Comprehensive Plan Update 2015
The Community Forum on the Future of Maryland Heights took place on Wednesday, February 11 from
5 to 8 p.m. The meeting was attended by 214 individuals including individuals from groups known to
have an interest in the Howard Bend Planning Area as well as the general public. Known groups
included the Residents for Responsible Growth, the Howard Bend Levy District and a few attendees
from the City of Chesterfield. Notably, meeting attendees included many younger residents of Maryland
Heights.
Steve Giegerich from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch also attended and wrote an article that appeared in the
Post on February 14, 2015 (Appendix A).
The overall tone of the meeting was upbeat and enthusiastic. Participants seemed to enjoy the
opportunity to interact with staff, learn more about the comprehensive plan and offer their opinions.
This document includes:
 a review of outreach and recruitment;
 summary of meeting content;
 public input opportunities presented; and
 a summary of public input received.
Maryland Heights Zoning Administrator,
Mike Zeek, and Forum participants.
City of Maryland Heights – Community Forum Summary
1
Outreach and Recruitment
The meeting was advertised extensively. Outreach included the following:
 An announcement in the February edition of the Maryland Heights city newsletter;
 Flyer and announcement on electronic message boards at the government center and the
community center;
 Calendar and news items on the City’s website;
 Roadside signs placed in two locations on Dorsett;
 Email blasts to the Dorsett Road Great Streets distribution list and to individuals who opted into
meeting notification from the Community Development Department via the City’s website;
 Coordination with community partners including the Residents for Responsible Growth and the
Maryland Heights Chamber of Commerce who shared meeting announcements with their
members; and
 Social media.
At sign-in, attendees were asked to indicate how they found out about the meeting and about half
responded. Of those, the most common sources reported were city newsletter (52), roadside sign (33),
and email (16).
In addition to the methods previously described, Community Development staff presented various
aspects of the comprehensive plan update in their Planner’s Reports and framework documents for the
last several months and the plan update has been featured in several issues of the City’s newsletter.
Although overall attendance was very good, attendance by minority groups, particularly Asian-Indian
residents of the city, did not match their presence in the community.
Meeting Content
The purpose of the Forum was to educate the public about current conditions in Maryland Heights and
receive feedback on how to best position the city for
success in the future. The following information was
presented:
1. Comprehensive planning and how communities
use them;
2. Current conditions in Maryland Heights focusing
on strengths and weaknesses and current
housing conditions;
3. Information on how communities shape
development through traditional zoning and form
Maryland Heights Planner, Tom Blanchard,
based code;
explains housing issues to residents.
4. Current land use in the Howard Bend Planning Area
and options for its future; and
5. Next steps in the process of updating the comprehensive plan and how to stay involved.
City of Maryland Heights – Community Forum Summary
2
The meeting was an open house format without a formal presentation. Staff from the City’s Community
Development Department, transportation consultants CBB Traffic Engineers, and public outreach
consultant Shockey Consulting were available to interact with attendees, answer questions and provide
direction on public involvement activities. Members of the City Council and City Planning Commission
also interacted with the public throughout the meeting.
Public Input
Meeting attendees had four opportunities to share their opinions. They could add to a list of Maryland
Heights’ strengths and weaknesses developed in stakeholder interviews, complete a visual preference
survey via keypad polling, complete dot voting on land use options and considerations in Howard Bend
and complete a participant questionnaire (on paper). Dot voting was the most popular completed by
87% of attendees but response to all input opportunities was enthusiastic.
Table 1. shows a summary of the types of feedback received. Reporting on each type follows.
Table 1. Participation in Public Input Opportunities
Strengths and Weaknesses
40 comments
Keypad Polling
52 participants
Dot Voting
186 voters1
Participant Survey
122 surveys completed
A. Strengths and Weaknesses
Meeting attendees were invited to add to a list of strengths and weaknesses (shown below)
1
Based on the total number of dots recorded for land use options (560) divided by the number dots provided (3).
City of Maryland Heights – Community Forum Summary
3
developed through stakeholder interviews.
Strengths offered by respondents built on the list of amenities presented. Mentions included
other trails such as McKelvey Woods, Thies Farm and additional mention of Creve Coeur Lake
Park. Weaknesses added by meeting attendees included amenities they would like to see more
of like better transit service and more walking and biking trails as well as things they would like
to see less of, like “men’s bars.”
The items mentioned by more than one respondent are listed below.






Limited public transit services (3)
Too much floodplain development (3)
Enforce building codes (3)
Need more walking/biking trails, especially on Dorsett (2)
Dorsett Inn, Hot Shots, Hooters (men’s bars) (2)
No family restaurants/need quick casual and fine dining restaurants (2)
The full list of strengths and weaknesses recorded at the Forum is provided in Appendix B.
B. Keypad Polling
At their option, meeting attendees could complete a visual preference survey using keypad
polling. The survey included slides with images of developments in four categories: retail, single
family housing, multi-family housing and office. In groups of eight to ten, respondents used
keypads (like remote controls) to respond to questions indicating their reaction to the photos.
Periodically, staff at the meeting would “recruit” attendees to participate. A total of 52 people,
24% of those who attended, completed the visual preference survey.
With “clickers” in hand, Forum attendees
complete a visual preference survey.
City of Maryland Heights – Community Forum Summary
4
Figure 1. Visual Preference: Retail Development
City of Maryland Heights – Community Forum Summary
5
Figure 2. Visual Preference: Single Family Housing
City of Maryland Heights – Community Forum Summary
6
Figure 3. Visual Preference: Multi-Family Housing
City of Maryland Heights – Community Forum Summary
7
Figure 4. Visual Preference: Office Development
City of Maryland Heights – Community Forum Summary
8
C. Dot Voting
Attendees received five colored dots at the sign-in desk: three dots for voting on their preferred
land uses in the Howard Bend Planning Area and two dots for voting on important
considerations for thinking about appropriate land uses in Howard Bend.
Dot voting on future land use in the
Howard Bend planning area.
Table 2. Land Use Dot Exercise Results
Total
Recreation and Entertainment2
201
Mixed Use Residential
148
Mixed Use Retail3
91
Mixed Use Office
62
Industrial
58
2
About a fourth of the dots applied to recreation and entertainment were placed on specific photos of outdoor
recreation. The trail photo received the most dots (35), followed by the golf course photo (11), the rope bridge
photo (8), and the playground photo (3).
3
Four dots were placed specifically on a photo with suburban mixed use retail/outdoor dining and two dots were
placed specifically on a photo of the Boulevard in Brentwood.
City of Maryland Heights – Community Forum Summary
9
Figure 5. Land Use Dot Exercise Results
Table 3. Land Use Considerations Dot Exercise Results
Total
Protect Open Space
149
Create New Places to Live
98
Create Jobs
39
Create New Places to Play
34
Control Traffic Impacts
24
City of Maryland Heights – Community Forum Summary
10
Figure 6. Land Use Considerations Dot ExerciseResults
D. Participant Surveys
Participants received a questionnaire at sign-in and were encouraged to complete it. Surveys
were completed by 122 or 57% of respondents.
City of Maryland Heights – Community Forum Summary
11
Comments:
There were 22 “Other” responses, 15 of which were landowners.
City of Maryland Heights – Community Forum Summary
12
Questions 6 and 7 ask about land use preferences in the Howard Bend Planning Area and
considerations for making decisions about future land use. Participants had the opportunity to
provide input on the same questions through dot voting at the Forum. For this reason,
directions on the participant survey told respondents to skip the questions if they completed
dot voting. The questions were answered by 60 respondents, about half of those who
completed the surveys or 27% of total respondents.
City of Maryland Heights – Community Forum Summary
13
Q. 6 Land Use Preferences in the Howard Bend Planning Area
Like the dot voting, the most popular choices for land use were recreation and entertainment
followed by residential land use. Retail, office and industrial uses followed with almost equal
weight given to each. Traffic concerns were noted by the fewest attendees.
Q. 7 Considerations for Land Use Decisions in the Howard Bend Planning Area
As in the dot voting exercise, the most popular consideration was protection of open space. In
the survey results, open space was followed by creation of housing and jobs which received
almost equal responses (in dot voting, housing was markedly more popular than creation of
jobs). Creation of more retail and new recreation opportunities followed in nearly equal measure
and traffic impact was the least noted consideration.
City of Maryland Heights – Community Forum Summary
14
City of Maryland Heights – Community Forum Summary
15