The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10.19.05 Work Session Packet City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promisingjUture. AGENDA JOINT CITY COUNCIL/ PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP OCTOBER 19, 2005 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Call to Order 2. Approve Agenda 3. Overview of Objectives for Joint Workshop 4. Summary of Pending Concept Plans That Include Multi-Family And/Or Medium-Density to High-QejlSlty Components a. Don Peterson J'fJii,t:'{jf,;:tProperties - Town & Country Homes (Vermillion Landing) b. Giles Properties LLC - Mystic Meadows 2nd Addition c. Mike Devney Property - Manley Land Development d. Bart Winkler Property e. Neil Perkins Property - Bridgeland Development 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 b. Livable Communities Program - Participating Communities c. Livable Communities Demonstration Account Projects (1996-2004) d. Farmington's Housing Goals (Affordability, Life Cycle, Density) - Progress to Date 6. Discussion of "Sequencing" of Approval Process for New/Proposed Residential Developments a. Concept Plan b. System Plan Updates (if required) c. MUSA Request (if required) d. Annexation Petition (if applicable) e. Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezoning (ifrequired) f Preliminary Plat g. Final Plat 7. Review of Status and Future Handling of MUS A Review Process a. City Procedures; Update on Implementation of MUSA Phasing Plan b. Metropolitan Council Guidelines 8. Adjourn PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT Council workshops are conducted as an informal work session, all discussions shall be considered fact-finding, hypothetical and unofficial critical thinking exercises, which do not reflect an official public position. Council work session outcomes should not be construed by the attending public and/or reporting media as the articulation of a formal City policy position. Only official Council action normally taken at a regularly scheduled Council meeting should be considered as a formal expression of the City's position on any given matter. -. City of Farmington 325 Oak. Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmlngton.mn_us TO: Mayor, Council Members, Planning Commission Members Acting City Administrator FROM: Lee Smjick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Joint Planning Commission/City Council Workshop:'" Concept Plans DATE: October 19,2005 INTRODUCTIONlDlSCUSSION Staffhas received a number of concept plans in recent months that include multi.familY~t'- Because these plans are merely conceptual in nature no formal action by the City CoUD.Oil',IJas.;b,,, proposed or requested to date. Staff is contiriuing to review the plans in order to ~ '. . following issues: 1. Land Use - Density and Types(s) 2. Transportation 3. Infrastructure (sewer, water, surface water issues) 4. Environmental issues (wetland, floodplains) Staff will provide brief' overviews of the attached concept plans at the Joirl-\PI~~,,;, Commission/City Council workshop on October 19th in order to provide a context forthe'4filel)~' that will take place at that time. - . ACTION REOUESTED None - informational only. Respectfully Submitted, Lee Smick, AICP City Planner T, ~. '-- - --' -..-4-..----.. .- _u""""$ ", '" II) E o c::C: .- >. "0,- . c.... o:l c ....lg aU :add .- c S ~ <l.l 0 >E-< ~ ~ CQ ~ .=: 100 rg . ~ ~ ~~ ;~ ~~II ~s i ..::-~eo I,. ~I.~ " ~~cij fliil OWQ: r:\Ptoiect.\IODeOllOf\fLNIJHEITS'\,OIl4ITS\08OB.lIlOl!4wt usn kWIl Ol1(: ~1:t2l105 11,01_ lIIIEfS:1607BIoS[ \\I".. _ '*-J>CO MYSTIC MEADOWS 2ND ADDITION .A GPI Giles Properties, Inc. ::'<... -.\...._~.~~~\~f?~\;.\ ";./' P AR~It#t]*ONPS l~>ll/"'\\\')~~'-/:>i""" I :~';f:-,. \ ~'!k:.'/ '/..1 , -11--1 \/-~ 1 ~ ~,:~----\( -'~~;.;. ~ - "~:::::'i ,": """ f -"111'- ,'r /.!--/ I ,~!( . ~-!~. .' :;:~~-\( I' I',ir- 1-' ]"-/ -~k.\. I . )~> ':--:--I:1i 1 I III , r---I II I 'II I III I III I III I III I III I III r---I II I III I III I III I III / III I III I III r---I l' I III I lit I 'T-' I II I I I 1 III I I I' III =1~~:':"'T~'~-~~1~-~-i~'=: - I - r 1 ---- , ct ". fr ... # I ..'lDtN.IJNI1S/IO'tN.1DfI.JDl. 'lDtAL UNIlS/tTOTN. AlJlEAGt-llt.o.w.-lA!DIDf1S -'lIEllNCIS-F\.ClCIllf'lMN) PUTUIIl:Pl.AT1(IINIU.: f\IMlEP"~1lC>>I =~~y=(7$') 1.I.1IAA'lEPAIlllDmlCA1lCIN: ~=~~::~PNIlCLAND: CONCEPT PlAN "" ~ IWDIOIVcPtWT1ko\''lHlSI'l.Nl~_ llIIIItPllllf-..sPll(PAll(~~ _~ OlIItCf_""'5OIANll DIU UCD/SlDPItOfESSlOII.ll. RlIlE ......W5CffH(5T"~ 1A. ~ft:f: ~ -:- = 0\ OL..O. A...CIAY.. "'_._.ICI,,",",.~ ------.---.--.--- -.-.-.-.-.- MYSTIC MEADOWS 2ND ADDITION F.ARMINGTON,MN 2005 IN ~ T D' ,(J(1':J<<1' 1""""""'1 ~ i - ,: ~ , I_O~ .. .. "".. 21.1~ 104"_ '" .~ "" .. K'" U1S~'-" .).11 Unlh/AL IO.Oo\c. o...UnIt8/o\c. U3UnA./AL 14.4o\c. 4.1OUnIt8/IlC. 6.IIOUftIt-lo\c. 1t.4o\c. 1"1'" :;. !!l::: .,':' " . .,' I -\.;. ~ .,; '" ;i b fi!!e. Q zf!? 1O~~g <:itn~;1O ~~~O~~ ~~~~~I!! iii"'a::::i~~ ',:" ~~ ~"f' · ,...: '. --""'Jiir ,...,V~_... .;;::.. ..., " " ~ fl ~ ~ " :!: " ~ '" ll! In ~ 2l .... < l!! '" ~ ~ '" .. .. '" l< I': 0 ill ~ ~ ~ 8 & \3 g: ]t ; g ~ ~ I . Ii! ~ ,.. ..... ~~ o' "'~ "". ,..~ "'. Z!i ;>~ "'- o !2: '" f o ~ '" 0" o xx Z ..., .... ,.. '" .... Z ..., ::s '" Z ..., ~ .... "" '" u Z o u . ~' i~~ .~!W ~; P.u; .~; !:t S:O' ,. "'. 0 <u:; ... o:::! :; u.l! ;; u.l' . ZI-E , . . " !i ~i p... i j!! .. I!~ Iii I (;~ I Y l-t I I ' I I ' I I I I I I I ~5 I I;Q 1- -I~)~ .L-J- 1"11 I I_I I I s~.:, c: ,!;~~ f- c:~T II'ir~1 I~:: I 1-r T\- 1~~10 -K 1;;ir-l_I" I. Ij~F, I .,1 I I "1 I ~.; r I " n , I F.": _ _ ~.~ -I f'j _ _' -L _ I. ~.~,~ L I_I -L ~ ~~~~~EJ:~~~f~ s~F~i ~ { :: III I'~~";'-\ ,,/-==r:=-.i ~ - - - - - - - - ---r- - - - - - -- - - - - - ~ - - - - _\ 8~ ~ . ~6 - v z ~ _.-r ;1 LJ,-lJ,il,Ll,l1~JJ:J,:J,~,Q,~J ~~T'TnT,r~:l 'V-fl----=', ,j-cWIll:1U' I. ;-\ r '=t" -1 \ . . / -. - '.. . ~ r~-1" '~,"\ G f\. - - . - - r--'-~ -1 i.~~. d \ ; ,{\'. . -.' f-'~ r" ~~:-l~ '- ...---; ;.k . ~ ;i H-=t-.. . "'. i~l'\...~.)\I.~.;';~~J E. ",--j ~...--t ,~8~ , , ,> ,,1. '.." .. I I ~ -t". , ',,'IP., ;..----.- ~' ' i-- +' . '!''''' , I ,-, ,!t~t, ~ !:; ~. '. , . J: >1--1 r--~ I' ' \ 1;' ~-i 'C;; "'-{- - ,:\ >'\ /\! r ~,.I, ':-+- ;'~ '~",' ;/~ -<' \ 0: I !: i ,-II-j--:.Tt1 ~~,~,~ \~ \ / ',,!l )..-,LlLJ. .. 1-" I ' ..! <. I I\.: >;\.' \ /..- t 'Y' \ _Lf-J L.:.. ,---1- -' '\ '\. ~ i' ;' r"-T 1:- I , \~'~~:::~>y!) \ .,~~ (<Vq~HTr:r~ \ /--~, \. "''' ~ I - I - : '[ -- X\ '\ J-\~' \ '~\ ~\'\~~~,~\;/i ~\I ~ i i~1 ~ )' .. i i- I .J \\ ."',,- ' \', Q il ,LL_L-l ", '-.. ",,:S( / /" ....../ ---r- . . - - . .:J/;~:'~ \~~.. \~ rr' ~ '',.- \ " ,'::>:P", '" ":"<\~'~~' f I rT'TrITT', " ",)::f~;:: \~\~\ / ~ i ';J'\C r~J f I ~ i .~ .' '::::;;:::"" \ .\ ,\ '.;~\~~.f-.l-. ~,,-L-L. ':' \"~~~" \ \'iK:, -. . ~ " "'" .....,,~.. .-. '~_:..:--\3~,~.-- ~ ~ B .. j j I , I I /,,---, , I ! ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ FARMINGTON SITE F"AR"NGTON. IrMNNESOTA I~~ U \ '- 1 \ \.:-J \ ml -==_~,e1-~\ \-~-\ n . -1 \ 1 H \ ~j~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2..;1:,' \\1 v~~ t1 '\} --------:-~ \I~~\~ [>'; $ I --\ ~ _...Xl >>--l \ I ~ \~ ~ t:f'/ ( . I ~. ~ [.\~ II"'III~ r.::l r"" rs:l ~ lt~ \ .1 1\ ~. ! \l~ ~~\~~I:W'1.J~~~j~' ~ ,~\ \\ " I JJ~ I ~~ ./, 'I.\i \ /"< .. 'ff.j :r-::::=:: - , , ~ \ \ I . _ I!! 0l ::::O:II~)- '1 rQ,_i::'1 : J"\\ 1\ ~ iI~ I ffii1 I [~ i ~ I ~;1 ! I i ~ " '~\ \ 1 , ~ ~ I I [!iI , rin ' o:i: '" 1EP ~'t~ ~ ! ~ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I [!Q I E:lJ I [:c::J r 1t!!I-;:: : ~ Ji--~I II \ '-- - - - - - .'\.. I I I ~x. " ~ t ~ I ~: ~ II ^ ) & I ~:~' ',,="= I I ,,~ ~ ~ ': I ,t'( \ \ J~~QQI "v I illil i E:o ' ~ ~ r!TIl11 i, ! : ~ \ ~ \ \ ~!~:i~ >- I ~ 'I. I ill um I : : 1 ~ I ~'.fl I l:Ji '; ~ CE"J ~ ~J a: I : --!-~t~ I I \ il~~ , I; LlliJ~ ~tJ I' ~ ~nlEEU_J!L ~-J ~~\ \ s." I nl1' ';;;;..::J ~tJ ~, rO~ r.\'\ I' 1'!!1 ~ ~ \ \ I /. /~ \ ~tJ i ~ II t:i!J}; :i~\\~\ \ \~ i ((I=~-/~\'"~' I g; i tt]]{!tt:,!,\ j\\I'~1 I 'I ~~:I' /'. .~, ~ ' ~~ ~I~~:\ \,~\\\\J~j . 1 II l/Jjjj .'f.i. >'Z_~ I [:c::J It=:.!!'" f' -i "1 .\\ 1 II \ ~ I Iii ~ ~ tJ '\ ~' ~ I' @]~ ~ ! I ~ \ \~'~ \ \\ \ I' .I~ 17.r-_,.._J~h~ L!ijl: !'.'~\l~. '~\\I\ /" I I ~ ii:"jnlnln ~:jj::jQI Q Q~ i ~: :1- !-b ~'<'~I\\\ ~ , I I m-:l T [lHn~ ~ 1jI \j \jlJj ~ I ..P- ~ l: i ~ \ ~~'-'-:--- - - - , I I ,I!.:r: I \;L ~ / ~" 't~. \ ~ '----:= =:= ~ f-- .~~...E.-_~ll:~ ~~~ I '" S' ~\ I Il/ :~ ~~[7L.1r, '~~:~' ~\~, 111 !-r ~\. \ ~~~\ L:!- _ ,';;~ ;' I~;.~ ';. ;,'; ~..~ ! '~I~' ~~.t\~ I' I " '\ ' ~r '., \\ ~\ I 71t- ---,.---.=J CAIIIIlIlIAA.... -.....,,,'.... _ - : I . '-.1, ., ~\ , '-"= IX....."'... ~ (ca.u:CTOR '0,) ".,~, RIO..... ~ " --1 :~ [' ::"'-. -~-.,,"' :;..,\ 1-' , "!!:'~ ~. r "'r I I 1...... _--L '::::::":"'",-L- ---,' -, --.::-"""" 'T-~-..:''!!'-\~~ .". I ~ I I I [ ...... <t ''''IF ..J I -_--- """"....IV...... .- ;, I - " '\ " I ~i'" , - - ----- ~ I I I . .......... "~~i~i ~, I -J-...,;..,;;;..... ~ I I " "I;~ 1\1 I ; ! i i I \;ij~ I !~~~fi ~H~~~ i~~.:e.lil~....rm ~ ;llg"~ ~;>;ll ~i ~'i I nHU~~ilI~"! '''ilI I i~~&dqz] ~:~&urfij] ~::~hL:i!J ~!h ~~; !~ ~.~!<l H~~~i~ICl=:~~ ~~~~~i n~ n~::=i _~x li!~ :;~x ~l! ~~: ~~ _ Bi~~ ~~1lI i~ >~~ ' ,mmj;j!:lI4~il:ii ~~hii ~li~ i~~~~~ a-:t j: P ~ ~;. 1M scc; - j ~ !i!~ J~ a~~> ~~~ ",0 Ni8 ~aii. ~~2 2 il ~ , ~ ~ 5 2;;'''", ~~.< 1\ ~;H~I.' lla !lilla.~~14 ~~~ s~ .~~~, ~ilI" e ~ ~ "l z 8, '" ,,12~l!~ il" '" !;: !;: ~:s::;:.;!;!ll '~li ~ _-01" 71 iL----- ~~~ z . lil ~ lil ~ \!I";!i ~ ~ ". <i~ i;!~J~~~ 214 ,S61111~, 'I ."o~:lil l! ~ ~ ~ '3 1l '3 5 ~aQ~ lS~~ Ill~ ~_1l B.!!!~~ll~- _01 S12,' ~~ ;lI~ . _ z ~ l=ii J: ~N Z"'Z ~_ -:. ~~ I ~ .'):- d'':~ <l i\ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'Z ~~8 !;:el! ~q '", :~~~aa ~\! ~~ .. ,..g ,J .~ ~~~ e~ e~ "Q2~2~~~ Ill~ ili'''~U' Il~ " ~ 2" a . ~ $ ~ $ . l!" l!a- ,,~a -; a!'!~~ n2 ~ ~ 01 ~ oS q ~ oS ~ ~ ;!;1'" ;OJ;! ~ _ ~ ~ ,~~..... ~ . ~,J .... .... .... ~~i91 ~;u: ~ g~ 'l!i j~ ~~~ !; ~ ~ i5i~ BE ~~ ~~~"l~~ !~j ~ =g~ .... i ~ l~ '. 91 9> :er-P\P1 Q a~~ ;!iI ~~ ~ i~ l!l~~ ~ q ~~ ~21~i!\~,~l;"~21i!\ I ~~ ~~~ 5! ~ ~i ,., ~! s ,., ~ ~ ~~ 1 \~ \l~l \ ~ @\ ~ I f~~l I J:>o =, \ rV __<11 1 g I~\ I I '-"" :... ,11 I ~-~~~,--~= ~~ ,..- ( I ( \ \ \ \ \" \ \ " I-- 1.+. IT1 ~ 0 I ....~ ...... 5 Y' 5 ~ SKETCH PLAN .... t.I c.n a -" SUNRISE PONDS c.n FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA ==~E$:::k1n~: t':J..:-am....~Ue.:::::, the S1f3t. t.ll1lMSOto.~ P.t"'J"Kn~p.E. OaIe,~""".No.uau II i ~ Oi Terra -- ... -- ~-.....a....,. 6001 Glenwood Avenue Minneapolis, Minn..ota 55422 7835939325 Fall: 763 512 0717 Town homes go through roof Page 1 of3 Posted on ThU~004J Town homes go through roof Retired schoolteacher Sue Swanson and 29-year-old salesman George Schiltz may be from different generations, but their preference in housing is contributing to a boom in town home construction and sales in the Twin Cities area. Town homes are hot among retirees, baby boomers wanting to downsize and first-time buyers trying to find affordable housing. In fact, town homes now make up almost half of all new homes being built in the area. Consider: . Sales of town homes jumped 63 percent from 2000 to this year in Anoka, Dakota, Ramsey and Washington counties, according to an analysis of January-October data from the St. Paul Area Association of Realtors. Dakota County is showing the most activity in the east metro in terms of volume, with more than 2,100 units sold through October this year - a 71 percent jump since 2000. . Town homes made up 49.1 percent of all housing starts in the seven-county Twin Cities metro area in 2003, according to Residential Research Services Co., a Coon Rapids company that studies and sells reports about real estate. That trend continues this year, according to building permits. . The median selling price of $179,500 for town homes in the four-county area this year is up 40 percent from 2000. This is no fad, real estate observers say. "I think town houses are here to stay," said Betty Hardie, president of Residential Research Services. "They're going to be a significant part of the housing mix for a long time, partly because the baby boomers are in that state of life where they want to get rid of the big yard and big houses and all that stuff." The other key demographic is the first-time buyer, who may not be able to afford the typical single-family starter home. "Town homes are really the new affordable housing," said John Lockner, president of the board of the St. Paul Area Association of Realtors. About the only thing slowing in the town home market is that it's taking slightly longer to sell them, according to the Realtors' data. The average number of days on market has risen to 37 to 42 this year, compared with 30 to 34 days in 2000. But observers blame that on the fact that the housing market is slowing across the board. "They're slowing with the rest of the market," said Lockner. "But the transition we're seeing is from a seller's market into a balanced market." Town homes are holding their appeal because many models cost much less than new single-family homes in the same areas. George Schiltz purchased a town home in Woodbury a few years ago after trying to find a starter home. "I started looking at a lot of the houses available in my price range, but I couldn't find something that met my quality standard," he said, "With a town house you could buy a brand-new one and have that quality, At the same time, you have complete freedom. You don't have to do the yardwork." As the price of Single-family homes has skyrocketed, builders have turned to town homes for high-density construction that they can sell in high volume. Builders also like town homes because they can be put near freeways and commercial http://www.twincities.comlmldltwincities/business/10426651.htm ?template=contentMod.., 12/16/2004 fown homes go through roof Page 2 of,3 zones or on land not suitable for single-family lots requiring yards, Developers then can charge less for town homes because the high price of land is spread out over more units. National Association of Home Builders economist Gopal Ahluwalia said that town homes make up a small share - 15 percent - of the overall U.S. construction market but that they're much more prevalent in metro areas where land costs are high, a trend builders point to here. "The driving thing is the cost of land," he said. So far, real estate observers think town homes will continue to appreciate the same way single-family homes would. "In many areas, town homes have been appreciating at a greater rate than single-family homes," Lockner said, citing Woodbury, Oakdale and Hudson, Wis. Schiltz found that to be true. He put his Woodbury town home up for sale in August to relocate to Milwaukee, where he's shopping for another one. His place took two months to sell, a little longer than expected. In the end, he was pleased with the 30 percent appreciation in price. "I got my asking price," he said. "In this day and age, that's great - especially with the slowdown." OUTER-RING PHENOMS What are the east metro hot spots for town home construction? Blaine, Apple Valley and Forest Lake ranked among the top 10 cities in town home permits between 2000 and 2003, according to the Metropolitan Council. Others in the top 10 were in the west metro area. Meanwhile, Rosemount, Cottage Grove, Hastings, Lakeville, Stillwater and Woodbury ranked in the top 20 for town home permits. In Apple Valley, 75 percent of new construction consists of town homes, apartments and condos, said Rick Kelley, community development director. The demand for attached housing is high because Apple Valley still has a relatively large percentage of single-family homes, Kelley said. "It's a combination of lifestyle choice and cost," he said. Builders think that the lower prices of entry-level town homes will keep drawing first-time buyers well into the future. "More people can get into their first home this way," said Stephen Paul, vice president of the Minnesota division of Texas-based D.R, Horton, a leading builder of town homes in the state. "Instead of paying rent, they're building equity, and that will enable them to buy their next home." STYLES DIFFER To please baby boomers, retirees and younger first-time buyers, the styles of town homes are evolving with more variety, said Tammy Nelson, a spokeswoman for Illinois-based Town & Country Homes. Storage space will be emphasized at Town & Country's latest development, called Heritage Square, under construction in Maplewood, Nelson said. "They're laid out with a lot more storage than most town homes," she said, "They have the feel of a home," Whatever the look, those who live in town homes can attest to the convenience. After Sue Swanson hurt her foot 18 months ago, she realized she could no longer walk up and down the stairs of her five-story Cottage Grove home. She and her husband, Ron, were starting to consider retirement and decided the time was right for a town home. They had no trouble finding one. Their new Pine Arbor address in Cottage Grove is only half a mile from their home of 30 years. "I like the idea of living on one level. I can move from one room to the next, and cleaning is a lot easier," she said. http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/business/l0426651.htm?template=contentMod... 12/16/2004 Town homes go through roof Page 3 of3 ADDED INCENTIVES For those interested in buying a town home, now could be the time, because some leading builders didn't anticipate slowing home sales in recent months and are offering deals in suburbs including Maplewood, Hastings, Lakeville, Farmington and Woodbury. Cold weather and the holidays also see fewer sales. To entice buyers, builders offer such incentives as reduced prices, free or reduced closing costs, or a year's worth of association fees. "Up here, we're building a lot of homes on speculation, and we need to keep turning these homes," said Paul of D.R. Horton. Scott Sim, vice president of sales for Pulte Homes Minnesota division, said the Michigan-based company has goals to meet. "From our perspective, we're a publicly traded company, so there's always an interest in hitting our numbers," he said. "We offer (incentives) totally out of a response to market conditions," said Bob Swanick, regional vice president of Florida-based Orrin Thompson Homes. "We're accustomed to a higher number of sales. When we don't meet our objectives, we offer incentives." Despite the current incentives, experts say the predicted population increase in the area will continue to create demand for town homes. WHO BUYS TOWN HOMES? . First-time buyers . Empty nesters . Retirees . Two-income (busy) households . Single professionals Gita Sitaramiah can be reached at gSitaramiah@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5472. <<::> 2004 St. Paul Pioneer Press and wire service sources, All Rights Reserved, http://www.twincities.com http://www.twincities.com/mldltwincities/business/l0426651.htm ?template=contentMod.., 12/16/2004 . Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update 6. Comparison with Other Communities The City of Farmington has traditionally been viewed as an affordable community when compared to other communities in Dakota County. This is most likely because development in Farmington on a larger scale has only been in existence since the early to mid 90's. 7. Relationship to Regional Plans and Policies The City of Farmington is attempting to comply with the 1996 Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint concerning the expansion of housing opportunities in the region. Local officials for the City understand the importance of providing both affordable and lifecycle housing for the residents of the community and have promoted this type of development through approvals of proposed residential developments in recent years. The City is meeting the regional policies by locating higher density land uses along selected transportation corridors. The 2020 Land Use Map illustrates the implementation of this policy along CSAH 31, 195th Street and Trunk Highway 3. The higher density locations will also provide for transit-oriented, pedestrian friendly development because of the close proximity of these land uses near schools, neighborhood services and employment. Finally, the City of Farmington desires to work with the Metropolitan Council concerning the rehabilitation of owner-occupied and rental housing in the City. In addition, the City will work with the Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority and submit to the Metropolitan Council measurements concerning its housing performance through a biennial report of local housing conditions. Through this process, the City of Farmmgton and the Metropolitan Council can work jointly to plan "for a diversity of housing types and costs that meets residents' needs at all stages in their lives." LIFECYCLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM/ACTION PLAN Housing Programs In 1995, the City of Farmington adopted the Housing Goals Agreement under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. The housing incentives program is intended to provide funding for municipalities that adopt the program. The program provides funding for polluted sites clean up thereby creating a ''tax base revitalization account" and also provides an affordable and lifecycle housing opportunities account for the community. In 1995, the City of Farmington acknowledged a goal of 36% of the total housing provided in Farmington to be multi-family housing. This affordable and lifecycle housing goal was set for the period between 1996 to 2001. In 1998, the City of Farmington re-evaluated this benchmark of 36% to 38% and determined that this mark would be difficult to attain given the growing and suburban 50 Housing Element . Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update characteristics of the City (see Table 5.7). The following are rationales that the City of Farmington submitted to the Metropolitan Council for revising the housing goals to a range of 32-36%: * The market will dictate the feasibility of constructing multi-family housing within the City, and at present, the market is focusing towards single-family home construction due to the 855 single family homes versus the 49 multi-family units constructed from January 1996 to the present. * The City of Farmington has a limited amount of major employers with a large employee base to constitute an increased demand for rental housing at this time. In addition, numerous rental housing developers have indicated that without programs such as the Federal Housing Tax Credit program to basically "write down" rental rates, the current rental market in Farmington would support the rents needed to cover debt service plus a reasonable return on investment. Until the City's local rental market can support the market rate rent levels, multi-family construction will be limited to those private projects that receive federal housing tax credits or other public fmancing assistance or projects developed by public or not-for-profit agencies. * The amount of land available for multi-family housing at this time is limited, however, additional land is being provided for in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. The Metropolitan Council accepted the housing goal range of 32-36% in 1998 shown in Table 5.7. The City of Farmington will continue to encourage multi-family construction by developers and as land availability increases, the City will continue to re-evaluate this housing goal. 1998 Housing Goals Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Table 5.7 FARMINGTON CITY INDEX BENCHMARK GOAL Affordability Ownership 92% 64-85% 75% Rental 73% 32-38% 50% Life Cycle Type (Non-single 18% 36-38% 32-36% amilv detached) Owner/Renter Mix 76/24% (68-70)/(30-32)% 70/30% Density Single-Family 2,1/acre 2.3-2.5/acre 2.2/acre Detached Multifamily 15/acre 11-14/acre 14/acre 51 Housing Element Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update HOUSING DEMAND - GOALS AND POLICIES FOR FUTURE LIFECYCLE NEEDS The following policies and strategies were included in Chapter 3 - Land Use Element, however, it is important to reiterate this information to acknowledge the City's commitment to lifecycle needs within the community. 1. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to provide additional single-family and multi-family housing units. Strategies * Allow for high-quality residential development in the available areas according to the staged growth plan in order to meet the projected housing demand of 6113 households by the year 2020. * Allow an additional 760 acres within the current MUSA area and an additional combined 1074 acres from the proposed expanded MUSA area and from outside the existing City boundaries to be used for low, low-medium and medium development residential developments, * Promote traditional design standards to provide for a variety of housing types. * Provide for higher end, housing in the Fannington "community green" area that will be distinctively designed around a golf course, lake or open space and will be characterized by many amenities. * Approve proposals for private housing developments that are consistent with the residential land use designations. * Promote housing developments that support the small town character of Fannington and promote pedestrian-friendly characteristics. 2. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to establish residential density levels at Livable Community standards. Strategies * Establish the following residential land use standards as the citywide norm and ensure that these density levels are consistent with city development standards. Low-Density 1.0 to 3.5 units per acre Low/Medium-Density 2.5 to 5.5 units per acre Medium-Density 5.5 to 14.0 units per acre High-Density 12,0 + units per acre 3. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to maintain the housing stock at a high level of quality. 53 Housing Element Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update Strategies * Promote a Truth in Housing inspection report prior to every home sale or rental. * Require high quality design, materials, conservation and landscaping when approving new subdivisions. * Require compatibility of infill developments with surrounding residential context. * Use Federal, State and local funds for housing rehabilitation loans and grants for lower income and owner households in need of repair. 4. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to provide a variety of housing types for people in all stages of life. Strategies * Promote the preservation and rehabilitation of the existing housing supply. * Promote and provide for a mix of housing options: condominiums; townhouse; single-family homes; apartments; congregate care homes; co-ops and group homes that accommodates a diversity of residents. * Encourage the use of Minnesota housing subsidy programs. * Assist lower income households with home ownership, using available federal resources. * Promote first-time homebuyer, low interest loan programs. * Use low-income tax credits; combined with other private financing for the development of new or substantially rehabilitated privately owned rental units, * Market and promote housing gaps to developers and provide incentives to spur development. * Maintain between 32% and 36% of the total housing supply as multi-family units to meet the adopted Livable Community Act goals, 5. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to support a balanced supply of housing affordable to people at all income levels: from low and moderate to upper income. Low and moderate-income housing will also be located throughout the City and not concentrated in a few areas. Strategies * Approve proposals for private housing developments that are consistent with the Staged Growth Areas and residential land use designations, * Develop new housing affordable to lower-income people throughout each of the Staged Growth Areas, rather than only near existing concentrations of lower-cost housing. * Disperse, rather than concentrate, affordable, multi-family housing. * Avoid developing additional affordable housing in census tract areas and blocks identified as having concentrations of low-moderate income households. * Locate lower-income housing near transit, employment and other services. * Redevelop low-income concentrated areas to offer a greater economic mix of housing and residents, by adding middle and upper-income housing. 54 Housing Element ~203. 0 ~ Regional Development FRAMEWORK - Adopted January 14, 2004 - ~ MeUOpoUtan Couactl ~ with streets, sidewalks and trails. They can be planned as part of new development or created incrementally by adding the "missing pieces" - be they housing, jobs, services or street connections-to existing places in all parts of the region. The Council will provide technical assistance, such as the Local Planning Handbook, to help local governments implement community-appropriate practices like these to achieve regional objectives rather than using a checklist of expectations every community must meet. Many of the Council's tools for helping communities accommodate growth apply to all communities. For example, the Council works with all communities to plan and stage regional services. The regional infrastructure becomes the framework upon which communities add local services. The Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment provides a valuable database of natural resources of regional importance across the metro area. Every community can use the information as a starting point from which to build more detailed maps of local resources. The first table in this chapter summarizes the strategies that apply to all the region's communities. Table 2 addresses the Developed Communities, Table 3 the Developing Communities and Tables 4-7 the Rural Areas. Table 1: Growth Accommodation in All Communities Policy 1: Work with communities to accommodate I!rowth in a flexible, connected and efficient manner. Council Role . Invest Council resources-infrastructure improvements, grant programs and technical assistance - to accommodate regional growth while using regional systems and land efficiently. . Conserve natural resources-particularly water resources--and protect vital natural areas when planning and constructing regional infrastructure (wastewater systems, roads, transit, parks and open space, and airports). . Update regional plan for water supply and coordinate with public and private entities on regional water supply issues, source protection and conservation practices, . Pursue environmentally sound and cooperative water use practices, conservation initiatives, and joint planning and implementation efforts to maximize surface water infiltration to recharge groundwater supplies, . Maintain or replace regional wastewater facilities as they age or become obsolete. . Promote the inclusion of best practices for stormwater management, habitat restoration, and natural resource conservation in development plans and projects. . Promote proper management of individual sewage treatment systems (consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080). Community Role . Plan for development that accommodates growth forecasts at appropriate densities. . Adopt and implement a Council-approved comprehensive plan. . Maintain, replace or expand local facilities and infrastructure to meet growth and development needs. . Conserve natural resources-particularly water resources- and protect vital natural areas when designing and constructing local infrastructure and planning land use patterns, . Prepare local water supply and wellhead protection plans as required by the MLP A. . Develop and implement environmentally sound and cooperative water use practices, conservation initiatives, and joint planning and implementation efforts, including wellhead protection plans, designed to protect and ensure an adequate supply of water for the region. . Incorporate innovative stormwater management techniques, natural resources conservation practices, and habitat restoration projects into development plans and projects. . Adopt Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) management ordinances and implement a maintenance pro~ram (consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080), 17 =:? Policy 2: Plan and invest in multi-modal transportation choices based on the full range of costs and benefits, to slow the rowth of con estion and serve the re ion's economic needs. Council Role . Plan a multi-modal, interconnected transportation system in cooperation with state agencies, counties and local governments. . Expand the capacity of the regional transportation system to slow the growth of congestion. Support improvements to principal arterials and A-minor arterials, including county roads. Expand the regional trails system. . Support implementation of the most appropriate and cost effective techologies to manage and optimize the use of both the highway and transit systems (examples: HOT lanes, ramp metering). . Support a variety of freight transport modes to link the region with state, national and international markets. . Help communities comply with MNIDOT's access management guidelines. . Coordinate with communities, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure planned land uses in areas surrounding airports are compatible with Land Use Com atibi/i Guidelines or Aircra t Noise. Community Role . Plan and develop an interconnected local transportation system that is integrated with the regional system. . Develop local land uses linked to the local and regional transportation systems. . Plan for connections between housing and centers of employment, education, retail and recreation uses. . Coordinate with business and other public agencies congestion-reduction measures such as collaboration with employers, provision of information or incentives to minimize or decrease peak-period impacts, . Adopt improved design principles to support better access and traffic management . Use MNIDOT's access management guidelines to prepare local plans and ordinances. . Use Land Use Compatibility Guidelinesfor Aircraft Noise to plan appropriate land uses for areas surrounding ai orts. Policy 3: Encourage expanded choices in housing location and types, and improved access to jobs and o ortunities. Council Role . Provide guidance and negotiate lifecycle and affordable housing goals in implementing the Livable Communities Act (LCA) and Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLP A), . Invest Council resources to assist communities and community projects that increase the variety of housing types and costs, appropriately mix land uses, increase transportation choices, and leverage private investment Community Role . Develop and implement comprehensive plans that provide land appropriate for a variety of affordable and life-cycle housing options. . Adopt local housing goals and implementation plans, . Use local official controls and resources to facilitate development ofa range of housing densities, types and costs. . Approve and permit proposed housing developments in light of population forecasts, existing housing stock, and current and future communi and re ional needs, as a ro riate. 18 Metropolitan Council - Communities participating in the Livable Communities Program . . Page 1 of2 Livable Communities Program LCA Participating Communities ="",..,,.,~;..._.,,,,...,,.,,-~r:"'=2-,,,"=_-=;'~-"""=~= Twin Cities communities participating in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA) by countY'E~!..January 200SJDetails about participation in the LCA (pdf). Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washin Anoka Carver Apple Bloomington Arden Hills Belle Afton Blaine Chanhassen Valley Brooklyn Falcon Plaine Bayport Centerville Chaska Burnsville Center Heights Elko Cottage Circle Cologne Eagan Brooklyn Lauderdale Jordan Grove Pines Hamburg Empire Park Little New Forest L Columbia Mayer Township Champlin Canada Market Hugo Heights New Germany (Farmingto~Crystal Maplewood Prior Lake St. Columbus Norwood/Young Hastings Dayton Mounds Lake Croix Be Township America Inver Eden Prairie View Savage Landfall Coon Victoria Grove Edina New Shakopee Mahtom Rapids Waconia Hgts. Excelsior Brighton Newport Fridley Watertown Lakeville Golden North St. Oakdale Hilltop Mendota Valley Paul Oak Par Lexington Hgts. Hopkins Roseville Heights Lino Lakes Rosemount Long Lake St. Paul St. Paul Oak Grove So. St. Loretto Shoreview StillwatE Ramsey Paul Maple Grove Vadnais WillerniE St. Francis Sunfish Maple Plain Heights Woodbu Spring Lake Medina White Bear Lake Park W. St. Paul Minneapolis Twp. Minnetonka White Bear Minnetonka Lake Beach Mound New Hope Orono Osseo Plymouth Richfield Robbinsdale Rogers St. Anthony St. http://www.metrocouncil.org/services/livcomm/LCAcommunities.htm 10/12/2005 livable Communities Account (LCA) Frequently Asked Questions April 2005 Participation in the Livable Communities Act 1. What steps need to be taken to participate in LCA? . The municipality elects to participate in the program by passing a resolution to participate in the Local Housing Incentives program (LHIA). . The Metropolitan Council and the municipality negotiate affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality. . The municipality agrees to contribute annually its Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Opportunities Amount (ALHOA) representing the minimum amount of local discretionary expenditures or contributions to assist the development or preservation of affordable and life-cycle housing for the community as determined by the formula in the law. . The municipality prepares a Housing Action Plan identifying how it will address its housing goals, . The municipality is then eligible to apply for funding from any or all of the three LCA grant programs. 2. After a municipality elects to participate in LCA, when is it eligible to compete for LCA funds? Once the municipality and Metropolitan Council negotiate housing goals, the municipality is eligible to apply for LCA grants programs, 3. What if a municipality chooses not to participate in the LCA? Municipalities that elect not to participate in the LCA are not eligible to participate in LCA grant programs, nor are they eligible to apply for funds under the Department of Employment and Economic Development's polluted sites clean-up program. The Metropolitan Council is required by the LCA to consider a municipality's participation in the LCA when making other discretionary funding decisions. 4. If an application is funded, what are the obligations that accompany the grant? Each grant fund has specific reporting requirements that are stated in the grant agreement. In general, every grant recipient must report periodically to the Metropolitan Council on the progress of the funded project including submission of a final report when grant-funded activities are completed or all grant funds are expended. Grant funds are generally paid to reimburse grant recipients for expenses incurred. Requests for reimbursement must include appropriate documentation. Affordable and Lifecycle Housing 1. What is considered "affordable" housing? The Council considers housing "affordable" if it costs 30 percent or less of the total income of a family of low or moderate income. The Council's definition of low or moderate income is consistent with the income limits used by other housing development and ownership assistance programs. Most Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) programs provide homeownership assistance to household with incomes at or below 80 percent of the median income. The federal low-income housing tax credit program for rental production targets incomes at or below 50 percent of the median income. When negotiating affordable and lifecycle housing goals with communities choosing to participate in Livable Communities programs the Council uses the following definitions: . Ownership housing: housing that is affordable to buyers earning 80% of area median income-in 2005, this income could afford a home costing approximately $193,700. . Rental housing: housing that is affordable to renters earning 50% of area median income-in 2005, this income could afford to pay $866 per month for rent and utilities for a two-bedroom unit. 2. What is "lifecycle" housing? Lifecycle housing refers to varied housing options that meet people's preferences and circumstances at all of life's stages, providing a balance of single-family homes, apartments, condominiums, townhomes and senior housing for independent living or with a range of assisted-living services. 3. Are the affordable and life-cycle housing goals, negotiated between the municipality and the Metropolitan Council, achievable? Yes, in time, The goals agreed to by the Metropolitan Council and the municipality are intended to be long-term objectives for advancing or retaining affordable and diverse housing options within the community. A municipality prepares a Housing Action Plan that identifies the steps it intends to take to move towards its long-range goals. Progress toward the goals depends on the efforts ofthe community, the private market, the availability of affordable and lifecycle housing resources and the use of local controls to create opportunities for meeting goals. METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT Accomplishments Budgeted Funds 1996 through 2004 1. Local government and regional commitment to housing: . Affordable and life-cycle housing goals are in place with 106 communities in 2004 . Goals through 2010, if achieved, would add nearly 43,000 additional rental housing units, including nearly 15,000 affordable rental units . 84,400 affordable ownership units would be added /(/ (tk 2. / Local government and market place investment: o The Council awarded $52.65* million in Tax Base Revitalization Account grants (160 grants in 31 communities) expected to: . Leverage $2.04 billion in private investment . Increase net tax capacity by $39.4 million . Include 17,368 new and retained jobs . Provide an average hourly wage of$12.72 for the new jobs . Redevelop former brownfields totaling 1,180 acres Communities awarded funds include: Anoka, Blaine, Bloomin ton Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Champlin, Chaska, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Falcon Heights Fannin ton, ridley, Golden Valley, Hastings, Hopkins, Lakeville, Lauderdale, Loretto, Minneapolis, New righton, Osseo, Robbinsdale, Roseville, St. Anthony Village, St. Francis, St. Louis Park, St. Paul, Shoreview, South St. Paul, Stillwater and West St. Paul plus Hennepin County *lnc1udes $2,8 million of 2004 funding awarded in January 2005 A- 0 The Council awarded $57.45* million in Demonstration Account funds (123 grants to 46 communities and three ~11 /' multi-city coalitions) expected to: )\~ A AIV~ · Leverage over $2.53 billion in private development investment ~ [w(/:'i · Leverage over $958 million in other public investment ~~!J \It ~ · Include 20,584 new and 618 rehabilitated housing units - single-family houses, townhouses, condominiums, -r:.t t P P Y \It rental apartments for families and seniors, and live-work housing. k~ · Offer replicable examples of: [J redevelopment and infill development including revitalized inner-city communities with additional housing and job opportUnities; redeveloped older suburban downtowns and neighborhoods with additional housing opportunities linked to neighborhood retail and commercial services, and public spaces. [J development in newer suburban communities, including town centers, that connects jobs, a choice of housing types, retail and commercial services, and community activities in close proximity. . Provide better jobs/housing/transportation connections through added housing and services in locations well-served by transit, or in areas where new transit stations, some combined with transit circulator service, are incorporated as a part of new projects. . Restore and enhance neighborhood environmental amenities to provide hikinglbiking trails, creekside linear parks, and pedestrian greenways. . Assist projects in the predevelopment stage that show potential to evolve into projects that could be funded with LCDA development grants. . Engage communities in working together to solve issues of regional and subregional concern. Communities awarded funds include: Anoka, Apple Valley, Arden Hills, Blaine, Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Bumsville, Champlin, Chanhassen, Chaska, Circle Pines, Columbia Heights, Cottage Grove, Crystal, Dayton, Excelsior, Falcon Heights,~olden Valley, Hastings, Hilltop, Hopkins, Hugo, Lauderdale, Lino Lakes, Long Lake, Loretto, ap e rove, Maplewood, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Mound, New Brighton, Ramsey, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Rosemount, Roseville, St. Louis Park, St. Paul, Shoreview, Stillwater, West St. Paul, and White Bear Lake; plus 1-35W Corridor Coalition (Arden Hills, Blaine, Circle Pines, Mounds View, New Brighton, Roseville and Shoreview); Northwest Housing Resource Center (Brooklyn Center, Crystal, New Hope, Robbinsdale); and Anoka County Housing Opportunities along the Northstar Commuter Rail Corridor (Anoka, Coon Rapids, Fridley). *Includes $7.5 million of 2004 funding awarded in February 2005 ~o Since 1996 the Metropolitan Council has awarded $13.2 million in Local Housing Incentives Account (LHIA) grants (85 grants to 50 communities) to assist with financing gaps in proposals expected to: . Include over $354 million in total development investments . Develop 1,730 new rental units including-ofwhich 1465 units are affordable to lower income households . Rehabilitate 539 affordable rental units . Develop over 557 new affordable ownership units . Rehabilitate 225-243 affordable ownership units . Provide home improvement loans to 1100+ homeowners Communities awarded LHIA funds include: Apple Valley, Arden Hills, Blaine, Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Bumsville, Chanhassen, Chaska, Circle Pines, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Cottage Grove, Crystal, Eden Prairie, Falcon Heights, Forest Lake, Fridley, Hastings, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Lino Lakes, Maple Grove, Maplewood, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Mounds View, New Brighton, New Hope, North St. Paul, Oakdale, Orono, Plymouth, Prior Lake, Ramsey, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Roseville, St. Francis, St. Louis Park, St. Paul, St. Paul Park, Shakopee, Shoreview, South St. Paul, Stillwater, Vadnais Heights, West St. Paul and Woodbury-with some cities participating in one or more awards made to multi-city projects: the Center for Energy and the Environment; the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation of the Twin Cities; and the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. ~ o In 2000 & 2004 the Council awarded Inclusionary Housing Account (IRA) grants totaling almost $4.6 million (13 grants to 8 communities) expected to: . Include $125 million in total development investment . Help develop 134 new affordable condominiums and townhomes . Help develop 578 new rental units-271 of which are affordable to lower income households Communities awarded funds included: Apple Valley, Blaine, Bloomington, Chaska, Golden Valley, Minneapolis, Plymouth and St. Paul Total LCA Awards o $127.9 million Conclusion The Livable Communities Act funding has been a valuable tool to help metropolitan area communities: . Build stronger communities through infill redevelopment of brown fields, tax base growth, and new jobs . Provide neighborhoods throughout the region with more housing opportunities linked to a mix of neighborhood retail and commercial services, and public spaces . Increase public/private investment to develop, improve, and preserve affordable and lifecycle housing. 4/12/05 ~ MetropoUtan CaUDen Livable Communities Demonstration Account Projects 1996 - 2004 Listed alphabetically by community followed by multi-community collaborations DEVELOPMENT GRANTS NOTE: . The LCA grant project descriptions that follow summarize the intentions of each applicant at the time the grant was awarded, as stated in their applications, . The descriptions do not report on the current status of any project-a distinction of particular importance for projects awarded grants during the first years of the programs, many of which are complete. . Generally, for projects awarded funds during more than one grant cycle, the project has been summarized only once in each grant program, with each award from that program listed separately following the name of the project. . When a project has been renamed, additional names are noted in parenthesis following the original project title. Apple Valley-Harmony Commons Development Grant Award: $2,356,244 in 2004 The Central Village project, which includes the Harmony Commons Landmark Corner, represents the next step in the evolution of downtown Apple Valley through the creation of a compact, mixed-use development that will provide multi-story, multi-use buildings with minimal setbacks and street orientation. Central Village will complement, as well as supplement, the existing downtown Apple Valley by providing another commercial and residential component to an already vibrant and successful area by incorporating the following components: construction of a variety of multi-housing products; creation of a walkable neighborhood environment; use of urban design techniques; use of innovative storm water practices; establishment of a network of green spaces and recreational resources; and development of cost- effective parking strategies, Funds will be used to help construct a below-grade parking structure. Bloomington-Central Station Development Grant Award: $500,000 in 2004 The proposed development includes a 500+ room hotel, 1,100 units of new "for sale" housing (goal of 10- 20% affordable units), 550,000 sq. ft. of renovated office space (new headquarters of the HealthPartners workforce) and over 1,500,000 sq. ft. of proposed new officel retail space-all on a 45+ acre site. The site is within 2 minutes of the Mall of America and the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport. The project design preserves open space on the site and includes numerous pedestrian linkages, plazas, underground parking, innovative stormwater treatment areas and extensive landscaping elements. The project, when completed, will include 7,000 employees and up to 2,000 residents at the site. One Hiawatha LRT line station is located at the center of the site while another station (28th St. Station) will be incorporated into the overall plan and a 3rd proposed station (American Boulevard Station) is on the edge of the project site. Funds wiH be used for the construction of infrastructure elements located adjacent to LRT station: pedestrian plaza, landscaping, mini-park, and pedestrian lighting Brooklyn Park-Shingle Creek Corridor Improvements (a.k.a. The Village) Development Grant Award: $1,000,000 in 2000 Development Grant Award: $500,000 in 2001 The city will remove the adjacent, obsolete Village North Shopping Center and surrounding buildings to prepare for redevelopment of the area as The Village. Vacant parcels will provide focus for new retail development. Office development will be concentrated at the key intersection of Zane Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. Civic uses will be introduced along Zane Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. Medium- density owner-occupied housing and high-density senior housing will be added. The 2000 grant funding award is for urban and wetland ponding to develop Shingle Creek Park, restoring Shingle Creek to create a central park amenity, spur other development and ensure long-term livability and stability of surrounding neighborhoods. The now-hidden creek will be connected visually and physically to adjacent areas and will offer a variety of recreational opportunities. Improvements to the creek will assist in managing water quality in the area. The 2001 grant funding is awarded for improvements to Zane Avenue. Brooklyn Park -Village Creek - I and Village Creek - II Development Grant Award: $346,150 in 2003 Development Grant Award: $1,180,000 in 2004 Village Creek is a 134-acre redevelopment area with the following key components to assure a long-term community solution: develop a market spine & entrance into the new 20-acre mixed-use development & provide a high quality streetscape; construct a Parkway along the creek to define the public park area & provide public access; create a significant creek and centralized park amenity to introduce additional recreational and housing focal points and amenities; reconstruct Zane Avenue and the Zane Avenue/Brooklyn Boulevard intersection to improve the Level of Service (LOS); remove the existing vacant & marginal retail (487,000 sq. ft.) & office buildings (100,000 sq. ft.), reconfigure and concentrate them into a "critical mass" along the new market spine; enhance the existing successful transit services; introduce & foster the development of a variety of owner-occupied town home and condo housing units; provide for all parking needs by distributing a range of parking options (on-street, structured, etc).; and increase overall site access through reconfiguration of streets and block patterns. Funds awarded in 2003 will be used to help acquire the Village North Bowl site to provide needed acreage for the new storm water and side channel ponds for the Village Creek Redevelopment Area and for needed right-of-way for Zane Avenue improvements. Funds awarded in 2004 will be used for construction of 650' market spine street. Burnsville-Heart of the City - I and Heart of the City - II Development Grant Award: $1,612,317 in 1999 Development Grant Award: $2,500,000 in 2000 Redevelop a low-density, 1960s-era site of 40-acres into a compact town center development pattern with mixed uses in a walkable environment. Three-story mixed-use buildings will frame a new city park, which will serve as a focus for civic and cultural activities. An arts/cultural facility adjacent to the park will offer opportunities for indoor and outdoor arts and cultural events. Housing will include rental apartments, owner-occupied condos, townhouses and senior housing with live/work units permitted. Twenty percent of the housing will be affordable at 50 percent of median income for rental, 80 percent for ownership. The 1999 grant funds will be used to construct three streets to establish a grid system and provide pedestrian amenities; construction of a community plaza; and removal of an old Texaco gas station for redevelopment as a gateway to the town center. In Phase II of the project, the 2000 grant funding will be used to: acquire property for Nicollet Commons Park and an arts/cultural facility; relocate businesses and- demolish buildings; and design, grade and construct Nicollet Commons Park. Chanhassen-Villages on the Ponds Development Grant Award: $500,500 in 1996 Redevelop 300+ housing unit~, commercial and office us~s, relocate a church and sC;;hool, and add recreation space with a transit facility at its core. This grant will pay for a portion of sidewalks, small pedestrian plazas and connections, lighting, boulevard plantings and a boardwalk across the village pond. Chaska-Brickyard Redevelopment Development Grant Award: $344,100 in 1997 Develop Phase I to include 64 new apartments, 30 new townhouse units, and 8,000 square feet of retail. Phase II will complete all public improvements and infrastructure, including sidewalks and pedestrian spaces, increased street parking, landscaping, bicycle racks, benches, lighting, and a new bus shelter. Phase III includes plans to develop an 18,000 sq.ft. building with commercial and residential. Phase IV anticipates the remodeling of existing businesses to complement new developments. This grant will assist , in funding street improvements, landscaping, demolition and the creation of a public feature such as a plaza. Chaska-Clover Ridge Development Grant Award: $750,000 in'2001 Develop a compact, mixed-use pedestrian and transit-oriented residential neighborhood on a 255-acre site at the western edge of Jonathan. Add approximately 1000 housing units, of which a minimum 30 percent will be affordable (130 units at 50-80 percent of median income and 198 units at 80-100 percent of median income). Cluster housing around a neighborhood center that contains an elementary school, community park, neighborhood retail center and civic center. This neighborhood core will serve as a trailhead for the Chaska-Victoria regional trail that will run through the neighborhood. Funding will pay for a community building and public amenities. Columbia Heights-Community Revitalization Development Grant Award: $575,000 in 1998 Redevelop a block between commercial and single-family uses to include 26 for-sale townhouses ranging in price from $108,000 - $140,000 (12 affordable at $120,000 or less), 18 tax credit rental townhouses for incomes at $30,400 (50 percent of median) or less, 70 senior rental apartments and a potential transit hub. The larger project area goal is the revitalization of downtown Columbia Heights, to be implemented through a master plan. Grant funding awarded to assist with preparation of a downtown master plan, the tax credit rental housing and the senior assisted living project. Falcon Heights-Falcon Heights Town Square Development Grant Award: $1,000,000 in 2002 The primary goal of this community-driven project is to provide a new transit-oriented, pedestrian friendly, mixed-use development while replacing a deteriorating shopping center. Town Square elements include: 120 units of multifamily housing with underground parking; 56 units of senior rental housing with underground parking; 17 owner-occupied townhomes; 10,000 sq. ft. of street level retail space within the multifamily building; and new amenities: public gateway, streetscape improvements, retention pond, green space, transit shelter, linkage to a neighborhood park. Farmington-Spruce Street Bridge Project Development Grant Award: $955,000 in 2003 This transportation corridor development will link Farmington downtown with a planned new commercial/retail and housing zone that could include up to 250 new jobs and 1,942 housing units at 14 units per acre. Farmington will use funding for a new bridge and extension of Spruce Street corridor infrastructure that will link the existing downtown to new development. Golden Valley-Valley Square Redevelopment Area B Development Grant Award: $510,000 in 1997 Redevelop a 29-acre area to include affordable housing, commercial retail, office space, public uses/spaces, and shared structured parking. This grant will assist in developing shared structured, parking, pedestrian connections; ponding/water retention as a public amenity; live-work townhouse development; zoning code review to allow innovative housing; building code analysis and design guidelines; and a live-work market study. Hastings-Guardian Angels Redevelopment Development Grant Award: $500,000 in 2000 Preserve and reuse a church, rectory and three-story school building for affordable housing, a day care, community center and domestic abuse shelter. Build ten rental townhomes on the one-block site. Twenty- six of 30 total units on the block will be affordable at 50 percent of median income. Grant funds will be , used to assist with renovation of the church for a daycare/preschool and community center for arts and youth, street repair and utility costs. Hopkins-East Central Business District Development Grant Award: $600,000 in 2001 Acquire six commercial structures and four surface parking lots on Mainstreet and th Avenue South, located one block from the Southwest Regional LRT Trail. Add 10,000 square feet of retail/restaurant use along Main Street. Add 60 - 100 rental and ownership housing units along th Avenue. Upgrade a heavily used bus stop shelter on Mainstreet. Add a public courtyard to improve access to public spaces. The grant will assist with land acquisition structured parking, bus stop improvements and architectural detailing. Hopkins-Marketplace Lofts Development Grant Award: $250,000 in 2002 This project will result in the construction of a four-story, mixed-use building with retail and for-sale housing, the largest vertically integrated project of this type outside of the central cities. Goal is to anchor the east end of Mainstreet and provide a catalyst for additional investment. The HRA will invest approximately $1.4 million in this project. This project will greatly diversify the housing options within the downtown, attracting residents who want the convenience and style of urban living. The architecture of the building will complement the existing pattern and style of Hopkins' historic Mainstreet. Uno Lakes-Legacy at Woods Edge Development Grant Award: $750,000 in 2004 This project will use grant funds to help purchase private commercial land to be combined with city land to create a 65-acre, $115 million mixed-use neighborhood at the southeast quadrant of 1-35W and County Rd 23 (Lake Drive). It will include: 450 units of Iifecycle housing (owner and rental townhomes, apartments and condos over commercial, senior housing, and workforce housing); up to 350,000 sq. ft. of retail and office space; a new YMCA; community green & pedestrian friendly environment; improvements to existing regional transportation infrastructure; and immediate trail access to the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve. Uno Lakes-The Village II Development Grant Award: $450,000 in 2000 Construct 210 rental apartments, 90 for-sale single-level and 2-story townhouses and 132 Y2 story town homes (some live-work) built into blocks, rather than the standard suburban isolated buildings. Twenty percent of the housing-42 of the 210 apartments and 18 of the 90 ownership townhouses-will be affordable at 50 percent and 80 percent of median, respectively. Design standards for housing, prepared by Calthorpe Associates (through a 1997 LCDA grant) represent a model for developing suburban housing. Remainder of the 50-acre Village will include senior housing, retail, civic uses and public spaces. Funding will support land assembly for apartments. Mendota Heights-Mendota Heights Town Center - I and Mendota Heights Town Center - II Development Grant Award:' $873,400 in 2002' , Development Grant Award: $300,000 in 2003 Town Center is a mixed use development that includes: a new commercial main street lined with two- story, mixed-use buildings around a town square gathering place; three Iifecycle neighborhoods with for- sale condominiums and townhomes and 60 senior apartments linked to existing neighborhoods with trails, green spaces and pedestrian friendly streets. Elements will include a village green, trail linkages to new and existing trails, interpretive markers uncovering the history of the site, native landscaping, wetlands, and a rain garden. Pedestrian-focused development and structured underground parking will maximizes open space and increases walkability. Grant funds will help create structured parking to serve the commercial development. Minneapolis-Augustana Village (a.k.a. East Village) Development Grant Award: $550,000 in 1997 Redevelop a block adjacent to Elliot Park into a small urban village with 150 to 170 units of housing, 200 underground parking spaces, 10,000 to 15,000 square feet of storefront commercial space and approximately 8,000 sq. ft. of office space. This grant will help fund a pedestrian greenway connecting new and existing housing with Elliot Park, the boulevard along South 8th Street, a raised intersection to facilitate pedestrian traffic, lighting, and landscaping. Minneapolis-Cedar Lake Midtown Revival Development Grant Award: $200,000 in 2003 This project will redevelop an underutilized 2.29-acre area to include two 4-story mixed-use buildings on two blocks that are 2-3 blocks from the Lake Street LRT Station and across from Pioneer Cemetery. The project includes: 96 affordable rental housing units; 41,000 sq. ft of commercial space (13 retail uses); 96 underground & 76 surface parking spaces; and 150 new employment opportunities. Funding will go toward demolition of the existing buildings. Minneapolis-Central Avenue Development Grant Award: $398,000 in 1998 This grant will fund operation of a re-grant program to fund property improvements that support the implementation of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. The foundation for CPTED principles is that design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a decrease in the fear and incidence of crime, and improvement in quality of life, Lighting will illuminate rear shared parking lots, rear entrances to stores will be encouraged, and second floors of businesses will be converted to housing to provide more "eyes on the street." This grant will assist with redevelopment using CPTED principles and lighting to support the CPTED effort. Minneapolis-Franklin Avenue Project/Street Infrastructure Development Grant Award: $725,000 in 1996 Revitalize an eight-block area of Franklin Avenue as the main street of the Phillips neighborhood. Improvements in physical access for able and disabled persons, mobility and safety will be combined with marketing strategies to attract private investment. This grant will fund a portion of a traffic redesign, traffic calming and street design project; assist with building improvements including renovating a location for a credit union and renovating a youth center building; and fund a business recruitment plan. Minneapolis-Franklin-Portland Gateway - I, Franklin-Portland Gateway - II and Franklin-Portland Gateway - III Development Grant Award: $500,000 in 2001 Development Grant Award: $500,000 in 2002 Development Grant Award: $246,150 in 2003 Overall project, in and around intersection of Franklin and Portland Avenues, will create approximately 100 affordable rental units, 17 units of homeownership housing and 28,000 sq. ft of commercial space. Gateway puts in place immediate and future directions for land use built on the area's attributes: proximity to downtown Minneapolis and access to employment, linkages to the dty's network of parks and tlie Franklin LRT Station. Phase I is the Children's Village Center, a 4-story multi-use, mixed-income project, and Hope Community Court, located on four vacant lots within the Hope Block. Children's Village: ground floor office space, area for incubator businesses and community gathering space, 30 units of mixed- income housing (1-3 bedroom) with rents at 30 percent of annual median income to market rate. Hope Community Court: 10 units of rowhouse-style townhomes and carriage houses, with six units of affordable rental and four for-sale units; sales prices affordable to households earning 50 percent of annual median income. Funds from the 2000 award will assist with construction of Children's Village Center and Hope Community Court. Gateway Phase II, the Jourdain, will create 41 mixed-income units and 4,000 square feet of commercial space ideally located on a highly visible intersection along a developing Franklin commercial corridor. Funds awarded in 2002 will be used for construction of the Jourdain. Phase III funds will assist with construction of new rental and ownership housing (town homes, condos, single- room-occupancy apartments) and community-supportive mixed uses in a vacant area at Franklin and Portland Avenues. Minneapolis-Grain Belt Housing Project Development Grant Award: $775,000 in 2002 In 1988, the City acquired the Grain Belt complex in Northeast Minneapolis before its owner could demolish the historic Brewhouse. The Northeast community is near the central business district and the oldest area of Minneapolis, displaying growing economic and social diversity. Various proposals were considered for Grain Belt but were unworkable until the Ryan/RSP proposal. Substantial public investments have been made in the Brewhouse, two 19th century buildings affordable for artists, and the Bottineau Library. The City has now selected a developer for parcels adjacent to the Brewhouse and the river for a mixed-use project, the first developed under the Upper River Master Plan. Grant funds will be used for acquisition/relocation/demolition of three houses and demolition of the 1950's warehouse building. Minneapolis-Heritage Park III & IV (a.k.a. Near Northside Redevelopment) Development Grant Award: $450,000 in 2004 Heritage Park objectives are to reconstruct an area formerly containing four public housing developments (with 770 units) into a stable, mixed income, mixed density, culturally diverse, high amenity urban neighborhood with 900 new housing units (440 rental, 360 ownership, and 100 elderly public housing units), and to reconnect this once isolated neighborhood with adjacent communities, jobs, schools, gathering places and services. Grant funds will be used for phase III/1V of the project to complete Van White Memorial Blvd, tying in with Glenwood & Plymouth Ave N, with pedestrian paths, lighting, landscaping, etc. Minneapolis-Hiawatha-Lake Transit-Oriented Development Development Grant Award: $100,000 in 2000 Site assembly to facilitate a mixed-use transit village adjacent to the LRT station on the Hi-Lake shopping center site. The corridor-wide market study for Hiawatha corridor identified the potential for a major mixed-use transit village at this location, including 1250 housing units within Y2 mile walking distance of the station. Minneapolis (Hennepin County)-Humboldt Greenway Development Grant Award: $675,000 in 1998 The Humboldt Greenway is a public infrastructure project that will retrofit an existing neighborhood with a new greenway amenity as a catalyst to private investment in housing redevelopment. The project will redesign eight blocks of Humboldt Avenue with parkway-type elements, including landscaped medians and boulevards, new open space, a pedestrian mall, and an enhanced Shingle Creek. In addition to development of the greenway amenities, a key objective is to remove structures exhibiting a blighting influence; specifically, small obsolete postwar houses and vacant commercial buildings. Redevelopment objectives focus on creation of life-cycle housing, including move-up family housing and senior housing. This grant will assist with land acquisition and site asserJ:lbly for townhouse sites. Minneapolis-Lake Street and Fourth Avenue South Development Grant Award: $740,000 in 1996 The project focuses higher-density, mixed-use redevelopment around the existing transit system and planned public improvements. The project uses public improvements to stimulate private investment, create employment and training opportunities for local residents, develop affordable apartments, and address safety and security issues. This grant will help replace a bridge; add lighting, bus shelter and right-of-way improvements; develop an incubator for food-product businesses; help rehabilitate a building for housing a restaurant and theater; and help create an employment and learning center, and a recreation field for youth, Minneapolis-Many Rivers Development Grant Award: $200,000 in 2001 Project will increase housing densities near needed services, public transportation and employment opportunities in an area where 60%+ residents do not have cars. The project includes: a two-building complex with 76 new apartment units and 14,825 sq.ft. of commercial space; 19 market rate rental units with the remainder renting at rates affordable to households at 50-60 percent of median income. It also will provide underground parking, a secure area for a children's playground, and a day care center. The project is located ~ mile from the Franklin LRT station. Funding will be used for construction of the childcare space. Minneapolis-Midtown Exchange (a.k.a. Sears) Development Grant Award: $750,000 in 2004 Midtown Exchange will be a mixed-use, historic landmark redevelopment in the Midtown district of Minneapolis. The key components of Phase I of the project include: Allina Commons which will house Allina's corporate headquarters, bringing 1,000 jobs to the neighborhood; 223 units of affordable and market-rate workforce rental housing and 88 loft-style condominiums to be located in the historic building; an internationally themed fresh and prepared food global marketplace; a 128 room full service hotel; a Hennepin County Service Center; additional retail and office space; and Metro Transit bus facilities. Funds will be used for window replacement to meet historic standards required for the former Sears building. Minneapolis-Near Northside Redevelopment - I, Near Northside Redevelopment - II and Near Northside Redevelopment - III (a.k.a. Heritage Park) Development Grant Award: $1,500,000 in 2000 Development Grant Award: $1,500,000 in 2001 Development Grant Award: $850,000 in 2002 Redevelop a 145-acre former public housing site into an amenity-rich, mixed-income community of residential, parkland, open space and institutional uses. The community will include mixed housing types and incomes- 440 family rental apartments, 200 to be public housing; 360 for-sale homes; and 100 public housing units for seniors. Development will include six unit types designed so that public and lower-cost housing will be indistinguishable from market-rate housing. It will also include a north-south parkway that will connect north and south Minneapolis. The divided parkway-style boulevard, designed to be the center of the neighborhood, will feature a greenway median, water features, sitting areas, walking and biking trails. Community and public space improvements include reconstruction of Basset Creek channel, wetlands/ponds upgrade, planted areas, complementary street network, and soil contamination cleanup. The 2000 grant will assist in constructing the north-south boulevard and median/greenway features, including watercourse/water features, paths, decorative railings/posts, pedestrian bridges, information kiosk, sitting area, bike rack, drinking fountain, trash receptacles, trees and other plantings. Funds from the 2001 grant will assist with construction of a greenway median, connecting open spaces, developing pedestrian crossings, and will also assist with design, site preparation and construction of North-South Boulevard. The 2002 grant will be used for the third phase of boulevard and median features: design, engineering, site preparation, construction, and streetscape/streetlights. Minneapolis-Phillips Park Initiative - I and Phillips Park Initiative - II Development Grant Award: $700,000 in 1997 Development Grant Award: $250,000 in 2002 Develop new housing and renovate three mansions creating new rental housing in a neighborhood served by transit and within walking distance to major employers; create and improve 20 affordable housing units; refurbish and enhance Park Avenue open space; create a central green with new walkways connecting to streets. The 1997 grant will assist in funding site and public realm improvements (removal of driveways to add yard space, enhanced landscaping, signage, lighting, fencing); renovating the first mansion; and capitalizing a grant fund for existing homeowners. Phase II will enhance the economic mix in the neighborhood by adding very affordable rental housing, increasing homeownership opportunities, and intensifying land uses. It rehabilitates ten two-bedroom dwellings in an existing structure and replaces a substandard duplex with a four-bedroom duplex. It constructs 12 townhomes, with access to services, for job-seeking MFIP participants. It acquires deteriorated structures for rehab/demolition/new construction yielding nine owner-occupied dwellings, rehabilitates 3 single-family homes, and increases lot size. It creates shared green space. The 2002 Phase II grant funds will be used for site assembly costs for construction/rehab to create nine owner-occupied units. Minneapolis-Portland Place/Joseph Selvaggio Initiative (JSI) Development Grant Award: $350,000 in 1999 Portland Place reconfigures a two-block area to create 51 home ownership (50 new and one rehab) opportunities in a mix of single-family, townhouses and townhouses. JSI, an eight-block area across the street from Portland Place, focuses on single-family exterior improvements, multifamily rehabilitation and public space improvements. This grant will be used for hard construction costs to help construct 19 new homes and one Victorian house for Portland Place, Phase II; and for public improvements and open space improvements for JSI, including traffic calming, green space, and children's play space. Minneapolis-Urban Village (Midtown Greenway Area) and Urban Village II Development Grant Award: $640,000 in 1998 Development Grant Award: $500,000 in 1999 Redevelop a 3-block, 6.6-acre light industrial area to include 210 mixed-income, owner-occupied housing units constructed according to development guidelines that ensure compatibility with existing neighborhood character and grid street system. Five housing types will be included: 16 townhouses, 70 live/work rowhouses, 12 duplexes, 10 mansion apartments and 94 lofts. Twenty percent of the units will be priced between $95,000 and $128,000; 10 percent of the units will be subsidized through homebuyer programs to provide greater affordability. Units will be within walking distance to a future Uptown Transit Station and adjacent to the 29th Street Greenway, a pedestrian/bikeway corridor, possible bus corridor and future LRT candidate, The 1998 grant will help fund land assembly, acquisition and relocation costs. The 1999 grant will be used for site assembly/acquisition, relocation and public improvements. Minneapolis-Ventura Village Carriage Homes Development Grant Award: $100,000 in 2001 The Ventura Village Carriage Homes project, funded in part by this grant, will increase housing densities near needed services, public transportation and employment opportunities in an area where more than 60 percent of residents do not have cars. It proposes to implement the carriage and alley houses portion of the master plan through a series of freestanding accessory units to be constructed by existing owners on the back portions of their lots. Housing densities on sites with carriage houses would be increased from approximately 8 units per acre to almost 17 units per acre. Construction would use an innovative building system to reduce construction costs and long-term energy costs. , Minneapolis-Village in Phillips Development Grant Award: $437,600 in 2002 A redevelopment project designed by and for neighborhood residents through a collaborative planning process among several Minneapolis non-profit community developers and residents. The vision is for a safe, diverse, sustainable, child friendly and transit-oriented village with up to 135 new housing units and 18,000 square feet of commercial space. The project increases density while preserving quality open space and the positive features of the existing area. Located X mile from the Franklin Avenue LRT station and on two major bus routes, the development will provide linkages to transit. Grant funds will be used for site assembly (acquisition, relocation and demolition). Minnetonka-Boulevard Gardens (a.k.a. West Ridge Market) Development Grant Award: $770,000 in 1996 Boulevard Gardens creates a new neighborhood that incorporates affordable and life cycle housing in an attractive, livable environment. It also provides the services, jobs, transit connections and neighborhood amenities that will ensure its continued vitality and linkages to the larger community. Boulevard Gardens creates a gateway to the community and fulfills a commitment for a planned mixed-use development. The project will develop 400 housing units, including Hollman family housing units; retail; parks and community spaces adjacent to a regional transit center. This grant will fund pedestrian linkages within the development and to the transit station, renovate a neighborhood park, and develop a community plaza and pavilion. Mound-Harbor Renaissance Development Grant Award: $1,150,000 in 2004 Harbor Renaissance is a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly district implementation plan for downtown Mound, phased with: main street-style multistory buildings featuring retail on street level and offices or housing above, along with angled parking; new housing choices, with a mix of incomes including senior cooperative apartments, rowhouse townhomes and loft/apartment style condos; a new greenway, trails, and traditional streets with sidewalks; central public parking and a park-and-ride lot with a custom shelter easily accessed from Hwy 110 & CSAH 15; reclamation of Lost Lake canal to Lake Minnetonka & additional public dock and boat slips; and stormwater management which uses rain gardens, filtration ponds, etc. to filter runoff. Funds will be used for the construction of a 2-level parking deck in the Auditor's Road District. Ramsey-Ramsey Station Town Center Development Grant Award: $800,000 in 2002 The Ramsey Station Town Center is the development of a compact transit-oriented mixed-use neighborhood on a greenfield site. Abutting the proposed North Star commuter rail, it will be a hub for employment, commercial, residential and civic uses. With sidewalks throughout, tree-lined streets, bike paths, rear alley and side yard access will be created, with a pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment benefiting the residents of the proposed 2000 units of lifecycle housing, The natural environs will be enhanced, providing wildlife habitat and connections to surrounding residences and businesses, with a green "spine" throughout and connected to the nearby Regional Park. Grant funds will be used to help construct a new central roadway that is key to the development pattern. Ramsey. Ramsey Town Center - I and Ramsey Town Center - II Development Grant Award: $2,210,000 in 2003 Development Grant Award: $363,756 in 2004 Ramsey plans a greenfield development that will result in a 322-acre transit-oriented, mixed-use neighborhood. The project is projected to include: 2400 units of lifecycle housing at an overall density of 15 units/acre, 420 of which will be affordable units; a 775,000 sq. ft town center with commercial development; and 35 acres of parkland. Development is expected to add 2100 new jobs in Ramsey. Several parks in the Town Center will preserve green space for recreation and natural filtration of stormwater, as well as establish a corridor connection for wildlife. Town Center East Park will also contain a reconstructed wetland classroom for ecological education. All of these park features are connected by a , network of trails that will link the Town Center to the regional parks and trail system. Parking for the town center core will include 3900 spaces in 4 structures, including a park/ride for possible commuter rail and bus services, as well as space for town center residents and patrons. Funds awarded in 2003 will be used for a 4-level, 500 space parking structure. Funds will be used for the construction of an amphitheater, pedestrian bridge, and trails in Town Center East Park. Richfield-City Bella Plaza Development Grant Award: $500,000 in 2003 City Bella, a mixed-use development in the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue, makes connections between retail, housing, community and natural spaces within this development and to other corners of the "Lakes at Lyndale"; provides extensive green space and a community-gathering place on top of an underground parking structure; and provides new housing choices with a wide range of prices, including affordable units. City Bella implements the next step of the city's Lakes at Lyndale Master Plan. The funds will complete a community plaza and park connected to Wood Lake Nature Center. Richfield-Lyndale Gateway West Development Grant Award: $500,000 in 2002 This mixed-use project will complete the renewal of a key entry point to the Richfield community at 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Along Lyndale Avenue, 28,580 square feet of commercial space, with surface parking located behind the buildings, provides contemporary neighborhood-oriented retail and office uses for the project residents and the broader community. Ninety-two loft-style condominiums offer a new housing type at a range of affordability levels to a community trying to diversify its housing stock. Fifteen townhomes line Aldrich Avenue providing a transition to the adjacent single family neighborhood. Grant funds will be used for land acquisition and assembly. Richfield-Richfield Rediscovered Apartment Remodeling Program Development Grant Award: $575,000 in 1997 Facilitate investment in apartment communities citywide to make them more livable and desirable. Provide remodeling financial incentives that make ownership of existing apartments in the suburban core an attractive business investment option through delays in property tax increases, deferred loans and technical assistance in design, remodeling, and financial advice. This grant will assist with implementing improvements at two case study locations, incentive deferred loans, and marketing. Robbinsdale-Downtown Development Grant Award: $780,000 in 1996 Rebuild Robbinsdale's downtown to enhance its drawing power as a regional destination for shopping and government services, hosting a range of social and commercial activities. Connect the downtown to a major employer (North Memorial Health Care Center) with transit, pedestrian and bicycle options. Provide increased opportunities for life-cycle housing and potential for new investment, including town homes, apartments, and larger single-family homes. This grant will assist with site development of underground parking in a senior housing and retail building, develop safe shelters and platforms at a new ~etro Transit hub, and help, acquire and develop sites for larger family homes and ,growing families. Roseville-Cornerstone Program Development Grant Award: $270,000 in 1996 Develop prototype redesigns for renovation of aging or outdated commercial strip corners and redesign housing to meet the needs of growing families who otherwise might move out of the community. This grant will fund redesign work, a portion of sidewalk, pedestrian path and bus shelter construction, and promotional materials. St. Louis Park-Park Commons Redevelopment - I, Park Commons Redevelopment - II and Park Commons Redevelopment - III (a.k,a. Excelsior and Grand) Development Grant Award: $1,200,000 in 1998 Development Grant Award: $500,000 in 2001 Development Grant Award: $1,100,000 million in 2001 Redevelop a 4.4 acre site (currently a vacant lot and 3 buildings) to include a 40,000 sq. ft. town green with transit stop and pedestrian/bicycle connections to Wolfe Park; multi-story, mixed-use buildings with 186,000 sq. ft. of leasable space; 92 new mixed-income residential units, and shared structured parking. The housing is planned to include 10 live-work units and 18 affordable apartments. The 1998 grant will fund a portion of shared structured parking and transit hub improvements, An additional $500,000 for structured parking and pedestrian improvements was awarded for this project as a contract amendment in January 2001 as the original 4.4-acre site was expanded to 15 acres. The 2001 grant will also help fund structured parking and transit/pedestrian connections. St. Louis Park-Louisiana Court Development Grant Award: $970,000 in 1999 Redevelop and reconfigure sixteen 1960s-era 2-story walk-up apartment buildings, rehabilitate 122 rental apartments, including 12 Hollman units, affordable at 50 percent of median income. This grant will be used to create pedestrian paths and park access, reorganize entries and parking, create clear access to a park, construct bus shelters and signage, acquire and renovate 11 buildings, and assist with credit enhancement and debt service. The city will work with Metro Transit to determine the appropriate location of one or more Metro Transit shelters. St. Paul-Brewery Neighborhood Development Grant Award: $750,000 in 1997 Rehabilitate this three-block area to include new and rehabilitated housing, an improved transit stop and bike path, commercial improvements and public open space improvements. This grant will assist with funding the gateway/public transit node on West 7th Street, an alley grid system as part of the townhouse development, townhouse building costs, public open space on the bluff, the pedestrian/bicycle link on Duke Street, and rental studies for Phase II. St. Paul-District del Sol Development Grant Award: $1,250,000 in 2003 District del Sol, the historic commercial hub for 51. Paul's West Side, is the focus of public and private redevelopment and reinvestment activities that are part of efforts to implement a master plan for the area. Funding will help provide infrastructure for the area's redevelopment by adding transit, pedestrian and bike improvements along Concord and Wabasha Streets, designed to improve pedestrian safety, increase transit ridership, and provide a link to the regional bike trail from the Mississippi River riverfront to South St. Paul. St. Paul-Koch/Mobil Development Grant Award: $900,000 in 2003 This project pl~ns to transform a vacant petroleum industrial site along the Mississippi River to a new urban village with 1,043 housing units and 15,500 square feet of retail on 65 acres. Plans include direct bike, trail and transit access to parkland along the Mississippi River. Grant funds will be used for site grading and utilities. St. Paul-Main Street on Payne Development Grant Award: $750,000 in 1998 Recreate an urban village at the Payne and Case intersection. Goals are to enhance the mix of businesses and improve their appearance; increase the mix of residential and commercial uses along Payne Avenue; and improve pedestrian and transit use through public improvements. The project will reintroduce residential space above commercial buildings, and add secondary units in existing homes. Total project cost: $9.4 million. This grant will help fund commercial and mixed-use acquisitions and improvements; and help fund a duplex homeownership program, St. Paul-Market Lofts Development Grant Award: $950,000 in 2002 The project has three components. Market Lofts will foster the expansion of St. Paul's public farmers' market by providing 15,000 sq. ft. of first-floor space for a year-round, regional market next to the outdoor market. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture supports this project as a national model for family farmers to diversify and increase their incomes by grower-direct sales of value-added products to consumers. Underground parking below the Farmer's Market space will enable conversion of the adjacent under-used, historic Northwestern Building into 65 condos. Forty-eight units of affordable rental housing will be built above the Farmers' Market space: 10 percent of the units at 30 percent of median income, 10 percent at 50 percent of median income and 80 percent at 60 percent of median income. Funds will be used for the regional year-round indoor Farmer's Market Hall and land assembly for garage, market and rental housing. St. Paul-Midtown University Village Development Grant Award: $550,000 Funds will help redevelop a two-block parcel in St. Paul with underused warehouse/office space, formerly housing Johnson Brothers Liquor Distribution. The site is on the north side of University Ave. between Hamden & Carlton Avenues, near existing high-frequency bus service, and adjacent to a proposed Raymond/Carleton LRT Station. The project involves creating 291 new housing units through rehabilitation of three 100-year-old historic brick buildings into lofts, and construction of two new residential buildings with ground floor retail and courtyard/atriums between buildings; softening of the street edge; adding green space, pedestrian-friendly areas, a tot lot play area, and 262 underground parking spaces; and improving access to existing bus service and the potential LRT station located near Carleton. Funds will be used for demolition and underground parking. St. Paul-North Quadrant Urban Village - I and North Quadrant Urban Village - " (a.k.a. Wacouta Commons and Sibley Park) Development Grant Award: $960,000 in 1999 Development Grant Award: $650,000 in 2001 Redevelop a 15-block surface parking lot into a mixed-use, predominately residential neighborhood (including 310 mixed-income ownership and rental units), centered on a public green that integrates new infill construction with rehabilitation and reuse of existing warehouse buildings and preserves two existing churches and existing businesses. Redevelopment is intended to both attract private development and improve livability. The 1999 grant funds will be used to realign Sibley Street between 8th and 9th to enlarge the block for new rental and ownership housing development; straighten the curve along 7th Street to calm traffic, regularize the street grid and create a larger, more developable block. Funds will also assist with first-phase improvements to establish a central green space. Funds awarded in 2001 will help with construction of the park. $t. Paul-Pan Asian Urbar:J Village Development Grant Award: $600,000 in 2001 Redevelop aging, auto-oriented UniDale Mall into a mixed-use, transit friendly cultural and commercial center and gateway to the emerging Asian business district along University Avenue. Includes 51 units of senior housing for a density of 25.5 units/acre; 40 percent of units will be affordable to households with incomes at 30 percent of median. Penumbra Theater plans to build on the southwest corner in approximately 2004. The project will integrate transit, utilize shared parking agreements, and apply urban village zoning to reduce parking demand and requirements, Funding will assist with construction of a parking deck. St. Paul-Phalen Village and Phalen Village Main Street Development Grant Award: $650,000 in March 1996 Development Grant Award: $350,000 in 2000 The city intends to develop a new compact, mixed-use residential and commercial, transit-oriented neighborhood center, located near a natural wetland with links to Lake Phalen. The 1996 grant will help acquire a declining shopping center located on a former wetland, restore the wetland to create a wetland park as a neighborhood signature amenity, and assist with assembling sites for a relocated grocery store and commercial development. The Phalen Village Main Street project funded in 2000 builds on a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the Phalen Village Area and includes four components: redevelop a strip mall on the Phalen Village "Main Street" to develop rental townhouses and a mixed-use building with a main floor convenience store and apartments on upper floors; improve building exteriors and reposition tenants in an auto-oriented strip mall, with dedication of space for transit and pedestrian improvements; build 72 cooperative senior apartments; and complete the Phalen wetland restoration project and natural corridor between Lake Phalen and Ames Lake. This grant will be used to help acquire, demolish and redevelop an outdated and underutilized strip mall and two dilapidated houses as rental townhouses and mixed-use buildings. West St. Paul-North End Redevelopment Project Development Grant Award: $1,000,000 in 2002 This project is phased redevelopment of four blocks fronting on Robert Street by a partnership of the City of West St. Paul, Dakota County CDA, and the Cornerstone Group. This project will provide a model for mixed-use redevelopment for the rest of the corridor, increase affordable and market rate housing options near transit and employment opportunities, create a safe pedestrian environment, and provide an identity and gateway statement for the neighborhood and community. Grant funds will assist with acquisition and demolition. MULTI-COMMUNITY COLLABORATIONS Northwest Metro Four Cities Housing Resource Center-Crystal, designated city to administer funds on behalf of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, New Hope and Robbinsdale Development Grant Award: $492,000 in 1998 Enhance Housing Resource Center services and improve transit access for residents by giving priority to housing rehabilitation and new construction projects adjacent to transit corridors and in targeted neighborhoods with proximity to transit. Housing programs include a rehabilitation incentive program, a gap/purchase rehabilitation program, and a demonstration program for acquiring blighted properties for demolition and new construction. This grant will fund portions of a rehabilitation incentive program, a purchase and rehabilitation program, a demolition and new construction program, production and distribution of a housing planbook, and program and transit marketing. May 2005 ~ Me~~~~~i~~:~:~~ October 5, 2005 TO: Local Officials FROM: Guy peterso~irector, Housing and Livable Communities The 2005 housing performance score for your community is enclosed. It is being sent to both the community's administrative officer and the person that completed the survey. The scores were determined based on several factors set forth in the Council's Guidelinesfor Priority Fundingfor Housing Peiformance. Seventy percent of the score came from the survey you completed about housing activity in your community during the past two years, It included information about: . local fiscal, regulatory, and housing rehabilitation initiatives to facilitate workforce housing development and preservation . the density of residential development . the approval of affordable or life-cycle housing that has not yet been developed The other 30 percent of the score was determined from the following data about your community's housing: . the affordability of owned housing units (a combination oflocal government information about the number of mobile homes, and homestead tax valuation data from the Minnesota Department of Revenue) . the diversification of housing (based on local housing permit data Council research staff gathers annually from local governments) . the number of affordable rental units (from data provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and local and county HRAs) . the availability of housing in your community for persons with special needs (based on information provided by the Minnesota Departments of Education, Corrections and Human Services) The performance scores are intended to reflect both the amount of affordable and life-cycle housing in the community and the community's efforts to facilitate affordable and life-cycle housing development and preservation, Scores range widely, reflecting the variety of metropolitan area communities, The sparse population and scattered housing locations of rural, unsewered communities tend to result in lower scores, while the affordability and diversification of existing housing stock in urban, sewered communities, combined with efforts to add and/or preserve such housing, yield higher scores, As indicated in the Council's grant request solicitation materials, the housing performance scores will be one of the factors considered in the evaluation and ranking of applications for Council competitive funding programs this fall as follows: . For the Tax Base Revitalization and Livable Communities Demonstration Accounts, the scores represent nine percent of the total possible evaluation. . For the Local Housing Incentives Account, when the housing score factor is considered, applications for funding from communities with lower housing performance scores are generally given priority over proposals from communities with higher scores in order to encourage and support local efforts by these communities to facilitate affordable housing. If you have any questions or want to discuss your community's score, please call me at 651-602-1418. Thank you, Enclosure ::"l<" =;\.: I !PS www,metrocouncil,org Metro Info Line 602-1888 230 East Fifth Street . st. Paul. Minnesota 55101.1626 . (651) 602-1000 . Fax 602-1550 . TTY 291-0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer FINAL HOUSING PERFORMANCE SCORE - 2005 (OCTOBER, 2005) ,-/ , NAME OF CITY/TOWNSIDP: f-CI/Mi'f1JtM Criteria -100 points possible 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. a. b, 10. ~ 5 { 'I 3 o Total Score 2005 Total Score 2004 3 :3 1- b D 42- 7V V '\I,!BR:\ RY\1.iv('omrn....lViove,Foider\PF'n:RsON\2005\!lsg P<:r!\092205.)i1I..,HPS city..twnslTp,J.oc Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance January 2003 Introduction The Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint includes policy that supports, encourages and promotes the broadened opportunity for affordable and life-cycle housing throughout the region. As one of the actions it will take to support such housing opportunities, the Blueprint says the - Council will "give priority for regional infrastructure investments or expenditures of public dollars to communities that have implemented plans to provide their share of the region's low- ~ and moderate-income and life-cycle housing opportunities," The following criteria and their relative weight will be used to annually determine a score - 0 to I 00 points - and rank for cities and counties in the region to be used in the evaluation and prioritization of applications for funding by the Council. County scores will be used in the evaluation of county applications for funding; city scores will be used for city applications. Joint applications for discretionary funding will be weighted pursuant to the applicable combination of counties, cities, or both counties and cities. Examples of current funding decisions that will be affected include but not be limited to those for community development - the LCA Fund and Smart Growth initiatives, transportation - TEA-21, the environment - MetroEnvironment Partnership grants, and other investments and programs such as those for parks and open space. The amount of emphasis or weight given to the housing performance score or rank in the evaluation of applications for various funding programs will be at the discretion of the Metropolitan Council at the time it solicits applications for any of these discretionary funding activities. Any changes to the performance criteria themselves will be made only after the Council follows its adopted policy and practices for changing policy documents. 3 I CITIES AND TOWNSIDPS Affordability and Diversification o to 8 points QMunicipalities are ranked according to the percent of their owner-occupied housing (homesteads) with an assessed valuation equal to or lower than an amount affordable to households at 80 percent of area median income, and their total number of mobile homes. o to 8 points ~uniciPalities are ranked according to the percent of their total housing stock that is comprised of rental units affordable to households of low- and moderate-income (50 percent of area median income or less). This includes all federally subsidized rental units - public housing, Section 8 housing, units subsidized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, units developed with the use oflow-income housing tax credits, units developed with the assistance of MHF A, the LCA Fund or the assistance of a local fiscal tool or housing finance initiative, o to 8 points C)MuniciPalities are ranked according to the percent of their housing stock that is comprised of units that are not single family detached units developed in the typical detached housing site plan approach. These units may include twinhomes, quads, apartments, townhomes, condominiums, detached townhomes, mobile homes, and units developed with a zero-lot line. o to 10 points V Municipalities are ranked according to the percent of net units added to their housing stock that are affordable - both ownership and rental since the Council began monitoring in 1996. These "new" units may include units that have been "preserved" as affordable for a definitive period of time because of public or private re-investment to retain their affordability. ("Net units" means that affordable habitable units, not including units on land with a property tax classification of 4C, removed as the result of a city initiative will be subtracted from the total new affordable units,) o to 3 points @Housing for special needs Municipalities are awarded up to three points for the following types of special housing within their jurisdiction: . Housing for which federal, state, county or local funds or those of a non-profit organization have been used to purchase and operate residential units or provide licensed housing that is not for the purposes of incarceration, but as a transitional placement of adult offenders or adjudicated delinquents . A publicly subsidized or non-profit group home licensed by the Department of Health or Department of Human Services which provides temporary or permanent housing for the physically handicapped, mentally ill, developmentally disabled or chemically dependent 6 . A shelter which is publicly subsidized and/or operated by a non-profit group to provide temporary housing for homeless persons and families, battered women or those not otherwise able to secure private housing . Housing for individuals and families who are homeless, but with a transitional stay of six to 24 months, and the assistance of advocates, can work towards housing stability and self-sufficiency to obtain permanent housing, Each instance of such housing is worth 1 point. Local Initiatives to Facilitate Affordable Workforce Housing Development or Preservation o to 15 points @) Fiscal Tools and Initiatives The municipality has in place adopted local policy in its comprehensive plan or local housing plan that allows and encourages the use of a local fiscal tool or initiative and has used such a local fiscal tool to assist affordable workforce or life-cycle housing development or preservation. Examples of such fiscal tools include but are not limited to the following: . Tax increment financing . Housing revenue bonds . General obligation bonds . A local property tax levy . Local tax abatement . Local fee waivers or reductions . Credit enhancements . Taxable revenue bonds . Land write-down or sale . Collaboration and participation with a community land trust or other non-profit organization to preserve long-term affordability The use of federal or state dollars is only applicable if such dollars may be used for activities other than the development or preservation of affordable and life-cycle housing but the municipality has chosen by policy to use them for affordable housing development or preservation, (i,e" CDBG dollars used for housing development or preservation) Each local fiscal tool or initiative is worth 3 points. ' o to 15 points 0 Initiatives regarding local regulation and development requirements The municipality has in the previous two calendar years allowed the reduction, adjustment or elimination of a local official control, or development or local code requirement as a cost avoidance or reduction measure in order to facilitate the development or preservation of affordable workforce or life-cycle housing, OR has in place in its policies and official controls a commitment to make such reductions, adjustments or eliminations of requirements when they are requested by a developer in order to facilitate the development or preservation of affordable or life- 7 cycle housing, or since 1996, has taken the initiative to revise its land use regulation and official controls to such a degree that these revisions can be shown to be permitting greater density and more frequent opportunity for reduced development costs than existed before 1996. Examples of these initiatives in the use of official controls include but are not limited to the following: . The use of a density bonus system, inclusionary housing requirements or some other innovative zoning approach . The use of variances, rezoning, special use or conditional permits or similar variations from the standards set forth in the community's zoning ordinance for the purpose of facilitating a specific affordable housing development. . A local initiative undertaken to revise local design requirements for public improvement that may reduce the cost of public services to residential properties. . Modifications in public service5 standards or requirements that might include streets, curbs, gutter, sewer and water hookups, street lighting and other required public improvements in order to reduce development costs to increase affordability in a new residential development. . A reduction of such standards as the required street right-of-way, or surfacing width or depth design for residential street, or the size of sewer or water service lines to new housing. Each local initiative is worth 3 points, No more than 6 points may be applicable to anyone affordable or life-cycle housing development or preservation activity aided by these local regulative measures. o to 15 points (9 Initiatives regarding housing preservation and rehabilitation The municipality has in place and has in the previous two calendar years used and promoted locally-initiated or administered (city or county) housing preservation, home improvement and/or rehabilitation programs, or other tools available to its residents to keep their housing stock in sound condition. Examples of these initiatives include but are not limited to the following: . _ A housing maintenance code and enforcement program for rental housing . A housing maintenance code and enforcement program for owner- occupied housing . A housing rehabilitation loan or grant program for rental housing . A housing rehabilitation loan or grant program for owner-occupied housing . A home improvement loan or grant program . A home improvement resource center . A local tool-sharing center or program Each local initiative is worth 3 points. 8 (i") Density of residential development The average net density of new (or re-use) sewered housing for which a building permit was issued in the municipality in the two previous calendar years multiplied by the total number of such units in those two years are compared among all communities. Sewered communities are ranked highest to lowest, unsewered communities are ranked lowest to highest. Points will only be given to sewered communities with an overall density of three units per acre or greater and only to unsewered communities for which the 1998 local comprehensive plan update has been put into effect. Sewered Communities 1 to 6 points a, The average net density for attached housing units, i.e., units per acre multiplied by the number of such units permitted in the last two calendar years. 1 to 6 points b. The average net density for detached housing units (including detached townhomes and manufactured homes), i.e., units per acre multiplied by the number of such units permitted in the last two calendar years. Unsewered Communities 1 to 12 points The average net density of residential development multiplied by the number of all units permitted in the last two calendar years o or 6 points @In the previous two calendar years, the municipality has acquired land to be held specifically for the development of affordable or senior housing (exclusively 55+), or has approved (permits may be drawn at any time) the development or local financial participation in a proposed development of new affordable or senior (exclusively 55+) housing, or the involvement of the municipality in the preservation and reinvestment in such housing - ownership or rental - which has not as yet been undertaken for reasons beyond the municipality's control. Points will be awarded according to the number of units involved in the proposal as follows: 2 points - less than 20 units or land acquisition for future housing 4 points - 20 to 39 units 6 points - 40 or more units 9 .... < ~ ~ .... = ~I ~u .s .!i ~,.Q ; '" == .=: oo~ ~! """= o ~ ~ ~ ~ c:>\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E-..;' ~ .~ ~ ~ c ~ r--; V') .2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a 00 ~ ~ ~ lrl 'CS ~ ocS ~ ~ oi ;;J ~ GO f"l U ~ '#. '#. '#. '#. ! e ~~ 0 ~ 0 V') 0 2S r--- V') I ~ ~ M M M r--- - ~ '#. '#. 16 Q) e '#. '#. M ~ I ~ V') 00 00 M - M Ie V') 00 M I ~ ~ I I I~ - U ~ M I Z M \0 0 M - M r--- M - ~ I 00 = I~ ~ ~ '#. '#. '#. '#. e e '=t ~ ~ I-l M M 00 ~ - ~ 0'1 r--- - - V') \0 M r--- - I-l U ~"B ~ .~] ~ t ~ :a 5 @ Q) .~ z j) e~ ~ ~] C+.::i 0 ~.~ ~ 1~ './:J I ~ ~~ 000 c == .!i i C c "f! .... ~ ~ ~ i! - = aa :S...~ :>.~]_ Sot ~ ~ '~ .t:" i3 ~ 'It 6' S .~ ." ~ U ~. s (3 8 ]i8~ .jj8j ~~ ~ =s .~ ~ .a a 8 ~ g g a.o l3 0 1'~ ':' I i 'I .~ ~ ~ ~ ." i ~ - 'Er= 1 ~ <;:; rf ~ E.~ ""''8! IU -t:I ,-, .~ ~ .J! l3 ~ lIJ i'! ~"fC5g 01 ~1 '1' ~i ~.~ ].ii~!.~ o =.s S ~ .~ ~ i to- 0 "B e >- i ~ 'il 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~., ! ~ ~ i ,~ <<s 1 ~ '~'f ~ oS N ~ .jg Q ig '~'So '0 ~>-"B + U OQ)'tSS 'Sl 1 ~ ~.E! a .~ til c.... ~ &0 ..8 .... ::S::S C"'l~8Q)l3 ~o!31il\C)J~~ .... "" rI'J,,#J~ >Q)~ ~ ~ II .~ Q) 0....2 ..... u . - - - ~ ~ i lI'\ . - 'j:: lI'\ = = ~.-:..9~ 0000 S til.j Ii ~un 1lii-uU w;rci-:; !~~.DlIU ~.s~i~ ~ 11hJ~~ ~e:J i ~-fi ~~Jl!~~ ~.s~-!~ M l31'SJ-r ~~e]i igli ~~ ; ~]i~~ ~!~ji~~~ t;!.g ~ ,n oS i:= i~ ,s i ~~g ~ ~.e ~ ~ ~ cH.s ~ >-- - _ H _s ~i!I "\\-,!, 611 n J, ! ~.g e g ~:g g 'a'~ ~ ;> ~ 11 ~ :: ~] 1 ~ ~ ~ i ,a ! ~ . , <<s ~ ~,;1~ ~~~il'D.J,.J ~~~~i~ -allrI'JJ~.l~ ~ ~! II ~ ~ ~'j ~ I~Jt~~ ~." l3 -< ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \C) .... - ~:ie-: ~ ;<<S~:B<<S' J@'S'S ~ ~ ~-s tf ~ ~~.! ~~ 'S!..! ~-~~l~~lasli aUl nHh~iS9ihi-1;i! Q ~ ~.e lIJ lIJ .~ lIJ >>1 ~ 68 5 Iii <,~ ~ ~~ -Q ,~.~ Q..cI M 'tS.s Q U ~ u ~.s -u i:J ~ 'S ~.~ u ~ <:> ;J, ~ t::~ tI) ~ " ~ p..~1:I.l 0 ~,.gl:l.l~ool:l.l ~21:1.l1:l.l _ [""""'('101 u...........f"'a ...-4.......... . c.t 1iStft . ~ MetropoHtan CouncU I Guidelines for Evaluating Plan Amendments Proposing Changes to Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Timing-Staging Background Local 2020 comprehensive plan updates identified the timing and staging of land available for urban development to 2020, and in many cases areas planned for longer-term urbanization, often described as urban reserve areas. These areas planned for new development were to ultimately achieve a minimum net residential density of 3 dwelling units per acre when wastewater services became available. To ensure an adequate supply of urban land to accommodate future regional growth the Council continues to monitor the region's land supply. Monitorin~ includes designation oflong-term, post 2020 urban reserve lands; enforcement of minimum urban density standards of 3-5 dwellin units er resioential acre; and planning for additional MUSA in the 20 round of comprehensive plan updates. In addition, the Council has a plat monitoring program that reports annually on development density trends in several developing communities. Since the Council reviewed 2020 comprehensive plan updates, many developing communities are reviewing their local comprehensive plans and requesting MUSA expansions or development timing-staging changes, On October 13,2004, the Council adopted the following guidelines for evaluating comprehensive plan amendments (CPA) proposing to change MUSA or sewer service timing-staging, The purpose of these guidelines is to consistently apply the Council's existing polices to all communities requesting MUSA expansions or changes. ~ " Guidelines I. The ci 's overall residential density for development since 2000 must be a minimum of three units per developable acre. Determination 0 IS enslty Wl e as on constructed residential units, approve preliminary pats, and tl1e1Owest allowable units on remaining residential guided land. 2. The regional and local wastewater systems shall have adequate capacity, or staged capacity, to accommodate the development staging, and the local governments have identified the available capacity of both regional and local systems to service the amendment. 3. If the city has an identified inflow and infiltration (1&1) problem that currently impacts the metropolitan disposal system, the city shall have an 1&1 reduction plan that is consistent with the Wastewater System Policy Plan. 4. P~vious Council actions and negotiations regarding the city's comprehensive plan shall be fulf1l1ed. 5. The CPA land use needs to be consistent with the Council's 2030 forecasts for households and employment or demonstrate the basis for the change of the proposed land use. 6. The city should have a parks and open space system plan, strategies for implementation of best practice-storm water management plans, and natural resource protection ordinances. Application For all comprehensive plan amendments, the community needs to complete the comprehensive plan amendment submittal form. If a comprehensive plan amendment proposes a MUSA expansion, change in MUSA timing or staging, or sewer staging changes at less than 3 units/acre, the community will also need to complete questions 29-34, which address each of-the MUSA expansion guidelines. The submittal form .can found on the Council's'website at htto://www.metrocouncil.orgJplanning/assistancelresources.htm. Guidelines 1-3 highlight for local communities those Council policies that may result in a finding of substantial departure or impact to the regional wastewater system if not adequately addressed in the comprehensive plan amendment submittal. Guidelines 4-6 identify additional regional policies that the community will need to respond to in the submittal form. If you have questions about these guidelines, please contact your sector representative or Phyllis Hanson, Manager Local Planning Assistance. An updated list of Sector Representatives, their phone numbers and email addresses may be found at http://www.metrocouncil.org/Dlanning/assistance/sectorreDs.htm. Ian 12,2005 System Statement City of Farmington Following the January 2004 adoption of the 2030 Regional Development Framework, and the more recent adoptions of the Transportation Policy Plan, the Water Resources Management Policy Plan, and the Regional Parks Policy Plan, the Metropolitan Council is issuing system statements pursuant to state statute. Receipt of this system statement and the metropolitan system plans triggers communities' obligations to review and, as necessary, amend their comprehensive plans within the next three years. The complete text of the 2030 Regional Development Framework as well as complete copies of the recently adopted metropolitan system plans are available for viewing and downloading at htto://www.metrocouncil.ora/plannina/frameworkltimeline.htm. Paper copies are available by calling the Council's Data Center at 651-602-1140, Metropolitan system plans are long-range comprehensive plans for the regional systems-- transportation and airports, wastewater services, and parks and open space, along with the capital budgets for metropolitan wastewater service, transportation and regional recreation open space. System statements explain the implications of metropolitan system plans for each individual community in the metropolitan area. They are intended to help communities prepare or update their comprehensive plan, as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act: Within three years following the receipt of the metropolitan system statement, every local governmental unit shall have prepared a comprehensive plan in accordance with sections 462.355, subdivision 4,473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 and the applicable planning statute and shall have submitted the plan to the Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to section 473.175. Local comprehensive plans will be reviewed by the Council for conformance with metropolitan system plans, consistency with Council policies and compatibility with adjacent and affected governmental units. The system statement includes forecasts at densities that assure regional growth is achieved consistent with adopted policies. These forecasted densities help ensure regional services and costly regional infrastructure can be provided as efficiently as possible, and that development and growth within the metropolitan area occur in a coordinated manner. The system statement also contains an overview of the transportation and aviation, transit, wastewater, and regional parks system plan updates, and system changes affecting each community, Forecasts. The following forecasts are part of the 2030 Regional Development Framework (adopted January 14, 2004 and updated on August 24, 2005). They are used by the Council to plan for its regional systems. Communities should base their planning work on these forecasts. However, given the nature oflong-range forecasting, the Council will maintain an on- going dialogue with communities to consider any changes in growth trends or community expectations about growth that may have an impact on regional systems. Forecast of population, households and employment: Revised Development Framework 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Population 5,940 12,365 20,500 27,100 32,000 Households 2,064 4,169 7,500 10,500 12,500 Employment 2,342 3,833 6,600 8,400 9,900 The Council forecasts growth at appropriate densities for communities in order to protect the efficiency of wastewater, transportation and other regional system investments, and to help ensure the metropolitan area can accommodate its projected growth by the year 2030. Growth management. The Regional Development Framework sets an overall minimum residential density standard of 3 to 5 units per acre in developed and developing areas where urban service is located or planned. The average minimum standard of 3 units per acre is important to the efficient use of regional systems, including wastewater system investments. Communities that significantly over-utilize or under-utilize regional systems can cause inefficiencies in the use of regional resources. Additionally, achieving housing at these density levels may help communities meet their obligations under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act to plan to and address their housing needs. Geographic planning area. The city of Farmington is designated as a "developing community" geographic planning area in the 2030 Regional Development Framework. Geographic planning areas are shown on the 2030 Planning Area map. The planning area sets overall densities that the planned development patterns in your community can be expected to achieve. (If there are discrepancies between the 2030 Framework Planning Area map, and the metropolitan systems plans because of adjustments that occurred subsequent to the adoption of the 2030 Regional Development Framework document, communities should follow the specific guidance contained in this system statement.) As Farmington plans for current and future residents, it should focus on protecting natural resources, ensuring sufficient public infrastructure, and developing transition strategies to . increase density and encourage infill development. Developing communities are also encouraged to preserve areas for post-2030 growth, where appropriate. Specific strategies for developing communities are found on page 28 of the 2030 Regional Development Framework. 2 System statement review process. If your community disagrees with elements of this system statement, or has any questions about this system statement, we urge you to contact Victoria Dupre, 651 602-1621, to review and discuss potential issues or concerns. The Council and local units and districts have historically resolved questions about forecasts and other components of the system statement through discussions. Request for hearing. If a local governmental unit or school district and the Council are unable to resolve disagreements over the content of a system statement, the unit or district may by resolution request that a hearing be conducted by the Council's Land Use Advisory Committee or by the state Office of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of considering amendments to the system statement. According to Minnesota Statutes section 473.857, the request shall be made by the local unit or district within 60 days after receipt of the system statement. If no request for a hearing is received by the Council within 60 days, the statement becomes final. Svstem statement issue date: The official date of the issuance ofthis system statement is September 12, 2005. 3 MUSA Granted to Date Year Owner/Developer Acres City Township 2004 A - Allen 50 2004 D - Murphy 19 2004 H - Manley 87.5 2004 I - Tollefson 14 2004 Q1 - Murphy 90 2004 7 - Empey/Garvey 37.5 2004 8 - Murphy 95 2004 9 - Rother (2) 51 2004 10 - Garvey 40 2004 B - Peterson 34 2004 C- Adelmann 10 2004 Total 477 0 2005 1 - American Legion 5 2005 2 - Frandrup 3 2005 F3 - Devney 71.07 2005 G4 - Winkler 69.59 2005 Total 148.66 0 = ,I 4771 Prior MUSA Granted (2000-2003) Total MUSA Acreage Granted (2000-2005) 397,67 1023.33 = 148.661 397.67 = 1023.33 = 1142 1023.33 118.671 I Comp Plan 2005 & 2010 MUSA Allocation Totals 1142 1 Less the MUSA Allocation to Date 1023.33 INet MUSA Currently Available (1) MUSA granted upon plat approval (2) MUSA granted contingent upon annexation (3) MUSA for school facilities includes only the developed portions of the property rather than the total acreage. MUSA acreage is unknown at this time. MUSA Allocation Adopted on November 15, 2004 I:J EXisting MUsA 1:::1 MUsA Approved in 2004 c::I MUsA Approved Contingent upon Annexation I:J MUsA Allocated in 2006 .. MUsA Allocated in 2009 .. MUsA Allocated in 2012 ~ MUsA Allocated upon Removal from Ag Preserve - '-II School Use Only 1_,,1 MUsA Allocated upon Plat Approval .. Not Recommended for MUsA at this time. c:::I MUS A Approved (Orderly Annexation Area) I:J Ag Preserve until 2012 - MUsA not Rec. at this time c::I Ag Preserve until 2013 - MUsA not Rec. at his time CD Ag Preserve - No current expiration date ~ _ _ Future 19Sth Street Extension WT E Detailed View of #14 · Tollefson 7 El11'ey 10 Garvey -- Future 208th Street Extension o s 0,5 Miles 0.5