Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-01-11 CPC Packetl water THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA January 6, 1993 THE STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET ON MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 1993 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL, 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET. AGENDA Approval of Minutes - December 14, 1992. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Case No. V/93-1 - A Variance for the placement of two signs which include a 48 square foot free-standing sign and a 16 square foot wall sign at 14460 North 60th Street (Goodwill Store). The property is located in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Scenic Sign Corporation, Applicant. 2. Case No. V/93-2 - A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance for an existing fence which exceeds the six foot height maximum and exceeds previous Variance granted for an eight foot fence (Case No. V/88-27). The property is located at 203 West Hazel Street in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Richard Edstrom, Applicant. 3. Case No. V/93-3 - A Variance to the Parking Ordinance for renovation of a 3,200 square foot vacant second level of a commercial structure into a retail space (Mid Town Antiques). The property is located at 214 South Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Larry Martin, Applicant. 4. Case No. V/93-4 - A Variance to the sideyard setback requirement for the placement of an accessory structure (approximately 2 feet proposed, 5 feet required) at 2304 Fairmeadows Road in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Michael and Sandra Hudson, Applicants. 5. Case No. V/SUP/93-5 - A Special Use Permit and Variance for a 5,000 square foot expansion of St. Croix Valley Clinic with a 29 foot setback from Everett Street (30 feet required). The property is located at 921 South Greeley Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. St. Croix Valley Clinic, Applicant. 6. Case No. SUP/93-6 - A Special Use Permit for a 2,400 square foot expansion of the deck at the Freight House for placement of a temporary tent structure. The property is located at 305 South Water Street, in the CBD, Central Business District. Todd Weiss, Applicant, OTHER BUSINESS Levee Grant support letter. Comprehensive Plan Review of Plan content. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 STILLWATER PMrflTES COMMISSION Date: December 14, 1992 Time: 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Gerald Fontaine, Chairman Angela Anderson, Gene Bealka, Glenna Bealka, Duane Elliott, Gary Funke, Rob Hamlin, Don Valsvik, and Darwin Wald Also Present: Steve Russell, Community Development Director Ann Pung-Terwedo, City Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Darwin Wald, seconded by Gene Bealka to approve the minutes of November 9, 1992, as submitted. Carried 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. SV/92-5n - A street vacation for a fifty foot section of Meadowlark Drive between North Sherburne Street and South Center Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Madeline S. Connelly, Applicant. Steve Mollner of Edina Realty, who is selling the property for the applicant, presented the case. He stated that there are no easements recorded for the property. The applicant is requesting the vacation in order to sell the property. Whether the lot will be buildable is still in question. Agnes Mulvey, 1104 Meadowlard Dr., stated that she is concerned, because of the wetland, that she may get water in her basement if the site is developed. She is also concerned that she will experience more problems with her sewer. Mr. Mollner stated that nothing will be disturbed physically at this time. The applicant is only asking for the land back. There is a possibility that a home will be built in the future, but the first step is to sell the property. Mr. Russell stated that there will be future levels of approval before a building permit could be issued. There are DNR and watershed requirements, as well as floodplain requirements. There are three recommended conditions of approval. The Commission determined that a fourth condition should require easements on the property. Motion by Rob Hamlin to approve the street vacation request with four conditions, the fourth condition being a formal recording of a sewer and water easement, and a driveway easement at no cost to the owner. Seconded by Gene Bealka. Carried 9-0. 1 Stillwater Planning Commission December 14, 1992 Case No. SUP/91_-62 - A Special Use Permit and Variance to the Bed and Breakfast Ordinance for a fifth Bed and Breakfast room in an adjacent carriage house (as conditioned by the Stillwater City Council on January 7, 1992). The property is located at 807 South Harriet Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Truett Lawson, owner, presented the request. He stated that they have followed all regulations. The reason for the request is the properties were originally as one property, then separated. He purchased them as one property. He has adult children at home which means a family member would be in residence in the facility. He intends to conform to the ordinance requirements. Jeff Peterson, 320 W. Pine, stated his concern about growth of business in residential areas. He stated that the ordinance allows only one Bed and Breakfast within a limited area. He is opposed to the request. Mr. Lawson stated that the request complies with the ordinance because it would be five rooms on one site. He has never had a neighborhood complaint while running his business. The Commission discussed whether this property can be considered one location or two separate sites. Motion by Duane Elliott to approve the Special Use Permit with 2 conditions. Seconded by Angela Anderson. Carried 6-3. (G. Fontaine, D. Valsvik, and R. Hamlin opposed) Case No. V SUP 92-59 - A Variance to the sideyard setback requirement (10 feet required, 8.75 feet requested) and a modifi- cation to a Special Use Permit intensifying a retail use at 320 North Fourth Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Thomas M. that the split up. is used religious street. interior changed to Loome, owner, presented the application. He stated church and parsonage were originally one property, then The parsonage is now a private residence. The church as a rare antiquarian bookstore, specializing in books. The addition will not be visible from the It is the only location where he can expand. The will be unchanged except for one window which will be a door. W.G. Heiting, 408 N. 3rd St., stated that he is not opposed to the addition since it will have the same setback as the church. Bill Ersland, 314 N. 4th (the old parsonage), stated that Mr. Loome has been sensitive to the neighbors, and he has no objection to the request. Willy Biessner, 4th and Mulberry, stated he has no objection. Motion by Gary Funke to approve the Variance and Special Use Permit request. Seconded by Darwin Wald. Carried 9-0. 1) Stillwater Planning Commission December 14, 1992 Case No. PR/92-57_ - A Parking Review for an office use (approximately 200 employees) in the east wing of the present Junior High School, 110 East Pine Street. The property is located in the PA, Public Administrative/Office District. CUB Foods, Applicant. Mr. Russell stated that future uses of the West Wing have not yet been determined. He suggested that this item be continued indefinitely, and a new public hearing be held when further information is available. Mr. Valsvik asked that a letter from Richard Kilty be acknowledged and that all members of the Commission and staff receive copies and that it be made part of the record. Motion by Duane Elliott, seconded by Rob Hamlin to acknowledge Mr. Kilty's letter regarding Case No. PR/92-57. Carried 9-0. OTHER Review and discussion of Draft SDecial Event Ordinance. Ann Pung-Terwedo reported that in November a group of individuals in the hospitality business met and looked at various locations where special events are held. She has drafted an ordinance for special events in residential areas for review and discussion, and asked for comments from the audience. Patricia Jewell Peterson, 320 W. Pine, asked what is the reason for a special events permit. Could anyone with an older home apply for one, and what is its function. She also stated that allowing eight special events per month would result in an event every weekend. Jill Morette, 426 W. Pine, stated her concern with parking. Jeff Peterson, 320 W. Pine, is opposed to business in residential areas. There would be more parking needed than required by the ordinance. There would be a caterer, photographer, etc. in addition to the guests. The permit would result in a high impact on neighborhoods. An attempt should be made to preserve the residential neighborhood atmosphere. Mr. Morette, 426 W. Pine, stated that Stillwater is losing the small town atmosphere that brought him here. Chuck Dougherty, Rivertown Inn, stated that this issue is not a Bed and Breakfast issue. Mr. Hamlin stated that the purpose of the ordinance is to regulate what is already occurring. Mr. Peterson stated that it would be legitimatizing what is now illegal. Mr. Morette stated that businesses will benefit but not the residents. 3 Stillwater Planning Commission December 14, 1992 Mr. Hamlin suggested that eight events per month is excessive, and two per month would be more reasonable. Mr. Wald suggested four per month. Motion by Duane Elliott, seconded by Rob Hamlin to amend item No. 2 to allow a maximum of two special events per month. Carried 7- 1. (Darwin Wald opposed; Gene Bealka was absent). Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Duane Elliott to recommend that the draft ordinance be recommended to the City Council as amended. Carried 8-0. Comprehensive Plan Work Program and Schedule Mr. Russell stated that he will present the work program to the Council at the first meeting in January. The Commission will be asked to meet one additional Monday per month to work on the Plan. He will also make sure all Commission members get a copy of the old comprehensive plan. Motion by Duane Elliott, seconded by Don Valsvik to recommend the work program to the City Council. Carried 8-0. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Gary Funke, seconded by Duane Elliott to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Carried. Submitted by: Shelly Schaubach Recording Secretary 4 PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. V193-1 Planning Commission Meeting: January 11, 1993 Project location: 14460 North 60th Street Zoning District: Applicant's Name: Scenic Sign Company Type of Application: Variance Project Description_: A Variance to the Sign Ordinance for two signs in addition to permitted wall sign. DISCUSSION: Tkie request is to place a 2 ft. 9 inch by 6 ft. internally illuminated wall sign on the building over a Goodwill drop-off door and to place a 4 ft. by 12 ft. internally illuminated cabinet sign on two existing pylons next to the Frontage Road. The existing pylon would be 17 ft. tall and located 18 inches off the front property line. A 15 ft. setback is required for new pylon signs. The Sign Ordinance allows one wall sign, or free-standing, per business. Goodwill has erected a 30 square ft. wall sign (2 ft. by 15 ft.) on the front of the building. In addition, a 6 square ft. wall sign over the drop-off door is being requested and a 48 square ft. pylon sign on the existing supports. The Sign Ordinance allows a sign area of 100 ft. for a pylon sign or 1 ft. of building frontage for wall signs. This is estimated at over 100 square ft. The total sign area for the three signs is 84 square feet, less than the 100 square ft. limit. Because the building is setback so far from the Frontage Road, it is difficult to notice the business. Due to this unique condition, the variance request may be justified. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. ATTACHMENTS: Application. - Application - Survey. Case Numbor 11 L i--- Fee Paio- s. -_---- CASE NUMBER Date Filed PLANNING ADMINIS i RX-NVE FORM i `J� S,rec► Location of Property: ?---------���--------_-_-- Logal Doscription of Property: Owner: Dame �------ �Cc�.'r�-----,--------------------_------ --_ ��� ��.���� ��� _ -_ Phone: Address _,L�1 ---- - -- '-- Appliccnt Of other than owner): fame �(_ I ?1= r` ---- Phone: ---------- Address- 3- _= ---- -- Type of Requests -__ Rezoning _ Approval of Preliminary Plat ___ Special Use Permit -__ Approval 'of Final Plat Variance \ -'--Other' -- Other .--------------__--- Gnu i 1'J�� w ,u n-' X--- � Of �J Description Request: __ _ - ------ -- --'_41 -- -- C, - �'n. ;• v �__���:'L-/_ :.---------------------------------- Signature of A nlicant: 2��-- ---- �- 9 pt Data of Public Hearing: ------------------------- NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn.on back of this form or at- tached, showing the following: 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. 3. Dimensions of front and side set-bac4s. F C r 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. 5. Street names. 6. Location of adjacent existing buildings. 7. Other information as may be requested. Approved -_- Denied ___ by the'Planning Commission on----------�• elute). subject to the following conditions: ---------------------------- _ _-_ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _____ __T._--___-_--__------------------------------- Approved _-_ Denied --- by the Council on ---------------- subject to the following conditions: _ L --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Comments: (Use other side), i� f •.: r�J,f l�,, ! i �� r •.�r' .!%. i;F •- -- •i -r• f: i.' rr � ;%•'� f�iYrr��r�.�%rr�' .�f �?��;J/. {. , r f' • • ` �".��oe��LLV �ili•O � .. i - f f///�%�j / , ' - � : JY'• ♦/fir/r�:�. ff � f}. cif f�_�l ��/ff rf � � rr•J '���•/%�• fF/ ����fi "•����,/Y?/ f%�r ,� . 1 �.�i ,,, as-��•p}'J r- r {,: Iall Wcrii tJli tf_1f y • � ' :in.. •�!-II' II � •1I II � ea•o• P7..' 1� ci LU �S�CY�Y!• + •'",l7 j C.. .� � .»�.. L, I k Y Ir �� `l 4 _ ' ,1 •;r co a• tq.e-� .� 1.. •`1a.o.. z�.n-�s' xv.o� •k 4i .._r...i , -F'lot p i ZO£9S ,nosouuiw pnolo jupS - -_. _ •elgellvm oq lonw ooepn¢ oullunow Aid—,. mlea Rem pulgoq oauuoelo .Zl to wnwlulw'popin • wnulwnle 00t16-ZSZ-ZT9 188 X09 :31VO —d eq I.nw nn euplm.1... ]ae Ap.ow oN %o.q ,011.1 Sl euollowlcul lelaods :All 03131dN00 IIeM uo lan,lcu K.,a eulpuno,0 = 1 of .'w ' fw,pliv., .l ��a� /t ��/[� II•l¢ul 1. aauese,d pe,!nbay—wollo8 —ou V l..odYA,.wlld Cl Q N{/ J ouoll]pl¢ey OUIWd ll.l¢ul mapto oplsln0 uo 410ua11¢nl]V@ION— —dol ,aw,ol.uul ZL 1•40II9 uelS alueas— .eluao :eullunop onr» Jon 0 l l aolo0 an0o lln,o cleq.l'7n— w— -cuolsuewl0 Va9 elgl*eld Ol llleel uels— —o .eA:Aameoebl,n S a eullunoNf 1 IIV Maa40— :uo.N dl cegnluo.N e p.,lnbey luowdlnb3 lelo.dS uelS 411m eulme,0 uollonpwd e,edwo0— _n1wj wlli lulela e]ed pe,lnbey .I]I4eA N H V bi 4s�vU e.eq ieweub pory.q V 31VO 3np 31V0 U30H0 olo4d p.leldwo0— d0HS - 1SIl NO3H0 WNW :.]el ]!IA,]V — k 'u,nla, wnulwnlV . E a3a�a� 'd 0 p.uels uuo3 eaueuelul.Nl.mleuelS s,ed-14 — 31na3Hos kwoo de] w!,I ]!Iceld .l Z :31V05 NVWS31VS 11.130 N01i038 eoel ]pA,]V.'% I m a fJ I W01109 'S d01 3dId1S ..Z/l - 7"'pl`°'ulardpp°" mAi" incnuotvy a000 - ln0,lVl 3od: m fJ :31tl0 :1lfi O3A01fddV I :3NOHd oNOSU3410V1N00 'OH H30310 MOM :3WVN 90f PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. V/93-2 Planning Commission Meeting Date: January 11, 1993 Project Location: 203 West Hazel Street Comprehensive Plan District Single Family Zoning District: RA APPLICANT: Richard Edstrom Type of Application: Variance PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A variance to the Zoning Ordinance for an existing fence which exceeds the six foot height maximum and exceeds a previous variance granted for an eight foot fence. DISCUSSION: The request is to retain an existing fence which was not constructed as approved by the City Council on June 7, 1988. The fence, as measured by the Stillwater Building Inspector on January 6, 1993, is actually 9 ft., 5 1/2 inches at its highest point. This was not approved by the City Counci 1 . Since this was brought to the attention of the City Council, the Edstrom's were advised to reapply for a variance for the existing fence. The attached letters will give you an overview of the correspondence between the applicant's attorney and the neighbor with the Stillwater City Attorney, Dave Magnuson. At the time of the previous variance request in 1988, the applicant stated that the fence would be 8 ft. in height. Since the project was not completed, Staff based the project description on the variance request and review of the site. Staff recommended denial of the 8 ft. fence because granting of the variance was not necessary for the reasonable use of the land. It was determined that a 6 ft. fence, the maximum allowable by the Zoning Ordinance, would accomplish the screening of the neighbor's property. The applicant's lawyer has stated the fence exceeds the 8 ft. height at several locations due to the fact of the very uneven topography and the desire to keep the fence even for aesthetic purposes. He further states that, in granting of a variance, the neighboring properties would noL be injured, nor would there be otherwise detrimental effects to the public welfare. The visual impact of the fence may be the injury which has occurred. The high fence against the natural environment and topography may be the detrimental effect to the public welfare or in this case, the neighbor's property. It is very important that the Planning Commission view this site before meeting time so you can determine for yourself if the fence in question should remain or be lowered. Is the fence, in your view, necessary for reasonable use of the land. On the other hand, will anyone else beside the neighbor see the 1 fence? The Stillwater Building Official is also concerned about the fence as it now stands. His memo is included in this report. RECOMMENDATION: Denial. FINDINGS: The granting of this variance is not necessary for the reasonable use of the land. ATTACHMENTS: - Letter from Mr. Kalish - Letter from Mr. Lammers -- Original Staff report -- Original Planning Commission and City Council minutes. IF THE VARIANCE IS RECOMMENDED, REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE: Hari_ance: -- -- a There are special circumstances or conditions, fully described in the findings, applying to the land or building for which the variance is sought, which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land or building and do not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood, and that said circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such land or buildings. (b) For reasons set forth fully in the findings, the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land or buildings and that the same is the minimum variance that will accomplish such purpose. (c) The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. In addition to considering the rharaCtor ancl,l i1Sp ❑f thi@ adj-0I-niAq 1 It1 iiriniti ,I, ..L. -PI A- tl_ n_i n_ v �. �I I y,ii, lilaning suc I Illulrlg, L[1e I,I y l,UUIILI I Shd'I I LdKe into account the number of persons residing or working in such bui ldings or upon such land and traffic conditions in the area among other considerations. Case Number y3_.2, _ 0C Fee Paid ____ --------- CASE NUMBER Date Filed PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM Street Location of Property: _2o3_West_Hazel Streejt _______ logal Description of Property: Lot-2_-Block_1,-Brown':s_ Creek Heights __ Owner: Dame _Richard A. and Julie A_wEdstrom _____________.._..____ Address _203 W_ Hazel -St_, -Stillwater_ Phone: - 439-6747 Applicant (irF other than owner): Name _________________________________ Address------------------------------ Phone: ____----_---___ Type of Request:- ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat _ x Variance ___ Other ----------------- Description of Request: Retroactive 'variance_ for fence - see attached letter. Signature of Applicant. Date of Public Hearing: _____________________________________________ NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn.on back of this form or at- tached, showing the following: 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. DEC i am1?92 1 3. Dimensions of front and side set-backs.� 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. �'._' 5. Street names. . = G1TY0F 5rk1'WATJI V 6. Location of adjacent existing buiIdings. S`E' 7. Other information as may be requested. Approved ___ Denied ___ by tho'Planning Commission on ..____��`____ (dute) subject to the following conditions: ______ ------------------------------ Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ---------------- subject to the following conditions: ------------------------------------------------ Comments: (Use other side), LAW OFFICES OF ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERLING 1635 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER. MINNESOTA 55082 LYLE J. ECKBERG JAMES F, LAMMERS ROBERT G. BRIGGS PAUL A. WOLFF MARK J. VIERLING GREGORY G. GALLER KDecember 17, 1992 EVIN K. SHOEBERG THOMAS J. WEIDNER Mr. Steve Russell Director of Community Development City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 (612) 439-2878 FAX (612) 439-2923 In Re: Richard and Julie Edstrom/Jerry Kalish Privacy Fence Dear Steve: Regarding the above -entitled matter, enclosed please find an Application for a retroactive variance and our check in the amount of $70.00 for filing fees. I am also enclosing a letter addressed to the City Council and Planning Commission outlining the basis for the requested variance, a copy of a letter from Dave Magnuson, a copy of a survey, and a copy of a proposal to reconstruct the fence in question. It is my understanding that the staff will review the proposed requested retroactive variance and will prepare a report any additional information reydrC7my l_1115 LequCSI., jJleaSe UU 11V1. hesitate to give me a call. It is my understanding that this matter will be placed on the Planning Commission agenda for January 11, 1993, and will come on before the City Council on February 2, 1993. Thank you for your consideration regarding the above. Very truly yours, J es F. JFL:dmr Enclosures c: Dick & Julie Edstrom �a�imers LAW OFFICES OF ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERLING I635 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER. MINNESOTA 55062 LYLE J. ECKBERG (612) 439-2878 JAMES F, LAMMERS FAX (612) 439-2923 ROBERT G. BRIGGS PAUL A. WOLFF MARK J. VIERLING GREGORY G. GALLER KDecember 10, 1992 EVIN K. SHOEBERG THOMAS J. WEIDNER TO: Stillwater City Council Stillwater Planning Commission In Re: Richard and Julie Edstrom/Jerry Kalish Privacy Fence Ladies and Gentlemen: I wish to advise you that I represent Dick and Julie Edstrom who reside at 203 West Hazel Street, Stillwater, Minnesota, and that I am writing in support of my clients' application for a retroactive variance for approval of a privacy fence which was constructed in 1988. By way of background, in 1988, while constructing a new home on Lot 2, Block 1, Brown's Creek Heights, my clients commenced construction of a privacy fence along their easterly lot line for the purpose of screening their property from the property owned by Mr. Jerry Kalish, who owns Lot 1, Block 1, Brown's Creek Heights, with an address of 225 West Hazel Street. The superstructure of the subject fence had been completed when the Stillwater Building Inspector, during a routine inspection, observed that the subject fence exceeded the permitted height of 6 feet. Pursuant to the Building Inspector's instructions, my clients stopped construction on the fence and proceeded to apply for a variance which would allow for the completion of the fence as proposed. At the time the variance was applied for, the only thing that needed to be done was to nail the plywood on the already constructed superstructure. At the time of the application for the variance, my clients submitted photos which clearly showed the superstructure and the fence framing of the proposed fence. Subdivision 25(M)(3)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance provides that fences in excess of 6 feet above the ground shall be prohibited unless the abutting neighbor consents to a higher fence and permission is granted by the City Council. On the planning administrative form submitted by my client, the proposed fence was described as running from 4 1/2 feet to 5 feet at the starting point to 8 feet at the finish to accommodate a drop in grade level in two directions. This was an accurate description of the proposed fence. Stillwater City Council Stillwater Planning Commission December 10, 1992 Page 2 The planning application described the fence as approximately 5 1/2 feet high beginning at the west end of the property and then running downward in a northeasterly direction following the slight slope and reaching an 8 foot height. As set forth on the photos submitted in support of the variance request, the terrain along the fence line is uneven, and the fence steps down in increment. Because of the uneven terrain, at several locations the height of the fence exceeds 8 feet. As set forth above, the framing which had already been constructed clearly indicated what the height of the completed fence would be at any given location. The Edstroms' neighbor, Gerald Kalish, after viewing the framing and the proposed height of the fence, wrote to the Council on June 7, 1988, stating, "Please be advised that I have no objection to the request for a variance in order to build the proposed privacy fence." On June 7, 1988, the Stillwater City Council unanimously approved the requested variance to construct the privacy fence as proposed. Following this approval, my clients completed the construction of the fence by nailing on the plywood to the already constructed framing. On June 25, 1992, more than 4 years after the completion of the subject fence, Mr. Kalish contacted the City advising the City that it had been brought to his attention that the subject fence exceeded the height of 8 feet in certain locations, and est i t ,gat the GAY t wkrate e a t3 be e e e sar t correct this situation. In October of i992, Dave Magnuson, Niie Kriesel, and Choc Junker visited the Edstrom property and observed that most of the subject fence was not higher than 8 feet, and that only a part of the fence appears to be higher because of the slope of the land. I am enclosing a copy of Dave Magnuson's letter dated October 26, 1992, written to me. You will note that Dave inquired as to what the cost would be to lessen the height of the fence at the several locations where it exceeded 8 feet. I am enclosing a copy of a proposal from Cates Construction, the contractor on the original fence, stating that the cost to reconstruct the fence at the several locations in question would cost $2,000.00. It is the position of my clients that this is cost prohibitive. Based upon Dave Magnuson's recommendation, my clients have now applied for a retroactive variance based upon the actual height of the fence as originally proposed and now existing. As the Council and Planning Commission are aware, the Stillwater Zoning Ordinance provides that a variance may be granted where special circumstances exist which would make the granting of the variance appropriate, and that variance procedures are designed to Stillwater City Council Stillwater Planning Commission December 10, 1992 Page 3 permit minor adjustments based upon special circumstances, including slope and topography. The Ordinance further provides that the granting of the variance should be necessary for the reasonable use of the land and is the minimum variance that would accomplish the requested purposes, and that in granting the variance, neighboring properties would not be injured, nor would there be otherwise detrimental effects to the public welfare. We respectfully submit that the requested retroactive variance is consistent with the requirements and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. We further respectfully submit that, at the time that the original variance was granted, all parties were clearly aware of what the actual height of the fence would be since the superstructure had already been constructed, and the fact that the height of the fence slightly exceeds 8 feet at several isolated locations is only due to the fact of the very uneven topography and the desire to keep the fence even for aesthetic purposes. We would invite members of the City Council and the Planning Commission to actually view the subject fence, and we strongly believe that upon doing so, you would agree that the granting of the requested retroactive variance would be appropriate. Thank you for your consideration regarding the above. Very truly yours,.-; _mimes F. Lammers JFL:dmr Enclosures c: Dick & Julie Edstrom sr.,,.rrrf � T�'- --- oo't�t-� .1. �- -- -1 ; -- orf •� Of '7r - par i fiJJ`` ► ..yy • I � f b� � r q ,, • h ti� CJ� n 1,4 cryIV LLJ • 7'"r ` _ ram• - -141, '`! 10 *•iig w In co 1z. ID I IL rx • �r •i � W-15.1R1 h r ' 1 y 1 � t•'• r �� Q `x, •� 1 w �1 i 1 a r r I i �. }' • • � Tip• � -. t. Y � � • `► � �� rwi` i 4 • J i LYLE J. ECKBERG DAMES F. LAMMERS ROBERT G. BRIGGS PAUL A. WOLFF MARK J. VIERLING GREGORY G. GALLER KEVIN K. SHOEBERG THOMAS J. WEIDNER LAW OFFICES OF f ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERLING UU 1835 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER. MINNESOTA 55082 July 10, 1992 Mayor Wally Abrahamson Stillwater City Council Members Stillwater City Hall 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 (612) d39.2878 FAX (612) 439-2923 In Re: Richard and Julie Edstrom/Jerry Kalish Partition Fence Dear Mayor Abrahamson and Members of the Stillwater City Council: I wish to advise you that I represent Dick and Julie Edstrom who reside at 203 West Hazel Street, Stillwater, Minnesota. Nile Kriesel has provided me with a copy of a letter dated June 25, 1992, written to the Mayor by Jerry Kalish who is the next door neighbor to the Edstroms, and who resides at 225 West Hazel, Street, Stillwater. It is my understanding that this matter may be reviewed at the next City Council meeting, and therefore, my clients have requested that I contact the Mayor and members of the Council regarding Mr. Kalish's letter. First of all, I wish to advise you that my clients have had absolutely no contact or conversation with Mr. Kalish or any other member of his family for more than three years. It therefore has come as a complete surprise to my clients that Mr. Kalish has a complaint about a privacy fence which was erected some four years ago. In 1988, my clients applied for and received a variance to build the fence in question. I am enclosing a copy of the relevant portion of the Minutes of the Council Meeting of June 7, 1988, at which time a Public Hearing was held on the requested variance of my clients to construct a fence 8 feet in height. The Council at that time granted a variance for the construction of the fence in question. Mr. Kalish had submitted a letter to the Council supporting the construction of the proposed fence and indicating he had no objection to the same. I am also enclosing a copy of the Zoning Use Permit which was issued on June 14, 1988. The fence in question was constructed exactly as proposed in the plans submitted t❑ the City Council and the City Building Inspector in 1988. During the process of construction, the contractor contacted Allen Zepper, who advised the contractor that 3 ,0- SUS Mayor Wally Abrahamson Stillwater City Council Members July 10, 1992 Page 2 he would be inspecting the work in progress and that it was tion necessary to call for a final ate matureltreestand. The fence in open space for shrubbery was built to accommodate The fence, as on both sides of the Edstrom and Kalish property. constructedl is essentially eight feet in height, although the height may possibly exceed eight feet because of the theunlevel height terrain over which it was lebeilt and the desire to keep of the fence at a It is the position l. of my clients that the fence in question was constructed exactly as proposed and conforms in every respect to the fence approved by the City Council in 1988. Hopefully the above answers any questions that may haVe been raised regarding this issue. Should the Mayor or Council aeed you desire our appearance any further information or ua� d discussing this issue in further Council Meeting for the purposeyou for your detail, I would appreciate your so advising me. Thank y consideration regarding the above. Very truly yours, James F. Lammers JFL:dmr �;�y�,l c�sures c: NIle jtrleSel Dave Magnuson Stillwater City Council Minutes Recessed Meeting June 7, 1988 2. This is the day and time for the Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit request to fill and grade an approximate 2,000 ft. road at 1250 So. Main St. in the General Heavy Industrial/Two Family Residential/Bluff land/ Shoreland/Flood Plain Dist., Frank Aiple, Sr., Applicant. Case No. SUP/88-25. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette on June 3, 1988 and copies were mailed to affected property owners. Mr. Russell explained the request is to use fill to raise the level of the road connecting the north and south parts of Mr. Aiple's operation. Mr. Fontaine stated the Planning Commission approved the request with thie recommended conditions. Mr. Aiple was present and stated he will not be using as much fill as first thought. Mayor Abrahamson closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Farrell, seconded by Councilmember Opheim to approve a Special Use Permit to fill and grade an approximate 2,000 ft. road, with the recommended conditions, at 1250 So. Main St. requested by Frank Aiple, Case No. SUP/88-25. (All in favor). 3. This is the day and time for the Public Hearing on a Variance request for construction of an eight ft. fence (six ft. required) at 203 W. Hazel St. in the Single Family Residential, RA Dist., Richard & Julie Edstrom, Applicants. Case No. V/88-27. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette on June 3, 1988 and copies were mailed to affected property owners. Mr. Russell explained the fence will be located on the south side of the Edstrom property and will run east to west and affects only two families. He also presented a letter from the neighbor supporting the fence. Mr. Fontaine stated the Planning Commission felt the request was unique since the fence is completely out of sight and only affects two families. Mayor Abrahamson closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Opheim, seconded by Councilmember Farrell to approve the Variance request for construction of an eight ft. fence at 203 W. Hazel St., Richard & Julie Edstrom, Case No. V/88-27. (All in favor). 4. This is the day and time for the Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit Request to operate a furniture refinishing business in a garage at 111 So. William St. in the Two -Family Residential, RB Dist., Chris & Laura Fischer, Applicants. Case No. SUP/88-28. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette on June 3, 1988 and copies were mailed to affected property owners. 2 No. V/88-27 UU U CITY OF STILLWATER Certificate of Compliance Special Use Permit �j Planned Unit Development ZONING USE PERMIT 4 i Rezoning FA Variance 1 j Grading Permit Fee 550.00 Applicant: RICHARD A. AND JULIE A. EDSTROM Address: 203 West Hazel City/State/Zip Code: Stillwater, MN 55082 Date Fee Paid _4/28/88 1 Sign 1 l Conditional Use Amended El Resubdivision Property Description: Lot 2 Block 1 Brown's Creek Heights Plat Parcel No. 9180-2300 Zone District RA Permitted Uses Fence Subject to the following special conditions: 1. The fence shall be set back a minimum of two feet. t the conditions of this permit. We understand that any changes from We acce P these plans must be resubmitted for approval. / 01 Owner or Representative Date C dnit Oevel men Director Date 1� Stillwater City July 21, 1992 Regular Meeting Council Minutes Ayes - Councilmember Bodlovick, Funke and Mayor Abrahamson. Nays - Councilmember Opheim 2. Discussion of Disputed Height Variance -for fence; Edstrom/Kalish, Case No. V/88-27. - Mr. Zepper summarized the proceedings that transpired relative to the above mentioned fence. Mr. Edstrom was granted a variance of eight ft. for construction of the fence, but in some places it was constructed higher. Susan Kalish, 225 W. Hazel St., a neighbor, said the fence blocks the view of the woods and ravine and had complained about it, but nothing was done. Council and Staff discussion followed. Motion by Councilmember Funke, seconded by Councilmember Bodlovick to direct City Attorney Magnuson to contact the Edstrom's attorney in regard to the partition fence at 203 W. Hazel St. in order to seek an amicable resolution to the problem; and expressing the preference for a height limitation of eight ft. (Ayes - 3; Nays - 1, Councilmember Opheim). 3. SAEDC Funding Request. Motion by Councilmember Opheim, seconded by Councilmember Funke to approve the 1992/93 contribution to SAEDC in the amount of $4,500. (All in favor). Council also expressed a concern that SAEDC continue to seek the Star Cluster recertification. 4. Update on McKusick Lake Trail. Mr. Kriesel explained the history of this subject, stating that Duane Elliott, a member of the Planning Commission and former City Engineer, and other citizens requested a study be made of a walking path around the lake. Also, a County and City road project is planned for 1993 and a bikepath is part of the project. Mr. Magnuson explained the need for some easements along the lake. Motion by Councilmember Opheim, seconded by Councilmember Funke to authorize the City Attorney to negotiate the necessary easements to complete the plan for the proposed walking path around McKusick Lake. (All in favor). NEW BUSINESS 2. Up ate on Household Hazardous Waste Collection. Motion by Councilmember Opheim, seconded by Councilmember Bodlovick directing Staff to work with the County on their Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program. (All in favor). PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS & DELEGATIONS (Continued) CITY OF STILLWATER [] Certificate of Compliance F-1 Special Use Permit n Planned Unit Development ZONING USE PERMIT Rezoning XI Variance I I Grading Applicant: RICHARD A. AND JULIE A. EDSTROM Address: 203 West Hazel City/State/Zip Code: Stillwater, MN 55082 Property Description: Lot 2 Block 1 No. V/88-27 Permit Fee $50.00 Date Fee Paid 4/28/88 Sign Conditional Use _ Amended Resubdivision Brown's Creek Heiqhts Plat Parcel No. 9180-2300 Zone District RA Permitted Uses Subject to the following special conditions: 1. The fence shall be set back a minimum of two feet. Fence We accept the conditions of this permit. We understand that any changes from tW11an listh re�submitted fo a roval . Owner or Representative D e CAnYunifjr Devel m n 'Director Datey — �Y PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. V/88-27 Planning Commission Meeting: May 9, 1988 Project Location: 203 West Hazel Street Comprehensive Plan District: Single Family Residential Zoning District: RA Applicant's Name: Richard A. and Julie Edstrom Type of Application: Variance Project Description: Variance request to construct an eight foot fence (six foot maximum required). Discussion: The fence will be located on the South side of the Edstrom property and will run East to West. To the South of this proposed fence is a new home with the backyard containing a dog and dog pen constructed of log posts and wire mesh. The Edstroms feel that a six foot fence would not block the view of the dog pen area from the patio and deck, as well as the kitchen and eating area of their home. The Edstroms would like to be screened from this area as much as possible and feel an eight foot fence would accommodate this. The new home is also at a slightly lower elevation than the Edstrom home so they feel the fence must be eight feet to screen the area. The fence will be approximately five and one-half feet high beginning at the West end of the property then run downward in a Northeasterly direction following the slight slope and reaching an eight foot height. After a field survey of the area, a six foot fence would block the view of the neighbor's backyard. Recommendation: Denial. Findings: For reasons set forth fully in the discussion, the granting of the variance is not necessary for the reasonable use of the land or buildings. Attachments: Copies of photographs. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval as conditioned. rnNDUMNS- 1. The applicant shall submit a letter from the neighbors supporting the eight foot fence request. 2. The fence shall be set back a minimum of two feet. Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1988 Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Judy Curtis to approve Case No. SUP/88-25 with four conditions. Motion carried 7-0. Case No. V/$8-27 - Variance request to construct an eight foot fence (six feet required) at 203 West Hazel Street in the Single Family Residential, RA, District. Richard A. and Julie Edstrom, Applicants. Mr. Edstrom was present and explained that the request for an eight foot fence is to adequately screen his home from that of his neighbor. He stated that the neighbor has no objection to the height of the fence. The Commission discussed the rationale of the six feet requirement, and determined that only one neighbor will be affected by the fence. Written consent from that neighbor would be a condition of approval. A second condition would be that the fence be set back two to three feet from the property line for maintenance purposes. Motion by Rob Hamlin, seconded by Don Valsvik to approve Case No. V/88-27 with two conditions. Motion carried 7-0. Ca;�fo,• SUPL8--28 - Special Use Permit to operate a furniture refinishing business at 111 South William Street in the Two Family r Residential, RIB, District. Chris and Laura Fischer, Applicants. The applicant explained that he wishes to operate a furniture refinishing business out of his garage. He will pick up and deliver furniture and will not advertise the address of his business, and will therefore not generate additional traffic in the area. Rob Hamlin discussed with tb e a pll£a t ana fl ammahl aham; r•al a era }w --- r- -•••- ---��► u..0 proper ul5p05ai of toxic waste. The applicant stated that he would take adequate safety measures, and will contact the PCA regarding regulations if required to do so. Mr. Russell stated that the building code would require adequate ventilation of the garage, and that all businesses are subject to yearly inspections by the Fire Department. There are five recommended conditions of approval; the Commission suggested the addition of two more: 6)The use of flammable and toxic materials and toxic waste should be approved by State and County agencies and the applicant will adhere to all regulations. 7)Locks and security system will be installed. Motion by Don Valsvik, seconded by Jean Jacobson to approve Case No. SUP/88-28 with seven conditions. Motion carried 6-1 (Rob Hamlin opposed). - PUD Concept Plan for a 3.5 acre parcel to be used for commercial development and a 10.6 acre parcel for a 106 unit, three story apartment building on 61st Street at the future Frontage Road access road (behind Burger King in the Forest Hills/Frontage Road/South Greeley Area) in the Two Family Residential, RB, District. Augustine Brothers, applicants. 1) Stillwater City Council Minutes Recessed Meeting June 7, 1988 2. This is the day and time for the Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit request to fill and grade an approximate 2,000 ft. road at 1250 So. Main St. in the General Heavy Industrial/Two Family Residential/Bluffland/ Shoreland/Flood Plain Dist., Frank Aiple, Sr., Applicant. Case No. SUP/88-25. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette on June 3, 1988 and copies were mailed to affected property oviners. Mr. Russell explained the request is to use fill to raise the level of the road connecting the north and south parts of Mr. Aiple's operation. Mr. Fontaine stated the Planning Commission approved the request with the recommended conditions. Mr. Aiple was present and stated he will not be using as much fill as first thought. Mayor Abrahamson closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Farrell, seconded by Councilmember Opheim to approve a Special Use Permit to fill and grade an approximate 2,000 ft. road, with the recommended conditions, at 1250 So. Main St. requested by Frank Aiple, Case No. SUP/88-25. (All in favor). 3. This is the day and time for the Public Hearing on a Variance request for construction of an eight ft. fence (six ft. required) at 203 W. Hazel St. in the Single Family Residential, RA Dist., Richard & Julie Edstrom, Applicants. Case Na. V/88-27. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette on June 3, 1988 and copies were mailed to affected property owners. Mr. Russell explained the fence will be located on the south side of the Edstrom property and will run east to west and affects only two families. He also presented a letter from the neighbor supporting the fence. Mr. Fontaine stated the Planning Commission felt the request was unique since the fence is completely out of sight and only affects two families. Mayor Abrahamson closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Opheim, seconded by Councilmember Farrell to approve the Variance request for construction of an eight ft. fence at 203 W. Hazel St., Richard & Julie Edstrom, Case No. V/88-27. (All in favor). 4. This is the day and time for the Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit Request to operate a furniture refinishing business in a garage at 111 So. William St. in the Two -Family Residential, RB Dist., Chris & Laura Fischer, Applicants. Case No. SUP/88-28. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette on June 3, 1988 and copies were mailed to affected property owners. N PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. V/93-3 Planning Commission Meeting: January 11, 1993 Project Location: 214 South Main Street Comprehensive Plan District: Central Business District Zoning District: CBD Applicant's Name: Larry Martin Type of Application: Variance Project Description: A variance tofthe_ Parking Ordinance for the renovation of a vacant second floor of a commercial building into retail space. DISCUSSION: The request is to convert a 3,200 square foot vacant second story of a commercial structure into a retail space. The reason for this proposal is that this is an increase in a retail space which demands additional parking as regulated by the Zoning Ordinance, Subd. 26, "Off Street Parking and Loading". The parking demand for this use is approximately 16 parking spaces. It is obvious that Martin's can not provide the off-street parking. However, it should be made clear they are contributing to the parking deficit in the Downtown by 16 parking spaces. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant must meet all Building and Fire Codes. 2. No additional exterior signage is allowed. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. FINDINGS: This request meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: - Site Plan. Caso Number ---------__ Fee Paid--1��--- CASE NU14BER ��3- Date Filed -------------- PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM StreeYL t Location of Property: --�tl L____-- --.. - l,0 9p al ❑oscri 'lion of Property&.'={'�-------------- � �- - --------------------------....--_ •�� d,,_ Address.:?-_--_� r ------ Phone: �3 - her than owner): i�lame---__---------------------------- A�plicant Of ot Address------------------------------ Phone:--------------- Type of Requests -__ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plct --_ Special Use Permit --_ Approval of Final Plat. Variance _-- -.O►her ------------------- G�..� -_________________ Description of Request:J -� �r�,, -t �_2_,�-------_ �.� ------------------- _ -__M___--_-_--__--_--_-_- -_- __-_-_-- Signature of Applicanh � ---- Date of Public Hearing: --------------------------------------------- NOTE&. Sketch "rrin„�znfl nrnnerty and structure to be drawn.on back of this form or at- tacned, silowing LlAte i........•..b. 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. 5. Street names. 6. Location of adjacent existing buildings. 7. Other information as may be requested. Approved _-- Denied --_ by the Planning Commission on ----------- .. subject to tl'�a following con itions:-------------------------- - -- — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — ----T------- --— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ------------- Approved ___ Denied --- by the Council on ---------------- subject to the followin conditions: ------ g • ------------------------------------------ Comments. (Use other side), PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. V/93-4 Planning Commission Meeting: January 11, 1993 Project Location: 2304 Fairmeadows Road Comprehensive District: Single Family Zoning District: RA Applicant's Name: Michael and Sandra Hudson Type of Application: Variance. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Variance to the five yard setback requirement. DISCUSSION Fhe request is to allow a storage shed located less than five feet from the property line. The applicant indicted in their letter of application that tree location and slope of the site are reasons for the variance location. There appears to be other locations on the site that would accommodate the storage building without a variance. RECOMMENDATION: Denial. VARIANCE FINDINGS: (a) There are special circumstances or conditions, fully described in the findings, applying to the land or building for which the variance is sought, which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood, and that said circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such land or buildings. (b) For reasons set forth fully in the findings, the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land or buildings and that the same is the minimum variance that will accomplish such purpose. (c) The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. In addition to considering the character and use of adjoining land and buildings and those in the vicinity, in making such finding, the City Council shall take into account the number of persons residing or working in such buildings or upon such land and traffic conditions in the area among other considerations. I,d%c 100 Ca Number - Fee Paid � �J CASE NUMBER Date Filed PLANNING AIDMINIS f RAT IVE FOUI Street Location of Property:__R-361- C-1-J, Locgal Description of Property: _z JZ ZL' ___`-r� Owner: Name _ � �� %,_ S�'�..tple Address Applicant (if other than owner): dame ____________________---_______-__ Address ------------------------------ Phone: Typo of Requests. ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat Special Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat Variance Other -------------------- Description of Request. 'a'�a 9 ie z�l. j�,• ��.. + Signature of Applicant: r -eta of Public Hearing: _________________-__------ NOTE: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn,on back tacked, showing the following: 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on lot. 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. 5. Street names. 6. Location of adjacent existing buiIdings. 7. Other information as may be requested. his ,fbirm or at- �X Approved ___ Denied ___ by tho'Planning Commission on ----------- (dute) subject to the following conditions: ____________________________________ Approved ___ Denied ___ by the Council on ---------------- subject to the following conditions -------------------------------------------------- Comments: (Use other side), V-6 ,.�,�.,- Q ���,�, ce-v PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. V/SUP/93-5 Planning Commission Meeting Date: January 11, 1993 Project Location: 921 South Greeley Street Comprehensive Plan District: Duplex Residential Zoning District: RB Applicant's Name: St. Croix Valley Clinic Type of Application: Variance and Special Use Permit PROJECT DESCRIPTION: he request �s to construct a two level 3,500 square foot addition to the east (Everett Street) side of the clinic and 1,600 square foot two level addition to the southwest side of the clinic. DISCUSSION: The two level 3,500 square foot addition would extend the clinic building 32 feet toward Everett Street. As shown on the plans, this would be 30 feet from the property line at the south end of the building and 29 feet from the Everett Street property line at the north end. Thirty feet is required so a variance is required for the proposed 29 foot setback. This 7,000 square foot addition would house doctor examination and consultation rooms. The 1,600 square foot addition to the southwest corner of the building will be a clerical/records support area. Thirty doctors maximum will be housed in the clinic facility according to the proposal and parking analysis. Parking for the clinic and hospital are in combined lots. 349 spaces are required for the hospital/clinic campus, 363 spaces are provided. This includes a new 44 car lot directly across Everett Street east of the clinic expansion. The proposal indicates that "all large trees between the clinic and Everett Street in the expansion area will be preserved if possible." Low shrubs and grass will be planted in the remaining areas. It is recommended the applicant follow up this description with a detailed landscape plan that shows existing and new plant size, type and location before building permits are issued. It is recommended that any large trees that are removed be replaced and that additional large trees be added at the northeast corner of the clinic site (adjacent to the residential driveway). As indicated in the proposal information, the addition will be constructed of materials similar to the existing building. RECOMMENDATION: Denial of variance approval of Special Use Permit. 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: �1. The parking lot across from the clinic on Everett Street shall be constructed and available for use before clinic building addition occupancy. 2. A detailed landscape plan showing new and existing vegetation for the clinic site shall be presented for Community Development Director review and approval before building permits are issued. ATTACHMENT:_ Plans. Ccrso Nk - hor ,5�,3 = Sr Fee Paid -------- CASE NUt4BER Date Filed PLANNING ADMIMS-1 .A1IVE FOIZM Sheet Location of Property: -------------------- Logal Doscription of Proportyc ----------------------------- Owner: Name St. Croix Valley Clinic ---------------------------- 921 South Greeley Street _ Phone: _ 439�--- Address ------------------------------- er . dame -------------------- Applicant (i~" other than owP------------- Address - Phone: --------------- Typo of Requests' ___ Rezoning ___ Approval of Preliminary Plat Spacial Use Permit ___ Approval of Final Plat ___ Other --- Variance ------------------- Description r Request: o� Request for sL-��i�1 use_p••e-,mj1_in.-ZQni.n&-_--- - - - -- - - district RB. See attached. _____________________ Signature of Applicant: ------------------ Data of Public HearMg:---------_----------_-^— XOTZ: Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn•on back of ;hiss^ ,or at - a a #.ached, showing the following: cbry. ?? h 1. North direction. 2. Location oL proposed structure on 3. Dimensions of front and side set-b�:c s. 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. C'� 5. Street names. y1� 6. Location o- ac:jacent existing buildings. 4 - 7. Other infoi-r-na,ion as r,-.uy, be requested. Approved -__ Denied ___ by tho Planning Commission on ----------- auto) conditions: ----------- sublet; to the following -------------- Approved __- Denied --- by the Council on --------------------- sublet, to ti-�e ,ollowing conditions: ---------------------- ------------ Comments. (Use other side) %q6%r BWBR ARCHITECTS ST. CROIX VALLEY CLINIC COMMISSION NO.92099 I. Project Description Since its construction in 1977, the St. Croix Valley Clinic, on the Lakeview Memorial Hospital campus, has seen steady growth in its practice. This growth, along with the expansion of the Hospital, has created the need for the Clinic to expand. The primary goal of this expansion project is to meet the current and anticipated needs of the patient care functions of the Clinic. This will be accomplished by providing exam and special procedure space to improve the level of service to the Clinic's patients. Ancillary areas such as laboratory, x-ray, medical records and the business office will be remodeled to support the exam and procedure areas. Another goal is to preserve the existing character of the building. The additions to the current building will be respectful of the materials, massing and detailing of the existing Clinic, while also respecting the characteristics of the Hospital and campus as well. Additionally, the expansion also provides an opportunity for the Clinic to integrate with and enhance the quality of the existing medical campus. The expansion to the east of the existing Clinic builds upon the conceptual expansion plans developed when it was first built through a continuation of the exam room 'loop". An adequate building setback was provided to allow for this expansion. The expansion at the southwest end of the Clinic will help bridge the gap in material differences between the Clinic and the Hospital. By using the Clinic brick with some of the forms of the connecting link, a transition is created. Internally, all building finishes will be maintained and continued in the new and remodeled areas. II. Site Development/Landscaping Due to its location on the campus of Lakeview Memorial Hospital, the St. Croix Valley Clinic needs to be integrated into the campus while at the same time maintaining its own identity. As part of the Hospital expansion, the expanded St. Croix Valley Clinic will be connected to Lakeview Memorial Hospital through an on -grade connecting link which will serve as a shared campus entry to both the Clinic and Hospital. This new entry will be located at an elevation of 902 feet above sea level. This places it midway between the 5' change in elevation between the Clinic and the Hospital. ST. CROIX VALLEY CLINIC COMMISSION NO.92099 PAGE 2 The majority of site work surrounding the St. Croix Valley Clinic expansion will be completed by Lakeview Memorial Hospital. r Landscaping on the east side of the expanded Clinic will be similar to the existing with low shrubs and grass lawn. All large trees will be preserved if possible. The majority of site work to the west and south of the Clinic is by Lakeview Memorial Hospital. The site immediately adjacent to the Clinic on the west will be a concrete walk and planters similar to the existing. Immediately adjacent on the south side will be low shrubs and grass lawn again similar to the existing. The north side of the site adjacent to the east expansion will be a continuation of the existing rock ground cover. M. Exterior Signage Signage is to follow Lakeview Memorial Hospital medical campus standards. Material to be a combination of light and dark brick from medical campus. Top cap to be precast concrete or stone. Sign face lettering to be opaque ivory approximately 9" high. Letter style to be Helvetica medium upper and lower case. Sign face to be illuminated from light fixtures located below in planting bed. Planting bed to surround all sides of sign. Note: See Site Plan for locations IV. Parking Analysis Required by Code Current Proposed on Site Proposed Across Everett Street Total Parking A. 5 per 30 physicians = 150 cunic Hospital Total 150A 199B 349 B. 1 per every 2 licensed Beds (97) = 48.5 Plus 150 employees at largest shift at 1 stall for each = 150 C. Total exceeds required by 14 stalls D. Total exceeds current by 57 stalls 306 319 44 363 C, D 16�01WAMM, 101 EP-13 ■ mum m LEGEND FROPERTYLNE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ST. CROIX VALLEY CLINI EXPANSION BWBR ARCHITECTS 400 Sibley Street, Suite 600 ' a S . nt Paul. Ifinmesota 55101 612-222-3701 9" Td am PLM DDI � � s I e7 I 1 I 1 I I LOIER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN !N a a ST. CROIX VALLEY CLINK EXPANSION %%A BWBR ARCHITECTS 400 Sibley Stroet, Suite 500 Saint Paul, Hinnewta 55101 612-222-3701 cw.n�na I u•e, vtry wl N tlr...-�eIM r wvI w V�N•i F ws� M •�� wYwr Y,weY�+ lint DoV a�.IN.Ib. DC a Qwn o•»v 1PM O.nr. Xw CMtW tlOM b0C aiwl 7M LOMI�Hi �LE�YyB Kam r1.�11e 9w,A W DD5 A v v v �s�YWI:_ PiiPl4yuuo�miiaici .iiiWilq,sO�W WIwINIM1IY_,IItIi4w 1��1 _ ■■ _ fHI _ I SIN ,�a M32 �� 1 I i il�w'-'�sPal ■ ��',� F11F.a I � �f - •�,� � �� � 1{ III IMP J{!�f Uf .. __ _.Ie�uar•�lrla�r,�e=pn ��- �i �.. 0', I n.- � �m � ST. CROIX VALLEY CLINI EXPANSION e � 1 BWBR ARCHITECTS 400 Sibley Sulle 500 Saint Paul, Uk rl-otn 55101 .2-222-5701 Cmsaml. ft N- 0-my MM c- k Cns1N wm )a0c 9. Tw IMMLM FLOOR PLAN 6 awn xo DD6 h. OL aLa- ua I T AT Xny nry u+veam a aw•i m' race un EL r�� m• NMH ELEVATION aaw ©_EST ELEVATION 006WFY. uu — aa: im ccareah 0055R�® 61f+1' i i I I aawer THI ATm ... Ww Fwnw aver rurcan ewm.n M-FMLEIM.ML FL W'-1 YP Lam. FL W� WIf - ST. CROIX VALLEY CLINI EXPANSION BWSR ARCHITECTS 400 Sibley Street, Suite 500 Saint Pail, lhr-o ota 55101 512-222-5701 ta.a.n. D- D— o•>*v ern c— a. Ch. w VAS )OOt sM 1FY sm a. DD9 water THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA January 8, 1993 To Whom It May Concern: The Stillwater Planning Commission is quite concerned about the Levee Wall along Stillwater's riverfront on the St. Croix River. The wall has deteriorated rapidly in the last few years due to high water and wave action caused by boats and wind. Engineering inspections show the lower wall failing and that could affect the upper wall which protects the river bank. The Community rely's on the Levee Wall for many reasons. The most important is the erosion and flood control it provides our city sewer system and Downtown commercial areas. We feel that, in order to safeguard these valuable assets, the wall must be repaired as soon as possible. The Community also rely's on the Levee Wall for protection of the Levee Road. This road provides for emergency access to the St. Croix River for fire and emergency vehicles. During the Spring, this road can be under water for as much as forty days. The Planning Commission supports any funding mechanism for the reconstruction of the Levee Wall and extension for the purposes of providing flooding/erosion control for our riverfront. We strongly emphasize that this project needs immediate attention due to its present condition and possible destruction. If you have any questions, or would like to meet with City representatives, please contact Steve Russell, Community Development Director at (612) 439-6121. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Jerry Fontaine Chairperson Stillwater Planning Commission CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW CASE NO. SUP/93-6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: January 11, 1993 PROJECT LOCATION: 305 South Water Street COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: Central Business District Zoning District: CBD APPLICANT'S NAME: Todd Weiss TYPE OF APPLICATION: Special Use Permit PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Special Use Permit request for a 2,400 square foot expansion of the deck at the Freight House and for placement of a temporary tent. DISCUSSION: The request is to remove the existing volley ball court on the northeast corner of the Freight House site and replace it with a masonry deck with a white seasonal tent to cover the area. This 2,400 square foot space is proposed to be used for receptions, conferences, group tours and meetings as stated on the attached letter. The applicant has also included aesthetics improvements to the Freight House site as part of this application. These include additional landscaping of the parking lot, deck and north property line and screening the roof top air units. Other items in the proposal include moving the caboose to the northeast corner of the site, adding another seasonal bar and constructing a garbage structure. This structure was a "condition of approval" for a Special Use Permit granted in 1987. The structure was not constructed. (A copy of the Special Use Permit is attached.) The existing parking demand for the whole Freight House structure and existing deck is 135 parking spaces. The additional parking spaces needed for this proposal is 20 parking spaces which brings the total parking demand for the whole Freight House site at 155 parking spaces. The proposal does call for increasing the capacity of the south lot from 34 parking spaces to 37. Even with this improvement, there is a 118 parking space deficit for the Freight House. Also, according to the Stillwater Downtown Plan (1988), the calculated parking demand for the South Main Street area, south of Chestnut Street and east of Main Street during peak hours is 517 parking spaces. Peak hours are summer weekend evenings after 7:00 P.M. This demand does not reflect the Andiamo River Boat parking in this area. The Heritage Preservation Commission/Design Review Committee reviewed the proposal at their regular meeting of January 4, 1993. The Commission reviews the visual impacts of the proposal rased on the historic integrity of the Freight House and surrounding streetscape. The Downtown Design Guidelines are a basis by which they make their decisions. The Committee recommends denial for this project. Because of the design, color and material, they do not e this tent is appropriate next to a Nationally Registered Historic Building and Downtown Historic District. However, the other aesthetic improvements to the site which included the landscaping, roof -top air vents and the trash Planning Application Review Case No. SUP/93-6 Page Two enclosure are appropriate. The applicant has verbally stated they may, on occasion, have live music or amplified music in this area. This raises a concern regarding the intensity of noise in the Downtown. There has been concern in the past about noise levels in the Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. Noise seems to bounce off the bluffs. RECOMMENDATION: Denial. FINDINGS: The proposed use does not meet the intent of the Parking Ordinance. The proposed tent does not meet the purpose or intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines and Preservation Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: - Admin-fstrative Form - Letter from the Freight House - Site Plan. Ann Pung-Terwedo City of Stillwater Planning Commission/City Council 216 4th Street North Stillwater, AIN 55082 RE: Freight House Restaurant Use Permit Dear Members of the Planning Commission and City Council, Enclosed find the plans describing the proposed alterations in usage at the Freight House Restaurant. We intend to cease the use of the Volleyball court and alter the existing space with a masonry patio. The patio would be highlighted with a canopy; the canopy would be seasonal and removed in the late fall. In addition to these improvements, we propose the following: --Enclosing the garbage area with a masonry structure and sloping roof, more suitable to the Freight House style. --Provide entry awnings at the North and East entrances. --Landscaping the parking lot, patio and frontage areas. --Adding a small, seasonal bar to the deck/patio to match the existing structures. --Relocating the Caboose to the Northern property line. --Reconfiguring the South parking area to maximize space. --Screen the roof -ton air units. The proposed alterations of our present space are in response to an increase in requests for group dining facilities; receptions, tour groups, meetings and special events. By accommodating these requests, we will be able to further attract large groups to the Stillwater business commuinty. We intend the alteration of. the Volleyball court to remain in the existing character of the Freight House by using permanent and high quality materials. We believe these alterations will benefit both the Freight House and Stillwater business community; additional1v these alterations will be esthetically appealing and provide further interest along the waterfront. Thank -you for your consideration, Sincerely, i Todd Weiss General Manager Freight House Restaurant 305 South Water Street • Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 612/439-5718 A. bV-J s� ^nc� MMARFR C a s o N u m b o r p Fee Paid -_a- G� ___.-W_ Data Piled PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE FORM Street Location of Property: 3o 5r_So. w ATF'R �CReCiT (Ff-E tcotrT �t vU B) --------- ----------------------- Lo0al Doscription of Proportyi-------------___---.---_----. ------ Owner. Name-.._6-s, BEs----_-----..__-__--_ Address 00 2u0 �'SVQ- So w Wll�S �Ml --- phone: Applicant (if other than owner): game .,.._T° CIP .._W El S 5------- Address __ 30 5 -S o._WA'CZ ST. _-- ---_--- Phone:__ -- Typo of Requesty ...._ Rozoning _.,- Approval of Preliminary Plat . . Special Use Permit -.... Approval of Final Plat Variance Other _---_ Description of Request: --_---. -----.:__.,-------------.,..,.w___---__,-_-_- ---------------- _ PPTto M-1-C-h If�GLVPF-s XecoxJr—IaUItGp6 s�fr-- ae'#' ENa.�Lt�LNS, Signature of Applicant: -_--__---_..-------------- Date of Public Hearing: 7tGL'____.-_----.--_-- _-------------------- ---_- NOT-... t _ a__ a a..�_ a_ L� J�-..... 1...,.T. � FT•.i�nrrr+ y� +ir_ 'i L6— Ui FJru 1VJCu rivkici,y situ JNtt4�t4ir. w ue µ4pwu.via u�.tr vw w++3 �v r, 6"ched, showing the following; 1. North direction. i:r; 2, Location of proposed structure on lot. , �I 3. Dimensions of front and side set -backs. 4. Dimensions of proposed structure. orry Street names, s. stre t'I'13 �.� 8, Location of adjacent existing buildings, 7. Other information as may be requested. Approved Denied by tho'Plonning Commission on ----------- (duto) subject ;c the following conditions: ____ __--_ ------------------------- I -+-_-_.-.._---.--___-m----w---"---------___..-_r.__..______-__„-------.---- Approved _.._ Denied by tho Council on --------- subject to the rollowingconditions:-_--�.-.,..----------..-.---__ ..-_.------- ---- r—_------r_rr�r�w_r�.__r_r«—_rw Comments: (Use other side), w water _= M W �00 0 THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINN ESOTA MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING STAFF DATE: JANUARY 8, 1993 SUBJECT: BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR DISCUSSION REGARDING THE STILLWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. At the December Planning Commission meeting, a work program for the Comprehensive Plan update was reviewed and recommended for approval to the City Council. The new City Council is scheduled to review the work program at their meeting of January 19, 1993. At last month's meeting there was discussion of the contents of a Comprehensive Plan and the Commission reviewed some examples of Comprehensive Plans. Attached to this memorandum are selected sections of three documents; the State law that authorizes Comprehensive Plans, The Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework and selected sections of the Stillwater Township Comprehensive Plan. STATE LAW (Subdivision 473.858) The law describes the requirements for a Comprehensive Plan (The existing City Comprehensive Plan met the requirements when adopted in 1980.) and the required content of the Comprehensive Plan. The laws in general basically enables the City to plan and prepare Comprehensive Plans. The contents of an Implementation Program for the Comprehensive Plan is also described as well as the adoption process. METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT, INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK The iietropolit.an Development and Investment Framework is the basic guide document of the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council is charged with planning for regional wastewater treatment, transportation facilities, and parks and open space. The Framework is general because it is a guide for the entire seven county metropolitan region. The City of Stillwater is considered a "free-standing growth center" in the Framework. The Framework material includes development policies and goals for the region. A basic policy of the Framework is to direct growth to within the municipal urban service areas (MUSA). The MUSA line is a key concept in regional planning. Urban density development is allowed only when urban services are available. The Metropolitan Council also provides projections for population, housing units and employment for this region, including Stillwater. (See attached table.) Urban sewer service, transportation faciltities, and parks and open space is planned and sized to accommodate projected growth. The Framework also has policy for rural areas and rural transition areas. The Stillwater Comprehensive Plan will have to be consistent with the Development and Investment Policy and approved by the Metropolitan Council. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 STILLWATER TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Stillwater Township Comprehensive Plan was first adopted in January 1980 and most recently revised, March 1990. The Forward to the plan was added in 1990. It states "Township policy established in 1990 places preference on the preservation of the Township's rural characteristics as a primary focus on its growth development strategy." The plan goals and policies are included. Page 25 describes a growth strategy for Stillwater Township. Areas (C) Urban/Rural and (D) Urban Residential (R-3 and R-4) west of the City boundaries pertain most to Stillwater and the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan area. The Land Use Map shows the area west of the City boundary primarily in the urban/rural district. The plan also calls for orderly annexation of Township lands (P 30). At meeting time, the Commission can review and discuss these three documents as background to the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan preparation. ATTACHMENTS: - State Comprehensive Law - Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (selected sections) - Stillwater Township Comprehensive Plan (selected sections) 2 473.855 METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT 9914 (b) The population, employment and housing need projections which have been used by the council as a basis for its metropolitan syVem plans; (c) Any parts of the land use plan, public facilities plan or implementation pro- gram which may be excluded from the plan of the local governmental unit. The exclu- sion of parts shall be based on the nature and character r existing and projected development within each local governmental unit and on policies, statements, and rec- ommendations contained in metropolitan system plans. History: 1976 c 127 s 5; 1977 c 347 s 68 473.856 METROPOLITAN SYSTEM STATEMENTS; AMENDrvJENTS. Local governmental units shall consider in their initial comprehensive plans Sub- mitted to the council, and school districts shall consider in their initial capital improve- ment programs submitted to the council, any amendments or modifications to metropolitan system plans which were made by the council and transmitted prior to January 1, 1978. Thereafter, within nine months after receiving an amendment to a metropolitan system plan, each affected local governmental unit shall review its com- prehensive plan and each affected school district shall review its capital improvement Program to determine if an amendment is necessary to ensure continued conformity with metropolitan system plans. If an amendment is neces sa or school district shall prepare the amendment and submit it to hethe gevuncil for review 1; overnmental unit pursuant to sections 462.355, subdivision 4, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.971. 1C History: 1976 c 127 s 6,- 1977 c 347 s 68 473.857 SYSTEM STATEMENTS; RECONCILIATION PROCEDURES. Subdivision t. If a local governmental unit or school district and the council are unable to resolve disagreements over the content of a system statement, the unit or dis- trict may by resolution request that a hearing be conducted by the advisory committee or by the state office of administrative hearings for the purpose of considering amend- ments to the system statement. The request shall be made by the unit or district within 60 days after receipt of the system statement and shall be accompanied by a description of the disagreement together with specified proposed amendments to the system state_ went. if no request for a heating is received by the council within 60 days, the statement shall be final. Subd. 2. A hearing shall be conducted within 60 days after the request, provided that the committee shall consolidate hearings on related requests. The hearing shall not consider the need for or reasonableness of the metropolitan system p#arts or pans thereof, The hearing shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to testify and present evidence. The advisory committee or administrative law judge may employ the appropriate technical and professional services of the commissioner of trade and eco- nomic development for the purpose of evaluating disputes of fact. The proceedings shall not be deemed a contested case. Within 30 days after the hearing, the committee or hearing examiner shall report to the council respecting the proposed amendments to the system statements. The report shall contain findings of fact, conclusions, and rec- ommendations and shall apportion the costs of the proceedings among the parties. Subd. 3. Within 30 days of receipt of the report, the council, by resolution contain- ing findings of fact and conclusions, shall make a final determination respecting thepro- posed amendments. At any point in the reconciliation procedure established by this section, the council and a local governmental unit or district may resolve their disagree- ment by stipulation. History: 1976 c 127 s 7,• 1977 c 347 s 68; 1980 c 615 s 60,• 1981 c 356 s 241, 1983 c 289 s 115 subd 1; 1984 c 640 s 32; 1987 c 312 art 1 s 26 su6d 2 I473,858 COMPREHENSIVE PLAINS; LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNUS. Subdivision 1- Within three years following the receipt of the metropolitan system statement, every local governmental unit shall have prepared a comprehensive plan in 94 a( t1 c s' ;{.��99I5METROPOLITAN GOVERNMEM4T3$59 :i W4`accordance lentation with sections 462.355, subdivision 4, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 and have the plan to the metropolitan Ve been the applicable planning statute and shall submitted for review pursuant to section 473.175. The provisions of sections 462.355, Pro- The __clu- e council subdivision 4, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 shall supersede the provisions of the statute wherever a conflict may exist. if the comprehensive munici- ju>xit g and projected applicable planning pal plan is in conflict with the coning ordinance, the zoning ordinance supersedes the 9tments, and rec- plan. Subd. 2. Local governmental units shall submit their proposed plans to adjacent governmental units and affected school districts for review and comment at least six nta and shall submit copies to them months prior to submission of the plan to the council r1ENTS. msive on the submission of the plan to the council. roval b the The shall be submitted to the council following app Y plans sub- capital improve- Subd. 3. plans planning commission of the unit and after consideration but before final approval by codifications to smitted prior to the governing body of the unit. Subd, 4, Comprehensive plans, capital improvement programs, sewerpolmentans adopted prior to the requiremenu of mendment to a review its tom- and official controls of local governmental units S, 462.355, subdivision 4, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.971 shall remain enforce 0 improvement .led conformity sections and effect until amended, repealed or superseded by plans or controls adopted pursuant 462.355, subdivision 4, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871. Existing compre- ernmental unit to sections hensive plans, capital improvement programs, sewer policy plans, and off cial controls and official controls may be incil for review 473,871. may be amended and new capital improvement programs and adopted prior to the submission to the Council of comprehensive plans prepared required by sections 462.355, subdivision 4, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871. _. 1RES.l History: 1976 c 127 s 8; 1977 c 347 s 68; 1985 c 62 s 4 I he council are he unit dis- I r 473.859 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONTENT. "1i j Subdivision 1. Contents. The comprehensive plan shall contain objectives, poll- ` nj or try committee ties, standards and programs to guide public and private land use, development, ride- for all lands and waters within the jurisdiction of the Local Lering amend- iistrict within velopment and preservation governmental unit through 1990 and may extend through any year thereafter which is specify expected industrial and commercial a description system state- evenly divisible by five. Each plan shall development, planned population distribution, and local public facility capacities upon discussion of the use of the public the statement which the plan is based Each plan shall contain a facilities specified in the metropolitan system statement and the effect of the plan on districts. Existing plans and offi- e st, provided ad'art'nt local governmental units and affected school 4, may he used in whole or in part following ttru�iification, neAP71 ar to ring shall not ans or ,.; rnnrrnls 1 ;' 1" -___.. satssfy the requirements of sections 462.355, subdivision 4, r+73.i r r, au.� -.+�•� •_ � •' any additional matter which may be parts testify and 473.871. The comprehensive plan may contain included in a comprehensive plan of the Local governmental unit pursuant to the appli- y' employ the ide and eco- cable planning statute. Subd. 2. Land use plan. A land use plan shall designate the existing and proposed roceedings :;oceedin s location, intensity and extent of use of land and water for agricultural, residential, com- or any combination of such mendments mercial, industrial and other public and private purposes, A land use plan shall contain a protection element, as appropriate, for his- ns, and rec- parties. purposes. tonic sites and the matters Listed in section 473.204, and an element for protection and systems. A land use plan shall on contain- development of access to di rect sunlight for solar energy include a housing element containing standards, plans and programs for providing ing the pro- hed by this also adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional hous- ing including but not limited to the use of official controls and land use planning it disagree - needs, to promote the availability of land for the development of low and moderate income it 241; 1983 housing. Subd. 3. Public facilities plan. A public facilities plan shall describe the character, ` existing and future public Ir location, timing, sequence, function, use and capacity of the local governmental unit. A public facilities plan must be in at least such TS. M'<<; .-. facilities of detail as may be necessary to establish existing or potential effects on or departures to metropolitan system plans. A public .n system a - :: plan in :'"' from metropolitan system plans and protect facilities plan shall contain at least the following pans: i 473.859 METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT 9916 (a) A transportation plan describing, designating and scheduling the Iocation, extent, function and capacity of existing and proposed local public and private trans- portation services and facilities; (b) A sewer policy plan describing, designating and scheduling the areas to be sew- ered by the public system, the existing and planned capacities of the public system, the standards and conditions under which the installation of private sewer systems will be permitted, and to the extent practicable, the areas not suitable for public or private sys- tems because of public health, safety and welfare considerations; (c) A parks and open space plan describing, designating and scheduling the exist- ing and proposed parks and recreation open spaces within the jurisdiction. Subd. 4. Implementation program. An implementation T program shall describe public programs, fiscal devices and Other specific actions to be undertaken in stated sequence to implement the comprehensive plan and ensure conformity with metropoli- tan system plans. An implementation program must be in at least such detail as may be necessary to establish existing or 1: potential effects on or departures from metropatz tan system plans and to protect metropolitan system plans. An implementation pro_ gram shall contain at least the following parts: (a) A description OfofTtcial controls, addressing at least the matters ofzoning, sub- division, and private sewer systems, and a schedule for the preparation, adoption, and administration of such controls. ' 3t . + (b) A capital improvement program space facilities. . p p gram for transportation, sewers, parks and open (C) A housing implementation program, including official controls to implement the housing element of the land use plan, which will provide sufficient existing and new housing to meet the local unit's share ofthe metropolitan area need for low income ate housing. and moder- Subd. 5. Urbanization areas. The comprehensive plans may designate, when appropriate, five year urbanization areas and shall specify in the capital improvement program the timing and sequence of major local public facilities and in the implementa- tion program official controls which 3 will ensure that urbanization occurs only in urban- ization areas and in accordance with the plan. I+ History: 1976 c 127 s 9; 1977 c 347 s 68; 1978 c 786 s 20 473.86 CITIES. F Except as provided in the metropolitan system statement, comprehensive plans of cities shall include the matters specified in section 473.859. History: 1976 c 127 s 10; 1977 c 347 s 68 473.861 TOWNS. i Subdivision 1. Except as provided in the metropolitan system statement, compre- hensive plans of towns shall include the matters specified in section 473.859. Subd. 2. By December 31, 1976, each town within the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Scott and Washington, { authorized to plan under sections 462.351 to 462.364, or under special law, shall by resolution determine whether it will prepare the compre- hensive plan for its jurisdiction. Each such town also shall specify, pursuant to agree- ment with the county within which it is situated, any parts of its plan and official controls, if any, the preparation of which it delegates to the county. Subd. 3. Towns within counties which have adopted comprehensive plans applica- bleto the town shall, to the maximum extent, use county preparation of their compre-C°.-, hensive plans. History: 1976 c 127 s 11; 1977 c 347 s 68q- 473.862 COUNTIES. Subdivision 1. Comprehensive plans of counties shall contain at least the follow-` trig: 9C it e. 9917 METROPot.1TAN GOVERNMENT 473-864 (a) Except for the counties of Hennepin and Ramsey, a land use plan as specified in section 473.859, subdivision 2, for all unincorporated territory within the county; (b) A public facilities plan which shall include all appropriate matters specified in section 473.859, subdivision 3, including a transportation plan, and a description of existing and projected solid waste disposal sites and facilities; (c) An implementation program, as specified in section 473.859, subdivision 4. Subd. 2. Each county other than Hennepin and Ramsey shall prepare, with the participation and assistance of the town, the comprehensive plan for any town within the county which fails by December 31. 1976, to take action by resolution pursuant to section 473-861, subdivision 2 and shall prepare all or part of any plan delegated to it pursuant to section 473.861, subdivision 2. Subd. 3. Each county other than Hennepin and Ramsey shall prepare, with the participation and assistance of the town, the comprehensive plan for each town within the county not authorized to plan under sections 462.351 to 462.364, or under special law. History: 1976 c 127 s 12; 1977 c 347 s 68 -- 473.863 SCHOOL DISTRICTS; CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAilLS. 473 s to implement _ :isting and new uw and moder- :signate, when I improvement �e implementa- only in urban- nisive plans of .1 at, compre- .359. -)ka, Carver, to 462.364, le compre- a to agree - and official ans applica- ir compre- ie follow - Subdivision 1. By January 1, 1980, each school district as defined in section 852, subdivision 11, shall prepare and submit to the metropolitan council, for review pursuant to section 473.175, a capital improvement program, which shall include a description of existing facilities, projected population and facility needs and objectives, proposed new school sites, buildings, anDnbuilding ad'a adjacent school districts,and affitions with a cost Of c ed anal re than $200,000 and the effect of the program 1 governmental units. Subd. 2. Each school district shall submit its capital improvement propma for review and comment to the local governmental units lying in whole or in part within the district and to adjacent school districts at least nine months prior to the submission of the program to the council. The local governmental units and adjacent districts shall roviFw the nroeram and provide comments to the school district and the council within 90 days on the compatibility of the program with the proposed of the local governmental units and the capital improvement programs of the school districts. Subd. 3. The capital improvement programs shall be submitted to the council after consideration but before final approval by the governing body of the district. Subd. 4. Capital improvement programs of school districts adopted prior to the requirements of sections 462.355, subdivision 4, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 remain in force and effect until amended, repealed, or superseded by programs adopted pursuant to sections 462.355, subdivision 4, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871. Existing programs may be amended as appropriate and new programs prepared and adopted prior to the submission to the council of programs required by sections 462.355, subdi- vision 4, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871. Existing programs may be used in whole or in part following modification, as necessary, to satisfy the requirements of sections 462.355, subdivision 4, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871. History: 1976 c 127 s 13, 1977 c 347 s 68- 473.864 PLANS AND PROGRAMS; ADOPTION; AMENDMENT. Subdivision 1. Each local governmental unit shall adopt its comprehensive plan with required modifications within nine months following a fina[ decision, order, or judgment made pursuant to section 473.966. Each school district shalt adopt its capital improvement program, after receiving and considering the council's review statement sent pursuant to section 473.175 and making any amendments which the school district determines may be appropriate. Subd. 2. Amendments to comprehensive plans of local governmental units and to capital improvement programs of school districts shall be prepared, submitted, and 473.864 METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT a adopted in conformance AAtstosection 473854. ith guidelines adopted by the metropolitan court History: 1976 27s 1S, k c 1 1eil pursuant 977 c 347 473.865 s 6$' 1981 c l42 IMP s I LEMENTATIQN �F PLA. Subdivision NS I. Each described in its adn local governmental unit trols to the CouncilAted comprehensive shall adopt official controls only. with 30 days fallo plan and shall submit ntroIs as Ong adoption thereof; copies information the Official con- , �. A local device which is in conflict with its cam ernmental nit shall Purposes filet with all not adapt any Official contr metropolitan system Prehensive plan Or which of or fiscal Subd. 3. Iran Plans. Inch permits activit an amen ofcial control conflicts with Y in con - an to the plan, the official contra! shall b months following the comprehensive plan as the comprehensive amendment to the mended .. the result of Akan. plan so as to not canflici unit within nine History: 1976 c with the amended !27 s 16,• 1977 c 347 s 6$ , 473X66 Cp The council" TED CASES; ADMIN7STR,� tested by the affected os 0 to require modification AND JUDrt� PXVMW to request a hea ' gaverntnental unit. Under section 473.I75 may The ❑nit h ring an the cauncil's decision .ire unit shall have 60 daysy be con - respect to the re t r. ested a he quire m❑ Within which acing, the council shall modification_ If within 60 days for bed quired modifications. if affected unit re make its final state o �g shall be granted, and al decision with ffice of administrative the hearing shall be conducted a hearing, the re tested cases. The subject of thearinY's in the manner within 60 daysquest need For or reason, ofthehearing shall not extend Provided by chapter 14by the report of the adrni Metropolitan system q estions conce for con - among the o the Live law judge the costs ❑f the or �71ing the parties to the Proceedin any part thereof. In the council shall, by resolution containing 34 days ring shall be apportioned decision Ys after the receiPt of thpot the part to the p respect to the required m&ridings ❑f fact and conclusions, report the Y Praceedin a mod fact of the co make a in the manner r g in cha by the decision ofthe coun mprehensive final consist of: Provided ded to chapter ! 4 for contested cases. •ml may plan. �Y {l } the administrative law ' Y appeal to the court conclusions and final decision of e record ° lion l siOn Judge's record and report, and n appeal shall Arovided that: the council. The scope of review {)the findings, thative lawjudge's record anldti�e court shall not preference t shall be t the council port or the hadt give a either the thatofsec- the evidenceand {Z} the decision of the c gs, conclusions and fin decision as contained in ourt shad be based u al decision of apportioned by the court. the record an appeal. The upon a preponderance of History: costs of the appeal shall be c 640 s 37ry' 1976 c 127 s J7.1977 e 347s 68.19$ Qc61Ss6D,-1987c4�4s13t7,•I984 473.867 5ubdivfszpn�I1YG ASSiSTr��TCE; G The council shall r S' LOAi plan provisions and a prepare and Provide may provide nssand official Controls, and on the request o advisory local 4,473.175 accomplish 4 of a localmaterials, model and legal ' and 473.85I to 47 Alish the purposes of sections 4S3�vernmental unit g assistance in ca 3 $7I The council m 355, subdivision Programs, and controls. nnection with the preparation Provide specific technical Subd. 2 The council shall adoption and defense of plans,:. keeping account in its establish a planning assistance fund general fund governmental units under this sectdionr7 e Aurpoee of as a se the award,rnakin Aarate hook- disbursement and re he council shall ado g grants and Ioans to local ` repayment of grants pt uniform procedures for w `� and loans. ....r.._ Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework Development and Investment Framework CONTENTS SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................... INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 5 Purposeand Authority............................................................................................................. 5 5 BackgroundTrends................................................................................................................... 7 AResource Management Strategy............................................................................................ 7 RegionalGoals......................................................................................................................... GOALSOF THE FRAMEWORK..................................................................................................... 9 PLANNING AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY OF THE FRAMEWORK ............................................ 11 Managing Existing Regional Resources ..................................... ............................................... 11 Planning for Growth on the Basis of Council Forecasts........................................................... 12 Directing Growth within an Urban Service Area..................................................................... 13 Council Review of Special Facilities within the Region........................................................... 15 PreservingAgriculture.........................................................................................---.................. 15 GEOGRAPHICPOLICY AREAS..................................................................................................... 17 MetropolitanUrban Service Area.......................................................................................... 17 MetropolitanCenters._ .......... ....................................... ........................ rm . ..... ......... 17 19 Regional Business Concentrations..................................................................................... 20 FullyDeveloped Area........................................................................................................ 20 DevelopingArea................................................................................................................ 21 FreestandingGrowth Centers..............................................................................._............. RuralService Area..............................................................................................I.................... 22 r'.^...-..r.arrinl Aarirtilhiml Area................................................................... 22 23 GeneralRural Use Area .......................................... ...................................... ................ ... 23 RuralCenters......................................................................................................4.............. PLANNING AND INVESTMENT PROCEDURES: Council Internal Actions .................................. 27 Investment Decision -making Process........................................................................................ 27 EconomicEvaluation Criteria................................................................................................... 28 30 MonitoringInvestment Decisions............................................................................................. PLANNING AND INVESTMENT PROCEDURES: Council and Metropolitan Systems ................... 33 Metropolitan System Guidelines.............................................................................................. 33 MetroGovernance Process....................................................................................................... 35 PLANNING AND INVESTMENT PROCEDURES: Council and Local Units of Government ......... 41 Regional/Local Planning Process.............................................................................................. 41 In(,ercommunity Planning Process............................................................................................ 42 42 School District Capital Improvement Programs........................................................................ Local/Regional Cost-Sharing.................................................................................................. 43 WORKPROGRAM........................................................................................................................ 45 Development and Investment Framework APPENDICES A. Forecasts of Population, Households and Employment ................................................... 47 B. Procedures Affecting the Metropolitan Urban Service Area ............................................ 52 C. Maps of the Metropolitan Urban and Rural Service Areas .............................................. 60 FIGURES 1. Generalized Urban and Rural Service Areas, 2000......................................................... 14 2. Generalized Geographic Policy Areas............................................................................. 18 B-1. Metropolitan Area Sectors........................................................................ .... .............. 53 C-1. Metropolitan Centers ................................ ....................................................................... 61 C-2. Regional Business Concentrations................................................................................... 62 C-3. Levels of Congestion in the Metropolitan Highway System, 2000................................... 63 C-4. Lands in Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves, March 1, 1985.......................................... 64 Generalized Geographic Policy Areas Map, one inch to four miles ...................inside back pocket TABLES 1. Monitoring the Fiscal Health of the Region.................................................................... 31 2. Metropolitan Council's Relationships to Other Regional Agencies...... ............................ 36 A-1. Forecasts of Population, Households and Employment, by Community, 1990 and 2000 48 B-1. Demand for Urban Land, by Sector and Land Use ......................................................... 55 B-2. Urban Land Demand and Supply in the Urban Service Area, by Sector ........................ 56 POLICY INDEX Subject Policy Page Subject Policy Page Agriculture 10 16 Freestanding growth centers 6 16 17 24 16 22 18 24 Fully developed area 13 22 Commercial agricultural area 17 24 General rural use area 18 24 Developing area 14 22 15 22 Investment priorities 1 15 5 16 Directing growth 6 16 11 21 7 16 12 22 8 16 13 22 15 22 Economic development 5 16 16 22 Environmental quality 7 16 Maintenance and upgrading of existing facilities 1 15 Excess capacity in regional systems 2 15 11 21 12 22 Forecasts 3 15 13 22 4 15 5 16 Managing regional resources 1 15 14 22 2 15 iv Subject Policy Page Metro centers 11 21 Metropolitan urban service area 6 16 8 16 11 21 12 22 13 22 14 22 15 22 16 22 Rural Service Area 10 16 17 24 18 24 19 25 20 25 Regional business concentrations 12 22 Rural centers 6 16 19 25 20 25 Special facilities 9 16 The Metropolitan Council coordinates the planning and development of the seven -county Metropolitan Area. The Council is authorized by state and federal laws to {plan For highways and transit, sewers, parks and open space, airports, land use, air and water quality, health, housing, aging and the arts, v Development and Investment Framework METROPOLITAN COUNCIL DISTRICTS ANOK"— County Boundary Municipal Boundary i-0-a`"---Township Boundary METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MEMBERS Chair —Steve Keefe Liz Anderson, District 1 Mike McLaughlin, District 2 Charles William Wiger, District 3 Carol Flynn, District 4 David F. Fisher, District 5 Joan Campbell, District 6 Mary Hauser, District 7 Donald E. Stein, District 8 Josephine D. Nunn, District 9 John Evans, District 10 Dorothy Rietow, District 11 Gertrude Ulrich, District 12 Dirk deVries, District 13 Marcy J. Waritz, District 14 Mary K. Martin, District 15 Patrick J. Scully, District 16 Vii Development and Investment Framework SUMMARY The Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework is a plan that sets a general direction for future development patterns in the Metropolitan Area and establishes guidelines for making decisions about major regional facilities, like sewers and highways, that are needed to support the commer- cial, industrial and residential development of the area. The framework replaces two other development guide chapters —the Metropolitan Development Framework, adopted in 1975, and the Metropolitan Investment Framework, adopted in 1977 The development framework focused on guiding growth into a compact development pattern to make it more economical to extend regional facilities. The invest- ment framework focused on monitoring the fiscal status of regional agencies to help carry out the development framework policies. The Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework combines most of the concepts in the two earlier documents into a single one that emphasizes a broader strategy —managing regional resources in the form of existing regional facilities and public dollars used to maintain or expand them. That strategy is a response to major trends that will affect the Metropolitan Area in future years. The primary one is an expected slowdown in the area's growth compared with the population "baby boom" of the 1950s and 1960s. That baby boom triggered a very large demand for jobs, housing, goods and services. But the Council estimates that the area's population will grow much more slowly in the future —only five percent in the 1990s, compared with 10 percent in the 1980s. The result will be less of a demand for regional facilities than envisioned in the Council's 1975 framework. At the same time, maintenance and reconstruction of existing regional facilities are expected to become more important in future years because many of them are reaching the end of their useful life. Like the 1975 development framework, the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework divides the region into a metropolitan urban service area and a rural service area. The focus of the Council's strategy on directing growth in the region is to encourage development to occur within j the urban service area. Improvements in the regional systems for sewers, transportation, parks and airports would be made to meet the needs of people living in the urban service area. For example, central sewers would not be extended into the rural service area, and highway projects would not open new land to development. The framework reflects the boundaries for the urban service area that developing communities designated in their comprehensive plans prepared under the 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Because the Metropolitan Area's growth is expected to slow down, however, the framework designates the 1990 urban service lines of a majority of the communities V/ as their boundaries for the year 2000. Under the framework, the Council will use its forecasts of population, households and employment as an indication of where growth will be occurring in the region, and to guide plans for growth and subsequent investment decisions within the urban service area. The Council is committed to serving Sri growth throughout the urban service area based on these forecasts, the Council's system plans for regional facilities and comprehensive development plans prepared by local communities. However, Development and Investment Framework before recommending investment in expansion or upgrading of any particular facility, the Council will expect that maximum use has been made of the facility. Where growth exceeds the Council's forecasts, the Council will also place a high priority on regional faciiities to support economic develop- ment, but retains its commitment to serving residen- tial development as well. The Council's first priority is to maintain and upgrade existing regional systems throughout the urban ser- vice area. The Council will also assign a high priority to maintenance projects that support planned economic development. Development not forecasted by the Council would generally get a lower priority for investment in regional faciiities. But not all maintenance needs would be met before new development is served with such facilities. The framework calls for the Council, local govern- ments and the metropolitan agencies to act jointly to protect the capacity of regional facilities by pro. tecting them from premature overuse. At the same time, some parts of the region have excess capacity in regional systems. The Council would like to see development occur first in those areas provided with the greatest complement of metropolitan and local public facilities and services. However, the Council will not itself direct development to areas with ex- cess capacity. The Council intends to expand its role significantly in reviewing and commenting on special facilities with the potential for major impacts on the Metropolitan Area. These special facilities are large, often one -of a -kind projects with a specific function or focus, such as sports or international trade. Preserving agriculture is a major goal for the rural service area. The Council is committed to the policy that the highest and best long-term use for much of the region's land is agriculture. The framework also includes development policies for geographic areas within the Metropolitan Area. The metropolitan urban service area contains the following "geographic policy areas." The metro centers are the Minneapolis and St. Paul downtown areas. The framework supports maintain- ing the metro centers as vital centers of economic activity and housing. It supports new development in the metro centers that requires high density, good accessibility via major highways and good levels of public services. Maintaining regional facilities serv- ing the metro centers is the framework's highest priority for public dollars. The regional business concentrations are areas that have a large employment base, such as office com- plexes, or that produce a large sales volume, such as regional shopping centers. They are clusters of economic development, like those around major shopping malls and along major highways. The framework supports the continued growth of these concentrations, including increased development densities in these areas. Maintaining regional facilities that serve regional business concentrations has a priority second only to that for the metro centers. The fully developed area is the built-up, centrally located portion of the region, including the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul and many adjacent suburbs --for example, Bloomington, Hopkins, Col- umbia Heights, Roseville and South St. Paul. The framework calls for maintaining and upgrading development in the fully developed area and the regional facilities serving it. Maintaining and replac- ing such facilities will take priority for public dollars over investing in facilities to serve new development in the developing area that exceeds the Council's forecasts of population, household and employment growth. The developing area is the part of the region lying within the metropolitan urban service area that will receive most new development to the year 2000. Ex- amples of communities in this category are Eagan, Burnsville, Minnetonka, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids, Shoreview, Maplewood and Oakdale. In this area, the framework says that new development will be supported with regional facilities in line with the Council's forecasts. The freestanding growth centers are 11 cities in the rural portion of the region, outside the urban ser- vice boundary, but are a microcosm of the urban area, with their own economic base, housing, and range of public services. Examples inciude Hastings, Prior Lake, Chaska and Forest lake. The Council is committed to providing regional facilities to strengthen the older parts of the freestanding growth centers and to provide services to new development that occurs outward from existing development. The "rural service area" contains three policy areas. The commercial agricultural area consists of land that is covenanted or certified eligible to be agricultural preserves by local governments under the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act. The Coun- 2 cil supports agriculture as a long-term land use in the rural service area. The general rural use area is the area outside the ur- ban service area that contains a wide variety of land uses, including farms, residential development and facilities that mainly serve urban residents, such as regional parks. The Counci I supports agriculture and low -density residential development in the general rural use area but not the extension of regional facilities to serve development at densities like those found in the urban service area. The rural centers are 35 small cities that used to serve primarily as retail and transportation centers for sur- rounding agricilltural areas, but are now home to many residents who work in the urban area and the location for many industries with few ties to agriculture. Examples include Young America, New Market and St. Francis. The framework says these cities should pace development with their ability to provide their own urban services, but without regional facilities. The framework also includes procedures for guiding the Council's decisions about investing in regional facilities and in its review of development proposals. As a first step, the Council will determine whether there is a regional need for the facility and what benefits it will produce, in light of its casts and possi- ble alternative ways of meeting the need. The Coun- cil will also rank the projects according to the priorities established for the different geographic policy areas and the Council's policy plans for regional systems —highways, transit, sewers, airports, parks and solid waste manavPrnant The Council will also consider how the facilities are financed and how operating and debt service costs are paid for. For special projects and major develop. ment proposals, the Council will examine how they affect the regional economy --for example, the number of new long-term jobs created and expected increases in total income, tax Lase and tax revenues. In carrying our this process, the Council will con- sider several factors: the question of equity, or fairness about who pays for and receives the benefits; whether the revenue -raising methods to finance the facifity will encourage the best use of the facility; whether funds from outside the region, such as federal or state grants, will be used for financing; how the project affects the total debt of metropolitan agencies and whether the sources of public revenue are appropriate in light of the purpose of the project_ The Council will prepare a metro investment review report that examines how well its decisions on in- dividual proposals reflect its overall regional priorities. The Council will also produce a fiscal pro- file report that examines the expenditures, revenues and debt of various levels of government in the Metropolitan Area. In addition, the Council will use a set of fiscal indicators to help give it a picture of fiscal trends in the region. The framework establishes guidelines that provide direction to the Counci I's more detailed policies and programs contained in its individual system plans for sewers, highways, parks and airports. It describes a "metro governance" process that spells out the relationship of the Council to metropolitan agencies responsible for these regional systems and the role these agencies play in carrying out the Council's plans for those systems. A third set of procedures addresses the Council's relationship with local governments. These pro- cedures focus on how to resolve issues that result from changes in a local government's expectations about its own growth. The procedures deal with: • Updating the Council's plans for regional systems in response to new census data: ■ Making changes in the metropolitan urban ser- vice area boundary; and • Sharing the cost of providing regional facilities with local governments. 1td$ =VVtJJ r%, LtJu l_Uurlcl[ imends to ao several things. It will establish a monitoring program to help determine whether its decisions and those of other regional agencies and local governments are working toward framework goals. The Council will also compile information about the need for main- taining regional facilities and how those needs may reduce funds available for expanding those facilities. In addition, the Council will include policy direc- tions on human services in the framework. Another area the Council will explore is alternative sources of funding for regional facilities. They could include new metropolitan -wide sources, local - government contributions, private sources or a com- bination of these. The Council intends to change its procedures for reviewing major amendments to local communities' comprehensive plans to clarify what information 01 Development and Investment Framework needs to be submitted to the Council for review. The Council will also spell out how it will use the framework in reviewing proposals such as grant ap- plications and planning assistance loans. The Council will refine the framework's concepts of the regional business concentrations and the freestanding growth centers, including the criteria for defining these geographic policy areas. It will also reexamine the framework's policy for the general rural use area, focusing on areas that are not suited for agriculture and addressing such issues as hous- ing density, the appropriate level of land use in nonresidential uses and the demands for local public services. n GOALS OF THE FRAMEWORK � The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is generally view- ed as one of the nation's most livable large urban centers. The image often presented in national studies dealing with quality of life is that of an area that is clean, progressive, uncrowded, safe, relative- ly prosperous and highly supportive of education and cultural activities. Local surveys indicate that residents of the area would generally concur with these descriptions. However, like all big metropolitan areas, the Twin Cities Area does have problems with housing costs, neighborhood deterioration, rising taxes, crime, pollution and growing traffic conges- tion. With its central focus on resource management, this framework includes policies directed at retain- ing the area's quality of life and resolving problems before a crisis occurs. The commitment to resource management is con- sistent with state legislation that created the Metropolitan Council in 1967, which calls for establishment of a framework to promote the order- ly and economic development of the Metropolitan Area. Orderly and economic development requires the public sector to make the best possible use of funds that are invested in regional facilities and services. To retain and enhance the region's quality of life and promote its orderly and economic development, this framework establishes the following goals: 1. Locate all urban development and urban -scale in- vestment within a metropolitan urban service area (defined on page 13). 2. Provide existing development and forecasted growth within the urban service area with necessary regional services. 3. Accommodate unanticipated growth within the urban service area in the most economic and ef- ficient manner. 4. Preserve agricultural and rural land use in a rural service area, the area within the region lying out- side the urban service area. 5. Ensure that residents of the Metropolitan Area have adequate housing at a reasonable cost. 6. Concentrate major commercial and industrial development. 7. Maintain, reuse and reinvest in older, fully developed areas. 8. Maintain a strong, diversified economy. 9. Make efficient use of public resources. To assess regional trends and to monitor the effec- tiveness of Council policies in meeting regional goals, the Metropolitan Council will establish a monitoring and evaluation program. This program will be designed to support implementation of the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework. The Council will collect data to monitor the effectiveness of framework policies as well as regional policy plans and their effects on develop- ment trends. The program will also assist the Coun- cil in its efforts to identify emerging metropolitan issues and problems. 01 Development and Investment Framework PLANNING AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY OF THE FRAMEWORK MANAGING EXISTING REGIONAL RESOURCES The Council is committed to serving forecasted growth throughout the urban service area, but will do so on a somewhat different basis than in the past. The Council will use its forecasts of population, households and employment as an indication of where growth will be occurring. However, before recommending investment in expansion or upgrading of any particular facility, the Council will expect that maximum use has been made of the facility. The rationale for this recommendation is threefold: 1) there is already a very substantial, usable investment in place that should not be wasted; 2) needs for some systems are not likely to grow much through the end of the century because of slowdowns in forecasted population growth and in physical expansion; and 3) federal funds will likely be greatly reduced in the future from the levels that prevailed during the previous four decades. The management strategy to maximize service from ex- isting facilities focuses on maintenance, system pro- tection and more use of existing, underutilized facilities. Maintenance The regional systems already in place represent a vast investment of funds. Some of these facilities, especially in the fully developed part of the region, are well beyond their design life and will need to be replaced or upgraded. Because of the magnitude of this investment, the Council's first priority is to maintain and upgrade existing regional systems throughout the urban service area. The Council will assign a further priority to maintenance projects that support planned economic development. Because of the slower growth rate projected for the region to the year 2000, the Council considers it important to place a high priority on supporting economic development, particularly in areas where the region has already made a substantial investment and seeks to protect it. This does not mean that housing, and especially affordable housing, is no longer import- ant to the Council. In instances of unanticipated regional growth, the Council will also place a high priority on system in- vestment in support of economic development. At this time, the Council does not know the full ex- tent of the system's maintenance needs. Consequent- ly, the Council cannot estimate to what extent the demand for maintenance will affect its ability to pro- vide investment for system expansion. Addressing this question is part of the work program of the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework to be carried out after the framework's adoption. Protection The protection strategy is intended to ensure that ma- jor regional systems are functioning at adequate ser- vice levels as defined in the Council's policy plans for those systems, while supporting forecasted growth with necessary services. To be successful, this strategy will require the Coun- cil, local governments and the metropolitan agen- cies to act jointly to ensure long and useful lives for the investments made in metropolitan systems and facilities. Potential protective actions range from Development and Investment Framework limiting or denying a new development access to regional facilities (for example, metering a freeway or rejecting a request to build a new highway inter- change) to providing relief facilities or better manag- ing the facilities in place. This strategy focuses almost exclusively on the legislatively defined metropolitan systems (highways, transit, sewers, airports and regional parks) and the solid waste management system. Underutilized Facilities The 1975 development framework directed local governments to make maximum use of their existing capacity before adding new facilities. This framework reaffirms that directive. The Council wUuld like to see development occur first in those areas provided with the greatest combined complement of metropolitan and local public facilities and services. The Council recognizes that physical facilities deteriorate over time and, therefore, it is more economical to use them for their intended purpose while they still have a useful life. While local governments need to take stock of where they have made facility investments, the Council will take responsibility for providing information on regional facilities. Based on Council forecasts and its regional system plans, which include some upgrading, of existing facilities, the Council does not expect sewage treatment plant capacity to be a pro- blem anywhere in the region by the year 2000. However, many of the region's major highways will PxnPrianrP siihstantial congestion by the year 2000. The map (Figure C-3) in Appendix C presents the Minnesota Department of Transportation's (Mn/DOT) estimated year-2000 congestion levels on most of the major streets and highways in the Metropolitan Area. This map is based on the Metropolitan Council's forecasted socioeconomic data for the year 2000 and on an assumed highway network. The assumed highway network includes needed improvements as well as new routes. All of these improvements are subject to the availability of funds and consequent- ly, some may not be implemented. Mn/DOT con- ducted this generalized analysis of congestion on a system -wide basis. The department develops forecasts for detailed road design individually on a project -by -project basis. The map in Appendix C is, therefore, only a starting point for determining poten- tial congestion. The Metropolitan Council will not itself actively direct development to areas with excess local and regional capacity. The Council views local govern- ments and developers as more appropriate to carry out this facet of resource management. PLANNING FOR GROWTH ON THE BASIS OF COUNCIL FORECASTS The Metropolitan Council will use its forecasts for population, households and employment (see Table 1 in Appendix A) to guide plans for growth and subsequent investment decisions within the urban service area. Council forecasts are the initial basis on which the region will assume financial risk and meet regional infrastructure demands. Although forecasts are the starting point for making investment decisions, the actual sizing of a regional facility is based on a number of development assumptions. These assumptions, along with the projected life of the investment (generally at least 20 years), provide an added cushion for possible variations between the forecasts and actual development. The develop- ment assumptions are found in Appendix B. The Council will also consider the following excep- tions as a potential basis for altering its plans and investment decisions. 1. The Council will monitor its forecasts every five years to determine whether differences in actual - versus -forecasted development warrant any changes in regional plans. 2. The Council will vary investment decisions and regional system allocations based on verified growth and/or. mist as important. the lack of growth in individual communities as a means of managing regional resources to avoid unnecessary investments (see procedures in Appendix B). 3. The Council will consider revising its investment decisions based on cost sharing with local govern- ments, provided that certain guidelines are met (see Appendix B). 4. The Council will consider varying its investment decisions based on opportunities for economic development of net new benefit to the region. 5. The Council may withdraw a plan for investing in a regional facility if a local government does not commit to building the necessary com- plementary local facilities. However, the Council does not intend the forecasts to be viewed as goals in and of themselves. The Council stated in the 1975 development framework 12 and reaffirms here that forecasts for the metro centers* and the fully developed area would be more usefully viewed as a lower limit rather than as an upper limit to growth, because of the lack of available land for new development in these areas, prevailing demographic conditions and Council policy. In general, higher growth forecasts by these communities could be supportive of Council policy, provided that system capacity is available or can reasonably be provided. Furthermore, forecasts for the developing area and freestanding growth centers should not necessarily be viewed as an up- per limit on growth, if regional systems can accom- modate the greater growth. Although the Council bases its forecasts in part on trends, "functional" constraints (for example, the physical ability to expand facilities such as a highway) and fiscal, or financial, constraints may contribute to redirecting growth. Significant local economic development efforts may also play a role. The Council will support local economic develop- ment efforts in areas where there is excess capacity in regional systems. DIRECTING GROWTH WITHIN AN URBAN SERVICE AREA The focus of the Metropolitan Council's strategy on directing growth in the region is to encourage growth to occur within an urban service area (see Figure 1). The 1975 development framework documented that facilities and services needed to support urban development can be provided at less public cost if the land area available for urban development at any one time is defined and limited in amount. This led to the establishment in the first framework of urban and rural service areas within the region, divided by a generalized line. The metropolitan urban service area line, as it presently exists, is a by-product of the review process carried out under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, and subsequent amendments to local comprehensive plans. As the Council approv- ed plans for communities along the urbanizing fringe, the urban service area line in each of these plans replaced the generalized line in the 1975 document. ,This framework reaffirms the urban/rural service area 1concept and extends the metropolitan urban service area to the year 2000. The process of extending the line involved a review of the land supply and de - 'These "geographic policy areas," noted in bold type, are defined in the next section. mand (based on Council forecasts) for each com- munity along the urbanizing fringe. In this review, the Council typically found that the current land supply was more than sufficient to meet forecasted needs for the next 15 years. In these cases, the 1990 urban service area as shown in the adopted local comprehensive plan became the year-2000 urban service area. However, in some cases, the Council >� found that communities needed to add land to their 1990 service areas to meet year-2000 demands. The Council asked these communities to identify addi- tional urban areas consistent with Council -forecasted needs. These locally identified additions were then added to the affected communities' previously adopted 1990 urban service areas. The extension of the urban service line also took into account pro- tecting the natural environment. Wetlands, floodplains and areas where bedrock is located near the soil surface are not considered a part of the available land supply within the urban area. The Metropolitan Council will plan for growth in- side this urban service area, which includes freestanding growth centers (identified in the next section). The Council will also support urban development in rural centers (also defined in the next section), consistent with their ability to finance and administer necessary support services such as sewer, water and roads. The Council will not extend regional facilities to rural centers. The Council is committed to providing metropolitan systems within the urban service area, including the freestanding growth centers, in accordance with the regional systems plans and with mutually consistent local comprehensive plans. Regional facilities and services include sewers, major highways and inter- changes, transit service, regional parks, and major - and intermediate -level airports. However, as is the case with maintaining regional facilities, the Coun- cil will assign a higher priority for the construction of new facilities that support economic development as opposed to those that support residential development. The Council will use the urban service area as well as its demographic forecasts to direct future planning of and investments in regional systems. The Coun- cil urges local, state and federal agencies to support urban development and redevelopment in the urban service area. The Council will use the urban service area concept in reviewing plan amendments and en- vironmental reviews from local governments and in decisions on distribution of funds. The Council will consider changes to the urban service area accor- ding to the procedures found in Appendix B. 13 COUNCIL REVIEW OF SPECIAL FACILITIES WITHIN THE REGION The Metropolitan Council intends to significantly change and expand its role in reviewing and com- menting on special facilities with the potential for major impacts on the Metropolitan Area, under authority assigned to the Council in the Metropolitan Council Act. The Council defines special facilities as large, often one -of -a -kind projects with a specific function or focus, such as sports or international trade. They are generally user -oriented and are like - Iv to affect the entire region. The Council will continue to examine the potential impact these projects might have on metropolitan systems and other regional plans. The Council will first determine the need for the facility and its loca- tional and operational requirements, such as highway and transit access or access to specific facilities and/or user groups, before considering Council policies for development and redevelopment. If the Council decides that the facility is needed, it will then indicate which locations would best serve its intended purpose, whether regional system capacity is available to serve the facility and, if not, how system investment priority can be handled. The Council will consider consistency of the facility with other development framework policies as a secon- dary matter. Once the Council has completed its review of a special facility and identlfled any special investn-lent priorities, it will consider the tacility in the same con- text as the rest of the geographic policy area in which it is located. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community is a unique entity in the region and is an example of a "special facility." It is the only Indian reservation in the Metropolitan Area. In addition, while its residents are residents of the city of Prior take and receive municipal services from the city, the reser- vation also has sovereign status. Consequently, the Council may at times deal directly with the Sioux Community or work through the city of Prior !rake. While Indian reservations were originally located in rural and semi -rural areas, many, including the Shakopee Sioux Community, are now close to ur- banizing areas. This has led to a need for greater cooperation among affected governmental units, notably in providing necessary public services. The Council will work to foster cooperation among the metropolitan agencies, the city of Prior Lake, Scott County and the Sioux Community. The Council will approve the extension of urban services to the reser- vation through the city or directly to the Sioux Com- munity. 5ince the community does not fall under the procedures of the land planning act, any service ex- tensions would necessarily be made by contract. The extension of services at a level appropriate to enhance the quality of life of residents of the reser- vation would be consistent with Council policv. PRESERVING AGRICULTURE The primary justification for the dividing of the region into urban and rural service areas is to help ensure the orderly and economic provision of metropolitan facilities and services. However, since 1975, the urban/rural division has contributed to the now accepted Council position that the highest and best Iong-term use for much of the region's land is agriculture. POLICIES RELATED TO THE PLANNING AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY Managing Regional Resources 1. The Metropolitan Council will place its highest investment priority on serving existing develop- ment within the urban service area by main- taining and upgrading existing facilities. 2. The Metropolitan Council will support public rr_ ..''Z.., ..i .. dill! }J[ IYpLC Clllll t] tV Ell V1irV sc: u�e., pr: +4... i.. areas where excess regional system capacity exists. Use of Forecasts 3. The Metropolitan Council will use its regional forecasts in developing all regional plans and programs and in making investments. 4. The Metropolitan Council will regularly monitor variations between forecasts and actual development as one measure for deter- mining where changes in plans, programs and investments are needed to achieve regional goals and commitments. The Council will also consider cost -sharing and economic develop- ment of net new benefit to the region as well as nonperformance by IQcal government as possible exceptions to relying on its forecasts as a basis for investment decisions. swim". and Investment Framework For growth that exceeds Council forecasts, the Metropolitan Council will place a high priori- tY on investment that supports economic development. erecting Growth The Metropolitan Council will support urban 'J"velopment inside the urban service area, in- y/, eluding freestanding growth centers, and in rural centers consistent with their ability to finance and administer necessary support *rvices. The Metropolitan Council supports the maintenance of environmental quality throughout the region and will support pro- V9Ims or strategies to maintain or improve the natural environment. 2EKional investments directed by the Metropolitan Council will provide urban ser- vices to people in the metropolitan urban ser- vice area. The metropolitan urban service area will be the area open for urban development until the year 2000 unless officially changed by the Council prior to that date. Review of Special Facilities Within the Region 9. The Metropolitan Council will evaluate a pro- posed special facility by its own initiation or in response to outside requests. The Council's review will focus on the purpose of and need for the facility, whom it will serve and where it works best before considering development objectives for individual geographic policy areas. Agriculture Policy 10.The Council will continue to support agriculture as the best long-term use for much of the region's rural service area. 16 will take place in this area, developing communities will need to provide a variety of housing types for people of all ages and income groups. The developing area has a generally adequate supply of the most essential facilities and services and reasonably good highway access to most portions of the Metropolitan Area. Cultural facilities, other than education, are not well developed. Com- munities could promote clustering of housing for target populations and social and cultural facilities in locations with good access to meet special needs and to facilitate the sharing of resources, expertise and facilities. Public transit is either unavailable or largely serves trips to and from work. The developing area is definitely automobile oriented and, to the extent that development occurs at low density, future public transit prospects are not very good. The Council views the developing area as the place to build communities that combine the best of the past with innovation and imagination about the future. Once the initial urban pattern is set, it is time consuming and costly to change it. The best possi- ble job of planning and development to meet physical and social needs must be done at the outset. The developing area offers that opportunity. (�IFr�eestancdrin�growth Centers I/r Freestanding growth centers are the larger urban centers located within the rural portion of the seven- . A Actropo!i1tar, Area 'A he o ed _ ..1.�wuiiiy irlcuUNUuiali r�lca. I Ilcy viisiilatcu a� �uuy- ing trade centers. Some include large areas of open land as a result of annexation of former townships. The Council has identified 11 communities as freestanding growth centers. They range in size from Waconia, with a population of about 2,600, to the Stillw. -Oak Park Hei hts area with near, Iy 19,000. The Council will re esignate any rural center when it meets the criteria for a freestanding growth center. (These criteria are included in a separate appendix to this document.) See Appendix-,-, B, page 52. Freestanding growth centers are similar to com- munities within the urban service area in that they have a full range of services and thus are able to ac- commodate a full range of urban land uses. The distinction, however, is that freestanding growth centers are physically separated from the larger ur- ban area by undeveloped land. Also, they have an employment base within the community that is large enough to provide work for the local population. They are more than just residential communities in both location and their economic bases. All freestanding growth centers have central sanitary sewer and other services that enable them to serve an urban population. Services available include sewer, water, schools and higher levels of police and fire protection. In addition, all communities provide at least full -convenience retail services and have a significant number of other kinds of employment op- portunities available for their residents. Freestanding growth centers often have a large con- centration of elderly, many of whom moved there from the surrounding rural area. The centers are also the location for services and facilities for the elder- ly residing there and those remaining in the rural ser- vice area. The Council considers the freestanding growth centers as detached portions of the metropolitan ur- ban service area. It wants the centers to prosper and grow and to serve as alternatives to living and work- ing in the large central urban area. Consequently, the Council supports housing maintenance and rehabilitation as well as the development of new af- fordable housing and housing that meets the needs of people at all stages of the life cycle. Because they are so similar to urban service area communities, and because they also accommodate regional popula- tion and employment growth that might otherwise occur in unserviced areas, the Council supports regional investments in these communities. However, _ I • _MLIC_C dUUJIUIdlIdu6 lleedtu1 LU dU_V111111UddLC growth, the communities should extend municipal services in a staged, contiguous manner, consistent with their ability to provide such services. If the additional land is in an unincorporated area, annexation through an orderly annexation agreement is the preferred alternative. METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA POLICIES Metropolitan Centers 11. The Metropolitan Council supports the maintenance of two strong metropolitan centers and will support new developments re- quiring a central location, high accessibility, high service levels and high density as most ap- propriate for the metropolitan centers. Maintenance of metropolitan systems serving 21 Development and Investment Framework the metro centers will receive the Council's highest investment priority. Regional Business Concentrations 12 . The Metropolitan Council supports continued growth and increased densities in regional business concentrations and will give invest- ment priority second only to the metro centers for the maintenance of metropolitan systems serving the concentrations. Fully Developed Area 13. The Metropolitan Council supports the maintenance and upgrading of development and service facilities in the fully developed area. Reinvestment for maintenance and replacement of metropolitan systems serving existing development in the fully developed area will take priority over investment for ex- pansion in the developing area. Vr. Developing Area 14. Urban expansion in the developing area should be planned, staged and generally contiguous to existing development. The Metropolitan Council will work with the metropolitan agen- cies and the Minnesota Department of Transportation to provide metropolitan systems at the time, place and size needed to support growth based on regional forecasts. 15. System investment to serve additional residen- tial land beyond regional forecasts will receive a lower priority than system investment to serve unanticipated economic development. Freestanding Growth Centers 16. The Metropolitan Council supports urban - density residential, commercial and industrial development in freestanding growth centers. Since they are a microcosm of the Metropolitan Area, The Metropolitan Council will make in- vestments in metropolitan systems serving freestanding growth centers based on the ful- ly developed and developing area policies, as applicable. RURAL SERVICE AREA Commercial Agricultural Area The commercial agricultural area includes those lands certified by local governments as eligible for agricultural preserves under the 1980 Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act. This approach places the responsibility for defining agricultural lands on local governments. With Council protection policies for commercial agriculture focused only in areas where there are local government plans and protections, local and regional policies support one another. The amount of land included in the commercial agricultural area is large, covering about 600,000 acres in 1985. This constitutes over half the farmland in the seven -county area. The geographic area defined as the commercial agricultural area is subject to frequent change when tied to the Agricultural Preserves Act because land can go into and out of certification when local governments decide to alter its status. Local govern- ments may replan and rezone certified areas if a Change in policy is desired, but this change must oc- cur as a public process. For the purposes of this docu- ment, the commercial agricultural area is defined as the area certified as of March 1 of each year. This date is the end of each Council reporting year re- quired under the Agricultural Preserves Act. Under the Agricultural Preserves Act, a local govern- ment passes a resolution certifying land eligible for protections and benefits and limiting housing den- sity to one unit per 40 acres. The certified area is then considered long-term agricultural land. The local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance must reflect this land use and zoning. Farmers own- ing land within the certified area may then enter the program. Land in the program is referred to as covenanted land. The Agriculture Preserves Act pro- vides protection for the farmer from urban assessments, property taxes at development value and conflicting land uses in exchange for a legal commitment to continue farming for at least eight years. Within the commercial agricultural area, all land has been certified by local governments as eligible for the agriculture preserves program. However, the Council recognizes two levels of protection in the commercial agricultural area: primary and secondary protection areas. 22 Primary protection areas are lands covenanted as agricultural preserves. They will receive the greatest protection possible from incompatibie uses because the greatest level of commitment to farming has been established. Secondary protection areas cover the farms in the area that have not yet formed agricultural preserves. The Council believes the commercial agriculture area is a place where agriculture is the best perma- nent use of the land. Long-term investments in farm equipment and in land preservation can be made with the confidence that urban development is not going to destroy or limit these investments. General Rural Use Area The general rural use area is the area outside the ur- ban service area that is not designated for commer- cial agriculture. Over 40 percent of the land in the Metropolitan Area falls in this category. The area con- tains a wide variety of land uses, including agricultural, residential and urban -type facilities. There are sizable parts of the general rural use area that host no particular kind of land use —land that is often called unused. Most of the area looks rural, but many of its residents are tied economically to the urban area and many of its land uses provide ser- vices to people living in the urban service area. Four major types of uses exist within the general rural use area. General Farmland A large part of the general rural use area is devoted to agriculture. The Council supports the continua- tion of agriculture and encourages local governments to support it by zoning agricultural land at one unit per 40 acres. For farms within an area so zoned that subsequently sign up for the agriculture preserves program, the Council will reclassify them as part of the commercial agricultural area. Rural Residential Development Rural residential development consists of homes on large lots in areas that are hilly, wooded or other - Wise unsuited to agricultural production. The Coun- cif considers rural residential development a perma- nent land use and not an early stage of urhaniza- tion. The Council supports this type of use as long as the density does not exceed one housing unit per Y 30 acres of !arid. The Council will compute rural residential density on the basis of 4D-acre parcels. This will prevent possible urban-ciensity clustering of a large number of homes on small minimum lot sizes, but within the overall density cap. The Coun- cil opposes such clustering because it could result in the need for urban services, such as package sewer disposal systems. Existing Urban -Density Development Residential subdivisions, mobile home parks and clusters of moderate -density residential development also exist in the general rural use area. They frequent- ly demand urban services but are in locations where urban services are difficult or costly to provide. The Council's principal concern is the potential need for the costly extension of central sanitary sewer and par- ticuiarly metropolitan sewer service. The Council supports development in the general rural use area consistent with service levels appropriate for a rural area. Local governments with existing urban -density development should address the operation and maintenance issues of on -site systems to avoid poten- tial problems and the eventual need for costly local investments. Urban Uses Many facilities exist in the general rural use area that require isolated and spacious locations but serve primarily the urban public. These facilities include campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks, regional parks, trails, waste disposal installations, rac- ing facilities, gun clslhs, festivals, mining sites and 'I.... L I'�'..� Thn ALinar,I reiryl rICP afPn k an an- sIo-,]1ar faci1,itics. e. propriate location for these facilities. The CounciI's interest is that these facilities are adequately serv- ed, consistent with local and regional plans, and to the extent possible, that they do not interfere with agricultural activities. Rural Centers Rural centers historically have served as retail ser- vice centers and transportation centers for the sur- rounding rural area. However, changes in agriculture and rapid urban expansion have changed the tradi- tional rural service roles of many of these small centers to residential areas for urban people and locations for industries with little tie to local agriculture. The latter make use of available labor in rural areas and, by their nature, tend not to be dependent on close contact with other firms for their supplies or critically dependent on transportation. s 23 Development and Investment Framework The Council has identified 35 rural centers, with populations ranging from just over 100 to more than 5,000. Some rural centers, such as Norwood and Young America, encompass the entire corporate limits of the community. Others, such as Lake Elmo, are small enclaves within a larger rural community. Services available within rural centers vary. Some have central sanitary sewer; others depend on on - site waste disposal systems. Some have central water systems. Some provide the full range of convenience retail stores, whi le others have on ly a bar or gas sta- tion. Some have small manufacturing or service businesses; others are almost exclusively residential. The Council does not support the extension of regional systems to rural centers because of the distance from the urban center and the small popula- tions of rural centers. Rural locations in the past decade have been attrac- tive and some, although not all, communities have experienced an upsurge in growth, principally residential development. Development trends are down from the highs noted in the early 1970s but continue at modest levels into the 1980s. Several services are important in adequately serving additional rural center development, but sewage disposal is the most critical. Urban- density develop- ment in an unsewered rural center poses the risks of on -site sewage system failure, contamination of groundwater and eventually the expense of new on - site or central sewer system installation. The possibility also exists that remedying a pollution problem may require an extension of metropolitan sewer service through rural areas. Lack of sewer service is a serious constraint on the amount and type of development that rural centers can safely accommodate. Some parts of the rural Metropolitan Area, especially Anoka County, are receiving large amounts of scat- tered urban development. This scattered develop- ment poses service problems and may, at a later date, result in very high local service costs. The Council proposes a strategy that offers local government an alternative way to structure this development by designating and creating a "rural center." These new centers would be limited enclaves for urban -density land uses, facilities and services within the local governments' broader corporate boundaries. They would not be coterminus with the entire corporate limits. Under this strategy, a local government would identify an area to receive urban -density residential, commercial and industrial development and the facilities, including local central sewer, where ap- propriate, needed to serve it. Financing of necessary support services would be a local responsibility. Areas of existing urban -density uses are likely can- didates for selection as new rural centers. Rural centers should accommodate additional development consistent with their ability to finance and administer services, including sewer, roads, water and stormwater drainage. If additional land is needed to accommodate growth, rural centers should extend services in a staged, contiguous man- ner. Residential, commercial and industrial develop- ment at urban densities should be accommodated only in rural centers with central sanitary sewers that are meeting state and federal water quality standards. Larger projects should be located in freestanding growth centers that have a full range of services. RURAL SERVICE AREA POLICIES Commercial Agricultural Area 17. The Metropolitan Council supports the long- term continuation of agriculture in the rural service area. The Council will use the follow- ing ranking in decisions to accommodate facilities serving urban residents. Primary protection area: Land covenanted in agriculture preserves will receive primary protection. Urban facilities should be prohibited in this area unless there is strong documentation that no other ioca- tions in the Metropolitan Area can ade- quately meet the siting and selection criteria. 2 - Secondary protection area: Lands certified but not presently in agricultural preserves will receive a level of protection secondary to agricultural preserves. Urban facilities should not be located in this area unless there is strong evidence that a proposed urban use cannot be located in the general rural use area. General Rural Use Area 18. The Metropolitan Council supports long-term preservation of agricultural land in the general rural use area. However, the Council will also support residential development at densities of no more than one unit per 10 acres computed on a 40-acre basis (a max- r 24 imum of four units per 40 acres). The Coun- cil will not extend metropolitan systems to serve urban -density residential development 1 / in the general rural use area. Where urban - density development already exists, a local government should address service issues in its plan, particularly on -site sewer system operation and maintenance. Rural Centers 19. The Metropolitan Council will support a rural center's plans to accommodate additional growth provided they are consistent with the center's ability to finance and administer ser- vices, particularly sewer service. The Coun- cil supports rural center service im- provements but not at regional expense. 20. The Council will support a local government's plan for a new rural center and its requests for state and federal grants, provided the local government restricts urban densities from sur- rounding rural areas and will support the new center with necessary service investments. 25 Development and Investment Framework PLANNING AND INVESTMENT PROCEDURES: Council and Local Units of Government Since the adoption of the 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act, the relationship between the Metropolitan Council and local units of government has focused on the requirements of the act. Essen- tially, the act requires local governments and the Council to continually review and modify growth ex- pectations and corresponding regional facility needs. Either the Council or a local unit can initiate a change. The following procedures relate to handling potential changes. REGIONALIOCAL PLANNING PROCESS Since this framework is the keystone for all Council policies, the regional/local planning process starts with the framework. The Council will thoroughly review and revise the framework after it receives and analyzes information from each federal decennial census. The Council will complete a more general review at five-year intervals after each census -based revision. Adequate census data is usually available to the Council within about two years after com- pletion of the census. The census provides the data needed to revise population, household and employment forecasts, which in turn affect needs for urban land and regional facilities. Changes in the forecasts may subsequently require changes in regional system plans and metropolitan system statements. System statements inform local governments about Coun- cil forecasts, plans for regional facilities and other Council plans, including the development and in- vestment framework and how these plans will affect them. Changes in system plans may require metropolitan agencies to revise their plans for regional facilities. Changes in system statements may require local units to amend their comprehensive plans to maintain consistency with regional plans. State law also requires that the Council re-evaluate regional system plans at regular intervals. Whether system plan changes result from this periodic review, changes in development framework forecasts or other outside influences, the Council will transmit all changes to local governments shortly after they are adopted. To reduce confusion about what changes in regional plans directly affect individual local governments, metropolitan system statements will clearly indicate which geographic areas and/or population groups will be most affected by the changes. In addition, the Council will transmit all system changes that oc- cur in a calendar year in a single annual system state- ment. This means that local governments can con- sider all system plan changes made during a 12-month period concurrently. Changes in the Urban Service Area The Council will also re-evaluate the boundary for the metropolitan urban service area every five years in conjunction with its revision of municipal forecasts. Shorter time periods are inadequate for projecting trends and even a five-year span is ques- tionable in providing an adequate picture of poten- tial trends. - The Council will consider expanding a local govern- ment's urban service area if changes in forecasts in- dicate a need for additional urban land or if a local government has less than a five-year overage of va- cant, developable land. 41 Development and Investment Framework if a local government wants to develop vacant land currently outside the urban service area but adjacent to it, without changing the total size of its service area, the Council will consider a land trade. A land trade involves trading vacant, developable land in- side the urban service area for vacant, developable land outside the urban service area, provided that metropolitan systems are not adversely affected. The Council may consider revisions to the urban ser- vice area more frequently if a local government can clearly demonstrate that it is growing faster than the Council forecast or that it has less than a five-year overage of vacant, developable and. However, the Council will consider interim revisions with great caution to avoid rendering the area -wide forecasts and system plans meaningless. Appendix B includes specific guidelines governing this process. Changes to a Local Comprehensive Plan Reflecting concerns of local government, the Coun- cil has established a review process for plan amend- ments that, up to the present, has operated satisfac- torily. However, more and more local governments are submitting major amendments to their plans that require more supporting data than stipulated in the current amendment procedures. The Council will again work with local government to revise its amendment procedures to more adequately address major plan amendments. On the other hand, the Council still reviews the ma- jority of the amendments it receives within a I0-day period. The Council is committed to keeping the basic review process efficient and effective and will continue to streamline its procedures wherever possible. Relationship Between Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Ordinances The land planning act requires that local govern- ments not adopt any official controls that are in con- flict with their comprehensive plans or with regional system plans. However, the act does not specifically address official controls in place prior to the adop- tion of the plans. Zoning ordinances are the primary tools used by local governments to carry out their comprehensive plans. The Council's primary concern with consistency bet- ween planning and zoning relates to the provision of regional systems. The Council is committed to pro- viding regional systems based on its forecasts and local plans consistent with those forecasts. If a local government develops according to pre-existing zon- ing that is in conflict with the comprehensive plan and if that development has greater service re- quirements than the planned use, the local govern- ment risks running short of regional system capaci- ty. Consequently, local governments that identify such conflicts between their pre-existing zoning and comprehensive plans need to prepare a plan amend- ment addressing what measures they will take to resolve these conflicts. INTERCOMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS The land planning act not only addressed the need for local governments to consider regional plans; it also directed them to discuss the effects of their plans on adjacent governmental units and school districts. The act, in fact, requires that local units circulate their plans to neighboring jurisdictions six months before they formally transmit them to the Council. If differences surface between communities, the act also states that the Council can mediate these disputes. - Although few intercommunity incompatibilities sur- faced during the initial land planning act process, the Council recognizes the ongoing importance of achieving intercommunity compatibility in land use and farility nlanninv_ As local plans are amended. the Council will work with local governments to develop guidelines to address this issue. If necessary, the Council will amend its administrative guidelines to clarify intercommunity planning needs. Part of such an approach might incorporate an analysis of intercommunity impacts in the plan amendment process. SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS The land planning act required school districts to submit capital improvement programs to the Coun- cil for review on a one-time basis and thereafter to submit only major changes. However, sharing infor- mation related to projected school facility needs on a regular basis is beneficial, particularly to affected local governments. just as local governments provide information on all changes in their plans with adja- cent local governments and school districts, the Council encourages school districts to provide 42 Table A 1 (cont.) COUNTY POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS EMPLOYMENT 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 Jackson Twp. 1,483 1,550 1,700 466 500 550 50 50 50 Jordan 2,663 3,150 3,400 893 1,050 1,250 830 1,000 1,200 Louisville Twp. 813 900 950 232 270 300 210 300 300 New Market 286 350 390 99 130 150 50 50 50 New Market Twp. 1,636 1,900 2,000 441 550 600 50 50 50 New Prague (part) 1,898 2,200 2,100 677 900 900 1,250 1,400 1,500 Prior Lake 7,284 11,000 13,200 2,313 3,800 4,700 1,250 2,000 2,200 St. Lawrence Twp. 350 430 500 101 130 150 50 50 50 Sand Creek Twp. 1,516 1,600 1,700 371 400 450 160 150 150 Savage 3,954 8,700 11,200 1,234 2,900 4,000 2,600 3,000 5,000 Shakopee 9,941 12,500 13,900 3,226 4,300 4,900 5,000 8,000 10,000 Spring Lake Twp. 2,570 2,900 3,000 721 850 900 50 50 50 cuumv Total 43,784 58,080 65,900 13,501 19,080 22,600 12,890 17,650 22,250 WASHINGTON� Afto 2550 2,600 2,600 776 850 875 100 200 300 Bayport 2,932 2,800 2,800 677 750 775 2,100 2,100 2,100 Baytown Twp. 851 1,000 1,100 237 300 350 50 100 100 Birchwood 1,059 1,100 1,100 326 360 360 50 50 50 Cottage Grove 18,994 22,000 24,000 5,127 6,300 6,900 4,200 4,500 5,000 Dellwood 751 930 900 223 300 300 100 100 100 Denmark Twp. 1,140 1,400 1,500 318 400 450 50 50 50 Forest Lake 4,596 5,700 6,100 1,752 2,400 2,700 3,200 4,000 4,000 Forest Lake Twp. 5,331 6,100 6,200 1,559 1,900 2,000 420 600 600 Grant Twp. 3,083 3,400 3,600 831 1,050 1,150 100 200 200 Grey Cloud Twp. 351 350 350 112 120 125 50 100 100 Hastings 16 - - 4 - - - Hugo 3,771 4,300 4,500 1,082 1,300 1,400 420 800 1,000 Lake Elmo 5,296 6,200 6,600 1,687 2,100 2,300 830 1,400 1,500 Lake St -Croix -Beach 1,176 1,200 1,200 397 450 475 10 50 50 Lakeland 1,812 2,100 2,300 550 650 750 130 200 200 Lakeland Shores 171 210 220 65 90 100 50 50 50 Landfall 679 680 680 310 340 340 50 50 50 Mahtomedi 3,851 4,900 5,200 1,239 1,800 2,100 1,140 1,300 1,300 Marine On St. Croix 543 550 540 201 220 225 50 50 50 May Twp. 2,076 2,400 2,500 611 750 800 50 50 50 Newport 3,323 3,600 3,800 1,153 1,400 1,500 1,560 1,800 2,000 New Scandia Twp. 2,858 3,200 3,400 851 1,000 1,100 50 50 50 Oakdale 12,123 15,000 17,000 4,004 5,700 6,800 1,600 3,500 5,000 Oak Park Heights 2,591 3,800 3,900 868 1,300 1,400 2,180 2,500 3,000 Pine Springs 267 400 470 77 120 150 50 50 50 St. Mary's Point 348 360 410 114 130 150 50 50 50 St. Paul Park 4,864 4,800 4,900 1,511 1,600 1,700 750 1,000 1,000 Stillwater 12,290 13,200 13,300 4,065 4,600 4,800 5,700 7,500 8,000 Stillwater Twp, 1,599 2,000 2,300 448 600 700 310 300 300 West Lakeland Twp. 1,318 1,400 1,400 355 425 450 50 50 50 White Bear Lake (part) 10 300 300 3 100 100 800 800 900 Willernie 654 720 690 236 275 275 100 100 100 Woodbury 10,297 19,000 23,000 3,232 6,500 8,000 2,500 6,500 9,500 County Total 113,571 137,700 148,860 35,001 46,180 51,600 28,850 40,150 46,850 METROPOLITAN AREA 1,985,873 2,204,000• 2,310,000• 721,357 863,000- 931,000- 1,069,030 1,291,000- 1,405,000- TOTAL "Rounded to the nearest thousand. 51 Development and Investment Framework APPENDIX B. Procedures Affecting the Urban Service Area DELINEATING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA The Metropolitan Council has established a process of estimating land requirements for the urban service area based on an objective of max- imizing choice of lifestyle in the Metropolitan Area while at the same time promoting orderly and economic development and protecting the natural environment. To ensure the greatest choice of living conditions, the Council divided the area outside the central cities into eight radial sectors, which are shown in Figure B-1. The Council used these sectors as a check to make sure that a sufficient supply of land with public the central cities. Maintaining an adequate land supply permits people and businesses to freely choose where they want to develop within the ur- ban service area. Providing more land for urban development than needed in each sector further enhances choice. The Council believes that the ur- ban service area should contain at least a five-year oversupply of urban land within each urban area community to encourage a realistic scale of public and private planning, yet not make the urban ser- vice area so large that it undermines the economic benefits of a regional staging plan. The overage in needed land supply is also intended to temper in- creases in land prices attributable to a restricted supply. The Council has defined orderly and economic development to include making the best possible use of public dollars invested in facilities and services. This means development should occur first in those areas provided with the greatest combined comple- ment of metropolitan and local public facilities and services. In addition, communities should stage new land for urbanization in a contiguous manner that minimizes the need for additional local and regional investments. Protecting the natural environment means that the natural ecological system should be preserved and efforts made to avoid unnecessary expenditures and potential hardships associated with improperly located and managed development. It also means that the natural hydrological system should be preserved and that development should be design- ed and placed to be compatible with soil characteristics and the physical terrain. Restrictive soil groupings where urban development is not anticipated include wetlands, floodplains and areas where bedrock is close to the surface. The Council considered all areas containing these characteristics unsuitable for development even though the ordinances of many local governments do not presently protect or prohibit development in these areas. The characteristics of the restricted areas are as follows: The wetland category consists mostly of poorly to very poorly drained soils. These soils have severe to very severe limitations for all kinds of development due to high water tables. In most cases, permits to fill or alter these wetlands must be obtained from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2 . The floodplain category contains soils that are 52 Development and Investment Framework well to poorly drained; however, they are all sub- ject to occasional flooding and many are sub- ject to frequent flooding. 3. The bedrock category includes places where depth to bedrock averages between three and 10 feet. Excavations for utilities, basements and footings are often difficult and extremely costly. Steeply sloping land also needs to be carefully treated to prevent erosion and excessive runoff. The Council's surface water management plan provides guidelines that should be followed in developments that include steep slopes. The surface water plan takes the position that it is more effective to use land management techniques to control erosion and runoff than to prohibit all developments on lands with steep slopes. The identification and mapping of these en- vironmentally restricted land areas are intended to ocal governments in their planning. The Coun- cil willaccept any adopted local environmental pro- tection ordinances that would legally restrict addi- tional land from development (including steeply sloping land) as the basis for further reducing what the Council considers developable land within a local urban service area. Tables B-1 and 8-2 summarize the findings of the estimating process_ The steps the Council used to estimate urban land requirements for 1990 and the year 2000 are as follows: 1. Estimate residential land needs from forecasts, local comprehensive plans and Council system plans. 2. Estimate nonresidential land needs from forecasts, local comprehensive plans and Coun- cil system plans. 3. Convert land needs for the Metropolitan Area to land needs by sector and community, using past utilization levels, current development den- sities and the amount of land available for urbanization, 4. Determine the supply of land potentially available for urban use by sector and community from local plans, 1980 aerial photos and field surveys. 5. Identify, map and remove wetlands, floodplains and bedrock areas from the potential land supp. ly, using geologic maps, local plans, aerial photos and Council system plans. 6. Identify developable lands with sewer service and high levels of highway and local road ac- cessibility, using local plans, metropolitan system plans and aerial photos. Select this land first for inclusion in the urban service area. The forecasts contained in this framework are lower than those used in the 1975 Metropolitan Develop- ment Framework and revisions made in the forecasts in 1978. Consequently, the estimated urban land re- quirements are lower as well. This means that in most cases the 1990 urban service areas now con- tained in local plans will be adequate to the year 2000 and beyond. In addition, land with steep slopes that the Council considered environmentally restricted in the 1975 framework is now counted as part of the urban land supply. Therefore, the available land inside the urban service area is greater in most urbanizing communities than was the case in 1975. A separate technical appendix to the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework guide con- tains land demand and supply figures for ail com- munities within the metropolitan urban service area, freestanding growth centers and rural centers with public sewer service. These figures are the basis For the revised urban service boundaries. (The appendix also contains criteria for defining free- standing growth centers). Copies of this appendix or land demand data sheets for individual communities are available upon request from the Counci l's Long - Range Planning Division. CHANGING LOCAL URBAN SERVICE AREAS When a local government requests a change in the staging in its comprehensive plan by either adding more land to its urban service area or changing the urban service area boundaries, the Council will use the following principles and procedures. 1. Increasing the size of an urban service area: The Council will not agree to expand a local urban service area unless there is demonstrated regional need and adequate capacity available in the metropolitan sewer and highway systems. In responding to any urban service area expan- sion request, the Council first reassesses land supply and demand based on a comparison of figures provided by the local governmental unit and current Council forecasts. The Council will 54 also assess the impact of the request on regional facilities. If the regional facilities are presently inadequate and metropolitan investments would be required immediately in order to honor ser- vice area commitments to other local govern- ments, the Council will deny the expansion bas- ed on the land planning act criteria that the re- quest represents a substantial impact on or departure from metropolitan system plans. If regional facilities would be inadequate by the year 2000 or any updated target year, the Coun- cil will deny the request on the same basis. The Council will inform the local government that it will reconsider its request when additional regional capacity becomes available. If the local land supply is below or approaching fthe five-year overage and regional facilities are adequate, the Council will agree to a service area expansion. The local government then completes a comprehensive plan amendment incorporating the change. Changing the configuration of an urban service area: The Council will consider land -trade pro- posals involving vacant, developable land adja- cent to the urban service area provided metropolitan systems are not adversely affected. The Council will use two options to evaluate land trade proposals. a. The proposals must involve equal amounts of vacant, developable land with similar land use types and intensities as well as similar ur- ban service characteristics; or b. If the scale of land use and the intensity of potential development differ between the parcels, then proposed land trades must have similar urban service characteristics. Pro- posals will also be evaluated to determine their impact on the affected sector's five-year overage of land. 3. The Council will review a series of incremental changes to a local urban service area only if the affected local government analyzes how the total number of proposed changes will affect regional forecasts and system plans and operations. If regional facilities are adequate and no metropolitan agency investments are required, the Council may agree to the urban service area expansion, provided that the following condi- tions are met: a. The local government's rural area densities are consistent with Council policy; b. Local timing and staging corresponds to allocated usage rather than design capacity; c. The local government has an up-to-date com- prehensive sewer plan, including on -site sewer management; and d . The local government has assessment prac- tices that limit creation of vested development rights. DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS FOR SIZING REGIONAL FACILITIES Forecasting is a useful way to articulate expectations —to set a measure by which to monitor progress toward meeting goals and objectives. The key to the appropriate use of forecasts is not to debate their ac- curacy, but to recognize the degree of uncertainty and to plan accordingly. It is important to note this distinction from simply accepting forecasts as given and making all plans conform to them. Sometimes such an approach is called for by the nature of the investment being made —for example, a very large investment that cannot be significantly altered either in its initial design or after it is built. The region does not have unlimited resources to make such in- vestments. It cannot afford to see them vastly underused while investing in competing facilities or programs. Forecasts should be used with a clear understanding of the uncertainty involved and with an appreciation of their policy (investment) ramifica- tions. Within this general context, the Metropolitan Council will apply the following guidelines in using the forecasts in its review of plans, programs and facilities. The Council will revise its forecasts every five years, using decennial census data as a base. As soon as such figures are available, a revision will be made to reconcile the forecasts to the census as necessary. As more detailed demographic data becomes available (particularly migration and age data), the Council will make a more in-depth analysis of regional growth trends and revise the overall regional forecasts. These forecasts will serve as a control for providing mid -decade municipal- and township -level forecasts. 57 S TILLWATER TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE GUIDE PLAN January, 1980 Revised March, 1990 (Revisions on Pages 10, 16, 24, 25 and added "Foreward ") FOREWORD (Added to the Plan, March, 1990) Stillwater Township is essentially a township characterized by a rural landscape. It consists of approximately 17 sections of land lying north of State Trunk Highway 36► hesSt� CroWashington ix River and the City ofAid Stillwater. 15, and extending easterly to t The Township is accessible to other major metropolitan urban centers for employment, shopping, recreation and entertainment, business and transportation. The City of Stillwater and the St. Croix River provide essential business and recreational amenities unique to the metropolitan area and the region. Stillwater Township is characterized by gently rolling woodland and agri-rural openness. Two important small lakes wetlandbasinspending areaek and s,owns enrichethe along with sever natural landscape. The Township Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan (Plan), adopted in 1980, places emphasis on the preservation of aricultural land for ad increased urban development p aessu esnareutending tohabsorb factors economic farm land at an accelerated rate. Township policy established for the 1990'3 places a preference on the preservation of the Township's rural characteristics as a primary focus on its growth development strategy. The rural characteristics of the Township are prevalent in the landscape, very impthe ant,xpand in fact, expected.rve and enhance that character are deemedY P/ The 1990 Plan Update seeks to place greater emphasis toward on the ru ral es landscape, vati o f the the t/ rural landscape. In addition to this focus Township has adopted anofficial thoughtfulGuideline, ca efulChecklist real estate developmentrwithin ements fi�nnkl at. which enCou qes Stillwater Township's natural rural landscape. - The Guidelines, Checklist and Submittal Requirements booklet developed by the Township in March, 1990 attempts to assist the applicant, developer or land owner in providing vital information to the Township's decision makers. This information will facilitate decisions by illustrating various aspects of a site's aesthetic and physical characteristics and its surrounding neighborhobod context. These requirements should not be viewed as obstructionary, ut rather constructively in the broader sense of attempting to maintain and -preserve the most desirable and positive attributes of Stillwater Township. The Stillwater Township Staff, its Planning Commission, Park Commission, and its Board of Supervisors request that persons and entities seeking to develop real estate within the Township maintain an open mind and an attitude' which is conducive to the enhancement and preservation of the rural character and the very positive attributes which make Stillwater Township so desirable. If IV. V. VI. VII. STILLWATER TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE GUIDE PLAN Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTION-------------------------------------------------------- 1 POPULATION---------------------------------------------------------- 2 A. Past and Current Growth Trends ---------------------------------- 2 B. Population Projections --------------------------------- --------- 2 C. Households and Household Projections ---------------------------- 4 D. Summary--------------------------------------------------------- 5 EXISTING LAND USE ---------------- -----------------------------"-_--- 6 A. Residential Development ----------------------------------------- 6 7 B. Agricultural Land Uses ------------------------------------------ g C. Commercial Land Uses ---•----------------------------------------- NATURAL FEATURES ------------------------""'--"""'"--" 9 A. General--------------------------------------------------------- 9 ------_ 9 B. Topography ----------------------------------------------- 9 C. Soils----------------------------------------------------------- 11 D. Water Resources ------------------------------------------------- 11 E. Woodlands------------------------------------------------------- 12 F. Summary---------------------------------------------------------- N TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES --------------------------------- 13 A. Transportation--------------------------------------------------- 13 14 B. Public Facilities and Services ----------------------------------- GOALS AND POLICIES FOR STILLWATER TOWNSHIP -----------=-------------- 16 A. Overall Growth Policies ------------------------------- ""-------- 16 17 B. Natural Resource Protection ----------------------------------"" 18 C. Commercial Development ------------------------------------------- 18 D. Industrial Development ------------------------------------------- ------- - * E, Parks o n.,.��_--------------------------------------- L 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ * F. • ---------------------------- _ __ _ 19 G. Transportation--------------------------------------------------- 20 H. Housing---------------------------------------------------------- 21 I. Implementation Strategy ---------------------------------- DEVELOPMENT OF OVERALL LAND USE CONCEPT ----------------------------- 22 VIII. A. Alternative #1 Existing Growth Policy ---------------------------- 22 22 B. Alternative #2 Limited Open Growth ------------------------------- 22 C. Alternative #3 Rural Growth -------------------------------------- 23 D. Alternative #4 Agricultural Preservation ------------------------- 24 E. Alternative #5 Agricultural Preservation -Rural Lifestyle -------- GROWTH STRATEGY FOR STILLWATER TOWNSHIP ------------------------------ 25 25 A. Agriculture --------------------------------------------- B. Rural Residential ----------------------------------------------- 25 C. Urban/Rural Residential -------------- -------- 25 D. Urban Residential ---------------------- ------------ 25 E. Conservancy ------------------------------------------------ 26 F, Lakeshore and St. Croix River ------------------------- --------- 26 IX. IMPLENENTATION STRATEGY - _-_-- ------------------__ 27 A. Introduction----------------------------------------------------- 27 B. Implenentation Devices ---------------------------- _ 27 * Not Included VI. GOALS AND POLICIES FOR STILLWATER TOWNSHIP The following goals and policies have been formulated by the township officials and interested citizens as the basic framework which will guide future growth and development decisions as they arise within the township. These goals and policies have resulted from current needs and opportunities in the township as determined through an analysis of various background information. Basically three major development concepts adopted by the township officials serve as the basis for the goals and policies. One is to stage urban growth out from the City of Stillwater in an orderly manner in the future as needs dictate. Second is to allow a continuation of the rural lifestyle in the township through low -density residential development. Third is to protect existing agricultural land and permit existing agricultural operations to continue in the future. "Third, to protect the landscape's rural character to the greatest extent possible when considering land development requests or other zoning/land use application requests." Then, "Fourth is to protect..." (Amended March, 1990). It is intended that the goals be viewed as the aims and desires of the township as it strives to accommodate the future. Policies are then presented to provide the means by which the goals may be achieved and suggest current courses of action needed to implement this planning process. the goals and policies have been divided in to specific functional areas to guide the differing land uses. The first, overall growth, provides the overall framework of the entire Land Use Guide Plan, followed by specific categories. A. Overall Growth Policies 1. Preservation of present and future commercial agriculture as a viable land use and an essential activity within the township. 2. Location of rural and low density housing in areas not capable of supporting long-term, permanent commercial agriculture and in or-ac of high crroni r niigl i tv. 3. Location of urban development only in areas where urban services can be easily provided and extended. Policies 1. Take the necessary steps to preserve the viable agricultural areas from urban sprawl and scattered urban development. 2. Identify those viable agricultural areas in the township through soils and other relevant information that should remain exclusively for agricultural production and use. 3. Direct rural housing development away from recognized commercial agricultural areas and into areas with marginal agricultural soils, and woodland areas. f 4. Promote the use of specific agricultural property taxes and adoption of assessment policies to encourage continued agricultural production. 16 : I 5. Develop standards for density and location of rural development � P Y P which will minimize the need for urban services. 6. Allow rural housing, which is not scheduled to recieve central sewage disposal service, only in areas where the soils, topography, and water table are such that the individual sewage disposal systems can properly function. 7. Prohibit the extension of public utilities over large undeveloped parcels to serve pockets of scattered urban development. 8. Concentrate urban residential, commercial, and industrial land uses adjacent to the city where urban services can easily be provided. 9. Require that urban areas be initially developed to include all services (sanitary sewers, public water, paved streets, etc.) with phased developments to coincide with the extension of urban services. 10. Establish lot sizes and other development standards for transitional areas adjacent to the city in such a manner to easily permit re - subdivision when urban services are extended. B. Natural Resource Protection Goals Protection and enhancement of the air, water, plant, animals, and land resources in the township as a vital ingredient of the living environment. Policies 1. Promote the land management practices to protect the natural resources in the township including the St. Croix River Corridor. 2. Carefully control development in environmentally sensitive areas, i.e., wetlands, floodplains, shorelands, woodlands, and steep slopes. 3. Promote the preservation and improvement of all rivers and streams in an unpolluted state by enacting floodplain ordinances. 4. Promote soil conservation and erosion control practices in all areas of the township, especially in areas with steep slopes. 5. Encourage farmers to adopt and maintain sound soil erosion control practices such as contour plowing, strip cropping, minimum tillage, shelter belts, etc. 6. Encourage subdivision and urban development to conform to the natural limitations presented by topography and soil so as to create the least potential for soil erosion. 7. Require private construction to incorporate environmental design stan- dards and landscaping in all private development projects. 17 8. Encourage the design of subdivisions so that the natural drainage system is preserved including wetlands. 9. Carefully control the location of feedlots and other animal confine- ment areas in the township to minimize pollution and nuisance problems. 10. Restrict the location of solid waste disposal sites to minimize pollution and nuisance problems. 11. Protect sand, gravel, and limestone deposits as a valuable natural resource throuqh the enactment of ordinances regulating development in these areas. C. Commercial Development Goals 1. Reasonable access to an adequate supply of goods and services. 2. Functional, safe, and attractive design and display. 3. Minimum conflict with surrounding land uses. Policies 1. Encourage commercial developments to locate near existing urban development where public services can be provided and near places with good accessibility (major roadways and interchanges). 2. Allow shopping centers only in areas where central sewer and water facilities and services are available. 3. Strongly discourage scattered, strip commercial developments along } highways. Highway commercial development such as auto sales agencies, farm implement ded lers of I ds t I UUU r es Laur ails shou lu be .+� frontage roads rather than direct access to freeways. 4. Require that commercial developments be properly landscaped and screen- ing provided to minimize conflict with adjacent, non-commercial land uses. D. Industrial Development Goals Minimum conflict of industrial developments with surrounding land uses. Policies 1. Allow only "clean" type, non-polluting industry in areas adjacent to existing development to avoid conflicts with residential development. 2. Require proper screening and landscaping of all industrial land uses to minimize conflict with adjacent non -industrial land uses. 18 3. Regulate the density and installation of on -site septic tanks in ' order to minimize potential pollution problems and need for central sewer services in the future. 4. Restrict location of on -site septic tanks to areas containing soils and topography capable of handling such systems. 5. Prohibit leap -frog urban developments which require the extension of public facilities and services across agricultural or other rural land uses. G. Transportation Goals 1. A transportation system which compliments land use development through- out the township and which encourages urban density residential, commercial, and industrial growth in the areas adjacent to the City. 2. A transportation system which provides accessibility for all income groups to places of employment, recreation, shopping, and entertain- ment. 3e A transportation system which provides users with mobility, safety, scenic values and economy in travel. Policies 1. Develop a transportation system which reinforces the township's growth policies. 2. Integrate land use and transportation plans to minimize the adverse �. effects of transportation systems (noise, air pollution) on the adjacent development. 3. Provide an efficient road network that facilitates the provision of necessary services with a minimum of travel. Services to include school buses, fire and police protection, farm to market roads and i travel to employment. 4. Coordinate road networks and construction with other public services using the same right-of-way to minimize costs. 5., To the extent possible, avoid locating transportation facilities so as to adversely affect the natural resources of the township. 6. Encourage the development of a transportation system which properly balances considerations of safety, accessibility, environmental protection, and cost. 7. Carefully control land use developments at the major transportation intersections and interchanges to avoid compromising safety, accessibility, and functions of the highways. . 19 8. Encourage the development of a transportation system which properly integrates the various types and levels of highways (state, county and local) to maximize safety and accessibility. 9. Encourage the development of a recreational trail system which provides access to major recreation areas for all citizens in the township. H. Housin Goals 1. A broad choice of housing types for all income and age groups. 2. Safe, healthful, and blight -free residences and residential develop- ments. Policies 1. Restrict the location of higher density residential subdivisions and development to areas where urban services can easily be provided. 2. Discourage scattered and "leap -frog" residential development in commercial agricultural areas. is 3. Encourage the use of natural resource information such as vegetation, soils, topography, groundwater, etc., in residential site designs. 4. Prohibit the location of rural housing with septic tanks and drain - fields in areas of high bedrock or water table to minimize pollution ff problems and construction costs. € 5. Use soils and other natural resource information as a basis for m;n imtiim lot sizPc for rural housing with septic tanks i.�u guy 1. and drainfields. 6. Require the location of mobile homes within mobile home parks where urban services can be provided. ' 7. Require the location of mobile home parks in urban residential or mobile home residential districts which can be served by central sewer and water services. 8. Only allow multi -family residential developments in areas where there is an -adequate amount of shopping, recreation, and social facilities to meet the needs of the residents and where sewer and water f acil- ities are available. 9. Work closely with the City of Stillwater to insure availability of low and moderate income housing units in areas with public services and near social/cultural facilities. 10. Develop and adopt provisions in development ordinances which en- courage practical, innovative and energy -saving site and housing unit designs. 11. Promote programs to encourage the rehabilitation of existing older homes. 12. Carefully regulate home occupations to avoid or minimize traffic problems and other incompatible land uses in residential areas. I. Implementation Strategy Goals x, 1. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Policies 1. Develop and adopt imaginative methods that will effectively implement the township's policies and recognizes the existing rural land use patterns. 2. Encourage effective and coordinated implementation methods that properly balance private incentives and the protection of the public interest. t 3. Effectively coordinate the various public implementation tools such as regulatory devices (zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, etc.), public acquisition, utility extensions (streets and highways), and property tax policies. 4. Adopt a long-range township capital improvements program and budget that is responsible to and reinforces the policies of the Compre- hensive Plan. L 5. Review and update, if necessary, the Comprehensive Plan on a periodic basis. �P 21 VII. DEVELOPMENT OF OVERALL LAND USE CONCEPT To assist the Planning Commission, Town Board and interested citizens in developing an overall land use plan for Stillwater Township, five alternative land use concepts were developed for review and future refinement. Each approach contains its own objectives in terms of development patterns, density, rural and urban service requirements, fiscal and economic limitations and potential burdens on environmentally sensitive areas. The major purpose of developing several land use strategies is to assist the township officials and citizens in making a decision of what type of overall development strategy to select for the township. By comparing different alternative growth patterns and assessing the advantages, disadvantages and implications of each alternative, the township officials are then better equipped to make a decision of a future growth strategy for the township. In addition, the job of administering and enforcing the ordinances such as zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations, which are based upon the land use plan, is made easier. With this in mind, the following are some of the potential alternative growth patterns for Stillwater Township. A. Alternative #1 Existing Growth Policy It Under this approach, the minimum lot size in the area north of T.H. #96 would be five acres and 2311 acres south of T.N. #96. i, The implications of this approach is that the rural character of the township would be maintained in the area north of T.N. #96. However, this approach would not result in the. preservation of the prime agri- cultural or environmentally sensitive areas. In addition, the present line (T.H. #96) bears no relationship to soil conditions or prime agri- cultural and environmentally sensitive areas but is somewhat arbitrary. B. Alternative #2 Limited Open Growth A second alternative approach would be to establish a minimum lot size of 211 acres throughout the township. However, minimum development stan- dards related to private sewer systems, topography, etc., would also be followed. The implication of this approach is that it would allow for substantial development opportunities for landowners. However, it could lead to leap -frog development and increased demands for urban services. In addition, it would not protect the prime agricultural or environmentally sensitive areas in the township. Development at this density would make it difficult for many farmers to continue operation. i C. Alternative #3 Rural Growth A third alternative approach would be to establish a minimun lot size of 5 acres throughout the township in addition to other additional minimum development standards related to private sewer systems, etc.. The implica- tions. of this alternative approach is that it would preserve the rural lifestyle of the township. However, it would not protect the prime agricultural or environmentally sensitive areas in all cases. Much like alternative #2, development at this density would make it difficult for existing farmers to continue farming. 22 D. Alternative #4 Agricultural Preservation Yet a fourth alternative approach uses agricultural preservation as the basis for a land use plan. The underlying rationale of this alternative is that existing farmland (good and prime agricultural land as classified by the Soil Conservation Service) should be protected for long-term agri- cultural use. Basically, there are two approaches currently being used for controlling development in agricultural areas: large -lot zoning ..� and density zoning. (1) Large -Lot Zoning Perhaps the most widespread method used in attempting to control development in agricultural areas is by establishing large minimum lot sizes for single-family non -farm residential development. However, the lot size standards must be sufficiently large to really discourage development or it may result in a waste of agri- cultural land. This may mean minimum lot sizes of 10-20 acres to be really effective. The major disadvantage of this approach is that it will result in a waste of agricultural land unless the lot sizes are made sufficiently large to really discourage development. However, if the lot sizes are made too large, the courts may hold that the system is exclusionary. � (2) Density Control Zoning A second major approach for attempting to control development in �a agricultural areas is through density control. Typically, a mini- mum lot size will be established at l or 2 acres. However, in the agricultural zone, only one lot per quarter -quarter section (40 acres) is allowed. In addition, there usually is also a provision that the z lot must front on a public road. Thus, by controlling the density of development in the agricultural areas, urban development is in effect discouraged. Also, by controlling the density rather than the lot size, a waste of land is minimized. If this concept was chosen, the township should be wholly committed to preserving agricultural lands and there must be sufficient viable agricultural land to warrant large minimum lot sizes or very low densities. 23 E. Alternate #5 Agricultural Preservation -Rural Lifestyle This alternative approach is a combination of several of the previous approaches. The minimum lot sizes for the agricultural and environmentally sensitive areas would be relatively large (10-20) acres) to discourage development in these areas and thereby protecting these areas and providing opportunities for farmers to continue their agricultural operations. Medium density development (5 acre lot sizes) is allowed in the areas where the agricultural land is marginal and the scenic areas to allow for a continuation of a rural lifestyle. Smaller lot sizes (2-21/2 acres) would be established for areas adjacent to the city to allow for more dense developments where urban services can be extended easily in the future. Thus, this approach uses a staged growth approach in combination with an agricultural protection approach. Medium density developments in the marginal agricultural areas would allow a continuation of the rural lifestyle in the township. "This alternative encourages the enhancement and protection of the rural character of the landscape and also allows for continued agricultural use. The intended focus is to identify the positive attributes which contribute to the aesthetic open rural landscape and its surrounding area, and to preserve these attribute in the proposed land use change or land development proposal." (Amended March, 1990) 24 :x. VIII. GROWTH STRATEGY FOR STILLWATER TOWNSHIP After considerable discussion of the various alternative growth patterns available to the township, the township officials determined to adopt Alternative #5, a strategy designed to protect agricultural lands, promote a rural lifestyle and stage growth in areas contiguous to the City of Stillwater. It was the opinion of most of the township officials that this alternative best represented the growth pattern desired for the township as well as addressed the development issues in the township. The following land use components are part of this growth strategy. Map 7 indicates the Land Use Plan. A. Agriculture (A-1) "The Township encourages and protects farming enterprises; however, as development of farm land occurs, careful and thoughtful planning design will be required. The developer/applicant seeking development approval and/or a land use change for a site must demonstrate how the proposed development or land use change will complement the existing area's rural character." (Amended March, 1990) The township officials have determined to regulate non -farm residential development development in these areas through a density zoning approach. The minimum lot size will be 5 acres for platted parcels or 10 acres for metes and bounds descriptions and the density allowed will be 4 units per 40 acres. B. Rural Residential (A-2 There is also a substantial amount of land in the township which is generally marginal for agricultural production. These areas, which include the north -central portion of the township, have been designated for rural residential development with a minimum lot size of 5 acres. These areas would allow for a continuation of the rural lifestyle and should require a minimum of services. C. Urban/Rural (R-1 An urban/rural transitional area has also been designated immediately west of the City of Stillwater in recognition of the fact that some of this area may urbanize sometime after 1990. The minimum lot size of 2-1/2 acres has been established for this area to allow for a rural lifestyle but also to allow for potential resubdivision of land if and when sanitary sewer services might be extended to this area after 1990. D. Urban Residential (R-3 and R-4) Another residential district has been created for two parcels isolated within the existing City of Stillwater's boundaries with a minimum lot size of 1 acre. 25 E_ Conservancy (C A conservancy district has also been created for certain environmentally sensitive areas including the area around Silver and Browns Creek and Little Carnelian Lake. The minimum lot sizes in these areas will be 20 acres in order to limit development in these areas. As can be seen on Map , this area has been defined as 250 ft. on either side of the centerline of Browns and Silver Creek and 1,000 ft. from the shoreline of Little Carnelian Lake. F. Lakeshore and St. Croix River Districts (LS and SCR Districts have also been created around the lakeshores of the several lakes and adjacent to the St. Croix River. The minimum lot size in these areas will be 22 acres with a maximum density of 8 units per 40 acres. * Letter -number designations correspond with the proposed zoning district. i WE 3 m 2. Subdivision Regulations Another implementation device that will continue to be used in the township are subdivision regulations. The subdivision regulations are based upon the Washington County Model Subdivision Regulations and will conform to the Land Use Plan and will be coordinated with the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Private Sanitary Sewer Ordinance The township has adopted the Washington County On -Site Sewer Ordinance which is based upon the state model ordinance (WPC-40). The township relys on staff members from Washington County to inspect, monitor and enforce this ordinance. A "201" water quality study is currently being conducted of all areas.of the township south of 100th St. and this may result in recommendations for additional standards. 4. Capital Improvements Program (CIP Another major technique for controlling or staging growth is through utility extension policies and programs as reflected in a Capital Improvements Program (CIP). This is especially true for such public utilities -as sanitary sewers, water systems, and highways. Due to the fact that*Stillwater Township is basically rural in character, it has very few capital expenditures. The following are some planned capital expenditures during the next 10 year period. ' a. New road grader and truck b. New maintenance building C. 3 acre parcel of land for maintenance building d. Select road improvements 5. Orderly Annexation Agreements During the last few years there have been several proposals for annexation of property in Stillwater Township to the City of Stillwater. Recently, the Minnesota Municipal Board (mMB) completed hearings on a petition to annex some areas in the central portion of the township to the City of Stillwater and the MMB made a decision opposing this annexation at this time. However, the MMB apparently has reopened hearings on this petition and it is unclear at this time what the disposition is of this case. The City of Stillwater and Stillwater Township entered into an Orderly Annexation Agreement and Joint Powers Agreement which gives a joint board made up of representatives of Washington County, Stillwater Township and the City of Stillwater authority over zoning decisions in the -area adjacent to T.H. #212 and #36. This agreement included a stipulation that no additional annexations were to take place in Stillwater Township for a period of ten years without the approval of the township. A district court recently struck down this provision and it is currently being appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. It is the position of Stillwater Township to piecemeal annexation and view orderly proper way of dealing with future growth time that growth is imminent. that they are opposed annexation as a but only at such