concern regarding the processing of planning appli-
cations as I reviewed the Minutes of the last Development Council meeting. Considering
the date of my last correspondence regarding the above -referenced application (August
8, 1985) I wanted to remind you that we need the requested information in order to
proceed in scheduling your application for Planning Commission consideration. In order
to guarantee a position on the September 25, 1985 Planning Commission Agenda, the re-
quested information should be submitted no later than Friday, August 30, 1985.
Submitting the information by the referenced date would allow us to review the res-
ponses at our September 3, 1985 staff review committee meeting and proceed with the
publication of the required Public Hearing Notice in the City's legal newspaper.
We anticipate hearing from you and look forward to working with you through the comple-
tion of your development. Should you have questions, or need further information,
please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Sara L. McConn
Community Development Coordinator
SM/gw
cc: Sohn Sweeney
File 85044
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
„ Wickes Companies, Inc.
1400 S. Wolf Road/Bldg 200
P.O. Box 751
Wheeling, IL 60090
(312)459-2000
August 19, 1985
Ms. Sara L. McConn
Planning Director
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Re: Southwest Corner Highway 101
and County Road
Plymouth, Minnesota
Dear Ms. McConn:
AUG 22 1985
GcI ;,1 i,3UTH
CCLEL 6Pi4t" NT DEPT.
Wickes Companies, Inc. through its subsidiary Red Owl
Stores, Inc. owns that approximate 6.7 acre parcel of land
at the subject location in Plymouth. This is to advise you
that Wickes has reached agreement with Hennepin County for
the release of that certain highway easement incumbering the
northeast corner of our property. The quick claim deed for
same will be executed by the County next week. Please
contact Mr. David Swenson in the Right of Way Division to
confirm this agreement. I am enclosing, herewith a copy of
our Certificate of Title for our parcel including the
description of the aforementioned easement.
Wickes—Cbmpan es,- IncJh s alsfl _r,eached�an. agreement._to__sell
our entire Parcel to Wel.s_h. ons uction Company who are _in
the process of _preparing shopping center deveiopmerit plans
-dor` the property. This will confirm t ai't Ffie`y—are hereby
authorize to commence such development activities deemed
necessary to complete our transaction.
If you have any questions or need additional documentation,
please let me know.
Sinderely.
Estate Operations
Encl.
cc: Mr. E. Paul Dunn
Welsh Companies, Inc.
1 »nn Wact 7Rth Strppf
x--144
PARKSIDE AT MEDICINE LAKE 331 Second Avenue North, MinneaFllis, MA' 55401
August 21, 1985
Mayor Dave Davenport
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Dave:
Thank you for the continued and fine support of City staff and officials
in the finalizing of issues for P;,,-kside C Medicine Lake Apartments.
Both we, and Lincoln National Life insurance Company, our partner, were
pleased with the City's sensitivity to the timing requirements of this
type of transaction.
It was truly a pleasure working with you all on this. It hes been
a rather long haul, but well worth it. I might add that Sara Mc'.onn has
done a great job for us on the plat work. Jim Willis has been extremely
helpful on the bond issue itself. Thanks again. – —
Sincerely,
Gene Holderness
cc: Jim Willis
PARKSIDE AT MEDICINE LAKE 331 Second Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55401
August 21, 1985
Mr. Jim Willis
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Jim:
Just a note to thank you for your help on the bond resolution. We
have now closed on that transaction and our funding is secure.
I might also add that Sara has done an outstanding job for both the
City and the developer in processing our remaining plat work. Thanks
again.
Sincerely,
Gene Holderness
PARKSIDE AT MEDICINE LAKE 331 Second Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55401
August 21, 1985
Mr. Frank Bayles
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Frank:
Just a note of thanks for helping me out on the agenda re -arranging
the other night. I really appreciate it.
Sincerely,
I
Gene Holderness
PARGSIDE AT MEDICINE LAKE 331 Second Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 5540-1
August 21, 1985
Ms. Sara McConn
Community Development Coordinator
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Sara:
Under separate cover we have submitted a revised land -landscape pian
for Parkside at Medicine Lake Apartments. It has been revised in response
to the Planning Commission's observation that it did not include the oversized
trees on the northwest corner of the northernmost building. These were
committed as a consideration and response to both City and neighbor concerns
about buffering the impact of the apartment building upon the single family
home to the west of our site.
The plan submitted prior to this revision contained 221 plantings,
11 more than the requirement of 211 plantings. Our revised plan now contains
211 plantings, still in full compliance with the City's requirements.
The reduction in planting count was made in order to control the budget
impact of the large and expensive trees put in on the west side. Our
total budget has increased, but bringing our total plantings in line with
City policy mitigates the impact some.
On another_ note,_Sara, _may I again thank v_ou__=or ,your help and sens i -i vi t
to _Dur need to move expeditiously when possible o_n_ this project. We,
and Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, our t
partner, look forward
to bringing an attractive new rental community to Plymouth in 1985.
Sincerely,
Gene Holderness
cc: Jim Willis
Blair Tremere
:yug--Ist 15 1985 - AUG Ph 1985
-i
4: P1vmout_i Blvd.
.Pl-•-^out' , MN 55447
. Py
City of Plymouth' i'iA:
this letter is to tell the Jity of I- -mouth and the ..fir committee
of car very sincere graditude and appreciation for the grant tl:at
was given us to refurbish our ho -.;se . me put on all new windows and
si:iin; insulation and gutters. It has made 1L^io di`ference ir, the
apYearance and also was Lolc we would see a major ::eduction in our
heating bill this winter.
Besides our sincerethank you, we would also like to mention that
Mr --, i t a�ie wi��i whom—we dizi
all �-transacgiorisLwas probably one
o t. e nicest` persons we rave e is very t:�orouh, competent
- - _.
and concerned. What a pleasure _t -Q--- e�y- G D-Qod3€ of his caliber. T e
City of Plymodf can be verb. proud to have someone as outstanding
aster -male ori -their staff.
Again Thank You, deeply, we would be pleased to have you drive by
and see for yourselves, or stop in so we can thank you personally.
Sincerely,
14e
Tom Juanita Roddy
& daughter Jill