HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 11-30-2005 SpecialAgenda
City of Plymouth
Joint City Council/ Planning Commission Meeting
Land Use Plan Update for Northwest Area
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
7:00 p.m.
Plymouth Room
Plymouth Creek Center
1. Call to Order—Mayor Johnson (Time Estimate)
2. Review Agendas/ Goals for November 30 and December 6 10 Minutes
Workshop Meetings
3. Overview of Plan Update Process 30 Minutes
a. Metropolitan Council Role & Requirements
b. Schedule for Land Use Plan Update
C. Status of Other Plan Elements
4. Results of October Neighborhood Identification Meetings 45 Minutes
5. Review Existing Comprehensive Plan Vision Statements 20 Minutes
6. Review Existing Comprehensive Plan City -Wide Land Use 20 Minutes
Policies
7. General Questions and Discussion
8. Adjourn (not later than 10:00 p.m.)
0
Agenda
2
City of Plymouth
Joint City Council/ Planning Commission Meeting
Land Use Plan Update for Northwest Area
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
7:00 p.m.
Plymouth Room
Plymouth Creek Center
1. Call to Order—Mayor Johnson
2. Brief Recap of November 30 Workshop and Review
Agenda/ Goals for December 6
3. Overview of Population, Employment and Housing Trends
and Relationship to Land Use Plan
4. Existing Land Use, City-wide and Planning Areas 1 & 2
5. Discussion of Planning Area 1 Land Use Issues
6. Discussion of Planning Area 2 Land Use Issues
7. Summarize Results/ Next Steps
8. General Questions and Discussion
9. Adjourn (not later than 10:00 p.m.)
Time Estimate)
5 Minutes
130 Minutes
30 Minutes
45 Minutes
1 Hour
5 Minutes
Northwest Planning Areas
2030 Comprehensive Plan Update
PLANNING PROCESS MILESTONES
AND TENTATIVE DATES
Kick-off — Informal Public Open House- September 15, 2005 6:30-8:30
Kick-off— Informal Public Open House September 20, 2005 6:30-8:30
Planning Area 1 Issues Identification Meeting
Planning Area 2 Issues Identification Meeting
Issues meetings analysis and summary
Planning Commission/City Council issues workshop
Planning Commission/City Council issues workshop
Neighborhood Input — "Listening Meeting"
Staff land use alternatives analysis/summary
General plan components updating
Planning Commission/City Council land use workshops
Draft plan preparation
Planning Area 1 Draft 2030 Plan - Neighborhood Meeting
Planning Area 2 Draft 2030 Plan - Neighborhood Meeting
Draft 2030 Northwest Areas Plan revisions
2030 Plan review: Planning Commission/City Council
October 24, 2005 7:00-9:00
October 26, 2005 7:00-9:00
October -November, 2005
November 30, 2005 7:00 p.m.
December 6, 2005 7:00 p.m.
December 12,7:00 p.m.
November, 2005 -January, 2006
November, 2005 -March, 2006
February/March, 2006
March, 2006
April -May, 2006
April -May, 2006
May -June, 2006
June,2006
Planning Area 1: Area between Fernbrook Lane and Vicksburg Lane}
Planning Area 2: Area located west of Vicksburg Lane}
rlm Resource
Strategies
Corporation
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Issues Identification Process Summary
Northwest Planning Areas
The October 24 and 26 public participation meetings were intended to provide the City with
neighborhood input on City strengths and weaknesses, concerns about future growth, and
preferences for future growth. Receiving feedback from residents about strengths and
weaknesses is one type of barometer for reviewing and validating community vision statements.
This information allows the City to focus on and build on strengths and priorities, while avoiding
or overcoming community weaknesses. This information is also useful in reviewing and
confirming goals and policies for community development.
Understanding public attitudes about growth concerns and growth desires is a valuable tool in
updating the comprehensive plan. Public input on growth concerns and growth desires assists
the City in identifying the inherent conflicts in neighborhood interests and the challenges for
selecting appropriate growth management strategies. Such information is useful in evaluating
different alternatives for future neighborhood land uses.
Spreadsheets from the neighborhood meetings, summarizing community strengths, community
weaknesses, neighborhood growth concerns, and neighborhood growth desires, are attached.
Planning Area 1 met on October 24 and included over 60 participants. Planning Area 2 met on
October 26 and included over 130 participants. About a dozen people from Area 2 attended the
October 24 meeting. Results from each planning area were recorded separately and totaled 49
Area 1 participant responses and 148 Area 2 participant responses. Both meetings were held at
Plymouth Creek Center.
The issues identification process is not a scientific survey of attitudes, but its results will provide
additional background information for and be one of several steps followed in the update of the
comprehensive plan. The process also serves as one of several opportunities for citizen
participation in the planning process.
Community Strengths
At a glance the top community strengths identified in the two planning areas are very similar and
ranked comparably. Below are the individual rankings from Area 1 and Area 2, illustrating the
community strengths and percentages of participant's selections. The top five selections in each
area represent approximately 50% of the total responses.
Area 1 Rank (%) Area 2 Rank (%)
1. Wetlands/Lakes/Natural Setting (12.5%) Good Schools (14.2%)
2. Good Parks/Trails/Recreation (11.8%) Good Location within Region (9.2%)
3. Low Crime/Safe Neighborhoods (11.1%) Wetlands/Lakes/Natural Setting (8.5%)
4. Good Schools (9.0%) Low Crime/Safe Neighborhoods (7.9%)
5. Good Location within Region (7.6 %) Rural Atmosphere (7.0%)
Northwest Planning Areas Issues Identification
Other common selections in both Area 1 and Area 2 that ranked in the top ten strengths include
land available for growth," "quiet atmosphere," "rural atmosphere," and "good
parks/trails/recreation." "Good schools," "good location," and possibly "safe neighborhoods"
may be attributes common in other areas within Plymouth, but the Northwest Planning Areas are
uniquely valued in possessing natural features, recreational amenities, a peaceful rural
environment, and land available for growth.
Community Weaknesses
There are similarities in the community weaknesses selected in both Area 1 and Area 2, but there
are also some distinct conflicts between responses within each neighborhood. Below are the top
five selections ranked within each area. Note: the "other" category (individual write-in
responses) emerged in the top five selections of Area 2 and in the top ten of Area 1; however,
similar responses or themes within the "other" categories do not out -rank other top ten selections
in either area and are not listed in the ranking below.
Area I Rank (%) Area 2 Rank (%)
1. Traffic Congestion Worsening (21.7%)
2. Too Few Natural/Open Area Left (13.8%
3. Too Crowded Already (8.7%)
4. General Taxes Too High (5.8%)
5. Traffic Noise Increasing (4.3%)
Traffic Congestion Worsening (20.0%)
Too Few Natural/Open Area Left (8.5%
Zoning Too Restrictive (8.0%)
General Taxes Too High (7.1 %)
Housing Costs Too High (6.4%)
Traffic congestion" emerged as the single highest response in all of the exercises in either
planning area. Participants Area 1 and Area 2 also ranked "too few natural/open spaces" and
general taxes too high" with equal concern. Other similar top ten rankings between the
planning areas include "lots too small," "traffic noise increasing," and "zoning too restrictive."
While some participants in Area 1 are concerned about being "too crowded already" and "lots
too small" (combined 13.0% responses), others are concerned about "zoning too restrictive" and
lack of housing variety" (combined 7.9% responses). These illustrate conflicting attitudes about
weaknesses within the same neighborhood. Conversely, a higher percentage of participants from
Area 2 (14.4% combined responses) found "zoning too restrictive" and "housing costs too high,"
yet others highlighted "lots too small" (4.8%). Lot sizes, density, and zoning restrictions are all
related to the ability to provide housing variety and affordability.
The only similar responses or themes in the "other" category in Area 1 include "loss of rural
atmosphere" (2 write-ins). Similar responses or themes in the "other" weakness category in Area
2 include "lack of cultural diversity/religious facilities" (11 write-ins), the "potential
development (loss) of Elm Creek golf course" (4 write-ins), and "letting citizens plan (influence)
the City" (3write-ins).
Within each neighborhood there are differences of opinion regarding weaknesses, and there are
nearly opposite emphases between Area I and Area 2 about development density and housing
alternatives.
October 24 & 26, 2005 2 Summary
Northwest Planning Areas Issues Identification
Growth Concerns
Four of the top five neighborhood concerns about future growth are identical in the two planning
areas. The "other" category emerged in the top five selections of both planning areas; however,
the common responses or themes within the "other" categories do not out -rank other top five
selections (or top ten) in either area and are not included in the ranking below.
Area 1 Rank (%)
1. Loss of Natural Areas/Open Spaces (15.4%)
2. Increase in Traffic Congestion (14.0%)
3. Loss of Trees (10.3%)
4. Increase in Crime (8.1 %)
5. Loss of Wildlife (6.6%)
Area 2 Rank (%)
Increase in Traffic Congestion (13.3%)
Loss of Natural Areas/Open Spaces (10.3%)
Roads Already Congested (7.3%)
Increase in Crime (6.3%)
Loss of Trees (6.3%)
Additional top ten rankings that are similar between the planning areas include "roads already
congested," "loss of trees," and "development ruins my lifestyle." Growth concern themes in the
other" category in Area 1 include "traffic congestion consequences and need for transit" (3
responses), "need good planning and design" (2 responses), and "growth is necessary" (2
responses). Major themes in the Area 2 "other" category include "favoring MUSA expansion
and growth" (10 responses), "need for cultural diversity/religious facilities" (9 responses), and
retain natural areas" (3 responses).
In general, both neighborhoods view future growth as compounding traffic congestion,
diminishing natural amenities, increasing crime, and ruining existing lifestyles.
Growth Desires
The overall preferences for future growth are similar in both Area 1 and Area 2, yet the rankings
between the two neighborhoods show rather different priorities. Both areas favor retaining the
rural atmosphere, protecting natural areas, promoting larger lot single family development, and
developing more parks and trails. On the other hand, Area 1 responses are highlighted by a
slower growth rate and more restrictive environmental regulations (rank no. 8), while
participants in Area 2 emphasize extending sewer and water to the neighborhood and a split
preference for a rapid pace of development (rank no. 9) and a slower pace (rank no. 11). The
other" category emerged again in the top ten of Area 2 but not Area 1. As before, individual
themes do not out -rank other top ten choices and are left out of the following ranking.
Area 1 Rank (%)
1. Retain Rural Atmosphere (13.9%)
2. More Natural areas/Open Spaces (12.5%)
3. Slower Growth Rate (11.1 %)
4. Single Family Development Focus (9.7%)
5. More Parks and Trails (7.6%)
Area 2 Rank (%)
Expand Sewer and Water (13.2%)
Retain Rural Atmosphere (10.0%)
More Natural areas/Open Spaces (9.1 %)
Single Family Development Focus (6.4%)
Transit -friendly Development (5.9%)
October 24 & 26, 2005 3 Summary
Northwest Planning Areas Issues Identification
Additional top ten category similarities between Area 1 and Area 2 include "larger single family
lots," "expanding sewer and water," and "mix of lot sizes/housing types/prices." Attitudes within
both planning areas reveal conflicting urban and rural growth preferences, which will provide
challenges in selecting growth management strategies. While emphasizing retention of the
natural areas, the rural atmosphere, and larger (1/2 acre) lot sizes, participants in both planning
areas also identify preferences for sewer and water expansion, more parks and trails, and
housing variety and pricing.
Newspaper Headlines
Meeting participants were also asked to write a headline that reflected what they hoped the
outcome of the current planning efforts in Plymouth may reveal in the next 15-20 years. The
exercise was intended to be more fun than informative, yet common themes in responses did
emerge. There were 30 headlines written about Area I and 66 headlines submitted for Area 2.
The following summaries for each planning area identify the general themes or groupings of
similar headline categories, the number of responses, and the percentage of the responses.
Area 1 Headlines (No. Responses - %)
1. Area retains natural amenities (6 - 20.0%)
2. Area retains rural atmosphere (5 - 16.7%)
3. Area has balanced growth/good planning and design (5- 16.7%)
4. Area is the best place to live (5- 16.7%)
5. City didn't listen - amenities lost (4 - 13.3%)
Area 2 Headlines (No. Responses - %)
1. Growth allowed/services extended (16 - 24.2%)
2. Area has balanced growth/good planning and design (15 - 22.7%)
3. Area retains rural atmosphere (6- 9.1 %)
4. Area retains natural amenities (5- 7.6%)
5. Elm Creek golf course not redeveloped (5 - 7.6%)
Mapping Exercise
In the final exercise at the October meetings, participants were asked to "play planner" and draw
balloon diagrams depicting proposed land uses within each planning area. Most of the combined
meeting participants (156 of 197) chose to draw a map. There were 43 maps drawn depicting
Planning Area 1 and 113 maps depicting Planning Area 2. In general the mapping results
correlate with the growth desires in each area.
While it is not possible to analyze the mapping results scientifically, there are a few conclusions
that may be drawn from this exercise. In Area 1, a large percentage (about 47%) showed the
area as entirely rural. Many who indicated some urban land use still showed the former
October 24 & 26, 2005 4 Summary
Northwest Planning Areas Issues Identification
Hampton Hills golf course site in rural or park uses. Taken together these maps represent about
70% of the maps drawn. The future use of the former golf course and how it will affect the
surrounding land appears to be a significant land use issue among participants in Area 1.
In Area 2, most indicated urban land uses in at least part of the area. A large number of those
about 45% of the completed maps) showed urban land use for all of the area, with about 25% of
the completed maps showing commercial/industrial uses in addition to residential land uses.
There were also a few particular sites that were highlighted on several maps, indicating that they
will be of particular interest to the land owners and neighbors. The main examples are the Elm
Creek golf course and the Speak the Word Church property, two of the largest sites in single
ownership in the planning area.
GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Meeting participants from both Area 1 and Area 2 highlight the natural amenities and rural
atmosphere in the northwest planning areas as community/neighborhood strengths. Traffic
congestion, the loss of natural amenities, an increase in crime, and a change in existing lifestyles
are common concerns about future growth within the two planning areas. Participants in both
Area 1 and Area 2 desire retaining natural amenities, the rural atmosphere, and single family
residential development focus in their neighborhoods, while other participants in both planning
areas desire the extension of public utilities, more parks and trails, and a mix of lot sizes, housing
types, and housing affordability.
There are conflicting attitudes within each planning area about rural and urban development
alternatives and preferences. There is a stronger preference within Area 1 to remain more rural
and a stronger preference within Area 2 to become more urban. General conclusions from the
northwest planning areas issues identification process need to be analyzed and compared for
consistency with the community vision statements and goals and policies in the current
comprehensive plan.
Acknowledging resident interests in maintaining a rural atmosphere while allowing urban
development in the northwest planning area may require modification of the vision statements,
goals, and policies. The challenge in updating the comprehensive plan will be in balancing
divergent attitudes about development within the northwest planning area and selecting growth
management strategies that reflect neighborhood desires and remain consistent with community-
wide visions, goals, and policies.
October 24 & 26, 2005 5 Summary
Planning Areas
Northwest Plymouth
For more information
contact us:
Community Development
Department
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447-1482
763-509-5400
Fax: 763-509-5407
plannina(cr,ci.plymouth.mn.us
9
r
16
0
SCH mIK
Plymouth Northwest Planning
Community Strengths, Planning Area 1
Ranking Responses
1 Wetlands, Lakes, Natural Setting 18
2 Good Parks / Trails / Recreation 17
3 Low Crime / Safe Neighborhoods 16
4 Good Schools 13
5 Good Location within Region 11
6 Quiet Atmosphere 9
7 Rural Atmosphere 9
8 Family -Oriented City 6
9 Land Available for Growth 6
10 Good Range of Housing Styles 5
11 Low Population Density 5
12 Friendly City / Neighborhoods 4
13 Good Access / Transportation 4
14 Strong Community Identity 3
15 Good City Government 3
16 Reasonable Property Taxes 3
17 Wildlife in Community 3
18 Good Range of Housing Prices 3
19 Good City Planning 2
20 Good Employment Opportunities 1
21 Easy Commute to Work 1
22 Good Shopping Opportunities in City 1
23 Other (Use this number and write your own response) 1
24 Good City Services p
25 Good Volunteer Organizations in City p
Total Responses 144
25 Other (number indicates Area 1 or Area 2)
Local support for affordable housing development (1)
A
Plymouth Northwest Planning
Community Weaknesses, Planning Area 1
Ranking Responses
1 Traffic Congestion is Worsening 30
2 Too Few Natural Areas / Open Spaces Left 19
3 Too Crowded Already 12
4 Taxes Too High — In General 8
5 Traffic Noise is Increasing 6
6 Lack of Housing Variety 6
7 Lots Too Small 6
8 Other (Use this number and write your own response) 6
9 City Zoning Too Restrictive 5
10 Need More Parks / Recreation 5
11 Housing Costs too High — Kids can't Afford to Live Here 5
12 Lack of Neighborhood Shopping 4
13 Too Few Trails/Safe Pedestrian Ways 4
14 Poor City Planning 3
15 Bad Road Maintenance 2
16 City Zoning Too Lax 2
17 No Neighborhood Identity 2
18 Lots Too Large 2
19 No Community Identity 2
20 Not Enough Senior Housing 2
21 Taxes Too High — City Portion 2
22 Too Far From Good Employment 2
23 Lack of Communication with City Officials 1
24 Lack of Industry 1
25 Too Far From Good Shopping 1
26 Poorly Maintained Properties 0
27 Too Few Decent Wage Employment Opportunities 0
28 Too Few Local Government Services 0
29 Poor City Service Delivery 0
Total Responses 138
29 Other (number indicates Area 1 or Area 2)
Too much high density housing growth (1)
Loss of rural atmosphere (1)
Not enough developable land (1)
Loss of rural area (1)
Need a cit -owned recreation center LifeTime is too commercial & too expensive (1)
IN
Community Weaknesses, Planning Area 1
Not enou h streets that support on -road bicycling 1)
w
Plymouth Northwest Planning
Neighborhood Growth Concerns, Planning Area 1
Ranking Responses
1 Loss of Natural Areas / Open Spaces 21
2 Increase in Traffic Congestion 19
3 Loss of Trees 14
4 Increase in Crime 11
5 Other (Use this number and write your own response) 11
6 Loss of Wildlife 9
7 Roads Already Congested 8
8 Wetland Damage / Loss 7
9 Development Ruins my Lifestyle 4
10 Higher Costs of Services 4
11 Schools Already Overburdened 4
12 Don't want Business next to Homes 4
13 Development Degrades my Property Values 3
14 Need More Services 3
15 Too Many Homes — Need More Business 3
16 Growth is a Burden on City Services 2
17 Development will Raise my Taxes 2
18 Assessments Change Lifestyle, Cause Premature Decisions 2
19 Too Much Business —Need More Homes 2
20 Growth is a Burden on Tax Payers 1
21 Developers Never Pay Fair Share 1
22 Too Crowded Already 1
Total Responses 136
22 Other (number indicates Area 1 or Area 2)
TIF growth is a burden on tax payers (1)
Technology should lower expenses, not increase expenses (1)
Development increases traffic, congestion, decreases open spaces/ space for trails/ recreation (1)
Growth is necessary and important, especially in a major metropolitan area (1)
Smart growth-- master planned areas-- not piecemeal development (1)
Lack of public transit (1)
Traffic increases (1)
Need quality neighborhood design (1)
Don't want business next to homes (1)
Cities income diminishes when growth stops, growth provides jobs (1)
Developers who don't care about neighbor concerns or lie to them 1
10
Plymouth Northwest Planning
Neighborhood Growth Desires, Planning Area 1
Ranking Responses
1 Retain Rural Atmosphere in Northwest Planning Areas 20
2 More Natural Areas / Open Space Protection 18
3 Slower Growth Rate
16
4 Focus on Single Family Residential Development 14
5 More Parks and Trails 11
6 Larger Single Family Lots — (1/2 acre lots) 10
7 Expand Sewer and Water Systems for Growth 9
8 More Restrictive Environmental Regulations 7
9 Design for Pedestrians and Bicycles 7
10 Focus on Mix of Lot Sizes / Housing Types / Prices 5
11 Transit-Friendly Development 5
12 Other (Use this number and write your own response) 5
13 Let Private Sector Determine Type and Rate of Growth 3
14 Create Neighborhood-scale Planning Areas/Sub-districts 2
15 Smaller Single Family Lots — (1/4 acre lots) 2
16 Allow Neighborhood Commercial Centers 2
17 Moderate Growth Rate 2
18 Less Restrictive Environmental Regulations 2
19 Promote Clustering to Preserve / Enhance Rural Appeal 1
20 Focus on Townhomes / Multiple Family Homes 1
21 Allow Business Park / Office Development 1
22 No Commercial / Industrial Development 1
23 Allow More Commercial / Industrial Development 0
24 Less Natural Areas / Open Space Protection 0
25 Less Parks and Trails 0
26 Rapid Growth Rate 0
Total Responses 144
26 Other (number indicates Area 1 or Area 2)
Be able to sell property, prices paid to others for acreage but find developers
who specialize in these areas (1)
Upgrade roads at beginning of development i.e. County Road 47 (1)
City needs to develop in an efficient manner w/out excessive delays due to political agendas (1)
Access to affordable housing (1)
1__'jCounty Road 47 road improvements (1)
Plymouth Northwest Planning
Community Strengths, Planning Area 2
Ranking Responses
1 Good Schools 63
2 Good Location within Region 41
3 Wetlands, Lakes, Natural Setting 38
4 Low Crime / Safe Neighborhoods 35
5 Rural Atmosphere 31
6 Land Available for Growth 28
7 Good Parks / Trails / Recreation 26
8 Low Population Density 26
9 Quiet Atmosphere 18
10 Easy Commute to Work 15
11 Family -Oriented City 15
12 Good Range of Housing Styles 12
13 Good Access / Transportation 12
14 Friendly City / Neighborhoods 11
15 Reasonable Property Taxes g
16 Good Range of Housing Prices g
17 Other (Use this number and write your own response) 9
18 Good Shopping Opportunities in City 8
19 Good Employment Opportunities 7
20 Good City Planning 7
21 Wildlife in Community 7
22 Good City Government 6
23 Strong Community Identity 5
24 Good City Services 5
25 Good Volunteer Organizations in City 2
Total Responses 445
25 Other (number indicates Area 1 or Area 2)
Can my 5 -acre hobby farm still be allowed horses? We live in the country for this use. (2)
NW is a very desirable area for development (2)
Cultural/ religion opportunity (2)
Living next to golf course/ Elm Creek (2)
Cultural and religious opportunities (2)
Cultural, artistic and religious diversity (2)
Cultural and religious opportunities (2
Community Strengths, Planning Area 2
Cultural and religious opportunities (2)
Plymouth's single family housing is "high end" market keep it that way!! 2
Plymouth Northwest Planning
Community Weaknesses, Planning Area 2
Ranking Responses
1 Traffic Congestion is Worsening 87
2 Too Few Natural Areas / Open Spaces Left 37
3 City Zoning Too Restrictive 35
4 Other (Use this number and write your own response) 32
5 Taxes Too High — In General 31
6 Housing Costs too High — Kids can't Afford to Live Here 28
7 Lots Too Small 21
8 Traffic Noise is Increasing 17
9 Too Few Trails/Safe Pedestrian Ways 13
10 Poor City Planning 13
11 Bad Road Maintenance 12
12 Too Crowded Already 11
13 No Community Identity 11
14 Lack of Housing Variety 10
15 Lack of Neighborhood Shopping 9
16 Need More Parks / Recreation 9
17 Lack of Industry 8
18 Lots Too Large 8
19 No Neighborhood Identity 7
20 Not Enough Senior Housing 7
21 Taxes Too High — City Portion 6
22 Poorly Maintained Properties 5
23 Poor City Service Delivery 5
24 Too Far From Good Shopping 5
25 Too Few Decent Wage Employment Opportunities 3
26 City Zoning Too Lax 2
27 Lack of Communication with City Officials 2
28 Too Few Local Government Services 1
29 Too Far From Good Employment 1
Total Responses 436
29 Other (number indicates Area 1 or Area 2)
No/ lack of religious/church facility (2)
Lack of local community churches or few choices (2)
New development takes away scenery & night sky & wildlife 2)
T
Community Weaknesses, Planning Area 2
Too much new high density housing (2)
Too much townhouse development (2)
Lack of cultural and religious facilities (2)
Lack of diversity (2)
Lack of community education, business/ religious partnerships (2)
Large community and religious facilities (2)
Development of Elm Creek Golf Course (2)
Development of Elm Creek Golf Course (2)
Too many meetings, too many city "Planners"/ officials-- poor decisions (2)
Consider change of comp. Plan to develop Elm Creek Golf Course property to residential (2)
Some) community leaders cold to freedom of religion (2)
Development of Elm Creek Golf Course (2)
City zoning in developing Area 2 has been extremely slow to the point of foot -dragging. (2)
Losing green space w/fast development (2)
Too much development already, appears that every open spot will be developed (2)
Want development west of Vicksburg (2)
Lack of cultural and religious facilities (2)
Lack of cultural diversity (2)
Lack of leadership role in providing community facilities (2)
Letting the citizens plan the city (2)
Letting the citizens plan the city (leading by consensus!) (2)
Trains too noisy (2)
Letting citizens plan city (2)
Poor road planning (2)
Lack of cultural and religious facilities (2)
Really need strong religious facilities (2)
Gun club (2)
Land is becoming too costly (2)
No "small lots" 2
S
Plymouth Northwest Planning
Neighborhood Growth Concerns, Planning Area 2
Ranking Responses
1 Increase in Traffic Congestion 53
2 Loss of Natural Areas / Open Spaces 41
3 Other (Use this number and write your own response) 33
4 Roads Already Congested 29
5 Increase in Crime 25
6 Loss of Trees 25
7 Need More Services 23
8 Assessments Change Lifestyle, Cause Premature Decisions 22
9 Development Ruins my Lifestyle 20
10 Development will Raise my Taxes 19
11 Developers Never Pay Fair Share 14
12 Schools Already Overburdened 14
13 Don't want Business next to Homes 13
14 Development Degrades my Property Values 11
15 Loss of Wildlife 11
16 Wetland Damage / Loss 11
17 Too Many Homes — Need More Business 10
18 Too Much Business — Need More Homes 8
19 Growth is a Burden on City Services 7
20 Higher Costs of Services 7
21 Growth is a Burden on Tax Payers 3
22 Too Crowded Already 1
Total Responses 400
22 Other (number indicates Area I or Area 2)
Community youth/church facility needed (2)
Need way more growth (2)
Keep prices affordable in Plymouth (2)
Work cooperatively with larger land owners, communication in planning & city or privately 2)
Openness to community building through cultural- religious partnerships (2)
Development Impacts self -interests only (2)
Development of Elm Creek Golf Course (2)
Loss of quiet with too much development (2)
No major growth concerns-- City needs to use up available land (2)
Many developers are after the dollar and don't respect landscape (2)
Developers build cheap multi family driving down values (2)
Development of Elm Creek Golf Course (2)
Lack of development (2)
Lack of development (2
14 1
Neighborhood Growth Concerns, Planning Area 2
Arbitrary application of MUSA line (2)
Want development west of Vicksburg (2)
Everything on this page is negative? Why? (2)
Too high of speed limits (2)
Need pedestrian scale neighborhoods (2)
Need strong multicultural facility (2)
Connected open space & trails (2)
Failure to openly consider all opportunity (2)
Too much concern about taxation (2)
Need more cultural and religious offerings (2)
More cultural and religious offerings (2)
More cultural and religious offerings (2)
Too few cultural and religious offerings (2)
Need more cultural and religious offerings (2)
Traffic traffic traffic (2)
Need more religious and cultural facilities (2)
Growth increases congestion, trafic, decreases open space/ natural areas (2)
Develop "good" and "safe" neighborhoods, don't put "low density" housing near "high density" housing (2)
How are MUSA boundaries determined(why are some properties exempt from MUSA?) (2)
17
Plymouth Northwest Planning
Neighborhood Growth Desires, Planning Area 2
Ranking Responses
1 Expand Sewer and Water Systems for Growth 58
2 Retain Rural Atmosphere in Northwest Planning Areas 44
3 More Natural Areas / Open Space Protection
40
4 Focus on Single Family Residential Development 28
5 Other (Use this number and write your own response) 26
6 Transit -Friendly Development 22
7 Larger Single Family Lots — (1/2 acre lots) 21
8 More Parks and Trails 20
9 Rapid Growth Rate 20
10 Focus on Mix of Lot Sizes / Housing Types / Prices 19
11 Slower Growth Rate 19
12 Let Private Sector Determine Type and Rate of Growth 18
13 Design for Pedestrians and Bicycles 17
14 Promote Clustering to Preserve / Enhance Rural Appeal 15
15 Focus on Townhomes / Multiple Family Homes 13
16 Moderate Growth Rate 12
17 Smaller Single Family Lots — (1/4 acre lots) 9
18 Allow Neighborhood Commercial Centers 8
19 Create Neighborhood -scale Planning Areas/Sub-districts 6
20 No Commercial / Industrial Development g
21 More Restrictive Environmental Regulations 6
22 Less Restrictive Environmental Regulations g
23 Less Parks and Trails 3
24 Allow Business Park / Office Development 2
25 Allow More Commercial / Industrial Development 2
26 Less Natural Areas / Open Space Protection 0
Total Responses
26 Other (number indicates Area 1 or Area 2)
To see Dominion Center Church- for community, meeting organization use, youth center, open space, trees (2)
Allow community building through cultural- religious- economic partnership (2)
Strengthen access & growth of diversity (2)
View development as opportunity for expansion of cultural - religious partnership (2)
single
Development of organizations that will help people (2)
family larger lots w/hobby farm classification 2
AF
Neighborhood Growth Desires, Planning Area 2
Leave Elm Creek Golf Club alone as a golf club (2)
Oppose development Golf Elm Creek of Course to residential (2)
Allow churches (2)
Do not develop Elm Creek Golf Course (2)
Allow more tax exempt development (2)
High intensity land uses next to regional roads (2)
Allow community/ religious/ economic partnerships (2)
Benefit community with large community centers (2)
Need more cultural and religious offerings (2)
More cultural & religious opportunities (2)
City does not follow through and correct problems due to development (2)
Insure excellent K-12 schools (2)
Establish community college or 4 yr college (2)
Need more cultural and religious facilities (2)
Well planned long term decisions are made (2)
Does not matter after 25 yrs in Plymouth I'm moving out (2)
More housing (2)
Parks & trails are good (2)
Higher density areas - no more parks (2)
Allow this area to be developed (2
Plymouth Northwest Planning
October 24 & 26, 2005 Neighborhood Issues Identification Meetings
Newspaper headline (related to tonight's exercise) you would like to read about
regarding the Northwest Planning Area in 15-20 years.
Planning Area 1
No. 1 place to live you never heard about!
City of Plymouth decides to keep Northwest Planning Area 1 as a natural area with wildlife and wooded
areas!
Plymouth stands up against overdevelopment, trends, maintains natural beauty and top place to live
As available land decreases, planning with care increases
Thinking out of the box--- preserving paradise but allowing growth
Developers forced to pay fee while old growth trees are being restored
Plymouth Planning Department shocked all and recommended no change to the comprehensive plan for
Planning Area 1. Decision is applauded by residents
Plymouth, MN ranks #1 city for quality of life in the US
City Council ignores the wishes of slower growth in Plymouth, again
Plymouth voted top 10 place to live in Minnesota for 20 years running
Plymouth sets high standard for street & road planning & development
Plymouth City Council acts to preserve open spaces for wildlife, parks ,hiking and said NO! to high density
developers.
Plymouth makes a bold stand to preserve pristine rural atmosphere.
Rural Area Protected from Development" Parks & Recreation area for our children preserved
It is still quiet and some of the trees survived!
City preserves natural settings, values quality if life by halting large developments
Plymouth planning supports affordable rental housing development
City opts for less homes bigger lots!
Careful planning with a moderate growth rate while preserving natural environment has given northwest area
a distinct advantage
Quality planning & input 15-20 years ago-- pays off today-- high quality, highly desired neighborhood still
attracts families to Plymouth NWQ
Landowners had no say in Comp Planning
Plymouth rated highest in quality of living in the Twin Cities
City matures, looks ahead to redevelopment
Plymouth preserves Rural Atmosphere throughout its Northwest Greenway
Plymouth receives community inputs for future growth
Citizens land high quality of life; cite growth curb enacted 20years ago
Area one not to be developed for at least 20 years from now
Plymouth is most fit suburb-- City says its due to available parks, trails and bicycle lanes
City Planners took ride up County Rd 47 and wondered why they let the beauty of the area become
overdeveloped!
Hear ye Hear ye. The year of 2005 the year of rural destruction in the northwest area of Plymouth.
Planning Area 2
City planners came to their senses and retained pristine beauty of area slated to become concrete!
Plymouth Gov't mines/ "mines" the opinions of residents on land use
Northwest Plymouth an escape from city living
Headlines Page 1
Newspaper headline (related to tonight's exercise) you would like to read about
regarding the Northwest Planning Area in 15-20 years.
Plymouth Council and Planning Commission, with generous input from residents, planned wisely for the
livable community it is today
Plymouth continues to grow, but maintains/ preserves their nature & recreation areas
Picturesque rural lifestyle still possible in metro area
Northwest Plymouth green space plan best in country & state
NW Planning Area - "Jewel" of Metro
The area planned well for new growth with master planned neighborhoods & transit -oriented developments
Home values triple in the northwestern area of Plymouth. Developers are offering millions to buy land
City of Plymouth reaches ultimate build out- 80,000 people
Need to revamp the whole plan a lot smarter like (Maple Grove Did) the Government center adopted a
points system!) a make sense system
Growth moving ahead in Plymouth with major community input
85 yr old refuses to move
Planning of NW Plymouth accommodates divers interests, not just developers
City residents planned their future
The northwest planning area is proud of its recreation areas, parks, and golf courses. It is also proud of the
wildlife that it maintains within its boundaries.
Plymouth, as a fully developed city, is a model for mixed use planning and development
The City planning process truly reflects the wishes of the citizens back 15-20 years ago.
Plymouth- statewide, regional & international model for community building for next generation
Plymouth is now home of the largest community center in the state
Flash-- Plymouth comes up with a total comprehensive plan in record time
Plymouth finally develops
Growth is good in Plymouth
Plymouth Growth Plan Update "Smart"
Northwest Plymouth remains- mostly rural- low density population
Citizens concerns listened to, utilized and were instrumental in molding City' s controlled growth
Elm Creek Golf Club hosts the Open and is seen as a environment success
Plymouth plan a success while rejecting selfish developer interests
Plymouth City purchases Elm Creek Golf course and keeps it a public use area
Planning Area 2 meeting went fast -- development started and went well. Land owners got paid well for their
land.
A place to raise your family
City of Plymouth Creek Golf Course purchase pays dividends to area residents
With NW Plannign Areas' development officially completely, citizens city residents and officials couldn't be
happier
Who else has opinions about Northwest Plymouth?
Plymouth City commission purchases Elm Creek Golf Course as a municipal golf course
Plymouth recognized for balancing development and preserving natural areas for the next 100 years
I think it should address what it is you are planning on doing with the land using maps or visuals of what is
going to happen
Small town feel, big city appeal. Plymouth keeps the small community feel, but offers services equal to a
larger community. Best of Both Worlds!
Better late than never
Plymouth city planners allow rape of 200 plus acres in "strip mine" style on Hwy 47
Highly desirable City planning more homes for Twin Cities increasing population
Sewer extension approved in Plymouth
Headlines Page 2
Newspaper headline (related to tonight's exercise) you would like to read about
regarding the Northwest Planning Area in 15-20 years.
Area growth has been slow, steady
Large areas of land to be developed
Back in 2010 Plymouth allowed many new residents to move in
NW area of Plymouth-- a great place to live!
Nice clean tasteful development has taken place in the area
Did we actually pay for this?
Plymouth recognized for preserving Hollydale and Elm Creek golf courses as public facilities
Plymouth controls growth, retains parks, trails, golf courses
Residents of NW area are glad they were able to move in 15-20 years ago
Balanced urbanism prevails
Northwest Plymouth-- the rural oasis of the Twin Cities
NW Plymouth matures with affordable housing, park connections, and strong cultural facilities
Plymouth boasts best city to live in throughout U.S.
Plymouth proves to be leader in community development nationwide
Finally-- Plymouth Gets on Board
Northwest Plymouth develops premier land use with upscale detached town homes & affordable single family
homes
Plymouth continues to build strong communities
Understanding good growth
NW rural area to stay as is (open area with 3, 5, 7 acre lots)
City tries to placate city residents and please developers to raise more taxes
People talk city listens
Landowners should be able to develop their property- keep Plymouth as a nice residential City !!
Plymouth to annex additional lands
Headlines Page 3
3U
3.1 PURPOSE OF CHAPTER
The purpose of the Policy Plan is to set forth the vision statements, goals and policies on which
the entire Comprehensive Plan is based. A vision statement is a statement that reflects what is
valued by the community. The vision statements are the basis for the development of the goals
and policies. A goal is a general statement of overall community aspirations, which highlights a
community value, establishes a vision and indicates a broad physical or social state that the
community desires to achieve. A policy is a statement that refines the goals by outlining a
specific course of action.
The Community Vision Statements were developed from information obtained during a work
session with the City's decision -makers, advisors and the public in March 1999. The goals and
policies found in this chapter are for all elements of the plan, and include goals and policies for
land use, housing, water resource management, transportation, parks, open space and trails, water
supply and distribution, sanitary sewers and public facilities.
None of the vision statements will be realized through a single chapter of the plan. For example,
the vision to protect and enhance the natural environment must be supported by all plan
elements, not just those chapters that deal directly with the environment, such as surface water
management. Similarly, the goals and policies should not be interpreted to apply to only one
chapter of the plan. This means, for example, that the goals and policies listed under surface
water management will also be applied when making decisions about facilities described in the
transportation chapter.
3.2 COMMUNITY VISION STATEMENTS
1. Maintain a safe and secure community.
Plymouth values the safe and secure environment currently found in the community.
There is a very low crime rate in the community, which leads to a sense of security
among residents. People value the superior police protection provided by the City and
the involvement of individuals, families and neighborhoods in creating a safe
environment.
2. Protect and enhance the natural environment.
Plymouth values the natural resources in the community, including lakes, streams,
wetlands and the rolling and wooded terrain. A clean environment is important to people
and the existing natural resources contribute to the livability of the community.
3. Support high quality education.
Plymouth values education, supports the school districts in the community and places an
emphasis on educating the youth of the community. There is pride in the quality of
school facilities, the safety of school buildings and grounds and the quality of school
programs.
Plymouth Policy Plan — August 8, 2000 3- 1
4. Maintain and enhance housing quality and diversity.
w
Plymouth values diverse housing opportunities in neighborhoods throughout the
community, including affordable housing, senior housing and life -cycle housing. A wide
variety of well -constructed and attractive housing for all income levels, both owner -
occupied and rental, is available in the community. The housing within the community is
well-maintained and meets the physical needs of residents.
5. Protect and enhance convenience and mobility.
Plymouth values the convenience and mobility provided by the community's strategic
geographic location in the metropolitan area. Several key highways run through the
community and provide direct access to the regional transportation system. The layout of
the community affords convenient access to goods and services within the community.
The trail system and public transportation provide usable alternative modes of
transportation. The mix of housing and business within the community allows residents.
to live near their place of employment..
6. Promote and strengthen economic vitality.
Plymouth values the strong economy and diverse tax base within the community, which
includes high quality commercial and industrial development to complement the
residential development. The diversity of development within the community results in a
balanced tax base, maintenance of high property values and a wide variety of
employment opportunities.
7. Provide high quality City services and facilities.
Plymouth values both the facilities and services provided by the City. The park and trail
systems contribute to the quality of life and sense of open space within the community.
Other City facilities and services, such as public safety, public works, recycling and long-
term planning also contribute to a high quality of life. The City is well -governed and
well-managed, and both residents and businesses look forward to a continued high level
of community-based services. The community will continue to be responsive to the
emerging trends and changing needs of its residents and businesses.
8. Enhance and strengthen the sense of community.
Plymouth values the sense of community in Plymouth. People are connected to the
community, want to continue to strengthen this sense of place, are involved in
community life (government, religious institutions, schools, recreation, arts and volunteer
efforts) and are able to bridge physical barriers to come together. There is a pride in the
community that will be made stronger as the community matures.
Plymouth Policy Plan — August 8, 2000 3 - 2
t?— i\,c.i evy,bev— 3o
3.3 GOALS AND POLICIES
3.3.1 LAND USE
2.
3
Establish and maintain a land use pattern that respects and reflects the community's
desire to provide for a variety of land uses, including residential neighborhoods, retail
commercial and office areas, industrial developments, civic uses and parks and open
space.
a. Identify areas of incompatible land use and opportunities to reduce associated
land use conflicts.
b. Require the use of vegetative screening, open space, berming and other types of
buffers to provide transitions between incompatible land uses.
C. Encourage redevelopment of obsolete, underutilized and deteriorated uses and
pursue redevelopment when an identifiable market or public need exists for the
redeveloped uses.
d. Encourage the mixing of complementary uses to enhance convenience and
accessibility and decrease traffic.
e. Promote development of non-polluting, well-designed commercial and industrial
uses to maintain the community's diversified tax base and provide varied
employment opportunities.
f. Protect the existing rural character of the land not planned for urban development
before 2020.
Achieve a balance among: 1) efficient delivery of public services; 2) preservation of
natural and cultural resources; and 3) respect for individual property rights.
a. Provide public services and facilities in a cost-effective manner.
b. Support an orderly and logical staging of infrastructure and utilities in conjunction
with development within the 2020 MUSA.
C. Establish and apply development standards that protect the environment and
advance community values while allowing reasonable use of private property.
d. Promote solar access protection.
e. Support preservation of historically significant resources.
Encourage all areas of the City to be visually appealing, vital and continually maintained.
Plymouth Policy Plan — August 8, 2000 3 - 3
a. Establish development standards that encourage quality design, aesthetic appeal
and compatibility with the existing physical environment for all future
development.
b. Establish regulations to ensure maintenance of all types of residential, commercial
and industrial structures and properties.
C. Construct and maintain high quality attractive public facilities.
4. Support efforts that strengthen community identity, contribute to a high quality of life and
enhance the image of Plymouth as a desirable place to live, work and play.
a. Establish a strong community -wide focal point in City Center with a mix of civic,
recreation, entertainment and commercial activities.
b. Identify physical barriers to non -motorized access and provide connections across
these barriers at key locations where feasible.
C. Identify opportunities to enhance major entrances into the community and major
thoroughfares through the community with signage, landscaping or other
improvements that identify Plymouth.
d. Encourage development patterns that promote walking, biking and transit use.
3.3.2 HOUSING
Promote the development and preservation of a supply of qualit ousing that is
affordable at all income levels and at all stages of the life cycle.
a. Provide opportunities for the development of high ity housing that is diverse
in terms of ownership, price, type and style.
b. Actively encourage residential develope o include housing affordable to low -
and moderate -income residents and 1 employees as part of theirproposals in
order to provide a range of mixe come housing throughout the community.
Information about the City's s for affordable and life -cycle housing will be
distributed to anyone inquiri about possible development within the City.
C. Provide financial aXcal assistance to developers of affordable housing for
low- and moderateesidents.
d. Encourage th evelopment of housing for residents with special needs, including
accessible using for persons with disabilities.
e. Supp efforts to assure equal access to housing opportunities within the City.
Plymouth Policy Plan — August 8, 2000 3 - 4