Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/08/1995 P&Z PacketCITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA February 8, 1995 6:30 P.M. I. Call to Order and Roll Call: II. Approval of Minutes: January 11, 1995 III. Approval of Agenda IV. OPEN MIKE: — V. ACTION ITEMS: SCANNED - Changes/Additions tjr A. 95-3-P, Hardwood Creek, 7979 24th Avenue, Minor Subdivision B. 95-3-C, PUBLIC Center, 7330 Lake C. 95-5-P, Wayne Minor Subdivision HEARING, Kids at Heart Day Care Drive, Conditional Use Permit Scanlan, 6848 Otter Lake Road, D. CONTINUATION OF Management Ordinance PUBLIC HEARING, Shoreland E. PUBLIC HEARING, MUSA Amendment F. PUBLIC HEARING, Ordinance Amending the Fence Ordinance VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS: VII. ADJOURNMENT: PLANNING & ZONING BOARD January 11, 1995 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE:>........... _. _.. ..................................... .................................... ..................................... TIME STARTS ............................................ ........................................... ............................................ ........................................... TIME ENDED:: 9. P. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Ge b�1 inn, Linde s, Mes ch, Nord ne, Rob nson, Schags, Schones ALSO PRESENTP inning Coord natr r Wyland Tanning +consultant; Brixius and;Actng City Engineer Powell I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Gelbmann made a few changes to the minutes of November 9, 1994; page seven under number five: add the comment especially along Otter Lake Road regarding pedestrian traffic. Regarding the next paragraph: add specifically Tom Mesich made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the November 9, 1994 meeting as corrected and was supported by John Landers. All voted aye. Motion carried. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. IV. OPEN MIKE: Chairman Schaps declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting opened at 6:35 p.m. Chairman Schaps at this time asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Planning and Zoning Board. Kim Sullivan came forward to inform the Board of the Community Planning Project 20/20 Vision. Ms. Sullivan invited the community to join in this community forum. She indicated Board members are welcome as citizens of Lino Lakes. Ms. Sullivan indicated there will be two forums one on Wednesday, January 25, 1995 from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. The location for this forum is the Rice Lake Elementary School gymnasium. The second forum will be held Thursday, January 26, 1995, from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. at the Wargo Nature Center. Ms. Sullivan indicated these forums are open to all residents, business owners, and anyone with an interest in the future of our city. She indicated following the PLANNING & ZONING BOARD January 11, 1995 forums, community work groups will be formed around these issues to develop recommendations for the City. Al Robinson made a MOTION to close the Open Mike portion of the meeting and was supported by Rick Gelbmann. All voted aye. Motion carried. Open Mike portion was closed at 6:44 p.m. V. PLANNING ITEMS: A. 95-1-P, Steve & Deanna Haeq, 171 White Pine Road, Minor Subdivision. Planning Coordinator Wyland presented a report regarding this request for a minor subdivision. Ms. Wyland indicated in May of 1993 the Planning and Zoning Board and Council approved a subdivision for Mr. Haeg. A home has been constructed on the newly created lot and the buyers would like to purchase an additional 40 feet of property from Mr. Haeg. Ms. Wyland indicated staff has reviewed the request and would recommend approval with the condition that Park Dedication fees be waived. A Park Dedication Fee of $550 was collected with the previous subdivision. Mr. Landers inquired as to the acreage from which this 40 foot extension would be coming from. Ms. Wyland indicated the area the portion would be coming from is approximately 14+ acres. Ed Schones made a MOTION and was supported by Al Robinson to approve application 95-1-P for a minor subdivision with stated conditions set by Staff. All vote aye. Motion carried. B. 95-2-P, K -G Development, 84 White Pine Road, Minor Subdivision. Ms. Wyland presented a Staff report regarding the application for a minor subdivision. Ms. Wyland indicated the Planning and Zoning Board will recall granting preliminary approval to a plat for the Woods of Baldwin Lake 2nd Addition in October of 1994. Since that time, Mr. Goertz, the developer, has sold an existing home on the property and would like to close on the sale prior to Final Plat. To facilitate this closing, a minor subdivision is necessary to split the existing homesite from the balance of the plat. Ms. Wyland indicated Staff recommends approval of this minor subdivision with the following conditions: 2 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD January 11, 1995 1. The newly created lot be made a part of the Final Plat for the Woods of Baldwin Lake 2nd Addition. 2. Park Dedication for this lot be included in the overall Plat for the Woods of Baldwin Lake 2nd Addition. 3. Utilities be provided, and assessments collected, as a part of the Woods of Baldwin Lake 2nd Addition. Mr. Landers inquired as to the depth of the lot, the minimum is 135 feet. Ms. Wyland indicated the lot is 135 feet and the 132 foot notation was a typographical error. Mr. Goertz assured the Board that the depth would be 135 feet. Ed Schones made a MOTION and was supported by John Landers to approve application 95-2-P, K -G Development, 84 White Pine Road, Minor Subdivision with stated conditions. All voted aye. Motion carried. C. 95-3-P/V, Nancy Erickson, Hardwood Creek Farm, 24th Avenue & 80th Street, Minor Subdivision and Variance. Ms. Wyland presented a Staff report regarding the application for a Minor Subdivision and Variance. Ms. Wyland indicated Hardwood Creek received approval in November of 1994 to move a house on to the north/east corner of their site at 80th Avenue and Elmcrest. They would now like to sell this dwelling but maintain ownership of the horse arena. Therefore, they are requesting a minor subdivision. Ms. Wyland indicated Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend approval of the minor subdivision and variance for lot area. Hardwood Creek forms an obvious natural barrier and provides a unique characteristic to this property. At this time, the area west of the creek is used as pasture land for the horse arena and is not easily accessible to the property on the east side of the creek. Staff further believes any danger in setting a precedent concerning lot area is eliminated by the obvious physical characteristics of this site and the nature of Hardwood Creek. Ms. Wyland reviewed the criteria required in the granting of a variance. Ms. Wyland indicated Staff would recommend approval of the minor subdivision and variance 3 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD January 11, 1995 request to allow a 7.24 acre parcel in a Rural Zoning District as it meets four out of the six requirements for a variance. Ms. Wyland indicated Staff also recommends the following condition: 1. A Park Dedication fee in the amount of $550 be collected prior to recording the minor subdivision with Anoka County. Mr. Mesich inquired if the creek has water throughout the year. Ms. Wyland indicated this creek has water continually. Chairman Schaps inquired as to the width of the creek and indicated it was a protected water source. Mr. Erickson indicated the normal width of the creek is between 10 and 15 feet. Mr. Schones inquired if the issue is the 10 acre minimum. Ms. Wyland indicated this was correct. Mr. Robinson indicated the ordinance states there is to be a 10 acre minimum and he felt this should be followed. Ms. Nordine indicated even though the creek is there, a 10 acre parcel could be created. Mr. Landers indicated concern for enough room on a smaller parcel, should the septic system fail. Mr. Erickson, the applicant, indicated even if a 10 acre parcel was created, a back up system would not be feasible on the other side of the creek. Chairman Schaps inquired if there was any other reason the creek was used other than a natural dividing line. Mr. Erickson indicated this was true, they felt that granting a variance due to the natural contour of the land was a reason for the variance. Chairman Schaps inquired if the application was based on economics. Mr. Erickson indicated this to be a consideration since pasture lands and fences would have to be moved. Mrs. Erickson indicated also if the full 10 acres were made available, they would not have enough land for pastures. Chairman Schaps inquired of the applicant if there would be an option to the 7.24 acres. Mr. and Mrs. Erickson indicated there would not be. 4 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD January 11, 1995 Ed Schones made a MOTION to approve application 95-3-P/V, Minor Subdivision and variance, and was not supported. Al Robinson made a MOTION and was supported by Kathleen Nordine, to return application to Staff for further consideration. Six voted aye with one voting nay. Commissioner Ed Schones voted nay. Motion carried. D. PUBLIC HEARING - Shoreland Management Ordinance. Chairman Schaps OPENED the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Planning Consultant Alan Brixius presented a report regarding the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Mr. Brixius reviewed the current ordinance, comparing it to the proposed ordinance and the model ordinance supplied by the DNR. Mr. Brixius indicated the City is requesting flexibility in its Shoreland Ordinance from the State Model Ordinance with specific regard to minimum single family and medium density lot sizes, impervious surface requirements and allowable densities in Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Districts. Mr. Brixius indicated this is a mandate by the State of Minnesota for municipalities to update their Shoreland Ordinance. Ms. Nordine inquired regarding the development of the Marshan Townhomes, how would this effect the development. Mr. Brixius indicated this ordinance would significantly affect the development. Mr. Brixius indicated the new ordinance would require 25% reduction alone, not even taking into account additional green space required. Mr. Brixius indicated the deadline for the completion of the ordinance was year end 1994 and the City has received an extension until March 1, 1995. Mr. Art Hawkins, Centerville Road, addressed the Board. Mr. Hawkins indicated a discrepancy regarding setbacks from the lake. In one area of the ordinance it states 150 foot setback and in another portion a 200 foot setback. Mr. Hawkins noted from the DNR handbook their requirement is 150 feet. Mr. Hawkins also indicated a concern for setbacks from the road, he felt this should remain at 50 feet and not be reduced to 40 feet. 5 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD January 11, 1995 Mr. Hawkins indicated Natural Environment Lakes should be recognized as valuable to the City with further regulations to protection them. Mr. Brixius indicated the ordinance will indicate a 150 foot setback from the high water levels. Mr. Brixius indicated the 40 foot roadway setback was established to have consistency throughout the City, this would not be in regards to roads impacting the Lakes. J.B. Houchins, addressed the Board. Mr. Houchins indicated any pollutants will affect the lakes and pollutants will come from density and impervious surfaces. Mr. Houchins would like to see stricter requirements regarding impervious surfaces. Amy Donlin, Centerville Road, addressed the Board. Ms. Donlin indicated concern regarding enforcement of the requirement set forth. Ms. Donlin was not sure how to approach the problem, but felt perhaps additional City Staff would be needed. Ms. Donlin also indicated she would like to see what the consequences would be should someone violate the requirements. Ms. Donlin indicated a 50 foot setback from the roads would be more appropriate. Wayne LeBlanc, Centerville, encouraged Staff to follow standards set by the DNR. Mark Lindblad, Blackduck Drive, inquired if a specific development was in mind when the flexibilities were designated. Mr. Brixius indicated the Marshan Townhomes were somewhat in mind, but also a new ordinance was required by State mandate. Mr. Brixius indicated other issues were apparent in requesting flexibilities. Mr. Lindblad encouraged Staff to continue their work, and would like to see stricter requirements than current ordinances hold. Al Robinson made a MOTION, and was supported by Tom Mesich to CONTINUE the public hearing to February. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Brixius indicated Staff would welcome any direction from the Board regarding the ordinance. Mr. Gelbmann indicated he would like to see an illustration of the impact this ordinance will have on 6 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD January 11, 1995 the city. Mr. Brixius indicated this could be provided to the Board. Chairman Schaps indicated he would like to review a copy of the model ordinance from DNR. Mr. Schones indicated concern for being able to undo any damage that has already been done. Mr. Brixius indicated properties will become nonconforming properties and will be approached in that manner. Mr. Mesich indicated concern for the amount of impervious surface allowed in commercial areas, he felt it was too much. Mr. Mesich also indicated he would like to see consequences established if requirements are not met, especially regarding failed septic systems. Chairman Schaps called a brief recess at 8:22 p.m. The Board reconvened at 8:34 p.m. VI. DISCUSSION: A. MUSA Expansion Mr. Brixius presented a report regarding the MUSA Expansion. Mr. Brixius indicated the City of Lino Lakes faces serious constraint on future community growth due to a diminishing supply of buildable land within its urban service area. Since the adoption of the 1981 Comprehensive Plan, the City has expanded its MUSA both in 1987 and 1990. However, changing development trends and new development regulations have significantly impacted the City's supply of available buildable MUSA land. Mr. Brixius added the implementation of the 1991 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act has significantly reduced both the supply of buildable land and development densities in the City's MUSA. Mr. Brixius indicated recognizing the constraints that confront the City's growth, Lino Lakes has prepared this Comprehensive Plan update to expand the City's 2000 MUSA and establish a land bank for the distribution of the MUSA within the City's development area. Mr. Brixius indicated the plan amendment is intended to establish plans and policies that will serve as guidelines for managed growth through the year 2000. Discussion was held at length regarding the ramifications of the MUSA expansion. 7 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD January 11, 1995 Mr. Brixius indicated he would like direction from the Board and a public hearing to be held in February so as to continue the process, since part of the process will be to have Met Council approval. Discussion was held as to the necessity of waiting for results of the 20/20 Vision and community comments. Al Robinson made a MOTION, and was supported by Kathleen Nordine, to hold a public hearing on February 8, 1995. All voted aye. Motion carried. VII. ADJOURNMENT: Upon unanimous consent of the Board the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ruth McLaurin TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 8 /—ounle,L5/ AGENDA ITEM V A STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland DATE February 2, 1995 TOPIC 95-3-P, Hardwood Creek, Minor Subdivision Mr. and Mrs. Erickson, owners of the property at 7979 24th Avenue, known as Hardwood Creek Farm, have reconsidered their requested minor subdivision submitted at the January Planning and Zoning Board and referred back to staff for further consideration. The revised request is to split a 10 acre parcel, containing the dwelling, from the 50+ acre site. This 10 acre parcel will meet the lot area and street frontage requirements for the rural zoning district. Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend approval of the minor subdivision as submitted with the following condition: 1. A park dedication fee in the amount of $500 be collected prior to recording of the minor subdivision with Anoka County. 1. Approve Minor Subdivision as submitted with conditions listed above. 2. Deny Minor Subdivision Request Option 1 VAN 10 ELSRERO ESTATES PELTIER LAKE ARM) ivis%gtl Il` ........`. PELTIER LAKE gTT of uRo <«Es rtY OE CERTERv1LtE� a 1 1NO 222✓i /51 ..."''' meggit'al. ,h, ter; Lr72E s Ben p��acr CR££ , X10 SO ILSJ. Gert i f i ca t -e For:NANCY ER/CKSON Hardwood Creek Farm Box 218 Hugo, Mn 55038 Tele: 429-4900 33 33 N 00°17'22" W 377.68 0 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT BEARINGS ARE ON AN ASSUMED DATUM East line of the N£ 1/4 of Section 12 ELMCR vT AvENUE NE Corner of ---" Section 72, T31, R22 North line of the NE 1/4 of Section 12 N 89°54'35" E / 33,33 33 50 100 r 1 O O O N N 89°38'15" E O O 6 926.80 r _ \ 1- - X 1 I-- F/ 1 1 1 \I I\ I G E .AREA = 10.0± Ac. 926.80 S 00°17'22" E 926.80 1307.65 N 00°17'22" W PROPOSED DIVISION LINE -- NOTE: Bldg. location shown is from aerial photograph by Mork Hurd Corp. doted April, 1985 33 Cost line 50 100 ���rrr+++t � 5 West line of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12 of the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 0 1314.08 S 00°06'49" E NORTH n . — 2 1304.47 1 O O E 1/4 Corner of Section 12, T31, R22 —West line of the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12 EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION South line of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12 The East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, except the south 926.80 feet of the east 470.00 feet thereof, all in Section 12, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, R6)A-9- STAFF ORIGINATOR DATE TOPIC AGENDA ITEM V B Mary Kay Wyland February 2, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING, 95-3-C, Kids at Heart Child Care, 7330 Lake Drive, Conditional Use Permit -e -1?' • - rte` sac Jn. c Oc c. L Kids at Heart Child Care Center is located at 7330 Lake Drive in the Gethsemane Methodist Church building. They have been at this site since January of 1992 and hold a license from the State of Minnesota for 35 children. Recently a request was submitted to the State to increase the number of children to 42. The breakdown would be as follows: 20 Pre School Children 2 1/2 5 years of a 15 School Age Children - 5- 12 years of age 7 Toddlers 16 months - 2 1/2 yeas The property in question is Zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential and the Zoning Ordinance provides for day care nurseries (15 persons or more) with a Conditional Use Permit. The City was asked to review this center as a result of the request to increase the number of children to 42. In the review process it was determined that a Conditional Use Permit was not obtained in January 1992 when the facility was originally licensed by the State. I believe this was an oversight in 1992 as there were some staffing changes within the City between late 1991 and early 1992 when the original State review occurred. The applicant has, therefore, been required to obtain the necessary Conditional Use Permit at this time. Space has been provided within the church building for a play/fellowship area, nursery, kitchen and restrooms. -A fenced in playground on the site is used for ourdoor recreation. There are currently four (4) full time employees and two (2) part time. The facility is open from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Parking in the church parking lot is more than adequate to serve this use and the church. The State Licensing Division, the Fire Marshall, the Building Inspector and myself have inspected the site and find it to be in compliance with all applicable requirements. The Conditional Use Permit will be subject to various State Inspections and City review on an annual basis. In summary we would recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. A License from the Minnesota Department of Human be maintained at all time. 2. Access to the premises be provided upon notification of annual and periodic inspections from appropriate City Staff. 3. An increase in the number of children to be served in the facility will require modification of the license from the State. Staff would require notification of any increase and inspection by the building inspector and fire marshall to determine adequacy of structure but waive the requirement of an Amended Condition Use Permit. 47t( ................................. ................................. OPTIONS 1. Approve Conditional Use Permit with conditions listed above. 2. Deny permit as requested. ............................................................. RECOMMENDATION ............................................................. ............................................................ Option 1 s G. PRABIRIMIREIRINIPPE ail% osa00004® i � gun e.< PARK � • a�I� GEORGI Kfritat RESHANAU State of Minnesota Department of Human Services Human Services Building 444 Lafayette Road N St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 December 13, 1994 City of Lino Lakes Mary Kay Wyland, City Hall 1189 Main Street Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 ,ter RE: Zoning Notification of Application for Department of Human Services Program License. This is to inform you that we have received an application for a program license under Minnesota Rules, Parts 9503.0005 to 9503.0175 for Kids At Heart Child Care Center, 7330 Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014, to provide day care for 42 children. Issuance of this license is subject to compliance with the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes 1988, Sections 245A.11 and 245A.14. If a copy of this statute is required, please contact the Division of Licensing. If we do not hear from you within 30 days of the receipt of this letter, we will consider this facility to be in compliance with your local zoning code. Sincerely, Z6,61i)g4. George Riedl, Licensor Licensing Division (612) 654-5271 �(, L111 1-\11 ,1\\Q AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AGENDA ITEM V C Lirdvist)-4/zr\o STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland N Cwt - DATE February 2, 1995 TOPIC 95-5-P, Wayne Scanlan, 6848 Otter Lake Road, Minor Subdivision Mr. Wayne Scanlan, owner of the Otter Lake Veterinarian Clinic at 6848 Otter Lake Road, is requesting a Minor Subdivision to split a 4.01 parcel of property from his 5.45 acre lot. The property is Zoned LI, Light Industrial, and a minimum lot size of 1 acre with 100' of lot width is required by the Zoning Ordinance. Both the existing lot and the newly created lot will meet these requirements. Utilities are not currently available to serbe these properties. The City's Economic Development Advisory Board would recommend approval of this proposed lot split. The property is`intended to be sold for the development of a pet supply and dog training facility. A site plan review will, most likely, be submitted for P & Z review in, the near future. Staff has reviewed this request and would recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision with the following condition: 1. A Park Dedication fee in an amount as determined by Ordinance No. 5-91 be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits for the site. This fee is determined based on both the use of a building and the size of said building, therefore, a determination of the actual Park Dedication Fee can not be made at this time. Approve Minor Subdivision with conditions listed Deny Minor Subdivision Option 1 • 0 ONN cr (b) .1.1_y - -L f (7) 395/ (7) (8) CEDAR S 1/4 CCRI/ER SEC. 2 1 \ i \ \I /\ • • 1 \ • • \, \ ti . '\ 1I -J 4 POND 1 SIU LI 1 3. '' 0 3 FILO IS 2w 1 N 9083 \ q. -PP- OUTLET\ ---- \ �, •�8.5 \ 5v qA. N x 9i` 5 - 911 2 2 `4 907.0 W FENCE A\ \ \� / \ - \ \ lac _ ` \ \ Zi \ `\ /// / \ 0 O^ \ \ 1 \ ` A`\ - 7-„ 910 9 0Z \ �\ `� 909-5w �� 4� ` '', TOP OF DIKE �� \ ' ) , le - 911.0 \ A \ ' '1 \ \ 119.1' 0 1.g' 100 YR H.W.L. = 9097 \ VNv 909x• \ 4 :32' 1 FLOOR 915.0 P / l 912.1 907.0 W \ \ (451-12"PvC 0- :P 0- 0 II \ BENCH \ MARK PF / \\ \\\ \1\16'r- EASE r -O 1)r 30" 4q 394 i _ .44,, \ - _--T \ �+ L TACK AND MATCH 80 - „4 9+4. \ qi5 7700 7600 7500 7400 7200 7000 IMmacmoIMIIMINIu ual7 r,�►!� Err irpiaa.t `e �tl0 ©� s: ,,or..wm drag 6900 Lot -01 to IAPt 6700 t. AGENDA ITEM V D STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland/Alan Brixius DATE February 3, 1995 TOPIC Shoreland Management Ordinance CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Please refer to your January Agenda Packet for pertaining_ to the Shoreland Ordinance. I will available if necessary. A verbal report will be available outlining the DNR the proposed Ordinance. staff report have extra's s comments on Addendum to Feb. 3, 1995 Green Sheet AGENDA ITEM V D STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland DATE February 8, 1995 TOPIC CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Staff would recommend the Public Hearing be Continued to t March 8, 1995 Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. The DNR has not completed their review of the proposed ordinance at this time and would concur that a continuation of the Public Hearing would be appropriate. Upon completion of DNR review, Staff will be better able to address DNR and Citizen concerns regarding requested flexibility. For P & Z information, I have enclosed two letters received from concerned citizens regarding the proposed Ordinance 1. Motion to Continue Public Hearing to March 8, 1995 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board. Attention: City of Lino Lakes, Planning Commission; Planning and Zoning Committee This letter pertains to the proposed Shoreland ordinance. Specifically, I believe your request for "flexibility" in various aspects from the model Shoreland Ordinance set forth by the MN. DNR is a serious mistake, and a gross injustice to Lino Lakes, its citizens, the community, and to the integrity of its environment. Upon reviewing the proposed ordinance, it is my belief that in asking for leniency in the areas specified we are really being asked to sacrifice our natural beauty, open spaces, wet lands, lakes; in short, our identity for the sake of urbanization. Quite frankly I don't believe this to be a wise undertaking and I believe much opposition will come of development plans without a conscience. I don't know of another way to describe a plan which requests all in Lino Lakes to allow higher density developing, smaller set backs from roads, and more impervious surface to the landscape. To me this is completely unacceptable. I don't believe your assessment of the intent of the model Shoreland Ordinance to be an equitable one, and I'll explain why. My interpretation ofthe rational in providing a model ordinance would be to promote reasonable compliance, and to provide a prototype for communities to use as a reference. Therefore I would logically deduce from the DNR's expertise in the area of harmonically developing with minimal adverse environmental impacts, that areas currently undeveloped, especially those natural areas such as wetlands, streams, rivers, and lakes, extremely susceptible to pollution and deprivation, should consider their guidelines as MINIMUM standards for adequately protecting these very vulnerable, unrenewable resources. Logically there would be room for communities without especially sensitive areas, or for areas already considerably developed, to allow for "flexibility" upon consideration for future development. In all consciousness, I can not accept the deterioration of the rural areas, risking the quality of our environmental lakes, or detracting from our view of the natural places which are all very much what Lino Lakes is today, in exchange for a plan to quickly urbanize the area in much the same manner as "similar" cities, as our adopted plan for tomorrow. At the Jan.11 P.& Z. meeting Alan Brixius implied and seemed to stress the fact that most of the guidelines were more stringent than the "83" ordinance. I don't feel that because the last updated ordinance fails to provide for adequate protections as set forth by the DNR model, especially if this would allow high density developing to occur in areas in close proximity to our lakes and wetlands, eot this as c r�g aosquate or the accepted standar' lIowing less than the best possi�le qua��t nent to occur in and around our and in our landscape? i cat help but feel that this ordinance as proposed is specially tailored to large developers and to urbanized growth without consideration for the majority of property and business owners- the citizens who have a vested interest in locating themselves here in our clean pollution free environment, with reasonable open spaces for recreation and enjoyment. Please consider this right of all who live and work in Lino Lakes today, before selling us short by asking us to allow any development which requires concessions to be made at the expense of current residents or their right to maintain a quality environment. I call to others in the community who aspire to preserve much of what is our vision of Lino Lakes today; the unpolluted lakes,the wet lands, the wildlife,all coexisting with our neighborhoods, as our vision for tomorrow. Christopher H. Le Mire ' {/ D/�8���«^� , |/ �/ NADIA DOROSC HAK 7254 Stagecoach Trail Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 February 6, 1995 Ms. Mary Kay Wyland 1189 Main Street Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 RECEIVED FEB - 81995 ^ITY (1F LINO LAKCc Dear MS. Wyland, I attended the last meeting of the public concerning a change in rules governing the use and development of properties along designated wetlands in Lino Lakes. Since I will not be able to attend the next meeting I am taking this avenue to speak in the defense of precious wetlands. The wetlands provide many benefits to this and future generations. Besides being hares for herons, ducks, all kinds of fowl and 4-inny species of plants, they provide for floodwater storage, water purification, groundwater recharging and many other benefits. Since our property sits on a 100 year flood plain, my concern also is that the wetland rules do not change allowing for unnatural water run off and causing flooding where it was not seen for a while. I also believe that stricter rules need to apply to commercial and multi -use dwellings since their concerns will not be as personal as the ones of the immediate residents on the wetlands. They will also contribute to more environmental pollutions than the individual resident. I believe that we should adhere to the recommendations of the DNR since they are the professionals that deal with wild life, wetlands, etc. They have done the necessary studies to evaluate balances between nature and man. We cannot look at present dollar profit and forget about possible consequences in the future. For now we have the responsibility for being keepers of the land and we need to make wise decisions that will set a better trend for the future. I oppose any leniency in building permits in our area, especially those that concern the wetlands and wildlife. Please direct my comments to the correct carmiitte dealing with this issue. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Nadia Doroschak 780-0340 STAFF ORIGINATOR Alan Brixius - NAC DATE February 3, 1995 TOPIC MUSA Amendment SEE ATTACHED REPORT FROM NORTHWEST ASSOCIATION CONSULTANTS. A "Neighborhood Meeting" was held on Thursday, February 2, 1995. Property owners within the designated growth areas were notified of the neighborhood meeting, and the Public Hearing scheduled for February 8th. The Public Hearing has been advertised in the City's Legal Newspaper. The neighborhood meeting was well attended. As a result of the meeting, approximately 6 properties were removed from the designated growth area and a few properties added. The enclosed map reflects a revised growth area. A review of the MUSA Amendment and Neighborhood Meeting; will be provided at the Public Hearing. DRAFT LINO LAKES MUSA AMENDMENT REPORT JANUARY 1995 Prepared By: Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 INTRODUCTION The City of Lino Lakes faces serious constraint on future community growth due to a diminishing supply of buildable land within its urban service area. Since the adoption of the 1981 Comprehensive Plan, the City has expanded its MUSA both in 1987 and 1990. However, changing development trends and new development regulations have significantly impacted the City's supply of available buildable MUSA land. The City growth rate during the 1990's has more than doubled over what was constructed in the 1980's. Additionally, the implementation of the 1991 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act has significantly reduced both the supply of buildable land and development densities in the City's MUSA. Recognizing the constraints that confront the City's growth, Lino Lakes has prepared this Comprehensive Plan update to expand the City's 2000 MUSA and establish a land bank for the distribution of the MUSA within the City's development area. The plan amendment is intended to establish plans and policies that will serve as guidelines for managed growth through the year 2000. REGIONAL SETTING The City of Lino Lakes is located within southeastern Anoka County. The City is an outer ring suburb in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. According to the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, Lino Lakes is at the edge between rural and urban service areas. In pursuing a MUSA expansion, the City must comply with the regional guidelines and criteria for expanding urban service area. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL GUIDELINES The Metropolitan Council Blueprint identifies the following policy and action steps that are applicable to urban service and rural service areas: POLICY 5: The Council will ensure that regional services and facilities under its jurisdiction are provided cost- effectively to support development and revitalization in the region. The Council will work with the providers of other important infrastructure to make sure the region has the facilities it needs to grow and develop. THE URBAN SERVICE AREA Action Step 5A The Council will provide regional services for urban -scale development only within the urban service area, including the freestanding growth centers, consistent with local comprehensive plans and metropolitan system plans. The Council will work with local units of government to establish the location and staging of the metropolitan urban service area. Action Step 5B The Council will retain the current urban service area boundary for the year 2000, making appropriate changes after verifying land demand and supply with local governments along the boundary line. Action Step 5C The Council will work with local communities through the comprehensive planning process to designate areas for longer term future urbanization by establishing 2005 and 2010 urban service area boundaries. THE RURAL SERVICE AREA Action Step 5D The Council will support three land use types outside the metropolitan urban service area; commercial agriculture, rural centers and general rural use. The rural service area includes the commercial agricultural area, rural centers and the general rural use area. The commercial agricultural area includes "agricultural preserve" land under the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act that is certified by the local government as eligible for the agricultural preserves program. It also includes the long term agricultural land that is categories as Class I, II, III or irrigated Class IV land according to the Capability Classification Systems of the Soil Conservation Service and the county soil survey. In a prime farmland area, the Council will support a density of one housing unit per 40 acres. The rural centers are 34 small cities that used to serve primarily as retail and transportation centers for surrounding agricultural areas, but are now home to many residents who work in the urban area and many industries with few ties to agriculture. Examples include Young America, New Market and St. Francis. These cities should pace development with their ability to provide their own urban services, but without regional facilities. The general rural use area is land outside the urban service area that has a wide variety of land uses, including farms, provide for low density residential development and facilities that mainly serve urban residents, such as regional parks. "Low density residential development" is defined as a maximum density of one unit per 10 acres computed on the basis of 640 acre parcels (one square mile). Regional facilities and services should not be extended into this area to serve high density development like that found in the urban service area. 2 CRITERIA FOR CHANGING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY Increasing the Size of a Local Urban Service Area The Council will consider requests from local units for expansion to their urban service area. These requests will be considered together for their impact on the region as a whole, metropolitan systems, regional policy objectives and other units of government. Each request, submitted in the form of a comprehensive plan amendment, will be evaluated at both the local level and at a sub - regional level, as appropriate, and must satisfy the following criteria: 1. Forecasts and Urban Land Demand. Is there demonstrated urban land need? The Council first reassesses land supply and demand based on current Council forecasts and a comparison of figures provided by the local governmental unit. The Council analyzes the local community's request in terms of the urban land supply/demand in the pertinent regional data sector(s), cluster planning area (if applicable), the waste water interceptor and treatment plant service area, and transportation corridor area to ensure a five year overage. Land in a rural service area community will not be added to the urban service area for a net increase of serviced land unless there is a shortage of land suitable for development in the urban service area communities within the pertinent data sector(s) . 2. Transportation Facilities. Metropolitan transportation facilities and the local transportation system must be in place or planned for implementation to maintain an appropriate level of service concurrent with the development proposed in the request. Analysis of transportation system impacts will include those communities or areas that are within the same regional transportation (highway or transit) corridor(s) or service area (s). Adequate capacity in the regional highway system, as defined in the Council's transportation system plan, must be available to serve any new development. The local government must have an up-to-date local transportation plan. 3. Waste Water Service. Metropolitan waste water service must be in place or planned for implementation concurrent with the development proposed in the request. Adequate capacity in the metropolitan waste water system (treatment plant and interceptors), as defined in the Council's waste water system plan, must be available to serve any new development. Analysis of waste water service capacity will include those communities that are within the same service area of the waste water interceptor or treatment plant. The local government must have an up-to-date local comprehensive sewer plan, including on-site waste water management requirements. 3 4. Staging. As communities seek to provide urban services to areas which are not currently urbanized, the communities must specify in five year urbanization areas, the timing and sequence of major local public facilities in the capital improvement program and also the official controls which will ensure that urbanization occurs only in designated urbanization areas and in accordance with the plan. 5. Rural Area Policy. Areas of the community not receiving urban services must be consistent with the Council's rural area policy for land uses and protection of prime agricultural land. 6. Local Assessment Practices. The local government must have assessment practices that limit creation of vested development rights, to avoid premature requirements for the provision of urban services. 7. Housing. Local implementation of strategies and actions that: o Indicate that the community is providing its share of the region's low and moderate income and life cycle housing which includes a variety of housing types and prices for current and future residents; and o Allow for building mixed use or infill development and increasing the density of residential development (including along selected transportation corridors and at major transit transfer points). 8. Environmental Resources. Use of environmental factors to guide urban development. 9. Shared Services. Local plans consolidation and cost savings unit's place in the broader including relationship to school for service cooperation or as well as the government cluster planning context, district. Metropolitan Council MUSA Expansion Criteria In addition to aforementioned MUSA guidelines, the Regional Blueprint outlines specific criteria for increasing the size of an urban service. These criteria were used in the formulation of this Lino Lake Comprehensive Plan amendment. The City intends to demonstrate that its local objectives for land development are consistent with that of the Metropolitan Council. 4 FORECASTS AND URBAN LAND DEMAND After the national recovery from the recession and high interest rates in the early 1980's, Lino Lakes has experienced an annual increase in the number of new homes since 1984. Low housing interest rates and strong growth in the cities to the south has strengthened the residential housing markets in Lino Lakes, resulting in unprecedented strong growth over the past five years. Table A illustrates the number of homes constructed in Lino Lakes since 1971. Through the 1970's, the City averaged 64.5 housing units a year. This average increased in the 1980's to 122 housing units annually. Since 1990, the number of new housing units increased to an average of 265 housing units annually, with a peak number of housing units at 375 occurring in 1993. TABLE A LINO LAKES BUILDING PERMITS Number Year of Homes 1971 42 1972 41 1973 29 1974 25 1975 18 1976 42 1977 112 1978 166 1979 169 Sub -Total 645 1980 109 1981 79 1982 61 1983 104 1984 95 1985 117 1986 147 1987 152 1988 165 1989 193 Sub -Total 1,222 1990 176 1991 212 1992 349 1993 375 1994 213 Sub -Total 1,325 SOURCE: City of Lino Lakes 5 The rapid growth rate experienced in 1992 and 1993 raised concern among City leaders as to its impact on the City's ability to keep pace in terms of planning, utility availability, community services and the City's financial stability. To avoid over -burdening City financial resources, utilities, services and personnel, the City Council determined that it was necessary to establish manageable growth parameters for the City of Lino Lakes. An average annual growth rate between the range of 200 and 300 units was identified as being appropriate for future planning efforts. DEMOGRAPHIC FORECASTS All past planning efforts have been based on demographic forecasts for the City of Lino Lakes. The City forecasts were periodically revised to reflect the changing growth patterns in the City. As shown in Table B, past forecasts have been close to the mark in projecting the 1990 population and household counts for the City. Both the City Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the 1993 Metropolitan Council demographic forecasts have made growth projections for Lino Lakes extending to 2010 and beyond. In review of these projections, the City assumed a growth rate of 210 units annually beyond the year 1990. The Metropolitan Council estimates a growth rate of 200 units annually between 1990 and 2010, with an increase to 240 units annually beyond 2010. TABLE B HISTORICAL LINO LAKES POPULATION PROJECTION Proj. Projection Years Date Source 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Population: 1981 City 1986 Met Council 1987 City 1990 City 1993 Met Council 5,700 9,200 4,966 7,500 8,600 4,966 8,532 --- 4,966 9,105 15,022 4,966 8,807 14,600 Household: 1986 Met Council 1,388 2,300 2,800 1987 City 1,388 2,483 --- 1990 City 1,388 2,793 4,893 1993 Met Council 1,388 2,603 4,600 1990 Census: Population 8,807 Households 2,602 6 20,070 19,600 25,000 6,993 6,600 9,000 Based on the growth parameters identified by the City Council, the following growth projections were prepared. The forecasts represent a range of growth based on annual local growth of 200, 250 and 300 housing units annually. TABLE C LINO LAKES POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD FORECASTS 1990 - 2010 Jan2 19901 1994 2000 2010 200 Units Per Year: Population 8,807 12,177 15,500 20,390 Household 2,603 3,690 4,890 6,890 Household Size3 3.38 3.30 3.17 2.96 250 Units Per Year: Population 8,807 12,177 16,450 22,760 Household 2,603 3,690 5,190 7,690 Household Size3 3.38 3.30 3.17 2.96 300 Units Per Year: Population 8,807 12,177 17,400 25,130 Household 2,603 3,690 5,490 8,490 Household Size3 3.38 3.30 3.17 2.96 3 1990 Census information. 1994 estimate represents first of the year. New housing units from 1990 through 1994 factored by a 2 o City-wide vacancy rate was used to generate household estimate. Household size forecasts are reflective of the household size estimates of the Metropolitan Council. The 200 unit per year projection is generally consistent with demographic forecasts of the City Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the 1993 Metropolitan Council forecast. In review of the City's growth over the last five years, these projections may be very conservative. Continued growth in the northern Twin Cities metropolitan suburban communities has strengthened the residential markets in Lino Lakes. As previously noted, the construction rate since 1990 has more than doubled what was experienced in the previous decade. Since 1990, the City has averaged 265 new housing units per year. In 1992 and 1993, the City had issued 342 and 375 percents for new construction, respectively. The most recent growth characteristics suggest that Lino Lakes may sustain growth at a rate greater than 200 units per year. 7 The City's demographic projections showing average annual growth of 250 and 300 units represent a moderate and strong growth forecasts through the year 2000. In light of the limited land supply and other development limitations unique to Lino Lakes, the City would be supportive of a moderate growth rate of 250 units per year, provided that these forecasts can be periodically re-evaluated and adjusted to be reflective of actual development trends. RESIDENTIAL LAND DEMAND Based on the demographic forecasts, the City has estimated projected land demand to accommodate residential through year 2000. In generating these forecasts, the following development characteristics must be noted. Development Regulations Lino Lakes has seven residential zoning districts offering a broad variety of housing densities and types. While the City has experienced a variety of housing projects including single family, townhomes, manufactured- housing, and elderly housing, the predominant housing type has been single family housing. Urban single family residential development typically falls into two zoning districts. R-1, Single Family Zoning District. This zoning district provides for an urban residential environment. Minimum lot size is 10,800 square feet and 80 foot lot widths. Based on these lot size requirements, this zoning district may provide a maximum density of 3.2 units per buildable acre. R -1X, Single Family Executive Residential District. This zoning district provides for urban residential neighborhoods that offer greater amenities. The minimum lot size is 12,825 square feet and 90 foot widths. This zoning district allows a maximum density of 3.0 units per buildable acre. The City zoning regulations and the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act have impacted the development densities occurring in Lino Lakes. The Lino Lakes development regulations require that all newly platted lots have a minimum required lot area that excludes street right-of-way, floodplain areas, wetlands, and water courses. This requirement is intended to protect environmentally sensitive areas, preserve necessary natural drainage systems, and assure the property owner adequate usable lot area to accommodate residential space needs. 8 The 1991 Wetland Conservation Act has significantly changed the rules of development. The primary purpose of the act is to regulate development in a manner that results in no net loss in wetland acreage. This requires urban development to design subdivisions that: 1) avoid wetlands; 2) minimizes impact if some intrusion on a wetland is necessary; and 3) mitigates wetlands that are impacted. Development Densities The aforementioned environmental regulations have significantly reduced the development densities that have occurred in Lino Lakes in the following ways: 1. The 1991 Wetland Conservation Act applies to all wetlands. As a result, it has removed development potential from land that may have previously been developed. This reduces the supply of buildable land within a subdivision. 2. Subdivisions that must integrate wetlands into the lot layout frequently lose density due to irregular shapes of the wetland resulting in oversized lots. 3. The City standard requiring the residential lot areas to be exclusive of water courses mandates larger lots in areas of wetlands, floodplains and environmentally sensitive areas. A survey of ten subdivisions (Table D) developed in accordance with the City regulations and the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act reveals that the residential densities are much lower than the density standards allowed in the base zoning districts. After the consideration of the wetlands as physical constraints, recent subdivisions produced a gross density of 1.4 units per acre and a net density of 2.1 units per buildable acre. 9 TABLE D RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT DENSITIES 1993 - 1994 Net Gross Densities Upland Density (Lots/Acre Zoning Plat Acres Acres Lots (Lots/Acre) of Upland) Designation Country Lake.Estates 33 30.51 53 1.61 1.74 R-1 Oaks of Lino 9 4.19 9 1.00 2.15 R-1 Fox Trace 25 21.72 55 2.20 2.53 R-1 Pine Ridge II 10 9.01 18 1.80 2.00 R -1X o Pine Ridge III 10 9.31 19 1.90 2.04 R -1X Trappers Crossing 72 57.14 115 1.60 2.01 R -1X Quail Ridge 38 22.20 40 1.05 1.80 R -1X Pheasant Hills I -VI 120 60.00 125 1.04 2.08 R -1X Behm's Century Farm 93 52.36 153 1.65 2.92 R-1 Clearwater Creek Phase I and II 120 80.60 154 1.28 1.91 R-1 TOTAL 530 347.04 741 1.40 2.14 FUTURE MUSA DEMAND To accommodate future projected growth in Lino Lakes, it is necessary to have a sufficient supply of buildable land and infrastructure capacity. Based on the growth parameters established for the City, land demand has been forecasted in Table E. The land demand projection illustrates the anticipated number of housing units divided by the City average urban density to generate estimated land demand by buildable acres. Consistent with Metropolitan Council guidelines, the demand is then adjusted to provide a five year overage in land supply. Based on anticipated growth, Lino Lakes will have a 2000 MUSA land demand with overage ranging from 750 to 1,125 acres. TABLE E YEAR 2000 MUSA FORECASTS Number of New Housing Units Annually (Year 1995-2000) 200 250 300 X 5 X 5 X 5 Total Residential Units April 2000 1,000 1,250 1,500 Average City -Wide Density 2.0 2.0 2.0 Total Buildable Acres Needed by 2000 500 625 750 Five Year Overage X 1.5 X 1.5 X 1.5 2000 MUSA DEMAND WITH OVERAGE 750 940 1,125 EXISTING MUSA LAND SUPPLY In 1993, the Metropolitan Council staff estimated that Lino Lakes' total MUSA included 3,915 acres. This figure was based on the MUSA boundaries established with the 1990 Comprehensive Plan amendment, as shown on Map 1. Within the total MUSA, Metropolitan Council staff estimated that 2,134 acres of land was buildable and available for new development. Metropolitan Council estimates, shown in Table F, were generated through the use of a region -wide GIS system that quantified the amount of various land uses, National Wetland Inventory features, and undeveloped land within the City. 11 TABLE F 1993 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ESTIMATE OF LINO LAKES MUSA IN ACRES Residential Iso- Public and Multi- Single lated Recreation High Lakes & Family Family Farm Commercial Industrial Public Rec. ways Streams Vacant Total 1984 0 446 5 6 32 66 62 48 157 864* 1,686 1990 0 843 31 33 101 113 203 98 159 2,134** 3,715 Change 1984- 1990 0 397 26 27 69 47 141 50 2 1,270 * Does not include 376 acres of wetlands in vacant land (#8). ** Does not include 684 acres of wetlands in vacant land (#8). SOURCE: Metropolitan Council 1993 Lino Lakes staff expressed concern over the estimated acreage of buildable MUSA presented by the Metropolitan Council. Existing development patterns in the City suggested that the supply of land available for development was significantly less than the Metropolitan Council estimate. To attain an accurate inventory of land available for development, the City mapped the existing MUSA on a section by section basis to allow for a detailed visual tabulation of the gross MUSA, as well as a net buildable MUSA available for residential development. The gross MUSA was tabulated using a planimeter over the 1990 MUSA boundary map. The detailed tabulation of net buildable land used the following methodology: Step #1: The City produced 200 scale aerial photographic base maps that were overlaid by same scale mylar section map and acetate National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps. These maps provide a section by section base data of land use, and NWI wetlands at a scaled dimension. Step #2: Once a base map for each section of the City was created, the City delineated the MUSA boundaries, non- residential zoning districts, and the County park land. Step #3: At Step 3, the buildable vacant land available for residential development could be determined as of year end 1993. Land considered for development was upland area of residentially zoned parcels with a contiguous area of 5 acres or more. Lands included in previous approved final plats was not considered available. The buildable land was shaded in yellow to allow for measurement. The limiting boundaries of the wetlands were the more restrictive combination of the NWI and the 1977 wetland delineation on the section map. All land areas were calculated on a section by section basis using a planimeter. The results of the City efforts are illustrated in Table G. METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING AVAILABLE RESIDENTIAL BUILDABLE MUSA - Available Acres Shaded. - MUSA, County Park, and Zoning Boundaries. - 200 Scale Section Base Map. - Aerial Photography Map. D INVENTORY (1) V) (n V) V) (1) N (/> N 0' (1) V) N (1) (1) V) V) V) V) 0) (D (D (D (D (D (D CD (o CD (D (o (D (o CD CD (D CO (D CD CD C) C) 0 C) C) C) C) C) C) C1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 6' O 6 O O O' 5' O' O O O O' O O O O O O' O' 7 7 7 7. 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 'r1 CO (D 0 N N W Ni U)0 V Q (0 O - N) G) A C/) C.) O co 295 270 430 90 80 0 0 350 245 0 265 450 255 180 315 185 100 0 0 0 4050 100 0 25 11 0 0 0 145 0 0 0 0 0 30 50 0 0 0 0 0 475 120 65 16 0 0 0 0 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 420 0 110 20 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 48 25 30 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 265 75 95 369 79 70 0 0 0 245 0 217 425 225 150 265 175 100 0 0 0 2890 20 45 255 25 70 0 0 0 0 0 45 140 175 50 160 135 0 0 0 0 1225 25 10 100 15 15 0 0 35 60 0 75 125 80 40 45 50 20 0 0 0 820 20 40 5 40 0 0 0 0 175 0 70 125 25 65 50 15 75 0 0 0 895 340 360 225 555 560 640 0 140 405 530 380 190 390 320 335 455 540 645 635 640 17315 55 35 40 0 0 0 0 50 45 0 0 0 0 10 5 0 0 0 45 15 560 145 0 50 265 185 405 0 0 0 0 15 135 150 210 100 0 0 0 215 105 3110 130 0 0 290 385 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 45 0 0 0 0 0 2440 235 25 50 410 470 515 0 30 105 95 125 185 235 265 190 130 240 270 290 335 7850 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 160 365 160 10 30 0 30 150 255 295 120 65 3770 260 35 150 425 485 515 0 65 165 95 200 310 315 305 235 180 260 270 290 335 8670 20 40 25 40 0 0 0 0 335 365 230 135 55 65 80 165 330 295 120 65 4665 635 630 655 645 640 640 0 490 650 530 645 640 645 500 650 640 640 645 635 640 21365 12/20154 Table G indicates that 895 acres of buildable MUSA are available for residential development. This supply is further reduced by development occurring in 1994, and the difference between actual wetland delineated at time of final plat and the wetlands defined by the NWI map. In 1994, Lino Lakes issued 213 building permits for new homes. One hundred thirty-three of these building permits consumed lots within plats approved prior to 1994, reducing the available lot supply in pre 1994 plats to 74 single family lots in eight plats scattered throughout the City. No single pre 1994 plat has more than 13 vacant lots available. Due to limited and dispersed supply of vacant lots existing in pre 1994 plats, land included in these plats was not considered available as existing buildable MUSA. In addition to the development occurring in plats approved prior to 1994, Lino Lakes also issued 80 building permits for housing units for plats approved and developed in 1994. Table H, below, illustrates the development and land absorption of lots created by plats approved in 1994. The residential development occurring in 1994 plats consumed 41 acres which was subsequently subtracted from the City's estimated supply of available MUSA year end 1993. 15 Plat TABLE H DEVELOPMENT IN PLATS APPROVED IN 1994 Net Additional Total Vacant Percent Gross Available Available Developed Lots Lots Vacant Acres Acres Acres Used Acres Pheasant Hills III, IV, V, and VI 91 64 70 101 48 14.24 29.97 Country Lake Estates 53 45 85 35 27 4.08 5.28 Fox Trace 55 50 91 25 25 2.27 2.27 n Quail Ridge 40 2 5 40 20 19.00 38.00 Pine Ridge II 18 17 94 8 8 .44 .44 Oaks of Lino 9 8 89 10 7 .78 1.11 Wenzel Farms 5th Addition 50 50 100 20 0 .00 .00 316 236 75 239 135 40.80 77.10 The second factor influencing the available buildable MUSA is the difference between actual wetland areas delineated in accordance with the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act and the wetland boundaries depicted on the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map. In tabulating available MUSA, the Metropolitan Council credited wetland areas identified in the NWI maps. The City, using nine subdivision applications having wetland delineations completed, has conducted a comparison between actual wetlands to the NWI wetlands. Table I illustrates that the subdivisions being developed under the Wetland Conservation Act are displayed an average of 50 percent more wetland area than was defined by NWI maps for these plats. Plat TABLE I COMPARISON OF ACTUAL WETLAND DELINEATIONS TO NWI MAPS Ratio of Actual Actual Wetlands Acres Gross' Wetland NWI Based to NWI Based Area Acres Wetland Acres Wetland Acres Country Lake Estates 33 2.49 .89 2.80 Oaks of Lino 9 4.81 2.45 1.96 Fox Trace 25 3.28 1.02 3.22 Pine Ridge II 10 .99 1.11 .89 Pine Ridge III 10 .69 1.02 .68 Trappers Crossing 72 14.86 3.06 4.86 Quail Ridge 38 15.80 14.38 1.10 Behm's Century Farm 93 40.64 23.26 1.75 Clearwater Creek Phase I and II TOTAL 120 39.40 34.70 1.14 410 122.96 81.89 1.50 To date, the sites having the least environmental constraints and the largest contiguous buildable areas have been selected for subdivision and subsequent development. The trend suggests that 1.5 percent ratio show in Table I above represents a conservative adjustment to the NWI wetlands when determining the actual supply of vacant buildable residential MUSA. 17 Table J shows the adjustments to the available residential acres within the MUSA as tabulated 1 January 1994 by subtracting net residential land absorption occurring during 1994 and adjusting the NWI wetlands to be reflective of actual wetland experiences. Year end 1994, the City estimates 444 acres of buildable residential MUSA remaining. TABLE J YEAR END 1994 AVAILABLE RESIDENTIAL MUSA Available acres within MUSA as of 1/1/94 895 Available acres used in 1994 on a per lot basis (from "Net Available Acres Used") - 41 Available acres within MUSA as of 1/1/95 854 Additional wetland from "Actual Wetland Acres to NWI Based Wetland Acres Ratio" (1.5 * 820 acres NWI - 820 acres) - 410 Adjusted available acres within MUSA as of 1/1/95 444 In addition to the limited supply of buildable land, the location of this land further complicates urban growth. The City's supply of buildable MUSA is scattered throughout the community, however, the largest contiguous parcels are located east of I-35 and along Main Street. These parcels are located away from existing infrastructure. The extension of utilities is difficult without a development having the critical mass for financing both the utility extension and the internal plat improvements. This is required due to the Charter restriction that prevents the assessing of utilities without the permission of adjoining property owners. This situation stalls growth and does not promote contiguous growth patterns or the orderly extension of utilities. Anoka County assessment policy of valuing vacant buildable land having a MUSA designation at $2,000 per acre higher than rural service property suggests a financial vested interest in the MUSA designation. Land trades that would remove the MUSA from one area of the City for use in another is seen as taking value away from the property. The City is reluctant to become involved with taxing issues and compensation for lost value. A final discrepancy between Metropolitan Council's estimate of available MUSA and the City is that Met Council included land areas in oversized unsewered lots as land available for development. The City's calculation for available MUSA excludes any unsewered lots of single ownership having land areas less than 5 acres. The basis for this proposal is as follows: 18 1. The City Charter allows City residents to refuse special assessments for infrastructure improvements until such time as they made connection to the utility. Additionally, the Charter restricts the use of general funds in the use of infrastructure projects. The result of the Charter is that it prohibits the City from installing utilities in areas of unsewered lots unless they are petitioned for by the neighborhood and residents agreed to accept the special assessments. 2. Multiple property ownership, in conjunction with the City Charter complicates land assembly, prohibiting the creation of a single parcel large enough to create the critical masses to accommodate a privately financed project. Table K compares the Lino Lakes projected residential land demand through the year 2000 with its existing supply to identify the necessary MUSA expansion acreage. TABLE K MUSA EXPANSION ACREAGE Growth Year Parameter 2000 Demand Existing Supply Proposed MUSA Unit Per Year With Overage of Buildable MUSA Expansion Acreage 200 714 - 444 270 250 892 - 444 448 300 1,071 444 627 LAND BANK The current discrepancies between the Metropolitan Council's and Lino Lakes' estimate of buildable vacant MUSA is attributed in part to the way MUSA has been applied to land areas in the past. The blanket application of MUSA to anticipated growth areas has not provided for an accurate accounting of buildable land within the MUSA. As a result, some of the development potential assumed within a MUSA designation is far less than actually exists. This is particularly constraining in Lino Lakes due to the following local conditions: Buildable Land In January 1995, the City estimated that of the 21,365 acres within the corporate boundaries of Lino Lakes, only 45 percent or 9,695' acres are considered developable due to regional park, interstate highways, and environmental constraints inherent in the City. This has reduced the supply of buildable land in the Lino Lakes MUSA and reduced the development densities City-wide. Development proposals 19 considered under the wetland rules reveal the wetland impacts within the City are greater than originally believed, further reducing the supply of buildable land below the aforementioned 1995 estimate. 1991 Wetland Conservation Act The 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act significantly changed the rules for development. This act's primary purpose is to regulate development in a manner that results in no net loss in wetland acreage. This requires urban development to design subdivisions that: 1) avoid wetlands; 2) minimize impact if some intrusion on the wetland is necessary; and 3) mitigate wetlands that are impacted. Due to the extent of wetlands in Lino Lakes, the Conservation Act has significantly impacted the supply of buildable land, development densities, and development patterns in the City. The City survey of nine subdivision designs in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act reveals that actual delineated wetlands exceeded NWI wetlands.by approximately 50 percent. Past Development Patterns Prior to the 1990 Comprehensive Plan amendment and the 1992 Zoning Ordinance amendment that repealed the SR, Suburban Residential and SRX, Suburban Residential Executive Zoning Districts, the City allowed unsewered subdivisions with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. The 1990 and 1992 amendments served to implement a rural service policy of one unit per 10 acres consistent with Metropolitan Council guidelines. Review of Lino Lakes reveals a scattered pattern of unsewered subdivision impact on community growth in the following ways: 1. The subdivision established a suburban density that raises concern with regard to compatibility with urban densities. 2. The subdivisions are often resistant to the extension of utilities due to the cost of assessment to the larger lots. This resistance complicates the future planning and construction of local infrastructure. 3. The sensitive environmental features (i.e., wetlands/soils, high water table, lakes) inherent in Lino Lakes presents concern with regard to the proper functioning of on-site septic systems and the potential for their failure. The concentration of unsewered small lots present utility and environmental concerns if large scale failure would occur. 20 City Charter Lino Lakes is a charter city. The City Charter allows residents to refuse assessments for infrastructure improvements until such time as they made connection to the utility. This unique charter provision limits the City in its future utility planning. Local Assessment Practices The City has investigated possible land trades that would exchange MUSA areas. In review of this alternative, it was discovered Anoka County's policy to assess a higher taxable value on undeveloped land having a MUSA designation than undeveloped land outside the established MUSA. As a result of the property owners increased financial investment due to the land MUSA designation, the City believes that the County assessment policy creates a vested development right in the property. Exchange of.MUSA area would require compensation for the loss of value in the property. LAND BANK PROCEDURE In an effort to more efficiently utilize the MUSA allocated to Lino Lakes and to provide some degree of flexibility and accuracy in community planning, the City is requesting the Metropolitan Council allow the City to establish a MUSA land banking system. The City would request that its 2000 MUSA be expanded by 448 acres. Under the land bank concept, this MUSA expansion acreage would be held in reserve and dispersed as development proposals are evaluated through a formal review process. For future proposed developments, the system to be implemented will involve an additional requirement in the application and formal review process. As part of the City's approval of building plans or platting and development process (which requires improvement commitments on the part of the developer), a minor Comprehensive Plan amendment involving Metropolitan Council review will be required. The Plan amendment which is intended for advisory purposes only to the Metropolitan Council and will involve an addition to the 2000 Urban Service Area, under current limitations not to exceed 448 acres of the land reserve designated for development by 2000. The Comprehensive Plan amendment process will involve a review by the Metropolitan Council. To insure Metropolitan Council that the urban residential growth follows an orderly and logical growth pattern, the City proposes to designate an urban expansion area which will confine the use of the MUSA reserve acres. Consistent with the following policy parameters, the urban expansion area will include the existing MUSA boundaries and 670 additional acres (see Map 3) which will allow 21 for some flexibility in the use of the MUSA reserve. The following parameters were used as guidelines for identifying the future urban expansion limits and will also serve to guide the distribution of the MUSA land reserve in a manner that promotes staged, orderly growth while maximizing the use of the MUSA allocation and infrastructure. 1. The property is contiguous to the existing MUSA and provides a logical extension of utilities in an orderly growth pattern. 2. Utility improvements respond to environmental, health, safety, and general welfare concerns. 3. The potential sewer discharge of the project is within limitations assigned to the City of Lino Lakes by regional agencies. 4. The developer/benefitting property owners assume the significant majority of improvement/service costs, and agree to pay assessments associated with extending service to serve their property. 5. The proposed MUSA expansion or trade is consistent with the City's infill policy which encourages urban development to locate wherever possible in areas where public investments have already been provided. 6. In considering land trades, the City should not exchange developable commercial or industrial zoned land for a proposed residential development unless fiscal impact concerns are fully addressed. 7. The developer acknowledges and holds all governmental units harmless should limitations on sewer hookups and/or MUSA land bank reserve be imposed. 8. The land does not qualify as a premature development or subdivision based on the following: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage capacity. b. Lack of adequate or safe water supply. c. Lack of adequate roads or highways to serve the subdivision or development. d. Lack of adequate or safe sewage disposal. e. Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. f. Lack of adequate public support facilities (i.e., schools, parks and recreation, fire and police, etc.). g Inconsistent with environmental protection policies. 22 AGENDA ITEM V F STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland DATE February 3, 1995 TOPIC Ordinance No. 1-95 REVISIONS TO FENCE ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING At the request of our Building Inspector, 'City Staff has reviewed the existing fence ordinance and proposed the changes highlighted on the attached ordinance. These changes were initiated by citizen request and involve the following: A). Change ordinance to allow a 6' fence to be installed from the front of the home to the rear property line. Existing ordinance provides for a 6' fence from the back of the house to the rear property line. B). Change the requirement providing for 30% of open area to 10%. This change would allow purchase of standard type privacy fences offered for sale at Knox, Menards, Etc. C). Clarify the section relating to the side of the fence considered to be the face. We have reviewed the fence ordinance in several adjoining communities including Circle Pines, Blaine, Hugo, Forest Lake, White Bear Township, New Brighton, and. Arden Hills. These ordinance were reflective of the changes we are proposing: 1. Approve Fence Ordinance as proposed. 2. Return Ordinance to staff for further consideration 3. Continue Public Hearing Option 1 -9' So Council Member introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNTY OF ANOKA ORDINANCE NO. 1-95 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4, SUBD. 29 FENCES AND WALLS OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE APPENDIX B1 The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota does ordain: SECTION NO. 1. Section 4, Subd. 29 Fences and Walls, is hereby deleted and replaced by the following: Subd. 29. Fences and Walls. Fences and walls shall require a building permit and shall be permitted in all yards subject to the following: (1) Prior to issuance of a building permit for any boundary line fence, abutting property owners shall be notified. 2) Solid Walls (such as masonry construction) in excess of forty-two (42) inches in height shall be prohibited. (3) Fences in residential districts may be located in any yard to a height of four (4) feet, except that a fence up to six (6) feet in height may be erected from the nearest rear corner titftieriftt of the principal building to the side and/or rear lot line. Wire fences shall not be permitted in residential areas, VIVA +" it ittat tertittoZ,. (4) Should the rear lot line of a lot be common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, that portion of the rear lot line equal to the required front yard of the abutting lot shall not be fenced to a height of more than four (4) feet. (5) Fences located eight (8) feet or more from the rear lot line may be up to eight (8) feet in height, except that fences for tennis courts may be up to twelve (12) feet in height with (ten ) foot setback C iib *3: 1i' n tato atractura„ (6) Fences in Business and Industrial districts may be erected on the lot line .. t -structVetio to a height of six (6) feet; to a height of eight (8) feet with a security arm for barbed wire. (7) That side of the fence considered to be the face (facing as applied to fence posts) shall face abutting property. MQ ttl aat alb :ratafiat* . tettak thia tattoo ti t � L (8) No fence shall be permitted on public rights-of-way. (9) Fences which are ninety percent (90%) open (barb wire, chain link, woven wire, and other similar type fences) which are for the sole purpose of containing non-domestic animals are not subject to the provisions of this ordinance and do not require a building permit. Chain link fences shall have round street parts and braces. (10) Fences shall be at least thirty perccnt (30%) tcat totrttut :t$) open to provide space for the passage of air. No used material shall be used in construction of fences. SECTION NO. 2. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication according to the City Charter. Passed this day of , 1995. Vernon F. Reinert, Mayor Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer Motion for adoption of the foregoing ordinance was seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. AGENDA ITEM V F STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland DATE February 3, 1995 TOPIC Ordinance No. 1-95 REVISIONS TO FENCE ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING BACKGROUND `s ............................................. ............................................. ............................................. At the request of our Building Inspector, City Staff has reviewed the existing fence ordinance and proposed the changes highlighted on the attached ordinance. These changes were initiated by citizen request and involve the following: A). Change ordinance to allow a 6' fence to be installed from the front of the home to the rear property line. Existing ordinance provides for a 6' fence from the back of the house to the rear property line. B). Change the requirement providing for 30% of open area to 10%. This change would allow purchase of standard type privacy fences offered for sale at Knox, Menards, Etc. C). Clarify the section relating to the side of the fence considered to be the face. D) . Prohibit fences in the front yards of commercial property. We have reviewed the fence ordinance in several adjoining communities including Circle Pines, Blaine, Hugo, Forest Lake, White Bear Township, New Brighton, and Arden Hills. These ordinance were reflective of the changes we are proposing. OPTIONS 1. Approve Fence Ordinance as proposed. 2. Return Ordinance to staff for further consideration 3. Continue Public Hearing ..................................................... ...................................................... tryCOMMENDATION> Option 1 Council Member introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNTY OF ANOKA ORDINANCE NO. 1-95 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4, SUBD. 29 FENCES AND WALLS OF TIS CITY ZONING ORDINANCE APPENDIX B1 The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota does ordain: SECTION NO. 1. Section 4, Subd. 29 Fences and Walls, is hereby deleted and replaced by the following: Subd. 29. Fences and Walls. Fences and walls shall require a building permit and shall be permitted in all yards subject to the following: (1) Prior to issuance of a building permit for any boundary line fence, abutting property owners shall be notified. 2) Solid Walls (such as masonry construction) in excess of forty-two (42) inches in height shall be prohibited. (3) Fences in residential districts may be located in any yard to a height of four (4) feet, except that a fence up to six (6) feet in height may be erected from-thc nearest rear corncr th4 tit*of the principal building to the side and/or rear lot line. Wire fences shall not be permitted in residential areas, Nilexteptien et min link: ,. (4) Should the rear lot line of a lot be common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, that portion of the rear lot line equal to the required front yard of the abutting lot shall not be fenced to a height of more than four (4) feet. (5) Fences located eight (8) feet or more from the rear lot line may be up to eight (8) feet in height, except that fences for tennis courts may be up to twelve (12) feet in height with (ten ). foot setback it.**.VIA! 1MIACt VIA 1.tot iiMat behind (6) Fences in Business and Industrial districts may be erected on the lot linebehind trt t `ttalita0 itA the Wiluipal *treater*to a height of six (6) feet; to a height of eight (8) feet with a security arm for barbed wire. (7) That side of the fence considered to be the face (facing as applied to fence posts) shall face abutting property. h tititithtia AttiAtiin t f (8) No fence shall be permitted on public rights-of-way. (9) Fences which are ninety percent (90%) open (barb wire, chain link, woven wire, and other similar type fences) which are for the sole purpose of containing non-domestic animals are not subject to the provisions of this ordinance and do not require a building permit. Chain link fences shall have round street parts and braces. (10.) Fences shall be at least thirty perccnt (30%) ti;l* open to provide space for the passage of air. No used material shall be used in construction of fences. SECTION NO. 2. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication according to the City Charter. Passed this day of , 1995. Vernon F. Reinert, Mayor Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer Motion for adoption of the foregoing ordinance was seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. AGENDA ITEM V E STAFF ORIGINATOR Alan Brixius - NAC DATE February 3, 1995 TOPIC MUSA Amendment .............................................. BACKGROUND .............................................: ............................................. SEE ATTACHED REPORT FROM NORTHWEST ASSOCIATION CONSULTANTS. A "Neighborhood Meeting" was held on Thursday, February 2, 1995. Property owners within the designated growth areas were notified of the neighborhood meeting, and the Public Hearing scheduled for February 8th. The Public Hearing has been advertised in the City's Legal Newspaper. The neighborhood meeting was well attended. As a result of the meeting, approximately 6 properties were removed from the designated growth area and a few properties added. The enclosed map reflects a revised growth area. A review of the MUSA Amendment and Neighborhood Meeting will be provided at the Public Hearing. DRAFT LINO LAKES MUSA AMENDMENT REPORT JANUARY 1995 Prepared By: Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 INTRODUCTION The City of Lino Lakes faces serious constraint on future community growth due to a diminishing supply of buildable land within its urban service area. Since the adoption of the 1981 Comprehensive Plan, the City has expanded its MUSA both in 1987 and 1990. However, changing development trends and new development regulations have significantly impacted the City's supply of available buildable MUSA land. The City growth rate during the 1990's has more than doubled over what was constructed in the 1980's. Additionally, the implementation of the 1991 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act has significantly reduced both the supply of buildable land and development densities in the City's MUSA. Recognizing the constraints that confront the City's growth, Lino Lakes has prepared this Comprehensive Plan update to expand the City's 2000 MUSA and establish a land bank for the distribution of the MUSA within the City's development area. The plan amendment is intended to establish plans and policies that will serve as guidelines for managed growth through the year 2000. REGIONAL SETTING The City of Lino Lakes is located within southeastern. Anoka County. The City is an outer ring suburb in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. According to the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, Lino Lakes is at the edge between rural and urban service areas. In pursuing a MUSA expansion, the City must comply with the regional guidelines and criteria for expanding urban service area. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL GUIDELINES The Metropolitan Council Blueprint identifies the following policy and action steps that are applicable to urban service and rural service areas: POLICY 5: The Council will ensure that regional services and facilities under its jurisdiction are provided cost- effectively to support development and revitalization in the region. The Council will work with the providers of other important infrastructure to make sure the region has the facilities it needs to grow and develop. THE URBAN SERVICE AREA Action Step 5A The Council will provide regional services for urban -scale development only within the urban service area, including the freestanding growth centers, consistent with local comprehensive plans and metropolitan system plans. The Council will work with local units of government to establish the location and staging of the metropolitan urban service area. Action Step 5B The Council will retain the current urban service area boundary for the year 2000, making appropriate changes after verifying land demand and supply with local governments along the boundary line. Action Step 5C The Council will work with local communities through the comprehensive planning process to designate areas for longer term future urbanization by establishing 2005 and 2010 urban service area boundaries. THE RURAL SERVICE AREA Action Step 5D The Council will support three land use types outside the metropolitan urban service area; commercial agriculture, rural centers and general rural use. The rural service area includes the commercial agricultural area, rural centers and the general rural use area. The commercial agricultural area includes "agricultural preserve" land under the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act that is certified by the local government as eligible for the agricultural preserves program. It also includes the long term agricultural land that is categories as Class I, II, III or irrigated Class IV land according to the Capability Classification Systems of the Soil Conservation Service and the county soil survey. In a prime farmland area, the Council will support a density of one housing unit per 40 acres. The rural centers are 34 small cities that used to serve primarily as retail and transportation centers for surrounding agricultural areas, but are now home to many residents who work in the urban area and many industries with few ties to agriculture. Examples include Young America, New Market and St. Francis. These cities should pace development with their ability to provide their own urban services, but without regional facilities. The general rural use area is land outside the urban service area that has a wide variety of land uses, including farms, provide for low density residential development and facilities that mainly serve urban residents, such as regional parks. "Low density residential development" is defined as a maximum density of one unit per 10 acres computed on the basis of 640 acre parcels (one square mile). Regional facilities and services should not be extended into this area to serve high density development like that found in the urban service area. 2 CRITERIA FOR CHANGING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY Increasing the Size of a Local Urban Service Area The Council will consider requests from local units for expansion to their urban service area. These requests will be considered together for their impact on the region as a whole, metropolitan systems, regional policy objectives and other units of government. Each request, submitted in the form of a comprehensive plan amendment, will be evaluated at both the local level and at a sub - regional level, as appropriate, and must satisfy the following criteria: 1. Forecasts and Urban Land Demand. Is there demonstrated urban land need? The Council first reassesses land supply and demand based on current Council forecasts and a comparison of figures provided by the local governmental unit. The Council analyzes the local community's request in terms of the urban land supply/demand in the pertinent regional data sector(s), cluster planning area (if applicable), the waste water interceptor and treatment plant service area, and transportation corridor area to ensure a five year overage. Land in a rural service area community will not be added to the urban service area for a net increase of serviced land unless there is a shortage of land suitable for development in the urban service area communities within the pertinent data sector(s). 2. Transportation Facilities. Metropolitan transportation facilities and the local transportation system must be in place or planned for implementation to maintain an appropriate level of service concurrent with the development proposed in the request. Analysis of transportation system impacts will include those communities or areas that are within the same regional transportation (highway or transit) corridor(s) or service area (s). Adequate capacity in the regional highway system, as defined in the Council's transportation system plan, must be available to serve any new development. The local government must have an up-to-date local transportation plan. 3. Waste Water Service. Metropolitan waste water service must be in place or planned for implementation concurrent with the development proposed in the request. Adequate capacity in the metropolitan waste water system (treatment plant and interceptors), as defined in the Council's waste water system plan, must be available to serve any new development. Analysis of waste water service capacity will include those communities that are within the same service area of the waste water interceptor or treatment plant. The local government must have an up-to-date local comprehensive sewer plan, including on-site waste water management requirements. 3 4. Staging. As communities seek to provide urban services to areas which are not currently urbanized, the communities must specify in five year urbanization areas, the timing and sequence of major local public facilities in the capital improvement program and also the official controls which will ensure that urbanization occurs only in designated urbanization areas and in accordance with the plan. 5. Rural Area Policy. Areas of the community not receiving urban services must be consistent with the Council's rural area policy for land uses and protection of prime agricultural land. 6.. Local Assessment Practices. The local government must have assessment practices that limit creation of vested development rights, to avoid premature requirements for the provision of urban services. 7. Housing. Local implementation of strategies and actions that: o Indicate that the community is providing its share of the region's low and moderate income and life cycle housing which includes a variety of housing types and prices for current and future residents; and o Allow for building mixed use or infill development and increasing the density of residential development (including along selected transportation corridors and at major transit transfer points). 8. Environmental Resources. Use of environmental factors to guide urban development. 9. Shared Services. Local plans consolidation and cost savings unit's place in the broader including relationship to school for service cooperation or as well as the government cluster planning context, district. Metropolitan Council MUSA Expansion Criteria In addition to aforementioned MUSA guidelines, the Regional Blueprint outlines specific criteria for increasing the size of an urban service. These criteria were used in the formulation of this Lino Lake Comprehensive Plan amendment. The City intends to demonstrate that its local objectives for land development are consistent with that of the Metropolitan Council. 4 FORECASTS AND URBAN LAND DEMAND After the national recovery from the recession and high interest rates in the early 1980's, Lino Lakes has experienced an annual increase in the number of new homes since 1984. Low housing interest rates and strong growth in the cities to the south has strengthened the residential housing markets in Lino Lakes, resulting in unprecedented strong growth over the past five years. Table A illustrates the number of homes constructed in Lino Lakes since 1971. Through the 1970's, the City averaged 64.5 housing units a year. This average increased in the 1980's to 122 housing units annually. Since 1990, the number of new housing units increased to an average of 265 housing units annually, with a peak number of housing units at 375 occurring in 1993. TABLE A LINO LAKES BUILDING PERMITS Number Year of Homes 1971 42 1972 41 1973 29 1974 25 1975 18 1976 42 1977 112 1978 166 1979 169 Sub -Total 645 1980 109 1981 79 1982 61 1983 104 1984 95 1985 117 1986 147 1987 152 1988 165 1989 193 Sub -Total 1,222 1990 176 1991 212 1992 349 1993 375 1994 213 Sub -Total 1,325 SOURCE: City of Lino Lakes 5 The rapid growth rate experienced in 1992 and 1993 raised concern among City leaders as to its impact on the City's ability to keep pace in terms of planning, utility availability, community services and the City's financial stability. To avoid over -burdening City financial resources, utilities, services and personnel, the City Council determined that it was necessary to establish manageable growth parameters for the City of Lino Lakes. An average annual growth rate between the range of 200 and 300 units was identified as being appropriate for future planning efforts. DEMOGRAPHIC FORECASTS All past planning efforts have been based on demographic forecasts for the City of Lino Lakes. The City forecasts were periodically revised to reflect the changing growth patterns in the City. As shown in Table B, past forecasts have been close to the mark in projecting the 1990 population and household counts for the City. Both the City Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the 1993 Metropolitan Council demographic forecasts have made growth projections for Lino Lakes extending to 2010 and beyond. In review of these projections, the City assumed a growth rate of 210 units annually beyond the year 1990. The Metropolitan Council estimates a growth rate of 200 units annually between 1990 and 2010, with an increase to 240 units annually beyond 2010. TABLE B HISTORICAL LINO LAKES POPULATION PROJECTION Proj. Projection Years Date Source 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Population: 1981 City 5,700 9,200 1986 Met Council 4,966 7,500 8,600 1987 City 4,966 8,532 --- 1990 City 4,966 9,105 15,022 20,070 1993 Met Council 4,966 8,807 14,600 19,600 25,000 Household: 1986 Met Council 1987 City 1990 City 1993 Met Council 1,388 2,300 2,800 1,388 2,483 --- 1,388 2,793 4,893 1,388 2,603 4,600 1990 Census: Population 8,807 Households 2,602 6 6,993 6,600 9,000 Based on the growth parameters identified by the City Council, the following growth projections were prepared. The forecasts represent a range of growth based on annual local growth of 200, 250 and 300 housing units annually. TABLE C LINO LAKES POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD FORECASTS 1990 - 2010 Jan2 19901 1994 2000 2010 200 Units Per Year: Population 8,807 12,177 15,500 20,390 Household 2,603 3,690 4,890 6,890 Household Size3 3.38 3.30 3.17 2.96 250 Units Per Year: Population 8,807 12,177 16,450 22,760 Household 2,603 3,690 5,190 7,690 Household Size3 3.38 3.30 3.17 2.96 300 Units Per Year: Population 8,807 12,177 17,400 25,130 Household 2,603 3,690 5,490 8,490 Household Size3 3.38 3.30 3.17 2.96 1 1990 Census information. 2 1994 estimate represents first of the year. New housing units from 1990 through 1994 factored by a 2 o City-wide vacancy rate was used to generate household estimate. 3 Household size forecasts are reflective of the household size estimates of the Metropolitan Council. The 200 unit per year projection is generally consistent with demographic forecasts of the City Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the 1993 Metropolitan Council forecast. In review of the City's growth over the last five years, these projections may be very conservative. Continued growth in the northern Twin Cities metropolitan suburban communities has strengthened the residential markets in Lino Lakes. As previously noted, the construction rate since 1990 has more than doubled what was experienced in the previous decade. Since 1990, the City has averaged 265 new housing units per year. In 1992 and 1993, the City had issued 342 and 375 percents for new construction, respectively. The most recent growth characteristics suggest that Lino Lakes may sustain growth at a rate greater than 200 units per year. 7 The City's demographic projections showing average annual growth of 250 and 300 units represent a moderate and strong growth forecasts through the year 2000. In light of the limited land supply and other development limitations unique to Lino Lakes, the City would be supportive of a moderate growth rate of 250 units per year, provided that these forecasts can be periodically re-evaluated and adjusted to be reflective of actual development trends. RESIDENTIAL LAND DEMAND Based on the demographic forecasts, the City has estimated projected land demand to accommodate residential through year 2000. In generating these forecasts, the following development characteristics must be noted. Development Regulations Lino Lakes has seven residential zoning districts offering a broad variety of housing densities and types. While the City has experienced a variety of housing projects including single family, townhomes, manufactured- housing, and elderly housing, the predominant housing type has been single family housing. Urban single family residential development typically falls into two zoning districts. R-1, Single Family Zoning District. This zoning district provides for an urban residential environment. Minimum lot size is 10,800 square feet and 80 foot lot widths. Based on these lot size requirements, this zoning district may provide a maximum density of 3.2 units per buildable acre. R -1X, Single Family Executive Residential District. This zoning district provides for urban residential neighborhoods that offer greater amenities. The minimum lot size is 12,825 square feet and 90 foot widths. This zoning district allows a maximum density of 3.0 units per buildable acre. The City zoning regulations and the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act have impacted the development densities occurring in Lino Lakes. The Lino Lakes development regulations require that all newly platted lots have a minimum required lot area that excludes street right-of-way, floodplain areas, wetlands, and water courses. This requirement is intended to protect environmentally sensitive areas, preserve necessary natural drainage systems, and assure the property owner adequate usable lot area to accommodate residential space needs. 8 The 1991 Wetland Conservation Act has significantly changed the rules of development. The primary purpose of the act is to regulate development in a manner that results in no net loss in wetland acreage. This requires urban development to design subdivisions that: 1) avoid wetlands; 2) minimizes impact if some intrusion on a wetland is necessary; and 3) mitigates wetlands that are impacted. Development Densities The aforementioned environmental regulations have significantly reduced the development densities that have occurred in Lino Lakes in the following ways: 1. The 1991 Wetland Conservation Act applies to all wetlands. As a result, it has removed development potential from land that may have previously been developed. This reduces the supply of buildable land within a subdivision. 2. Subdivisions that must integrate wetlands into the lot layout frequently lose density due to irregular shapes of the wetland resulting in oversized lots. 3. The City standard requiring the residential lot areas to be exclusive of water courses mandates larger lots in areas of wetlands, floodplains and environmentally sensitive areas. A survey of ten subdivisions (Table D) developed in accordance with the City regulations and the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act reveals that the residential densities are much lower than the density standards allowed in the base zoning districts. After the consideration of the wetlands as physical constraints, recent subdivisions produced a gross density of 1.4 units per acre and a net density of 2.1 units per buildable acre. 9 TABLE D RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT DENSITIES 1993 - 1994 Net Gross Densities Upland Density (Lots/Acre Zoning Plat Acres Acres Lots (Lots/Acre) of Upland) Designation Country Lake.Estates 33 30.51 53 1.61 1.74 R-1 Oaks of Lino 9 4.19 9 1.00 2.15 R-1 Fox Trace 25 21.72 55 2.20 2.53 R-1 Pine Ridge II 10 9.01 18 1.80 2.00 R -1X o Pine Ridge III 10 9.31 19 1.90 2.04 R -1X Trappers Crossing 72 57.14 115 1.60 2.01 R -1X Quail Ridge 38 22.20 40 1.05 1.80 R -1X Pheasant Hills I -VI 120 60.00 125 1.04 2.08 R -1X Behm's Century Farm 93 52.36 153 1.65 2.92 R-1 Clearwater Creek Phase I and II 120 80.60 154 1.28 1.91 R-1 TOTAL 530 347.04 741 1.40 2.14 FUTURE MUSA DEMAND To accommodate future projected growth in Lino Lakes, it is necessary to have a sufficient supply of buildable land and infrastructure capacity. Based on the growth parameters established for the City, land demand has been forecasted in Table E. The land demand projection illustrates the anticipated number of housing units divided by the City average urban density to generate estimated land demand by buildable acres. Consistent with Metropolitan Council guidelines, the demand is then adjusted to provide a five year overage in land supply. Based on anticipated growth, Lino Lakes will have a 2000 MUSA land demand with overage ranging from 750 to 1,125 acres. TABLE E YEAR 2000 MUSA FORECASTS Number of New Housing Units Annually (Year 1995-2000) 200 250 300 X 5 X 5 X 5 Total Residential Units April 2000 1,000 Average City -Wide Density 2.0 1,250 2.0 1,500 2.0 Total Buildable Acres Needed by 2000 500 625 750 Five Year Overage X 1.5 X 1.5 X 1.5 2000 MUSA DEMAND WITH OVERAGE 750 940 1,125 EXISTING MUSA LAND SUPPLY In 1993, the Metropolitan Council staff estimated that Lino Lakes' total MUSA included 3,915 acres . This figure was based on the MUSA boundaries established with the 1990 Comprehensive Plan amendment, as shown on Map 1. Within the total MUSA, Metropolitan Council staff estimated that 2,134 acres of land was buildable and available for new development. Metropolitan Council estimates, shown in Table F, were generated through the use of a region -wide GIS system that quantified the amount of various land uses, National Wetland Inventory features, and undeveloped land within the City. 11 TABLE F 1993 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ESTIMATE OF LINO LAKES MUSA IN ACRES Residential Iso- Public and Multi- Single lated Recreation High Lakes & Family Family Farm Commercial Industrial Public Rec. ways Streams Vacant Total 1984 0 446 5 6 32 66 62 48 157 864* 1,686 1990 0 843 31 33 101 113 203 98 159 2,134** 3,715 Change 1984- 1990 0 397 26 27 69 47 141 50 2 1,270 * Does not include 376 acres of wetlands in vacant land (#8). ** Does not include 684 acres of wetlands in vacant land (#8). SOURCE: Metropolitan Council 1993 Lino Lakes staff expressed concern over the estimated acreage of buildable MUSA presented by the Metropolitan Council. Existing development patterns in the City suggested that the supply of land available for development was significantly less than the Metropolitan Council estimate. To attain an accurate inventory of land available for development, the City mapped the existing MUSA on a section by section basis to allow for a detailed visual tabulation of the gross MUSA, as well as a net buildable MUSA available for residential development. The gross MUSA was tabulated using a planimeter over the 1990 MUSA boundary map. The detailed tabulation of net buildable land used the following methodology: Step #1: The City produced 200 scale aerial photographic base maps that were overlaid by same scale mylar section map and acetate National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps. These maps provide a section by section base data of land use, and NWI wetlands at a scaled dimension. Step #2: Once a base map for each section of the City was created, the City delineated the MUSA boundaries, non- residential zoning districts, and the County park land. Step #3: At Step 3, the buildable vacant land available for residential development could be determined as of year end 1993. Land considered for development was upland area of residentially zoned parcels with a contiguous area of 5 acres or more. Lands included in previous approved final plats was not considered available. The buildable land was shaded in yellow to allow for measurement. The limiting boundaries of the wetlands were the more restrictive combination of the NWI and the 1977 wetland delineation on the section map. All land areas were calculated on a section by section basis using a planimeter. The results of the City efforts are illustrated in Table G. METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING AVAILABLE RESIDENTIAL BUILDABLE MUSA - Available Acres Shaded. - MUSA, County Park, and Zoning Boundaries. - 200 Scale Section Base Map. - Aerial Photography Map. 12/93 Areas TABLE G LINO LAKES BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY 1993 OF LINO LAKES (/) r/) W N (/VN (f) N 0) D) (1D) (CO) . V) 1) N N ion D) ((/1 D) N tn. (N (1) D) () (VD) D) 0) (D) D N() (1) mu' D N f.t; A D D D D D0nnn000rOrrr00rrnnn0A O n 0 n 00 > > 7 > >= > > > >> > > >7 > >7 > > > > > > 7 °> >7> > > > > N W d UI O V O O _ -+ N_ W d N O v _ O N N N N N NN N VN N N W jW WW WW WO - a) MUSA Acres Comercial Zoned MUSA Industrial Zoned MUSA Public Zoned MUSA Residential Zoned MUSA Total Residential Developed MUSA NWI Acres within MUSA Available Acres within MUSA (Upland Residential Zoned MUSA on Lots Larger Than 5 Acres) Non-MUSA Acres State ROW Acres Lake Acres County Park Non-MUSA NWI Acres Non-MUSA Available Acres (Upland Residential Zoned Non-MUSA on Lots Larger Than 5 Acres) TotalNWlAcres Total Available Acres Total Acres 0 0 0 35 210 0 0 285 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 270 430 90 80 0 0 350 245 0 265 450 255 180 315 185 100 0 0 0 4050 0 0 0 13 3 0 0 88 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 25 11 0 0 0 145 0 0 0 0 0 30 50 0 0 0 0 0 475 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 65 16 0 0 0 0 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 420 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 20 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 48 25 30 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 265 0 0 0 15 195 0 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 95 369 79 70 0 0 0 245 0 217 425 225 150 265 175 100 0 0 0 2890 0 0 0 20 15 0 0 70 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 45 255 25 70 0 0 0 0 0 45 140 175 50 160 135 0 0 0 0 1225 0 0 0 5 110 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 10 100 15 15 0 0 35 60 0 75 125 80 40 45 50 20 0 0 0 820 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 40 5 40 0 0 0 0 175 0 70 125 25 65 50 15 75 0 0 0 895 665 635 635 585 420 640 630 345 610 630 635 665 665 320 320 630 340 360 225 555 560 640 0 140 405 530 380 190 390 320 335 455 540 645 635 640 17315 40 50 0 0 0 0 0 10 35 40 5 40 40 0 0 0 55 35 40 0 0 0 0 50 45 0 0 0 0 10 5 0 0 0 45 15 560 0 20 235 0 0 0 0 0 50 45 140 0 0 135 120 385 145 0 50 265 185 405 0 0 0 0 15 135 150 210 100 0 0 0 215 105 3110 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 5 130 345 180 0 0 0 200 245 130 0 0 290 385 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 45 0 0 0 0 0 2440 115 420 475 125 155 140 130 20 295 385 400 50 70 150 220 500 235 25 50 410 470 515 0 30 105 95 125 185 235 265 190 130 240 270 290 335 7850 185 150 65 250 130 460 260 25 95 45 155 140 0 150 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 160 365 160 10 30 0 30 150 255 295 120 65 3770 115 420 475 130 265 140 130 30 295 385 400 50 70 150 220 500 260 35 150 425 485 515 0 65 165 95 200 310 315 305 235 180 260 270 290 335 8670 185 150 65 250 200 460 260 145 95 45 155 140 0 150 0 0 20 40 25 40 0 0 0 0 335 365 230 135 55 65 80 165 330 295 120 65 4665 665 635 635 620 630 640 630 630 620 630 635 665 665 320 320 630 635 630 655 645 640 640 0 490 650 530 645 640 645 500 650 640 640 645 635 640 21365 !2/20/4 Table G indicates that 895 acres of buildable MUSA are available for residential development. This supply is further reduced by development occurring in 1994, and the difference between actual wetland delineated at time of final plat and the wetlands defined by the NWI map. In 1994, Lino Lakes issued 213 building permits for new homes. One hundred thirty-three of these building permits consumed lots within plats approved prior to 1994, reducing the available lot supply in pre 1994 plats to 74 single family lots in eight plats scattered throughout the City. No single pre 1994 plat has more than 13 vacant lots available. Due to limited and dispersed supply of vacant lots existing in pre 1994 plats, land included in these plats was not considered available as existing buildable MUSA. In addition to the development occurring in plats approved prior to 1994, Lino Lakes also issued 80 building permits for housing units for plats approved and developed in 1994. Table H, below, illustrates the development and land absorption of lots created by plats approved in 1994. The residential development occurring in 1994 plats consumed 41 acres which was subsequently subtracted from the City's estimated supply of available MUSA year end 1993. 15 Plat TABLE H DEVELOPMENT IN PLATS APPROVED IN 1994 Net Additional Total Vacant Percent Gross Available Available Developed Lots Lots Vacant Acres Acres Acres Used Acres Pheasant Hills III, IV, V, and VI 91 64 70 101 48 14.24 29.97 Country Lake Estates 53 45 85 35 27 4.08 5.28 Fox Trace 55 50 91 25 25 2.27 2.27 o Quail Ridge 40 2 5 40 20 19.00 38.00 Pine Ridge II 18 17 94 8 8 .44 .44 Oaks of Lino 9 8 89 10 7 .78 1.11 Wenzel Farms 5th Addition 50 50 100 20 0 .00 .00 316 236 75 239 135 40.80 77.10 The second factor influencing the available buildable MUSA is the difference between actual wetland areas delineated in accordance with the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act and the wetland boundaries depicted on the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map. In tabulating available MUSA, the Metropolitan Council credited wetland areas identified in the NWI maps. The City, using nine subdivision applications having wetland delineations completed, has conducted a comparison between actual wetlands to the NWI wetlands. Table I illustrates that the subdivisions being developed under the Wetland Conservation Act are displayed an average of 50 percent more wetland area than was defined by NWI maps for these plats. Plat TABLE I COMPARISON OF ACTUAL WETLAND DELINEATIONS TO NWI MAPS Ratio of Actual Actual Wetlands Acres Gross' Wetland NWI Based to NWI Based Area Acres Wetland Acres Wetland Acres Country Lake Estates 33 2.49 .89 2.80 Oaks of Lino 9 4.81 2.45 1.96 Fox Trace 25 3.28 1.02 3.22 Pine Ridge II 10 .99 1.11 .89 Pine Ridge III 10 .69 1.02 .68 Trappers Crossing 72 14.86 3.06 4.86 Quail Ridge 38 15.80 14.38 1.10 Behm's Century Farm 93 40.64 23.26 1.75 Clearwater Creek Phase I and II 120 39.40 34.70 1.14 TOTAL 410 122.96 81.89 1.50 To date, the sites having the least environmental constraints and the largest contiguous buildable areas have been selected for subdivision and subsequent development. The trend suggests that 1.5 percent ratio show in Table I above represents a conservative adjustment to the NWI wetlands when determining the actual supply of vacant buildable residential MUSA. 17 Table J shows the adjustments to the available residential acres within the MUSA as tabulated 1 January 1994 by subtracting net residential land absorption occurring during 1994 and adjusting the NWI wetlands to be reflective of actual wetland experiences. Year end 1994, the City estimates 444 acres of buildable residential MUSA remaining. TABLE J YEAR END 1994 AVAILABLE RESIDENTIAL MUSA Available acres within MUSA as of 1/1/94 895 Available acres used in 1994 on a per lot basis (from "Net Available Acres Used") - 41 Available acres within MUSA as of 1/1/95 854 Additional wetland from "Actual Wetland Acres to NWI Based Wetland Acres Ratio" (1.5 * 820 acres NWI - 820 acres) - 410 Adjusted available acres within MUSA as of 1/1/95 444 In addition to the limited supply of buildable land, the location of this land further complicates urban growth. The City's supply of buildable MUSA is scattered throughout the community, however, the largest contiguous parcels are located east of I-35 and along Main Street. These parcels are located away from existing infrastructure. The extension of utilities is difficult without a development having the critical mass for financing both the utility extension and the internal plat improvements. This is required due to the Charter restriction that prevents the assessing of utilities without the permission of adjoining property owners. This situation stalls growth and does not promote contiguous growth patterns or the orderly extension of utilities. Anoka County assessment policy of valuing vacant buildable land having a MUSA designation at $2,000 per acre higher than rural service property suggests a financial vested interest in the MUSA designation. Land trades that would remove the MUSA from one area of the City for use in another is seen as taking value away from the property. The City is reluctant to become involved with taxing issues and compensation for lost value. A final discrepancy between Metropolitan Council's estimate of available MUSA and the City is that Met Council included land areas in oversized unsewered lots as land available for development. The City's calculation for available MUSA excludes any unsewered lots of single ownership having land areas less than 5 acres. The basis for this proposal is as follows: 18 1. The City Charter allows City residents to refuse special assessments for infrastructure improvements until such time as they made connection to the utility. Additionally, the Charter restricts the use of general funds in the use of infrastructure projects. The result of the Charter is that it prohibits the City from installing utilities in areas of unsewered lots unless they are petitioned for by the neighborhood and residents agreed to accept the special assessments. 2. Multiple property ownership, in conjunction with the City Charter complicates land assembly, prohibiting the creation of a single parcel large enough to create the critical masses to accommodate a privately financed project. Table K compares the Lino Lakes projected residential land demand through the year 2000 with its existing supply to identify the necessary MUSA expansion acreage. TABLE K MUSA EXPANSION ACREAGE Growth Year Parameter 2000 Demand Existing Supply Proposed MUSA Unit Per Year With Overage of Buildable MUSA Expansion Acreage 200 714 - 444 270 250 892 - 444 448 300 1,071 444 627 LAND BANK The current discrepancies between the Metropolitan Council's and Lino Lakes' estimate of buildable vacant MUSA is attributed in part to the way MUSA has been applied to land areas in the past. The blanket application of MUSA to anticipated growth areas has not provided for an accurate accounting of buildable land within the MUSA. As a result, some of the development potential assumed within a MUSA designation is far less than actually exists. This is particularly constraining in Lino Lakes due to the following local conditions: Buildable Land In January 1995, the City estimated that of the 21,365 acres within the corporate boundaries of Lino Lakes, only 45 percent or 9,695' acres are considered developable due to regional park, interstate highways, and environmental constraints inherent in the City. This has reduced the supply of buildable land in the Lino Lakes MUSA and reduced the development densities City-wide. Development proposals 19 considered under the wetland rules reveal the wetland impacts within the City are greater than originally believed, further reducing the supply of buildable land below the aforementioned 1995 estimate. 1991 Wetland Conservation Act The 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act significantly changed the rules for development. This act's primary purpose is to regulate development in a manner that results in no net loss in wetland acreage. This requires urban development to design subdivisions that: 1) avoid wetlands; 2) minimize impact if some intrusion on the wetland is necessary; and 3) mitigate wetlands that are impacted. Due to the extent of wetlands in Lino Lakes, the Conservation Act has significantly impacted the supply of buildable land, development densities, and development patterns in the City. The City survey of nine subdivision designs in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act reveals that actual delineated wetlands exceeded NWI wetlands,by approximately 50 percent. Past Development Patterns Prior to the 1990 Comprehensive Plan amendment and the 1992 Zoning Ordinance amendment that repealed the SR, Suburban Residential and SRX, Suburban Residential Executive Zoning Districts, the City allowed unsewered subdivisions with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. The 1990 and 1992 amendments served to implement a rural service policy of one unit per 10 acres consistent with Metropolitan Council guidelines. Review of Lino Lakes reveals a scattered pattern of unsewered subdivision impact on community growth in the following ways: 1. The subdivision established a suburban density that raises concern with regard to compatibility with urban densities. 2. The subdivisions are often resistant to the extension of utilities due to the cost of assessment to the larger lots. This resistance complicates the future planning and construction of local infrastructure. 3. The sensitive environmental features (i.e., wetlands/soils, high water table, lakes) inherent in Lino Lakes presents concern with regard to the proper functioning of on-site septic systems and the potential for their failure. The concentration of unsewered small lots present utility and environmental concerns if large scale failure would occur. 20 City Charter Lino Lakes is a charter city. The City Charter allows residents to refuse assessments for infrastructure improvements until such time as they made connection to the utility. This unique charter provision limits the City in its future utility planning. Local Assessment Practices The City has investigated possible land trades that would exchange MUSA areas. In review of this alternative, it was discovered Anoka County's policy to assess a higher taxable value on undeveloped land having a MUSA designation than undeveloped land outside the established MUSA. As a result of the property owners increased financial investment due to the land MUSA designation, the City believes that the County assessment policy creates a vested development right in the property. Exchange of.MUSA area would require compensation for the loss of value in the property. LAND BANK PROCEDURE In an effort to more efficiently utilize the MUSA allocated to Lino Lakes and to provide some degree of flexibility and accuracy in community planning, the City is requesting the Metropolitan Council allow the City to establish a MUSA land banking system. The City would request that its 2000 MUSA be expanded by 448 acres. Under the land bank concept, this MUSA expansion acreage would be held in reserve and dispersed as development proposals are evaluated through a formal review process. For future proposed developments, the system to be implemented will involve an additional requirement in the application and formal review process. As part of the City's approval of building plans or platting and development process (which requires improvement commitments on the part of the developer) , a minor Comprehensive Plan amendment involving Metropolitan Council review will be required. The Plan amendment which is intended for advisory purposes only to the Metropolitan Council and will involve an addition to the 2000 Urban Service Area, under current limitations not to exceed 448 acres of the land reserve designated for development by 2000. The Comprehensive Plan amendment process will involve a review by the Metropolitan Council. To insure Metropolitan Council that the urban residential growth follows an orderly and logical growth pattern, the City proposes to designate an urban expansion area which will confine the use of the MUSA reserve acres. Consistent with the following policy parameters, the urban expansion area will include the existing MUSA boundaries and 670 additional acres (see Map 3) which will allow 21 for some flexibility in the use of the MUSA reserve. The following parameters were used as guidelines for identifying the future urban expansion limits and will also serve to guide the distribution of the MUSA land reserve in a manner that promotes staged, orderly growth while maximizing the use of the MUSA allocation and infrastructure. 1. The property is contiguous to the existing MUSA and provides a logical extension of utilities in an orderly growth pattern. 2. Utility improvements respond to environmental, health, safety, and general welfare concerns. 3. The potential sewer discharge of the project is within limitations assigned to the City of Lino Lakes by regional agencies. 4. The developer/benefitting property owners assume the significant majority of improvement/service costs, and agree to pay assessments associated with extending service to serve their property. 5. The proposed MUSA expansion or trade is consistent with the City's infill policy which encourages urban development to locate wherever possible in areas where public investments have already been provided. 6. In considering land trades, the City should not exchange developable commercial or industrial zoned land for a proposed residential development unless fiscal impact concerns are fully addressed. 7. The developer acknowledges and holds all governmental units harmless should limitations on sewer hookups and/or MUSA land bank reserve be imposed. 8. The land does not qualify as a premature development or subdivision based on the following: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage capacity. b. Lack of adequate or safe water supply. c. Lack of adequate roads or highways to serve the subdivision or development. d. Lack of adequate or safe sewage disposal. e. Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. f. Lack of adequate public support facilities (i.e., schools, parks and recreation, fire and police, etc.). g Inconsistent with environmental protection policies. 22