land and resource management environment, planning, … · land and resource management ... solid...

LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Environment, Planning, Water, Solid Waste & Zoning

Comprehensive Plan Task Force

August 27, 2009 Meeting 2 – 3:30 pm

Douglas County Public Works

Tentative Agenda

1) Introductions a) Dan Jochum- Short Elliot Hendrickson

2) Overview of work plan

a) Activities b) Expected timeline c) Resulting products

3) Discussion of Issues and Assets (SWOT exercise) 4) Questions and Adjourn

Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., Butler Square Building, Suite 710C, 100 North 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55403-1515 SEH is an equal opportunity employer | www.sehinc.com | 612.758.6700 | 866.830.3388 | 612.758.6701 fax

MEMORANDUM

TO: Douglas County Comprehensive Plan Task Force FROM: Dan Jochum DATE: August 28, 2009 RE: Douglas County Task Force Meeting #1 Summary SEH No. DOUGM 109637 The following document summarizes the first Task Force meeting for the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan; it is not meant to be a complete record of discussions which took place, but rather a summary of the various topics and issues raised and discussed.

Date of Event: August 27, 2009, 2:00pm – 3:30 pm

Location: Douglas County Public Works Facility Attendees: Dave Rush DC Land & Resource Mgt Mike Rosenwald Ida Twp Dave Robley DC Engineer Carl Kvale Realtors Assoc. Jessica Peterson DC Public Health Jason Murray AA EDC Dan Jochum SEH Mark Jahner Alex Chamber Karin Tank City of Alexandria Jerry Haggenmiller DC SWCD Dick Kuehn DC Lakes Association Emily Siira DC SWCD David Olson Farm Bureau Bruce Nelson ALA Sanitary Dist. Jim Jensen DC Planning Com. Jim Hultman Runestone Elect. Assoc. Dan New DC Planning Com. Gary Stevenson DC Surveyor Agenda 1) Introductions

a) Dan Jochum- Short Elliott Hendrickson 2) Overview of work plan

a) Activities b) Expected timeline c) Resulting products

3) Discussion of Issues and Assets (SWOT exercise) 4) Questions and Adjourn

Douglas County Comprehensive Plan – Task Force Meeting #1 Summary August 28, 2009 Page 2 Meeting Summary Jochum gave a brief introduction of the project and asked Task Force members to introduce themselves and state what they wanted the Comprehensive Planning process to accomplish. The list of the accomplishments is located below. Jochum then provided an overview of the work plan and highlighted the key points of each task. He indicated there is an extensive public engagement process that will go throughout the project. The project will take approximately 18 months to complete and when it is completed the final product will be an updated Douglas County Comprehensive Plan. Jochum also indicated the next Task Force meeting will be on September 24th at 2:00 PM at Douglas County Public Works. The first public meeting will be held either the week of October 5th or October 12th. Rush asked Jochum to provide the Task Force with an idea of their role in the process. Jochum explained to the Task Force that they were a connection between the residents and various interest groups in the county. They will help to refine the information gathered at public meetings, develop and focus the goals and objectives for the plan, and disseminate information back to their respective groups. Jochum clarified that the Task Force was not a voting body and would function by general consensus rather than simple majority. Rush emphasized that he expected the Task Force members to be informing their consituent groups about what has happening with the comp plan process. The group then was briefed on what a SWOT analysis. A SWOT analysis is a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats analysis. This process allows SEH, County Staff, and the Task Force members to have an understanding of what the issues in Douglas County are related to land use, transportation, and parks and recreation. Participants were asked to vote or rank their top choices and the votes are listed in parenthesis next to the item. This process will be repeated at the Public Meetings in October as well. The results are as follows and will help provide a basis for plan development. STRENGTHS

• Natural resources/lakes (10) • Strong agricultural base (3) • Strong industrial base (3) • Interstate (3) • Recreational opportunities (3) • Diverse economy/workforce (2) • Healthcare (2) • Good school system (2) • Water quality/quality fisheries (1) • Sewer Districts (1) • Technical college (1) • High draw factor (1) • Distance to Twin Cities (1) • No floodplain issues • Transportation infrastructure • County hospital • Historic resources

Douglas County Comprehensive Plan – Task Force Meeting #1 Summary August 28, 2009 Page 3 WEAKNESSES

• Socio-economic weakness – financial issues (4) • Lack of protection of natural environment and lakes (3) • Weak agricultural and natural resource preservation (2) • Contentious sewer issues – cost (2) • Cost of services to rural residential areas (2) • Lack of understanding between urban and rural populations (2) • Conflicting idea of what rural is (1) • Lack of preservation of small towns (1) • Lack of rapid transit (1) • Lack of major carriers at airport (1) • Large area defined as rural residential • Distance to the Twin Cities • Economic disparity • Zebra mussels • Lack of public beaches • Expensive lakeshore property • Limited amount of quality lakeshore left

OPPORTUNITIES

• Location – distance from major centers (3) • Still have rural areas that are rural (1) • Still have natural resources (1) • Create Boulevard along Hwy 29 by Lake Le Homme Dieu • Live in rural area and enjoy Alexandria’s amenities • Continue with low taxes • People want to come to Alexandria • Opportunities for better inter-governmental cooperation • Adopt building code • Growth in retired population • Opportunity for more land dedication

THREATHS • NIMBY and NOML (8) • Government conflicts (6) • Trickle down affect of state budget problems (3) • Water quality (1) • Growth (1) • Zebra mussels (1) • Other invasive species • Aging • Unplanned growth • Workforce issues with amount of retirees

Douglas County Comprehensive Plan – Task Force Meeting #1 Summary August 28, 2009 Page 4 The following items were listed as things the Plan should strive to accomplish.

• Solve transportation issues • Be a usable plan • Plan for multi-modal transportation • Preserve Right to farm – stop infringement on agriculture • Zoning Recommendations – prevent land use conflicts; zoning should be more focused and

structured. • Protect lakes • Plan for orderly development • Provide for recreational needs • Start septic inspection • Smart planning • Be Pro growth • Provide strategies for supporting businesses • Provide maps for planning • Promote growth • Protect natural resources • Incorporate water plan • Plan for Alternative energy – incorporate into zoning • Plan that has clear measures for implementation • User friendly • Be realistic vs. idealistic

Next Steps The next Task Force meeting will be on September 24th, 2009 from 2:00 to 3:30 PM at Douglas County Public Works.



September 24th meeting

Agenda

1) Introductions 2) Presentation on Douglas County Demographics – Present and Future

3) Review of SWOT Exercise Results from August Mtg 4) Questions and Adjourn


MEMORANDUM

TO: Douglas County Comprehensive Plan Task Force FROM: Dan Jochum DATE: November 10, 2009 RE: Douglas County Task Force Meeting #2 Summary SEH No. DOUGM 109637 The following document summarizes the second Task Force meeting for the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan; it is not meant to be a complete record of discussions which took place, but rather a summary of the various topics and issues raised and discussed.

Date of Event: September 24, 2009, 2:00pm – 3:30 pm

Location: Douglas County Public Works Facility Attendees: Dave Rush DC Land & Resource Mgt Al Leifort DC Parks Dept. Dave Robley DC Engineer Carl Kvale Realtors Assoc. Jessica Peterson DC Public Health Jason Murray AA EDC Dan Jochum SEH Mark Jahner Alex Chamber Karin Tank City of Alexandria Jerry Haggenmiller DC SWCD Dean Beck DNR Fisheries Emily Siira DC SWCD Holly Kovarik Sauk River Watershed District Jim Hultman Runestone Elect. Assoc. Jim Jensen DC Planning Com. Dan New DC Planning Com. Jane Michaels DC Public Health Agenda 1) Introductions 2) Presentation on Douglas County Demographics – Present and Future

3) Review of SWOT Exercise Results from August Meeting 4) Questions and Adjourn Meeting Summary

• Jochum gave a brief overview of the agenda and went through a demographics presentation. The demographics presentation is attached to the end of these notes.

• It was noted that the HRA recently completed a housing study.

Douglas County Comprehensive Plan – Task Force Meeting #1 Summary August 28, 2009 Page 2

• City of Alex completed new demographics for city comp plan and would like those to be indicated in the County Plan.

• It was suggested that we get number of households in addition to population - HRA may have

that data

• Suggested that we get data from School District 206 that was completed for re-districting. Includes projections for children and student numbers for next decade.

• Might be useful to have resident vs. non-resident households because currently many homes are

non-resident and may increase with more retired people. More snowbirds.

• Significant discussion was had about numbers of retired folks. (65+) Is increase do to influx or aging of population in place? Some of both. Concerns that increase in 65+ will put more stress on infrastructure but not greatly increase tax base. Will not add to local available workforce. Use more resources.

• Significant discussion on sewer district. Concerns about capacity for new development. New

would like this to be a main theme. Rush suggested that it may take focus away from long range planning and lead to heated debate in public forums. Robely suggested it be added to the Public Infrastructure theme. Tank agreed that there should be some discussion and projection of capacity of infrastructure to support development. Rush asked if it would be of the current capacity, because it will be difficult to project changes in technology 10 or 20 years down the road.

• EDC has a new fact book available that Jason will pass on to Dan.

• Public meetings were discussed.

Jochum proceeded to give the group an overview of the SWOT results from the August Task Force Meeting. Themes were developed based on these results. The themes are as follows: Natural Resource Preservation/Conservation – Respondents indicated strengths related to natural resources and lakes. Things that should be preserved/conserved should be prioritized. Strong Economic Base – Respondents indicated Douglas County has a strong agricultural and industrial base, as well as a diverse economy overall. Recreational Amenities – Respondents indicated Douglas County has a wide array of recreational amenities including lakes, trails, parks, and resorts. Demographics – It was noted that the demographics of Douglas County are changing. The population is becoming older and this trend is occurring nationwide. Agriculture Preservation – Area suited for long term agriculture should be preserved and the Comprehensive Plan should lay out goals, policies, and objectives for this to happen.

Douglas County Comprehensive Plan – Task Force Meeting #1 Summary August 28, 2009 Page 3 Strong Public Infrastructure – Douglas County is well served by Interstate 94, as well as the other State Highways in the area. The Plan will strive to promote multi-modal transportation as it relates to Active Living. Sanitation and sewer is also strong, as well as the solid waste incinerator. Intergovernmental Cooperation – There is an opportunity for the Comprehensive Plan to help improve cooperation between different governmental entities. Land Use – The Plan needs to address conflicting land uses between commercial and residential uses, as well as agricultural and lake shore uses. The plan also needs to address issues including the location and appropriate amount of rural residential land uses and the preservation of agricultural land. These themes will be used as the basis for the issues and opportunities public meetings held with the public on October 21 and 22. Next Steps A task force meeting will not be held in October. There will be public meetings on October 21 in Alexandria, October 22 in Brandon, and October 22 in Osakis.

Douglas County Comprehensive PlanTask Force Meeting #2

Douglas County Comprehensive PlanTask Force Meeting #2Douglas County, Minn.September 24, 2009

AGENDAAGENDA• Introductions

• Demographics Overview

• SWOT Themes

• Questions

• Adjourn

Demographics OverviewDemographics OverviewDouglas County Population

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Douglas County Population 20,36 21,30 21,31 22,89 27,83 28,83 32,82 35,50 37,89 40,46 42,75 44,70 45,92 46,96

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Demographics – County WideDemographics – County Wide

• Modest Growth between 1940 – 1970 (2,500 persons)

• Substantial Growth between 1970 –1980 (6,000 persons)

• Recent Substantial Growth between 2000 and 2005 (2,680 persons)

• 2009 Population Estimate 36,151 –increase of (650 persons)

• Significant Growth projected between 2010 and 2035.

Demographics – City/Township OverviewDemographics – City/Township Overview• City of Alexandria – 31% growth

between 1960 and 2000

• Alexandria Township – 200% growth between 1960 and 2000

• Belle River Township - -34% decrease 1960 to 2000

• Carlos Township – 200% growth between 1960 and 2000.

• Ida Township – 130% growth between 1960 and 2000.

Demographics – City/Township Overview Demographics – City/Township Overview • La Grand Township – 210% increase

between 1960 and 2000.

• Millerville Township – 23% decrease between 1960 and 2000.

Demographic TrendsDemographic Trends

• Very Rapid Growth in Townships with amenities (lakes/natural resources)

• Rapid Growth around the City of Alexandria

• Population decline in much of area that has been traditionally agricultural in nature due to changes in farming practices (larger farms).

• Steady growth in rest of County

Population Projections (2000-2035)Population Projections (2000-2035)

Highlights• City of Alexandria – 33% increase• Alexandria Township – 42% increase• Carlos Township – 54% increase• Evansville Township – 10% decrease• Ida Township – 51% increase• La Grand Township – 46% increase• Lake Mary Township – 38% increase• City of Miltona – 53% increase

Population Projections (2000-2035)Population Projections (2000-2035)

• Highlights (cont.)

• Moe Township – 53% increase

• City of Nelson – 14% decrease

• Orange Township – 13% decrease

• Overall Douglas County is expected to grow to almost 47,000 people which is a 43% increase from 2000.

Age of PopulationAge of Population

• 10-14 year olds and 15-19 year olds actually decrease from 2000 to 2035.

• 25-29 year olds and 30-34 year olds increase substantially (approximately 45%)

• Significant increase in population from age 50 to 64.

• Tremendous increase in population age 65+– 65-69 – 106% increase, 70-74 – 136%

increase, 75-79 – 156% increase, 80-84 –138% increase, 85+ - 106% increase.

Aging Population RamificationsAging Population Ramifications

• Older people have different community needs than younger people– Healthcare– Transportation– Housing

• How do we Plan for this? – Active Living– Multi-modal transportation– Mix of housing types– Other??

Median Household IncomeMedian Household Income

• Douglas County $43,002

• Second Highest in area behind Stearns County (51K)

• State of MN $55K

• Douglas County had the lowest percentage increase in income from 2000 to 2007 at only 14%.

EducationEducation

• Almost 86% of Douglas County residents have at least a high diploma.

• This is the 2nd highest percentage in the region behind Stearns County.

• State of MN average is 88%.

• National Average is 80%

Major EmployersMajor Employers

• Alexandria Public Schools (640)

• Douglas County Hospital (620)

• Douglas Machine Inc. (530)

• Tastefully Simple (365)

• Douglas County (360)

• Alexandria Extrusion (315)

• Knute Nelson (300)

Major IndustriesMajor Industries

• Education, health and social services

• Retail Trade

• Manufacturing

• Arts, entertainment, recreation, etc

• Construction

• Professional Services

• Transportation

• Finance, Insurance, Real Estate

S.W.O.T. ResultsS.W.O.T. Results• Strengths

– Natural resources/lakes (10)– Strong agricultural base (3)– Strong industrial base (3)– Interstate (3)– Recreational opportunities (3)– Diverse economy/workforce (2)– Healthcare (2)– Good school system (2)– Water quality/quality fisheries (1)– Sewer Districts (1)– Technical college (1)– High draw factor (1)– Distance to Twin Cities (1)– No floodplain issues – Transportation infrastructure – County hospital – Historic resources

S.W.O.T. ResultsS.W.O.T. Results• Weaknesses

– Socio-economic weakness – financial issues (4)– Lack of protection of natural environment and lakes (3)– Weak agricultural and natural resource preservation (2)– Contentious sewer issues – cost (2)– Cost of services to rural residential areas (2)– Lack of understanding between urban and rural

populations (2)– Conflicting idea of what rural is (1)– Lack of preservation of small towns (1)– Lack of rapid transit (1)– Lack of major carriers at airport (1)– Large area defined as rural residential – Distance to the Twin Cities – Economic disparity – Zebra mussels – Lack of public beaches – Expensive lakeshore property – Limited amount of quality lakeshore left

S.W.O.T. ResultsS.W.O.T. Results

• Opportunities– Location – distance from major centers (3)– Still have rural areas that are rural (1)– Still have natural resources (1)– Create Boulevard along Hwy 29 by Lake Le

Homme Dieu– Live in rural area and enjoy Alexandria’s amenities– Continue with low taxes– People want to come to Alexandria– Opportunities for better inter-governmental

cooperation– Adopt building code– Growth in retired population– Opportunity for more land dedication

S.W.O.T. ResultsS.W.O.T. Results

• Threats– NIMBY and NOML (8)– Government conflicts (6)– Trickle down affect of state budget

problems (3)– Water quality (1)– Growth (1)– Zebra mussels (1)– Other invasive species – Aging – Unplanned growth – Workforce issues with amount of retirees

Major S.W.O.T. ThemesMajor S.W.O.T. Themes

• Natural Resource Preservation• Strong Economic Base• Recreational Amenities• Demographics• Agriculture Preservation• Strong Transportation Infrastructure• Intergovernmental Cooperation• Land Use

Building the PlanBuilding the Plan

• These S.W.O.T. Themes will be the basis for the Plan along with the other public input gathered (upcoming public meetings)

• Goals, policies, maps, and implementation steps will be developed to address the major themes

• Role of the Task Force is provide input related to the development of goals, policies, maps, and implementation steps.

Next StepsNext Steps

• Public S.W.O.T. Meetings – tentatively Oct. 21-23 (only two days – either Oct. 21 and 22 or 22 and 23).

• Plan is to have 3 meetings– Alexandria – evening meeting– Brandon – morning meeting– Osakis – afternoon/evening (4:00 – 7:00)

• Format– Brief Introduction on Planning Process– Map Exercise – SWOT Exercise– Report Back to Group

QuestionsQuestions



November 19th meeting

Agenda

1) Overview of Public Meeting Input 2) Discussion of Home Work Assignment from Last Meeting: Develop some goals and objectives for the SWOT analysis themes. 3) Natural Resource Discussion based on meeting earlier in day 4) Next Steps


MEMORANDUM

TO: Douglas County Comprehensive Plan Task Force FROM: Dan Jochum DATE: December 15, 2009 RE: Douglas County Task Force Meeting #3 Summary SEH No. DOUGM 109637 The following document summarizes the second Task Force meeting for the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan; it is not meant to be a complete record of discussions which took place, but rather a summary of the various topics and issues raised and discussed.

Date of Event: November 19, 2009, 2:00pm – 4:00 pm

Location: Douglas County Public Works Facility Attendees: Dave Rush DC Land & Resource Mgt Al Leifort DC Parks Dept. Dave Robley DC Engineer Carl Kvale Realtors Assoc. Jessica Peterson DC Public Health Jason Murray AA EDC Dan Jochum SEH Mark Jahner Alex Chamber Karin Tank City of Alexandria Jerry Haggenmiller DC SWCD Dean Beck DNR Fisheries Emily Siira DC SWCD Holly Kovarik Sauk River Watershed District Jim Hultman Runestone Elect. Assoc. Jim Jensen DC Planning Com. Dan New DC Planning Com. Jane Michaels DC Public Health Doug Mensing AES Agenda 1) Overview of Public Meeting Input 2) Discussion of Home Work Assignment from Last Meeting: Develop some goals and objectives for the SWOT analysis themes. 3) Natural Resource Discussion based on meeting earlier in day 4) Next Steps Meeting Summary

• Dan Jochum S E H gave an overview of the Natural Resource Task Force meeting and discussed some of the issues that were heard at the public meetings. Jochum discussed each of the themes that emerged and asked participants to add anything that was missing under each of the themes.

Douglas County Comprehensive Plan – Task Force Meeting #3 Summary December 15, 2009 Page 2

• Lynn Nelson stated concern with TMDL’s, urban runoff; water shed and sub watershed impacts. • Dean Beck stated concern with forestry wetlands land use conservation developments and open

space.

• Agricultural preservation is a concern with the large residential growth.

• The loss of CRP acres is a concern. Lack of buffer strips on ditches are also a concern.

• Wildlife corridors are important as habit becomes more fragmented.

• Land use concerns included recycling and solid waste and where to site future solid waste facilities, salvage yards and storm water management.

• Discussion of conservation development as an alternative to traditional large lot development as a

way to preserve open space.

• Discussion of alternative cropping methods such as vineyards, orchards, and pulp farming would diversify the agriculture economy.

• Storm water ponds were discussed and the difficulty of management.

• Growth boundaries were discussed.

• Economic development was a concern and commercial and industrial land use placement is a

concern. Discussion of an industrial incubator program to help grow business.

• Discussion regarding implementation and intergovernmental cooperation regarding identifying who is responsible for implementation action items and a timeframe for implementation. More joint powers agreements are needed at the watershed level.

• Discussion of connecting new housing developments to trails and or sidewalks where applicable.

Safe routes to school are also important.

• Need for more public beaches.

• Homelessness, social services and recreation related o the quality of life was mentioned as important to Douglas County residents

Next Steps A task force meeting will not be held in December. The next task force meeting is tentatively scheduled for January and the topic will be transportation.

land and resource management environment, planning, … · land and resource management ... solid...

Documents