The URL can be used to link to this page

8. Metropolitan Growth Options Update.0 MEMORANDUM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 9 , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 0 FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: May 16, 1996 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 L Mike Munson from the Me session on April 1, 1996. 1 330,000 households: and 38 occur. Olitan Staff gave an overview forecasts indicate the region m )wth projections at a work >w by 650,000 people, where this growth should L t The "Current Trend" options accommodated housing market demand. Public investment would be managed to respond to the demand. Some 54 percent of the housing would 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. 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 u L 1 1 CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT This option assumes that increasing the density of jobs and Under this Option•_ 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 MUSA line not expanded service area will build a market for redevelopment and reinvestment in the MUSA, and bring some economies to the until after 2020 in effort to provision of sewers and transportation (See Figure 4). build a market for redevelopment and Further, the demand for housing and jobs will be met by reinvestment. 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 Figure 4. Growth Option: t Concentrated. Development aT. { iYTZ SL ' IIVa cox OAK aiTiYL uxwooa ' �7 ri11V ®� CO LIIlOaS ' LwYL l0l .: yAY- NEW .. � � ... SCAaDU Oa LST L AYE c¢aA :2 :�: , ' awn:: o6ax .... aAf23l:R MAY IfAESA x xX � CI t iooYSOa :::: oos iAx A7Y1 10G Ricioas e< � 4 TILLW A ................... ........ ....:..: ..:ir: as ::.:. ,'A,3dS.._:.::. .... -. OAYi ., i .............................. ........ :: . .... ...... ....:.: ' :. .1FLYI iAi: nAIIT ' oarro [ ki ai ...S n(oe - a1X RLtA ra ...DLr... ' ' a¢aiiA rar�dara afAi ari MSAf X I WEST , .. idjlx *h'4 YA O aQsrbasoj:i , � Ya EDLLYWOOD ::. HATAATCi A „t ik iS `I ADD wxD aioaa ...::: ............ ....... .... .....;... . -- tl iRlbDi wsrox rr uwa i rovT ........ . ' ' ...... .. .... .. _ r®r iti : ax1Vy Y ftYAD:: b7c xiu .oLa ..... oIO altAtt aESUic: .. .. ...... �.� TA YTK 1•.... LAY LSCNOt sswi>.i I: AI(Illtlf - SLDO 4'lDa 4LX 7Y SaN>•Ai+ VZ DXS�IA'kX' I '. KEY ”. ....� EffitIDx `4r ' x0 ... aAicsaax "' " ca xae tbL0. .ypiEfG: .. .......'. ....:.. ... ..... I . ' dALLZ2 A AI! LOIIfSVILLE SDa L YD ': :::. ..... ..... .., :: $ LAYS 1CIES 1(�ZS13A7f.A C lIZVEx Iisl� Z tl itSSS OaDAif 1�® :' t �•��}, y }�� :'' - LSEATLIf71K E ' _; .. AEW YAEYET.� DOtALA7 9 O> <YSa . ELA7CELY IIII LI.E .. ... 7LlIixS ..::... .. .. .itELLliA : CEDAR .. LAKE xs iYLT %•OItIIA C 3OQC ' .... :.: ]WO!TLIx 103IVILL aLM V x .... . .... axasxa�iE Eweratt� tin ::.. 0 10 20 30 € Cf;IOTA .AxaaLli ' Miles ' Existing MUSA General Rural Use I MUSA Expansion ' Farm/Long-Term Ag. ' Post 2020 urban Reserve Rural Center 17 ' i I C 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 Mixed -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). 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 (jobs/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 Demand at the urban around growth centers, but the assumption is that demand at the fringe dampened somewhat urban fringe would be dampened somewhat by channeling a by channeling a portion of portion of the jobs and households into growth centers. Over time the job and household the growth centers, plus other infill development, could increase gr owth into centers. the overall density of the built up part of the region, but more 1� 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 in 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 in centers. household growth would locate in growth centers. It assumes the two downtowns, the core area and existing job locations would see job growth. The centers, or nodes, could be connected to transportation corridors. 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 (jobs/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 Demand at the urban around growth centers, but the assumption is that demand at the fringe dampened somewhat urban fringe would be dampened somewhat by channeling a by channeling a portion of portion of the jobs and households into growth centers. Over time the job and household the growth centers, plus other infill development, could increase gr owth into centers. the overall density of the built up part of the region, but more 1� 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 in adjacent counties could also be encouraged to locate in growth centers. 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 Figure 5. Growth Option: Miles ® Metro Centers O Intensified Mixed Use Centers ® New Mixed Use Centers ® Corridors with Intill Nodes Note: Growth Centers designation is illustrative; actual designation will be made in consultation with local governments. W Existing TMUSA xa , na Qou• . OID SZ iiJWi ' 1rR. 1lAii'• XJi ITT f Urban Expansion and Urban Reserve 2020 Post 2020 Urban Reserve ' Rural Area Farm/Long-Term Ag. Rural Centers xa , na Qou• . OID SZ iiJWi ' 1rR. 1lAii'• XJi ITT f .111:: ►M 1 This option assumes that accommodating housing market demand and public investments accordingly best assures the economic and social health of the region. Under it, housing, Under this option' particularly single- family housing, is the major preferred land -use type and shaper of development (See Figure 3). Single -family housing is the it assumes demand for housing and jobs will be met through a major preferred land -use public strategy supporting the expansion of the urban area, and and shaper of development. 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. 14 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 Appendix Figures A, B, C and D). Growth would not be random s follows historic job foil 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. The MUSA would be expanded in stages based on local comprehensive plans. Current economic incentives, such as tax policies and infrastructure financing, would not change much. 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 growth rate would increase, and the area would see rural of the next phase of urban subdivisions and "rural estate" development, which competes with expansion. future suburbanization. Agricultural preservation would be limited to areas where agricultural uses are economically competitive with urban development. Growth in the contiguous 12 counties to the region would largely follow current trends. - 14 Figure 3. Growth Option: Current Trend Development tT. OIL [iTEZL LE1[P10 LAST OAX tLTEZL svxas cxovs III, L I ', EAH COLDYEOS E , �✓ .J aYW :LYY16i •�a�a' LwEi SCA3IDEA t2z o-DASSt i t ^- — -SD0,0 MAY x 91tEtZD. - .: GI4vz iEDp Yx -. x pwY l i ' D •OOD 4 D GIAIT SCYY TmEles Existing MUSA MUSA Expansion Urban Expansion and Urban Reserve 2020 Post 2020 Urban Reserve Rural Area General Rural Use Farm /Long -Term Ag. Rural Center 15 t2z aA chi s.a SrN ► Afi wzrr . ... �Z LA �' a oYTIt sar�SSiu rv aT lttxxsASOSis'Y �- ...:: - .fa}Fxstoatt[A : aoftzf, :... ... :... IT >~AVt� P =a .: E'IDI:LYAOOD.. ........ .. . WATAiTO[[ _4. ., .. ... ................ .......... .. ...... . ................ a ... ........... T F -� a EG71G a 1M) � PLDt?•Yi A}Tp ata' t ........... u I ¢ ° 44 [11 t4 fl FcT� r t� DOTk 7LT'I. ......... SEAOOCI 1t SSt ARY. ffiaYItEL :� )LDD}pStD�1D ktlY.lt L OL' ....... d T I H IalIO 'xp .. ::: E � DIQ2GE3a O'tx LL i'AVk6 r A LL - U, m t D�LDiDIT � V k CT � �1♦ i Q .. ��}�L� ::'K6HCA'fADAb' ..... ........ .. :: .......... .Ayx :. SAx 22A3COCX ]'xAaDISCO ... (ffiA� .: :;, : II YQEI � �� : YAgIIAT:::' ��tlffiA S .� . T . .. . � vyq 5CO : LZIUGI'.LT6= - : ....... ET ; rtox Rfb59 ::::::: : f �. ZY LT � x �ZLIxEYA fiStP C TL Lw u y .. RAXILY _ EELLL -' IaLZ11A C6 DAx LAdZ : xocX .. ' II.AIaE : .. �� ILxO � ISA1QTDa 1[SZIISLA�T. ....... , ..... C' :n[i .._ ;.: CIZE a : wATlxzirin O 10 ..O : 30 .............. CIOTA iAX DOL }I TmEles Existing MUSA MUSA Expansion Urban Expansion and Urban Reserve 2020 Post 2020 Urban Reserve Rural Area General Rural Use Farm /Long -Term Ag. Rural Center 15 TABLE 1 Land Available for Residential Development - 12/95 CITY AVAILABLE RESIDENTIAL LAND Within MUSA (acres) VACANT PLATTED 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 444 471 MAPLE GROVE 616 555 MINNETRISTA 278 281 ORONO 160 95 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 Dah[gren, Shardlow, and Uban Inc. j BATCAppendrz E P 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 Development 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 UltiMUSA. 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 BATC App endix E J C I C Metropolitan Council ' Working for the Region, Planning for the Future RECEIVED ' MAY 10 RECD I Y OF CHANHASSEN May 8, 1996 t 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, &L__ - Curt Johnson Metropolitan Council Chair Enc /one 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1634 (612) 291 -6359 Fax 291 -6550 TDD /TTY 291 -0904 Metro Info Line 229 -3780 An Equal Opportunity Employer 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 1 L ' 1