HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 05-24-1995 SpecialPLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MAY 249 1995
5:30 P.M.
Public Safety Training Room
I. Election Canvassing
H. Elm Creek Cluster Planning
M. Review Report of 1995 Real Estate Development Survey
IV. Armstrong High School Tree Restoration
V. Council Chambers Renovation
VI. Citizen Survey Preliminary Results
Item will be discussed at 6:00 p.m.
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Judy McMillin, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: CERTIFY RESULTS OF SPECIAL CITY ELECTION
DATE: May 24, 1995
1. ACTION REQUESTED: The Council will receive the official election results at the May
24 Special Council Meeting. The Council will be asked to review and certify the results.
A resolution is attached for the Council's consideration.
2. BACKGROUND: A special city election will be held on Tuesday, May 23, 1995.
State law requires that a governing body certify election results within two days after an
election.
3. RECOMI%IENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution certifying the results of the May
23 Special City Election.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -
CERTIFYING RESULTS OF MAY 23, 1995 SPECIAL CITY ELECTION
WHEREAS, a Special Election was held on May 23, 1995, in the City of Plymouth,
Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, a governing body is required to meet to certify the results of a local
question within two days after the election; and
WHEREAS, this Council has canvassed the results by precinct of said Special Election;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it is hereby found and determined
that at the Special Election held in the City of Plymouth, May 23, 1995, to vote on the
following question:
SHALL THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, BE
AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE TTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $2,235, 000, COMBINED WITH $1, 000, 000 OF OTHER CITY FUNDS,
TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF APPROXIMATELY 120 ACRES OF
LAND FOR OPEN SPACE AND THE CONSTRUCHON OF APPROXIMATELY 11 MILES
OF TRAILS?"
there were: Yes Votes
No Votes
Overvotes
Undervotes
Adopted by the City Council on May 24, 1995
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DATE: May 19, 1995
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: Elm Creek Cluster Planning Process
Action Requested. No specific action is requested. This is an update. However, the
Council should direct staff if there are any concerns in the direction or approach we are
taking, or if there is any concern about the timetable for Northwest Plymouth planning.
Background. City staff has been engaged in cluster planning with the Met Council
staff and the cities of Maple Grove, Brooklyn Park, and Medina since February. This
planning process was required by the Met Council as a condition of approving design
funds for the Elm Creek sewer which will eventually serve much of Northwest
Plymouth. Design money of $100,000 was authorized originally and an additional
200,000 was authorized in April. Future checkpoints on the progress are scheduled
for June and September. Less than $100,000 of the design funding has been actually
used at this time. The cluster planning process includes the elements of housing,
transportation, environment, land use, and cost sharing. The general timetable for the
planning has been:
1 st quarter of 1995: Agree on scope of planning
2nd quarter of 1995: Agree on forecasts for growth in area
3rd quarter of 1995: Analyze alternate development scenarios
4th quarter of 1995: Agree on a scenario and negotiate an agreement
Current Status. The scope was completed and agreed upon by all parties. Work on
the forecasts is underway. Originally, the Met Council staff had forecasts that
indicated Plymouth would have 15,000 new homes in the northwest area. Our own
land use forecast made in-house last year indicates that there is reasonably room for
fewer units, perhaps only 5,000 more units after allowances are made for wetland
areas, parks, the high school, roads, and other features. The Met Council staff now
appears to be fairly accepting of our studies, since they are both more detailed and up
to date.
Staff has also met with Met Council staff to review the status of the environmental
elements of the work plan and the existing transportation network. Plymouth appears
to have the required environmental measures in place, except for the water quality plan,
which will be underway shortly. Met Council staff is the process of revising their
transportation maps and models based on comments from City staff.
Met Council staff is planning a bus tour for the Metro Council members to familiarize
them with the communities. The tentative date for the tour is June 1. City staff will be
helping plan the route and help narrate the tour.
What's Next. Possible alternative development scenarios are now being devised, but
are not finalized. A preliminary draft document outlining the scenarios is attached.
The scenarios are basically as follows:
A. Accommodate development as the market dictates with occasional changes
in the MUSA line as needed.
B. Do not expand the MUSA line, forcing infill and redevelopment
C. Accommodate development, but direct toward nodes on transportation
corridors.
I have encouraged them to look at a development scenario that moves the MUSA line
out to a point that will allow many years of growth in order to prevent the urban sprawl
toward St. Cloud and other areas beyond the seven county metro area under the
jurisdiction of the Met Council. Each individual City could still control the phasing of
its own growth.
Affordable Housing. Met Council staff are now visiting with us about the affordable
housing component of the planning. An attached summary of the requests by the Met
Council with comments by our staff is attached. Some of the requests seem
unachievable and others may be undesirable for both Plymouth and the region. While
we have been able to substantially agree with the results of the cluster planning so far,
including the scope and the forecasting, the housing discussion may prove very difficult
to resolve if no changes are made in the Met Council staff position.
Relationship of Cluster Planning to our Northwest Plymouth planning. Staff is
coordinating the Northwest Plymouth planning with the Elm Creek cluster planning
process. This saves time and duplication of effort. If the cluster planning process
follows the general course outlined above, we will have information on alternative
development scenarios this Fall. At that time, the City, including its Planning
Commission and residents, should examine the alternative scenarios and determine our
preferences. By the end of the year, we could then generally decide about what type,
quantity and timing of development in the Northwest area. However, establishing an
actual color land use map with specific properties designated for residential,
commercial, etc. would be deferred until 1996.
Recommendation. We continue to believe that we should proceed with discussions
and negotiations with the Met Council in the Elm Creek Cluster Planning process until
or unless the time comes that we are at an impasse on some major element.
Development Scenarios - Elm Creek Study
SCENARIO A: "ACCOMMODATING DEVELOPMENT -- CONTINUED MUSA STAGING"
V Strong proactive urban policy required.
V Strong proactive rural area and agricultural preservation policy required, including
actions that focus exurban development in rural centers.
V Work with adjacent counties to support housing and job development in county
designated "growth centers" have central sewer and adequate urban services.
SCENARIO C: "SHAPING THE REGION - BUILDING NODES ON TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS"
V Use of transportation investments, including transit service, as development tools;
supporting development of nodes within designated corridors.
Policy emphasis on transportation/housing/jobs balance and access.
1/ Channel higher density, pedestrian oriented and mixed use development at nodes.
1/ All land of current MUSA communities eligible to be included in 2020 MUSA;
communities set 5 -year staging of development for 1995-2020 period to accommodate
regional forecasts (households/population and jobs). Communities designate
development nodes". Where appropriate communities can designate permanent
rural service area" (agricultural preserves, general rural use, rural residential
maximum 64/640 density]). Communities with a "rural service area" can designate
post 2020 urban reserve area" for future urban development along development
corridors [area preserved by interim maximum density of 1/40 or 16/640]. The urban
Policy emphasis on anticipating and responding to housing and job market demands
All land of current MUSA communities is eligible to be included in 2020 MUSA
depending on staging; communities set 5 -year staging of development for 1995-2020
period to accommodate regional forecasts (households/population and jobs). Where
appropriate communities can designate permanent "rural service area" (agricultural
preserves, general rural use, rural residential [maximum 64/640 density]).
Communities with a "rural service area" can designate a "post 2020 urban reserve
area" for future urban development [area preserved by interim maximum density of
1/40 or 16/640]. The urban reserve area is to provide a supply of buildable land for
regional expansion post 2020 or when vacant, buildable land supply is tight in thati' sector of the region.
SCENARIO B: "HOLDING THE URBAN SERVICE LINE -- EMPHASIZING REINVESTMENT AND INFILL"
Target growth for full use of existing infrastructure investment .
F --- Policy emphasis infill, on redevelopment and reinvestment.
No MUSA expansion before 2020. Where appropriate communities designate a
permanent "rural service area" (agricultural preserves, general rural use, rural
residential [maximum density of 64/640] and/or a "post 2020 urban reserve area" for
future urban development [area preserved by interim maximum density of 1/40 or
16/640]. The urban reserve area is to provide a supply of buildable land for regional
expansion post 2020.
V Strong proactive urban policy required.
V Strong proactive rural area and agricultural preservation policy required, including
actions that focus exurban development in rural centers.
V Work with adjacent counties to support housing and job development in county
designated "growth centers" have central sewer and adequate urban services.
SCENARIO C: "SHAPING THE REGION - BUILDING NODES ON TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS"
V Use of transportation investments, including transit service, as development tools;
supporting development of nodes within designated corridors.
Policy emphasis on transportation/housing/jobs balance and access.
1/ Channel higher density, pedestrian oriented and mixed use development at nodes.
1/ All land of current MUSA communities eligible to be included in 2020 MUSA;
communities set 5 -year staging of development for 1995-2020 period to accommodate
regional forecasts (households/population and jobs). Communities designate
development nodes". Where appropriate communities can designate permanent
rural service area" (agricultural preserves, general rural use, rural residential
maximum 64/640 density]). Communities with a "rural service area" can designate
post 2020 urban reserve area" for future urban development along development
corridors [area preserved by interim maximum density of 1/40 or 16/640]. The urban
reserve area is to provide a supply of buildable land for regional expansion post 2020orwhenvacant, buildable land supply is tight in that sector of the region.
Work with adjacent counties to support development of nodes that have central sewerandadequateurbanservices.
Community Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Brooklyn Park
Maple Grove All Maple Grove in 2020 Existing MUSA for 2020; Maple Grove in 2020MUSA; 5 -year staging gravel mining area MUSA expanded;
remains and no sewer remaining area
capacity allocated to designated "urban
serve it. reserve" and/or
permanent RSA; major
intensification node at
the 2400 acre gravel
mining
area11PlymouthOption1. All Plymouth in Existing MUSA for 2020; All Plymouth in 20202020MUSA; 5 -year northwest Plymouth in MUSA; intensification ofstaging
Option 2. Part of
RSA residential and comind
Northwest Plymouth in development at nodes
2020 MUSA and part Hwy 55 & 1-494:
permanent RSA redevelopment](1-494 &
Medina 2020 MUSA includes Existing limited MUSA 2020 MUSA includesnorthern1/3 of city; 5- service for 2020; Hwy 55 corridor, north
year staging; remaining
2/3 permanent RSA
northern 1/3 "urban 1/3 of city; intensification
reserve'; remaining 2/3 at Hamel and Loretto;
permanent RSA remaining 2/3
permanent RSA
DATE: May 17, 1995
TO: Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director
an
FROM: Edward Goldsmith, HRA Supervisor/
SUBJECT: Housing Agreement Required As Part of Elm Creek Cluster Planning Process
At our meeting of May 11th, Metropolitan Council staff identified a number of issues that
would need to be addressed in the agreement, and subsequently in the Housing Element of the
City's Comprehensive Plan, as a requirement for work to continue to proceed on the Elm
Creek Interceptor. The Housing Element would need to be revised by the latter of December
31, 1995 or 6 months after the Metro Council's guidelines are adopted. As indicated below, a
number of issues will require clarification and further discussion with Metro staff. According
to Metro staff the recommended thresholds, identified below, are based upon existing
development patterns of suburban communities in the Developing Area and NorthWest Sector
of the region. The City would need to agree that it would initiate changes in the City's land
use and zoning controls and be receptive to programs that would facilitate the following issues
concerning continuing housing development in Plymouth over the next ten to fifteen years:
I. Continued Diversification of the Housing Stock
A. A minimum of 34% of new housing needs to be other than single-family detached
Current proportion of all housing in the City is 39 %, development since 1990 has been
approximately 22 %).
B. A minimum of 25% of new housing needs to be rental (Current proportion of all
housing in the City is 28.6 %, development since 1990 has been approximately 15 %).
C. In the discussion with Metro staff, it was understood that City actions, other than
public development of housing, could only attempt to encourage this type of development
by the private sector and could not actually require it to happen.
Il. Housing Density
A. Existing multifamily housing density of 8.4 units/acre needs to increase by one-third
to 11 units/acre.
B. Single-family housing density needs to increase to 2.5 units per acre.
C. In the discussion, it was agreed that we would need to define how density was being
calculatedby Metro and that factors such as wetlands, tree preserves, steep slopes, rights-
of -way, etc. that reduce the amount of available developable land needed to be considered
in the definition. Until density is defined, we cannot compare these recommended
thresholds to existing densities.
III. Housing Affordability
A. A minimum of 25 % of new rental housing needs to be affordable to persons at 50 % of
area median income or less ($630 per month rent for a two bedroom unit for a family of
4).
B. A minimum of 75% of new owner -occupied homes needs to be affordable to persons
at 100% of area median income (sale price of approximately $120,000 for a family of 4).
C. In the discussion, it was commented that the percentage for affordable owner -occupied
housing was unrealistically high and that the development of affordable housing was
contingent upon the availability of funding for housing subsidies and other assistance. It
was also understood that the rehabilitation and maintenance of the City's existing
affordable housing stock and efforts in support of housing for seniors that made their
homes available for affordable family housing were also important aspects of housing
affordability and consideration needed to be given for City efforts in this area. .
IV. Implementation of the Housing Plan
A. The City needs to be receptive to utilizing all available federal, state and local housing
programs.
B. The City needs to participate in development of federal public housing units that will
be available through the settlement of the Minneapolis Public Housing (Hollman vs.
Cisneros) lawsuit (a maximum of 690 units for the entire suburban metro area).
V. Re-examine the Impact of Local Development Regulations and Fees on the Cost of
Developing Affordable Housing
VI. Transit
A. Examine the adequacy of reverse commute transit services and respond to identified
needs.
B. Examine the need for transit between jobs in Plymouth and other suburban
communities with affordable housing (such as Brooklyn Park) and respond accordingly.
h-\--150 &
DATE: April 21, 1995
TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager
ten_%
FROM: Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Real Estate Development Survey
We have finally completed our report on the Real Estate Development Survey that was
conducted in 1994 with the assistance of volunteer Victoria Hench. While the survey work
was complete in June of 1994, finalizing the report has been a lower priority compared to
other assignments.
We must use caution when interpreting the survey responses because of a low response rate.
However, the survey results appear to support the need for improving our customer service in
this area, in the Community Development Department as well as the other departments
involved in the real estate development process.
In 1994, the Minnesota Real Estate Journal survey rated Plymouth the highest (16%) as
discouraging toward development compared to other Metro Area cities. In 1995, 18 % rated
Plymouth as "discouraging." In 1994, only 5% rated Plymouth as "encouraging" to
development. However, in 1995, 13% rated Plymouth as encouraging. Our survey would
seem to support some aspects of the MREJ survey. A few comments we received on our
survey indicated that the respondents felt that some improvements had recently occurred. We
need to continue to work on all aspects of our customer service, even as we conscientiously
carry out the city's plans, policies and ordinances as established by the City Council.
It should be noted that the City's development survey, as well as the MRFJ survey, were
conducted prior to the adoption of the new wetland protection and erosion control ordinances,
the pending changes to the city's tree preservation policy. These recent actions might have
some affect on responses should we repeat the survey.
p1an\cd\memos\5059\sruvrcov.doc
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT SURVEY
March, 1995
INTRODUCTION
In the yearly survey of the Minnesota Real Estate Journal, the City of Plymouth has been
perceived by real estate professionals as "negative toward or discouraging development".
Following the release of the survey in 1993, the City Council asked staff to conduct its own
survey, to assess ways in which the City of Plymouth might improve its services to those who
do real estate development in the city.
In 1994, staff secured the assistance of volunteer Victoria Hench to help conduct and compile
a survey. Ms. Hench has a background in mathematics and statistics, and works as a
biostatistician for her employer, Medtronic.
The survey was designed to elicit information on the attitude of development in the City of
Plymouth from developers who have worked with the city. A cover letter, the survey, and a
postage paid envelope in which to return the survey were mailed to real estate developers and
others who submitted applications for planning and zoning approvals over a three year period.
All responses to the survey were confidential and each survey was identified only by a number
consecutively assigned in the order it was received in the city offices.
A total of 326 surveys were mailed. As of June 29, 1994 73 had been returned to the city
offices. This was a very low (22 %) response rate. Ideally, a survey would have at least a 70
to 80 % response rate. We know that there were some problems with the mailing, because we
received several phone calls from individuals who had received envelopes with incomplete
contents. (Apparently the envelopes had not been sealed properly.) Others may have decided
not to complete their surveys for other reasons. There were a couple of comments on returned
forms that indicated that the respondent was concerned about possible reprisals from negative
comments. Because of the low response rate, we must be cautious in interpretting teh results
and generalizing them to the whole population of real estate developers working in the city.
Overall, the survey results appear to indicate that there are improvements needed in the City's
development approval processes. We should expect that individuals subject to regulations may
sometimes complain about those regulations. However, we should strive as much as possible
to make the process as efficient, understandable, and as free of surprises as possible and to
treat all applicants with respect and courtesy. Staff will use the results of the survey as input
to our constant efforts to improve customer service.
SURVEY RESULTS
Of the 73 surveys returned, 64 (88 %) of the respondents indicated that they had made a formal
planning application with the City in the last three years. However, all of the surveys had
been sent to individuals who, according to our records, had submitted an application. The
responses of these individuals to the gneral and organizational questions were analyzed
separately, and no significant differences were noted in their answers. Therefore, this report
will focus on the responses of all 73 respondents together.
Organization Information
Of the 73 respondents to the survey, almost half (44 %) are in an organization that is involved
in commercial real estate. However, 25 % are involved in residential real estate, and of those,
the majority (61 %) are involved in building single family homes. Thirty-six percent of the
organizations have been involved in real estate less than or equal to 20 years, and 32 % have
been involved for more than 20 years. One fourth of the respondents (25 %) are the president
of their organization, and 11 % are the owners. A large number indicated they are partners
11 %) or vice president (19 %) of their organizations. However, many respondents (27 %)
answered "other" to the question that elicited their position within the organization. In
addition, their backgrounds vary from a resident to a builder or land developer.
What type of real estate development is your organization involved in?
COMMERCIAL 32(44%)
RESIDENTIAL 18(25%)
INDUSTRIAL 18(25%)
OTHER 16(22%)
NO RESPONSE 6 (8%)
TOTAL 73
Note: A respondent may have indicated more than one type of real estate development.
If your organization is involved in residential real estate development, which property types are you
primarily involved in?
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES 11(61%)
TOWNHOMES/FOR SALE 5(28%)
TOWNHOMES/RENTAL 2(11%)
APARTMENTS 4(22%)
OTHER 1(6%)
NO RESPONSE 3(17%)
TOTAL 18
Note: A respondent may have indicated more than one type of property.
How long has your organization been involved in the real estate industry?
0-5 YEARS 4 (6%)
6-10 YEARS 8(11%)
11-15 YEARS 7(10%)
16-20 YEARS 7(10%)
GREATER THAN 20 YEARS 23(32%)
NO RESPONSE 24(33%)
TOTAL 73
What is your position within your organization?
PARTNER 8 (11%)
PRESIDENT 18(25%)
VICE PRESIDENT 14(19%)
OWNER 8 (11%)
OTHER 20(27%)
NO RESPONSE 10(14%)
TOTAL 73
Note: A respondent may have indicated more than one position.
What is your background?
BUILDER 14(19%)
LAND DEVELOPER 15(21%)
ENGINEER/ARCHITECT/PLANNER 11(15%)
REAL ESTATE 18(25%)
LOCAL BUSINESS 19(26%)
RESIDENT/CITIZEN 15(21%)
OTHER 9(12%)
NO RESPONSE 6 (8%)
TOTAL 73
Note: A respondent may have indicated more than one background.
General Information
For the 73 respondents to the survey, the most often cited types of business transactions with
the City of Plymouth are building permits (66 %), site plan reviews (55 %), and conditional use
permits (53 %). The timing of the organizations for contacting the city for business purposes
varied from once a week, to once a month, to once every 6 months, to once a year. However,
the majority of respondents (67 %) indicate that their most recent contact with the city was
within the last 6 months. The majority of respondents (80%) are satisfied with the written
information they were provided on city policies, ordinances, and codes. However, 44 % of the
respondents are not satisfied with the city's staff attitude and assistance. In addition, many
respondents feel the attitude of the Plymouth city staff toward development is discouraging
38 %), and that the attitude of the Plymouth City Council and Planning Commission toward
development is discouraging (36 %).
What type of business transactions does your organization have with the City of Plymouth?
SUBDIVISION OF LAND 21(29%)
SITE PLAN REVIEW 40(55%)
LAND USE PLAN/ZONING CHANGE 25(34%)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 39(53%)
BUILDING PERMIT 48(66%)
OTHER 10(14%)
NO RESPONSE 1 (1 %)
TOTAL 73
Note: A respondent may have indicated more than one business transaction with the City of Plymouth.
How often does your organization contact Plymouth city offices for business purposes?
ONCE A WEEK 12(16%)
ONCE A MONTH 14(19%)
ONCE EVERY 6 MONTHS 17(23%)
ONCE A YEAR 15(21%)
OTHER 15(21%)
NO RESPONSE 0 (0%)
TOTAL 73
How recent was your last contact with Plymouth city offices for business purposes?
WITHIN THE LAST 6 MONTHS 49(67%)
6 MONTHS TO 1 YEAR AGO 13(18%)
1 YEAR TO 3 YEARS AGO 11(15%)
LONGER THAN 3 YEARS AGO 0 (0%)
NO RESPONSE 0 (0%)
TOTAL 73
Are you satisfied with the written information you were provided on City of Plymouth policies,
ordinances, and codes?
YES 58(80%)
NO 12(16%)
NO RESPONSE 3 (4%)
TOTAL 73
Are you satisfied with the City of Plymouth staff attitude and assistance?
YES 41(56%)
NO 32(44%)
NO RESPONSE 0 (0%)
TOTAL 73
4
Based on your personal experiences with the City of Plymouth, what do you feel is the attitude of the
Plymouth city sta toward development?
ENCOURAGING 10(14%)
NEUTRAL 34(47%)
DISCOURAGING 28 (38%)
NO RESPONSE 1 (1 %)
TOTAL 73
Based on your personal experiences with the City of Plymouth, what do you feel is the attitude of the
Plymouth City Council and Planning Commission toward development?
ENCOURAGING 14(19%)
NEUTRAL 32(44%)
DISCOURAGING 26(36%)
NO RESPONSE 1 (1 %)
TOTAL 73
City Planning Applications
The majority of respondents (88 %) indicated that they had made a formal planning application
with the City of Plymouth. Of those who responded, 23 % feel the application fee is higher
than and 47 % feel the fee is about the same as that charged by other cities. Fifty-nine percent
feel that the application does not contain unnecessary information. However, most
respondents (91 %) understand the application forms and required process.
Has your organization made any formal planning applications with the City of Plymouth which require
an application fee?
YES 64(88%)
NO 8 (11%)
NO RESPONSE 1 (1 %)
TOTAL 73
How does the application fee charged by the City of Plymouth compare to other cities your
organization works in?
HIGHER 15(23%)
ABOUT THE SAME 30(47%)
LOWER 0 (0%)
DO NOT KNOW 18(28%)
NO RESPONSE 1 (2%)
TOTAL 64
Did you understand the application forms and required process?
YES 58(91%)
NO 4 (6%)
NO RESPONSE 2 (3%)
TOTAL 64
Is there information required in the application process which you believe is not necessary?
YES 17(27%)
NO 38(59%)
NO RESPONSE 9(14%)
TOTAL 64
Approval Timingoff City Planning_Applications
Thirty-nine percent of the respondents whose organizations recall making a formal planning
application feel the timeliness of the initial staff review is not acceptable, and 36 % feel that it
is slower than other cities. Similarly, 41 % feel the time between the initial staff review and
Planning Commission or administration approval is not acceptable. However, a smaller
percentage (20 %) of respondents feel that the time between Planning Commission and City
Council approval is not acceptable. The majority of respondents (81 %) feel condition/actions
requested prior to the issuance of a building permit were made clear.
Is the timeliness of the initial staff review acceptable?
YES 37(58%)
NO 25(39%)
NO RESPONSE 2 (3%)
TOTAL 64
How does the time of the initial review compare to other cities your organization works in? __
SLOWER 23(36%)
ABOUT THE SAME 25(39%)
FASTER 0 (0%)
DO NOT KNOW 13(20%)
NO RESPONSE 3 (5%)
TOTAL 64
Is the time period between the initial staff review and Planning Commission or administrative approval
acceptable?
YES 36(56%)
NO 26(41%)
NO RESPONSE 2 (3%)
TOTAL 64
Is the time period between the Planning Commission and City Council action acceptable?
YES 47(73%)
NO 13(20%)
NO RESPONSE 4 (6%)
TOTAL 64
After the City Council has approved the application and before the building permit is issued there may
be certain conditions/actions a developer should satisfy (ex: recording the final plat or submission of
dedicated easements). Were these requirements made clear to you?
YES 52(81%)
NO 5 (8%)
NO RESPONSE 7(11%)
TOTAL 64
Regul ry Requirements of City Planning Applications
Seventy-five percent of the respondents whose organizations made a formal planning
application feel the regulatory requirements of the city codes/ordinances/policies are not
acceptable. The regulatory requirements most often cited are: zoning ordinance, sign
regulations, landscaping policy, tree preservation policy, fire code, and financial guarantees.
In addition, 16 % feel that the city's regulations are a barrier to building affordable housing.
Do you believe that the regulatory requirements of the city codes/ordinances or policies are acceptable
and reasonable?
YES 15(23%)
NO 48(75%)
NO RESPONSE 1 (2%)
TOTAL 64
If you believe any of the city's regulatory requirements are not acceptable or reasonable, please
indicate which requirements below.
ZONING ORDINANCE: 14(29%)
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) REQUIREMENTS: 7(15%)
SIGN REGULATIONS: 15(31%)
SUBDIVISION CODE: 3 (6%)
LANDSCAPING POLICY: 12(25%)
TREE PRESERVATION POLICY: 12(25%)
BUILDING CODE: 9(19%)
FIRE CODE: 17(35%)
EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE POLICIES: 9(19%)
FINANCIAL GUARANTEES (BONDS/LETTERS OF CREDIT): 12(25%)
NO RESPONSE 31(65%)
TOTAL 48
Note: A respondent may have indicated more than one regulatory requirement.
Do you believe that any of the city's regulatory requirements are barriers to building affordable
housing in Plymouth?
YES 10(16%)
NO 7(11%)
DO NOT KNOW 38(59%)
NO RESPONSE 9(14%)
TOTAL 64
Additional Comments
Of the 73 respondents to the survey, 32 (44%) included additional comments at the end of the
survey. About the same percentage (45 %) of respondents who remembered making a formal
planning application included additional comments.
SURVEY COMMENTS
The following are written comments received on selected survey questions. Comments
mentioning staff members or others by name have been obscured so as not to identify
individuals or companies.
4. Are you satisfied with the written information you were provided on City of Plymouth
policies, ordinances, and codes?
They require too much information too early in the development process
If you have procedures for a contractor or business owner to go through tell them all. They will
need from start to finish right away- not come up with rules as we go
Sometimes needs to be clearer may more simplified language
Information is adequate but interpretation of codes are always worst case scenario
Overkill for our small project
Here's the code you meet it and you figure out the process. Only after several questions did they
start to answer my questions and help me. It was like I was the enemy but they are paid from
taxes collected from me.
I was only given pages of ordinances which the city felt I needed when what I really needed was
the full ordinance. I ended up going to the library after the second time for the info.
1 asked staff what needed to be done prior to getting plat filed. Staff indicated the rest was
procedural and that except for pk dedication fees everything was ready. Then the day before
resolution went before City Council, I received staff report with 10-12 unexpected items
There are no wetland policies or ordinances
Too vague. Lend themselves to the opinion of whoever interprets them
You have very confusing unclear policies when it comes to YJ0 C3 M 111 M=13 * * nL *
8 Y)o • a n resulting in delays up to 1 year
S. Are you satisfied with the City of Plymouth staff attitude and assistance?
Sometimes. Some city employees never answer the telephone, always use voice mail
The staff attitude is that they are going make it as complex as possible to slow down progress
We made changes that made no sense except that they met the "spirit of the code"
Could be provided faster and more efficient
Their approach is very bureaucratic and rule oriented. This seems to be improving
0 Somewhat -do not display a can do attitude
I not only live in Plymouth, my business is in Plymouth and the projects for the businesses will be
in Plymouth. Keep in mind who pays the taxes. Call me back when I ask you to!
6+0M 6ll) x1 if RL • r'- is a pleasure to work with
It is perceived that there is an almost "gotcha" attitude as opposed to a "let's work it out and get it
done" attitude that exists in the city offices.
People are polite and efficient, timely but information is adequate, but interpretation of codes are
always worst case scenario
Faster response time
The people who helped me never offered to look for my file from a previous city manager era.
They insisted I supply all the info.
0 Yes, with some exceptions
Unhelpful, who know who's job it is got the run around, stiff, uninformed/cut and dried
Noticed significant switch (positive) in the past year
General distaste toward quick service restaurants
Would appreciate a better understanding of the cost of delays to an applicant
They look for the easiest way to do things not the way that will be the most accommodating to a
business person
Made me feel like improving my property was a big risk??
Very busy; another person in planning would help move faster
Original help (information) by departmental representative was done in a rude and negative way
The attitude is based on the city as supreme commander never to be challenged. Very
authoritarian
Outstanding
Detached -by the book -not helpful; Too much procedure, not enough substance
Although they are professional and polite, they don't have the sense of serving a customer -tom
don't see applicants as customers to be helped and served. The attitude is "Here are all the rules
and regulations -it is your responsibility to comply with all of them and if you do then maw we'll
approve your application". There's no sense of "Thank you for wanting to add to our tax base, Let
us hely you grow your business." That never seems to occur to anybody! Doing business in
Plymouth is not a competitive advantage for a manufacturing business. We need competitive
advantages not disadvantages. When we outgrow our building, we'll probably leave Plymouth.
Very friendly and efficient
City staff used to be hard to work with. City could have more flexibility on smaller projects
About 1/3 of the staff must attend weekly "hate" sessions or "How to make life miserable for
developers and builders that want to build in Plymouth"
Belligerent, "My way or the highway attitude"
Not too enthusiastic about moving forward
Generally yes; but uncertain of recent staff changes
Amount of detail in plans unnecessary for initial review and Plan commission. Too many details
before approval of project. The staff can work out details after approval for project!
Some are not as committed as others in expediting the processing
Were not generally helpful and seemed to try to make the process time consuming and lengthy
Their attitude is that of a person who is possibly overworked and has no time to help
O,V,,, (DnL M
The staff believes that they own the City are the authority and the greedy developer exists to serve
the State
6. Based on your personal experiences with the City of Plymouth, what do you feel is the
attitude of the Plymouth cia sta toward development?
I tell businesses that have a choice not to build in Plymouth because of the delays in getting things
done- always cost money -cost frustration.
The citizen's it affects has little opportunity to challenge the developer with their entourage. Also,
at the meetings it appears one or two council members have their mind set with no change from
what's said.
Don't care if I get my project done or not only if the meet every regulation
Homeowner
They make you feel they are doing you a favor
10
7. Based on your personal experiences with the City of Plymouth, what do you feel is the
attitude of the Plymouth C71y Sta toward development?
Could be more encouraging
The citizen's it affects has little opportunity to challenge the developer with their entourage. Also,
at the meetings it appears one or two council members have their mind set with no change from
what's said.
Encouraging to certain people, discouraging to those who don't fit all the rules and want to get it
done in 60 days
Depends on the council. 1-2 council members are negative on any development
My project was approved by Council in 1983. I sold the land 2 times and got it back through
default. I then decided to develop myself and had to go through the same process again at
considerable extra cost with the same results.
At least towards my development plans
11. Is there information required in the application process which you believe is not
necessary?
DRC requires extensive civil engineering drawings when project is only preliminary
Going through the expense of having someone certify a new site plan as current when nothing has
changed in years
The information is too detailed at the beginning stages in the develop process. A developer would
have to have complete working drawing before the city will look at them -at that point they are
costly to revise
Keep it down to the things that effect others
Site manager signature
On a recent submission to the city we were delayed and required to do work that goes beyond what
is required by the city under its code and ordinance provisions. This is not fair or legal.
In initial approvals you require high degree of detail drawings that cost $-very risky
We had a simple expansion which required a good bit of site documentation which seemed to be
more than needed.
On small projects the required amount of paper -work can seem excessive. Projects where 4 or 5
parking stalls are being added should require less documentation than 40 or 50 new parking stalls
Unsure -due to nature of request -might have been warranted -seemed a somewhat tedious process
Too much detail required prior to approval; ie engineering details and final plans should not be
required until applicant has preliminary approval subject to meeting engineering requirements
Narrative for CUP/PUD
Specifically, relating section 9, subdivision A of the Plymouth Zoning ordinance to the conditional
use permit
The requirements to change a "comprehensive plan" are too narrow and strict and relate to realty
11
17. Do you believe that the regulatory requirements of the city codes/ordinances or policies are
acceptable and reasonable?
Tough but fair
The provision to have small water treatment ponds on each developed site is land consuming and
expensive -this should be done at a city level
Your inspectors including the fire department seem like they have a quota on citations and talk
down to the people they are supposed to be serving!
Much more strict than other cities/food permits
No room for common sense interpretations is available
For our small fundraising project it seems overkill and unsupportive
Unreal, pretentious, pious
Some are some are not
There is no flexibility not even when it is in the general publics interest. "Here are the rules and
that is the way it is"
When I keep building more and more of the same greenhouses why do I need more and more
approval to grow my business?
Sometimes for homeowner additions and porch it is unreasonable
Tough signage, green area, landscaping bonds; Eng.
A lot of busy work on our part for the application
They specify too much instead of stating more general goals which can then be interpreted for the
peculiarities of each site.
I support and agree with the city's intent on requirements for screening, drainage, curb and gutter,
etc. but smaller projects should be treated differently than larger projects
The interpretation of these ordinances is very negative
Overly restrictive and do not follow common sense guidelines
Unsure -it seems that the conditional use process is used at times as ongoing control measure
Park dedication fees are excessive
Zoning is too restrictive for multi family rental development
Too restrictive
Yes, generally
Yes, if made clear before construction -not during
Too much paper work
Size of lots and setbacks too large
Most requirements go way beyond normal codes/ordinances
The planning department seems to make up their own rules pertaining to city ordinances. Has
caused our company a great deal of time, expense and loss of revenue
Some are very good, some are very poor
18. If you believe any of the city's regulatory requirements are not acceptable or reasonable,
please indicate which requirements below.
Part 1: Zoning Ordinance
Overly restrictive on Ind. uses ie setbacks, parking
Excessive proof of parking requirements
Confusing
12
Outdoor food booths are not allowed on properties privately owned. Plymouth is the only city in
the TC's that doesn't allow this.
If I am zoned for greenhouses why do I need approval each time?
Some time ago I saw a plan that zoned certain areas institutional. That made sense.
Need more R-3 R-4 land in city; much of existing R-3 R-4 land is developed on low end of density
Lot sizes too large
Setbacks are large
Farmland used for retail sales
Part 2: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Requirements
Action for simple projects are delayed and too much cost and extra work to satisfy the needs of the
city
Increase the lot size of homes. The new developments look like their townhomes the houses are
too close together. Looks like tract housing of $150-$300K homes. Its ridiculous. Also make the
developers improve the streets. After 3 years it's like a roller coaster ride through the subdivisions.
You change my land 3 times and never let me know until later
I feel it gives to much discretionary powers to your zoning office
Bonus points + or - are not reasonable and restrict an applicant too much
Part 3: Sign Regulations
Stringent
Permits for temporary/job signs?
Ridiculous
Should be 5 % larger
Too restrictive and inflexible in industrial areas
Overkill for short term fund raising projects
Should allow larger size on greater number of leasing or project signs for commercial projects over
a certain size -there are too restrictive
Way too restrictive
No flexibility for temporaU direction (business) signage on a city boulevard if it is deemed to be in
the communities interest
This is just crazy
Square footages are to low for most applications. Specifically freeway sq. footage requirements are
much to low for practical use.
I think this might be somewhat stringent -especially where talking about improvement
Small business sign
Part 4: Subdivision Code (no comments)
Part S: Landscaping Policy
You are not flexible and when reason dictates otherwise you simply "follow the policy" "no
exceptions
No flexibility -even when substitutions would benefit all concerned -upgrading
Should not have to sod all disturbed area. Seeding should be allowed where appropriate
Up keep is not controlled just planting
13
We had to submit this for our expansion, even though it wasn't applicable
Seems to me we needed to put a large deposit down refunded upon project completion. It was our
plan. I agree with the intentions and spirit although seemed as if the community planning system
operated a little bit from an attitude of distrust
Is there one?
Not enough landscaping per project
Deposit held for 1 year
A -plot showing new landscape which has the approval of the city should be enough. If the
landscape is not completed as drawn than the final inspection should not be granted
Part 6.• Tree Preservation Policy
Does not encourage development, economic restrictions
Stringent
Very costly for benefits received
You are not flexible and when reason dictates otherwise you simply "follow the policy" "no
exceptions.
There are good trees and poor trees. How it will look in 5 or 10 years no one cares
The penalty money should be used for trees not for the park dept.
This should not exist except under the landscape policy
Part 7.• Building Code
By the book
Parking based on square footage of building rather thanuse of business or employee counts
I get a kick out of the fact that you have all this emphasis on what we need to keep your paperwork
in order -but there is no requirements for any workers in the Refrigeration, Air Cond and Heating
field to carry any licenses. A housewife could pull a permit for a supermarket.
You are not flexible and when reason dictates otherwise you simply "follow the policy" "no
exceptions
Imposition of arbitrary requirements by eC D q x'' 3(nL • —a often unreasonable and very
expensive
Good
Enforcement -should be enforced uniformly- not one inspector one way -another -another way. Put
emphasis on important items- structural hazards, fire, or life threatening not bull like: nailing
patterns, 1/16" off on stairs risers, etc.
OK because we have recourse to the state to overrule the city
Mandating changes after plans and specs has been approved and a permit issued
Part 8: Fire Code
Ridiculous
Every year changes
Every year tougher
O n) ,x1 x1)(DL• n is totally out of line with his requirements -he is giving Plymouth a
bad reputation -a barnacle on the ass of progress!
Fire lane requirement and hydrant reqs. even when adjacent to public street with hydrants.
Excessive requirements for exhaust.
14
You are not flexible and when reason dictates otherwise you simply "follow the policy" "no
exceptions
Sprinkler code is prohibitive
Start charging for all false alarms the list is too long in the Sun newspaper
Imposition of arbitrary requirements by e0 q D q >?' X M. •:a often unreasonable and very
expensive
Need to have inspectors who will give a builder an entire list of items the first time not keep
adding items each time they come out and prolong an occupancy permit 6 weeks for trivial things
which are added on each visit
RL q.'V' X Tk >?' has too much latitude. His change of mind cost us $ and time worth ±
5000
Access road; sprinkling truss space
This is ridiculous, also the interpretation of the code seems to be up to one person X61°O x
0 has been very helpful
Fire codes add significant but probably warranted cost to development
Mandating changes after plans and specs has been approved and a permit issued
Part 9: Erosion Control/ Drainage Policies
NURP ponds ridiculous
Street cleanup bond not necessary
You are not flexible and when reason dictates otherwise you simply "follow the policy" no
exceptions
Make all homeowners keep their sump drainage on their property. Also developers should be
required to better plan drainage for building sites so no one gets drainage from more than 1 or 2
other homesites.
Those stupid 2' fences are a joke
This again should exist under landscape policy
No latitude, often do not fit the site involved
Part 10. Financial Guarantees (Bonds/ Letters of Credit)
Are another cost to developing to make things ey for staff
High $
Take too long to finalize and return to contractor
City very slow in getting deposits back
Public utilities should be exempt from financial guarantees as they are franchised in the city. Also
financial guarantees overlap ex: landscaping and street sweeping should be only one guarantee per
site
Why is required of owner builder. He is not going to leave.
YJo 111,111, O W eO O O 111, m cost us money and time (up to $5000) that didn't need
be -he's a control freak.
Here's an example of the lack of a sense of the customer: The city holds a bond for a year to make
sure that the trees that were planted have lived. The city doesn't automatically schedule a follow-
up inspection. If I want my bond released, I have to remember to call and ask for. an inspection,
staff review, city council consent, agenda item, etc. I'm trying to run a business not screw around
with regulators! If you had a sense of treating me as a customer, you would take care of these
things for me. Keep in mind, I'm paving the bills -as a resident and as a business I'm the bill -
15
paying customer! you've got to get that attitude instilled in the city government.
Have not had to deal with this in other cities
Do not fit the cities real involvement probabilities
19. Do you believe that any of the city's regulatory requirements are barriers to building
affordable housing in Plymouth? If YES, identify the requirement(s) that are the most
significant barrier(s) to building affordable housing in Plymouth.
There is such a problem to meet the codes of street water, etc. and plot approval you can't build a
cheap home
Density/setbacks/wetland edge/park ded. fees
Set back requirements; densities allowed
Lack of political will to zone property for affordable privately financed multi family housing
Impact fees and parking requirements (attached garage)
Lot size of area requirement
Setbacks, square footage per lot
Costs make this impossible
Also the State's taxing structure
Additional Comments:
a City staff mostly hard working. Always honest, tough but fair.
9 The city staff must learn to work with people -not against them!
On several occasions we have had to add significant cost to a project to meet a code, that made no
sense. We have had to construct a visual barrier fence to block the view of a dumpster from
adjoining neighbors. Our commercial neighbors have no windows or public areas on their
buildings sites from which to see the dumpster. There is a pathway along the property line on
which the only people we have ever seen on it, was the paving crew. The pathway due to the
natural slope of the land is higher than our property. We spent $13000 to build a fence to block
the view of people who are not there, but if they were, they could look over the top of it due to the
elevation change. This was explained to the city staff with drawings. Their response; "build it, it
meets code." On another occasion we thought about an expansion that would add jobs. Because of
the parking code based on square footage, we understood that we would have to add 100+ spaces
although we already have excess parking. It was explained that we would have to pave over an
area that has large mature trees and then put in planters with smaller ones for landscaping the
new" unneeded parking lot. We feel the intent keeping commercial areas attractive and neat is
important, but our senior management is convinced the city does not want expansion of industry. I
would hope there is no revenge on us for reporting the above, but numerous contractors have
reported similar horror stories to me.
Rules are easy to take if you know what they are andug ickly- call people back -act on permits -act
on all paperwork right away. The delays, all the time is what is such a joke!
Please continue to protect wetlands and woodlands as well as promoting development. These are
important to future as well as current residents!
The problems that I have encountered are mostly attitude and flexibility problems! I believe this is
a cultural thing at the city and will be difficult to change. Only a strong leadership and catalyst
can hope to make a change! Good luck!
Let's start listening to the citizens and have an open mind at the City Council and Planning
Commission meetings. It's like going to a meeting the citizen feels they can be heard but talking
16
to a brick wall. The citizen feels after they leave that the developers have the city in their pocket.
It's a real shame. Also, the city employees should be constantly reminded they are employed by the
citizens (residents). Without citizens (residents) they don't have a job. The city office customer
service treats the resident very poorly compared to businesses.
We do everything we can to discourage our customers from building in Plymouth. The multiple
layers of bureaucracy you have created cause inordinate delays and great expense. Once created
as is always the case in government where jobs have no relationship to profit or quality of
performance) each layer of bureaucracy insures its future by making sure its "required", whether
needed or not. Other cities are often tough, but fair and reasonable. Plymouth is arrogant,
arbitrary, and unreasonable.
I found your staff uncooperative, inflexible and your whole process was pretentious and
unrealistic. I feel sorry for the residents in your city. I watched people who wanted to put a
simple deck on their house built to code go through unnecessary cost and paperwork.
The City of Plymouth does not like apartments or renters. The city should not force parties to
negotiate their own deals. The city should.
Moving to the City of Medina 11/1/94. Reasons: Taxes, Tax increment financing $1.75/foot vs
3.00/foot.-City Council appears interested in bigger businesses; ours is smaller- We want the
smaller municipal small town feeling again
Some one did a great job on this survey because it says something. Please use it for improvement.
0111, Z444-- f(Q8nnEJ1M®A9 qa• 0111,E
The financial obligation a homeowner has to go through are totally out of range. The city caters to
large construction instead of the taxpayers of (?) homes. Process is too expensive and long. Need
to streamline the process and cost. 'fo3 esm 111,cif 111,)11,0 was very nasty and
unprofessional.
Improvements are noticeable in planning. Must be reasonable and let market drive use for (?).
1E1 Yk X 111,111, 0 X Yk and O X O M. are out of control. Egos are large on Council and
Planning Commission.
I applaud you for this survey! I think it would of been a better place to work if the attitudes of the
staff could be tempered to a business relationship rather than the builder versus the city
relationship. I believe it is a 50-50% deal.
It seemed like your staff was loaded with rules, regulations, and overall bureaucracy. We had
little trouble with our projects, but I could see how you could get a negative reaction. I prefer to
work with people who are able to make decisions, instead of asking a superior.
Probably I think the city does a good job overall. I have had disagreements with the city over
petty items but likewise with other cities. I believe the city does get a bum rap.
Government is too big.
Congratulations for launching this survey. I hope you'll take real action to follow-up on it.
All the ladies involved in scheduling the inspections are very friendly, helpful, patient and
efficient. ' 3f 0 i11, • if x' 111, 4 0 0 111, 0 a n Q oCB H 111, • • 111, S esm appreciate all of
you! !
We were somewhat the victims of a rather lengthy moratorium on residential services. Apparently
this was related to a program attempting to relocate into a residential area. The moratorium
allowed for no building or expansion. It slowed our process considerably which judging from the
rise construction bills did cost us. People were courteous, however, the moratorium was too
broad.
Plymouth is too liberal with its acceptance of development which impacts the environment,
particularly wetlands.
I was hoping to answer questions about conditional use permits, but you didn't ask any.
Overall, I find the staff helpful and knowledgeable, very pleasant to work with!
17
In general the city is doing a fine job; need to establish a calendar for hearing dates-Do not
implement the proposed wetland ordinance. Thank you!
1 wish the building permit procedure was quicker. The permit has always been ready in the
number of days staff said it would take but I personally would like a quicker turn around.
The city has consistently made it difficult for my enterprise to exist and thrive. The ability to
expand reasonable has been hampered in the past. The city needs to make it possible for
enterprises as my own to exist. 4111. 0 ln, O lil, lll, • 0 4 nL 00:a • lil,
YJDO• 00E0 iil.NaOEYk11l.0lll,n 003 —~Hn(F9 DO O #111.R:a,6D
RL Y)o3(til, 0 *RLE#nL R' li)E111 q+)( •# m,
111, You need more in neighborhoods besides large houses. We also employ 8
people who in turn contribute to the economy for more than tax revenue after development.
Working with the City of Plymouth is much better than it was 10 years ago.
The cost to build my industrial space is often excessive due to the requirements added by RL
dt*i(*-aXEy)o XE*13M,D O• 00-a >7'HOnL 0000=000. These excessive
requirements allot of times do not add to the safety of the space for (?) or the public. Because of
this I would not consider buying another building in Plymouth.
I feel one of the major problems in Plymouth is your people are trying to hard to justify their jobs,
and therefore passing this difficulty to others.
I feel that eO,6t O-- Oji,--O and possible others within the --OOE XE'10
4 ( i(• iE are very prejudice towards certain types of business in your city and will do
whatever they can to make it impossible for that business not to start up.
This return is late and incomplete, due to apprehension of retaliation. We have enough trouble
already. The civil engineers know this also. They will say "this is right but we can't because we
want to work in Plymouth again". You are going to have to do a 60 Minutes approach if you want
more than half information.
18
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
COAPJUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD
PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
612)550-5050
CITY OF PLYMOUTH REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT SURVEY
Please circle the number corresponding to your answer.
I. General Information
1. What type of business transactions does your organization have with the City of
Plymouth? (Please circle all that apply).
1 SUBDIVISION OF LAND
2 SITE PLAN REVIEW
3 LAND USE PLAN/ZONING CHANGE
4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
5 BUILDING PERMIT
6 OTHER, please identify:
2. How often does your organization contact Plymouth city offices for business purposes?
1 ONCE A WEEK
2 ONCE A MONTH
3 ONCE EVERY 6 MONTHS
4 ONCE A YEAR
5 OTHER, please identify:
3. How recent was your last contact with Plymouth city offices for business purposes?
1 WITHIN THE LAST 6 MONTHS
2 6 MONTHS TO 1 YEAR AGO
3 1 YEAR TO 3 YEARS AGO
4 LONGER THAN 3 YEARS AGO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT SURVzY, CONTINUED
Please circle the number corresponding to your answer.
9. How does the application fee charged by the City of Plymouth compare to other cities
your organization works in?
1 HIGHER
2 ABOUT THE SAME
3 LOWER
4 DO NOT KNOW
10. Did you understand the application forms and required process?
1 YES
2 NO, please explain:
11. Is there information required in the application process which you believe is not
necessary?
1 YES, please explain:
2 NO
M. Approval Timing of City Planning Applications
12. Is the timeliness of the initial staff review acceptable?
1 YES
2 NO, please explain:
13. How does the time of the initial review compare to other cities your organization works
in?
1 SLOWER
2 ABOUT THE SAME
3 FASTER
4 DO NOT KNOW
14. Is the time period between the initial staff review and Planning Commission or
administrative approval acceptable?
1 YES
2 NO, please explain:
C
CITY OF PLYMOUTH REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT SUR-vj Y, CONTINUED
Please circle the number corresponding to your answer.
5 LANDSCAPING POLICY, please identify:
6 TREE PRESERVATION POLICY, please identify:
7 BUILDING CODE, please identify:
8 FIRE CODE, please identify:
9 EROSION CONTROI/DRAINAGE POLICIES, please identify:
10 FINANCIAL GUARANTEES (BONDS/LETTERS OF CREDIT), please identify:
19. Do you believe that any of the city's regulatory requirements are barriers to building
affordable housing in Plymouth?
1 YES, please identify the requirement(s) that are the most significant barrier(s) to building affordable
housing in Plymouth:
2 NO
3 DO NOT KNOW
V. Organization Information
20. What type of real estate development is your organization involved in? (Please circle all
that apply).
1 COMMERCIAL
2 RESIDENTIAL
3 INDUSTRIAL
4 OTHER, please identify:
5
I'm writing to ask your help with a survey we are conducting of developers and others
who have submitted applications for review by the City of Plymouth over the last three
years. Every year, the Minnesota Real Estate Journal conducts a survey of real estate
professionals and asks them about the attitude of Metro Area cities toward
development. Plymouth has often been perceived as negative toward or discouraging
development. This year, we decided to do our own survey to determine if those of you
who have worked with the City over the last few years share this perception, and if so,
what we can do to improve.
Your input is very important to us. You have first-hand knowledge of our application
and review process, and have worked with our staff. Many of you also have
experience in other area communities, and can tell us how we compare. You can help
us improve our process and policies in ways that can meet the needs of the city at the
same time as we improve our services to you.
Your survey response will be confidential. We will not be able to identify you in any
way. Please feel free to give us all your comments, negative or positive.
Enclosed you will find a postage paid envelope in which to return the survey. Please
return it today! If you have any questions about the survey, or about the Community
Development Department in general, please feel free to call me at 550-5059.
Thank you for your help with our survey.
Sincerely,
Anne W. Hurlburt
Community Development Director
cones\5059\coversur. doc
We Listen - We Solve - We Care
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD - PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 • TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
DATE: May 18, 1995 for May 24, 1995 Special Council Meeting
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathy Lueckert, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Review Council Chambers Renovation Plans
ACTION REQUESTED: Review the options developed by staff and the architect and select
one plan for more detailed drawings and cost estimates.
DISCUSSION: During the past weeks staff has worked with the architect and video
consultant to develop options for the renovation of the Council Chambers. In April,
we received draft renderings of what the Chambers might look like and what video
capabilities might be possible. Staff visited other cities (Brooklyn Park, New Hope,
Golden Valley, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, and Crystal) to examine the layout and
capabilities of these Council Chambers. We also listened to staff members who "use"
the chambers, as well as to video producers, to assess what worked well and what
should be avoided. These visits proved enormously helpful, particularly in terms of
ruling out some video technologies. Based on this information, staff met with the
architect and consultant, describing our preferences.
Several options are presented for you to consider. There are, however, some
commonalties to the various room layouts.
Presentation Stand. Staff recommends use of a presentation stand for all materials --
maps, narrative, numbers, etc. A camera mounted directly above the presentation
stand will capture the material and send it out over cable and to monitors
throughout the Chambers. This stand will take the place of the overhead projector
and slide projector currently used. We will incorporate a computer into the
presentation stand, so that staff and the public can make use of computer graphics
and technology. A smaller podium, similar to what we now have, also will be
available for citizens who do not make use of presentation materials.
Monitors. Staff recommends that the new dais have small video monitors built into
the desk. These will have a high quality resolution so that the materials presented
at the presentation stand are clear and visible to councilmembers. We anticipate
having one monitor for every two persons, and the dais will be built in such a way
that the monitors will not take away desk space.
Cameras. We anticipate being able to reuse our three existing cameras. The
cameras will be incorporated and mounted into the renovated chambers, so that
tripods and wires will no longer be necessary. It is likely that we will purchase two
additional cameras.
Staff Tables. Department directors and other staff have requested a different
arrangement for the staff area. Most staff dislike having their backs to the
audience. The room layouts offer a different arrangement for staff.
Listed below are the three options for you to consider, with advantages and
disadvantages highlighted. Drawings of the three options are attached. They vary in
terms of layout and in terms of video technology used.
Option 1. This option moves the dais to the center of the room. The audience views
presentation materials on large (50" diameter) rear projection monitors placed at the
end of the dais. The staff tables and presentation stand are on either side of the dais,
and will be portable. A variation of this (Option IA) uses a large rear projection
screen.
Option 2. This option adjusts the layout of the room by 90 degrees. The primary
reason for this orientation change is to make use of a rear projection screen for
audience viewing of presentation materials. This option will involve replacing the
ceiling. Another disadvantage is that there is not a "quick exit" for folks on the dais --
they must walk the width of the chambers to a door. While a door can be created in
the existing rear wall, it will be somewhat costly. Another concern is the visual quality
of rear projection screens, particularly when used with computer graphics.
Option 3. This option slightly modifies the current arrangement of the chambers. A
rear projection screen is used, and staff tables/presentation stand are arranged on either
side of the dais. Additional video monitors also could be installed along the outside
walls of the Chambers.
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS. All three options stay within the $500,000 available for
the project. However, Option 2 will require more extensive work on the ceiling in the
Chambers, at a cost of $18,000 to $25,000. We estimate that the video equipment will
cost between $200,000 and $250,000, with room modifications making up the balance
of the cost. Once a preferred room design is determined, the architect and video
consultant will develop a detailed budget for your approval.
RECOMMENDATION. After discussion, the staff generally prefers Option 3, although
Option 1 also might be workable. Staff does not recommend Option 2.
Participants in the staff committee include Dwight Johnson, Laurie Ahrens, Craig
Gerdes, Anne Hurlburt, Helen LaFave, Barb Senness, and Kathy Lueckert.
Department head also had major input into the review process. We also are fortunate
to have the assistance and perspective of Tim Gaffron, from Northwest Community
Television.
Attachments
il[E_I l
m
Mil WEI WEIMMEM
I!
i
min win WE WE
p-miml' i` IN MIN
101
proy c,6 -(,Al zo ln-
h % pfoulakm 4"1
E)COUNC I L C 4X-IBE fRe OPTION I
AI /n. -e, .- ,— 1, int /i^I Q ATGI
C
ION
A-INIO n
i I: I'A
i I Vii' ':
x
fvati AqC j-ory V lTtl
protlual-l-prv,idI'il
COUNCIL C 4,4r*15E Re OPTION IA
Al P. i t3 zr_O• 171 a=A rC,)
C
11111iIJIiIJ
1 Ii Ii 1i 1
1 Ii Ii KI
1 Ii 1
Al
ka P(-Oj6*OA1 4,06M,
pajm wl-m "-Ad'
COUNCIL CI -4,41 155 fR5 OFT I ON a,
Al /SCALE: 1/8'=1'-0' (122 SEATS)
lo,
ImitmANAME
IN 0
M
mml !MEN WIN MIXIM-p-mi,
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN Mt NO -0 W ME MINIM M -M!
mEl- -_MINIM
0 MMltM1 No MINIM M WEM
IM MINIMI NOm
00 ElmNo101-IMAIR11, -
NO'
MINIM WE 0
X
kp I-rd
If
owl
p % *J
COUNCIL Ck4At"15ER& OPTION ,.3
A]_,/SCALE: Va'-V-O' 121 SEATS)
I
DATE: May 19, 1995
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathy Lueckert
SUBJECT: Citizen Survey Results
As of this afternoon, the consultant was still preparing the preliminary results on the
1995 Citizen Survey. This report will be ready on Monday, and you can expect an
extra delivery on Monday afternoon with the survey results.
Thanks!