Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCentral Business District Zone - Brackey Addition ROBERT L. BRACKEY 1336 JACKSON STREET ST.PAUL,MN 55117 Telephone 612-488-6113 Fax 612-489-1405 EIO1111dc JUL 9 SO July 7, 1998 • Tom Melena City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 North 57th Street Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082-2007 Dear Tom: I received the Notice of Public Hearing on the Possible Establishment Of A Central Business District Zone to be held before the Planning Commission of Oak Park Heights on July 16, 1998. Could you let me know if City staff intends that the proposed Zone to apply to either the Brackey Addition or the Brackey West Addition land? You may note your reply on a copy of this letter and fax to me at the above number. If you have any questions,please call me. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Robert L. Brackey MAR-10-1998 08 48 Alk NAC 612 595 9837 P.01/05 N NORTHWEST ASSOCTED CONSULTANTS INCC APED PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM - Via Fax Transmission TO: Tom Melena FROM: Scott Richards DATE: 10 March 1998 RE: Oak Park Heights - Planning Commission FILE NO: 798.04 As you are aware, the City Council is again considering the establishment of a Planning Commission for Oak Park Heights. In November of 1997, I drafted a memo outlining the pros, cons and issues related to creation of a Planning Commission. Additionally, Mark Vierling developed a list of issues and an ordinance establishing a Planning Commission. I have attached a copy of my memo for your information. Through our discussions on this topic, you have suggested the City examine other options such as joint planning boards with Baytown Township or the City of Bayport. Minnesota Statutes relating to orderly annexations allows for the establishment of a board to exercise planning and land use control within an area specified for an orderly annexation. Although currently it does not appear the Township would be willing to discuss any type of orderly annexation agreements, this option should be kept in mind if future agreements appear possible. I have worked with a joint powers board established for a large residential area in Oakport Township adjacent to the City of Moorhead. The Board, which included city, township and county representatives, had final decision authority for land use issues and was a very effective way of transitioning the area and the level of power from the Township to the City. A joint Planning Commission with the City of Bayport has also been discussed. I could see this as a very effective way of addressing long term planning issues for the area. In the beginning, I could see each City having its own Planning Commission that would deal with the day-to-day development reviews and recommendations to the individual Councils. Periodically, the two Planning Commissions or selected representatives from each could meet to discuss comprehensive planning or current issues that affect both communities. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 5541 6 PHONE 6 12 - 595 - 9636 FAX 612-595-9937 E-MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET.COM MAR-10-1998 08:49 . NAC 612 595 9837 P.02/05 • This group could jointly make recommendations to the City Councils for consideration. The joint Planning Commission could promote better cooperation between the two communities and could eventually be the catalyst that brings them together as one jurisdiction. If you have any questions or need additional assistance related to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. 2 MAR-10-1998 08:49 • NAC 612 595 9837 P.03/05 • i I NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS N INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Oak Park Heights Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Richards DATE: 5 November 1997 RE: Oak Park Heights - Planning Commission Issues • FILE NO: 798.04 At your meeting on 28 October 1997, issues related to establishing a Planning Commission were discussed. The City Council determined it wanted additional information related to establishing a Planning Commission includin6 examples of"bylaws" and minutes from other cities. Additionally, the City Council wanted a review of the pros and cons as well as the issues that would need to be decided for establishing a Planning Commission in Oak Park Heights. Please find attached minutes, bylaws, and a Government Training Service brochure for Planning Commission and elected official training sessions. A discussion of the pros and cons and issues for establishing a Planning Commission are as follows: Pros ► A Planning Commission could lessen the load,of development review by the City Council, especially if the public hearings are done by the Planning Commission. Details could be handled by a Planning Commission allowing the City Council to deal with only major policy issues. The Planning Commission could also take the lead on Zoning Ordinance amendment issues, the Comprehensive Plan Update, or other specific zoning or land use studies. ► The Planning Commission is only an advisory or recommending body, they would have no final authority on issues unless granted the ability by the City Council. All final decisions would be made by the City Council. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 612-595-0030 FAX 012-505-9837 MAR-10-1998 08:49 NAC 612 595 9837 P.04/05 ID • By creating a Planning Commission, the City Council is increasing the level of citizen participation and increasing the numbers of people involved in the governmental process. Some cities believe that the more people involved in the decision-making process, especially related to development review, the better the level of review which results in quality projectsfor the community. Cons With a Planning Commission, the review process timeline is lengthened, resulting in a higher cost to the developer and City in reviewing applications. This is especially true for the planned unit development process which would require a minimum of four meetings, two Planning Commi sion hearings and two City Council review and approval sessions. There would be a perceived loss of control by the City Council over the development review process. If both the Planning Commission and City Council work together well and there is mutual trust and respect, the City Council will usually take the Planning Commission recommendation and give their approvals without starting over from the beginning. This level of cooperation is not always a reality in every community. The City would bear increased costs by having a Planning Commission, especially if the members are paid. Additionally, there are costs associated with notices, ' additional staff and consultant time, and Planning Commission expenses such as training sessions. Issues If the City Council decides to proceed with setting up a Planning Commission, there are a number of issues that must be determined and agreed upon in the form of a bylaws document. A review of these issues is as follows: 1. The Zoning Ordinance must be updated to inclucce the Planning Commission in the development review process. The Zoning: Ordinance amendments should determine whether the Planning Commission or City Council shall hold the public hearings on requests. 2. The duties of the Planning Commission must be outlined so as to clearly state their role in the process and how they coordinate with the City Council. 2 MAR-10-1998 08:49 NAC 612 595 9837 P.05/05 • 3. The number of Planning Commission members must be determined,how they are to be appointed, whether they are paid or not, ?nd their terms of office. 4. Some cities have a City Council member sit as one of the acting members of the Planning Commission, others allow them as .e =officio members. 5. A process for removal and replacement of Plan ling Commission members should be established. 6. A process for establishing Planning Commission officers, their duties and election of offices must be determined. 7. Number of meetings per month and what nights would need to be established. 8. The City Council or the new Planning Commission must also determine meeting procedures, public hearing procedures, and the process for establishing committees for special projects. The list of issues above may be only a partial summary of the decisions to be made by the City Council in establishing a Planning Commission. Mark Vierling, the City Attorney, has also developed a list of issues and an ordinance for establishing a Planning Commission. pc: Mark Vierling • 3 TOTAL P.05 11/b5iy'( 11:413 8(...Kf38K1.3 LHW nJ .J .se 11111 • t`t 1' , • LAW O1'FILE1 OF [ tle Abc;rgLammers. 5I')l Won't.S, & Ic rill . i 11815 Norihi•ctilcrn A1•enut• Sc „11iIIc�e101•• `\iiicNt)ta :1.11)1'1') u><nn I) 01x4111 .lemt•a I. Leo..nc" (612) •159-2478 IZ ubc..1 l) Ilril,lrek• I',\\ (612) l,ll)--P-•) I nuI A Wolff •lttrI .l ierl,o�+ (19 U-1519(0Grc�url C. ( ., h. • r(1.„1J•rJ �vulrol .\rb.urtw fe ?1rJ••n•r Tbonsus ,I Weidner* Direct Die►1 (612) 351-2118 �11 „I;(,t•J X,•.,,...1 .\.L,t,• t,•,• November 4, 1997 THE HONORABLE DAVID SCHAAF MR MARK SWENSON MAYOR OF CITY OF OAK PARK HTS 14846 UPPER R555THST MN 55082 6201 ST CROIX TRAIL N #121 OAK PARK • OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 MR JERRY TURNQUIST MS JANET ROBERT 14298 56TH STREET NORTH 6216 N LOOKOUT TRAIL OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 MR DAVID BEAUDET 6400 LOOKOUT TRAIL NORTH OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 RE: Planning Commission Dear Mayor and Council : Stat. 5462 .354 Enclosed you will find a copy of Minn. municipalities. authorizing the creation of Planning Commissions by p I have also enclosed as an Exhibit to this letter a draft Ordinance creating a Planning Commission. I would expect that there would be substantial changes in any Ordinance before its of discussion but tt he e draft is being submitted to you for purposes are, of course, a number of structural issues that the Council will have to address in determining tformation am also preparing an Planning Commission. As assieance to you, attachment to this letter which indicates sin deali minimum number of issues that you will want toaddress ng Commissions . If any of you have any questions with regard to these materials, please feel free to contact me directly. Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV/smp Enclosures cc : Ms . Judy Holst Interim City Administrator 11it .( 11:48 8L.Kb8KLI LHW -* nyt sz( NU.VJ.J &Li-3 • • 826 B27 HOUSING.REDEVELOPMENT,PLANNING.ZONING 467.354 • meat pursuant to sections . be limited to,air space and subsurface areas necessary for mined underground space devel- ification for each improve- opment pursuant to sections 469.135 to 469.141. nt operating expense of the ' ' • ' History: 1965 c 670 s 2; 1973 c 123 art 5 3 7;1974 c 317 s 2; 1980 c 509 s 153; nts as may be pertinent. 1980 c 566 s 19-23; 1982 c 507 s 21;1982 c 520 s 3; 1985 c 194 s 17-22; 1989 c 209 ted in accordance with sec. •. ' art 2 s 1 :ts,roads,and highways of ' • 462353 AUTHORITY NORITY TO PLAN. existing streets, roads, and d air space and subsurface Subdivision 1. General authority.A municipality may carry on comprehensive mu- uant to sections 469.135 to nicipal planning activities for guiding the future development and improvement of the mu- tate trunk highway rights_ nicipality and may prepare,adopt and amend a comprehensive municipal plan and imple- and future public land and • merit such plan by ordinance and other official actions in accordance with the provisions of t area as defined in section • sections 462.351 to 462.364. tate the boundaries of areas Subd.2.Studies and reports.In exercising its powers under subdivision 1,a munici- don,flood control and sur- pality may collect and analyze data,prepare maps,charts,tables,and other illustrations and ions protecting such areas displays,and conduct necessary studies.A municipality may publicize its purposes,sugges- facilities. „ tions.and findings on planning matters,may distribute reports thereon,and may advise the cities means the council by ;t.. public on the planning matters within the scope of its duties and objectives. an board. • Subd.3.Appropriation and contracts.A municipality may appropriate moneys from any fund not dedicated to other purposes in order to finance its planning activities.A munici- of an arca,parcel,or tract pality may receive and expend grants and gifts for planning purposes and may enter into con- its,or long—term leasehold _ '.,',,• tracts with the federal and state governments or with other public or private agencies in fur- es the creation of streets, therance of the planning activities authorized by sections 462.351 to 462.364. r use or any combination :.-.. :,. Subd.4.Fees.A municipality may prescribe fees sufficient to defray the costs incurred by it in reviewing,investigating,and administering an application for an amendment to an ill be 20 acres or larger ill ' i' official control established pursuant to sections 462.351 to 462.364 or an application for a ger in size for commercial •• •' . permit or other approval required under an official control established pursuant to those sec- dons.Fees as prescribed shall be by ordinance. ,a.. Subd.5.Certify taxes paid.A municipality may require,either as part of the necessary information on an application or as a condition of a grant of approval,an applicant for an ay the relocation of a corn- ? + amendment to an official control established pursuant to sections 462.351 to 462.364,or for a permit or other approval required under an official control established pursuant to those sec- sion prepared for filingof .~< lions to certify that there are no delinquent property taxes,special assessments,penalties.in- sionterest,and municipal utility fees due on the parcel to which the application relates.Property luirements set forth in tip- .k taxes which are being paid under the provisions of a stipulation.order,or confession of judg- d chapter 505. 3' ment,or which are being appealed as provided by law,are not considered delinquent for pur- •lY k • an” means an ordinance poses of this subdivision if all required payments are due under the terms of the stipulation, a�,,, f land. tiT order,confession of judgment,or appeal have been paid. •• ,' History; 1965 c 670 s 3; 1982 c 415 s 1; 1996 c 282 s 3 means ordinances and unty or town or any part -'' ' 462,354 ORGANIZATION FOR PLANNING. ed underground space de hereof and implement the Subdivision 1.Planning agency.A municipality may by charter or ordinance create a xy include ordinances es-, '' , planning agency.A planning agency created by ordinance may be abolished by two—thirds ary codes,building codesvote of all the members of the governing body.The planning agency shall be advisory,except as other powers and duties are imposed on it by sections 462.351 to 462.364.by statute,by charter,or by ordinance consistent with the municipal charter.The planning agency may take sans official action taken the following alternative forms: establishes the rights and (1)It may consist of a planning commission,which may or may not include municipal ;ion regulation.In accor- officials among its members.The planning commission may be provided with staff which aplicable subdivision reg- may be a division of the administrative structure of the municipal government.The commis- eview and approval of a Sion shall be advisory directly to the governing body. talon the number,layout, (2)It may consist of a planning department with a planning commission advisory to it on of streets,roads,utili and shall function as a department advisory to the governing body and the municipal admin- lewd for public use. istration.The planning department may be provided with an executive director and other earroe ' "ground," p p try,' staff as in the case of other municipal departments. "site," "territory." and ; ,`'` Subd.2.Board of adjustments and appeals.The governing body of any municipality in their meaning,but not -`..4 adopting or having in effect a zoning ordinance or an official map shall provide by ordinance 11/b7/87 11:48 hLKtjtkla LHW by588.S( NU,U.I. lrb4 0 • 'a t l' 462.354 HOUSING,REDEVELOPhtEwr,PLANNING,ZONING 828 ,, )14 a for a board of appeals and adjustments.The board shall have the powers set forth in section . ', .i, 462.357,subdivision 6 and section 462.359,subdivision 4. Except as otherwise provided by •.1 charter,the governing body may provide alternatively that there be a separate board of ap- • , peals and adjustments or that the governing body or the planning commission or a committee - ` ' of thc planning commission serve as the board of appeals and and it maypro- ` PP adjustments, P ;;I. "'• ! . vide an appropriate name for the board.The board may be given such other duties as the gov- ;s* :. • erning body may direct. i;`,•, ' .a, ; In any municipality where the council does not serve as the board,the governing body may,except as otherwise provided by charter,provide that the decisions of the board on mat- •' ;. . ters within its jurisdiction are final subject to judicial review or are final subject to appeal to ,.,I the council and the right of later judicial review or are advisory to the council.Hearings by • 3' the board of appeals and adjustments shall be held within such time and upon such notice to i interested parties as is provided in the ordinance establishing the board.The board shall with- • ;• ; in a reasonable time make its order deciding the matter and shall serve a copy of such order �` - upon the appellant or petitioner by mail.Any party may appear at the hearing in person or by ••• `k,•'. ' agent or attorney.Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the governing body, the •e eel board may adopt rules for the conduct of proceedings before it.Such rules may include provi- ''''"'' l' sions for the giving of oaths to witnesses and the filing of written briefs by the parties.The :.i 4.7.:1 • board shall provide for a record of its proceedings which shall include the minutes of its • as • ; ; • meetings,its findings, and the action taken on each matter heard by it, including the final •••: saa e� order.In any municipality in which the planning agency does not act as the board of adjust- f �• :; , ments and appeals,the board shall make no decision on an appeal or petition until the plan- ' - yk • fling agency,if there is one,or a representative authorized by it has had reasonable opportuni- ''••',.... ;; _ ty,not to exceed 60 days,to review and report to the board of adjustments and appeals upon - !••••s:' the appeal or petition. ,r '.. History: 1965 c 670 s 4; 1967 c 493 s 1 ,f.,.y,. w462.355 PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND AMENDMENT OF COMPREHEN• ' ''• ,i :1 ti SIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN. ,i;t3. • ;.� , Subdivision 1.Preparation and review.The planning agency shall prepare the corn- ',;t '1 • prehensive municipal plan.In discharging this duty the planning agency shall consult with o- aa and coordinate the planning activities of other departments and agencies of the municipality • to insure conformity with and to assist in the development of the comprehensive municipal . '••, '.,' • • plan. In its planning activities the planning agency shall take due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government and other affected public agencies.The planning l,i.,• salt agency shall periodically review the plan and recommend amendments whenever necessary. ` �'a' Subd. la. Plan update by metropolitan municipalities.Each municipality in the met- :tall ropolitan area,as defined in section 473.121,subdivision 2,shall review and update its corn- ,,,,;4i ° '• prehensive plan and fiscal devices and official controls as provided in section 473.864,sub- : `ie ' 'a• division 2. '•s ,,fi, Subd.2.Procedure for plan adoption and amendment.The planning agency may, ,'....:'7.' e ' unless otherwise provided by charter or ordinance consistent with the municipal charter,rec- r_z ommend to the governing body the adoption and amendment from time to time of a compre- ,t•a_o hensive municipal plan.The plan may be prepared and adopted in sections,each of which '•'•'• relates to a major subject of the plan or to a major geographical section of thc municipality. :;•''.5;'}; • • .} The governing body may propose the comprehensive municipal plan and amendments to it '•'': t=' by resolution submitted to the planning agency.Before adopting the comprehensive munici- '‘.' s • ' . pal plan or any section or amendment of the plan,the planning agency shall hold at least one '';s'. . 1e public hearing thereon.A notice of the time,place and purpose of the hearing shall be pub- .1 lisped once in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days before the day of the ','..;.21 hearing. Subd.3.Adoption by governing body.A proposed comprehensive plan or on amend- •• };;;f"'p ment to it may not be acted upon by the governing body until it has received the recommenda- i' ' tr- ' t`v', tion of the planning agency or until 60 days have elapsed from the date an amendment pro- -':, :,y posed by the governing body has been submitted to the planning agency for its recommenda- ',• t• , tion.Unless otherwise provided by charter,the governing body may by resolution by a two— _ thirds vote of all of its members adopt and amend the comprehensive plan or portion thereof A.,, .41.00.... 11/05/97 11:48 ECKBERG LAW a 59598. ? NU.U1Wb5 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PLANNING COMMISSION PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. 6462 .354 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Amendment. That the Code of Ordinances for the City of Oak Park Heights is hereby amended to add Chapter 209 to the Code of Ordinances to the City of Oak Park Heights, providing for the establishment of a Planning Commission in manner and form providing as follows: 209 PLANNING COMMISSION 209 . 010 . Establishment . There is hereby established pursuant to Minn. Stat . §462 .354 a Planning Commission for the City of Oak Park Heights. 209 . 020 . Composition. Such Planning Commission shall consist of six (6) members providing as follows: A. There shall be two (2) Councilpersons designated by the Mayor with the consent of the City Council, one to be a principal and the other to be an alternate member of the Planning Commission. Such Councilpersons shall serve without voting power and in a liaison capacity as ex- official members . B . The five (5) other members of the Planning Commission shall be appointed by the City Council each to serve annually. All such appointments shall initiate and be established by Resolution of the City Council in January of each year. Any member of the Planning Commission may be removed at any time by a four/fifths (4/5ths) vote of the City Council with or without cause. 209 . 030 . Meetings . The Planning Commission shall hold at least one regular meeting each month. The regular meeting date of the Planning Commission shall be established by Resolution of the City Council from time to time. The Planning Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of business and shall keep a record of its Resolutions, transactions, minutes and findings which records shall be public. 209. 040 . Organization and Chairperson. The Planning Commission shall elect a chairperson from among its appointed members for the 11/05/97 11:48 ECKBERG LAW 4 5959837 NU.011)08 • 110 • term of one year. Vacancies occurring within the Planning Commission shall be filled for the balance of the term by appointment from the City Council. The Commission shall also appoint one of its members to act as recording secretary to keep a record of the minutes of each of its meetings. 209 . 050 . Powers and Duties of the Planning Commissn. The Planning Commission shall consider and make recommendations on all matters affecting zoning, subdivision and building regulations and land use development, comprehensive plans and other matters referred to it by the City Council from time to time. All recommendations made by the Planning Commission shall take into consideration the established policies of the City Council on such matters . The Planning Commission shall also carry on City planning activities and recommend such plans for the regulation of future physical development of the City including land use and building construction. 209 . 060 . Compensation. Compensation of Planning Commission Members as Selected by the City Council shall serve without compensation. Section 2 . Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as provided by law. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights, Washington County, Minnesota, on this day of , 1997. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS By David Schaaf Mayor Attest : Michael Robertson City Administrator 11/05/97 11:48 ECKBERG LAW -* 5959837 N0.015 D07 4111 • • LIST OF ISSUES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION I . ESTABLISHMENT. a. Effective Date i. Zoning Code changes to coordinate with effective date and creation of ordinance; ii. Resolution establishing meeting dates and times; iii. Recruitment of membership; and, iv. Selection of Chairperson. II . COMPOSITION. a. Number of Members. b. Selection of Members. Council Appointment versus Mayoral Appointment with. Council consent . c . Term. Number of years of Planning Commission member/positions. Staggering of Terms versus complete turnover on annual or other basis. d. Selection of Chairperson by: i. Mayoral Appointment; ii . Council Appointment; and, iii . Planning Commission Member's Election. e . Council Participation in Planning Commission Meetings. i . Establishment of Council person to serve as a liaison; and, ii . Councilperson position in liaison status • either being voting or ex-official. III . DUTIES. Principally, Planning Commissions are established to supervise and conduct public hearings and make recommendations on zoning, subdivision, comprehensive plan and other planning issues . Council may wish to assign other tasks to them as they see fit from a planning prospective . 1111 Enclosure 3 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS N INC COMMUNITY PLANNIWG - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Oak Park Heights Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Richards DATE: 5 November 1997 RE: Oak Park Heights - Planning Commission Issues FILE NO: 798.04 At your meeting on 28 October 1997, issues related to establishing a Planning Commission were discussed. The City Council determined it wanted additional information related to establishing a Planning Commission including examples of"bylaws" and minutes from other cities. Additionally, the City Council wanted a review of the pros and cons as well as the issues that would need to be decided for establishing a Planning Commission in Oak Park Heights. Please find attached minutes, bylaws, and a Government Training Service brochure for Planning Commission and elected official training sessions. A discussion of the pros and cons and issues for establishing a Planning Commission are as follows: Pros ► A Planning Commission could lessen the load of development review by the City Council, especially if the public hearings are done by the Planning Commission. Details could be handled by a Planning Commission allowing the City Council to deal with only major policy issues. The Planning Commission could also take the lead on Zoning Ordinance amendment issues, the Comprehensive Plan Update, or other specific zoning or land use studies. ► The Planning Commission is only an advisory or recommending body, they would have no final authority on issues unless granted the ability by the City Council. All final decisions would be made by the City Council. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD , SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 f ► By creating a Planning Commission, the-City Council is increasing the level of citizen participation and increasing the numbers of people involved in the governmental process. Some cities believe that the more people involved in the decision-making process, especially related to development review, the better the level of review which results in quality projects for the community. Cons ► With a Planning Commission, the review process timeline is lengthened, resulting in a higher cost to the developer and City in reviewing applications. This is especially true for the planned unit development process which would require a minimum of four meetings, two Planning Commission hearings and two City Council review and approval sessions. ► There would be a perceived loss of control by the City Council over the development review process. If both the Planning Commission and City Council work together well and there is mutual trust and respect, the City Council will usually take the Planning Commission recommendation and give their approvals without starting over from the beginning. This level of cooperation is not always a reality in every community. • The City would bear increased costs by having a Planning Commission, especially if the members are paid. Additionally, there are costs associated with notices, additional staff and consultant time, and Planning Commission expenses such as training sessions. Issues If the City Council decides to proceed with setting up a Planning Commission, there are a number of issues that must be determined and agreed upon in the form of a bylaws document. A review of these issues is as follows: 1. The Zoning Ordinance must be updated to include the Planning Commission in the development review process. The Zoning Ordinance amendments should determine whether the Planning Commission or City Council shall hold the public hearings on requests. 2. The duties of the Planning Commission must be outlined so as to clearly state their role in the process and how they coordinate with the City Council. 2 • 3. The number of Planning Commission members must be determined, how they are to be appointed, whether they are paid or not, and their terms of office. 4. Some cities have a City Council member sit as one of the acting members of the Planning Commission, others allow them as ex-officio members. 5. A process for removal and replacement of Planning Commission members should be established. 6. A process for establishing Planning Commission officers, their duties and election of offices must be determined. 7. Number of meetings per month and what nights would need to be established. 8. The City Council or the new Planning Commission must also determine meeting procedures, public hearing procedures, and the process for establishing committees for special projects. The list of issues above may be only a partial summary of the decisions to be made by the City Council in establishing a Planning Commission. Mark Vierling, the City Attorney, has also developed a list of issues and an ordinance for establishing a Planning Commission. pc: Mark Vierling 3 iA�01 a31SI03H 'noi(.io1 aae sdoyikm asayl • £5%L-S E5.5 SNI)IdOH N 311B' H.Li L i Lc SIddI )! 1L330. SZ dVHD d)IV 17'70560 L£1.8'oN 3!wied NW 'IS 10159 Epsauu!w Ined 1u!eS - alYd 10b al!nS P 3JYISOd'S'n ' liwi ssvio isaid �aa�i.s aep80 08ti f ao!MaS 61.41.11E44uauua aano0 [ - •1° LAND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS 4/'1,, 4 If of . INCLUDES: FEBRUARY - �► • ANNUAL PLANNING APRIL 1995 • 1:A_ INSTITUTES • BEYOND THE BASICS: Wir . i . • Sponsored by: GOVERNMENT TRAININ SERVICE , l ANNUAL PLANNING(1.vS TE: - BEY46t HE BASICS THE BASICS Thursday,April 6 or Saturday,April 29, 1995 Thursday, February 23 or Saturday,April 1,1995 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. -. 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Learn about preparing and using planning tools to. For those new to land use planning and zoning or interested "deal with a wide variety of development problems, in a review of fundamentals plus an in-depth review of the planning process —. INTRODUCTION TO PLANNING from proper legal notice to development of sophist! • Why plan? cated findings of fact: -- • Players in the planning process • Understanding the planning process PLANNING FOR DEVELOPMENT • Elements of a comprehensive plan (Of Any Size) _ BASIC PLANNING TOOLS—PART I• • Some definitions and background _ ZONING,VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS • How tools relate to each other Definitions, Rationale, Uses, Myths/Misconceptions, How • Role of ion comprexactehensive and dedications;standards to's, Non-conforming Uses. • Role of comprehensive plan;standards • Public and private sector perspectives ZONING CASE STUDIES: • Implementation strategies HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEM SOLVING • Legal issues Participants are placed into small groups in which they • Pitfalls/words to the wise work on rural or urban zoning issues. • Adoption requirements • YOUR LEGAL LIMITS: . IBA-SIC-LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS YOUR ROLE AS A DECISION MAKER • Open Meeting Law • The changing environment in land use • Conflict of interest • Legal limits . • Making findings of fact that support your land-use • Procedures to keep from being sued decisions • When something goes wrong,who's liable? • Conflict of interest RECENT CASE LAW UPDATE • How your attorney can help - • Video presentation: "Rudehaven" "WHAT'S HOT,WHAT'S NOT" • Summary of recent land use cases - - HOT ISSUES—PART I: • Any proposed new legislation. ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS(Faculty Panel) -- - BASIC PLANNING TOOLS—PART 11 SURVIVAL SKILLS: ' SUBDIVISION REGULATION COPING WITH THE REALITIES OF THE PLANNING Definition, Rationale, Uses,Content, Procedures, Design PROCESS •Standards, Financial Guaranties, Special Provisions. How to (and how not to)conduct public hearings , • Legal guidelines EVALUATION OF A SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL: _;.. • Practical tips from a local elected official A SIMULATION Participants work in small groups to evaluate'a develop- ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREA-WIDE REVIEW er's subdivision plan using standard planning tools=the QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC comprehensive plan, ordinances, and maps. SITUATIONS(Faculty Panel) HOT ISSUES—PART II: ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS(Faculty Panel) FACULTY CORE FACULTY BRUCE MALKERSON,Attorney,Popham, Haik, IAN TRAQUAIR BALL, Planner and Attorney, Schobrich and Kaufman Rasmussen & Ball JOHN SHARDLOW, President, Dahlgren, WILLIAM GRIFFITH,Attorney, Larkin, Hoffman, Shardlow and Uban, Inc.;planning consultant Daly& Lindgren ROBERT LOCKYEAR, Director of Planning and ELECTED OFFICIAL from a local community Public Affairs, Washington County LOCATIONS - • LOCATIONS . Thursday, February 23, 1995 Saturday,April 1, 1995 Thursday,April 6, 1995 Saturday,April 29, 1995 North Hennepin Community College Earle Brown Center North Hennepin Community College So.Central Tech College Room 132 U of M St. Paul Campus Room 132 Conference Ctr.,Room.A 7411.85th Ave. North 1890 Buford Ave. 7411 85th Ave.North 1920 Lee Boulevard • Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 . St. Paul, MN 55108 Brooklyn Park,MN 55445 North Mankato,MN 56001 (612)424-0880 (612)624-3275 (612)424-0880 (507)625-3441 FEE . FEE $80 per person or $70 per person for 3 or more - people from same jurisdiction. This course has $90 per person.This course has been approved for 6.5 been approved for six hours of Continuing Real hours of continuing Real Estate Education Credit. .- . Estate Education Credit. ,t, • Y r° :y .i h4: , F .� n? V:. yet .r f--:i%'rs yti`!-'tt : ir .. ,f . a HAVE WORKS'H W.LL CO 1DE► r 1G A GOAL-SETT11`�� TRAVEL: O EA-1W BUILDING.SES :. { : FOR YOUR GOVERNING BOD':" _: ▪ Government Training Service can customize the t workshops in this brochure and other planning topics, OR AN ADVISORY COMMISS10i especially for your community) • You choose the topics,date,location, and supply the GTS Can provide trained facilltato • participants We'll provide the faculty and materials.- n=„ r who have extensive experie o some Possible.in house planing Workshop topics _ Working with local governments Iln:� include,but arenot limited to:. - Updating Your Comprehensive Plan yo• urs' We can also .facilitate c • Planned Unit Development. • Environmental Issues -. process designed .to 'gather:cltize�i Housing&Economic Development Tools The Art of the Deal_- input, to guide problem. solving, to • Visionary Leadership - helpre allocate Scarce reSOurcE Hanging Tough in Tough Times • and make budget.decisions,or;-to More and more 6ties and counties are taking advangeof this convenient;cost-effective way to- help-strengthen existing-teams — make such educational opportunities available to those involved in local planning Using professional,: objective assis OTHER BENEFITS , The content can focus on`your current issues tanCe can be evetl- more beneficl •: The program can be presented for diverse group - When O u are f a c e d W 1 t h t h e S e- advisory commission members, elected officials, - y = staff,interested citizens • times of.r'e d u c e d _resources a ci d •. Costs can be shared by two or more jurisdictions. - t0 . :- u h decisions 9 Call Vivian Hart(612)222 7409 to explore the psi- u.. — •� ' n.• — -r=:.-- r'�— ma a a r n.� t. ,is r . a t• r..• ,_.a -r:-: I I Z ' Z o. a c C a> o . ' o c a .u) 0 v a I . -0 in p c y O Cl) i - .. U) `m c d o d :: r, I co a -- c a) c E in r a. CL O __ E (n Q. O LL _ v O .. _ _ a es a Y 3 Eo x° o a0 I o c U cn a c . (n o °- ECca w30 E ' Co oa °' a a Ec E a a o . mom () d o o o r.. [_ O d O • d I Z �a00 0 cu Is)O • " c0 � v,(5 - I 0a)& vv, 0 "' d E = rn Z 9. E , tZ � N ` y .0 C)Zy i• - .o o Q Z R 2- „..4.h.... cCUUj. e) _ I Z Ec d 0MGcr, r--- Z Zya. LcL CL L o c a) N Z B.J lr u) ,a O T C O N G ... C O 1o O C _ c co oc '° °'J I" u) a c c — E - Ti N s aUW �, i ? R a c r a c1) a lW acn a u a = E LI 0 –I v n. nnH I I lit 0 --19- a h nW Ll a . v t ~ a 2Cn' CQ n Y 'O ` teaI- ra 4:1)� 7 a C c, c in CC 'Za) . co� c ) d aQ E C)NC a : cN • 0 o c n o Z] a cZ n E O N 6`T d! to C7 .'.' I E a) N 0. fR N (� N a) ..O' co N O 07 N d •' N Vf O) O 2O Q d = c o E a a �• tv v.:, io `c ° i- ❑ 'o vv — w o o v � a Clr d �` v c� .��" o o 'o N 0. a Q1 4t d %Ts m N c, Q 7 o 0 o x o Y a' ** E I N '. a M 2 2 o t o E E °. E `o CO Cn1 m+ y N V d 3 al E a, O •p o) N N h U d V .c _ O N r F' E N c (` Y -2 W L uj U C� n.i. 2 0 t H E O N •• Y Lijc -c W U U1 n. N o O O v, Z 1- '' --2- b ❑ o ❑ d I Z F-- '�, O 3 ❑ 0 0 d to i . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION We are pleased to once again offer workshops necessitate program cancellation or postpone- designed especially for citizen planners. menta registrants will be notified via announce- Participants will enhance their knowledge of ments on WCCO radio and other local radio sta- various areas of planning and, as a result, tions. become better equipped to make recommen- dations and decisions about the communities FEES in which they live. Registration fees for all workshops include a •Program Features Include: meal, refreshment breaks and handout materi- a An accomplished faculty with extensive als. See inside for details about group dis- backgrounds in both planning and counts for three or more participants attending "Annual Planning Institute." instruction • Presentations focusing on current issues IMPORTANT: To qualify for the group discount, and timely information registrations must be mailed in the same enve- • Handy reference materials designed to lope! make your job easier If you would like to make your contribution to CO-SPONSORS solving land use problems as informed and • Association of Metropolitan Municipalities effective as possible . . . REGISTER TODAY! • Association of Minnesota Counties THESE PROGRAMS ARE FOR YOU. • Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs • League of Minnesota Cities WHO SHOULD ATTEND? • Minnesota Association of Townships Members of planning commissions, boards of • Minnesota Chapter, American Planning adjustment/appeals and governing bodies in Association • Minnesota Planning Association Minnesota cities, counties and townships. Also valuable for members of other advisory corn- • Minnesota Planning missions, housing and redevelopment authori- FURTHER INFORMATION ties, staff (especially those without degrees in planning), real estate professionals, and others Contact Sharon Washick (Registration) or working in areas related to specialized work- Vivian Hart (Program) at Government Training shop topics. Service, (612) 222-7409 or Minnesota Toll Free (800) 652-9719. REAL ESTATE CREDITS Participants-of'Annual-Planning-Institutes"and— About Government Training Service (GTS) "Beyond the Basics" can earn Continuing Real .,' Estate Education Credits. lei Recipient of.Organizational Support for Excellence in Training.Award f TRATION/CANCELLATION gi h, (American Society for Training and REG S ISI Development) `" Register at least 7 days prior to the workshop - ,, date using the forms in this brochure. Fill out GTS is a public organization whose :mission !s to one form for each workshop; duplicate forms if provide innovative, comprehensive; practical train- needed. Fees will be refunded less a $15 ing and consulting to_address the;changing man- service fee if the registration is cancelled 3 #;.agement and=leadership needs of policymakers; working days before the program. `staff end,appointed officials in publiclyfunded orga. Substitutions for registered participants maybe nlzations=in Minnesota through educational_ser- g p P vices;:designed to enhance individual competency, made at any time. Should inclement weather 'and through organizational services designed to (or other circumstances beyond our control) strengthen"group effectiveness w • toPrinted on recycled paper. • • CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 5, 1997 8:00 PM .' • • . 1 11 .i • 1 . 11 .- 11 • 1 / • . Chair Swenson called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 8:04. ROLL CALL: Present: Chair; Carl Swenson, Arleen Nagel, Eugene Goenner, Jim Kolles, Bruce Rask, Ing Roskaft, Richard Nichols. STAFF: Bob Kirmis, City Planner,Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Adm., Carol Olson, Secreta erre O1 on,B1dg._Official __ _ Council Representative; Vern Heidner Mayor; Larry Fournier, Councilmembers;Virginia Wendel, Mark Berning, Suzanne Ackerman 11 '5 511 1 1 • ' . 11' 1 _ / 1111' . '11 1/ ' 1 I . 1 . • 11 Richard Nichols motioned to adopt Planning Commission Minutes of January 15, 1997 as submitted. Arleen Nagel seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. - • - . Y 1 _ 1 : . r , • : , I " 1 ; 11 . 11 • I . • , 1 - 1 1 : . r 1 • I 1/1 • 11. 1 11 ' 1 s11 .i 1 1d ; I . 111 : 1 . , 1 . 11 • i 11 • ' • / 1 • Zi . 1 . 1i 1 • . 1 - 11 /'x11 . - ' - rll 1 . 5 . 1 . 1 5 ./11 ;"- 1. CIDP to allow transfer of property rights of one per forty ,subdivision to allow a 7-lot clustered subdivision: 2. Preliminary Plat Approval 3. Variance to allow a cul-de-sac to exceed 500 feet in length. Chair Swenson-Application needed to be re-heard taking the same information and acted on as a new hearing. Chair Swenson read the applicants request. Elaine Beatty-Proper publishing and noticing has been made. Mr. Kirmis -The proposal is identical to that previously presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Kirmis went over NAC's report dated December 23, 1996, in regard to the CUP. The zoning ordinance allows transfers of development rights for the purpose of preserving productive agricultural lands. That is the sole purpose for allowing these transfers. In investigating the soil conditions on the site, the Wright County Soils survey has found that the soils are marginal for agricultural purposes satisfying the primary criteria of this CUP. Regarding clusters, the zoning ordinance does not establish a maximum number of dwelling units which may locate in a cluster. We feel this site to have greater compatibility then the 80th Street alternative site. On the issue of safety, a single access is proposed along Co. Rd.#39. One per forty splits would allow numerous single family driveways. To clarify, the applicant has seven one per forty development rights and only because applicant chooses to cluster is a CUP required. 111/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of February 5, 1997 cont'd Page 2 NAC feels the requirements of the ordinance have been met, therefore recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Regarding the preliminary plat, all lots are in compliance with applicable A-1 district lot area and width requirements,therefore NAC recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat. Regarding the variance to allow a cul-de- sac 530 feet in length opposed to 500 feet. There must be a non-economic hardship. The drainageway in the central portion of the site makes it difficult to stay within the 500 feet length requirement while producing a desirable plat design. NAC also recommends approval of the variance. NAC recommended approval of all three requests. - Chris Bulow - Acting as an agent for Barthel Bro's and not the owner of the property. Cliff Lundberg, Attorndy at Law,is here on_their_behalf.We-feel°Rolling Ridge Creek" plat meets all recommendations except to lengthen the cul-de-sac by 30 feet. The site was picked to save prime farm land with this site having forty percent less yield. The site is steep, there is a wetland on the site which would be restored. The drainage .'. ditch south of the property separates it from the farm. As to safety issues regarding the road, it will be lit, there will be a stop sign,it will be tarred and it will be maintained by the City. The county has agreed to grant a permit. By Mn/DOT standards this is considered to be a safe intersection:This is not meant to be a spot development. In the ordinance it called a cluster of one per forty splits to save farm land. The property is being developed at this time is to help keep the Barthel family farming in Otsego. Chair Swenson went over the hearing procedure and opened the hearing to the public.. €: Stewert Turnquist - Owns 105 acres of agricultural land abutting the proposed 11020 95th St.NE development.Concerned with compatibility of residential and agricultural land. Requested everything be done for minimum impact. Re-identified spot development to clustered. Questioned if the easement was to access the back land for future developmentcn Clifford Lundberg, Attorney representing Chris Bulow and the Barthels. The real parties-: of interest here are the Barthels. They are farmers and as land owners they have some rights. They want to keep farming,but capital is needed. This is a way for them to pay off some of their debt and make their farming operation more efficient so they can keep farming for the foreseeable future. They want to sell these lots and get the maximum dollar to put back into the farm. You have to respect their right to do that. The engineer procured by the builder and the city's engineer are in discussion regarding the drainage. Mr.Turnquist has not specified what his concerns are. I think you have to follow your ordinance and grant this Conditional Use Permit. Scott Ellingson 11664 NE 95th St. - Read a letter from Mr. Paffel who was unable to attend. Concerns over traffic issues and concerns with water and drainage problems.I ..J • . • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of February 5, 1997 cont'd Page 3 Mr. Ellingson had concerns with possible water and erosion problems. Road safety issues possibly a passing lane. Would like to see this included in the moratorium. Against the proposal. Chair Swenson brought discussion back to the Planning Commission. Bruce Rask asked Mr. Kirmis what criteria was used to determine compatibility. Mr. Kirmis -The ordinance does say, if located in an agricultural zoning district, you are allowed one development right per forty acres, and also allowed to transfer those rights via CUP. The Barthels have seven development rights and wish to transfer them to one — -- location.. Again the purpose of allowing-transfer of-de_velopment.rights is for the preservation of productive Ag. land. Does this result in the preservation of productive Ag. land? If the answer is yes,that is the primary criteria. They are automatically allowed the one per forty splits. In terms of compatibility there are going to be conflicts, but feel they will be minimal. Ag. activity is much more intense on 80th St. - Bruce Rask- I want to know if what I am preserving is prime farm land. I do not have'in front of me what proves that the balance of their farm is prime. Mr. Rask read Sec.5120- 51-1: PURPOSE: A-1, Agricultural-Rural Service District. And gave his interpretation of the word prevent as his reason for denial. As representative of the City the word prevent is my reason for denial. Mr. Kirmis stated that if you were to deny this request, that would be the most legal basis to do that. Richard Nichols - Now felt the proposed site to be the better site because poorer farm `= land, less yield and less overall impact. The applicant has the transfer rights. The City has changed the ordinance to allow for this.The way the ordinance is written we encourage x clustering. Now I can not see how we can turn it down. An ordinance update may be in order. Arleen Nagel- The Comp. Plan says to protect Ag. land and by allowing this it is encroaching into Ag. areas. Jim Kolles - Not in favor because of impact and compatibility. Surrounded by Ag.land. ` Should be included in the moratorium. {" Chair Swenson - Shared the concerns of the committee, but the current ordinance allows this and can't see now how to deny it. Chair Swenson - Went back to the public for any comments for or against the applicants request. Chris Bulow - Uses allowed in this area are farming and Residential.We came in, met with staff and met all the requirements. •w 1111 ••• • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of February 5, 1997 cont'd Page 4 Scott Ellingson - I have greater respect for the planning commission now. There is always a point in time when this isn't necessarily a good thing but legally according to our ordinances it can't be turned down. It is a tough decision and we will make the best of it. Diana Ellingson- Live across from the proposed development. Farm land is not compatible,pushing the farmers out. Concerned with drainage issues, this site now runs into the creek when developed there will be a higher rate of run off and ponding will have to be created. Chair Swenson closed the public hearing and brought back to Planning Commission. Bruce Rask- Giving some support to the Barthels,the land is not prime farm land. They do have transfer rights with deed restrictions. I have viewed both sides and if the balance of the land is not prime, then we are making a big mistake. Richard Nichols- Having heard testimony and reviewed all the written materials, including the letter from the city attorney,under those conditions, I Motion to_ _ approve the request for the Conditional Use Permit to allow the one per forty - transfer of development rights. Ing Roskaft seconded. Richard Nichols, Ing _ Roskaft, Carl Swenson and Arleen Nagel voting in favor.Bruce Rask,Jim Kolles, Eugene Goenner opposed. Motion carried four to three (4 to 3). Ing Roskaft motion to allow the variance to increase the cul-de-sac to 530 ft. Seconded by Richard Nichols. All in favor. Motion carried. Ing Roskaft motioned approval of the Preliminary Plat. Richard Nichols seconded. Eugene Goenner moved to amended the motion to contain the 10 conditions listed in NAC's report. Seconded by Ing Roskaft. All in favor of the amendment. Motion carried. Motion as amended. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Elaine Beatty- This will be on the City Council agenda of Feb. 24, 1997 at 6:30 PM. 4. HEARING for Michael W. Emberton,Allied Mortgage of Brooklyn Center, Inc,. Developer,owner Donald and Phyllis Greninger. All property E of Kadler and N of Co. Rd.#39 with any and all exceptions. Request is as follows: L Comp. Plan Amendment to bring area into the Immediate Ilrhan S rvi a Area 2. Rezone fromA-1 to R-3 Chair Swenson read the applicants request. Elaine Beatty - The proper publishing and posting has been made. • • ... • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of February 5, 1997 cont'd Page 5 Mr. Kirmis - The applicant had chosen to withdraw an earlier request prior to city council action. Some concerns with the properties inclusion with the immediate urban service area. The Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies which both encourage and discourage the proposed use. Land use plan policies covered on page three and four of NAC's report dated January 21, 1997, reasons for the pro's and con's regarding compatibility, considering Island View lies north and east making it compatible with the surrounding area. Re-zoning is all that is submitted at this time. Note that an environmental assessment worksheet would be required. Potential pollution impacts are not known at this time nor impact affecting property values. Traffic generation, at this time no preliminary plat is submitted. The development of this property would not be cost effective-for-the city-considering-its-isolation-from an urbandevelopmentarea.-There_are both policies which encourage and discourage this proposed use. The development of the property is at this time premature relating to the city's sanitary sewer service efforts attempting to focus on an area where future sanitary sewer service is proposed. Island- View must be recognized but justification for furtherance of non cost effective service costs should not be furthered. NAC's opinion is that re-zoning at this time is premature. • Mike Emberton - Spoke with some members of the P.C. and tried to allow an of Allied American Mortgage impartial assessment of the property, satisfy the concerns raised and continue to develop the property. The project would benefit the city. The property in question has key items to mention. Twenty three percent of the property is not farmed and has a gravel area. The one acre lots would be compatible with surrounding area. Access complies with the full specifications required by the final approval. The plan would be to develop a seventy nine acre parcel.Regarding the sewer and water issues, I have heard the concerns about the viability of the potential hook up. All cities have had to face these issues. The sewer and water issue was addressed last time. The building inspector's comment, and a letter to that effect,was that all sites are required to have two approved locations for septic systems, guaranteeing a minimum of fifty years life expectancy. Chair Swenson opened the hearing to the public. Bruce Danks - Concerned with water drainage and road access. Not 10064 95th St. NE necessarily against the development. Would like to see proposed development plan. Chair Swenson- Brought hearing back to Planning Commission. Richard Nichols -How does the moratorium effect this. Mr. Kirmis -The moratorium exempts applications in process. The applicants request is for rezoning. Is this the appropriate use of the proposed property. Arleen Nagel - Can't see going from Agricultural to the Immediate Urban Service Area. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of February 5, 1997 cont'd Page 6 Eugene Goenner- In NAC's report dated January 21, Item 7, page 6, regarding impact of over burdening services. When properties came in for development in the past it hasn't .. been viewed as a factor, what has changed. Mr. Kirmis -In consideration of Island View Estates, it is probably not in a location endorsed by city staff. It is an isolated area and ideally the city would have said locate in. an area where city sewer service can be provided. The isolation from that area makes it not as efficient for providing services. We do have to acknowledge Island View but is it appropriate to further this development which is inconsistent with the city's general growth objectives. You acknowledge it, it is compatible, and indirectly it is infill, but not consistent with the general philosophy of the growth management in the city which has been to direct development in the contiguous northeast area so as to provide direct economical delivery of services. _ Bruce Rask.- Disagreed, septic systems can be maintained cheaper. Need to better enforce the pumping of septic systems. We keep making denials and delays because of the sewer issue. Because Island View is there,this is infill and compatible. Richard Nichols Our charge is to do what is legal under the current ordinance and it supported by professional staff. Jim Kolles-In favor of this development. It is compatible. Chair Swenson - Opened the hearing to the public for discussion. Paul Medenwaldt 10525 97 St. NE Built in 1989 the septic failed and a mound system had to be put in. Concerned that one acre lots are not big enough. Concerned that, the proposed road will take too many trees. Chair Swenson closed the public hearing and brought it back to Planning Commission. Ing Roskaft- Soils are important for septic systems. Information regarding the soils is needed. Bruce Rask- Perc tests must be met before installing a septic system. Are there any R-3 areas in the immediate urban service area. Mr. Kirmis answered no, that is the need for the amendment. Richard Nichols - Can it be done as a PUD Mr. Kirmis answered yes. Bruce Rask motioned to amend the Comprehensive Plan to bring area into the Urban Service Area. Jim Kolles seconded. Bruce Rask,Jim Kolles,Arleen Nagel,voted in favor of the motion. Richard Nichols, Ing Roskaft, Carl Swenson, and Eugene Goenner opposed. Motion failed. VII PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of February 5, 1997 cont'd Page 7 Discussion: Ing Roskaft- Reasons for approval or denial should be stated for the record and should be in the motion. Reasons to approval or deny: Bruce Rask- It seems to be compatible for the area and would infill in the area. If sewer and water would come in later they could be maintained. Don't want them to have to wait if not part of area considered for sewer and water. Jim Kolles- Compatible to area, infilling, and sees no major difference with this and prior hearing. Richard Nichols -While agreeing that it is infill, those homes were put in prior to city planning. The city is in the midst of sewer discussions and comp plan changes. Agreed it is premature. Ing Roskaft- This is a borderline case and this project could wait until the city staff and consultants get some things finalized. _ Eugene Goenner- It is urban expansion in an area not slated for that type of use at this time. Arleen Nagel- Agreed with Bruce and Jim and would like some control on private septic systems. This is good infill. _ Chair Swenson - For the record we need to act on Item number 2. Rezone from A-1 to R-3. Richard Nichols motioned to deny rezoning of the subject property from A-1 to R-3 based on the denial of the comp plan amendment.Ing Roskaft seconded. Motion passed to deny rezoning. Richard Nichols,Ing Roskaft, Carl Swenson, Eugene Goenner and Arleen Nagel voted to deny rezoning. Jim Kolles and Bruce Rask opposed. Motion passed to deny 5 to 2. Elaine Beatty- This will be on the City Council Agenda of February 24, 1997 at 6:30PM. A five minute break was taken at this time: Chair Swenson called the meeting back to order. . 1\ • •• II. • S I S • I •_i • • I • . SS ' • IS• S • ISI II. 155 5 Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as follows: A. Proposed Amendment of Ordinance Re: Antennas B. Proposed Amendment of Ordinance Re: Business Signs C. Proposed Amendment of Ordinance Re: Administrative Permit Approvals. A. Proposed Amendment of Ordinance Re• Ant nnas• Mr. Kirmis - The first amendment relates to antennas. It is primarily in response to 1996 Tele-Communications Act. Attempts to provide additional detail to accommodate personal wireless service antennas. Included are some regulations related to satellite dish and ham radio operation antennas. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of February 5, 1997 cont'd Page 8 Primary feature of the ordinance is the regulation of the wireless service antennas. The ordinance allows these as permitted uses if located on a public structure. A CUP is required if not. This is to minimize impact and allow the city income via lease on water towers etc. Some changes were made by recommendation by the Planning Commission, otherwise the ordinance is consistent with other cities. Elaine Beatty - All publishing and posting requirements have been met. Chair Swenson opened hearing to the public for comment. There was none. Hearing was brought back to P.C. for questions and comments. There was none. Re- opened the hearing to the public. No one commented. Brought back to P.C. Richard Nichols motioned to adopt proposed Amendment to the Antenna Ordinance. Seconded by Eugene Goenner. All in favor. Motion carried. Discussion: Vern Heidner- Does our ordinance allow for a number of free standing ham radio antennas. Is a CUP required for each addition antenna. Mr. Kirmis- Ham radio antennas as a permitted accessory use are allowed up to 70 feet in height, and exception requires a CUP. Eugene Goenner- Ham radios are considered an essential use. Do we have any regulations over them if that is the case. • Mr. Kirmis -This does say that they are exempt from Paragraph C,F, and I. • Elaine Beatty This will be on Agenda of Feb. 24, 1997 City Council Meeting at 6:30PM. B. Proposed Amendment of Ordinance Re: Business Signs: Mr. Kirmis-This is an amendment to the City's Sign Ordinance which would allow business signs along I-94 corridor to be increased to the maximum building height requirements in whatever zoning district they might be. A December 5, 1996, Memo provides a summery of sign height allowances in the various zoning districts. Generally this amendment will allow commercial and industrial uses to be 35 feet in height from the crown of the road. Within an institutional district business identification sign is allowed up to 40 feet. The maximum building height in the institutional district is 40 feet. Chair Swenson opened hearing to the public. No comment. Brought hearing back to the Planning Commission. Closed the hearing. Eugene Goenner motioned to approve the sign ordinance as amended. Richard Nichols seconded. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. C. ProposedAmendment of Ordinance Re: Administrative Permit Approvals: Mr. Kirmis-This amendment would change the processing requirements and allow administrative approvals. Mr. Kirmis went over Memo dated November 27, 1996, summarizing the changes to the zoning ordinance. 110 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of February 5, 1996 cont'd Page 9 Chair Swenson opened hearing to the public. No comments. Closed the public hearing and brought back to the Planning Commission. Ing Roskaft motioned to approve. Arleen Nagel seconded. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Any other Planning Commission Business: Election of officers for 1997. Chair: Richard Nichols motioned Carl Swenson as Chair. Seconded by Jim Kolles. __ Eugene Goenner motioned to close nominations. Seconded by Richard Nichols, All in favor. Motion carried. Chair- Carl Swenson Vice Chair: Bruce Rask motioned Eugene Goenner as Vice-Chair. Eugene Goenner nominated Richard Nichols. Richard Nichols declined nomination. Richard Nichols motioned to close nominations. Seconded by Bruce Rask. All in favor. Motion carried. Vice-Chair - Eugene Goenner Secretary: Arleen Nagel motioned Jim Kolles as Secretary. Richard Nichols seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Secretary -Jim Kolles Chair Swenson- Asked for any other business. Vern Heidner-The building official and Councilmember Virginia Wendel attended a seminar regarding septic systems. There are books and videos available,which we are discussing ways to have those available as part of the septic permit. Maintenance will always be required and the need for enforcement. Vem Heidner gave a summary of what is happening at the sewer and water workshop meetings. Workshop meetings discussing septic options are being held once a week. The city engineer has been commissioned to come up with a report for Monday nights meeting showing the trunk lines for the sewer and water. 7. Adjourn: Ing Roskaft motioned to adjourn. Bruce Rask seconded. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 11:10 PM. Jim Kolles, Secretary Recorded by: Carol A. Olson PC2-5-97.WPS • • 4 j, City of Lakeville PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 18, 1996 The meeting was called to order by Chair Luick at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Roll call of members was taken. Present: Bellows, Miller, Kowalke,Luick, Amborn, Cecchini,Wulff. Absent: Rieb. Also present: Robert Erickson, City Administrator;Michael Sobota, Community and Economic Development Director; Daryl Morey, City Planner; Tim Hanson, Assistant City Engineer; Jim Walston, Assistant City Attorney; and Donna Quintus, Recording Secretary. The minutes of the June 20, 1996 Planning Commission meeting were approved as printed. • ITEM NO. 5: PUBT IC HEARTNG: KINGSLEY COVE 2ND ADDITION Chair Luick opened the public hearing to consider the preliminary and final plat for - Kingsley Cove 2nd Addition and consideration of a variance for lot depth for three lots in the proposed subdivision. City Attorney Walston attested that all legal notices had been duly published and mailed according to State Statute. City Planner Daryl Morey presented an overview of the proposed preliminary and final plat and variances for Kingsley Cove 2nd Addition, outlining the planning report dated July 12, 1996. The proposed subdivision consists of six lots within one block located north of Klamath Terrace, east of Klamath Trail, and northeast of Orchard Lake Elementary School. Mr. Morey provided background regarding the original Kingsley Cove preliminary plat which included a concept design for a future second phase of development over the area now proposed to be platted. It was noted that the Kingsley Cove 2nd Addition as currently proposed represents a more desirable development design than the original concept with the major modifications being: 1) a reduced density due to the elimination of one of the originally proposed lots; 2) the portion of Kingsley Lake located within Kingsley Cove 2nd Addition is within an outlot that is being deeded by the developer to the City; and 3) improved lot design through the elimination of a flag- shaped lot. Also, a tree preservation plan has been submitted for Kingsley Cove 2nd Addition which was not required with the original preliminary plat. Discussion by the Planning Commission included the following: . Zoning: Subject property is zoned R-1, Low Density Single Family Residential District and is located within the shoreland overlay district for Kingsley Lake. ,. , iIi (�1 `l,IT • Regular Plan 0mmission Meeting-Notes 1 1,� u July 18, 1996 Page 2 • The development of Kinglsey Cove 2nd Addition for single family homes is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. • Density: Includes six single family residential lots on 5.26 acres resulting in a density of 1.14 lots per acre. • Outlot A, Kingsley Cove 2nd Addition will be deeded to the City with the final plat. Outlot A consists of the small corner of Kingsley Lake that projects into the southeast corner of the proposed plat boundaries. • Proposed house pads for all lots meet the requirements for R-1/Shoreland Overlay District building setbacks. _ • Streets and Right-of-Way: A 55-foot east half right-of_way_currently_exists--for Klamath Trail which is consistent with Subdivision Ordinance requirements. • Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control,Tree Preservation & Wetland Plans: Tim Hanson, Assistant City Engineer, the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, and the Environmental Affairs Committee (EAC) have reviewed the final grading plan and recommend approval with conditions that will be included as part of the Planning Commission recommendation. •. Trails: -The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee recommends a cash contribution to meet park and trail dedication requirements. In addition, the City's Trail System Plan identifies trails along Klamath Trail. The developer must provide a cash escrow for the future trail adjacent to Klamath Trail. r _. An application has also been submitted by the developer for a lot depth variance on three double frontage lots. Lots 1, 2, and 3,Block 1, Kingsley Cove 2nd Addition do not meet the buffer yard lot depth requirement. These lots are heavily wooded with abundant trees and vegetation on steep-to-moderate slopes providing a natural buffer for the proposed double-frontage lots abutting Klamath Trail, a major collector street. Staff supports the variance as requested by the developer due to the unique circumstances of these lots relating to elevations along the rear property line (3:1 slopes), the original concept design which established road and utility locations based on seven lots rather than six, and the relatively low volume of expected traffic on Klamath Trail.. Mr. Greg Haner, representing Custom Design Builders and the developer of Kingsley Cove 2nd Addition, was in attendance and indicated his agreement with the conditions and stipulations for development of the plat as proposed by staff. Commission Member Wulff discussed adding a stipulation that a turnaround driveway be installed on proposed Lot 4 to eliminate the need for backing out onto Klamath Trail. Discussion also included the proposed location of the future trailway along Klamath Trail. Staff indicated that the trailway location has not been determined as yet, however, the City's Transportation Consultant, Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch (SRF) is f ra (Th Regular am"� Commission Meeting Notes ;i Lp July 18, 1996 JPage 3 currently reviewing this issue and will make a recommendation for the placement of the trailway based on their findings. Chair Luick opened the hearing to receive public comment. Mr. Bob Neudauer, representing property owners Michael and Marjorie Neudauer, questioned whether access to the Neudauer property is being impacted by this development. Access to the"exception" as shown on the original Kingsley Cove plat, owned by Mr. & Mrs. Michael Neudauer, is currently gained via Klamath Terrace. Administrator Robert Erickson indicated that with the original proposal in 1989 the City required the developerof-the-first phase oMingsley-Cove-to record n-access-- -- easement agreement over two lots in the first phase for access to the Neudauer property. Staff offered to review the files from 1989 and meet with the Neudauers to discuss what took place in the past to ensure access to their property and what options are available to them at this time. Mrs. Marjorie Neudauer also indicated that she did not recall being notified of the first public hearing in 1989 and, therefore, they, as - abutting property owners, did not have an opportunity to express their concerns regarding access to their property at that time. Staff responded and offered to address this issue as well. There were no other comments from the audience. 96-85 MOTION by Amborn, second by Cecchini to close the public hearing. Ayes: Unanimous. 96-86 MOTION by Wulff, second by Amborn to recommend to City Council approval of the Kingsley Cove 2nd Addition preliminary& final plat and variance subject to the • stipulations as stated in the planner's report dated July 12, 1996 with the addition of stipulation No. 13 to require a turnaround driveway on Lot 4, Block 1, Kingsley Cove 2nd Addition and stipulation No. 14 requiring the developer to provide a copy of the private covenants to the City to assure there are no conflicts with the City's Ordinance, and recommend approval of the findings of fact. Ayes: Unanimous. ITEM 7. GATEWAY CENTER SITE HISTORY - NAC REPORT: City Administrator Robert Erickson discussed a report prepared by NAC and presented to the City Council which provides a historical and chronological background of the Gateway Center site. In response to the comments and concerns expressed by the residents in this area regarding their opposition to commercial use of the Gateway Center site, staff requested this study in order to reach a greater understanding of the events that led to the proposed commercial development of this site. The report,which was provided to the Planning Commission in their meeting materials, provides an in- Regular Pla —ngernission Meeting Notes r • July 18, 1996i-A\ : +12) L 1 Vk\ J t1 Page 4 depth overview of the history of this site. The report verifies that the Gateway site, as well as other properties surrounding the I-35/Highway 50 interchange, has been zoned B-4, General Business District since 1968. The report also provides an outline of the events that led to the zoning of this property in response to resident concerns regarding the Queen Anne Mobile Home Park proposed expansion in 1984 when there was a request for a rezoning from commercial to R-MH, Mobile Home Park District. The residents had also indicated their concern regarding the water quality of Orchard Lake. Mr. Erickson discussed current studies already in process that the City is implementing regarding water quality throughout the entire City, with special emphasis on the Orchard Lake watershed. ITEM$.-NEW-BUSINESS:--NEwilsSmENT1AL-SuBDIVISI$N& DEVELOPMENT-GUIDE: City Planner Daryl Morey presented to the Commission the City's latest Residential Subdivision and Development Guide. The City provides this document to developers of residential subdivisions free of charge as a helpful tool to guide them through the City's development process. The guide was prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) in conjunction with City Staff and incorporates current ordinance and application requirements and City polices related to new residential developments. Staff intends to update the information contained in this document on an annual basis. ITEM 9. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS: Assistant City Engineer Tim Hanson announced that a special Environmental Affairs Committee and Planning Commission Forum has been scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on August 6th to discuss tree preservation. Dr. Mel Baughman,University of Minnesota, will present information regarding tree preservation. The Planning Commission was encouraged to attend. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Quintus, Recording Secretary ATTEST: David Luick, Chair • - i CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1997 8PM OTSEGO CITY HALL 1. Chair Carl Swenson will call meeting to order: Chair Swenson called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 8:00 PM. ROLL CALL: Chair; Carl Swenson, Planning Commission Members;Ing Roskaft,Bruce Rask, Arleen Nagel, Eugene Goenner and Richard Nichols. Jim Kolles, excused absence. Coucil Representative; Suzanne Ackerman Staff: Bob Kirmis, City Planner, Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator 2. Consideration of the Planning Commission Minutes of: A. September 3, 1997 BRUCE RASK MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE PLANNLNG COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1997. LNG ROSKAFT SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED. - •I • • • r - '• I • 1/ y • •' :' - • • • Association. Inc. 8660 Hwy 101, Otsego,MN. Legal description of property is the N 3/4th of Gov't Lot 2,lying easterly of trunk Hwy No. 101,R23 PID#118-500-23310 & 118-500-232301. Request is as follows: A. An amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit to clarify conditions. Chair Swenson -This hearing has been continued from the August 20, 1997,Planning Commission meeting. This was requested by the applicant to allow for a meeting with staff. Bob Kirmis- Staff met with representatives of Mississippi Riverwood on September 3, 1997. Attached is the memo dated September 10, which summarizes issues and changes suggested by the applicant and agreed upon by Staff. Mr. Kirmis read the summary. A revised set of conditions which incorporate the changes is also attached. (see attached) The City Attorney's memo dated September 17, 1997, relates to the storage plan proposed by the applicants. Wright County approved the original Conditional Use Permit with the condition that the camp ground is to be used for seasonal use only with all units vacated no later than November 1st, and not re-occupied at any time when the river level exceeds the 855 ft. elevation. This was determined to mean (by the Wright County Zoning Administrator) that all units be removed from the camp ground. As a result of that original condition, that is an option the City may choose to implement. •PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of September 17, 1997 cont'd Page 2 The City Attorney stated in that letter that Option B,the applicant's storage plan, would satisfactorily address the concerns of the City in regard to seasonal storage and the removal of the units. (see attached) Chair Swenson -We will resume the hearing with the Planning Commission discussion. Bruce Rask-Under Item 4, Floodplain Requirements, regarding those recreational vehicles that exceed a certain width. Wording should be added (except those that are already in the park) no more oversized unlicensed RV's will be allowed. Asked for an explanation as to how they can be considered recreational vehicles if you can't drive it down the highway. Mr. Pribble-Recreational vehicles,Park Models,is the terminology applied to any vehicle under 400 sq. ft., up tol2 ft. in width, and be considered recreational vehicles. This is a National rule. Richard Nichols -Is therea requirement in the revised conditions that states the non licensable trailers be required to be located in the non-floodplain areas,per the DNR- .recommendation. . Mr. Kirmis-The language from the current planning report was retained. All recreational vehicles in the floodplain have to be licensed. Wider units must be at the higher elevations. Richard Nichols- Questioned the wording. If recreational vehicles are going to be allowed in the floodplain we need to follow the requirements of Section 20-73 of the Zoning Ordinance and all condition requirements. Mr. Kirmis-Read the recommended change-Recreational Vehicles, or units within the floodplain conform to all applicable provisions of Section 20-73 of the Zoning Ordinance including the following conditions: • Eugene Goenner- Asked the intent of Item number 8. Option B. Item C, referring to the cables,if not allowed in the floodplain,why attach cables. Mr. Kirmis-The wording in number 8 is from the DNR regulations. Dick Larson-The cable is a safety feature, should there be a flash flood, those units would not go down the river and cause damage. Chair Swenson brought the hearing back to the public. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of September 17, 1997 cont'd Page 3 Mr. Pribble - We appreciated meeting with staff to discuss the application. We hoped to come to a consensus at that meeting and come to the commission with whole hearted endorsement of the report. Because of the imposed options, we can not completely endorse the staff report. Option A, does not reflect the current authority of the Conditional Use Permit granted by Wright county. If we rely upon Wright county as the model instead of the language proposed by Mr. Kirmis which states the recreational units and vehicles shall be removed. That is not what we have today. We have a CUP that requires us to vacate the property by November one. There has been reference to an opinion by a Wright County Planner, reference to an opinion by DNR representative. We like the opinion that says we can't be there personally after November one. To remove the units or vehicles is an economic disaster to the associates, if that were a requirement. We hope the commission's visit to the site would have demonstrated that these are responsible people within the city limits who contribute to the city. Option A, as proposed can not be accepted. We can not physically or economically remove the units. We strongly urge the commission to recommend only Option B. to the City Council for adoption. Questions proposed have been answered. We have satisfied the requirements of the City Engineer by providing site surveys showing where the sites are. Mr. MacArthur has expressed that Option B. meets the concerns expressed by the commission and by the city. By sending only Option B. to the council we can accept and support the Commissions recommendation. Chair Swenson closed the public hearing and brought discussion back to the Planning Commission. RICHARD NICHOLS MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE DELETION OF OPTION A, AND THE CORRECTION OF THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH 7,AS STATED BY MR.KIRMIS THIS EVENING. BRUCE RASK SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL LN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. This will be on the City Council Agenda of September 25, 1997 at 6:30 PM. 4. HEARING for Guy F. and Evelyn A. Rowe,owners. 14031 NE 87th Street, • - • • 1/ ► 11 ; .-1 -11' 11 . • seise I e • a • . • r0 • • • keit of Wright, City of Otsego}State of Minnesota. Request is as follows: A. Conditional Use Permit to allow: a. More than one detached accessory structure on aiesidential lot. h. Total accessory storage space to exceed 24000 square feet. Chair Swenson went over the applicants request. Elaine Beatty- All the publishing, posting and mailing hearing notices have been made. Mr. Kirmis - Guy and Evelyn Rowe wish to construct a 768 sq. ft. detached accessory building upon their property south of 87th Street and west of O'Brian Avenue. Three accessory buildings are currently on the property. IP PLANNING COIM'IISSION MEETING of September 17, 1997 cont'd Page 4 The applicant has proposed to remove two of the smaller structures. The applicant does propose to retain a 1,600 sq. ft. pole building. There are two unique items with this request. The location of the driveway within an un-approved right-of-way. A memo dated September 16, 1997, by the City Attorney recommends that the applicant sign a written document, in recordable form, releasing the City from liability for any accident or occurrence along the "driveway", and acknowledging that such use is allowed solely at the discretion of the City and that other access may have to be created if the City, for whatever reason, determines to make use of the dedicated right-of-way. The second item relates to condition 3. of the report where the proposed building and the existing pole building match the principal building in color. This is a requirement of new structures, but considering the visibility and compatibility with the neighborhood we did r€cornmend-that-the-pole-buildmgbe painte— -NAC recommends approv-a of the request — — contingent upon seven conditions in their report dated September 8, 1997, which he read. Guy Rowe - Questioned the requirement of matching color. Presently the pole building is maintenance free. Excessive to expect this. We couldn't get our house color to match so went with white. New building will be white vinyl siding. Requests later date possibly December 1,instead of November 1, 1997; deadline to remove the buildings. They have no objection to signing papers releasing the City from any liability. Eugene Goenner-Referred to painting of the existing pole building, excessive expense, would it then be maintenance free. Mr. Kirmis - If prepped correctly,with the right paint it will last. The comprehensive plan • promotes neighborhood compatibility. This is viewed as an opportunity to visually improve the area. Bruce Rask- Agree with neighborhood compatibility. The applicant will be taking down two smaller buildings. The painting of the existing pole building is a great expense and should not be a requirement. The building met the requirements when it was built. RICHARD NICHOLS MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE ROWE ACCESSORY BUILDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS IN NA C'S REPORT DELETING ITEM 3. RICHARD NICHOLS AMENDED THE MOTION WITH ITEM 2,TO READ DECEMBER 1, 1997,RATHER THAN NOVEMBER 1, 1997. Eugene Goenner- Asked Richard Nichols if he meant to leave in "The proposed accessory building match the principal building in color." • ( • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of September 17, 1997 cont'd Page 5 RICHARD NICHOLS AMENDED THE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE EIGHT CONDITIONS LISTED IN NAC'S REPORT WITH THE MODIFICATION TO ITEM TWO TO CHANGE THE DATE TO ONE DECEMBER 1997 AND ITEM THREE TO DELETE THE REFERENCE TO THE EXISTING POLE BUILDING. ING ROSKAFT SECONDED. Eugene Goenner- Asked about item 7, regarding the attorney's recommendation for the applicant to sign a release form releasing the city of any liability. EUGENE GOENNER AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE COMMENTS OF ATTORNEY'S LEITER DATED SEPTEMBER 16,1997. SPECIFICALLY ITEM 7. RICHARD NICHOLS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH EUGENE GOENNER, RICHARD NICHOLS, CARL SWENSON,BRUCE RASK,AND ARLEEN NAGEL VOTING IN FAVOR. ING ROSKAFT WAS OPPOSED. AMENDMENT CARRIED FIVE TO ONE. Chair Swenson any other discussion on the motion as amended. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. This will be on the City Council Agenda of September 25, 1997, at 6:30 PM. 6. Any other Planning Commission Business: Suzanne Ackerman - Commented on the public Sewer and Water meeting. Elaine Beatty- At the Sewer and Water meeting September 15, 1997. There were 146 people in attendance. Thirteen people spoke. Bill Jones has written a letter of resignation. He will be moving to Colorado. 7. Adjourn: LNG ROSKAFT MOTION TO ADJOURN. BRUCE RASK SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • Jim Kolles, Secretary Recorded by: Carol A. Olson • • • CITY OF WAYZATA (. ��EDSEF tk PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 7 JULY 1997 The meeting was called to order at 7:06 PM. Present at roll call were Commissioners Gooley, Howe, Bangert, Amdal, Fiske, Case and Chair Himes. Planning Consultants Scott Richards and Daniel Licht were also present. Agenda Item #1 - Approval of 5 May 1997 Planning Commission minutes. Commissioner Fiske moved approval of the minutes seconded by Commissioner Bangert. Approved by a vote of 6-0, with Commissioner Case abstaining. Agenda Item #2 - Public hearing to consider request from John Laurent for General Plan approval of a Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit. The request is for approval of an office building to be located at 125 Lake Street. Chair Himes opened the Public Hearing and asked Planner Richards to present the planning report for a proposed 12,500 office building to be constructed at Lot 2, Block 1 of the West Lake Street Plat: Planner Richards said that the General Plan of Development review focuses on final development details. The two story, flat roof, 12,500 square foot building is consistent with the approvals granted in 1995. The building will be constructed out of Dakota Granite. Planner Richards said that the applicant, Mr. John Laurent, was present and could describe the building in greater detail. Planner Richards said that the height of the building is 25.75 feet which is within design provisions. Due to the flat roof design, there is no opportunity to add a third story. Planner Richards said that as an office use, one parking space is required for each 250 sq. ft. of net building area. Based on this calculation, 45 parking stalls are required. The applicant has provided a total of 60 stalls and complies with the requirement with a surplus of 15 stalls. Planner Richards reviewed a memorandum from Terry Schwalbe of the City Engineering Department regarding setbacks. The north boundary of the parking lot encroaches into the five foot setback required from the property line. Mr. Schwalbe has recommended that the setback requirement be maintained. Planner Richards said that Mr. Laurent has indicated that the parking lot could be redesigned to conform with the setback requirement. Planner Richards noted that the building encroaches into a ten foot setback by two feet at the southwest corner of the building. Staff does not view this as an issue however as it an internal PUD setback that can be accommodated within the General Plan of Development approval. 1 • • Planner Richards said that the proposed landscaping is consistent with the overall landscaping of the West Lake Street project. Techny Arborvitae are to be installed along the west property line along with a three to four foot retaining wall to screen the parking lot from the adjacent residential uses. The site landscaping and retaining wall will be subject to DRB and City Council review and approval. The applicant has not indicated any proposed signage for the subject site. Any signage that is proposed will be subject to review and approval of the City Staff. Planner Richards noted that any signage that has been installed within the West Lake Street project has typically been well below the maximum signage area allowed. • Planner Richards said that no additional site lighting proposed for the parking area, based upon the lighting fnr West-Lake-Street-being-sufficient. If-any-additional-lighting-is-proposed, it will be subject to review and approval of City Staff. Planner Richards said that no plans have been provided for a trash enclosure to date. However, Planner Richards noted that Mr. Laurent has typically brought in plans for trash enclosures later in the process for review and approval. Planner Richards referred to the Terry Schwalbe memorandum regarding site grading issues with the parking surface elevation related to the elevation at the base of the retaining wall on the adjacent outlot. There is also an issue regarding the floor elevation of the structure related to an adjacent retaining wall. Planner Richards said that Mr. Laurent has indicated that he would work with the Engineering Department to address the issues. Planner Richards said that the resolution of this issue should be a condition of approval. - Planner Richards closed by saying that staff recommends approval of the applicant's request subject to the eight conditions outlined in the 30 June 1997 Planning Report as well as the added condition regarding site grading. Chair Himes asked if the setback encroachment at the front of the building was a non-issue. Planner Richards confirmed that staff,does not view this as an issue in that it does not impact traffic sight lines, sidewalk areas, etc. The encroachment can be accommodated within the General Plan of Development approval. Chair Himes asked Mr. Laurent to address the Planning Commission. Mr. Laurent introduced himself and Mr. Duncan Malloch, who is the architect responsible for the design of all of the structures within the West Lake Street project. The idea for the design of the building was to provide traditional architecture using materials that have been used for years and incorporating them into a modern building. The proposed building will be constructed with a granite exterior. Mr. Laurent said that the use of granite on a traditional styled building will be very unique. Mr. Laurent described the techniques for creating the granite surface of the building. The majority of the exterior surface will be a smooth, polished finish. Detail items 2 • • f will have a more rough texture. Mr. Laurent provided a color illustration of the building appearance. Mr. Laurent described how the proposed building fits on the subject site, with parking to the west of the building. A public plaza will be developed at the southwest corner of the building that will tie in with a larger plaza to be developed on the other side of West Lake Street as part of the fifth office building project. Mr. Laurent said that to address the concerns of the townhome residents, a planting of techny arborvitae will be installed along the adjacent property line. The plants to be installed will be six feet high. In addition to the plantings, a three to four foot retaining wall will be installed to provide an additional separation. The parking lot will be on the high side of the wall, resulting in a nine to ten foot high screen relative to the adjacent residential units. Mr. Laurent-noted that-the-majority-of the-streetscape-elecnent&have beeriiastalled including the_ _ street trees and sidewalks. Mr. Laurent said that no tenants have been secured for the building, although there are interested parties. Chair Himes asked what the timing for construction of the proposed building was. Mr. Laurent said that they intend to start construction within 60 days and be completed by June 1998. Chair Himes asked what the building materials were on the parking • lot or rear sides of the building. Mr. Laurent said that the proposed building would be granite • on all sides. • Commissioner Gooley asked how the HVAC mechanicals will be screened on the roof.-Mr. Laurent said that all of the HVAC equipment would be screened below the parapet, although they may not use roof mounted HVAC equipment. Planner Richards asked if the techny arborvitae would be on the top elevation of the retaining wall on the west property line. Mr. Laurent said that was correct. Commissioner Himes opened the Public Hearing to comments from the public, asking those wishing to speak to please give their name and address. Ms. Connie Hines, 247 West Lake Street, lives adjacent to the subject site and asked about the height of the proposed retaining wall along the west property line. Mr. Laurent said that the retaining wall would be approximately three to four feet high, with the office site at the higher elevation. Mr. Laurent said that the 6 foot arborvitae would be installed on the top side of the retaining wall. Ms. Hines asked what the retaining wall would be constructed of. Mr. Laurent said that the construction material would be the same as those used on the existing retaining wall on the outlot property. Mr. Len Betterton asked about the potential for a third floor. Mr. Laurent said he has no intention of applying for approval to provide a third floor. 3 11111 • Chair Himes closed the Public Hearing and_ asked for comments from the Planning Commission members. Hearing none, Chair Himes asked for a motion. Commissioner Case moved approval of the General Plan of Development for the fourth office building of the West Lake Street project subject to the eight conditions outlined in the Planning Report dated 30 June 1997 as well as the following: The topography issues of the site elevation relative to the retaining walls to the north and east be addressed subject to review and approval of the City Engineering Department. Seconded by Commissioner Fiske. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0. Agenda Item 5: Public hearing to consider a request from the Wayzata Yacht Club for a shoreland variance, height variance and variance for intensification of a non- conforming use to construct a boat lift crane within ten feet of the ordinary high water mark. The property is located at 1000 County Road 16E. Planner Licht reviewed the 30 June 1997 planning report and indicated that the Yacht Club had submitted an application to allow for the installation of a mechanical boat lift adjacent to the shore of Lake Minnetonka. The lift is to be installed on the property that is currently being used for parking/boat storage to the west of the Central Avenue right-of-way. The subject parcel is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Planner Licht indicated that private boat clubs or marinas are not a permitted or conditional use within this district and as such, are a non-conforming use. The request for the boat lift requires three variances. One is for consideration from the non-conforming use provisions because of the proposed intensification. A second variance is required in that the proposed structure will be placed within the required ten foot setback from the ordinary high water mark. A third variance is required in that the proposed 24 foot structure exceeds the ten foot height requirement for water oriented accessory structures. • Planner Licht indicated that staff is recommending denial of the variances that are not justified per the criteria for review of variance requests in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant had not shown hardship or special conditions that would warrant granting the variances. Mr. Larry AuBuchon, Commodore of the Wayzata Yacht Club, indicated that the proposed boat lift is being requested for the convenience of the yacht club members. Additionally, they feel that for safety reasons, it is important to have another boat lift available on this bay of Lake Minnetonka. Mr. AuBuchon felt that the proposed boat lift would not intensify the use of the site in that the parking and slips had been present on the site for years without any real impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. AuBuchon felt that the proposed lift has been designed so as to minimize its visual issues and that if the crane were to be set back ten feet from the ordinary high water mark, it would require a larger structure. Additionally, Mr. 4 • • AuBuchon indicated that the Comprehensive Plan_designates this area for semi-public/private development, more specifically, the Yacht Club use' and the boat lift is a reasonable addition to that use specified in the plan. Chair Himes asked for any questions from the Planning Commission on the planner's report. Commissioner Gooley asked about the height of the boat lift in comparison to the average height of a sail boat mast. Mr. AuBuchon responded that the average height of the mast is 29 feet in comparison to the height of the boat lift which is 24 feet. Chair Himes asked how use of the boat lift would be controlled. Mr. AuBuchon e iinsdtalaedto allow membtethat the boat lift would only ers to use the be used by members and that a card reader would crane at their convenience. Commissiener-Bafg-ert asked-if-the-boat lift would involve an increase of usage during Yacht Club races. Mr. AuBuchon responded that during races, the boat lift would be intensely used. Commissioner Amdal asked if the temporary use of the boat lift on the property has required any permitting by the City or other agencies. Mr. AuBuchon responded that in the past,:the Yacht Club has not needed a permit for allowing the temporary boat lift. Commissioner Amdal asked if a rolling crane were to be installed at the site, would it require installation of ramps or structures to accommodate its movement. Mr. AuBuchon responded that indeed it would. Commissioner Case asked why an arrangement has not been negotiated with the Minnetonka Yacht Club to allow for use of their boat lift. Mr. AuBuchon responded that they have inquired, but the Minnetonka Yacht Club is not interested at this point in allowing the Wayzata Yacht Club to use their boat lift. Chair Himes asked about the safety issues for allowing individual members to operate the boat lift. Mr. AuBuchon responded that members would be trained in operation of the boat lift and that they would have to inquire as to whether their insurance carrier has an issue with this arrangement. Chair Himes asked if there was any comments from the public. Mary Lynn Yakel at 1050 Lake Street East indicated that the Yacht Club property is in her back yard across the street from the parking lot. She indicated that she was in agreement with the consultant's report that has recommended denial of the request. She felt the lift would have a tremendous visual impact and that the value of her and other surrounding properties could be impacted by the crane and its resulting intensification on the site. She also felt that congestion on the County road could be increased with the installation of the crane and its use. 5 ! • Nick Anderson of 324 Hampton Street indicated that he is a resident of a four- lex at that address and has been a member of the Yacht Club for seven years. He felt that if the boat lift was painted a green or blue color that it would not create a visual impact to the area. Additionally, he felt that a rolling crane that would be permanently located on the site would have a much more of a visual impact than a permanent structure. Additionally, he felt that there was a much greater issue with the lines created by on the two dathat a rolling crane is brought into the site than if the members were able gto use the craneys over a much longer period of time during the Spring and Fall seasons. Mary Lee Babcock at 337 Reno Street asked if the temporary crane could be put in for one -, week instead of one day per season. Mr. AuBuchon responded that it is an expense issue in that the crane is rented on a per hour basis. Nadine Storms, 223 Byrondale indicated__that__she_ad_anote-signed by-the-Braden-family-en LaSalle indicating their objection to the variances. Dan Gaudette at 1430 LaSalle asked if a crane could be designed such that the boom could be telescoped or lowered to decrease the visual impact of such a structure. Mr. AuBuchon responded that they would ask the crane manufacturer if that is possible. Karl Ludescher at 329 Reno Street stated his main concern was the noise factor and felt that - the boat lift would create a mechanical noise. He also stated that it visually has an industrial look in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Ludescher was concerned about the continuing intensification of the site and agrees with the recommendation for denial in the planning report. Frank Carlson at 1045 Lake Street had concerns about the visual impact, the noise, and the potential for use by other groups or individuals that would want to use the lift. Steve Bran, Manager of the Wayzata Yacht Club, indicated he would like to address a couple of issues, in particular the color and noise impacts. Mr. Bran indicated that a color could be selected that would make the boat lift almost invisible to the neighborhood and secondly, said that the noise of the electric motor on the crane would be minimal. He also indicated that the public ramp adjacent to the Wayzata Yacht Club property creates much more noise than the Yacht Club. Len Betterton at 235 North Central Avenue asked if the lift has been designed -to accommodate existing or larger boats that could potentially be utilized by this facility. Mr. AuBuchon responded that they are sizing the lift to meet the current needs of the Yacht Club. Phil Hansen on 132 Ridgeview Drive asked about the design of the lift and the possibility of a telescoping main boom. He felt that if the Planning Commission were to approve the request that they should specify conditions, including when the crane is to be used and limitations on its tonnage. 6 Judy Dixon at 306 Reno Street indicated that she was opposed to the permanent structure and feels there is no hardship present to approve the variance. Chair Himes asked for any more public comment. Seeing that there was none, closed the public hearing. Chair Himes indicated that there is a signed note from Julian Braden indicating opposition to the proposed variances. Chair Himes asked for any comment from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Case indicated that she feels that the Planning Commission or City Council has no authority to grant a variance in that this is a use variance. Additionally, the applicant --has-not-shown-that-there_is_a hardship_orspecial conditions that would justify the approval of said variances. - • Commissioner Fiske indicated that he does not see any reason to approve the requested variance and would recommend denial. Commissioner Amdal indicated that he felt that the site should be reviewed for rezoning to R-1, which allows for this type of facility as a conditional use. He further indicated that he likes the possibility of a permanent lift versus the more visually intensive rolling lift and would consider rezoning the property to the R-1 District and a conditional use permit to allow a permanent lift. Commissioner Bangert has indicated she could not support the variance and felt the issues with a permanent boat lift are grounds alone to not allow the variance. Additionally, Commissioner Banged indicated that she may have a problem with a rezoning to R-1 of the site. Commissioner Gooley agrees with the planning report and its recommendation of denial and he feels that the applicant should have checked on ways to make a permanent lift less visual. Commissioner Howe also agreed that the request should be denied and felt that the applicant should further look at a telescoping or collapsing lift that might be a more agreeable alternative. Chair Himes felt that the variance should be denied in that there is no hardship and is not favorable to the intensification of a non-conforming use. He further suggested that the Yacht Club should look at a rezoning to bring this property to a conforming use. Chair Himes further indicated that he does not guarantee that the Planning Commission or City Council would approve a rezoning and a subsequent conditional use permit but it would be something for the applicant to consider with City staff. 7 • • Commissioner Howe moved to recommend denial of the three variances on the basis of the 30 June 1997 planning report. Commissioner Bangert seconded the motion. Commissioner Case made the point that she feels it was not even justified for the applicant to apply for the non-conformity variance in that she feels the use variance should not even be considered by the City. The motion was denied on a unanimous vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM. • Minutes submitted by: . • Scott Richards and Daniel Licht • Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. • •r 8 C • CITY of OTSEGO Council Approved 8/28/95 PLANNING COMMISSION NAG FLE: BYLAWS Client_ �c . Proje:T, Job No Amended: July 1995 ORGANIZATION: 1. The Planning Commission officers shall be: Chair Vice Chair Secretary 2. Duties of the officers: A. - Chair: - The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Commission. _ The Chair shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide all questions of order. The Chair shall appoint any necessary committees and shall appoint any committees requested by a majority of the members. The Chair may call special or emergency meetings, providing notice pursuant to the Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. 471.705, Subd. lc. B. Vice Chair: The Vice Chair shall preside at all meetings in the absence of the Chair and perform such duties as requested by the Chair. C. Secretary: The Secretary shall be responsible for insuring that detailed minutes of all Commission meetings shall be taken by the staff secretary and distributed to the members at least a week before the next commission meeting. The Secretary shall also maintain records of site inspection attendance and attendance of Commission members at meetings and shall submit these records to the staff upon a regular basis. '110 r WORK RULES: Page 2 1. There shall be two regularly scheduled meetings the first and third Wednesday of each month, unless an alternative is scheduled due to an unforeseen conflict. Notice of the change must be given in writing to members at least four days prior to the meeting date. 2. At the first meeting in January, the Commission shall elect from it's membership a Chair, a Vice Chair, and a Secretary. 3. The membership of the Commission shall consist of seven members appointed by the City Council, one alternate member appointed by the City Council, and a non-voting Council representative appointed by the Mayor. 4. The alternate member shall sit at the planning commission table during any scheduled meeting and participate in all sessions,but the alternate shall only vote if a member of the commission is absent. 5. A quorum shall consist of four members. 6. A member may be excused from an individual meeting for reasons of illness,work - or out of town trips. Notice of the members absence must be communicated to the staff before 4:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting. 7. The order of business shall be as listed in the meeting agenda to be prepared by the Zoning Administrator before each meeting. 8. All Commission recommendations shall be sent to the City Council in written meeting minutes and shall include a record of the division of votes on each recommendation. 9. All meetings shall be open to the public. 10. Any site inspection involving 4 members or more as a group, shall be noticed as a special Planning Commission meeting. 11. Any resolution or motion, except the motion to adjourn, postpone,reconsider, table, or force the previous question shall be written and included in the meeting minutes. 12. Any resolution or motion may be withdrawn at any time before action is taken on it. t • • Page 3 13. When a question is under debate, no other motion shall be entertained except to table or call for the question, act on the question, postpone, refer to committee, or amend. Motions shall take precedence in that order and the first two shall be without debate. 14. All motions shall be carried by a majority vote of the members and Chair present, except call for the "question". Any members or the Chair may call for a roll call vote on any issue. • 15. Motions shall be made only by persons recognized by the Chair. 16. Call for the question is not a motion, but an indication to the Chair that the person making this statement is ready to have the motion or question acted upon without further discussion. 17. ' Any Commission member having a financial interest, or a family member with a financial interest in any individual action to be considered by the Commission, shall: a. notify the Chair of the conflict in advance of meeting. b. allow the Chair to explain the potential conflict to the Commission. c. at the request of the Chair,the member shall excuse himself/herself from the Commission meeting room in advance of the discussion and voting on this item. 18. In the event that a member is contacted prior to a Commission Meeting by a citizen with a concern regarding a pending issue, the member must: a. refrain from discussing any pending Planning Commission business with any individual outside of a Planning Commission meeting. This includes indicating his/her stand on the pending issue. b. refrain from speculating on other Commission member's stand on the pending issue. • 19. Any Commission member who conducts himself/herself in a manner conflicting with the above By-Laws, provides grounds for removal by the City Council. C. (7. Page 4 20. These rules shall not be repealed or amended except by a five member vote of the Commission and after notice has been given at a previous meeting. Changes in these By-Laws will become active upon approval by the City Council. 21. Any rule not covered by these Work Rules shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order. Adopted by the Planning Commission • Adop by the City Council 11/07/84 • BY-LAWS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WAYZATA PREAMBLE It is the intent of these By-Laws to constitute advisory guidelines for the internal management of Planning Commission meetings and procedures. Failure of the Planning Commission, the City staff, or any other person to abide by any provision of these By-Laws shall not have an adverse effect upon any action taken by the Commission or by the City Council pursuant to recommendations made by the Commission. _ -- ARTICLE I - ORIGIN AND POWERS 1.1 The City. is authorized and empowered to establish a Planning Commission by the provisions of M.S.A. 462.354. 1.2 The Wayzata Planning Commission was created in an advisory capacity by action of the Wayzata City Council on January 19, 1965 and its existence was reaffirmed on May 4, 1971. and February 20, 1979 by adoption of the current City"Zoning Ordinance. 1 .3 Adoption ., of these By-Laws shall delete and supersede "Rules and Regulations Governing the Procedure of the Planning Commission, " as adopted by the City Council on February 1, 1977. • 'ARTICLE'II '- 'DUTIES'AND 'OBJECTIVES • 2.1 The Commission is designed to serve in an advisory capacity to the Wayzata City Council. 2.2 The objectives of the Commission are to make recommendations to the City Council which will guide the development of land, services and facilities within the City, so as to ensure a safer and more pleasant enviroment and so as to promote the• public health, safety and general welfare. 2.3 The Commission shall hold Public Hearings for variances, conditional use permits, subdivisions, P.U.D. permits, and other applications to the City in accordance with the City Zoning Ordinance and shall make recommendations on said applications to the City Council. 2.4 The Commission may hold such Public Informational Hearings as the City Council deems necessary and may make recommendations on applications for Building Permits when requested'by.the Council. 2.5. The Commission may hold Public Hearings and Informational Hearings and ' conduct such studies as are deemed necessary to attain objectives of the Commission. By--Laws of the Planning • .m'ssion • City of Wayzata ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP 3.1 Voting Members: The Commission shall consist of seven citizen members who are eligible voters residing within the Wayzata City limits .and who are appointed by the City Council. 3.2 Ex-Officio Members: One administrative official of the City staff shall serve as an ex-officio member of the Commission. 3.3 Terms: Voting members shall be appointed for terms of two years. Any d City Council, andssuchshall be appointmentseshalltbelth by for thenunexpiredent termfofhe City Co . the vacating member. • - * • • : member fails o attend four meetings during __ calendar year, discussion of this failure shiLLbe forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for action. Commissioners shall notify the Chairperson or ex-officio staff member when an absence is anticipated. 3.5 Removal: Members shall be subject to removal for cause by the City Council, after due notice and the opportunity for a hearing before the Council. • 3.6 Expenses: Members shall serve without compensation, except that direct expenses for training may be paid by the City from general fund monies budgeted for Planning purposes. 3.7 Training: The Chairperson and the Mayor-shall meet with each new commissioner to explain Commission procedures and to answer questions. The City staffsupply the following documents to new Commissioners as soon as possible after their appointment: a. The Zoning Ordinance b. By-Laws of the .Planning Commission c. Enabling Ordinances Pertaining to the Planning Commission d. An Informative Pamphlet which explains'the Role and Responsibilities of a Planning Commissioner. 3.8 Resignation: A member who wishes to- resign shall the s bmittao wrihe tten resignatCouncilion to the Chairperson, who shall in turnforward "ARTICLEIV - OFFICERS;DUTIES 'AND 'ELECTION'OF'OFFICERS 4.1 ' Officers: The officers of the Commission shall be Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson. ice- Chai p ser on. • 4.2 Duties of'the 'Chairperson: The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings, appoint Commission members to committees, appoint Commission representatives, rule on procedural questions (subject to reversal by a two-thirds vote of those members in attendance), meet with all newly appointed members, exercise the same voting rights as other Commissioners and carry out such other duties as are assigned by the Commission or by the City Council. • - 2 - • By-Laws of the wing Commission • • City of Wayzata 4+.3 Duties of the Vice-Chairperson: The Vice-Chairperson shall act in the absence or inability to act of the Chairperson, and in such instances he/she shall have the powers and functions of the Chairperson. .�+ Terms`! The Commissions's officers shall be elected by secret ballot at • the first regular meeting in February. Their terms of office shall be for one year, and no member shall hOld an office for more than two years consecutively. The Commission's officers shall serve until replaced by duly elected officers or until- they are not reappointed by the City Council. 4.5 Vote: Candidates for office receiving a.majority vote of the entire membership (four) shall be declared duly elected. 4.6 Date of Office:. Newly elected officers shall take office at the ra^�,, r meet-in-g-in March. _ 4.7 Vacancies: Vacancies.occurring in the offices of the Commission shall be filled immediately by the above. election procedure. ARTICLE V - MEETINGS 5.1 Annual Meeting: An annual organizational meeting shall be held the first Monday in February of each year. Election .of officers shall .be conducted at that time. • 5.2- Regular Meetings: Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held at 7:30 P.M. on the first Monday of each month in the City Hall Council Chambers. • • 5.3 Special •Meetirigs: Special meetings may be called at the discretion of . the Chairperson, after consultation with the ex-officio- staff member. - 5.4 Notice 'of Meetings: Notice in writing of all regular and special Planning Commission meetings, setting forth the time, place and agenda of such meetings, shall be mailed by the City staff to all.Commission members at least three days -in advance of each meeting. 5.5 Site Investigation: Prior to each meeting all Commission members shall endeavor to visit any properties to be discussed at the meeting. 5.6 Planning•Commissiori•Representative at City-Couicil'Meetings: Each Commission member shall in turn represent the Commission at regular City Council meetings. • • 'ARTICLE'VI' "PRE-MEETING PROCEDURES 6.1 Agenda: The agenda for each meeting of the Commission shall be developed in writing by the City staff and shall be available at the City Hall prior to each meeting. . - 3 - By-Laws of the Planning Cssion 40 • City of Wayzata • 6.2 Withdrawal: If a petitioner or applicant desires to withdraw a matter from an agenda, such request must be submitted to the City staff in • writing, and if any public notice has been given all persons appearing •at the noticed hearing on said petition or application shall be entitled • to be heard. • ARTICLE'VII - MEETING PROCEDURES 7.1 Rules of Order: Unless otherwise specifically designated, Robesues of Order, as most recently revised, shall-govern the meeting procedure.. 7.2 Quorum: A majority of the voting membership (four) shall constitute a quorum for meeting purposes. 7.3 Conflict 'of Interest: Whenever a Commission member shall have.a direct or indirect personal or financial interest in an application or petition before the Commission, that member shall declare such interest and shall in no event vote upon said matter. 7.4+ Agenda: The order of business at regular meetings generally shall be as • follows: a. ' Call to Order b. Roll Call of Members c. Reading and Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting d. Public Hearings e. Informational Hearings f. Reports -of Commission Members g. Projects, Plans, etc. Currently under Discussion h. Adjournment • 7.5 'Appearance ofPetitioner: No application or petition shall be given final approval unless the applicant or petitioner appears personally or by repre- sentative at the hearing called thereon, 'or unless he/she makes satisfactory explanation or presentation in lieu thereof. . 7.6 Tabling: A tabling motion, if passed, has the hehefeffect ect of , inga matter s over until the next regular meeting, unless 7.7 Reports: Any matter may be tabled for a cal.reporty rtstudy aff, thewhich ttthe Commission may make or request of the petitioner, Attorney or other experts. Such report shall be presented to the City staff for forwarding to the Commission at least five days prior to the • meeting at which said matter will be heard again.. 7.8 Non-Agenda Matters: No binding or final action may be taken on any matter not on the written agenda except by unanimous vote of the members in attendance or two-thirds vote (five) of the entire membership. By-Laws of the..nning Commission • • City of Wayzata • ARTICLE VII - PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE 8.1 Time: The time of each Public Hearing shall be stated on the agenda, and no Hearing may begin before this time. Each Hearing shall begin as soon as possible after this time. • • 8.2 Presentation: If a Public Hearing is required for a request by a petitioner, the petitioner or an appointed representative shall state the request, explain the proposal and answer questions of the Commissioners. If no petitioner is involved, the Chairperson or the ex-officio staff member shall explain the purpose of the Hearing. The Chairperson may impose reasonable restraint upon the number of times one individual may speak. 8.3 Termination of Hearing: The Chairperson may close a Public Hearing after hearing those pi-es-wild who care-to-speak,—o-r-any-member---may-move to--continue -- the Public Hearing until a specified date. . If a Hearing on a petitioner's request is closed, the Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council within 30 days following the close of the Hearing. If a Hearing is continued, mailed notices of the continuation may be requested by. any voting member. ARTICLE IX COMMITTEES 9.1 Standing Committees: There shall be no standing committees of the Commission. • 9.2 Ad Hoc 'Committees: The Commission may request that the City Council appoint other members of the Community to ad hoc Commission committees, which may be created by the Commission for a specific purpose and duration. At least one voting member of the Commission also shall be appointed to each such committee. ARTICLE•X RECORDS 10.1 " Minutes: The City shall supply a secretary at all regular and special meetings of the Commission who shall be responsible for taking full and complete minutes of these.meetings. The City Manager shall be responsible for keeping a copy"of said minutes in a safe place. 10.2 Open Meetings: All meetings except such privileged meetings as may be allowed by State Statute shall be_ a matter of public record. • - 5 - • • PLANNING COMlt*IISSION MEETING REC SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. Present at roll call were Commissioners Gooley, Howe, Fiske, Case and Acting Chair Amdahl. Planning Consultants Scott Richards and Dan Licht were also present. Commissioners Himes and Bangert were absent. Agenda Item #3. Approve minutes of July 7, 1997 meeting. Commissioner Fiske moved a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gooley. The minutes were approved by a 5-0 vote. Agenda Item #4: Public Hearing to consider a request from Gail and Kenneth MacKenzie, 382 Bovey Road, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a reduction to the side and rear yard setbacks for the construction of an attached 3 stall garage. Planning Consultant Scott Richards reviewed the planning report for the proposed 3 stall garage. They do allow side and rear yard setbacks to be varied from the requirements if they meet certain criteria within 801.19.5.e., of the Zoning Ordinance which allows conditional use permits for some of these reductions. The purpose of this request is to construct a 3 stall garage at the existing home at 382 Bovey Road. The construction would take over what is now an existing blacktop driveway and affect only a small landscaped area and a few trees on the lot. The driveway area as it appears on the site plan will not be increased because of the addition. The property is zoned R-1A, Low Density Single Family Estate District. The shoreland district is somewhat impacted because it does take the corner of this property but would not affect any of what is being requested here. The lot at 382 Bovey Road complies with all lot coverage requirements. The addition will not affect the maximum building lot coverage and because of the topography of the lot there is no other place to locate the garage on the lot. Because of the separation distances of existing homes within the district, there is really no setback issue to the existing buildings in that district. The general criteria as well as the specific criteria that is listed in Section 4 allowing the CUP instead of the variance meets all of the criteria with no issue's, and NAC recommends approval of the CUP subject to comments by the City Engineer and staff. The engineer has looked at this and said there is no issue as long as the proposed garage stays off of the utility easements. Approval is subject to compliance with the conditions which are indicated in the NAC report dated September 2, 1997. Commissioner Fiske said that in regards to Section 801.19.5.e, one of the criteria is that if approved it will not set a precedent which is contrary to the ordinance. If this is approved there should be some statement about the topography that makes it a unique case or otherwise it might set a precedent in other types of sites. '_ • - • PC090897-2 Scott Richards said the Planning Commission may want to tie comments back to the planning report that lists those conditions and indicate those issues of the report in regard to the steep slopes etc. Commissioner Fiske said that he felt it looked sort of strange to see what the setbacks were with the existing house and he thought the reason those numbers look strange is that what is referred to as the side yard is really the front because that is the way the house faces which would be a 45 foot setback. Scott Richards said when the house was built the interpretations of front and rear yard were incorrect, with this request we have correctly defined the front, rear, and side yards. Contractor Bruce Bren, representing the MacKenzie's commented that the lot in itself is the hardship in this case and considering there has been no opposition from the neighbors in any way, it really isn't creating any hardship. Scott Richards said they had received a call from the property owner just to the north on Bovey Road, and he had no issue with the proposed construction. Following discussion Commissioner Fiske moved a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for the side and rear yard setback variances at 382 Bovey Road on the basis that the topography of the site is unusual and it puts the house in a position where it does not impact on neighboring houses, and subject to the recommendations of the NAC report.of September 2, 1997. Commissioner Case seconded and the motion passed with a 5-0 vote. Agenda Item # 5. Preview town home project at Wayzata Blvd. &Barry Avenue. Steve Boll and Casey Chermak of Pillar Homes, Jerry Mazzara of Design Form and Rick Sathre of Sathre Berquist were present at the meeting to discuss the plans for the proposed project at the corner of Wayzata Blvd. and Barry Ave. Mr. Boll explained they were at the meeting for feedback and comment from the Commission. The property is 1.6 acres and the proposed plan is for an eleven unit condominium and due to the soil conditions the condo's will be built on pilings. There will be 2 carriage style homes priced in the upper$100,000 and nine rambler and multi-level homes beginning in the upper$200,000. Mr. Boll pointed out their concept combines the unique characteristics of Wayzata and offers reasonable priced homes that they anticipate will sell quickly. Each unit will have a 2 car garage and will be built slab on grade and they would like to begin construction this fall if possible. There are some wet land issues on the site and the watershed district requires a retention pond on the site for storm water runoff.. Scott Richards said there is some dispute on the location of the property lines on the east side, and it appears that the City sidewalk on the east side of their property is currently within their property, but that needs to be verified. Access is a major issue they PC090897-3 propose to access Wayzata Boulevard through the private driveway owned by the Villa Condo's. The existing roadway is not built to private roadway standards within the City Ordinance, that requires 26 feet of hardtop for a private driveway for emergency vehicle purposes, it is an issue that will be determined by the engineering department. Also the guest parking is not totally within their site development, part of it is on the Villa property as is some of their pond and green area. From a staff perspective the design of the garages and the parking areas as shown does not allow for full parking areas to occur in front of the garages of this development. The ordinance does requires two stalls for each unit, which they have in the garage units, but this is a planned unit development and we can require a higher standard of development. Commissioner Case commented that the area looks very tight and asked if there was room for the proposed tweaking. Scott Richards said that they are limited by the wetland and they are tight overall on what they are trying to do. It appears that they have too many units in too small of a space and they might have to lose one or two units. Steve Boll asked if the project had to be a planned unit development, since it will actually be a condominium. Scott Richards explained the ordinance requires that - whenever you have more than one building on a lot you need to go through a planned unit development. As far as other issues they will have to submit information on their wet - land delineation to the City as well as the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for a look at what they are doing with the ponds, because they are changing the original location of this wetland. The issue with the existing tree massing and so forth has been reviewed and has given a lot of leeway in approving that, another part of the requirements is that you have an existing tree inventory of significant trees, and there is some detail needed on the utility plan. Rick Sathre of Sathre Berquist commented on the history of the property that had one time been planned for as a future phase for the Villa. Instead of another multi storied, multi unit complex the proposed building style is clever and tasteful and it would be a nice way to finish off that area with a transitional type of land use. Commissioner Fiske said that the project seemed rather cramped in there and asked if it was economically viable with two less units? Steve Boll said they need the density in the project to make it work. One of the reasons they went with this approach is it is more marketable and also because of the soil conditions on the site. If there is a potential to reconfigure, that is part of the reason when we started looking at reducing the size of those buildings and the reason we went with the carriage home over the garage to still maintain at least two units. We are trying to accomplish not getting too much height and not stacking too many, and keeping the density as high as we can with this by stacking a couple of them. We are trying to condense them as much as we can. PC090897-4 Commissioner Fiske asked if they could make more of the units smaller in the less costly range and still have the same number of units, or is that the same set of problems financially. He said that he was concerned about the vehicle problems, the crowding, the extra parking, and for emergency vehicles because the inner part looks very tight. Architect Jerry Mazzara agreed the drive court is not very big but at the same time it is workable and obviously has to be some conscientious maintenance to make it function. What we have tried to do is bring out some islands and to get some trees in the courtyard with a pavement treatment. If the island were pulled back in right now we have about a sixty foot diameter we could probably achieve about a 70 foot diameter. We have enough depth to achieve 10 internal parking spaces. Commissioner Fiske pointed out that a lot of people have three cars these days. Mr. Mazzara said three cars won't work because in terms of pricing and sizes one of the reasons we did the carriage house is we thought not only does it achieve additional density it is 1300 sq. ft, a one story flat built over the garage, all of the other units are larger. The units are in a price range size, that doesn't exist in Wayzata today, and we think it might be a real benefit. . Scott Richards commented that once some of the issues with access are resolved the Council and Design Review Board will require some simple model that will show the topography and the massing of the units. A model will go a long way in showing how the site will work and how the units work. Also we have asked the City to take a look at the possibility of access off of Barry Ave, and the impression that I have gotten from them is that they would not necessarily endorse another access off of Barry. If we are going to access, let's do it off the existing access. We want to make sure the roadway within the Villa is designed and built such that it provides the access for the Villa but also for the additional units. Commissioner Fiske said the land use issues are fine and it is a good use, but it is a small site! AGENDA ITEM 6. Discuss minor subdivision ordinance. Following discussion of the minor subdivision ordinance the Planning Commission recommended the following changes: b. In the case of a request to combine two (2) existing platted lots; (1) Of which one or both lots are non-conforming due to insufficient lot size, width and • r� • T . PC080997-5 (2) Which results in a single lot that is not greater in area than one hundred twenty-five (125)percent of the minimum lot size of the established zoning district. c. In the case of a request to divide a lot from a larger tract of land there by creating no more than two lots, each may not be greater in area than one hundred twenty-five (125)percent of the minimum lot size of the established zoning district. To qualify, the parcel of land shall not have been part of a minor subdivision within the last five (5)years. The Planning Commission Meeting was adjourned at 8:23 PM. JE • LAW 0 FiCE.S OF � iij= Fchber , Lammers, 13 rig . ��roill \• erl . t, . I . L. . . 1853 Northwestern .Avenue Lyle .I, f:c1;6erg Stillwater. innesota 55082 Susan D. Olson James L. Lammers (01.2) 130_2`78 f)<„id K. Snyder RoLert G. Briggs*. P.A1 (GIS) 1.50-2923 MA; .1. Vierling* Ind LII A. ‘‘',)11.1* Gregory G. Gauer. (w i-L-199G) Thomas ,.I. Weidner* #Qu.,l Io� \a•utralirnt<„•& Medidt,"r Direct Dial (612) 351-2118 .t2 ,,Lf,a•d Xa•,,,r<,I .\rb �•.,t„ '��c r�,l�a•� Itcnl Estate Spca•;alisl November 4 , 1997 THE HONORABLE DAVID SCHAAF MR MARK SWENSON MAYOR OF CITY OF OAK PARK HTS 14846 UPPER 55TH ST 6201 ST CROIX TRAIL N #121 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 MR JERRY TURNQUIST MS JANET ROBERT 14298 56TH STREET NORTH 6216 N LOOKOUT TRAIL OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 MR DAVID BEAUDET 6400 LOOKOUT TRAIL NORTH OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 RE: Planning Commission NOV - 5 OEN Dear Mayor and Council : Enclosed you will find a copy of Minn. ' Stat . §462 . 354 authorizing the creation of Planning Commissions by municipalities . I have also enclosed as an Exhibit to this letter a draft Ordinance creating a Planning Commission. I would expect that there would be substantial changes in any Ordinance before its adoption but the draft is being submitted to you for purposes of discussion. There are, of course, a number of structural issues that the Council will have to address in determining the formation and content of a Planning Commission. As assistance to you, I am also preparing an attachment to this letter which indicates a minimum number of issues that you will want to address in dealing with Planning Commissions. If any of you have any questions with regard to these materials, please feel free to contact me directly. Yours very truly, I Mark J. Vierling MJV/smp Enclosures cc : Ms . Judy Hoist Interim City Administrator • t":`2 ' t.,' _. 7 «t�" x� #. t.. f -Y"f.:•- t-", r '? >• 1.- -7•'r.:-.„,,-..‘,. > . • r .t 1 A y• 'tom ;r� _ ,moi '' ♦',. ,•,,,,„ # t f-, 4.w .r . S . •,--"i,,,,-----' • r T f { tg` 2 r a +. r a '+ c t fi -t -•-•;.,,,•"•-•:::,.^5,,."--: n •,:";:"..t--'''-,. � a0 �y, r s "# "� ,r * ° `"�"4-f-,;',',.•,:!-' r'' .'` ti '�::-'-'--:,-.'"4,34,14,--,_,..-....,_:, -1.,:--- i•-•,,4-2' • .•.,'-',"-.J >{, .zJ 4 a` f' r 826 827 HOUSING,REDEVELOPMENT,PLANNING,ZONLNG 462.354 Ipment pursuant to sections be limited to,air space and subsurface areas necessary for mined underground space devel- tification for each improve- opment pursuant to sections 469.135 to 469.141. -nt operating expense of the History: 1965 c 670 s 2; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1974 c 317 s 2; 1980 c 509 s 153; -nts as may be pertinent. ' 1980 c 566 s 19-23; 1982 c 507 s 21; 1982 c 520 s 3; 1985 c 194 s 17-22; 1989 c 209 •ted in accordance with sec art 2 s 1 ets,roads,and highways of 462.353 AUTHORITY TO PLAN. existing streets, roads, and -d air space and subsurface Subdivision 1.General authority.A municipality may carry on comprehensive mu- .uant to sections 469.135 to nicipal planning activities for guiding the future development and improvement of the mu- state trunk highway rights— nicipality and may prepare,adopt and amend a comprehensive municipal plan and imple- , and future public land and - ment such plan by ordinance and other official actions in accordance with the provisions of n area as defined in section sections 462.351 to 462.364. nate the boundaries of areas Subd.2.Studies and reports.In exercising its powers under subdivision 1,a munici- tion,flood control and sur- pality may collect and analyze data,prepare maps,charts,tables,and other illustrations and ions protecting such areas displays,and conduct necessary studies.A municipality may publicize its purposes,sugges- facilities. tions,and findings on planning matters,may distribute reports thereon,and may advise the public on the planning matters within the scope of its duties and objectives. cities means the council by n board. Subd.3.Appropriation and contracts.A municipality may appropriate moneys from any fund not dedicated to other purposes in order to finance its planning activities.A munici- t of an area,parcel,or tract _ pality may receive and expend grants and gifts for planning purposes and may enter into con- e ts,or long—term leaseholdtracts with the federal and state governments or with other public or private agencies in fur- es the creation of streets, _ therance of the planning activities authorized by sections 462.351 to 462.364. r use or any combination Subd.4.Fees.A municipality may prescribe fees sufficient to defray the costs incurred by it in reviewing,investigating,and administering an application for an amendment to an ill be 20 acres or larger in official control established pursuant to sections 462.351 to 462.364 or an application for a ger in size for commercial - permit or other approval required under an official control established pursuant to those sec- tions.Fees as prescribed shall be by ordinance. Subd.5.Certify taxes paid.A municipality may require,either as part of the necessary • information on an application or as a condition of a grant of approval,an applicant for an by the relocation of a corn- amendment to an official control established pursuant to sections 462.351 to 462.364,or for a permit or other approval required under an official control established pursuant to those of sec- sion for filing tions to certify that there are no delinquent property taxes,special assessments,penalties,in- sion e prepared forth in terest,and municipal utility fees due on the parcel to which the application relates.Property d chapter set taxes which are being paid under the provisions of a stipulation,order,or confession of judg- ment,or which are being appealed as provided by law,are not considered delinquent for pur- e n" means an ordinance poses of this subdivision if all required payments are due under the terms of the stipulation. i land. order,confession of judgment,or appeal have been paid. means ordinances and History: 1965 c 670 s 3;1982 c 415 s 1; 1996 c 282 s 3 unty or town or any part 462.354 ORGANIZATION FOR PLANNING. -d underground space de - ereof and implement the Subdivision 1.Planning agency.A municipality may by charter or ordinance create a .y include ordinances es planning agency.A planning agency created by ordinance may be abolished by two—thirds ry codes,building codes vote of all the members of the governing body.The planning agency shall be advisory,except as other powers and duties are imposed on it by sections 462.351 to 462.364,by statute,by -- charter,or by ordinance consistent with the municipal charter.The planning agency may take ans official action taken the following alternative forms: stablishes the rights and (1)It may consist of a planning commission,which may or may not include municipal .ion regulation.In accor- officials among its members.The planning commission may be provided with staff which plicable subdivision reg- may be a division of the administrative structure of the municipal government.The commis- eview and approval of a' sion shall be advisory directly to the governing body. z tion the number,layout, (2)It may consist of a planning department with a planning commission advisory to it in of streets,roads,utili- and shall function as a department advisory to the governing body and the municipal admin- cated for public use. istration.The planning department may be provided with an executive director and other al property," "ground," staff as in the case of other municipal departments. "site," "territory," and - Subd.2.Board of adjustments and appeals.The governing body of any municipality n their meaning,but not adopting or having in effect a zoning ordinance or an official map shall provide by ordinance --i-. '.:• :C.,.. s'-•4-- • . — '. ' -:: .`•,. ''''-., ;7-—' .-•,-;' ' -:--: ' • ' .-'•-.. :- . ''..--:. -':."•,".•':-..*\:"-_-::'..',,. %*- '..- ''t• r." . , '..- fs v : ,'' • • ', k `r y -t F ' 4'9'';t 462.354 HOUSL\G,REDEVELOPMME\T,PLANNING,ZONLNG 828 „i ‘, .--.1-:1*- for a board of appeals and adjustments.The board shall have the powers set forth in section ` ",. s i 462.357,subdivision 6 and section 462.359,subdivision 4.Except as otherwise provided by i ' charter,the governing body may provide alternatively that there be a separate board of ap- -4.4q1,.., peals and adjustments or that the governing body or the planning commission or a committee •' /t- of the planning commission serve as the board of appeals and adjustments,and it may pro- ?A x,f,„-;,,,i• vide an appropriate name for the board.The board may be given such other duties as the gov- • i. z'•, erring body may direct. • .- 4:4In any municipality where the council does not serve as the board, the governing body '; . 1,1. , may,except as otherwise provided by charter,provide that the decisions of the board on mat- ----, .i t ters within its jurisdiction are final subject to judicial review or are final subject to appeal to i the council and the right of later judicial review or are advisory to the council.Hearings by I the board of appeals and adjustments shall be held within such time and upon such notice to a{ interestedparties as isprovided in the ordinance the board.The board shall with t �.*� ' establishing `• f -, in a reasonable time make its order deciding the matter and shall serve a copy of such order the appellant or petitioner by mail.Any party may appear at the hearing in person or by agent or attorney.Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the governing body,the a I board may adopt rules for the conduct of proceedings before it.Such rules may include provi - sions for the giving of oaths to witnesses and the filing of written briefs by the parties.The board shall provide for a record of its proceedings which shall include the minutes of its _ t r' meetings, its findings,and the action taken on each matter heard by it, including the final order.In any municipality in which the planning agency does not act as the board of adjust ' *s iw ments and appeals,the board shall make no decision on an appeal or petition until the plan .' ping agency,if there is one,or a representative authorized by it has had reasonable opportuni t T,` ty,not to exceed 60 days,to review and report to the board of adjustments and appeals upon .„.,-.-1.4,-,":1:-...,.,_ the appeal or petition. History: 1965 c 670 s 4; 1967 c 493 s 1 -..-i-,,,,,-1`. ?.5--'',.- , f _ . ,.; 462. 355 PREPARATION,ADOPTION, AND AMENDMENT OF COMPREHEN- 4 SIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN. ;- .'. Subdivision I.Preparation and review.The planning agency shall prepare the corn 4, -•----1-4, prehensive municipal plan.In discharging this duty the planning agency shall consult with , ? .- �- : and coordinate the planning activities of other departments and agencies of the municipality to insure conformity with and to assist in the development of the comprehensive municipal _ x •-� plan.In its planning activities the planning agency shall take due cognizance of the planning '''° 4 ', activities of adjacent units of ovemment and other affected public agencies.The planning t%< agency shall periodically review the plan and recommend amendments whenever necessary. .,-'11.;-:..- ,-,?....),. s 1. .. � •f= fir, r. Subd. la.Plan update by metropolitan municipalities.Each municipality in the met y:"; ropolitan area,as defined in section 473.121,subdivision 2,shall review and update its corn - x ;;y prehensive plan and fiscal devices and official controls as provided in section 473.864,sub -- division 2. „ i " _m' Subd. 2. Procedure for plan adoption and amendment.The planning agency may, . : , ".' -z unless otherwise provided by charter or ordinance consistent with the municipal charter,rec- ommend to the governing body the adoption and amendment from time to time of a compre- r a- hensive municipal plan.The plan may be prepared and adopted in sections,each of which k.- relates to a major subject of the plan or to a major geographical section of the municipality. _4 ,,,• ' The governing body may propose the comprehensive municipal plan and amendments to it by resolution submitted to the planning agency. Before adopting the comprehensive munici- ti r--4--'''It-1;.7". pal plan or any section or amendment of the plan,the planning agency shall hold at least one public hearing thereon.A notice of the time,place and purpose of the hearing shall be pub ?i lished once in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days before the day of the , x hearing. f r � ;` Subd.3.Adoption by governing body.A proposed comprehensive plan or an amend- Y --0,41'... 't ment to it may not be acted upon by the governing body until it has received the recommenda �4.,-" _ tion of the planning agency or until 60 days have elapsed from the date an amendment pro .,- 4 ' .'a' posed by the governing body has been submitted to the planning agency for its recommenda- ' sa tion.Unless otherwise provided by charter,the governing body may by resolution by a two— fi �y thirds vote of all of its members adopt and amend the comprehensive plan or portion thereof :":"'-t Ciy 'f'"'4'� 7.-. ti • • • CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PLANNING COMMISSION PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. §462 .354 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Amendment . That the Code of Ordinances for the City of Oak Park Heights is hereby amended to add Chapter 209 to the Code of Ordinances to the City of Oak Park Heights, providing for the establishment of a Planning Commission in manner and form providing as follows: 209 PLANNING COMMISSION 209 . 010 . Establishment . There is hereby established pursuant to Minn. Stat . §462 .354 a Planning Commission for the City of Oak Park Heights . 209 .020 . Composition. Such Planning Commission shall consist of six (6) members providing as follows : A. There shall be two (2) Councilpersons designated by the Mayor with the consent of the City Council, one to be a principal and the other to be an alternate member of the Planning Commission. Such Councilpersons shall serve without voting power and in a liaison capacity as ex- official members . B. The five (5) other members of the Planning Commission shall be appointed by the City Council each to serve annually. All such appointments shall initiate and be established by Resolution of the City Council in January of each year. Any member of the Planning Commission may be removed at any time by a four/fifths (4/5ths) vote of the City Council with or without cause. 209 . 030 . Meetings. The Planning Commission shall hold at least • one regular meeting each month. The regular meeting date of the Planning Commission shall be established by Resolution of the City Council from time to time. The Planning Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of business and shall keep a record of its Resolutions, transactions, minutes and findings which records shall be public. 209 . 040 . Organization and Chairperson. The Planning Commission shall elect a chairperson from among its appointed members for the ` • term of one year. Vacancies occurring within the Planning Commission shall be filled for the balance of the term by appointment from the City Council . The Commission shall also appoint one of its members to act as recording secretary to keep a record of the minutes of each of its meetings . 209 . 050 . Powers and Duties of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall consider and make recommendations on all matters affecting zoning, subdivision and building regulations and - land use development, comprehensive plans and other matters referred to it by the City Council from time to time. All • recommendations made by the Planning Commission shall take into • consideration the established policies of the City Council on such matters . The Planning Commission shall also carry on City planning activities and recommend such plans for the regulation of future physical development of the City including land use and building construction. 209 .060 . Compensation. Compensation of Planning Commission Members as Selected by the City Council shall serve without compensation. Section 2 . Effective Date . This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as provided by law. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights, Washington County, Minnesota, on this day of , 1997. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS By David Schaaf Mayor Attest : Michael Robertson City Administrator 1110 LIST OF ISSUES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION I . ESTABLISHMENT. a. Effective Date i. Zoning Code changes to coordinate with effective date and creation of ordinance; ii. Resolution establishing meeting dates and times; iii. Recruitment of membership; and, • iv. Selection of Chairperson. II . COMPOSITION. a. Number of Members. b. Selection of Members. Council Appointment versus Mayoral Appointment with Council consent. c. Term. Number of years of Planning Commission member/positions. Staggering of Terms versus complete turnover on annual or other basis. d. Selection of Chairperson by: i . Mayoral Appointment; ii. Council Appointment; and, iii. Planning Commission Member's Election. e. Council Participation in Planning Commission Meetings. i . Establishment of Council person to serve as a liaison; and, ii . Councilperson position in liaison status • either being voting or ex-official. III . DUTIES. Principally, Planning Commissions are established to supervise and conduct public hearings and make recommendations on zoning, subdivision, comprehensive plan and other planning issues. Council may wish to assign other tasks to them as they see fit from a planning prospective. • Enclosure IV. G1 OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 27, 1998 DATE SUBMITTED: January 23, 1998 FROM: Lindy Swanson, Police Chief DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: COPS Grant BACKGROUND: I have received notice that Oak Park Heights has received a COPS Hiring Grant in the amount of $75, 000 over a three year period. The City will be federally reimbursed up to $25, 000 per year for three years to help pay for another officer on the force. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of upgrading Officer David Kisch from a part-time position to a full-time position with the City' s Police Department as soon as is feasible. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: This has been budgeted for 1998 . ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS: Recommend approval of the upgrading of Officer Kisch to a full-time officer, with salary to be paid for partially from the federally funded COPS Hiring Grant. REVIEWED BY: /444— CI ADM STRATOR IIjATE 94-&- AN�DIRECTOR /DATE f CITY ATTORNEY DATE CITY ENGINEER DATE • ^' U.S.Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services(COPS) Office of the Director Washington,D.C. 20530 January 14, 1998 Chief of Police Lindy Swanson Oak Park Heights, City of 14168 North 57th Street P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 RE: Grant for: Oak Park Heights, City of Dear Chief of Police Swanson: It is with great pleasure that I write to inform you that your Department will receive a COPS Universal Hiring Program grant award for 1 new, additional full-time officer(s) and 0 part-time officer(s) at an estimated cost of$ $75,000.00. This is an estimated amount of federal funds to be awarded to your jurisdiction for a three year period. The grant award start date is January 1, 1998, which means that you can be . reimbursed for salaries and expenses of additional officer(s)hired after this date. If you have not previously received a COPS Universal Hiring award,your Universal Hiring Program budget information currently is being reviewed. Upon budget approval,we will forward to you your Universal Hiring Program Award,budget clearance memorandum, Grant Owner's Manual and Request for Payment form. The memorandum will provide the actual award amount and will identify any disallowed costs such as uniforms or overtime. Some departments also will receive COPS assistance in developing community policing strategies. If this condition applies, a special notice pertaining to technical assistance will be enclosed. You must sign and return it to the COPS Office along with your grant award. To accept your grant,please sign the award document and special condition, if applicable, and return it to the COPS Office within 45 days. If you have previously received a COPS FAST, AHEAD, or Universal Hiring Program,this grant award will supplement your previous award. Upon budget approval • • for the additional officers, you will receive a supplemental grant award which will provide your actual award amount for this announcement. If you requested a waiver of the 25% local match, such requests are currently under review. You will be notified whether a waiver has been granted at the time your Universal Hiring Program Award and budget clearance memorandum are sent to you. We are pleased that your Department has elected to participate in the Universal Hiring Program and look forward to working with you in a productive partnership to further your community policing efforts. Should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact the COPS Office at 1-800-421-6770. Your grant advisor will be happy to provide you with assistance. . S' erely, Avvi ,seph E.Brann Director • • Ii ir Theme of this forum: �C�hl�e �e��ltr Planningt IForum Agenda U Natural Areas: Protecting a Vital Community Resource Hannah Dunevitz December 2, 1997 9 am to noon U Cottage Grove Natural Resource Inventory Metropolitan Council Chambers John Burbank Mears Park Centre, 1st floor ❑ Open Space Design Development: 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul A Guide for Local Government There is no cost for this forum, Jane Harper and Suzanne Rhees and no preregistration is required. ❑ PCA Onsite Sewage Treatment Systems for Individual Homeowners: Who's Responsible and What's the Law? Gretchen Sable ❑ MHFA:AffordableHousingOpportunity Susan Haugen The Metropolitan Council's Office U Water Plans:What's Expected? of Local Assistance periodically hosts Metropolitan Council Staff Planning Forums to provide an opportunity for local planners,consultants and community U Additional Information: development staff to share information and explore Grant Program,Aerial Photo Status key issues.This series is one of many initiatives the Council is taking to support the comprehensive planning efforts of local communities and the U Questions Metropolitan Council.We welcome suggestions for topics at future forums.If you have ideas or questions,please call Linda O'Connor at 602-1098 or Richard Thompson at 602-1457. j4Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre • 230 East Fifth Street • St Paul,Minnesota 55101-1626 • (612) 602-1000 • Fax 602-1550 • TTY 291-0904 • Metro Info Line 602-1888 Metropoan Council_ ! , Working • for the Region, Planning for the Future misiiimir I November 20, 1997 ,'Jj� 2 4 !"97 David Schaaf, Mayor ITY OF City of Oak Park Heights OAK PARK HEIGHTS Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082-6409 Dear 1\kayerSiaa-T-Fa c / Our Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is embarking on a critical partnership between local and regional government in land use planning. Metropolitan Area communities have a vital role in this planning process. The update of your local comprehensive plan will further our mutual goals to accommodate future expected growth in the region, redevelop . older communities and protect our environment, agricultural land and open space. With approval from the legislature, the Metropolitan Council has been able to provide limited funds for planning grants to many communities, including yours, to help with the costs of updating local comprehensive plans. Your community's chief administrative staff person will be receiving your grant in the next few weeks. While we fully realize that the grant money will only cover a portion of the cost of your local plan development, I hope it will help. As you proceed with the development of your comprehensive plan, I want to let you know that I am very interested in understanding your City's planning goals and objectives. Please call me if you wish to discuss regional policies that may impact future planning decisions for your community. While I know that your city staff and Metropolitan Council staff, especially our assigned sector representatives,have a great amount of interaction, I want to encourage you to feel free to contact me,personally, should you have questions concerning regional policies during the deliberations of your city's comprehensive plan. Sincerely, Charles W. Amason Council District 12 230 East Fifth Street St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1634 (612)291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 An Equal Opportunity Employer • a City Council Workshop Minutes - 3 proposed route that is feasible and has a minimal disruption on the surrounding businesses . Discussion Regarding Establishing a Planning Commission - Councilmember Turnquist said that he felt a Planning Commission could benefit the City because it would deal with many of the planning details the Council currently handles . Planner Richards said that many communities use a Planning Commission to assist the City Council . The Council can decide the process and procedures that must be followed, and therefore tailor the Commission to best serve the Council and City. City Attorney Vierling said that a Commission must be established by ordinance, and Council requested that Vierling create a draft ordinance for Council review as well as a checklist of the issues that the Council should consider when establishing a new commission. Council also requested that Richards provide a copy of other communities' planning commission minutes for review. Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Swenson, moved to adjourn the Workshop at 6: 05 P.M. Carried 5-0 . Respectfully submitted, Melanie Mesko Administrative Intern ► Enclosure 13 • Grantee: OF OAK ' ' t No.: ° e • aaa a $4,810.00 End D . December 11 : METROPOLITAN COUNCIL LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT AGREEMENT THIS GRANT AGREEMENT is made and entered into by the Metropolitan Council ("Council") and the metropolitan-area governmental unit identified above as "Grantee." WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.867 requires the Council to establish a planning assistance fund for the purposes of making grants and loans to local governmental units to assist local governmental units in the seven-county metropolitan area conduct and implement comprehensive planning activities, including the review and amendment of local comprehensive plans and fiscal devices and official controls as required by section 473.864, subdivision 2; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.867, subdivision 4, planning assistance grant funds shall not exceed seventy-five percent of the total costs and expenses of the project, service or activity for which the grant is awarded; and WHEREAS, in May 1997 the Council issued its Metropolitan Council Local Planning Assistance Grant Guidelines and solicited applications for local planning assistance grant funds; and WHEREAS,the Grantee is a city or town in the metropolitan area as defined in Minnesota Statutes section 473.121, or is a metropolitan-area city, town or county acting in partnership with cities or towns which was authorized to submit a joint application and execute this grant agreement on behalf of the partnership; and WHEREAS,the Grantee submitted an application for local planning assistance grant funds and was awarded a grant to fund eligible comprehensive planning activities identified in the application. NOW THEREFORE, in reliance on the representations and statements above and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained in this grant agreement, the Grantee and the Council agree as follows: I. DEFINITIONS 1.01 Definition of Terms. For the purposes of this agreement, the terms defined in this paragraph have the meanings given them in this paragraph unless otherwise provided or indicated by the context. (a) "Comprehensive Development Guide" means the comprehensive development guide for the seven-county metropolitan area adopted by the Council pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.145, and the policy plans and other components of the development guide adopted by the i Council pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473, including the Regional Blueprint adopted by the Council pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.145. (b) "Comprehensive Plan" means a comprehensive plan which complies with Minnesota Statutes sections 473.858 through 473.865, including those provisions in section 473.859 which require housing elements and housing implementation programs. (c) "Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976 " means the land use planning provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473, including Minnesota Statutes sections 473.175 and sections 473.851 through 473.871, as amended. II. GRANT FUNDS 2.01 Grant Amount. The Council will provide to the Grantee the "Grant Amount" identified at page 1 of this grant agreement which the Grantee shall use for authorized purposes and eligible activities. Any reduction or termination of the match amount required under paragraph 2.02 may result in a like reduction in the Grant Amount. 2.02 Seventy-Five Percent Limit. The Grant Amount provided to the Grantee under this agreement may be used to pay up to seventy-five (75) percent of the total costs and expenses of the projects, services and activities described in the Grantee's work plan and budget. The Grantee shall match the Grant Amount received from the Council on at least a one-for-three basis. The matching funds may include in-kind work or cash and shall be identified in the work plan budget and in the progress reports required under paragraph 3.01. 2.03 Authorized Use of Funds. The Grant Amount provided to the Grantee under this agreement shall be used only for the purposes and eligible activities described in the Grantee's work plan and budget as approved by the Council. A copy of the Grantee's approved work plan and budget is attached to and incorporated into this agreement as Attachment A. Eligible activities are outlined in the May 1997 Metropolitan Council Local Planning Assistance Grant Guidelines and include, but are not limited to, staff pay, consultant and professional services, printing and publishing. Grant funds may not be used for per diem payments to appointed or elected board or commission members. Grant funds also may not be used to purchase or acquire equipment or other tangible, nonexpendable personal property or for activities inconsistent with the Council's Comprehensive Development Guide, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976, as amended, Minnesota's Critical Areas Act of 1973, as amended, or other applicable state laws. The Grantee agrees to promptly remit to the Council: any unspent grant funds; any grant funds which are not used for the authorized purposes specified in this paragraph; and any interest earnings described in paragraph 2.05 which are not used for the purposes of implementing the work plan activities described in Attachment A. 2.04 Disbursement Schedule. Within thirty (30) days after final execution of this agreement, the Council will disburse to the Grantee ninety (90) percent of the Grant Amount. The ten (10) percent amount withheld will be disbursed to the Grantee upon completion of the work plan activities and receipt of the final progress report described in paragraph 3.01(b). 2.05 Interest Earnings. If the Grantee earns any interest or other income from the Grant Amount received from the Council under this agreement, the Grantee will use the interest earnings or income only for the purposes of implementing the work plan activities described in Attachment A. - 2 - • III. REPORTING, ACCOUNTING AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS 3.01 Progress Reports. The Grantee will provide to the Council's authorized agent a written midpoint progress report and a written final progress report describing the status of the work plan activities described in Attachment A. These reports ensure the Grant Amount made available under this agreement is appropriately expended as described in the work plan and budget. The reports shall be subject to the following content and schedule requirements. (a) Midpoint Progress Report. At approximately the midpoint of the Grantee's work plan activities, the Grantee must submit to the Council a written midpoint progress report which includes: a summary of the work plan activities undertaken and completed to date; a summary of work plan activities to be accomplished during the remaining months of the work plan; and a summary of unanticipated issues and opportunities that affect the work plan, time schedule for project completion, or budget. The midpoint progress report also must include a summary of project costs and sources of funds for those expenditures, and a list of itemized expenditures of funds received from the Council and matching funds by category in the budget. (b) Final Progress Report. Upon completion of the work plan activities described in Attachment A, the Grantee must submit to the Council a written final progress report which includes: a summary of the work plan activities undertaken and completed since the submission of the midpoint progress report; a summary of project outcomes, costs and sources of funds for those expenditures; and a list of itemized expenditures of the Grant Amount received from the Council and matching funds by category in the budget. 3.02 Accounting and Records. The Grantee agrees to establish and maintain accurate and complete accounts, financial records and supporting documents relating to the receipt and expenditure of the Grant Amount received from the Council. Notwithstanding the expiration and termination provisions of paragraphs 4.01 and 4.02, such accounts and records shall be kept and maintained by the Grantee for a period of three (3) years following the completion of the work plan activities described in Attachment A. If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the three-year period, the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims or audit findings involving the records have been resolved or until the end of the regular three-year period, whichever is later. The Grantee will keep proper financial records and other appropriate documents sufficient to evidence the nature and expenditure of the match funds required under paragraph 2.02. 3.03 Audits. The above accounts and records of the Grantee shall be audited in the same manner as all other accounts and records of the Grantee and accounting shall be in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards covering financial and compliance audits. The accounts and records may be audited or inspected on the Grantee's premises, or otherwise, at any time by individuals'or organizations designated and authorized by the Council or by appropriate state or federal agencies, following reasonable notification to the Grantee, for a period of three (3) years following the completion of the work plan activities described in Attachment A. 3.04 Authorized Agent. The Council's authorized agent for purposes of administering this grant agreement is Terrence Kayser, or another designated Council employee. The written reports submitted to the Council should be directed to the attention of the authorized agent at the following address: - 3 - s • Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-1634 IV. GRANT AGREEMENT TERM 4.01 Term and End Date. This grant agreement is effective upon execution of the agreement by the Council. Unless terminated pursuant to paragraph 4.02 or extended by written agreement pursuant to paragraph 4.03, this agreement will expire on the "End Date" identified at page 1 of this grant agreement, or upon completion of the work plan activities described in Attachment A and submission of the final progress report required under paragraph 3.01(b). 4.02 Termination. This agreement may be terminated by the Council for cause at any time upon fourteen (14) calendar days' written notice to the Grantee. Cause shall mean a material breach of this agreement and any amendments of this agreement. Termination of this agreement does not alter the Council's authority to recover funds on the basis of a later audit or other review, and does not alter the Grantee's obligation to return any funds due to the Council as a result of later audits or corrections. If the Council determines the Grantee has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement, the Council may take any action to protect its interests, may refuse to disburse additional funds and may require the Grantee to return all or part of the funds. 4.03 Amendment. The Council and the Grantee may amend this agreement by written mutual consent. Amendments, changes or modifications to the Grantee's approved work plan and budget shall be effective only on the execution of written amendments signed by authorized representatives of the Council and the Grantee. V. GENERAL PROVISIONS 5.01 Equal Opportunity. The Grantee agrees it will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, membership or activity in a local civil rights commission, • disability, sexual orientation or age and will take affirmative action to insure applicants and employees are treated equally with respect to all aspects of employment, rates of pay and other forms of compensation and selection for training. 5.02 Conflict of Interest. The members, officers and employees of the Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal and state statutory and regulatory conflict of interest laws and provisions. 5.03 Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Council and its members, employees and agents from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from the conduct or implementation of the funded work plan activities. This obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge or otherwise reduce any other right or obligation of indemnity which otherwise would exist between the Council and the Grantee. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive the expiration or termination of this agreement. This indemnification shall not be construed -4 - • • as a waiver on the part of either the Grantee or the Council of any immunities or limits on liability provided by Minnesota Statutes chapter 466, or other applicable state or federal law. 5.04 Compliance with Law. The Grantee agrees to conduct the work plan activities in compliance with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local laws. 5.05 Acknowledgment. The Grantee shall appropriately acknowledge the funding assistance provided by the Council in promotional materials, reports, publications and notices relating to the project activities funded under this agreement. 5.06 Warranty of Legal Capacity. The individual signing this agreement on behalf of the Grantee represents and warrants that the individual is duly authorized to execute this agreement and that this agreement constitutes the Grantee's valid, binding and enforceable agreements. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantee and the Council have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. This agreement is effective on the date of final execution by the Council. Approved as to form: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By: Associate General Counsel Thomas C. McElveen, Deputy Director Housing, Development and Implementation Community Development Division Date: GRANTEE By: (Signature of Authorized Representative) Name: Title: Date: By: (Signature of Authorized Representative) Name: Title: Date: 10/97COMPGRNT.DOC - 5 - • • • ATTACHMENT A Grantee's Work Plan and Budget This Attachment A comprises this page and the Grantee's work plan and budget as approved by the Council. • - 6 - • • Work Program Task 1 Finalization of Population and Employment Forecasts in Association with the Metropolitan Council. The City of Oak Park Heights, as part of its Comprehensive Plan amendment, has updated the population projections for the City. While the numbers are consistent with the projections of the Metropolitan Council, there has not been any discussion with Metropolitan Council Staff relating to population and employment projections for the community. Agreement between the City and the Metropolitan Council on this issue is of critical importance to both parties. The projections impact Oak Park Heights's land use and public facility planning as well as having regional impacts for development within the Metropolitan Area. Task 2 Land Use Plan Issues ► Surface Water Management Plan. The City of Oak Park Heights has a local surface water management plan for the existing City. This plan will need to be expanded to include growth areas identified in the land use plan. ► Historic Preservation. The issue of historic preservation is not specifically addressed within the Comprehensive Plan. Historic preservation will need to be evaluated and included within the Comprehensive Plan prior to final submission to the Metropolitan Council for approval. ► Solar Access Protection. The provision for solar access protection will need to be evaluated and included within the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. Task 3 Public Facilities Plan Transportation Plan. The transportation element of Comprehensive Plan will be expanded to include more detailed description of existing roadways, identify potential transportation system issues and include a traffic volume trend analysis as a means of projecting future traffic volumes on major local roadways. Projections for traffic on major Washington County or MnDOT roadways will also be incorporated. 2 • • • ► • Aviation Plan. The guidelines of the Aviation Development Guide will be incorporated within an the Regional Systems section of the Comprehensive Plan as required by the Regional Blueprint. ► Wastewater Plan. A Wastewater Plan will be developed as part of the Regional Systems section of the Comprehensive Plan. The Wastewater Plan will address the issues of projected future flows and infiltration and infiltration guidelines. The Plan shall include areas outside the City of Oak Park Heights within potential annexation areas. ► Water Supply Plan. The City of Oak Park Heights is required to submit a Water Supply Plan to the Metropolitan Council as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This Plan will address the requirements outlined in the Metropolitan Area Community Water Supply Plan Content Guidelines. Task 4 Implementation ► Official Controls Review. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan will include a review of the City's existing Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance to ensure consistency with the Plan as required by legislation. ► Capital Improvement Plan. The City of Oak Park Heights is currently establishing a Capital Improvement Plan program. As part of the process to complete the Comprehensive Plan, the Capital Improvement Plan will be reviewed and updated to include any elements of the Comprehensive Plan that are not currently identified. ► Intergovernmental Coordination. The City of Oak Park Heights will seek to establish ongoing cooperation with the City of Bayport and Stillwater and Baytown Township to create common development patterns, compatible street accesses, and pedestrian links. These issues will be identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Task 5 Submission of Plan to Metropolitan Council At such time as the elements of the Work Program are completed, the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan will be submitted to Metropolitan Council 3 • for review, comment and approval. This task will include all necessary steps needed to organize the City's submission. Project Personnel The work program will be completed in a coordinated effort between City Staff, City Planning Consultant, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. and City Engineering Consultant, Bonestroo, Anderlik and Rosene, Inc. The City Planning and Engineering Consultants each have established long term relationships with the City of Oak Park Heights and provide on-going technical assistance to the City in their respective fields. Budget A preliminary budget has been prepared for each of the Tasks of the Work Program. The budget amounts below reflect the anticipated cost and expenses of each planning activity related to Staff salary, consultant fees and printing and publishing costs. Specifically, the grant money Oak Park Heights receives would fund the costs of Tasks 1, 2 and 3. As discussed previously, the City of Oak Park Heights will fund the remaining portions of the Work Program. 4 • • Task Staff Projected Costs 1. Finalization of Population and NAC, Inc. Employment Forecasts City Staff $1,000 Total Projected Cost-Task 1 $1,000 2. Land Use Plan Issues NAC, Inc. A. Surface Water Management Plan Bonestroo, Inc. $2,500 City Staff B. Historic Preservation NAC, Inc. $500 City Staff C. Solar Access Protection NAC, Inc. $500 City Staff Total Projected Cost-Task 2 $3,500 3. Public Facilities Plan A. Transportation Plan Bonestroo, Inc. $2,500 City Staff B. Aviation Plan NAC, Inc. $500 City Staff C. Wastewater Plan Bonestroo, Inc. $5,000 City Staff D. Water Supply Plan Bonestroo $5,000 City Staff Total Projected Costs-Task 3 $13,000 4. Implementation Plan A. Official Controls Review NAC, Inc. $2,000 City Staff B. Capital Improvement Plan City Staff $1,000 C. Intergovernmental Coordination City Staff $2,000 NAC, Inc. Bonestroo, Inc. Total Projected Costs-Task 4 $5,000 Task 5-Submission and Coordination of Plan to Metropolitan,Council $2,500 Total Projected Cost-AII'•Tasks $25,000 Total Grant Funds Requested/%of Work Program Budget $18,750/75% 5 8/01/97 15:03 7c:Michael Robertson from:Rebecca Kurtz 612-282-6138 Page 1/3 41111 411 Enclosure 6 Statewide Meetings Introduce New Process for Local Planning A series of meetings in cities across Minnesota will introduce community-based planning, a new framework for local planning created this year by state law. Counties,cities and townships can voluntarily use community-based planning to create a comprehensive plan that guides future decisions about land use,transportation,housing, economic development,and so on. Minnesota Planning will provide technical assistance and funding for local planning through Common Ground,the name of the community-based planning project. "Different ways to handle local growth have different results not only for the character of a community,but for the taxpayers' cost of providing public services,"said Governor Arne H. Carlson. "Common Ground gives local citizens a strong voice in these decisions." The new law also created an 18-member advisory council,made up of public officials and private citizens,to work out the details of the planning process and recommend any needed changes to the law. At the upcoming public meetings,the advisory council will ask local residents and officials to discuss the new planning goals and how local planning can best address them. Four pilot projects--one in the fast-growing St. Cloud area and three other to be announced later this month--will help Minnesota Planning prepare guidelines for communities that undertake community- based planning. "Community-based planning differs from earlier comprehensive planning in its emphasis on public input,cooperation among neighboring communities, and use of statewide goals,"said Ann Schluter, director of Minnesota Planning. More information on Common Ground is available on the Minnesota Planning web site at www.mnplan.state.mn.us Minnesota Planning is a state agency that develops long-range plans for the state, stimulates public participation in Minnesota's future and coordinates public policy with state agencies,the Legislature and other units of government. -end- Upon request,this information will be made available in an alternate format,such as Braille,large print or audio tape. For TTY,contact Minnesota Relay Service at(800)627-3529 and ask for Minnesota Planning. 11/01/97 15:03 To:Michael Robertson From:Rebecca Kurtz 612— 2-6138 Page 2/3 • Community-Based Planning Advisory Council Randy Jorgenson, Co-chair Representative Joe Opatz Citizen member St. Cloud Slayton Senator Pat Pariseau Senator Steve Morse, Co-chair Farmington Dakota Christine Rice Representative Bruce Anderson Citizen member Buffalo Township Woodbury Caren Dewar Lee Ronning Citizen member Citizen member Minneapolis White Bear Lake Senator Steve Dille Marcia Farinacci Dassel Deputy Director Minnesota Planning James Erkel Citizen member Ex-officio members Minneapolis Randy Halvorson Chris Hagelie Assistance Director Citizen member Minnesota Department of Transportation St. Cloud, MN Transportation Research and Investment Management Ginny Harris Citizen member Ray Hitchcock Chanhassen Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Agriculture Senator John Hottinger Mankato Curtis Johnson Chair Representative Bill Kuisle Metropolitan Council Rochester Terry Kuhlman Gary Laurent Executive Director Citizen member Public Facilities Authority Shakopee Department of Trade and Economic Development Alden Lind Citizen member Duluth Representative Dee Long Minneapolis 11/01/97 15:03 To:Michael Robertsoniik From:Rebecca Kurtz 612-282-6138 Page 3/3 111, 1111 A Community-Based Planning Meetings Around the State Date Time City Location October 28 1-4:30 p.m. Bemidji Bemidji State University,East Ballroom 6-9 p.m. Bemidji Bemidji State University,East Ballroom October 29 1-4:30 p.m. Crookston Northland Inn,Rooms 5 and 6 6-9 p.m. Crookston Northland Inn,Rooms 5 and 6 October 30 1-4:30 p.m. Fergus Falls Ottertail Power Company,Community Room 6-9 p.m. Fergus Falls Fergus Falls Community College, Science 209 November 3 1-4:30 p.m. Brainerd Public Library,Large meeting room 6-9 p.m. Brainerd Holiday Inn,Room 3 November 5 1-4:30 p.m. Duluth Radisson Hotel,Forest Suites 6-9 p.m. Duluth Radisson Hotel,Forest Suites November 6 1-4:30 p.m. Hibbing Hibbing Community College,Central Campus,Teleconference room 6-9 p.m. Hibbing Hibbing Community College,Central Campus,Teleconference room November 10 1-4:30 p.m. Marshall Southwest State University,Student Center 263 6-9 p.m. Marshall Southwest State University, Student Center 263 November 12 1-4:30 p.m. Mankato Mankato State University,Centennial Student Union,South Ballroom 6-9 p.m. Mankato Mankato State University,Centennial Student Union,South Ballroom November 13 1-4:30 p.m. Rochester Rochester Community and Technical College,Heintz Center 105 6-9 p.m. Rochester University Center Rochester Coffman Center 206 November 17 1-4:30 p.m. Bloomington Normandale Community College,McGraw Room 6-9 p.m. Bloomington Normandale Community College,McGraw Room November 18 1-4:30 p.m. White Bear Lake Century College,Room 1001 6-9 p.m. White Bear Lake Century College,Room 1001 November 19 1-4:30 p.m. St.Cloud City Hall,Council Chambers 6-9 p.m. St. Cloud City Hall,Council Chambers All meeting locations are accessible to people with disabilities.If you need sign language interpretation at a meeting,call TTY at(800)627-3529 and ask for Minnesota Planning or call Minnesota Planning directly at(612)296-3985.Please call at least 3 days before the meeting you plan to attend. 411 110 Page 6 - City Council Minutes 10/14/97 New Business: City Investment Policy - Administrator Robertson indicated that while the City has always had an informal investment policy the City Auditor has recommended a written policy. Robertson noted that while state law limits municipal investments, the policy proposed is slightly more conservative than required by law. Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Turnquist, moved to table this issue until the City Attorney has reviewed the proposal . Carried 4-1, Mayor Schaaf opposed. Council Appointees to the Coalition of Utility Communities - Mayor Schaaf, seconded by Swenson, moved to appoint Councilmember Turnquist, with Mayor Schaaf as alternate, as liaison to the Coalition. Carried 5-0 . Discussion About Establishing a Planning Commission - Councilmember Turnquist, noting that the City' s previous Planning Commission had been abolished in 1972, suggested that the Council may want to consider reestablishing it . City Attorney Vierling said that such a move would require an ordinance change . Council considered how to appoint members and when to have such meetings. Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Beaudet, moved to establish a workshop for Tuesday, October 28 at 4 :30 P.M. to discuss Highway 36/Osgood Avenue traffic issues and to discuss establishing a Planning Commission. Carried 5-0 . Discussion of Appointing Liaisons to Search Committee for a New T) Administrator - Mayor Schaaf, seconded by Swenson, moved to appoint Councilmember Turnquist and Councilmember Beaudet as liaisons to the search committee. Carried 5-0 . Review of Washington County Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) - City Engineer Anderlik presented a letter in response to his review of the proposed County CIP with his suggestions . After discussion about what priorities were the most important to the City, Council then directed staff to send a cover letter on City letterhead along with Anderlik' s letter to Washington County, explaining the position of Oak Park Heights regarding the Washington County CIP. Correspondence: 1)'4- 040 _ 1 • 'Br'-. R- • _-n. _ '11 File - City Attorney Vierling said that the law firm should keep possession of the files until further notice from the City. Staff was directed to write a letter to Jardine, Logan, & O'Brien indicating that request . NSP Alarm - Councilmember Swenson said that the alarm that was heard on Friday, October 10 from the NSP plant was due to a valve that was releasing steam. 41, • Lower St. Croix Planning Coordination Office 117 Main Street �i� Stillwater, MN 55082 612-439-7122 CO it 7,0-96))01) TO: Local Governments FROM: Buck Malick, Chair, Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force47 Kate Hanson, Planning Coordinatoi/ DATE: Tuesday, November 19, 1996 Enclosed, you will find notes from the October 29 meeting of the Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force. We will take this opportunity to remind you of the next Task Force meeting on December 4, 1996 on the topic of Riverway Zoning and Land Protection. The meeting is at the Phipps Center for the Arts, 109 Locust Street, Hudson, WI, from 7-10 p.m. The agenda is: I. Background Information on Riverway Zoning * How riverway zone boundaries were established. * How current zoning was developed. * Role of zoning in riverway protection. * Overview of regulations. * How any changes in zoning will be handled with the update of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Management Plan. II. Panel discussion: Representatives of local governments,will discuss their perspectives on administration of the riverway zoning ordinances. III. Alternative Methods of Land Protection * Scenic Easements * Mississippi Headwaters Board Model of River Zoning * Opportunities for Private Land Protection IV. Discussion of Ideas to Carry Forward in Planning We know this topic will be of interest to many local officials who may not have attended previous Task Force meetings or workshops, and encourage you to share this notice with others who might want to attend, such as zoning officials, planning committees, and boards of adjustment. . ,': NOV 2 0 1996 411 Notes from Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force Meeting October 29, 1996 Task Force Members Present: Buck Malick (Chairman) , Kate Hanson (Coordinator) , Audrey Kelly, Linda Luckey, Tom Clarke, Michael Hudec, Gary and Dottie Mau, Mark Kinders, Chuck Simpson, Bertha Hall, Larry Kennedy, Terry Moe, Tony Andersen, Brian Adams, Steve Johnson, Molly Shodeen, Al Taylor, Jim Jim Johnsonck Rowse, ohn Jansen, Jurgen Weidling, Laura Reynods Also Present: Elaine Rideout (NPS-Denver) Louise Bergeron (Stillwater, MN) , Mary Claire Olson (Hudson Area sChamber) , h be ) ,WJessieJe rway Meschievitz (MWBAC) , Russell Eichman (Upper Assn, St . Paul) . Task Force Chairman Buck Malick convened the meeting and distributed copies of "A Model Historic Preservation Ordinance for Small Communities, " published by the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. This handout material was follow-up information from the September 10 Task Force meeting. Buck also handed out an invitation to a November 21 forum on growth and development in the Lower St • Valley. The forum, sponsored eby the n esota- Wilconsin Boundary Area Commission, will be at thePhipps Center for the Arts . Elaine Rideout distributed the write-ups of the Lower St . Croix "Potential Riverscape Management Areas" that were developed by the Task Force at the September planning workshop. She explained that, after having had time to review this after the workshop, planning team believes the management area need additional work in order to be more useful in defining a range of activities and experiences for alternatives . In particular, she said, the task force will have more flexibility in developing alternatives if we have separate descriptions for land-based and water-based activities and experiences . She said that the planning team could do this additional work and bring it back to the Task Force for review. Jurgen Weidling voiced concern about separating land use from water use, saying that land and water are one in the riverway and should be treated as one. Buck suggested that we proceed with developing the land/water descriptions in order to see what kind of options they would provide for alternatives--and that if, on review, the Task Force doesn't find it workable, we make teaf rther r changes . The Task Force agreed that the planning proceed with this. NOTE: Copies of the re-worked management area descriptions will be mailed to the Task Force in late November. Others who Kate would Hanliketto o see these updated descriptions can get copy from planning coordinator;_ 612-439-7122 . It is important to note that 1 • 110 the management area descriptions are one tool that, along with other information, will be used to develop management alternatives . They outline concepts for how the riverway could be managed differently along different stretches . If you have questions, please call Kate . Elaine said the next newsletter will come out in mid-November. It will include the updated statements of purpose, significance and exceptional resources; the landscape unit descriptions that were developed at the September workshop, and an updated list of issues that will be addressed in the Cooperative Management Plan. Kate reviewed the upcoming meeting schedule : December 4 Task Force meeting on riverway zoning and land protection; January 9 Task Force meeting on management areas and other material pertinent to the upcoming alternatives workshop; and January 28-30 workshop to develop alternatives . Review of Issues List: Task Force members reviewed an updated list of issues that have been generated from all sources to date--including Task Force meetings, planning workshops, responses to the May newsletter and other correspondence. A subcommittee compiled this list (Buck Malick, Bill Clapp, Terry Moe, Steve Johnson, Brian Adams, Elaine Rideout, Mark Weekley, and Kate Hanson) . The updated list indicates which issues will be addressed in the Cooperative Management Plan and which will be addressed in the Watershed Stewardship Statement . (Some issues will be addressed by both. ) Buck highlighted issues that needed clarification. Kate clarified the intent of issue #13 and suggested that it be changed to read, "Burial sites are not known and, thus, frequently not protected when development occurs . " Kate also said she had spoken to the person who originated #14, who suggested that it be deleted because it is encompassed by #12 . Buck Malick clarified Issue #18, "Opportunities may be lost to develop recreational trails on both sides of the river, and at river crossings. " He said that it is important that local government have the means to act on opportunies to acquire land (through donation, easements, purchase, etc. ) for more bicycle routes and cross-country trails. There was discussion about #10, "The St . Croix' s fishery is impacted by lack of management, recreational use, lack of knowledge and commercial fishing. " Concern was expressed for the negative tone of this issue. We agreed that this statement is not meant to be negative but rather indicate that there is a lack of knowledge about the St . Croix' s fishery, and that can have an impact on the resource. This issue will be reworded accordingly. 2 410 110 Russell Eichman commented on issue #21, "Commercial navigation and the related operation and maintenance of the nine-foot and three-foot navigation channels can impact resource management strategies, recreational use characteristics, aesthetics, recreational boater safety and aquatic resources . " He noted that commercial navigation can impact, and be impacted hy recreational use . The issue will be modified accordingly. Elaine emphasized that issues will serve as a checklist as alternatives are developed for the Cooperative Management Plan. NOTE: The list of issues will be published in the upcoming newsletter. Presentation: Tourism in the Lower St. Croix Valley, by Mark Kinders, Chair, St . Croix Valley Tourism Alliance and Public Affairs Director, University of Wisconsin, River Falls (also a Task Force member) . Mark explained that the St . Croix Valley Tourism Alliance is a bi-state regional tourism group. It' s mission is : "To serve as an educational resource for the history, culture and natural resources of the Lower St . Croix National Scenic Riverway, and to increase the economic impact of tourism in our member communities through cooperative promotion of the Scenic St . Croix Valley. " • Mark showed a series of graphics that indicate the economic value of tourism in the Valley and characteristics of tourists . His information included: tourism-sensitive sales, tourism jobs, travel trends, what travelers are seeking, where visitors are from, demographics (age, education, income, marital status, etc. ) , reasons for visiting the St . . Croix, and visitor' s likes and dislikes . Among the highlights of Mark' s presentation, as it pertains to Lower St . Croix National Scenic Riverway planning, are : * The top four "likes" ofSt . Croix visitors are : relax and get away from the city (50%) , beautiful scenery (26%) , enjoy nature and the outdoors (26%) , and peace/quiet/comfortable (22%) . * Top activities of visitors are : eating at restaurants (92%) , shopping/antiquing (82%) , visit state/county parks (51%) , historical sites (46%) , wildlife watching (45%) biking/hiking (38%) , museum or exhibits (34%) , visit family & friends (33%) , water sports (28%) , boat/sail (28%) , festival or event (28%) , fish/hunt (21%) . * Length of stay: 2-3 days (40%) , 4-6 days (34%) , 7-10 days (12%) . 3 Aft 4 * Amount spent on vacation: $250-399 (32%) , under $100 (26%) , $100-249 (20%) . * Average visitor' s profile : male & female, average age of 49 . 5, high school graduate +, average household income of $46, 800 , married, 2/3 have children. * St . Croix Riverway total tourism jobs : 6, 400 . * Tourist spending, 1993-94 : Washington County, $59 million; St . Croix County, $46 . 5 million; Polk County, $29 . 5 million; Pierce County, $18 million; Chisago County, $12 million. * Business and community leaders feel tourism promotion should focus on the scenic natural beauty of the river, quaint small towns, and historic aspects of the Riverway area. In summary, Mark said that the data says people are coming here because of the character of the valley, it' s scenic and natural values . Note : Copies of Mark' s graphics are available from Kate Hanson. Discussion of Ideas To Carry Forward in Planning: 1 . The natural features of the Riverway are the cornerstone for tourism, and they should not be degraded. 2 . The St . Croix Valley Regional Tourism Alliance mission statement is good, and we should consider including it in the Cooperative Management Plan. 3 . Carrying capacity for tourism is a factor. What is the carrying capacity? Too much tourism might not be good. 4 . There are opportunities for the Riverway managing agencies and the Tourism Alliance to work cooperatively. 5 . Winter recreational opportunities in the Riverway could get more attention (i .e. cross-country skiing, snowmobiling) . 6 . More should be done to provide bicycling opportunities--for example, pontoon boats could ferry bicyclists, bicycling could be coordinated with special events. 4 1 Open Space Design Development: A Guide for Local Governments I I M / M \ Common Open ("^ • Space ..... ^'� 3 � \ ' i I Prepared By Washington County Planning and Administrative Services Metropolitan Council BRW, Inc. Fall 1997 I i t I I I I I I Reader: I In adopting the Open Space Design standards in the Washington County Zoning Ordinance, the County Board changed the following standard creating an inconsistency between the ordinance and the case studies A,B,& C found in Chapter 4 of this Guidebook. 1 Standard: 4.10(4)(A)A minimum of 60%of the site shall be designated as open space. (Page 26) 1 Case Studies: Sites A& B used 70%. Site C used 50%. I I I I I I I I 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Prepared and funded by the Washington County Office of Planning and Administrative Services and the Metropolitan Council. Written and designed by BRW, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota. ' Contributing Staff: ' Jane Harper Principal Planner, Washington County, MN Kathy Nordine Land Use Specialist, Washington County, MN Richard Thompson Supervisor - Comprehensive Planning, Metropolitan Council Suzanne Rhees, AICP ' Community Planner, BRW Robert Kost, ASLA 1 Associate Landscape Architect, BRW Authors and staff would like to thank Professor Robert Sykes of the Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota, for permission to use maps of the site in Case Study C, used originally in a landscape architecture studio. Thanks also to the landowners of the case study sites. This publication is designed to provide local units of government with 1 guidance in the development and application of an Open Space Design ordinance. It is not intended to replace legal or other professional advice that the community would otherwise seek in adopting a land use ' ordinance. All zoning ordinances are subject to periodic revisions, and therefore the Washington County ordinance provisions that are included in this document should not be considered final, current or complete. Anyone in Washington County desiring to design a development using ' the Open Space Design standards should consult the Washington County Department of Health Environment and Land Management for a current copy of the standards. Department of HELM Washington County Government Center ' 14900 61st Street North — P.O. Box 6 Stillwater, MN 55082-0006 612-430-6655 Office of Administration (same address) 612-430-6000 1 I ' It i I TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 I Chapter 1: An Introduction to Open Space Design (OSD) Development 3 I Chapter 2: Washington County Open Space Design Development Standards . . . 15 IChapter 3: Ordinance Commentary 31 Chapter 4: Case Studies 47 IReferences 63 IAppendix: Clustered Housing Ordinances in Washington County Metropolitan Council Growth Management Strategy Map 1 LIST OF FIGURES I Figure 1 Comparison 4 I Figure 2 Resource Inventory 31 Figure 3 Yield Plan and Concept Plans 34 Figure 4 Orientation 42 I Figure 5 Sewage Treatment Options `4 Figure 6 Site A Resource Inventory 49 Figure 7 Site A Yield Plan 50 I Figure 8 Site A Open Space Design Concept Plan 51 Figure 9 Site B Resource Inventory 54 Figure 10 Site B Yield Plan 55 I Figure 11 Site B Open Space Design Concept Plan 56 Figure 12 Site B Ultimate Development Plan 57 Figure 13 Site C Resource Inventory 60 I Figure 14 Site C Yield Plan 61 Figure 15 Site C Open Space Design Concept Plan 62 1 1 I 1 1 1 Space Open Design Development: Pg P A Guide for Local Governments Introduction This handbook is intended to introduce the concepts and practice, 1 advantages and limitations of Open Space Design (OSD) -- also known as "clustered housing" or "conservation design" -- in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Its primary focus is on Washington County, where OSD standards have been adopted as part of the county's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance, and where many cities and townships have adopted local ordinances allowing or requiring clustered housing.' However, this handbook should also be relevant for cities and counties elsewhere in Minnesota. The handbook is not intended to replace more comprehensive guides and reference works such as Rural By Design or Conservation Design for Subdivisions,both by Randall Arendt. Rather, it offers a regional perspec- tive on a development alternative that is rapidly growing in popularity, and places it within the context of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area's growth policies. Chapter 1, "Introduction to Open Space Design Development," consists of the following sections: 1 • • What is Open Space Design development? What can OSD development achieve? • What are its limitations? I • • Where is OSD development most appropriate? What are the major issues that should be considered in developing an ordinance? Chapter 2 consists of the complete Washington County Open Space Design Development Standards. Chapter 3 provides a detailed commentary on various aspects of the standards. Chapter 4 consists of a series of case studies of OSD development in various settings. A list of references is provided for further reading, and an Appendix provides an inventory of cluster ordinances in Washington County. I 1. See Appendix, Clustered Housing Ordinances in Washington County 1 1 1 i 1 Chapter I : An Introduction to OSD Development What is Open Space Design (OSD) development? A simple definition of OSD or "cluster" development is the concentration of allowable housing on one portion of a tract of land, in order to preserve the remainder of the tract as open space. "Allowable housing" means the amount of housing that is permitted on the tract,based on maximum density — the number of units per acre that is permitted within the applicable zoning district. For example, in the Rural Residential District in Washington County, the maximum density is 8 housing units per 40 acres, or one unit per 5 acres. "Open space" in this definition means land that is protected -- in most cases permanently protected -- from future development. It may be retained as a natural area, used for recreation or farmed. The permitted uses will depend on the standards in the zoning ordinance and on the wishes of the homeowners, who generally own and manage the open space through a Homeowners' Association (HOA). OSD development can be thought of as a "density transfer" within a 1 parcel, through which housing is concentrated on a small part of the parcel. As shown in Figure 1, it is an alternative to conventional development, in which an entire parcel is divided into houselots and roads (although small amounts of land may be set aside for park or stormwater management purposes). It can be treated as a voluntary, or optional, alternative, or it can be required in certain districts. What can OSD development achieve? Many of the advantages of OSD development are already widely recognized and are often cited to encourage its use: It protects significant resources. Whether the resources on the site are prime farmland, historic buildings, mature woodlands, streams, ponds or wetlands, or even scenic views, OSD development can permanently 1 protect most if not all of the resource, to be enjoyed by all residents. Many people move "to the country" to enjoy views of open land, only to find that these are wiped out by the next wave of development. OSD development can preserve these rural views and amenities across many individual tracts of land. It fosters a sense of community. Typical lot sizes in an OSD development tend to range from a quarter of an acre to an acre -- smaller than the typical conventional rural lot size of 2 i� acres or more. Living I 3 1 1 I on medium-sized lots affords the opportunity to see and interact with one's neighbors, while also sharing common amenities such as trails, playing fields and natural areas. These things can help to create a sense • of community that is often difficult to achieve in the conventional large-lot subdivision. 1 j '---N--- ------/, e`""' r, .--. ....14' ,rv—r`^ I ... ,,,,, , ,, \ ,....., , s. ..., ..1, er ,,, . . IQ I( .4: '' Conventional Subdivision I r",,,"‘ I j w,.� 40%hi, i' M Common \ rs.—, / M Open ,,l'% /"+, „`..' . . Space . .. •.. M /) �\ / .-.-,--oma- .y._.. ......,.,_. ::tb ,1w, / I ,,,i-......g -_ 7 ilI c Open Space Design Development I 4 II I 1 It can reduce infrastructure costs. Smaller lots in a concentrated pattern can reduce the length of streets and utility lines, and the amount of paved area. Thus, OSD development can be more economical and efficient than . conventional development. If applied across the community, it can create an interconnected network of protected open space, which can achieve a multitude of community goals -- a recreational trails system, wildlife corridors and habitat, stream corridor protection, or the preservation of a critical mass of viable agricultural land. Another benefit of an open space network is that it maximizes the ecological health of the landscape. According to principles of landscape ecology, the habitat diversity of a landscape is determined in part by the "connectivity" of its natural systems -- the extent to which resources like stream corridors or woodlands form continuous networks across the 1 landscape. Open space design allows these connections to be protected and enhanced, where conventional subdivision practices usually result in fragmentation of resources. What are the limitations of OSD development? What won't it accomplish? 1 It is important to recognize that OSD development is not an all-purpose tool for resource conservation or for growth management. Moreover, it may not be appropriate for use in every part of a community. Specifically: It is not the best method for preserving large blocks of agricultural land. 1 It is now common knowledge that introducing residences into an area of intensive agriculture can set the stage for continuing conflict. Conflicts can arise over customary farm operations that may generate noises, lights and odors; while farmers may suffer from trespassing, use by off-road vehicles,vandalism, traffic conflicts and other problems. Introducing new residential development into a largely agricultural region, whether it takes the form of large lots or smaller clustered lots, is still likely to diminish the long-term viability of farming and the region's rural character.' OSD development can certainly co-exist with a limited range of agricultural activities, typically "metropolitan agriculture" such as specialty fruit and vegetable crops and pick-your-own operations. Providing adequate buffers between residences and farm operations can help to avoid or mitigate some typical conflicts. 1 2. See Daniels, Thomas L., 1997, "Where Does Cluster Zoning Fit in Farmland Protection?" Journal of the American Planning Association 63, 1 (Winter): 129-137 1 5 - 1 1 However, in regions where intensive commercial agriculture is the dominant land use, OSD development is generally not appropriate. In such areas, a very limited degree of clustering may be employed, in which . no more than one unit per quarter-quarter section (40 acres) is permitted, and no more than three or four of these units might be clustered in a wooded area. Allowing either higher densities of development or clustering of larger numbers of homes just increases the pressures on the area's agricultural economy, and the potential for continuing conflict. It will not reduce the overall density or the number of housing units within the community. In fact, it may even increase the overall density. Under OSD development, the pattern of development is different, but the overall density remains the same or increases. Under most ordinances, OSD development is designed to be either "density-neutral" or to allow some additional density as an incentive. For many communities, a small increase in the number of houses (and, by extension, the number of vehicles on the road) is an acceptable trade-off for the protection of half or more of the site as open space, but the implications of this trade-off should be considered at the outset. Conventional development may sometimes be limited by the unavailability of suitable soils for on-site septic systems, or by the presence of sensitive natural areas such as wetlands. To the extent that I OSD development allows clustering of housing units on the most suitable soils and community wastewater treatment rather than individual on-site systems, it can encourage development where it might not otherwise I occur. If the community really wants to decrease density, however, it has the option of downzoning the land in one or more zoning districts, and allowing OSD development at the new lower base density or at a slightly increased "bonus" density. I In summary, OSD development is not a growth management tool. It should not be used as a substitute for a comprehensive plan that designates areas for development and areas that should remain rural or agricultural. However, it can be an effective planning tool for retaining rural character and protecting key open space and natural resources. • Comprehensive planning determines the overall pattern of development and direction of growth. • OSD development standards can help to implement the goals of the comprehensive plan by achieving a more resource-sensitive development pattern at the parcel or quarter-section level. I 6 I I Where is OSD development appropriate? This question can be answered in different ways depending on its context. I • How does OSD development fit into the growth framework for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area? How does it fit into the framework established by the Washington County Comprehensive Plan? Finally, how might it fit I into the planning context in some other jurisdiction, whether city, county or regional? a. OSD Development within the Metropolitan Region In 1994, the Metropolitan Council adopted the Regional Blueprint, a comprehensive guide for development within the region. In 1996 it adopted a Growth Management Strategy; a set of amendments to the Blueprint that identify general land uses and establish a development pattern for the region by the year 2040. Broadly viewed, the Growth Management Strategy divides the region into "urban" and "rural" areas, with an "urban reserve" between them (see Appendix). It is helpful to examine where OSD development might fit within the various rural and urban reserve policy areas that are defined in the Strategy. The region's Rural Area, broadly defined, is that area to which urban services such as central water and sewers will not be extended. It consists of three land use types: permanent agricultural area, permanent rural area and rural growth centers. The Permanent Agricultural Area contains the region's most productive farmland, and land within or eligible for agricultural preserves. This area's extent and policies for its protection are still being defined. However, it is clear that OSD development is appropriate in this area only at a very limited scale. Densities within this area should generally not exceed one non-farm dwelling unit per quarter-quarter section (40 acres). However,if non-farm units are to be built, it would be preferable to group them in small clusters of two to four lots, in wooded areas or on the least productive soils. Lot sizes should be limited to one or two acres to avoid creating large "farmettes" or "hobby farms." Carver County has had similar policies in place for many years. The Permanent Rural Area is identified as land with a wide variety of uses, including farms, very low-density residential development and I regional facilities such as parks. The Growth Management Strategy specifically targets this area as suitable for cluster development. "To the extent it is permitted by local government, development should be clustered rather than occur on scattered, large lot subdivisions." The performance standards for evaluating cluster development echo some of the design standards and principles used in Washington County: I 7 1 I I ... permanent protection of open space and common areas, design treatment that maintains a definite rural area visual appearance, permanent protection of natural resources and amenities, design and management of on-site or communal sewer systems that will function indefinitely, traffic generation consistent with rural levels of service, and [ensuring that] permanent agricultural areas and urban expansion areas around rural growth centers are not preempted. Rural Growth Centers are those small cities that have historically served as trade centers for surrounding rural areas. Many of them have now evolved into "bedroom communities" for commuters to urban or suburban workplaces, while some have grown into industrial centers. They will not receive regional sewer and water systems,but can grow by extending their own systems into surrounding rural areas. Although it is not explicitly stated in the Growth Management Strategy, I rural growth centers would be ideal locations to adapt some of the principles of OSD development to guide growth in a way that protects both rural and small town character. In practice, these rural centers tend to create their own rings of outlying large-lot development with a distinctly suburban character. OSD development could be used to create a more compact development pattern that echoes the traditional , interconnected street pattern and "village" character of these towns while creating and protecting a surrounding greenbelt of open space. The region's Urban Reserve is a "staging area" for future development. It consists of those areas immediately beyond the current urban services boundary that are projected to be developed through 2040. Within the reserve, municipalities will plan their own phased extension of services through 2020, in collaboration with the Metropolitan Council. The area outside this "2020 MUSA" is considered temporarily rural. I What does this designation mean for the application of OSD development? The Blueprint states explicitly that residential densities in this area should be no more than one unit per 40 acres, unless the development will be clustered. "Such clusters will be considered temporary until full urbanization occurs around them. Local plans and ordinances will need to require that the temporary clusters be connected to central sewer and other city services when they become available and that [they] be designed and laid out per local subdivision regulations, including dedication of future utility and infrastructure easements." In other words, OSD development can be adapted for short-term use without foreclosing the opportunity for urban-density development in the future. This is the approach used in Washington County's Transition l 8 1 • I I Zone. The key components are: -. • Most of the required open space is covered by a temporary development agreement, rather than a permanent easement. • A minimum amount of open space -- the central organizing features that act as focal points or greenway connections between surrounding neighborhoods -- must be permanently protected, to maintain neighborhood character and identity. • A concept plan for the ultimate build-out of each site should be submitted during the initial development phase, and this information should be shared with all homeowners. b. OSD Development in Washington County tThe Washington County Comprehensive Plan, adopted in April, 1997, establishes land use policies that encourage the use of clustered housing in rural and unserviced areas of the county. The Plan states that: New housing should be encouraged through zoning incentives to be clustered in small groups of small lots. These clusters should be designed to maintain open views, keep larger tracts available for farming or cattle operations, protect trees, hillsides and water quality, and engender a sense of community. The Land Use Plan component of the Comprehensive Plan defines a series of land use types, ranging from "long-term agriculture" at a density of one 1 unit per 40 acres to "suburban housing," at a density that can support public water and sewer. Clustered housing is an option in any residential or agricultural district, although it is especially appropriate in the General Rural area (at a base density of 4 units per 40 acres) and the Single Family Estate area (at a base density of 16 units per 40 acres). Since completion of the draft Comprehensive Plan, the county has revised its Zoning Ordinance, which includes new standards for OSD development. The county exercises land use planning and zoning authority in unincorporated areas -- the eight townships within the county. The county Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum standards for township zoning. Township ordinances must be consistent with the county ordinances. Townships may impose their own zoning requirements if these are more restrictive, but no less restrictive, than the county's requirements. I 9 1 1 c. OSD Development in other areas I The applicability of the standards in this guidebook will differ depending . on the type of jurisdiction where they are applied, whether a county, I township or city. Many counties in Minnesota exercise zoning authority over undeveloped areas, as does Washington County. Rural townships within a county may apply additional zoning regulations, but these must be consistent with the county standards (MS 394.33). Therefore, it is within a county's powers to offer some form of OSD development/clustered housing standards as an option for developers, with or without a density bonus. As mentioned above, townships may adopt zoning regulations that are I more restrictive, but not less restrictive, than the county standards. Therefore, if county standards did not provide for OSD development, a township could choose to offer an OSD option on its own, if it is tied to a more restrictive base zoning. For example, if county zoning stipulates a density of 4 units per 40 acres, a township could impose a lower density of one or two units per 40 with OSD development as an option, perhaps with a density bonus as high as 4 per 40. Incorporated cities in Minnesota have complete control over zoning within I their boundaries, and are free to offer OSD development as either an option or a mandate in specific districts. The City of Lake Elmo, in Washington County, has established districts where OSD development is l mandatory. OSD development may also be a useful option to consider as a joint county-township-city effort in "Urban Expansion Areas," frequently found in rural areas at the edges of incorporated cities. Like the rural growth centers in the metropolitan region, these cities can expand into areas that they can serve with municipal utilities. However, large-lot zoning around their boundaries can inhibit this expansion and make service extensions uneconomical. As in Washington County's "transition zones," OSD development can be a useful tool to permit future development at urban densities in urban expansion areas, while retaining enough permanent open space to give these neighborhoods some amenities and some character. What issues should be considered in developing an OSD development ordinance? The following issues should usually be considered when developing an I 10 I I I OSD development ordinance, or adding standards to the existing zoning ordinance. Reviewing them at the outset will help to clarify the choices and "trade-offs" that will need to be made as the ordinance is developed. rIs the ordinance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? As discussed above, the comprehensive plan is the primary means of guiding growth within a community. An OSD development ordinance, like any other zoning technique, is simply one tool for accomplishing the goals of the comprehensive plan. Within the metropolitan region, as specified in the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, zoning must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. This means that if OSD development standards have not already been identified in the plan as an implementation technique, the plan should be amended accordingly. A policy statement in the plan should list the objectives that OSD development is meant to achieve, or the reasons why it should be encouraged. These might include the following: • to minimize visual intrusions on the rural environment; • to preserve as much land as possible for agriculture; • to respond sensitively to the diverse characteristics of the ilandscape; • to reduce infrastructure costs. iThe plan should also specify the areas or districts where OSD development will be permitted or encouraged. Will the ordinance be applied on a mandatory or voluntary basis? There are various degrees of "mandatory" and "voluntary" that should be considered. For example, some jurisdictions have made OSD development mandatory in certain important resource areas. Others have required it to be applied on tracts above a certain size, such as five acres, or to subdivisions above a certain size, such as three lots. In Washington County, OSD development is an option,not a requirement. Other municipalities have turned the tables by requiring OSD development but also permitting conventional development as a conditional use, and requiring the applicant to show why OSD development is not considered feasible for a particular site. If voluntary, what kif s soffered? If OSD developmentnd isovoluntarincentivey, and especially if it requires the applicant to "jump through hoops" not required for conventional development (like T 11 1 a conditional use permit) then a density bonus should probably be provided to encourage its use. An alternative approach would be to lower the maximum permitted density for conventional development, as a • disincentive. Will the ordinance be applied within a mapped district or as an overlay? The typical zoning district is "mapped" -- that is, it covers a discrete I geographic area. An overlay district applies across all or part of one or more "base" zoning districts, supplementing the base district regulations. This approach makes sense when, as in Washington County, OSD development is intended to apply in all agricultural and residential districts. Developing a single set of alternate standards is simpler than trying to add the OSD development standards to each of these districts. In many smaller jurisdictions, however, OSD development will only be applied in one or two districts, and the simplest approach is to revise the I regulations for those mapped districts to include the OSD standards. How will the open space be protected? 1 Because open space is such an essential part of "Open Space Design development," it is critical to provide adequate safeguards for its I permanent protection. Many cluster ordinances now in use in Minnesota communities state that the open space shall be treated as a protected outlot, but are silent as to the protection mechanism. Others require a development agreement or a restrictive covenant. Both these techniques are subject to interpretation and nullification by the courts, and are usually temporary. If the municipality chooses to rezone the property to a higher density, these restrictions can often be removed. According to land conservation professionals and based on a long record of experience elsewhere in the nation, the most effective method for protecting open space is through a permanent conservation easement. A conservation easement is the voluntary transfer of specified development and land use rights from a landowner to a qualifying organization.' Under Minnesota law, this organization may be a unit of government or an • established land trust or other conservation organization. This organization usually does not own the land,but rather holds the easement on the land and monitors the land's use and management. There are many options for the actual ownership of the open space, j 3. This definition drawn from Land Protection Options: A I Handbook for Minnesota Landowners. i 12 f I including common ownership by a homeowners' association, ownership by an individual (the original landowner, for example) or by a unit of government (as public parkland). See the Ordinance Commentary, Section ' . 4.6, for a discussion of ownership. It is recommended that at least a portion of the open space -- 25 percent is the requirement in Washington County -- be accessible to residents of the OSD development, and that some of this land be suitable for active recreational use. Access to open space is one of the key advantages of OSD development; one that sets it apart from conventional development and appeals to many homebuyers. Given all these other issues, how long and complex should the standards be? The task of developing new zoning standards always requires balancing the goals of simplicity and protection. That is, the standards should be as brief and readable as possible, without leaving gaps or "loopholes" that may result in poor-quality design or defeat the standards' original intent. Among the critical elements that should be included in an OSD ordinance are design standards and open space protection and management requirements. More than any others, these elements will have the greatest impact in ensuring protection of open space and other resources, and in fostering design of livable neighborhoods. Finally, while most OSD development standards are included within the Zoning Ordinance, it may also be necessary to revise other ordinances for consistency. For example, sewage treatment requirements are generally regulated by the community's Individual Sewage Treatment Standards ' (ISTS) ordinance. Street standards are often regulated by the Subdivision Ordinance. Many of these issues, including ordinance elements such as neighborhood design standards and street standards, are discussed in the Ordinance Commentary. i 1 i I 13 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Chapter 2: Washington County Open Space Design Development Standards Washington County Development Code,September 1997. Note that this is one section of a much larger document. In preparing a subdivision or site plan, the complete ordinance should be used. Contact HELM(see Acknowledgements page)for the complete ordinance. 4.1 Purpose and Scope "OSD"Development is established to encourage development of rural housing clusters that meet the following purposes: (1) Provide efficient use of the land while maintaining contiguous blocks of economically viable agricultural land, mature woodlands, and open space, and preserving historical features, scenic views, natural drainage systems and other desirable features of the natural environment. (2) Allow housing to be concentrated on sites that have low agricultural potential and/or high natural housing appeal. (3) Create neighborhoods with direct access to open space, distinct identities and sense of community. (4) To encourage innovation and promote flexibility, economy and creativity in residential development. (5) To provide commonly-owned open space areas for passive and/or active recreational use iby residents of the development and, where specified,the larger community. (6) To provide for a diversity of lot sizes, housing choices and building densities to iaccommodate a variety of age and income groups. (7) To preserve scenic views and elements of the County's rural character by minimizing views of new development from existing roads. 4.2 Definitions (1) Community Garden: Land which is cultivated by the residents of the development for the production of trees, vegetables, fruits, flowers,herbs and grasses for the residents' use or to be sold directly to consumers through membership in the garden. t 15 t (2) Conservation Easement: An interest in real property created in a manner that imposes I limitations or affirmative obligations in regard to the use of property including the retention,protection and maintenance of natural resources, open space and agriculture. (3) Cultural Resource: The historic and archeological characteristics of the land, i g including buildings and landscapes, which provide information regarding the history of Washington County and its people. (4) Historic Building and Structure: A •structure which has been identified by the Washington County History Network inventory or the State Historic Preservation Office as having public value due to their notable architectural features relating to the cultural heritage of the County. I (5) Homeowners Association: A formally constituted non-profit association or corporation made up of the property owners and/or residents of the development for the purpose of 111 owning, operating and maintaining the common open space and facilities. (6) Neighborhood: An area containing a contiguous group of residential lots where people live in close proximity to one another. (7) Open Space: Land used for agriculture, natural habitat pedestrian corridors and/or recreational purposes, that is undivided and permanently protected from future development. (8) Open Space Development: A grouping of residential structures on smaller lots than allowed in the specific zoning district, leaving some land dedicated as open space. (9) Perimeter Road: A road lying outside of and abutting the development parcel. P (10) Plant Community:A grouping of plants with common environmental requirements living I within the landscape, i.e., wetlands, grasslands, boreal forests. (11) Protective or Restrictive Covenant: A contract entered into between private parties t which constitutes a restriction of the use of a particular parcel of property. (12) Resource Inventory: A survey of the land's features including its natural resources, 1 cultural resources, scenic views and viewsheds, and physical characteristics. 4.3 Applicability The OSD Development standards are an alternative set of standards for residential development within the Agricultural (A-1, A-2, A-4), Residential (RR, SFE, RS), Conservancy (C), and 111 Transition (TZ) zones. OSD Development shall be permitted with a conditional use permit I 16 1 1 I within these districts. The design standards contained in this section are not applicable in the St. Croix River District and Shoreland Overlay Districts. The regulations of this Ordinance are applicable only to open space developments approved after the effective date of this Ordinance. 1 4.4 Application (1) A conditional use permit is required for an open space design development in the Agricultural (A-1, A-2, A-4), Residential (RR, SFE, RS), Conservancy © and the Transition(TZ) zones. (2) A conditional use permit application shall be filed, in writing, with the Zoning Administrator in accordance with Chapter 1, Section 10, Conditional Uses. (3) In addition to the criteria stated in Chapter 1, Section 10.3 (2), the Planning Advisory Commission shall consider the following: (A) The open space development is designed to preserve open space and the County's rural character while creating compact residential neighborhoods. (B) The open space development is designed in accordance with the standards of this jOrdinance. (C) The open space development supports the goals and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan. (4) In addition to those submittal requirements stated in Chapter 1, Section 10,the following items shall be submitted as part of the conditional use permit application for open space development: 111 (A) Resource Inventory The plan for an Open Space Design Development shall include a resource inventory,to include the following, mapped at a scale of no less than one inch : 100 feet. 1. Topographic contours at 10-foot intervals,showing rock outcrops and slopes of more than 15 percent. 2. Soil type locations and identification of soil type characteristics such as agricultural capability,depth to bedrock, and suitability for wastewater disposal systems. I 1 17 I 3. Hydrologic characteristics, including surface water bodies, floodplains, wetlands, I natural swales and drainageways. 4. Vegetation of the site, according to general cover type (pasture, woodland, etc.), 1 defining boundaries of woodland areas and stand-alone trees with a caliper of more than 18 inches. Vegetative types shall be classified as generally deciduous, coniferous or mixed and described by plant community, relative age and condition. 5. Current land use and land cover(cultivated areas,paved areas,etc.),all buildings and structures on the land, and all encumbrances, such as easements or covenants. 6. Visual resources, showing views onto the tract from surrounding roads and public areas, as well as views within the tract. 7. Cultural resources: brief description of historic character of buildings and structures, historically important landscapes, and archeological features. 8. Context: general outlines of existing buildings, land use, and natural features such as water bodies or wooded areas, roads and property boundaries within 500 feet of the tract. This information may be presented on an aerial photograph at a scale of no less than 1 inch: 400 feet. I (B) Yield Plan 1. The applicant shall submit a "yield plan," showing the maximum number of dwelling units that would be permitted given the minimum lot size and lot widths for conventional subdivisions and other requirements of the Development Code and subdivision ordinance. The yield plan need not be engineered; however, it shall be drawn to scale and it shall identify all the major physical features on the parcel. The minimum lot areas and width for each zoning district are the following: Zoning Minimum Lot Minimum Lot District Size(Acres) Width(Feet) A-1 40 300 A-2 20 300 A-4 10 300 111 RR 5 300 SFE 2.5 160 TZ 10 300 RS 15,000 sq.ft. 100 C 20 300 I I 18 1 I (C) Concept Subdivision Plan 1. One or more open space design plans meeting the intent of this Chapter and including at least the following information: (a) Open space areas indicating which areas are to be protected. (b) Boundaries of areas to be developed and proposed general street and lot layout. (c) Number and type of housing units proposed. (d) Areas proposed for stormwater management and on- or off-site sewage treatment. (e) Said plans shall be drawn at a scale of 1"= 100'. 2. For Open Space Developments in the Transition Zone a"build-out plan" showing the ultimate development of the entire parcel at urban densities is submitted as part of the concept subdivision plan. (D) Phasing Plan Open Space Design development may be phased in accordance with a unified development plan for the entire tract meeting the following requirements: ' 1. A phasing plan identifying the sequence of development showing approximate areas, serially numbered with a description of each phase. Information shall be provided regarding the number of dwelling units, proposed improvements, and common facilities for each. 2. The phasing plan shall be made a part of the conditional use permit and is effective for five (5)years from the date of preliminary plat approval. If final plat approval is not received within five (5)years,the permit shall become null and void. 3. Any common facilities,including golf courses, shall be constructed prior to the sale of any lots and shall be clearly marked on a site map which shall be an attachment to all sales agreements for individual lots. 4. As part of the development agreement, a financial guarantee to ensure completion of common facilities,trails and landscaping shall be provided. 1 (E) General Location Map 1 1 19 1 r (5) Application Procedure. Upon submittal of a complete application,the application shall 1 be processed according to the following: (A). Plat Commission. The application will be forwarded to the County Plat Commission i for concept review of the proposed subdivision in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. (B) Planning Commission. After concept review by the Plat Commission, the application will be forwarded to the Planning Advisory Commission. The commission will review the application in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance. (C) Plat Commission. Once a conditional use permit is issued,the applicant will then be I directed to submit a plat to the Plat Commission in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 111 4.5 Uses The following uses are permitted within OSD Developments. The following uses must meet the standards and criteria specified for those uses, as set forth in and regulated by the Washington County Zoning Ordinance. I (1) Residential. The following uses are allowed uses in the residential portion of the open space development. I (A) Single-family Detached 111 (B) Multi-family Residential (C) Bed and Breakfast E (D) Accessory Apartment 111 (E) Community residence (2) Open Space. I (A) The following uses are allowed uses in the designated open space: 1. Conservation(i.e.,woodland,meadow,prairie) 2. Agricultural 20 i 1 I 3. Equestrian 4. Recreational uses and associated parking. 1 (a) trails (walking, skiing, cycling, horseback riding, snowmobiling) (b) picnic areas (c) community gardens (d) composting (for waste generated by residents of the development) (e) turf areas for informal play (f) common areas such as greens or squares (g) ball fields (h) playgrounds (i) courts (tennis,basketball, etc.) (j) swimming pools or beaches 1 (k) common buildings 5. Stormwater Management Facilities 6. Sewage Disposal Systems 1 7. Essential Services—Utility Substation (B) The following uses are allowed in the designated open space with an additional conditional use permit: Il. Golf Course 2. Recreational uses available to the public including: (a) ball fields (b) playgrounds (c) courts(tennis,basketball, etc) (d) swimming pools or beaches 4.6 Ownership & Management of Open Space (1) The designated open space and common facilities may be owned and managed by one or a combination of the following: (A) Homeowners' Association (B) Non-profit Organization 1 1 21 1 (C) The County or another governmental body empowered to hold interest in real 111 property (in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 84C.01-.05) (D)' An individual who will use the land for open space purposes as provided by the permanent conservation restrictions. 4.7 Open Space 1 (1) With the exception of Open Space Development in the Transition Zone (TZ), the minimum open space required per Section 4.6 (4) (A) shall be subject to a permanent 111 conservation easement and used for the purposes as defined by this Ordinance. The conservation easement shall be dedicated to an acceptable land trustee or other similar organization as approved by the County. (2) Permanent protection of the open space in the Transition Zone is not required because these lands are expected to become urban. Developments in the Transition Zone are subject to the following: (A) A title declaration shall be provided stating future development could occur at urban ' densities when the local unit of government rezones the property. (B) Lots oriented around central open space features, such as greens, squares, playgrounds and parkways, and that these features or 10% of the open space, whichever is greater, shall be permanently protected. I (3) The uses within the open space shall be accessible to the residents of the development in accordance with 4.10(4) (D). These uses may also be available to the general public I providing the proper approvals are received. (4) A fmancial guarantee ensuring the construction and completion of the common facilities I shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. 4.8 Homeowners'Associations 1 A Homeowners'Association shall be established if the open space is owned by a homeowner's association. Membership in the Association is mandatory for all purchasers of homes in the development and their successors. A Homeowners' Association Agreement, guaranteeing continuing maintenance, shall be submitted to the County as part of the data required for the conditional use permit. The Homeowners'Association documents or the declaration of covenants,conditions and restrictions shall contain the following information: t 22 i I 1 (1) the legal description of the common lands or facilities; (2) the restrictions placed upon the use and enjoyment of the lands or facilities including the ' persons or entities entitled to enforce the restrictions; (3) a mechanism for resolving disputes among the owners or association members; (4) a mechanism to assess and enforce the common expenses for the land or facilities including upkeep and maintenance expenses,real estate taxes and insurance premiums. (5) the conditions and timing of the transfer of ownership and control of land or facilities to the Association or to common ownership; (6) any other matter the developer deems appropriate. (7) The Management of collector sewage treatment systems. ' 4.9 Density Standards (1) The number of density units for the parcel shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 1. (2) Base Density (A) The number of density units determined in(1) above may be increased by using the percentage for the zoning district in which the parcel is located: 1. A-1 100% 2. A-2 100% 3. A-4 100% 4. RR 25% 5. SFE 6. TZ 12.5%50% 7. RS (with public sewer) 10% 8. RS (without public sewer) 9. C 50%0% (B) Apply any bonus density, as specified in Section 4.9 (3). i (3) Density Points I 1 I 23 i The base density may be increased if the development complies with one or more of the following standards. Each standard provides a density increase of 5%over the base density. The maximum bonus permitted is 20%. (A) Creating an endowment where the principal would generate sufficient annual interest to cover the conservation easement holder's yearly costs (taxes, insurance, maintenance, enforcement, etc.) 1 (B) Providing for access by the general public to trails, parks or other recreational facilities, excluding golf courses. (C) Providing affordable housing, to include a minimum of 25 percent of all units that would be affordable to moderate-income households, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (D) Reusing historical buildings and structures, including those sites inventoried by the i Washington County History Network and the State Historic Preservation Office. The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation shall apply. , 4.10 Performance Standards (1) General considerations (A) For single-family attached and multi-family structures, the maximum number of units per freestanding building is six. (B) The residential lot shall be large enough to accommodate a house and two car garage. (C) All structures shall be setback a minimum of 75 feet from unclassified waterbodies. I (D) Multi-family structures shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the lot line of a lot designated for single family detached dwelling units. I (E) A maximum of 40%of the residential dwelling units may be multi-family residential. (2) Residential Lot Requirements. (A) Minimum Lot Size I 1. Septic on-site 32,670 sq. ft. (.75 acre) 2. Septic off-site 21,780 sq. ft (.5 acre) r 24 t I (B) Principal Building Setbacks 1. Front lot line 30 feet 1 2. Side lot line 15 feet 3. Rear lot line 30 feet (C) Accessory Building Setbacks 1. Side lot line 15 feet 1 2. Rear lot line 10 feet (D) Maximum Lot Coverage 35% (E) Maximum Building Height 35 feet (F) All lots shall take access from interior local streets. (G) Fifty percent of the lots within a neighborhood shall abut open space on at least one side. A local street may separate lots from the open space. (H) Lots shall be oriented around a central focal point. This may be one or more of the following: 1 1. A central green or square. 2. A physical amenity such as a meadow,a stand of trees,a stream or other water body, or some other natural feature. 3. A street designed with boulevards planted with shade trees and with a central "parkway"or median, at least 25 feet wide. (3) Neighborhood Siting Standards (A) Neighborhoodsshall be located to minimize their impacts on the natural, scenic and P cultural resources of the site. (B) Neighborhoods shall avoid encroaching on rare plant communities or endangered species identified in the Department of Natural Resources'County Biological Survey for Natural Communities and Rare Species. (C) Fragmentation of open space shall be minimized. I 25 I I (D) Whenever possible, open space shall connect with existing or potential I open space lands on adjoining parcels. (E) Neighborhoods should be sited to achieve the following goals, to the extent I practicable. In cases where impact on one or more of the following resource areas is unavoidable,the impact should be minimized through use of landscaping,topography, or other features. I 1. Avoid prime farmland soils and large tracts of land in agricultural use, and avoid interference with normal agricultural practices; I 2. Minimize disturbance to woodlands, hedgerows, mature trees or other significant vegetation; I 3. Protect scenic views of open land from adjacent roads. 4. Protect existing historic buildings or incorporate them through adaptive reuse. (F) The maximum number of residential lots permitted in a neighborhood is 50. (G) More than one(1)neighborhood may be developed if separated by a clear boundary comprised of a combination of two or more of the following elements: street pattern, marked topographical changes, drainageways, ponds, wetlands, streams,greenways and woodlands. I (H) Neighborhoods shall be separated from adjacent residential property by a clear boundary,with a minimum width of 300 feet, comprised of two or more of the following elements: street pattern, marked topographical changes,landscape screening, drainageways,ponds, wetlands, streams, greenways and woodlands. I (4) Open Space Design (A) Open space shall be designated as part of the development. The minimum I required open space is based on a percentage of the gross acreage: I 1. A-1 60% 2. A-2 60% 3. A-4 60% 4. RR 60% 5. SFE 60% 6. TZ 70% 7. RS 30% 8. C 75% 26 1 `. I (B) The required open space shall be undivided and restricted from further development,as specified in Section 4.7. (C) The following areas or structures may be located within the open space area and shall be counted toward the overall open space percentage required: 1. parking areas for access to and use of the open space. 1 2. privately-held buildings or structures provided they are accessory to the use of the open space. Road rights of way may not be located within the required open space area, 1 and shall not be counted towards the required minimum open space. (D) No more than 50 percent of the required open space may consist of unclassified water bodies,ponds,floodplain, wetlands, or slopes of greater than 25 percent. (E) At least 25 percent of the open space shall be accessible to the residents of �. the development and shall be owned in common by all residents of the development. 1. At least 25% of the"accessible" open space, shall be suitable for recreational uses such as trails, play fields, or community gardens. 2. A pathway system connecting all parts of those open space areas accessible to neighborhood residents,and connecting these areas to neighborhood streets and to planned or developed trails on adjacent parcels shall be identified in the plan. 3. That portion of the open space designated for the location of sewage treatment facilities shall not be included as part of this accessible open space. (5) Street Standards Neighborhood streets may take the form of a two-way street,a pair of one-way streets on either side of a landscaped median, or a one-way loop street around a small neighborhood green. Streets shall be developed according to the following standards that promote road safety,assure adequate access for fire and rescue vehicles,and promote adequate vehicular circulation: (A) The applicant must demonstrate that access to the development has the capacity to handle traffic generated by the proposed project,and will not endanger the safety of the general public. (B) Streets shall have the following design standards: 1 27 I i 1. Right-of-way widths. The right-of-way width for each road shall be wide enough to provide for all public services, including roadway drainage, trails and walkways, utilities and snow storage. The minimum right-of-way shall be provided in accordance with the following: ADT less ADT Travel Lanes than 250 over 250 One-way roadway 30' 30' Two-way roadway 50' 60' 2. Roadwaywidths for localI roads shall be determined by the expected average daily traffic (ADT)and shall be within the following ranges: ADT less ADT ADT Travel Lanes than 100 100-250 over 250 Two-way roadway 18'-24' 20'-24' 22'-24' 1 One-way roadway 11'-13' 11'-13' 11'-13' (urban sections*) 13' 13' 13' Shoulder width* 2'-4' 2'-4' 2'-4' *For urban sections,measured from curb face to curb face I 3. Additional Standards: (a) Design Speed: Minimum 20 miles per hour (b) Vertical Curves: Minimum 50' (when grade difference less than 1%, no curve is needed) (c) Horizontal Curves: Minimum radius of 125' 1 (d) Road Grades: Maximum grade 8% (e) Super-elevation: Maximum e=0.04 feet/feet (f) Pavement Strength: 7 ton minimum I (g) Clear Zones: Rural sections: 10' from edge of travel lane Urban sections: 2' from face of curb I 28 1 I i 1 (h) Bridges: Width shall be traveled way plus 2' each side Design Loading for Structural Capacity HS-20 Sidewalk necessary to maintain pedestrian crossing • (i) Cul-de-sacs: Minimum 30' radius 4. If determined necessary by the Zoning Administrator, shade trees shall be planted on both sides of the street at 50-foot intervals or placed in clusters at the same ratio 5. Street connections to adjacent parcels shall be provided in logical locations to avoid creating landlocked parcels and provide for connecting street patterns. 6. Streets that serve as collectors, interconnecting subdivisions and other major traffic generators, shall be designed according to the County's standards for collector roads. 7. Where streets will connect with streets having differing standards, the street dimensions shall be the same as those of the connecting street. All street widenings shall occur at the nearest intersection. (6) Sewage and Water Facilities Water for an OSD Development shall be provided by individual on-site wells or by one or more community wells meeting the permit requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health. The use of shared or community wells is encouraged. All OSD Developments shall be provided with adequate sewage treatment facilities meeting the standards of the County Individual Sewage Treatment Standards Ordinance and the permit requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (7) Golf Courses (A) Golf courses located in the open space must comply with Chapter 4, Section 2.12 of this Ordinance. (B) The golf course shall be regulated by a development agreement that restricts any further development or subdivision of land and requires the land to be retained as open space use if a golf course is no longer used as a golf course. (C) The golf course shall be constructed prior to the sale of any residential lots. (D) A financial guarantee ensuring completion of the golf course in accordance with the approved plans and permits shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. I ' 29 i i i 1 i 1 i t 1 1 1 1 30 1 1 I Chapter 3: Ordinance Commentary . 4. I Purpose and Scope The purposes of the Washington County ordinance echo the statement of purpose for "Open Space Development" in the County Comprehensive Plan. They also emphasize the provision of community open space and a diversity of lot sizes and housing types. 4.3 Applicability The Washington County ordinance is oriented primarily toward rural and transitional areas. In all but the (small) Residential Suburban district, at least half of the site is to be preserved as permanent open space.4 The OSD standards are, in essence, a substitute for the standards of the underlying district. One or the other may be applied to a given parcel,but not both. 4.4 Application A conditional use permit is required for all OSD subdivisions. A conditional use is a type of permitted use that cannot be turned down if all the ordinance requirements are met. It requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Although the conditional use permit process involves an extra step for the applicant, the county chose this method because it was the best way to give the Planning Commission flexibility in reviewing the proposal against the design standards in this ordinance. The design standards are applied as criteria for the conditional use. (See the discussion under Section 4.10, "Performance Standards" below). In other jurisdictions with different review procedures, the conditional use process may not be necessary, if the appropriate design standards can be factored into the review process. I 4 The "RS" district requires only 30 percent of the site as open space; it is found only in Forest Lake Township. In the "TZ" transition zone, the open space percentage is 70 percent during the initial phase, but only 10 percent of the required open space is �j permanent, since the area is "in transition" to more suburban densities. I 31 I I (4) Conditional Use Requirements I The conditional use permit application must include the following items: I Views —_ I , _---- - ---- _ ..., ".- ,,,:,,,,,,,,,.....„,,, , , __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _o ,, 0 \„,: , , _-_,_=_,_:=_==. _ ,-,-__ ,, , , _ ___ - 1 :,., ,c3 f. , , ,1 =____- --- cs) ,•„: - - - Wetland,,.:„:, }I 44 -,\ ,-..—.1 Prime farmland soils '` .-:'37;_" ` - _7-7-7--=:__ Historic farmstead s pp I .. ' '�s.:, n Shallow ;: .. .;''$` „'.fp ,. N• ?1II bedrock II // '` '/ M Ifs`: III; A/I/ Mw.. M '''.;.:N;:. ..'.''''pwI 1 I! '1;x:11 I I �~ M M^ IIttI I ';'.:11.`;'::.: :','',, a.EY.:nyA 1 ".1 1 I.i Qv.:*'',<. III.. "11 iwr-. r__: III'_ M M -' !''Floodplain;*;\`,`` t ' _Steep slopes k. I: Steep slopes'== ,.,.a•ArA,- - --=-,,:.., . waNdpA'k!��S.;,EMNn^A:-• .' mo./ `a�:7e River shoreline I Figure 2: Resource Inventory and Site Analysis I(A) Resource Inventory A resource inventory is a survey of the land's features, including its natural resources, cultural resources, scenic views and viewsheds, and other physical characteristics. The purpose of requiring a resource inventory is, first, to ensure that the subdivision design recognizes and takes into account all the site's resources and, second, that the Planning I 32 1 I I 1 Commission can evaluate the proposal's impact on those resources. Many authorities on open space development promote the use of such a resource inventory, in tandem with a concept or "sketch" plan, as a prerequisite for all developments, including conventional ones. Only by this method, they argue, can a resource-sensitive site layout be developed. 111 Resources to assist with this inventory include the following: 1. Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey for Washington County. 1 2. The Minnesota Geological Survey's Geological Atlas for Washington County. 1 3. The Department of Natural Resources' County Biological Survey Map for Natural Communities and Rare Species. 1 4. Washington County Surveyor's aerial photography. I In other jurisdictions, certain resources—the Soil Survey, for example—are readily available, while others (such as a biological survey map) may not be. I (B) Yield Plan A yield plan (Figure 3A) shows the maximum number of dwelling units i that would be permitted on a parcel given the conventional zoning requirements. The yield plan is used to ensure that OSD development is "density-neutral" at the outset--that is, the initial density is no higher than 1 what would be permitted under conventional development. This base density is then increased by a fixed percentage, depending on the zoning district (see Section 4.9). iAny cluster ordinance must balance the minimum lot size, the minimum amount of open space required, and the maximum permitted densities to I ensure that none of these factors conflict with each other. For example, if maximum densities are set too high, the permitted number of lots may not fit on the tract along with the minimum amount of required open I space. The Washington County ordinance is designed so that these elements are in balance, as long as the actual lot size remains close to the minimum lot size of.5 to .75 acres. Some jurisdictions require a few sample percolation tests to determine whether septic systems can be located on the "yield plan lots." This I ordinance does not, although general soil suitability across the site should be determined. In Washington County, this is done during the plat review process. I 33 i I An alternative to the yield plan is to base the permitted density on "net" I or "developable" acreage rather than gross acreage. Under this method (used in Lake Elmo), undevelopable areas such as road right-of-way, . wetlands and floodplain are subtracted from the site's area to yield net acreage. Some methods also subtract a percentage of "less developable" lands such as steep slopes or wooded areas. (C) Concept Subdivision Plan The concept plan is required to ensure that site design can be discussed at an early stage, before engineered plans are completed. Because open space design is meant to be a collaborative process between the applicant and the Planning Commission, this requirement is particularly important. More than one concept plan may be generated in the course of this discussion (Figures 3B and 3C). (D) Phasing Plan I This section allows for gradual build-out of an open space development over an extended period, provided that certain conditions are met: • a concept plan for the entire development has been approved, • any common facilities are constructed before lots are sold, and • a conservation easement over the open space is in place. I The typical financial guarantee of completion of facilities is also required. One purpose of this section is to ensure that buyers are aware of the location of any pending facilities. (E) General Location Map J The location map shows the location of the property in question within the community. I 4.5 Uses Permitted uses are divided into two general categories, based on the basic division of land under the OSD into residential houselots and open space. Residential uses: Residential units may be owner- or renter-occupied. One goal of the ordinance is to allow a wider range of housing types than would ordinarily be allowed on the typical suburban lot. However, I detached houses should predominate, in keeping with the rural or "hamlet" character that is a hallmark of open space development, and attached or multi-family units should, ideally, resemble large detached houses or groups of farmstead buildings in their exterior design. I 34 i I IFigure 3 I // —_ ,� ,E � i� _= - 1 i= II � r L _ / tall; __ '-----' - /..'.-� • 4 3 i ,____ •- ^Rr------,--ne ti I/ I4 A:Yield Plan t 16 Lots per 40 Acres 4 1 - f 6, ';p Green �s — — t' � � \/ x, 19 8 / ffi'4%_ , , .......... River shoreline •- -+14. "„ B: Concept 1rrn------------ 11:.;-,tea4) Common beach Plan 1 18 Lots(Including fa 40 Acres 16 Lots+2 bonus Lots i 1 /. _ ceo♦ /// _- — - Fa•rr„i„ ')L' - ®ter' I7I/ _=_ _z_ Icased , trails - - 1 — \1I\\` _ .2y y � a ' r- \\ ' N. Common open space ^,,, \ e/g ; N. ^'1 ..+•^ I �--- River Shoreline I�. '" C: Concept Plan 2 18 Units Common beach 1 Farmhouse 2 In Barn 15 New Lots 40 Acres 1 I I • Bed and breakfast: Bed and breakfast facilities are encouraged as I a way to maintain certain residential structures (i.e. larger, older homes) in residential use. They are permitted in existing dwellings in all Agricultural and Residential districts with a conditional use i permit, or as part of an OSD development (which is itself a ■ conditional use). • Accessory apartment: A small rental unit within a single-family detached house offers an important housing alternative for one- or two-person households, with a minimal external visual impact. Standards for accessory apartments, as for the other residential uses, are provided elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. Open space uses: Because the open space is such a critical element of this I district, it is important that it be designated for specific and suitable uses. • Agriculture: While farmland preservation is a typical goal of a I "rural cluster" ordinance, it is important to remember that not all agricultural uses will be compatible with nearby residential uses. Animal feedlots are one example of a potentially incompatible use. In Washington County, livestock operations above a certain size require a certificate of compliance or a conditional use permit; these are discussed elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. I Typical farming practices such as plowing, fertilizing and harvesting can also cause conflicts with nearby residents. In the I case of an OSD development, we assume that residents are interested in living near farmland and enjoying the views over open fields rather than being surrounded by other subdivisions. I Nonetheless, it should be the developer's responsibility to inform residents about typical agricultural activities. Although the ordinance does not require them, providing buffers, either wooded or open, between houselots and farmland may also be advisable. • Equestrian uses: Open space developments could include common pasture and stable facilities as well as trails for residents' horses. • Recreation: "Recreational uses" cover a broad range from very I low-impact facilities (walking trails) to high-impact and high- maintenance facilities such as swimming pools and golf courses. All these facilities are intended primarily for the use of residents. However, an open space design development may sometimes provide needed public parkland, or facilities that are open to the public. If this is the case, certain issues should be carefully considered: I 36 j I I How much use will the site receive? . How will the public reach the site? _ If they drive in, where will they will park? • Will lighting or noise affect residents? Should there be a buffer between the facility and nearby homes? Because of these issues, any facility open to the public will require a separate conditional use Pew{ will need the ordinanceandards specified for these uses in oher sections of I . Golf courses: These facilities can be controversial, since they can act as a revenue-producing commercial use while also functioning as protected open space. Some have argued that this amounts to "double-dipping," since revenue is also generated by transferring the density from the golf course land to build homes elsewhere here on the parcel. Like other public recreational facilities, g ses require an additional conditional use permit. Other options would include not permitting golf courses at all, or limiting the amount of protected open space that a golf course may occupy (i.e. "no more than 50 percent of the required open space may be developed as a golf course"). The county ordinance requires a i minimum of 25 percent of the open space to be held in common and available for use by residents (see Section 4.9 (4)). tential e Other potential uses: These are a orutted inthe l the oWa hincat g County ries of permitted uses. Although not p ordinance, institutional and small-scale commercial and office uses may be compatible with open space design, with suitable standards. IInstitutional uses: Typical institutions such as schools or places of worship are not part of the Washington County OSD standards, but are permitted in many of the underlying districts. Therefore, such a use could be developed on a separate but adjacent parcel. Institutional uses can be effectively designed as a centralor totegral carefulyart of a consider ssuesesuch neighborhood. It is important, however, as parking, traffic, and pedestrian circulation. Commercial and civic uses: Some jurisdictions might findesigned. This ll-scale commercial or civic uses appropriate, if theyappropriately option was considered but rejected omorsiton plan,�surto only permit ty because the county's policy, as stated in the comprehensive commercial uses where public utilities are available. l These small-scale nonresidential uses fit well with the conceptaso f eof ural cluster as a hamlet or village; one where residents can daily needs without driving. If this option is desired, careful design I 37 II - 1 I controls are needed to avoid ending up with the typical franchise convenience store/gas station. Therefore, commercial or civic uses should be allowed only as conditional uses, with criteria such as: • Parking should be located to the rear or side of the building, never between the building and the street. • Parking adjacent to the street should be screened with a low hedge, wall or wooden fence. • The building's architecture should have a residential character (with a pitched roof, for example); and typical "franchise architecture" should be prohibited. 4.6 Ownership and Management of Open Space This section specifies the various entities that mayand own manage the common open space and facilities: a homeowners'association, a non-profit organization, the county or another unit of government, or an individual who will use the land for open space purposes such as agriculture. Note that the ownership of the open space is distinct from the method of permanent protection, which is specified in Section 4.7. The most typical, and preferred, ownership option is the homeowners' association. This method gives the residents the greatest degree of control over the use and management of the open space. There may be situations where a non-profit organization or unit of government will hold title to all or part of the land; one example might be the establishment of a public park or a wildlife sanctuary or preserve on part of the open space. Private ownership of open space is permitted, provided that it is placed I under a permanent easement. This land might be used for farmland, forestry, nature preserve, or other natural or agricultural purposes. Some cluster ordinances allow all or part of the required open space to be used for few large "estate lots," only a small portion of which may be developed for a dwelling and outbuildings. Conservation easements or restrictions guarantee that this land will not be further developed. However, residents of nearby housing may not have physical access to it. (The Washington County ordinance requires resident access to at least 25 percent of the protected open space.) Open4.7 Space A conservation easement is not a form of ownership. Rather, it is a permanent restriction on the further subdivision or development of the land, which "runs with the land" in perpetuity. I 38 I 1 1 The Transition Zone, as mentioned t bo°a suburban density when public under "Purpose and Scope," is intended for ultimate developmea utilities become available. In the county's comprehensive plan, transition areas are found immediately adjacent to serviced cities such as Stillwater and Forest Lake. These areas may ultimately be annexed by the cities and developed at urban densities. In the meantime, open space development is a low-density interim use that can allow further subdivision to occur. However, the open space features that form the focal points for each neighborhood will be permanently protected, to protect neighborhood character and quality. 4.8 Homeowners' Associations A homeowners' association (HOA) is needed whenever a development includes commonly-owned lands or facilities. Planned Unit Developments and golf course communities, for example,would lsof which is grequire radually The developer's task is to establish the HOA, ownership transferred to the landowners. This section of the ordinance describes the legal provisions that are required to be included in the HOA's documents, which must be submitted to the County for review. As described in Rural by Design, the two cardinal rules for successful HOAs are automatic membership by all property owners and the legal authority to place a lien on the property of any member who fails to pay dues. 4.9 Density Standards There are many ways to create bonuses (or disincentives) to encourage (or discourage) various development techniques. This ordinance provides a "base" or "automatic"bonus for using the OSD option. It was felt that the bonus was needed to offset the additional upfront expenses (to meet legal and design requirements) and the increased risk to developers of this type of development, still relatively untested in Minnesota. The bonus ranges from as much as 100 percent in the "A-1" Agricultural District to as little as 10 percent in the "RS" Rural Suburban District. No bonus is provided in the "C" Conservancy District. How much of an incentive is necessary? Based on consultation with the development community, the range of density bonuses provided here seems to be sufficient to "level the playing field" and make OSD a viable option. Among the other cluster ordinances in Washington County, May Township and Stillwater Township offer bonuses of 25 percent and 50 percent respectively, over conventional density. t 39 i I i If open-space development is mandatory, of course, no incentive is necessary. Yet another option is a disincentive for conventional development, so that it could only occur at a lower density than OSD . development. I (3) Density Points Additional density bonuses are used to encourage development that meets certain county goals, including affordable housing, historic preservation, public access to natural or recreational areas, and protection of shorelands. The bonus for creating an endowment for conservation easement management ensures continued management and monitoring of the open space by an established land trust. These bonuses could be linked to other goals in other jurisdictions -- for example, for preserving a particularly critical natural habitat or creating a needed link in a trail system. 4. I 0 Performance Standards (I) General Considerations I The percentage of multi-family units is limited to ensure a degree of compatibility with surrounding residential development, which is almost entirely single-family. The intent of the size limitation is to avoid overly long or massive buildings that would be out of character with their rural agricultural or low-density residential setting. (2) Residential Lot Requirements The standards in this ordinance represent a compromise between flexibility I for the developer and compatibility with typical building lots and development review procedures within the county. Some open space ordinances use narrower front and side yard setbacks and smaller lot sizes in order to use land more efficiently and create a "rural hamlet" or "village" character in new development. Other ordinances forgo minimum lot size entirely, relying instead on minimum separation distances between structures. The requirement for all lots to take access from interior local streets is intended to minimize access points onto the primary county or township roadway. It also avoids the common phenomenon in rural areas of the "roadside strip" of frontage lots, a pattern that is both visually obtrusive and unsafe for local traffic and pedestrians. This provision might need to be waived occasionally if an existing driveway to an existing house or farmstead will remain in use. I 40 1 I Another goal of these standards is to create "ngorhoo es"r rather is of han mere "subdivisions" -- in other words, compact, I houses with easy access to the surrounding open space, and with some . central feature that creates a visualcinocus and F Figure 4 strengthens thismay e a besense of neighborhood identity. As shown "designed" central open space such hsca adgreen, arkwominent natural Ifeature, or a street designed and p (3) Neighborhood Siting Standards IThe challenge of this section is to foster creative design and protect key resources without "straitjacketing" the developer with too ith the many requirements. Which resources should receive priority?exception of resources protected by federal and state regulations (lakeshore,wetlands, floodplain), this will likely sdiffer�in e geach oals I of any open space development jurisdiction: in some, farmland preservation will be paramount; in others, habitat protection or protection of scenic views may take precedence. I Note the difference between thea ehall"desiand the ed to„be flexible sshoulorthat local in Section (E). These standards so governments can make choices and tablish prioites. It is of laude s developed rsome impacts lou I understood that when any frac resources are probably unavoidable. The ordinance recognizes that these I impacts can be minimized but not eliminated. Why are neighborhoods restricted to a maximum of 50 dwelling units? The aim of this provision is to ensure development of a compact neighborhood of a manageable size, with a clear connection to the surrounding open space, rather than a larger, more "suburban" I subdivision. If additional neighborhoods of�o or re desired, elements such as separated by a clear boundary consisting a stream, a slope, woodlands or a break in the street pattern 1 (4) Open Space Design: The percentage of open space that is required in each district has been I designed to work in concert with the maximum density and the minimum lot size permitted in each district. Even with bonus densities, it should be possible to meet the minimum open space requirements with no difficulty, if lot sizes are kept close to the specified minimums. It should be remembered that one of the primary goals of OSD development is to provide common open space rather than private open space. IThe intent of the open space design standards to, s residents ensure thaChet the protected open space is accessible, at least in part, I i41 I rigure Li-: vrientation I —7--------r- •-- PP IStream Orientation Toward Physical Amenity I , f---- -7- I .L. • I %%••'...:17-7-' 7.7.7'.'7-77r7:;:,:'•-••• . ' ''''*:•.• Trail . ,Foxamotmoocicicio Green .:':•Ii:1-2-1::\_•,::22.:-_- ..,:•.:•••••:r.- : III i ,- / Z /, II , d , / ,/ Orientation Toward Green I Views 111/ 7\ "N. / --/- - N \• ss 4411kr" ',N) l*ii-lark \ flb .-- , \ S ''' ' I Orientation Toward Parkway I I I I development, and that a portion of it is usable for recreation and other pursLy that is essentially unbuildable ,wand , p sloppoes)es.may beanincluded ssin the open spaceuildbut should(floodplainnot constituteetlssteethe I majority of it. (A variance from this provision may sometimes be needed if the tract being developed contains many such unbuildable areas.) Certain uses and structures, such as roads and buildings, may also be I located within the open space but generally not counted toward the required minimum. 1 The design of a connecting pathway system is stipulated in order to ensure that the "accessible" open space is physically accessible from the outset. When a trail system is planned on a tract, it is preferable to I develop it simultaneously with the houselots. If it is to be developed later, its location should be made clear to potential residents, to avoid any opposition to introduction of trails at a later date. 1 (5) Street Standards I Street widths and alignments should be carefully scaled to neighborhood size. The goal of a compact, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood can be undermined if the typically wider road and right-of-way standards of conventional suburban development are used. The county ordinance Iprovides a range of right-of-way and roadway dimensions, depending on the expected levels of daily traffic. I In calculating average daily traffic (ADT), traffic engineers assume that a single-family detached house generates about 10 (one-way) vehicle trips 111 per day, with lower numbers for attached and multi-family dwellings. Thus, 10 houses generate 100 trips, and so on. I An "urban section" means that the roadway is designed with curbs, rather than shoulders. (6) Sewage and Water Facilities • The ability to use shared or community wells rather than individual ones is one of the advantages of open space development. Community wells 1 can be sited in the most suitable locations on each parcel, with maximum separation from wastewater disposal and treatment facilities. This feature is especially beneficial in areas like Washington County, where Igroundwater is highly sensitive to contamination. Another key feature of the OSD Development standards is the ability to I use common or individual drainfields in open space areas. This is critical in allowing the smaller lot size that is so important in OSD design. It also enables drainfields to be sited on the most suitable soils on the parcel, I 1 43 I I Figure 5: Sewage Treatment Options 111 -::,-, - ::, ...-: ,./ 7 ,'•:.,. t/ f- --, ,'...: ; , /..... I ,...:f-. 1 i ..:' 4?:: ..::::•...-..!;?:'-: .: :..Cy',-?.- a1,.,..,....-: (:i Backup -1.:.,,,i........ :..,.:. clrainfield site •:.-:,...:.7.:::. in open space Drainfield on lot I ...., ..•. I - .::: ;s.:..d. ..... . 1 1 I I--;--/ ;i V,„-„-J____ ,..(4110 Dull:...„11: 11011 .:.,:,t 4-- :1 --- :•,: .i..Z...---0 Easement-) ..k....,:. t...-. .... line ,—..----:. -F.---,:••.• Backup y p drainfield sites -.;•/ ///p,•0i111111111111,..-07‘.• Berm (or fence) landscaping--i Individual Prainfields in Open Space I -,- -7/,„„,,,,--r----r---i- ,.. .,.., v _ g , i : Alp /... I , , . • • !i,-;•-•:-,-. V • !If / ,.,:' 'F,C),-;1•'..n.n....1'''. ..f: ::61 '''':..... "3 I 4 ' 0\1111„1111-s-Aniiii: Lzialoii11111111...1/ ....1,,. ,., ; Berm (or fence) Backup , landscaping drainfjelQI sites : I 4 P., 1,,„„0.1.),Y"N"TNeatilimmo.,:.1Y I Shared Prainfield in Open Space 1 • I rather than requiring a suitable site on each lot, and allows for additional "replacement sites" in the future. Washington County's Individual Sewage Treatment Standards (ISTS) Ordinance provides standards for community sewage disposal and treatment facilities. Alternative wastewater systems such as biological treatment, land treatment or wetland systems are regulated and licensed ■ by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. In either case, the homeowners association would be responsible for managing any common wastewater facilities, although the HOA could contract with some other entity to provide management services. (7) Golf Courses A golf course would not normally be covered by a conservation easement because it is already "developed" for a form of commercial recreation, whereas most conservation easements cover farmland and natural areas. Instead, the golf course would be covered by a development agreement to ensure that it is restricted to open space uses in the future. I I i 1 i I T i I 45 i i t t I 1 1 1 1 I Chapter 4: Case Studies Each of the case study sites is based on an actual site in the metropolitan region. However, their locations have been changed and certain features of each have been modified to better illustrate the principles of open space design within various settings that are typical of the region. Specifically, the sites illustrate approaches to open space design in three different "policy areas," as defined in the Metropolitan Council's Growth Management Strategy (see the map in the Appendix; these areas are discussed in detail in Chapter 1). These are: I The Permanent Rural Area • The Urban Reserve, or Transition Area • An Extension of a Rural Village within the Permanent Rural Area Case Study A: An Orchard and Berry Farm in the Permanent Rural Area IThe Regional Setting The Permanent Rural Area consists of land to which urban services such as central water and sewers will not be extended. It is suitable for a wide variety of potential uses, including farms, low-density residential development, and regional facilities such as parks. Protection of open space and rural character, and continuation of a limited degree of farming are appropriate goals for this area. In the Washington County Comprehensive Plan, this area is largely designated as General Rural, with a density of 4 units per 40 acres. The Site Site A consists of 83 acres of generally level land, divided between a pick- your-scatappohand bry cultivtinSeveral smawe ll tlnde teredown across le it;rcthe ard largest ear abutting theaocou. nety eroad. An areaaats the south end is wooded; it is part of a larger wooded area that slopes down to a stream valley on an adjacent parcel. Other vegetation consists of hedgerows along both bordering roads. A pipeline easement crosses the Isite, and an easement for a multi-use county trail parallels the county road. I I 47 I Zoning and Yield Plan I The site is zoned A-4 Agricultural, with a density of 4 units per 40 acres. . The Yield Plan reflects this zoning,with 8 large lots. With lots of this size, it would be possible to avoid removal or destruction of resource areas such as the wetlands or woods. However, the nature of large lot development means that houses would be located in prominent positions on each lot, rural views from both roads would be replaced with views of widely scattered homes, lawns and driveways, and the continuity of the woodland as habitat would be broken. The Open Space Design Concept The zoning ordinance provides for a 100 percent increase in density above I that of the yield plan; this results in 16 lots. (Additional density bonuses could be available for other features, such as public access to trails.) I The developer has chosen to develop only 12 lots at this stage. The concept plan shown here (one of many alternatives that could be selected) groups the 12 lots around a central green on the southern third of the site, along the edge of the woods. This approach protects the interior of the woodland, which is likely to have the greatest value as natural habitat, especially if it is part of a larger wooded area extending across several parcels. Lots are generally about one acre in size, so that septic systems can be I located on the lot. Another option would be to locate drainfields to the rear of the lot within the permanent open space; this could also be done if soils on the lot were unsuitable. Berry production and the apple orchard can continue to operate on the rest of the tract. (Apple production,if using chemical spraying,would be inappropriate if too close to the new lots. A trail system rings the site and connects with the I regional trail along the county road. The hedgerow along the township road remains, and most views into the site remain open and rural. Because the density in this district is low, it is not difficult to preserve a 111 large percentage of the site (82 percent in this case) as common open space. (According to the zoning, a minimum of 70 percent of the acreage must be protected as open space.) There are various options for ownership and management of this land: the farmer could retain the agricultural portion; the Homeowners' Association could lease the land to a farmer; or the Association could hire a manager to run the operation. The remaining areas would be managed as wildlife habitat and for residents' enjoyment. All of the open space is covered by a permanent conservation easement. 48 1 I . , .......„ •..... ...... SITE A .' .,,... . , .. _. „.... ........... . .. ,.. .. .,, . ... .. . .._ ...„ , . . , . . .. .. . .. , .. 1 . PERMANENT RURAL AREA - .7'w ' '. .. •-:i .- - . ,T, m .., . WASHINGTON COUNTY, ,.. , -...-.-.7-• .i. . MINNESOTA - '.' '' ' U1'111' -----•,-.."..; , Trai i-•'' .„ •....7i - ' , 3 CO - ---":.•••!.! . ..-: , '.':,'-. I. ' - EasetTle ' —. .,.. Resource - .• . I.,. • -..,,,...,-....,,-.,-..:„. /..,:-....-.•.-.-,,--.-. .• -• • • ..•.• ‘---.,.,.., -. 1 Inventory--- . . . ••-- • - -7,,e Scrub Trens - ;-•::''',.;-*--- •:-. vApple I' '' • i-• 1 , a „, ,; ,,,,, ;. ,. .. .. --•.•. froductipn . 1 ,. . . .. . I . . , , .. „.... .. . .. •,-.0 ... . — •• '-, . .•"••• •-,. ,.. .: ,. .. „. . : .. . . , . . . ':: . i .1 • . ; . . .. .... _....,,,.„ .• 1 ,,,,,,I IIIV r.. r:: j-. ..."' .',..,', ,, .....' : ', •-• - .-• I . , . , - . 4 .-- , . .. . . ... , , . - I - - ,„. .. , .. .... .. ,. . . ' , : Ip,.. (. , . _ .. . . . . GDSOIWLET AND POORLY • : Ci . , . . ,• -.. , . . . . I. --;-I.:. .... , . , ,, ., . ,. , 1,07:1 i-i-i„ '. ' :. <j1 1 , .. ,......:. ': _ . I . . . . , ' ------- SEASONALLYDEXIMISI TNINE WOODLANDS . F; • ,..•.; , : . H.P.. ------•-•-•- , .1 .. ..) • . ..... . • . ... ,.. , -.. .. SLOPES 12%OR GREATER ;'•:';'',''':- SPRING I' '''‘'A ''. /.... . _ ,.. . :... _,. . - -. ,. .. . • : Berry ,:i '' i - •-- : , „ •-. '' 2 i 1.••• , ..- . ProduCtion : , . . , , „ '•; •''. . . , . I :,, .;','- ! ; :•--------- . . . • • iiiftemmil\°' HIGHPOINTS AND RIDGELINES ,.--...„. ... . • .. , . : : V . . .. . II .- ,-. . .,,. , . . , . . . . : - - -.• :. 11 : I .., ' „ , .... - litika.•.04 OVERLAND DRAINAGE ril . POTENTIAL ACCESS - i .. 1,.. . . . : .. .. . . , , . — 1 ;. • , . . -i-I '; . .. . „ .. . , . ..-- . •: • : I — ' I': • , . ' :. ., Existing Well --I' ,........- ..,.1:..:. I.1.•,,,. .:. • : :. --!I • .... .. ; m i . • , • '. : • . 0-7— i„.. I -11.— i0 I L. ";_!°!.' I I . , . — . I n'' .. . , ,2 ._ ! :T.,,,,, , 50'Gasoline Pipeline . . .. ,. ,.,....., ........-- • ,, • , . ,. . , 24:'' l'' ' . . ...... .. --.„, •-. I :----- ;---- 4. ---.,,_ __.---:-::::::' 3_erry ...---;.Production........ i --... :, .N,.. ---\ I •-:. ', \ • .44:i / •- ; • :I"'-:/ •••• ----- '7:' ; : , . lt, : :, /\------• .' .2--• , . . : --••"-------•. i i 1 . ,- . . , , --- , . , ., . . . ,. - 1 .. . :• • i . . : 1 ,,, ,... ;/I.P. '. : --- ' '' •••:, ',,, :-.. .. . , . . . . . .. , . .,. . ,i,....LJ - il: ,...rie„i' •.., -• -•-••• :. P'''''. . , .:.' I 440 , HP. . ., , , H.p. .. . . ; . , 1 • . ,.. -..........;- _ 157 ":„, '„. :• ,,,:-- 13 0 ':':' 1•„ ....:,,,,,.i!;:e,'• ti. :: .• ; • 0 100 200 300 6 - • .... . •-----.... : . : .. .... . .. , . 0. . . ., SCALE 1• = 30 . .. . .. ,. . . . , ' s, . ' • ., ..- • i _• / .---....-1::14'li-tv: • - . , - ..: . ----ik._ ", .,... ..',.---' • / ,,,' , / ! - •'••'-F4'' 74:.g:t4:i.Y.I;T:,';'',:;. ' '''} ', ,' " .•' •4''fi.-'74"*"4.0' ''i ' I ''.' I i " • '••• /'' ' '' ' ' ". .' .• -14 ''',f,C,'''',"4'V°1'1'14g.r • '4:44 : . , •,., , : : .,,• ..• , ,•4"•••••'''&14:•,<:.14",,".."".P1644."•,... ••'4•.4 4 . ;',,', •', '•., , ... ,Ak N8. . , . r.•" "..--''' ). :,,'i,""'''''''L i' % '--.-------. .--.. . ''''''''''''''''''r°''° ;'' BRW , i, ,. '',..:-;i4''',,,v. .--'--..''' ' ( ---- ,,-'frJ.Zit;."-.A.:-$:1:4.,4 ,,-;I: . . ,.,., i ;,,,,-;%-,4-',A t,r,o, ' ' ','- " , lt40'11. I . ,'''' 1 ' ,:,fts;•;,'.:::'0,',;- ,-,i- i '. ' ,' -, -- ''<ri '':. ' Figure 6 s--' -: -i--- ',.. -.."';';:-;-*:"-4AN4:, ., ' ,__ ..„‘..., I -v'•',;.;;''..,,'.4,,:rv'; :4'..., : , „., k ,..... , • •• .--.-... !,,,,i,r''';,:'''''';,,(',''':;'. •• 'f:,.. .'t !,, ,;•....... ..;:ii ,-- -',, , -----,,°,....4,4 , •'".'"' aika.;...m..somm•............,fiw.,_40,,,,. .-,,u;"„,.......... . 4,9 . • . . , S I T EA .. I ... .. . . .. , „5 ,.. PERMANENT RURAL AREA RO - I . . . _.. a • .. ; , , . •.,., • • .. , . . ' --. -' - '''' .-*".. . , ' 1 '• :__. ;.;_„. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ' i'. ,4 . .' .•-• : MINNESOTA • ' 17- '... • 'Lltsiri. --___---.%0•7: • ..-4:,..-----,, .. ,..'.° -- - , b : • co ., ,-.4---- ..!-..-- : ' \ ' '•.•.-; 1--:: ., . .. !...- .....,,..---...,,,--',-.....!, -,,,-.-.-.-.-...., . . .'• •' • '. . .. i,,',..--. I • Yield Plan 1 . , . . ..... . . . . . _ . • • . . . . ......,,, , , . ,. ... . .• . • -- • .• . . , , '• i,:::: 1 . -- - -...i ,, ) --- . - -'. . ''‘. ' --- .- ' ' -'*. Z . . ,...-- .,,..› .. .,., pv I ,• •,. ., , . ,. ---- ' '. ,. . - ---- - •-•-' .- ...... .. .. . .,,, .. . 1. ZONING DISTRICT A-4 AGRICULTURAL I .... .- .. •• ;: -. :I''' , '''.--- - -. ...." " ' .. . • MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 10 ACRES .. _. . i. , . MAX DENSITY: 4 UNITS PER 40 ACRES ' . . . • - „.., - ..; ._ „_, , • ..- -- - . . . ., . •: • I- r , _•___—_--=-.-----------7----- -- ./2, ......-. ...: ,, .., •__ SITE 83 ACRES ,, ..- . • . .------,--------------- ------ --.‘-' : .... ::"'Z '. I 8.---. '--' ' . .---,' . ... . -•\, \ . . • LOTS: 8 I • • .2 ‘'- . •. ,. . -----..,. . ,, • y..... ...:,......:___. :. I I • I -.. • •,. ..; , I :.' . . .--•-••.,-..,, '... 11 'i_____ -..,7----;-1 . I • • .• . ,.. . . ... . : „ II I -• .. . . : . ,...' . . . . .. . , . . . . . ... . . ... . . . •.. .,,.....•., .., .. . • • . I '.1 ••••,,, ,,/ . :I. • 17 1. -<::.-17.1' -..-\'. '.. • I'''. ":.-... I i ,. . • I' : I • . . .- • . . .:. . : - • -- _-._. : . ..., . ,,. -- • .. • . , • ) . • , 'i ''l . . • ''... . : • . .. . . • : • -- .. . I 1 . . • • .• ... :. ..,....• ...---.1 --- -1 ' '';' - ''' °. 4: ' . . -,.., ... . ' ' I -----'' .0.-7-7.--.:--... ---4'4• - .. • t 1-2; __O- P-: . . ; ; • .'. . __.. = _.....,,,__...„, _r.:_... . . : 1 . • . . . , . . Li.:1'.-.. .,_ .:' -_---:-::1 I '',......,./ i• '.... . '., ! : . I \ • I , . ,..4..... . ,.. :I ..„ i :-----•... 7'2 .... I 1;4 ., ',. . ''.. I I ...v..'i ''' ..• I . . . . . . , ; .... . , , . ... . . . . . ., ..." I . . . . . . . . . ., „. . ... . .. . . i ', .. . . . :I .' - ;„ ,„H ,r7 •.-.. '.... r. ... ,,,6. % ' 0 100 200 300 .•. . . ,. .•• 1 1 1". _..,__--- ---.,- 5 1_._... -,,,,„,..;;;,,.,17.' I:. .• 4;;Aik..:,..',.;;.' SCALE 1'' = 300 1 I .... :'..:;•.z.,;,',..';',----' i ''. .'" '. .' .' ./ : ..,,,444..,,,,,,f,,!•.„ • • . .„,ti.,;,,,,:,,,,,,,!:„.,.... , ; .. •---:..' ii,"4.„,,,..„.7,11;',•:,. :,.,.• %,, 14,;''::-1%,:,„ i --‘- - ...• ....,,-,--..t•-„,,„,,,-.71.v,N•iii,:',,, , , :-141,114•=,,z,,z,14,,i... ..,.. : ,-------:- ,,---,,,-----k *.5,-,;if..,-., ., i'S.',.-• ...,•••Ir 0',A,,,''',','''',,'.us., ------------' ,•-•'. ,,:,,,' '.'.'.RP..=,,'..iia'...: - : i B R W I ... ; '0",,,:,,,,,i.,-7,,- . ,•• ,.-- 1 ,:•... : _. ,,,?.?„,r.i.,,,., ,- 4. *.,,,,,,-.,,,,:-. 1..., .. 1 -,... .;.7,,,,,,,,,,r4,..1,4,.. .., --• ' ... \ ,."?.fr.:Ys.---L4, .:''.'......'•'_-••.-.1'-•,- i . ..„.,.„:.. ip-"- -,""ei:4,-.4.,,.: -., Figure 7 1-----. --.--". ;',4,...c,:*,•,,;,,f,i4;-1.- - i':::;5:;..;,;,\1:4p0:,, :t _ • •.,,,...,. ,....4.7,..1...„14.iti.,-/,.-: ,... -..4,4,-,.,,,?:::-.-',... . :-:, - ,,,,,:,, ...1.147.14,„,,,....,,,I,,,,k.,,,,,,,,..,,-,_ 7,,,‘,!,:f.f..... .,:,.,414. 2,-,-..,,,,„,:,.,,,, , ,, SITE A : ,*� �� c� PERMANENT RURAL AREA is ii . `� ,- ROAD .i'�. .._... # WASHINGTON COUNTY, ' � CriaN1' - 7' Prote MINNESOTA ted Open Space Design -iiI '• Connect to - • 1 Concept Plan ` . I Count a "Orchard Continues \ 1 . ZONING DISTRICT A 4 AGRICULTURAL . Views From Raarl p • Are Largely Rune._. • ' I MINIMUM LOT SIZE: . -1 \ .5 ACRES WITH OFF-SITE SEPTIC / I • .75 ACRES WITH ON-SITE SEPTIC IzI 0 r!, I f \ - SITE: 83 ACRES ti 1 Ij LOTS: 12 (16 PERMITTED WITH 100%BONUS) Berry Production .j COMMON OPEN SPACE 68 ACRES (82%) Continues I I`. (70%REQUIRED) I • ` 1 Hedgerow 1 \Remains I' I • , I -C " I' �` ► . _ / . :.I' ' I „-/, I Trail System _...�- 1-7 —I f • : . .e". . , . . ..._ , _- --- 1 . - , . . i . 1 '\.: . .: , , ,_ - I X I-- ., 1- -/� \ 2131 4{ 5 / i..' r-- . :Jr ICentral kI `Green ; --: o: ' 0 100 200 300 '{ I / 11" ,110 ,[9 I B a SCALE 1' = 300' fIV / a;; ;r "w, °'t Interior of Woodland is I � 4 ''�; �' ,'. �^ � Protected _-- BRW xFigure 8 Case Study B: An "Old Field" in the Transition Area The Regional Setting • The Urban Reserve, or Transition Area is generally planned to receive urban services by 2040, although its ultimate boundaries will be determined over time based on trends in land consumption and the use of the region's wastewater treatment system. Because much of this land will ultimately be developed at urban densities (2 or 3 units per acre), interim development at rural densities is discouraged, unless it can be designed so as to not preclude future urban-density development. However, open space design provides a way to phase development so that urban densities can be easily achieved. In Washington County's plan, part 111 of the Urban Reserve is designated as the Transition Area (found mainly adjacent to the City of Stillwater and in Forest Lake Township). The remainder is comprised of incorporated cities (Lake Elmo, Hugo, Cottage Grove) or is designated General Rural. Case study site B is located in the County's Transition Area. The Site I Site B, roughly triangular in shape, consists of 58 acres of hilly, mostly open land that has not been farmed for several years. Small trees are beginning to occupy the old field. It contains a few small areas of woodland and scattered wetlands, as well as substantial areas of slopes. It is located at the edge of a city's urban services area, adjacent to suburban-density residential development; a future street connection is already planned. Zoning The site is currently zoned "TZ" or Transition Zone. This means that the I interim zoning is equivalent to that of the A-4 District shown in Case Study A -- 4 units per 40 acres. However, the "ultimate zoning" for this district, once municipal utilities are extended to it, is "RS," or Residential Suburban, which has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. It is also likely that the site would be annexed by the adjacent city when services are extended, so that city zoning would apply. I Option I: Yield Plan/Conventional Development In a complex situation like this, it makes sense to think of three possible development options, which can be combined as several phases of development. The first option is what could be developed initially on the I site using conventional methods: a simple, large-lot subdivision of five i 52 I I lots, each ten or more acres in size. As with Case Study A, this approach is likely to result in rural views being replaced with views of large estate- type homes. Moreover, it is quite possible that these large lots, once developed in this manner, may never be resubdivided at urban densities. Even if only some of the large lots were resubdivided, it would be almost impossible to achieve an interconnected road pattern across the site. Option 2: The Open Space Design Concept Open space design represents the second option for the initial phase of development. The zoning ordinance provides for a 100 percent increase in density. Thus, ten lots could be developed. The developer has chosen to develop eight lots in this phase, grouped around a small central green at the intersection of the two perimeter roads. Eighty-six percent of the site remains as common open space. Most of this is temporary, however, and would not require a conservation easement because the land is intended to be resubdivided. Why place the development close to the road rather than in the interior of the site? Because the site will ultimately be entirely developed, it is far more cost-effective to minimize the length of road needed for the first phase. The woodlands and scattered trees in this area will help to shield these houses from the road. The lots range in size between half an acre and one acre. A common drainfield is located within the open space at the edge of the cluster. It would be removed when public sewer and water are extended to the site and the remainder of the site is developed. Option 3: The Ultimate Development Plan The third development option represents the final phase of development. This plan shows how the much of the open space set aside under Option 2 could be developed at "RS" densities, with 15,000 square foot lots. An 111 interconnected street pattern is created, with connections to the adjacent development and to the street created during the open space design stage. Because of its topography, this site would require extensive grading, and most of the trees in this area would be removed. Under the zoning ordinance, ten percent of the open space, including any central features such as greens, squares, playgrounds or parkways, must remain when the site is completely built out. In this case, the central green that serves as the "focal point" for the open space design is preserved, and an area along the southern boundary that contains a concentration of wetlands and small wooded areas is set aside for park development. 53 11 • • • SITE B : TRANSITION AREA : ' ' 'f °* \ WASHINGTON COUNTY, I 33 y'..p MINNESOTA .....7".; .4./4/ 1 *' \ , r' **** 4 .' Resource J 406 Inventory ,... , 'i 0.- ,VI - * , --, :0 ,\ . : i i' : , „ . ,, N 0 \ . i tv, .:11.W , • , ::: '. , ' \ -. - . : I c t • 1 __----;-----..\\::' , . „. \ .- . . 3: - - „ . )/' '-., 0, -,8;--;=-i?'1 , -7- - - , : . ,,, I : : ,4\-- --.21:•::::.--.-: :// „:.:;-. . : ,.. ---,.::, .,. fl.- •• / .: '!0 ... , ." ' -':•>=: : 2: ....1 • I\/ = y�yr. lF I ----= -1I-- -' ' ,,..,-:',',"; .,-2.' •:::...--.: -:::-..,=.7", :::- :::-.- t ,,,,,,,:''''t,'::..,--.- , .( -:-: :*•%,,....•;....! z. .. 111-. - ., ;_:•,:.;.: . ' :: 7*77"',07..7 --c°:: --::: •-:.-,.-:- , •��i �. 111 TAIT, �.r—• -- .•fin ii.D•�a� II z"1 1'11 -:'].:"7 ,1'1.: P �� �- PE MA- SEASONALLY WET AND .441\0.441\0HIGHPOINTS 0100 200 300 j POORLY DRAINED SOILS AND RIDGELINES ii SCALE 1' = 300' WOODLANDS OVERLAND DRAINAGE g R W 4111 SLOPES 12%AND STEEPER POTENTIAL ACCESS Figure 9 1 54 I SITE B .' . TRANSITION ARM .. •. / :...i• ,. ,,,-,',f:.!::,„i 50. co\ WASHINGTON CTOA U NTY, Yield Plan I I . / 0 ' °4(i's, i ,i,, \ • , / : /. .,i : ''' - et. Po ,.- - • -'N., . \\ I al i It.°1 0 -.. ' ..,.., ' • . .'\ . .t• • :. , . 21 ' \\.-.. 1 / t.--. ..•.:, . 0 . ,. , .:- ,--Ili 1 - : ... 1 - • , . 1' ili 1‘ 1 . :,.//,/ ' \ • . : --.: . • i- 1 - ' . -› ' -- . • , \\• _.1 :,, . .' ' . -.:::::',..iLe 4--7-- --- I _,..‘ I --- ....-0 • ..'_ -k•-.".' ' __:----I— . mile* "-\ to --77.':..::.3 : ?, "0 \ . '.\\ .., :..-- .7 ;---- . . . ..'.. 1: ' ' . 60: tt. %COD I , T; __---.- , . '7' . ;.S .' I. : - -.:',. - ' : ... .,..:i . . - .: .-:-.i. „ I .„ ". • ,--- ...... ' --- ---- - . .. . :. „. , „. . . .. .__ . ', • ' -. I t) - :, . -:. ,:, . ::.,--,_ .-. , ':-.:',..:;.,...,,:::-...:,. 1::.:.-.."--f., . ' c ‘.-:g),‘„. ' 03 'TT:i_ ' Ilk '.,, a--..-r:1--;-:::::.,-. •-; "-Y:: !"' ; ' ::- '...::::.:". ',...--- -.77-:, ,' -. . *,'- ',' ::::.'. . I . •.,.. I , • 1 L. a 42 SPc., .c , . I .,,. . __ '----...__-_::7,i ' ,,::',/,'i i i: , 1.-• : :',: 1 .: ' . ,;lowila i.„. t'...., 111 100 200 300 07777 I ZONINGMINIxiLIA4DISLoTRTI ZONE SCALE 1" = 300' SCTZE:TRA1ONASCTRIEOSN B R W MAX DENSITY: 4 UNITS PER 40 ACRES SITE: 58 ACRES LOTS: 5 IFigure 10 155 SITE B : I TRANSITION AREA ° �. WASHINGTON COUNTY, I ' ds . \ MINNESOTA -/ 1 /2, $c>.. \..: / � " ,...\\ Oen 5 ace Design p p g I - 46.7r111! ' , / Concept Plan ' ce. �� •' / / 7 ~- �� Future StreetII " _ Connection ' 7".- . ' -,• 771 \ C°111'f1ite ' 1 yI `�� I, Temporary Common ' :' :/' i‘i . ' . '* Open Space III 4-7 . . „, o o . oo \ ' i '\\ :. ' I :-.-:_ • _ * * r a� ,..1 -14 ». v ..p.p•b.-i-•—.—.€i. ri o.— - I ZONING DISTRICT TRANSITION ZONE MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 0 100 200 300 5 ACRES WITH OFF-SITE SEPTIC C 1 .75 ACRES WITH ON-SITE SEPTIC , SCALE 1' = 300' SITE: 58 ACRES I LOTS: 8 (11 LOTSALLOWED WITH 100%BONUS) B R W COMMON OPEN SPACE: 50 ACRES (86%) Figure 11 I (70%REQUIRED) 56 .! I SITE B : TRANSITION AREA '� WASHINGTON COUNTY, • T ! 1 � d?"�6 . ... MINNESOTA II r' 3 �g •� Ultimate ' Development Plan a I . : Central J [b I 1 ,\ Gree' l 0 .t / l 97 196 :'\>- • •. '' / •�____"--_` , \98. ' 95 • ' -` -�''` i\,-\ 91 \,,...\\.,././ 92 ' y1 .;iti ‘ ,_ so- : I / !,b; K- 73 79 76 I • I — ': .75 8S V.84 \.i" / 7 58 \7,,\.,/,,,,;;\i\-,, ss .,„• / '�J. :.:o__ 1- "--\ 57 4 ©. �`` \ ,/ 73 \.....: 16 , . c 56-:Nir7:6 , 61, ' 17-77-777 ‘,.- 1-- 7 y 3U -', f 0 i ,_o 3 \\s \ / 71 _ —' 32 \ 55 J 63 �, X70 '�\ \. - i 18 I 29_:-r y 54 0' / 44 7D... t 64,/0 19 I -,� i X53 °0 '' 5 \ 66 l 4S 69 y J \ 1 Q 20 I__..'..: 27 1 y \,..___-..-- . : fi8 A` . ^ �• 4 -;A-7777771 ` 2 / 1 — .. -. .23-, .I.:7,1:7*".,:,'..±.., [35 '-36.' 37 ' 38'39 ',D 41 ' 42 . -------:.:701_,„,,- --T----i-ri:::::::,,:::''' L \ :iiiiii. -----.-:::::-:':'- -:; ::::::-::.-. .4-:-. c",i,--,,,,:,,,,it , ..,•i4--!:: ,,,,,::. .,.:,, ; - , : '- , - • , ii T �°° a % Cominumf �Por1C f�Yet#onds,.Slopes, Wooded Areas I are.Preserved I ZONING DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL SUBURBS iMINIMUM LOT SIZE: 15,000 S.F. 0 100 200 300 PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SCALE 1' = 300' ISITE: 58 ACRES LOTS: 99 B R W ICOMMON OPEN SPACE: 5.8 ACRES (10%REQUIRED) Figure 12 57 I Case Study C: An Extension of a Rural Village I The Regional Setting Site C is located next to a rural village or Rural Growth Center within the Permanent Rural Area. Rural villages are the historic, unincorporated crossroads settlements still found within many townships. Rural Growth Centers are those small cities in rural areas that provide their own services and have some room for expansion on their outskirts. Rural villages generally lack public water and sewer service,while Rural Growth Centers operate their own water and sewer systems. In either setting, open space design offers an alternative to the typical I pattern of large-lot suburban-scale subdivisions on the outskirts. Open space design can be used to create more compact neighborhoods along streets that extend and connect with the village street pattern. The smaller I lot size means that new neighborhoods can echo the form and character of the old, with narrower lots, houses relatively close to the street, sidewalks and shade trees along the street, and garages to the rear. Meanwhile, the protected open space forms a "greenbelt" around the village, beyond which agriculture or other rural land uses can continue. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan identifies the rural village centers of New Scandia, Marine, Lake Elmo Village, Old Afton Village and Old Cottage Grove for gradual expansion in a manner consistent with their historic character. All of these except for New Scandia are cities, or are located within cities. The area around the village of New Scandia, designated as Rural Residential (with a density of 16 units per 40 acres) is especially suitable for this approach, and is the location of Site C. The Site I Site C consists of a rectangular parcel of 79 acres situated at the edge of a rural village without public utilities. It has limited road access, and much of it has limitations for development: steep slopes, wetland areas, and some substantial areas of woodland. It still contains the original farmstead at the end of a long driveway, and was operated, until recently, as a dairy farm. Zoning and Yield Plan The site is zoned "SFE," Single Family Estate, with a maximum density of 16 units per 40 acres. The minimum lot size for conventional development is 2.5 acres. The yield plan that was produced for this site did not realize the maximum potential density of 31 lots. Once roads were laid out and 1 58 1 I grading and wetlands were taken into account, only 28 lots could be sited. This will often occur with medium-density developments on sites with some development constraints. Even with only 28 lots, substantial . sections of the large woodland to the southwest would have to be cleared, and some lots (4 and 5) have little buildable acreage because of wetlands. The Open Space Design Concept A 12.5 percent density bonus is allowed for OSD development. The developer gains an additional 15 percent bonus for a) preserving several of the historic farmstead buildings; b) allowing public access to the open space; and c) creating an endowment to cover the conservation easement holder's costs. Based on the 28 lots in the yield plan, this results in 36 lots. The lots are clustered on the eastern portion of the site, adjacent to the village, leaving most of the woodlands and wetlands undisturbed. As in the yield plan, the access road follows the existing driveway and connects to the village street system. Lot sizes range from half an acre (the central lots) to over one and a half acres (the deep lots along the perimeter). The larger lots would have on- site septic systems and wells, while the smaller lots would be served by common facilities within the open space (bordering lots 8 - 10). Central open space consists of a small play area where the entrance road I divides. Small landscaped triangles add green space to the road intersections. Several access corridors are provided as routes into the common open space, which could be retained as a natural area with walking paths, or remain in pasture use. Open space comprises 54 percent of the site; the zoning requires a minimum of 50 percent. Another Option: Central Water and Sewer If this site were located in a Rural Growth Center (like the City of Marine on St. Croix, for example) that operates its own water and sewer systems, open space design would still make sense. Small lots -- even as small as a quarter acre in size --could be served by these central utilities,while the open space would continue to function as a greenbelt into which utilities would not be extended. The compact development pattern is more economical for the city to serve than the conventional suburban pattern. I Alternatively, if the entire site were intended to be developed with city- sized lots once public utilities became available, a phased development plan like that shown in Case Study B could be used. I I 59 .- SITE C : 111� -- RURAL VILLAGE EXTENSION �'' - WASHINGTON COUNTY, r I. . ; . r' MINNESOTA • fF t �� _ •. � . ^ Resource Inventory iI .,, i . M xi s ` �. _ v.,..,1,.' „,,,,,••-. ,!;.: .•'• PEMA SEASONALLY WET AND �I d ,« • ?. � POORLYDRAINEDSOIL is —• } € . •\ <7 WOODLANDS --a t a \\�II I SLOPES 12%AND STEEPER �. I. • ~ ,I '}o • -H.P.141, HIGHPOINTSANNo D RIDGELINES • \/ i •' OVERLAND DRAINAGE • t I, ., ter . POTENTIAL ACCESS } i Y I\ . _. -,_:].„.i..7 ,..„\\::-:.----1,_. ,:::..i : ..,.:„.):...•_-,,, , i. . ,,, .. ,2_,\)\ 1 : ,,, , •, ,...!•,,,,,,....a.,.... , ,..,.,.:,:. ---II -.. :_..:_• ; .:; ,:: : . ,•-••,, ..,. .\.,,, , i „,. .,s., ) ) .,. ...i ., )\\., ,....„,.... .....„:„.,:.„,,,:„.„,:.:.,,,,,,\,,_ ...1 : .• , : 1 , Lil:,:,, , ). .\ \\ •,\\ ,\:,..._;,,„::-...---'''''•-•-;'. • .---717- „:",..,:•,"..A /1:,:.:',: ,L • j H p • SITE L. ■ .. i : ,.. ..-----,2 • 11, '"*,.,.' Cs,. .._;_,..- .7_7--i 't,4°*#, ' ',( / -- ' •' '' ' m*/• '''. i ,� \ ,\x)1 L \' a= • °l s :''s;fi: ',.,j v+ • \ = .PY .,.‘.V.V.'` , �1 , •'r ��� ..;,==!!,,,> • 8'• , KEY MAP RELATIONSHIP `® - ;,- w `; /f ,,)a \ !\\ \,I TO VILLAGE CENTER .„-f---7•—•'•'.1t I'-!!'A Vik!,;;I::,,--,!,•--T'......!.-----•'!:••-•, ''''.<,\-<•-•--V -N'‘-‘ ., ...1 \i) ' ���i44l�a ` f � /.`'` + s `� ''+ c ,� ��. ��Vb �I w � r Fpe 1'. ��.. d � � ' \- `,'+ %: 0. -' / 8,. z ,Ee k l � � �� ,was ..3 ��� ® ..•- ' � � � ty �' � � F F I 0 100 200 300 gi 8�� x SCALE 1' 300' �" �. 6/ m MPJ. Figure 13 60 1 SITE C : RURAL VILLAGE EXTENSION r _ \ -- k` ' ' ' �— WASHINGTON COUNTY, R, MINNESOTA 4;;. Yield Plan . 1 IL \\:i•-..4,',.,:�" ` • / ZONING DISTRICT SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE r ----k— S /: s -' I ',, • 41- 119 ;� 1I �26 , \ MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 2.5 ACRES x II::. I ?! ° ' .' MAX. DENSITY 16 UNITS PER 40 ACRES j • r1'j 5, SITE: 79 ACRES i ti .. ,3#i 3 4 >{ A^'/.:. B• _._ 1 -- --, .4 2. t___; I ,: i LOTS: 28 It7 I ,-=x s 17 - ;� I \ 7, \ --`=� ` 1 ' 24 ' 1 I\t I I. 11 SITE - ---_1.2: 1 c) a • • , .! 1 - 1. i i ,. -.: ; . ; ---N: , k,,-w i I sc's.--;01'61-.. :" / ,---'-„;—0,..).-7.-,-"1 I.',..•'.r @1. pti \\ i' '•'I ' KEY MAP-RELATIONSHIP \-I • �, , \I ,\i '' , \',1 TO VILLAGE CENTER ,..:.--',."' i*a4.rd'" .' --. 11 1 t'11-.r \ _ �- ,,`� ',\ \ fit .; f 9\,,..'..,1�� �v — I /,41,- �..- �� 1\ 'fie f \ -� 3 - ',s,w3,�\ "W't't'.... '',)1 t r�.; fra6r r ""` a,a, �5 �\ \ ,,...-...:::,..7'.;.:,,, ,,,,,,,:, r .� �-'`"s---:,".✓' t r t >< `L-, x'A \ V .."'l ,e ,t , ( I 0 100 200 30O. 0 r " \ \, .- ` SCALE 1' = 300' I Figure 14 I61 SITE C . 1 --- ''- --- - -- I _____,,.,L.:..,.:,,_.._..........____, .::.:,.:::,,,, U.. P ' ' rt- ,, RURAL VILLAGE EXTENSION '" t WASHINGTON COUNTY �` } MINNESOTA I 4. .% :-......----„,.:4'' ‘ en Space Design I �r ` -� _.Access to 111 • p openspace X75, - Concept Plan ---,:-.\-\1-,..,.../.:.,..,,.-,/,,. ,.. ,.,,,,.; :,. - _. y.- ,tom N `: ,.\ ~3/ aY. is A .24 `• � • , Farm Bu►ldi? ;}/ � k,;:i! ZONING DISTRICT SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE 11 �f = Preserved j `' 1 . ,. '27 123 t .. _ i \ � .` s. SITE 79 ACRES . � . \ MINIMUM LOT SIZE: I .,• :. 36 > �22 a , , 'k / :�� `_. 5 ACRE WITH OFF SITE SEPTIC k '�• fir ' .575A 75 ACRE WITH ONSITE SEPTIC r , • -' ':‘,S::,':'-',,.\:-;i-,\ 's.s1,.-„',:..',.,-,.--'''''.74-'",.." ' /? LOTS: 36 (12.5%DENSITY BONUS '''-'4... , ��`\ 34 •, PLUS 15%ADDITIONAL BONUS) liZ � ._. ."4 7::-,.`', t� 31 ., �, s-D \ I-' I '' ` COMMON OPEN SPACE: 43 ACRES(54%)"' I 8 \ "fir / I ' (50%REQUIRED) l f L- . -Fotur �, {, ti Eds� 17 � � � �t � � t,: I :r: I \te. •L ,. i < �j .. ` a1 !\/. ([A� � 1 � ly�I � •--......r ,,,..,, ,„ ,,___... ..., ,..,,,,,,/J pi � � �, Linke to • • treet -7/7'-i 1l/oge S y 1 �t system I =JI. I - Ei� ,, _ , '-,:•\'-‘ 1.-. t i ,:, KEY MAP-RELATIONSHIP \I - f .4; "' "f 1 '" ,, ti,, ;'Access to \� `;; TO VILLAGE CENTER r " 4;'7-�"-�'f i{I€1-k ` ,-\,�. 'x`2.1 \ pen Space`I : " ""`;',/}q /' �, I ;j I '..j47,4';'",':.71% ).7-- ---';'-',.1',..', '\ �'''.': ,,,,„;;:-.7,-,‘,...- :...;...,,,,:;;,,,:( s ,a ao'`.•: -.7----r' „..w� \\ - \ � T \ :I I � �\ air f } lid \ JIm' ' l r . '/f I ,,� yy d xi�,pwatj,,,,.,,,‘„,,i7,•• „,..7.7,7_,,,,,;.t,,,.,."o ;- c-7-'\\--)\\'''''' } �� '\ :.7 e as ".," {t Yc': "ua” as.,a•�--3 f �I0 100 200 300 c _ ,� feu. ��; ;.I77.-77 W` I� �� 9� � '�!� —, :� SCALE t' = 300' I B RW I Figure 15 62 I I References Arendt, Randall. 1996. Conservation Design for Subdivisions: A Practical Guide to Creating Open Space Networks. Washington, DC: Island Press. 160 pages. $34.95 (paperback). Available from Planners Book Service, APA, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600,Chicago, IL 60603-6107. Phone: 312/786- 6344. A readable handbook, written for use by landowners, developers or local officials in designing and reviewing open space subdivisions. The design process involves identification of each site's significant primary and secondary conservation areas before roads and houselots are sited. . 1994. Rural ByDesign: MaintainingSmall Town Character. Chicago: gn g American Planning Association. 441 pages. $86 (hardcover). Available from Planners Book Service (see previous reference). A comprehensive examination of many techniques for protection of rural 1 and small town character, including open space design, alternative sewage disposal techniques and alternative street standards. . 1997. Basing Cluster Techniques on Development Densities Appropriate to the Area. Journal of the American Planning Association 63, 1 (Winter): 137-145. This article, in tandem with the article by Daniels listed below, examines the pros and cons of clustering as a tool for farmland protection. Arendt argues that clustering is preferable to conventional development in a wide range of situations, from very low-density agricultural areas to urban fringe or suburban areas, if certain principles are followed. Daniels, Thomas. 1997. Where Does Cluster Zoning Fit in Farmland Protection? Journal of the American Planning Association 63, 1 (Winter): 129- 1 137. Daniels argues that cluster zoning is not appropriate for areas with a strong agricultural economy, since it may encourage more residential development in a dispersed pattern that creates farm-residence conflicts and erodes the agricultural base. It may, however, be appropriate for urban fringe areas, especially in the form of extensions to existing towns or villages. Land Protection Options: A Handbook for Minnesota Landowners. 1996. The Nature Conservancy, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, The Trust for Public Land and the Minnesota Land Trust. Available from The t 63 1 I Nature Conservancy, 1313 Fifth Street SE, Suite 320, Minneapolis, MN I 55414-1588, Phone: 612/331-0750. This handbook outlines the many land protection options available to landowners and the financial and management implications of each. Options include conservation easements, deed restrictions, and many methods for transfer or exchange of land. Includes profiles of 111 conservation agencies and organizations. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 1996. Rural Cluster Development Guide. Planning Guide No. 7. 200 pages. $10. Available from the Commission, P. O. Box 1607, Old Courthouse, 916 East Avenue, Waukesha, WI 53187-1607. This very comprehensive guide covers all aspects of cluster development, within the context of the natural conditions and the regulatory framework of southeastern Wisconsin. It includes standards and guidelines for zoning and subdivision design (including model ordinances), and a detailed discussion of stewardship and management options for common open space. I I I I I I I I I 64 t I • 1 Appendix ■ Clustered Housing Ordinances ■ in Washington County Communities April 1997 A number of communities in Washington County allow the clustering of residential homes through clustered housing or planned unit development (PUD) ordinances. Currently six townships and two cities have clustered housing ordinances in place, and three cities permit clustered housing under PUD ordinances. Two cities are currently drafting clustered housing ordinances. Hugo is working on an 1 ordinance and is considering some clustering under PUD. Hugo has decided not to implement an ordinance however, until after development of the revised Washington County clustered housing ordinance. Woodbury is in the beginning stages of ordinance development. A draft is currently being considered by the city's Open Space Committee and will soon be sent to the Planning Commission for their review. A number of communities have not implemented, nor have plans to implement, clustered housing ordinances. These communities include two townships (Grey Cloud Island and West Lakeland) and fourteen cities (Afton, Bayport, Birchwood, Forest Lake, Grant, Lake St. Croix Beach, Lakeland Shores, Landfall, Mahtomedi, Newport, Oakdale, Pine Springs, St. Mary's Point, St. Paul Park and Willernie). Tables one through four on the succeeding pages provide details about clustered housing ordinances currently in place in Washington County. Tables one and two detail clustered housing ordinances that have been adopted in townships and cities. Table three details PUD ordinances in the cities of Cottage Grove, Lakeland and Stillwater which permit clustered housing. Table four provides totals for the information included in tables one through three. Information included in these tables was obtained from city officials and/or city ordinances. 1 1 t 1 1 cl) I f� U O C >, 0 Co N O a) CO U ` O O RI ` O 4— C �• - O C O C O ...._CO_ 1 .` a) •O O L ` .O >+ C -o CO Qo U ` o O 75 "O Cl) 0 - V C U CoC TL- • O v 0 C O 0. 4 � w f4 i_ a) iOC_ OU cu ca co C _O CO . -.5ao ° � ami Cl) aUi ° E = c"a a) � aci0Eo •c° " n . I a) ° � Q Q Q 0 � v � a) � �, E � a) ocf°iE0 a) N c v) v) U) E 0 .v 0, En co c E a) E tn E 0- I . I cao o D D D 2 ( ca uv) D cc E c0i .°_.--_c c`oo a c0i a I w o. ,� O O O O OO O 0, I a) -c) a � ni E E EE E CD .- .-� °? v E —• "Q V v a) -v •v T2- co -v a) o a) a) a) E a) a) o-> ccoCoc ••a) := Q •:0 IL, E 4) a) a) aa)) aa)) aa)) aa)) 0 N N O Gj 2Q) UQ) UQ) > C Q Q cr `) co c0 a = 7 = 7 = Q•- Z � cn o co I I I a) I i I 0 0 O c aci aa)) a) aa)) aa)) `o) aa)) aa)) 0 0 0. O E >- >- >- >- co >- >- in u) o o o o o o o m .0 o- E E E E E = E E 'N u E E E E E E 3 -0as5 co co° •co •co co co 22 15 wo 2v 2 � 2v 2v 2v 2v O` a) N L o a) a) c. ca L , "C .N c Q� o 0 0 toL E Cea E 0 0 - -0 o N • N a) o co , E N aci c 0. cv ce ° t ' su E - 0) E.) 0 a) c a) og ;�`h o O 0 0 a) :4 H e aa) 0 a) 0.5" o y > o v) ct E c = Q N 0 '> cn a) .c Z Z Z } $ O73 Z >- w E I a) U C a) = I = 0.• C E c' N 3 �''H O o2Eo 0 0 0 0 0 co 0) 0 Ta .2 .c Z Z Z Z Z >- CIcn= 0.• aN Z Z Z Z O °' S co `•° CO Co CO CO :° Z N0 c C C C C C C o = I v v �' _ aa)) > > > > > > > 1 7 c V c O c9 0 O " a) 3 ': .9 -2 - c r t Cl) L L 0 L- 0.0' o E. o 0 c a O o 0 Q Ncvc2 .0 m m D :� cc m m I L cC/) a) 0. C c C v) 0 0. Q }— w � L S. ~ QI O ff- ~ N H Y E _ o v H _ Y CO Q V a) w Co C 65 a) 0 N H a) U) Co la - E _ 0c -..= I >. c 2 >, O U c 3 7 Q) I— m 0 2m 3cn � a) U) 1 ti 8 OL ny 73 W Ci _ N . o _ O O) as 0) O. V U . 4 a) .�-.O O o L p 0.. Ly Na a) 00c .50O iziO O c 15 •C a) -0 c L O p C O -0a a ` aNO C VO E r a) ` 'C coCQ Ococau) 3 p � a) .II a)O cn. co3ou) 2 cy o 7' s o o ca O 0a0 . � a) alacca) .( ca �O eWU .00cO � oc EcEp) E > accu) cw U o ou) oco i — co >, o u) .— C.) c I 2 ° = coo i CLO E 3 > .n 2 co . U c O _ a) 73 m C C co O .' U)) g .c . Q .. U) N C c _ a a) E D .. t C O CU N N 0O = ra 13Eo " N 13 a L c c O L a) a) a a L aT co C Z N 2 � � E O O a) N °D Q- C • • to ... _a a) O cm C 0 G) N o aa)) C .... "..' a.. •C c Q V .- a) o c co ° cn 3 -c ca 2op `° o) Ua) a � Z p co c y U 04 1 E V N U N Oci) p N O O N N (o C C • p Q 0 O a) ca a) a) a 0 a) O O O a U E ?- a) >- a to o E o O O a) • N O O V L co U 4- a) • •• c) CU O 7 7 'Op d n O a) — •O—• EEv) '� E o E „e‘ oaa' O � E \ c0E : _ c4 h o 2 In 2 C o .0 A)A) 7 'C O a n om u) . cn73t o.-0c O U N y L N �o 0 E * N fp o I O 'O ..-N C a) O U) 173 N Y O O > .N O L >- Z O To V N C v) C r. 4)" 0;a) ° a) • coo 'Eg a o c O nowt z = .c o v imp c ao O o o � E N Q ;a O j cv a C O c O 'v 'v Cl) p O p C t O ca N C N C O �O U co .- a a3 E o N c ami > 2 30cna o6 2 a) c.c) Ic o ui O 15N i C O CO as TA C W R O ' — — N 4-r a) 2 'D Van -L f`o N = a) U p Q p cLC o 3 O .`� Yam o L u) as c 2 .0 �' C :::::>. N a ) 3 C N p- O O U o > a o E — N E O w 0 'o 0W c X a) _a i a) Jas N C I— 2 O « a) = I I R. caoaI) N V _ _ U) N N C c••• .0 O N D (C a 0. ami N 0..t.+ a, v L ca < O O ca) 6a a) a) n ) 0 c CO 0. C O .0 C a) �. E33 N Oo 9 -a Toa) I U U xi joENa) 6c E vo) -0 E (73 2 2 I c o a r co o �.c Nin el NI COO O a) U C co o coa) > oU C co- b O 'a aC 'C ,- t C a) 'y N _ a) o CO > o —% N O .' Z 2 .+ cu O t ) ` OWOwaa I CD "CI m -ii, :z o " aL ul � m ° oo imv )N ai E . aai - CL C E C y 0 L a) C/) TU I_ O L (UC O O c N 7 cO 0'L co cc C c)-1:) D -c O U ., C c m � E a) a) y o2cn O o vii N C O N nI .3 C• N C E CD a) _ 'J I— a) N 2 W c L 0' U C ..0iD- C Cp C U 7 0- cn " = N C Q � 2 a) o cuv > aaa)) a) o >, 3 c L c.) -a a) a I a 00.,.. 0 .-- o a U E d co :� o 0 E = a.° o 2 co 3 a) O 1 Li N a) c Q v0i a) U n CO U O a) •_ •C 7 = = tea N o E E a 0 co O E E N ; N o os = a) • a) a) o co C m 0 2 0 0 0_ C U C •0 zaino d U) rCNaE co Z4 -0 CD c CD dam . o a co I _ m a o--° = o° z C =t0 O C N 0 I > .0 Cr) N42 .C9 '= E .0) u) 0 c c a) a) w co o `- " a 5 0 I D a > in a) .c a N b .c Z rn c _ a) -- COui uc cam• C)) C a) c c I 0 = g > '5, ` C a N N a) = � o �' aE � gGG)) ? �� - c N a a2t a := �F. = N Q i � ccoo E CO CD I U o o a) •, c • c c `' o = a E coo 0 O � ca�) > > . > Q s a) y I c a) N .c $ o i C o v O cC c 4.4 CU N 0 •a'= W F 0 j CD L Ncno = E .0 m U DI C E I 2 0 M y c a) I .0cu Y I— 0 J U) 1 I I Table 4: Clustered Housing Totals (April 1997) Clustered Housing Planned Unit Devel- Ordinances opment Ordinances Total IIs the ordinance applicable in urban areas, Urban areas 0 Urban areas 1 1 I rural areas, or both? Rural areas 3 Rural areas 0 3 Both 4 Both 1 5 Unspecified 1 Unspecified 1 2 1 Is clustering required or voluntary? Required 2 Required 0 2 Voluntary 6 Voluntary 2 8 Does the ordinance allow for multi-family housing? Yes 2 Yes 2 4 INo 6 No 1 7 Does the ordinance provide I for density bonuses? Yes 3 Yes 1 4 If so, how much? No 5 No 3 8 Amount-- See Table 2 Amount-- Straight transfer IHow much land must be set 10% 1 1 aside as open space? 10 acres 1 1 I Not specified 2 2 Minimum of 40% 6 6 Minimum of 50% 2 2 • 1 Does it require protection of Yes 8 Yes 2 10 open space? No 0 Not indicated 1 1 What method of protection Consrvtn easement 2 2 is mandated? Devlpmnt agreemnt 1 1 Other 1 1 IUnspecified 5 5 How is the open space to I be protected? Homeowners assoc 4 Homeowners assc 1 5 Private ownership 2 Private ownership 0 2 Public ownership 2 Public ownership 1 3 Deed trust 1 Deed trust 1 2 IUnspecified 4 Unspecified 2 6 I I In:\wp\miscjane\cluster.tbl I 1 Regional Growth Strategy Policy Areas i I 1995 MUSA _•• '�4' Policy Areas: I �� `; Illustrative 2020 MUSA Permanent Agricultural Area �,,, I -. Permanent Rural Area Rural Growth Centers v... . '" 41 I r '`<,' Urban Area ; ,� y, x 0,14.4\e„ �iita �.. rti+� fix+ sr Nil Urban Core �� 11. 41,; � r,�ti`' Urban Reserve ' '` ,K �_4,. s.. ate` HINGT•1 I 11 1� xai, 14 11 IIN �y -1ILLLKKK � AIS . ..,...... 1 0,,,,,,,,„„r.,,, ' tv:::„. ,,., „,,L. 10,,,, ,,,,w ijgAistt7v+:,\, de i�, app. y �� � h 1/ 04'"*.44 Tall , ' y q,�, ..s {4L\, aair I ���1111IIIIIIII •� "' ', NA' ` 'n'''' V2Hal bill Oh t . er --- -4 r At/ lob F.Y q+"lPt,:y • 'moi ,oho..° - i _ I -±- 'Irk 1 °Arias,Vq. i Nom Motet T try 0 10 20 30 Miles I I t Metropolitan Council Wor*ng yr die Region,Planning foe die Fwtwre 1