Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/02CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. - ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda October 8, 2002 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes - September 24, 2002 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Lot Split (02 -10) to create two rural residential properties from property located at 16287 Makah Street NW for Sandra and Schuyler Wallace. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning (02 -02) to change the zoning designation from R -1 Single Family Rural Residential to R -4 Single Family Urban Residential on Outlot C of Woodland Estates 2"d Addition for Woodland • Development on property located west of Woodland Estates Second Addition. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of a single family residential development to be known as Woodland Estates 3r Addition for Woodland Development on property located west of Woodland Estates Second Addition. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning (02 -03) to change the zoning designation from R -3 Single Family Suburban Residential to R-4 Single Family Urban Residential on property located at 1703, 1663 and 1653 Andover Boulevard. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of a single family residential development to be known as Foxburgh Crossing for Grand Teton Development on property located at 1703, 1663 and 1653 Andover Boulevard. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for a single family development to be known as Woodland Creek Golf Course Villas located at 3200 South Coon Creek Drive. 9. Discussion Item: Metropolitan Council's "Draft" 2030 Blueprint. 10. Adjournment ------------. --------- e CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 PLAIVNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission -was called to order by Vice Chairperson Dean Daninger on September 24, 2002,,7:00 pm., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Vice Chairperson,Dean Daninger, Commissioners Douglas Falk, Tony Gamache, Rex Greenwald, and Paula Larsen. Commissioners absent: Chairperson Jay Squires and Commissioner Tim Kirchoff. . Also present: City Planner, Courtney 'Bednarz Community Development Director, Will Neumeister, Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. September 10, 2002 Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Garnache, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 5- ayes 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. VARIANCE (02-10) TO VARY FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR EXISTING STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 17536 QUAYSTREET NW. Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant is`seeking approval of a proposal to build a 24- foot by 24 -foot addition onto the'second level above: the existing garage. The home is non- conforming due to its 20 -foot corner side yard setback where 40 feet is the minimum allowable in the R -3 zoning district. 'A variance is needed to correctthe non- conforming status of the existing home to allow the project to move forward. The addition over the garage on the south side of the home will not change the existing setbacks of the home in relation to 176 Avenue. Mr. Bednarz showed maps and discussed the Ordinance with the Commission. He noted all future structures must be constructed in conformance with applicable ordinances Staff , recommended approval of the propose& variance. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 24, 2002 Page 2 • Vice Chairperson Daninger asked for comments from the public. There being no comments he asked for a motion. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving Variance 02 -10 to vary from the side yard setback for an existing structure located at 17536 Quay Street NW. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the October 15, 2002 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT (02 -09) TO CREATE A NEW RESIDENTL4L PROPERTYFROM PROPERTYLOCA TED AT 16030 MAKAH STREET NW. Mr. Bednarz explained that the property owner is seeking approval of a proposal to divide the subject property into two rural residential lots with a variance to the 300 -foot minimum lot width for one of the lots. Based upon information just gained from the applicant, it appears that the property is slightly greater than 5 acres in size according to Anoka County records. Mr. Bednarz indicated this would mean both of the new lots would meet the 2.5 acres minimum, but one lot would still require a variance for lot width. Mr. Bednarz noted a natural gas pipeline runs diagonally through the property. A fifty - foot wide easement exists over the pipeline. There remains sufficient space to locate a house on the new property that would be created if the lot split is approved. Mr. Bednarz stated it is important to note that a lot split for the subject property was denied by the City Council on July 15, 1997. Resolution R166 -97 and the minutes from that meeting have been provided for the Commission's review. He advised that staff is not recommending in favor of the proposed lot split based on the lack of appropriate findings to justify the variance to the minimum lot width requirement. The lot width of one of the proposed lots would be significantly below the 300- foot minimum lot width and may set a precedent for similar lot splits in the future. He stated, in the past, other lots splits have been approved with less than 2.5 acres per lot but with this request staff recommends denial based on the fact it does not meet the R -1 zoning requirements. Commissioner Greenwald asked where some of the past lot splits were approved in the City. Mr. Bednarz reviewed a location map with the Commission. Commissioner Gamache reiterated this request was denied in 1997 for lack of hardship and asked if the curvature of the roadway could be considered a hardship. Mr. Bednarz Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — September 24, 2002 Page 3 • stated this could be considered a hardship, but stated this lot was also 9 feet short of the proper lot width even at the widest portion of the lot. Commissioner Falk asked for the location of the easement on this lot. Mr. Bednarz sketched the easement on the site map and reviewed the survey of this lot with the Commission. Commissioner Falk asked if the easement followed the proposed lot split line. Mr. Bednarz noted the easement was close to the line, but would fall onto one lot more than the other. Commissioner Falk questioned if this property was within the MUSA. Mr. Bednarz noted this was outside the MUSA at this time, thus requiring well and septic. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Greenwald, to open the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. John Moore, 16030 Makah Street NW, the applicant, explained there was not a survey on this property because a variance was needed and he was seeking a decision before incurring that expense. Mr. Moore stated six lot splits have occurred within his neighborhood. Mr. Moore noted he required a variance only for lot width due to the curvature of the road and not on the lot size as each lot would be 2.5 acres. Pat Monroe, 15961 Makah Street, noted she has been present to fight numerous lot splits within her neighborhood. She indicated she purchased a home in this neighborhood 15 years ago and stated she would like to see the lots to remain 5 acres. Ms. Monroe noted she was present at the 1997 request for a lot split and noted she was against it then and now. Jean Fudge, 16005 Makah Street, indicated she purchased her land 22 years ago with the idea of having a lot that was 5 acres. She stated she has been told that the city has allowed lot splits along 7 Avenue but not along Makah Street. Ms. Fudge noted she wants to keep the traffic flow down along Makah Street and does not want this item approved. Mr. Moore understood the feelings of his neighbors but stated they must take into consideration there has been six lot splits to date, but that none access Makah Street. He noted the lot splits have occurred to those properties along 7`" Avenue. Mr. Moore indicated his proposed split would not increase the density and traffic along Makah Street substantially. Mr. Moore stated he spoke with the County Surveyor and noted all of the lots north of him are short of 5 acres. He noted his one lot being added would compliment homes . across the street. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — September 24, 2002 Page 4 Commissioner Larsen asked if there were covenants within this neighborhood stating the 5 acres must remain. Mr. Bednarz noted there were no covenants and that this neighborhood was regulated by the 2.5 acres minimum as stated within the R -1 zoning district. Vice Chairperson Daninger asked if a registered land survey had been completed on the proposed lot split. Mr. Moore noted he has a survey of the 5 -acre lot but not the split due to the fact he wasn't sure if the Commission would ask him to change the lot split location. Mr. Bednarz noted staff was provided with a survey verifying the size of the property noting it was in excess of 5 acres. Commissioner Falk asked if the City should know where this lot split line was before it was recommended for approval. Mr. Bednarz stated a line could be sketched on the 5- acre survey if desired by the Commission. Vice Chairperson Daninger asked if the property to the south was contacted to purchase additional land. Mr. Moore stated he felt this wasn't an option because they may propose a lot split in the future. He then reviewed a tentative lot split location with the Commission. . Motion by Gamache, seconded by Larsen, to close the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the both lots met the 300 -lot width and 2.5 acres if it would be automatically approved. Mr. Bednarz stated the city would likely be compelled to approve it. Commissioner Greenwald stated he felt this was a problem due to the concerns aired by the neighbors. Commissioner Greenwald stated he feels there is no hardship with this request as the applicant has brought this before the Commission for a second time, being denied the first time due to lack of hardship. Commissioner Greenwald reminded staff to show the correct lot size at 5 acres, to the Council when this item goes before the Council for their consideration. Motion by Falk, seconded by Greenwald, to recommend to the City Council denial of Resolution No. , denying Lot Split 02 -09 to create a new rural residential property from property located at 16030 Makah Street NW based on the fact the does not meet the minimum lot width requirements of city ordinance and has no hardship. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the October 15, 2002 City Council meeting. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 24, 2002 Page 5 �J PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 4.19 TWO FAMILY HOME CONVERSIONS AND ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 7.03 SPECL4L USES TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVERTING ATTACHED TWO - FAMILY DWELLINGS TO ALLOW SEPARATE OWNERSHIP. Mr. Neumeister reviewed that the EDA and City Council have had discussions over the past few months that there should be provisions to split duplexes for separate ownership. The Zoning Ordinance allows for it, however the language that is currently in the ordinance needs minor changes to bring it up to date. Mr. Neumeister reviewed the Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements with the Commission. He stated it should be noted that some situations may warrant granting variances to the zoning provisions since the units were built prior to any zoning regulations being created for them. Mr. Neumeister noted that the City removed duplexes from the R -1 through R -4 Zoning Districts on August 3, 1999. Currently duplexes that exist in these zones are non- conforming structures. If the property owner would split the duplex units for separate owner occupancy, then the units would become conforming, as they would be considered "single family attached" once the split is properly done. • Mr. Neumeister further discussed his staff report with the Commission. It is recommended that Section 7.03 have language added allowing them by special use permit (subject to the conditions previously stated). Staff is recommending approval of Ordinance 8 to establish requirements for converting attached dwellings to allow separate ownerships. Vice Chairperson Daninger asked if the proposed garage size was reasonable. Mr. Neumeister stated 440 square feet was the size of a standard two -car garage. Commissioner Falk questioned if the exterior of these buildings had to be maintained uniformly. Mr. Neumeister stated this was the case with both the paint and shingles. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Larsen, to open the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 24, 2002 Page 6 • Commissioner Greenwald asked why this was being readdressed at this time. Mr. Neumeister stated the Council was looking to lift the multi - family moratorium in October and as a part of reviewing all ordinances for multi - family, it was apparent that this section needed to be updated. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Ordinance No. , approving the amendment of Ordinance 8, Section 4.19, Two Family Home Conversions, and Ordinance 8, Section 7.03, Special Uses, to establish requirements for converting attached two - family dwellings to allow separate ownership. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the October 1, 2002 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 7.01 AND 7.03 TO ESTABLISH THAT APARTMENTS SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM PERMITTED USES IN THE MULTIPLE DWELLING (M-1 AND M -2 ZONING DISTRICTS), AND ALLOWED ONLYBYSPECL4L USE PERMIT IN EACH OF THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS. Mr. Neumeister reviewed that at the August 20, 2002 Council meeting, interest was expressed in making additional changes in the City's Ordinances related to multi- family rental housing, how they are reviewed for approval and the licensing of them. He presented his staff report which provided recommendations for changes to current codes regulating multi - family rental housing. Mr. Neumeister noted that another report before the Planning Commission describes the licensing requirements and how staff would recommend changes in that area also. Mr. Neumeister further discussed his staff report with the Commission. He stated the Planning Commission is asked to review staff recommendations and recommend to the City Council that the Zoning Ordinance be amended. Motion by Falk, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Falk, to close the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Falk, to recommend to the City Council approval of . Ordinance No. amending Ordinance 8, Section 7.01 and 7.03 to remove Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — September 24, 2002 Page 7 • Apartments from Permitted Uses in the Multiple Dwelling (M -1 and M -2) Zoning Districts and allow Apartments only by Special Use Permit in the Multiple Dwelling (M -1 and M -2) Zoning Districts. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the October 1, 2002 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 266, RENTAL HOUSING REVISING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR RENTAL HOUSING. Mr. Neumeister advised that the City Council has discussed over the past few months that there should be a detailed review of the City's codes related to rental housing, which is Ordinance #266. He presented his staff report, which highlighted what Andover currently has in place, what ordinances other cities have for regulating rental housing, and suggestions for potential changes to the current Ordinance. Mr. Neumeister stated staff has reviewed Andover's as well as four other cities rental housing maintenance standards and licensing requirements. A full copy of each ordinance has been provided for the Commission's review. Mr. Neumeister noted the IS brief summary contained in his staff report of each city's code. Mr. Neumeister explained that in discussing the issue of updating this Ordinance with the City's law enforcement staff, it was recommended that adjustments be made to make it more like Brooklyn Park. He noted that it is apparent that the Brooklyn Park ordinance goes into great detail to assure that the landlords of apartments will be screening tenants, and proactive in limiting incidents and police calls. Mr. Neumeister reviewed several key points within the "draft" Ordinance with the Commission. He stated the "draft" Ordinance #266A is patterned after Brooklyn Park's and recommended that existing Ordinance #266 be repealed in its entirety and replaced with the entire new text that is patterned after the Brooklyn Park Ordinance. Commissioner Greenwald asked how many rental units were within the City of Andover at this time. Mr. Neumeister stated there were roughly 200 units. Commissioner Greenwald questioned if this document was too strict for the city at this time, as it does not have the rental property numbers similar to Brooklyn Park. Mr. Neumeister stated this could be the case, but noted the City Council wanted to be proactive on this issue. Commissioner Greenwald asked what the potential was for additional rental properties in the near future. Mr. Bednarz stated there was not a huge potential for increasing the number of rental properties within the city at this time. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — September 24, 2002 Page 8 • Commissioner Gamache asked if maintenance issues should be addressed within this Ordinance. Mr. Neumeister stated there was a separate Ordinance to address maintenance. Vice Chairperson Daninger asked if there was any feedback from the City of Brooklyn Park on their Rental Housing Ordinance. Mr. Neumeister stated thus far it has been a positive force in helping the City deal with unruly tenants and in reducing police calls. Commissioner Gamache stated he would like to see the city remain proactive on this issue and not get behind or create a problem for the future with run down rental properties. Commissioner Larsen asked if any feedback has been received from the landlords in Brooklyn Park. Mr. Neumeister stated he has not heard anything to this point but stated the landlord's coalition began this movement to avoid problems within their units. Motion by Falk, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Larsen, to close the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. Commissioner Greenwald asked that the call ratio be adjusted to reflect more realistic numbers within the City of Andover. Commissioner Gamache agreed and asked that the Anoka County Sheriff's Department be brought in on discussions of realistic ratio numbers. Vice Chairperson Daninger advised staff to have additional findings from the City of Brooklyn Park when this item is presented to the Council, along with updated ratio information. He stated he was in favor of having good quality tenants within the City of Andover. Commissioner Gamache questioned how much of a burden would be placed on the Sheriff's Department if a call ratio level was set. Mr. Neumeister stated the Planning Commission at a future meeting could revisit the call ratio issue if desired or could be approved contingent on reviewal by the Sheriff's Department. Vice Chairperson Daninger proposed having a call ratio review with the Sheriff's Department at the time of license renewal. Commissioner Greenwald stated he would be 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — September 24, 2002 Page 9 • in favor of approving this item with the call ratio item to be brought before the Council for further discussion. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , recommending the adoption of Ordinance #266A that Ordinance #266 be repealed in its entirety and replaced with the entire new text that is patterned after the Brooklyn Park Ordinance with staff reviewing and making recommendations to Council with regard to the ratio of calls to a rental property, and addressing the license renewal process and having the Sheriff's Department involved. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the October 1, 2002 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 10, SECTION 6, SKETCH PLANAND SECTION 7, PRELIMINARY PLAT, TO CONFORM WITH STATE STATUTE REGARDING PROCESSING OFAPPLICATIONS. Mr. Bednarz explained that staff is proposing to adjust language within Ordinance 10 to ensure that plat review is conducted in compliance with State Statute 462.358 Procedure for plan effectuation; subdivision. He noted that State Statute provides requirements for . municipalities to follow during the review of plats. These requirements dictate that cities respond to the applicant within ten days of a plat submittal to establish whether a submittal is complete or not. Cities have 60 days to review and act on plat submittals. The review period can be extended by the City to 120 days provided there is some justification for the extension. Only the applicant can extend the review period beyond 120 days. Mr. Bednarz advised that Ordinance 10 requires a sketch plan to be completed prior to review of a preliminary plat. Sketch plan review consists of staff, Planning Commission and City Council review. This level of review takes a minimum of 45 days. Plat review follows a similar process, although a much greater amount of time is spent on staff review as the applicant and staff work through the details of the proposal to ensure compliance with City Ordinances. He noted that the current process will not allow plats to be acted upon by the City within the 60 days allowed by state Statute. Given that Cities are not allowed to automatically extend review of applications to 120 days, an adjustment needs to be made. Mr. Bednarz explained that as a result, it is necessary to modify Ordinance 10 to ensure that the City's platting process conforms with State Statutes. The City Attorney has suggested a minor adjustment to the Sketch Plan language, to make it permissive rather than mandatory as noted within the staff report. This would conceivably allow the platting process to be completed within the 60 days allowed by State Statute. L� Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — September 24, 2002 Page 10 • Vice Chairperson Daninger asked when sketch plans were added to the City requirements. Mr. Bednarz noted this began in 1999. Vice Chairperson Daninger stated he felt the sketch plan was a useful tool in educating residents of potential developments but understood this had to do with State Statute. Mr. Neumeister stated all developers would still be completing sketch plans to gain feedback from neighbors before they assume the expense of platting a large development. Motion by Falk, seconded by Greenwald, to open the public hearing at 8 :32 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Larsen, seconded by Greenwald, to close the public hearing at 8:32 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. Commissioner Greenwald stated he understands the added expense does not warrant the sketch plan. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Falk, to recommend to the City Council approval of is Resolution No. , amending Ordinance 10, Section 6, Sketch Plan, and Section 7, Preliminary Plat, to conform with State Statutes regarding processing of applications. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the October 15, 2002 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. He mentioned that a sewer and water study for future urban development beyond the current 20/20 MUSA boundary was being conducted and would be ready for discussion in October or early November. Mr. Bednarz noted the Rural Reserve Study information would be posted on the City website and would also be available at City Hall for the public to review. He noted information for the 2030 Blueprint was also provided at www.metcouncil.org. Commissioner Greenwald asked for further information on the sports complex. Mr. Bednarz indicated costs are being reviewed and tasks are being broken down at this time, with funding being the main concern. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — September 24, 2002 Page 11 • Commissioner Greenwald asked when a signal light would be added to Andover Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard. Mr. Bednarz stated this is not on the short-term 5- year plan but stated a signal light would be added at Crosstown and Hanson Boulevards by the end of October. Commissioner Greenwald questioned what concerned citizens could do to address the signal light needed at Andover Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard. Mr. Bednarz stated residents could contact the highway department and Anoka County with their concerns. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Falk, seconded by Gamache, to adjourn the meeting at 8:41 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Chairperson Squires and Commissioner Kirchoff) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • P '8 ( A) CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: D. Tyler Mckay, Associate PlannerA SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Lot Split (02 -10) to create two rural residential lots from property located at 16287 Makah Street NW for Sandra and Schuyler Wallace. DATE: October 8"`, 2002 INTRODUCTION The property owner is seeking approval of a proposal to divide the subject property into two rural residential lots. An existing house on the western half of the property will remain and one new lot will be created on the eastern half. DISCUSSION The attached survey is an approximation of the proposed lot split. The property owner is requesting that the lot split be approved prior to a survey being completed with the condition that the new lots will meet or exceed the minimum lot width, depth and gross area requirements of the R -1 Zoning District. This is possible considering the dimensions and total square feet of this lot. Applicable Ordinances Ordinance 40 regulates the division of lots. Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 establishes the provision for minimum lot width, lot depth and lot area for zoning districts. The minimum requirements in the R -1 districts are as follows: • Lot Width at Front Setback -- 300 Feet • Lot Depth -- 150 Feet • Front Yard Setback -- 40 Feet • Rear Yard Setback -- 50 Feet • Lot Area per Dwelling -- 2.5 Acres Both lots will exceed the minimum lot width, depth and setback requirements of the R -1 Zoning District. The total gross square feet for the existing lot is 218,075. A survey will be prepared to divide the lot evenly. The new lots would have 109,037 square feet per lot, which is 137 square feet larger than required. P Access Access will be provided to the property from 7 Avenue (CSAH 7). The City Attorney has previously indicated that the City cannot deny a lot split that conforms with City requirements simply to deny access. Utilities No sewer stub currently exists to serve the new lot, as this lot is outside of the 2020 MUSA. The purchaser would need to provide an on site well and septic system. The elevation of the property indicates that it is buildable. A condition to this resolution will therefore require soil boring data to show a septic system can be safely placed on this property. Buildability will need to be demonstrated to conform with the requirements of Ordinance 10 Section 9.06. This review will be conducted as a part of the building permit process. Options In an attempt to minimize any costs before the lot split has been approved, the applicant has not submitted all of the necessary materials. The Commission has recommended approval of lot splits conditioned upon the submittal of these materials to be reviewed by staff at a later date. However, this is typically done when the applicant is requesting a variance and there is some question about whether the lot split will be approved. In this case, there is no variance requested • and there is no reason to believe the lot split would not be approved other than any problems which may arise from an examination of the materials which have not been submitted. The materials to be included include 3 signed original copies of the survey which show: 1. Placement of the new property line. 2. A 10 foot easement around the perimeter of both properties. 3. Placement of any new structures which conform to all City building and zoning codes 4. Locations for two 5,000 square foot (10,000 square foot total) septic areas. 5. Legal descriptions of the new properties. Therefore the Committee has three options. 1. Require the applicant to submit all necessary materials before the commission reviews the application. 2. Recommend approval of the lot split, but require the applicant submit all necessary materials before this proceeds to the City Council. 3. Recommend approval of the lot split, but require the applicant submit all necessary materials before the lot split is recorded with Anoka County. Attachments • Resolution Location Map Property Survey (full size in packet) 2 • Respectfaliv submitted, e yvlerMckay Cc: Sandy Wallace, 16287 Makah St. NW. Andover, MN 55304 0 • • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA [_ 53 E 9 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOT SPLIT REQUEST FOR SANDY WALLACE TO SUBDIVIDE INTO TWO RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16287 MAKAH STREET NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Tract K, Registered Land Survey No. 72, Anoka County, Minnesota WHEREAS, Sandy Wallace has requested approval of a lot split to subdivide property pursuant to Ordinance No. 40, located at 16287 Makah Street NW; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request meets the criteria of Ordinance No. 8 and 40; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the City of Andover; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held pursuant to state statutes; and • WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the lot split as requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the lot split on said property with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit to the City three signed original copies of the survey with the lot evenly divided in half. The survey shall include legal descriptions for the new properties. 2. The applicant shall be required to conform with all of the requireme nts of the City of Andover Building Department to demonstrate that the property is buildable. 3. The applicant shall pay park dedication in the amount of $1,700. 4. The applicant shall pay a trail fee in the amount of $412. 5. The applicant shall establish a 10 foot easement around the perimeter of both properties. • 6. The applicant shall establish flood elevations on the survey. 7. The lot split shall be subject to a sunset clause as defined in Ordinance No. 40, Section III(E). 2 • Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of , 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Mike Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk • • Lot Split 0 Project Location Map N W- A /-E e Andover Planning 16287 Makah Street NW �q '*( Z) TO: FROM: CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US Planning and Zoning Commissioners Courtney Bednarz, City Plann6, SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning (02 -02) to change the zoning designation from R -1 Single Family Rural Residential to R -4 Single Family Urban Residential on Outlot C of Woodland Estates 2 " Addition for Woodland Development. DATE: October 8, 2002 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed rezoning to allow the Woodland Estates Third Addition Project to move forward. DISCUSSION As with all rezonings, the City must meet one of the two following findings that are provided by state statute: 1. The original zoning was in error. 2. The character of the area or times and conditions have changed to such an extent to warrant the Rezoning. The City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on July 2, 2002 to bring the subject property into the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). As a part of this approval the City Council acknowledged that times and conditions have changed to such an extent as to warrant the extension of utilities to this property. It is therefore appropriate to allow the property to be rezoned to R -4 Single Family Urban Residential to allow the proposed project to move forward. Attachments Ordinance Amendment Location Map ACTION REQUIRED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the rezoning request. Res p ctful su mitted, / y Cc: Woodland Development 13632 VanBuren Street NE Ham Lake, MN 55304 } • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO.8 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO., 8, SECTION 6.03, ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS: Ordinance 8, Section 6.03, The Zoning District Map of the City of Andover is hereby amended as follows: 1) Rezone land from R -1, Single Family Rural Residential to R -4, Single Family Urban Residential on approximately 5 acres legally described as: 2) All other sections of the Zoning Ordinance Shall remain as written and adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Outlot C Woodland Estates Second Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk • Woodland Estates 3rd Addition • Project Location Map / WY E e Andover Planning 1� aN 6M m aw a.e aN an m Mn m nn I6n m w m wm _ _ - a NW an as w6 s> wa file as � wol Na .,, •• x INn fan ® B! _ gg 88 6N� 9p p � p 6� G P P� p p p e� ry G G G s r J w .6m Im wa M 1W6 U � Nm yD t nW NIB W _ .ua B e a Ye ! r) as ) m as xn uw p Np qq Yq!!Il g pp �pll p . p � _ p p w g Project Location Map / WY E e Andover Planning • CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann4 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of a single family residential development to be known as Woodland Estates 3 Addition for Woodland Development on property located west of Woodland Estates Second Addition. DATE: October 8, 2002 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review the prelimnary plat of Woodland Estates 3rd Addition. DISCUSSION Review Process Ordinance 10 outlines the requirements for preliminary plat review. The Planning Commission in its review of a preliminary plat shall determine whether the proposed subdivision is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, and shall take into consideration the requirements of the City and the best use of the land. Particular attention shall be given to the arrangement, location and widths of streets, drainage and lot sizes and arrangements. 9.02, 9.03 Street Plan A public street extension of Verdin Street NW will provide access to the individual lots. The street extension will end in a temporary cul -de -sac at the north end of the project. A temporary street easement will be created to allow a temporary cul -de -sac at this location. A temporary cul- de -sac sign will be posted to indicate the street may be extended in the future. The street will be 32 feet wide within a 60 foot wide right of way as required by the City's minor urban street requirements. Boulevard Sodding Four inches of black dirt and sod are required to be installed within all boulevard areas. 9.04 Easements The standard urban drainage and utility easements (ten feet wide along front and rear property lines and 5 feet wide along side property lines) will be provided as a part of this project as indicated on the preliminary plat. Additional easements will be established to cover the storm water pond to be created at the southwest edge of the plat. P70 FA . 9.06 Lots All of the lots will meet or exceed the R -4 Single Family Urban Residential requirements with one exception. The applicant proposes to create an outlot at the northeast edge of the plat to allow this land area to be combined with land to the north to create a single family lot as a part of a future project. Ordinance 10, Section 9.06I. prohibits unbuildable outlots from being created. It is recommended that a variance to this section be granted based on the proposed future use of the property with the finding that the variance will promote the most efficient use of the property. Buiddability requirements of Ordinance No. 10 Section 9.06a(1) All lots are required to meet the provisions of Ordinance No. 10, Section 9.06a(1) which relates to lot size and buildability requirements. The applicant has demonstrated that each of the lots will be buildable. Ordinance 114, Wetland Buffer, further regulates lots adjacent to wetlands and storm water ponds. This ordinance requires a minimum of 116.5 feet between the front property line and either the delineated edge of a wetland or the 100 year flood elevation adjacent to a storm water pond. All of the proposed lots will meet this requirement, however, the 16.5 foot buffer needs to be indicated around the storm water pond on the grading plan. 9.07 Parks, Park Dedication The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that park dedication fees be collected for this development. The developer is also required to meet the following City Ordinances and all other applicable ordinances: Ordinance No. 8, the Zoning Ordinance Ordinance No. 10, the Platting and Subdivision Ordinance Ordinance No. 107, Shoreland Management Ordinance Ordinance No. 108, Flood Plain Management Ordinance Ordinance No. 114, Wetland Buffer Ordinance Ordinance No. 214, Diseased Shade Tree Ord. & Tree Preservation Policy Coordination with other Agencies The developer and/or owner is responsible to obtain all necessary permits (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Coon Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, LGU and any other agency that may have an interest in the site). Initial contact shall be made with the City Engineering Department regarding this item. Attachments Resolution S Location Map Preliminary Plat (Full Size in packet) • ACTION REQUIRED The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the Preliminary Plat for Woodland Estates P Addition. Respect lly submitted, ourtn z Cc: Woodland Development 13632 VanBuren Street NE Ham Lake, MN 55304 • • 3 f • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO R -02 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "WOODLAND ESTATES THIRD ADDITION" FOR WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTIONS 21 AND 22, TOWNSHIP 32 RANGE 24 LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS; Outlots A, B and C , Woodland Estates Second Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said plat; and WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the plat. WHEREAS, the applicant has petitioned to vary from the requirements of Ordinance 10, Section 9.06I. prohibiting unbuildable outlots to allow the creation of Outlot A, and; • WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the special circumstances for the proposed project are as follows; 1. The proposed Outlot A will be added to land area to the north to allow a single family lot to be created as apart of a future project. 2. Allowing Outlot A to be created promotes the most efficient development of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the preliminary plat with the following conditions: 1. A variance to Ordinance 10, Section 9.06I. is approved to allow Outlot A to be created as indicated o the Preliminary Plat Revised September 9, 2002 and stamped received by the City of Andover on September 11, 2002. 2. The grading plan shall be revised to indicate a buffer strip to conform with Ordinance 114. 3. The developer obtains all necessary permits from the Coon Creek Watershed District, DNR, Corps of Engineers, LGU, MPCA and any other agency that may be interested in the site. • 4. Contingent upon the approval of the Rezoning of the property to R -4 Single Family Urban Residential. If this request fails to be approved, in whole or in part, the preliminary plat shall be considered null and void. 4 I • 5. Park dedication per Ordinance No. 10, Section 9.07. 6. Contingent upon staff review and approval for compliance with City ordinances, policies and guidelines. 7. Such plat approval is contingent upon a development agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. A financial guarantee will be required as a part of this agreement to assure typical subdivision improvements will be completed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this day of , 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk • • Michael R. Gamache, Mayor R , Woodland Estates 3rd Addition 0 • Project Location Map A N a Andover Planning n� m m,. a w ni. v® d � Yo _7ID >m/ v,6 YJ L o wa ww wv m, ,ma as au am are N,a E 6R tRRBEE ?l66t aon FaRR 8w. R R wm �w e p@ gx p O F PW p� �"FFF � m m �•. F ry Aa F- N r Nm Am BYO IYm 1Ym NI Ym ,Y1. ,.A RM V MCr4 I.i N.L NIY w. am m nm ao ma as 1 N!m Nm OIL, 1111110 am am y R G �F R �. j mY i, sY aN av a vv • Project Location Map A N a Andover Planning os CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plana SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning (02 -03) to change the zoning designation from R -3 Single Family Suburban Residential to R -4 Single Family Urban Residential on property located at 1703, 1663 and 1653 Andover Boulevard. DATE: October 8, 2002 INTRODUCTION This rezoning is necessary to allow the Foxburgh Crossing housing development to move forward. DISCUSSION As with all rezonings, the City must meet one of the two following findings that are provided by state statute: 1. The original zoning was in error. 2. The character of the area or times and conditions have changed to such an extent to warrant the Rezoning. It is staff's position that times and conditions have changed such to warrant a rezoning due to the following: 1. The subject properties are located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) 2. The R -3 Single Family Suburban Zoning District was created to accommodate future urban development at the time when utilities became available. Utilities are available to service the property. Attachments Ordinance Amendment Location Map ACTION REQUIRED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the rezoning request. -. •fit„ -� $1 too � ��j a7f,• O R Cc: Steve Boone, Boone Builders 6712 Bryant Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 ti CITY OF ANDOVER • COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO.8 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8, SECTION 6.03, ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS: Ordinance 8, Section 6.03, The Zoning District Map of the City of Andover is hereby amended as follows: 1) Rezone land from R -3, Single Family Suburban Residential to R-4, Single Family Urban Residential on approximately 6.25 acres legally described as: THE SOUTH 495.00 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 32, RANGE 24 WEST, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA LYING EAST OF THE WEST 660.00 FEET; TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF SAID EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID EAST HALF; THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID EAST HALF, 528.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LAND TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH, PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST HALF A DISTANCE OF 325.00 FEET; THENCE EAST, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID EAST HALF A DISTANCE OF 132.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH, PARALLEL WITH SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF 325.00 FEET TO SAID SOUTH LINE; THENCE WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 132.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 2) All other sections of the Zoning Ordinance Shall remain as written and adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor C� IO /U IbLV (V 3! lV V 14789 14nO m »,•• 1uu D1 u7ao y c ' 14766 taus R 148TH AV m U777 141T3 16734 14764 14790 ^ (A 14761 u t+l ° 1°27 •�- Q 1969 1919 14769 1x766 14761 147TH LN &0 14740 +4276 was p 14737 U743 4762 147TH CT 1473° 14763 '' 1716 $ 1x'25 14734 N w M N 4724 147x1 tan 14713 14714 1 q r Q 14712 y ,76 1920 z 14719 14700 147 +x0°6 ❑ 147TH AVE Q 147TH AVE u 1970 Z y tuaa 14e63 14250 91 > p J 14688 u 1 14,W 14M 14661 J 14678 14°61 ° 1x°27 14670 14671 eg 1541 14670 14664 = " — > +ae� 1/°63 14661 Z \ n v v 14669 46 L 1TH 14652 661 ueeo 14651 O _ r 146TH LN 1969 14640 n n 4653 16x0 1 Z +ee32 1634 Q +6a3o 14631 Q 1452° t_ = 14667 14620 143 r1 n (n uem 14619 `+' °' 19 1 o 14em . � � ti m m 1673 c �Tj � o v v 4611, qL v 146M 146TH AVE s F r r 46TH AVE 14570 14M y 1666, 146ee 14625 o m m rn 14569 uses -+ +u� um 14677 1O m 6 4601 lueo M usm Z 146x3 14872 Q . 14569 1850 ,. i taws 14667 4M 14666 14666 16� U / F 14666 14666 14 T 14M 1x640 14631 464 14641 1452D w 1 <w4 m 14630 14625 M O m m 7 fO +T v 74520 1425 14610 A n' N m m w m� 'r i 748 1 ° m r3 1718 1650 1571 14437 144TH AVE M D 144TH AVE ® 1a3W ,x366 assn :z ? 14376 14372 25371 14372 1570 16362 143V 14 W 11363 11361 ry 575 14x2° g 1 4M 1as3s ease r 14316 14817 10.116 14274 14278 43RD AVE C7 uz71 14262 ¢Q O u25o f Q 25229 � 1a2� 16236 � 14195 14216 1627° op,Y J 1426 142 AV 142M 14166 14264 M 1574_ 14167 _a u2E2 Z p 14176 1x160 14176 142.10 O 1573 ® rn a) 14170 16171 1 $ Z V J 1586 14 141W 14163 at 1576 * Project Location Map N W E E City of Andover Planning Department 0 (Z) TO: FROM: CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Planning and Zoning Commissioners Courtney Bednarz, City Planne(?1 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of a single family residential development to be known as Foxburgh Crossing for Grand Teton Development on property located at 1703, 1663 and 1653 Andover Boulevard. DATE: October 8, 2002 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review the preliminary plat of Foxburgh Crossing containing 13 single family lots. DISCUSSION Review Process Ordinance 10 outlines the requirements for preliminary plat review. The Planning Commission in its review of a preliminary plat shall determine whether the proposed subdivision is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, and shall take into consideration the requirements of the City and the best use of the land. Particular attention shall be given to the arrangement, location and widths of streets, drainage and lot sizes and arrangements. 9.02, 9.03 Street Plan The proposed project would be provided access from Ibis Street NW. Four existing accesses to Andover Boulevard would be eliminated. A public street to be named 145"' Lane NW would be brought into the project and end in a cul -de -sac. The street will be 32 feet wide within a 60 foot wide right of way as required by the City's minor urban street requirements. Corner Lot As discussed during sketch plan review, the construction of 145 Lane will cause an existing lot immediately north of the project area to become a comer lot. An additional 14 feet of right of way is proposed on the north side of the future street to increase the side yard setback for the existing house. As proposed, the existing deck will have a setback of 14 feet from the property line and 40 feet from the curb. The house would have a setback of 29 feet from the property line and 55 feet from the curb (see attached Neighboring Property Survey). It is recommended that a variance be granted for this property due to the fact that the additional right -of -way will provide a setback that is equivalent to many other corner lots in the City. Boulevard Sodding Four inches of black dirt and sod are required to be installed within all boulevard areas. 9.04 Easements • The standard urban drainage and utility easements (ten feet wide along front and rear property lines and 5 feet wide along side property lines) will be provided as a part of this project as indicated on the preliminary plat. Additional easements will be established to cover the storm water pond and wetland areas as indicated on the grading plan. 9.06 Lots All of the lots will meet or exceed the R -4 Single Family Urban Residential requirements as indicated on the attached preliminary plat drawing. The applicant was not allowed Planned Unit Development Review. Double frontage lots Double frontage lots are prohibited unless one of the frontages faces an arterial street. It is not possible to eliminate access to Andover Boulevard without creating the need for double frontage lots. Due to the limited project area there is no other feasible way to layout the proposed project. It is recommended that variances to Ordinance 10, Section 9.06F. be granted for lots 8 -13. Double frontage lots are also required to provide an additional ten feet of lot depth and screening along the rear property line per Ordinance 10, Section 9.06 F. The applicant will relocate existing trees on the site to provide this screening. The quantity and quality of this screening is critical due to the traffic volume at the intersection of Andover and Hanson boulevards. A condition has been added to the resolution to ensure that screening will be provided with a minimum of 24 trees along Hanson Boulevard and another 28 trees along Andover Boulevard. A mix of evergreen and deciduous trees will be required. Buildability requirements of Ordinance No. 10 Section 9.06a(1) All lots are required to meet the provisions of Ordinance No. 10, Section 9.06a(1) which relates to lot size and buildability requirements. The applicant has demonstrated that each of the lots will be buildable. Ordinance 114, Wetland Buffer, further regulates lots adjacent to wetlands and storm water ponds. This ordinance requires a minimum of 116.5 feet between the front property line and either the delineated edge of a wetland or the 100 year flood elevation adjacent to a storm water pond. Although the location of the wetland buffer needs to be adjusted to be measured from the 100 year flood elevation of the storm water pond in the northeast corner of the development, with this adjustment all of the proposed lots will meet the requirements of Ordinance 114. Engineering Department and Engineering Consultant Comments Attached are two memorandums that contain a number of comments regarding the proposed project. All of these comments involve minor plan adjustments and additional documentation that will result in a clean preliminary plat document. Staff will be meeting with the developers is to resolve these issues on Monday, October 7 An update will be provided at the meeting. • 9.07 Parks, Park Dedication The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that park dedication fees be collected for this development. The developer is also required to meet the following City Ordinances and all other applicable ordinances: Ordinance No. 8, the Zoning Ordinance Ordinance No. 10, the Platting and Subdivision Ordinance Ordinance No. 107, Shoreland Management Ordinance Ordinance No. 108, Flood Plain Management Ordinance Ordinance No. 114, Wetland Buffer Ordinance Ordinance No. 214, Diseased Shade Tree Ord. & Tree Preservation Policy Coordination with other Agencies The developer and/or owner is responsible to obtain all necessary permits (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Coon Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, LGU and any other agency that may have an interest in the site). Initial contact shall be made with the City Engineering Department regarding this item. Attachments Resolution Location Map Engineering Department Comments Engineering Consultant Comments Planning Commission Minutes (sketch plan) City Council Minutes (sketch plan) Preliminary Plat (11x17 in packet) Grading Plan (11x17 in packet) ACTION REQUIRED The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the Preliminary Plat for Foxburgh Crossing. 4ey submitted, narz Cc: Steve Boone, Boone Builders 6712 Bryant Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 3 CITY OF ANDOVER . COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO R -02 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "FOXBURGH CROSSING" FOR GRAND TETON DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 32 RANGE 24 LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS; THE SOUTH 495.00 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 32, RANGE 24 WEST, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA LYING EAST OF THE WEST 660.00 FEET; TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF SAID EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID EAST HALF; THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID EAST HALF, 528.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LAND TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH, PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST HALF A DISTANCE OF 325.00 FEET; THENCE EAST, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID EAST HALF A DISTANCE OF 132.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH, PARALLEL WITH SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF 325.00 FEET TO SAID SOUTH LINE; THENCE WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 132.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said plat; and WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the plat. WHEREAS, the applicant has petitioned to vary from the double frontage lot provision of Ordiance 10, Section 9.06F. for lots 8 -13, and; WHEREAS the proposed project will cause property located at 14553 Ibis Street NW to become a corner lot with a setback of less than the required 35 feet, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the special circumstances for the proposed project are as follows; 1. It is not possible to eliminate access to Andover Boulevard without creating the need for double frontage lots. 2. Due to the limited project area there is no other feasible way to layout the proposed proj ect. • 3. Additional right -of -way will be provided to achieve a side yard setback that meets or exceeds that of many other comer lots throughout the City 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the preliminary plat with the following conditions: 1. A variance to Ordinance 10, Section 9.06F. is approved to allow lots 8 -13 to be double frontage lots without being adjacent to an arterial street or highway. This variance does not affect the additional lot width and screening requirements. 2. A variance to the side yard setback requirement of Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 is approved to allow a side yard setback of 14 feet for property located at 14553 Ibis Street NW. The developer obtains all necessary permits from the Coon Creek Watershed District, DNR, Corps of Engineers, LGU, MPCA and any other agency that may be interested in the site. 4. Contingent upon the approval of the Rezoning of the property to R -4 Single Family Urban Residential. If this request fails to be approved, in whole or in part, the preliminary plat shall be considered null and void. 5. Park dedication per Ordinance No. 10, Section 9.07. 6. The developer shall provide a minimum of 28 trees in rear yards adjacent to Hanson Boulevard and a minimum of 24 trees in rear yards adjacent to Andover Boulevard to comply with the double frontage screening requirements of Ordinance 10, Section 9.06. The species of trees shall be divided evenly between deciduous and evergreen trees. 7. Contingent upon compliance with all comments contained within the Engineering Department Memorandum dated October 3, 2002. 8. Contingent upon staff review and approval for compliance with City ordinances, policies and guidelines. Such plat approval is contingent upon a development agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. A financial guarantee will be required as a part of this agreement to assure typical subdivision improvements will be completed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this day of 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: r Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor a 7 e Project Location Map N W �F 6 City of Andover Planning Department • • • WU I e1 F"I 148TH AVE 14x01 u7w H P 1� c 147)4 LU ,w- e- x776 u7w w u7 476 %7Q J 14714 1147TH AVE u \ Q R rn OS N vn ^+ QS T r � r r m c 1541 " t`3 + o u e m R Z r 1n in n in v v c v v 0 146TH LN Q ue3z Ism ED e D y + x666 W 14663 w659 r 14572 H6w U W640 14631 +4669 � W644 14"1 1 14676 u6N N 1425 +4610 F- 1571 S � V N m Q , � � N � M T .- 144TH AVE w 144TH AVE g ,x369 C I"" um M1570 2 ,a37e 14372 x371 . ,4372 14362 143% 14366 14364 575 A ,aria 14336 14336 c uV N 14318 1aa17 faala 114160 14271 3RD AVE x262 @ � c e � 14 8 Q 1 4M g{ 142M MM � �+- 14210 14278 .>_I u2a 142 AV u1w 14200 14195 1a2aa 1574 i5 gg y( x197 � 14262 Z 14116 _v 0 1573 2 14140 F 1417E W240 rn _ 14170 W MV, 142x0 a 7 e Project Location Map N W �F 6 City of Andover Planning Department • • • ------ 7 ,,11 •TKDA TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS DATE: September 26, 2002 PROJECT: Foxburgh Crossing City of Andover, Minnesota Commission No. 11978 -022 1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 -2140 �'°" "- - -- -- PHONE: 651/2924400 FAX: 651/292 -D069 r • ... ._..�� iy ,: ff Review of Drainage PIan for Foxburgh Crossing Plan Date: September 12, 2002 Received by TKDA: September 23, 2002 . Developer: Life Style Properties, Inc. Developer's Engineer: Jeremy Boots, P.E., John Oliver & Assoc,, Inc. REVIEWED BY: Stephen W. Hartley, P.E., TKDA, Inc. 91-'k BACKGROUND: The Drainage Plan and Computations for Foxburgh Crossing were reviewed for compliance with the City of Andover's "Water Resource • Management Plan" dated January, 1993. The following comments identify items that need to be addressed for approval of the drainage plan. COMMENTS: 1. Storm sewer computations, based upon a 10 -year storm, needs to be submitted. Rational Method is acceptable. 2. A drop manhole may be needed on the inlet pipe to the pond. The last 10 to 20 feet of pipe should be laid at a slope that limits the pipe full discharge velocities to between 3 to 6 feet per second. 3. The existing wetland storage and rate control need to be included in the existing conditions computations. Otherwise, rate control for the East area will need to be based upon the inflow rate to the existing wetland under proposed conditions. 4. The summary sheet states the 100 -year discharge rate from the West area is 1.69 cfs. The HydroCAD model shows the discharge rate as being 5.03 cfs. Rate control needs to be re- reviewed for the West area. 5. Approval is needed from Coon Creek Watershed District before the City can give final approval. 0 An Equal Opportunity Employer Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page S • PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTMI, SKETCHPLAN FOR A SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWNHOUSE PROJECT TO BE KNOWNAS `FOXBURGH CROSSING' LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HANSON BOULEVARD AND ANDOVER BOULEVARD — BOONE BUILDERS. Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report. Commissioner Greenwald questioned if option one would consist of 13 single - family lots. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is correct. Commissioner Greenwald questioned the number of homes in option two. Mr. Bednarz stated that option two would consist of 12 single - family homes, and four townhouse units. Mr. Bednarz explained that staff is recommending the property be rezoned from R -3 to R -4. He mentioned that the question between the two options is either the City would choose a PUD with option one consisting of more restrictions, or option two which would not allow the City to require additional improvements. Commissioner Greenwald questioned Mr. Bednarz on why staff feels that option one is a • better fit. He questioned Mr. Bednarz on whether staff feels if having more requirements will make a better development. Mr. Bednarz explained that with a PUD there is more of a guarantee, for example all lots would be sodded and irrigated. He mentioned that on the west side of Hanson Blvd. and 132 Avenue there's a development that came up 12 years ago, however there is a varying degree of maintenance. Commissioner Hedin questioned if there is an illustration available without the twinhouse units. Mr. Bednarz explained how the development would look without the twinhouse units. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if there would be an association to ensure that all lots would be maintained. Mr. Bednarz stated that there would be an association for the entire development. Commissioner Gamache questioned if the twinhouses would be for rent or owned. Commissioner Greenwald questioned what level of control the City would have at the time of building. Mr. Bednarz explained that when a PUD has been developed in the past, there has been an elevation approval required. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page 6 • The applicant Bill Gleason, stated that last time this the proposal included 35 detached town homes, however now that's decreased substantially. He stated that it was his understanding the neighbors didn't want to meet even though this was the Council's recommendation. He explained that he's trying to keep the costs down, therefore if the lots are bigger the houses become cheaper. He stated that he doesn't feel it's in the best interest of the neighborhood to have 80 -foot lots. He mentioned that they feel this proposal would be a benefit to the City, since it could be bermed and landscaped. The twinhomes would help make the homes more affordable, furthermore they are nice looking units. He explained that the twinhomes would be owned and not rented. There would be an association on the area that would make sure the properties are maintained. Finally, he mentioned that the lot square footage exceeds what is throughout the rest of the City. Carol Cooper, 1690 146 Avenue, stated that her property abuts the proposed development. She stated that the area residents still feel there are too many houses for the area. She stated that the lots should be more in tuned to what is in the surrounding area. She questioned if the property would still have to be rezoned. Mr. Bednarz stated that the property wouldn't have to be rezoned as multi - family, however it would need to be rezoned from R -3 to R -4. He explained that two twinhomes aren't considered multi- family, but instead apartments or condominiums are considered multi - family units. • Ms. Cooper explained that the neighbors told the developer that they would be happy to look at a plan consisting of single - family homes, however they were never contacted. Dan Stay, 1668 146 Avenue NW, stated that he lives on Lot 12 of the Pinewoods Development. He thanked the builder for the most recent plan, since at one point it wasn't an option to build single- family homes on this land. He mentioned that he still believes it would be too many homes. He also mentioned that with this plan his property would back up to three different properties, therefore he requested his property back up to just one property. He suggested the City take their time in making a decision since the traffic levels will likely change once Natures Run and the school is completed. He stated that if the area were rezoned to R -4 it would be zoned the same as Pinewood Estates. He also suggested changing a few things to eliminate some of the homes, since it would likely be congested if developed the way it's presented. He mentioned that the Petersons on Lot 18 aren't happy with the proposal since there would be a road put in right next to their property line. He again suggested the City wait to see what happens in the next few months in terms of the traffic levels. Commissioner Greenwald questioned when Mr. Stay received the plan from builder. Mr. Stay stated that he received a letter a week ago from the City. Commissioner Greenwald questioned Mr. Stay on how many homes he feels is appropriate for the area. Mr. Stay suggested taking out either two or three homes to • widen the lots, so there would be only one property backed up to his property line instead of three. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Greenwald questioned Mr. Stay on what the topography features are of his backyard. Mr. Stay explained that his lot goes into the woods approximately five feet on one side and about fifteen feet on the other side. He stated that he wants to keep as many trees as possible. Patty Stay, 1668 146 Avenue, stated that she would like to see the area develop as single family. She stated that they aren't against development, however they are requesting the density be brought down. She mentioned that they are totally against the twinhomes, since it would only take away from the aesthetics of the neighborhood. She also mentioned that they didn't know anything about two different options. She stated that it would make more sense if this development didn't have all the restrictions since their development doesn't have the restrictions. Mr. Gleason stated that it was his understanding that the neighbors didn't want to meet. He stated that he is more than willing to meet with the neighbors to discuss the development. He mentioned that the goal is to put in better housing. It is possible to put in only single - family homes, however the houses may suffer since the lots are big. Commissioner Gamache questioned what would happen if the area remained in the R -3 zoning district. Mr. Gleason explained that R -3 zoning is a holding zone and sewer and water wouldn't be available. Commissioner Greenwald questioned the price range for the single - family homes. Mr. Gleason stated that the single - family homes would be in the $250,000 to $300,000 price range. He explained that there is a ratio that needs to be met, however the number of buyers in this price range is decreasing. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that to him the second option is the less favorable of the two. Mr. Gleason stated that he is willing to do strictly single - family homes, however option one would be a better project. Ms. Stay questioned if there would be multiple builders. Mr. Gleason stated that at this point this hasn't been decided. There was no further public input. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Hedin, to close the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Commissioner Gamache questioned if Pinewood Estates is zoned R -4. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is correct. • • Acting Chair Daninger explained that the development went from originally having 35 . single - family homes to 12 single - family homes. He stated that the area would probably Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page 8 • be rezoned to R -4. He reminded the Commission that the PUD would have more restrictions, and if it were decided to go with strictly single - family homes the twinhomes would be eliminated and the lots would be 80 feet wide. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is correct. Commissioner Hedin mentioned that regardless of either option the lots would need to be buildable lots. Mr. Bednarz stated that all of the lots are considered buildable. Commissioner Greenwald questioned if all the single - family lots meet or exceed the minimum square feet requirements. Mr. Bednarz stated that all the single - family lots would meet the requirements for the R -4 zoning district. He explained that the only requirement they would be under is the width. Acting Chair Daninger questioned why one lot couldn't be eliminated in order to make all the lots 80 feet wide if the City were to go with option two. Commissioner Gamache questioned if a variance would be required on all the lots. Mr. Bednarz explained that a variance wouldn't be required if the development was built as a PUD. Commissioner Greenwald stated that he would rather see better homes than to reduce the • lot size, since this would only improve the surrounding areas. Commissioner Hedin stated that he would like to see 80 -foot lots. He mentioned that he believes the market will Support one less lot. He also mentioned that he doesn't feel the City needs the twinhomes. Commissioner Gamache stated that he's comfortable with the proposal as presented with the two twinhomes. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if lots one through five would have a fence. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he likes the idea of having a PUD. Commissioner Hedin stated that he doesn't like the idea of a PUD and would like to see 80 -foot lots. Commissioner Greenwald stated that he isn't in favor of the PUD and would like to see 70 -foot lots. Acting Chair Daninger stated that he isn't in favor of a PUD and would like to see 80- foot lots. He mentioned that he would like to see the number of variances limited. Commissioner Greenwald mentioned concerns regarding the possibility that the homes • could become high priced. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page 9 • Conunissioner Greenwald stated that he would support the idea of 80 -foot lots. Acting Chair Daninger stated that the majority of the Commission is in favor of 80 -foot lots in an R -4 zoning district, with no PUD. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item will come before the City Council at the June 4, 2002 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCHPLAN FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1444161 AVENUE NW — MARK TIBBETTS. Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if there will be a need for any variances on this • project. Mr. Bednarz stated that there wouldn't be any variances necessary for this project. Commissioner Hedin mentioned that the proposal looks great and makes sense the way it's laid out. Commissioner Kirchoff agreed. The consensus among the Commission was that the sketch plan looks great, therefore there were no issues of concern. PUBLIC HEARING. RESIDENTML SKETCH PLAN FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 16034 CROSSTO WN BOULEVARD NW — BRUEGGEMAN HOMES. Associate Planner D. Tyler McKay explained that the Commission is being asked to review a residential sketch plan for `Constance Corners', a property located east of Burlington Northern and Santa Fe railway, South of CSAH 20/161 Avenue and west of Crosstown Boulevard. Ordinance 10, Section 6 outlines the requirements for sketch plan review. The Planning Commission is being asked to informally advise the subdivider of the extent to which the plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, design standards of city, county, state and federal agencies and possible modification necessary to secure approval of the plan. Submission of a sketch plan doesn't constitute formal filing of a • plat. • Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — June 4, 2002 Page 7 the matter and then address the issue about whether or not the City would be willing to hold a hearing to see if they should amend the Ordinance to allow up to a five or six foot decorative fence that was approved by their ARC Committee or by the Building Department. Councilmember Trade stated the neighbors stated they preferred to look at open space versus a fenced in space and in the smaller developments the fences did break up the view and she could understand the concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Dalos stated the fence was not unique to the area. His neighbors have six -foot fences around the front-and then wood going around the other three sides. Councilmember Jacobson stated the issue was if there was a hardship in order to grant a variance and there is no hardship and he said that he -would be willing to go along with a four -foot fence if it was the Council's decision. - l f. �1(j t�v�Y� C stood i �l � - f < '^ Councilmember Trade asked if decorative fences are considered non - containment fences. If they had a lot of people keeping their pets in the front yard then they would have issues with delivery people, meter readers and mail people being able to access the property. Mr. Dalos stated the fence would go directly across and stop at the driveway and the driveway would be open and the area on • the north side of the driveway would be enclosed and the area on the south side of the driveway would be fenced in up to the house. This would be accessible to the service people. MOTIONby Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson to direct the Planning Cormnission to have a hearing to look at changing the Ordinance for decorative fences. Motion carried 4 ayes, 1 nay (Trade). Councilmember Trade stated she was concerned with front yard fencing because it blocked off neighborhoods and it starts to give the community a gated look. CONSIDER "FOXBURGH CROSSING" RESIDENTIAL SKETCHPLAN/NW CORNER OF HANSONBOULEVARD AND ANDOVER BOULEVARD (BOONE BUILDERS) Mr. Neumeister stated the City Council was asked to review a sketch plan for "Foxburgh Crossing ", an urban residential development containing 13 single- family lots. This sketch has been revised to remove the previously proposed. townhouses. The Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed the sketch and recommends that park dedication fees be paid for this project. Mr. Neumeister noted the proposed site is designated Urban Residential Low Density and would have a density of 2.08 unites per acre. The property would need to be rezoned to Single Family Urban Residential (R -4). • Councilmember Knight asked if the end lots surrounding the cul -de -sac would need variances on the wetlands that were being created. Mr. Neumeister stated they would not because they all meet the buildability requirement to the best of their knowledge based on the design that had been given to them. Regular Andover City Council Meeting • Minutes — June 4, 2002 Page 8 Mayor Gamache asked if all the homes would have an exit to 145 Lane. Mr. Neumeister said they would exit to 145 lane and Ibis would be the main entrance coming into the development. He stated they could restrict that at the time of the plat. Councilmember Trude asked if utilities were on Ibis or elsewhere. Mr. Erickson stated the utilities would come out on Ibis. Councilmember Jacobson asked with the upgraded intersection, might the construction impinge on the edge lots that back up on Hanson if it were to go through. Mr. Erickson stated he would not anticipate that because he thought the County had enough Right -of -Way for the project but they would review that with the final plat in case there has to be an additional easement in the corner. Mr. Bill Gleason, representing Boone Builders, stated there was actually one wetland area that was being enhanced and the other was a storm water retention pond. They do meet the setback requirements. He was taking some of the dirt out of the area and moving it into berms backing up to Andover Boulevard to'give more buffer to the people who eventually will build there. They would try to move trees to other areas to keep them onsite as a buffer to the property. The lot sizes are greater than what they would find in other residential developments. • Mr. Gleason stated there was not much else they could do with the land except for townhornes or commercial. Based on what is going on in the marketplace, the housing would run close to $300,000. Ms. Carol Cooper stated the back ofher property butts up to the development and she would like the City Council to consider the issues that were coming up in the area before approving the development. There were a lot of issues with traffic and the development that was going in just south of there and the school being built. The traffic was going to substantially increase in that area and thirteen homes would make a big difference. She would like to see the area being dedicated to a park area and hoped the City Council members took their time and not push the development. Councilmember Knight stated there was a good point made with the traffic and he was wondering if there was anything that could be done. Mr. Erickson stated it met all the intersection setbacks. Ms. Patti Stay, ? 146 stated she was concerned with Oak Wilt in the area. She stated they lost 13 oaks a few years ago and a neighbor lost 15 oaks. They bought their lot because is was wooded. Mr. Erickson stated there is an Ordinance that deals with Oak Wilt issues. Mr. Gleason stated their goal was to grade and work on the development in the fall and they would be willing to work with the City regarding this because they would not want to lose any trees to Oak • Wilt because of the price of the lots. Mr. Erar stated the Council only needed to review this item and informally advise the applicant on the proposed development. I * S Ifel FROM: CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Planning and Zoning Commissioners Courtney Bednarz, City Plannevy SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for a single family development to be known as Woodland Creek Golf Course Villas located at 3200 South Coon Creek Drive. DATE: October 8, 2002 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review a sketch plan for a housing development containing 11 urban residential lots. Review Criteria . Ordinance 10, Section 6 outlines the requirements for sketch plan review. The Planning Commission is asked to informally advise the subdivider of the extent to which the plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, design standards of city, county, state and federal agencies and possible modification necessary to secure approval of the plan. Submission of a sketch plan does not constitute formal filing of a plat. DISCUSSION Conformance with Local and Regional Plans and Ordinances The proposed site is designated Urban Residential Low Density in the Comprehensive Plan which carries a maximum density of four units per acre. The proposed housing development would have a density of 3.96 units per acre. 1. The property is located outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). A minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be necessary to allow the project to move forward. 2. The property is currently zoned Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) which carries a minimum lot width of 80 feet and a minimum lot size of 11,400 square feet. The proposed project would require Planned Unit Development Review to reduce the lot sizes and setbacks from the typical R -4 standards. Planned Unit Development Review Ordinance 112 provides the requirements for Planned Unit Development review. This ordinance • requires proposals to meet the following criteria: 1. Attaining a higher standard of site design and development that cannot be accomplished under strict adherence to development ordinance provisions. 2. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural • topography, woodlands, geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion; A more efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lowering the development costs and public investments; 4. A development pattern in harmony with the Andover Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is not a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.) The proposed project area is currently open space that contains a utility building, picnic shelter and general storage. The area is divided from the adjacent City park and residential properties to the northwest with a significant amount of trees and vegetation (see attached photographs). The proposed project is a one level luxury single family development with over 2,100 square feet of finished living space per dwelling. This is a different type of housing that can help to achieve the life cycle housing goal called for in the City's Comprehensive Plan. With some modification, a higher standard of site design can be achieved. Staff believes a slightly reduced lot size is appropriate for this type of housing product because the lot size is large enough to accommodate a significant rambler style structure without wasting space. Strict adherence to the R -4 standards would not preclude this development. With one lot • removed and 2.5 feet of lot depth added, the development could meet the standard R -4 requirements. As drawn, the sketch varies from the typical R -4 standards to gain an additional lot. It is staff's view that one unit should be removed and that the space gained should be used to increase the distance between the first unit and the parking area and from the last unit to the single family lots to the northwest. This adjustment will help buffer the proposed development from adjacent residential properties and retain space for potential future expansion of the golf course parking area and clubhouse. This adjustment will also allow the proposed housing development to attain a higher standard of site design without inappropriately using Planned Unit Development Review. An opportunity exists to enhance the natural site characteristics by maintaining some of the open space through utilization of a smaller lot size complemented with well executed landscape design. Access The proposed project would be provided access from South Coon Creek Drive as indicated on the attached sketch plan. This would require reconstructing the existing driveway to the golf course to typical urban street standards. The driveway currently exists within a 60 foot wide access easement through the City park. The roadway would continue into the site and terminate • in a cul -de -sac. The total length of the street would be approximately 720 feet which would require a variance to the 500 foot maximum cul -de -sac length. • Staff would support a variance to the 500 foot maximum length due to the fact that there is no feasible way to loop the street back out to South Coon Creek Drive and the remaining developable land could not be accessed. Also, reducing the length of the street to 500 would minimize the space between the first unit and the parking area. Adjacent Residential Properties There are residential properties to the immediate northwest of the proposed development. The owners of the first two properties have indicated that they are opposed to the proposed development. It is staff s view that the property rights . of these owners can be respected by adjusting the project as outlined above and without infringing on the property rights of the applicant. Utilities The Sanitary Sewer exists uphill along South Coon Creek Drive at a depth of approximately 3 feet. A lift station would be necessary to provide municipal sanitary sewer service to the property. It should be noted that the clubhouse could also be served with sanitary sewer. Water service can be provided to the property without difficulty. Staff would suggest that the water line be looped to ensure adequate pressure and acceptable water quality. Other Ordinances The developer is also required to meet the following City Ordinances and all other applicable ordinances: Ordinance No. 8, the Zoning Ordinance Ordinance No. 10, the Platting and Subdivision Ordinance Ordinance No. 107, Shoreland Management Ordinance Ordinance No. 108, Flood Plain Management Ordinance Ordinance No. 114, Wetland Buffer Ordinance Ordinance No. 214, Diseased Shade Tree Ord. & Tree Preservation Policy Coordination with other Agencies The developer and/or owner is responsible to obtain all necessary permits (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Coon Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, LGU and any other agency that may have an interest in the site). Initial contact shall be made with the City Engineering Department regarding this item. Park and Recreation Commission Comments The Park and Recreation Commission will review the proposed project at their October 17, 2002 meeting. 0 ACTION REQUIRED • The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to informally advise the applicant on adjustments to the proposed project to conform with local ordinances and review criteria. Attachments Location Map Photographs of Site Sketch Plan (Full size in Packet) Aerial Photograph (1 Ixl7 in Packet) Elevations and Floor Plan of Proposed Structures (1 1x17 in packet) Respect ly submitted, Co ;4 Cc: Olvan Properties, P.O. Box 67, Forest Lake, MN 55025 0 0 Woodland Creek Golf Villas Sketch Plan 0 Project Location Map /." W e Andover Planning Photo One: View from north property line looking southeast. Utility and picnic structures are visible. Photo Two: View from north property line looking southwest. Picnic structure visible. Photo Three: View from west end of proposed housing development looking east Photo Four: View from the east end of the proposed housing development looking west. • E • Photo Five: View from south end of proposed housing development looking north Photo Six: View from south end of proposed housing development looking northwest I 0 (Z) 0 CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVERMN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commission Members FROM: Will Neumeister, Community Development Director G4.- SUBJECT: Discussion Item: Metropolitan Council's "Draft" 2030 Blueprint DATE: October 8, 2002 INTRODUCTION The Metropolitan Council has prepared a "Draft" 2030 Blueprint for growth and development for the Twin Cities. The document has major policy areas that are being revised including: • Allocation of Forecasted Growth • MUSA Policy • Rural Growth Policies • Housing • Natural Resource Protection • Implementation/Benchmarks Blueprint document. Please refer to them at the end of the AMM summary. Each of these policy areas are briefly summarized in the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) summary that is attached. Note that there are benchmarks that are considered performance - based measures that will become the primary tools that Metropolitan Council will use to determine if a given community is measuring up to the goals and policies that they establish under the new DISCUSSION values and expectations, and leading -edge data." According to Metropolitan Council Chair Ted Mondale, "Blueprint 2030 is a plan to accommodate the forecasted growth of the seven - county Twin Cities area over the next thirty years. It is a comprehensive strategy that weaves together emerging trends, changing market demands, citizen Additional information attached to this report is the Blueprint 2030 Appendix (Sections C and D) that show the Metropolitan Council estimates for population, households and employment projections for the City of Andover and Anoka County. It is based on the projections of where growth and development will occur over the next 30 years and anticipates the areas that are currently in the MUSA and 1,000 acres of buildable land designated as "Rural Reserve ". 0 Metropolitan Council's "Draft" 2030 Blueprint Page 2 ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests the Planning Commission review and discuss the "Draft" 2030 Blueprint and the projections for population, households and employment for Andover. Staff would like input from the Planning Commission whether or not there is agreement with the policy directions and projections that are proposed. The City Council will review this policy document at their October 15, 2002 meeting. If Planning Commissioners or residents of Andover would like to make comment other than at the Planning Commission meeting, the Metropolitan Council has scheduled three public hearings for Wednesday, October 16, 2002: • 8:30 -10:30 am - Minnetonka City Hall, 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard • 3:00- 5:OOpm - Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul • 7:00- 9:OOpm - Metro Transit Heywood Office, 560 Sixth Avenue North, Minneapolis The public comment period lasts until October 28, 2002. The complete Blueprint 2030 document is about 150 pages long and if any Planning Commissioner or resident would like to refer to the complete document it is available on the internet at: http: / /www.metrocouncil.org/ planning [blueprint2030 /documents.htm Respectfully submitted, Will Neumeister Attachments AMM Summary of Metropolitan Council's "Draft" 2030 Blueprint "Draft" 2030 Blueprint Appendix (Sections C and D) • 0 • Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Blueprint 2030 Issue Summaries for Cities prepared by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities September 1, 2002 Attached are seven issue s ummari es that highlight some of the major components of Blueprint 2030. Each issue summary attempts to pull a • brief summary from the 100+ pages of the draft Blueprint and then lay out some key questions for cities to consider. These issue summaries are intended to help both AMM and our 77 member cities prepare comments for the public hearing record on Blueprint 2030. • —3— Issue #1: Allocation of Forecasted Growth /Reinvestment Goals • The draft Blueprint includes the following table and makes the following statements about the allocations of forecasted growth. Page 2: "The Blueprint calls for accommodating approximately a third of new households over the next three decades in a designated "Reinvestment Area" This percentage contrasts with the 15 percent that is projected to occur ifpast trends continue." Page 44. "Growth forecasts for this area indicate that approximately two- thirds of total regional growth will occur in [developing area communities]." Page 49: "Approximately one -third of the region's total growth is forecast to occur in Reinvestment Area communities." Page 53: "About 5 to 8 percent of new growth is forecast for the four rural • geographic policy areas (Rural Settlements, Diversified Rural Area, Rural Residential Area, Agricultural Preservation Area), with most of it planned for an occurring in Rural Growth Centers." This is consistent with, but not as explicit as, the following tables which have been included in previous Council documents related to the Blueprint, but are not in the public hearing draft of the actual Blueprint. % Share of 460,000 New Households Trend -Based Forecast Policy -Based Goal Central Cities 3.5% Fully Developed Suburbs 9.8% 12.0% Developing Suburbs 70.3% 67.0% Rural Area 7.9% 5.0% Cities in the rural area 8.6% 8.0 0 /0 w -44- • Disbursement of 528,000 new honsing units (2000 - 2030) Reinvestment Development (w /central services) Development (on -site) Central Cities 50,000 Fully Developed Cities 80,000 Develooine Suburbs Reinvestment 50,000 2020 MUSH 175,000 �P�ed MUS.4 110,300. Rural Area 26,500 Cities in the Rural Area 37,000. TOTAL 180,000 322,300 26,500 % share 34% 61% 5% The draft Blueprint does contain city and county- specific forecasts in Appendix C. Questions: • Do cities support the proposed goals for the distribution of the new growth? • How ambitious do cities think these goals are? Should we push the Council to establish a contingency plan? What would cities want to see in a contingency plan? E —5'— Issue #2: MUSA Policy 0 From a city perspective, perhaps one of the most important policies contained in the Blueprint is the MUSA policy. With this Blueprint, the Council is proposing a significantly different MUSA policy, generally referred to as "MUSA Cities." This is possibly the most controversial policy in the draft Blueprint. Many advocacy organizations believe the policy means providing regional urban services to a vast new land supply and will result in a lessening of Council control over sprawl. There has been a great deal of discussion about what the Council intends to do or what they mean to say, but when it comes to the language in the public hearing draft, it reads: A New Approach to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area" (from page 34) "For decades, lands within the urban boundary have been referred to as the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Lands outside the urban boundary have been referred to as the Rural Area. The availability of urban services dramatically changes development patterns, generally making the boundary between urban and rural areas very clear. Over time, the MUSA "area" (that is, the entire area receiving urban services) became secondary to the MUSA "line" as interest centered on communities along the urban edge where the MUSA boundary often divided urban from rural uses within a city's borders. Most conversations between the Council and cities were about the location of the line and about moving it into or keeping it out of a particular area. And, despite visible reminders of highway, transit, airport, and parks and open space services within MUSA communities, the term 'MUSA" itself came to focus almost entirely on the provision of wastewater treatment services. This emphasis on the location of boundary lines and wastewater treatment services did not serve the region well, to the extent that it centered on how much growth would occur rather than what kind of growth and focused attention largely on edge communities. It ignored the importance of land use patterns within the MUSA and the Rural Area and the influence all the systems — including transportation, transit, and parks and open space have on those patterns. Blueprint 2030 changes that focus. Recognizing that, throughout the region, the amount and pattern of expected growth are important for orderly and economic development and a high quality of life, the Council is taking an approach that considers both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of growth and development and uses all the regional systems to shape land use. The manner in which MUSA land supplies are developed is a matter of both local and regional concern. The increased housing choices, improved connections to jobs, access to transit, healthy environment, and conservation of natural resources and agricultural lands sought by the region's citizens require careful attention to the way development occurs. The Council's discussions with local communities will focus not on the location of the MUSA "line," but, rather, on how regional services can shape and support their planned land use patterns while also achieving regional goals. The Calthorpe report clearly shows M that the amount of infill and redevelopment and the way in which MUSA lands are developed directly influence how long the current supply of urban - serviced land will last, and how much and when additional lands will need such services — services that will call for substantial new investments." (from page 44) "The Council used preliminary region -wide 2000 land use data to analyze supplies of vacant MUSA land for residential use and reviewed the new, upwardly- revised growth forecasts to identify emerging development trends. It appears that if new development and redevelopment occur in Council- supported patterns that blend housing, retail, j obs and other uses, the currently designated 2020 MUSA contains enough serviceable, potentially developable land to accommodate the higher growth forecast through 2020 (See "Accommodating Area Growth' in the Appendix). Additional serviceable, developable land would have to be added to meet the forecasted need from 2020 through 2030. The Council expects that most of the land in MUSA cities at the urban edge will eventually be needed for urban uses —in 2030, 2040 and beyond. The Council is planning its infrastructure investments and staging its infrastructure systems to serve portioas of those cities in the decades ahead. Current Council estimates suggest the region will need to add approximately 11,000 residential acres to the region's current 2020 urban service . area in order to accommodate household growth projected to 2030. In the event that permitted development does not fully meet the Council's expectations for housing xnix and land use patterns, or that reinvestment levels are 50 percent less than expected, the region could need to add as much as 29,000 residential acres. There are approximately 5,000 acres of unprotected natural resources in this residential land supply. Protecting all of these natural resource lands would require an additional 5,000 acres for residential development, bringing the residential- acreage totals to 16,000 and 34,000 acres, respectively. The region will also need to add land to the MUSA for other uses such as commercial and industrial development (about 40 percent of the total demand), for a total future MUSA need of approximately 27,000 to 57,000 acres. The Council will work in partnership with MUSA cities through the comprehensive planning process to identify which lands should receive metropolitan services and to establish staging plans that maintain a 20 -year urban land supply over time. The Council will be asking MUSA cities to consider all of the remaining land in their communities and identify those parcels that can best accommodate the city's projected household growth, while protecting natural resources and providing transportation connections. When reviewing a MUSA city's next comprehensive plan, the Council will then evaluate the amount and location of land proposed for urban services. If the Council is convinced that development on the land identified by the city could be served in a efficient and economical manner and is in alignment with Blueprint objectives (Le. would accommodate the growth forecasted for that city, preserve important natural resources, allow for an interconnected transportation system, etc.) the Council will then proceed to • provide the city with a 10 -year service commitment and begin planning its infrastnzcture investment accordingly. This approach will essentially result in the establishment of a 2030 Metropolitan Urban Service Area in city-by -city segments, based on collaboration –7– between the city and the Metropolitan Council. The cities, in turn, will need to consider • how they will locally stage and serve the growth forecast for them, including how they will ensure a supply of serviceable land for growth beyond 2030." Questions: • What additional information/detail, if any, do cities need to evaluate this proposed policy? • What position should AMM take on the MUSA cities concept? Do cities believe this approach will provide them with additional flexibility and a more desirable level of local control? • • n • Issue #3: Rural Growth Policy A. Extension of Wastewater Services to Rural Growth Centers The Metropolitan Council has identified 16 rural growth centers — defined as small towns that "include one or more residential neighborhoods surrounding a center that provides basic consumer services and community activities to their own residents and those nearby.... They offer a small-town lifestyle attractive to many of the region's citizens and offer an alternative to scattered, large -lot development in diversified rural and Agricultural areas." In order to encourage and support growth in rural centers as an alternative to further development on septic - systems, the Met Council is proposing to extend regional wastewater treatment services to those communities that wish to grow and agree to grow in accordance with Blueprint principles (i.e. in a manner that protects natural resources, provides an interconnected transportation system, offers a variety of lifecycle and affordable housing, utilizes urban densities, etc.). In some cases this will mean extending the regional pipe and treating the community's wastewater at one of the treatments plants currently owned by the Met Council and in some cases it will mean the Council purchasing, upgrading and continuing to operate the community's own treatment plant. (See page 53 of the draft: Blueprint for more information on this policy area.) • Question: Should AMM take a position on the extension of wastewater services to rural growth centers, and if so what position? B. Preservation of Agricultural Land The draft Blueprint sets out a policy for an agricultural preservation area of approximately 500,000 acres, stating that "Investments in regional infrastructure such as roads, wastewater treatment, and parks and open space will be for rural levels of service consistent with the intent to preserve agriculture and with the Council's expectation that no non -farm related housing development should occur." The draft Blueprint also states that the Council will: • Support zoning of no more than 1 housing per 40 acres and encourage "exclusive agriculture zoning, agricultural security districts,. or lower densities." • Advocate for the strengthening of the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program.. • Work to obtain funding for the purchase of agricultural preservation easements. • —7— Early drafts of the Blueprint used the phrase "Permanent Agricultural Area," but that no • longer appears in the draft (See page 62 of the draft Blueprint for additional information on this policy area.) Question: • Should AMM weigh -in on the idea of the long -term preservation of agricultural lands inside the seven - county metropolitan area? • Would we support the utilization of state or regional funds for the purchase of agricultural preservation easements or for stronger incentives in the Agricultural . Preserves Program? • • _/d 0 Issue #4: Housing The draft Blueprint makes the provision of more lifecycle and affordable housing one of its seven goals. It also devotes a significant amount of time and attention to the benefits of mixed -use developments that combine higher- density housing with employment centers, shopping and consumer services and parks and open spaces — all served by transportation corridors and transit -ways. The draft includes the following policy on housing: "With other housing partners, the Council will support the maintenance and production of lifecycle and affordable housing in locations with links to employment by auto, transit, biking or walking. The Council will work to increase housing choices that.- • are located throughout the region consistent with the strategies for blueprint geographic policy areas; • meet changing market preferences and needs of a population that is shifting in age composition and cultural makeup; and • are connected by a choice of mobility options to opportunities around the region as well as to local services and amenities. " . The draft Blueprint lists the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act's requirement that cities plan for their share of the region's need for low and moderate - income housing as a regulatory strategy for achieving this goal. However, the draft also notes that the Council's can only review and comment on this portion of local comp plans. Previous drafts contained references to local governments "providing" housing, but those have now been removed. The draft Blueprint calls for approximately two- thirds of the region's new housing units to be in the developing area and one -third in redeveloping areas. It also calls for 3 to 5 housing units per acre generally and 8 to 30 units per acre in centers along regional transitways and in infill or redevelopment areas. Question: • Are cities comfortable with the draft Blueprint's direction on housing issues? Are the policies and guidelines included in the draft Blueprint appropriate given the roles assigned to cities and the Metropolitan Council? 0 Issue #5: Natural Resource Protection One of the seven goals contained in the draft Blueprint is that: "Natural areas have been conserved and protected in ways that sustain a healthy natural environment and enhance the quality of life." (page 5) The first of six official Council policies contained in the draft Blueprint reads: "Shape the region's growth patterns to improve mobility, create connections among local land uses, sustain the natural environment, and expand choices in housing types and locations. " "To use natural areas to shape development, the Council will. • promote and support the integration of natural resource conservation strategies into regional and local land -use planning decisions; • designate additional lands for. the regional park system that primarily emphasize important natural resource functions, including access to water bodies and secondarily, land with natural resources qualities that enhance outdoor recreation; • • advocate for the production of lifecycle and affordable housing that respects environmentally sensitive areas and uses natural features and green space to enhance livability and recreation access; and • . protect aggregate resources (sand, gravel and crushed rock) from premature urbanization in order to ensure the long- term availability of these resources for the economic and orderly development of the region, including the metropolitan aviation and highway systems, and the ultinnate reclamation/reuse of the land " The Blueprint's implementation section (beginning on page 65) talks about the need for money to purchase conservation easements and/or development rights in order to protect 25,000 acres of natural resources. It also states: "The Council will provide financial and technical assistance to local units of government to help implement the Council's natural resources policies. Financial assistance is available for local units of government experiencing the highest growth pressures to help them identify resource priorities at a local scale. Technical assistance will be provided through a partner- development education program that will help communities interpret resource features and further understand the impact of development on them. " (page 79) • -- /z - • It also lists the "development and maintenance of an inventory of local natural resources by local govemments" and the "integration of natural resource protection into local government land -use decisions" as two benchmarks for success of the Blueprint. (page 85) Overall, the draft Blueprint provides little detail regarding what the Council expects of cities in terms of natural resource protection. Will all cities be expected to include a local natural resources inventory (NRI) in the next comprehensive plan? Will cities that have completed a local NRI be given priority for funding from the Livable Communities Program or other competitive grant funds? Will the Council expect cities to spend property tax revenues to purchase conservation easements and/or development rights? Questions: A significant amount of information is still needed from the Council in order for cities to thoroughly evaluate the proposals for natural resource protection. However, the existing language raises several questions, including: • Should a local natural resources inventory be a component of future comprehensive plan amendments or be a criteria for Metropolitan Council grant and loan programs? . • The Council's statutory authority for Parks and Open Space is specifically tied to recreational open space. What do cities think about the Council's plans to put natural resource / habitat preservation ahead of recreational goals? • Would cities support an expansion of one or more regional systems to include natural resource preservation? Aggregate preservation? • The draft Blueprint sites a reduction in individual septic systems as one of the advantages of the Council's policies supporting growth in Rural Growth Centers and the expansion of wastewater treatment services to these communities. It also states that individual septic systems should be managed consistent with MPCA Rule 7 080 and that in cases where community treatment systems (also known as "package plants are used, the local unit of government should be the permit holder in order to ensure accountability. Does this go far enough in regards to septic systems? The draft makes a brief mention of converting "brownfields" to parks and restored natural areas (page 24). Would cities support the use of brownfield clean -up funds for this purpose? 0 -I3� Issue #6: Implementation Section 5 of the draft Blueprint (beginning on page 65) discusses the Council's plans for implementation, including a "regional investment framework," "regional planning framework," listing of valuable partnerships and measures to assess progress toward Blueprint goals. The "Regional Investment Framework" is broken down into a discussion of the financial investments that will have to made in the four regional systems in order to achieve Blueprint 2030 goals and a listing of current regional incentive programs, which includes the existing three accounts of the Livable Communities Program and the SAC Waiver Program, and the additional resources that they will need. The draft also discusses the Council's plans to seek authority for a Housing Production Revolving Loan Fund, money to purchase conservation easements or development rights and money to purchase agricultural easements. The "Regional Planning Framework" section includes a discussion of the comprehensive planning process and states: • "The Council intends to streamline its review process for local comprehensive plans. That effort will involve tailoring requirements to the size and development stage of individual communities, and reducing the number of steps that cities, townships and counties mustfollow in the process. " (page 77) . "One key step to be taken by the Council is to revise and adopt new system plans to address aggregate as a systems issue. The Council could then revise its Metropolitan Significance Rules and use them to protect significant aggregate sites when proposed local actions would preclude future extraction of the resources. " (page 77) The Technical Assistance Section states that the Council will be updating its Local Planning Handbook and that possible additions include: "a regional natural resource inventory and assessment atlas; aggregate best - management practices; alternative wastewater treatment system; and design and planning primers on "micro- level" parks and open space for neighborhoods, housing, transportation facilities and redevelopment." Timing of Local Comprehensive Plans The draft Blueprint contains no mention of changing the schedule for local comprehensive plans, however, Council staff has prepared a preliminary list of legislative initiatives needed to implement Blueprint 2030 and it includes: "seek legislative change to adjust comp plan review process to 2004/2006 or 2003/2005." Questions: • Does the draft Blueprint provide enough detail on how the Council plans to implement it? • Does the draft Blueprint clearly spell -out what the Council will expect of cities? lo How should we respond to any proposals to move up the comp. planning schedule? —14— Issue #7: Benchmarks. Background: The draft Blueprint contains a list of "Performance -Based Standards" and "Benchmarks" for evaluating progress toward Council goals (see below). At first glance, AMM staff finds the list of benchmarks particularly troubling because they focus almost exclusively on actions that would have to be taken by local governments and they suggest a level of involvement /oversight over city operations not previously pursued by the Council. Questions: • What additional information /detail, if any, do cities need to evaluate this proposed policy? • Should AMM challenge the proposed benchmarks? On what grounds? 2977 Progress Measures 2978 2979 Regional investments, incentives and statutory authorities are all necessary to achieve B/veprint 2980 goals, but indicators are also important to determine whether the goals are achieved and what 2981 progress is occurring along the way. Reflecting the B /uep /-intsprinciple of accountability, these 2982 indicators can help in aligning efforts of various partners and in identifying issues that need to be I resolved before further progress is possible. The B /ueprintincorporates a number of such 84 indicators, but others that may be appropriate measures can be developed as part of discussions 2985 with local governments and others. 2986 2987 PERFORMANCE -BASED STANDARDS 2988 2989 The B/ueprin /sopproach to assessment emphasizes performance -based standards, which highlight 2990 the outcome of an activity rather than the means of accomplishing the result. The B/ueprii7tseeks 2991 to provide flexibility in achieving such outcomes, which may vary from area to area within 2992 communities or from community to community. At the some time, there are a number of priorities 2993 that apply more uniformly throughout the region —for example, the need to protect the natural 2994 environment and increasing transportation choices and connections. 2995 2996 The following list includes performance -based standards to measure the outcomes of 0 M- M -J 4 2997 #fie B/ueprintim lementation activities: 2998 2999 Transportation 3000 • Highway Usage: Reduce travel growth throuah improved land use patterns and design so per 3001 capita daily travel does not exceed 24 miles by 2025 3002 • Highway Congestion: Reduce the number of additional congested miles of principal arterials 3003 during peak hours to no more than 5 miles per year. Adequacy of Transit Funding: Increase per capita funding for transit operations by 40 005 percent by 2012. 3006 • Transit Operations: Increase regular route transit system cnpacity by 3 5 percent per year —tS— 3007 • Transportation - related Air Quality Impacts: - 3006 ;. -. .. t;; • 3009 . Ambient cone rion`b 3010 monoxide rom alr ucli moriitorin • total load annual carbon`inario� 3011 com uterized tra ortation model • attaininenf or nonattainment.sta me`�e ,�.. 3012 national ambient air uali 1tonddrd§ as deterniir ed;b fhe;1� 5;�EAvi o 3013 3014 . Adequacy of Supplementary Highway System: Lane miles of A -Minor Arterials. 3015 . Roadways Serving Development: Total center -line miles constructed. 3016 . Timely access to intermodal and freight terminal facilities 3017 3018 Housing 3019 . Housing Production: 15,000 to 18,000 housing units per year region -wide. 3020 Intermediate Measures: Plat monitoring; densities and amount of land for single - family 3021 and multifamily in u community's local comprehensive plans; location of housing 3022 development; growth trend in housing units. 3023 • Affordable and Workforce Housing: Goals and indicators to be set through the Livable 3024 Communities Program and the Land Planning Act process. 3025 3026 Environment 3027 • Water Resources:.No adverse impact of development on water quality over time. 3028 •On -Site Septic Systems: Management consistent with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7080. 3029 • Natural Resource Preservation: 25,000 acres of regional natural resources preserve=d 3030 compared with total identified. 3031 • Groundwater Quality: Well testing at strategic locations. 3032 • Regional Air Quality: Monitoring by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 3033 3034 Development Patterns 3035 • Development Patterns in Developing Area: 3 to 5 housing units per residential acre and 8 to 3036 30 units per acre in centers along regional transitways and in infill or redevelopment areas. 3037 • Development Patterns in Diversified Rural Area: 1 house per 10 acres (overall gross density) 3038 calculated on the basis of 64 houses per 640 -acre section. 3039 • Zoning in Agricultural Preservation Area: Agricultural density standard of no more t Jinn 1 3040 housing unit per 40 acres. 3041 • Greater Emphasis on Reinvestment: 30 percent of new housing units and 40 percent of new 3042 nonresidential development in the region are located on redeveloped land or land previously 3043 passed over for development. 3044 • Nominal Growth in Rural Area: 5 to 8 percent of new growth in Rural Settlements, D if versifled 3045 Rural Area, Rural Residential Area, and Agricultural Preservation Area. 3046 3047 b A number of these measures identify residential density standards. Density itself is not the goal of 3048 the B/ueprint; the goal, instead, is achieving a sense of place and community character by paying 3049 attention to the "connectedness" of development. 3050 -/4-- 3051 BENCHMARKS ' ^ri2 i 3 In addition to performance -based measures, the Biueoriatunderscores the importance of 3054 indicators that show whether activities are contributing to an outcome. B /aeprintbenchmarks 3055 suggest a direction for efforts to achieve a result, and represent resources that local governments 3056 and other can utilize in their decision- making and actions. 3057 3058 Various types of Biueprintbenchmarks are noted in the following list: 3059 Transportation 3060 •Ordinances and plans to reduce off - street surface parking or to create more environmentally 3061 sustainable off - street parking areas, where appropriate. 3062 . Use of model codes and appropriate demonstration models by communities to implernenf 3063 shared - parking arrangements and transit- oriented design guidelines, 3064 • Steps by communities to concentrate services near homes, jobs-and transit. 3065 • Local government requirements for building design of commercial areas that incorporate 3066 pedestrian and transit connections. 3067 • Adoption of standards for streets that ensure safety and mobility for pedestrian and 3068 nonmotorized modes of transportation. 3069 • Use of traffic - calming techniques where traffic speeds through residential and urban 3070 neighborhoods is excessive. 3071 • Efforts by local communities to establish land uses and mixed -use centers within . ? transportation corridors that fully utilize regional investments for transit facilities and 3 services. 3074 a Local government plans for road networks of neighborhood -scale streets with high- levels of 3075 connectivity and short blocks. 3076 • Local government plans and zoning ordinances for concentrated - activity centers around 3077 transit service and adoption of transit- oriented development guidelines. 3078 . Collaboration with employers and provision of information and incentives to minimize or 3079 decrease peak- period congestion impacts. 3080 . Identification of the operation and the programming of infrastructure investment needs of 3081 key freight corridors that are the critical links for moving goods between the Twin Cities 3082 greater Minnesota and national and international markets. 3083 Housing 3084 • Local government plans and zoning ordinances for increased multifamily dwelling uses. 3085 • Plans and zoning ordinances for smaller lots and compact densities with preserved common 3086 open space, where appropriate. 3087 • Use of the Council's SAC Waiver Program and similar programs to encourage affordable and 3088 workforce housing development. 3089 • Local zoning ordinances that reduce minimum lot widths, front and interior side setback 3090 requirements. ? ^mot Environment • Development and maintenance of an inventory of local natural resources by local government. 3093 • Integration of natural resource protection into local government land -use decisions. _17 3094 • Development and use of transferable development rights or conservation easements as a way 3095 of protecting local or regional natural resources. • 3096 • Adoption and use by local governments of conservation subdivision regulations and cluster 3097 development ordinances as well as environmental preservation requirements and other best 3098 management practices. 3099 Development Patterns 3100 • Adoption and use of innovative zoning tools to encourage development with a blend of housing, 3101 retail, open space and, where applicable, transit connections. 3102' • Appropriate tools to facilitate financing of properties that integrate various land uses. 3103 • Flexible zoning mechanisms to allow developers to respond easily to market demands. 3104 • Conversion of declining shopping malls and commercial strips into developments that combine 3105 shops, services, housing and open space. 3106 • Retrofitting of single -use commercial and retail developments into walkable, attractive 3107 centers with a mix of land uses. 3108 • Use of Smart Growth Opportunity Sites and other models of development to shape new 3109 projects at an appropriate scale. 3110 • Steps taken by a community to achieve a greater locational balance between jobs and housing. 3111 • Establishing and using density bonuses that encourage on increased floor -to -area ratio. 3112 • Zoning regulations and design goals that visually illustrate development goals. 3113 • Adoption and use of a point -based evaluation system to encourage redevelopment projects. we El 1 1 0 _/Y • Appendix C. Forecasts of Population, Households and Employment FORECAST METHODOLOGY The Metropolitan Council's forecast methodology can be divided into two parts. One is overall regional forecasts of population, households and jobs; and the other is the allocation of these regional forecasts to cities and townships within the region. Methodology for Regional Forecast Totals The Council projects future population using a standard cohort - survival model. This model takes the existing population by age and sex and projects it forward using assumptions about rates of births, deaths and migration for five -year age groups, by gender. Past trends for these age- specific rates are analyzed and future assumptions regarding these rates provide input to the model. Recent birth, death and migration rates are given the greatest weight in developing assumptions about the future. This process provides very accurate results, unless there are major social or economic changes that affect demographic behavior. The model produces a future age distribution of the population for any desired f uture year. This data is invaluable for planning purposes, including the forecast of future households. As a check on these demographically based forecasts, national forecasts are consulted to determine whether they are consistent with national assumptions. The Census Bureau has no t yet revised its forecasts for the nation since the 2000 census, but the current Council forecasts appear to be consistent with past national forecasts (assuming some increase to reflect the unexpectedly high count from the 2000 Census). Employment forecasts have historically been done by calculating the region's share of national forecast totals, and then comparing the results to labor force projections generated by the demographic model from the age forecasts. In the past, the two methods have resulted in comparable figures. For the current forecasts, this process could not be used because there are no current national employment forecasts. The labor force conversion was thus used, but when national forecasts are available, the current regional employment forecasts will be reviewed. The Council's regional forecasts have never been viewed as a goal, but as a picture of what we can expect to occur —one that regional and local planning needs to address to best accommodate expected growth. Methodology for Subregional Forecasts Regional forecasts of households (produced from the age- specific population forecasts) and jobs are allocated to cities and townships within the seven - county metro area through a multi -step process. • The first step is to analyze broader geographic trends f or concentric rings and quadrants. These trends have historically been fairly stable and provide a check on city -level forecasts. • The next step entails analyzing city -level growth trends and projecting them into the future. 0 —117- • These forecasts are then adjusted to reflect the land supply and how it is expected to be . developed in terms of the share of land used for residential and nonresidential uses, and the mix and densities of single - family and multifamily land uses. These assumptions are based on local input, Council policy and emerging market forces. The forecasts and the land use and development assumptions behind the forecasts are reviewed by local governments and appropriate adjustments are made consistent with Council Blueprint policy. The current forecasts also reflected the location of major transportation corridors and stronger efforts to protect key natural resources. • A final step in the process is to convert the household forecasts to population. FORECAST TABLES This section contains a summary table showing forecasts of population, households and employment for the region as a whole between 2000 and 2030 and additional tables sho wing the same information for individual cities and townships in each of the seven metropolitan counties. An accompanying map shows generally how much growth is expected to occur in various parts of the region over the next 30 years, based on Council forecasts. Metropolitan Area Summary Metropolitan Council Preliminary Forecasts 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Population 2,288,729* 2,642,056* 2,960,000 3,282,000 3,573,000 Households 875,504* 1,021,454* 1,179,000 1,344,000 1,482,000 Employment 1,272,773 ** 1,562,833 ** 1,805,679 1,977,960 2,117,670 Sources: * U.S. Census Bureau ** Minnesota Department of Economic Security 0 10-0 Population Forecasts ANOKA COUNTY Metropolitan Council Preliminary Population Forecasts • 0 Ci or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Andover 15,216 26,588 36,000 42,500 45,000 Anoka 17,192 18,076 19,000 19,800 20,800 Bethel 394 443 450 460 510 Blaine (t.) 38,975 44,942 54,500 60,000 68,000 Burns Tw . 2,401 3,557 4,400 5,200 6,300 Centerville 1,633 3,202 3,700 4,000 4,700 Cirde Pines 4,704 4,663 4,700 4,800 4,800 Columbia H ts. 18,910 18,520 19,200 20,000 20,500 Columbus Tw . 3,690 3,957 4,000 4,100 4,500 Coon Rapids 52,978 61,607 65,000 66,000 65,000 East Bethel 8,050 10,941 12,300 13,200 14,300 Fridley 28,335 27,449 27,000 27,000 27,500 Ham Lake 8,924 12,710 16,100 18,100 19,000 Hilltop 749 766 770 770 770 Lexington 2,279 2,214 2,240 2,270 2,300 Lino Lakes 8,807 16,791 21,500 26,500 32,500 Linwood Tw . 3,588 4,668 5,000 5,400 5,900 Oak Grove 5,488 6,903 7,400 7,600 8,100 Ramsey 12,408 18,510 23,000 30,000 33,500 5t. Francis 2,538 4,910 7,700 10,400 12,800 , Spring Lake Park (t.) 6,4291 6,6671 6,7001 6,700 6,800 Anoka County totall 243,6881 298,0841 340,6601 374,8001 403,580 -2 /- Household Forecasts ANOKA COUNTY Metroaolitan Council Preliminary Household Forecasts -4 City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Andover 4,430 8,107 12,000 15,000 16,000 Anoka 6,394 7,262 7,900 8,500 9,000 Bethel 130 149 160 180 200 Blaine (pt.) 12,825 15,898 21,000 24,500 28,000 Burns Tw . 754 1,123 1,500 1,900 2,300 Centerville 519 1,077 1,340 1,550 1,850 Circle Pines 1,562 1,697 1,800 1,900 1,950 Columbia H ts. 7,766 8,033 8,300 8,500 8,800 Columbus Tw . 1,129 1,328 1,450 1,600 1,750 Coon Rapids 17,449 22,578 25,000 26,500 27,000 East Bethel 2,542 3,607 4,400 5,000 5,500 Fridley 10,909 11,328 11,600 11,900 12,300 Ham Lake 2,720 4,139 5,700 6,800 7,200 Hilltop 410 400 400 400 400 Lexington 829 847 900 950 1,000 Lino Lakes 2,603 4,857 6,800 8,800 11,000 Linwood Tw . 1,146 1,578 1,850 2,100 2,300 Oak Grove 1,638 2,200 2,600 2,800 3,000 Ramsey 3,620 5,906 8,000 11,000 12,500 St. Francis 760 1,638 2,800 4,000 5,000 Spring Lake Park (t.) 2,3021 2,6761 2,7501 2,800 3,000 Anoka County total 82,4371 106,4281 128,2501 146,6801 160,050 is • _zz • Employment Forecasts ANOKA COUNTY Metropolitan Council Preliminary Employment Forecasts -- 4 1 City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Andover 1,200 3,062 4,300 5,100 5,650 Anoka 11,755 13,250 14,400 15,200 16,200 Bethel 193 248 330 380 440 Blaine (t.) 11,401 16,298 18,700 20,300 21,100 Burns Tw . 259 294 350 400 450 Centerville 168 359 520 630 670 Circle Pines 861 2,057 2 2,400 2,450 Columbia H ts. 4,536 6,419 6,600 6,750 7,000 Columbus Tw . 100 482 730 900 1,000 Coon Rapids 16,449 21,462 24,200 26,000 27,800 East Bethel 457 1,211 1,380 1,500 1,610 Fridley 23,821 25,957 30,200 33,000 35,300 Ham Lake 1,820 2,812 3,050 3,200 3,450 Hilltop 250 254 350 420 470 Lexington 630 631 880 1,050 1,120 Lino Lakes 1,229 2,444 2,950 3,300 3,550 Linwood Tw . 50 120 140 150 160 Oak Grove 200 354 380 400 420 Pamsey 1,941 3,587 7,050 9,350 11,550 St. Francis 793 1,226 1,630 1,900 2,220 Spring Lake Park (t.) 3,0191 4,2871 4,6001 4,8001 4,950 Anoka County total 81,1321 106,8141 124,9901 137,1301 147,560 • _Z3 - 0 Appendix D. Accommodating Area Growth Between 2000 and 2030 the region needs to accommodate 475,000 housing units. Blueprint 2030 anticipates that 96,000 of these housing units would be on redeveloped land and that 27,000 would be in the rural parts of the reg ion. The remaining 352,000 housing units will need to be accommodated in the MUSA or the Rural Growth Centers. This section describes the analysis used by the Metropolitan Council to determine the amount of MUSA and Rural Growth Centers residential land needed to accommodate forecasted 2030 growth. The Council reviewed data from the 2000 Land Use Inventory and information from local governments' 2020 comprehensive plans to assess the adequacy of the land supply. The analysis showed there is enough land currently planned for residential development to accommodate all of the new 2020 forecasts plus an additional 49,000 housing units. In order to accommodate the 2030 forecasts and maintain a 20 -year land supply, c ities would have to add approximately 11,000 residential acres to the MUSA before 2010, assuming Blueprint 2030 reinvestment and development goals are achieved. If the region gets only half of the planned reinvestment, then cities would need to add 29,000 residential acres. BASE DATA The data used as a basis of the calculation included the following sources: 2000 Land Use. This data was generated from aerial photographs and land parcel data • provided by each of the seven metro -area counties. The data was compiled into a geographic information system (6I5) database that can be used to produce computerized maps showing the data in visual form. Each city reviewed the land use data applicable to its jurisdiction. • Regional Planned Land Use. This data, also compiled into a GIS database, was developed from information contained in the 2020 comprehensive plans of the regions local governments. Each city reviewed the land use data applicable to its jurisdiction. • Generalized Comprehensive Planning Composite. Because some land use categories vary from city to city, the Council examined all such categories to produce a generalized composite that reconciles these differences. The Regional Planned Land Use data, noted in the previous bullet, was the basis for creating this 6I5 database. Preliminary Regional 2030 Forecasts of Households and Employment, by City and Township. These were developed by the Council based on corresponding 2000 Census data that was extrapolated into the future. Each city reviewed the forecast data applicable to its jurisdiction. O —2' f _ NET UNDEVELOPED ACRES This calculation began with determining the number of undeveloped acres located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and Rural Growth Centers. This was derived from 2000 land use data (see first bulleted item). Subtracted from this number were (1) wetlands and steep slopes, (2) residential lots of 5 acres or less designated as undeveloped, and (3) 50 percent of the residential acres in the Developing Area of 5 to 10 acres. Both the half of the 5 to 10 acres lots and the 10 acres or larger lots included i n the undeveloped acres figure may be more difficult to develop, but, over 30 years, they will develop much like the reinvestment and i nfill now occurring in the central cities and fully developed suburbs. The Council examined all land uses' shown in the 2020 comprehensive plans and then measured residential acres, by city, in the following categories: Single Family, Townhouse /Multifamily (TH /M- family), Mixed, and Rural Residential. DENSITY ASSUMPTIONS The density assumptions vary according to type of residential land use (single family, townhouse /multifamily, mixed use, rural residential) and geographic area (central cities, fully developed suburbs, Developing Area, Rural Growth Centers). Existing 2000 and Blueprint 2030 densities are in the far -right columns in Table D -3. The Blueprint 2030 densities are based on emerging local growth trends as identified by Council staff working with cities. 2020 PLANNED HOUSING UNIT CAPACITY Regional 2020 capacity was calculated based on the net amount of undeveloped residential land and the density assumptions shown in Table 0-3. Current 2020 plans would accommodate 308,000 housing units on undeveloped land in the MUSA and Rural Growth Centers at an overall density of 4 units per acre. 2030 DEMAND FOR HOUSING UNITS Tables D -1 and D -2 indicate the 2030 demand for housing units by polity area based on Blueprint 2030 forecasts and reinvestment assumptions. As noted earlier, by 2030, the region needs to accommodate 352,000 housing units on undeveloped land in the MUSA or in Rural Growth Centers. See Table D -1. If the region achieves only 50 percent of the 2030 reinvestment goal, then more housing units will need to be accommodated on undeveloped land in the MUSA and Rural Growth Centers (422,000 units). See Table D -2. The generalized categories include single - family housing, multifamily housing, mixed or multiple use, commercial, industrial (including airports and railroads), institutional, parks and recreation areas, and undetermined and agricultural. D- 2 COMPARISON OF HOUSING UNIT CAPACITY AND HOUSING UNIT DEMAND i For 2020, the region has enough planned residential land to accommodate the new 2020 housing unit forecasts plus an additional 49,000 housing units (see Table D-4). To accommodate 2030 forecasts, the region needs to plan for 44,000 more housing units than the capacity derived from the 2020 comprehensive plans. If the region achieves only half the planned reinvestment, the need is for 114,000 more housing units. Translating these needs into demand for undeveloped residential land (assuming an overall residential density of 4 units per acre), the region will need to add 11,000 residential acres (44,000 housing units) to the MUSA in the next round of comprehensive plans to maintain a 20 -year supply. In the case of 50 percent less reinvestment, the region will need to add 29,000 residential acres (114,000 units). The region will have time to plan for this growth in the next round of comprehensive plans. Currently, land designated as Urban Reserve by cities encompasses 44,000 acres that are available in or contiguous to the MUSA and an additional 25,000 outside the MUSA. At least half of this could be planned for residential development. In addition, the existing (2000) ratio of commercial /industrial (C /I) land to residential land is about 20 percent for C/I to 80 percent for residential. The planned 2020 split is closer to 30/70. There are about 40,000 acres of planned commercial /industrial land. Cities have planned more C/I than in the past, so some of this land may eventually convert to residential as well. There are approximately 4,600 acres of land identified in the preliminary regional natural resource inventory and assessment that are currently unprotected, within the MUSA and on land planned for residential development. These areas s hould be inventoried at a local level to determine the actual amount of important natural resource areas. Once further delineated, then consideration of strategies for protection can best be determined. If all 4,600 acres were protected, then the region would need to add approximately 5,000 more acres to the 2020 MUSA— either 16,000 total or 34,000, depending on the extent of reinvestment. • D- 3 —Z6 , 0 Table D -1 2030 Demand for Housing Units • D- 4 °27- Housing Units on Housing Units on Housing Type Policy Areas Housing Units Redeveloped Land Undeveloped Land Single Family TH /M- family* Reinvestment Area Housing Units on Housing Units on Housing Type Minneapolis /St. Paul 49,000" : -= 301000 19,0' 4,900 44,100 Fully Developed Area 71,000 ' 43000 28'000 17,750 53,250 Developing Area 310 000 "cl 20,000 290,000 178,850 131,150 Rural Growth Centers 18,00U'. 3,000 15,000 9,000 9,000 MUSA Subtotal 448,000 96,000 352,000 210,500 237,500 Rural 27,000 0 27,000 27,000 0 Total 475,000 96,000 379,000 237,500 237,500 Table Notes Table Notes Shaded area shows number of units representing housing reinvestment (that is, those located in the Reinvestment Area and on redeveloped land in the Developing Area and Rural Growth Centers). Housing reinvestment = 143,000 units (28,400 Single Family, 114,600 Multifamily). *Townhouse /Multifamily *Townhouse/Multifami ly • D- 4 °27- Table D -2 2030 Demand for Housing Units with 50% Less Reinvestment Housing Units on Housing Units on Housing Type Policy Areas Housing Units Redeveloped Land Undeveloped Land Single Family TH /M- family* Reinvestment Area Minneapolis /St. Paul 29,000 10,400 '19,000 «. „. 2,900 26,100 Fully Developed Area 38,000 ' 10,000 `: 28,000 9,500 28,500 Developing Area 363,000` 5,000 358,000 189,100 173,900 Rural Growth Centers 18,000 1,000 17,000 9,000 9,000 MUSA Subtotal 448,000 26,000 422,000 210,500 237,500 Rural 27,000 0 27,000 27,000 0 Total 475,000 26,000 449,000 237,500 237,500 Table Notes Shaded area shows number of units representing housing reinvestment (that is, those located in the Reinvestment Area and on redeveloped land in the Developing Area and Rural Growth Centers). Housing reinvestment= 73,000 units (13,900 Single Family, 59,100 Multifamily). *Townhouse /Multifamily • D- 4 °27- • Developing Single Family 41,723 Table D -3 - 108,331 2.6 2.1 2020 Planned Housing Unit Capacity in MUSA and Rural Growth Centers 4,315 0.5 • TH /M- family 10,837 Total Blueprint 2000 Central Cities Acres Single Family TH /M- family* Housing Density Density 7.8 Subtotal 67,996 Units 121,557 248,361 Single Family 572 2,859 - 2,859 5.0 4.8 TH /M- family 171 - 3,421 3,421 20.0 19.8 Mixed 507 - 12,683 12,683 25.0 187 Total 1,250 2,859 16,104 18,963 15.2 2,025 Fully Developed 8.8 Mixed 699 1,749 2,624 4,373 Single Family 2,442 7,326 - 7,326 3.0 2.5 Rural Residential 159 80 0 80 0.5 162,075 TH /M- family 1,048 - 11,526 11,526 11.0 11.2 Mixed 641 366 8,239 8,605 13.4 Subtotal 4,290 7,772 19,765 27,537 6.4 Developing Single Family 41,723 108,331 - 108,331 2.6 2.1 Rural Residential 8,629 4,315 0 4,315 0.5 • TH /M- family 10,837 - 82,538 82,538 7.6 7.0 Mixed 6,807 14,158 39,019 53,177 7.8 Subtotal 67,996 126,804 121,557 248,361 3.7 Rural Growth Centers Single Family 2,333 6,999 - 6,999 3.0 2.4 Rural Residential 374 187 0 187 0.5 TH /M- family 225 - 2,025 2,025 9.0 8.8 Mixed 699 1,749 2,624 4,373 6.3 Subtotal 3-6 K 8.935 4&4,9- 3-Z TOTAL 77,167 146,370 162,075 308,445 4.0 "Townhouse/Multifamily E D- 5 -28'.. n u Table 0 -4 Surplus Capacity Planned or Additional Capacity Needed 2030 Forecasts with 2020 Forecasts 2030 Forecasts 50% Less Reinvestment Forecasted Housing Units 332,000 475,000 475,000 Less rural housing units - 19,000 - 27,000 - 27,000 Less redevelopment - 54,000 - 96,000 - 26,000 Housing units to be accommodated on MUSA land 259,000 352,000 422,000 Housing unit capacity from 2020 Comprehensive Plans 308,000 308,000 308,000 Surplus Capacity Planned ( +) or Additional Capacity Needed ( -) (housing units) +49,000 - 44,000 - 114,000 Table Note Between now and 2010, cities will have an opportunity to plan enough additional residential land to accommodate 44,000 housing units to meet 2030 demand. If there is 50 percent less reinvestment than expected, the region will need enough residential land for an additional 114,000 housing units. 0 b . -z ?-