The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.s. Metropolitain Council Development Framework Comments for Public HearingCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 2, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Metropolitan Council Development Framework AGENDA SECTION: Comments for Public Hearing Consent PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director •r :_ AGENDff ATTACHMENTS: Memo, Draft Development Framework, AMM APPROVED_BY: Handouts �� On October 15, 2003 the Metropolitan Council approved the new Draft Regional Development Framework for review and formal Public Hearing. The document would replace the Development Blueprint approved last year by the outgoing Metropolitan Council. The Framework is shorter and more generalized in its discussion than the previous Blueprint. The concept of targeting growth "in and along transportation corridors" has been softened as compared to the Blueprint, although it is not clear what the effect will have on communities. The Framework refocuses the Council's efforts more on the 4 systems they are legislatively responsible fora The Met Council have deleted preservation of farmland from the regional policies, although supporting local efforts to do so. They also have softened the affect of the Natural Resource Inventory conducted as part of the initial Blueprint. Now the Inventory functions more as a tool for individual local governments. The Met Council is not proposing any additional programs relating to the Natural Resource Inventory. The new Framework continues to propose 30 % reinvestment into developed areas w ith the vast majority of growth slated for developing areas, such as Rosemount. The two areas of most,growth are in Dakota and Scott Counties. The Met Council staff has indicated that the population, household, and employment projections are the same in the Framework that was found in the Blueprint. At the last workshop meeting staff brought the populations projections to the City Council that reflected the Framework numbers. It was decided that these would be accepted and appeared to be more reasonable than those found in the city's adopted comprehensive plan given the recent rates of growth in the community. Handouts from the Association of Minnesota Municipalities are enclosed along with the entire Framework document. These handouts give some generalized information about the Framework and have been used in several presentations throughout the Metro Area. After all comment is received by the City Council, the attached letter will be modified and forwarded to the Metropolitan Council as a formal comment under their public review process. The public hearing is December 3, 2003 although they will accept comments through December 13, 2003 via mail, fax, or email. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the attached draft letter relating to the Metropolitan Council Regional Development Framework, subject to any Council comments or corrections. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: December 2, 2003 Peter Bell, Chair Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mr. Bell, This letter is to present the City of Rosemount's comments regarding the draft Framework under review and consideration by the Metropolitan Council. The following lists those comments: • There is a disconnect between the areas targeted for significant growth and scheduled investment in regional infrastructure, particularly in transportation related infrastructure. The Framework notes that there are funding shortfalls for transit and transportation but does not acknowledge that developing cities and counties will not be able to attain adequate infrastructure due to these shortfalls. Specifically, Rosemount and adjoining Dakota County communities are slated to take considerable growth over the next decade but there is little infrastructure investment planned in this area of the metro area. The State Transportation Plan has few projects planned in this area in the near future. This means that improvements will continue to lag behind growth creating problems such as traffic congestion and perhaps unsafe conditions. • Similar to the above, Rosemount is scheduled to take on significant growth during the Framework time horizon. Presently there is a sanitary sewer capacity issue in the City due to the capacity of the Rosemount Plant. Because the community is experiencing growth faster than initially projected, a solution to the capacity issue must be decided soon, with implementation occurring in the near - term. Otherwise, the City will have to turn away new residential development. • The implementation section should be more specific as to how highway and transit funding needs are to be addressed. The long -term cost is more in the $15 billion range rather than the $4.2 billion figure in the document. While the document recognizes that the current funding levels do not satisfactorily address transportation related needs, the Met Council, through the Framework, should be taking on more of an advocacy role in promoting additional stable funding sources for transportation. • Road transportation needs extend beyond the classification of the Highway (Principal Arterial) system. As congestion grows on the Principal Arterial system significant additional congestion is being experienced on the A -minor & B -minor arterial system, such as Highway 3. The lack of financing for the Principal Arterial system means that local systems need to function beyond their intended classification. Therefore, the local system is being burdened and also the local governments are paying to provide capacity lacking in the regional system. The lack of financing also means that it is extremely difficult to get any funding for road projects beyond those on the designated high priority corridors. Highway 3 functions as the principal route for Rosemount and Farmington residents to access I -494, yet there is no intention to upgrade the road, even though substantial residential development will be occurring in both of these communities over the next two decades. • The document notes that previous transportation plan goals were to double the bus system by 2025, "expanding capacity by 3.5% a year" (p 34). It is unclear if this is a goal of the current Framework. Further the document does not mention that a recent reduction in public funding has required a cutback of services. The document also states that the anticipated $1.4 billion available for transit capital investments would be sufficient to maintain the existing bus system, begin to purchase the vehicles needed to expand the system, and complete the Hiawatha LRT line. Does this capital funding allow expansion of the system envisioned in the 3.5% growth goal? The Framework states that there are not sufficient operating funds to provide for an expanded system and is cautious about the capital funding for expansion. Again, the Met Council should be taking more of a leadership role in noting funding shortfalls and advocating additional funding for transit systems. • Rosemount supports the intent of the draft Framework that appears to give more autonomy and control to the local governments with assistance by the Metropolitan Council. One.of the ideas, the "floating MUSA" is supported within parameters. It is difficult to project exact areas of growth within specified timeframes since much of the decision- making is out of the control of the local government. The flexibility implied in the document will allow the City to gauge their needs and react to the desires and timing of individual property owners within the community. • The Framework document notes that the Metro Area has grown beyond the 7- County borders. This "larger metro area" has significant impact on the legally defined area under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Council, yet is not included in regional planning and funding decisions. Communities within the 7 counties are, at times, adversely affected by the growth of these outlying areas. The Met Council, as the regional agency, needs to be a stronger advocate for incorporation of this expanded area into the regional planning and infrastructure funding. The City of Rosemount is affected by communities lying outside of the 7 County area especially, from a transportation perspective. It is difficult to do responsible planning for our community when other outside agencies are not involved in the process. As noted above there are several issues that are very specific to Rosemount and may have a negative impact on the community and the Metropolitan Council goals if not resolved in a timely manner. The City staff will continue to work through these issues with the Metropolitan Council staff. The City looks forward to a continued good working relationship with the Metropolitan Council. Sincerely, William H. Droste, Mayor NOU -07 -2003 15 :39 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 6512811299 P.02 Association o 2 0 30 Fr a mewo r k f Metropolitan FREQUENTLY ASKED QU ESTI ONS Municipalities is the Framework really less prescriptive than the Blueprint? A. The language used in the Framework is less prescriptive and appears to leave room for greater variety in implementation. There is less of a sense of the Council having found "the answer" or the best way for the region to develop and more of an emphasis on economic and efficient use of regional infrastructure. However, the root of the Frame - work -- or the policies that are actually enforceable by the Met Council as they review local comprehensive plans -- are very similar to those in the Blueprints Items such as the population_ and household forecasts and the minimum densities for sewered develop- ment remain largely unchanged. Y What are the similarities and differences between the Framework and Blueprint 2030? A. The greatest difference between the Framework and the Blueprint lies in the "tone" of the document. Ile Framework is less aggressive in advocating for "new urbanism.," "smart growth, or any other style of urban desgin. The draft Framework focuses much Rcamonany, tree kramew and goods and alleviate c play in shaping land uses The Framework is simila 930,000 people and 460,C Frameworks calls for an i vestment and protecting r Does the Framework A. Yes. While the term "MT more local control over de next. "Local communitie development opportunitie ansportation policy emphasizes the need to move people I on, rather than the role transportation investments can Blueprint in that it continues to project an additional seholds in the seven county area by the year 2030. The in mixed use development, greater emphasis on rein -esources, and expansion of the transit system. �nue the "MUSA Cities" policy? ties" is not used, the Framework continues to call for about which parcels of land will receive urban services i have discretion in staging growth, recognizing that t always occur in a contiguous manner." NUV ( - 2UW 1 J : VJ LLHLUUt Ur MN l.1 I 1 t5 bbld'Cl ldJJ h'. WJ what does the Framework say about preserving agriculture in the seven-county area? A. The Framework does not classify the preservation of agriculutre as a regional prior- ity, but does say that the Metropolitan Council will support communities that have decided they want to preserveagrculutral lands. Does the Framework continue to call for concentrating growth "in centers, along corridors "? A. The Met Council has devoted a signifiant amount of debate and discussion to this issue, with some Council members arguing that cluster development along corridors will only increase congestion and others arguing that it will facilitate increased walk- ing, biking and transit use, thereby reducing congestion. While continuing to in- elude this concept, the draft Framework has been softened somewhat, with refer- ences to development `with convenient access to" transportation corridors and a discussion of the numerous different types of centers. Q What does the Framework say about natural resource protection or the NRI? A. The Framework's fourth policy is to "work with local and regional partners to con- serve, protect and enhance the region's vital natural resources." , The recently com- pleted Natural Resources Inventory is mentioned several times, as is the importance of preserving natural resources as part of land use planning decisions. The draft Framework does not make any mention of new or expanded programs or authorities for the Metropolitan Council in the area of natural resource protection. Does the Framework have the same reinvestment goals as the Blueprint? A. Yes. The draft Framework continues to call for 30 percent of the projected house - hold growth to be accommodated through reinvestment in the already developed portions of the region: Does the Framework say anything about extending regional y wastewater services to rural growth centers? A. The Framework says the Council will "provide technical and/or financial support for wastewater services in rural growth centers where feasible," and "consider acquring and operating" treatment plants "if doing so would be more efficient and cost effec- tive, NOV -07- 2003 15:40 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES - 6512811299 P.04 A ociation o Fra mework SS f 2 a3 � Metropolitan V CITY CHE LIST Munidpalities The 2030 Framework and its appendices include information specific to indi- widual cities and some policies specific to certain groups of cities. Cities are en- couraged to review the draft Framework, giving particular attention to the follow- ing items. Questions, concerns or comments about the Framework components specific to your city should be directed to your Metropolitan Council member and/or sector representative. ❑ Population, Household and Employment Forecasts. Appendix A includes population, household and employment forecasts for each city in the metropolitan area. The tables, which group cities by county, include actual population figures for 1990 and 2000, and then the forecasted amounts for 2010, 2020 and 2030. Geographic Planning Area Grouping. Chapter 3 of the Framework discusses the strategies for each of the Council's six geographic planning areas and identifies the cities within each planning area. Although most cities are included in only one planning area, a few cities will find themselves included in more than one (in the developing area and the rural residential area, for example). Metropolitan Council members have ex- pressed an interest in hearing from cities included in more than one planning area to determine whether this dual classification should be continued. ❑ Community Roles by Geographic Planning Area. After locating the designated geographic planning area, cities are encouraged to review the corresponding table, which identifies communities roles for imple- mentation. Additionally, cities should review Table 1, which applies to all cit- ies in the metropolitan area, Some of the "roles" listed are statutory require- ment or federal mandates. Others, however, are intended to implement the Framework's goals and policies. ❑ Natural Resources Inventory and Assessment Maps. Appendix C contains four maps related to the Natural Resources Inventory and Assessment (NRI /A). The maps present a regional view of the NRI elements but city boundaries are deliniated. Cities are encouraged to review the maps to determine what regionally significant natural resources have been identified within or along their borders. The maps can be accessed online at www.metrocouncil.org, by clicking on the "Framework" button, "read the Framework document," and then selecting Appendix C. TnTAI P - Ad Page 1of1 Comprehensive Plans C omposite As of October 2003, Urban Service Areas are not final for communities aaaitten iu blue. s o s io is w uaa 2020 MUSA � Permanent Agriculture Unde sign ated MUSA Permanent Rural 2040 Urban Reserve Rural Residential 1 11WIMA CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING: December 2, 2003 On September 16, 2003, the City Council approved a resolution of support for preserving a 25 -acre parcel owned by Aina Wiklund at 12110 Bacardi Avenue. An application was submitted to the Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Program and the DNR Metro Greenway Program for the permanent preservation of her property. At this time Ms. Wiklund is considering spitting her 25 -acre parcel into a 5.5 -acre parcel and a 19.5 -acre parcel. The 19.5 -acre parcel would be acquired by the City through funds from the Metro Greenway and County Open Space programs. The remaining 5.5 -acre parcel would provide Ms. Wiklund with life - estate and then be provided to an environmentally focused non - profit organization, or possibly the City. Both parcels would have a permanent conservation easement protecting the property from being developed. Staff is seeking approval to from the City Council to order an appraisal on the property. The appraisal is part of the early stages of the preservation process. Other stages include a survey, development of a fact sheet, appraisal review, title work, conservation easement language, natural resource management plan, an option and securing the funding. AGENDA ITEM: Request to Order an Appraisal for the Wiklund AGENDA SECTION: Consent Property PREPARED BY: Dan Schultz, Director of Parks and Recreation AGENDA NO.: ADD-ON t.! I 4_ ATTACHMENTS: None L_ APPROVED BY:- RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve ordering an appraisal for the Aina Wiklund property located at 12110 Bacardi Avenue. COUNCIL ACTION: f Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Metropolitan Council Members Peter Bell Chair Roger Scherer District 1 Tony Pistilli District 2 Mary Hill Smith District 3 Julius C. Smith District 4 Russ Susag District 5 Peggy Leppik District 6 Annette Meeks District 7 Lynette Wittsack District 8 Natalie Haas Steffen District 9 Marcel Eibensteiner District 10 Georgeanne Hilker District 11 Chris Georgacas District 12 Rick Aguilar District 13 Song Lo Fawcett District 14 Tom Egan District 15 Brian McDaniel District 16 General phone 651602-1000 Data Center 651 -602 -1140 TTY 651291-0904 Metro Info Line 651602-1888 E -mail data. center @metc.state.mn. us Web site www.metrocounciLorg Publication no. 78 -03 -.048 Printed on recycled paper with at least 20% post - consumer waste. On request, this publication will be made available in alternative formats to people with disabilities. Call the Metropolitan Council Data Center at 651602-1.140 or TTY 651291-0904. Foreword In the mid- 1960s, the Twin Cities metropolitan area faced a host of seri ous urban challenges. Inadequately treated sewage was being released into public waters and contaminating groundwater supplies. The region's privately owned bus system was rapidly deteriorating - a victim of rising fares, declining ridership and an aging fleet. Development was threatening vital open spaces, a central feature of this region's prized quality of life. And growing fiscal disparities among comunities were making it difficult for some cities to provide essential public services. With some 272 separate local units of government — including seven counties and 188 cities and townships the region was ill equipped to deal with problems that transcended local boundaries. The Minnesota Legislature responded in 1967 by creating the Metropolitan Council to plan and coordinate the orderly development of the seven - county area. In quick order, the Legislature also created regional wastewater and transit systems, strengthened the region's land -use planning process, and enacted a unique tax -base sharing law to reduce fiscal disparities among communities. More than three decades later, this region is confronted with a new set of challenges revolving around growth, transportation, housing and resource protection. While the Legislature has provided important tools and resources to meet these challenges, the Twin Cities metropolitan area will need the same kind of unity, commitment and spirit of innovation that led to the creation of the Council and our regional systems. Table of Contents Chapter 1 /Opportunities and Challenges ................ ...... ............................... ............................ OurForecast .......................... ..................... ............................... ................. 2 OurGoals ..................................................................................................... ..............................2 NewDirections ................................................. ............................... ..............................3 Learning from our partners ..............................:............................................ ..............................4 Working with our neighbors .......................................................................... ...............:..............5 Chapter 2 /Policy Directions and Strategies ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ..............6 Policy 1 /Growth and land use ...................................................................... ..............................6 Policy 2/ Transportation ..................:............................................................ .............................10 Policy /Housing ..................... ................................................................. .............................12 Policy 4 /Natural Resources ......................................................................... .............................13 Chapter 3 /Strategies for Geographic Planning Areas.. ..... ................... ..........................16 Allcommunities . ............................... ..................................................... .............................17 Developedcommunities .............................................................................. .............................19 Developing communities......... .. ............................................................... .............................21 Rural centers ................................ ............................... . ............................... .................._....24 Rural residential areas ................................................................................ .............................25 Diversified rural communities ...................................................................... .............................27 Agriculturalareas ........................................................................................ .............................28 Chapter4 /Implementation .............................................................................................. .............................30 Local planning process ............................................................................... .............................30 Regional investments ............... ............. ............................... ................. .............................33 Regionalgrants ....................... .......... .............. ............................... ...... .............................36 Measuring our progress ............................................................................ .............................37 Nextsteps .................... .......................................................................... .............................41 Glossary.................................................................................................... .............................42 Appendices A. Population, household and employment forecasts ........................................................... A -1 B Land supply ..... ............................... ................................................. ............................... B -1 C. Supplementary maps................. . .... ..... ..... .... 2030 Framework strategy map Comprehensive plan composite map Chapter 1 /Opportunities and Challenges Our Region During the 1990s, the Twin Cities metropolitan area gained more population — 353,000 people — than in any previous decade in its history. With this growth has come increased prosperity - new jobs, rising incomes, added tax revenue, higher property values and the highest rate of home ownership in the nation. But, as many Twin Citians have already discovered, accommodating growth is not always easy. Traffic congestion and commuting times have increased. Prices for new and existing housing have risen faster than incomes. And new development has meant increased demand for costly urban services and increased pressure on vital natural resources. And the Twin Cities will keep growing. By the year 2030, we expect the region to add nearly l million people- the equivalent of two Denvers plunked down within the boundaries of the seven - county metro area. From Woodbury to Waconia and Lino Lakes to Lakeville, this growth will bring opportunities and challenges. How do we accommodate growth while maintaining. the quality of life for the 2.6 million people who already live and work here? How do we preserve and revitalize the communities and neighbhorhoods we prize — the buildings, parks, shared spaces and streets that tell us we're "home - while building new communities with their own character and sense of place? How do we capitalize on our opportunities for economic development while preserving our vital natural assets and abundant opportunities for outdoor recreation? The purpose of this 2030 Regional Development Framework is to provide a plan for how the Metropolitan Council and its regional partners can address these challenges. The Framework is prepared under the authority of state statutes, which direct the Council to: ..: prepare and adopt... a comprehensive development guide for the metropolitan area. It shall consist of a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, programs, and maps prescribing guides for the orderly and economical development, public and private, of the metropolitan area. The comprehensive development guide shall recognize and encompass physical, social, or economic needs of the metropolitan area and those future developments which will have an impact on the entire area including but not limited to such matters as land use, parks and open space land needs, the necessity for and location of airports, highways, transit facilities, public hospitals, libraries, schools, and other public buildings.... (Minnesota Statutes, section 473.145) The Development Framework is the initial "chapter" and the unifying theme of the Council's Metropolitan Development Guide. It is the umbrella statement of regional policies, goals and strategies that will inform the Council's metropolitan system plans for airports, transportation, regional parks and wastewater service, as well as other policy plans adopted by the Council. l Under state law, each city and township in the seven- country metropolitan area is required at least every 10 years to prepare and submit to the Metropolitan Council a local comprehensive plan that is consistent with the Council's metropolitan system plans (Minn. Stat. 473.864). The next round of updated plans will be due in 2008. Our Forecast During the last three decades, the Twin Cities metropolitan area grew by nearly 800,000 people. By the year 2030, we forecast that the region will add another 931,000 people and 461,000 households. However, we expect to see a slower rate of job growth as large numbers of Baby Boomers retire. Metro olitan Area Growth, 1970 - 2030 While such growth will bring challenges, this metropolitan area — with its well - established system of regional and local planning — is better prepared than many regions to meet these challenges. Our Goals The Metropolitan Council was created in 1967 to help ensure the "coordinated, orderly and economical development" of the seven- county Twin Cities metropolitan area — consisting of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties (1967 Minnesota Laws, chapter 896). Our goals are very much in keeping with that legislative directive: • Working collaboratively with regional partners to accommodate growth within the metropolitan area. This Framework recognizes that "one size does not fit all" — that different communities have different opportunities, needs and aspirations. But it also is grounded in the belief that all communities have a shared responsibility to help accommodate the region's growth, use market forces to help expand housing choices and ensure connected, efficient land -use patterns. • Maximizing the effectiveness and value of regional services, infrastructure investments and incentives. We must take full advantage of the enormous investment we have made in regional systems — transportation, airports, wastewater treatment and regional parks - as well as ensure that future resources are used in a cost- effective manner. 2 1970 2000 2030 1970 -2000 Increase 2000 -2030 Projected Increase Households 573,634 1,021,454 1,482,000 448,000 461,000 Population 1,874,612 2,642,056 3,573,000 767,000 931,000 Jobs 779,000 1,562,833 2,117,670 784,000 555,000 While such growth will bring challenges, this metropolitan area — with its well - established system of regional and local planning — is better prepared than many regions to meet these challenges. Our Goals The Metropolitan Council was created in 1967 to help ensure the "coordinated, orderly and economical development" of the seven- county Twin Cities metropolitan area — consisting of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties (1967 Minnesota Laws, chapter 896). Our goals are very much in keeping with that legislative directive: • Working collaboratively with regional partners to accommodate growth within the metropolitan area. This Framework recognizes that "one size does not fit all" — that different communities have different opportunities, needs and aspirations. But it also is grounded in the belief that all communities have a shared responsibility to help accommodate the region's growth, use market forces to help expand housing choices and ensure connected, efficient land -use patterns. • Maximizing the effectiveness and value of regional services, infrastructure investments and incentives. We must take full advantage of the enormous investment we have made in regional systems — transportation, airports, wastewater treatment and regional parks - as well as ensure that future resources are used in a cost- effective manner. 2 • Enhancing transportation choices and improving the ability of Minnesotans to travel safely and efficiently throughout the region. Highway congestion is worsening at a disturbing rate, making it more difficult for workers to get to their jobs and more costly to get goods to market. Meanwhile, highway and transit funding are falling far short of the needs. We need to make the most of available resources to improve mobility and avoid gridlock. • Preserving vital natural areas and resources for future generations. This metropolitan area boasts a unique combination of assets: three majestic rivers, 950 lakes, rolling hills, extensive wetlands, native prairies and woodlands, aggregate and a multi - layered aquifer system – assets that are essential to our region's quality of life and continued economic well- being. New Directions Our region cannot rely solely on what has made 'it a success in the past. We need new approaches that are shaped by emerging trends, market forces, community values and current, accurate regional data – all integrated into an overall, comprehensive strategy. This effort means: • Focusing attention on the pattern of land uses. Previously, the regional growth strategy focused on how much development occurred in growing communities at the region's developing edge. This Development Framework pays more attention to how development occurs — such as the mix of land uses, the number of housing units per acre, and the potential for transit and local street connections. • Recognizing that transportation and land use influence each other. The Framework emphasizes the need for intensified development in centers along transportation corridors and in rural centers that want to grow and that lie along major highways; Regional investments can create a transportation system that includes transit solutions that support attractive, walkable neighborhoods with homes, green space, public places and other amenities. • Offering greater flexibility in the location of new development in growing communities. This Framework will provide growing cities the flexibility to decide where development occurs within broader areas that are planned and staged for development, consistent with regional perspectives. The expectation is that these cities will make efficient use of infrastructure and develop in a manner that conserves natural features and provides transportation options. This is intended to help local officials build communities in a more strategic and holistic way. • Emphasizing reinvestment in older areas throughout the region. By reinvesting in currently underused land and maintaining existing infrastructure, the region can accommodate growth on a smaller urban "footprint," slow the rate of increase in traffic congestion, ease development pressures on rural land, save billions of dollars in local sewer, water and road construction costs, maintain the housing stock and strengthen the vitality of older areas. 3 • Encouraging increased market -based housing production that reflects shifting demographics, employment locations and a diversity of incomes. The new - housing market has been skewed in favor of single - family housing over such alternatives as townhomes and condominiums. But the oldest baby - boomers are now in their 50s, and newcomers to the metropolitan area are likely to expect a variety of housing types and prices. The market demand for single- family detached housing is expected to decline in the next 30 years, even as the overall demand for housing remains strong. A mix of housing types and prices enables people to work; raise a family and retire in the same community, attracts jobs and improves local economic competitiveness. Affordable units, incorporated into attractive market -rate developments, can expand housing opportunities for lower- income families and households. • Encouraging the use of the metro -wide natural resources inventory and assessment to foster development that is more sensitive to the environment. An inventory and assessment of the region's natural resources, now documented in overlays of computerized maps, can help local governments plan development that respects the integrity of natural areas and incorporates environmental features into development projects. Conserving and restoring natural resources of regional or local importance contributes to a healthy natural environment and enhances our quality of life. Connecting regional and local features by natural- resource corridors helps sustain wildlife and plant habitat and shapes how development looks on the ground. Learning from Our Partners The Metropolitan Council doesn't have a monopoly on new ideas for guiding growth and development. Many of the policies and strategies contained in this Framework grew out of efforts already underway in communities throughout the region — many of which the Council has participated in through the Livable Communities grants program. Cities such as Brooklyn Park, Burnsville, Maple Grove, Plymouth, Ramsey and St. Louis Park are working to create town centers with a mix of housing, commercial and civic uses to provide a gathering place and focal point for their community. Meanwhile, older suburbs such as Chaska, Hopkins, New Brighton, Robbinsdale and White Bear Lake have brought new life to their more traditional downtowns through similar development efforts. St. Paul and Minneapolis both have been working aggressively to reclaim their riverfronts, protect a prized natural asset and respond to market demands for a range of housing types located near job, entertainment and recreational opportunities. Similarly, both the Phalen corridor project in St. Paul and the Heritage Park project in Minneapolis are restoring natural features — a wetlands area and a creek — as essential components of redevelopment projects that also include housing, infrastructure improvements and other revitalization efforts. And coalitions of communities along the Interstate 494 and 35W corridors have been actively exploring the connections between transportation and land use as part of their efforts to deal with traffic concerns. - 4 The Metropolitan Council is learning from such initiatives, and will share that information with other communities in the region and provide technical assistance as local officials respond to the opportunities and challenges posed by the growth that is taking place in our region. Working with Our Neighbors Partnerships with neighboring commmunities and counties will be crucial to the region's future success. The Twin Cities are part of a larger regional economy, one that extends well beyond the seven - county metropolitan area. While the seven- county share of households within the larger 19- county region has remained around 85 percent since 1970, there have been some notable changes. Much of the growth in the adjacent counties can be attributed to their proximity to the Twin Cities area: For example, 39 percent of respondents to a Council survey of residents in Chisago, Isanti, Sherburne and Wright Counties reported that they worked near or inside of the I- 494/I -694 beltway. Most of the growth in adjacent counties has occurred in areas just outside the borders of the seven metro counties. For example, Elk River, St. Michael and Hudson are the three fastest growing cities in the adjacent counties. The Metropolitan Council and regional partners must build closer relationships with local governments and their associations in the adjacent counties. We need to be sensitive to mutual impacts of decisions relating to development, transportation, water quality and other natural resources. 5 Chapter 2 /Policy Directions and Strategies Decisions relating to transportation, sewers; housing, natural resources and other land uses cannot be made in isolation from one another. Transportation and sewers help shape growth patterns; housing location and types affect mobility options and travel patterns; unplanned growth can put a strain on natural areas, groundwater quality and other resources. This Framework seeks to carefully integrate growth, transportation, housing and natural resource policies - to achieve regional goals in each area and avoid working at cross- purposes. Our policies also acknowledge the partnerships that will be essential to our success and continued economic vitality. Policy 1: Work with local communities to accommodate growth in a flexible, connected and efficient manner. Strategies for all communities • Support land -use patterns that efficiently connect housing, jobs, retail centers and civic uses within and among neighborhoods. • Encourage growth and reinvestment in adequately sewered urban and rural centers with convenient access to transportation corridors. • Promote development strategies that help protect and sustain the regional water supply. Discussion The full potential of investments in transportation, housing, natural resource preservation and other factors is best realized when they are considered together in well - conceived land use patterns. For example, if more communities have mixed uses — retail and commercial, as well as residential —more people have the option of working in the same community in which they live. If the land use patterns cluster housing, businesses, retail and services in walkable, transit- oriented centers along transportation corridors, the benefits increase: Improved access to jobs, open space, cultural amenities and other services and opportunities. Fewer —and shorter. —auto trips, more housing options and more choices for reaching local and regional destinations. A significant reduction in the number of vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, slower growth in traffic congestion, improved air quality and a healthier environment compared with a more spread -out, single -use pattern of development. There are personal benefits as well- shorter daily commutes provide more time for personal or family activities. Transit connections among home, work and other destinations mean cost savings for many households. There is also a hard -edged practical aspect to these land use strategies —they will save public money. For the metropolitan transit and transportation system, putting growth 6' where the infrastructure to support it already exists means roads that don't have to be built. Providing transportation options that include fast, convenient transit services means freeway lanes that don't have to be added. And, where new infrastructure is necessary, investments in more connected land -use patterns will be the most fiscally responsible use of limited public resources for transportation. Efficient use of capacity in the metropolitan wastewater disposal system, which provides wastewater treatment services to 90% of the region's population and most of its commerce and industry, will ensure the most cost - effective operation of both the current wastewater system and the service provided to future urban areas. The system is an essential ingredient for urban development. An adequate supply of water is another essential ingredient for growth. The region currently uses 350 million gallons of water daily for drinking and other personal purposes, and commercial and industrial needs, as well as 680 million gallons daily for cooling power plants. The regional groundwater aquifer system and the Mississippi River provide a relatively abundant water supply, but there are questions about the ability of that supply to meet increasing demands. Both the Council and all communities with a municipal water supply system are required to develop plans to address those concerns (Minn. Stat. 473.156 -.157; 473.859). Cities must consider the implications of their water supply for future growth and indicate how they will protect the current and planned supply source that provides the community with water. Land use patterns affect water supply. For instance, incorporating natural areas in the mix of land uses will help reduce surface water runoff and recharge aquifers for water supply_ While the above strategies for accommodating growth apply to all of the region's communities, implementing the Regional Development Framework is not a one-size-fits- all process. The Council has tailored growth strategies for different community types — Developed Communities, Developing Communities and four types of communities within Rural Areas (see further detail in the chapter "Strategies for Geographic Planning Areas," beginning on page 16). Strategies for Developed Communities • Work in partnership with developed communities to encourage reinvestment and revitalization. • Provide grants and other incentives to cities and businesses to reclaim, infill and redevelop underutilized lands and structures. Discussion The Developed Communities are the cities where more than 85 % of the land is developed, infrastructure is well established and efforts must go toward keeping it in good repair. These communities have the greatest opportunities to adapt or replace obsolete buildings, improve community amenities, and remodel or replace infrastructure to increase their economic competitiveness and enhance their quality of life. Developed Communities are taking advantage of their assets. New households and jobs are being added in Minneapolis, St. Paul and adjacent older suburbs, and these 7 communities are identifying opportunities to attract more such investment. Their plans indicate potential sites, they have proven market interest and they concur with —and, in some instances, have requested increases in— Council forecasts for continued growth. Developed Communities are now the expected locations for approximately 30 percent of new households and about half of new jobs through 2030. It makes economic sense for the Council to make investments in and offer incentives for reinvestment and infill to these communities to assist them with their efforts. Strategies for Developing Communities • Invest in regional systems (wastewater treatment, transportation, parks and open space, and airports) to help ensure adequate services to communities as they grow. • Implement standards for extending urban services to help local governments plan for and stage development within a rolling 20 -year land supply (local plan evaluation to be based on inclusion of measures that address transportation connections, housing production, surface water management and natural resource conservation). • Encourage communities to plan for post -2030 areas for future urban services. • Use natural resource conservation strategies to help protect environmentally sensitive areas and shape development. Discussion Developing Communities are the cities where the most substantial amount of new growth —about 60 percent of new households and 40 percent of new jobs —will occur. The amount of infill and redevelopment and the way in which new areas are developed directly influence when and how much additional land in Developing Communities will need urban services — services that will call for substantial new regional and local investments. Local comprehensive plans for Developing Communities already designate sufficient land to accommodate forecasted growth through 2020. Within the 20 -year land supply, the Council will support flexible staging of growth, recognizing that development opportunities do not always occur in a contiguous manner. The community must demonstrate that the development will support a connected land use pattern and can be served in an efficient and economical manner. When a change in urban service area staging is requested, the Council will expedite the review through a comprehensive plan amendment. Standards for changing the staging of urban services will be identified in the Council's Local Planning Handbook. The 2020 metropolitan urban service area was established through the 1998 comprehensive plan review process. During the next comprehensive plan update process, the Council will work with local communities to ensure there is enough land to accommodate forecasted 2030 growth, developing plans that extend staging to continue to maintain a 20 -year land supply over time. Developing Communities should consider their entire jurisdiction when proposing long -term staging and development patterns, protecting land for post -2030 urbanization. 8 The Council will determine its ability to provide needed regional services such as interceptor and treatment plant capacity. Each city, in turn, will need to consider how it will locally serve the planned -for growth. The flexibility to stage growth locally also offers Developing Communities the opportunity to incorporate natural resources into their local plans. They can build on the regional Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment by identifying additional locally important resources. Then staging plans can incorporate these regional and local resources, developing local infrastructure (wastewater treatment systems, roads, parks and open space, and airports) in a way that conserves natural resources and avoids or protects sensitive natural areas. Strategies for Rural Areas • Support rural growth centers in their efforts to concentrate growth as a way to relieve development pressure in rural parts of the metropolitan area. • Provide technical and/or financial support for wastewater services in rural growth centers where feasible. • Support development in rural areas in clusters or at low densities to preserve these areas for future growth. Discussion Roughly half of the 3,000 square miles in the seven - county Twin Cities area are rural. That includes cultivated fannland, nurseries, tree farms, orchards and vineyards, scattered individual home sites or clusters of houses, hobby farms, small towns, gravel mines, woodlands, and many of the region's remaining important natural resources. About 5% to 8% of new growth is forecast for the rural area —most of it in Rural Growth Centers. To acknowledge its diversity, the rural area is categorized into four geographic planning areas: • Rural Centers are the small towns, like Belle Plaine and St. Francis, located throughout the rural area. Rural Growth Centers are those Rural Centers both interested in and showing a potential for growth. Growth in Rural Centers offers the opportunity to take advantage of existing infrastructure, provides municipal services as an alternative to individual wells and septic systems whose continued proliferation causes environmental concerns, and provides more households with the opportunity for:small -town living. • Rural Residential Areas are those places in Ham bake, Andover, Ramsey, Inver Grove Heights and Credit River Township that are currently developed at near urban densities (one unit per 2 to 2 '/2 acres or less), with no plans to provide urban infrastructure such as centralized wastewater treatment. Additional development of this type will increase the potential for damage to the environment from many individual sewage treatment systems located close together, and will preclude providing urban infrastructure in efficient ways. It should be 9 limited to infill or carefully_ considered expansion only within the boundaries of communities where it already exists. • Diversified Rural Communities are the sparsely developed parts of the region, such as Burns Township and Stillwater Township, that host the widest variety of farm and non -farm land uses. They include a mix of a limited amount of large -lot residential I nd clustered housing, agriculture, and facilities and services requiring a rural location. Continuing the diversified rural land use pattern in the region saves the costs of extending infrastructure, protects the natural environment and provides groundwater aquifer recharge areas. Currently, lands in the Diversified Rural Communities are not needed for urban development, but should be preserved for post -2030 development. Therefore, only limited growth is forecast for this planning area. • Agricultural Areas are large contiguous land areas planned and zoned to maintain agriculture as the primary land use. They are, found mostly in Dakota, Scott and Carver Counties in communities such as Greenvale Township and San Francisco Township and total about a half - million acres of the region's best soils. Many of these communities have taken additional steps to preserve agricultural lands. The Council supports local efforts by forecasting only very small amounts of household and employment growth for agricultural areas and by strictly limiting its investments in regional infrastructure in those areas, focusing instead on investing in efficient and fiscally prudent urban growth. Policy 2: Plan and invest in multi -modal transportation choices, based on the full range of costs and benefits, to slow the growth of congestion and serve the region's economic needs. Strategies • Focus highway investments on maintaining and managing the existing system, removing bottlenecks and adding capacity. • Make more efficient use of existing highway capacity by encouraging flexible work hours, telecommuting, ridesharing, pricing strategies and other traffic management efforts. +, Expand the transit system, add bus -only lanes on highway shoulders, provide more park -and -ride lots and develop a network of transitways. • Encourage local governments to implement a system of fully interconnected arterial and local streets, pathways and bikeways. • Support airport facilities investments to keep pace with market needs and maintain the region's economic vitality. Discussion To a growing number of metropolitan area residents, highway congestion ranks as the region's No. 1 concern. The average daily commute in the 1990s grew from 21 minutes to 23 minutes, with a 62 percent increase in commutes requiring 40.minutes or longer. 10 The portion of peak - period travel occurring under congested conditions increased more than fivefold between 1982 and 2000 — an increase that tied with Atlanta's for the second fastest rate of congestion growth in the nation. In 2000, traffic tieups cost the average Twin Cities commuter more than $1,000 a year in wasted fuel and lost time, and cost the business community more than $300 million in comparable penalties for distribution of goods. The region's congestion problems will continue to worsen in the coming decades. The nearly 1 million new residents projected by 2030 are expected to generate an additional 4 million daily trips, and the number of congested highway miles is expected to double during the same period. The enormous costs attached with building new transportation facilities mean that the region will have to make targeted investments, recognizing that "one size does not fit all" and carefully weighing the options in every corridor. The first priority for highway improvements must be to maintain the existing 657 -mile metro highway system, reducing the dozens of bottlenecks that impede travel, implementing new strategies to improve the efficiency of the system and adding capacity where possible. But the region also must look for new ways to make more effective use of the existing system. This means stretching out peak- period travel through flexible work hours, exploring pricing strategies that discourage unnecessary freeway travel in peak periods, providing greater incentives for transit use, and reducing travel demand through - expanded ridesharing, telecoininuting and other measures. We also must pay greater attention to the challenges of moving resources and goods within and through the region to North American and world markets. Transit will continue to play a critical role in many individuals' daily lives, and can significantly relieve the need to expand highways and local streets. By investing in improved transit, the region can provide more people with realistic alternatives to traveling by car. This requires expanding the existing system of regular -route and express bus service, adding more bus -only lanes on highway shoulders and park -and -ride lots, - supporting more local circulator bus service, and continuing the effort to develop a network of transitways in heavily traveled corridors. This network should include a range of possibilities light rail, commuter rail and exclusive busways - making anode selections based on a thorough cost - benefit analysis. The Council will evaluate the effectiveness of LRT in the Hiawatha corridor and use that information in making future transit investment decisions. In the longer term, the region also can slow the growth in congestion by encouraging development and reinvestment in urban and rural centers that combine transit, housing, offices, retail, services, open space and connected streets that support walking and bicycle use. Such development enables those who wish to reduce their automobile use to meet their daily needs and makes it possible for those who no longer wish to drive to live more independently. The aviation industry is suffering from the lingering effects of a poor economy, the 9/11 attacks, the SARS scare and structural changes within the industry. To remain economically competitive, our region must continue to implement the MSP 2010 11 improvement plan to increase runway and terminal capacity at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, as well as maintain our system of reliever airports. At the same time, we must carefully monitor changes within the industry to ensure that adequate airport capacity is available in the years ahead. In addition, we must work with local communities to mitigate the adverse impacts of airports and ensure compatible land uses in adjacent areas. Policy 3: Encourage expanded choices in housing location and types, and improved access to jobs and opportunities. Strategies • ` Work to ensure.an adequate supply of serviced, developable land to meet regional needs and respond to demographic trends. • Work with regional partners to increase housing options that meet changing market preferences. • Support the production and preservation of lifecycle and affordable housing with links to jobs, services and amenities accessible by auto, transit, biking or walking. Discussion The challenge of maintaining a sufficient supply of urban- serviced land is to balance the costs of providing services to new development while not unduly restricting available land supply. Achieving this balance means that the region needs to monitor its land supply, make the best use of existing infrastructure as it develops, and increase the supply to accommodate efficient; development. The public and the private sectors are committed to regularly monitoring available land supply and comparing actual land uses with those indicated in regional and local plans — including designation of urban reserve lands for development post - 2030 —to respond appropriately to changing markets. New housing developments will need transportation, sewers and water supply; and providing these services requires continued coordination of planning and implementation between regional and local governments. The marketplace, supplemented by public - private partnerships, is key to this effort. Since the year 2000, the market has produced both rental and ownership units in response to heavy consumer demand, boosted by changes in state tax policy. At the same time, the expansion of low- income housing tax credits and increased state authority to issue housing revenue bonds has eased the market squeeze on affordable rental units. Somewhat fewer renter households now bear an inordinate housing -cost burden than in 1990, even though the region saw a large increase in total households. But the situation for lower - income households has improved little —eight out of 10 continue to pay more than they can afford for housing costs. The region will, of course, need much more housing in the next 30 years, but population changes are shifting consumer preferences for various types of units. During the 1990s, the leading edge of the baby -boom generation moved into the 45-to-54- year - old age group, producing the biggest gain in any age category. 12 The hew- housing market, which has historically favored single - family housing, is responding with a shift toward attached homes, such as townhouses and condominiums. The trend will strengthen in future years as baby - boomers grow older. The growing share of attached housing - attractive to singles, young couples without children, "empty nesters" and others — enriches the stock of available housing, makes available single- family homes to first -time and "move -up" buyers, and offers opportunities to improve connections with workplaces, retail, services and entertainment. A growing number of employers - including Best Buy, Medtronic, Wells Fargo and US Bank – have demonstrated that they recognize the benefits of linking job sites and housing by easily accessible transportation options. - Cities are seeing the economic advantages of encouraging a mix of housing that provides choices for a range of ages and incomes. Many cities are planning for mixed -use areas in their comprehensive plans and making changes to local ordinances and official controls to encourage those types of land uses. The result can be shorter daily commutes, reduced business costs related to congestion delays and less strain on the transportation system during peak - travel periods. Coalitions of interested organizations, public agencies, businesses and foundations continue to strive to expand housing choices. Promising approaches include streamlining approval processes for new construction techniques, residential re -use and rehabilitation; providing cities with more information about land trusts and other ways of preserving housing affordability; creating more -local options for ftmding affordable housing; support ing information- sharing among cities; and encouraging them to review land use controls and regulations, zoning policies and practices, and approval processes to foster development, preservation and rehabilitation of more affordable housing. For its part, the Council will use its programs and resources — including negotiated housing goals, planning and technical assistance, regional investments, and incentive programs —to encourage communities to provide for a diversity of housing types and costs. In addition, the Council will give funding priority to communities and community projects that increase the variety of housing types and costs, appropriately mix land uses, increase transportation choices and leverage private investment. Policy 4: Work with local and regional partners to conserve, protect and enhance the region's vital natural resources. Strategies • Encourage the integration of natural - resource conservation strategies in regional and local land -use planning decisions. • Work with other regional partners to protect regionally important natural resources identified as unprotected in the Natural Resources Inventory and Assessment. • Work to preserve the quality of the region's water resources. • Designate additional areas for the regional park system that enhance outdoor recreation opportunities and serve important natural - resource functions. 13 Discussion Our region is endowed with rich natural assets that enhance its quality of life and provide significant economic benefits. Natural areas recharge aquifers for water supply. They clean stormwater runoff and slow its flow, reducing flood damage and improving the quality of rivers, lakes and streams. They clean the air by "filtering" it through tree and vegetative cover. Taking advantage of natural air - and water- filtration systems is far less expensive than replacing lost natural functions with costly technology. Natural areas also increase the local tax base by providing amenities that raise the value of nearby properties, and they boost the economic attractiveness of the area. The 2002 Twin Cities Area Survey reported that 72 percent of those polled strongly agreed and 20 percent agreed with the statement, "As areas develop, governments should do more to protect natural features, such as wetlands, woodlands, lakes and streams." Making natural resources an integral part of the planning and development process will help protect highly prized natural features for current and future generations. The Council and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources have completed an initial inventory and assessment of regionally important natural resources —the Natural Resources Inventory and Assessment (NRI/A). Local governments can use this large database as a starting point to identify locally important resources and then take appropriate conservation measures. New development can be located and designed in a way that preserves and benefits from the natural environment. The regional parks and open space system represents a major, well - established conservation effort for land and water resources. The system includes about 55,000 acres within park boundaries, drawing more than 30 million visits a year (2002). But the area's growing population will need additional large -scale park and open space lands in the future. The region needs to identify natural areas that could be added to the regional park system and plan for their acquisition before the opportunity is lost. Although the region is a water -rich area, the quality of its rivers, lakes and streams is affected by stormwater runoff containing phosphorus, other nutrients, oils, road salt and other pollutants. Loss of natural areas contributes to increased runoff and lowered water quality. Best management practices are needed to keep pollutants out of the region's surface- and groundwater. Proper management of on -site septic systems is needed to minimize impacts on groundwater. And wastewater issues involving municipal treatment plants need solutions. Aggregate —sand, gravel and crushed rock —is another resource vital to the area. The regional transportation systems and the building industry need large volumes of aggregate for construction and maintenance. But the metropolitan area is losing access to its aggregate resources and rapidly depleting the supply. Development located on or near, aggregate deposits has shut off access to about 45% of the aggregate originally available in the metropolitan area. To deal with this issue, the Minnesota Legislature directed each local unit of government in the metropolitan area to amend its local comprehensive plan to address 14 issues related to aggregate, when such resources are present in the community (Minn. Stat. 473.859). This is a step toward preserving sources of aggregate for the future, but additional protections and incentives are needed to ensure their continued availability. Prime agricultural soils are important not only to farming communities but also to the region as a whole. About a half - million acres in the region are planned and zoned to maintain agriculture as the primary long -term land use, most of it located in a crescent- shaped arc through the region's southern and southwestern counties Dakota, Scott and Carver. For many rural communities, these soils are an important natural resource. The Council supports local communities in their determination of how best to use this land., (Minn. Stat.. 473.859): 15 Chapter_3 /Strategies for Geographic Planning Areas Implementing the Regional Development Framework is not a one - size - fits -all process. There are different strategies for communities based on the types of growth that are expected. These variations are reflected in "Geographic Planning Areas" designated by the Council and illustrated on the Regional Growth Strategy map (attached at the end of this document). 'The map, which incorporates the current land use plans of the region's communities, also will serve as the foundation for the next round of comprehensive plan updates. It identifies an urban area and a rural area, each of which occupies approximately half of the region. The urban area is divided into two specific geographic planning areas: the Developing Communities and the Developed Communities. The rural area is divided into four specific geographic planning areas: Rural Centers /Rural Growth Centers, the Diversified Rural Communities, the Rural Residential Areas and the Agricultural Areas. One of the primary differences among these planning areas is the density at which they develop. The Council has established benchmarks indicating the overall densities that planned development patterns in each of the geographic planning areas can be expected to achieve. The Council negotiates a share of the regional forecasts with each community based on its geographic planning area designation(s), development trends, expected densities, available land, local interests and Council policies. The cumulative results of the community- accepted distribution of the forecasts among planning areas becomes the basis for determining the required land supply, and for the Council's plans for and investments in regional systems such as highways and wastewater treatment. Approximately 91% to 95% of new growth is forecast to be located in the urban area —in land use patterns that make efficient use of regional infrastructure —with the rest, 5% to 9 %, in the rural area, particularly in small towns to be designated as Rural Growth Centers. The Regional Growth Strategy Map – together with the overall strategies in Table 1 and the Geographic Planning Area Table specific to each planning area shown on the map outlines the roles of individual communities and strategies for accommodating expected growth. At times, planning area designations may change. The Council will work with communities through the comprehensive planning process and within the parameters of the Framework to implement such changes. Each community will determine how to implement the strategies in the geographic planning area tables. The range of choices provides considerable local flexibility. For example, a Developed Community could —as the table for Developed Communities states— accommodate growth forecasts through reinvestment at appropriate densities by adopting innovative zoning techniques for compatible mixed -use development or shaping new projects at an appropriate scale. In addition, a community in any part of the region may choose to develop and/or expand centers that work for their city. Centers vary in scale from the downtowns of the region's two central cities to small centers that provide services to neighborhoods or rural areas. Centers integrate land -use patterns, mixing jobs, housing, retail, services and - potentially – open space and connect them 16 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 growth 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 treatment 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 MLPA. • 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 p rogram consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080). Policy 2: Plan and invest in multi- -modal transportation choices based on the full range of costs and benefits, to slow the groNyth of congestion and serve the region'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 MN/DOT'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 Compatibility Guidelines or Aircraft 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. • Use MN /DOT's access management guidelines to prepare local plans and ordinances. • Use Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise to plan appropriate land uses for areas surrounding airports. Policy 3: Encourage expanded choices in housing location and types, and improved access to jobs and opportunities. Council Role • Provide guidance and negotiate lifecycle and affordable housing goals in implementing the Livable Communities Act (LCA) and Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA). • 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 of a 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 community and regional needs, as appropriate. Developed Communities Council investments in regional systems and incentives for the Developed Communities are to maintain current infrastructure; renew and improve infrastructure, buildings and land to provide for additional growth, particularly at centers along transit corridors; and support developments that integrate land uses. Developed Communities Anoka County: Anoka, Circle Pines, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Fridley, Hilltop, Lexington, Spring Lake Park Dakota County: Apple Valley, Burnsville, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, South St. Paul, West St. Paul Hennepin County: Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Champlin, Crystal, Deephaven, Edina, Excelsior, Fort Snelling, Golden Valley, Greenwood, Hopkins, Long Lake, Loretto, Medicine Lake, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Mound, New Hope, Osseo, Richfield, Robbinsdale, St. Anthony, St. Louis Park, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Wayzata, Woodland Ramsey County: Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Gem Lake, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Maplewood, Mounds View, New Brighton, North St. Paul, Roseville, Saint Paul, Shoreview, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township Washington County: Birchwood, Landfall, Mahtomedi, Newport, St. Paul Park, Stillwater, Willemie 19 Table 2: Growth Accommodation in Developed Communities Policy 1: Work with communities to accommodate growth in a flexible, connected and efficient manner. Council Role • Invest Council resources to facilitate reinvestment (infih, adaptive reuse and redevelopment). • Maintain and expand existing regional infrastructure to adequately support reinvestment as identified in local comprehensive plans. • Reduce infiltration and inflow into the regional wastewater treatment system. Community Role • Accommodate growth forecasts through reinvestment at appropriate densities (5 units plus in developed areas and target higher density in locations with convenient access to transportation corridors and with adequate sewer capacity). • Approve and permit reinvestment projects that make cost effective use of infrastructure and increase density. • Adopt ordinances to accommodate growth and use land and infrastructure efficiently (examples: innovative zoning techniques for mixed use development, transit oriented development, overlay districts, planned unit development provisions, and traditional neighborhood development overlay zones.) • Support the conversion or reuse of underutilized lands in order to accommodate growth forecasts, ensure efficient utilization of existing infrastructure investments and meet community needs. • Reduce infiltration and inflow into the local and regional wastewater treatments stem. Policy 2: Plan and invest in multi -modal transportation choices based on the full range of costs and benefits, to slow the growth of congestion and serve the region's economic needs. Council Role • Plan regional highway and transit systems, pedestrian and bicycle investments to improve connections between workplaces, residences, retail, services and entertainment activities to accommodate growth and reinvestment. • Plan to complete 6 -lane ring route, eliminate bottlenecks, make select capacity improvements and improve system management. • Improve transit connections by coordinating planning for infill and redevelopment projects with state agencies, counties and local communities. • Plan development of transitways, transit stations and transit service; plan appropriate station -area land uses with local governments and business. Community Role • Make local transportation, transit, pedestrian and bicycle investments to improve connections between workplaces, residences, retail, services and entertainment activities. • Identify opportunities to improve transportation connections and address transportation issues such as travel demand management, access management, safety and mobility when planning infili and redevelopment projects. • Plan land use patterns that support transit service and development. • Adopt ordinances to support integrated land use (examples: ordinances encouraging or allowing shared parking; centers, transit oriented developments). • Adopt improved design techniques (examples: context sensitive design; better access management) • 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. Table 2: Growth Accommodation in Developed Communities Policy 3: Encourage expanded choices in housing location and types, and improved access to jobs and opportunities. Council Role • Use regional system investments and incentives to help developed communities maintain and preserve the existing housing stock and to add new higher density housing that responds to changing demographic and market trends. • Maintain and expand existing regional infrastructure to adequately support reinvestment. Community Role • Plan for and guide infill development, redevelopment, and adaptive reuse of structures to diversify housing, connect housing and jobs, and integrate new development into existing neighborhoods. • Adopt and pursue reinvestment strategies to achieve MLPA/LCA housing goals. • Encourage the preservation of existing neighborhoods and expansion of housing choices within the city.. • Adopt ordinance to increase lifecycle and affordable housing (examples: increased multi - family use, reduced front and interior setback requirements; cluster development ordinances). Policy 4: -Work with local and regional partners to conserve, protect and enhance the region's vital natural resources. Council Role • Support the reclamation of contaminated lands for redevelopment and restore natural resources. • Work with communities to implement best management practices to control and treat stormwater as redevelopment opportunities arise. Community Role • Approve and permit projects designed to reclaim contaminated lands and restore natural resources where appropriate. • Implement best management practices to control and treat stormwater as redevelopment opportunities arise. Developing Communities Council investments in regional systems and incentives for the Developing Communities focus on accommodating growth, supporting centers along corridors, encouraging connected land use patterns for new development and encouraging the development of communities where shopping, jobs and a variety of housing choices co- exist by design. Local 2020 comprehensive plans already designate sufficient land to accommodate this growth through 2020. However, to accommodate household growth projected to 2030, assuming 30 % of regional residential growth will occur in the Developed Communities, the region will need to add 16,000 residential acres. Further, the Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment identifies approximately 5,000 acres of unprotected natural resources of regional importance in areas planned for development. Protection of these natural resource lands would require the designation of additional acres for residential development. Finally, the region will also need to provide urban services to an estimated 14,000 acres (about 40 % of the total land demand) to accommodate other land uses such as commercial and industrial development. Based on these numbers, the Council must plan regional infrastructure to provide services to 35,000 acres, in addition to the existing 2020 staged development as shown in local plans. 21 Additional Land Needed for 2030 Metropolitan Urban Service Area Flexibility will be a hallmark of the Council and Developing Communities' long -term growth planning and staging. Achieving connected land use patterns that can be served efficiently and economically with urban services will be more important than adherence to regulatory requirements such as making new growth contiguous with existing development. Decisions to extend regional infrastructure for Developing Communities will be made based on evidence of efforts to mix and connect land use patterns at appropriate densities. Communities can choose among a variety of actions to do that. For instance, they could adopt innovative zoning techniques (e.g. overlay districts or planned unit development provisions), implement context sensitive designs or adopt conservation subdivision ordinances. Many Developing Communities contain older, developed areas where strategies listed for the Developed Communities are more appropriate to address land use changes. In addition, Developing Communities are encouraged to plan for the entire communities and, as appropriate, use strategies to preserve areas for Diversified Rural or Agricultural to maintain areas for post -2030 urbanization. (Appropriate additional geographic planning areas and strategies are shown in parenthesis after each community name.) Developing Communities Anoka County: Andover (urban reserve, Rural Residential), Blaine, Centerville (urban reserve),Lino Lakes (urban reserve), Ramsey (urban reserve, rural residential) Carver County: Chanhassen, Chaska, Laketown Township (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Victoria (urban reserve), Waconia Dakota County: Coates (Agricultural Preservation), Eagan, Empire Township ,(urban reserve, Agricultural Area), Farmington (urban reserve), Hastings (urban reserve), Inver Grove Heights (Rural Residential), Lakeville (urban reserve), Rosemount (urban reserve, Agricultural Area), Sunfish Lake Hennepin County: Brooklyn Park, Corcoran (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Dayton (urban reserve), Eden Prairie, Hassan Township (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Maple Grove, Maple Plain, Medina (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Minnetrista (urban reserve, Agricultural Area, Diversified Rural), Orono (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Plymouth (urban reserve), Rogers (urban reserve), St. Bonifacius, Shorewood Ramsey County: North Oaks Scott County: Prior Lake (urban reserve), Savage, Shakopee (urban reserve) Washington County: Bayport, Cottage Grove (urban reserve, Agricultural Area), Forest Lake (Diversified Rural), Grey Cloud Township (Diversified Rural), Hugo (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Lake Elmo (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Oakdale, Oak Park Heights, Woodbury (urban reserve) 22 Residential " Residential Not Replacement Residential Assumptions Affected by for Natural Natural Resource Areas Commercial, Total Resource Areas Needing Protection Industrial, Other Expected housing mix, land patterns, Up to reinvestment achieved 16,000 acres 5,000 acres 14,000 acres 35,000 acres Flexibility will be a hallmark of the Council and Developing Communities' long -term growth planning and staging. Achieving connected land use patterns that can be served efficiently and economically with urban services will be more important than adherence to regulatory requirements such as making new growth contiguous with existing development. Decisions to extend regional infrastructure for Developing Communities will be made based on evidence of efforts to mix and connect land use patterns at appropriate densities. Communities can choose among a variety of actions to do that. For instance, they could adopt innovative zoning techniques (e.g. overlay districts or planned unit development provisions), implement context sensitive designs or adopt conservation subdivision ordinances. Many Developing Communities contain older, developed areas where strategies listed for the Developed Communities are more appropriate to address land use changes. In addition, Developing Communities are encouraged to plan for the entire communities and, as appropriate, use strategies to preserve areas for Diversified Rural or Agricultural to maintain areas for post -2030 urbanization. (Appropriate additional geographic planning areas and strategies are shown in parenthesis after each community name.) Developing Communities Anoka County: Andover (urban reserve, Rural Residential), Blaine, Centerville (urban reserve),Lino Lakes (urban reserve), Ramsey (urban reserve, rural residential) Carver County: Chanhassen, Chaska, Laketown Township (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Victoria (urban reserve), Waconia Dakota County: Coates (Agricultural Preservation), Eagan, Empire Township ,(urban reserve, Agricultural Area), Farmington (urban reserve), Hastings (urban reserve), Inver Grove Heights (Rural Residential), Lakeville (urban reserve), Rosemount (urban reserve, Agricultural Area), Sunfish Lake Hennepin County: Brooklyn Park, Corcoran (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Dayton (urban reserve), Eden Prairie, Hassan Township (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Maple Grove, Maple Plain, Medina (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Minnetrista (urban reserve, Agricultural Area, Diversified Rural), Orono (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Plymouth (urban reserve), Rogers (urban reserve), St. Bonifacius, Shorewood Ramsey County: North Oaks Scott County: Prior Lake (urban reserve), Savage, Shakopee (urban reserve) Washington County: Bayport, Cottage Grove (urban reserve, Agricultural Area), Forest Lake (Diversified Rural), Grey Cloud Township (Diversified Rural), Hugo (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Lake Elmo (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Oakdale, Oak Park Heights, Woodbury (urban reserve) 22 Table 3: Growth Accommodation in Developing Communities Policy 1: Work with communities to accommodate growth in a flexible, connected and efficient manner. Council Role • Plan, coordinate and invest in regional infrastructure (roads, transit, wastewater treatment, airports, and parks and open space) and resources to support staged development, and centers with convenient access to transportation and transit corridors. • Commit to provide regional system infrastructure to support local development consistent with approved local comprehensive plans. • Reduce infiltration and inflow into the regional wastewater treatment system. • Promote development practices and patterns that protect natural resource areas and the integrity of the region's water supply. • Work with communities to identify and protect an adequate supply of land within the region to accommodate urban development that will occur after 2030. • Provide technical assistance to developing communities to establish and implement strategies to protect lands for future urban development. Community Role • Plan and stage development that accommodates the forecasts for local growth through 2030 at appropriate densities (3 -5 units plus per acre overall in developing communities and target higher density in locations with convenient access to transportation corridors and with adequate sewer capacity). • Stage local infrastructure and development plans to accommodate 20 years worth of forecasted growth. • Select and implement local controls and tools for timing and staging of development throughout the community. • Reduce infiltration and inflow into the local and regional wastewater treatment system. • Adopt ordinances to accommodate growth and use land and infrastructure efficiently (examples: innovative zoning techniques for mixed use development, transit oriented development, overlay districts, planned unit development provisions, adequate public facilities ordinances, community impact statements and traditional neighborhood development overlay zones.) • Plan for the conversion or reuse of declining or underutilized lands in order to accommodate growth forecasts, ensure efficient utilization of infrastructure investments and meet community needs. • Plan for the entire community and consider the need for additional serviceable land for growth beyond 2030. • Identify areas reserved for future urban development and develop strategies to minimize development in those areas that could preclude future urban development. • Plan land use patterns that will facilitate groundwater recharge to protect there ion's water suppl Policy 2: Plan and invest in multi- modal transportation choices based on the full range of costs and benefits, to slow the growth of congestion and serve the region's economic needs. Council Role • Plan for regional highway and transit systems, pedestrian and bicycle investments to improve connections between workplaces, residences, retail, services and entertainment activities and to accommodate growth. Community Role • Make local transportation, transit, pedestrian and bicycle investments to build connections between workplaces, residences, retail, services and entertainment activities and to support the transportation needs of the planned build out of the community. • Identify opportunities to improve transportation connections and address transportation issues such as commuting (park and rides, express bus service), access management, safety and mobility when planning new development. • Plan land use patterns to support transit development and service expansion. • Adopt ordinances to support integrated land use (examples: ordinances encouraging or allowing shared parking; centers; transit oriented developments). • Adopt improved design techniques (examples: context sensitive design; better access management). Policy 3: Encourage expanded choices in housing location and types, and improved access to jobs and opportunities. Council Role • Provide technical assistance to assist developing communities to devise ordinances and projects for lifecycle and affordable housing that respond to chap in market and demographic trends. Community Role • Evaluate proposed housing developments in light of population forecasts, existing housing stock, and current and future community and regional needs; approve and permit developments as appropriate. • Adopt ordinances designed to encourage lifecycle and affordable housing (examples: increased multi- family zoning, reduced front and interior setback requirements; cluster development ordinances). Policy 4: Work with local and regional partners to conserve, protect and enhance the region's vital natural resources. See Table 1. Rural Area: Rural Centers and Rural Growth Centers Rural Centers are the small towns located throughout the Rural Area. The 16 Rural Centers include residential neighborhoods surrounding a center that provides basic consumer services and community activities. These are older communities, many of them established more than a century ago to serve surrounding farms. Rural Centers that are interested in growing are identified as Rural Growth Centers. Council will use regional investments and incentives to help Rural Growth Centers accommodate growth as an alternative to scattered development in the rural area. (Appropriate additional geographic planning areas are shown in parenthesis after each community name.) Rural Centers Anoka County: Bethel (Diversified Rural), St, Francis (Diversified Rural) Carver County: Carver (Agricultural Area), Cologne, Hamburg, Mayer (Agricultural Area), New Germany, Norwood Young America, Watertown Dakota County: Hampton (Agricultural Area), Vermillion (Agricultural Area) Scott County: Belle Plaine, Elko, Jordan, New Market Washington County: Marine on St. Croix (Diversified Rural) 24 Table 4: Growth Accommodation in Rural Centers and Rural Growth Centers Policy 1: Work with communities to accommodate growth in a flexible, connected and efficient manner. Council Role Rural Growth Centers • Work with communities to designate areas surrounding Rural Growth Centers that will accommodate post -2030 growth forecasts. Help communities develop and implement strategies to preserve these areas for future urbanization (e.g. clustered development not to exceed 1 unit per 10 acres in Diversified Rural Areas and clustered development not to exceed 1 unit per 40 acres in agricultural preservation areas) • Plan for improvements to regional infrastructure to support expected growth at residential densities of 3 -5 plus units per acre; for wastewater services consider acquiring and operating the plant if doing so would be more efficient and cost effective. Rural Centers • Provide technical assistance to Rural Centers to preserve and maintain existing development. Community Role Rural Growth Centers • Request Council designation as a Rural Growth Center and develop plans to accommodate growth at urban densities (3 -5 plus units) and to provide affordable and lifecycle housing. Maintain local wastewater treatment plants. If the capacity of the local treatment plant is a concern, ask the Council to consider acquiring and operating the plant if doing so would be more efficient and cost effective. • Plan for necessary infrastructure improvements including executing orderly annexation agreements. • Identify areas that will accommodate post -2030 growth forecasts and implement strategies to preserve these areas for future urbanization (e.g. clustered development not to exceed 1 unit per 10 acres in Diversified Rural Areas and clustered development not to exceed 1 unit per 40 acres in agricultural preservation areas). Plan for necessary infrastructure improvements. • Adopt conservation subdivision ordinances, cluster development ordinances, adequate public facility ordinance, community impact statements or environmental protection provisions in land use ordinances Rural Centers • Plan for the preservation and maintenance of the community. Policy 2: Plan and invest in multi -modal transportation choices based on the full range of costs and benefits, to slow the growth of congestion and serve the region's economic needs. Council Role Rural Growth Centers • Provide park- and -pool or park- and -ride and express -bus links to urban areas based on demand and the availability of resources. Community Role • Plan for an interconnected system of local streets, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Policy 3: Encourage expanded choices in housing location and types, and improved access to jobs and opportunities See Table 1: Policy 4: Work with local and regional partners to conserve, protect and enhance the region's vital natural resources. See Table 1. Rural Area: Rural Residential Areas Rural Residential Areas have large numbers of individual sewage treatment systems in close proximity at near -urban densities of development (2 ' / 2 acre lots). Regional investments and incentives for the Rural Residential Area will be used primarily to encourage communities to identify opportunities to establish community -scale centers to provide convenience goods and services to residents. Growth in Rural Residential Areas 25 should be discouraged. Regional forecasts in these areas is for limited growth to protect the region's water quality. Five communities have areas designated as the Rural Residential Area. As the five communities consider providing for current and future residents, they should focus on protecting the environment and natural resources, ensuring sufficient public infrastructure, and discouraging this type of land use pattern. Infill development should be carefully considered. Rural Residential Communities Anoka County: Ham Lake Scott County: Credit River Township Portions of Andover, Ramsey and Inver Grove Heights are designated Rural Residential. , Table 5: Growth Accommodation in Rural Residential Areas Policy 1: Work with communities to accommodate growth in a flexible, connected and efficient manner. Council Role • Provide technical assistance to communities to plan for adequate infrastructure to address current needs and to accommodate forecast growth using development practices that protect the integrity of the region's water supply and natural resources identified in regional or local inventories. • Discourage rural residential patterns (unsewered areas of 2' /x acre lots) elsewhere in the region. • Provide technical assistance about alternative wastewater treatment systems and share specific information, as it becomes available, about the performance of such systems in the region. • Support the continued issuance of required MPCA permits for community treatment systems on a case -by -case basis that will allow the type and size of the system and the degree of treatment required to be determined based on site- specific soil conditions and effluent discharge points. • Advocate that the local government should be the permit holder for alternative wastewater treatment systems to ensure accountability for the proper functioning and maintenance of the systems. Community Role • Plan and develop interconnected local streets, adequate water supply, and properly managed individual sewage treatment systems to accommodate local growth forecasts. • Plan land use patterns that will facilitate groundwater recharge to protect the region's water supply. • Protect the rural environment. Locally oversee the management and maintenance of alternative wastewater treatment systems such as community drainfields to avoid the environmental and economic costs from failed systems. • Ensure financial and environmental accountability for installation, maintenance, remediation and management of any permitted private wastewater treatments stems. Policy 2: Plan and invest in multi -modal transportation choices based on the full range of costs and benefits; to slow the growth of congestion. Council Role • Plan for regional transportation infrastructure consistent with a rural level of service. • Support the limiting of access points to state and county roads systems (consistent with state and county access management policies) and emphasize construction of an interconnected local public streets stem. Community Role • Plan for and construct local transportation infrastructure sufficient to serve local needs. • Construct an interconnected local public street system. • Adopt improved design techniques for access management. Policy 3: Encourage expanded choices in housing location and types, and improved access to jobs and opportunitie s. See Table 1. Table 5: Growth Accommodation in Rural Residential Areas Policy 4: Work with local and regional partners to conserve, protect and enhance the region's vital natural resources Council Role See Table 1. Community Role • Adopt conservation subdivision ordinances, cluster development ordinances, or environmental protection p rovisions in land use ordinances. Rural Area: Diversified Rural Communities The Diversified Rural Communities host the widest variety of fann and non -farm land uses in patterns that include a mix of a limited amount of large -lot residential and clustered housing with agriculture and other uses, including facilities and services requiring a rural location. Regional infrastructure investments in the Diversified Rural Communities will consist of expenditures for parks, open spaces and green corridor connections— including acquisition and development of regional parkland to serve the residents of the region. Investments in wastewater treatment and transportation infrastructure will be consistent with the Council's intent to limit the amount of development occurring in the Diversified Rural Communities. Growth in Diversified Rural Communities should be consistent with regional forecasts. Diversified Rural Communities Anoka County: Burns Township, Columbus Township (Developing Community), East Bethel, Linwood Township, Oak Grove Dakota County: Miesville (Agricultural Area), New Trier (Agricultural Area), Randolph (Agricultural Area), Ravenna Township (Agricultural Area) Hennepin County: Greenfield, Independence (Agricultural Area), Scott County: Cedar Lake Township, Helena Township (urban reserve, Agricultural Area), Jackson Township (urban reserve), Louisville Township (urban reserve), New Market Township. (urban reserve), St. Lawrence Township (urban reserve, Agricultural Area), Sand Creek Township (urban reserve, Agricultural Area), Spring Lake Township (urban reserve) Washington County: Afton (Agricultural Area), Baytown Township, Dellwood, Denmark Township (Agricultural Area), Grant (Agricultural Area), Lakeland, Lakeland Shores, Lake St. Croix Beach, May Township (Agricultural Area), New Scandia Township, Pine Springs, St. Mary's Point, Stillwater Township, West Lakeland Township Table 6: Comprehensive Planning Strategies for Diversified Rural Areas Policy 1: Work with communities to accommodate growth in a flexible, connected and efficient manner. Community Role • Accommodate growth not to exceed forecasts at clustered development not to exceed 1 unit per 10 acres. • Plan development patterns that will protect natural resources. Preserve areas where post -2030 growth can be provided with cost - effective and efficient urban infrastructure and accommodate growth without requiring the provision of regional urban services. • Protect the rural environment. Locally oversee the management and maintenance of alternative wastewater treatment systems such as community drainfields to avoid the environmental and economic costs from failed systems. • Ensure financial and environmental accountability for installation, maintenance, remediation and management of any permitted private wastewater treatment systems. • Adopt conservation subdivision ordinances, cluster development ordinances, or environmental protection p rovisions in land use ordinances Policy 2: Plan and invest in multi -modal transportation choices based on the full range of costs and benefits, to slow the growth of congestion. Council Role • Plan regional transportation infrastructure consistent with a rural level of service. Community Role • Plan for and construct local transportation infrastructure including trails sufficient to serve local needs. Policy 3: Encourage expanded choices in housing location and types, and improved access to jobs and opportunities. See Table 1. Policy 4: Work with local and regional partners to conserve, protect and enhance the region's vital natural resources. Council Role • Partner with state agencies, counties and communities to conserve, maintain and restore natural resources identified in regional and local natural resource inventories. Integrate natural resource conservation strategies into plans for infrastructure improvements and development' • Develop additional tools for resource protection including model conservation easements. Community Role • Conserve, maintain and restore natural resources identified in regional and local natural resource inventories. Integrate natural resource conservation strategies into development plans. Rural Area: Agricultural Areas The Agricultural Areas —found mostly in Dakota, Scott and Carver Counties— contains about half a million acres planned and zoned by local communities to maintain agriculture as the primary long -term land use. In the Agricultural Areas, the Council will focus existing regional incentives and assist with local initiatives to preserve high - quality soils for existing or future agricultural use. Investments in regional infrastructure such as roads, wastewater treatment, and parks and open space will be for rural levels of service consistent with the intent to maintain agriculture. Growth in the Agricultural Areas should be consistent with regional forecasts. Agricultural Areas Carver County: Benton Township, Camden Township, Chaska Township, Dahlgren Township (urban reserve), Hancock Township, Hollywood Township, San Francisco Township, Waconia Township, Watertown Township (urban reserve), Young America Township (urban reserve) Dakota County: Castle Rock Township, Douglas Township, Eureka Township, Greenvale Township, Hampton Township, Marshan Township, Nininger Township, Randolph Township (Diversified Rural), Sciota Township, Vermillion Township, Waterford Township 28 Scott County: Belle Plaine Township (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Blakeley Township (urban reserve, Diversified Rural) Table 7: Comprehensive Planning Strategies for the Agricultural Areas Policy 1: Work with communities to accommodate growth in a flexible, connected and efficient manner. Council Role • Support local efforts to preserve prime agricultural soils and land uses by supporting township and county activities that maintain agricultural land uses through at least 2030. Should post -2030 growth forecasts indicate a need to develop some agricultural lands at urban densities, agricultural land uses will enable the efficient expansion of regional urban infrastructure. • Promote agricultural practices that protect the integrity of the region's water supply. Community Role • Maintain agricultural land uses through at least 2030 to preserve prime agricultural lands and to preserve land for efficient expansion of post -2030 regional urban infrastructure, limit residential development. • Promote best management practices for agricultural activities in order to` protect the integrity of the region's water supply. • Adopt zoning ordinances and/or other official controls to maintain densities of no more than i housing unit per 40 acres in areas designated for agricultural use. • Develop and implement strategies for protecting farmlands, such as exclusive agricultural zoning, agricultural security districts, and lower densities such as 1 housing unit per 80 acres. • Minimize conflicts between agricultural and non -farm land uses through local ordinances and official controls. Policy 2: Plan and invest in multi -modal transportation choices based on the full range of costs and benefits, to slow the growth of congestion and serve the region's economic needs. Council Role • Plan regional transportation infrastructure consistent with market access and the agribusiness needs of the area. Community Role • Plan for and construct local transportation infrastructure sufficient to serve local and agricultural needs. Policy 3: Encourage expanded choices in housing location and types, and improved access to jobs and opportunities. See Table 1. Policy 4: Work with local and regional partners to conserve, protect and enhance the region's vital natural resources. Council Role • Promote agricultural practices that protect the quality of the region's water resources. • Partner with state agencies, counties and communities to conserve, maintain and restore natural resources identified in regional and local natural resource inventories. Integrate natural resource conservation strategies into plans for infrastructure improvements and development. • Provide information to communities about how to incorporate environmentally sensitive development techniques into farm- related construction. Community Role • Promote best management practices for agricultural activities in order to protect the quality of the local and regional water resources. • Conserve, maintain and restore natural resources identified in regional and local natural resource inventories. Integrate natural resource conservation strategies into development plans. • Encourage the use of environmentally sensitive development techniques in farm - related construction, such as surface water management that includes using naturals stems to drain, filter and retain stormwater. Chapter 4 /Implementation The Metropolitan Council has a number of important tools to help shape the future growth of the seven - county metropolitan area and pursue the goals established in this Regional Development Framework. These tools include: • The comprehensive planning process. Under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, local communities are required to adopt comprehensive plans that are consistent with the Council's Development Framework and its four metropolitan system plans — for transportation, aviation, wastewater treatment and regional parks (Minn. Stat. 473.858 -.859; 473.864). • The technical assistance the Council offers to local communities through our forecasts, local planning handbook, comprehensive plan reviews, sector representatives and various targeted programs (Minn. Stat. 473.175; 473.854; 473.867). •''. The Council's responsibilities for guiding capital investments in the four regional _ systems (Minn. Stat. 473.146). • The Council's incentive programs that provide grants to communities seeking to expand housing choices, promote connected development and clean up contaminated land for redevelopment (Minn. Stat. 473.25 - .255). But the success of these efforts hinges on the Council's partnerships — with local communities, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, other state and federal agencies, and stakeholder groups such as builders, environmentalists, housing advocates and philanthropic organizations. The Council can play a key role as a convenor on regional issues in support of Development Framework policies. But local governments hold the key to land use decisions that make the difference "on the ground." And state and federal resources and participation are essential in a wide range of areas - from highways and transit to park land acquisition and groundwater protection. Local Planning Process Metropolitan Land Planning Act As communities in the Twin Cities area plan for their future, they are guided by the Development Framework and related plans and policies for regional systems. In this process, the Council and communities share responsibilities under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The Council prepares forecasts of regional growth based on such information as U.S. Census data, regional growth trends and demographics (Minn. Stat. 473.146). With each 30 community, the Council negotiates the share of growth for which that community will plan, taking into account Council policies, local land -use patterns, developable land supply and the community's current comprehensive plan. The Council then revises its Development Framework to include regional policies and plans to accommodate the forecasted growth, with the participation of local governments, area organizations and citizens. The Framework sets the parameters for plans that guide the future development of the metropolitan systems- transportation, wastewater, airports and parks. Each local government is provided with a summary of how those regional plans will affect that individual community. The local government, in turn, takes responsibility for meeting local needs within the regional framework. If changes to the local plan are needed, the community undertakes a process to make those changes (Minn. Stat. 473.856 -.857; 473.864- .865). Once it revises its local plan, the community sends its plan to adjacent municipalities for them to consider the plan's impact and to the Council for its review based on requirements of the Land Planning Act and other state and federal guidelines, such as those dealing with transportation and the environment (Minn. Stat. 473.858). The Land Planning Act requires the Council to consider a plan's compatibility with the plans of other communities and its consistency with adopted Council policy plans, as well as its conformity with metropolitan system plans (Minn. Stat. 473.175). If the Council finds that a community's plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans, the Council can require the community to modify its local plan to assure conformance with the metropolitan system plans (Minn. Stat. 473.175). Once a community adopts its comprehensive plan, state law does not allow it to adopt any zoning ordinance, fiscal device or other official control that conflicts with its comprehensive plan or which permits activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans (Minn. Stat. 473.858; 473.865). Any local zoning ordinance or other local control that conflicts with the community's local comprehensive plan or metropolitan system plans must be brought into conformance with the plan within nine months (Minn. Stat. 473.865). Metropolitan Significance Sometimes a single development proposal might be large enough to cause a substantial impact on one or more regional systems or on an existing or planned land use of another local government. In such cases, the Metropolitan Significance Review process, established by state statute, can be initiated to review issues and consider possible solutions. A local unit of government, a state agency, a regional commission or a citizen petition can request the Council to undertake a review of the project. The Council itself may also initiate a review (Minn. Stat. 473.173). If the process determines that the proposed project is of metropolitan significance, the Council is authorized to suspend the proposed project for up to one year. But the Council may also consider whether an amendment to a regional policy or a modification of 31 proposed project will eliminate the determination of metropolitan significance (Minn. Rules part 5800.0130). Technical Assistance The Council offers assistance to communities as they update, amend and.implement their local comprehensive plans: Sector Representative Program. This program is staffed by experienced and knowledgeable planners familiar with the Council and its various programs. They provide communities with planning and technical assistance as communities update, amend and implement their local comprehensive plans. These Council planners also help foster cooperative relationships with governmental units and other organizations in the metropolitan area (Minn. Stat. 473.191; 473.867). Watershed Coordinator Program. This program is staffed by experienced and knowledgeable environmental planners. They provide communities, watershed organizations, and state agencies with planning and technical, assistance related to watershed issues such as stormwater management. They work with local governments and watershed organizations during the development phase of their local surface water management plans and watershed plans (Minn. Stat. 473.191). Handbooks and Information Materials. The Council's Local Planning Handbook guides communities through the Council's comprehensive plan review process. The Council's Urban Small Sites Best Management Practices Manual offers specific examples of how to develop and maintain various land uses to limit adverse effects such as soil erosion on the natural environment. Planning More Livable Communities with Transit- Oriented Development is a guidebook that shows how development can be organized around transit hubs (Minn. Stat. 473.854;473.867). Model Ordinances. Local ordinances are a primary means by which local governments implement their plans. Council staff can share information with communities about successful ordinances used elsewhere and provide copies of model ordinances prepared by the Council (Minn. Stat. 473.867). Workshops and Practicums. The Council cosponsors workshops based on the theme of "learning by experience that bring together local government representatives and others to discuss success stories around the region. The sessions have highlighted successful mixed -use developments, models of redeveloped retail strips, projects using innovative stormwater management and design of "livable streets." The Council also - holds workshops providing information to local officials on how to apply for grants under the Livable Communities program (Minn. Stat. 473.191; 473.867). Data from the Natural Resources Inventory and Assessment. The Council and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources gathered and assessed data about land and water resources of regional importance in the seven- county area. The information is compiled into maps that are available to assist local governments with their plans to preserve natural resources while accommodating growth (Minn. Stat. 473.191). 32 Geographic Information System Data. The Geographic Information System (GIS) department of the Council facilitates the sharing of GIS data among government agencies in the region. GIS is a computerized system for creating and analyzing maps using digital data, The GIS department produces web -based maps, graphs, and tables to assist local communities with land use planning and implementation. It also provides staff support for the MetroGIS initiative, created to promote data- sharing among government organizations in the region (Minn. Stat. 473.191); Regional Investments The Council's responsibilities vary for the four regional systems - wastewater, transportation, regional parks and open space, and airports. The Council has the most direct control over the wastewater treatment and transit systems. Through the Transportation Advisory Board process, the Council works closely with MnDOT and local communities in planning the regional highway system. The Council plans the regional recreation open space system, approves park master plans by the 10 regional park implementing agencies, seeks funds from the Legislature to support capital and operating needs for the parks, and awards Council bond funds for regional park capital needs. The Council provides long -term planning for the regional airports system and approves major capital projects proposed by the Metropolitan Airports Commission, which owns and operates most of the system. The following table indicates the funding currently anticipated for the next 10 years for each of these systems: Regional System Capital Investments: 10 -Year Plan Regional Systems Development Programs Current Planned 10 -Year Funding Regional wastewater system $940 M + Rural Growth Centers $60 M Transit $1,400 M Regional highways $4,210 M Parks and open space $135 M Airports $1,076 M Table Notes: Regional wastewater system — Most recent Council Capital Improvement Program Transit — Most recent Council Capital Improvement Program, extrapolated to 10 years, and Transit 2020 Master Plan. Highways — 2003 -2006 Transportation Improvement Program, extrapolated to 10 years. Parks — Most recent Council Capital Improvement Program, extrapolated to 10 years. Airports — Estimates based on Metropolitan Airports Commission (preliminary) 2004 - 2010 Capital Improvement Program, extrapolated to 10 years. 33 Wastewater. The region is in a strong position to keep pace with its needs in the areas of wastewater collection and treatment. The Metropolitan Council owns and maintains 600 miles of regional sewers and eight regional plants that collect and treat up to 300 million gallons of wastewater per day from 103 communities. The system is funded entirely through user fees, with 78% of the revenues coming from municipal treatment charges (passed on by communities to homeowners and businesses), 16 % from sewer availablity charges paid by all new connections or businesses requiring increased capacity, and the remainder from other sources. At present, our sewer rates are lower than 83 percent of other U.S. cities with similar- sized treatment systems, according to industry figures published in 2002. For the decade 2003 -2012, the Council has adopted a capital improvement program totaling slightly more than $1 billion to accommodate the region's projected growth, meet more stringent wastewater treatment requirements, and rehabilitate and repair facilities as they age. In addition, the Council is working with local communities to reduce the amount of infiltration and inflow of stormwater and ground water into the sanitary sewer system. Removal of excessive infiltration and inflow is necessary to avoid capacity problems in the regional waterwater system. Highways. Over the next decade, the region is expected to receive about $4.2 billion to preserve the existing metro highway system, improve the management of the system with the goal of moving more people on it, reduce the number of bottlenecks and fund modest expansions. Of the total highway revenues, about 60 % comes from the federal government and 40% from the state, most of it from taxes dedicated to highway purposes. These projected revenues fall far short of the region's highway needs. Just to keep pace with these needs would add $4.7 billion to current plans for the next decade. Looking out 25 years, the region lacks funding for improvements that will be needed to alleviate anticipated congestion on such principal arterial highways as I -94 both east and west of the beltway, I -35W south of 1-494,1-35E north of I -694, Highway 13 in Dakota and Scott Counties, and Highways 10, 65 and 242 in Anoka County. In addition, the region will need about approximately $50 million annually, or $500 million over 10 years, for improvements to the "A" minor arterial system. Transit. In previous transportation plans, the Council set a goal of doubling the bus system by 2025, expanding its capacity by 3.5% a year. It also envisioned developing a network of transitways — busways, LRT lines and commuter rail lines. Corridors identified as possible candidates for busways included Riverview, Minneapolis Southwest/Midtown Greenway, Minneapolis Northwest, St. Paul Northeast and Minneapolis East, and Cedar Avenue. Potential corridors for LRT included Central, an extension of Hiawatha or any busway with enough ridership to justify LRT. Potential corridors for commuter rail included Northstar and Red Rock. (These goals and objectives are subject to review and change when the Transportation System Plan is revised following the adoption of this Framework.) 34 Over the next decade, the Council anticipates having $1.4 billion available for transit capital investments. This would be sufficient to maintain the existing bus system, begin to purchase the vehicles needed expand the bus system and complete the construction of the LRT line in the Hiawatha corridor. Additional federal, state and local resources would be needed to undertake the construction of any new transitways. However, the operating funds currently provided for transit would not be adequate to expand the system. Currently, state resources fund about 62% of all regional transit operating costs, with 26 percent coming from fare box revenues, 9% from the federal government and 3% from other sources. Regional Parks. Over the next decade, the regional park system is expected to receive $135 million in funding for its Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Of that amount, 40% ($54 million) would be funded through Council bonds, and the remaining 60% ($81 million) would be funded through a combination of state and federal funds. The CIP funds land acquisition of in- holdings and planned park lands, new development and rehabilitation of existing facilities and natural resources. The Council distributes funds to the 10 implementing agencies based on park visitation and other factors to help rank the funding priorities. While the Council and the state will provide significant support for the regional park system, the 10 implementing agencies have indicated that their actual capital improvement funding need is about $400 million over the next decade. Their need estimate includes $44 million for acquisition, $164 million for development, and $192 million for rehabilitation. Some of the additional projects will be funded through the implementing agencies themselves, and/or through public /private partnerships. Other projects will be delayed beyond the 10 -year time frame until funding is available. Looking to the future, the Natural Resources Inventory and Assessment has identified resources of regional importance. As funding and opportunities become available, the Council and the implementing agencies will seek to incorporate some of these lands in the regional parks and trails. Airports. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is in the process of implementing its $3.1 billion MSP 2010 plan, which includes major improvements to terminal, runway and other facilities at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. Projects now underway include the addition of a new north/south runway, cargo facilities, a fire station, tunnels and a new tower. The timing of additional improvements could change depending upon developments in the airline industry, which is struggling to recover from a poor economy, 9/11, the SARS scare and other factors. Funding for airport operations and improvements comes entirely from user fees and federal grants. In 2003, about 42 percent of revenues came from airline rates and charges, 40 percent from parking and concessions, and 18 percent from other sources, such as building and ground rents and utilities. These revenue sources are expected to be adequate to help the MAC keep pace with its capital investment needs, estimated at $1.076 billion for the next 10 years. 35 Regional Grants ` The programs authorized under the state Livable Communities Act are the Council's primary tool to support local communities in their efforts to grow efficiently and to reinvest to keep themselves vital. Working in partnership with cities, counties and municipal development authorities, the Council awards grants to projects that (1) clean up contaminated land for redevelopment; (2) promote efficient, connected development and (3) support the development and preservation of affordable and lifecyle housing (Minn. Stat. 473.25 - .255). It's estimated that, since the launch of the program in 1996, Council grants totaling about $100 million (as of July 2003) have resulted in commitments of $3 billion in private and other public investment. The source of funds is a state - authorized levy on the region's tax base (Minn. Stat. 473.252- .254): Communities that apply for funding through the program must first agree to participate in the Livable Communities housing incentives program and must work toward housing goals negotiated with the Council (Minn. Stat. 473.252- .255). As of 2003, 106 metropolitan area communities are participating in the local housing incentives program. The programs and their annual funding levels are listed in the following table: �avableomrnnt�es Annual'nndang gro raxrl� .. .......::. �_ ` .._...evis,....:.; Tax -Base Revitalization Account $5,000,000* Livable Communities Demonstration Account $8,200,000+ Local Housing Incentive Account $1,500,000* * Does not include dollars carried over year to year. +Total for 2003. Amount varies annually. Tax -Base Revitalization Account. This program helps cities clean up contaminated urban land and buildings for subsequent redevelopment. Since 1996, the Council has awarded 127 grants from this fund that total $44.5 million to help clean up and redevelop 996 acres of contaminated land. These projects, in 26 communities, are expected to leverage an additional $1.5 billion in private investment, potentially include more than 12,000 new and retained jobs, and increase net tax capacity in the region by an estimated $29 million. Requests for well - qualified projects total roughly twice the available amount, and have been growing about nine percent each year. Livable Communities Demonstration Account. This account funds grants for development and redevelopment projects that link housing, jobs and services. The Council has awarded 92 grants totaling $42 million to projects in 36 cities and three multi -city coalitions since 1996. The grants are expected to leverage more than $994 million in private investment and $396 million in other public investment. It's anticipated that the projects will include 6,860 new and 400 rehabilitated housing units. Under the Demonstration Account, the Council awards Development Grants, which account for most of the funds in this account, and Opportunity Grants, which make up a fraction of 36 the total. Development Grants are awarded to cities to support construction of projects that cities have planned. Opportunity Grants help cities prepare projects in the predevelopment phase that could evolve into development projects. The number of well - qualified applications, which is growing at 20 percent per year, far exceeds the available funds. Local Housing Incentives Account. This account provides grants that help expand lifecycle rental and ownership housing development and preservation. The Council has awarded 70 grants totaling $11 million to help 45 communities foster the construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing. The grants are expected to leverage $284 million in total investments, with an estimated 1,414 new rental units, including 995 affordable to households with low incomes and 195 public housing units for people with very low incomes. Other expected accomplishments include rehabilitation of 539 affordable rental units, development of up to 434 new affordable ownership units, rehabilitation of between 219 and 237 affordable ownership units, and home improvement loans to 1,100- plus homeowners. Annual funds in the Local Housing Incentive Account are the Council's contribution to the larger overall funding pool made available by the Metropolitan Housing Implementation Group. There area always more qualified projects than available funds to support them. Measuring Our Progress Many of the goals and objectives established in the Regional Development Framework are ambitious. Our success will hinge on the efforts not only of the Metropolitan Council, but also those of local communities and our other, regional partners. They also will require the commitment of additional resources — particularly in the areas of highways and transit in the coming years. Nonetheless, the Council is committed to tracking and measuring our progress toward the achievement of our goals relating to shaping development patterns, improving transportation and slowing the growth of congestion, expanding the housing supply and choices, and preserving vital natural resources. The Council intends to refine the benchmarks and issue annual updates on our progress. Regional Benchmarks Accommodating Growth • Housing Unit Production 2000 Baseline: 1,047,240 housing units 2030 Target: 1,522,000 housing units Annual Indicator: 16,000- 18,000 units per year 37 • Housing Unit Location — 2030 Growth Targets Developed Area: 137,000 units Annual Indicator: 4,600 per year Developing Area: 296,000 units Annual Indicator: 9,900 per year Rural Growth Centers: 22,000 units Annual Indicator: 730 per year Remaining Rural Area: 20,000 units Annual Indicator; 670 per year • Land Planned for Urban Services 2000 Baseline: 668,000 acres in 2020 urban service area 2030 Target: No more than 704,000 acres in 2030 urban service area Annual Indicator: Acres added to MUSA (updated comprehensive plans) Transportation • Highway Capacity 2000 Baseline: 1,485 lane -miles of freeway 2030 Trend Line: 300 additional lane -miles of freeway 2030 Target: 1,786 lane miles of freeway Annual Indicator: 10 lane -miles constructed per year. • Highway Usage 2000 Baseline: 23.1 vehicle miles per capita per day 2030 Trend Line: 25.15 vehicle miles 2030 Target: 24.55 vehicle miles Annual Indicator: Less than .02% growth per year • Highway Congestion 2001 Baseline: 28 hours spent in congestion per year 2030 Trend Line: 40 hours 2030 Target: 37 hours Annual Indicator: 1 % growth per year • Transit Service 2002 Baseline: 42.4 million vehicle revenue miles per year 2030 Trend Line: 42 million (assuming no growth) 2030 Target: 89 million riders Annual Indicator: 3% growth per year (starting in 2006) 38 • Peak Hour Transit Capacity 2002 Baseline:. 2.34 million peak -hour seat miles 2030 Trend Line: 2.34 million peak -hour seat miles (assuming no growth) 2030 Target: 4.68 million peak -hour seat miles Annual Indicator: 3 % growth per year (starting in 2006) • Transit Ridership 2002 Baseline: 74.9 million riders per year 2030 Trend Line: 75 million riders (assuming no growth) 2030 Target: 150 million riders Annual Indicator: 3% annual ridership growth (starting in 2006) Housing Choices • Housing Units by Type — 2030 Growth Target Single Family: 237,500 units Annual Indicator: 8,000 to 9,000 per year Townhouse/Multi-family: 237,500 units Annual Indicator: 1 8,000 to 9,000 per year • Affordable Housing — 2010 Goals (negotiated with local communties) Affordable Owner: 60,000 units added Annual Indicator: 4,000 per year Affordable Renter: 12,000 units added Annual Indicator: 800 per year Environment Water Quality: The water quality leaving the metro area is as good as the water quality entering the metro area based on a rolling 10 -year median annual load. While we are currently meeting this benchmark for sediment and nutrients, continuing to meet this benchmark in light of projected growth for the region will be a significant challenge. Our benchmark indicators are determined by taking the sum of the loads from the Minnesota River at Jordan, the Rum River in Anoka, the Mississippi River in Anoka, and the St. Croix River in Stillwater and comparing them to the load at the Mississippi River at Red Wing. • Total Phosphorus 2000 Baseline Input: 4,380 tons per year 2000 Baseline Output: 3,840 tons per year 2030 Baseline Difference: -540 tons ( -12 %) 2030 Target: Output not to exceed sum of inputs Annual Indicator: Council will measure the annual median load for total phosphorus to determine where we are at in relation to our target. - 39 • Total Nitrogen 2000 Baseline Input: 80,800 tons per year 2000 Baseline Output: 80,900 tons per year 2000 Baseline Difference: 100 tons per year (0 %) 2030 Target: Output not to exceed sum of inputs Annual Indicator: Council will measure total nitrogen annual median load to determine where we are at in relation to our target. • Total Suspended Solids 2000 Baseline Input: 1,320,000 tons per year 2000 Baseline Output: 956,000 tons per year 2000 Baseline Difference:- 364,000 tons per year ( -28 %) 2030 Target: Output not to exceed sum of inpts Annual Indicator: Council will measure total suspended solids annual median Toad to determine where we are at in relation to our target. • Water Supply: The Metropolitan area's water resources are adequate to supply future water demands without adverse impacts. 2000 Baseline: The overall demand 2000 water use for the Metropolitan Area. Water Needs: Assessment of water supplies available to each community has been initiated for parts of the region and needs to be completed for entire region. - Assessment of volume of water available without adverse impacts to aquifer system, or surface waters body, other users of supply or natural resources. - , Assessment of alternatives for meeting water demands in areas where determined there is a potential for adverse impact from future withdrawals. - Assessment of long -term impact of increasing impervious surface on reducing recharge to the ground water system. - Development of an institutional framework for coordinated regional and subregional water supply planning and management. - Continuation of regional planning for drought and emergency conditions. Annual Indicator: The Council will assess progress on these efforts and determine additional work needed to determine the adequacy of the region's water supply to meet demands from growth projected by 2030. 40 • Air Quality: Maintain carbon monoxide air quality standards of no more than 9 parts per million of CO in eight hours or no more than 35 parts per million in a single hour. 2002 Baseline: Zero violations 2030 Target: Zero violations Next Steps Adoption of the Regional Development Framework concludes a significant regional policy development effort. However, because regional and local land use planning is cyclical, completion of the Framework is just one milestone in a process repeated at least once every 10 years. The Council's next steps in the process will include: • Updating its metropolitan system plans for wastewater treatment, transportation and transit, parks and open space, and aviation. • Revising the Local Planning Handbook to assist communities with the preparation of local comprehensive plan amendments and the updates due in 2008. • Providing each community in the region with specific information about how the new Development Framework and revised metropolitan system plans will affect that community. • Offering technical assistance to communities as they review, revise and implement their local comprehensive plans and their plan updates.' • Continuing Council incentives, such as Livable Communities Act funding,, to support local projects to expand affordable and lifecycle housing choices, clean up contaminated land for redevelopment, and implement projects that efficiently connect housing, jobs, services and amenities. 41 Glossary adaptive reuse - rehabilitation or renovation of existing buildings or structures for uses other than the current ones. _ adjacent counties - counties bordering or lying near the seven - county metropolitan area: Chisago, Isanti, Sherburne, Wright, McLeod, Sibley, Le Sueur, Rice, Goodhue, Polk, St. Croix and Pierce. affordable housing — housing that a low- or moderate- income household can occupy without spending more than 30% of household income. Also incorporates the idea of quality (safe and decent dwelling), choice of location, and an adequate supply. aggregate — hard inert materials (such as sand, gravel, or crushed rock) used for mixing with cement to form concrete. aquifer - a water - bearing underground formation that yields a sufficient quantity of water to serve as a private or public water supply. benchmark — an indicator that shows progress toward meeting Framework goals. best management practices — recommendations pertaining to the development and maintenance of varied land uses aimed at limiting the effects of development, such as soil erosion and stonnwater runoff, on the natural environment. See the Council's Urban Small Sites Best Management Practices Manual for specific examples of best management practices. brownfield a piece of industrial or commercial property that is abandoned or underused and environmentally contaminated, especially one considered as a potential . site for redevelopment. center — a place of sufficient scale, density and mix of uses, where there is convenient access to housing, jobs, daily services, shopping and recreation. (See transit - oriented development.) clustering — a technique to allow a reasonable amount of land for development while conserving rural character, such as farmland, natural areas, and open views. commuter rail - a mode of public transportation that uses passenger -type trains operating on railroad right -of -way. Generally, commuter rail systems are integrated with other regional transit providers to permit transfers throughout the metropolitan region. context sensitive design = roadway standards and development practices that are flexible and sensitiveto community values, balancing economic, social, aesthetic and environmental objectives. density the number of dwelling units per net residential acre of land. groundwater - the supply of freshwater in an aquifer. household — the group that consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. 42 individual sewage treatment system (ISTS), on -site septic treatment system — a system for disposing and treating human and domestic waste, such as a septic tank and soil absorption system or other system allowed by the state and city. This includes community drainfields, where a common on -site system serves several properties. infill - development or redevelopment of land that has been bypassed, remained vacant, and/or is underused. infiltration— the seepage of groundwater and into sewers pipes through cracks or joints. inflow - typically flow from a single point into sewer pipes, such as discharges from sump pumps and foundation drains, or stormwater that enters openings in sewer access covers. infrastructure — fixed facilities such as sewer lines and roadways that serve existing and new development and redevelopment. Land Planning Act, Metropolitan Land Planning Act — the sections of Minnesota Statutes directing the Council to adopt long- range, comprehensive policy plans for transportation, airports, wastewater services, and parks and open space. It authorizes the Council to review the comprehensive plans of local governments: lifecycle housing - 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. local comprehensive plan — plans prepared by cities, townships and, in some cases, counties, for local land use and infrastructure. low income - household income that is 50% or less ($38,350 for 2003, adjusted for family size) of the area median income, as defined by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. median income, area median income - an income measure used by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development to define income categories. The 2003 area median income for the Twin Cities metropolitan area is $75,300. Metropolitan Development Guide - the collection of regional plans that includes the Regional Development Framework and the plans for the four regional systems: transportation, wastewater service, airports, and parks and open space. Metropolitan Urban Service Area, MUSA — the area, in which the Metropolitan Council ensures that regional services and facilities under its jurisdiction are provided. "A" minor arterials roadways within the metropolitan' area that supplement the major highways in the region. mixed use — a single building containing more than one type of land use or a single development of more than one building and use, where the different land uses are in close 43 proximity, planned as a unified, complementary whole, and functionally integrated with transit, pedestrian access and parking areas. moderate income – household income that is 80 % ($61,360 for 2003, adjusted for family size) of the area median income, as defined by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. Natural Resources Inventory and Assessment, NRUA – a database that catalogs natural resources of regional importance, such as major water bodies, habitat areas, regional parks and aquifers. natural resources of regional importance - resources identified by the NRI /A that are particularly important in sustaining the region's ecology, providing area residents with nature -based experiences, or supplying essential materials such as aggregate and water. park and ride – an arrangement whereby people can drive an automobile to a transit hub, transfer station or terminal, parkin the designated lot, and use a transit vehicle for their ultimate destinations: principal arterial – the high - capacity highways, including freeways and expressways, that make up the metropolitan highway system. (See the appendix of the Council's Transportation Policy Plan for functional classification criteria and characteristics.) redevelopment - the process by which an existing building, structure or developed area is adaptively reused, rehabilitated, restored, renovated and/or expanded. regional systems – systems for which the Metropolitan Council is the responsible planning and/or operating authority. Consist of wastewater services, transportation, parks and open space, and airports. reinvestment – an investment in redevelopment, infill or adaptive reuse. residential acre - an acre of residential land that includes local streets, alleys, parks and locally protected natural resources. Does not major transportation rights -of -way, major parks and open space, wetlands identified in the National Wetlands Inventory, and steep slopes steeper than an 18 % grade. stormwater surplus surface water generated by rainfall and snow melt that does not seep into the earth but flows overland to rivers, lakes or streams. system plans – long -range comprehensive plans for the regional systems—transporta- tion, airports, wastewater services, and parks and open space. transit - oriented development – the concentration of jobs and housing around transit hubs and daily conveniences. (Additional information about transit- oriented development can be found in the handbook published by the Council, Planning More Livable Communities with Transit- Oriented Development.) transitway corridors or lanes dedicated exclusively for transit use, such as bus -only shoulders on highways, high- occupancy vehicle lanes, exclusive busways, light rail transit, or commuter rail. 44 Urban Area - the area consisting of two Framework- defined planning areas— Developed Communities and Developing Communities — occupying about 50% of the region's land area. urban reserve – a transition area beyond the current MUSA line identified in a local comprehensive plan that is being held in a rural condition until it is included in the urban area. very low income - household income that is 30 % or less ($23,010 for 2003, adjusted for family size) of the area median income, as defined by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. wastewater –water carrying waste from homes and commercial and industrial facilities. 45 Appendix A/ Forecasts of Population, Households and Employment FORECAST METHODOLOGY The Metropolitan Council's forecast methodology can be divided into two parts. One is overall regional forecasts of population, households and jobs; and the other is the allocation of these regional forecasts to cities and townships within the region. Methodology for Regional Forecast Totals The Council projects future population using a standard cohort - survival model. This model takes the existing population by age and sex and projects it forward using assumptions about rates of births, deaths and migration for five -year age groups, by gender. Past trends for these age- specific rates are analyzed and future assumptions regarding these rates provide input to the model. Recent birth, death and migration rates are given the greatest weight in developing assumptions about the future. This process provides very accurate results, unless there are major social or economic changes that affect demographic behavior. The model produces a future age distribution of the population for any desired future year. , These data are invaluable for planning purposes, including the forecast of future households. As a check on these demographically based forecasts, national forecasts are consulted to determine whether they are consistent with national assumptions. The Census Bureau has not yet revised its forecasts for the nation since the 2000 census, but the current Council forecasts appear to be consistent with past national forecasts (assuming some increase to reflect the unexpectedly high count from the 2000 Census). Employment forecasts have historically been done by calculating the region's share of national forecast totals, and then comparing the results to labor force projections generated by the demographic model from the age forecasts. In the past, the two methods have resulted in comparable figures. For the current forecasts, this process could not be used because there are no current national employment forecasts. The labor force conversion was thus used, but when national forecasts are available, the current regional employment forecasts will be reviewed. The Council's regional forecasts have never been viewed as a goal, but as a picture of what we can expect to occur —one that regional and local planning needs to address to best accommodate expected growth. Methodology for Subregional Forecasts Regional forecasts of households (produced from the age- specific population forecasts) and jobs are allocated to cities and townships within the seven - county metro area through a multi - step process. • The first step is to analyze broader geographic trends for concentric rings and quadrants. These trends have historically been fairly stable and provide a check on city -level forecasts. • The next step entails analyzing city -level growth trends and projecting them into the future. A -1 • These forecasts are then adjusted to reflect the land supply and how it is expected to be developed in terns of the share of land used for residential and nonresidential uses, and the mix and densities of single - family and multifamily land uses. These assumptions are based on local input, Council policy and emerging market forces. The forecasts and the land use and development assumptions behind the forecasts are reviewed by local governments and appropriate adjustments are made consistent with Council Framework The current forecasts also reflected the location of major transportation corridors and stronger efforts to protect key natural resources. • A final step in the process is to convert the household forecasts to population. FORECAST TABLES This section contains a summary table showing forecasts of population, households and employment for the region as a whole between 2000 and 2030 and additional tables showing the same information for individual cities and townships in each of the seven metropolitan counties. The forecast numbers in the tables beginning on page A -3 were reviewed by the respective cities and townships in 2002. Local governments are reviewing them again to ensure they are fully up to date and to meet additional data needs. Metropolitan Area Summary Metropolitan Council Forecasts 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Population 2,288,729* 2,642,056* 2,960,000 3,282,000 3,573,000 Households 875,504* 1,021,454* 1,179,000 1,344,000 1,482,000 Employment 1,272,773 ** 1,562,833 ** 1,805,700 1,978,000 2,117,700 Sources: *. U.S.. Census Bureau ** Minnesota Department of Economic Security A -2 Population Forecasts ANOKA COUNTY Metro olitan Council Po ulation Forecasts City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Andover 15,216 26,588 34500 41000 43600 Anoka 17,192 18,076 19000 19800 20800 Bethel 394 443 450 460 510 Blaine t.) 38,975 44,942 57000 67000 73000 Bums Tw . 2,401 3,557 4400 5200 6300 Centerville 1,633 3,202 3700 4100 4700 Circle Pines 4,704 4,663 4700 4800 4800 Columbia H ts. 18,910 18,520 19200 20000 20500 Columbus Twp. 3,690 3,957 4000 4100 4500 Coon Rapids 52,978 61,607 65000 66000 65000 East Bethel 8,050 10,941 12300 13200 14300. Fridley 28,335 27,449 27000 26900 27500 Ham Lake 8,924 12,710 16100 18100 19000 Hilltop 749 766 770 770 770 Lexington 2,279 2,214 2250 2250 2300 Lino Lakes 8,807 16,791 21500 26500 31000 Linwood Twp. 3,588 4,668 5000 5400 5900 Oak Grove 5,488 6,903 7400 7600 8100 Ramsey 12,408 18,510 23000 30000 33500 St. Francis 2,538 4,910 7700 10400 12800 Spring Lake Park t.) 6,429 6,667 6700 6700 6800 ANOKA COUNTY TOTAL 243,6881 298,0841 341,6701 380,2801 405,680 . CARVER COUNTY Metro olitan Council Po ulation Forecasts City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Benton Tw . 895 939 940 940 940 Camden Twp. 910 955 960 980 1,030 Carver 744 1,266 2,350 3,500 4,400 Chanhassen t. 11,732 20,321 27,000 33,100 40,500 Chaska 11,339 17,449 27,700 31,000 34,400 Chaska Tw . 174 154 190 260 290 Cologne 563 1,012 1,250 1,650 2,100 Dahl en Tw . 1,296 1,453 1,500 1,600 1,650 Hamburg 492 538 550 600 690 Hancock Twp. 364 367 390 420 440 Hollywood T 1,060 1,102 1,100 1,150 1,300 Laketown Tw . 2,232 2,331 2,400 2,700 4,000 Mayer 471 554 850 1,150 1,700 New Germany 353 346 420 570 830 Norwood Young America 2,705 3,108 4,500 6,700 8,800 San Francisco Tw . 773 888 980 1 1,200 Victoria 2,354 4,025 5,700 8,400 11,600 Waconia 3,498 6,814 9,600 12,800 15,200 Waconia Tw . 1,287 1,284 1,300 1,450 1,650 Watertown 2,408 3,029 3,900 4,400 5,300 Watertown Tw . 1,349 1,432 1,500 1,600 1,800 Young America Tw . 916 838 870 9501 1,200 CARVER COUNTY TOTAL 47,915 70,205 95,950 117,020 141,020 DAKOTA COUNTY Metro olitan Council Po ulation Forecasts City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Apple Valley 34,598 45,527 54,000 63,000 66,000 Burnsville 51,288 60,220 60,500 62,500 64,000 Castle Rock Twp. 1,480 1,495 1,500 1,550 1,650 Coates 186 163 170 190 200 Douglas Twp. 670 760 760 790 830 Eagan 47,409 63,557 67,000 68,000 69,000 Empire Tw . 1,340 1,638 1,750 4,400 4,900 Eureka Twp. 1,405 1,490 1,500 1,650 1,800 Fannin on 5,940 12,365 20,500 27,100 32,000 Greenvale Tw . 685 684 730 790 880 Hampton 363 434 660 880 1,350 Hampton Tw . 866 986 1,000 1,050 1,200 Hastings t.) 15,473 18,201 23,000 27,500 30,000 Inver Grove H ts. 22,477 29,751 35,300 40,900 41,900 Lakeville 24,854 43,128 59,000 81,000 91,000 Lilydale 553 552 830 980 1,050 Marshan T 1,215 1,263 1,300 1,350 1,400 Mendota 164 197 210 230 270 Mendota H ts. 9,381 11,434 12,000 12,000 12,100 Miesville 135 135 150 150 150 New Trier 96 116 120 120 120 Ninin er Tw . 805 865 940 990 1,050 Northfield t. 170 557 740 940 1,150 Randolph 331 318 320 350 380 Randolph Tw . 448 536 590 630 670 Ravenna Twp. 1,926 2,355 2,500 2,600 2,800 Rosemount 8,622 14,619 22,700 30,100 35,700 Sciota Twp. 252 285 370 430 500 South St. Paul 20,197 20,167 19,900 20,000 20,700 Sunfish Lake 413 504 510 520 530 Vermillion 510 437 520 600 720 Vermillion Tw . 1,201 1,243 1,250 1,350 1,500 Waterford Tw . 485 517 540 560 570 West St. Paul 19,248 19,405 20,100 21,100 21,700 DAKOTA COUNTY TOTAL 275,186 355,904 412,960 476,300 509,770 HENNEPIN COUNTY Metrnnnlitnn Cnnncil Pnnulatinn Rnrniactc' City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Bloomington 86,335 85,172 88,000 90,000 94,000 Brooklyn Center 28,887 29,172 29,200 29,100 29,200 Brooklyn Park 56,381 67,388 74,500 80,500 85,000 Champlin 16,849 22,193 25,000 25,000 25,700 Chanhassen (pt.) 0 0 0 0 0 Corcoran 5,199 5,630 8,700 17,800 28,500 Crystal 23,788 22,698 22,700 22,800 23,500 Dayton t. 4,392 4,686 5,600 17,000 28,700 Dee haven 3,653 3,853 3,800 3,800 3,800 Eden Prairie 39,311 54,901 60,000 62,500 63,000 Edina 46,070 47,425 49,000 50,000 51,500 Excelsior 2,367 2,393 2,500 2,700 2,800 Fort Snelling 97 442 0 0 0 Golden Valley 20,971 20,281 20,500 20,600 21,300 Greenfield 1,450 2,544 2;900 3,500 4,300 Greenwood 614 729 760 770 780 Hanover t. 269 332 410 510 630 Hassan Twp. 1,951 2,463 2,900 11,000 19,100 Hopkins 16,534 17,145 17,800 18,500 18,900 Independence 2,822 3,236 3,600 3,900 4,100 Long Lake 1,984 1,842 2,100 2,250 2,450 Loretto 404 570 610 700 820 Maple Grove 38,736 50,365 64,500 75,000 84,000 Maple Plain 2,005 2,088 2,250 2,350 2,400 Medicine Lake 385 368 390 440 470 Medina 3,096 4,005 5,100 7,200 10,500 Minneapolis 368,383 382,618 402,000 419,000 426,000 Minnetonka 48,370 51,301 51,500 51,500 53,500 Minnetonka Beach 573 614 610 610 610 Minnetrista 3,439 4,358 5,600 7,500 10,000 Mound 9,634 9,435 10,400 11,000 11,400 New Hoe 21,853 20,873 20,600 20,900 22,300 Orono 7,285 7,538 8,300 9,200 9,800 Osseo 2,704 2,434 2,600 2,750 3,300 Plymouth 50,889 65,894 73,000 76,000 78,500 Richfield 35,710 34,439 37,700 41,300 45,000 Robbinsdale 14,396 14,123 14,900 15,900 18,700 Rockford t.) 440 144 240 470 700 Rogers 698 3,588 6,400 7,000 7,800 St. Anthony( t. ) 5,278 5,664 6,200 6,700 7,100 St. Bonifacius 1,180 1,873 3,100 4,500 5,800 St. Louis Park 43,787 44,126 47,000 49,300 51,500 Shorewood 5,917 7,400 7,500 7,600 8,100 Spring Park 1,571 1,717 1,850 2,000 2,100 Tonka Bay 1,472 1,547 1,700 1,800 1,800 Wayzata 3,8061 4,113 4,300 4,700 5,000 Woodland 4961 4801 4801 5101 490 HENNEPIN COUNTY TOTAL 1,032,4311 1,116,2001 1,198,8001 1,288,1601 1,374,950 RAMSEY COUNTY Metronolitan Council Panulation Fnreeasts City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Arden Hills 9,199 9,652 10,800 13,000 22,500 Blaine t.) 0 0 0 0 0 Falcon H ts. 5,380 5,572 5,600 5,600 5,600 Gem Lake 439 419 440 450 490 Lauderdale 2,700 2,364 2,400 2,450 2,500 Little Canada 8,971 9,771 10,900 11,900 12,800 Maplewood 30,954 34,947 37,500 38,100 39,300 Mounds View 12,541 12,738 12,900 13,000 13,400 New Brighton 22,207 22,206 22,700 22,500 22,800 North Oaks 3,386 3,883 4,100 5,400 6,400 North St. Paul 12,376 11,929 11,900 12,500 13,400 Roseville 33,485 33,690 36,000 39,400 43,100 St. Anthony t.) 2,449 2,348 2,450 2,700 2,900 St. Paul 272,235 287,151 305,000 320,000 331,000 Shoreview 24,587 25,924 26,000 25,200 25,300 Spring Lake Park t. 103 105 110 110 110 Vadnais H ts. 11,041 13,069 IM001 14,300 16,800 White Bear Tw . 9,424 11,2931 12,2001 11,7001 12,100 White Bear Lake t.) 24,306 23,9741 25,0001 26,000 27,000 RAMSEY COUNTY TOTAL 485,783 511,0351 539,8001 564,3101 597,500 SCOTT COUNTY Metro olitan Council Po ulation Forecasts City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Belle Plaine 3,149 3,789 5,400 7,100 9,300 Belle Plaine T 691 806 950 1,050 1,300 Blakeley Tw . 456 496 520 570 640 Cedar Lake Twp. 1,688 2,197 2,800 3,200 3,700 Credit River Tw . 2,854 3,895 4,900 6,800 8,600 Elko 223 472 1,100 1,850 2,600 Helena Tw . 1,107 1,440 1,600 1,800 2,200 Jackson Tw . 1,359 1,361 1,400 1,550 2,050 Jordan 2,909 3,833 5,800 7,600 10,700 Louisville Tw . 910 1,359 1,450 1,500 1,700 New Market 227 332 1,450 3,300 5,400 New Market Tw . 2,008 3,057 4,100 5,300 7,200 New Prague t.) 2,356 3,157 4,700 6,200 7,200 Prior Lake 11,482 15,917 22,000 28,200 35,000 St. Lawrence Twp. 418 472 600 800 1,400 Sand Creek Tw . 1,511 1,551 1,650 1,850 2,100 Savage 9,906 21,115 31,400 39,000 42,700 Shakopee 11,739 20,568 34,000 48,300 57,500 , Spring Lake Tw . 2,853 3,681 4,200 4,7001 5,700 SCOTT COUNTY TOTAL 57,846 89,498 130,020 170,6701 206,990 WASHINGTON COUNTY Metro olitan Council Po ulation Forecasts A -9 City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Afton. 2,645 2,839 2,900 3,000 3,100 Bayport 3,200 3,162 3,400 4,100 6,000 Baytown Tw . 939 1,533 2,300 3,200 4,000 Birchwood 1,042 968 930 920 910 Cottage Grove 22,935 30,582 37,000 43,900 53,000 Dellwood 887 1,033 1,050 1,000 1,000 Denmark Twp. 1,172 1,348 1,400 1,350 1,400 Forest Lake 12,523 14,440 17,700 21,800 28,000 Grant 3,778 4,026 4,200 5,100 5,500 Grey Cloud Tw . 414 307 310 310 310 Hastings t. 5 3 0 0 0 Hugo 4,417 6,363 ' 11,800 18,200 25,800 Lake Elmo 5,903 6,863 9,400 15,200 24,000 Lakeland 2,000 1,917 1,900 1,850 1,800 Lakeland Shores 291 355 350 350 340 Lake St. Croix Beach 1,078 1,140 1,150 1,150 1,150 Landfall 685 700 700 700 700 Mahtomedi 5,633 7,563 8,300 8,900 9,200 Marine on St. Croix 602 602 760 880 1,000 May Tw . 2,535 2,928 2,950 3,000 3,300 Newport 3,720 3,715 3,850 4,350 5,050 New ScandiaTw . 3,197 3,692 3,900 4,200 4,700 Oakdale 18,374 26,653 28,000 28,400 30,000 Oak Park H ts. 3,486 3,957 4,900 5,400 5,700 Pine Springs 436 421 400 380 360 St. Mary's Point 339 344 370 380 390 St. Paul Park 4,965 5,070 5,800 6,400 7,100 Stillwater 13,882 15,143 17,200 18,300 19,200 Stillwater Tw . 2,066 2,553 2,800 3,700 4,500 West Lakeland Twp. 1,736 3,547 3,900 4,100 4,300 White Bear Lake t. 336 351 630 690 710 Willemie 584 5491 5501 550 570 Woodbury 20,075 46,463 60,00 73,500 84,000 WASHIN GTON COUNTY TOTAL 145,880 201,1301 240,8001 285,260 337,090 HOUSEHOLD FORECASTS ANOKA COUNTY Metro olitan Council Household Forecasts City or Township Andover 1990 4430 , 2000 8107 , 2010 11,500 2020 14,500 2030 15,500 Anoka 6,394 7,262 7,900 8,500 9,000 Bethel 130 149 160 180 200 Blaine (pt.) 12,825 15,898 22,000 27,500 30,000 Burns Twp. 754 1,123 1,500 1,900 2,300 Centerville 519 1,077 1,340 1,600 1,850 Circle Pines 1,562 1,697 1,800 1,900 1,950 Columbia Hgts. 7,766 8,033 8,300 8,500 8,800 Columbus Twp. 1,129 1,328 1,450 1,600 1,750 Coon Rapids 17,449 22,578 25,000 26,500 27,000 East Bethel 2,542 3,607 4,400 5,000 5,500 Fridley 10,909 11,328 11,600 11,900 12,300 Ham Lake 2,720 4,139 5,700 6,800 7,200 Hilltop 410 400 400 400 400 Lexington ` 829 847 900 950 1,000 Lino Lakes 2,603 4,857 6,800 8,800 10,500 Linwood Twp. 1,146 1,578 1,850 2,100 2,300 Oak Grove 1,638 2,200 2,600 2,800 3,000 Ramsey 3,620 5,906 8,000 11,000 12,500 St. Francis 760 1,638 2,800 4,000 5,000 Spring Lake Park (pt.) 2,302 2,676 2,750 2,800 3,000 ANOKA COUNTY TOTAL 82,437 106,428 128,7501 149,2301 161,050 CARVER COUNTY Metro olitan Council Household Forecasts City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Benton Tw . 276 307 320 330 340 Camden Tw . 287 316 340 370 400 Carver 262 458 900 1,400 1,800 Chanhassen t.) 4,016 6,914 10,000 13,000 16,000 Chaska 4,212 6,104 10,500 12,500 14,000 Chaska Twp. 60 65 80 110 120 Cologne 216 385 500 700 900 Dahl en Twp. 394 479 540 600 640 Hamburg 184 206 220 250 300 Hancock Tw . 110 121 140 160 170 Hollywood Tw . 327 371 410 450 500 Laketown Tw . 601 637 700 800 1,200 Mayer 166 199 320 450 700 New Germany 138 143 180 250 370 Norwood Young America 972 1,171 1,800 2,800 3,800 San Francisco Twp. 244 293 350 410 460 Victoria 756 1,367 2,100 3,300 4,600 Waconia 1,401 2,568 3,800 5,300 6,500 Waconia T 407 429 470 550 650 Watertown 848 1,078 1,500 1,800 2,200 Watertown Tw . 439 478 550 620 700 Young America Tw . 285 267 3001 350 450 CARVER COUNTY TOTAL 16,601 24,3561 36,0201 46,500 56,800 DAKOTA COUNTY Metro olitan Council Household Forecasts City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Apple Valley 11,145 16,344 21,000 26,000 27,500 Burnsville 19,127 23,687 25,000 27,000 28,500 Castle Rock Tw . 460 514 550 600 650 Coates 66 64 70 80 90 Douglas Tw . 192 235 250 280 300 Eagan 17,427 23,773 26,500 28,000 29,000 Empire Tw . 426 515 600 1,600 1,800 Eureka Tw . 447 496 550 630 700 Farmington 2,064 4,169 7,500 10,500 12,500 Greenvale Tw . 228 227 260 300 340 Hampton 118 156 250 350 550 Hampton Tw . 260 320 360 400 450 Hastings t.) 5,401 6,640 8,800 11,000 12,500 Inver Grove H ts. 7,803 11,257 14,000 17,000 18,000 Lakeville 7,851 13,609 20,500 29,500 33,500 Lil dale 297 338 500 600 650 Marshan Tw . 373 404 450 490 520 Mendota 69 80 90 100 120 Mendota H s. 3,302 4,178 4,600 4,800 5,000 Miesville 47 52 60 60 60 New Trier 29 31 30 30 30 Ninin er Twp. 241 280 330 370 400 Northfield (pt.) 54 216 300 400 500 Randolph 111 117 120 140 160 Randolph Tw . 158 192 230 260 280 Ravenna Tw . 546 734 840 920 1,000 Rosemount 2,779 4,742 8,000 11,200 13,500 Sciota Tw . 86 92 130 160 190 South St. Paul 7,914 8,123 8,300 8,600 9,000 Sunfish Lake 138 173 190 200 210 Vermillion 157 160 200 240 300 Vennillion Tw . 354 395 430 500 550 Waterford Tw . 182 193 210 230 240 West St. Paul 8,441 8,645 8,900 9,300 9,600 I DAKOTA COUNTY TOTAL 98,293 131,151 160,100 191,840 208,690 HENNEPIN COUNTY Metro olitan Council Household Forecasts City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Bloomington 34,488 36,400 37,500 38,500 40,000 Brooklyn Center 11,226 11,430 12,000 12,500 13,000 Brooklyn Park 20,386 24,432 28,400 32,000 35,000 Champlin 5,423 7,425 9,000 9,500 10,000 Chanhassen t.) 0 0 0 0 0 Corcoran 1,545 1,784 3,000 6,500 10,500 Crystal 9,272 9,389 9,700 10,100 10,500 Dayton t. 1,359 1,544 2,000 6,500 11,000 Dee haven 1',324 1,373 1,450 1,500 1,550 Eden Prairie 14,447 20,457 23,500 25,500 26,500 Edina 19,860 20,996 21,600 22,000 22,500 Excelsior 1,160 1,199 1,250 1,330 1,400 Fort Snelling 7 0 0 0 0 Golden Valley 8,273 8,449 8,900 9,200 9,600 Greenfield 457 817 1,000 1,300 1,600 Greenwood 250 285 320 330 330 Hanover t.) 82 113 150 200 250 Hassan Twp. 585 778 1,000 4,000 7,000 Hopkins 7,973 8,224 8,500 8,800 9,000 Independence 925 1,088 1,300 1,500 1,600 Long Lake 747 756 900 1,000 1,100 Loretto 167 225 250 300 350 Maple Grove 12,531 17,532 24,500 30,000 34,000 Ma 1e Plain 696 770 870 950 1,000 Medicine Lake 169 159 170 190 200 Medina 1,007 1,309 1,800 2,700 4,000 Minneapolis 160,682 162,352 172,000 181,000 187,000 Minnetonka 18,687 21,393 22,300 23,000 24,000 Minnetonka Beach 204 215 220 230 240 Minnetrista 1,195 1,505 2,100 3,000 4,000 Mound 3,710 3,982 4,350 4,600 4,800 New Hoe 8,507 8,665 8,850 9,300 10,000 Orono 2,613 2,766 3,200 3,700 4,100 Osseo 995 1,035 1,090 1,160 1,400 Plymouth 18,361 24,820 29,000 31,500 33,500 Richfield 15,551 15,073 16,500 18,000 19,500 Robbinsdale 6,008 6,097 6,400 6,800 8,000 Rockford t.) 163 57 100 200 300 Rogers 259 1,195 2,300 2,700 3,000 St. Anthony t. 2,208 2,402 2,600 2,800 3,000 St. Bonifacius 398 681 1,200 1,800 2,400 St. Louis Park 19,925 20,782 22,000 23,000 24,000 Shorewood 2,026 2,529 2,770 3,000 3,200 Spring Park 741 930 1,000 1,080 1,130 Tonka Bay 577 614 700 760 780 Wayzata 1,715 1,929 2,000 2,200 2,300 Woodland 176 173 180 200 200 HENNEPIN COUNTY TOTAL 419,060 456,129 499,920 546,430 588,830 RAMSEY COUNTY Metro olitan Council Household Forecasts City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Arden Hills 2,904 2,959 3,600 4,600 8,000 Blaine t.) 0 0 0 0 0 Falcon Hgts. 2,016 2,103 2,150 2,200 2,300 Gem Lake 140 139 160 170 190 Lauderdale 1,166 1,150 1,160 1,200 1,200 Little Canada 3,902 4,375 4,870 5,300 5,700 Maplewood 11,496 13,758 15,600 16,500 17,500 Mounds View 4,702 5,018 5,350 5,600 6,000 New Brighton 8,523 9,013 9,400 9,800 10,000 North Oaks 1,085 1,300 1,500 2,100 2,500 North St. Paul 4,447 4,703 4,900 5,400 6 Roseville 13,562 14,598 15,500 17,000 18,500 St. Anthony t.) 1,245 1,295 1,350 1,500 1,600 St. Paul 110,249 112,109 118,000 125,000 133,000 Shoreview 8,991 10,125 10,500 10,700 11,200 Spring Lake Park t. 41 48 50 50 50 Vadnais Hgts. 3,924 5,064 5,600 6,100 7,400 White Bear Twp. 3,205 4,010 4,700 4,800 5,000 White Bear Lake t.) 8,902 9,469 10,200 11,000 11,500 RAMSEY COUNTY TOTAL 190,500 201,236 214,590 229,020 247,640 A -14 SCOTT COUNTY Metro olitan Council Household Forecasts City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Belle Plaine 1,092 1,396 2,100 2,900 3,900 Belle Plaine Tw . 211 266 340 400 500 Blakeley Twp. 140 _166 190 220 250 Cedar Lake Tw . 523 719 1,000 1,200 1,400 Credit River Tw . 864 1,242 1,700 2,500 3,200 Elko 75 155 400 700 1,000 Helena Tw . 352 450 550 650 800 Jackson Tw . 459 461 520 600 800 Jordan 1,042 1,349 2,250 3,100 4,400 Louisville Tw . 278 410 470 520 600 New Market 82 131 600 1,400 2,300 New Market Tw . 627 956 1,400 1,900 2,600 New Prague t.) 870 1,160 1,800 2,500 3,000 Prior Lake 3,901 5,645 8,500 11,500 14,500 St. Lawrence Twp. 122 144 260 280 500 Sand Creek Twp. 412 478 550 650 750 Savage 3,255 6,807 11,000 14,500 16,000 Shakopee 4,163 7,540 13,000 19,500 24,000 Spring Lake Tw . 899 1,217 1,5001 1,800 2,200 SCOTT COUNTY TOTAL 19,3671 30,692 48,0701 66,8201 82,700 WASHINGTON COUNTY Metro olitan Council Household Forecasts City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Afton 890 996 1,100 1,200 1,250 Bayport 743 763 840 1,000 1,500 Ba own Tw . 302 492 800 1,200 1,500 Birchwood 364 357 360 370 380 Cottage Grove 6,856 9,932 13,000 16,500 20,000 Dellwood 301 353 380 390 400 Denmark Twp. 367 481 540 560 580 Forest Lake 4,424 5,433 7,000 9,000 12,000 Grant 1,173 1,374 1,550 2,000 2,200 Grey Cloud Tw . 165 117 120 130 130 Hastings t. 2 2 0 0 0 Hugo 1,416 2,125 4,300 7,000 10,000 Lake Elmo 1,973 2,347 3,500 6,000 9,500 Lakeland 645 691 710 730 730 Lakeland Shores 101 116 120 130 130 Lake St. Croix Beach 415 462 480 500 510 Landfall 300 292 290 290 290 Mahtomedi 1,874 2,503 3,000 3,400 3,550 Marine on St. Croix 234 254 320 370 430 May Tw . 820 1,007 1,100 1,200 1,300 Newport 1,323 1,418 1,550 1,800 2,200 New Scandia Tw . 1,060 1,294 1,500 1,700 1,900 Oakdale 6,699 10,243 11,300 12,000 13,000 Oak Park Hgts. 1,322 1,528 2,000 2,300 2,500 Pine Springs 135 140 140 140 140 St. Ma 's Point 126 132 150 160 170 St. Paul Park 1,749 1,829 2,200 2,500 2,900 Stillwater 4,982 5,797 6,900 7,700 8,300 Stillwater Tw . 639 833 1,000 1,400 1,700 West Lakeland Tw . 524 1,101 1,300 1,450 1,550 White Bear Lake t. 168 149 270 300 300 Willemie 227 225 230 240 250 Woodbu ry 6,927 16,676 23,500 30,500 35,000 WASHINGTON COUNTY TOTAL 49,246 71,462 91,550 114,160 136,290 Employment Forecasts ANOKA COUNTY Metro olitan Council Em to meat Forecasts City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Andover 1,200 3,062 4,300 5,100 5,650 Anoka 11,755 13,250 14,400 15,200 16,200 Bethel 193 248 330 380 440 Blaine t. 11,401 16,298 18,700 20,300 21,100 Bums Tw . 259 294 350 400 450 Centerville 168 359 520 630 670 Circle Pines 861 2,057 2,250 2,400 2,450 Columbia H ts. 4,536 6,419 6,600 6,750 7,000 Columbus Tw . 100 482 730 900 1,000 Coon Rapids 16,449 21,462 24,200 26,000 27,800 East Bethel 457 1,211 1,380 1,500 1,610 Fridley 23,821 25,957 30,200 33,000 35,300 Ham Lake 1,820 2,812 3,050 3,200 3,450 Hilltop 250 254 350 420 470 Lexington 630 631 880 1,050 1,120 Lino Lakes 1,229 2,444 2,950 3,300 3,550 Linwood Twp. 50 120 140 150 160 Oak Grove 200 354 380 400 420 Ramsey 1,941 3,587 6,700 9,100 11,300 St. Francis 793 1,226 1,630 1,900 2,220 Spring Lake Park t. 3,019 4,287 4,600 4,800 4,950 ANOKA COUNTY TOTAL 81,1321 106,8141 124,6401 136,880 147,310 CARVER COUNTY Metro olitan Council Em to ment Forecasts City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Benton Tw . 227 300 310 320 330 Camden Tw . 12 12 30 40 50 Carver 95 156 270 350 410 Chanhassen t. 4,605 7,571 10,000 11,700 13,300 Chaska 7;833 10,185 12,400 13,900 15,100 Chaska Tw . 50 66 130 170 220 Colo ie 117 212 260 300 340 Dahl ren Tw . 109 106 130 150 170 Hamburg 58 100 110 120 170 Hancock Tw . 20 35 40 40 50 Hollywood Tw . 27 130 - 150 160 170 Laketown Twp. 180 331 350 370 390 Mayer 40 74 210 300 400 New Germany 43 52 70 90 140 Norwood Young America 1,145 1,553 2,100 2,450 2,670 San Francisco Tw . 20 30 40 50 60 Victoria 653 836 1,020 1,150 1,240 Waconia 1,946 3,777 7,000 9,100 11,600 Waconia Twp. 100 180 270 330 370 Watertown 600 670 1,200 1,550 1,770 Watertown Tw . 76 191 220 250 280 Young America Twp. 58 90 901 90 100 CARVER COUNTY TOTAL 18,014 26,657 36,400 42,980 49,330 DAKOTA COUNTY Metro olitan Council Em to meat Forecasts A -19 City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Apple Valle 6,528 11,250 16,750 20,100 22,000 Bumsville 25,438 31,825 34,500 37,600 40,900 Castle Rock Twp. 100 200 230 250 270 Coates 90 254 280 300 320 Douglas T 50 70 80 90 100 Eagan 26,000 42,114 48,300 52,000 54,200 Empire Tw . 167 174 250 300 340 Eureka Twp. 50 80 100 120 140 Fannin ton 2,342 3,833 6,600 8,400 9,900 Greenvale Twp. 50 150 160 170 190 Hampton 100 262 280 300 350 Hampton Tw . 50 88 90 100 110 Hastings t.) 6,982 8,317 8,700 8,950 9,400 Inver Grove H ts. 5,724 7,018 9,250 10,900 12,100 Lakeville 6,563 9,885 11,900 13,200 14,400 Lil dale 200 461 480 500 550 Marshan Tw . 50 200 230 250 270 Mendota 100 100 130 150 170 Mendota Hgts. 5,805 8,099 9,100 9,800 10,300 Miesville 50 121 130 140 160 New Trier 50 44 50 50 60 Ninin er Tw . 20 80 220 310 400 Northfield t. 0 0 0 0 0 Randolph 50 97 110 120 140 Randolph Tw . 50 88 90 100 110 Ravenna Twp. 20 103 120 130 140 Rosemount 4,114 6,089 8,400 10,100 12,200 Sciota Twp. 50 50 60 70 80 South St. Paul 5,564 7,708 8,050 8,300 8,500 Sunfish Lake 0 0 0 0 0 Vermillion 167 388 420 450 480 Vermillion Twp. 50 60 80 90 100 Waterford Tw . 191 270 320 350 370 West St. Paul 9,264 8,783 10,700 12,0001 13,000 DAKOTA COUNTY TOTAL 106,029 148,261 176,160 195,6901 211,750 HENNEPIN COUNTY Metro olitan Council Em to ment Forecasts City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Bloomington 75,837 101,564 117,400 128,000 137,500 Brooklyn Center 17,006 16,693 19,300 21,000 22,600 Brooklyn Park 16,592 23,256 26,900 29,100 32,000 Champlin 1,110 2,623 3,700 5,100 6,200 Chanhassen (pt.) 1,500 930 1,630 2,100 2,300 Corcoran 467 1,542 3,320 4,500 6,300 Crystal 6,019 5,567 6,600 7,250 8,050 Dayton t.) 498 1,057 3,900 5,750 6,850 Dee haven 407 470 530 570 630 Eden Prairie 36,095 49,392 54,800 57,700 59,500 Edina 44,534 52,753 57,100 60,000 62,400 Excelsior 1,656 1,578 1,980 2,250 2,450 Fort Snelling 29,844 35,195 36,400 37,200 37,900 Golden Valley 28,589 29,467 - 31,650 33,100 34,500 Greenfield 50 100 1,240 2,000 2,700 Greenwood 185 200 220 230 250 Hanover t.) 50 59 60 70 80 Hassan Twp. 250 627 3,250 5,000 7,200 Hopkins 12,252 11,777 13,600 14,800 16,300 Independence 90 150 160 160 170 . Long Lake 1,370 2,327 2,600 2,700 2,700 Loretto 212 250 280 300 350 Maple Grove 7,750 16,749 32,450 42,900 45,900 Maple Plain 1,110 1,681 2,350 2,800 3,300 Medicine Lake 50 50 60 70 70 Medina 2,155 2,928 5,200 6,700 7,900 Minneapolis 278,438 301,826 317,000 332,500 346,500 Minnetonka 35,536 50,471 53,800 56,000 58,600 Minnetonka Beach 210 210 210 210 210 Minnetrista 300 313 820 1,150 1,330 Mound 1,849 1,709 2,500 3,000 3,450 New Hoe 14,149 12,900 13,850 14,500 15,100 Orono 980 951 1,230 1,420 1,500 Osseo 2,120 2,318 2,700 2,950 3,050 Plymouth 38,103 52,574 59,900 63,400 64,500 Richfield 10,844 11,602 17,100 19,300 21,100 Robbinsdale 6,813 6,988 8,100 8,800 9,600 Rockford (pt.) 240 583 680 740 840 Rogers 1,775 4,208 5,950 7,100 8,500 St. Anthony t.) 2,100 1,999 2,650 3,100 3,400 St. Bonifacius 247 398 520 600 700 St. Louis Park 36,791 40,714 46,200 50,500 52,500 Shorewood 490 732 990 1,160 1,180 Spring Park 842 788 1,330 1,690 1,800 Tonka Bay 100 150 200 240 280 Wayzata 5,500 5,912 6,200 6,400 6,550 Woodland 0 0 0 0 0 HENNEPIN COUNTY TOTAL 723,105 856,331 968,610 1,046,110 1,106,790 RAMSEY COUNTY Metro olitan Council Em to ment Forecasts City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Arden Hills 10,929 12,429 15,200 17,100 20,000 Blaine t. 350 664 770 840 850 Falcon Hgts. 3,180 3,698 3,900 4,050 4,200 Gem Lake 320 548 720 840 870 Lauderdale 500 700 730 750 800 Little Canada 4,287 5,693 6,400 6,850 7,250 Maplewood 25,068 29,961 36,600 41,000 44,500 Mounds View 3,142 4,382 5,900 6,950 7,550 New Brighton 9,779 10,542 12,850 14,400 15,600 North Oaks 370 1,008 1,060 1,100 1,070 North St. Paul 3,200 3,500 5,900 7,500 8,500 Roseville 33,046 39,103 42,450 44,700 46,100 St. Anthony (pt.) 1,550 1,383 1,700 1,900 2,050 St, Paul 172,578 184,589 196,600 210,000 220,600 Shoreview 5,771 9,829 14,200 15,800 16,800 , Spring Lake Park t. 0 0 0 0 0 Vadnais H ts. 3,800 7,119 7,950 8,500 9,100 White Bear Tw . 906 2,164 4,150 5,9001 6,800 White Bear Lake t.) 8,059 11,833 13,250 14,20OF 14,900 RAMSEY COUNTY TOTAL 286,835 329,145 370,330 402,3801 427,540 4 SCOTT COUNTY Metrnnnlitan f'nnnpil F.mnlnvmnn+ Tinrnrno +o City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Belle Plaine 931 1,469 1,910 1,200 2,700 Belle Plaine Twp. 55 70 80 90 Blakeley Twp. 20 27 50 70 80 Cedar Lake TmT. 25 50 60 70 80 Credit River Tw . 100 219 270 300 340 Elko 50 74 200 550 750 Helena Tw . 50 90 100 100 110 Jackson Tw . 50 120 500 750 870 Jordan 913 1,264 1,500 1,650 1,870 Louisville Tw . 200 385 420 440 460 New Market 63 100 200 350 500 New Market Tw . 113 257 300 300 400 New Prague t. 1,044 2,570 2,800 2,950 3,150 Prior Lake 3,000 7,671 12,000 15,100 17,200 St. Lawrence Tw . 100 177 200 210 220 Sand Creek Tw . 75 180 220 250 270 Savage 3,180 4,680 6,000 6,850 8,700 Shakopee 8,500 12,476 14,800 16,200 18,600 Spring Lake Tw . 100 1451 210 260 300 SCOTT COUNTY TOTAL 18,554 32,009 41,810 48,680 56,690 WASHINGTON COUNTY Metro olitan Council Em to merit Forecasts City or Township 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Afton 220 290 450 560 630 Bayport 3,200 4,478 5,200 5,700 6,300 Baytown Tw . 100 145 270 350 400 Birchwood 0 0 0 0 0 Cottage Grove 4,545 5,950 8,450 9,950 11,450 Dellwood 80 121 150 170 180 Denmark Twp. 247 300 360 400 440 Forest Lake 5,135 6,359 7,910 9,000 10,400 Grant 480 612 930 1,150 1,330 Grey Cloud Tw . 50 50 50 50 50 Hastings t.) 0 0 0 0 0 Hugo 1,012 1,768 2,050 2,270 3,350 Lake Elmo 1,011 1,636 2,250 2,650 3,050 Lakeland 167 300 420 500 600 Lakeland Shores 50 50 50 50 50 Lake St. Croix Beach 48 100 110 120 130 Landfall 50 50 60 70 90 Mahtomedi 750 1,160 1,870 2,350 2,500 Marine on St. Croix 126 224 290 330 380 May Twp. 40 37 60 80 100 Newport 1,654 2,035 3,900 5,200 6,500 New Scandia Tw . 387 255 420 520 610 Oakdale 3,962 7,189 9,250 10,600 11,900 Oak Park H ts. 2,220 3,000 3,900 4,500 5,100 Pine Springs 0 0 0 0 0 St. Mary's Point 10 10 10 10 10 St. Paul Park 1,174 1,172 1,350 1,500 1,600 Stillwater 7,040 10,169 11,550 12,500 13,600 Stillwater Tw . 136 112 120 120 120 West Lakeland Tw . 50 80 90 90 100 White Bear Lake t.) 60 130 140 150 170 Willernie 100 1341 140 140 150 Woodbury 5,000 15,700 25,950 34,200 37,000 WASHINGTON COUNTY TOTAL 39,104 63,6161 87,750 105,280 118,290 Appendix C /Supplementary Maps A number of maps play an important role in the growth strategy of the Development Framework. These maps, listed below, are available at the Council's Data Center or on line at www.metrocouncil.org/ planning /framework/documents.htm - Local Comprehensive Plans 2020 Comprehensive Plans Composite- created from the comprehensive plans that local governments submitted in response to the Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint and reviewed by the Council between 1998 and 2003. The planning areas shown on this map are different from those shown on the current 2030 Framework growth strategy map. Consequently, communities may appear in different planning areas. Draft Maps from the Atlas of the Natural Resources Inventory and Assessment . Recreational and Natural Resource Protection - shows regional and local parks, trails, water bodies, wildlife areas and steep slopes. River and Stream Corridors - shows the corridors linking natural resources of regional importance. Aggregate and Agricultural Resources - shows sand, gravel and dolostone deposits and categories of agricultural land. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecological Assessment- shows water features and land areas classified according to their potential biological and habitat quality. C -1 s The Rosemount Town Pages AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Chad Richardson, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper, known as The Rosemount Town Pages, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statutes 331A.02, 331A. d otfler applicable taws, as amended. (B) The printed M N)C�bCD — eilc cA± which is attached, was cut from the columns of saLd newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for successive eB k ks; it was first published on Friday, the - -____ __ __ _______ day of �1 003 and was thereafter' printed and published on every Friday, to and including Friday, the day of 2003; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: abcdefghij klautopgrstuvw xyz I By: V Subscribed and sw to before me on this w l ' ' day 2003. Notary Public AFFIDAVIT DAWN M SMITH lie NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2005 PUBLIC NOTICE Scott and DeAnn Boecker 3878 Upper 149th Street West Appeal of a decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments To Deny a VARIANCE to a Side Yard Setback To Whom It May Concern: Notice Is Hereby Give., the City Council of the City of Rosemount will hold a Public Hearing to consider the item listed below on Tuesday, November 18, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, in Rosemount, Minnesota, beginning at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The Public Hearing pertains to 3878 Upper 149th. Street West in .Rosemount, Minnesota, legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 3, Carrollton 3rd Addition The purpose of the public hearing is to receive public com- ment on the appeal of a variance to a side yard setback denied by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Persons wishing to speak on this issue are invited to attend and be heard at this scheduled public hearing. Formal writ- ten comments will also be accepted prior m the meeting dates. Please forward. all written comments and/or inquiries to the Planning Department of the City of Rosemount or call (651) 322 -2051. Dated this 4th day of November, 2003 /a/ Linda 1. lentink, City Clerk City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota . Auxiliary aids and services are available - Please contact the City Clerk at 651- 322 -2003 or 651- 322 -6219 (TDD number) to make a request Examples of auxiliary aids or services may include: sign language interpreter, assistive listening kit, accessible meeting location, etc. II/7 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT Public Notice Scott and DeAnn Boecker 3878 Upper 149 Street West Appeal of a decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments To Deny a VARIANCE to a Side Yard Setback TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: CITY HALL 2875 - 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Phone: 651.423 -4411 Hearing Impaired: 651 - 423.6219 Fax: 651 - 423 -5203 NOTICE Is HEREBY GIVEN, the City Council of the City of Rosemount will hold a Public Hearing to consider the item listed below on Tuesday, November 18, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, in Rosemount, Minnesota, beginning at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The Public Hearing pertains to 3878 Upper 149` Street West in Rosemount, Minnesota. The purpose of the public hearing is to receive public comment on the appeal of a variance to a side yard setback denied by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Persons wishing to speak on this issue are invited to attend and be heard at this scheduled public hearing. Formal written comments will also be accepted prior to the meeting dates. Please forward all written comments and /or inquiries to the Planning Department of the City of Rosemount or call (651) 322 -2051. Dated this 4`'' day of November, 2003. y 2l' ;'�'!i✓ Lmda J. Jentink, City Cork City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota Auxiliary aids and services are available - Please contact the City Clerk at 651 -322 -2003 or 651 - 322 -6219 (TDD number) to make a request. Examples of acrxiliaty aids or services may include: sign language interpreter, assistive listening kit, accessible meeting location, etc. If TODD R & PATRICIA A BREITER JEFFREY E & LAURA M WENDEL LINDA D QUIMBY 14898 COVINGTON AVE 14927 COVINGTON AVE 3860 UPPER 149TH ST W ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4566 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4567 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4564 MICHAEL MCGUIGAN JEFFREY & AMY ROWE MATTHEW R & DENISE L LEWIS 14897 COVINGTON AVE 14930 CRANDALL AVE 3864 UPPER 149TH ST ROSEMOUNT MN 550684567 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4530 ROSEMOUNT MN 550684564 SCOTT A HENAMAN TROY T MCCALLUM BRUCE T NGUYEN 14900 CRANDALL AVE 14931 CRANDELL AVE W 3868 UPPER 149TH ST W ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4530 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4531 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4564 JAMES A & MARY SUE A ZANAGLIO MELVIN O & MARIA A ALVAREZ JAMES E & PATRICE C POULIOT 14913 COLORADO AVE 14949 COLORADO AVE 3872 UPPER 149TH ST W ROSEMOUNT MN 550684570 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4570 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4564 RONALD P & KIMBERLY CUMMINGS MICHAEL A & RENEE K CAPRA BRIAN A BROSS 14914 COVINGTON AVE 14942 COVINGTON AVE 3882 UPPER 149TH ST ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4566 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4566 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4564 LAURA A LAWRENCE STEVEN C & GINA M TURNER KEVIN C & DEBORAH J LANE 14913 COVINGTON AVE 14943 COVINGTON AVE 3890 UPPER 149TH ST W ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4567 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4567 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4564 RUSSELL A JOHNSON CONSTANCE R MARTIN BRIAN DRAGOVICH 14916 CRANDALL AVE 14944 CRANDALL AVE 3900 UPPER 149TH ST W ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4530 ROSEMOUNT MN 550684530 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4563 LARRY A & BARBARA 1 BRUNICK LUCILLE M GERGEN SANDRA K FEENSTRA 14915 CRANDALL AVE 14945 CRANDALL AVE 3910 UPPER 149TH ST ROSEMOUNT MN 550684531 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4531 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4563 STEVEN M & STACY L LUFKIN BRAD S & JENNIFER A ZABOJ GARY R & KIM M OHLEMACHER 14931 COLORADO AVE 14936 COLORADO AVE 3938 UPPER 149TH ST W ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4570 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4569 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4563 EDWARD A & JULIE L KROPELNICKI TRACY S & CAROL J MORGAN CLAREL CORPORATION 14928 COVINGTON AVE 14950 COLORADO AVE % KRAUS - ANDERSON REALTY ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4566 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -4569 BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 :i\IOISOV ' aNifloa AI £OOZ `£Z aagoloo polep uoda.zllels aqi ui sgutpug put uotltluuolut atp uo posvq IsaM IaanS u ,6�i zaddfl 8L8£ W pal ooi �C adozd agI uo this a5exe pznll ,OZ Xq ,ZI v jo uoilmnsuoo oqj moils oI Iaal anq of Iaa OI tuozl aotreuEn �toegias pxe,� apis uUCuap uminjosw v idope of uoiloW :Mojt.LDV Q2[(INaIAIwOaaH •asn s ttounoD agi IOJ papTnozd si lzodazllels snotnaxd aqs �uueag aiIgnd ponuTiuoo Qql .zo3 paisod Fuueoq oitgnd aql pue ino iuos uaaq_aneg soo oq`L `.Isanbaa agllo Poddns ut asn paioalle Isom oq pinom Imp sjogtt2iau otp Iugi pue `IaaJ antU IOJ Xtuo st aoueuen agi Imp paiou sem 11 •aauetren agl antaoa.z iou pjnoo Xogl asneoog anouz tuatji anUq of aleq pinom ie Xz)gl p slooffou poot OIL siueotidde agl Iegi pai�oipui osle Matt •pooyogtj2jau aql pine osnoq agilo ontLIn atp of ppu pjnom a ere agi pie paurelutetu iiann st auzog s jueoi ddv a qI l� I g paiou ,Ca qZ •Isanba:z agl jo zoned un axods slogg2lou I tezanas 2iUUeQq otignd aqi 2uunQ qi I as j •aoueulwo �utlsixo aqi iopun uzagl of algnit AP aq pinonn IVui santieuaaltL Qi?t moss zagio uegl poogzogtt2tau aqi of I�etatdauaq mm si P a£ ttuls do dui ,nd I n , �a qs 'aigezisop ssat azola.zagl pug anilo�ezlle ssat aq pinom Imp Ing gets L uo apisino stuait aoe d ,�a ql ium pouotluoLu Catfj i pi , ,Cltuzel aql uo digspxeti paieazo setj sr[ti pue oaeds a�etols Ituotlippe sazmboi XI noo IWL'j xtagllo ants posuazoui aql legj alou oslu gags • M -£ u jo asn Xofuo Bare aqi ut s.zaumo Xpodozd zaitio wgi Ino palutod pare asn ajgeuosuai r st asprs2 xeo - u Ietil Ioal ,CagZ •Isanbaz aoueuen aqi jo poddns zoI suoseaa j?uiltlIs a Cods iuvoiiddt aqi `S'ljlaauz raquzanoN agi SuunQ INT103uz Itounoo ,Cilo £OOZ `Z aagtuaoo(j oqj of ponuiluoo sum tuol aql `uotleogiiou ui .zoua ue of anQ •2?uiloauz Itounoo ,Clio £OOZ `8I iogtuanoX aql zoj pajnpagos seem uzaii sitil Quno�IOx��g luwopisag4sua(i moI `I :SutuoZ ivazmo ILlIivapisc)W uegzfl - :SisaQ uetd opmo •dtuoD I :slo'I.to zaguznN iaad oxenbS OOt�`ZI jo sazoV 8Z'0 :sazov ut easy Isarn Iaa -4S gj 6t l jaddfl 8L8£ :uotIeooZ a0133% uuvaQ pUL II00S :lueoilddV •spxepuelS i?utuoZ Iutivaptsa21,Clturt:I QJSUIS s,uol2u'ULmd jo Xi!D `szogg2joN tuoz3 szaiIaZ `antlP.ueN s juvotiddV `podo21 jjrjS :fig Q�AO?Idd� `Ueid -Sutpjmg XoAmS `duW uotleoo7 aa.T.S :S.L1\IaIV>F 3VLZV xautreid lueisissV `Iqupurl uosr f :Ag (13uvd3ma '11VIS OU-mg p- ull ,OZ Xq ,ZI L J o uoil 3uueaj3 otignd orulsuoo atji moth' o1 aotreuen IOegiaS MA apTS Iood anti L XuaQ of sivauilsnfpV puLl stvaddy jo pxuog gipjo uotstoaQ aql :Fo W0I1321S V(tNao'V IeaddV aou UPA .zol i?uueaH oiIgnd panutluoD :Wa LI WIN210Iv £OOZ `Z iogtuaoaQ :aJUG Uilaa1v jjauno. 11- NOIS,JV 2IO3 A2 VWI/VfIS aAI,Lfl33X2j INf11 Owasou 140 AID CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS TO DENY A VARIANCE REQUESTED BY SCOTT AND DEANN BOECKER FOR 3878 UPPER 149 STREET BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT WHEREAS, the Planning Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Scott and Deann Boecker. for approval of a side yard variance for 3878 Upper 149 Street; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2003, the Board of Appeals & Adjustments of the City of Rosemount reviewed the side yard variance for 3878 Upper 149th Street and recommended denial; and WHEREAS, on October 29, 2003, the City Council received a letter of appeal of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments decision from Scott and DeAnn Boecker; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2003, The City Council conducted a public hearing to hear the appeal of Scott and DeAnn Boecker. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby Upholds the decision of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments to deny the side yard variance requested by Scott and DeAnn Boecker based upon findings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT I . The owner has reasonable use of the property based upon the current built nature of the site. The site contains a single family home with the required 440 square foot garage. 2. There are options for gaining additional storage on the site that do not require the need of variance: ` 3. The subject property is large enough to accommodate both the existing house and the proposed garage addition. However, the applicant chose to locate the house in the middle of the lot rather than against the required 10 foot western side yard setback. This positioning limits their ability to expand their home. 4. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property; which do not apply generally to other properties in the same district that would warrant granting of the variance. 5. Strict or literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of the use and enjoyment of his property in a manner similar to other owners in the same district. RESOLUTION 2003 - ADOPTED this 18th day of November, 2003, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Seconded by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Member absent: 2 Z�;eW P, 02✓02 EK 10Qi68 ,12 Last 14gth Btro4a:. Buxr�avilaa, MN SS337 DELMAR �, scNWANZ {Akp>1%myjfCM& iMC IY"M"" wr th+Nr tM r► fM ^af W W'."'m 4760 SOUTH RaslPAr TR�llt. MOSEUOUNT, MINNtaOTA QS `t�is�?•1TN 9URVIYOR'S CERTIFICATE $Cale? 1 inch �..._ 30 flat; 0 '+ set toad hub ' ttc.3 7 lsd,�s lss.o O Iro pipe a►onumnt X89- 3S -S7J� ti6 r- xistinq spot elevation Q Proposed slevati.on 7S ?9, Proposed garage floor •lev. 0; T s,r I il►rce k41 1 ?,G N G • Description: ,SS Lot 2, Block 3, CARROLLTON 39D • " --.�E ADD ITION , accord to the record4d g 1 t 1 — Plat thereof, Dakota County, m nnes Also shoving the location of a ,prop TD P house as staked thereon. N B9.35 9? W Q om, � lee el) 7 !4 ,. -4 tttttttr ►ti 5r►.v�i� t hstsbr "filty that this lurr+y, plan, of apart was ��:�•N• "� ...••. ' O r I'cf. p nrpsrt� � IRI OI unesr lfsy► dlnQt lupsMlbn and ,�, "Q � �� /' Mat t s,n R eVy 14001"d Land duhsyoe Vrj OELMAR H. *• ' the )&*l s1 the lim of m1mrMats. % SCNWf,N' Dated Q9 -01 -92 , 8bZ5 —• ? Csl,rtr K �hes>s x '••,,, ''cy, MM06044 !Mlttfratled No. tta t i io TOTAL F.02 - N 74' lot line •..... 14'• I u 16' 0 n 10' 20' I ==a 30' A Upper 149th St. Designed By' Bru Sch weich Des ign. / Quality / Service I Trust - Dat 04/04!03 D avi d DAVID SCHWEICH CONST. Devil schw+kh Const assumes no PLANS FOR: 21716 KENRiCK AVE. responsibilh for structural or dimnsional errors Scott & DeAnn Boe Cker C C PHONE 952 469 -3222 LAKEVILLE, MN. 55044 or f M The contractor and r or Home rS] own0not mu%t AtverRy and check all notes 3878 Upper 149th St. W. ( ) mmensions, details, etevanons, sections and CONSTRUCMN INC. FAX: (952)469 -3920 floor clans prior to me smn of construction and Rosemount, Mn. 55x68 - be tesponsible for zyrne. 651- 322 -4010 LIC,# 2026 f di _... _. . .. www: br ucet� $Qa videchweichc onstru ction. cam I P_ MEMORANDUM TO: City of Rosemount Planning Commission Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Rick Pearson, City Planner FROM: Jason Lindahl, A.I.C.P., Assistant City Planner DATE: October 22 2003 RE: Boecker Side Yard Variance Request PROPOSAL The applicants, Scott and DeAnn Boecker, of 3878 Upper 149"' Street West request a five foot side yard setback variance to allow the construction of a third garage stall. The proposed addition would be 12' by 20' or 240 square feet in size and add a third garage stall on the east side of the applicant's existing two - stall garage. According to the applicant's survey, the existing garage sits 17 feet from the applicant's east property line. The subject property is zoned R -1, Low Density Residential and has a required side yard setback of 10 feet. BACKGROUND The proposed garage addition is actually part of a larger expansion project that includes a separate addition to the applicant's home., While the home addition conforms to the R -1 setback standards, the garage addition will encroach five feet into the required 10 foot side yard setback. The applicants state their hardship is that there is no other alternative location for the garage addition, given the position of their existing house and garage (see attached narrative). In addition, they cite support for the variance from their surrounding neighbors (see attached letters). ISSUE ANALSIS Variance. According to Section 14.2.G, there are five criteria to review when considering a variance request. While weighing a variance request against these criteria, there are two key issues for the Planning Commission to consider. The first is whether the applicant has reasonable use of their property without the variance. The second is whether the project can be redesigned to eliminate or reduce the need for a variance. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments must approve or deny each request based on findings related to each of the five standards. The City Council shall have the power to decide any appeals. The five criteria used to weigh each variance request, along with staff's findings for each, are listed below. 1. Granting a variance will not adversely affect the public health, welfare and safety and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Finding: The applicant claims that the affect of this variance request on the public health, welfare and safety of properties in the immediate area is not an issue because the surrounding neighbors have endorsed the proposal. While this may be true, this standard applies to the broader neighborhood and R -1 Zoning District. If approved, the variance would grant this property a lesser side yard setback requirement than the other properties within the R -1 District. The Board must recognize that this variance request could be typical of other requests in this district and, should the Board wish to approve the request, must have findings that make this situation unique. Otherwise the Board should be prepared for other requests that would have similar circumstances, the difficulty in expanding to a three -car garage without need of variance, and equal treatment of the requests. 2. Strict interpretation or enforcement would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Finding: Strict interpretation of the of the required 10 foot side yard setback standard will not result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Section 4.151, requires single family dwellings to provide at least two attached enclosed garage parking spaces no less than 440 square feet in area and no less than 20 feet wide in either direction. In addition, Section 6.51.5, requires that structures containing this use within the R -1 District be setback 10 feet from the side property lines. The subject property has an existing two -stall garage which is located within the required setbacks; therefore, staff finds that the applicant has reasonable use of the property under the current conditions. 3. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances `or conditions applicable to the subject property, use or facilities that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. Finding: The applicant claims that there is no other viable site for the proposed garage expansion given the .location of their existing house and garage. By comparison, staff fords that the subject property has sufficient width to accommodate the proposed third garage stall had the original builder located the home against the required west side yard setback. Currently, the house is located 16 feet from the western side property line. Had the original builder chose to locate the house at the required 10 foot west side yard setback line, the applicant would not need a five foot east side yard setback variance. While this situation is unfortunate for the current owner, it does not represent an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance or condition that does not apply generally to other properties in the same district. 4. Strict or literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of the use and enjoyment of his property in a manner similar to other owners in the same district. Finding: Strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance will not deprive the applicant of the use and enjoyment of the subject property in a manner similar to other owners in the R -1 District. First, the applicant has an existing garage that conforms to the size and setback standards for the R -1, Low Density Residential District. Second, the applicants could expand their existing garage up to seven feet to the east without the need for a variance. While this would not accommodate the applicants' plan, it would provide them with some of the additional storage space they seek. 5. Granting of the variance will not allow a use which is otherwise not a permitted use in the zoning district in question. Finding: In this case, granting the Boecker's five foot side yard setback variance request to construct a 12' by 20' or 240 square foot garage addition will not permit a use which is otherwise prohibited in the R -1 District. However, it would allow this structure to be located on this site in conflict with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan standards for properties the R- I District. CONCLUSION Based on the findings outlined above, staff concludes that the applicants have reasonable use of their property without`the requested variance and have not demonstrated a hardship that is unique to the subject property. In addition, staff finds that the applicants could redesign their project to reduce or eliminate the need for a five foot east side yard setback variance while still gaining some of the additional storage space they seek. While these options may be less desirable to the applicant, they illustrate the potential for the site to accommodate some of the applicants' additional storage needs without a variance. Given these findings, staff cannot support the variance request as proposed. However should the Planning Commission choose to approve the variance request, staff recommends continuing this item and directing staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact supporting the request. If the Planning Commission agrees with the petitioner that a five foot setback for garages is appropriate, then changing the required setback standard within the R -1 District would be an appropriate recommendation to the City Council as an ordinance amendment, rather than granting variances on an individual basis. At this time, staff is not recommending any change to the current R -1 setback standards. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance for garage addition from 10 feet to 5 feet for Scott and DeAnn Boecker, 3878 Upper 149 Street West, based upon the following findings of fact: L The owner has reasonable use of the property based upon the current built nature of the site. 2. There. are options for gaining additional storage on the site that do not require the need of variance. 3. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property, which do not apply generally to other properties in the same district that would warrant granting of the variance. 4. Strict or literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of the use and enjoyment of his property in a manner similar to other owners in the same district. Scott and DeAnn Boecker 3878 upper 149 Street West Rosemount, Minne L� NOV j 0 2003 November 9, 2003 By Dear City Council Members, We would like to appeal the decision made by the city planning commission on October 28 regarding the side yard variance we requested. We feel there other circumstances that the planning commission was not able to take into account and should be considered when determining whether or not to grant the variance that we have requested. We are asking for the variance to allow us to add a third stall garage to the east side of our existing garage. The proposed garage would come within 5 feet of our eastern property line. The zoning in our development requires a 10 -foot setback from the property lines. Along with the garage addition, we are also planning an addition to our house. This addition will give us the additional living and storage space, 'which we desperately need and also add to the value of our neighborhood. We have learned from the planning commission meeting that the purpose of the 10 -foot setback is purely for aesthetic reasons. The utility easement on our property extends only 5 feet from our property line and our proposed garage addition will be clear of this. Unfortunately, we have no alternative for building additional garage storage. The position of the existing house and garage allow no other location for our additional garage space. The third stall " garage is also needed to balance the appearance of the house with the addition. Without it, the house addition will look unusual and off - balance. Zoning regulations will allow us to surface the area along side our existing garage to the 5 -foot utility easement. This would allow us to have additional storage space that is in plain view. We feel that this would be a much less aesthetically pleasing option than a finished garage and would devalue our property and the surrounding neighborhood. Other areas in Rosemount do not require a 10 -foot setback. We have included a number of examples where structures come closer than 10 feet to the side property line. In addition, we have found that other cities have setbacks requirements less than 10 feet. Farmington, for example has a 6 -foot side setback. We have the full support of our neighborhood as can be seen by the numerous letters that we have included. All our neighbors concur that they would much rather see a finished garage stall in our yard than other less appealing alternatives and feel that the addition that we are proposing will increase the value of the neighborhood. Our family has grown to the point where we need to obtain more living and storage space. We love the neighborhood that we live and desperately want to continue to living where we are. We truly hope that you will grant us this variance and allow us to improve our house and our neighborhood. Sincerely, S_ G Scott and DeAnn Boecker Reason For Request Our family of five is in great need of more living area and storage space. To remedy this, we would like to build an addition to our home that will give us the needed living area as well as an addition to the garage that would give us the much needed storage space. The third stall garage addition that we are proposing will come within 5 feet of our eastern property line. With the easement on this side of our property being 10 feet, we will need to obtain a variance to build this addition. Unfortunately, there is no viable alternative for our garage addition considering our existing house and garage location. We feel the house addition without the third stall garage addition would make the house appear off - balance and would not blend in with the rest of the homes in our neighborhood. With the third stall garage addition in place, there will still be a space of 18 feet between the garage and the neighboring house on the east side of our property. This should be more than sufficient for emergency vehicle access and in addition, our houses are also accessible from county road 42: Granting this variance will allow us to use our property to its fullest extent and enjoy the same use of our property as many others in our neighborhood. We have discussed this addition with all of our immediate neighbors and none are opposed to it, but rather all agree that the addition will add value to the neighborhood. Neighbors Supporting the Variance Request September 27, 2003 City Of Rosemount Planning Commission To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in regard to the garage and home addition that Scott and DeAnn Boecker are planning at 3878 Upper 149 St W. Our home is to the immediate east of their home, with our property being the closest in proximity to the planned addition. We have seen' the plans for the addition and feel that this addition will not encroach our property, but will instead increase the value of our property. We feel that any other alternative (cement or gravel parking area) would be much less desirable to have next to us when compared with a finished garage stall. Please consider approving the variance for Scott and DeAnn Boecker. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at 651 -322 -2319. Sincerely, Jim and Patty Pouliot 3872 Upper 149" St W Rosemount, MN 55068 September 25h, 2003 To whom it may concern: This letter is in. regards to the home improvement project that Scott and DeAnn Boecker are planning for this October. We are in agreement with their need to build an addition to their home. It will not only be a benefit for the Boeckers, but it will be an asset to us as well. We believe it will not only provide additional space for their growing family, but will also increase the property value of our home as well as the other surrounding residents. Please consider approving the permit for building the Boecker's addition. For any questions or concerns please contact at 651 -423 -5198. Sincerely, Lynn and Brian Bross 3882 Upper 149' St W Rosemount, MN 55068 441- - September 25, 2003 City Council Members City of Rosemount Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: Scott & Deann Boecker Address Rosemount, MN 55068 Dear Rosemount City Council Members: We are neighbors of the Boeckers. We actually live across the street, and have been neighbors for l l or so years. The Boeckers had informed us that they wanted to build on to their home by adding onto their garage and an addition on to their home. Now they have informed us that all they can do is add on and put a cement slab as their garage. Our view of their home is directly in front of their home, and personally, we do not want this to'be an eyesore. We would much rather look at a finished garage and home, than a slab of cement with something parked on it out in the open. If you were to go to other neighbors, I think that you would get the same response. If you should have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us, we would be happy to be of assistance. Sinc rely Steve and Gina Turner 14943Covington Avenue Rosemount, MN 55068 651- 322 -2936 Jeff & Amy )?owe 14930 Crandall Aver Rosemount, MN 33068 Dear Rosemount City Council, We are writing this letter in support of the variance appeal. by Scott and DeAnn Boecker. We realize that all cities need to have ordinances established for community safety and to maintain a generally pleasant looking neighborhood and city. As the city groves and tunes change, many of these ordinances can become irrelevant or outdated or, as we think in this case, need to be adjusted The Boeckers are seeking to change the side yard setback from ten. feet to five feet. The five -foot setback would be consistent with other communities (such as Lakeville) in our area. As I understand, the ten -foot set back was established so as to maintain a more rural feel to the neighborhood. The rural feel is no longer possible since Cub, and other urban retail , have built across the street from the Boeckers. I believe that the city needed to change the zoning m order for Cub to move into our community. The Carrolton 11 neighborhood (where the Boecker and we reside) is an. established neighborhood with all of the lots being populated for the last ten years. Most of the Tats in our ueighborhood are 82 feet wide. Very few of the homes are centered in their lots. For example, my house sits 12 feet from one side and 32 from the other side. The thought of putting on two additions (one 7 feet and the other 27 feet) is ridiculous. No one living in this neighborhood would attempt to expand their homes to utilize their lots and exploit a five-foot set back. Since few of the residents of our neighborhood would even consider any making additions to theiz home, changing the setbacks now would not change the feel or look of the neighborhood. I am more concerned with the thought of good neighbors and residents of Rosemount moving to neighboring communities simply because they can't reasonably expand their homes to meet their growing needs. I have already seen one of my neighbors leave for this very reason. In place I received new neighbors. These new neighbors have smoked marijuana in their garage, they leave their dogs outside barking for hours, and they seldom mow their lawn. I .could go on and on but this is not about them. In contrast; the Boecker's home and garage addition would enhance our neighborhood is several ways. Their addition would help to block light pollution from the Cub Foods parking lot This improvement would also help block traffic noise from County Road 42. The Boeckers are good neighbors. They are simply looking for permission to improve their lifestyle by addamg additional space onto their house. This will increase the value of their home and probably all of the other houses in the neighborhood (also increasing the property taxes that they pay). All of the neighbors we have spoken with are in favor of this change. We are simply asking the city to adjust the setback to meet our neighbor's needs. Sincerely Jeff m owe ......... ....................................................... Ed Kropelnicki 14928 Covington Ave. Rosemount Mn. 423 -2010 November 7, 2003 Mr. Mayor and City council members I live north on Covington Ave. of the Deann & Scott 'Boecker and know what it is like not to have room for toys and bicycles in your garage, for I have a three car garage. I would more like to see an added stall Than shed in the backyard. And with a third stall you may get both of your cars in so you don't have To weary about you're cars being broken in. I do not believe it would hurt the look of the neighbor hood. I wish you would relook at their plans. Sincerely, Ed Kropelnicki `� November 8 2003 Jeff and Laurie Wendel 14927 Covington Avenue Rosemount, MN 55068 Dear Council Members, We are writing in support of Scott and DeAnn Boecker's variance. As residents of Carollton II, we want to keep our neighborhood marketable. It seems reasonable that our neighborhood would carry the same rules as many of the other neighborhoods in Rosemount. Many of our homes began as starter homes with the hopes of increasing' their value with additions, decks, etc. We would hope that the council would have regulations to protect unsightliness, yet allow reasonable growth. Scott and DeAnn would like to build an addition and third stall to their garage. The entire project would help keep their home uniform, increase market value, and allow them to stay in their existing home. We understand that the garage is at question, but they could add driveway space along their existing garage and park a vehicle there. Would it not be more appealing to the neighborhood, to have a vehicle in the garage, not parked along side the house? This kind of thinking could only lead to- unsightliness. We are in support of the variance for our neighborhood to be changed from ten to five feet. We would like very much for our neighbors to remain in the neighborhood and have some growing room for their families. We hope you will reconsider your ruling and grant the Boecker's what they need to precede with their project. In the end, you will retain great residents in Rosemount as well as give everyone the same ability to expand, within reasonable guidelines. Sincerely, Jeff and Laurie Wendel Re: the proposed addition to house at 3878 Upper 149th St W. To Whom It May Concern: We, as neighbors to the Boecker's, have no issues with the proposed changes to the house at 3878 Upper 149' St. W. to include a 3 garage bay to the east side of the property. Aesthetically, it would fit much better with the neighborhood than just an addition jutting off the upper level, with nothing beneath it but a cement slab (which ironically the city would approve). In the past, we've been told that the easements between the houses are to allow for emergency vehicles to be able to access the rear of the houses. However, there seems to be adequate space between the Boecker's and the house to the west of them, and between the two houses to' the east of them, that all back yards could be easily be accessed. And as an alternative, Co. Rd 42 to the south would provide better and easier access than trying to maneuver emergency vehicles between houses anyway. And as far as utility vehicles are concerned, there are no electrical or phone poles at the rear of the property that they would need to gain entry for. Never in the 13 years that we've been residents at our address has there ever been a need for these restrictions. I truly hope the city will consider granting the Boecker's this variance, instead of just slamming the door in resident's faces once again, without just cause. In the past, we've personally not found the city very friendly nor reasonable in dealing with various concerns, but that's another story. Sincerely, in and Deborah Lane 3890 Upper 149t St. W. Rosemount, MN 55068 651 -322- 2159 Homes in the Carrolton II development that have a third stall garage ■ 14946 Crestview ■ 3872 Upper 149' Street West ■ ,3868 Upper 149' Street West 14950 Colorado ■ 14936 Colorado ■ 14894 Colorado ■ 14895 Colorado ■ 14879 Colorado ■ 14852 Colorado ■ 14843 Colorado ■ 14838 Colorado ■ 14801 Colorado ■ 14714 Colorado ■ 3 815 147`" Street West ■ 14945 Crandall Avenue ■ 14931 Crandall Avenue • 14901 Crandall Avenue ■ 14928 Covington Avenue Three -Stall Garages In Carrolton 2 Of a F Homes in Rosemount that appear to be closer then 10 feet to the property line ■ 13188 Crookhaven CT ■ 13347 Cranford CIR 13354 Cranford CIR ■ 13341 Cranford CIR, 13335 Cranford CIR ■ 13348 Cranford CIR ■ 13431 Cormack CIR ■ 13425 Cormack CIR 13235 Crusheen CT 13242 Crusheen' CT ■ 13258 Crusheen CT ■ 4073 Evermoor PKW ■ 4057 Evermoor PKW 4105 Evermoor PKW ■ 4121 Evermoor PKW ■ 13983 Delta PL 13979 Delta PL ■ 13975 Delta PL ■ ; 13967 Delta PL ■ 13963 Delta PL am r 9 h . I T-71 10 -5 -6: R -1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Page 1 of 3 , 10 -5 -6: R -1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: r >jY1i n (A)Purpose: The R -1 low density residential district provides for existing and future low density single-family development with full public utilities. (B)Bulk And Density Standards: 1 Minimum Standards: Lot area Single- family10,000 square feet Other17,000 square feet Lot width 75 feet Front yard setback 20 feet Side yard setback 6 feet Rear yard setback 6 feet Height (maximum) 35 feet Maximum lot coverage of all structures 30 percent Net dwelling units per acre (maximum) 3.5 All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. 2. Accessory Structure Standards: Accessory , structures must be located behind principal structure in the side or rear yard according to the following requirements: Maximum size Detached garages Lots up to 0.5 acrel-esser of 1,000 square feet or square feet of principal use Lots 0.5 to 1 acrel-esser of 1,250 square feet or square feet of principal use Lots 1.0 acre +Lesser of 1,500 square -fe - square feet of principal use http://66.113.195.234/N N/ Farmington /13005+ OO6&0006000.htm 11/8/2003 CITY O F RO S E M O U NT 2875 C,� H A eet West Rosemount, MN 55068-4997 Phone: 651- 423 -4411 Hearing Impaired: 651- 423 -6219 Fax: 651 -423 -5203 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILED AND POSTED HEARING NOTICE FOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC DRAINAGE AND EASEMENT VACATION OUTLOTS A AND B, ROSEWOOD ESTATES ADDITION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF DAKOTA )ss. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ) Linda Jentink, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: I am a United States Citizen and the duly qualified Clerk of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota. On November 20, 2003, acting on behalf of the said City, I posted at the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, and on November 20, 2003 deposited in the United States Post Office of Rosemount, Minnesota, copies of the attached notice of public hearing regarding the proposed vacation of drainage and utility easement in Outlots A and B of Rosewood Estates Addition, enclosed in sealed envelopes, with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the persons listed on the attached listings at the addresses listed with their names. There is delivery service by United States Mail between the place of mailing and the places so addressed. G JFZ.lC� Linda Jenti ity Clerk City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of November, 2003. cow WrMyRMX- IESOYA ;Not Public . COiuldeelon Exp m Jan. 31, 2005 w J CITY O F 1 \O S E I V I O U N 1 2875 C1IY HALL 1 4 ' 55t Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Phone: 651- 423 -4411 Hearing Impaired: 651 - 423 -6219 Fax: 651- 423 -5203 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PUBLIC NOTICE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Rosemount will conduct a public hearing on December 2, 2003 in the Council Chambers of the Rosemount City Hall, 2875 145 Street West, beginning at 7 :30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a public drainage and utility easement vacation affecting the following legally described property: Outlot A and Outlot B, Rosewood Estates As recorded in the City of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota. Such person(s) as desire to be heard with reference to the above item will be heard at this meeting. Dated this 18 day of November, 2003. Linda Jentink, Wderk City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota Auxiliary aids and services are available - Please contact the City Clerk at (651)322 -2003, or TDD No. (651) 423 - 6219, no later than November 26, 2003 to make a request. Examples of. auxiliary aids or services may include sign language interpreter, assistive listening kit, accessible meeting location, Braille, etc: .o Greif Bros Cooperage Grief Brothers Greif Brothers Tax Dept 2750 145 Street West 425 Winter Road Rosemount, MN 55068 Delaware, OH 43015 Progress Land Co Fluegels Elevator 6001 Eagan Dr P O Box 4 Savage, MN 55378 Rosemount, MN 55068 The Rosemount Town Pages AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Chad Richardson, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is an authorizedx agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper, known as The JK Rosemount Town Pages, and has full knowledge of the facts which area ODUhTT stated below:u ; 311iNESQTA _r = ,�; (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statutes PUBLIC NOTICE. which is attached, was cut from the columns of said spaper, and was printed and published once each week for successive EeRA it was irst blished on Friday, the _____ __ ______ _ day of 2003 and was thereafter print blished on every t di g Friday, the_._.___ day of 2003; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: abcdefgbijklmnopgrstuvwzyz B Sub c ' d sw of re me on this day c 2003. Notary Public AFFIDAVIT DAWN M SMITH