Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 07-01-1997 SpecialJoint Meeting of the Plymouth City Council and Planning Commission SPECIAL MEETING TO REVIEW RESULTS OF MAY 14 PUBLIC FORUM ON NORTHWEST PLYMOUTH PLANNING Tuesday, July 1, 1997, 7:00 p.m. Public Safety Training Room AGENDA 1. Introductions (5 minutes) 2. Background (5-10 minutes) ' overview of planning required in 1997 & 1998 background on May 14 public forum on Northwest Plymouth planning purpose and desired outcomes of tonight's meeting 3. Discussion of Survey Results (15-20 minutes) review answers to key questions at May 14 meeting discussion 4. The Decision -Making Process (30-40 minutes) review draft criteria for evaluation of alternative plans what are the most important factors to be considered? 5. Public Participation (10 minutes) identify key participants in the planning process previous planning processes—what has worked well; what hasn't worked and should not be tried again? 5. Next Steps (5 minutes) roles of Planning Commission and Council upcoming activities 6. Adjourn (approximately 9:15 - 9:30 p.m.) DATE: June 20, 1997 TO: Mayor and City Council Members Planning Commission Members cc: Dwight Johnson, City Manager Department Directors FROM: Anne Hur b rt, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Summary Report, May 14 Northwest Plymouth Planning Forum Attached for your review is the summary report of the May 14, 1997 Public Forum on planning for Northwest Plymouth. We will be discussing this report at the Tuesday, July 1 Special Meeting. We will be mailing an agenda and some additional materials for that meeting next week, but thought that you would like to have some additional time to review this report. We will be mailing the report to our complete northwest Plymouth mailing list sometime next week. I've also attached a draft copy of the cover letter that will accompany the report. Please give me a call at 509-5401 if you have any questions or comments about these materials. i Summary Report May 14,1997 Northwest Plymouth Planning Public Comment Forum Introduction On May 14, 1997, the City of Plymouth held a public forum at the Holiday Inn Northwest in Plymouth. The purpose of the meeting was to begin discussing the future of northwest Plymouth with residents and landowners in advance of beginning to develop a comprehensive plan for the area. Planning for the future of northwest Plymouth has been a top priority of the Plymouth City Council for the last couple of years. In July of last year, many residents attended a meeting to begin discussion on the planning process. At that time, we discussed decisions that were to be made by the Metropolitan Council that would affect Plymouth's options for planning the northwest area. Since then, the Metropolitan Council decided that they will build a new regional sewer, knownas the Elm Creek Interceptor, through Plymouth and that all of Plymouth could be urbanized by the year 2020. Now it is Plymouth's turn to update its plan and to decide whether or not the northwestern part of the City will develop, and if so, where, how and when. Letters of invitation were sent to all property owners of record in the area of Plymouth outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). A total of 243 invitations were sent, including 179 to resident landowners and 26 to other landowners who live outside of the area. The additional 38 invitations were sent to others who have expressed interest in the planning process and asked to be included on the City's mailing list. The forum was also publicized in the monthly Plymouth News, mailed to all Plymouth households and businesses, and by a press release in the Plymouth Sun Sailor newspaper. Interactive Survey The format of the meeting was an interactive, electronic survey, facilitated by Steve Moss and Sonia Cairns of Marecek and Cairns. Each participant used a hand-held keypad to anonymously answer a series of questions. The answers to the questions were instantaneously tabulated and discussed. The questions fell into several general categories: Demographic questions: whether participants live or own land in the area; amount of land owned; which part of the area they live in (see the attached map); how long they have lived there, and their age. Baseline" questions: questions designed to determine how familiar participants are with the concept of the MUSA line and whether they believe the City is getting enough information on the opinions of northwest Plymouth residents regarding development. These questions were asked at the beginning of the meeting, and then again at the end, to see if familiarity or opinions on these topics had changed as a result of the presentation and discussion that evening. Survey questions: to elicit opinions and feelings about topics including whether there should be development in northwest Plymouth; what are the concerns, and potential advantages and disadvantages if development is allowed; whether landowners have plans to sell their property and why; environmental concerns; and what they like best about the area. Many of the survey questions were instantly cross -tabulated with the answers to each of the demographic questions. Evaluation questions: how the participants rated the value of the public comment forum, and whether or not they felt their voice was heard. Forum Attendance Attendance at the forum was open to all Plymouth residents and landowners, but most of the people in attendance both live and own land in the northwest Plymouth area (78% of the 111 participants who answered that question.) The next largest group (12%) own land in the area but do not live there, and the remainder (10%) neither live nor own property there. We do not have an exact count of the number of participants in the forum, but we do know that as many as 132 persons answered any one of the questions. Participants were not required to answer every question; but on the average 119 participants answered each question. In addition to the participants, attendees included City Council and city staff members. With any survey, one must be cautious about making generalizations and assumptions based on a samples of opinions of only some of the interested residents and landowners. Participants were self-selected", including only those who were willing and able to attend. At the time of the 1990 census, approximately 600 of Plymouth's 50,889 people lived in approximately 200 households in the census blocks covering the northwest area. The adult population was about 440 people. Numbers are approximate because Census tracts do not exactly match the MUSA line map.) A total of 87 participants responded that they live in the northwest area; so we can estimate that the sample" of people attending the May 14 forum might represent about 20% of the adult population of the northwest area. This would be a reasonable rate of return had the City chosen to do a mailed survey instead of the interactive meeting. When the demographics of the participants are compared to those of the entire City, the participants tend to be older than residents of the City as a whole (based on 1990 census data.) When divided into the four subareas of the northwest area, the 83 individuals who own land and live in the area who attended the forum and answered that question, seem to be fairly well distributed throughout the area. Each area was well represented, based on the relative population and land area of each of the four zones. 2 Survey Data Analysis and Trends Summary by Maracek and Cairns The remainder of this report is a summary of the survey responses and trends identified from the survey data. This information was prepared by Marecek and Cairns, the facilitators of the forum. The Survey Data Analysis section summarizes the participant's answers to the survey questions, and identifies the most significant information gleaned from the cross -tabulations by the demographic questions. (The detailed data with tabulations of the answers to every question with cross -tabulation of all demographic factors is available for review in the Community Development Department office.) The Trends Summary contains the facilitators' comments based on their analysis of the data and discussion at the forum. Their comments and observations will generate additional discussion at the planning process moves forward. Survey Data Summary Demographic Questions 78% of respondents said they live and own land in the NW area 12% own but don't live there 10% neither own land nor live there (residents of other Plymouth regions) 100% of owners with 5 acres or less and between 5-10 acres said they live in the area; 18% of those owning 10-20 acres did not live there, and 30% of those owning 20 acres or more did not live in the area.] Of the Zones, respondents E. of Vicksburg (Zone 1) were the most likely to say they own land but do not live in the area.] 32% owned 20 acres or more 30% own five acres or less 23% own between 5-10 acres 16% own between 10-20 acres Respondents indicated that acreage is slightly bigger East of Vicksburg (Zone 1) than W. of Vicksburg. (Zone 2)] Acreage split across all length of residency subgroups; however, 52% of those living there more than 25 years said 20 acres or more, and 45% of those living there 5 years or less said 5 acres or less.] 62% of respondents over 65 own 20 acres or more.] Those that live in the area were splitfairly evenly in the amount of land they own; those that own but don't live there all said they own over 10 acres — in fact, 75% own 20 acres or more.] 38% lived W. of Vicksburg (Zone 2) 30% live E. of Vicksburg (Zone 1) 19% live W. of Lawndale / N. of Hwy. 55 9% don't live or own land in the area 4% live S. of Hwy. 55 Respondents from E. Vicksburg (Zone 1) tended to own more acres than those from W. Vicksburg.] A plurality of all length of residency groups said W. Vicksburg (Zone 2), except those living there between 16-25 years, who said E. Vicksburg (Zone 1) — though W. Vicksburg was second.] 69% of those who own land but don't live in the area said their land was in E. Vicksburg (Zone 1); answers were split for those who live in the area and own.] 37% lived in the area between 6-15 years 27% between 16-25 years 23% over 25 years 13% 5 years or less Respondents living there longer were not more likely to own more land than those living there a shorter period of time.] 86% of respondents over 65 said they'd lived in the area for more than 25 years.] 29% were between 36-45 years old 29% were between 46-55 years old 19% between 56-65 12% over 65 9% between 26-35 2% 25 or less 20 acres or more subgroup was most diversified in terms of age.] Not surprising that the longer the respondent had lived in the area, the more likely the respondent was in the older age groups.] Baseline Questions 48% were very familiar or familiar with concept of MUSA line and Met Council decision to allow NW Plymouth inside the MUSA at beginning of meeting; 52% were slightly familiar or not at all familiar. At end of meeting 74% were familiar or very familiar with these items; 26% were slightly familiar or not at all familiar. AF Those with more acres tended to have more familiarity with MUSA and the Met Council's actions in the beginning of the meeting. At end of meeting numbers were very similar for all subgroups. At the beginning of the meeting, 78% said City has not been receiving adequate information on the opinions of NW Plymouth residents regarding development. At the end of the meeting, this number increased to 83%. Clear message here is that residents do NOT think it is now time for the Council to plan and then announce actions; residents said they wanted to be much more involved.] AF 20 acres or more group were slightly more likely to say City Council has been receiving adequate information — though still overwhelmingly saying no — at the beginning of the meeting. At end of meeting, definite trend: those with fewer acres tend to be more certain Council has not received adequate information. At the beginning of the meeting, all area subgroups believed the Council is not receiving adequate information, though, interestingly, respondents from the subgroup not living in the area were more likely to say the Council was getting this information. At the end of the meeting, this was not the case, but there was a significant tension between residents of E. Vicksburg (Zone 1) 68% of whom said the Council wasn't getting the right info) and W. Vicksburg, (where 96% said they weren't). N All age subgroups overwhelmingly said before and after the meeting the City has not received adequate information, except for the 56-65 group, in which only a slight majority 52-53% said they had not. This was the most pro -development age group in this demographic. AV At the beginning of the meeting, respondents who live in the area and own were significantly more likely to say the Council has not received adequate information; at the end of the meeting, respondents from the neither live or own land there subgroup also agreed strongly with this sentiment. 4 Survey Questions 55% bought current property primarily as a home; 21 % as an investment; 15% as a farm. AF Large lots were much more likely to be bought as an investment; smaller lots as a home. AV E. Vicksburg (Zone 1) respondents were slightly more likely than W. Vicksburg respondents to say they purchased their property as an investment (though a plurality of 42% said home). AF Home was most significant reason respondents bought propertyfor every length of residency subgroup. However, 16-25 year group was far more likely to say home (70%) than other subgroups and less likely to say farm (4%). 30% of those living there over 25 years saidfarm. AV Middle age subgroups (46-55; 56-65) were more likely to say they bought their home as an investment than the other subgroups, although, overall, home received the most responses. AV Not surprisingly, there was a major tension between those who live in the area now who overwhelmingly bought their property as a home or farm, and those who don't live in the area or own land, or who overwhelmingly bought the property as an investment. 60% said open spaces is the thing they like best about living in NW Plymouth; 18% said convenient location; 15% said rural lifestyle. In second voting, large majority said rural lifestyle. AF Large lots were more likely to say convenient location; smaller lots open spaces and rural lifestyle. [Possible interpretation based on people's different expectations: With 10 or more acres, rural lifestyle, open spaces are more a given. What's important is that they can be had without being too far out. ] AF W. of Vicksburg respondents were slightly more likely to say open spaces, rural lifestyle than respondents from E. Vicksburg (Zone 1) — again, those with bigger lots may see this as a given. AF Length of residency had no impact 'on what respondents like about area: all groups said primarily open spaces and rural lifestyle. 54% said taxes and assessments is the item they are most concerned about in relation to living in NW Plymouth. 16% said loss of farmland. In second voting, loss of farmland received the most responses. AV Taxes and assessments were a strong majorityfor every acreage subgroup but 10-20 acres, where taxes and assessments tied with loss offarmland as a plurality. AF E. Vicksburg (Zone 1) respondents were slightly more likely to say taxes and assessments than W. Vicksburg (Zone 2, , and much more likely than W. Lawndale (Zone 3), though taxes and assessments was a plurality in all group but respondents not living in the area. AF Length ofresidency has little impact on what most concerns respondents: all groups say strongly that taxes and assessments are ofgreater concern; 2nd is loss offarmland for all subgroups except 16-25 years, who said transportation / traffic- AV All age subgroups were most concerned about taxes and assessments; loss offarmland strong secondfor all subgroups but 46-55 & 56-65, where it was among many. 56% said they are concerned with both taxes and assessments, not one over the other. AF The lower the acreage, the more likely respondents were to say that both taxes and assessments concerned them — i.e., one was not more problematic than the other; 10-20 acres subgroup was the only one that indicated assessments were more of concern than taxes, although the majority still said both were of concern. AV 5 years or less subgroup was slightly more likely to differentiate the impact of taxes and assessments, indicating they are more concerned about taxes. Other length of residency subgroups all overwhelmingly said Both. 48% said they expect to be in the same house they're in now in ten years; 24% in a different, single-family home, and 13% in a townhouse/duplex/triplex/fourplex. AF 10-20 acres and 20 and more acres subgroups were significantly more likely to say they will be living in a different home ten years from now than other subgroups. AF Only 29% of E. Vicksburg (Zone 1) respondents expected to be in the same house in ten years; a majority or high plurality of all other area subgroups said they will be in their same homes. AF 16-25 years and more than 25 years were only slightly more likely than other subgroups to say they expect to be in a different home in ten years. AF As age increases, respondents were more likely to be in a different home, except for over 65 group, 60% of whom said they'll be in the same home as today. Major tension between those living in northwest Plymouth and those not: 57% of those living there expected to be in the same house in 10 years; only 18% of those not living there said the same thing. 84% said if additional housing was added to their neighborhood, they would prefer it be single-family homes. AF 20 and more acres subgroup was slightly more likely to say they would prefer a mix of housing types than other subgroups. AF All groups but respondents not living in area strongly prefer single-family homes; those not living there responded equally for single-family homes and a mix of housing types. 73% said they are having no problems with their septic tanks. 50% said the natural environment in Plymouth as a whole has declined significantly in the past ten years many made the suggestion this was a direct result of development). 28% said it had declined somewhat. AF /.Five acres or less and between 5-10 acres subgroups were significantly more likely to say natural environment has declined significantly; 20 or more acres subgroup was much more split on this question than other subgroups. AF A majority of all area subgroups said declined or declined significantly, but E. Vicksburg (Zone 1) respondents were significantly more likely to say the environment has improved. AF 90% of 6-15 year subgroup said declined or declined significantly, slightly higher than other subgroups. 90% of 26-35 age subgroup said natural environment has declined significantly; slightly higher than other age groups. AF 85% of those who live in the area said the environment had declined or declined significantly; only 8% of those owning land but not living in the area said the same thing — 42% said the environment had improved significantly and another 16% that it had improved. 39% said loss of open spaces is greatest threat to the environment; 27% said other. AF Five or fewer acres and 5-10 acres were much more likely than other subgroups to say loss of open spaces is greatest threat; 10-20 acres and 20 or more acres subgroups more likely to say Other. AV Open spaces was primary choice of those living in the area and owning, as well as respondents who neither live in the area or own property there. 0% of those owning land in the area but not living there said open spaces. 70% said Other. 33% said they do not expect to sell their property; 21% said they will sell within next five years; 19% don't know; 17% said it's likely they will sell, but at no specified time. They are not as likely to identify a particular time if they're not selling immediately. Strong split throughout acreage, two trends stand out: 1) larger acreages were more likely to sell within 5 years; 2) smaller were acreages slightly more likely to say they do not plan to sell. E. Vicksburg (Zone 1) respondents were slightly more likely to plan to sell titan W. Vicksburg Zone 2) and W. Lawndale (Zone 3); 32% of W. Lawndale respondents are uncertain if they will sell. AF Longer-term residents were more likely to say they will sell than shorter -term residents. However, 42% of respondents from 5 years or less subgroup said they were uncertain at this time, and 45% of respondents from 25 years or more subgroup said they do not plan to sell. 32% of those between 16-25 years of residency said they plan to sell within the next 5 years. AV 26-35 & 56-65 age subgroups were more likely to sell than other groups; over 65 subgroup was polarized: 36% will sell within 5 years; 43% do not plan to sell. AV 55% of those owning land in the area but not living there said they expect to sell within the nextfive years. 40% of those living in the area and owning land said they do no plan to sell, but this subgroup was more split. 36% said primary reason to sell is to move away from development; 30% said to maximize profit on my investment. As acreage increases, respondents were much more likely to say maximize profit on development; as acreage decreases, respondents were much more likely to say move away from development. Corresponds exactly to reasons for purchasing home. AV Same area trends hold: W. Vicksburg/W. Lawndale (Zones 2/3) respondents were more likely to want to move away from development; E. Vicksburg (Zone 1) to maximize profit on their investment. N Respondents from 5 years or less subgroup and 6-15 years subgroup were more likely to say they would sell to move away from development than longer-term respondents. Reinforces theme regarding what they moved therefor. N Younger age subgroups were far more likely to say they are moving away from development than older subgroups; older groups more likely to say maximize my investment. N Not surprising breakdowns by land ownership: 82% of those owning land in the area but not living there said they would sell to maximize their investment; those living there and owning land were more split, but 40% said the primary reason to sell would be to move away from development. 46% said there are no significant advantages to them if the area develops; 41% said most significant advantage will be financial gains from selling/developing land. AF Huge split here again defined much by acreage: 5 acres or less and 5-10 acres were much more likely to see no significant advantages to development; larger acreages were more likely to see significant benefit offinancial gains from selling land (though 10-20 acres subgroup more likely than 20 or more to say they will get financial gain from development). AF E. Vicksburg (Zone 1) respondents were very different from respondents from other area subgroups: 62% would benefit from selling, only 23% would said they would see no benefits if the area developed. Percentages are slightly less divided but opposite for each of the other groups. AV All length of residence groups were polarized between those believing they could maximize their investment and those who saw no advantages if the area develops. Same trend as before as well: longer-term residents were more likely to say they would benefit financially. AV Younger age subgroups were more likely to say there are no significant benefits to development. Only 26% of the 56-65 age subgroup agreed. AF 49% of those living and owning land in the area said there would be no significant advantage to them if the area develops; 75% of those owning land in the area but not living there said financial gains from selling. 46% said if the area develops, the most significant advantage to the City is the increased tax base; 30% said there would be no significant advantages to the City. AV Smaller acreages were slightly more likely to say the City would see no significant benefit — only 6% of 10-20 acres subgroup said this. AV All length ofresidency subgroups were polarized between increased tax base and no significant benefits. AF 13% of 56-65 age subgroup said there would be no advantages to the City; 47% of over 65 subgroup said there would be no advantages to the City. 28% said the biggest disadvantage to them if the area develops would be increased assessments; 21% said there would be no significant disadvantages; 21 % said it would be increased traffic and crowding. As acreage increases, respondents were much more likely to say there would be no significant disadvantages to them if the area develops (51 % of 20 or more acres subgroup said this). Increased assessments was significant to each subgroup; increased traffic and crowding to each subgroup but 20 or more acres. AW E. Vicksburg (Zone 1) respondents were much more likely than other subgroups to say there would be no significant disadvantages to them if the area develops; all subgroups were concerned with increased assessments, W. Vicksburg (Zone 2) respondents were concerned even more with increased crowding. AV Two interesting differences among length of residency subgroups: 1) 0% of 16-25 year subgroup said there would be no significant disadvantages to them if the area develops — very different from each of the other subgroups; 2) increased traffic / crowding was very important to each of the subgroups but 25 years or more, in which 0% said it. Also, 25 or more subgroup was much more likely to say there would be no significant disadvantages to them. AV 36-45 age subgroup was least likely (6%) to say there would be no significant disadvantages to them. AF Respondents living and owning land in the area were split primarily between increased assessments and traffic and crowding. 91% of those not living in the area said there would be no significant disadvantages if the area were to develop. 32% said City would have no significant disadvantages if the area develops; 21 % said cost of new services. AF A significant majority of respondents from 10-20 and 20 or more acres subgroups saw no significant disadvantage to City if area develops. Other groups saw many disadvantages. AV No significant disadvantage was pluralityfor both E. Vicksburg (Zone 1) / W. Vicksburg (Zone 2); damage to the environment was pluralityfor W. Lawndale (Zone3). AF Older age subgroups were more likely to say there would be no significant disadvantages to the City. , 62% said if the area does not develop, it would not be a loss to the City. Huge disagreement here based on acreage. 94% offive acres or less subgroup say not developing would not be a loss; only 31 % of 20 or more acres subgroup agreed. Middle subgroups about the same (63-64% said not developing will not be a loss to the City). AF E. Vicksburg (Zone 1) and respondents not living or owning in the City said not developing would be a loss to the City; other subgroups disagree. 46% of respondents from 5 years or less subgroup said if the area did not develop it would be a loss to the city; 44% of respondents from 25 or more said the same thing. On the other end, 69% of those between 6-15 years said no development would not be a loss to the City. AF 46-55 & 56-65 age subgroups significantly less likely to say not developing would not be a loss to the City. A slight majority of 56-65 respondents (52°yo) said it would be a loss. AV 65% of those living in the area said not developing would not be a loss to the City; 91 % of those owning land in the area but not living there said it would. A slight majority of those neither living in the area nor owning land there agreed it would be a loss to the City. 44% said they are more concerned about changes in lifestyle and neighborhood character than increased assessments if area develops; 35% said they are more concerned about increased assessments; 20% said neither consistent with foundation of pro -development opinion). AV Similar trends from above: smaller acreages were more concerned about lifestyle character changes, should development occur, larger acreages were much more likely to say neither — 20 or more acres was subgroup most likely to say increased assessments. JF Lifestyle%haracter change of more concern to all subgroups but E. Vicksburg (Zone 1), a plurality of which said neither this change nor taxes and assessment are of concern. IF The longer the residency, the more likely the respondent said increased assessments were of more concern than a change in neighborhood character. AF Younger age subgroups were much more likely to say lifestyle / character change, older subgroups increased assessments. AV 52% of those living in the area said they were more concerned about changes in lifestyle and neighborhood character; 37% were more concerned about increased assessments. Not surprisingly, 82% of those owning land but not living in the area said neither were of concern. 39% said area should not be developed; 34% said it should be developed; 27% said it should be developed on a limited basis. AV Split by acreage: 64% of 5 acres or less subgroup said the area should not be developed; 48% of 5-10 acres subgroup said it should not be developed, but 36% said it should be, on a limited basis; while 59% of 10-20 acres subgroup said it should be developed, and 58% of 20 or more acres subgroup said it should be developed. AF W. Lawndale (Zone 3) was most against development; W. Vicksburg (Zone 2) and S of Hwy. 55 (Zone 4) were split but against, respondents not living or owning in northwest Plymouth were split, though a plurality said development on a limited basis, E. Vicksburg (Zone 1) was split but for development. AV Between 6-15 year respondents were most unified: a plurality (40%) was against but close second (38%) was to develop on a limited bases). 42% of the more than 25 years subgroup said it should be developed, 46% said it should not be developed. All groups were split overall. AV Each group split, though 26-35 & 36-45 were more against, over 65 subgroup was fairly evenly split between all three; and 46-55 and 56-55 subgroups were slightly in favor of development. 43% of those living and owning land in the area said it should not be developed, though a plurality of 57% said it should be developed or developed on a limited basis. 83% of those owning land but not living in the area said it should be developed (the others said it should be developed on a limited basis). 57% of those neither owning land nor living in the area said it should be developed on a limited basis; an additional 28% said it should be developed.. If development were to occur, 33% said the development should be primarily residential, single-family homes. 35% said it should not be developed at all; only 15% said development should be a mix of residential and commercial. N "No development" responses came primarily from 5 acres or less subgroup (6301o) and 5-10 acres subgroup (39%). Single-family homes was the dominant type of development preference in each subgroup. AF Patterns were the same as above for area breakdowns. AV 58% of 5 years or less subgroup said no development at all (compare with previous question, where 53% said develop or develop on a limited bases). More than 25 years subgroup was most open to residential and commercial development, though 43% said no development at all. AF 64% or those owning land but not living in the area said preferred development would be a mix of housing types. If development were to occur, 34% said it should occur first in Zone 1; 30% said it should not occur at all; 15% said it should occur in any Zone but mine. AV Larger acreages were more likely to say Zone 1. Other sub groups were more likely to say no development should occur. Given this difference, they had to pick growth starting somewhere. AF Zone 1 (E. Vicksburg) was a majority/pluralityfor Zone 1 and respondents not living or owning in the area. Respondents from Zone 2(W. Vicksburg) and Zone 3(W. Lawndale) said no development should occur, but chose Zone I or their own Zone among development choices. 71 % of respondents not living or owning in the area said Zone 1. AF Same percentages in length of residency subgroups against development as above. Zone 1 was clear choice overall, through 29% of between 16-25 year subgroup said any zone but mine. AV Zone 1 received significant response from all age subgroups; 47% of 36-45 age group said development should not begin anywhere, highest among age subgroups. AF Zone I was a plurality among each subgroup of land ownership: 67% of those who neither live nor own land in the area said Zone ],as did 33% of those living in the area (although 28% did say development should not begin anywhere). 85% said it is very important to have an ongoing dialogue on these issues. AF 20 acres or more subgroup was slightly less likely to say it's important to have an ongoing discussion on these issues. AF Again, most pro -development subgroup (E. Vicksburg/Zone 1) was slightly less likely to say it's important to have an ongoing dialogue on these issues. AV Between 6-15 year subgroup was slightly more likely to say an ongoing dialogue is necessary. Could be seen as the most anti -development subgroup. AV Younger age subgroups were slightly more likely to say ongoing dialogue is very important than older subgroups. AF 50% of those owning land but not living in the area said it was not important to have a continuing dialogue on the issues; 91% of those living in the area said it was very important. 58% said they do not have access to the Internet AV The older respondents were, the less likely they were to have access to the Internet. 48% said sending regular notices to property owners of proposed actions is the best way to continue the dialogue as planning proceeds; 45% said the best way is to hold continuing meetings. AF Smaller acreages preferred holding meetings to regular notices; larger acreages more strongly preferred notices to meetings. AF Most pro -development area (E. Vicksburg) was more likely to say regular notices. Other subgroups were split, although 86% of those not living or owning in the area said additional meetings. AF 5 years or less subgroup and over 25 years subgroup would preferred notices. Other two groups preferred meeting (but not by much). AF There was an equal split among those living and owning land in the area between holding more meetings and sending notices; 86% of those owning land but not living in the area said sending notices. Interestingly, 83% of those neither owning land nor living in the area said continuing meetings. Shows their interest in keeping informed of these developments. 59% said they were not in favor of building the sewer. AV Same tension for acreage: 10-20 acres subgroup felt most positively about the sewer. AV Same patterns regarding areas. AF All length of residency were against sewer, though the longer the residency, the more divided respondents were. AF All age subgroups except 56-65 were against sewer; younger groups strongly so. AF 62% of those living in the area said No; 80% of those owning land but not living in the area said yes; 67% of those neither living in the area nor owning land said yes. Evaluation Questions 45% said the forum was good; 21 % said average; 19% said excellent. JF Interestingly, the most positive comments came from the two most polarized groups: 5 acres or less and 20 or more. Middle acreages were more likely to say forum was average. W. ofLawndale (Zone 3), most anti -development group, was most critical of value of the forum; other subgroups were reasonably positive. N 5 year or less subgroup more likely to say forum was good or excellent. Over 25 years subgroup was more likely to say it was average or below average. JF Nearly 50% of 36-45 age subgroup saidforum was average, below average or poor; other subgroups were significantly more positive. 10 36% were uncertain their voice was heard at the meeting; 34% agreed that their voice was heard; 22% disagreed or strongly disagreed; 9% strongly agreed. AV 10-20 acres subgroup, most critical of the meeting, also was more likely to agree their voices were heard during the forum. Overall, smaller acreages were slightly less certain their voices were heard. AV All groups but E. Vicksburg (Zone 1) had uncertain as plurality or majority. 65% of E. Vicksburg respondents either agree or strongly agree their voice was heard, significantly higher than other groups. AF 55% of 36-45 age group said uncertain. AV 60% of respondents who neither own land in the area nor live there said uncertain; all other groups match overall response. Trends Summary People living or owning land East of Vicksburg (Zone 1) are more likely to favor development. They have bigger lots, more ability to benefit financially. People who own land but don't live in the area are 100% in favor of some type of development. Those living there are more split but generally against (they also would benefit the least, or at least that's what they think). Respondents owning more acres of land are more likely to be for development than smaller acreage subgroups. A key finding here is that owners of smaller acreage take much more seriously how their land allows them the open spaces they covet. For those with larger lots, open spaces is more of a given, and they place greater value on convenience to shopping and jobs. Additionally, if they sell, they are not likely to be in the area afterwards. Broken down by length of residency, subgroups are split. But interestingly, respondents who have lived in the area for a shorter time are not significantly more likely to be against development than longer-term residents. This isn't a case of newer residents coming in and expecting others to do things their way. Each group is heavily divided. If development is addressed in terms of being in favor of construction of the Elm Creek Interceptor Sewer, there is a solid majority who is against it. If, however, we look at the key question — "In considering development in general, which of these do you prefer over the next 20 years?" — you have a solid core of approximately 20% who are for development, you have 30-40% who are against, and the rest who are likely for it on a limited basis. My sense is that this remaining 40-50% are the ones who believe development is coming regardless of what they do, and they would like to at least have input in the "howl" and "wheres." Those against development tend to be: residents W. of Vicksburg or W. of Lawndale (Zones 2 or 3) ; owners of smaller lots of land; younger: in the 26-35 & 36-45 age groups. Those for development tend to be: owners of large lots of land; owners of land who do not live in the area; residents or land owners in Zone 1 (E. of Vicksburg.) Younger age groups and shorter -term respondents were far more concerned about how development will affect the character of the neighborhood than older and longer-term resident respondents. This reflects: 1) the mood among the younger groups regarding why they live in the area (for open spaces and to be away from development); and 2) the reality that a larger percentage of older group respondents plan to move away or to a different neighborhood. For those against development who intend to sell their land — particularly those with smaller lots, shorter -term residents, younger age subgroups — the primary reason is to move away from development. This is perhaps unsurprising but clearly points out a negative not well covered during the discussion of what negative impacts development may have on the city: loss of younger residents. Respondents were not as concerned with ramifications of development on City — they did not see the question as valuable. They seemed to think it was a way of the City deflecting impact on them. Those against development were more likely to see the meeting as not going their way and are more interested in generating continuing dialogue. Those for development are not nearly as interested in continuing the dialogue. Given the reasonably positive messages regarding the meeting from the survey itself and comments afterward, it's most likely the strong sentiment at the end of the meeting that the City Council has not received adequate information was a very strong way of saying residents do not believe this process is finished. In some cases, they see this as the beginning, and that the City has a responsibility to get back to them with preliminary recommendations and the ramifications of those recommendations. 12 Northwest Plymouth Public Comment Forum In What 1 -- 2 -- 3 -- Part of the Area Do East of Vicksburg West of Vicksburg West of Lamdale You Own Land? 4- South of Highway 55 0.5 0 N W+ E S 0.5 Wes Updates as of June 27,1997 in BOLD MAJOR ISSUES LIST Item Comment First or Next Offcial Action 1 Hans Hagen Development Neighborhood meeting was held June 3rd. Hagen has extended review deadline to Sept. 19th. July or later 2 Gramercy Park New site plan received showing smaller building footprint, and August to PC more preservation of Vee and wetland buffers. 3 Cellular antennas -Plymouth Middle School New application made for 132' antenna on commercial property to east. July 8 to PC US West to co -locate on this tower, if approved. 4 Rottlund Development -Senior Housing New plan received with no single family homes. Plan submitted has insufficient parking. Senior Citizen complex still planned. 5 Town and Country-reguiding LA -2 vs. LA -3 Hearing postponed by applicant. July 22 to PC? Traffic Study underway for alternative site access points. 6 Shenandoah Apartment Complex Original proposal of 105 units re -designed to 64 units. July 8 at PC August 6th 7 Shenandoah Townhomes Financing Request Ordinance creating Housing Area passed June 18th. 45 day Study session on protest period started. Study session established. July 29th 8 LifeTime Fitness/Plymouth ice Arena Both indoor pools open at LifeTime. Second ice sheet scheduled Study session on for July 5th. Study Session established. July 29th 9 Activity Center Council approved RFP for architects on June 18th. Both School Approve architect District 281 and 284 expressed interest in a Family Resource Center in August 10 New High School/Peony Bridge Project Bridge to be complete July 1, road and utilities by August 1 Asphalt road base is now completed. 11 Harbor Lane Street Reconstruction Bids received and under budget Contract awarded May 28th Construction to begin after July 4th. 12 Ridgemount Street Reconstruction Contract awarded June 18th. Construction began June 25th. 13 Vicksburg Street Reconstruction Project approved 6/4. Plans approved June 18. Receiving bids next Bids July 23 meeting 14 Zachary Lane Reconstruction Consultant selected June 18. Preliminary design and neighborhood meetings later in summer. 15 Cimmaron East Street Reconstruction Plans approved 5/28, assessment hearing and award next Bids received and are under estimate. Asmt hearing July 9 16 Flood Relief -City efforts Work in Hendrum was completed successfully last weekend with four city workers and four pieces of equipment. 17 Parkers Lake industrial park-Lavander Loading docks being redesigned by applicant. No dates set yet. 18 Ameddata Final agreements signed by all parties. Council approved May 28 Done 19 Parkers Lake Commercial Site Letter received from Mpls. Commercial buyer has withdrawn. Continued to August Mpis. to consider approving a residential buyer by late July. 12th PC meeting 20 New Moen Leuer project -36th Avenue Passed PC on May 13th. Interim use permit to stockpile dirt requested. Done Project approved June 4th. 21 Can -Do Zoning Violation Report made to Council May 28th. Owner states he is evicting Can -Do effective June 30th. July? 22 Zoning Ordinance Updates Workshop with PC planned for early August Early August to PC 23 Elim Homes Still working on plans and EAW, no dates for meetings known yet 24 Plymouth Ponds (Moen-Leuer) follow-up issues PC recommended denial of new plan for outdoor trash containers Postponed to Landscaping, NURP pond issues updated in same staff report July 9 meeting 25 US West -cellular tower at Co.Rd 9/Fembrook US West seeking to go on to an NSP tower instead of residential area. No formal application yet 26 Water shortage Usage has been a reasonable 13-15 million gallons/day last two weeks. Was 24 mgpd. 27 US West PCS tower at 15th & Xenium US West wishes to place a new 75' tower on their own property 7 rather than on nearby City water tower. 28 County Communciations Antenna -Workhouse County proposes a 330 foot tower at workhouse to replace existing antenna. Would have daytime "strobe" lights. An EAW is 29 automatically required. Does not meet current zoning ordinance. 30