Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/2009 Council PacketWORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Wednesday, January 21, 2009 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION JOINT MEETING WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADVISORY PANEL DRAFT 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW Community Room (not televised) 6:30 p.m. 1. Review City Council proposed changes 2. Discussion 30 Date: To: From: Re: WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Council Work Session, January 5, 2009 City Council Comprehensive Plan Advisory Panel Michael Grochala Comprehensive Plan Discussion Background The Comprehensive Plan Advisory Panel completed it's review of the Comprehensive Plan back in August of 2008. The plan was then forwarded to the City's advisory boards for review prior to a public open house on September 3, 2008. The Planning and Zoning Board held the public hearing for the plan on Wednesday, September 10, 2008. The board recommended approval of the plan with modifications by a 6 -1 vote. Based on public testimony the most notable recommended change made by the Planning & Zoning Board was to change the proposed density in the Urban Reserve District from the proposed 1 unit per 40 acres to 1 unit per 10 acres. The City Council has met several times since to review and discuss the plan. The plan was distributed to all adjacent governmental units for their required 6 -month review on November 14, 2008. The City Council has continued to meet and review the plan. At it's January 5, 2009 meeting the council confirmed its desire to make the following changes to the plan. 1. Incorporate 5 year phasing into the Staging Plan. 2. Provide for an intensive Comp Plan review every five years. 3. Lower the proposed density ranges (units per acre) for each residential district to reflect allowable densities in the 2002 plan. 4. Include requirements for affordable housing in all residential districts. 5. Allow for residential densities to exceed district caps as an incentive for developer to provide additional desired public values. Review Item No. 1. Each 10 -year stage has been divided into 5 -year phases to address council concerns over the pace of development. Additional policies statements have been added to the plan and are attached to this report. 1 Item No. 2. The draft plan currently calls for biannual reviews to keep the plan up to date. To address Item No. 2 staff has proposed additional language to be inserted as follows: "The City will perform an intensive review at least once every five years to ensure the plan addresses changing needs and conditions." Item No. 3. Staff is still reviewing the impacts of this proposed change. With the proposed change the density ranges would be as follows: Our initial review indicates that with the proposed change the City's overall net density will drop below 3.0 units per acre. The 3.0 units per acres is the minimum density required by Metropolitan Council and is not related to affordability but rather the efficient use of regional infrastructure. Additionally, staff was informed by Metropolitan Council that existing unsewered development, guided for future sewer service, would also need to be included in the density calculations. This further reduces the overall net density. Staff is currently evaluating several options including adjusting the proposed density ranges and the removal of several existing unsewered areas from Stage 1 /Stage 2 into the Urban Reserve districts. Staff will have a proposed option available for review at the meeting. Item No. 4. The City Council would like to promote the distribution of affordable housing in all residential districts. Staff is recommending the addition of a policy statement to the Housing goals in Chapter 4 as follows: "Establish requirements to provide for affordable housing in all residential land use districts. The implementation mechanism will be in the form of an ordinance, the drafting of which will necessitate some lengthy conversations with the council. A number of issues will need to be considered including but not limited to the following: 1. Does all residential development need to provide affordable housing? If so, how much? 2. Is it only required to be affordable for the first owner or also subsequent owners? 3. What financial incentives will the City provide, if any? 2 2008 Plan (proposed) 2002 Plan (recommended) Low Density 1.5 — 3.5 1.0 — 3.0 Medium Density 3.6 — 7.9 3.0 — 6.0 High Density 8.0 —15.0 6.0 — 12.0 Our initial review indicates that with the proposed change the City's overall net density will drop below 3.0 units per acre. The 3.0 units per acres is the minimum density required by Metropolitan Council and is not related to affordability but rather the efficient use of regional infrastructure. Additionally, staff was informed by Metropolitan Council that existing unsewered development, guided for future sewer service, would also need to be included in the density calculations. This further reduces the overall net density. Staff is currently evaluating several options including adjusting the proposed density ranges and the removal of several existing unsewered areas from Stage 1 /Stage 2 into the Urban Reserve districts. Staff will have a proposed option available for review at the meeting. Item No. 4. The City Council would like to promote the distribution of affordable housing in all residential districts. Staff is recommending the addition of a policy statement to the Housing goals in Chapter 4 as follows: "Establish requirements to provide for affordable housing in all residential land use districts. The implementation mechanism will be in the form of an ordinance, the drafting of which will necessitate some lengthy conversations with the council. A number of issues will need to be considered including but not limited to the following: 1. Does all residential development need to provide affordable housing? If so, how much? 2. Is it only required to be affordable for the first owner or also subsequent owners? 3. What financial incentives will the City provide, if any? 2 4. What is the potential impact to residential development within the city if affordability is mandated? What is the impact to commercial /industrial development? Staff is of the opinion that the proposed policy statement clearly identifies the council's preference and intent to provide affordability while still providing flexibility as we work through the necessary ordinance requirements. Item 5. The Council is proposing to provide increased density as an incentive for meeting higher standards or public values beyond the minimum required. Provisions for a density bonus are included within the Land Use Policies within the draft plan (pg. 3 -3, Policy No. 5 and 6). It is anticipated that the density bonus concept would get addressed as part of the zoning ordinance update, most likely as part of the PUD requirements. Discussion The City Council would like to get feedback from the advisory panel regarding the proposed modifications and concepts. Attachments 1. Proposed 5 Year Phasing Plan 2. Proposed Growth Management Policy Changes 3. Proposed Housing Policy Changes 4. Proposed Incentive Policy (pg. 3 -3, No. 5 & 6) 3 Jc•_. 1/.1.1.•-• ' xu»tLSSflt u ID VLIJIAYMi■I.La■tMLY ■J JVLLMO SUSSulJU■J.. . I I i 11 I I I + '1 i i m f1 :' �E - Rondeau L, "' 11 L G CC ,,•.. �� � ••' 1 Peltier .. © T F 1 ni, MI 11•1 ■ . -= ■177L. mmn 1 ..ma ■1 ■n • • n ► ., name 01. All varawn, rs-L. fir: �j� n o ill ih�_ • III —i' 1. 1i A II II 111111111111N ■ Ill 9 :r: `e w,.. 70:;..."; � 'lllllllllll IIIID� � e �I7[�Z'!III! . II 2 lir maul !Jn o le Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve Utility Staging Map City of Lino Lakes 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update N 4,000 0 4,000 Feet Stage 1A Planned Service Area (2008 -2015) sis Stage 1B Planned Service Area (2015 -2020) Stage 2A Planned Service Area (2020 -2025) Stage 2B Planned Service Area (2025 -2030) Stage 3 Planned Service Area (Post 2030) No Service Area j_•,j Municipal Boundary MCES Interceptors Regional Park Reserve Wetlands Open Water Right -of -Way CITY LN L" KES November 14, 2008 Prepared by Bonestroo K: /activework/Gisserver /0 00 58 8- 06 0 01 -0 linolakescomplan /staging. mxd DRAFT Growth Management Policy In addition to the tools described above, the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee discussed the development of a revised Growth Management Policy for the city. The Growth Management Policy should provide a clear basis for efficient development staging as well as flexibility to respond to market conditions. The new policy must work in conjunction with the staging plan to establish the criteria for moving from one staging area to another. The 2009 Growth Management Policy will include the following elements: 1. The City will create a fully integrated Comprehensive Plan and keep it up to date with biannual reviews. The City will perform an intensive review at least once every five years to ensure the plan addresses changing needs and conditions. 2. The Comprehensive Plan will include a staging plan defining development staging areas sized to accommodate forecasted growth. 3. The City will monitor the l0rr staging areas and annually determine if adequate land remains available. 4. All development must be located within the current 10-yrr staging area unless a Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved that redefines the current 10-yr staging area. 5. All development must be phased within each 10 -yr staging area in accordance with the staging plan unless the City Council determines, by resolution, to redefine the location of the current 5 -yr phase. 6:6. Prior to reaching the time threshold for the next 10 -yr staging area, or 5 -yr phase within a 10 -yr staging area depicted on the staging plan, the City Council will determine by resolution if the next area is to be opened to development. The following criteria will be used to determine where and when to open up the next 10 -yr staging area, or 5 -yr phase within a staging area, in accordance with the timing indicated on the staging plan: a. Adequate infrastructure must be available to support development. Appropriate analysis will determine if adequate infrastructure is available and what utility extensions and transportation improvements are required to support new development. If infrastructure is not available and cannot be made available in a timely manner to support expanding into the next 10 -yr staging area or 5 -yr phase within a staging area, the city may refrain from opening up the next staging area, or portions thereof. b. Different areas of the city can be considered independently. A decision to open one area of the city to development does not automatically open a different area of the city. Decisions to open new areas to development should clearly define and map the area being opened. c. This process does not require a comprehensive plan amendment because it is in accordance with the timing indicated on staging plan. 677,The following criteria will be used to determine if the city should allow a specific development project to occur early in a j -yr staging area, or 5 -yr phase within a staging area, prior to the timing indicated on the staging plan. a4 £ mpreliensivc Plan DRAFT f}:a.The proposed development must be located within both the current and the next 10 -yr staging area, or 5- yrphase, or located adjacent to the current staging area, or 5 -yr phase. e.-L) The proposed development must be master planned. Small, piecemeal developments do not justify redefining the staging area, or 5- yrphase. 4 The proposed, master planned project must provide discernable public values. e:d Adequate infrastructure must be available to support development. Appropriate analysis will determine if adequate infrastructure is available and what utility extensions and transportation improvements are required to support new development. There must be a commitment that the development will pay its proportionate share of infrastructure improvement costs associated with development. All development must adhere to the Resource Management System Plan, including all its components, as this plan provides a conservation design framework for growth within the city. Include standards in subsequent ordinance updates to ensure quality development that minimizes negative impacts on natural and cultural features of the community. DRAFT Proposed affordable and life -cycle housing policy revision: Goal 5: Improve availability of affordable and life -cycle housing Rationale: Lino Lakes, as a developing city, is expected to accommodate the projected housing needs, entry level through retirement, of the community's population. Policies: 1. Work with developers to identify innovative strategies for providing entry Icvclaffordable and life cycle housing. 2. Use redevelopment tools to revitalize aging residential properties, made possible by various federal, state, local government, and non - profit programs. 3. Provide expanded opportunities for housing ownership made available by various federal, state, local government and non - profit agencies. 4. Provide for and designate appropriate areas for high - density and mixed -use development. 5. Establish requirements to provide for affordable housing in all residential land use districts. Policies: 1. Create a housing development plan that defines the types and locations of housing development required to meet the community's projected needs. 2. Work closely with neighboring communities to ensure an integrated plan that is consistent with the Metropolitan Council's requirements and compatible with adjacent jurisdictions. 3. Ensure that the fully integrated comprehensive plan is kept current to provide a rationale for all decisions. 4. Create and maintain a development staging plan to manage growth and guide the orderly and cost effective provision of infrastructure at a rate that is consistent with forecasted growth. 5. Provide clearly defined incentives to achieve significant and discernable public values not achievable under conventional development standards. These public values include, but are not limited to: a. Preserving open space, providing park dedication and trails, and /or providing storm water management areas, in excess of minimum standards to implement the Resource Management System Plan, as amended, and Rice Creek Watershed District's Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan, as amended b. Using "Green" building and low impact development techniques c. Restoring /enhancing ecological systems d. Ensuring long term natural resource stewardship funding e. Managing stormwater using natural filtration and other ecologically based approaches f. Providing life -cycle and affordable housing g. Diversifying the tax base to lessen the tax burden on residential properties h. Providing infrastructure that benefits community beyond the project site that would otherwise not be financially feasible 6. Identify and define incentives offered to developers for achieving specific public values not achievable under conventional development standards. These incentives may include, but are not limited to: a. Density transfer /bonuses b. Reduced street and right -of -way widths c. Trunk utility and stormwater management fee credits d. Staging plan flexibility e. Streamlined city approval process f. Financial incentives when consistent with city policy 7. Encourage master planning to accomplish the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan including, but not limited to, implementing the Resource Management System Plan, as amended, implementing Rice Creek Watershed District's Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan, as amended, providing life -cycle housing, and diversifying the city's tax base. 8. Ensure, as areas are developed, that a specific development project bears its proportionate share of infrastructure improvement costs to the fullest extent possible. 3 -3 Adjacent Community Review Draft 11/2008