14a. update on metropolitan Growth Options, Planning DirectorNa.,
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' MEMORANDUM Action by City Administmtot
Endorsor+ ✓ DwR
' TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Moecte
Rejectd
er
Datc_r s'31_ 9 6
FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director Date Submitted to Commissioq
DATE: May 16, 1996 Date Submitted to Council
' 6 - <o- 9�
SUBJ: Growth Options for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
BACKGROUND
The 1995 Legislature directed the Metropolitan Council to prepare a report on the region's
development pattern through the year 2020. The report""Growth Options for the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area was completed in January 1996 and in June the Council will be
recommending the preferred growth option, The purpose of this memo is to inform you of the
implications the different growth options would have on the City of Chanhassen.
ANALYSIS
Mike Munson from the Metropolitan Staff gave an overview ofgrowth projections at a work
session on April 1, 1996. The forecasts indicate the region will grow by 650,000 people,
330,000 households`snd 380,000 jobs,""Thp_three options examiie where this growth should
' occur.
The "Current Trend" options accommodated housing market demand. Public investment would
be managed to respond to the demand._' Some 54" percent.of the haxlsirig Mould be single - family;
46 percent would be multi - family (apartment buildings with five of more units) or other forms of
attached housing such as townhouses. '
The "Concentrated Development" option would increase the density of jobs and housing in the
core of the region. It holds the MUSA line in its current location. Some 42 percent of the
' housing would be single family; 58 percent multifamily or other forms of attached housing.
H
Don Ashworth
May 16, 1996
Page 2
The "Growth Centers" option would encourage the development of jobs and housing in "mixed -
use" centers designed to be pedestrian and "transit - friendly with less dependence of the
automobile." Half of the housing would be single family and half would be multi - family or other
forms of attached housing.
If the Council were to select the "Concentrated" option, MUSA expansion would be placed in
the 2020 reserve. Therefore, no additional land could be placed in the MUSA. As a part of the
Builders Association of the Twin Cities The High Cost of Sprawl Study land availability as
determined by the Metropolitan Council in not sufficient to accommodate the proposed growth.
If the city cannot add additional land to the urban service area, densities would have to be
increased to provide for housing. No additional land for expansion would limit the city's ability
to provide for additional industrial zoned property.
The Chanhassen/Chaska area has been designated as a "Growth Center" under one option. While
the City of Chanhassen has the ability to request land to be added to the MUSA area, it would be
to the objectives of the Growth Center's option. The centers would be home to a variety of
business, commercial establishments, services entertainment and medium -to- higher- density
housing, such as townhouses and garden apartments. They would have a diversity of housing
types, costs and sized to accommodate the changing age and household structure of the regions.
Because housing was at one time being considered as a system by the Met Council, city staff is
with the linkage of job creation - housing and MUSA expansion. The Growth Center's plan does
not give options on how this strategy would be employed.
The Current Trend option leaves the MUSA expansion at a status quo. The city would need to
demonstrate that additional land is need for growth.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is proposing to draft a letter to the Met Council articulating the concerns with the growth
options. Staff is requesting any additional input from the Council regarding the growth options.
Attachments
1.. Growth Options for the Twin Cities Metropolitian Area, Met Council, January 1996
2. The High Cost of Sprawl: The Builders Association of The Twin Cities, April 1996
g:\plan\ka\growth.opt
Under this Option:
MUSA line not expanded
until after 2020 in effort to
' build a market for
redevelopment and
reinvestment.
I
1
CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT
if
This option assumes that increasing the density of jobs and
housing in the core of the region best assures the health of the
region. In addition, it assumes that holding the line on the urban
service area will build a market for redevelopment and
reinvestment in the MUSA, and bring some economies to the
provision of sewers an d transportation (See Figure 4).
Further, the demand for housing and jobs will be met by
increasing the density in the MUSA area, and local planning and
zoning will be changed to allow more density. Density would be
accomplished by construction of more townhouses or other forms
of attached single- family housing. Little growth would occur in
the rural area Agricultural areas would be preserved. (See
Appendix Figures A, B, C and D)
The MUSA would not be expanded before the year 2020. That
means no new infrastructure would be built in what is currently
designated as rural area during the next 25 years. The emphasis is
on full use of existing infrastructure. Maintenance and
rehabilitation of facilities would be a priority.
' Housing and businesses would locate in undeveloped parts of the
Over time, overall density MUSA at the fringe, in vacant sites in the already developed part
of the urban part of the of the region skipped over in the initial wave of development, at
locations made available through redevelopment, or by
region increases. intensifying uses on already developed land. Over time the
' overall density of the urban part of the region would increase.
Competition for available land would increase. Existing structures
' would become more valuable and experience rehabilitation and
improved maintenance. Also, land values within the urban service
area would probably increase because no service area expansion
' would be allowed until after 2020.
The rural area would see very limited growth under stronger
agricultural preservation and general rural policies and controls.
Protection of natural resources would be a priority in making
land -use decisions. With reduced land options and increasing
value in the urban area, more development would probably locate
outside the seven county area, unless statewide land -use planning
is put in place.
16
M owth 4. re Option:
Concentrated Development
=..,
=Rn OAK .reset
low
17
I
1
I
1�
1
H
GROWTH CENTERS
This option encourages the development of mixed -use centers. It
Under this option channels a major portion of the region's job growth into
designated centers, adds medium -to- higher density housing, and
Mined -use centers promotes a transit- and pedestrian- friendly development pattern
developed. within the center.
This option assumes land uses in growth centers can be
influenced by transit services and that the region and local
Region & locals make decision makers can make a long -term commitment to focus on a
long -term commitment to limited number of existing and potential mixed -use growth
limited number of centers. centers (See Figure 5). The option builds on existing job
concentrations with an emphasis on potential for mixed -use
development (See Figure 6).
Demand at the urban
fringe dampened somewhat
by channeling a portion of
the job and household
growth into centers.
The centers would be home to a variety of businesses,
commercial establishments, services, entertainment and medium -
to-higher- density housing, such as townhouses and garden
apartments. They would have a diversity of housing types, costs
and sizes to accommodate the changing age and household
structure of the region's population, including owner /rental,
single - family /multifamily, and market rate/affordable/ subsidized.
The region has about four dozen existing job concentrations with
over 3,000 jobs and job density over 10 6obs/acre). Over a dozen
have potential for expansion as or change into mixed use centers
(See Figure 6 and Appendix Tables C and D).
Some parts of the MUSA would be expanded, particularly
around growth centers, but the assumption is that demand at the
urban fringe would be dampened somewhat by channeling a
portion of the jobs and households into growth centers. Over time
the growth centers, plus other infill development, could increase
the overall density of the built up part of the region, but more
gradually than in the Concentrated Development option. (See
Appendix Figures A, B, C and D)
Rural area growth would be confined to rural centers and
Freestanding Growth Centers, with some areas designated as
"urban reserves" for after 2020. Limited estate development
would be clustered so over the longer term it would be
compatible with a MUSA expansion. Growth iri adjacent counties
could also be encouraged to locate in growth centers.
18
Centers would become reinvestment and redevelopment sites.
Half of the region's job
In newly developing areas a growth center is a way to shape
growth and 17 percent
development and dampen pressure to expand the MUSA line.
household growth locates
About half of the region's job growth and 17 percent of its
household growth would locate in growth centers. It assumes the
in centers.
two downtowns, the core area and existing job locations would
see job growth. The centers, or nodes, could be connected to
transportation corridors.
Demand at the urban
fringe dampened somewhat
by channeling a portion of
the job and household
growth into centers.
The centers would be home to a variety of businesses,
commercial establishments, services, entertainment and medium -
to-higher- density housing, such as townhouses and garden
apartments. They would have a diversity of housing types, costs
and sizes to accommodate the changing age and household
structure of the region's population, including owner /rental,
single - family /multifamily, and market rate/affordable/ subsidized.
The region has about four dozen existing job concentrations with
over 3,000 jobs and job density over 10 6obs/acre). Over a dozen
have potential for expansion as or change into mixed use centers
(See Figure 6 and Appendix Tables C and D).
Some parts of the MUSA would be expanded, particularly
around growth centers, but the assumption is that demand at the
urban fringe would be dampened somewhat by channeling a
portion of the jobs and households into growth centers. Over time
the growth centers, plus other infill development, could increase
the overall density of the built up part of the region, but more
gradually than in the Concentrated Development option. (See
Appendix Figures A, B, C and D)
Rural area growth would be confined to rural centers and
Freestanding Growth Centers, with some areas designated as
"urban reserves" for after 2020. Limited estate development
would be clustered so over the longer term it would be
compatible with a MUSA expansion. Growth iri adjacent counties
could also be encouraged to locate in growth centers.
18
Figure S.
Growth Option:
Growth Centers
1,J
a.
�rtoa
t1ltODOD
Y..�T
OTfiL
r�Ynlau
. WAT[aDiII:. .
:D1IIfVALI:.
10 20 10 '" w YwweDLYY
Miles
Existing MUSA
Metro Centers Urban Expansion
O and Urban
Intensified Mixed Use Centers Reserve 2020
Q New Mixed Use Centers Post 2020
Urban Reserve
® Corridors with Infill Nodes Rural Area
Note: Growth Centers designation is illustrative; actual designation _J Farm/Long-Term Ag.
will be made in consultation with local governments. Rural Centers
G
19
i
n
1
Under this option:
' Single - family housing is the
major preferred land -use
' and shaper of development.
CURRENT TREND
This option assumes that accommodating housing market demand
and making public investments accordingly best assures the
economic and social health of the region. Under it, housing,
particularly single - family housing, is the major preferred land -use
type and shaper of development (See Figure 3).
It assumes demand for housing and jobs will be met through a
public strategy supporting the expansion of the urban area, and
that most new growth occurs in developing suburbs. The rural
area would see increased demand for rural subdivisions and estate
development - -if this demand is accommodated it would limit
future urban expansion; the adjacent counties would have similar
development pressure.
New residential development density —the number of homes per
'
acre- -would be lower in the newly developed areas, based on
current patterns and wetland protection practices, than what
occurred in the urban growth areas of the 1970s and 1980s.
'
During the next 25 years, new housing and businesses would
locate at the contiguous edge of today's urban area, extending the
'
concentric ring of suburban growth out from the region's center,
much as in the past.
'
The location of housing and jobs would occur in all sectors of
Location of housing and
the region following historic patterns and market demand (See
Figures A, B, C and D). Growth would not be random
'
jobs follows historic
Appendix
and haphazard. Instead the development would be based on
patterns and market
regional and local policies and planning that provide necessary
demand.
regional and local infrastructure. However, the infrastructure is
'
provided in reaction to the housing market and, to a lesser
degree, to the job market.
t The
MUSA would be expanded in stages based on local
comprehensive plans. Current economic incentives, such as tax
change much.
'
policies and infrastructure financing, would not
Adjacent, rural land would be seen as land "on hold" in
Rural land seen as land
anticipation of the next phase of urban expansion, not as land
envisioned for long -term rural use. The rural area's household
"on hold" in anticipation
the next phase of urban
growth rate would increase, and the area would see rural
"rural estate" development, which competes with
'
of
expansion.
subdivisions and
future suburbanization. Agricultural preservation would be limited
'
to areas where agricultural uses are economically competitive
development. Growth in the contiguous 12 counties to
with urban
the region would largely follow current trends.
' 1
n
Figure 3.
Growth Option:
Current Trend Development
n m. aruL
aw.r
ow{ aarac
1QMi O {OK
AlYOKA I
y CD
um aoaa
9Aev a4ei
n >ua•a aom
1J
I
RM 1409E
10 20 30
Miles
Rural Area
7 —, General Rural Use
Farm /Long -Term Ag.
Rural Center
15
Existing MZ: SA
MUSA Expansion
iiini ... ..
Urban Expansion and
...
Urban Reserve 2020
Post 2020 Urban Reserve
Rural Area
7 —, General Rural Use
Farm /Long -Term Ag.
Rural Center
15
iiini ... ..
...
:::' WSfIiLDi
:CE{IAVALi:
Rural Area
7 —, General Rural Use
Farm /Long -Term Ag.
Rural Center
15
2-
Land Available for Residential Development - 12/95
CITY AVAILABLE VACANT
RESIDENTIAL LAND PLATTED
Within MUSA (acres) LOTS
ANDOVER
65
362
BLAINE
1,624
234
CENTERVILLE
65
6
CHAMPLIN
159
324
CHANHASSEN
1,473
135
CHASKA
760
283
COTTAGE GROVE
91
415
EDEN PRAIRIE
1,000
550
FARMINGTON
0
550
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
510
400
LAKEVILLE
4,226
910
LINO LAKES
444
4711
MAPLE GROVE
616
555 1
MINNETRISTA
278
281 f
ORONO
160
95 1
PLYMOUTH
168
1,700
PRIOR LAKE
700
480
RAMSEY
346
366
ROSEMOUNT
440
215
SAVAGE
1,687
549
SHAKOPEE
270
113
VICTORIA
230
50
WOODBURY
644
1,632
TOTAL
15,956
10,676
,assuming a potential density of 2.0 units per acre. the unplatted area represents
about 31,912 households. The 2020 forecasts for the region of 330,000 new
Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban Inc. BATC Appendix E
households within the seven county area represents 13,200 residential building
permits per year. Therefore, the land within our survey communities would
accommodate only 2.6 years of the regions expected growth. Adding the vacant
land and platted lots together yields a total of 42,588 potential new households
within these communities, or a 3.2 year supply of residential lots.
Barriers to Urban Develooment
Utilizing the UltiMUSA defined in the study, we set out to find how feasible it
would be to extend the existing MUSA out to the U1tiMUSA. This area of potential
MUSA service between the existing MUSA and the UltiMUSA became the `study
area' (Figure 3). First, obstacles to the orderly extension of the current system into
this study area were identified. Obstacles were defined as land uses that would
remain undeveloped or would substantially add to the cost to extend municipal
services through or around. The first obstacle identified was parks, next industrial
and public lands, then wetlands, and finally large lots (Figures are in main body of
study).
In order to identify large lot development patterns within the study area, city and
county parcel maps were analyzed. This study area included portions of six of the
seven metro counties (excluding Ramsey County). On the parcel maps, groups of
lots were manually identified which fit into the following two categories:
(1). Five or more contiguous lots 10 acres in size or smaller.
(2). Five or more contiguous lots 20 acres in size or smaller.
It is important to note that many more small lots exist within the study area,
however they are scattered and are not considered as major barriers to sewer
extension because pipes could easily be routed around them. In addition, no
attempt was made to differentiate between built lots and vacant lots. It was
determined that even currently vacant lots in this context presented potential
problems for sewer extension because they would likely be developed within a few
years.
All of these barrier lands (parks, wetlands, other, large lots) were then digitized and
assembled into a geographic information system. The result is a composite map
identifying barriers to the extension of the current centralized wastewater treatment
system.
Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban Inc. 6 BATCAppendix E '
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Metropolitan Council
Working for the Region, Planning for the Future
RECEIVED
MAY 10 RECD
G1 I Y OF CHANHASSEN
May 8, 1996
TO: Members of the Minnesota Legislature, Local Elected Officials and Staff in the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area
The Metropolitan Council invites you to attend one of four Open House/Public Meetings
scheduled in May. The sessions are an opportunity for you to learn more about three growth
options for the Twin Cities region and, very importantly, give us informal feedback on your
reactions to them.
The meetings will be held May 21, 22, 29 and 30. Locations and times are on the enclosed flier.
The meetings will begin with an open house, with informal discussion around graphic displays of
the three options. This will be followed by a public meeting, where we want to find out what you
like —and don't like - -about the options.
The sessions are among several ways the Council is encouraging local officials and the general
public to participate in shaping the region's growth. We are having discussions with local
governments and many other organizations. We will hold focus groups in June with local planning
commissioners, representatives from many organizations and the general public.
' The Council will select a physical development plan for the region this summer. However, that
decision is but one step in the planning work. The Council will review and update its regional
transportation and water plans so they are consistent with the selected growth plan. We intend to
complete the updates by the end of the year.
We also will be reviewing the tools available to carry out the growth plan, and prepare legislative
' recommendations if warranted. We will involve local government at each key stage of these
various planning efforts.
' I hope you can join us at one of the sessions.
Sincerely,
1
Curt Johnson
Metropolitan Council Chair
' Enc /one
0
230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1634 (612) 291 -6359 Fax 291 -6550 TDD /TTY 291 -0904 Metro Info Line 229 -3780
Invitation
Open House
& Public Meeting
Regional Growth Options
The sessions are an opportunity to learn more about the
options and give the Metropolitan Council feedback.
Open House 7 to 7:30 p.m.
View sketches of the three options and other background materials.
Public Meeting 7.30 to 9 p.m.
Converse with Metropolitan Council members
about your ideas, reactions and questions.
Tuesday May 21 -- St. Paul
Metropolitan Council Chambers
230 East 5th St.
Wednesday May 29 -- Apple Valley
Dakota County Western Service Center
14955 Galaxie Ave.
Wednesday May 22 -- Plymouth
Plymouth City Hall
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Thursday May 30 -- Shoreview
Shoreview Community Center
4600 North Victoria St.
For further information call the Regional Data Center at 291 -8140.
Metropolitan Council
Working for the Region, Planning for the.F uture