12-11-00 Joint PC-CC Agenda
e
e
e
Me oran urn
City Administration/Council
763-593-8006/763-593-8109 (fax)
.lley
Date: November 30,2000
To: Council and Planning Commission
From: MaryE. Anderson, Mayor
Subject: Meeting to Discuss Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan
As I reviewed the Golden Meadow proposal I also reviewed the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. I found myself struggling with the issues related to infill development
and some of our policies in the Housing Element. I felt it was important for us to share and
discuss as a group our interpretation and possible implementation strategies for those
policies. That is why I suggested a joint meeting. I ask that each of us review the Housing
Element and focus on the questions for discussion included in the agenda. I believe it will be
helpful to the Council, Planning Commission and staff to have such a discussion and
understanding of what strategies are appropriate to implement the policies.
e
GENERAL DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
ON SELECTED HOUSING ELEMENT
GOALS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
Housing Goals
P.6
What do we mean by this goal?
Encourage a sufficient variety of housing types and designs to
allow all people a housing choice.
Housing Policies
P.7
What do we mean by this policy?
The City shall continue to offer the flexibility of the Planned Unit .
development option to housing developers who demonstrate an
ability to successfully apply contemporary land planning principles
and coordinated community design philosophies.
e
Housing Objectives
P.11
What do we mean by this objective?
Research options for amending PUD and/or Multiple Dwelling
district regulations to better promote the goals of quality, variety
and affordability.
P.12
What do we mean by this objective?
Identify underused nonresidential sites where the vacant area may
be suitable for higher density residential use.
e
.
Hey
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
To:
From:
City Council and Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject: Implementation of Housing Goals and Policies
Date: December 5, 2000
The Housing Goals and Policies outline general statements about the need to provide for a variety of
housing types and designs to allow housing choices and to look at ways to promote housing quality,
variety and affordability. These are laudable goals and objectives. The difficult parts comes when the
City has to implement these goals and objectives for a specific housing development. The Housing
Plan does not give the Planning Commission or City Council any specific guidelines to implement
these goal and objectives. The City's ordinances set out the way individual developments are
evaluated. Most non-traditional developments are reviewed as part of a planned unit development
(PUD) where variances from certain ordinances are allowed.
e
It seems that whenever a non-traditional housing development is proposed, there are numerous
concerns brought up by neighbors and others concerning the effect of the development. These
concerns usually are the following:
. Traffic generation-Neighborhood residents are concerned that new development will create
additional traffic that will burden the existing street system. Traffic studies often indicate that the
new traffic can be accommodated by the existing road system.
. Property values-Neighborhood residents often believe that non-traditional housing will have a
negative effect on property values in the neighborhood. There is little or no evidence that this is
the case.
. Development is "out of character" with the existing neighborhood-Although the proposed
development may be consistent with the density outlined on the Land Use Plan Map, the
neighborhood residents believe that the proposed development does not fit with the existing
neighborhood due to its value (either less or more), its size or character.
. Inadequate separation or screening for surrounding properties-Commonly there is a concern by
neighborhood residents that the non-traditional development will not be properly screened or
buffered from adjoining residences.
. Maintenance and safety of overall development-The overall maintenance of non-traditional
developments is sometimes a concern. Due to the requirement for water quality ponds, there is
concern for the safety of children around the ponds and the maintenance of the ponds.
. Adequacy of parking- The location and amount of parking is generally raised as a concern
regarding non-traditional developments. Neighboring residents believe that if there is not
adequate parking within the development, overflow parking will occur on the streets outside of the
development. There is also a concern about the width of streets within non-traditional
developments. If the streets are too narrow, it is believed that there will be inadequate space for
on-street parking and emergency vehicles.
e
The staff would like the Planning Commission and City Council to consider directions to help in the
review of non-traditional developments as related to the bullet points listed above.
e
e
e
--<
~
'"
1
;
Cl
....
=
~
c
~
~
.......'....,:."',;
{[ \&0\i;~(
~1L7l ·
Examples of Multiple Family Housing
Adjacent or Near to Single Family Neighborhoods
cm OF NEW HOPE
------~----------
~...'. .'. m.. ... .......~.. EflI.......wUJJ.........
JI~~.
'lliOOll1JJ. ...... ..; ...... ..... .... ..;.... ...... >....
;m;~
'~I
~m~
I
w~
~~
~~t
~
=-'-
rr
~il1~
IW!!if~
.~I
71' :'
11111. Lll
~
:l-It:::::"C
\
~i
~
=>\
Jl'
Ii
~
..,A
cm OF CRYSTAL
11.J14!i1.
9.1!
.
w
c;
I
~
f-'-
o....I.~
II fffio
l,;;.;
I
l'il' CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
::--:::
~ .".
'7N~
Ph: Ht
'-l
I~
CITY OF ROBBINSDALB
II
~I.~je
mm~
I till
I
ill
:-
.~
'0
~I
Rlt~
~
,
1..><'
. ~
~
~ ~"v
Jijf;~
1.,... -n
~ llTD
\'-.
i1\~'
'If
M"
~('
~,\,
-
CITY OF
~
,,<.
'VA
Y'
e
EXISTING LAND USE
September 30, 1998
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family
III Two-Family, Townhouse
.. Multiple Family (.6ooItmo"',Cor1dcxTjm...,Ci-oupc..rtora,
COMMERCIAL
.. Retail, Service
Office
INDUSTRIAL
III General Industrial
I
~
5
PARK & OPEN SPACE
.. Park and Open Space (=~'::,r='"
.. Open Water
W etla nds (NoIIonoI_d.,_......, notlleld..rlftodj .
PU BLlC & SEM I-PU BLlC
.. C 't F 'I't' (Ccn-ol1lmtyC_,Cltv""",Ub"",
ommunl y aC11 les ~~s':...~=:':.....,
. . Mu'.um)
m Instrtutlonal 1_', RoIIglou.F"""'..C,nnllod.., HooIthc.._U..,
~. Other (MnDOTDI_OIIlco...d....._,Hon_eo...ty_
. ' Northern St8let PaMr SutMWion, Ncrthwnttm Bell Utnlly
AnImoI H...... SocIoly)
~ Railroad (a.~I_Ncrth."'_UIlD,Chlcogo_lom)
~ Transit (T""".SIopwlth.hollor,-..RId.._....,
IT] Vaca nt (Nolo: V__1oQM10dby th. City, HRA, Honnopln County
~ CltStat.clMn~....llIbeIed~l1Dly)
~
- Road Rights-of-Way
- Streams, Creeks
~ T 'I' k "'''''"
~ ral In par """"'...._
UmeltOM
- Other Trails g;;-"
- Pedestrian Bridge
---- City Limits
1 inch = 1,833 feet
(l)
.
~avJ
i1''',I..1I1 D..."'..I '....""...1 11...10_