Loading...
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!