HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark and Recreation Advisory Commission Packet 12-13-2001Regular Meeting of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
December 13, 2001, 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
a.
b.
5. Unfinished Business
a. Millennium Garden update
b. Hilde Performance Center update
c. Greenwood youth sports update
d. West Medicine Lake Park restroom update
6. New Business
a. Review proposed park dedication ordinance — Anne Hurlburt, Community
Development Director
b. Review Northwest Greenway master plan — Barry Warner, SRF
7. Commission Presentation
8. Staff Communication
9. Adjourn
Next regular meeting — January 10, 2002
n\parks\staff\eric\prac\agendas\DecOl.doc
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
October 11, 2001
Page 52
Present: Chair Anderson, Commissioners Fiemann, Meyer, Musliner, Singer; staff Bisek,
Blank, Pederson; Councilmember Hewitt; Planning Commissioner Neset
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Anderson called the October meeting to order at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Musliner corrected the September minutes by noting that Meyer should have
been listed as present, and Thompson's name should not have been included. Singer asked if
Director Blank wanted his comments about the Greenwood contractor to appear in the
minutes and Blank said his comments stand. A motion was made by Commissioner Singer
and seconded by Commissioner Fiemann to approve the minutes of the meeting as corrected.
The motion carried with all ayes.
3. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
a. Athletic Associations. None were present.
b. Staff. Mary Bisek said the parade went very well, although the weather was cool. People
enjoyed the new activities such as the petting zoo. The Westside Players' fall production
starts this weekend. One of our staff members, Mara Herman, is in the chorus. Bisek
handed out a flyer advertising the Chocolate Sampler. No more volunteers are needed.
We are still looking for additional door prizes. Work has begun on the Winter/Spring
recreation booklet. We are talking about putting our mission statement in this next issue.
Soccer season is almost over. Cindy Anderson had a baby girl on October 8. Her name is
Jennifer Carol. Cindy will be on maternity leave until mid-January. Singer commented
that she is officiating some soccer games for us. A soccer goal blew over at Cretin High
School in St. Paul, so she wants staff to check our goals regularly to make sure they are
fastened. Blank said we will double check them all. He said the high school sometimes
loosens them in order to move them, and when they put them back, they don't refasten
them. Fiemann said he went to the pancake breakfast the morning of the parade and was
very impressed with it. They were running out of things when he was there, which was
near the tail end. Bisek said about 400 people attended the breakfast. Fiemann asked
when the dome is being installed. Blank said Wednesday, October 17. Musliner asked
about Three Ponds Park. She said there is nothing there to stop kids from running right
onto the railroad tracks. Blank said the issue of putting in a crossing here is on hold while
we negotiate regarding the train whistle. Federal legislation on whistle blowing is being
rewritten right now. The law currently states that wherever there is a railroad crossing
without safety barriers in place, the train must blow the whistle. Musliner also asked
about the boarded up slide at Maple Creek Park and when it would be fixed. Blank said it
PRAC Minutes/October 2001
Page 53
will be replaced. Blank announced that Bisek is the new Director of Parks and Recreation
for Inver Grove Heights beginning November 5th.
c. Others. There were no others.
4. PAST COUNCIL ACTION
a. Hilde Performance Center. See item 5b.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Millennium Garden update. This past week, all stone retaining walls were completed.
This amounts to $5,000 to $7,000 worth of donated work. The fiber optic lines for cable,
phones and computers ended up running right beneath one of the water fall lines, so the
fiber optics had to be relocated. That work is also done now. We have bid the first water
basin and hope that the contractors will begin in the next couple of weeks. Last Friday the
Carlson Foundation notified us that they are giving us $75,000 for the garden. That will
come in the form of three separate donations of $25,000 each. We have a very solid
financial picture right now. The community has embraced the garden. Mayor Tierney
worked long and hard to get the donation from Carlson.
b. Hilde Performance Center u iodate. The final plans and specs were approved two weeks
ago. Last Tuesday the Council allocated another $95,000 to the project, so some items in
jeopardy of being deleted from the project will now be allowed to remain. Blank says
construction should begin next week.
c. Greenwood youth sports update. The 120 -day contract expired on October 9. The
contractor is currently putting in irrigation and fencing. They have given us a revised
schedule saying the site will be sodded by October 22. They are now in a penalty phase
of $500 a day. Anderson asked if there were guidelines regarding the rejection of low
bids. Blank said it is extremely difficult to rule out a low bidder unless you have definite
proof that the low bidder is inadequate.
d. West Medicine Lake Park restrooms update. We had zero bidders. Two contractors had
all the plans and specs out, but came back and said they were too busy to bid on the
project. We have readvertised and will reopen bids next Friday. This time we may have
four bidders submitting bids. They will be awarded on October 23. It is still our target to
have bathrooms available by Memorial Weekend, 2002.
e. Northwest Greenway report on open house held October 2. The open house went well.
Over 800 invitations were sent, but not one phone call was received. There was a good
turnout that evening. All comments were positive about the Northwest Greenway itself.
Bisek said people come in to the city's planning department and ask specifically to see
plans for the greenway. Singer said she observed that we have a lot of horseback riders in
this area. One resident invited Blank to go horseback riding with her through this area.
Musliner was amused that a resident wanted the living farm to have cable, gas and sewer
service. We will be making an offer next week on a 10—acre parcel near the wetland. By
October 23 we will likely recommend to the Council that we purchase this parcel. Blank
will be meeting next week with consultants to try and narrow down trail alternatives to
PRAC Minutes/October 2001
Page 54
just one. We will come back to the Commission with one more update, then have another
public meeting. Blank's plan is to have the master plan adopted by the Council next
March. Blank said now we start looking at the plan with a microscope parcel by parcel.
This will take about four to six weeks. Fiemann asked about the site for the future sports
complex. This site is owned by the Begin family. Blank said Mr. Begin is hospitalized
right now, so we will wait to meet with him until after he has recuperated.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. BMX bike course referred by Council. This came about as a result of kids building a
BMX course in Heritage Park, which resulted in the destruction of trees. The City
Council asked that this be referred to PRAC. On raw land, BMX bikes chew up the soil
and it's harmful to trees. For a BMX course, you need a big piece of property with dirt
mounds on it. We don't have a quick fix on this Blank said.
7. COMMISSION PRESENTATION
Singer moved and Fiemann seconded a motion to thank Mary for all her hard work and to
wish her well in her new position. The motion carried with all ayes.
8. STAFF COMMUNICATION
Blank said the skate park continues to be busy. Kids are there after school and on weekends.
We've heard that there has been one injury. Blank said he may have a conflict on the 8th and
would like to reschedule the next meeting to November 15. Most commissioners were okay
with this date. Meyer asked about the petition for a trail that was included in the PRAC
packet. Blank said it's south of Highway 55 by the Farmers Market down to the movie
theaters. The Luce Line trail is now open from Ferndale Road to 169, with a short 100 yard
detour near the railroad tracks. This now gives us a complete off—road looping trail around
Medicine Lake. The trail on Rockford Road from Dunkirk to Holly Lane is complete, as well
as the trail on 36th from Vicksburg to County Road 9. The trail along Revere Lane south of
10th Avenue to Rainbow Foods was just paved, also. The parking lot at Parkers Lake has
now been resurfaced. All the benches need to be repainted at Parkers. This will be done over
the winter. The grading for the playground at the Environmental Park is done. The
playground equipment will be shipped next week.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DATE: November 30, 2001
TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
Planning Commission,
FROM: Anne Hurlbutt, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Subdivision Regulations Update, Park Dedication Requirements
2001004)
Staff is in the process if drafting new Subdivision Regulation for the City. It has been many
years since an update, and the need for new regulations has been identified as an important step
to implement the City's revised Comprehensive Plan and to bring the regulations up to date.
One of the key sections of the Subdivision Regulations needing an update contains the
requirements for dedication of land, or cash in lieu, for parks and open space. The current
regulations and the accompanying policy resolution which determine the formulas for park
dedication need to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and state law in order to be
legally defensible. The amount of dedication required should be clearly tied and proportionate
to the need for park facilities generated by the development.
Attached for your information is a draft ordinance, which would adopt new language for the
Park Dedication section of the subdivision regulations, and accompanying definitions. Also
attached are the current ordinance sections and the City Council resolutions that have been
amended annually to set the park dedication fee.
Staff will be recommending that the City Council adopt the park dedication section of the
revised subdivision regulations in advance of the entire ordinance. The park dedication
requirements (particularly the cash -in -lieu of land fees) are typically updated annually. While
unlike the zoning ordinance) a public hearing by the Planning Commission is NOT required
for amendments to the Subdivision Regulations, staff will be presenting the draft amendments
to the Planning Commission for review and comment. We will also present the park
dedication changes to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) because of their
importance in implementation of the Parks chapter of the, Comprehensive Plan. Major changes
to the park dedication requirements are recommended.
Key concepts in the draft regulations:
Establishing the standard for an adequate park and trail system at the level of service that
existed when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2000.
The ordinance would set a per capita standard for park land based on the City's 2000
population (based on the Census) and the acres of park land documented by the 2000 inventory
with an addition for acres of trail outlots which were not documented in the plan.) The level
of service standard for commercial and industrial development would be based on the number
of employees that existed in the City at that same time, using the fourth-quarter 1999 estimate
of jobs in the City (the most recent, and as close to the same date as the 2000 Census as
available.)
Tying the park dedication requirements closely to the Comprehensive Plan and the needs
generated by the particular development should be more defensible than the current practice.
The current standard is dedication of 10 % of the land area of the subdivision, with an
increasing percentage based on the density of development. While the "10% rule" has been
used by many cities since the courts upheld an ordinance using this standard many years ago, it
is less defensible today. Recent legislation requires cities to account for and justify the basis
for all fees charged for new development. The new ordinance will put the City on firmer
footing with respect to park fees.
Finding that residential development creates approximately 90% of the need for park and
recreational land and facilities in Plymouth, and commercial industrial development creates
approximately 10% of the need.
While it is difficult to estimate how much of the need for new park and open space is created
by non-residential development, commercial and industrial (C/I) uses do put demands on the
City's park system. Employees working in Plymouth participate in the City's recreation
programs, use the trail system during their workdays, and use parks for company functions,
among other benefits. The City has historically collected park dedication fees from new C/I
development and should continue to do so.
There are no good surveys existing in Plymouth or elsewhere that we can rely upon to
determine the relative burden C/I should bear. Staff is recommending that Plymouth use the
standard selected by the City of Bloomington: that 10% of the demand for parks be met by C/I
development. Bloomington found that commercial development accounts for 10 to 30% of
their active park space use. In choosing their standard, they considered several issues
including the concern that park dedication would be perceived as an added "tax" on C/I
development, and that the fee could create a competitive disadvantage for C/I properties.
Bloomington had relatively little new residential subdivision activity compared to their C/I
development at the time and wanted to make sure that development pays its "fair share". They
settled upon the 10% share as reasonable and defensible. It should be noted that Plymouth
expects relatively small numbers of C/I subdivisions in the future, as most land remaining to be
developed in the city is planned for residential use.
2
Finding that schools place a burden on the City's park system to the extent that the school
serves students who do not live within the City of Plymouth.
Whether or not institutional uses, such as churches and schools, should pay park dedication
fees is debatable. On one hand, such uses serve people who already live or work in the
community and who have already paid for their share of the park system through residential
and/or CI park dedication. On the other hand, many of our institutions also serve people who
do not live in Plymouth. Schools are a particular case in point, where the demands on the park
system are high but many of the students may come from outside of the community. The draft
ordinance would require park dedication for new schools, based on the number of students
projected to come from outside the City. Park dedication would not be required for other
institutions.
The proportionate share to be paid by new development is based on the expected number of
residents and/or employees in the new development, calculated using data in the
Comprehensive Plan or more recent data from the Metropolitan Council, when available.
The definition section of the draft code language contains the specific data used to calculate the
proportionate share. Since the numbers used in the calculation are based on the level of
service in 2000, most will not change unless the City updates the Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, we've included the numbers in the definitions to avoid any confusion about the
calculation.
Calculating the proportionate share, for cash in lieu of land dedication, is based on the
actual value of the land.
The statutes permit cities to require land dedication, so any cash dedication requirement in lieu
of land should be tied to the value of the land. Instead of setting a land value annually, the
new ordinance would use the value of the specific piece of land being subdivided. This will
help us keep up with rapidly increasing land values.
If cash dedication is required in lieu of land, the amount would be capped at a maximum
per-unit fee (for residential use) or per acre fee for other uses, similar to the rate now
adopted annually by resolution of the City Council.
Attached to this memo are examples of actual developments and a calculation of the land and
cash in lieu dedications that would be required under the current and proposed ordinances. For
most developments, the new method of calculating a proportionate share would result in a
much larger park dedication requirement; perhaps more than the market may bear. The 2001
cash in lieu of land park dedication fee is $2,000 per unit. The proportionate shares in the
examples range from about $3,000 per unit (in the lowest density, lowest land value projects)
to as much as $7,000 per-unit in apartment projects with the highest land values. Examples for
commercial/industrial development show that for an office/ manufacturing property, the new
calculation method results in a fee comparable to the current park dedication rate ($6,100 per
3
acre). In the office building examples, with more employees per 1,000 sq. ft; the fee would be
about $9,500 per acre. It is highly unlikely, unless land values fall substantially, that the
proportionate share would ever be less than the current per unit fee.
The draft ordinance allows the City to collect a smaller cash in lieu fee than the proportionate
share. The City may consider other factors such as the fees charged by other municipalities.
The calculation of the proportionate share fee becomes somewhat of a paper exercise.
However, it does provide the City with excellent justification that its fee is reasonable and a
defense for collecting the fee should it be challenged. Beginning in 2002, cities will be
required by law to account for and justify all fees charged for new development. The new
ordinance will put the City on firmer footing with respect to park fees.
The draft ordinance also includes a clause allowing a developer to request a deviation from the
dedication requirement based on the proportional share of the park system at the time of final
plat approval. This allows for negotiation between the City and the developer in circumstances
where the development has less impact on the park system than anticipated, or if facilities
provided within the development would meet the park and open space needs without impact on
the City's facilities.
How high should the City set the maximum cash -in -lieu of land fee?
As shown by the examples, the new approach to calculating a residential development's share
results in a fee much higher than the current $2,000 per unit fee. How much of the
proportionate share should the City collect for residential or C/I subdivisions? Should the fee
be set higher than the current "market" (what other similar cities are charging)? What are the
risks of charging a higher fee than other cities or increasing the fee by a large dollar amount at
one time? These are questions that will need to be considered by the Council when setting the
fee.
Historically the City has paid for a substantial portion, but not all, of the cost of the park
system from park dedication fees. Grants, other levels of government (regional or state) or
voter referenda have provided land and money for portions of the park and open space system.
At the recommendation of the City Attorney, the cash -in -lieu fee is included in the ordinance.
In the past, it has been adopted by a City Council resolution. The draft ordinance as attached
to this report reflects the 2001 adopted fee. Staff will recommend an increased fee for 2002 as
part of the ordinance amendment when it is submitted to the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Sample Park Dedication Calculations
2. Draft Ordinance Amendments
3. Current Ordinance, City Code Section 500.25
4.. Current Park Dedication Policy, Resolutions 2001-043 and 2001-044
5. City Council Agenda Report, January 16, 2001 (includes 2000 Park Dedication Fee
Survey)
Sample Park Dedication Calculations
Per Capita Residential Share/ Per Capita Commercial Share
Existing Park Land and Trail Acreage
1,338 Acres
Residential Share Commercial/Industrial Share
90% X 1,338 = 1,204 Acres 10% X 1,338 = 134 Acres
Per Capita Residential Share Per Capita Commercial/Industrial Share
1,204 / 65,894 134/51,712
2000 Census Population) (1999 Jobs in City)
0183 Acres per Resident =.0026 Acres per Employee
Sample Residential Development Calculations
Residential Example #1
Project Data: 21 Single Family Detached
3.1 per unit = 65.1 residents
8.32 acres, 2.52 units/acre
Land value: $92,361/ acre
Entire Development Land Dedication Cash in Lieu of
Proposed Ordinance, Maximum: 1.191 acres $110,001
Current Ordinance (10.52%) .875 acres $42,000
Difference: +.316 acres +$68,001
Per Un
Maximum
Current Ordinance:
Residential Example # 2
Project Data:
056 acres
041 acres
5,238
2,000
015 acres 3,238
17 Single Family Detached
3.1 per unit = 52.7 residents
4.75 acres, 3.57 units/acre
Land value: $68,421/ acre
Entire Development Land Dedication Cash in Lieu of Land
Proposed Ordinance, Maximum: 964 acres 65,957
Current Ordinance (11.57%): 549 acres 34,000
Difference: 415 acres 31,957
Per Unit
Proposed Ordinance, Maximum: 056 acres 3,879
Current Ordinance: 032 acres 2,000
Difference: 024 acres 1,879
6
Residential Example #3
Project Data: 71 Single Family Detached
48 Single Family Attached (Twin)
3.1 per unit = 220.1 single family residents
2.0 per unit = 96 twinhome residents
316.1 total residents
62.6 acres, 1.9 units/acre
Land value: $60,923/ acre
Enti
Proposed Ordinance, Maximum:
Current Ordinance (10%):
Difference:
Land Dedication
5.784 acres
6.26 acres
475 acres
Cash in Lieu of Land
352,378
14,378
Per Unit
Land Dedication
Proposed Ordinance, Maximum: .048 acres 2,961
Current Ordinance: .052 acres 2,000
Difference: -.004 acres 961
Residential Example #4
11 Townhomes
2.0 per unit = 22 residents
4.5 acres, 2.44 units/ acre
Land value: $102,666/ acre
Entire Development Land Dedication Cash in Lieu of Land
Proposed Ordinance, Maximum: 406 acres 41,333
Current Ordinance (10.44%): 469 acres 22,000
Difference: 063 acres 19,333
Per Unit
Proposed Ordinance, Maximum: 037 acres 3,757
Current Ordinance: 043 acres 2,000
Difference: 006 acres 1,757
7
Residential Example #5—Aprtments
Project
Entire
Current Ordinance (23.63%)
Difference:
318 Apartment Units
1.9 per unit = 604 residents
6,764
16.5 acres, 19.27 units/acre
2,000
Land value: $194,627/ acre
4,764
Land Dedication Cash in Lieu of Land
11.053 acres 2,151,212
3.899 acres 636,000
7.154 acres 1.515212
Per Unit
Proposed Ordinance, Maximum: .0348 acres 6,764
Current Ordinance: .0123 acres 2,000
Difference: +.0225 acres 4,764
Residential Example #6—Aprtments
Entire
Proposed Ordinance, Maximum:
Current Ordinance (22.49%):
Difference:
80 Apartments
1.9 per unit = 152 residents
4.71 acres, 16.98 units/acre
Land value: $203,821/ acre
Land Dedication Cash in Lieu of Land
2.782 acres 566,948
1.059 acres 160,000
1.723 acres 406-948
Per Unit
Proposed Ordinance, Maximum: .0348 acres $7,086
Current Ordinance: .0132 acres $2,000
Difference: +.0216 acres +$5.086
0
Residential Example N7—&iior Apartments
Project Data: 80 Apartments
60 1 -BR, 20 2 -BR units
1.0 per bedroom = 100 residents
4.71 acres, 16.98 units/acre
Land value: $203,821/ acre
Entire
Proposed Ordinance, Maximum:
Current Ordinance (22.49%):
Difference:
Per Unit
Maximum:
Current Ordinance:
Land Dedication Cash in
1.830 acres $;
1.059 acres $
771 acres
0229 acres
0132 acres
0097 acre;
212,
Commercial/Industrial Example #1—C ice Building
Project Data: 89,239 square feet, 100% office space
3 employees/1,000 sq. ft = 267.7 employees
8 acre site
Land value: $110,000/ acre
Park Dedication: Land Dedication Cash in Lieu of Land
Proposed Ordinance, Maximum: .69 acres $76,362
Current Ordinance (10%): .80 acres $48,800
Difference: -.11 acres +$27,562
Commercial/Industrial Example #2—QY'ice/ Manufacturing
Project Data: 90,000 square feet, 60% office, 40% manufacturing
3 employees/1,000 sq. ft = 162 office employees
1.65 employees/1,000 sq. ft = 59 manufacturing
employees
221 employee total
10.22 acre site
Land value: $110,000/ acre
Park Dedication: Land Dedication Cash in Lieu of Land
Proposed Ordinance, Maximum: .57 acres $62,700
Current Ordinance (10%): 1.02 acres $62,342
Difference: -.45 acres +$ 358
M- to PC and PRAC From Anne.doc
to
ORDINANCE NO. 2002 -
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 OF THE PLYMOUTH
CITY CODE TO ADOPT DEFINITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR
DEDICATION OF LAND FOR PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 5 of the Plymouth City Code is amended to add new Section 500.04,
to read as follows:
500.04 DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms wherever they occur in this
Chapter, shall be interpreted as herein defined:
Park Dedication Related Terms:
a) Employees: The number of employees that are projected to work in a proposed
commercial/industrial development based on full build -out of the site This number is
calculated by multiplying the maximum gross floor area (in thousands) of structural
A of Appendix 4A of the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan as follows:
Property Type Employees/ 1000 K. ft
Office 3
Retail 2
Industrial 1.65
Office -Warehouse 1.65
Warehouse 1
If the property type of the development is not known at the time of subdivision the
number of employees shall be calculated by using the property type which results in the
2001004 Park Dedication
Draft Ordinance
highest number of employees projected to work in the proposed development based on
the uses allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
b) Existing Park Land and Trail Acreage: The total acres of community playfields,
city parks neighborhood parks mini -parks and school parks existing in 1999 as
documented by Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan (1,270 acres), plus the land area of
trail outlots dedicated to the City as of 2000 as measured by the City's geogra hrp_'c
information system (68 acres), or 1,338 acres.
c) Jobs: The number of jobs located within the city as of 1999 as estimated by the
Minnesota Department of Economic Security _(51 712).
d) Per Capita Commercial/Industrial Share: Ten (10) percent of the existing
land and trail acreage, divided by the number of jobs within the city. f(10%X 1,338) /
51,712 = .0026 acres/capital
e) Per Capita Residential Share: Ninety (90) percent of the existing park land and
trail acreage, divided by the City population as determined by the 2000 Decennial Census
65,894). ((90%X 1,338) / 65,894 —.0183 acres/capita]
Property Type: The classification of the proposed type of development in the
subdivision by the following categories If the specific use(s) proposed in the subdivision
are not listed below, the property type shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator
to be that most similar to the proposed use based on the number of employees projected
to work in the development.
Office Bank, medical/ veterinary clinic, offices (professional or
commercial)
Retail All commercial development, other than Office
Industrial Assembly, automobile repair (major) commercial printing_
fabrication food processing machine shop manufacturing
wholesale bakery
Office -Warehouse Laboratories, wholesale showrooms
Warehouse Distribution center, indoor storage, mini -storage. truck
terminal, waste facilities
Residents: The number of residents that are expected to reside in a proposed
residential development. This number is calculated by multiplying the number of new
residential units in the proposed development by the average number of residents per unit
for the type of residential unit proposed, based on the Metropolitan Council's official
estimates as follows
2001004 Park Dedication
Draft Ordinance
Type of Dwelling: Residents per Unit
Single-family home 3.1
Duplex or Townhome 2.0
Multi-familyApartments) 1_9
g) Undeveloped Land Value: The fair market value of the land as determined by a
sale within the past one year or as calculated by the City Assessor, as of the date of final
plat or plan approval, whichever is higher.
SECTION 2. Chapter 5 of the Plymouth City Code is amended to revise Section 500.25 as
follows:
lmmrmmm. 11
y'
VMM
WIN
0
1prl !!
2001004 Park Dedication
Draft Ordinance
01WINMIN
500.25 PARK DEDICATION
Subd. 1. Purpose and Findines.
a) Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358, Subd 2b provides that municipal subdivision
regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be
dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as
b) The City Council finds that
1) The preservation and development ofap rks playgrounds, and open space
areas within the City are essential to maintaining a healthy and desirable
environment for residents and persons employed within the City. Further, the
value and attractiveness of residential and commercial/industrial developments to
I OWN -
500.25 PARK DEDICATION
Subd. 1. Purpose and Findines.
a) Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358, Subd 2b provides that municipal subdivision
regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be
dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as
b) The City Council finds that
1) The preservation and development ofap rks playgrounds, and open space
areas within the City are essential to maintaining a healthy and desirable
environment for residents and persons employed within the City. Further, the
value and attractiveness of residential and commercial/industrial developments to
2001004 Park Dedication
Draft Ordinance
landowners developers purchasers employers and employees is significantly
enhanced by the presence of such parks and open space amenities
2) New developments place a burden upon the City's parks and open space
system. New facilities must be developed concurrently with development in order
to maintain the current level of service and the quality of the environment for all
Therefore, new developments shall be required to contribute toward the Cites
park system in roughrrooportion to the relative burden they will place upon the
park system, in order to maintain the existing level of service to the community.
3) Residential development of land creates approximatelv ninety (90) percent
of the need for nark and recreational land and facilities within the City
4) Commercial/industrial development of land creates approximately ten (10)
percent of the need for park and recreational land and facilities within the City
5) Development of land for schools creates additional demand on the City's
park and recreational land and facilities, to the extent that the school serves
students who do not live within the City of Plymouth
Subd. 2 Dedication Required
a) At the time of subdivision, the developer shall dedicate land for public use as
parks, playgrounds recreation facilities trails orup blit open space in an amount
equal to the development's proportional share of the City park system as
determined by this chapter. Any land dedicated shall be in a location and of a
character consistent with and suitable for meetine the needs identified by the
City's Comprehensive Plan. Generally, land located within flood plains or
wetlands shall not be accepted to meet the proportional share of required land
dedication The City may consider accepting ownership of these lands without
giving credit for park dedication.
b) If the City Council determines that land is not needed in the area of the proposed
subdivision, the City may alternatively require payment of an equivalent amount
in cash. Any such cash payment shall be used for the acquisition and
improvement of land for parks playgrounds trails or public open space or as
otherwise provided by statute. The undeveloped land value shall be used to
determine the cash payment required in lieu of land dedication up to a maximum
cash payment of $2,000 per dwelling unit for residential development or $6100
per acre for commercial/industrial development or schools
c) If the City Council determines that land is needed in the development but in a
dedication that otherwise would be required.
2001004 Park Dedication
Draft Ordinance
d) The dedication requirements based on the development's proportional share of the
City park system arerp esumptively appropriate A developer may request a
deviation from the presumptive requirements based upon the anticipated impact of
that particular subdivision. The request must be made to the City Council asamort
of an application for final plat approval.
Subd. 3. Calculation of Proportional Share:
a) Residential Development. A residential development's proportional share is the
per capita residential share multiplied by the number of residents expected in the
development.
b) Commercial/Industrial Development A commercial or industrial development's
proportional share is the per capita commercial/industrial share multiplied by the
number of employees expected in the development
c) Schools. A school's proportional share is the per capita residential share
multiplied by the number of students expected to attend the school who live
outside of the City of Plymouth
Subd. 4 Land dedication/navment of fees Dedication of land and/or payment of
park dedication fees shall be as follows:
a) Land Dedication. When land is to be dedicated to satisfypark dedication
requirement, separate lots or outlots shall be indicated on the plat drawings for the
area(s) to be dedicated. Such lots or outlots shall be deeded to the Citvrip or to
the issuance of any building permits within the plat The developer shall be
responsible for finished grading and ground cover and construction of trails in all
lands to be dedicated to the City. No credit toward the required dedication shall
be given for this work, except that credit for the cost of improvements to trails
included in the City's adopted trail plan may be given
b) Cash Fee. When a cash fee is to be paid in lieu of land dedication the payment of
such fee shall be required as follows:
1) For residential developments the fee shall be paid prior to the City's
release of the signed finallap t molars for recording with Hennepin County. The
exception is that in the case of multiple -family residential developments where
the site plan review occurs after the time of final lat approval the fee shall be
paid prior to the issuance of any buildingep rmits
shall
paid prior to issuance of anv building nermitC within the cnlvjiviainn A nrn _ral aii
portion of the fee may be deferred if the subdivider proposes to constrict
significantly less square footage than the site supports provided that any
2001004 Park Dedication
Draft Ordinance
remaining fees shall be paid if and when additional square footage is constructed
on the site in the future.
3) In plats that include outlots for future development the subdivider may
pay to the City 1) the development's proportional share for the entire subdivision
including the outlots or 2) the development's proportional share excluding such
outlots, provided that the park dedication requirement shall be satisfied when such
outlots are replatted.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Plymouth this _ day of January, 2002.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
7
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Its Mayor
Plymouth City Code 500.25 C U ic
C- (D
500.25. Dedication of Lands for Public Parks and Playgrounds. Subdivision 1.
Dedication Required. The owners or developers of lands for residential, commercial or industrial
uses or a Planned Unit Development which includes residential, commercial and industrial uses or
any combination thereof, shall be required, as a prerequisite to approval of a plat, subdivision or
development of any such lands, to convey to the City, or dedicate to the public use, for park or
playground purposes a reasonable portion of the area being platted, subdivided or developed, or, in
lieu thereof the owners or developers shall at the option of the City pay to the City, for use in the
acquisition of parks, playgrounds, public open space and storm water holding areas or ponds,
development of existing park and playground sites, public open space and storm water holding
areas or ponds, and debt retirement in connection with land previously required for such public
purposes, an equivalent amount in cash based upon the undeveloped land value of that portion of
said land that would have been required to be dedicated.
Subd. 2. Policies. The City Manager shall develop, and recommend to the Council for
adoption, policies entitled the "Dedication Policy", for determining what portion of each such
development should reasonably be required to be so conveyed or dedicated. Such policies may
take into consideration the zoning classification to be assigned to the land to be developed, the
particular use proposed for such land, amenities to be provided and factors of density and site
development as proposed by the owners or developers. The Manager shall recommend changes
and amendments from time to time to such policies and guidelines to reflect changes in the use of
land which may occur, changes in zoning classifications and concepts, and changes in planning and
development concepts that relate to the development and uses to which land may be put.
Subd. 3. Manager Recommendation. The City Manager shall recommend to the Council
the total area and location of such land to be so conveyed or dedicated for public purposes within
each development in accordance with the Dedication Policy.
Subd. 4. Manager Recommendation; Cash Contribution. In those instances where a cash
contribution is to be made by the owners or developers in lieu of a conveyance or dedication of
land for public purposes, the City Manager shall recommend to the Council the amount of cash to
be so contributed which recommendation shall be based upon the Dedication Policy and the
equivalent undeveloped land value of the area that would otherwise have been conveyed or
dedicated. In arriving at such recommendation, the City Manager shall consider the zoning
classification to be assigned to such land and may use the same measure or method of valuation
which at such time is being customarily used by buyers and sellers of land to determine value as
such value relates to the use which is proposed for such land.
Subd. 5. Relation to Zoning Code. A percentage of the land so conveyed or dedicated for
the public purposes may be used by an owner or developer as an allowance for purposes of
calculating the density requirements of the development as set out in the Zoning Code when it is
found by the Council, after receiving a report from the City Manager, to be necessary for the
completion of a portion of the Parks and Trails or Storm Sew$r Element of the Comprehensive
Plan, and shall be in addition to and not in lieu of open space requirements for Planned Unit
Developments pursuant to the Zoning Code.
Plymouth City Code 500.25, Subd. 6
C -Z 0
Subd. 6. Handling of Dedicated Cash. The City Manager shall establish a separate fund
into which all cash contributions received from owners and developers in lieu of conveyance or
dedication of land for such public purposes shall be deposited. The City Manager shall establish
separate budgeting and accounting procedures for such fund and shall recommend to the Council
from time to time appropriations from such fund for acquisition of land for such public purposes,
for developing such existing public sites or for debt retirement connection with land previouslyacquiredforsuchpublicpurposes.
Subd. 7. Planning Commission Review. Prior to the approval by the Council of any plat,
subdivision or development, any proposed conveyance or dedication of lands for such public
purposes shall be reviewed by the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission or Planning
Commission or both as the City Manager may direct, and the Commission shall make
recommendations to the Council with respect thereto. The Commission's review shall consider the
proposal for such conveyance or dedication as it relates to open space requirements of the City and
in reference to the Comprehensive Plan provisions relating to park and open space lands.
500.27. Basic Improvements Required in Developments. Subdivision 1. Policy. As soon
as practicable after approval of the proposed plat the developer shall arrange for the installation of
telephone, electrical and natural gas service and for the Installation of all of the followingimprovementswithinthesubdivision:
a) sanitary sewage disposal;
b) street grading and paving;
c) concrete curb and gutter;
d) boulevard sodding;
e) drainage;
f) water.
g) sidewalks, if required. (Ord. 95-22, 4118195)
Subd. 2. Supervision. Except for telephone, electrical and natural gas service, the
installation of the above improvements shall be under the control and supervision of the CityEngineerwhoshallspecifythemannerinwhichsuchinstallationsshallbemade.
Subd. 3. Monuments. No final plat shall be approved by the Council unless the owner or
subdivider shall have placed the installed survey monuments of a permanent character at all points
as shown on the final plat as required by the Engineer and the Hennepin County Surveyor. All
United States, state, county or other official bench marks, monuments or triangulation stations in
or adjacent to the property shall be preserved in precise position.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2001-043
APPROVING SETTING PARK DEDICATION FEES FOR 2001
WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth has a policy setting forth park dedication fees for
residential and commercial/industrial property; and
WHEREAS, the City Assessor has concluded that undeveloped residential property is
selling for approximately $70,000 per acre, and undeveloped commercial/industrial
property is approximately $145,000 per acre; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said recommendation and finds this
recommendation to be appropriate, based on the assessor's undeveloped land value
estimates,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, that the 2001 park fees shall be $2,000 per residential dwelling unit and
6,100 per acre for commercial/industrial property effective March 1, 2001.
Adopted by the City Council on January 23, 2001.
POLICY ADOPTING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING THAT
PORTION OF LAND BEING PLATTED, SUBDIVIDED OR DEVELOPED WHICH IS
TO BE CONVEYED OR DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC FOR PARK OR
PLAYGROUND PURPOSES OR WITH RESPECT TO WHICH CASE IS TO BE
CONTRIBUTED TO THE CITY IN LIEU OF SUCH CONVEYANCE OR DEDICATION,
ALL AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 500.25 OF CHAPTER V OF THE CITY CODE
Resolution No. 2001-044
January 23, 2001 (Supersedes Res. 2000-087, Feb. 15, 2000; 98-1.51, March 4, 1998; Res.
96-693, Dec. 18, 1996; Res. 96-111, Feb. 21; 1996, Res. 72-42, Jan. 17,
1972; Res. 73-145, April 6, 1973; Res. 73-243, July 2, 1973; Res. 74-51,
Jan. 21, 1974; Res. 78-292, May 15, 1978; Res. No. 78-308, May 22, 1978;
Res. No. 79-419, July 23, 1979; Res. No. 79-738, Nov. 5, 1979; Res. No.
80-344, May 19, 1980; Res. 81-198, March 16, 1981; Res. 82-44, January
15, 1982; Res. 83-84, Feb. 7, 1983; Res. 84-85, Feb. 6, 1984; Res. 85-148,
Feb. 25, 1985; Res. 86-89, Feb. 3, 1986; Res. 86-275, May 5, 1986; Res.
87-92, Feb. 2, 1987; Res. 88-69, Jan. 25, 1988; Res. 89-65, Jan. 23, 1989;
Res. 89-129, Feb. 27, 1989; Res. 90-115, Feb. 8, 1990; Res. 91-83, Jan. 28,
1991; Res. 93-64, Jan. 25, 1993; Res. 94-104, Feb. 7, 1994)
1. Purpose:
The City Council recognizes it is essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents
of Plymouth that the character and quality of the environment be considered to be of major
importance in the planning and development of the City. In this regard, the manner in
which land is developed and used is of high priority. The presentation of land for park,
playground, and public open space purposes as it relates to the use and development of land
for residential, commercial and industrial purposes is essential to the maintaining of a
healthful and desirable environment for all citizens of the City. We must not only provide
these amenities for our citizens today, we must also be mindful of our future citizens.
It is recognized by the City Council that the demand for park, playground and public open
space within a municipality is directly related to the density and intensity of development
permitted and allowed within any given area. Urban type developments mean greater
numbers of people and higher demands for park, playground and public open space. To
disregard this principle is to inevitably over -tax existing facilities and thus diminish the
quality of the environment for all.
It is the policy of Plymouth that the following standards and guidelines for the dedication
of land for park, playground and public open space purposes (or cash contributions in lieu
of such dedication) in the subdividing and developing of land within the City shall be
directly related to the density and intensity of each subdivision and development.
2. Standards for Accepting Dedication of Landfor Public Purposes:
In the consideration of accepting the dedication of land for public purposes the following
special provisions shall apply:
A. Land proposed to be dedicated for public purposes shall meet identified needs
contained in the City's Comprehensive Park and trail Corridor Plans.
B. To be eligible for park dedication credit, land dedicated to be located outside of
drainways, flood plains or ponding areas after the site has been developed.
C. In those cases where subdividers and developers of land provide significant amenities,
such as, but not limited to, swimming pools, tennis courts, handball courts, ballfield,
etc., within the development for the benefit of those residing or working therein, and
where, in the judgment of the City Manager, such amenities significantly reduce the
demands for public recreational facilities to serve the development, he may recommend
to the City Council that the amount of land to be dedicated for park, playground, or
public open space (or cash contribution in lieu of such dedication) be reduced by an
amount not to exceed seventeen percent (17%) of the amount calculated above.
D. Exceptions to those provisions shall be reviewed and recommended by the Park and
Recreation Advisory Commission.
3. Residential Dedication Requirements:
To satisfy park dedication requirements, subdividers and developers of residential land
shall be required to dedicate land to the City for park, playground, and public open space,
in accordance with one of the following three criteria, at the option of the City.
The required land dedication and/or payment of fees -in -lieu of land dedication shall be
made at the time of final subdivision approval, except in the case of multiple residential
developments where required site plan approval occurs other than at the time of final
subdivision approval; in that case the required land dedication and/or payment of fees -in -
lieu of land dedication shall be made at the time the site plan is approved and building
permits are issued.
A vacant or developed parcel shall be subject to this requirement when it is verified that
park dedication requirements have not been applied to the parcel.
A. The dedication of that amount of land required by the City for park, playground, and
public open space based upon the approved density of the development in accordance
with the graph on attached Exhibit A. The percentage derived from Exhibit A shall be
applied to the area of the site for which density is calculated.
B. A cash contribution in lieu of land dedication based upon the sum of $2,000 per
dwelling unit and not less than two dwelling units per acre. This sum represents the
City Assessors periodic estimate of the average value of undeveloped residential land in
the City of Plymouth based on the assumption that (1) such land develops at two
dwelling units per acre and (2) the developer is required to dedicate ten percent of the
land for park, playground, and public open space. The City Manager shall provide the
Council, at its first meeting in February each year, or such other times as the Council
may direct, with a report from the City Assessor indicating an estimate of the average
value of undeveloped residential land in the community and a survey of residential fees
in effective in other comparable communities.
C. When determined by the City, the developer shall be required to dedicate a portion of
the area in land with the balance to be made in fees in lieu of such dedication. In such
cases the following procedures will be used:
1) The City shall calculate the total amount of land for park area which could be
required in accordance with this policy. (Item 3.A)
2) From the total amount of land calculated in (1) above, the City shall subtract the
actual amount of land the City needs for park, playground or public open space in
the proposed development.
3) The balance of the park area otherwise required shall be calculated as a percentage
of the total park dedication obligation. This percentage shall be multiplied by the
approved project density, net area for which density is calculated and current per
dwelling unit park dedication fee to yield the total cash park dedication
requirement.
4. Industrial/Commercial Dedication Requirements:
Subdividers and developers of commercial and industrial land, including commercial and
industrial portions of Mixed Planned Unit Developments (MPUD's), shall be required at
the time the Site Plan is approved and Building Permits are issued, to dedicate to the City
for park, playground, and public open space purposes that amount of land equal to ten
percent of the land area within the development upon which the maximum building
coverage was calculated in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
A vacant or developed parcel shall be subject to this requirement when it is verified that
park dedication requirements have not been applied to the parcel.
In those cases where the City shall require payment of fees in lieu of such land dedication,
the fees shall be in an amount equal to ten percent of the Assessor's estimated undeveloped
land value for such property zoned in the classification requested by the developer; the land
used for this calculation shall be that upon which the maximum building coverage was
calculated in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. These values shall be determined
based upon the City Assessor's estimate of the average value of undeveloped commercial
and industrial land in the City. The City Manager shall provide the Council, at its first
meeting in February each year, or such other times as the Council may direct, with a report
from the City Assessor indicating his estimate of the average value of undeveloped
commercial and industrial land in the community and a survey of industrial/commercial
fees in effect in comparable communities.
In any event, the park dedication fees required shall not exceed $6,100 per acre. If the City
determines that a developer shall be required to dedicate a portion of the land proposed for
development for park or public open space purposes and such dedication does not satisfy
the requirements of this policy, the balance due the City in cash shall be based upon the
Assessor's estimated value of the undeveloped land proposed for development.
The City may permit easements to be dedicated by developers for trail corridors identified
in the City's trail Corridor Plan thereby allowing the developer to include the land area in
the determination of setbacks and building density on the site. In such cases, park
dedication credit will not be given.
5. Required Improvements:
Developers shall be responsible for making certain improvements to their developments for
park, playground, and public open space purposes:
A. To provide finished grading and ground cover for all park, playground, trail and public
open spaces within their developments as part of their development contract or site plan
approval responsibilities. No park dedication credit will be given for this work.
B. To complete construct and pave all trails not identified in the City's trail Corridor Plan
concurrently with the roads in their developments (i.e., grading with site grading and
paving with street or parking lot paving). No park dedication credit will be given for
connecting these trails to existing or proposed trails identified in the City's Trail
Corridor Plan.
C. To construct and pave all trails through and abutting their developments identified the
City's trail Corridor Plan. Such trail improvements shall be undertaken at the same time
as other public improvements are installed within the development, (i.e., grading with
site grading and paving with street or parking lot paving). The City staff may
recommend deviation from this policy in the case of individual hardship in terms of the
timing of installation of such trail facilities. The City will credit the cost of paving trails
identified in the City's Trail Corridor Plan against the development's total park
dedication requirements. The amount to be credited will be established at the time the
final plat or site plan is approved based upon prevailing engineering cost estimates for
such work as determined by the City. This work will be built according to engineering
standards a provided by the City's engineering department.
D. If sidewalks are constructed in the street right-of-way in lieu of trails within the
development, no park dedication credit will be given. A sidewalk is defined as a public
walkway constructed within the street right-of-way.
This policy is to be construed as part of and administered in conjunction with Section
500.25 of the City Code.
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
6%
ON
Park Dedication Formula
4 6 e TO 12 14 16 16 20 22 24 26
Ualre per Acre
Dwelling Units Per Acre
2 or less
2 through 12
More than 12
parks\policies\dedifom.doc
c
Land to be Dedicated (% of Total
110
10 + (actual density - 2)
20 + (112 Actual density - 6)
POLICY ON USE OF PARK DEDICATION FUND
Resolution No. 85-17
January 7, 1985 (Supersedes Res. No. 73-190, May 21, 1973; Res. 77-551, March
September 26, 1977; Res. No. 77-551, September 26, 1977; Res. No. 82-
143, March 15, 1982.)
The City Manager shall recommend to the Council from time to time appropriations from the
Park Dedication Fund" for the acquisition of land for park and playground purposes and for
development of parks and playgrounds or for debt retirement in connection therewith.
The Council also desires to establish general guidelines for the distribution of the "Park
Dedication Fund" to various types of parks.
In accordance with the foregoing, it shall be the policy of the City of Plymouth that the City
Manager operate within the following guidelines in making recommendations to the City
Council for the appropriation of "Park Dedication Funds":
1) The Manager shall establish accurate financial records for transactions with the
following two categories of the "Park Dedication Fund":
a. City parks, community playfields, trails, and special facilities.
b. Neighborhood parks.
2) Appropriations from the "Park Dedication Fund" shall normally be on an annual basis,
as part of the annual City budget, and shall be coordinated with the City Capital
Improvement Program.
3) Appropriations from the "Park Dedication Fund" shall be for the acquisition and
development of parks, and over a five-year period shall be distributed as follows:
a. City parks, community playfields, trails, and special facilities - 60 percent.
Neighborhood parks - 40 percent.
4) In the acquisition and development of parks and trails, "Park Dedication Funds" will
be combined with other funds which might be made available from the General Fund,
private donations and Federal, State and County grants.
5) At the time that a developer's "Park Dedication Fund" contribution and credit is
determined, it shall be further determined to which account the remaining cash
contribution shall be credited.
TO: Dwight Johnson, City ManagerFROM: Eric Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation v jSUBJECT: REVISION OF CASH IN LIEU OF PARK DEDICATION FEESDATE:. January 16, 2001, for Council Meeting of January 23
1. ACTION REQUESTED: In accordance with Council policy, residential andconunercial/industrial cash -in -lieu of park dedication fees are reviewed annually for anynecessaryrevisions. The per unit fees for residential property were last increased in 2000. Atthistime, I am recommending the residential fee be increased from $1,700 per unit to $2,000. I am also recommending the per acre fees for commercial/industrial land be raised from5,200 per acre to $6,100 per acre. We are also recommending that the park fee for housingunitsforaffordabletolowandmoderateincomeresidentsbefrozenwithnoincrease. Laterthisyeartheparkdedicationpolicywillbecompletelyredraftedtobringituptodatewiththenewcompplanandupdatedcitycodes. We will be looking closely at the issue of parkdedicationfeesastheyrelatetoaffordablehousing. At that time we may recommend furtherloweringthefeeoreliminatingitalltogetherforfutureaffordableunits. Keep in mind thetotalfuturerevenuefromparkdedicationfeeswillstillbetheprimaofstocompsourcefetcthemanyfuturepark, trail, and facility projects. A resolution is attached for
ry und
Council consideration.
2. BACKGROUND: The City Council's park dedication policy (Exhibit A) provides that cashcontributionsmaybemadebyresidentialandcommercial/industrial developers in lieu ofparklanddedication. The policy provides that the City Council shall annually establish thecashcontributionforresidentialandcommercial/industrial property based on the CityAssessor's periodic estimate of the average value of undeveloped land. For the purposes ofthisreview, the City Assessor normally concentrates on properties which recently have beendeveloped. Only properties which can be served by sewer and water are included in herestimate. The City appraiser has estimated that the average value of undeveloped residentiallandinPlymouthis $70,000 per acre (Exhibit B), compared with $56,000 per acre last at, ye
unit basis, assuming two units per acre, which is a 25% increase. Cash in lieu fees for residential properties are figured on a dwelling
with a dedication of 1.0% of the land, or land value, or some combination thereof. Therefore, the residential cash in lieu rate per unit is found bymultiplying $70,000 by 10% which equals $7,000. Dividing this figure by two, for thenumberofdwellingunitsperacre, yields a maximum cash in lieu of $3,500 per dwelling unittheCitymaycollect.
3. DISCUSSION: Based on the attached survey of park dedication fees from other suburban,
metropolitan communities and the financial analysis, I believe that an increase to $2,000 per
unit would be appropriate at this time.
The cash in lieu contribution for commercial/industrial property is figured similarly. This
year, the assessor estimates the average land value to be $145,000 per acre, compared with
110,000 per acre last year. This is a 31% increase. Since the park dedication maximum is
10%, the per acre charge for commercial/industrial property could be, as high as $14,500 per
acre. I am recommending that the City Council increase the park dedication fees for 2001 on
commercial/industrial property from $5,200 to $6,100 per acre. This will allow the park
dedication fees to keep pace with land costs. Attached Exhibit C shows the history of theparkdedicationfund.
4. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the City Council revise the cash -in -lieu of park
dedication fees as outlined in this memorandum. In making my recommendation for these
increases, the Council needs to bear in mind the work remaining on the completion of the
total park system. Projecting the future development of the total community over the next 15
years, we still have within the MUSA seven neighborhood parks to be acquired and/or
developed. Outside the new MUSA, we will have one additional pla}dield to be acquired and
four neighborhood parks. Other projects include a building for West Medicine Lake, the
addition of approximately 25 miles of trails and other miscellaneous expenses for land,
facilities, payments to the park dedication replacement fund, etc. The ballpark range for
completing this work is between $10 and $12 million. Our goal has been to build and
construct the entire park system without using ad valorem tax for that purpose. To date, use
have been quite successful in accomplishing that goal, and in order to continue in this
maturer, it is necessary that the fee be raised annually, so as to bring in adequate revenue to
pay the acquisition and construction of the rest of the park and trail system.
A resolution is attached for Council consideration. Following approval, staff will make the
necessary revisions in the policy for distribution. The new policy would become effective
March 1, 2001.
EB/np
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -
APPROVING SETTING PARK DEDICATION FEES FOR 2001
WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth has a policy setting forth park dedication fees for residentialandcommercial/industrial property, and
WHEREAS, the City Assessor has concluded that undeveloped residential property is selling forapproximately $70,000 per acre, and undeveloped commercial/industrial property isapproximately $145,000 per acre, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said recommendation and finds this recommendationtobeappropriate, based on the assessor's undeveloped land value estimates,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PLYMOUTH, that the 2001 park fees shall be $2,000 per residential dwelling unit and6,100 per acre for commercial/industrial property effective March 1, 2001, and further, cash
park fees on new housing units affordable to low and moderate income residents shall be frozenattheyear2000amountof $1,700 per unit.
Adopted by the City Council on
HISTORY OF THE PARK DEDICATION FUND
with sale of Zachary Park property
parks\etanleric\mise\park dedication history.doc
Exhibit C i
COMMERCIAL/
YEAR RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL REVENUE
2000 1,700/unit 5,200/acre 430,495
1999 1,600/unit 4,700/acre 1,031,134.00
includes interest)
1998 1,500/unit 4,500/acre 1,065,000
includes interest)
1997 1,400/unit 4,200/acre 726,061
includes interest)
1996 1,300/unit 4,050/acre 867,669
includes interest)
1995 1,150/unit 3,850/acre 641,232
1994 940/unit 3,750/acre 801,039
945,321)*
1993 885/unit 3,600/acre 602,771
1992 860/unit 3,500/acre 591,897
1991 860/unit 3,500/acre 375,339
1990 825/unit 3,300/acre 557,000
1989 825/unit 3,300/acre 742,000
1988 600/unit 2,850/acre 550,847
1987 575/unit 2,700/acre 554,284
1986 500/unit 2,700/acre 610,996
1985 450/unit 2,500/acre 591,981
with sale of Zachary Park property
parks\etanleric\mise\park dedication history.doc
Exhibit C i
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DATE: December 18, 2000
TO: Eric Blank, Director of Park and Recreation
FROM: Nancy Bye, City Assessor
SUBJECT: UNDEVELOPED LAND VALUES
Based on current market conditions, raw undeveloped land zoned residential is sellingforapproximately $54,000 to $100,000 per acre.
There are very few land sales of conunercial/industrial zoned, raw undeveloped
parcels. However, we have had a couple of sales this past year. The land sold from
134,000 up to $240,000 per acre.
For purposes of calculating your park dedication fees, an average for residential land is
approximately $70,000 and the commercial/industrial of approximately $145,000.
cc: Dale Hahn, Finance Director
2001 Proposed City Park Fees
11o.ucAaual Commercial/Industrial
Orono 2000) $3,150-$5,
300NC
in 10,000
Eden Prairie 2,110 23,250
Apple Valley 2000 fees) 2,000ove 24,800
Plymouth 2,000th6,100
Eagan 1,667irie6,000
5,308/$4,734
Maple Grove 2000 fees) 1,650en 206,000
Champlin 1,500ley 20valueLakeville15004,734
Chanhassen 2000 fees) 1,467 Lakeville 4,800/$3,500
Inver Grove Hts 2000 fees) 850
PARK DEDICATION SURVEY
Apple Valley (formula based on 10% of land value or cash equivalent)
953-2300).................................................................................................
2001 proposed feesResidential............................................................... $
4,000/acredividedbyunits/ac. pd. at time of bldg. permit - 2 units/ac = $2,000)........... $2,000/unitCommercial/industrial......................................................................5% of land value/acre
2. Champlin (formula based on 10% of land value)
421-2820).................................................................................................
2001 approved feesSinglefamilyresidential.................................................................................. $3 000/acreMultiplefamilyresidential............................................................................... $5 000/acreCommercial/industrial.................................................................................... $10,000/acre
3. Chanhassen
937-1900 x 121).....................................................................................................
2000 feesSinglefamilyresidential ($1,100 + $367 trail) ........................................ .......... $1,467/unit
Multiple family residential ($900 + $300 trail) ............................................. $1,200/unitCommercial/industrial ($4,500 + $1,500 trail) ......................
I......................... $6,000/acre
4. Eagan (formula based on 10% of land value or cash equivalent)
651-681-4660) .................................. 2001 proposed fees)
Single family residential ( add $168 for trails to per unit fee) ........................ 1,499/unitDuplex (add $168 for trails to per unit fee) ..................................................... 1 497/unit
Townhouse/quad (add $168 for trails to per unit fee) ...................................... 1,360/unitApartments/multiples (add $168 for trails to per unit fee) ............................... 1,368/unitCommercial (add $948 for trails to fee)........................................................... 4,360/acreIndustrial (add $948 for trails to fee)............................................................... 3,786/acre
5. Eden Prairie (formula based on 10% of land value or cash equivalent)
949-8442)...............................................................................................(
2001 approved fees) Residential........................................................................................................
2,110/unitCommercial/industrial......................................................................................
6,000/acre
6. Inver Grove Heights
651-45072587)......................................................................................................
2000 fees
Single family residential..................................................................................... 850/unit
Multiple family residential.................................................................................. 650/unit
Commercial/industrial ...................................................$175/1,000 sq. ft. gross floor area
7. Lakeville
985-4600)................................................................................................
2001 proposed fees) Residential........................................................................................................
1,500/unitCommercial......................................................................................................
4,800/acreIndustrial..........................................................................................................
3,500/acre
8. Maple Grove (formula based on 10% of land value or cash equivalent)
494-6500)....................................................................................
2000 fees
Single family residential.................................................................................. $1,650/unit
Industrial.......................................................................................................... $4,800/acre
Commercial...................................................................................................... $6,150/acre
9. Orono (formula based on 8% of land value at time of subdivision) or minimum of $3,100 per
dwelling unit up to a maximum of $5,300 per dwelling unit)
2000 fees
Single family residential...........................................................$3,150/unit to $5,300/unit
Commercial............................................................................ $7,750/acre to $13,250/acre
10. Plymouth (formula based on 10% of land value or cash equivalent)
509-5200).......................................................................................... 2000 fees
Singlefamily residential.................................................................................. $1,700/unit
Commercial/industrial...................................................................................... $5,200/acre
Plymouth pays developers to build trails)
parks\staff\eric\misc\parkdedicationsur ey.doc
CONSULTING GROUP/ INC.
Transportation • Civil • Structural • Environmental • Planning • Traffic • Landscape Architecture • Parking
SRF No. 0014210
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eric Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation
FROM: Barry Warner, FASLA, AICP
Senior Vice President
Ken Griesbaber, ASLA
Associate
DATE: December 10, 2001
RE: PROPOSED NW GREENwAY MASTER PLAN TRAIL ALIGNMENt
Enclosed are seven detailed enlargement areas and revised sections of the NW Greenway
corridor that have been generated to be included in the final master plan report and were
shared with the general public at the second open house on November 6, 2001.
The maps indicate a more detailed alignment for the proposed trail system and address
proposed trail widths and surfacing materials. The enclosed sections A — F were also
generated along selected segments of the trail system to show the relationship and context
of the proposed trail system to surrounding topography, residential housing, woodlands
and wetlands.
A draft of the proposed master plan report. as well as more detailed information about the
proposed alignment of the NW Greenway will be presented and made available for
review at the Park and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting on November 13th.
Comments from city staff and Park and Recreation Advisory Committee members will be
incorporated in to the final master plan that will be presented for approval to the Planning
Commission in January and the City Council in late January or early February 2002.
One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443
Telephone (763) 475-0010 Fax (763) 475-2429 http://www.srfconsulting.com
An Equal Opportunity Employer
A
fo.o^wrdeMewad.0
i+^
TikTian: Aforg•"''"
Edg¢ O Wetland) 1a` ••••`*'.
Crushed Limestone
Trail Located on
F
Upland Slope,o
Follow Alignment p
of interceptor
T 4'owt¢Upp¢randLoww
jr, it R wFnnn tgo.o t R<o w
Pot¢n ialMing
t:
Boardwalk . p
Farm Crazssn g Boardw,dJJi'!.
I e
Crosnng
Propi¢rty p
Res} Area
overlook::•
T o rte..:.,,.„ DUaJITraslTraadwa Maintain
A°
raA
Potential '"'----------7L0'
sTp
WBuUlerd
Tradh fSlfplo,l'
I 1ci eo'
r1a'
r'.
Elm Creek to° o'!,W de Mow¢d
Inl'eFc¢ptor il a Tnrf Tr llAlanB, .Alig n%¢}f°eai• dedg o wa anjj
iF
Spur Trail '
V
I
Connection
s' .. . to Residential
Housing
cage o[neuappl
z j:
l
FutureTrffii4fong,'`
Coun}y Road
moo
9 Cour t`Roa 4
si • • u.u. g
I 4
jr,9! tad
I MM
n
10•;0"'Wide
f a Bituminous Trail
Bituminous Trail
Alone Elm Creek
lnlerceptor t.:"' C
Q i Alignmen4. II ExistingParkr,
y1rF`yJ moi) ryR 1}
Properly
fnJ dl lQ Z l
Y
cage o[neuappl
z j:
I
f
proposed
Trail aral'¢I F '•. ' tP1 .3 ,.• Cheshire Lane Ei Oaks . Exis jn9 Access gpad ; • ...+;, Rai" wa
At Glade , •.,
AliPrun
Begin
I.
Golf CourseTrailDossing
on:juneau Lane ••.••.
z, •. Signa and Strpe) r1 y,
il
s -
rr r s ti t •• , lis
i = .., ! i` 11
VhtlanrJ, r
SAN
m.a wide
b BitumtoousTrail
v I
f
f', 10'•o wide
Crushed
Limestone
10.'.0" Wide CrushedL {
Limestone Trail Q l
Trail
P e i ; 1 !l SIIr G3AlongLakefrontit
L ak
10,,0„ Wide
f„ Bituminous Trail '• "' Rest Area'd
Overlook "V Spur Trail l
N !',":•", to Residential
Al
a?.•,`•• Housing b ,; may.•
1'
a' Ji
1
1(
Itl Sm
J
y i
y i i, YYI r 4 Lr • L
tur pn , enr R l+io Garr k, s: Rerl et aLTrad ,
PrepoiedTratl,
47,
lia Facility • '. . ' ."
Wetland' ..
4 " a
10' edO¢slone Tra
lide
Alod9 eoun[q Road 47 gLm,
11JI u d101.p+' Wide --, .
e Bituminous Trait future •' ' ".
i'••
a + ' ,
c
r" t`'
NTghborhodd `:` JJ + '
i parlt,.7" Rest Ar'ki. Cit i\
I+ •. , Overloo t
ioi o wide , '
fer'-aLWetlnnrTalge 12'.07 Wide BgyminousTrail
Boardwalk Crossing
y rnnmmomnnuunmm rmmnuii -
r
12f--o" Wide. pi Separatedi'
4i4, Bituminous Trait ' Crossing tobeDetermmedi.
When
Land',
Road Ah9FI e"t' m..
r. -: z and D,
y Plans arejlorp' e'file d ;.
Mt rr.• too • Proposed ti ' '
yChRoadwayn¢ lr Begin Oaksa.. ..e'•,•
4j +rade / , c
Ignment
c G 01fo U tTaati4}ossing • I r SC
i o!liyuneau Lane .
Wr,
RTMET Cd?F
Section A
t_
tea,--------- -----
Section B
NORTHWIS
Greenway corridor
City o/Plymouth Mtft a ota Master Plan
Section C
2G.
Iy
I
1 fin9mnwq
Section D
Section E
1
4
1
WYOry
Section F
NORTHWEST
Greenway Corridor - City of ply Owh, M/nnerota Master Plan
o-m.sss. ium u.....c.Qm
Northwest Greenway Open House Comments
from October 2
Are you a resident of Plymouth
13) Yes
1) No
Do you own land in the project study area?
14) Yes
0) No
What types of recreational activities should occur along the Northwest Greenway?
Hiking, biking and equestrian
Horseback riding, mountain bike trails/intermediate to difficult
Walking and running only!
Anything but motorized vehicles.
Walking, hiking, horseback riding, biking.
Biking, walking, roller skiing, running, cross country skiing, equestrian. No loud or
motorized vehicles (snowmobiles, four wheelers).
Nature study.
No cars — just walking paths.
Fishing docks — access to local lakes.
What facilities or activities should occur on the living farm property?
Parking, picnicking
Maintain a small prairie with native grasses. Try to preserve as much wildlife as
possible. I have seen wild turkey in that area before, would be nice if we can
maintain that, unlikely though. An area for horse jumping and recreation and an
interpretive center.
Cable, gas, sewer.
Anyone of three ideas. Maximize public use and appreciation.
Horseback riding.
Should scenic areas or wildlife habitat be preserved through land acquisition or
easements?
10) Yes
1) No
1) Maybe
Are there any specific features or amenities you feel should be preserved along the
Northwest Greenway Corridor?
I'd like to see some of the woods west of Dunkirk preserved, particularly along the
wetland. Would also like area to retain open character it has now. Don't over build.
On Egan Park, preserve horseback riding. I would like the trails or a portion of
them to be unmaintained, not paved, just rock/dirt trails.
Low traffic.
As natural and wildlife friendly as possible.
Be the least obtrusive as possible. No motorized vehicles allowed.
Gully north of Gun Club, perimeter of Elm Creek, both sides, all the way through
Plymouth.
Local traffic only!
Paths appropriate for biking — blacktop.
As much natural land/trees—environment as possible.
Additional comments or input.
Alternative alignment A-1 passes adjacent to my residence. My house was
featured in one of the photos at the open house. I hope you will work closely with
property owners. I like the idea and am not opposed to the trail passing by, but
the profiles shown at the meeting are very wide. Don't want a lot of trees cut to
add a trail. Get out and walk the land.
Alternative Alignment A-1 makes the most sense.
I think one of the best things about Plymouth is we do not buckle under pressure
from other suburbs (Maple Grove). I would like to maintain the open spaces in the
northwest corner but I do understand that progress must move forth. One thing
that I think would be unique is if there is some way to hook Begin Oaks Golf
Course to Hampton Hills. I am not a golfer.
Alternative Alignment A-1 would be preferable.
We are happy to help promote this plan and to obtain maximum buy—in from area
residents. Willing to argue on behalf of plan at public hearings. Can take planners,
city personnel on horseback rides to see area.
Plymouth's chance to be a leader in development and preservation of natural
resources.
It is hard to understand why Plymouth is so slow in developing — why are
Vicksburg, Lawndale and Peony Lane still not adequate...? How come Maple Grove
is moving so fast?
Nice of you to involve the public this early in the process.
Northwest Greenway Open House Comments
from Thursday, December 6
Are you a resident of Plymouth?
10) Yes
0) No
What do you like about the Greenway plan?
Horse path.
Access to trails.
Public recreation.
Not much. Not in favor of disturbing what is there now.
Pretty displays.
I need to think about it.
What suggestions do you have for improvements?
Do not build sports complex!
None yet — first exposure.
In section "E" it would be nice if they could put the boardwalk towards the
potential park, farther north from the property just south of the wetland.
Not interested in a trail on my property. I will not give up easily. Could you move
the trail at section "E" northwest to potential park — less trails — three less homes
affected.
The "optional route" north of Pomerleau Lake runs through the middle of our
property (our house doesn't appear on your map). We are very opposed to this
route.
Optional loop NE of potential park is not a satisfactory option. Add horse trails to
connect with wetland complex.
General comments.
Despite your words "lots of people will use it", I don't see the need. There has to
be a time when the City simply says no to all of the development. Plymouth does
not need to be the home of parks. This area will see use by people who are not
residents of Plymouth. Why do we need to provide them a place?
Nice to see such long—range vision. I appreciate it being shared with the public.
Glad to see no rest stops.
Eric Blank
From: pppc [pppc@unique-software.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 8:45 PM
To: eblank@ci.plymouth.mn.us
Subject: Northwest Greenway
16395 County Road 47
Plymouth, MN 55446
2001
Eric Blank
Park and Recreation Department
Plymouth City Hall
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Eric Blank:
Thank you for your hard work in creating the Northwest Greenway. The Northwest Greenway will help us to preserve our
vital open spaces, while it encourages us to leave our TV's and computers to step outside to meet our neighbors, face-to-
face.
The Northwest Greenway, as I perceive it, will do more to build within us a sense of community than almost any other
city -sponsored project.
Thank you for playing a vital role in giving vision and leadership to this most vital initiative
You and the City Council are building a living legacy, which will endure.
Congratulations.
Paul Wardell
Save the Open Spaces of Northwest Plymouth
Dec 13 01 04:17p Bill Parker 7635578853 p.2
Plymouth Northwest Greenway
Open House
December 6th, 2001
Please indicate if you are a resident XX or non-resident of Plymouth.
What do you like about the Greenway plan?
We found the open house on Dec. 6th to be very interesting and
informative. It appears that the planners have made a sincere
effort to preserve much of Plymouth's natural beauty while providing
easy access for Plymouth residents to enjoy the wildlife areas.
What suggestions do you have for improvements?
We noticed that there are two options being considered for the
proposed Trail A which affects our property (5735 Juneau Lane). One
option has the trail coming to the NW corner of our lot then turning
north along the edge of the woods to a planned park. A second option
has the trail continuing straight through the woods along the north
General Comments:
edge of the addresses of 5735, 5733, & 5731 Juneau Lane and
a boardwalk across the large marshy area. It is our opinion that the
first option would be more desirable because it would preserve the
entire wooded area rather than cutting a wide path through it. This
option would also protect the privacy of the existing homeowners
along that section of the trail.
Name: Bill & Kathy Parker
Address: 5735 Juneau Lane
Plymouth MN 55446
763-559-2135
PLYMOUTH CREEK CENTER BOOKINGS
JAN., 2001 - SEPTEMBER, 2001
Booking Types Special
Events
Programs
Classes*
Staff Meeting
meetings booked
by City Staff)
Non -Profit
Groups
Regular Room Rentals
not including
Accl. MN.)
TOTAL Bookings
January 2001 172 11 9 23 215
February 2001 187 5 17 20 229
March 2001 183 10 19 31 243
April 2001 149 4 20 28 201
May 2001 148 7 16 28 199
June 2001 126 1 17 34 178
July 2001 138 2 10 17 167
August 2001 140 1 19 25 185
September 2001 1 145 0 18 18 181
TOTAL 1 1,388 41 145 224 1,798
nls count rerers to actual 000King nese at the mymoum c;reeK center. 1 --or example, a Tai Chi class that meets for 6
weeks counts as 6 bookings. Each booking requires room set-up/take-down, greeting, registration, etc.
Of the special events, programs and classes, this is the breakdown for the senior programs:
ply_nt\ntdiskl\Parks\Plymouth Creek Center\ActivityCenter\PCC Bookings Jan. -July 2001.doc
Senior Programs Others TOTAL
January 2001 126 46 172'
February 2001 136 51 187
March 2001 118 65 183
April 2001 100 49 149
May 2001 101 47 148
June 2001 76 50 126
July 2001 78 60 138
August 2001 81 59 140
September 2001 104 41 145
TOTAL 920 468 1,388
ply_nt\ntdiskl\Parks\Plymouth Creek Center\ActivityCenter\PCC Bookings Jan. -July 2001.doc
November 14, 2001
Jacob Stein
2930 Pilgrim Lane
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear Jacob:
IY F
PUMOUTR
Just a short note to bring you up to date on your request for a skating rink at Sunrise Park. The
Park and Recreation Advisory Commission reviewed your request at their September meeting.
The Commission voted not to include a skating rink at Sunrise Park this year. The main reason
for this decision is Sunrise Park's close proximity to the three existing skating rinks at Plymouth
Middle School and the rink located further south at Kilmer Park.
In the last year or two, much of our department's time has been shifted to plowing streets, cul—
de—sacs, parking lots of City buildings, and plowing trails. Thus, we have less equipment and
staff available to add another skating rink to our program at this time. My staff and I will
consider your request in future years to determine whether or not we can add a rink at this
location.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Lf I can be of further assistance, please feel
free to call me at 509-5201.
Sincerely,
9 &4
Eric Blank, Director
Parks and Recreation
EB/np
cc: City Council
t,PRAC
PLYMOUTH A Beautifu[Trace To Live
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447-1482 • TELEPHONE (612) 509-5000
www.ci.plymouth.mn.us
October 24, 2001. CITU OF
H M O+
Donna Tymec
2205 Shenandoah Lane #201
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Donna:
In response to your call a few weeks ago, I've had Mark Peterson and my staff calculate the price
of a basketball pad and backstop. The estimated cost for this facility is roughly $4,000. When
considering this issue, please keep in mind our position. This site is extremely small, and it will
be difficult to find a flat area large enough to safely construct such a facility. Secondly, as I
mentioned to you before, this would be a duplication of a service that is located within a
reasonable walking distance of the neighborhood. This would require City Council approval to
be built.
If I can provide you with any other information, please feel free to give me a call at 509-5201.
Sincerely,
P-6
Eric Blank, Director
Parks and Recreation
EB/np
cc: Cl v Council
AP C
Mark Peterson
PLYMOUTH ABeautifu(Place 7o Live
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447-1482 • TELEPHONE (612) 509-5000
www.d.plymouth.mn.us
Eric Blank
From: Dana Cossette [cdana@uswest.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 9:54 PM
To: eblank@cj.plymouth.mn.us
Cc: council@ci.plymouth.mn.us
Subject: New Walking Path on Old Rockford Road
Dear Mr. Blank
Over the past year or more, I have called you frequently regarding the
status of the building of a path along Old Rockford Road, specifically the
stretch between Holly Lane and Dunkirk. Two weeks ago, we watched the
walking path go in. Our neighborhood is thrilled! I want to thank you for
your support and patience with my calls, and to the City Council and Park &
Recreation Department as a whole for the approval of this path.
Last winter, several neighborhoods surrounding Old Rockford Road sent
letters to you and the Plymouth City Council. Several individuals came to
the city council meetings and special Park & Rec meetings to discuss our
strong beliefs for the necessity of this path. I appreciate the willingness
of all of you to listen and to act prudently on our discussions. We are
moving in the right direction to improve the safety of the pedestrians along
Old Rockford Road and I have seen a lot of use on the path already!
Hopefully, as we have been told, the path will be continued farther down Old
Rockford Road next year.
Thank you for the work you do for the City of Plymouth. Your treatment of
the citizens' input make us feel that our voices are heard and
that Plymouth supports its residents.
Sincerely,
Dana Cossette
4340 Fountain Ln N
Plymouth
October 24, 2001
Mr. Boe Carlson, Trails Coordinator
Hennepin Parks
12615 Co. Rd. 9
Plymouth, MN 55441-1299
Dear Mr. Carlson,
am a resident of Plymouth who uses our extensive trail system for walking and
biking. The area 1 use most is the Luce Line extension from 1-494 east to
Medicine Lake. My purpose in writing to you is to tell you THANK YOU for all the
work Hennepin County and the City of Plymouth have put into the beautiful trails
we enjoy. They are scenic, well maintained, and I feel safe using them at all
times.
I don't think people give enough credit to the employees who maintain our trails.
Nor do they perhaps know how fortunate we are to have such fine facilities in our
community. I formerly resided in Orono, and can vouch that there were no such
parks, playgrounds, playfields or trails in that area when I lived there. I am
extremely grateful for the product your combined resources have provided.
In this day of complaints and criticisms, I am moved to write a letter of praise. I
can't think of a better community in which to live, one that clearly values our open
areas, and recognizes the value of using those areas for the benefit of its
residents. Yesterday, Tuesday, was a spectacular Fall day on the trail, and it
brought to my attention that someone needs to be thanked for the great
treasures we enjoy!
Sincerely,
Patricia Warfield
1453 Larch Lane N.
Plymouth, MN 55441
Cc: Mr. Eric Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth, MN 55441-1482