Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.19.05 Work Session Minutes JOINT COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES October 19, 2005 1. Call to Order Mayor Soderberg called the meeting to order at 5 :00 p.m. Present for the Council: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson Absent: None Present for the Planning Commission: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson Absent: Richter Also Present: Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Tony Whippier, Assistant City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Audience: Doug Bonar, John Anderson, Frank Blundetto, Joel West, Yvonne Perkins 2. Approve Agenda MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by McKnight to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Overview of Objectives for Joint Workshop The meeting was intended to accomplish the following: 1. Low pressure - no formal action can be taken. 2. Provide information related to broader questions. 3. Although specific projects are identified, it is not intended to be a public hearing. This is not intended to be a site review for any projects. 4. Provide information as to where developers are proposing multi-family. Mayor Soderberg stated there were some questions about properties not in the City and some pressure to annex them and develop and there is no plan as to how to do that such as densities and types of developments. Councilmember Wilson mentioned the housing information brought out by the Met Council and what do we do with it and also the City participates in the Livable Communities program. Is it worth determining if there is a return on investment for our participation? Staffwill discuss these topics later in the workshop. Commissioner Larson asked if we will be discussing properties outside the City that we know will come in. Community Development Director Carroll replied there are some properties staff feels are appropriate to include in the City's boundaries. Number 5 on the MUSA map is not in the City and we do not have an annexation petition. However, developers have shown interest in the property. There are some properties where staffhas not seen a concept plan. Commissioner Larson felt if properties are on the radar, they should be discussed. Staffhas identified five properties to be discussed. 4. Summary of Pending Concept Plans That Include Multi-Family and/or Medium- Density to High-Density Components City Planner Smick discussed concept plans that have been received. Council/Planning Commission Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 2 a) Don Peterson and Adelmann Properties - Town & Country Homes (Vermillion Landing) The developer is changing what was originally proposed in the Master Plan for the Spruce Street development. There was a lot of high density and now the developer is proposing more medium density. This will have to be discussed in the review process. Commissioner Larson recalled we wanted high density for a purpose which was to get people into that area to support the businesses. Originally there were 52.5 acres for medium density on the Master Plan. The developer is now proposing 109 acres. The Met Council is requiring all cities to have a 3 unit/acre overall density. Staff had planned on using this high density to fulfill that requirement. Staff and the developer have agreed to not have any single- family in the Spruce Street development. b) Giles Properties LLC - Mystic Meadows 2nd Addition The east side of the concept plan shows future which is the Harris property which is not in the City. There is also a huge floodplain on the east side. The floodplain takes out the whole west side of the railroad tracks. The plan has multi-family and single-family. They are proposing 104 single-family and 282 multi-family. There are 198 platted acres. There will also be a regional park. Diamond Path will go through the center of the development. c) Mike Devney Property - Manley Land Development They are proposing 48 single-family and 184 multi-family. The Devney property is F and 3 on the MUSA map. On the north side is 21 oth Street, to the east is the proposed Biscayne roadway which will be a north-south collector in the future. There is a lot of opportunity to move people out of this area through 21 oth Street and through Biscayne. 210th Street will be crucial for the connection to hwy 3. The Traffic Engineer has stated 213th Street cannot handle the traffic and a stop light will not be allowed at 213 th Street and hwy 3. A stop light would be installed at 210th Street and hwy 3. He also proposed 213th Street be a right-in, right-out in the future. d) Bart Winkler Property They are proposing 106 single-family lots and 96 multi-family. The multi-family will be in the southeast comer. Biscayne would be the major north-south collector for this development. This is G 4 on the MUSA map. 213th Street will be the north route. Spruce Street is to the south. Getting Spruce Street across the Prairie Waterway to East Farmington will be critical. The Council and Planning Commission should consider opening Spruce Street to East Farmington. This is what was envisioned in the Thoroughfare Plan. e) Neil Perkins Property - Bridgeland Development This is a revision from what was shown at the Planning Commission. They had originally shown multi-family on the 17.9 acres. Now they are proposing to continue 21 Oth Street and propose detached townhomes. They are looking at 69 units around the outside that have 46 ft. lot widths. In the center there will be 41 units at 36 ft. in width. This would be zoned R-3. There would need to be a change in the zoning ordinance, or it could be done as a PUD. They have rear garages with an alley in the middle. This would be an association. The homes are Council/Planning Commission Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 3 approximately 960 sq. ft. The price range might be $193,000 or below which is considered affordable housing. 5. Review and Discussion of "Life Cycle Housing Implementation Program and Action Plan" (from 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update) a) General Housing Goals and Policies - 2020 Comprehensive Plan In 1995 the City entered into discussions with the Met Council about life cycle housing and housing goals. At that time the Council passed a resolution agreeing on housing goals. A few years later those goals were incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. These goals covered the next 15 years. In 1995 the goal was 36% and staff negotiated down to 32% for multi-family. As far as affordability in 1995,92% of the owner-occupied residences met the affordability standard at that time. The Met Council agreed the City could reduce it's affordable housing. Of the rental housing, 73% were affordable. The Met Council also agreed the City could reduce affordable rental housing. In 1995 18% ofthe housing units were non-single family detached. The goal was 32%-36%. For owner/renter mix, 76% housing units were owned by the people that lived in them and 24% were not. The goal was 70/30%. The density for single-family was 2.2 units/acre and the multi-family was 14 units/acre. Staff submits to the Met Council a Comp Plan amendment for MUSA or land use change. If there are densities for a development of3 units/acre or above there would be a Met Council staff level review and they can approve it. If there is a development with a density of below 3 units/acre or if the citywide density has slipped below 3 units/acre then there is a more extensive review process. The Met Council is an advocate of having a wide range of housing opportunities. b) Livable Communities Program - Participating communities Farmington has been a member ofthe Livable Communities Program for a number of years. A City does not have to be a part of this program. If Cities do participate in the program, the Met Council makes money available to them. How you meet your goals determines whether you will receive the money. c) Livable Communities Demonstration Account Projects (1996-2004) The LCA Demonstration Account is how the City obtained the $900,000 grant for the Spruce Street bridge. If the Council and Planning Commission decide they want to do new things in the housing realm that have not been done before, we could qualify for some of this money. For the Spruce Street development staff pointed out the mixed-use buildings and the walkable community, etc. and staff was successful in obtaining the grant. Staff is considering going back for another grant. Information was provided as to projects other cities have done to obtain grants. Council/Planning Commission Workshop October 19,2005 Page 4 d) Farmington's Housing Goals (Affordability, Life Cycle, Density) - Progress to Date Every year staff has to fill out a questionnaire and the Met Council gives the City a score for housing performance. Last year our score was 70 this year it was 42. The score covers a two-year period and some ofthe things the City has done in the past have fallen off. The City has gone down a bit in their standing with other cities. Ifthe Council and Planning Commission want to work toward raising the score, staff can provide recommendations as to what types ofthings can be initiated to accomplish that. Commissioner Larson mentioned for years they have been asking for larger lots. Community Development Director Carroll noted those will be available in Parkview Ponds. Commissioner Larson was concerned if we keep going for what the Met Council wants, we will not have the upper life style available. Chair Rotty agreed it was important to look at both ends. Community Development Director Carroll stated staff is not saying all we can build is affordable housing. The Met Council would like to see more of it than we have now. In the Spruce Street area if there are 100 acres of commercial/retail, the people working there may want to live here and we do not have much to offer them. That is why staff had discussed apartment buildings in that area to create affordable housing so they can live and work in their community. We do not have as much as we need. Commissioner Johnson stated you need to determine what is affordable and for who. Acting City Administrator Roland noted when the homes in East Farmington were built, they were considered affordable. Commissioner Johnson stated with some ofthese concept plans, we do not want apartment buildings in those locations. If there are apartment buildings, amenities should be nearby. Spruce Street is the most logical area for apartment buildings. He asked if Council wants to continue East Farmington the way it is designed right now with that style housing and neighborhood. If it is, that gives the Planning Commission something to go on. There are a lot of things to accomplish such as transportation, flood plain issues, etc. Weare getting bits and pieces instead of an overall perspective of what the Council and Planning Commission want the City to be. When Commissioner Johnson started on the Planning Commission the objective was to connect the northern and southern sections ofthe City. After that it was to get 195th Street across and then Spruce Street. How do we tie this together? The developers are coming in wanting to develop on the east side and we do not even know what we want. He asked Council for their thoughts and what they want for densities. He felt the overall picture was more important rather than piece mealing the City together. Councilmember Wilson asked if we finish what is in the pipeline and then impose a moratorium. Commissioner Johnson did not think that was the answer. It is a matter of good planning. He felt Spruce Street should be a focus and determine how to develop around that to make it a flourishing area. East Farmington needs to wait until there are more north-south corridors or there is some major thought process. City Planner Smick stated the Council has authorized staff to start the process for the system update plans. These plans include transportation, sanitary Council/Planning Commission Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 5 sewer, water, storm sewer for the east side. These system update plans will be the backbone for the entire east side. Commissioner Johnson felt it was premature to do anything on the east side until the Council has had a chance to review those updates. Chair Rotty stated last year when we did the MUSA planning, everyone felt comfortable with the plan. Recently a concept plan came to the Commission for the Perkins property which is not in the City yet. They felt they were doing reactive planning. He asked how serious are we to develop to the east? He felt we need to be on the same page as to where and how to grow. He has nothing against Livable Communities. It is the right thing to do. We need to provide everything we can. He asked if we have abandoned the MUSA map. Community Development Director Carroll replied all the numbers and letters on the MUSA map were property-owner initiated. Do we prohibit properties from development because the owners chose to not participate in the MUSA process 2-3 years ago? 6. Discussion of "Sequencing" of Approval Process for New/Proposed Residential Developments Community Development Director Carroll stated people have asked why we look at concept plans ifthe property is not in the City. The City has a good relationship with Empire Township because the City has agreed to not annex a property until the Council is certain development is imminent. When properties F and G on the MUSA map were annexed, it caused a problem with Empire Township because they said it was premature. Staffwill not present an annexation petition to Council until there is a concept plan that has some validity. The owners of the Devney and Winkler properties gave staff concept plans as part of the MUSA process. To start the process, staff asks the developer to give them a concept plan and then staff talks with the township to determine ifthey believe the property is ready to develop. Ifthe township feels it is, then they would proceed with the annexation. Once the property is in the City, it does not mean the property has to develop exactly according to the concept plan. We have to determine whether it will be residential or commercial and the density. This needs to be determined before it is brought into the City. System plan updates do not apply to all areas of the City because some areas are already in the system plan. The MUSA process follows because staff needs to make sure we can service the area first and a concept plan is needed to show the Met Council what is planned for the area. Next is annexation, because what is the point of annexing a property if we cannot tell someone that MUSA is likely to be approved by the Met Council. Next is the Comp Plan designation because property has to be in the City before a designation is made in the Comp Plan. Staffhas been trying to determine which properties have the fewer amount of issues to move them forward and save the properties with the larger issues for the Comp Plan update process. Staff would like some guidance ifthe smaller properties can move forward without everything stopping while we spend a year or two working out a Comp Plan amendment. If services can be provided up to Biscayne then staff can get into some allocation. If we are going to focus attention on one area and not accept plans for other areas that is in effect a moratorium. Are we only going to allow high densities south of the Spruce Street area and focus our attention on that and disregard other areas of the City in the meantime? Commissioner Johnson Council/Planning Commission Workshop October 19,2005 Page 6 replied there are no parameters. His concern is that ifhwy 3 is the north-south corridor we have to plan what will go in east of there. Dakota Estates is an example. There is no east-west corridor. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated some ofthe properties that may come in on the east side and properties already in the City that want to develop are all areas that are able to bring us plans. Further to the west is the 2020 Comp Plan. We cannot make people develop. There are properties on the east side that want to develop and we have to have a plan in place as to what we want. Owners are coming to the City wanting to develop and we have to accept them. Community Development Director Carroll stated part of the reason there is a benefit to allowing development is there is a gap of four properties along Biscayne that have showed an interest in developing. That portion of Biscayne could be paved and alleviate traffic on hwy 3. Acting City Administrator Roland stated we have been talking for the last 5-6 years about filling in the middle ofthe community. We have properties H, Q, 8 and below that Q, 6, 9 on the MUSA map. Nine is the Rother property. Giles development discovered there are wetland and flood plain issues which Rother has as well. Therefore the 208th Street extension looks more distant due to funding concerns from any developer who would look at that property. Rother may not be as admirable a MUSA property as we need. Maybe Rother does not get MUSA at this time and it goes to F and G. Things are different today than when we started the MUSA process. 195th Street is now a $13 million project. Commissioner Larson stated 10 years ago we had workshops on how to save the downtown. Biscayne was an option. For the downtown to survive the consultants said you will have to build to the south and the east. Do we need the bridge on 195th Street, because when 1 st Street was abandoned for the Eagle's Club there was supposed to be an at-grade crossing. Councilmember Fogarty replied it was not documented anywhere and so we do not get it. Acting City Administrator Roland stated they met with the County and 195th Street has to have a bridge because ofthe flood plain. Commissioner Larson commented on the Seed-Genstar property and we need to be very careful what we do. They are selling off land to other developers. He heard that was to get out of building the road. He wanted everyone to think about who will pay for the road. He did not want this to be missed so the City ends up paying for portions of 195th Street we did not plan on. Acting City Administrator Roland replied they met with Newland and the County yesterday, but they are committed to 195th Street. Councilmember Fogarty noted MUSA was granted to Seed Genstar not Homes by Chase. Weare talking about the big picture and she felt the MUSA Committee could be working harder. We reconsidered Devney and Winkler because we had new information. Maybe part of the process should be if Perkins wants to come in, they need to discuss it with the MUSA Committee. Maybe the MUSA Committee needs to meet four times a year to give people an opportunity to discuss their plans. Councilmember McKnight stated in lieu of any other plan, the current MUSA plan is the plan. We have deviated from it in less than a year. The plan for the Perkins property is not what he wants for East Council/Planning Commission Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 7 Farmington. He does not want hundreds oftownhomes and dozens of houses. But this is what we get when we don't stick to the plan. Commissioner Johnson stated when Spruce Street came in, his first question was how do we transition the downtown to the Spruce Street corridor to make the connection. Councilmember Fogarty added you are talking about laying out a plan between downtown and Spruce Street that as properties become available we have a map. Commissioner Johnson stated we have to have a thought process and a goal. The same for East Farmington, if we don't want what is currently there, what are your thoughts. He is not against bringing in apartments. He just wants them in the right spot with the amenities that should be there to make it flourish. Community Development Director Carroll stated staff has some parameters in mind, but have never submitted them to the Planning Commission or the Council. Staff could provide these for the Commission and Council to review and they would have this to look at for any concept plans. Commissioner Johnson stated it would be nice to have a grasp of what is there to work with. Mayor Soderberg asked why can't the Perkins property be industrial. We have industrial to the north. We have a shortage of industrial space. Commissioner Johnson asked what would be the ramifications to the residents. Mayor Soderberg agreed the question has not been answered as to what we want it to look like to the east. Councilmember Fogarty felt it was time for the EFP AC Committee to step up and make sure we have some hard lines out there. This would solve some of the issues. Hard lines with a timetable would be beneficial to both sides. Commissioner Larson would be supportive to say here is the line and nothing will happen past this for 10 years. City Planner Smick added the system update plans may determine the line. Community Development Director Carroll stated the ideal spot for more industrial would be along hwy 50 continuing from the industrial park. Chair Rotty had a problem with seeing Biscayne as being the savior. He asked if we were trading road problems from one to the other. He did not feel we could abandon the residents on the north side that have been told 195th Street and 208th Street would be good to get across. He is still looking at the MUSA map and thinking we had some criteria and yet he did not know if we have met that. Councilmember Fogarty stated the little things can make a big difference. It shows the City is trying to make the roads safer. Chair Rotty stated he is not against Biscayne he is having a hard time justifying the benefit. The question is what do we want to do on the east side. If we want to go to Biscayne, they will come to us. There will be a lot of development to the east and the roads to get people to hwy 3 are not very good. For Spruce Street to cross the Prairie Waterway will be expensive. There will be a lot of traffic on 213th Street. There will be a lot of pressure to go to the east. That will be the growth of Farmington without accomplishing anything we talked about in 2004 on the MUSA Committee. The Planning Commission will look at the plats and send them to Council and if Council is comfortable with them, that is great. Commissioner Barker stated the Comp Plan shows no development on the west side so the focus will be to the east. Commissioner Johnson noted they have not discussed the golf course property which is 160 acres. Councilmember Fogarty stated she has no desire to develop the golf course as residential. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated what is able to be annexed can come in a lot sooner than the western side which is Council/Planning Commission Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 8 in the 2020 Comp Plan. If we want development we will have to go to the east. Commissioner Johnson stated the question is still what does the Council want the east side to look like. Chair Rotty is trying to figure out who is the catalyst for development. Is it the City? Or is it developer and property owner interest? Councilmember Fogarty felt the City is in a switching zone. It used to be developer/property owner pushed. Ifwe can develop hard lines, that puts it back in the City's control. Commissioner Johnson asked ifthey want apartments on the east side. But it is not his perception of what he wants to see. Community Development Director Carroll clarified that staffhas not received any concept plans that include apartments for the east side. Commissioner Johnson asked if Council wants to see apartments, townhomes, multi-family, etc. on the east side. Councilmember Pritzlaff felt this meeting was to obtain information leading up to that and that another meeting would be necessary to discuss what they want to see on the east side. Chair Rotty agreed we do not want to do off-the-cuff planning, but we do want to make sure we are all on the same page. Part of the decision might come when the system plans are done. Commissioner Larson felt the decision as to what we want should be done with the Council and Planning Commission together. Mayor Soderberg stated he felt Council's general feeling is that development will occur to the east. Councilmember Fogarty replied yes, to Biscayne. Councilmember Wilson stated that is what the Comp Plan suggests. Mayor Soderberg stated we have indicated that to staffby defining hard lines. Councilmember McKnight replied maybe, there are too many questions that are not answered. Commissioner Barker left at 7:09 p.m. 7. Review of Status and Future Handling of MUSA Review Process Engineering wants to look at the System Plan Updates because they are a decade old. They are focusing on the southeast quadrant. That should be done late this year, early next year. There are three System Plans, surface water management plan, the sanitary sewer system, and the water distribution plan. The last one will dictate what the boundaries will be. Transportation will be a part of this review. Chair Rotty stated he was still operating under the MUSA map. The Planning Commission should not make any recommendations to Council deviating from the MUSA map. If Council gives the Planning Commission direction to go to the East, that would give the Commission some new information. Community Development Director Carroll stated some believe that the amount of MUS A remaining should dictate the amount of development we do. Now that the Met Council has expanded the waster water plant and installed an interceptor, the Met Council is in favor of development that is consistent with their goals regardless of how much MUSA we have left. He asked Council and the Planning Commission to think about what type of housing stock they want. If there should be more diversity in housing than we have, where should we put it. Acting City Administrator Roland suggested continuing this at the November 16 Council workshop. Council/Planning Commission Workshop October 19,2005 Page 9 8. Adjourn MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 7: 17 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant