HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 12-12-2005 SpecialAgenda
City of Plymouth
Special Joint City Council/
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, December 12, 2005
7:00 p.m.
Plymouth Creek Center Lower Level
Black Box Theater
Call to Order
2. "Listening Session" on Land Use Plan for Northwest Plymouth
3. Adjourn
December 12, 2005
Judy Johnson
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Ms. Johnson,
Thank you for giving the residents the opportunity to provide input during this planning
process. Our homes are clearly important to us and this process of planning land use has
a significant impact. We would like to review specifics of the process to date, provide a
suggestion for implementing one of the land use goals and finally a recommendation for
planning area 1.
This process began, for the residents, through informal meetings on September 15th and
20t' , and then more formally on October 24th when we completed the surveys. A
summary of the survey results for planning area 1 is as follows:
Top 3 in each area surveyed:
Overall City
Strengths
o,
F4
Overall City
Weaknesses
0
c4
Planning Area
1 Concerns 0Desires
0
rx
Planning Area 1
a
rx
Wetlands, 18 Traffic 30 Loss of 21 Retain Rural 20
Lakes, Natural Congestion is Natural Atmosphere
Settings Worsening Areas/Open
Spaces
Good 17 Too Few 19 Increase In 19 More Natural 18
Parks/Trails/ Natural Traffic Areas/Open
Recreation Areas/Open Congestion Space
Spaces Left Protection
Low Crime/Safe 16 Too Crowded 12 Loss of 14 Slower 16
Neighborhoods Already Trees Growth Rate
Total Responses: 51 61 54 54
Top 3" %age of
Total Responses 35% 44% 40% 38%
These percentages show strong solidarity in the planning area since there were between
22 and 29 possible responses per question.
Of the six responses related to planning area 1, four responses reflect the residents' desire
to keep the areas in its current state, one response reflects the impact growth has had on
our area (traffic) and one response to slow the growth rate. This is an accurate
representation of our area's position in this matter. Although not all residents were
present, there are many discussions within pockets of neighbors, and the mix is similar to
those that attended.
At the November 30`' meeting, the City Wide Land Use Goals & Policies were reviewed.
Goal 1 (Land Use) f. states "Protect the existing rural character of the land not planned
for urban development before 2020 (2030)." This is a commendable goal of the city, but
it appears there may need to be additional steps taken by the city to enforce this. One
suggestion is to establish the comprehensive plan with 10 year increments of growth.
Sewer and water systems will be constructed to reflect the plan in ten year increments.
As time progresses, the planning department would not allow development outside this
area, unless there was documented proof near the end of the 10 years (year 9 and 10) that
we would not meet our growth required by the met council.
Specifically for planning area 1, our recommendation is to keep the area rural until the
2020-2030 planning interval. When development does occur we hope it is low density
1-2 houses per area) and the natural features of the area are safeguarded. This will meet
the desires of the majority of the residents in the survey, and give the city time to address
the worsening traffic congestion on Vicksburg Lane, County Road 47 and the 494 under
pass on Schmidt Lake Road. Waiting until 2020 will allow the city's infrastructure to
absorb the impact of the Taryn Hills project in planning area 1 also. As a part of this
recommendation it is hoped measures will be put in place ensuring no development is
allowed before then. It is misleading to state that development will not occur until
residents want it. The developers have significant resources available to push
development through. They do not take `no' for an answer. That is why land prices are
so high, residents are given higher and higher offers on their land until they finally agree.
In conclusion, we want to again thank the city council and planning department for
considering the resident's inputs in this matter. Please consider allowing planning area 1
to remain as is until the 2020 to 2030 horizon. During that time we recommend low
density housing that preserves the natural features of the area. Additionally, we hope
that steps are taken to control development through out the city, to only those areas that
you have identified through this process.
Sincerely,
Norma Padmos-Usset
Robert Usset
5731 Juneau Lane
Planning Area 1)
CC: City Council
Planning Commission
Z SZ-- o ,
December 12, 2005
Judy Johnson
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Ms. Johnson,
Thank you for giving the residents the opportunity to provide input during this planning
process. Our homes are clearly important to us and this process of planning land use has
a significant impact. We would like to review specifics of the process to date, provide a
suggestion for implementing one of the land use goals and finally a recommendation for
planning area 1.
This process began, for the residents, through informal meetings on September 15th and
2e , and then more formally on October 24th when we completed the surveys. A
summary of the survey results for planning area 1 is as follows:
Top 3 in each area surveyed:
Overall City
Strengths
a
rx
Overall City
Weaknesses
0
c4
Planning Area
1 Concerns
a
a;
Planning Area 1
Desires
a
ri!
Wetlands, 18 Traffic 30 Loss of 21 Retain Rural 20
Lakes, Natural Congestion is Natural Atmosphere
Settings Worsening Areas/Open
Spaces
Good 17 Too Few 19 Increase In 19 More Natural 18
Parks/Trails/ Natural Traffic Areas/Open
Recreation Areas/Open Congestion Space
Spaces Left Protection
Low Crime/Safe 16 Too Crowded 12 Loss of 14 Slower 16
Neighborhoods Already Trees Growth Rate
Total Responses: 51 61 54 54
T op 3" %age of
Total Responses 35% 44% 40% 38%
These percentages show strong solidarity in the planning area since there were between
22 and 29 possible responses per question.
Of the six responses related to planning area 1, four responses reflect the residents' desire
to keep the areas in its current state, one response reflects the impact growth has had on
our area (traffic) and one response to slow the growth rate. This is an accurate
representation of our area's position in this matter. Although not all residents were
present, there are many discussions within pockets of neighbors, and the mix is similar to
those that attended.
At the November 30a' meeting, the City Wide Land Use Goals & Policies were reviewed.
Goal 1 (Land Use) f. states "Protect the existing rural character of the land not planned
for urban development before 2020 (2030)." This is a commendable goal of the city, but
it appears there may need to be additional steps taken by the city to enforce this. One
suggestion is to establish the comprehensive plan with 10 year increments of growth.
Sewer and water systems will be constructed to reflect the plan in ten year increments.
As time progresses, the planning department would not allow development outside this
area, unless there was documented proof near the end of the 10 years (year 9 and 10) that
we would not meet our growth required by the met council.
Specifically for planning area 1, our recommendation is to keep the area rural until the
2020-2030 planning interval. When development does occur we hope it is low density
1-2 houses per area) and the natural features of the area are safeguarded. This will meet
the desires of the majority of the residents in the survey, and give the city time to address
the worsening traffic congestion on Vicksburg Lane, County Road 47 and the 494 under
pass on Schmidt Lake Road. Waiting until 2020 will allow the city's infrastructure to
absorb the impact of the Taryn $ills project in planning area 1 also, As a part of this
recommendation it is hoped measures will be put in place ensuring no development is
allowed before then. It is misleading to state that development will not occur until
residents want it. The developers have significant resources available to push
development through. They do not take `no' for an answer. That is why land prices are
so high, residents are given higher and higher offers on their land until they finally agree.
In conclusion, we want to again thank the city council and planning department for
considering the resident's inputs in this matter. Please consider allowing planning area 1
to remain as is until the 2020 to 2030 horizon. During that time we recommend low
density housing that preserves the natural features of the area. Additionally, we hope
that steps are taken to control development through out the city, to only those areas that
you have identified through this process.
Sincerely,
k
k
Norma Padmos-Usset
Robert Usset
5731 Juneau Lane
Planning Area 1)
CC: City Council
Planning Commission