Loading...
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