HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 03-21-2006 Special 2Agenda
City of Plymouth
Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Agenda
1. Call to Order—Mayor Johnson
2. Review Information Requested at March 9, 2006 City Council/
Planning Commission Workshop
a. Status of Natural Resource Inventory
b. Land Use Designations for Golf Courses
c. Rural -to -Urban Transition Concept
3. Discuss Alternative Land Use Concepts and Land Use
Planning Factors
4. Public Questions/ Comments
5. Adjourn
ITAiWAi I
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DATE: March 16, 2006
TO: Plymouth CityCouncil
FROM: Anne Hurlburc Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Status of Natural Resources Inventory
At the March 9, 2006 City Council/ Planning Commission work session on land use planning for
Northwest Plymouth, Council members asked about the status of the Natural Resources
Inventory (NRI) and how it would be used in preparing draft land use plans for the Northwest
Areas.
The NRI will provide valuable information that will help us prepare alternative land use plans,
including:
identifying significant natural features that should be preserved,
evaluating site suitability for particular land uses,
evaluating and refining the Northwest Greenway plan,
routing transportation facilities (such as Peony Lane) and
identifying areas where natural features provide logical transitions between land uses.
As indicated at the workshop, the NRI will be used in this manner regardless which of the
Alternative Land Use Concepts are selected for preparation of draft land use plans.
The City is contracting with the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services for the
NRI. A copy of the contract is attached. The contract provides that the final report for the entire
City be completed by November 15; however, they committed to providing data and a summary
report for the Northwest Area by March 31. This week, we were informed that the entire project
might be completed as soon as August, with the preliminary report on the Northwest Area to
staff sometime next week. This will allow staff to incorporate information into the draft plans
that will be prepared for the May 1 & May 2 neighborhood meetings.
Attachments:
1. Natural Resources Inventory Contract
Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services
417 North Fifth Street, Suite 200 612-348-3777, Phone
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1397 612-348-8532, Fax
612-348-6500,24 hour INFO Line
www.hennepin.us
February 22, 2006
Shane Missaghi
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Missaghi:
Enclosed is your signed copy of the Natural Resources Inventory contract #A052163
between the City of Plymouth and Hennepin County Dept. of Environmental Services.
Work on the project started on February 7, 2006. To this point 1:2400 scale maps have
been plotted for the entire City of Plymouth and remotely sensed classification codes are
being assigned to polygons drawn on the maps for the designated sections in the NW part
of the city. This initial area will be digitized and a shapefile delivered to you by March 31
with a summary report.
As we get closer to completion of this portion of the project I will touch bases with you
concerning the content that you would like to see to the detail possible from remotely
sensed data.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
David W. Thill
Natural Resources Specialist
pro
24- Z006
An Equal Opportunity Employer Recycled Paper
Contract No: A052163
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH
AND HENNEPIN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made this _Tl day of r-']RIA,4 PJ , 2006, by
and between the City of Plymouth, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 3400
Plymouth Blvd., Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), and
Hennepin County Environmental Services located at 417 North Fifth Street, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55401-1397 (hereinafter referred, to as the "County")
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the City is willing to cooperate with the County on conducting a
Natural Resources/Land Cover Inventory (hereinafter referred to as the "NRI") for the City
of Plymouth. All work will be performed consistent with the guidelines set forth in the
NRI Scope of Services, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as
Exhibit A.
WHEREAS, the County represents that it has the professional and technical
expertise and capabilities to perform it's duties on this NRI; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed
herein, the parties agree as follows:
I. TERM OF AGREEMENT
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date an executed Agreement is
received by the County and expire upon completion of all the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, subject to termination as provided in Subdivision V.
II. DUTIES OF COUNTY
A. The County agrees to provide the services in accordance with the County's
NRI Scope of Services as described on Exhibit A, which is hereby incorporated into this
agreement and made a part hereof.
B. The County shall submit invoices to the City for work completed on the
above-mentioned services. The total amount of work authorized by this Agreement shall
not exceed $20,000.00 without written authorization from the City.
C. Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results
thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other
party and the results thereof. The liability of Hennepin County and the City of Plymouth
shall be governed by the provisions of the Minnesota Municipal Tort Claims Act,
Minnesota Statutes 466 and other applicable law. Common law immunities and defenses
are not waived
D. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed
in any manner as creating or establishing the: relationship of copartners between the parties
hereto or as constituting the County staff as the agents, representatives or employees of the
City for any purpose in any manner whatsoever. The County and its staff are to be and
shall remain an independent County with respect to all services performed under this
Agreement. The County represents that it has, or will sub -contract, all personnel required
in performing services under this Agreement:. Any and all personnel of the County or
other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the
County under this Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the City and shall
not be considered employees of the City, and any and all claims that may or might arise
OA
under the Workers' Compensation Act of the; State of Minnesota on behalf of said
personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf
of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment
including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against the County, its officers,
agents, County or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the City; and the
County shall defend, indemnify and hold the; City, its officers, agents and employees
harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent
tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not be
required nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever
from the City, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick
and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, disability,
severance pay and PERA.
E. During the performance of services, the County shall maintain the following
minimum insurance coverage:
General Liability Insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 combined
single limit with bodily injury limits in the amount of at least $300,000 per
individual and $1,000,000 for injuries or death arising out of each
occurrence.
Property damage liability in the amount of $1,000,000 for each occurrence.
Automobile Liability Insurance in the amount of $300,000 per individual
and $1,000,000 per occurrence.
The County shall carry Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by
Minnesota State Laws.
The County agrees to maintain professional liability insurance in the
amount of $1,000,000 annual aggregate during the term of this Agreement.
It is understood that the County is self-insured.
F. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of the County,
relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by the City, and either the
legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05,
Subdivision 5.
G. The parties agree to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws,
rules and regulations in the performance of the duties of this Agreement in effect at the
time of the Agreement.
H. The City and County agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters
in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement, to mediation.
The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1536 Hewitt Avenue, St.
Paul, Minnesota. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or
non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non-binding. In the
event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies
and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of
limitations.
I. The County agrees to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act
ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and not discriminate on the basis of
disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in its services,
programs or activities. The County agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City from
costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or
proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA and/or Section 504 caused by the County.
Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to
0
participate in all services, programs and activities. The City has designated coordinators to
facilitate compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, as required by
Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate
compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section
8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and. Urban Development regulations.
The County agrees that the City will have the right to use, reproduce, and
modify, as it desires any data, reports, analyses, and materials which are collected or
developed by the County as a result of this Agreement. Any reuse shall be at the City's
sole risk and the City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless County from any and all
claims arising therefrom.
K. County shall use that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under
similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession practicing in the same
locality.
L. Any delays in or failure of performance by City or County, other than
payment of money, shall not constitute default hereunder if and to the extent such delays or
failures of performance are caused by occurrences beyond the control of City or County, as
the case may be, including but not limited to: act of war; rebellion or sabotage or damage
resulting therefrom; fires, floods, explosion, accidents; or any causes, whether or not of the
same class of kind as those specifically above named, which are not within the control of
City or County, respectively, and which by the exercise of reasonable diligence, City or
County are unable to prevent.
M. County shall retain its rights in its standard drawing details, designs,
specifications, databases, computer software: and any other proprietary property. Rights to.
intellectual property developed, utilized, or modified in the performance of the services
shall remain the property of the County. County has no objection to the City reusing the
drawings and documents in its possession from the County with the limitations specified in
Paragraph J of this Agreement.
N. Since the County has no control over the cost of labor, materials, or
equipment furnished by others, or over the resources provided by others to meet project
schedules, County's opinion of probable costs and of project schedules shall be made on
the basis of experience and qualifications in Environmental Services. The County does not
guarantee that the proposals, bids, or actual costs will not vary from County's cost
estimates or that actual schedules will not vary from the County's projected schedules.
O. Nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the City or County of
any statutory or common law defenses, immunities, or limits on liability. The
indemnification obligations of the City or County under this Agreement cannot exceed the
amount that the City or County would be obligated to pay under the provisions and
limitations of Minn. Stat. Chap 466.
III. DUTIE'S OF THE CITY
The City agrees to pay the County for the County's services on a fee and
reimbursable cost basis. The total amount of work authorized by this Agreement shall not
exceed $20,000.00 without written authorization from the City.
The City shall pay the County within thirty (30) days of receiving the County's invoice
outlining the costs and expenses of the County.
rol
IV. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between the County and
the City and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or
oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof; and amendments, addenda,
alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in
writing and signed by both parties.
B. The parties agree to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws,
rules and regulations in the performance of t:he duties of this Agreement.
V. TERMINATION
This Agreement may be terminated by the City or the County with or without cause
at any time upon thirty (30) days written notice. In the event that such termination should
take place at a time other than the completion of the work to be performed under this
Agreement, the County shall be paid for the work performed to the date of termination.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
11"4 0863
Reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
City
M9.1
7
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL
PROVIDER, having signed this agreement, and the County having duly approved
this agreement on the 1 day of VekS , 2006, and pursuant to such approval,
the proper County officials having signed this agreement, the parties hereto agree to be
bound by the provisions herein set forth.
Reviewed by the County Attorney's
Office
jV1 7
Assistant County Attorney
By:
Chair of t County Board
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
By:
At - ____
A/ssistant/Deputy/County Administrator
By:-
ssistant County Administrator, Public Works
ATTEST:
Deputy tl erk of County BoardDate: Q
Recommended for Approval
By: r'
Director, D ment of Environmental Services
Date: 102 -13
City of Plymouth
The City certifies that the person who
executed this Agreement is authorized to do so on
behalf of the City as required by applicable
articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinanceq *
See previous
page for City signature
The City of Plymouth shall submit applicable documentation (articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances)
that confirms the signatory's delegation of authority. This documentation shall be submitted at the time the
City returns the Agreement to the County. Documentation is not required for a sole proprietorship.
Exhibit A
Natural Resources/Land Cover Inventory
For the City of Plymouth
Scope of Services
Project Description
A natural resources/land cover inventory will be completed for the City of Plymouth,
covering approximately 24,543 acres in Hennepin County, utilizing the Minnesota Land
Cover Classification System (MLCCS). The project will be completed utilizing
ArcGIS/ArcView and be delivered as ArcGIS/ArcView shapefiles. Two hard copies of a
final report with accompanying compact discs that include shapefiles, figures and reports
will be delivered to the city according to timelines given.
Project Area
The area included in this project includes the entire City of Plymouth.
This represents approximately 22,580 acres, an area equivalent to approximately 35.3
sections. This area includes all private and public lands as well as lakes, streams and rivers.
Task 1: Preliminary Mapping
During the preliminary mapping phase, project ecologists will use color infrared (CIR)
photographs, digital orthophotography quadrants (DOQ's) and true color aerial
photographs to identify and code land cover polygons through remote sensing
procedures. Standardized 1:2400 to 1:3600 ratio plotted base maps that include the most
current true color aerial photography background will be used as base maps that include
the following data layers; National Wetland. Inventory, Hennepin County Wetland
Inventory, County Biological Survey, soils coverage, municipal lines, section lines,
township lines, and parcel lines.
Task 2: Field Check and Digitizing
During field verification, all land cover polygons will be field verified to a minimum of
Level 4 (MLCCS) for cultural areas, and agricultural crop ground to capture hydric soils
information. Natural and semi -natural areas will be field verified to a Level 5 (MLCCS)
and at least partially visited (field check level 3) or entirely visited (field check level 4) to
determine community quality, unless deemed inaccessible as defined by the HCDES
project manager. City staff will coordinate property access for field verification with the
appropriate county staff.
9
Land cover polygons will be digitized at a scale between 1:2400 and 1:3000 on the most
recent photo base available with line accuracy of 10 feet and coded in an ArcGIS/ArcView
format as outlined in the current version of the MLCCS User Manual. Preliminary
mapping, field checking, and final digitizing and coding will, at a minimum, meet the
standards and procedures outlined in the most current version of MN DNR publication
MLCCS Users Manual except in cases where further detail is required by the HCDES
project manager. Examples of further detail would include, but is not limited to, the
minimum size of polygons at 1 acre for natural areas and 2 acres for cultural areas versus
the 0.5 and 1 hectare size required in the MLCCS manual. Unique and/or rare natural
communities will be digitized and coded regardless of size. Species lists will be generated
and become part of the report and database for all natural communities.
The following modifiers will be coded to appropriate polygons (some of these codes may
change with an updated manual, but general categories should remain the same):
o 231-236 Transportation
o 241-248 Open Space Use
o 251-257 (including trails) Pavement
o 261 Farmstead
o 30X series current vegetation management of a site
o 34X series natural quality of a site
o 4XX series invasive species or reflects vegetative encroachment
o 72X series Water modifiers, Built features
o 73X series Water modifiers, Wetland features
o 74X series Water modifiers, Stream features
o 75X series Water modifiers, Spring feature
Timeline
Remote sensing will be started during the winter of 2005/2006. Field mapping, field
inventories for natural areas and ground truthing of MLCCS polygons will start during the
spring of 2006 and continue during the summer/fall of 2006. MLCCS digitizing and report
creation will be completed simultaneously with field work. A draft report for the city will
be completed by November 15, 2006. The final report for the project area will be
delivered no later than December 31, 2006.
Deliverables
The final deliverables will consist of digitized land cover that meets the DNR's specified
guidelines for quality. Two hard copies with. accompanying digital versions of the final
report and data will be provided to the City of Plymouth. The polygons will be delivered in
and ESRI compliant format (ArcView shape files) in the UTM zone 15 datum NAD83
projection.
10
b
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DATE: March 15, 2006
TO: Plymouth CityCouncil
FROM: Anne Hurlburi, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Land Use Planning Designations for Golf Courses
Recommended Strategy/ Public Process
There are three privately owned golf courses (Elm Creek, Hollydale and Begin Oaks) that are
currently guided "P -I" (Public -Institutional) by the City's Land Use Plan. At the March 9, 2006
City Council/ Planning Commission work session on land use planning for Northwest Plymouth,
a potential new approach to the land use designations for privately -owned golf course properties
was briefly discussed (see attached handout.) At the same time, you received a letter (also
attached) from the owners of Hollydale Golf Course indicating their desire to have their property
guided for residential use. Council members expressed concerns about considering any change
in the current planning for the golf courses without input from surrounding property owners.
Staff suggests the following strategy and public; process for resolving the future planning
designations for the golf courses:
Staff report on options-- Staff would prepare a report to the Council with some
background on the issues surrounding planning for golf courses and recent legal issues in
other Minnesota communities. The report would outline several options for the land use
plan, including retaining the current P -I guiding, assigning them residential land use
classifications, or using a new "golf -course" designation as described at the March 9
meeting. It would evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of all of the options, and
explore possible variations on the different approaches. We also would work with the
City Attorney to include information on related legal issues. This report would be shared
with the Council at a meeting (study session or regular meeting) in May.
Public meeting-- After the study session, a public meeting would be scheduled in June.
The options in the staff report, as may be modified by the Council, would be the basis for
the presentation and discussion. As the same issues will affect all three privately owned
golf courses, we recommend that a single meeting be scheduled. All property owners
within 750' of the three existing courses would receive a mailed invitation, and the report
and meeting announcement would be provided on the City's website and to the e-mail
notice list for the Plan update. A separate meeting for these residents would ensure that
the golf course discussion did not dominate the meetings we already have planned for the
Northwest Area. We expect that many ;golf course neighbors would have significant
concerns, different from residents who have been participating in the Northwest Areas
meetings.
Planning Commission review-- After the public meeting, a report would be provided to
the Planning Commission with a request that they make a recommendation to the Council
on a preferred approach to land use planning for the golf courses. Depending upon the
date of the public meeting, this could occur at one of the Commission's regular meetings
June 21 or July 5.)
Council decision-- The Council could receive the Commission's recommendation, and
give their direction on the preferred planning approach as early as the July 8 regular
meeting.
Of the three privately owned golf courses, only Elm Creek is within the Northwest Planning
Area. It is not critical that a decision on this property be made by June, when the Council wishes
to decide on a preliminary land use plan for the area. For the May and June Northwest Area
meetings, the maps presented for public review, would indicate a designation of "Golf Course*"
for the Elm Creek property, with the asterisk indicating that the specific land use classification
for all of the City's golf courses was under review.
If this strategy is acceptable to the Council, we will proceed immediately with developing a
detailed report on golf course land use planning options.
Attachments:
1. Golf Course Redevelopment, Issues & Options
2. March 7, 2006 letter from Richard Dezi'.el
Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Update
Golf Course Redevelopment IDRAIssuesandOptions Pr
Comprehensive Plan:
Issue/Purpose Establish separate land use guide plan designation for current operating and future golf
courses — distinguish from public parks and recreational facilities, or public/semi-
public/institutional category. Highlight compatibility of golf courses with residential land
uses and open space value, as well as impact on land values and neighborhood identity.
Create limitations on the reuse or redevelopment potential of golf courses based on land
use compatibility, neighborhood investment, open space protection, transportation/access,
sewer and water capacities, and general public welfare.
General Concept Redevelopment of 18 -hole golf course requires retention of 9 -hole course for private or
public use, based on compatibility with area land uses, transportation network, and public
utilities.
OR-
Redevelopment of any golf course requires compatibility with adjacent land uses,
transportation network, and public utilities, and the retention of at least 50% of original the
golf course area as permanent open space — City has discretion if option exists to accept as
public open space.
Zoning Ordinance:
Issue/Purpose Create separate zoning classification for current operating and future golf courses that
establishes parameters and limitations for future redevelopment that are intended to protect
the public health, safety, and welfare.
Permitted Uses Privately -owned, membership -only golf courses
Privately -owned, golf courses open to the public
Publicly -owned, golf courses open to the public
Accessory Uses Maintenance buildings
Clubhouse, retail sales of golf accessories
Rental of carts and clubs
Convenience foods sales and rion-intoxicating liquor sales
Practice greens
Conditional Uses Clubhouse with full prep kitchen/dining facilities
Banquet facilities
Driving range, swimming pool, fitness center
Residential development at initial development approval
Redevelopment of golf course for residential development
Special Standards PUD process must be used for any redevelopment of 18 -hole golf course, which requires
retention of 9 -hole course for private or public use and compatibility with area land uses,
transportation network, and public utilities. Alternatively, PUD process must be used for
redevelopment of any golf course, which requires compatibility with adjacent land uses,
transportation network, and public utilities, and retention of at least 50% of original golf
course area as permanent open space — City has discretion if option exists to accept asq public open space.
March 7, 2006
Ann Hurlburt, Community Development Director
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482
MAR 0 9 2006
1,U
DEVELOPMENT OEPARTMENT
RE: HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSE & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS
Dear Ann:
Purpose of this correspondence is to advise the City of Plymouth of our desire to have the future use of
our property Guided Residential. We have attended the various Comprehensive Plan Update meetings
and have orally expressed our interest in pursuing a future Zoning and Guiding status that better
reflects our family's future intentions and plans for the property. Please consider this letter our formal
written notification to the City of our future intentions and plans for the property.
While we plan to continue operating the Hollydale Golf Course in the near term, we want the City to
know that our future plans for the property include pursuing residential development of the Hollydale
Golf Course and the adjacent or nearby Deziel related property. Please consider this letter our formal
written notification to the City of our future intentions and plans for the property. The attached
Exhibit A identifies the property. Hopefully, this notice will help City Staff, as you move forward
with the Comprehensive Plan Update process.
Thank you for your assistance in updating the Comprehensive Plan to reflect our family's desire to
have the future use of our property Guided Residential. Please contact me at (763) 559-4409 if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
1
Richard J. Deziel
16100 46`h Avenue North
Plymouth, Minnesota 55446
cc: Hollydale Golf Course -File
EXHIBIT A (March 7, 2006)
HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSE & RELATED DEZIEL PROPERTY
PLYMOUTH, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PIN: ACRES OWNERSHIP NAME
08-118-22-32-0004 17.549 Hollydale Land LLC
08-118-22-31-0001 59.251 Hollydale Land LLC
08-118-22-34-0006 66.935 Hollydale Land LLC
08-118-22-44-0054 0.758 Hollydale Land LLC
08-118-22-43-0002 27.667 Hollydale Land LLC
08-118-22-34-0003 3.467 William W. Deziel
08-118-22-34-0002 1.516 Estate of George Deziel
TOTAL: 177.143
Alternative Land Use Concepts
For Discussion at March 9, 2006 Plymouth Comprehensive Planning Workshop
r • • r
r •r r • r r -
r - IIIII-Mr-U&S-UR
For all Land Use Concepts:
The natural resource inventory (in progress) will be used to help determine the suitability of land for specific uses, and be used to apply land use guide plan designations to specific sites.
The current Northwest Greenway plan, adopted in the 2000 Plan update, would continue to be the organizing feature of the parks, open space and trails for the Northwest Area.
The land -use planning approach to the City's existing golf courses should be examined, to explore ways to preserve the open -space values they provide to the community while recognizing that the owners maywishtomakeotherusesoftheland.
Identify land that can urbanize without significant Plan for urbanization of remainder of Plymouth, Identify developed LAR areas to be retained, Allow a gradual transition to urban uses
new public utility and road expansion, or impact on using existing land use guide plan designations with no public utility extensions or Create a "rural overlay" to modify existing landareaswherelarge -lot development has already Map entire area for urban land uses (no more assessments; similar to strategy used in use guide plan designations for all or part of the
occurred LAR) 2000 plan for Hampton Hills and surrounding northwest area
Continue the current "LAR" (1120 ac. density) for area Replace the current LAR with "Living Area - remaining large -lot areas Identify other areas suitable for urban Rural Transition" (LA -RT), to allow resubdivision
Identify areas in existing urban area where new density development with public utilities
development or redevelopment would Retain existing land use guide plan Reduce density of urban land use designationsaccommodatemoreoftheforecasteddevelopmentdesignationsforplannedurbanizationareaLA -1, LA -2, etc.) within the overlay area
Modify development standards in the overlay to:
protect "rural character" of existing larger
lots
require gradual transitions between areas
that are developing and existing large lots
increase setbacks along major roads
require wider lots and greater separation
between structures
minimize grading and associated tree loss
Provide incentives which restore densities to
i traditional levels in LA -1, LA -2, etc. in overlay
area, for:
extraordinary site design
higher architectural design standards
additional open space/ park
dedication/Greenway implementation
extra infrastructure improvements
preservation of natural features
housing affordability
etc.
Use existing land use designations for areas
where transition is not necessary
r
Timing and staging of development based on Design and construct public utility systems toMinimizeneedforpublicutilityextensions. Plan for logical and efficient expansion of public
Limited road improvements west of Vicksburg and most logical and economical sequence of public avoid LAR areas, with no assessments utilities to entire area, but allow for non -
no major new street construction (Peony) utility system construction within rural islands sequential construction of infrastructure if
Limited, if any, use of Elm Creek Interceptor Landowners "upstream" must wait for May design "ultimate" utility systems so that developers pay for down -stream improvements
downstream" owners to extend sewer before they LAR areas can be served if need arises off-site work) and obtain easements
can develop Some road improvements may not occur in No assessments until landowners are ready to
Stage development to maximize ability to capture order to avoid assessments in the rural subdivide
assessments and exactions for public utilities and islands If developers pay for off-site improvements,
road improvements may be earlier opportunity to improve roads
Recognizes that substantial portion of the "rural" Extends the existing land use and development Homeowners in rural islands are protected Required transitions and lower densities in
area is already developed—for homes on large, 5- pattern from assessments and pressure to overlay area will help preserve "rural character"
90 acre lots Does not recognize that this area is unique (Elm redevelop for residents in existing large (5-10 acre) lot
Maintains "rural character" by keeping status quo Creek basin & wetlands, topography, existing Urban uses encroaching around islands may areas, residents in new northwest area
in most of the area large -lot development pattern) still impact "rural character" and natural developments, and people passing through
Less funding for parks & open space with less If current patterns continue, eventually will lose resource value Allows for the eventual subdivision of existing
development rural character' and some natural resource value Increased cost and inefficiencies for public large lots without forcing development or
Limited Greenway implementation will occur Most economically efficient for city, but will likely utility systems (i.e. paying for temporary lift imposing assessments
without direct public investment cause development sooner than some owners stations br trunks now, plus paying for the Incentives would give City leverage to negotiate
May not forestall need for road improvements due wish ultimate" planned system later) development standards and contributions
to traffic from surrounding areas Greenway implementation occurs most rapidly Failing private sewer systems may create towards infrastructure
Some road improvements may not occur if and with least public expenditure need to extend public sewers within the More complex planning may not be as
adjacent lands are not developed, or may require Road improvements will occur with greatest islands transparent or understandable to general public
more public expenditures for construction and developer contribution and earliest timing Greenway implementation may be Lower densities and higher infrastructure costs
right-of-way acquisition Failing private sewer systems can more easily be fragmented and require more direct public for non -sequential development may increase
The risk of failing private sewer systems increases remedied by extending public sewer expenditures housing prices, but the land use plan update
with age of systems (and poor soils), while private Met Council forecasts likely to be met and avoids Met Council forecasts may or may not be could identify suitable sites for higher density
remedies for replacement may also increase in potential system impact issue met, depending on extent of rural islands; housing outside of the overlay area
cost Sunset of Limited Market Value for property tax less likely to create system impact issue than Greenway implementation may still be
Likely to raise issue of regional system plan impact will affect landowners, but more rapid marginal urban expansion fragmented but level of potential development
Elm Creek Interceptor now in place) development would be allowed to help relieve the Land owners in rural islands may change will require less public investment
Significant numbers of landowners desire to burden their minds about development, and Necessary road improvements more likely to
develop temporary services may not be adequate to occur as the area transitions to urban uses
Pressure to amend plan for urban development serve their property Met Council forecasts may or may not be met,
may increase Sunset of Limited Market Value for property depending on extent of rural transition overlay;
Sunset of Limited Market Value for property tax will tax will affect landowners in the rural islands less likely to create system impact issue than
affect many landowners, who would not be allowed who would not be allowed to develop their marginal urban expansion
to develop their property to relieve the burden property to help relieve the burden Sunset of Limited Market Value for property tax
may still burden land owners who may not be
able to develop their property on predictable
time line
Wim..
3
o Ncu.oTUNo Y>..mr...0
n
3G
Planned Urbanization
2000 Comprehensive Plan
3.
cpyby
4
cy5'
YENINGT L. NO %,..cl L.w
J
t
Existing Large -Lot
Development
5. 6.
f
Transportation:
v
Peony Ape Alignment
a
Northwest Greenway Major Roadway Corridors
and Regional Trails Major Intersections/ Crossings
7. 8.
To Y
u• .C,YOT L..O YJw'm, . w
Possible Commercial/
Industrial Locations
x
yG
Composite: Land Use
Planning Factors
DATE: March 17, 2006
TO: City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: Anne Hurlburt: Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Correspondence re: Planning for Northwest Plymouth
Attached are letters that have recently been received from residents concerning land use
planning for Northwest Plymouth.
Attachments.
1. Letter from Karen Lomsdahl
2. Letter from Edward & Nadine Svetc
3. Letter from Vern and Judith Dotseth
4. Letter from Ronald Dotseth
5. Letter from Shawn Taylor
6. Letter from Steven Taylor
7. Letter from Jack Taylor
8. Letter from Terry Jensen
1 ta4lal 71 2-0z,')40
l /yzzz lue,
r
MAR 1 3' 2006
lEI Ur PLrJAUU1n
CUMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
y .
O
G
Edward D. svetc
5330 North Vicksburg Lane • Plymouth, Minnesota 55446
763.551.4844 FAX9763.551.2515
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
March 14, 2006
City of Plymouth
03400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth, MN 55447
Attention:
Mayor,
City Council, .
Plan-ning Com-*nission Members
We are in support of the development, of the Northwest portion of Plymouth, especially
planning area 1, which we believe should be developed as a residential community. We
were impressed with the Land Use Meeting held on March 9, 2006. A lot of good ideas
were presented as well as some of the problems with the Northwest area of Plymouth.
We are somewhat concerned about some of the direction that the City is supporting,
mainly providing some landowners some financial relief at the expense of the other Tax
Payers. The Council as well as the Planning Commission must always be looking for the
common good of the community and not to any specific group.
There are some very large conservation or drainage areas in the Northwest section of
Plymouth that when all are identified may very well provide the rural atmosphere that
some of the residents would like to maintain. Hopefully, these areas should be and are
classified as sites that cannot be built on.
We hope that when developing the Land Use Plan you will provide plenty of thought to
the traffic problems in this section of the City.
We are looking forward to your next land use meeting.
Sincerely,
MAR 1,5 2006
v rLi IAUUlrl
COMMUNITY DEUEI OPMENT DEPARTMErti
March 14, 2006
City of Plymouth
03400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth, MN 55447
Attention:
Mayor,
City Council,
Planning Commission Members
r.
to f. R w r nreltn
1
r ITAK I Uuu
t
C01, flUNI IY
DFVvFl[
6 1 FNI f]EI'ARTMENT
We are in support of the development, of the Northwest portion of Plymouth, especially
section 1, which we believe should be developed as a residential community. We were
impressed with the Land Use Meeting held on March 9, 2006. A lot of good ideas were
presented as well as some of the problems with the Northwest area of Plymouth.
We are somewhat concerned about some of the direction that the City is supporting,
mainly providing some landowners some financial relief at the expense of the other Tax
Payers. The Council as well as the Planning Commission must always be looking for the
common good of the community and not to any specific group.
There are some very large conservation or drainage areas in the Northwest section of
Plymouth that when all are identified may very well provide the rural atmosphere that
some of the residents would like to maintain. Hopefully, these areas should be and are
classified as sites that cannot be built on.
We hope that when developing the Land Use Plan you will provide plenty of thought to
the traffic problems in this section of the City.
We are looking forward to your next land use meeting.
Sincerely,
VES-') c- 'boIfETY
0 7 r#
Vt CSQ G !-A)C
March 14, 2006
City of Plymouth
03400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth, MN 55447
Attention:
Mayor,
City Council,
Planning Commission Members
3-
MARaj,"
We are in support of the development, of the Northwest portion of Plymouth, especially
section 1, which we believe should be developed as a residential community. We were
impressed with the Land Use Meeting held on March 9, 2006. A lot of good ideas were
presented as well as some of the problems with the Northwest area of Plymouth.
We are somewhat concerned about some of the direction that the City is supporting,
mainly providing some landowners some financial relief at the expense of the other Tax
Payers. The Council as well as the Planning Commission must always be looking for the
common good of the community and not to any specific group.
There are some very large conservation or drainage areas in the Northwest section of
Plymouth that when all are identified may very well provide the rural atmosphere that
some of the residents would like to maintain. Hopefully, these areas should be and are
classified as sites that cannot be built on.
We hope that when developing the Land Use Plan you will provide plenty of thought to
the traffic problems in this section of the City.
We are looking forward to your next land use meeting.
Sincerely,
n Lb L . -- o 77s- f /5
sa V, /Z -a 4-/bt/c
1 6 3 -- - 9 154,
763) 5594442
March 14, 2006
UI I VI _'aIIIt1UII;
DAM IINITY nFVP )PUMT nrOAurrMIr
I ver MN IME -111
Mayor Judy Johnson
Ms Anne Hurlburt, Cormnunity Development Director
City Council Members
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth, MN 55447
Re: Northwest Plymouth, Area 1
Good Morning:
We attended the city council meeting on March 9, 2006. We were very impressed
with the excellent planning planningandthoroughnessonthepartofthe committee. Ms.
Hurlburt did a superb job of presenting all the information to the council and the
members of the community.
We reside is the Northwest portion, area 1. We have always enjoyed residing in
Plymouth and having property whereby we could enjoy open land, trees and our horses.
We have resided in Plymouth for 26 years and my father-in-law has owned the property
since 1954. We have had the privilege of watching the city of Plymouth "grow". We are
now in the stage of our lives where we need to consider retirement, enjoy traveling and
our grandchildren. We request, therefore the city of Plymouth develop this area of
Plymouth into residential dense housing.
We would also request the Planning Committee rezone our property
all residential. We are in the process of selling our property to a developer.
make the process easier if we were no longer ear marked as a park.
Thank you again to the staff who worked so hard in listening to the resi
Thank you for your time. We are looking forward to see the next phase of this
s
Sincer y,
Shawn M. Taylor
Steven J. Taylor
5550 N. Vicksburg Lane
Plymouth, MN 55446
March 14, 2006
Mayor Judy Johnson
Ms Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director
City Council Members
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth, MN 55447
Re: Northwest Plymouth, Area 1
Good Morning:
fP
MAR
Di
1 2006
uITY % #,Lymoui h
i
i"RI,i'r7clfr ria1ENTFpA iadf#t"
We attended the city council meeting on March 9, 2006. We were very impressed
with the excellent planning and thoroughness on the part of the planning committee. Ms.
Hurlburt did a superb job of presenting all the information to the council and the
members of the community.
We reside is the Northwest portion, area 1. We have always enjoyed residing in
Plymouth and having property whereby we could enjoy open land, trees and our horses.
We have resided in Plymouth for 26 years and my father-in-law has owned the property
since 1954. We have had the privilege of watching the city of Plymouth "grow". We are
now in the stage of our lives where we need to consider retirement, enjoy traveling and
our grandchildren. We request, therefore the city of Plymouth develop this area of
Plymouth into residential dense housing.
We would also request the Planning Committee rezone our property from park to
all residential. We are in the process of selling our property to a developer. It would
make the process easier if we were no longer ear marked as a park.
Thank you again to the staff who worked so hard in listening to the residents.
Thank you for your time. We are looking forward to see the next phase of this project.
Sincerely,
Steven/ftayl`or
Jack M. Taylor
5550 N. Vicksburg Lane
Plymouth, MN 55446
March 14, 2006
Mayor Judy J ol'JS1so3A
Ms Anne Hurlburt, Conununity Development Director
City Council Members
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth, MN 55447
Re: Northwest Plymouth, Area 1
Good Morning:
MAR 1 5 2006
SEI Lk 'E tfN llfl. ,
We attended the city council meeting on March 9, 2006. We were very impressed
with the excellent planning and thoroughness on the part of the planning committee. Ms.
Hurlburt did a superb job of presenting all the information to the council and the
members of the community.
We reside is the Northwest portion, area 1. We have always enjoyed residing in
Plymouth and having property whereby we could enjoy open land, trees and our horses.
We have resided in Plymouth for 26 years and my father-in-law has owned the property
since 1954. We have had the privilege of watching the city of Plymouth "grow". We are
now in the stage of our lives where we need to consider retirement, enjoy traveling and
our grandchildren. We request, therefore the city of Plymouth develop this area of
Plymouth into residential dense housing.
We would also request the Planning Committee rezone our property from park to
all residential. We are in the process of selling our property to a developer. It would
make the process easier if we were no longer ear marked as a park.
Thank you again to the staff who worked so hard in listening to the residents.
Thank you for your time. We are looking forward to see the next phase of this project.
Sincerely,
Jack M. Taylor
MARCH 15 2006
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD
PLYMOUTH, MINN. 55447
TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
I AM IN SUPPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IN SECTION 1 OF NORTHWEST
PLYMOUTH. I REQUEST THAT THE ZONING OF MY PROPERTY TO REMAIN
AS IS. I REQUEST THAT THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH CONTINUES TO MOVE
FORWARD IN ITS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
TERRY L JENSEN
5600 VICKSBURG LANE
PLYMOUTH, MINN. 55446 il, r Ur r'LrMUU.l.rrMNITYDISnplairu