Memo Eminent Domain - RamsgateI. PURPOSE
C I T Y O F H O P K I N S
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 10, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayo and City Council
FROM: Tom Harmening, ommunity Development Director
SUBJECT: EMINENT DOMAIN - RAMSGATE TOWNHOUSE PROPERTY
On 12/3/91 the City Council requested that staff
investigate the City's use of Eminent Domain to
acquire the Ramsgate Townhouse site owned by Mark
Z. Jones, and sources of funds to finance the
acquisition. On 8/20/91 staff provided a response
to a similar request made by the City Council.
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
What follows is a brief analysis of the issues
pertaining to this matter.
A. What are the legal issues pertaining to using
Eminent Domain to acquire the subject
property?
B. What are possible sources of funds to allow
for this acquisition?
Please see the attached memo from Jerre
Miller, City Attorney, which explains the
Eminent Domain process and the legal issues .
pertaining to utilizing this tool.
o Undertake a park bond referendum.
Utilize General Fund reserves.
Currently, the balance in the General
Fund reserve is at or below what is
considered to be a desirable level.
Internally borrow from existing City
funds. In this case, the City could
then levy dollars in future year(s) from
the General Fund to pay back the
internal loan. This would result in the
general taxpayer paying for the
property. A question remains as to
whether the yearly levy would need to be
made within or outside of the City's
levy limits.
o Utilize a special assessment process.
The attached memo from Jerre Miller
discusses the use of this tool and finds
that it would not be appropriate in this
case.
Utilize gifts /private donations.
Attempt to secure a grant or grants.
Staff has not been able to obtain any
information regarding grant programs
which would provide the City with
sufficient funds to acquire the
property.
C. What are the costs associated with acquiring
the subject property through the use of
Eminent Domain?
Due to a variety of unknowns, it is very
difficult for Staff to estimate the legal,
administrative, and land costs which the City
may experience relating to the acquisition of
the property.
To determine the value of the land,
appraisals are completed. A court appointed
body reviews these appraisals and makes a
determination of the appropriate value.
According to the City's relocation
consultant, the values recently determined
for other Eminent Domain proceedings in
Hennepin County many times significantly
exceeded the appraised values for the
properties. The City Assessor has roughly
estimated the value of the land alone at
$90,000. The Minnehaha Oaks Association
appraiser valued the land at approximately
$125,000. It is staff's understanding that
at one time during the discussions on this
matter the developer placed the value of the
land at over $300,000.
The expense the City would experience
relating to legal and other administrative
services would be dependent on how strongly
the landowner fights the Eminent Domain
process. If the process goes very smoothly
and without appeals, the City's legal and
administrative cost would be relatively
minimal. However, if the landowner
aggressively fights the process, the City's
legal and administrative costs become much
greater. As outlined in the attached memo
from Jerre Miller, City Attorney, the City's
legal and administrative costs to undertake a
contested Eminent Domain proceeding could run
as high as $50,000. It should be noted that
the City may also be responsible for Mr.
Jones attorney fees if we are not successful
in using the Eminent Domain process.
D. What are examples of other situations in
Hopkins which may be affected by the City's
acquisition of the subject site?
There is one example which is similar in
nature to the question regarding the
acquisition of the subject site In this
case it has been mentioned by the Park Valley
neighborhood that it is interested in having
the Minneapolis Floral site (16 acres)
acquired by the City and converted into a
park area in order to avoid development of
the site into residential dwellings.
The City Council may wish to consider the
implications of the Ramsgate acquisition as
related to this issue.
E. What were the Park Board's comments on the
proposed acquisition?
The Park Board reviewed this matter during
their June and August, 1991 meetings. As
noted in the attached minutes, the Park Board
initially declined to provide a
recommendation on the issue as the subject
property was not identified as a high
priority area requiring park facilities.
However, in August the Park Board did take
action to recommend that the property be
preserved in its current state but that no
Park Board funds be used for the purchase.
F. What is the status of the zoning applications
made by Mark Z. Jones?
III. ALTERNATIVES
Mark Z. Jones made application in January,
1991 for a conditional use permit,
preliminary plat approval, and comprehensive
plan amendment for the proposed project.
After discussion and completion of an EAW on
the project, the City Council determined on
August 20th to not pursue the purchase of the
subject property and subsequently approved
the conditional use permit, preliminary plat,
and comprehensive plan amendment Attached
are copies of the minutes from the August 20,
1991 meeting.
On November 4, 1991 Mark Z. Jones made
application for approval of the final plat.
The Planning Commission reviewed and
recommended approval of the final plat during
it's meeting on November 26. The final plat,
and required landscaping plan, were submitted
to the City Council for it's consideration on
December 3rd.
According to the City's Subdivision
Ordinance, the City Council is required to
act on the final plat within 90 days from the
date on which the Planning Commission
reviewed the final plat. This would require
the City Council to act on the final plat by
February 23, 1992.
What follows are various alternatives for the City
Council's consideration:
A. Approve or disapprove the final plat and
landscaping plan as submitted by Mark Z.
Jones.
B. The City Council could determine that the
purchase of the property is in the City's
best interest and undertake the following
steps:
o Authorize staff to obtain an appraisal
of the subject property, undertake
negotiations with the owner, and prepare
for possible future use a resolution
authorizing the commencement of an
Eminent Domain procedure.
o Define the funding source wqhich should
be used to allow for this acquisition.
Attachments:
TH12101B
Continue action on the final plat and
landscaping plan.
If negotiations with Mark. Z. Jones were
unsuccessful, the City Council could then
consider undertaking formal Eminent Domain
proceedings. This would involve adopting a
resolution which identifies the public
purpose of the acquisition and authorizes the
commencement of the various steps necessary
to acquire the property by Eminent Domain.
C. Continue action on the final plat and
landscaping plan for further information.
D. Adopt a resolution which identifies the
public purpose of the acquisition and
authorizes the commencement of the various
steps necessary to acquire the property by
Eminent Domain. This action should be
subject to the last three steps outlined in
alternative B.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council desires to proceed with the
acquisition of the property, staff would recommend
that the City Council utilize alternative B.
o Memo from City Attorney regarding Eminent Domain
process and use of Special Assessment procedure.
o Minutes of Park Board and City Council meetings
Petition from Minnehaha Oaks Association and concerned
Hopkins residents
Date: December 12, 1991
To: Tom Harmening
From: Jerre Miller
Re: Hiawatha Condemnation
G I T Y O F H O P K I N S
MEMO
You have asked that I review in further detail legal aspects
of an eminent domain proceeding initiated by the City to
acquire 1.3 acres of land owned by Mark Z. Jones which is now
before the Council for approval of final plat and landscape
plan.
My previous memorandum on this subject was submitted to you
on August 13, 1991 and outlined the basic ingredients of
condemnation and the statutory authority for it as well as a
brief description of condemnation procedures.
As I indicated in that memo, the law limits the exercise of
condemnation only for a public use or purpose. The term
"public use or purpose" is not specifically defined and is
interpreted by the Courts according to the facts that arise
in each particular condemnation case.
I have reviewed additional cases and legal commentary on this
subject which I will briefly expose you to.
a. The landowners attorney has cited the case of Freeborn
County vs. Bryson, 243 N.W.2d, 316 (1976) as support
for their insistence the City can rely on a public
purpose to acquire the buffer. In that case, Freeborn
County sought to condemn a farmer's land to construct a
county highway through a natural wildlife marsh which
the Court found was apart of a larger drainage area
several miles long consisting of marshes, streams and
potholes extending to Freeborn Lake which contained
numerous waterfowl, gamebirds and the like. The farmer
enjoined the County under the Environmental Rights Act
from condemning the property and the Supreme Court
agreed that the County's right was subordinate to the
pristine nature of the marsh. The case has an
interesting and environmentally based definition of a
swamp.
1010 First Street South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 612/935-8474
An Equal Opportunity Employer
The facts in this case do not square with the facts we
are confronted with in the Jones matter. The only
thing I think you can gleen from this case is the
Court's concern over the impairment of a marsh land.
b. Private property can be condemned only where it can be
made to subserve some public use and the burden of
proof is on the shoulders of the City although it is
clear that private gain cannot be favored over the
public good. Short Co. v. Minneapolis, 269 N.W.2d
331. This particular case cited many cases and
commented extensively on finding the public purpose
test was met by Minneapolis in erecting a parking ramp
to induce a private developer to build an adjoining
hotel and trademark in a tax increment financing
scheme. The lower court held no public purpose was
involved which was reversed by the Supreme Court.
While recognizing a city may expend public money only
for a public purpose how that purpose is defined is not
capable of precise definition but includes whatever is
of benefit to any considerable portion of the public as
regards health, material, prosperity or other welfare.
The Court recognized "public purpose" to be an elusive
concept which Courts interpret broadly in conformance
with changing conditions of modern life recognizing
that the present tendency is to extend rather than
restrict the conception of what constitutes public use.
c. If the general public has a right to use some thing,
the use is public even though the number who may
require its use be small in comparison to the community
at large. A Court has ruled it is not essential that
the entire community participate in an improvement to
make it a public use and it is immaterial there may be
an incidental private use or benefit. Kendrick v. St.
Paul, 6 N.W.2d 449 (1942). This interesting case grew
out of a condemnation by St. Paul of certain property
for street purposes in which a small triangular residue
remained of the property acquired through the
condemnation. A private citizen made a fenced rock
garden out of it and the Court concluded the City had
not abandoned the property so as to revert to private
usage but remained as a small park for community
benefit. Visina vs. Freeman, 86 N.W.2d 635.
d. The guiding principle to bear in mind is that private
property cannot be taken for private use nor can it be
taken for an incidental public use either directly or
indirectly. The only exception to this axiom involves
development districts and TIF projects which ultimately
benefit a private source. HRA vs. Greenman, 96 N.W.2d
673.
e. Once the public purpose issue has been settled, the
remaining major issue is determination of just
compensation for the property condemned. In HRA vs.
Greenman, 96 N.W.2d 673 (1959), the Court determined
the amount of the taking was to be calculated at the
time of the taking which occurred when the owner is
divested of title. The State Constitution in Article
10 prescribes public funds can only be expended for
public purposes and it must benefit the community as a
whole. If the language of the Constitution is given
weight, payment for acquisition must come from the
general fund. There is no provision for assessment of
acquisition through eminent domain within the
assessment provisions of M. S. 429 or 435. Although
the Supreme Court has stated "extraneous factors such
as the mode of financing have no bearing on the issue
of public purpose ", these cases involve condemnation in
economic development and tax increment funding.
Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority vs.
Printy, 351 N.W.2d 319. That Court said while
extraneous factors such as financing don't bear on the
purpose issue, proper focus is whether the expenditure
itself will benefit the community as a whole.
1. Payment By Special Assessment. An issue has been
raised by the Minnehaha Association concerning payment of the
acquisition by special assessment against the homeowners. As
stated, there is no provision to pay for an acquisition
through a special assessment proceeding. Payment for an
acquisition is sufficiently secured if the amount is made a
charge on the public treasury of a municipal subdivision.
Hennepin County vs. Mikulay, 194 N.W.2d 259 (1972). As a
practical matter, designation of payment by a special
assessment to a handful of property owners who seek to retain
a buffer area would emphasize rather than diminish the
private purpose over the public purpose issue.
2. Estimated Costs. It is difficult to estimate total
expenditures in an acquisition. In this instance, I have
heard market values from $125,000.00 to $325,000.00. Fair
market value is done by appraisal of the highest and best use
of the property. In a contested case, appraisal costs and
attorney fees could approximate $25,000.00 to $50,000.00
depending on the nature of the contest, length of proceedings
and number of appeals. Because the measure of damages is the
fair and reasonable market value of the land based on the use
it could or best be adapted for, the owner may show the
highest and best use to which the property may be adapted
regardless of whether it presently is so utilized. In the
event the condemnation is defeated or abandoned, the City is
obliged to pay the costs and attorney fees incurred by the
landowner as well as its own.
My final observation concerning payment of the
condemnation award from the general fund is to emphasize the
public purpose of the taking as a benefit to the community as
a whole in order to diminish the argument that a private
purpose has superseded the public good.
3. Conclusion.
a. Unless the Court would find a public purpose for the
property to be acquired usable in some fashion by the
community as a whole as opposed to a tiny segment of
the population, I maintain my doubt that a petition to
condemn would approved.
b. I roughly estimate acquisition costs in their entirety
to approximate $350,000.00 to $400,000.00.
c. I do not believe a special assessment upon Minnehaha
Oaks for acquisitio4 costs is either legally allowable
or wise. i
Date: December 12, 1991
To: Tom Harmening
From: Jerre Miller
Re: Hiawatha
Attorney Bates relies on
not on point with the H
right to zone.
C I T Y O F H O P K I N S
Since the preparation of my memorandum, I have received one
from Attorney Brian Bates representing the Minnehaha Oaks
residents. The Houghton case cited in his Brief was heard in
1920 and involved a builder whose application for a building
permit to erect a three story apartment building was denied
by Minneapolis on the basis of a resolution designating a
city block to be designated as a restricted residential
district prohibiting the proposed construction. The builder
challenged the constitutionality of the statute allowing the
City to impose the restriction (this is analogous to today's
zoning districts). The statute gave the City eminent domain
power. The issue before the Court was the constitutionality
of the eminent domain provision within the statute. The
question was whether a public purpose was served in limiting
or restricting the development of property to a particular
class within a segment of the City devoted to resdiential
purposes.
The Court affirmed the City's action and in doing so
commented extensively on describing public purposes such as
streets, parks, boulevards, rights of way, libraries and
museums. The trust of the caseis whether a property owner's
use of his property can be restricted legally by City action
without the obligation to pay the owner forlimiting his use.
MEMO
urt's dicta, but the case is
a matter, rather it affirms a
1010 First Street South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 612/935 -8474
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Date: August 13, 1991
To: Jim Kerrigan
From: Jerre Miller
Re: Hiawatha
CITY OF HOPKINS
MEMO
You have asked for a memorandum concerning the factors
relevant to a resolution by the Council to take the Jones -
Hiawatha property by eminent domain.
Chapter 9 of the City Charter empowers the City to acquire
property by eminent domain "for any public use convenience
or purpose". The proceeding is initiated by a resolution to
proceed in taking the parcel following a determination that
the taking is necessary and in fulfillment of public useage.
Minnesota Statute Section 465.01 grants all cities the right
of eminent domain "for any purpose for which it is authorized
by law to take".
Minnesota Statute Section 117.011 require all bodies, public
or private who have eminent domain rights to exercise them in
the manner prescribed within this statute in spite of a
different procedure outlined in the charter of a city.
An opinion of the Attorney General (1947) has stated for a
village to acquire a piece of land as an addition to a park
by condemnation it is necessary for the village council first
to determine the public need and necessity before acquiring
the property. In an opinion the Attorney General stated the
City of Rochester was not entitled to condemn property which
was to be used for a private purpose (1945). A taking for
park purposes meets the public purpose and necessity
requirement.
Whether a City has been given the power to take private
property for the purposes it has expressed for the taking and
whether that purpose meets a public purpose are questions
that would be determined by the Court. State v. District
1010 First Street South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 612/935-8474
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Court Fourth Judicial District, (1916) 158 N.W. 240. In
other words, the Court must determine if contested whether
the City has the right to condemn certain property. Once the
right has been adjudged in favor of the City, the only
remaining issue is the amount of compensation to be paid.
I have found no cases relating to eminent domain proceedings
to preserve small tracts of "urban forest areas ".
In furtherance of the public purpose issue, if private
property is taken for a use that isn't public, the Court will
prevent an abuse of discretion where the owners'
constitutional rights are threatened thereby. Authority v.
Groppoli, 202 N.W.2d 371 (1972). If the purpose for which .
the private property was sought to be taken- cannot be
accomplished, the taking is unauthorized. The burden of
proving a public purpose is on the petitioner. Minnesota
Canal & Power Co. v. Fall Lake Boom Co., (1914) 148 N.W.
561. HRA v. Schapiro, (1973) 210 N.W.2d 211.
The term "public use" isn't defined by the State Constitution
and its application is expansive because of new needs created
by a growing civilization. For this reason, the term "public
purpose" is flexible and is not limited to concepts of public
use or purpose that were traditionally adhered to in the
past. For that reason, a public use includes whatever is of
benefit to any considerable portion of the public concerning
its health, material prosperity or other welfare. Even
aesthetic considerations may have weight in determining a
public use. HRA v. Greenman, (1959) 96 N.W.2d 673.
The action is commenced by a petition on interested parties
assuming the Court pursuant to a hearing and evidence
submitted grants the petition. The Court will order
appointment of three disinterested commissioners and two
alternates to determine the value of the property to be
taken. The commissioners then inspect the property and take
testimony from interested parties and finally determine an
award which is filed with the Court which normally takes 90
days.
Thereafter, within 40 days from the filing of the report,
either party may appeal to the District Court. An appellant
may be entitled to a jury trial.
After the jury trial has been concluded and an award made,
either party may appeal to the Appellate Court. It is
difficult to - predict the amount of time expended because it
depends on the complexity of the issues and how far either
party carries the battle. Major expenses would include
attorney fees, filing fees and appraisal fees in addition to
the amount of the award itself.
When a condemnation proceeding once commenced is dismissed by
the Petitioner such dismissal depending on the time frame in
which is occurs may allow the owner to recover reasonable
costs, expenses and attorney fees as provided in Minnesota
Statute 117.195.
If more information is desired concerning condemnation then
is contained in this brief outline, please let me know.
JAM
August 20, 1991
Page 3
C iT �av�C. ( M GALA 1 t5
�
as
b. CONSIDER ACTION SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE TO
AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW CHURCHES IN
INDUSTRIAL ZONE
Staff recommended that the second reading for Ordinance No.
91 -682 to allow churches in the 1 -2 district by conditional
use permit be denied. If the rezoning of the subject site
is approved, Ordinance No 91 -682 which would allow churches
in the 1 -2 district will not be needed.
Councilmember Anderson moved and Councilmember Shirley
seconded the motion to deny Ordinance No. 91 -682.
A poll of the vote was as follows: Councilmember Anderson,
Aye; Councilmember Shirley, Aye; Councilmember Kritzler,
Aye; Councilmember Redepenning, Aye; Mayor Berg, Aye. The
motion carried unanimously.
c. DISCUSSION OF CONDEMNATION PROCEDURES TO OBTAIN
PROPERTY
Tom Harmening gave a brief report on the necessary
procedures to acquire the Ramsgate townhouse site with the
use of eminent domain. He also said that the Park Board had
stated that they would like to see the property purchased
but not with money already designated for the Parks from the
referendum.
Larry McNeff submitted a check to the City of Hopkins for
$10,000 to begin the eminent domain proceedings. He
explained to the Council that the group is in the process of
fund raising to purchase the property. He also submitted an
additional 400 signatures to add to their petition.
Joey Carlson suggested that the group could help the City in
finding funds to purchase the property. Mr. Carlson also
passed around an arrowhead that was found on his property.
He said that perhaps the area is an Indian Burial Ground.
Mr. McNeff said he shudders over rain predictions because
they have had flooding problems. These problems have
occurred before and after Ramsgate was built.
Archie Carter, Engineer on the project for the Association
passed out a report with flood information. He felt that
cutting of the trees would increase the danger of flooding
in the area.
August 20, 1991
Page 4
Neil Heikkila, Attorney for the Association, stated that the
real problem seems to be money. He asked the Council to give
the group time to raise the funds. He also requested that
the Council establish an Urban Forest Program and Committee.
Christopher Hayhoe, Attorney for Mr. Jones, stated that Mr.
Jones project is attractive and an appropriate buffer
between the high rise apartments and the single family
homes. He also stated that Mr. Jones is not expecting a
windfall from the property as the property is not for sale.
Mr. Hayhoe said that the delays have been costly for Mr.
Jones and he would like to see the Council reach a decision
in favor of Mr. Jones.
Mayor Berg stated that a Forest Committee would be a good
idea and that he would have staff look into it at a later
date. He is not convinced that the entire City would benefit
from the acquisition of the property and that at the present
time the City can not bear the additional expense of eminent
domain proceedings.
Mr. Redepenning was very sorry over the situation but he
also felt that the project was too costly when it would not
benefit the entire population of Hopkins. Councilmember
Kritzler stated that he agreed with Councilmember
Redepenning.
Councilmember Anderson moved to begin eminent domain
proceedings and enter into negotiations for purchasing the
property. Councilmember Kritzler seconded the motion.
During discussion Mayor Berg once again stated that he
opposed the eminent domain proceedings and that the City
could not afford the expense.
A poll of the vote was as follows: Councilmember Anderson,
Aye Councilmember Shirley, Nay; Councilmember Kritzler,
Aye; Councilmember Redepenning, Nay; Mayor Berg, Nay. The
motion did not carry.
d. CONSIDER ACTION.- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RAMSGATE
TOWNHOMES
Staff recommended the following motion: Move to adopt
Resolution No. 91 -07 approving the conditional use permit to
construct 12 townhomes on the corner of Hiawatha and
Cambridge.
Arlene Dixon, representing Mark Jones, appeared before
Council to show plans for the townhomes.
August 20, 1991
Page 5
Mayor Berg asked that the landscaping plan should show which
trees would be designated for saving. He also stated that
every tree which shows that it will be saved must be saved.
He also stated that Mr. Jones must minimize the loss of the
trees and improve the landscaping with subsequent approval
of the landscaping by the Council.
Lisa Benson of 409 Hiawatha said that her property is in the
flood plain and that her property has flooded. If her
property should flood again she wanted to know who she
should call for help.
Mr. McNeff and Mr. Carter are opposed to the ponding that is
planned to address the flooding problem.
Councilmember Shirley moved and Councilmember Redepenning
seconded the motion to have staff look at remedies to
alleviate the run off from the Ramsgate Apartments to
Cambridge as a separate item.
A poll of the vote was as follows: Councilmember Anderson,
Aye, Councilmember Shirley, Aye; Councilmember Kritzler,
Aye; Councilmember Redepenning, Aye; Mayor Berg, Aye. The
motion carried unanimously.
Once again Mr. Heikkila asked Council to minimize the loss
of trees and consider the impact on the existing trees when
construction begins He requested that the Council delay
action on the granting of the CUP.
Councilmember Redepenning moved and Mayor Berg seconded the
motion to adopt Resolution loo. 91 -7 approving the
Conditional Use Permit with 15 conditions.
The additional or amended conditions being:
7. That the parking area be allowed to be used by the
townhomes for overflow parking with a designated 12 spaces
for the townhomes in the outlot.
8. That the developer is responsible for the maintenance
of the ponding area, and such maintenance responsibilities
as determined by the City shall be recorded on the storm
sewer easement, or on a document recorded with the County
against the subject property.
13. That the staff review the landscape plan with the
developer to determine possible ways the plan can be
improved through the retention of existing trees, including
protection measures, and the replanting of new trees.
g.
August 20, 2992
Page 6
14. If the developer receives federal assistance for the
project, the requirements of section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36FR800 must be met by
the Developer.
15. That no grading and removal of trees occur until the
City Council approves the landscape plan and the proper
permits are secured.
A poll of the vote was as follows: Councilmember Anderson,
Aye; Councilmember Shirley, Aye; Councilmember Kritzler,
Aye; Councilmember Redepenning, Aye; Mayor Berg, Aye. The
motion carried unanimously.
e. CONSIDER ACTION - PRELIMINARY PLAT - RAMSGATE SECOND
ADDITION
Staff recommended approval of the following motion: Move to
approve Resolution No 91 -8 approving the preliminary plat
for Ramsgate second addition.
Councilmember Kritzler moved and Councilmember Anderson
seconded the motion to adopt Resolution No. 91 -8.
A poll of the vote was as follows: Councilmember Anderson,
Aye; Councilmember Shirley, Aye; Councilmember Kritzler,
Aye; Councilmember Redepenning, Aye; Mayor Berg, Aye. The
motion carried unanimously.
f. CONSIDER ACTION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
RAMSGATE TOWNHOMES
Staff recommended approval of the following motion Move to
approve Resolution No. 91 -9 approving a change in the
comprehensive plan from high density multiple family to
medium density multiple family.
Councilmember Redepenning moved and Councilmember Kritzler
seconded the motion to approve Resolution No. 91 -9.
A poll of the vote was as follows: Councilmember Anderson,
Aye; Councilmember Shirley, Aye; Councilmember Kritzler,
Aye; Councilmember Redepenning, Aye; Mayor Berg, Aye. The
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ACTION - RAMSGATE SANITARY SEWER
Staff recommended adoption of the following motion: Move
that Council adopt Resolution No. 91 -42 accepting
preliminary report and ordering sanity sewer improvements at
Ramsgate Apartments.
August 20, 1991
Page 7
This action will continue a sanitary sewer improvement
project at the Ramsgate Apartment site. Plans and
specifications would be developed for Council approval.
After discussion Councilmember Shirley moved and
Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion to adopt
Resolution No 91 -42.
A poll of the vote was as follows: Councilmember Anderson,
Aye; Councilmember Shirley, Aye; Councilmember Kritzler,
Aye; Councilmember Redepenning, Aye; Mayor Berg, Aye. The
motion carried unanimously.
V. NEW BUSINESS
a. DISCUSSION - GROCERY STORE PROJECT
Staff recommended adoption of the following motion:
Authorize staff to study feasibility and implications of
various design alternatives for project site between 6th and
8th Avenue north of Mainstreet.
Under this action, staff would look at alternatives
including a reduction in the size of the project to reduce
penetration into the residential area.
Mayor Berg gave a synopsis of the previous meeting on August
14, 1991. He proposed a committee consisting of three
representatives of the neighborhood group and two
representatives from the Business Council to work with City
staff. He suggested at some time in the future that the
group meet with the homeowners who might lose their homes
and go over the process and communicate with them what would
take place should this happen.
Karen Legenhausen asked the Council why they were considered
new business when this item had been on the agenda before
She requested that the next time the group meets with
Council that they be placed earlier on the agenda.. She also
presented the Mayor with 62 new signatures bring the total
at this time to 1043. She thanked,the Mayor and Council for
the cooperation they had received.
Park Board Minutes
June 26, 1991
Page 2
B. HIAWATHA PROPERTY (Discussion)
D. McAnnany updated the board on a request he had from
property owners next to a proposed development off of
Hiawatha Avenue. Discussion followed regarding this 103 X
600 strip of land adjacent to the Ramsgate Apartments.
Residents were requesting assistance from the Park Board to
help them keep this strip of land in its natural state and
prevent development by the owner. After review of this
neighborhood request, the board determined that it did'not
require Park Board action in as much as this area was not
identified by the pity as a high priority area requiring
park facilities. The Park Board further concluded trtat
although saving trees is a strong concern of the city,
saving trees on this property did not require Park board
action.
G. MINUTES OF THE MAY 20, 1991 MEETING
V. NEXT MEETING
VI. ADJOURNMENT
D. THANK YOU TO OUTGOING MEMBERS
ATTEST:
J. Hutchison moved and M. Taubr seconded a motion to approve
the minutes of the May 20, 1991 meeting, on the vot D.
McAnnany, C. Smith, M. Taubr, B. Schumacher and J. Hutchison
voted yes. The minutes were approved. -
D. McAnnany thanked John Hutchison, Marcia- Taubr and Christy
Smith for their years of service on the Park Board and for
the guidance they have given him to continue on the board
with three new members.
The next regular meeting of the Park Board is scheduled for
Monday, July 15, 1991 at 7:00 p.m.
G. Smith moved and B. Schumacher seconded .a motion to
adjourn. On the vote; Hutchison, Smith, Taubr, Schumacher
and MoAnnany voted yes. The motion was approved. The
meeting adjourned at 8:20 p . m.
Darrel McAnnany, hair
pers
B. HIAWATHA PROPERTY
CITY OF HOPKINS PARK BOARD
MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 19, 1991
HOPKINS CITY HALL
The regular meeting of the Hopkins Park Board was held on August 19,
1991 in the Council Chambers at Hopkins City Hall.
I. Chairperson Darrel McAnnany called the meeting to order at 7:02
p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present were Park Board members; Darrel McAnnany, -Bill
Schumacher, Paul Ahles, Benjamin Cohen and Council Liai on; Chuck
'<ritzier. Absent was Member Tom Schmidt. Also present wer
staff members Lee Gustafson, Dick Wilson and Ray Vogtman.
III. MINUTES OF THE JULY 15, 1991 MEETING
B. Schumacher moved and B. Cohen seconded a motion to approve the
minutes of the July 15, 1991 meeting, on the vote D. McAnnany, B.
Schumacher, P. Ahles, and B. Cohen voted yes. The minut 0 were
approved.
V. BUSINESS
A. PARK BOARD APPRECIATION LETTERS -
Letters were sent to Marina Taubr, John Hutchison, and
Christy Smith recognizing and thanking them for their
contributions while serving on the Park Board.
L. Gustafson gave a history and update on the Hiawatha
property, and why the Park Board was asked to review this
request. Attachments were reviewed re: eminent domain etc.
L. Gustafson asked the board to take action on items 1-4 on
letter dated 8/14/91 from L. Gustafson to all Park BOard
members.
Testimony from residents re: the Hiawatha issue.
1) Larry McNeff from 413 Hiawatha, represents :the
Minnehaha Oaks Association, gave petition holding
approximately 800 signatures against the removal of
these trees, previously had another, 400. Indicated
that they may be helpful as a funding mechanism to
purchase this site. Grant application may be forth
coming. Has copies from area senators St
representatives to support the purchase.
Park Board Minutes
August 19, 1991
Page 2
McAnnany questioned the Park board's jurisdiction ov r
this matt r as no park ordinance or park identifying
category that fits the Hiawatha parcel. "
Joey Carlson of 435 Hiawatha & V.P. of Minnehaha Oa ks
Assocation, questioned why Hopkins doesn't hav . an
urban forest ordinance. Identified the problems with
new little trees, vs protecting "virgin" spaces.
Archie Carter of 225 West Park toad, - submitted maps of
state forests (56 forests) , showing the int r St in
preserving forests etc. Also a 1957 map of Hopkins
showing the contours of the Hiawatha site prior to
original Ramsgate development.
Discussion followed. R. Vogtman advised the Park Board
that it does have jurisdiction in this matter as the
Board reviews and recommends forestry budget to
council. Also other communities do have tree
preservation ordinances tinder Park Board jurisdiction.
Board has many concerns i.e.. favoring saving the trees,
but not necessarily question #1 concerning public n d.
P. Ahles moved and B. Cohen seconded a motion that the
Park Board recommend to Council that the property be
preserved in current state providing that no park board
funds be used in the purchase. On the vote; D.
McAnnany, B. Schumacher, P. Ahles, and B. Cohen voted
yes. The motion was approved.
D. McAnnany requested staff to develop the Park Boards
role in the entire area of forestry responsibilities.
C. RECREATION UPDATE
D. Wilson was present and reviewed briefly the current
activity report. He provided an overview of the proposed
budget for' 1992 which will provide a recreation program
based on fees, which exceed cost whenever possible. Hopkins
and Minnetonka will share net profits of the programs 1/3 -
2/3 basis. Historically park Board only dealt with outdoor
functions in parks. Would like the Board to be more
involved with indoor programming /features.
D. Wilson in response to a request from D. MoAnnany
clarified the Minnetonka fee structure explaining that non -
residents pay higher user fees vs school district users. So
Minnetonka and Hopkins residents are the only users now to
get resident rates.
D. Wilson in response to questions regarding the umbrellas
stated that administration of the distribution is difficult
however it is very well received by users.
•
TO: Mayor of Hopkins and the Hopkins City Council
FROM Minnehaha Oaks Association and Concerned Hopkins Residents
DATE: November 26, 1991
PETITION TO ACQUIRE,_ PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN HOPKINS OAK FOREST AREA
WHEREAS, a forested plat of approximately 1.5 acres (I.D. #19-117 -
21210001) bordering Hiawatha Avenue currently contains more than 75
mature Oak Trees; and,
WHEREAS, the undersigned believe said forested plat represents a
valuable community resource which deserves to be preserved as an urban
forest; and,
WHEREAS, the existence of such presently undeveloped forested plat
is of benefit to the Hopkins Community as not only a forest preserve but
as part of a natural water shed drainage and absorption area; and,
WHEREAS, the present owner of said forested plat plans to convey
said forested plat into a townhouse development, which plans have
received certain approvals from the City of Hopkins; and,
WHEREAS, the undersigned believe that such proposed development of
the area is of substantial detriment to the Hopkins Community, as well as
of direct detriment to the undersigned homeowners and others who have
e benefited, directly and indirectly, from the preservation of the forest
s a buffer from other multiple dwelling development; as a water shed
absorption and drainage area and as an aesthetically beneficial area; and
WHEREAS, the undersigned believe that such proposed development will
have a significant, adverse economic impact (in addition to the
substantial, adverse environmental impact) on the property of the
undersigned; and,
WHEREAS, the undersigned desire that the City of Hopkins use its
best efforts, including its powers of eminent domain, to acquire the
above referenced forested area for its fair market value; and,
WHEREAS, the undersigned are willing, and hereby document their
willingness, to be assessed their proportionate share of the cost of
acquisition and maintenance of the plat, with the assessment to be paid
on an installment basis, with usual, customary interest with real estate
taxes over a period of years, as is done with other community projects
which are assessed back to parties benefitting from such projects; and,
WHEREAS, the undersigned execute this petition for purposes of
requesting the City of Hopkins to take all such action as may be
available to the City of Hopkins to acquire the property before this
valuable, irreplaceable natural resource has been forever lost through
the proposed development, the undersigned being of the belief that the
preservation serves a good and valid public purpose as well as . being of
• irect benefit to the undersigned.
DATE NAME ADDRESS
at