HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A - Met Council 2030 Blueprint
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
~~OBER 21, 2002
. DONALD RYE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF COMMENTS CONCERNING
THE METROPOLITAN COUNCILS BLUEPRINT 2030
History The Metropolitan Council has spent the last 2 years
developing a new set of guidelines for the development of the
Metropolitan Area. These guidelines, called Blueprint 2030, set forth a
comprehensive set of goals, policies and strategies for the continuing
development of the region.
Current Circumstances The Blueprint has gone through a series of
public meetings to gain input from citizens about specific proposals in
the Blue print. A public hearing on the Blueprint was held on October
16 to finalize the review process. The public comment period for the
hearing closes on October 28,2002. Staffhas developed the following
comments and background material to submit to the Metropolitan
Council during the public comment period. Other cities such as
Lakeville, counties including Scott County and city organizations
including the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities will be doing
the same. Copies of their comments are attached.
Issues The Council needs to determine if it agrees with the comments
attached to this staff report. Agreements, disagreements, additions or
deletions should be resolved so that staff can transmit the comments
within the comment period.
1. Accept and adopt the comments as submitted.
2. Adopt both the comments submitted and those proposed by the
AMM.
3. Adopt the comments as modified by the Council.
4. Reject the comments as submitted.
162(1}(Yl~~~oPlW!:1~E:.~r~~.l!.~e, Minne ot 537 1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
"T
T
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
COMMENTS ON BLUEPRINT 2030
The City of Prior Lake appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed Blueprint
2030. The City recognizes that a set of guiding principles for the Metropolitan Area is
necessary and important to the future of the region. Many of the policies and programs
contained in the Blueprint will directly affect the City and its' future development. As a
consequence, we have a number of concerns with some of the proposals contained in the
document.
As part of review, we have looked not only at the Blueprint but the draft comments of the
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and a Memorandum from the City of
Lakeville. We find ourselves in substantial agreement with the views set forth in those
documents, particularly as they relate to MUSA policy and the Implementation section.
Historically, planning documents have tended to be long on proposals and weak on
implementation steps and strategies. The Blueprint makes frequent use of words like
"foster, encourage, insure, call for, coordinate, enhance and support" in describing
actions to be taken. There seems to be little in the way of concrete, prioritized action
steps set out in a time frame that will allow the many critical issues identified in the
Blueprint to be effectively addressed.
A further problem we see is the lack of a clear picture of what specifically is expected of
local units of government. The Strategies section indicates a number of actions to be
undertaken, some by local units and some apparently by the Council, but it is not clear
from the report which is which. This further complicated by the fact that the
Implementation section is not connected to the strategies on a one-to-one basis. For
example, the strategy under housing of achieving community-wide residential densities
of 3 to 5 units per acre is set forth but there appears to be nothing in the Implementation
section that indicates how this is intended to be achieved. While some connections
between Strategies and Implementation can be inferred, it would be far more helpful if
specific implementation steps were laid out in the document that clearly tied a specific
strategy to a specific implementation step. Most often, the objections to documents of this
type are not to the goals but on the implementation steps proposed. Once completed, the
implementation plans should be exposed to the same review process as the Blueprint
itself.
Weare also concerned that failure of a City to comply with the Blueprint policies will put
them in the same position as the City of Lake Elmo. This case indicates to us that the
Council will be unwilling to accept local plans and policies that conflict with the
16200 E~WefJJtM.,\9.~~'?'r\~?~~~~RmIJ6y!1~~-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I
Blueprint and will take steps to compel the City to comply with the Blueprint. Obviously,
this is a source of great concern to us as it raises basic questions of self-determination and
is contrary to Council staff comments made repeatedly to questions posed by cities and
others throughout this process.
Regarding specifics in the Blueprint, we have the following comments:
. The policy of residential densities of 3 to 5 units per acre implies a "one size fits
all" philosophy that seems to ignore differences in physical circumstances
between cities as well as local policy regarding the lifestyles local residents
expect.
. The Blueprint seems to ignore annexation. Land owners adjacent to MUSA
communities see escalating land prices in the area and seek annexation in order to
be able to cash in on the rising value of their land. The Blueprint map showing
policy areas suggests that all areas outside current City boundaries will remain
rural in some form or another for the next 30 years. This is not a reasonable
assumption. It suggests that the Council forecasts for some cities will be low and
that land areas larger than those shown on the map will become urban during the
next 30 years. The Scott County Comprehensive Plan contemplates an Urban
Reserve area with a 40 year time frame extending well into the surrounding
townships.
. The map showing potential Growth Corridors does not include Prior Lake in the
Highway 169 corridor. While we realize the lines on the map delineating the
Corridors are more illustrative than definitive (at least we hope that is the case), it
seems Prior Lake should be included in that corridor as our northerly City limits
are only one and a half miles from 169 and Scott County Road 42, an A Minor
Arterial runs through the City.
. While the City supports the Blueprints emphasis on transit, we want to make it
clear that we believe transit is only one part of the transportation system and
continued development of adequate highways is necessary if the region is to
remain competitive. This is particularly true in the fringe areas where population
densities are generally inadequate to support transit without significant public
subsidies. The emphasis on new highway construction and upgrades concentrated
within the 494-694 ring does not recognize the connectivity of the road network
and the necessity of providing adequate transportation facilities to large numbers
of people who cannot reasonably expect transit service for many years.
. While the goal of providing 30 % of the new housing construction in the next 30
years in the inner cities and first ring suburbs is laudable, the current trend
showing 15% and the realities and difficulties of redevelopment, including
infrastructure costs, would seem to make this an unlikely goal to be achieved.
. We found the Blueprint to be repetitive to the point it distracted from the main
ideas being advanced in the document.
. We are left with no clear idea of what will be expected of the City in carrying out
the policies and strategies in the Blueprint. This refers back to our comments
about tying strategies to specific implementation steps with responsible parties
identified, financial resources identified and committed if needed and specific
time frames for completion as appropriate.
L: \02FILES\02corres\don \203 Ocomments.doc
. With regard to the Natural Resources Inventory, who will be responsible for
implementing this and who will pay for it?
. We are not convinced of the need to preserve agricultural land within the
Metropolitan area, given the huge subsidies provided to farmers and crop
surpluses that seem to occur on an annual basis.
. For the Blueprint to be implemented, it must be financially realistic. The
Blueprint shows current annual funding of$18,000,000 for all regional incentives.
For the Blueprint to become reality, the Metropolitan Council proposes an
increase to over $100,000,000 a year and over $1,000,000,000 over the next 10
years.
. The funding requirements outlined in the Blueprint are extremely ambitious.
Given the current state funding crisis and the likelihood of its continuation for
some time, we question whether the resources will be available to accomplish
many of the goals set forth.
L: \02FILES\02corres\don \2030comments.doc
...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
""?
-'-
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 . population, job and household forecasts for the adjacent counties (even if they are less fonnal
45 or based on a slightly different methodology than the seven-county forecasts);
October XX, 2002
DRAFT DOCUMENT
TO: Metropolitan Council
FR: Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
RE: Blueprint 2030
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on the public hearing draft of Blueprint
2030. The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities is composed of77 cities from around the
seven-county metropolitan area, which are home to approximately 90 percent of the region's
citizens.
We appreciate the Council's efforts to involve stakeholders in the development of this regional
growth strategy. AMM shares the Council's desire for a vibrant metropolitan area characterized
by a healthy environment, a balanced and efficient transportation and transit system, an4 a
variety of housing options.
After extensive review and discussion of the public hearing draft of Blueprint 2030, the Board of
Directors of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities offers the following comments on
behalf of our 77 member cities.
Adjacent Counties
The draft Blueprint proposes policies to guide the growth of the seven-county metropolitan
region. However, the real region now expands beyond the seven counties to include at least
portions of twelve adjacent counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin. As development in the region
has spread outward toward the edges of the seven-county area, it has become easier for people to
live in the adjacent counties while working, shopping and recreating in the seven-county area
This has significant impacts that need to be recognized and addressed in the Blueprint.
Vlhile the Metropolitan Council's authority does not extend beyond the seven-county area, the
Council can and should take a leadership role by opening a dialogue, documenting trends and
addressing these issues with state and local policy makers. As a first step, the draft Blueprint
should be revised to address the inter-relatedness of the seven-county area and the adjacent
counties. (The brief acknowledgement of collar county growth found in the "Collaboration and
Partnership" section on page 12 does not go nearly far enough.)
To accomplish this, we recommend including:
46 . an analysis of the impact of adjacent county growth on the Blueprint's reinvestment goals
47 and land supply estimates, as well as on regional systems such as transportation and
48 wastewater treatment;
49 . a discussion of how efforts to protect agricultural land and natural resource features inside
50 the seven-county area are likely to impact development pressures on agricultural land and
51 natural resource features outside the seven-county area.
52
53
54 MUSA Policy
55
56 The draft Blueprint includes a section titled "A New Approach to the Metropolitan Urban
57 Service Area," as well as a significant discussion of this new approach in the section on
58 strategies for the developing area. A.MM and its members see this effort to shift emphasis away
59 from "the line" as a positive thing, and, in many ways, a return to the original, legislative
60 intentions for regional planning and municipal interaction with the Metropolitan Council. It is
61 our understanding that this new policy will give cities more responsibility for determining
62 exactly which parcels of land will be receiving urban services, so long as the parcels selected
63 provide an appropriate amount of land to accommodate the city's household forecast and can be
64 served in an economic and efficient manner.
65
66 We would, however, encourage the Council to consider making the lO-year service commitment
67 policy more flexible rather than such a one-size fits all approach. Growth plans and development
68 proposals in some locations will require a service commitment of more than ten years, and the
69 Council should leave itself the flexibility to respond to individual comprehensive plans.
70
71 Reinvestment Goal and Policy Alignment
72
73 AMM supports the draft Blueprint's goal of accommodating a significant portion of the new
74 growth in the region's core cities and first and second ring suburbs. However, given the fact that
75 current trends are aligned to accommodate 15 percent of new growth through reinvestment, the
76 draft Blueprint's goal of accommodating 3 0 percent through reinvestment is a stretch and could
77 only be accomplished with a significant increase in financial resources.
78
79 In order to more realistically guide the region toward accommodating significant portions of the
80 anticipated growth through reinvestment, the draft Blueprint should be amended to establish
81 more realistic, shorter-term goals. For example, the 30-year planning period could be subdivided
82 into shorter phases, with gradually increasing reinvestment goals for each phase. Ongoing
83 monitoring would allow the region to measure its progress and adjust the goals accordingly.
84
85 In addition to establishing shorter-term reinvestment goals, the draft Blueprint should also be
86 revised to better align individual policy areas with the reinvestment goal.
87
88 For example, it is widely recognized that our current system of urban parks and open spaces is a
89 key ingredient to the past success and the current livability of this region. Looking forward, if
90 we are going to attempt to accommodate a significant portion of the new growth in the fully
DRAFT DC)C UA1ENT
:l
.
91 developed area, it will be important to provide enough recreational open space to make these
92 higher-density, reinvestment areas attractive and livable.
93
94 Yet the draft Blueprint states that the Council will "designate additional lands for the regional
95 park system that primarily emphasize important natural resource functions, including access to
96 water bodies and secondarily, land with the natural resource qualities that enhance outdoor
97 recreation."
98
99 Given the location of the vast majority of regionally significant natural resource areas, this will
I 00 result in the newly acquired lands being disproportionately located in the developing and rural
101 areas, leaving the fully developed area to meet the recreational open space needs of more than
102 100,000 additional households on roughly the same amount of park land they have today.
103
104 Preserving natural resources for their environmental benefits (clean air, clean water, habitat
105 preservation, etc.) is a laudaple goal. It also happens to be a responsibility that the state of
106 Minnesota has assigned to the Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution
107 Control Agency and the Board of Water and Soil Resources. The Metropolitan COUflcil's
108 responsibility, on the other hand, is to plan for and acquire a regional system of recreational open
109 spaces to serve the people of the seven-county area. This means acquiring parkland based on
110 where the people are and where they will be; and ensuring that public access and recreational
III opportunities can be provided there. While recreation and natural resource protection can be
112 accommodated simultaneously in some places, this will not be the case everywhere.
113
114 The policy statement quoted above, for the prioritization of regional parkland acquisition, should
115 be changed to more closely conform to the Council's statutory responsibility and reinvestment
116 goals.
117
118 Policies related to other system investments show a similar lack of alignment with the COUflcil' s
119 goal of accommodating new growth through reinvestment. Reinvestment and redevelopment is
120 often lauded as the preferred approach because it utilizes existing infrastructure investments.
121 \Vhile this line of reasoning is true to some extent, it, and the draft Blueprint, fails to
122 acknowledge the'fact that many reinvestment projects will necessitate resizing, rerouting or
123 upgrading that existing infrastructure in order to serve changing land uses. The document should
124 be revised to recognize that existing wastewater and transportation infrastructure will need to be
125 modified to support the reinvestment goal.
126
127
128 Brownfield Clean-Up
129
130 A major challenge to the draft Blueprint's reinvestment and environmental goals will be the
131 presence of significant amounts of polluted land - commonly referred to as "brownfields" - in
132 the fully developed areas of the region. The draft Blueprint briefly mentions the conversion of
133 brownfields to greenfields as one of the benefits of implementing Blueprint principles.
134 However, there is no other mention of this concept until the implementation section, when the
135 draft states that the Council will need $50 million for this program.
136
DRAFT DOCUAlElvT
3
137 The Council currently administers the Tax Base Revitalization Account -- a brownfield clean-up
138 program designed to create jobs and increase tax base. The draft Blueprint states that an
139 additional $156 million dollars will be needed for this program over the next ten years.
140
141 At a minimum, the draft Blueprint should be revised to discuss the brownfield to greenfield
142 concept and more specifically outline the Council's plans in this area. However, we would
143 suggest reconsidering this approach, and instead seeking changes to the Tax Base Revitalization
144 Account in order to support multiple Blueprint principles. At a time oflirnited resources, it
145 makes more sense to consider increasing the funding for this program and adjusting the criteria
146 to give priority to projects that include environmental restoration and/or affordable housing.
147
148
149 Rural Growth Centers
150
151 The draft Blueprint states that the Metropolitan Council will eA"tend regional wastewater
152 treatment services to "rural growth centers" in order to provide a small-town, rural lifestyle
153 alternative to the continued proliferation oflarge lot development on septic systems. In theory,
154 this sounds like a good idea, but there are several issues that need to be directly and realistically
155 addressed before any regional investments are made.
156
157 AM:M understands that the Council will be requiring interested communities to develop growth
158 plans that address Blueprint 2030 principles and that those that do receive regional wastewater
159 treatment will pay a higher SAC charge but the same municipal wastewater rate as current users.
160 However, there 'are at least three other, more fundamental issues that need to be addressed.
161
162 . First of all, more'thought needs to be put into the wisdom of extending wastewater services
163 without some reasonable expectations of corresponding expansions to road and transit
164 capacity in the area. Given the state's current economic outlook and the fact that this region
165 does not have a dedicated funding source for transportation and transit that is capable of
166 keeping up with inflation or population growth, we question whether the money will be
167 available to make significant investments in the 35, 169 or 212 corridors in the foreseeable
168 future.
169
170 . Secondly, prior to making a regional investment in'centralized wastewater treatment, more
171 work needs to be done to ensure that we will see a subsequent decline in the number of septic
172 systems added to surrounding area. The Council should consider amending the Blueprint
173 and/or seeking legislation in order to establish a stronger regional policy regarding septic
174 systems.
175
176 · Finally, more consideration needs to be given to these communities' ability to provide
177 adequate public facilities - especially schools.
178
179
DK4.FT D()C'UAJE1y'T
L-\
t
179
180 Agricultural Preservation
181
182 The protection of agricultural lands within the seven-county area should not be a regional
183 priority on the same level as increasing affordable housing opportunities or enhancing our
184 transportation and transit systems. This is not to say that regional policies should unnecessarily
185 lead to the loss of more fannland or that urban services should be prematurely extended if that
186 land is not needed for accommodating projected growth. However, at a time of limited public
187 resources, public funds should not be used to subsidize individual farmers to continue their
188 chosen profession/lifestyle. The overarching regional goal should be to protect open space and
189 land that supports valuable environmental functions, such as groundwater recharge. To the
190 greatest extent possible, this goal should be achieved by bringing these lands under public
191 ownership and management, rather than by subsidizing private individuals.
192
193
194 Implementation
195
196 Overall, the draft Blueprint fails to layout a clear plan for achieving the Council's numerous
197 goals. Significant attention is paid to outlining perceived problems and proposing general
198 solutions, but the draft is missing a straightforward listing of next steps. For example, if auto
199 dependency is a problem and more walkable neighborhoods is a solution, what is the Council
200 going to do to help the region develop more walkable neighborhoods? \Vhat will the Council be
201 asking, requiring or incenting local units of government to do in order to develop more walkable
202 neighborhoods? \Vhat about the state, nonprofits and the private sector?
203
204 Additionally, the implementation section should be amended to include some sort of
205 prioritization. From a financial standpoint, the current economic situation facing state, regional
206 and local governments makes it highly unlikely that all of the outlined needs can be met.
207 Furthermore, there will undoubtedly be situations where two or more Blueprint goals come into
208 conflict - the preservation of agricultural land vs. the mining of aggregate resources, the
209 production of higher density housing vs. the protection of natural resources, etc. The Blueprint
210 should be amended to clearly identify what is most important, in the Council's view.
211
212 The Benchmarks listed in the Implementation Section also need to be revised. As currently
213 written, many of the benchmarks are overly vague and would be difficult to measure. They also
214 apply almost solely to local units of government. The implementation of Blueprint 2030 will
215 require an extensive partnership of state, regional and local units of government, builders,
216 developers, advocates, and the private and non-profit sectors. Benchmarks should be added to
217 monitor the contributions of these other entities toward Blueprint 2030 goals.
DR.A.FT DOC UJi:1ENT
/'
')
DRAFT
NORTHWEST ADMINISTRATION CORPORATION
1491 QUIMBY AVENUE NW
COKATO, MN 55321-4012
PHONE: 320/286-5013
FAX: 320/286-5082
E-MAIL nac@cmgate.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
ROBERT ERICKSON
DAVID LICHT
12 SEPTEMBER 02
LAKEVILLE - METRO BLUEPRINT 2030
BACKGROUND:
At your request, I have undertaken a review of the 4th draft of the Metro Council's
Blueprint 2030, dated 28 August 2002. This regional planning effort is being
pursued to establish a new framework for the metropolitan area, extending the
perspective from 2020 to 2030. The final document, which will be approved by
the Metro Council, will be the basis and the criteria for evaluating updated local
comprehensive plans, which are requirE;ld by 2008 and for the determination of
metropolitan investments and improvements.
In the material which follows, I have attempted to highlight the major components
of the Blueprint 2030 which haVE: impiications for and impacts on the City of
Lakeville.
REGIONAL PROJECTIONS:
Blueprint 2030 is based upon the fundamental premise that the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area will continue to grow as it has in the past. This means that
between 2000 and 2030 a population growth of approximately 950,000
individuals is expected. Lakeville and the subregion served by the Empire
Treatment Plant area are anticipated to accommodate a significant portion of this
increase.
I
For the region, the Metro Council claims that one of the major resulting problems
will be that the growth between 2000 and 2030 is projected to produce 75,000
more households than have been planned for by local units in their most recent
comprehensive plans. Other results of the overall 30 year growth include major
transportation system implications, which is already greatly stressed.
Additionally, support systems such as wastewater collection and treatment,
potable water systems, storm drainage, parks and recreation, etc., will also
require attention at both the regional and local levels.
AREAS OF FOCUS:
Based upon existing opportunities, problems and issues as well as the
projections which have been made, the current update of the regional plan
focuses on three primary topics of concern. In summary these are:
HOUSING:
TRANSPORTATION:
NATURAL RESOUSES:
RISING COSTS
INCREASING HIGHWAY CONGESTION
LOSS OF FARMLAND & NATURAL AREAS
The updated regional plan also indicates that transportation corridors will be the
focus of where development and redevelopment is to take place. In comments
made about the plan by regional officials there is an indication that this is a new
urban geographic approach as contrasted to a "concentric ring" pattern of
development, which has occurred in the past. Of some interest is the fact that
the Metropolitan Planning Commission (the forerunner of the Metro Council)
adopted a "Constellations Cities" geographic concept plan in 1967 which relied
heavily on transportation routes. It would appear that the Metro Council has just
"reinvented the wheeL"
NEW METRO APPROACHES
In addressing the three primary areas of concern the Metro Council proposes to
take a number of new directions in its approach. These departures from past
regional strategies as stated in the draft Blueprint 2030 are:
1. More attention to the pattern and arrangement of land uses. This is in
contrast and will be in addition to the past Metro Council practice of
addressing "how much" development occurred in growing communities.
(As Lakeville is recognized as a continuing growth community, this new
approach will have impact on the content and review of the City's plans.)
2. Transportation used to shape land use patterns. Increased attention will
be given to intensify and locate development along transportation
corridors and in rural towns along major highways. (As the 1-:35 and Cedar
Avenue major transportation corridors are within Lakevi/le's boundaries,
this new approach will have implications on future City planning.
2
Additionally, there may also be impact upon the City resulting from rural
area / center growth)
3. Greater emphasis on reinvestment in older areas. (This policy has some
limited application to Lakevifle's historic downtown area.)
4. Development of a metro-wide natural resources inventory and assessment
to foster development that is more sensitive to the environment. A major
concern in this regard is the connection of greenway corridors and
protection of resources by providing base data to local governmental units.
5. Greater support of expanded protections of farmlands and natural
resource areas. This objective will be approached through utilization of
the Regional Park and Open Space System, Metropolitan Agricultural
Preserves, and easement purchases. (Of critical importance to Lakeville
is the Metro Council's intent to address aggregate resource preservation
and protections as part of this new direction. In its work to date on this
subject, the Lakeville Comprehensive plan and Gravel Mining Ordinance
have been used as models for what should be achieved.).
6. More flexibility in the location of new development in growing
communities. It is suggested that local units of government will be given
more latitude in deciding where MUSA development will take place as well
as encouraging cities to make land available to accommodate the region's
land development needs to 2030. (This new Metro Council approach has
evident implications for the City of Lakeville as it plans for the expansion
and staging of the MUSA. This would also appear to be a policy change
from prior Metro Council positions when it precluded the Cities of Lakeville
and Farmington from oversizing trunk sewer lines to serve the long term
MUSA expansion area along the Cedar A venue corridor.)
7. Increased support for rural towns that want to grow. This approach is a
radical departure from past Metro Council practice which was basically to
ignore rural centers beyond the MUSA. In addition to directing attention to
these areas, the Metro Council is also proposing funding assistance,
primarily for wastewater systems in these "free standing" communities.
(This new approach and policy is the basis for Metro Council plans to
extend a regional interceptor line to Elko, New Market and New Market
Township. The City of Lakeville's opposition to this new policy direction
has already been loudly voiced to the Metro Council.)
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES:
A majority of the Blueprint 2030 draft document is devoted to proposed Metro
Council policies and actions which are basic and logical statements reflecting
"good" planning and development principals. For example, a major theme of the
draft document is the connection and concentration of jobs, shopping and
housing. Lakeville already adheres to this approach as documented by
3
t
development in the historic downtown district, the Heritage Commons area, the
TimberCrest area, and the pending Crossroads Project.
A number of the proposed policies and action, however, appear to extend the
Metro Council's scope and jurisdiction, raise questions, and / or have major
implications for the City of Lakeville. These more controversial matters along
with the basis of the plan are identified and discussed in the paragraphs which
follow.
1. GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE:
A. Data & Projections: As noted in a preceding section of this
memorandum, a basic premise of the draft regional plan is that there is
a major shortage of designated developable land to accommodate the
2030 population. At the urging of the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities, the draft Blueprint 2030 does recognize the
metropolitan region is in fact 13 counties as defined by the Federal
Census as contrasted to 7 counties as defined by State Legislation.
The draft plan, however, appears to go no further into this highly critical
factor and does not evidently utilize the larger geographic area as a
basis upon which to analyze land needs. If this is in fact the case, the
projection of a 75,000 household land supply shortage is highly
questionable. Wright, Sherburne, Isanti and Chisago Counties in
Minnesota and St Croix and Pierce Counties in Wisconsin likely have
substantial lands to contribute to the claimed shortage. The growth in
these areas over the last ten years substantiates the availability of
developable land. While recognizing that the Metro Council does not
have jurisdiction over these six "outlying" counties, there is a need to
assess their development potential if an accurate projection of land
supply is to be made. Lacking this information makes questionable the
basis upon which the Blueprint 2030 is founded and the resulting
policies and actions which are proposed.
The failure to assess the potential development in the six outlying
. counties also raises serious question on the capabilities of the existing
and future regional transportation s~'stem. If the growth in these areas
is not recognized, the system's capabilities will continue to fall far short
of need.
B. Jurisdiction: Given the fact that the Federal Census documents
and substantiates that the Twin Cites Metropolitan region is comprised
of thirteen and not seven counties, it defies logic that a key element of
the draft Blueprint 2030 does not include an effort to expand the Metro
Council's jurisdiction. At minimum, the four outlying Minnesota
Counties which are as much a part of the metropolitan area as the
seven which are now so designated should be actively pursed to
become part of the formally State recognized area. Also, means to
4
coordinate planning and projects with the outlying Wisconsin Counties
should be attempted. While this is by no means a minor political issue
and undertaking, ignoring the matter is an unacceptable approach.
2. RURAL CENTERS I AREAS: As it pertains to the rural areas of the region,
the draft document cOntains a number of policies and actions which are
sigifigant and may produce negative results.
A. Rural Residential Areas: For almost 25 years the Metropolitan
Council has had a rural development policy which limited rural area
development to a density of ten acres per uflit. Many jurisdictions
in the region (primarily townships) have simply ignored this policy
directive and developed at 1 to 2.5 acre densities. The Metro
Council chose simply to ignore this situation although the growth
pattern was recognized as having a negative impact upon regional
systems such as transportation.
The draft Blueorint 2030 now proposes to formally acknowledge
these high density rural areas by creating a new development
category termed Rural Residential Areas. In and of itself, this
recognition is practical, as the situation is in fact a reality. The
plan. however, does not go far enough to suggest a prohibition of
such development densities in the future. Moreover. the draft plan
would appear to reward and in fact encourage such a development
pattern by suggesting that convenience goods and services should
be developed in such areas to serve the residents. From one
perspective, this policy works against rural town centers and the
urban core by creating competition for locations where urban
services have been provided and need to be paid for. Also,
accepting and rewarding a development pattern which has
flagrantly violated regional policy is totally unfair to those
communities which have complied with the regional directive.
Alternatively, It is suggested that a method to have these non-
conforming development areas pay their "fair share" of local and
regional service costs be explored.
B. Rural Growth Centers: The past Metro Council practice and
policy to ignore Rural Growth Centers is acknowledged as being
questionable. These outlying communities have been as much a
part of the region as the urbanized core. Including these centers
into the regional plan is there for common sense. In reversing its
direction, the Metro Council should, however, act with caution. A
key issue is whether the growth in a rural center will have a
significant impact on transportation system capabilities. Another
issue requiring attention is the impact that a rural center's growth
5
t
will have on existing services and investments. School district
capabilities are a primary concern in this regard. Also, if a rural
center attracts growth away from core communities where
infrastructure investments have been made and as a result
development is critical to financial capabilities, significant rural
center growth should not be allowed. Finally, growth in Rural
Centers should be tied to efforts at economic development. If not,
these centers will simply become bedroom suburbs adding to
existing commuting problems of the region.
A point also needs to be made relative to the justification that the
Metropolitan Council is using as a basis for its policy change on
Rural Centers. It is suggested that by promoting growth in Rural
Centers, there will be a drop in rural residential land demand (2.5
acre jots). It is contended thatthis claimed benefit is far from reality
and reflects a failure to understand why people chose to locate in a
rural large lot setting.
A final concern relative to the Rural Growth Centers is the amount
of funding that the Metro Council is proposing to invest into
wastewater collection / treatment in these communities. It seems
questionable to fund the Rural Growth Centers when there are
projected unmet needs in the contiguous urbanized area and were
other regional system investments such as transportation have
been made.
3. INFILL DEVELOPMENT. CEDAR AVENUE CORRIDOR:
A graphic has finally been supplied with the recent issue of the Blueprint
2030. This now allows a review of how the Metro Council interprets the
physical impltca!ions of its policies. Of major concern and in seeming
contradiction to its stated intent, the Blueprint 2030 Growth Strategy map
does not designate the four lane Cedar Avenue as a major transportation
corridor beyond Dakota County Highway 42. Cedar Avenue has recently
been upgraded to a four lane divided highway south to Dakota County
Highway 70 and the major Airlake Industrial Park which at present has
4000 employment positions and is growing. This corridor is also currently
under study as a potential transit link. Besides this major oversight, the
undeveloped area in Farmington which adjoins Lakeville and which is
served by Cedar Avenue is shown as Agricultural Preserve. The Lakeville
and Farmington areas are in fact interdependent on service by the same
interceptor sewer line. This area is viewed as highly important to the
region as the combined land resource of the two communities could
accommodate up to 5000 households. Moreover, there is concern with
the Metro Council's commitment to the development of this area as it
rejected a proposal by the Lakeville and Farmington Communities to have
6
the region participate in the oversizing of a trunk sewer extension which
would have allowed future, relatively inexpensive service to this area when
it is ready to develop. It is contended, however, that this area can still be
serviced in a more economical fashion as contrasted to the proposal to
extend an interceptor line to open development in Elko, New Market, and
New Market Township. The City of Lakeville also needs a commitment
from the MECS that there is adequate wastewater interceptor and
treatment capacity to service its and Farmington's growth area in the
Cedar Avenue Corridor.
4. REDEVLOPMENT:
The Metro Council is proposing that 30 percent of the projected growth
which is to occur in the region by the year 2030 will be accommodated
through redevelopment. No issue is taken with this objective. Concern
does exist, however, if this threshold of redevelopment is not realized. It is
anticipated that a failure to achieve the 30 percent level of redevelopment
will result in increased pressure on cities such as Lakeville and that no
plans have been made to address such a situation.
5. AGGREGATE DEPOSIT PROTECTIONS:
A new area of attention and concern in the draft Blueprint 2030 is the
protection of aggregate deposits. This is acknowledged as a legitimate
concern for the region and as an issue which requires action. The
consequences of this policy are, however, a concern especially to the City
of Lakeville. As the Metro Council ventures into this new subject area, it is
imperative that affected local units of government be a participant in
determinations and actions which are taken. Assurance of this
participation is needed.
6. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: ,
A troubling void in the current draft of the updated regional plan is the lack
of any attention to economic development. If the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area is to sustain its existing and projected growth, and furthermore to pay
for the public services and improvements which are required, a critical
factor is the economic growth and vitality of the region. By not including
this extremely important subject in the plan, the region will fall short of
achieving its objectives.
7. IMPLEMENTATION:
Chapter 5 of the draft Blueprint 2030 is devoted to implementation of the
regional plan. It is claimed that new tools and resources will be utilized.
The overall approaches outlined, however, appear to be the same as have
7
l'
been followed in the past. This is troubling in that while progress has
been made in some areas, there are many key and critical areas where
little change or improvements have been realized. The regional
transportation system is a noted example. If true progress is to be made,
it would seem imperative that new and innovative measures are required.
The region cannot continue formulate and depend upon "wish lists" which
have little or no chance of being realized. Additionally, the region needs a
strategy to address problems if the massive amount of funding projected
as being required is not provided and available.
Moreover, the scope of implementation efforts on the part of the Metro
Council needs to be expanded into areas not addressed. An example is
the increased geographic jurisdiction of the Metro Council. Also, as noted
in Lakeville's comment in 1996 on the current Blueprint 2020, means and
actions to "enforce" the Mandatory Land Planning Act provisions, such as
rural development densities, needs to be undertaken. The past practice of
allowing non-comforming situations to simply continue and expand is
unacceptable and unfair.
CONCULSION:
Beyond any question, the Blueprint 2030 plan is an important and critically
needed document. Before this plan is finalized, it is therefore equally as
important that it be as complete and thorough as necessary to adequately
address the many complex and pressing issues, problems and opportunities
which confront the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Furthermore, there needs to
be extensive and thorough review of the proposed plan by local units of
government so as to ensure accuracy, comprehensive coverage, and
understanding. The Metro Council should be obligated to providing sufficient
time to accomplish this end.
8
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
Geographic Policy Areas and
Potential Growth Corridors
o
,
5
-
~ Metropolitan Council
~ Building Communities that Worlc
Policy Areas
Urban Policy Areas Rural Policy Areas *
Rural Center
Developing Area
Reinvestment Area
Rural Growth Center
Agricultural
Preservation Area
Diversified Rural
Rural Residential
f;;::::;j Potential Growth Area
* Lake Elmo - Ulustratlve only. plan under review
.
Blueprint
Policy Areas
~"i'} ..
.. ,
. .
. . . ,,', .
. , ",
". 'c' .,' . : ....' ,,:,,'_.,..
_ .... .... .. i'i' . i'.
_~,:i" ":~.:~"':{'
~~:~._i1."
(l)
5
1""""""'1
o
10
15
20 Miles
.
Urban Policy Areas
Rural Policy Areas *
2000 - 2030 Growth
Developing Area
300,000 Households (65%)
260,000 Employment (47%)
D Rural Growth Centers
lfII Agricultural Preservation Area "~
I>j ::"':7':: f
2000 - 2030 Growth
] 8,000 Households (4%)
10,000 Employment (2%)
Reinvestment Area
116,000 Households (25%)
270,000 Employment (49%)
26,000 Households (6%)
10,000 Employment (2%)
* La1ce Elmo - illustrative only, plan wd.er revIew
~ Metropolitan Council
-:l; Building Communities that Work