HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark and Recreation Advisory Commission Packet 07-08-1999Regular Meeting of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
July 8, 1999, 7 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Visitor Presentations
a. Athletic Associations
b. Staff
c. Others
4. Report on Past Council Action
S. Unfinished Business
a. Comprehensive plan study session- Barry Warner
b. Plymouth Creek Center update
C.
6. New Business
a.
b.
C.
7. Commission Presentation
S. Staff Communication
9. Adjourn
Next regular meeting - August 12
n\parks\staft\eric\prac\agendas\July.doc
MINUTES OF THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
June 17, 1999
Page 23
Present: Chair Anderson, Commissioners Willegalle, Thompson, Musliner; Councilmember
Black; staff Bisek, Blank, Busch, Pederson; intern Jenson; and Barry Warner from
SRF
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Musliner to
approve the minutes of the May meeting. Motion carried with all ayes.
3. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
a. Athletic Associations. None were present.
b. Staff. Mary Bisek introduced Matt Jenson, a student at the University of Minnesota, who
is doing his internship with us this summer for 11 weeks. Matt will be working with
recreation programs, gathering information, doing research, working with maintenance
crews, etc. Mary distributed the summer concert schedule and encouraged
commissioners to attend the concerts. The concert this past week was rained out.
Occasionally, the concerts are rescheduled. Mary stated that our communications
coordinator has put a message on cable about the city cutting back on beach hours, due to
a shortage of staff. Commissioner Willegalle asked how this would be accomplished.
Mary said the hours the beach would be guarded would be reduced. Mary explained that
you have to have an 18 year old guard on duty at all times when guards younger than 18
are working. Director Blank said that eight beach staff have quit in the last couple of
weeks due to finding higher paying jobs. Rick Busch will be joining the meeting around
8:30 to discuss the fieldhouse. Councilmember Black asked how we get the bands for our
concerts. Mary said that Karol Greupner finds them, or some of them will even call us.
Karol occasionally calls a booking agent, or finds out about them through other
communities. Councilmember Black talked about a couple of good jazz bands she had
recently heard perform in Rochester. She stated they were from the Twin Cities.
4. PAST COUNCIL ACTION
Director Blank had nothing to report on this item.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Comprehensive Plan Study Session - Barry Warner. Barry talked about the two draft
chapters to be discussed, Needs Analysis and Trail Plan. They're working on solidifying
the trails chapter based on comments from last month. Tonight's major focus will be on
the needs analysis chapter. Barry said it's not necessary to arrive upon recommendations
tonight, but flush out issues and figure out needs. This can be approached from a number
of different perspectives: national standards, passive vs. active service areas,
PRAC Minutes/June 1999
Page 24
participation rates, special facilities, such as archery, and what residents have said in
surveys. A citizen survey is being done this summer focusing on the comprehensive plan.
Plymouth has a deficit in total park acreage. But we are fortunate to have regional parks
within our city limits and open space. Taking those parcels into consideration, we meet
the national standards. Plymouth has tried to keep its park acreage as natural as possible.
As the city has evolved we have relied on park service areas or walking neighborhoods to
determine if residents were being provided with adequate parks. Each park service area
was reviewed to determine where it's lacking. Population projections have also been
studied. Northern Plymouth will see growth. There are 50 park service areas in
Plymouth. All have been looked at to determine if parks are meeting the needs of the
residents. All the park service areas have been scored by SRF. Some areas will need a
neighborhood park. Councilmember Black asked if we count golf courses as usable park
areas. It counts as open space but Barry wonders to what extent it provides adequate
value to the neighborhood. Director Blank said park service areas can be modified if
PRAC so chooses. How did the lines get drawn between service areas? Mr. Warner said
land use determined some of it (residential vs. commercial). A principal roadway
becomes a boundary and so do physical features, such as Medicine Lake. Director Blank
explained that when the park system plan was first developed, Plymouth's population was
30,000. Our City Council said build a good quality park system but leave land on the tax
rolls. One of the principals our system was built on was private parks. We also have
open space built into the plan. Director Blank says French Park acts as one of our large
community facilities. Our typical neighborhood park is something like Three Ponds Park,
a large park site, where we mow or maintain 10% or 15% of the area, letting the rest
remain natural. We also have 90% of our athletic complexes finished. Mary explained
how we get land from developers for park purposes. The standard for park dedication is
if you have two units per ace or less, then 10% of the land must be dedicated. If you have
more units than two per acre, park dedication increases. Barry said the most difficult
piece of a park plan to put together is the one dealing with activity. Most of the
recommendations in this section were based on the 1995 sport facility plan that was put
together at that time by the staff, the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and the
Youth Sports Task Force. This section highlights the athletic activities that residents
participate in and projects future participation rates. Director Blank wanted an
explanation of how the numbers were arrived at. Barry said the population changes were
developed by Community Development staff. Three things were taken into
consideration. 1) areas that will continue to see ongoing development, 2) opportunities
for redevelopment and 3) decreasing household sizes. State demographics say 2.6 is the
number of people per household now. The average household size is dropping. The
population of Plymouth is at 62,000 and is projected to go to 64,000. Back in 1982, the
population forecast for Plymouth was 108,000 at total build out, but now it's been
adjusted to 64,000. The highest population ever projected for Plymouth was 125,000.
As the Plymouth park system continues to evolve, demographics change and different
sports become popular, new types of recreational facilities are likely to be developed.
Special facilities to consider in the future include: bark parks, disc golf, fishing piers, in-
line hockey, miniature golf, water park, and skateboard park. As the community
PRAC Minutes/June 1999
Page 25
develops, residents may look forward to these kinds of facilities. Eagan is opening a
water park, as well as Apple Valley. The outdoor pool at LifeTime is probably not large
enough for a community the size of Plymouth. A city owned outdoor pool may become
an issue, according to Director Blank. Sooner or later this community will ask for an
outdoor pool. Barry asked if there were any other special facilities that should be added
to this list. Commissioner Willegalle asked if paddleboats were ever considered.
Commissioner Musliner asked about a large indoor play structure. Mary Bisek
mentioned an art park. Commissioner Thompson asked how a multi -soccer complex
would differ from what we have at Parkers Lake. Director Blank said that it differs in
total number of fields. Commissioner Willegalle pointed out that there is a fishing pier at
Parkers and also one at Bass Lake.
Based on various types of needs analysis, several major issues should be considered high
priority: southeast Plymouth, because it is currently underserved by park land and trails
and the population is projected to increase; the northwest quadrant, which is open to
future development; more soccer facilities; more school parks; and the following park
service areas need attention: 1, 27, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50.
The next meeting will be July 8. A second meeting may be necessary in July in order to
keep pace with the overall schedule. Commissioner Willegalle brought up the issue of a
park tour. Director Blank said one hasn't been scheduled for this year, but if there's
interest, it can be done.
Councilmember Black asked about the open space chapter and wondered if PRAC
reviews that also. Director Blank said yes.
Barry said a draft comprehensive plan must be ready by sometime in August.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Review proposed fieldhouse rental rates. Director Blank said the site is substantially
graded. By Monday they will start pouring concrete on the site. Astroturf and Astroplay
need six weeks to put the turf in place. Dome manufacturer needs about five days to erect
the dome. We're hoping for around 15th of October for dome to go up. Rick will start
booking time beginning October 30th. We need to start marketing these facilities.
Director Blank explained that we have a letter ready to go to the soccer associations
including literature on Astroplay. Director Blank went over the proposed budget for the
fieldhouse. He talked also about the survey results of other community's fieldhouse rates.
Our competiton is Eden Prairie, Blaine and Holy Angels. We're recommending a fee of
210 per hour for primetime which would drop to $180 at night after 10 p.m. The
majority of these renters will be Plymouth residents. We don't want to gouge them.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOM-
MENDATION OF $210 PER HOUR FOR PRIMETIME AND $180 AFTER 10 P.M.
AND ALSO TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRIORITY USAGE LIST AS
PRESENTED. CHAIR ANDERSON SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL
AYES. Rick then talked briefly about the user priority list. The first priority will go to
PRAC Minutes/June 1999
Page 26
programs sponsored by Plymouth Park and Recreation, second priority will be youth
groups serving Plymouth residents, including athletic associations(at least 50% of the
participants must be Plymouth residents); third priority will be Plymouth adult groups,
i.e., civic organizations, churches, businesses (and they also must meet the 50% Plymouth
resident rule); and fourth priority will be non -Plymouth groups.
Commissioner Willegalle asked if the activity center will have a lights out by 10 p.m.
policy like the other facilities in Plymouth. Director Blank doesn't anticipate having a
lights out policy at the activity center. There will be a number of functions going on
there, like wedding receptions, which can go past midnight.
7. COMMISSION PRESENTATION
None.
r1wWAy1[ • 010t 1 1 . • 1
Director Blank said -that the Mayor added a millennium project for the City to the last study
session. Director Blank suggested a garden project at the activity center. We are going to try
to solicit community support for this garden. Businesses, community organizations, and
individual residents will all be invited to participate. Director Blank pointed to a diagram and
said the orange area will be wetland buffer plantings. The green area will be the formal
gardens. Director Blank talked to the seniors about it, and they are excited about it, too. This
will be a huge campaign. Matt Jenson, our summer intern, will help write up the campaign.
The CIP has $75,000 in it for seed money. Another thought is the city will match dollar for
dollar what a participant donates. The grand opening of the activity center will likely be in
June 2000, which would coincide with the groundbreaking for the garden. Commissioner
Willegalle said the City may be able to get a grant from the DNR if project has an
environmental benefit. He has information on the grant program and will forward it to Matt.
01F.VVITSIVU01
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
City of Plymouth
Comprehensive Plan Update
Goals, Policies and Implementation Strategies
Goal — A goal is a general statement of overall community aspirations, which highlights a
community value, establishes a vision, and indicates a broad physical or social state that
the community desires to achieve.
Examples: Strengthen the sense of community in Plymouth.
Policy — A policy is a statement that helps to refine the goals by setting out a course of
action in achievable terms. Policies are typically stated as official positions on particular
issues that will be followed to achieve a goal.
Example: Create physical connections between residential areas throughout
the community.
Implementation Strategy — An implementation strategy is a specific action to be taken in
support of a policy. The implementation strategies define activities that the City will
initiate or continue in order to achieve a goal.
Example: The City will expand the community's pathway system to provide
non -motorized access to all residential neighborhoods.
City of Plymouth
Comprehensive Plan Update
Key Terms
Create — To bring about the desired goal through the development of new policies or programs.
Continue — To follow existing policies or programs to achieve the desired goal.
Encourage — To foster the desired goal through City policies or programs. Implementation could
involve financial assistance from the City.
Endorse — To support the desired goal with City policies or programs. Implementation usually
involves entities other than the City.
Enhance — To improve the current situation in support of the desired goal, and through the use of
policies or programs.
Identify — To catalog and confirm resources or other desired items in support of the desired goal.
Maintain — To keep the current situation as is, in support of the desired goal and through the use of
policies or programs.
Prevent — To stop an undesirable situation in support of the desired goal, and through the use of
policies, procedures, programs, and appropriate legal action.
Promote — To advance a specific position in support of the desired goal, and through the use of City
policies and programs.
Protect — To guard against deterioration of the desired state through the use of City policies and
programs.
Provide — To take the lead role in supplying the needed financial and staff support to achieve the
desired goal. The City is typically involved in all aspects from planning to implementation to
maintenance.
Recognize — To acknowledge the identified state of affairs and take actions or implement policies to
preserve or change them.
Strengthen — To improve and reinforce the desired goal through the use of policies, programs, staff
support and financial assistance, as needed.
Support — To supply the needed staff support, policies and financial assistance, if needed, at all levels
to achieve the desired goals.
Work — To cooperate and act in a manner that supports the desired goal, through the use of City staff,
actions and policies.
Prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. (3/17/99)
Draft for Review and Discussion (07/08/99)
City of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Update
Parks, Open Space and Trails
Vision Statements
Maintain a safe and secure community.
2. Protect and enhance the natural environment.
Support high quality education.
4. Maintain and enhance housing quality and diversity.
5. Protect and enhance convenience and mobility.
6. Promote and strengthen economic vitality.
7. Provide high quality City services and facilities.
8. Enhance and strengthen the sense of community.
Parks, Open Space and Trails - Issues & Needs
1. Provide opportunities for active and passive recreation.
2. Accommodate projected population, household and employment growth.
3. Anticipate changes in demographics and be responsive.
4. Provide high-quality neighborhood parks, play fields, community parks, and
recreational facilities.
5. Protect natural resources.
6. Identify open space for acquisition (resources not adequately protected by
regulations).
7. Provide complete trail system — recreation and transportation.
8. Identify need for community golf course.
9. Provide connections to regional park and recreation facilities.
10. Impact on regional park and recreation facilities.
SRF No. 0993351 — Park, Open Space and Trails — Page 1 of 3
Draft for Review and Discussion (07/08/99)
Park, Open Spice and Trail - Goals & Policies
Provide a high-quality park and open space system that provides a balance of
active and passive recreational opportunities.
a. Monitor changing recreational needs and respond to those needs in a
timely manner.
b. Add and enhance cultural resources and historic interpretative
opportunities.
C. Continue to preserve open space as an integral part of the park system.
d. Acquire areas needed for parks and open space, either through purchase, or
parkland dedication.
e. Acquire areas of high-quality open space or natural resources that are not
adequately protected by regulations.
f. Establish regulations and incentives that will require or encourage private
preservation of open space and natural resources.
g. Allow private park facilities that complement the public park system;
however, do not allow private parks to substitute for any segment of the
public park system.
2. Develop and maintain a trail system throughout the community to provide
recreational opportunities and encourage non -motorized transportation.
a. Provide trail connections among neighborhoods, major activity centers
and municipal and regional parks.
b. Provide trail connections to state, regional, county and adjoining
community systems. il -
C. Identify physical barriers to pedestrians and bicycles and provide
connections across these barriers at key locations where feasible.
d. Provide trails on both sides of streets based on traffic volumes.
e. Maintain trails year around based on trail usage.
f. Establish a functional hierarchy of trails for policy purposes related to
maintenance, jurisdiction and financing.
g. Acquire areas needed for trails through purchase, dedication or easement.
SRF No. 0993351 — Park, Open Space and Trails — Page 2 of 3
Draft for Review and Discussion (07/08/99)
Provide recreation facilities that are well used and cost-effective.
a. Act as a facilitator rather than the provider of recreational facilities and
programs where there are opportunities for partnerships.
b. Continue to maintain cooperative arrangements with the School Districts
and other providers of recreational opportunities within the community.
C. Assess user fees to off -set operation and maintenance costs for public
facilities when warranted.
SRF No. 0993351 — Park, Open Space and Trails — Page 3 of 3
3.
Open Space and
Natural Resources Inventory
3. OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DRAFT -- 07/08/99
INTRODUCTION
Plymouth has made a commitment to the preservation of open spaces and natural communities.
By passing floodplain, wetland, and shoreland protection ordinances, and through the completion
of the Summary of Report Evaluation and Ranking of Natural Areas in 1994, Plymouth has taken
steps to ensure protection of its high quality open spaces and natural resources. It is important to
continue this practice, and to devise means of further protecting threatened areas as development
in the City continues.
Open space is a vital community and regional asset. Wetlands filter water before returning it to
the aquifers that, either directly or indirectly, provide Plymouth with its drinking water.
Shorelands, upland forests and grasslands stabilize the earth, reducing erosion and increasing
local water quality and clarity. Connected open space parcels allow for the transport of seeds and
the increase of genetic diversity, giving the ecosystem better resistance to diseases and pests.
Open space also provides valuable amenities for Plymouth residents. The scenic value of open
spaces contributes to the livability of a community, which in turn contributes to neighborliness
and cooperation -- the true definition of community. Open spaces offer opportunities for natural
resource based recreation, such as hiking, birdwatching, and nature study. Natural areas cool the
city by breaking up pavement and providing shade, and give residents the simple pleasures of
listening to birdsong, watching leaves turn color in the fall, or spotting animal tracks in the snow.
For all these reasons, open space preservation should be a high priority to the City of Plymouth.
This inventory takes the following steps toward increasing the protection of natural resources in
the City:
Description of evaluation criteria for the open space system
Delineation and description of the various resource types within the City: wetland and
upland.
Description of existing protection measures, and analysis of their effectiveness in
safeguarding ALL resource types.
Analysis of targeted open space parcels described in the 1994 natural areas evaluation, and
recommendations for additional parcels of high concern
Discussion of legal tools used to preserve resources on private land
Recommendation of courses of action for preserving and managing various resource types:
wetland, upland, public land, and private land.
Equipped with this understanding of the existing natural resources within the community and the
means of protecting and managing them, Plymouth can ensure that it will continue to benefit
from high quality open spaces, clean water, diverse wildlife and plantlife, and unique recreational
opportunities.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
In order to implement a successful open space plan that is natural resource based, it is important
to understand what the end result should be. The open space system as a whole should strive for
several goals:
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN 3-2
3. OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DRAFT -- 07/08/99
Diversity. A good open space system incorporates many types of resource, including
wetlands, uplands, grasslands, forest, open water, and marsh. By striving to preserve and
manage diverse communities, an open space system will encourage the greatest possible
biodiversity and scenic value.
Proximity. An open space system, by its very nature, should pervade the community,
offering easy access from all neighborhoods. Open space parcels should be sought
throughout the community, especially in areas where development has already claimed most
of the existing natural resource.
Connectivity. In order to allow wildlife access to a variety of necessary habitats, and in
order to allow for seed transport to increase genetic diversity, connection between open space
parcels is important. The open space plan should ensure that parcels function not as isolated
systems, but as part of a connected whole.
Quality. An open space system should strive to preserve and manage the highest quality
ecosystems. Parcels with the most diverse wetlands or the thickest forest warrant the highest
level of protection, as they are the most likely to continue to flourish. By acquiring quality
parcels and connecting them, Plymouth can best accomplish the goals of the open space plan.
The basic quality and effectiveness of an open space system lies in the parcels that comprise it.
By acquiring or otherwise protecting high quality resource parcels, and then by connecting them
using natural corridors, Plymouth can assure an overall system that meets its goals. The selection
of open space parcels is a complex process, and often comes face to face with other issues such as
development, housing, sports facilities needs, and roadway expansion. All of these criteria need
to be weighed along with the quality of the open space parcel in order to select which resource
elements should be preserved. It is very important to have this evaluation mechanism in place
before development pressures are extreme, or preservation efforts may be stymied due to the lack
of understanding of the resource and of applicable protection measures.
The 1994 Summary of Report Evaluation and Rankings of natural Areas prioritized each
community within each open space parcel based on specific criteria. In looking at new parcels,
and in planning for the preservation of already identified parcels, it is important to look at both
the resource and the available parcel, as a single parcel may have multiple resource types. This
two-tiered approach allows the open space plan to be resource based, while still operating
effectively in a parcel based City. The appropriate process would be to evaluate the remaining
resources in the community, rank them, highlight the parcels that contain them, and then evaluate
the parcel from an acquisition standpoint. The 1994 report does this by giving each resource type
a grade, then by prioritizing the associated parcels based on those grades. The following criteria
are based on the 1994 report, but they show separate evaluation criteria for resources and parcels.
Evaluating the Resource
Resource Type. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 and the "Plymouth's Natural Resource Types" section of
this chapter outline the specific ecological communities found within Plymouth.
Rarity (Rank). One of four ranks are given to a particular resource type to relate its rarity in
the state. The ranks are established by the Natural Heritage Program and the Minnesota
County Biological Survey, and they apply to a community in general, not a specific
occurrence in Plymouth. The ranks, in order from most rare to most common are:
Endangered. Few examples of community remain in the state
Threatened. Community potentially impacted by development and degradation
throughout its range.
Special Concern. Community is fragile and may be seriously impacted in the future.
Secure. Plentiful examples of this community exist in the state.
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN
3. OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DRAFT -- 07/08/99
Quality (Grade). This rating evaluates the differences between separate examples of each
resource type in Plymouth. The quality of a specific occurrence of an ecological community
is based on numerous factors:
Species diversity. High quality ecological communities have a wealth of plant and
animal life. For example, cattail marshes serve numerous important wetland functions,
but they tend to become monocultural. A wetland that has reeds, rushes, forbs, and other
emergent species should be considered a higher priority.
Maturity. Resources that have been place for a significant period are likely to be more
stable, and constitute a more valuable resource. This is not to say, however, that newer
examples of a resource do not warrant protection, as they could, with management, be
used for environmental study and observation as they mature.
Uniqueness in Plymouth. A resource may be locally rare, even if it is not recognized
statewide as an endangered or threatened ecostsyem. Such examples of locally unique
resources warrant protection.
Continuity. Some examples of a particular resource may be thick and lush, while others
may be broken by blowdowns, trash dumps, or lower quality patches. Resources with
consistent quality are more stable, offer better habitat, and are more scenic.
Sensitivity. Certain resource types are very sensitive to disturbances. This is particularly
true of wetlands, which may suffer from a decline in water quality or an invasion by
exotic plants. These sensitive resources deserve the highest level of protection.
Health. Diseases, pests, and exotic plants may ravage an ecological community,
lowering its species diversity and overall quality. It is near impossible to stop the spread
of disease in a plant community, so if a resource shows signs of sickness, its value must
be evaluated carefully to gauge whether or not it warrants preservation or restoration.
Evaluating the Open Space Parcel
Size. Open space of any size is valuable, but larger parcels are more likely to support a
greater species diversity and to be more stable.
Connectivity. Open space parcels that act as connections between parcels are very
important. Even if the resource has been impacted and may be in need of restoration,
connecting parcels should be considered high priority.
Community diversity. Parcels that offer several different communities, such as a wetland
with a forested upland edge or a maple -basswood forest adjacent to a grassland, are high
quality open spaces.
Land Value. Certain parcels may be difficult for the City to buy because of their high cost.
Protection of the resources within such parcels should be by ordinance or by dedication to the
city by a developer.
Restoration Need. Parcels that contain resources that are in need of restoration are valuable
in that they can be used for nature study and observation. They may require a higher
maintenance cost, however, and they should be considered carefully for their place in the
larger plan.
Once a parcel has been evaluated and prioritized, it is important to understand what type of
management the resource will require in order to flourish. As the City sets aside parcels, it
should be aware of the work involved in protecting the associated resources. There are several
types of management:
Preservation. Many resources are of high enough quality and stability that they need only be
left alone in order to flourish. These resources require the least maintenance.
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN 3-4
3. OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DRAFT -- 07/08/99
Protection. This mangement style applies to highly sensitive resources, which require
extensive buffering and monitoring. It does not, however, call for any maintenance.
Enhancement. Some resources may be very near to their ideal species diversity. These
resources will require minimal infill of appropriate plants, and possible removal of non -
natives. This management style calls for ongoing maintenance.
Restoration. This management type is the most intensive. It is the act of recreating a
resource nearly from scratch or from a few remnant species. This is typically reserved for
native ecosystems that have become locally extinct, and requires the highest maintenance.
It is important to note that ecosystems are constantly changing. By accurately describing an
existing resource and by effectively applying appropriate management strategies, the City can
begin to safeguard its current resources. These resources, however, may change gradually over
time -- Oak Forests cycling into other hardwood forest types, emergent wetlands becoming more
boggy. Resource management should not stall or interrupt these natural changes, but should
ensure that diversity and quality is maintained. Such management is a very specialized
undertaking, and any enhancement or restoration should be undertaken by staff with the
consultation of an ecologist or other natural scientist.
PLYMOUTH'S NATURAL RESOURCE TYPES
The Summary of Report Evaluation and Rankine of Natural Areas prepared by Short Elliott
Hendrickson Inc. in 1994 lists and describes many of the natural communities found within the
City of Plymouth. It also gives each community's rank based on the Natural Heritage Program
and the Minnesota County Biological Survey. Table 3.1 and 3.2 list and describe each of the
community types found in Plymouth. These descriptions do not apply to specific occurrences of
a resource, but rather are an overview of ecosystem types which are found, but vary slightly,
throughout the state.
Table 3.1 Wetland Resources
Resource Type Rarity (Rank) Description
Emergent Marsh Special Concern Seasonal or semi-permanent ponds and lakes.
Dominated by grasses, sedges, reeds, bulrushes.
Cattail Marsh Secure Emergent marsh dominated by cattails. Species diversity
is typically low.
Willow Swamp Special Concern Saturated soils. Willow, alder, dogwood shrubs form
continuous canopy over wetland. Also sedges, cattails,
marsh fern. Successional to Hardwood Swamp.
Hardwood Swamp Special Concern Successional from Willow Swamp. Saturated soils.
Dominated by ash, paper birch, elm, aspen, red maple.
Tamarack Swamp Special Concern Hardwood Swamp dominated by tamarack, typically
with white cedar, white pine, hardwoods
Lowland Hardwood Special Concern Periodically saturated soil. Dominated by elm and ash,
Forest with basswood, poplar, oak, birch, aspen.
NOTE: see above for definitions of rarity rankings.
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN 3-5
3. OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DRAFT -- 07/08/99
Table 3.2 Upland Resources
Resource Type Rarity (Rank) Description
Oak Forest Threatened Oaks are 30110 of canopy, other deciduous trees are
present. Found on dry sandy soil. May be successional
to Ma le -Basswood if found on moist soils.
Maple -Basswood Forest Endangered Climax deciduous forest. Dominated by basswood and
su ar ma le, with elm, oak, ash, hickory.
Mesic Prairie Endangered Moderate moisture. Dominated by big and little
bluestem, Indian grass, prairie dropseed, porcupine
grass. Flowering forbs vary by microclimate.
Source for Rankings: Summary of Report Evaluation and Rankin, of Natural Areas, SHE, 1994
Source for Descriptions: Minnesota's Natural Heritage, John R. Tester, 1995.
EXISTING RESOURCE PROTECTION
Plymouth has already begun to take measures to ensure the protection and stability of its natural
resources. In addition to City ordinances and land holdings, the State Department of Natural
Resources has classified certain lakes and watercourses for a variety of required protection
measures. The DNR measures are echoed, as required, in Plymouth's City ordinances.
Wetlands Overlay District. Each wetland within the City has been evaluated and assigned a
quality rating: Exceptional, High, Medium, and Low. This District incorporates the Wetlands
Conservation Act of 1991 and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Management
Practices for erosion and sedimentation during development. The District establishes
setbacks and vegetated buffers for each quality rating.
Shoreland Management Overlay District. This District follows the DNR classifications of
each of the public waters within the City, and sets forth lot width, impervious surface, and
setback requirements for each classification. There are four DNR classifications which apply
to Plymouth's waters.
General Development. Lakes with greater than 225 acres of water per mile of shoreline,
over 25 dwellings per mile of shoreline, and depth greater than 15 feet.
Recreational Development. Lakes with between 60 and 225 acres of water per mile of
shoreline, between 3 and 25 dwellings per mile of shoreline, and depth greater than 15
feet.
Natural Environment. Lakes with less than 150 total acres, less than 60 acres of water
per mile of shoreline, less than 3 dwellings per mile of shoreline, depth less than 15 feet,
and, oftentimes, a swampy shoreline.
Tributary Stream. Protected waters that are found in neither remote, forested,
agricultural, nor urban areas.
Table 3.3 gives an overview of the public waters in Plymouth, along with their DNR
classifications.
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN 3-6
3. OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DRAFT -- 07/08/99
Table 3.3 Public Waters in Plymouth
Name Acres/Miles DNR Classification
Bass Lake General Development
Cavanaugh Lake Recreational Development
Gleason Lake Recreational Development
Hadley Lake Recreational Development
Kreatz Lake Recreational Development
Lost Lake General Development
Medicine Lake General Development
Mooney Lake Recreational Development
Mud Lake Natural Environment
Parkers Lake Recreational Development
Pike Lake Recreational Development
Pomerleau Lake Natural Environment
Schmidt Lake Recreational Development
Snyder Lake Recreational Development
Turtle Lake Recreational Development
Bass Creek Tributary Stream
Elm Creek Tributary Stream
Pike Creek Tributar Stream
Plymouth Creek Tributary Stream
Lost Creek Tributary Stream
Floodplain Overlay District. Floodplains in Plymouth are divided into three districts
with varying requirements for land use, filling, and building elevations. These
subdivisions are the Floodway District, the Flood Fringe District, and the General
Floodplain District, and are based on the Flood Insurance Study.
Tree Preservation Ordinance. This ordinance recognizes the "Big Woods" natural
heritage of the Plymouth area, and strives to protect trees from development. The
ordinance requires a tree survey be submitted with any development plan, and sets forth
incentives for preservation.
The ordinances protecting wetland, shoreland, and floodplain ecosystems have been effective in
preserving those resources, both in Plymouth and statewide, evidenced by the fact that these
natural communities are neither endangered nor threatened (see Table 3.1). The tree protection
ordinance, however, has some significant shortcomings. Firstly, this ordinance does not take into
account the interconnections between the numerous species within upland forest communities,
and between upland communities and wetland communities. As this ordinance, aside from
general Zoning ordinance text restricting development on steep slopes, is the only existing
protection for upland natural communities, it should be strengthened. Currently, the ordinance is
specimen based, that is, it strives to preserve a quantity of trees, rather than striving to preserve a
natural ecosystem, which may include trees, shrubs, grasses, and nearby wetlands. Also, the
ordinance applies only to land that is being developed, thereby protecting only a very small
portion of the total upland resource. None of the current ordinances offer any protection for
prairie resources. Upland communities are becoming more rare, as evidenced by Table 3.2, and
they warrant increased protection.
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN 3-7
3. OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DRAFT -- 07/08/99
NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION MEASURES
There are essentially two means of protecting natural resources: Acquisition and Legislation.
Acquisition is the act of actually buying land, conservation easements, or development rights in
order to gain control of the use of a particular parcel. Plymouth already owns an extensive
system of parks and open spaces, many of which include high quality natural communities.
The City should consider acquiring the highest quality remaining parcels, and seeking easements
on others. Another strategy is to work with non-profit land holding groups, encouraging them to
purchase and hold title to the land, either indefinitely, or until the City has the funds to buy the
land.
Legislation is the act of passing ordinances that protect natural resources on privately owned land.
The City of Plymouth and the State and Federal governments have already done this extensively
for wetland communities, and have therefore set the precedent for additional ordinances to protect
upland communities, as discussed above. Legislation is less expensive than acquisition, but has
the possibility of meeting with public opposition and legal implications. Any new ordinances
must be carefully written in order to protect the resource without resulting in a takings lawsuit.
Acquisition and legislation should be utilized together to effectively preserve the resource, the
highest quality sites being owned by the City, and the rest protected through well-written
ordinances.
ACQUISITION
Description of 1994 report and reference to map.
Analysis of any change in parcels identified in 1994 such as development or degradation.
Identification of additional parcels for possible acquisition, based on:
Selection criteria from this chapter
City wetland maps
Aerial photographs
Staff recommendations
Site visits
Map of all targeted parcels (1994 and this report)
Grade/rank/priority chart for 1994 parcels/communities and additional parcels/communities,
reprioritizing all parcels together
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN 3-8
3. OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DRAFT -- 07/08/99
Table 3.4 Possible Open Space Parcels in Plymouth
Site Community Grade Rank Size* Parcel
Status
Priority
x
Notes
I Oak Forest N/A THR 15.3 Acquired N/A Begin Oaks Golf
Course
1B Maple -Basswood C END 57.9 Available Low
1C Oak Forest BC THR 48.9 Available High
Lowland Hardwood C SPC
Willow Swamp C SPC
Cattail Marsh C SEC
1D Maple -Basswood C END 29.1 Available High Contiguous to golf
course
IE Oak Forest C THR 12 Available Low Adjacentto
Pomerleau LakeEmereentMarshCSPC
1F Lowland Hardwood C SPC 16.3 Available Low
Maple -Basswood B END
Cattail Marsh C SEC
1G Oak Forest B THR 78.8 Available High
Willow Swamp B SPC
1H Willow Swamp B SPC 33.9 Available Low
Oak Forest C THR
lI Maple -Basswood A END 53.3 Acquired N/A Bought by Cit
1K Maple -Basswood B END 39.6 Partially
Develo ed
High
1L Oak Forest B THR 26.1 Available High
1N Cattail Marsh D SEC 11.7 Available Low Trail exists through
parcelEmergentMarshDSPC
is Maple -Basswood B END 14.2 Partially
Developed
Low Possible entry point
for I-494 crossing
2A Old Field N/A N/A 17.6 Developed N/A
2D Oak Forest C THR 13.4 Acquired N/A Bought by Cit
2E Pine Plantation N1A N/A 3.1 Available N/A No native ecosystem
2F Oak Forest N/A THR 24.3 Available High Possible park site
3A Oak Forest BC THR 35.7 Partially
Developed,
Partially
Acquired
N/A Part of French
Regional ParkCattailMarshBSEC
SR Consultina Grout). Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PI_A R -A
3. OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DRAFT -- 07/08/99
SiteCommunity Grade Rank Size* Parcel
Status
Priority Notes
Emergent Marsh C SPC
3B Lowland Hardwood D SPC 15.3 Partially
Developed.
Partially
Acquired
N/A Bought by City
Oak Forest B THR
Emergent Marsh C SPC
3C Lowland Hardwood D SPC 18.5 Available Low Contiguous to two
parksEmergentMarshDSPC
3H Hardwood Swam C SPC 12.4 Available High
Willow Swamp B SPC
Maple -Basswood C END
Cattail Marsh B SEC
3I Lowland Hardwood BC SPC 13.7 Available High
3J Cattail Marsh CD SEC 12.2 Available Low
3K Emergent Marsh C SPC 10 Available Low
Shrub Swamp C SPC
Lowland Hardwood C SPC
3L Oak Forest B THR 30.1 Available High
Willow Swamp C SPC
3M Hardwood Swamp C SPC 10.5 Available High
Willow Swamp B SPC
3N Tamarack Swamp—AB SPC 46.2 Available,
partially
Acquired
High
Cattail Marsh B SEC
Emergent Marsh C SPC
4A Oak Forest BC THR 53.5 Partially
Acquired,
partially
Developed
N/A Three Ponds Park
Willow Swamp B SPC
Lowland Hardwood C SPC
Cattail Marsh B SEC
Mesic Prairie D END
4B Maple -Basswood B END 23.3 Available Low
4C Lowland Hardwood BC SPC 8.8 Available Low Contiguous to
Rolling Hills ParkOakForestBCTHR
Cattail Marsh BC SEC
Source: SHE, Inc. and SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Acres of resource, parcel size may be larger.
According to 1994 Natural Areas Ranking, final ranking may change.
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN 3-10
3. OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DRAFT -- 07/08/99
Acquisition strategies
Purchase
Purchase through non-profit organization
Easements
Sale of development rights
Dedication
LEGISLATION
Overview of needed protection
Goals of an upland community protection ordinance, i.e.: high quality woodlands or prairies
Kit of parts" from which to draw when writing ordinance
Pros and Cons of legislation, including discussion of legality and precedents
Other legislative tools
RECOMMENDATIONS
Highest priority open space parcels for acquisition
Upland protection ordinance
Management plan
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN 3-11
6.
Golf Course
r
6. GOLF COURSE
DRAFT -- 07/02/99
INTRODUCTION
Golf is a sport that is growing rapidly in popularity. According to the National Golf Foundation,
there are over 25 million golfers in the United States today, who play on over 16,000 courses.
Since 1986, the number of golfers in the United States has increased by 33% and the number of
courses being built per year has risen from an average of 150 to a staggering 400. The Upper
Midwest, in particular, has seen high participation in golf. Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota,
and Michigan are the top ranking states, each with approximately 20% of the population golfing
on a semi -regular basis. This is likely due to the availability and affordability of public golf
courses in these states. The Dakotas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are among the
states with the greatest number of public golf facilities per capita.
Current information points to a vital golf economy in Minnesota, where the compliment of golf
courses has grown from 387 in 1989 to 469 in 1999. The City of Plymouth is home to several
golf courses and a large number of golfers. The consideration of public golf in the City is
important for three reasons:
Recreation diversity. The City of Plymouth and the Parks and Recreation Department strive
to provide a variety of recreation opportunities to their residents. Golf is a desired activity in
a community with diverse needs.
Open space preservation. Golf courses preserve or restore native habitats such as forests,
streams, wetlands, and grasslands. By its very nature, golf sets aside large tracts of
undeveloped land for the enjoyment of all people. In order to be consistent with open space
preservation goals, golf courses should be sited on suitable land of appropriate size, in order
to ensure the preservation of natural habitats between and around holes. They should also
strive to minimize their impact on these habitats within and adjacent to the golf course.
Quality of life. Plymouth residents have come to expect the presence of public golf courses
within and nearby the community. This adds to the quality of life that is the reason that
people move to Plymouth. In seeking to maintain this high quality of life, Plymouth should
ensure that no less than one 18 -hole publicly accessible course exists within the City.
As Plymouth's population increases, it is important to ensure that this recreation diversity, open
space preservation, and quality of life is continued. These goals, as they relate directly to golf
courses, can be accomplished by using the following strategies:
Definition of a "use area" for Plymouth residents
Examination of recognized standards and documentation of resident participation rates
Inventory of existing public and private golf courses in the use area
Analysis of existing level of service
Recommendation of policies and strategies for achieving or continuing a desired level of
service
This report is not a proforma feasibility study for a particular golf course. Rather, it is a
background of existing golf facilities and general predicted golf needs in the City and should be
used as a tool to guide more specific decisions. This report should not be seen as a market
analysis or an economic assessment of golf in Plymouth.
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN 6-2
6. GOLF COURSE
DRAFT -- 07/02/99
USE AREA
Plymouth's Golf Use Area is the area to which residents will regularly travel to play golf. There
are golf courses outside of the City of Plymouth that may be utilized by Plymouth residents
because of their proximity, and these courses should be included in the use area for analysis
purposes.
Golf Use Area is normally based on travel time. Most golfers live within 10 miles of the course
they typically use, but golfers are willing to travel greater distances to gain some variety in
facilities. The average golfer, therefore, will travel 20 to 25 minutes on a regular basis to play
golf.
This measure of travel time is used to draw a line around the area which can effectively serve
Plymouth residents' golf needs. Figure 6.1 shows the boundary of this use area.
Figure 6.1 Plymouth Golf Use Area
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN 6-3
6. GOLF COURSE
DRAFT -- 07/02/99
STANDARDS
Once a use area is established, golf needs for that area can be determined.
The measure typically used to determine golf course needs is the number of holes per capita.
According to the National Golf Foundation, in the nation's 315 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, the
average number of holes per 100,000 persons is 78. This equates to approximately 4.3 18 -hole
courses per 100,000 persons. This number, however, varies drastically by region. The Upper
Midwest tends to have a greater number of holes per capita, while the deep south (aside from
Florida and the Carolinas) and metropolitan New England have much fewer holes per capita.
In Minnesota, there are 4,685,549 people and approximately 400 golf courses (assuming 30% of
the 469 existing courses are 9 -hole facilities, and count as half), which establishes a ratio of 8.5
18 -hole courses per 100,000 persons. This state -based ratio is significantly higher than the
national average, but it should be emphasized that Minnesotans golf much more frequently than
the nation as a whole, so the ratio of 153 holes per 100,000 persons is an appropriate measure to
use in this study.
Table 6.1 shows this measure applied to the City of Plymouth's present and projected
populations.
Table 6.1 Golf Course Needs in Plymouth
Year Population Holes/100,000 Holes needed in
Plymouth Golf
Use Area
18 -hole courses needed
in Plymouth Golf Use
Area (total holes/18)
Present 1999 62,548 153 96 5.3
Projected 2020 64,963 153 99 5.5
Projected Ultimate 1 74,512 1 153 114 6.3
Source for Population Projections: City of Plymouth
GOLF FACILITIES INVENTORY
Golf Courses may take numerous forms, and vary widely in cost, maintenance, challenge,
accessibility to the public, and other attributes. Courses can be described most easily by using
several criteria:
Accessibility
Public: operated by a government entity, such as a city, county, or parks department
Private -- Open to the Public: operated by a private owner, but offering tee times to any
user. This is the most common type of course.
Private: operated by a private owner or club who charges a membership fee and provides
tee times ONLY to members.
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN 6-4
6. GOLF COURSE
DRAFT -- 07/02/99
Length
18 -hole: though these courses may vary slightly in par, they are full-length courses
designed to offer a complete golfing experience.
Par -3: an 18 -hole course consisting entirely of shorter (par -3) holes. This type of course
is often used by beginning golfers, or by golfers with tighter schedules.
9 -hole: these courses offer all the challenge of a regulation 18 -hole course, but only offer
9 -holes. It is possible to play the course twice, but users are more apt to play through
once when they do not have time available to play a full 18.
Executive 9: a 9 hole course with a greater than average number of par -3 and par -4 holes.
Aesthetics play a great role in course choice by golfers. Many avid golfers are willing to travel
longer distances, and pay higher greens fees, to play a high quality course. For the purposes of
this inventory, aesthetics, however, are not considered due to their overwhelmingly subjective
nature.
The Plymouth Golf Use Area is currently home to several golf courses. The majority of these are
Private Open to the Public. Figure 6.2 shows the Plymouth Golf Use Area along with the existing
and proposed courses within it. Table 6.2 tabulates the various golf courses shown on the map.
Table 6.2 Public and Private Open Golf Courses within Plymouth Golf Use Area
Map# Course Acres Holes Access Fees Par Notes
1 Pheasant Acres 18 Private Open 25 71
2 Shamrock 18 Private Open 21 72
3 Rush Creek 18 Private Open 100 72
4 Brooklyn Park 9 Public 9 31
5
Hennepin
Eagle Lake
Parks)
18*** Public PROPOSED Exec. 9
and chip/putt course
6 Begin Oaks 9 Private Open Under Construction
7 New Hoe 9 Public 9 27 Exec. 9
8 Hampton Hills 18 Private Open 22 73
9 Elm Creek 18 Private Open 27 70
10 Holl dale 18 Private Open 24 71
11 Baker National
Hennepin Parks)
18 Public 29 72
12 Orono 9 Public 10 33
13 Brookview
City of Golden Valle)
27 Public 24/
9
72/
27
Full 18 and Exec. 9
14 Theodore Wirth
City of Minnea olis)
18 Public 25 72
15 Meadowwoods 9 Private Open 15 29
16 Glen Lake 9 Private Open 11 31
Total 225
Source: SRF Consulting Group, Inc., Star Tribune
only determined for golf courses that are existing or under construction within the City of
Plymouth
based on weekend rates for maximum number of holes (18 or 9 depending on the course)
not included in total number of holes
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN 6-5
6. GOLF COURSE
DRAFT -- 07/02/99
Figure 6.2 Golf Courses within the Plymouth Golf Use Area
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN 6-6
6. GOLF COURSE
DRAFT -- 07/02/99
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 6.3 and 6.4 show existing holes from Table 6.2 along with the projected needs established
in Table 6.1. The two tables relate two different strategies for analyzing golf need based on
numerical measures. Table 6.3 takes into account the entire Plymouth Golf Use Area. This
approach has the advantage of including those courses that Plymouth residents are likely to use
on a regular basis. It does not, however take into account other cities' populations which also
must use those courses. Table 6.4 considers only those courses within the City of Plymouth.
This approach has the advantage of accurately representing the interplay of population figures
versus number of holes. Plymouth, however, does not exist in a vacuum, and additional courses
merit consideration. Some outside courses, in fact, may be closer to some residents than the
courses within Plymouth.
Table 6.3 Golf Deficit in Plymouth Golf Use Area
Year Golf need (holes)
from Table 6.1
Number of holes Deficit
from Table 6.2)*
Deficit
Holes Courses
Current 1999 96 225 None
Projected 2020 99 225 None
Projected Ultimate 114 225 None
Source: SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
does not include proposed Eagle Lake course.
Table 6.4 Golf Deficit in Plymouth
Year Golf need (holes)
from Table 6.1
Number of holes
from Table 6.2)*
Deficit
Holes Courses
Current 1999 96 63 33 1.8
Projected 2020 99 63 36 2
Projected Ultimate 114 63 51 2.8
Source: SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
does not include proposed Eagle Lake course.
As with any discussion of standards as applied to a community, the resulting numerical values
should be seen as a starting point for the establishment of policies and the undertaking of more
detailed studies. Several additional variables should be considered:
Due to increasing traffic in the metropolitan area, certain courses may cease to be a 20 minute
drive from Plymouth at certain times of day. This is particularly true to the south and east of
the City. This would effectively remove courses from the Golf Use Area, reducing the
surplus of holes accessible to Plymouth residents.
The presence of 3.5 golf courses (including the 9 -hole Begin Oaks) in Plymouth is above
average for the Minneapolis/St.Paul area. Very few communities have three publicly
accessible courses, but a great deal have either one or two. In fact, the communities that do
have three courses are primarily, along with Plymouth, situated in the northwest suburbs.
Therefore, though there appears to be a golf deficit in Plymouth, it actually has an above
average number of courses as compared to its metropolitan neighbors.
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN 6-7
4
6. GOLF COURSE
DRAFT -- 07/02/99
Golf courses take different forms. Course choice is affected by level of challenge,
availability of golf carts, ease of reservation of tee times, whether spikes are allowed, and
numerous other factors. Golf courses that fill certain niches, such as educational, tournament
quality, or residential courses, may be warranted even in the face of a perceived surplus in the
Golf Use Area.
In light of these variables, it is most effective to return to the original goals for golf courses in
Plymouth. The open space implications of golf courses will be discussed in another chapter.
Recreational diversity and quality of life both call for the presence of at least one 18 -hole publicly
accessible course within the City. Currently, Plymouth is achieving these goals. However, any
of the four privately owned golf courses that currently exist or are under construction in Plymouth
could be redeveloped as residential in the future. If this occurs, the City will lose golf holes while
it gains population. In order to maintain the present high level of service, quality of life,
recreational diversity, and quantity of open space, it is important that Plymouth strive to preserve
existing golf courses. The following specific recommendations are intended to guide the City in
providing a high quality, accessible golf experience to its residents:
Continue to monitor the development of golf course facilities at Begin Oaks and Eagle Lake.
Establish Plymouth resident golf participation rates through regular surveys and trend
analysis.
Ensure that a minimum of one 18 -hole publicly accessible course exists within city limits.
Pursue opportunities to purchase an existing course if it is threatened by development.
Complete feasibility and cash flow analysis based upon projected play, greens fees,
capital costs and operating expenses.
Promote environmentally sensitive practices, such as on-site water supply ponds, reduction of
fertilizers, and the increase of native plant material, at all local golf courses. This practice
will continue the Park and Recreation Department's commitment to reduced maintenance and
open space/habitat preservation.
Monitor the development status of each golf course within the City.
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN 6-8
0 CiTY OF PLlln'lii 40 -o5
Pursuant to due call and nvtice t}:ereof, afn Vlar_
T
meeting of
the City Coiuicil of tl;e City of plyrolith, hliuu::c;:.a was i;elu or. the
Ah— day of March 15:77 'Ilse following w.oi hers were
present: _kl.. --- Scibold and Spaeth
the follow3n g I, ni -'-:r .j,:)s _
L. _ ___.—_,__
6 ers kz:re .;nscnt: None
Councilman Hunt introduced the following Resolution and unwed
its i option
RESOLUTION #77- 125
SETTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO APPROVAL Of FINAL PLAT FOR "FERNDALE.NORTH 2nd ADDITION"
FOR ',UNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC. (A-615)
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the final plat and development contract for
Ferndale North 2nd Addition" as requested by Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COU:';CIL OF THE CITY CIF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the following prior to recording
of said plat:
1. Compliance with the provisions of the City Engineer's memorandum of lebruary 10,
1977 regarding this project.
Completion of plans and specifications for Outlot A as a natural part: preaerve
as specified in Item 13.1 of the Development Contract prior to Development
Contract execution.
3. The Development Contract shall provide for maintenance of Outlot A, i.e.
watering of park improvements, to a reasonable level until such time that
the continuous areas are accepted for completie•; of the development require-
ments under the development contract or three growing seasons, ;'fhichever is
completed earlier.
7lie motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Councilman Neils and upon vote being taken thereon, tile
fol ow npvovote in favor t ereof: Mayor Hilde, Councilmen Hmit, Neils and
Seibold _
ci -- iP;e {o lo; inl; .4yc;cy 1:>Tk.klxkxr a sta ned: Connlimn Spaeth — -
h'hereupon the Resolution was declared dulypassed an-cTptcT_--^
R**
4f: '•i::' .'..v.'.i F.k..:1A' tY.fj}. 'if9-k./q i ;'k: L:?L/i 1S 1.^..i 11i' .NR1. y:iy+
1. f
Plat Approval
Preliminary Plat was aOnroved by Resolution No. 70'2 by the City
Council on January 5, 1976 subject to Rieiahtl conditions.
Final Plat and Development Contra.t were approved by Resolution No.
by the City Council. on
Land Dedicated for Public Use, Parks and Private Recreation Arras
Outlot A hereof shall be constructed in total by the developer consistent
with plans and specifications dated `3r . A 1. 1 P7, attached
hereto and made a part hereof. Said construction shall be completed on or
before August 15, 1977. Said Outlot A shall be deeded to the City as a
or three years from the date of this con
earlier.
The Developer shall be responsible for the c -..re and watering of plant
material improvements to Outlot A until acceptance by the City per 13.1
Developer shall replace all plant materials that die during the subject
period. It is the intent of this clause that the City accept ownership
of Outlot A only after developer has established same as a stabilized
nature preserve.area consistent with approved plans.
Developer and City agree to represent Outlot A specfically and only as a
nature preserve area with no other park improvements or periodic Citymaintenanceimpliedorintended.
9 t Ob eo*x*-aeJt 1E rCwi ,d„
rs
FRA—M'1 P+/s d..IL Joy 1 n
rN a A datn .
I)eue(&f ,—t
T7IJe A-(0(
lo -2.0. 7-7
CITY OF PLYMOUTH 77.25
Y
3025 HARBOR LANE, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55341
TELEPHONE (612) 555-2800
BMIR C
DATE: March 4, 1977
TO: Jim Willis, City Manager
FROM: Jon Born, Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Ferndale North Plan - Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc.
On March 3, 1977, Peter Pflaum of Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc.
presented a park plan for Ferndale North Subdivision to the Park and
Recreation Advisory Commission.
The following is the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission's
recommendation relative to said Ferndale North park plan..
Commissioner Brass moved and Commiss-oner Kerschke seconded a motion
to accept the staff's recommendations to designate said land as an
open space preserve and not a neighborhood park. Motion carried."
Nedo ep<
oe<>Qee>ooe e
11th
3 w
F
Z
h
e
zl O mmuc.mc'+3 Y Ea F port A
C
W t
N `
T°
v c mV•
p
J
c'
bo-
T a'
lu
sazsotr y -
Ir
c
6 .. p• 'i,
11 hT
s 0 4lnN'and L S N o e, 4y
a
f ysP X
ta
d a i ddod U a
eer sJo T N e
Vertu ay 'r!Y O a i4s6oH. 9 y/ -b ,Z,atA a2
Z 2m: C N o m 1 S' y9 tRwls¢34in
p/ay fl9pd,aeae '''
f '
rYi
0
4
yaoo
Ido
a
aJ AD_'
yam
D C Q
a
Sls y 6 t oc
rockFON.-anF U
Ie
n Cl`
d v m 'LO a or m
Q r A
PROPOSED PARK/PLAYGROUND PETITION
Please respond by June 4th
Hello Neighbor,
We would like to know if you would like to have a small inner portion of the 7.5 acres of
wooded area, centered in our neighborhood, turned into an activity park/playground area?
Originally, our neighborhood was developed with the intent of having a park/playground
area in the wooded area. We are still waiting! For the first time in many years, the City
of Plymouth has allotted a large sum of money to update its entire Comprehensive Park
Plan. The Park and Trail Development Plan is currently under review and will be
expanded. This means that it is prime time to petition the City to develop and entirely
fund a portion of our neighborhood's wooded area into a park/playground, with a few
benches, so we could have a neighborhood gathering area. The fact that the City
currently has a comprehensive plan to develop parks and playgrounds is a great
opportunity for us to get this passed. Such a favorable climate has not been in existence
for many years, and such a budget may not come up again for a long time.
For the 13 or so homes that adjoin the wooded area, the proposal would be for the
park/playground to be nestled in the middle of the woods. Efforts would be made not to
interfere with anyone's current view or privacy. Some of you may worrythat a
park/playground area may attract kids participating in inappropriate behavior. However,
the completely uninterrupted, dark, secluded woods we now have can be a magnet for the
same inappropriate behavior as well.
None of us in Ferndale North would want to detract from the esthetic views we all have
of our wooded areas. Nor would we want to diminish the view or privacy of the houses
that adjoin the wooded area. It does not have to be an "either-or" situation. It could be a
win-win" situation with the site nestled in the center of the woods.
Neighborhood parks, such as these, increase property and resale values. Likewise, parks
increase our personal enjoyment of the area, Our sense of community and help us get to
know each other. All of that will help make Ferndale North a more pleasant and
enjoyable place for all of us to live.
Yes Signature USS
No Address l 1 Vf
Please fold, staple and mail by June 4th.
Q Sao Wit
t W u,ld me d, I