The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-09-02 PACKET 04.B.REQUESI° OF CiT`( COUNCIL ACTICJPJ COUNCIL AGEtJDA MEETING ITEtdI # DATE 9/2/98 PREP�RED BY: Community Development Kim Lindquist ORIGINATlNG DEPARTMENT STAFF AUThIOR �e4..:.:...A.�......�««ma�<«x....��.trffi.�...�� COUNCIL ACTIOiV REQUEST: Receive let4er to Craig Rapp regarding Comprehens6ve Plan Issues and the iVletropolitan Council Growth Strategy. , � , � : � � � • ADVISORY COMMISSBON ACTION ■ ' ' ■ ` = ■ ' �' . � ... � . � ■ , . ■ • • • •- ■ �� REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ACTUAI. AMOUNT APPROVED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS � MEMOiLE1TEft: Letter 4o Craig Rapp dated August 24, 1998 ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ EPJGINEERIIVG RECOMMENDATIOId: ❑ LEGAL RECOi�iMENDA'fION: ❑ OTFiEFZ: f-�il��ili�l[.��:7•r��TZC�iIi7�iPil��[.'�I ` �. V � / ( �ify Administrator DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c`? � _ � L7ate .<.ma>a��bw�.��.w��&«�A��s.��..�.��g4tr�s� �c�u�ci< ac�o�� r�ac��: � ��ov�� C] ��vi�D ❑ a�r�� r - � .-T , � , ,_: Ciy of Cottage Grove � Minriesoin 16 BOih Street Sou'h / CoBaae Grove, Minnesoto 55016 August 24, 1998 Mr. Craig Rapp Community Development Director Metropo(itan Council 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1633 Dear Mr. Rapp: 612 • I am writing regarding a variety of issues that have surfaced in conjunction with the City's Comprehensive Plan update process. City staff has initiated severai meetings to receive additional Garification from the Met Council staff, unfortunately, depending upon the issue, a successful resolution has not been reached. In part, the confusion stems from what appears to be conflicting policies or goals from the Met Council. This coupied with the City's local policies and goais, which i believe are generally consistent with the Met Councii policies, may create some confusion when applied site specificaily. Given the Ievel of "regiona!" activity within the community — the wastewater treatment piant, Grey Cloud Island regionai park, the watershed district central draw project — it is imperative that the City receive clear direction. The current Comprehensive Plan update process wiil be compromised, and potentially the Regionai Growth Strategy, if the City and Met Council cannot come to agreement on some of the following issues. Regional Growth Strategy. As you are aware, the City is targeted as a developing community for purposes of the Regional Growth Strategy. Presentiy, the City is approximately one-third developed with almost an additional one-third located within the illustrative 2020 MUSA. A substantial portion of the City, in the south, is designated as Urban Reserve, with the eastem portion of the City designated as Permanent Agriculturai Areas. When the City first reviewed the Strategy Plan, there were some concerns raised about the approximate boundaries between policy areas. We were told that the Met Council would work with the cities to "fine tune" the boundaries, perhaps during the locai comprehensive planning process. However, during discussions about administration of the Growth Strategy and how it dovetails with the City's zoning and land use goals, it appears that the boundaries are somewhat fixed. One uncertainty is how to deal with existing development which is not in compliance with the regulations of the designated land use. A particular concern of the city is that there is land locally designated for residential use but most likely wili not have urban services. The City would like the Met Council to acknowiedge existing development pattems within the community as weli as the current zoning standards which permit densities of one unit to three acres and one unit to one-and-a-haif acres. Much of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mc Craig Rapp August 24, 1998 Page 2 the land zoned for this type of development is located within the designated permanent agriculture or urban reserve, both of which are set at higher development density levels, either one unit to ten acxes or one unit to forty acres. It is �nfortunate that the Regional Growth Strategy does not provide for reasonabie development densities for unsenriced areas within the metropolitan area. The 1996 Regional Blueprint notes that Permanent Rural Areas shouid have an overall gross density up to one dweliing unit per 10 acres. Later, on page 53, it states the "one per 10 standard is applicable to areas where it is stiil feasible.° It appears that the requested density standard may not be feasibie in all areas designated for permanent agriculturai under the Regional Growth Strategy. Howeve�, the Regional Blueprint does not recognize any flexibility in density standards for permanent agricuitural property. When asked if other communities, who also have local zoning that permits a higher density in non-MUSA areas, will be allowed fo develop at their current standards, Met Council staff could not comment. Development Densities The City has a great concem over the target residentia! deveiopment densities of the Regibna� Growth Strategy. The City was told that they must plan for a three-unit-per-acre density consistent with the Growth Strategy policy. I believe you are aware that the current City housing goals are to provide life-cycle housing, particularly move-up housing opportunities. Presently, there are few housing opportunities above $250,000 within the community. This desire does not necessarily conflict with the density policy but the City is certainly interested in providing for some larger lot development within the community. When City staff requested that the entire City development pattem (past and future) be taken into considera#ion when assessing housing densities, we were told that only future development would be considered. It was said that the Met Council did not want to "penalize' other communities. The current density for low density residential development within the community is 2.66 units per gross acre. If the City computed on a net basis or calculated the overaii density, single family plus multi-famiiy, the City would exceed the Met Couna! density target. What we are requesting is that the City is permitted to meet our life-cyde housing goals, which includes some larger lot development, in recognition of existing development pattems and the affordability of the existing housing stock. Regionai Impacts — Grey Cloud Island and the Treatment Plan Interceptor Planning for the community is difficult at this time given the regional impact issues facing the community. Two big issues that face the community and are impacted by Met Council decision-making are the location of the treatment plant interceptor, and pefiaps the watershed district outlet, and acquisition of Grey Cloud Island. Both of these issues have significant land use impacts and also could impact future housing goals for the community. Spin-off affects inGude planned infrastructure, financing, transportation systems, and the phasi�g of future citywide development. Cleariy the City needs to understand the Met Council's commitment to Mr. Craig Rapp August 24, 1998 Page 3 these two projects and the timeframe for financing and instailation. Without better information, the City's plan may become obsolete prior to its approvai. in his August 14, 1998, letter, Guy Peterson indicated that designation of Grey Cloud Island for some residentiai development wouid constitute a land use change and be inconsistent with the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Systems Plan and Washington County's Parks Plan. Currently the Island is designated rural residentiai a�d parks and open space, and the property is zoned R-1 Rural Residential and Indusfrial. ! have asked our City Atforney to comment on the land use designation for the Island to assure that the City does not put itself into a poor legal position. The obvious concern is that if the City designates the island for parks and open space only, the property owner may �aise a takings concern. At the current time, tne City Council has not unanimously supported dedication of the entire Island for park purposes. The City's desired disposition of the Island is being discussed in comprehensive plan workshops being conducted by the Planning Commission. The Commission will ulfimately be making a recomrnendation to the Councii for their review and support. It is my understanding that this process is appropriate for development of a local comprehensive pian. MNRRA Standards City staff has had severai discussions with the Met Councii, DNR, and Nationai Park Service regarding the MNRRA standards. The MNRRA boundary, set by legislafion, encompasses a large portion of the City, weii beyond that which can be seen from the river. City staff has proposed critical area standards which wouid provide a two-tier system — those properties immediately fronting on and draining into the river, and those set back from the river. When this idea was posed to members in attendance, the reception was guarded and we were told to draft something up for review. 1 do not fault the people at the meeting §ince this is a new concept. Howeve�, the City does nof have the time to draft the entire MNRRA section without some idea if we are headed in the right direction. From our perspective, these agencies are interested in the City achieving Tier 01 status and perhaps there could be some flexibility for the City. In Ms. Pinei's memorandum to Guy Peterson dated August 14, 1998, she stated "the three agencies discussed the concept and we�e wiiling to review more specific proposais from the city that would address the Critical Area order of designation.° City staff will continue to work with the appropriate agenaes. Ove�all, the City may not be abie to meet the proposed household and population forecasts stated by the Met Council due to the level of restrictions proposed under the MNRRA, APFO, and Regional Growth Strategy regulations. Again, the City is being held to several policy goals, some of which may not be complementary in specific situations. In conclusion, there are a variety of issues which the City needs to grapple with during its local comprehensive pianning process. Often these issues involve other regional and state entities that are also stakeholders within the process. The City has consistent(y made a commifinent to try to abide by the Met Councii regional policies as shown in the most recent comprehensive M�. Craig Rapp August24,1998 Page 4 plan amendment where the City developed an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. However, the City is interested i� developing a comprehensive pian that also addresses the concerns and desires of community residents. i believe that this can be accomplished and the resuiting plan can remain generally consistent wifh Met Council goals and policies. I look forvvard to speaking with you regarding these issues. Please contact me at 458-2824 to set up a meeting. Sincer ly, ��=-- �i�� Kim �indquist, AICP Community Development Director