After the Plymouth City Council vote on the Eagle Brook Church project, I am aware while some residents were happy with the decision, many were very upset. Before and after last week's meeting, I heard many viewpoints on both sides of this project. In the spirit of transparency, I am sharing this statement to help make clear my thinking that led to my “yes” vote.
First, I know you may feel anger, disappointment, betrayal or even stronger emotions. Your feelings are valid. I know the decision hurts. My values are to lead a life of service, to always act with integrity and to listen to understand. I did my best to maintain those in this process. I listened to the many residents that contacted me and the council.
I heard your concerns about traffic, scale, housing, and inclusion. I heard EBC members share the good things they have experienced with the church. I heard from neighbors who didn’t want a large building in their backyard, and others who appreciated the retained green space on the property. I know many feel the church will harm them or their family members.
My job was to take all that I heard and learned into account and make a land use decision based on established city code. This was not a decision about whether or not I (or the community) support the proposed use. My role as a council member was to apply the established policy of the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance.
Overall, I was not supportive of this project in this location. At our December council meeting, I voted in favor of the motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution to deny the application. Many people interpreted this as the council denying the application. The vote certainly signaled that intent, but it really was seeking more information about the application and the legal reasons by which we could deny it.
The resolution of denial was required to have “findings of fact” to show that the city was justified in denying the application. The findings of fact boiled down to: (1) Traffic impacts, (2) Scale and design, (3) Reasonable options for the church to be built elsewhere and (4) Consideration that the proposal doesn’t align with the comprehensive plan objective to support development of additional affordable housing.
I reviewed and studied the planning report, the traffic study, the many emails received, the letters from lawyers on both sides of the issue, and spoke with many people, including our city attorney, about the facts. In my assessment, our findings of fact were not strong enough to justify denying the application.
Traffic. The traffic study indicated that the increase in traffic would create new peaks around church service times, but that those peaks would be lower than a typical current daily traffic peak. It showed that the greatest impact on delays would be on the church’s driveway, not the surrounding streets. I heard the points from residents that the study was flawed, but after significant questioning of the traffic engineer, I felt the report was adequate. In addition, I felt that one way or another, the land would be developed and there would be a change in traffic.
Size and scale. This was a major sticking point for me. As many people said, we wouldn’t allow a large industrial building here, or a big box store, or a movie theater. I asked the city attorney about this and according to our own ordinance, a church of this size was permitted. It was set back significantly from the property lines, and it was no higher than surrounding homes. It didn’t violate the density requirements. I felt that our ordinances didn’t anticipate this size of development, as the Planning Commission report indicated “there are no specific standards listed for churches.” I would like to work to amend them to create standards. But unfortunately, we were unable to make those changes to the zoning standards at the meeting.
Building elsewhere. While I would have preferred to see the church built closer to a highway or commercial area, this was not reason enough to deny the application before us. As guided, the proposed site allowed churches.
Comprehensive plan. I want to ensure that Plymouth remains a city of choice for people of all income levels, and I support the goal of developing additional affordable housing. I felt that this plan did not help the city to meet those goals. The land was guided as “Living Area 2” in the comprehensive plan. LA-2 allows housing in addition to schools, recreational facilities and churches. I saw the conflict in the priorities and discussed that at the December council meeting, but ultimately I felt that the use was specifically called out in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and would therefore be difficult to deny.
With these thoughts in mind, I also had to account for the threat of a lawsuit from the church that could have resulted in a worse outcome: namely, the church being built without any of the conditions added by the city, and significant financial damages that would affect every resident of the city.
I take my integrity seriously and could not, in good conscience, vote for an action that would have opened the door for even greater harm to my friends and neighbors. Once I came to that conclusion, I worked to add additional conditions to the project to help alleviate the concerns of neighbors and residents, specifically regarding traffic and screening.
I want to address the points I heard from residents about the church’s stance on people from the LGBTQ+ community. I fully support the LGBTQ+ community and know that this development does not make Plymouth more welcoming to you. During the meeting it was said that the council chambers were a safe and welcome place to all, and I want to acknowledge that many I’ve heard from since the meeting didn’t feel it was a safe place for them. I regret that and take personal responsibility for that and for ensuring the chamber is a safe and inclusive place moving forward. Standing up before the council, the lights, the cameras and the crowds is not an easy thing to do, and I applaud the courage of those who took the time and effort to share their views respectfully. I want all of our community members to know they have the right to speak their truth and it is our obligation to listen with respect to their viewpoint. I especially appreciate and want to hear from those who come from traditionally underrepresented groups.
I would like to make Plymouth a more welcoming place for our LGBTQ+ residents and visitors. To that end, in the coming weeks, I intend to initiate a discussion with my fellow council members and city staff on initiatives that could include city pride events, recognition of local businesses that are safe and welcoming spaces and other elements to help all feel welcome in Plymouth. The time is long overdue for the city itself to put forward an unquestionably clear symbol of inclusion and compassion. I welcome public suggestions for expanding on these ideas to make them a success.
I invite further conversation on this and would be glad to have a phone call to discuss or meet in person wherever is comfortable for you. I am always willing to listen. I have been invited to a Town Hall meeting on this by Indivisible West Metro, with details to be announced soon. I will always do my best to represent the members of our community. I will continue to work to find ways to make our city more welcoming, more friendly, and more inclusive. This one vote does not stop that effort.
Clark Gregor Plymouth City Council Member At-Large
Comments