HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 11-15-1985CITY OF
PLYMOUTR
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
November 15, 1985
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS.....
1. PLYMOUTH FORUM -- Monday, November 18, 7:00 p.m. Plymouth Forum in
City Council conference room.
2. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, November 18, 7:30 p.m. Regular
City Council meeting in City Council Chambers.
3. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS -- Monday, November 18, 7:30
p.m. The Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals will meet in the
City Center lunchroom. Agenda attached. (M-3)
4. PLANNING COMMISSION -- Wednesday, November 20, 7:30 p.m. The
Tanning Commission will meet in the City Council Chambers. Agenda
attached. (M-4)
5. "COMMUNITY COFFEE BREAK" -- The TwinWest Chamber "Community Coffee
Break" for Plymouth is scheduled for Tuesday, November 26, from 8:00
- 9:00 a.m. at the McCombs -Knutson Associates office, 12800
Industrial Park Blvd. A copy of the invitation is attached. (M-5)
FOR YOUR INFORMATION....
1. COUNTY ROAD 61 AND OLD COUNTY ROAD 15 INTERSECTION -- The subject of
pedestrian safety at this intersection has been raised on numerous
occasions by residents living in this area. As a result of these
discussions, and the opening of County Road 61 to Highway 12, the
residents of the area have continued to express their concern.
Mrs. Marian Bohnsack and Mrs. Beverly Christensen have met with
Officer Bob Nesbitt of the Police Department regarding safety
matters. The City and the County are, as part of the County Road 61
project, going to be installing a pedestrian crosswalk on the south
side of the County Road 61/Old County Road 15 intersection. The
City will have the intersection crosswalk painted as soon as the
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
November 15, 1985
Page 2
contractor can mobilize his crew, and the County will install the
appropriate signs. The markings and signing will be as the same as
currently installed on County Road 61 and Arthur Street. Bob
Nesbitt will also be conducting a pedestrian safety program for
neighborhood children on Wednesday, December 4 at the Christ
Memorial Lutheran Church. This meeting is being publicized through
the efforts of Mrs. Bohnsack and Mrs. Christensen. In addition, Bob
Nesbitt tells me that Sunset Hill Elementary School Principal, Doug
O'Brien, is arranging for the mandatory busing through this winter
Of all students residing in the area north and west of the subject
intersection.
Both Minnetonka and Plymouth are also interested in working with the
Department of Transportation to insure that a reasonable speed limit
is established on County Road 61 from 6th Avenue North to the
Highway 12 interchange. At the current time the speed limit north
of 6th Avenue to County Road 6 is 40 mph, and 35 mph on that section
between Highway 55 and County Road 6. An agenda item specifically
addresses this issue.
With the installation of the pedestrian crosswalk at County Road 15
and County Road 61, I believe we will have taken all the steps
which are reasonable and appropriate for the conditions which
currently exist. The intersection will continue to require monitor-
ing as previously directed by the Council.
2. MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION - REGIONAL MEETING -- The MLC
regional meeting for the cities of --Plymouth 9 ---Brooklyn Park, Maple
Grove, Blaine and Minnetonka was held on Wednesday, November 13 at
the Radisson Inn Plymouth. Representing Plymouth were Council -
members Crain and VaSilioU, Frank Boyles and myself. I am attaching
materials which were distributed during the meeting. The first
provides historic information about the MLC, the reason for its
establishment, and a few of its accomplishments. The second attach-
ment is a map showing the existing MLC communities. Also shown are
a number of communities which may be considered for inclusion in the
MLC in 1986. Beginning January 1, 1986 the Commission will drop
from its current 16 members to 14 because Moundsview and Blaine have
elected not to renew membership. Some consideration will be given
by the Commission on whether other communities should be added.
This would not be a move for economic reasons, but rather to assure
that communities with similar interests are represented on the
commission. The Board of Directors will discuss this matter further
at their next meeting.
Councilmembers Crain and Vasiliou expressed their concern about the
ever -widening platform of issues which the Commission has developed
(see attachment). They indicated support for restricting the
Commission's focus to fiscal issues. Connie Morrison, Mayor of
Burnsville and MLC President, and Bob Renner of the Larkin, Hoffman
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
November 15, 1985
Page 3
law firm, stated that a consensus seemed to be developing among
members that the focus of the Commission should be restricted to
fiscal matters.
I asked persons present for their perspective on the public
relations contract for the Commission. Councilmember Vasiliou
stated that she believes low-cost press releases would be far more
effective than periodic high -gloss image pieces previously
provided. There was agreement that some types of communication were
best provided to the Councils by their respective City Managers,
while press releases could be prepared by Larkin, Hoffman for
distribution to other parties. The issues of the number of
communities to be members in 1986, 1986 MLC legislative issues, and
the MLC communications program for 1986 will be further discussed by
the MLC Operating Committee next Wednesday at 3:00 p.m. at the
Rodeway Inn in Bloomington. The Board of Directors will take up the
same discussions at 5:00 p.m. Councilmember Neils and myself are
the City's representatives to the MLC, however, all council members
are invited to attend and participate in the Board of Directors
meeting. (I-2)
3. 1986 WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD CONTRIBUTION --
Attached is a letter from Susan Morrison, Director of Community
Relations, Metropolitan Bank Group, asking that the City Council
reconsider its 1986 funding decision for the West Hennepin Human
Services Planning Board. The City Council approved an allocation of
$2,000 to support the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board
for 1986. The Board had originally requested an allocation of
$3,963 based upon 13� times the City's 1980 population of 30,500.
The Council's concern in revising the allocation was that both the
West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board and the Northwest
Hennepin Human Services Council serve approximately half of the
community, while both requested funding based upon the total city
population. The Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council
allocation was treated similarly. Their request for 1986 was $5,841
based upon a 15� per capita request based on the 1985 population of
38,940. While both organizations were treated similarly in funding
approach, the West Hennepin Human Services Board received a greater
funding cut than the Northwest Board because the latter requested a
substantial increase in support over 1985 levels. The table below
compares the funding levels for 1985 and 1986:
Actual 1985 Funding Level
Requested 1986 Funding Level
N.W. Hennepin
$ 3,559.40
5,841.00
West Hennepin
$ 3,963.00
3,963.00
Actual 1986 Funding Level 3,000.00 2,000.00
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUN
November 15, 1985
Page 4
4. DEPARTMENT REPORTS -- The following departmental activity reports
for the month of October are attached:
a. Planning Applications (I -4a)
b. Building Inspection (I -4b)
5. MINUTES:
a. Planning Commission, November 6, 1985 (I -5a)
b. Board of Zoning Adjustments & Appeals, October 14, 1985 (I -5b)
6. COMMUNITY PROMOTION -- Peter Pflaum forwarded to me the attached
literature he received from the City of Woodbury promoting their
community. Peter indicated he received a large box with the
promotional material and a large fortune cookie inside. Inside the
cookie was a fortune which read,"Your business is destined to
prosper in Woodbury, the City of Good Fortune." (I-6)
7. MEGA -MALL SIGNIFICANCE REVIEW REPORT AND HEARING -- The Metropolitan
Council's Significance Review Committee will hold a public hearing
on November 20 beginning at 8:30 a.m. in the Metro Council
Chambers to consider whether the proposed Mall of America and
Fantasyword project is of metropolitan significance. This hearing
is expected to continue for several days. Attached is a letter
from Sandra Gardebring on the hearing together with a copy of the
Metropolitan Council's Significance Review Report on the proposed
mall development. (I-7)
8. CORRESPONDENCE:
a. Letter from Bob Roscoe, Strgar-Roscoe -Fausch, Inc., in response
to Fred Moore's letter of November 6 concerning notification to
residents of Carlson Center 3rd Addition on the interruption of
access to their property. (I -8a)
b. Letter from Jody Hauer, Citizens League, thanking Frank Boyles
for his presentation on the Plymouth Metrolink before the
Citizens League's Transit Commission. (I -8b)
c. Letter to Rebecca Stepp, Real Estate Representative, McDonald's
Corporation, from Sara McConn, regarding the landscaping plan
submitted to MnDOT for the right-of-way area south of
McDonald's. (I -8c)
d. Letter of appreciation to Public Safety Department and Officer
Dave Digatono from Neil Warren, 1781 Jonquil Lane. (I -8d)
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
November 15, 1985
Page 5
e. Letter from Dr. Roger Adams, Interim Superintendent, Wayzata
Schools, acknowledging City Manager's letter of November 5
regarding the Council's decision on freestanding day care
centers in residential areas. Dr. Adams further advises that
the purchaser of the Beacon Heights building and property, Mr.
Fred Lucas, has stated he was buying the property for investment
purposes and no zoning contingencies are involved. (I -8e)
f. Letter from Lois Troemel, Christ Memorial Lutheran Church, to
City Manager expressing concern for pedestrian safety at the
intersection of County Road 61 and County Road 15. (I -8f)
g. Letter to Mike SJeklocha, Tipton Corportation, from Gerry
Zander, a Cavanaugh 4th Addition homeowner, thanking the Tipton
Corporation for working cooperatively with area homeowners
during the development of the Park Place apartments. (I -8g)
James G. Willis
City Manager
JGW:jm
attach
AGENDA
Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals
Monday, November 18, 1985
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. NEW BUSINESS
WHERE: Plymouth City Center
Lunchroom
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, Minnesota
7:30 P.M.
October 14, 1985
A. Joseph Berglund. Variance from the minimum building front and side
yard setback for property located at 2319 Kirkwood Lane. (11-01-85)
B. Robert H. Chapman. Variance from the minimum building side yard set-
back for property located at 10877 South Shore Drive. (11-02-85)
C. Erwin E. Stobbe. Variance from the minimum building front and rear
yard setback for property located north of 12000 23rd Avenue North.
(11-03-85)
5. OTHER BUSINESS
6. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 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 7:30 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
3.* ,APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 1985
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. doe Hamm. Final Plat, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Variance for
"Hamm Berg Addition" for property southeast of 45th Avenue North and Trenton
Lane (85102)
B. Michael Anderson. Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, and
Variance for "Anderson's Pheasant Trail" for property east of 43rd Avenue and
Ximines Lane (85103)
C. Hew -Lynn, Inc. Land Use Guide Plan Amendment for property northwest of
Berkshire Lane and County Road 9; Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1, Plymouth Office
Commercial Park (85118)
5. OTHER BUSINESS
7. ADJOURNMENT 10:00 P.M.
MUNICIPAL 7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Suite 1500
L _ IL(ISLATIVE Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
CO COMMISSION (612) 338-6610
MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION
BACKGROUND
Over the last few decades, the population balance in the
United States has shifted dramatically from the central
cities to the suburbs. Nonetheless, the balance of political
power in legislatures throughout the country has remained
with the central cities or rural communities.
The Municipal Legislative Commission, a coalition of 16 Twin
Cities suburbs, was formed in December 1983 to counteract
that political imbalance. These suburbs, representing a
combined population larger than Minneapolis or St. Paul,
banded together to attain the same political influence the
smaller central cities hold.
This movement appears to be unique to Minnesota, where new
political ideas have often taken root. Although the growth
of the suburbs is a nationwide phenomenon, Minnesota is the
first state to spawn a specific suburban -oriented lobbying
institution.
"The suburbs are the forgotten component of our political
process," explains Connie Morrison, Mayor of Burnsville
and one of the driving forces behind the Municipal Legislative
Commission.
"No one has come to grips with the political realities of
the 1980s and the major changes in the nature of the suburban/
urban equation," she adds.
SUBURBAN POPULATION GROWTH
The changes in that equation are significant: In 1950, the
total population of the 16 Municipal Legislative Commission's
member suburbs was slightly less than 55,000. At that time,
three of the member suburbs --Plymouth, Maplewood and Shoreview --
were not even incorporated.
In 1985, the combined population of these 16 suburbs is
estimated at 550,100, a tenfold increase since 1950.
Municipal Legislative Commission
Background
Page 2
In the meantime, the populations of the core cities of
Minneapolis and St. Paul have dropped by more than half.
Three times more people living in the Twin Cities area
now live in the suburbs than in the core cities.
Projections indicate that future growth in the area will
come almost exclusively in the suburbs, particularly
suburbs like Eagan, Eden Prairie, Maple Grove and Woodbury.
In fact, the most recent population projections by the
Metropolitan Council indicate that by the year 2000,
the 16 member suburbs of the Municipal Legislative Com-
mission will have a population greater than the core
cities of Minneapolis and. St. Paul combined. The present
estimates indicate the MLC members' population by the end
of the century to be 621,000 and the population of the two
central cities to be 593,000.
But for all that growth, influence in the Minnesota
Legislature has been slow in comina. Commission members
consider the Local Government Aids Bill of 1983 a perfect
example of that lack of clout.
With the state fighting the effects of continued recession,
the Legislature move to cut costs in several areas. One
of the most serious cuts came from the local government
aids budget, and the Twin Cities area suburbs took the
hardest cuts of all.
The 16 suburbs of the Municipal Legislative Commission
lost almost $2 million in financial support already
promised by the Legislature. Bloomington, the largest
suburb, lost $786,899, Edina lost $449,021 and Plymouth
lost $271,419.
Since these were revenues promised for 1984, they were
calculated into the suburbs' operating budgets for 1984.
The change in funding levels forced each of the suburbs
to cut back on needed programs and delay or eliminate
important local services.
Municipal Legislative Commission ----
Background
Page 3
LOCAL AID CUTS SPURRED COMMISSION
It was this drastic cutback in local government aids, more
than anything else, that led to the formation of the Municipal
Legislative Commission.
"The cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have long had really
strong lobbying teams at the Legislature," explains Jim Miller,
City Manager of Minnetonka. "Their efforts often worked
against our best interests, so it was time for the suburbs
to develop a potent lobbying force of our own."
The idea for the commission seemed to be brewing simultaneously
in suburbs throughout the Twin Cities area. Miller and other
city managers in the western and southern suburbs and Roseville
City Manager James Andre and his colleagues in the northeastern
suburbs all appeared to share similar objectives at the same
time: the suburbs need a united lobbying effort to protect
their interests at the Minnesota Legislature.
Miller wrote a letter to city managers in the fall of 1983,
suggesting discussion of a coordinated effort. The response
to that letter was positive and immediate. By December, with
city managers and elected officials alike in agreement, the
Municipal Legislative Commission was formed.
Each of the suburbs agreed to allocate funds to support the
lobbying effort, and by January the commission had chosen
a law firm to represent the suburbs as chief lobbyist.
The law firm chosen was Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.,
a Bloomington -based law firm with offices in downtown Minneapolis.
It has an excellent reputation as a lobbyist and a strong
tradition of serving suburban needs.
Their chief lobbyists for the commission are: Richard Forschler,
a veteran of lobbying efforts at the municipal, state and federal
levels, and Robert Renner, Jr., former Commissioner of the
Minnesota Department of Energy, Planning and Development and
top legislative aide to former Governor Al Quie.
In April 1984, the 14 original members were joined by the City
of Mounds View. In June, Blaine also joined the commission,
bringing the membership to 16 suburbs.
Municipal Legislative Commission
Background
Page 4
THE COMMISSION'S ORGANIZATION
The commission is organized to share responsibility between
elected and appointed officials. Elected officials and city
managers make up the commission's board of directors.
Roseville Mayor June Demos was elected the first President
of the Municipal Legislative Commission in January 1984.
In July 1985, she was succeeded by Connie Morrison, Mayor
of Burnsville. The operating committee was first headed
by Jim Miller, City Manager of Minnetonka and subsequently
by Tom Hedaes, City Manager from Eagan. The operating com-
mittee meets monthly to discuss suburban issues and make
recommendations to the board of directors.
The commission's efforts are designed to work with and
support the 39 senators and representatives elected from
the 16 suburbs. Morrison says one of the most important
elements of the commission's charter is to foster close
coordination among the suburbs legislative delegations,
elected officials and city managers.
"The reality is that we want our issues known, we needed
to develop a commonality of interest and approach among our-
selves," Miller says. "Once we started talking about the
commission idea, it was amazing how quickly that coordination
developed."
The Municipal Legislative Commission is probably the only
organization of its kind in American politics. But it does
not expect to be the only one for long.
The Municipal Legislative Commission, and the commitment
to a representative voice for the suburbs in American
legislatures, is an idea whose time has come.
THE MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION:
THE FIRST SESSION --1984
The Municipal Legislative Commission's first session in the
Minnesota Legislature was a testing one for the new organiza-
tion. With major goals in the areas of local government aids,
property taxes and metropolitan transit, the commission set
itself stiff challenges. Through close coordination with
other suburban organizations, a strong lobbying team and
successful relationships with key suburban legislators, the
commission was able to meet those challenges.
The primary goals of the MLC in its first session was to recoup
at least part of the more than $2 million its members lost in
local government aids in the 1983 session. Those losses
occurred in 1984; without significant action by the Legislature,
the losses in 1985 would have been even greater.
Municipal Legislative Commission
Background
Page 5
The MLC was successful in restoring almost $2 million in local
government aids to its member cities. It was also instrumental
in the appointment of a commission to study the overall local
government aids formula, a commission that has been active in
the legislative interim and is closely monitored by the MLC.
On other issues arising in the 1984 session, the MLC's influence
was also felt. For example, the MLC lobbying effort helped
develop a "feathering" provision for the cities' payment of
the Metropolitan Transit Commission's subsidy. It also was
involved in the creation of the Regional Transit Board, which
will give suburban areas greater influence on the overall
direction of the metropolitan transit operation.
In the interim between sessions, the MLC also showed its growing
influence by taking a strong stand on the management of the
Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). By threatening
to withhold their employers' share of PERA contributions unless
major changes were made in the PERA board and its operation,
the MLC helped spur the Legislature to act quickly on this
important and controversial issue.
THE MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION:
THE SECOND SESSION --1985
The hallmark of the 1985 Session was a major income tax cut.
Included as part of the Omnibus Tax Bill was a new local govern-
ment aid formula that was aggressively supported by the MLC.
For the first time, the MLC became a major influence in deve-
loping a new formula. Enacted during the June Special Session,
the new formula increased the amount of local government aid
allocated to MLC cities from $14.5 million to $16 million, an
increase of more than 11%. In fact, 12 of the 16 cities received
the maximum increase permitted by law of 12%. At the same time,
the new formula began addressing the inquities of past local
government aid formulas by limiting the amount of aid going
to Minneapolis (2% increase) and St. Paul (8.1% increase).
The 1985 Session also provided additional property tax relief
to suburban residents. This was accomplished by increasing
the homestead credit maximum from $650 to $700 and reducing
the assessment ratio on higher valued homes from 30% to 29%
in 1986,and to 28% in 1987.
Other legislative changes that occured in 1985 which the MLC
monitored included an appropriation which will fund sewer
separation in the Metropolitan area, a new industrial revenue
bond distribution formula and changes in the composition of
Hennepin County's Regional Park Board.
Municipal Legislative Commission
Background
Page 6
The MLC had a successful 1985 Session. It not only achieved
a new, more equitable local government aid formula,but just as
important, most Capitol observers agree that it gained signifi-
cant clout and played a major role in developing policies which
are advantageous to the residents of suburban areas.
r
I ST FRANCIS BETHEL
NwCCE
d RN$ I EAST BETHEL
1 OAK GROVE
ANA
H »SAN 7-1 DAYTON AN K LINO LAKES MARINE
R� I CNA IN� COON RAPIDSCENTERYILIE M -T
2 tlA1M(
ZHUGO
HANOV.R
ff[O N L[KINGTO
CIRCLE PINES WASHINGTON CO.
GREENFIELDI CORCORAN MAPLE GROVE 11 OYNot R
vI[ 27 1 2
BROOKLYN ►ARK NORTH j71llwAT G.P
OCKFORD HENNEPINFRIDLEY 12 OAKS rM1T[�EAR
CO. N NEW "' GRANT
C[NT[R RIG N VADNAI
OLONETTO�. HE14 NTS
if
13 Z DEN 2S � Q29 S AT[
EW Z' 14 ILLS
.
I INo[/ENDENCE M[DINA PLYMOUTH 01 10 30
0 11T E
ROS[VILL[ C A N X
EMAIL[ PLAIN 3fT. IF UL
d•.T^wN
I B
1 GOLDEN 1 _ oOD + LAK[
LONG LAK a VALLEY 17 AND [ ELMO p -- —
L a %I N *ESt
,
OiW f—ATF NTOw ofoNo *AT RAMSEY Co. OO ^-ELAN, r
1
MIMNLTRISTA 7 MINNETONKA
ST 10U15 SAINT RAYL 1 LAKELA ND
5 rARZ MOOIIM ,31.
HCL L1.00C I T,w TCwN 9
[INAY(N KIN P ST CROIX [EACH
If -
` WE$? I WOODBURY 3
ST .ONIFACIuf EDINA �1 18 PAUL AFTON
NEW GERMANY MAY If
No sou ST
IfNNFIELD IRP ONT ST r T
�(.. NEIGH S UN, M ►A
I VICTOR I CHAMNASS[NIf
'12' XEIGNTf
r
--DEN NACOvi> L>KEiO NN I SO[N PRAIRIE
WACONIA T. UL
BLOOMING M AR
CARVER CO. CHASKA 1 INVEI GROVE
L Z RAGAN [I.NTS COTTAGE GROVE CE NMawn
1 ------ -----I ----- J �}( O 2_
IM YOUNG
cXAsKA 1 OAK A CO. J
...-S AMEN CA
NORWOODLI I CARVE- iAL'K ON SNAROPt[
COLOGME, DI-LLREN LL
fAVA RYRMLYIIIL
YOUNG AMERICA I BENTON II `—
�S PRIOR 3 L. VALLEY ROSEMOUNT NININGER
MAItBL R4 I I r LO'�15vILLE LAN[% XASTINGS
-----t----_ _—__ OA ---� 142
SAN Fw>NCISCO
HANCOCK
I I IERM.LLiON IRAvENNn
SAND CREEK I SPRING LAKE I CREDIT I LAKEYILL[ EMPIRE a I MapSH•N
RIVER
MILLION
SCOTT CO. rAwacroN I VER
ST LAWRENCE JORDAN I L
1
BELL[ PLAIN[ ^
I NEW MARKET M►r (DN[ TRIER r—�
AK
BLAKELEY I BELLE PLAINE I HELENA CEDAp I I NAMMM� ON
LAKE EVREna CaSTLE WEEK
NEW MARKET I Mt[ YILL[I
1I II 1 I HAMPTON I 70'..Iil 5
�����1 �M[r11AGY[L-1�—
r��, I a NDOLvn
RAN OIIH
1
MILES S 10 15 20 25 GR EENvaLE ;w•TEa FORD
1 - SCIOTA
1
TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
Political Boundaries, 1981
1 SIRING PARK B rOUNO 17 FALCON "RIGHTS 25 610 LAKE
2 020110 !0 SOBO'G LAK t 10 r[MBOTA 26 BI IITE BE R
3 MIIIIIETONRA BEACH 11 SPRING LAK[ PARK 19 LIIYOAI[ 27 WRITE NEAR AN SA— County Boundary
A TONRA BAT 12 U. S. GOVT. 20 GREY CLOUD 20 BAT►OAT
S Go SLI a 13 HILLTOP 21 LANDFALL 20 rlll[RNI[ OROMO Municipal Boundary
6 6RtLNM000 1• COLUMBIA NtiGNTS 22 DELL DOG 30 IS
PARR "RIGHTS AMDEN
7 OooKANO IS LIT. ANTHONY 23 ►I Go SPRINGS 31 LAKELAND SMORtS ----- Township Boundary
0 rtDICINELAKE 16 AYO[NDALE 24 MANTOMLBI 32 ST. -ARTY POINT
RArs[Y
AIYOK CO.
got-.iMeuj
r
Z„
ANDOVER HAM LA Kc
-Z
I FOREST LAN[
PORES! LIKE I
II
'EA' --NL,
H »SAN 7-1 DAYTON AN K LINO LAKES MARINE
R� I CNA IN� COON RAPIDSCENTERYILIE M -T
2 tlA1M(
ZHUGO
HANOV.R
ff[O N L[KINGTO
CIRCLE PINES WASHINGTON CO.
GREENFIELDI CORCORAN MAPLE GROVE 11 OYNot R
vI[ 27 1 2
BROOKLYN ►ARK NORTH j71llwAT G.P
OCKFORD HENNEPINFRIDLEY 12 OAKS rM1T[�EAR
CO. N NEW "' GRANT
C[NT[R RIG N VADNAI
OLONETTO�. HE14 NTS
if
13 Z DEN 2S � Q29 S AT[
EW Z' 14 ILLS
.
I INo[/ENDENCE M[DINA PLYMOUTH 01 10 30
0 11T E
ROS[VILL[ C A N X
EMAIL[ PLAIN 3fT. IF UL
d•.T^wN
I B
1 GOLDEN 1 _ oOD + LAK[
LONG LAK a VALLEY 17 AND [ ELMO p -- —
L a %I N *ESt
,
OiW f—ATF NTOw ofoNo *AT RAMSEY Co. OO ^-ELAN, r
1
MIMNLTRISTA 7 MINNETONKA
ST 10U15 SAINT RAYL 1 LAKELA ND
5 rARZ MOOIIM ,31.
HCL L1.00C I T,w TCwN 9
[INAY(N KIN P ST CROIX [EACH
If -
` WE$? I WOODBURY 3
ST .ONIFACIuf EDINA �1 18 PAUL AFTON
NEW GERMANY MAY If
No sou ST
IfNNFIELD IRP ONT ST r T
�(.. NEIGH S UN, M ►A
I VICTOR I CHAMNASS[NIf
'12' XEIGNTf
r
--DEN NACOvi> L>KEiO NN I SO[N PRAIRIE
WACONIA T. UL
BLOOMING M AR
CARVER CO. CHASKA 1 INVEI GROVE
L Z RAGAN [I.NTS COTTAGE GROVE CE NMawn
1 ------ -----I ----- J �}( O 2_
IM YOUNG
cXAsKA 1 OAK A CO. J
...-S AMEN CA
NORWOODLI I CARVE- iAL'K ON SNAROPt[
COLOGME, DI-LLREN LL
fAVA RYRMLYIIIL
YOUNG AMERICA I BENTON II `—
�S PRIOR 3 L. VALLEY ROSEMOUNT NININGER
MAItBL R4 I I r LO'�15vILLE LAN[% XASTINGS
-----t----_ _—__ OA ---� 142
SAN Fw>NCISCO
HANCOCK
I I IERM.LLiON IRAvENNn
SAND CREEK I SPRING LAKE I CREDIT I LAKEYILL[ EMPIRE a I MapSH•N
RIVER
MILLION
SCOTT CO. rAwacroN I VER
ST LAWRENCE JORDAN I L
1
BELL[ PLAIN[ ^
I NEW MARKET M►r (DN[ TRIER r—�
AK
BLAKELEY I BELLE PLAINE I HELENA CEDAp I I NAMMM� ON
LAKE EVREna CaSTLE WEEK
NEW MARKET I Mt[ YILL[I
1I II 1 I HAMPTON I 70'..Iil 5
�����1 �M[r11AGY[L-1�—
r��, I a NDOLvn
RAN OIIH
1
MILES S 10 15 20 25 GR EENvaLE ;w•TEa FORD
1 - SCIOTA
1
TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
Political Boundaries, 1981
1 SIRING PARK B rOUNO 17 FALCON "RIGHTS 25 610 LAKE
2 020110 !0 SOBO'G LAK t 10 r[MBOTA 26 BI IITE BE R
3 MIIIIIETONRA BEACH 11 SPRING LAK[ PARK 19 LIIYOAI[ 27 WRITE NEAR AN SA— County Boundary
A TONRA BAT 12 U. S. GOVT. 20 GREY CLOUD 20 BAT►OAT
S Go SLI a 13 HILLTOP 21 LANDFALL 20 rlll[RNI[ OROMO Municipal Boundary
6 6RtLNM000 1• COLUMBIA NtiGNTS 22 DELL DOG 30 IS
PARR "RIGHTS AMDEN
7 OooKANO IS LIT. ANTHONY 23 ►I Go SPRINGS 31 LAKELAND SMORtS ----- Township Boundary
0 rtDICINELAKE 16 AYO[NDALE 24 MANTOMLBI 32 ST. -ARTY POINT
MUNICIPAL
(
LEGISLATIVE
COMMISSION
MLC MEMBERSHIP ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
ANOKA COUNTY
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Suite 1500
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
(612) 338-6610
CARVER COUNTY
Average
Assessed Equalized
City LGA Population Value Mills
Chanhassen x
Chaska x
DAKOTA COUNTY
Average
Assessed Equalized
City LGA Population Value Mills
Apple Valley x
Hastings x x
Inver Grove Heights x x x x
Lakeville x x x x
West St. Paul x
Average
Assessed
City
LGA Population
Value
% Increase
Andover
x
X
Anoka
x x
Champlin
x
Columbia Heights
x
Coon Rapids
x
x
Fridley
x
x
Osseo
x
Ramsey
x x
x
CARVER COUNTY
Average
Assessed Equalized
City LGA Population Value Mills
Chanhassen x
Chaska x
DAKOTA COUNTY
Average
Assessed Equalized
City LGA Population Value Mills
Apple Valley x
Hastings x x
Inver Grove Heights x x x x
Lakeville x x x x
West St. Paul x
MLC Membership Analysis
Summary
Page 2
HENNEPIN COUNTY
Average
City
LGA
Population
Assessed
Value
Equalized
Mills
Brooklyn Center
Champlin
x
x
x
x
Crystal
Golden Valley
x
x
Hopkins
x
x
Minneapolis
x
x
Mound
x
x
New Hope
Richfield
x
x
Robbinsdale
x
x
x
Shorewood
x
St. Anthony
x
St. Louis Park
x
x
RAMSEY COUNTY
Average
City
LGA
Population
Assessed
Value
Equalized
Mills
Falcon Heights
x
Little Canada
x
New Brighton
St. Paul
x
x
North St. Paul
x
Vadnais Heights
x
X
SCOTT COUNTY
Average
city
LGA
Population
Assessed
Value
Equalized
Mills
Prior Lake
x
Shakopee
x
x
x
x
Spring Lake Park
x
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Average
City
LGA
Assessed
Equalized
Population
Value
Mills
Afton
x
Bayport
x
Cottage Grove
x
Lake Elmo
x
x
x
Oakdale
x
x
Stillwater
x
x
x
MUNICIPAL
City
Blaine
Bloomington
Brooklyn Park
Burnsville
Eagan
Eden Prairie
Edina
Maple Grove
Maplewood
Minnetonka
Mounds View
Plymouth
Roseville
Shoreview
White Bear Lake
Woodbury
TOTAL
AVERAGES
MLC CITIES ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
LGA Population
i
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Suite 1500
Bloomington. Minnesota 55431
(612)338-6610
Average
Assessed
X
13
$10,521
Equalized
15
13.59
LGA - Criteria 12% increase in 1986.
Population - Criteria 15% or greater increase by the year 2000.
Average Assessed Value Per Capita - Criteria $6,500 or more
per capita.
Equalized Mills - Criteria 18 equalized mills or less levied.
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
x
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
10
11.14%
31%
i
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Suite 1500
Bloomington. Minnesota 55431
(612)338-6610
Average
Assessed
X
13
$10,521
Equalized
15
13.59
LGA - Criteria 12% increase in 1986.
Population - Criteria 15% or greater increase by the year 2000.
Average Assessed Value Per Capita - Criteria $6,500 or more
per capita.
Equalized Mills - Criteria 18 equalized mills or less levied.
1986 MLC LEGISLATIVE ISSUES
1) Local Government Aids Sunset
a) New Formula
b) No Formula
c) Extended Sunset
2) Levy Limits Repeal
3) Fiscal Disparities
a) New Formula
b) Minor Changes
c) Repeal
d) No Position
4) Property Tax Reform
a) New Homestead Credit Formula
b) Fewer Classifications
c) No LGA
d) Commercial/Industrial
e) School Aids
5) Local Option Sales Tax
a) Governor's Initiative
b) Seven -County Metro Area
6) Industrial Development Bonds
a) New Formula
b) No Position
7) Tax Increment Financing
a) League Study
8) Pension Issues
9) Comparable Worth
10) Metropolitan Parks
11) Combined Sewer Overflow
12) Metro Transit
a) Light Rail
b) Fare Structure/Tax Structure
13) Metro Governance Structure
14) Solid Waste Management
MeF
U* OW5 27th Awnue NorM
0 O �}%�-1 Plymouth, MN 55441
(�((� (612) 559-9101
Mayor David Davenport
Plymouth City Fall
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mayor Davenport:
I was disappointed to learn of the recent decision by the Plymouth
City Council to cut the funding of West Hennepin Human Services
Planning Board by Plymouth in half.
From my position as Director of Community Relations for the
Metropolitan Bank Group (my office is located in Plymouth), I have
been keenly aware of the problems and needs of residents of Plymouth.
I have considered Plymouth to be a part of the West Hennepin
service area. Because of this and in order to learn more about
the community, I joined the West Hennepin Human Services Planning
Board about four years ago. I am presently serving as Chairman of
the Board of Directors.
I have been touched by the number of people in the Plymouth area who
do need services and support. Last week, I spent two mornings assisting
on the West Hennepin energy assistance phone. I referred a number of
qualified applicants to the West Hennepin Human Services Planning
Board energy intake site which is located at the Plymouth City
Hall. My understanding is that West Hennepin Human Services Planning
Board serves all parts of Plymouth. For example, last year West
Hennepin served 165 Plymouth households in the energy assistance
r.rogram and 302 Plymouth residents in the emergency services program.
nese people came from all parts of Plymouth.
As a business person, I have been impressed with the Board's ability
to have a strong impact on our community while keeping costs down
as well as gaining private/community funding to support its efforts.
I would appreciate the Council reconsidering its funding decision.
I would be available to meet with you and/or the council regarding
this decision.
As a business person in the Plymouth community, I feel business
has a responsibility to support the area it serves. I am doing
what I can to be sure that the quality of life is good for all
of the citizens in the community.
Sincerely,
Pustan5j'-tm. Morrison
Director,Community Relations
Metropolitan Bank Group
cc: City Council
COMPARISON OF PLANNING APPLICATION VOLUME BY TYPE
The following figures represent the number of applications received and in process by the
Planning Department for the month of: October 1985
* Other than Planned Unit Developments
**Includes Planned Unit Developments
THIS
YEAR
THIS MONTH
LAST YEAR
TYPE OF APPLICATION
MONTH
TO DATE
LAST YEAR
TO DATE
Site Plan
3
49
2
48
Preliminary Plats*/RLS
2
27
7
33
Final Plats*/RLS
3
42
5
45
PUD Concept Plans
1
6
2
9
PUD Preliminary Plats
2
10
1
12
PUD Final Plats
-
15
-
25
Conditional Use Permits
6
53
7
53
Rezonings**
1
13
3
17
Lot Division!Consolidation
-
27
1
23
Variances
5
45
4
39
Sign Plans
-
_
_
1
Site Plan Amendments
-
1
Rev General Development Plans
-
1
-
-
Land Use Guide Plan Amendments**
1
6
-
6
Landscape Plans
_
-
_
_
Other
1
2
1
2
TOTAL
25
297
33
313
* Other than Planned Unit Developments
**Includes Planned Unit Developments
COMPARISON OF PLAN14ING APPLICATION VOLUME BY TYPE
The following figures represent the number of applications received and in process by the
Planning Department for the month of: October 1985
TYPE OF APPLICATION
duly
Aug
Sept
Oct Nov Dec
Site Plan
10
6
4
3
Preliminary Plats*/RLS
4
3
2
.2
Final Plats*/RLS
9
2
2
3
PUD Concept Plans
1
-
-
1
PUD Preliminary Plats
2
1
-
2
PUD Final Plats
2
2
-
-
Conditional Use Permits
8
5
8
6
Rezonings**
2
1
2
1
Lot Division/Consolidation
4
3
2
-
Variances
9
2
6
5
Sign Plans
-
-
-
-
Site Plan Amendments
-
1
-
-
Rev General Development Plans
-
-
-
-
Land Use Guide Plan Amendments**
1
-
-
1
Landscape Plans
-
-
-
-
Other
-
-
1
1
TOTALS
52
26
27
25
* Other than Planned Unit Developments
**Includes Planned Unit Developments
MONTHLY PERMIT ISSUANCE BUILDING DIV
BUILDING PERMITS
CURRENT
Public
1
Comm/Ind/New
4
Alteration
14
Residential
64
Multi -Family
0
Remodeling
51
Foundations
0
Garage
2
TOTALS
136
VALUATION/PERMITS
6
Public
8101000
Comm/Ind/New
3,974,623
Alteration
1,867,470
Residential
6,116,129
Multi -Family
0
Remodeling
296,125
Foundations
0
Garage
8,200
TOTALS $12,272,547
OTHER PERMITS
-1:__ _LA b
OCTOBER 1985
Y.T.D.
1984
L.Y.T.D
5
0
1
16
4
17
103
15
85
602
4-" "s)
50
518
16(.7-5?
6
12
437
49
463
6
0
3
17
6
49
1202
130
1148
81,712,016
15,660,268
5,706,617
51,645,019
12,120,000
2,478,385
936,000
109,741
$90.368,046
80
$361,000
2,214,800
19,187,752
332,599
5,307,818
4,582,497
43,365,862
2,340,000
6,572,900
208,027
2,884,295
0
460,000
52,511
316,161
$9,730,434 $78,455,788
Plumbing
132
1125
105
926
Mechanical
107
897
108
869
Signa
7
80
13
129
Gradinq
4
18
4
19
Wells
3
19
0
6
Movinq
0
4
0
0
Septic/Removal
0
99
0
0
Demolish
1
4
0
2
TOTALS
--------
254
------
2,246
--------
230
------
11951
BUILDING PERMIT FEES
$48,083
$351.858
$37.946
$320,016
PLAN CHECK FEES
$28,569
$188.959
$18.447
$171,254
SAC FEES
$40,800
$434.300
$17,850
$329,375
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
48
359
49
305
SEWER & WATER ACTIVITY CURRENT Y.T.D.
SEWER & WATER CONNECTIONS
Sewer 67 613
Meter 69 639
TOTALS 136 1252
METERS ISSUED
5/8 X 3/4 inch
64
591
3/4 inch
3
45
1 inch
1
4
1 1/2 inch
8
35
2 inch
1
5
3 inch
2
2
4 inch
U
5
TOTALS
79
687
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 6, 1985
The regular Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was
called to order at 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Steigerwald, Commissioners
Magnus, Stulberg, Pauba. Commissioner
Mellen arrived at 8:15 P.M.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Wire and Plufka
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Coordinator
Sara McConn
City Engineer Sherm Goldberg
Community Development Secretary
Grace Wineman
*CONSENT AGENDA AND
MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Magnus seconded by Commissioner Pauba
to recommend approval of the Consent Agenda with no
deletions. VOTE 4 Ayes. Commissioner Stulberg abstained
from the vote on the Minutes. MOTION carried.
MOTION by Commissioner Magnus seconded by Commissioner Pauba
to recommend approval of the October 23, 1985 Minutes as
submitted.
VOTE 4 Ayes. Commissioner Stulberg abstained.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Saul Segal,
Enterprise Properties and requested an overview of the Octo-
ber 23, 1985 staff report by Coordinator McConn. Coordina-
tor McConn also explained the Planned Unit Development
review and the combination of requests being considered.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired about the preliminary reports
from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) relative to
wetlands. Coordinator McConn explained that Judy Boudreau,
DNR reviewed the application and preliminarily identified
the High Water Elevation of 913 for protected wetlands. She
further explained that additional low land in this area is
not part of a protected wetland. She noted that these ponds
are not part of the City's Storm Water Drainage System.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mr. Fran Hagen, 7415 Wayzata
Blvd, representing the petitioner.
-243-
CONSENT AGENDA
*MINUTES OF OCTOBER
23, 1985
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
SAUL SEGAL
ENTERPRISE PROPERTIES
RPUD CONCEPT PLAN
PRELIMINARY PLAN/PLAT
REZONING, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, VARIANCE
FOR IVY PARK II
(84057)
Page 244
Planning Commission Minutes
November 6, 1985
Mr. Hagen explained the development plan and that this is an
infill development surrounded by areas known as "Rolling
Hills", "Skyline Hills" and "Nathan Trails". He explained
the topography and that they intend to retain the natural
ponding area in the northern part of the site. He stated
the plans are responsive to the environmental constraints by
retention of the natural areas and that encroachment into.
the natural areas is minimal. He explained that infill
development is desirable and meets the guidelines of the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area and Plymouth's Comprehensive
Plan which is approved by the Metropolitan Council.
Chairman Steigerwald stated he had walked the site and in-
quired about the grading and filling to occur on the north-
east side and southwest corner of the property. Mr. Hagen
stated the northeast side has scattered trees and as many of
these trees as possible will be maintained. The grading
plan proposes to install the house pads; rear yard areas
will be untouched on the north side. There will be grading
with berming along Schmidt Lake Road. He stated the grading
on the west will be confined to housing pads only with no
grading at the rear of the lot.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired about the areas adjacent to
Rolling Hills Park that have standing water near proposed
Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9. Mr. Hagen stated this area will be
left in its natural state for the most part. He explained
that the water in the area has been unnaturally high due to
debris that has acted as a dam, plugging the upstream storm
water drainageway.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing.
Marion Bohnsack, 330 Zinnia Lane N., stated she does not
live in the immediate area but is informed on this request
and wants to share what she and her neighbors experienced
during the development phases of their neighborhood. She
stated it is imperative that the Commission consider the
marshland; that construction of County Road 61 came through
a DNR controlled area against the wishes of the area resi-
dents; that much of the natural terrain and cover for the
wildlife was destroyed and that once natural areas are
tampered with they never return to their original state.
Dan Berner, 4835 Quaker Lane, stated that the development of
Rolling Hills Park did enough damage to the area and that
now, the only wildlife or natural area is on the property
proposed for development. He is opposed to building homes
around the pond and that the development will require fill-
ing of the southern wet area. He stated that he lives at
the southeast corner of the development where much fill will
be required because of the standing water.
Page 245
Planning Commission Minutes
November 6, 1985
Terry Lillibridge, 4825 Trenton Lane, inquired why the
developer's representative is avoiding the issue of the high
water behind his home that will affect the proposed Lots 7,
8, and 9. of Block 1.
Connie Lillibridge, 4825 Trenton Lane, stated her concern
for the plant and wildlife. She stated that a petition
signed by 35 neighbors has been forwarded to the Environ-
mental Quality Board (EQB) requesting an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW). She presented the Commission a
copy of the petition and pictures of the area stating the
residents wish to retain this area for future generations.
Brian Karsjens, 4815 Trenton Lane, stated they were the
first family to move into Rolling Hills Park. When he con-
tacted the City regarding the status of the adjacent land,
he was told the zoning was FRD (future restricted develop-
ment) District and would he developed with single family
residential homes. Further, he was told that most of the
area could not be developed because of the wetlands. He
noted there is high, dry land available for development in
Plymouth and this developer should not be permitted to
develop on low, wet land. He stated there is standing water
on proposed Lots 9, 14, 15, 13, and 16, Block 3; and, once
these are developed, the chemicals from the lawns will run
into the pond and pollute the waterway. He stated that if
the Planning Commission had walked the area they would not
support this development. He stated Plymouth should not
allow development everywhere and should learn a lesson from
other suburbs.
Moira Knutson, 4820 Union Terrace Lane, inquired about the
proposed developed play area as development would affect the
drainage from her property. Chairman Steigerwald stated the
developer is held responsible to provide and install proper
drainage systems. Ms. Knutson stated her concern that the
wetlands and wildlife area should be retained.
Curtis Knutson, 4820 Union Terrace Lane, stated he has the
same concerns and does not want to trade the pond for the
play area. He stated these plans may look good on paper but
that in actuality there is a large pond surrounded by
extensive wetlands and he does not want to see it destroyed.
Pam Kreuger, 4825 Saratoga Lane, stated she does not want
the pond filled, she picked her home for the view and wants
to preserve the many varieties of wildlife in this area.
Page 246
Planning Commission Minutes
November 6, 1985
Donald Russell, 4815 Saratoga Lane, stated he bought his
home in duly this year which is adjacent to the proposed
development. He stated that he has seen basements cave in
where construction has occurred in low areas. He noted that
proposed Lots 14, 15, 10 and 13, Block 3, are very high and
will require grading and fill which will necessitate remov-
ing many of the trees. He stated his concern about filling
the pond and has concerns regarding safety if the variance
for the cul-de-sac length is approved.
Todd Sareupa, 4805 Saratoga Lane, stated when he heard about
this proposal he laughed. He stated that the Planning Com-
mission should visit the site before voting on it. He noted
that the property is marginal; is a remnant site; and, he
foresees homes with wet basements followed by legal action
by the homeowners against the City for approving the proj-
ect. He stated this is a natural setting with many varie-
ties of wildlife which is the most important reason to stop
this development. He is also concerned about the length of
the cul-de-sac affecting the health, safety and welfare of
the residents. He inquired about park dedication and who
gets the money. Chairman Steigerwald explained that the
park dedication fees are used by the City for development of
parklands. Mr. Sareupa stated he would rather have the City
develop a park here than have the developer pay the dedica-
tion fees. He inquired about the trail for the proposed
development stating it would be noisy and will diminish the
privacy of his home.
Commissioner Pauba confirmed that the Planning Commission
members visit all sites proposed for development.
Mark Scheidhauer, 4860 Union Terrace, stated he spoke with
Jerry Smith of the Corps. of Engineers who surveyed this
area and stated the Corps has jurisdiction and a Permit
would be required from the Corps. of Engineers and the DNR.
Engineer Goldberg confirmed for Chairman Steigerwald that
plans are submitted to the DNR and they forward them to the
Corps. of Engineers for review. Mr. Schiedhauer stated that
he attended a Town Meeting 6 or 7 months ago regarding the
plans for County Road 9 and, was told that there would be no
development in this specific area for at least 5 years.
When he moved into his home, the developer's representative
told him there was no way there would be development of this
area.
Jim Sentman, 10510 County Road 15, stated he does not live
in the area, but is interested in the plight of these neigh-
bors . He stated it appears there is encroachment into the
pond and wildlife area. He is concerned about the muskrat
houses that will be in jeopardy and the drainage problems
that will occur with development. He stated that a beauti-
ful area such as this should be retained and an EAW should
be considered.
T -
Page 247
Planning Commission Minutes
November 6, 1985
Mary Shimshock, 4860 Union Terrace, stated she lives near
the proposed outlot area and is concerned about the area as
a whole. She stated Plymouth is losing wildlife at an in-
creased rate because of all the development. She noted the
problems with drainage and runoff causing pollution and that
it is up to everyone to protect the ecosystem. She noted
that upon development, 95 children could be using the
proposed play area and this increased density should not be
allowed. Ms. Shimshock read the "Plymouth Symbol" denoting
the quality of life. She asked the Commission to recommend
denial of this proposal.
Tara Wisdorf, 4830 Union Terrace Lane, stated her concerns
are the same and she sympathizes with the prospective buyers
of this property . They were told when they bought their
home that nothing would be built here, however, this same
developer knew he would be developing this area and mislead
many people.
Leslie Echholdt, 4820 Wellington Lane, stated she moved into
the area in 1979 and the winter of 1980 they skated on the
pond which is large and very deep. She stated the wetlands
are not accurately represented with this presentation as
they are extensive and covered with cattails. She stated
that the homes and land in the Harrison Hills development
relate to each other and this proposed development deserves
a developer who will work with the land. She stated they
are not confident this will be the case as this developer
leveled Rolling Hills Park. She stated her concern regard-
ing the 10 ft. drop from her property to this development;
that her home relates to the land and she does not want
extensive grading and filling done near her property. She
stated the density is too high and the transition is poor.
She requested the Commission to deny the proposal and the
land be left as is.
Sandy Lester, 10805 49th Avenue North, stated she had
brought slides and pictures of the area, however, they do
not fit the City's carrousel. She stated she has lived in
her home for 18 years. She described the topography and the
fact that this development plan includes lots that will
exist only because of extensive grading and filling. It is
her opinion that this developer has no right to come into an
established neighborhood and desecrate the area. She under-
stands development and progress won't be stopped, but that
the City must establish definite guidelines for development.
Kurt Laughinghouse, 8209 Pennsylvania Rd., Bloomington,
stated that he is part owner of the northern 2/3 of the
project and brought in the initial application for develop-
ment of the area. He stated he would discuss the pond and
land area. He showed illustrations of the ponding and a
Page 248
Planning Commission Minutes
November 6, 1985
copy of the City's topographical map. He explained the
history of the land under the former ownership of Mr. Vern
Weegman, who purchased the land in 1962. Mr. Weegman stated
the land had been farmed and was plowed and furrowed, he
used the area for horse pasture and this land was always dry
during the summer months. Mr. Laughinghouse stated that
with development of the "Hardware Hank" facility on 49th
Avenue in 1978, the High Water Elevation was unusually high
at 915. The records had shown the actual elevation at 911.
Mr. Laughinghouse explained that it was discovered that a
drainage outlet was blocked and the pond was not draining as
it should. He stated the City took action to restore the
drainage way at the request of the landowner. Mr. Laughing -
house stated his surprise that the DNR had quoted the High
Water Elevation at 913 when it should be 911 or 912. Mr.
Laughinghouse expressed his concern with the residents who
would restrict the rights of ownership of a private land-
owner. He noted that the development of Rolling Hills Park
involved land that had similar terrain to the land in this
proposed development.
Odd Bjerkonas, 4915 Quaker Lane, stated that he was told by
the City that no development would take place in this area
for 5 years. He stated he has a large hill behind his home
and he is concerned about the fill and drainage that could
impact his property. He stated he does not want the ponds
destroyed and he cannot see that the City is gaining any-
thing by this development. He would like to see development
deferred for 5 years so he has time to move someplace else.
Larry Decker, 2805 Revere Circle, stated he does not live in
this area but wanted the Commission to be aware that the DNR
has selected 63 sites in Plymouth that are under their pro-
tection but the City has allowed development in some of
these areas. He questions allowing this development in a
DNR project that he was told is Project No. 579W. City
Engineer Goldberg stated it has not been determined by the
DNR if their protected wetlands extend into the area of
development. Mr. Decker stated that he understands the City
has considered alterations of four of the 63 DNR projects in
Plymouth and at this rate it could alter every protected
wetland in Plymouth within 15 years. He stated that perhaps
altering four may be a trend.
Sue Kapp, 4800 Saratoga Lane, stated she once lived in St.
Louis Park and understands progress. She related an
Incident where she built a home at County Road 24 and State
Highway 101; her basement was water damaged because of
development in the area causing the water table to rise.
Page 249
Planning Commission Minutes
November 6, 1985
She stated she has had some recent water damage at her new
residence and her sump pump runs all the time. She stated
the City charged her a permit fee to reconstruct the base-
ment at her previous home and she is angry and hurt that
Plymouth does not show sympathy to residents. She stated
she wants to see less development and suggested that the
City should work to reduce the impact on the natural areas.
William Schroeder, 4920 Quaker Lane, stated he lives in the
area and that all the comments made demonstrate perfectly
what has been done to this area. He stated his opinion that
it does not seem feasihle to continue this growth. He is
concerned with the number of units proposed and the drastic
changes to the topography. He requested the Commission to
not support this development as proposed.
Chairman Steigerwald asked Mr. Hagen to answer the questions
and comment on the concerns expressed by the residents.
Mr. Hagen explained that the property rights of the land
owner were diminished by the upstream damming of the natural
water way and he was within his rights to ask the City to
rectify the situation. He stated that the current pond ele-
vation was artificially created at the time of the develop-
ment of the "Hardware Hank" facility.
He noted that the reference to "no development planned for 5
years" most likely pertains to discussions regarding the
public improvements which are updated annually under the
Capital Improvements Program of the City.
He explained that the open space will be used by the prop-
erty owners and maintained by the Homeowner's Association
for this development. He stated that the suggestion that
the entire area be left as a passive recreational area is
admirable, however, the City does not have plans for park
per the Comprehensive Park Plan. He stated the land is
privately owned and can be developed under the Ordinance
standards. He stated he does not agree with comments that
the developer is not working with the land. The plans for
development blend the development with the natural area. He
noted that the future residents will pay for the preserva-
tion of the large natural open area, no tax dollars will be
used.
Mr. Hagen stated there is no intent to alter the wetland
that is DNR protected.
It was noted that grading will not involve any land other
than that owned by the developer/ proponent; that leveling
will be done to offer transition to the adjacent property.
Page 250
Planning Commission Minutes
November 6, 1985
Chairman Steigerwald inquired about the EAW. Coordinator
McConn stated that the regulations allow for petitioning for
an EAW with the submission of 25 resident signatures. She
stated that this development did not exceed the threshholds
for a mandatory environmental review.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired whether there will be standing.
water on the eastern edge of the property once grading is
completed. Mr. Hagen stated he did not believe this would
be the case; that once the original elevations are attained
there will be no water standing for any period of time,
although there may be areas that will be slow to drain.
Mr. Hagen confirmed that in regard to water damage to base-
ments, the City requirement is for the basements to be 2 ft.
above the High Water Elevation.
Commissioner Stulberg inquired about the slope and the grad-
ing of the west side of the property. Mr. Hagen stated
there is a 10 ft. difference in grade and some leveling will
be done, however, they are taking into consideration that
the views of the adjacent homeowners remain unrestricted;
there will be a 3 : 1 slope on the west side, and not so
severe on the east. He explained the contours and the house
pad elevations.
Chairman Steigerwald advised the residents they could
address the Commission a second time if they wish.
Dan Berner, 4835 Quaker Lane, stated that comments made con-
firm all changes which have occurred were due to develop-
ment. He is concerned that Plymouth not allow the develop-
ment of every square inch of land. He noted there will be
no pond left, but there will be a drainage problem. The
proposal is for too many homes and he is opposed to the
length of the cul-de-sac.
Larry Leider, 4840 Union Terrace Lane, stated he lives in
Rolling Hills Park and feels he was mislead regarding this
development proposal. The developer made promises that were
not kept. He noted that proposed Lots 8, 9, 7, and 6, Block
2 are in the middle of the pond, making it clear that exten-
sive fill will be required. He stated he was told this has
been pond and marshland for the last ten years. He agrees
with the concerns about safety and snow removal on the cul-
de-sac as proposed. He stated he loves his home and is glad
Rolling Hills Park was developed but wants development
stopped here. The meaning of the Plymouth Symbol was
reiterated and he asked the Commission to remember that once
these natural areas are changed they are irretrievable. He
doesn't want Plymouth to be another Crystal.
Page 251
Planning Commission Minutes
November 8, 1985
Brian Karsjens, 4815 Trenton Lane, addressed Mr. Laughing -
house's comments that the present homeowners are on land
similar to that being proposed for development. It is his
opinion that what is done is done, however, they are speak-
ing to prevent more damage to this land. He stated the City
should assure that only that land which is dry and at higher
elevations be used for the development of homes; this would
also alleviate crowding when development occurs.
Moira Knutson, 4820 Union Terrace Lane, inquired about the
absent Commission members and whether a meeting would be
held where they would be involved. Chairman Steigerwald ex-
plained this is not required. Ms. Knutson inquired about
the open space, housing pads, lot sizes, and whether other
children in the neighborhood would be allowed to play in the
open (play) area or would it be fenced. Mr. Fran Hagen
responded the area would be for the residents of this sub-
division who will pay for its maintenance and upkeep, but
didn't think there would be objections to neighborhood chil-
dren playing there. He explained that house pads are the
area prepared for foundation and construction of the dwell-
ing. Proposed lot sizes were reviewed.
Donald Russell, 4815 Saratoga Lane, stated his concern re-
garding drainage and the safety factor of the length of the
cul-de-sac. He stated that the use of the land and con-
struction of homes should compliment each other rather and
natural areas should be retained.
Todd and Colleen Sareupa, 4805 Saratoga Lane, stated the
cul-de-sac issue has not been addressed. Mr. Hagen
explained that the request for a variance on the length of
the cul-de-sac is not unusual and will provide adequate turn
around area for Fire Department trucks, City snow removal
equipment and police vehicles. He stated the cul-de-sac is
used to limit traffic to an area.
Mr. Sareupa inquired why the City has a maximum length for
cul-de-sacs? Coordinator McConn noted that historically the
cul-de-sac length related to the length of the fire hose.
The Fire Chief and Engineering Department have reviewed and
supports this variance request. Mr. Sareupa stated his
concern regarding the Ordinance requirements and the fact
that they are doubling the length of the cul-de-sac. He
wondered whether the City would be better served by the
construction of homes, or the retention of the natural areas
and wildlife which should be a primary consideration.
Chairman Steigerwald commented on rights of ownership and
that a private land owner can submit development plans with-
in the guidelines of the Ordinance and Code requirements
Page 252
Planning Commission Minutes
November 6, 1985
Mr. Sareupa stated this development plan calls for too many
variances from the Ordinance standards.
Mary Shimshock, 4860 Union Terrace, stated she had also
talked with Jerry Smith of the Corps of Engineers and he
stated the Corps does have jurisdiction and permits may be
required. She asked Mr. Laughinghouse about the ownership
of the land and the drainage. It is her opinion the pond
elevations should be dealt with as it exists today. Mr.
Laughinghouse reiterated the information relative to the
artificial ponding caused by the damming of water and the
City's installation of storm sewer to alleviate this
problem.
Chairman Steigerwald explained that any special permits re-
quired such as from the DNR will be required before building
permits are issued.
Ms. Shimshock stated her concern regarding the play area and
that this area should be retained in its natural state. She
inquired whether an agency involved in conservation of
natural areas could be persuaded to buy this land. Chairman
Steigerwald stated these are questions to be addressed by
the City Council. Ms. Shimshock inquired if this develop-
ment would take precedence because of concern for the City's
tax base. Chairman Steigerwald stated questions on taxation
should also be brought to the Council.
Don Wisdorf, 4830 Union Terrace Lane, commented that the
open space is a detriment relative to the density bonus
points received and he disagrees that this plan addresses
the environment. He requested measurements be taken over a
period of time to insure the High Water Elevation is accur-
ate. He requests the Commission to defer their recommenda-
tion until an Environmental review is completed. Coordina-
tor McConn explained that the review is not mandatory. In
those cases where a mandatory review is processed, the City
was informed by the EQB that they arehesitant to review the
EAW until the City has approved a Preliminary Plat. She
further explained in response to Chairman Steigerwald, that
if an EAW is processed, no development can commence until
the process is completed.
Sandy Lester, 10805 49th Avenue North, stated she wanted to
re-emphasize to the Commission that in the 18 years she has
lived in this area, this land has been wet. She reiterated
her comments regarding poor transition.
Page 253
Planning Commission Minutes
November 6, 1985
Leslie Echholdt, 4820 Wellington Lane, stated her concern
that this is not the best development plan for this area,
the terrain will be altered and the development is over-
crowded. She stated this development plan does not work
with the land and it should be modeled after a development
like Harrison Hills.
Odd BJerkenas, 4915 Quaker Lane, stated concern the EAW
would be conducted after the ponds are gone because of the
changes made to the drainageway by the City. Engineer
Goldberg stated the EAW would address the wildlife and
plantlife, as well as the wetlands. Mr. BJerkenas stated he
feels the City acted prematurely by proceeding with the
work. Chairman Steigerwald and Engineer Goldberg explained
the City had followed up on the concerns of a landowner who
identified problems with drainage on his land and that this
would be done in any case. Coordinator McConn explained the
adherence to the City's Storm Water Drainage Plan and that
all work completed was through DNR Permits.
Mr. BJerkenas reiterated his concern regarding a Town Meet-
ing where he understood there would be no development in
this area for 5 years. Coordinator McConn explained the
Capital Improvements Program which addresses public improve-
ments, not private development.
William Schroeder, 4920 Quaker Lane, stated he wanted a
clarification of the 100 -Year High Water Elevation; Engineer
Goldberg responded this elevation is 913. Mr. Schroeder
stated his concern that this developer should not be allowed
to change the contours of the land.
Mr. Saul Segal, Enterprise Properties, stated that he
developed Rolling Hills Park and he wanted to correct the
assumptions regarding park dedication and the completion of
trails; that 6 acres of trailway and park has or will be
developed. He stated the plan preserves the trees and the
pond is protected by a drainage easement. He stated that he
became involved in the development of Ivy Park II three
months ago and that this land cost 1/3 more than that
purchased for Rolling Hills Park. He stated neither he nor
his representatves had said there would be no building on
this land and that all buyers were told to check with the
City.
Don Wisdorf, 4830 Union Terrace Lane, inquired if Rolling
Hills Park and the proposed area for development had been
combined, would an EAW have been required? Coordinator
McConn responded this would not have been the case, the area
of development did not exceed the threshholds for a
mandatory EAW.
Page 254
Planning Commission Minutes
November 6, 1985
Larry Leider, 4840 Union Terrace Lane, stated that he recog-
nizes the rights of private ownership but the development as
proposed is not taking into account the environmental
features of the land and he expects that an EAW will be
completed.
Mary Shimshock, 4860 Union Terrace Lane, stated that she
understood the DNR had established the High Water Elevation
at 913. Engineer Goldberg stated the DNR has preliminarily
established the elevation and will review further informa-
tion before making their final determination.
Dane Carroll (no card) stated he has lived in the area 10
years; that he did not want Rolling Hills Park to develop
because of the need for extension of Valley Forge Lane which
was very costly. He stated he was not given the chance to
speak against the Rolling Hills Park development. Mr.
Carroll offered to speak further with those residents
interested in purchasing this land.
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Magnus to recommend approval for the Residential Planned
Unit Development Concept Plan subject to the conditions as
stated in the October 23, 1985 staff report.
Commissioner Pauba stated he is sympathetic to the residents
but the landowner is within his rights to request approval
for development of his land and the development plans are
within the guidelines of the City's Codes and Ordinances.
Commissioner Stulberg stated the Commission must carry out
their charge by reviewing proposal against the the Ordin-
ance. The variances, which include the PUD size require-
ment, meet the criteria and the developer has included
additional land area as directed by the City Council. He
reiterated that the the Engineering, Fire, and Public Safety
Departments have supported the variance for the cul-de-sac
length.
Roll Call VOTE. 5 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Magnus inquired about Lot 1, Block 4 on the
northeast side and whether the rear of this lot would be
under water. Engineer Goldberg explained the easement and
that there is sufficient area for setback to a home.
Page 255
Planning Commission Minutes
November 6, 1985
MOTION by Commissioner Magnus, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO APPROVE
Pauba to recommend approval for the Preliminary Plan/Plat,
Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance subject to
the conditions as stated in the October 23, 1985 staff
report.
Roll Call VOTE. 5 Ayes. MOTION carried.
Coordinator McConn stated that those who are interested in
the City Council meeting can contact the Planning Division
at the City for confirmation of that date. Chairman
Steigerwald explained the City Council forum.
Chairman Steigerwald called a 10 minute Recess at 11:05 P.M.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Michael
Freund and an overview of the October 21, 1985 staff report
was made by Coordinator McConn. Chairman Steigerwald intro-
duced Mr. Gary Gabriel, representing the petitioner.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Marlyn Ervasti, 13110 34th Avenue North, stated he is
not anti -development, however, his question relates to the
zoning designation of this property and he wonders if the
R-1 zoning will conflict with this proposal. Coordinator
McConn explained the Land Use Guide Plan which is intended
to allow development with a density of 3 to 5 units per acre
and that single family dwellings are allowed as a con-
ditional use in the R-2 Zoning District.
Mr. Ervasti noted that the plat shows development of the
lots at the northeast corner only for Phase I, and inquired
whether the undeveloped land could be sold and multiple
housing developed which would not be in keeping with the
surrounding neighborhoods. He stated his opinion that the
area should be rezoned to R -1A. Chairman Steigerwald
explained that approval for any development other than what
is requested would need to go through the review process.
John J. Grant, 3605 Vinewood Lane, stated he was also con-
cerned with the zoning and would like to know what type of
housing is proposed. Chairman Steigerwald stated the
developer is not required to commit to pricing the single
family homes and the Commission does not get involved in the
financial aspects of development. Michael Freund stated the
homes will be in keeping with the neighborhood and will be
upscale in their design.
VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
RECESS
MICHAEL FREUND
REZONING, PRELIMINARY
PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, AND VARIANCE
(85108)
Page 256
Planning Commission Minutes
November 6, 1985
Jack Johnson, 3535 Rosewood Lane, stated his concern regard-
ing drainage because of the marsh area and he does not want
construction debris, water and mud draining onto his
property.
Engineer Goldberg and Gary Gabriel confirmed that there will
be a storm water culvert to control the flow to the east
with a pipe under Rosewood Lane. There will be erosion con-
trol barriers such as silt fence and hay bales if necessary
to supplement the fiber material.
Richard Knust, 13140 37th Avenue North, inquired about the
fill and grading that will be required. Dennis Saari, rep-
resenting the developer, stated the grading will be uniform
with no severe drop off. Mr. Gabriel added that grading
will be done for the installation of the cul-de-sac. Mr.
Knust inquired about the value of the homes to be construct-
ed. Mr. Gabriel stated there seems to be a good demand for
the types of homes already built in this area and the new
homes will be similar to those in the Heritage Estates and
West developments.
Kathryn Peterson, 3515 Rosewood Lane, stated her concerns
regarding the environment and the drainage from this area.
She stated they have problems with damp basements and they
do not want these matters made worse. She is also concerned
about the noise levels as the traffic noise from I-494 has
increased due to the removal of trees in the area. She re-
quested that noise barriers be considered as part of this
development. She stated the residents have paid more to
live here and want their neighborhood to remain uncrowded
and quiet.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired about any drainage onto the
Peterson property. Engineer Goldberg stated he would stop
by to talk with her to see what can be done; however, drain-
age will be directed to the pond on-site and he cannot see
that her property will be impacted by drainage from this
development.
Arlene Johnson, 3535 Rosewood Lane, explained the drainage
problems they have had at their home.
Mr. Ervasti reiterated his concern regarding the zoning of
this property and encouraged that it be rezoned to R-1A.
Coordinator McConn explained this would not be consistent
with the Land Use Guide Plan.
Mr. Johnson inquired about the amount of fill and where it
will be placed. Mr. Saari explained the grading and filling
plans. City Engineer Goldberg stated any one who has con-
cerns regarding the erosion control once work begins, should
call the City's Engineering Department.
Page 257
Planning Commission Minutes
November 6, 1985
Mr. Knust inquired if a builder could construct a duplex on
any of the lots. Chairman Steigerwald confirmed that build-
ing permits would be for single family residential units
only if this proposal is approved. Any amendments to the
approved General Development Plan requires City review and
approval.
Ms. Peterson reiterated that to maintain adequate erosion
control and minimize the noise, the trees should not be
removed.
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO APPROVE
Stulberg to recommend approval for the Rezoning, Preliminary
Plat, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance for Michael
Freund subject to the conditions as stated in the October
21, 1985 staff report.
MOTION to Amend by Chairman Steigerwald, seconded by Commis-
sioner Pauba to add Condition No. 14 that there be as little
disturbance as possible relative to the grading and filling
for Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the first phase of development.
Coordinator McConn recalled if the Commission has considered
allowing a reduced front yard setback to save trees at the
rear of the lots. Chairman Steigerwald stated he preferred
to leave the condition as stated.
Roll Call VOTE on the Amendment. 4 Ayes. Commissioner
Stulberg, Nay. MOTION carried.
Roll Call VOTE on MAIN MOTION as once Amended. 5 Ayes.
MOTION carried.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Bob Fields
and Brian Zubert. He requested an overview of the October
24, 1985 staff report by Coordinator McConn.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Bob Fields, 8799 Magnolia
Lane, who explained the request and the unique layout and
design of the facility.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired how many facilities are in
operation at this time. Mr. Fields explained the facility
at Bismarck, N.D. that has been operating for 8 months.
They had some circulation problems there but they have been
corrected the problem. He stated they have eliminated out-
side drying stalls to eliminate the vehicles being parked on
or off-site to finish the drying process. They will police
NOTION TO AMEND
VOTE - NOTION TO
AMEND - CARRIED
VOTE - MAIN NOTION
NOTION CARRIED
BOB FIELDS AND
BRIAN ZUBERT
"U-DO-CARwASH
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AMENDMENT, SITE
PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, AND VARIANCE
(85109)
Page 258
Planning Commission Minutes
November 6, 1985
the area to assist with any stacking problems that could
arise. Chairman Steigerwald inquired if the facility will
be attended; Mr. Fields stated there will be attendants
present during all hours of operation. He noted that the
Inside stalls have been well received, especially in the
winter months.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired how they would prevent custom-
ers from parking on their site to go across the street to
purchase lunch (for example). Mr. Fields stated this would
not be a problem and they would consider policing their own
site.
Commissioner Mellen stated his concern about traffic in the
area of the fast food businesses on 28th Place and it seems
this facility would add to that congestion. Mr. Fields
stated he plans signage that should limit the stacking prob-
lem by letting the customer know the estimated waiting
period (45 minutes) at various points. Commissioner Mellen
stated he prefers the flow-through design with the parking
stall design as a back-up only. Mr. Fields explained the
procedures to be used when stacking lanes are full.
Chairman Steigerwald stated there did not appear to be ade-
quate space for a customer to exit if he did not wish to
wait. Mr. Fields explained a broadcasting system that can
be tuned in on the customer's car radio for education on the
use of the facility.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing.
Bill Gadtke, 5824 Gettysburg Circle, disagrees with the
statement by staff that the parking requirements are met
with this facility. He stated that this carwash is much
larger than his business and his lot stacks 55 cars. He
addressed the water connection fees for this facility. He
stated it is his opinion that there will be more than 17
cars stacked causing traffic to stop and back-up on the cul-
de-sac. He stated his concern regarding setting a precedent
In allowing the variances as proposed.
Kent Coulson stated he represents Burger King Restaurant and
is concerned about the problems with traffic circulation on
the cul-de-sac. He stated customers facing a 45 minute wait
at this facility will try to back out onto the roadway. He
noted the problems with controlling semi -trailer truck
traffic as well as automobile traffic and when Arby's Roast
Beef Restaurant opens, it will be worse. He stated that the
established restaurants on 28th Place must have a free flow
of traffic for their businesses. He stated they have as
many as 200 cars coming through their drive-through and this
does not include the cars parked on site.
Page 259
Planning Commission Minutes
November 6, 1985
Chairman Steigerwald inquired about their Saturday bus-
iness. Mr. Coulson stated business is not as heavy on
Saturdays and comes later in the day, however, there is more
business on Saturdays during the summer months.
Jim Lindstrom, Hopkins, stated he is associated with the
Hopkins car care and that this is a good concept. Mr.
Gadtke stated he agrees it is a good concept but it won't
fit on this particular lot.
Mr. Fields stated they would not serve semi -trailer trucks
and it is Just a matter of education of the customer to
eliminate stacking and parking problems. He stated that his
peak traffic times will not coincide with the restaurants.
He stated that Saturday will be a better business day for
his facility but his business will be early in the day and
the summer months are slow for carwash operations.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired how many cars he could expect
during the winter months . Mr. Fields estimated 350 to 400
cars on an average. Chairman Steigerwald inquired about the
amount of stacking at Arby's. Coordinator McConn explained
the Orinance requirements.
Mr. Fields reiterated that he will have employees on-site to
police the traffic and that they would turn people away if a
stacking problem arises. Commissioner Magnus inquired about
the number of stacking spaces at the carwash on Broadway in
Crystal as used as an example by Mr. Fields. Mr. Fields
stated they have 14 stacking spaces. Commissioner Magnus
stated he has found that even with adequate stacking, traf-
fic congestion can and does occur.
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Stulberg stated he is concerned that an escape
drive lane is not included on this site plan. He feels that
the number of variances that would be needed for an office
building, if the use should change, would make it necessary
for the building to remain a carwash. Commissioner Pauba
concurred and stated his concern with traffic control for
the area. He stated he would like to see this facility in
an area where the traffic is not so congested. Mr. Fields
stated they could design an escape drive lane. Commissioner
Stulberg noted they would lose stacking space with the
installation of an escape drive lane. Chairman Steigerwald
stated he shares the concerns regarding the stacking plan,
escape lane, and alternate use. He stated the Commission
could defer recommendation with direction for re -design; or,
could recommend denial and the request would go forward to
the City Council for final action.
Page 260
Planning Commission Minutes
November 6, 1985
Mr. Fields inquired about the selection of another site and
the time required to review his application if this were the
case. After further discussion Mr. Fields stated he would
withdraw the request and look for another site if an
alternate design cannot be prepared.
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO DEFER
Magnus to recommend deferral of this application for the
reasons cited in the October 24, 1985 staff report.
Roll Call VOTE 5 Ayes. NOTION carried. VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
MOTION by Commissioner Magnus, seconded by Commissioner *CRAIG FREEMAN
Pauba to recommend approval of the Consent Agenda that SITE PLAN FOR
included the request by Craig Freeman for Site Plan approval WILLOW GROVE
for the Willow Grove Shopping Center Phase II, subject to SHOPPING CENTER
the conditions as stated in the October 22, 1985 staff (85100)
report.
VOTE 4 Ayes. MOTION carried.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:52 A.M.
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
October 14, 1985
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustments and
Appeals was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Marofsky, Commissioners
Plufka, Bigelow, Musatto, Quass,
Victor, and Cornelius
STAFF PRESENT: Associate Planner Al Cottingham and
Building Official doe Ryan
MINUTES
MOTION was made by Commissioner Bigelow, seconded by Commis-
sioner Quass to approve the September 17, 1985 Minutes as
submitted.
VOTE. 5 Ayes. Commissioners Victor and Cornelius abstained.
MOTION carried.
OLD BUSINESS:
Chairman Marofsky introduced the request submitted by Dick
Sjoquist of Walser Corporation for a variance from the maxi-
mum size and height requirements for signage located at 9825
56th Avenue North.
Mr. Sjoquist stated that in response to the Board's request
at their duly 15, 1985 meeting, he had researched several
car dealerships and found that no one had completed a
marketing study regarding how a larger sign would help
improve business. The Board inquired whether the 7.7%
financing for new vehicles had had any impact on the
business; or, if the business has changed since Walser
Corporation purchased the dealership. Mr. Sjoquist stated
they noted no major changes with the 7.7% financing or since
they purchased the business.
Chairman Marofsky noted that other Chevrolet dealerships in
the area had different types of signage than that which is
proposed by Walser Corporation and inquired how they could
have theirs. Mr. Sjoquist stated that at one time General
Motors had no interest in the type of signage used; but
since, they have established certain requirements for
signage.
The Board inquired what Walser would do with the signage
identifying the location for "Parts". Mr. Sjoquist stated
that it will stay and they will not alter the size of the
sign.
The Board inquired why Walser could not relocate their
existing signs to the eastern property line for better
Identification and which would eliminate the need for
signage of larger dimensions. Mr. Sjoquist stated that they
could do this, but they would still need the larger signage
in order to attract customers from County Road 18.
MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17,
1985
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
WALSER CORPORATION
VARIANCE FROM THE
HEIGHT AND SIZE
REQUIREMENTS FOR
SIGNAGE
Page two
Board of Zoning Minutes
October 14, 1985
Chairman Marofsky inquired about the exact nature of this
request since it appears that it has been altered several
times since the Board originally reviewed the request. Mr.
Sjoquist stated he wasn't certain and asked the Board to
table this item until later in the meeting so he could
determine exactly what the request entails.
The Board discussed Mr. Sjoquist's request and determined to
table the item until after discussion of the other items on
the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
Chairman Marofsky introduced the
request submitted by
Kevin
KEVIN AND TERRIE
and Terrie Christian for a variance from the minimum
front
CHRISTIAN
yard setback requirement for
property located at
9910
VARIANCE FROM THE
Southshore Drive as described in
the October 11, 1985
staff
FRONT YARD SETBACK
report.
9910 SOUTHSHORE DR.
Mr. Christian reviewed his request and explained that the
property line to the north was very deceiving as it did not
extend as far as the location of an existing chain link
fence. He reviewed other properties in the area noting that
the land to the north is owned by the City; the land across
South Shore Drive is an industrial area; and, there are
other residential homes to the south of this property. He
stated that with the topography of his property this is
the only area for them to locate the proposed shed.
The Board inquired why the Christians did not wish to locate
the structure on the side of the garage, rather than in
front of the garage. Mr. Christian stated that it would not
be easily accessible for their use and they would need a
variance from the side yard setback.
MOTION TO APPROVE
MOTION by Commissioner Quass, seconded by Commissioner
Victor to approve the variance from the front yard setback
for property at 9910 Southshore Drive, for Kevin and Terrie
Christian, subject to the conditions in the draft
Resolution.
VOTE. 5 Ayes. Chairman Marofsky and Commissioner Plufka,
Nay. MOTION carried.
Chairman Marofsky introduced the request by Michael and
Kathleen Luhm for a Variance from the minimum front yard
setback requirements for property located at 17705 26th
Avenue North, as described in the October 11, 1985 staff
report.
Mr. Luhm reviewed his request and explained that there are
other homes in the area that have setbacks closer than that
which he is requesting. It is his opinion this would not
set a precedent in the area.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MICHAEL do KATHLEEN
LUHM - VARIANCE FROM
THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK AT 17705 26TH
AVENUE NORTH
Page three
Board of Zoning Minutes
October 14, 1985
Mr. Luhm stated he would be doing most of the work himself
and it would be much easier to do the work if the ridgeline
matched the existing home. He also stated that he designed
at this angle rather than continuing the existing angle of
the home to avoid using the entire rear yard.
The Board stated that by continuing the same line as the
existing home, he could have the same size addition as he is
proposing but would not need as great a variance. They went
on to say they would like to see this home have the same
setback as the home to the south since that is where people
will notice the difference if there is one. Mr. Luhm stated
that the structure would have the same setback as the home
to the south.
Commissioner Musatto inquired whether the petitioner would
construct the garage himself. Mr. Luhm stated he would sub-
contract certain portions of the work, but he would be doing
most of the work.
The Board discussed the setbacks in the area and felt that
by using the 35 ft. setback in the current Ordinance, it
would still give the Luhms a good size garage addition to
their home.
Discussion continued on other alternatives for locations and
as to the degree of variance the Board felt was appropriate.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner
Musatto to deny the variance request as submitted for the
reasons stated in the draft Resolution.
7 AYES. MOTION carried.
The Board discussed alternatives to the requested variance
and felt that if the current front yard setback was
maintained then they should have a problem.
NOTION TO DENY
VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
MOTION by Chairman Marofsky, seconded by Comissioner Plufka NOTION TO APPROVE
to approve a variance for a 15 ft. encroachment into the
required front yard setback to Olive Lane leaving a 35 ft.
setback for the attached garage for the following reasons
and subject to the following conditions:
1. The Variance Criteria have been met.
2. No other variances are granted or implied by this
action.
VOTE. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
Mr. Sjoquist returned to the meeting stating that he would CONTINUATION
like to amend his original request to the following: WALSER CORPORATION
SIGN VARIANCE
Page four
Board of Zoning Minutes
October 14, 1985
To lower the "Parts" sign from 36 ft. to 20 ft. in
height and to decrease the size from 128 sq. ft. to 41
sq. ft.; also, to change the existing Chevrolet sign
from 36 ft. to 47 ft. in height; and, to increase the
size from 128 sq. ft. to 225 sq. ft.
The existing "Used Car" sign would remain the same as
would the locations for the other two signs.
The Board discussed whether there was a hardship in this
situation; whether the automobile dealership created a
hardship by stating they could only use certain signs; or,
would it be the Ordinance maximum allowance for signage on
their site created the problem. They discussed the fact
that the petitioner knew the situation prior to the purchase
of the dealership and was aware of the sales records and the
Ordinance requirements for signage.
MOTION by Chairman Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner
Cornelius to deny the variance request for Walser Corpora-
tion at 9825 56th Avenue North for the following reasons:
1. The Variance Criteria have not been met.
2. This would establish an undesirable precedent in the
City.
3. The existing signage exceeds the Ordinance standards.
VOTE. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried.
The Board discussed what alternatives the petitioner would
have regarding the signage since it is non -conforming
signage which cannot be expanded or enlarged. They stated
that if existing signage were removed a decision could be
made concerning the magnitude of any variances from
Ordinance Standards to allow reasonable signage which
would meet the petitioner's needs.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner
Cornelius to approve a variance for Walser Corporation, 9825
56th Avenue North to permit the primary "Chevrolet" sign to
be 47 feet in height and 225 square feet in area; and, to
allow for a "Used Car" sign and a "Parts" sign to each be 20
feet in height and 41 square feet in area, for the reasons
as follows:
1. The Variance Criteria have been met.
2. This does not establish an undesirable precedent in the
City, considering the location of the business and the
reduction in sign impact from that originally approved
for this business.
NOTION TO DENY
VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
Page five
Board of Zoning Minutes
October 14, 1985
MOTION by Chairman Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner Victor NOTION TO AMEND
to Amend the Main Motion by allowing the main "Chevrolet"
sign to be 37 ft. in height, rather than 47 ft. in height;
and, allow the sign to be moved to the east.
VOTE on the MOTION as AMENDED. 3 Ayes. Commissioners VOTE - NOTION FAILS
Plufka, Cornelius, Biqelow, and Quass, Nay. MOTION fails.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO AMEND
Cornelius to Amend the Main Motion to allow for the signage
to be located at any location on the site as long as it
meets the 20 ft. setback requirements.
VOTE. 2 Ayes. Chairman Marofsky, Commissioners Bigelow, NOTION FAILS
Musatto, Quass, and Victor, Nay. MOTION fails.
MOTION by Commissioner Quass to Amend the Main Motion by
allowing the two smaller signs to be 15 ft. in height, and
15 sq. ft. in,size. MOTION failed for lack of second.
MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO AMEND
Musatto to Amend the Main Motion to allow for a "Used Car"
sign 16 ft. in height and 41 sq. ft. in area; and, to allow
the "Parts" sign to be 16 ft. in height and 16 sq. ft. in
area.
VOTE. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
VOTE on the MAIN MOTION as ONCE AMENDED. 4 Ayes. Chairman VOTE - MAIN NOTION
Marofsky and Commissioners Quass and Victor, Nay. MOTION ONCE AMENDED
carried. NOTION CARRIED
ADOOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 P.M.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular meeting of the Board of Zoning
Adustments and Appeals of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 14th
day of October . 1985. The following members were present: Chairman Marofsky,
Commissioners Plufka, Bigelow, Musatto, Quass, Victor, and Cornelius
The following members were absent: None
Commissioner Quass introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. B 85-24
APPROVING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR KEVIN AND TERRIE CHRISTIAN, 9910 SOUTH SHORE DRIVE
(10-01-85)
WHEREAS, Kevin and Terrie Christian have requested approval of an 18 foot encroachment
into the Ordinance front yard setback of 35 feet in order to construct a 82 x 123 inch
utility shed on their property; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals has reviewed said request;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS OF
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for
Kevin and Terrie Christian, for an 18 foot variance for a 17 foot front yard setback
for property located at 9910 South Shore Drive for the following reasons:
1. The variance criteria have been met.
2. This would not establish an undesirable precedent in this neighborhood.
3. No other variances are granted or implied.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Commissioner Victor , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Commissioners Quass, Victor, Bigelow, Musatto, and
Cornelius
The following voted against or abstained: Chairman Marofsky and Commissioner Plufka
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular meeting of the Board of Zoning
Adustments and Appeals of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 14th
day of October . 1985. The following members were present: Chairman Marofsky,
Commissioners Plufka, Bigelow, Musatto, Quass, Victor, and Cornelius
The following members were absent: None
Commissioner Plufka introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. B 85-25
DENYING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR MICHAEL AND KATHLEEN LUHM, 17705 26th Avenue North
(10-02-85)
WHEREAS, Michael and Kathleen Luhm have requested approval of a 22.1 foot
encroachment into the Ordinance front yard setback of 50 feet in order to construct a
24 x 30 ft. garage onto their existing home; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals has reviewed said request;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS OF
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request for
Michael and Kathleen Luhm for a 22.1 ft. variance to allow a 27.9 foot front yard
setback for property located at 17705 26th Avenue North for the following reasons:
1. The variance criteria have not been met.
2. An improvement could be developed within Ordinance standards.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Commissioner Musatto , and upon vote being taken thereon,
following voted in favor thereof: All
The following voted against or abstained: None
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
the
CITY OF PLYMOUTH y—
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular meeting of the Board of Zoning
Adustments and Appeals of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 14th
day of October . 1985. The following members were present: Chairman Marofsky,
Commissioners Plufka, Bigelow, Musatto, Quass, Victor, and Cornelius
The following members were absent: None
Chairman Marofsky introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. B 85-26
APPROVING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR MICHAEL AND KATHLEEN LUHM, 17705 26th AVENUE NORTH
(10-02-85)
WHEREAS, Michael and Kathleen Luhm have requested approval of a 15 foot encroachment
into the Ordinance front yard setback of 50 feet in order to construct a 22 x 24 foot
garage onto their existing home; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals has reviewed said request;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS OF
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for
Michael and Kathleen Luhm, for a 15 foot variance to allow a 35 foot front yard setback
for property located at 17705 26th Avenue North for the following reasons:
1. The variance criteria have been met.
2. No other variances are granted or implied.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Commissioner Plufka , and upon vote being taken thereon,
following voted in favor thereof: All
The following voted against or abstained: None
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
the
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular meeting of the Board of Zoning
Adustments and Appeals of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 14th
day of October . 1985. The following members were present: Chairman Marofsky,
Commissioners Plufka, Bigelow, Musatto, Quass, Victor, and Cornelius
The following members were absent: None
Chairman Marofsky introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. B 85-27
DENYING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR WALSER CORPORATION, 9825 56th AVENUE NORTH (07-04-85)
WHEREAS, Walser Corporation has requested approval for a 225 square foot sign rather
than the Ordinance allowed 96 square foot signage; an 11 foot encroachment into the
sign height instead of the Ordinance allowed 36 feet; and, a pylon sign of 41 sq. ft.
and 20 ft. in height; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals has reviewed said request;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS OF
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request for
Walser Corporation, for a variance for a 225 square foot sign, 47 feet in height; and a
pylon sign of 41 sq. ft. and 20 ft. in height located at 9825 56th Avenue North for the
following reasons:
1. The variance criteria have not been met.
2. This would establish an undesirable precedent in the City.
3. The existing signage exceeds the Ordinance standards.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Commisioner Cornelius , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: All
The following voted against or abstained: None
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular meeting of the Board of Zoning
Adustments and Appeals of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 14th
day of October . 1985. The following members were present: Chairman Marofsky,
Commissioners Plufka, Bigelow, Musatto, Quass, Victor, and Cornelius
The following members were absent: None
Commissioner Plufka introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. B 85-28
APPROVING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR WALSER CORPORATION, 9825 56th AVENUE NORTH (07-04-85)
WHEREAS, Walser Corporation has requested approval for a "Chevrolet" sign of 225 square
foot and 47 ft. in height; a "Used Car" sign 41 sq ft. and 16 ft. in height; and, a
"Parts" sign 16 sq. ft. and 16 ft. in height rather than 96 sq. ft. and 36 ft. in
height as allowed by the Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals has reviewed said request;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS OF
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for
Walser Corporation, for a variance for a "Chevrolet" sign of 225 sq. ft., 47 ft. in
height; a "Used Car" sign, 41 sq. ft. and 16 ft. in height; and, a "Parts" sign, 16
sq. ft., 16 ft. in height to be located at 9825 56th Avenue North for the following
reasons:
1. The variance criteria have been met.
2. No other variances are granted or implied.
3. This would not establish an undesirable precedent in the City.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Commissioner Cornelius , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Commissioners Plufka, Cornelius Bigelow, and
Musatto
The following voted against or abstained: Chairman Marofsky, Commissioners Victor and
Quass Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
FROM THE DESK OF
PETER PFLAUM
i
)�.�✓.-
C
t,
�,.,.-.-tea... '�,J"""o ''"`•`�'"''� ln~e�s� ''•�L
tr �
'--1 v`,rM- + `.�-.�.�v.s L � iSL.'�c.�. Com"'--c.X " �`•. �e�-�-' _;, �,J l' �-
ur Good Fortune is having one of the area's fastest
growing populations. We have the highest anticipated
growth rate among St. Paul suburbs, expected to grow 125% by
the year 2000. (Eagan is second, with an anticipated 108% growth
rate.) Source: MehroDoJitan Cound4 The SL Paul Dispatch
3-16&4.
Our Good Fortune is being a leader in the growth of new
households. Woodbury is ranked with Fagan, Eden Prairie and
Maple Grove as communities that are "really booming" with an
increase in new households in the '80s. Source: Metr*olitan
CoumV, Metro Monitor, 9.84.
Our Good Fortune is having superior purcfiasing power.
Washington County has the highest average income per
household in the seven -county Twin Cities metro area. Woodbury
ranks third among all Minnesota cities. Source: Survey of Buying
Power, 1984.
Our Good Fortune is ranking sixty-third in residential taxes, out
of 93 Twin Cities communities. We're a balanced community,
offering residents a broad choice of quality housing types, from
high density residential to large lot single -f tmily estates. Source:
Citizens League Property Tax Report 19145.
Our Good Fortune is being located within %uTually 40 minutes
of the entire metropolitan area We're accessed by one of the
Twin Cities' four major interchanges: l-94, I-494 and I-694.
Downtown St. Paul is less than 10 minutes away, downtown
Minneapolis is a short 25 minute drive. The Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport is just 20 minutes southwest of Woodbury.
Our Good Fortune is the enhancement of a beautihrl natural
setting, combining the convenience of the city with the fresh
openness of the country. The St. Croix River Valley is located right
in our backyard. Plus, we have more than 400 acres of city
parkland and over 25 miles of multi -use trails for our residents'
enjoyment.
Our Good Fortune is having a quality of life invaluable in
attracting residents. A safe, "neighborly" environment. Top-rated
educational and health care facilities. Indoor acrd outdoor
recreational facilities. A variety of restaurants and retail shops.
Civic, social and professional organizations to service and
strengthen the community.
Our Good Fortune is being part of an area business community
that includes Minnesota's largest employer, 3M Company, with
13,000 employees at its 425 acre International Headquarters and
Research Campus. Additionally, over 4300 persons are employed
in Woodbury proper, by such major employers as 3M, St. Paul
Companies, Western Life, Lindsay-Ecodyne. The employment base
is rapidly growing.
Our Good Fortune is the backing of a positive and cooperative
local government, elected officials and city management with a
progressive, pro -development focus, attuned to fast track
decision-making.
Shade our Good Fortune
Woodbury has attractive
sites available now for
residential builders and
developers who want
to grow with us. Send
in the enclosed card or
call our Development
Staff at 739-1388 today;
to schedule a personal
tour of our community,
and to see why Rlf
WOULD BE YOUR
GOOD FORTUNE TO
BU1TD IN
Your business is destined
to prosper in Woodbury,
the City of Good Fortune.
.w.T
Y ES, I WANT TO SHARE
YOUR GOOD FORTUNE.
Please contact me to schedule a personal tour of Woodbury.
Name
Cary
Phone No
City/zip
Pk2se provide the following ittformabon_
I am a residentW Builder Dcveloper
Housing Type Single Famil} Attached Multiple Famih
Per Unit Pike Range
lip to 675,000
175,000-t 150.000 /
$150,000 & Above
November 13, 1985
To: Members of the Public
zta
o� r'
04 O Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Buildina
Seventh and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
f�
-,, Telephone (612) 291-6359
Attached is a copy of the Metropolitan Council's Significance Review Report on
the Mall of America and Fantasyworld project proposed to be located in the city
of Bloomington. Preparation of such a report is required by the Council's
Rules and Regulations for the Review of Matters Alleged to be of Metropolitan
Significance, adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statues 473.173.
The issue to be considered by the Council is whether the proposed mall develop-
ment is of metropolitan significance --that is, whether it would have a "substan-
tial" impact on metropolitan systems or on another local governmental unit
based on criteria contained in the Council's metropolitan significance rules
and regulations.
If a matter is found to be of metropolitan significance, the Council, pursuant
to its regulations, may then determine whether metropolitan system plans, such
as sewers or transportation, should be changed to accommodate the project;
propose modifications to the project to make it consistent with system plans;
order a suspension in the construction of the project --a suspension not longer
than one year; or determine that the proposed matter is of metropolitan
significance but does not warrant suspension of the matter or amendment of
metropolitan system plans.
The Council's Significance Review Committee will hold a public hearing
beginning Nov. 20 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council chambers, 300 Metro Square Bldg.,
St. Paul. The hearing will continue for several days to give all persons an
opportunity to speak on the proposed matter and to present information on the
applicability of the regulations, the significance of the proposed matter and
the proposed remedies.
Persons wishing to speak may register in advance by contacting the Council's
public hearing coordinator at 291-6521. The hearing is quasi-judicial;
testimony is taken under oath and speakers may be subject to cross-examination
by parties in the proposed matter, committee members or Council members.
Written comments may also be submitted until Dec. 2 to Pat Pahl, at the Council
address above.
The Significance Review Committee will review the
testimony received at the public hearing. It will
and conclusions, and will forward a recommendation
Council. The Council may accept, reject or modify
Sincerely,
4Sn ra S. Gardebring, Chair
SSG:emp
Attachment
An Equal Opportunity Employer
attached report and consider
then make findings of fact
to the Metropolitan
the recommendation.
METROPOLITAN SIGNIFICANCE REVIEW REPORT
MALL OF AMERICA AND FANTASYWORLD IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REFERRAL FILE NO. 13053-2
Prepared under the Direction of Sandra Gardebring, Chair
Metropolitan Council
by
Pat Pahl, Author
Chauncey Case
Marcel Jouseau
Connie Kozlak
John Mauritz
November 8, 1985
For Purposes of Public Hearing
Beginning Wednesday, November 20, 1985, 8:30 AM.
Metropolitan Council Chambers
300 Metro Square Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
7th and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
METROPOLITAN SIGNIFICANCE REVIEW REPORT
MALL OF AMERICA AND FANTASYWORLD IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES
The public hearing shall be conducted in a manner designed to protect the
rights of all persons and parties and ensure fundamental fairness. The
following procedures shall govern the public hearing conducted by the Metropol-
itan Significance Review Committee.
Under the metropolitan significance review rules, these procedures may be
modified by the chair of the Metropolitan Significance Review Committee.
PROCEDURES FOR INTERESTED PERSONS
Only evidence formally presented to the committee shall be considered in making
the findings and recommendation of the committee.
All evidence received shall be submitted under oath and made a part of the
record.
All witnesses shall be subject to cross-examination by the parties and the
committee.
The chair of the committee may, on the request of any party or on her own
initiative, limit the amount and scope of direct and cross-examination and
presentation.
All hearings shall be transcribed or tape recorded.
Written testimony will be accepted until Dec. 2, 1985, the close of the public
hearing record.
PROCEDURES FOR PARTIES
Pursuant to Minn. Rules Ch.5700.2400 (1983), the chair of the Metropolitan
Significance Review Committee has issued the following order which applies to
the cities of Bloomington and Minneapolis, the Triple Five Corp. and the
Metropolitan Council.
1. By the close of business on or before Nov. 12, 1985, each party shall
submit to the committee and to each party the name and address of each
witness who will submit direct testimony. By the close of business on or
before Nov. 15, 1985, each party shall submit to the committee and each
party the name and address of each rebuttal witness whom it intends to call
following the cross examination of witnesses pursuant to paragraph four
below.
2. Direct testimony shall be limited to sworn, prefiled, written testimony,
submitted to the review committee and to each party on or before the close
of business Nov. 13, 1985. Whether witnesses shall be entitled to make a
brief oral summary of their direct testimony shall be the subject of a
future order.
i
3. Documentary evidence shall be limited to documents submitted to the
committee and to each party on or before Nov. 13, 1985, except that
documentary evidence, the availability of which could not reasonably have
been foreseen prior to Nov. 13, 1985, may be entered into the record during
the public hearing upon approval by the chair of the committee.
4. Upon commencement of the public hearing on Nov. 20, 1985, an attorney or
other representative of each party shall be entitled to make an opening
statement to the committee. Such statement shall not exceed 30 minutes.
The order of witnesses shall be the subject of a future order.
5. Each witness who has submitted prefiled written testimony shall be subject
to cross-examination. Cross-examination shall be limited to that which is
necessary for a full and true disclosure of material facts respecting the
issues which the committee must decide. Repetitious or nonproductive cross-
examination or cross-examination on remote issues will not be permitted.
Only one attorney or other person shall be permitted to cross-examine any
witness on behalf of a party. Cross-examination of any witness by any
party shall be limited to 30 minutes. Upon completion of cross-examina-
tion, a witness shall be entitled to present redirect oral testimony not to
exceed 15 minutes. Redirect testimony shall be limited to matters raised
on cross-examination. Redirect testimony, if any, may be followed by
recross -examination, limited to 10 minutes per party per witness.
6. Upon completion of examination pursuant to paragraph five above, each party
may call direct oral testimony rebuttal witnesses identified pursuant to
paragraph one above. Rebuttal testimony shall be limited to 15 minutes per
witness. Cross-examination shall be limited to matters raised on direct
and shall be limited to 15 minutes per party per witness.
7. The metropolitan significance review may take such time as its chair shall
permit to question any witness, which questioning shall occur after
completion of the examination pursuant to paragraph six above.
8. Within five days of the close of the hearing or at the close of business
on Dec. 2, 1985, whichever comes first, the attorney or other representa-
tive of any party may submit written argument to the committee and to each
party (not to exceed 15 double-spaced, typewritten 8-1/2x11 pages), and
proposed findings and recommendations.
ii
CONTENTS
AUTHORITY TO REVIEW ....................................................
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS ......................................
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT .................................................
Analysisof Comprehensive Plan ...................................
METROPOLITAN POLICY ISSUES .............................................
METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS ................................................
Sewers...........................................................
Transportation...................................................
Airports.........................................................
Parks............................................................
METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ..................................
OTHER METROPOLITAN POLICY ISSUES ....................................
Housing..........................................................
ECONOMIC AND FISCAL ANALYSIS ...........................................
KEY ASSUMPTIONS.....................................................
BENEFITS............................................................
Receipts.........................................................
Employment.......................................................
Revenues.........................................................
COSTS...............................................................
ConventionCenter ................................................
PublicSubsidies .................................................
FiscalDisparities ............................................
Local Hotel and On -Sale Liquor Taxes ..........................
Tax Increment Financing .......................................
Funding of Regional Services .....................................
EFFECTS ON OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ..................................
Convention Center ................................................
Fiscal Disparities ...............................................
POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO ALLEVIATE ADVERSE EFFECTS ....................
MODIFICATIONS TO METROPOLITAN SYSTEM PLANS ..........................
MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...............................
SYNOPSIS OF REPORTS OR FINDINGS OF OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES ...............
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................
RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................
iii
Page
1
1
3
4
5
5
5
6
14
17
20
21
21
21
22
24
24
25
26
27
27
31
31
33
34
35
36
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
46
METROPOLITAN SIGNIFICANCE REVIEW REPORT
MALL OF AMERICA AND FANTASYWORLD IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
AUTHORITY TO REVIEW
A metropolitan significance review of the proposed Mall of America and Fantasy -
world was initiated by the Metropolitan Council on Sept. 26, 1985, pursuant to
the Metropolitan Significance Act of 1976 (MSA 473.173). The act, together
with metropolitan significance rules and regulations adopted on Jan. 16, 1978,
provides for the identification and review of all proposed matters alleged to
be of metropolitan significance. The standards for making an allegation of
metropolitan significance include both metropolitan system effects and effects
on local governmental units other than the situs governmental unit.
The purpose of the review, as stated in the rules and regulations, is to assure
that the total effect of a proposed matter of metropolitan significance is
considered and that the orderly and economic development of the Metropolitan
Area is promoted, thereby protecting the health, safety and welfare of the
residents of the area.
The review of the Mall of America and Fantasyworld was initiated by Council
resolution accompanied by an information submission which alleged that the
proposed development may present an impact on metropolitan systems and has the
potential to substantially affect the existing or planned land use or
development in local government units other than the city of Bloomington.
Following initiation of a metropolitan significance review, a significance
review report is prepared by Council staff under the direction of the chair of
the Council. It is to contain an objective description of the project, to
analyze issues raised regarding the project and to make a recommendation as to
whether the project is of metropolitan significance and, if so, what action by
the Council is appropriate. The report is to be the subject of the public
hearing conducted by the significance review committee which makes a recommenda-
tion on the metropolitan significance of the proposed development to the
Council. If the Council determines that the development meets the criteria in
the rules for metropolitan significance, the Council may choose to take no
action, to amend its policy plan to accomodate the project, to propose modifica-
tions to the project that would alleviate any adverse effect, or suspend any
action (construction) on the project for up to a one-year period following the
issuance of its final determination.
The metropolitan significance rules and regulations provide that the Council
must complete its review and make its determination within 90 days from the
date of commencement. The 90 -day period ends on Dec. 26, 1985.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS
The metropolitan significance review rules provide that the parties and
interested persons have 20 days following commencement of the review in which
to submit preliminary statements containing information, opinions and facts
bearing on the issue. The parties to this review are the city of Bloomington,
the Triple Five Corp., the city of Minneapolis and the Council. Statements
received by the Council are summarized below.
1. Metropolitan Council preliminary statement is limited to indicating the
scope of the significance review report presented here and to defining the
basic development and economic elements of the proposed project.
2. City of Bloomington asserts in its preliminary statement that the proposed
development is consistent with the concepts and criteria developed in the
city's comprehensive planning process. The Bloomington statement includes
a summary of the public subsidies proposed in the development agreement,
discusses the impact of the project on property taxes, specifically on
fiscal disparities, and contends that the investment in regional systems
needed to support the project is more than offset by the tax revenues that
will be generated from the project. With regard to transportation funding,
the city recommends that the legislature appropriate sufficient funds from
the new state revenues generated by the project to pay for all necessary
highway improvements. Bloomington's statement provides estimates of
employment generated by the mall and the retail sales capture projected for
the mall both from non -tourists and tourists. The city also discusses the
synergism between the retail/amusement component of the mall and the
proposed convention center and contends that the Bloomington convention
center will not compete with the Minneapolis convention center.
3. Triple Five Corp. states that the metropolitan significance process
historically has had limited use by the Council because it can adversely
affect intermunicipal cooperation and allow parochial interests to override
state and regional benefits. Triple Five contends that the review's scope
should be limited to matters over which the Council has jurisdiction,
noting that projections or predictions of economic activity are largely
speculation. The preliminary statement also describes the proposed
development and provides estimates of employment (permanent full-time
jobs); it also asserts that there will be significant secondary or
"spinoff" development accruing to the area from the project. Triple Five
provides estimates of net new revenue to the state and projects the number
of tourists attracted to the mall. The statement also discusses the trade,
exhibit and convention facilities proposed for the site and promotes the
mall location as the type of facility likely to attract national conven-
tions. With regard to retail activity, the corporation states that new
major retail facilities do not over time adversely affect existing retail,
including the downtowns. The retail element of the mall will not displace
other businesses as would the alternative office/hotel proposals.
4. City of Minneapolis addresses a wide range of topics in its preliminary
statement, including economic issues such as retail activity, tax revenues,
tourism effects, a second convention center and financing of the project.
Development issues are also addressed, such as transportation improvements
and funding, air quality and noise impacts, airport use, and water and
sewer issues. Minneapolis conducted several detailed analyses of the
impact of the proposed development and uses the findings from these to
challenge assertions made by the developer and by the city of Bloomington.
Minneapolis concludes from its study of tourism that only ten percent of
the new visitors trips projected from the development would occur.
Minneapolis also challenges Triple Five Corp. forecasts of retail sales and
estimates of per capita retail expenditures and concludes that the mall
would have a major adverse impact on retail sales, employment and assessed
valuation of other major regional shopping centers. The preliminary state-
ment also concludes that the mall will draw sightseeing visitors away from
existing sightseeing activities. Minneapolis estimates net new employment
2
from the mall at 600, far short of Triple Five's estimate of net new employ-
ment of more than 20,000. The city estimates the transportation improve-
ments needed for the mall in the amount of $330 million. Minneapolis
raises the issue of risk of failure and the likelihood of serious loss
should the mall fail to perform as claimed by the developer.
5. City of Edina expresses its concern about the effect of the project on the
regional transportation system and on existing retail activity.
6. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities supports the metropolitan signif-
icance review. The association states that the review should be conducted
free of the influence of the administrative and legislative branches of the
government. The association recommends that, following this significance
review, the Council look at the adequacy of the metropolitan significance
regulations and in the future review all proposed major projects in the
region.
7. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission indicates that it has adequate
capacity to serve the development but a comprehensive sewer plan amendment
is needed from the city for commission review and approval.
8. Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce commends the Council for initiating
the review.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The Mall of America and Fantasyworld is a mixed use project to be enclosed
under one roof on the 85 -acre site formerly occupied by the Metropo Titan
Stadium (see Attachment 1). The project may also use an additional 40 -acre
parcel immediately east of the stadium property. The project consists of 10.5
million square feet including:
o five million square feet retail shopping mall (four million square feet of
gross leasable area), including eight department and major food stores and
about 800 shops
o one million square feet Fantasyworld including a water park, submarine
lake, a space and science center exhibit, ice arena, Fantasyworld pavilion,
roller rink and other amusement facilities
0 500,000 square feet convention center of which not less than 300,000 square
feet would be utilized as an exhibit area. (The change from a one million
square feet facility was communicated to the Significance Review Committee
in an October 10, 1985 letter from Myron Calof, representing Triple Five.)
o two million square feet of hotel space, which represents 2,000 hotel rooms
o two million square feet of office space
The development projected for the Mall of America and Fantasyworld represents a
significant change in use, intensity and staging for the stadium site from that
found in the generic environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared for the Air-
port South District of Bloomington which includes the stadium site. The
generic EIS was prepared based on the Bloomington Comprehensive Plan in re-
sponse to the Council's recommendation in its review of the plan that
3
additional land use and transportation
impact on metropolitan systems. Tables
between the generic EIS and the Mall of
analysis was needed to determine the
1 through 3 illustrate the differences
America/Fantasyworld projections.
The development proposed in the generic EIS for the stadium site was about four
million square feet. (This is based on calculating hotel rooms at 700 square
feet per room and housing units at 1,000 square feet per unit.) The mall com-
plex is more than 2 1/2 times larger at 10.5 million square feet. The
predominant land use proposed in the generic EIS was office (45 percent of all
new development), whereas with the mall complex the predominant use will be
retail (48 percent of all new development). The entire mall complex is
scheduled to be built over a nine-year period to 1995; the generic EIS staged
development on the stadium site over a 16 -year period to the year 2000.
Analysis of Comprehensive Plan
The increase in size and the change in uses between the city's existing plans
and the mall complex change the expected use of the regional highway and sewer
systems as identified in both the comprehensive plan and the generic EIS.
Based on the the regional trip model, daily trips from the entire Airport South
area, including the mail complex, will be 274,000, substantially higher than
the 173,000 daily trips projected in the city's comprehensive plan for the
district. Based on the sewage flow figures in the EAW prepared for the mall
complex, sewage flows from the Airport South District including the mall
complex will be 27 percent higher in 1990 and 11 percent higher in the year
2000 than flows projected in the generic EIS.
Despite these differences in land use, land use intensity and development
staging as well as projected use of the regional highway and sewer systems, the
city of Bloomington asserts that the Mall of America and Fantasyworld project
is consistent with its comprehensive plan. While the project is nominally con-
sistent with Bloomington's designation of the stadium site as a high intensity
mixed use area (Bloomington comprehensive plan, Airport South District Plan,
page A2/9), the city has gone on to define what it means by high intensity
mixed use in terms of its sewage flow projections, average daily trip estimates
and land use projections. In these respects the project is not consistent with
the city's comprehensive plan and is in conflict with metropolitan systems
plans with regard to the use, extension or expansion of metropolitan systems.
The fact that the city considers the project consistent with its zoning does
not make the project consistent with metropolitan system plans. The Council
does not use local zoning to determine system impact or to determine plan
consistency. Bloomington's comprehensive plan was found compatible by the
Council with system plans based on the information provided in the plan with
respect to planned levels of sewage flow, trip generation, and other system -
related aspects of land use. To the extent that the Bloomington zoning allows
uses in excess of system capacity, the city's ordinance is not consistent with
the directive of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act which states that:
A local governmental unit shall not adopt any official control or fiscal
device which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan or which permits
activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans (Minn. Stat. 473.865,
Subd . 2) .
In addition, when metropolitan systems plans are amended, the Act requires
affected local governmental units to review their local comprehensive plans to
4
Table 1
STADIUM SITE - STAGING COMPARISON
1984-2000 1991-1995 1996-2000
Airport South
Generic EIS 1,410,000 sq. ft. l 1,550,000 sq. ft. 994,000 sq. ft.
1986-1990 1991-19954
Mall of America
and Fantasyworld 2 7,500,000 sq. ft.3 3,000,000 sq. ft.
lAssumes 700 square feet per hotel room and 1,000 square feet per housing
unit.
2Source: Letters from Myron Calof, representing Triple Five, dated Aug. 25,
1985 and Oct. 10, 1985.
3Includes 5,000,000 square feet of retail, 1,000 square feet of entertainment
and a 1,000 -room hotel.
4Completion date as stated in the city of Bloomington's preliminary statement
dated Oct. 21. 1985.
Table 2
STADIUM SITE - LAND USE COMPARISON
Land Use
Retail/Recreation
Office/Other Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Convention Center
Airport South
Generic EIS
900,000 sq. ft.
1,766,000 sq. ft.
840 rooms
700 units
0 sq. ft.
Mall of America
and Fantasyworld
6,000,000 sq. ft.
2,000,000 sq. ft.
2,000 rooms
0 units
500,000 sq. ft.
Table 3
STADIUM SITE
COMPARISON OF SEWER FLOW PROJECTIONS
1990 2000
Airport South
Generic EIS
Mall of America
& Fantasyworld EAW
4a
1.133 mgd 1.836 mgd
1.440 mgd 2.045 mgd
assess the need for amendments thereto to ensure continued conformity with the
system plans. Where amendments are necessary, they must be prepared and
submitted to the Council for review.
The act thus embodies a dynamic planning process whereby metropolitan systems
plans are amended by the Council to reflect regional needs and local comprehen-
sive plans in their turn are amended as necessary to maintain consistency with
the evolving regional plans. The requirement that local offical controls and
fiscal devices not be in conflict with local comprehensive or metropolitan
systems plans is the final link which ensuresthat the planning process is not
subverted by inconsistent development.
METROPOLITAN POLICY ISSUES
METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS
The following analysis of metropolitan system effects uses the developer's
estimates of attendance at the mall, in essence, a worse case analysis of
system effects.
1. Sewers
The city of Bloomington described the sewage serviceneeds
for the Mall of
T
America development in its report of Oct. 8, 1985. Y
ed a
somewhat different method for estimating wastewater flow from that used by
the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission;
however, the planned wastewater flow for the various years is very similar
to the quantities used by the Metropo titan Waste Control Commission and the
Council.
The city of Bloomington reports the current flow from the Mall of America
site and related service area is presently 0.883 MGD. TheMall o America
will increase this flow from 1.355 to 1.587 MGD by 1995 and
to
2.298 MGD by 2005. Based on the 1990 sewage flow projections from the Mall
of America and Fantasyworld Scoping EAW, the projected 1990 flows are in
excess of the city's allocated capacity and represent the potential use of
a metropolitan system in conflict with metropolitan system plans. However,
as noted below, adequate physical capacity is available to serve the pro-
jected development and the addition of these flows to the Seneca Wastewater
Treatment Plant will not significantly accelerate the schedule for
expansion of the plant. The Water Resources Management Development Guide
Plan provides for preliminary study of plant expansion in the 1995 to 1999
time period and expansion in about the year 2000.
There are several methods of service for this site. The present 36 -inch
pipe to the Seneca Wastewater Treatment Plant would reach from 60 to 71
percent of the pipe's capacity from this service area. The original 15 -
inch sewer line serving the Metropoliltan Stadium is also available. This
line is served by the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant. If both of
these lines are used, the two sewers would use from 36 to 42 percent of
their capacity. Keeping both sewer lines available for service would allow
the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to shift flow from Seneca to
Metro if needed sometime in the future. Presently, the Seneca Wastewater
Treatment Plant does have adequate capacity available for the entire
development. The city of Bloomington will have to submit a comprehensive
sewer plan amendment containing specific service plans to the Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission for review and approval.
5
Council policy contained in the Metropolitan Development Framework states
that growth greater than forecasted in the fully developed area is con-
sistent with Council forecasts if system capacity is available or can
reasonably be provided. The Council will have to amend its Water Resources
Management Policy Plan to accommodate the higher growth projected by this
development.
2. Transportation
Initial Findinas of Metropolitan Significance
The basis for a transportation finding of metropolitan significance is
threshold statement 4 contained in the Metropolitan Council's Rules and
Regulations for the Review of Matters Alleged to be of Metropolitan
Significance. Threshold statement number 4 states that the generation of
10,000 or more vehicle trips per day or 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any
one hour and a substantial effect on a metropolitan transportation facility
or on a plan for such a facility contained in a metropolitan system plan
are grounds for a finding of metropolitan significance.
All parties who have addressed the issue (Metropolitan Council, Bloomington
and Minneapolis) agree that both thresholds are substantially exceeded by
the mall project proposed by the Triple Five Corp. Vehicle trip estimates
from different sources for the proposed project range from 123,000 daily or
6,323 peak hour trips to 191,700 daily trips. This level of trip genera-
tion would have a substantial effect on the two metropolitan highways,
Hwy. 77 and 1-494, surrounding the proposed development site as detailed in
the following discussion.
Transportation Analysis
This analysis is based primarily on the information contained in the
Updated Transportation Plan for the Airport South area (prepared for
Bloomington by BRW, Inc.). In addition to analysis done by Council and
Regional Transit Board (RTB) staff, an independent review of portions of
the Updated Transportation Plan was conducted by Richard Pratt, transporta-
tion consultant to the Council. Information submitted by Minneapolis and
its consultant, Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, in its preliminary statement was also
considered. The mall proposal has been analyzed in the context of the
overall development proposals for the entire Airport South area. In other
words, this discussion centers on the proposed Triple Five Corp. develop-
ment and on the existing and additional development proposed for the rest
of the Airport South area. The Airport South study area is bounded by I-
494 in the north, Hwy. 77 in the west and the Minnesota River in the south
and the east (Attachment 2) .
Trip Generation
In assessing the impact on the transportation system, the first thing to
determine is the amount of travel or number of person trips generated to
and from the project site and the Airport South area on both a daily and
peak hour basis. Once the amount of travel generated is estimated, a modal
split betweentransit and auto trips is determined including provisions for
travel management techniques such as promoting sharing rides and staggering
work hours. Then, Metropolitan Council and Mn/DOT forecasts of regional
6
travel are used to determine the background traffic on the roadway system
(traffic generated by the rest of the region). Finally, the traffic
generated by the Airport South area is added to the background traffic to
determine the overall impacts on the regional highway and transit systems.
The number of visitors arriving in the Twin Cities by air and tour bus was
also determined by Bloomington.
The most common method of forecasting trip generation is to assume trip
generation rates similar to those actually measured for comparable land
uses and development. The Institute of Transportation Engineers has
produced a Trip Generation Manual Ord edition, 1982) compiling trip rates
measured at various land uses throughout the United States over the past 20
years. This manual is a widely accepted standard. However, the proposed
Mall of America/ Fantasyworld, due to its size and mixture of land uses, is
unique and it would not be reasonable to apply the standard Institute of
Transportation Engineers rates developed for isolated, suburban develop-
ments without some adjustments. The Metropolitan Council staff and its
consultant did use the Institute of Transportation Engineers rates,
adjusted to account for the size and multi -use nature of the project, to
forecast trip generation.
Bloomington's consultant used a different method and developed trip genera-
tion estimates for retail, amusement and convention center visitors based
on Triple Five's expected annual patronage. Trip generation for retail,
amusement and convention center employees was derived by using Triple
Five's estimated number of employees. Office, hotel, and residential trips
were estimated from rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers
manual and local studies.
The trip generation for an average day was factored to a design day (the
peak day of the week for the peak month of the year). This was derived by
applying relative daily and monthly factors for each day and month for each
of the trip purposes. The factors were derived from West Edmonton Mall,
the Center Companies (operators of the Dales), Institute of Transportation
Engineers, and other sources. The design day for the Airport South area (8
percent greater than an average day) is a Wednesday or Thursday in July;
the design day for the Mall of America itself is a July Saturday but this
peak (resulting from increased retail weekend trips) is more than offset by
the weekday peak from office uses in the remainder of Airport South.
The large amount of office use also determines the peak hour of the day in
Airport South. The Updated Transportation Plan examined a weekday morning
(8-9 a.m.) peak hour, a weekday afternoon (4-5 p.m.) peak when the back-
ground traffic is highest, a weekday evening hour (8:30 - 9:30) when the
heaviest exit from the Mall of America/Fantasyworld is expected, and a
Saturday afternoon hour (1-2 p.m.) to assess the weekened retail traffic.
This analysis showed that the 4-5 p.m. period is the peak hour for both
outbound traffic and total traffic for the total Airport South. The 8 to 9
a.m. weekday period had the heaviest inbound traffic due to office
arrivals. These conclusions were also reached by Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, who
identified a summer weekday as the design day as well. Neither of these
peak hours would be changed by an event at Met Center.
Table 4 shows the vehicle trip generation estimates made by Bloomington,
the Council and Minneapolis for the entire Airport South area for the year
2005. The Council estimates indicate that about 17,800 vehicles would
F
leave the Airport South area in the busiest hour of the day (i.e., the
evening rush hour).
Table 4
AIRPORT SOUTH AREA VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION
Bloomington
Daily veh. trips-A.S. 246,039
PM peak hour -total 22,060
PM peak hour -outbound 14,069
Metropolitan Council Minneapolis
274,000 269-339,000
26,769 26,100-31,800
17,845 17,300-20,700
Table 5 shows trip generation broken down by land use for the -entire
Airport South area at full development in the year 2005. This shows how
the number of trips generated by offices are a substantial component of
traffic in the peak hour (about 63 percent), whereas the entertainment and
retail component only accounts for 23 percent of the vehicles leaving the
Airport South area in the evening peak hour.
Table 5
AIRPORT SOUTH AREA TRIP GENERATION BY LAND USE
(Council estimate)
The estimates of vehicle trips made by Bloomington and its consultant, as
shown in Table 4, reflect a "moderate" use of transit and travel demand
management (i.e., carpooling, vanpooling, staggered work hours).
Bloomington developed a series of three scenarios (i.e., low, moderate and
high) that detail how the number of peak hour vehicle trips and its impact
on the system can be reduced through the use of transit and other
strategies like vanpooling and staggered work hours.
These strategies were applied primarily to trips generated by office
workers since these strategies are difficult to implement with retail
shoppers or convention and hotel visitors. Office employees trips are also
8
Pk Hr Outbound
Land Use
24 Hr. Vehicle Trips
Trips
Retail
85,000
3,265
Amusement
25,600
868
Mall Office
27,500
2,636
Other Office
74,083
8,649
Mall Hotel
17,360
577
Other Hotel
27,829
1,082
Convention
6,168
410
Housing
10,724
358
Total
274,264
17,845
The estimates of vehicle trips made by Bloomington and its consultant, as
shown in Table 4, reflect a "moderate" use of transit and travel demand
management (i.e., carpooling, vanpooling, staggered work hours).
Bloomington developed a series of three scenarios (i.e., low, moderate and
high) that detail how the number of peak hour vehicle trips and its impact
on the system can be reduced through the use of transit and other
strategies like vanpooling and staggered work hours.
These strategies were applied primarily to trips generated by office
workers since these strategies are difficult to implement with retail
shoppers or convention and hotel visitors. Office employees trips are also
8
by far the largest component of peak hour traffic. These scenarios are
presented in Table 6. On this table transit indicates the percentage of
person trips in the peak hour using transit, vehicle occupancy or average
number of people in each car rises as carpooling increases (reducing the
number of vehicles), and percent of daily travel occurring in the peak hour
drops due to staggered work hours. This last strategy will not reduce
total daily travel but is a way to spread the trips out, thus reducing the
usual peak hour demand.
Table 6
BLOOMINGTON TRANSIT AND TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT GOALS
Land Use
Low
Moderate
High
Veh.
Pk Hr
Tr.
Veh.
Pk Hr
Tr.
Veh.
Pk Hr
Transit
Occup.
% of
Occ.
%
Occ.
Daily
Travel
Office
0
1.1
15
2
1.2
13
5
1.3
12
Hotel
0
1.3
7
1
1.4
7
1
1.5
7
Residential
0
1.1
11
2
1.1
11
5
1.1
11
Retail/Annual
0
1.2
15
2
1.3
15
5
1.4
15
Gonv. Empl.
Retail/Amuse,
0
1.6
7.95
1
1.6
7.95
2
1.6
7.95
Visitors
The high travel demand management (TDM) goals would be difficult to
achieve. The auto occupancy of 1.1-1.2 for office use low and moderate
seems reasonable, given that the Airport South Study measured current
vehicle occupancy in the area of 1.18 and the 1982 Travel Behavior
Inventory measured the regionwide average for home based work trips during
4-5 p.m. at 1.2. However, reducing the peak hour percentage of daily
travel from 15 percent to 13 percent for office uses assumes a very good
employer participation rate of 60 percent. In practice employee participa-
tion rates usually range from 11 to 26 percent so an office peak hour
reduction from 15 percent (low) to 14.5 percent (moderate) seems more
likely.
Transit
The 1982 travel behavior measured the regional average transit use for all
trips at 3.8 percent and the transit use for work trips at eight percent.
Regional Transit Board staff prepared an analysis of the number of routes
and buses needed to serve the moderate and high transit levels projected by
BRW (559 and 1,193 passengers in the peak hour) for all of the Airport
South area. The daily and annual operating costs were also estimated.
This analysis, shown on Table 7, includes the current situation on the top
line.
9
ga
o
-+
t O u V
«
w
«
�
0
m
o
0
6- u
w
m
a
a00
N
U1
w
A
M
O
caA6&6
a
Y 6
O
u
A
aO. O L
O�
fR
O
L
L
am
_� g: o
_
m
O Gi V)
N
C
^i
m
.+
o o
0
m
1++
a
g
m
��x
L
v
o
m
.Or
01
F
O F
1'•1
O`
�
�
L
0
O
Z
i
w
u
J
F
>. OM
mV1
m
O
p
C
O
Y O
�O
RO1
a
O
V1
•+
a
o
q
00
�+
L
F
o
s
e
v
2
O
L
O
m S m
N
O L
.N
t
w O. d x
`j
ll1
O
m
A
10
O�
S
M
�
C
O
O
7
O
U110 .'1
UN
1-
O�
A
I O L
N
11
A
Oz
1
C
a �'f-�
O
m
O_
v
e
A
N
CY
9
w e
N
C
�
O
3. c
e
in
`
L
>w u
O
T
O
L
it
Q
L.
L
O.
v
v G
L.
s
N
61%
C u
A C
1�1
O
a•
O
m
v
A m
v e
FU+
L
O
o■ aLi u
fO) 19
N GO.
S
^
>..�+L
M L V 16
7 Y .0 C.
L
O, O O V)
.1 77o
A 7o
1
w
o 6 7
YR m 7
►F+ OO. V1 L O
L
A
t
CL ..Li i .Oi
.0 o..
F N 0
., m app.�
CM �pp�
S
y
■
C L L ■
A A 0 0\
V) G... L
Z L A^!
i C. L A^ !
S
7
L
v .O
ri 19
i S O A \
F12 \
a
_
O
IC
`O
¢C U1 LY Ln
F T� Ln .
��.� U1 •
U
O
C f�1R�i.vNM
«
U1i U1N«^
S — w
G .i^N ^
. ^ ««
N
N
t-
s
U
S
x
w
N
ga
Seven existing Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) routes connect the
Airport South to downtown Minneapolis, the airport, and suburban residen-
tial areas to the west in Bloomington and to the south in Apple Valley and
Eagan. Any expanded service to the Mall of America should connect to at
least these same places.
Table 7 shows that the number of vehicles that could be removed from the
metropolitan highway system by transit during the peak hour, even assuming
a high transit use, is modest. Yet the operating costs for moderate
transit use are very high ($8 million annually in 1985 dollars) and the
number of buses required would be almost five percent of the total peak
hour MTC fleet. Even though a large amount of employment is proposed for
Airport South, the surrounding land use and potential transit market is low-
density suburban residential which is difficult to serve and has few
established routes. Therefore, the productivity of transit does not
approach that of a downtown area which is the hub of many long established
routes through high density residential areas with a large transit -
dependent population.
Since the state currently subsidizes 10-20 percent of transit operating
costs, providing transit to support the ridership levels proposed by
Bloomington represents a substantial public subsidy not previously
identified. If one assumes the additional buses to provide this service
were purchased by MTC (rather than diverted from service elsewhere) capital
costs could be estimated at $165,000 per bus or almost $2 million for 12
additional buses beyond the 25 currently in service in the area.
This transit analysis indicates that large investments in transit would not
replace even larger investments to increase highway capacity.
Bloomington has not addressed the question of providing an internal transit
circulation system within the Airport South area and possibly connecting to
the airport or other hotels along 1-494. Such a system could be provided
by Triple Five Corp., as in Edmonton, or possibly by private providers.
This system would relieve almost none of the.peak hour traffic expected on
the regional roadway system but it would improve internal traffic circula-
tion within Airport South and possibly would provide better accessibility
to the immediate surrounding area.
Metro Highway System
The remaining trips generated by the entire Airport South area after
accounting for travel demand management and transit will have to be
accommodated on the surrounding roadway system. Assumptions about how
these trips will be distributed on the roadway system is shown on Attach-
ment 3.
The major impact on the metropolitan highway system would occur during the
evening rush hours. Not only are the greatest number of outbound trips
generated by the Airport South area during this hour (about 17,800
vehicles) but the background travel generated elsewhere in the region on
the regional highways is also at its peak. Therefore, this discussion will
focus on the peak hour rather than total daily volumes.
Assuming that a freeway facility can carry up to 1,800 - 2,000 vehicles per
lane per hour, there will be two elements of the metropolitan highway
Me
system severely impacted by the traffic generated by the Airport South area
development. The first element is made up of the portions of Hwy. 77 and 1-
494 immediately surrounding the study area. The second element is
constituted by the portions of 1-494 west of 12th Ave. So.
In order to enable 17,800 trips to leave the Airport South area in the
p.m. peak hour, improved access to the metropolitan highway system is
needed at Killebrew Dr., and the Hwy. 77 at 24th Ave. So. and 1-494 and the
Hwy. 77/1-494 interchange should be rebuilt. These would have to be fairly
elaborate interchanges involving directional ramps and a system of
collector -distributor roads to improve the traffic flow without affecting
the traffic on the main highways of Hwy. 77 and 1-494. Consultants to both
Bloomington and Minneapolis have prepared relatively similar layouts for
those proposed improvements (Attachment 4, Bloomington proposal). Either
of these layouts would be sufficient to provide access to the Airport South
area while separating this traffic from the mainline of the regional high-
ways. Bloomington estimated a cost for its proposed improvements to Hwy.
77 and 1-494 of $72 million; Minneapolis cost estimate is $116 million for
improvements in the immediate area. The Bloomington estimate does not
include right-of-way or retaining walls. The Minnesota Department of
Transportation has estimated total cost of immediate area improvements
including right-of-way at approximately $116 million.
The above interchange improvements are consistent with the 1984
Transportation Policy Plan. The plan, however, did not envisage the
magnitude and timing of those improvements as would be required by the
proposed development. Table 12 of the plan, "Metropolitan Highway Needs"
contains the following:
- 1-494, Hwy. 77 to*CSAH 1 (34th Av), Bloomington, Upgrade interchange
area, to be further evaluated in Airport South Study.
- Hwy. 77, 1-494 to E. 90th St., Bloomington, Construct new interchange
segment from 1-494 to E. 90th St. is deficient due to an at -grade
intersection. Grade separation is assumed to provide capacity in
corridor to help relieve 1 -35W -
Funding of these immediate area improvements is not currently programmed,
with the exception of Hennepin County's improvements to the 24th/1-494
interchange which is in the 1986-87 Federal Aid Urban (FAU) program.
However, these FAU funds (approximately $3 million) were approved for a
specific design improvement and if the project is substantially altered, as
is now being proposed, it could be treated as a change of scope and funding
approval may be withdrawn. Bloomington has also requested FAU funding for
the Killebrew Dr. interchange (application pending).
Bloomington did obtain authority in the last legislative session to issue
bonds to finance improvements on Hwy. 77. The city would pay the interest
on the bonds while Mn/DOT would repay the principal at the time they would
have built the project if the normal programming process had been
followed. When this legislation was passed there was no dollar amount
included. Estimates of costs at that time were around $23 million. With
those costs now increased four -fold, retirement of the bonds would impose a
major constraint on Mn/DOT's long-range programming for regional and state-
wide projects.
In addition to FAU funds the proposed improvements could possibly be elig-
ible for safety, major construction or Interstate 4-R funds. These funds
are all limited (i.e., metro -wide FAU funds total $8 million per year) and
projects are usually programmed 2-4 years in advance so any attempt to
construct the 1-494 and Hwy. 77 access improvements with money from
existing highway funding sources would require a substantial reordering of
regional and even state priorities. The city of Bloomington has suggested
that these costs be funded by a direct appropriation from the state legisla-
ture, based on the amount of net new revenue generated by the project.
With this approach, the construction of these improvements would not affect
established regional priorities. This new revenue may or may not be avail-
able. Another trend recently occurring nation-wide is for the private
sector to pay for the immediate area roadway improvements which benefit a
development, either directly or indirectly through tax increment financing,
tax-exempt bonds, etc. These options could also be considered by the city
of Bloomington.
A final issue regarding the immediate area roadway improvements is that of
timing. Bloomington has indicated that highway improvements should coin-
cide with the opening of the mall project to the degree that they are
necessary to maintain an adequate level of service on the regional highway
system, provide reasonable access and ensure public safety.
It would be highly desirable that the immediate area improvements be com-
pleted by the time the Mall opens. To do so, however, would require an
extraordinary effort on the part of several local, state and federal
agencies, even if funding was secured, to finalize the design, prepare
environmental statements, and secure right-of-way even before the commence-
ment of construction. In order to expedite implementation schedules,
efficient ways of dealing with right-of-way acquisition should be
considered. This could include making the city of Bloomington responsible
for this task.
In addition to these immediate area impacts, the analysis done for the mall
project has shown that there would be substantial long-term impacts on 1-
494 and Hwy. 77 well beyond the site. Currently 1-494 is four lanes west
of Hwy. 100 and six lanes between Hwy. 100 and 24th Av. So. Hwy. 77 is six
lanes south of 1-494 and four lanes to the north.
The Transportation Policy Plan, completed in 1984, did identify deficien-
cies on 1-494 or Hwy. 77 previously indicated in the immediate impact area
and the need to widen 1-494 west of Hwy. 100 to Hwy. 212/169. It did not
identify a major deficiency on 1-494 between Hwy. 77 and Hwy. 100. The
analysis in the policy plan was based an older regional forecast. New
regional forecasts have been developed since then based on more up-to-date
information on auto occupancy and trips per capita. Region -wide this
results in a forecasted increase of almost a million trips per day. It
also means that even with no additional development in the Airport South
area I-494 and Hwy. 77 would reach their practical capacities sooner than
was anticipated in the policy plan and would eventually require a modifica-
tion of the plan.
Because of the proposed Airport South development, the long-term growth
expected elsewhere in the region and because 1-494, Hwy. 77 and other
regional freeways in the area would require many improvements to accommo-
date projected traffic. Hwy. 77 to the south and across the Minnesota
12
River should operated acceptably through the year 2000 with the elimination
of the Killebrew Dr. intersection. Hwy. 77 to the north would require
widening to six lanes as far as the 62nd St. Crosstown to accommodate
demand. Projections of traffic desiring to go west on the Crosstown from
Cedar also indicates a need to rebuild that interchange and possibly the
Crosstown itself. 1-494 to the east would also be above its capacity for a
short distance until the interchange with Hwy. 5. Across the bridge and
into Dakota County, 1-494 traffic levels are projected to be lower than the
theoretical capacity of the area. However, traffic going north on Hwy. 5
from 1-494 to the airport and St. Paul will be congested. There especially
would be a problem at the Hwy. 5 bridge over the Mississippi River. This
is projected to be greatly over capacity and yet there are severe con-
straints on ever widening the four -lane bridge, as it passes under the
historic Ft. Snelling area in a tunnel.
The major transportation impacts on 1-494 would be felt west of Hwy. 77.
West of Hwy. 77, traffic volumes on 1-494 would be about 9,100 vehicles per
hour in the evening rush hour when both full development of the Airport
South area and regional growth expected by 2000 are taken into account. Of
those volumes, about 45 percent (4,100 vehicles) would be generated by the
Airport South area and about 55 percent (5,000 vehicles) would be generated
elsewhere in the region. To accommodate the above traffic levels on 1-494
west of Hwy. 77 would require a 10 -lane section.
Preliminary analysis indicates that construction of a 10 -lane freeway west
of Hwy. 77 would be very difficult if not impossible due to operation,
physical, environmental, economic and financial constraints. In addition,
system -wide policy implications such as the impact of such widening on the
rest of the freeway beltway (1-494/1-694) and on other radial freeways (1-
394, 1-35W) also advise against it.
Determining the long-term design for 1-494 from the vicinity of the Airport
South site to possibly Hwy. 55 in Plymouth to accommodate future growth
would require a much more detailed analysis than can be performed in this
metropolitan significance review. A comprehensive land use/transportation
study of the entire corridor would be necessary to define an ultimate
design concept which would allow for economic and orderly development in
the south and southwestern portions of the region. This study would also
look at a solution for the 1-494 corridor which would be consistent and
compatible with the needs of the entire metropolitan highway system. An
eight -lane freeway design for 1-494 should be initially considered for the
purpose of this analysis based upon the previous discussion. Preliminary
estimates developed by Mn/DOT for widening 1-494 to eight lanes between
12th Avenue South and Hwy. 100 are $250 million including right-of-way
acquisition.
The mall development proposal would account for about 40 percent of the
vehicles leaving the Airport South area in the evening rush hour. A de-
tailed review of the various factors that contribute to the traffic levels
on 1-494 indicates that a very large portion of the predicted volumes
originated in the Airport South area would be attributable to the existing
and proposed office space development. More than 60 percent of the evening
rush hour outbound traffic volumes generated by the entire Airport South
area would be due to the office space development including two million
square feet proposed in the mall project.
13
By contrast, less than 25 percent of those outbound peak -hour volumes would
be attributable to the proposed retail and entertainment components of the
mall development. The very large peaking characteristics of office related
travel are the reason for the great importance that office space develop-
ment plays in the overall traffic generated at the Airport South area. In
order to substantially affect traffic volume on 1-494 and maintain them at
level below the capacity of an eight -lane freeway, office space development
in the Airport South area would have to be reduced by approximately
3,000,000 square feet. This would still leave approximately 5,000,000
square feet of office space in that site and would still allow the construc-
tion of the retail and entertainment component of the mall proposal -and
other ancillary components such as the hotels.
Effects on Other Municipalities
The traffic generated by the mall and all of Airport South will create con-
gestion on the regional highway system in 2000 beyond the city limits of
Bloomington and could constrain development in nearby cities. The major im-
pacts will be felt by communities abutting 1-494 such as Edina, Richfield,
Eden Prairie and possibly Eagan. Richfield would also be affected by the
increase in traffic on Hwy. 77 sufficient to warrant an additional lane in
each direction north of 1-494 and reconstruction of the Crosstown/Hwy. 77
interchange as well as possible reconstruction of the Crosstown west of
Hwy. 77.
3. Airports
The number of air passengers generated by development of the mall are
compared below with total annual air passengers at MSP International
Airport. Generally, overall capacity appears more than adequate to handle
the additional air traffic generated by mall visitors.
According to the Airport South EIS consultant, about one million total
annual air passengers would be generated by the mall. This represents
approximately eight percent of the total air passengers at MSP in 1984. To
put this in further perspective, the growth in total air passengers at MSP
in one year (1983 to 84) increased by about 410,000 representing over 40
percent of the total annual air passengers expected to be generated by the
mall at full development.
Table 8
AVIATION ACTIVITY AT MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1973 1983 1984
Total(1) 6,217,725 11,563,072 11,973,000
Passengers
Total 120,725+ 191,461 231,000
Operations
(1) This does not include general aviation air passengers using MSP.
14
Analysis of potential short-term impacts indicates substantial overall
capability of aircraft and terminal facilities to absorb the projected
numbers of Mall related air travelers. On a representative weekday at MSP
the scheduled air carriers and regional commuters and air -taxi operators
provided roughly 76,000 seats. If the daily seat capacity is annualized,
and compared to the actual passenger traffic counts for 1984, the number of
seats used would be under 50 percent. This relationship was also borne out
when evaluating the potential impact on the airports terminal facilities.
The average monthly and daily passenger activity at MSP is as shown below.
Table 9
MSP AVIATION ACTIVITY: 1984
Total Air Passengers
Total Air Operations
Average Total Passengers/Month
Average Total Passeners/Day
Average Total Operations/Month
Average Total Operations/Day
Average # Operations/Gate/Day
Assumed # Available Gates
-------- 11,973,000
-------- 231,000
-------- 997,750
-------- 33,258
-------- 19,250
-------- 641
-------- 12.8
------- 50
These numbers indicate that the average number of passengers per -aircraft,
per -day is 52, which again is only slightly over 50 percent of the average
number of aircraft seats per aircraft at MSP. Thus, no additional flights
should be needed to handle opening day mall travelers.
If the projected 961,647 annual air passengers generated by the mall are
averaged across all 50 gates at MSP, they equal approximately 53 passengers
per -gate, per -day, or an average of four passengers per aircraft. The 1976
MSP airport master plan estimated that at ultimate development the main
(east) terminal complex could handle some 20,000,000 total annual pas-
sengers, double current levels of passenger demand.
While it is possible that some air -terminal gates could experience conges-
tion on a peak -hour basis as a result of the added mall passengers, it does
not appear too likely. This statement is based on the fact that markets
with direct air -service from MSP are geographically dispersed and gate
assignments for airlines serving these areas are well distributed through-
out the terminal complex; therefore, incremental growth in passenger
traffic on any one route would be dispersed through a number of gates and
flights so that pressure on any single gate or airline would be minimal.
This viewpoint is further substantiated in the consultants estimates of the
modal split for visitors to the mall which shows that the 200 -mile limit is
the point at which people would make a choice between driving or flying;
the 200 -mile distance breakpoint is also supported by Civil Aeronautics
Board data. When reviewing the air -service map (Attachment 5) it is quite
apparent that within the 200 -mile distance limit, most service is provided
by regional/commuter air -service. The cost of regional/commuter air -
service is currently not competitive with the automobile at this distance,
which would leave most mall air travelers orginating primarily from those
markets in the 200-400 mile distance range of MSP.
15
Not only is there sufficient gate and aircraft capacity but there is still
adequate physical (runway) capacity at MSP; existing capacity is estimated
at 370,000 annual operations, with future capacity of 415-500,000 annual
operations. The FAA is currently revising the methodology for calculating
airport capacity, in effect increasing earlier capacity estimates by
allowing higher levels of delay.
Another key variable, in addition to multi-year staging of the project, is
which functions are constructed first. The majority of air trips to the
Mail will be over 200 miles away, and primarily for purposes of attending a
convention.
Table 10
Trip Distance - Miles
Purpose 0 - 100 _ 100 - 200 200+
Retail
0%
3%
8%
Amusement
0%
5%
10%
Convention
0%
8%
75%
Source: BRW, Inc. Estimates - Bloomington Mall EIS.
If the convention facilities segment of the project is downsized or
delayed, then the largest contributor to generation of air passenger
enplanements will reflect a significant decrease in potential impacts on
MSP. However, assuming the convention center is constructed and open in
Phase I Development, it can be used as a benchmark to establish the
potential impacts of aircraft noise.
Since existing aircraft capacity can handle the incremental addition of
mall passengers there should be no impetus to add new air service. Further-
more, any incremental noise resulting from the additional mall passenger
activity would occur primarily during the "closed -window" season, since the
bulk of new travelers would be convention goers who's trip making is in the
spring and fall as depicted in Attachment 6.
Actual air traffic levels occur in a manner counter to the convention cycle
and actually reflects more nearly the amusement traffic volume profile,
peaking in June, July, and August. Thus the mall generated air traffic
would tend to balance aircraft load factors on an annual basis.
There are potential highway impacts of the mall generated traffic on ground
transportation access to MSP. It should be recognized that commonality of
roadway segments and similarity of peak traffic flows will require close
monitoring to assure that interchanges and main roadway thru-lanes in the
airport area continue to function effectively. If future time constraints
are imposed upon aircraft operating hours at MSP for noise control pur-
poses, it could result in sharply accentuated morning and possibly evening
peak airport ground traffic demand on the adjacent regional highway system.
16
4. Parks
Local Resident Use
Local population use of the regional recreation open space system takes
place during "disposable" or "discretionary" time for individuals, families
and recreation interest groups. There is competition for that time between
federal, state and regional recreation open space; local recreation pro-
grams; private sector recreation providers; existing shopping centers;
special attractions, such as Valley Fair, professional sports events, zoos,
museums; festivals, such as Winter Carnival and Aquatennial; and casual
home -oriented recreation activities, such as reading and watching
television.
Council and other studies of leisure in the Twin Cities Area show a strong
and continuing interest in both the shopping -special attraction activities
characteristic of the Fantasyworld/Mall of America, and the natural
resource-based outdoor activities characteristic of the regional system.
Further analysis of the data shows there are rather distinct groups of
interests among the region's adult population. Those interested in activ-
ities characteristic of the Mall fall into one such group; those interested
in natural resource-based recreation fall into several other groups. It is
true there is more overlap between the groups in the Twin Cities than has
been shown in other similar studies in other areas. This reflects the
diverse opportunities available in the region, that is, there are a variety
of places to satisfy one's basic interest in the outdoors, many of which
can satisfy one's other interests as well. However, it is difficult to
satisfy the interest in being outdoors with other kinds of activities.
Overall, given the described nature of attractions in the mega mall, it
appears most likely to compete for time devoted to shopping and special
attraction interest among local residents, both individual and families.
There could be some effect on local use of the more "attraction -oriented"
features of the regional system, such as the Como Zoo and Conservatory and
the proposed water play area in French Regional Park. However, the
location and unique features of these facilities plus well-established
tradition (for many), assure a continued high use level. This leads to the
conclusion, which we have applied in this study, that local residents' use
of the regional recreation open space system and related open space recrea-
tion elements will not change markedly as a consequence of this project.
Tourist Use
The same presumption is not made for out-of-town visitors. Our conclusion
is that if the increased tourism projected by the proposal occurs, there is
a likelihood that use by tourists, both Minnesotan and out-of-state, will
increase in federal, state, regional and local recreation areas in the Twin
Cities. In some cases, nearby facilities will provide basic support
services as in camping areas, picnic grounds, trails and exercise areas for
persons staying at mall area accommodations. In other instances, use may
be a consequence of the visitor's desire to see or learn more about the
area.
The degree of effect at any given facility will likely be proportional to
the current tourist use level at that facility. If the projected increase
17
occurs, major effect will be felt at major attractions. Some of these
attractions are in the regional system, such as Como Park complex,
Minnehaha Falls, Minneapolis riverfront, Minneapolis chain of lakes and
parks; some are provided by others: Historic Fort Snelling, Minnesota Zoo,
Canterbury Downs, Guthrie Theater. Lesser effects will be felt at
facilities with a smaller current tourist use component, such as general
local and regional park facilities and nature centers.
Finally, some recreation facilities and programs are located nearby and
increased use is likely to be a direct consequence of tourist presence in
the southern Metropolitan Area. Examples include:
- Visits to the proposed Minnesota Holmenkollen ski jump, where a planned
observation deck 70 meters above the highest point in the southern
suburbs will be open year round.
- Visits to special jump events at the ski jump, ski competition events at
Hyland Hills or Buck Hill, and major running or cross-country skiing
events.
- Visits as part of local festivals which can expect larger draws from the
tourism aspects of the mall. Winter Carnival and Aquatennial visitation
from outside the area may be good examples, expansion of the
Bloomington/Scott-Hennepin Park Reserve District joint "Winterrific"
festival could follow.
Overall, the key item is the number of "new" tourist visits that will be
created by the mall. New tourists will probably distribute their nonmall
time according to proximity and strength of draw to other tourist attrac-
tions in the area. Attachment 7 in the attachments shows some of the
potentially affected activities and facilities, along with general comments
on the probable impact of increased tourist visitation if generated by the
mall.
Summary of Effects
The effect of the mall on use of the regional recreation open space system
by local residents will be negligible. There would be a positive and
potentially major impact on the use of some facilities in the system if
there is increased tourist visitation to the region. The net result would
be an increase in use of the system. The increase would be concentrated in
nearby recreation open space facilities offering basic recreation services
or special events and in existing tourist attractions.
Regional facilities most likely to experience impacts that would require
expansion are:
a. Lebanon Hills Regional Park campground.
b. Minnehaha Regional Park, all uses.
c. Hyland -Bush -Anderson Lakes Park Reserve, mostly for trail uses.
Other facilities that will be significantly impacted are:
a. Fort Snelling State Park
b. Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Recreation Area
c. Historic Fort Snelling
Response Capability
The proposition that significant increased usership would be likely for
some regional and metropolitan regional recreation facilities prompted
examination of the response capability of the systems supporting those
facilities. If there were a major increase in demand, could the system
adjust?
In regional recreation open space, our conclusion is that the system could
adjust to meet major use demands within an appropriate response time.
There is some existing capacity in the system, though little in the
specific parks named above. The possible responses to high user demand in
facilities at or near capacity are two:
a. Upgrade developments on site to increase capacity. In general, the
response in a development which experiences a sudden flood of usership
involves provision of more parking, more service units (i.e., more
picnic tables), more trails, increased turf management and waste
pickup, more and better maintenance of vegetation and expansion of
picnic shelters, service buildings and sanitary facilities.
b. Diversion of some of the overuse to other regional facilities which
provide similar functions and are not currently overused.
The regional system components listed, Lebanon Hills Regional Park,
Minnehaha Regional Park and Hyland -Bush -Anderson Lakes Park Reserve,
can be dealt with by one or both of the above. Given that the
Council's Development Guide chapter for Recreation Open Space provides
for a biennial review of the capital improvement program and an annual
review of the progress of development in the system, the potential
response time appears feasible as long as funding can be achieved for
the changes within the biennium succeeding the recommendation.
Implementing agency operating budgets are considered annually and can
also adjust adequately. The difficulty, if any, lies in the capacity
of implementing agency funding to meet expanded budgetary need.
Currently, a state grant to the Council is distributed to each imple-
menting agency to supplement approximately 10 percent of operation and
maintenance costs in the regional facilities each operates. The
formula for distribution is adjusted annually by factors including the
past year's operating costs, hence there is some adjustment in this
system as well. Again, this adjustment is feasible only if legislative
approval of recommendations occurs. Note, too, that the current
operation and maintenance funding program sunsets in FY 1987, thus will
not be in existence unless renewed or expanded.
The other facilities, Fort Snelling State Park, Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge and Recreation Area and Historic Fort Snelling
do not work under the same system. The operating agencies for these do
have somewhat equivalent procedures and can make some CIP adjustments.
Diversion from these three non -regional facilities probably would
entail diversion to regional facilities because there are no state or
federally operated alternative sites near enough to be feasible. In
our opinion, that problem can also be dealt with by the regional
system, using the same adaptive mechanisms outlined above.
METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK POLICIES'
The area of Bloomington in which the Mall of America and Fantasyworld is pro-
posed to be located is categorized in the Council's Metropolitan Development
Framework as the fully developed area. The planning emphasis of the fully
developed area is on maintenance, rehabilitation and redevelopment. Growth in
the fully developed area through infill and reuse is encouraged by the Metropol-
itan Development Framework, which states that its forecasts of population,
household and employment growth on which system plans are based should not be
viewed as limiting growth in the fully developed area where system capacity is
available or can reasonably be provided. As noted in the systems analyses
above, the regional transportation system does not have capacity to handle the
trip generation from the mall. The fully developed area gives regional
priority for investment in this area second only to the metro centers.
The mall development also falls within the second level of priority in the
ranking of investment policy in the investment framework. The first priority
is maintenance of existing systems followed by "extension of a metropolitan
system where growth projected in the Metropolitan Development Framework is
limited by a shortage in the service."
The Council is currently engaged in the process of revising its Metropolitan
Development Framework and investment framework and consolidating them into a
single document, the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework. At
this time, the policies in the Metropolitan Development and Investment
Framework have no official standing, but it may be useful to review them as
indicators of the Council current thinking on regional development and
investment.
In the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework as in the Metropolitan
Development Framework and investment framework, the stadium site is a second
level priority. The category in which it has been placed has changed from
fully developed area to that of regional commercial -industrial concentration.
The Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework states that additional
growth and increased densities are desirable in these concentrations provided
that the changes are planned and coordinated with the provision of supportive
regional facilities and services.
Because of the importance to development of an adequate transportation system,
the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework also proposes measures to
protect the regional transportation system. These range from requiring traffic
management measures by local governmental units to requiring changes in the
location, size or scale of proposed developments. The Metropolitan Development
and Investment Framework also states that, if necessary, the Council will
proceed to stop development if accord cannot be reached on ameliorative action.
Investment priorities in the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework
are ambiguous with regard to the mall development. While the first priority
(following mandated investments) is to provide metropolitan systems needed to
support redevelopment, the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework's
third and last priority is to provide new or increased levels of metropolitan
systems that will support major additions to the Metropolitan Area economy.
The mall arguably may be viewed both as redevelopment and as a major addition
to the regional economy.
20
The Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework has incorporated a major
new element which provides for an economic development review of major new
proposals. That review which encompasses a review of economic impacts (employ-
ment, income, tax revenues), a fiscal alternatives analysis and a consideration
of cost-sharing arrangements is much the same as the sections of this report
analyzing the economic and fiscal impacts of the Mall of America and Fantasy -
world.
The cost-sharing discussion in the Metropolitan Development and Investment
Framework is particularly relevant to the project under review here and draws
on the Council's experience with other transportation improvements. Cost-
sharing is defined as a mechanism whereby a local governmental unit assumes the
burden of financing a transportation improvement in order to accelerate the
timing of construction or to influence the size or design of a facility. The
Bloomington preliminary statement indicates that the city plans to ask for a
special legislative appropriation to fund the transportation improvements
needed by the mall.
OTHER METROPOLITAN POLICY ISSUES
Housing
The Mall of America and Fantasyworld proposal raises the question of affordable
housing close to employment opportunities. The development may generate over
27,000 full time equivalent jobs. These jobs will be largely low wage part-
time work in the employment areas of retail, convention center/hotel, amuse-
ment, and office. The industry average income (blending full and part-time
incomes) of all persons employed in these particular industries ranges from a
high of $13,519 in the furniture and home furnishing end of retailing to a low
of 55,778 for those working in catering and drinking establishments.
The developer asserts that many of these jobs will draw workers from the
unemployed and from adults not currently employed or actively seeking
employment. However, a portion of these jobs may be filled by head of
household primary wage earners.
Most housing that lower-income households can afford is located in the two
central cities. Yet the bulk of new jobs over the past decade has occurred in
the suburbs. The mall is yet another example of this trend. Given this
situation, the Council adopted Housing Policy 18: "The Metropolitan Council
supports policies, plans and programs to increase affordable housing
opportunities throughout the area and, particularly, close to employment
opportunities for people with lower incomes."
This means that communities close to the mall site should consider reviewing
housing plans and programs for adequacy in addressing the provision of housing
opportunities for lower income households. These communities include
Bloomington, Edina, Richfield, the south neighborhoods of Minneapolis,
southwestern neighborhoods of St. Paul, Mendota Heights, Eagan and Burnsville.
The numbers of persons employed at the mall and looking for housing close to
employment may also place pressure on the existing housing stock, particularly
low-cost rental housing.
ECONOMIC AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
The major issues in this review is how the proposal will impact the region and
21
the state as a whole. Certainly it has major impacts and benefits for
Bloomington, but it is important for the Council to look at the net regional
and state impacts. in some instances, the analysis will focus on net state
impacts, because that is the way both the data and models for estimating
economic and fiscal impacts are available. It should be kept in mind, however,
that the bulk of "net state impacts" will accrue to the Metropolitan Area.
As noted in the key assumptions analysis that follows, the two most important
assumptions with respect to this whole project are the tourist assumptions
(how many new tourists will the project attract?) and the expenditure assump-
tions (how much will the tourists spend?). This is because new tourists to the
state spending new money is the only way the project can generate net benefits
to the state. The spending generates the net new jobs. All other spending at
the mall represents a capturing of growth that would have occurred within the
state or region with or without the mall. The new tourist numbers are multi-
plied by the spending levels to get receipts. Receipts are then translated
into jobs. The tourists and expenditure assumptions are also used to calculate
new tax revenues for the state. Therefore, it should be kept in mind that much
of the analysis flows from the first two assumptions.
KEY ASSUMPTIONS
Tourist Projections
The developer has provided projections of tourists, expenditures by these
tourists and,jobs created by the expenditures. The projections are included in
Tables 11, 12 and 13. to addition, the Council contracted with the Harrison
Price Company for a review of the developer's projections and of the
assumptions on which they were based.
The Harrison Price report concluded that the mall would not increase the number
of tourists to the region over the present level when normal growth is
considered. Harrison Price estimated that 15 million to 17 million people
would visit the Mall annually but these would be local visitors and tourists
who would have come to the region even if the mall were not located here.
The conclusion in the Harrison Price report is based on experience at the West
Edmonton Mall, a similar facility owned by Triple Five, and at other major
shopping -entertainment centers. The Harrison Price findings tend to be
supported by a 1977 to 1978 study of Minnesota tourism conducted by Professor
Uel Blank and by a more recent Blank study prepared for the city of Minneapolis
in its analysis of the mall.
The Triple Five Corp. contends that there are no comparable centers to use for
a study, that its approach is unique and that the'West Edmonton Mall is too new
(Phase Three was opened in Sept. 1985) to base any conclusive judgement on.
Triple Five noted that the West Edmonton Mall was constructed in a time period
when Edmonton was in a severe recession. The Harrison Price report does
suggest that the West Edmonton Mall may have been beneficial to Edmonton during
its slump.
Council staff has included in the appendix
developer's projections, the Harrison Price
tourism.
22
an extensive analysis of the
report and other sources on
22a
0
pp
S
S
S
OCD
N
m
%O
6n
..r
N
N§
A
V
— N
I
S
H
S
H
O
—
S
Vd
L1
g
$
s
�i
f"
m
4
8
HH
S
H
yl
d�
N
n9
lff
J
J
N
y 6i
31-
Nf N
H
N
P1
6 Y
U
2
W U
S
H
S
S
V1 1 W
N
r
O
O
H
H
S
S
G.
%D
OI
Y� O� CC 2
L
tC
N
T
S M.
1. IS
a
Qi
en
�D
!—
N
'D
N
G
.�
7
2
8
H
zps
p8
N A
10
r
r •�
N N
N!
N
10
L �
a+
S
H
Lw
8
H
N
N
N
C
D O
L
C —
10
CC
Cf
A C
—
OE
r.
en
Alt
22a
d
y
Nm N
m
0
0
o
a Il
1
1 y
G
Qi
4
t
y
N
V1►
A d
bt
M
�i
O
y ++
y
i
1
1
N
r N
�
N
A �
M
O
V
N
y
C
_
A
y
�
67
y
O
>
A
N
10
<
N O
10 C
f.� _
y
L
~
N V
y
4 7
3-6
J C
J
Q
y
f
i
Y
iG
1
1
1
=
C
OY
cm
. o yIt
d
O
u11
N h =
O
O
m
d
J
� J
e 1�
r S
N
C
N
C7
ON
CN
..
N
M
�
y N
W
61
U
W
1
O
O
O
O
m
UM
QI
O
O y
Q
Ln
QY
1 q
lig
N
!•'1
� N
Q
M
O
d
y
Nm N
m
0O
O
m
1
1 y
G
Qi
4
t
y
N
A d
O
N
y
�!
V
L
y
�
O
>
A
N
10
<
N O
10 C
f.� _
22b
N
W
C
J r
22c
W ++ A
637 O C
K'f
ZW OI
a+�
Z
O
r
6
W
V W
C O
L
�1 UE
N ^N C1
^
N
r
W
�
r V
W 70
pJ�
S
W
49
r
V
�
O,
Y
on
a
�
O
�
Z V CC 666 O
►�
�"
N
W
C
J r
22c
A reasonably accurate estimate of tourists is essential to estimating whether
or not the mall will generate new employment and new state tax revenues that
would not have come to the state without the mall.
Tourist Expenditures
Based on the Harrison Price report and on the 1978-1979 Convention Expenditure
Survey conducted by the International Association of Convention and Visitors
Bureaus, it can be concluded that the $150 per day per delegate estimate from
Triple Five is reasonable. Retail expenditure estimates from Triple Five also
seem reasonable based on an updating of a 1979 University of Minnesota study.
The Harrison Price study concludes that the $15 per visit used by Triple Five
for amusement expenditures is not reasonable, noting that $15 on-site exceeds
all comparable experience except the Disney parks, which have a much greater
capacity and entertainment value. Nevertheless, for the analysis of the
developer's proposal, this figure was used.
Sales per Square Foot of Gross Leasable Area
According to Harrison Price, the $300 per square foot of gross leasable area
used to calculate retail sales in the Mall is acceptable, assuming that the
mall is comparable to the upper two percent of all super -regional malls in the
U.S.
Sales Per Employee
Triple Fives uses $90,000 sales per employee to calculate retail employment.
This figure is low for the type of facility planned. Census data on retail
sales provides a more realistic number of $180,000 per employee. Using the
higher ratio results in fewer retail employees generated by the mall.
The $45,000 per employee for all other sectors is slightly high. Census data
on service industries results in a $35,000 per employee.
The net effect of changing the ratios is that the total number of new jobs
remains the same but fewer of them are located at•the mall.
Employment Multiplier
The employment multiplier of 1.6 used by the Minnesota Department of Energy and
Economic Development in its preliminary analysis of the Triple Five employment
projections was an average for the U.S. economy. The multiplier was based on
1977 data and should be updated to 1.3 based on changes in the economy since
1977 and a more careful look at the occupations present at the mall and in the
Minnesota economy.
Economic Analysis
The analysis is divided into three sections: benefits, costs and sensitivity.
The base data from the developer is contained in Tables 11, 12, and 13, which
present visits, receipts and employment, respectively. The tables are simpli-
fied versions of the information submitted by the developer. The actual tables
and additional explanatory materials from Triple Five are included in the
appendix to this paper. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that
the Mall of America will be fully operational in 1995 and all estimates are for
that year. Receipts and revenues are for 1995 but in 1985 constant dollars.
23
BENEFITS
The benefits from the Mall of America project fall into three distinct
categories: receipts from tourist expenditures, new jobs (both construction
and operations) and new tax revenues. In order to have some way of comparing
the impact of these benefits, we have calculated baseline estimates have been
calculated for retail sales and jobs in 1995 (see Table 14). The analysis uses
a baseline because the regional markets are currently growing. The economic
issues related to the mall are how much of this growth is the mall capturing
and how much new growth will the mall induce? Rather than analyzing all
receipts in the estimated baseline, the work that follow concentrates on retail
sales because they represent the largest segment of the proposal and that is
where competition with other businesses in the area is likely to occur. To
calculate the 1995 retail sales baseline estimate, 1982 regional retail sales
per household were adjusted to 1985 dollars, then adjusted for income growth
between 1985 and 1995, and finally multiplied by the Council's 1995 household
forecasts (interpolated). Employment estimates are also interpolated from the
Council's forecasts. Unemployment in 1985 is taken from the Department of
Economic Securities data. The 1995 estimate for unemployment assumes a
constant ratio between the unemployment numbers and total employment from 1985
to 1995•
Retail Sales
Employment
Unemployment
Receipts
Table 14
BASELINE ESTIMATES
1985
$ 13.9 billion
1,187,500
47,356
Mu
$ 20.8 billion
1,350,000
53,836
Growth
$ 7.1 billion
162,000
The analysis begins with Table 11 (1995 Visits). The first column of Table 11
represents new tourists brought in by the Mall of America. It is used to
calculate net new receipts and jobs to the region and state. The last column
of the table presents total attendance to the mall and is used to calculate
what the Mall of America itself will generate in terms of receipts and jobs.
These provide the basis for Table 12 (1995 Receipts).
Triple Five has broken visitors down into three categories based on the primary
purpose of their visit. The categories are trade/convention, retail and
amusement. The developer then proceeds to estimate what each group of visitors
will spend: convention goers will spend $150 per day in the region, retail
tourists $125 per day and amusement goers $17 to $80 per day depending on how
far away they come from. These amounts are what they will spend in the region
or state, not necessarily just at the Mall of America. The first column of
Table 12 indicates what the developer projects will be spent at the site in
total. For example, the $1.2 billion in retail sales is based on an estimate
of $300 per square foot multipled by four million square feet. The remaining
24
columns of that table indicate the spending that will be induced by new
tourists to the state or new spending by existing tourists and residents, that
is, Mall of America induced expenditures.
The first column of the table and the last columns should be viewed in two
different ways. The first column represents what is being spent on those
services in the mall. The latter columns represents what is being spent by the
visitors whose primary purpose falls in each of those categories, but not
necessarily what is being spent in the particular category. The developer does
not appear to have double counted expenditures but has not broken the expendi-
tures out completely. For the retail visitors, only retail expenditures have
been estimated. For the other two categories, total expenditures are
estimated.
What does Table 12 tell us? In total, Triple Five expects the Mall to induce
$1,366.3 million in new spending in the state and the region: $541.3 million
on-site and $825 million off-site. Retail sales is the largest component of
the new on-site expenditures, amounting to $425 million. However, the
developer expects to have $1.2 billion in total retail sales at the mall. This
means that $775 million will be sales captured from expected growth in the rest
of the region. The developer argues that this is compensated for by the off-
site and indirect sales ($825 million) generated elsewhere by the mall
tourists.
Looking back at the baseline figures, the region can expect $7.1 billion growth
in total retail sales by 1995• Triple Five expects the mall to add $425
million to that total and to capture $775 million of the $7.1 billion or approx-
imately 11 percent. Looked at in a slightly different context, the major
retail centers and the central business districts of the two central cities
accounted for 33 percent of total retail sales in 1982. If major retail
centers and central business districts were to capture the same share of the
57.1 billion estimated growth, they would realize $2.3 billion in new retail
sales. The Mall of America, as a new major retail center, would be competing
for a piece of this $2.3 billion. If the mall captures $775 million of the
expected growth, it represents 33 percent of the growth estimated going to
major retail centers and the central business districts. For total retail
growth in the region, the mall is estimated to capture 27 percent.
Employment
Construction
The Department of Revenue has used its Minnesota Forecasting and Simulation
Model to estimate the jobs created by the Mall of America construction phase
(1986-1993). Detailed numbers are available in the Nov. 4, 1985 memorandum
entitled Impact of Meoamall on Minnesota Economy (see Appendix). Essentially,
most jobs are created in the first three years (4,551 in 1986, 11,715 in 1987,
and 8,683 in 1988). The number of construction jobs created after that drop
off significantly. Construction is to be completed in 1993.
Operations
Using the developer's approach to calculating employment, Table 13 presents
the jobs at the mall and the net new jobs to Minnesota created by the Mall of
America. Jobs are calculated by looking at ratios of sales per employee or
square footage per employee. In column one, the developer assumes one job per
25
room for hotels; one job per $90,000 in sales for retail; one job per $45,000
in amusement; and one job per 215 square foot for office space. The bases on
which these are applied are in the earlier tables. The second column is based
strictly on sales ratios and the expenditures expected from the new tourists to
Minnesota (the last column in Table 11). Indirect jobs are calculated using an
employment multiplier of 0.8.
The two columns in Table 13 need to be looked at in the same manner as Table
12. The first column represents employment in specific sectors; the second
represents employment generated by the spending of tourists whose primary
purpose is convention, retail or amusement. At full operation, the Mall of
America will employ 27,370 full-time equivalent. Direct net new jobs to
Minnesota will be 16,357 and indirect jobs will be 13,086. Of the net new
jobs, approximately 7,000 will be in the retail sector (based on the
developer's footnotes) and most of the rest will be in the service sectors. If
the mall is creating 13,300 retail jobs and inducing only 7,000, then the
remainder are from expected regional growth and could have occurred anywhere in
the region.
For purposes of this analysis, the Department of Revenue model to calculate new
jobs to Minnesota for the operational phase of the project in 1995 was run.
The model estimates 27,539 new jobs for the state given the developer's assump-
tions on tourism. This falls somewhere between the developer's estimate of
29,443 with a 1.8 multiplier and the 21,263 generated when using a 1.3
multiplier (discussed in the Appendix). With the model, indirect employment is
calculated as part of the model.
Tax Revenues
Construction
The revenue department model estimates that the total taxes generated from the
construction -related expenditure of the entire construction period (1986-1993)
will be $121 million ($59 million income taxes, $51 million sales taxes and $11
million corporate income taxes).
Operations
The revenue department model was also used to calculate taxes collected in 1995
during the full operation phase. It is estimated that annual collections will
total $91 million ($48 million individual income taxes, $37 million sales taxes
and $6 million corporate income taxes). Bloomington and the Metropolitan Area
will also collect property taxes (discussed separately). The taxes projected
by the model are all state taxes which get redistributed throughout the state.
The property taxes benefit Bloomington and the Metropolitan Area. How much
each receives will depend of the final resolution of the fiscal disparities
question.
Sensitivity and Summary of Benefits
Table 15 below shows a summary of the benefits from the Mall of America pro-
posal and how sensitive these benefits are to the tourist assumptions. In
column 2, the tourist figures have been reduced to reflect some of the ques-
tions raised in the tourist section above and to show how benefits are affected
by the assumptions. Trade and convention tourists have been reduced to 135,000
to reflect the competitiveness of the industry and the fact that Minneapolis is
26
going ahead with its convention center. Retail tourists have been cut in half --
to 1,700,000 to partially take into account the Harrison Price concern that not
many new tourists will be attracted to the state. The amusement tourists have
been reduced by one million because of the Harrison Price conclusion that the
facility is not large enough for the total six million. The new figure for out-
of-state amusement tourists is 1,100,000.
Column 3 has been added to illustrate that if there are no new tourists to the
state or region there are no net benefits.
Table 15
BENEFITS CREATED BY THE MALL OF AMERICA
No New
Developer's Assumptions Reduced Tourists Tourists
Tourists 6,100,000 2,935,000 0
Receipts $1.4 billion $601 million 0
Employment 27,539* 9,803* 0
State Taxes $91 million* $34 million* 0
*From the Minnesota Forecasting and Simulation Model.
COSTS
Convention Center
Both the Metropolitan Development Framework and the Metropolitan Development
and Investment Framework give priority to maintaining the metro centers as the
eefocus of the region's commercial, institutional, cultural and entertainment
facilities. Based on that priority, the Council found Minneapolis a more
appropriate location than Bloomington for the state convention center. That
policy position is supported by the economic analysis of the proposed mall
convention center provided below in this report.
The 800,000 projected delegates are categorized as 200,000 local and 600,000
out-of-state. According to the developer, the 200,000 delegates would be
"drawn from existing facilities elsewhere in the Twin Cities area" (undated
submission by Nichols Applied Management, page 2). The 600,000 other delegates
are "new" convention and trade show attendees from out of state. All delegates
are assumed to attend events four times over 3.5 days.
The convention center facility was analyzed from the following perspectives:
o Reasonableness of the projected delegate attendance.
o Impact on existing attendance given that 200,000 delegates will be
attracted to the new facility from existing facilities in the region.
o Potential impact if both the Bloomington and Minneapolis facilities are
built.
o Council policy position on the location of a convention center.
27
Reasonableness of the Developer's Delegate Projections
No market feasibility study has been done by Triple Five on its proposed conven-
tion center. Other studies have been reviewed in an attempt to determine how
realistic the developer's projections might be. In 1984, the firm of Coopers
and Lybrand conducted a market feasibility and economic impact study of the
proposed Minnesota Convention Center for the Minnesota Convention Facility
Commission. In part, the assignment given to Coopers and Lybrand by the commis-
sion was to estimate the type and number of events that could be attracted to
the proposed facility and prepare 10 -year estimates of the number of events,
attendance, and revenue generated by the proposed facility.
The Coopers and Lybrand study recommended a convention center be built that
would have 400,000 square feet of exhibition space and 50 to 55 meeting rooms.
Triple Five plans a 500,000 square foot convention center at least 300,000
square feet would be in exhibition space. The developer has not provided any
information on meeting rooms or other ancillary facilities.
In Table 16 the projection of events and out-of-state delegates from the study
is recorded along with the estimate of out-of-state delegates from the
developer. The tenth year of operation shows an estimated 271,000 delegates in
1994 from Coopers and Lybrand as compared to Triple Five's estimate of 600,000
in 1995•
The question that these estimates raise is why Triple Five's projection is 220
percent higher than the Coopers and Lybrand study. The only explanation
offered by the developer is that the convention facility would be unique given
its location within the Mall of America and Fantasyworld complex. We have no
data to prove or disprove this contention. Based on a review of the convention
commission study, one can conclude that the delegate attendance estimate made
by the developer is higher than can reasonably be expected.
Table 16
CONVENTION CENTER EVENT AND ATTENDANCE PROJECTIONS
NEW OUT-OF-STATE DELEGATES
Coopers
b Lybrand
for
Convention
Commission
(1984)
Triple Five
Year of
Operation
Events*
Delegates
Events Delegates
1
13
70,000
? ?
3
21
141,000
? ?
10
29
271,000
? 600,000
*New conventions
and trade shows
that are not currently held
in Minnesota.
28
Impact on Existing Convention -Type Facilities in the Region
The developer has stated that 200,000 persons who now attend convention or
trade show events would be attracted to the Bloomington convention center if it
were built. In 1984, the Minneapolis convention center had a turnstile count
of 1,323,344 for all events, including conventions, conferences, trade shows
and consumer shows (Minneapolis Planning Department transmittal, Oct. 25,
1985. For the same year, the St. Paul civic center reported total turnstile
counts at all events of 1,939,000, for a combined total turnstile count of
3.262.350 (Civic Center Authority of the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, Annual
Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended Dec. 31, 1984. April 9, 1985•
As noted above, the developer is projecting a total turnstile count at the
convention center of 3,200,000, which is equivalent to the 1984 turnstile
counts of both the Minneapolis convention center and the St. Paul civic
center. The developer has also said 200,000 delegates (or people) would be
attracted away from events presently held in the area. These 200,000 people
represent 800,000 turnstile counts. If 800,000 turnstile counts were taken out
of the local attendance at the Minneapolis and St. Paul facilities, they would
experience a 24 percent reduction in total attendance. This obviously would
have an impact on the revenues of these facilities.
As part of an analysis of the mall project, the Minnesota Department of Energy
and Economic Development commissioned a study by Coopers and Lybrand entitled
Proiected Results of Operating Two Maior Convention Facilities in the_Metropoli-
tan Area of Minnesota, Aug. 23, 1985•
The study assumed a convention center with 300,000 square feet of exhibition
space in Minneapolis and 500,000 square feet in Bloomington. The study drew on
the work Coopers and Lybrand did for the Minnesota convention facility commis-
sion in 1984. As noted above, the study for the Convention Center Commission
records annual projections of events and out-of-state delegate attendance for a
10 -year period. These estimates were used in the Department of Energy and
Economic Development analysis.
The original work done for the convention commission reported a 10 -year
operating deficit with one convention facility of $10,000,000. The operating
deficit for two facilities over a 10 -year period ranges from $66,000,000 to
$161,000,000.
29
Table 17
PROJECTED OPERATING LOSSES: OPERATION OF TWO CONVENTION CENTERS
(in millions of dollars)
EXPENSES APPROXIMATING THOSE AT MINNEAPOLIS CONVENTION CENTER AT PRESENT
Source: Coopers and Lybrand projected results of operating two major convention
facilities in the Metropolitan Area of Minnesota.
Our conclusion is that two state -level centers will generate significantly
higher operating losses than if only one were in operation. The amount of loss
will be directly related to the number of events that can be attracted to the
two facilities.
In addition to operating cost, the cost for debt service needs to be taken into
account. Coopers and Lybrand suggested this might range from $125 million over
10 years for Minneapolis to $180 million for the Bloomington project. If the
Bloomington center were completely funded by Triple Five, all losses from the
mall center would be its responsibility. Public money would have to make up
the larger deficit that would result in Minneapolis.
Two convention facilities could attract more events than one new large conven-
tion facility. Two conventions centers would provide capacity at critical
times of the year that would not be provided by one facility, and they would be
expected to spend more time and money promoting events.
In an attempt to fully understand the economic impacts if two convention
centers are built, the potential impacts were analyzed assuming two centers
attracted 50 percent more events and delegates than the estimate made by
Coopers and Lybrand for the convention commission. This would result in
135,000 more delegates.
In light of two basically new convention centers competing for the delegates,
the total of 400,000 delegates were assumed to be evenly split between the
Minneapolis and Bloomington convention facilities. The Minneapolis convention
center would sustain a loss of 40,000 delegates while Bloomington would realize
30
50/50
75% of Event
in Mpls.
25% of Events
in Mpls.
Split of Events
25% in Bloomington
75% in Bloomington
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Rental Rate
of Events
of Events
of Events
of Events
of Events
of Events
.40/sq.
ft.
92
69
96
72
89
66
.20/sq.
ft.
104
86
107
89
100
83
.10/sq.
ft.
log
94
113
98
106
91
INCREASE
EXPENSES BY 20
PERCENT
.40/sq.
ft.
140
114
143
117
137
111
.20/sq.
ft.
151
131
115
134
148
127
.10/sq.
ft.
157
139
161
143
154
136
Source: Coopers and Lybrand projected results of operating two major convention
facilities in the Metropolitan Area of Minnesota.
Our conclusion is that two state -level centers will generate significantly
higher operating losses than if only one were in operation. The amount of loss
will be directly related to the number of events that can be attracted to the
two facilities.
In addition to operating cost, the cost for debt service needs to be taken into
account. Coopers and Lybrand suggested this might range from $125 million over
10 years for Minneapolis to $180 million for the Bloomington project. If the
Bloomington center were completely funded by Triple Five, all losses from the
mall center would be its responsibility. Public money would have to make up
the larger deficit that would result in Minneapolis.
Two convention facilities could attract more events than one new large conven-
tion facility. Two conventions centers would provide capacity at critical
times of the year that would not be provided by one facility, and they would be
expected to spend more time and money promoting events.
In an attempt to fully understand the economic impacts if two convention
centers are built, the potential impacts were analyzed assuming two centers
attracted 50 percent more events and delegates than the estimate made by
Coopers and Lybrand for the convention commission. This would result in
135,000 more delegates.
In light of two basically new convention centers competing for the delegates,
the total of 400,000 delegates were assumed to be evenly split between the
Minneapolis and Bloomington convention facilities. The Minneapolis convention
center would sustain a loss of 40,000 delegates while Bloomington would realize
30
a total attendance of 200,000 new delegates to convention and trade show
events.
Both the Metropolitan Development Framework and Metropolitan Development and
Investment Framework give priority to maintaining the metro centers as the
focus of the region's commercial, institutional, cultural and entertainment
facilities. Based on that priority, the Council found Minneapolis a more
appropriate location than Bloomington for the state convention center when this
was being debated by the convention facility commission. Council action taken
at that time states:
Both Bloomington and Minneapolis sites for the convention center are
consistent with the Metropolitan Development Framework, with the
Minneapolis location more supportive of Metropolitan Development Framework
policy 8 concerning reinforcement of development in the metro centers.
Public Subsidies
The costs of the project include direct subsidies of tax revenues and indirect
subsidies in the form of regional public services. From a public policy
perspective, there are several considerations regarding subsidies. For
example, does the development inject new income into the regional economy? Do
these subsidies provide benefits that would only materialize with public
assistance? Do these subsidies provide assistance to developments that compete
with existing businesses?
In recent years, a large proportion of the new development in the region
received some form of public assistance. While this should not justify
continuation of subsidies, it is an important consideration to weigh. The
Bloomington proposal is somewhat unique insofar as part of the subsidy goes
directly to the development for operation and maintenance expenses and most of
the subsidy burden falls away from the city.
The development agreement between the city of Bloomington and Triple Five
Corp. includes the following public assistance:
Tax increment financing of $140 million to pay for a parking structure
($84 million) plus a required bond reserve ($56 million).
The exemption of the Triple Five development from the fiscal dispar-
ities legislation and an additional two percent hotel/motel tax and
five percent on -sale liquor tax, both to be levied throughout
Bloomington to raise $15 million annually to cover the operation and
maintenance of public and private improvements.
Funding for state and regional infrastructure, specifically
transportation improvements.
Fiscal Disparities
The Fiscal Disparities Act is based upon the proposition that, in many re-
spects, the Metropolitan Area is a single community, and that, in large
measure, commercial -industrial development in the seven -county area is regional
in nature: it occurs in part because of the proximity of the metropolitan
population, and it tends to serve, and depend upon, an area far beyond the
31
borders of the municipality in which it happens to locate. Very large commer-
cial -industrial developments, whether large factories, regional shopping
centers, industrial or office parks, locate in a metropolitan area by reason of
the fact that it is a metropolitan area because of the presence of a market and
such metropolitan resources as transportation facilities. By their very
nature, such developments occur in limited numbers. The act assumes that it is
more fair for each city to share a portion of its commercial -industrial growth
with the rest of the Metropolitan Area than it is to maintain a system where
the particular municipality which happens to attract such a development
receives the -entire windfall of the value of the development.
The Council has supported the fiscal disparities program since its inception.
Most recently, in its Aug. 23, 1984 review of proposals for the state
convention center, it found that the use of fiscal disparities as a method to
finance or insure financing for the convention center is inconsistent with the
fiscal disparities law.
Bloomington is proposing to raise approximately two-thirds ($8.5 to $10
million) of the operating subsidy by exempting the mall project from the fiscal
disparities contribution levy. This method of financing a subsidy would have
significant regional effects.
The exemption from fiscal disparities would affect every community in the
Metropolitan Area. Under existing law, 40 percent of new commercial -industrial
development is shared among all communities. ,For taxes payable in 1985, the
shared tax base ($1,264 million) represented about eight percent of the Metro-
politan Area tax base. Bloomington estimates the market value of the Triple
Five project for tax purposes is $465 million (1985 dollars) when completed.
This translates into an assessed value of $200 million and a fiscal disparities
contribution (40 percent) of $80 million in tax base.
The fiscal disparities law gives all communities a share in the tax benefits of
new development throughout the region. A project of this size located else-
where in the region would generate a sizable tax benefit to all other
communities. Bloomington is instead proposing to capture this tax benefit to
finance the subsidy to Triple Five. In other words, tax revenues ticketed
under present law to lower taxes in other metropolitan communities is rebated
to the development project.
Upon completion, the Triple Five project is expected to generate property taxes
of approximately $20 million annually (1985 dollars), including a contribution
levy to the fiscal disparities program of $8.5 to $10 million. This implies an
area -wide mill rate of 106-125 mills using the area -wide tax base for taxes
paid in 1985.
The Bloomington exemption would be in effect through the year 2012, the term of
the tax increment district encompassing the project. If the district is
terminated before this date, it is not clear how the fiscal disparities
exemption is affected.
The primary effect of the exemption is to reduce the areawide shared tax base
and the resulting tax revenues to local governments (municipalities, counties,
school districts). Local governments would have $8.5 to $10 million less than
if the tax base were shared. There would also be a much smaller effect on
property tax -related state aids (e.g., homestead credits, school aids). The
Minnesota Department of Revenue estimates that there would be a savings in
32
i
state aids of $2.2 million if the fiscal disparities law were not changed and
the project were tax increment district.
There are exemptions currently under the fiscal disparities program. These are
somewhat different from the Triple Five proposal in that the tax dollars
generated are used to finance public improvements in the tax increment dis-
trict. No revenues are rebated to the development directly. No new exemptions
have been allowed since the original legislation was passed. In addition, the
exemption of a development like the Triple Five project seems contrary to the
basic concept of fiscal disparities to spread around the tax benefits of
regional -scale developments.
If a fiscal disparities exemption is not allowed, another source will be needed
for approximately $10 million. Various alternative sources of funding are
available, involving either state, regional or local financing. Bloomington is
considering a one cent sales tax or its equivalent at the project site. The
Council's regional finance study recommended that a regional sales tax be
reserved for general, not specific, purposes. If a sales tax were to be
earmarked for the project subsidy, it would be preferable to limit the tax to
the project or to Bloomington. However, this may have the effect of
discouraging sales in Bloomington.
The operating subsidy is a mix of three sources: the fiscal disparities exemp-
tion, a hotel/motel tax and an on -sale liquor tax. One risk is that the taxes
do not generate the necessary amount of revenue. If there is a shortfall in
revenues, there is no requirement in the development agreement that the taxes
be extended outside Bloomington or that the shortfall be made up by non -
Bloomington sources. Any deficiency in one year is to be made up in future
years using the same revenue sources. if a shortfall remains after 2012,
Bloomington has to make up the deficit within six years. It is not clear what
happens in the event that the taxes raise more than the $15 million committed
to Triple Five.
Local Hotel and On -Sale Liquor Taxes
Both the hotel/motel tax and the on -sale liquor tax would'be levied throughout
Bloomington. These two taxes are expected to raise approximately $5 million
when the development is completed. This assumes that the project is operating
at full capacity.
Bloomington currently levies a three percent tax on sales of transient
lodging. The city would increase the hotel/motel tax an additional two
percent, a total of five percent. The state taxes transient lodging six
percent and on -sale liquor 8.5 percent. The Bloomington proposal would raise
these to 11 percent and 13.5 percent respectively.
One advantage of a hotel/motel tax is that it is paid by visitors to the
Bloomington. To the extent that visitors generate the costs related to public
services and the public subsidies, the tax is levied on beneficiaries. From an
equity criterion, beneficiaries should pay the costs generated.
From an efficiency perspective the issue is whether these taxes discourage
consumption. The tax raises the price of the taxed product. The effect on
consumption depends upon how sensitive demand is to the change in price. It is
doubtful that the taxes would have a serious effect on businesses in the
project area. It may be a problem, however, for on -sale liquor businesses in
other parts of Bloomington.
33
One risk is that the tax does not generate the necessary amount of revenue. If
there is a shortfall in revenues, there is no requirement in the development
agreement that the taxes be extended outside Bloomington or that the shortfall
be made up by nonSloomington sources (see fiscal disparities discussion).
Tax Increment Financing
Tax increment is a financing method used by cities in which the increase in
taxable value for a parcel of land is set aside and used to pay for improve-
ments to the site rather than being used to contribute to general property tax
revenues. The notion is that because the improvements attract development that
would not otherwise occur, no revenues to units of government are lost and jobs
are created. When improvements are paid for, the increment returns to the
general property tax base.
Bloomington proposes to issue $140 million of tax increment bonds. Of this
amount, the largest portion (about $80 million) will be used to construct a
parking garage for the project. About $30 million will be used to pay bonds in
the first two years when no revenue is yet generated. The remainder will be
used to fund other eligible costs such as site preparation, roads and streets,
and bond reserves. An estimated $15 million will be needed annually to pay off
the bonds. The bonds would mature in 22 years.
The latest property tax information from the Minnesota Department of Revenue
shows a total assessed valuation for the city of Bloomington of $848,777,898
for taxes payable 1985. The mall would add an estimated $200 million in
assessed valuation. The total levy in Bloomington is $8.9 million. Not all
of the property tax raised, however, goes to the city. The school district
receives 45 percent; the county, �5 percent; and the city about 15 percent. An
issue with tax increment is that additional tax base is pre-empted from not
only the city but also the school district and county which have larger levies
than the city. The counter argument is that the additional tax base would not
occur without the incentives provided and so no revenue is lost to these
governments.
Tax increment financing does shift costs. With all of the tax increment
dedicated to paying off bonds, increased service costs to the mall must be
spread to the remainder of the tax base. In the case of the city itself, costs
for police, fire, street repair, etc., would be spread to the remainder of the
city. Regional costs for the Metropolitan Transit Commission and Metropolitan
Council or other areawide units would be spread across the metropolitan area.
A characteristic of tax increment financing is that any general increase in
service costs can not be passed on to tax increment districts. For example, if
city costs for 1986 go up five percent, the five percent share that applies to
a tax increment district would be spread across the remainder of the city.
The major regional shift associated with the Mall concerns regional transit.
The Regional Transit Board estimates that a moderate level of transit service
to the mall will cost $8.1 million in annual operating costs. A portion of the
costs is recovered in fares but an estimated average of 38 percent ($301
million) is funded by the regional transit property tax levy. Since the mall
is excluded from the taxing district, this portion would not be paid by a levy
on the mall but would be distributed to the remainder of the transit taxing
district. A levy on the Bloomington mall for regional. transit would, absent a
tax increment district, be expected to yield $600,000 ($200 million assessed
value X 3.0 mills).
34
The Regional Transit Board is limited in the amount of levy it can impose. In
order to fund the added transit costs for the Mall, the legislature will have
to allow for an increased levy or directly appropriate funding for the
increased service. If neither of these occur, any transit service to the mall
will be implemented at the cost of cutbacks in service to other areas in the
region.
Another issue is how the amount of the tax increment compares with other
cities. Hennepin County has prepared a table for cities in Hennepin County
that shows the relative portions of tax base in tax increment districts (see
Appendix). Bloomington currently has 2.5 percent in tax increment. With the
mall, Bloomington's base in tax increment would be increased to 16 percent.
This would be a higher percentage than other cities in Hennepin County. Eden
Prairie, the next highest, currently has 7.9 percent; and Minneapolis, 7.3
percent. Hennepin County uses a guideline recommending no more than six per-
cent of assessed value be in tax increment for larger cities such as
Bloomington and Minneapolis. Several cities are already above this guideline.
The chief impacts would be that at higher percentages a smaller portion of the
city's tax base bears the load of what might otherwise be covered by a tax
increment district. At higher percentages, the marketability of tax increment
bonds would also be affected if they are general obligation bonds. If revenue
bonds, this would not necessarily be true and marketability would be more
dependent on the perceived economic soundness of the proposal. Bloomington has
indicated they will probably use revenue bonds for the mall.
Funding of Regional Services
Based on the analysis above in the metropolitan systems section of the report,
three regional services are likely to experience increased capital and
operating costs if the mall project is constructed.
Transportation costs for highway improvements are the most significant, with
immediate costs for serving the mall estimated at $116 million. Approximately
$250 million in improvements to 1-494 are necessary to serve all development
along that corridor.
Transit costs include both capital and operating. Approximately $2 million in
capital costs for buses will be needed but a large share of that is funded by
federal grants. Operating costs of $8 million for transit service will be
partially funded through passenger fares and state and federal operating grants
but $3.1 million of operating costs must be funded within the region through
the transit levy or by comparable level cutback in service to other parts of
the region.
The third system likely to experience increased costs is the regional recrea-
tion open space system which anticipates increased use of regional parks by
tourists. The increased use is directly tied to increased numbers of
tourists. To the extent that the developer's projections of new tourists are
accurate, increased use of the parks will result. Virtually all rregional park
capital funding is provided by the state legislature. Operating costs are
local.
The city of Bloomington and Triple Five Corp. have suggested that net new state
revenues generated from the mall are a resource for funding transportation
improvements. If the Harrison Price assessment of tourist projects is correct
35
and the developer's projections are extremely high, the mall will not generate
substantial new revenues. As pointed out in Table 15 of the benefits section
above, if net new tourists are half the number projected, net new revenues to
the state fall from $91 million to $34 million. If no new tourists are
attracted to the state, new taxes will not exist.
EFFECTS ON OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Convention Center
As noted above in the economic analysis of the convention, a second convention
center of the size projected for the mall would substantially increase the
operating deficits for both convention centers. A single convention center can
be expected to experience an annual deficit of $10 million for operating costs
alone, whereas operating deficits for two convention centers would range from
$66 million to $161 million. The increased deficit for the Minneapolis
convention center would be a public liability, anticipated at this time to be
borne by the Minneapolis residents. It constitutes a substantial effect on a
planned development in a local governmental unit other than the city of
Bloomington.
Fiscal Disparities
Exemption of the Mall of America and Fantasyworld would have an adverse impact
on other local governmental units in the region. As pointed out above under
public subsidies, the $8.5 to $10 million retained by Bloomington through an
exemption is revenue lost to other cities in the region. While the effect on a
single governmental unit may not be substantial, the sum effect on all local
governments in the region is substantial and has the potential to lead to other
exemptions from fiscal disparities, further eroding a program that contributes
substantially to equalizing tax base among Metropolitan Area communities. In
addition, such an exemption could result in the termination of the fiscal
disparities program all together.
POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO ALLEVIATE ADVERSE EFFECTS
MODIFICATIONS TO METROPOLITAN SYSTEM PLANS
Although no substantial effect has been established on the regional sewer
system, 1990 flow allocations in the regional sewer system plan will have to be
amended by the Council to accomodate the increased flow projected for the Mall
of America and Fantasyworld.
Modifications to the regional recreation open space system plan may be neces-
sary if tourist visits occur in the magnitude projected. The biennial capital
improvement program is flexible enough to accomodate necessary improvements to
facilities. Funding for capital improvements is provided by the state through
legislative appropriations.
The regional transportation plan needs to be amended to address the magnitude
and timing of the immeediate area highway improvements needed to serve the
development of the Mall of America and Fantasyworld. New funding sources will
be sought in order to not alter other regional priorities and state priorities
and schedules in the region.
36
MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Two modifications to the developer's proposal are necessary to alleviate the
adverse effects of the proposed project on other local governmental units:
o Elimination of the convention center from the Mall of America and
Fantasyworld.
o Participation by the project in contributing to fiscal disparities.
o In order to substantially affect traffic volume on 1-494 and maintain
it at level below the capacity of an eight -lane freeway, office space
development in the Airport South area needs to be reduced by approx-
imately three million square feet. This would still leave approximate-
ly five million square feet of office space in that site and would
allow the construction of the retail and entertaiment component of the
mall proposal and other ancillary components such as the hotels.
SYNOPSIS OF REPORTS OR FINDINGS OF OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
No other public agencies with the exception of the city of Bloomington have
taken final action on the proposed development. The city has rezoned the site
and entered into a development agreement with the Triple Five corporation.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
1. The proposed project, the Mall of America and Fantasyworld, is not con-
sistent with those elements of the Bloomington comprehensive plan subject
to modification by the Council and is in conflict with metropolitan systems
plans with regard to the use, extension or expansion of metropolitan
systems. The differences in land use, land use intensity and development
staging change the expected use of the regional highway and sewer systems
as identified in both the comprehensive plan and the generic environmental
impact statement for the Airport South District.
2. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act embodies a process whereby local compre-
hensive plans can be amended and whereby such plans must be amended to
ensure continued consistency with evolving metropolitan system plans.
3. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act limits local ordinancing to prohibit
official controls and fiscal devices in conflict with local comprehensive
and metropolitan system plans.
METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS ISSUES
Sewers
1. Wastewater flow projections provided by Bloomington are very similar to
wastewater flow projections made by the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission for the Mall of America development. These flows will cause
Bloomington to exceed its 1990 allocated capacity in the regional sewage
system.
37
2. No substantial effect on the regional sewer system plans is anticipated
from the increased flow because the regional system has the physical
capacity to accomodate the flow and Metropolitan Development Framework
policy provides that growth in the fully developed area in excess of
forecasts will be accommodated if system capacity is available or can
reasonably be provided. Therefore, the Mall of America and Fantasyworld do
not cause a substantial effect on the metropolitan sewer system or or
system plans.
Transportation Findings
General
1. The mall project is of metropolitan significance since the traffic
generated by the site substantially exceeds the threshold levels of 10,000
vehicle trips per day or 1,000 vehicle trips per hour. Low estimates are
123,000 trips per day or 6,323 trips per hour.
2. The impact on the transportation system has been analyzed assuming full
implementation of the Mall of America/Fantasyworld project as well as
proposed development for the remaining portion of the Airport South area.
3. Significant transportation impacts in the immediate vicinity of the Airport
South area would occur if the proposed development for the entire Airport
South area were fully implemented on the site.
4. The transportation impacts in the immediate vicinity of the Airport South
site would require major improvements in the following metropolitan
highways:
Hwy. 77 between Killebrew Dr. and 1-494
1-494 between 24th Av. So. and 12th Av. So. including interchanges
Hwy. 77 between 1-494 and Hennepin County Road 62
5. The Transportation Policy Plan does show the need to replace the Killebrew
Dr. at -grade intersection with Hwy. 77 with a grade -separated interchange
and the need to upgrade the interchange areas on 1-494 from Hwy. 77 to 24th
Av. The plan, however, did not envisage the magnitude and timing of those
improvements.
6. None of the immediate impact area improvements is currently scheduled in
either the 1986-87 Highway Improvement Program or the 1988-1991 Highway
Improvement work Program developed by Mn/DOT. Although it would be highly
desirable for these improvements to be completed by the opening of the
Mall, it would be difficult to achieve. One expediting measure could be
that Bloomington acquire any necessary right-of-way.
7. The total cost of these immediate area improvements including construction
and right-of-way acquisition is estimated to be $116 million, which
Bloomington proposes be paid by a legislative appropriation based on the
new tax revenues to be generated by the project. Existing funding sources
are limited and would require a drastic revision of regional and state-wide
priorities.
38
8. Because of the overall regional growth expected by the Year 2005 and
assuming full implementation of the proposed Mall of America/Fantasyworld
and other Airport South development, capacity up to 10 lanes of traffic and
increased interchange capacity would be necessary on 1-494 between 12th
Av. So. and Hwy. 100.
9. The above long-term capacity needs on 1-494 west of 12th Av. So. would
exceed the capacity levels (six freeway lanes) envisaged in the current
Transportation Policy Plan.
10. Preliminary analysis indicates that no more than eight freeway lanes should
be considered on 1-494 between 12th Av. So. and Hwy. 100 because of
physicai, operation, environmental, economic, financial and system -
implication constraints.
11. The preliminary estimate for upgrading 1-494 to eight freeway lanes between
12th Av. So. and Hwy. 100 is $250 million including construction and right-
of-way acquisition.
12. No funding has been identified at this point to finance the potential up-
grading of 1-494 outside of the immediate impact area (i.e., west of 12th
Av. So.) nor is it scheduled in any of the Mn/DOT plans.
13. The inclusion of either the short-term immediate impact area improvements
or the long-term improvements on 1-494 in Mn/DOT programs would drastically
alter regional and/or state-wide priorities and schedules.
14. Development proposals for the entire Airport South area would have to be
scaled down to ensure that long-term peak -hour traffic volumes on 1-494
would not exceed the capacity of an eight -lane freeway.
15. In addition to 1-494 upgrading, due to overall regional growth and to the
existing and proposed development for the Airport South area, effects on
metropolitan highways such as Hwy. 77 north of 1-494, the Crosstown and
Hwy. 5 could require additional long-term improvements.
Travel Demand
16. The existing and proposed development for the entire Airport South area
would generate, if no constraints are imposed, about 274,000 vehicle trips
per day on an average weekday.
17. During the worst hour of the day, the evening rush hour, the entire Airport
South development would generate 30,000 vehicles per hour if no constraints
were imposed. About 10,000 vehicles would go into the area (inbound) and
20,000 would exit the area (outbound).
18. Aggressive travel demand management techniques (i.e., transit service,
ridesharing, staggered work hours, etc..) would reduce the number of
vehicles in and out of the area, particularly during peak periods.
19. Public transit would play a modest role in the provision of accessibility
to the Airport South area. A moderate goal of about 550 riders per peak
hour would have a minor impact on the roadway system needs. The cost of
providing the service necessary to attract those riders could approach $8
million per year. The cost-effectiveness of providing those services and
39
availability of funding would have to be established by the Regional
Transit Board prior to implementation.
20. An internal transit circulation system in Airport South would improve
traffic conditions on the local street system but would not have a
significant impact on the regional system. The cost effectiveness of an
internal circulation system, however, has not been established.
21. The 20,000 outbound unconstrained peak hour vehicle trips generated by the
entire Airport South area could be reduced to about 17,800 trips if aggres-
sive travel demand management techniques were implemented.
22. The Updated Transportation Plan for Airport South prepared by the city of
Bloomington, concludes that on unconstrained number of 19,214 outbound
evening peak hour vehicles could be reduced to a range between 14,100 and
16,750 outbound vehicles depending on how successful travel demand
management techniques were.
23. Transportation Impacts of the Mall of America and Fantasyworld, prepared
By the City of Minneapolis estimates that the outbound traffic generated by
the entire Airport South development during the evening peak hour would be
between 17,300 - 20,700 vehicles.
24. The mall proposal at full development would account for about 40 percent of
the vehicles leaving the Airport South area in the evening rush hour in
2005.
25. According to Council staff estimates, of the evening rush hour traffic
volumes generated by the Airport South area about 60 percent would be
attributable to the existing and proposed office space development
(including the 2,000,000 square feet proposed by the Triple Five Corp.).
Less than 25 percent would be attributable to the proposed retail and
entertainment components of the mall development.
26. The 17,800 outbound vehicles leaving the site on the evening peak hour
would distribute themselves in the following manner:
1-494 (westbound) - 4,100
1-494 (eastbound) - 4,900
Hwy. 77 (northbound) - 3,200
Hwy. 77 (southbound) - 2,300
27. A total of 9,100 evening rush hour vehicles (well above the capacity of 4
freeway lanes) would use 1-494 in the westbound direction (west of Hwy. 77)
when background traffic generated elsewhere in the region (5,000 vehicles
per hour) is added to the traffic generated by the entire Airport South.
28. A reduction of approximately three million square feet of office space in
the Airport South development proposals would be one of the possible
mitigating measures to maintain long-term traffic peak -hour volumes on 1-
494 below the capacity of an eight -lane freeway.
Airports
1. Analysis of potential short-term impacts at the Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport indicates substantial overall capability of aircraft
40
and terminal facilities to absorb the projected number 'of mall air
travelers.
2. The potential highway impacts of mall -generated traffic on ground transpor-
tation access to the airport are addressed under effects of the mall on
transportation.
3. The Mall of America and Fantasyworld does not cause a substantial effect on
the regional air transportation system or on system plans.
Parks
1. The proposed Mall of America and Fantasyworld may have a substantial effect
on the regional recreation open space system and on certain other state and
federal recreation open space facilities. A substantial increase in
tourist visitation would result in sharply increased user demand by
nonresidents of the Metropolitan Area.
2. The Council's capacity to adjust the system in response to such demands is
adequate given an appropriately flexible capital improvement program
process, an operation and maintenance budgeting process and adequate
funding to meet the new priorities. The capital improvement program
process recommended in the newly revised Recreation Open Space Development
Guide/Policy Plan has the needed flexibility. Decisions about funding rest
finally with the state legislature.
3. The Mall of America and Fantasyworld do not cause a substantial effect on
the regional recreatiion open space system or on system plans.
METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
1. The proposed project is located in the fully developed area. Growth in the
fully developed area through infill and reuse is encouraged by the
Metropolitan Development Framework which states that its forecasts of
population, households and employment growth on which system plans are
based should not be viewed as limiting growth in the fully developed area.
Growth in excess of forecasts in the fully developed area is consistent
with Metropolitan Development Framework if regional system capacity is
available or can reasonably be provided.
OTHER METROPOLITAN POLICY ISSUES
Housing
1. Communities such as Bloomington, Edina, Richfield, the south neighborhoods
of Minneapolis, southwestern neighborhoods of St. Paul, Mendota Heights,
Eagan and Burnsville should consider reviewing housing plans and programs
for adequacy in addressing the provision of housing opportunities for lower
income households likely to be employed at the Mall of America and
Fantasyworld.
41
ECONOMIC AND FISCAL ANALYSIS
KEY ASSUMPTIONS
1. The most critical data in the economic analysis of the Mall of America and
Fantasyworld are the estimates of new tourist visits from outside the state
of Minnesota and how much they will spend. Tourist visits and the re-
sulting expenditures provide new income to the state that in turn generates
new jobs and increased tax revenues.
2. The developer has not provided any detailed studies to support the pro-
jected attendance. Without new tourists from out of state, there are no
positive economic benefits to the region or state.
3. Estimates of receipts, employment and revenues generated by the Mall of
America vary depending on the assumptions made regarding the number of new
out-of-state tourists and the level of their expenditures. Using the
developer's estimates of attendance, the Mall of America project would
stimulate significant numbers of new jobs and produce new state taxes
primarily because the developer estimates that the project will attract a
significant number of new out-of-state tourists to the region.
4. Harrison Price Co., the Council's consultant, has concluded that, while the
project may attract between 15 and 17 million people annually to the site,
the project will not increase the number of tourists coming into the
state. The Harrison Price analysis is supported by data from an earlier
study of Minnesota tourism conducted in 1977 and 1978 by Professor Uel
Blank. Blank analyzed this project under contract to the city of
Minneapolis and reached the same conclusion as the Harrison Price study.
5. The following conclusions apply generally to all estimates:
The mall will capture a share of growth in the region. The fewer the
tourists the larger share of the regional market it must capture to meet
the developer's sales projections.
As projected net new employment goes down, Bloomington captures more of
what has been created and the remainder of the region gains less.
6. If no significant numbers of new out-of-state tourists are attracted to the
region, the retail sales and amusement expenditures at the mall capture
growth in regional disposable income. The Harrison Price report indicates
that the mdll can capture its projected receipts totally from a share of
regional retail growth without adversely affecting existing retail
operatiions.
Tourist Expenditure Estimates
1. The expenditure estimates for those tourists whose primary purposes are
trade and convention and retail shopping appear to be reasonable. The
estimate for expenditures at the amusement park are high given the size of
the amusement proportion of the proposed facility.
42
BENEFITS
Receipts
1. Based on the developer's assumptions, the mall will generate approximately
$1.4 billion in new expenditures in the region: $541.3 million on-site and
$825 million off-site.
2. Based on the developer's assumptions, the mall will generate $1.2 billion
in retail sales of which $425 million comes from new tourists --the
remainder ($775 million) from growth that would accrue to the region with
or without the mall.
3. Based on the developer's assumptions, the mall will capture 33 percent of
the 1995 projected baseline retail growth that would accrue to major retail
centers and the central business districts. This is off -set by the $825
million spent off-site in other services if the tourist projections are
correct.
4. If the developer's assumptions are reduced by 50 percent, the mall will
generate $601 million in new receipts to the region and state. Fewer
induced expenditures means the mall would capture a larger share of
expected retail growth.
Jobs
1. Based on the developer's assumptions and using the Revenue Department's
Minnesota forecasting and simulation model, the mall will create 4,551
construction jobs in 1986, 11,715 in 1987, and 8,683 in 1988. Additional
construction jobs will continue through 1993•
2. In 1995, when the mall is fully operational, the developer estimates 29,443
new jobs created in the region, of which, 27,370 full time equivalent will
be at the mall. The Revenue Department's model estimates 27,539 new jobs
for the region and the state. If an employment multiplier of 1.3 is
applied to the developer's assumptions, the new jobs to the region and the
state are reduced to 21,263.
3. Based on reduced tourist assumptions, the Revenue Department's model
estimates 9,803 new jobs to the region/state. If there are no new
tourists, there will be no new jobs.
Tax Revenues
1. Construction of the mall will generate approximately $121 million in state
taxes ($59 million personal income, $51 million sales tax and $11 million
corporate income).
2. In 1995, the operations phase of the mall will generate $91 million state
taxes, given the developer's assumptions. With reduced tourist
assumptions, the mall will generate $34 million. Again, with no new
tourists, the mall will generate no new taxes.
43
COSTS
Convention Center
1. In reviewing proposals for the location of a state convention center, the
Council found Minneapolis a more appropriate location than Bloomington
based on Metropolitan Development Framework policy giving priority to
maintaining the Metro Centers as the focus of the region's commercial,
institutional, cultural and entertainment facilities.
2. No market feasibility study has been done by,the Triple Five Corp. on its
proposed convention center.
3. Development of a convention center in Bloomington is not likely to generate
the new convention and trade show delegates estimated by the developer
which are 220 percent higher than the attendance projected for the new
state convention center in a study commissioned by the state convention
center commission.
4. If two state -level convention centers are built, significant competition
between Minneapolis and Bloomington for events is likely to result in
significant operating losses for the Minneapolis convention center, which
will have to be made up from public funds.
5. The operating losses constitute a substantial effect on planned development
in the city of Minneapolis.
Public Subsidies
Fiscal Disparities
I. The Council has supported the fiscal disparities program since its
inception and has oppose.d the granting of exemptions. In reviewing the
proposals for the state convention center, the Council .recommended against
the use of fiscal disparities exemption as a means of financing the
convention center.
2. The proposed exemption from fiscal disparities would result in $80 million
in tax base being exempted from the fiscal disparities pool. The primary
effect of the exemption is to reduce the areawide shared tax base and the
resulting tax revenues to municipalities, counties and school districts.
Local governments would have $8.5 to $10 million less than if the tax base
were shared.
3. The effect of the exemption is to shift the subsidy of Triple Five to other
local governments by raising taxes in nonexempt cities.
4. Exemption of the project from fiscal disparities would cost the state $2.2
million in state aids.
5. The proposed fiscal disparities exemption is different from other exemp-
i
tions in that it is rebated to the developer directly. Other exemptions n
the law are used to finance public improvements in tax increment dis-
tricts. No new exemptions have been allowed
was passed. since the original legislation
44
6. Tax increment financing in the amount of $140 million is proposed to fund
the parking structure and site improvements for the Mall of America and
Fantasyworld.
7. Tax increment financing shifts costs of serving the proposed development
onto other taxpayers. For this development the most likely increased costs
are for local services such as police, fire, street repair, etc. and
regional costs for transit service.
8. The additional local costs will be paid by city taxpayers located outside
the mall property; the additional regional costs for transit will be levied
on all regional taxpayers outside the mall property.
9. The major tax increment financing shift associated with the Mall of America
and Fantasyworld concerns regional transit which is estimated to cost $8.1
million. Costs estimated at $3.1 million annually will be levied on the
remainder of the region provided that the Regional Transit Board is
authorized by the legislature to increase its levy.
10. If the transit levy is not increased, increased transit service to the mall
must be funded by a legislative appropriation or by cutbacks in service in
other areas of the region.
11. The proposed hotel/motel sales tax is consistent with Council policy on
revenue contained in the Regional Service and Finance Study in that
beneficiaries of a service pay the costs generated. To the extent that
visitors generate the costs related to public services and public
subsidies, the hotel/motel tax will be levied on the visitors as
beneficiaries.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS
1. A second state -level convention center in Bloomington would have a substan-
tial adverse effect on the planned convention center in Minneapolis. It
would increase the operating deficits for the Minneapolis center and is
likely to draw attendance away from the planned Minnneapolis state -level
center.
2. The proposed state -level convention center at the Mall of America and
Fantasyworld meets the criteria in the metropolitan significance rules to
make a determination that a proposed project is of metropolitan signif-
icance based on its substantial adverse effect on a planned land use or
development in a local governmental unit other than the city of Bloomington.
3. An exemption from fiscal disparities would affect every community in the
metropolitan area. If the proposed project contributes to fiscal dispar-
ities, property taxes paid in all other communities are lower. If it is
exempted, taxes are higher. In this sense, the subsidy to the developer is
shifted to other local governments.
4. Exemption of this project may set a precedent that results in significantly
lower tax revenues for some metropolitan area communities.
5. The proposed exemption from fiscal disparities meets the criteria in the
metropolitan significance rules to make a determination that a proposed
project is of metropolitan significance based on its substantial adverse
45
effect on an existing or planned land use or development in local
government units other than the city of Bloomington.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council determine that the metropolitan significance regulations apply
to the proposed Mall of America and Fantasyworld.
That the Council determine that the proposed Mall of America and Fantasyworld
causes the effects set forth in Minn. Rules 5700.0400(0) and 5700.0500.,
That the Council determine that the proposed Mall of America and Fantasyworld
is of metropolitan significance.
That the Council determine that the proposed Mall of America and Fantasyworld
meets the metropolitan significance standards for transportation system impacts
set forth in Minn. Rules 5700.0400(0) but is not appropriate for the exercise
of the power of suspension.
That the Council determine that procedures should be initiatied to amend the
regional transportation plan to address the magnitude and timing of the
immediate area highway improvements in conjunction with the development of the
Mall of America and Fantasyworld. New funding sources will be sought in order
to not alter other regional and state transportation priorities and schedules
in the region.
That the Council institute a study to determine an ultimate design concept for
the 1-494 corridor to accomodate regional growth to be undertaken by the
Council in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and
affected local communities. The study could lead to a modification of the
metropolitan transportation system plan.
That the Council use the local plan amendment process under the Metropolitan
Land Planning Act to accomplish the following:
Development proposals for the entire Airport South area should be
scaled down to maintain long-term traffic volumes on 1-494 below the
capacity of an eight lane freeway.
Because of its large peak -hour trip generation characteristics, office
space development for the entire Airport South area should be
considered as a prime candidate to be reduced or converted to a land
use that generates fewer peak -hour trips.
Aggressive travel demand management techniques should be implemented
in conjunction with the proposed development for the entire Airport
South area. Transit options should be closely evaluated by the
Regional Transit Board prior to implementation to determine their cost-
effectiveness.
That the Council determine that the proposed Mall of America and Fantasyworld
meets the metropolitan significance standards for substantial effects on
planned development in local governmental units set forth in Minn. Rules
5700.0500 but is not appropriate for the exercise of the power of suspension or
amendment.
46
That the Council determine that only one new state -level convention center can
be accomodated in the metropolitan area and the location most supportive of
Council policy is in the metro center of Minneapolis.
That the Council reaffirm its long standing commitment to the fiscal dispar-
ities program and its opposition to exemptions from the law.
PP000/PROTX3
47
UNl , EJ STATES .ATTACHMENT 1
.JEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR '
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
1083 :2'30-
.1 II !•: I�-i• _ it I , ,y i .r (ST.
it _J �� i - r - I @ I .. i.� l`f�4 � •. / C /�.. '\ \J�' • //���P •?+: ri•G/a
I I I �' � ,, `..- _ -- � Lam•— � � / ` \ �h 4,it I
����''
6 _•I� I _ MINNEAPOLIS�ST PAUL
I o i INTERNATIONA�_AIRPORT—
1 _ — a \
(WOLD•CNAMBER IN-FIELOI
Ill Z/ - J's- \ \�•
asp I = = s�` 7. �- • topsoils. h �1�
w
' �I��II � T y �•i�_"_�a��--moi �l � •� �'' // =_ - -
777 lie's
mg
MJ
.10
I.
- • I: , I �, ?. - -'1 Brod s.,: `�. _ .-� - -I d �-_
a NorM1 A'� �, : ��---
..=;iil�'1 •h.%:-ti:iw r�. . II /� _ a �m;a•` 1 - v ��� / / _ / ..11� \\
�I �� iii • ,PEEi:�.'
_ -- SII ��` -- r� } _�
MON
A-
[ntat.a
17
+111 iir~-=••,' •li iii =;:.=+` -, ''�j �- iry%�/ , -•wig.• N/ I 11 _ _ �• '- - --_j-
��`� :p� .,, ;—• ;vim:'- � � >,.
r 1 '` .,/ • • ; sever Ridyt,/�I`y
' Ic •y�amr , - A ~'- _= - _ f --_ J l D - a _- • - -
. •••.-•...� �
_11-favei P!
z.>a
i' :�i • :%,• �'j %!! Ij's✓ ` �- ya_•fl.
gy//
�i .Mayr..%. �� i=a::�V .Yf/ .�. � --...r + • / is•// 1 _: ,,`C •�J :r
I�'JI / � V • � . moi• �.
�. z 17
LZ
• •J.` / �! •�/'�ZI/dry / :.. �./- ••�� �'/! ,
.aim v
��' '�y.. • / �;.� � -./ -�� '•� _ 111 ti _ •'a�' /. i' / �:,(
IL `
_ � _�
1•-.'/. •r' �\ i- '`� �t-''r �\ `\�._. -ice �/� �+ 1 T -� 71 _ - / ''=
11.x." �rr• _ ��-- _`-��—��_. } -- .�" .i%/' \..1.=r `i , c\ ✓.- .. � � � -
SCALE 124000
,► ' } o
1 MILE
Gam• ' 1000 0 :QUO 2000 ?\i00 4000 5000 [000 %000 iEET
I KILOMETER
1;
:.
t"'ILS CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
ILS ;:
DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
48
Q
w
Q
cn
Q
z
a
z
0
a
cc
0
CL
cn
z
a
oc
�m
49
Cl)
M1
W
J
m
Q
Z
O
H
R�
H
F -
Lr)
H
A
CL
H
H
J
J
Q
E
Q
CD
W
Z
LO m
N 04 � V m
ri
aBV:�uaalad
3
er
C"
"gr
s
m
ti
L
.a
Ca
'b
Q
Cn
O
O
N
P -
ti
W
v
C"
v
0
Z
51
W,
52
TV
� C
O
L
C7
O E
L
u
L fp
C
10 C
!0
v O
++
_
•Q7
N
L
•-
Q C'
•E
�
CL. d
1
ul N L
O !0
+�
O m
O
N W
E
4. 4-.. L
M
O
E d
M n
• -v)
C1 C) 0 L
X x
> > > •-
O
4) 0) i
a a
m
¢w
a v+ w c
41 N 0 -—�
N /
\
Ljuu��
I
oeop�_�
TV
T
W '+
T' E�
LU
U)
Q
T o
z
w
U
U
Z �~-+
O I �"
X
m m m m
CD LO m to
N � `i
10A InUOR I&T J0
53
L)
w
to
O
z
1—
i._)
O
CL
w
U)
t�
O
Q
J
O
h
z
CD
.0
CY
Q
w
Li.
t-7
ca
P,
C
T
1••1
W
d
s E
u E
E
A^
v o— ^
�
N c•.-
^^
�+
L
u .-a
W
d
N
L
a
0C
N
N
C
q
N L
U
N
CL p
y
yy
O1
A
^
C Y
G
C
d
CL
��
O
Y
i •�^ G "'� a+r..1
d
W W
O d
Nt
A
_
S C••-
0 3 W e A u c
U
a a+ N
W
N a'
+C J++
L
m
C
Q q
x'� L
O
A L
U O
J.1 O
06
W o u
^ Nt A •- L
"" d A X C
O U y U u
A A a+
E
LA
u
7 N L A CJ
C
W
d L N O V
N A S W
_
A N
i
W
CA
A C >1
a+
�^ -C, Z
O N ++ +� N C
d.- r61
W A
7 U N .-
•c O L
• w O �'
N -•- A
N
C
y q
OS-
l/9
O.
.-
4)
W C •O O
L O
^ M.
W
W a.1 a
W +.+
C u A
r W d a
N W A LA
N
Y w- N r a
W^ G
d�
O
a
N
C u C
A L ++
C W
^ W A A W
7 T
T a+ A 7
.0 >>
L U Y
C
3 E C a^ C •r
V d U
u a L
L ¢ r
L U >, .�
a � "� W
N
G
O w 7 N A
O
N
W d
CA C E
Y
aJ aJ
N
•.CV- N
It
SJ 1
C
W
r,+ cm
N•� tO^ IdW W
E
d 0 .- L
Ad>�U
N
O
n•.r a+ �^
W C U
�+'
N >1
4A
N.. �T=�
^ •^ W W
OC7W> N L
E
A U CU A .� N
U W A
U C I
4
'�
O W Cr
U W C
E
O
t o Cl) E .-
=a)— I W W
W a+ W
�^ U a
.- .
TJ A L � r>p
a N
C
C W S W W 'Co.
W O
L a+ ++ •r
V
q t A 3 C
.�. L y
N rT
C i 0
N W W A
O a+ O L A
W
L
U v cm
0 y
x �p
q N N A=
O
QE u
V C7 C •.-
S
• W y
O 3 O^
4):2 W O
N
^
-W EO
A I
W .r W C
L W 4+ o a O W
Olw
0.0 a+ N C
L a
N u C
L>>
X E O 3 C
N
W
G 3 41 a+
G 'ccWas •r N
W O r
i G N
4Y W
q C C L N
y O .0— O
r,+ t L O^
> N C U W
A q W
W Cas U V C
L N
W d W •r
V g 0 q N Z d L
C
` y y C O
cu
aj
d `I
C
p O
C
NZ
U V O ••-
C
d0 3
aO+ L C V a+
O .-. v
7 r' luo N
C
O)OwO. •.N- L O
V
G u4i
+j L >I
U
N'•� a OI
d q^
dA� Oa W C
v1
t >+ E 10.1 IN N
x N E A u
1+'v ai t
T a+ E
u .-•
t E t
c u .. �. N c
~ IO U W^
w q
C >> L
N >1 3 U q
4- 7
1A
N
r
L as
L �• Y N W 3
d Q
L C E
a O W
W
A W A
O E N G
> a+ L ^
C C ++
t q q C 3
q L> > C A
O
q A E d
N ••O- W W N
»> C¢
C q >�
>>•r W W
a r.1 . q
O a+ A C
-,W
O W -LW
W W a+ i
N C
D:
Cx
U a
W A W N
.O C>
>' �'1 N y., i
d
IA
a
01
q u
.a
O
^ q^ t W C N
V a+ .•- 'iO'1 C1 L
L >� q O
a.l W O
d "7
V1 A A N N .- N=
d to
d t V N OCd 0 O
O a� W A N W A O A O E
J AdS O t t N�
W L
^ L ^> O
O 4r C) 4) A L O
O¢
�•+y1 U
2 W S 7 w
6' W G�••-
V 100.'6'1 U
•- O.- N A L A C
O
J N
N vnOy
UwU C CQ 3d
J W
W W
W W
_
..1
N
to mA
W W
A
A
a+ y W
c v
L. uo
M
O ¢
= 46
L
C E
L E i i
O
o
E E E
L L L
W
L €
a
c
CJ
.•r N
G~
N „07
N y O
O
E E
E E
aW+
A
f
+W+
W W
W
a'' „f
O O O p i
O
L L
W W O
.L N..
••n S ""
•C. r .•r A C
W
•C '
4c Oc
H W W
CL
W U
O W
R1
N C
W
C N
Uw O
W =
Ln A
NYD
O�
.-.O
r\�
O
p
SU
U A
W
N OOi _
wti CA
O
O p O O
r.n J
1
Q w•, 2 N
N ..y 117
N tO
W
C N
W
� W
� O
N V)
A\!
W
d y
2CD
O
S�uy
ON
L A
Q 8
00
O
O
j0
.NrLnt10'1 v O C C
Q
n
C
1••1
W
d
N
L
�
a
C
N
�
OC
a+
OC
^
d
N
L
a
0C
N
N
C
q
N L
U
N
CL p
y
yy
O1
A
^
C Y
G
C
d
CL
V
O
Y
r
ACL
OGC
N J
qY
_
S C••-
C
1
SS
C Vf
O
L
m
C
C
L� Y d
m S •C
O J
W
O1
i•1 C L
A C
N
C
y q
t
l/9
O.
�1 OI
'J
yw76J
SJ 1
W
Zgo= iL
S
SJ
=COS
WSW
�
S
S
N
N
4Y W
Of
C
�
C
b
d
W
L
E
10
C C
V ••'
d
Y
V
Cw
d to
q
.
N vnOy
_
..1
N
_
M
54
>1
q a
L >
>
C
C
C
nY
✓ YY
Lw a
a
N
p
✓
i C U
•^ U L
L
Q1
a
dY
q
a Cu a
A T
C
Y
O
>>
q
�+ E
✓ E a
a y I c
L a) D) L r
c
Q)
L
w
Ic
O
C 1
r
a O C C
10 L O 10 a
a
C
C
O
a
L
q
a s• �A
�H� E
E
do
n✓
z
a
T3
N C
C
N> .6,a
w
O •r ✓
✓ a
a
N
a
G)
E
C N
a
L C q w
✓ L r r
r
'O
'C
•.-
w
Y
10
i
L
Cu
A
EOE
•0 0✓
>
aa)
U
t
41a L N
w U 3
3
a L U
++
U
3
w
C
a C N
>1
++ d qq
C
r
O
O U
U q a+
L ✓ a 0 ✓
✓
O n
d
q
X
a
> 7 N E
E
O
Lr
c
r
a
o
N✓
oL
N
L
�+
L L
✓ c +>+
•✓ j a X
r0 ao o
X
0
d> a
100
a
L
u
✓c
10
c
a
+-I
d
r q
a
Y. Y
CD 41 a L
a Q N O C L
L •
>> a O
O
O q
O
m
a
V
O
0
a
N N
r N a
1 5 q O n
dD
r t E
E
E u
q
V
V
L
7 >>
C a C a q •►-
C
C
r
O L
✓
L
X
w
O O
V
• V N 3 L 01
to
> •" a
a
L O
10
a
a
✓✓
N 01
N OZ U✓ a >+
>1n
to as
a
nn
Z
>
a L
•0
a
a/ a
+a _a 3
N r a
+ r> c+LC
N O U S +• la
x
10 a
a7
L 0O
E
^
>.
q
a
L
N
q q
a
N
L L
q 10 a+
q S-a a a
a
r
r
C+
a
C
✓
✓
r L
L
a s
Z V a>
t N E Y L L
L O
y C O
7
O a
O
C
+ U
7
t t
n N N N
n> >> q O q+ r
r u
a 7 0
O
+ a
r
q
>
O
E 1 u✓ L
C r L E u q
G) •r A w C
q
✓
r U
V
u
•� L�
1 O
>
.
N
a
•r
EEE
>a
q a
✓
+
V
a) a
E Fa
31 C) N t O
01.r 01 O
> �' � a C
C
r >>
✓ r
a
s
O
W
V
>f
O
E L L+ C7
'= q a✓ r O
O J
a✓
u
a 7
q
C
•^
• w
U
N
q
• d
N
10
V U
.o IO 7 N
L •� O
17
L O Z+ O 0 0 u
✓+
3 N
a s
N
a
n O
E U
✓
O
+
C
10 E
0 q
d E
O O
01 .+ L
01 L r V w V
V
N L
L
O
N
a
G
u a
a V •
d)
ar M
O d C) �
O a 'C r q
q
C✓
✓
•^✓
LZ >> a
L a Nqt L L
L
C r✓
�C+
CC
•rC
aL N
O.+.0
q )
4- 414-
ra
a
>1
> 01
a >�
>
q✓✓
++
41
O
T a
N
N
O+ L
✓ N
aD d
C O C N r
C w E✓ O C q
q >1
N
O
A
V
O. L C C
O O a L a
L C n V✓
✓
✓+
L A
1
C
'^
>>
N+ O+
N a d d N
N V
d+ V
V
> O
+' •v
a
41
in
40 4A '0q
✓ N
E X W
+ E
N N
C✓ Cu N a)
C O 61 0 i
L d
C N r
r
.- \
C
>> 17
q a
N
1.1 ✓
a) `0U L
a1 + =.O a) a) ✓ >
> q
+ a)
>1
al
N
IC
T>1
I •
N
L
.- +
q q
a a) 0 d
n✓ >> C O
O U
✓
L
a••-
✓ X a
'%,A •^
O
i L
C E L
'C N✓ >f a +•+ E
>+✓ a✓ a u
a)
41 ar
N
aNa
7
XYq
aNN
q7La.
C
✓
Oo
"u
> O O O
++++ U
ItOD
1
sq
rrAN
rE
✓u
U+>L U rnL-+U
+OW
qq
+u+
Ir
a/0r
D1✓
q
✓q
aa
w
39 3:2
r
aL
30�
+✓CO
0
S-
aa
10 0 C
0
M.Awn
4 •-a+
47. W
d OZaq3rW EV aQ+Q
> O.= 0-2C
V
d
N
Y
Cia
a .�
s
a a
d q
n
L E
a
a
r
S-
y�
q
.61
✓
q
✓
q
V
O Q
U \
N
m q C
p
C
2
L q
E
y q
C�E�
E
.o+
>
Ed
L
L L L L
L
L L L
L
L
1
01 N
Q
C L
a
L
O
L L
O O
i L
a O
L L
O O
L
O O
cc a O
O
O O O
O
a
C a
C\
✓ a •-+
C ••�
✓ C
C C
C •w-)
C '•'7 M •n
+7
+9 C
C
✓
p.
✓
q
C O
q
q
C r
q
q C q
q
q q r
C
S
G
S S Z
S
•""'
O V1
G.
r
Y
U w
Z
q
q
E a
a
ql d
a� d
�
E
✓
Y 3
✓
F a=
O
O O
O¢
Q
u•) Q
Ln O O
O
4 6 Q
Q
Q
�+
C
a L
L
u7
IC) O
Ln
Ln O
If)
\ \ \
\
\
V)
a
n a%
L Y
1�
•-. Q
^•. Z
Z
Z
.--I O
1�
Z Z Z
2
Z
C a
p q
1
O L
✓ c
d1
d
N
✓
q N
✓
>>
Y
a
O)
�
R
L
c-
v a
Y
-L
q U
q>
q:%)
F
t a
w q
a
In
o Ln$
o
c
In
v"
N o
41 V
Nus
O In
Q
N
In 1�
¢ Q
¢
¢
C /o
t�
.r 01
f•f .-•1
�• \
.••r e••.
.-1 !� N
O
Z Z
Z
2
>• to
0) O
t!
r
V
naN
v
C
1
v �
a)
c •c
w
r U
OC
tx
9
3
dU
C1
N
✓
O O
L: d
o
✓
q
a
v
c
n.N+
ooi
>
v
d (u
C
C
^J
V
a
N
>
L
C
w✓
a)
r
a
M
a)
a
a
O '•�
.••1
N
a
N
S-
d
a
a
O
S-
L
4)
7 Y
✓ .1
L a)
o C
a7i
E
•r
Y
N
Cr
n L
o m
L
a
✓
-0
N
L N
'9
q
A N
N
a 0
LI
Y
N N
+
Y
n EC.
N
Q
C1
S
Q
Z ✓
L
Y
>I
L
q
L
1
d C
N
N
1
_a
C
d L
q
C N
N
L
q
4- U
L
�+
C
O
d
V a•-
✓
d
O
T
N
O
►'-
a ^-
r O
10 +•+
+
N
7
N O
C Y
C W
a q
q
+rr
w++
N
C
p
1
IH
L O
a E
✓
mC
Y a
W 01
S^
mC
L C
Y r V
t
+ OS
.•-
O
a
✓ C
C
a
I C
C
-10, N
6. C
C=+
'^
2
I d
q C)
L E
10 ¢ N +
J 2 •-+ L
q
t
L Y
L C
+
2
V
1
C
a
a C
T
N a
O
g
E O
Io Y
to a+
O
'O 3 a u
C
✓ E 10
Y
N
•^
C .•+
+>
d
a✓
Y
O L
C L O
V
Yd'
S
O Z Y N
U
O
Y
d
L
A 10
cc
+ 10 r
>� >
Sm
>I 10
SJ
I I
O
iS d 2
_C
'i
_C 0r
O >1
Z SS
7
m
L
V
L
q
N a
q
a N
N+
d q
X
x
N
s
C
N
L
a
L N
IA t!
x
+✓
01++
a
O C
a+
aY
C✓
L 3
q
N
L O
+aii
W
01.O
)
✓
¢v
X . ^
N n
w
Ll
L I o+
01
N d
aro
o a
+•• N+
C+
C
s a
V
U
q q
q a
V
C O •^
01✓
a
d a
a s
t
aQ.
✓
....
Z
Q
HY
b
A
.•N
N
!•'Y
•
55
APPFNnTX 1
ANALYSIS OF VISITOR PROJECTIONS
The developer has provided projections of tourist visits which this report
analyzes. In addition, the Council contracted with Harrison Price for a review
of the developer's projections and the assumptions on which they were based.
(Attached to this Appendix is a letter from the Harrison Price Company which
clarifies and supplements the report done for the Council.)
Triple Five projects that the project will attract 25,700,000 people annually.
When multiple event attendance is included for convention center delegates, the
total turnstile count is 28,100,000. With the exception of convention center
delegates, each visitor to the retail and entertainment complex generates one
turnstile count so, for those activities, person and turnstile clicks are the
same. Only the convention delegates have multiple visits, estimated at four
days for each delegate, so the 800,000 people generate 3,200,000 turnstile
counts.
In addition to new out-of-state tourists, existing tourists who extend their
stay and expend more money also add to the state's jobs, income and revenues.
The table addresses the contribution of these tourists by including a calcula-
tion of these visits in days, rather than in numbers of persons.
The total tourists are estimated by the developer to be 9,800,000. The conven-
tion center attracts 600,000 people, the entertainment complex, 2,300,000, and
the retail mall 6,900,000. The total tourist estimates are further segmented
into in-state (nonlocal) and out-of-state tourists. The total out-of-state
tourist estimate is 6,100,000 people. Therefore, the in-state tourists equal
3,700,000 people.
The developer was asked to segregate new tourists from existing tourists.
According to Triple Five, the convention center will attract 800,000 delegates
a year, 200,000 or one-quarter of which is local and would be attracted away
from existing convention facilities in the region. The remaining 600,000
people are from out of the state and are new convention or trade show
participants.
The retail complex and amusement center are projected to attract 5,500,000 out-
of-state tourists. The developer has stated that 60 percent (3,300,000
persons) of these tourists would be new and induced by the project. Another 30
percent or 1,650,000 persons who presently come to the region as tourists from
out of the state would increase their stay here for the purpose of going to the
Mall for shopping or amusement. Finally, the developer says 10 percent of the
5,500,000 out-of-state tourists would shift from other activities to go to the
mall. These are not new tourists so they do not generate any benefit to the
state; any shift in spending benefits only Bloomington.
The developer did not do a market feasibility study to generate these projec-
tions. The Council did not have sufficient information from the developer to
assess the accuracy of these projections. Therefore, the Council conducted its
own research and contracted with the firm of Harrison Price to analyze the
material presented by the developer and estimated the annual attendance the
project might generate. The Council staff also extensively used the study:
Minneapoplis-St. Paul Travel -Tourism, People, Dollars and Activities in the
1-1
Metropolitan Area, Uel Blank, Michael Petkovich, University of Minnesota,
Oct. 1979.
Staff analyzed the projection of tourist visitors for the retail mall and
amusement complex from two viewpoints:
1. How do the attendance projections compare to known visitors to the region?
2. How do the attendance and facility compare to other facilities around the
country?
The most comprehensive study of visitors to the region was done in 1979 by Uel
Blank who at that time was a professor at the University of Minnesota. Tables
1 and 2 record data from that study, along with some additional material
provided by staff. Table I records the purpose of all trips to the region.
Council staff has increased these estimates by 10 percent based on two factors:
1) the population of the region increased by 6.5 percent from April 1, 1978 to
April 1, 1985 and ). employment increased by 16.7 percent.
Table 2 records the distance of the home location of visitors by the various
trip purposes. These totals have also been increased by 10 percent. The
columns do not add across due to rounding of the percents to whole numbers in
the original report.
The developer projects 12 million visits will be generated from within an area
of 50 miles from the project. The Minnesota and Wisconsin population in this
area now is approximately 2,285,000 people. Every person in this area would
have to make 5.25 trips each year to realize these projections.
The developer assumes the retail segment of the project will attract 3,500,000
visitors within Minnesota but beyond 50 miles of the mall and 3,400,000
visitors from out of state. When the Minnesota population within 50 miles of
the project is subtracted from the total state population, the remaining number
of residents is 2,100,000. Thus, Minnesota residents outside the region are
projected to shop at the mall about 1.6 times a year.
The developer projects 3,400,000 out-of-state people will come to the mall to
shop each year. As noted above, 60 percent are new tourists (2,040,000), 30
percent would extend their stay to shop at the mall (1,020,000), and 10 percent
(340,000) result from tourists in the area who shift to the mall from other
activities.
The Uel Blank study estimates 567,000 visitors came to the area to shop from
beyond 100 miles. If this number is increased by 10 percent, 633,000 people
would now be coming to the region in 1985 to shop. The developer is therefore
suggesting the mall would attract over three times the people who live 100
miles from the area that now come to the region to stay.
The developer also is projecting that the mall will induce 160 percent of the
present tourists that come to the region to shop to extend their stop. This,
of course, is not possible, since the greatest possibility is to induce all, or
100 percent of the prresent tourists to extend their stays.
Amusement
The developer projects the amusement complex will attract six million visitors
1-2
annually. The local share of these visits, which in this case is defined as
coming from within 100 miles of the site, will produce 3,700,000 visits. The
population within this area is approximately 4,365,000. Therefore, 85 percent
of these people are expected to visit the entertainment complex annually. If
we assume these people are from within 100 miles, but in Minnesota, a
possibility given the confusion over the developer's numbers, each Minnesota
resident that lives within 100 miles of the project would have to visit the
amusement center 1.2 times a year.
The developer's projection calls for the remainder of Minnesota residents to
produce 200,000 visits to the entertainment complex. Therefore, about 20
percent of the population in the remainder of the state are projected to come
to the entertainment area each year.
Table 1
TOURISTS -VISITORS TO REGION
1. Visit to friends and relatives
2. Work or business
3. Personal business
4. Recreation, sightseeing,
entertainment
5. Shopping
6. Conference and convention
7. Travel Node, no special
reason to be in TCMA
8. All others
*Minneapolis -St. Paul Travel -Tourism People, Dollars and Activities in
the Metropolitan Area, Executive Summary, Uel Blank, Michael Petkovich,
University of Minnesota, Oct. 1979.
The developer's projections of visitors to the amusement facility state
2,100,000 visitors would come from outside the state. Again, they assume 60
percent are new visitors (1,260,000), 30 percent would extend their stay to go
to the project (630,000), and 10 percent would shift from other entertainment
activities (210,000).
1-3
10 percent
Estimated
1977-78*
Increase
1985
6,804,000
680,400
7,484,400
4,284,000
428,400
4,712,400
3,780,000
378,000
4,158,000
2,016,000
201,600
2,217,600
1,764,000
176,400
1,940,400
1,260,000
126,000
1,386,000
4,536,000
453,600
4,989,600
756,000
75,600
831,600
25,200,000
2,520,000
27,720,000
*Minneapolis -St. Paul Travel -Tourism People, Dollars and Activities in
the Metropolitan Area, Executive Summary, Uel Blank, Michael Petkovich,
University of Minnesota, Oct. 1979.
The developer's projections of visitors to the amusement facility state
2,100,000 visitors would come from outside the state. Again, they assume 60
percent are new visitors (1,260,000), 30 percent would extend their stay to go
to the project (630,000), and 10 percent would shift from other entertainment
activities (210,000).
1-3
Based on the Blank study (increased by 10 percent), we find 1,267,200 people
from beyond a 100 -mile area come to the region for recreation or sightseeing.
Thus, the developer is projecting an increase of 100 percent in this volume of
tourists. Fifty percent of the visitors that come for recreation (1,260,000)
would have to extend their stays to visit the project to meet the developer's
projections. Seventeen percent of visitors who come to the area for recreation
would have to shift from other activities to the mall.
The Harrison Price study looked at the same issue by comparing the project to
market penetration rates for other well known projects in the country. After
reviewing the project against festival retail centers such as Harbor Place
(Baltimore), Faneuil Hall Market Place (Boston), Ghirardelli Square (San
Francisco), and amusement and water parks such as Disney World, Disneyland,
Valleyfair, River Country (Orlando), the Harrison Price study concludes:
Until concrete documentation of attendance performance at West
Edmonton Mall is made available to provde otherwise, there is little
alternative but to conclude that attendance forecasts for Minnesota
International Center appear very optimistic and are perhaps grossly
overstated. To the extent that experience at leading festival
centers, Disney World and other partly comparable attractions is
applicable, Harrison Price Co. considers a combined retail and
amusement visitor volume in the range of $15 million to $17 million to
be generous, giving Minnesota International Center an overall market
penetration rate of 60 to 70 percent. This is about midway in the
performance range between Disney World and the most successful
festival centers and concedes that a development of the unique concept
and magnitude proposed will have an above-average impact on the
available market.
How does the Amusement Center Compare to Known
Recreation Attendance in the Region
- In fiscal year 1985, the attendance at all Minnesota State parks, which
number 64, was 6,600,000.
- The busiest state park, Ft. Snelling, attracted 610,000 visitors.
- In 1982, the Minnesota Zoo attendance was 855,823.
- The arts/entertainment attendance for the region in 1984 was estimated at
5,528,000 by Council staff. This includes all ticketed entertainment,
including movies, theaters, popular music concerts, opera/musicals, classical
music, dance and visual. Included in this group are the 116 fine arts
organizations in the region, which include the Guthrie, the Symphony, St.
Paul Chamber Orchestra, Minneapolis Art Institute and the Walker.
- In 1981, a study was done of of the 10 major cultural facilities in the
region. (Economic Impacts of Arts and Cultural Institution National
Endowment for the Arts, Research Division, Jan. 1981). The total attendance
for the 10 facilities included was approximately 2,390,000. When the
nonlocal attendance, with the sole reason to visit the specific facility was
reviewed, it was found only 4.6 percent or a total of 109,940 people came to
the region to attend these facilities
1-4
Comparison of Fantasyworld to Other Amusement Parks
As a method to understand this facility better, four other amusement facilities
in the Upper Midwest were contacted, and various data requested. Table 3
records this informatiion. As the table shows, Fantasyworld is equal in size
to Adventureland in Des Moines, Iowa as far as acreage is concerned, and
basically equal as far as rides. All the other parks are significantly larger
in acreage, although Valleyfair and Six Flags have fewer rides.
All the other parks are seasonal, operating during the summer on a daily basis
and on weekends before Memorial Day and after Labor Day in most cases. It
should be noted due to the focus on children and young adults, this is the peak
season since they are out of school and can attend on weekdays. The Fantasy -
world complex would operate year-round.
The admission cost for the four parks is a one price, one ticket structure.
This means that for one price a visitor can ride as many rides as they want
during the one -day visit. The Fantasyworld pricing structure is for individual
rides. The developer estimates each visitor will spend $15 per day. In
Edmonton, the submarine ride cost is $6 Canadian, about $4.50 in U.S. currency.
The attendance figures illustrate that none of these fair parks approach the
six million projected by the developer. This could be because of the seasonal
nature of these parks, but this factor is offset by the higher number of rides
and activities, and lower costs if the $15 average expenditure is assumed at
Fantasyworld.
How unique is Fantasyworld?
The total number of parks and attractions may be estimated by the membership
of the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions. While
there are five categories of members, the only one of relevance is the Park and
Attraction members. There were 572 members in 1984. Therefore, 572 parks and
attractions can be assumed. These also include members from other countries,
so it is not fair to assume all parks are in this country. Fantasyworld, West
Edmonton Mall, -is one such member.
All parks are not described in detail so it is not possible to know which ones
would be on a par with Fantasyworld. Nevertheless, this illustrates amusement
parks and attractions are fairly common. This is reconfirmed by the index of
Amusement Parks of America published in 1980. (Jeff Ulmer, Deal Press, New
York, NY.) This identifies 319 U.S. attractions.
An article in the U.S. Water News, Sept. 1985, reports that there are now 55
major water parks across the country, up from 29 parks nation-wide in 1983. To
be considered a "major" park, the amusement center must have one large pool and
at least three other water attractions. As examples of the largest parks, the
article describes Water World in Denver, which has two wave pools creating
five-foot waves, 14 water slides, an innertube ride and a speed slide. Wet 'N
Wild, the largest water park, is located in Arlington, Texas. This park
includes a 76 -foot high slide with a 70 degree angle, and a figure-eight slide
that winds through a cave with strobe lights. The largest park in the western
U.S. is in San Diemas, California, which has 44 acres of water activities.
1-5
In response to questions from Council staff, Harrison Price provided some
comparative material on the hourly ride capacity of major parks in the
country. This is provided below:
Disney World (Magic Kingdom) 100,000+
Disneyland 100,000
Knotts Berry Farm 50,000
Cedar Point 95,000
Fantasyworld 10,000
(Harrison Price Co. Estimate)
In comparison to the largest parks in the country, Fantasyworld is in fact not
a very large park.
Following are exerpts from the Harrison Price study. The material in parenthe-
sis has been added by Council staff.
Harrison Price Co. considers a combined retail and amusement visitor volume
in the range of 15 million to 17 million to be generous (and sensitive to the
notion that the unique project concept and sheer scale of development will
generate an above-average public response), giving the Minnesota Internation-
al Center an overall market penetration rate of 60 to 70 percent.
- Experience with massive development projects in other locations, including
Edmonton, suggests that little or none of this visitation and associated
spending will be "new," or induced by the project. Whatever does occur will
likely be limited to the first year or two of operation, when public
curiosity is at its peak.
(This conclusion obviously contradicts the major contention of the
developer. It should be noted that in the work by Uel Blank, commissioned by
the city of Minneapolis concerning this project, he reaches basically the
same conclusion. "Can the Triple Five project attract the expenditures
projected? The achievement of the developer's projections would require a
major shift in travel and expenditure patterns. While the year-to-year
travel patterns may shift, the tendency is to return to the long-time trend
in subsequent years. The opening of the project would attract many who wish
to see it if traffic conditions will permit. The strength of this initial
surge is in part a function of marketing; however, no marketing plan is
provided by the developer. There are many competing shopping and amusement
features in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, and once the initial curiosity
is satisfied, there will be an almost certain return to other places of
convenience and services." Evaluation of Impacts of the Mall of America and
Fantasvworld on Tourism, Recreation and Livability, prepared by Uel Blank,
. 8, 1985, p. 5.
PPOOOA/PROTX3
11.08.85
1-6
HARRISON PRICE COMPA 4Y
November 6, 1985
Mr. Carl Ohrn
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
7th and Robert
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Dear Carl:
In response to our telephone conversation today, this letter
contains supplemental information requested by your office rela-
tive to our recently submitted report on the proposed Minnesota
International Center.
Impact of EPCOT on Central Florida
With reference to the revised version of Table 22 forwarded
to you last week, the following additional text applies:
"Table 22R also shows net total visitation to all major
Central Florida attractions, including the Disney operations,
after factoring out the high incidence of visitation shared by
Disney World -Magic Kingdom and EPCOT (most visitors to the Disney
complex enjoy both attractions). As indicated, addition of
unduplicated attendance at the two Disney facilities to aggregate
attendance at the 10 other major attractions yields a total
regional park volume dropping from a pre-EPCOT level of 20.4
million to 17.8 million as of 1984. The 2.6 -million visit dif-
ferential over this period was a gain for EPCOT at the expense of
all other parks."
Data Sources
Certain tables in our report carry the source notation
"Harrison Price Company" and no other. In most of these cases,
for examples Tables 11 through 16, data shown are extrapolations
or projections by HPC and we are properly credited as the sole
source. There are two instances, however, where data have been
drawn -in part from external sources not cited. Attendance and
market penetration data for selected attractions, as presented in
Tables 21 and 22 have been obtained by HPC directly from manage-
ment of the facilities named over a long period as a result of
our association with these companies. Theoretically, the figures
shown are verifiable by contacting the individual attractions
listed; however, these attractions historically have tended to be
876 South 3ronton Avenue. Lar Angela, California 90005 Tdephow 213 937 3457
1-7
HARRISON PRICE COMP..NY y
Mr. Carl Ohrn
November 6, 1985
Page Two
reluctant in releasing publicly what they consider to be proprie-
tary information. Tourist market size figures shown in Table 21
were derived in two ways: either directly from local tourist
authorities where official estimates are available (as in San
Diego or Orlando) , or extrapolated by HPC based on past work we
have conducted in these areas (as in Baltimore and Boston).
Ride Capacities
In response to your request for comparative ride capacity
information as a supplement to our discussion of Tables 12 and 13
in the report, the following should give you an idea of the
disparity between the amusement operations at MIC versus major
free-standing parks:
Total Hourly
Ride Capacity
(persons per hour)
Disney World (Magic Kingdom) 100,000+
Disneyland 100,000
Knott's Berry Farm 50,000
Cedar Point 95,000
The 10,000 or so hourly units estimated for MIC clearly fall
well short of existing parks in the 3 million -plus annual atten-
dance range.
We hope that these comments will be helpful. Please let us
know of other questions as they arise.
Sincerely,
Nicholas S. Winslow
President
Sharon J. Dalrymple
Vice President
NSW:SJD:su
ME
ti)
Z
O
F-1
E
v
Q
0—I
C9
O
a
aw
CN aa �
N 4 C
d to F -q
> C1
EVch
Ea r -I
Cn
Q�r
E
ca
OG
1-9
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
E
N
N
CO
O
.-1
O
O
r♦
kD
.-+
r
W
.•-I
N
�0
ro
O
O
O
O
O
O
M�
O
O
O
O
C',
Ln
CO
to
M
m
r-
O
to
t-
C1
rl
rl
rl
N
lc
l0
r)
CO
r--1
1
•--1
rl
N
rl
1
4)
1
�
1
O
O
O
OO
N
J N�
O
O
O
O
O
i
. CO
%D
10
N
�O
CO
J C1
•
•
O
• ri
N
N
t`
N
C1
r,
>1
ro
1
O
o
C)
OO
w
• .-�I
O
O
O
O
o
O
J co
N
I
N
Ln
a,
Q'
J ChI
Jr
J P -4M
I
M
P
N
O
1J
r1
N
• CT
�
N �
o r,
m
1
O
O
O
O
O
r-4 w
4 OI
O
O
O
O
O
O
Co
m
I
co
a%
to
to
w 11
rl
M
I
M
t:
N
O
N
.-1
ri
r -4N
O -�
�>
ow •
Cr-,
O
O
O
O
O
ra to L
C1
O
O
O
O
O
a as wr-
CO
1
co
cn
O
C1
C a1 -W
C�
I
a > W
r•I
M
I
M
[-
N
Ct1
a to ro
r'i
rl
rl
r1
O O
J0 W
•
C .0
>,
O *t1 41
c
41 ro w
04
E
ro -.a >,
E
O
u > ro
O
ro
'C
U
II►
W'O
c
N
O
r-1
O er
d
a(,
La
C
Lr Ol
W -.-J r1
U
CL
'C
c 0
O
Oro
LL
-.d
C
a -.1
-r9 to
L4 V C
O+
>,
4)
U ii
ro c
ro C ro
c
ro
W
.JJ
U
O
4) ro
O
E
c
.iJ «
Ld M
-.a
>4 rD N
N
--
to
4 to
O 64
.-q JJ
C co
-.i
1J
ri U
rf aJ G1
L+
'v
Aj
4 to
F -I ji r -I
a
>a
r!
41 tL
•-f W
w ro O
2
O
ro
ro
>~ ro
ro .0
4.J
JJ Q
jir--4
O
Jn to rn
>,
E-4
.-•1 c
iJ L
E
L y t-
W
U
E-+
a to
O O
--i 00%
U
C
O
7 -M
ri
ct+ E-4 rq
L
N
U
'0p
CW
C
•-+
R.
C
4J
O
p
W
O
E-
-' «
LQ
1-9
rw t11 nn .- tli c• a% t -
Lm ^.1' t!1 Q rr tft C
a ^r O N P'f f*1 P'f r•r
en
M
co
w..
M
C%
en
In
r•
N
rf
tt1
u�
a
SI}
C .� .. ... c1 m :r
c, c.s.�acc �cl%c'
L-1
?_i
r
;
U
�
w
O
L,,
CU � �
O
y
� �
u
�
w
LO i+
cu c
O
= c7
O
N
N
.:.
V>
L.0
• �j
a
V
u
G�
0
W
O
O
O
y
O
U
(D
�
U
�
•per
m
O
2
•Q
�GQ417
+M
"o
.7 m
w
�
�
I"
V
C1
ftS
L w
O
L!
U
+1 Q�
c
C
L+
CJ
4J
w
ci
>,
L
.6A
a
Q U
:d
RN a)
C
c
L
W
�C
C
.-
y
L
&Z
U
tz
x
y
a
�,
X
Lr -
16
P-2
a m
U% to r4
.r91.r
O
H
O
8
M
O�
Cb
49.
p
49.
O
p
pp
O
N
M
ON
N
!A
W
?
N
Ln
401).
N
m
m
rl
M
M
M
4+
P-
N
L
a
m
a
M
L
rn
koUl
o
00
m
c
�
N
O
N
ti
O
Ln
B
00
O
L
M
m
m
00
N
`
co
a
M
.�-
+-1
O
L
4..
W
a)
�
co
p
r
U1
O
MN
OD
a`
O
O
m
a
a
a
o
m
�q
a
C
4
im.
N
t
m
rt
U'At-
M
t-
b
N
rl
.L'
�
U1
U
a0
m
%O
O•
O
N
C
m
to
>
'-a
m
w
i
N
M
t�
aJ
C
C
O
Go
o
U
C
G
cc
b
a�
w
C
C
to
O
ti
O
N
E
co
m
r
N
t-
C
N
m
t;
o
>
> CL�
v
Ui
m
w
L
>+ �'0
to
td
�.: ami
a
oL
4,
•
o in Cd
44 3 t.
..
• 3
a
a
to
Co
m— -V
ed *Ad
H
Cd
m tt
ai
N w Cd
m
."i
to
P�,
w cd C
tea++ a
o d a
L
o�mmin
o a
caa
O
ri G. I1 L • L m
N O L L
H m O L. L
Hav]mam
L
In
4
am r4 :3
E•mNmam
.y O
-4 a*) a L C
H m m0
In a y ,i
Cl) GLOH
z E = .4
7
O
m
13
to m m 0\\
za'� o 92 a
4P' o omi��
0
L.
0
z
0 0 "6
a Cd
x
w0
a 04. .
Ha LP.�i%
ON L..P4iN�
N
�
Ul L Ul r
CN rt Ul .
.'L" - � 4 Ul .
•
U
td
a..
M1lr-44 OL. N4f!
G LnaU1N-
C7 c AMM
N
H
U1 •- 49. Ali
H
OHi
U
0
M
N
2-2
Appendix 3
Tabu I
Out -Cf -State Tourists
Total Cart -V
State
:ee footnotes on following cage.
'CU=S: Nichols Applied Management
3-1
11
Tourists
Of Which:
Tourists
Tourists
Shi ftirig
New To
Extending
frcx!1 tither
Minnesota
Stay
Activitiesa
Z_Il ons-
-m iions-
-mil,i:ons-
-m iICris -
Y1si_�rs
6.13
3.5t2b
1.660
0.550
YisiLDr-Days
11.53
7.76b
2.830
0.944
C?`:
motel
x
n.a,
n.a.
n.a.
^c4mvention
x
2.40e
.-
etail
x
2.04f
1.02'
.34f
-i Bement
x
1.289
.649
.219
Exeenuitures (1985 S)
Cut-cf-State Convention
Delegates
315.11{�
OL't-of-State Retail
"=isito: s
4245.01
ezt-of-State Amusement
Visitors
281.4)
Total1L'
TI : 4k
Dist: ibution of Cut -Cf -State
EX o;; di tur-as :
On -Sita
:.anvention
-m
m
-m
Retail
255 -or,
127.5r'
42. 3P,
Aimisement
19.20
9.60
3.20
S -total
329.0
137.1
45.7
"ffiw,�
453.4P
49.$y
.4r
Total (on and off-site)
77.7
?P,
:ee footnotes on following cage.
'CU=S: Nichols Applied Management
3-1
11
Footnotes to Table 1
a. Al iough it is likely that scare tourists may shift activities to the `alit it is
expected that much of ishe expenditures related to that shift will result in new
.,nc:emental income to the state.
b. Out of state convention delegates plus 6C% of amusement grid retail tourists,
C. 30% of amusement and retail tourists -
d. D% of amusement and retail taurists.
e. =-M,000 new delegates a 3.5 days = 4 clicks.
f. Out of state retail visitors = 3.4 million. Allocated 60%, 30%, 10% to the three
C
olumns .
g. On the basis of 6 million visitors with amusement as primary purpose, ''.13 million
VC -411 be cut-cf-state.
h. 6=000 @ 3.5 days 0 $150.
i. Gift. to June report for calculation. Includes no provision for away-frcrn-site
expenditures by oust -of -state visitors and therefore ,may understate income impact to
J. Ex—eludes $29.5 million attributed to avoided cut -of -state expeendit=,,s by k imesota
residents.
X. Excludes indirect income generated by new tourism activity and "Import substitution"
effeot of avoided out-of-state expenditures by fvuinnesota re_ldents.
L. on-site hotel capacity is far short of new tourism -induced requirements. Hotel
revenues base -J on 2,000 room 6 75% utilization Q $1[3C per room night Q 363 days per
;ter .
M. Noel of revenues accruing to convention Facility will be derived fron. event
orwnizers. No proyision has be --n made For t:`:ese rsce:Yts in ,,`)a, income .104pect to
thi state,
rt. rased on distribution of CDS, 30%, lOR to three tourist catEgicries.
p. Eased on 2.13 ml.11ion out-of-state visitors a $1.5 per mall visit. Allocated 6M,
M lC% to three tourist categcries.
p. Rasldual convention -related expenditures net of on-site hotel receipts plus ao,% of
off` -site am isement-related expari0ituJrres net of footnote 17.
I. 2M of off-site amsement-related expend:tur-es, net of footnote 17.
V-. Assumes $2.00 spent off -sits by tourists s,diting from other activities.
;otii&ols Applied Managmmrent
3-2
Table 2
Receipts (nlllicns 19x55;
Net Mall induced Receipts
----------_.._--_---------
Total Remai rder
Ch-51te U1oonlmton Hetro of State Total
Cit-Of-Statee Res1cent
Visitors
!iot?3 54.8$ 54.8' - -
Conv-eriti on _b - - - - - -
Retail 10200.0c 425.0 - -
Amuaement 90.0d 32.0f 24.59
01 rest 1113447 5` 7 599 7 =57i 6L.4J 05I X
Indirect 315.3k
To 4a1 136-6.3
a. See Table 1, foctnoie 1.
b. See :able 1, foouote n.
o Ilion soft. a $_1W/sqJ The .latter fiwre is consist it with west Edmonton
MaU estlmies and the perfonnarce of the better sumer-regional shopping renters in
t219T U.S.
d. 6 s,�Ulion visitors a $15 each.
e. I.r�cludes receipts of tourists shifting fran ctlieX actiyities. It is assumed that
he activit:e✓ replaced !lily tow tcurism -expenditures and that FLch of the
;�enditurss will con -prize incremental Income to the state.
F. Refer to footnote o, Table 1.
3. Assumes entire net ,:income benefits related to ayolded out-of-state expenatuTes by
�t;:^esota reslden;ts a-rves to Mall.
h. Includes 60% of net convention incwe ($325 million) less 3tZC4int sperit or -s to
(S54,8 million) plus one-cuarter of smusewnt income exclusive of on-site receipts.
i^ciudes 40% of net convention Income, Flus one-half of arwsemrit income exclusive
::f on-site receipts.
j. Includes ane -quarter of amusement incame ex .usive of ore -site receipts.
K. Indirect Income miultiplier of 0.3.
3rt�: tdchois Applied Manage-Deent
3-3
Table 3
Mall of America - Erric-,lovment Cenerstian Estimates
Gross EXpendituTe Net Expenditure
Activity Generated Activity Generated Employment
by Mall Tourism by M8i1 Tourism at the hell
Fur-ctiors Functicrs of America
Wdili cw,,s) $m1lll, ons) (F iC
Hotel -
-
2,GOUu
tion 420a
'
3150
740 ,
{Ccruer;
"'-L�li AIIt =0--
4LS�
13 JJ`,
381c
311
Tc :-i Oi pct
Total indirect
Total
$2,001
$1,052 27,37^u
i
Net Employment
to !44LMescta
(FTE;
10,357
13, O86o
29,443
9. aWtOOO a 3.5 days * y.iSO. expenditures by convent.on orgari ers.
b, = million sq.ft. 41 $300. !xcludies off-site exper:ditu_es by out-of-state tourists
visiting the na,1.
C. rased on 6 tri11_.n visitors. ,gin of visitors U -5O it les, 5G%, 50-103 niles, 15%;
i0G-200 isles, ?^%; rcae than ?CO ,ruler, :5%. E: -ditures per Uay $17, M, w'S,
gnd reSOBctiYBiy. CyTie incremental day 3swhf: f,^,I 311 VioitCT5 �I{tSl;n v� mile
--thus, two days for visitors oeyond 200 rmiles.
1. 4 -i -X, 000 0 3.5 days C9 tl 5T
e. R --tail sales attributable to out-of-state residents. Includes no prouSsior� ror
Off-site transportatlon, accmrodation, fond service, and other expenditures by
cult -Cf -state residents,
4. met of redistributicn of state household expenditures. Only a purtion of these net
expenditures a=ue to Mail of Amerima.
g. 1 FTE per hotel row,
h. 1�,ot1=te, based on examination of other ccnvention facilities.
1. Based on $1.2 bil.ion in sales, $.`Cs,wo receipts per mployee.
J. 6 million visitors 6 $15 per visit. Sales pe= employee $45,CC.i.
K. 2 million sq.ft. 0 215 sq.ft. ;ger employee.
1,
Net* convention -related ncom.e of $315 aullior, allocated as follows: :5.7% retail,
51.;4.3% services. Assured raceipts per wployee, $90,GCO and $45,000, res;x�tively.
M. 5,3sed on net retail sales of $425 �m_lllon. Assumed sales pvr employee, $,'40,000.
11. X311 milli ori net income allocated approx1mately as follows: srmuserient $49.2
:million; retail $i-!3.0 millicsi; other , $178.9 ;nillion. Receipts per employee ass;��d
for the three catsgories: 145,=., $5.0,000, $45,CW, respectively.
(9. kssuming employment multiplier of 0,8. DEM and Metropc-lwton Ccw^ci1 Neve acipl=ed
figures of 0,6 and 1.0; respectively. A figure of 1.0 was used ir: earlier 11"iCho"1 Z
report.
::Duan: Nichols P-ppliea Management
3-4
Question 4: A series of survey suararies preoared by R.W.
Urban Consultants have been sumlled to the
Counci? , We would llke to stet copies of the
survey forms used, a description of the survey
ntethodolo y used, and printn;ts of the raw Hata,
Response: The survey methodology invo.ived interviewing (ie.
Intercepting) a total of 1,294 indivicuals present
in the mall during the period august 3 to 5,
1585. These individuals were randomly selected by
the interviewers without any stratification or
quotas set.
The survey responses were keeled into an IBM -'C aril
analyzed using p:rgzsms. developed by R.W. Urban
Consultants. These Mgrwis produced the
tabulation printouts (provided earlier) directly;
hence, no "row" printouts can be provided. Copies
of the questionnaires wail be forwarded to the
CoL=il in the near future.
So=e : Nichols Applied Management
3-5
NKYA)LS
MANAGRYENT
F�AVA 1100 A. E 6044 DAMV, 10130. 103 31rW. Edna t*n. Abe(% T5J 3N2 TeWOme (AM) 424-0Q +flex *37.296
Oct.4ter lb, 1995
W. Robert mof fman
tark1n, Hoffw. Daly & linogren
i9M Xerxes AvaLe S.
8ioanfngton, Minnesota 5WI
Csar Bab:
Re: Metre mUt-in CD mll informetion Recuests
Enclosed ars further responses to the footnote questions in
Tables 1 to 3 of tt'e. ifetrocolitan Cours it 1 -atter. I believe
the wamv Bred footnates are cavered in the details to the
tables sent to you earlier.
Cbviausly, if we've missed answering any questions, the metro
Cacsxcil or you= staff Mn cs11. us by ttleDi Me.
We are roving on to the other areas of research and tape to
begin sending oLT araiyses to you early next week..
It would be helpful to roe, in terms of my own schedulirng, if
you could indlette whether I might be required to be in
attendance in Minnesota. in the future, and at Otat approximate
times.
Yours Vary trulY,
;;,Petar C. Nichols
Partner
MV3_
3-6
I
Metropolitan Coumil Ragz.Rests For Irtforlmatian
44all of America Project-
Notes
roject-
Notes to Table 1
Question: ghat is the basis for the tmal-st estimates?
Raspmeet 1. Convention • examined e?(Isting Convention
activity in Minnesota and Twin
Cities, and the Current
penetration of the convention
a�cet.
* reviewed activity levels of ether
selectrd convention facilit."LEs.
s based on above, assessed tee
potential market capture for the
proposed facility, recognizIng the
unique marketing test=es of the
Mall. of America.
2. Amusement- a reviewed attendance of =Jor
wmLsement " tnesrs parics in North
Anerica, and of oth= attractions
In Minnesota.
s reviewed available tourism data
pertairing. to west Edenton Mall.
e arelyzed v{sitar geogrWh2c
distzibutIon of selected tourism
facilStf es aind events
a Judgmental extrapolation of
viaitar draw to tape Hell of
America, with c omideration for
the population size and
distribution of the region, the
un3quwms3 and year-round nature
of the Triple Five facility, and
the amq lemntary nature of the
adjacent retail esd conveMlon
facilities.
3. Retail 0 reviewed available visitor and
txpanditvre-data for West Edmonton
Mall.
s examined regional ma VA* t potential
in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, and
out-of-state areas.
e estimated total retail sales
potential for the facility.
a disaggsagated sales by geogmh1c
. area
• dtv :def! sales for each gmpap tic
alas t)y astimattnO salas per
3-7
Question: Where will the tourists cane from?
Response: The visitor figsres provided are shown in terms of
both in-state and out-of-state tourists, The
latter. estimates have not trees further
d:sagsrtgated by ari girt.
We would expect the majority of out-cf-state
visitors to be drawn from trsditicnai sources of
tourism and primarily front the mid -west states,
Prabably in the orow, of two-thires to
three-quarters of out-of-state visitors will
crigirrata from within a 5M4oils radius of
8loamfrigtw. However, the world -scale nature of
the M&U of America and the attendant marketing
pramotian trill serve to exteyd the geographic
reach of tourists to Ni mesota.
M
3
Questim: Will they spend differently depending on wtwre
they CCM from?
Response: The analysis as"es
the follo Ing expenditurs
patterns for the visitors
to the retail and
wmawwnt-
,
Total
Evolditurs
Visitor -
Amusement Per
visitor-oav Days
0-50 miles tram B
ton
50.100 Males from 81zaTdr
$50 1 clay
100400 miles from 8icanjngton
$75 l day
Mors= than 200 ntiiGs frau
Bloomington
$50 2 days
Retail
In-state tri 13ts (50-= Mlles
Out-gat-stSttc t=is:s
$123 per. visit"
Information available f= surveys carried out at
West Edmonton l aI.l does not provide suffScient
detail to ascertain statlstitgl differanees in
spendfhg for various tourist origins. MoweVer, on
the basis of these surveys, it is evident that
tVW on -sits tour#st spolding *=sad& that of
local -wen. visitors by --Cx to 10oz and that
oft-a3te spending of til t=i9ts excfeedS that of
local. residetta by a factor of roughly 3.5 to 5.0.
e. b4wd3turss at the Mall of Amsriea. sita. No provision
included f= off-sita expenditures.
3-9
4
Question: One of our- assumptions is that new wt -of -state
tourists and out -of -stats tourists spending an
extra day ac=unt for the net new expenditum to
Nkrmota. Is that =rpt?
FAsQonae: The allocation of net new expendituzas to
Mirewacta is as follows:
Tourists
(3 millions)
New spe.ding by out -Of -state
=rmrtfon delegates 335.0
New retail smrding by out-of-state
visitors 425.0
New spending by aTwe ent-oriented
out -of -stats Yisjtars
-3pending one clay in Mimmota 41.4
-sper4Srg tura days in Minnesota$ 240.0
Stb.•tatal l: • 4
Non -Tourists
Avoided out-of-state expenditures
by Kirneseta residents _ .
Total Net Direct Expenditures .
to Kuyx rota 1,05Q.9
a) Twzlsts r=e hien 2010 miles from 9loo ningtcn are as3w ed
to spend two incremental days in Minnesota.
3-10
5
Nates to Table Z
QLwtfons MhSt an your estiMtes as to the potentia for
Q=wtn Set reCeiFts to Minnesota without the-
taurist ex.= Ctiturea to be Ind =d by the. Mail?
What are yoc.7 related assu=tians fcr papulation,
howehold, and personal incase growth rate?
Respa4e: NO Wro-acWMic projections of activity for the
State of M1 rewta hate been carr,4ed out.
However, the consultants: are arrrwrtly ravierrjng
the outlook for retail sales activity in the Metro
SM and tete State, on the basis of historical
domes in retail sales (constant and currmt
dollar) and. population. On the bes13 Of
avefiadls data, it is = Lrd=tandann that real
retail sates in Himesota over the pe ads
1972-1984, and 1980-1984 have increased by about
5.4% and 5.8% ann&a ly. Retail sales (ageln in
MI terms) for the Minneapolis -St. Raul 94SA have
imresa�3.4% armually over the period 1980 to
L9U. tion growth project ions far the nine
=unties in the metropolitan arae prepared by the
iota Stats Demography Chit convert to annual
=wth rates of 0.84% for the period 19so to
i9S . The consUtants expect to relate historical
iltCmses in retail sales per capita (in real
ten} to those population growth rates to yield
projectad ratafl sales expressed in comtant
dollars.
3-11
A
Question: that are. the sales per square loot asses ptiana (by
SIC) used to cslculata the total cn-site rv---spts?
Responaer: An overall figure Of S= sales per square foot
hos. been assumed for the shopping mall. The
ftgura 13 based in part ort theexpertes of West
E*Wnton Mail and other suets-regicrXII ,calls, and
the market potent of the Himesota regtan.
fie rVWI space distribution by detailed SIC is
being re-examined but realizable salas per squsre
foot (M -A) by SIC are shown below.
3-12
Soles Fee
Sh_
SIC . KA" t34t2t-R
Square Foo_
Uldirg, matarials
91.06
552 5
C,aner8l mRrChJU-;dice 255.24
54
staTes
Food stores
480.18
55
AutMative dea:ers
275.21
wo ges
Apparel and
336.28
tOM
57
F=dt how
383.64
Aimishirgs 6
�
58
Eatinganddrir�c�
358.93
59
ftseellaneous
3C7,47
rffWi
:2
Personal services
321.52
73
b-%Ine:9s 3e7rices
333.88
7
Mation pictures
83.81
79
end
133.66
r= atf on
Aatvics3
80
Health wrvi=
364.96
87
Miac. services
21322.98
(travel agencies)
3-12
TEL -WHITS MOM
320 Cotfederation Building
10355 Jasper Avenue
Zd aonton, Alberta, Canada
T5J IY5
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
lem-
7fpro:. • . 4E.40':.•....... ............:................. .
10M.ID iV r c14 a
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER PAGE..... a .............
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIeNS.......•...........,.....................,.
F
t7 ANY PROBLEMS PLEASE CALL 403) 421-0329 ( FAX PHONE)
403) 421-$35,1
R
�•
S= TO TELE?RafiE NUMBER r 7. ........::..0.... :i, .. � .i.
BILLED n. TELEPHONE 9MER.. ...�.4`.. E ..�1. . �........... .
t
3-13
>> STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Nrllll�] TRANSPORTATION • CIVIL ■ STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS
November 8, 1985
Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PlYmouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Dear Fred:
RE: CARLSON CENTER 3RD ADDITION
CITY PROJECT NO. 426
File No. 0830469
We received your letter of November 6, 1985 expressing concern over
notification to residents of Carlson Center 3rd Addition with regard
to interruption of access to their property and offer the following
comments:
Concrete Curb and Gutter placed in the 3rd Addition had been
tentatively scheduled and then delayed by the Contractor for several
days before it actually occurred. We were notified on Thursday,
October 31 that curb placement would begin late that day. All
residents at home were notified so that vehicles would not be trapped
in garages or driveways. Homeowners not contacted were not at home
and it appeared to our inspector that vehicles would not be trapped in
garages. Of the complaints we are aware of, one we understand was
from Mr. Gordon who wanted to get back into his driveway. The other
two (Mr. Rosa and his neighbor) had not been home and desired to get
construction equipment out on Saturday. When we became aware of the
complaints, we responded it was no problem to drive over the curb and
it would be repaired later time. If necessary, we explained that we
could contact the Contractor and have him "ramp over" the curb on
Saturday morning.
Concrete Driveway Aprons were placed on Wednesday, November 11 and,
our notice was observing the Contractor shaping and forming driveways
Wednesday morning. Our inspector again attempted to notify residents
and found that some residents were not at home. No vehicles were
trapped that were not provided a way out.
In reviewing our notification attempts in this matter, I was
disappointed to find that our inspector did not leave a written notice
of the disruption of access when he found the residents were not at
home. This has been addressed and will not happen again! We have
delivered a notice to each resident advising of remaining work and
schedule for completion of that work.
We believe the following policy would eliminate similar problems in
the future:
630 Twelve Oaks Center 15511(1 Wav-pato R1...7 RANT cVnnv in,@m nn.n
1. Notice of Construction should be sent to each resident at the
beginning of the project describing work to be performed, the
approximate schedule and the names, titles and phone numbers of
persons to answer questions and complaints.
2. Prior to Closing Access Roadways another notice should be sent
providing a schedule for the closure and alternate routes. This
should be delivered at least 2 days prior to the closure.
3. Prior to Disruption of Access or Mail Service - A written notice
should be delivered at least 1 day in advance describing the
nature and schedule for the disruption. Immediately prior to
disruption of access (curb and driveway construction), each
residence should be checked to be sure that vehicles are not
trapped in driveways or garages.
4. Contract Documents - Perhaps a provision should be added to
contract documents requiring the Contractor to give 24 or 48 hour
notice prior to closing access. The problem with this is that the
Contractor can give notice and then not perform on schedule.
So much for the problem and procedures for handling this work in the
future. We have completed many similar projects in the past and have
never experienced the significant number of resident complaints as we
have on this project, in fact, quite the opposite is true (see
attached letters from another recent project). We have tried our best
to minimize impacts and accommodate residents' concerns. Basically,
all the problems have been in regard to the Zinnia Lane residents and
adjacent construction. Berkshire Lane residents have been very
cooperative and to our knowledge are satisfied with the project.
Residents on Zinnia Lane have expressed considerable dissatisfaction
to our personnel with the need for the project and their assessments.
We believe therefore that complaints for the better part stem from the
belief by the residents that they are getting a project they did not
want and look for every opportunity to take their anger regarding the
matter on the City Council and Staff, which then gets transmitted onto
consultant and contractor. In a situation like this, it is very
important that both the consultant and the City communicate with each
other, follow through on commitments made to property owners and
support each other throughout the project.
If you would like to review this matter with any or all of the parties
involved, we would be pleased to do so. The most important result of
this must : to improve communication and procedures so that this does
not happengain.
Very truly yours,
STRGAR R�OSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
Robert B. Roscoe, P.E.
Senior Vice President
RBR/bba
Attachments
cc: Jim Willis
Sherm Goldberg
GEORGE LATIMER
MAYOR
Augu3t 23, 1985
Mr. Frank Strgar, President
Strgar-Roscoe,-Fausch Inc.
630 Twelve Oaks Center
15500 Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, Minnesota, 55391
Dear Frank:
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DONALD E. NYGAARD, DIRECTOR
t,00 ( it,. t1,01 Annex, Saint Pul, Minnr+n(,t 55102
612 _'48-4241
RE( -i-',
t
As a follow-up to our phone conversation this morning, I want to again
express my compliments to you and your firm for the excellent planning,
design and construction coordination which has been done in connection
with the High Bridge as well as the planning and design for the 35E
Parkway. Your firm and particularly Peter Fausch's work on the 35E
Parkway with the capable assistance of Bob Roscoe and your own
involvement with the High Bridge project has been of the very highest
quality and certainly a significant credit to the entire engineering
profession.
Very truly yours,
Donald E. Nygaard
Director of Public Works
DEN:ddr
cc- Mayor George Latimer
Karen A. Avaloz
330 Irvine Avenue
St. Paul
Member RIP 35E
President West 7th/Fort Road Federation
Lower Cathedral Hill Design Task Force participant
S -Z -z -\�9-
I have been involved in the 35E controversy for 15 years. It
has been a painful experience. I am relieved that the issues
are about to be resolved.
There are people, opposed to the construction of 35E, who still
believe it should never have been built in the"Pleasant Avenue
corridor. I am one of those people.
However, given the circumstances, I am satisfied with this final
design for 35E. The freeway will serve the people for whom it
was built. Four St. Paul neighborhoods have been and will
continue to be adversely affected by the freeway but the design
you now review does less damage to the inner city than the
original plan. The design team was innovative in its efforts
to camouflage and enhance the road. I commend them for that.
It is unfortunate that this approach was not used for the entire
corridor.
I want to publicly thank the design firm of Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch
who lead the 35E Parkway Design Concept team. It was a pleasure
working with them. They are thorough and professional. It was
the first time in a long process that I was treated with respect
and consideration. It is a rare and wonderful thing to see someone'
in a power position act with intelligence, grace and style.
On behalf of the West 7th/Fort Road Federation I have the following
specific points to address for the record:
D� STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TRANSPORTATION ■ CIVIL • STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ■ LAND SURVEYORS
November 7, 1985 File No. 0840469
To Whom It May Concern:
RE: CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS
CARLSON CENTER THIRD ADDITION AREA
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA
The base bituminous course is scheduled to be placed
tomorrow November 8, 1985. The pavement can be driven on
within a few hours after it is laid down. We ask your
cooperation when driving through during the actual
construction as there will be a large number of trucks and
heavy equipment in the area.
The Contractor has been instructed to move the mailboxes
back. As soon as the post office has been contacted and
have indicated where to place the mailboxes, they will be
moved.
The reshaping and sodding of the yards will take place this
year weather permitting.
The final wearing surface of the street will be completed
next Spring.
Residents who received new concrete driveways are asked to
try to stay off them for 3 to 4 days. If a problem arises,
please contact this office. Bituminous and gravel driveways
will also be completed yet this year, but should be drivable
immediately after completion.
We are sorry for any inconvenience that was caused during
curb and driveway construction because of lack of or short
notice. This was caused by very short notice we received
from the Contractor and his tight schedule to complete
several projects before winter. It is our policy to provide
at least 24 hour notice of any discruption in access to your
residence.
If there are any questions or problems, please contact Jim
Dvorak or Tim Phenow at 475-0010.
l
6801tiveh►e Oab CeNter.1b600 WegW" "i2 (i!V 47fr10 S
C/tfir�ns Le�ue. '� ' 8I Ss�h 8�h � '• �` � � � '`
a�,.
_ AlIRhBapjymp
Jam'. i i yr'
-Teleptone NO NiR'771s7� &..� �.L fi� :��'
November U, 1985 iQ
Frank 110yiea �..}, .-'�•
"Assistant City "Umver
34M Pl by,
`
li
4 Mi �5 7' x
Dear Frank: �4
i'har1k3 SO ffiUCYI for SpenfliriCJ yourivleiAng laot'.48a a�
With the Citizens League's transit committee: You did a
superb job of explaining Plymouth's Metroitr
started, and- its jayic_�.
� ,j'.�y,,,-0F',M��� b M • j5. i a } h �H �� � fi r „ri�t „
.,.ii� ,rf. f . , 'iq. ;'!F y� ��•1 �i t � � 2� yy�N'i�
d.�M•r ¢�<F r p s, t'. r �4 rib
as Pyq,.g PAy�� K.
q
WLIXI J
:,iia � ..t 5 h-. � � � .? 1" a�.`i, , a ��i.. , �*y�•,, • �
__�>r�a'i: w.+,_atZt,1-pi.b �•Z 7� '.( � r� �: si'= F. �•k�:�`��f�•�%. ..„���.
." ;'h->ta..� s r >M rf%s*vyfi�Y ig •>ta 4-.c.�` yp f, ,1, „a. d sat..4',�,<„`
[t'"`}'`
"� !'
a fey. r i
�.
�52y D jh�" p. �.. b�f'1 ?..r*k��,� > 9-�s, t•'�i:"^t f. k4r.
•, j. { //JJ �p,, YF>�t.rl,..3 t y1'f'� � ;-� �'1 �'t � ,. � �a :. 1•V
Bch MSK
Si.
'=-- Z c--,
November 14, 1985 CITY OF
PLYMOUTR
Ms. Rebecca Stepp
Real Estate Representative
Minneapolis Region
McDonald's Corporation
8030 Nicollet Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55420-1296
RE November 11, 1985 Correspondence to Mr. Forest Moen
Dear Ms. Stepp:
This letter is written to thank you for the copy of your above -referenced
correspondence which transmits an application for the completion of the removal of the
debris and balance of trees in the area south of the McDonald's Restaurant in Plymouth,
as well as referring to a proposed landscape plan within the same area.
For our records, I would appreciate receiving a copy of the proposed landscape plan
which you refer to. Also, I would appreciate receiving a copy of the plan which is
ultimately approved by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT).
We appreciate your continued cooperation in this matter. However, I was disappointed
to see that the application refers to the work not commencing until on or before April
15, 1986. I would encourage your continued review of the situation to determine if the
approved landscaping could be installed yet this year so that it can establish a viable
turf.
Again, we appreciate your cooperation and concur with your anticipation to bring this
matter to a conclusion. Should you have questions, or if we can be of further
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Sara L. McConn
Community Development Coordinator
SM/ gw
cc: Forest Moen, MnDOT
Public Works Director Fred Moore
City Forester Steve Cook
City Manager dames G. Willis
File 84094
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
h4cDonald's
November 11, 1985
Mr. Forest Moen
MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
Roadway Regulation Unit
District Five
2055 North Lilac Drive
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
Dear Mr. Moen:
McDonald s Corporation
3030 N,cohet Avenue S uto
;M;nneapoiis M nnesota 55420-1296
612,884-4355
RE: McDONALD'S RESTAURANT
2705 Annapolis Circle
Plymouth, Minnesota
As a follow up to our telephone conversation and earlier
meeting, I have enclosed a completed application for the
landscaping. Please note that the application states the
work is to start ON or AFTER April 15, 1986. However, if
weather provides, we can start earlier.
I have also enclosed three (3) bluelines showing the proposed
landscaping in the right-of-way area and for the removal of
the debris and balance of trees in that area. we are also
sodding the berm directly north of the restaurant.
I look forward to hearing from you so that we can bring
this matter to a conclusion.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
McDONALD'S CORPORATION
0�c'6L 'S,4
REBECCA A. STEPP
Real Estate Representative
Minneapolis Region
b j s
CC: Ms. Sara McConn�
N®R
NOV 14 198r
CITY t
CGMMUNl,Y
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES Control Trunk
OR FOR PLACING OF OBSTRUCTIONS ON TRUNK HIGHWAY Section Hwy.
Pze;:ared in Triplicate. Forward or deliver all copies to proper District Permit
District/Area Maintenance Office. No. No.
Applicant
Tel. No.
Address
-
t I-�-
I
Party performing wor
Tet. No.
Nature of work
- 18 ell -*5
1-,-57 -oiSoo
I,,-
Surfaceto be disturbed
❑ Gravel ❑ ConcreteI
Is shoulder to be disturbed
(check one)
p Bitum. Q None
Q Yes ❑ No
T.H.
County
Municipality
Street or Ave.
I
I ir
I
Int rsec i T. . at: (ties
o land or street ' es)
I
If parallel to T.H. give ties by station, or land lines if rural
V. �`'t, `1
Size and kind of pipe
I Depth from surface
II
No. and size of excavations
( Method of installation or construction
ork to start on or after
Time required to comQpleette work Is traffic detour necessary
r4'� J
11"
cy�
u) ECSK I ❑ Yes ❑ No -
If detour is #necessary, deacnbe rerouting
1, We, the undersigned, herewith accept the terms and conditions of the regulations of the Commissioner of Transportation and agree
to fully comply therewith to the satisfaction of the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Furthermore, except for the negligent acts of the State, its agents and employees, the applicant or his agents or contractor shall
assume all liability for, and save the St -Ate, its agents and employees, harmless from, any and all claims for damages, actions or
causes of action arising out of the work to be done herein and the continuing usage, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining and
isinr of said utility under this application and Permit for construction.
�.1.(r_ X 85 Applicant..
Dated.. 7_ Signature-.--
---------------
SEE REVERSE SIDE AUTHORIZATION OF PERMIT
FOR REGULATIONS (PERMIT NOT VALID UNLESS BEARING SIGNATURE AND NUMBER) Permit No .........................
his
In consideration of their agreement to comply in 311 respects with the regulations of the Commissioner of Transportation covering such
operations, permission is hereby granted for the work to be done as described in the above application, said work to be done in
accordance with special precautions required as hereby stated:
It is expressly understood that this permit is conditioned upon replacement or restoration of the trunk highway to its original or to a
satisfactory condition. It is further understood that this permit is issued subject to the approval of local city. village or borough
authorities having joint supervision over said street or highway and subject to the applicants compliance with the rules and regulations
of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board and any other affected governmental agencies.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
White copy to Applicant
Green to Foreman Dated............................Authorized---------------------------------------------------
Pink to District/Area Maintenance Engineer
Authorized signature
The date when work is completed must be reported to DistrictiArea Maintenance Engineer
Return this portion when work is completed:
No Deposit Required ..................
For Deposit in Amount of j .................. Required and Attached Hereto.
District Cashier's Check No ......................... Or Certified Check No .............
Use Only This Deposit Made by — Applicant ............................................
----.....-•------
OrName
Party Doing Work ................•---Name-----•--•-----..
Ful
Permit No ....................
Date work completed ................................
-----------• Bond No. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.....--•........................................
Address
................................................
Address
181 ti'""
Zta
ml4r.PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Independent School District 284
ROGER M. ADAMS, Ph.D.
Interim Superintendent
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 210 NORTH STATE HIGHWAY 101 P.O. BOX 660 WAYZATA, MN 55391-9990 (612) 475-4501
November 12, 1985
James G. Willis, City Manager
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Jim:
Thank you for your letter of November 5, 1985, regarding the City Council's
decisions regarding possible amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relative to
provisions regarding day care centers and nursery schools.
As you are aware, the School Board approved selling the Beacon Heights
buidling and property to Mr. Fred C. Lucas. This action took place at a
special meeting on November 6, 1985, and reported on at the regular Board
meeting November 11, 1985. Mr. Lucas stated he was buying the property for
investment purposes and no zoning contingencies were involved.
I want to thank you, Jim, and your staff for working with us as we dealt
with this matter.
Sincer 1 ,
Roge . Adams, Ph.D.
Interim Superintendent of Schools
RMA: LMB
A2: 21
CRChrist memorial Lutheran Church
BERNARD W. JOHNSON. PASTOR • 13501 CO. RD. 15/PLYMOUTH, MINN. 55441 - PHONES. 544-3632 545-4072
November 14, 1985
Mr. Jim Willis, City )Tanager
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, SIN 55447
Dear �Ir. Willis,
On behalf of the Board of Directors of Christ Memorial I wish to express our con-
cern for the safety of people, especially children, crossing County Road 61 at
the intersection of County Road 15 (the location of our church).
Quite a number of children who attend our Sunday School and Church and our Wed-
nesday evening midweek school must cross County Road 61 to reach the church.
We believe that a traffic signal would be the ideal solution for this poten-
tially dangerous intersection. This would allow children on their way to church,
school and the playground to safely cross a busy county road. It also would
make it easier for cars leaving the church parking lot to safely get onto County
Road 61.
We understand that at this point the number of cars on County Road 61 may not
meet the number required for a traffic signal. If this is the case we urge that
at least a crosswalk and a sign with a flashing light be installed.
Since no speed limit has been posted on the new segment of County Road 61 we re—
quest that a 30 or 35 mile an hour limit be posted to make the road safer for
pedestrians crossing and for vehicles entering the road from the parking lot
and the adjacent neighborhood.
We also believe that a street light at the County Road 15 and 61 intersection
would make this a safer intersection. We are concerned for the safety of the
children who cross County Road 61 to come to church on Wednesday evenings, es-
pecially during the months of early darkness.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Lois Troemel, Chairperson
Board of Directors
LT/da
November 13, 1985
Mr. Mike Sjeklocha
Tipton Corporation
4120 Quantico
Plymouth, I -IN 55446
Dear Mike:
It has been a pleasure working with Tipton Corporation during
the development of Park Place apartments. It is unbelievable
thc: cooprcration your personnel have given to the home owners
abutting the property. I am more than pleased with the results
of the. trees and sodding of the area immediately behind my home
and my -neighbors.
Again, I wish to thank you very much for your cooperation and
look forward to the completion of the entire project next spring.
Yours truly,
Gerry Z
GZ/sa
Cavanaugh's 4th addition homeowner
cc: David Davenport, Mayor of Plymouth
James Willis, Plymouth City Planage