The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7C - Met.Council Growth Options STAFF AGENDA REPORT DATE: 7C i'(~' FRANK BOYLES, CITY MANAGER -\ CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SCOTT OUNTY POSITION REGARDING METROPOLITAN COUNCIL GROWTH OPTIONS PAPER. SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 AGENDA: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: The Metropolitan Council is soliciting feedback from Metropolitan area communities with respect to their Growth Options paper. Earlier this year, I shared a draft Scott County/City position paper response to the Metropolitan Council Growth Options. The purpose of this agenda item is to determine whether the City Council wishes to endorse the position paper so it can be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council. DISCUSSION: The Metropolitan Council has prepared a Growth Options paper (see attached excerpts) which explores three potential scenarios for growth in the metropolitan area. The Growth Options include: Current Trend, Concentrated Development and Growth Centers. Scott County and City staff representatives have met to discuss a potential united position paper to share with the Metropolitan Council with respect to their proposed growth options. A copy of the position paper is attached The purpose of the position paper is to articulate to the Metropo litan Council a unified position on the part of Scott County and its Cities. ISSUES: The position paper attempts to assimilate the concerns of Scott County and Scott County cities in one location. Consequently the Council may not agree with all of the positions articulated in the paper. A second potential concern is that the Metropolitan Council has limited its range of options by selecting Growth Options which range between current levels of regulation and more regulation. No consideration has been given to a more laissez- faire attitude, as has been articulated in the Twin City Builders Association Study. That study suggests that the limitation on ..J'B9~.DQC 16200 t.agle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: FB93.DOC sewer and water service area has been one of the prime reasons why leapfrog development has occured in the townships. They urge the Metropolitan Council to be less restrictive in the extension of Metropolitan-Urban Services. 1. Review the position paper and amend as appropriate. 2. Adopt the Position Paper "as is". 3. Take no action. Alternative # 1 or #2. The proposed Position Paper represents an amalgamation of the positions articulated by Scott City and County staff members. The general flavor of the Position Paper is consistent with concerns which have been periodically expressed by members of the City Council. A motion and second to adopt the Scott County/City position paper as is or with amendments for submission to the Metropolitan Council. Attachments. AUG-27-96 TUE 15:25 SCOTT CO PLANNING FAX NO. 6124968496 P. 02 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST JOIlD~t~ 55352-9339 (612) 496-8346 Fax: (612) 496-8365 July 23, 1986 Curt Johnson, Chair MetropoHtan Council Mears Park Centre 230 E. 5th Street st. Paul, MN 55101-1634 Dear Mr. Johnson: Scott County and the cities of Belle Plaine, Jordan, Prior Lake, Savage and Shakopee have prepared these comments on the Growth Options for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. While we cannot endorse any specific growth option at this time. we hope the concerns/issuas raised by our comments are considered in the Council's deliberations. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need additional information. Sincerely, Bradley J. Larson, P.E. Associate Administrator - Public Works and Lands BJUjkf word'fl1lsc'Growth AUG-27-96 TUE 15:25 SCOTT CO PLANNING FAX NO. 6124968496 P. 03 Comments on the Growth Options for the Twin City Metropolihm Area Scott COllnty and the Cities of Belle Plaine, Jordan. Prior Lake, Savage and Shakopee Page 1 of 2 GENERAL COMMENTS · The 7..County Metropolitan area has one of the highest standards of living in the country. The area is recognized as a desirable place to live. With those attributes comes the enormous complexity and difficulty in dealing with growth and its related issues. We recognize that unJess something is done soon, these problems will only increase. Scott County, and the municipalities within the County. recognize this and applaud the undertaking of long range planning for growth. We support the attempt to develop a responsible regional gro\Vth plan incorporating the livable communities concept which all local governments can support and work within. We further believe that the legislature needs to take an active and aggressive role in the development in the surrounding counties, both in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and in providing appropriate funding to implement the growth plan. However. the Metropolitan Council, in collaboration with Jocal governments. needs to clearly identify and define the issues and problems being found in this undertaking. · One of those is the overriding concern that no matter what growth scenario the Metropolitan Council selects, it may not and perhaps cannot, address the issue of existing and "leapfrog" development. Another is that all three options show the townships in Scott County as long term agricultural (40 acres), rural service areas (10 acres). and urban reserve (40 acres). This is of great concern to Scott CountYt especially in right of the past three year's effort in cooperatjon with the Metropolitan Council to develop a new comprehensive plan. The plan was approved by the Councille~s than one year ago in November of 1995. The options are inconsistent with the County plan and contradict the collaborative efforts of the Council. County, Townships and Cities in establishing land uses and densities, especiaJly adjacent to the cities. · The selected growth option must also take into consideration market forces. Consumers likely will go wherever they choose as long as they can afford the cost and can move about with relative ease. This will happen no matter what planning forces are implemented by any Jevel of government. Therefore, the plan should strive for flexibility, both for the consumer and for local government. However, for the MetropoHtan Council to provide this general guidance, local governments and property owners/developers must be aware of and take responsibi I ity for the impact of their decisions. Finally, the selected option cannot be a "one-size fits allll policy but one that has flexibility to provide overall regional guidance~ yet word\mlac'Qrowth AUG-27-96 TUE 15:26 SCOTT CO PLANNING FAX NO. 6124968496 p, 04 accommodate the uniqueness and past development practices associated with the various areas of the region. Comments on the Growth Options for the TwIn City Metropolit-.n Area Scott County and the Cities of Belle Plaine. Jordan. Prior Lake, Savage, and Shakopee Page 2 of2 · The option selected should have the MUSA line expanded and guaranteed at least for a 20 year future horizon. Initiation of MUSA expansions and other specific land use decisions shouJd be made at the County and City level. · The concept of urban preser~es should be taken into account in future plans. This is already an issue in Scott County and its Townships, and will become a major issue to the cities in the future. · We support the redevelopment of the urban core. This must be a regional effort and responsibility. However, the redevelopment should not take place at the expense or detriment of any particular area of the region. · The real issue that needs to be addressed appears to be financial. Therefore, the solutions needs to be financial solutions. The concept of an impact fee should be explored. This would mean that those who choose to live in the developing area pay in advance appropriate costs that would ultimately be required to provide urban services. We support a fair distribution of the regional costs associated with new development. Again, it is imperative that the legislature provide the tools to local governments to support local and regional infrastructure. COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC GROWTH OPTIONS: · The "Concentrated Development" option is not an option in Scott County. The County is on the developing edge and any effort to artificially prevent logical and planned growth will not be successful. · The "Growth Centers" option as currently presented fails to recognize the existing developing in Scott County. Overall, the concept of this option has potential merit. However. until this option can be better defined. Scott County cannot adequately review or support it. One specific area that would need to be addressed is the definition of what is a "growth centerll and the process in which a "growth centerll is established. The present scenario has no "growth centers" in Scott County. · The "Current Trend" option should be, if trury representing the current development trend, acceptable to Scott County in light of its recently approved Comprehensive Plan. However, the details of this option certainly does not fully address the concerns faced by Scott County and is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. word\misc'Grawth Growth Options for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area A Metropolitan Council Report to the Minnesota Legislature January 1996 Adopted by the Metropolitan Council January 11, 1996 Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth St. St. Paul, l\4N 55101-1634 (612) 291-6359 Publication No. 78-96-003 Curtis Johnson, Chair Roger Scherer-District 1 Bill Schreiber-District 2 Mary Hill Smith-District 3 Julius C. Smith-District 4 Neil Peterson-District 5 Martha M. Head-District 6 Barbara Butts Williams-District 7 Carol A. Kummer-District 8 David Hartley-District 9 Richard Packer-District 10 Esther Newcome-District 11 Charles Amason-District 12 Diane Z. (DeDe) Wolfson-District 13 Stephen B. Wellington, Jr.-District 14 Kevin Howe-District 15 Terrence F. Flower-District 16 ~ mission of the Metropolitan Council is to maintain and improve the overall health and vitality of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The Council carries out its plans for guiding growth and development through joint action with the public and private sectors. It develops long-range plans for transportation, airports, water quali~ parks and housing. The Council also operates the regional services for wastewater treatment, transit and affotdable housing through its Metro Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The quality of life of the Twin Cities area has been improved as a result of Council accomplishments: cleaner lakes and rivers, a transportation and transit system that provides mobility region-wide, a sensible land use plan that saves public dollars, and a regional parks system that is the envy of urban areas nationwide. The Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Plll7lftmg fOt' the Future Upon request, this publication will be made available in alternative formats to people with disabilities. Please call the Metropolitan Council Data Center at 291-8140 or TOD 291-0904. Council information is available by calling the Metro Information Line (229-3780). For information via computer, you may modem-dial 337-5400 to reach the Twin Cities Computer Network (TCCN); then access Council information by typing: MC. TCCN Customer Service is 332-2101. Publication DO. 78-96-003 ~ Metropolitan Council ~ Working for the Region. Planning for the Future Mears Park Cenac 230 EastFiftb Screet SL Paul. Minnesoca 55101-1634 (612) 291-6359 Fu 291-6550 1TY 291-0904 Mevo Info L.iDe 229-3780 ~ Pri1lId an rKyCIId P8C* wiltla mili'Iun cI ~ ~~ -. Summary The report describes and identifies the implications of three. fundamentally different future urban development patterns for the Twin Cities Area. The Metropolitan Council is presenting them . to legislators, local officials and citizens in an effort to establish a vision for the future. Following extensive public review and discussion, the Council plans to craft an option that best meets the needs of the region by July 1996. The options are the Council's response to its recent population, household and job forecasts for the next quarter century. The forecasts indicate the region will grow by 650,000 people, 330,000 households, and 380,000 jobs. At the same time, public bodies will find themselves hard pressed to pay for the public infrastructure and services needed to support the growth. Funds will increasingly need to be raised locally. Other key factors influencing the growth pattern are also described. The three options represent different answers to the basic question, "Where should the growth locate in the region?" Each calls for public m~n~gement of growth in varying degrees to achieve the development pattern. · The "Current Trend" option accommodates housing market demand. Public investments would be managed to respond to the demand. Continuing cmrent trends is estimated to require 260 to 270 square miles of land, outward expansion of the MUSA boundary, $162 million in regional interceptor sewers, and $3.1 billion in local public sewer, water and storm water systems. Some 54 percent of the housing would be single-family; 46 percent would be multi-family (apartment buildings with five or more units) or other forms of attached housing such as townhouses. · The "Concentrated Development" option woq).d increase the density of jobs and housing in the core of the region. It holds the MUSA line in its cmrent location, thereby bringing some economies in the provision of sewers and. transportation. The pattern would require 175 to 185 square miles of land, $116 million in new regional interceptor sewers, $1.3 billion in local public sewer, water and stormwater. Some 42 percent of the housing would be single-family; S8 percent multi-family or other forms of attached housing. 3 · The "Growth Centers" option would encourage the development of jobs and ho~ in "mixed-use" centers d~gned to be pedestrian and '~friendly," with less dependence on the automobile. The centerS pattern would require 210 to 22S square miles of land, $133 million in regional interceptor sewers, $2 ~on for local public sewer, water and stormwater. Half of the housitig would be single- family and half would be multi-family or other forms of attached housing. . The report fulfills a legislative mantime (Chapter 225, Laws of 1995) by describing the probable development patterns in and affecting the metropolitan area by the. year 2020 under various scenarios, including the present course of growth verses directed, compact and efficient development. In addition, the report identifies the implications of the Twin Cities region's growth pattern on the adjacent, non-metropolitan counties. 4 The Councll intends to go beyond the legislative mandate. In mid-l996, it will use this report to establish a preferred development plan for the Twin Cities region. The three options are conceptual in nature, but reality based. They have been prepared so the Councll and others can test and evaluate them. Introduction The 1995 Legislature (Chapter 225, Laws 0(1995) directed the Metropolitan Council to prepare a report on the region's development pattern. The law requires a report to the legislature by Jan. 15, 1996 on: . "the probable development patterns in and affecting the metro area by the year 2020 under various scenarios, including the present course of growth versus directed, compact and efficient development The report should consider impacts on the greater metropolitan region, including within it counties in which five percent or more of residents commute to employment in the present metropolitan region or which are part of the metropolitan area as defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce Standard MetropOlitan Statistical Area. " This report fulfills the legislative mandate. It goes beyond the requirement, however, by identifying three growth options: 1) "CURRENT TREND," 2) "CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT" and 3) "GROWTH CENTERS." It describes and compares the options, and has information for evaluating them, such as their impact on metropolitan systems (sewers and transportation) and geographic portions of the region (such as the rural area or region's core). Both the Concentrated Development and Growth Centers options have the characteristics of a more "directed, compact and efficient development" option identified in the legislation. The CUtTent Trend option follows the present course of growth, which accommodates demand via a managed system. Moreover, the COWlcil intends to go beyond the legislative mandate. In mid-1996, it will use this report, and other information to be developed, to establish a preferred development plan for the Twin Cities region. The adopted plan will then become part of the COWlcil's Regional Blueprinr. The Council will put the new plan into effect through regional capital improvement programs, regional servi~ delivery, -and through the local/regional comprehensive planning process. The three options are conceptual in nature, but reality based. With more definition, they each could be implemented. Fundamentally, however, they have been prepared so that the Council and others may test and evaluate them. During the first half of 1996, the CoWlci1 will bring the options to communities and the public for discussion and evaluation. COlmcil staff are 5 The Twin Cities area is forecast to grow by 650,000 people by the year 2020. currently preparing: 1) the population, household and employment forecasts for cities and townships under each option; 2) more detailed analysis of the metro system (sewers, highways, etc.) needed to carry out each option and the costs of doing so; 3) recommendations for transit system redesign; 4) an analysis of the financial implications of growth; 5) a description of public tools necessary to carry out the options. Information in this report results from Council staff research and information gathered from 10 Metropolitan Council development tours and public meetings in all parts of the region as well as in the adjacent counties. The Twin Cities Region: Forecasts for the Next Quarter Century More People The Twin Cities area is forecast to grow by 650,000 people by the year 2020, up from today's estim~ted population of 2.4 million. The anticipated 28 percent increase exceeds the region's growth during the previous 25 years, when it gn:w by 575,000 people.2 (See Figure 1) If the people making up the increased population all located in a new, imag;nary county, it would be the second largest in population in the state and more than twice the pOpulation of Dakota County. As Twin Citians grow in number, they.will also get older (due to the aging of the sizable number of "baby-boomers" -the large number of children born in the 20-year period after World War 11), and more racially diverse. On the other hand, average household size (about 2.5) and average number of children in a family (2), both o.f which have . been decreasing for decades, may be stabilizing and. probably won't change much in the years ahead." 6 Figure 1. Population, Household and Job Growth Based on Preliminary New Forecasts Thousands 700 640,000 650,000 600 575,000 ~~~;~J~tt~W~~U~~~~~~~~i;~~U~~~ .......................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ......................... ........................ 500 ....................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ . ........................ ......................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 400 o 300 200 100 1970-1995 1995-2020 7 The seven county region will grow by" 330,000 households by 2020~ Expansion of services and infrastructure will be finan~ largely with local resources. More Households The Council staff estim~tes the seven COWlty region will grow by 330,000 households to a new total of 1.27 million. That's a sizable increase. Although a little less than the region added in the previous 25 years, it is more households than both Minneapolis and St Paul have today. Households have a domino effect on the land use and development within the region. As they spread outward consuming new land they also require roads, schools, emergency services and related public investments. In addition, sheer numbers affect the health of the economy-every household needs a refrigerator. More Jobs A growth of 380,000 jobs is forecast by the year 2020, to a total of 1.8 million in that year. The increase, however, is well below the pace of job growth in the previous 25-year period, when the region added 640,000 new jobs fueled by baby-boomers and a big jump in participation of women in the workforce. Less Money Growth means more demand for public services and infrastructure. Current trends (e.g. aging baby-boomers retiring and a larger share of jobs paying lower wages) suggest that there will be less money to meet these demands over the next 25 years. fvfaintenance of existing infrastructure will increasingly compete with growth for available resources. With less fimdine from federal and state governments, the expansion of ~ces and infrastructure will be financed largely with local resources. Uncertainties Despite sound forecasts and some predictability, unexpected events occur. This means even though the region needs a clear direction for its development, it must also remain flexible to adapt and adjust as needed to unforeseen circumstances. Changes in energy costs and availability, technology and telecommunication advances, national and international economic conditions and other factors outside the region's control will require future adjustments to the region's development plans. 8 Foundation l!or Future Dev~lopment Current Land-Use Pattern A number of factors influence the region's growth pattern. Chief among them is the pattern of cmrent development, occupying about 750 of the region's 3,000 square miles radiating out from two historic downtowns and home to about 2.4 million people. This existing pattern is served by an extensive infrastructure of highways, sewers, and other public and private utilities. As a result, it would take a long period of time to markedly change the current urban settlement p~ should a decision be made to do so. · The land-use pattern of newer development bas tended toward separated land uses. The pattern is very automobile oriented and expensive to serve with transportation. · Jobs tend to cluster. New clusters are locating farther out, expanding the area for attracting commuters from non-metro counties. · The urbanizing area (second and third ring suburbs, like Eag~ Eden Prairie, Lakeville, Maple Grove and Woodbury) will continue to attract most of the new households. · Growth will increase in the rural area and contiguous counties. Continued growth in the contiguous counties will effectively expand the "real" Twin Cities region. Other Key Factors In addition, a number of other key factors are shaping the form of regional growth, including; · The natural environment (rivers, lakes, wetlands, forests) and Twin Citians' strong desire to protect and enjoy it · Economic orientation is no longer only focuseQ .o~ the two central cities. Emerging suburban concentrations, notably the 1-494 strip, have grown in importance. For future development pJannine the region can be looked at in three equal parts: Minneapolis/northwest, Minneapolis/southwest, and St Paul and its environs. 11 . The highway system and job location will continue to have major influence on the develop~ent pattern. For example, jobs in more outlying suburban locations make previously remote locations, or locations outside of the region, more accessible sites for housing. Those residents need other infrastructure and its maintenance, police and fire protection- the elements of urban;~rion. . · Fiscal reality, including the increasing costs to maintain infrastructure, less federal and state support., and tax policy that affects the location of development. · Social issues, such as safety and school quality, which affect the choices people make about where to live. Three Development Options · Concentrated Development This report proposes how the region could accommodate expected growth in three fundamentally different ways. They are envisioned as strikingly different with different underlying assumptions so that choices and policy options are clear4. In addition, it is hoped that this will aid in the analysis and development of other combinations or related options. (See Appendix Tables A and B.) . Development Options: · Current Trend · Growth Centers The Blueprint calls for the orderly and economic development of the region through the provision of regional services and the creation of a Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and a Rural Service Area. In addition, the Blueprint directs the region and commtmities to explore the designation of long-term urban reserve land for potential urban;~rion over the next SO years and to preserve agricultura11and. The three. development options address these requirements in different ways (See Figure 2). 12 Figure 2. Growth Options TTrhan Ar~a Rural Area ~:~=~:~=;=~=1=~:~1 Existing MU SA c::J General Rural Use (mix of farm, rural estate and mral residential) k==q FarmlLong-Term Agriculture . Rural Center MUSA Expansion .-J Pre-2020 Urban Expansion (ezac:t area to be determined in local plans) .. POIt-2020 Urban Reserve for Future Urbanization Concentrated Development J '1 o Metro Centers o Intensified Mixed Use Centers . New Mixed Use Centers ~ Corridors with Infill Nodes Note: Growth Centers designation is ill ustra tive; a ctUa 1 designa tion will be made in consultation with local governments. Current Trend Growth Centers N 13 Under this option: Single-family housing is the major preferred land-use and shaper of development. Location of housing and jobs follows historic patterns and market demand. Rural land seen as land "on hold" in anticipation of the next phase of urban expansion. CURRENT TREND This option assumes that accommodating housing market demand and.m~lOng public investments accordingly best assures the economic and social health of the region. Undet 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 II?-et through a public s1rategy 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 ~milaT development pressure. '. i New residential development density-the number of homes per acre-would be lower in the newly developed areas, based on current patterns and we~d protection practices, than what occurred in the urban growth areas of the 1970s and 19805. During the next 25 years, new housing and businesses would locate at the contiguous edge of today' 5 urban area, extending the concentric ring of suburban growth out from th~ region' 5 center,. much as in the past. The location of housing and jobs would occur in all sectors of the region following historic patterns and market dem~nd (See Appendix Figures A, B, C and D). Growth would not be random and haphazard. Instead, the development would be based on regional and local policies and planning that Provide necessary 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 anticipation of the next phase of urban expansion, not as land envisioned for long-term rural use. The rural area's household growth rate would increase, and the area would see rural subdivisions and "rural estate" development, which competes with future suburbani~tion. 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 LtnIIOOD su.n ....,. .1I~_L .................... .:::-......:::::::::. .... ........ .... ........ .... ............ .... ............. ~~~~~~::~~~mn :::::~:::::: ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... :111 t CIUI_ toAD _~.r Axe . ............ ......................... 11!~~IIII.i!IIw,~~lllll!IIm[!, ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~.:::::: .................. .................... ......................... .................. .................... ......................... .................. .................... ......................... .................. .................... ......................... .................. .................... ......................... .................. .................. H~H ~~H~~~.~~j !mIT~~ o 10 20 30 ................... .......... ................... .......... ~~~~~~~~ +~;;;;;. ;~T ::: ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::: COTA ....nOL.. ................... ........... ........ ................... .......... ........ ................... .......... ........ ................... .......... ........ ................... .......... ........ -- ,,--- Miles It}}~:}~ Existing MU SA MUSA Expa nsion I~HWi!m!!m1 U rba n Expansion and Urban Reserve 2020 11IIII Post 2020 Urban Reserve Rural Area o General Rural Use H::::H FarmlLong- Term Ag. . Rural Center 15 Under this Option: MUSA line not expanded until after 2020 in effort to build a market for redevelopment and reinvestment. Over time, overall density of the urban part of the region increases. CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT 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 additio~ 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 and transportation (See Figure 4). Fmther, the demand for housing and jobs will be met by increasing the density in the MUSA area, and loc3I plannlng 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 Figmes ~ 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 dming the next 25 years. The emphasis is on full use of existing infrastructure. Maintenance and rehabilitation of facilities would be apriority. Housing and businesses would locate in undeveloped parts of the MUSA at the fringe, in vacant sites in the already developed part of the region skipped over in the initial wave of development, at locations made available through redevelopment, or by 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 maldng 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 plannlng is put in place. 16 Figure 4. Growth Option: Concentrated Development t LUNIOO1) JnmD ...IT JlE7'.a. ...ac to__ COLtllGUI .,.a ........;;......;.;..;. ..;.... ;;;;;........ ....................... .... ............. mmmmmm~m1 jjL:. :~Hm~~jrm m:M~~;~; m~~m ....................... ....................... ::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::zo ....................... ........................ ....................... ....................... ....................... ....................... ....................... ........................ ....................... ........................ ........................ ....................... ...................... ....................... __a T ;;~~.I ::::::maiG:::::: ~~~m :::;::.---:: ....... .......... ................. ..... ................. ... .. .. .. .. .. ; : :: : :: :: ;':':':'~-:'~':'.: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :: :: ~ :: :;::: ~ : : : : : : ; : : :: ::: .:::::::::::a ., '.' :;:::::::::::::::;:::::;:::::::::::;::: ................. ................. ..... ................. ... .................. .................. ..... ................. ... ..................... ........ ................... ..... .................... ...................... ........ ................... ..... ................. ". ,':i!,~fi1:!i.. ii!i!..! li~~I:li!lii li!l! I!~~i:! i!: cm",. 1.AXll ..,. MAaXU _.~? -- ............... ........................ ...................... .................... ............... ........................ ...................... HHH~~H~ 1~~~~~~~1~~~jj11j~jj H_~~~11. ~11j~j~j111j Uff~~H[ j~1j1~'[H jUj~~~1jH1~~~ jHjH~jjj_jj ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::: :::::~:::::: :::::::mnzwiii ................... .................... ........................ ...................... ................... .................... ........................ ...................... ................... .................... ........................ ...................... ................... .................... ........................ ...................... ................... .................... ........................ ...................... o 10 20 30 __ _lr. Miles I~~\{:)J Existing MUSA MUSA Expansion 11IIII Post 2020 Urban Reserve o General Rural Use I:::::::::j Farm/Long-Term Ag. e Rural Center 17 Under this option: Mixed-use centers developed. Region & locals make long-term commitment to limited number of centers. Half of the region's job growth and 17 percent household growth locates in centers. Demand at the urban fringe dampened somewhat by channeling a portion of the job and household growth into centers. GROwm CENTERs This option encourages the develoPment of mixed-use centers. It channels a major portion of the region's job growth into designated centers, adds medium-to-higher density housing, and promotes a transit- and pedestrian-friendly development pattern within the center. This option assumes land uses in growth centers can be influenced by transit services and that the region and local decision makers can make a long-term commitment to focus on a "' , limited number of existing and potential mixed-use growth centers (See Figure 5). The option builds on existing job concentrations with an emphasis on potential for mixed-use development (See Figure 6). Centers would become reinvestment and redevelopment sites. In newly developing areas a growth center is a way to shape development and dampen pressure to expand the MUSA line. About half of the region's job growth and 17 percent of its household growth would locate in growth centers. It assumes the two downto\WS, 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 Gobs/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 ~ B, C and D) Rmal 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 Figure 5. Growth Option: Growth Centers I.%~D JUan .................... ..................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... iiillf: ....~............. .... ............. : m~;:: :~~~~n~mm : ill~1mr:I~~ t ClllDA& UXS -- .--- o 20 30 10 Miles o o o t:...............J Existing MUSA Urban Expansion and Urban Reserve 2020 Metro Centers Intensified Mixed Use Centers - New Mixed Use Centers Post 2020 Urban Reserve D Rural Area I~HHHI FarmlLong-Term Ag. . Rural Cen ters .. _,. Corridors with Infill Nodes Note: Growth Centers designation is illustrative; actual designation will be made in consultation with local governments. 19 F~re 6. Metropolitan Job Concentrations, 1990 .... --. C ."PZ1lI. UJnIIlIOOD --- 0IUl .-- ....n' a_.... AN~U II it J~ = -- ~~ ~ ~ ~:x. .~... :~:.::~:~:::::::::::::...... ... .1 -' +( _a .. ................ ~ 1.1._... _ ~ .e: - ~~'''":,,I~:::~:~.!li ~~'~CU ~f~mrrn~G~N \ iJp- ~,i~~!!"~!".:'iim:'."', ,,.. .~~ ..::.::~~..::.: ~ ~'ftI,"_7mI J -- O~~ -~.. ;.~;,.";::, ;~ ~.!ll~ ~"::i ~= .:')i ~. .. ..--- .ITlill].......... !:"~ .:::::::~ ~.... ~ .;~ ;)Lf! ...:; . '!lJo.. ~ _m. ..',;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;". ....... · ."""'i rl~"" ~.:~ ..,.. Pr..olll~ mmc ...:: :::::::c - ;:::':.. [If' ..... . !l."-" ...... m ===::==:: =1;:: .. . .... : .' !'!~~ ::: == .."a - lilt. ~_ ;z:~ ~~~~~ir;:::: _ ;I; - T;..;:i~:~;';'::'~~ 8:~~~ :t;;~ ~ ~ "". ""'''''' .". .. ........ "','. .I,rtlrr:ll:~\... ..""""", ~ c::!~. I~r=::::;::::::::::::: :::::::::: . . ...... . ...:. .:::~1'=~=r · .~: -:_~~~~"~~:~: :::~::: :;", """',,::. :~ii:''''f:!R~~~~''11, ft -..:=11 .__. 0_.1iil~-1:;:":;::: . ~;:::;::::;:::~~ ~~~~n)n!\p .~ - ~_ o--~ o..alaa( I;e; 'E.I~.........,a= i. ~:~. ___a lo. '-.~d1 ~- .-- ~ ~:avl ~:.;.;.:..::..~ .. .. . .......... ~~~~~ ,I-:"""nru.__ ~_.... I 11.1.:I ~T .... ~:::;: :::.... .......... ....: 00..,...1 I ~ ~~, - ~~ .~ ~~ [r~U~ TIDAm-~:~:' ~~-\-" 1 (7-::;.........- illJ3 Ill"""""" ..:;:_~ x;:~ =7:' E..... 0 _ _ rr- i ......- - -- _ ._u ... [] 7 = ~ -:::.SJ - ~... i~ I -- .....0.. _ftSI 0Im 6~ I " .aDll'VA&.Z ~ 'U o 10 20 30 --Ai r;..__~ I I I , Miles Number of Jobs . 27,000+ tt 18,000-26,999 e 9,000-17,999 ~ 3,000-8,999 IHHHI MUSA 20 There is a difference of about 100 square miles among the development options (about the size of 3 Bloomingtons ). , ~ Implications of the Three Options The major implications of the options are summarized below. A matrix that compares the options according to their bearing on the five Blueprint policies, housing, transportation and sewers is . shown in Table 1. . Different goals drive the pattern of development. CURRENT TREND: Responds to housingljob market preferences. CONCENTRATED: Redirectslrestricts housing/job market to encourage infill and- redevelopment in existing urban area. GROWTH CENTERS: Directs/guides jobs, housing and transportation in multi-use centers; encourages a portion of the new jobs and housing to locate there, links centers to the urban core. · Amount of land needed to accommodate growth differs. CURRENT TREND: 260 to 270 square miles CONCENTRATED: 175 to 185 square miles GROWTH CENTERS: 210 to 225 square miles · The MUSA boundary varies greatly. CURRENT TREND: Staged expansion as needed; next ring of townships become at least partially urbanized. CONCENTRATED: Boundary is not expanded prior to 2020. GROWTH CENTERS: Staged expansion to complement new mixed-use centers. 21 There is a cost difference of about $2 billion among the options for local sewers, etc. All three options result in single-family housing as the major housing type. · Costs for regional sewer service'vary only for interceptors. (See Appendix Figures E, F an4 G) CURRENT TREND: $162 million CONCENTRATED: $116 million GROWTH CENTERs: $133 million o Costs for treatment plant ($450 million), quality ~ .~ improvements ($240 million) and system. rehabilitation ($1.3 billion) are the same for all three options. · Local costs for sewer, water and stormwater vary significantly. CURRENT TREND: $3.1 billion CONCENTRATED: $1.3 billion GROWTH CENTERS: $2 billion · Mix of new single-family and multi-family housing construction varies. 54 percent single-family and 20 percent townhouse or other single-family attached, and 26 percent multi-family. 42 percent single-family, 27 percent townhouse or other single family attached, and 31 percent multi-family. GROWTH CENTERs: 50 percent single family, 22 percent townhouse or other single-family attached, and 28 percent multi-~y. CURRENT TREND: CONCENTRATED: .. , · The role of the automobile and transit differ. CURRENT TREND: The development pattern is auto-oriented. CONCENTRATED: Transit serves a smaller urban area, but with a higher level of service as density increases. GROWTH CENTERs: Transit is a tool to support mixed-use centers and urban core. Automobile remains important. 22